The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20010711ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION July 11,2001 REGULAR MEETING, 5:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS SITE VISITS - NOON - Meet at the first site. If you cannot attend, be sure to visit the properties on your own before the meeting. NONE 5:00 I. Roll call II. Approval of minutes - none Ma,1-14 Ulk) III. Public Comments IV. Commission member comments and project monitoring V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Hotel Aspen - 110 W. Main - Final Review, Public Hearing 5:30 B. 428 E. Hyman - Final Review, Public Hearing VII. NEW BUSINESS A. 135 E. Hopkins - rescheduled for August 8, 2001 VIII. WORKSESSION 6:00 A. City Hall- 130 S. Galena - Screens and HVAC equipment 6:30 B. Ute Cemetery National Register Nomination 6:45 C. Annual Awards I k 3 rAIR , li g dÂ·\ o dj 7:00 IX. ADJOURN 0 1 / O u) , 11 6 bl 3-F. 9- C k 3-U 1 frk,bi I 12 - County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS State of Colorado } SECTION 26.304.060(E) i, ,04*Ver *NO , being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E) ofthe Aspen Municipal Code in the following manner: 1. By mailing ofnotice, a copy ofwhich is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners ofproperty within three hundred (300) feet ofthe subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the 26'~day of Jun i , 200_1 (which is /6 days prior to the public hearing date of .7/1/6 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the 961?ay of ~0,9 f, ,2001, tothe //Wlday of JU/9 , 200 / . (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph ofthe posted sign is attached hereto. 0 9 A A ..ifi V--A V C K) 1-_x-L- Signat e L Al / L t.:6.:'-,4 ,1, Signed before me this #*hay of ju/V ....$-.;r. : 2001. by .fe .*p . .. 44(x\:05+ G , 94,11> j : 1:2 + '. 0 91 -:Iii 7, rr.* . TINIZv, III & R -4 !Â· li24.4*4 1 0 41'18*cc WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL 3 0, 9&*Et 2 t=*44 1 My Commission expires: 12/7~5 A/*ve...A tâ‚¬)16,/01 141 )6~,i_na,j>t,04:WM1~=eva 1 14 E Notary Pub#ib y I; W.NOY. 1 1 4 , 10:, HEMINGWAY! 1 P. 01 1 My Commission Expires 12/04/2003 12.2001 2:44PM RENO SMITH ARC-lITECTS LLC NO.265 P.1/3 TO: Kathy Sttickland COMPANY: Assistant City CIerk - FAX # 920-5197 FROM: Wendy Hemingway DATE: 7/12/01 PAGES: 3 (including cover) RE: Mailing List for Hotel At pen Ms. Strickland, Augie Reno asked that I send the mailin,g list of names for Hotel Aspen's adjacent property owners to you, We mailed out notice to these owners on June 26, 2001. Thank you. 1 4 SUBMITTED BY: Itjâ‚¬- Wendy H~ily, Offi \\1 tith m ,JUL. 12.2001 2:44PM RENO SMITH ARCHITECTS LLC NO.265 P.2/3 PRICE DOUGLAS L AND VALERIE BROWN MICHAEL H SILVERSTE]N PHILIP 8611 MELWOOD RD 250 MAR rh J ST STE 100 SILVERSTEIN ROSALYN ~ESDA MD 20817 BIRMINGH M MI 480094383 25 KNOLLS CRESCENT BRONX NY 10463 120 EAST MAIN PARTNERS LLC BROWN ANTÂ·-IONY LUBIN RICHARD G 120 E MAIN ST C/O FOX Gl'ACE 1217 S FLAGLER DR 2ND FL FLAGLER ASPEN CO 81611 PLAZA 250 MARTIN ST STE #100 BIRMINGHAM MI 48011 WEST PALM BEACH FL 33401 PIETRZAK FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP COLORADO LTD PARTNERSHIP FOSTER FRANCES TRUSTEE 1/2 INT BROWN MICHAEL HAYDEN 1/2 INT 1796 E SOPRIS CREEK RD 2400 PRESIDENTIAL WAY #1503 PO BOX 252582 BASALT CO 81621 W PALM BEACH FL 33401 W BLOOMFIELD MI 48325 NORTH & SOUTH ASPEN LLC BROWN MICHAEL HAYDEN ASPEN CLIr 113 BUILDING 200 S ASPEN ST PO BOX 25282 A COLORA[ 0 GENERAL PARTNERSHIP ASPEN CO 81611 WEST BLOOMFIELD MI 48325 100 E MAIN ST ASPEN CO Â£1611 COLLIER J STUART JR CHISHOLM EDITH 1/2 INT HOTEL ASPEN LTD ONE COMMERCE SQUARE STE 2800 205 W MAIN ST ASPEN HOTEL PARTNERS LTD MEMPHIS TN 38103 ASPEN CO 81611 250 MARTIN ST STE #100 BIRMINGHA VI MI 48009 AVID CITY OF ASPEN DIMITRIUS RALLI 4 ST HUEBNER-CIMITRIUS JO-ELLAN 130 S GALENA ST Aer=IN GO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611 200 S SIER[' A MADRE Â·BLVD PASADENA CA 91109 BUDINGER WILLIAM & PEYTON OLIVER WIL JAM THOMAS & ANN GARY ASPEN'S MOLLY GIBSON LODGE LLC 2306 DELAWARE AVE 542 WARNER AVE 101 W MAIN ST WILMINGTON DE 19806 LOS ANGEL[ZE CA 90024 ASPEN CO 81611 HITENiENRY H & ANGELA R FRIEDLANDER & SINGER LTD PO BOX 155 SINGER & FRIEDLANDER WOODY CREEK CO 81656 12-4 RIDGEV/AY ST DOUGLAS 1 4 E OF MAN JUL. 12.2001 2:45PM RENO SMITH ciRC HITECTS LLC NO.265 P.3/3 DAVIS WILLIAM LLOYD GROSSE ADEL[NE M REVOCABLE TRUSTEE OF DAVIS LIVING TRUST UVING TR :;T 7714 FISHER ISLAND DR BROCKWAY LEXIE 4924 BALBOA BLVD #489 GROSEE E NVIN J & ADELINE M ~INO CA 91316 TRUSTESS FISHER ISLAND FL 33109.0966 100 E BLE! WER ST ASPEN CC. 31611 SAUNDERS MARGARET W SCHELLIN -RONALD L & LORI L GSW FAMILY INVESTMENT LTD 231 ENCINO AVE 24523 BRÂ° -ANY PARTNERSHIP SAN ANTONIO TX 74609 PLAINFIELL IL 60544 1300 CHAPLINE ST WHEELING WV 26003 WILLE O LOUIS & FRANCES LYNETTE GSW FAMI! Y INVESTMENT LTD WEESE KATE B IRREV TRUST NO 2 32% INT PARTNERSH P 200 W MAIN ST RD #1 BOX ;1 0 CHICAGO IL 60614 314 W WILLOW RD ASPEN CO 81611 WHEELING WV 26003 BROWN ROBERT STICKLER & SANDRA ASPEN HOTEL PARTNERS LTD WATSON C ANE B LEA PARTNERSHIP 1115 20TH ST A MICHIGAN LTD PARTNERSHIP 121 W BLEEKER ST ASPEN CO 81611 WEST DES MOINES IA 50265 250 MARTIN ST STE #100 BIRMINGHAM MI 48009 KING LOUISE LLC FRINK ALBERT A TRUST JOHNSON HELENE L A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY CO PO BOX 1467 350 BUENA VISTA 225 PLANTATION CIR S NEWPORT 1 ?EACH CA 92661 POINT VEDRA BEACH FL 32082 BASALT CO 81621 ~1-AND HEIDI , SEMRAU TIM ~.JI GARMISCH ST 128 N GARMISCH RMMEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611 DURANT AND ORIGINAL ASSOCIATES PIETRZAK F \14]LY LTD PARTNERSHIP INC COLORADO LTD PARTNERSHIP PARDUBA JIRI PO BOX 7846 1796 E SOPRIS.CREEK RD PO BOX 9903 ASPEN CO 81612 BASALT CO 81621 ASPEN CO 81612 HOTEL ASPEN LTD MARCUS W RTIN L & FANNON JOHN H C/O ASPEN GROUP CO LEFF M, P.ILYN SLOVITER DAVID 415 E MAIN #210 7660 BEVER.)'BLVD APT #365 1358 ROBIN HOOD RD ASPEN CO 81611 LOS ANGELES CA 90037 MEADOWBROOK PA 19046 ZATS JULIE BOYNTON F,i,\NK E & ELIZABETH J GARCIA SCOTT D 118 N GARMISCH 528 SAND B 'ID DR 120 N GARMISCH ASPEN CO 81611 KERRVILLE FX 78028 ASPEN CO 81611 -~ - -ICHAEL HAYDEN 2/3 PIETRZAK BOB & SUE LLC KAPLAN WILLIAM M AND KATE N ST STE 100 1796 E SOPPIS CREEK RD PO BOX 406 Bl~~IGHAM MI 48009-3383 BASALT CO 81621 MILFORD DE 19963 -Â« 0-3 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 110 W. Main Street- Final review- PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 11, 2001 SIJMMARY: The applicants request HPC approval to add a third floor, including five new lodge units and one suite, on the Main Street portion of the Hotel Aspen. The lot is approximately 27,000 square feet, half of which is located in the Historic District. The other half of the property is the alley and lots fronting on West Bleeker Street. The applicant previously proposed additional new construction on the Bleeker Street half of the property, but this part of the development has been eliminated. The conditibns of conceptual approval have been addressed and staff recommends approval for the project as proposed. APPLICANT: Hotel Aspen Condominium Owners Association, represented by Reno 0 Smith Architects. LOCATION: 110 W. Main Street, a portion of Lot F, Lots G, H, I, and a portion of Lot O, Lots P,Q, R, S, Block 58, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: "O, Office Zone District, Lodge Preservation Overlay, Historic District Overlay on part of the property. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) No approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds that all ofthe following standards (Section 26.415.010.C.5) are met: a. The proposed development is compatible in general design, scale, site plan, massing and volume 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 an historic landmark. For historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot, exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) 0 square feet, or exceed the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, the 1 Git i lot tÂ» Historic Preservation Commission may grant necessary variances after 0 making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this Section exceed those variations allowed under Section 26.520.040(B)(21 for detached accessory dwelling units. Response: The proposal is to add a third story on one section of the existing hotel. Note that because the building is "L" shaped, the area with the third story is set back approximately 70 feet from the front lot line. However, since this is a corner lot the third story will be fully exposed along the Garmisch Street side. During the conceptual review, there were lengthy discussions about reducing the height, varying the roof forms, and breaking up wall planes to minimize the bulk of the addition. Staff and HPC found that the changes significantly improved the proposal. The existing building is not consistent with the character of the neighborhood and does not contribute to the historic character of Main Street. The Board's conclusion was that the design does not appear to detract or to be more incompatible with the character of the area. One of the most problematic aspects of the project, in terms of impacts to the West End neighborhood, was an addition that was to occur on the back half of the hotel. This has been completely eliminated from the project. Staff finds that this review standard is met. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the 0 neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Main Street is a mix of residential, lodge, and commercial uses. Some lodge expansion can be expected along Main Street and is desirable for the community. Staff finds that this review standard is met. c. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: There are no historic structures on the property. The project will not specifically affect the historic significance of any resource. Staff finds that this review standard is met. d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: There are no historic structures directly adjacent to this part of the property. Staff has previously stated concerns about detracting from the Main Street Historic District as a whole, but finds that those have been addressed in the revised proposal. This 0 review standard is met. 2 ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the application with conditions to be met prior to final review. â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) â€¢ Deny approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION AND RECOMMENDED MOTION: Staff recommends that HPC grant final approval for 110 W. Main Street, Hotel Aspen, finding that the review standards have met been met, with the following condition: 1. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staffand monitor. Exhibits: Resolution No. , Series of2001 0 A. Staff memo dated July 11, 2001 B. Minutes ofMay 24,2000. C. Application. 0 3 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 0 APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT FOR 110 W. MAIN STREET, HOTEL ASPEN, A PORTION OF LOT F, LOTS G, H, I AND A PORTION OF LOT O, LOTS P, Q, R, S, BLOCK 58, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO Parcel ID No. 2735-124-61-201 RESOLUTION NOIQ, SERIES OF 2001 WHEREAS, the applicant, the Hotel Aspen Condominium Owners Association, represented by Reno Smith Architects, has requested final design approval for the property at 110 W. Main Street, a portion of Lot F, Lots G, H, I, and a portion of Lot O, Lots P,Q, R, S, Block 58, City and Townsite of Aspen. The project involves adding a third story to the existing building; and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of Section 26.415.010.C.5 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the 0 parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the a architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated July 11, 2001, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found favorably for the application, and recommended approval with conditions; and WIIEREAS, at their regular meeting on July 11, 2001, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application to meet the standards, and approved the application with conditions by a vote of_ to _. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the review standards are met and HPC grants final design approval for 110 W. Main Street, a portion of Lot F, Lots G, H, I, and a portion of Lot O, Lots P,Q, R, S, Block 58, City and Townsite of Aspen as presented at the July 11, 2001 meeting, with the following condition: 1. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 11th day of July, 2001. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to Content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. May 24,2000 Chairperson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. In attendance were Mary Hirsch, Susan Dodington, Gilbert Sanchez, Lisa Markalunas, Rally Dupps, Heidi Friedland and Jeffrey Halferty. Melanie Roschko and Christie Kienast were excused. 110 W. MAIN STREET, HOTEL ASPEN - CONCEPTUAL - PH Augie Reno, Herb Klein, Bob Morris and Alfred Beadelston were sworn in. Amy indicated at the last meeting Staff recommended denial of the application finding that it did not come far enough to meet the review standards but the board gave input and continued the meeting until tonight. Additional modifications occurred to the roof shapes, wall planes and height of the addition and staff feels that it does meet the standards. Staff continues to have concerns about the overall size of the building and whether this is a contribution to the historic district. As a suggestion windows should be looked at to add to the west elevation. The west wall is very blank and tall. Staff is requesting that the Board make a strong comment to the Planning & Zoning Commission who will be looking at the back part of this project which is adjacent to three historic buildings in a residential neighborhood. That part of the hotel could have a significant impact to the neighborhood. There are two large trees proposed to be removed, which need Parks's approval. A lighting plan of the new addition needs submitted to staff, particularly for the third story. Augie Reno presented the changes that were submitted in the packet. Each of the elements has been lowered. The two center gables were lowered three feet and the flat roofed areas were lowered 3 1.2 feet. A flat roof on the third floor would be too "box" like. The applicant committed to windows on the west wall but in reality you don't see the blank wall due to the building next to it. The building has also been lowered on the Garmisch Street side. From Main Street the addition is shadowed but it is visible from the alley. Augie relayed that the two story bridge that cross the alley provides for better internal service for the maids and maintenance personnel. The alley is also a vacated alley. 1 8344&24 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. Mav 24.2000 Jeffrey had a concern with the billboard type two-story bridge because it is so thin and possibly more transparent glass could be picked up. That might help with breaking up the length of the building down the alley. The undulation helps the south elevation and provides shadows to make it appear smaller. The majority of the board members felt that the west elevation needed to be restudied and windows added in order to break it up. Gilbert felt that the central gables could have steeper pitches to give a little relief to the long line. The board agreed that the P&Z needs to know about the significance of the Bleeker Street side with the historic structures on that street. Susan felt that the third floor should be eliminated. Lisa had the same concern with Jeffrey regarding the bridge and possibly more transparency could be incorporated. The variety of undulation is commendable. Augie also relayed that they have a tree permit in place. MOTION: Mary moved to recommend conceptual approval for 110 W. Main Street, Hotel Aspen with the following conditions: 1. The applicant should consider adding windows on the west elevation of the addition as this piece might be visible from Main Street. 2. The HPC should make a recommendation to the Planning & Zoning Commission to look very carefully at height and bulk issues on the West Bleeker Street portion of this project. Height may be an even more significant problem there, within the residential neighborhood. Additionally, there are three historic homes in a row along that street frontage. the plans for the Hotel Aspen note two 70-80 foot tall spruce trees to be removed along West Bleeker Street, leaving the new construction particularly exposed to view. 3. A lighting plan for the new addition and cut sheets for the exterior lighting fixtures must be provided forfinal review. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. May 24.2000 4. All representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 5. The connector needs to be more transparent. Gilbert second the motion. Motion carried 6- 1. Yes vote: Jejfrey, Rally, Gilbert, Suzannah, Mary, Lisa No vote: Susan 501 W. MAIN ST. - CHRISTIANIA LODGE - CONCEPTUAL - PH MOTION: Lisa moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development on 501 W. Main Street until June 14, 2000; second by Jejfrey. All in favor, motion carried. Yes vote: Jeffrey, Rally, Gilbert, Suzannah, Mary, Lisa, Susan 221 E. MAIN STREET -EXPLORE BOOKSELLERS - FINAL, VARIANCES, PUBLIC HEARING Heidi was seated at 5:45p.m. Amy informed the board that conceptual was granted January 12,2000 and there are a few minor modifications from those drawings. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. They have to provide parking for the new construction they are doing but in this case it generates an increment, part of one parking space. They can pay that as cash-in-lieu instead of providing it on the site but the growth management section of the code requires the HPC to out waive the parking because it is an historic landmark. Katalin Domoszlay was sworn in. The elevator will not be constructed and they intend to close in the side of the staircase. The conservatory will be of Victorian nature with high quality detailing and double thickness glass. Some changes need to occur in order to handle the snow load with regard to the structure. One ofthe purposes for the conservatory is to take the food out of the book store and keep it separate. The existing dining room will remain. All of the windows are operable. 3 May 11,2001 AUGUST RENO AIA Ms. Amy Guthrie, HPC Officer Historic Preservation Commission SCOTT City of Aspen SMITH 130 S. Galena AIA Aspen, CO 81611 D- I .: RE: Hotel Aspen 110 West Main Street Aspen, Colorado Dear Amy, RENO Â· SMITH Â·ARCHITECTS, L.L.C.Â· I am re-submitting the final development plan for the Hotel Aspen. In 'll the submittal are ten (10) copies of the following: 210 E. HYMAN 1. Specifications of the major building materials NÂ° 202 2. Finalized drawings @ 94" = 1,0" 3. Resolution No. 24, series of 2000, City of Aspen ASPEN COLORADO 81611 We have received approval from both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Aspen City Council. We would appreciate being 970.925.5968 scheduled as soon as possible. Hopefully, we can be scheduled for the early July HPC date. FACSIMILE 970.925.5993 Ifyou should have any questions please contact me. Also, please let me E-MAIL know when we will be scheduled for the Historic Preservation office@renosmith.com Commission. Respectfull4Ars, 0371 SOUTHSIDE DRIVE BASALT COLORADO Au u . eno,\423>/ 81621 970.927.6834 FACSIMILE 970.927.6840 FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN We have addressed the following issues as outlined in Resolution No. 24, Series of 2000: Condition 1. The applicant shall consider adding windows on the West elevation of the addition as this piece may be visible from Main Street. Response/Proposal 1. The existing West elevation has two (2) double windows that were inadvertently left out of the original drawings. In addition to these two (2) existing windows, we are proposing to add an additional window to each of the floors. Windows would be added to both the existing first and second floors and an additional window is proposed for the new third floor. Condition 2. The HPC should make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission to look carefully at height and bulk issues on the West Bleeker Street portion ofthis project. Height may be an even more significant problem there, within the residential neighborhood. Additionally, there are three historic homes in an row along that street frontage. The plans for the Hotel Aspen note two 70 - 80 foot spruce trees to be removed along West Bleeker Street, leaving the new construction particularly exposed to view. Response/Proposal 2. The proposed Northern building along West Bleeker has been eliminated. Condition 3. A lighting plan for the new addition and cut sheets for the exterior lighting fixtures must be provided for final view. Response/Proposal 3. A lighting plan is attached which indicates minimal exterior lighting. We are proposing to locate exterior lighting at each door to every room. The light fixtures proposed are to match the existing light fixtures. The existing fixtures are cylindrical anodized bronze which projects light up and down on the wall. Cut sheets of the proposed fixtures are attached. Condition 4. All representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation Commission shall be adhered t6 and considered condition of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. Response/Proposal 4. It is the intent of the applicant to adhere to all representations that were made during the public meetings with the Historic Preservation Commission. Condition 5. Make connector more transparent. Response/Proposal 5. The revised bridge (connector) design contains two (2) additional windows at the second floor [two (2) groupings of three (3) vs. two (2) groupings of two (2)]. The third floor of the revised bridge (connector) design contains two (2) additional windows [two (2) groupings of three (3) vs. four (4) individual windows]. Proposal 6. The exterior siding of the new construction will match the existing 1x T&G cedar siding. The new fascia, window/door trim, columns, and soffit material is proposed to match the existing materials. The flat roofs will consist of a membrane application with ballast The curvilinear, gable and shed roofs are proposed as standing seam metal roofs. LIST OF DRAWINGS / SPECIFICATIONS A.3.1 West and South Exterior Elevations A.3.2 East and North Exterior Elevations E.1.1 Third Level Lighting Plan Exterior Light Fixtures Cut Sheet Il I I. --4 11'~~~11~ 50 Up/Downlight 6' Up/Downlight - WaN Bracket Wall Bracket 2-75W, A-30 2-150W, PAR-38 4 1 or R.40 t. .1 W ar 1172 black Menor black interior 1172-910 -~ - 1175-920 black bleck mill,groove baflle 1 -Â§"diâ€¢J mdligroove baltle ~ ~ 1172-860 47 #Â·Â·4 1175-922 black cone black cone 1175-972 clear Aizakâ€¢ L-n--1 1172-966 Gone -~ 1 k clear Alzake cone '71 For intenor or protected exter bor use Suitable for exterior use with PAR-38 Suitable for damp kxations. lamps or with lempered top glass-Sulfix- 1, 61 to complete unit catalog number. I 3 8- Up/Downlight Wall Bracket 114. 314' Up/Downlight 12.- 2-30OW, A-40 , Wall Bracket ~ -1 2-150W, PAR-38 2-30-5OW, R-20 ,â€ž 1178 black inter,or 13Â¥r 1178-932 black Ar-1 millogroove battle 1170 1178-980 black cone _i black *Wk* 1178-982 clear Alzakâ€¢ 1170-900 cone 1-r.-1 bleck miligroove belle Suitable#orexterior I For witer,or of protected exter,or use use with PAR-38 ,--1014.-1 Suitable for danip locations. lamps only. 13-L Â© MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 428 E. Hyman Avenue- Final Development - Public Hearing DATE: July 11, 2001 SUMMARY: The subject building is currently vacant. The proposal is to renovate the interior for retail on the ground and lower levels, and residential on upper floors. The front fa~ade will be restored using historic photographs, a penthouse addition will be built on the roof, and alterations will be made on the back ofthe structure. The project was granted conceptual approval and variances on May 9, 2001. Staff recommends final approval with conditions. APPLICANT: Loma Alta Corporation, represented by Janet Lapin and Michael Fuller Architects. PARCEL ID: 2737-073-39-011 0 ADDRESS: 428 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot Q and 25 square feet of Lot R, Block 88, City and Townsite ofAspen, Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: CC, Commercial Core, Historic District. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) No approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds that all ofthe following standards (Section 26.415.010.C.5) are met: a. The proposed development is compatible in general design, scale, site plan, massing and volume 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 an historic landmark. For historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the Â»linimum distance between buildings on the lot, exceed the allowed,floor area by uptofive hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC 0 may grant necessary variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the 1 *4(6(4/4 0 neighborhood than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this Section exceed those variations allowed under Section 26.520.040(B)(2), for detached accessory dwelling units, and Staff Finding: The project involves restoring the streetfacing faGade of the building, modifying the alley famde, and making a rooftop addition. Staff finds the proposed modifications to the front of the structure to be an excellent effort to restore the building to its original character. The elements of the original storefront that are still in place will be retained, missing features recreated, and the paint will be removed from the masonry. On the rear fai?ade, the proposal involves creating a two car garage, extending a non- historic staircase to the roof level, and removing and replacing an existing balcony and overhang. Most of the discussion on the project has focused on the rooftop addition. The applicant had proposed to demolish the existing roof structure, a concept that the board rejected. The plan now shows the majority of the roof preserved. The sole condition of conceptual approval was to re-examine the skylights/light monitors and flues. The board stated clearly that the southernmost monitor was a serious issue and needed to be flat or be eliminated. Staff does not find that the proposal has been improved in this regard for 0 final review. The glass has been eliminated from the south side of the front monitor, but the element is still present, and more monitor has been added along the east wall. These monitors may not be visible from directly across the street, but they will be visible from other nearby locations and are obtrusive to the historic character of the structure. The building must be perceived to have, primarily, a flat roof. Staff recommends that the roof plan, in regard to the monitors, be as reviewed on May 9th, with the southernmost monitor totally eliminated unless it can be flat. The shift in location for the flue is an improvement from conceptual review. The relevant design guideline is as follows: 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. â€¢ Flat skylights that are flush with the roof plane may be considered only in an obscure location on a historic structure. Locating a skylight or a solar panel on a front roof plane is not allowed. â€¢ A skylight or solar panel should not interrupt the plane of a historic roof. It should be positioned below the ridgeline. This standard is not met without revision to the monitors as described above. 0 b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposedfor development, and 2 Staff Finding: The building is located in the heart of the commercial downtown. Its restoration is very important to reinforcing the historic character of the area. c. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels, and Staff Finding: The project will not detract from the historic significance of the building as a 19~h century commercial structure. d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Staff Finding: The project will enhance the architectural character and integrity of the building by completing much needed restoration work. The work will be accurate, based on 19th century photographs. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant final approval with the following conditions: 1. Make the southernmost skylight/monitor flat or eliminate it entirely. Eliminate the monitor that has been added since conceptual approval along the east wall. 2. Submit a demolition plan, as part ofthe building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the historic building are to be removed. 3. Submit apreservation plan, as part ofthe building permit plan set, indicating how the existing materials, which are to be retained, will be restored. The requirement is to retain/repair all original materials and replicate only those that are determined by HPC staff and monitor to be beyond salvage. 4. No elements are to be added to the historic building that did not previously exist. No existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor. 5. HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures. 6. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 7. The preservation plan described above, as well as the conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 3 8. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 9. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. 10. The HPC has granted a 500 square foot floor area bonus and a 2 foot height limit variance for the elevator tower. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2001." Exhibits: A. Staffmemo dated July 11, 2001 B. Roofplans approved on May 9, 2001 C. Minutes of May 9, 2001 D. Final application 4 1Â®. michael fuller architects SUBMITTAL FOR FINAL READING Historic Preservation Commission City of Aspen Community Development Â» Re: Kobey Building Renovation Street Address: 428 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen Legal Description: Lot Q, Block 88, City and Townsite ofAspen, County ofPitkin, State of Colorado Parcel Number: 2737-073-39-011 May 23, 2001 The Applicant proposes the following renovation and restoration to the Kobey Building: 1. Modify existing structure to meet current structural code as relates to the proposed uses. 2. Provide exiting as required for the proposed uses of the building. 3. Provide two parking spaces off the alley with an overhead garage door. 4. Perform required modifications to qualify for a Certificate of Occupancy. 5. Install an elevator, with restricted access, to serve the main, upper, and rooftop levels of the building. 6. Renovate the south, or Hyman Mall, fa~ade, including replacing the existing storefront window system, rebuilding the recessed entry, reconditioning the original stone and brick, and restoring the wood and steel detailing to historically appropriate details and colors. 7. Repair the brick and wood cornice, and replace the balcony on the alley faGacle. 8. Provide one residential unit on the upper and rooftop levels, to be designed within existing height and view lane restrictions for the property (except as relates to a Height Variance thai was granted by the H.P.C. for the elevator shaft on May 9th, 2001). 9. Refurbish all existing windows and retain existing original glazing, as allowed by the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and as requested by the H.P.C. 10. Replace roof over rear balcony to new height above brick header detail at windows, per H.P.C. request. The Applicant has shown a commitment to an "outstanding effort" in the significant renovation of the front and rear facades. The proposed project will improve both the original building and the neighborhood as a whole. The renovation ofthe front faGade will return the building closer to its original design, including returning the storefront to its former design with a recessed entry and full-height glazing, and more historically accurate materials, detailing, and colors. This extensive renovation will bring the building up to the standard set by other fine renovations in the neighborhood, and make the architectural inventory of the area more accurate and. The proposed use of the building, by mixing michael fuller architects pc 710 East Durant Street Aspen Colorado 81611 [t] 970.925.3021 [f] 970.927.5366 23286 Two Rivers Road, Suite 21, P.O. Box 2618 Basalt Colorado 81621 [t] 970.927.6620 [f] 970.927.5366 123 South Spruce Street, P.O. Box 1529 Telluride Colorado 81435 [t] 970.728.0104 [f] 970.728.5739 . 0 residential and commercial uses, will benefit the neighborhood by adding to the sense of community in the downtown area. The residential space proposed for the roof level will be set back approximately 60 feet from the Hyman Mall fa~ade and approximately 12 feet from the rear facade, and therefore minimizing visual impact on the mall streetscape and alley. The intent of the project is to return the Kobey Building to its former architectural significance within the community of Aspen. The design represented in this Final Submittal is the same as represented in the Conceptual design that was approved on May 0, 2001, with the exception of the southerly skylight. The H.P.C. approved the Conceptual design with the condition that the design of the southerly skylight be redesigned to be less obtrusive and produce less light pollution. In response, the Applicant proposes the current design which lowers the height of the skylight, removes the south-facing glazing and keeps a minimum of north-facing vertical glazing, and moves the fireplace and resulting chimney closer to the middle and west side of the building. The chimney has been offset below the roof to bring the portion that rises above the roof north ofthe skylight as much as possible. To further reduce the impact of the skylight and chimney, the current design proposes moving the skylight, fireplace and chimney to the north from its previous location. The Applicant believes that these proposed changes would meet the objectives ofthe H.P.C. and creates a daylighting design that is of the quality of the project as a whole, appropriate for the neighborhood and the community. 0 0 0 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT TO RESTORE AND MAKE A ROOFTOP ADDITION TO 428 E. HYMAN AVENUE, LOT Q AND 25 SQUARE FEET OF LOT R, BLOCK 88, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO Parcel ID #2737-073-39-011 RESOLUTION NO. -, SERIES OF 2001 WHEREAS, the applicant, Loma Alta Corporation, represented by Janet Lapin and Michael Fuller Architects, has requested final development approval for 428 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot Q and 25 square feet of Lot R, Block 88, City and Townsite of Aspen. The building is a designated landmark; and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of Section 26.415.010.B.4 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the 0 parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "IiI," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; 0 and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated July 11, 2001, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, and recommended approval of the application with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on July 11, 2001, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application to meet the standards, and approved the application with conditions by a vote of_ to _. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the HPC approves final development for the property located at 428 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot Q and 25 square feet of Lot R, Block 88, City and Townsite of Aspen, finding that the review standards are met, with the following conditions: 1. Make the southernmost skylight/monitor flat or eliminate it entirely. Eliminate the monitor that has been added since conceptual approval along the east wall. 2. Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the historic building are to be removed. 3. Submit a preservation plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating how the existing materials, which are to be retained, will be restored. The requirement is to retain/repair all original materials and replicate only those that are determined by HPC staff and monitor to be beyond salvage. 4. No elements are to be added to the historic building that did not previously exist. No existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor. 5. HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures. 6. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 7. The preservation plan described above, as well as the conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 8. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 9. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. 10. The HPC has granted a 500 square foot floor area bonus and a 2 foot height limit variance for the elevator tower. 0 APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 11th day of July, 2001. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to Content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chairman ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 0 0 County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE & } SS. MAILING PURSUANT TO State of Colorado } PITKIN COUNTY LAND USE CODE SECTION 4-90 I. J *Alâ‚¬ 1 1-2 2,/0 , being or representing an Applicant to the Pitkin County Development Permit, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 4-90 ofthe Pitkin County Land Use Regulations in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class, postage prepaid U.S. Mail at least 30 days prior to the public hearing to all owners of property adjacent to the subject property, as indicated on the attachedlist, on the 23- day of JUMâ‚¬, 2001 (which islydays prior to the public hearing date of 7-//-09. The names and addresses of the adjacent property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than 60 days prior to the public hearing. 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that said sign was posted and visible continuously from the ti- day of JUNâ€¢ '200_Itothe 't day of Jul4 ,2001. (Must be posted for at least fifteen (15) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the tliti,1,1 ",4 â‚¬*iNNJE , posted sign is attached hereto. *PJ:/.1"ll'~I 9 LATARA lame-1 2-Ae. 4 U /352/CUS+-lobbl.'/ - - / / Â¥if'- H t,Ut'~A,~ Applicant' s name SiÂ£(natore (-,/ /*3pkoÂ» U 4,144,1,11"%,00 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: JUNE 1.3.200â‚¬ Signed before me this I /44day of (~~11~* , 2001by ~-cle ~ap-4 -/"11/110.CE- 14=1.... 1= -*.JGI~ i; -/-2 - -'127-1 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: ~1LN 1 3.doc) S 1<< a Â¢ f n Jh'ye 11 Ntpig Publi91 4 , - Not~ry Publies Signature 419 EAST HYMAN LLC 517 E HYMAN LTD 407 EAST HYMAN PROPERTY LTD C/O TED C SKOKOS A COLORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 34425 HWY 82 425 W CAPITAL AVE STE 3200 517 E HYMAN AVE A CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 ARCADES ASSOCIATES LTD 517 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC ASPEN ART INVESTMENTS LTD RJS-RS INC C/O 201 S 7TH ST 1450 SIERRA VISTA DR #B 304 S GALENA STE A ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN DOWNTOWN LLC ASPEN DRUG INC ASPEN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT C/O BROOKE A PO BOX 11468 420 E HOPKINS AVE PETERSON/KAUFMAN&PETERSON ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 315 E HYMAN AVE STE 305 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN SPORTS INC B & K ASSOCIATES BALDWIN HARLEY C/O BECKER BUSINESS SERVICES A COLORADO GENERAL PARTNERSHIP 205 S GALENA ST 630 E HYMAN AVE 308 S MILL ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BANK OF ASPEN BALDWIN HARLEY A 11 BENTLEYS AT THE WHEELER C/O AUTAX INC 205 S GALENA ST PO BOX 10370 PO BOX 2798 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 LITTLETON, CO 80161 1 L BERT INVESTMENT BIRKWOOD ASSOCIATES BLESD LLC C RATION A COLORADO PARTNERSHIP C/O SIMON DEVELOPMENT GROUP PO BOX 567 . Â· PO BOX 3421 370 LEXINGTON AVE #607 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 NEW YORK, NY 10017 BULLOCK G E GRANDCHILDRENS CARLSON BRUCE E CHARLIES COW COMPANY LLC PTNRSHIP 1/6 PO BOX 3587 315 E HYMAN AVE C/O SUZETTE GOODMA ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 500 E MARKHAM STE 305 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 COMCOWICH WILLIAM L CITY OF ASPEN COTTONWOOD VENTURES I LLC TRUSTEE OF ROBERT BARNARD TRUST 130 S GALENA ST 419 E HYMAN AVE 420 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 COX JAMES E & NANCY DOLE MARGARET M DENSON DAVID & KATHLEEN C/O ROB SNYDER CO FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF 170 E GORE CRK 304 S GALENA STE A CEDARIDGE VAIL, CO 81657 ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 8455 ASPEN, CO 81612 I INC ELKS LODGE 224 FOOTLOOSE MOCCASIN MAKERS INC PO*. X 2238 210 S GALENA ST STE 21 240 S MILL ST STE 201 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GOLDEN HORN BUILDING LTD GOLDSTEIN ALAN J GODIVA HOLDINGS LLC A COLORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP GOLDSTEIN MANAGEMENT C/O '35 E MAIN ST 150 METTRO PARK #2 11678 E BERRY DR EN, CO 81611 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111-4146 ROCHESTER, NY 14623 HABATAT GALLERIES ASPEN INC GOLDSTEIN PETER & ALAN GRIFFITH ANGELINE M HAGOPIAN SANDY CO 150 METRO PK #2 530 WALNUT ST 213 S MILL ST ROCHESTER, NY 14623 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 HINDERSTEIN FAMILY REVOCABLE HAMPEL WALTER F JR HILLIS OF SNOWMASS INC TRUST 290 HEATHER LN 170 E GORE CRK P O BOX 1576 ASPEN, CO 81611 VAIL, CO 81657 MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 IMMOBILIEN LLC ISIS LLC KANDYCOM INC C/O NATIONAL TAX SEARCH LLC 308 S GALENA ST 766 SINGING WOOD DR PO BOX 81290 ARCADIA, CA 91006 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60681-0290 KANTZER TAYLOR MICHAEL FAMILY KAUFMAN GIDEON I KREVOY BRADLEY R TRUST #1 315 E HYMAN AVE STE 305 1401 OCEAN AVE #301 6501 VISTA DEL MAR ASPEN, CO 81611 SANTA MONICA, CA 90401 PLAYA DEL REY, CA 90293 M & W ASSOCIATES NER FRITZ & ERIKA LOMA ALTA CORPORATION A COLORADO GENERAL PARTNERSHII 966 TEN PEAKS CT 6210 N CENTRAL EXPWY 205 S MILL ST BEND, OR 97701-9277 DALLAS, TX 75206 ASPEN, CO 81611 MILL STREET PLAZA ASSOCIATES LLC MARTINEZ JOSEPH C MASON & MORSE INC C/O M&W PROPERTIES 205 S GALENA #15 514 E HYMAN AVE 205 S MILL ST STE 301A ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 MOUNTAIN RESORT TRUST MTN ENTERPRISES 80B MTN RESORT TRUST C/O FISHER D C/O HILLIS OF SNOWMASS C/O FISHER D PO BOX 4273 170 GARE CRK DR PO BOX 4273 ASPEN, CO 81612 VAIL, CO 81657 ASPEN, CO 81612 PETERSON BROOKE A RED ONION INVESTORS LLC PITKIN COUNTY BANK 80% C/O KAUFMAN & PETERSON C/O RED ONION MGT CO 534 E HYMAN AVE 315 E HYMAN 418 E COOPER #205 ATTN: CHARLES E ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ISRAEL ASPEN, CO 81611 NCO PARTNERS LTD XXX SCHAEFER WIDO L SJA ASSOCIATES LTD 60% SMITH PAT PO BOX 1709 341 SURFV[EW DR 415 E HYMAN AVE STE 105 PACIFIC PAL[SADES, CA 90272-2915 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611-1945 VOLK PLAZA LLC WENDELIN ASSOC WALL RICHARD C/O FLEISHER COMPY A NEW YORK GENERAL PARTNERSHIF 7538 CAMINITO AVOLA E MAIN 150 METRO PARK LA JOLLA, CA 92037 EN, CO 81611 ROCHESTER, NY 14623 WHEELER BLOCK BUILDING LLC WHEELER SQUARE - CASPER FAMILY WILLIAMS DEXTER M 51% TKG MANAGEMENT INC C/O LLC 230 S MILL ST 1001 CHERRY ST STE 308 315 E HYMAN ASPEN, CO 81611 COLUMBIA, MO 65201 ASPEN, CO 81611 WOLF FAMILY TRUST 1221 MYRTLE AVE SAN DIEGO, CA 92103 LOKULTA -7. CORPORATE INVESTMENTS 6210 NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY DALLAS,TEXAS 7S206 Â· 214/368-5264 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 428 E. HYMAN AVENUE- FINAL REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Loma Alta Corporation, requesting final design review for the property located at 428 E. Hyman Avenue, which is described as Lot Q and 25 square feet of Lot R, Block 88, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5096, amyg@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Suzannah Reid, Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on June 23, 2001 City of Aspen Account Historic Preservation Commissions May 9. 2001 Dupps amended his motion to add the above comment; seconded by Halferty. Roll call vote; Halferty, yes; Markalunas, yes; Sanchez, yes; Dupps, yes; Reid, yes; Susan, yes. Motion carried. Dupps and Markalunas will be the monitors for this project. CONCEPTUAL REVIEW AND VARIANCE - 428 East Hyman Avenue Amy Guthrie, community development department, reminded The Commission they said this project last month. The work involves restoring the front of the building, removing the paint from the brick, putting back the old store front. There are some alterations on the alley side of the building, some parking is going in and there is a rooftop penthouse being added. Ms. Guthrie said the remaining issue is the penthouse. HPC directed the applicant they could not demolish the existing roof structure; they had to rework it to keep it under the height limit. The applicants were successful in doing that, except for the top of the elevator, which is 2 feet over the height limit. This requires a variance, to be based on hardship. Staff found this request is appropriate because of the requirement that the roof structure cannot be demolished; the AACP encourages housing downtown; the area over the height limit has been minimized; and this variance does not give them any special privileges in extra square footage. Ms. Guthrie noted there is a request for a 500 square foot FAR bonus, which staff supports based on the amount of restoration work that will be done on the buidling. Staff feels the skylights are too close to the front of the building and not appropriate to the character of the building, and will be visible from locations downtown. Ms. Guthrie said these should be flat or held below the parapet wall. Chief Deputy City Clerk Strickland swore in Chris Bebee, Michael Fuller, Janet and George Lapin. Chris Bebee pointed out the skylights are to add light to the front room of the living space, which is the major part of the apartment. Bebee showed the extent of the deck. The skylight is used as the railing for the back edge 5 Historic Presenation Commissions ___ Mav 9. 2001 . of the deck. Something is required to be 3 feet high at the edge of a deck. Bebee said they have kept the skylight as low as possible and still function. The skylight needs to be sloped so the snow does not collect; it is also a light source for the residence. Amy Guthrie asked where the mechanical equipment will be located. Bebee showed where it will be and stated it does not exceed the height. Ms. Guthrie asked if the proposed equipment would service a restaurant. The applicants said they are not designing for a restaurant; if they added one it would have to be reviewed. Ms. Markalunas asked if staff feels the height variance issue meets the hardship standards. Ms. Guthrie said it is a minimal amount of variance and it does meet the hardship standards. Ms. Reid opened the public hearing. A letter from Harley Baldwin opposing the project was entered into the record. Ms. Reid closed the public hearing. Halverty said he appreciates the restoration efforts on the historic front of the building on the mall side. Halverty stated he does not have a problem with the height variance; however, he does have a reservation about the most southern skylight. Halverty favors the massing towards the rear of the property; he has no problems with the materials proposed. This is a good scheme, except for the massing of the skylights. Ms. Markalunas does not support the project. The impacts of the north brick masonry wall too extreme. Ms. Markalunas stated she does not support the skylights, the chimney location is too visible from the street. Ms. Markalunas said she would like to see the historic glass in the windows be rehabbed. Any deck area should be confined to the rear of the building. Sanchez said he feels this is a great project. Ms. Dodington said it is a good project; however, she does not support the skylights. She would like to see the skylight made flatter. Dupps said he, too, feels this is a great project and is the type of project the city wants to see in the downtown. Dupps said he has no problem with the skylights. He is concerned about the penthouse and any shiny materials on that structures. Ms. Reid said this is an exciting project and she is pleased the applicants are restoring the 6 Historic Preservation Commissions Mav 9. 2001 building. The rooftop apartment is appropriately located. Ms. Reid said she has a problems with the southernmost skylight. Halverty moved to grant HPC approval and partial demolition and a height variance for 428 East Hyman Avenue with conditions (1) that the flat skylight be preferable for the southernmost skylight and that this be studied for final hearing; (2) a 500 square foot FAR bonus and a 2 foot height limit variance for the elevator tower be granted; seconded by Dupps. Halverty, yes; Markalunas, no; Sanchez, yes; Dodington, no; Dupps, yes; Reid, yes. Motion carried. CONCEPTUAL REVIEW - 935 East Cooper Avenue Sanchez and Halverty stepped down on this project. Amy Guthrie, community development department, reminded the Commission there has been a work session and a site visit. This project is listed on the inventory. The plan is to remodel one apartment in the center of the structure. Ms. Guthrie noted there have been a lot of additions to this projects, material replaced, but it is still on the inventory. Ms. Guthrie said alterations should not be made that sacrifice the status of the building. Ms. Guthrie said her only concern is the staircase on the east of the building. This is in a location that an addition would not be allowed, in the front of the building toward the historic roof pitch. Staff recommends looking at any way to reduce the size of the staircase. Chief Deputy City Clerk Kathy Strickland swore in Jerome Hatem and Mark Tye. Mark Tye said if this staircase is reduced too much, the structure becomes a one bedroom house. Tye said the architects and contractors have tried to find a staircase that would work other than a spiral staircase. Ms. Reid asked if they need 19 risers to get up to the top. Ms. Reid opened the public hearing. Deputy City Clerk Kathy Strickland swore in Bob Jacobsen, 924 East Cooper, told the Commission he has no problems with this addition. It does not affect his views. ,7 GULL 1 \-6 ., ' 4 (4 q 2) 7 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Im 1 - ~~--~ 1 Ls=, 1 : i X/. tÂ·: I l k< ~ --2---\ <i*li )1 / I 14 1 FLAT ROOF Lo JAB:'IN'~'.1 Â· (TYPICAL @ - 41 '' 71 2-9 4LOCATIONS) 1 215'Ae.u= L+F#44.1% F. \ j. 1 Uy---------> Mt{7312],L -r-%442 / 1 1 - 1 Lt>L 1 rrâ€ž- - -4, ,< ': CURVED METk I 1 ROOF ~ I HATCH INDICATES \ PORTION OF ROOF ~~ / 1 1 ALLOARBAOB~E ~LIÂ» - Oil I . 11 1 1 1 HEIGHT 1 -- / 1'- 1 11 1- -1- 1 i /7 m , Ill . 1 1 1 4 3 ,- ------- 1 1\ , . 1 1 1 1 1Â®. . 1 michael fuller architects | KOBEY BUILD1NG 428 EAST HYMAN AVENUE 1 . 1 1 NORTH l 1 J> 4 2 ~ ROOF PLAN N/ - Scale 1/8" = 10 -0" 6-(/tlk, k 6 - ~ ~ PROPOSED PENTHOUSE ~ '2j // 3'-- SPACE BEYOND n a NEA TRANSLUCENT SKÂ¥LIGHT Ir--1 r--11[-11[-311791[Ell r --i 1-=-3~1 2-=-lt-3--It32=N - r- REPAINT FND CORNICE l U / PROVIDE NEFY CORNICE PIECE TO MATCH -~- DETAIL ON OPPOSITE Ill' 01.I 61-0 MolleMGM 0-Molo 1.2-0~6,6-1 40.2cm.1.1.Moll ,-- ( 41'Â· ii jrva;616~Â·St I-,3Â·6541 idÂ©Â·2F.LECit-1.'., *1 01'GET.tÂ· 4-ill--9~J j - SIDE REMOVE PAINT PER -.â€¢4 Â·.Â·,~ ~fÂ·%-9-7=- ..iâ‚¬-3-E,Ii;ZA ~ L./Fit V.,W~'%-~_ GUIDELINES .'f,Â»lili-.42 .1 1.rtg - 879 - 1,41 - 79Â· E 6-"I REFURBISH EXISTING 26 - 23 ---**~ YVINDOF'le 19.1 L 4.2 2.9.4,11 503 1 T .,u - --: -2,1 . 'CIT..4'-=.'". a:22**Â·0-7=, -3:1.-j' 4- L -LJÂ»--~267999,71=- ;I=.â‚¬ I.~.â€ž ~.:~~: - :_1~--36~11+ 3*1~i**4?*4--Â·:--'- PROVIDE NEM -1 7~ STOREFRONT SYSTEM 0 1 REPLACE/RESTORE -- .F MOOD DETAILING 1 - / , h / =1 : 7-NER MOOP PANELS .n" = 11_,E--3- E-1- 0 r-*11- \ I C,LIJ L_____1!Ir- 5 -. I 24*:-.P:--: L J - 4 NER STONE STEP AND LANDING ~ SOUTH ELEVATION ,Scale 1/8" = 10 Â·- 0" HATCH INDICATES PORTION OF ROOF ABOVE MAX. ALLOKABLE BUILDING HT. C 2 1 ZING K11 ~ ~ PANEL 7 e]PIN<3 1 1 1 \/ NE'Al STEEL -*n -11 GUARDRAIL lk/, . 1 8 1 1,-- -Yt / _1 4-~._--- -- . :8.~FtÂ·*GAE.2.242- Â». g.t.-t--guet TiÂ©y;11 :~40: ~;~~ REPLACE jlft?. -,33=Fftl~*33*~-'-;~~'~~~**~~72=â€¢-bnâ€¢=.Â·.2**$~~Â·Â·n't'*n--i~-â€¢-E --'=- -9--- ~ ~IÂ·'Â· CORNIC,E Â«i'-a#-6,;*,RE 46-' 1 . --1- ... 18--- &;99941& .2 - =ay- ..c 6 1,7.t i 3 e REFURBISH ty&% - *0-6 - ~ -~.6 rl r'145-22- = -fi#f - 2 .Ble i=traP'Uk MINIPOFNS, TYP. %7%%~ 322, 1 3.'.2- ggq@*S G .9 6 21-1 . 33#/si ' 5.. ...4',"11. r 286-t- .-4 -tb44FI - -1-Tr- ~--f--1*LE---j~~ I- ~5Â¥C0040Â¢Â·,ggipF - 11. )4@~*Â¢RÂ¢6jgfty ~:.gff*34â‚¬j41-- iâ‚¬44941 43~~ ~f '- ~~~~~ ~~~ ~94-51<13=44%9Â·~~t: Â·4*4%- Affief-Â¢ .. i.j@14,2*M:&.' 0:i--1Â·'Â·>-0., .:,fÂ·Zi,-: G.T..-,Â·.1.2.423-4*~ -'L'=193 REFACE EXIT 9[-int'3--C L-3 L.-3 IU-t**F ~3>-_ A/ST\,)000. Im.-11. i! . m.?':11 11>21.1. 4 6-&. REPLACE 1.,a,S. b~- EXISTING !1--j.~75Â· 1264-4, FNINDORS I '6.t:Ng >~2312.-- ~Â·,â‚¬9* I 926' NE* 18. 1 . 11 , - NORTH ELEVATION michael fuller architects 0 Scale 1/8" = 01' - 0" KOBEY BUILDING 428 EAST HYMAN AVENUE _J li.illd HATCH INDICATES PORTION OF ROOF ABOVE MAX. CURVED METAL ALLORABLE BUILDING HEIGHT METAL FIREPLAGE i 1 1 1 FLUE L Â·Â· d 11 H 1/ U l.1 7 Â£-4 ZING PANEL SIDING-7* :1 2-dj l NER STEEL GUARDRAIL -j' - BRICK COMMON MALL - HYMAN AVENUE ALLE MALL L EAST ELEVATION - Scale 1/8" = 1' -0" 1Â®. michael fuller architects - MOBEY BUILDING 2449-ilÂ·- 0*43422% 428 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ~ . i .<ilyk:â‚¬Â·41...::Â·FÂ· ) :90":Â·'.4.:t 4: ~ - &(bil~po, Â· Â«..22â€¢Y ;2je~ Â·Â· '' -V . 2/2 %3. ..01Â· R~1475â€¢ 14,1,0 â€¢ 'S Â·17.41 -k - f\CLE 6, MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Ute Cemetery National Register Nomination DATE: July 11,2001 SUMMARY: Please review and be prepared to comment on the attached National Register nomination, just completed for Ute Cemetery. We received a grant to do this project. The author of the nomination is also under contract to complete a management plan for the cemetery. He, along with a small team of people experienced in historic landscapes and conservation of grave markers, will deliver their suggestions for better stewardship of the cemetery in September. The City plans to undertake any necessary restoration work in Spring 2002. USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form Page 4 UTE CEMETERY PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO Narne of Property County and State 10. Geoaranhical Data Acreage of Property 4.67 acres UTM References (Place additional UTM references on a continuation sheet) 1 13 343500 4338400 3 Zone Easting Northing Zone Easting Northing 2 4 see continuation sheet Verbal Boundary Description (Describe the boundaries of the property on a continuation sheet) Boundary Justification (Explain why the boundaries were selected on a continuation sheet.) 11. Form Pregared Bv name/title RON SLADEK. PRESIDENT organization TATANKA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATES. INC. date 28 JUNE 2001 street & number P.O. BOX 1909 telephone 970 / 229-9704 city or town FORT COLLINS state CO zip code 80522 Additional Documentation Submit the following items with the completed form: Continuation Sheets Maps A USGS map (7.5 or 15 minute series) indicating the property's location. A Sketch map for historic districts and properties having large acreage or numerous resources. Photographs Representative black and white photographs of the property. Additional items (Check with the SHPO or FPO for any additional items) Propertv Owner (Complete this item at the request of SHPO or FPO.) name CITY OF ASPEN street and number 130 S. GALENA ST. telephone 970 / 920-5096 city or town ASPEN state CO zip code 81611 Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: This information is being collected for applications to the National Register of Historic Places to nominate properties for listing or determine eligibility for listing, to list properties, and to amend existing listings. Response to this request is reelired to obtain a benefit In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act. as amended (16 US.C 470 et seq.). Estimated Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 18.1 hours per response induding time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the form. Direct comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this form to the Chief, Administrative Services Division, National Park Service, P.O. Box 37127, Washington, DC 20013-7127; and the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reductions Projects (1024-0018),Washington, DC 20503. NPS Form 10-900 (Rev. 10-90) OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number 7 Page 1 Property UTE CEMETERY PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY Ute Cemetery is located on the north side of Ute Ave., 1/4 mile southeast of the downtown Aspen commercial district at the foot of Aspen Mountain. The northern and western edges of the property abut a modem residential subdivision, the southern edge borders a hiking/biking trail that parallels Ute Ave., and the eastern edge runs adjacent to the city's Ute Park. At the present time, the property boundaries are generally marked by a modern split rail wood fence that runs along the southern, eastern and western perimeters of the site, while the northern edge is open to the adjacent residential neighborhood. Ute Cemetery's terrain is rolling, with high points located in the west-central area, the northeast corner, and the southeast corner of the property. During the cemetery's early years, before it became filled with vegetation and the adjacent properties developed with large homes, it would have been possible to view the town of Aspen from these locations. At this time, the site is overgrown with a variety of plants, including aspen trees, gambel oak, serviceberry bushes, sagebrush, a small number of evergreens, and a diversity of native grasses and flowers. Dense foliage makes it difficult to traverse the property and to find many of the graves located there, particularly during the summer months. The only established path is a very narrow, unimproved, winding dirt trail that runs generally on an east-west axis from Ute Park on the east to a parking pullout and the hiking/bike trail near the southwest comer of the site. The entrances to this trail, which is used by hikers and mountain bike riders, are marked by openings in the split rail fence. Most burials in the cemetery are laid out in a random fashion, with no evidence of a grid pattern or other elements of planning common to town cemeteries dating from the late 1800s. Graves are scattered throughout the site, and no signs of historic roadways or walking paths are present. The most heavily utilized area appears to be the westem half of the cemetery, where approximately 125 burials are known to exist. The eastern half contains an estimated 50 graves, most of which are those of Civil War veterans buried in two long rows marked with government-issue monuments. These two rows of soldiers' graves represent the only feature at Ute Cemetery that exhibits evidence of planning. Laid out on the crest of a ridge, one row above the other, the Civil War veterans appear to have been buried in battle formation, as if even in death they were prepared to defend their position from attack. The only evidence of a building on the site is a deteriorated brick foundation located in the northwest comer of the property. This 12' x 20' structure of unknown height was likely used as a caretaker's shed, and an early photo of the town shows what appears to be a shed-like building at this location. Although no historic entrance to the cemetery is marked today, an 1893 bird's eye view of Aspen shows a city street entering the site from the north. NPS Form 10-900 (Rev. 10-90) OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number 7 Page 2 Property UTE CEMETERY PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO Of the approximately 175 graves found at Ute Cemetery, about 75 are marked with monuments that provide information about whose remains were placed there. Although these markers date from the early 1 880s through the 1930s, most of them were erected between 1882 and 1900. These monuments consist predominantly of granite or marble headstones resting on sandstone bases. The many other burials on the site are marked only by grave-sized depressions, flagstone or cobblestone coping, wooden or iron fence enclosures, or base stones from which the monuments are missing. Cobblestone coping was widely used at Ute Cemetery, and is often the only clue to an otherwise unmarked grave. These graves are found scattered throughout the site, although many are hidden by vegetation and the buildup of soils, and it is likely that other graves are present that are no longer visible. Also characteristic of Ute Cemetery is the presence of many wooden fence enclosures surrounding single and multiple grave sites. While several of these remain standing, many others have deteriorated and collapsed. Ute Cemetery has been unmaintained for at least the past fifty years, and no original plan for the site has ever been found. It appears that some of the headstones were stolen or have fallen over and been covered by dirt and plant material. Further investigation of the site may reveal a small number of missing markers that could identify the occupants of some of the unmarked graves, many of whose names have been collected through documentary sources. A 1999 ground penetrating radar study completed at the site seems to indicate that buried headstones may be found at a few of these unmarked graves. However, because of the cemetery's history of use, it appears likely that many were never marked (or were marked with simple wooden monuments that have decayed) and that no correlation with their exact occupants will ever be completed. Even with the aging and decay that has taken place, Ute Cemetery exhibits an excellent degree of historic integrity through its location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. As Aspen's oldest cemetery, started out of immediate necessity by the original pioneers, the property was never planned as a landscaped site established on a grid or any other pattern, resulting in the rustic, random, disorganized, overgrown appearance it exhibits today. NPS Form 10-900 (Rev. 10-90) OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number 8 Page 3 Property UTE CEMETERY PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Ute Cemetery is eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion A for its association with the early settlement of Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley. The land upon which the cemetery is found was initiated as a burial ground out of necessity when one of the first prospectors attempting to reach the valley of the Roaring Fork perished during his journey. Beginning with this burial in the summer of 1880, Ute Cemetery became the final resting place of numerous working-class settlers who came to Aspen during its formative years and lost their lives there. The occupants of this cemetery were the people who erected Aspen's first buildings, excavated its mines, maintained its mills, delivered the mail, kept house and raised children. Some were the offspring of these laborers, children who died in childbirth or succumbed to illness or injury during their early months and years. Aspen's two other cemeteries, Aspen Grove and Red Butte, are very different from Ute Cemetery in that they were both planned on a grid pattern and contain the graves of the town's leading citizens who achieved wealth and status during their lives. These two cemeteries are filled with the names of mine owners, mayors, attorneys, engineers, and prominent business owners. By comparison, Ute Cemetery was clearly used as a burial ground for those early residents who lived without fame or fortune, served in modest roles during the early days of Aspen's history, and ended their lives at this location. Many of them were single men who died in this alpine frontier while helping to develop one of the country's newest mining districts. A clear indication of the site's use as a cemetery for the working class and indigent is the lack of a plan that would have allowed visitors to visit the property in carriages or wagons, the random scattering of graves throughout the property, the modest nature of the headstones and wood enclosures, and the numerous unmarked graves that were likely to have been filled with the remains of unmarried miners and the town's poorest residents. Ute Cemetery is thus a testament to the numerous working-class people who settled in Aspen during its early years and upon whose labor the town thrived as a leading silver-producing center. The site provides the modern visitor and historian with information about who these pioneers were, how they lived their lives, and in what way they met their deaths. The characteristics of Ute Cemetery also speak about the social history of a nascent silver-mining community and how it handled the inevitable deaths and necessities of burial. Ute Cemetery meets the requirements of Criteria Consideration D, due to its use as Aspen's first burial ground and its association with the initial settlement of the town and surrounding mining district. The cemetery's period of significance begins in 1880 when the first burial took place, and ends in 1940 at the end of its period of intensive use. Only two burials are known to have taken place since the end of the period of significance. NPS Form 10-900 (Rev. 10-90) OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number 8 Page 4 Property UTE CEMETERY PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The town of Aspen, located in the Roaring Fork Valley of east-central Pitkin County, was settled in 1879 and 1880 by prospectors migrating over the Continental Divide from Leadville in search of silver. In Leadville, miners began to hear tales of rich lodes of silver ore available for the claiming in the mountains to the west. Although the distance from there to Aspen is only 27 miles as the crow flies, the difficulty of crossing the Continental Divide over 12,095' Independence Pass was substantial at the time. During the winter, the pass was virtually impossible to navigate due to the steep terrain, heavy snowpack and bitter cold conditions. In the milder months, travelers were often troubled by spring avalanches, freak snow storms, heavy downpours charged with lightning, challenging terrain, and the high altitude. Yet, through the pass the prospectors poured with their pack mules, seeking opportunity and wealth in the valley below. Within months, rich veins of silver were discovered on Aspen Mountain and Smuggler Mountain, and the newly-formed town of Aspen began to rise from the valley floor below. The opportunity to make a fortune in this latest of many mineral strikes attracted not only miners but also Eastern capital that arrived in the form of financiers such as Cincinnatti attorney and business leader David Hyman and the president and part-owner of Macy's Department Store, Jerome B. Wheeler. These well-heeled men and others purchased mining claims on the mountainsides, and in the spirit of speculation acquired additional townsite land astride the Roaring Fork River. With the area teeming with miners and excavation well underway, they launched into a building frenzy that resulted in the rapid development of Aspen into one of the state's finest pioneer towns and mining districts. Mills were soon erected to process the tons of ore emerging from the mines daily and the town became a mecca for those seeking to enter the lottery that was life in a Colorado mining town during the late 1800s. By 1880, just one year after the first miners arrived in the area, as many as 800 to 1000 residents were found in Aspen, and more were arriving daily. Mining enterprises were already thriving and expanding their facilities. One of these was the Durant Mine, whose shaft was located above the town on the north-facing slope of Aspen Mountain. Soon the owners of the mine carved out a horizontal drift known as the Durant Tunnel, which was excavated some 3,500 feet into Aspen Mountain from its mouth across Ute Avenue just southwest of the Ute Cemetery. Accompanying the many miners and other immigrants to the Roaring Fork Valley was the certainty that some would die there, and it did not take long for that to happen. In June of 1880, a Colonel Kirby of Texas died in Aspen of "mountain fever" following a "wearying journey over the Red Mountain trail." The Colonel was the first person buried in what was to become Evergreen (and later Ute) Cemetery at the base of Aspen Mountain. However Kirby did not stay NPS Form 10-900 (Rev. 10-90) OMB No. 102+0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number 8 Page 5 Property UTE CEMETERY PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO long, for his body was exhumed on 31 July 1881 for reburial in the family cemetery in Texas. Prior to Colonel Kirby's sudden need for a final resting place, no cemetery existed in Aspen. The town had grown quickly, with hundreds of residents present and more on the way. Aspen was flourishing overnight, and the city's leaders recognized that the town would need a designated burial ground. On 4 June 1881, Aspen's Board of Trustees ordered the Committee on Health to select and prepare a burial ground for public use. The burial place of Colonel Kirby on the southeast edge of town had been initiated, but was located on private land owned by Charles A. Hallam, part- owner and superintendent of the Smuggler Mine on the mountainside across the valley. In addition, it was perceived to be too close to the center of Aspen and the town board wanted a more outlying site. Evidently nothing better was found and no action taken, for the rolling ground at the eastern end of Ute Ave. near the Ute Spring continued to be used. The new cemetery was not managed by the city Board of Trustees thereafter, and the town's public ordinances dating from 1881 through 1895 include not one mention of any burial place at all. By 1882, Aspen was still being reached primarily by miners traveling with pack mules. To get there, the train could be taken from Denver or Pueblo to Leadville, from where the traveler was forced to embark by foot, on horseback or by wagon via the rough road over Independence Pass that had just been completed that summer. With the population of the Aspen mining district booming throughout the early to mid-1880s, the rate of deaths began to increase. Richard Wheatley, a miner in the Ironsides Mine, was killed by an explosion of blasting powder. John P. Mason, also a miner, was killed by an avalanche in Ophir Gulch. Many of Aspen's residents during these early years were single men or poor families who relied upon the assistance of their fraternal lodges in times of need. Following John Mason's death, for example, the Aspen Masonic Lodge took possession of his remains until his family in Kansas could be reached. Providing a form of life insurance to their members, the lodges offered support to the widows and children left behind by those who perished. Aspen gained a reputation for being relatively peaceable when compared to other mining camps, but the weather occasionally unleashed its fury upon the town's residents. On 11 March 1884, with heavy late winter storms blanketing the landscape with deep snow, an avalanche suddenly rushed down Aspen Mountain, burying the operating Vallejo Mine shafthouse. Men from the town hurried up the steep slopes to the site, hoping to rescue anyone they could. A small number of survivors began to emerge, all of them men who were working below ground when the disaster struck and were forced to climb up the vertical shaft and then dig their way out through the deep snow. Of the workers in the shafthouse, all were killed, among them George Marshall and John Meginnity, both of whom were buried in the nearby Ute Cemetery. Avalanches took the lives NPS Form 10-900 (Rev. 10-90) OMB No. 102+0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number 8 Page 6 Property UTE CEMETERY PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO of numerous Aspen residents, including Alexander C. Adair, the mail carrier between Aspen and Crested Butte, who in April 1885 was buried by an avalanche near Ashcroft. Other early Aspen residents were killed in the mines by falling boulders and timbers, in the Roaring Fork River by drowning, and through various other accidents. Jack Lewis, a "sporting man" said to be well known in Denver and Leadville, arrived in Aspen in 1885 only to be fatally shot there. Major events in the new town soon reached the point that Denver's Rocky Mountain News offered its readers the amusing comment that "Aspen is becoming metropolitan. Two disappointed people attempted suicide." (3/21/1885) While these two attempted, others succeeded and found themselves resting peacefully in the local cemetery. Always quick to follow the growth of any pioneer town, particularly those with a propensity for accidental deaths, undertaking businesses began to spring up in Aspen. The first undertaker was E.C. Morse, who opened shop in 1885, followed by H.P. Omdorff (1889), and Allen & Wilson (1890s). Another local undertaken J.C. Johnsen, advertised his specialty of embalming bodies for shipment. These morticians prepared their clients for burial and made a number of trips to Evergreen Cemetery each year with their horse-drawn hearses (available in black or white) carrying the earthly remains of pioneer Aspen's most unfortunate working-class miners, mechanics, ranchers, housewives, gamblers, carpenters, retirees and children. Funeral processions traveled through the unpaved streets toward the southeast edge of town, entering the cemetery along an unnamed road that terminated at the site's northern edge. Business must have been good, for the undertakers were among the first commercial enterprises in Aspen to list telephone numbers in their advertising. Families or friends without the financial means to hire an undertaker would take the body to the cemetery themselves in a wagon and perform their own burial, erecting a modest monument in memory of the deceased. Decoration Day celebrations were heavily attended in most American towns of the late 1800s, with many Civil War veterans still living and the carnage of battle unhealed. In Aspen, Evergreen Cemetery was the locus of these events throughout the 1880s. The ceremonies on 30 May 1885 began with a march to the cemetery, where the crowd gathered to recite prayers, sing songs and decorate the graves. Following these activities, they marched back through the streets of Aspen to the opera house, where the closing ceremonies took place. The following year, local members of the G.A.R. organization cleaned the cemetery before the crowd arrived. Pleased with the result, the Aspen Times on 30 May 1886 requested that future generations of Aspenites "should see to it that hereafter the place is kept halfway respectable." In 1887, the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad reached Aspen, providing the mines with an affordable and efficient method of shipping ore, and the town with a convenient mode of NPS Form 10-900 (Rev. 10-90) OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number 8 Page 7 Property UTE CEMETERY PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO transport for both people and supplies. The following year, Aspen saw the arrival of a competing railroad, the Colorado Midland. Within this short period, Aspen's isolation subsided as it became connected to the rest of the state and the nation through rail transportation. Access to fine carved stone markers was limited before the railroads arrived, and only a handful of the earliest burials at Ute Cemetery were identified with small carved markers brought over Independence Pass on wagons. Most of the stone monuments present at Ute Cemetery today date from the late 1 880s to 1900, after the railroads connected the town with outside sources of cut stone such as the Pueblo Marble Company in Pueblo, Colorado. Other methods commonly used to mark graves at the cemetery included the erection of wooden markers or fence enclosures (a few of which are still standing) and the placement of cobblestones or flagstones to create rectangular boundaries around the grave sites (many of these can still be seen throughout the property). In a smaller number of cases, graves (mostly family plots) were marked with durable wrought iron, cast iron, or pipe iron fencing. With the harsh winter weather conditions, the wood markers and fence enclosures deteriorated over the years, although they continued to be used by the poor because of their low cost. Cobblestone and flagstone coping does not deteriorate rapidly, but in many cases these have been covered by the buildup of soils and growth of vegetation at the cemetery over the years. Even with all of these options, the cemetery is filled with unmarked, shallow depressions that alone identify the locations of early graves. In 1889, a second cemetery by the name of Aspen Grove was started by the local fraternal societies on the eastern edge of town. This site, laid out in a formal grid pattern of intersecting paths, rectangular burial plots and a central carriage turnaround, was used for years by many of Aspen's prominent pioneer families. The garden-like layout of Aspen Grove Cemetery, established under a canopy of pre-existing Aspen trees, apparently appealed to the town's emerging middle class and upper crust more than the random, haphazard and evidently unmaintained Evergreen Cemetery. Designed to promote the area and make no mention of negatives, the 1889 Aspen City Directory stated that "Aspen has two prospectively fine cemeteries. The comparative newness of the city and its unusual healthfulness have made the demand for extensive and fine cemeteries less emphatic than is usual i n cities of its size. Evergreen Cemetery is beautifully located east of and just beyond the city limits, east of Ute Avenue." Even with the more attractive layout of Aspen Grove Cemetery (located on a rise along the south flank of Smuggler Mountain, it was not necessarily easier to access), it appears that Aspen's working class, its single miners with no family nearby, and its poor continued to use what was known throughout the 1890s as either Evergreen Cemetery or the "old cemetery." OMB No. 1024-0018 NPS Form 10-900 (Rev. 10.90) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number 8 Page 8 Property UTE CEMETERY Pm<IN COUNTY. COLORADO In April of 1890, a train arrived in Aspen carrying fifteen white marble, government-issue headstones, sent to mark the graves of Evergreen Cemetery's Union veterans. One of these men, George Marshall, had been prospecting in the Aspen area for three to four years. He was a veteran of the Civil War, having served in the 3rd Michigan Infantry. As already mentioned, Marshall was killed at the age of about 40 in the avalanche that buried the Vallejo Mine shafthouse in March 1884. Most of the veterans buried at the cemetery served with the Union army, although two Confederate veterans are reportedly buried there as well, one of them in a still-unmarked grave. Typical of many early Aspen residents, Ute Cemetery's Civil War veterans were mostly single men who died with no local family to coordinate and pay for a proper funeral and a carved headstone. According to the Aspen Da#y Times, "These graves of our dead heroes are scattered all over the cemetery grounds. It is the intention of the Grand Anny here to take up the remains of their comrades and bury them all in one lot around the cenotaph [this monument was evidently never built]. This work will require some time and will be finished just in time for the new graves to be decorated with flowers on the coming Memorial Day, May 30,1890." (23 April 1890) The G.A.R. group succeeded in reburying their brothers-in-arms in the two lines of graves identified by the military markers still found there. (A ground-penetrating radar study completed on the site in 1999 confirmed that graves are in fact present below each of these markers.) Others of the cemetery's total of 38 to 40 Civil War veterans were placed in line with them over the next fifteen to twenty years, creating the impression today that they were lined up in battle formation on the crest of the hill. One of these later additions, John Roddy, served for three years in D Company of the Vermont 2nd Infantry. He was attached to the Army of the Potomac and on 13 December 1862 was wounded at Fredericksburg. Roddy came to Aspen as a prospector, only to die of paralysis there in 1899, widowed and alone at the age of 59. By 1891, Aspen's mines were outpacing those in Leadville and the town, with 8,000 residents, had become the largest single source of silver in the United States. Two years later, Aspen was occupied by around 12,000 townsfolk residing in extensive neighborhoods that surrounded the downtown commercial district, which was filled with retail stores, banks, theaters, schools and a small but well-attended red light district. The town also prided itself upon its modem electric power plants, which by the mid-1 880s began to provide the mines, businesses and residences with power. With all of its promise for the future, Aspen was devastated by the federal goverment's 1893 decision to return to the gold standard, which severely undermined the town's economic base. This monumental change in the town's fortunes forced Aspen into what became known as its "quiet years," the period from 1893 through the early 1940s, when it served as a NPS Form 10-900 (Rev. 10-90) OMB No. 1024.0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number 8 Page 9 Property UTE CEMETERY PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO county seat and market center for the surrounding farms and ranches. Although limited silver mining continued during these decades, the area was best known for its potato crop. Sometime around 1900, and certainly by 1905, Evergreen Cemetery became known as Ute Cemetery, possibly connecting it to the nearby Ute Spring, Ute Avenue, or the town of Aspen's short-lived but original name, Ute City. Although the population of Aspen began to decline following 1893, the Ute Cemetery continued to be used. Death certificates located at the Pitkin County Courthouse indicate that at least twelve people were buried there between 1891 and 1907, among them a laborer, a farmer, a prospector, a housewife, a ranch hand, and several children who succumbed to scarlet fever, cholera, diptheria or complications at birth. In March of 1897, another Civil War veteran was buried there. George F. Buzzard served with Company G of the 40th Iowa Infantry, and perished in an avalanche in Conundrum Gulch at the age of 66. Buzzard was buried in a funeral conducted by the G.A.R. Post, the Ladies Circle and the Woman's Relief Corps. Also in 1900, a third cemetery was started by Aspen's Masons, Woodmen of the World, Elks and other fraternal lodges, this one located on the west edge of town on an easily-accessed, flat site near the river. Red Butte is a planned cemetery containing driving paths, irrigated grassed areas, and rows of shade trees, all features of modem cemeteries. Its location and groomed appearance, along with the relative ease of finding grave sites, evidently appealed to some Aspen residents. With the new grounds open to the public, the bodies of various loved ones were reportedly moved to Red Butte Cemetery from Aspen Grove Cemetery, accounting for the monuments found there that pre-date the cemetery's founding. Although it was to have been replaced by two successor cemeteries, Ute Cemetery continued to be used by the town's working class and poor. Burial permits dating from 1922 through 1927 indicate that at least thirteen people were buried there during these years, most of them old timers jn their 60s to 80s. One had committed suicide, another died of injuries sustained from a fall, two deaths were due to fires, one individual was stabbed to death, and others fell to age- related illnesses. All of these deaths appear to have been indigent cases, and none of their graves were marked with headstones. By 1935, only 700 people remained in Aspen and the town looked as if it was bound for obscurity. During the Depression years, just one burial is known to have taken place at Ute Cemetery, and over the following four decades the site saw just two more. Aspen's emergence as a ski resort began in the years just preceeding World War 11, as skiing enthusiasts and entrepreneurs began to develop the world-class resort on Aspen Mountain that would soon breath new life into the sleepy town that had for decades longed for a return to its earlier boom NPS Form 10-900 (Rev. 10-90) OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior ~ National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number 8 Page 10 Property UTE CEMETERY PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO times. With a new class of outdoor enthusiasts beginning to visit and populate the town, the Ute Cemetery fell not only into disuse but also disrepair. With no living family left in the Roaring Fork Valley to tend their graves, the estimated 175 to 200 people buried in the Ute Cemetery were abandoned and the site began its long slide into decay. Over the years, Ute Cemetery has become overgrown with native grasses and trees. During the 1960s and 1970s, possibly due to its abandoned state, some of the headstones disappeared (occasionally turning up in local antique shops) and others were broken by vandals. Although suffering from years of neglect, Ute Cemetery has managed to retain a significant amount of its historic integrity as Aspen's oldest and original burial ground, exhibiting the unrestrained growth of natural vegetation expected to occur at a pioneer alpine cemetery that was unplanned and largely unmaintained from the very beginning. Finally, in the late 1 990s and early 2000s, with historic preservation a high priority in Aspen, the city has initiated a process of studying the cemetery and working to preserve its historic integrity both out of respect for the town's history and those who are buried there, and for the education of future generations. 0 0 NPS Form 10-900 (Rev. 10-90) OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number 9 Page 11 Property UTE CEMETERY PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO BIBLIOGRAPHY Aspen City Directocy. Aspen, CO: Sayer & Goza, 1889. Aspen City Ordinance Scrapbook, 1881-1882. (Located in the collection of the Colorado Historical Society's Stephen H. Hart Library.) Aspen Daily News (Aspen, CO) "Some of Aspen's Dead Missing." 21 June 2000, p. 1. Aspen Daily Times (Aspen, CO) "Monuments for Union Soldiers." 23 April 1890, p. 3. Aspen Times (Aspen, CO) "Board of Trustees." 4 June 1881, p. 2. "Evergreen Cemetery." 23 April 1890, p. 3. "Location of Aspen Cemetery." 8 October 1881, p. 2. "The First Grave." 23 April 1881, p. 2. "By the Rivefs Brink." 12 June 1887. "Searching for the Lost." 10 July 1887. "Great Excitement." 19 July 1887. "Ida Chatfield's Body Found." 7 August 1887. "The Graveyards of Aspen." 31 October 1985, Sec. B. "Decoration Day." 30 May 1885. "Decoration Dots." 30 May 1886. "Our City Cemetery." 8 October 1881, p. 2. Aspen Tribune (Aspen, CO) "Advertisement for JC Johnsen, Undertaken" 18 October 1896, p. 1. Barlow-Perez, Sally. A History ofAspen. Aspen, CO: Who Press, 1991. Bird's Eye ViewofAspen. Aspen, CO: Aspen Times, 1893. Burial or Removal Permits. Stub booklet found in the records of the Pitkin County Courthouse, Clerk and Recorder's Office. 1922-1927. Buys, Christian J. Historic Aspen in Rare Photographs. Ouray, CO: Western Reflections Publishing, 2001. NPS Form 10-900 (Rev. 10-90) OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number 9 Page 12 Property UTE CEMETERY PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO Cemetery Record of Deceased United States War Veterans. Colorado Veterans' Graves Registration Project. Denver, CO: State Office, 1940. City Ordinance Scrapbook, 1881-1882. Articles clipped from Aspen newspapers by Davis H. Waite, Aspen attorney and Justice of the Peace. (Colorado Historical Society, Stephen H. Hart Library collection.) Cowling, Richard E. The Cemeteries of Pitkin County. Boulder, CO: Richard E. Cowling, 1979. (geneaological survey of information taken from cemetery markers) Cowling, Richard E., ed. Colorado Genealogical Etcetera, Volume 1. Boulder, CO: Richard E. Cowling, no date. Daily, Kathleen Krieger and Gaylord T. Guenin. Aspen: The Quiet Years. Aspen, CO: Red Ink Inc., 1994. "The Dead Tell No Tales, Their Gravestones Do." The Aspen Times, 7 December 1 996, p. 1 1A. Death Certificates. Found in the records of the Pitkin County Courthouse, Clerk & Recorder's Office. 1891-1907. Denver Times (Denver, CO) "Aspen Railway Grade." 15 March 1901, p. 5. Ellsperman, Stephen. Ute Cemetery Botanica/ Study. Aspen, CO: City of Aspen, Parks Department, 1999. General Ordinance of the City ofAspen. Aspen, CO: Aspen Times Print, 1886. Gilbert, Anne. The Peop/e ofAspen and the Roaring Fork Va#ey. Aspen, CO: Aspen Historical Society, 1991. Ground Penetrating Radar Survey, Ute Cemetery, Aspen, Colorado. Golden, CO: Geophysica, 1999. Study prepared for the City of Aspen, Community Development Department. Gunnison Daily Review-Press "Obituary, Alexander C. Adair." 1 April 1885, p. 4. NPS Form 10-900 (Rev. 1 0-90) OMB No. 102+0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number 9 Page 13 Property UTE CEMETERY PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO Hopton, Heather and Lilo Shuldener. Aspen's Early Days: A Walking Tour. Aspen, CO: Aspen Historical Society, 1975. Kirkpatrick, Vera G. Ute Cemetery (5PT122), Aspen, Colorado. Colorado Cultural Resource Survey, Inventory Record, 9/30/80. Mehls, Steven F. Co/orado Mountains Historic Context. Denver: Colorado Historical Society, 1984. Ordinances of the City of Aspen, Colorado. Aspen, CO: Times Publishing Co., 1890 & 1895. Pearce, Sarah J. and Roxanne Eflin. Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley. Evergreen, CO: Cordillera Press Inc., 1990. Reid, Suzannah and Patrick Duffield. Aspen Grove Cemetery (5PT488), Aspen, Colorado. Colorado Cultural Resource Survey, Architectural Inventory Form, 6/29/00. Reid, Suzannah and Patrick Duffield. Red Butte Cemetery (5PT137), Aspen, Colorado. Colorado Cultural Resource Survey, Architectural Inventory Form, 6/29/00. Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO) "Business Matters." 9 December 1885, p. 1. "Killed at Aspen." 3 November 1885, p. 2. "State at Large." 4 July 1885, p. 6. "State at Large." 21 March 1885, p. 6. "State at Large." 14 March 1885, p. 3. "State at Large." 25 February 1885, p. 6. "State at Large." 5 July 1884, p. 7. "State at Large." 19 January 1882, p. 6. "An Aspen Avalanche." 15 March 1884, p. 5. "Killed in a Snowslide." 15 March 1884, p. 1 "Killed in a Slide." 17 February 1884, p. 3. "Aspen Assays." 12 June 1882, p. 7. "Aspen's Progress." 20 September 1881, p. 3. "Aspen: The Rich Mining Interests of this Region." 23 September 1880, p. 10. Rohrbough, Malcolm J. Aspen: The Histog of a S#ver Mining Town, 1879-1893. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado, 2000. NPS Form 10-900 (Rev. 10-90) OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number 9 Page 14 Property UTE CEMETERY PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO Sidhu, Vin\ta. Report on the Conditions of the Cemeteries of the City of Aspen with Recommendations for Improvements. Aspen, CO: City of Aspen, Community Development Department, 1996. Ute Cemetery Photographs. Aspen Historical Society, 1945 (Acc. #81.5.249a, #81.59.2496) and 1976 (Acc. #7650.24, #7650.36, #7650.39, Fall 1976.) Ute Cemetery Topographic Survey. City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. Prepared by Louis H. Buettner Surveying (Basalt, CO), 1999. Wentworth, Frank L. Aspen on the Roaring Fork. Denver, CO: Sundance Publications, 1976. Wommack, Linda. From the Grave: A Roadside Guide to Colorado's Pioneer Cemeteries. Caldwell ID: Caxton Press, 1998. NPS Form 10-900 (Rev. 10-90) OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number 10 Page 15 Property UTE CEMETERY PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION The nominated property is limited to the tract of land known as Ute Cemetery, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. The legal description for this site is as follows: Lot 6, Hoag Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 4 at page 218 of the Pitkin County Clerk & Recorder' s Office. This description is found on the document recorded in the Pitkin County official records in Book 260 at page 572. Also a parcel of land being part of Lots 6 & 7, Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian. Said parcel is more fully described as follows: Beginning at a point whence comer 9 of Tract 41, East Aspen Addition bears south 00Â°21' west 299.50 feet; thence north 00Â°21' east 150 .00 feet; thence west 183.86 feet; thence south 50Â°39' east 236.57 feet to the point of beginning. BOUNDARY JUSTIFICATION The nomination boundary includes all the land known to be historically associated with the cemetery during the period of significance and which retains its historic integrity. NPS Form 10-900 (Rev. 10-90) OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number Page 16 Property UTE CEMETERY PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO PHOTOGRAPH LOG The following information applies to all photographs submitted with this registration form: Name of property: Ute Cemetery City, county and state: Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado Photographer: Ron Sladek Date of photograph: 26 April 2001 Location of negative: Tatanka Historical Associates,Inc. P.O. Box 1909 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Photograph 1: View of the southwest comer of Ute Cemetery, showing graves, the split rail fence, and the hiking/biking path along Ute Avenue. View to the west. Photograph 2: View of the Ute Cemetery from the hiking/biking trail along Ute Avenue. View to the northeast. Photograph 3: View across the Ute Cemetery. View to the west. Photograph 4: View of the Ute Cemetery, with the Civil War veterans graves in the trees at center. View to the south. Photograph 5: View of the narrow, unimproved walking and biking trail through the cemetery. View to the east. Photograph 6: View of the Morgan family plot (graves dating from 1910 to 1919), surrounded by wrought iron fencing. View to the north. Photograph 7: View of the Jordan family plot (graves dating from 1886 to 1928), surrounded by wrought iron fencing. View to the west. Photograph 8: View of an unmarked family plot in the northwest area of the cemetery, with pipe iron fencing set into cut stonework. View to the south. Photograph 9: View of an unmarked single grave in the southeast area of the cemetery, with a wire cradle enclosure. View to the north. NPS Form 10-900 (Rev. 10-90) OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number Page 17 Property UTE CEMETERY PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO Photograph 10: View of an unmarked single grave in the northwest area of the cemetery, with a wire cradle enclosure. View to the northeast. Photograph 11: View of the Albers grave (1890) in the northwest area of the cemetery, surrounded by a wood fence enclosure. View to the northeast. Photograph 12: View of an unmarked single grave in the west-central area of the cemetery, surrounded by a wood fence enclosure. View to the southwest. Photograph 13: View of an unmarked single grave in the southeast area of the cemetery, surrounded by a collapsing wood fence enclosure. View to the northeast. Photograph 14: View of the Burt family plot in the northwest area of the cemetery, surrounded by a collapsing wood fence enclosure. View to the northwest. Photograph 15: View of an unmarked family plot near the western edge of the cemetery, surrounded by a collapsing wood fence enclosure and leveled with cobblestone coping. View to the southeast. Photograph 16: View of the Thomas grave (1888) and the Gibson grave (1888) in the southwestern comer of the cemetery, with an iron fence enclosure surrounding an unidentified family plot in the background. The Thomas stone is actually a base that is missing its monument. View to the west. Photograph 17: View of the Mitchell grave (1882) in the southwestern area of the cemetery. This is the oldest marked grave in Ute Cemetery. View to the west. Photograph 18: View of the Glasser grave (1888), Penz grave (1897), and Jamison grave (1892) near the west-central edge of the cemetery. View to the southeast. Photograph 19: View of the Walsh family plot (graves dating from 1886 to 1955) in the west-central area of the cemetery. The stone monument has been dislocated from its base, and the individual graves obscured by vegetation. View to the south. Photograph 20: View of the Nevitt grave (1884) in the west-central area of the cemetery. View to the northwest. NPS Form 10-900 (Rev. 10-90) OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number Page 18 Property UTE CEMETERY Pm<IN COUNTY. COLORADO Photograph 21: View of the Kruse graves (1886 and 1936) in the west-central area of the cemetery. View to the northwest. Photograph 22: View of the Warner grave (1889) in the northeast area of the cemetery. This is the only cast iron monument at the site. View to the northwest. Photograph 23: View of the two rows of Civil War veterans graves in the east-central area of the cemetery. View to the southwest. Photograph 24: View down the middle of the two rows of Civil War veterans graves in the east-central area of the cemetery. View to the northeast. Photograph 25: View of the two rows of Civil War veterans graves in the east-central area of the cemetery. View to the northwest. Photograph 26: View of a Civil War veteran's grave and other broken stones in the east- central area of the cemetery. View to the west. Photograph 27: View of a Civil War veteran's headstone (in the foreground) that is almost completely covered by soil and vegetation. View to the west. Photograph 28: View of a grave in the western area of the cemetery that is marked only by flagstone coping. View to the southwest. Photograph 29: View of a grave in the western area of the cemetery that is marked only by cobblestone coping. View to the northeast. Photograph 30: View of an unmarked grave in the northwestern area of the cemetery that appears to have been exhumed decades ago. View to the northwest. Photograph 31: View of the brick foundation in the northwestern comer of the cemetery. View to the northwest. NPS Form 10-900 (Rev. 10-90) OMB No. 102+0018 United States Department of the Interior ~ NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES National Park Service CONTINUATION SHEET Section number Page 19 Property UTE CEMETERY PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP LOVELAND, COLORADO 7.5 MINUTE QUADRANGLE 1962 (PHOTOREVISED 1984) 0 0 NPS Form 10-900 (Rev. 10-90) OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior ~ National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES REGISTRATION FORM This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for indvidual properties and districts. See instructions in How to Complete the National Redster of Histmic Place Re,istratvon Form (National Register Bulletin TTA}, Cqmplete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate location or by entering the information reWested. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "11/A' for "not applicable." For functions, architectural dassification, materials, and areas of sinificance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-909). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items. 1. Name of ProDertv historic name UTE CEMETERY other names / site number EVERGREEN CEMETERY: 5PT.122 2. Location street & number UTE AVENUE N/A not for publication city or town ASPEN N/A vicinity state COLORADO code CO count/ PITKIN code 097 zip code 81611 3. State/Federal Aaencv Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1986, as amended, I hereby certify that this I X ]nomination [ ] request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property [ X 1 meets [ 1 does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant [ ] nationally [ 1 statewide [X] locally. ([ ] See continuation sheet.) Signature of certi19ing official Date State or Federal agency and blreau In my opinion, the property [ X ] meets [ ] does not meet the National Register criteria. ([ ] See continuation sheet.) Signatt.re of commenting or other official Date State or Federal agency and bureau 4. National Park Service Certification I hereby certify that this property is: Signature of the Keeper Date of Action entered in the National Register See continuation sheet determined eligible for the National Register See continuation sheet determined not eligible for the National Register 0 removed from the National Register other (explain): USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form Page 2 UTE CEMETERY PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO Name of Property County and State 5. Classification Ownership of Property Category of Property Number of Resources within Property (Check as many as apply) (Check only one) (Do not include previously listed resources in the count) private building(s) Contributing Noncontributing X public-local district buildings public-State X site 1 0 sites public-Federal stnucture structures object objects 1 0 Total Name of related multiple property listing Number of contributing resources (Enter "N/A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing.) previously listed in the National Register N/A N/A 6. Function or Use Historic Functions Current Functions (Enter categories from instructions) (Enter categories from instructions) FUNERARY / cemeterv FUNERARY / cemeterv 7. DescriDtion Architectural Classification Materials (Enter categories from instructions) (Enter categories from instructions) NO STYLE foundation N/A walls N/A roof N/A other N/A Narrative Description (Describe the historic and current condtion of the property on one or more continuation sheets.) USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form Page 3 0 UTE CEMETERY ATI<IN COUNTY. COLORADO I - Name of Property County and State 8. Statement of Sianificance Applicable National Register Criteria Areas of Significance (Mark Y in one or more locations for the criteria qualifying (Enter categories from imtructions) the property for National Register listing) EXPLORATION/SETTLEMENT X A Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. B Property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. C Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant Period of Significance and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. 1880 - 1940 D Property has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Significant Dates N/A Criteria Considerations (Mark "X" in all locations that apply.) Property is: Significant Person A owned by a religious institution or used for (Complete if Criterion B is marked above) 0 religious purposes N/A B removed from its original location C a birthplace or a grave X D a cemetery Cultural Affiliation E a reconstructed building, object, or structure N/A F a commemorative property Architect/Builder G less than 50 years of age or achieved significance within the past 50 years N/A Narrative Statement of Significance (Explain the significance of the property on one or more continuation sheets.) 9. Maior BiblioaraDhical References Bibliography (Cite the books, artides, and other socrces used in preparing this form on one or more continuation sheets.) Previous documentation on file (NPS): Primary Location of Additional Data preliminary determination of individual listing X State Historic Preservation Office (36 CFR 67) has been requested. Other State agency previously listed in the National Register Federal agency previously determined eligible by the National X Local government Register University 0 designated a National Historic Landmark X Other recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey # Name of repository: recorded by Historic American Engineering DENVER PUBUC LIBRARY Record # ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 13th Annual Aspen Historic Preservation Awards DATE: July 11, 2001 SUMMARY: Last year, HPC broke from tradition and began presenting their annual awards at a lunch event in August. I believe that most of us felt this was better attended than previous years, when we had held a cocktail party in May. Although we are having a very busy summer, we need to discuss this year's awards. Generally, they are given to recognize excellent projects that involve restoring and/or adding onto a historic building, or new construction in the historic districts. Some years the board presents the Welton Anderson Design Award that recognizes an architect's contribution to Aspen's built environment, or the Elizabeth Paepcke Award for an individual's efforts to promote interest in local history or historic preservation. Following are substantial projects that have been completed in the last year. (Several other worthy projects are not close enough to being done at this time.) 419 E. Hyman Avenue- Paragon 7ti~ and Main Affordable Housing 620 W. Bleeker- Aspen Historical Society 930 King Street- No Problem Joe 609 W. Bleeker- new house at Ernie Fyrwald's project Last year we discussed awarding Charlie Patterson or Elie Brickham for their architectural works. You may want to pursue this more in light of our discussions about post World War II buildings. Other suggestions for individual awards would be helpful.