Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.hpc.19950111
AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE January 11, 1995 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR CITY HALL 5:00 I. Committee and Staff Comments Approval of Nov. 9, 1994, Nov. minutes. 23, 1994 and Dec. 14, 1994 II. Public Comments 5:15 5:25 III. NEW BUSINESS A. 525 E. Cooper Ave. Judith Rlpka- Mlnor-~09~'.--~.~./~ B. Streetsigns IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:50 6:15 A. 610 W. Hallam St., Iglehart- Final~o~f{ 7~0~ ~ B. Resolution #95-1, Re-evaluation of the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures 6:20 V. PROJECT MONITORING 6:30 VI.ADJOURN ~/'~%"~ z HPC Member Name Joe Krabacher Donnelley Erdman Leslie Holst Jake Vickery HPC PROJECT MONITORING Project/Committee 801 E. Hyman AHS Ski Museum Aspen Historic Trust-Vice Chairman 612 W. Main 309 E. Hopkins (Lily Reid) 617 W. Main 312 S. Galena - MD (Planet Hollywood) Highway Entrance Design Committee The Meadows (Chair-Sub Comm) 442 W. Bleeker (Pioneer Park) Collins Block/Alley Wheeler-Stallard House 624 E. Hopkins 304 E. Hopkins 234 W. Francis 204 S. Mill Collins Block 220 W. Main - European Flower 930 King Street Holden/Marolt Museum (alt.) In-Town School Sites Committee Aspen Historic Trust-Chairman 824 E. Cooper 210 S. Mill 303 E. .Main Alt 312 S. Galena - MD (Planet Hollywood) city Shop 1080 Power Plant Road 506 E. Main - elevator 930 King Street The Meadows (alternate) In-Town School Sites Committee 205 S. Mill Larry Yaw 716 W. Francis 442 W. Bleeker (Pioneer-alt.) 204 S. Galena (Sportstalker) City Hall 627 W. Main (residential-JimKempner) 232 E. Hallam ACES City Shop 1080 Power Plant Road St. Mary's Church windows Roger Moyer Karen Day Martha Madsen Linda Smisek Tom Williams CCLC Liaison 334 W. Hallam Aspen Historical Society 409 E. Hopkins 303 E. Main 311 W. North Farfalla lights outside 210 Lake Avenue (alternate) Marolt Museum Cottage Infill Program 134 E. Bleeker 435 W. Main swiss Chalet 311 W. North 304 E. Hopkins 121 S. Galena 620 W. Hallam (alternate) 100 Park Ave. (alternate) 214 W. Bleeker (alternate) 132 W. Main 520 E. Cooper Unit 406 715 W. Smuggler 134 E. Bleeker 210 Lake Avenue 305 Mill St. Su Casa 130 S. Galena - city Hall 300 W. Main fence McDonalds 323 W. Main St. Aspen Medical Center Pending Issues - Meadows site visit for inventory 702 W. Main - Stape - Conceptual Development approved Sept 8, 220 W. Main - European FLower Market Final April 20, 1994 1993 ' 2 . i 1% AGENDA 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE January 11, 1995 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR CITY HALL 5:00 I. Committee and Staff Comments Approval of Nov. 9, 1994, Nov. 23, 1994 and Dec. 14, 1994 minutes. II. Public Comments III. NEW BUSINESS 5:15 A. 525 E. Cooper Ave., J.udith Ripka- Minor-flog.c r-.-73 .91-27<I Dti S. h /1 .,4 gm Fl - rn 9 /2 - 5:25 B. Streetsigns IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:50 A. 610 W. Hallam St., Iglehart- Final'f<.2 a-; r° rn 2 f 6:15 B. Resolution #95-1, Re-evaluation of the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures 6:20 V. PROJECT MONITORING 6:30 VI.ADJOURN 6 5#%-- o. a 60 u , j ~ e <l_ 1 , 3«Y« 1 9,/f i\.4(1(4*4.-fid-jic/1/ /l/R-»lik, -A-7 , / ' .6 HPC PROJECT MONITORING HPC Member Name Project/Committee Joe Krabacher 801 E. Hyman . AHS Ski Museum Aspen Historic Trust-Vice Chairman 612 W. Main 309 E. Hopkins (Lily Reid) 617 W. Main 312 S. Galena - MD (Planet Hollywood) t Highway Entrance Design Committee Donnelley Erdman The Meadows (Chair-Sub Comm) 442 W. Bleeker (Pioneer Park) Collins Block/Alley Wheeler-Stallard House 624 E. Hopkins 304 E. Hopkins 234 W. Francis 204 S. Mill - Collins Block 220 W. Main - European Flower 930 King Street Leslie Holst Holden/Marolt Museum (alt.) In-Town School Sites Committee Aspen Historic Trust-Chairman 824 E. Cooper 210 S. Mill 303 E. .Main Alt 312 S. Galena - MD (Planet Hollywood) City Shop - 1080 Power Plant Road 506 E. Main - elevator 930 King Street Jake Vickery The Meadows (alternate) In-Town School Sites Committee 205 S. Mill Larry Yaw 716 W. Francis 442 W. Bleeker (Pioneer-ale.> 204 S. Galena (Sportstalker; City Hall 627 W. Main (residential.-Jim Kempner) 232 E. Hallam ACES City Shop 1080 Power Plant Road St. Mary's Church windows 4- ~ f f Roger Moyer CCLC Liaison 334 W. Hallam Aspen Historical Society 409 E. Hopkins 303 E. Main 311 W. North - 1 Farfalla lights outside 210 Lake Avenue (alternate) Marolt Museum Karen Day Cottage Infill Program 134 E. Bleeker 435 W. Main Swiss Chalet 311 W. North 304 E. Hopkins 121 S. Galena Martha Madsen 620 W. Hallam (alternate) 100 Park Ave. (alternate) 214 W. Bleeker (alternate) 132 W. Main 520 E. Cooper Unit 406 715 W. Smuggler Linda Smisek 134 E. Bleeker 210 Lake Avenue 305 Mill St. Su Casa Tom Williams 130 S. Galena - City Hall 300 W. Main - fence McDonalds 323 W. Main St. Aspen Medical Center Pending Issues - Meadows site visit for inventory 702 W. Main - Stape - Conceptual Development approved Sept 8, 1993 220 W. Main - European FLower Market Final April 20, 1994 f I- j -1]I- 4, MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 525 E. Cooper Avenue- Minor Date: January 11, 1995 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to install an awning over the existing doorway into the Magdison Gallery, on the west elevation. This building is not historic, but it lies within the Commercial Core Historic District. APPLICANT: Judith Ripka Designs. LOCATION: 525 E. Cooper Avenue., Aspen Grove Building, the east 22' of Lot C, all of Lots D,E,F and the west 25' of Lot G, Block 96. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H, " Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark... Response: The new awning will match the existing awnings in form, materials and color. It must be retractable in order to meet zoning code. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The proposal has no negative affect on the character of the Commercial Core Historic district. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Resnonse: This proposal has no impact on the cultural value of any adjacent historic resource. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposal has no impact on the architectural integrity of any historic structure. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any Of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Minor Development application as submitted. 2) Approve the Minor Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (specific recommendations should be offered) 4) Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the Minor Development application as submitted. The applicant must provide information on any proposed lettering on the awning to the HPC. Additional Comments: ATEACBMENT 1 IAND USE* APPIICATICN FORM 1) Project Name Lif--21 i 4.,0 B 423' -9-~ l 1 l/1 -.1 Project Iocatirn 4 7,90 ~~~ , £090 8-20« - 1.---Ok>,6.- 7,73/72 04 0 -4\ 0-0 12 9,95-2*1:A LA 7-5' 00·61 j (inlicate street acklress, lot & bl£36]c Ilinber, legal description,here IR laci 9 4 awripriate) 3) hesent Zoning ~6 . 4) Iat Size 127, S'>4 1 623 / 5) .Appli£ant's mnne, Miress & Itxne # Jj~11 1 +G \2t ~Ara, j 92-43 ----opay / 6) Bepasentative' s Name, Mdress & Ehone # €36>gn.€·, 7) UYPd of Application (please check all that apply): Conditicnal Use - Conceptual SPA m1lug~al. Historic Dev. Special Beview Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline - 0Cneeptual EUD 54 Minor Histanic Dev. 1. Stream Margin - Final POD Historic Demolition M,mtain View Plane Subdivisirn Historic Desigraticn Cor~Ir•nininmintion · Teoct/Map Amendment . a<IS Allotment Int Split/Iot Line - 00 basption Adjustment 8) Description of Existing Uses · (Inmber arxl- type of existing structures; approximate sq. ft.; n=ber of bedroans; any previous approvals granted to the property). ifi v l C>L- /1 J g» b..01 vul-*VEL( 21< S+V U 6-4-U l/€. L.4 { 441 41©u <*a'VA . coua In I llas »Gi f)-9- o vi a-PG_e,0 j 4-3 · shops 9) Description of Develofnent Applicat inn rocA-A n ..., la , v-23 -7 / 4-/' 1 toG f - Ll \J It -0-ro -1 uul cs>\ \ -tzp i zt~ ac , .~-Ri ,«2 , 4 0 --~~lo W I & 0 1/\ 2'L/1<5'3~ 5·, i a V e€~1/7 -~1'L:, A-7~, 10) Have you attached the following? Response to Attadment 2, Minimm Suhnission Ocrrtents Response to Attadment 3, Specific Suhnission Ocntents aespanse to Attachment 4, Review Standards far Your Application lili e /. /1 , .11. I - 1 1 r - il 7 INE- NA-fs - :1 ~t t~.-7 +-7 - P 1 KAN E S I =- : z 1 1 . , 12 1 il 1 - 1 1 I *I'll--*-- 32.6,0.1.4.4.~E.!51.Ji.lUL,-:-11;..LC~~ ' J...1 ESTH.ULLL 1.U -r -.--324-944»4~.1 11 - 1. 1 . - 1 - · 1 , j 24*49- 2,i*k~42.*%5:6:de<elk»24-~4:--:- --tj'/mmi#14 9-if- SutaCE - M "toy~iq Roaring Basalt U sm.394T X4 ..-A Basalt Coloado \ 4 -,6 \ ~Fork CHRISTINE - .. - a,~ Carbondale River f Aocky STATE WIU:>UFE < ~ , '. . , 2%- 14¥mt?*a. •·*SEQ2%4?ft¥?42 AREA ** 2 5444&15-f 3 . ' 065 -9-1 -1-:9 io I X- 1*-Av Lake A fl f,%.wv - A. / Ilt Chnsune E h ?NORS; 2 A- " All'.IA.-319 . 9-4,9 4,91/: -CS,w/1/Idst BLail,oilnop . ~' To Spring Gulch To : r - #, +44//¥./: Nordic Ski Area Carbondale R EAGUCO oaring - 50#2:1** ·•er./.rml-1 Cl A#3,2.7 St 1 -9.-I-WN=.-I-- I.. ~ B===..1,0/ §22&18."I :t< .Al 18-6/ati 100 A..&(-00'St.. ™94,2/ 0 4 14·14:-i¥-- - ~\ White Hill - *P:*I· LAID. iti 1 ,- 77931 1.--1 .. I <*1*75 T . -MikLE)< 2244'I €.•. .- t./2-i 1..., 7 -r~ 7%·39..,. ;~ ° 011~31·1- ; 6 TO R646to~2 #14>64-- ?3 Aspen r, 41 3.3 'Park $:-I·- ~-2.1 , 0 9 * GE.. 7 ..i.{0&... 9-, fl ~ 't~Y-Ur~ol , -. 6 1%4* 11 s'de.5.- Ir- 2,· *21,/=8.4 ../,fi / 71 . 1~* Wn'3· 1- =4171:,2-:! , L h ; 1 -~ fty~ :s#319£52-2 .4: d #44' v. 1. t *300-89 9, %9, - Creek To 61:'- '*t.~.~*Li*1'4~4'r.*>13(f», 1 72*29 1 5,13,7,40 ./. i. -' 4€5 -It AN . 4* s/' · . j wr, 4- -94 1 1 - 1 j 0 1 .. ':.. I '. , m X f?% :«1-32«43-4%~1 1*a.3./gle·...43 ~ ;~· i ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ . I * 5 ':/- ·':•4·t:·ma.*id -' 6 4 1 ..( 3 1 . MiC ~-~ 0 Not every street or road Is ,·'44 . - 1 .4.-e-2:· GUS,10.82 ki~allam 4 . -Lih. 74 ~ 4721 street guides. Construction of A,v ~ 4 -,~ ~.,· =29=.+ 1 . 4 YA -'/1 7···. ·t•·.. 2 13*:~'e:, -€7 Is-X .2.- , 'Lake * /1 ,·th 12·. named on maps or listed in ' Golasn A PI ~~-··' >.:- '#J:.'-4. ... .v~,Af:...·.~ 1 streets and roads may be in 42*454 r-=11 hi - 4 -4 0 progress in certain areas. 42 '.·*' · 0..'i-.-*St I. •W 23€20 %9'.1.:& I. -<w..k.1 -AF&*11 As pen .- '9. $ ..77.. I ..~ 0 1 k .lilli....f .0. At'. .. - e. -a= CUR#%49 ....&. 'r· · C•f. ./_...,..., r <13> i 1 'fi fl#/. Maple L.Sk - c·· · ·- 4 - art *A-'75· s. , r. b-· ...1-- •*'L 4 1~· 4-37·22-~*24-2 *8.:429> ; o Maynower CL.- _..11-1-74 ; 4 Matchlca:Dr.......-.GH-6 · * .., A~ 4 5 ,I* f* 20 .,4 -* . 39 l.Ala,.3.- ; Waroon Lake -~.e¥1:1: 2 Mcaimming Rd--H+7 € 4 Meadow Dr...........G-H-2 , 4.4 - 2. ry w . // 8 44.0 D- Ck ' .........11-2-3 CKUE#»c Me.lows Rd.... ....4-0-3 , *, i. . ·* * I 0 '£.4 ER~2121.2 ./2-.-R#1 MaSL_.:__-..._GU·. '·' ~fi~~i:k V.?3* f .- /t.-,itj#,Ii. Midland Av........._......H-6-7. 2, , »,St: M·.6 Monarch St.............-·--8-|M MountainVic•/Dr...._....212-3 '"' '~ "t'.·, 11. - 3. 14,;204 , - €* 14?,;?'-4) Alt. Vista DI......+..._,-)-2-3 N.*4' ----H# -4%4 -I - 1 - .L 4.,649; · ?, ASpec " G.H.3 *tm=. Ar .- -- G-H-5-6 North qi F-3-4 J.„ 0¢ 14 4¢. *68 Bly q' 0-6 I Gilb.t Oik L.n........„.......-.-G-6 E-8 4+23484·95-r r Barnard Park a....-·-G-3 *>Ome.Pic ..L.-f-4 On:inal SL....._.- ------H-M Rive:'ide'XJ- - 4 1 < ba Banea Bench Ct, Pl Rd-*._2-4-3 k{kove- Overlook Dr R.3 Rivenide Dr..L-..16 4. - 3- i# Blid Birch Dr . -E.B.2-3 Park Av, Cir........._..___H-6 Ro,ring Fxt A-. 4 :,9 2%3ft ./. 2......1'.rl O-3-5 P=ri. p.4 Ro.. Fik r. O-H-3-6 Pitkin Mesa Dr__.--_._I)-2-2 1 Tr 14-7 % 1- Dr._-__..2-2 Pitkin Reserve Fr-F-4 gcM<m¢5¥h.=7,. r i 1 F.7.1 .2 Av G-H-3-6 Pt/ler I • Et.j Salvatioe Or ! p, ,ek. R F.3 % , H.3 Power Plant Rd......_-.__F-G-3 hne \ m ' ' r.·-~· Whe,49·.<-1 Creek Rd_.__-G-M-3 2 Creek 98 •-1-6 Primrose P•h H-2 Sesame. 1 --3.1 Or w 92 man Av G-H-4-6 Puppy Smith St.-....-G-5 Shadowood r>1 443:%29-· 0•ofield pl R-? F u. St....._.__.....__._343 Pyrimid 0,4 F-1 Shady 1,1--·G-5 . ,"1.'<*E\-0 11 i Ciruie •• 1-7 + King k...........,.....-..H# Que. SL....._.......--...__H-6 Silvel King Drl ··-··-·-·- -13-2 U. Av, PI 1-,6 */04':•.-: I Clevel•od k......---·-···.H-6 / - Lake Av, F-O-4 Race St.........................._..G.6 Skimming La................__.._H-7 Viar M r-* 4·5':B·.Al./q' f LaMpur La... H-2 Red Butte Dr......._.-__..._116-2-3 W.h- . (16 4 *& 8*tonwood ar_._......... ) L.aurel Ln.............·······-········--H-2 Red Mountain Rd...... __.„D.G.5-6 ./- A. 1. 4%3fal-1, CY Colnwood L. .............. .....iG-6-' Lone Pine Rd................. G-3-6 Smuggler Mou*t,in Rd.......E.H-6-8 West End . H+6 Crystd L,ke RL_._, .......1-7 Lupine Dr. ....1-1-8 Regent St..................._....}[-6-7 S.lt St...._.1................_-_H-3 we.vic. r• I-7-8 Dale f, .....H.6 Magnifico Rd....................._...E-4 Ridge M. Rd.... ..._......._.-_..... JE-3 ~~B~y#4* M--2.-:~33 Winoushby Wy_E-F-3-5 To Twin Lakes Main SL...._.. ....-..G-W-5 Rbo Grande Pt..~~.....G-H-5-6 Wright RA F 1 Independen Pass flus 4,< O To Ashcroft A A 1 ~ ALPHA MAPS ~ ...4'22€47- 'Ae.4.f:·-4·.-1·· 4.-- a '.· :,··~ir . ·b? ·2 23-2.1 '2*0,2491"44*44* °©' " 4/rUJ.. „ : r 3 ~'' · 2 · #12 '4, ·I' m·,1*1 AA y~~~u ~j-~lr~~t-- -- »11-) 1» - '11%.bi 7- 6 +4lk** 320: /11•64 05, 0 85£-- A f -~ \ 1 Trr 4 4 405 1 2 - tz., 5/0 G t. flul.FLA..u Bont lijace <> d q 44 6 D#*P F*t Yr,0 :-2 0·v .,0, i C~ PAC,I ¢40 F.*48..C- 0 9 E. O% €~~ V Ae A 44€ 6 C Le- F ft. 61 C 0 1 13 "256 811*605% 1216/6 0 46050 96 " 69 4 0 6 (5 M 0 *mff g/,5 70 4/dr :) 64 uc V €44 0/4 2/C j. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Streetsigns DATE: January 11, 1995 Attached is a proposal from the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission to replace the existing street signs in the Commercial Core, on Main Street and on Mill Street down to the Clark's market area. The proposal is a decorative cast metal arm for the street name, with the option to place another plain arm below that for informational signs, such as "gondola" or "Commercial Core Historic District." The "Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines" do not specifically address streetsigns or streetfurniture. The lightpoles are not original to Aspen and are not historic, however they are complimentary to the historic character of the town. Several months ago, HPC and CCLC formed a subcommittee to discuss the new parking meters and how they might be treated to fit into the historic district. Discussion focused on whether or not it was better to use Victorian decorative references or to avoid this because it might appear "Disney-like. " The final decision was to paint the meters the same color as the pole and only add detailing on the brackets. The Committee may find that the same direction is appropriate with the streetsigns, however, unlike the meters, the streetnames are something that should be highlighted. One of the major elements of the parking meter plan was that meters are not located on streetcorners, so the poles where these streetsigns will go do not have a meter or "pay station" sign on them. Staff recommends approval of the design presented by CCLC. MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council NG,i' 2 I Dou Thru: Amy Margerum, City Manage~p 12/~1 --- From: Robert Gish, Public Works Director Date: November 17, 1994 Re: Street Signs This memo is intended for your information only. In CCLC's meeting of November 16, 1994 a final selection was made on the "Antique Style Street Signs." These signs will be installed in the commercial core, on Main Street from bridge to bridge and on Mill Street from Main to the Roaring Fork Bridge. The signs are a metal casting to be mounted on existing light poles. The castings will be the same color as the street light poles. CCLC has a three year program to fund this project. The proposed "Antique Style Street Signs" will be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Amy Amidon will coordinate this effort with a member of CCLC and City staff available to answer questions for HPC. City staff will advertise for bids to meet the procurement code, receive quotations, define the scope of work, initiate purchase orders and administer the installation contract. The lead time for the castings is ninety days after the order has been placed. Staff anticipates that the entire process from approval to installation will be approximately six to nine months. After all referral approvals are in place and the vendor has been selected, City staff will return to City Council for approval on your consent calendar. CC: CCLC Members Kathy Strickland Amy Amidon 1 1 Leslie Lamont City Staff M188.94 . ('~ 272 d~~2,c.- . ~, 2/FRIMARY ARM .4, I J.t M 14944. « 0 - 20«/ \ . - -- &- ' 1 - 1000 east 32 2 ~ .0 4511271 5£ F~' -~ - ~~~0-41-0 109¢1, €;1386 y:.4-20 /,9 3!-tr . * .... 1 r/k. 84 ! tv..1- -4 99 , j K - .4 T \43\13 i ' i U ¤$393!,P=E,AP?ee<M?7MFMiNN?TRamm:1*?90,%54<QW~:?,5,1'f!5, Ee: 96#% CAN 3.8 FLAT 3/81' toer · CRUED ARP : 20$%6%:UND W/~*cit*Lrra' 01*31-EMED ecMP..BrEl¥ THROUSH - - 144# *FLECTNE LET[EA}161 i; t#»Er,Nt D KLE - 68.- i AFLE¢116 50062'ZoAD .1 ke'lE, 1 1 wita VINYL WNTERS'. 4 1 /1 1*NumcruREA FECctlM81DG i 801* ilhl=:i INEER. 61#CE., 1 . i ' 0,1,040 Al)MINUM FLATE ·; 1 8035 '31 *06¢t RE +S / h[3139[VE. 5,\CkED i. 912'VAJ 12 . €aeL FOLE- : 1 . T : .4 5. , 0 ..copPEK «OLP]-1)'REb Jl 09 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 610 W. Hallam St.- Final I)ate: January 11, 1995 1-------- ------ ------ SUMMARY: HPC granted conceptual approval to relocate the existing historic structure, construct a new foundation and an addition on September 28, 1994 (see attached minutes). This Victorian residence was built in 1888. Landmark Designation is pending approval by City Council. The applicant received HPC approval to demolish the lean-to on April 13, 1994. In light of the quality of this project, the Planning Department has established a new policy wherein breezeways may be used to connect historic landmarks to a new addition. The breezeway cannot be more than 10 feet long. The Planning Department recognizes that allowing more flexibility for the mass to "spread across the property" helps to create a better distinction between old and new construction and avoids the "bustle" solution that has been so common in historic renovations in Aspen. By connecting the whole complex together. the " house" and "garage" are all considered one principal structure and therefore can all take advantage of the principal height (this may not be such an appropriate solution when the maximum height limit, 30' is requested). The maximum height for the Iglehart project is 22'. APPLICANT: Jim and Sandy Iglehart, owners, represented by Bill Poss and Associates. LOCATION: 610 W. Hallam St., Lot P and Q less 7.5' of Lot P, Block 22, City and Townsite of Aspen. SITE, AREA AND BULK INFORMATION: Please see the attached in formation, provided by the applicant. Development Review Standards 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark... Response: The proposal involves placing the historic resource on a new foundation allowing the new additions cascade off of the historic house. Staff finds that the proposed addition is very compatible and sympathetic to the historic resource. The detailing and forms of the new construction play off of the Victorian details and the project makes good use of below grade space. HPC approved several variances for the project; a 2.5' variance on the sideyard setbacks, a 9' variance on the combined front/back setback and a reduction of 2 parking spaces. Staff supports these variances because they allow the flexibility to configure the new mass in a way that has the least impact on the historic resource. The proposed new windows are to be clad. Staff is still not certain whether any original windows still exist in this structure. If so, those ought to be preserved. Some discussion at the Conceptual review focused on the proposed change iii the original east-west gable of the house from approximately an 8:12 pitch to a 12:12 pitch. The architect suggests that the 12: 12 pitch is more typical of the miner's cottages, is important to the interior space and helps to block the development behind the historic building from view. The Committee supported this concept because of the merits of the project. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: There are a number of historic structures and landmarks in this neighborhood, most of which have been remodeled. This proposal will contribute greatly to the historic character of the neighborhood. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from tile cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The cultural value of this structure will be retained in this ~ rehabilitation, through preservation of historic materials, architectural form and overall integrity as the Victorian will remain the most prominent structure on the site. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: All original materials which are salvageable on the historic structure must be preserved. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Conceptual approval as proposed, finding that the Development Review Standards have been met. 2) Conceptual approval with conditions, to be met at Final. 3) Table action and continue the public hearing to a date certain, allowing the applicant time to revise the proposal to meet the Development Review Standards. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC approve the project as submitted, with the condition that the ®plicant submit the structural engineer's report, bond and relocation plan, as required at Conceptual approval, before submitting for building permit. HPC neglected to set a value for the bond at the previous meeting and must do so. The bond should be based on the estimated cost to repair or rebuild the structure if it is damaged during relocation. RECORDS OF PROCEEDINGS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 28, 1994 Meeting was called to order by first vice-chairman Donnelley Erdman with Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer, Linda Smisek and Tom Williams present. Excused were Joe Krabacher, Les Holst and Martha Madsen. 610 W. HALLAM - IGLEHART CONCEPTUAL - PH Vice-chairman Donnelley Erdman opened the public hearing. Amy: I find this project to be a compatible addition to the historic structure. There were a couple of issues that I thought we should spend some time addressing. Right now the front is enclosed and that was done a number of years ago and they are continuing to show it that way and I think we should discuss the possibility of opening it back up so it appears to be an open front porch with a balustrade. We still need a little discussion about the change in pitch of the main cross gable in the victorian building. I do believe that would be considered demolition of the building. The size of the new chimney needs to be addressed as it is much larger than what the historic chimney would have been like. Finally the applicant will have to provide us with enough information to prove that the building can withstand relocation and post a bond. I have recommended approval with those conditions. Andy Wisnowski, architect for Bill Poss & Assoc.: We feel we have maintained the integrity of the historic structure. We lifted the resource a couple of feet above grade and put in a new basement to increase its prominence to the street. The lot actually slopes down to the front door and makes an unusual appearance to the entrance of the house. We are proposing lifting the structure with most of our program on this house underneath the existing structure with two additions that occur on either side of the cross gable. The rest of the program would be accommodated on the back side and not visible from the street. The garage was separated to create another break in the mass to keep the scale down. To accommodate the lower basement spaces we created an exterior sunken garden on the front end which would be planted out in the front to screen it from the street and as well creating an exterior sunken garden between these two structures and separated by a glass link and to accommodate egress the stairs will come out along the side of the property. The additions are understated and reminiscent of the details that would have occurred. In terms of the porch we did set back the porch from the original. The original was built out to the front with a gable end j and we are removing the gable and creating the shed which probably had existed initially. We are setting back the entrance four to five feet in front with steps going up and a railing. We feel we have created enough depth to accommodate the appearance of a victorian porch and from the tightness of the program within that existing house we felt we HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 28, 1994 really needed the little entrance vestibule. We tried to accommodate both wishes that the porch be closer to the historic character of the original but also suffices for functional uses as an entrance and home. The chimney will be kept as small as we can. We will not have any detailing in the brick work, it will be simple and as small as we can possibly make it. The gable roof that we are lifting is my contention that I do not think you would ever know that anything had been altered in the roof and what it does for us :in terms of the design we get a lot of mileage out of it by lifting it up to create the same pitches within the roof which is not out of character with other carriage houses. Although there are issue about the demolition I feel it gains a lot more than what it detracts from and I do not feel anyone would notice that it was a change from the original. Until we pointed it out to Jim he didn't even notice it and it will be a very subtle thing. Keith Howie, architect: The existing house has a cross gable set at an eight twelve and the front is a twelve twelve. We are suggesting to go to a twelve twelve over the same existing wall framing and create the proper geometry that will allow to make the front prominent. Andy: If we cannot do that technically it makes the shed roof of the back of the house which is fairly low as it is even more difficult to accommodate. l Linda: The design looks different. The chimney is not in the same location. Andy: The original design has flipped to the other side. During the process we had some plan issues that came up and required the chimney to move to the other side. CLARIFICATIONS Roger: Do you suppose the original porch went from the front of the building all the way back to the east wing where it protrudes out? Andy: I really do not know. I have seen on other homes in the west end that the porch generally doesn't go all the way back and that is what we are basing our model on. Jake: Can you walk us through the materials you are using? I am concerned about the strategy of the siding. Andy: Some of jthe siding jis' in direct contact with the historic structure and we maintained the materials as they were on the original house. We tried to downplay the massing but the materials would be similar. We are using one by sixes. Where we have picked 2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 28, 1994 up gable ends we would go back in and put shingles which will not be visible. Jake: The principle roof is shingles and the secondary roofs are metal. Amy: In moving the house slightly over in your new plan have you changed the variances that you are requesting? Andy: The variance we are requesting is to the back so we are just sliding it along the lot. We have created a little more open space between the two properties. We maintain a parking space but we still have our three and we are requesting a variance of two as we are required to have five spaces. Donnelley: The amount of clapboard siding that is to weather will be just the same as it is right now? Andy: That is correct. Donnelley: This is basically diagrammatic as the horizontal lines on the drawing are about twice the scale of actual siding. Have you made a dimensions as to the nature of the chimney. I trust that the flue is approximately three feet above the top of t-he ridge as that is good practice and is there going to be a cap or will the determination be slightly reduced due to the complexity. Andy: We are not intending to do anything too frilly but there maybe a corbel at the top of the chimney but it would be very simplified. Donnelley: As it is show now it looks like a six inch break out. Andy: That is 1/8th inch drawing. Donnelley: Any other comments on the revised drawings? Roger: I see no problem with the gable and no problem with the chimney provided it is the minimum allowed by code. I also see no problem with enclosing the porch. Most of the victorians the porch roof is not a shed roof it is a fat roof under the eave and what are your feelings on that. Jim Iglehart, owner: What is on the plan is what is there now and if the pitch is a concern changing it would be changing something that i·sn' t original. If you want it flat I do not have a problem witjh that . Roger: So the design was drawn to what was probably there. 1 i HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 28, 1994 4 Jim Iglehart: Yes. Keith Howie, architect: We looked at a lot of victorians and one roof went underneath the eaves and then there were other roofs that actually went above the roof like this one. There are both conditions in the west end. Roger: If the committee accepts the porch as drawn that there be a second post split up against the house to show a little more historic significance and yet allowing the owner the opportunity to close it for practical means which one could have done during the course of time. Vice-chairman Donnelley Erdman closed the public hearing. Amy: I would like to have a little more discussion on the roof pitch. I understand why you want to do it but it is demolition. You are changing the original building to what it was and that is not preservation to me. We went through a review and barely allowed them to take an addition off and now you are talking about taking the original roof off on part of the building. Jake: The reason you want to raise the pitch up is because of its relationship to the shed roof that comes off of it. ' Andy: The more we can raise it up the resource becomes prominent. It also appears that we will have to restructure the roof and a major repair to it and we felt from the visual aspect of what we are doing no one will ever notice it. It helps us on a technical end. Jake: It is eight and twelve now. Donnelley: What happens if you retreat to eight and twelve? Do you loose adequate headroom or what is the problem? Andy: That is partially the problem and also the concern of flattening more of the roof creates odd conditions. Donnelley: Are we saying you cannot maintain the integrity of keeping the original roof cross gable well defined plus the projections that you are creating east and west. Andy: It is my intention that it doesn't do it as well and it creates other particular issues. Donnelley: What are we giving up by allowirYg that to be a twelve and twelve verses and eight or nine and twelve. Jake: We are giving up authenticity. 4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 28, 1994 Donnelley: What is being given up programmatically? Keith Howie: You are giving up the plate height so that you are going to have to restructure the roof making it thicker so that as you bring the pitch down you lower the head height next to the wall so you are essentially lowering the plate height of the wall and that decreases the livable space in the house. Jake: As you increase the ridge height and as you move the roof more to the vertical plane it increases it prominence in relationship to the scale of the forward gable edge. Flat drawings don't work well showing what is happening to the perspective. Andy: We tried different pitched and we were not happy with them. Donnelley: This seems to be the only issue and maybe we can do a straw poll. Tom: I have a minor comment and I feel the issue is immaterial in this situation. What they have done is a very modestly resolved architectural solution and I think it goes back to my argument that it looks as though it was always there and looks like it was meant to be from the very first in the 1800's. - Donnelley: I feel we all agree with that. Amy: It wasn't built that way. What is the problem with using metal on the shed as it is not visible from the street. Keith: We didn't want to look like too much of a slide and we would rather that roof hold as much as snow as possible. We didn't want anybody walking underneath it. We can put snow guards on it. Roger: Actually you would want the snow to slide off because if it built up you would have a major liability. Andy: We do not want the snow to slide all at once as it does in a metal roof. Tom: Another comment about purity. If we are being pure why are we allowing the addition on the back. Amy: You preserve what you had and then you add on from there. ' Andy: We are going to rebuild that roof anyway. Donnelley: From a preservation standpoint one has to say why do you have to change the pitch in this particular situation. I don't C . 5 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 28, 1994 fully understand what the problems are. Andy: We want to maintain that existing ridge line. Donnelley: It would have been clearer if we had a diagrammatic drawing of what it was. Vice-chairman Donnelley Erdman closed the public hearing. MOTION: Tom made the motion that we approve as submitted 610 W. Hallam Street Lot P, Q, less 7,5 ' of Lot P Block 22, City and Townsite of Aspen, finding that it meets the development review standards. Approval of the reduction of two parking spaces and a 2.5' sideyard setback, a 9' variance on the combined front/back setback and that these variances allow the flexibility to configure the new mass in a way that has the least impact on the historic resource. A condition for final that they provide a structural engineer's report on any bracing or other techniques necessary to protect the structure during relocation, provide a bond for the relocation and a storage plan for the structure until it is replaced onto a foundation; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. DISCUSSION Amy: On the third parking space that is outside the garage what is that going to be paved with? Andy: We talked about grass-crete. Jake: This is an excellent project and I would like to state a few things that I would like you to think about as you go into final. On the SL, the master bedroom doorway seems a little out of scale with the historic resource. It seems square and big. Possibly that could be reduced in terms of width or height. The authenticity of the roof pitch is interesting and my preference would be to keep it authentic but if that ended up sacrificing some functional situations that you have as well as the playfulness of the roof line and the breaking down of the volume to historical size modules then I*think I could support the new roof pitch. Some of it is created by the axis of the cross gable with the secondary elements and there might be some possibilities of off-setting that. I also find that the proportion of the roof line on the east is a long wall surface and is awkward in terms of the rest of the historical resource, it seems a little big for a secondary form coming off. I really like the alley/garage building. j 6 - f r,Yrmmarm/'90 fi&,V. 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 303/925-4755 FACSIMILE 303/920-2950 January 3, 1995 Ms. Amy Amidon Historic Preservation Director City of Aspen Aspen, Co. 81611 RE : 610 West Hallam, Aspen, Colorado Dear Amy: Please consider this letter and the enclosed material a formal request for a review of the Final Development Plan for Significant Development in the Historic Overlay District. The residence is 610 West Hallam. The legal description is block 22, Lots P & Q, less 7.5' of P, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. STATEMENT OF CATEGORY OF SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT Our opinion is that the project should be categorized as a "Development of a Historic Landmark that has received approval for demolition, partial demolition, or relocation when a development plan has been required by the HPC pursuant to section 7-602 (B)" PROJECT DESCRIPTION Located in the west end of town, this property lies in a residential area. The Surrounding blocks contain single family houses built from 1950 - 1990. There are renovated Historic Designated residential structures located in the adjacent blocks. This is a proposal to demolish the one story kitchen addition of approximately 429 sq.ft., to add a one story addition to the main house of approximately 2695 gross sq.ft., and a two-story connecting building of approximately 1900 gross sq.ft. The addition would add a total of approximately 4595 gross sq.ft. to the existing house for a net total of approx. 5241 sq.ft. (3004 FAR sq.ft. total.) ' The project is a renovation and remodel of the existing "miner's cottage". Expansion will take place to both the west and north of the existing structure. Maximum building height will be approximately twenty-two feet, six inches (22' - 6".) In this project we have attempted to do what is becoming commonplace in the West end of town: to design an addition onto an existing "miner's cottage" type building. With this project ~ '57=73/ar*/ r:AF Of¥'10 0 610 W. Hallam, Aspen, Colorado January 3,1995 we are trying to design an addition that is compatible historically with the original building and character of the neighborhood, and yet fits the needs of the modern single family home. The proposed renovation and addition add to the usability of the property. Presently, the property is under utilized, with the house not satisfying modern standards for safety and comfort. Our feeling is that the renovation will restore its viability in today's world while maintaining its architectural integrity and cultural value. Conceptual material selections for the proposed addition to 610 West Hallam are as follows: 1. Roofing: Cedar shingles on all roofs on main house and main roof on garage. Metal Roofing on main garage cross gable and shed dormers on garage and shed dormer on main house. 2. Siding: Wood, lx6 (to match existing), painted.,1 x3 at garage. 3. Gable Ends: Ornamental wood shingles at main house, lx3 vertical wood siding at garage. 4. Fascias: Wood trim board w/ lx6 wood sub-fascia. 5. Corner Trim: 1 x4 wood. 6. Soffits: lx6 wood, T&G. 7. Windows: Clad Windows, similar proportion and scale to existing windows. 8. Doors: Wood with full or half lights. 9. Handrails: Wood. 10. Base: Wood trellis grid at outdoor terrace, pitched sandstone in random ashlar course at main house, sunken gardens. 2 r:42-' .7#*4-- 4-lE miN L.24 1 ~ &21 610 W. Hallam, Aspen, Colorado January 3,1995 11. Stairs: Wood, painted, concrete at garage stair. 12. Connector Link: Glass in metal frame EFFECT OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON ORIGINAL STRUCTURE The new addition and renovation are designed to give prominence to the original structure. The entire original cottage is elevated on a two-foot stone base to give the house more prominence on a site that slopes down from the street to the house. This base treatment is consistent with other miners cottages from the same era. The main gable of the house is elevated and the main cross gable left intact to show the original structure higher than the proposed addition. The roof forms, general massing and detailing are derived from the existing structure, but are subsidiary to the original structure. The rear shed roof part of the structure will be demolished. Impacts on the existing structure are minimized with the addition being held back as far as possible from the original facade and main gable. The placement of additional floor area below the original structure and in a separate addition allows the original form to remain intact so that the addition does not obscure the historic resource. REVIEW STANDARDS : SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT OF HISTORIC RESOURCES A. Proposed development is compatible in character The proposed development is compatible in character of the original structure, with the roof forms, general massing, and detailing derived from the original structure. The main gable is elevated and the main cross gable left intact to show the original structure higher than the addition. Impacts on the existing structure are reduced with the addition being held back as far as possible from the original facade and main gable. The entire cottage is elevated on a two-foot stone base to give the house more prominence on the site that slopes down from' street to the house. This base treatment is consistent with other miners cottages from the same era. The placement of additional floor area below the original structure and in a separate addition allows the original form to remain 3 W / 1 10. 610 W. Hallam, Aspen, Colorado January 3,1995 intact so that the addition does not obscure the historic resource. The detailing of the house is consistent in character with other cottages in the west end from this era. The original house will be renovated and brought up to modern standards of safety and comfort on the interior, while restoring the exterior, maintaining its architectural integrity and cultural value. The variations we are requesting we feel are minimal and help to retain the original historic structure while adding the usability of the property. B. Proposed development is consistent in character with the neighborhood The development and character of the house contribute to the Historic West End District and Aspen by showing an example of a unique architectural style and specimen from the silver mining era. C. Proposed development enhances cultural value of structures on adjacent properties As mentioned before, the character of the neighborhood is mixed with many nicely renovated Victorian residences and more contemporary and lessor quality structures. Most of the surrounding fabric is one and two story single family residences. The proposed development preserves the historic landmark and contributes to the Victorian aspect of the neighborhood. The site is in the West Bleeker/ Hallam Street area, which is currently under consideration by the Aspen, Pitkin Planning Office as a Historic District D. Proposed development does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of the designated historic structure The proposed addition and renovation will not detract from the architectural integrity of the designated historic structure. With the placement of additional floor area below and behind the original structure it allows the form of historic structure to remain intact so that the addition does not obscure the historic resource. The entire cottage is elevated on a two foot stone base to give the house more prominence on the site that slopes down from street to the house. This base treatment is consistent with other miners cottages from the same era. 4 . ===.11 610 W. Hallam, Aspen, Colorado January 3, 1995 Impacts on the existing structure are minimized with the addition being held back as far as possible from the original facade and main gable, to further show the original historic structure. The addition is broken down into two structures connected by a subordinate link piece to minimize the overall mass, giving prominence to the original structure. CONCLUSION In closing, we feel we have created a design that satisfies the concerns of all parties involved. We have given the homeowners a modern house, but not at the expense of sacrificing the historic original house. Please review our submission package and contact me if you have any questions or require any additional information. We look forward to your committee's review on January 11, 1995 and appreciate your support of the project. Sincerely, Keith Howie Project Architect 5 ~71= --111: 1 OK tilet-F 1. SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IMPORTANT Three sets of clear. fully labeled drawings must be submitted in a format no larger than 11**17", OR one dozen sets of blueprints may be submitted in lieu of the 11"x17" format. Jim and Sandy Iglehart APPLICANT: _ 610 West Hallum St. -- Aspen, CO ADDRESS: - R-6 ZONE DISTRICT: _ 5250 s.f. LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): . 1075.25 sq. ft. EXISTING FAR: _ 3030 sq.ft. ALLOWABLE FAR: ,·3004 sq.ft. PROPOSED FAR:* - Does not apply EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commercial): - Does not apply PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commercial): 20.4 % EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: PROPOSED % OF S[TE COVERAGE: 44.3% (45% allowed) EXISTING % OFOPEN SPACE (Commercial): Does not apply Does not apply PROPOSED % OFOPEN SPACE (Commer.): 18'-00" - EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Prindcal Blda.: / Accessory Bldc: PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Princioal Bldg.: 2.2 ' -00" /Accessory 81* 22'-06" 429 sq.ft. (40%) PROPOSED % OF DEMOLITION: ' (one) (1) EXISTING NUMBER OF 8EDRCOMS: 4 + 1 in Garage Structure PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: (one) (1) EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: 5 ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUtRED: SETBACKS: EXISTING: ALLOWA8LE: PROPOSED: 15 ft. 10 ft Front: 15 ft Front: 21.5ft. Reac 5 ft. Rear: 5 ft Front: Reac Side: E=6.5ft- W=18 ft ' Side: 12.5' /Fr=5 'min . Side:E=5 f t - W=5' 36.5 ft Combined Front/Rear: Combined Frt/Rr: 30 ft Combined Front/Rear: 20 ft NONE EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES' rluile ENCROACHMENTS: VARIATIONS REQUESTED (elicible for Landmarks Only: character comcatibilitv findinc must be made bv HPC): None Minimum Distance~Between Bui[dirdipile None FAR: j SETBACKS: Front: none Paridng Spaces: £space var. _ none Open Space (Commercial): None Rear: 2 ·. 5 ' variatior~ ide: 5ft Height (Cottage Infill Only): 22 it for Access Bldg 10 . 0 ' va~AMH~i!9#t JRr: 30 ft. Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): None - >c/ · 1 · C - 1 .13--r 1 - 0199 11 \«.ar-11- 1~ t , · ~-L_j _pg80 It·~/Er~FO~-171OE. 1~§51-68<C; Sf[ES AVID STRUCT}Jf~S~-- \ FIGURE 111.2 - -e- LEGEND ·1986 UPDA~E d/,i,Mla . tic#garnal.01£1,5!1£1 1 9 4-0 nol y•t d•sk:*i•Il 0 E.tc:Lical-11O~ir.&.1 I d./.111«j I r•01 y,1 4.sig'Il,4 4 A ««14- Ck=f==€ 1 no; 1,1 da•,1,41•d O th-1 94_ling:Ba: 11.2 d/signal/,1 0 \1\420*9****N ' C2191!21 BMMQUI, 0 0 34 9/\ ~fitrge.SE)<,o,SLBEZ= 0 - \ 121/« 1 1 6 /3« 1 2- crn,re«U ... t.<7051251!Z:Ill.:1Xn_CfkfurBAIal , ,·H D-- r\ />' -I w- 5 coamnly church 0.-01/ 5402*//haiwt /("t 4 halt,wi La k. ' c u. 1 <44 0.31 -1.~4 0»2471 444 / 6.. . 34« -- /0 =n-··::..s %11'hm :·Mig.,2 .~flL "- ·' ~uk-6-JJA vE·ti'-hz\ENEY+An- FA Ke- 2 337\ 11 1 4 11 ' j~7-tu~r~~~ ®ili] Ultill,J Ilidnd-mafj EE#Wi,ZE&%?~~1 \ 4/< 83'" ®[[Mi;Tiils.:TH[@l-NE]Ii! UNBE CEI]] 0120 Tuay*32339 ~ P» L« C V M \~ r--'13 012 [£1~CILiti_Hi UNU.til TiE D.@123 !£..2 lUE]'24 Ul#113--L:€-9«1 ! 1 -- ~\ ~(-~t-~9~ ~Im [6~WT[r.Dia.1[Um [Rim: Eurl[ CEE] MIGIP [KE[[!! i.litill[J .Ii;*F€ C f ...etIL - L.[I[II[116 Enrns.NIZIO f[Ilhe dutll.u Yr!(321,,Ej@!Il.[IlnipdWFUL [ED"drank-1.-3. - 9/ 19.-< r-·2:2·7' 4/ FituiliEM~[{IliG[i Eifi#%[Lifaifit-JE [Ria 6!Wii] 12€E!2 1.E~Q }%~311 --·- j.. = _ . e_ > t k 'in- ·,_ 1 \N-1 · 1 / tiI[ C[1130 QIA ' NERI; MILIHI]:II!&1[[I i~31!13] illifE€iT#OB i {[[miE ! [[[TE 1 [=El IlfiW#F@jbiAUI nmir' / 4 ·,7 -0-CQ==:~47 / - _<Ml.rdl] Ull 'IN loiDdlk:lilll]016![119[U: 129211·)!l.iJ·lpmlill·[10[ l.y l*killl lial€] litiim[1] U#litul lailli En!! 1 -- 7 7 -~it ¤ ®El[IL 11[Ulli! [EU[}11·[[IWI[[1 09.il[Il],[Eur!] ©237? [EEITI 1-71 tliTa· Gi[Iia 61]]]Ill] Illimihm ff[[Illth ammi-f#w :®111LU,l~101 . m, 38· 162· jgll;|:t| R = 1 NIEE- CIRED 0211] WI[!Ril mliID]li~~~~8~ mmimla EN ·J 1 ·«i[IWN]} 16IQI[INE]i (5-Em,EE [Elm MWIID [IN[Io:EDIE, [[I]I]II]] *20 ff[WIN] P. ~mE:i.]Eto¥Wj- 61[20-Effird.QB.[i[[!] lmIE [INE[y [WIE, EE[[[1] -mim] mi!©1 (Ilf[[lm {Qmlri ·' giI[[LE!Ilm El[D ! mIQI]11 EWfii] I[ED FT?i, -Mo [Iimil 5 d[@Ill. El]Int II[Wl{Il 1 mul~~f F ~~»--·- Em31~3 -- ~·[IINm]-[h-!3] dm]Im {mI]ImimIuml![[11];1~~FIFIVE *im iE]i] mIliml. mmim mum i 00 - 1 =1 111«1 gor L-oum-ID N ,__,_ [.!gE® [[i{1Iim€* A[}ID ~EaLL~I [~W]ID ®.WII] m]Ii[I ti EZE [,124 14#_ll:*iim ®ili] Nt[INI] 6[[11111] DIGE #IlllII|1-411.illill 1 B f-7-] Omill -*. 06 169 9+ - 1 ./,P> 0 -- ill. 1 9 .1. -- 0->43 I ..0- 'i: ·i.#M<Dp=NIng. J.'1~9'i-ibj:11')#·1*9,6,64+,r/€01'K:,31:ho?-0,61.,9.3:.i f.'~ i·:... 14.942 1,3, 1 51-1.•.2.--g ··. ·.·...·. 4 '~ ·. cd ·«14 EXHIBIT 9 E li, RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE ENDORSING THE 1994 RE-EVALUATED INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES Resolution 95-1 WHEREAS, it is the responsibility of the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) to re-evaluate the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, hereinafter "Inventory, " at least once every five (5) years, and recommend revisions for adoption by the Aspen City Council; and WHEREAS, Inventory management is considered to be a vital aspect of Aspen's historic preservation program, and meets an underlying principal of the HPC: to foster public awareness of Aspen's preservation program, and work in harmony with the community's goals to preserve, protect, and enhance Aspen's historic resources and unique character; and; WHEREAS, the HPC and Planning Office completed the field studies and survey form revisions between September, 1990 and March 1992, with the assistance of professional consultants contracted by the Planning Office; and WHEREAS, the Planning Office held open public meetings on December 7 and December 8, 1994, to assist the public in understanding the re-evaluation process and current review requirements of the historic preservation program; and WHEREAS, the HPC conducted a duly noticed public hearing on December 14, 1994 to solicit citizen and property owner input to assist in HPC's re-evaluation of the Inventory; and WHEREAS, four property owners appeared before the HPC at the public hearing, all of whom presented information to the HPC. One owner requested removal of their property from the Inventory, which HPC voted in favor of, and others requested amendments to the legal description for the affected property. Evaluation of those properties was therefore tabled; and WHEREAS, HPC has reviewed and agreed upon the recommended additions, deletions and classification changes to the Inventory as recommended by the Planning Office (attached as Exhibit 1, A 11 ) . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the following amendments are recommended to the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, as a result of the re-evaluation process pursuant to Section 24- 7-709(A-C) of the Aspen Municipal Code: 1. The following properties shall be added to the Inventory, based upon architectural integrity, historic significance and contribution to community and neighborhood character: 403 S. Galena 720 S. Aspen 101 Puppy Smith Maroon Creek Bridge 106 Park Aspen Grove Cemetery Aspen Brewery Ruins 557 Walnut 2. The following properties shall be deleted from the Inventory due to loss of architectural integrity, historic significance or contribution to community or neighborhood character: 1018 E. Hopkins 1001 E. Hyman 1101 E. Cooper 915 Mill 300 W. Hopkins 437 W. Smuggler 801 W. Bleeker 517 North 407 W. Hallam 113 W. Bleeker 220 Puppy Smith 701 W. Smuggler All of Block 17 855 Gibson 3. Each non-Landmarked property receiving a re- evaluation has been categorized as either "Significant," "Contributing," or "Supporting," as indicated on Exhibit "A." 4. The official map Of historic resources is located in the Planning Office and will be revised accordingly and titled "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, 1994 Revised." APPROVED by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee at their regular meeting of January 11, 1995 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE by Joseph Krabacher, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Assistant City Clerk Non-Designated Properties for re-evaluation December, 1994 Key: Significant: ~- Contributing:/~1 Supporting: ( Drop from Inventory: 5 Address/Name Area Status per year 80 86 94 -I.*..lf i.i--WI 403 S. Galena Commercial Core 304-308 S. Galena Commercial Core 2 .U. _U 1018 E. Hopkins East Aspen Twnst. 1001 E. Hyman East Aspen Twnst. 625 E. Hopkins East Aspen Twnst. 0- a 719 E. Hopkins - East Aspen Twnst. 1101 E. Cooper East Aspen Twnst. 720 S. Aspen Shadow Mountain 915 Mill Shadow Mountain 300 W. Hopkins Shadow Mountain 209 E. Bleeker West End (Church) 437 W. Smuggler West End A 801 W. Bleeker West End 517 North West End 407 W. Hallam West End 233 W. Hallam West End 113 W. Bleeker West End - 1 1 11 0 101 1 1 91 73 223 E. Hallam West End 0 -0 101 Puppy Smith West End 220 Puppy Smith West End 701 W. Smuggler West End All of Block 17 West End -/ 1- Maroon Creek Bridge 855 Gibson Smuggler Mtn. 101 Park Smuggler Mtn. 00 106 Park Smuggler Mtn. 935 King Smuggler Mtn. AspenGrove Cemetery Smuggler Mtn. Aspen Brewery Ruins Smuggler Mtn. 557 Walnut Smuggler Mtn. - e -6101 01~11 210'31