The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19921125AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE November 25, 1992 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM CITY HALL THIS MEETING WILL START AT 2:00 P.M. 2:00 I. Roll call and approval of Oct. 21st minutes and Oct. 28, 1992 minutes The Oct. 21st minutes were distributed at an earlier date, please review. II. Committee and Staff Comments III. Public Comments IV. OLD BUSINESS A. None V. NEW BUSINESS A. Vested Right resolution, (public hearing) 316 E. Hopkins B. Minor Development - Pour La France Airlock VI. COMMUNICATIONS A. Worksession: Neighborhood character design project (CLG grant awarded) Define neighborhoods, assign HPC liaison members, action plan developed, consultant scheduled B. Project Monitoring Sub-Committee reports HPO resignation announcement 3:30 VII. ADJOURN The Aspen Historic Preservation Committee is invited to celebrate the season on Wednesday evening, December 16th 7:00 p.m. at the Erdman's home - 360 Lake Avenue Please bring a dish to share, and wine if you like Your guest is welcome! RSVP to Roxanne at 920-5090 --- Happy Holidays! MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer ~~- Re: 316 E. Hyman: Vested Rights Resolution for a previously approved site-specific Development Plan (demolition) Date: November 25, 1992 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting HPC's approval of the Vested Rights Resolution of the previously approved site specific plan (demolition of the outbuilding) for the parcel at 316 E. Hyman. By Colorado law, an applicant has the right to vest his rights for a maximum period of three years, providing them protection from changes in land use regulations that could affect their approval. The purpose in seeking this vested rights approval at this time is to preserve (or "bank") the net leasable square footage currently of the outbuilding for future development of the parcel. Existing net leasable is credited against future development when calculating impact mitigation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds this application to be in order, and recommends that the HPC approve the attached Resolution granted Vested Rights for three years, retroactive from the date of original approval, November 27, 1991. memo.hpc.316eh.vr 316 East Hopkins Avenue Lot 0, Blk. 80, City of Aspen Pitkin County, Colorado 1*09:304 4 E 30,16*found Rebar & I %47, . Covâ€¢ allow-Bastic Cap I Porch Lot N Lot 0 Lot P 3,016 sq. ft. 0.069 Acs.+/ & - El 1 Story Wood R ~ . Frame House ~0 ~ 3 4 6!J .:. 1 . d -1 Scnb#d . enck 11 ConcriUÂ· Walk Â».-At*L . ound Rebar & 'y Sditbek. .~ Yertow-Plastic Cop Eost In Concrete Hopkins Avenue Legend and Notes: - 0 indicoles found monumint os described. hdkates set monumint reber and cap LS. 15710. - A Indicct,s control point - Sumy Orlintatior, baa,d on found monumintâ€¢ di ehown. - Edâ€¢â€¢mint, ahown are from TItle Commitmant Cas, No. PCT-5689 CJ Issued 8-27-91 by GRAPHIC SCALE Pitkfn County Title. Inc. 0 10 20 40 1 1 Surveyor'a Certificate: C 01 MIT ) 4 Kennity, R. *Tbon, befng a Regtsfired Land Surv,yor h the Stot, of Colorado, do hereby câ€¢{tlfy that th/1 knprowment surrey ,0<0 H R.TA wae mode under my supervision and ts true and correct to the be,t of my ballef and knowledge. 1 further cer{11> that thi 41:40,4 improvements on thi above described para on the dog, H : 4 . , except utihly connections ar, enthly within thi boundaries of ~ the parcet. except cs shown. that there cre no encrocchments upon i LS 15710 Kr Zur:rUM,Chopmr,%'toÂ°Ulft*2'Ulsâ€ž 93'14 0 algn of any Msâ€¢ment crossing or burdening cny part of maid 4â€¢.4' SUR'1669 parcel. except cs noted 2â€ž2* u) 8 m ou.Â·9, OF COLO - Kenneth R. *Ueon LS. 15710 JOB f 91144 File kroimp #64 SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. ENGNEERS 1001 GRAND AVE., SUITE 2-E br SURVEYORS GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO. 81601 50#mEFERÂ· - (303) 945-1004 GORDON WOER *49. ty k LAND USE APPLICATION FOR VESTING OF PROPERTY RIGHTS The Applicant, 316 E. Hopkins, Inc., a Colorado corporation, requests vesting of a property right pursuant to the demolition plan approved by the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Committee ("HPC") on November 27, 1991. Purpose of Vesting. The Applicant wants to vest its property right in the demolition plan to insure that the 397 square foot net leasable area represented by the outbuilding at 316 East Hopkins (the "Shed") may be added back to the existing historic cottage located on the property (the "Cottage") during the vesting period without competing for an allotment of commercial GMP square footage for not more than 397 square feet. The applicant recognizes the applicant will be required to comply with applicable HPC design review requirements to add the net leasable square footage represented by the Shed back onto the Cottage. Submission Contents. The Applicant submits the following submission contents: 1. Applicant. The Applicant is 316 E. Hopkins, Inc., a Colorado corporation. The Applicant is represented by B. Joseph Krabacher, Krabacher, Hill & Edwards, P.C., 201 North Mill Street, Suite 201, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-6300. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a letter stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 2. Address. The street address is 316 East Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado, and the legal address is Lot O, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. 3. Ownership. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a title insurance policy disclosing ownership of the parcel and all recorded instruments affecting the parcel. 4. Survey. Attached as Exhibit 3 is a survey map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. 5. Shed Plan. Enclosed as Exhibit 4 is the Shed floor and elevation existing conditions draw-ings. The drawings contain a certification that the net leasable square footage of the Shed is 397 square feet. 6. Minutes of Approval. Attached as Exhibit 5 is a copy of the minutes of the HPC meeting of November 27, 1991, wherein the HPC granted minor development approval for the demolition of the Shed. Resolution Granting Vesting Approval. The Applicant requests that the HPC approve a resolution granting vested property rights to 316 East Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado, vesting the rights granted in the Minor Development Approval granted by the HPC on November 27, 1991. Dated: October (f., 1992 KRABACHER, HILL & EDWARDS, P.C. c dyX-<:1/~ By: 1 b. Jose~ir' Krabacher 201 North Mill Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 303-925-6300 ryan~docs\land.use -2- 7 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 27, 1991 element I would recommend that they be consistently all one color no matter what that color may be. Roger: I would recommend that the lettering be white. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC grant minor development approval for 315 E. Hyman, the Wheeler Square building with awnings as presented by the applicant and color as presented by the applicant (dark turquoise). All awnings be the same color; second by Donnelley. All in favor, motion carries. CASTLE CREEK POWER PLANT (CITY SHOP) 1080 POWER PLANT ROAD LANDMARK DESIGNATION Roxanne: Notice was made and the building was posted. We find that all of the six standards for landmark designation are met. We are processing this application at this time because the are rezoning this property to public and this is a zoning overlay. Our policy in the Planning office is to consolidate steps and this is the opportunity to do that. The Blue Ribbon Capital Improvement Committee is looking at all the property owned by the City. Chairman Bill Poss opened the public hearing. MOTION: .Roger made the motion that HPC recommend landmark designation to Castle Creek Power Plant also known as the City Shop at 1080 Power Plant Road; second by Donnelley. All in favor, motion carries. 316 E. HOPKINS MINOR DEVELOPMENT LANDMARK DESIGNATION r Bill Poss stepped down. Joe stepped down. Karen and Martha seated. Bill Poss appointed Donnelley to chair meeting. Jake Vickery: I do sub-contract work for Poss and Associates but am not involved in this project and do not feel there is a conflict. David Rybeck from Bill Poss and Associates presented the applicant. Donnelley: This is a two part application, the landmark designation which is Â·a public hearing and the minor development approval for the demolition of a non-historic outbuilding and redevelopment to include three parking spaces. The applicant is requesting exemption from Demolition Standards (Ord. 9, 1991). No changes are proposed to the c.1885 cottage which is the principal structure on the parcel. Exemption from the Demolition Standards 2 Historic Preservation Committee l Minutes of November 27, 1991 means an applicant is not required to meet the Standards for Demolition, but still requires HPC approval for the demolition and redevelopment. Brook Peterson, attorney represented Mrs. Johnson owner of property. Roxanne: Affidavit presented. I received two letters from adjacent neighbors, La Cocina and Bank of Aspen. Both are supporting the application. Landmark: We have reviewed the six standards and we find that the application does meet the majority of them. It meets A,B, E, F, and does not meet C or D. The outbuilding that is being requested for approval for demolition through the exemption clause we consider to not be a contribution structure to the character of the parcel. The important building is the main cottage. The applicant has made a compelling argument for the need to demolish the outbuilding to make the cottage more economically viable. Donnelley: I feel that the entire proposal could be done at once. Roxanne: Regarding the minor development this has been a building which clearly has little architectural merit or historic integrity. It still has been a cottage that has had cottage businesses in it in the commercial core. The question to HPC is: Does that contribute to the character of the neighborhood or the character of the district? Staff does not support maintaining this out- builing just for the sake of maintaining it. One of the conditions to approve the minor development which is the redevelopment of the parcel is a better site plan indicating trees and landscaping etc. We are recommending landmark designation and demolition approval for the non-historic building according to the exemption clause and that minor development be granted subject to a submittal of a detailed site plan. We cannot tie a condition to a zoning application. In other words we cannot require that the clapboard siding on the cottage be restored as a condition of landmark designation but we can encourage it. David Rybeck: The new owners would like to put as much assets into the miners cottage as possible and the best way to do that is by creating parking on the back end of the parcel for any tenant that would be in the cottage. The option of keeping the outbuilding and maintaining a tenant would draw too much income away from the main cottage. It has problems with encroachments on the next door neighbors side and the alley side which would require demolition on two faces so by the time they were done there would be nothing left historic. The outbuilding has no plumbing so we are requesting an exemption for demolition. f 3 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 27, 1991 Peter Rizutto, owner of the hair salon which is presently in the building: Parking would be a great asset and I would like to continue to keep my business here. Brook Peterson: I represent Mrs. Johnson the present owner of the property. They have owned the property since 1965 and she enlightened me that since that time they had rebuilt two walls twice since they had been run into on the outside and they extended the porch out from the front and they did all the improvements and the materials were from the 60's and 70's. When they purchased the property the wood shed was literally falling down and at the present time we are under an obligation from the Laeocina to move that building at their request because it is encroaching on their property. From an historic standpoint the cottage is what is important and I would ask for Mrs. Johnsons sake as this represents her retirement and has had three major eye operations and I would ask the commission to take that into consideration when reviewing the application. Karen: Why is this non-historic? Roxanne: The applicant is referring to it as non-historic. It is not on an inventory. I don't consider it historic even though the < footprint shows up on old Sanborn maps. We are not sure how much of the original building is actually there because it has been modified so many times. David: We have a survey done in 1972 by Jim Reser that shows just a small square footprint and as the maps were updated it has two additional additions put on to it. The roof pitch for an outbuilding that has been classified as historic is normally 12 x 12 and this does not meet that standard. The exterior materials were from the 60's and 70's and to the west face is plywood with batten trips. It also has non-historic fenestration on it. Roxanne: There is some original siding but that is all. Karen: As this ever been occupied as a residence or has it been commercial all along? Brooke Peterson: When Mrs. Johnson bought the house the shed was a wood shed and an outhouse. It was not occupied at that time as residential. Don: If the Reser survey in 1972 is correct there is an indication that the entire building that stood there must have been removed because that building being square was cranked at an angle and that positioning on the site is very distinctive because it has no bearing to the rectangular grid and is not reflected in any aspect 4 c Historic Preservation Committee < Minutes of November 27, 1991 of the new survey. Does anybody know anything about this? Roxanne: I noticed that as well. David: We noticed that also and have not verified with Jim Reser why it is like that. Don: The building was either moved, as it wasn't on any kind of permanent foundation, and shifted back to better align with the property lines. And of course altered in its form so considerably that it is hard to recognize the footprints. Roxanne: Or that the survey is incorrect. Karen: What will be the use of the primary building when it is renovated? David: It will remain a commercial use by the same people who lease it now, Peter Rizutto. Karen: Will the parking spaces be reserved for the salon's customers? Peter Rizutto: It will be mainly for our customers. Jake: Some of the materials support keeping the cottage due to the alley scape. Roxanne: This is the first exemption that you have had to deal with of a building that is marginally old. The other two exemptions that you have made are buildings that are clearly non- contributing. This one is a gray area and that is why the issues were brought up in the memo. If you feel this building has any integrity at all and is contributing to the neighborhood then you might not want to vote in favor of the applicant for an exemption. On the other hand there is a certain amount of logic that goes along with this. The primary goal is to preserve the cottage. I think the Bank of Aspen needs more parking and they might be using the spaces also. Peter: We have a combination on the parking. Jake: I can support the goals but am looking at this as a policy point of view. We exempt parking spaces so that we can leave this building there, like the reverse of this. What happens if this is a policy are we looking at having a lot of parking off the alleys? Roxanne: We can have policy but everything has to be looked at : site specifically. 5 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 27, 1991 Martha: I would not want to see over night parking in those spaces. I can see employees parking there during the day. Peter: The main goal is for customers and there would be no parking overnight. You are not going to see the parking either due to the trees. David: This is a small out building in the commercial core and normally there aren't any because the zone is encouraging growth of the buildings to the property line. Keeping out buildings in a residential zone would be viable but this is the commercial core and the primary cottage could be built out to the property line. Roxanne: The counter to your statement is that this is unique because this is a residential cottage. Staff received two months age an application on this property with an addition to. the rear of the parcel and the out building would go anyway. That application was withdrawn. If the out building goes for parking or an two story addition to the cottage I am thinking this might be an alternative to keep this small. Peter: We are going to do everything we can to keep the cottage as it is and I am encouraging you to help small businesses. Don: What do members of the Board feel about the more explicit site plan that was submitted at this meeting? Roger: Historically the Johnsons lived two doors down the street and what they did was buy the little house. They were artists and made jewelry and object and decided that they could rent the little house instead of using it as their gallery. Then when their daughter Tina grew up they decided they didn't want to stay in Aspen so they created the one thing we love the little building in the alley that creates more life in the core of town. That was a natural occurrence. The philosophy of the City is to have less automobiles. The argument about it being hidden from trees and the Mrs. Johnson needs money offends me. Those aren't valid, what is valid is what can we do for Aspen to Â· maintain its historic integrity and deal with the parking and look at a generation or two down the Road. I am absolutely appalled that we have to put parking spaces behind here and employees are going to park there and the car will sit all day. The bank employees will park there. I will vote for this and it is not reasonable not to. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC recommend landmark designation for the parcel at 316 E. Hopkins and grant demolition approval and grant minor development approval as per the design received at this meeting. We encourage that the owner maintain the 6 'I . Historic Preservation Committee ~ Minutes of November 27, 1991 cottage as best they can; second by Martha. Jake: I will support the motion because it is in the best interest of the bigger miners cottage. I would be supportive of something being put on the back of the rear whether it was a total revamping because of its contribution of activity and scale to the overall alley scape and texture of small and large buildings. Karen: I am opposed to the demolition of the shed and am also sympathetic to Peter's and Margaret's needs. In the long range all of our barns and sheds are the last resource of our victorian heritage. I am in favor of saving every one that we can. I am also in favor of saving employee housing downtown also. The parking garage was a big investment in this town and is only three blocks away. The purpose of this Board is to protect the history of this town. It is not our purpose to provide parking and that is what we are being asked to provide. I cannot give up part of our history in trade for three parking spots that are going to be used for private use. Don: There is a lot of ambivalence on the board due to the fact that we are loosing something that has to do with the grain of the city. Were this in a residential district we would probably deny the demolition or require a more thorough investigation as to where the original portions were. Motion carries 4-1. In favor, Don, Jake, Roger, Martha. Karen was opposed. Roxanne: This would be a different application entirely if the commercial core was not in the historic district and this was an isolated case. COMMUNICATIONS 215 W. HALLAM Roxanne: The property has been purchased and work will start immediately. Roxanne: We have received a bond on 824 E. Cooper. Roxanne: Red Brick School is on hold. The City will not pay utilities for December,. They are interested in getting someone in there on a short term lease provided they pay enough to cover the utilities. The City is interested in the first right of refusal. 7 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Minor Development: 413 E. Main, Pour La France front entry airlock Date: November 25, 1992 Note: Please go take a look at the airlock you approved for the Main Street Bakery. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Minor Development approval for a temporary (reversible) airlock at the front entry of Pour La France. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Development Review standards are found in Section 7-601 of the Land Use Code. The applicable Guidelines are found in Section IV. Commercial Buildings - Renovation and Restoration, beginning on page 19. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay district or is adjacent to a Historic Landmark... Response: Similar to the Main Street Bakery cold air/energy efficiency problem, Pour La France is requesting HPC's approval to construct a temporary (seasonal) airlock. They wish to retire the bright blue canvas/clear vinyl canopy they have used for the past few years. To staff's knowledge, the HPC never reviewed (or approved) the use of that awning/canopy, which we understand Pour La France has had since 1987. Photos will be presented at the meeting which more clearly illustrate the .size and bulk of the proposed 4'3" x 5' structure. It is primarily wood and glass, painted to match their current light beige siding. Always a problem with "temporary" structures is enforcement. The HPC should impose a defined time frame within which the airlock may be put up, only to be removed for spring, summer, and fall business. This building is not historic, however, its prominence within the historic district require it be carefully reviewed for compatibility against the adjacent Chitwood Block (Cantina building). HPC COMMENTS: 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Airlocks are beginning to proliferate within the Commercial Core, and the HPC should carefully review this application in order to set the appropriate precedence. The Zoning Officer has additional concerns regarding airlocks, such as encroachment into required open space, FAR expansion, temporary structures, etc. Staff will discuss these issues more fully at the meeting for the benefit of the application and the review process. HPC's job remains to review the application for compatibility within the district. HPC COMMENTS: 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structure located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: Staff finds that the proposal does not detract from the cultural value of the structure. HPC COMMENTS: 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: We feel that the reversible nature of the application is a key aspect for approval. The simpler the better, and the less it will compete with the building and adjacent building. The roof will be flat, with only a small parapet protruding above the height of the airlock roof. It is mostly transparent, with wood trim. Architecturally, we find this standard has been generally met. HPC COMMENTS: ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Approve the Minor Development application as submitted 2. Approve the Minor Development application with conditions to be met prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2 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: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Minor Development approval for a temporary airlock (flat roof, mostly glass with wood trim painted to match the building) at 413 E. Main. This must be fully reversible and utilized only during winter months for energy efficiency (dates should be defined). Additional comments: memo.hpc.413em.airlock 3 6 Fuhre 99,â‚¬L CAFE & BAI<ERY November 17, 1992 City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Attachment 3: 1. Pour la France! would like to put up a temporary airlock outside the north facing door of the cafe on Main Street. This would replace the canvas enclosure used over the last few years. The purpose of this airlock is to conserve energy and make the guest experience more enjoyable. When the door opens the north air blows straight into the cafe. We lose a lot of heat that way. The temporary structure would be 4'3" wide by 5' deep, extending under the existing awning. It would be smaller and neater than the canvas used in the past. The front of the structure would be a wood and glass door. The sides of the structure could either be solid wood siding, or a combination of wood and glass. - The wood and glass option would probably blend into the surroundings better, but would not be as well insulated. 2. The airlock would be built primarily out of wood and painted the muted grey and brown of the existing structure. The wood would be the same as the grooved siding above our north window, (see pictures 1 & 2). It would have a wood and glass door. It would be attached to the exterior walls just outside the existing door, but inside the existing windows. 3. See drawings and pictures please. 4. Pour la France! would insure this that this structure would blend into the existing building without noticeable effect on the original design and character of the neighborhood. By creating this airlock with the same materials and colors of the existing entrance, we can assure it will simply blend in to the current environment. The airlock would be put up in November of each year and taken down in April. It will be built to look permanent, but be easily and quickly removed. Thank you for your time and consiÂ®rations, - -1 2â‚¬0 KerrY Plemmons Pour la France!, Inc. Â· 303-H AABC Â· Aspen, Colorado 81611 m 303/920-1152 Â· FAX 303/920-3876 SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IMPORTANT Three sets of clear. fully labeled drawings must be submitted in a format no larger than 11"x17", OR one dozen sets of blueprints may be submitted in lieu of the 11"x17" format. APPLICANT: Pour la France! ADDRESS: 413 E Main St Aspen ZONE DISTRICT: CC LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): 12,000 EXISTING FAR: 2:0:1 ALLOWABLE FAR: 2:0:1 PROPOSED FAR: 2:0:1 EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commercial): 20.051 total PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commercial): 20,051 EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: 75% PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: 75% EXISTING % OF OPEN SPACE (Commercial): 25% PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE (Commer.): 75% EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: PAnciDal Blda.: SEE ZONING / Accessory Bldg: PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: PrinciDal Bldg.: / Accessorv Bldg: PROPOSED % OF DEMOLITION: N/A EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: N/A N/A PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: N/A ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: N/A SETBACKS: SEE ZONING EXISTING: ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: Front: Front: Front: Rear: Rear: Rear: Side: Side: Side: Combined Front/Rear: Combined FrVRr: Combined Front/Rear: EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/ ENCROACHMENTS: VARIATIONS REQUESTED (eliaible for Landmarks Only: character comoatibility findina must be made by HPC): FAR: Minimum Distance Between Buildings: SETBACKS: Front: Parking Spaces: Rear: Open Space (Commercial): Side: Height (Cottage Infill Only): Combined Frt./Rr: Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): Thefleisher Company Commercial Real Estate in Aspen November 11, 1992 City of Aspen Planning and Zoning 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Pour La France Dear Planning and Zoning: As Landlord of The Chitwood Plaza Company, I give permission to Pour La France to install a temporary structure 5 feet by 5 feet called an "air lock" to be placed in front of their door -under their awning. This structure will go up each fall and come down each spring. Thank you. Sincerely, Â»11. Cl\~/-1Â» Donald J. Fleisher Chitwood Plaza Company 200 East Main Street â€¢ Aspen, Colorado 81611 â€¢ 303/925-2122 â€¢ Fax: 920-1628 Â« 4 1 7 t. i i f /1 t 1 .__..../ #-7'P T ,LAFyi~STQ rmt.i.1 1 Ell#illiga/31LritilliligFaiFF*jailia#fit#imjELK-Flf//ir'/Silit/ate/ffs": ,220*4*#1...4.-.1.-Â·.aiÂ¥A;amr"-~'T.'I==Â· Â·-- 1.Â·Â· - =.Aâ‚¬.*@*a=â‚¬,;3; -Â·2.:. 2 5 1 ------ 4 1 ' 1 ' A . ..1 1 , / 43 1 / I . i.} a *wir.:.. . . t. 5.- I III , 4 1% ; D tj iM 8 # ; k ' 1 1 61 aft i ; i [ it f . - - j 4 i 2 , Â¢ b -- .., j r.,y D Â·f ..1-2 b ,>1 '.1 1- i - r r ' ' -1.2 11. j 1- ~==al-:--:~ j i 1 '--7~ 1 7 1 3 4 1 1 6 i i P , 1/ 11 1 I j 1 1 'I i i: 1 / '1 1 . il j i ! : t 1 1 1 i 1 ! , : ' Li : 1. 1 1 tt i 1:f 1 ; 1 1-,5 . . 1 1. I I i tri i $ I \13 43/4- -- - 1 9 2,â€¢r~reâ€¢SO 1'.149,40=- .-:-** . --41 MAR{Jt{Ir s .~ :,R/*692.-t:- 5, , .1 I L..1 . 3 i ; .-: r a il . 11 6 -Z- ----1 F-. ' %- iq trf' t I .. r e 4\\.% t- ~trh 1 ! I anraa. A I111 .... 1.9, - . .1 . 11 hsam I M. 02-3. ; t.* 3' - /.. ' j i i,.. r ... , e 4,Â»'4 -7.- 4. 130 I. I i Do . :44. .. = . by' Ii.-h . 4 41.. 7 Z Ifil-i'41.. ... ..: i. # -9 W.' I'l ~ ' 5 1 . .7.. *..9.*/00*1614(906,24'/*jÂ·gettÂ·.Â·.1 Â·....... .. r ...Â·.4Â·0 4 11Â·1415'...Ii'-:---**29/f<9-9,-Â·154 0~...: Â·Â·1Â· -1 --Â·-Â· 0 --Â·Â· 75 .--*:---~<j{Flifiti}Â·1{344444%4144>t,--5.-f-ft.-iJÂ·-i /49.# 21 529. %... ..1 4 Â£.*. - . ........ .Â·~ .. Â·~~~ . ...3 .:.i.'.4:.~f~'I.'t#~~~.tÂ·?Fil .4 - 1 :. :.. );. 1 1.:.4,82:42.?'29*FO .....9 1 ... ":*f . ....1.1 mi =F --[ 3 - ilk:3Â·,~..~*~///~~/~"/~,~~.1- 1 1 1 !.4 -.6-5.p-> i- i, 'L 11,7,- ..r-9 -- ....':.-,1:.. : h . 1 ... - 1 Â·Â·- i r . ........... . X Â·Â· 3 .. .a - 9.3.:Ar Â· PRiA. I..' ' Â·Â·rÂ· h.Â·~'Â· 7. Di~.Â¢Â·ffi'~'<i:,t,164*4*pkil,Â·+39446~Â·t 13YA461Â·Nt#,M 1 ~ ' 'U' ~ h Â·*.,0..'~~*:.954344F*f g~ 9iÂ·t~y~;41iÂ·,t:9,2.'4l.., '44,.' 1, it LÂ·~â€¢Â·~<:u Â·T..IÂ·Â·f:â€ž.Â·-:r-Â·. .Â·.-# Â·~ '' ~' Â·,~.c~,Â· ..'Â·':,:..Â·~,*:11''kh,6112#4;Â¢4@.4;fe{ ,~~*:17224.2,;,fi,-.**741;f L.Â·--i~z - I \ ...-11,Â©,id-/ - 1 3% .dcu ...:t.:?q ..77;4 â€¢,1 0 : , 414% /' ti; '' . ...2-Ot :.d::601.9 - 3.i, 44&724 11' 1 Aspen/PitkintIN#nning Office Asp@h @6 0 - - 1611 (303) 9~505#~4 Â· e *920-5197 November 17, 1992 Dear Diane and Suzanne: - : - Â·- This letter serves as my notice of resignation. My last day in the Planning . . . . __ .._ . Office will be February 26, 1993. The end of February officially marks my 5th year as Aspen's Historic Preservation Officer. By then, the 1993 preservation work program will have been firmly established, new grant applications will have been developed and submitted, and Suzanne will have returned from maternity leave. Also, we should have ample time to recruit and train my replacement between now and then. The time has come for me to move on and expand my career into statewide and regional preservation challengps. My role as President of Colorado Preservation, Inc. has become increasingly important as we launch the Preservation Assistance Service Team ("PAST") program, which will provide statewide technical assistance in a circuit rider format. I will also have the time to complete my Masters degree in historic preservation, and afford myself more time with my son, two important personal goals. Five years in Aspen has taught me the value of process in how communities shape their future and steward their past. I wish you both and the entire department a successful future, and urge all decision makers to keep Aspen's preservation program high profile and firmly supported. The character of this special place is fragile and deserves the infiux of new energy that hopefully will be brought by my successor. Sincerely, Roxanne Eflin rvi/,Â·i//1.qu-i ' ':1:. :.-: I . if----21_.~ .-: (13 (6.- e--fj- wfÂ®@ 1 ..liN 2 0 1992 - City of Cripple Cr t Historic Preservat epartment ILK ~4 30121~35EiES@#aq33' r. 1. I,JÂ£j~~ 1111)) P,O. Box 430 Cripple Creek, CO 80813 (719) 689-2502 *rry#liZZ>:tâ€¢Â·:a Roxanne Eflin Historic Preservation Officer City of AspehÂ· 130 South Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Roxanne: Thank you for all your time and arrangements during our recent trip to Aspen. I believe the members of the Historic Preservation Commission who attended gained a great deal from our visit. We often feel as if we're in some "gambling" vacuum here in Cripple Creek, and, occasionally, must go "astray" to regain some semblance of sanity. We definitely appreciate the tour of the Wheeler Opera, Wheeler/Stallard House, and surrounding residential area. We especially appreciate seeing how your commission works, and meeting and speaking with the members individually. If you, and any of the members of the Commission choose to visit us in the near future, please don't hesitate to let us know so we can arrange housing or rooms. In the meantime, who would I contact to obtain a copy of your City's Masterplan. Your Land Use Codes have been so helpful to us, we believe your Masterplan would also be of great value. Also, any standards, forms, and procedures you have for historic preservation activities and Commission functions would also be greatly appreciated. We will be happy to pay any costs involved in obtaining such material. Again, thank you for1-3-Jur time and assistance, and hope to see you in t*,~Ar futuref ~ifnce~ely, Â· ~----- A --37/4.-4/ - D---r ~c. Btian Levine ~ Historic Preservation Director v Ulini)11111111'9 - . L Q#-- V.4 1*#i./0/8 2< 01 g I i \Vi lE NOV 1 9 1992 U UL. - COIDRADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY The Colorado History Museum 1300 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80203-2137 November 16, 1992 Roxanne Eflin City of Aspen City Hall, 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dea# iN/n: The Colorado Historical Society has completed its review of grant applications to the State Historical Fund for the September 1, 1992 deadline. We are pleased to award you the full $2,500 you requested for the City Hall window restoration project. The Colorado Historical Society will make an official announcement of State Historical Fund grant recipients on November 17, 1992. We ask that you wait until after this date to announce the receipt of your award. Award recipients will be required to enter into a contract with the state of Colorado. These contracts will be negotiated in detail to finalize the scope of work, project starting date, payment schedule and specific time line for the work to be performed. Contracts will be subject to approval by the State of Colorado based on meeting all legal requirements and the availability of funds. Until the contract is fully executed, no work can begin on the proposed project. Any work that has been completed prior to the final contract execution date will not be eligible for reimbursement. All grant recipients will be required to attend a grant administration workshop which will be held prior to the contract negotiation process. These workshops will be held in mid-December, with current plans to hold one in Denver and one on the western slope. We will be contacting you as soon as specific dates and locations are finalized. The contract negotiation process (from beginning negotiations to the final contract execution) may last as long as three to four months. Page two Once again, congratulations on your award from the State Historical Fund. We look forward to the successful completion of your project.. If you have any questions about your award, please do not hesitate to contact the State Historical Fund Administrator, Craig Hunter, at (303)866-4608. Sincerely, 1 6 Xkv James ~K ~Hartmann Pres ineng PRESERVATION LAW REPORTER ~â„¢> PLR ADVANCE 7[n'P November9,1992 Fowler Bill Enacted: Federal Preservation Law Strengthened National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1992 Signed into Law On October 30, 1992, rr, he National Historic Pres- President Bush signed into I ervation Act Amendments 1 of 1992 strengthen the feder- law the National Historic al-state-local partnership in the Preservation Amendments of national historic preservation pro- 1992 (Title XL of Public Law gram, but also add a new dimen- 102-575), popularly known as sion, by formalizing the inclusion the Fowler Bill (after Sen. of Indian tribes and Native Hawai- Wyche Fowler, jr., the bill's ians in the partnership. The Act also authorizes the Secretary of the principal sponsor in the U.S. Interior to delegate additional re- Senate). This legislation, the sponsibilities to the State Historic first significant change to the Preservation Offices. National Historic Preser-va- Among the most important pro- tion Act since 1980, enhanc- visions of the new law are enhance- merits that strengthen the require- es the Act by clarifying its ments of Section 106, the federal terms and strengthening fed- review process for considering ad- eral protection for historic verse impacts on historic resources and archaeologicalreSOUICes. caused by federal undertakings, Key provisions Of this impor- including funding and licensing tant new law are summar- activities. The law includes a new ized below. provision that penalizes the inten- (Cont'd) Copyright Â© 1992, National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States. PLRAdvances oreissued to provide PLR subscribers with advance case summaries of important decisions or other legal developments pending publication of our regular editions. .-4.(1 A i tional demolition of hiStOIiC proper- procedures for compliance with ties prior to federal involvement for Section 106 must be 'consistent' purposes of avoiding federal historic with the regulations of the Adviso- preservation review. In addition, ry Council on Historic Preserva- the law revises the definition of tion, a new requirement that is federal 'undertaking* to clarify that expected to be helpful in reforming federal agencies who delegate their procedures at agencies such as the responsibilities to states are still Army Corps of Engineers. responsible for complying with Section 106. Other enhancements Definition of *Undertaking" to the federal preservation program include the establishment of a new Section 4019(a)(5) of the Act in- National Center for Preservation cludes a new definition of the term Technology and Training, and a 'undertaking; which is the thresh- new historic preservation education old for triggering Section 106 of the and training program within the NHPA. The new definition, which National Park Service. The law is significantly more detailed than also clarifies that Historic Preserva- current law, provides as follows: tion Fund grants may be used,to "Undertakinr means a project assist in the preservation of Nation- activity, or program funded in al Register-listed religious proper- whole or in part under the direct or ties, so long as the aid is secular indirect jurisdiction of a Federal and does not promote religion. agency, including- (Al those carried out by or on Federal Agency Historic behalf of the agency; Preservation Programs (Bj those carried out with Foder- al financial assistance; (C) those requiringa Federal per- Section 4012(21 of the Act (to mitl] license, or approval; and be codified at 16 U.S.C. Â§ 470h- (D) those subject to State or 2[a)(2)) strengthens federal agency local regulation administered pursu- historic preservation requirements ant to a delegation or approval by a in a number of ways. Each federal Federal agency. agency must establish a program to This provision, to be codified at 16 ensure that historic properties un- U.S.C. Â§ 47Ow(7), is based in large der its jurisdiction or control are part on the current regulations of lA) identified, evaluated, and nomi- the Advisory Council, at 36 C.RR. nated to the National Register, and Â§ 800.2(03. One of the more expan- (B) "managed and maintained in a sive aspects of the new definition, way that considers" preservation, however, is subsection ID), which with "special consideration' re- clarifies that federal agencies who quired for the preservation of prop- delegate their regulatory authority erties Vesignated as having Nation- to states are still responsible for al significance." Historic properties compliance with Section 106. The that are not under the jurisdiction new provision ratifies an October or control of the agency but poten- 1991 decision of the U.S. District tially affected by agency actions Court in Indiana Coal Council v. must be given "full consideration in Lujan, 774 P. Supp. 1385 (D.D.C. planning.M In addition, all agencies 1991), which held that the Office of Page 2 Preservation Law Reporter Advance Iune 30, 1992 Surface Mining (OSM) is required mitted by the applicant to comply with Section 106 not- (To be codified at 16 U.S.C. Â§ 470h- withstanding the agency's delega- tion of permitting responsibilities 2(k).1 in most mining states. (See 10 PLR This provision was based in part on a policy statement adopted 1151.) Indiana Coal, a lawsuit by the Advisory Council on Histor- brought by the National Â°IÂ¥ust for ic Preservation in 1987. The new Historic Preservation and a national coalition of archaeology organiza- statutory provision, however, is tions, invalidated OSM's historic much stronger than the Council's preservation regulations for state- policy. The need for this provision delegated permitting programs, was highlighted by the 1988-1989 because the regulations made ar- demolition of the entire Iobbers chaeological surveys optional but Canyon Historic District in Oma- ha, Nebraska, which was destroyed not mandatory prior to issuing sur- notwithstanding the regulatory face mining permits. The court authority of three federal agencies held that these state permitting programs were undertakings for over components of the develop- purposes of Section 106 because of meIlt project. The impact of the new antici- OSM's continuing oversight author- patory demolition provision will be ity. . difficult to measure, but it is ex- pected to have an important deter- Anticipatory Demolition rent effect, because of the harsh penalty for intentional efforts to Section 4012(3) of the Act con- avoid Section 106 by demolishing tains an important new provision historic properties in advance of discouraging 'anticipatory demoli- federal involvement. tion" by prohibiting federal grants, loans, permits, or other assistance New Requirements for Failing to any applicant who intentionally to Reach an Agreement Under destroys historic propenies in order Section 106 to avoid compliance with Section 106: Senator Fowler's original bill Each Federal agency shall ensure had included language that would that the agency will not grant a have significantly strengthened the loan, loan guarantee, permit, li- Section 106 review process by re- censc, or othcr assistance to an quiring that, when consultation applicant who, with intent to -void with the Advisory Council and the requirements of section 106, State Historic Preservation Officer has intentionally significantly ad- versely affected a historic property (SHPO) failed to result in an agree- te which the grant would relate, or ment, the federal agency could not having legal power to prevent it, proceed with the undertaking un- allowed such significant adverse less it could show that it was not effect to occur, unless the agency, Â«feasible and prudent' to follow the after consultation with the Council, Advisory Council's recommenda- determines that circumstances jus- tify granting such assistance despite tions. This was one of the most the adverse effect created or per- significant provisions in the bill, November 9, 1992 Preservation Law Reporter Advance Page 3 1% '0~t,i and would have greatly expanded The three additional words are the authority of the Advisory intended to clarify that the Coun- .3 Council. cil'S regulatory authority extends Unfortunately, this provision not only to the way in which the 1 was seriously weakened in the final Council itself comments on under- bill. The new law as enacted, how- takings, but also to the 'Way in ever, does introduce a few proce- which other federal agencies 'take dural requirements that will incre- into account" the effects Of their mentally increase the burden on undertakings on historic properties. federal agencies that are determined not to follow the Council's recom- Adaptive Use Alternatives for mendations. First, if an agency Surplus Federal Property terminates consultation or fails to reach agreement with the Council Section 4013 of the Act amends on mitigation measures, the head of Section 111 of the NHPA, which the agency is required to 'docu- provides for the lease or exchange ment any decision made pursuant of federal historic properties. In to section 106: More importantly, consultation with the Advisory the head of the federal agency *may Council, federal agencies are re- not delegate his or her responsibili- quired under the new Act 'to the ties" under this process, and must extent practicable," to "establish therefore be personally involved in and implement alternatives for any termination decision by the historic properties, including adap- agency. This is expected to have a tive use, that are not needed for beneficial restraining influence on current or projected agency purpos- agency action. Finally, the Act es ...7 (To be codified at 16 confirms that '[wlhere a section U.S.C. Â§ 470}1-3(a)). 106 memorandum of agreement has been executed with respect to an State Historic Preservation undertaking, such memorandum Programs shall govern the undertaking and all of its parts.* H.R. 429, Â§ 401213) Section 4004 of the Act makes (to be codified at 16 U.S.C. Â§ 470h- certain modifications to the respon- 211)). This reaffirms the binding sibilities of the SHPOs, amending effect of an MOA currently spelled Section 101(b) of the NHPA, 16 out in the Advisory Council's regu- U.S.C. Â§ 470a(b). The new provi- lations, 36 C.F.R. Â§ 800.6(c)(1). sions allow the SHPOs, through contracts or cooperative agreements Regulatory Authority of the with the Secretary of the Interior, Advisory Council on Historic to take on additional responsibili- Preservation ties, such as identifying and pre- serving historic properties, making Section 4018 of the Act amends eligibility determinations and pre- 16 U.S.C. Â§ 470s by providing that paring nominations for the Nation- the Advisory Council is authorized al Register, maintaining historical to issue regulations to "govern the and archeological data bases, and implementation' of Section 106 *in evaluating eligibility for Federal its entirety.~ (Emphasis added). preservation initiatives. Page 4 Preservation Law Reporter Advance June 30, 1992 Native American and Native Eligibility of Religious Properties Hawaiian Partnership in the for Federal Matching Grants National Preservation Program Section 4007(2) explicitly pro- A number of provisions vides that National Register-listed throughout the Act ensure that religious properties are eligible for Native American and Native Ha- federal matching grant funds for waiian interests are more fully 'preservation, stabilization, restora- represented and included in the tion, or rehabilitation," provided national preservation program. For that "the purpose of the grant is example, Section 4016 of the Act secular, does not promote religion, adds a Native American representa- and seeks to protect those qualities tive to the membership of the Ad- that are historically significant' visory Council on Historic Pres- Id. (to be codified at 16 U.S.C. ervation. Section 4006 of the Act Â§ 470ale)(4)). The statutory lan- creates tribal historic preservation guage incorporates the standard offices, and provides a mechanism articulated by the Supreme Court for those offices to assume the in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. functions and responsibilities of 602 (1971), to ensure that the fund- SHPOs with respect to tribal lands. ing program would not violate the The Secretary of the Interior is separation of church and state re- directed to establish a program to quired under the establishment assist Indian tribes in preserving clause of the first amendment. their unique cultural resources, and This new provision reverses a long- to "ensure that tribal values are standing federal adminiktrative taken into account to the extent policy, which has banned religious feasible." The Act also authorizes properties from eligibility for his- the Secretary to enter into con- toric preservation grants. tracts and cooperative agreements with Indian tribes for preservation National Center for Preservation activities. Technology and Training Matching Grants Section 4012 of the Act estab- lishes a new National Center for Sections 4007 and 4009-4011 Preservation Technology and Train- modify the matching grant require- ing, within the Department of the ments applicable to the Historic Interior, to be located at North- Preservation Fund, including a re- western State University of Louisi- authorization of the HPF through ana in Natchitoches, Louisiana. 1997 (Sec. 4011). The matching The purposes of the Center include: formula is adjusted to 60-40 (Sec. developing and distributing preser- 4009(1)), and for state projects and vation and conservation skills and programs, total administrative costs technology; developing and facili- are limited to 25 percent of aggre- tating preservation training; and gate costs (Sec. 4009(3)3. facilitating the transfer of preserva- November 9, 1992 Preservation Law Reporter Advance Page 5 9.4 t tion technology among federal, retary of the Interior is also re- state, and local agencies, universi- quired to issile guidelines to ensure ties, international organizations, that federal, state, and tribal preser- and the private sector. The Center vation programs promote preserva- is authorized to accept private tion by private owners of hiStOIiC grants and donations, and to enter properties and archeological sites, into contracts and cooperative in the following ways: (l) 'provide agreements with federal, state, and information" to historic property local governments and educational owners about the 'need for protec- institutions. The Center is also tion' and 'available means of pro- authorized to award grants'in order tection' for historic properties; (21 to ensure an effective and efficient Â«encourage owners to preserve such system of research, information resources intact and in place;' (3) distribution and skills training in encourage the protection of sites all of the related historic preserva-- with religious or cultural impor- tion fields.Â« The Secretary of the tance to Native Americans; and (4) Interior is directed to "fully utilize to 'encourage" owners to conduct and further develop' the National archeological excavations in confer- Park Service's preservation centers mance with federal standards, and and regional offices, and to "coordi- to donate or lend artifacts to appro- nate their activities with the Cen- priate research institutions. ter" as appropriate. Authority to Withhold Education and Training Information from Disclosure Section 4008 of the Act re- Section 4020 of the Act autho- quires the Secretary of the Interior rizes the head of a federal agency or to develop and implement a com- other public official receiving grant prehensive preservation education assistance to withhold from public and training program for federal, disclosure information about the state, tribal, and local government location, character, or ownership of employees, and students. The Act historic resources, if disclosure also provides for technical and fi- would risk harm to the resource nancial assistance to tribal colleges (for example, looting of an archeo- and historically black colleges and logical site); would "impede the use universities to establish preserva- of a traditional religious site;" or tion training and degree progranns. would "cause a significant invasion of privacy.* (To be codified at 16 Professional Standards for Federal U.S.C. Â§ 470w-3.) Employees and Contractors; Guidance to Property Owners Interstate and International Traffic in Antiquities -Section 4014 of the Act re- quires that all federal employees Section 4015 of the Act re- and contractors responsible for quires the Secretary of the Interior, historic preservation and archaeolo- in consultation with the Advisory gy meet specific professional stan- Council, to submit a report to Con- dards and qualifications. The Sec- gress within 18 months of enact- Page 6 Preservation Low Reporter Advance june 30, 1992 ment with recommendations con- of properties may be threatened, ceming *the suitability and feasibil- ascertain the causes of the threats, ity of alternatives for controlling and make recommendations to the illegal interstate and international President and Congress for appro- traffic in antiquities.' priate action. Report on the Effect of National Specific Authorization Required Register listing and Eligibility for Appropriations to Determination Historic Sites Section 4015 of Act requires Section 4023 of the Act pro- the Secretary of the Interior to pre- vides that any appropriations for pare a report, within one year of projects under the Historic Sites, the law's enactment, concerning Buildings, and Antiquities Act the "manner' in which properties must be specifically authorized in are listed or determined eligible for advance by Congress. The purpose the National Register, including the of this amendment is to restrict ad 'appropriateness of the criteria hoc "pork barrel' appropriations, used" and the 'effect, if any," of which have been a matter of occa- listing or determining a property sional controversy in the historic eligible for listing in the National preservation area in recent years. Register. This section of the Act The Historic Sites Act gives broad was added in response to concerns authority to the National Park Ser- by "property rights" organizations vice to provide assistance to histor- seeking to restrict the National ic resources. The new provision is Register eligibility determination designed to give the authorizing process. The report is viewed by committees more control over preservation advocates as a useful spending priorities, rather than vehicle for educating Congress allowing Congress to single out about the fact that National Regis- specific projects for extra spending. ter eligibility determinations affect only federal agency actions, and do National Park Service Director not have a direct effect on private Designated to Act for property owners. Secretary of tile Interior Review of Threats to National Section 4019(a)(9) of the Act Register Properties designates the Director of the Na- tional Park Service as acting for the Section 4003 of the Act re- Secretary of the Interior for purpos- quires the Secretary of the Interior, es of all provisions in the National at least once every four years, to re- Historic Preservation Act. This is view "significant threats" to histor- accomplished by amending the ic properties listed in or eligible for definition of the Â«Secretary' in 16 the National Register of Historic U.S.C. Â§ 470w(11). The purpose of Places. In consultation with the this amendment is to give the Na- Advisory Council and the State tional Park Service more political Historic Preservation Officers, the independence in administering the review must determine what kinds NHPA. November 9, 1992 Preservation LAw Reporter Advance Page 7 f 2 History of the Dill Borne provisions of Title XI, were scaled back by the conference com- The National Historic Preserva- mittee, most survived intact. The tion Act Amendments are the re- bill was reported out of the confer- sult of years of legislative develop- ence committee on October 5, ment. A version of the bill was 1992. The final hurdle was a con- originally introduced during the troversy over a water project that 101st Congress on August 4, 1989 would affect California farmers. (S. 1579) by Senator Wyche Fowler, Senator John Seymour (R-CA), in Ir. (D-CA) but died in the Subcom. the midst of an ultimately unsuc- mittee on Public Lands, National cessful reelection campaign, threat- Parks and Forests. The bill was end a filibuster; failing that, a pre- modified and reintroduced by Sena- election presidential veto was con- tor Fowler in the 102nd Congress sidered a strong possibility. How- as S. 684 on March 19, 1991. After ever, the bill was.ultimately passed a series of hearings, the bill was by both Houses and was signed by reported from the Senate Commit- the President on October 30, 1992. tee on Energy and Natural Resourc- es on July 24, 1992, not long before the scheduled summer recess of the 102nd Congress. Although an iden- tical bill had been introduced in the House by Representative Charles E. Bennett (D-FL-3), H.R. 1601, that bill had not yet been acted on, and preservation advocates feared that the pressures of the shorter election year legislative calendar would present problems for the comple- tion of all the steps needed to pass the bill. As a result, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman, J. Bennett Johnston (D-LA), offered the Fowler bill as reported by his committee as an amendment to the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act, H.R. 429, a bill nearly ready for final House- Senate conference action and a high legislative priority of both the Re- publican and Democratic congres- sional leadership. The bill became Title XL of that Act, and the Senate l passed the package on July 3 lst, 1992. Senator Johnston's Reclamation Act strategy paid off. Although Page 8 Preservation Law Reporter Advance junc 30, 1992 Aspen CLG 08-92-70116.04 ATTACHMENT B EXHIBIT 1 PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK, STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS 1. T5OJECT PURPOSE: The purpose of the project is to accomplish two important preservation goals for the City of Aspen. This project will develop and implement a comprehensive educational program, which includes revision and expansion of the Design Guidelines with graphics and visuals to provide for greater accessibility, understanding and use for the public. The second project will address preservation of a threatened resource, the historic c,1892 Castle Creek Power Plant (City Shops, 2. SPECIFICATION OF WORK: The contractor agrees to the specifications of work as described in the sections below. a, Eart I The scope of work involves a brainstorm session between the Planning Office and the architects of the HPC, to determine the precise consultant qualifications to be stated in the Request for Proposal (RFP). Once the consultant has been selected, a series of orientation sessions will be held with the consultant and the HPC, to review the deficiencies of the existing Guidelines. An outline/work program/assignments will be established, and field studies will be conducted. It is anticipated that neighborhood study teams will be created to assist. This will all occur in the fall, prior to the onset of winter. A series of bi- monthly worksession will be scheduled, to review work progress. The press will be invited to each worksession. Photography and video taping will occur at this same time. Once a draft report (narrative, graphics and photography) is prepared, the Planning Office will sponsor a meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council to review the work to date and seek their feedback and direction. From there, the final report will be prepared and presented the community - National Preservation Week, 1993 is targeted. Copies of the visuals (slide presentation, displays and video) will then be distributed to the organizations and venues as previously stated. b. Part 2 A similar progression will occur on the second Project, with the HPO serving as project manager. Initial planning and needs assessment meetings will be conducted with the involved city departments, . in order to clari fy the consultant qualifications and plan requirements to be stated in the RFP. Once the consultant has been selected, additional meetings will be held with city departments, and an initial assessment survey report prepared. This document will be available for review by the City Council, HPC and Blue Ribbon Committee. The Project Manager and consultant will determine periodically when general citizen comment is appropriate, and public meetings will be held, sponsored by the Planning Department. The first report draft will be submitted for Project Manager and Department Head review, amendment and approval. It is anticipated that a community meeting/open house with press/media will be held at this point. The final product will include a specific implementation strategy, with detailed preservation plan for the structure and site. 411 4 LOCAL PRESERVATION NETWORK Aspen (Congressional District 3) Aspen Historical Society 620 W. Bleeker Street Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-3721 Historic Preservation Committee* Aspen/Pitkin County Planning 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 920-5090 Roxanne Eflin Aurora (Congressional District 6) Historic Preservation Commission* Aurora History Museum 15001 E. Alameda Dr. Aurora, CO 80012 (303) 340-2219 Ginny Steele/Nan Rickey Aurora Rehabilitation Authority 9728 E. Colfax Avenue Aurora, CO 80010 (303) 361-6940 Alan Nazzaro Black Hawk (Congressional District 2) Historic Architectural Review Commission P.O. Box 17 Black Hawk, CO 80422 (303) 582-5221 Kathryn Eccker Boulder (Congressional District 2) Landmark Preservation Advisory Board* City of Boulder, Planning Department P.O. Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306 (303) 441-3440 Ruth McHeyser Historic Boulder 1733 Canyon Boulevard Boulder, CO 80302 (303) 444-5192 Sandy Priester National Trust Advisor 4705 Shawnee Place Boulder, CO 80303 (303) 494-7553 Betty Chronic Winter & Company 475 Poplar Avenue Boulder, CO 80477 (303) 440-8445 Nore Winter Breckenridge (Congressional District 3) planning Commission Town of Breckenridge P.O. Box 168 Breckenridge, CO 80424 (303) 453-2251 Bob Matatall Buena Vista (Congressional District 5) Melanie Milam P.O. Box 1884 Buena Vista, Co 81211 (719) 395-2598 Canon City (Congressional District 3) Fremont-Custer Historical Society P.O. Box 965 Canon City, CO 81212 Central City (Congressional District 2) Historic Preservation Officer P.O. 249 Central City, CO 80427 (303) 582-1454 Alan Granruth Colorado Springs (Congressional District 5) Historic Preservation Board Office of City Planning City of Colorado Springs 30 S. Nevada Colorado Springs, CO 80901 Tim Scanlon Dean M. Ibsen, AIA 1723 N. Tejon Street Colorado Springs, CO 80907 (719) 395-2598 Craig (Congressional District 3) Moffat County Museum 221 West Victory Way Craig, CO 81625 (303) 824-6360 Dan Davidson Crested Butte (Congressional District 3) Board of Zoning & Architectural Review* Town of Crested Butte P.O. Box 39 Crested Butte, CO 81224 (303) 349-5338 John Hess Cripple Creek (Congressional District 5) Historic Preservation Commission* 337 East Bennett P.O. Box 430 Cripple Creek, CO 80813 (303) 689-2778 Brian Levine Denver (Congressional District 1) Historic Denver 1330 17th Street Denver, CO 80202 (303) 534-1858 Kathleen Brooker Lower Downtown District, Inc. 1616 17th Street, Suite 372 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 628-5424 David Gottlieb Landmark Preservation Commission* Denver Planning Office 200 West 14th Street Denver, CO 80204 (303) 640-4785 Ellen Ittelson Preservation Action 556 Circle Drive Denver, CO 80206 (303) 355-0834 Mona Ferrugia Wheat Ridge Historical Museum 5050 Raleigh Street Denver, CO 80212 (303) 433-6097 Dillon (Congressional District 3) Summit County Historical Society P.O. Box 747 -- Dillon, CO 80435 (303) 453-9022 Rebecca Waugh Durango (Congressional District 3) Historic Preservation Board Planning & Community Development 949 E. 2nd Avenue Durango, CO 81301 (303) 247-5622 X393 Jill Seyfarth Fort Lewis College Miller Center 108 Durango, CO 81301 (303) 247-7333 Ken Francis Fort Collins (Congressional District 4) City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Office* P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 (303) 221-6597 Carol Tunner Center for Stabilization of Buildings Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 (303) 491-6139 Dick Beardmore Fort Morgan (Congressional District 4) Lyn Deal 404 Sherman Fort Morgan, CO 80701 (303) 867-7928 Georgetown (Congressional District 2) Historic Georgetown, Inc. P.O. Box 667 Georgetown, CO 80444 (303) 569-2840 Ron Neely Design & Review Commission* Town of Georgetown P.O. 426 Georgetown, CO 8 1444 (303) 569-2555 Tammy Sanford Golden (Congressional District 5) Historic Preservation Board* City of Golden 911 10th Street Golden, CO 80401 (303) 279-3331 X241 Charles L. Hearn Grand Junction (Congressional District 3) National Trust Advisor 222 South 6th Street, Room 409 Grand Junction, CO 81501 (303) 248-7310 Jon Schler Idaho Springs (Congressional District 2) Historic Preservation Review Commission* City of Idaho Springs 1711 Miner Street P.O. 907 Idaho Springs, CO 80452 (303) 567-4421 Lynette Parker Lake City (Congressional District 3) Town of Lake City* P.O. Box 544 Lake City, CO 81235 (303) 944-2333 Grant Houston Lakewood (Congressional District 1) Lakewood Historical Society 797 S. Wadsworth Lakewood, CO 80226 (303) 987-7850 Sheila Smyth Lamar (Congressional District 4) Janet Gelhausen 312 West Olive Lamar, CO 81052 (719) 336-2633 Leadville (Congressional District 5) Planning & Zoning Commission City of Leadville P.O. Box 923 Leadville, CO 80461 (719) 486-2092 Geraldine McAuliffe Sid Clemmer Leadville Country Inn 127 E. 8th Street Leadville, CO 80461 (719) 486-2354 Littleton (Congressional District 6) Littleton Historical Museum Board Littleton Historical Museum 6028 S. Gallup Littleton, CO 80120 (303) 795-3950 Bob McQuarie Loveland (Congressional District 4) Loveland Downtown Development Authority 427 North Railroad Avenue Loveland, CO 80537 (303) 962-2420 Felicia Harman Longmont (Congressional District 2) Landmark Designation Commission* Longmont Planning Office Civic Center Complex Longmont, CO 80501 (303) 651-8330 Scott Toillion - . Lyons (Congressional District 2) Lyons Historical Society P.O. Box 9 Lyons, CO 80540 (303) 823-6692 (303) 667-6130 Pueblo (Congressional District 3) Pueblo County Historical Society 33550 Highway 96 #190 Pueblo, CO 81001 Manitou Springs (Congressional District 5) Historic Preservation Commission* City of Manitou Springs Planning Department 606 Manitou Avenue Manitou Springs, CO 80829 (719) 685-4398 Michelle Anthony Strasburg (Congressional District 4) Comanche Crossing P.O. Box 562 Strasburg, CO 80136 Stratton (Congressional District 4) Mary Jo Downey Local Governments P.O. Box 28 Stratton, co 80836 (719) 348-5562 Steamboat Springs (Congressional District 3) Tread of Pioneers Historical Commission P.O. Box 772372 Steamboat Springs, CO 80477 (303) 879-2214 Telluride (Congressional District 3) Historic & Architectural Review Commission* Town of Telluride P.O. Box 397 Telluride, Co 81435 (303) 728-3071 Lance McDonald Trinidad (Congressional District 4) John M. Tarabino P.O. Box 777 Trinidad, CO 81082 (719) 846-5543 Westminster (Congressional District 2) Westminster Area Historical Society P.O. Box 492 Westminster, CO 80030 (303) 426-1858 *Indicates Certified Local Governments (CLGs) THE CHANGING FACE OF ASPEN As new buildings sprout, tbe Victorianpast witbers. Is it too late to save it? Does anybody care? Story by Sara Garton Photography by Alan Becker *.M/#iMELIMI. t naâ€žâ€žapdpâ‚¬d40 12(9RittÂ·.kt'Â·""07lk : - *i c.~ i ME<,44/ ''~ ' 1 - 4 , 4fyi 0 , 1 '1' /4 ' 74 ~g:~~, <r~i,~ ,~~.c~~*f#~fif~~~~ \ r...7 ../ :.i ;,2.-% *,4 ,'--~,~.'49 -~-.i~- ~i', 21~5'SEME Â· EÂ¥*2 i* 71 )24, C.,24 / . 11 â‚¬942'15(7' 4~ Iii f<1417 -,9 t.:.'Â·..211;2+ 4 114, I 2 , )%:4Â°:91 w .7'- 4$24,-1, i , Clv' 4...Â· / . - 'll , r . -4-1/ I . .. I Alill Street Plaza (1) and Franz Be,ko's studin/store (r) ," 516'M~ ) 92# 1 be Be,11(?liont 1,01<se (1) and tlic Segui,1 131~11,1171g (r; -'.1 6460.-* '- ':JIJ.fz.r>12% 4 4/ 4 -3 j i f f ..r. , 17..7 - f 14 .- --7- 14511JI.El~aMUÂ¢i,d.Â»f- Â·-jv.,-7 d --1 19=l... ...,Mi Fid ,Â·. ] l-t..9 ; ..; i Fl.7FMPTr.~-r ~i.-,- zr-z:r.44# Â·<, --- t...1 fi:l 1~&-1 b*< L---1 03-Ea~,~~it:- ~.14: ..4,~ U 1 :t f.. K - 6 1. I. ... 22 -11 -=1.1-,4 f 74 I ::i.c iÂ· 1 IM m i B Ir-{ i - -~ 51:4 143~ *t <AF .. 14'--w#4374 1 - :. ~ , ~~ ' A : i.illifi i:Â·11,042 - -Â·: : sr,i:Â·24. :t~ - f rg.,7,1 k M 1 kir 1 lk-ilt. 1 i,YU./ENI, I i Er r"rer~n ,,1 ---'-.* .tt-y,Lity a- / 12 , 1, - .,.,nâ€ž7:~99,1- 1 91. 4-4 -TPHÂ» -6/177.Y...1' b -- -94676%4444~~ ,i 1 ,/4 11 - . -+ .1, - 2 -e,- 1-1-- /e - 1 F 411 ' Th- 41,Â·f -,4* - --/ Ar, ... J, L .:.tl,1/1 9. f ..1 2.-i ..F 2 , 0-Â·Â·1' .Â·â€¢Y~-.,M-*%.,9..r 1 7. ' , *r f-- J :,44.f r' L 4 .*'<v.--15&gLE,6...4.~ -*Tal. -4 jiri 1Â· :,th-4,1.'I,9-:. i 121- 1 F:.5,4 1 444 .*A ...441 "irs becomingtoo slick... ; 1- 4174Â¥. 24 ' construction project is considered, The /Â·iÂ· town is sliding dozen (be malt Aspen Times becomes a forum of hot debate through the editorial page, let- Â·f n a {11(.igmire of boutiqi{('s, t-sbirt I ' ~ '~ k Â·Â·-hi x.wlif , (111(I candy stmes. ters to the editor, and citizen-paid advertisements. ,; i q rchi|. TI]cre is a li'â€ž 11 (i Crful mix The. council chambers iii City Hall W h A ill,{ new, good and 1 ),Id, sbabby 2 ...7 0 -11 and the County Court House are sieck. It looks like a tral town." * ,(, h ow! Don't lose tbe small scale. packed with shouting protestors whon it seems that our elected officials are l'! (' sce},1 to be l}intÂ·C (ind litore big 3 . ':ljff}*11!M ' '1 1,1.'i '*11, 1:.outto compromise the quality that is of crumuercia! 1,Â·,41+1-tgs, and a/l 14.,it/i Brit rcicit-s~ .~ ~ -~,~~~~~-~-~~~~1-1~t:i.~ 1~17 biLf,l Some people say that the quality of Â·j~:1-6~~ ,Â·:CÂ· ,~.<-,~ .~f ' x- HA4,~Ph'~$~1,~ itt., Aspen is fragile, continually threatened r by the ravages of development. Sonic I :1 archilecturc is Colitroversial. 4. u....~,v'.Â·tÂ·.1 =a3~2' .:;. people haveargued that in trying to pre- -.c pe''ple say th:it it A a hodgepodge, ------Illil--g-=-I- serve the quality of Aspen, Aspen has ': lit:Â·re 1.S no cohesive architectural -1 br Alas- 6 Morse Real Estate offices 0) lost its quality. 1:Â·.-, th.it there is tio sctife of place. tind tbe Cheap Shots second-band store (r) Part of that quality comes from its 'hers gy that the bizarre mix of Aspen beauty and history. Located at the end L .Ite.-ture reflects the bizarre mix of the idealists and the realists, between of the Roaring Fork Valley, crisscrossed :1(Â·11 reol)ic, that it is enel getic, amits- aesthetics and economics, between by a tumbling river, and surrounded hy r.. ;md 'llive. the 110-growth proponents and the mountains tliat soar from the city's edge Le controversy over the "face" of develoi iers. to 12,000 feet, Aspell k awasomely .i ber,an lic:u 4 forty years ago, Aspen residents react with outrage to beaittiful. There are wide ctraight rÂ· Aspoll was cluniging (rom a sinal] what are consideredacts of despoilment 511,Â·' ts lined with cottonwood trees,and C 1 OWn t0 311 Illterllati011,3| reCre- to tlicir surioundings. In tile late Sixties th Â·r are parks, yards, and alleys that id cllitural meca, The debate tile Concept 600 Building was torched co ittibute to its sniall-town anibiatice, Â·d such alistract ideas as the and burned in an angry attempt to halt The older bitildings and inhabitants are ilit i Â·ini{ character of Aspeti. The the nicreasing approval and construe- survivoys of its boom-and-hust-and- MInn'ersy colltillucs today |letwCell tion of big buildings. Whenever a large boom history. conti,twed rm nert rctic 11 In 1879 a milling campwas settled by ley and the bottom of the pass had been test over Bayer's decision to paint e a group of rugged, determined, and its preservation. The Paepckes found a the hotel's red brick with r,1 ny and ,1 hard-workingpcople. Liketheirdescen- town that had stood still for fifty years. blue eyebrows over its windows. 1 1 i dat-its, sonic came for adventure, some Original Victorian wood and sandstone paint was offered to anyone for he, carne to put down roots, and some calne structures remained, because no one refurbishment, but many people wÂ· with dollar signs itt their eyes. Each had bothered to tear them down unless afraid that the colors would be cho' came to seek his own kind of good firewood was in short supply. by Bayer.) fortune. The town's fame spread with the c The tents and shanties of Ute City be- tablishment of the Aspen Institute i came the boom city of Aspen. By 1892 Humanistic Studies and the Orgatli-/ forty-four million dollars worth of An Aspen arcbitecture was tion of the Aspen Skiing Corporatio silver and lead had been extracted from to bave evolved, creating The newcomers came this time to b.1 its mines. Eleven thousand people new buildings wbicb were in a different kind of splendor. 11, basked in the splendor of Colorado's were patrons and partakers of the ai 1 Silver Queen. There were several barmonious witb Aspen's intellect, nature, and sports - "t churches, the first electric street lights iii history, environment, small good life." Colorado, elegant Victorian homes, They were encouraged by Bayer substantial commercial buildings, and a scale, and native materials. build in a simple and Illoderti style 11 grand hotel and stately opera house, However, tbe design tbat not to imitate the Victori:in or to cot both named for the town'S great ben- actually evolved was eclectic. contributions were the clean line. struct the cutesychalet. Herbert Baye, efactor, Jerome B. Wheeler. Ihe Silver Queen fell off her throne . buildings of the Aspen Institute, 4 with the demonetization of silver in Music Tent, the Patricia Moore Phil' 1893. The mines closed, and the popu- It was Aspen's good fortune to re- ing, and the Sundeck restaurant, lation dwindled to seven hundred ceive the guidance and largesse of a sec- Fritz Benedict, Bayer's brother-it people. Then, in 1945, Walter and ond benefactor. Walter Paepcke under- law, studied with Frank Lloyd Wrig! Elizabeth Paepcke decided that Aspen stood the value of old building<, and the at Taliesin West in Arizona. A nien would be ati ideal location for a center town had a colorful history : ,i,1 a rich ber of the Tenth Mountain Divisic, which would encourage great ideas architectural legacy worth preberving. Benedict moved to Aspen after the w. through intellectual dialogue, cultural Herbert Bayer, a Bauhaus artist, was and became its first architect, contr.t events, and physical challenge. They hired by Paepcke as an advisor and tor, and planner. He purchased :Â·Â· saw beyond a town of tumbled-down planner in Aspen's restoration. The restored the Bowman Block, the gr.Â·, shacks, boarded-up buildings, and Hotel Jerome and the Wheeler Opera ful building which tocinv hoti trashed-out vacant lots. House were leased, repaired, and deco- McDonough's Ski Finery and I.es ChoÂ· Aspen's isolation at the end of the val- rated. (However, there was some pto- d'Aspen. . 1 WHAT THE LOCALS SAY " A i m not wild about the way Aspen Controversy ~ Aspen has changed. It used to be looks right now. It's losing its . as usual more homogeneous. The buildings Victorian character. IIi spite of + seem in conflict now. Individu.,!tty the historical overlay, which may should be expressed within a i have corne too late, there's an "Some of it is wonderful and some of framework of the past and of awkwardness. Many of the it is so shabby that it's embarassing! materials. My home's identity ~ commercial buildings are like But I think Aspen is going through a emerged from the materials I recycled ~ little shopping mails, and there renaissance now in architecture. i and scavenged." are less of the street-level The new airport, the restored Ken Aloore, ~ store fronts." Wheeler, the remodeling of the local community actrtist Mayor Bill Stirling Hotel Jerome, the proposed Aspen Mountain Lodge -it's a renaissance Â«Overall Aspen's done a good job of I "Some of it I like, and some of it I and good for Aspen." maintaining the old mining towt, 2.r.L L don't like. It's a pity though that Ricbie Coben, the Victorian periocl, particularlv some very ugly new buildings have in the residential area. l'here have Aspen real estate salesman been allowed somehow to be built been a couple of mistakes, such as next to the old buildings." "How do I like the way Aspen looks? the Aspen Inn. The scale of Aspen Terese David, long-time resident I don't look anymore." should be sniall and kept small. and proprieti-ess of Toni Benton, It gives a sense of identity." Terese David Boutique artist and former architect Sam Caudill, architect 12 ment, small scale, and native materials. '-"FTL/7 iÂ·Â·Â·r TV+A: 111 .-'p- However, the design that actually ~. / evolved was eclectic. The Aspen City Council passed the by Paepcke and developed by Bayerand .. Â»093;9Â«1-1]]]17.-4{14.2Â»<CeSF7- . first zoning ordinance in 1955. Inspired -fl/, m'>1.113*4*4.,t j,--9 J.i].-j---f ; Benedict, it was an attempt to preserve the status quo of small buildings and open spaces. Bayer wanted even stricter controls that could legislate design by means of an architectural review com- 0 .7.11 mittee. However, there was a native re- ,Â·:,Jilij i luctance to tell anyone what he could or - j I Â» !lilliÂ·1 (. 2/Vf \ . ' '11,11111 2 41.02 /i,45%175,1Â£Fkbil.,2 *14* 1,1 . .314 . could not build on his property. It naj:]r Â®1111 1 11 :,11"11, 1\1,1 411% Â»1841 49*AOR , g,- . can rights. 1 seemed somehow a violation of Ameri- 11!11!11 11 1 -4 -1 ; Many were resigned to tbe . iNHUNHUMEÂ«j.li]7-41'IMJ,01]idik4â‚¬g{.41,1. A' '4, 4 ~~1 Â·, ' inevitable march of progress, 1 .. I i311'~i --z ,;~,1~jf~3~,li *'-'.4~9~1*.,-. 12, 11 2 Â· 14 sotbebuildings justkept ,2. J 329661 " I - ,.2- going up. - ... 9 . The 1960 Winter Olympics in Squaw , Valley captured national attention and ' 41 ~..i Â·*,fr*.'4 ' 1/ 287,74-t~ 4 .- . k' fAr-:,g., ~.--Ap catapulted skiing to a national obses- 1 1 i 4 * .-* 49 :-:~ Afv - ~ 3,T\'.Iqks,z<4 ~ -' 44 1 -~ M 4 sion. Ski resorts proliferated and pros- i â€¢ C : -Aff,~. k.* pered as people in that affluent decade i '4030Â· , 7 . swarmed to the slopes. Aspen was in the , , Â· , middle of another boom, and skiing, i. not silver, was the mountains' bonanza. .;u,+13.*lit<Ki 713*f"*r : The fortune hunters followed, and I . ; ~.+Y v...Â·.5 .14~J. 4 7' ... ' .~4:l..1 '1'A + , J/it* .., i + large condominiUm buildings began to 0...,:i,Â·.se? tft-:tfl~ jif r .4.9.-)...9 .. ... 1-j/421 , k .4 fill up the vacant lots downtown. Aspen was divided between those who wanted 1 , to pull in the welcome mat and those 1 Â·, who welcomed the ripple effect of out- - ~ ~~ ~: ,0. .* ~ side investment. Many were resigned to ~ the inevitable march of progress, so the .,_31.1,Â·-44*71- _jic_1249.41 -r,+493* 2 4 0, V. ' ' buildings just keptgoing up. Â·M I - I In 1963 work began ona master plan i 01{Vi- 7.t'- -02,~66,5,#f*r~i.,Â· 41&11 " whid, was a joint effort by the city, I _ coutity, and the Aspen Institute. A con- sult Int was hired and meetings were , < held to hear citizen input. Artist Tom Benton and blacksmith Francis --AJ ~ ,, ~~ Whitaker were members of the plan- & A vrl T Piet flutti[ 4,1 0' : 2 *gl:J: : ning and zoning commission that re- 1 41 ....2 ' ,f D* 52.41 (/l' A ?....11 1. '4 viewed and approved the final master t ~ 1 ~~ ~?fift ~ e~/,Ii i. 11.~tÂ¥ % A'gg *lit, ./ plan. Whitaker, experienced by years o f planning and zoning work in Carmel, 44 441 11~~'11 i~i~)~~Â·~il!~r>''friÂ·~ ~ Ni-~~fj~,~,>~~1*,~7Â·m,J.11 1 |iÂ· itl 1 1| California, futilely advocated the estab- t. ~ ~Â·.~18114Â·E#i,it:*211-51 FillitlfTH r.~ 0 1 1 lishment of an historicpreservation dis- Â· 2, A. 4 ' MR trict in the four-block commercial area. The master plan recommended strict 1 density controls, butafterpublicprotest I 1-be KSNO studioioffice briilding (1) and tbe Condo,1 house (r) and debate, they were cut iii half. Otie of the regulations passed was a 371/2-foot â€žÂ·i;cÂ·diet and Ilayer figured in the Alps, Snowmass West Village, the ceiling limitation on commercial build- 1( 0 ' li; and restoration of many Benedict Building, and the Aspen Club. ings. So new buildings were constructed Cs commercial buildings. Infiuenced by Pacpcke's visionandby with flat roofs to get another story With- . own design combined native Bayer's and Benedict's designs, an in code. Buildings in the commercial , 1,Â·, natural wood, and a respect for Aspenarchitecturewasto haveevolved, core are now designed with subterra- i,itc and clifironment in a planned creating new buildings which were har- nean retail space for more leasable I Its buildings include the Aspen monious with Aspen's history, environ- square feet. COM::Â·84,1 ort ime 40 11 FACE OF AsmiN, contintâ€žed from page 13 -- Iii 1966 the Aspen Area Plan (the commercial core and the Main Street masterÂ· plaii) was passed. Its purpose corridor. Remed,Â·ling and new con- was to ensure orderly growth, and its iii- struction of buildirg. must be harmoni- tent was "to retain the fine balance be- ous with the chatacter of these two tween man and his environment, the es- areas. Some residential areas and cer- sence of Aspen's character." Neverthe- tain homes are also designated for HPC / less, growth, not always orderly, con- Â· review. tinued as hundreds of people moved In spite of all the city and county 74 itito the state everydayandskierssettled codes and regulations and all the in the mountains. numerous design review processes, it J ri t, Iii 1972 the voters of Colorado re- re, '. has become obvious in Aspen that good 14/,2 jected the Winter Olympics, and in , architecture has not been guaranteed by 1973 the voters of Aspen elected Stacy legislation. As Tom Benton puts it, "It's Stanley as mayor, and Joe Edwards and , still possible to build ugly no matter WHEE Dwight Shellinan as county commis- how you rule against it." 1889 A sioners. The triumvirate were outspo- Several local architects responded to ken opponents of growth and en- , the question, "Is there an Aspen ar- r,=.1=7=Z- thusiastic proponents for the salvation chitecture?" during a recent panel dis- A Y EA: of Aspen and Pitkin County. The city cussion at the Aspen Center for the Vis- suspended review of all building per- ual Arts. One architect said that there ~~ mits that might be in conflict with the i should be an obligation to incorporate proposed Growth Management Plan, i natural materials and climatic and solar an offshoot of the original master plan. features. Another architect answered Th landowners and developers filed law- that the freewheeling environment en- suits, and ranchers threatened a recall couraged people to experiment in de- sign, to be original and unique. Harry ' i Teague disagreed and said architects As Tom Benton puts it j can't be unique and still retain an ar- CC chitectural harmony. He believes that "It's still possible to build Aspen architecture has a debt to its ugly no matter bow you rule Victorian past. A against it." ' Making a related point, a recent de- sign article in Time described West MO Jerusalem as "a truly modern city whose past is a living part of its pres- election to protest the rezoning of the ent," and said that "Constraints, it RET county. Meanwhile, the city purchased HISTC open space with the seventh-penny tax, installed the downtown mall, and estab- [Tbe Aspen Mountain Lodge] WHEE lished a system of parks and trails. The Growth Management Plan, ap- is a 447-room hotel and NOW f proved in 1977, specified an annual conference center, tbe largest 1113 A growth rate and stringent zoning regu- projectever to come before lilt 7.-Ir, lations. But iii spite of the best inten- 1{!STOT tions, the GMP backfired. Down-zon- tbe city. Tbe project bas been ~ ing and no-growth legislation created Â· anotber struggle on a ' BOX t highly inflated property and made C)[-FIC Aspen unaffordable to everyone except familiar battlefield. t.21222.12.- the developers and the very rich. The GMP specified an annual compe- tition to determine the limited residen- seems, free true creativity, in sharp con- tial, commercial, and lodging alloca- | trast to originality for its own sake." -8 -I-- -i- tions. Points are awarded each appli- The creativity in Harry Teague's de- E cant in several categories: existing sign for the newly completed Hotel FE utilities, services, employee housing, 1 Lenado is not constrained by his respect | New Visiors, d i and site plan, Architectural elements are for the Victorian. The deep-pitched i prornotion,01 fi' at last considered in the review of the roof, turrets, and gables of the new | FREE LOAN 0520-i- site plan. If the design is creative, com- hotel nod to its imposing Victorian I skiing fdms, off-- patible with the neighborhood, and neighbors. The imaginativeuseof color, I energy efficient, more points are the unchittered space and airiness, and a I F, 2 41 1 awarded to the applicant. combination of industrial and natural I Narne The Historical Preservation Commis- materials make it a modern building. 1 Address sion was established, ten years after There is a touch of whimsy about the ' City Francis Whitaker's appeal, during the. hotel that is delightful. Moreover, the ~ drafting of tile GMP. The HIC, an acl- hotel is small and intimate in the Aspen ,!140 h visory council appointed by the city tradition. 1 :14,41 11 council, reviews all building applica- The proposed Aspen Mountain Lodge ~ Ng NEW V tions in the NVO historic districts: the to be located at the !,ase of Aspen Mouti- L------ contmled Oil next Page 1%Il / 1 /1.1 Â· tam is not all intimate structure. It is a ends up with wli:it he watited iii thiÂ· fn 447-room hotel and conference center, place. 7# .: 0 ~ the largest project ever to come before 111 a recelit ineino to the city (0118.Cl' 1~.t 1 the city. The project has been another the Aspen Committee for Open Sp:le struggle on a familiar battlefield. conceded that the hotel had Ileen r, SHIRT aesthetics and economics, and the giles- Once more the combat was between duced in size but mailitained that it uÂ·,1 the preservationist and the developer, still too large. "We believe thic entir, project is way out of line for thic town village scale and Victorian character. and a subscription to tion of quality in Aspen. One side has one year (six issues) of been concerned about the impact the the committee insisted. At this point, it seems that the Aspe ASPEN the nitigazine Aspen Mountain Lodge will have in Mountain Lodge and other buildinr 1 $15" adequately service and staff the hotel, all for only, terms of traffic flow, the ability to willbe approved and built. Codes, rer lations, and reviews will continue to d and, ultimately, the alteration of Aspen's character. Supporters of the ' termine the size, mass, and set-back < *,~12 THESHIRT- Our new new structures, but what will deterni. project state that Aspen's character ASPEN the inagazi;ie their architectural design? SY,(31: needs shoring up with quality accom- cIi logo printed on tile Aspen architecture be legislated? , back of the modations. They claim that the Aspen , From members of the planning ar Mountain Lodge will replace a con- :Â·4 highest quality t-shirts zoning cominission who prepare f available. glomeration of run-down hotels, that it battle with every building applicatic, will give architectural definition to an Ki THE MAGAZINE - area that has been an eyesore. They con- that it's too late, that the bart!e's be: to many residents, who bitterly ciaÂ·~ Â§,1Â· ASPEN tbe magazine tend that theentirecommunity will ben- + keeps you in touch efit from revenue, jobs, and favorable lost, there is agreement that regutatt 8 with Aspen the town publicity generated by the lodge. design is not the answer. iff.,51 thiÂ· 6 times a year! The city council has held countless that architecture by consensus world mediocre architecture and that it wet' SEE ATTACHED CARD meetings and public hearings. Tbe be ridiculous to require th:it a!1 , TO ORDER NOW. Aspen Times and the local television OR SEND NAME, Al)[)RESS, and radio stations have debated the Aspen's buildings be Victorian. Mo M F NS OR WOMENS S1 111lT don't want to live iii a theme park. SIZE. AN4) 1 15.00 10: issue. It is discussed over drinks and cof- ASPEN-111Ii MAGAZINE Nevertheless, controversy about t' PO BOX 4128 changing face of Aspen continues. Fr fee at dinner parties and restaurants. ASPEN,COLORAI )081612 Benedict argues that there isti't Bitildings are a part of ouT "Aspen architecture" but that 1 1.1{ landscape and surroundings, should be. He has urged that the toÂ·. define a philosophy as a guide for C , rvÂ·=:*i irgyr:pml and tbey influence bow we sign. Although future design might n A1 ; 5 :~t '/ P.' .10/1<Â£42 feel and behave. Conversely, be regulated, it could be directed. \reÂ© All .*Mialaa&% we build buildings according As someone who has an acaden r-,1 and personal interest in the shape 4939.444 to bow we feel and behave. things to come in Aspen, I have in)Â· r,v opinion. I think that Aspen arch;.tÂ· r 4 '. should be required to read historie< c. ..8 The developers of the Aspen Moun- Et.,1- 1 ....::-11, '-*,isÂ·'94 tain Lodge have returned again and the area and pay visits to the A:pen 1 1 8,7.'.. nÂ·'Â·., '' 4 .t ''::--:4 again to the drawing board to mollify torical Society and Hallam Lake. 3 h public outrage over physical mass and .1 , J . .1..,..,. 3 IF should stroll through the resident ' r r'i. #irÂ·Â· ri--Â·11,0 height and in response to code require- West End, hike the Ute Trail for :. Â· , 4 ments and city council suggestions. The bird's-eye view: anddrive a car three ,: -,. - Â·:.Â·11,Lt" "t ..11 2.1Â·111 1.- ...-7 ?13 original design of two large buildings downtown. They should spend ex, joined by a bridge has been reduced in season in Aspen and watch the sh 9/-------~"W'L5-:9.i. t.:,~:6,51: 72Â·1 actual and visual size to several cluster path of the sun. They should V,qtrl, Â· \7*d/'. H '1$>04':-t 'odges surrounding pools and court- \1 yards. Still, the architectural drawing snow fall, grow deep, and molt, :ind Â· the fatitastic but menacing ice for:, lt-, ,~ :,fti,-Â·t.'EYÂ¢ appears to be Snowmass Village East tions. They shotild come to know j\Â·<! : 1- ,19=.00,404( crawling up Monarch,Mill, and Galena in their hearts before they Ch,inge hit 4 :Nrects. their drawing boards. 1.1. 2 1 .1,16.lity..03#33 Lee Pardee of the city's planning and Architecture gives a sense of t.lac,Â· :Â· .Â·Â·Â·- --Â· ~:Â·i:.-7.-Â·i. ~12' zoning commission says that the de- ---- -8~3,3~-Â·:'24:~ :Â·*.14.Â§Â·:23>t,1 velopers have displayed remarkable a commuility and a sense of :'.!()liu'' its inhabitants. Ilitildings :1.,f' :1 q..1 sensitivity and concern for the public's our landscape and surroult!~i:!Ii{:i, Sunglasses . 2 275<45: reaction and infinite patience with the they influence how we feel a:,2 46: / /,t; .1:11,4 city's prolonged and expensive decision : , f / h t.:4- i... k Conversely, we build buililings acer process. ing to how we feel and behave. hi ir ,-....Â· j / ps~...xt])13.i# On the other hand, Tom Benton con- Meyer Schapiro, the Art histoÂ· /, L ': Â·Â·: t. -i-Â·.Â·' t tends that the established procedure for and scholar, has said, 'Archirect , - -L')C -#114 1 ' . : Â·i~ /'=.t.~,14'42~-64 a developeristo apply for a project that is the most social and syin I.t r, '1. uuhÂ·." 3'Â·: Â·,--i: is too big to be accepted. When the pro- Because it is also the niwit p .14 : As:'r)11, Colorado 81611 r : 2,Â·i'-'- 'U ,-Â·. /. ject is finally reduced to an acceptable the Aspen pii b lic inlit: d et~i llc 'i' :l,p;,O-1197 ' ' 1 * -~ ~-~*~- -1,~-.9 design, the developer looks like a good defend it. 43 guy for working with the council and i . - , . I. ~ The Aspen Times- 'Â»Â»Â·Â·Â·Â·-7.-..... i '1 ' Aspen, Colo, mory but shy away from restora- 1 Letters to the Editor tion because it would mean taxes. ; ' D~le,~eicancel my subscription ~ ~i, One of our great problems is the 1, ' to your paper and bill me for the i \ - desire to have the cake and eat Â¢ balance. i Aspen Times it too. i My purpose in subscribing to 1 i Aspen, Colo. - In bringing the restoration a- 4 your paper was to watch the ads , I Dear Mr. Ringle: bout, the City Fathers should ' thinking maybe I might buy a I Your new policy of editorial in- keep before thorn a plan to make : summer home; but I do not be- formation is greatly appreciated. some of the space income prop- : lieve your town would suit our I must say your paper has come erly, as a matter of fact the City Â· p needs. 1 ' a long way in giving Aspen cit- has a very prospective tenant I f The thing that attracted me so : izens the needed information and willing to pay a fair rental -The : F much was its quaintness, and ac- 0 a chance to form an intelligent Chamber of Commerce. Such ren- , # cording to an article in your pa-Â· i opinion on the days problem. tai would bring, for the begin- f per your civic-minded citizens 3 L You brought forth the problem n'ing,.money to keep the Armory : < are more interested in tearing on hand - Destroy or not to Des- in repair, once the initial job, c down the old than they are in re- 4 troy the Armory. I have been cost of which would be about : ~ storing it. We have shopping cen- r greatly interested in the reasons $5000 has taken place. ters all over Texas and fail ,to. f for this debate. It seems there :We are confronted with the .i Â· ~find them attractive - just con-- i are three reasons to tear it down: prospect of a new Mill Levy of 2 } venient. One: Â«It is an old abominable to 4 Mills. One Councilman ask- 4 I.will say I have enjoyed read- i looking building"; Two: "It is ed how I would go about to get . j ing your paper. .I don't know. of ' badly in need of costly . repair the Citizentry stirred up and : 11 a better way to get acquainted ~ and not in good -shape"; Three: make them understandably will- ~ with a -town than to subscribe to , "It is a B . . .'to heat." ing Â·to raise the money. Well, the 1 the local paper. f True enough the building is pride of every Village, Town and 1 Sincerely, not good looking in its present City is to have a City Hall, Civic & sthge due mainly to the old fire- Center and Parks. Yoil grant me, \ MRS. C. L. HOFFMAN ,~ station with its terrible - I everybody grants me,Â· that we 6 Lubbock, Texas think one calls it brick simulat- would love to raise our finger . 14. . '. A ing.shingles. But it has good lines and point out our City, Hall to #''*dr~r*Â·.. . _ 4,Â·=Â·Â·J'vf.~ and .lends itself to a wonderful visitors if we could do so with on Main Street. Everywheres 1 Â» r facelifting. pride. the United States communities -4.-'.2.-,4.9910~ I agree on point number .two. F This restoration question, it cry for more parks and play- ,+Ic,1,13 It is indeed badly in need of re- has been claimed, is a matter of grounds for our Youngfolks, and r.132-5 pair because nobody gave a tin- sentiment only. But this is hot iwe toy with sales.ideas. The Leg- ~ kers d... to plug the holes in a matter of sentiment but rea- islature of Colorado, knowing of the roof and stop the leaks. The lEon. . this need has put forth a bill - rain and snow water broke I. have been told that by selling I beleive itt is No. 98, making it ' through all the floors and roared I the building for brick only the muc h easier for communities to in big splashes into the hall on I City would get $2500 for it. But acquire land for such purposes. the first floor. But for that, one I what would the City do with the cannot blame the building. The I money. Well, build a new place . The city of Aspen has a valua- architect working on the face- 1 to gather in? Where is the reason hon of about $1,850,000. A levy ' lifting plans stated that while the I in a statement like this, I beg. of 4 Mill would bring enough Â· building needed repair it was fun- I The City would have $2500.- money to start the renovation so damentally very sound. To num- I three empty .lots, empty coffers badly needed. That would mean ber three all I can say; let's I and no place to go to. .. .. . f - on a valuation of $2500 of real - property the proud owner would change the b.... I Never should the City build a I do not believe in tearing I three story building - again, Â·the have to write a check for $10.00 down whatever is old - if it is I moneyÂ· is just not there.' To my Just Ten Dollars stand between good - but to restore it. If As- understanding the Citizens would you and the Â·begin of the face- pen loses Â· all its landmarks. It lose a building costing tens of lifting. Can we afford to shy a- won't be Aspen anymore. It ,thousands of Dollars to replace way? No! We cannot! We must seems strange to talk about its tit. share this burden so to create past and in the same breath con- : It reminds me of an incidence better values. We cannot forget ~4796+~twijail: demn the things that represent a few years back when the City. the.past when. the Armory-Was such past. needed money and one Council- IPuilt in 1885 to receive-the Mil- We would like to keep the Ar- man suggested to sell the park litia.1 Let us ALL share proudly in a renovated and good look- --- ing Armory to become our Civic make 73 more street signs, and Center - "WHAT ABOUT - CITIZEN?" the decision was made to pur- i chase shirts for the bowling OTTO HAERDLE team. Under contemplation is the - ROLLER SKATING resolution to make large signs To Maroon Creek, To Ashcroft, to be placed on the main high- way. Coffee and cakes were serv- fat #991 1 0 U.i.g~ i ff gl< At Armory Hall B. 7 Â«/1 .4/ 1-41'd nf 1:ed after the conclusion of busi i ness matters. < _ 14 56 ., ' EVERY WEDNESDAY & FRIDAY EVENINGS /K 1944 61.1 7:30 to 10:30 SUNDAY AFTERNOON - 2 to 5 1/3 9 8/0 -\ 1 j A 4*/ 14/4 C \ .D kz'a l 9.'' 0 1 i i te<.t COIORADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY The Colorado History Museum 1300 Broadway Denver. Colorado 80203-2137 NEWS RELEASE News Contact: Peg Ekstrand (303)866-3670 - November 17, 1992 Craig Hunter (303)866-4608 STATE HISTORICAL FUND GRANTS FROM GAMING ANNOUNCED Denver CO--The Colorado Historical Society has announced the awarding of $1,126,299 in grant funds to be divided among 68 historic preservation projects across the state from the new State Historical Fund. These awards are for Â·the first of two rounds to be given away from the $2,532,124 received in fiscal year 1993 by the State Historical Fund from state taxes on limited stakes gambling. These grants were made available through the same constitutional amendment that made gambling legal in Central City, Black Hawk, and Cripple Creek. The amendment mandates that 28 percent of the taxes collected from gaming will go into the State Historical Fund, and 80 percent of the fund is to be used for statewide historic preservation and restoration projects. The other 20 percent goes specifically to historic preservation projects in the three gaming towns. The Colorado Historical Society has already awarded the required 20 percent to the three gaming towns in the amount of $510,425. -more- --.----- STATE HISTORICAL FUND GRANTS FROM GAMING ANNOUNCED Page two Central Clty, Black Hawk, and Gripple Creek received $221,014, $147,717 and $141,694 respectively. The Society received 162 applications requesting over $6 million for the first round application. The deadline was September 1, 1992. Eligible projects were scored by 86 readers from around the state, the tabulated scores were then reviewed by a 13-member State Historical Fund application review committee which made recommendations to the Society' s board of directors for final funding approval. Of the 68 awards the largest amount awarded was $60,000 and the smallest grant was for $611; 40 of the awards were for the restoration or rehabilitation of officially designated historic buildings at sites. All 68 award winners are attached to this news release. Funded projects range from a grant of just over $800 to develop a local preservation program for the Town of Rico in Dolores County to a grant of $60,000 to restore the brickwork on the Denver Dry Goods building in Denver. In Craig, additional exterior renovation continues on the old Armory which houses the new Museum of Northwest Colorado; in Burlington the historic Kit Carson County Carousel will be refurbished; in Canon City the old U.S. Post Office is being converted into a new arts center; in Como the old roundhouse will be stabilized; and in Grand Junction, Greeley, and Grover local citizens are exploring ways to reuse their old railroad depots. The second round application deadline is March 1, 1993; funds, for round two will be awarded in mid-May. Grants can be made to both public and private entities, including businesses and individuals. The mission of the program is -more- STATE HISTORICAL FUND GRANTS FROM GAMING ANNOUNCED Page three "to foster historic preservation through tangible and highly visible projects for direct and demonstrable public benefit." Anyone who is interested in receiving grant funds can obtain an application by calling (303)866-4608, or by writing State Historical Fund, Colorado Historical Society, 1300 Broadway, Denver CO 80203, ### SUMMARY STATE 1!ISTORICAL HUNI) ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISIORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS OCR)B[.R 30, 1992 TOTAL APPLICATIONS NUMBER FUNDING RECOMMENDATION ' " GRAND TOTAL 68* $1,126,299* PROJECT TYPE NUMBER FUNDING RECOMMENDATION ACQUISITION & DEVELOPMENT 41 $ 875,023 SURVEY & PLANNING 21 $ 238,245 EDUCATION 6 $ 13,031 FUNDING POOL NUMBER FUNDING RECOMMENDATION GENERAL 43 $1,067,513 MINI GRANT 24 51,746 EMERGENCY 1 7,040 PROJECT APPLICATION STATUS NUMBER FUNDING RECOMMENDATION PUBLIC SECTOR 34 $ 600,719 PRIVATE SECTOR 34 525,580 CHALLENGE GRANTS NUMBER FUNDING RECOMMENDATION CHALLENGE GRANTS 7 $ 112,500 *These figures include chall@_Dge grants STATE HISTORICAL FUND (5HF) financial Status Report November 10, 1992 TOTAL SHF RECEIVED (FY 1993) $2,552,124 20% To Gaming Cities 510.425 Central City $221,014 Black Hawk 147,717 Crlpple Creek 141,694 - 80% TO CHS (FOR GRANTS PROGRAM) $2,041,700 *CHS ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FY 1992 Expenditures $ 6,760 FY 1993 Proposed Budget 133.500 TOTAL $ 140.260 GRANT AWARD DISTRIBUTIONS TOTAL AVAILABLE $1,901,440 ~First Round $1,126,299 < Second Round $ 775,141 *Includes 4.0 FTE (State Historical Fund Administrator, Program Assistant, Historic Preservation Specialist, Assistant Grants Manager) Â· COLINTY LOCATION ID PROJECT DESCR J PT ION P,/1,1.:1 Y APPLICANT .0-47,1Â·ED ARA,AHOE 1 1 T *LETON 31 MATCHikâ‚¬ GRANÂ¢ Piddull- FOR F ACADL I RPROVIDit)ITS MAJ X STREÂ£* C{TY -2- LITTLE+O, ic.ooi 1 .EN, LAS AXIMAS 23 RESTORATION: REBUILD Â¥ALLE / HIST . ANCRAEOLOGY NOGOSVILLI ' S PROIENS HOOSE PrONEER NIST. soc. or BENT COUN-rY 31.soo Mt-LDER BOULDER 11 REXAS IXTER]OR: 1,]SC. IORN TO COMPLETE MIOJECT HAR#*rK-REROKE].4 HOCSI 3OULDE]1 1.ru3EOW 07Â· Ni STORY 13.008 i BOULDER 600 Obn - 15 REHAB : 1 FINAL PHKEET- *fAGE FlbOR, PAINT EXT.. ADA 1-11/Al i /.4 OCA ASPETORUN 66Â£00150- aili:Aro:.A .1100< . :.. *05 â€¢OULDIR LONOMONT 121 REHAB: 000*PLETION (FACADE RES'IORATION] 11<0:.9 TI<I.,TRE CITY OF LONGMONT. DOWNTO*N DEV. 1 J . 0,0 c AUTHOmITY 1 CMEYEN*E CHEYENNE â€¢ELLS 13 REHAB EXTERIOE: ROOF, VINDOn . DOORS CHEYINKE COUNTY JAIL f CARNIAGE HOUSE; EA#ERN OOLORAE MISESOC. 2,30 CLEAR CREEK GEORGETOIN 37 RESTORATI ON A STABILIZATION: 3 BUILDINGS KA,N J L IOUS E SUPPORT BUILD] NGS MtSTORIC GIORGITOâ€¢y. ]NE. 2 0 . 02 0 CLEAR CREEK SILVER FLCUE 9 XIST. MARKERS ON S PU,LIC letIDINGS (PliASE 1} StirER PLUWE NIST. DIST. TOâ€¢N OF SILVER PLUME 2,300 1 CON-EJOS MANASRA 133 CONBERVATION CKEISPAPERS A PHOTOS> / SIGNACE JACK DE.d'ShÂ· >los Enâ€¢ JACK DEMPSEY hfUSE.ld nor CUSTER ~EÂ·STCL ZF FE 2 REHAB: Â»OOF A HEATING SYSTEM â€¢ESTCLIFFE SCHOOL VALLEY PARK REC. A YOUTK CNTR, :3.300 ' D.L.A DILTA 5.8 k<IN STREET PRESERVATION PLAN DOâ€¢NTOIN CITY OF DELTA 1.0.0 EEKE-NwUirTE*IRÂ¥171-sTITI-mymU-51277----------------11Â¥I-ml61m7NFF-oe An.IN., CAPITOL 60656- , 006[PLEX 2 DUVEE DE),va 40 NEIGHBOHOOD SUIVETS / DESIGNATE S loCAl DISTE]CTS DENVER LAND,UU PRES. COâ€¢,4. 25.010 - DENVER--------OUIVEr----------*7-'RAyfraym-1ECI5KKETrrrY-7*mr=gpmuerr-----NEIE-3'r:-7=,ct--na)mEL----------'---,r~FrE~tVOrTS-CENTEr - ; 7-. 017(- DENVER DENTER 47 RESTORE: 2 STATUES (SULLIVAN GATEVAT A FOUNTAIN) CITY FARE CITY OF DENVER PAR,3 1 REC. 20.000 DENVE' DENVER 7 6 REHAB: FACADE PAINT REMOVAL DENVER DRY GOODS BLDG. DENVER URBAN REHIVAL AURTHORITY .,C.000 DEMVE! DIMVER :6 "81: E.*TERIOR ( MUSE Z ) Â· TaOIUS FERRI Â£ HOUSI; a[*TORk DENVER. f,re. : 41-62- DENVE, DEMVER 103 rEASIBILITY St"UOT (EXPANS,0,1 OF TÂ»OLLET TO LODO) pLATTE VALLEY rELLEY . Â· DENVER *AIL KERITAGE SOC. / PLATTE 20,000 442.-%, 4. --I-' DENVER OEÂ»Â¥22 1 36 RERAD: F[Â»AL PHASE ISIrE VOU AND INTERIOR) TEAIS-ICFAILAN E *ANN ION CAPITOL MILL COMEN]TY CIXTER 20.080 DENVER DE~El to.1 120].LEY /01 8CBOOL FIELO TRIPS <TO mISTOZIC AREAM) PLAINTE IALLEY TROLLEY DEFFER RAIL HERITAGE $02. / PLATTE 2,416 VALLEY Â·TROLLE, --- - Dairvu LOVER DO,INTOn 14 PARKING STUDT: SUPPLY/DEMOD ANUYSISÂ·a PLANNING LOâ€¢ER DOONTO,0, : , ':Ik'Zille/, 00,Fron DISTRICT. DIC. :, soo ~ DOLORES 1[00 125 RERAD: 6{1CRANICAL ENGIN-EUIÂ»G * 8Â£1! 11~G COUNTY COURTHOUSE (NO, TO,1, RALL) . . , , j , i f f Ton .oF 2100 :&,993 ) 0<At)"Er-----lrm----------------/15-irr/,1/115.TrivE'virs:-/I~gr=TNDrr-~---------------~---~-'~4 DO LORES RICO 11 3 EMEIGEMCT - SOUTH â€¢ALL STRUCTURAL REPA] RS COUWrY Â©OURTNOUSÂ£ (*fOI -rOWN HA LL> TOIN OF 1 3 00 1.040 )DCOGLAS COUNTY WIDE 10 SURVEY: HISTORIC A ARÂ¢*AEOLOGICAL SITES (PHASE I) DOUGLAS COUNTÂ¥ HIS7. PRES . 80*RD 2.303 ) EL PAGO COLORADO S PRI NOS 1 uo SURVEY AND PRESEINATION' FLAM COURADO COLLEGE COLCRADO COLLEGE JO, 0DJ . % V. CANON CITY 119 REHAB: COUPLETION 01 EXTERICâ€¢ 6 IXTE:IOR Ca)101( CITY .MAIN POST :OFF ICZ ,Â· c n 1,80,r ..cogwry , , 23.006 J GARFIELD GLUr,OOD SPR INGS 43 HIST. STRUCTURE SURVEY / PLAQUES- 40 RIST-<*LDGS. CITY'OF GI.ENFOOD StÂ·RINGS 5.000 J CAR, IELD MILT OU UnU: 2 00 1 L.111 MOS, LUUICAP1 I44. JILT "ISTONIC,rr-PARK- --- --- biLl 8181. au'. - GUNN / SON CRESÂ·TED EME 107 REHAB: INT. FINISHES A SITE WORK TO COUPIETE PROJ, OLD i.-CK SCHOOL HOTEE TOWN OF CRESTED 9'TTI 63,600 GI]Â»11 SON GUNN I GOÂ« 137 SUMACE MAPPING. SUaSUNFACCE TESTING (ARCHAEOLOGY) TENDERFOOT SITE WESTERN STATE CC.LEGE 19.900 ITNSIJALE LAIE CITY It INUXTURY, Mullm, CArA.WOING COLLECrrON---- XENSDALE COU)<Tr-HUS]Eng -- ~ATNSDATE-DCUNTY-BIST. SOC. - --Â·Â·---- 1-301!- 2 12fFENSOM ARVADâ€¢ 41 URAB: BrADILIZATTON 1 1,[SC. EEPAIR~, :,ARKING LOr ARY,DA FLOUR MIU ./ '.2?...415...tj>Â»fiffrm.,A,Â»: t. 25,000 3 JIFTENÂ®(Â»f GOLDEN 50 REMAB ErreR!00 1 INTERIOI (MASOKRY+I]NDOn) toÂ¥*LA),0, Cooll-~ :CHUZ BLI)oa. ':~,stil:&97<4'92'M WERCAPTILE I,lD, P,A.r, . .. . L 23,GOO 1 W Vt/3UM 'U.AL mJ 'NkllUNAL It[,lble,N MUNLNANVN8: 1 ,Ill.Mim!.11M rAIAâ€¢& DZE,LK ~UU.'ILAIB FULA , 1.1, -r UC.F, CA , 1-09AAD .'I.,u An-C i . -3-3015- )<IT CARÂ®ON BURLINGTON 49 RESTORE: CLEAN A REPAINT 1-1GUUES / REPAIR SWEEPS KIT CAISON COUNT) CAROUSEL KIT CARSON COUNTY -0.000 LA PLATA DlrRANGO 111 *ENAB: WINDOâ€¢S. E.N-!1Â¥ AN 1 MA S W U S E UM LA PLATA DOU?frY III ST. SOC. 1.3,00 I J FIAT a LIU,[A,Ir>u 1-17 lt.MAD. 4,1-1:.~UR 1Â£3'IUKAT,UN, ADA CUM,LIABICK CANNESIR. LtilluU[T . k ' 4 . ...... -i -9.51.r,rs,t..>.1.WUMWÂ·Â·:< : : I ...UUJ 3 LA PUTA A DORANCO 141 RDIAE: FOUNDATION, IALLS, 106FING, B]DING, PAUPT 943Â·'I. 31'R AVE.- --,KJ. ;EVAR~}111}+11*flâ‚¬X+Â·*Â·R.KE ..Â·iÂ·~44:, ./B.. 1,300 LEADVILLE 31 REHAB EXTERZOR: ROOF, DORWIRS A FACADE -' NATIONALUINING MUSEUM Â· . Â· Â· - ' 1 : > >Â· Â·Â·hÂ· 1 :4:7â„¢FIr*rromal.?W! min lars Emt >~2 . Â· f 23.000 J JR 1.â€¢.t A tr. OULL[!43 16--REFTAB' EXTERTORT-â€¢Ty[)075: - DOORS . ROOF-rEâ„¢'---- ---IJCD TOWN--POST OFFICE - --*' Ullt =ta,t (UNtlf,[r, AM J L.4 JA. 3-:roe - _4Ri 1(*R LOP BLAND JOI REHAB: LOBBY & STOREFRONT. NOOF, PAINT RIALTO THEATRE C.OVELAND DOIMTOÂ¥* DIVEL. APIHORITY 33.130 I 21.Joc H _AS AN INAS TRIMIOAD 20 m ENAR EXTI*TOR: PACADE. IINDOWS JOHN'S BV [LDI NG (BELL BLOCK) CORAZAN DE te]KIDAO Tlt[MIDAD STATE IR, COLLEGE ED. FOOND. - A.B.DIST. - 7 tz.* ORAIMD IONCT ICÂ»f :33 111{AE EXTEÂ¢IOR: STABILIATION A VE.ATMER PROOFING DARO, RR' DEFOT 1 ; f.~ :tryfuvi o.rm: 1. D.,41' Co.../ .03EUM OP W. 2.300 'Â· COLO. - 11... 1+I. 1 .... 'Se M. 2 , Fl:*DED PROJ EC' STY 1/16/91 < .4.Â£74Â·2~ .Â· -Â·Â·. luMTY LOCATION ID PROJECT DESCRIPTION ; ~1 FROPERTÂ¥ r . ' 7 ' Â· 2 2.i.*PKIUIG p 7 ./ Aâ€¢ARDED FUNDS Illy OVIAT 30 Rall: EXTERIOR ' <~ 'Â·~<.J :t* : -;.' ELKS LO002 :OUUÂ¥ ELU LODGE *491 ALMA 143 ENUS. IOOF, 111*ARY. COISiMIZfY *[)0Â¥ â‚¬ 2 ' 0!,D AIMCGGE)600038 i. Â· 2. 1-4 2â‚¬'..' - 9-' 2' ..TOW OF AuuÂ·.. t.:.2,:f.7.:<:: f ".~ -~ ch:â‚¬310,lil(#.f RI coldo $ STABILIZATION AND 1101(B VORK 001,0 *Oblro IOUSE . Â· Â©0110 BOU*DMOUSE PEES.. f k. jr :Â· Â· 4*, 1680 Ui EDIAL 114 MASTER PLAN / STAÂ»llIZATION / INTER-PleÂ£TIVE VIDEO BORI.At PASS RAILROAD PUK COUNTY 31.060 {ILLIPS SAXTUN 19 REMAB: MISC â€¢ORK (FOI 083 AS TOIN EALL) FIRST NATIONAL ma.NE TOWN oF NAXTUN 1.500 TKIN ASPEN 135, REHAB: â€¢INDOâ€¢ REPLACE,aNT (PHASE 3 OF 31 ABIORÂ¥ lilli (CITY }IALL) CITY OF ASPEN 2.500 :TKIN ASPER-- Ts* REH-All: CHONCM POYER ~ Sr. MARY ' 3 CATHOLIC CH,IRCIE- * -- - - ST. MArr'S CATBOLIC--2*â„¢31 -.-*.253M- JEBLO BUEIAH SO PREâ€¢ARE NATIONAL REGISTER DIWITCT WOMINAT101- FUUM 11â„¢. PARK HIST. DIST. J , TABITA I. EUUOSKY : 1,500 'Â· i:t Z : . 1 E BLO COUNTY â€¢IDE 75 RESEARal 1 INâ€¢TALLA~Iolf oP US+01:2 FU4UE: PUE110 COUNTY BIST. SOC. 2,300 FEBL-0 Pt[Ea 10 81 36*367/ACE SENSING & TESTING. PIEDICTIVE 3,0,>r' - ....EL kâ‚¬NLO CITY OF PUBBLD 43.000 E8L0 PORSIO 111 H]SrORIC LANDS,CAPE PROJECT / SITE INTERPRETâ€¢,1.-0.0 ROSEWDENT ROSU,04.-IT VICTORIAN Â»OUSE MUSEUM 30.000 'Eml-0 POE,1.0 82 PREPANE NATIOBIAL REOISTEI DIETR ICI NOMINATION MINERAL PALACE GARDENS PARK TANYA W. KELIOSKY 2.300 O GRAIDE WONTE VISTA 133 OONSEEVATION 00 31!STORiC PICTOGRAPEE MONTi V]RTA HIRT. ROC. 1.500 â€¢[,Irr . COUNTY â€¢IDS n] locrr colnrry War. co,0,117 (PRE,Alt~ a Pull.Isi) 1 MtÂ»GUEL TELLURIDE t,t,%.~2.. 1*1,0 OF PIONIEâ€¢S BIST. CORIC. 19,000 WI SURVEÂ¥, PLA]1 1 GIne,LIIKEE-(~~0Â·8â„¢~CrallU): Â·*51~,Il<-Ill~~: 2]10:11 .=.~10.-f .Â«foi:~f:- ,}i' TOIN OF TE:,1111[DE 20~jÂ· 1,213 1,1 rY BRECKENR IDCâ‚¬ 67 AÂ«): PUNCHASE EISTO*IC IESEI*BL,2. EDII N CAZTE* MIJEOU SU101 I 7 ./ST. SOC : > louo LLEI CRIPPLE CREEI 3 39*VEY: ALL RES[DENTIAL, A COWWERCIAL IUILDINGS CRIPPLE CREE, RISTORIC DIrrt[C CITY Of CRIPPIE CREEK: NIST. PLES. DEPT. 9.000 LLEE FLORISSâ€¢*01' 13 *EMA, 001,POOND & MOVE TRAC~ERAGE TO SIn Plea f S:ANÂ¥ SCHOOL COUPORM UTE PASS }11ST. SOC. 19.400 sm I Â»GroN CT fs 59 SURVEÂ¥ Â»f81'. PmoPeRTIES (PRAH I) ~ TO" or. OFI,~Â· ,.3 - TO. 0 OTIS - LD 0*EELEY 63 NONDÂ¢ATION M DENT TO STATE I ' - . :>'3 CITT OF GRum g.off.zy NAM 1,07 1,190 I.,9 GROVER 1,1 imitit-MLIA,4 -alll,LO. /1./ a ././0./al., -M- 1,4/"1 11.-ME, AIBT. 30Â£. -----------------------------ETT-- TOTAL ' â€¢â€¢ 1,126,199 -