The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19920325AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE March 25, 1992 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of February 26th and March 11th minutes. 'kl-'4 14"\ t'Â·\ ,- , N - II. Public Comments III. OLD BUSINESS A. (Continued Public Hearing - Resolution #2, 1992 Recommending 1992 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures as re-evaluated IV. NEW BUSINESS 6:00 A. Conceptual Development (public hearing) 201 E. Hyman 6:30 V. WORKSESSION: Wagner Park Ice Rink (proposed) 7:00 VI. COMMUNICATIONS A. Project Monitoring B. Committee Reports C. Staff Report 7:15 Video: Fort Collins Historic Preservation Program 7:35 VII. ADJOURN itt AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE March 25, 1992 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of February 26th and March 11th minutes. II. Public Comments III. OLD BUSINESS , A. (Continued Public Hearing - Resolution #2, 1992 Recommending 1992 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures as re-evaluated 49<; * , INro IV. NEW BUSINESS 6:00 A. Conceptual Development (public hearing) 201 E. Hyman / CU) 2 r 1 L. V L 1% w,<,AL jl vt*-- (45 - - 49'15;06.14 Bit ,1, --~3 / 6:30 V. WORKSESSION: agner Park Ice Rink (proposed) 7:00 VI. COMMUNICATIONS A. Project Monitoring B. Committee Reports C. Staff Report 7:15 Video: Fort Collins Historic Preservation Program 7:35 VII. ADJOURN 4 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE ESTABLISHING THE 1992 RE-EVALUATED INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES Resolution 92-2 WHEREAS, it is the responsibility of the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) to re-evaluate the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, hereinafter "Inventory", at least once every five (5) years, and recommend revisions for adoption by the Aspen City Council; and WHEREAS, "Inventory" management is considered td be a vital aspect of Aspen's historic preservation, which meets an underlying principle of the HPC: to foster public awareness of Aspen's preservation program, and work in harmony with the community's goals to preserve, protect, and enhance Aspen's historic resources and unique character; and, WHEREAS, the HPC and Planning Office completed field studies and survey form revisions between September, 1990 and March 1992, with the assistance of professional consultants contracted by the Planning Office; and WHEREAS, the Planning Office held open public meetings on February 26, 27, and 28, 1992, to assist the public in understanding the re-evaluation process and changes in the historic preservation program that have occurred since 1986; seven property owners met with staff; and WHEREAS, the HPC has conducted duly noticed public hearings on March 17 and 18, 1992, to solicit citizen and property owner input in order to assist the HPC in re-evaluating the "Inventory"; and WHEREAS, twelve property owners appeared before the HPC at the public hearings, four of whom presented information to the HPC and requested removal from the Inventory based on loss of historic value of their properties. Four written requests for removal from the Inventory were received by the Planning Office and entered into the record at the HPC public hearings; and WHEREAS, the HPC has individually reviewed and evaluated the recommended additions, deletions, and category chabges to the "Inventory" as recommended by the Planning Office. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: SECTION 1. The following amendments are recommended to the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, as a result of the re- evaluation process according to Section 24-7-709(A-C) of the Aspen Municipal Code: 1. The following properties shall be added to the "Inventory", based upon their current architectural integrity, historic significance and community and neighborhood influence: 303 S. Cleveland 305 S. Cleveland 307 S. Cleveland 1031 E. Durant 107 Juan St. 520 Walnut 557 Walnut 1500 Ute Avenue 1280 Ute Avenue Glory Hole Park + i Aspen Brewery Ruins (Red Mountain Rd.) 701 W. Main 106 North Park 2. The following properties shall be deleted from the "Inventory"; each property has been evaluated as to its current architectural integrity, historic significance and community and neighborhood influence so as to determine historic value: 124 W. Hallam St. - complete loss of historic value 120 N. 5th St. - complete loss of historic value 1022 E. Hyman Ave. - complete loss of historic value 1031 E. Hyman Ave. - complete loss of historic value 601 W. Hallam - loss of historic value (previous decision of the HPC made in 1991) SECTION 2. The HPC adopts and designates the properties listed on Exhibit A, attached, and incorporated herein, as the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures for the City of Aspen, and recommends the ratification and adoption of same by Ordinance by the Aspen City Council. SECTION 3. The Planning Department shall hereby publish this Resolution of the HPC in a newspaper of local circulation following its adoption. APPROVED by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee at their regular meeting on March 25, 1992. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE by William J. Poss, Chairman ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Assistant City Clerk reso.hpc.inventory . b MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Conceptual Development and partial demolition: 201 E. Hyman (Public Hearing) Final Development approval is being requested at this time. Date: March 25, 1992 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual and Final development and partial demolition approval for a rear addition to 201 E. Hyman. LOCATION: 201 E. Hyman, Lots A, B and C, Block 76, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado APPLICANT: John and Miriam Hartman, represented by Graeme Means, architect ZONING: "0" Office zone, Designated Landmark SITE, AREA AND BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Lot Size: 7,969 sq. ft. Allowable FAR: 3,450 sq. ft. (+/-) Existing FAR: 1,400 sq. ft. (approx.) Proposed Total FAR: 1,900 sq. ft. (approx.) FAR pr9posed for demolition 150 sq. ft. (approx.) FAR of addition 500 sq. ft. (approx.) Max. allowable height 25' EXISTING CONDITIONS: The subject structure, a vernacular miner's cottage with Italiante detailing, was built in 1893, and survives as one of the most intact examples of cottage architecture in Aspen. It has been used for 99 years as a single-family residence. PROJECT SUMMARY and REVIEW PROCESS: The applicable Guidelines are found in Section VI. Residential Buildings - Renovation and Restoration, beginning on page 47. The Development Review Standards are found in Section 7-601(D), and the Partial Demolition Standards are found in Section 7-602(A and C); Development Review Standards 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and . with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay district or is adjacent to a Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Response: We find that this standard has been met. The addition design is small, articulated and blends well with the existing character of the structure. The need for this addition is due to family needs for an additional bedroom and bath. No variations are being requested. The Guidelines address additions as follows: 'Locate additions to original houses so that they do not alter the facade. Additions should not be designed so that they obscure the size or shape of the house. A possible option is setting back the addition so that it does not affect the building's front." The addition is taking place well to the rear of the structure, however, since this property occupies a corner location, the addition is visible from a corner view. There is a recessed break along the west elevation that helps defines new from old in an effective yet subtle way. Streetscape and Landscape Material: It appears that no significant vegetation will be removed. The site plan only indicates street trees. . Fencing: The Guidelines recommend open picket-style fencing around the more public areas of the parcel, with closed stockade-type fencing permitted around the rear yard. The proposal meets this Guideline. Alleys and Parking: No changes are proposed to the outbuilding. Two parking spaces exist on the parcel, which are all that are required for this structure. Rooflines: The proposal generally meets the standards for roof pitch. The gables appear identical in pitch to the cottage. Doors: Staff finds the doors to be compatible with the cottage. Windows: We find this Guideline has generally been met. Both four-pane double hung and six-pane cottage windows are proposed in 2 I , the addition, which staff finds compatible. The new windows proposed indicate duplicated trim found on the historic portion of the structure. Staff has recommended this level of detail be slightly modified to allow the historic portion to read through, while the addition detailing design be slightly simplified , yet compatible. Materials: The proposal states all materials will be wood of compatible dimension and scale to those on the existing house. Exact material samples must be presented before Final approval may be granted. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The Planning Office finds that the proposal is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structure located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: It is staff's opinion that a well designed addition to this landmark will not detract from its cultural value, or the value of the adjacent parcels. We find that this standard has been met. 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 find that architecturally, the principal design elements of the addition generally meet this standard. The recessed por,tion along the west elevation provides the articulation necessary to determine old from new. Architecturally, staff finds this addition to be well designed, and compatible with the resource and the neighborhood. Partial Demolition Standards The Partial Demolition Standards are found in Section 7-602(C) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. The general provisions of Sec. 7- 602 allow the HPC to require a Performance Guarantee when deemed appropriate due to the significance of the project. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: 1. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure; and 3 2. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel. b. Impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure located on the parcel. Response: The portion of the structure proposed for demolition is the rear addition, added after the original residence was built. We find that the application meets the Partial Demolition standards. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Conceptual Development application as proposed, finding that the Development Review and Partial Demolition Standards have been met. Final Development approval may be granted at this time provided that no conditions are placed upon the Conceptual approval. Materials must be approved at this time. 2) Approve the Conceptual Development application, finding that the Development Review and Partial Demolition Standards have been met, with any exceptions specified as conditions which shall be met in the Final Development application. 3) Table action to a date certain, to allow the applicant time to restudy the proposal. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Standards (Development Review and/or Partial Demolition) have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC approve the Conceptual Development application as proposed, finding that the Development Review and Partial Demolition Standards have been met. Final Development approval may be granted at this time provided that no conditions are placed upon the Conceptual approval. Materials must be approved at this time. Additional comments: memo.hpc.201eh.cd 4 lAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1, prolect Mane j-%*27 Al A- 61 ~ES /(DE-A/CE_ 21 Project Location 10 / c . /4 .-0 B, ;ia< Ac Plzo Urs A-,13. A're-ritic C < 8 Lor L '76 (indicate street Kddress, lot & block'mmber, legal description where appropriate) 3) Present Zoning / 4) Lot Size 7969 92- 5) Applicant' s Name, Actiress & Phone # 7.00*u 1 /1/1 i *ArK 8* WI-14 A W 2-0 1 2- . 14 --1 k Ar.A/ Ar*IJ 6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # 99Â£*t L A/l@A Kts 2-le Sd. EMPA 92 09< St> 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Use - Conceptual SPA 7~ CorDeptual Historic Dev. Special Review Firal SPA 7L Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline - Conceptlial RID - Minor IIistoric Dev. Stream Margin Final FUD 92 Historic Demolition Mountain View Plane Subdivisicn Ilistoric Designation Conckniniumizatian - Text/Map Amaxlment - GMIS Allotment Int Split/Lot Line - (2429 E,oalption Adjustment 8) Descriptian of Existing USes . (Inmber and type of ecisting structures; apprcodmate sq. ft.; rimber of bedcocms; any previas approvals granted to the preperty). I Astonic_ WOOD PDAMe (4041%12 OF- N 1400 pf- C /449 704 te /000 6 FDA-*l IZ G A-12 Ag:4 2- 1 + 9) Description of Develginent Applicaticn ~kenkL DIZAU) 1,(110.u OP Heront< A-Â£3#31 No Arl TO Hol/Se_ A *D woob en. A-R-2- A-Delllc) W o P /l) 6Â»0 F,7272- 10) Hqve you attached the follawing? 9- Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents v' - Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submissian Contents -~ - Response to Attadinierrt 4, Review Standards for Your Application 32Â£2 12/SCU>S/#A/- UA/D/Ul M) A),Mu 4 -DUBFULSS to W (20* ni, Prm RAI MINIMUM SUBMISSION CONTENTS 1. See_letter_attached 2.20.1 East- Hy_man Street,- Appen, _Lote A,Bi. part-i-al-_C,_ Block..76 3. -_ 59*#_ t. i t.le- ins_urance att_ag_hed 4. See map attached 5. our Proposal 15 to demolioh approximately 150 aguare teet of h.1.otoric . addit 1.003 -139 115.9 mai.n. b.ous g These addj.tlon.3 -are atructurally Meticient as to tornaation, root strength. headroom, and ins u.1 at i on Â· We -1.ntend to.add a new 4.eflroom, bat.broom, and mudroom- ot approximately 500. Bguare teeti This adcliti op.- fs reorepented in the attached drawing.Sl A massing model. will be represented at the hearing. We teel that the proposed addition is monest in scale and contextual in.--7-8 t.-111:Je.-._ti.-hu..3- c.clin-P.ly.1. Flg wl.-t~h-the intentl.OIl ot. t.tu. s revt.ew , Eftort- have been made. to keep the size ot the addition smaller in scaj e th. t.be .exj.sting- and to break 11.-p_ ..~i. t.s mas.Â§ 1.flg - tilt.9 torins tamiliar to tt original architecture. Furthermore, the addition has been xept to the rear. and Ji.de of the -lot, thus keeping . the most promi.nent. ta.carie total j Y intact. Detai.ling of the new actaj.ti_on will mimic in_ a subdued mann-er... t.-hat _ Of-_ k he._or-1.gl:naL-: _--__10hus , _. we ...tee L_ . that-_- t. he additi.on.-3. s cp.mpati_ble with the existing house as well as the existing neighborhood, which conÂ»st-s_- o t._-_.newer-li-1_p_444 -_ and---rnini.ni .era rejidences., The culti_ira.i value ot this house will not be compromised dile to -the modest mature_pt our p.ropo_saL 1 SPECIFIC SUBMISSION CONTENTS - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT 1. Please refer to site plan attached 2. The addition wiJJ be Ot wooa trame construction with c.lapboard type siding painted white to match the existing. Exterlor trim will be painted redwood and wi.1 -I mim.ic, in a. subdued manner, tne ex.1 sti.ng detalls. New root wlll be wood. s ningle on D-1.tched roots and rubber merribrame on low sjope root.s. Some Eunaows from clemolls.bed Par-ts of 7 - the building wi.l i. be reused in the add i. tion and otners wllt be manutactured. , The addition bas been designed to deter in scaje to the existing house, and its massing and detailing are consistent with the original. Also, the additi.on is !imited to the rear and side nt the existing fl O t.l S e . Therefore. we feel that the charm 0 1: t. tl 63 exl. st. 1. ng house will be impacted to only a very smaJJ degree. 4. Expansion of a structure wherein the 1.ncrease 1.n r loor area 1.:-3 more that 750 square feet. REVIEW STANDARDS P.lease see discussion under Minimum Submission Contents #5. . SPECIFIC SIJBMISSTON CONTENTS - PARTIAL DEMOLITION 1. Hartman Residence, 201 East Hyman, Aspen The Hartman House was built in 1893 as a Victorian cottage with L. Italianate detailing. It is Ot wood trame cons truct zon, Later additions of unknown date (although obviously ear.ly in the history of the house) were built on the rear of the house. 3. No torma J report has been done as to the structura.1 integrity ot t. he house. However, this architect has become tami. Ii.ar wl.th the house and has t.he know.I edge to comment on its struct.ural cond.iti on. The original parts ot the house rema i. n 1. n good condi. t. 1.on and appear to not .be Hn need ot any signiti.cant structura.1 work. In particular, the crawl space seems welt ventilated, dry and thus tree ot rot. Foundat jons seem to be RD good shape with no apparent settling. Root eaves seem straight and there are not apparent signs ot structrira.1 tai Jure in the wood frame. T.here is some evi dence of root leakage on the i.nteri.or nt tb.e building. The portions o:t the house that we propose to demojlsh (s drawings) are not as well built. They do not contain toe detalli.1 that is on the rest of the structure. Follnda. t 1 Ons are ot concrete block and are probably very shallow. Wall construction consists solely of exposed framing and one layer of.siding. Thus, there lS no wall cavity and no insulation. Ceiling heights average approximately 7'-0" and are as little as 5'-8". Thus, the original parts ot the house seem to be still functionally acceptabje while the more recent ada.ition is structura.1 -ly inferior and is not acceptable from a standpoint of modern ideas ot comfort, use and energy efficiency. 4a. Recent aporaisals of the property are not available, however, a price ot $287,500. is given on the title insurance, which 13 dated 1986. I feel that the demolition as proposed would have virtually no affect on the value of the property in that it is minimal in nature and does not affect the impact of the original house. b. Due to the substandard construction, low ceilings and poor energy efficiency of the portions proposed for demolition, I feel that there is little point in rehab:L]itating them. c. N/A d. N/A 5. Please see material submitted for the development aspect of th application. . D REVIEW STANDARDS: PARTIAL DEMOLITION 1. Due to the insufficient structure, ceiling height, and energy etficiency ot the additions, these spaces do not meet modern concepts of safety and comfort. Renovating them to d.0 s o would mean their total reconstruction with a different tina] shape and the reuse of. no original materials except possibly some siding, ?a. The historic importance Of this house is that its history of owners is known from the original builder up t o t be present owners. We are not proposing to change the original bul)ding and the new addition will have only a small impact on i.t.. Therefore, we teel that the historic signiticance wil) not be a J terea due to this proposed demolition and addition. b. We tee] that we have been verY sensitive to the architectural integrity of this building. Our proposed plan wi!.1 have I.i.ttle impact trom Aspen Street and virtua..1 ly no impact trom Hyman Street, which .1 s the most important facade. Efforts have been maae to use contextual huijding shanes and to respect the scaje and detaies ot the originaj strilct.tire. 531114 1 .. .. 11. li 71 - 3 - U I 0 - - - - -4---- 1 1. 1 0 1 d - 1 .11 8 1 1 -1- i/ 1 1 : 1 ! 1 I 90 1 iI 1- - 1 ! 0 i i i n 1 1 - f. . .1- i 1 1 1 /7 1 - CD 1- 1 D 1 r 1 3<1 - -- - :.9- -) i - ~ - f 14 1 1 L--2 0 0 ~ ' 00 71 & ----I y 001 - 1 F 9 I - ll r ! 1 0 ./ .1.---1 . 1 1 4I t _ L _ -1 \ f / r I j y) 1 / 11 1 0 <P 10- 1 d ,- f py | i- L I . 0 1 0 1 f Â·F '1 , 1 ----- ~ F ...'' 1./. 1 1 .. . 1,4, 1 1 k. j 981 -1 -1.,.1/ . b: I ' . Im m me m mI 17% *El- IN box 4956 aspen colo HAR711 AN R T=- S GRAEME MEANS Â· ARCHITECT 010 1 4 1-1'Â¥ MIA N ASPE. W 60 ~ 303 925-9150 ..... 1- .1 L__1 : t i M I it ./7 9. /7 - il / -4-*-t l --\\ / C A-4_ 1 - 1 Fl I r -"T---T-- 1 f \\ E- ---1. 4 1 1 7 1 1. 1 111 - .. / 94_37 .014. 1 1 1 L _-_ -1 Z 14 Soul-1-1 E-LEVAT- Iok -1 1.4.It =11 \ i / 1\ 0 I 1 j J . / / ti 4 2 . ---- i~-un~tl~ 1- 0 --- . 1 --NN j -1 \ P 1 1 - 11 -- - li ' 1 ,\ I. 4 f 1 1 1 7 Â·- 00 f i - E k -6 -1.- - I 1 ---f - - -1 . 1 A-- + + 4 \11 1 1 1 1 -- -'I---#*P- - . 1 1- I *-,Â« CE- t-EVA-Fl CD N ..... 1- t 1311IHOUV Â· SNV 0101 .ads" 05I6- 52 ior 531114 0 2 0 . 0 $ i -fit < 90 - 9401 ha- V y f L,3/- IM ,=r 00 vid Ti,~1 01 1 ' 4 -.- - , '01*10. W'* - -1 --- --1 --- I.--- ------11 1 L ---- ------4 214 WORT- H ELEVATION - C ll I ./ ./,Cd, A .~titrt. I f !1 1 I Â¢ /1 0 , - 2.w 8 V M / f ./:f / -1 -f r 4 - -- -- 91 Z 4Z ==== 1 - 1 1 ' 1 1 - 1--,0 j / ===== 4-=1 1 Â«_ /NX.- - k = rli I : T771 0 1..1 . 6/9 - M I 1, 1 1 1 -b-'* I -| 6FÂ»/ 1.rE '-. z Â·~' i -1 --I- 1 1 4 li L I '<cp - -- ---1 I 3 V , Â»E 57 2-LEÂ»*71ON 0 1 1- I.--.* -I.- ------L 1/4-11-1 03 r . .... u , ... 20I1IHON V Â· SNV 0103 â€¢ads" 05I6- 52 hlecLIM Â· 1 11 1 1 al'#Ii 1 2'5 0 Â· 0 . I A â€¢I-. 1.1. , + tx G. , rf ' U '1 'J.. -4% ~y-,Â·:r, \:rfâ‚¬474:@''.. Â·:'. 'L~ Â· ;th,'Â·35. .6 ..Â¢b 9 - 04 . 2. - 4 .1 19.. 44,1 5'?34 >j'4Â· 4:,4 42,1. â€¢ 673 4%>Â· 1 , '30*i,5 6... 2 1 ly 14,117, 9 1 â€¢'9 7 fr. I'Â£ Â· . d h. Â· 41 1. e 415 -. 4 . ~A 1 0, i.0 41 - AE-4'1~ '=0 , al I. Â» , 4 9 ~* t. i. . 4 1 0 ..... 1 ii.&71 I .//.1 1# 4.14Â¢. 14* .,fÂ·j, 1~ , 'I:.43% ti,mvelt .ta ./ f 4, i,22..2.4. 'Â·Al': v h: p 4-+ i.2.- 50" ..4. d#ki'. , L Â«4- Â·9 4,21/' *44 ,- 0.2..Â·:'' . 2.fij'.'.. 2 ' I ,-4 1464 Â· â€¢ .AA.A#.Â· 711 44'1 -+ .. . h . 2 1 :-1 '.' I 5 got f . - MI. Â£ I. MWORANDUM TO: Amy Margerum, City Manager Diane Moore, City Planning Director FROM: George Robinson, Leisure Services Director DATE: March 24, 1992 RE: Feasibility of converting winter skating rink to summer athletic field at Wagner Park I have reviewed the memo sent to Don Hansen of Design Workshop from Brian Kaiser of Koch Industries and have the following additional concerns and comments regarding the feasibility of converting the rink back to an athletic field in the summer, including additional cost considerations. SOIL Â· The concrete structure/foundation needs to accommodate the weight of a 25,000 pound front end loader to remove and install soil. Â· It is improbable that all materials (ie. soil) that are removed from rink structure can be saved and reused. We should figure on at least a 10% increase in materials per each conversion. The approximate cost of sand material needed for this area is $20,000. Peat humus (organic material), sod/seed, fertilizer, etc. are additional costs as well. DRAINAGE Â· Where will drainage outlet be (ie. storm drainage system)? A more detailed drainage proposal should be submitted. Â· A no slope concrete base could create several unforeseeable maintenance problems because of the water build up before drainage. This option should be researched further before chosen. TURF Â· Costs and availability of sod or seed needs to be evaluated further. This area has three to four times higher maintenance costs due to the system and materials needed. . Â· Seeding the area would be less expensive, but does not establish as quickly, and would require more maintenance and materials to meet optimum turf conditions. â€¢ If the heated slab option is a consideration, does the cost estimate of $30,000 include utility costs. IRRIGATION Â· The final alternative of hose reels, is not an option. This method is too time consuming for irrigation. Â· We need to see and review a complete irrigation plan for the entire park. OTHERCCNCERNS Â· A public comment forum needs to be organized and compiled. Â· A design proposal needs to be developed for initial excavation of field for construction, including leveling of field, materials used (ie. soil composition), etc. Â· Currently the mall restrooms roof is used for announcing Rugby games. If the restrooms are to be redesigned and relocated, will this amenity be considered? Â· Storage for bleachers, base boards, lighting, etc. will require an extensive amount of space. The City is already in need of storage space for present facilities and assets. Â· How will Ice Rink impact portion of field not being used? Â· Costs of utilities for cooling system, outdoor lights and building need to be estimated and considered for long range plan. Â· The design of the roof seems to allow snow to drain off into the mall creating a potential problem with ice build up (Same as Ruby Bus Depot). Â· Parking needs to be addressed. - Â· Noise levels of compressor for cooling system needs to be evaluated. An outdoor system may have to run longer and harder for spring usage and warmer weather. Â· Will lighting be adequate for this facility and how will it impact the area? Â· Snow storage needs to be addressed and associated costs to remove snow, including manpower and equipment. Â· The design and relocation of the playground should be reviewed further. Â· Would like to review mechanical drawings on concrete surface and associated components of system. Â· How do the Rugby goal posts fit in the design? Â· Consideration should be made for conversions to be bid out by independent contractor due to work load and expertise necessary for such a project. The Parks Department would not be able to perform this task with present work loads and personnel. Â· Landscape plans need to be developed. â€¢ What type of security is planned? Will the area be fenced off and if so, how and what type of fencing will be used. Â· What are the chances of refrigerant leakage in this system? Â· Spring and fall conversions present problems for the surrounding park area due to heavy equipment needed to remove/replace soil on concrete slab. Both turf and irrigation lines may be severely damaged. â€¢ The proposed design of a ten inch soil depth on the concrete slab, will most likely not accommodate the larger tents for special events (ie. Wine Classic, etc.) which often require a two foot stake. . 4,4 14/4 m ,9 â€¢' iÂ·*Â· Â·0 3 RESOLUTION -242Â»r 't :' : OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE N.,r ENDORSING THE 1992 RE-EVALUATED INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES Resolution 92-2 WHEREAS, it is the responsibility of the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) to re-evaluate the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, hereinafter "Inventory", at least once every five (5) years, and recommend revisions for adoption by the Aspen City Council; and WHEREAS, "Inventory" management is considered to be a vital aspect of Aspen's historic preservation, which meets an underlying principal of the HPC: to foster public awareness of Aspen's preservation program, and work in harmony with the community's goals to preserve, protect, and enhance Aspen's historic resources and unique character; and, WHEREAS, the HPC and Planning Office completed their field studies and survey form revisions between September, 1990 and March 1992, with the assistance of professional consultants contracted by the Planning Office; and WHEREAS, the Planning Office held open public meetings on February 26, 27, and 28, 1992, to assist the public in understanding the re-evaluation process and changes in the historic preservation program that have occurred since 1986; seven property owners met with staff; and WHEREAS, the HPC has conducted duly noticed public hearings . on March 17 and 18, 1992, to solicit citizen and property owner input in order to assist the HPC in re-evaluating the "Inventory"; and WHEREAS, twelve property owners appeared be fore the HPC at the public hearings, four of whom presented information to the HPC and requested removal from the Inventory based on loss of historic value of their properties. Four written requests for removal from the Inventory were received by the Planning Office and entered into the record at the HPC public hearings; and WHEREAS, the HPC has reviewed and agreed upon the recommended additions, deletions, and category changes of the "Inventory", as recommended by the Planning Office (attached as Exhibit "A") . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the following amendments are recommended to the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, M as a result of the re-evaluation process according to Section 7- 709(A-C): 1. The following properties shall be added to the "Inventory", based upon their current architectural integrity, historic significance and community and neighborhood influence: 303 S. Cleveland 305 S. Cleveland 307 S. Cleveland 1031 E. Durant 107 Juan St. 520 Walnut 557 Walnut 1500 Ute Avenue 1280 Ute Avenue Glory Hole Park Aspen Brewery Ruins 701 W. Main 106 North Park . 2. The following properties shall be deleted from the "Inventory"; each property has been evaluated as to its current architectural integrity, historic significance and community and neighborhood influence so as to determine historic value: 124 W. Hallam St. - complete loss of historic value 120 N. 5th St. - complete loss of historic value 1022 E. Hyman Ave. - complete loss of historic value 1031 E. Hyman Ave. - complete loss of historic value 601 W. Hallam - loss of historic value (previous decision of the HPC made in 1991) 3. Each non-Landmarked property receiving a re-evaluation has been categorized as either Significant, Contributing or Supporting, as indicated on attached Exhibit "A". 4. The official historic resources map located in the Aspen Planning Office will be revised accordingly and titled: "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, 1992 Revised". APPROVED by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee at their regular meeting on March 25, 1992. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE by William J. Poss, Chairman ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Assistant City Clerk reso.hpc.inventory EXHIBIT "A" , Non-Designated Properties for re-evaluation March, 1992 Key: Significant: O Contributing: LJ Supporting: <) Address/Name Area Status per year 432 E. Hyman Commercial Core 423 E. Hyman Commercial Core 530 E. Hopkins Commercial Core 532 E. Hopkins Commercial Core 534 E. Hopkins Commercial Core 531 E. Cooper Commercial Core 529 E. Cooper Commercial Core 308 E. Hopkins Commercial Core 314 E. Hyman Commercial Core 406 E. Hopkins Commercial Core 209 S. Galena Commercial Core 701 W. Main Main Street 709 W. Main Main Street 604 W. Main Main Street 616 W. Main Main Street 611 W. Main Main Street 518 W. Main Main Street 527 W. Main Main Street 205 W. Main Main Street 101 S. Monarch Main Street 227 E. Main Main Street 2 01 ol 01 01 01 <11 <11 ol d 41 01 1 0101010101 <11010101 g 01131 01 01 01 <11 <11 01 ol <11 01 110101010101 <11010101 g <11 01 <11 <11 <11 Eli <11 <11 <11 <11 4 <11 <11 41 <11 <11 <11 <11 <11014 Address/Name Area Status per year 80 86 820 E. Cooper East Aspen Twnst. ~ ~ 0 0 824 E. Cooper East Aspen Twnst. 935 E. Cooper East Aspen Twnst. ~ 939 E. Cooper East Aspen Twnst. ~ 1012 E. Hopkins East Aspen Twnst. ~ 811 E. Hopkins East Aspen Twnst. ~ 819 E. Hopkins East Aspen Twnst. _~ 920 E. Hyman East Aspen Twnst. ~ 1022 E. Hyman East Aspen Twnst. ~ 1020 E. Hyman East Aspen Twnst. ~ 1031 E. Hyman East Aspen Twnst. ~ 1000 E. Cooper East Aspen Twnst. 0 0 1006 E. Cooper East Aspen Twnst. 0 0 1020 E. Cooper East Aspen Twnst. 0 0 303 S. Cleveland East Aspen Twnst. 305 S. Cleveland East Aspen Twnst. 307 S. Cleveland East Aspen Twnst. 918 E. Cooper East Aspen Twnst. 1031 E. Durant East Aspen Twnst. 623 E. Hopkins East Aspen Twnst. 625 E. Hopkins East Aspen Twnst. .aitknÂ»-635 E. Hopkins East Aspen Twnst. 600 E. Bleeker East Aspen Twnst. ~ Durant Mine East Aspen Twnst. 1010101010101010101 d'Idc)14010101 01 Ol g <110101010101 4 4 4 Ol Cl <11 <11 <11 <1141 <1101 <11 <11 41 <11 41 41 1 Ilililloillololol Address/Name Area Status per Year 80 86 92 1280 Ute Ave. Ute Avenue 006 - a 1500 Ute Ave. Ute Avenue Glory Hole Park Ute Avenue - --- 6 124 E. Cooper Shadow Mountain 214 E. Hopkins Shadow Mountain 107 Juan St. Shadow Mountain 325 W. Hopkins Shadow Mountain 200 W. Hopkins Shadow Mountain 205 W. Hopkins Shadow Mountain 214 W. Hyman Shadow Mountain 216 W. Hyman Shadow Mountain 311 S. 1st St. Shadow Mountain 135 W. Hopkins Shadow Mountain 101 E. Hopkins Shadow Mountain Midland Rgt of Way Shadow Mountain Red Butte Cemetery West End _~_ Rio Grande R-0-W West End _~_ 712 W. Francis West End 716 W. Hallam West End 117 N. 6th West End 735 W. Bleeker West End 609 W. Smuggler West End 610 W. Francis West End 610 W. Hallam West End 01 01 11 Ol ol ol ol ol ol ol Ol ol 01010101010101 0101 dol 01010101010101[31 01 Ol 01010101010101 14 41 41 41 41 4 4 4 4 41 OVI 41 4 1 <1101 <11 <11 <1101 <11 . Address/Name Area Status per vear 80 86 635 W. Bleeker West End O 0 522 W. Francis West End O 523 W. Francis West End ~ 533 W. Francis West End _(_ 525 W. Hallam West End O 533 W. Hallam West End ~ 120 N. 5th West End O 434 W. Smuggler West End O 515 N. 3rd West End ( 403 W. Hallam West End _,~_ 421 W. Hallam West End ~ 323 W. Hallam West End ~ 229 W. Hallam West End O 233 W. Hallam West End ~ 213 W. Bleeker West End ~ 217 W. Bleeker West End O 233 W. Bleeker West End ~ 121 W. Bleeker West End O 129 W. Bleeker West End ~ 701 N. 3rd West End/Hallam Lk. 707 N. 3rd West End/Hallam Lk. 620 N. 3rd West End/Hallam Lk. 640 N. 3rd West End/Hallam Lk. 1010101010101010101010101010101010101 01010101 2 4 4<1 <11 <11 <11 01 <11 <11 cl 01<11 <110101 4<11<11<11 41<11<11<11 oloi 01 01 Address/Name Area Status per year 80 86 92 240 Lake Ave. West End/Hallam Lk. 0 0 m 0 6 202 W. Francis West End/Hallam Lk. 225 W. Smuggler West End/Hallam Lk. O 6 229 W. Smuggler West End/Hallam Lk. O 6 126 W. Francis West End/Hallam Lk. 123 W. Francis West End/Hallam Lk. 124 W. Hallam West End/Hallam Lk. 314 Gillespie West End/Hallam Lk. 220 Puppy Smith West End/Hallam Lk. ( 0 6 Aspen Brewery Ruins West End/Hallam Lk. - - ~ Triangle Park West End/Hallam Lk. O 0 4 101 E. Hallam West End/Church 0 04 110 E. Bleeker West End/Church 134 E. Bleeker West End/Church 216 E. Hallam West End/Church 223 E. Hallam West End/Church 232 E. Bleeker West End/Church 227 E. Bleeker West End/Church 202 N. Monarch West End/Church 470 N. Spring Smuggler Mtn. 0 0 LJ 010101 01010101 01010101010101 01010101 1 010101-01010101 <11 <1101 <11 ~1 <11 <11 <11 <11 <11 <11 <11 Address/Name Area Status per year 80 86 930 Matchless Dr. Smuggler Mtn. 0 0 920 Matchless Dr. Smuggler Mtn. O 0 390 N. Spring Smuggler Mtn. O 0 230 N. Spring Smuggler Mtn. O 0 100 N. Park Smuggler Mtn. O 0 101 N. Park Smuggler Mtn. O 0 0 0 165 N. Park Smuggler Mtn. - 106 N. Park Smuggler Mtn. 520 Walnut Smuggler Mtn. - 557 Walnut Smuggler Mtn. - 0 930 King Smuggler Mtn. 925 King Smuggler Mtn. O 935 King Smuggler Mtn. 980 Gibson Smuggler Mtn. O 0 990 Gibson Smuggler Mtn. O 0 720 Bay St. Smuggler Mtn. O 0 oom Sheeley Bridge Smuggler Mtn. inventory.non.desig lili 1 111 dololol g <1 41 4 0101014141 41 01 410101 010101 .. Inventory deletions due to demolitions: 110 N. Spring 718 E. Hopkins 720 E. Hopkins 624 E. Hopkins 816 E. Cooper 835 E. Cooper 515 N. 5th 501 W. Smuggler 639 N. 4th 170 N. Park 940 Matchless Drive 219 W. Hopkins 203 E. Hallam 222 E. Hallam inventory.non.desig