The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19911127 AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 27, 1991 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM 5:00 I. Roll call II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comments IV. OLD BUSINESS A. NONE 5:10 V. NEW BUSINESS A. Minor Development - 315 E. Hyman, Wheeler Square, awnings K 0 5-Â°-r 5 Den.,7 --- 5 9 t-LA , -<_ --M- - 0 /4 5:30 B. Landmark Designation (public hearing) - Castle Creek Power Plant (city shop) 00 957 >4-14-, 0/-- 5:45 C. Landmark Designation, Minor Development (demolition exemption) - 316 E. Hopkins F = 03 v r hz tz t'~~74 6:30 VI. COMMUNICATIONS A. Project Monitoring 215 W. Hallam 6:45 B. Committee reports VII.ATTACHMENTS A. HPC/Aspen Historic Trust Christmans Party B. CLG Information C. Proposed HP fees effective Jan. 1 D. Resignation letter - Glenn Rappaport 7:00 VIII.ADJOURN L MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Minor Development: 315 E. Hyman, awnings Date: November 27, 1991 SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking HPC's Minor Development approval for matching awnings over three commercial spaces within the Wheeler Square. APPLICANT: Wheeler Square, Inc. c/o The Fleisher Company ZONING: C-C, Commercial Core Historic District PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Development Review standards are found in Section 7-601 of the Land Use Code. 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: The building is not historic, however, is located directly across from the landmark Wheeler Opera House. The proposed awnings all match in style and color (turquoise), and will bear the business's name on the drop valance, which is straight edged. Staff reminds the applicant to check with the Zoning Officer to confirm the amount of allowable signage remaining on the building, prior to applying for a sign permit. The applicant states the proposal will add color and texture to the building. The HPC has encouraged matching or closely coordinating awnings for different businesses within the same building in the past. HPC COMMENTS: 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Fabric awnings are a consistent treatment that enhances the character in the Commercial Core Historic 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: With the exception of the north elevation windows, which are arched, each shed awning is opening specific, meeting the Guidelines. The most visible facade to the street is the north (Leopera - the old Baskin Robbins space), which staff feels needs to be restudied for compatibility. The straight shed awnings appear to compete with the arched windows, which set the tone of the building and help to associate the building with the Wheeler across the street. To disregard the shape of these windows in order to strictly adhere to the "one style" rule of the awning proposal, seems contrary to the architecture. Staff recommends the applicant consider an arched awning above these three windows, or other design that enhances the arched windows. 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. 3. Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy (specific recommendations should be offered). 4. Deny Minor Development approval finding that the 2 application does not meet the development review standards. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Minor Development approval subject to a revision of the north elevation LeOpera facade awnings in order to appear more compatible to the arched windows. The revised elevation requires approval by staff prior to the issuance of a permit. Additional comments: memo.hpc.315eh.md 3 11- U.. .4....2 .:: .:4.~.6-~ I'.I ': .1 ..: ,--Â·' ' Â·Â· ,,-049 7 0- . - " Â· Â·. .lili. . *.+-:-* &.- . I . 11? 9... I . 4 9. ' ,--ADD 3 -NEL,12*61#IN<EIS:.42+901"B:24~\ :- C -<7-7-77 2 ~ 1 4 1 -1 - I , '.f 11~-"~-"--e'-2---1--- -1.- 1 / f 1 1 i i 1 1 4 r--T jil I L --. NORTH ELEÂ»Â»n-10 N 04<trk ..- , *-4 Â·Â·15 ' . 2 4 9- I ' -Â·434'fÂ·N Â· L 1 ...: . 4 ; I /./.- -/ 4 . Â· ..%%: r- . -t / -T#Ekl AWNIN,21 AeovE MUD ENTP< / i / . f. L JV/- 24,Â· 2 l ~it ~ 1,-4.'f:. Â·Â·.L 1 7-i.,-f- 20. ' 9 \ /077\\\ \ 1 ff 11./ , 1 ' i , ' .1 LL __ - - 1 ==t -- 1 -3 . --3 : - ___1 T-'r ! : : i t . - 1 2 ~ rr- p.: i n f -4.3,Â·94*jaiL A f 0'.Â·34 . - . .4 . - . 3 .1 ~~-~t-721Â·14*49,2*iffJ.'J -1424*,tbt,%44%35.~Â· ~t ..4 jAK)*L ASAA*27*Wi*~2 : &6*mw &*k i iÂ·?ti ..1 1Â·t.i-~.-.--~-4~.- ~ 4 :3:.*~ 1-~t. fi.ff;-t-9 44..{ f .D . 1~t~*11?3344 [Â·~ Â·- - til~C ' 1 .. ... I I. - ? 1 - 1 . . - . â€¢ Ilk - Â·r Â· .L . - 69 1,1% . r ,Â· =3Â· , ....u u,.>A+W,fÂ¥Â· .':Â·,Â·.~,~.'Â·-V- 7.1.:.-IzÂ·.,23ff-#4.-:;23/1,"%*.# 424~,Â· .-Â», -1 ...3~. -UJ.1 - 10 .., Â· Â· 0.....*:/.*M .'' . .'..- I 1-11'..911'.,- . 1: . :..., 1 -' ~ '- /1 1 I . i~ I 2 \ ' 1 1 B. ' 1./ \fu I I.-J/' -/ ./ ..1 4 L-//,WAMFS *=#f/-1 . 4-i:& :43 >.ik,;2%1';PtÂ·1:.Â·./Â·i~-~ -0.':f i. ...Â· . , ...=% I t. D -4.....<>3'' .. . 1 Â· .- 44 -i *I \ . ---.-tal.... . . 1 . 6.4,91- \ ; . ' . I:'. I .' ' .1 . , , . .. 1 .. - . I 4. â€¢~ :. + 1. ---- . .44/41,1 HIEN AWNING~5 - : 4/IK .'C:.: *' /.* - 0 -MAIN 9~112EET RECOR[25 -9\~ 4. .r , I I ... -/ N ... . I . ze .0. /Pm- - -ZABCME ZFFENINeS) - 7,0-'S- #145&, - -9 ~ 4: -i. *, f - . . 1 - 51.-2,& ,-4.,e ...Ne . I I. I .. Â· . .'? ..2 Â· c-Â·G*tel;iÂ¥ f'- -., Â·.1 1.4.42â€¢42.,Â· ~-~ICI:,ir;AlÂ·..~CBYL-146 ,Â·=Â·4,~.94 Â·~~ Â·Â· 3 4 - :2- . - - .. ---, = - 74.4, 6, .6 1 -,~L,--1.,4 4if?f . :4.-- . .: - 1 . 1.1. 1 5.- >-*-. 49.1 .,Â·06;y7464.tlk :4.-1:,?64&-ilÂ¢4:1 :. 22.. h .2-'~ *lf~ 4-jhkÂ·.*07Â·:46 416% ?Â§94.-- ii +.:. ....;11.--: ......1 162-Â·' t.Â·Â·Â·4-Â·blÂ·5M*zÂ¥~4~â€¢,-Â·~t'Â·06 '.7.....' . -Â· - 3 - -6 t.. i~.1 i - 4-96- ' *- ~ - , . --I $ I Â· Â·LAÂ· . .. . 1 -4.+42, . 1. . - I . I . .... .... iÂ· 'Â·Â·Â·. -;Â·- Â·2Â·.~'0.-139Â¢166 104â‚¬1- f.- ,4 '... . e - - .. , _ . . .. - I. 11:11 .3-3,9.- .. . / 15 1 N1O12-TH. ELE.VAn-larÂ·4 0 couer-v.go - 245-1- ELE.VATION e coue-r-YAN â‚¬ 1/50 -4 4-0 " - 42 1/4" = 11-0 ' | 1.-~ ~' 11 .4 + ..1. 1 - ././ 1___~ C 9 , . .. 0 L'/ 1 1 . h / I . b . 312 ... 2 -7. â€ž i. o r i -1 -\ 11 . 1 ' 19 i e 7{ 1- - -j ) m' 1, )41 1 Tr 1 -1 40~ >IZ A 21* AGt - zfliz - -- ECK Z UnA. ?e 04 E 4 I NEW AWNINGS FOR THE job date TH J i WWAKI %9 CAIIARC 677 0 NO 1 1.*r - - A.:11 0Â¥'A.: i. - . 7 01 5 -C H.4}4 mIJAÂ£1]MENT 1 LAND USE APPLICAEON FEM 1) Project Maine .Wheeler Square. --. Project Incation 315 East Hyman Avenue Lots E.F. and G. Block 82. City and Twonsite of Aspen .. '.ASâ‚¬..... (indicate street address, lot & block nunber, legal description %here apprepriate) 3) Present Zoning 00 4) Iot Size 9000sf 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phrne . Wheeler Square. Inc. c/o The Fleisher Company, Inc. 200 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 6) Representative's Name,Miress & Ehone * The Fleisher Company, Inc. 200 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 7) Uyper of Application (please check all that 4,;ply): . i Conditional Use Concentual SPA Hist-oric Dev. ~ Special Ieview ~ Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 4 8040 Greenline - C..r-Lual ED X Minor Hic:toric Dev. -Stream Margin -- Final POD Hist=ic Demolition Mountain View Plane Subdivision __Historic Desigriation ation Teoct/Map Amendment w- (2*ls Allotment Iot Â®lit/Int Line - GMOS E]aption Adjustment 8) Desdription of Existing Uses Â· (Il=ber and D type of existing structures; amrriximate sq. ft.; minber of bedrocins; any previous aWrovals granted to the property). Commercial,. retail/office complex. 12,200sf netÂ· leaseable area. 9) Description of Develciment Application For awninqs for commercial building ,where awninas have not previously existed. 0) Have you attached the following? ,9 Response to Attadment 2, Minintlm Sulnission Contents y Response to Attadimeiit 3, Specific Sulmission Contents msponse to Attach~nt 4, Review Standards for Your Application 1 1.1 1 I./.=I'i ATTACHMENT 3 1. Three (3) awnings at Space #301, two (2) Awnings at Space #205, and one (1) awning at Space #309. 2. Sumbrella Fabric #4610, color is turquise. 3. See attachment 2D. 4. The awnings service three purposes: a. Softens the hard architecture of the building by introducing the "texture" of the canvas to the building. b. Adds "color" to the building that hereto fore has been monotone. c. Unifies signage of the property in that the skirt of each awning will be the sole source of signage for each of the 3 tenants fo the building. . 9-8 MEMORANDUM 1 To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Castle Creek Power Plant (City Shops): Landmark Designation (public hearing) Date: November 27, 1991 SUMMARY: The City is seeking Landmark Designation for the historic Castle Creek Power Plant, used today as the City Shops. The timing of this application for "H" Historic Overlay zoning corresponds with the current underlying rezoning application to "PUB" (public) . In 1989, this building was determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. A copy of the nomination is attached for reference. APPLICANT: The City of Aspen LOCATION: 1080 Power Plant Road, City of Aspen LOCAL DESIGNATION STANDARDS: Section 7-702 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations define the six standards for local landmark designation, requiring that the resource under consideration meet at least one of the following standards: A. Historical importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Response: The Castle Creek Power Plant, completed in April of 1893, is significant for its historic role in the use of hydro-electric power in the economic and industrial development of Aspen in the late 19th century. It is also significant for its role in the development of mining in the Aspen vicinity and Rocky Mountain West. The plant provided energy for industrial, commercial and residential use up to 1956. The Castle Creek plant augmented the Hunter Creek plant, which had reached its capacity in 1892 in its electricity production. B. Architectural importance: The structure or site reflects , an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character. Response: Its architectural significance as a building type represents one of the few 19th century industrial buildings remaining in Aspen. With the exception of the incompatible cinder-block addition, the building has retained a great deal of its original architectural integrity. The decorative brick work, corbelling and steel roof demonstrate those architectural features associated with pre-automotive industrial buildings. The interior has been greatly modified since the building was converted to City Shops use in the 1950's, however, original hoists and pulleys are visible today. C. Architectural importance: The structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen. Response: The subject resource is in its original location, and the feeling and function of the building as a power plant remain readily apparent. Staff finds this building contains distinguishing characteristics of a significant architectural type. D. Architectural importance: The structure is a significant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: The building's exterior design and internal layout was designed by Charles Doolittle. Although not an architect by trade, Doolittle, an engineer, developed the patented devise which maintained the constant speed of the water wheel during variations of load on the power generator. His knowledge of building form and function to achieve peak operating efficiency to provide hydro-power for community use had great influence over the character of Aspen in the 1890's. E. Neighborhood character: The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Response: The Plant itself does not contribute to the character of a neighborhood, due to its somewhat hidden location. However, the building's association with its site is wholly integral to its historic integrity. F. Community character: The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Response: The preservation of Aspen's industrial buildings is critical in terms of our ability to interpret the organic history of Aspen, the Town. Vestiges of our industrial past (the Hunter Creek Plant (now the Art Museum), the Holden- Marolt "barns", Armory Hall, ruins of the Holden mill and the brewery) are irreplaceable reminders of our heritage. The preservation of the character of Aspen is as dependent upon these industrial resources as the residential and commercial landmarks we more commonly associate with our past. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC recommend Landmark Designation of the Castle Creek Power Plant, also known as the City Shops. Additional comments: memo.hpc.ccpp.ld NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (Rev. 8/86) 4 NPS/WHS Word Processor Format Approved 03/88) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES REGISTRATION FORM This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations of eligibility for individual properties or districts. See instructions in Guidelines for Completing National Register Forms (National Register Bulletin 16) . Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the requested information. If an item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable. " For functions, styles, materials, and areas of significance, enter only the categories and subcategories listed in the instructions. For additional space use continuation sheets (Form 10-900a). Type all entries. Use letter quality printers in 12 pitch. Use only 25% or greater cotton content bond paper. 1. Name of Property historic name Castle Creek Power Plant other names/site number City Shops/ 5PT561 i. 2. Location street & number 1080 Power Plant Road N/A not for publication city, town Aspen N/A vicinity state Colorado code CO county Pitkin code 097 zip code 81611 3. Classification Ownership of Property Category of Property No. of Resources within Property private X building(s) contributing noncontributing X public-local district 1 buildings public-State site sites public-Federal structure 1 structures object - objects _L 1 _ Total Name of related multiple property listing: No. of contributing resources previously listed in the Historic Resources of Aspen National Register 0 4. State/Federal Agency Certification 3 As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this __ nomination __ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property meets__ does not meet the National Register criteria. See continuation sheet. Signature of certifying official Date State or Federal agency or bureau In my opinion, the property __ meets __ does not meet the National Register criteria. __ See continuation sheet. Signature of commenting or other official Date State or Federal agency or bureau -, 5. National Park Service Certification < $ I, hereby, certify that this property is: entered in the National Register See continuation sheet determined eligible for the National Register. _ See continuation sheet determined not eligible for the National Register. removed from the National Register other, (explain:) Signature of the Keeper Date 6. Functions or Use Historic Functions Current Functions (enter categories from instructions) (enter categories from instructions) INDUSTRY/PROCESSING/EXTRACTION GOVERNMENT/Public Works Power Plant 7. Description Architectural Classification Materials (enter categories from instructions) (enter categories from instructions) foundations Sandstone OTHER: Industrial Vernacular walls Brick roof Steel other N/A Describe present and historic physical appearance. In 1892 the Roaring Fork Electric, Light and Power Company commenced the erection of a hydroelectric station, known as the Castle Creek Power plant, on the west bank of Castle Creek, just west of the city limits of Aspen. Completed in April, 1893, the main building was 110 feet by 36 feet, with two small exterior projections to contain the valves in the main lines, pressure of the Doolittle regulators and relief valves. Charles Doolittle, patentor Differential Governor, designed the building and determined the placement of water wheels, shafting, pipe lines and was responsible for other construction details. The building has stone foundations, brick walls, a steel roof and a concrete floor. The only timber used were the door and window casings, and a timber bed for each dynamo. At the time of recording the roof contained the original Berlin Bridge Company, anti-condensation, fireproof lining, which has been determined as hazardous asbestos and will be removed. ':The Roaring Fork Electric Light and Power Company", published in Electric Review, January 5, 1907, described the station as having a four ton traveling crane, which ran on nine inch beams, and spanned the entire width of the building. The power was produced by five Pelton wheels, each with two nozzles. The wheels were enclosed in wheel cases of masonry and cast iron, with stuffing boxes around the shaft, so that the water was confined to the wheel case. The shafting, carried on adjustable pillow blocks set on masonry piers, was arranged so that any part of the line shaft or pulley could be released. The nozzles supplying water to the wheels were originally equipped with butterfly valves, which all operated at the same time. These were later replaced by a gate mechanism designed by Doolittle, to open or close in rotation and resulted in a great water savings. Today the shell of the building remains very similar to what it was historically. The exterior retains its corbelling and decorative brickwork, similar to that found in many late nineteenth and early twentieth century industrial buildings. It is clearly pre-automotive in character. The structure shows signs of deterioration due to poor drainage, deferred maintenance and harsh weather conditions, with lateral mortar cracks appearing at random throughout the entire structure. XX See continuation sheet -Â· NPS Form 10-900a OMB No. 1024-0018 , (Rev. 8/86) NPS/WHS Word Processor Format (Approved 03/88) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number 7 Page 2 Castle Creek Power Plant The interior has been heavily modified with only distribution pipes and valves and the traveling cranes remaining. All hydroelectric operating equipment has been removed. The interior brickwork, particularly the crane supports and door archways are extant. The original concrete flooring has been maintained and remains extant. The ceiling, however, has been lowered with the addition of metal panels. There are two buildings on the site, the power plant is contributing and the equipment garage is non-contributing. The garage is a long shed- like building with stalls for the equipment. There are no doors. It was built after the period of significance. 1' 8. Statement of Significance ertifying official has considered the significance of this property in 'elation to other properties: nationally statewide locally Applicable National Register Criteria XA BXC D Criteria Considerations (Exceptions) A B C D E F G Areas of Significance (enter categories from instructions) Period of Significance Significant Dates ARCHITECTURE 1892-1932 1892 INDUSTRY 1892-1940 Cultural Affiliation N/A Significant Person Architect/Builder N/A Charles Doolittle State significance of property, and justify criteria, criteria considerations, and areas and periods of significance noted above. The Castle Creek Power Plant is significant under Criterion A for its historic 4 role in the use of hydro-electric power in mining in Aspen and the Rocky Mountain West. It is significant under Criterion C as representative of a type of building used for nineteenth century hydroelectric power and industrial plants. Castle Creek Power Plant is significant for its association with the history of the development of Aspen and its mining industry. The plant provided energy for industrial, commercial and residential use up to 1956. Construction began in 1892 and was completed in 1893. The Castle Creek Power Plant augmented the Hunter Creek Station after it had reached capacity in its electricity production. The design of the building and interior arrangement of water-wheels and shafting, and its pipelines were all designed by Charles Doolittle who had developed the patented Doolittle Differential Governor, a device which maintained the constant speed of the water wheel during variations of load on the power generator. Castle Creek Station had two supplies of water from the Midland flume on Castle Creek and from the Maroon Creek flume. As a precaution, the water company also built a reservoir in 1894 in case the flow of water from the flumes was interrupted. Electricity was carried from the station' on one main pole-line to supply approximately twenty different mine and mills with ten to one-hundred and twenty- five horse-power units. XX See continuation sheet NPS Form 10-900a OMB No. 1024-0018 ,~./ (Rev. 8/86) NPS/WHS Word Processor Format (Approved 03/88) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number 8 Page 2 Castle Creek Power Plant When the huge demand for electric power dropped in 1893 due to the collapse of the silver mining industry, the Castle Creek station continued operation to supply power to the community and to those mines that did re-open. In 1909, when the Hunter Creek station ceased operations, Castle Creek was the sole provider of electric power to Aspen and vicinity. The Hunter Creek Station was acquired by the city of Aspen in 1976 and was converted into the Aspen Art Museum. Improvements were made to the Castle Creek plant in 1904 and again in the early 1910s. The construction of the Twin Lakes Water Diversion Tunnel near Independence Pass in 1932 briefly increased demand for electricity from Castle Creek Plant. For the next twenty years the demand for electric power was sporadic. The skiing _, industry played a significant role in increasing the demand in 1945 to operate the Â¢ 3 ski lifts. In 1953, the Holy Cross Electric Association bought the Castle Creek Power Plant and operated it until 1956. By this time there was such a great demand for power throughout the Aspen area a substation and transmissions lines were constructed at Basalt. In 1958 Castle Creek stopped operations and was converted into the City Shops. The Castle Creek Power Plant has architectural significance as a building type representing one of the few nineteenth century industrial buildings remaining in Aspen. The building with its decorative brickwork and corbelling and its steel roof demonstrates those architectural features associated with pre-automotive industrial buildings. The Castle Creek Plant meets the registration requirements in the Aspen Hydroelectric Context in that it was an active generating station during the period of significance that made a contribution to the economic and industrial development of Aspen during the late nineteenth century. It is in its original location and the feeling and function of the building as a power plant remain readily apparent. The interior, however, is not considered significant in light of the removal of the critical pieces of operating equipment that would have allowed for visual reconstructions of the industrial process used to produce electricity. â‚¬, t ) 9, Major Bibliographical References Anonymous. "The Roaring Electric Light and Power Company. " Electrical Review. 5 January 1907. Menke, Kathleen Marie. "Let There Be Light." manuscript, Aspen Historical Society. Aspen, Colorado. Previous documentation on file (NPS) : EX See continuation sheet preliminary determination of individual listing ( 36 CFR 67) has been requested previously listed in the National Primary location of additional data: Register X State Historic Preservation Office previously determined eligible by Other State agency the National Register Federal agency designated a National Historic Local government Landmark University recorded by Historic American X Other Buildings Survey # Specify Repository: recorded by Historic American Aspen Historical Society Engineering Record # 10. Geographical Data Acreage of property Approximately 2 acres UTM References A _L lilli llllll B _L lilli lillil Zone Easting Northing Zone Easting Northing C -L lilli llllll D .L lilli llllll Zone Easting Northing Zone Easting Northing See continuation sheet Verbal Boundary Description The tract of land contained two (2) acres, more or less; located in the northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NE 1/4 SW 1/4) of Section Twelve, Township Ten South, Range Eighty-five west of the Sixth P.M., Pitkin County, Colorado, described as follows: Commencing at Corner No. 1 from which the west quarter corner of said Section Twelve bears north 80 degrees, 12 minutes, 48 _X See continuation sheet Boundary Justification The boundaries as described include the power plant and the lot it sits on. The boundary as drawn contributes to the setting and feeling of the nominated resource as an industrial and power generation plant. See continuation sheet 11. Form Prepared By - name/title Carol D. Mehls/President organization Western historical Studies, Inc. date 1/27/90 street & number 1225 Atlantis Ave. telephone 303-666-6208 city or town Lafayette state CO zip code 80026 NPS Form 10-900a OMB No. 1024-0018 gÂ· (Rev. 8/86) NPS/WHS Word Processor Format (Approved 03/88) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number 10 Page 2 Castle Creek Power Plant VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION CON'T. seconds West 1732.95 feet, being also a point which bears North 81 degrees 9 minutes East 428 feet from Corner No. 3 of the Holden Tract, thence South 75 degrees 49 minutes East 346 feet to corner NO. 2; thence North 17 degrees 31 minutes East 163.7 feet to Corner No. 3, thence North 47 degrees 46 minutes West 255.7 feet to corner No. 4 thence North 75 degrees 49 minutes West 129.7 feet to Corner NO. 5; thence South 14 degrees 11 minutes West 254 feet to the place of beginning. 49 NPS Form 10-900a OMB No. 1024-0018 , (Rev. 8/86) NPS/WHS Word Processor Format (Approved 03/88) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number 9 Page 2 "The Roaring Fork Electric Light and Power Company", Electrical Review January 5, 1907 Menke, Kathleen Marie. "Let There Be Light." manuscript. Aspen Historical Society archives. Markalunas, James. "The Passing of an Era." manuscript. 4,4 - NPS Form 10-900a OMB No. 1024-0018 - ,<-. (Rev. 8/86) ~ )NPS/WHS Word Processor Format , (Approved 03/88) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number E Page 1 AMENDMENT TO THE ASPEN, COLORADO MULTIPLE PROPERTY NOMINATION HYDROELECTRIC CONTEXT, 1885-1932 Water power has played a crucial role in the development of America's industrialization from the colonial period to the present. The availability of rivers in New England made water power easily accessible. The early water powered technology consisted of a water wheel or hydraulic turbine and a steady water supply. The success of this technology was dependent upon the correct selection of a site. The height of the water fall was crucial in that it related directly to the amount of power generated. A high head system produces a greater amount of power with less water, thus reducing the size and cost of the facilities.1 As Americans crossed the Great Plains interest in hydropower dwindled because of the lack of water. However, the ,Â·-) settlement of the mountain West during the middle and late nineteenth century brought < ) about a revival of interest in hydropower. The mountain West proved conducive to further development of water power because of the numerous water falls, critical to power generation. Subsequently, new changes in the area of hydrology emerged to meet the demands of the mountain West. Western mountains could provide great falls, but the irregularity of the water flow proved to be a problem. Hydraulic turbines were constructed which provided for greater efficiency and speed at lower cost. At the same time, miners in the mountain , West contributed to water technology, especially the impulse turbine, which more effectively used the low volume and high heads of western streams. This pressure allowed for efficient use of water energy by dividing the stream of water and avoiding the so-called "dead whter" accumulations. The impulse turbine and its successors allowed for a flexible, low cost energy supply.2 While hydropower has a long history of use in the United States and revolutionized industry, the same can be said of hydroelectric power during the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The importance of electric power can not be minimized. L The end of the nineteenth century witnessed major changes in American social and economic life as a result of electrification. The commercial development of electric power effectively began in the 1870s and 1880s. Thomas Edison recognized the market for interior lighting and developed an incandescent lamp in 1879. Subsequent efforts developed the widespread commercial uses of electricity. In 1882 Edison built the first central electric generating station in New York City. This early effort was based upon the idea of direct current, which was most effective in highly populated areas. Despite the drawback, this represented a major step towards electrifying American homes and factories. At the same time a hydroelectric plant began operating ~ ~ in Wisconsin.3 NPS Form 10-900a OMB No. 1024-0018 ev. 8/86) S/WHS Word Processor Format .Approved 03/88) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number E Page 2 Hydroelectric Context Approximately 10 years later, the introduction o f alternating current provided a means to transmit electricity over long distances using transformers. Alternating current was cost effective in providing electricity to areas of small, non-concentrated populations. One of the earliest efforts at long distance transmission was in Bodie, California. This gold mining camp had electricity as early as 1892. The Bodie line not only serves to tighten the relationship between mining and electricity, but also proves once again that precious metal mining interests often were willing to experiment with technological advances in hydroelectric power. In this case, it was the long distance, 13 miles, transmission of electricity that was innovative. Other Western mining states also enjoyed the benefits of electricity during the late nineteenth 4 century. In the 1880s Denver and Leadville installed arc lighting systems which were later replaced by incandescent lamps. Larger and larger generating plants became the norm id Coloradans actively participated in the electrical revolution. Other innovations ncreased the demand for electricity. Of importance was the invention in the 1880s grof the Sprague electric motor. This allowed electrification of many machines, from small to large. Colorado miners and mine owners were quick to recognize the potential offered by electricity. Mountain streams presented an available source of water and the high cost of transporting coal also encouraged electrification. Because of the importance of electrical power to Colorado, especially for the mining industry, sites which provide evidence of electrical generation during the key period ending in 1912 are important resources. Hydroelectric power received a great boost in 1896 when the Niagara Falls, New York hydroelectric plant was constructed. This represented one of the first facilities designed to provide large scale power generation. Government efforts to encourage hydroelectric power occurred in the 1930s with the Tennessee Valley Authority. The concept of government action to provide cheap, accessible, hydropowered electricity to rural areas in the south was very popular and water projects were necessary to provide the necessary water supply. The Rural Electrification Authority, formed also in the 1930s, offered loans to cooperatives to finance electricity. These efforts resulted in much of the United States having access to electricity and its advantages by the end of World War II. Coloradans were ideally suited to utilize electricity for industrial/mining needs because of the availability of mountain water power combined with the remote locations of much industry. Experiments in Colorado were important in the development and acceptance of electrical power. NPS Form 10-900a OMB No. 1024-0018 - (Rev. 8/86) , \NPS/WHS Word Processor Format :' )'(Approved 03/88) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number E Page 3 Hydroelectric Context In 1885 the Aspen hydroelectric system for lighting began operations. Aspen, located at an altitude of 7,980 feet, is also near the junction of several mountain streams. The altitude provided for a rapid fall and Aspen became a leader in hydroelectric power generation and usage in the 1890s. Residents of Aspen recognized the importance of electricity to mining operations and also recognized the possibilities offered by hydroelectric power. Aspen was the first mining camp to have a mine install an electric mine hoist and to utilize electric power generated by water power. Hydroelectric plants in Aspen also are believed to be the first west of the Mississippi River.5 The Hunter Creek Station and later Castle Creek plant utilized the Roaring Fork and its tributaries to provide electricity for Aspen area mines and industries. In 1885 the Aspen Electric Company was organized by E. G. Collins, Charles N. Mackey and C. A. Judkins. The next year AEC built its own plant. Others recognized the importance of hydroelectric power and the Electric Light and Power Company, headed by D. R. C. ( 4 Brown and J. H. Devereaux came into operation. The AEC and ELP merged in 1887 into **4 the Roaring Fork Electric Light and Power Company. The new company operated two small hydroelectric plants. The need for additional power plants was recognized and in 1888 construction began on the Hunter Creek power plant. This plant operated for twenty two years on Hunter Creek, near the north bank of the Roaring Fork River. A head of 866" at the Hunter Creek plant was reported to be the highest in use at that time. However, the water supply was inadequate during winter freezes and in 1891 a steam electric generating plant was added. The Castle Creek Plant was built by the Roaring Fork Electric, Light and Power Company in 1892-93. It was the second major hydroelectric plant in Aspen. The Castle Creek plant was located on the west bank of Castle Creek, approximately two-thirds of a mile south of the confluence of the Roaring Fork River. These two plants enabled Aspen to be the first city in Colorado to serve its residential and commercial districts with electricity. Along the same lines, mines in Aspen were among the first to employ electric hoists. This electric hoist, made by the Sprague Company and Roaring Fork Electric, Light and Power, was installed in the Veteran Tunnel of the Aspen Mining and Smelting Company in 1887, to haul empty ore cars up the 3% grade. The next year the Veteran Tunnel of the Aspen Mining and Smelting Company was operating all its hoists, drills and lighting system by electricity. Shortly6 thereafter the Regent and Aspen mine' s hoists were also electrically operated. 1 1 NPS Form 10-900a OMB No. 1024-0018 ev. 8/86) S/WHS Word Processor Format 1(Approved 03/88) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number E Page 4 Hydroelectric Context Part of the early success of hydroelectric power in Aspen can be attributed to the invention o f the Doolittle Differential Governor in the mid-1880's. Clarence E. Doolittle was an engineer and manager for RFE. The Differential Governor maintained a constant speed of the water wheel under great or sudden variations of load on the power generator. It raised or lowered the deflecting nozzle to send the full stream against the buckets if full power was required, or part of the stream below the buckets if only part of the power was required. This device was eventually used in hydroelectric plants throughout the world. While Aspen was leading technology in the hydroelectric field in the early 1890s, the future of hydroelectric power was closely tied with the success of mining. The end of the mining boom in 1893 created a drop in the demand for electric power as mines were closing. Between 1893 and the early 1900s, no new generating capacity was added o the Aspen plants. Mines began to reopen and become active again in 1910. The iscovery of new ore in the Free Silver shaft and at the Smuggler Mine and the need 9 0 dewater these mines created a demand for electric pumps. Consequently, the Castle Creek Plant added two new generators in 1910. Within a few years the Smuggler Mining Company signed a ten year contract with RFE to replace their steam pumps with electric. This necessitated extensive changes and additions to the Castle Creek plant. Further additions were made in 1913 and 1917 because of increased demand. In 1918 the Smug~ler stopped pumping and the resultant loss of business necessitated changes for RFE. While what occurred at Castle Creek is somewhat typical of the entire United States, there are a few exceptions. While hydroelectric technology and use expanded in the years after 1900, the major expansion of use came during the 1930s. During the Great Depression water policy and hydroelectric policy in the west underwent great change as the Bureau of Reclamation took over efforts to provide cheap and efficient water powered electricity. The Twin Lakes Water Diversion Tunnel near Independence Pass in 1932 marked a change in the operational development of Castle Creek and reflected growing nationwide interest in hydroelectricity. Efforts continued to expand the base of electricity from Castle Creek under the REA which expanded into Basalt in 1941 and then downvalley to Carbondale. The war years are unmarked by significant changes in electricity but the post-war boom in recreation expanded Aspen' s need for electricity. Castle Creek ceased operation in 1958 because it was unable to meet the electric needs of the Aspen area. it NPS Form 10-900a OMB No. 1024-0018 iRev. 8/86) r ?S/WHS Word Processor Format j Approved 03/88) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number E Page 5 Hydroelectric Context ENDNOTES 1. Joseph King, Engineering Context, Colorado Historical Society, 1984. 2. Ibid., and Emil W. Billeb, Mining Camp Days (Berkeley: Howell, North Books, 1968), pp. 163-166. 3. King, Engineering. 4. Billeb, Mining Camp, pp. 162-168. 5. Kathleen Marie Menke, "Let There Be Light," Mss on file, Aspen Historical Society; '-end Malcolm Rohrbough, Aspen: The History of a Silver Mining Town. 1879-1893. o. Menke, "Light,"; and no author, "The Roaring Fork Electric Light and Power Company," in Electric Review, January 5, 1907. 7. Menke, "Light" i Virginia Haberman article in The Aspen Times, July, 1988 ; and no author, undated mss, "The History of the Aspen Property, " on file, Aspen Historical Society. 1 3 NPS Form 10-900a OMB No. 1024-0018 (Rev. 8/86) PS/WHS Word Processor Format i :(Approved 03/88) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number F Page 1 Hydroelectric Context I. Name of Property Type: Hydroelectric plants II. Description: Hydroelectric plants associated with this context and property type occur in Aspen as individual historic resources. For hydroelectric plants vernacular, industrial architecture will predominate. Use of pre-manufactured windows and doors may be prevalent during the construction period and these parts may remain extant in the buildings today. The individual structures exhibit small additions of wood siding and use o f more modern materials, such as roo fing, for maintenance or concrete for replacement of deteriorated foundations . Buildings will generally be lt02.5 stories. Common materials include stone, concrete, wood, steel and brick. The generally used footprint is a rectangle with a front oriented facade most common. Additions frequently change the footprint to an "L" . Roofs of either a single or intersecting gable predominate with shed frequently present on additions. Because of a need to be 'unctional, hydroelectric plants will not necessarily be aesthetically innovative, but rather, designed for specific, industrial usage. Construction dates for this property type range from 1885-1935. The other characteristic that distinguishes this property type is the spatial arrangement of the structure to the necessary water source. The condition of these resources may vary widely since the structures may have been modernized either externally or internally or both. Internal modification would result in a removal of the generating equipment, including cranes, Pelton wheels, generators, turbines, etc. that could detract from the character and feeling of the interior as it was historically. External modifications could include additions or maintenance activities with either sympathetic or non-sympathetic materials. The two local hydroelectric plants (Hunter Creek and Castle Creek) influenced the hydroelectric industry by using state of the art equipment and by setting a means of style and physical makeup for small, hydroelectric plants located in mountainous areas. In addition, these local plants were privately owned, whereby after the 1930s, federal government leadership in the hydroelectric field brought about larger, yet standardized plans for hydroelectric plants and auxiliary buildings. The importance of the mining industry in Aspen and the mountains in relation to the development of hydroelectric power cannot be minimized. Mines needed electricity for illumination, for operation of heavy and small equipment, and for water drainage. Subsequently, the fortunes of small, privately owned hydroelectric plants were closely tied with the mining boom/bust cycles and with the subsequent growth of the mining community. In Aspen, the association of Castle Creek Hydroelectric Plant with local mining and community growth is relatively clear. The construction date of 1891 and peak usage dates prior to federal intervention in 1932 associates with mining activity. In addition, power demand fell during periods of mining decline, while power usage rose w-.* during periods of mining activity or re-activity. NPS Form 10-900a OMB No. 1024-0018 .~ (Rev. 8/86) ~ NPS/WHS Word Processor Format ~ ; (Approved 03/88) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number F Page 2 Hydroelectric Context The period of construction for hydroelectric plants continues after World War II and into the present. However, the small, private, locally oriented project has been replaced with federal or state activity. III. Significance: The significance of hydroelectric power in the Aspen area is tied to the growth of the hydroelectric industry. The technology and processes of managing materials (in this case, water resources) to provide goods and services (electricity) relates closely to the construction and use of the Aspen hydroelectric power plant. In addition, Aspen followed and represented the vernacular hydroelectric industrial architecture that evolved during the nineteenth century. Properties in this category must either be associated with National Register Criteria A or C under the area of significance of industry, at the local level. - IV. Registration Requirements: Resources associated with the Hydroelectric context Â¢ i and this property type must meet the requirements outlined below to be considered as ~2='4 eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The first requirement is that the property be historically associated with the context, that is, it must have been a hydroelectric plant. Beyond that, there must be either a significant economic contribution made by the resource to the evolution of local hydroelectric development or be representative of a once vastly larger population of members of the property type which has now declined. In either case, the significance must be clearly documentable. The second requirement is that the physical characteristic of a hydroelectric plant must be present, specifically that the structure should be situated near the water source, and the buildings should be constructed of stone, wood, brick or sympathetic material. Finally, the resources must be at least fifty years old. The only National Register exceptions applicable to this property type are cases in which the property is representative of a once larger property category that has now declined and the property can be tied to a factor significant in the growth of local hydroelectric power. The individual building must be in its original location or its location during the period of significance and the setting must be present to convey their historic feeling. Additions or modifications must not impair the quality of the historic fabric (Design, materials, and workmanship) of the individual buildings . For the interiors to be considered significant major, critical pieces of equipment such as the dynamos or turbines must be present. Removal of those and other pieces of equipment shall be viewed as a Â·compromise to the fabric of the interior thus making it non-significant. Properties associated with this context were evaluated under Criterion A, B, and C. This set of registration requirements was not intended to nor did it evaluate the historic resources in light i -.. of their potential for historical archaeological investigation and as a result, it did ~ not evaluate them under Criterion D. 4 NPS Form 10-900a OMB No. 1024-0018 v. 8/86) /WHS Word Processor Format :' .Approved 03/88) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number G Page 1 Hydroelectric Context Identification and Evaluation Methods Determination of historic contexts for Aspen were based on four factors. The first was that the contexts and survey covered structures and resources deemed to be fifty years or older. Secondly, the resources were considered important within the overall framework of Aspen's mining and industrial/recreational history. Western Historical Studies developed the hydroelectric context from the results of a study undertaken by the Aspen Planning Department. The fourth element used to determine which contexts were included in this nomination was as a result of conversations between the Aspen Planning Department and the Colorado Historical Society. The final basis for contextual inclusion in this multiple property documentation came from the resources themselves. pology Determination: The survey work in Aspen led to the conclusion that function . d association provided the most concise and reliable ways to define property types for Aspen. Association with a context, the determining factor for this typology, was based on two considerations: 1) use of existing literature combined with the survey field results and; 2) not to include property types less than fifty years old unless they could be clearly and easily documented to be of exceptional significance. Integrity: The registration requirements vis-a-vis integrity were developed from a knowledge of the condition of resources extant with Aspen and the publications, such as Bulletin 15, of the National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places, and through discussions with the staff of the Colorado Historic Preservation Office. 4 -414% 91:4200 a, &7 -3*0111 809 -__ * ,-07 - -1-22-4.3,1441- 1-1 1 / / 7.TY==EF I 11 - f> 1 7 Ov C Â·72.-A f j A- 1/ //1 C W.f ; f 04/43- L--. '09443 1 i \ il ~ --Â«i . 4 84~13;ipk# 40 C.tf+.lr <14 t-7 9/ dA.4- 42 4- it J v \f. 4 04 A 60 -l) * rt / - i j i 11&1 4 -1 -~ Â»*tj 4--j .>, Â·9 <Ca C\ki.tÂ©WK#BO#4 - -SL----- MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 316 E. ~&Nal Landmark Designation (public hearing), Minor Development approval for the demolition of the non- historic outbuilding and redevelopment Date: November 27, 1991 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting Landmark Designation, Minor Development approval for the demolition of the non-historic outbuilding and redevelopment to include three parking spaces. The applicant is requesting exemption from the Demolition Standards (Ord. 9, Series 1991.) No changes are proposed to the c.1885 cottage, the principal structure on the parcel. Exemption from the Demolition Standards means an applicant is not required to meet the Standards for Demolition, but still requires HPC approval for the demolition and redevelopment. APPLICANT: Margaret Johnson, represented by B. Joseph Krabacher, Krabacher, Hill and Edwards, attorneys LOCATION: 316 E. Hyman, Lot O, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen LOCAL DESIGNATION STANDARDS: Section 7-702 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations define the six standards for local landmark designation, requiring that the resource under consideration meet at least one of the following standards: A. Historical importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Response: Our records do not indicate this parcel being associated with a person or significant historical event. It is referred to as the "Annie Krapf" house, however, no additional historical information on this owner is found in our inventory files. B. Architectural importance: The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character. . Response: The principal structure is best described as a typical one story Aspen "miner's cottage", with gable and window proportions illustrative Of traditional Aspen character. We find that the outbuilding, due to the extensive and incompatible modifications, does not contribute to the architectural importance of the parcel. C. Architectural importance: The structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen. Response: We find that this standard does not apply in this case. D. Architectural importance: The structure is a significant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: Our records do not indicate an architect was involved in the design or construction of this cottage. E. Neighborhood character: The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Response: The contribution this small scale residential structure and open space makes to the Commercial Core Historic District is considered to be a valuable cultural asset. Only 10 historic cottages remain in the District, each balancing and supporting the historic character and scale of Aspen's commercial neighborhood. The 300 block of East Hyman alone contains four residences, three of which have been adapted to commercial use. Adaptive uses of historic resources are considered significant components of the character of the Aspen community. The HPC may find that the outbuilding, which has been used for small business purposes in the past, contributes to the character of the alley and therefore the community, overall. Generally, these are found in areas that are predominately residential The recent renovation of the corner outbuilding 1/2 block north to an architect's studio may support the importance to retain the outbuilding as a contributing -,1, 91 resource to the character of the neighborhood. The HPC should evaluate the loss of this building in terms of this Standard for Landmark Designation. Staff feels that even with the demolition of the outbuilding, the parcel retains its historic significance and meets this standard. F. Community character: The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Response: Aspen' s "miner' s cottages" are signatures o f our town. The preservation of these small scale, vernacular resources is critical to the character and economic vitality of Aspen. The HPC may find that the outbuilding, which has been used for small business purposes in the past, contributes to the character of the alley. The recent renovation of the corner outbuilding 1/2 block north to an architect's studio may support the importance to retain the outbuilding as a contributing resource to the character of the neighborhood. MINOR DEVELOPMENT AND EXEMPTION FROM DEMOLITION DISCUSSION: Earlier this year, Council adopted Ordinance 9 which added an exemption provision to Sec. 7-602 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. This exemption made it possible for non-historic resources, considered to be non-contributing to the character of the resource, to be approved for demolition HPC without having to meet the rigorous standards for demolition. The application requirements still must be met, which includes the approval of a redevelopment plan, if required. The HPC has determined that all demolition requests require a redevelopment plan for approval. RESPONSE: The outbuilding proposed for demolition is 300 sq. ft., with a 113 sq. ft. enclosed porch. It is not habitable according to code, and encroaches onto the property to the west (La Cocina). The structure itself has been altered significantly over the years, and retains very little of its original architectural integrity. The applicant argues that the demolition and removal of this structure in order to provide three parking spaces may enhance the economic viability of the more significant resource on the parcel, the historic cottage. Parking spaces are at a premium in the . 1 commercial core, and the Planning Office feels that alley-accessed parking, screened by buildings, may be the most preferred way to provide space in the core. The HPC may argue that additional surface parking to provide for more automobiles downtown may not enhance the traditional character of the district or help to strengthens the city's auto-dissincentive goals. The "redevelopment" plan, included in the application, does not indicate any vegetative screening or materials. The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant minor development approval subiect to a detailed design submittal of the parking area, prior to the issuance of any building permit. Existing landscaping shall be identified, as well as proposed vegetation and all surface treatments. Finally, removing this structure entirely does not preclude the new construction of a secondary "cottage" style building in the future. Staff feels it is appropriate for the HPC to require, or strongly encourage, the applicant to restore the exterior siding and front porch within a defined time frame, in exchange for the demolition of the outbuilding. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC: 1) recommend Landmark Designation for the parcel at 316 E. Hyman Ave. 2) grant demolition approval for the non-historic outbuilding located at the alley at 316 E. Hyman, finding the structure to be exempt from meeting the Demolition Standards in Section 7-602. 3) grant minor development approval subiect to a detailed design submittal of the parking area prior to the issuance of any building permit. Existing landscaping shall be identified, as well as proposed vegetation and all surface treatments. 4) strongly encourage the restoration of the cottage wood horizontal clapboard siding and front porch. Additional comments: memo.hpc.316eh.ld.md '/ LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1 Â¥' 1 . 1) Project Maine . 316 East Hopkins 2) Project Iocation 316 East Hopkins, Lot 6, Block 80 City and Townsite of Aspen (indicate street address, lot & block 1-ber, legal descciptlon ktiere appropriate) 3) Present Zoning CC 4) Lot Size 3000 sq. ft- 5) Applicant' s Name, Address & Phone , Margaret Johnson c/o Brooke Peterson 315 East Hyman Ave., Aspen, Colorado 81611 6) Bepresentative's Name, Address & Phone , B. Joseph Krabacher, Krabacher, Hill & Edwards P.C., 201 North Mill Street, Suite 201, Aspen, Colorado 81611, (303) 925-6300. 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply)= Conditional Use Conoeptual SPA Conoeptual Historic Dev. Special Review - Final SPA Final IIistaric Dev. 8040 Grernline Conceotual PUD X Minor Historic Dev. A .b Stream Margin Final ED Historic Danolition . Mxmtain View Plane Subdivisicn ~ Historic Designation - 92Â¢,Avirk APP.1 uxâ€¢hninitinizatirâ€¢-1 Text/Map Amer*iment (213S Allot]nent Iot Spli.t/Iot line - GMUS E=ption Adjustment XXX Exemption for Demolition under 8) Description of Existing Uses (rn=ber and type of ecisting structures; Ordinan appmocinate sq. ft.; runber of bedroas; any previous approvals granted to the No. 9 property). Series 990 - 1991. historic cottage of 9,10 sq. f t. ,I and non-historic out building of inn . sq. f t..with Arirlitinn:,1 flanr Arps, of 113 sq. ft. within enclose'd porch." 9) Description of Developnent AiÂ¥,lication Exemption from Demolition Standards under Ordinance No. 9 Series of 1991 for non-historic out building 10) Have you attached the followinif? x Response to Attachment 2, Minimn Slimission Contents x Respanse to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Oorrtents x Response to Attachment 4, Review Stanlards for Your Application lili I 1. LAND USE APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM DEMOLITION STANDARDS PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 9, SERIES OF 1991 AND MINOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL I. Minimum Submission Contents for all Development Applications. A. The Applicant' s name is Margaret Johnson, Trustee of the Duane Robert Johnson and Margaret Whitfield Johnson Revocable Trust, and her address is c/o Brooke A. Peterson, 315 East Hyman Ave., Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-8166. 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. B. The street address and legal description of the parcel on which the development is proposed to occur is 316 East Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado also known as Lot O, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen. C. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a title insurance commitment disclosing the ownership of the parcel on which the development is proposed to occur and listing names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel. D. Attached as Exhibit 3 is a survey map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. E. Attached as Exhibit 4 is the Historic Architectural Building/Structural Inventory Form for the residence located at 316 East Hopkins. F. Attached as Exhibit 5 is the Andrews and Anderson report on 1991 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. II. Specific Submission Contents and Review Standards. A. This is an application for exemption from demolition standards, for the proposed demolition of a non-historic outbuilding consisting of approximately 300 square feet and a covered and enclosed porch of approximately 113 square feet, located on the north (alley side) portion of Lot 0, Block 30, City and Townsite of Aspen. The Applicant proposes to demolish the existing outbuilding pursuant to the exemption from the demolition standards set forth in Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1991, as codified in Land Use Code Â§ 7-602(E). B. The Applicant proposes to provide voluntarily a parking area on the north end of the subject parcel for three off- street parking spaces. The parking spaces are illustrated on the enclosed drawings, Exhibit 6. C. The Applicant is applying for an exemption from the demolition standards pursuant to Land Use Code Â§7-602(E). The following information shows that the application meets the conditions for the exemption of Â§7-602(E): 1. The Applicant is simultaneously applying for Historic Landmark Designation of the miner's cottage located on the south end (Hopkins Street) side of the lot. The landmark designation has significant benefits to the City of Aspen for many reasons, including: (1) the prominence of the cottage on the north side of East Hopkins Street in the 300 block; and (ii) the cottage is located next to the similarly small scale miner's cottage housing La Cocina Restaurant. With the proposed redevelopment of the south side of East Hopkins Street in the 300 block, wherein the Lily Reid cottage is being relocated to the corner, the preservation of the 316 East Hopkins cottage will be important for the Aspen downtown commercial core area as well as the 300 block of East Hopkins. 2. The existing historic cottage requires substantial maintenance and repairs. In order to facilitate the preservation of the existing cottage, the Applicant proposes to demolition the 300 square foot non-historic shed located on the alley in order to provide alley parking. The continued viability of the historic cottage will be greatly enhanced by landmark designation and the enhanced financial ability of the new owners to maintain the most important asset located on the lot -- the historic cottage. 3. The present owner of the property is elderly and retired in Arizona. She recently suffered the loss of her husband and is anxious to sell her long-time Aspen property. Initially, the Bank of Aspen proposed to . purchase the property for $350,000.00. The owners of the hair salon located in the historic cottage, Peter Rizzuto and Tuvia Stein, exercised their right of first refusal to acquire the property. The contract to purchase requires HPC approval for the demolition of the non-historic shed before the transaction can close. 4. The Applicant has conducted a study of the value of the property with and without the demolition of the non-historic shed. A report to be prepared by Scot Barringer of Barringer, Ryan and Vance Investment Counselors will illustrate the detrimental economic effect Of not permitting any demolition of the shed. Although the economics of the transaction are not necessarily the concern of the HPC, this information illustrates the fact that the proposed owners of the property will be able to take care of deferred maintenance and maintain the historic cottage as an historic landmark. 5. The Inventory Form for the property describes the shed as: "single gable shed with shed addition; rolled asphalt and vertical board, new retail, modifications with fixed glass. "As to the date of that addition, the inventory states: "date unknown. " As stated in the Inventory Form, the historic significance of the property is not of those who owned it or lived in it, nor of its architecture, but rather the home-environment and life style of the average citizen in Aspen which was then dominated by the silver mining industry. Removal of the non-historic shed will not adversely affect the essential historic character of the property since the main cottage will remain and will become a local historic landmark. 6. The structure is not identified on the 1986 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. In addition, the structure is not proposed for addition to the 1991 Inventory. See Exhibit 5. The Report on the 1991 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures prepared by Andrews and Anderson dated July 8, 1991 does not identify the non-historic outbuilding as a proposed addition to the 1986 Inventory. Accordingly, the City's expert consultants agree that the shed is non- historic and non-contributing. 7. The structure is non-contributing to the Historic District as shown by the 1986 and 1991 Inventory Of Historic Sites and Structures. The out-building has no architectural significance because it is constructed of non-historic materials .. I , including "barn wood" vertical siding and has non-historic roof shapes and facades. Although the scale and small size of the shed may be compatible with the residential historic neighborhoods in Aspen, it is out of place in the downtown commercial core of Aspen. The structure does not have all utilities and is semi-habitable, although it has in the recent past been leased to the Log Furniture Company and is considered net leasable square footage. 8. The structure does not contribute to the overall character of the Historic District because it is located on the alley and is not visible from the primary facade. The demolition of the non-historic shed will not impact the character of the Historic District because the existing historic cottage will remain on the subject parcel and will be eligible for landmark designation. Although there are other structures located on the alley, the alley is predominated by the existing Bank of Aspen building which is non- historic and the non-historic addition to the Elli's building. 9. The alley structure is also located in the CC Commercial Core Zone District of the City of Aspen. The CC Zone District has the highest intensity of zoning uses, and a small scale shed, although attractive to some, conflicts with the underlying policy of the CC Zone District to allow intensive development. The CC Zone District has no minimum side yard set backs and development is typically lot line to lot line. Likewise, there is no minimum front yard or minimum rear yard setback, (with the exception of trash/utility service areas) so it is consistent with the underlying policy of the CC Zone District to permit the shed to be demolished. 10. The shed currently encroaches on the adjoining property occupied by La Cocina Restaurant as shown on the improvement survey plat enclosed as Exhibit 3. In all likelihood, the shed would be required to be demolished in the future since one of the primary bearing walls would be need to be demolished to remove it from encroaching on the adjoining property. .. .4 1 1 11. The demolition of the non-historic outbuilding is necessary for redevelopment of the parcel because the building is located directly on the alley where the Applicant wants to locate three off-street parking spaces. Although not directly an HPC historic concern, the City of Aspen desperately needs off-street parking in the commercial core, and the application deserves serious consideration even though the redevelopment is for parking spaces. The Applicant is voluntarily providing the parking spaces, and nothing in this Application should be construed as a binding commitment upon the Applicant or any subsequent owner to maintain the parking spaces shown on the drawing. 12. The redevelopment is being reviewed by the HPC pursuant to this Application. In addition, all future development of the property will be reviewed by the HPC since the property is located within the Historic Overlay District for downtown Aspen. 13. Photographs of the non-historic out building are enclosed with this application and illustrate the state of disrepair of the structure and the non-historic features of the structure. 14. The shed is presently not in compliance with the Uniform Building Code. An estimate of approximately $50 per square foot has been prepared by the Applicant's architect of a cost to bring the shed into compliance with the Uniform Building Code. The costs clearly illustrate the economic impossibility of saving the shed. The HPC should focus its concern instead upon preserving the historic cottage due to its prominent placement on the 300 block of East Hopkins Street. Landmark designation will insure that the cottage is never demolished. III. Review Standards for Minor Development For Voluntary Addition of Parking Spaces. A. The Applicant is voluntarily providing at least three off-street parking spaces which will be a substantial benefit in the downtown CC Commercial Zone District due to the present traffic and parking congestion. The proposed parking area is compatible in character with the historic cottage since it will simply be a flat parking area without any competing structure or improvements. The parking is compatible with development on adjacent parcels for the same reasons. B. The proposed voluntary parking area and spaces are consistent with the character of the neighborhood, which includes occasional off-street parking throughout the Commercial Core. C. The proposed parking does not detract from the cultural value of the historic cottage because it will not compete in architectural style, size, facade or placement with the historic cottage. The cultural value of the historic cottage will be enhanced if the application is approved since the owner will have additional funds with which to take care of deferred maintenance and repair of the historic cottage. D. The proposed parking does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of the historic structure since parking is associated with numerous historic structures in Aspen. Further, the parking will be located off-street and to the rear of the primary facade. The alley is heavily travelled by Bank of Aspen customers and the parking will not adversely affect the importance of this alley. Dated: November , 1991 ., F32LL, rn EDWARDS P.C. B. Joseph Krabacher 201 North Mill Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-6300 bjk/documents/landuse.316 316 East ~opkins Avenue . . Lot 0, Blk. 80, City of Aspen Pitkin County, Colorado -#*-1 ' 1500994Y k '1 7. El 4 - Rebor & 4. JO. 16' Yellow Plastic Cop 1 Story 1.5Â· Shid < COV PerTh Lot N Lot 0 Lot P , 3,016 sq. ft. 8 0.069 Acs.+/- f & 40 4 1 Story Wood ~. Frame House 4 .d . ..8. f ..... I 7 Scribed Â· - aick b Concnte : 'Â· Walk --&%(*4.6. . Â· Rebor & Yellow Plastic Cop East 7' Scribed in Concrete Hopkins Avenue Legend ond Notes: - 0 *,dicotes found monument cs descrE,ed. - G Indkates Iet monument Hbar and cop LS. 15710. - A hdkates control point - Survey Orientation based on found monuments cs shown. - Easements shown ore hm Titte Commament Cose No. PCT-5689 CJ Issued 8-27-91 by GRAPHIC SCALE Pitkin Count' Title. inc. 0 10 20 40 Suneyor'. Certlikate: 4 Kenneth R. Wnson. befng o Rigfs!â€¢red Land Surveyor h the ,,$â‚¬*1 H R. *1.420 n. Slate of Colorodo. do her,by cirt;6' thal this inprovemint Iurvey /*>gaM;45'. was mode under my Supmvisfon and b he and correct to the best / Of my ben., and knowledge. 1 further cirti& that the knprovements on thi above descrlbod porc,1 on thi date, except utiNV connectfons orâ€¢ enthb, w/thfn the boundaries of i IS 15710 the porcel, oxcept as *hown. that th,r, 011 no encroochments upon Svi I . I I . .--- I _- r S 14'50'Â« 3. '94,4-1 - T iwes 16W 'all:'02<34/1/kr ,4,4 908 smBNâ€¢Â© yg\Of\16911*4. râ€¢1491/ â€¢ 0*NG. 94 - 64 r:yj SNMA 16Â¥4 9* IM . r:,1 .y'.4 1 771'. 0 , M. I ' Â»O*t*i.j Â·. .. .1 .. ... . ,. .. . ... . . . ..0#' . , râ€¢ .. -.6 . I. , ~11'jig'llf'll,~ 2-134' .1. .11:.I, , Â· . ... 1 . . , ... ... t... 4. it b,Fi'.Â·73 jx 2. . . ..1 .... t. , I. I . I ..61 ' .. . . 93 1 1 â€¢ Â· ..... . '7'.... ...... r . 1 .kf iff -Â· .14.-4 -*T ' -. , - 1~ 9.t Y g.f, e, b. I ............... . 07 'S M .Â·f I...39 : Â·: Â·: 4. '44' . Â· 4 . .. . .4 . 1 7 1 . 1 ..,. 13",1. ..6 1. Cifi.+1. 1....,.. : .. ... .... ..... A.. ... ...7 0 1 . ... .1Â£ 1 .... . . ... 4. L. : 1 ... . 1 V.,7 1 1, . .. . 2-4 Vi' i.Â»S J I '' li Ji7 - ... . -IN . I ~.IIi:. .' . .. ; -11.).9 . \45 t-,94...f.:.914 ...4 . .... I. .. . 1 ./ 11 >"2EM1-~ ViV'Vi :TÂ· ~~ '~â€¢'; ~~~hfYL~Thf 'EL:{i,;rui,ki~LifÂ·Lf:ftit?~ 121 1.,424..(Â· Â¥.Ki.2:Â· . :1: i & '-0 1 ;- / , /4 'i'.0:9 . I .4 5 IVI I 1 . 1 1 . t. . . I . ' 1 -, ... I ... .I , I . t.... . . . . . b . ... Â· .. - . I ./ . . Â· ' .... -A ... -â€¢ I Â·Â· , .... 4- I ... , . - 2.- tÂ· . . Â· Â· . ... 1 .. . 1 I . I. '3 S fÂ·'Â·.- 5 -Â·fÂ·'/Â·6*It 1 *4,â€¢â€¢â€¢ â€¢ , ' c Â· 1. 0- I.'-..1.... A . . . . . I + Â· .t . . . I . .. Â·1 ' , .+MFi. F<#36.. 2 -.. Â·2 2 . . 0 4 A, .. r 1. i.. 0 049. .. '.83 4 - 1 HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE FORM State Site Number: Local Site Number: 316.EH Photo Information: ASP-CC-2-9 Township 10 South Range 84 West Section 7 USGS Quad Name Aspen Year 1960 X 7.5' 15' Building or Structure Name: Annie Krapf House/On Location Hair Salon Full Street Address: 316 East Hopkins Legal Description: Lots O. P. Block 80 City and Townsite of Aspen City Aspen County Pitkin Historic District or Neighborhood Name: Commercial Core Owner: Private/State/Federal Owner's Mailing Address: ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Building Type: Residence Architectural Style: Victorian Miner's Cottage Dimensions: L: X W: = Square Feet: Number of Stories: 1 Building Plan (Footprint, Shape): Irregular rectangle Landscaping or Special Setting Features: No Associated Buildings, Features or Objects - Describe Material a Function (map number / name): Single qable shed with shed addition; rolled asphalt and vertical board. new retail. modifications with fixed glass For the following categories include materials, techniques and styles in the description as appropriate: Roof: Cross gabled; asphalt shingles Walls: Clapboard with decorative shingles Foundation / Basement: Unknown Chimney(s): Red brick corbeled Windows: All new: 2 3-sided bays, sidelights. storefront type Doors: 2. transom / 1/2 liqht / wood panel Porches: Shed entrance on turned posts with cut out brackets General Architectural Description: Victorian Miner's Cottaqe with extensive modifications to accommodate commercialuse. . 6 Page 2 of 2 State Site Number Local Site Number 316.EH FUNCTION ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Current Use: Commercial Architect: Unknown Original Use: Residential Builder: Unknown Intermediate Use: Residential Construction Date: 1884 - 1885 Actual X Estimate Based On: Building style MODIFICATIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS Minor Moderate Major X Moved Date Describe Modifications and Date: Date unknown. but changed from residential to commercial use with associated modifications in the 1980's; bay windows. doors. canopy - dates unknown Additions and Date: Rear shed addition. date unknown NATIONAL/STATE REGISTER ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA Is listed on National Register; State Register Is eligible for National Register; State Register Meets National Register Criteria: A B C D E Map Kev Local Rating and Landmark Designation ~ 1 Significant: Listed on or is eligible for National Register Contributing: Resource has maintained historic or Ll - architectural integrity. 0 Supporting: Original integrity lost due to alterations, however, is "retrievable" with substantial effort. Locally Designated Landmark Justify Assessment: Associated Contexts and Historical Information: The historical signi- ficance of this former residential structure is not of those who owned it or lived in it. nor of its architecture. although it is represen- tative of Aspen's Mining Era. It illustrates the home/environment and lifestvle(s) of the average citizen in Aspen which was then dominated by the silver mining industry. Other Recording Information Specific References to the Structure/Building: Pitkin Countv Court- house Records; Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maps Archaeological Potential: N (Y or N) Justify: Recorded By: Date: March 1991 Affiliation: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee - Citv of Aspen Project Manager: Roxanne Eflin. Historic Preservation Officer/Planner 4 L--1 ,< UL/ L--32, .0 1,+i..c- c.....u,. -~ L.; - . I - c- STREET fa. MAIR 41Â«~ ----- 101 1- - ' 1- --/ --/ i 1 1 Â£ 1 ri -,4' --4 j 301- I :4 01 - tli 5 43 Etrop.c (< 1; 126 5 WES E ~ j f /--h 02) - (53 (1/- 1 1- 43 0 OP - H'IL (~ AB + 1 /~ i <~ D tp) 1 X Â¢ M.2 2 321 2 ' -- - .X 7904.7 x . 2 6-7 - - 1 Ida - 4 0 C 1 * _f_ 91 - C hj q act --- -1-3 1 * A ~1...egbo --C-= . 808 .121/4/2. . ~ -- *-ti ' 1 (66 k / 1.ACDS 'AA 1\46 2 -0. J -\ K TeN~ *-x '46) ,Â· u i. ap -- 2 c-'-Efty_*-4--413-flf tr=v - -0 - -W Â£--*. 3 -, 3 E. 4#opk,L 6 Ave. X ~1900)Al-Â£-r No /4 - 64.Tizi E;03 NG (l Â£ 1- 11 \ i 4 - NEW V 1 CTO Ill A,4 ' LAW OFFICES KRABACHER, HILL & EDWARDS PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 201 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 B. JOSEPH KRABACHER TELEPHONE THOMAS C. HILL (303) 925-6300 JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, 111 (303) 925-7116 TELECOPIER OF COUNSEL (303) 925-1181 JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR. November 21, 1991 Roxanne Eflin Histopic Preservation Planner City 6f Aspen Planning Office 130 South Galena, Third Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 316 East Hopkins Dear Roxanne: I have been doing some research on the history of the alley structure located on 316 E. Hopkins. I wanted to provide you with some additional information that I discovered before you complete your review of the development application. I am enclosing a copy of a 1972 survey by Jim Reser. It shows the shed and the encroachment onto the adjacent La Cocina property. In 1972, the shed had a square footprint. As you can see by comparing this survey with the current survey prepared by Ken Wilson, there have been substantial additions to the shed since 1972. It appears that both of the porches have been added and that the shed itself has been enlarged to the west. The current shed has a rectangular footprint, and was added on to two or three sides since 1972. If you have any questions, please give me a call. KRABACHER, HILL & EDWARDS, P.C. By: BJK/ch B. Jos@pk Krabacher Enclosures as recited ALLEY q . I. e . 4 4 I Â¢ 4., . 9 , Cce.m,e rcr' =r .. A W=.09'11'W 60:,- 'MS:tr-Prl Ieer R=Â·8.4 Â¥ Fl.â€¢STÂ¢ C- # ~4 0,) â€¢â€¢ef:/7 1 . 25 -O . I ... 4 3 Â· Â·3 4 25 ..'Â·....:..3 . 6 "' ' ' 6 -. j . th -; ., .. t**... />..:Al SCAL# llâ€¢ d . . teâ€¢Rovib t,:e=m ON FC-â€¢0 t.cr cÂ©,6 =Ms E..: 2.. 0 -4 Vt=6 F?:Ak,E Elcli .. 1 1 74 '.1 : f ...1... 2. ~ 7 U.Â«c779*:9/37.'..~.,7/<..$97-#----- - Â·nâ€¢to 1:5 'O Co.gr,pâ€¢r -r, â€¢.r THe rt-â€¢1' A-..3=,TULC , ;ap;22Â©eNTO A 5.*2â‚¬~r' OF Let.5 6 1 ' N. eâ€¢.O.1 - SO 1 ; liz . . 2. <0 A.Â· crrver,â€¢42>Fbl, P,-noN CÂ©UNr, C:Zx-cytsâ€¢.B, tal':L- Â· r=-0120 u.,Ce<< MÂ·r' S.M"Cith,ON C. MAC-4 21 + ..0! I Â· Â· .3.. 7 . I 4'V ' /' I â€¢: 1 , 4%, ... 4, 19'Z . Â£ 1 1.1 n -1.- . ....1 + 20 - I . . . I I ly .7 â€¢ I ~. Grt . ' 1 0..Mes M R===e 6-S 9164 1 3 . ..S: Â·,/re'â€¢ iÂ·. 09 Â·4 1 . *fi wx 9 â€¢ 1 V. 4. . 4 i 1 2 9184 1 . ..1 1 . . d. L 1 1 6 . .19Â» =0414 1 I fy 1 1 OLOCK Â©O ~ % . 1 LC~ )-1 3 f 1 , LOT N Lar o ' , .0- . .. Ula . 1 1 â€¢ Cl- 1 96 I. . f ws,re:8: crize=:025 CW LcrS W â€¢ N .,r 4- f NOr}Ton= . 9 - *L 73 - 0 i f. Itt /1 - ' 1 i .5 1 :* L..., 1 4 1 ..f. . ... '0 Â¢ , 1 TRI-Ce t 4,4 U C. 1 I 1 72- C- I . ASPEN *A 1 902VE 4 7% 4 ' 0.... .7 8.44 / L.Crr:5 i , 4 09 1.0.j ... 1 24 +I. 1.c" r t..0 11. . 3/ # 2Â· i re,0,04,144, 1 Ae:.01-21!1~13.-721 ~ ~ 6 64â€¢0â€¢ X N Sce.â€¢u< ~ iBW~,/flo<-Ft.'19~7/J 44â€¢Cet X Nbet--4 .1 61 . t.4-kle 9**F Ibbl 1% )34Wg/\ON 14Â¥15 189\Njolgthao Â»+-m SOW,30&58 pur I 41440% 1@id 92 104 - >IlÂ¥/A'ao I 4 '3184Â·pH 02 - - 1 . 0 94Â¥1100 6,~3[2*liw aÂ·awÂ¥=1=1 600/A - kdole- 1140 '914llet><a 1 ,Al Yr#9 .CA r r / 7 -*044 i 1C 1 1 //1.1 1- *39*1- 414(161 )<8 ~ 1 Â£ 1 i 1 1 - IC 1 -Z /1. 1 JZ~1 1 - --7 ~1 1 19NBFÂ¥,I AdÂ¥lti rrloA - [13*OJO'U 16-09,#WN 162 - ~ N.lix--3 Â¥Mt- 1- r -- 4 0 4 INawll'*043~ 1 --~ Vil Alll9.IAU --1 4 6 1 1 -'1-/ I LIANOW'na + I 34.01 --eflaÂ· lin,alno - 1 ~6-T~~-9-7-- ,<+91*23NO I AM/141)(1- - ~ 11 1 1 4-1 - 1--- - -- 1#,W H'2Â¥0420* 4114 -l A-ally %1Â¥NLI-1122|OBOO__. _ November 13, 1991 Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Aspen HIstoric Preservation Committee Dear Roxanne and Committee: This letter is to inform you that I have purchased a residence outside the city limits, and will be moving there at the end of this year. By moving outside the city, I understand that the city charter prohibits me to remain a regular voting member of the HPC. I, therefore, must unfortunately resign, however, I would like to remain an active part of the HPC, and be involved in an advisory capacity in sub-committees and worksessions. I have enjoyed serving on the HPC, and wish you well in the future. Sincerely, Glenn Rappaport la, grou anc[ your famify are invite,[ to sfi.are the Ao[i,[ays witfi, tfre Aspen Mistolic (Preservation Committee and- the Aspen 9-fistoric 'Irust 'TRurs day, (December 19 5:00 - 8:00 p.m. 1118 1/Vaters Avenue *osts: Les 9{0[st e Linda, (Romero 4 96 4 94 4 96 * 96 4 4,303 (3â‚¬41. l.70._ - HISTORIC PRESERVATION APPLICATION FEES 1. Exemptions and Insubstantial Modifications: Proposed: $50.00 Example: Exterior changes considered to not alter the character of landmarks or structures within historic districts, or technical changes to previously approved plans. These are handled administratively. 2. Minor Development Proposed: $100 Example: Exterior changes (in combination of no more than three) that do alter the character of landmarks or structures located within historic districts. and/or additions of less than 250 squeare feet of landmarks and structures located within historic districts, and minor changes to designated sites. These are considered one-step applications and go before the HPC. A public hearing is not required. 3. Significant Development (under 1.000 sq. ft.) Proposed: $250 Example: Multiple exterior changes, additions of less than 1,000 square feet (between 250-1000 sq. ft.), and some partial demolitions. These are two-step applications, that require a public hearing before the HPC at Conceptual Development (first step). Publication, posting and mailing are required for all HPC public hearings. A bond or financial security may be required. 4. Significant Development (over 1,000 sq. ft.) Proposed: $500 Example: Major remodels involving partial demolition, additions over 1,000 square feet and on-site relocations. These are two- step applications that require a public hearing before the HPC at Conceptual Development (first step). Publication, posting and mailing are required for all HPC public hearings. A bond or financial security will be required. a : ': ....212 5. Demolitions and Off-Site Relocations - c.../ Proposed: $1000 Example: Full demolitions and complete relocations off-site. These are two-step applications that require a public hearing before the HPC at Conceptual Development (first step). Publication, posting and mailing are required for all HPC public hearings. A bond or financial security for relocations will be required. . I 4 -r r COIORADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY The Colorado History Museum 1300 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80203-2137 November 21, 1991 Dear CLG Coordinator: I want to remind you that each Certified Local Government must adopt a resolution stating whether it will or.will not act as a reviewing entity for the state tax credit program during calendar year 1992. This resolution must be adopted prior to January 1, 1992. I certainly encourage every CLG to become a reviewing entity and hope for 100% participation for 1992. I think it is fair to say that none of the CLGs felt that the tax credit reviews were overly burdensome. In fact, outside of Denver, the total number of projects reviewed so far from all CLGs is less than five. If you would like to see a sample resolution, please give me a call. If you adopted one last year, you could simply pass an identical version updated to apply to 1992. Good luck with the program for 1992! Si~ferely, ~ /Lane Ittelson Director, Preservation Planning 1i iTE NUV 2 2 +1 4 Fr--- COIDRADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY The Colorado History Museum 1300 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80203-2137 November 18, 1991 Dear CLG Coordinator: We are in the process of revising our Certified Local Government application form and selection criteria for Federal Fiscal year 1992. I have enclosed a timetable for the 1992 grants to help you in planning for the coming year. Please do not use any of the previous years' application forms. The new forms will be available by December 9, 1991. Sinyrely, /0 - - 0.722Â« L /Lane Ittelson ~/ Director, Preservation Planning LI:ng Enclosure I I COLORADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY - HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND TIMETABLE FOR CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR - 1992 PUBLIC NOTICE - NOV. 7 - DEC. 9. 1991 A public notice was published announcing anticipation of Historic Preservation Act funds from The Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Grant -In- Aid program award to the State of Colorado. Certified Local Government subgrant funding is a part of this announcement. A thirty (30) day response period encourages public comment. (Published Nov. 7, 1991 issue of the Denver Post) GUIDEUNES AND APPLICATION FORMS - DECEMBER 9. 1991 Certified Local Government (CLG) grant application guidelines and forms will be available on December 9, 1991 from the Colorado Historical Society, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Application materials will be mailed to all CLG's by December 9,1991. Additional applications can be obtained by calling (303) 866-3395.Only Certified Local Governments are eligible to apply. APPLICATION DEADLINE - Februarv 14, 1992. All application information must be completed in order to be considered for funding. Applications which are hand delivered must be submitted to the Colorado Historical Society, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Colorado History Museum, 1300 Broadway, Denver, Colorado by 5:00 p.m. on February 14,1992. Applications received by mail must be postmarked by February 14,1992. Applications received after the deadline will not be considered for funding. The Society will not accept grant applications sent by FAX. GRANT AWARDS ANNOUNCEMENT - March 9, 1992 Contingent upon the availability of federal funding and amount of award, it is projected that $54,000 - $60,000 will be available for CLG subgrant awards. Certified Local Government grant awards will be announced on March 9, 1992. All applicants that request funding will receive written notification from the Society on the status of their application. CONTRACT AGREEMENTS - Mav 1.1992 Funded applications will require that a contractual agreement be negotiated and fully executed between the State and the Subgrantee. CLG subgrantees will be expected to have the details of the contract fully negotiated and agreed to by May 1,1992. PROJECT PERIOD - Beginning start dates for funded grant projects can be no later than July 1, 1992, project ending dates must be no later than June 30,1993. FINAL REPORTS DEADLINE - Julv 31. 1993 Project reports, financial documentation and related close-out activities are to be finalized and reports sent to CHS by July 31,1993. Quarterly reports will be submitted to the Society during the project period on October 10, 1992, January 10, 1993, April 10, 1993 and July 10, 1993. For additional information or questions concerning this grant program contact Lane Ittelson at (303) 866-4676 or Kay Heninger at (303) 866-4609.