The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19891018 AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE October 18, 1989 REGULAR MEETING ~ SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM City Hall 4:30 - On Site Review - 620 W. Bleeker St. Wheeler Stallard House . '4 5:00 - Regular Meeting 4:30 On-Site Review 620 W. Bleeker, Wheeler Stallard House 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of September 27, 1989 minutes II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Conceptual Development - Public Hearing Continued 132 W. Main - Asia (to be tabled to Oct. 25) 5:10 B. Final Development - 221 E. Main, Explore Booksellerst<vricd ,ul- 5:30 C. Final Development - Phase III -~Collins Block, infill construction Not, V. NEW BUSINESS 3 6:15 A. Conceptual Development - Public Hearing 620 W. . Bleeker St. - Wheeler Stallard House 4 .i : / ..35 6:45 B. Review and recommendation: 300 Lake Ave. proposed 2 new construction 0 . . 0 7:00 VI. COMMUNICATIONS .'..9%. A. Chairman report: Council/HPC Goals session.I follow-up C. B. Staff report: Inventory Re-Evaluation - Goals, . Methodology, Phasing C. Project Monitoring . / Adjourn 8:00 p.m. Â· = . . 99--4- i MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Conceptual Development: Asia infill, 132 W. Main St., Public Hearing to be tabled Date: October 18, 1989 SUMMARY: On September 13, 1989, the HPC voted to table, until October 18, the conceptual development plan for the new infill construction proposed for the Asia property. The applicant is once again requesting the proposal be tabled until October 25 (the second HPC meeting this month), at which time revised elevations and site plans will be submitted for review. This project has been tabled excessively, therefore, this will be the last attempt at conceptual development approval without a new submittal and new public noticing. GMQS COMPETITION vs. LANDMARK DESIGNATION: On September 11, City Council voted to not extend unallocated square footage in this zone district, which meant that approximately 1,200 ft. were available for competition this year. The project requires more square footage allotment than that, so instead of competing for the amount available, the applicant is choosing to examine Landmark Designation of the entire parcel so that development may be exempted from competition. An application for Designation has not been submitted at this time. Staff bring this information to the Committee for discussion purposes only, similar to the Lily Reid project you reviewed in work session on September 27. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to table the public hearing one last time to October 25, 1989, at which time a revised conceptual development will be presented and reviewed. memo.hpc.132wm.3 \ C MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Final Development: 221 E. Main, Explore Booksellers Date: October 18, 1989 LOCATION: 221 E. Main St., Lots D and E, Block 74, City and Townsite of Aspen APPLICANT: Katharine Thalberg, represented by Randy Weedum, Architect APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Final Development approval for an enlargement of 686 sq. ft., involving an expansion of the main floor storage by 490 sq. ft., and second floor expansion of 196 sq. ft. (also containing the rear stair exit) and 111 sq. ft. of deck. No variations are being requested. PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: Conceptual development was granted to the proposal on September 13, 1989, with the following conditions: 1. The storage doors (east elevation) shall be sided to match existing 2. Exact material representation shall be presented at Final Development review The applicant has agreed to the storage door condition and will be presenting materials at the meeting. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Approve the Final Development as submitted 2. Approve the Final Development with conditions, which may be signed off by staff 3. Table action to allow the applicant further time to study alternatives 4. Deny Conceptual Development approval finding that the application does not meet the conditions of Conceptual Development review RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Final Development approval for the application for 211 E. Main St. memo.hpc.221em.fd 394 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Final Development Approval: 204 S. Mill, the Collins Block, Phase Three - Infill Construction Date: October 18, 1989 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Final Development approval on Phase Three (infill construction) of the Collins Block renovation project. This will be the final HPC action on this segmented review. PRIOR COMMITTEE ACTION: Conceptual Development approval was granted on the infill construction Phase Three by the HPC during a special meeting on May 24, 1989, subject to the following conditions required to be met for Final Development approval: 1) The applicant supply accurate information regarding the joining of the existing and new structure 2) Color rendering of 3/8" - 1' be presented 3) Exact materials representation The applicant has agreed to present these items at this meeting. OTHER BOARD ACTION: Additional, the Board of Adjustment approved the applicants request for variance in dimensional requirements of open space for the infill. Planning Director signoff is required for the remainder of the development (excluding the residential FAR) under GMQS Exemption. SUMMARY: The Planning Office is still not satisfied with the design solutions on this parcel. We feel strongly that the street facade is too competitive in detail to the historic Collins Block, that its horizontality does not function well with the historic building, and that the materials appear heavy and out of scale (more sandstone and brick). The Planning Office, including many staff members, finds that the internal courtyard design with tiny storefronts and commercial spaces has not been proven to be compatible and function well with the confined size of the storefronts and commercial space and common area. We are concerned about the future design impacts a second floor might have to the Collins Block. Staff has supported the applicant's proposal to design the infill structure with a sidewalk-edge facade. We feel this carries the historic character of the commercial core further down the block where the once strong streetedge has eroded. Due to this bold positioning of the facade, we feel that the HPC should carefully review the proposal at this Final Development stage, and be very sure the design and the courtyard function meets the criteria for character compatibility in the Commercial Core Historic District. ALTERNATIVES: Actions the HPC may consider taking are: 1. Final Development approval as proposed 2. Final Development approval with conditions which may be signed off by Staff with the advise of the project monitor 3. Table action, finding further study is necessary 4. Deny Final Development approval, finding the application does not meet the conditions Of Conceptual Development approval. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC table Final Development approval for Phase Three of the Collins Block to allow the applicant additional time for restudy of the facade and courtyard. memo.hpc.204sm.fd.3 2 FINAL HPC DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW AND GMQS EXEMPTION REQUEST FOR THE COLLINS BLOCK PHASES II AND III September 6, 1989 The infill structure proposed for Lot C (Phase III) received Conceptual Development approval from the HPC on May 24. The following conditions were included with the approval: 1. Detailed information as to how the existing and the new structure are joined. The infill building will be set back approximately 2" from the plane of the Collins Block facade to distinguish between the two elements. Brick has been selected as the predominant masonry building material for the infill facade with sandstone to be used only as an accent meterial. Refer to the architectural drawings of Hopkins Street facade and detail of the infill building street elevation. 2. Samples of building materials to be used, specifically the sandstone and brick proposed, are being submitted with this application. 3. Proposed colors of the new facade are shown on a color board included with the July submission (Exhibit 6). 4. A line drawing at 1/2" = 1'-0" of the street facade of the infill building is included with the architectural drawings. 13 EXISTING AS PROPOSED Accessory Accessory Comm'l (Stor., Mech., (Stor., Mech., Lot Size & Office & Circ.) Res'l Total Comm'l & Circ.) Res'l Total PARCEL A 7,200 SF (N. 80' of Lots A, B, C Block 88) A. Basement 1,200 -- 1,200 6,407 838 -- 7,245 B. First Floor 5,188 -- - 5,188 5,210 532 - 6,274 C. First Floor Loft/ Mezzanine 90 486 -- 576 D. Second Floor - 440 4,093 4,533 - 172 4,361 4,533 E. Second Floor Loft -- -- -- -- --------- (Future Submission) TOI'AL: 5,278 2,126 4,093 11,497 11,617 1,542 4,361 17,520 FAR: 5,278 926 4,093 10,297 5,210 704 4,361 10,275 (1.43:1) (1.43.:1) Non-Far: - 1,200 - 1,200 6,407 838 - 7,245 Net Leaseable: 5,278 - 4,093 9,371 11,617 -- 4,361 15,978 Above-Grade: 5,278 4,093 9,371 5,210 -- 4,361 9,571 Below-Grade: -- 6,407 -- -- 6,407 -- : 1,1 .111 6 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 - - - I.<. * 1, I - -- ftp' ---- 1 11 1 ...% -VI- $#-I-- MH 1 11 11 11 Ill' 11 11 ---- 31 Ntff -i "4 - ~ L--17-UL----Lâ€ž- 17-- .11 It 11 1 1 N *-7-7 --2.:_ . - Pfv#in - ---- - - .- .r L==1 L~~~~_~~_~ ~i L==1 - - F-----1-9--]11 13 317 ---- 1 4---- --- 37---jIL'11 - 1 -- I 1 - -=1 1 4 444'dÂ« _~~I p_ -f-=_Â»-- -- -7 -- 1 --==i=== 1 T-1 - 1 h | //1. \\ R49===1>\.0 \. 4 Â¥ '12 \ 3 1====ra 1 1 1 1 1 B I 3 I mt.:1 , n_ -_re..Â»NÂ«Â»11 2 ;1 1 AXâ‚¬~*4:20">riko ~~<.'. Â·RRA.<2 ' EEKN~ 32%<%4-r---------------lkl~Â»42 1 1\>\\<2 1 46 1 1}{21*:22**31] - 1'Â· 9. F k.4--M_ 1 14-â€¢ " ' t=*AU* E-222. LE' I - F--0 4----12 C . , hÂ£.7--ef 1 , 1 2 1 -' 1 1 1 - - -911 ==-Â»tr953- 7-Th .t 1 4 2 - 1.1 . 17- -- 6.2 1 - , 1 -t! Â·Ir= M 1 1 L j - 1.- 1, 1: 41 q -1 I lilli f-- 231 111 11% 'Ir gil ' 4=Y! 1:. Ii I *Ii: 1 - - 1 11 ' 1 I lEi p. ':411- Â· MIl 1. 411 - -1 Â»-1- . lili.. EN! 5 Fit! .- b Â· ~~ ~El -: IR~ i Â· Muu * i !:i i li ; .-1 -i; 11,6. 'm -/.t -1 Pi i ; c ' 10-1 11 1 1 [--1 triÂ· 7.*9 4-2 5 -f_>O-~. 7 1 9 46 D.b--Â·<c mi -71 --,Fz - 2-*-r i-a Â£1 s q ,~ 1: r., 0- 41.--r b A-' El 1 6...... F./.... 4 -3..r-4..11.1 - T ' '11 . 9 - (534-_- 42 'fli---- ~ 1 Â® P - + I.Li' 6. - -+-' - r m= Â· - 1 - t.--=fEEmt;- - 4 L Â·- 0,4 741 ~--=7 11â€¢./r- ...6 3 - - - ..1 -==Kzz-4/-&711 =. 1-rr- Â· 'r' 6 1 00 1 _ I -_ - =ME,aswi.F F . - ..0HESV ll~ -/1 - 17-11 7 --I LE-- INF-6 kl 2 ~ --- 62 - 11 Â© 4 - ~ - ~ E-ise. 2-- U 1 @ L -- - W- 1' - 1 N#EET ' LI =.---1 ---dif---lt p' J--111 I'Lf u _- 7 -: " ' i i , i r, j .9,07 -- E- 22 i-- - 4, 1.2-- 70 EL -1,-1 th 1. I 1 - I. 1 1 f-f{ 1 li~ 1 'r22 -1--11_14]r:1 111 1 1. ! JQ Iii [flf ..1 .1 1-2---01 76*ir:4 0''flicELLLfi Â¢44--7-2-4- - 1.1 1 1 h.~ lilli, ILL], 111111 11-- 1,Â»1 11 LL_L__12__ ' ' - ' --3 '. 2 i:* -TIC #= 2.--fl' -_./.2/I 41 0 + *C Ld -1- py- -------I-------- - .---------------------------1.------------------------- / i ' -- ------ ----- --- -Â· rn- - - :-f_Â»-/2 24, Litt 13 TEÂ· 8, TLE--. Ulnl-r r---*kE "2..13-'- r' flti jÂ·-fi] -ILL 11 11 1 1-Ulkki'f-t~ECII-KI -111-13:1 61Â· 12 11, .4 ':* 41 -Ll:' ill 3 -EZ ' 2 1: 6 24' li , : - , 'OR - 6-1-' -1 I . 51 1. L C' Â·_1 t 9 .4 1. ' I ~~ ~Ill ,Â¤t-fiâ€¢,0 4--rÂ·- ' r.'. 22. 1 11 - lili lilt /4 7... 11 Â· 1 16[ Â® :*DI ?Whic ' 4 IiI i l. - n ItÂ·H~ , Li r l' f=% - j--Ir - 4 kt....+&--.31*+ 9*-f fi : 1 rf -----~-----7--- Â·~ 4,4 5-0-0 6-" F-1.1- .1... -rÂ« 1 - - DMOG<' ~ A 17 susv *1<1 . . A.1 M E- w 5 -T..fe F h, r-t 1~ 5 07.9 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Conceptual Development: 620 West Bleeker Street, The Wheeler-Stallard House Museum, Public Hearing Date: October 18, 1989 LOCATION: 620 W. Bleeker St., Block 23, including platted alley, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, except Lots H and I in said Block 23, and without warranty as to said alley ZONING: R-6, "H" - Designated Historic Landmark, listed on the National Register of Historic Places APPLICANT: The Aspen Historical Society, a non-profit corporation, represented by board member, Don Westerlind HPC MONITOR: not yet assigned APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual Development approval for an addition to the non-historic detached "carriage house" (museum office) to include restrooms and storage facilities. SITE, AREA AND BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Lot Size: 53,658 Max. Allowable FAR 6,298 Existing FAR 6,026 Proposed Total FAR 6,520.9 Note: Site coverage is well below the maximum allowable We find that a 222.9 sq. ft. FAR variation is needed in this development. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Development Review Standards are located in Section 7- 601(D)(1) of the Land Use Code. Staff's comments follow. The review Guidelines may be found in Section VI. RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS - Renovation and Restoration, beginning on page 47. Standard 1. The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels with then 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 the general idea of an expansion satisfactory under the Historical Society's cramped circumstances. However, we feel that the design proposed is not in character to the historic resource, and therefore, cannot recommend a FAR variation. (Please see staff's response comments to Standard #4.) We feel that the sheer size of the addition with three restrooms is excessive. The Planning Office recommends that the Historical Society re-program their existing space if possible, and seek a smaller, more compatibly designed addition. Standard 2. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development Response: The character Of the neighborhood is of significantly smaller scale than the Wheeler- Stallard House, therefore, any enlargement to the estate structure must be carefully designed to be consistent and in neighborhood character. Further, it could be argued that the residential character of the neighborhood could be affected with expanded commercial-type (special event) uses of the Wheeler-Stallard grounds and structures, certainly a necessary element of the Society's program. This is a difficult dilemma for House Museums across the country: they can be "loved to death" (too much use for so sensitive a site) . The Society needs to expand its fundraising capacity in order to maintain the property, operate its archival services and function as an historical educational resource to the community. This National Register structure and grounds were obtained by Aspen Historical Society in 1969, and since that time the use has expanded to include special events. As more people use the museum facilities, expansion needs appear eminent. Staff would rather see "people impacts" to non- historic portions of the property than to the main house, however, we feel the design needs more 2 study and the size needs to be reduced. Certainly staff supports the Historical Society excellent efforts in the community, however, we question the need for three separate restroom facilities with seven stalls, and two additional in the existing structures. We are sure the Society Board can demonstrate those few times. (Staff feels that more effort should be invested into the storage and protection of irreplaceable historic items currently stored outside on the grounds, helping arrest their deterioration.) The immediate "character of the neighborhood" may be changing literally in the backyard of the Wheeler-Stallard House, with the potential demolition or relocation of the small cottage on the NE corner of the parcel and the redevelopment of the site. Any new development on that site will impact the historic character of the Museum. The HPC granted an "after-the-fact" demolition approval, a move to buy time and begin negotiations with the owner. The Historical Society has the opportunity to negotiate for this parcel, relocate their caretaker and office to this site, "reprogram" the main house's interior and allow for the use of the entire block. (Restroom facilities could be incorporated into existing footprints.) Time is running out, and the Historical Society Board should consider working closely with the Aspen Historic Trust. Staff believes this is an excellent opportunity for Society to "claim back" the parcel that originally belonged to the Wheeler-Stallard House, prevent a large, incompatible development there, and obtain sorely needed space for operations. Standard 3. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: We find that the excellent cultural integrity of the Wheeler-Stallard House is not necessarily diminished by this proposal, however, we are very concerned about continual additions and buildings to this extremely important National Register in Aspen. On the other hand, the museum facilities may become more marketable, and therefore, more individuals Will be exposed to the cultural amenities of the property. Standard 4. The proposed development enhances or does not 3 diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The very visible south elevation is very horizontal and unbroken, containing two large pairs of "storage" appearing doors. This elevation appears out of scale to the nicely proportioned, vertical carriage house. We recommend a restudy for compatibly. LANDSCAPING: "Paved" walkways are indicated in the proposal; currently the walkways are crushed rock. Paving materials need to identified in the Final Development plan; concrete is not recommended. Paving stones or wooden walkways would provide a soft and historical compatible treatment. Additional information needs to be submitted with regard to impacts on the mature pine closest to the proposed addition. We recommend that the applicant present a very detailed landscape plan at Final Development Review. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Approve the proposal as submitted 2. Approve the proposal with the conditions as recommended by staff and discussed in this meeting (such as detailed landscape plan, exact materials, etc.) 3. Table action to a date certain to allow the applicant further time to study the proposal, incorporating the comments and guidance from the HPC in a revised proposal. 4. Deny conceptual development approval finding that the application does not meet the development review standards. A denial would constitute public hearing re-noticing. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC table Conceptual Development for the proposal at 620 W. Bleeker St., to allow the applicant time to restudy the size and scale of the addition. memo.hpc.620wb 4 CHARLES CUNNIFFE &ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 520 EASTHYA/IAN. SUITE 301, ASPEN, CO. 81612 303/925-5590 CHARLES L, CUNNIFFE, A.I.A. CARRIAGE ADDITION HOUSE PROPOSAL The Stallard Carriage House Museum was constructed in 1976 to provide museum display space and house the archives of the Aspen Historical Society. As the popularity and use of the Stallard House, the Carriage House Museum, and the Society grounds have increased, a number of glaring inadequacies have surfaced. Among them are the lack of public restrooms, the lack of storage for miscellaneous equipment, and a lack of handicapped access and bathroom facilities. We are proposing to eliminate the problem by the addition of men's and women's restrooms and a handicap bathroom meeting the required building codes on the east side of the Carriage House with a small sitore room wrapping around the south side of the Carriage House. Currently, the only inside bathroom is located downstairs in the Carriage House. The use of this bathroom by the public jeopardizes the security of the Historical Society's archives which are stored on that floor and is not accessible to the handicapped. Further public toilets have been provided in the form of portable toilets as illustrated on Plate 6 of the photographic section. We believe the addition is a definite improvement while also providing storage for miscellaneous items currently stored under tarps against the building. The past few years have provided increases in the number of weddings, meetings, community benefits, garden events, and visitors to the Stallard House grounds. We have taken these increases into account, as well as minimum public restroom requirements in coming up with our plan for this addition. The new addition would extend the slope of the existing- roof and roofing would match the metal roof over the stairs and along the eaves of the Carriage House. The metal roofing would be the most practical due to the low pitch of the roof. The exterior siding would match that on the existing Carriage House. There are currently no windows or doors on the portions of the Carriage House where the addition is proposed. The proposed addition would be screened from the streets by existing planting and fences as illustrated by the photos on page one of the photographic section. Paved walkways and a handicap ramp would provide increased access to the facilities and a grant has been applied for to fund the walkway improvements. Conversations with a landscape architect indicate that the pine tree adjacent to the proposed addition would be unaffected by the construction or, if it seems to suffer, could be easily moved back several feet. We also feel that this proposed addition would clean up the view experienced by the residents of the Victorian cottage on the corner lot of this block, the 'only people who must constantly look at the Carriage House from their property. c: \wp5~work\8613.pro FAR CALCULATIONS Lot Area - 53,658 s.f. Zone - Historic landmark within R-6 Allowable FAR = 6,298 s.f. Allowable extension for non- conforming landmarks (9-103 (c) (2)) = 500 s.f. 6,798 s.f. FAR of existing structures: Main House: Lower Level = 1,975 s.f. Upper Level = 1,343 s.f. Attic Level = 770 s.f. Porches over 3 ft. = 688 s.f. Subtotal 4,776 s.f. Carriage House: Lower Level = 1,250 s.f. Total existing square footage 6,026 s.f. FAR CALCULATIONS Proposed Bathroom and Storage Addition to Carriage House = 494.9 s.f. Existing Square Footage = 6,026 s.f. Total Proposed Square Footage = 6,520.9 s.f. SITE COVERAGE CALCULATIONS Proposed Structure Lot Area - 53,658 s.f. Zone - Historic Landmark within R-6 Allowable Site Coverage of 20% = 10,731.6 s.f. Site Coverage of Existing House, Carriage House = 3,225.0 s.f. Proposed Carriage House Addition = 494.9 s.f. Porches and Breezeways (Net) = 0 s.f. Total Countable Site Coverage = 3,719.9 s.f. SITE COVERAGE CALCULATIONS Existing Structure Lot Area - 53,658 s.f. Zone - Historic Landmark within R-6 Allowable Site Coverage of 20% 10,731.6 s.f. Site Coverage Existing House and Carriage House = 3,225 s.f. Existing Porches and Breezeway = 675 s.f. Less exemption for 15% of allowable = 2,414.6 s.f. Net countable porch area = 0 s.f. Total countable site coverage = 3,225 s.f. PHOTOGRAPHS OF EXISTING CARRIAGE HOUSE ' - .,94 . ,\'ff 2::,th. .0... :9..:.:411.Â· r .... 2 1,74.*53: 5 w.11 1, Â»Â· . . e. 0. 6'.. 6%..341;,Uti , I ..... . I & 00 F . I 4 . 4' ' Â·Â·4Â·41%1,3/iÂ·ur.t,-,-,A,â€¢*94*#,lâ€¢a!B:.85*.A ,Â·4 .. . . 0 . 4. . . 1 - 1 - Â·Â·I '4 1 2 ' if# , Â·' ., 91 i c.*14;0#9.%61010-~42~:~,4~4Ft,1,~'21*- '- c.:..,2284.11'8'.M0#k ViÂ·al . '4% 0 ....,Amt/MEN///*M~BA . *2.-9*Â· fit, i>. *i- i fft.,~ 3Â·'>: cipt#,Spix<IR**1.3*Mjh ~ Â·4.- Â· ~ I- 4 R NvaT,i~~6 .Â· Â· 0â€¢4 *Bp: titt:,4,7.' f.<.:;fju .~':I:Z,z:'~09,~~,rfp95~~~t,~~*"~~,~- 2~Â·1'1*'f~ Â· . ... 7 ..f AU#leij'fyE*ZPAL,.Â· :,;,1 .~ .'. . I . ' . ' 79.:1 % rWFA' 2..,,{"41::ri54t ..Al I I.WL 1% I :,1 .1/.. 1 0 8 . I. AÂ·-4*Pror'.Â·.- ' .Â·. Â·Â· Â· Â· Â· 4.yÂ· 94.4.2.4*ige'Â£1 -.*7&42>tir#kkifwM *~-,...a. 1,:Ar:>Â·.- 1 Â·,1 7.11 ; 'Cy.~2Â· Â· %>â€¢,4-'2 > 1 9 , .1./. 7%74Â£~44,*~*@47#M '. '' P 161 . t L . 4* . & . 'PIÂ·. '2*4%43 0% 2. I . r I I . I I 74 ; 4 kgF - - 2, â€ž . i< .EÂ·- ~y-;ii; . - 4....0, 44'; , : 1-- ~*J~07â‚¬03%4:-*;ir.4::AN#:~;*ff~422:* 1; Â©Â· JÂ«il :~3:,fi**hi i*.Â· -*>~fÂ·: r .- '- :492'. 6*5 1(f'-lse,2:#*,<eFUSLAA:2:91;'1*:1, 4~14,Â¢2 0 4.:'..1 . 4 ,f' , I .. .Alis:,lit.:.taiti:51~~64Â£#ik,6Â¢kt#.2:14Â»lifi#*E~lisilbSfEisegie'fia/LASivi~Kilem#65.'idlt.ki~fiek# ' .5/, ~Â· , 1 I .1 4/ F. p. I 1 -8/ 4:bc Â·Cy .*t ./ L i' - Â·Â·:Â·? :: 0,7-7#e<.6-;:< Â·109*33:Â«Â·Â·Â·Â·'* Â·~Â·PAÂ·â‚¬4*%'5431:Â«f ,& :'20?Â©jÂ«' 011Â·â€ž' -4;i:..,2.14,1:W 3, -1, t. ; 1 1.44 ...44 : 9 *b 141 ' ..p *u. 1,/ .1/~.AA 7.14* -0 .-i ~ ~ r.-Â·Â·.0 -1. 0 Z 0 11 M .4 .11 11- : A#; 6 "Â»0 1-4 â€¢. g :al . It Â· , 2 4 stz..:d , r.. i 46' J h, r . . 'll. ... fi24'*Ah"=6%549#.45,91 Â·. f.7:'2:, â€¢,tÂ· '441*Â·4, 01* a.*.Â·Â·Av.i2Mch,;9â€¢~C-â€¢4 . Mt . 1 . .4- -Â·4,0, 4 :0.9 hMEn,:,:Aâ‚¬&*Â»664 2 1 8 0 -. 2 ' - 31Â·?LÂ· 11 Ay..,1.) 7,6,J>trI'..,12.214/1...7~ L AZAT *0Â°h<.5Â·.:Â·~~tr.-biti A, u. f 'y'Â·,I'#.A47Â· ~' 55&4fk:6'351{iti'f>ji---ttle*Avo<1*'e'i, yuri i<:21:Â·rto. ,(fti,tÂ·Â·Â·7.KÂ·'VÂ·., P' AC--1,/ ~'5 t, , "i ...N.321$20! 1Â·,A 'ti,Â». .... 'Â·.1:.Â·:Xk, P.94%14, ':Â· . ,;, 4.9'+0, '4''ll ./ '. ~ ..U , 1 + . 9>,4.lif Â¥)>970 - fol<'rit:*skga.~B 6.Te*6~ 442<f &11 *I<*c + , , V. Â· i..' 't Pr, . : 4'e, , I - , . 43 '14:114;. 1,--i" C Â·rk , V.4 . 0 .' , '14 9 , D I 1:Ve:;16â„¢ dE p 5 . 1 - 4,/Â·A re , -Cr it rA.,-M Â¢ ,-I / ..., aÂ¥.9 1.Hr , . 1 -Ar..ag.k' ..... I.<MES . t.)Â¥ ../.-91 - 4,1,- I. , 4 030 <7* - ri. , 4. 1 ' Â¢8~Â£,4,1 714,5,74 ..1, f , lf.~4 '.i?,8,0:' .a , m . I. ~< 4 z - :. 1 5 4â€¢, . 11 411 - le::f, . S . a '2 K ...,2' A, W- 241 114 *G 0 46 4.4. 26 23.4-42!1Â·-=r t- 62*.kef:< t.,Ai,-Â£94'il.,90+' 1 Ir *. V, -CMAir,,J,tÂ·W '02 f 'tr"E.Â· 04 1 SOUTH ELEVATION 4Â·. 14*4'Â· M.. ..f. ~ U.I,Pri#Â¥4 ' 4Â¢41- 6#AF 14 *.4'.%33:-49?5~16,0 1 ... . 1 '4 .Â·Pfa ' < 1 49'Â·-434*lÂ· ' / 49'fe 3% 4. 9.2Â¥ .ME_4*1:~glisÂ· lk. , '49'i0.40,061'.ft, ; . Â£ 2 I , h.. 4 0.- F - .- 6 1 .'' f,Â¥34*1%B* . , . \P 1.Â¢7770\. '064 A . I 1 ,Â·*1 ., r. 221Â£71!4.4> .4,09,>t ''.4 e . t-:492 1Â·453.V':' 44 2 NORTH ELEVATION FROM Sl-REET j v i# t* 1 '/''t ..:22-131 34 . .. i . ....6 rn, *23*40-44 -7 ':fr i'' -1 1. . I ,~, ~, '..P - ./ 1 L. .....1 - /7 : I I ./ ..... C . 4' it. D. .b f. I ' i. 'kj.B'414*,WAXI#ilf Ui, Â·14 . 0.46 . .. %,1 - 1 :Â·tÂ· ,Â·RRitt;y*~.,tÂ·,~.j~<*.E:*Iit.u i---72 -l:e, ...11,1.,0.:y/:.0, 6 . i. . .4,7 '..1 -K>Â·P# M.Â· I I r . I j . â€¢. -,7Â¥ :,':.CA*.*lE#*7/ <3 ~-31.-E '. Â· -RAs'./.#143: Â· J.gU,jÂ·/trLe'- Â· #â€¢Ztibyb<JL " . ,_p; M -4..L,;~2~;7;7~24. - 0 10 111 1-11[[[1111 1 1 1~ hilill Illiill iâ€¢ u C i - 0. . tA\. ./341 1 PE / 44\ 4 1 im i .. t. 4 # 0 : Ifil 4 4 till ', \:a ' Al( . Ffl~~ 703 .Â·i -JO/~i ~{~--~101Â·~~{~~1~Â·~ fÂ¢t:= 48,46Â·f . i*.f d 4 9 , gi,Â·274Â¢44 .:a.1.4.31Â·. - 1 j :h .. Â·*Â·. Â· ... j -Â·/ I ri LI T <;31 le' ~*y....4*4 Â£-, ..*f i;KEDIC,-I /76 ---9.4. - t.Â· L,Â· 19/ . , Â·* et '~ , IIi ,:1 ttmn. 7-- :15 t.pA.Â· Â· Ny.jiÂ·N f 1,11 --Ti I ./ il ~.-b&&#Â·,2-'~iÂ·:li.J,.0. T 4 .1 W. : . 1 Â¥44'6-:11 425....6 _ . 4 124% f 2 114 <; - , \N 51 '42 1 :31 b . s Â· 1 44 '11 0 0 pris:172*f,*~t ~Â£;-21.0- few C.PfiÂ·..' ,,Â£~'/ ...,,- $ I '-1.f7~ I. ..'' t. '. 7 N Â·ti VAJ ..4.. -1 4I . . L - , .4 . 15'Utit :41,4.la':eaâ€ž .2.1-ei--S:......9'El-:23X ree/ - ...1 : 1 14 -- -- - -- ~313.:. Fb '.7.1.-L.11-#-p*** , i ,7 4 w . ' â€¢ --:RL Z ...1=:2*42A ' 7 .,J . %*%.ff,%19...\ ~ , ~ .1~3~lpap#XE41.' ' ~ - 4 ~- f~'41(K:., 4 / bk . 1 44 '11-\. t - r j. ,il'It ' *tk .i.' T 11 , 2*1 1. ' 1 ...1.lil,~111'l 1 1/1 1.. 0, ; -i litic/U umlED; EAST ELEVATION I I 2: -- f . I : -A - & r.. UL Â· .ni h. . 3*' â€¢ -- f - k ' lf''N.4- 0423-1 Â·4,Â¢ 46. i I I. ~, ,ill..47~ '*~tr..L..1.'.%.1,&5.2*~/26,*tÂ·t'-3;4' LT , :' , . 9 24*VkfaFMT'*WAMMUS*PZW#bA~L, ~3~9 , quxt)' EAST ELEVATION t 1 Â£ '4.FÂ¥.44Â·-;r L'~er -'3~0.*%21.I t., 14. e., 1â‚¬k 56 -4/2<4' *4946 F< 2 - U. -- 2 .1 10 'f. litâ€¢, 4 f . **tltl-tht:*~.rtt~ -. 1%: r.v/r 4-4. a 2~ 5 \1, it Â· ~4Â®~ 1 4* ; -*. Â·' 4,3 01 r ;il, ~~,,11 04 4< 44; 4 4.2 w. 4.4.' .W. . 44: : , . 14., 63* , 'V,r'l~#P . - , Â·ti 1 V -- I . 11 - I ....,#,56 . 449\61 . 1 -- 949*94 A A - allf. Wed Â¥1=19 1 ' M PROPOSED CONTRUCTION CORNER ta , . f '. 1 ~ruit:,4,6.: 44. . 912*f - ky/43*kÂ·~ , Â·Iv#ki Â· >4' u 4~* 444..Â·t .1 - .441 4%.c- *lib ; 44 7% , 1 0, 0 6. 81, i ...4-.W,1 i....'.1.FR:.J.:.Le,51 T t 18 111'/9 'i ktt'lic- TI Imm, Al"unTI Â£110~ . 2 l 01' 1 t.- , :bÂ·.'41 ' ' 43'Lan'the Â¢ ....4 j ... 1.,- jul T.' .'# ' 3.-'Â·.1.Â·' 'I-"9142"- [44% b %4'Ay;.r 'Af 1 1 .. 3,t:997,4.47},;ti~ i 1 1, 2 6â€¢ /Â·4.to,)74(4 . 4 14'trip:*2Â·'Ul '...+ 1 '':/4,1 2 N 4' \'9Â·'AL~J - J I ..,>4 1 1 5 9, Â· Illu : h I i .,e 4 31..:3 4 1 I ,42 0.41*, 4,1'. , ..tur . , fil . A T. . E fÂ° ' .74 ~ -794-6- .0. I . P 4 r .. 7.2.. .3~<23*11%. %. .. 414+6 il n? i.Â·. Â· h :iÂ· 4. ~ -rla'. Â¥. 7.,1/406/.,7 4, -'-4:'11" ~ 4& I . r 3 -T Vi.Â·Â·4444*: bJ U .. W-32...~U .d . 6 - J I ./.. p (,t:.. Â¥ . . 4, , %1'Ut,0. .. ?inm ' 4 .37# g{.f j lilliti: 9/' ..: 404Â·64 44Â·51Â· '' ; 3241.4.'fl ..r:-6 - -Â·f-ly-4..Ni' h ..9.... ... . 9 1 2..Â· , â€¢t.Â·.4 - 9 2 Â· 1 2.1-1 .1.-S 225/ 1 6,71i.i * ' 1 , -00 4 .. I My>: Â·6:In/ :10 . . k.: . - ./ . .. > I %:f. '. Â· I ./. 1 ' 4 4.k . I -:. -M Â·' .Â»-al , 4 : ,A *d.' 1,20. .- F . + . 0% . *VE,4:Â·r ' ' ... .... I.,4 .4 t-d .. ~..4 . 1'&4*Bil,137~,5.., 4.Â·8 J=p# 4:~, w â€¢iDÂ· '1 49(~~33'tk44*2(3#-:4 #.:~:~ .. , L. I. . *004 - I. ---Â·K .,r 1 ... . r A-. ... ,97.'- Dr~ Â¥ 2*.2.- .-PIdn $ I ' -Â«*41-6 , 14 .. 1 - 1'' 7 16â€¢M .LUE' 4#N .~1Â¥t'- 1 M 0%~44%* *IÂ»n*I ip'-W.-ah. 1Â·~ . '.r :i. 4.Â·eÂ·. Â· Iles/Ph, 9%,bk,/ -Ul-: %~*Â°>42Â·6:j~4,:Â·:vsÂ»:*,j@4etf~..4:~Â·:Â·%Â·;- Â· t' I '12. I *.Â·-*,Â·:Â·~,Â·102103t~Â·~172 11.1, .6.: + 77 . 0 ..6. . /91*.#1 i q-1, 1'â€¢b/.1, ' '0&#ba #p..;g~lt.4.2;*t;,SEMZ#;4~/,4 . . . ...1'.4 r.. 9. in 1.... 1,/2 1111"I.,14.11,â€žsinms.4 I~.)144* 92.-42.2:..'.~.2#ir:.iontÂ·Â· i:,41-47 :>'e)<f- :ir' ...'Â· 1/:,29$-1..1\: -01.EM~Um 1.' 1. v~.,.- 4.3. . 4, ~22Â·,I /4448 9:~- I ,00'* - .Â· - r . p~- ,~ .~. ,%06 1., ; 64. . . 6 4 .â‚¬5'*2~511'I3~ I " AW:'k.47$1~-Ii'~-'*.':Â·ff.:1>4Â»*.9 ' I / ..1 . 1 1 Â«\ 21 1Â»n_Ju 11-4 9- 3 1 m RJ 1 3 0 3 1 - 3 2 1 011 1 ~ i 60 1 2 ir I Wil < 0 110 - _1 28 2 ~|U) FOSE--P 942567'T- EEL.]EVAT-1 ON <J E 44:,ALÂ·BO Ve ' ' c 01 #1 4 - 1IIIIIIIII:IIIIIII:I,Ii"I"I: O 5 10 1 4 2.0 '25 2031!H)Â£4/SaLVIDOSSV Â¥ 301:11NNAO glHVHD 0655-526/EOE 3NOH=I3131 21918 OCJVWO-103 *N3dSV 'DES E XO8 0 d O dV~(7~1 0-1 i i inell /--. <41 - - 2 -1----- .-il~i . #- --~- . - - -- 0(3 - m %41 0% IS AI PROPOSED SOUTH BLEVATICAJ - 46.ALE: 70' 11-Oil 4# 3 1- O 5- 012 < 01 10 15 00 25 Sl.03.LIHouv/saLVIDOSSV Â¥ 3HINNrD FlUVI.0 3,9) V 1 0655-526/EOE 3NOFÂ·&:13131 21918 00~0101 'N3dSV 'DESE *08 -Od O <2402 01(7 0 a @ 9, 0 . 0 {if. : e 0 4 .. , . O - ,<27 7* . 1 , .. --,L I . -3 9 O. 4 r 0 9- .I --* -i-- -9-- .-Ill - 1 - 0 - $6 --71Â· 34 1 W 3 1 1 1% 3!P, i i. 5.5LScS:::uj 4, . 1. 71 . .\ 32*32~ yt 9 L 25 3%?>....:i:w:.:...i:ii..... -- 10 > A -*2 c2 m 7 â‚¬ I -14 F 30 f'ul Â£ W 462 ,,1.12,/ 7 . at - 0 - IL \7 1 t-F 7X U JO - N 0 6-TALLARP OAKA-IAGr 15 CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 40460 MUVELIMI '49 f El-J 7 COLOU* O P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 fla 1*42 12-kJATi Oc,r 34#Â«Le Foor-1 - - -, r. --â€ž -1*--6=n,J/-- .... . V<----0,;-v--r,.--Â·â€¢-râ€¢râ€¢-Â·â€¢~ . -- Â·â€¢c---~...ui.~.a,--*--V*2""*4â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢~~I#* W'- ~' & N 156Â« M~rAL FA:2Op~2' !71 1277- 2 - 1 1 M--i-*-- -- - -- :5 W 4\ - 0 - &91 011-1-4 -0 MAÂ»10 9 I ExleT-lhk:>r rl<OFOÂ·612-0 MAGT 12.LIEVA:rio 14 46Â« Le/7 1/e" 1'-oIl \0 0 10 15 20 e6 SL)31Â»08'V/Sa,LVIDOSSV Â¥ 3.WINNrl) SI-IHV,O -3 591 2~ZINO 0655-526/E0E 3NOI-W3131 21918 OCIVNO-103 hAdSÂ¥ 'DESE X08 Od 00 Va <rlcp tÂ·18 69 Y -34;no H 11 6 7 9 -6 6 ~-1- # 0 017 leÂ« O 1. - ill [ 9>4Â« _ 3 ] In 1 1 [ 4-r,/9 /, 1.-Ir-1 = r IN i ips D - F- i & 11! 11 1 : i i - jill' 1 M f j il fil i; f l :5 1 -STAL.LAQU CAFLRIA=re CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 14Â©USE MutE.14 IM AD rEN, CO 1-C>RA P / P.O BOX 3534, ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 MCI_IM,4219 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: 300 Lake Avenue - "Non-binding review" of new residential construction proposal Date: October 18, 1989 BACKGROUND: On November 27, 1989, Council approved the lot split for the 13,603 sq. ft. parcel known as Lots 10, 11 and the north half of Lot 12, Block 103, Hallams Addition. One of the conditions of approval, agreed to by the applicant, was a "non- binding review of architectural plans for a house on Parcel II by - the Historic Preservation Committee. " This was due to its sensitive location immediately adj acent to the "Herbert Bayer" house, and in the heart of the proposed Hallam Lake Historic District (a potential National Historic District). The parcel is not designated. PROJECT SUMMARY: Architect David Panico of Sutherland, Fallin, Inc. is representing the owner. The design is a 2-story, stone veneer front gable with attached garage accessed from the street The application states that the "client wanted the style of the house to be reminiscent of a miner's cottage she had photographs of. The cottage was extremely simple, basically a 1/2 story tall rectangle with a 10 or 12 in 12 pitch roof covered with rusted metal sheeting. Her design criteria was that the roof have only one ridge, or two only if necessary, with no dormers." There is no discussion in the applicant's letter regarding the context in which that photographed cottage exists. In our experience, it is extremely difficult to take the idea of a small, rural cottage, expand it up and out, construct it in a different setting, and still maintain the sense of proportion and scale that are the essence of the structure attempting to by emulated. Add to that the very difficult design issue of a very visual front car garage and a sensitive historic neighborhood, and we see that a restudy would be the most sensitive solution for this applicant and architect to take. We find that the design does not take enough Of the neighborhood's historic character into consideration. The predominant architectural statement has been set by the large number of historic residences, primarily High Style and vernacular Queen Annes, and the High Style cottages, and the vast majority are clapboard. We find this infill design is a departure from the articulated facades that set the precedent for the design in this neighborhood. The adjacent "Herbert Bayer" house, (c.1949) is unique in this neighborhood, and is Of particularly quiet design, subordinate in nature to the Victorian-era structures, and eligible for landmark status. It is important that the applicant and the community understand that the goal of the Historic Preservation Committee is not to encourage replica-Victorian architecture, vet encourage innovative design solutions that provide for architecture "of its time" vet with compatibility and sensitivity to the historic nature of the neighborhood and the Aspen character. We are interested in seeing modern solutions to infill in historic neighborhoods, however, we feel that the design as presented would blend better into this neighborhood by incorporating the suggestions stated in this memo, the Council-adopted Guidelines and by the HPC at this meeting. APPLICABLE SECTIONS FROM THE HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES: Guideline VII.B.2.: Maintain the typical size and shape of the historic facade. An important element in establishing the pedestrian scale of the residential district was the repetition of similar shapes and sizes. Consider breaking up the facade into smaller components that resemble the scale of typical buildings in the neighborhood. Consider ways to minimize the visual impact such as stepping the height down in cases where the height of the new building will exceed the norm. Response: It is clear that the architect has attempted to fit as much building onto this narrow lot, forcing many of the incompatible scale issues. We recommend that the proposal be restudied with possibly a smaller, more articulated facade that meets the above Guideline. The simple lines desired . by the applicant may still be achieved. Guideline VII.B.4.: Minimize the visual impact of on-site parking. This historic residential areas were developed before the advent of automobiles. Therefore, the site plans of these older lots were not designed to handle or accommodate parking. The landscaped front yards helped define the relationship between the houses and nature and give a special character to the neighborhood. This important visual element is threatened by the current trend to provide parking spaces and drivewavs in the front vards. Innovative design solutions are needed to help minimize the visual impact of cars in the historic areas. Response: The driveway and front garage are the two most incompatible issues with this development, and will, in our opinion, diminish the softly rural and natural character so evident on Lake Avenue, Aspen's only curvelinear street. The problem lies in "where to park" with no service alley behind the residence. 2 Guideline VII.C.1.: Maintain the typical orientation of entrances toward the street. Response: We find that this very important Guideline has not been taken into consideration with this proposal. Guideline VII.C.2.: Maintain the orientation and dimensions of porches. Response: Porches are not indicated in this proposal. Porches are found on nearly every structure in this neighborhood, and are an important design element which the applicant should consider. Guideline VII.E.3: Use ratios of windows to walls that are similar to historic structures. Response: We find that the 2/3 solid, 1/3 void has not been incorporated, and all elevations have differing ratios which creates an imbalance in its presentation to the street. Guideline VII.F.1.: Use materials that are similar in finish and texture and scale to those used historically and contextuallv. The materials found in the historic residences have distinct textures and establish patterns on the individual facades that are repeated along the street. These materials are also important in establishing the scale of the buildings. This reinforcement of patterns and textures should continue to be reinforced by new buildings. Response: Horizontal clapboard, wood trim and wood shingles are the vastly predominant materials in this neighborhood. Some brick is found. Historic stone cottages are extremely rare in 100+ year old communities in the West. Generally cottiges of this type were found in the east, in much older villages and rural sites, within much different contexts. We are not opposed to innovative use of stone, however, do not recommend its use in the entire structure. The huge expanse of metal roofing proposed, particularly in the extreme roof forms proposed, seems to further the hardness of the building's character. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the applicant study the Historic District Development Guidelines and revise the plans to incorporate those character-defining elements discussed in them and by the HPC at this meeting. memo.hpc.300la 3 architecture sutherland, fallin, inc. & planning September 28, 1989 Ms. Roxanne Eflin Historic Preservationist Planner 1280 ute avenue CITY OF ASPEN aspen 81611 130 So. Galena colorado Aspen, CO 81611 303/925-4252 Re: Project #89-10 Randall Residence 300 Lake Avenue Aspen, Colorado Dear Ms. Eflin: The following is a description of the proposed house at 300 Lake Avenue. The design is for a 2-story, single family home with basement. The structure is wood frame with stone veneer. The roof is to be standing seam metal in a grey or bare metal color. The windows and doors are to be painted wood. The client wanted the style of the house to be reminiscent of a miner's cottage she had photographs of. The cottage was extremely simple, basically al 1/2 story tall rectangle with a10 or 12 in 12 pitch roof covered with rusted metal sheeting. Her design criteria was that the exterior of the house be completely of stone and that the roof have only one ridge, or two only if necessary, with no dormers. This, we feel, is in keeping with the miner's cottage vernacular. The owner also stated that all windows were to be simple, square top forms with no arched or circle top openings. This is in keeping with her desire for the house to be as unpretentious as possible. We feel that this house, when analyzed, is in keeping with much of what the HPC is trying to accomplish. The form is simple, the materials are traditional, the house, in general, is understated- r h -incerely, /7/----hj . 22/11 r.0/11/LUJU-//7 David Panico 1 318 2 1, 21 i i 4 +R 1 3 8 4 1 1 11 9 1 +C III O-4 11 II pi 0 11 - Z 11 ~LIJ 1) 1Â£ .. ---4. A V + 9-~01 , i 11 -9 1 0 1 1 11 ' 1 11 1. 1 381 1 1 --14 11 1 2 1.4, Ib ! 1 m 1 13 1,1 Â· -- .0 10 1 1 . /1 11 Ki 1 1 m 6 1 R L.-L~-- ...7- 1 . -- {1 J T -- ~ 1 1m=1 L---7 1 1 J Il 'IiI 1 ..0 1 11 11 1 Lip-------- Ll-----U-_ a 9-Â« 1 1 1 1 T ; Lr---- 4.-~Lâ‚¬=21 mil- 4,61 46 M 4 4 /1. Â¤ 1# 1? 9 , 7-:p ?1~ :1 11 > 4 *i 1# i li 'p $ 4 - 1 'i iIi 41Â§ t14 1---7- 1 I dat' revisto" h SOUTH & WEST ELEVAnONS s, el .LA; Axi/ .-I RANDALL RESIDENCE ... 1.0 - 300 LAKE AVENUE â€¢ ASPEN. COLORADO 7(4 .1.0 -03* 369 (h. + 4 al W b 06 2, m 9 -rIE i~& i i TV.15 1 11 4 131 3 2 i g # 0/'' li 3% 11 2 lit L -1 El 11/ t.-1 -9 - 1 5 1 ~ L -Â»-1 -1 gÂ¢ glf; 1 ?12 1 1 thi $11-1/0 1 91 0. 9,-+*. â‚¬ 0 i 9 Â· -___ ie I r 1. - 1 li -1 A. -- - -4. 11 -il 1,1 1 3 1 --1 IL/t 1 1 . 1 1 1 4% f Pk [1-- 111 . 1? 10 : r- ---1 /:Aril L 11 1 1 1-1 1 1 10. 4 1 . 1 -1 1 1 - -/1, 1. I F -- T ---4 - 1.. O . ~ -- 1.1 7 1[ En-r X ~-I 1 1 1 ->.. TUTI~[ 1 -1 ~--~:~ <Â·Â·Â»1-'' 1 1 L, r- ;in I.. 0 P'<1 1 1 3/--Ill in' ~~; ip i p_ i--4--4 , i k--*-Dpi - I ' .riq :i ~ r. 1, 1 m 7 211-_ 72-21222-_-2_ 5 ~-Cm 1 m i 1 0/ 1 41 41 1 111 11 #f~#00 L-- -' + 1 1 6 i 1 1 L.1 111 - 1 H .Z:k 10'- 11... 1-,veÂ· 31% '[ lo|. I Il~ 1 ~ - V. T 10'-li>'hâ€¢ -~ c--4' 4.0]~0 0- -1,-6Â· el,%' Z'-I: 24 t. ./ . 8 0 4 .0 9 04 1 1 %45 0 R I fi LW :M q ':1: 0:' 9 1.3 +93 b /6 i Ir i l' 11 1 1 - dat' r,vision, NORTH & EAST ELEVAnONS ..4.1 ....4 --,rr 3 1 RANDALL RESIDENCE sutherland 300 LAKE AVENUE fallinincorporated 11 ASPEN. COLORADO 1280 ute avenue as/â€¢â€¢ ce BI611 303 925Â·4252 . *..11Â·1.- -[Of'WÂ¥, HI,- Ff,C~E T.â€¢ PerÂ·.Al- w.'94--4090, St MEMORANDUM To: Mark Fuller, Environmental Quality Director From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Highway 82 EIS - Impacts to historic resources Date: October 4, 1989 This memo is a brief summary, due to lack of time to prepare a complete report, addressing the extreme concerns I have for the potential impacts to historic resources caused by the Highway 82 realignment. The EIS indicates that many National Register eligible sites and structures, and other historic resources of local importance, are slated to be impacted or outright destroyed with the expansion of Highway 82. Any impacts to Pitkin County's historic resources is not acceptable, and further study is absolutely necessary. It is implausible to allow the State Highway Department to impact or destroy those irreplaceable elements of our history, especially while we are working so hard to protect and preserve them. I am particularly concerned and angered by the State's attempt to encroach on the visual and historic context of the National Register "Holden-Marolt Barn site and mill ruins", near Castle Creek. Impacts Of this kind caused by the extreme close proximity to the site destroy the original context (remember Emma?). The curving nature of the proposed alignment almost appears the State is "aiming" for the structure. Other alignment alternatives must be studied that create no impact in this way. Further, either alignment at the entrance to Aspen must be carefully analyzed. One (an "improvement" of the existing alignment) impacts or destroys at least four historic structures within the city limits; the other, "the straight shot" impacts on the visual "residential-Boulevard" character of Aspen's Main Street and the Main Street Historic District. The Aspen Historic Preservation Committee will be submitting their written comments to you soon. I have spoken to many individuals comprising Boards of the Aspen Historical Society, Aspen Historic Trust, Aspen Historic Preservation Committee, Colorado Preservation, Inc. and the Colorado Historical Society. Written letters and memos are expected from them in the near future supporting the protection and preservation of Aspen and Pitkin County's historic sites and structures, NOT impacts to their integrity or eradication. memo.Fuller.EIS