Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.hpc.19890524.special
)91-2-1 6 AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE May 24, 1989 2:30 ON-SITE REVIEW/WALK THROUGH 413 E. HYMAN AVE. REIDE'S CITY BAKERY, MEET ON SITE 5:00 P.M. - 8:00 P.M. FIRST FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS City Hall 2:30 On-site review/walk through of 413 E. Hyman - Reide's City Bakery - meet on site at 2:30 3:00 Special Meeting, cont'd public hearing Collins Block Phase II & III - dp , DRA - -7- ADpip : ·- 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of May 10, 1989 minutes II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:15 A. 200 E. Main St., modifications to Final Development (approved, Fall, 1988) 1. / r-,1 -=L . 4 V. NEW BUSINESS 5:30 A. Landmark Designation: 430 W. Main St Jivt), 2,; .ro B. Landmark Designation: 406 W. Smuggler St. F\Q?,13,20 5:45 C. Minor Development: 134 W. Hopkins Ave., Lot L FAR/61€O 6:00 D. Conceptual Development - Public Hearing: 1004 E. Durant p i r /4 09 L 40 6:30 E. Conceptual Development - Public Hearing: 413 E. Hyman c¢Vue,· 4 4 7:15 VI. COMMUNICATIONS Staff Report: Preservation Week Holden-Marolt Archaeology Study CGL program (attachment) . Request for Worksession: June 14, 4:00 -'441 p.m. Topic "Aspen's Preservation Incentives" Sub-Committee Reports and Proj ect Monitoring ·. 14. A, MEMORANDUM - To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: 200 E. Main St., Minor Amendment to approved Final Development Plans Date: May 24, 1989 BACKGROUND AND APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Last fall, the HPC granted Final Development approval for the new commercial construction at 200 E. Main (next to Gracy's). The applicant is requesting changes to the those approved plans as follows: 1) West Elevation: Shed windows have changed from double hung to fixed "picture" windows. Other windows as noted on the attached sketches have moved slightly to allow for interior wall placement. 2) North Elevation: A window has been added to the lower level on the east side, in response to an HPC recommendation. Another (fixed) arched window has been added to the upper level of the elevation. 3) Light Wells: The fire marshall is requiring the installation of hand rails around the light wells for safety reasons. STAFF RESPONSE: We find that the west elevation window relocation meets the guidelines for new construction. However, we find the applicant's request for fixed panes inconsistent with the Development Review Guidelines, as follows: Section VII.E - Windows and Doors: "Traditional. . . windows. . .were vertical in proportion... Large expanses of glass were unusual except in conservatories... Use windows...of similar size and proportion to those historically seen in Aspen. Windows with vertical proportions similar to those of the original double-hung sash are most appropriate... The use of windows with tall proportions is encouraged... In some cases wide openings may be filled with two or more vertically proportioned windows paired together. staff finds the windows originally approved at Final Development are consistent with the Guidelines. We recommend denial for that portion of the application. Railings: We find the required railings have been designed in appropriate scale to the structure, and generally meet the Guidelines. However, our concern lies in the material chosen: painted steel piping. Section VII.F - Materials states: "Use materials that are similar in finish and texture and scale to those used historically and contextually... Although wood and brick are recommended, other materials that reinforce the finish and texture characteristics, may be considered. Staff generally feels that painted wood railings would be more appropriate in this application, however, it is appropriate for the HPC to request clarification on this detail element from the applicant at this meeting. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the applicant's request to utilize painted steel piping for railing, provided the Committee is satisfied at this meeting that the material is consistent with the intent of the Guidelines (as discussed above) and that the character of the structure or adjacent historic structures is not diminished with this material usage. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant approval for the Minor modifications to the Final Development plan for 200 East Main St. with the following conditions: 1. The fixed pane window modifications be denied. The divided windows as approved in the Final Development application shall remain. (Staff finds the west elevation window realignments appropriate.) 2. Wood railings be used in place of steel as proposed memo.hpc.200em.mod 2 . /43 V 11 1 1 j j, . - -2- ki. D clvlt-1,5.LE--2, 10 1 jfff>1,;riI-_--7~IJ~. 1 . ' ~.iT - it-3;7 /44 -- 1 1/77 L,------ ~EN IJ 1 1 .~4. 1 - - 1 - -- - -6 21-1 -IM-- - - -I - 3 0/242 LAP B,34 ~,-i_C*A< L44' ~ --51%19--ve» j 1 /1 01»-4 --/ ---- /%1 /0/ 11'i - - 2 (fj-1-1-411 - '- .i LLE un:c» 4 b-Ithe E . ----23, #J-- A ..\L~,LIV-/ T 1 1.7,· 4:hein# 6 ~ --- -- <-- -- ~ 1 1 1 ~ (~) ~-j 7,0 .s, lit·dcutti.- :,leiNa · _ _ _u I I - --- ' <-- £4-It}-E-al.12. DIPI#Li -- l 11.41 It.41 11.-41 lili" 11.41 11.41 1:.01 : 1,yl ISO' 11:01 0 8 0 8 99 6 ---. eal•43~. 9 16·09» ~4824 :41· L/28244. i *28£16.- ,)1/0114 VL.W'' 119*6 0 1 , . £ 3 2--ilit~_-E+.--21-1 24-2.-t-~r #i Liswj,2 - -ij__ __ -_41 LIL/11= -1---i-------- T fl· 'rl. .TE;F KN-(f,NNITE[i) 1 ait»k L.»I-' t.410*,4-, - -- 5-i'~ QubTEK.5 4 8114. - ...#/.07,»Ile.03 . - C F= 7-T - 1. 4 ---..1 E--9=EUT IN 72-6 J IK 2 -271 1 1 - 1 , , 11~ · , 1 1-1 .--- - ,~ 1 I ~1'*~ ~-4 I ' -»561 , I .305,4 I 1 ¢3526+1 I cLAP>+ 1 1 1 I.*/ 1 < (3 " 8.1 h(3 11 60 /1 : 1..\(FD il (iD 1 < i | 1 1.38 11 ~ 1 il | 64*3 11 81:2 I 1 I B.€3 H »'11 11 I. 11 ' 12 I. - - 11 1 1 1 1 1- L.-17 A - - -- 2%1 ,-1 - -- -- 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 ; ..LIll --: L'__2| | - + -_=dll 11 1 1 -- -- I - - I - --1 W -1- - 0- WEST ELEVATION 6 L Ass AULc- 11 Eli 1 1 J I 1 9- 11 2 £ 0 5 'W A 6 4 Ill J U n 2 5 4 1 J T --3- -- ' I T --1-2 - r ... « 1 ---4-- /#s V Ji - 2 r - - 2 94 49§ 0 TL 4 h E L n 2 0 1 / - 3 q,l /2-- 47 -1 1 1 i/- 7 \\ 4 I - I /7- «1 111 \ ¥ 1 ' EU' i*3 1 \ i isk CE 503 &1 i = 1 M 1 1 1 It 1 3 F 4-4 1 f-1 £ r» 1'>) 1 8 0 inx -1 ' N - 1 \ 1 « \1 A '1 ira r 41 1 -,1 3 3 5 L 0 "1 -0 € F W E- 2 4 2 M r 1 1- Er ki *2 J 'ti 1 Pit 1?1 ® '1'1 1 r\47 - 1 0 , 1- j > 11 22 . 1--4.4 *- 3 - b |1 6 H H ria i i t.; // 1 NL 1 1/ E T y=a~ * + r=AW 4 . -- I r : I -1 -~ Twa i .- 1 11:1 62/ - ? .7-n. [_~2~4 - €2.2--' 9 -/-3 1>-79 1 0 6 ' 1 I~ /0 lt-~ - -- 1 // EVEL *be'LIZ=vs]:gv '71·«-19 N0I1VA313 Hll:ION 1,..16 MU' fer , ··'44,.1 1, - · ;--9}['W' n! ....... . A.i,t: W 4 Hili i ....1:-84#k' 1 1 .' 4-··141, , · .14- 4.Lk, 60,4.•,· 1 2 91 9 , 1 91 11! 2 I !/ 1 ,1 1 1 £ i 1 1 1 1 : OIll Z , 1 :1!1.4 ::1 14 1 61-Ce« S.Hl kIA LIZ- 1/2¥. j I 1 - lit 1 li ind.. ! 14·6 1 ' 1.*EPID INIM -_. ~' 1 1 i ::.19, )1; -11 ----1 1%< - 0 - - r 1 ETA L- f ' U •1 - EL»+ 1 '''' + gapE- ijt ~ f .4 1'.lil -111. 11 ·1 • X 1 -1- -«40\>4701/04 1 a ..1.--- .13>LUIES 1 "O STL- Plf-t (i*•.p~-rfe!01 I., ki '2 · · . 4~ 7 111% I u..9 /111 1,10 1 / 8.LUCT[lge,(9" £•su- RUE) < 1 4 "4' srri, Pir¥t 14*4 6 (FA+4 Tcr 9~ Il' .. //''* ,\\ A l 1 .,1 ,\\- · 5.- 1 j»Luti . 1 1 1 1 ~i 'JM·' MIL~~93 i .- - -- +-- . 1 ' h ' if~ L Id[7 12Ivt - ~ r- 1- '' <:66/ '-- -----... ir irr.' 1.Jll 'r C t-rEVCL .l lili 1 I.1, b: - -- A--4404 0' 49- -' DEPARL L.#261[21616 73·' _ __ ~ r ---- -37 4,0-2 l.-AF, Slolt···I,A ...·-----~~~~~~~~7 , 24.02- . ---- 1,·Ust€ 11241 S< IMIT 04 '-- «7Tbff=<-3 An- (3 i / ' 1.' ' P <55, ~ SE C .5/,6 3 ' 11 - --- 11.4 13,0 t) 7-3 / - ====-r -r -- 1 4--9 1 - / 1 11" f+XIA' LEULL i 1 I . -- . -*- I- - C |1~~~~f0f<51-~213-i€i _,U2_ : 1 . '1 PL/L/1 | C 4 EL) 1 9 1 2 1 l 1 · 111.11~ '-i·'-1;4 - 1 111.1 AL,1 11 1 F 13 /1 ft e,_pfjlt-470 _ 1/2'.1 t ' 1,·'.21 - ! fl TE,L·. 1 0 95.0' L _ J 1~ J~; 4 1- -1 1 1 1 L) o VAN <2 4-·u -4 OL\.b k.7 j 1 r - -i ; i 1 11 1 1 d ------ - -- CEO/»4 6,1 ----- - 9130'- 11/51 '21=6+1 I'll- .t 1./05¥· ) ; 1 ~i~ / ,0,5/ , 06' bo MT> 11-tilt-~ f / // \ m*-2 - ». =-7--- \101 I i / - 20,-(T-fR'f'-'13 f~14~~~~~.~~: .4 . 4 /re-971*154 1 '-- 1'~-• ------L-- EDI ity--/CIL.EL J#-_-- -1.-u _ l.~Rn.,1 -TIC./ 4/ ' '11 , ·1 ~ :.0 54 1 --- I --tr-~ ..73 1 9 . (3 --- t> 26-1 L ! 7212 L/28 ZZ le·2822 1 5222 « 79 7 18 1% 1 1 CEC'Ale LAT' SIG'If'+7 |1 LWM Ill, 11 - 1 ~ ---- --IT Lf-1 12'4*1·C,9< 6165-11 190 -URE+DI '1 r 1.9- - £ ~ ·1' 4 40'»ID iON 1 4 1 - HU 1 1-2 ;1 , 34 ! r».In- (lh'Fl) 1 -3 51 1 - .- W~=0 1 k 1 ' r- --1 III> - IL-- / L / 1.V W. / ' . U I t re--- t -IA I - - rel • -r - - 4-W. 1---«-a-«f - -- -- I 49-1-1 ¥ r. / 1 /. ' 1 1 21.38 - 11 1 21 .30 I ~ t. ' I 1-4 1 1% 63 1 1 If// (3) 1 11 1 , 1 I ~76 ~4 -2- ~ C 3664 -2 ' ~ 1 4 , r. / / It 11 1 11 r I ./ 1 1 I , 11 / 0 , 4 1 ----- 1 ---1 1 Et·1 -- 1 1 19 ' T LL - - 1.-- rt [T r 'T ¢ h.,IC>le : AL-£ 42*95 1-1-Il D ELEvio:TICh.1 /31 EAST ELEVATION -9 8 E WIRS Ol-»=15 - EMPL . LEVEL EX CLUDE-t> 4 OLA '-5 »12:124 = 19,4.aG* . Vt A MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Landmark Designation: 430 W. Main St. Date: May 24, 1989 LOCATION: 430 W. Main St., Lots K, L, and M, Block 37, City and Townsite of Aspen APPLICANT: Glenn A. Beck APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Landmark Designation for the c. 1892 two- story cottage at 430 W. Main St. A Landmark Designation grant of $2,000 is also being requested by the applicant, which should be granted by Council at second and Final reading of the Designation Ordinance. HISTORIC EVALUATION RATING: "3" SUMMARY: This property will become Aspen's 96th designated historic landmark. PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: Landmark designation is a three-step process, requiring recommendations from both HPC and P&Z (public hearing at P&Z level), then first and second reading (public hearing at Final reading) of the designation ordinance by Council. The designation grant is expected to be approved by Council at Final reading as well. HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION STANDARDS: The Standards for Landmark Designation are found in Section 7-702(A) of the Land Use Code. Any structure or site that meets one (1) or more of the standards may be designated as a Historic Landmark. Staff finds that the application meets the criteria in Standard A. (Historical Importance), Standards E. (Neighborhood Character) and F. (Community Character). Standard 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: Although we find that 430 W. Main is not "commonly" associated with a person or event of historical significance, in our research we have discovered the following interesting historical facts that relate to and meet this review Standard: a. The parcel was original owned by B. Clark Wheeler, town founder and the earliest "Wheeler" entrepreneur b. Referred to as the "M. 0. Berg" residence, it was originally constructed in 1892 at a cost of $5,000.00. Mr. Berg was the proprietor of The Mint (a saloon) in downtown Aspen. "At The Mint you could find the best wines, liquors, beer and cigars". Mr. Berg came to Aspen in 1885. c. The Beck family has owned the property since 1945. Standard 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 Main Street Historic District, established in 1975, is considered as one of Aspen's most significant historic districts, primarily due to its high visibility and entrance to town. This structure is located within the . context of this district, and is a contributing factor to its overall integrity. The preservation of this historic structure is a critical element in the continued integrity of the "Main Street" historic character. 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: The Inventory file in the Planning Office states that the structure's architectural significance lies in its representation of a "type, period or method of construction", and that it contributes to the significance of an historic district. Staff finds this structure is representative of Aspen's early mining era and illustrates the family/home environment and life styles dominated by the silver mining industry. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC recommend for approval Landmark Designation for 430 West Main Street. F memo.hpc.430wm 2 Glenn A. Beck 406 Rest Smuggler Aspen, Colorado 81611 May 7, 1989 Roxanne Eflin c/o City of Aspen Planning Office City Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Roxanne, I am landmark designating mv house at 430 West Main in Aspen. This letter is to request the 82,000.00 grant that I have been told accompanies such landmark designation. Sincerely, Al 1 71 (j 0- flat Glenn A. Beck ; 7~04<4* &76 6/ammiv/,6 I ' 4, ~ /2 I .1 ..0 - VI' I '*·S f 62. 4 I 1,1 7 '6¥,SU , 9125%15: 7 y: · - 6. k.1 41, ·f·~iY*#,0 '' 1.Pe'f -4///" 69: .- 1 . 1, 24 00 FF-J- ;i ' i Alliful ;IJ .lit;to>X . 0 .. t[:9!':14...----- d~~i 41. 2~. ,#t,*~.2..4%r r:M:MAN . • , 0 .titiltifidli 126;t.7' p- ,-:13 0//R EVJS:931-. / DIi 't,~<· 4¢,2/ / 7- .14, .f;.1191 I. :ak· 0:te#-tr..311,5~BR"l 12<199 . · . f:* .t ~SM:f~* :Mfie. j AVA -IL~t·ir·~i;zi'~~. rip: I 11·r,:, , 4 .. ....... ' 1 * =da·.·...- cum.~m {·b.#@P''Me Unb:,4,·, b -r- 1 44 · *244:OBBUL 13 4 / i.,1-· · 94·1' litlt,Cy/4 4 - .:r#:ti.r-1. irt'f ':" .:•.i~....~434,03'.~t:' - # ~ ' U; *a VW ·&4:~...: -1 ... ' bt'., + · 4. · 2:4 u 42 >0> :12.! 6. 914 I., i %11 4 31; / :f.' i 9%84% 3 , 1- . 9,5. -71.Ek D 40 / t • .L_ , I . .... 7,542.1 ·, 1 ..1.k . :4 .. ./14 . . 416 21 V. /3 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Landmark Designation: 406 W. Smuggler St. Date: May 24, 1989 LOCATION: 406 W. Smuggler St., Lots P & Q, Block 33, City and Townsite of Aspen and Lots 16 & 17, Block 33, Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen APPLICANT: Christie Ann Kienast APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Landmark Designation for the c. 1890 cottage at 406 W. Smuggler St. A Landmark Designation grant of $2,000 is also being requested by the applicant, which should be granted by Council at second and Final reading of the Designation Ordinance. HISTORIC EVALUATION RATING: 113" SUMMARY: This property will become Aspen's 97th designated historic landmark. PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: Landmark designation is a three-step process, requiring recommendations from both HPC and P&Z (public hearing at P&Z level), then first and second reading (public hearing at Final reading) of the designation ordinance by Council. The designation grant is expected to be approved by Council at Final reading as well. HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION STANDARDS: The Standards for Landmark Designation are found in Section 7-702(A) of the Land Use Code. Any structure or site that meets one (1) or more of the standards may be designated as a Historic Landmark. Staff finds that the application meets both the criteria in both Standards E. (Neighborhood Character) and F. (Community Character). Standard 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: Located immediately adjacent to the proposed Hallam Lake district, 406 W. Smuggler is next to another designated landmark structure, and within a block containing two additional historic resources. The Planning Office finds that the preservation of this cottage is a critical element in the continued integrity of the West End neighborhood's historic character. The structure has received some modifications over the years to the front and rear, yet retains many Of the original architectural elements and scale. 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: The Inventory file in the Planning Office states that the structure's architectural significance lies in its representation of a "type, period or method Of construction". Planning Office records indicate the structure was relocated to the present site from its original location at 7th and W. Hopkins in 1973. We find that even though the structure's historical significance has been diminished due to this relocation, it is representative of Aspen's Mining Era, illustrating the family/home environment of the average citizen in Aspen which was then dominated by the silver mining industry. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC recommend for approval Landmark Designation for 406 West Smuggler Street. memo.hpc.406ws 2 Christie Ann Kienast 406 West Smuggler Aspen, Colorado 81611 May 7, 1989 Roxanne Eflin c/o City of Aspen Planning Office Citv Hall 100 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Roxanne, I am landmark designating my home at 406 West Smuggler in Aspen. This letter is to request the 42,000.00 grant that I have been told accompanies such landmark designation. Sincerely, /1. 1 L__Li...u~-Le_ CL-u~_ \«_-e-i_uat Christie Ann Kienast ' '· .:-7 0 4 . 2 ' y. , f.# c· C 2'0 1 '0 + Oifty-ti. 4 t , 6 444: f , k Ng'.41 g * MY.,f.4 K. .,190,2'21 7 013 2,0/ 2 It, . a ·2· 1 K ·ir k (d · ~24¢3*1.3,· N f : , , 'gs.3: L fi 4% ... 1. 4 .14 2., V, . .N Rly' *fr. I ./. : 1, 1 9 9 E. 1.41 I :4.3 , .4 *C, k f .. 2 3/,W 4..i X : '7.- 1 12.:"viy.,NY:i - , 1 /4,&0,151£.2.., .0 Alitfin) 94 -' ' I *1%;i~Ah; Fir €¥6- 4& · t 2 46; i.ril¥.2 5. ..·<"t.;C't'J'J)36*St,taa:Q.ktttutitit;,tkt•k;t'.441.,3,-:ddd,<84,314 4,2, >:C,-,60*.;t:kn it:td.'>4;:A'·*:»:C' 2,54:·5'22>:~.:t'At;;,t:1>1>ttt,t,St<t, 48*ti:fu:2.5-wd'44.t.·S p,jit>W.:9..·:,4:G: '.te..'t,tt,k;Gb :., 4») 0 08-NU - . 04 toh r- 0 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Minor Development: 134 West Hopkins Ave., Lot L, clapboard repair, window replacement, fence, gingerbread details Date: May 24, 1989 LOCATION: 134 West Hopkins Ave., Lot L, Block 59 (Unit L, Wyckoff/Carley Condominiums), Townsite and City of Aspen APPLICANT: Judy Billings APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting minor development approval for the following items: 1. Replacement of damaged clapboard with new 2. Replacement of east elevation non-original window with two new double hung to match the south elevation windows \~ 3. Adding cut (fishscale) shingles to south elevation gable face, and decorative trim to the vergeboard 4. Adding a picket and wrought iron fence around perimeter of lot ZONING: R-6, Designated Landmark PROJECT SUMMARY: As you recall, this historic shotgun (c.1888) was relocated to the Wyckoff parcel last year, and was owned by Peter Carley. Mr. Carley has since sold the condominiumized structure to Judy Billings, who is in the final stages of site renovation and exterior painting. It became evident to the contractors and painters that portions of the 100 year old siding are in bad condition and need replacing. The applicant has referred to the adjacent Wyckoff structure on Lot K (a 1989 Preservation Honor Award winner) which has been renovated. It is important to note that original architectural elements and materials were discovered when the asphalt siding was removed from the Wyckoff structure, including fishscale shingles and (mostly) dryrot siding. Each site and structure in unique, and requires individual consideration. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay district or is adjacent to a Historic Landmark... Response: We find the clapboard and window replacement, and fence request are generally compatible in character with the designated structure, however our primary concern lies in the request for the addition of non-original "Victorian" details (fishscale and gable decoration). In comparing details to other structures (see the application attached), it is important to understand the historic and social context a "shotgun" cottage played in Aspen's history. The original owner was no doubt of the miner/working class, "on a budget" so to speak. Generally the smaller the vernacular miner's cottage, the less detailing went into its construction. We have found in our review of this shotgun cottage that it is very original, and never contained fishscale elements in the gable peak. We have found the only "decoration" on the house were the carved porch brackets (now replaced). The Wyckoff two-story cottage immediately adjacent represents a slightly higher "social order" of family environment during Aspen's mining era. The detailing on the Wyckoff structure is original and very appropriate. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards state: "Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged." Staff has mixed feelings about the request to "Victorian-up" this structure, and based on what is historically appropriate and what isn't, must recommend denial for the applicant's request to add gingerbread and gable decoration with no documentation that it ever existed on this structure. An alternative may be to allow very simple carved "drapery" on the vergeboard (a "reversible" element) . The structure has been removed from its original context and has received a rear addition, so the original historic integrity is diminished. Staff feels that the owner has an opportunity to protect what is left of its historic character by respecting and retaining the original elements. Clapboard replacement: Some clapboard patching has already occurred to the structure. Staff has always encouraged the "repair rather than replacement of deteriorated architectural features", however, when deferred maintenance creates dryrot clapboard, for example, its replacement is generally necessary. First, a gentle sanding and rehydrating with diluted linseed should be attempted prior to painting, to allow the paint to adhere properly. Staff is not convinced that the amount of replacement being requested is necessary; however, will defer judgement to the assigned project monitor. (For comparison sake, staff 2 - believed the complete clapboard replacement of the adjacent Wyckoff structure was unnecessary.) New materials can never exactly replicate the character of original historic materials. Fence: Fences are referred to on page 49 of the Guidelines, Section VI (D) . We find that the applicant's request meets the Guidelines and is generally appropriate on this site, however, we feel that wood pickets are more historically accurate than wrought iron for this property. We are requesting the applicant and the HPC consider one or the other, preferring painted wood pickets over wrought iron, OR, as an alternative, wrought iron as a gate feature. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: We find the application generally meets this standard. 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 feels the cultural value of this structure is in its representation of mining/working life in the 1890's. We are pleased the structure has been spared from demolition is has been incorporated into a renovation/addition plan; however, we would like to protect what original elements there are left of the cottage, and feel to decorate it up will further diminish its cultural value to the community. 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: This small facade (principal, south elevation) is charming in scale. The paired, narrow double hung windows and heavy wood lintel, 12/12 roof pitch and horizontal clapboard are the distinguishing characteristics the facade. Some clapboard patching has already occurred. Window replacement: We are a little confused about the east elevation window proposed for replacement. It appears that only the glazing is new, and that the original division(s) · have been removed. Again, staff recommends replacement based on historic authenticity and will defer this to the project monitor. It seems reasonable to expect that a pair of narrow, double hung windows once existed here, however, 3 without any information from the applicant or the contractor on "ghost markings" it is difficult to know. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider allowing simple carved vergeboard decoration be added to the south facing gable in lieu of cut shingles. A fencing alternative may be the approval of wood pickets only, which is more historically accurate for this small, shotgun cottage. Wrought iron was generally used as perimeter fencing on larger, more elaborate structures. (It was hand forged and expensive then!) RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Minor Development approval for the application for 134 West Hopkins Avenue, Lot L, subject to the following conditions: 1. No gable face decorative shingles shall be added; simple carved vergeboard decoration may be considered as an alternative. 2. Only those clapboards deteriorated past the point of repair are to be replaced. Replacement shall be done to exactly match original. This shall be determined based on the project monitor's review and approval. 3. The window replacement shall be based on historical documentation, subject to the review and approval by the project monitor. 4. Painted wood picket fencing shall be used, with the alternative of wrought iron as a gate feature. memo.hpc.134wh.billings 4 ry.Te ., 1 01*' r 64'·, P¥*' · h 4% %36 . 9' ' A.,4744, 11 t ' hu· 4, 2 t.4 I - ~b ¢>. -N+1 2 1 9 . 1 5 0\ Al. i L p .# A A R 9 1 6 »a N B C./.dis' ' 4 4 22 „ 64' A k k K ' 1" A 4 · '' r F C . 1 .' vt ' 16,4- ' k -2~. 4 1 04 4 1.- ~334% \4 (34 R Q liTTJ . .1 '4 14 31 (-1 4 . 1, .all 1 0* · . 1 £,0 k A »4 . 9 y. e 4 4. 1 11% ' . f:t ; ~ ./4 : lin \. 1 1 1 •:28 i i.'' 4 .: f 7 -I 16/4 ru L G \ 1 -= I \A .7 -4 4941 4 *rE i¢ , 4 1 1~ " 24 -4 f ed d I 11 - 8 4: C,\ U h 4 R &9542 ZAR'2021. 7 1 * ' 4, P r -~··r· u R 0 4 P f 44 ' tr ~3/fi~501.;...~.... :>MII b t *i lilli =2§ U.' - 44 ,· 77 . . . rs 4 / .,I~ , L 1 1 i jil !1• M - . , 1 k ,> . Mme 1*39;; M.5'.'Mpa . E. .- .4 41 nu'41111 1 - 'p " 1. . '34. p 4% 4--1 kt-\ 44414 (4 4 p¢-iD(1*~t.#.id~~1),1/4¥9'fl 1- . C , 71= 947*2-9,(r#~. -3 - , 49 -14. f r 04 1% \- 7 , 62 94 151~.i.•~p.ht..6.9,/5.~..A,.19 t r. , le,/-,Ae 2018¢,t?8044 I, 1 * 0% 4 49 1 43- 43 , ¥ .Ne 1\ Vt j ki th\*4..44 -~ A*(44 ~ a:=4 1 -I -- -1 besr€~?Ail~*A: 1 . \44\ 3 3 44% 44. 44, \ .t A X 1 0 0 4 4 9 6 <j 0»*rg.*~A#~AFA IJ--I ~-----~ < 1 A , rle.~gri~,A X.te·<.t L.'' UW ·,1 : - 3\ P --'. .97'8:Th'lw.t, -7· - . I. »it,¢·:14>©iN.-264·~ ..-:.- ' 7-, bi th \ 71 4\ . ar.:4*.*C·¥444.:i¢31. ~ i ---r : 1 4 .M 4,€4 4 4 2, 4 4 3* 34 liti 4,/Vr/' I =--il 9 4 0-1.9 1 0 67' k . A ... . 1 84 2 0 1 af-. aa€J C PO E24**tif %,8 4.: 62-7 I.: aT. + 1.. r 179*471,44*6'l.: 2 ' P>.. t:.,59 ; ,~ ri /ID --ro 497 /7.93 7245/ 53262;,27< '«(Tv~Al -0 0,1 ~2/2447 U / -- 1 - p'31) l«73 5 6 (979K1A)27 /1 34 251 / ryr f.77 >22 -9- '-7901 -2#317 /--72¢71 '-70'13 /er ©Fh I. -44 1 712/,7 -~< 74 <'-~7~7/0-5> - ~~59 -'-777241 <*$0,~Af/ 1~4/ ri/ ,·-inpfj ,~ f f 3 l ~1 -Ae . - 9 - 1...=t h * .1.- 1 .: 4.*6 ¢ 1 ./ - - .... 084 i - 1 - 1 i ep i , '1'~ ·- i ,i ~~.' -:7 *i ..... . I 0 Y - h . · 1.~ **et .7..2.7- .t23- I .4/. ir.1 ., A. 1 JC --i I .. . . E r - , 0- ,..g,f 12-, 41 . -/ 4 + ::* .t..Al~'tjit~git .-~84; 0 A L c / : 4'-1,·f·' ~ + 3 k." 1< 1 1 9:.1.,2- ON*·9*Ii.-&**$,E,I,m.......01*11 3 f-at,·0·•R• · *L -1 1.4 , - vit'.:'FL. £' i . , 0/3. ' £¢242...1 .CL ,UNr ,%4 ' ' 94 /" 'rf y..452.*- 2..4721 54*12.- . 6 . 121 ~1 .. 1% , trA=-4- ·· --- r /7 ... & 9 .. L . .%32& - 111111111!11 Et. .. g. 9 1 0 , ..= - m -- I.- ---=el'.&.*'-/.I-*,<'+-.....- - . - -- -*8/Gfrk..%-. ... , . ....2 ¥ 44- 4 k - . 9 95.I- "I." - Al· rj<.00 £17 £29.Apip ) ful''U,~t<£.D L.A-,7J P=.-.2 U G £ L/- ,/*064- t//62¥21 /2 » *1_ate_ju ,: * u.1_ 112--i MLits eiL_ _ /~-06 Lt f ilit':, r #148$-Jud=- 72= =- -- F .·- ./8- ~1- &* -~ ». -*~-219»c. _ _ ' nf _. jilillimm j..ijoj li j £ iji 1 'ji.t- 4. * 1- 49# *- tit€-':L i . --2 -11€.1 - , - 19 .ag'49€19: 93.- . -.~ - 4 k.re; .....,·'... ...3 I A . I : I my'.... 2 CkL 4* /0,0.- 5*MS#yad/2 4471 6/2 1>e-/ p~~>040 J 66'29£ dfd~ --,42(~~ d~~~~~AL» Al i j ()30'91&44£ f Mv-# Vi lltiti,~.40 . ..fwill.* C Ukit' ful,it, dy.Vt Utlu #£.1243 0~ -U.0.91 /L/Zed€L-/ 41 tA- .52& 6/6/- i-/~ I '' i.. 4 >ftdi-/ >Lf 2«ge,/ U j 0 le/2-J#._.+(EA-. Cd-ek-J C*~-£ AA-,t_!2__-0 ~41M&.~k--LA~ 2#' iti~NitfU--*6 4/2/u~ uf~~ V w+6&9, af-t k. 06~«.., Uu 0,1-0 296-4-e«- . 6/ , N Ce*tio» St rA-j -kif ia + A 4 --fiu, au- itek> f 1 t,r Ap- Wkt cly_Jolk_. 0 1 1 ~,1 :f ''t. 1 4. 1, h 9 , r. ls- -7------- . ./ - 1 1-; . 12 t 1. ~UmmI | i i 1, · ·· r ~ Mall HWY 82 1 - f , 4 1.- -2- 2-2 -- li - F -/ 1 ,-=071 - ."f , I K . . 9 - ~f-FOL?---3 , «-1- /* it - 2.2,4 -·p,~,U.... - Uk. 4 1.-:a , - ~ut) E- /2%#,4-*5*-#422*#1 ..4--*' 14 , ·.-. 7- 1 .**34/-' 449 -- •0'15 ' 4 -*,0 5// . . / I. * - / ./ h. - .**4. U '1 g , p=»15*5 .3- ·· +. U - - .....5- 4 ' 2% :. . . .7. 1 I. . - - 1 la.y· -Mis S 1, 44: I . ~ .-14...46. 2.-094.-1 . - c 3.7 -:I .f.·u.. . e *re + . - 4 - 7 -·3 4 p W -- 2./.,60 ---- h. f . p .'.4.- -, 1 - .. 4-7- a 1/ 6137524 00415(2) 3_ w-tutol 14-16 --0-8 /,«~2%£1.«-1 -U I N . 1 146»~~4 60€OL -01 7 2-7 kil- ll, juk/.0 a - LI 38949_) f.l I 7 Lituo,U - 22, L X-1-2 y -4L1'u mLL,- O, Li Lou J 2% 66, 44% O<iquvu#) 02*- LA,1,6 490£ /0/€--61-L&tiv)~< 9/ 2% 0 * 1~.4,- -th ~ 01-*~k 7*4 /29 095;W+77 ,-337:~1 ·«"«410 90- to rd-77 »fl- ran,o\©vr. <n«*2 ~--~33~2~ir<~2975~03*4 7«92/... t J 0 g-BA n u 0 vt '1.Tqll + rtwg d 00 9<311 3.9f ~\, ~C:719 V+Un 73-4 °4\- c--a'Vih' TQ 2--7722,4~< 1~ ~ <-4<7271297D#J 0 4-94\ r2. -.7777 ,-m/.+10=4 . aorpf 0>-.»u ofpre{\ /? -""'1'jBL/LBv 7(1 YL 4~chlf rr-qrj .trED ,/t,i>,9 V. 01 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Conceptual Development: 1004 E. Durant Ave., Unit #1 Date: May 24, 1989 LOCATION: 1004 East Durant Ave., ZONING: RMF (landmark designation pending) RATING: 11 4 " APPLICANT: Sandra Lore, represented by Welton Anderson HPC MONITOR: not yet assigned APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual Development approval for the construction of a raised lower level addition. The proposal requires a sideyard setback variation from the HPC for the non- confirming size lot. OTHER COMMISSION REVIEWS: Landmark Designation is pending, with a projected date of mid-July for final Ordinance approval through Council. HPC Final Development approval is not permitted prior to the finalization of landmark designation. PRIOR HPC CONSIDERATION: On April 26, 1989, the applicant met with the HPC in a pre-application to begin a dialogue with the Committee on the proposal. The architect presented sketch drawings indicating three options at that meeting. The general consensus at that meeting was in support of the raised lower level addition, of approximately 30", which is presented for approval. 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. 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 were proposed development would extend into front years, 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: As discussed in previous meetings, 1004 E. Durant is the last remaining historic structure on Durant Street. It is located at the end of dead end street, and is tucked between two contemporary structures. We find that the proposal is reasonable to provide the owner additional living area without compromising the roof form and small scale of the structure. Its siting on the parcel allows for the 30" or so raising. We find the proposal meets this review standard. Standard 2. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development Response: The historic context of this neighborhood is gone. We do, however, find the proposal to be a reasonable alternative to other options, including complete demolition. We are pleased the applicant has chosen to analyze innovative methods for renovation and enlargement. 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 the cultural integrity of this structure is based upon its unique survival as the last historic structure on Durant St. We feel the proposal does not diminish its cultural value, and may provide it additional "life" for the next century. Standard 4. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: We find the application of "rock faced cinderblock" as exposed foundation material too heavy and historically inappropriate for this cottage. We recommend the use of painted wood 2 lattice, either diamond or square, to cover the most visible portions of the foundation under the porch. 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 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 grant Conceptual Development approval for the proposal at 1004 E. Durant Ave. with the following conditions to be met for Final Development approval: 1. Painted wood lattice foundation screen under porch, covering most visible portions of foundation 2. Exact material representation, including details of foundation material and lattice 3. Detail narrative of all repair and restoration plans to historic structure 4. Any landscaping plans for the site, which might help screen the raised addition 5. Foundation/structural information submitted detailing protection methods for the original structure, with a Performance Guarantee letter, to be approved by Staff Attorney Fred Gannett. 6. Side yard setback variation granted by HPC at Final Development approval memo.hpc.1004ed.cd 3 04Ek.4 - 0,~An Anderson & Associates Architects -//C. :.C~~/ TO: Historic Preservation Committee =3=,17 *p:~ RE: Sandra Lohr Residence addition, 1004 E Durant, Aspen ~j¥[' DATE: 27 April 1989 This constitutes an application for Historic Designation for the Lohr Residence at 1004 E Durant and is also an application for Conceptual Development Review including a request for variations in side yard setbacks by HPC pursuant to Section 9-103 C.2. The primary historical significance of this house is that it is the last of the original miners cottages left on Durant Ave. Its neiahborhood is now a mix of single family and multifamily construction that Generally overshadows this little house. It is in good original restorable condition. The applicant wishes to expand the 638 square feet she now occupies but is limited to going up by an attached structure to the rear, existing side yard encroachments on both sides and an existing minimum front yard. The options are as follows: The existing miners cottage can be demolished (or moved) and a new two story structure conforming to setbacks built in its place. An option preferable to the applicant, which she and I discussed several years ago, is to maintain the cottage on site and build a new second floor that can conform to setbacks. This solution can be seen all over Aspen. A third ontion was supaested this soring--raise the existing house up to become a new second floor and build a new first floor below it. Scheme A attached shows how this could work. Attached Sckeme B shows a variation on this method of "exoandino up" which is what I have convinced the applicant is realistic to apply to HPC for aporoval. In the context of a tight site bounded by tall buildings on both sides and which slopes down from a street heavily congested with oarking, raising the house up approximately 4 feet on a higher foundation wall will maintain its one story character while providing the needed living space below and better light and views on the first floor. Planning / Architecture / Interior Design Box 9946 / Aspen,Colorado 81612/(303) 925- 4576 Page two .9, Lohr Residence 27 April 1989 This approach will require Historic Designation by HPC, P&Z, and City Council and design review approval by [IPC which will need to include a variation in side yard setbacks that will allow the existing side yard encroachnents to remain for the new basement. It is clear that none of the other options mentioned retain the simple one story miners cottage while allowing a modest expansion as effectively as Scheme B and your consideration of this proposal is aDDreciated. 7712 4 ·lifir,/1 ./fill ..'L.... .4.2.-1 .6, ~aper 4 =4 -1,#*19/1.4 1 1 2,41:-'I .A.:.4 ./.24 - =201- 1 A., 4.33*./ . /7--0 -1/ . ..V 24 & *. -- I ---q Arrirry/-rjjrjYY~ I-*I . -1 2- ---. - ' , r 7---7'-V r-~ '1 7, . . :L. 4,1 /1 .. -_ -- --.- 0------.- -.--- . - ..'·1144 .. 1 1 25 1 f , .4 1 11- 21-[-11[07 - 11[-1111111 .- I.k: 1 ·4- i -- 1;1 r= »•r,J f ' faLJIJV/•-~c , J I---I-----21=2 + . -- 60 , ELF.VA-riord 42:1 1 EM E 03 .. - - -Ii-- . 4. . T .f It -1 I I. . '1 j. E>alk!6 1/ . hi, Be.2 lili I · Iii UNrT 411 Let -1 1 lili 1 0 -1.11 6 .- - [Uer ELE-»ATI 04 - :tweA Et:-0 -2 --fi- 'fr ;441,49. . . ..• +·•--· I.-*•./-2.....·-. .... . ... .1. li . . 1-I "32/\.2 ' 1 1 1 1 ' 1 .K . 11 1. /. E.>4591 +3 61 1/ 0 e42 / ' 11 ! I UN r-T 1- 1 1.1-Ill iJ !32«1- 131-.2-4*11 EN - it:fri*Aet:.2(2, 4 1-f--2-- '1 3 . . f . . ...-I-I .-1. ..... 1 0116120'. - · . · . A.32 NG ·r·r¥1 , ----- , 1 I , PIC{r .1:tilt,i.f,!~it Aff -4 {·1 .. 1 /614 »54. ;343\ - , 1-- ..Ot.Mr. 111. i- gill I l.- , 10\11/91 - ,\ . ./ -1 \2 ---3 1 - t.! 142% - - 111-:-phl A A. i &,91* 1 - Al , . . C. I ·:4 rr rylsm, n -- ~ 9 4 P.€62. V Idl f - - G - 11.,lili |.i-1 -1-1-.rtd F~i~4·i;1 -- 0 1 n vl 1 1 11 1 - I=14~1 49 1 1 1 .1. 1 .1 -1 11[9 7 - 2 2 2 Z --1 - 22111.12-L.-.-----I-I - 3>4591- E l-,6UNTD K| ... 44 IFI·-1 E . . ib .... . . ~~. _ iA Ali i o· 1 U; 1 ! r)=r= 1-L -7 : U 1 l... 1 9 -17 0 1 7 -L 1 p . 1 - Z - , , r| %9--3 'Irr'==11 ):· i 22 I t ·· 1 9 2 --- -- ----F~ , I C 2 1 I 1' (44 I 11 11 0 · 1 I . 1, 11 1- - - -1 ,t 8 11 - tin- 11 11 1 11 1 11 1 --1 P 1 A. * . 4 dcle 4 · m. 8 q C 1/1,tlion kderson & Assodales .524*4 ID OX Lotle G.610 [DJCE 1 -7' 1, 0'.r,m by 024 , dxcmd *11¢ch / Mcrnets 1094 E. PJEAN-F ASPEK| D» 90•4 / -44.0*j•.i,0 11812/001) 1~25 4576 M.*mum"Il#,1 ..0*,0,4.~im**40,4. 10,4.u.. A .I) l 1 . i l l . 1 281 2- 121 77- i 11 / ' , , 1 5211 1 ./ 1- 1 . f 1 1 10 7 03 i diP C 1 1 ; MEA-1 ' 1 1. 7,94 1 1 \ . . i . --Ill- P 0 0 90111 1.-.IhiIA& #AFF U. - i 1- 1 11 L i 4 1 . Al , 1 - 4 >114-ree 66:C·€4»01 , ~ t t y 1 3•- SE·St go,AC 1 .*.L# 1./ , 1 1 -- 1 1 8 11 0-- - --.iE .-L . 22i.E>S'' 2.4,7 2,0.1 my=4B"=---I- - . - V. S. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Conceptual Development: 413 E. Hyman Ave., Riede's City Bakery, Public Hearing Date: May 24, 1989 LOCATION: 413 E. Hyman Ave., All of Lot D, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, excepting a portion described by metes and bounds attached hereto. ZONING: CC, Commercial Core Historic District RATING: Landmark Designated, listed on the National Register of Historic Places APPLICANT: Lis G. Sorensen, represented by Welton Anderson HPC MONITOR: not yet assigned APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual Development approval for the construction of a partial second floor (to be used as the owner's dwelling unit) at the rear non-historic portion of the structure; partial demolition, and the repair and restoration of the original structure, concentrating on the facade. The applicant intends to take advantage of the 20% RITC. No variations are being requested. OTHER COMMISSION REVIEWS: Preservation Incentive Ordinance 16 (formerly approved, with clarification in-process) allows the Planning Director to approve the project without P&Z review, due to the enlargement dedicated to one dwelling unit. Ordinance 16 also allows the HPC to approve the parking plan, allowing for less-than-required space without payment-in-lieu (as an incentive for landmarks). The project is exempt from GMQS competition, however, an application must be submitted for Planning Director approval prior to Final Development review by the HPC. PRIOR HPC CONSIDERATION: On April 26, 1989, the applicant met with the HPC in a pre-application to begin a dialogue with the Committee on the proposal. The architect presented sketch drawings indicating two plans at that meeting. The general consensus at that meeting corresponded to the concerns the Committee has had on the Collins Block project: how visible is it and what impacts will it have on the historic resource. The applicant told the HPC a wooden structure would be iri,stalled on the roof top to indicate maximum height. 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 IV. Commercial Buildings - Renovation and Restoration, beginning on page 19. 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... Response: Since the applicant submitted the original proposal, reviewed at pre-ap stage, staff has received a few revisions, as well as the south elevation and west elevations. Verbal information from the applicant indicates materials may be stucco, or more probably horizontal clapboard over fireproof masonry (cinderblock). Second floor additions to small scale structures always present challenges to a Review Board. Staff has reviewed the project against the Development Review Guidelines, Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, Park Service technical briefs, and verbally with the Chief Architect at the National Park Service in Denver (Keith Everett). As Keith points out, which staff agrees with, 95% of all of these cases are not approved under their criteria for Tax Credit certification. The smaller the building generally the more difficult it is to add on without significantly altering the historic scale, as we have seen in many "cottage addition" projects. While there is no "formula" that works on rooftop additions, the more invisible it is (the less it is perceived), the less impact it has on the historic structure. Even in this case where the addition is proposed on the non-historic portion of the structure, the issue is the perception of the building's historic scale. Neither staff nor the Park Service are ruling out an approval for a second floor addition to this structure at this time, however, significant reductions in height and setback will be required. Photos and elevations are necessary to be submitted to the Park Service for their written opinion. 2 opinion. For comparison, staff points out the following differences between this project and the Collins Block proposal: 1) The historic portion of the structure will not be receiving the addition 2) The adjacent building is over 20' taller and screens the structure significantly 3) The site is extremely small (approximately 20' x 100'), and very constrained for any new development. 4) The structure is in the middle of the block, and is only visible from the west end of the mall, particularly from the Wheeler and along Hyman St. west to Monarch. These issues must be keep in mind when reviewing this project. On the other hand, the following negatives should be considered: 1) The addition IS visible from within the district, particularly from the Wheeler Opera House and along the 300 Block of East Hyman. 2) The existing story poles do not indicate the highest point of the stepped back roof; only one horizontal is indicated. 3) Any addition to a small scale historic structure has the potential to diminish its historic integrity. South elevation: The upper most portion of this elevation is entirely transparent, to provide for light and views out of the living room. Staff recommends HPC review this element carefully, in light of recent concerns about reflection and glare from roof tops in the CC District. A stairway is indicated, providing egress from the second floor. The second floor screened deck projects over the one car parking space (carport), which will be used by the resident/owner. Standard 2. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development Response: Generally, we find the character of the neighborhood will not be impacted by the proposal. 3 The historic structure Will be repaired and deteriorating elements restored; the storefront's original integrity will remain, adding to the intrinsic, historic character to this block and the Commercial Core Historic District. 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 the cultural integrity of this structure is based upon its unique survival as a one-story historic structure, whose small scale has remained virtually unchanged for 100 years. Staff could only support a revised proposal that does not detract from the cultural value of this structure. Standard 4. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Partial Demolition: Staff does not support the partial demolition of the rear half of the original structure. All original materials must remain. If necessary, a load-bearing structural system could be built just inside the original walls (which, granted, are hidden between the two adjacent buildings). The Planning Office is not in support of " facadechtomies", and requires the preservation on "the building", not just the facade. The demolition of the non-historic cinderblock rear addition is not a concern to staff. We find that the proposal does detract from the architectural integrity of the historic structure, and recommends the applicant reduce significantly the overall size of the addition. Options are: Stepping the addition back further Reducing the height significantly Utilizing the "dead attic space" between the first and second floors more creatively o Designing the second floor roof on one plane, as opposed to a second "step up" ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Approve the proposal as submitted 4 000 2. Approve the proposal with the conditions as recommended by staff and discussed in this meeting 3. Table action to a date certain (June 14 recommended) to allow the applicant further time to study the proposal, incorporating the comments and guidance from the HPC in a revised proposal. Tabling would also allow staff to obtain comments from State and Park Service architects. 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 approval for the proposal at 413 E. Hyman Ave. to June 14, to allow the applicant additional time to restudy the following items: (Note: All revisions must be submitted to the Planning Office no later than Friday, June 2, at 5:00 p.m.) 1. Significant height reduction 2. Significant step back of addition 3. Partial demolition shall not include any original portions of the structure. 4. Detailed drawings of rooftop elements 5. South elevation details, and the significant elimination Of glare elements from the proposed addition. 6. Clarification of major building materials; clapboard siding recommended. 7. Foundation/structural information submitted detailed protection methods for the original structure, with a Performance Guarantee letter, to be approved by Staff Attorney Fred Gannett. memo.hpc.413eh.cd 5 -- PEAMT ADOXC 987 /./- E:*ce- el'' P*or.1 Fel.r.0 - 4 . t fiest-[*bipE S€-1 1 ~ C f:»01 Le Fc£>v. rierT -- -* -- \1 \1 t \ i -- 1- d 1.- I ' 'i :1,- -11 in · . 119-11 / M ill··il '-1 &- I ---i. 1i F '' £-I . -. - 1-* I ill-'! 1 1 -11- - fl~ 1 1,44 1. 1 11,00,~Vl . A - , -- -9 r:11*! , , ..1- - --- - I--n 1 1 4 , i.-I- -1 4 - J E»·IELE 1 11 - 10 »24h.1 + 1 - 1 372£- - . 1 +1 &1~ 1 ;~ 31 1 , 1 1 · LE iE 1 11.01 KitaL· 1 11 1 f 1 1 5 1 I. . 11 , ~1. ! 1 . - 1- 1 .Ii! .1 1 1 ; '1: 1 i , .4- 1 1 I I ~111=1.=t=Li-: i=,LA ' I. 12 2=77--4 ELL EX,LCD! 4 ·1 - 1 .j 1 .1 -7 - I ...-__.- v'cr,G'Blet ed'LD'1141 ,-~In2·nu.I -M.--·-- 3..--r T --- -- -- I-. \ 1 L / 641/./*-7 2.MI// 5'ul}JA -2, '122_HA:01 E>19:TING, FA>KI-1 1 _-. FAINTPO -15 1-WEP. - 81.AN: _ _ --* f if i#*we. r•se£ e·Ult-·11,15 -- . -. -~- .- . - b //4 - 1 41 1 - - 1. '. 1 9 JEWAR 12& - ...P - --./.LETEF, i :441.:i·i.'1 -- ''; .~i t, ~ .i 1~11~ 6 '1 t: 31/ 1.-•t-'6·, r \5/El€37 E.LEVA-TION '11.,5 1 11.·J •1•,, 1 •' 4 , 1» Il©" 0 .t' 24 1.161 kil» 12€YON 0 - 1 :1 1 1.- --- 19%,r ed P22£- CALAIKM• --- 7--- - - ---- - 1 1.- i T I --33 L. J - - ------ I NVEL 202.4 -1 -- --.--- --- „ --- - - - 1 R 50. 4.. v 1' 0 Y 1.- - 1 -- --· rbi d £ j 1 4 i ·11 -- -' goaT# j-LL-€3) ELEVATION - AL,ag 1 ·r-T--1 1 1 1 1-li ?'dull.46 i i 11=4 - Llf' 4 i 'tiv- e-SCE. C 1 -- - -1 1 '-~' 1 1 VT».4 Q $ 1- t" -- 1 1~-2.-1 : 1 1/ C 1 1 I j 1 1 1 30 1 6.20,1,24 / : 0 1 PE,-loUSWEL) I , t 1 1 1 14 r ---- - fi -¥r 2 0»121 14 a Foee 7--1 6 3 JEVELUS 3 -9 ' ER,04 1./9 4 g / '11 4, ' ---i EL 3 -1 9 I-- - -4* 1 - ff 7 ! 12 2 I L L 1-- --1 0, ,\ 44 -0 28 7.11'624EU 1 1/ LL. Luit- mIDE.bi £5[TTV 2 -1.EIAKERV t#YMAKI A.Va MALL- - 4:3f E... Hy·1444- --- ' ·- ASPEN 4. A c welton anderson & ass= dates 0- 620-IN!:3 =Loct PLANI . /- / IL- 4 A O 0 1-1 le 4 *- / 4 - 19GOS - >E<f>< 1 r. --- ---3 ' -1 - f- - i tr:- -¥--1 1 , N/IN I L 1 UP 9 ==== f t ~~ E r UVINA , i / CPI 4,1 66 1 2.Up fl/641 . - 1 | -L 544-- ' P EMOU€44 611 / , 11 - ve 1- M ' ! 0 1 m! , 4 \ Up,pr 1 N E« ~ ;- AE'-CA: u ~ 7-1 to .1~ 1 L.C:Fl-11 - -1 1 10 04 - 1 --i-- , r. 1 0380{200»1 -/1 P i 1 tl 17 . U . .Fi" €25 Le«/ *El..12*N·/1 p--i.- _1 737=In--JU C:ZC~:n 1 0.113;Na Ar--1 G . 445\/ 12.92*13 FLOO E- 2611 1 0 0 /2 - ,- I /- V M --- [- 041[ 04 411-1-4 -m- E--11[' rt )1 0/ m 1 1.3,7 4 12'f € 1391<L' 1 'fi 1 -1 . - -9 ¥:A-~ 1.31=1 ././2-141~~1---t_--~3 1 f, ,1 1 \ . .r - -~ · · ···- 4 /Ifol e,knp RE.51:2'14 ~ -1 6 7/ 1 n J \AINA,1 Ot,·116 ,-- r C ~,1. $ t. ORO &rric '1 1 1 1 ./ 1 y. , 11!\1 't - 16.-9.16% Lorl ., 1 1/ ./1 fl / .! 1 t $ 0 .V. f Al I.1,/ ' |17,1/H A/r./Jtlf- /1ALL .. ,-rreE /6-12"Z,46-1 1 r=< > - ,; ..1 - 94 4 1 . i · · 1 VE'/it, iw If €71 k u C m,1. € . f 14 F···V c-Y'" 1'17-E'!FI-1,01 j J tu.101€Tll r. 5?2010_SCO}014 1-0'14 15661. ' 83]029 6119 DAKE FO>/ 115 · r..11>MAN A 9' 7.Al c wdton anderson & assoda'€ s 0'chilects / plarners bow 77,8 / 0,0,4.coM,010 81811/00,) 075·45+F ·, 201,2 / Are ,tel , I - - C. i.t . 2. , L . COIDRADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY The Colorado History Museum 1300 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80203-2137 May 1, 1989 Ms. Roxanne Eflin City of Aspen Certified Local Government 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Ms. Eflin: Enclosed for your information is a fact sheet on local government participation in the review of federal undertakings that may affect historic properties. Sincerely, 60« Christine Pfaff Preservation Planner CP:ng Enclosures FACT SHEET: WORKING WITH SECTION 106 Section 106 Participation by LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Introduction Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to [ake into account thc effects of agellcy undertakings on historic properties, and to afford thc Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. The Council has is- sued regulations showing how agencies are to compiy with Section 106. [36 CFR Part 8001 These regulations, revised in 1986 at 51 FR 31115, are discussrd in detail in the Council publication, Section 104 Slep-by-Step. The revised regulations were issued in 1986, partly in response to NHPA requir- ing that the Council "by regulation, establish such procedures as may be necessary ~ to provide for participation by local governments in proceedings and other ac- tions taken by the Council with respect to undertakings referred to in Section 106 which affect such local governments: [16 U.S.C. 470s] Accordingly, special at- tention was given to providing roles for local governments in the process set forth C .. in the revised regulations. This fact sheet presents a general discussion on opportunities for participation in Section 106 review by a·local government, as well as information on specific oc- casions for participation. Local governments may participate in Section 106 review as recipients of Federal assistance, licenses, or permits. Frequently, local governments arc delegated legal responsibility for Section 106 compliance by a Federal agency under thc terms of a Programmatic Agreement with the Council, and so are participants in the review process. In some circumstances, Certified Local Governments (CLGs) may participate in Section 106 review in place of the Slate Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), such as in review of plans and specifications for rehabilitation projects, in order to ensure compliance with Department of the Interior guidelines. Finally, emergency undertakings may re- - . quire specific participation on the part of the local government under Section 106 regulations. Definitions A historic property is defined as "any prchistoric or historic district, site, build- ing, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register. The term includes... artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term 'eligible for inclusion in the Nation- al Registcf includes both properties formally determined as such by the Secretary of the Interior and all other properties that mect National Register list- ing criteria; [36 CFR § 800-2(c)] ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW., SUITE 809, WASHINGTON DC 20004 FACT SHEET: WORKING WrTH SECTION 106 A local government is considered to be "a city, county, parish, townihip, municipality, borough, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State.* [36 CFR § 8002(i)] A certined local government is a local government whose his- toric preservation program has been certified pursuant to Section 101(c)(1) of NHPA. Department of the Interior regulations at 36 CFR Part 61 govern this cer- tification process. SectioN* 106 review is defined in the Council's publication, Section 104 Step-by- Step, as a review process 'established under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and administered by the Advisory Council on Historic Preserva- tion undcr its regulations at 36 CFR Part 800. During this process, agencies af- ford the Council an opportunity to comment on any agency activity or undertaking that may affect historic properties, and must take such Council com- ment into account.' , A State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) is defined in the regulations as the official appointed or designated pursuant to Section 101(b)(1) of the [Nation- al Historic Preservation] Act to administer the State historic preservation program or a representative designated to act for the [SHPO]: [36 CFR § 8002(n)] Agencies seek the views of the appropriate SHPOs while identifying historic properties and assessing effects of an undertaking on historic properties. Agen- cics also consult the SHPO when developing Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs). The regulations define undertaking as 'any project, activity, or program that can result in changes in the character or use of historic properties, if any such historic - properties are located in the area of potential effects. The project, activity, or program must be under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency or licensed or assisted by a Federal agency." [36 CFR § 8002(0)] Undertakings in- clude construction, demolition, planning, licenses, permits, loans, loan guaran- tecs, grants, Federal property transfers, and many other Federal activities. Participation by local governments in general The Council regulations encourage local governments to take an active role in Section 106 review, but with certain exceptions the extent of that participation is at the discretion of local government officiak [36 CFR § 800.1(c)(2)(i)] When Federal agencies try to identify historic properties that might be affected by their activities, they are required by Council regulations to seek information about these properties Irom local governments and other interested parties. [36 CFR § 800.4(a)(1)(iii)] If a local government indicates an interest in the agencfs proposed action or its possible effects on known historic properties within its jurisdiction, then the agen- cy must notify the local government if it believes there arc no historic properb· s ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION 3 FACT SHEET: WORKING WITH SECTION 106 Local government participation in Programmatic Agreements The regulations of the Council governing Section 106 review also permit a Federal agency to fulfill its Section 106 responsibilities for a particular program, a large or complex project, or a class of undertakings that would otherwise require numerous individual requests for comments, through a Programmatic Agreement (PA). [36 CFR § 800.131 In a PA the agency, the Council, the relevant SHPO or SHPOs (or, in the case of an agreement having national effect, the National Con- fercnce of SHPOs) agree on measures to identify, consider, and treat historic properties that may be subject to effect by the program, project, or class of under- takings under rcview. Local governments and other interested parties can be in- vited to participate in PA development. - In carrying out responsibilities on behalf of HUD for block grants and other similar programs, local governments can propose and enter into PAs. Such PAs often address the effects of local building rehabiutation programs, and typically evaluate buildings for National Register eligibility, apply the Secretag of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation, and provide for the review Of pl,nK and specifications by the SHPO and/or by a local preservation commis- sion. Such a PA eliminates the need for property-by-property compliance with Section 106, and ensures the use of appropriate standards in rehabilitation. Local governments arc encouraged to contact the Council or the SHPO to dis- cuss the usefulness of such agreements in their jurisdictions When a Federal agency, the Council, and a SHPO develop a PA that will affect a local government, they are required to invite the local government to participate in the consultation and in the execution of the-PA [36 CFR § 800.13(b)-(d)] For further information on PAs, see the Council's fact sheet, Progiummatic Agree- menu under Section 106. Participation by Certined Local Governments in lieu of participation by SHPOs Section 101(c)(1) of NHPA provides for certification of historic preservation progr•mq maint,ined by local governments by tile SHPO and the Secretary of the Interior. These Certified Local Governments (CLGs) are eligible for a variety of benefits, including technical assistance and grants-in-aid from SHPOs and the Na- tional Park Service. Council regul,tions provide that if the SHPO, the appropriate local government, and the Coundl agrec, a local government whose historic preservation program has been certified can assume any or all of the duties of the SHPO. [36 CFR § 800.1(c)(2)(i)] When a CLG seeks to assume some or all SHPO functions for Section 106 com- pliance within its jurisdiction, the CLG can facilitate an agreement with the S}IPO and the Council by preparing a complete program description. In cases ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION 5 FACT SHEET: WORKING WrrH SECTION 106 appropriate within a historic district and without which the undertaking CAnnOt proceed© Fcw SHPOs have equivalent powers The CLG can provide for SHPO participation in its activities, when the CLG, the SHPO, or the Council determines that such participation would be useful. The CLG can establish procedures for dealing with circumstances in which an under- taking affecting properties both within and outside the CLG's jurisdiction may be subject to review both by the CLG and the SHPO, or by two or more CLGs carry ing out SHE'O duties. The Council can also request that the CLG permit peri- odic review by the SHFO or the Council of CLG procedures. A CLG's assumption of the SHPO responsibilities in the review process can be terminated, if the SHPO or the Council withdraws from the agreement with the CLG, or if the CLG's program is deccrtificd according to 36 CFR § 613(c)(5). SHPOs and CLGs are encouraged to cooperate to the maximum extent possible with Federal agencies during the transition period between SHPO and CLG responsibility for participation in activities in order to minimize confusion and delay for such agencies. CLG participation in review of plans and specifications .. Under its regulations the Council regularly executes MOAs and concurs in deter- minations of 'no adverse effect," which cover federally assisted undertakings that involve the rehabilitation of historic buildings and structures. Such MOAs nor- mally provide that rehabilitation be done in accordance with the Secretal of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic - Buildings, and for the review by the SHY'O of plans and specifications for rehabmtation. In order to simplify the implementation of MC)As and determinations of 'no ad- verse effece under the Counch regulations; to encourage maximum local invol- vement in such implementation; and to encourage consistency among Federal State, and local approaches to design review, the Council has adopted the policy of encouraging agreements that provide for local government review of plans and specificalions in lieu of SHPO review, provided = the local government is a CLG, m the CLG carries out design review using the Secretag of the Interiots Standards for Rehabilitation as a basis for such review, and • the SHPO agiccs that the CLG should review plans and specifications in place of the SHPO. ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION 7 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 24, 1989 200 E. MAIN ST. MODIFICATIONS TO FINAL DEVELOPMENT (approved, Fall of 1988) ........ 1 LANDMARK DES IGNATION 430 W. MAIN ST.. . . . . 3 LANDMARK DES IGNATION 406 W. SMUGGLER ST.. . . . 3 MINOR DEVELOPMENT 134 W. HOPKINS AVE. , LOT L. . . 3 1004 E. DURANT UNIT I CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HEARIN ..... 4 RIEDE'S CITY BAKERY - 413 E. HYMAN AVE. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT-PUBLIC HEARING .... 5 COTTONWOOD PARK - 700 E. MAIN ...... 9 10