Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.1988092714+11 AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE September 27, 1988 - Tuesday 2:30 P.M. to 4:30 P.M. SECOND FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS City Hall REGULAR MEETING 2:30 I. Roll Call II. Approval of Minutes - September 1, 13, 1988 III. Committee Member and Staff comments IV. Public Comment V. NEW BUSINESS 2:45 A. Minor Development Review: Wheeler Opera House, awning replacement and promotional banners and brackets B. Minor Development Review: Footloose and Fancy Things, 210 S. Mill St. VI. OLD BUSINESS (None) VII. FOR DISCUSSION A. Purchase Development Rights (preservation incentives) B. Review of joint worksession of September 22, 1988 VIII.INFORMATION A. Notice on Colorado Historical Roundtable Meeting, Oct., 28th REMINDER: "GARNERING SUPPORT FOR PRESERVATION" SEMINAR COMING UP IN DURANGO, SEPTEMBER 30 (EVENING) THROUGH OCTOBER 2 (NOON) . HELD AT HISTORIC STRATER HOTEL, COST IS $55 PER PERSON, INCLUDES VARIETY OF BENEFITS! CALL SUSAN DAVIES AT 259-1294 FOR I INFORMATION. GUEST SPEAKER INCLUDES NATIONAL TRUST COUNSEL FRANK GILBERT. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Minor Development, Wheeler Opera House Awning replacement, Banners and Brackets Date: September 27, 1988 LOCATION: 320 E. Hyman Ave., Lots R and S, Block 81, Townsite and City of Aspen. Designated landmark; Commercial Core Historic District. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting HPC's approval to replace the existing awnings in exact duplicate material, and to install six large promotional banners in celebration of the Wheeler's looth birthday. The banners require City Council approval due to size, right-of-way encroachment and length of time to remain up; they are 20' long by 3.5' wide, will be mounted to the building by brackets attached into the mortar, and will remain up for one year. Three will be attached to the south side, and three to the east side of the building. SUMMARY: The Wheeler Opera House is currently undergoing renovation, including a power wash of the south and east side of the building with cold water not to exceed 500 psi; recaulking of masonry seams; masonry pointing and stone replacement in northeast corner; draining re-routing to prevent ice problems from continuing in northeast corner; patching all holes and removing anchor bolts in stone work; repair glazing and mill work in the Rose window, northeast corner; painting all exterior doors, windows and woodwork in identical colors; replace two dryrot windowsills and clean all exterior glass. All these above maintenance activities have been approved by the State Historical Society and Staff. The State Historical Society has a covenant contract on the Wheeler until 1998, requiring all renovation work to be prior approved through the state historical architect. The Wheeler Opera House director and the Director of the Wheeler Opera House Association are requesting these awnings and banners be approved by HPC at this time so that installation may be accomplished while the scaffolding is up for the other repairs. Awnings: Upon review of the Development Standards, Staff finds the proposed activity meets the requirements. Only the awning material will be replaced; the frame will remain unchanged. The material will exactly match what currently exists. Banners and Brackets: Please refer to Exhibit A. The wall brackets, to be installed into the mortar only, are constructed of 1/4" steel plate, approximately 2.25' in length. The banner holder fits inside the bracket, and is constructed of 1 1/4" O.D. galvanized tube. Both will be painted to match the building color and will removed at the end of one year when the banners come down. The banner material is a mesh fabric of different colors, and the "Centennial Logo", with one large candle on top of a graphic birthday cake, will appear at the top of the mesh fabric on a solid color fabric. The quality of construction appears to be excellent. Staff finds that this attention-getting promotional activity enhances the Wheeler in a festive way and visually celebrates historic preservation and our heritage. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends HPC grant minor development approval for both the awning replacement and the banner and bracket installation of the Wheeler Opera House, provided the applicant receive the necessary approvals from City Council for the banners. Notes: hpc.memo.wheeler 2 SEP 2 3 238 TO: Historic Preservation Commission £ 1 1 FROM: Bob Murray, Wheeler Opera House rl 11 w l Ij DATE: September 23, 1988 RE: Replacement of Wheeler Awning Canvas Under the Minor Development Improvement we are going to be replacing the awnings at the Wheeler Opera House. They will be an exact duplicate of the previous awnings. The brackets will remain in place and the frames will be the same. Only the material will be replaced. The awnings will be made by Aspen Canvas Company. The canvas will be identical in color and stripe as that approved during the historic restoration of the Wheeler in 1984. Color: Terra Cotta/Bone 6" stripe. Sample will be presented at the HPC meeting on Tuesday, September 27, 1988 Rudd Construction will be doing the awning installation no later than October 28, 1988. -1/' .HE WHEELER OPERA HOUSE ASSOCIATION 320 E. Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920-2268 TO: HPC FROM: Wheeler Opera House Association RE: Banners and Brackets for Banners at 320 E. Hyman Ave.; Aspen, CO The Wheeler Opera House will be celebrating its 100th Anniversary in 1989. A year-long program has been planned for the Opera House: local Arts groups; Lynn Harrell, Lily Tomlin, Music Associates of Aspen, Moses Pendelton, other programs to be announced and an original production by the New York Artists and Red Grooms on the North American tour of Sarah Bernhardt. To develop an overall promotional concept for the 100th birthday, the Wheeler Opera House Association would like to fly six banners on the outside of the Wheeler Opera House for the entire year beginning in December of 1988. The banners will measure approximtely 20 feet in length and 315 feet wide. Three banners will be displayed on the south side of the building and three on the east si-de. The banners will be held by two poles: one for the top of the banner and one for the bottom. Brackets (Exhibit A) will be attached to the building into the mortar. The brackets will be painted to match the building color and may be removed at the end of the year. The banner will be of a mesh fabric (Exhibit B) of different colors and the Centennial logo will appear (Exhibit C) at the top of the mesh fabric on a solid color fabric. The Wheeler Opera House Association has been in touch with the Wheeler Opera House Board and the Colorado Historical Society (Chris Pfaff) regarding the installation of the banners. Both organizations approved the project. The Colorado Historical Society indicated that the brackets may not be mounted into the building stone but into the mortar only. The Wheeler Opera House Association hopes that approval will be granted so that the brackets may be mounted prior to the 15th of October while the building scaffolding is still in place. KRW/ec 9/21/88 Exhibit A I Canvas Products Company 588 25 Road, Grand Junction, CO 8150: 1" = 1' Banner holders Aspen Opera House 0 -13 0 9 Wall bracket constructed of ls" steel plate - . 0 Holder constructed of 14" O.D. galvanized tube Exhibit C WHEELER_OPERA HOUSE )881 - /787 Results from City Council Meeting September 26, 1988 Agenda item: Review of HPC decision on Berko project Summary prepared by Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office September 27, 1988 The mayor opened with the three items he wished to have council address. 1) the Berko decision appeal process and petition from the community requesting council do so 2) readdressing how the makeup of the HPC is decided 3) give direction to HP Planning Staff to re-examine preservation incentives. Leslie Holst presented the 600+ name petition to Council requesting they appeal the HPC's decision on the Berko project. The Mayor made the motion to refer the letter (petition) to the City Attorney and have the attorney report back to council as soon as possible (no later than October 10) his findings and schedule a hearing and/or appeal as is as deemed appropriate. Motion passed unanimously. The Mayor made a second motion to require that any member of the design community appointed to the HPC agree not to represent any application before the HPC during his or her term. Michael seconded; much discussion ensued regarding applying this standard across the board to all boards and commissions, not just "picking on" HPC. Direction was given to Ron Mitchell to coordinate any meetings or worksessions with the other boards and commissions regarding this issue and report back to Council no later than October 24. The motion passed with one opposed. (Note: Staff will meet in worksession with the HPC and report through memo to Ron so that he may prepare his memo to Council.) The Mayor then made a third motion to direct the historic preservation planner within 60 days bring back a "litany of incentives" Council can address tied in with HPC like water taps, parking, housing possibilities and a west end neighborhood overlay. The suggestion from the mayor was to "dovetail this with budget hearings with Cindy (Finance)". Staff mentioned that we need to accurately define what the real problem is, and that we don't think incentives address the real problem, and that maybe another approach is to examine SA (sending area) overlays to protect specific historic resources, incorporating Purchase Development Rights or Transfer Development Rights. All this will be incorporated in the report to Council. Other council members brought up that the City had just gone through all this and that revising the incentives may not be the way to go. HPC will work on this with the Planning Office to recommend possibilities. The motion passed with one opposed. L '~ GIBSON & AENO · AACHITECTS September 27, 1988 Mr. William Poss, Chairman Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 506 E. Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Bill, I volunteered to serve on the Historic Preservation Commission approximately a little more than a year ago. When I volunteered, I did so with the thought that my expertise as an Architect would benefit the community. In my opinion, serving on this Board would generate a continuity that the Commission over the past years had sorely lacked. The City Council selected each one of us and entrusted the HPC Members to make decisions regarding the adopted guidelines. I believe that we have made the correct decisions during the last year on the numerous projects we have reviewed. However, I am very troubled with the current direction the City Council seems to be going in with regard to our decisions, make-up of the Board and the requirement of possibly prohibiting a Member from presenting a project before this Board. I have presented numerous projects before the HPC in the nine (9) years I have practiced Architecture in Aspen. However, during the last year, I have not presented one (1) project before the HPC. As you can plainly see, I did not volunteer to serve on this Board in order to benefit my private practice. Currently, when a Member presents a project before the HPC, we all know that person has to step down and relinquish his right to vote. We have all followed this practice without question. Every Member of the HPC has the rights just as every citizen has the right, to present a project before the HPC as long as he/she does not take part in the decision making process. If this right is denied, then it is clearly a case of discrimination. The City Council believes this prohibition is in the interest of fairness. I ask, is it fair to an HPC Member who devotes a great deal of time to the Community to be penalized by his association with this Commission? With the City Council's directions to possibly prohibit Members from presenting projects before the HPC, the Council is implying some kind of wrong doing by the Members that vote when a fellow Member presents a project. It has always been my understanding that each one of us made our own decisions based upon the facts presented; clearly, the City Council doesn't believe this. 418 E. COOPER AVENUE • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 · 303/925 5968 L Mr. William Poss Page Two September 27, 1988 If, and I say if, a new rule is passed prohibiting Members, specifically Architects on the Boards from being hired by clients to go before the HPC, what assurances does this City have that another group of disgruntled citizens a few months from now, won't start demanding all Architects/Contractors/Realtors/etc. be removed because their connection with the building industry might not be reputable. Where will it end with these allegations and accusations? Once again, the City Council has decided to possibly change the rules midstream; only this time, they are questioning our integrity and our ability to make proper decisions. I have thought about this a great deal the last few days and this is why I regretfully submit my resignation from the HPC, effective immediately. Sincerely, ~ ~ ~ L tKA•-6 Aukrus t( G. Ren AIA L.-/ AGR: gc CC: B. Sterling M. Gassman R. Fallin B. Tuite T. Isaacs R. Mitchell , MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director Mayor Bill Stirling From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: 3 year CLG (Certified Local Government) Evaluation Report, prepared by Colorado Historical Society Date: September 26, 1988 As most of you may already know, Aspen is one of six Certified Local Government programs in the State of Colorado. Every state in the country maintains a CLG program, designed to provide funding for historic preservation related activities and technical and educational assistance to landmark commissions and review boards. Approximately one half of our funding for the preservation planner staff position comes from CLG funds, and as you know, we have been awarded the largest sum to date for FY '87-88: $16,000.00. With that, as you may also well imagine, comes reporting criteria and special project requirements. I have attached a copy of the Three-year CLG Evaluation Report I received today from State Preservation Planner Chris Pfaff for your review and comments, if you so desire. The report covers seven areas, each of which should be reviewed by you for familiarization of the required reporting involved with this Federal/State program. This report includes all HPC activities beginning January, 1986 through August, 1988. I have made notes on the report where I found inaccuracies or areas requiring clarification, and have requested an expanded and amended response to the opening paragraph, I-A, from Chris. The areas we appear to be insufficient in are very few, I am proud to say. Please keep in mind this report covers three years, and major steps have been taken this year alone to strengthen any weak areas. As you can see, the CLG program extensively involves the State Preservation Office in their relationship to the National Park Service and Federal reporting agencies. Maintaining the proper professional balance on the committee is crucial to the future of Aspen's program, and utilizing the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation appears to be the other. My goal is to develop and maintain Aspen as a nationally-recognized model CLG program. I feel we are most definitely on the right track. The CLG manual is in my office for reference should you have any questions. I am available to discuss this report at any time. hpc.memo.3yr.clg.report 1 . /&¥ fl SEP 2 6 i- .', COID]RADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY The Colorado History Museum 1300 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80203-2137 September 21, 1988 Roxanne Eflin City of Aspen Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Roxanne: In accordance with Certified Local Government (CLG) program regulations, the State Historic Preservation Office is required to conduct periodic reviews of the state's Certified Local Governments. The purpose of the review is to assess the CLG's compliance with provisions of the Certification Agreement, performance under the terms of the Certified Local Agreement, and the overall effectiveness of the CLG's local preservation program. Enclosed is an evaluation of Aspen's CLG program for the period 1985-1988. The responses are based upon information received in this office, as well as upon site visits. As you will see, all aspects of Aspen's participation in the CLG program are considered including administration of the matching grant- in-aid funds received through this office. It is hoped that the review will be used to strengthen the local program as well as help this office develop better training and technical assistance programs. Please note the responses where program deficiencies are pointed out. These are areas where the CLG should take action to make corrections within the next year. If efforts are not made to resolve deficiencies, this office has the option of recommending decertification to the Department of the Interior. Please let me know if you have any questions or differences of opinion on this office's findings. I would be happy to discuss the report with you. If you are in concurrence with the evaluation, please sign this letter below and return to me. Sincerely, 0\/ 021,trick uitk *02,1<662 as*« -4 4 2/ue 71)26- P F Christine Pfaff %29 :u«. 4-0, Preservation Planner Roxanne Eflin ~ CP:ng Enclosure EVALUATION OF CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Name of Certified Local Government: CITY OF ASPEN Date of On-site Visit to Conduct Evalutation: July 26, 1988 Name of CLG Representative in Attendance at Evaluation: ROXANNE EFLIN I. THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUST ENFORCE APPROPRIATE STATE OR LOCAL LEGISLATION FOR THE DESIGNATION AND PROTECTION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES. A. Are the design decisions of the Certified Local Government consistent with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation? NO, not always. The Aspen HPC is under a great deal of pressure to approve substantial additions to and demolition of historic structures. This is a result of the tremendous land values in Aspen. It is a difficult situation and has resulted in the loss of integrity of the commerical core as an historic district and threatens the historic residential .a=-2.E:J The HPC needs to define areas where preservation is -EIF~ (highest priority and develop preservation_ molicies for thosej areas. ~--While the commercial core has lost cohesiveness as a rfistoric district, much of the new infill architecture meets Standards for New Construction in that it is sensitive to the h,iptprif fabric angl- cpmpat~ble1-ypt pon~:emporary * desigr*kc_ -hj cl~" I - 1 /,6 , - , N-, · \ B. vv Does th¢ commksdYon enforce tihe --' locat< historic i iwLefi« preservation ordinance for the designation of local historic properties? 9·~Lt.AUR+- YES, designation of historic structures and districts has du.49 timuj been an ongoing function of the city since 1973. Designation VV is accomplished through ordinance and requires participation of the HPC, Planning Commission and City Council. Currently, three districts have been identified for potential designation. C. Have additional properties been designated as local landmarks or landmark districts? YES, in 1986 a number of designations were made under one ordinance. In 1987, an additional 8 structures were designated. To date in 1988, five structures have been designated. There are still a number of buildings rated excellent and exceptional that should be considered for designation. D. Does the commission enforce the protective features of the local historic preservation ordinance? YES,to some extent. See A above. E. Did the CLG issue Certificates of Appropriateness during the period of the review? YES, 92 requests for alterations were reviewed between January 1986 and August 1988; 5 requests for new construction were reviewed and approved; and 4 demolition requests were approved. F. Has the local preservation ordinance been amended since the last CLG review? YES, a revised preservation ordinance was adopted in May 1987. In October, 1987, an incentives ordinance for residential properties was passed. In May 1988, the ordinance was incorporated into the City's Land Use Code. The ordinance still meets CLG requirements although there needs to be clarification on whether owner consent is required for landmark designation. II.THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUST ESTABLISH AN ADEQUATE AND QUALIFIED HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ESTABLISHED BY LOCAL ORDINANCE A. Does the CLG maintain an adequate and qualified local historic preservation review commission in accordance with the Certification Agreement? YES, the commission consists of seven members and three alternates. There are currently two architects on the HPC and one architect as an alternate member. All members have an interest in historic preservat-ion. Currently, one vacanc_~ e'-An---eFErt should be made to retain another (professional in a preservation related field such as histor<~ lor-planning. .-/ - -- B. Does the CLG historic preservation commission maintain adequate minutes of all meetings? YES,very detailed minutes of the meetings are maintained. C. Are all meetings of the commission open to the public? YES, all meetings are open to the public. D. Are the minutes of all meetings being sent to the Colorado Historical Society? YES, although it has not always been done consistently. E. Does the commission meet at least four times a year? YES, the commission meets every 2nd and 4th Tuesday of the month. F. If new commission members have been appointed since . execution of the Certification Agreement, has the SHPO been provided copies of resumes for each new member? NO, this office hap not been apprised of openings and new appointments. AAI (1« Ull) Q~*.-4-,1=44, »if p,AaR-cit »4.cout -ft 214 'ted +ifinaTia-j< 0 G. Has an annual report of the activities of the commission been submitted in accordance withe the Certified Local Government Agreement? NO, even though there has been consistent contact between the Aspen CLG representative and the CHS, annual reports have not been submitted as required. A three year summary of activities was submitted in August 1988. L~32-FleA.!L l,327-)Aai@/loifccz~ 7 7(9 - LA Lci' 44 3 91 · H.Has the SHPO made training and tethnica assistance Asocd' available to the commission? i YES, staff from the CHS have made several presentations to the Aspen HPC (April 22, 1986 ; September 1986; July 26,1988). In addtion, Aspen HPC members have been invited annually to attend the CPI/SHPO design review workshops. The SHPO has sent pertinent information to Aspen both on a request and non-request basis. J. Has at least one member of the local commission attended an educational meeting or workshop in the past year? YES, several HPC members attended the local "Preservation Forum" during 1988 Preservation Week. In addition, HPC members were present at the training provided by the SHPO. Further participation by HPC members at workshops/training sessions is encouraged. The same holds true for staff. III.THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUST MAINTAIN A SYSTEM FOR THE SURVEY AND INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES A. Does the CLG maintain a survey and inventory process consistent with the SHPO's comprehensive historic preservation planning process? NO new survey work has been conducted since the comprehensive survey of 1980. The survey was updated in 1986 by assigning ratings to all of the "notable" properties. The City needs to identify and evaluate the buildings associatd with the development of the ski industry. Such a survey is proposed for the coming year. B. Does the CLG utilize the SHPO's survey and inventory form or one approved by the SHPO? The 1980 inventory is on CHS forms. Information is being added to the existing forms by the preservation planner. At some point, it may be appropriate to reassess the survey data to see whether building condition, statements of significance and historical information needs to be updated. .. C. Has the CLG provided copies of all completed inventory forms to the Colorado Historical Society? Two sites are in the process of being added to the inventory. Forms should be submitted to the CHS. D. Are the CLG's survey and inventory records organized and accessible to the public? YES, they are in the Planning Office and are available to the public. E. Does the CLG maintain a comprehensive historic preservation planning document for the community? YES, in October 1986, the City published a preservation component of the comprehensive plan that outlined recommendations for the city's preservation program. IV. THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHALL PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE LOCAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAMS INCLUDING THE PROCESS OF RECOMMENDING PROPERTIES FOR NOMINATION TO THE NATIONAL REGISTER. A. Does the commission keep minutes of all decisions and actions, including the reasons for making those decisions, on file? YES, very thorough minutes of the meetings are kept. B. Has the CLG reviewed any National Register nominations since the last evaluation? YES, a multiple resource nomination form was prepared in 1986 using CLG funds. In addition, an individual nomination for the Hotel Jerome was reviewed by the CLG. C. If the answer to the above question is yes, did the CLG carry out the review of the National REgister nominations in accordance with the Certified Local Government Program procedures? YES, endorsements for the Hotel Jerome and the 16 properties nominated as a multiple resource form were received from the Aspen HPC. D. Was the required expertise utilized in reviewing National Register nomination forms? YES. E. Were there any occassions where the CLG and the Colorado Historical Society did not agree on the nomination of a property to the National Register? NO. . F. Does the CLG provide any educational programs to ensure public awareness of their historic preservation functions? Preservation Forum was held during 1988 Preservation Week. Staff writes articles and converses with local press weekly on preservation issues. G. Has the CLG assisted the SHPO in verifying the names and addresses of property owners within districts being nominated to the National Register? YES. H. Can the CLG demonstrate encouragement of public participation in the local preservation program? Through local press coverage and public hearings, the HPC in Aspen is quite visible and encourages public participation. VI>.FISCAL MANAGEMENT CLG GRANTS 1985 & 1987 A. Does the CLG consistently complete all project work in accordance with performance schedules in contracts? NO, there have been delays in receiving required products, however, in most cases delays have been agreed to in advance by the SHPO. B. Does the CLG consistently complete all project work funded with HPF funds in accordance with the appropriate standards? YES, the nomination form completed with 1985 funds met National Register standards. Products received to date under the 1987 grant are approved. C. Is the financial reporting of the CLG adequate? YES, to date there have been no problems. VII> CLG ORGANIZATION A. Does the CLG employ a preservation professional staff person ? If yes, is he(she) fulltime or parttime? YES, a staff planner has been assigned to administer the city preservation program. In FFy 89, the position will be expanded from parttime to fulltime. B. Has the CLG assumed any other delegated responsibilites? -.. NO. C. If the above answer is yes, has the CLG administered the additional delegated responsibilities adequately? MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director Mayor Bill Stirling From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: 3 year CLG (Certified Local Government) Evaluation Report, prepared by Colorado Historical Society Date: September 26, 1988 As most of you may already know, Aspen is one of six Certified Local Government programs in the State of Colorado. Every state in the country maintains a CLG program, designed to provide funding for historic preservation related activities and technical and educational assistance to landmark commissions and review boards. Approximately one half of our funding for the preservation planner staff position comes from CLG funds, and as you know, we have been awarded the largest sum to date for FY '87-88: $16,000.00. With that, as you may also well imagine, comes reporting criteria and special project requirements. I have attached a copy of the Three-year CLG Evaluation Report I received today from State Preservation Planner Chris Pfaff for your review and comments, if you so desire. The report covers seven areas, each of which should be reviewed by you for familiarization of the required reporting involved with this Federal/State program. This report includes all HPC activities beginning January, 1986 through August, 1988. I have made notes on the report where I found inaccuracies or areas requiring clarification, and have requested an expanded and amended response to the opening paragraph, I-A, from Chris. The areas we appear to be insufficient in are very few, I am proud to say. Please keep in mind this report covers three years, and major steps have been taken this year alone to strengthen any weak areas. As you can see, the CLG program extensively involves the State Preservation Office in their relationship to the National Park Service and Federal reporting agencies. Maintaining the proper professional balance on the committee is crucial to the future of Aspen's program, and utilizing the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation appears to be the other. My goal is to develop and maintain Aspen as a nationally-recognized model CLG program. I feel we are most definitely on the right track. The CLG manual is in my office for reference should you have any questions. I am available to discuss this report at any time. hpc.memo.3yr.clg.report ke·¥ f 7 V .r - n, a r-, I 022 2 6 jo 11: COIDRADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY The Colorado History Museum 1300 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80203-2137 September 21, 1988 Roxanne Eflin City of Aspen Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Roxanne: In accordance with Certified Local Government (CLG) program regulations, the State Historic Preservation Office is required to conduct periodic reviews of the state's Certified Local Governments. The purpose of the review is to assess the CLG's compliance with provisions of the Certification Agreement, performance under the terms of the Certified Local Agreement, and the overall effectiveness of the CLG's local preservation program. Enclosed is an evaluation of Aspen's CLG program for the period 1985-1988. The responses are based upon information received in this office, as well as upon site visits. As you will see, all aspects of Aspen's participation in the CLG program are considered including administration of the matching grant- in-aid funds received through this office. It is hoped that the review will be used to strengthen the local program as well as help this office develop better training and technical assistance programs. Please note the responses where program deficiencies are pointed out. These are areas where the CLG should take action to make corrections within the next year. If efforts are not made to resolve deficiencies, this office has the option of recommending decertification to the Department of the Interior. Please let me know if you have any questions or differences of opinion on this office's findings. I would be happy to discuss the report with you. If you are in concurrence with the evaluation, please sign this letter below and return to me. Sincerely, 01-/ /7 21,4, 04 u.ti x (blort &14~-4~-·L (»Ud 39»1 4/MA 94 4 +1 964-3 ~~~. Christine Pfaff to>(9.ful. 41;~1. Preservation Planner Roxatne Eflin ~ CP:ng Enclosure EVALUATION OF CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Name of Certified Local Government: CITY OF ASPEN Date of On-site Visit to Conduct Evalutation: July 26, 1988 Name of CLG Representative in Attendance at Evaluation: ROXANNE EFLIN I. THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUST ENFORCE APPROPRIATE STATE OR LOCAL LEGISLATION FOR THE DESIGNATION AND PROTECTION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES. A. Are the design decisions of the Certified Local Government consistent with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation? NO, not always. The Aspen HPC is under a great deal of pressure to approve substantial additions to and demolition of historic structures. This is a result of the tremendous land values in Aspen. It is a difficult situation and has resulted in the loss of integrity of the commerical core as an historic district and threatens the histgric residential aneas.J The HPC needs to define areas where preservation is UIE~ highest priority and develop preserva_tion policies for -thosej areas. 1-While the commercial cord has lost cohesiveness as a hrstoric district, much of the new infill architecture meets Standards for New Construction in that it is sensitive to the f?CU~f iki~tul-%%-NCIyi;11:%~gt ~intemp;&2*,1,%2gn.44-L- 4 (1 //f' r B. 0( Does th¢ commission enforce the locat- historic J ;4.ucidl~ preservation ordinance for the designation of local historic properties? 1 Actt- ~'At~I-'E- YES, designation of historic structures and districts has 47·0-ka.0 been an ongoing function of the city since 1973. Designation is accomplished through ordinance and requires participation of the HPC, Planning Commission and City Council. Currently, three districts have been identified for potential designation. C. Have additional properties been designated as local landmarks or landmark districts? YES, in 1986 a number of designations were made under one ordinance. In 1987, an additional 8 structures were designated. To date in 1988, five structures have been designated. There are still a number of buildings rated excellent and exceptional that should be considered for designation. D. Does the commission enforce the protective features of the local historic preservation ordinance? f , YES,to some extent. See A above. E. Did the CLG issue Certificates of Appropriateness during the period of the review? YES, 92 requests for alterations were reviewed between January 1986 and August 1988; 5 requests for new construction were reviewed and approved; and 4 demolition requests were approved. F. Has the local preservation ordinance been amended since the last CLG review? YES, a revised preservation ordinance was adopted in May 1987. In October, 1987, an incentives ordinance for residential properties was passed. In May 1988, the ordinance was incorporated into the City's Land Use Code. The ordinance still meets CLG requirements although there needs to be clarification on whether owner consent is required for landmark designation. II.THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUST ESTABLISH AN ADEQUATE AND QUALIFIED HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ESTABLISHED BY LOCAL ORDINANCE A. Does the CLG maintain an adequate and qualified local historic preservation review commission in accordance with the Certification Agreement? YES, the commission consists of seven members and three alternates. There are currently two architects on the HPC and one architect as an alternate member. All members have an interest in-_historic preservatiion. Currently, one vacancy elists.--5 An effort should be made to retain anothetj /brofessional in a preservation related field such as history } lgLE~nning. .-/ --- --Ill B. Does the CLG historic preservation commission maintain adequate minutes of all meetings? YES,very detailed minutes of the meetings are maintained. C. Are all meetings of the commission open to the public? YES, all meetings are open to the public. D. Are the minutes of all meetings being sent to the Colorado Historical Society? YES, although it has not always been done consistently. E. Does the commission meet at least four times a year? YES, the commission meets every 2nd and 4th Tuesday of the month. F. If new commission members have been appointed since execution of the Certification Agreement, has the SHPO been provided copies of resumes for each new member? NO, this office hap not been apprised of openings and new appointments. Off u.aft·4-4-,t=44 fug:4·t A'la44 /LULL/Act- -ft »f 'foL- 41.OndclaA . ' G. Has an annual report of the activities of the commission been submitted in accordance withe the Certified Local Government Agreement? NO, even though there has been consistent contact between the Aspen CLG representative and the CHS, annual reports have not been submitted as required. A three year summary of activities was submitted in August 1988. l? 36> blefLQ. <9 97 -- i Acti *lot-4 1 9 14 - yl¢AQ . uci' tk 3 91. H.Has the SHPO made training and tecnnical assistance A3~ocd-' available to the commission? YES, staff from the CHS have made several presentations to the Aspen HPC (April 22, 1986 ; September 1986; July 26,1988). In addtion, Aspen HPC members have been invited annually to attend the CPI/SHPO design review workshops. The SHPO has sent pertinent information to Aspen both on a request and non-request basis. J. Has at least one member of the local commission attended an educational meeting or workshop in the past year? YES, several HPC members attended the local "Preservation Forum" during 1988 Preservation Week. In addition, HPC members were present at the training provided by the SHPO. Further participation by HPC members at workshops/training sessions is encouraged. The same holds true for staff. III.THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUST MAINTAIN A SYSTEM FOR THE SURVEY AND INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES A. Does the CLG maintain a survey and inventory process consistent with the SHPO's comprehensive historic preservation planning process? NO new survey work has been conducted since the comprehensive survey of 1980. The survey was updated in 1986 by assigning ratings to all of the "notable" properties. The City needs to identify and evaluate the buildings associatd with the development of the ski industry. Such a survey is proposed for the coming year. B. Does the CLG utilize the SHPO's survey and inventory form or one approved by the SHPO? The 1980 inventory is on CHS forms. Information is being added to the existing forms by the preservation planner. At some point, it may be appropriate to reassess the survey data to see whether building condition, statements of significance and historical information needs to be updated. C. Has the CLG provided copies of all completed inventory forms to the Colorado Historical Society? Two sites are in the process of being added to the inventory. Forms should be submitted to the CHS. D. Are the CLG's survey and inventory records organized and accessible to the public? YES, they are in the Planning Office and are available to the public. E. Does the CLG maintain a comprehensive historic preservation planning document for the community? YES, in October 1986, the City published a preservation component of the comprehensive plan that outlined recommendations for the city's preservation program. IV. THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHALL PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE LOCAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAMS INCLUDING THE PROCESS OF RECOMMENDING PROPERTIES FOR NOMINATION TO THE NATIONAL REGISTER. A. Does the commission keep minutes of all decisions and actions, including the reasons for making those decisions, on file? YES, very thorough minutes of the meetings are kept. B. Has the CLG reviewed any National Register nominations since the last evaluation? YES, a multiple resource nomination form was prepared in 1986 using CLG funds. In addition, an individual nomination for the Hotel Jerome was reviewed by the CLG. C. If the answer to the above question is yes, did the CLG carry out the review of the National REgister nominations in accordance with the Certified Local Government Program procedures? YES, endorsements for the Hotel Jerome and the 16 properties nominated as a multiple resource form were received from the Aspen HPC. D. Was the required expertise utilized in reviewing National Register nomination forms? YES. E. Were there any occassions where the CLG and the Colorado Historical Society did not agree on the nomination of a property to the National Register? NO. , F. Does the CLG provide any educational programs to ensure public awareness of their historic preservation functions? Preservation Forum was held during 1988 Preservation Week. Staff writes articles and converses with local press weekly on preservation issues. G. Has the CLG assisted the SHPO in verifying the names and addresses of property owners within districts being nominated to the National Register? YES. H. Can the CLG demonstrate encouragement of public participation in the local preservation program? Through local press coverage and public hearings, the HPC in Aspen is quite visible and encourages public participation. VI>.FISCAL MANAGEMENT CLG GRANTS 1985 & 1987 A. Does the CLG consistently complete all project work in accordance with performance schedules in contracts? NO, there have been delays in receiving required products, however, in most cases delays have been agreed to in advance by the SHPO. B. Does the CLG consistently complete all project work funded with HPF funds in accordance with the appropriate standards? YES, the nomination form completed with 1985 funds met National Register standards. Products received to date under the 1987 grant are approved. C. Is the financial reporting of the CLG adequate? YES, to date there have been no problems. VII> CLG ORGANIZATION A. Does the CLG employ a preservation professional staff person ? If yes, is he(she) fulltime or parttime? YES, a staff planner has been assigned to administer the city preservation program. In FFy 89, the position will be expanded from parttime to fulltime. B. Has the CLG assumed any other delegated responsibilites? NO. C. If the above answer is yes, has the CLG administered the additional delegated responsibilities adequately? MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director Mayor Bill Stirling From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: 3 year CLG (Certified Local Government) Evaluation Report, prepared by Colorado Historical Society Date: September 26, 1988 As most of you may already know, Aspen is one of six Certified Local Government programs in the State of Colorado. Every state in the country maintains a CLG program, designed to provide funding for historic preservation related activities and technical and educational assistance to landmark commissions and review boards. Approximately one half of our funding for the preservation planner staff position comes from CLG funds, and as you know, we have been awarded the largest sum to date for FY '87-88: $16,000.00. With that, as you may also well imagine, comes reporting criteria and special project requirements. I have attached a copy of the Three-year CLG Evaluation Report I received today from State Preservation Planner Chris Pfaff for your review and comments, if you so desire. The report covers seven areas, each of which should be reviewed by you for familiarization of the required reporting involved with this Federal/State program. This report includes all HPC activities beginning January, 1986 through August, 1988. I have made notes on the report where I found inaccuracies or areas requiring clarification, and have requested an expanded and amended response to the opening paragraph, I-A, from Chris. The areas we appear to be insufficient in are very few, I am proud to say. Please keep in mind this report covers three years, and major steps have been taken this year alone to strengthen any weak areas. As you can see, the CLG program extensively involves the State Preservation Office in their relationship to the National Park Service and Federal reporting agencies. Maintaining the proper professional balance on the committee is crucial to the future of Aspen's program, and utilizing the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation appears to be the other. My goal is to develop and maintain Aspen as a nationally-recognized model CLG program. I feel we are most definitely on the right track. The CLG manual is in my office for reference should you have any questions. I am available to discuss this report at any time. hpc.memo.3yr.clg.report Phn )1 SEP 2 6 ,¥14 COIDRADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY The Colorado History Museum 1300 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80203-2137 September 21, 1988 Roxanne Eflin City of Aspen Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Roxanne: In accordance with Certified Local Government (CLG) program regulations, the State Historic Preservation Office is required to conduct periodic reviews of the state's Certified Local Governments. The purpose of the review is to Assess the CLG's compliance with provisions of the Certification Agreement, performance under the terms of the Certified Local Agreement, and the overall effectiveness of the CLG's local preservation program. Enclosed is an evaluation of Aspen's CLG program for the period 1985-1988. The responses are based upon information received in this office, as well as upon site visits. As you will see, all aspects of Aspen's participation in the CLG program are considered including administration of the matching grant- in-aid funds received through this office. It is hoped that the review will be used to strengthen the local program as well as help this office develop better training and technical assistance programs. Please note the responses where program deficiencies are pointed out. These are areas where the CLG should take action to make corrections within the next year. If efforts are not made to resolve deficiencies, this office has the option of recommending decertification to the Department of the Interior. Please let me know if you have any questions or differences of opinion on this office's findings. I would be happy to discuss the report with you. If you are in concurrence with the evaluation, please sign this letter below and return to me. Sincerely, .-. 1-4 4#x n ·, 4 & 1641_, r-1 1 ~U~-~j~-/St h,26-P F 4~_j Christine Pfaff 0 00 Preservation Planner ~694-RAk , 46&2(1. Roxanne Eflin ~ CP:ng Enclosure EVALUATION OF CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Name of Certified Local Government: CITY OF ASPEN Date of On-site Visit to Conduct Evalutation: July 26, 1988 Name of CLG Representative in Attendance at Evaluation: ROXANNE EFLIN I. THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUST ENFORCE APPROPRIATE STATE OR LOCAL LEGISLATION FOR THE DESIGNATION AND PROTECTION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES. A. Are the design decisions of the Certified Local Government consistent with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation? NO, not always. The Aspen HPC is under a great deal of pressure to approve substantial additions to and demolition of historic structures. This is a result of the tremendous land values in Aspen. It is a difficult situation and has resulted in the loss of integrity of the commerical core as an historic district and threateos the histgric residential areas.JThe HPC needs to define areas where preservation is -37~ highest priority end develop preservation policies for .thosej areas. FWhile the commercial core has lost cohesiveness as a historic district, much of the new infill architecture meets Standards for New Construction in that it is sensitive to the h*stprig fabric an@ cpmpatible yert contemporary in design n *44-0 Na /12-f u-24€-t «24»4 - (u« e«u£24 /le~ -«L_ 7% A . B.' U 6 Does th¢ commisdion enforce the locab- historic j juitic£44 preservation ordinance for the designation of local historic properties? ue,icce.4*49r- YES, designation of historic structures and districts has 414 Fd]\.4 been an ongoing function of the city since 1973. Designation is accomplished through ordinance and requires participation of the HPC, Planning Commission and City Council. Currently, three districts have been identified for potential designation. C. Have additional properties been designated as local landmarks or landmark districts? YES, in 1986 a number of designations were made under one ordinance. In 1987, an additional 8 structures were designated. To date in 1988, five structures have been designated. There are still a number of buildings rated excellent and exceptional that should be considered for designation. D. Does the commission enforce the protective features of the local historic preservation ordinance? YES,to some extent. See A above. E. Did the CLG issue Certificates of Appropriateness during the period of the review? YES, 92 requests for alterations were reviewed between January 1986 and August 1988; 5 requests for new construction were reviewed and approved; and 4 demolition requests were approved. F. Has the local preservation ordinance been amended since the last CLG review? YES, a revised preservation ordinance was adopted in May 1987. In October, 1987, an incentives ordinance for residential properties was passed. In May 1988, the ordinance was incorporated into the City's Land Use Code. The ordinance still meets CLG requirements although there needs to be clarification on whether owner consent is required for landmark designation. II.THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUST ESTABLISH AN ADEQUATE AND QUALIFIED HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ESTABLISHED BY LOCAL ORDINANCE A. Does the CLG maintain an adequate and qualified local historic preservation review commission in accordance with the Certification Agreement? YES, the commission consists of seven members and three alternates. There are currently two architects on the HPC and one architect as an alternate member. All members have an interest in--historic preservation. Currently, one vacancy exis-ts. _ -3 An effort should be made to retain another>\ /brofessional in a preservation related field such as history ~ lorplanning. - -/.- B. Does the CLG historic preservation commission maintain adequate minutes of all meetings? YES,very detailed minutes of the meetings are maintained. C. Are all meetings of the commission open to the public? YES, all meetings are open to the public. D. Are the minutes of all meetings being sent to the Colorado Historical Society? YES, although it has not always been done consistently. E. Does the commission meet at least four times a year? YES, the commission meets every 2nd and 4th Tuesday of the month. F. If new commission members have been appointed since execution of the Certification Agreement, has the SHPO been provided copies of resumes for each new member? NO, this office hap not been apprised of openings and new appointments. -10 g* AL /41£0- Alr»J< . G. Has an annual report- of the activities of the commission been submitted in accordance withe the Certified Local Government Agreement? NO, even though there has been consistent contact between the Aspen CLG representative and the CHS, annual reports have not been submitted as required. A three year summary of activities was submitted in August 1988. l?35-rple/UL. IRS~7--'acc,gAaI~c~ i Q M (6 - Ji¢AQ ualk Z hi. H.Has the SHPO made training and tebARicai assistance A.Sped' available to the commission? YES, staff from the CHS have made several presentations to the Aspen HPC (April 22, 1986 ; September 1986; July 26,1988). In addtion, Aspen HPC members have been invited annually to attend the CPI/SHPO design review workshops. The SHPO has sent pertinent information to Aspen both on a request and non-request basis. J. Has at least one member of the local commission attended an educational meeting or workshop in the past year? YES, several HPC members attended the local "Preservation Forum" during 1988 Preservation Week. In addition, HPC members were present at the training provided by the SHPO. Further participation by HPC members at workshops/training sessions is encouraged. The same holds true for staff. III.THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUST MAINTAIN A SYSTEM FOR THE SURVEY AND INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES A. Does the CLG maintain a survey and inventory process consistent with the SHPO's comprehensive historic preservation planning process? NO new survey work has been conducted since the comprehensive survey of 1980. The survey was updated in 1986 by assigning ratings to all of the "notable" properties. The City needs to identify and evaluate the buildings associatd with the development of the ski industry. Such a survey is proposed for the coming year. B. Does the CLG utilize the SHPO's survey and inventory form or one approved by the SHPO? The 1980 inventory is on CHS forms. Information is being added to the existing forms by the preservation planner. At some point, it may be appropriate to reassess the survey data to see whether building condition, statements of significance and historical information needs to be updated. C. Has the CLG provided copies of all completed inventory forms to the Colorado Historical Society? Two sites are in the process of being added to the inventory. Forms should be submitted to the CHS. D. Are the CLG's survey and inventory records organized and accessible to the public? YES, they are in the Planning Office and are available to the public. E. Does the CLG maintain a comprehensive historic preservation planning document for the community? YES, in October 1986, the City published a preservation component of the comprehensive plan that outlined recommendations for the city's preservation program. IV. THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHALL PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE LOCAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAMS INCLUDING THE PROCESS OF RECOMMENDING PROPERTIES FOR NOMINATION TO THE NATIONAL REGISTER. A. Does the commission keep minutes of all decisions and actions, including the reasons for making those decisions, on file? YES, very thorough minutes of the meetings are kept. B. Has the CLG reviewed any National Register nominations since the last evaluation? YES, a multiple resource nomination form was prepared in 1986 using CLG funds. In addition, an individual nomination for the Hotel Jerome was reviewed by the CLG. C. If the answer to the above question is yes, did the CLG carry out the review of the National REgister nominations in accordance with the Certified Local Government Program procedures? YES, endorsements for the Hotel Jerome and the 16 properties nominated as a multiple resource form were received from the Aspen HPC. D. Was the required expertise utilized in reviewing National Register nomination forms? YES. E. Were there any occassions where the CLG and the Colorado Historical Society did not agree on the nomination of a property to the National Register? NO. . F. Does the CLG provide any educational programs to ensure public awareness of their historic preservation functions? Preservation Forum was held during 1988 Preservation Week. Staff writes articles and converses with local press weekly on preservation issues. G. Has the CLG assisted the SHPO in verifying the names and addresses of property owners within districts being nominated to the National Register? YES. H. Can the CLG demonstrate encouragement of public participation in the local preservation program? Through local press coverage and public hearings, the HPC in Aspen is quite visible and encourages public participation. VI>.FISCAL MANAGEMENT CLG GRANTS 1985 & 1987 A. Does the CLG consistently complete all project work in accordance with performance schedules in contracts? NO, there have been delays in receiving required products, however, in most cases delays have been agreed to in advance by the SHPO. B. Does the CLG consistently complete all project work funded with HPF funds in accordance with the appropriate standards? YES, the nomination form completed with 1985 funds met National Register standards. Products received to date under the 1987 grant are approved. C. Is the financial reporting of the CLG adequate? YES, to date there have been no problems. VII> CLG ORGANIZATION A. Does the CLG employ a preservation professional staff person ? If yes, is he(she) fulltime or parttime? YES, a staff planner has been assigned to administer the city preservation program. In FFy 89, the position will be expanded from parttime to fulltime. B. Has the CLG assumed any other delegated responsibilites? NO. C. If the above answer is yes, has the CLG administered the additional delegated responsibilities adequately? ' - b MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director Mayor Bill Stirling From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: 3 year CLG (Certified Local Government) Evaluation Report, prepared by Colorado Historical Society Date: September 26, 1988 As most of you may already know, Aspen is one of six Certified Local Government programs in the State of Colorado. Every state in the country maintains a CLG program, designed to provide funding for historic preservation related activities and technical and educational assistance to landmark commissions and review boards. Approximately one half of our funding for the preservation planner staff position comes from CLG funds, and as you know, we have been awarded the largest sum to date for FY '87-88: $16,000.00. With that, as you may also well imagine, comes reporting criteria and special project requirements. I have attached a copy of the Three-year CLG Evaluation Report I received today from State Preservation Planner Chris Pfaff for your review and comments, if you so desire. The report covers seven areas, each of which should be reviewed by you for familiarization of the required reporting involved with this Federal/State program. This report includes all HPC activities beginning January, 1986 through August, 1988. I have made notes on the report where I found inaccuracies or areas requiring clarification, and have requested an expanded and amended response to the opening paragraph, I-A, from Chris. The areas we appear to be insufficient in are very few, I am proud to say. Please keep in mind this report covers three years, and major steps have been taken this year alone to strengthen any weak areas. As you can see, the CLG program extensively involves the State Preservation Office in their relationship to the National Park Service and Federal reporting agencies. Maintaining the proper professional balance on the committee is crucial to the future of Aspen's program, and utilizing the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation appears to be the other. My goal is to develop and maintain Aspen as a nationally-recognized model CLG program. I feel we are most definitely on the right track. The CLG manual is in my office for reference should you have any questions. I am available to discuss this report at any time. hpc.memo.3yr.clg.report - ik - ru' SEP 2 6 2 6 COIDRADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY The Colorado History Museum 1300 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80203-2137 September 21, 1988 Roxanne Eflin City of Aspen Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Roxanne: In accordance with Certified Local Government (CLG) program regulations, the State Historic Preservation Office is required to conduct periodic reviews of the state's Certified Local Governments. The purpose of the review is to Assess the CLG's compliance with provisions of the Certification Agreement, performance under the terms of the Certified Local Agreement, and the overall effectiveness of the CLG's local preservation program. Enclosed is an evaluation of Aspen's CLG program for the period 1985-1988. The responses are based upon information received in this office, as well as upon site visits. As you will see, all aspects of Aspen's participation in the CLG program are considered including administration of the matching grant- in-aid funds received through this office. It is hoped that the review will be used to strengthen the local program as well as help this office develop better training and technical assistance programs. Please note the responses where program deficiencies are pointed out. These are areas where the CLG should take action to make corrections within the next year. If efforts are not made to resolve deficiencies, this office has the option of recommending decertification to the Department of the Interior. Please let me know if you have any questions or differences of opinion on this office's findings. I would be happy to discuss the report with you. If you are in concurrence with the evaluation, please sign this letter below and return to me. Sincerely, ;COX-Lit'kJL Christine Pfaff , U.\U\1. 20. Preservation Planner Roxahne Eflin ~ CP:ng Enclosure EVALUATION OF CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Name of Certified Local Government: CITY OF ASPEN Date of On-site Visit to Conduct Evalutation: July 26, 1988 Name of CLG Representative in Attendance at Evaluation: ROXANNE EFLIN I. THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUST ENFORCE APPROPRIATE STATE OR LOCAL LEGISLATION FOR THE DESIGNATION AND PROTECTION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES. A. Are the design decisions of the Certified Local Government consistent with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation? NO, not always. The Aspen HPC is under a great deal of pressure to approve substantial additions to and demolition of historic structures. This is a result of the tremendous land values in Aspen. It is a difficult situation and has resulted in the loss of integrity of the commerical core as an historic district and threatens the histgric residential ,3Jm-ALJThe HPC needs to define areas where preservation is EFL /highest priority end develop preservation palicies for thosej~ lareas. [-'While the commercial core has lost cohesiveness as a h-Istoric district, much of the new infill architecture meets Standards for New Construction in that it is sensitive to the historic fabric an# compatible~ yet contemporary in design. . Ah, 1\CLA AC-/ 0-alict 4/90906(t (40« Q.,bA@'1(Uci /144»»C_ m / c B. & Does th¢ commisdion enforce the loca-N historic ; ke.~Lid·UL preservation ordinance for the designation of local historic properties? , UU€.AA.4~t YES, designation of historic structures and districts has Littiez·04-knio been an ongoing function of the city since 1973. Designation is accomplished through ordinance and requires participation of the HPC, Planning Commission and City Council. Currently, three districts have been identified for potential designation. C. Have additional properties been designated as local landmarks or landmark districts? YES, in 1986 a number of designations were made under one ordinance. In 1987, an additional 8 structures were designated. TO date in 1988, five structures have been designated. There are still a number of buildings rated excellent and exceptional that should be considered for designation. D. Does the commission enforce the protective features of the local historic preservation ordinance? YES,to some extent. See A above. E. Did the CLG issue Certificates of Appropriateness during the period of the review? YES, 92 requests for alterations were reviewed between January 1986 and August 1988; 5 requests for new construction were reviewed and approved; and 4 demolition requests were approved. F. Has the local preservation ordinance been amended since the last CLG review? YES, a revised preservation ordinance was adopted in May 1987. In October, 1987, an incentives ordinance for residential properties was passed. In May 1988, the ordinance was incorporated into the city's Land Use Code. The ordinance still meets CLG requirements although there needs to be clarification on whether owner consent is required for landmark designation. II.THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUST ESTABLISH AN ADEQUATE AND QUALIFIED HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ESTABLISHED BY LOCAL ORDINANCE A. Does the CLG maintain an adequate and qualified local historic preservation review commission in accordance with the Certification Agreement? YES, the commission consists of seven members and three alternates. There are currently two architects on the HPC and one architect as an alternate member. All members have an interest in historic preservation. Currently, one vacancy~ e'-An--eyfort should be made to retain another1 (professional in a preservation related field such as history ~ lorplanning. --I--I- -%/ B. Does the CLG historic preservation commission maintain adequate minutes of all meetings? YES,very detailed minutes of the meetings are maintained. C. Are all meetings of the commission open to the public? YES, all meetings are open to the public. D. Are the minutes of all meetings being sent to the Colorado Historical Society? YES, although it has not always been done consistently. E. Does the commission meet at least four times a year? YES, the commission meets every 2nd and 4th Tuesday of the month. F. If new commission members have been appointed since execution of the Certification Agreement, has the SHPO been provided copies of resumes for each new member? NO, this office hag not been apprised of openings and new appointments. 04 ,-ell) 0/p>4-4-_,*c.~4.m.£4-f fluocke AULL/7\24-_ -4 >44 1 foL_ 428 n»-24 2 G. Has an annual report of the activities of the commission been submitted in accordance withe the Certified Local Government Agreement? NO, even though there has been consistent contact between the Aspen CLG representative and the CHS, annual reports have not been submitted as required. A three year summary of activities was submitted in August 1988. l? 35'- ple/UL (9 97-1 Act,gla#ret 9 ~ - .MU weak 3 97 . H.Has the SHPO made training and te~nnical assistance available to the commission? YES, staff from the CHS have made several presentations to the Aspen HPC (April 22, 1986 ; September 1986; July 26,1988). In addtion, Aspen HPC members have been invited annually to attend the CPI/SHPO design review workshops. The SHPO has sent pertinent information to Aspen both on a request and non-request basis. J. Has at least one member of the local commission attended an educational meeting or workshop in the past year? YES, several HPC members attended the local "Preservation Forum" during 1988 Preservation Week. In addition, HPC members were present at the training provided by the SHPO. Further participation by HPC members at workshops/training sessions is encouraged. The same holds true for staff. III.THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUST MAINTAIN A SYSTEM FOR THE SURVEY AND INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES A. Does the CLG maintain a survey and inventory process consistent with the SHPO's comprehensive historic preservation planning process? NO new survey work has been conducted since the comprehensive survey of 1980. The survey was updated in 1986 by assigning ratings to all o f the "notable" properties. The City needs to identify and evaluate the buildings associatd with the development of the ski industry. Such a survey is proposed for the coming year. B. Does the CLG utilize the SHPO's survey and inventory form or one approved by the SHPO? The 1980 inventory is on CHS forms. Information is being added to the existing forms by the preservation planner. At some point, it may be appropriate to reassess the survey data to see whether building condition, statements of significance and historical information needs to be updated. C. Has the CLG provided copies of all completed inventory forms to the Colorado Historical Society? Two sites are in the process of being added to the inventory. Forms should be submitted to the CHS. D. Are the CLG's survey and inventory records organized and accessible to the public? YES, they are in the Planning Office and are available to the public. E. Does the CLG maintain a comprehensive historic preservation planning document for the community? YES, in October 1986, the City published a preservation component of the comprehensive plan that outlined recommendations for the city's preservation program. IV. THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHALL PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE LOCAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAMS INCLUDING THE PROCESS OF RECOMMENDING PROPERTIES FOR NOMINATION TO THE NATIONAL REGISTER. A. Does the commission keep minutes of all decisions and actions, including the reasons for making those decisions, on file? YES, very thorough minutes of the meetings are kept. B. Has the CLG reviewed any National Register nominations since the last evaluation? YES, a multiple resource nomination form was prepared in 1986 using CLG funds. In addition, an individual nomination for the Hotel Jerome was reviewed by the CLG. C. If the answer to the above question is yes, did the CLG carry out the review of the National REgister nominations in accordance with the Certified Local Government Program procedures? YES, endorsements for the Hotel Jerome and the 16 properties nominated as a multiple resource form were received from the Aspen HPC. D. Was the required expertise utilized in reviewing National Register nomination forms? YES. E. Were there any occassions where the CLG and the Colorado Historical Society did not agree on the nomination of a property to the National Register? NO. F. Does the CLG provide any educational programs to ensure public awareness of their historic preservation functions? Preservation Forum was held during 1988 Preservation Week. Staff writes articles and converses with local press weekly on preservation issues. G. Has the CLG assisted the SHPO in verifying the names and addresses of property owners within districts being nominated to the National Register? YES. H. Can the CLG demonstrate encouragement of public participation in the local preservation program? Through local press coverage and public hearings, the HPC in Aspen is quite visible and encourages public participation. VI>.FISCAL MANAGEMENT CLG GRANTS 1985 & 1987 A. Does the CLG consistently complete all project work in accordance with performance schedules in contracts? NO, there have been delays in receiving required products, however, in most cases delays have been agreed to in advance by the SHPO. B. Does the CLG consistently complete all project work funded with HPF funds in accordance with the appropriate standards? YES, the nomination form completed with 1985 funds met National Register standards. Products received to date under the 1987 grant are approved. C. Is the financial reporting of the CLG adequate? YES, to date there have been no problems. VII> CLG ORGANIZATION A. Does the CLG employ a preservation professional staff person ? If yes, is he(she) fulltime or parttime? YES, a staff planner has been assigned to administer the city preservation program. In FFy 89, the position will be expanded from parttime to fulltime. B. Has the CLG assumed any other delegated responsibilites? NO. C. If the above answer is yes, has the CLG administered the additional delegated responsibilities adequately? MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director Mayor Bill Stirling From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: 3 year CLG (Certified Local Government) Evaluation Report, prepared by Colorado Historical Society Date: September 26, 1988 As most of you may already know, Aspen is one of six Certified Local Government programs in the State of Colorado. Every state in the country maintains a CLG program, designed to provide funding for historic preservation related activities and technical and educational assistance to landmark commissions and review boards. Approximately one half of our funding for the preservation planner staff position comes from CLG funds, and as you know, we have been awarded the largest sum to date for FY '87-88: $16,000.00. With that, as you may also well imagine, comes reporting criteria and special project requirements. I have attached a copy of the Three-year CLG Evaluation Report I received today from State Preservation Planner Chris Pfaff for your review and comments, if you so desire. The report covers seven areas, each of which should be reviewed by you for familiarization of the required reporting involved with this Federal/State program. This report includes all HPC activities beginning January, 1986 through August, 1988. I have made notes on the report where I found inaccuracies or areas requiring clarification, and have requested an expanded and amended response to the opening paragraph, I-A, from Chris. The areas we appear to be insufficient in are very few, I am proud to say. Please keep in mind this report covers three years, and major steps have been taken this year alone to strengthen any weak areas. As you can see, the CLG program extensively involves the State Preservation Office in their relationship to the National Park Service and Federal reporting agencies. Maintaining the proper professional balance on the committee is crucial to the future of Aspen's program, and utilizing the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation appears to be the other. My goal is to develop and maintain Aspen as a nationally-recognized model CLG program. I feel we are most definitely on the right track. The CLG manual is in my office for reference should you have any questions. I am available to discuss this report at any time. hpc.memo.3yr.clg.report 4 . /&¥ 51 . J. - 111 SEP 2 6 2.- j COIDRADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY The Colorado History Museum 1300 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80203-2137 September 21, 1988 Roxanne Eflin City of Aspen Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Roxanne: In accordance with Certified Local Government (CLG) program regulations, the State Historic Preservation Office is required to conduct periodic reviews of the state's Certified Local Governments. The purpose of the review is to assess the CLG's compliance with provisions of the Certification Agreement, performance under the terms of the Certified Local Agreement, and the overall effectiveness of the CLG's local preservation program. Enclosed is an evaluation of Aspen's CLG program for the period 1985-1988. The responses are based upon information received in this office, as well as upon site visits. As you will see, all aspects of Aspen's participation in the CLG program are considered including administration of the matching grant- in-aid funds received through this office. It is hoped that the review will be used to strengthen the local program as well as help this office develop better training and technical assistance programs. Please note the responses where program deficiencies are pointed out. These are areas where the CLG should take action to make corrections within the next year. If efforts are not made to resolve deficiencies, this office has the option of recommending decertification to the Department of the Interior. Please let me know if you have any questions or differences of opinion on this office's findings. I would be happy to discuss the report with you. If you are in concurrence with the evaluation, please sign this letter below and return to me. Sincerely, /7 29.uxet ui-#r Audii<-Ji +adc 16 t- 920 7-26-2 3 Christine Pfaff j,6KQ · RA& I *1;' 41, Preservation Planner Roxahne Eflin ~ CP:ng Enclosure EVALUATION OF CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Name of Certified Local Government: CITY OF ASPEN Date of On-site Visit to Conduct Evalutation: July 26, 1988 Name of CLG Representative in Attendance at Evaluation: ROXANNE EFLIN I. THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUST ENFORCE APPROPRIATE STATE OR LOCAL LEGISLATION FOR THE DESIGNATION AND PROTECTION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES. A. Are the design decisions of the Certified Local Government consistent with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation? NO, not always. The Aspen HPC is under a great deal of pressure to approve substantial additions to and demolition of historic structures. This is a result of the tremendous land values in Aspen. It is a difficult situation and has resulted in the loss of integrity of the commerical core as an historic district and threatens _the hi@lgric residential aeas.J The HPC needs ~66 define areas where preservation is U?t Ihighest priority -and develop preservation_ policies for timisf lareas. 11¢hile the commercial core has lost cohesiveness as a 11-istoric district, much of the new infill architecture meets Standards for New Construction in that it is sensitive to the UffIP-1~RbitoYZR:r~f?)21&.it @;lt~3%%1-2f ?CN?3iout_-to ~ /17. B.' U 6 Does th commission enforce the locat- historic - - 6 . 4,2 1 A»U.kL-- 4 , preservation ordinance for the designation of local historic properties? uto.Acce.*Ri YES, designation of historic structures and districts has Al.57@ 4 101/4 been an ongoing function of the city since 1973. Designation is accomplished through ordinance and requires participation of the HPC, Planning Commission and City Council. Currently, three districts have been identified for potential designation. C. Have additional properties been designated as local landmarks or landmark districts? YES, in 1986 a number of designations were made under one ordinance. In 1987, an additional 8 structures were designated. To date in 1988, five structures have been designated. There are still a number of buildings rated excellent and exceptional that should be considered for designation. D. Does the commission enforce the protective features of the local historic preservation ordinance? , e I YES,to some extent. See A above. E. Did the CLG issue Certificates of Appropriateness during the period of the review? YES, 92 requests for alterations were reviewed between January 1986 and August 1988; 5 requests for new construction were reviewed and approved; and 4 demolition requests were approved. F. Has the local preservation ordinance been amended since the last CLG review? YES, a revised preservation ordinance was adopted in May 1987. In October, 1987, an incentives ordinance for residential properties was passed. In May 1988, the ordinance was incorporated into the City's Land Use Code. The ordinance still meets CLG requirements although there needs to be clarification on whether owner consent is required for landmark designation. II.THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUST ESTABLISH AN ADEQUATE AND QUALIFIED HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ESTABLISHED BY LOCAL ORDINANCE A. Does the CLG maintain an adequate and qualified local historic preservation review commission in accordance with the Certification Agreement? YES, the commission consists of seven members and three alternates. There are currently two architects on the HPC and one architect as an alternate member. All members have an interest in_historic preservation. Currently, one vacancy exists. _ 5 An effort should be made to retain another>j /professional in a preservation related field such as history ) lEI-planning-.-- WI#-I--I -/ B. Does the CLG historic preservation commission maintain adequate minutes of all meetings? YES,very detailed minutes of the meetings are maintained. C. Are all meetings of the commission open to the public? YES, all meetings are open to the public. D. Are the minutes of all meetings being sent to the Colorado Historical Society? YES, although it has not always been done consistently. E. Does the commission meet at least four times a year? YES, the commission meets every 2nd and 4th Tuesday of the month. F. If new commission members have been appointed since 1- I execution of the Certification Agreement, has the SHPO been provided copies of resumes for each new member? NO, this office hap not been apprised of openings and new appointments. Of-1 A-cu-) (1-Ffil 4--meR /Iu-£4-f /)»4-« ALLE-L/nc,L- 4 >19€ a fo<_ 46 ndti« : G. Has an annual report of the activities of the commission been submitted in accordance withe the Certified Local Government Agreement? NO, even though there has been consistent contact between the Aspen CLG representative and the CHS, annual reports have not been submitted as required. A three year summary of activities was submitted in August 1988. /(135'-1/leA,(L Li 27-)Act'l,1/lcijlc~ / 9 El - Ji¢/14 . .01' tik 3 91. H.Has the SHPO made training and technical assistance available to the commission? /uped.2 YES, staff from the CHS have made several presentations to the Aspen HPC (April 22, 1986 ; September 1986; July 26,1988). In addtion, Aspen HPC members have been invited annually to attend the CPI/SHPO design review workshops. The SHPO has sent pertinent information to Aspen both on a request and non-request basis. J. Has at least one member of the local commission attended an educational meeting or workshop in the past year? YES, several HPC members attended the local "Preservation Forum" during 1988 Preservation Week. In addition, HPC members were present at the training provided by the SHPO. Further participation by HPC members at workshops/training sessions is encouraged. The same holds true for staff. III.THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUST MAINTAIN A SYSTEM FOR THE SURVEY AND INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES A. Does the CLG maintain a survey and inventory process consistent with the SHPO's comprehensive historic preservation planning process? NO new survey work has been conducted since the comprehensive survey of 1980. The survey was updated in 1986 by assigning ratings to all of the "notable" properties. The City needs to identify and evaluate the buildings associatd with the development of the ski industry. Such a survey is proposed for the coming year. B. Does the CLG utilize the SHPO's survey and inventory form or one approved by the SHPO? The 1980 inventory is on CHS forms. Information is being added to the existing forms by the preservation planner. At some point, it may be appropriate to reassess the survey data to see whether building condition, statements of significance and historical information needs to be updated. C. Has the CLG provided copies of all completed inventory forms to the Colorado Historical Society? Two sites are in the process of being added to the inventory. Forms should be submitted to the CHS. D. Are the CLG's survey and inventory records organized and accessible to the public? YES, they are in the Planning Office and are available to the public. E. Does the CLG maintain a comprehensive historic preservation planning document for the community? YES, in October 1986, the City published a preservation component of the comprehensive plan that outlined recommendations for the city's preservation program. IV. THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHALL PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE LOCAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAMS INCLUDING THE PROCESS OF RECOMMENDING PROPERTIES FOR NOMINATION TO THE NATIONAL REGISTER. A. Does the commission keep minutes of all decisions and actions, including the reasons for making those decisions, on file? YES, very thorough minutes of the meetings are kept. B. Has the CLG reviewed any National Register nominations since the last evaluation? YES, a multiple resource nomination form was prepared in 1986 using CLG funds. In addition, an individual nomination for the Hotel Jerome was reviewed by the CLG. C. If the answer to the above question is yes, did the CLG carry out the review of the National REgister nominations in accordance with the Certified Local Government Program procedures? YES, endorsements for the Hotel Jerome and the 16 properties nominated as a multiple resource form were received from the Aspen HPC. D. Was the required expertise utilized in reviewing National Register nomination forms? YES. E. Were there any occassions where the CLG and the Colorado Historical Society did not agree on the nomination of a property to the National Register? NO. . F. Does the CLG provide any educational programs to ensure public awareness of their historic preservation functions? Preservation Forum was held during 1988 Preservation Week. Staff writes articles and converses with local press weekly on preservation issues. G. Has the CLG assisted the SHPO in verifying the names and addresses of property owners within districts being nominated to the National Register? YES. H. Can the CLG demonstrate encouragement Of public participation in the local preservation program? Through local press coverage and public hearings, the HPC in Aspen is quite visible and encourages public participation. VI>.FISCAL MANAGEMENT CLG GRANTS 1985 & 1987 A. Does the CLG consistently complete all project work in accordance with performance schedules in contracts? NO, there have been delays in receiving required products, however, in most cases delays have been agreed to in advance by the SHPO. B. Does the CLG consistently complete all project work funded with HPF funds in accordance with the appropriate standards? YES, the nomination form completed with 1985 funds met National Register standards. Products received to date under the 1987 grant are approved. C. Is the financial reporting of the CLG adequate? YES, to date there have been no problems. VII> CLG ORGANIZATION A. Does the CLG employ a preservation professional staff person ? If yes, is he(she) fulltime or parttime? YES, a staff planner has been assigned to administer the city preservation program. In FFy 89, the position will be expanded from parttime to fulltime. B. Has the CLG assumed any other delegated responsibilites? NO. C. If the above answer is yes, has the CLG administered the additional delegated responsibilities adequately? MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director Mayor Bill Stirling From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: 3 year CLG (Certified Local Government) Evaluation Report, prepared by Colorado Historical Society Date: September 26, 1988 As most of you may already know, Aspen is one of six Certified Local Government programs in the State of Colorado. Every state in the country maintains a CLG program, designed to provide funding for historic preservation related activities and technical and educational assistance to landmark commissions and review boards. Approximately one half of our funding for the preservation planner staff position comes from CLG funds, and as you know, we have been awarded the largest sum to date for FY '87-88: $16,000.00. With that, as you may also well imagine, comes reporting criteria and special project requirements. I have attached a copy of the Three-year CLG Evaluation Report I received today from State Preservation Planner Chris Pfaff for your review and comments, if you so desire. The report covers seven areas, each of which should be reviewed by you for familiarization of the required reporting involved with this Federal/State program. This report includes all HPC activities beginning January, 1986 through August, 1988. I have made notes on the report where I found inaccuracies or areas requiring clarification, and have requested an expanded and amended response to the opening paragraph, I-A, from Chris. The areas we appear to be insufficient in are very few, I am proud to say. Please keep in mind this report covers three years, and major steps have been taken this year alone to strengthen any weak areas. As you can see, the CLG program extensively involves the State Preservation Office in their relationship to the National Park Service and Federal reporting agencies. Maintaining the proper professional balance on the committee is crucial to the future of Aspen's program, and utilizing the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation appears to be the other. My goal is to develop and maintain Aspen as a nationally-recognized model CLG program. I feel we are most definitely on the right track. The CLG manual is in my office for reference should you have any questions. I am available to discuss this report at any time. hpc.memo.3yr.clg.report . . v- ru CRO 9 .2 L., L COIDRADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY The Colorado History Museum 1300 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80203-2137 September 21, 1988 Roxanne Eflin City of Aspen Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Roxanne: In accordance with Certified Local Government (CLG) program regulations, the State Historic Preservation Office is required to conduct periodic reviews of the state's Certified Local Governments. The purpose of the review is to assess the CLG's compliance with provisions of the Certification Agreement, performance under the terms of the Certified Local Agreement, and the overall effectiveness of the CLG's local preservation program. Enclosed is an evaluation of Aspen's CLG program for the period 1985-1988. The responses are based upon information received in this office, as well as upon site visits. As you will see, all aspects of Aspen's participation in the CLG program are considered including administration of the matching grant- in-aid funds received through this office. It is hoped that the review will be used to strengthen the local program as well as help this office develop better training and technical assistance programs. Please note the responses where program deficiencies are pointed out. These are areas where the CLG should take action to make corrections within the next year. If efforts are not made to resolve deficiencies, this office has the option of recommending decertification to the Department of the Interior. Please let me know if you have any questions or differences of opinion on this office's findings. I would be happy to discuss the report with you. If you are in concurrence with the evaluation, please sign this letter below and return to me. Sincerely, (/-1- 1 d /1 %1% 4 .4-#x- (ijkoic(i/*o]-1.-- GA/2,0. 42 -4 4- fju\L 7-20?3 Christine Pfaff » #Al, 4.1 . Preservation Planner Roxahne Eflin ~ CP:ng Enclosure 4 EVALUATION OF CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Name of Certified Local Government: CITY OF ASPEN Date of On-site Visit to Conduct Evalutation: July 26, 1988 Name of CLG Representative in Attendance at Evaluation: ROXANNE EFLIN I. THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUST ENFORCE APPROPRIATE STATE OR LOCAL LEGISLATION FOR THE DESIGNATION AND PROTECTION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES. A. Are the design decisions of the Certified Local Government consistent with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation? NO, not always. The Aspen HPC is under a great deal of pressure to approve substantial additions to and demolition of historic structures. This is a result of the tremendous land values in Aspen. It is a difficult situation and has resulted in the loss of integrity of the commerical core as an historic district and threatens the histgric residential ,areas=JThe HPC needs to define areas where preservation is 774 fhighest priority -and develop preservation Po.licies for thosej lareas. FWhile the commercial core has lost cohesiveness as a RIEtoric district, much of the new infill architecture meets Standards for New Construction in that it is sensitive to the hhstprig fabric an@ compatible yet contemporary in design. . , 813 /90-64€t, 4/Q./gcuc-4-- 41« 62,&74*CUCK »*m»L_ A) 7 0'. B.' u 6 Does th# commisdion enforce the locaP-- historic . . f.r .1:.4 preservation ordinance for the designation of local historic properties? U*,ACCE,'A44- YES, designation of historic structures and districts has Ap-hao been an ongoing function of the city since 1973. Designation is accomplished through ordinance and requires participation of the HPC, Planning Commission and City Council. Currently, three districts have been identified for potential designation. C. Have additional properties been designated as local landmarks or landmark districts? YES, in 1986 a number of designations were made under one ordinance. In 1987, an additional 8 structures were designated. To date in 1988, five structures have been designated. There are still a number of buildings rated excellent and exceptional that should be considered for designation. D. Does the commission enforce the protective features of the local historic preservation ordinance? . YES,to some extent. See A above. E. Did the CLG issue Certificates of Appropriateness during the period of the review? YES, 92 requests for alterations were reviewed between January 1986 and August 1988; 5 requests for new construction were reviewed and approved; and 4 demolition requests were approved. F. Has the local preservation ordinance been amended since the last CLG review? YES, a revised preservation ordinance was adopted in May 1987. In October, 1987, an incentives ordinance for residential properties was passed. In May 1988, the ordinance was incorporated into the City's Land Use Code. The ordinance still meets CLG requirements although there needs to be clarification on whether owner consent is required for landmark designation. II.THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUST ESTABLISH AN ADEQUATE AND QUALIFIED HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ESTABLISHED BY LOCAL ORDINANCE A. Does the CLG maintain an adequate and qualified local historic preservation review commission in accordance with the Certification Agreement? YES, the commission consists of seven members and three alternates. There are currently two architects on the HPC and one architect as an alternate member. All members have an interest in historic preservakion. Currently, one vacancy.~ exists.......37An effort should be made to retain another\ /professional in a preservation related field such as history ~ lorplanning.. W-- B. Does the CLG historic preservation commission maintain adequate minutes of all meetings? YES,very detailed minutes of the meetings are maintained. C. Are all meetings of the commission open to the public? YES, all meetings are open to the public. D. Are the minutes of all meetings being sent to the Colorado Historical Society? YES, although it has not always been done consistently. E. Does the commission meet at least four times a year? YES, the commission meets every 2nd and 4th Tuesday of the month. F. If new commission members have been appointed since execution of the Certification Agreement, has the SHPO been provided copies of resumes for each new member? NO, this office hap not been apprised of openings and new appointments. lf-l >34 Q'042-tz:g-14*f p,Aetckt /lc-4-con-Cl_ G. Has an annual report of the activities of the commission been submitted in accordance withe the Certified Local Government Agreement? NO, even though there has been consistent contact between the Aspen CLG representative and the CHS, annual reports have not been submitted as required. A three year summary Of activities was submitted in August 1988. l'?35>FleA.Q.~ (92-1-1'/u:cAA'gi~ccl~ H.Has the SHPO made training and te61 242 - U.>OK 3 91· Iiill-Cal assistance /UpCd' available to the commission? YES, staff from the CHS have made several presentations to the Aspen HPC (April 22, 1986 ; September 1986; July 26,1988). In addtion, Aspen HPC members have been invited annually to attend the CPI/SHPO design review workshops. The SHPO has sent pertinent information to Aspen both on a request and non-request basis. J. Has at least one member of the local commission attended an educational meeting or workshop in the past year? YES, several HPC members attended the local "Preservation Forum" during 1988 Preservation Week. In addition, HPC members were present at the training provided by the SHPO. Further participation by HPC members at workshops/training sessions is encouraged. The same holds true for staff. III.THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUST MAINTAIN A SYSTEM FOR THE SURVEY AND INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES A. Does the CLG maintain a survey and inventory process consistent with the SHPO's comprehensive historic preservation planning process? NO new survey work has been conducted since the comprehensive survey of 1980. The survey was updated in 1986 by assigning ratings to all of the "notable" properties. The City needs to identify and evaluate the buildings associatd with the development of the ski industry. Such a survey is proposed for the coming year. B. Does the CLG utilize the SHPO's survey and inventory form or one approved by the SHPO? The 1980 inventory is on CHS forms. Information is being added to the existing forms by the preservation planner. At some point, it may be appropriate to reassess the survey data to see whether building condition, statements of significance and historical information needs to be updated. . C. Has the CLG provided copies of all completed inventory forms to the Colorado Historical Society? Two sites are in the process of being added to the inventory. Forms should be submitted to the CHS. D. Are the CLG's survey and inventory records organized and accessible to the public? YES, they are in the Planning Office and are available to the public. E. Does the CLG maintain a comprehensive historic preservation planning document for the community? YES, in October 1986, the City published a preservation component of the comprehensive plan that outlined recommendations for the city's preservation program. IV. THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHALL PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE LOCAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAMS INCLUDING THE PROCESS OF RECOMMENDING PROPERTIES FOR NOMINATION TO THE NATIONAL REGISTER. A. Does the commission keep minutes of all decisions and actions, including the reasons for making those decisions, on file? YES, very thorough minutes of the meetings are kept. B. Has the CLG reviewed any National Register nominations since the last evaluation? YES, a multiple resource nomination form was prepared in 1986 using CLG funds. In addition, an individual nomination for the Hotel Jerome was reviewed by the CLG. C. If the answer to the above question is yes, did the CLG carry out the review of the National REgister nominations in accordance with the Certified Local Government Program procedures? YES, endorsements for the Hotel Jerome and the 16 properties nominated as a multiple resource form were received from the Aspen HPC. D. Was the required expertise utilized in reviewing National Register nomination forms? YES. E. Were there any occassions where the CLG and the Colorado Historical Society did not agree on the nomination of a property to the National Register? NO. F. Does the CLG provide any educational programs to ensure public awareness of their historic preservation functions? Preservation Forum was held during 1988 Preservation Week. Staff writes articles and converses with local press weekly on preservation issues. G. Has the CLG assisted the SHPO in verifying the names and addresses of property owners within districts being nominated to the National Register? YES. H. Can the CLG demonstrate encouragement Of public participation in the local preservation program? Through local press coverage and public hearings, the HPC in Aspen is quite visible and encourages public participation. VI>.FISCAL MANAGEMENT CLG GRANTS 1985 & 1987 A. Does the CLG consistently complete all project work in accordance with performance schedules in contracts? NO, there have been delays in receiving required products, however, in most cases delays have been agreed to in advance by the SHPO. B. Does the CLG consistently complete all project work funded with HPF funds in accordance with the appropriate standards? YES, the nomination form completed with 1985 funds met National Register standards. Products received to date under the 1987 grant are approved. C. Is the financial reporting of the CLG adequate? YES, to date there have been no problems. VII> CLG ORGANIZATION A. Does the CLG employ a preservation professional staff person ? If yes, is he(she) fulltime or parttime? YES, a staff planner has been assigned to administer the city preservation program. In FFy 89, the position will be expanded from parttime to fulltime. B. Has the CLG assumed any other delegated responsibilites? NO. C. If the above answer is yes, has the CLG administered the additional delegated responsibilities adequately? MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Colorado Historical Society Roundtable Meeting, Denver, October 28 Date: September 27, 1988 Attached is a notice of the next CHS Roundtable meeting scheduled for Friday, October 28 in Denver. I will be attending, and am happy to take anyone alone who would like to go. The subject of this meeting is on cultural resource management in historical archaeology in Colorado. This topic is becoming more and more important in rural areas of the state, and in Aspen in particular due to our mining heritage. I have passed along the information to the Board of the Aspen Historical Society and to those members working on the Holden-Marolt Ranching Museum, where archaeological studies will be done in conjunction with their development of that historic site. Please notify me if you are interested in attending. Thanks for your interest! -' f --..-L- -- 1 4 t Fin- COIORADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY The Colorado History Museum 1300 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80203-2137 NOTICE OF ROUNDTABLE MEETING The Society's Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation will host a cultural resource management roundtable meeting to discuss issues in historical archaeology in Colorado. This will be an informal public session, held on Friday, October 28, from 1:30 to 4:00 p.m. in the third-floor conference room at the Colorado History Museum, 1300 Broadway, Denver. This meeting had originally been planned for October 14, but it has been rescheduled because of a meeting conflict affecting some of our agency historians. Our last roundtable identified historical archaeology as a problem area. We will discuss the need for an historical archaeology component form, standards for archaeological field work and documentation, criteria for evaluating historical archaeological resources, and other related concerns raised by the group. The session will provide an opportunity for the public and the cultural resource management community to participate in problem solving and policy formulation. Historians, archaeologists of all specialties, planners, and other interested people are warmly invited to attend. For additional information, please contact Susan Collins, Acting State Archaeologist (303/866-2736). A. RSVP call or note is encouraged, but not required. We hope you can attend. .... A . ... 0. 0 · AIS"-: f.RIC 9 I . I. . 1, 2 ' f· it ~ $.'. S &- .~ I 0 - - . .::0··ili.7*A.U·. ' -·- ··' ,- - RICA . .-.. . - ... .:. t. t~ . . . 0 i.,larN - : '.f: ' -:. 41 0 - . . 0 ' 411 ,:.4 - 418~An,£49 Gift memberships in the National Trust works of noted architectural photographer, are perfect for all those special people on Jet Lowe. The 53 full color photographs, your holiday list. You surely won't want to many of which have been exhibited nation- miss this opportunity to introduce your ally, are a pictorial tribute to America's his- C ,/3/10 friends and family to all the benefits of Na- torie places. Each week will bring you sel- tional Trust membership, including: 3#Imi dom seen visions of our American • Historic Preservation magazine' heritage-from unique views of the Golden Gate bridge and Statue of Liberty, to the • Preservation News newspaper , simple elegance of an 1804 windmill. • Free admission to National Trust proper- Gift memberships are just $15. Use the ties order form to order your gifts. You can in- • Discounts on gifts and books ~ ~ tf clude your payment now or we'11 be happy 0 Study tours at home and abroad. . to.bill you later. Mail by November 30, ment of your gift-in your name-in time 1988, and we'll send a beautiful announce- 1 In return, we will send you our 1989 His- torie America desk diary, free, Your 6 & I 111 for the holidays, desk diary is a unique collection of the .. calendar. Supply limited; order by Naimber 30 to be sure to recene your free t. 4 -41 ' 'pl I,li. itt'-Ubrt- 1.-- 1 4i - ·'3 -. - -4 .3 115 - . - .Aid-+1 r 14- f r . -- 11 , r 1 11. W 1-- - .+ tr 1. . I ~ GIFT MEMBERSHIP FORM 9 i Please fill out so that we can send cards in your name: 1. GIFT MEMBERSHIP TO: AHPHO2 ¥01 IR NAMF NAMF ADDRF.AS ADDRFS' . CITY STATF 7IP- , CITY STATF 7/P - NATIONAL TRUST MEMBERSHIP NO MESSAGE (check one): [J Merry Christm„ G Happv Chanukah (From magazine label) C Seasons Greetings m Happy Birrhday Sorry only one calendar per customer. Of the total amount of dues, 2096 is 2. GIFT MEMBERSHIP TO: for a subscription to Preservanon Neu,5, and 4496 1 for asubscription to Hutonc Resmaoon for one year. NAMF AMOUNT DUE: x $15 ea. = % AnnRKS No of Total CITY 9TATE 7/P - Memberships MESSAGE (check one) m Merry Chrmmas U Happy Chanukah D Season's Greetings D Happy Binhday El Please bill me D My check payable to the "National Trust" is enclosed 3. GIFT MEMBERSHIP TO: Clip and mail this form to: NAMF Membership Division AnnRF99 National Trust for Historic Preservation 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. CITY RTATF 7IP- Washingron, D.C. 20036 MESSAGE (check one): O Merry Ch™tmas E Happy Chanukah O Season's Greetings O Happy Birthday For additional gift membership, please enclose additional sheets. 1. -2 a MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: 210 S. Mill St. (Footloose), Minor Development Date: September 27, 1988 LOCATION: 210 S. Mill St., Lot K, Block 88, Townsite and City of Aspen APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval for the minor development application to install three windows in a non-bearing wall in front of Footloose and Fancy Things. ZONING: CC Zone District, Commercial Core Historic Overlay District; building constructed in 1982. PROCEDURE FOR PROJECT REVIEW: This is a one-step process, with HPC approval based on the proposed development meeting the standards in Section 7-601(D), reviewed below. The remodeling activity consists of no more than three (3) features (windows). PROJECT SUMMARY: The proposed remodeling activity would provide relief to a large, solid brick wall, allowing light to penetrate into the semi-enclosed stairway and into the storefront windows of the business. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to a Historic Landmark. Response: The structure is not historic, however, is located across from the landmark Wheeler Opera House. Staff finds the proposed development activity compatible with the building and neighboring historic structures. The existing windows would be matched exactly. These are anodized metal frame with a smaller lower panel which adds interest in the fenestration pattern. The largest window begins at 40" above grade, the middle window directly next to it begins at 60" above grade, the last window (the smallest of the three) begins at 80" above grade. The step up occurs at this lower stair level with the tops aligned at 11' 3/8" above grade. Each window is approximately 3.5' in width. Although this window pattern is not used anywhere else in the building, staff finds it functional and not objectionable. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is 25-3 9- 041 unj V consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Staff finds the proposed development consistent with the neighborhood. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structure located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels Response: Staff finds that the proposal does not detract from the cultural value of the structure or neighboring historic structures. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure of part thereof. Response: As no historic structure is involved this standard does not apply. However, staff finds the proposed window pattern an interesting break architecturally in the standard fenestration rhythm established in this building. The remodel should enhance the business as well by adding needed light into a somewhat dark stairway. One alternative may be to align the windows in perfect horizontal fashion, however, the purpose of eyelevel transparency into the storefront windows would probably not be accomplished if this were required. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that HPC grant minor development approval for the application for 210 S. Mill St., requiring the new windows exactly match those that currently exist throughout the remainder of the building. hpc.memo.210sm 2 . ATINJIMENT 1 IAND USE APPI/CATION FOIRM 1) Pro-j ect Name 2) Project location 2/ 0 9. ,£-7 / 6 42 4 7 -. i L 0-T k B Lock 3% (indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) 3) Present Zoning 4) Lot Size 5) Applicant's Nane, Nklress & Phone # Foc>.7-L_e€~ f~,,,42,•47 8,«-c---gr >/ ur,*/45 (5 -1 I O -5. 4,4 f L L 5 T - A 5 7)5 6/ - 9 -1 ~4 9 4 414 6) Ttepresentative' s Nam , Mdress & -Phore # 5- 7 :F ¢>-- E-- .Pft <~2 Ou £/E /,9- 26. 29/ /9 9 772 1 - 9 2 3 G € 7 7 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual Historic Dev. Special Review Firnl SPA Final IIistoric Dev. 8040 Greenline Conceptual IUD ,~< Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Firal PUD Historic Demolition Mountain View Plane Subdivision Historic Designation Condaninizmization Text/Map Amendment (2<0 Allotment Lot Split/Lot Line - GOS Exenption Adjustment 8) Description of Existing Uses (ramber and type of existing structures; approximate sq. ft.; number of bedroans; any previous approvals granted to the property). €6 04(71 -3 70' O -9 ~7 - 7-2->-7* -5 acc +__ ut- ALL 43 /1-C LOS f /u c- /9- .25-7 A i r-k » ,9 -/ 9) Description of Development Application 1 IN 44 7.- 7- O 6 u-7- 7 1+ a E 6- -7- 6/'L U"Al L 7 c> 50 7- 7 8 - -7 ¢ 7 6- 15- 7 -7- 75-7-r t c n._ p PT> er- n p ...u c EL A .77 *V' 19- Hr- t- 7 14 E- vv /9 L L \, A U P L Lur /91 6 71 11 7 N 1 5 0, f L C__ p £-90 G / V U 9 ca-> 10) Have you attached the following? Response to Attadlment 2, Mininilm Subnission Contents Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application , t-t- P,- 21 + A- 1 ran/U- A y 7-„U 9 0- i k iS- 1 7- O -7:>5- A - 17 i rv V 1 7 ¢ r/G- T- 4 6 L (,2--C . 4 M- o U L- 77 A L 9 6 C- c *-1 ie- 7 C=-- .55/S- " C 9 7/5 75 6~, I n * C 1/t- 5 /CO /« 12 (5 PLAY. l ' L SEP 1 4 1988 t $ !11\\. e U L 2- L c 04 8_;__.7-_ c> C Co -7-- -T- (9 7-.K -5- E- f AfT <1 5-cs L /9 7 dC>Z- dzz- 17-07-2.*/- B R ( c Ac 0.+ •10'L ZI_ , 7- 6, 252- - Tb- >€ 19 7 ,/t-C- t/¢- F? L L 1 5 -2 0 7 '16 Ul A- r- r- < 1 5 -1-71 L E/- - 6 i-? 72 B A- 1-L t ru 6 -5- .47/2- 77 17©15-9 &+0< f 1 6-f- 17 5 97- 7(-0 6 75 L--1 (C 77 /*-L G . 7 14 E- _Er- 1/*,c 0,==zc S E 2,2-- <:> L.-1 L 73> 13 <=-. 7- ++ <S c. 7- 7 5 - A I-D -F»/79- 71 r - 6 n> 03 ?=- 7 17*4- 25-:0 ,»705 61 A --,- 72 2/~ C' LJ L ZE> V(1 0 +9 LLY 17 5 5-* 7- C=/ A 1- ( + 11-_ 7 LJ \ L-77 f •--1-- C - 1- 6-7, € 7-«-P 3 E , 72-- c wl- 0 71 A- » 77 ¢ r~ 0- 1 » 1- 1/4,477-APS t 1 67<3 0 1-7 5 /V1-1=,-5 ¢ 1 /9--2 .7,) 627 37.41- 2> 6/2,0 u L 732 2 5- 74 L L C= 2.,c< t /3- c- ---~-7 0 0 72 L ( C ,+ -7- , rU- 7 c 1- t-/ 15 A- - ve- -P /971 +1 fi-T A i Tz. v.i< ,„_ C- N- c --7/ t 5 65-€2 <=> C-/ C 23> 770- a -5 -r P 1 -rE- Vk Y' L/ ./92 /1,1 4= e r--E *1.-7 0 711.- c> 72 E --1-- )/9 -n, 77 9 5> it- c. i -~ G + ~1- 0/ o L.-~ L-P' ,,9 L<4-41 L ,? 4-f E-- -t--CL 3 25- ,€/5 6/ dE- a.-, 5- 21- 7- 9- 12 -5 2£- 4 19,-v-1.75 1/1/- r /» 77' <p Vt- 5 11 E C- /97«779 >C==1 -71 *977572(e-L=b Tu 222- 052=~2 5 rru cu 6 4-1 7 7 r /2-- C Al-a A- WO LE VA e L L l /2/,5 >c-- 7 0.35 /0-2-7 72 0 2 4= c a .3 vt- flu 7 9- 1- 1/L f -- -rp e'Z-- f.rs a 2-7=1 - bE 92/ (CL 60 -5 E- 7 /7' E --1 / 1) E.t- 1 '...d 57 - A ¢_ -- TL #7 --1.9 lf- -5 -7- 7- L E- -T l« A -7~~ f = F L 12~ b,/7 P-<X PC /261 7- 6*25 .FR di-5-7-- B L.1 1 L- 72 (•-2-- G , 7 19- 1 5 /9 Le,O F, ID> 1 /U 7 -f # ,-L- - 7 19 £ £>2¢//5%20 02 7- 41 719 -5 7<1£97 7= &0 tu-- -8 C.u I L » r /2.-- Cm 7- C< A c C_ C,V-k 4-T> 00-r-En_ 7 t« 5 32 t SP L p L-/ 1< 6, e 7 L..1-rk_ -ra. ) -7 66 11 c> co-r a C i-> El- 0 72 <5 lianfi vt. A C- +L~©1 l T> a- V·' f n. 00 \,-r .7 RZ- ~ L) C > 35,E- 1-- i 7- -67> , t - /4-/ „ C L .5 t /b- 1 € *a-- 7 H- t--- -:5-1*/72 Le---25 4 C VO, L (- 35 ~/6 /1- 27. 6€- 9 4 - Avu < --7/2/4 24 -C,01/7 ,4 - A 9 E_ f 1 e g. 4- S 77: 92 1 4 4 0,6 31 -. 752,5.. .rd: i r ,6 J 11 / 91/ , 13.Re'cstp 1 -#4 '04- D Ek j 14-- LA. A C L ALL-~-~ /4 L Lur b 1 I. \ 4 #4 1 j .th % '0 1 : 11.11 -1 i ----~Ili. .1/I=ZE : 11 3 1 8 2 93 !1_ ~' .L i 1·i :' •. , i IL.-2-1 !1 -i i r--- -i r-- 11 ~ -! ----1 4- - -il ZE i - A , 1, 2 1 , / 4 11 El i i 1 1 '1 ~- 3 raT-7 1 'i_-7 .- 1, -.Z. -En-_-4 :'-- 9 .3 i- .7 v ..2. . , 1 11' 1. 1 : i -32¥.FPrbED -bihEST- El--EV A-nok>~ U/Jf.~ alll--l·212, ==- jilll-L <37(FUEE7E.. .._ 1 11 1 ! A · 1 41 G--3 1 .1 17 0 4 0 : 1 1 It 0 1. P 9 P j H 'r-n! Ir- 71 1-- [lu- P..=22 9.- .~ It.--il 11: 4.----'.·----7 -- t-'ir;4.- 1| ~'-~w -rt i--iv-- =:1 ! 1 2 Ul It !! 't- ~'I i I~ =1 1 · · . *h Edi 1 1 1 ry / 1 , i '"Tr=-r ' .1 ' 1 i. it ''i 1 11 1.6 2 4 1 1 Vh thi 1 7 - 1 , li €-- -ks- I 41-- -- I. -1 4 4 .L ...4 4 - i - f.1 1 -- - =0 I \ 'r,1 . 11 ..31 13! ~f . 1 1 j<J 1 1% 1 :30 1% lel 4 7-· - 4 ~ «ick 4~ 11.# 1 ..-H:C u t UL) i · - F 10 1,1 ' 1 /2 4 i k A 1 , 13 7 1 // 1. 4 4 (3 - : r) 11 4 k .\0+ \3, 1 i 03-1 04 N \5 + 1 b. 4 ./ 6 ht: - al~ R 1401 P. il -- 44 i 0 11-A 9 11 -21 -RE- 1 Q -1 Cl ri Lij)£7 ~---74- 074027646=- =-~- j.~ Cf9 (17]733-~ €ff,1-91-f,-Al-~-13.(47.120-356&91-- 1W«--- FL-'21912f,49-tU.- t i 9 (7 72:0f3 -177 1-777IIN?,Tri 5. *gr 1 11 .1,~ _ 1 , 1 1 afy T ky:L , ' ~7/,/><,j i.~- l.1 497 - ft e.=1 - hant/-7/1- . p , , 1 1-l - ~ 40 '911 1 : 1 i .. 26 m 11 ' 1 1 11 ...2 i I L, 1 1 1 1 '' 1 - 1 - 1 AF 1 11 4 i d. 1 1 / , i .A l, k' h o 1 4, 11 -U hil - i . 8/vt. (35&(113Alowl - 4- /-- / 11,11 30&2- 4 01 tr (-7 »,77.3 174'099