The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19881206AGENDA 1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE December 6, 1988 - Tuesday 2:30 P.M. to 4:30 P.M. FIRST FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS City Hall REGULAR MEETING 2:30 I. Roll Call II. Approval of Minutes - November 22, 1988 III. Committee Member & Staff Comments IV. Public Comment V. NEW BUSINESS A. Smith-Elisha House Historic Designation (Public Hearing) B. Conceptual Development - 605 W. Main St. (Public Hearing) VI. OLD BUSINESS - NONE VII. COMMUNICATIONS A. HPC Project Review Checklist B. Monitoring Projects C. HPC Christmas Get-Together J AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE December 6, 1988 - Tuesday 2:30 P.M. to 4:30 P.M. FIRST FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS City Hall REGULAR MEETING 2:30 I. Roll Call II. Approval of Minutes - November 22, 1988 III. Committee Member & Staff Comments IV. Public Comment V. NEW BUSINESS A. Smith-Elisha House Historic Designation (Public Hearing) B. Conceptual Development - 605 W. Main St. (Public Hearing) VI. OLD BUSINESS - NONE VII. COMMUNICATIONS A. HPC Project Review Checklist B. Monitoring Projects C. HPC Christmas Get-Together . f ,y. A MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Historic Designation: 320 West Main, the Smith-Elisha House and Carriage House - Public Hearing Date: December 6, 1988 LOCATION: 320 West Main Street, Lots N, O, and P, Block 44, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. APPLICANT: Alan J. Shada ~ APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting historic landmark designation of the subject property. HISTORIC EVALUATION RATING: "Exceptional", the highest rating SUMMARY: The Smith-Elisha House, c. 1890, is the last remaining "Exceptional" structure to be landmark designated in the Main Street Historic District. The property has been determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The new owner, Alan Shada, intends to restore the main house and renovate the carriage house, developing office space in both structures and a living unit for himself in the second floor of the carriage house. PROCEDURE FOR PROJECT REVIEW: Landmark Designation is a three- step process, requiring recommendations from both HPC and P&Z in public hearings, then first and second reading of the designation ordinance by Council. An application for Exemption from GMQS for the change in use from single family residential to office has been submitted to the Planning Office, and will be reviewed by P&Z following second reading of the designation ordinance by Council, probably in January. Conceptual development review by the HPC for exterior changes proposed for the Carriage House will take place in a public hearing scheduled for December 20. HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION STANDARDS: Any structure or site that meets one (1) or more of the following standards may be designated as H, Historic Overlay District and/or Historic Landmark: 1. Standard: Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Â© Response: The first owner of the house, Eben Smith, was one of the most prominent mining men in Colorado, with an association in Leadville as the manager of three mines. With some forty years experience, Smith was among the most successful mining operators in the state. He did much to promote safety and productivity of Colorado mining's industry. It is believed that Smith had this house built when he came to Aspen c. 1889 or 1890 as the manager of the Franklin Mine and the Deep Shaft Company. Smith returned to Leadville in 1892. One of Smith's later and lasting contributions to the mining industry was the founding of the Mine Smelter and Supply Company in April, 1896. The company sold large, heavy mining equipment world wide, including the Wilfley Concentrating Table and the Marcy Ball Mill which revolutionized the ore refining process. The second owners of consequence were Laurence Mansor Elisha and his wife Svea. Elisha's father, Mansor S. Elisha, came to Aspen c. 1888 as a merchant, owning a cigar, stationery and confectionery business until 1911 when he bought the Hotel Jerome. Mansor Elisha owned and managed the hotel until his death in 1935 and Mansor's son, Laurence, assumed the management of the hotel. In 1946, the hotel was leased to the new Aspen Company founded by Walter Paepcke. Laurence stayed on as assistant manager until 1960, when he became manager. Elisha died in September, 1961. 2. Standard: Architectural Importance: The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character. Response: The Smith-Elisha House is significant for its exuberant Queen Anne and Shingle styles characterized by a shingled second story, a multi-gable roof and an ornate Victorian porch. It was one of the large wood frame residences built during the height of Aspen's silver mining period. Its materials are most likely to be local from the lumber mills near Aspen and constructed by local craftsmen. The house is a marvel of Victorian-era design with two main roof gables of unequal height with a third smaller gable dormer. The gables are faced in diamond cut shingles. The front-most gable has a large round opening. The wrap porch has a second story hipped roof porch above the gabled entry. The wooden porch elements consist of a beaded spindle frieze at the entry, turned posts, sawn brackets and railing with plain balusters. At the roof line there is a molded cornice and paneled frieze. The windows, one-over-one double hung wood sash, vary in width and are arranged singly and grouped in twos and threes. 3. Standard: Architectural Importance: The structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or 2 .. unique architectural type or specimen. Response: The large, two-and-one-half story Smith-Elisha House is one of Aspen's best Queen Anne style residences. It has an irregular plan, a multi-gable front elevation, a wrap-around porch and a massive two story side bay topped by a gabled roof dormer. The wood frame structure is faced with narrow clapboards on the first story and shingles on the second introducing the Shingle Style to the building. The house, on an elevated site at the west end of the three lots, has a large, sloping terraced side yard were the large, two story wood frame and clapboard carriage house (barn) is located. The carriage house is considered to be contributing to the historic significance of the site. It is accessed off the alley, and is extremely visible from Main Street, the principal facade. Its interior and exterior condition is in remarkably original condition, a unique specimen for the historic district and Aspen. The lawn setting is found to be significant to the site, and is featured in the National Register Nomination form. The rolling terraces are unique in the Main Street Historic District, and in the immediate neighborhood. There is no evidence of an original formal landscape plan. There are foundation plantings around the house, a large spruce tree in front and a low stone wall at the front edge of the property along the sidewalk. An old water pump remains in the front yard near the wall. 4. Standard: Architectural Importance: The structure is a significant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: The records in the Planning Office do not indicate the name of the architect, nor the general contractor. 5. Standard: Neighborhood Character. The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Response: The Smith-Elisha House is located in the heart of the Main Street Historic District, well known for its collection of fine Queen Anne and Shingle style residences. Its has been revered for decades as one of Aspen's most prestigious and flamboyant Victorian-era residences, lending integrity to its prominent Main Street location. 6. Standard: Community Character: The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. 3 Response: The Planning Office feels that the preservation of the Smith-Elisha House is critical to the integrity of the Main Street Historic District and the Victorian character of Aspen. Its central location, size and extraordinary architectural elements symbolize Aspen's heritage at the height of the silver mining boom. Its first century as an Aspen landmark will be celebrated with the restoration and renovation activities proposed, to carry it well into its second 100 years. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the Historic Preservation Committee recommend historic landmark designation for the Smith-Elisha House and Carriage House. hpc.memo.elisha.designation 4 / ..'.4 A' ~ 4 It< ' .* : 4 .5./ ' 6 - . 1, C Â·hi Â·1Â· ;~ ,'- , /|~~' i ' Â£, 41 :A ' 9.'5 ;tÂ·2. .1.-1 .- â€¢ I 0 , 1 . 'f i f. ae: 1 :, I,Â· 4 I I. drG #644 @Iii ~1111,% " 4 4. 41:e. Ritet,1. ./! ..14&44/ ; 24 4 :t. Ii/,1,~~ ./i r~Â·1 -~~1Â».~ I~~I~,~.,7 4 ~'.~ ~~Â·f';- , . , Wil .inNIi:~120ii@!111*'ijo '1Â» -" 6 4.Â· 4'#14:li 1 ' ... .Fi =.fli. 974 . . = M ig'li.RtÂ·m:1~- 6/.A: tmi m (1%14 - 1, d 771 ' !,10 e 4 -, 4 Â·Â·-41*k Â· 1 1. I -Le h'.... 1 '4 2440#1~iii -11 ' NAN - i Â· '. f IMVEÂ» , L, .44..# 0 .lim, 1 11 1 m.r . 44-?i: Ag"tf.i 21*i I ail' 24 ly:' i '3*64~21--1,5~41*4ij,1-#Â·-:p ~e; 4: -4,. f . 411=W' 'd ~~i~.Mi~ ./ .1-:1:.:G"thb' 1 ? . , Â·,;*.*2*i't,+0 I flid..1,1: v# , 4 ~ / I .,Â· ~Â· 1.k:.,A,en.th . 17*i ,/ +13 -lf 1.\ -2. 4 + 1.,1\ ' ffirrÂ·Â· 31...,:Eitly Fwjv*WAw#Fuek10*ifft- . #/.,4. e#~*Um/Ti&~WA #uy:11*iÂ· I. ' : ' 1,/i. r IM 't' 2 . 1,/ ... 0. Â¥*r.+ Â«- , 1 1423444 HY,WL" 1 1 , 7*72144..,MiÂ·r ' : ; Itunabtel 9,1 r ..330%2 'i I: 121'11'*t'~-Â·. .Â· '..trt,Â¢k.,*... -2 1, 1111.jil , ..k ., lk@- :;':lpark~ 9..11 /- 0%44#/~Rty#<A'.Â·, -- 1.1**?~94. x .j.*.3, .:;~Â·??g :* - , L *Al Â·Â·' f':> ' ./' 1~.' ~ 'Al :...1 1, ..It:..,~.1 It .... e :..:9.. : : 'aw : , Â·~.:9:.frY.I.M ,. ' ...FN .,ft 4&1 12&.41 -,Nl ,' I; . . e :Â·:ny:-21 Lirt Â·wilfi/--,4 444â‚¬10Â»96 241*4*.14#47.18*. : 911=2, UI'lijkw"14. Â¥6'; . .9.-,4 r i. Colorado Preservation Office *Â· COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY 1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 ARCHITECTURAL/HISTORICAL COMPONENT FORM IMPORTANT: USE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE GREEN INVENTORY RECORD FORM FOR RECORDING STRUCTURES LOCATED WITHIN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES. FOR RECORDING HISTORIC STRUCTURES AND DISTRICTS. USE SEPARATELY FOR 1) Resource NO. 5PT-114 2) Temp No. 395 3) Name Eben Smith Residence/Elisha House 4) Address 320 West Main Street 51 District Name Main Street Historic District I. INTEGRITY: 6) Condition: Good * Fair Deteriorated 7) Original Use Residential 81 Present Use Residential 9) Original Site * Moved Date Cs) ef Move: N/A 10) unaltered Altered * Explain: Rear additions 9dates unknown) II. DESCRIPTIONf 111 Building Materials Wood 121 Construction Date circa 1890 131 Architect/Builder unknown 14) Architectural Style(sl. Queen Anne Victorian 15) Special Features/Surroundings: Original site with expansive eastern side yard and architecturally compatible carriage house/barn intact.. 16) Archaeological Potential: Yes NO Unknown * Explain: III. CULTURAL ACTIVITIES: Key the resource type (ie: house, barn, shed, school, church, etc) to the cultural activity theme and sub-theme category associated with it, 17) THEME Residential 18) SUB-THEME Urban 19) TYPES Single-family --- NOV 8 '88 15:35 NO.COUNTY SHIPPING> PAGE.02 NOV- 9 ]988 110 Eacondido Vi6ta, CA 92084 November 4, 1988 Ms. Roxanne Eflin Historic Preservation Coordinator City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Co 81611 Dear MÂ¥. Eflin, Re: 320 W. Main Street - ' Aspen. CO 81611 AKA Lots N, 0 and P, Block 44,. City and Townsite of Aspen. We are the owners of the above described property, which is known locally as the Smith-Elisha house, an Exce?clonal category structure in. the Aspen Inventory of Hiscoric Structures. The Smith-Elisha House is one of Aspen's best Queen Anne style residences with a multi-gable front elevation, a wrap-around porch and a massive two story side bay topped by a gabled roof dormer. The carriage house remains in its original condition. In reviewing the Standards for Landmark Designation, we finÂ¢ the Smith-Elisha house meets Standard* A, B, C, E and F, afd we request designation of the house and carriage houGe. We also wi+h to apply for the necessary forms to have the house placed on the National Register of Historic Places, and we wish to apply for the designation grant in the amount of $2,000. My authorized representative is; Ramona Markalunaa 601 E- Hyman Ave. #101 Aspen, CO 8161 303-920-1234 I am attaching hereto a copy of the Warranty Deed by which I received title to subject property and will forward a copy of the Title Insurance Policy as soon as I receive it; we closed on this property October 14, 1988, and I have not yet received all documents. Also erteloded is a vicinity map on which we have ouclined the property. Please let us know if you require additional documencation. Yours very truly, Warmland Hi*Alands Allerk In.RIUida . ' A 9/1 Al>2161-... by~2~Xfof:~ 'o ,, tfacquefine C. Shada . & -t it - 4 6 9 / /1 UM-uuL .pta,/ 17$& $- W111~,02- J . -5Hida /PA V. lit MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Conceptual Development, 605 West Main Street Public Hearing Date: December 6, 1988 LOCATION: 605 West Main Street, Lots H and I, Block 25, City and Townsite of Aspen ZONING: "0" - Office Zone, Main Street Historic Overlay District APPLICANT: Cunningham Investment Co., Inc. (Mac Cunningham) APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting HPC's conceptual development approval for the proposed project. SITE, AREA AND BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Parcel Area: 6,000 sq.ft. Proposed FAR: 4,398 sq.ft. Allowed FAR: (0.75:1) 4,500 sq.ft. (FAR may be increased to 1:1 by Special Review) Proposed building maximum height: 25' 611* Front Yard Setback: 10.0' Rear Yard Setback: 18.0' Side Yard Setback: 7' 6" east 5' 6" west *Code requires the building height to be limited to 25'. Due to the flat roof proposed, the height of 25' 6" exceeds the height limit. PRIOR HPC CONSIDERATION: In December, 1986, HPC approved final development plans for a very different structure than what is currently proposed, with corner/diagonal entrances, vertical siding and a dominant standing seam metal roof. The project (known previously as the Wesson Dental Building) was for mixed- use (office, free market residential and deed-restricted affordable residential) which received GMP allotment that year. That allotment carries a three year approval time period, which expires in May of 1989. The project was never built, and since that time the owner has entered into a contract with the current applicant, who is presenting revised plans. Staff determined the changes were significant in nature, not simply "amendments to the previously approved plan", which requires HPC's review and approval in two steps: Conceptual (Public Hearing) and Final. On November 8, 1988, the applicant appeared before the HPC in a pre-application, requesting preliminary information from the committee and presenting conceptual sketches at that meeting. HPC members were in general consensus that the applicant's proposal more closely addressed the Development Guidelines and that the design was headed in the right direction. Some HPC member concerns centered on the south (Main Street) elevation, the main entrance (requesting a more dominant appearance), the dominant appearance of the 5th Street (east elevation) and the stone foundation. PROCEDURE FOR PROJECT REVIEW: Conceptual Review is a public hearing. To obtain Final Development approval, an application for Final review must be submitted, which must address any conditions placed upon conceptual approval, and must accurately disclose exact building materials. Planning Office Referral Comment: The amended proposal includes changes in FAR and dwelling units, which must be reviewed and approved through P&Z. Land Use Planner, Cindy Houben states: "The applicants have approached the Planning Office with preliminary plans for the redevelopment of the Wesson project. They have also approached the Aspen Planning Commission who directed them to prepare a Growth Management Amendment Application. To date, this application has not been submitted to the Planning Office." PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Staff brings HPC's attention to the Development Guidelines "Residential Buildings - New Construction" when reviewing this application, beginning on Page 63. The Guidelines recommend utilizing this chapter "when considering new construction on predominately residential blocks on Main Street". The Main Street Historic District has seen relatively little infill over the past few years. It is staff's opinion that every renovation and new construction project be very carefully considered by the HPC due to potential impacts to the Historic District, and the visual impact to the entrance to Aspen. Very sensitive and careful attention to detail is required to insure project compatibility. The Guidelines state: "In all new construction, compatibility to adjacent building types should be considered. Broad-scale characteristics such as the range of the building heights and their alignment at the sidewalk should be studied. At the same time, the designer should recognize fine-grained aspects such as facade composition and decoration. The characteristics that have already been established can be respected while at the same time developing new and creative building designs that avoid the imitation of 2 earlier historic styles. The intent of the design guidelines for infill construction is to identify the elements most critical to the character of the historic area and to insure that these elements are incorporated into new designs. By incorporating these critical elements into modern architectural expressions, new buildings will fit harmoniously with the old." Staff has also reviewed the project against the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, which primarily deal with development directly involving a historic resource. Technical Briefs have also been consulted for guidance in reviewing infill construction within a historic district. * The Standards for Development Review and Staff's response are as follows: A. 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 a H, Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to a Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. RESPONSE: The proposal is to build a new structure on a currently vacant lot within the Main Street Historic District. The project presents a significantly improved design in neighborhood character compatibility over the plans previously approved for the site, in staff's opinion. However, from the direction given from the HPC at the pre-application, the applicant may need to restudy certain design aspects discussed below. Conceptual materials are proposed as follows: 1. Clapboard style siding 2. Masonry footing, either brick or stone. (Note: The elevations indicate a stone facing.) 3. Asphalt or wood shingled roof material 4. Double hung windows at street elevations 5. Wood balustrades, porches, enclosures and picket fences on the Main Street and 5th Street facades. The Guidelines refer to Materials as follows: 3 "Use materials that are similar in finish, texture and scale to those used historically and contextually." Staff finds the conceptual materials meet the Development Guidelines. Wood shingle roofing material is preferred over asphalt; painted wood is preferred over wood left in its natural state. B. STANDARD: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. RESPONSE: The proposed elevations appear more residential in nature and generally reflect those historic characteristics common with the Main Street Historic District. Scale, massing and height appear compatible. The setbacks are consistent with the established rhythm of the immediate block. Staff finds that the proposal meets the Guidelines with regard to setback and spacing. The proposal also minimizes the visual impact of on- site parking, as required in the Guidelines. Parking is proposed at the rear of the structure, accessed off the alley. The Guidelines state that new construction should include facades that have similar widths and heights to those found elsewhere on the street. The proposal borrows from those characteristics found in the adjacent 1886 Koch/Shaw House (See Cultural Value Standard #3) in relation to front porch alignment, symmetrical central entranceway, roof height and Main Street elevation roof massing. The principal facade's second floor fenestration also repeats the pattern established in the adjacent structure. Windows and doors are addressed in the Guidelines as follows: Traditional residential windows and doors were vertical in proportion and fairly regularly spaced across the building facade. Large expanses of glass were unusual except in conservatories. Openings were located in such as way that interior floor levels were obvious. Use windows and doors of similar size and proportion to those historically seen in Aspen. Use ratios of windows to walls that are similar to historic structures. In general on historic structures, approximately two-thirds of the front facade is solid. The proportion of solid-to-void is important and should be approximated in new construction. Staff finds the general fenestration proposal in-keeping with the guidelines, with exceptions. The principal (south) facade is symmetrical, with a row of five double hung windows within the front upper gable projection. This pattern was established on the adjacent historic structure, and is carried through here. The double entrance doors with side windows, and the two pair of double hung windows on either corner of this elevation balance its appearance. HPC may consider recommending the corner windows 4 be more closely centered. The primary change from the sketches presented at the pre-application to the current proposal (in this elevation) involves the enlargement of the central gable and the gable peak windows. The light wells are surrounded by a simple balustrade of traditionally spaced spindles. The pairs of double hung windows on both the east and west elevations are evenly placed. However, the triangular gable peak windows on these two elevations break the established pattern and appear out of character in our opinion. Staff recommends these transparent portions be eliminated. The south (alley) elevation contains a particularly high percentage of transparency, and appears very contemporary in nature. The larger panes on both the first floor and second floor gable peaks are out of character, in staff's opinion. Three triple sets of windows are located in the center of each floor and roof, and glass doors with side light windows lead to the second floor balcony. Staff recommends to HPC that the applicant restudy these elevations in relation to fenestration and reduce the number of windows. The Guidelines address landscaping as follows: Traditional landscape patterns are a very strong element in the historic residential areas. Those patterns should be maintained in any infill construction. Staff finds the application sensitive to the historic landscape, and preserves the original alignment of the irrigation ditches, which are vanishing from Aspen's West End. The sketch plans presented at the pre-application indicated a meandering realignment of the irrigation ditches, which was strongly not recommended by staff. Every effort should be made to preserve the irrigation ditches and the historic cottonwoods that are in abundance on this site. C. STANDARD: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. RESPONSE: The adjacent historic structure, though not a designated landmark at this time, is the 1886 Harry G. Koch House, also known as the Shaw House. Dorothy Koch Shaw was the wife of Judge Wm. Shaw and owned considerable property in Aspen. Staff's concerns for the proposed development of the vacant parcel is that its design be compatible yet not replicate the design of the Shaw House. This particular historic house is unique to Aspen due to its Dutch influenced gambrel roof and its dominant appearance in the 600 block of West Main. Without duplicating the flared gambrel roof lines, the proposal picks up elements of the roof massing. The HPC should consider whether too much "borrowed design" 5 detracts or diminishes the cultural value Of the adjacent historic structure. Staff finds that the proposed project is considerably more sensitive to the architectural features of the Koch/Shaw House than the design that was previously approved in 1986, however, some of the detailing, particularly the principal facade upper floor fenestration may offer too much repetition. D. STANDARD: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. RESPONSE: Staff finds this standard does not apply to the proposed application, which is new infill construction on a currently vacant lot. Discussion with regard to the project's relation to the character of the Main Street Historic District and adjacent historic structures has been addressed. ALTERNATIVES: Actions that HPC may take include: 1. Grant conceptual development approval for the proposal as presented. 2. Grant conceptual development approval for the proposal subject to the conditions required at final development review pertaining to accurate materials representation and further clarifications required based upon findings at this meeting. Such conditions may be: a. A reduction of at least 6" in height to meet code requirements. b. A restudy of the principal facade: central entranceway and fenestration C. A restudy of the east elevation in its relation to the principal facade and central entrance orientation d. A restudy Of the entire fenestration proposal, particularly on the south elevation, for simplification e. Provide a simple massing model of the project, including the adjacent structure (Koch/Shaw House) f. Provide a streetscape sketch indicating height and spacing relationships Y . Â·d i ' g. Wood shingle roof material A L -9 P. 2 3. Table conceptual approval # T ~,62' 0 9 .~ 9'1 4/-- 2< 1 f 6 9 Jit U h ft-J- v st#A 61 U (,0 4. Deny conceptual approval based on the proposal's inability to meet the development standards and guidelines. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant conceptual approval for the project at 605 West Main Street, subject to the conditions as stated above in Alternative #2. The Planning Office also commends the applicant for presenting a significantly improved design over the previously approved plan. Notes: memo.hpc.605wm 7 2 0/ 4 8 4 - 1 9 f - -- 1 tri - 0 - 7 X.- - X 1 i - 1 4 - 11-7 -2/1 - .244-1'~21 21 441, L,LIi 1-1!1LL. ~ i 7 f-- 7--- 4 ...h*-1 1 S \ lilli N -9. 1 44 1 1 -- - --- -- ~~--- ii i 1 1 E k - 1 n < . ' 2 - - -Ek 1 1 1 /g 1, 1 --N A ' 1 Â·' 1 1 1 ---- - 1 0=- 1 1, 1 41-7 ... 1 1 El % p 1% . 1 -n--3 1 - 2 - t-. ---=-=-; I \4 1 f 11 - r 1 1 12-- 41 - W- ------ 4 1 - L - -...4 -Il .... ': r ..__--- 7 -- JEun--- .1 1 ~ fÂ«F I T' 1 1 - 1 \ ..' -dÂ»12=231-- Mu rlÂ·--=-1.. . ~ _ 1 1 - =-77-< ' M.1'- t -- i U.- J A L- 1 f- 2---3 - L'-27'12 ' -45;Im-- i-- =~ 0 - _ - 11 LL -4 -1 r 11 0-\ Â·-- -prti'rif-J,i 41|,rx - - 11 1 11 1 . 1! 1;1: 1 71 bl E ,! .1 -7 6 p- V L b = - - L_2Â· Â· ' 14 '924 11 =3*IÂ·5~73~ ;CE:~ 0 h 1 t U 1 1 vt---1 , N.\ ( 1 l, I \,1 UL ,/3-2 -__ i e . lilli--ri///443 . Â°~ *inj \ 4 / . 11- 1>=0'' =\X 11 ,- ro - 5{11 25 1T QX 93 524 1 LÂ«/ 1 1 27 1 1 1 0 -DJ I O o i J flfi-14 â‚¬T 0 0 Â¢ 1 M.It ,GO/34 N ,43119 . 1 t- 9ft tiÂ·r:, -r-Tr-~'3-' ~~~'~t,y . qi I IiI 2 jiNA-~1 0~ ~~~ 1'11 11 \06 11 t' 1 1 Ilk 11 11 11.1 1 ' 024 1 j Ij: 1 ~----2-41 L v itlt iI- /1 ' --- r--4 i 111 '/Â» 11 'Lp i *.t Â·~~ ~ ./* -tull_d.Â£1111'i A b -Â»11 1 11 11 1 thi r , .1 iii E i TO i , 6-=t - 1 i' LL4 IL,j ...4 lit \ El 1 37 43---2--2 '.16 1 7 :| kik i '-L-ila_r-_1_. 7-77'-1--6~4,Lit.4 11ill 4" r IZI~CZ] ., -~EM ret-===7 - C-i |~ 6'' P LAW-eLk-12 - .,~1~~ ~=24=:-211 N '; ''~i~ ~1 -1 T |::.--51 1,1:11 CH . . --- ~ - ._ .. ~.. _- |; T-01=3 i. ' kr, h 1 1 1 r-=17- 7 1 1 K B ' 0 010 132 01-3 Â£ ---- - --- -- -. ' E 7-12-- ' ~ ~~/ll - 1 11 ./IIi Ii- ; ' â‚¬ 2.E - -1 If, Â· lt:~rT 1 .1 -1. rrfir.F 1: ~j i>-1' -=L, I, ~, i...1' ~ i .1-11-!J . P I il_L-Â· ' 19 Hr a -11 11, ...4 LIA' 1 1 b. j,1, -* MN#116 '' Â« f 'Â¤ -Ji _i *up' 2//111:111 tÂ·El I ' ly=-=- r.-==,I R L_=, 1-=1 1 .//~-f721 6 ,4-2 4.4 111, 11. 114@11)1 2 f F. 11=-~ .ip 2 9 i.53 pj 1- '- 3 ~E Iji,il,t; . i 'li, ,Â·, ' ir 1 .1 1 ~ 1- 7.-1 , 1 .1---1 1-- .r', 12 -LJ..ulu.L- 11 : 11| ~!1~1 litil:liÂ· ibl'll -~-" 231 -01&, Unult ill iIi u 45*EITISTMTILIT~~~ ~.~~,ATI ' tfJJ Al #2--t~-7/1 11 11~1 11 J 1'.f + 41 *L~ -M.11 L--- lf.,4 lili.lili 111 1 1 1.1,11 : It' 1!11~1'11|1.11,1! 1' ~ 1!; i M. 0-,2.-.1.-ft).-0. ..91.22104 -Ii-- --14Â»fil-7-1916{I - . - 9.-iII - 3 - 'F-gr f -f Y.-1,101- -1 A--13(14+13 1__~1413_21,2 Ik__ 0 1-L 3% ..40 H re .1=, 11 1 qi/71.2 -= A .._ = 19,1 ..L tildbiL_LJ.L-J ..1 1 - 1~WK LlÂ©/2-13- 4--I -1- 24-?44-,- Â·-44-=tinvÂ»lift'rt- 1_' ' 1-=ir- -3,1, _,ii[L_1- 211 L j' 7 - 1. --=Fi JILI T Â»di _f - f - -4 lili : N % 1 ll' 1 H In z)#91,-12.-1,1'= -r-J k.... Â·-F,-1 -7- ..-1,4,â€¢1.11.6,4-64: --! 11 f .1 -/ Ir - - n4't'Â»46.i - _Â«11=-_.uP- -42111=-12 -920 jOI[IUm) 411 -flt -[TIT' Â·--Â·Â·Â·.~ -f-<di..~.,-22<;FtkU):42121-1~~LZS.)~2:1'J~l/.i--2~'(~bÂ·.-*i-~12 --4_ L L - 1Â·~2~-ci.,f,52-~~4=Fr62~# C~----=~.~~ 4,-- bÂ·4115-5 - 4-7 1 --K- --r - ----/ /-[47-------- - I. lili I - l---919Â«1 -161Â»f-Â«9_1 3- --T~ -JEN 1 1~29-4Â£-~~-2-f 21 4--" ~filituti-iÂ·1GNIC ~t +1 6 i ILL .1' i iÂ· '1 i,; 4 t__- Il -4 9 Â»42-1 1 ==,----= P+L=]Ail.:~-i j---1-lilud -111-_Ill--1-~.Ij-.li.- ~i~ .Pit__. --41 U Ir., a--7--Â»4 - U pi- a U...~. Al 1 E-=I T=Jit r[ 1-2~'ffl* j.~*' --I -~-[-9 <= -971 7"'' 7.'NK=..mr' 1 1 1 1= 1.11 ! 1 12 R-- 7 L. 11 =-3 Ul:f~ J_i~id-_4 -~402~~~-i~t_-_ 3-0<-fi -1-7- -1 L -1-r- -ck-=; Lh - --3 4-j di-- h 1~ 121 1-7 -t -----. 1. ~- -[Il Ull ~1111111)11 PIFT'-i der-rk,JEEL-F CUNNINGHAM INVESTMENT CO., INC. P.O. BOX 114$29 AMI']EN, COI.ORAIX) 141*112 (:108) 1,26-HHOS 1 NOV 1 5 November 15, 1988 HAND DELIVERY Ms. Roxanne Eflin Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Amendment to Wesson Building, HPC and GMP Approvals, 605 Main Street, Block 25, Lots H and I, City of Aspen; Attachments 3A and 2 Dear Roxanne: Enclosed you will find a sketch plan of the proposed development showing property boundaries and predominant existing site characteristics. The site is presently a vacant property and is encumbered by prior HPC/GMP approvals and allocations. In the preliminary meeting with HPC on November 8, 1988, for the amendments proposed to the Wesson building , the following materials were agreed to for use in the building: 1. Clapboard style siding. 2. Masonry footing around the building, either brick or stone material. 3. Asphalt or wood shingled roof material. 4. Double-hung windows at street elevations. 5. Wood ballistrades, porches, enclosures and picket fences on the Main Street and Fifth Street facades. As previously stated in meetings with you and HPC , the proposed amendments to the approved application are designed to significantly improve the visual aspects of the building. The purpose is to bring the design of the building into conformance with the historic overlay of this area of Main Street. We believe that our letter of November 4, 1988, addressed to you, addresses the basic elements which bring the amended design of the building into conformance with the historic overlay. Ms. Roxanne Eflin November 15, 1988 Page 2 As specified in Attachment 2, Paragraph 5, it should be noted that this is an amendment to an existing HPC/GMP allocation approval. The proposed amendments to the development comply with the substantive development review standards and we are not substantively altering the above grade structure, other than bringing the design into conformance with the surrounding buildings as requested by HPC and staff. All of the elements for Attachment 3A and 2 are hereby enclosed. Thank you for your consideration in this matter, we believe that the enclosed materials complete the conceptual HPC application requirements for amendment of the Wesson building design. Sincerely, â‚¬AA A 2-"~E~,1/~ /1.= 2 I. McA. Cunz),if4;ham, 1~es j,dent Cunninghanyinvestmelit Cd., Inc. IMC/kl K/08 4/ m. I. 7./. t. =Ak 44-1 b.-3*';,' Â·' f' 'filk-ji'llfi'1457&47-1...' i .at :430 3" 'indk *AK'E 4 2%/ 1 :W Â¥!2 .0 - . ...67~ ----L g 9 - I I - 5 4 $: i -:1 -ii /Â·-4 - #'12, I ....7-......- - - elle,4.1.25it_ - >\3 ~ "-115 7 2 1 I + 4 ; 11'11 Illilli 2/* lillij r"I . I ....' ./. , 4.:.72,1 r< R Â· . - 1 hock~34 1-tul e c. 1 884 ELL_kJ Â· /kqibl 12 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Project Review Checklist Date: December 6, 1988 Attached is a project review checklist, based upon a very similar one used in Nantucket. I will be including a checklist in your packets for each major project review. Please work with form for this meeting and offer any suggestions for revisions, if you see fit. The purpose for this checklist is to help organize thoughts, and deal with the larger design issues before launching into detailed review. Please ask yourselves the three primary questions at the top of the checklist, and refer to the Development Guidelines, Comprehensive Plan and Code (preservation ordinance) often. Thank you for you consideration! HPC PROJECT REVIEW CHECKLIST Does the Project meet the Standards for Development? Does the Project meet the Development Guidelines? Does the Project support the Community's Preservation Goals? SITE PLANNING ROOF Siting of the Building: Shape (gable, lean-to, etc.) Setback Pitch Facade width Overhang Spacing between buildings Dormers Skylight Chimneys Delineation of street space: Creation of continuous street WINDOWS edge Separation of public, semi-public, Type (double-hung, easement, etc.) and private areas Shape and proportion Fences Rhythm and balance Blinds/shutters Garage placement DOORWAYS Landscape plantings Placement and orientation Type (paneled, etc.) Site improvements: EXTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL Walkways ELEMENTS Driveways Retaining walls Door platforms and steps Porches BULK, PROPORTION and Exterior stairs and decks SCALE (building size) Roofwalks and platforms Height MATERIALS Facade proportions Scale Wall surfaces Foundation ~ Roof MASSING (building shape) TRIM and MISCELLANEOUS Mass of main portion: DETAILS Form Roof shape Tri m Orientation Gutters and leaders Louvres, vents, etc. Additions: House lights Placement Public utilities Form Bulk SPECIFIC DESIGN SUGGESTIONS: : 1,03Â£01Id ; HIVG MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Project Monitoring, update Date: December 6, 1988 Please review the Project Monitoring list, and notify staff of any corrections or changes. Thank you. HPC member Prol ect Status Georgeann 300 W. Main under construction Wheeler-Stallard House window installation Charles 113 E. Hopkins Final approved Joe 334 W. Hallam under construction 200 E. Main Final approved Bill 222 E. Hallam under construction 715 W. Smuggler Final approved Nick 212 W. Hopkins Completed 134 W. Hopkins under construction Charlie 516 E. Hyman under construction 514 E. Hyman Minor Dev.approved Zoe nothing assigned Chris 320 W. Main (Elisha) Concept.forthcoming Pbr, Â¥ 1 '. 1 4 l\J-1 0 0 )* 1/C 61 0 4. ( (1Â»Sen - (- 0 ~91144*& CcÂ·9aj-Â£- 2: f To -be assigned:uâ„¢605 West Main hpc.memo.monit.2 HOLIDAY MEMORANDUM!! To: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, Spouses, Significant Others and/or Guests From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: HPC Christmas Get-Together! Date: December 6, 1988 PLEASE JOIN US FOR A CHRISTMAS GET-TOGETHER! Following our December 20 meeting, the last meeting of the year, We'll all meet at the Cantina for drinks and hors d'oeuvres! (around 4:30 or 5:00 - whenever the meeting is over!) PLEASE INVITE YOUR SPECIAL GUEST TO JOIN US! I have reserved "The Cave" area of the bar for us. Drinks will be at Happy Hour Prices, and they promised us good prices on hors d'oeuvres! * 1 Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! I look forward to another successful year for Aspen in historic preservation! 1 S.pÂ¢64 C. lutnt .I II ~60*5;90./0 1 #or "Th)46 7)46 MPEA) TRAIN " t.4, -4*6Â£ .A; p dA vt for #L O.Ur, Slop, 4\LrootÂ£ Assotiatio'u: -bec. 1 - Colorado 1101,1, Gunwood bc. 9 - Jeron, 14ottl, Aspelu 5:00-9:oop.m. Admiss,Â°nu . dies -t!000 04, p.,8 0Â«,)5 4 64.4. P.55..90 - Nit,oâ€¢dinj Ar +AL 11>451â€¢ r K SlopÂ£ O 4- Coloah, s Fc,fical :11 +6 K oart noj 7 ork; V411â‚¬9Â· Co*t olu oÂ·., or UL ..06,s Ar old N,.lroul filmsr, Unkg 44 71-0, iolit/ 6 r /sodi, CAcesÂ£ + fruit WRIAÂ¥.4Mts, 0,1,1 4 9,4'W o/d *Imt b,+tu dker Joi Ks w Ao W Wilt to "TAKE TH & ASPER) TRAIN" /14â€žj 111 SL-c~l< EL.1 N /11 *6044 4 04 *44â‚¬o Ed + donej keaL f TAKE THE ASPEN TRAIN Edward Larsh and Robert Nichols A 100-YEAR JOURNEY BY RAIL TO ASPEN, ' TOLD WITH PHOTOGRAPHY, POETRY AND PHILOSOPHY This book is about railroads but it is not a railroad Denver and Aspen. It was written intending to be an book. The book is about a hundred years of history aesthetic travel guide for passengers upon the train but it is not a history book. It has 90 magnificent of history and human progress-observers of the pictures but it is not a picture book. It is an exhibit heroic dabbling of mankind before the immutable essay acknowledging the importance of aesthetics and backdrop of sky-sized mountains and beside the ever- literature, a travel guide. flowing constancy of canyon rivers. Its images and words speak of a hundred-year span of the ingenuity, It tells the story of two railroads, the Colorado Midland and the Denver & Rio Grande Western. courage, and imagination of the human spirit. Utilizing both the real and metaphorical implications of the Colorado railroad experience, this book jour- Larsh and Nichols present this dilemma of growth neys photographically and poetically through the mag- and quality as a microcosm of our national priorities nificent physical realm of the railroad route between and cause us to consider that which we truly value. Future Journey Publishing 309A Mediterranean â€¢ Aspen, CO 81611 â€¢ 303/925-9574 ORDERED BY: Please print GIFT ORDER or SHIP TO: Please print. Use only if different from "Ordered by." U Mr. E Mr. C Mrs. E Mrs. 2 .Ms. U Ms. Street/Route Box/Apt. StreetiRoute Box/Apt City â€¢,City State Zip State Zip Gift Card- From. Phone # , Phone # Enclose list of additional names and addresses if extra space is needed. ORDER FORM How Many? Price Total Take the Aspen Train-Regular Edition $35.00 Take the Aspen Train-Special Bound Signed, Limited Edition $50.00 PAYMENT METHOD Sub Total U Master Card E VISA Check or Money Order (I'lease, no currency) E American Express AMOUNT ENCE 4 Colo. Residents add 3% llllllllllllllll Add $2.50 shipping & Card Account Number handling per book Month Year Customer Signature Expiration Date Reqd. Total . 1 'tt . I ./ 14''i/: t.v . . .-j . , 1 . : 3/.1,/ 1,14 411 F't' 10 ' 4 4 4 I - . 7 4,21. lah#j, ,>. * EV: I ' b.02, t. 5 0 -:S 1,1 -42.-=. . 72: 1 .4 ' 4 'i. UWP - 1 ~3I -".2,9/1Â£ r /'-r .... 4 F 14 ,E g : ,Wh 94"Ii' '~ 7 E. 7~ P 4 1 . Alf 04' igi i **.I - - - -- 4 0 7 . ..3 9 A .. 41Â®.Ed 1 f Â¢4 4 1 1 . D '40.,t Â· ,, 11 191,1"j:â‚¬. . ~1~11 r lA;,~*~ e ; IY' 3 -42~54 4. 1 4141,/L . *-- 7, lic.:,1,94.'' 0 4 ' i .:1$211 ..15 ~4,5 - :, â€¢ 4 .A ./ ' ' I 2 .344â‚¬....:raÂ¥'.t .41-3. . Â£ 404'!r/,0 Ii/129/. / , '4; r01. . , I.-I ' R 1 ; 1. AFf/ I ..t 11/11*1â€¢A 1 ' ' D Â·114 ' 7 :,EW/1 321 4.,1//Rie . :9 4,~492. 21. 2&9 1* 0 511 I . .8 1 r i 9 ' 0 Â· .1 , 10 11.. V 1 : U 2 't.IJ f # ..4 '' A FT.13..Pe ' '4 4 4 , a Af 1 91.' ..04 . ~ ' -Â·'r,viv~..3,Â£1 , 9'*k t. . f,44~ fit.:/ 24111imillikWilf I f P 'Wit .4 F: ff- : 5, . f ji-,2.- .,. .9.4 4 1 . 1 til-.I ./.211~ F ti Â¥)*44.~ 40 4 -, 4 41.1.4 ..4 U m t 3% f *Â· 5 4 -~ . + liN T~~*~.4 *~ id,~1,141*,4.-'.!ij 4 4.4",1~~~r * 3%01*' : , 2 1. . rh~ f .3**1,447, Â¢ *. Â¢0 , 4 12Â·- ' ;--1 t;*f-' -Fs'. f 25; g ~.~4 ifib~ *LAk#LF Ar i <ft / 4-im~it,i 41. 1 r 4.Â¢ :,1 3â€¢' 4' j , meÂ» 7 â‚¬,5 , n>, r ~ 1. 4 f' 4/5 * 1 0 1 13. 1 1.1 12 , r 1 t.. . IM ' - - 1 10 , 4, El : W 0 < 74.1 411- 2- o r, j. i *12~Aill ** I F~ t~-6=Â· ': J 1 a .4,5<10 't Al\... e,-4-- P 27*,fi o k 04> L fl .u ' appirrivil:as Ah e r . ; 11. 7"/Rlt 2.,9 d: . Af 2 Z.94.10// I t , 74 b/&32,&~-P~A,Â¥~ . 3 ...... ~ 1Â£*Mtid ..-lpi ~ . " R #412\.~ 10 1 ~X; ~ T r~ j '1., , 1, I .1*22:/I- ...4 + ..7 89 4141....9 - f 124%.~~~~~ 1140 ~1 ./Lâ€¢ .f .7-1 tit.4/'ll 4 /1 .r .~114 4 / 759' 4 4. I rut; ./ Ir. . ' + ' al, Â·rÂ» 1 0 4 ... lat k :r ... I 'f - I ' ..... KE TRAIN & I. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: FYI: Requirements for Development Applications Date: December 6, 1988 The following information is provided for your review. Some of you may not be aware of the extent of required application contents. Applicants must provide the following prior to staff's and HPC's review and approval. General Application Submission Requirements stated in Section 6- 602 are as follows: Applicant's name (owner), and Address telephone number: contained within a letter signed by applicant stating the name, address & telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. Street address Legal description Disclosure of ownership, consisting of a current certificate of title insurance company, or (Colorado licensed) attorney, listing names of all owners of the property, all mortgages, liens, judgments, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application 8 1/2 x 11" vicinity map indicated subject parcel Explanation of why the proposed development complies with the (applicable) review standards Additionally, specific application submission requirements stated in the Historic Preservation Section of the Code (Section 7-601) as follows: Written description of the proposed development Accurate representation (conceptual representation required for first step of significant development, accurate required at final) of all major building materials, such as I ./ samples and photographs Scale drawing of the proposed development in relation to any existing structure Statement of the effect of the proposed development on the original design of the historic structure, if applicable, and the character of the neighborhood. For Final: A statement Of how the Final Development Plan conforms to the representations made during the conceptual review and responds to any conditions paced thereon Additionally, specific for demolition: The name of the structure proposed for demolition or partial demolition Year of construction Structural report Economic Feasibility Report (with specifics as stated in the code) Redevelopment Plan. (See notes below) May consider amending to add to Section 7-601: "Any additional information which staff or the HPC may require in order to properly and effectively review the proposed project, such as models, streetscape drawings, engineering/structural response letters, etc." May consider amending Section 7-602 under demolition regarding "redevelopment": "A "Redevelopment Plan" shall be considered significant development and shall meet the application requirements and standards for review. The Conceptual Development Review (Step One) required Public Hearing may take place at the same public hearing as demolition or relocation review." hpc.memo.applications