The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19880809AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE August 9, 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-July 26, 1988 III. Committee Member and Staff comments Aspen Historic Trust Evaluation Rating Forms Followup from CHS visit/report on CLG grant approval IV. Public Comments V. Monitoring Projects VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Minor Development Amendment: 222 E. Hallam VII. NEW BUSINESS B. Conceptual Development Review, Public Hearing: 200 E. Main VIII.Miscelaneous Enclosures: Marolt House and Barns site rating summary Notice of CHS Roundtable meeting IX. Adjourned MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: The Aspen Historic Trust (newly forming non-profit) Date: August 9, 1988 I am extremely pleased to report that the ASPEN HISTORIC TRUST has reached embryonic stage, after an excellent and enthusiastic first meeting held July 28 at Zoe Compton's house. The initial committee consists of three HPC members (Zoe, Charles and Nick) and three Aspen Historical Society members, with three additional people being sought from the general public. This first meeting of the group was a one-hour long brainstorming session where a number of ideas were tossed out and discussed, including (but not limited to) bridging the gap between the Historical Society (private) and the HPC (public), what our role would be in the city AND county, what the mission statement should be, political advocacy, and if we would enter into real estate options and acquisitions within the context of historic preservation. The group's enthusiasm is high, and our next meeting scheduled for August 11 will no doubt produce a variety of results which I will be reporting to you. In these very early coordinating stages, the Trust (AHT) will remain somewhat low key, but we anticipate that will change soon. Anyone is welcome to attend the August 11 meeting, scheduled for Charles Cunniffe's office at 3:00 p.m. Your ideas are needed! MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Evaluation Rating Forms Date: August 9, 1988 Attached is the newly developed rating form based off the criteria developed for the 1986 inventory update. Please review and make comments or suggestions at this meeting. After further research, Staff has concluded the fringe historic sites and structures that were in question at the last HPC meeting are, in fact, included in the inventory as noted on the map. Individual documentation of these structures and sites was lacking in the planning office and is being updated at this time. RATING FORM Property Address: Property name if any: Owner: Date of rating or rating change by HPC: Circle Rating 0- Structure was incorrectly placed on Inventory and is actually neither old nor reconstructed. 1- Structure is old, but has been so drastically altered to not be easily recognizable as a Victorian or mining era structure. Its situation in the neighborhood typically has minimal historic influence because the neighborhood has been substantially rebuilt with new structures of a larger scale, or the structure is badly deteriorated. 2- Structure has been altered in a way that negatively affects its historic architectural integrity; however, the structure retains some historic significance because of particularly distinctive historic structural elements and/or its contribution to the historic character of a neighborhood. In a few cases, the structure has been associated with an historic person or family. 3 - Structure has been altered in a way that negatively affects its historic architectural integrity; however, the structure retains some historic significance because of particularly distinctive historic structural elements and/or its contribution to the historic character of a neighborhood. In a few cases, the structure has been associated with an historic person or family. 4- Structure has been altered in a way that is considered compatible with the original architecture; and the historic character is preserved. Structure typically has strong positive influence in the neighborhood's historic character and may be associated with important historic persons or events. In all cases, structures were in their original location, to the best of staff and HPC's knowledge. 5- Structure appears to be unaltered or has been carefully restored/reconstructed. Typically, these structures are very good representatives of an historic architectural style and craftsmanship, and have a strong positive influence on the neighborhood's character. Structures evaluated at 5's may also be associated with important historic persons or events. The highest numerical rating, may include "Excellent" and "Exceptional" structures inadvertently omitted from 1980 Inventory and 1986 update. Special notation should indicate conditions which merit "Excellent" or "Exceptional" points, i.e. possesses high artistic value, represents the work of a significant craftsman, builder or architect, or is a noteworthy surviving example of a style become rare. Rating Comments: MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Followup on CHS Chris Pfaff and Jay Yanz's visit last meeting; CLG grant approval FY 88-89 Date: August 9, 1988 After two days in Aspen, Chris and Jay left with a different perspective on preservation in this community. They were very enlightened about the eclectic approach "compatible" architecture has taken here. As well, they were very impressed with the professional and technical expertise exhibited by our Historic Preservation Committee. Congratulations to all of you. I was notified August 3 and am thrilled to report that our application for the next round of State CLG grant funds was approved 100%! We requested and were approved for more than two and a half times the amount of funding we received for FY 87-88. As the scope of the preservation program increases in importance in Aspen, the State and the City have responded accordingly. A variety of special projects such as developing a early ski history context to add to the existing National Register Multiple Resource Area nomination of 1986 are being required by the State, as one would expect. The Preservation Planner position and preservation program will become full time officially at the first of next year. Â« C ~ U . c- MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: 222 East Hallam, Minor Development, Modifications to previously approved plans Date: August 9, 1988 LOCATION: 222 E. Hallam, Lots K & L, Block 71, Townsite and City of Aspen. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of the modifications to the previously approved redevelopment plans for the site. The changes proposed increase the FAR by 6', from 3,362 to 3,368 sq. ft., and primarily focus on roof outline near the rear portion of the house due to a slight change in the interior floor plan, and fenestration. PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: On March 22, 1988, HPC approved the demolition of the 1888 structure on the site based upon its structural instability and impractical economic re-use. At that meeting redevelopment plans were presented by the applicant with 1 action tabled by HPC until the next meeting. Brief comments to the redevelopment plan's appropriateness in areas of massing, height and detailing were made by HPC on March 22, to provide the applicant with direction for requested amendments to the plan to be presented at a future meeting. On April 26, HPC formally reviewed and approved the amended redevelopment plans. ~/ SUMMARY: The historic cottage was razed in May, and the lot currently sits empty with the exception of a few small shed-type buildings 'located at the rear (north) of the lot. The modifications as presented create no significant change to the overall visual _-character__of_the __new_-s_tructure- in- staff 's opinion. : A closet is being added into a second floor west bedroom, creating the need to modify the roof detail creating a hip, changes are proposed in window locations and larger, ~Eritided windows on either side of the fireplace are presented. Fenestration changes occurring on the east elevation include a shape change in the transom windows above the dining room doors from rectangular to "eyebrow", a >teduced kitchen bay which no longer extends to the ground and is receiving a lesser pitched I roof, and the addition of another window in the master bedroom, \ next to the turret. ~pn the south elevation, the windows at the ~ door to the roof deck have changed somewhat in size. < PROBLEM DISCUSSION: When taking into consideration the entire 4 character and design details of the new home, these changes do not, in staff's opinion, alter the character of the Victorian Revival style. The roof height has not increased and the footprint is modified only slightly to accommodate the new closet. r-~taff brings to HPC' s attention the west elevation fenestration, #, which is extremely varied in style, placement and shape. Staff recommends a more uniform approach in fenestration to visually blend this elevation into the remaining elevations. Seven different window sizes and styles are proposed; staff feels the degree of difference is extreme and recommends the applicant further study the fenestration of this elevation. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that HPC grant minor development approval to amend the previously approved redevelopment plans as proposed, with the exception of the west elevation fenestration, which requires further study for design uniformity. memo.hpc.222EH2 f 4- c 1-; 4. ' -i X9 , ..' 7 f' ii 241-.:-jk r& 4 1- hiffÂ« - 4, \/*11-% r-; Â·. , ,__,c-vi W-<:*lit=f\:f- -1 Aia tic 1 '14 $ - - 2 #i.*.1-44 I f_- '-~ t~_ 1 li 2-Ii, i//&$11.- 1 %.41 ~F - . 1 *,2 1614 1~j * /7/4- Â§' + A--~ f. â€¢L *-* 4.4-#4>5 â‚¬4â€¢_I: kâ‚¬;zÂ»UÂ¢ 4 51-~0Â·try â‚¬-0.---1Â¢ 3-4.i + â€ž2-t-r-'w:4 -I .- IÂ» 19-Â· 1. L 4/Af# ...Â·Â·,1.-1--- . 1 .~~ ~. 2&/ 'r t, 1 4 -<11- f + 4 f - a i;iTir-UU-Ew-'imrEGIWIN<-1 I f-\ W r 1 - J--1Â· L-- 11 11 1 . , 11 '111 103 li i baLUI I; [-=11 , 01- 11 , r....... 1% Ilk.. 11 11 3.4 rgi 11 1 :, 11 - + -6 re-l----J-Irr - v Id 1 1 -- tb 1 au,~al.al 72- --- .,r -, :1 '11 I Ik Â· -I 11 --9 11 ---- - --- 1 -% -110 11 11 -3 ~-d. 21. 4-> 11 1. DE i 11 *-7 7* AU -W---1 4'PÂ· 1 /.1 \ 1111 III - - 1 V -1 / FE 11 â‚¬ i 1 11 1 -- 1 6 01 *11 'Full - - 1 11 FmT' . ---4 4 411 1?.f ,- 1/ 1 06- Â»hly / / /â‚¬\ \ _0~ -3. 1, 1 91 t Tl-- t 1 - 11 LE 0/8 ~EZZJ-7.-7.Z..... 11 =Sm 6 1 tr- 1 11 , 1 11 m "1 1 i ' 1 i , *//6=4. / I 6 CIT71-1 / I III 1_-1 0 It == ual-6.- _- . 114 11 1 i A-- - 4 / . *- in K 1 1 --' i 1 1 \ \ It 1 qz 11 1 11 ./ -Il--- 1 1 1 1 1 ' i 10 11 11 lili--1 1 l' 1 i 11 Ti-- j 1' . 1 Uk,5~,w,=/L //: 4- C-- 11 I ...lili../'.EFTEEBY 2 E- - -- fin-_- 11 1 . 1 76, '1.Â¢ 1 1: /16 , ., rl, n, 0, e , 1, -t 24 )1 #3 1, Li -3- -;10 61'c 38, Of< T]~ 9 4 7 '14 01 < -Z . i 39 i â€¢ .1. p.lk 1 9 0-14 *ft 4 4 -11 -M T I 112 6 1> p 9 8 5,0/ 1 ~6 B * 14 + -1 N 11 W CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS ~~~ 1 61 al IMI 1 1 IL!lolail RESIDENCE 2 19 . 1--N 1 lit/1 11 Fll 222 EAST HALLAM ST. ASPEN,CO. PO. BOX 3534. ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 6-Add livAE] SHEET A'.1 tilt/101 illÂ¥/11//4 ~ BASE 64 04 OVERLAY 54 04 d Ill 10'. 01 -0 -11"-PT 07-01 -5.0 Â«MHE>r MIC'Â·'TÂ· '09 f -11-IG-6Â» Â· -8- -4- -6-- 4 0 1 -1- 4 *11. ' $Â·.4 i K 9 'R r..4 7 4 242 01 4 1 54 55 3 ff V-' fri KE; '74 2't , 4%421: i.f 4 4' 4. -f -i lif Â·}rfal ti) '. -1- 4 'IC 0, ' â‚¬ 4 4 0 . :2. O p i ~ .t 1-; 1 ! Ii'.117,411111 ~,1,17 11111 /,111 ~l ul, ~ 1 1.,111,1,1 A 1,1 , '.1. .1 '11-'F=ETTI 1 ' 7 6â€¢--4 3 -/,IL_LE ~Â»Â«0 0 ----~17 -4-__i 1 r-Tl Â· !1' z - L o i ~ L. 1 Ed.Z ~1>11 -----13-~pl -1 1- 9 -- /,1 1.. JA 11 1 -- 9 11 \ - 1 1Â»4-41 0----/LLY -7/liti 27 fil//MIl;1 I rÂ·- ' 1- E - 1 11 1:1 1=- 3-2 : m 8 MI - 1 \ -1 .It'.6-4104 : < Its L.. El ---tÂ» N d Lze l[ r \.11 r ? 0 k..11 \ 9 11> i--1 4 Z 1~7lk-.i ~in*_ -34, r-Â·- Inall 212 / re - .\ 111 ITTIEEEBM PE11 44 .Â»A---0014 i 4 / r V j I ' - -De ~-4./ - UEED - - /X.. 1 1 #47- 1!1 IF- ---_LXJ~j" % I jUJUNI - 11, 1 r, / i h-!A -1/ M2 1 0 0 G 'f - 1 1 1 > 1 EM E.MI AMATO CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS | /2 0 1/0-7< 1.1 6 4, RESIDENCE 9 - 11 1 Kii;, 1- - I PO BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 8I6I2 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 ~ <*r~ 222 EAST HALLAM ST. ASPEN,CO. NOUVAE] 0 \ -*4 0 1 /2\ 1 *1-44 / 1 \ 41\J . %1 AMI 1 1 4 9---3 - /\1/ f AA / * ( 4 tz'. ; 1 1 54< 41. \6.f ..1 1. -0 1 -12,2.% 1 41 , , - 70 71 i I 1 1 63/ r- 1 717-- -- R -r=9 I' ty \A 2 , t: A~ ' R \4 \ 1 , 42, 1 *11 .6 , 41,0 11 7 1 -< 14 58 / " F l I / w 1 \403 ..e. 1 It , .13'.- --,Er ./. / 41 1 : 1. f &*T'.(C li====r r..1 y 3 gAli ~ 1 " )1 k /l 16 le \ 1 1 11.1 (-9 -L-/ / L___/ 1 1 4 "- f it b\\ / 1 1.\ Â· 29 / 1 U 1 + li 9 +lE- 11 19> e f i *'; ir J; le - 1,6 \Co A Â·2 3:lk / 1 Al,4 4% f 1-11:-&)814441 0 11% Avy-.r, 4 li -/ 1 1 -3 2 4 -2 2 0 4 Â». htbit/*24.4 1 + 4 1 w I t -4 .,1 #ia,Er' 4 Th -1 N C.Ar k ' f :Pt V ,$ 6 4 '- f I =6 P l' C > 4 1 PE r i -4 #tt / AMATO CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS /44- 8, Le RESIDENCE ' it 222 EAST HALLAM ST. ASPEN,CO. PO BOX 3534. ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 <r-/05/ *M-24' 3:12,1 ~~~â€¢~ Â·3,#Wl Aedlf-4 1-â€¢2 l. stÂ·d Â·14{16-46 Ott-1-A'71 *AlÂ·> 1-16/41 11-7 /804 HEET At.16 U./"p k fl/N ABE 35 0,4 IVERLAY .4 ..O C 0 4 )> 16'.oâ€¢ , *. 41. 4 ..f 4 5*:0 3 , NLE-it -- --4---V- -Ar'~-'-~[B ~~Frt --14/ .--. Er,1 f :.P ; prit i f/xi 7Â·42 [Â¢ I - t.1, F t.. .Act or CAL ' 14 lur,LT Fâ€¢â€¢MIN /**~Â»Â·\- 434<1~f 1.Â· S Â· i 1 -/ 1 -Ae .-irr Â·Â·E , 1 ' N r '7-Itt .7. A -, 3 : TI-FA 1 2 7--~' B..',/0 /1.4.11,4.'f / â€¢ li 19 - ' r Ill V ' , , 1 -1 -t 1,- W .3 . Â·Â· I lib L 7 .Il /4 M /71. . v i T $ '.. -- 447/LA#/b <1 1 F ~ 1 Â¥ .8 1 11111 1 1- 1.015 Â® ff 1 , 3 1 1 0% . v u-i- 1Â°i illii' 04(31 -0 E--,-/ pir--'r, 1 1 , 1 11 4- 4 --- -- 6 1 k If--t- 111 " 0. e 4 111/499 0 /A 0 V. \01% irpll i : 2 $ 1 41.11'.Â· I f,&1~> Â® P\.Â«4 - 2 *' 11'Or /r \ 1 1 1 .-1 < 0 1:. 1*14- 0 -6- 'll=1 1 VULA. 4 . IN 4 z 43] jr %11] /2 W -I .- 6 1/11': 11 I 11, -4-4.Â®1 11 --4 I (D. 1 1\ 1 . 1 0 4 -45-- . 717~'~~~~ -1 - -- . 111 VPL-. i â‚¬ 11 1 3 1-f-flt"42' Im . 1 1 Â¢1 7 0 1 . 1 V r . - '1 ---- % -4 V 1 $ lu 1 P. \\ 1!.'eÂ· 4 Â¢ f Â·- r -1 ,#1 1 itÂ· 2 - 'gl = - 41111.2 (2)2;SU Z ~ ,Â»44â‚¬r Â· Â·Â· j r 4, 71 . 811%04.t;.5-149*.2- :,1111,1.I 9'Â·.1,1. 1 81,0,1 - ..1. X it 1$ 14 .1... h --1- '1/,1 1 r Al 1 I t.. . --â€¢,4 *1 A h,- 814 3 : 5 3 V 1 Â®H 1 1 Â«13-1 1 1 11Â®1. 1Â®11 . Mt.I 499-1-11.64*N- 11,0. 1 1 ' f -- 4 11& 9 /91 1,1 P. P Q? 4 /t ' 4 iN .2 t Â·>Â· t b * 3 9 i: W P y i S-Et- 1--3~ ~' tÂ» Â£ fâ‚¬t j: 9 i â€¢ B *Ni" i i wi A f.-J & 1 61 4/ P X e T IN A * V., 7 -2 Â» 4 0 I 0 -' -1 4,1 f.1 *11 n '11 O + 4-8 5 0 , g 1 ' F f si ex a'< 2 Fil ",15 464 ft 0, GULT 1 1 4 'V 13 .01 93~ A~p / p 4~j -9-fE 1~, V Y ' 25 I b 1 ~t " CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS ,Â£Zza it AMATO , r . La Â£0 8 43 08 RESIDENCE -bi& ; a ;: till 3 r ' ; 222 EAST HALLAM ST. ASPEN,CO. P O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 ,\9-597 ImlwvÂ·â‚¬, 111'Inl ,0 1"r' 9 94 HOC)1=I SHEET 611 Al -4 K FLAH .ASE 62 0, | OVEMLAY 51/4 1 - C.lit rbi 0. . 1 41 0. .: .-,0 1\\~1 \1 1 41 49 Â»6 1 : r Ch , I I 1 ik - -:Mat m6 e r Â® Z 18- 4 ./Ir<h 1!11 - . 1 : 4,Â· r - = <-1 ~-23~i-._g:,J . 4, rÂ¢ fil < 1 114;.12 J /04\ 5 hit/Allâ„¢ 9 4.1 4.11 0. 2 1% U t JUL &+ ~ Tul NET â€¢ 1.,1,11(0 / ./. 2 4 , , -" 424Â®k== 4%21Â® 8 - 1 4-â€¢â€¢1--fy - /N 1 "A 43 224 . --- - -A R ti Â® iri - 8 6~ It.Nfl.- 11 8, 0 e :l:Jl : ; -t /1 11 - --- -r . 97 . b 9 \P. --- 5,2... : (3-9 @ ;3 1 .: 'v fl;.c - ~ . . / : | 1 . 4 Â¢ 1 1 Â¥ , ..1- 4 14, p 1/ ; t y X*/' M, 4 : --1 . $ .@ e ~ 1 I \~ Â· ' 1 *r--1- 1 - __ -E__ ltd .. r. .r--- a 2, 1 ".-th ' Â« 0. 0:1 *1~R VS 1,1, e. t. 1,1,1. 6' 1.1,1. *71 i 4 lf -i i '40. L . m Â·Â· 0 -4 1 6. '- OIl es 0 tC 1Â» 4,4--1.T t. 4 4 1 41; 1 1 1 4-2 , 3 Kil '24 ..t. 40 1 11 . iti; ' -3 79 1 . 2-14-f--4-3- 6-u --r in Â· ~"-le- 0 f Â· 1:i_--,.Â»4.-4 :.. 1 ... ~, '~, 1.- 69 G . P' 1 ' 4, 5 - - b .A 1 5 -170 Jec f i li 0 L< 2 -- 1 E l 4 / T 1 4 3. e,- 41 k , 1 .- ~ ~ [@ Bt I :2 0 1 1 H -1 6 I. 1 . i ,% 1 -4 T *1- ! e 2-1 - 1 12-0 i )@:Â¢) ... \ 51 r * 1 - 4 1 ~ 4 f L R ..9 1% 1 1 -144 -- 011 0 e -1 , ~- ,4,20 Â® ~,7 , - 01 Z / R l\ Ir , 14 1.Â£2 4 4 Â»bâ‚¬~4 -,mw Â®~ -Â»t (IllÂ® 2 r: .1, 1 KI 7 4 0 -1-â‚¬g. 2/4/60 77 .. ILâ€¢- 1 - e 4 1 414 ic - +- 41'* V 0 1 .1 - ~ C- --- -I,-1-- -ftfr' 4-2 i f : (2) 9 1.10 .111 1 -Â¥ - 1 U *8 . 1 1:t. ~ 9 - B. 1 0 Re \0 1 Â¥ B . ../ - - ---- I. 5.1 6,_ i..6. -1 --- I. I + , e F, 1 10 : 34 -. i 1 r 1@4 8.t n --- 7.* - 0 :1 b l / 1 1,-111 1(3 00 1 -4 1 ~C ~41- -_-L_.41_f _-.._-__ .J , 7 1 " g. 1* .4 1 . 4 E-f ANS ye 4 / i 11'â€¢O 11'.0. -- e U,,- 14 i . 1 11 . 1-â‚¬ fl Vof; 4 A ? ~-4 Â§~4& 20 i: 10 \4 1 . -4 f i: 7 3 g 4 mule L -C K 'V E - 1 1,15. '.. .6 - P I f 3 1 i b w ie TY AMATO 5 CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHrTECTS 1 4 -A F ' Lb N 6 42 63 RESIDENCE A 9% i U ; 222 EAST HALLAM ST. ASPEN,CO. P O BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 * . lie E T All ..1.11,1,41 . /-,1.-1. .ASE bl f., OVERLAY 81 r . r A 1r -1- 4'.1, lb'Â·/11 e -- e-- - ".1. f.4. 't'. f. o â€¢ to'Â·OH 4..0. 0,1.. 2'Â·0' -1 --- 4 1 .4 1 : 0 1 0 f...1111-1. 4. . 01 i %69415 - 1 . /Th c . ril r z 1 41 1/4 11'J D . 149 1 4 - . b -41-64 & 1 I. i - 1 :re-*3 : 3 4 1 I.-d 1 Â·,r Â«f T--21 3-1-Lf> i i -2 eh -t i -1 t i I - Rm , , , rrt. 3 t 6 5 9-1- -- . $ - r 17 1 11Â¥1 q 0 0 . ., k 12.1 , .~~ 9. R 0 0--1 1 1 +L: '/ Ah 1 â€¢ y 1 4 1 /0.P-3 (i) ec :@3 el Ir: 2.10 14Â¥ -|(1 L IÂ¥ - -i- - * 1-2 1, i 1 4," Ill Ir. 1 l=.1 1/ 1 1 0, '---9 EV- 11 - - - --- -9.1 11 .-e- 1. u.j f F~ i~ 11 Â£ M 1, .4 E \ 't 0. . ..%) / 42$11 , 1 1. Al k i-- trail 1.0.\ ~ 1 4 i'Â· 0Â· >Â°t 'IY IL f . Z'. to"ZI 8'Â· 00' Ill- 10'40 2 049 9 111 E - Dir Â· ' '40 /--- /1/1 f -, 1 1 .\21 90 3 bt i- -.91 -1-71-37-t I >.IA .,1.1 1 1 V i It' 11> â‚¬) N Â«-7 -\ i -L = \.9 7 \1 1 . I B 1 . 4-- M k, 0 -r 8 2 Al . 1 \ &g: â€¢â€¢R e -4/ P 1-< 1 ki B. 1, 0 )Â£.1 1 01 / Â¥ 11. W . / 2264 4 my 1 . AZ & f /1.1- 3 1 r \ p w ike $ -9 1 12'Â·o" *AvrE'"~Flf./Tr~Ol//04/Â·; -- 4 1 - I K 9 9 -8 8\ i te , i .% Anq; 1 -4 4 ? 1 4 4 4-3: 1 .1 (0 7 i-flot 2 rtle #Oft 3*/3 9 2 *tpl E FFÂ·} r K u 1 i + 13 r R C 4 -16 6 B' 1 - 1 A b & Â£ 91 3 F r. ' ; ~ '., ..4 4, m 1 Et , -0 1 il f 2 51 1!1} i 35 il .ill , Â¥ i ; 1&1 1 -[ b i,1. 4 1 7 $ b. f 2 3164; 1 0, , -~ & 4 Â£ 4,Â§1 AIVIATO 1 11~ I im -2 = 9 CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS | 42--34x RESIDENCE 1 9 * : 31 222 EAST HALLAM ST. ASPEN,CO. P.O. BOX 3534. ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 ~ \_ 50' NV-Id NOI-LVa NAO=1 644 /4 3%\ / / -Z-*i 4 r ~ 2 9, 1 2% . 1 11.1 , 1 ii. 7 .4 1/, / liyÂ¢/ F-\\\\ f \ 3/ 4 4 :.44 0 //96/ 4 /NON 1 \ N / // 7<4 94 4 i rf. 41 i %. 92117 7 b /1 1 AT.48&. 1 A. C 9,Â·1Â« 9%54, 1 1 - L. ' .10~ 1.1 lt, r .1 ,t. il?%,M~ 4:,1,.,\ .A\,A\, ;7, t' 1, -1 1.V- .\ 4.<F ' / ...1,\4,/ litte''f,2>Â»1.124Â» 11'~V *}1/ ////// 4. ' % 0Â»4415;404 /./ ''22 W '4 4.\ \\ 14 . 4 3 ..lt ! ':Â·A .~.,< ,.44~u,Â· /V.. , -Â» 1... 1 0,- t'. ,> ' (â‚¬4 ->f 1~44.11-4 4 \ 4 40. , 4\ 0 ...6 1 /\\//. /1 . \\ 1 11 3 1 14\ \ 4 i . /. . / \ F . / 1 / . ..41\ 1 \ / \ \: \6 40% V \ 4 â‚¬ 13 6 92- 4% i .4, . /6\ J ..4 1 .â‚¬*fis. , < L.~ . 1,1. 6 ' A.4, Â·\ 11 Â· 1 \&. 4% . / \ . â€ž44 /\ / /9 4 ... I ,-4 1 / 0 + A s. , - 6, 36 , 2 ' 6 \)12 'iâ€¢46 Â· 4\ 7.i- I 3 / 4, ID,/4 . 'l '. 1 I 13~ :/ 1 + Ft / I / , 44 1 / . 4 0, 2 1, . r.4 1 r u W 7- 1 1 1 4/ 1. / ' I.k/ //59 "i , /r 4 /7 , '1 I. . . H. , /: 1.-*\ . , 2 1 1 f- . 1 . . 1 4, i / I / / I / 640 0. 91 0 S . . 4*le i !11Illl -'- A -i >7 ' 5:T :tr Â¥, 24) 5 1 10.1,~ . '' ../Pi y /e. 1 =14 0 'FI:k - / 1 11 4 / tr -9 1 & B '15 ,-Â¢ Â¥ f / , U/ 3 65 B L l. 1 7 . + i l. VI C '1~11, r 1% Y 4 ". j 'IP' lilli li =i: r f 8 34 4. A 11'/ h g fl '.4 1 i 0 , ,=Â£ 2/F :24/1 M -1 . u 'C Â£ t lip Irl Â·Â· m 11 N Â£ m. i 1. f 2 /4 0 |jillm 5-11 Z. F &33 Z 11111.11 11 N Qr .-r 3151.17 60 Z -1 4 1 1 .Â£ 6 I Ek CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHFTECTS m m. f i AMATO 2 RESIDENCE 1 i 2e2 EAST HALLAM ST. ASPEN,CO. P.O. BOX 3534. ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 Â·7 -2- 7 - liwild kNIal'll* 2 4 h MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Conceptual Development, 200 East Main, Public Hearing Date: August 9, 1988 LOCATION: 200 East Main Street, Lot K, Block 73, Townsite and City of Aspen (Entire parcel consists of Lot K, L, and M.) ~ ZONING: ~ (O) Office Zone within Main Street (H) , Historic Overlay %District. The entire 3-lot parcel was designated historic in 19-, which includes Gracy's buildings (Lots L & M). APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting conceptual development approval to build a two story office building on Lot K. The total square footage for the proposed building is 2,250, the maximum allowable FAR of 75:1 unless on-site employee housing is provided. weonsideration for development on the entire 9,000 sq. ft. parcel is required in addition to required commercial GMP approval. The applicant is also requesting HPC grant variations for both a sideyard setback (west) and for the minimum distance between buildings(east), based upon the design's compatibility with adjacent landmarks. SITE, AREA AND BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Proposal Allowed bv Code Parcel area: 9,000 sq. ft. Proposed new building floor area: 2,250 sq. ft 2,250 sq. ft. Existing FAR (total parcel): 3Â£424 sq. ft. FAR (total parcel): (ET, 6738 sq. ft. 4,750*sq. f t. Proposed building maximum height: U--28 ft. Building median height: 25 ft. 25 ft. Front yard setback: 14 ft. 10 ft. Rear yard setback: 20 ft. 15 ft. Side yard setback: 5 ft * 5 ft. Minimum distance between buildings: 6 ft.** 10 ft. *With the exception of the 12 ft. long one story projecting gabled bay, which encroaches 3 ft. into the west sideyard setback. Encroachment requires HPC's approval for variation based on finding of compatibility per code. j **The two buildings vary in their distance apart from 6' to 13'. Referral comments from Fire Marshall Wayne Vandemark were sought: Wayne stated the length of the 6' separation (20') was enough to warrant complete sprinkling of the building to be acceptable from a safety standpoint. The applicants are aware of and will apply with the requirement.) Calculations indicate the average distance between buildings is 9' 3". PRIOR HPC CONSIDERATION: On Jul 22 1988, HPC reviewed preliminary plans at a pre-application conference with the applicant. The plan presented at that meeting reflected a long, narrow two story building with front-facing gable end and minimum architectural detailing. Two fenestration alternatives were presented, both of which drew some criticism from the committee. At that meeting, direction was given to the applicant to study the setback alignment with Gracy's buildings, height, setback variation for the west sideyard for design consideration, fenestration, materials, front entrance and site planning including sidewalks. RPC also requested FAR calculations for the entire site and design alternatives to break up the long, narrow side elevations. The applicant's new proposal has taken into consideration all of these issues, with the exception of sidewalks and landscapingr. PROCEDURE FOR PROJECT REVIEW: Significant development is a two step process, beginning with HPC's conceptual approval, a required public hearing. The next HPC step is Final Development review which application must address the conditions (if any) placed upon Conceptual Development approval. Per land use Planner Cindy Houben, the applicants are required to apply for a commercial Growth Management allotment for the proposed commercial square footage, which may be applied for concurrent with HPC reviews. Conditions of the Office zone district allow the applicants to apply for special review in order to reduce parking requirements and increase FAR to 1:1 if employee housing is provided on site. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: 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 with the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay district or is adjacent to a Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. RESPONSE: The complete site consists of the two one story Gracy's buildings dating to 1892, which have been connected and 2 are located on Lots L and M, and the proposed detached structure to be located entirely on Lot K. The existing historic buildings are excellent examples of Victorian Miner's Cottages, typical in scale, roof pitch and detailing. The front gables with projecting bay windows, trimmed in horizontal clapboard with fishscale shingles in the gable peak and long, narrow double hung windows give these building historic architectural integrity. The front porches are moderately decorated with turned posts and gingerbread detailing. HPC's review for development approval should take into consideration the entire parcel, not exclusively Lot K. The design considerations as discussed with the applicant at the July 12 HPC pre-application meeting deal with the applicant's *ility to encroach slightly into the west side yard setback to vary the extreme (in the architect's words) "pullman car" appearance of the west elevatian.2 HPC may grant this variation based on their finding that--the design allowed would be more compatible in character, as stated above in Standard A. A rectangular, storefront commercial-type building design is not compatible in the Main Street district, or to the neighboring buildings, as the Development Guidelines specify. This variation would allow a more residential-in nature office building to occupy this highly visible corner. To design a compatible new office building within a 30' frontage lot, and still achieve the FAR allowed by code is challenging, and in staff's opinion, the best compatible infill design for this site requires stepbacks and varied elevation depths, which have been presented., The character of the proposed building is somewhat quiet, and 4~s the -pplicant states) "prevents it from being the dominant element in the neighborhood". Â·Staff concurs with this statement, however, agrees with previous HPC comments that the overall height should be reduced to prevent any dwarfing of its historic neighbor. The areas of staff' s main _concerns__are-in--heigh and fenestration. To its credit, the building's stepbacks and gables of the second story ease the dominant appearance as an addition to the Main Street District, and add architectural interest and neighborhood compatibility to the building. In staff's opinion, this is a much improved design over the "two story shot gun" previously presented at the pre-application meeting. As well, the argument can be made that the proposed height consideration provides a transition from the three story Sardy House (across Aspen Street to the west) and to the adjacent one story Gracy's buildings. We do, however, feel that the approximate 9' difference in height between the proposed building and Gracy's is considerable, especially due to their close proximity, and are recommending a reduction in height to soften the looming effect. It is both the applicant's and HPC's goal to enhance the adjacent historic resources, and a considerably taller next door neighbor may not achieve that goal. HPC should consider also the impacts (if any) of the new building's massing and height to the Sardy 3 House when viewing this historic landmark from the east bound Main Street approach. The proposed fenestration takes away from its positive design elements of style and scale, in staff's opinion. Particularly in the west elevation, the largest, most visible of all elevations, the fenestration appears overwhelming and inconsistent with neighborhood character. The undivided, squarer second story windows are not compatible to the first floor's longer, more narrow divided windows. On a positive note, the south elevation (main facade) has less percentage of glazing, and its window treatments as design elements appear appropriate in comparison. The arched transom windows on the main and west elevations reflect Victorian styling, and are a nice detail, in our opinion. -v <hk o JO) The round "port hole" windows in the gable peaks are definitely a new Victorian decorative treatment: seven of these specialty windows are proposed for each major gable peak. In our opinion, this may be a bit excessive and we recommend the applicant seek another alternative to bring attention to the gables, which lend themselves well for nice architectural decoration. One alternative may be to simply reduce the number of round windows. Entryway: the main facade's front entryway is -basic and primarily unadornedj Above the two substantial columns with massive supports is a balcony with extremely simple railings. At the pre-application meeting, some discussion was given to the simplicity of the entryway's design. Slightly more detail may be appropriate here, as the central focus of the main facade, and the applicant may wish to present amended entryway design plans at Final. Staff calls attention to the west elevation, second story shed dormer, which appears to be approximately 7' in length, containing four windows. This dormer and window treatment appears unbalanced and out of proportion with the remainder of the building, particularly the west elevation. We recommend further study of this element, either breaking up the one long dormer into two, designing them as gables, or centering the dormer over that portion of the structure and reducing the number of windows, or percentage of transparency. B. STANDARD: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. RESPONSE: Sec. 5-213 of the Land Use Code states: "The purpose of the Office (0) Zone District is to provide for the establishment of offices and associated commercial uses in such a way as to preserve the visual scale and character of former residential areas that now are adjacent to commercial and business areas, and commercial uses along Main Street and other 4 high volume thoroughfares." In staff's opinion, the proposal addresses this statement well. Three important areas to be considered in approving new development which reflects and is consistent with neighborhood character are: 1) -Ille--Main-Street--ltisto' district is one of the areas of greatest historic importance and visibility in the City. 73 The--chamagteristicâ‚¬ that have been established can be respected while at ~the--same time developing new and creative building designs that avoid the imitation of earlier historic styles. 3) In all new commercial construction'. compatibility to adjacent bâ‚¬11pES- should be considered. ('--fn staff' s opinion, the proposed development generally meets the criteria established for new construction in the Main Street Historic district. Its general massing, siting, and scale appear appropriate for the immediate block and the historic district. The design considerations presented generally meet the Development Guideline criteria and the materials presented (clapboard and wood shingles) are compatible with adjacent landmarks. The applicant states "the proposed building does not duplicate the architecture of the period, however, by using traditional shapes, forms and roof pitches, coupled with the use of contemporary materials, the proposed building will complement the neighborhood." C. STANDARD: The proposed development enhances or does not Metract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. RESPONSE: In staff's opinion, the proposed development does not detract from the cultural value of the adjacent landmarks, Gracy's and the Sardy House. Its overall design generally harmonizes with its older neighbors and the Main Street District in sensibility, scale and proportion. The proposal addresses Standard #3 of the Secretary of the Interiors's Standards for Rehabilitation which states: All buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. From a cultural standpoint, the design issues of this new structure may set a good example for future infill projects, where adjacent compatibility necessities are critical. Landscaping is an important consideration within the Main Street District. As the Guidelines state: "Traditional landscape patterns are a very strong element in the historic residential areas. These patterns should be maintained in any infill construction. Maintain the street trees and the planting strip between the street and the sidewalk." Development within the 5 Main Street District is generally reviewed under "Residential" guidelines. Staff would like to see a fully developed landscape plan for this site at final development review. Properly designed landscaping will serve as a buffer between the old and new buildings and lend a visual transition between the existing historic landscapes of Main Street and infill development. It could also serve to attract attention to the main facades in a naturally sensitive way. D. STANDARD: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the anchilactug.Al__int@gtityl of a designated historic structure or part thereof. RESPONSE: As the applicant's perspective streetscape drawing indicates, the proposed new building does not detract from the existing historic buildings on the site, however the proposed new building height may diminish the adjacent building's integrity, as previously stated. For the most part, Gracy's is allowed to read as the vernacular miner's cottage it is. Staff recommends that the applicant take this opportunity to enhance through simple maintenance and proper painting the existing historic structures, particularly their main facades. Although HPC has no purview over color, a coordinated paint color scheme would enhance the three structures and blend their streetscape appearance. While borrowing on past architectural themes, the new structure distinguishes itself as compatibly contemporary, in our opinion. ALTERNATIVES: Actions that HPC may take include: 1. Grant conceptual approval for the proposal as presented. 22<zz~131 ditions required at final development review pertaining to Grant conceptual approval for the proposal subject to d accurate materials representation and further clarifications required based upon findings at this meeting. 3. Table conceptual approval until the applicant returns with further study and other design concepts regarding height, dormers, fenestration and materials. 4. Deny conceptual approval for the reasons that the scale, massing and design concepts are inappropriate on this site. Direction may be given to the applicant to consider: a. Reducing the size and height of the structure b. Restudy fenestration, particularly on the west elevation c. Redesigning the west elevation shed dormer d. Restudy for main facade entryway and balcony detailing e. Consider uniformity of materials for both stories, eliminating stucco as a second floor material 6 . RECOMMENDATION: Staff compliments the applicant for presenting a good, compatible building design for this unique site, which addresses the issues of new looking new yet sensitive to its historic neighbors. However, we recommend Alternative #2; that HPC grant conceptual development approval for the proposal for 200 East Main, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the applicant further study reducing the height, particularly of the highest east/west cross gable, and 2. That the applicant further study fenestration on all elevations, with emphasis on the highly visible west elevation, and 3. That an alternative to stucco as a major building material be considered, and that uniformity in materials between the first and second floors be achieved, and 4. That a landscape and replacement tree plan be considered and submitted 5. That all these conditions and the standard requirements for final development review be presented for final approval. Staff also recommends that HPC's approval include granting variations for both the west side yard setback and the distance between buildings, finding that such variations are more compatible in character with the (adjacent) historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. memo.hpc.200em 7 JUL 1 7 1988 GENERAL APPLICATION INFORMATION The following information is provided in accordance with the Minimum Submission Requirements as set forth in Section 6-202 of the Aspen Municipal Code. 1. Name of Applicant: The Wheeler-Carter Venture Address & Telephone: Wheeler Square Associates c/o The Fleisher Company - 710 East Durant Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2122 Richard and Claudette Carter 373 E. Sopris Creek Road Basalt, Colorado (303) 927-3087 Representative: Donald J. Fleisher Address & Telephone: The Fleisher Company 710 East Durant Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2122 Authorization: See Exhibit A. 2. Street Address: 200 East Main Street Legal Description: Lot K, Block 73 City and Townsite of Aspen 3. Ownership: See Exhibit B. Title Insurance Certificate General Warranty Deed 4. Vicinity Map: See Exhibit C. 5. The proposed development complies with the "Substantive Development Review Standards" as follows: a. The proposed Building does not extend into the front yard, the rear yard, or the East side yard setbacks, nor does it exceed the allowed Floor Area Ratio. It does, however, extend into the West side yard setback (6'8"), as a result of an HPC finding allowing the applicant to do so, in order that the front line of the Building not extend beyond the front line of the adjacent historic building to the East, known as Gracy's. By extending into the West side yard setback, the Building's design is able to take on a more residential character, with its undulating West wall, rather than being a pure rect- angular shaped building similar to the Mesa Store Build- ing, which was built in the latter part of the 19th - Century. b. The proposed Building reflects and is consistent with the Sardy House to the West and Gracy's to the East in terms of roof pitch, window dimension, and general massing. c. Both the Sardy House to the West and Gracy's to the East are existing historic structures in the neighborhood of the proposed Building. The proposed Building , as a result of its architectural style, scale, footprint, site plan and use of materials, neither detracts nor over- whelms the historical significance of its neighbors. d. The applicant intentionally chose to develop a separate building rather than extend onto the existing Gracy's Building on this three lot site in order that the architectural integrity of the existing historic building be preserved and not compromised. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT IN HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT The following information is provided in accordance with the Specific Submission Requirements as set forth in Section 7-601 of the Aspen Municipal Code. 1. Sketch Plan: See Exhibit D. Proposed development showing property boundaries and existing - site characteristics. 2. Building Materials: See Exhibit E. Conceptual Plan for building materials. 3. THE EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON THE ORIGINAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD: Main Street, Aspen, during the period of its inception, was residential. The site for the proposed Building is located between two existing historic residential structures. On the West is the Sardy House, one of Aspen's finest examples of "high style Queen Anne" residential architecture. On the East is Gracy's, an example of a late 19th Century miner's cottage. As a result, the applicant has endeavored to give the proposed Building a residential character, with features reminiscent of the period. Given the importance of the Sardy House and Gracy's as preserved historic structures, it is the intent of the applicant to develop the site in such a way that the proposed Building not be the dominant element in the neighborhood. The front projection of the proposed Building matches Gracy's in terms of width, height, pitch of roof, and window propor- tions and placement. The proposed Building does not dupli- cate the architecture of the period, however, by using traditional shapes, forms and roof pitches, coupled with the use of contemporary materials, the proposed Building will complement the neighborhood. A r- 1 n. f, n UUL Z 7 900 EXHIBIT E: CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR BUILDING MATERIALS The following information addresses the conceptual plan for building materials to be used for the proposed Building: Lower level: Wood clapboard siding Upper level: Scored stucco Roof: Wood shingles with black stain Skirting: Stucco JUL 2 5 i988 FLOOR AREA RATIO ANALYSIS OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED STRUCTURES LOTS K, L, AND M BLOCK 73 TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Individual Lot Size 3,000 sf Total Parcel Size 9,000 sf Maximum Allowable Floor Area Ratio 0.75:1 - Please refer to the Notes below regarding the methods used to determine these Floor Area measurements. Existing Structures Area % of Total Gracy's: Retail - First Floor 2,160.43 sf 24.0% - Basement 100.15 sf 1.1% Residential 489.50 sf 5.4% Wood Shed 276.90 sf 3.1% Total Existing FAR 3,424. 68 sf 33.6% Proposed Building 2,250.00 sf 25.0% (Increase in FAR) Total Combined Floor Area Ratio 5,674.68 sf 58.6% All Floor Area measurements are based on the external perimeters of existing structures, with the exception of the basement measurement, which is an estimate of the portion of the Floor Area, based on internal perimeters, that is more than one foot (1') above grade. Please refer to the attached Improvement Survey (of existing structures) and the Existing Conditions (including the Proposed Building) for further detail. ...,A ' ' IN) 1 4 ~ r 9% 65 ; ,Â»6 / 1, i t 1 4.1 1 , . , 1 :i st. ... ... . 1 Wth , I Â· Â· f 11 / ..b .. \ ; 41 ...1 ....4.74 0/3 i f lu -L. i ..:CU~ r -j /~ 1 1 1 1 (i #1 1:LIi j~ 1~~~~1 1 8 1 f i-'ll -- - 1 159 4- i 9 1 3,Â· : X t- ' _ A.. < L I :11 1 t...1 .. 4.4.d,$ -/ ././ .f.., ... 6.. te . . 24 r . y 1 4 1 + '552 PERSPECTIVE '8&-10 .'.,4<.4'::4_'' J.thi:-f:'.,1Â·397:I~#(~~~)~M.~ACA.#,',1,,~,~'~~,6;Â·4~ '/I Is 200 E. MAIN 71;p .4%%*1*uth~a~NgÂ·jÂ«*4Â¢59:442 Â»1Â».-: ~E;r--~-2#ff?hit~allir._ j=Eh~a~A~44A~~ ASPEN, COLORADO JULY 18Â·86 .6~~*t'~F''~ 1 3 <1:,1 ?;e,~--*,~~.m..... mm#*MIÂ«fv* 00 'NBdSÂ¥ NIVA .LST3 002 1V DNIallne 039OdOUd V ste/49 Jo 1 Ii-7 E iho !} 2 1 0 \ 1 0 1 It - L,' li t~,li_-11, O% 1- 1 1''l'1~ Crb CO CO 41 m :--/-3 5 1 j' 1 91 8*R 'In ill,~!1 9 5 1 1 EL 2341,1 4 '11 1 1 5. - 41 -1 6 P r- 1 r-n U /4 14 L 7--7 Â£ 1 E. ~4111# P -_ _ _ _ J L:r=U~11~ A 1 1 ----1 1 / I 4 /0 2 1 114> jf - 14 1 / Co 2 -- - -~JiIij::~~~ j ,4 lp ,t, qi,Â·i,4 m 1 2-1 ]LE-]1-\ rl" m - -- -7~49-31 j Ufill Â·i % =1 1 \ i--IMIL O III anki 1 11 Z 1~ 1-_141~Â·1~'~~'~~~ ~ ~ ~i'i 773*111%11 2 1.- -- - hill 12[INErtmdia 3 z 00 g ELEVATIONS Job no. L Â·, 88-10 revision, N 200 E. MAIN drawn DEKP ~~**suthedand }Â»*~4*~ ASPEN, COLORADO Juy 11'813 /48%4N4'â‚¬*k.ifitÂ·Z;?;7,'67.77-*-//""///4/4///t/"?"~ date **pla~Ilinâ€¢,-e-m. ikeN64{@UA~6*]k~~i~1 jlj[ . NOUVA313 1SV3 NOUVA313 HltiON â€ž0-,l=.08/& :31Â¥06 ./27 1 of .helt' i 1 i 11 1 10. ASPEN STREET /. 66 6' 1.'r L 1 ,/ 11 L 6.60 6' 115 12Â· 20/ I 1 4 -- \[D R 10 - 1 1 1 1 -j - POWER J I l EXI STING CONDITIONS 18m i..444â€ž0Â·Â·ff~Â·f*3Â«:Â«~.~;~-1,(tkitt bi *Â·4.,~p, 4:'Â·:Â·1-3~~ 200 E. MAIN s:*-- -f<%4#.sutherlandiffdiZE186134*' i*ls DEKP ,.Â¥ -=- itt9*1~11/6.... Obali *29 ASPEN, COLORADO JULY 18'88 '.~.~S~' 13~~4~.5~ ~ Â· 93 -49. :....ft:Of. B-'-' - -0- mIOIIIâ€¢-*012 4'2.1 U 3 NM t= GRAC:Y'S w,1,11 11@ ALLEÂ¥ JUL 2 5 1988 JAIL SET. 16 AP 05-3 VII P 5 -15Â°09'11"E 89 70 O.Fl//0.e-] 1 4 1Â«331Â«-19i L 1 2,0 LS /4 )'r N /*~A/DOD â‚¬*-lei) ~<f I T- 10 t 11 45 34~/~///-1 /- F--08 | 1*1 1 77 7/8 5// // , q M RESIDENTIAL 0\ ve ~ ADDITION 1 Â»06=, 0 0 0 0 / ' / ASS / / b, t ,Â«/ / l '/ ~ ~ C /1 2 -Â«j / li/ r ~ l I / 1li - 1 0 // ONE STORY / N / / / ENE STORY 0 0 ~ ~ N-9142-*33Â·~- 11 J / ~ RPJAW_VESSE 1 i k ' 7 / ~ 1 1 825/ 1//1/1/// f 1 i lilli iÂ£ LU lr -33-7 f iII - LOT K | LOT L LOT M c ' U N 15Â°09'11"W saiD MAIN STREET N 14Â°50'49" E I Â£,1-I 1 EVALUATION RATING SUMMARY Opal Marolt House Holden-Marolt Barns/Lixiviation Ruins Site SUMMARY: Aspen's Numerical Historic Evaluation Ratings begin at 11 0 " for non-historic structures incorrectly placed in the Inventory and increase to "5" with increasing degrees of historic and architectural integrity. Excellent and Exceptional rated structures surpass even the highest numerical rating and are those which possess extreme historic integrity, high artistic value and association with important historic persons of a local, state or national level. OPAL MAROLT HOUSE, c. 1890 Rated "4" by Historic Preservation Committee, July 12, 1988 The Opal Marolt House's evaluation is based upon the criteria for a "4" rating which states: "(The) Structure has been altered in a way that is considered compatible with the original architecture; and the historic character is preserved. Structure typically has strong positive influence in the neighborhood's historic character and may be associated with important historic persons, commercial ventures or events. In all cases, structures were in their original location, the best of staff and HPC's knowledge." Even though exterior alterations have been made to the structure, its outstanding association with both mining and ranching history in Aspen weigh heavily in its rating consideration. Comparisons of other "4" rated structures also indicate this rating is appropriate for the structure. HOLDEN-MAROLT BARNS/LIXIVIATION RUINS SITE, c. 1885-1893 Rated "5" by Historic Preservation Committee, July 12, 1988 The evaluation of this significant site is based upon the criteria for a "5" rating which states: "(The) Structure appears to be unaltered or has been carefully restored/reconstructed, and is sited in its original location. Typically, these structures are very good representatives of a historic architectural style and craftsmanship, and have a strong positive influence on the neighborhood's character. Structures evaluated at 5's may also be associated with important historic persons, commercial ventures or events. They are a noteworthy surviving example of a style becoming rare. 4 I. 1 . Marolt Evaluation Rating Summary, continued Determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, this particular site importantly contains the Holden Lixiviation Ruins which extend down the hill directly to the east of the main barn. The site also contains two outstanding barns, one major and one minor, altered only slightly but not so as to diminish its original historic integrity. A centered square cupola was removed from the main barn, and the smaller barn was shortened from its original footprint. The Aspen Historical Society's interest in restoring these barns and interpreting the Lixiviation Ruins site is commendable, and every effort should be made to assist them in this undertaking. The "Living History" preference for this ranching museum/exhibit project is a recommended preservation activity for the site. The barn's unique architectural style with the extended platform can be creatively utilized to assist in site interpretation. Historically, the platform served as the loading level to rail cars pulled up along side the barn on the Holden spur of the Midland Rail Road. The '15" rating is consistent in comparison with other structures and sites achieving a 5 or higher rating and due to the fact that these structures are remnants of a once larger complex, and have been slightly altered. Prepared by Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Specialist Planning Office -L -I . lei <i- 51988 2* :i-.1 COIDEADO 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 is reviving the cultural resource management roundtable meeting series of informal public sessions to discuss issues in historic preservation and cultural resource management. An open meeting will be held on Friday, August 12, from 1:30 to 4:00 pm in the third floor conference room at the Colorado History Museum. 1300 Broadway, Denver. At the August 12 roundtable, the topic for discussion is the State Preservation Plan, now under preparation by the Society's staff. This session will provide an opportunity for the public and the cultural resource management community to contribute their ideas at the earliest possible stage in the plan's formulation. For additional information. please contact Susan Collins. Acting State Archaeologist (303/866-2736) or Christine Pfaff, Director of Preservation Planning (303/866-4678). 7/24/34