Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.19950125AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 25, 1995 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR CITY HALL 5:00 I. Commission and Staff Comments Approval of Nov. 2, 1994 minutes. II. Public Comments III. NEW BUSINESS A. None IV. OLD BUSINESS 1 5:15 A. Streetsigns 5:35 B. 939 E. Cooper Avenue, Worksession (no memo) 6:05 D. Code Amendments, Worksession 6:45 E. Amendment to Reso. 95-1 6:50 V. PROJECT MONITORING 7:00 VI.ADJOURN Ed >6 6.--,6. (~43-~1 r 1 2LLL./ 3 L·-2*2~<.-/L~ G/4~3 f L HPC PROJECT MONITORING HPC Member Name Project/Committee Joe Krabacher 801 E. Hyman AHS Ski Museum Aspen Historic Trust-Vice Chairman 612 W. Main 309 E. Hopkins (Lily Reid) 617 W. Main 312 S. Galena - MD (Planet Hollywood) Highway Entrance Design Committee Donnelley Erdman The Meadows (Chair-Sub Comm) 442 W. Bleeker (Pioneer Park) Collins Block/Alley Wheeler-Stallard House 624 E. Hopkins 304 E. Hopkins 234 W. Francis 204 S. Mill - Collins Block 220 W. Main - European Flower 930 King Street Leslie Holst Holden/Marolt Museum (alt.) In-Town School Sites Committee Aspen Historic Trust-Chairman 824 E. Cooper 210 S. Mill 303 E. .Main Alt 312 S. Galena - MD (Planet Hollywood) City Shop - 1080 Power Plant Road 506 E. Main - elevator 930 King Street Jake Vickery The Meadows (alternate) In-Town School Sites Committee 205 S. Mill Larry Yaw 716 W. Francis 442 W. Bleeker (Pioneer-alt.) 204 S. Galena (Sportstalker) City Hall 627 W. Main (residential-Jim Kempner) 232 E. Hallam ACES City Shop 1080 Power Plant Road St. Mary's Church windows Roger Moyer CCLC Liaison 334 W. Hallam Aspen Historical Society 409 E. Hopkins 303 E. Main 311 W. North Farfalla lights outside 210 Lake Avenue (alternate) Marolt Museum Karen Day Cottage Infill Program 134 E. Bleeker 435 W. Main Swiss Chalet 311 W. North 304 E. Hopkins 121 S. Galena Martha Madsen 620 W. Hallam (alternate) 100 Park Ave. (alternate) 214 W. Bleeker (alternate) 132 W. Main 520 E. Cooper Unit 406 715 W. Smuggler Linda Smisek 134 E. Bleeker 210 Lake Avenue 305 Mill St. Su Casa Tom Williams 130 S. Galena - City Hall 300 W. Main - fence McDonalds 323 W. Main St. Aspen Medical Center Pending Issues - Meadows site visit for inventory 702 W. Main - Stape - Conceptual Development approved Sept 8, 1993 220 W. Main - European FLower Market Final April 20, 1994 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Streetsigns DATE: January 25, 1995 NOTE: The following memo was included in HPC's January 11th packet, along with a proposal from CCLC. Staff met with CCLC on January 18, and communicated HPC's concerns with the original proposal. New designs are to be presented at tonight's meeting. Attached is a proposal from the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission to replace the existing street signs in the Commercial Core, on Main Street and on Mill Street down to the Clark's market area. The proposal is a decorative cast metal arm for the street name, with the option to place another plain arm below that for informational signs, such as "gondola" or "Commercial Core Historic District." The "Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines" do not specifically address streetsigns or streetfurniture. The lightpoles are not original to Aspen and are not historic, however they are complimentary to the historic character of the town. Several months ago, HPC and CCLC formed a subcommittee to discuss the new parking meters and how they might be treated to fit into the historic district. Discussion focused on whether or not it was better to use Victorian decorative references or to avoid this because it might appear "Disney-like." The final decision was to paint the meters the same color as the pole and only add detailing on the brackets. The Committee may find that the same direction is appropriate with the streetsigns, however, unlike the meters, the streetnames are something that should be highlighted. One of the major elements of the parking meter plan was that meters are not located on streetcorners, so the poles where these streetsigns will go do not have a meter or "pay station" sign on them. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Proposed code amendments DATE: January 25, 1995 Attached is a draft of amendments for the HPC language in the land use code. Strikeouts represent language which is to be removed and underlined passages are language that is to be added. The intent of these amendments is to eliminate unclear language and to address problems which HPC has identified. The demolition section has been amended to better define how projects will be reviewed and to give HPC greater purview over additions on non- landmark sites, at least in terms of mass and scale. The Inventory has been expanded to include all properties which are at least fifty years old and have historic significance. HPC has also been given clearer purview over reviewing an entire site and also proposals for inventory parcel lot splits which have not typically been brought before HPC. Staff has suggested including a site coverage variance within HPC' s powers on landmark sites. Other sections of the code, such as "Definitions" may require amendments as a result of these changes. Those will be brought before you at a future date. NOTE: Two longstanding errors were discovered in Staff's analysis of the code. First, for at least the last five years, landmark designations have been done as a public hearing at HPC, P&Z and Council. It has been determined that the code does not require the HPC review to be a public hearing, so future applicant's will have one less noticing procedure. Secondly, although the HPC was at one time known as a "committee, " language was introduced into the code at some point which amended that and named HPC a "commission." Therefore, this board will now be referred to as the "Historic Preservation Commission,"- still "HPC. " DIVISION 6. DEVELOPMENT IN A H, HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT OR INVOLVING A IIISTORIC LANDMARK THE INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES Sec. 7-601. General applicability and requirements. A. Overview of development review in a H, Historic Overlay District or involving a historic landmark. Any development within a H, Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of this Section 7-601 and Common Procedures, Article 6, Division 2, unless exempted by the planning community development director under Section 7-601(C). If not exempted, development is categorized as minor or significant development which must obtain approval of the HPC. Minor development review and approval is a one-step process and requires no public hearing. Significant development must go through a conceptual and final development plan review and approval process, with a public hearing occurring at the time of conceptual development plan review. B. General prohibition. No development shall be permitted within the H, Historic Overlay District or involving a historic landmark unless: 1. The development is not subject to the provisions of this section; or 2. The development is exempted pursuant to Section 7- 601(C); or 3. The development is approved by the HPC as either minor or significant development pursuant to the procedures outlined in Common Procedures, Article 6, Division 2, because it meets the standards of Section 7-601(D). C. Exemption. 1. Development which is not subject to the provisions of this section shall include any interior remodeling of a structure, repainting of the exterior of an already painted structure and choice of color of any exterior architectural feature. Such development shall not require the review by the planning community development director or HPC, and shall proceed directly to building permit review, when a building permit is required for the development. 2. Development which the planning community development director shall exempt shall include repair of existing architectural features, replacement of architectural features when found necessary for the preservation of the structure, and similar remodeling activities which create no change to the exterior appearance of the structure and have no impact on its character. The community development director shall also exempt signs which are not reviewed under section 7-601(F) (2) (A) and any development required for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act when it affects a non-historic structure in the H, Historic Overlay District and has no significant impact on the character of the structure. For any of the exemptions listed above, the community development director may place conditions on the exemption which are relevant to mitigation of impacts to the affected historic structure or adjacent historic structures. 3. Before any proposed development can be considered for an exemption under the provisions of this section, an application for exemption shall be submitted to the planning community development director and development in the form provided by the planning community development director. D. Review standards for all development in H Historic Overlay District and all development involving historic landmarks. 1. Development in Historic overlay District and all Development involving historic landmarks. No approval for any development in the H, Historic Overlay District or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met. a. The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an 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 bv UP to 500 sq.ft. or the allowed site coverage by up to 5%, HPC shall find may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to section 5 500(A) 5-510(B)(2). b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development; and C. 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; and d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. 2. Additional development guidelines. The city council, upon recommendation of the HPC, shall establish additional guidelines for use by HPC in the review of all development in a H, Historic Overlay District, and involving historic landmarks, in accordance with the procedures in Article 4 Division 1. E. Minor development. 1. Procedure for review. Before HPC approval of minor development and of all development involving historic landmarks, a development application shall be submitted to the planning community development director and reviewed and approved by the HPC pursuant to the procedures established in Common Procedures, Article 6, Division 2. 2. Definition. Minor development shall be defined as follows: a. Erection of an awning, canopy, sign, fence-L mechanical equipment or other similar attachments to, or accessory features of a structure, provided however, that in the process of erecting said attachments, none of the original materials of the structure are destroyed or removed.Incidental destruction or removal necessary to erect any attachment shall not make the action significant development; b. Remodeling of a structure where alterations are made to no more than one element of the structure, including but not limited to a roof, window, door, skylight, ornamental trim, siding, kickplate, dormer, porch, staircase, and balcony; C. Expansion or erection of a structure wherein the increase in floor area Of the structure is two hundred fifty (250) square feet or less; or d. Erection or remodeling of combinations of, or multiples of no more than three (3) of the following features: awnings, canopies, signs, fences and other similar attachments; or windows, doors, skylights and dormers. Erection of more than three (3) of the above listed features may be defined as minor if there is a finding that the cumulative impact of such development is minor in its effect on the character of the existing structures. 3. Application. A development application for minor development shall include the following: a. The general application information required in Section 6-202. b. Reserved. C. An accurate representation of all major building materials, such as samples and photographs, to be used for the proposed development. d. A scale drawing of the proposed development in relation to any existing structure. e. A statement of the effect of the proposed development on the original design of the historic structure (if applicable) and character Of the neighborhood. F. Significant development. 1. Procedure for review. Before HPC approval of significant development within a H, Historic Overlay District and of all development involving historic landmarks, a conceptual development plan and final development plan shall be reviewed and approved by the HPC pursuant to the procedures established in Common Procedures, Article 6, Division 2. 2. Definition. Significant development shall be defined as follows: a. Erection of an awning, canopy, sign, fence or other similar attachments to, or accessory features of, a structure that, in the process of erecting, cause original materials of the structure to be permanently destroyed or removed; b. Erection or remodeling of combinations of, or multiples of any single feature of a structure which has not been determined to be minor; C. Expansion or erection of a structure wherein the increase in floor area of the structure is more than two hundred fifty (250) square feet; d. Construction of a new structure within a H, Historic Overlay District; and e. The development of the site of an historic landmark which has received approval for demolition, partial demolition or relocation when a development plan has been required by the HPC pursuant to Section 7- 602(B). 3. Conceptual development plan. a. Development application ef- for conceptual development plan. A development application for a conceptual development plan shall include the following: (1) The general application information required in Section 6-202. (2) A sketch plan of the proposed development showing property boundaries and predominant existing site characteristics. A site plan or survey showing property boundaries and predominant existing site characteristics. (3) Conceptual selection of major building materials to be used in the proposed development. (4) A statement of the effect of the proposed development on the original design of the historic structure (if applicable) and/or character of neighborhood. (5) Scale drawings of all elevations of anv proposed structures, including a roof plan. (6) A visual description of the neighborhood context through diagrams, maps, photographs, models, or streetscape elevations. b. Effect of approval of conceptual development plan. Approval of a conceptual development plan shall not constitute final approval of significant development or permission to proceed with development. Such approval shall constitute only authorization to proceed with a development application for a final development plan. C. Limitation on approval of conceptual development plan. Application for a final development plan shall be filed within one (1) year of the date of approval of a conceptual development plan. Unless an extension is granted by the HPC, failure to file such an application shall render null and void the approval of a conceptual development plan previously granted by the HPC. 4. Final development plan. a. Submission of application for final development plan. A development application for a final development plan shall include: (1) The general application information required in Section 6-202. (2) Reserved. (3) An accurate representation of all major building materials, such as samples and photographs, to be used for the proposed development. (4) Scale drawings of the proposed development in relation to any existing structure. Finalized scale drawings of the proposal. (5) A statement of the effect of the details of the proposed development on the original design of the historic structure (if applicable) and character of the neighborhood. (6) A statement of how the final development plan conforms to the representations made during the conceptual review and responds to any conditions placed thereon. (Ord. No. 6-1989, § 9; Ord. No. 60-1990, § 3) Sec. 7-602. Demolition, partial demolition or rclocation.£ permanent relocation or temporary relocation. A. General . No demolition, partial demolition or relocation permanent or temporary relocation of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to section 7-709, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay District shall be permitted unless the demolition, partial demolition or relocation, permanent or temporary relocation is approved by the HPC because it meets the applicable standards of section 7-602(B), (C) or (D), unless exempted pursuant to section 7-602(E). For the purposes of this section, "demolition" shall mean the total razing of any structure on an inventoried parcel which contributes to the historic significance of the parcel. Partial demolition shall mean the razing of a portion of any structure on an inventoried parcel or the total razing of any structure on an inventoried parcel which does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel. B. Standards for review of demolition. No approval for demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met. 1. The structure proposed for demolition is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner' s efforts to properly maintain the structure; and 2. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property; and 3. The structure cannot be practicably moved to another site in Aspen; and 4. The applicant demonstrates that the proposal mitigates to the greatest extent practical, the following: a. Any impacts that occur to the character of the neighborhood where demolition is proposed to occur. b. Any impact on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels. C. Any impact to the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels. C. Standards for review of partial demolition. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: 1. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure; and 2. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel. b. Impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel 4 limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions and by designing any new additions in a way that is compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. D. Standards for review of permanent relocation. No approval for permanent relocation shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: 1. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property; and 2. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures Will not be diminished due to the relocation; and 3. The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation; and 4. A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation; and 5. The receiving site is compatible in nature to the structure or structures proposed to be moved, the character of the neighborhood is consistent with the architectural integrity of the structure, and the relocation of the historic structure would not diminish the integrity or character of the neighborhood of the receiving site. An acceptance letter from the property owner of the receiving site shall be submitted. Standards for review of temporary relocation. No approval for temporary relocation shall be approved unless the HPC finds that the standards of section 7-602(D)(3) and (4) have been met. E-:-21 Exemption. The demolition, partial demolition or relocation permanent or temporary relocation of a structure located within an "H" Historic Overlay District may be exempt from meeting the applicable standards in section 7.602(B), (C), or (D) if the HPC finds that the following conditions have been met: 1. The structure is not identified on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. 2. The structure is considered to be noncontributing to the historic district. 3. The structure does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district, and that its demolition, partial demolition, or relocation does not impact the character of the historic district. 4. The demolition, partial demolition or relocation is necessary for the redevelopment of the parcel. 5. The redevelopment or new development is reviewed by HPCT pursuant to section 7-601. F. Procedure for review. A development application shall be submitted to the historic preservation officer before HPC approval of demolition, partial demolition or relocation, permanent or temporary relocation (or exemption within an "H" Historic Overlay District,) which shall be reviewed and approved by the HPC pursuant to the procedures established in Common Procedures, Article 6, Division 2. The HPC shall be authorized to suspend action on demolition, partial demolition or relocation application when it finds that it needs additional information to determine whether the application meets the standards of section 7.602(B) or that the proposal is a matter of such great public concern to the city that alternatives to the demolition, partial demolition or relocation must be studied jointly by the city and the owner. Alternatives which the HPC may consider having studied shall include, but not be limited to finding economically beneficial uses of the structure, removal of the structure to a suitable location, providing public subsidy to the owner to preserve the structure, identifying a public entity capable of public acquisition of the structure, or revision to the demolition, partial demolition or relocation and development plan. The HPC shall be required to specify the additional information it requires or the alternatives it finds should be studied when it suspends action on the development, partial demolition or relocation application. Action shall only be suspended for the amount of time it shall take for the necessary information to be prepared and reviewed by the planning community development director, but in no case shall suspension be for a period to exceed six (6) months. G. Application for demolition, partial demolition, permanent relocation, temporary relocation or exemption. or relocation. A development application for demolition shall include the following: 1. The general application information required in section 6-202. 2. A written description of the structure proposed for demolition, partial demolition, permanent or temporary relocation or exemption. or relocation, and its year of construction. 3. A report from a licensed engineer or architect regarding the soundness of the structure and its suitability for rehabilitation. 4. For demolition or permanent relocation; An economic feasibility report that provides: a. Estimated market value of the property on which the structure lies, in its current condition, and after demolition or relocation. b. Estimates from an architect, developer, real estate agent or appraiser experienced in rehabilitation addressing the economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the structure proposed for demolition or relocation. C. All appraisals made of the property on which the structure is located made within the previous two (2) years. d. Any other information considered necessary to make a determination whether the property does yield or may yield a reasonable return on investment. 5. A development plan and a statement of the effect of the proposed development on the other structures on the property and the character of the neighborhood around the property shall be submitted so that HPC is able to make a finding whether the applicable standards are met. in the case of a demolition or permanent relocation, the redevelopment plan will be reviewed as a Significant Development application, pursuant to section 7-601. in cases when the HPC requires a development plan to evaluate the appropriateness of demolition or when the applicant believes the submission of a development plan will assist in the evaluation of the proposed demolition. II. Application for Demolition or Exemption from Demolition, Partial Domolition or Relocation. A development application for partial demolition shall include all items specified in section 7- 602(G)(1), (3) and (4). I. Penalties. A violation of any portion of this section 7- 602 shall prohibit the owner, successor or assigns from obtaining a building permit for the affected property for a period of five (5) years from the date of such violation. The city shall initiate proceedings to place a deed restriction on the property to this effect to insure the enforcement of this penalty. (Ord. No. 17-1989, § 1; Ord. No. 9-1991, § 1) Sec. 7-603. Insubstantial amendment of development order. A. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order may be authorized by the planning community development director. An insubstantial amendment shall be limited to technical or engineering considerations, first discovered during actual development which could not reasonably be anticipated during the approval process. An insubstantial amendment shall be defined as a change in shape or location of a single window, awning, door, staircase or other feature on the structure or use of a material made by a different manufacturer that has the same quality and approximately the same appearance as originally approved. B. All other amendments shall be approved by the HPC pursuant to Section 7-601 to 7-602, whichever is applicable. Sec. 7-604. Appeal and call up. A. Any action by the HPC in approving, approving with conditions, or disapproving a development order for development or demolition or suspending action on a demolition application or in rating a structure on the inventory of historic structures may be appealed to the city council by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property within sixty (60) days of the decision. The reasons for the appeal shall be stated in writing. The city council may also call up for review any decision of the HPC approving, disapproving, or suspending action on a demolition or permanent relocation of a historic landmark or any structure on the inventory rated as a "4" or "5" by the HPC by serving written notice on the HPC within fourteen (14) days of the HPC's decision arid notifying the applicant of the call up. B. Within thirty (30) days after the date of a decision by the HPC which is appealed or called up by the city council, the council shall hold a public hearing after publishing notice pursuant to Section 6-205E.3.a. C. The city council shall consider the application on the record established before the HPC. The city council shall affirm the decision of the HPC unless the city council shall determine that there was an abuse of discretion, or a denial of due process by the HPC. Upon determining that there was an abuse of discretion or denial of due process, the city council shall be authorized to take such action as it shall deem necessary to remedy said situation, including but not limited to reversing the decision, altering the conditions of approval, changing the length of time during which action on a demolition application has been suspended or the terms of the suspension, or remanding the application to HPC for rehearing. (Ord. No. 7-1989, § 2) Sec. 7-605. Variances. The board of adjustment shall not take any action on a development application for a variance pursuant to Article 10, in the H, Historic Overlay District or development affecting a historic landmark, without receiving a written recommendation from the HPC. Sec. 7-606. Minimum maintenance requirements. A. Purpose. The intent of this section is to reduce the incidence of "demolition by neglect." B. Requirements. All buildings and structures identified in the inventory of historic sites and structures as described in Section 7-709, and all structures located within a historic district, shall be maintained to meet the requirements of the Uniform Conservation Building Code (UCBC) and the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Said structures shall receive reasonable care, maintenance and upkeep appropriate for the preservation, protection, enhancement, rehabilitation, reconstruction, perpetuation or use in compliance with the terms of this article. Every person in charge The owner of such building or structure shall keep in good repair: 1. All of the exterior portions of such improvements. 2. All interior portions thereof which, if not SO maintained, may cause or tend to cause the exterior portions of such improvements to deteriorate, decay or become damaged or otherwise to fall into a state of disrepair. The historic preservation commission, on its own initiative, may file a petition with the chief building official requesting that said official proceed under the provision of this section to require correction of defects or repairs to any structure covered by this article so that such structure shall be preserve and protected in consonance with the purpose of this article. C. Demonstration of hardship. Any owner of a structure identified in the inventory of historic sites and structures which HPC and the chief building official finds requires such maintenance and repairs as described in this section may make application requesting from the city council a one-time, no interest loan, in an amount not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), which the owner shall agree to pay back to the city within ten (10) years or when the property is sold or the title is transferred, whichever is the soonest. An extension of the payment period may be granted by the city council, following written request by the owner. To be eligible for the loan, the owner shall submit a written request to the planning community development director, which shall include a description of the proposed repairs necessary to maintain the historic structure and approximate costs for such repairs. The loan request shall also demonstrate economic hardship which previously prohibited these repairs and that the loan amount is the minimum needed to maintain the structure. The loan request shall be considered by the city council. Any loan granted by the council shall be administered through the planning community development director, who shall obtain copies of bills from the owner substantiating all expenditures made to maintain the structure with monies obtained from the loan. D. Penalties waived. The general penalties for violations of the Aspen Municipal Code contained in Chapter 1, Section 1-8, shall not apply to violations of these minimum maintenance requirements. (Ord. No. 7-1989, § 2) DIVISION 7. HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT AND HISTORIC LANDMARKS Sec. 7-701. Reserved. Editor's note--Ord. No. 60-1989, § 2, repealed § 701, relative to the purpose of the division, which derived from Ord. No. 5- 1988. Sec. 7-702. Standards for designation. Any structure or site that meets one or more of the following standards may be designated as H, Historic Overlay District and/or historic landmark: A. Historical importance. The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. B. Architectural importance. The structure or site reflects -<an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character. C. Architectural importance. The structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen. D. Architectural importance. The structure is a significant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. E. Neighborhood character. The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. F. Community character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Sec. 7-703. Procedure for designation, amendment, rescinding. A development application for a proposed designation, amendment to a designation, or rescinding of a designation, H, Historic Overlay District and/or historic landmark, shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval by the planning community development director, at public hearings by the HPC, and the planning and zoning commission, and then approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved at a public hearing by the city council in accordance with the procedures established in Common Procedures, Article 6, Division 2. Sec. 7-704. Application. The application for historic designation shall include the following: A. The general application information required in Section 6-202; and B. A boundary description of the site. C. If the applicant intends to request a grant from city council, a letter making the request shall be submitted, provided the structure meets the eligibility criteria for a landmark designation grant and provided the program has been funded in the annual City of Aspen budget. Any residential structure which is designated as a historic landmark after January 1, 1995 is eligible to receive the grant on a one time basis, until the yearly budget allotment is spent. (Ord. No. 6-1989, § 9) Sec. 7-705. Recordation of designation. Upon the effective date of an act by the city council designating a H, Historic Overlay District or Historic Landmark, the secretary of the HPC shall notify the city clerk of the designation, who shall record among the real estate records of the clerk and recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado, a certified copy of the ordinance creating the H, Historic Overlay District or historic landmark. The ordinance shall contain a legal description of the structure or site designated. Sec. 7-706. Placement on city's official zone district map. Upon the effective date of an act by the city council designating H, Historic Overlay District or historic landmark, the secretary of the HPC shall notify the planning community development director and the planning community development director shall place the H, Historic Overlay District designation on the city's official zone district map, which is kept in the planning and development agency. community development department. Sec. 7-707. Rescinding designation. An application for rescinding designation shall follow the same submission requirements and review procedures as for designation described in this division except that with respect to Section 7-704(C), an explanation shall be included describing why the designated site or structure is not consistent with the standards in Section 7-702. Sec. 7-708. Establishment of district. There are two (2) existing H, Historic Overlay Districts in the city. These districts are the Commercial Core District and the Main Street District. In all cases when districts are discussed in this chapter, these two (2) districts are the only districts to which reference is being made. Sec. 7-709. Establishment of inventory of historic sites and structures. A. There is hereby established an inventory of historic sites and structures (known as the "inventory") in the City of Aspen. The inventory shall be maintained in the offices of the planning and development agency community development department at all times for inspection by the general public during regular business hours. The inventory of historic sites and structures shall include all structures in the City of Aspen originally constructed prior to 1910 which are at least fifty years old and which continue to have historic value, and such other structures identified by the HPC as being outstanding examples of more modern architecture. All properties included on the inventory will be adopted bv legal description, and HPC will have the appropriate purview over the entire property. In the case that any inventoried parcel requests approval for a lot split, HPC shall review the request in terms of impacts on the significance of the historic resource and shall propose anv appropriate conditions of approval or recommendation for denial to the planning and zoning commission and city council. B. It shall be the responsibility of the HPC, based on the recommendations of the planning community development director, to evaluate the inventory of historic structures at least once every five (5) years, and to hold a public hearing to solicit comments on its evaluations. The purpose of the evaluation shall be to determine those structures which are to be removed from the inventory, any structures which should be added to the inventory, and to rate all structures which remain on the inventory. C. The HPC evaluation process shall proceed as follows: The structures on the inventory shall be categorized as to whether or not they are historic landmarks. No further need be taken with respect to historic landmarks. All structures which are not historic landmarks shall be evaluated by the HPC as to their current architectural integrity, historic significance and community and neighborhood influence and categorized accordingly, as follows: Significant: All those resources previously rated Exceptional, Excellent, or those resources individually eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Contributing: All those historic or architecturally significant resources that do not meet the criteria for Significant, provided, however, these resources have maintained their historic integrity or represent unique architectural design. Supporting: All those historic resources that have lost their original integrity, however, are "retrievable" as historic structures (or sites). These structures have received substantial alterations over the years, however, with substantial effort could be considered Contributing once again. Non-Contributing: All those structures that are either: a. New or not-historic construction within a historic district, and b. Historic structures with complete loss of integrity, either within or outside a historic district. (Ord. No. 61-1989, § 1) Sec. 7-710. Development approval for historic landmark. Whenever development approval is conditioned upon a structure receiving historic landmark designation, such condition shall be deemed satisfied only if the particular structure has received individual designation pursuant to Article 7, Division 6; inclusion of the structure within an historic overlay district shall not be sufficient to satisfy the requirement of historic designation. No final development approval conditioned upon receipt of historic landmark designation shall be granted until the designation ordinance is adopted by city council. (Ord. No. 6-1989, § 9) MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Resolution 95-1, amendment DATE: January 25, 1995 Attached is Resolution 95-1, which HPC approved on January 11, 1995. Staff has made two amendments to this Resolution. 403 S. Galena (Guido's) is now shown as removed from the Inventory. The original structure was demolished and replaced and its continued inclusion on the Inventory was an oversight. In addition, although 504 W. Hallam Street was noticed and was to be included in the round of the Inventory review, Staff neglected to include it on the list for adoption. It has been added and classified as "contributing." NOTE: A number of sites still must be reviewed before this re- evaluation of the Inventory is complete. They are: The Meadows, Colorado Midland r-0-w, Red Butte Cemetery, 325 N. Brd, 437 W. Smuggler, 527 W. Main, 405 Gillespie, 124 E. Cooper, 716 W. Hallam, 421 W. Hallam, 214 E. Hopkins. RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONLMITTEE ENDORSING THE 1994 RE-EVALUATED INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES Resolution 95-1, amended WHEREAS, it is the responsibility of the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) to re-evaluate the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, hereinafter "Inventory, " at least once every five (5) years, and recommend revisions for adoption by the Aspen City Council; and WHEREAS, Inventory management is considered to be a vital aspect of Aspen's historic preservation program, and meets an underlying principal of the HPC: to foster public awareness of Aspen's preservation program, and work in harmony with the community's goals to preserve, protect, and enhance Aspen's historic resources and unique character; and; WHEREAS, the HPC and Planning Office completed the field studies and survey form revisions between September, 1990 and March 1992, with the assistance of professional consultants contracted by the Planning Office; and WHEREAS, the Planning Office held open public meetings on December 7 and December 8, 1994, to assist the public in understanding the re-evaluation process and current review requirements of the historic preservation program; and WHEREAS, the HPC conducted a duly noticed public hearing on December 14, 1994 to solicit citizen and property owner input to assist in HPC's re-evaluation of the Inventory; and WHEREAS, four property owners appeared before the HPC at the public hearing, all of whom presented information to the HPC. One owner requested removal of their property from the Inventory, which HPC voted in favor of, and others requested amendments to the legal description for the affected property. Evaluation of those properties was therefore tabled; and WHEREAS, HPC has reviewed and agreed upon the recommended additions, deletions and classification changes to the Inventory as recommended by the Planning Office (attached as Exhibit "A"). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the following amendments are recommended to the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, as a result of the re-evaluation process pursuant to Section 24- 7-709(A-C) of the Aspen Municipal Code: 1. The following properties shall be added to the Inventory, based upon architectural integrity, historic significance and contribution to community and neighborhood character: 720 S. Aspen 101 Puppy Smith Maroon Creek Bridge 106 Park Aspen Grove Cemetery Aspen Brewery Ruins 557 Walnut 2. The following properties shall be deleted from the Inventory due to loss of architectural integrity, historic significance or contribution to community or neighborhood character: 1018 E. Hopkins 1001 E. Hyman 1101 E. Cooper 915 Mill 300 W. Hopkins 437 W. Smuggler 801 W. Bleeker 517 North 407 W. Hallam 113 W. Bleeker 220 Puppy Smith 701 W. Smuggler All of Block 17 (726 W. Bleeker) 855 Gibson 3. Each non-Landmarked property receiving a re- evaluation has been categorized as either "Significant," "Contributing," or "Supporting," as indicated on Exhibit "A." 4. The official map Of historic resources is located in the Planning Office and will be revised accordingly and titled "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, 1994 Revised." APPROVED, as amended, by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee at their regular meeting of January 25, 1995. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE by Joseph Krabacher, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Assistant City Clerk Non-Designated Properties for re-evaluation December, 1994 Key: Significant: ~ Contributing: ~ supporting:CED Drop from Inventory:,55~ Address/Name Area Status per year 80 86 94 304-308 S. Galena Commercial Core 1018 E. Hopkins East Aspen Twnst. 1001 E. Hyman East Aspen Twnst. 625 E. Hopkins East Aspen Twnst. 719 E. Hopkins East Aspen Twnst. 1101 E. Cooper East Aspen Twnst. 720 S. Aspen Shadow Mountain 915 Mill Shadow Mountain 300 W. Hopkins Shadow Mountain 209 E. Bleeker West End (Church) 801 W. Bleeker West End 517 North West End 407 W. Hallam West End 233 W. Hallam West End 113 W. Bleeker West End 223 E. Hallam West End 101 Puppy Smith West End 01 1 1 (31 1 1 lili 101(1 3 1 33I / 1 HJ--3 3 3 -6 -4 --ll Etjl 01 220 Puppy Smith West End 701 W. Smuggler West End 726 W. Bleeker West End 504 W. Hallam West End Maroon Creek Bridge 855 Gibson Smuggler Mtn. 101 Park Smuggler Mtn. 106 Park Smuggler Mtn. 935 King Smuggler Mtn. AspenGrove Cemetery Smuggler Mtn. Aspen Brewery Ruins Smuggler Mtn. 557 Walnut Smuggler Mtn. I q c ~ f~ i ~ 1 i l fiblbldlol~i January 5, 1995 re: 939 E. Cooper Dear H.P.C. Members, I own the property at 935 East Cooper Avenue which is adjacent to the planned Langely development. Although I am in favor of Bob and Darnelle's vision for their property, I have a very simple request. That request is that the five foot side setbacks be honored by both the structures being planned which will adjoin my property. In addition, I would also like to see more open space between both buildings (that will require eliminating one parking space on the alley). I feel my request would not put any hardship on the development. I also believe the developer should bear any density issues on his own property and must abide by the existing setback requirements. 34 My request is not only just, it is the right and neighborly thing to do. Thank you, Mark Tye r' 1