The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.1993021044/6 - L 4 AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 10, 1993 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM CITY HALL 61 5:00 I. Roll call and approval December 23rd, J-81%27 ~th and January 27, minutes. II. Committee and Staff Comments III. Public Comments IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:10 A. Request for CD extension - 332 W. Main (Showcase Properties) V. NEW BUSINESS 5:15 A. Reso. #2, 1993 - Vested Rights - 533 E. Main, St. Mary's Church (Public Hearing) 5:20 B. Conceptual Development - (Public Hearing) - 232 E. Hallam addition 5:45 C. Conceptual Development - (Public Hearing) - Mill St. Plaza addition (205 S. Mill St.) 6:30 VI. COMMUNICATIONS A. Project Monitoring B. Sub-Committee Reports C. Neighborhood Character Guidelines 7:00 VII. ADJOURN Attachments: Transportation Planning/HP conference - Boulder, Feb. 19 Updates from national Advisory Council on Historic Pres. NT Leadership Training, Fort Collins, June Preservation Law Reporter Article NCPL updates HPC PROJECT MONITORING HPC Member Name Project/Committee Bill Poss 413 E. Hyman County Courthouse Highway Entrance Design Committee Character Committee-AACP 601 W. Hallam (app. liaison) HP Element-Community Plan Aspen Historic Trust-Board Member 534 E. Hyman (P.C. Bank) CCLC Liaison 214 W. Bleeker St. Mary's Church 533 E. Main PPRG 715 W. Smuggler Ann Miller 700 W. Francis Donnelly Erdman 501 E. Cooper (Independence) 210 S. Galena (Elk's) The Meadows (Chair-Sub Comm) 442 W. Bleeker (Pioneer Park) Collins Block/Alley 620 W. Hallam Wheeler-Stallard House 700 W. Francis 624 E. Hopkins Leslie Holst 215 W. Hallam 212 Lake Ave. 210 Lake Ave. Holden/Marolt Museum (alt.) In-Town School Sites Committee Aspen Historic Trust-Chairman 17 Queen St. 824 E. Cooper 210 S. Mill 303 E. .Main Alt Joe Krabacher 801 E. Hyman AHS Ski Museum HP Element-Community Plan Aspen Historic Trust-Vice Chairman 612 W. Main 309 E. Hopkins (Lily Reid) 414, 401, 413 E. Cooper Jake Vickery The Meadows (alternate) In-Town School Sites Committee 824 E. Cooper 716 W. Francis 442 W. Bleeker (Pioneer-alt.) 204 S. Galena (Sportstalker) City Hall 627 W. Main (residential-Jim Kempner) Roger Moyer Holden-Marolt (alternate) CCLC Liaison 214 W. Bleeker 215 W. Hallam 334 W. Hallam Aspen Historical Society 302 E. Hopkins - Beaumont House 409 E. Hopkins 520 E. Cooper (storefront remodel 303 E. Main 311 W. North Karen Day 716 W. Francis (alternate) Rubey Transit Center 334 W. Hallam (alternate) Cottage Infill Program 134 E. Bleeker 435 W. Main Swiss Chalet 311 W. North Martha Madsen 620 W. Hallam (alternate) 100 Park Ave. (alternate) 214 W. Bleeker (alternate) 627 W. Main (residential-Jim Kempner) Linda Smisek 316 E. Hopkins (salon - La Cacina) 134 E. Bleeker HPC PROJECT MONITORING HPC Member Name Project/Committee Bill Poss 413 E. Hyman County Courthouse Highway Entrance Design Committee Character Committee-AACP 601 W. Hallam (app. liaison) HP Element-Community Plan Aspen Historic Trust-Board Member 534 E. Hyman (P.C. Bank) CCLC Liaison 214 W. Bleeker St. Mary's Church 533 E. Main PPRG 715 W. Smuggler Ann Miller 700 W. Francis Donnelly Erdman 501 E. Cooper (Independence) 210 S. Galena (Elk's) The Meadows (Chair-Sub Comm) 442 W. Bleeker (Pioneer Park) Collins Block/Alley 620 W. Hallam Wheeler-Stallard House 700 W. Francis 624 E. Hopkins Leslie Holst 215 W. Hallam 212 Lake Ave. 210 Lake Ave. Holden/Marolt Museum (alt.) In-Town School Sites Committee Aspen Historic Trust-Chairman 17 Queen St. 824 E. Cooper 210 S. Mill 303 E. .Main Alt Joe Krabacher 801 E. Hyman AHS Ski Museum HP Element-Community Plan Aspen Historic Trust-Vice Chairman 612 W. Main 309 E. Hopkins (Lily Reid) 414, 401, 413 E. Cooper Jake Vickery The Meadows (alternate) In-Town School Sites Committee 824 E. Cooper 716 W. Francis 442 W. Bleeker (Pioneer-alt.) 204 S. Galena (Sportstalker) City Hall 627 W. Main (residential-Jim Kempner) Roger Moyer Holden-Marolt (alternate) CCLC Liaison 214 W. Bleeker 215 W. Hallam 334 W. Hallam Aspen Historical Society 302 E. Hopkins - Beaumont House 409 E. Hopkins 520 E. Cooper (storefront remodel 303 E. Main 311 W. North Karen Day 716 W. Francis (alternate) Rubey Transit Center 334 W. Hallam (alternate) Cottage Infill Program 134 E. Bleeker 435 W. Main Swiss Chalet 311 W. North Martha Madsen 620 W. Hallam (alternate) 100 Park Ave. (alternate) 214 W. Bleeker (alternate) 627 W. Main (residential-Jim Kempner) Linda Smisek 316 E. Hopkins (salon - La Cacina) 134 E. Bleeker TO MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Extension of Conceptual Development approval: 332 W. Main, Showcase Properties Date: February 10, 1993 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting HPC's approval for a second six month extension (to August 12, 1993) of the conceptual development approval for Showcase Properties at 332 W. Main St. Their previous extension expires on February 12, 1993. BACKGROUND: The HPC has granted six-month conceptual development extensions on two other projects in the past. We support the applicant's request, and urge them to submit their Final Development application this summer. No changes in the land use regulations are currently pending that would impact this development application. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant a six month conceptual development approval extension to the property at 332 W. Main St., valid until August 12, 1993. memo.hpc.332wm.exten ryjÂ»P.: LRiL /e ARCHITECTURE PLANNING February 3, 1993 INTERIORS Ms. Roxanne Eflin Planning Office City of Aspen : . ' ill f\\ I 130 S. Galena St. i! Aspen, CO 81611 li , P tw J '30 1 i .1 . i i,i 1 - '11 ' RE: Showcase Victorian i=-1 1=------ 1 332 W. Main St , Aspen, Colorado s Dear Roxanne: The Showcase Victorian addition and remodel was granted preliminary approval by the HPC on August 14, 1991. Due to financial difficulties the project was put on hold and the approvals process was taken no further. On August 12, 1992 the HPC granted an extension of the preliminary approval which will expire February 12, 1993. As this addition and remodel is greatly desired by the owner, we are requesting an additional extension of the preliminary approval to the maximum length of time allowed. This second extension if granted, will expire August 12, 1993. If you have any questions or require any other information, please contact us. SÂ»cerely, U+L/rl- , AnetÂ·-' Let#rson /,/ Pr~jett Architect L/ CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS Â· 520 EAST HYMAN AVENUE Â· ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Â· 303/925-5590 FAX 925-5076 rfl) MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Vested Rights Resolution: 533 E. Main, St. Mary's Church, Public Hearing Date: February 10, 1993 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: HPC approval of a Resolution granting vested rights for the site specific development plan at 533 E. Main. Vesting assures the applicant of protection from any changes in the land use regulations that would negatively impact the development approval for up to three years following final approval. PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: The HPC granted Final Development approval to the St. Mary's project, with conditions, on May 13, 1992. The 3-year vested rights "clock" begins to tick from that date. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC approve the applicant's request for Vested Rights, and adopt the Resolution attached. memo.hpc.533em.vr THEODOAE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC ARCHITECTS ANO STAUCTUAAL ENGINEEAS f..,2 3 f December 18,1992 Historic Preservation Committee Historic Preservation Officer 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attn: Roxanne Eflin RE: St. Mary's Church Dear Roxanne: Mr. John McGuire, with the Archdiocese of Denver, wishes to vest the site as per the specific development plan as approved by the Historic Preservation Committee for the St. Mary's parcel. Please schedule this immediately. Sincerely yours, Theodore K. Guy, President THEODORE K GUY ASSOCATES PC TKG/lk 91105 L19 232E3O STATE HIGHWAY 82 P O BOX 1 {340 BASALT. COLORADO 81621 {303) 927-31{37 RESOLUTION NO. 2 (Series of 1993) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE VESTING THE SITE SPECIFIC FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR ST. MARY'S CHURCH AT 533 E. MAIN ST. WHEREAS, the Archdiocese of Denver, represented by John McGuire, submitted Significant Development plans to the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee for approval of the site specific development plan at St. Mary's Church at 533 E. Main St., Lots A- I, Block 93, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, on May 13, 1992, the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee found that the Final Development proposal constitutes the site specific development plan for the property, and; WHEREAS, the applicant has requested that the development rights for said property, as defined and approved by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee with conditions in the site specific development plans, be vested pursuant to Section 6-207 of the Aspen Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee desires to vest development rights in the 533 E. Main St. site specific development plans with conditions pursuant to Section 6-207 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen for a period of three (3) years from May 13, 1992. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 The Aspen Historic Preservation Committee of the City of Aspen, as a consequence of its approval of the site specific Resolution No. 9 - 3 Page 2 development plan, and pursuant to Section 6-207 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby vests development rights in 533 E. Main St., Lots A-I, Block 93, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, for a period of three (3) years from May 13, 1992. Any changes to the approved plans as approved by the HPC shall be submitted for review and approval (prior to the issuance of a building permit or change order). Failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Section 2 The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; except that the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of this resolution following its adoption. Section 3 Zoning that is not part of the site specific development plans approved hereby shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. Section 4 Nothing in this approval shall exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent reviews and approvals required by 2 Resolution No. 9 - Page 3 this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances of the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. Section 5 The establishment of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulations by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site specific development approval, the applicants shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. Section 6 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 7 Nothing in this resolution shall be construed to affect any right, duty or liability under any ordinance in effect prior to 3 Resolution No. 9 - Page 4 the effective date of this resolution, and the same shall be continued and concluded under such prior ordinances. APPROVED by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee at its regular meeting on February 10, 1993. BV William J. Poss, Chairman Aspen Historic Preservation Committee ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Assistant City Clerk hpcreso.533em.vr 4 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 232 E. Hallam: Conceptual Development for rear addition (duplex unit), Public Hearing Date: February 10, 1993 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting Conceptual Development approval for a rear 496 sq. ft. addition to the "Vigoda" addition at 232 E. Hallam. The proposed addition, a free-market duplex unit, does not interface with the historic resource. No variations are being requested. APPLICANT: Dick and Linda Roberts, represented by Stryker/Brown Architects LOCATION: 232 E. Hallam, Lots M and N, Block 71, Townsite of Aspen, Colorado SITE, AREA AND BULK INFORMATION: Please refer to the attachment from the applicant. Staff finds that the FAR numbers do not match up, and asks that the applicant clarify whether 420 or 496 sq. ft. is the proposed new FAR figure. ADDITIONAL COMMISSION REVIEWS: None are necessary, as the lot meets the minimum size requirements for a duplex unit. Ordinance #1 impact mitigation applies, and the applicant is reminded to meet with the Housing Authority regarding this. Development Review Standards REVIEW STANDARDS: Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations defines the four standards for Development Review. All four of these standards must be met in order for the HPC to grant approval for the proposal. The applicable Guidelines are found in Section VI, beginning on page 47 of the Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to 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 of exceed the allowed floor areas, HPC 1 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 proposed duplex addition is being added to the "Vigoda" addition, which was a mid-1980's expansion to the landmark. The proposed addition is not readily viewed from the street edge or facade, however, is primarily viewed from the post office and ACES parcels to the north. Our primary concern and responsibility is in either the contribution or deprivation the development impact has to the landmark, neighborhood and community, within the context of historic preservation. For the past 5-6 years, since the Vigoda addition was completed, the HPC, National Park Service, Colorado Historical Society and visiting preservationists have viewed the design approach of this addition to a Second Empire-style structure as being a radical departure from the idea of "new yet compatible". The distinction between old and new was made in such a way as to detract from the architectural integrity of the historic resource. The HPC has found this addition's positive contribution to be in the use Of compatible materials, quiet roof form and small, articulated scale. To expand the modern architectural statement now with another addition may be viewed by the HPC as increasing an already incompatible situation. On the other hand, arguments can be made in favor of the addition's ability to meet the Development Review Standards. It is small (under 500 sq. ft.), is tucked into a rear notch of the addition, and does not significantly impact the facade. Originally, the architect had designed a flat roof to carry out the established form and height; however, in revised drawings (presented in this packet), the roof has been raised, and styled in somewhat of a mansard pitch, in order to incorporate windows to allow light to penetrate the space. The new roof projects above the addition, and is perceived from the street edge, however, is well back from the front property line. Staff finds that the height of revised roof form is troublesome, bordering on incompatible, and asks that the HPC require the application to lower the height above the existing addition's roof by at least 50%, or return to the original flat profile. We are unable to support the proposal as submitted for this reason, finding that this standard has not been met. We support the applicant's desire to obtain light into the space, however, we feel further study is necessary to achieve a better design balance. The windows make a strong vertical statement, which greatly contrasts the north elevation. Should the HPC approve an addition to the addition, staff feels that the windows should 2 respect the established fenestration vocabulary, and gesture to the historic resource as necessary. No variations are being requested. All required parking is being handled on the site. It appears to staff that the proposed materials meet the Guidelines and are compatible with the historic resource. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The "Community Church" neighborhood of the West End contains the greatest concentration of small historic resources. We find that the addition's small size and placement on the site is not inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood, which contains a variety of architectural styles as infill. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: We find that any detraction in cultural value to this parcel occurred at the time of the Vigoda expansion, and that this addition is relatively neutral regarding this standard. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: In staff's response to Standard #1 above, we ask the HPC to carefully consider these architectural integrity points: a) By continuing to expand the addition to the structure, which ends up at maximum allowable FAR (4,670 sq. ft. FAR (+/-), does the historic architectural integrity Of the Second Empire diminish? b) If the addition is not perceived to increase the 3 incompatible design approach, does the proposal then meet this standard? Staff asks that the HPC table action at this meeting to allow the applicant additional time to restudy the height, and submit revised drawings indicating a substantially shortened or flat roof form, which would quiet down the addition, and allow it to become more of an organic expansion rather than trying to make a new design statement in itself. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Conceptual approval as proposed, finding the Development Review standards have been met. The Final application presentation shall include material samples. 2) Conceptual approval with conditions, to be met at Final. 3) Table action and continue the public hearing to a date certain, to allow the applicant time to revise the proposal in order to meet the Development Review standards, as stated in this memo. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC table action and continue the public hearing to a date certain, which would allow the applicant time to revise and submit the proposal in order to meet the Development Review standards, as stated in , this memo. Additional comments: memo.hpc.232em.cd 4 STRYKER/ BROWN ARCHITECTS,PC January 12, 1993 Roxanne Eflin Historic Preservation Planner Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Roxanne: The owners and residents of the home at 232 E. Hallam, Dick and Linda Roberts, believe that their desire to convert their home to a duplex is compatible with the historic nature of their dwelling and is compatible with the historic neighborhood which bounds the property on the east, south, and west sides. Their planned addition is situated in such a way as to be nearly unnoticeable, from any public area in the neighborhood. It will be visible, however from the commercial zone below the hill to the north. The addition therefore, has been designed to resemble the existing "modern" architecture on that side of the home. The proposed addition will match the existing structure's details and materials thereby exhibiting only a minimal visual effect Based on my understanding of Aspen's "Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines" the proposed development: A. Is compatible in character with the designated historic structure on the parcel and on the adjacent parcels. No known setback encroachment exists or is anticipated, B. Is consistent with the character of the neighborhood, C. Enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel or on the adjacent parcels, D. Enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof, Please review this Significant Historic Development Application for "Expansion or erection of a structure wherein the increase in floor area of the structure is more than two hundred and fifty (250) square feet," per your Application Package Attachment #3a. Please inform me immediately if any herein is missing or not correct. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, â‚¬ VU Wayne Stryker, AIA 300 S SPRING STREET, SUITE 300 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 303Â·925Â·2254 925 2258 (FAX) ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1) Project Name Dick and Linda Roberts Addition 2) Project Location 232 East Hallam Avenue, Aspen, CO Lots M&N Block 71 ( indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) 3) Present Zoning R-6 4) Lot Size 19,592 Sq. Ft. 5) Applicant's Name, Address, & Phone # 303.925.2709 6) Representative's Name, Address, & Phone # Wayne Stryker Stryker/Brown Architects, P.C., 300 South Spring, Aspen, CO 81611 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual Use ~ Ist Conceptual Historic D.. Special Review Final SPA 2nd Final Historical Dev. 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final PUD Historic Demolition Mountain View Plane Subdivision Historic Designation Condominimization Text/Map Amendment GMQS Allotment Lot Split/Lot Line Adjustment GMQS Exemption 8) Description of Existing Use (number and type of existing structures; approximate sq. ft.; number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the property). Single family detached residence with approximately 4,250 sq. ft. and four bedrooms. The property has historic designation. 9) Description of Development Application: 450 Single storv duplex addition of approximately 44 sq. ft. which will be designed to precisely match exidting construction details and materials. 10) Have you attached the following? Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IMPORTANT Three sets of clear, fully labeled drawings must be submitted in a format no larger than 11"x17", OR one dozen sets of blueprints may be submitted in lieu of the 11"x 17" form at. APPLICANT: Dick and Linda Roberts ADDRESS: 232 E. Hallam Avenue, Aspen, CO, 81611 ZONE DISTRICT: R-6 LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): 19,592 Sq. Ft. EXISTING FAR: 4,250 ALLOWABLE FAR: 4,669.6 (duplex) PROPOSED FAR: 420 (new) EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commercial): NA PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commercial): NA EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: 17% PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: 20% EXISTING % OF OPEN SPACE (commercia): NA PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE (commerdal): NA EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Principal Bld.: Approx. 28 ft. / Accessorv Bld.: NA - PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Principal Bld.: Same / Accessorv Bld.: NA PROPOSED % OF DEMOLITION: 1% (for new common wall) EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 4 PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 5 (lnew) EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: 5 ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: 5 SETBACKS: EXISTING: ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: Front: 17 Ft Front: 10 Ft. Front: 17 Et. Rear: 41 Rear: _10 Rear: _AL Side: 10 Side: UL Side: -10 Combined Fr#Rr: 58 Combined Frt/Rr: 30 Combined Frt/Rr: 42 EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/ none known ENCROACHMENTS: none known VARIATIONS REQUESTED (eligible for Landmarks Onlv:character compat. finding must be made by HPCh FAR: Minimum Distance Buildings: SETBACKS: Front: Parking Spaces: Rear: Open Space (Commercial): Side: Height (Cottage Infill Only): Combined Fri/Rr: Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): JUU- 5-90 SAT 16=56 PPI FRESH P.02 LINDA PACE GOLDSBU RY 307 'ILHEELL ROAD SAN ANTON,0.1'}EXAS 78200 June 05, 1990 Roxanne Eflin Historic Preservation Planner Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Ms. Eflin: Please know hereby that Wayne Stryker of Stryker/Brown Architects, P.C., 300 S. Spring Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, 925-2254 is my authorized representative to act on my behalf in regard to my application for approval for changes and additions to my residence at 232 E. Hallam Avenue, Aspen, Colorado. Sincerely, 144-Re.- Linda Golds~ury LPG/slh ~ . ~ ~, #L 3/.4 15 / /993 COMMONWEALTH ~ LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY A Reliatice Gtolip Holdings CompanÂ¥ POLICY NO. 128-015415 CASE NO. PCT-3906 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION A tract of land comprising all of Lots R & S, Block 71, in the City and Townsite of Aspen on a portion of vacated Hallam Street, according to the Willit's Map recorded December 6, 1949 in Plat Book 2 at Page 37 as Reception No. 97096, and a portion of unplatted Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., the entire parcel being more fully described as follows: Beginning at the South West Corner of Lot M, Block 71, City of Aspen; thence N 14Â°50'49" E 163.12 feet; ence S 78Â°23'00" E 66.08 feet; + e S 22Â°58'00" E 116.19 feet; e S 12Â°59'00" W 75.09 feet to the Northerly line of Hallam Street; G.-ce N 75Â°09'11" W 139.65 feet to the point of beginning. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. - V rt- Ark \ 7 .. 0 0<*55b c g B--3-â„¢-1331#1. P\\N Â»'â€¢Au~ 113406 63432 1 P D PUPPY UITH 4 r 1 .- -- 1 - 2 345 543 ..( * SC ' & 1.'..1 I . 8 0 e 1. O 7 7 4 0 O- ts I 3 9, r. Cl 10 10 11 11 ..9 -1-I<...,4,9,1- . 12 1 (S PA) I 4 9 f;.: 4 â€¢ LI 1H 1 1 4*8_ e 1---0 0-1 : z. 71 - LE 'Nc t. :HI: , 0. 1 1 1 .4 â€¢ -(SPA) 1. . W. HALL AM ST. 2 ~ * 8 - - - IH . A y 0 It r f.Â· fH]~Hi.1 1-17 r Z -- -- 40 Â® 1% 11.--1 @ L I F - 0 T + Z H- } i . |~4 1H :1 . .1, -- W G ; M - T + W. BLEEKER ST. , .-T........ -'--.-1-2-- ... 11//1/ - i. ... HT--1 if .- ..> i 1 %1 1-1 2 0 = lit i I. 8 0: .1 0 - ''f. -r f , 11 - l. -ZI -- 1 O 0 =--râ€¢r, B ..1 Z .. . . ]N 1 Hi MIl . 1 - a ill-1 ; H 1 H 17'lit '11 = 1 ' 4 1 H+ 7.11 - L. uâ€¢n#. z , . tz, ca., ;F 4 L 42 F.11 L ... --I ./1. 1, 1 1 1 05 111 4 | ./.f..6.J-IN r It 1*1: MAIN 127 41."AL 7 0 .LE .- -- -' / y ---- 1 1 : â€žM . ..... ..f : 1.<40200=14: I V --2%57~Et 5 0 OJN.- - liLP i o owi - â‚¬-4Ff'0 0 W' 47 - . - . 4 - W m 1 11 Lp -2 N j , i . 11 H ~111 : , r- i '-' + . I ':r, y 5,4152 - 161 PAEPCKE ZE 0 1 - ----1, =rmik Â· r.i I.-1 r.1 Hill# 1 "! ' tli 2. 81'.t 9. PARK, â€ž., H /10 . ~i~ , ~11 1:: t=Â¢6,-T,20,1 Â·- i , in . 1 0 - ..... ..... .... tal.Â· 2 1 Â· -, r - r c- .1 , - A. , *49/4 . 26, 027 .- + 71/~ .22: --1 1 * = 1 - I. '9* 4 11/Fli.'11 . \ - .0 9 1 U - 73 - 7-444,inA *ts-In - - - 7 f. 1 3 7.... i . t.i - - . *- r ' - -- -& -1 . . r-- -= . 7-In'.54 v - .-.'7'.~ 8-2Â£. =gu '*Il - -Inp a -,6 .i. r . Ul , - mil 745 ' 14 , 0." U 9 22 1 B.1 . -a di=:...... /4& '12/. RA+~AA ~1 3 #443<-~ IÂ·=- . - -- E--~. 41 L -9. - h 1 1 IC , 7. -' 13 - 1, 1 4 -*.:- ' 2, g ./ 'I y *" -4 4 1 1 --... . -4 z. Â·-2- , #i -ija Â« - 1 1 . 194/4, ..1-64- tre,3 ..4 -- â€¢, t 4 .0 . 4? I. * - 37 4 ; 9.16 1- I / 1% ... 4 4 , --2 - 52?2/4 ..44 - - 1 . L - lE 1 - -1 Lis â€¢ 45'1 1~47' - - 1 ... ./.,741 .2 = 1. ~- 9.....tq A: -- - 1/li/7..1. - + AM'~- 463 L Lilt. 3.- - ... '14 '.ZI Z - -- - . 1-10 I .. 7 5., 1 1 -:9 I - 1 ' *1% I I . i.- . 2... Â¥,.~ 342-41. 7% 2 2. ; 111/ 1 2.0 . / 8, M 47 1 , &- 4 I Â· I I t 2, I e Â»44 1 - p I ..i'.7- r 1- .ik At -4 A . i- 1*J k: . 3/1,7 --4 Irl . - Ain t k +Do 11" , Im, '~ I "q *Â£ 1 d - 82 1 6 ' I ./ '4>, P. -. t < . :1. 1 . .., L 6, M 1 .-:22Â·,,/- Â«213;''~ IMAS# ~~ l'6~' ~..~ -â€¢I--1 C 9% :**Mali .41 ;32.9. : i_..AÂ· ,Â¢Nht; .t 1, a . EAA 1 -511*40, , 45,L* .4tf.i *~ 1 ile h 1 .1 11, Ir.1 w . 4 I I * 11,4 - r- r.- 21: i Â· -1 1 H P j vII - 7. . 1. .,9.Wu ,/ .-4 .10.-4 '1 1-1: 01 i 4.4 - efert. 1" i 1 5 . it-Â· 0 ... . 1 8 . 47'. '34â€žd!94Â·Â· 'N/11/ - .. ....9:idÂ·' r a .; . 1 . , 31*1'R -1 i ' :4 3>h, Â£' 24#:~:..i.~-#I-':.-- r "/Le:::E~MMMI,59/it:. ~ 1" , . Â· " n. 3472*1 7 11 'f~ ' A (}N,.; 4Â§4,-1 4 '~.~.~ . b ' 14 + , 4 / - 4 tut 4 1,4 0. ,-- r f.t ,; j. .. 3%%2-i -4- .126. 3 ... itr i 5 1 :ifillÂ·iÂ¢~;,- Â·'9" i ' MS'f' U ~ 9 f,< . 11 ) -13 6 *491 ~ 4 1 Z' 8 ':. '5,' .A .. . . 2 . 142 4- .1 Â£{f-, ~4 'iÂ¥ 2/4,0 -el . '1 0,04 1 L_ 4/4& 1 4 Ilt 41.1= 0 :.0 0 -01 71~21 %,F. + . d. 11; 1%,1 1 -3 /1...1, Clue 04.1,1.77 -.,tr ~ 1 411 ..) 4 â€¢?Me2*44 -- . -PAÂ·, .1,1 A,) Ir / '17-41 i ,/ f 41 4 2 + 7249 *.,o,~ fil or ' 1 ,*0 ' , 'fVt -*r .,Af-w'JIU -2.41 ,=. - ,134-42,-- ki::-2Â¥ c ~z ~' Â· ~:,~ ~ - ' 10,%*0.1 ..1...04 3 .1 4.-21 , 1 '.1.49 . -- 's Â¥ .1 Â·#Sil. '4.4- . I ., lei. i l.cl â€¢ I - I ;.. ..,.,# . 1 1-Â·'.'8 . k. Â·, *' i 'Â·-- 4, 6 -~il~.:5MT---9..4.. i :.X 7---/ 1 3*F .... ~ 4,1' i ' A ~.f 1 ..f f ' 4 '*.4, e Â· 1. f ,Â·."g - .1 f + jmmie;.-z..6.*.v1,v.*...*~~*iâ€ž 3. 42* i. 42 J i . 0, 1 11.1, i . --,191 LU.*'al 2.-It:. 4 i '..I||ill'll'll'Illit!'11111 -I.ff k Rt.1rp..tr 4 .4 J...44 1 Illill i U Iti: 1 '*' 'I' t,~'Â·>i:i- 1 2 .Â·' ~3' 1 ~ .1.. 1':1 $ Â·21 â‚¬L. 1, '431.4.[ 7. .:t' r ~ ..1 f%.--:* ,/Ir''ll L.1 ..Uh & / Al ./. r .521 i Â»: = ->2':7 -Â·4 . / . .44 4 1 \ .1.., i.,34.1.9.,t... t.>miff , ri- --i.Â· 7.10 1// f /64.!,4.red'.titt t'-',3##4 .1 1 9 - il , 7 /.- ; . t kt j F 1 #1'Li't i 44,,4-Â« ... . I . # K.p r ,/4'0 - 1;.Ii'lili-,-0 . 1 ~-3 I .1 :El'.* ./ :-baR Â·Â·jtt- 1 4"14!:~'Â·' '1Â·7.1'-r~ Â· 1' . Â·, 4 * . 4..............021"RN; 1 . . J ' I: 6 'h '*:..~Â·.tÂ· , '/f~~ .'46.-,Ar tlkÂ· 2 .4 7 h*,42*gr :..t,"40 -: 1~ . 4 . 2, L; t.41.43'' I--t-Â·h,Ult' Â·-c. A.'h I-Â·- 0 . ' r .hri '.Â· 1.7 r Â·.> ,Â·'R L I \ l ~~\ SITE PLAN c / r-, ~~ SCALE 1" = 10'-0" 1 1.2 - 1 1 41 it ..'.2 1 1- i :- It Il .f A 'L 1 1 --4 I---1 7 L --1 /\ / 7 i \ / / ..'2ht V I A 2 - O/ j EK .RETE De VEWAN tv,2 FAGE 8,4NrEA -6 4/ =MeuM),GriND, ~ NK+3-*---.-x =/ 9,1.k,r 1 1 1 1 1 1 / -Ar, imt r Â¢25/NA, / -C.*ADThr~ li 1 9-46 1 .: 1 i 1 . f .4 / \ 1 \ i 1 \0 I . 2 7-_ . =3/ 804 ENTA W*w< â€¢w,ng/*w f#0--=- 00d 14 - \42 . ~ ~ - 00,4 L Tf ~ - Â»IN 6 4 Al 12'-0 -==1 U. n U tt rr- ,?.t,M/D = 4 0=V,Z,SA 0 0 4.9-9 , 1 ... .- m 0 . 1 cs Ner V" ,Â»15Â»2 *04 04) rk-A 47-2,2 ~mt 911=El \ 4*BAL 6 11 r (-( 9 )/1 f ~ MUD //M. n .. 1 71--: // --41'Uff. -- -AT vt, - f 177 up A' -I// KIT'~ME.rv 64% 4 c 14 Y,f 7 Â·PININg ~\-1 FWD 22 pMT to bruoy ' ~ P/PIN+ AM ~,f' .A--i 21-J Â»9 901+ LOWER LEVEL PLAN SCALE ,/6. I e. O 0 f Agitt:HZ=- 4 . I 1 ..1 :.1 00'EN Â·Â· 7 \ \\L- '. NX . . rl 0 4 1-Pr 3 kle. 71- Lerâ€žU 7 / 100Â¥ __ UPPER LEVEL PLAN / 1 Â»I SCALE 10 â€¢ r. 00 4 - -0 1 n= Â»*f %11- - I ii 1 li 11 11 1= .1-' i--~ 1 .. IM k . 1IL_l ---- i ... -h 1 14'. 1-1 - L . 1/ * 3 fkbecâ€¢hee Ac:,21Â·rION 4 k NORTH ELEVATION SCALE VS = r- cr , 41, f Icl U . .r-.- ',1 .._ .- _- ~_6. -1 11- \ 'i ===br U '44 --- 1- 11 1 1 i - --L SOUTH ELEVATION FEÂ»U- VE.= '-0. f 0 9 1- V' / r -- 1 1 1 - -A - 1 - 1'~../*/P 11 h EAST ELEVATION SCALE' W . 11-0, 1, i U -- 9 i i h. $ 1 --, , 00 L- R 1 - 2 - p h " - 1 -1=1 1 11 ' 1 4 11 Â¥a,Oe,SECD A A'001Â·floN N & WEST ELEVATION ; SCALE"U j*Z.glk,22 - . ' '~~~ ill - . MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation OfficertÂ© Re: 205 S. Mill (Mill St. Plaza) : Conceptual Development for facade addition, Public Hearing Date: February 10, 1993 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting Conceptual Development approval for an 875 sq. ft. (+/-) facade addition to the Mill Street Plaza building. The parcel is not a designated landmark, but is located within the Commercial Core Historic District, requiring HPC approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. The applicant held a pre-application conference with the HPC on January 27 (comments from that meeting are found on Page 3.) APPLICANT: M&W Properties, represented by Cottle, Graybeal and Yaw, Architects, Ltd. LOCATION: 205 s. Mill St., Lots D - J, Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado SITE, AREA AND BULK INFORMATION: Please refer to the attachment from the applicant. ADDITIONAL COMMISSION REVIEWS: Expansion of net leasable requires GMQS approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission, unless the applicant demonstrates that net leasable square footage is being exchanged for current storage square footage (non net-leasable.) The applicant is also seeking approval to mitigate their unmet open space requirement with payment-in-lieu, a P&Z matter under special review. Development Review Standards REVIEW STANDARDS: Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations defines the four standards for Development Review. All four of these standards must be met in order for the HPC to grant approval for the proposal. The applicable Guidelines are found in Section V, Commercial Buildings - New Construction, beginning on page 35 of the Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines. Please review these Guidelines carefully when reviewing this project (see attached.) 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is 1 ' K 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 of exceed the allowed floor areas, 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: This parcel does not contain a designated landmark, however, it is surrounded by six adjacent landmarks, the closest and most significant of which is the corner Katie Reid parcel. Character compatibility in this proposal is the key component the HPC must consider. This ground level addition, projecting the facade edge 10' closer to the streetedge, must achieve a design solution that is compatible with both the Mill Street Plaza, the adjacent landmarks, and the entire Commercial Core District. It is important to understand how the entire Mill Street Plaza works from a design perspective in the district in order to effectively review the proposed addition. A primary consideration is the slope of the site, which presents problems in maintaining properly aligned and correctly proportioned storefront openings. The east elevation works well from a pedestrian point of view: the storefront windows are aligned well in proportion to the facade. The ramp entrance into the interior courtyard seems to draw in the pedestrian nicely, and serves as the building's "alley". The diagonal corner bass relief arch announces the Eddie Bauer entrance, which is nicely scaled and is an excellent example of corner vitality. From there, the north elevation becomes problematic, and is not corrected with the new addition. The north elevation clearly does not meet the Design Guidelines, and staff finds that the addition stops short of meeting this standard and the design guidelines. It is the role of the HPC to not allow inappropriate design that does not meet the Guidelines to occur in the historic district. The decisions you make are long lasting, and deserve careful consideration. In highly visual commercial settings such as this, more time and care are often required to go into design development and review in order to achieve the best solution for the district and the community. Conversely, the proposed addition essentially finishes this building, by picking up and carrying through the established design elements. Asking the applicant to completely alter the massing, scale and materials that have already been committed may do a disservice to the building, and may result in a poorly executed design. The idea of blending material elements from the Katie Reed project into this addition to 2 extend the corner context down the block and tie the block together better has merit, and should be studied by the applicant. This issue was discussed at the pre-application conference. The windows require revision. We recommend that a pedestrian-level perspective drawing or massing model be submitted to illustrate how the addition works in relation to the corner. Staff finds this standard has not been met. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: We find that the issue of neighborhood character consistency is perhaps the greatest area of concern we have regarding this proposal. There are many design areas of the existing structure that are counter to the Historic District Design Guidelines, and we find that this addition does little to correct those design inadequacies. Staff is particularly concerned that the proportions of the storefront openings, a basic design principal in a historic district, do not meet this standard. The north elevation of the Mill Street Plaza is the most problematic in contributing to the historic characteristics of the Commercial Core. Pedestrian interaction is virtually non-existent along a great expanse of this north end. We agree that the addition well help to invite pedestrians into the space, and create life at ground level, but the window openings do not enhance and strengthen the district' s historic context. We find that an addition of this visual prominence must do more to contribute to the historic context than what is proposed. What also occurs in this proposal is the elimination of the north/south mid-block crossing. These mid-block crossings are found in many blocks in the Core, and is an element the Planning Office and AACP Character Committee wish to retain. By cutting off this cross-flow, pedestrians are forced to use only one north entrance into the courtyard, an area staff finds particularly uninviting, with no special sense of entrance. We disagree with the applicant that pedestrians "do not use the existing (north west) stair". Although this stairway is large, high and basic gray concrete (nothing special), we feel that a complete elimination of a stair section into this portion of the building should be restudied. Helping to maintain retail vitality for businesses within the plaza is also a goal of the City; the Planning Office believes that without a significant enhancement of the existing north 3 east stairway in tandem with the removal of the north west stairway and the addition, an opportunity to vastly improve this building's contribution to the district will be lost. Additionally, the following comments were made by the HPC during the pre-application: Provide life on the street; provide doorway entrances at both ends of the addition Restudy the length of this facade in comparison with the established rhythm and patterns of the Katie Reid project, yet maintain this building's own identity Blend this addition with what is going on at the corner and the district in materials and details Redesign the windows for correct proportion Incorporate basic storefront elements, i.e. kickplates below the windows How will awnings work? An interior airlock is necessary The Planning Office finds that this standard has not been met, however, in order to keep the public hearing process alive, we recommend tabling (and continuation) as opposed to denial. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: Many adjacent structures are designated landmarks within this block. In order to fully determine whether this proposal "enhances or does not detract from" its cultural value, we recommend that the HPC require a streetscape drawing, perhaps computer generated or in perspective, and/or a massing model, to assess the impacts this addition will have to the Katie Reid cottage. We are concerned that its overall size, height, materials, storefront proportions and angled entrances have the potential to define it as the block's centerpiece, which may compete with the cultural value of the adjacent resources. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. 4 Response: This parcel is not designated. Staff's architectural comments are found in our response to Standards #1 and #2 above. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Conceptual approval as proposed, finding the Development Review standards have been met. The Final application presentation shall include material samples. 2) Conceptual approval with conditions, to be met at Final. 3) Table action and continue the public hearing to a date certain, to allow the applicant time to revise the proposal in order to meet the Development Review standards, as stated in this memo. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC table action and continue the public hearing to a date certain, which would allow the applicant time to revise and submit the proposal in order to meet the Development Review standards, as stated in this memo. Additional comments: memo.hpc.205sm.cd 5 V. COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS - NEW CONSTRUCTION New construction is expected on Main Street and in the Commercial Core. The possibility still exists to drastically alter the original character of these important districts. New buildings do not need to damage the historic integrity if they are designed to respect the relationships among buildings that have already been established. The Commercial Core Historic Overlay District contains primarily commercial type buildings, as identified in "Architectural Summary" on pages 3-10 of this document. The Main Street Historic Overlay District contains primarily residential building types; however, there is a broader mix of historic and contempor- ary commercial structures, including lodges. Users of the Guidelines should refer to the "Residential Buildings - New Construction" chapter when considering new construction on predominantly residential blocks on Main Street. In all new commercial construction, compatibility to adjacent building types should be considered. Broad-scale characteristics such as the range of the building heights and their alignment at the sidewalk should be studied. At the same time, the designer should recognize fine-grained aspects such as facade composition and decoration. The characteristics that have already been established can be respected while at the same time developing new and creative building designs that avoid the imitation of earlier historic styles. The intent of the design guidelines for infill construc- tion is to identify the elements most critical to the character of the historic commercial area and to insure that these elements are incorporated into new designs. Creative expressions of modern design solutions are sought, rather than recreations of 19th century architecture. By incorporating these critical elements into modern architectural expressions, new buildings will fit harmoniously with the old. A. Setback 1. Plazas or courts that break the continuity of the facade alignment should be avoided. If the best design solution requires a plaza or court, the alignment created by building facades should be continued through the use of architectural elements such as walls, planters, arcades, etc. Plazas or courts that are below street grade are generally discouraged because they tend to hinder easy pedestrian access. If these plazas or courts are desired they should be organized internally. 2. Maintain the general alignment of facades at the sidewalk edge. Most buildings were built right up to the sidewalk. This alignment defines the public space 35 and the building edge. This basic alignment of buildings at the sidewalk should be maintained. In some cases a courtyard may be considered if it has an active function or gives desired relief for the purpose of allowing a historic landmark to stand out more prominently. Projections over the sidewalk may be acceptable so long as a significant portion of the facade aligns with the sidewalk's edge. 3. parking lots at street level should be discouraged. If parking lots already exist they should be carefully treated with architectural elements and landscaping so to maintain the continuity of the street edge. B. Alignment and Rhythm of Facade Details Architectural elements of existing buildings are in general alignment. Cornice lines define the two and three-story height prevalent in the commercial core; regularly-spaced window openings define the upper floors; and traditional storefronts create a strong band at the street level. 1. utilize architectural elements to continue the align- ment in existing buildings. Use cornice lines, window and door openings and storefronts in infill construc- tion that continue the alignment of elements found in existing buildings. 2. Maintain the existing scale of the storefront when adding extra stories. The original proportions should always be preserved. If additional stories are to be added they should be placed far enough to the rear of the building so that they do not alter the front facade. 3. Maintain the distinction between upper and lower floors. Typically the historic structures have a retail function on the first floor with offices or residential uses above. This separation of function is shown in the facade: the first floor is predominantly display windows made up of large sheets of glass, while the upper levels are usually solid walls with small windows. These relationships should be used innova- tively in new design. C. Massing Massing of historic commercial buildings generally employed box- like rectangular solids with low relief ornamentation. The buildings vary in size, but are generally narrow in width and two or three stories in height. 37 1. For infill construction massing should have the same general size and character as the existing building. When larger buildings are required, the architectural design should visually break the mass into components compatible with the existing buildings. No wall should extend for more than three town lots (90') without an alteration of at least 8 feet in the setback line while generally maintaining the sidewalk edge. Roofs should not exceed in length three town lots without an alteration in the form and/or height. 2. The planes of the building walls should be flat in character. Avoid overhanging balconies when possible. 3. Maintain the pattern of uniform facade widths. Most buildings in the Historic Core were built out to the side property lines and were generally of the same width. When this pattern is repeated along the street strong visual continuity is created. The dominant facade patterns of the street should be reinforced by new construction. In cases where new buildings are to be wider than the present facade pattern, subdividing the facade into portions reflecting the pattern is encouraged. 4. Select designs that do not imitate historic styles found in the district. The integrity of the genuine historic structures could be compromised by the introduction of new buildings which closely imitate historic styles of Aspen or of other regions. As a result, observers may not be able to tell what is new or old, and may be confused about which are indigenous historic styles. Location is critical in determining which architectural styles are appropriate. For example, exact duplications in the immediate area of an outstanding historic landmark would diminish the unique quality of that landmark. New buildings that are designed to imitate historic styles are generally discouraged. Reconstructions are only encouraged for significant local landmarks; but, in general, new designs are encouraged. D. Storefronts Traditional storefronts were almost completely transparent, creating an interesting environment for pedestrians. This pattern contributes to the character of the commercial core, and to the economic vitality of the downtown in general. 39 1 1. In infill construction maintain a sense of transparency at the street level. This does not mean that a traditional storefront would need to be recreated, but it may be useful to examine historic storefront elements for design solutions. similar in size and shape. Examples of building 2. Use components of the facade that are historically components that were employed include windows, doors, moldings, and siding materials. Each of these compon- ents had a standard range of sizes. A chief factor that established a building's scale and the pedestri- an's relationship to the building was the repetition of similarly-sized components. In new construction, use components that maintain the historic scale of materi- als. Maintain the pattern of recessed entrances. To create 3. shelter from inclement weather and provide clearance for door swings most storefront entrances are recessed. The repetition of these recessed entrances along the street has established a pattern. To reinforce this characteristic the use of recessed entrances should be considered. E. Windows and Openings Window openings in existing buildings in the commercial core are strongly vertical in proportion. Square or horizontal window openings are generally inappropriate. j 1. Maintain the spacing pattern of the upper story windows. Window openings above the first floor in infill construction should maintain the vertical proportion, if not the exact size of openings in historic buildings. Reinforce the pattern of uniform - shape that is repeated along the upper floors in new construction. Avoid shapes that are not typical of the street and, with respect to windows and walls, maintain the typical ratio of solid to void. Although there are a few exceptions on upper floors, bay windows are not a typical feature and should be avoided or used in limited numbers. 1 2. Where it is feasible align windows, moldings, and other horizontal elements. The edges of buildings were typically finished with edge boards and trim. Major subdivisions of the facade were also emphasized through the use of molding. The band typically found separa- ting storefront display windows from the upper portions of a building is an example of such a molding. Virtually all of the buildings were capped with the use 1 41 m of a cornice, a design concept that should be expressed in new construction. 3. Bright-finished metal for either window frames or storm windows is considered inappropriate. F. Materials Existing buildings in the commercial core are predominantly brick and stone, which is typical of almost every 19th century mining community that experienced a fire during its history. 1. Use building materials the are similar in texture and finish to those found historically. The majority of historic commercial buildings are brick or stone. Both brick and stone have distinct textures, and establish patterns along the street. These materials are important in establishing the scale of the buildings. This pattern and texture should continue to be rein- forced by new buildings. The use of variegated brick or stone is encouraged for inf ill construction in the commercial core. Large brick sizes are discouraged. appropriate in some locations. Wooden commercial 2. The use of wood siding, shingles and panels may be buildings may be appropriate when the softer appearance of wood would serve as visual relief from the predomi- nance of stone and brick, but would still reinforce other streetfront patterns. G. Signs Because it is such a prominent part of the business image, selecting a concept for a sign is one of the most important design decisions for a building. It is also important to consider what type of signs would be appropriate for the build- ing. These include the following: H Signs that are flush on the building Signs on the window Signs that project from the wall Any questions on signage should be directed to the Zoning Official for a determination of compliance with the sign code. HPC has an advisory role only in sign display. 1. Position signs to fit within features of the facade. So they do not dominate the building that they are trying to identify, signs should be carefully located. Due to the pedestrian orientation of the district signs should be incorporated into the first floor design of the building, and in the case of historic structures should not obscure details. Avoid covering the molding or windows, and use the sign to emphasize 43 1. architectural elements. These elements may include the storefront opening, the entrance, and other outstanding feature of the buildings. Individually applied letters placed on the exterior siding rather than being contained within a building detail are discouraged. In cases where second story signing must be used window signs are considered most appropriate. 2. Align signs on an individual building with similar spacing, size and lettering. This will help to unify the building composition. If possible the coordination of signs for several businesses in one building is encouraged. Keep the number of signs to a minimum. Wherever 3. possible consolidate sign information. Where more than one business is located in a building consider using directories. Signs should not overpower other facade elements in size and they should relate to other signs in the block. 4. Select letters, styles, and signs which do not over- power the building facade. The personal scale of businesses is an attractive characteristic of the historic district. 5. Coordinate colors with the building front. Select colors that repeat or compliment those of the facade. When it is possible also try to coordinate colors with adjacent buildings. Brilliant luminescent or "day-glo" colors are strongly discouraged. 6. Design lighting as an integral part of the sign. If lighting is applied to a sign it should be placed in such a way that the light globe is not visible to the passers-by. Mounting hardware and electrical ducting for lighting must be integrated in the sign design. For exterior lighting use incandescent lights. An intense glaring light, produced by bare flood lights with out reflectors, is not acceptable for illuminating signs. 7. Use sign materials that are compatible with those of the building front. Due to Aspen's seasonal extremes signs must be of high quality durable materials. Where glass is used it may be gilded, painted, sandblasted or etched. The overall visibility through windows should not be obscured by applied graphics. Solid wood may be carved and finished to serve as sign panels. Brass letters and numbers may also be used in signage. Internally lit signs, imitation "stained glass" and fluorescent colors should be avoided. 45 -ILE BEAL CHITECTS January 4, 1993 UD Ms. Roxanne Eflin Historic Planning Commission 130 S. Galena Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Mill Street Plaza Building/Retail Renovation Conceptual Historic Development Application Dear Roxanne: Thank you for taking time in the busy holiday season for our pre-application conference and for sending the. application package. On behalf of M&W properties, I am submitting responses to the following attachments for HPC review on 27 January 1993. a. Attachment 1, Land use application form. b. Attachment 2, Min. submission contents for all Development Applications. c. Attachment 3, Specific submission contents: Conceptual Development Plan. d. Attachment 4, Review Standards: Development in H, Historic Overlay District, e. Supplement to Historic Preservation Development Applications. Fol'ov.ing Conceptual Histcric Development approval by HPC, it is cur intention to file application with the Planning Office for exemption from GMP and for special review for cash in lieu of open space. Sunny Vann will be handling these applications should you have specific questions. A. Attachment 1 Attached and submitted herein. JOHN COTTLE, AM DOUG GRAYBEAL AIA LARRY YAW A[A M ENTHORN, ALA b. AYMAN, SUITE 21 ASPul, COLORADO 81611 PHONE 303/9252867 FAX 303/925-3736 01111 ?Â· 2 ... d Ms. Roxanne Eflin Page 2 B. Attachment 2 1. Letter of authorization, attached and submitted herein. 2. Street address and legal description of parcel: 205 S. Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lots D, E, F, G, H, J, Block 81 City of Aspen 3. Disclosure of Ownership, attached and submitted herein. 4. Vicinity Map locating Parcel, attached and submitted herein. 5. Written description of Proposal: The project scope consists of a building addition of approximately 875 sq.ft. for retail occupancy and is located on the north facing portion of the existing Mill Street Plaza building facade which is set back 10 ft. from the Hopkins Avenue property line. As shown on the attached drawings, the addition will extend the facade 10 ft. to the property line and will occupy approximately 64 ft. of new facade length. Additional space will be created by infill of the existing west stair arcade, also on the existing Hopkins Avenue facade. The new facade will essentially duplicate the existing facade in detail and material with the cornice band and column detail using 8"x8" slate coursing, the same used on the recent restaurant addition above. The proposed addition extends from and returns to the existing facade by means of 45 degree walls to create a : softened transition. Similar to the chamfered corner at Mill and Hopkins, the 45 degree surfaces will demark a new entrance I directly accessible from the side walk and a new display window, The windows of the new facade are more "pedestrian friendly" having been lowered from over 5 feet above sidewalk level to less than 3 feet. The new facade has been purposefully terminated over 20 feet ' away from (east) the new Katie Reed building facade to create a i compatible building to building relationship and to enhance side walk view of the relocated Katie Reed victorian (85 ft. distant) at the , corner of Hopkins and Monarch. Because the same facade treatment/materials/detail are being used, but with lowered pedestrian level windows, the addition is completely compatible with the parent building, as well as the .. Ms. Roxanne Eflin Page 3 character of neighboring development. The character of the "street" scape has been enhanced by bringing a portion of the building forward to define a sidewalk scale similar to other areas of Aspen, where building frontage defines the sidewalks. The current configuration of open space which is essentially linear, functions more like a wide sidewalk. While it qualifies as "open space" even under the current regulations, it is on the shadow (north) side of the building and does not serve well as a public gathering space. The new addition will also cause removal of the west stairway which currently extends from the building to the property line on Hopkins. The top of this stairway is 5 feet above the sidewalk which is rarely used, and acts more as a barrier than an enhancement. The new facade also helps guide pedestrian view to the Katie Reed victorian. C. Attachment 3a 1. Sketch plan of existing and proposed development is attached to and submitted herein. 2. Conceptual selection of building materials to be used in the proposed development as follows: Primary face Brick - to match existing Cornice Band - to match existing dark red-brown slate. Partial Column Flute - to match existing dark red-brown slate. Concrete Steps - To match existing Awnings over display windows - to match existing Window jarrbs - painted to match existing. The form, materials and detaii of the proposed addition, which 3. , essentially match the existing building, have been designed to I effect compatibility to the character of the immediate neighborhood i similar to that which exists with the current building. , 4. The project application falls under the following categories of significant development. b, Erection or remodeling or combinations of or multiples of any single feature of a structure which as 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 250 sq.ft. Ms. Roxanne Eflin Page 4 e. Construction of a new structure within an H, Historic overlay district. D. Attachment 4 See Attachment 2, paragraph 5, written description of project. E. Supplement to Historic Preservation Development Applications. Attached and submitted herein. The Public Hearing Notice requirements for this application are being handled by Vann Associates. Conceptual Historic Development application requires Public Hearing Notice by: Publication, Posting, and Mailing at dates prior to hearing specified in Attachment 5 of the Significant Historic Development Application package. Also please find a check in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty-Nine dollars ($259.00) as required in payment for this application fee. Please call if the application is incomplete or you wish clarification for any of the information in our submission. Very truly yours, Larr~ Yaw f ) 1 Authorized~ject Representative LY: kj Encls. IAND uSE APPIICAEON FORM 1) Project Maine Mill Street Plaza - Retail.Renovation 205 S. Mill Street, City of Aspen 2) Project location Lots D thru J. Block 81 (indicate street address; lot & block n.mber,, legal descciption Were appropriate) 3) Present Zoning CC, Commercial Core 4) Iot Size 6 lots - 18,000 s.f. 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Ihone # M&W Properties 205 S. Mill Street, Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: 303-925-8032 6) Represertative's Name, Address & ]?hone # Larry Yaw, Cottle Graybeal Yaw Architects Lid. 510 E. Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81.611 Phone: 303-925-2867 7) gype of Agplication (please check all that apply): Oonditional Use Conceptual SPA X Conceptual Historic Dev. Special Revier Final SPA - Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline ,-/ Conoestual POD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final POD Hi*itoric Demolition Mountain View Plane , Subdivisian - Historic Designation Condomini=ization Uht/Map Amer*iment . (2(QS Allatment Iot Split/Int line, - GUS Eaption Â· Adjustment 8) Description of Existing Uses (nuaber and type of ecisting- structures; approximate sq. ft.; nuaber of bedrooms; anY ptevious approvals granted tb the property). Primary uses: Retail/Office Approx. 24,620 sq.ft. HPC approval granted to building prior to construction. 9) Description of Develcpoent AFplication Conceptual Historic Development Application for approx. 875 sq.ft. retail expansion on Hopkins Street building facade. 10) Have you attached the following? X Response to Attachment 2, MininIna Submission Contents X Response to Attachment 3, Specific Sulinission Contents X Response to Attactment 4, Eeview Standards for Your Application M & W PROPERTIES SUITE 301A 205 SouTH MILL STREET ANTHONY J. MAZZA ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 AREA CODE 303 FRANK J. WOODS, III TELEPHONE 925-8032 FAx 925-6996 December 28, 1992 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: This letter shall authorize Larry Yaw of Cottle, Graybeal and Yaw to represent Mill Street Plaza Associates in connection with an HPC conceptual application. 17 ery ~truly yours, L___--------lytirony J. MEEZZ~ AJM:dr M & W PAC)PEErrIES SUITE 301A 205 SOUTH MILL STREET ANTHONY J. MAZZA ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 A.REA CODE 303 FRANK J. WOODS. III TELEPHONE 925-8032 FAX 925-6995 December 28, 1992 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Please be advised that the Mill Street Plaza Building is owned by Mill Street Plaza Associates, which is comprised of Frank J. Woods, III and Anthony J. Mazza and a minor interest by Joan Slattum. The existing mortgage on the Mill Street Plaza Building is held by Commercial Federal Mortgage. Veryt~uly yours, f /Knthoify J. Mazza AJM:dr - - 1 01- \\ 9.8 .1 T Y t.'Piehb S AND STRUCMiES:' /..k// _LEGEND + 1986 IPO \ PER COL I d. . 0==t % 1\ 1 4 t..1.Uk.=tul _1 not Â¥.1 Z=:â€ž : 1- . , 1- 1-1-4 1 .....L.- A . . I Ch ' '-~-1=6. ... 1 - .... M3=r--1 Â°-1 (3..7 18.9 CZ*1342Â¥1001 0 0 4-0Â©y 1 4-hal. 1.4 D__ L â€¢ 5.CofrÂ»Tu,Ily Cf,urch .. 4 1 19 Unl .:4 ........ . r,[4 + 0,.0 1.Ilmuillt 0 11[WIb 0113 air~-m. *g,-jilI[3 tin; 6 .1 + 42 ' *dE!]11 .E 313 3111016 12/9 1,1;112.i. , ./1 1 k.6 - . Â·t. ir -Imi,rrÂ·'7'11|:i- ,ill:qlr muiiiFMIi:R [[BI[[[0 lun.! [IiWImiEWE 1[WIT[1 [1$0TE, alw'I[ awfm Iliglrig [glomt Â· ., r--lE} 0.NEUE :al~L 2!1&1!1 !]1!Wl}ijill.I?.1.&92 12:=1 Uwt:W . 111 . .'.Im]IXII. gil [11219. u ..3 . mim F'05 nim .. '111 ImUED [I[IltÂ®' @21.612[1.[i]2[1 [IWED,[1Â¥8#,995, mamimmiill . e -0 - - lit MILTÂ£[1 1111.1.41 lilli&!8111.12.11<11WillB lNEY.11Â·1!jJ.il:JÂ·ibfl,IiI: Ullf.ly WRilliÂ· ;* -- -C 9. h=]11 mt[Im DEMB. mm oimnÂ·mumn [maN r=-1 . [1Eill Wallill:lutulll].[immu:tu,:111.U- '8-98~~ L=13 89 X -./8!24,l 1.21 :E I ./ - 9.-49*'g! I, 1 ;El lilÂ· i - 7 r FEEEINE; LE_ i[El-// Himilli/! -- Â·Â·. @Imil mimmÂ·â‚¬mm numm . 4/4 .. 1 ~~ i-E~ rT-rl X90- . ' Att :Irl t - 'ffili/ Itt.79 _ --- .-0- 1 &91 [89 . SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IMPORTANT Three sets of cle.ar. fully labeled drawings must be submitted in a format no larger than 11"x17", OR one dozen sets of blueprints may be submitted in lieu of the 11"x17 format. APPLICANT: M&W Properties ADDRESS: 205 S. Mill Street, Aspen, CO 81611 ZONE DISTRICT: CC, Commercial Core LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): 18,000 EXISTING FAR: 24,620 as of 1992 Reg. ALLOWABLE FAR: 36,000 PROPOSED FAR: 25,495 23,527 EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commercial): PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commercial): 23;527 65.3% EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: 70% 34.7% EXISTING % OFOPEN SPACE (Commercial): PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE (Commer.): 30% EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: PmciDal Blda.: 28'-0" / Accessorv Bldg: n/a PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Princioal Bldg.: 28'-0" / Accessory Bldg: n/a PROPOSED % OF DEMOLITION: 64 ft. of existing facade, only EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: SETBACKS: EXISTING: ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: Front: 0 Front: 0 Front: Rear: 0 Rear: O Rear: 0 Side: 10 Side: 0 Side: 0 Combined Front/Rear: 0 Combined FrURr: 0 Combined Front/Rear: 0 EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/ ENCROACHMENTS: VARIATIONS REQUESTED (eligible for Landmarks Onlv: character compatibility finding must be made bv HPC): FAR: n/a Minimum Distance Between Buildings: n/a SETBACKS: Front: n/a Parking Spaces: n/a Rear: n/a Open Space (Commercial): See Letter Side: n/a Height (Cottage Infill Only): n/a Combined FrtiRr: n/a Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): n/a -52 0,"2,Â©- National Trust for Historic Preservation ~1111 January 26, 1993 Dear Colleague: The National Trust for Historic Preservation will hold a Preservation Leadership Training Institute in Fort Collins, Colorado, June 12 - 19, 1993. We would like to invite you and others from your community to attend. The enclosed brochure describes the Institute and lists some of the topics we will cover. We will be offering parallel tracks with specialized training for board members and staff of nonprofit organizations and for boards and staff of local preservation commissions. While it is not a requirement, we have found that it is most effective to have two representatives from each community receive the training so that they can work together to carry out their stated goals in their own communities. In addition to the formal training sessions participants also work in teams on a local preservation issue. This active participation helps clarify the concepts while giving participants the confidence to put the training they are receiving to work in their own communities. Tuition for the week-long Preservation Leadership Training is $300, plus travel, accommodations and most meals. We have arranged for participants to stay in suite-style dormitory rooms at Colorado State University, at greatly reduced rates (see attached brochure for details). The National Park Service has provided some funding for scholarship assistance for representatives of Certified Local Governments. A small amount of additional assistance may also be available. We believe this is an excellent opportunity for the best available preservation training close to home and we hope You will consider attending. Please feel free to call us if you would like more information or additional brochures to share with others in your community. To apply, please complete the enclosed application and return it to me at the Mountains/Plains Regional Office by April 1, 1993. Sincerely, Barbara Pahl Regional Director Mountains/Plains Regional Office National Office: 511 16th Street, Suite 700 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Denver, Colo. 80202 Washington, D.C. 20036 (3031623- 1504 / FAX (3031825-8073 (2021673-4000 1InllIIIIn.1 11111111111111111111111111111111111 111 111111111111 -=51/. #~1962-- d National Trust for Histoi-ic Preset-vation liirf PRESERVATION LEADERSHIP TRAINING Fort Collins, Colorado June 12-19, 1993 ONE WEEK OF INTENSIVE PRESERVATION TRAINING PRACTICAL EXERCISES TO STRENGTHEN YOUR PRESERVATION ORGANIZATION EXPERT FACULTY PURPOSE The Preservation Leadership Training and communities of varied sizes will be Institute is an intensive one-week represented. experience tailored to respond to the needs of local historic preservation Preference will be given to communities commissions and nonprofit preservation willing to enroll two individuals (ideally a organizations. Its emphasis will be on staff member and a commission member, providing a participatory experience in or a board member and a paid or leadership and organizational develop- volunteer staff person). ment and the most up-to-date and effect- ive information and training in current Participants must agree to carry out an preservation practices, issues and action assessment of their sponsor organization strategies. or commission within six months of com- pleting the institute. Assessment tools The institute is aimed at volunteers and and training will be provided, and the staff of private, nonprofit organizations National Trust regional office staff will and members and staff of preservation offer support in completing the assess- commissions who are in positions to ment. influence preservation activities in their communities. Applications must be submitted in dupli- cate by April 1, 1993. A National Trust PARTICIPANTS staff committee will select participants and inform applicants of acceptance by April The institute is limited to 30 participants 23, 1993. A non-refundable tuition fee from the Mountains/Plains region. A will be due May 10, 1993, and all other range of staff and volunteer backgrounds fees will be due May 28, 1993. COSTS FACULTY A tuition fee of $300 will be charged. The faculty will be drawn from national, Participants are responsible for housing state and local experts in preservation and costs, some meals and transportation to organizational development, giving partici- and from Fort Collins. The cost of lodg- pants a balanced national perspective and ing (including breakfast and most lunches) a network of regional and local resources per participant will be $300 for seven for the future. Faculty members will be nights for single occupancy or $230 for available following their presentations to seven nights for double occupancy. Scho- meet informally with participants and to larship assistance is available for a limited consult on individual concerns. number of participants. SPONSORS HOUSING The National Trust's Preservation Leader- Housing for Preservation Leadership ship Training program is made possible by Training participants will be at Colorado the generous support of the National Park State University. The rooms are dormi- Service. Co-sponsors of the institute in- tory suites with a shared bath between clude the National Alliance for Preserva- every two rooms. ALL participants are tion Commissions and the City of Fort required to stay with the group as the Collins. institute schedule is quite intensive and many sessions extend into the evening WORKSHOP TOPICS hours. Participants will arrive the evening of June 12, 1993, and depart after noon Being a Leader ...In Your Organization on June 19,1993. Late arrivals and early and Your Community departures are strongly discouraged. Effective Management Strategies for Nonprofit Preservation Organizations and METHOD Historic Preservation Commissions Creating a Positive Public Image Basic instructional elements of the pro- Legal Framework of Preservation gram include lectures, tours, class projects, Legal Tools ... Ordinances, Incentives, role playing and participatory learning Zoning and Planning experiences, intensive study of the Fort Economics of Preservation Collins community as a preservation Access to Statewide and National Resources laboratory, and informal exchange among Defining the Your Role in Your Community institute participants, Trust staff, Developing Resources ... Generating nationally recognized faculty, community Support from Foundations, Corporations, leaders and residents of Fort Collins. Special Events Design Workshop Each participant will receive a compre- hensive notebook of materials which will serve as a valuable reference tool both during and after the Preservation Leadership Training. APPLICATION Preservation Leadership Training Fort Collins, Colorado June 12-19, 1993 Deadline for Applications: April 1, 1993 Name Address Daytime Phone Sponsoring Organization/Commission Year established Number of Members If your community is proposing a second participant, what is his/her name? Education (schools attended, major fields of study and graduation dates) Work related and/or volunteer preservation experience (use additional sheets if necessary) Please Attach: (1) resume (2) one letter of recommendation from someone outside the sponsoring organization/agency (3) a written commitment from your sponsor organization/agency to participate in the post- training assessnlent (over) Please explain why you wish to attend this program and what you hope to accomplish. If your participation depends on scholarship assistance, please explain this need below. 2 m Return application material in duplicate by April 1, 1993 to National Trust for Historic Preservation, Mountains/Plains Regional Ojlice, 511 16th Street, Suite 700, Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 623-1504 STANDARDS FOR REVIEW Ohio Court Upholds Springfield Preservation Ordinance Against Unlawful Delegation Charge . The Court of Appeals of Landmarks Commission. Specifi- Ohio has upheld the City of cally, he charged that Springfield's Springfield's historic preserve- ordinance failed to provide the nec- tion ordinance against a prop- essary guidance to the Commission in acting upon certificates of appro- erty owner's claim that the priateness. ordinance unlawfully delegat- Springfield's historic preserva- ed legislative power to the tion ordinance is typical in many city's historic landmarks com- respects. The ordinance prescribes mission. The court found that the membership of the Landmarks the standards established by Commission and its duties and the the ordinance were sufficient method for designating an area as an historic district. It also provides to guide the commission in that no permits may be issued "for - the exercise of its discretion. work planned in a historic district City of Springfield v. Pullins, unless the person proposing such C.A. No. 2927 (Ohio Ct. App. work first obtains the approval of Oct. 5,1992).) the Landmarks Commission through its issuance of a certificate ~ his case arose in the context of appropriateness." of a property owner's failure Decisions regarding requests for to obtain necessary permits certificates of appropriateness are and certificates of appropriateness governed by the Secretary of the before making certain improve- Interior's Standards for Rehabilita- ments on his property, which is tion and design guidelines to be located in a designated historic adopted by the Commission. Sec- district. The Clark County Munic- tion 1321.09(d) of the ordinance ipal Court found the owner, Jerry provides: Pullins, in violation of Springfield's historic preservation ordinance. In the event that the Landmarks Pullins appealed that decision to Commission finds that an architec- the Court of Appeals of Ohio. tural feature is involved, the Land- In appealing the lower court's marks Commission shall determine whether the proposed construction, decision, the owner argued that the sign or environmental feature is Springfield preservation ordinance appropriate. In making such determi- violated both the Ohio and United natiori the Landmarks Commission States Constitutions by unlawfully shall refer to the Secretary of the delegating legislative power to the Interior's Standards for Rehabilita- 11 PLR 1 ]44 Preservation Law Repoiter October 1992 tion, and to design guidelines adopted cepted architectural principles," and ~ ~~ by the Landmarks Commission. a list of other standards relating to such things as a structure's harmo- [Emphasis added.1 In establishing nious relationship to existing build- design guidelines, the ordinance ings and integration with existing further directs the Commission to traffic patterns to control the ff give specific consideration to "the board's discretion. building materials, landscaping, In applying HudsOn to the pres- signs, lighting and architectural ent case, the Springfield courtrnade styles of the [property in question.]" the following observations: pecifi- Lastly, the ordinance provides field's that certificates of appropriateness In this case, Springfield Ordinance e nec- may be issued in cases of "substan- 13211ikewise contains a policy state- ission tial hardship." The term "substan- ment and creates certain standards by appro- tial hardship" is defined as "a condi- which the Landmarks Commission is to be guided in its determination of tion unique to the property under whether to award a certificate of serva- consideration and a condition under appropriateness in any given circum- many which an action by the Landmarks stance. Springfield Ordinance 1321 cribes Commission would force the appli- does not, as did the ordinance in marks cant to suffer practical difficulty Hudson, expressly delineate the id the and denial of the reasonable use of standards to be considered. Rather, rea as the property." Springfield's ordinance incorporates ivides In support of his unlawful dele- its standards by reference. Section 1321.09(d) clearly states that in mak- Â·d "for - gation argument, the owner main- ing its determination of appropriate- istrict tained that the ordinance only re- ness, "The Landmarks Commission such quired the Commission to "refer shall refer to the Secretary of the val of to," rather than "apply," the Secre- Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation ssion tary of Interior's Standards and its and to design guidelines adopted by ficate design guidelines in considering ' the Landmarks Commission." requests for certificates of appropri- Sts ateness. The Court, however, re- With regard to the owner's is jected this argument, relying heavi- specific charge that the ordinance's d ly on a prior Ohio decision, Hudson "shall refer to" language made the lilita- v. Albrecht, Inc., 458 N.E.2d 852 ordinance unconstitutional since to be Cohio 1984)[3 PLR 3024)]. In Hud- the Commission was not required Sec- son, the Ohio Supreme Court up- to apply the Secretary's Standards nance held a preser- or design vation ordi- The court concluded that the guidelines, the nance against court conclud- arks allegations of Springfield ordinance set ed that the tee- vagueness forth "sufficient criteria to Springfield ind- The court guide the Landmarks Com- ordinance set 'iine ii,n' found that the forth "suffi- c /S ordinance's mission in the exercise of its cient criteria mi- policy declara- discretion." to guide the !(,n t]On, its "re- Landmarks the quirement that the city's historic Commission iii the exercise of its Â·ta- board ot review be guided by ac- discretion." 992 October 1992 Preservation Law Reporter Pace 1145 In support of this determina- able refusals to grant certificates of tion, the court made four separate appropriateness" by directing that fÂ·x findings. Initially, the court deter- certificates be awarded in cases of mined that the "shall refer to" lan- "substantial hardship," a defined guage in the Springfield ordinance terrn. was not "appreciably weaker" than The Ohio court's decision in the language in the Hudson ordi- City of Springfield v. Pullins under- nance, which directed its Architec- scores the need to provide stand- tural and Historic Board of Review ards and/or guidelines for review to "regulate according to accepted for preservation commissions in . and recognized architectural princi- acting upon requests for certificates ples." Secondly, the court found of appropriateness. While it may that the test for determining not be legally necessary to include whether a city has unconstitution- the actual standards in the ordi- ally delegated authority to an ad- nance itself (cross-referencing is ministrative body did not require generally acceptable), a preservation that mandatory standards be im- ordinance should unambiguously posed. Rather, the court noted that require that such standards be ap- the test "focuses on whether the plied and direct that design guide- standards established are sufficient lines be consistent with those stan- to guide, not dictate, the adminis- dards. For other decisions on the trative body's exercise of its discre- use or sufficiency of standards and tion." The court also added that it guidelines in preservation ordinanc- saw "no reason why an ordinance es, see PDN Corp. v. Providence - which requires that the administra- Zoning Board of Review, CA No. tive body refer to standards created 89-6807 (R.I. Sup. Ct. Oct. 23, by the Secretary of the Interior, in 1991); Faulkner v. Town of addition to its own design guide- Chestertown, 428 A.2d 879 (Md. lines, cannot provide the necessary 1981); A-S-P Assocs. v. City of Ra- g-uidance." leigh, 258 S.E.2d 444 (1979); South- Next, the appeals court con- ern National Bank v. City of Aus- cluded that the Springfield ordi- tin, 582 S.W.ld 229 (Tex. Civ. App. nance "provides guidance and cur- 1979); South of Second Associates tails any potential abuse of discre- v. Georgetown, 580 R 2d 807 tion in the standards created by (1978); and City of Santa Fe v. [the] Landmarks Commission by Gamble-Skogmo, Inc., 389 Rld 13 expressly delineating those factors IN.M. 1964) which must be considered in its design guidelines." The court ob- served that the ordinance required that the Commission give specific consideration to "the building ma- terials, landscaping, sign, lighting and architectural style" of the prop- erty in question in establishing its guidelines. Lastly, the court deter- mined that the Springfield ordi- nance protected against "unreason- 11 PLR 1146 Preserration Late Reporter October 1992 NATIONAL CENTE* 1FOR PRESERVATION LAÂ¥Â¥ 1833 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W. 0 SUITE 300 0 WASHINGTON, D.G. 20038 â€¢ (202) 338-0392 PRESIDENT EXECUTIVE DIREOTOR PAUL F. MCDONOUGH, JR.,ESQ. STEPHEN NEAL DENNIS, ESQ. \ JAN 2 9 03 0 iIi; PRESERVATION LATV UPDATE 1992-25 August 14, 1992 Michigan Appellate Court Upholds Paint Color Decision The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled on July 24, 1992 in Cio; of Ypsitanti v. Kircher (No. 128107) (see "Update" 1989-11) that a property owner who had received an "abate nuisance" complaint could be required to paint a Civil War era structure, and could be required to select a color that would be approved by a local historic preservation commission. The court also ruled that the trial court in the case had improperly offered to permit the building's owner to choose between painting the brick structure and sandblasting it. The court helpfully summarized the prior development of the case, after an initial trial court decision: Negotiations between the parties were fruitless, resulting in a bench trial. Following trial, the court determined that the building was an eyesore. The court then held that the plaintiff was justified in ordering the defendant to paint his building. The court ordered all but the north side of the building to be painted, and also ordered that the parties negotiate a color. Noting that the natural brick finish had been restored on other buildings in the district, the court sua sponte held that the defendant could sandblast his building if he so desired. The Michigan court had no problem deciding that the City of Ypsilanti might require the property owner to repaint his building and cited two provisions of the Ypsilanti preservation ordinance that are standard in most preservation ordinances: We agree with the trial court that the plaintiff may require the defendant to keep his building painted. The court cited [the Ypsilanti preservation ordinance], which provides that every person in charge of a landmark or structure in the historic district shall keep its interior and exterior in good repair. Moreover, [the Ypsilanti preservation ordinance] provides that the purpose of creating a historic district is to stabilize and improve property values and to foster civic beauty and pride. THE "PRESERVATION LAW UPDATE" SERIES IS MADE POSSIBLE IN PART BY A GRANT FROM THE J. M. KAPIAN FUND. Ikl But a further question was whether Ypsilanti had reasonably required the property owner to paint his structure: < A zoning ordinance is a valid exercise of police power, but if in its application it is unreasonable and confiscatory, it cannot be sustained. ... The [U.S. Supreme Court] has held that financial burdens may be imposed upon a property owner to preserve historic landmarks. ... The financial burden of abating a public nuisance is properly imposed on the property owner rather than on the public. With its clear reference to a "public nuisance," the Kircher case builds nicely on the U.S. Supreme Court's renewed emphasis on common law nuisance principles in its recent Lucas opinion (see "Updates" 1988-31 and 1992-19): The unrefuted evidence presented at trial supports the court's finding that the building is an eyesore. The Michigan court ruled that even though painting the structure in Kircher might cost its owner $30,000, Ypsilanti had imposed a reasonable requirement: The approximate cost of painting the building is $30,000, including the necessary low pressure water cleaning. Requiring he defendant to paint the building is reasonable under the ordinances, and is not a confiscatory taking. ... Further, it is reasonable under the ordinances for the historic district commission to have input into a determination of the ( color of the building. But the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the trial court had improperly introduced into the case the issue of sandblasting: We conclude that the trial court overstepped its bounds when fashioning this remedy. No evidence or testimony was presented at trial regarding restoration of brick by sandblasting. Indeed, the plaintiff has submitted evidence on appeal that shows that sandblasting is destructive to brick. Moreover, the Historic District Commission has the power to render advice and guidance respecting any proposed work on a landmark. By allowing the defendant to sandblast the building without any testimony on the matter, the trial court effectively superseded [the Ypsilanti preservation ordinance], which [sets] forth the powers of the Historic District Commission and the regulation of restoration. Though some local preservation commissions lack authority to regulate pint colors, the Michigan decision in Kircher should help clarify the powers of those commissions which can regulate paint colors. When quotint please credit the Center. NATIONAL CENTER POIÂ¥ PHEBEIZVATION LAÂ¥Â¥ 3 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W. 0 SUITE 300 0 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20038 â€¢ (202) 338-0392 PRESIDENT Exnou,rrvE DIRECTOR PAUL F, MCDONOUGH, JR., ESQ. STEPHEN NEAL DENNIS, ESQ. PRESERVATION LAT UPDATE 1992-26 August 18, 1992 Warwick, Rhode Island Acts to Protect Stone Walls Across New England, aging stone walls mark off and define much of the landscape, indicating often where working fields once functioned. Though such walls may now occur on heavily forested slopes that were abandoned for farming purposes as long ago as the Nineteenth Century, often they lie in areas undergoing new development as urban areas spread into former countryside. Warwick, Rhode Island has taken the unusual step of amending its local historic ( preservation ordinance to make specific the authority of the local Historic District Commission to review projects that might affect existing stone walls, regardless of their current condition. The July 1992 ordinance uses language that would be almost as appropriate in legislation designed to protect remaining Roman walls in Britain at York or within the City of London: The City's stone walls are a tangible link to Warwick' s colonial and agrarian past and, as such, hold a unique historic significance for the City. This historic resource is continuously threatened by both private and public development pressures which have and will result in their destruction unless they are protected from such development pressures. The ordinance contains a necessary definition of stone walls: A stone wall for the purposes of this section is defined as a vertical structure of aligned natural stone, normally constructed to designate a property boundary between farmsteads or segregate agricultural activities within a single farmstead during the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. Under the new ordinance, the Warwick Historic District Commission "must approve" all alterations to "[sltone walls flanking City or State roads within the municipal boundaries of the City of Warwick" ar "[s-]tone walls that will be altered or demolished as part of construction of a subdivision. THE "PRESERVATION LAW UPDATE" SERIES IS MADE POSSIBLE IN PART BY A GRANT PROM THE J. M. K*pLAN FUND. In situations where stone walls lie within areas proposed for subdivision, "a Certificate of ~ Appropriateness issued by the Historic District Commission for alterations to said wall(s) shall be a condition of any subdivision approval(s). " Certain walls are exempted from the commission's review, provided they were "constructed after 1900" and are not "identified as a significant component of a property listed on, or found to be eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places. " Even walls in poor condition were considered by the drafters of the Warwick ordinance: Stone walls in disrepair or in neglected condition may not be removed for the sake of convenience from their present location but must be repaired or left as is [unless they pose a threat to public safety]. But when a wall presents a "real and immediate threat to the public health and safety, " the Warwick commission has special powers: [T]he Historic District Commission shall issue an order to the property owner to stabilize and repair said wall. If said property owner does not make a good faith effort to correct the problem within twenty (20) business days of notification of said problem by the HIstoric District Commission, said Commission shall have the option to undertake said ~ repairs and place a lien on the subject prop.erty to recover the cost of said repairs. The ordinance contemplates possible relocation of some walls: When relocation of a stone wall is the only viable alternative, said wall's reconstruction shall match that of the original wall. If the existing wall is of drywall construction, a reconstructed wall shall be of either drywall or hidden cement construction. Every application to the Warwick commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a project involving a stone wall must be accompanied by a "plan showing the proposed work and the extent of the alteration and/or demolition along with photographs of the existing wall" and "[al description of the alteration and the reasons for the change. " The commission must be supplied with a list of all property owners within a 200-foot radius of the alteration. The new Warwick ordinance shows the growing willingness of local communities to tailor preservation ordinances to protect specific elements that contribute significantly to community character. The Warwick Historic District Commission now has useful powers when subdivisions are proposed that would affect stone walls, and these powers go well beyond mere commenting authority. When quoting, please credit the Center. NATIONAL CENTER ~FOR PRESERVATION LAÂ¥Â¥ (rt- 3 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W. â€¢ SUITE 300 0 WASHINGTON, D.G. 20038 â€¢ (202) 388-0392 PRESIDENT EXECUTIVE DINEOTOR PAUL F. MCDONOUGH, JR.. ESQ. STEPHEN NEAL DENNIS, ESQ. PRESERVATION LAW UPDATE 1992-27 August 1, 1992 New York Court Upholds Designation of Property With Both Architectural and Historical Significance Though local historic preservation designations have come increasingly to be based on architectural importance rather than pure historical significance, it is worth keeping in mind that for certain structures overriding historical considerations should not be overlooked when a designation is considered and may in fact help bolster a designation that might have been argued on architectural grounds alone. (Similarly, there will be situations in which historical importance alone will be enough to justify a landmark designation.) In major cities where successive waves of new development have overtaken former neighborhoods, careful research will be needed to confirm true historical significance. After arguing unsuccessfully that a New York building which once housed a Matthew Brady studio lacked architectural significance and had been mistakenly landmarked for historical importance that further research had perhaps questioned, a New York City property owner lost at the trial court level in Russo v. Beckelman (No. 14635/91, New York County Supreme Court, decided April 24, 1992). The building in question, 359 Broadway, was erected in 1852, "at a time when this area of Lower Broadway was the city's most exclusive, prestigious and glamorous shopping area." The court noted that the area "was especially distinctive for its numerous daguerreotype studios, catering to the vanity of the passing crowd." A Brady studio occupied the upper three floors of the building from 1853 until 1859. The building's owner was clearly frustrated by a landmark designation: Petitioner is aggrieved by the landmarking designation of her building. Among other things, it interferes with plans for the demolition of the premises, together with two adjoining buildings petitioner also owns in order to construct a larger edifice on the site. Petitioner claims that the determination to grant landmark status to 359 Broadway is irrational and is not supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner alleges that the decision to consider 359 Broadway for landmarking was based initially only on the LPC's erroneous belief that Brady had taken a famous portrait of Lincoln at the studio at 359 Broadway. She claims that the LPC's allegedly belated recognition of the building's architectural significance was an ad hoc expedient the LPC adopted, only after the alleged collapse of the historical connection. Petitioner also argues that the Landmark Law is unconstitutionally vague. THE "PRESERVATION LAW UPDATE" SERIES IS MADE POSSIBLE IMPART BY A GRANT PROM THE J. M. KA_PLAN FUND. 1\ None of these arguments, however, persuaded the reviewing court, which affirmed the designation in a strongly-worded decision that recognizes the well-developed powers of the New York Landmarks ( Preservation Commission. The court noted that the Landmarks Law "has previously withstood various constitutional challenges." The trial court quoted with approval language from the decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in St. Bartholomew's Clzurch v. New York City, 728 F.Supp. 958, a#'d, 914 F.2d 348 (1990), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 1103 (1991): At the very least, due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard [and the Landmarks Laws] unquestionably meet that standard in that they provide a property owner with adequate notice of the law's requirements and with the opportunity for an extensive hearing .... " The Russo court found that the Landmarks Law is not void for vagueness: Statutes are endowed with an exceedingly strong presumption of constitutionality. ...In the context of criminal statutes, it has been said that laws must "give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly." ... Stat:utes which do not give such notice may be void for vagueness. ... Civil, as well as penal statutes, must meet the text for vagueness. ...In either context, "the quest for definiteness does not preclude the Legislature from using ordinary terms to express ideas that find adequate interpretation in everyday usage and understanding." ... Abstract words can, through daily use, disguise a"content that conveys to any interested person a sufficiently accurate concept[.] "... If the language employed "conveys sufficiently definite warnings as to the proscribed conduct when < measured by common understanding practices," constitutional standards of due process are met. The court accordingly found that the language of the Landmarks Law was sufficiently specific: This court finds that the terms employed by the Landmarks Law such as "historical" and "aesthetic ' interest", are ordinary terms, commonly used and understood, which convey a significantly explicit meaning allowing for application of the law in a manner not violative of due process. "Historical", for example, does not mean, in ordinary usage, the entirety of the past, "however unremarkable." This court does not believe that a body of experts, such as the LPC is, buttressed by information supplied by historical and architectural specialists, would have any particular difficulty in appraising the value of a proposed landmark based on the alleged vagueness of the terms "historical" or "aesthetic", nor that property owners would be unaware of the standards the statute sets. The Russo court ruled that the Landmarks Law is not required to warn potential property owners that specific properties could be designated at some time in the future: Petitioner argues that the alleged vagueness of the Landmarks Law "provides no notice to the public or the individual property owners as to those properties which may be subject to regulation," so as to allow potential purchasers forewarning of possible impediments to future development of the property. Due process does not require such notice. Petitioner has not claimed that she was unable to comprehend the historical or aesthetic criteria on which landmark designation was to be made. Rather, she merely disagrees with the designation. Because the law, as written, permits ( petitioner to "know what standards must be met...in opposing a landmark designation...," the requirements of due process have been met, and the statute is not impermissibly vague. The Russo court reiterated the holding of prior New York courts, that designation decisions by the Landmarks Preservation Commission "are subject only to the test of rationality": The court may only determine whether or not a rational basis existed for the designation and so may not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative body. ... The findings and determinations of the LPC are accorded considerable deference, based on the historical and architectural expertise of the LPC's members. [I]t is clear that the building was considered from the first on architectural as well as historical grounds, and that the decision to landmark the building was based on both criteria. ... The architectural evidence collected throughout the landmarking process established that the building was an unusual one for its time, containing an extraordinary degree of ornamentation and attention to detail. The ornamentation, different on each floor, apparently is remarkable for its era and reflects a style that only became popular in later years. Architectural experts describe the building as "unique" and "adventuresome", with a remarkable degree of exterior preserved. . . . The evidence supporting landmark designation is overwhelming. Commissioner Placzek stated at the public hearing, "[t]his is a case where the historic event and the architectural value join. "... The building had not been overlooked in earlier landmarking decisions because it was not worthy, but because it, along with many other buildings, had not yet come under scrutiny. The Russo court minimized the significance of temporary disagreements among Landmarks Preservation Commission members: The court does not find it significant that various LPC members voiced reservations to landmarking 359 Broadway at various times in the administrative process, or that the LPC membership discussed the question of whether or not historical significance alone would be a sufficient criterion for landmarks designation. The process of factfinding the LPC is required to undergo is meant to foster debate and resolve differences of opinion'. The LPC's final decision resolved the individual members' differences in favor of designation. The Russo court noted the importance of the Landmarks Preservation Commission in striking a "balance" between "community concerns" and "individual [concerns]": There is also little doubt that the landmarking of 359 Broadway aggrieves the owner and prevents development of the site. However, the indiscriminate destruction and defacement of historically and architecturally significant properties similarly aggrieves the inhabitants of this city, depriving us of links to our own history and the lives of those who came before us. The lengthy public process required before a property is designated a landmark serves to air both individual and community concerns until a balance is struck. In the case of 359 Broadway the consensus was all but unanimous of the building's legitimate historical and architectural qualifications. Because there is a rational basis for the landmark designation, the LPC's determination and the City Council's affirmance must be upheld. When quoting, please credit the Center. NATIONAL CENTE* FOL _ ___._---_ ___-_-_. V V ' 833 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W. â€¢ SUITE 300 0 WASHINGTON, D.G. 20036 â€¢ (202) 338-0392 PRESIDENT Ex=ouTIvE DIRECTOR PAUL F. MCDONOUGH, JR., ESQ. STEPHEN NEAL DENNIS, ESQ. PRESERVATION LA~V UPDATE 1992-28 August 15, 1992 Mortgage Subordination Problem Threatens Preservation Easements Over the years, much has been written about the flexible advantages of historic preservation easements, which can be tailored to the specific characteristics of properties and if imaginatively drafted may guide future development long before it is proposed by a new owner. But the creation of an effective historic preservation easement is not always simple, and a careless procedural flaw may limit the donor' s ability to achieve a planned tax deduction for the creation of the easement and may threaten the continuing vitality of the easement in the hands of a donee organization. Two historic preservation organizations in the Southeast have recently had unhappy experiences with historic preservation easements that were granted on properties already subject to mortgages. Because in each case the existing mortgage was not subordinated to the easement at the time of donation, a bank foreclosure could extinguish each easement. A South Carolina property was in fact foreclosed on at the end of July 1992, and a Florida bank has begun foreclosure proceedings against the second property. Preservation organizations holding preservation easements should review their easement files carefully to be certain that existing easements could survive a bank foreclosure action. Unfortunately, as real estate investors know to their peril, foreclosure by a first mortgage holder extinguishes what are known as "junior liens. " A preservation easement would count as such a j unior lien unless existing mortgages were subordinated to it. (Of course, all mortgages on a property a#er the date of an easement donation would normally be themselves subordinate to the easement.) The Internal Revenue Service' s regulations for conservation easement donations after February 13. 1986 are quite clear. 26 C.F.R. 1.170A-14(g)(2) states: In the case of conservation contributions made after February 13, 1986, no deduction will be permitted under this section for an interest in property which is subject to a mortgage unless the mortgagee subordinates its rights in the property to the right of the qualified THE "PRESERVATION LAW UPDATE" SERIES IS MADE POSSIBLE IN PA.RT BY A GRANT FROM THE J. M. K*PLAN FUND. organization to enforce the conservation purposes of the gift in perpetuity. For conservation contributions made prior to February 12, 1986, the requirement of section ( 170(h)(5)(A) is satisfied in the case of mortgaged property (with respect to which the mortgagee has not subordinated its rights) only if the donor can demonstrate that the conservation purpose is protected in perpetuity without subordination of the mortgagee's rights. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has published in the Preservation Law Reporter' s Reference Volume a "Model Preservation and Conservation Easement" which is carefully designed to deal with the subordination issue. Section 16 of this model easement document, edited by Stefan Nagel from material prepared originally by Richard J. Roddewig, provides that a mortgagee shall have a prior claim over the easement holder to (1) proceeds from condemnation proceedings; (2) insurance proceeds; and (3) leases, rents and profits from the property up to the amount of the mortgagee's debt but that these provisions in no way change the subordination relationship between a mortgage and a preservation easement. One potential Southern preservation easement was protected even after a local bank holding a mortgage on the property refused to subordinate that mortgage. Because the property owner strongly wished to grant a preservation easement on the property, the owner decided to pay off the first mortgage, grant a preservation easement on a then-unencumbered piece of property, and thereafter refinance the property. Unfortunately, in this process the first bank lost a long-time customer. One attorney for an organization with an active easement program cautions that year-end < donations can be particularly difficult to complete. Even though the donor and his attorney may insist that an easement donation be completed by year-end, the inability to obtain a mortgage subordination agreement may lead to a refusal by some easement-holding organizations to accept an offered easement until the mortgage subordination agreement is available. For this reason, no attorney advising a potential easement donor should fail to mention the need for a subordination agreement if a property is subject to a mortgage. If a mortgage holder indicates that it will refuse to provide such an agreement, then a client may be able to save appraisal fees by deciding to stop efforts to donate an easement that would ultimately prove invalid for federal tax purposes. Falling real estate values in some urban areas make it more likely that banks will feel compelled to foreclose on properties subject to preservation easements. Even when a mortgage has been subordinated to a preservation easement, a wise easement holder will take a strong interest in helping a bank find a new owner (and perhaps new tenants as well) for a threatened property so that it remains economically viable. Because many real estate loans in the 1980s were made with balloon notes that required repayment or refinancing at the end of a relatively short loan period, unsubordinated preservation easements on properties subject to balloon note financing may be particularly vulnerable to foreclosure attacks at a time when many banks have become reluctant to make new real estate loans. When quotint please credit the Center. 1 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen and Redstone Preservation Community From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: HP updates, info and news Date: January 21, 1993 Attached are some reading goodies to stimulate your brain and keep you connected with the larger preservation world. I intend to send out as much of this handy preservation "stuff" to you as I can before I leave at the end of February. It makes good airline or broken leg reading. Advisory Council On Historic Preservation The Old Post Office Building 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW #809 Washington, DC 20004 December 30, 1992 Memorandum TO: Federal Preservation Officers State Historic Preservation Officers Tribal Preservation Officers From: Executive DirecÂ»â‚¬&#J. a.t, Subject: 1992 Amendments to National Historic Preservation Act: Implications for Section 106 Review On October 30, the President signed H.R. 429 into law as Public Law 102-575. This legislation included as Title XL a series of amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Although Section 106 of the Act was not amended, a number of the amendments will affect the way Section 106 review is carried out under the Council's regulations (36 C.F.R. Part 800). The purpose of this memorandum is to highlight the provisions that relate to the Section 106 process and provide interim guidance on the application of the current regulations in light of these statutory amendments. The legislative text is included in most cases; section references are to the NHPA, as amended. Certain provisions will require that the Council's regulations be amended. The Council will initiate the amendment process early in 1993 and invite your views on desirable changes to 36 C.F.R. Part 800 at that time. Meanwhile, please do not hesitate to contact the Council if you have questions about the effect of the amendments on the Section 106 process. Definition of the term "Undertaking" , Section 301(7) redefines the term "undertaking" as follows: 2 "Undertaking" means a proj ect, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency, including-- (A) those carried out by or on behalf of the agency; (B) those carried out with Federal financial assistance; (C) those requiring a Federal permit, license, or approval; and (D) those subject to State or local regulation administered pursuant to a delegation or approval by a Federal agency. This definition expands the previous statutory definition and goes beyond that contained in the current regulations at 36 C.F.R. Sec. 800.2(0). In addition to encompassing all activities within the previous definition, the new language explicitly includes actions that require permits or approvals which are issued by State or local regulatory bodies pursuant to Federal law. This embraces those situations where a State or local agency is administering a regulatory program based on approval by a Federal agency or a delegation of regulatory authority made by a Federal agency. Examples include permits issued under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System established by the Clean Water Act. In those circumstances, the amended Act obligates the Federal agency responsible for the program to comply with Section 106 for any permit that might affect historic properties. Agencies confronting such situations should contact the Council to resolve specific cases and to develop programmatic approaches for the longer term. Definition of the term "Statell Section 301(2) redefines "State" for purposes of the NHPA: "State" means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and, upon termination of the Trusteeship Agreement for the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, the Republic of Palau. This change makes it clear that Section 106 (which applies to undertakings in any "state") applies in the nations that were formerly U.S. trust territories and are now freely associated Micronesian states. 3 Withholding Federal assistance in cases of "anticipatory demolition" The amendments introduce statutory language that essentially embodies the Council's stated policy regarding "anticipatory demolition," the intentional alteration or destruction of a historic property to avoid compliance with Section 106. The provision, a new Section 110(k), reads: Each Federal agency shall ensure that the agency will not grant a loan, loan guarantee, permit, license, or other assistance to an applicant who, with intent to avoid the requirements of section 106, has intentionally significantly adversely affected a historic property to which the grant would relate, or having legal power to prevent it, allowed such adverse effect to occur, unless the agency, after consultation with the Council, determines that circumstances justify granting such assistance despite the adverse effect created or permitted by the applicant. The statutory provision places an obligation on a Federal agency to withhold Federal assistance or permission from a non-Federal applicant when a historic property has been harmed before the Section 106 process has been completed. Two preconditions are necessary: first, that the applicant intended to avoid Section 106 requirements and, second, that a significant adverse effect was intentionally caused by the applicant or allowed to happen when it was in the applicant's power to prevent it. If they are met, the section requires that the agency withhold assistance or permission unless the agency, in consultation with the Council, determines that granting it is justified. Agencies should contact the Council when a case appears to fall under this provision. For the present, consultation with the Council will be carried out informally, but should be documented to ensure that the agency's final decision is procedurally sound, as required by the amendment. Native American interests and involvement Two new provisions affect the interests and participation of Native Americans and Native Hawaiians in the Section 106 process. The first, Section 101(d)(6)(A), clarifies the question of National Register eligibility for properties of traditional cultural or religious significance: Properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization may be determined to be eligible for inclusion on the National Register. 4 This provision is quite clear in its intent. Agencies should note that the term "traditional" qualifies religious and cultural importance and are advised to consult National Park Service Bulletin 38 for further assistance in evaluating such properties. The second provision, Section 101(d)(6)(B), is related: In carrying out its responsibilities under section 106, a , Federal agency shall consult with any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that attaches religious and cultural significance to properties described in subparagraph (A) . + This reinforces the current provisions of 36 C.F.R. Sections 800.1(c)(iii), 800.4 and 800.5, which pertain to the involvement of Indian tribes in the Section 106 process, but also includes Native Hawaiian organizations. It should also be noted that Section 301(4) expands the definition of "Indian tribe": "Indian tribe" or "tribe" means an Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community, including a Native village, Regional Corporation or Village Corporation, as those terms are defined in section 3 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602), which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians. This expanded definition is taken from the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.)(NAGPRA) and means that a broader range of Native American groups are entitled to participate in the Section 106 process. Agencies should follow the guidance contained in the Council publication "Section 106 Participation by Indian Tribes and Other Native Americans" and the independent requirements of NAGPRA. Adaptive use of federally-owned historic properties Section 111(a) has been amended with the underscored language to read: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any Federal agency, after consultation with the Council, shall, to the extent practicable. establish and implement alternatives for historic properties, including adaptive use, that are not needed for current or projected agency purposes, and may lease an historic property owned by the agency to any person or organization, or exchange any property owned by the agency with comparable historic property, if the agency head determines that the lease or exchange will adequately insure the preservation of the historic property. 5 This new requirement will be considered by the Council when reviewing a Federal agency's proposal to lease, exchange or dispose of an excess historic property. The Council will request information from the agency on the alternatives considered for the property and why such alternatives, including adaptive use, were found not to be practicable. This information will be used in completing the Council's Section 106 review responsibilities. Agency responses to Council comment A new Section 110(1) specifies the responsibilities of Federal agencies that receive formal comment from the Council: With respect to any undertaking subject to section 106 which adversely affects any property included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register, and for which the Federal agency has not entered into an agreement with the Council, the head of the Federal agency shall document any decision made pursuant to section 106. The head of such agency may not delegate his or her responsibilities pursuant to such section. Where a section 106 memorandum of agreement has been executed with respect to an undertaking, such memorandum shall govern the undertaking and all its parts. This means that the final agency decision taking into account the effects of an undertaking on historic properties must be made by the head of the Federal agency and documented for review by the Council or others. The important change is that the decision cannot be delegated by the Federal agency head when there has been a termination of consultation and the Council membership has rendered comment under 36 C.F.R. Sec. 800.6(b). For those programs such the Community Development Block Grant program where legal responsibility for Section 106 compliance is delegated pursuant to statute to a non-Federal official, the head of the responsible unit of government must conform to this provision. Because the response to Council comments will involve the head of the agency, the Council will notify that official whenever there is a termination of consultation. This is to provide advance notice that comments will be forthcoming to the agency head. The last sentence of Section 110(1) also clarifies the effect of an executed memorandum of agreement, specifying that its terms are binding on the conduct of the undertaking in its entirety. Federal agency historic preservation procedures Section 110(a)(2) has been amended to require each Federal agency to develop a preservation program for the identification, evalu- ation, National Register nomination and protection of historic 6 properties. This provision will have a long-term effect on an agency's approach to its Section 106 responsibilities, as it requires "that the agency' s procedures for compliance with Section 106...are consistent with regulations issued by the Council pursuant to Section 211" and "provide a process for the identification and evaluation of historic properties for listing in the National Register and the development and implementation of agreements, in consultation with State Historic Preservation r Officers, local governments, Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, and the interested public, as appropriate, regarding the means by which adverse effects on such properties will be considered." (Section 110(a)(2)(E)) The immediate effect is twofold: first, any proposed counterpart regulations or procedures contained in programmatic agreements must be "consistent" with 36 C.F.R. Part 800; and, second, any existing agency procedures for compliance with Section 106 that are not "consistent" with 36 C.F.R. Part 800 are of questionable validity. Federal agencies should contact the Council if they believe that this amended provision currently affects them. Over the longer term, the Council views the requirements for Federal agency preservation programs as an opportunity to better integrate historic preservation planning into agency decision- making. The Council urges agencies to consider carefully the specific provisions of Section 110(a)(2) and invites agencies to consult with it on developing those portions dealing with consid- eration of historic properties in the project planning process. Access to information concerning historic properties Section 304 has been amended to specify more precisely the circumstances and procedure for withholding information about historic properties: (a) The head of a Federal agency or other public official receiving grant assistance pursuant to this Act, after consultation with the Secretary, shall withhold from disclosure to the public, information about the location, character, or ownership of a historic resource if the Secretary and the agency determine that disclosure may-- (1) cause a significant invasion of privacy; (2) risk harm to the historic resource; or (3) impede the use of a traditional religious site by practitioners. (b) When the head of a Federal agency or other public official has determined that information should be withheld from the public pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretary, in consultation with such Federal agency head or official, shall determine who may have access to the information for the purpose of carrying out this Act. 7 (C) When the information in question has been developed in the course of an agency's compliance with section 106 or 110(f), the Secretary shall consult with the Council in reaching determinations under subsections (a) and (b). This provision operates as an exemption to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act and governs information that is developed during the Section 106 process and pursuant to any agreements developed under 36 C.F.R. Part 800. It also applies to information that has been obtained prior to the enactment of the amendments. Other provisions of the amendments Several other sections of the amendments will have an impact on agency compliance with Section 106 as they are implemented. Briefly, they include the requirement that the actions of Federal employees and contractors, as well as the personnel themselves, meet professional standards to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior (Section 112(a)); authority for the creation of tribal historic preservation programs (Section 101(d)), which permits an Indian tribe to assume the responsibilities of the SHPO, including participation in the Section 106 process; substitution of tribal historic preservation regulations for the Council's regulations to govern Section 106 compliance on tribal land (Section 101(d)(5); and issuance of guidelines by the Secretary of the Interior to encourage owners of historic properties to protect them (Section 112(b)). Further information on these provisions will be available as the necessary steps to implement them are taken. Advisory Council On Historic Preservation The Old Post Office Building 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW #809 Washington, DC 20004 December 30, 1992 ,:fi AAN 1 9 1963 Memorandum To: Federal Preservation Officers State Historic Preservation Officers Tribal Preservation Officers From: Executive Directo;tj'~ /95 Jl~u,~2~ Subject: Reorganization of Council Staff Effective January 1, 1993, the Council will reorganize that portion of its professional staff that deals with Section 106 reviews, Federal agency program improvement activities, interaction with State programs, and training. This embraces the previous Office of Program Review and Education, the Eastern Office of Project Review and the Western Office of Project Review. The new organizational structure will orient Council staff more closely to specific Federal agencies, enabling the Council to better advise and assist both agencies and SHPOs on effective ways to consider and promote historic preservation- values in Federal program administration. Under it, the professional staff in the eastern and western project review offices will be responsible for program improvement activities, many of which were previously conducted by the Office of Program Review and Education. This will include responsibility for developing agency-wide or regional programmatic agreements, agency procedures and counterpart regulations, and general interaction with Federal agencies on historic preservation matters. As a result, the professional staff who review individual Section 106 cases will assume the expanded responsibility of working with Federal agencies on the broader range of program improvement actions that the Council has traditionally pursued. We see this as an opportunity to apply the knowledge and experience these professionals gain from their interaction with Section 106 cases to the more complex and far-reaching aspects of Federal historic preservation obligations. 2 To reflect this change, the project review offices are being renamed the Eastern Office of Review (EOR) and the Western Office of Review (WOR). Each is being assigned primary responsibility for dealing with specific Federal agencies, as indicated by the attached fact sheet on the Council professional staff. In EOR, the larger of the two offices, the staff is being grouped into two divisions, one dealing with Federal agencies that conduct assistance or regulatory programs and the other with agencies that manage property. Specific agencies are assigned to individual staff. EOR will continue to handle individual Section 106 cases for the eastern portion of the country. WOR has identical responsibilities for the western region, continuing individual case review and assuming primary responsibility for specified agencies. However, agencies are not being assigned to specific individuals at this time and case assignments will continue to be made on the basis of professional expertise. WOR will also have the lead role in coordinating with Tribal Preservation Officials, the development of tribal preservation programs and involvement with other issues affecting Native Americans. The Office of Program Review and Education will become the Office of Education and Preservation Assistance (OEPA). As it will no longer have responsibility for program improvement activities with Federal agencies, OEPA will focus its efforts on training and education programs, development of guidance and interpretive materials relating to Section 106 and other Council authorities, assisting State and local governments with regard to Council activities and carrying out special projects. Primary liaison with SHPOs (other than for specific Section 106 cases) will be an OEPA function. The other offices of the Council (theLExecutive Directorate, the Office of General Counsel, the Office of Communications and Publications and the Administrative Office) remain unchanged. We see this redirection of our resources as equipping the Council to meet effectively the challenges confronting the historic preservation program today and to move forward with implementing the recent amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act. We also believe that this revised organizational structure will help us serve our constituency better. Robert D. Bush Advisory Council on Historic Preservation PROFESSIONAL STAFF Washington, DC Office of the Executive Director Washington, DC staff: Robert D. Bush, executive director Charlotte M. Fesko, administrative assistant Robin Walker, receptionisUsecretary Old Post Office Buildin& General Counsel 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., John M. Fowler, deputy executive director and general counsel Suite 809, Washington, DC 20004 Katherine Barns Soffer, associate general counsel (202) 606-8503 Adina Kanefield, attorney Fax: (202) 606-1172 Administrative Office and Information Technology Center Frank L. Suman, administrative officer Carol J. McLain, administrative assistant B. Marie Brown, manager, ITC office systems Brenda K. Bolden, office systems assistant LaShavio Johnson, computer assistant Office of Communications and Publications Marcia Axtmann Smith, director Elizabeth Moss, writer-editor Ann Post, publications assistant Cynthia de Miranda, information assistant Office of Education and Preservation Assistance Old Post OfTice Buildin& Ronald D. Anzalone, director Suite 803 Paula Perry, secretary (202) 606-8505 Sharon Conway, historic preservation specialist (State assistance coordination) Shauna J. Holmes, education coordinator Rebecca L. Johnson, historic preservation specialist Thomas M. McCulloch, archeologist (technical guidance coordination) ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 809, Washington, DC 20004 (202)606-8503 COUNCIL STAFF LIST FACT SHEET Eastern Office of Review (EOR) EOR handles individual case States: AL, CT, DC DE, FL GA, IA, IN, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MS, MI, review for the following States: MN, MO, NG NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, PR, RI, SC TN, VA, VI, VT, WI, WV Old Post Office Building Don L. Klima, director Suite 803 Raymond Wallace, historic preservation technician (202) 606-8505 Brenda Smith, secretary Division of Federal Management Review Martha Catlin, historic preservation specialist Ralston Cox, historic preservation specialist Valerie DeCarlo, historic preservation specialist Drucilla J. Null, historic preservation specialist Division of Federal Assistance Review Charlene Dwin-Vaughn, historic preservation specialist MaryAnn Naber, historic preservation specialist Daniel Pagano, historic preservation specialist Anne Weinheimer, historic preservation specialist Denver, Colorado Western Office of Review (WOR) WOR handles individual case States: AK American Samoq, AR, AL CA, CO, Guam, HI, ID, IL, *3, review for the following States: Marshall Islands, Micronesia, MT, ND, NE, Northern Mariana Islands, NM NK OIC OR, Palau, SD, 7% 07; WA, WK Denver ofice staff: Claudia Nissley, director Kathy L. Place, office manager Nancy C. Dickason, secretary 730 Simms Street, Room 401 Catherine M. Cameron, historic preservation specialist Golden, CO 80401 Carol Gleichman, historic preservation specialist (303) 231-5320 Cornelia (Lee) Keatinge, historic preservation specialist Fax: (303) 231-5325 Charles A. Lewis, historic preservation specialist Alan L. Stanfill, historic preservation specialist Staff assignments for program review activities with agencies, listed alphabetically. Agriculture Farmers Home Administration: EOR (Weinheimer) Forest Service: EOR (DeCarlo) Rural Electrification Administration: EOR (Pagano) Soil Conservation Service: EOR (Pagano) Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: EOR (DeCarlo) 2 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION COUNCIL STAFF UST FACT SHEET Defense Air Force: EOR (Null) Army: EOR (DeCarlo) Army Corps of Engineers (land management): EOR (DeCarlo) Army Corps of Engineers (regulatory): EOR (Pagano) Marine Corps: EOR (Null) Navy: EOR (Null) Soldiers' and Airmen's Home: EOR (Null) Economic Development Administration: EOR (Dwin-Vaughn) Education: EOR (Weinheimer) Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: WOR Environmental Protection Agency: EOR (Weinheimer) Federal Communications Commission: EOR (Weinheimer) Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation: EOR (Pagano) Federal Emergency Management Agency EOR (Pagano) and WOR Federal Reserve System: EOR (Catlin) General Services Administration: EOR (Cox) Health and Human Services: EOR (Dwin-Vaughn) Indian Health Service: WOR Housing and Urban Development: EOR (Dwin-Vaughn) Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs: WOR Bureau of Land Management: WOR Bureau of Reclamation: WOR Fish and Wildlife Service: WOR National Park Service: EOR (Catlin) Office of Surface Mining: WOR Interstate Commerce Commission: EOR (Dwin-Vaughn) Justice: EOR (Cox) Labor: EOR (Weinheimer) National Aeronautics and Space Administration: EOR (DeCarlo) National Capital Planning Commission: EOR (Naber) National Endowment for the Arts: EOR (Weinheimer) National Endowment for the Humanities: EOR (Weinheimer) Nuclear Regulatory Commission: WOR Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation: EOR (Cox) Postal Service: EOR (Cox) Small Business Administration: EOR (Dwin-Vaughn) Smithsonian Institution: EOR (Cox) Tennessee Valley Authority: EOR (Catlin) Transportation: EOR Coast Guard (land management): EOR (Null) Coast Guard (regulatory): EOR (Naber) Federal Aviation Administration: EOR (Naber) Federal Highway Administration: EOR (Naber) Federal Railroad Administration: EOR (Pagano) Federal Transit Administration: EOR (Naber) Treasury: EOR (Catlin) Veterans Affairs: EOR (Catlin) Revised January 1993 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION 3