Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.hpc.19920311
AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE March 11, 1992 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM 5:00 I. Roll call II. Staff Comments: Re-evaluation public comments and hearings schedule: March 18th and 19th, 5:00 p.m. 2nd floor meeting room City Hall. Report on CLG grant approval III. Public Comments IV. OLD BUSINESS NONE V. NEW BUSINESS .-- 5:15 A. Minor Development: City Hall-/agar' Ofs 5:45 B. Minor.Development: 302 E. Hopkins- f~yor 6,-,d'(L Cl Al 41,12 CVL'·...I~ J 6:00 C. Minor Devleopment : 520 E. Cooper 6/© 6:15 D. Discussion: Direction sign design (conceptual) 6:30 VI. COMMUNICATIONS National Preservation Week Assignments Project Monitoring (see revised assignment list enclosed) Collins Block ITC - staff City Shops Landmark Designation - staff Sub-Committee Reports Aspen Area Community Plan (Character Committee) Red Brick School Aspen Historic Trust 7:00 VII.ADJOURN L.9 1 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen HPC From: Roxanne Re: Lilac Bush! Date: March 11, 1992 I received two calls regarding the recent West End "Lilac Bush" removal, with requests that the HPC discuss the issue and offer their opinion. I informed both persons who called that the HPC has a scheduled time for public comments near the beginning of every regular meeting, and that if they wanted general HPC feedback that they should attend the meeting and discuss the issue with the HPC at that allotted time. Attached are copies of the two recent articles on the issue, which essentially involved the removal by Fall Line Productions of a mature lilac bush located within the public right of way, but within the general landscape and lawn setting of the landmark located at 135 W. Francis. The issue was apparently fueled by neighbor George Vicenzi, who felt that the bush should remain, plus the confusion of whether a permit was even necessary for the bush removal (permits are necessary only for tree removal of a specified size.) I urge the HPC that if you do decide to discuss this issue to consider the following: 1) Add the discussion item to the end of your regular agenda, if you wish to discuss it at all, or feel the issue will take more than 5 minutes 2) Discuss the issue within the context of your Guidelines and basic review criteria as permitted in the Land Use Regulations only. Landscape issues are usually dealt with within the context of larger renovation projects and site planning, particularly where large, character defining trees are present. The planting or removal of single bushes and other vegetation has not been an area where the HPC has ventured in the past. Staff has not rendered an opinion regarding the whether the loss of this lilac bush diminishes or enhances the character of the historic resource. 24' TimA baiM Weekend, Ma?ch 6 - 8,1992 City ending efforts to force movie firm to replace lilacs By SCOTT CONDON said. Times Daily Sta/TWriter She stressed that Fall Line Productions was The city of Aspen ended efforts to get a movie cooperative and willing to do whatever city offi- company to replace a lilac bush in a West End cials desired. yard this week after a custody mystery was But before the replacement was carried out, solved. Margerum learned from the city attorney's office City Manager Amy Margerum said Fall Line that right of way digging restrictions don't apply Productions was asked to replace the shrub Mon- to bushes. The rules only apply to trees, she said. day after the Times Daily reported its removal on 'Although this bush was planted in the city Friday irritated at least one neighbor. The seven-foot lilac was uprooted fmm in front right of way, it is owned and maintained by the of a 105-year-old Victorian house at Francis and property owner," Margerum wrote in a letter to the editor. «The city regulates many things, but First streets. The film company had permission from the we do not dictate the type or location of plantings in the right ofway unless such plantings interfere house owner to remove the bush, which allegedly with safety or maintenance of city property. didn't receive sun or bloom anymore. "Removal of trees does require a permit from However, the uprooting spurred an investiga- tion by the city streets department supervisor. He the city at all times. In this case, it is really the said that film company should have applied for a property owner's decision,» Margerum wrote. permit to remove it, even if the house owner Margerum said in the letter that the film com- wanted it removed. pany is minimizing its impacts on Aspen. Anyone He decided thebush didn't need to be replaced with concerns about the film schedule can call 1 since otherlandscaping was planned and the lilac Bill Efting in City Hall at 920-5451, she said. would be transplanted into another yard. Fall Line Productions is shooting a film about But other city officials decided they would the adventures of a couple of ski instructors in rather see the lilac replanted. Aspen. Filming is expected to continue for six or «We asked them to put it back in,» Margerum seven weeks, according to the company. m 'LE. C '=rl ~ v-59 5 g g. 5- h SI 3 4 8 S € g. 8 2 .2 N E#€ m 5 5 3 8 -F -1 1 5 A 0 ;*- 2 . 12 g- 042.2 = 5*8 0 1 0 1 2 -. u. a, Do B „. 0 0 m 0 - 0 2 5-·0 5 ar w g k S. g = g g · 4# 4 -1 8 3 3 OR ~%59 (6 809 EC - _ C.- ef •1 I -3 0-' c©<: a, * O - o e+ c: A· co ·e & -1 3 0 9% 9. T. & E 1 5- 0 5 3- D C E--5 2-g & 2, Fl r *3 42 E.a- & m .E 1 - 9 8 0 0 O 0 er· €-, 0 CD I 009 M g: SWER 5.0 2 1 2 0- r" - 0 73 3 4 3 4 6 1 0 (DY m - 5-N I = 22 g v s, g £ = F :,- <D i i B E- 2- c - U -0 2 V 4 6 =8 8- Dia- re- a 5--P *2 92- m im 2-9- 2- a M.Z -tz Z z ©33 (DVE; 2 E- Py r. O 2. CO V E.02 .1 g g EA 1 3- CA ir T.2 3 9 rn 51 0 1 1 2 26-R 0 2 . at o. tr F M= 3- 2·3- R *9 90 3 * 6 M k 4 .0 Z. rt D. 09 m mon.m / m.4 5- -VE EM 'Mom N O 0 0 0 9 ZS (D · t< V Le k '9 9 a. b g g ?· 8 8 2 e B S 9 7·¤ 1 My F ?C·(D WE -7¢ C C M. A. O 0 +3 5-1 2 2 51 1 E 2 -5 ire m E g _® S.€ m 0 -, (D k .0 0 c. . Ch< .1 0. r. I g 5 2 V v " O :7 M g K,< ./ r 19 -3 F ?'W Ed g. 2 3 g a. g % 2 0.0 Roo®ce,=COD, 0 ~ p k 3 SRUB~Q ~R~ 9 R EN< P R 8%.ve r 221€ BE%m & 53 =COCHEEP < 3 0 9, 8 % 5-rze R Efe-1 0 3 v 92 y m rn 8 09 2.2.0 2 K E- 9, CA m 0 20 0- E 0 0 0 e- m 3 5 4 9 2 9,70 Mkg UI,Ill:,1% porK nq %q oblem uo Boo uenbe O 3 Ugual he lilac story options were not acceptable that he c y 01 peruo Kued t I woul coopera Idoed leI 01 lue Aspen city manager blus on propert 1-69 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Minor Development: City Hall, 130 S. Galena North elevation window addition Date: March 11, 1992 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Minor Development approval for the addition of one pair of double hung windows on north elevation of City Hall. APPLICANT: The City, represented by Gibson & Reno ZONING: CC, "H" Historic Overlay District, Aspen Landmark, National Register of Historic Places. SUMMARY: The renovation of City Hall will be occurring in phases for the next few years, as funding to complete the project at once was not available. Dave Gibson will be presenting the general master plan proposal to the HPC, which primarily involves an interior remodel and structural repairs. A few exterior changes are proposed, however, the HPC should be aware that restoration work is not proposed in the first two years. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Development Review standards are found in Section 7-601 of the Land Use Code. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay district or is adjacent to a Historic Landmark. Response: Staff finds the application does not meet this standard, due to the non-historic proportion of the new windows proposed. The architect keyed the new window design from the two (non original) windows on that elevation, however, staff feels strongly that the perpetuation of non compatible windows is counter to the commitment of historic preservation. We are not necessarily opposed to the addition of windows on this north elevation, provided they are quiet and strengthen the historic integrity and character of the resource. We ask the HPC to consider whether an arched brick lintel is necessary and appropriate for new/remodel windows on this elevation. The north wall of "Armory Hall" never had windows in it, only a doorway opening from the second floor to the (since t removed) stairway that accessed the third floor fraternal meeting rooms from the alley. All that remains of this bricked in opening is a sandstone lintel, marking its original location and width. The new windows are not located at this point, and the lintel remains untouched. The proposed windows are necessary due to new internal office reconfiguration, to provide light and ventilation into these spaces. The design of these windows will be precedent setting for the remainder of this elevation, and elsewhere. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: We find the proposal meets this standard. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structure located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: The cultural value of this building is its community and social contribution as a meeting place, used consecutively for over 100 years. We find that the new windows proposed do not detract from the cultural value of the resource, and may, in fact, enhance its use as a community resource, strengthening its cultural value to Aspen. 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: Staff finds that this standard has not been met, due to the proposed proportion of the windows (as stated in our response to Standard #1 above.) New openings and closed in ones are evident elsewhere on this landmark; we find that the general idea of new windows on the north elevation (alley side) is in keeping with the general evolution of this building' s use; however, we are not in support of the window design as proposed. Staff recommends that the architect restudy the proposal, and submit revised drawings for the historic preservation officer and HPC project monitor to approve, prior to the issuance of a building permit. Staff asks the HPC to consider whether arched lintels detract or enhance the architectural integrity ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Approve the Minor Development application as submitted 2. Approve the Minor Development application with specific conditions. Revised drawings shall be submitted for the 2 historic preservation officer and HPC project monitor to approve, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy (specific recommendations should be offered). 4. Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the development review standards. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC table Minor Development approval for the proposal at 130 S. Galena, in order to allow the applicant additional time to restudy the proportion and details of the proposed windows. Additional comments: memo.hpc.130sg.md 3 GIBSON & FIEND · ARCHITECTS E Cu d J =bL 13)9-3 5.--1 -- 0-21 -G,--00,7. February 20, 1992 Historic Preservation Commission 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: ASPEN CITY HALL REMODEL Dear Roxanne and Commission, We are proposing the addition of two new windows to the north facade of City Hall. The windows are proposed in the context of a new elevator, structural improvements and internal life and safety work. No other external changes or restoration work is proposed at this time, although a preliminary master plan has been submitted which calls for exterior restoration work and fenestration to occur as funds become available. I look forward to discussing this work with you in person. Sincerely, /17 n C (/ 1 V 411.J bilt-4--~ I - 1 David Gibson, AIA DFG/pr 418 E, COOPER AVENUE • ASPEN. COLORADO 81 611 • 303/925-5968 - FAX 303/925-5993 ATTACHMENT 1 IAND USE APPLICATION FC™ 1) Project Nam A©PEN O ITY HAu- 1 Project Iocation 1-30 i©tiTH «Ate,14 ZOT , 1-oTS K I M N o, 5'*F 1 2>1.-ock 9 23 (indicate street address, lot & b£ock m]Afier{ legal description Were aE~ropriate) 3) Present Zoning 4) Iat Size /1 ODd) ?Ut> f 94€,\4- 5) Applicares Nam, Mdress & 2¥xe # 07-Y OF 46:,FE/4 /80 6, 1 r 44 La),1 €75 ASPEN, a . (go« 20 - 4080 6) Regre££5*Ative' S ~925552, -~adrega & 2*xe # 6(1?-b© 4 4 REN o ARCH I 1-18 6. dc>OPEL ,Aug: 4%964,60 (IP'949185146 7) Typd of Application (please check all that apply): . 4 Conditional Use Conceptual SPA anceptual Historic Dev. Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline - Conceptual POD _J Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final FUD Histaric Demolition Mxintain yiew Plane Subdivisirn Historic Designation Corxianinilmlization Teoct7Map Amendment . - (203 Allotment Iot Split/Int line CMOS Exemption Adjustment 8) Description of Existing Uses · (Inmber and ' type of existing structures; approximate sq. ft.; omber of bedrooms; arar previous approvals granted to the pmperty). el-Tul DEfUce) LAyrs. K.) L.. M . 4 P A.2-IC- Lor-6 4 n 7% F. 1 ) 9) Description of Developnent Application I NTER.1) M. IM PRD\) EM€*rf'bi,loCLUD/LI<Er,' ELE.Va'DE~ 4-AWDICAP RE©TROOF-19 91-2-ocTU 2- Al, KerteD/At luo KIC )4· Upe,) 6/merj Woft., 10) Have you attached the following? Respcnse to Attachment 2, Minimim Submission Cintents Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Oontents Response to Attadmarrt 4, Review Standards for Your Application igNOr-, N * ''£7'~' 445 Mt ... CON 2 Im ON / NCS- --- UN,75. - --- 20$/F.,6.4-72C7 M er»t RooF, N <* T 1 - 00 1 P Ove€W' Prrr) f EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION b 6 10 IS to 1. 29 - 92- ASPEN CITY HALL 4 *299:ritta_geRE.*8€13. -- YENT; i-41bfe, f --ft'nN. "u...57 - - \ LIE['1~%@11111-17-%~Nk 1~11111111#lilli Z--1 lilli 11„ lilli 1111111111111:1~ 11 lili i : ~ *4009 2%4. MAAvt . G) 4.4 - 4 00 1 1 1 . 1 1 -- - LDWE» wabl NG¥4 . go' T 776 Cg/ae,«* 1 coNourr + prs. CmAscr -15 ' / AGew, r,-7 ) 619®4.eN-r. / -- 1 U<3 1 11 -0. t 22PLA€* - 2030Dul*1 - 3 2 dr -b NORTH ELEVATION 10 Vit / , ¢ F } , 1 t 397 1 1 ' 1 ' 1-er \-FETL 1 L 'i c rugp0-.~ 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 111 0 1 1 1 0 Ill 05 1 1 1 1 U 1 I M 1 1 l 11 \ 0 11 I 4 1 1 J 1 1 1 \ . 1 1 1 1 . 1 . 1 - 1 4 4/N -96 1 N \\41 :N \ 4* 43% \10 1 \14 31 6Ecllow 1 El-BYA-r-704 4 '- to Vf' 3 0 2 Pr A" ,/. 94 . trlk. 7 i 3 764 M b It - 11 _--1 S»'5'r;Ne ·59'Liep,75 ~Al iL 6,3,4 9 1-rl ON ING .- 1 <4/N'75· \' - ---- CoR.B.t)*Frao . Mark- HZ=OF, N 1, t K 8 111¤Hlil ~ W==25 PROPOSED NEW WINDOWS 00 . 1 ~ ·,2,;A 775 cg,am,44 1 ~ * 04(w, 7,77) 1 4 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION b- - k- tb /5 60 45' ·1 - Le - 72 ASPEN CITY HALL --- CE:624£. 5,4 /Nate -4~*ITI KOOFING. -TYr. ter¢ aND 4=m===- -_B-U_ *CU, K=/O't 111 ]F==11 rs.*,2 A* 50WN)1111~ liLli 11 0 U.6 4 LAN,Glb. 0 00 00 00 11 1 1 1 1 1 | /01*frk/gul) 1 \ (MEGHAN #CAL.> 1 \ MOEMEN-r LGVEL 6- / 1 '- O") MASTERPLAN NORTH ELEVATION b 6 jo 15 00 1 25 . 9 2 ASPEN CITY HALL 10 I , r 4 Accessibility Fire Saftey Structural Mechanical/Elec Historic Space Needs General 4 1992 P KIEWELEVPMOR. 1. SPRINKLE#2. b *BEL- 2€AM·9 h 1zgD UILL' , goue-» 6,<2016·01TE /,gea./¥G \44 E>Mb€.Hebrr UNPER. 19+ tvs-PANGLS 5•¢56+16'.4 a.97 &22:96 - 3 1 C. ACCE'EF>l ELE 1. Keloure E 5 22:,r?Ge MS • L COPY MACHINa DZ?*125770 OUT OP HALL £ REBOILD 90PT- 3. \4/0294 CoeR/Cbe eror i 0 1,0 1 N 141 Fic©K· 3.1- Houpt. WAU.6 5-Bet«l P G-6,€fre A %3 4 Ch'*55, 3, *NfbaCE STL. me- U.#7- ma WHERG NEW DMI · @ M Een A* FliabREfi · CON#tuellou. fU>OM. iii b UPIAL€ MerM- 1993 4 'RE,•or©rUI: - RE» l··dTH , *Lar- 'gcom; RCCF 72095£S Caml·3/'1"ela. REPL/KE 814 2. 22991/2- f 56-744+Fr Clerrig 'BRCLU/PU 1994 + PROVID£ EAMP 4, REBUILD *rf g. REA-4Ce 4.FROV/Pe 5 ;GPLA€€j )28 - F Tgour 0140 fLOO¢- ENTHE 2,412 VENT?1-4770,4 79 4, Tze D Le 811-luw Ce j H 1»*40 € th:>06 gme 0720£7796 /1£* OFFLES W#Ngo-*15 4 $ 1,1 f Ul) OF«ps, 1 H Ft fts-RATED . - 3. REPL<g C©AsnLUCTIOM 4, DbueLE UP 6, BRCUDE atitleS + Recyz,$26- PAMAAED A '·1 1 320 FLoom -ID Igr¢-2ND 02161/41/ W,N- LE, w Al, 6£# PS 5, REBOILP 9,6/ RS JOISTS 7=Zoo/$ or/74£5 , cau £5146) ® PRop"- 7, GE-6,02/4 dier RID ©F 0&1/0-# 9126 ~ 1/JOT}# 0 H€*' Sugb/275 7*1. @CENS,ON *LAG! 5 RE-DEER Lu,h/- 4, /N9144 6009 *AL#79 -TR, M , 1 501;TH 5,#WAWL G NEW 44+Fr k>v) m. Muh,7 6, 6/22*TE 820 2ociP OVER. - M~mueES Nrl COURT. FL.00 gm, 1 1 aND Re#6. 127€>a t IA/tcp- I 1 ReA,L ¢r>£¥,au 1 8 NisH 0, I 1996 5- EFEND 1. Couve*T pe©fl BASEMENT e.ev,er= -10 e.£Crns WEA- 9812ff «te 52£ > btels.r .*D'"45 70 480-bz,,t- /Ka'77 1· €>PRIWKUER~ 6, Ebueui UP & 1351/a-OPEr Lo FT- 1998 11&27 *COP- 28:75. 50*5 26:,e ept wi 2 1.1 06 a li 0 94 2000 ¢ Wi Ui 6& ¥ fUSE -ID VANDEPM,£ )6 £EFE£ 70 Guy AK ZERA -ID g¥>4907 : U}. m. \ Melo oF 6/10 MD REPDAr 5/4/91 RER,Rr 3/2 1 /9 1~ & 0: # 69rv AUP 3/1,/9, ij ueld Janseuu .. . A t./. 1' *...:i k ' PJ:*t- NX<,>- · - -· 1 - 1 1 4 I. .V - r'*1 . I .. 8 913 ..1 7..,1.; HOT SPRINGS POOL 9-5 - PARKING ./ . DOWNTOWN > CM,ASP/14 SKISUNT.TO]!r AMTRAK 1 ./ -. CAMMHO.· 1!OSETAL HISmRIC MUSEUM t·:i 1 :-- I .... t '.' .. . .. 3% @@St 'JIWI/9/3,2,/2,fir'in' 1 It :1 1 Canyon Creek Slgas 43919 Hwy. 6 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 904-7271 .. f/krE- 1 o F 1 t, City,¢0~ipen 130 ~reet Asp~611 PRESS RELEASE For Immediate Release March 5, 1992 Contact: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office, 920-5090 CALL FOR NOMINATIONS - ANNUAL PRESERVATION HONOR AWARDS The City of Aspen is seeking nominations for the 5th annual Preservation Honor Awards. This year's presentation will be held May 12, 6:00 p.m. with a free reception and cash bar in the Hotel Jerome ballroom. The Preservation Honor Awards presentation and "Preservation Forum" are held annually in celebration of National Preservation Week. The 2nd annual "Elizabeth Paepcke Award" will also be presented, honoring one individual who has contributed significantly to the enhancement of the Aspen area through the preservation or conservation of our built and/or natural environment. 1992 marks the 20th anniversary of the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee. The community will not want to miss "Preservation Forum" this year, as some surprises are in store ! This yearls Preservation Week theme is "Preservation brings History T~ recycled paper to Life!" Emphasis will be given in selecting winning projects that relate to this year's theme as well as their positive contribution to community character. The Historic Preservation Committee Will select winners of successful preservation projects and new infill design with historic districts. Projects must have been completed prior to January 1, 1992. Categories are: residential historic and new, Cottage Infill, commercial historic and new, public, landscape, and group and individual contributions. Nominations must be made in written form, either by letter or general narrative, with accompanying slides and color prints (minimum two each). The deadline for submissions is Friday, April 9. Nominations may be mailed or delivered to the Aspen Planning Office, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, 81611. Call Roxanne Eflin at 920-5090 for additional information. ### npw.92.awards.pr ·--- - -- --- u rn un --9--fl--1 f . 4;flum,IX,~9~-#.*.*-- MR -5- B..&<Bi,kimmm#W**"***W&. 9 Buyers Resource of Aspen/Snowmass, Inc. . . . Working exclusively for the real estate buyer. March 5, 1992 Roxanne Ejlin Historic Preservation OIRcer Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office City Hall Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Roxanne, Thank you for meeting me on March 2nd, and moreover for your assurances and encouragement on the completion of the 215 W. Hallam property. We are also encouraged that your office would lookfavorably upon consideration of glazing changes on the east and south sides of the currently permitted building project. We look forward to our continuing good relationship in completing a project of benefit to ourselves and the community. Sincerely, A :. '441/1 Michael Cooper Buyer's Resource of Aspen / Snowmass, Inc. 601 East Hyman Avenue · Aspen, Colorado 81611 Led .I@ (303) 925-8100 · Toll-free 1-800-626-0220 · FAX (303) 920-4601 M --<--- . - -------8 ----- 1-v--cv-1-n.-1---v i- __i¥¥ 3 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W. 0 SUITE 300 0 WASHINGTON, D.G. 20036 • (202) 338-0392 PHESIDENT ExEOUTIVE DIREOTOR PAUL F. MCDONOUGH, JR.,ESQ. STEPHEN NEAL DENNIS, ESQ, PRESERVATION LAW UPDATE 1991-48 December 30, 1991 Demolition By-Law Protects Structures Near Historic Districts Hingham, Massachusetts has enacted a Demolition Delay By-Law which offers temporary protections to structures listed in the National Register of Historic Places or the Massachusetts Register of Historic Places (or "subject [to] a pending application for listing" on either register) as well as any "building or structure located within 200 feet of the boundary line of any federal, state or local historic district" and structures in the Inventory of Historic and Prehistoric Assets for Massachusetts. The Demolition Delay By-Law does not, however, apply to structures within local historic districts which are protected already through the local Historic Districts By-Law. One of the major unresolved problems in historic preservation law is how to create a suitable "buffer" area around a historic structure or historic district. In Georgia, Illinois and Kansas, innovative approaches have met with judicial approval (see "Updates" 1987-32; 1990-23; 1989-12 and 1990-24). The Hingham Demolition Delay By-Law suggests another approach. The Hingham Historical Commission uses the Demolition Delay By-Law to play an increasing role before the local Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals and Building Commissioner. The operation of the Hingham Demolition Delay By-Law is quite simple. Every demolition permit application for a structure covered by the By-Law must be forwarded by the Building Commissioner to the Hingham Historical Commission within seven days of the application's filing. The Commission then has thirty days to determine "whether the building or structure is historically significant. " An applicant may make a presentation to the commission if it makes a written request. Whenever the Commission determines that a structure is not "historically significant," it notifies the Building Commissioner of this fact and the demolition permit may be issued. But if the Commission determines that a structure is historically significant, it must notify both the Commissioner and the applicant in writing that it will require "that a demolition plan review must be made prior to the issuance of a demolition permit." (But the Commission must not wait more than thirty days to notify the Commissioner of such a determination, or the demolition permit may be issued as if a structure were not historically significant.) THE "PRESERVATION LAW UPDATE" SERIES IS MADE POSSIBLE IN PART BY A GRANT PHOM THE J. M. KAPLAN FUND. No more than sixty days after an applicant learns that the Commission has found a structure historically significant, the applicant must submit to the Commission ten copies of a C demolition plan including: a. [A] map showing the location of the building or structure to be demolished with reference to lot lines and to neighboring buildings and structures; b. [P-]hotographs of all street facade elevations; c. [A] description of the building or structure, or part thereof, to be demolished; d. glhe reason for the proposed demolition and data supporting said reason, including, where applicable, data sufficient to establish any economic justification for demolition; and e. [A] brief description of the proposed reuse of the parcel on which the building or structure to be demolished is located. The Commission then schedules a public hearing, with notice to the applicant at least fourteen days prior to the hearing. The Commission must file with the Building Commissioner within sixty days of its receipt of the demolition plan a written report covering at least: a. [A] description of the age, architectural style, historic association and importance 1 of the building or structure to be demolished; b. [A] determination as to whether or not the building or structure should preferably be preserved. A determination by the Commission, after reviewing a demolition plan, that a structure should be preserved results in a six-month delay in issuance of a demolition permit by the Building Commissioner unless the Commission informs the Commissioner prior to the expiration of such six (6) month period that it is satisfied that the applicant for the demolition permit has made a bona fide, reasonable and unsuccessful effort to locate a purchaser for the building or structure who is willing to preserve, rehabilitate or restore the building or structure, or has agreed to accept a demolition permit on specified conditions approved by the Commission. The penalty for non-compliance with the Demolition Delay By-Law is severe: [U]nless a demolition permit was obtained for [a demolition in violation of the By-Law], and unless such permit was fully complied with, the Commissioner shall not issue a building permit pertaining to any parcel on which a building or structure... has been demolished for a period of three (3) years after the date of demolition. When quoting. please credit the Center. 1--8) MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer/(~Q-- Re: Minor Development: 302 E. Hopkins (Beaumont House) Date: March 11, 1992 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Minor Development approval for window changes and the addition of two flat roof skylights to the outbuilding at 302 E. Hopkins. APPLICANT: May Ann Hyde, represented by Sunny Vann ZONING: "CC" Commercial Core, "H" Historic Overlay District, Designated Landmark The Planning Office commends the applicant for proposing an adaptive use project involving an alley building to help stimulate business activity in the Commercial Core Historic District. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Development Review Standards are found in Section 7-601 of the Land Use Regulations. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay district or is adjacent to a Historic Landmark... Response: Staff finds that the proposal meets the standard, with the possible exception of the skylights as proposed. The applicable Guideline regarding skylights is found in Section VI.F.1, as follows: Avoid adding inappropriate features such as new skylights unless their appearance is concealed from principal views. They should avoid being placed on any portion of the roof that faces the street. Skylights should be mounted flush with the roof to avoid altering the lines of the roof. Bubble-shaped skylights are not appropriate. Although the skylights will be mounted flush with the roof (no projection is proposed at all), our concern is with the length of the skylights and potential for leakage, which may become a maintenance problem for the outbuilding in the future. Staff asks the HPC to carefully consider whether the skylight design meets the Guidelines as proposed. HPC comments: 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 proposal generally meets this standard. HPC comments: 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structure located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: Staff finds that the proposed project will not detract from the cultural value of the parcel. HPC comments: 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: Staff finds that the addition of the skylights and changes in the windows as proposed does not diminish the basic architectural form of the outbuilding. We also consider the skylights to be a "reversible" element. HPC comments: ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Approve the Minor Development application as submitted 2. Approve the Minor Development application with specific conditions of the HPC, to be approved by staff and the project monitor prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy (specific recommendations should be offered). 4. Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the development review standards. 2 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Minor Development approval for the proposal at 302 E. Hopkins, with a restudy of the skylight length as proposed. HPC COMMENTS: memo.hpc.302EH 3 ·7 ~ MAR - 4 1992 VANN ASSOCIATES $,1 j 1 0 U Ll:ul=-2-7. a _ i Planning Consultants L_21.13._12-0/22.c.>330 ne.o.3 -j March 3, 1992 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Roxanne Eflin Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Beaumont Property Minor Development Review Dear Roxanne: Please consider this letter an application for minor development approval to add three (3) new windows and a skylight to the small shed which is located on the so-called "Beaumont" -6-44+ property, an individually designated Historic Landmark located at 302 west Hopkins Avenue. The application is submitted by Mary Ann Hyde, the new owner of the property (see Exhibit 1, Title Commitment, attached hereto). Permission for Vann Associates, Planning Consultants, to represent the Applicant is attached as Exhibit 2. 64 tr The property in question is located at the corner of Monarch Street and Wrt Hopkins Avenue. As the accompanying improvement survey illustrates, the property contains a one (1) story, single-family structure with a partial basement. A small shed is located at the rear of the property adjacent to the alley. The structure is located in the City's commercial core Historic Overlay District. Commercial and residential uses are uses permitted by right in the underlying CC, Commercial Core, zone district. On November 6, 1991, Diane Moore approved a GMQS exemption which allows the ground floor of the principal structure to be used for commercial purposes (see Exhibit 3, Planning Office Memorandum). The approval also granted permission to convert the basement into a studio apartment. On December 11, 1991, the Historic Preservation Commission approved a minor development review application to replace an existing basement window in the structure and to construct a light well adjacent thereto (see Exhibit 4, HPC December 11, 1991, Minutes). A building permit has been obtained for these improvements and remodeling of the structure has commenced. The Applicant has also submitted a second GMQS exemption application to the Planning Office which requests permission to convert the existing shed to commercial use. While no tenant has been identified at this time, it is anticipated that the remodeled shed will be used either as a design studio or as a business office. No expansion of the building's existing floor area is proposed. The installation of new windows and a skylight, however, is necessary to provide additional interior light. 230 East Hopkins Avenue -Aspen, Colorado 81611 ·303/925-6958 · Fax 303/920-9310 Ms. Roxanne Eflin March 3, 1992 Page 2 Pursuant to Section 7-601.E.d., the Historic Preservation Commission may grant minor development approval to the remodeling of a Historic Landmark which is limited to windows, skylights and similar features. The applicable review standards, which are contained in Section 7-601.D., require that the proposed development be compatible with the existing structure, consistent with the character of the neighborhood, and not detract from the cultural value and architectural integrity of the designated Historic Landmark. As the accompanying architectural drawing illustrates, the proposed remodel will have little if any negative impact upon the architectural character of the existing shed or the property's principal structure. The addition of the windows and skylight is essential to the adaptive reuse of the structure, and should have no adverse effect on the surrounding neighborhood. Should you have any questions, or require additional information, please do not hesitate to call. As the Applicant would like to remodel the shed in connection with the primary structure, I would appreciate it if you would schedule this matter for the first available HPC meeting. Sincerely, VANN ASSOCIATES Sunny VanI~ICP SV:CWV Attachments cc: Mary Ann Hyde c:\bus\city.app\app16691.hp2 . .7 -' ~' ~ ~~~ ~ I- --ltt..,th,1?¥-I.:1;i'.3,?.D..:Mf.1-:7'P)!,4...7532-~-~~.-~.:i·«f...:tr~~· 13...-'*, ~"'..~ "- TL//1 1 - /0 \/ - 41 \\ -12\ . lu=--231 - 4 -_ 2-LU - 1[3711 ZE= ~L_ __i. -11 - 1 1 ..1 .5 1 -1 'WEST D.LE V EAST ELEV -NORN]-14 21_~V 74"= 1'-Ov ! ALLEY BLOCK 80 S 75°09'11"E 30· 16 i el , 1 1 1 rN 111 1 1 1 1 1. 9 /ONE STORY/ / m ;-ji 771 //ic 0 4 1 Z. 0 01 6 O tt w / /ONE STORY /// 5/ / / HOUSV / / / 11 1 4 11 li~~ti gge... ji 0 -0 1 SLAB 8·0 9.9 / 30 1 7" \0-»f-i/ if ///1 L_----------- 0 I I ·-J FOUND: 0 REBAR W/ PLAS. CAP N 75° 09' 11"W 30·16 FOUND: REBARW/ PLAS. CAP H O P ]I f N 3 A 9 11.L o A VT T·-7 )0·00 M „6*,090 IS MONARCH ' N 14° 50'49"E I ' I. -4-- .. '' '. - '' t. 7 4/T 1 11 I -- + NEW t 54<22 LITE. 1 15: 1 1 1 -1- i:l FTL--1 0 10 11 FEEND Vet ' ex i 5 -r. / 10/ 1 NOOW 1{1 1 L-J #f- 2 -l 1 R.R 1 ' - 1 . , Cl 2.44 . -w . .i r 1 ; ~ ~ R Sh-*rettr som SECTION p SOUTW ELE V. _ FLOOR PLAN 24..1.-ot 74 ..1-0- 0.= 1 10.- . IL--0 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Minor Development: 520 E. Cooper, (former Black Diamond), storefront remodel, revision from previous approval Date: March 11, 1992 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Revision to the Minor Development approval for the storefront level remodel of the westerly portion of the building located at 520 E. Cooper. APPLICANT: Jan Rogers, represented by Bill Poss and Associates ZONING: CC, "H" Historic Overlay District PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: On October 23, 1992, the HPC granted Minor Development approval for the storefront remodel, which included two additional storefront doors. Smaller retail spaces were anticipated, however, now only one larger space is needed. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Development Review standards are found in Section 7-601 of the Land Use Code. The applicable Guidelines begin on Page 39 in Section V. Commercial Buildings - New construction. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay district or is adjacent to a Historic Landmark. Response: Staff finds the application meets this standard and the Guidelines regarding storefront transparency, proportion and materials. The revision from two doors to one we find appropriate, as the bulkhead, storefront glass and transom proportions meet the Guidelines. One alternative to incorporate more verticality in the storefront is to require the storefront windows be a narrower width, creating four sections as opposed to three. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: We find the proposal meets this standard. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structure located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: The building is not a designated historic structure, and we find the proposal does not detract from the cultural value of the adjacent parcels or the district. 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: This 1969 building is generally horizontal in nature, with some vertical elements. Staff considers it to be architecturally non-contributing to the district. However, storefront changes and plantings in front of the elevator tower may enhance the building and allow it to contribute greater to the district's character. The HPC should carefully review the storefront revision with regard to architectural integrity in answer to this standard. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Approve the Minor Development application as submitted 2. Approve the Minor Development application with specific conditions to be met by the applicant prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy (specific recommendations should be offered). 4. Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the development review standards. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Minor Development approval for the proposal at 520 E. Cooper. Additional comments: memo.hpc.520ec.md.2 2 A[rl:AaiMENT 1 IAND USE APPIi[(:Alt[CN ]FC™ 1) Project Name · 520 -East Cooper - Pitkin County Dry Goods. 2) Project IDcation 520 JEast Cooper, Aspen Colorado 81611. Block 95 N;O;P; and Q Aspen Hof Condominium Units C2 and C3 (indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) 3) Present Zoning CC 4) Lot Size 11,221 4.f._ 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Bxne # 520 Cooper LTD. Pa.rtners<hip, Dnnal ri Fleisher 200 East Maid St., Aspen OO 81611 6) Bepresentative's Name, Address & ]Rxne # Bill Poss and Assne.i Atpe 605 East Main Street, Aspen 00 81611 € 7) Typd of Application (please check all theft qpply):- ariditional Use Ocnceptual SPA Conceptial Historic Dev. . special Bevied Final SPA - Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline XX.~ Minor Historic Dev. (Revision) a]09eptual PUD .1 Stream Margin 1 -- Final FUD Histaric Demolition Mlmtain yiew Plane - Subdivision Historic Designa€ion Conanminjinnizaticn Text/Map Amendment --- (209 Allotment Iat SpliVInt line · (2433 Ebomption Adjustment Lesct-Lion of Existing Uses · (amber and.* type of eocisting structures; appraximate sq. ft.; number of bedroans; any previous approvals granted to the property) -. Conmercial Retail Space 4,035 S.F. 9) Description of Development Application HPC "Mi norn Hist.nri r Opwplnpment" Revision 10) Have you attached the following? Response to Attathment 2, Minimum Submission Contents Respanse to Attachment 3, Specific Submissian Contents Resperse b Attadment 4, Review Starxlards 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" format. Appl: 520 CooperLTD Partnetship-Don ald J. Fliesher APPLICANT: 200 E Main St Aspen CO 81611 Rep: Bill Poss and Associates ADDRESS: 405 ER qt MA in St Aspen 00 81 611 ZONE DISTRICT: 07 - Conmerni a.1 Core 11,221 S.F. LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): EXISTING FAR: N/A ALLOWABLE FAR: N/A N/A PROPOSED FAR: EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commercial): 4,035 S.F. PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commercial): 4,035 S.F. EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: N/A N/A PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: EXISTING % OF OPEN SPACE (Commercial): N/A PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE (Commer.): N/A EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Principal BIda.: N/A /Accessory Bldg: N/A PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Principal Bldg.: N/A / Accessory BIda: N/A PROPOSED % OF DEMOLITION: N/A EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: N/A N/A PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: N/A N/A ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: SETBACKS: EXISTING: N/A ALLOWABLE: N/A PROPOSED: N/A Front: Front: Front: Rear: Reac Reac Side: Side: Side: Combined Front/Rear: Combined FrURr: Combined FronVRear: EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/ ENCROACHMENTS: VARIATIONS REQUESTED (eliaible for Landmarks On[v: character compatibility finding must be made bv HPC): FAR: N/A Minimum Distance Between Buildings: N/A SETBACKS: Front: Parking Spaces: Rear: Open Space (Commerdal): Side: Height (Cottage Infill Only): Combined Frt./Rr: Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): CHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. · 605 E. MAIN · ASPEN, CO 81611 · TEL.· 303 925 4755 - FAX: 303 920 2950 March 6, 1992 DATE • 520 East Cooper - Pitkin County Dry Goods PROJECT m Roxanne Eflin - Historic Preservation Officer TO • Andy Wisnoski FROM • NO. OF PAGES • IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, CALL IMMEDIATELY. DESCRIPTION . 1 . Narrative letter describing revisions to "Minor Historic Development Approval". 2. Attachment #1 Land Use Application Form. 3. Supplement to Historic Preservation Development Application Form. 4. (9) Sets Option "A" - Pitkin County Dry Goods Revised HPC Issues 2/2/92 Plans, East and South Elevations 5. Copies of Original "Minor Historic Development Submission" COMMENTS • Roxanne: Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, 1-Indq V\11*Mek Andy/Wisnoski 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 303/925-4755 FACSIMILE 303/920-2950 March 6, 1992 Roxanne Eflin Historic Preservation Officer 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Revision to the "Minor Development Approval" for the 520 East Cooper - Pitkin County Dry Goods Store Front Remodel Dear Roxanne: Please note the following revisions we are proposing. 1. Cooper Street Side Walk: Revised storefront eliminating one pair of entry doors and relocated the remaining pair of doors. This remaining pair will be wood doors. 2. South Facing Elevation behind Elevator Stair Tower: Added double wood doors in place of storefront windows. 3. Southeast Corner adiacent to Arcade and East Wall adjacent to Stair Tower: Revised storefront. 4. Awning spacings revised. Sincerely, ·ft~N enogil Andy Wisnoski Project Designer XC: Bill Poss Don Fleisher File ~ and associates/: >:'i ;f)16 7.35·y:L~fff:>f~j,i:)5#/3* 1. 1 - ..1 . 4 - -- -' 1 - - geMILAChi- _ _ _ _ MVI*it:W /// t 00¥4 W thic-19 - D / C . U ..7 1 - 77--rim,44,777-7-fL- ---- --- u~-~ 1'5>*OUIP -771 i# _< f L 7 / ins -7 --- 1 j il . . I - 1 / 1 1 1 11 9 4 1 i It N . ' 4 I . 4 A f-~'Mi"£ op (MNMB DN . 1 $ 1 1 \ • 11 1£ 2.i----'-0---*-di----0.--- -0-0- A *.- '-0.-*.--p-- 0-4-0.0 0 -i- *4 £ L:. 1 - - - z.-_ ead&160 --rr~ 97 ge F Ket T 1 . . 84•iMIRATEC -04& CrhiT-»12256 - ~-= 7.- - - ---: 11 .-....4.. -L R,Svi'560 CANC>fY AMP ----'01\Al'POW SPACAh\(be----- - . - ------~- - - PLAN Cle' 5 ILD. &1,1 42 68@PAL »%27 I F -- - ~ v 'd :-:Son:,itar (31?96% /1 L L_ . rue-I-N_ 6@UM~94 923f @2«3 1 = ... 80 EAST MAIN STREET . _ ASPEN.COUDRAC)081611 [% fEE¥LIA¥d %2-12---1-- t-Uf-jagypet>12-*2- - L TEL:., {3031 925-4755 FO. -1990 01--2/57/1* - 1 61 - - J- - - 1 1. . 1- .. 4 4 -- 1 -- K - 1 1, 1 - -E[ w- - 4 Il- 13 d Cr I 1..........il.lilli-'Ll t 1 -*7 I - 4 - ..- 1 - 1 EA91' E L.EVATI O H l/4 ' * 1'' 0 ' - 1- 7.Il 11 1- .6% r -2 4 4 . li 1 1 / 1 It- 1 1 f-1 - - 1 --_li' - I - , 4 1 'I.-I - .JI- ~ 1_ _ki i j - - 1- 1 - 9 0 OTA ELEVATZON (tut® mix- -row€© i _t - n gee 400*34 29*F - 3)%911 alt 0 %92214 609%94 929 @2®7% - ( 669\26510 H.fic_, --r~.61*_1114-t*) - - L Emea Art . le FEmuiLY 9/2- 1. .. . ... 1 1 Ili:Millilih«MiliNNIMMili liliilili -1-31-L- ty'l. il i i' 11... 1 1 1 11 1.1 L 1 -- 1-1 ... 1. 1...l--1. i 4 1, - - 1 44 + 4 0 + -k- + + 4- + 4 1 --1!ill If ' •'·i ' 1 --- ----*.----- .... .... ... 0-- ----- .. ......-- ---4.- ----- --------- -,6--------- ----- ------ ----,1-- -- ---.-- - ----- -1 4 +1 2 . i i 1 , L. i 1 1 · tiat.' · j , --..44-4. =- ---- '/-----* -- -0'r-- - ---- s_ -·2*112.b i 1 /1. .. :. , K h I ll . 1 La.1 N.. P f -J..»it- 1 J ' 1 le ....14 11 + 1 ' 7 Jill 111 · · · -#I -""I-'It..9-1-~4'.t -re 21 -# -Iil -- , 1 1 '- 1 1 L. - I ·~-- -r 6 DOT<\ E LE VATION 1 1/111.s !.,01 .... 1 -- \ 1 ./.1 -i- ~ . i=--2- -1 . f . ' t ,V U - 0 U e -- 4 D 1 K !1 1 1 k 1 11 i 11 g i i '01. tr z -m z-:r -Ly ==- r= z=~ =2- 12=2= =-2-172 2 2 2 11[22-= 2 Z ZI--lr-Z-2 ZZL L#=1 Z Z.-~227= -- i--I. -- - -1----+ F L*A A r ITI<lkl COUN.TY Fli Y 6 00957.orriold 'A' IIVEEZEEII 420 801 - COOFCIZ €f-F.5 5-[~ .3.6FEN, C 0.LOFAC/O · 9-0 Ft-0 El),Arf 92- #**48 #1*zint 605 EAST MAIN STnEET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEL: : 003) 925·4755 ....