Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.19911211 (.r-- ''. F€-4 gif, n, a /<f-J k AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 11, 1991 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of Oct. 9, 1991 minutes II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comments 5:10 Ed Irwin - Elks 100th anniversary report 5:20 IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Conceptual Development - Continued Public Hearing - St. Mary's Church elevator tower addition 0 b . c 43 p ~..,. £ -- tf·· 4~ j v 6 64-tru G- //h , aotic.zL- /0*L.Lt,·., ·~-,2- 6:15 V. NEW BUSINESS 3 u. va:r A. Minor Development - 302 E. Hopkins, light well 4 7-6- (cft vfi 4 %%- 6:30 B. Resolution, CLG review authority for State Rehab Tax Credit, 1992 -34'e.y- --- (bla 71 / _ j / <7 '50~1 115,( fir:LfC ld,<5<)21 -14 Blb +1'©0~<~-9·TQ 7~~'-a-c,-1 . -~~La-.~ 6:40 VI. COMMUNICATIONS A. Committee reports Armory Hall Centennial Committee Red Brick School Blue Ribbon Committee Character Committee - AACP B. Projects Lily Reid Rel*catien Statewide needs assessment survey 7:00 VIII.ADJOURN REMEMBER THE CHRISTMAS PARTY ON DEC. 19! 5:00 - 1118 E. WATERS 9-© MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee 0 From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer:€12) Re: Public Hearing continued: Conceptual Development - 533 E Main, St. Mary's Church elevator tower and vestibule addition (Public Hearing) Date: December 11, 1991 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual Development approval for addition of an elevator tower and vestibule, and front entrance remodel of St. Mary's Church. St. Mary's Centennial is 1992, and they are interested in having this addition completed in time for this looth anniversary. PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: At the meeting on November 13, the initial public hearing, the HPC tabled action and continued the public hearing to December 11, to give the applicant additional time to restudy a few significant aspects of the elevator/entrance addition. Height, massing, scale, fenestration, roof forms and materials are all considered to be areas where consensus had not been reached, and more design work was necessary in order the proposal to meet the Development Review standards. The HPC seemed to not object to the proposed general location of addition. The interior site visit held on November 13 was necessary in order for the HPC to clearly understand why the addition is proposed where it is, as opposed to pushing it further to the south of the building, closer to the alley. The nave and sacristy would be affected if the addition were added to the southwest corner, the building has close to a zero rear yard setback, and the east elevation (Hunter Street) is considered the secondary elevation, thereby precluding it from receiving the addition. Front porch: The front porch remodel remains a significant element requiring restudy. The HPC felt the conceptual proposal appeared somewhat discordant (perhaps scaled too small), primarily the roof forms. In discussion, the HPC asked if the sidewalk encroachment could actually be expanded, to allow a more substantial (impressive but not competing) facade entry to be designed. Each agreed that the existing front porch entry is incompatible with the building, and its remodel has the ability to enhance the landmark. EXISTING CONDITIONS: St. Mary's Church, a local landmark and potentially eligible for listing on the State and National Register of Historic Places, has received only one major alteration since it was originally constructed. The front entry/vestibule was added in 1966. The church parcel as a whole is considered to be one of Aspen's finest examples of Victorian-era architecture. Its symmetrical massing, scale and verticality, central tower element, roof form, fenestration pattern and use of brick and sandstone relief distinguish the character of this landmark. It is located within the only block in the Commercial Core Historic District that has remained virtually unchanged for 100 years, and is across Main Street from the National Register Courthouse. Since 1966, only restoration work has been done, specifically to the interior, which received a local Preservation Honor Award in 1989. The church is in need of an elevator for the mobility impaired and large enough for caskets, and has stated that a satisfactory interior solution cannot be found. PROJECT SUMMARY and REVIEW PROCESS: The applicable Guidelines are found in Section IV. Commercial Buildings - Renovation and Restoration, beginning on page 47. The Development Review Standards are found in Section 7-601(D). Development Review Standards 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. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Response: The applicant has provided a few roof form alternatives to the HPC for review. The flat roof originally proposed was felt to force an addition of a complete different architectural style (neo-gothic perhaps) . Staff finds that the hipped roof alternative comes closer to what the HPC discussed at their last meeting. The sketches do not indicate window and door forms and location, therefore, staff can make no recommendations until this information is presented by the applicant. Please also note that the entire addition has been reduced in size somewhat. No additional facade porch designs have been submitted to staff. HPC COMMENTS: 2 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Elevator towers have been added to significant landmarks (The Wheeler and the Elks Building) in the district. However, these elevators have been located on non-primary elevations , are of the minimum size for handicapped accessibility, and are architecturally unadorned. The Elks elevator tower is located well back from the street edge, and the Wheeler's elevator is overall significantly smaller and narrower. Staff finds that the scaled down revision of the St. Mary's elevator tower comes closer to meeting this standard. We reserve any further comments until such time as the applicant submits more complete elevations and an amended model. No additional facade porch designs have been submitted to staff. 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: It is staff's opinion that the proposal as presented does not enhance the cultural value of the landmark, due to the visual impacts and general change in architectural character of the structure. It may enhance the "social value" of the landmark, due to its increased usability by the public. 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: Elevator Addition: It appears that by incorporating a compatible roof form on the addition, reducing its overall size and significantly reducing competitive detail, the addition may not diminish the architectural integrity of the church. Staff agrees with the HPC's previous discussion of material use and color, (that the addition's roof form pick up elements from the historic tower and roof), and recommends that the applicant utilize 3 their model to also replicate major materials. Front entry porch: The applicant has not submitted facade porch revisions to staff, therefore we are unable to respond. At the last HPC meeting, you discussed the possibility of enlarqing the porch and increasing its encroachment onto the public right of way, in order to make it a more prominent and usable feature of the landmark. In tandem with this was the idea of "necking down" the Main St./Hunter St. intersection to provide a safe walkway for pedestrians and enhancing that entire corner. This design idea is not necessarily out of line with the recently adopted "Aspen Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway Systems Plan", which promotes a safer ped system and neckdowns at intersections to allow for street furniture and plantings, while shortening the crossing distance on the street and slowing traffic. A capital improvement of this kind has not been budgeted by the City for 1992. HPC COMMENTS: The Partial Demolition Standards are found in Section 7-602(C) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. The general provisions of Sec. 7- 602 allow the HPC to require a Performance Guarantee when deemed appropriate due to the significance of the project. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: 1. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure; and 2. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel. b. Impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure located on the parcel. Response: The applicant did not specifically address the partial demolition standards in the Conceptual Development application, and staff recommends this be done in the Final application. It appears that a relative small amount of original material will be impacted or destroyed due to the addition. HPC COMMENTS: 4 ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Conceptual Development application as revised (specify roof form), and require that the Partial Demolition Standards be met at Final. 3) Table action to a date certain and continue the public hearing, to allow the applicant time to restudy, prepare drawings and revise the model accordingly. A revised application must be submitted to the Planning Office no later than two weeks prior to the continued public hearing date. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. This action constitutes re-noticing and another public hearing. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC table action to a date certain and continue the public hearing on the Significant Development proposal for St. Mary's Church, at 533 E. Main, to allow the applicant time to restudy, prepare drawings and revise the model accordingly. A revised application must be submitted to the Planning Office no later than two weeks prior to the continued public hearing date. Additional comments: memo.hpc.533em.cd.cont 5 THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC ARCHITECTS ANC] STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS November 27, 1991 Ms. Roxanne Elfin Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Roxanne: Attached are nine sets of perspective sketches showing two roof and massing studies we have developed since the last HPC meeting. They show an option of hip or gable roofs for presentation at the December 11 th meeting. We will have the massing model modified to show each of the suggested arrangements. The sketches indicate the east-west dimension reduced by 3 feet and the setback at the link reduced by 1 foot 6 inches. We have studied using materials other than brick in the tower and feel that that approach further complicates the design and works against keeping the forms simple and quiet. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, Theodore K. Guy, President THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC TKG/lk 91105 L8 23280 STATE HIGHWAY 82 P O BOX 1640 BASALT, COLORADO 81621 (3031 927-3167 f /\ 1 I j \ 3 \ 1 1- 0 -.94..... ~~~~*~zEZI~ 1 51 l. -, - t --0 1 9- 1 4 1 1 : 1 1 1 1 ! 11 . t~ }2 '. i 1 1 1 1-7 1 11 li 1 lili- il 1 J './4 ': 1 :L. 1,-11 , 1 1 -4 1 ~1 l~1 1 -1. ; 4 1 i i. , , 1 3 1 - 2 1 1 · ' i 1 11 1 11 :: 1 41 12 1 1 1 - 1 7- 11 : 11 1 1 1, I ii 11 1 I i ji :t i 1, , i! 1 . 1 1 11 ; .i! i i 1 ==il I i; § ,%' ; 1 Le===ff.*.: f i 1 . - 1 LL - -- - -*--9=7--- )- + ) 4:7=----.. --. 1\ 27'll . 3\« flo Y 1 1 l 1 1 - 4. 1 1 -X i 1 3- f I L X /1 1 *** , i ,iii} lit 1 ·ti .11 1 . 1 3 , 1 7 il j 11 1 f ) 1 11 . 11 0 ¥ 1 1 5 1 1/ ' 11 11 . it j 1 i . i 1 i i 1 li 1. Ell ! F ft E 1 - 1 1 t! li i 1 1 i 7 1 H f Li i 4 4 j I.1 4 1 - 1, ~m : i 4 , 22 i 11% :11 !! ji i 0\ 1 .1 22 i lit 1 1 1/ i Iii i, i l i? j 4=4 d 1 + i 1 i 1 1 1 1 : i ! i 1 UP \1: , ik W . L Li ' i 1 4 i; · 1 i 1 4 I · r 4 i , 1 1 i ---0 1 ----» , r.> A Al C D OP= I. 1% MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer ~LQ~ Re: Minor Development: 302 E. Hopkins, light well Date: December 11, 1991 SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking HPC's Minor Development approval for the below grade light well on the west elevation (Monarch St. side) of the property. APPLICANT: Mary Ann Hyde, on behalf of the William L. and Florence R. Beaumont Family Trust (represented by Sunny Vann, Vann Associates, Inc.) ZONING: C-C, Commercial Core Historic District 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: No above grade modifications are proposed to this landmark structure. Staff finds that the proposed light well has been designed unobtrusively, and will be visually screened with open fencing (wrought iron) and low shrubbery. The light well's location past the half-way point on the historic cottage largely prevents it from being perceived at facade level. We find that this standard has been met, and recommend the vegetation be kept low and in scale with the cottage (under 3'.) HPC COMMENTS: 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Due to the recent conversion to multiple use (from residential only to a mix of residential below grade and commercial above grade), the applicant wishes to remodel the basement area into a dwelling unit. In order to convert the existing basement into a dwelling unit, a minimum size egress window is required. Screened and well placed light wells are becoming more common in historic cottages. Staff finds this standard has been met. 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 proposal does not detract from the cultural value of the structure. 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: No above grade exterior changes are proposed. We find that the light well, fencing and vegetation screening does not detract from the architectural integrity of the landmark. 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 conditions to be met 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 light well at 302 E. Hopkins as proposed. Additional comments: memo.hpc.302eh.md 2 VANN ASSOCIATES, INC. DEC - 3 Planning Consultants December 2, 1991 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 develop- ment approval to add an exterior areaway to the so-called "Beaumont" structure, an individually designated Historic Landmark located at 302 West Hopkins Avenue. The application is submitted by Mary Ann Hyde, the prospective purchaser of the property. The owner of the property is The William L. and Florence R. Beaumont Family Trust (see Exhibit 1, Title Commitment, attached hereto). Permission for Ms. Hyde to apply on behalf of the Beaumont Trust is attached as Exhibit 2. The property in question is located at the corner of Monarch Street and West Hopkins Avenue. As the accompanying improve- ment 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 commer- cial core Historic Overlay District, and its current residen- tial use is a use permitted by right in the underlying Ce, Commercial Core, zone district. On November 6, 1991, Diane Moore approved a GMQS exemption which allows the ground floor of the structure to be used for commercial purposes (see Exhibit 3, Planning Office Memoran- dum). The approval also granted permission to convert the basement into a studio apartment. While the conversion of the ground floor to commercial use requires no modifications to exterior of the building, an existing basement window must be enlarged to meet the residential occupancy requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 230 East Hopkins Avenue · Aspen. Colorado 81611 · 303 925-6958 Ms. Roxanne Eflin December 2, 1991 Page 2 As the accompanying floor plan illustrates, the new window will require a small well or areaway adjacent to the west side of the building for ingress and egress purposes. The areaway will measure approximately three (3) feet wide by eight (8) feet long, and will be approximately three (3) feet deep. The areaway will be capped by a wrought iron fence similar in detail to the existing fence which surrounds the property on its Monarch Street and West Hopkins frontages. Low shrubs will be planted adjacent to the areaway. Pursuant to Section 7-601.E., the Historic Preservation Commission may grant minor development approval to the remodeling of a Historic Landmark which is limited to no more than one (1) element of the structure (e.g., a window). 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 attached architectural sketches illustrate (see Exhibit 4), the proposed areaway will have little if any negative impact upon the architectural character of the existing structure. To minimize its impact, the areaway has been located adjacent to the rear portion of the structure. This area represents a relatively recent addition to the original miner's cottage and is believed to be of little historic importance. The addition of the areaway is essen- tial 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 informa- tion, please do not hesitate to call. I would appreciate it if you would schedule this matter for the first available HPC meeting. Very truly yours, VANN AFOCIATES, INC. Sullny Val;~~AICP 91 :cwv V Attachmehts EXHIBIT 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Bill Drueding FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office RE: Beaumont/Hyde - GMQS Exemption By Planning Director for the Change in Use of an Historic Landmark DATE: November 6, 1991 Summary: This historically designated structure is currently used as a residence. The proposal is to convert the ground floor to commercial retail use and develop a studio dwelling unit in the basement. This constitutes a Growth Management Exemption for change in use of a designated structure. Staff recommends approval of this exemption with conditions. STAFF COMMENTS: Section 8-104 A.1.b.4 allows the Planning Director to exempt a project from growth management competition if it involves the change in use of an historic landmark and does not increase the building's FAR. The current use of the building is residential. The proposed commercial use will occupy approximately 1,110 s.f. as the entire ground floor. No structural expansion is involved. Please see Attachment "A" for illustrative floor plans. The final design of the interior may be slightly different from these plans, but the conditions approved in this review will remain in effect. A kitchenette will be installed in the basement to create a studio apartment. According to the applicant, the existing kitchen will remain as an amenity to the commercial use only, so the structure will continue to contain only one dwelling unit. Therefore, staff believes that the GMQS exemption is valid as long as the commercial area is not converted or used as a second residential unit. Mitigation for parking or affordable housing is not required for Planning Director GMQS Exemptions. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Director approve the GMQS Exemption for change in use for an historic landmark which does not increase the building's FAR. The following conditions are recommended: 1. Creation of the basement dwelling unit shall be subject to any H.P.C. requirements prior to issuance of any building permits for that unit. 2. Any expansion of FAR or increase in number of dwelling units must be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission as per Land Use Code requirements. 3. Enlargement or change in use which occurs in phases shall not exceed the limits of Section 8-104 A.1.b. (1-4) on a maximum cumulative basis. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during meetings with the Planning staff and Historic Preservation Committee shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. I hereby approve the above GMQS Exemption for the Beaumont/Hyde change in use pursuant to the above four conditions. LjZ- Dian»-6 1 Director u k bi Date Attachment "A" - Proposed Floor Plans (illustrative) 2 OJ 01 11 34 E?"*TING, 6(1>fla')*SIP,q i. L. 1 f / h - 1.1144114'NPOHA, 1 1 .. 2 -4 1 6 fl 3 : -1 - i '14, ,.. , A '. 7 1 / . , . I . j. ' I Ovwtx- 6 1 0 13 1 1 . .. 1 l- ./ Mul€415[17 p.£012· 5-tl,tRO APM r. III f,J OUTION ;THKU° 6<EAMAY U 0 1.311 = / t .0 It NOV /291 fDDi 14:29 SUTHERLAND FALLIN ALLEY BLOCK 80 S75°09' ICE 30·16 0 1 9 ot O. 1 140< W i ZI I / /ONE STORY / / 73»41 1////f//// 144 5//3 - 1--5.ff.fff «112\ 4 4\\1 €> CONC. 0 111/1///Ii 2- f /i,l ; 1 1 ~ ~ l~ 2i© 1 I &(26;WirriEr./. : cOUND: FOUND- REBAR W/PLAS CAP N 75° 09 I t 'W 30·16 REBAR W/ PLAS.CAP 7 (Ch To vrNS 1-yv - - - L- AL -11 2 1 = -_,8 0 : 1 CO[CRETE fAD S oUT }[1[ MONARCH MlvM ·2#00 «e,t, --- I F '.d. 47 1 \ V 2 - -* T. D- '.... 1 - '1 . .----- ---I-------·- -- - -p-~ - -4 1 -1 1 f- 11 7-1 li ·i i] It € TO12.-c 1 ! 11 - - -- 11 -1-1 1: : '1 -IX I 4 1 / 1' lili I / 4--4 I 1- - 1 11 1 ,-111 1 45 -11 1 ltv/-T 1 1 :--Coic CO-.ST 4/ 1 1 1 1 ; 1 1, .4 T 21 12\\ 1 1 1 -\ - /-1 -r---- -' - -prk -(Pinrof ..5 91 46«11;91 1 .1 ). .:. , - -4 UNPN TSWED ' CE:*/4 L -611.(2- 8'; 9.'' ~ 4-- 4 -- 1 - 1 11 1 1-1 1 11 I 1 1 / k J Q\/ ' --'. 1 P<17<141 EX; E--7-6 I - 1 1111 / 4-12-UV T.k -- 2 1 i:, 1 1 1 S-T-U O% O 5,0 5= pm 1 3 -7 1.- 1 I , 1- - -7 ! it~tee 2 62..EA....Ar'/'~ 1.1 1 - 4 \ a h.=bd -29 1 ' CLS-1 t.er 4-4 r - ... -1 r--~- i 1 -1 1 1 1 , 1 , 1i WN = i ki r -1-2 13, I 22:41 €#-1 34-11#,Alt 4-2 00< fl~§ 0 -I- .. 3 1 tV /, I. '5' 9.54 . , As~, Exulair A Y /9 / \O 1_V /zit 45.'<96> 77% - ~ ~44 ,>- f \€ le' ,•56-/ - -tNE- iLLUES[24-1014 AT 14-ka LEFT- 6,401,46 TUE Yield en- CF 1146 25FFLIC»n-29 1*OF::GE« lazot--4 1-UE 61 DE- - P -- « 0/55>2553535»~4 , /247 /-55654 J46,LL AL£116 MCklAECI-} €il-12.EBEr LCCE-1N<Et FIGEN-4 . /»»96% INPICm-ED>INTNE FOR,243 22=UND G-TUE EXMS-1 144 7 ~12*CN 6€EZ- 61 56,>USUL 'AN.12 1[ZE)14 MEMO Nal , 1 N TLIE 54£44_ = 62-OUN P 1,5 -T-?-~1 E ·642IE»44.7 -FEE- let M 1614 114 14 = i 1,1 411 1=NO-----1 -12 1 & lil 11%1 L------1 -- AFFLLOXI-104 16 521146·t S-l,EAI u-ec>· . - 6 t- -1 1 ILE- 1 -1 114 ;111 . -1 1 1 fir - = t« ; 1 EL IllIA 1 . 1 ¥ 111 - -bl 1 ]1 -1 ill 41 1- 1- 1 0 =1 !11 H.1 11 ~---- 1 1-UE APEA+4,6>/ 14:7 66·F:FED W \-8.4 64 IRON FENCE- 744/-7- , 1 1 .I_.3,%*.~-93/il.Lili--*1 111~ -- -1 413 4 ilt-,p. ci.,d-All E--2 - x- _L- AM,L612_ IN DEENL TO-FNE- fexen'145 KNCE 67- 1 ¥ -1-UE- «ICE)«LIC . 1-142 14 INCOP+67 ,ANIP 6286AH441~,6/ZE- MUE-¥4-lea fillat_[36{3> reCM TUE, «Cal,44Lk_ 4 41 ·La,4 91-tzl-le:> 9-1,2Ipal NER kIED 1-1- ON 2, SI ca,9. mt®l 1 . 1: 2 1 ~ 1 1 R-F*· . -4 - 1 \ 13 * 11 d l l l' 11 1 l' i' 10-2N / «ill; 11 '.ill i 1 Ii, 11 1-..I: 1 - / 1 1 11 ------ 1 . 4 i rrF. 4% 132<6-112711* ap 9,1 TUE 1LU-16:;M*rlal 471- TUE BOW-T- 47#03442 11-16 //- -Sah/1 E- ,612:€601*6>r~ 0*:; Deenal WED 14 Ex·14 1 SIT- A 1 -~ T*CM, 13-6 9158.J'46,1-K- ALORLE, MOK!62-U «~Eer- - - -. La:ma MA So.rnA. - .... - 4 U ' bUr-tl-- *-. - - U- Iii . 8 7221 .-. 1 .-- ... I -4.- - I irrzrri 1:3 -7 1 EEH. '/iii -I 'i/ -- ,-4 =2 L--411 'U 2 1 ; 1 -1; 1 0 31 11 4 f---1 11 i# Ezzl d · - fli' 11 - h 1 - I - i . r / -- - it lilktil.':ii -t' - 0 /11 2 f f ', 7------ ~ - . 4 1.' , , « \ I / MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen HPC From: Roxanne Eflin, HPO 4~ Re: Resolution: SRTC reviewing authority for 1992 Date: December 11, 1991 SUMMARY: Every CLG in Colorado who elects to locally review applications under the state rehabilitation income tax program must pass a resolution stating same. The Reso attached is identical to last year's, with the exceptions of the dates. This will be forwarded to Council, who will be asked to also adopt a similar Reso. Approximately 25 applications have been processed statewide. Aspen has had one - Ruth Whyte's repainting and minimum maintenance at 333 W. Bleeker. RECOMMENDATION: HPC approval of Resolution 12, Series of 1991, as written. RESOLUTION #12 (Series of 1991) A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, RECOMMENDING TO THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL THAT THE CITY OF ASPEN ACT AS A REVIEWING ENTITY UNDER COLORADO REVISED STATUTES SECTION 39-22-514 FOR PURPOSED OF THE COLORADO INCOME TAX CREDIT PROGRAM REGARDING PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES. WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) supports the creation of incentives to assist in the preservation and protection of historically significant resources; and WHEREAS, Colorado House Bill 90-1033 (C.R.S. 39-22-514) was signed into law April 20, 1990, establishing rehabilitation tax credits for historic properties throughout the state; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen, as a Certified Local Government pursuant to the provisions of 16 U.S.C. Sec. 470a(c)(1 ), as amended, is eligible to review such rehabilitation tax credit projects as a reviewing entity as defined by C.R.S. Section 39- 22-514(12)(i); and WHEREAS, the provisions of C.R.S. Section 39-22-514(10)(a) require that, prior to January 1st, each Certified Local Government must annually adopt a resolution stating whether such Certified Local Government will act as a reviewing entity during the following twelve (12) months; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee, as the City of Aspen's official review board for historic resources, endorses rehabilitation project review at the local level. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee does hereby endorse the Colorado income tax incentive program for the preservation of historic properties as adopted by the Colorado General Assembly at Colorado Revised Statutes Section 39-22-514, and urges the City Council of the City of Aspen to actively assist and participate in such program by designating the City as a local reviewing entity for 1992 as provided under Colorado Revised Statutes Section 39-22-514(10)(a). RESOLVED AND ADOPTED by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee at its regular meeting on the 11th day of December, 1991. By: Bill Poss, Chairman ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Assistant City Clerk 2 . COIDRADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY The Colorado History Museum 1300 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80203-2137 November 27, 1991 Dear Fellow Coloradan: We are less than a year away from the first round of an exciting new grants program that will benefit historic preservation efforts across Colorado. I see this as an excellent opportunity for the Colorado Historical Society to better serve the people of our state, as well as conserving its historical and archaeological resources. In order to do this, we need your help. With limited stakes gaining underway in three historic mountain towns, the State is collecting revenues to establish the new State Historical Fund created by the gaming initiative which passed on November 6, 1990. As provided in the constitutional amendment, 28% of the State' s revenues from gaming is paid into this new fund, with 80% of the fund to be "used for the historic preservation and restoration of historical sites and municipalities throughout the state..." The Colorado Historical Society has been given the exciting opportunity and formidable task of establishing a program for the distribution of these funds, which are estimated at somewhere between several hundred thousand and over a million dollars per year. These funds will be distributed in the form of grants beginning in the summer of 1992, and annually thereafter. In order to organize a program that will serve equitably the entire state and benefit those cultural resources most worthy of preservation, we are asking you to take a few minutes to tell us about your plans and your needs. The enclosed form is intended to solicit information from any community, organization, individual or business that might request a grant from this new State Historical Fund. It is essential that we identify the specific preservation needs and funding requirements in our state. Since grants will be awarded on a competitive basis, we need this information to establish the priorities and criteria for funding that will be used in the grant selection process. (over) State Historical Fund November 14, 1991 Page Two The State Historical Fund monies can be utilized for a wide range of preservation projects from "bricks and mortar" projects; to restoration, rehabilitation, or acquisition of a historic property or archaeological site; to inventory, planning, and educational projects. For more information on the types of projects that can be considered for funding, please see the enclosed section on the State Historical Fund from the limited gaming statute that was passed in the last general session of the Colorado General Assembly. We would greatly appreciate it if you or a representative of your organization or agency could take the time to fill out the enclosed form and return it to our office by December 20, 1991. Exact project costs are not needed at this time; however, we would appreciate your "best guess" estimates. Please feel free to utilize as many additional pages as necessary to list All the projects for which you would anticipate requesting grants. The completion and submission of the attached form is not intended to obligate either the organization submitting the form or the Society. However, without your input, our planning for the use of these funds will be proceeding without the benefit of information on your own specific needs. So, please take a few minutes to complete the form and return it to us by the December 20 deadline. If you do not know of any specific projects at this time, but are interested in receiving application materials as they are developed, please complete the top portion of the form so you will remain on our mailing list. If you know of others in your area that may be interested in applying for these grant funds, please copy the enclosed form and pass it along to them, have them call our office for another form, or list their proposed project as one you anticipate as coming from your community or area. The more information we can gather, the better we can serve all preservation needs across the state. We hope you share in our excitement about the possibilities for this new grants program. I am looking forward to working more closely with you in the coming months and years. If you have any questions, please contact Lane Ittelson, director of preservation planning, at (303) 866-4676. Sincerely, * 441_ J#mesJE. Hartmann Pke!0ent COLORADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT Applicant Mailing address City/State/Zip Telephone Contact Person Addr. Telephone We intend to apply for funds, but rave no specific project defined. yes no 1. PROJECT: Type of Project Status of Ownership (if applicable) Preservation Goals of the Project: Estimated funding Request $ Applicant matching share $ Total Project Cost $ Proposed Project Time frame: From to 2. PROJECT: Type of Project Status of Ownership (if applicable) Preservation Goals of the Project: Estimated funding Request $ Applicant matching share $ Total Project Cost $ Proposed Project Time frame: From to Additional projects can be identified on a separate sheet of paper. Please complete the other side of this sheet in order to identify your choices of funding priorities. Cover) RANKING OF FUNDING PRIORITIES 1. Please list the five most important preservation areas to be addressed with funding assistance in your local area. The following types of activities are identified in the Limited Gaming Statute (see enclosed). Rank these in their order of importance. Indicate preference by assigning 1 as the most important. Identification, evaluation, documentation, and study of historic and archaeological sites. Historic designation (at national, state or local level). Marking and interpretation of sites. Acquisition and development (brick and mortar projects). Education and training for governmental entities, organizations and private citizens on preservation issues. Preparation, production, distribution and presentation of educational, informational and technical documents. Technical assistance, guidance and aids on historic preservation practices, standards, guidelines and techniques. Economic incentives for preservation. Development and implementation of protective mechanisms. Historic preservation planning. 2. Please indicate with a check mark those areas that you think need to be included in the Society' s criteria for selection and evaluation of grant projects. Choose the Kiz criteria you feel must be included. Type of project. Significance of resource. Degree of need for assistance. Geographic location. Cultural & historic period of the resource. Source and commitment of matching funds. Continued preservation and maintenance plans for resource. Benefit to public and surrounding community. Element of community or organizational plan. Development or use of innovative preservation technology. Threat to the resource. Administrative capability of the applicant. Educational benefit to the community or state. 3. Other Concerns and Comments: (Please feel free to suggest other criteria or priorities for funding) 363 Colorado Limited Gaming Act 12-47.1-1201 PART 12 STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY 12-47.1-1201. State historical fund - administration. (1) The state treas- urer shall make annual distributions, from the state historical fund created by subsection (5) (b) (II) of section 9 of article XVIn of the state constitution, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (5) (b) OIl) of said section 9. The moneys remaining in the fund after such annual distribution shall be administered by the state historical society. The society shall make grants from said fund for the following historic preservation purposes: (a) The identification, evaluation, documentation, study, and marking of buildings, structures, objects, sites, or areas important in the history, architec- ture, archaeology, or culture of this State, and the official designation of such properties; (b) The excavation, stabilization, restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruc- tion, or acquisition of such designated properties; (c) Education and training for governmental entities. organizations. and private citizens on how to plan for and accommodate the preservation of historic structures, buildings, and districts as well as archaeological sites; (d) Preparation, production, distribution, and presentation of educa- tional, informational, and technical documents, guidance, and aids on his- toric preservation practices, standards, guidelines, techniques, economic incentives, protective mechanisms, and historic preservation planning. (2) The society shall make grants primarily to public entities; except thal the society may make grants to persons in the private sector so long as the person requesting the grant makes application through a municipality or a county. The selection of recipients and the amount granted to a recipient stall be determined by the society, which determination shall be based on tlic information provided in the applications submitted lo the society. (3) The society may expend a portion of the state historical fund to cover such reasonable costs as may be incurred in the selection, monitoring. and administration of grants for historic preservation purposes. The society may employ such personnel in accordance with section 13 of article XII of the state constitution as may be necessary to fulfill its duties in accordance with this section. (4) The society shall have the authority to promulgate rules and regula- lions for the purpose of administering the state historical fund, which rules and regulations may include criteria for consideration in awarding grants from such fund and standards for preservation which are acceptable to the society and which shall be employed by grant recipients. Source: L. 91, p. 1575, § 1. HISTORIC TAMPA/HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY PRESERVATION BOARD OET 1 5 October 12, 1991 Director, Planning and Zoning Office City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Sir or Madam; Many of Tampa's historic structures are standing vacant and falling into disrepair. Our staff at the Preservation Board feels that incentive programs are critical to the preservation and rehabilitation of these valuable cultural resources. Information provided to us by the Florida Department of Historical Resources indicated that Aspen has instituted a progressive program promoting preservation by providing for city sponsored grants, exemption from permitting fees and growth managment requirements, and flexibility in zoning and building code regulations. Currently, no incentives for rehabilitation exist in Tampa. Our staff is in the process of collecting information from various cities which offer such programs in order to recommend to our City officials methods of promoting the continued use of Tampa's historic properties. I would appreciate you sending me information pertaining to Aspen's incentives program. Your response will be greatly beneficial in our efforts to enhance our community. Sincerely, -f V t L.c- -- £ Lee Braun Historic Sites Specialist, HT/HCPB FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE • 2009 NORTH EIGHTEENTH STREET • TAMPA. FLORIDA 33605 • (813) 272-3843 Nillwater Nljv 2 l THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA ~~ November 18, 1991 City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 To Whom It May Concern: I would appreciate your office mailing information in regard to Packages and Incentives as listed in the bulletin from the U.S. Department of the Interior Park Service to: Steve Russell Community Development Director City of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, NN 55082 Thank you. Sing;,7ly, /0-7 Steve Russell SR/sm CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER. MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121