The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19910213./ 0 1 AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 13, 1991 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of January 23, 1991 minutes II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:10 A. Conceptual Development - continued Public Hearing: 100 Park Avenue V. NEW BUSINESS 5:45 A. Conceptual Development - Public Hearing: The Aspen Meadows, residentail development only 6:15 B. Conceptual Development - Public Hearing: 620 W. Hallam VI. WORKSESSION 7:15 601 W. Hallam )approved demolition) - general discussion request from owner 7:30 Sportstalker - 204 S. Galena 8:00 VII. COMMUNICATIONS Project Monitoring 8:15 VIII.ADJOURN 8:00 VIII.ADJOURN DUE TO THE NUMBER OF PUBLIC HEARINGS SCHEDULED FOR THIS MEETING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU CAREFULLY READ THE PACKET AND SITE VISIT IN ADVANCE. *073 AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 13, 1991 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM PLEASE BRING THE MEADOWS PACKET THAT WAS DISTRIBUTED AT THE WORKSESSION 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of January 23, 1991 minutes -76. 6/fct 8 6 - 374#1 II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:10 A. Conceptual Development - continued Public Hearing: 100 Park Avenue 015-Uta ./11 4- A.5&/2- V. NEW BUSINESS 5:45 A. Conceptual Development - Public Hearing: The Aspen Meadows, residentail development on* C U,119 - JO.â‚¬40, SLL+--9- FYA M-11 6:15 B. Conceptual 4-Kelopment - Public Hearing: 620 W. Hallam_273â€¢0 I, Â¥4) -l,Â·403 )<3149.,2~ VI. WORKSESSION 7:15 601 W. Hallam ')approved demolition) - general discussion request from owner 7:30 Sportstalker - 204 S. Galena 8:00 VII. COMMUNICATIONS Project Monitoring 8:15 VIII.ADJOURN 8:00 VIII.ADJOURN DUE TO THE NUMBER OF PUBLIC HEARINGS SCHEpULED FOR THIS MEETING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU CAREFULLY READ THE PACKET AND SITE VISIT IN ADVANCE. .L :1 _---7- _U_ 4 - MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: -Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Conceptual Development and on-site Relocation: 100 Park Avenue, Public Hearing, continued Date: January 9, 1991 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual development approval for the on- site relocation of an historic one-story cottage, with a rear and partially below-grade addition, and the new construction of five (5) two-bedroom free market units. The project also includes the demolition of four (attached) non-historic dwelling units. PREVIOUS HPC CONSIDERATION: The HPC tabled action on January 9, 1991, to allow the applicant additional time to restudy a number of provisions of the proposal, as recommended in staff's memo. Revisions have been made to the proposal; description attached. Please refer to your January 9 memo and packet information. PROJECT SUMMARY and REVIEW PROCESS: The applicable Guidelines are found in Section VI. Residential Buildings - Renovation and Restoration, beginning on page 47. The Development Review Standards are found in Section 7-601(D); Relocation Standards are found in Section 7-602(D) of the Land Use regulations. STAFF RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S REVISIONS: We find that the revisions have improved the proposal, and meet the Development Review Standards. We are, however, recommending a number of conditions should the HPC feel Conceptual Development abproval is warranted. Our overall concerns focus on 1) the preservation of the historic cottage, and 2) the general compatibility of the new construction in its relation to the historic cottage. During our initial review of the proposal, we found the mass and scale of the new units somewhat overwhelming and competitive to the cottage. The elimination of the massive chimneys, mid-level balconies, and site plan modifications do help soften the overall impact of the new construction against the cottage. We feel that the Park Avenue (west) side of the development still deserves more study for neighborhood compatibility. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Conceptual Development application as proposed. 2) Approve the Conceptual Development application with conditions to be met in Final Development application, such as: a) Compliance with Partial Demolition Standards found in Sec. 7-602(C). b) Compliance with Relocation Standards found in Sec. 7-602(D), (3) and (4). c) Detailed preservation plan for cottage materials and architectural features, including all porch details d) Detailed site and landscape plan, indicating existing vegetation and including a study of enhanced vegetation buffer between historic cottage and new construction. Fencing shall be detailed, and shall be open in nature. e) Massing model f) Restudy of west elevation massing, scale, and fenestration of new construction, to chimneys, etc.) in its compatibility relationship to the cottage and the neighborhood. g) Full elevations of new construction shall be submitted. h) Existing elevations of historic cottage i) Major materials representation 3) Table action, to allow the applicant to again restudy specific issues of the proposal. Tabling to a date certain (to allow a continuance of the Public Hearing) is recommended, provided the applicant feels they have ample time to submit revisions to the Planning Office prior to submission deadline, for that meeting. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Conceptual Development approval for the project at 100 Park Avenue, with the following conditions to be met at Final: a) Compliance with Partial Demolition Standards found in Sec. 7-602(C). 2 b) Compliance with Relocation Standards found in Sec. 7- 602(D), (3) and (4). c) Detailed preservation plan for cottage materials and architectural features, including all porch details d) Detailed site and landscape plan, indicating existing vegetation and including a study of enhanced vegetation buffer between historic cottage and new construction. Fencing shall be detailed, and shall be open in nature. ~4Â£ 0 Massing model i~ Restudy of west elevation massing, scale, and fenestration of new construction, to chimneys, etc.) in its compatibility relationship to the cottage and the neighborhood. g) Full elevations of new construction shall be submitted. h) Existing elevations of historic cottage i) Major materials representation Additional conditions: REVIEW COMMENTS: memo.hpc.100pa.cd.2 3 . MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Conceptual Development: The Aspen Meadows, residential portion only, Public Hearing Date: February 13, 1991 NOTE: PLEASE REMEMBER TO BRING YOUR MEADOWS PACKET FROM THE FEBRUARY 6 WORKSESSION. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual development approval for the residential portion of the Aspen Meadows, including the remodeling, renovation and three new units to the (Bayer) "Trustee Townhomes", seven new units referred to as the "Tennis Townhomes" and advisory review of the four single-family home sites. LOCATION: Westerly portion of the parcel commonly referred to as "The Aspen Meadows" APPLICANT: The Aspen Institute and Savanah Limited Partnership, represented by Perry Harvey and Joe Wells ZONING: SPA, underlying zoning pending PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: Though no formal action has been taken previously by the HPC, a worksession was held on February 6, 1991 to informally review the proposal. Positive comments on the Trustee Townhomes regarding massing, scale, height, spacing and site planning were received from the HPC. Concerns focused primarily on specific materials, details, and landscaping. The earth covered parking spaces were considered appropriate. Most Board members considered the massing, scale and modular design of the "Tennis Townhomes" compatible with the thematic International style of the Meadows. Comments generally focused on the stepping of the units, design of the end walls and treatment of parking. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Currently, eight (8) Trustee Townhome units exist, with incorporated carports attached to each. The remainder of the proposal consists of new construction. PROJECT SUMMARY and REVIEW PROCESS: The Development Review Standards are found in Section 7-601(D). The applicable portion of the Guidelines are found in Section VI. Residential Buildings, Renovation and Restoration and Section VII. Residential Buildings, New Construction. The Guidelines generally address detached buildings of the Victorian era, however, the intent and . general application is the same. 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. (*historic resource) Response: The Meadows parcel has not received landmark designation, however, HPC review and approval is required as called for in the Aspen Meadows Master Plan, adopted last year. Staff finds that this Standard has been met in the proposal. We find that the significant elements of the Bayer townhomes has been respected and preserved in the renovation and expansion of the existing units, as well as in the design of the three new units on the ends. Staff's concerns focus on materials, detailing and landscaping, as well as the need for a subtle difference between the original units and the new. We feel that simple topography considerations are not enough, and that more study is required by the applicant to make this subtle difference successful. . The proposed Tennis Townhomes incorporate elements of the "Chalet" structures and the Bayer townhomes, and carry on the International/modern theme, a signature of the Meadows. HPC worksession comments were supportive of the massing, however, staff is concerned about the visual impacts to the ridge, the overall height as perceived from all elevations, the treatment of the end walls, and the detached covered parking structures. These units may be described as appearing "modular", or grid- like, particularly the west elevation. It can be argued that either this design solution is compatible with the surrounding multi-unit structures or that its collective parts (particularly as viewed from the west) create a massive structure that no longer relates in scale. The Tennis Townhomes are presented in the application narrative as cne and half story units at streetside. Only two of the seven units proposed are one and half story; the remaining five are two story and do not step down due to relative flat topography. We are recommending a restudy to lower the height of these townhomes. 2 Streetscape and Landscape Material: The need to preserve all existing trees is an important element of this parcel. A detailed landscape plan Will be required at Final, with mitigation measures stated. Fences: Fencing has not been discussed, and shall be included for Final review. Parking: Detached covered parking has been proposed for both the Trustee and Tennis Townhomes. The earth-covered parking areas -- proposed for the Trustee Townhomes appears compatible with the surroundings. Staff is concerned that the proposed carports for the Trustee Townhomes are a slightly discordant, visual intrusion along the road to the Townhomes; we are recommending a restudy of these for reducing their height, analyzing an earth-covered option and significant vegetation cover/screening. Rooflines: The proposal generally meets the standards for roof pitch. The architect has studied the geometry of the existing roof forms and has keyed the new design to this, which we find appropriate. Doors: We are unable to determine the style of doors proposed on the new construction, and recommend discussion of this feature in the Final application. Windows: The fenestration pattern on both the Trustee additions and the new Tennis Townhomes are critical design features for each. We recommend that the HPC require restudy of fenestration patterns where they feel necessary, primarily on the Trustee Townhomes. The contemporary window pattern proposed for the Tennis Townhomes appears sensitive to the thematic geometric patterns established throughout the Meadows, a signature of International and Bauhaus style. Materials: It is important to recall the original construction technique and use of materials was based on economy. The architectural style can be described as International vernacular in many ways, and restraint must be used in incorporating expensive materials on the buildings and in landscaping. The new and replacement materials at the Meadows are as important a design feature as the overall geometry and site planning. Great care just be taken by both the applicant and the HPC to determine specific materials, texture, finish and color. Significant discussion regarding materials at the February 6 worksession leads staff to the following recommendations: 1) New and replacement materials must key off of original materials. Materials were simple, and not of high Cost. Vertical surface shingles should be smooth and 3 square, fascia thicknesses carefully designed, and roof material not wood shingle. Asphalt roofing alternatives should be studied and presented to the HPC at Final. 2) Finish and color of materials is important. A palette of materials, textures and colors shall be prepared by the participating architects, and submitted for HPC approval at Final. This palette would also apply to the Single Family home sites as well. 3) An exact materials representation shall be made at Final, including major materials, windows, balcony railings, decorative features, etc. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The Planning Office feels that the proposal meets this Standard, defining "neighborhood" as the large Meadows parcel itself. 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. (*historic resource) Response: The Meadows parcel represents perhaps better than any other the diversity in Aspen's culture. We find that the proposal does not detract from the cultural value of this important parcel, representing Aspen's post-war renaissance heritage. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a (designated historic structure*) or part thereof. (*historic resource) Response: The architectural integrity of the Trustee Townhomes is critical to maintain. We find that the conceptual submittal of the addition design does not detract from the existing conditions. However, due to the importance of materials in this project, and the need for careful study of compatibility issues, we feel that a higher level of detailed drawings and material specifications is required of the applicant to determine if this standard has been fully met. We are concerned about the treatment of the carport conversion to an entrance, and are requesting this element be submitted in detail form at Final. 4 The Tennis Townhomes and the single family home sites do not apply under this standard. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Conceptual Development application as proposed. Approve the Conceptual Development application with h.. 4...)a.~awL conditions to be met at Final Development, such as: 7 7*711- Bâ‚¬ -~a) 4* Restudyâ€¢â‚¬E#-=-=t-he_---NEig-Mt==and stepping of the Tennis Townhomes, to reduce streetside height /'%,j-- to a maximum of one and a half stories, as / stated in the application narrative b) Restudy of Tennis Townhome carports to reduce visual impact c) -1 Detailed preservation plan for Trustee ~ townhomes materials and architectural features. Subtle, compatible design differences shall be incorporated into the three new Trustee Townhomes units, to discern L(% between original and new. 4 d) &c Qetailed sit#_and landscape plan, indicating Ov <p 4*12tihg-vegetatiol~.and -including--a-study-of. enhanced vegetation- buffer- between-histaric -cattage-and --new-construction.--All-proposed_> fenging_shall--be--detailed 6.4- r.+11 Lruni_ +- =3~Â»- r'~~---lj*,t.c.:3&2~.. e) j Trustee Townhome carport remodeling (representative) detail drawing 45Â«1.- f) ~ Restudy of design, articulation, materials and texture of all end walls-34 ' - C E-b..UdÂ©â€¢1\42>- CA(& l.UN' &-1 8 , 2 /1 2 ~-_ g) ~assing Inodels, C, 4, <ac,~-651;22/f'*/,/~4 '0'L h) 2 Material representation: An exact materials .K representation shall be made at Final, including major materials, windows, balcony railings, decorative features, etc. i) n A palette of materials, textures and colors 4- shall be prepared by the participating architects, and submitted for HPC approval at Final. This palette would also apply to the Single Family home sites as well. j) 4 Recommendation from applicant for compatible 5 to lusl-- A *j massing, scale, height, setbacks, materials for the four single family home sites design covenants for HPC consideration (advisory only). 3) Table action to a date certain, to allow the applicant _ time to restudy specific areas. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the - Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Conceptual Development approval for the Aspen Meadows, residential portion, with Conditions A-J (stated above) to be met at Final. The Planning Office further recommends that the applicants process an application for Landmark Designation for the Meadows Parcel. Additional recommendations: REVIEW COMMENTS: Int Z memo.hpc.meadows.res.cd .rK..1 6 r' 1~~ '<~ ':3. 1 . , '1, P i Â·Â· s 7.4:.1.,1. , /. pal H li ilimillillillillillillillillillillillill""I . aL ! ...'-.' fr 61* 0% t *7,- 41* 1 9 4 - . -4\ /4 VIIL.lk . 74 1/9*2.*i /92 i.2 , \ .1 * 1 ..-0.:r 4*ik**.1 0 BRAI##mj '< ld..~..WA~ 4 Z 4â‚¬1 4--~ 0-4,18 4@06. 45,- 96 41,> =ailillillillilligwillilill-li -....1-1 ~allin:lifil.! 4 ".5--5,- m 4/ 'r 9,4, - 3/.t -%4 1 g /64 --T *t , -2' d . .14/ 1 4 Ptilillillillillillilleiviallil,1/lill"/4/19*d~ie, 1* /01 Ell". /-- -- . 42 ~-8/. 1.2=4 h " \- 0-11~4~0't 2, 41/ .. 78: 23,4.r 1,-=-1,-~m / 'Al- i........*- / 344 0 4,'62 :t,i / --- --6., bs: 2/ 0..1- fil#'5;:iza/2wilicilll9ainy *CA V AN//2 4&- li -i K?1.- WO .: 31'114 j Fth 2----~/~- - i et - ,/:/.:iq*00. 4$*#.49, . - -r,tag-'O*266*4*03%43 4,%Â£ 9Â¥ 1,25'-~:<i~. 9 - I.14â€ž- 1:*~~::i':~~YÂ·Â·?tÂ·:Â·i-6 J'F,fi:~.*,B,#*"'4*~.' A*;Xf-a~" 1-5 +4*9*-A,/9----I.;439:.:1#Im#444<w,7 .â€žw %- Â·r- 41/ >,!7/ 2634,1. ve,â€ž - ......--- 1\* , <- %:ir. *,2 #80 . 274 21* 1/0 V" tbdMilligEel':'r:7. a~ , 24,4 14â‚¬ I 11Â·f - - 1~V- ~24 .D *10 96 4,-Akr L ... . ..... 1 - i.1 34,6 S= 1.: . . 1 0 ..4.1- 16'/ vtÂ·ZEb \- s =In :=rr-oz j ME 1%74 13= /.4.- ... .... .. . . . .... i . v(/.00Â·Â· . . A 1 . P'*82*62 ..,4 .,14#4.i*. .. ~ I .. ... *4[Â£ 121 1~~r .~bki , vil-*i 0 q r.4,18*6~A//A .. *'924 I 'CS)/19,6Â·i.Â·;t.%>~titrip"Utia#&5 ~v U) IRMig~ -1.- 1 . 1 1 - "1 -4-1 *7,5'j. r,2'*65+Ai.i,Ji~d, 1â€¢#69~.ma '~441111111111!11111111111ii': ~ ' I , ..:i-11;.14 . .41 t. Â£%~LE'ji N.. r.1 ..........J"......#'ll ; .*-- - - ..#12==hall/A#[Emillf'llÂ£&/JTS 'rri3rrillllllllllllli -+22;*laSSqdkliLJ.J-JjLULjLJL1 37]mâ€¢ -1 -4441.â€¢11,~ ~ .,...2 m 1.- t. /./1 1 --m=~ 1 I â€¢. ..11 1 Ill ,- IHI'l 1 11 \ -. Â·rr 11 ~934%~0%1143l:Â·9it]21 ~ . '' liu lili a 1-**ffÂ·d!-1 -- - Me=11221.-1---- g:ili-hv REVISIONS EXISTING J W a EAST ELEVATION W - & 8 01 5 10 20 V-IV ONINNÂ¥ld ONÂ¥1 ONV 3Wn1031IHOWV I '0NI 631VIOOSSV ONV AlOHNI:I OIAVO SMOCIV3~1 N3dSV SNISAOH 331SnW.L 0360dOEId f OVERLAILOG OVEALAILOG SHEET OVERLAY 0 1. / *X %:i: 0 ' ;I .4 .ffix'<.. 4/1/#97 iÂ¥} IM :.2... m * & ..:.: ...... El j. 0 fiR ..% ' r ,Â· Em El 0 0 $ 9 0 40 . 0-- :ijj, i~ 1 O El 10 11 4 ...X >> 0 L ASPEN MEADOWS 7 PROPOSED TRUSTEE HOUSING DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC. I ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A.I.A 9NllSIX3 NOI1VA313 1S3M :*a*:**3**i:Fies: 9.0 0E SNOISIA3U OVERLAYL OG SHEET OVERLAY 4 11 ) -1 \ . 1.,J.. - "Â· Â·., i.Â·,.,ikh!~F' 1 1 .t A . 4, &200.4 4 .bt :24?It~* - __nIF & m"J.11 1 -4 '0, T f 1 -" 1'.11 21, BR = ~Â»t--*14#*r t= ~> 1 ,;f'.44<ifff:k. .. o m 25 0) 01 d Z Q 1% O 0 ASPEN MEADOWS 6 1 PROPOSED TRUSTEE HOUSING DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC.' 1 ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A.I.A. ~~3~7~~H.~ON 0E OVERLAY LOG SHE E T OVERLAY . 0 , \t ... , - rap. 3-$,PgR.. B. ' .-,r72'ft/<F)*~ H \ -â‚¬. EI . 1 J 41 i . 4#AÂ· I . =40* %>4. . 0 o m 25 01 d Z 0 0 - 0 .\/1. . ... h. 1 RE ASPEN MEADOWS ' 01 PROPOSED TRUSTEE HOUSING DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC. 1 ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A.I.A. =>01 0g 0 2 . b '' v 1 10 -,9*fi>Â·- - N.--- ineÂ«Y 1 ... 1 11 ' 1 11 k 11-11~2%.: 8.1*%52**14:**:AFTER? ,4 . 9 1. 1 4-43Â£\ \17 0 -1 0 Â»j OATE1- 1~-11 DRAWN 8 REVISIONS EXISTING : SOUTH ELEVATION 2 5 & 3 01 5 10 20 VIV SNINNÂ¥ld ONÂ¥1 ONV 3bln1331IHOEIV , ONI S31VIOOSSV ONV AlOHNI:I CIAVO SMOC]VEIVy N3dSV OVERLAILOG OVEALAILOG Skâ€¢EE OVERLAY â€¢ 4-2. yu 21* 4. C r / 1 .. ef> r ./.6-4* 16 9 5 EME! 6 -1= 31,1 - 1 . 321:2:9:ME-- - Mihi.â€ž1 --2 , 1 jai Â· 4'ht U 2 ,+p 1 â‚¬25: 1-ZE 4 -r . 1 -1 23= 'mi, 2 i /.1 h r- - 4 t=t t Ve# ...... ... 4#k 4 4,1- e 4.:. m-0 11 50 f mO re m --: Â· = F O > W>Â»ke... f..Xe- . Â· â€¢ â€¢..... C. ' 2:f: ~ ~ Y.Wn K>, 1-2-1.=_ . . 90Â»Â»6Â· r t ii? ASPEN MEADOWS O 1 z.: 0 7 PROPOSED TRUSTEE HOUSING DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC. 1 ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A.I.A. 1 . - 0 Cl . I Â·Â· .9-1 L . 4 . 144 . 4 -11 1 1, 1 1 Â·rl . 0 . :8. ' 1 0 V E DRAWL-41701 A VISIONS PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION (EXISTING UNITS) 01 5 10 20 VIV 9NINNV1d aNV1 ONÂ¥ 3HA1031IHOEIV l 'ONI SalVIOOSSV ONV MlOHNI=I OIAVO SMOGV31AI N3dSV eNISnOH 331Srly.1 03$0dOIdd OVEALAIL6G SHEET OVERLAY . 1,/N \ 1 1 a :) & I E- C A.r:...A'.2.-/ 1%:94..... ---ir..........fir-: Flli. i Â·.- Al,ir; 17~, a -r - 3k?'4,//jf*,4 ="HU-'ll 1 974 - ''111't,1,!,61'i, 'to -Â·4 ~ 344tÂ· Air#~i -m.......m- la.Ma.1 4,11#AW,/0/Jilp:. 94*45(9* -IC#E~:~9-d li bi,:10Ij|~11 )~9&,4;7Â¥,~~ 9 4 -W"Am....1.-.,1.BXMaiId 1........ 1.........I .:11.~11 .........1 701 .........I ..... 0 Ilill'111111- ----- ......... . â€ž-, l......... . * 52 ........."- 111: .........1 ......... K..... . I......... f.- .........1 9-,2 .........1 Â¥I . .......... * 4-44/#1 - - 1,I'- -1.........1 .*. Illillilli//514* -Â·Uil .......... Il.......... .........1 .- - 12;i#*6: - 201.10:97 ........... .:. W. =1 'llill' 11 -4........%,1.........1........7.- 1...............................1.......... . .>.3 , N'.,1,1..: ~??41 =mm:tmmrm,Jimmm~~I~=:=========:=En,câ€ž,<73,~~~cm,~u~n~r~:im ~m~~~mmm..r~:,nl~~~~l~l~l~~ f<*Â£2.,CUÂ·Y14...,- a . EÂ¥,66:-2-.------~~dir,1.:QE~V:"3(AFF:"5~PE:'Eull|''m~:=ML"==fa:WE:f:.2#.-.:.;,.~~E~,m,:1::A:=:::z""Mre:":::~""i: E."E: -Mi l .. 1....... .......-liall,~1<"-i- /11â€ž1â€ž.2.:3 6, : Â·: ;r ./r...................i t..,......"....,...1 ....... 1.....7- ""T" 97%450 (' :991;1::r':":i"la'~:12.,N. m.:::A:::::.i"pul'.1,2 1....... ......- .. . .. - 9:*.-f.â€ž:........4..........1 ...........In==IN ~ 00/9422~22gue,JXâ‚¬gS;$551?;1 rex,e~ ~ .. WitilitjGâ€¢â€¢==â€¢==i,zM9::-=....." ....Ii.I.*4 0.-4,2,.M â‚¬ ~A*;--C'â€ž:....11...................B-~-a.. ....=..I 1....~ umilimum *I '.:,9 . P Z' 'e st-:-=Ii=#m=I==I~,Imi==Iini,=Im ....... 1. ..... ...F- '"111,1,16: Â·:02. I : 4.8Â·â€¢Mill.Im..10$'ll....Im =mimma...-i...... , .........AlÂ· :/Â· 1 h /1-â€¢f.....:I..................%*............................1- .. aii;r:*0*~-::f::~fil;1~x~<maim:",rj~:~'~1:~,~~~,~~,u~~=~~~u,,,=~=~~~~~~~~~~6~~,,~,~~~~~~,~~,~~~=5Â»~j=~~"15" .. 5yll.tlli..~7.: Â«--* ;2*-I-....~.............................1.--Ill---I'l'-- .. ...................1..........1 11111,~.............................- .. 11...............1.11.2.1.......1 w- f ~...."In""Il="ii""Il-1~ -- .. ....11..............................1 11,lilli.........ilial.....~ .. ...............................1 1............1.--1...m-m....1 1, I. - . 0 . A . T 0 1 0 D . ..Ezzl . - 0 4 -- - - - 1- 1 1=- t.11- - - --- - lili 11 . 1 1.EF;Al>,i' G. 1 . . ED . .. R VISIONS RA W~ |V 1 PROPOSED J C ~~~O~~H~N~~~S WEST ELEVATION W I 01 5 1020 VIV ONINNÂ¥ld ONV1 ONV 3Hn1O31IHOHV I 'ONI S31VIOOSSÂ¥ ONV IN1OHNId DIAVO :. 64Â«~â€¢%/I ..â€¢ SMOGVEIIN N3dSV SNISnOH 331SAEI1 0390dOEId OVEN,Avlbo OVERLAY OvEALâ€¢vibG SHEET OVEALAI 1 1 I . 1 *4,0. i i ; 401 -â€¢.9.ifiggl" \ \ \ *A.-â€ž4,&- --'tt-'-- Z=Ci,aIrtÂ· 1 -r -a#cra' \ \ f.:, MP, \ \ 1 1 J \ 1 1 -=-/ . 1=# 1. 1 J 1 1 1 , il j1 ..0 .4. :. '':*ti'' 3,21 - 18 .. u 'irt> xi:UL, 3 1,-- ir - .... ' > *:A. EmÂ¥:,faw lmSX.Y 411 1 1 1 1 '4- 4 ji 01=11 0 ::'.:''/'p~'Sh: :~ATI. r., 4Â· i~~ite 0 M 9 *â‚¬20 0 5/ ASPEN MEADOWS ::~ PROPOSED TRUSTEE HOUSING DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC. I ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A.I.A. 01. NOI1VA313 - 4 L . . / D + 1 .1 1% Â· 44 . *M'Mme/MME=142#* #mill'lliallifillill ./1.0/:-3 Mmmw - ' 11111'14\3 911 1111111 1 11 Ill 111111111~1 -1. p lili lillilll I[il l I ll Il l Ill['ll Ill!"llill Ill 1 1 , 00 11111111111111111111111 1 R 4 '111111 11111111 111111 1 +Ittltililll,(Inllitt O Il1lilllllllltlllllllll 111111Illilllialll'llil Q . 111 11 1 Il.1111111 1.1 in.1 1 111111 11111111111 11 < 2%*Â£ 2.1 4 1 11111 lili lilli n 1,U r. -/1, 1 + f i -2, 1 . fill Ililll/(' li41!11.11 1 1 +111111111111 1/ 1 1 Ilillit" 1.11 l' U,1 &,SLZ/,2 * 1 Hel I l I&|tit| 1 1Â£|| | CL I<'1723 . i 1111111 0 *13,AÂ¥92 k r ~4Ais; Â· ~' REVISIONS ' 4 4 8:1.N :Y .1 , Aft , .. tze. A ... PROPOSED_ 1 .tl. SOUTH ELEVATION i W W J . . b ~ 01 5 10 20 VIV ONINNV-ld ONÂ¥1 ONV 31:In1031IHOEIV ,I ONI 931VIOOSSV ONV AlOHNI:! al/\Va SNISnOH 331SnbLL 0390dOEId j <fil. OVERLAY LOG OVERLAY A + 1 / r- '2 L- 4 1 L -I" - f,-" ~ - .. --1- 4--4 1 Â· - U -1 - -IN . LAmetON}NO : - 21404 X 24+4 : _ - B . 1 - -21/6-~i---~I 00 4. 1. 000 35% - 12= 0 -l . -9'63 \ 00. ~ ~ r'-lf-lr-1 : MA lÂ»4 ++044414 : -1 1 3 -- .7:IZZ.-----Â·â€žr-~1 ----- 1 2711 0 - 1-#=c:=~4 7 1016(U r " 0Â« 43 : DN 00 --- - - -- --.--Lf -,Tz- 0 -1 - m - 1 1 -- ' I- ' -1, 1. ' 9 .-VÂ» f i - 0 4 .O 1 11, 7.. l.7 1 < 4*N-Th, \ -- i BEPBOOM â€¢1 L , --- --2- - 6 - Â°=44--aJOIt=Â°] -~-3 1 2 *,i 8-r' - , 4 . REVISIONS 1 DLL] r PLAN NORTH g ~-------------- PROPOSED .. MAIN LEVEL Z - J ..0 02*a WWW O-0 'Â¥ 01 5 10 20 VIV ONINNÂ¥ld ONÂ¥1 ONV 31:In1031IHOEIV l 'ONI 931VIOOSSV ONV 010HNI=I OIAVO SMOC]Â¥3Vy N3dSV 9 S . OVERLAILOG SHEET OVERLAY 4- .: Â· 4,2.,ix..1 4 - ..,D E :0 2 .. 99.1 Â§ 1 , m m J m . , m 9. Â· 5 Â·0~ ' 2 0 Â· m, . , - . , al *m It 05*1 NIL. 11 0 m m B .. 1. . i i i E LI - E 81 1 1 - h e ~<â€¢â€¢7 1 -72*31 ' 4 1 .. I 1% . :.. 'r. 1 Â·. â€¢1 I. -I , 0 - 0 7 A-- rÂ· Â· rd 1 - i 0 I -0 Jj .. Cnil r 6 . Ir- 0 . .1 4 . . , 1 -6 .< 0 . . . . . ... .. r.< '4~/1 / r ... / .. O 1 . 9E. 0*T ASPEN MEADOWS O 4 6 1 PROPOSED TRUSTEE HOUSING DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC. 1 ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A.I.A. 4,-1 4: 4 1 Â· 1 jud-t ' - .1 11"Ineft 1. 1 1 1 -MAL # 1 I. , 1,1 4.: ./ 1 PATIO Â· . - 1 1\ . 11 - . 1 . 11 11 ' A,%1 - 00 -- GUEST SUITE CRAWL SPACE i WÂ·* * IN-1% - 1 - fo \ l U . #,1-,3\7 W ~~CHAN= -1 gA iwur' REVISIONS PLAN NORTH PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL I 01 5 10 20 VIIV 9NINNV1d ONÂ¥1 ONV 31:In1031IHOEIV l 'ONI 931VIOOSSÂ¥ aNÂ¥ AlOHNI=I DIAVO SMOCIV301 N3dSV ONISnOH 3319nyl 0390dOEId OVERLAY LOG OVERLAY OVAA, Lbo SHEET 1 OVERLAY :41, ' 112 - -- 43=-3 - - --76 -11 -4 59 12-3-1-*W- 14= - m.=- 4 E 4 It 1 tte--:E ==h ' T= + Cr 01 4 4 114. 1 ASPEN MEADOWS' Z OD- 1 PROPOSED TRUSTEE HOUSING ~ DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC. 1 ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A.I.A. a3SOdO 08 OL NOI103S DNIall 6,5.-; ~Ill.-2 E-=-EE-E Ill......./......Ill'EEE â€¢-â€¢Uila/*26~- ..lk,===-ir-= 2==I====== â€¢â€¢â€¢e.,11-e~e-_ ~i~-*~ ~- ~:==1== .. -- :'14'#ME##MMMAâ€¢lilt iâ€¢-- i-*2- li IN=ammimmi~ *4~' ..-- 1. -.....b- a - 1 , -- .e'<diagilill=I i=~ M~-~M~ziazi:i:Twiv,---~.1~/0,"~MhE**u--. - .......MAA:i./11/*-i 1/'ll- ill'll-:8 -Illicile:Q~~Il.i.F.it~li.:itilladi~~6"444*1111-:1:1'llillilimmillimilill&-1 1.1 1 0 . /1 . ....='.-1,---li;=:1-1:9.~1- 4-19'Val- E~~~Et~i4~~'it ir,~io Â£41*,6.Lifiligul"lill'-Ill'll'll'll'llill"Plir.-Z44. '094 Â«t-1 ___~ESSÂ®~Rl~k*~ e 0.~Fi~Twi:11~*. 0312,4 11.......4///QI""""""9~~ 31-h>y.9 --- - /0/ip :teÂ·,%*m~ E- - , O.1,1 kNE 'PillilliejiMillillillilliaL#1.:'Bi~~UPL~Pr'flsqfillillitilillilillpilililsillilitailk'll'lilic,&9#991)r'xillilli~Illi.liri * Flililillillillimillimillitrial-imil~ilillilillililli~lili"ill'lilili~~ill,lilivifialdill"illilillihill.....lillill:ihi#imia:5:ill:i~., . - ">4 . . \4 0 1 15~ . f . .. '4* - -- 1/7 /4~/0~ Â«1Â¥.2,4 .. 33*33-*Â¥,4 A 'IM= ~4:1142:1:41/LF-â€ž---' 9. r-lit. .. ~&W-~ ~~6b<j~ . 9,29*-= - .. 3~ 3'4101~ ~Â£44#fift. .. .. , .mr h kle;ki :*'v,Qr. #431,0.4/.-46 Akif~ 44 ..1 - 14*4344/2 -...-/./ 1,6- 11 44 -: -~.3,.g,â‚¬.â‚¬,2.fy,~-tjA *~f~*A,~. .. .. r. ./Ille<27'8' *3 0 r ...p--u*----- '~ f vi ,Â·".LÂ· eil V,'111/4 i r .. 46>' 4, Ba LETERT- 1~9Â£+ 64.0/129/0*30. 1:*Â§,R,G.~r.r,... ~t$I*K:,~/ -00 +:14:. . -- - . A .- A. 91:4-4~ - " I,amp -*'i///li///////////////////////////////1 I I . 'C.. 1/2. - 7- 0 1 0 OVEILAYLOG S.1/1 OVERLAY r â‚¬ A 4-1 4 11 . . 4 P~t.yA, b 6 , .1 9, " 9 351 1 , .Unal 71 , -1 1 1 - . 46 It 8 â€¢ 4 L 7 mmITII 1 1 1 1 --- 11111111 P . b ' 07..o, 0 44, J: h V *1 . ..!FA /4* . ." 14 'E" F * PROPOSED TOWNHOMES FOR THE MEADOWS DAVID F/INHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC I ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A l.A. 0(0 9NIOIS 00OM aNV SSÂ¥19 9NllSIX3 HOIVE 01 831â‚¬V-Id YO ONICIS GOOM -~ 911VM 9NIOIAIC) AEINOSVIN ~~- ASPHALI SHINGLE RO~lk 2f 09 98 06 OL 9 0 NOI1VA313 1SV3 i ...415 OVER,A 4 60 S. 1 1, OVERLAY '. .& I i Â£ -M 104454 ./. .1'kills'illilililligililillib'rb p ~* 4 j - lit - ---~10... 'me-Â¥% 9~./~AZb 1/ 1-43(J ... P~pe~ 1 / h. 1- lii'll 04% A- F ED 1 1,04 f . 1. Â¥#1 &* El --I'l - / â€¢. 5/1, 111 1.9 / .a *11 g ft/El eli gRA 1// /#11 0 'r='Â£ R L.N. er / a =1. 1!. ' Ph ~. /1 t,9, Fl 4 C -22 ,5/1 ; by I . 62% -'. 4.4- A e. F. -4 1- Izil- 1 -2 , 1 4 !1.. t.3 .k - 1,4 h *23, ., 9 4 444 - ....,e 4 44; 5 4/ .-&.. I ./. 2.1 - 4 '1~. iN- /, .aL_ S 'i E-* 63 4. 19 r gle 4,1 3,14}16 -4* mil 49 E. .f~, ' 49 ~ *f. :1090 9 'h 1. mil, 4 ... t, r .,1 - .41./J 1. 1 mi. â€¢. â€¢ 61- 1 2 2:. .-mm- I e /3?1'. 1/1 - t 4- i. - . - li, 1 ...4..i.: q "4 : .. 2 61 '. â€¢1 / 1 , . -L....5 4%44' ' - 13*. . i' 1 13 AP im'. 1 -.1- - ..li:.4 f - -1 LL *21 -** m r 4 zâ€¢-- U b * 6 1 ' J 7.- 3 ..i .1 . ''u 3 4 i e l 'h - 2 TeÂ©1!,~~14 h . : A-J ftl'.%:2 1< . 1 - '-- fr:r h,3 # I $ W 3 - 9. , 1 : 9 12 1 1*:1 Â¢ 1 Iii PROPOSED TOWNHOMES FOR THE MEADOWS DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC. 1 ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A I A limmirm 09 98 OVE.LAÂ¥ t.bo SH111 OVERLAY - 9~-2-9 I ) L 5,6 010 ' 0-%~/ ==Â£= 9 4 '5 Â·. ... 42Â»4 48- B. 4 34 li A .0124 r p /&@W?.1 40't..p t .Ah '* 4. ~ f*t 4 *AP.. .. ~ :114,- rk "1 . 90 E 0 -9 A -- = F==41 - . * b i 0 , - \ F-'--4=1 1 = ' & ..--'We- I \ tAZZ CeÂ·:9 . 9 VE):94 0%% \ 9+ 1 ft I . 0 2. , * 4 0 0. 0 4 , 1 4 riÂ·. *$ t:t ' :<. -2-. ...9..4.41.. 4.4.d, i +.1Â·: -/:9464. 14 01 . P -4 * te 1.4 - Â«4 34 $35 1 1 *9 .. I 1-k: PROPOSED TOWNHOMES FOR THE MEADOWS . DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC. I ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A.I.A. . I 09 98 08 01. 9 LO NOI1VA313 HlAOS i 0.1.1.AV,00 ..,,, OVERLAY < tcp? . 141 4 * 41 - 49 .' Â«y? Â¢ fb 'L\,2 *Al 1 1 4 1 ptl j NI 11!Ilili I lili i 1111 1 1, . ' 1"01 j 'en r 7 * . * 477 11 , %, 0 . Ul 0. 11 -6 O *JN . . WAD. AÂ«, 5 - Â¥72, ik# - h r . 9 9 - 4. Z I -I 9 L 1* 4912Â©0 :r PROPOSED TOWNHOMES FOR THE MEADOWS * 22 DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC. O ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A.I.A. E lib ' S= -04; f.1 , 3. E..2 6 .4*': ' ,11!,~.-6~. Fl ;F ' : . Wt OVEâ€¢lâ€¢vit>G .-..t OVERLAY L I 401 . e \\ ---1 L1 7\\07\ . 11 ...... -Ii: iiii iiiii iii 2% 31 ***202*3% E=E:EEE=-=fy . -: 23 -: -7 Z: - > :-: -: -=- :-= -- =- ~21~;*=Eifi- -- - =~E~%% .... ....... ........ ...... M~M 44Mi hAN.HE iI~iIi~IM~*Mai~2.iciiiiii~idi~~dfli~%M%%~H jiiji@..i. 364*Ii.ii~ill.ii~*i}i~ii~ijii*Rijjiii~ji~,2,2,4,~62,2,iii:i}}i:?i:RiiÂ§Â§{i}iM{iI{iii LWE E.:.il ~iii:igii:i:IPM~i -----:-I.:.:-:-I-- -:.:-:-1 ..: -i:..'..'.:i:i::-2*:i:it:=:%:.'....'.'.'~'.'.'.'.'.''i:i.:321:M=:%:m::: =::aa=:2:5:=:4:z:=:5:i=:66'..'.~.44::-:.:.:4:5:=:%:>:.:=:a:5:2::%:..i:.::%:3:33'.'.'...'.,i:'.'.'..i.-i.i-:.6' @i~iii: 5.~i.EiE *ii i.,., ~:ii::5 :. ~~:Eiiiii*Â§i?iiii#Â§ii#iiiiii#Â§iRiiiii *@Emiii;ji*2Â§:i:i**i:i:i::~~:~::~:~:~:~:~::~:~:~:~:~::~:~:~:~:~:*:~ ::S:i:i:i~?:~:~:~Eaiiiiii:%:i:::::f'~ ~*~~~:jj~ii~j~~ :i:#Pi:i{:i:i:!ii :idii:i :idib W#A PR.dii#M.48,kk~faFE#44#9.kiii ii#EffeGE#AW#,ME.EF..42~%~E.Eii#Â§iii i:i@&82*55:5:::::: :8*i;iiiiiii :Â·: ~~~~ ~~:i;:i ~~*~* ..:. ~:i}iikjiqMIMM ... ..... ....::::....:.:.:.:....... ....... .... i:i:iii:i: : Â·. Â·: f: ::22:Â· Â·. ::it... ::ii::. :~ ~::......~~.....~~.~iii}Â§}ikiiiÂ§iii.Â§ii Eifi:ii:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:E:i:i:i:i :i:iE~iii:EEE ii*Â§iiÂ§*:%%%{i%{{iiÂ§i{:: ~ laill~--Â»9 iiiiii:~:i iÂ·....:i:i:i:i:i ~~:ii:..~Â·@i:i:i:i:. ~*:{ii:, .~ ~.}ii#~ii{iiii:iii!}ii}iÂ§iiiii{iii~ i.{{iii......~p:.,..~~~,,,~:...~.,.,.,.. ,.,~ 000 ~~-~1:~3 ~91~: *iz:i :#2.,:iti~R.i.itipi~:Rtititi.:Mititititi~i:~.ilit.i~ilitiii~ititfiitiiiii* 8&*iMit~ii:%:iil~:iEEiii:imiii~ii~i~ii~i~ii:*iijiiti~itiiitititiii*ifiti%%%12ilitiERi*litiii*i*EiERiEiERiEi iEiEiE- 3 Uiiifiii~i i~i}i~itiltiti~itilli~i~i~i E~ip.~p. ~Eki: itikiikiiiIE.I.I.I.~%Iiiliiiitiiiiii*iiiil*@ilÂ®*itiitiiiii*Mii fiEEfitilitim*EEENEER*EEE*EEEEEit**3%3%%%? :::::::::~::i:i:i:i::i:i:i:i: ~~:i:i:i::i:i:i:i: ~:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:~:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:~Â·:Â·:Â·:Â·:Â·:Â·:::::::::::::::::::::::::Â·:Â·:Â·:Â·::Â·:Â·:Â·:Â·:Â·:Â·x:>::::>:.:~Â»xi>:i~ixi:i>:ii'>iixiii>ii>xi~jii'>~ji>~jii<Ii'ii>. ~ .Iimiiii*iiiiiiii~i iIiiii i ................ ............... .....:.:::.::z:.:::uu: Â» >Â»Â»Â»Ek::2:5::::':::::fi::2:5:i:2::r'r:i5:::~.~.~i&:~.~~'.'.::':::::::::::f.5::::::::.'.'..'.:::~0~:::'.".:r~ : -liliHII 1 -6 0 1 i r 1 .. 1 \\ $ . PROPOSED TOWNHOMES FOR THE MEADOWS DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC I ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A.IA -*.H..'.. 13A31 NIVIN ............................... 08 ovEâ€¢,All.bo BW//T OVERLAY 1 .-1 Illl --4 1 . T 0--I-i.- 1-= ~ 1 ' /--- - L.-i=ZIE_~ 1 - - r I. 1 --- - 1 1/- J 1 ii:i:Bi }i Â§Â§ :I:Ii}i FifiESEE ?i:i:ii :Â·:i:is: :' i :i : :i:i:i:E:i:E: :c::~:~:ki:%~:2::~::,~::,~. > > : 2 :r :: '~ :~ :' : ii{Â§i: Ej.Â·ii:. ii{Â§}iiÂ§Ii} %Â§,i: 3ii:>1::ii}.::4 . ii}i: :iiii iiiiiiiijiijiiji:Â§Â§ii:i:ki:i:i:i:i.:. ~:I: E: .*.. :. 4 4 ii IiijiiÂ§ijii:i:i .FiijiB i:i:i{ i:I:i;iwi::~:~: ....... .:.:.:.:.................:.:.:.:...:.:.>: ::::5::::9::k::::k:i:i:242.Di:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:;:iÂ¢i:i:ii.Fii}iii&Â§iiiii .:ijiÂ¥:i:ifi?:i:i>IiiiiiFFifiii;ifii:=i:i:i:i BE:i i:%:r: i:i:i:i RiyE:i DE: 3.....: i:i:i:i: 33:6 8 :i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i*:i:i:i:ki:::::k::Â»xmoxÂ·=Â· Â·Â· Â·~Â·..v Â·Â·Â· xkkeÂ·:Â·'Â· Â«Â·kx:xÂ·:Â·- c.:Â·: f:T: Â· # .......i:i:iij~3*ij ji.:jiI liI#ii..,....:~~,....~c....:~~,..~,.~~,.,~~24~~~<~~~~~c~~. *ijii %.:5Â§}.:~f ff...E. 5%..., %%8@**%28*244:Â·~~*&4si:i:i:ii::Â·~i::Â·.i:i.:Â·iÂ·Â·::::::::.:::.:. , , ~,,,,:~~ ~ --6-nulbo~Nt ....... I. .. .... I. . ... Â»....,.,...,.,.......,...,.....,...,...,............:.....,.......,....,....,=E:...3.,..Siti:E::::4311:Qigit :..s,>i h:s:.:.::> .:.x: muil:.. :f ijfi... .,.,...~~#i*00%**0*b******:i:*i. Â· ~i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:::::mÂ· 2::i:i.::::::::i:::i Â·i:i:i:: ..... ;* {~~Â·iÂ·iÂ·iÂ·~~i~~~i~i~iÂ·i~:~i~:~:ifii:i:i:i:ifiFifiifi%Â§%*ii~iiii:i{li}jii~i ,:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~ii{iiiiijiiii?iiiiji :..:A~ :~j ...... ....... ... .. . I ..... --r~-rr...â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢ ... 9 .. joij## ji##i~ i#figifig##4%4bidi jifik:***gij~es******fift : f; SY * 3313 9 2 22 Id .......... .................. .............. I . ~~~~ ~..... 3..,..~Ski?iiEEE :Â§%: E *2*iiiÂ§it.......... ..~....4...*,.~.~1~::::::2i%*5:8**f:.:.:: ii.,:i:i:i:: ii:Â»Â»>iiii>i~ ~:i:i:i:,2 IÂ§}Ii:iI:}Ii}~Â§%{i} ~ k / 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 IVA O 1 -1, : - - 4.-il:=Ill- $ 11 1 PROPOSED TOWNHOMES FOR THE MEADOWS . -=Sal@- DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC I ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A IA, 13A31 83ddn 0E O n..1.60 S./1, OVEILAY 1 m X p- - .*044 , * 419. m lilli '- ---- lit , 11 1 1 ". 11 41 - 44 + 1 $ 1. 11 1.111111111 11 I <lilli lili 111 /. \ 44)21- CL 1?3*14-EN.2 Z 99 % . -1 X 1: . -1 10 Il l 0 m 18 10 12*1 . #'h .. P in Â» Â©# Cn 0 1 + %60 .. PROPOSED TOWNHOMES FOR THE MEADOWS . I. . DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC. I ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A.I A lili 98 02 OL 9 NOI103S 933 1 5Nll IX3 EXHIBIT G-2 M 1__ari~ ---- r =1 -7 1 - - =~-- -2. _== - ---e---1- =----In- - 1 *- Izzils/,51,/ST,Zi/,5/1962/3.*ZIE//Ef#*%:dtits*it#tiffs/Effiltfili#Eff//WaRM# 8#lt Gr _ -" --LEL*= -~._ 4â‚¬ 34 - |MEMi~LUM~li==~km ~ - 11, 1 01- - -- IL--2 A--1 ~~ ~~; . 4 1]1121%010% I t--1[2--Lislf.Â«F-- - I * %-- 1.--U . OROINA- *401.192Â· SO U_THELEMA-TlQN EAST_El=EMATIQN ICALE: 1 / 4-- 1 '-0- SCALE: 1/4Â·- f-O - EX1BILNS_EL=EyarmiN31 EXHIBIT G-2 3 , - - --|--ix - - -- TXÂ¢*16*1%12 26*Â¢6Â¢*&2â€¢k -- ..2--"7.---- ----=.I-. t==- -- -7=7=-*141.WigUrgWA4*AWA4*.2*uucculhtc\ -] UL=1-101 WEE 11'Im 1 1~ 1 ELEDUMMI _ I zzl Impal Eldi~ [[1}~ 1C===- 1 .4.-1 - --Â·----+ ~------1 U.U.LIL.I.U.L..1/H U 1 1 4 i. iEZZIZIZZLIZZINZZEZZIZEZZIZEZZIEZU 1 --, *LE-r__ELEMA-naN NORTH ELEVATION SCALE' 1 /4-- /Â·-0- - ICALE: 1/4-- 1'-O EXHIBWT 3-6 k t2Â¥ kil_ --TÂ·-Â· - - ce.clar fihin~le-5 -,zÂ·-Â·------------~ wood Fremed /ngul Grtaâ€¢,4 Window'â€¢ 73f=-1--=e~,R I 6--- 01 + mtiESE,triss<<SEE<E&*1219,0 Ill --- 11 - 1.00 woquae,Â£/ 57=944 + m Elli -21 ~ E E Tr i rn -10 M a + oh vix '~ North E.-1 Evation - Weet Elevation EXH ! BEIT I-- 5 - 0 Brick chi rnne.9 -- 5926-1 -dkx Â¢2=------=----=23-AifT~EE-- miT~-' a;E#&6~*LM - - cedar 5f>~47/ze~ ~<~ 1--22=~ 1 4>'M 11 a:4m===--,p=----==â„¢0-=t-*jood prerne.d Intul. r -- .--11 I ill Ill lilli 11 41~ ---- 15 odo,1 Â· ---- - â€ž==ch==========â€ž====ME====sa=EEe , vvoed B#vt/ Oiclf'n q _____ - BHrw7d ~ 0 77/"7 fc, * _~~~~~-L~V E--3*=1 Exi 6-Fir,5 M a Â¥=27 - 1--=1 1012 er/cw>7.2/ Facac/t-- --- tt- 11=JI-~ 1 Ci V=r~mrt. - F 371@mm \ - MaÂ¥,rialâ€¢> 171 60- 11 11 1 ---Invi IL--I I pyistrved % Ristord '" - ~:J,s~ 4=3=71==F -Ill#-lia==9 - 1 \Ex.et,Ine Leaded ar/aâ€¢Â» ler,j. ffâ€ž*d 1-Fgnotto Match En-Er-~ toor 7.6- w.kd /40Â£*Sa- AA=*criÂ·als 1__Oria(nal 1-1014.t_F) aae>+ Ele.va+ion - South Ele-vation Scale : 21={o' l - I 1 DRAPHIX INC. 275038 Vt6 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Landmark Designation, Conceptual Development, on-site relocation, partial demolition and parking variations: 620 W. Hallam (Public Hearing) Date: February 13, 1991 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Landmark designation, Conceptual development, on-site relocation, partial demolition approval and a variation for three parking spaces for 620 W. Hallam. The proposal includes the addition of a rear 2-story addition to the on-story cottage. Additionally, a $2,000 designation grant is being requested from Council. A deed-restricted accessory dwelling unit is included within the new addition, as required by the provisions in Ordinance #1, Series of 1990. LOCATION: 620 W. Hallam St., described as follows: The East 1/2 of Lot N, all of Lot O and the West 7.5 feet of Lot P, BLock 22, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. APPLICANT: David and Marie Zimman, represented by Charles Cunniffe and Associates ZONING: R-6. SITE, AREA AND BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Lot Size: 5,250 sq. ft. Allowable FAR: 3,030 sq. ft. Proposed Total FAR: 3,029 sq. ft. Max. allowable height 25' Max. site coverage 45% = 2,362.5 sq. ft. Proposed site coverage 2,346 sq. ft. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The subject cottage is one story, built c. 1890. The detached garage at the rear of the parcel was built in 1962, and contains no historic integrity. The cottage contains a number of additions, which (except for their small scale) do not necessarily contribute to the architectural integrity of the structure. PROJECT SUMMARY and REVIEW PROCESS: The applicable Guidelines are found in Section VI. Residential Buildings - Renovation and Restoration, beginning on page 47. The Development Review Standards are found in Section 7-601(D); Relocation Standards are found in Section 7-602(D) of the Land Use regulations. Landmark Designation Standards are found in Section 7-702. 3 Landmark Designation Standards for Designation: Any structure or site that meets one (1) or more of the (following) standards may be designated as H, Historic Overlay District and/or Landmark. Response: We find that this parcel meets the following standards: Standard E. (Neighborhood Character): This miner's cottage and parcel is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood (West End) Standard F. (Community Character): The cottage and parcel are critical to preserve due to the contribution made to the character of the Aspen community in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to others of like importance. 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. (*historic resource) Response: Our overall concerns focus on 1) the preservation of the historic cottage, and 2) the massing and scale impacts due to the size of the new addition. We find the mass and scale of the addition overwhelming and detail competitive to the cottage, and are recommending a restudy in order to comply with Standard 1: "the proposed development is compatible in character with the structure ...'1. Staff feels that the applicant's goal of maximizing building on the site has resulted in the significant compromise of the small scale cottage. In particular, we find that no transition has been designed to provide relief between the historic resource and the new addition. The new roof eave hangs over the cottage, and the original end of the cottage is completely disregarded. The basic premise of providing a clear separation between old and new has been ignored in this proposal. Staff is recommending a significant massing restudy in order to reduce both height (while 2 still retaining a compatible roof pitch), and bulk, and provide a badly needed break between the addition and the cottage so that the integrity of the small historic resource is not completely diminished, making landmark designation questionable. Variations: Five parking spaces would be required with this proposal, two of which are being met by the attached 2-car garage, accessed from the alley. The applicant is seeking a reduction through variation of three spaces. It appears from the site plan that room for two additional parking spaces is available in the rear yard. The HPC has the ability to grant a parking variation, provided that the site has been studied carefully and all spaces that can be provided are. While it seems reasonable that the owners would only have two vehicles, guests and employees (maid) would not be able to park on-site. Staff is recommending that should a parking variation be granted, that a reduction of no more than two spaces be considered by the HPC at Final review, and that a non-covered space be provided in the rear. The Guidelines address additions as follows: ~Locate additions to original houses so that they do not alter the facade. Additions should not be designed so that they obscure the size or shape of the house. A possible option is setting back the addition so that it does not affect the building's front." We find that this proposal does not meet this Guideline, and that a restudy is in order. Streetscape and Landscape Material: It appears that no significant vegetation will be removed, however, we require that this be clarified in the Final application. Landscaping has not been addressed in the Conceptual application. A landscape plan will be required at Final. Fences: Staff recommends new fencing consistent with page 49 in the Guidelines. open space requirements are specific in requiring fencing to be "open". Alleys and Parking: Staff has addressed parking needs under "Variations". The removal of the small scale detached garage and the construction of the new, larger 2-car attached garage does alter the alleyscape, in our opinion. However, as the existing garage is not an historic outbuilding, we are not too concerned about this issue. Parking space, in general, is a concern and should be discussed at this meeting in case massing and site planning changes are needed. Rooflines: The proposal generally meets the standards for roof pitch: the gables appear identical in pitch to the cottage. Doors: We recommend all original doors (if any) remain on the historic cottage, and be repaired as necessary. We are unable to 3 determine the style of doors proposed on the new construction. Windows: As with doors, we recommend all original windows remain on the historic cottage, with storm windows installed on the interior as necessary. The fenestration pattern proposed for the new addition appears generally vertical in nature, except for the facade. Staff finds that the window pattern on the facade does not relate to the cottage, and is competitive in nature. The second floor line of square windows creates a strong horizontal element, in our opinion. A much simpler approach should be taken on the facade. We are recommending a restudy in this area. Materials: The proposal calls for compatible materials: horizontal wood overlap siding and wood shingles, which we find appropriate. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The Planning Office feels that the proposal is generally consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The West End contains many cottages with rear additions. The proposal requests approval for the on-site relocation of the original portion of the cottage to the southwest corner of the parcel. This moves the structure closer to the street some 8- 10'. The HPC should carefully consider the compatibility of this new location in relationship to the streetscape. Staff recommends that the applicant submit a basic streetscape footprint in order to determine if a front yard setback pattern currently exists. 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. (*historic resource) Response: Staff is somewhat mixed on this. On the one hand, a rehabbed cottage certainly adds to our community's cultural heritage. On the other hand, due to the large massing of the addition, we feel that the value of the cottage in scale to the community will be diminished, if not lost. The HPC should consider this standard carefully in this proposal. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a (designated historic structure*) or part thereof. (*historic resource) 4 Response: We have addressed the issues of impact to the one- story cottage due to incompatible massing and transition of the addition, which detracts from the architectural integrity of the historic resource, in our opinion. Two important architectural features of the cottage (projecting front bay and reconstructed side porch) are necessary to highlight on this cottage, which we feel the proposal does. Porches: The proposed reconstructed side porch is a very important character defining feature of this cottage. Historic photos should be researched at the Historical Society (should any exist) to determine the exact dimensions and decorative features of the original porch. If photos or other documentation cannot determine the exact design of the porch, the reconstruction shall not attempt to be elaborate, and "guess" what it could have looked like. Based on physical evidence gathered from the surrounding community, the new porch design shall be compatible in scale, with simplified detailing. Partial Demolition Standards The Partial Demolition Standards are found in Section 7-602(C) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. 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: A significant amount of the existing structure is proposed for demolition. While we understand that the portions to be removed are not original to the cottage, they do provide a visual story of the evolution of this building. The HPC should carefully consider if: 1) the removal of these additions is required for the renovation of the historic resource, and 2) the impacts to the historic and architectural integrity 5 of the structure have been mitiqated. The Planning Office feels that the only architectural integrity the additions have to the structure is in terms of compatible scale. The removal of these makes way for the large new addition proposed, which we find does impact upon the small scale character of the historic miner's cottage. The extent of the partial demolition proposed should be carefully considered in terms of the overall character to this parcel. Relocation Standards The Relocation standards are located in Section 7-602(D) of the Land Use Regulations. All of these standards must be met before the HPC can grant approval for the relocation. Standard 1. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property Response: The relocation is taking place on-site. Standard 2. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation. Response: The HPC will have to determine if this standard has been met with review of the proposed site plan in comparison to the site plan of the block. If the on-site relocation results in an inconsistent or incompatible front or side-yard setback, then we find this standard has not been met. Standard 3. The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re- siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. Response: Please refer to the structural report submitted by Design Structures, Inc. It appears from this letter that the structure is capable of withstanding the move. Standard 4. A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond with the Engineering Department, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. 6 Response: This standard has not been met, which shall either be a requirement for Final, or (preferably) a revised Conceptual application. Standard 5. The receiving site is compatible in nature to the structure or structures proposed to be moved, the character of the neighborhood is consistent with the architectural integrity of the structure, and the relocation of the historic structure would not diminish the integrity or character of the neighborhood of the receiving site. An acceptance letter from the property owner of the receiving site shall be submitted. Response: This is an on-site relocation, therefore , the concern regards the new position on the parcel, as discussed ' in staff's response to Standard #2. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1) Recommend Landmark Designation, finding that both Standards E and F have been met. 2) Approve the Conceptual Development application as proposed. 2) Approve the Conceptual Development application with conditions to be met in Final Development application, such as: a) Compliance with Partial Demolition Standards found in Sec. 7-602(C). b) Compliance with Relocation Standards found in Sec. 7-602(D), (3) and (4). c) Detailed preservation plan for cottage materials and architectural features, including all porch details d) Detailed site and landscape plan, indicating existing vegetation and including a study of enhanced vegetation buffer between historic cottage and new construction. Fencing shall be detailed, and shall be open in nature. e) Massing model f) Material representation 3) Table action to a date certain, to allow the applicant 7 time to restudy the massing, scale, height, fenestration and transition area of new construction, in its relationship to the historic cottage. Revised drawings shall be submitted to the Planning Office no less than two full weeks prior to the tabled public hearing date. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC recommend Landmark Designation for the property at 620 W. Hallam St., finding that Designation Standards E and F have been met. The Planning Office recommends that the HPC table action (to a date certain to eliminate the need for re-noticing) to allow the applicant time to restudy the massing, scale, height, fenestration and transition area of new construction, in its relationship to the historic cottage. Revised drawings shall be submitted to the Planning Office no less than two full weeks prior to the tabled public hearing date. REVIEW COMMENTS: memo.hpc.620wh 8 ATÂ£Aa*!ENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1) Project Naive ZIMMAN RESIDENCE 2) Project location 620 WEST HALLAM - EAST 1/2 BLOCK OF LOT N, LOT 0 & WEST 7 1/2' OF LOT P, BLOCK 22, ASPEN (irficate street aririrp= , lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) 3) Present Zoning R-6 4) Lot Size 5,250 +/- 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # DAVID ZIMMAN, 4 COTTAGE AVE., MILL VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 94941 6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES, 520 EAST HYMAN, ASPEN, 925-5590 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Cor~itianal Use Concential SPA X Conceijtial Historic Dev. -;- Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline - Coneeptual PUD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin - Final RJD X Historic Dgmnl itinri (PARTIAL) Mountain View Plane - Subdivision X Historic Designation 00EikIninilmlization - Text/lbp Amrxlnent QUS Allotment Lot Split/Lot Line - CMOS Ebanption Adjustmnt 8) Descriptian of Existing Uses (rnmber and type of existing structures; approximate sq. ft.; numberÂ» of bedroams; any previous approvals granted to the property). EXISTING RESIDENCE IS ONE STORY, 2 BEDROOM HOUSE WITH APPROXIMATELY 1,4 38 SQ.FT. 9) Description of Deve]-05-rrt Applicatian SEE ATTACHED INFORMATION FOR COMPLETE DESCRIPTION. 10) Have you attached the following? x Response to Attadment 2, Minirz.Im Suhni csion Ckntents N/A Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Oontents _1_ Resporse to Attadmiant K ]E~ie~ *arxlards for Your Application January 16, 1991 Significant Development Land Use Application Conceptual Review 620 West Hallam Street Aspen, Colorado A. Minimum Submission Requirements (Attachment 2) 1. Letter from Applicant containing Owners Name, Address and , Telephone Number and authorization of Charles Cunniffe and Associates/Architects as project representative. See attached Exhibit A. 2. The street address and legal description of the site of this proposal is: 620 West Hallam Street East 1/2 of Lot N, all of Lot O and the West 7.5 feet of Lot P, Block 22, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. 3. Disclosure of Ownership is attached as Exhibit B. 4. A vicinity Map for the area surrounding the site is attached as Exhibit C. 5. An explanation of why the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the Development Application: a. A written description of the proposal and an overview of the history of the site and philosophy of the Owner for Historical Development is attached as Exhibit D. b. A copy of the Architectural/Historical Component Rating Form and Documentation is attached as Exhibit E. C. Floor Plans and Elevations of the Proposed Development are attached as Exhibit I-1 through I- 6. B. Application for Partial Demolition (Attachment 4b) 1. The original miner's cottage is to be relocated to the south east corner of the site, observing current zoning code setback requirements, as shown on the Certified Improvement Survey attached as Exhibit F, Existing Conditions Plans and Elevations attached as Exhibit G- 1 through G-3, and the relocation site plan attached as Exhibit H. This relocation is necessary to facilitate the optimum utilization of the site for the proposed development as illustrated in Exhibits D and I-1 through J I-6. The remainder of the existing house and the garage will be demolished to for the same reasons stated above. None of these structures are of Historical Significance.The original Facade of the Miner's cabin, which are horizontal wood bevel siding, wood trim and ornament, and fancy cut shingles at gable end window will be preserved. The new structure Will have similar materials to blend with the original and paint colors Will be compatible. The roof of the entire new residence, including the cabin will be cedar shingles which are compatible with the neighborhood. 2. The historical importance and architectural intent of the original miner' s cabin have been enhanced by "showcasing" it at the front of the property. The subsequent additions which as stated before, have no historical significance, and thus the impact to the historical importance and architectural integrity of the cabin is mitigated by their removal. The garage, which was built in 1962, will also be demolished. C. Application for Relocation (Attachment 4C) 1. The existing structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused to suit the lifestyle and space requirements of the Applicant except for the original cabin which is utilized in the proposed development of the property. 2. The relocation of the original cabin is the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures Will not be diminished due to the relocation. Please refer to attached Exhibits D and I-1 through I-6. In addition, a massing model of the structures on the entire half block surrounding the subject property will be presented at the public hearing, as well as photo prints of the neighborhood. 3. The structure has been determined to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation and re- siting. A letter to that effect by a licensed structural engineer is attached as Exhibit J. The foundation is masonry exterior bearing walls and interior piers with a crawl space which will facilitate access for moving the superstructure. 4.& 5. The relocation plan for re-siting the original cabin is attached Exhibit H. Since it will remain on the same site, there will be minimal impact. A bond, if required, will be posted at the appropriate time. The other issues of relocation have been dealt with in items 1, 2 and 3 above. D. Application for Historic Designation and Grant a. The Applicant wishes to have the relocated miner's cabin and site be given historic designation and is applying for the historic designation grant provided for by City Ordinance. A letter of intent by the Applicant is attached Exhibit K. b. We believe this proposal qualifies by virtue of it's significance as a component of and historic neighborhood. The house immediately to the east is historic rated and directly across the street to the south is the Stallard House Museum and Carriage House and another historically rated house at the east end of the block. The cabin and site, along with the proposed development preserves the character of the West End of Aspen because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to the numerous other structures or sites of historical importance in that area of town. E. Application for Parking Variation 1. The proposed development indicates provision of two off- street parking spaces in a garage off the alley. The Applicant believes this to be adequate for the new residence and sets forth his reasons in the attached Exhibit D. A variation from the zoning code requirement of one off-street parking space per bedroom (deleting three additional parking spaces) is hereby requested. 2. As additional supporting evidence that the proposed off- street parking is adequate, we wish to point out that the subject site is located within a two-block walking distance from established City and regional bus routes. Refer to attached Exhibit C. F. Public Notice (Attachment 5) 1. Public Notice has been posted in the Aspen Times on January 17, 1991 and surrounding land owners will be notified as required prior to the public hearing date. Refer to attached Exhibit L. G. Consolidation of Applications 1. Applicant is meeting the requirements of Ordinance 1 by proposing to provide an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit on-site as part of this development. 2. Applicant hereby requests the consolidation of development applications to minimize the overlapping of submission requirements. c:\wp5\clients\9027\applications.let EXHIBIT A 4 Cottage Ave. Mill Valley, Ca. 9492 December 29, 1990 Roxanne Eflin Planning Office City of Aspen 130,South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 re: 620 West Hallam Dear Roxanne Enclosed is the application for significant development and historic designation for our house at 620 West Hallam. The plans, vicinity map, and , massing model will be coming to you from Charles Cunniffe's office. The project itself will entail the preservation of the oldest portioi of the house, the original miner's cabin. We hope to highlight it's historic, value by removing the additions which do obscure the original shape. We propose to build a new house behind the original that will compliment the txisting structure in shape and use of materials. The details are addressed in subsquent pages of this application We authorize Charles Cunniffe & Associates to act as our represenati through the permit process. As you know, his office is located in Aspen at 520 East Hyman, suite 301. 925-5590. We are currently living at 4 Cottage Avenue in Mill Valley, California, 94941. The phone nuMber is 415 388-1077. The address of of the property is 620 West Hallam and it's legal discription is as follows: THE EAST ONE-HALF OF LOT N, ALL OF LOT 0, AND TH WEST 7 1/2 FEET OF LOT P, BLOCK 22, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. Also enclosed are documents that identify us as owners of the propet and a separate letter applying for the historic designation grant of $2000. I believe this letter covers all of the issues requested by your attachment 2 of the application. Looking forward to working with you. Sincerely, /14Â£Â·tâ€žÂ£gI *53.1-1 VI -vull-1.-F David Zimman Marie E. Zimman EXHIBIT D Some background regarding the proposed development of my house at 620 West Hallam. Even though the original structure was built in the 1890's, currently the house as a whole does not express its age or any particular arthectural style. It's historic rating is only a two. The shape of the original miner's cabin has been obscured by the addition of the bedroom on the west and vestibule on the east; the integrity of the original structure is now lost. Because of these unfortunate additions, from the street the shape of 620 West Hallam is similiar to an air craft hanger or quansset hut. The - house is not really a visual asset to the town at this time. Also, the house at this point is far from up to Aspen standards. It has only one bathroom and two small bedrooms, an out-of-date kitchen, rolling floors, and a poor floor plan due to the hodge-podge of additions that were completed over the years. However, it is a magical spot right across the street from the back of the historical museum and looking up at the mountains. I remember coming out of the house on snowy mornings and feeling I could be living a hundred years ago. Our initial design problem was how to bring the property up to Aspen standards without sacrificing too much of the character expressed by the original house. I believe we improved on the goal by actually showcasing the historical value of 620 west Hallam. Local architect Charles Cunniffe has accomplished this through his plan of removing the two side additions from the the original house. With it's integrity re-esatablished, we propose to relocate the miners cabin forward slightly, preserving the facade, and behind build a new house that would reflect the shape and roof lines of the original structure. His design does call for a lot of glass, and of course that is not consistent with 1890's miner's cabin design, however we felt the juxtoposistion would in fact tastefully highlight the new from the old. Regarding the relocating forward of the original structure: we feel that it would not disturb the streetscape signicantly. First of all it is a very small move of only about 7' from where the house is now. Also, only the original portion would be moved, the two side additions that take away from he historical value would be demolished. In fact, the proposed new house would start behind the point at which the existing structure is situated. Secondly, of the five houses on that block of West Hallam, there are only two that have historical value. The others represent a variety of styles of the last thirty or forty years. Therefore, the sli4ght moving forward of the historically -significant portion of my house would actually enhance the historic feeling of the street. The opposite side of the street is entirely taken up with the backyard of the museum and does not express the traditional front yard setbacks that are typical on other blocks in the West End neighborhood. I would like to apply for a variance from the requirement of one parking space per bedroom for two reasons: There are no residents accross the street and, therefore, this block happens to be cne of the few places in Aspen with plenty of parking. I know that the future residents would not choose to brave the ruts and mud of the alley to park when there is more than enough room on the street. Also from the street the property will be far more attractive with a small landscaped back yard and fence rather than looking all the way through over the unused parking spaces to the alley and the neighbor's trash cans beyond. Our plan does call for two garage parking spaces off the alley and that should be sufficient. Certainly in this age of encouraging greater environmental awareness, a rule that insists on parking for every bedroom of a one family house might be sending the wrong message. We would appreciate your understanding in granting a variance on the parking requirement. 1-- EXHIBIT J DES I G N 1 A STRU CTU RES, I NC essional Engineers q ~ Ell~ William H. Newell, RE, President 15 January 1991 91 W )53 )-E=*D ~ JAN 1 .. 3991 ~ Charles Cunniffe & AssociatesUL - P.O. Box 3534 CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOC. Aspen, Colorado 81612 ASPEN, CO Attn: Jan Derrington Re: 620 West Hallam Gentlemen: On 11 January 1991 we made an observation of the house located at 620 West Hallam, Aspen, Colorado. The building is one story with a crawl space. During our observation we did not notice any significant cracking or deterioration of the structural framing. The floor joists in the living room deflect when loaded, however this does not affect the structural integrity of the house. We feel that the existing structure of the house is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation and re- siting. Please contact us if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, DESIGN STRUCTURES, INC. U<&-1 11 )Â»A William H. New611, P.E. President 0uluillil#l,~41,~r 47 450.11/#4'*45> .,Â¢3-A-ek, te.4*K*$62)4 -07 â€ž #Al Â« 762 ~~15681 ~miM ~ >1394 ' 12 to-*-** -41.~'1 \04 2 -0 â€¢ V*Â·.1 ic ./&6W&/ 42Â·P. irmimitili 01111197 1/11/91 WILLIAM H. NEWELL 1660 Seventeenth Street â€¢ Suite 200 â€¢ Denver, Colorado 80202 â€¢ (303) 623-4927 â€¢ FAX (303) 623-8554 r1 Our plan does allow for the provisions covered by ordinance one. There will be an apartment in the basement with a separate entrance that could be rented to an Aspen employee. I believe the plan as submitted is sensitive to many of the concerns of the Town. We did try to preserve the historical value of the original house by reestablishing it's classic miner's cabin shape and saving the facade and by designing a new home that would work with the old in appropriate scale, style, and shape. 3 CHARLES CUNNIFFE &ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 520 EAST HYMAN, SUITE 301, ASPEN, CO. 81612 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, A.I.A. December 24, 1990 Zimman Residence 620 W. Hallam Ave. Aspen, Colorado Pre-Application Meeting for HPC Review Attending: Roxanne Eflin/Phone Conference with David Zimmzn Charles Cunniffe Janver Derrington Meeting Notes: 1. Roxanne has some concerns that should be addressed in the conceptual review submission. a. Relocating the original (central element) of the existing house to the minimum required front yard setback may disrupt the streetscape of the rest of the block. She suggests a plan and elevation of all houses on the block to show relationship to proposed development. b. The proposed new part of house may be attached too strongly to original house and may overpower it. She suggests some sort of indentation or other way of giving it more of a visual separation. (ref. 824 E. Cooper) We should present a study model at the HPC conceptual review to help visualize it. C. She is also concerned that south facade of new structure is practically all glass and may be too much of a contrast. Perhaps more cut shingles at gables? HPC is ambivalent on this issue. West facade, especially stair windows a bit too contemporary. Consider more double hung windows (typ. on all facades). North and East generally acceptable as shown. d. Roxanne thinks materials indicated are appropriate. (Wood shingle roof, cut shingle gables, l.ap siding, brick chimney, wood windows). Use double hung windows where practical. Not too contemporary for addition? e. The original house might be more authentically preserved if the "shotgun" porch on the east side is replicated for the entry roof rather than the dormer as shown. We will look at that and discuss with Owner. f. The low terrace wall and gateway may not be compatible with house. Show on conceptual study model for review. CHARLES CUNNIFFE &ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 520 EAST HYMAN, SUITE 301, ASPEN, CO. 81612 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, A.I.A. 2. For the significant development & demolition documentation; a. Structural engineer and house mover reports on feasibility of moving original house to S.W. corner. b. Document dates of later additions. 3. David will do bulk of HPC application with input from CCA. David must send a letter authorizing CCA to represent him at HPC review. 4. David should apply for Historic Landmark Designation concurrently with significant development. Apply for exemption from 1 parking space per bedroom? 5. David could be in Aspen mid-January. Can study model, streetscape, etc. be ready? CCA needs authorization. c:\wp5\clients\9027\mtgmemo.HPC %6 96 I Eon GRA1Â£Ll----- - ALLEYÂ·BLOCKÂ·22 .e 96, 9 96 7 A GuUMNL' 179 S 750 09'It'E 52Â·50 i '.946 3 , 11 97 7 115 x 42222 4%9 \\11l j i // 1- â€¢8 1 -98 0 I 00 / , , 5Â·7 i'216 1 11 EXISTING ADDITIONS TO / CONC 1 DECK Â¥ 1 ORIGINAL HOUSE AND , a LLL 1976 FREE STANDING GARAGE / 1 BRICK 74( /7Â·34/ 1\ TO BE DEMOLISHED. < ~~_ ___ ~ PAnt) j'~44~~~ * -1 , , 101*AWN 1 M li U ,-178 \11 1/1 /~L-__ 980 Â«4/ltdftu////77-323--- s ~f///AOUSE /// 4/L=in- --- 4,////P j///// l /0\Â« 7 PROPOSED FINAL POSITION OF ORIGINAL HOUSE TO BE RELOCATED t;45/5004 ON-SITE. -- 11//3 11 , li li 98. 1 . 1 /t /lt' ///1/ ./19 0 1 ./. 4 - I r Q \ r. b P Z. 0 1% 1 CorK}/0 ~B~R W, PLAS. CAPÂ·/8. ~ --- - N 7Â§0 09',l I'W 62Â·50 FOUND: *919 REBAR W PLAS. CAP LS 6868 recorrctima5 -_ --- LS 6868 ASSUMED E.LEY. Â· *11 2 ELEV : 91Â·56 ICOOPT - -1 - - -- lap 1007 Â·,Of f MIK CF C,U) ,CE. 4 0- GL~Â·tâ€¢ 1 4.l/1 1 21 TDS ~ 035 k'.4, 0 1 HALLAM ST O 0 Â£0 4 C.3 e â‚¬ MALL*1 ST ZIMMAN RESIDENCE. 620 VV. HALLAM STREET EXHIBIT I- 1 ----1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, 1 1 L O 1 40*+114 41 -".1 1 2,4,7 . 4*ZE= 822 . t 1 I--t a emis (7Med,1 :/4 -' r 10-5 26 0.14Â» 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 11 { -- --4 baecment Plan acale : 11'=101 0 Maximurn Sitt Cove-faaâ‚¬- NORTH 46 Â°/0 oP e \+ f araa alliÂ£64.clp E-, 2.60 4%Â·+0 X. 05 = 1,3W2.5 67.44. Alâ€¢ Fropoted - 2, 3 44;â€¢ *%' 4f P. A. R. Allowed For L.Â£>te &,000 904.40 6,000 6*pA+Â· 7,400 995+E + 5,4-40 + + 6.30 944+. -4000 3,030 54.Â·04: 2,260 5*A +100=12.5 x'22~ =6209*.744 9> peck# 61<en, p,~0461-0 1590 0+ All Owed p,AgÂ· EXHIBIT I--2 .. 3,- E - ~ 2- Car Gara~Z 14. - A L.?33= h t->I 1 1--6 pliL, 14*4,11 I lf-131 E- 1 11163 Ki*keâ€¢ -1 *35* r J f- -7.5 1 1 kuuuU- 1 rl Ost 4 1 . LA.- --~Er-~b ' U J- L._4 1 1.- /, ~g} E-~1 4 ~ -7.1 12.02 ..2 3 IL23/f"3 I El 4 / vm 1 1 6. 1 44 0Â£1 r-J- 1 --1 - \ _>:=flI -EME-_[~_0 1 1 2- r==51 Â· ,-5-2â‚¬ 1 13112 " I | b t 329--:. ~act r r .1 71 . / . ]4. Â· 1 1 -0, 0 -,- IICI 1 -4-kI-- 01 41 - .9 1/1- L-1- - 7 7 - t/n 9 - J E ... . htÂ· V'Â»UJU).. HallanÂ·1 64 r e e -1- N O RT+1 . AAft in Floor 8 ar? Sua It : il'= Id F A. K. Propoeed b 69Â¢.mÂ¢,nt : 1,440 91440Â· 0=xempt 3 AAain Floor.' Living Area 1 1'&4-6 94. . 630 e.. 00* 9 6 r a~= 500 093 0 6=xerÂ«) U Fper Floort 1,185 66/ =A P 4. 4-4. 1 02 9 479: Decke: 17 1 6%52 (tx â‚¬-rn p+) 1. # Driginal Nowâ€¢50 SZ---- 1-__ â€ž '7 EXHIBIT G- 1 4= Fâ€¢$20 --- 1 'Â· i r 'i J fl_ ____-_ _12 9- 1 - t=/ *8 01&00+A 1'1-=HÂ»,4 ~1 pIHINA FOOK -0 1 -7Â»- LAWN PRY = DMTHROOK - \_~- 1 .1 U -2 g St i r= I lI1 4 0 = b.0.0.,A A-IVING MÂ·06*6 I m 11 E il .--=--LI---4 7 ' - 11 - ~. M ORAINAL Route EXISTING FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1 /4-- 1â€¢-0â€¢ 1438 SO.FT. TOTAL AREA 427 80.FT. EXISTING CABIN AREA NORTH EXHIBIT I-4 - i,i' 1<; " dilj,1 2 111 lilli 14' W --!1 1~-1~iliM 1 11] 44 1--2L r. -- .-'-r . I t L.: ....4 'Amu ~ allu 4.1/ i 'tr.i 41 - '. 11 i iii. 1 i 111 i'.1~1.11.jii .liall\111- lk'lili 1- Roof Flan Scal c. 7. ic;'1- 0 NORTH EXHIBIT I-3 -f 1-- ---7 :11.1 1 1 Al 1 1 1 1 1 Bak. _1 L _N i,zwkx,41 +00+tti mi i w.l. c. , Ma,ter Q--1 F=Ptl U 66 W:!1 - 37 99 02 1 1. r 0 - c stqdcA Optn 40 Lot+J Liv,05 -1 7 1. - W J 1 Z 1 1 - I ilit_ Â·*- I Â· f 1 1 ,-Ir 6 J 4 41- 1 9 1 1 t -----4 0 k 4 U '/ k/kilj 2/ 1 Upper Floor Plan ec,ale, : t"-104' N O KTH 41..0r.-I.,8.Moust C Welton Anderson & Associates Architects February 13, 1991 SPORTSTALKER BUILDING PROJECT SCHEDULE Plan A - Three story, eight employee housing units (approx 19 residents), one freemarket unit.1.Retail store- front remodel. - May 23, 1990 HPC 3 story - Conceptual Application Jun 1, 1990 HPC Conceptual Application complete Jul 11, 1990 Â£ HPC Committee Aug 22, 1990 /' HPC Committee Sep 12, 1990 HPC Conceptual Approval with conditions Oct 2, 1990 HPC "Subcommittee" Oct 19, 1990 Final Development Plan Application Nov 28, 1990 HPC Committee, recommendations Dec 19, 1990 HPC Committee, reversal Jan 9, 1991 HPC Committee, positive recommendations Jan 23, 1991 HPC Committee, positive recommendations Feb 1, 1991 Revised Final Development Application Feb 13, 1991 REVISED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT Schedule Final Development Mar 6 - Mar 20, 1991 HPC Final Development Approval Jun 21, 1991 Estimated Completion Contract Documents Jun 24, 1991 Submittal to Building Department Aug 12, 1991 Building Department Review completed Building Permit issued Aug 12, 1991 Construction Start Ground Level Tenant Remodel/Construction Structural work begins Dec 10, 1991 Ground Level Tenant Fully Operational for Christmas Retail Season Structural work occurs throughout Sept., Oct., and Nov. for floor/wall framing. Close in shell by 12/2. Construction continues to completion. Jul 1, 1992 Construction complete Certificate of occupancy for employee housing and freemarket. Planning / Architecture / Interior Design Box 9946 / Aspen, Colorado 81612/ (303) 925 - 4576 T- .. *4 .. 1 i . 959.- r 12 41 K. - / -â€¢ -- MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Worksession: 601 W. Hallam, Vicenzi cottage Date: February 13, 1991 SUMMARY: Please begin by reading George's letter attached. He summarizes the chain-of-events of this project accurately. Just prior to the adoption of Ordinance 17, Series of 1989, George applied for and received a demolition permit from the building department for 601 W. Hallam. Ordinance 17 required mandatory HPC review and approval of demolition and relocation of all structures identified on the Inventory. Staff naturally was concerned about the potential demolition, and asked George to work with the Planning Office and Aspen Historic Trust to not demolish, or at the minimum, find a suitable new location for the structure and relocate. George has cooperated in this manner, however, we have not been successful in a relocation. Meetings were even held with the Aspen Historical Society to seek a 3-way trade of some sort, but to no avail. During all this time, George has received at least two extensions of his demolition permits from the Board of Adjustment, with planning staff's support. Even the HPC granted de facto demolition approval, simply in an effort to buy more time for the potential relocation of the structure. It is also important to note that a new City Attorney (Jed Caswall) replaced Fred Gannet and Sandy Stuller (acting attorney) during this time. It is Jed's opinion that none of those demo permit extensions were valid, as the Board of Adjustment did not have the legal ability to grant those, anyway. The final demo permit expired February 5, 1991. Now George is seeking the HPC's assistance in examining some alternatives, within the Board's purview as stated in the Land Use Regulations. He does not wish to go through an HPC review for demo approval, and is seeking the HPC's cooperation in other ways. Specifically he isÂ· seeking to have the resource removed from the Inventory, which would eliminate the need to obtain HPC approval for demo or relo. Staff explained that we are currently in the process of re-evaluating the Inventory, and if the structure does not meet the criteria to remain listed on the Inventory, then it is possible to have it removed at the Public Hearing when the revised Inventory is adopted. 601 W. Hallam has been included in every Inventory and re-evaluation since the beginning (1980); we find that the structure and site still meet the criteria for remaining on the Inventory. Another alternative is for the City to take over the structure as an affordable housing unit, leaving it on site until such time as George was in the position to develop the parcel. Notice would then be given to the City to relocate the structure off the parcel. This option would not be an HPC decision, except as* an endorsement or referral. The applicant is seeking HPC's assistance as a matter of fairness, stating that, he had the ability to demolish with the first permit and chose not to. The unit has remained rented by employees of the community during this time. Staff reminds the'HPC that certain criteria must be followed for any action they take, as defined in the code. Criteria and standards for both demolition and removal from the Inventory must be met prior to such approval by the HPC. RECOMMENDATION: This is a worksession only, to allow the applicant an opportunity to address his concerns before the entire Board. Since HPC's general direction is being sought to help guide the applicant and provide the city attorney with information on the action the HPC would like to see taken, no formal action will be taken at this meeting. The Planning Office supports the HPC's efforts in working with the applicant, while at the same time preventing a demolition from occurring. memo.hpc.601wh Comments: memo.hpc.601wh January 31, 1991 Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Aspen, CO Re: 601 W. Hallam Dear Historical Preservation Committee: Soon after I received a demolition permit on my house located at 601 W. Hallam on 5/15/89, Roxanne Eflin asked me to work with her to relocate the house. In the spirit of preservation, I agreed and together with the Aspen Historical Trust and the Aspen Historical Society we have been working in a cooperative effort since that date. Unfortunately we were not successful even with the extra time gained through the numerous permit extensions granted to me with your endorsement of May 10, 1989 (see attached memo dated 5/15/89) along with that of the then city attorney, Fred Gannett (see attached letter dated 6/9/89) and the Board of Appeals per Resolution #3 Series 1990 as recommended by Roxanne (see attached memo dated 12/4/89.) Since we were not successful in relocation and my personal situation changed to where a timely demolition was not necessary and I did not wish to give up my demolition rights, I approached the new city attorney, Sandra Stuller, to pursue the possibility of keeping my demolition rights pending relocation. She said this could be done by Ordinance (see her attached letter dated 4/25/90.) Again in the spirit of preservation, Roxanne, Amy Margerum and I agreed to pursue this course of action. They indicated that this would be done in June along with other code amendments. Well, the code amendment work didn't happen until October 1990 at which time we had a new city attorney, Jed Caswell, who nixed the Ordinance idea and claimed in hi< opinion that all my permit extensions were not valid per city code which totally contradicted Fred Gannett's opinion! Imagine my surprise and frustration! I pointed out to Roxanne that this wasn't fair especially in light of the fact I did not demolish based on my reliance on our agreed upon course of action and suggested two alternative solutions to satisfy both my need to keep my demolition rights and those of the H.P.C. to preserve and/or relocate my house. They were as follows: 1. I would donate the house to the city which in turn would lease it back to me for a nominal amount with the provision that if and when I decide to build on the lot, I would give the city 4 months notice to move the structure. 2. Have the house removed from the Historical inventory with the agreement that if and when I decide to demolish I would give the city 4 months notice to relocate. Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Re: 601 W. Hallam January 31, 1991 Page 2 Either solution would work and eliminate needless time constraints, however, the second one would be less cumbersome and easier to accomplish and administer. Plus needed employee housing would be provided in the meantime because I keep the house rented to at least 4 employees who love living there. As for the historical worth of the structure is concerned, I would like to point out that it was moved to this site in 1960 and that most of the Victorian elements were added by myself in 1970. Please refer to the attached photograph showing the house before I remodeled it in 1970. Also some concern was expressed that your acting on my suggestions might set an unwanted precedent, however, I don't believe this is a problem since Ordinance 17 is in force and would prohibit a situation such as mine from occurring again. In sum, at Roxanne's request and in the spirit of preservation, I cooperated with the city in good faith by not acting on my demolition permit and in a continued spirit of cooperation, and fairness urge you to adopt solution #2 which would satisfy both the cities and my goals. I lived up to my word not to demolish and hope that you live up to yours and continue to work with me, toward a mutually satisfactory solution. Sincerely, t George A Vicenzi Enc. MEMORANDUM To: Fred Gannett, Staff Attorney Bob Gish, Chief, Building Department From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office for the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Re: 601 W. Hallam, George Vicenzi Demolition Permit Date: May 15, 1989 As you both know, George Vicenzi has applied for and received a demolition permit for his historic cottage at 601 W. Hallam St. George's reasoning for applying for a demo permit was to "protect his property rights'I, and not be required to go through an HPC demolition review. He does not wish to demolish the structure at this time (it is currently leased by area employees), and has stated his willingness to work with all those concerned groups ~ involved. The Aspen Historic Preservation Committee, Aspen Historical Society and Aspen Historic Trust are all analyzing methods to either protect and preserve the property or provide for a relocation. At the last HPC meeting of May 10, the Committee unanimously voted as follows: "In the spirit of historic preservation and in order to have additional time to work out alternatives to demolition, we recommend that the Building Department extend for a six month period of time past the present expiration date , the demolition permit for 601 W. Hallam St." The HPC wishes to buy as much time as absolutely necessary, and under the urging of staff and the applicant, chose to take the above action at this time. Please note the Committee was specific is recommending the six month extension past the current 120th day extension date. Please inform me if there is a problem with this recommendation, and what the new extended permit date is. We appreciate your consideration greatly, and feel we should be able to accomplish both the goals of historic preservation and affordable housing. memo.gannett.gish.601wh CITY OF ASPEN 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 303-925-2020 June 9, 1989 Mr. George Vicenzi P.O. Box 2238 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Re: Demolition Permit No. 247 601 West Hallam Dear George: Pursuant to your request of June 6, 1989, I have reviewed the letter dated May 22, 1989, from Bob Gish, Chief Building Offi- cial, to you with respect to the demolition permit for 601 West Hallam. Further, I have reviewed the Aspen Municipal Code and the Uniform Building Code, Series of 1979. I am of the opinion that the demolition permit issued to you with respect to 601 West Hallam is in full force and effect. Further, Chief Building Official, Bob Gish, pursuant to the provisions of the U.B.C. and upon your demonstration of good cause, has extend the original permit by 180 days to February 5, 1990. fi,terely, A (1 -1\ 1-k~ Frederick W. Gannett ~Staff Attorney FWG/mc fb~L+MAL* /u.*<tuf .24;44-&-/ A 1-1 4 (9 70 pw oa ~ AM 64:U O-l U .4 1 7344 4-op A d 61-2.6b? MEMORANDUM To: Thisha Craig, Building Department From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Board of Appeals review of Demolition Permit Extension, 601 West Hallam Street - George Vicenzi Date: December 4, 1989 This memorandum is to recommend approval by the Board of Appeals for the demolition permit extension for the property at 601 West Hallam Street. The Aspen Historic Preservation Committee, the Aspen Historic Trust and myself as Staff for the City's Historic Preservation Program have reviewed the historic cottage slated for demolition, in an attempt to prevent such action. We are working with Mr. Vicenzi now to find alternatives, such as relocation, and need the additional time to do so. Mr. Vicenzi applied for and received his first demolition permit for this property earlier this year, prior to the adoption of Ordinance 17, Series of 1989. (Note: Ordinance 17 requires HPC review and approval of all demolition applications for historic structures.) Should his existing permit not be extended, he has the ability to demolish this cottage and displace the employee/occupants mid-season. Neither one of these results meets Planning Office, City Council, or community goals. An extension through the end of the 1990 building season will aid us in working with the Aspen Historical Society to initiate a trade, or locate a willing recipient for the relocation of the cottage. Through these joint efforts, and the extension of time from the Board of Appeals, we may be able to save this historic resource from demolition, as we have in six other cases within the past two years alone. 6 MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW DAVID J. MYLER 106 S. MILL STREET. SUNE 202 SANDRA M. STULLER ASPEN, COLORADO 8161 1 ALAN E. SCHWARTZ 003>9Â»101& FAX ~4259 April 25, 1990 APR 261990 Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office Attention: Roxanne Aspen City Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Vicenzi House Dear Roxanne: George called me again concerned about the continuing status of his exemption for his demolition permit. I advised him that David was working with Frank Peters and others to consider the development of a housing project near the water plant to accept and act as a receiving area for small structures within the City which must be relocated. I advised him that I thought this continuing project by the City would support an extension of his exemption before the Board if he cared to pursue that. He d id not like this approach. He was uneasy with having to justify a series of applications before the Board with respect 00 his demolition permit. George then asked Whether or not it was possible to codify his exemption so that there would be some official action by the City of Aspen authorizing the continuation of his demolition permit pending relocation. I advised him that any action would have to have the same degree of formality as the ordinance itself or other code provisions of the City which call for the ex- piration of permits at stated periods of time due to inactivity. The only approach that I can suggest is an ordinance of general applicability which would provide that those people who have demolition permits and own structures which the C ity i s interested in relocating and Using for employee housing may continue to preserve their demolition permits for an extended and stated period of time pending relocation. At the expiration of such time period, if the house is not relocated to the satisfac- tien of the City of Aspen, then the demolition permits would expire and all new Land Use Code provisions would apply. Again, I don't know that there are any others who might benefit by this J in J ./- .U - .. t: .a MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office Attention: Roxanna April 25, 1990 Page Two approach, but GeorgeÂ· would like you to pursue this on. his behal f. This would require HPC endorsement, P&2 review, and adoption by the City Council in ordinance form. George asked me if I would put our conversation in written form for your information and he will contact you to determine whether you are interested in supporting this approach on his behalf. Very truly yours, MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ 94'dle* ./ Se*,gll. Stuller SMS:caw - - 4 Â· ~Umk-ul CIT'Â£.0~SPEN 130 &~reet asp ~~~~~1611 30'~9*IS,m ZO MEMORANDUM DATE: November 15, 1990 TOr Roxanne Eflin, Planning Department Leslie Lamont, Planning Department FROM: Jed Caswall, City Attorney \,1 RE: 601 West Hallam (Vicenzi) Per your inquiry, I am providing you the following information and opinion relevant to the status of the demo permit issued for the structure on the above-noted parcel. The information as provided me by the Building Department indi- cates that Mr. Vicenzi first obtained a demo permit for the residence at 601 West Hallam on April 5, 1989. Since that time, several dxtensions of the expiration date for the permit have been applied for and granted. The latest permit extension expires on February 5, 1991. It is my understanding (which is supported by documents in the record maintained by the Building Department) that the central, if not only reason Mr. Vicenzi first obtained a demo permit was to "beat" the effective date of various HPC ordinances which were adopted by the City and which would impact the structure and future development on Mr. Vicenzi's parcel. Apparently, Mr. Vicenzi is under the belief that by securing a permit prior to the adoption of the ordinances governing historic structures, he has successfully immunized all future development of the property from HPC review. While an argument could have been made that the passage of the HPC ordinances subsequent to Mr. Vicenzi having obtained his demo permit did not divest Mr. Vicenzi of "rights" granted him pursu- ant to that permit, the fact is that Mr. Vicenzi did not act on the permit prior to its first expiration date. Having failed to exercise his "rights" as granted pursuant to the permit, he forfeited them when the original 120-day lifespan of the permit expired. The extension(s) of the permit did not carry with it immunity from new ordinances. As specifically set forth in the amended UBC provision under which Mr. Vicenzi obtained his /I Memorandum Re: 601 West Hallam November 15, 1990 Page 2 extensions, "no permit shall reissue for any construction or activity prohibited by law at the time of the application for reissuance'l. When Mr. Vicenzi chose not to act on his permit and, instead, asked for an extension, he took the "new/extended" permit subj ect to all then existing ordinances. The ordinances in effect when he secured the extensions of his permit require HPC review and approval for demolition or other development activity in regard to historic structures. Hence, any plans Mr. Vicenzi has for the historic structure at 601 West Hallam are now subject to HPC review. Give me a call should you desire additional clarification or information on this matter. EMC/mc CC: Amy Margerum 12 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Worksession: 204 S. Galena, The Sportstalker (possible Revised Conceptual application) Date: February 13, 1991 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant has submitted a cover letter and revised elevations, requesting Final HPC approval for the addition to the Sportstalker. STAFF RESPONSE: Staff finds that the level of detail indicated on the submitted drawings is not sufficient for a Final Development application, however, do meet the requirement for a revised Conceptual application, which is the next step. A number of issues prevent staff from scheduling this application as a Final review: 1) The HPC and applicant's inability to reach consensus during the last worksession, and the one before. Restudy issues clouding the original Conceptual approval have not yet been worked out by the applicant to the HPC's satisfaction. 2) The applicant's submittal of two proposals for consideration at this meeting, therefore requiring "worksession" format with the HPC. Final applications are those that have all conceptual issues resolved, and address detailing, material representation and all other conditions of Conceptual. PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: At the November 28, 1990 meeting of the HPC, action was tabled to December 18, with the following conditions: 1) Restudy awnings - awnings shall be window specific 2) Eliminate second floor (horizontal) line 3) Restudy west elevation mid-block recess 4) Major material samples be submitted 5) Color rendering shall be provided 6) Restudy cross section of the top of the first floor; the wide board line requires more detail The applicant has considered these conditions of the tabling action, and has responded in writing with a request that the HPC reconsider the original Final Development that was submitted (which was not approved). Revisions were brought to the December 18 meeting for HPC consideration. t On the December 18 meeting, the HPC tabled all action, requesting that the applicant carefully consider their comments and restudy the basic proposal. A great deal of discussion centered around general use of materials, fenestration, detailing, etc. Since that time, the HPC has met with the applicant in worksession format multiple times, with no consensus being reached. The last worksession in January, 1991, however, seemed to have resulted in given the applicant clearer direction to simplify the building (fenestration, detailing), create a rich, quality designed first floor storefront that is mostly glass and proportionately correct within the district, and study the use of both stucco or wood on the upper floors. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Staff finds the proposal did not address the issue of simplification. Paired metal columns appear between the storefront windows on the first floor, and the third floor windows are arched with keystone features. The detailing of the center feature of the facade is difficult to discern The cornice and lentil projections are dryvit, which staff finds incompatible within the historic district. Staff is generally not supportive of the use of stucco for this building, unless the applicant can demonstrate its compatibility in the district. This has not been done. While staff has consistently held that the proposal for a 3- story clapboard building bears no reference to the adjacent parcels and the district, perhaps another look at horizontal overlap wood siding is appropriate now that the first floor level is significantly remodeled. Please note that awnings have not been indicated on this proposal. Eliminating the paired metal columns will gain staff's support. It appears that these encroach into the public right-of-way, anyway. The Engineering Department would have to be consulted regarding any encroachment license issues. The first floor has significantly improved, a recommendation that was suggested many reviews ago. The remodeled first floor will serve as the foundation from which the rest of the building may now grow. (Note: Staff and some HPC members are interested in perhaps taking a look at a wood version of this proposal, with simple windows (no arches), traditional cornice, no columns.) Perhaps with the strength of a well designed, traditional first floor, and a lighter upper level, this building may bear reference to the surrounding historic resources without competing. SUMMARY: The HPC has continued to work with the applicant throughout numerous meetings, both full-committee and sub- committee. A great deal of time has been spent on project 2 review, and in an effort to move the project along, the HPC has voted on numerous conditions for restudy or revision, in an effort to assist in having this project meet the Development Review standards. ALTERNATIVES: Should a majority of the HPC find that this revised proposal is satisfactory for Revised Conceptual approval, then the Board may consider a motion be made to add this as a formal action item to the agenda, and a vote taken. A motion would then be required for the formal approval action. Conversely, the HPC could add this to the agenda in the same form, and vote to deny Revised Conceptual approval. Other HPC actions for consideration: 1) Table action again. Specific direction is recommended for areas of restudy. 2) Grant Revised Conceptual approval for the proposal as submitted. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC either review the proposal in worksession format and give the applicant specific direction for a future Revised Conceptual application, or vote to add the item to the agenda for formal action, then voting to grant Revised Conceptual approval with the following conditions: 1) Eliminate the arches over the third floor windows 2) Eliminate the columns on the first floor 3) Simplify the center portion of the facade 4) Consider materials other than stucco A Final Development application requires detailed design development drawings, a complete narrative of how the Revised Conceptual conditions have been met, and representative building materials. Deadline for submission to the Planning Office is a minimum of two-weeks prior to an HPC meeting. Additional conditions/comments: memo.hpc.204sg.wrksn.2.13 3 FEB - 1 2:21 - - C 14*Iton Anderson & Assodates Adl&eds February 1, 1991 Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservationist ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado RE: SPORTSTALKER BUILDING, 204 S. Galena FinalDevelopment Application of October 19, 1990, continued. Dear Roxanne, Attached are revised drawings to our Final Development application. Following HPC worksession recommendations we have evolved our design into a stucco clad residential block over an open, transparent street level storefront. The owner's development plan and F.A.R. program remain unchanged providing eight employee housing units on the second and third floor. We feel this design accomplishes the goals of the HPC guidelines for a commercial project. Following the discuss- ions of this lengthy application process we are confident that we now have a compatible and sensitive design which meets the extensive criteria for this project. This building has made a successful transition from the previously approved two story to a project which now doubles the number of employee housing units while adding only three feet to the previously approved building height. Stucco coloration and window detail trim colors will be selected by a professional colorist. We are pleased with the recent committee recommendations and feel that the committee will be pleased with the final result. Below find the criteria for our Final Development Application (continued, from October 19th.): Response to Attachment 3b Item 1. All materials are noted on the 1/4" elevations samples and photographs of major materials will be presented at next meeting Item 2. Previous submittals have shown building height and massing adjacent to other buildings. Height has remained unchanged since Conceptual Approval. Pkxr~ng / ArcNecture / Wer\or Design Box 9946 /Aspen,Colorado 81612/(303) 925-4576 - ..... 21._-"' - 1 -- * ....... - . -2209Â¥,t -~ r . - SPORTSTALKER BUILDING 204 S. Galena February 1, 1991 page 2 . Item 3. The details of this design are compatible with adjacent structures and this building serves as a backdrop to the adjacent buildings authentic Victorian architecture. It does not compete with them in materials or in detailing, yet provides a sufficient amount of details and interest to both the pedestrian streetscape and the identification of the residential nature of this building addition. Item 4. This submittal conforms to all of the dialogue which has occured since Conceptual and throughout our Final Application Process. We have specific- ally responded to materials, storefront, and window detailing interests since the December 19th meeting. At the meeting we will also present an alternate version of this building that illustrates a two story clapboard residential block over our new storefront shown in this submittal. Sincerely, . / - =Â»ft.01 imagouoth. Sven Erik Alstrom AIA C. Welton Anderson & Associates *. - - 0, i. ./ re . - 0 - - - 1 â€¢ f f fl W r--- FfeÂ·*14,3-eD ILIP|Â· CA, FLAIHINÂ® 5/4114//c Su;CD ( O-vin <ON **D MULAT ON MA i IR SHeâ€¢-â„¢,Ma 1 FMR///714/J \ D-Vir C-â€¢ce ~ '--,17 -= 1-- r- ,/ ORâ€¢417 LINfELS ~ < Igth_ 1-1 - L 1 , 1 J ;1<-3 3 -El 7 EF C Eli El O_r-1 LEFF] _117.-1 LJ-_ Ll_ [JI I .!1*.]1111'LUFA ---- WHill[E " _ 1 (*371 111111:r/ 2 ;rTIml -f]11 -'In . [1 LU 2 4 3 0 Z~ [30 r 1 11 3 96 .6 .=1 CANANte NTIL --1~ 1 /ktÂ¢JJ-*. 14- - -- -- fml-2 - ~~ liA MARVIN ,â‚¬00 \,37 1.,I,Crw4'5 â€¢41/ 1,~Bult.. Am/AL_ 1-+ANC)/AIL Â·e>-rD.0 (-r//'CAL'> STL 51'Al"3 ./*11/54,4&513/ ~ LO. e ee-35 \ 1~Enk DRA 1- SILL 2 i ST'â‚¬00 5/'CANSIoN - , A i 6 - \1 ' 41~_ - JO'll (e 4 1 . ~ ED' 5-riNS dRNÂ£ d ./.K,/9 LASTÂ· CLUATION Of 1/41- 11-0. "*81 shed na #-2.0 9 +Ct 03 2*posÂ¥ I uoe L 4 9. fl A , MeN--OUSE /i (Be-t,*c) Â·'~ FIU- 0 Iye 3 VE-*L. CEt/ I ..000 ,.,400. e-Al,Ne 3/re~ ) T. M**M- 954 rn .tic 1 - ------71. Â· ... 8=r.J - -- - 4 - 1~*. I .---li~.+1& d.) i . 11 1 L....... -N 1-- -M [211] 715[ E-] Ed piwil-r- ' ./EL 1 (1 01 Elli[JI LIEN :61 , ' -2 i --0 -n,41.D L- Jet ~+ __ PLCEL- - (~>| 1 - --1 â€¢, 1 -1 [-- ---1 (â€¢61 L - . il [3- - 4 5TUCCO , _- ORN//'24-TAL ell #. m E 011[3 E-3112 j 1 BAÂ¢T~ -/6*416 UE E 11'El UU I I STL. 6...5 (..) tt ~U-/~g~~ S~COND te:in - IM WOONS '9'Nell MI*Rv'N WOOD ! 2 a)/ e GLASS \. 2.-ro~â€¢47.T ('py- GAL~ Câ‚¬.... --- I Â·lll I 1 11 0 41 , C' =*beU 1 1 fOUTH El-CVATplg_ (ALLBY) 1/4â€¢. 1'-Oâ€¢ Inill sheet na . 626-*-9160=G Da'sapposs, i u.wziy *#21,4 -5 901 . / .t '1 9 f' 0 11 I V'y meN--OuSE Catvoâ€¢cr> 6 1 111, 0 1 1.- M.W. CUSÂ»1 0 1 5/ECIA. Ii'ZXÂ»â€¢T / 1Â·467.3 /14â€¢DON -1.4 V.c<30 A '<CON _ 1 00(PS 9 - i / ..3 Pler. 8 M T.1.1 T -44-T' /6. 1 -, J 11 1 - 39:lia,r=Â° I , 1 -: /-VT.. *, 3%47 -ON 1 I / ye'AL 4 - r...O 0- U $449& *7AL ... - - -- Fnj r-.123 [ZILI.Al-/3 J 1-ir-, 1-- 1 \ 01 *All Â»O 1 L- i [.4. 11 e 1411 -11 1 -* -i L_ _. ... Sec-0 4-1 -94/0--AL ... .19 0' ~ ~~ ~ - - - 1 -/--4-=3 50/0/1- ./.IL 47 . )40*2 64)0 I i i,17fltlf- 119.11= -1-111~-[7 -, 13AI, 6,6.- ll-111~--rEZE J H , ,*W loco i I % â€¢EN::ce 9.- L % 2 0] i , - -, - -- ' 1 11 U .1 lb*fÂ©3 /4-Â«.10, 82:1:. Ive , 6/5100 NOOD 1 S"Z. E./INT .TiÂ· Ca.UMNS Â»D w i NCIWS ./ SIUCIO 1.VER 0 - ..1 -0. Mill sheet na - MeN'/'Ollee (02.003 -<//92>CZZ\.. ALD V er-NT-9 - C OMNAÂ·/9..,I< METAL - ,-~-- 5--1-~_~-61--TE E<~ 9 I ovmel ( DRA/ 1 E-11 1. F]L =4.-rk.rr= =,-9 6.+â€ž-- 79 C inCCE ./.IL.-Cl OV,Q 1.4 r -- I 1 IIOLO,40 ~ ' 7--1[Ill u a- DErfv, T 1 E----U--1 C==! =r [ful] LIli E *- N m Â£391 37 94--U- fl -12 L]lk, Il 1 1 - e-_' 7,/ 419 --9 I d6 6444< 1 , 1 i â€¢er- â€¢1 + L .__ - it-.7,-= -47 MPL PA'QI?D ~ ~ i[-1 --- -; aLÂ© - iLL----)~ f :-2- -L~. LL..221 6=--4 1--4- --1 -~0 0. 4Ae'ENDâ‚¬L Ct~UMNS. ./ S'UCCO ..AS,q i 4 ./ 4-1 60.*g< - Er / 1 - - 111- 3 11 11 1. 1 KE:-i. ....IrljÂ·~2~,r -,-i,=~:,-2. 1 Lâ€ž----VE- Â· .z-- ..l # 4- 14 1.- . 41 |A-tri . . .7- r CUS-1 InD , 5'ycco / NEâ€¢N *M/7/,IL- ell-ICE 9%/*ON" 94NAL I T 1 1 f WINO-S HEST ELCVATION - feA_ENA ST j .- - .7 -- linill 1/Â£'â€¢ -C sheet na .. Ex 7 72 26,3/4Â»-9-2.4.6, --- 9 105 1D - --244 â€¢ 1 . . 01.- 1- I 1 L CO j 04==fj 1 1 1 1 '111 , tzi_ O - . 4>" p 40 L 4' , BU I I I / 1 Â» 1 = 0- , I 1 1 1 -44 / f - =in i Pal FRED COLUIV[N/PILASTER SPOST STALKER BU I LDI Ne 1/31/1 1 - . : 'NIIN ./ 1 = 1 ' 04 I - \\\\1 . I . i 1% A . 4\ 1\ \\-1, j - L 6 0 215 V 3" 21' 474 P V 4 . ' HORILONTAL bAND 4602 STOBEFRONT/COLUMNS SK - 1 SPORTS-TALKER BUI LDI NE 1/31/1 1 itiff ji 0-Eig i(1 1 i i j ji l 1 j i j j i i i j 11 i #~ /- i / /64 illi ' log , 119 - 10,9/ 3919V-113 Lot~t 1 1-i-i-t-'1-i ~ 1--1 i m Â¢ 1 1 2 1 SOLID , -FRAI\!60%1 1-- '- 1-- i.i i 1 1 -3 i - AeÂ©ve = ..i. 121-i -1 I i-: r-Â· L I 1 1 1 -f r - El-OREPRONT VU 1 N DOI/4 S SPORTS-TALKER JAN El , Ill I . 1 i '':iÂ· ~Â· r SYN-â‚¬1>C~~ ~ STLICCO FINISH- ON ReD INSUL, i Â·i -\33â‚¬ A 3 i 1 12___-j~ fOLUMN 55 YOND N Y OF F .1 -- -P\1003 U -T-FR,Â£\NSONÂ·,1~' OVWR NI NDOW . 1 h - WOOD TRI MI 1 1 . -~1. 1 -- INSUL EL, SIC- 5 lilli \ / l. ilt- I i l i i j i j f,li it 'v- 1- 1 ~71 .. 1 111 11 1 . \N, 1 COL UMIN S â‚¬ CORNER 1 - - SPORTSTALIKER -6UILDIN@ - 5<-4 1 1 .; i - 1-- 11Cilb<4#~-*,1,1 1--r .Ar.pi-1 ,=Tai-Y'gr.#f. In7/ 7/<87/39 )17 3~ I ..L 1491 / ~3.1.Â¢icift kg*y//g#&34~51 -7#.1 I~t>'Â· " - ~ .--ripar-: FL#Rffi13"':Â·*~2.- 29=,14-,jr.,I',fv.mi.i,049.r,~--req LE j -'-'-D P *1 : AA- Â·Â·-4~Â· ,Â· ' ' -Ir--.4 - frip>?il vi- N /L I//4 :02 24>i -2, - , .- -,9.6eÂ·:L,rf + GL~X â‚¬2~:..62*T*I44.:.Â·\lu~%;4*Z.&$.AN.*~ T.* >Â·~rÂ»~f9Â¢2102.4%- ' - -Â¥:.,:,W~el.EN&242:- Z~~JMÂ£~~$-~6 4.4 , 544 ../ J .....r--1-- ft- - . - W"~,OR:.. C .=CS--9- *<tife..BF - -1Â»Â».WNk?21 9.- V . . tur:. . . 4 , re ~jll, c,11***11-3~rt-it~*- 4,5..,/ , 1.. 1.- 4% l,L 64 Â¢ h f e : f,: 961 ...JT-FL,ji:*392"lilluell/12-ilill.. : :I.> lf*lf/. 13\ ~ 46â‚¬:LAD* 1(4,43 - ---,--â€ž 431.2,1 . Ag#./0 +6 - - Wh-&444 Â·~ 13.#<50 J.Â·77*â€žp.--. I 1 00': 44 4-J -994."Aul. . ...â‚¬. I Â· -Râ€¢,6 U*'C'~~ <t-P Â· .., ... S 2 1 < 4 jz-U, - 1 . 1.1 .4. 4*.CÂ»,3 I. . . J114, r '. . ... n AS< 4- - + r, 4166 i C. 0. >ri./4 4 Atz I Mt'04:- "-3. Ar, , 4 ~~Â»t~Â»F 0 1%'7 l 4~ 00,5---47-,- - I , +- '00.St fliziligidic./<U I.':)U# C Al, , .0&. Â· . N. ....7-# N . .an -Â·:2* 1 h<*i '9, rApud . .... U .1 .. 1 9.- L:. , â€¢P-a Zr .1 *-fwiwAwk-e.418;aL. <-2â€¢9**u/< tA~ ' ~<41TJz~1-~~~'4~~~~~~ .'pfu-'Â· B. '*e.9 k L .9-4. .... '1.-3/4'. --/ 3 lit- - 1- F J - W,9 .- ,~-AM " r 1 - .- b:1Â£-Ii- 4/.' 4~~.~Â·1 ..4~*IJ4.. 7 --- *I ~. I ~.* 0.4 ' b:- 4.4. i Â·. 1 4, I - ' -- t- *'-'B .a.U- ' 4Â·â‚¬7 -7 ...A aa, rec:-'bfUY-' A[4 â€¢ Â»,2 *.901 e.*D--'." . ," 4 I +-' U.V. 4~~ Ly -92 L q#v, <9; 9~ Â¥ v. 95-tff' V~~~- . 4.74 1451,1 1, " /A:J !1 l 11=FÂ» Why dogs bark (p. 119) (Al)3 A mâ€¢-â€¢,97 Â¢ 4 1 , ' ..4. de 61 ......' M Â· 7770'll//Mian' 1-imp .fi ...'> 24.2 ,...., 1 . 1 1, 4": ... I I . .% , (W/NU\ '.i 2. / . . 1:Q G':/ 2'.&/ . r .A P \ , 1 D . 4 ....1 : 511>,J~*JFCK) 41~. 4-0 ~14 6.1 *Mili j lilill. . 4 t .1 , 1 Â£4 4 ;.Jitt>. 1/: 3 t. 7-L. 1 . I . . EM\\ -7./. 1 r *01Â· r . t: r\\ ~ d ........i --*. \02 4Â·i ' /'i "Â·73/, -Â·, '" .â€¢ 4/4, , J -49 2. 'UNNI . 11 i . >43;7 ....4 ' 4% V i , â€¢W:via - 91 '13):,30 Â·Y;,Adi _17177' .'' k. .<--:, 0 . . ..e+4 ~ - 1 ~'::V.Ly, t,ftily\ .0 .L ..:p..aa.,VA .40. It-t-1810 ..' Â· , ~ig f f . NE 4-4-Â·40 ' L Â· ''# r...1.1, e 1 , . .. . . , 1/ . I i, j, a .- . 3 .V .. ..,44%1 .. . A C.-Â£ 'TN:'. villÂ·~ . . , 11â‚¬2/f I , I, 1.1711 40 - . 1.4 D.: 0,#E. t,/11' '111.'P ,/ tÂ·Â·'-I.. . %. U . M , .0. .1.#...' " ~ 7 1 11'' .. . :1 1 1,011 Al....1 -=& st.1 0. . . . 1 ...... \ 4*MI 21Â¥11 ..el /@1 1 . , 1 \\1, -1 -1 , I i .. 'i 2- . rr'r,,,. I ... I' 2 . 1 j 1 '~ . 1 : ..4 . . '- -'7~~~--7-,777~'~77- i ~/ 7/1 . I . r r,,.1 6/â€ž7,- Â¢ . . 4 , . . -7711:rrr T- i' l Â°%291 Â¥ . 0 -- D .,AW* 2 . , . . *. 1,14 fy' Â· . Â· - 21 14 4f'~ 1 . .p, b. -6 71 , . a .I-Â· -i 'ti i."'. ~EEb .:64, .. - 11*9/94 . tr - I Â· t' Â· 1$/11 },2 ' " -. 'L. .. ... . f -42 21 1,5,/4,/ - -2= 7 1 . .... .. ... I . . I. Mil 4 0 =12 \ v ./1//het . -Im, 11/ /' ' ./. I I -7 #1 7 4 4 F :st Â£ a 14'~ i 11 FRA/Sivi e.. /RÂ¥ *~ ~ ; Â·4' /h ....f- 11 k := . 4 +M.90'~4 '.7/ 44 - . a f 1 220 / ., '' r.'b '421 -m: . ><t V~~~â€¢1Â«/A '4.rk': 2,/12:9 .. Nt{A.:1~ . ~A ...~2:F': 1 .,f:.. -. 1 , t 0*~6~ 12 Â· g;.Â·tÂ«J A t R. 9-4 L . **'.4....lÂ¥.., 4:.:r â€žV 6.-#Av /4.1 4 (=4 Mâ‚¬ 6 11- : ' : 41#, 0./...rt E,r . 45< .....i.4.... â‚¬ 7, .. . le . 17 -,1 l. 8 - 9 - 113.151 I i 4 ... 1.1 -Ve -. Al . 4 * 44 ? li rII 7.#: ~ i 134 + '/ 41 + ' . -Â»4 4. 4 .1 1 1 . - -4 i u.1.4'"111Â¥A . .4. I .1 . - . I .. 4 d .U .L-kl 4 .:i.'' t.. '.'- ' ' ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ 11 1 -- 4 ~ i 6,2 -- ' , Unfi .r- I -- . :-1-,2 Z-' . r - -- - . ... :? 11 , 1. . - , 4 ' + ' 22.5 ' . 1 . -6.- .re ....-'2 -AÂ©-3 . 1.11 1 h . 1 : 4,1 51 .9.2 ~ :fy, .ty- - I Developer Robert Davis leans on one of the white picket fences that have become the town's hallmark. The bright pastels and varied forms of Seaside create a compelling counterpoint to brilliance of the Gulf. Seaside, Florida, located between Pensacola and Pan- on Main Street in Disneyland, onstage in Our Town or ama City, is probably the only town in the world where on-screen in To Kill a Mockingbird. They reflect our the homeowner IS required to possess a picket fence. ambiguous attitude toward the small town: while Rising and falling like the breakers of the Gulf of fleeing its narrowness, we yearn for its warmth. Mexico beyond, their posts topped with spear points or The fence pattern is a miniature version of the archi- miniature roofs, looking like little steeples or watch- tecture at Seaside and the code that regulates it. But i towers, the fences of the town represent the Seaside more than the buildings, which include work by some ideal of diversity in harmony-private space and public of the most respected contemporary architects, the space in balance. fences sum up what Seaside is: an experiment not just I They are also reassuring and familiar-evocative of in planning and design, but in living. the quiet rh,thrn of small towns and older times. They *'The new town. The old ways," runs its ad slogan. are fences like those on the squares of Williamsburg, Seaside is conceived on the idea of reviving the archi- Architectural photographs by Steuen Brooke 83 :4'1.1.! 11.It / 1- fil il It 1 ,., / Fibl //l'#ti il,il >2-49 - ' lfÂ·Â· r...~ iljJ. 4.* 12; i 'j â€¢f# 4 1'~CÂ· lie.. '01 .-*Vit, 1 4,24. *Da . D 1 y '4.. Â·*341 1 j : 40.E 'rE, 1' 9 4 . 4 -,9 7 4/ j . 24- 3 â€ž f L. I 9.Â· 4 4 1 Architects Andr6s Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, 3 Seaside's planners, fork out of their office in~Miami. . ' f ~ . tectore and streetscape fhat summarize the best of happened: it became a success and, some say, the victim Charleston, Savannah, Mobile, Key West, Nantucket of that success. 4 1! ~ and Martha's Vineyard. But it is also, even more, about Now, a dozen years after it began as a glimmer creating a town that feels like a town, where people behind the wire-rimmed glasses of developer Robert lean on their fences to chat, sit on their porches, walk, Davis, and halfway or so toward its eventual popula- meet and talk on the street, and gather in common tion of 300 houses, Seaside is facing another challenge. places as they did a century ago. Says Elizabeth Plater- The original vision was of a fairly sedate town of FE Zyberk, who with her partner and husband Andr6s simple, bungalow-type beach houses. The white paint Duany devised the town's basic plan, "the fence, the of those fences would peel and Seaside Would, before 4 1 walkway, the screen porch, create an elaboration of long, become almost indistinguishable from a town ceremony. You have a choice of realms ranging in built a hundred years ago. But what happened was increments from the public to the most private." different. More than a town, it became a model; more The town is laid out on its 80 acres in such a way that than a place to live, it became a place to visit. no point is more than a 10- or 15-minute walk from Two hotels are planned for the waterfront, includ- any other. Streets are devised to aCCept automobiles, ing one to be designed by Post-Modernist architect and but to resist their taking over entirely. The beach itself theorist Robert A. M. Stern. But there are those who has been reserved as common space, its status signaled think they will never be built. Two architects inde- by a series of varied "pavilions"-sky-blue arches, pendently explained why to me with the same phrase: pelican-topped gazebos, rangy pierlike walkways (p. 87). "The whole town became a hotel." Today, Seaside's At Seaside, the old saw that we shape buildings and houses are most often filled not with owners, but with buildings shape us is being put to the test. The ques- renters-people who have come to see what the place is 4 tion iS whether good planning can create a good com- all about. The great irony of the town is that its ideal i munity. For, just as a house is not necessarily a home, of helping folks live comfortably close together is put an assemblage of houses is not necessarily a town. into practice by people who will for the most part soon Seaside asks: Can you lure people, drawn inside by be far away. air-conditioning and television, to again sit on their Seaside is a model, a prototype, and like any lit 1. porches? Can you, through rules, replicate codes that prototype-like, perhaps, a Detroit show car, hinting at were driven by emotional force of tradition in taste and by construction capabilities? Do good fences make Phil Patton, a frequent contributor, last wrote in : ~ good neighbors-and a good neighborhood? But while these pages on the Museum of Modern Art's Seaside framed these questions, something strange "High and Low" show, in the November 1990 issue. 111 84 1 1 m A.'. = jil./ m F ..app. . â€¢ 'f ''.- M i W. f '5. + , 0 1 ,â‚¬ ~ ~1 '6?7, . 11~.t* 1 -â€¢iRÂ» C 1 1 i Deborah Berke, of Berke & McWhorter Architects, has u , i . - designed 15 Seaside homes, including the one at left. ~ Bill and Joan Wright's "transformed bungalow" has .il j clapboard siding and screen porch, Seaside trademarks. 11 4 Â·,1 future possibilities for full production lines-it may be comparatively sedate hue for Seaside, where the colors *1 1 overstated, extreme. "Rather than a perfect example," are what strike you first. Unlike the fences of Seaside, says Plater-Zyberk, Seaside "is an extreme position." unlike most of the original houses that inspired them, "It's a propaganda vehicle," says architect and Seaside these houses are not white. Some are yellow, like big owner Walter Chatham. "It has become," admits beach hotels of the early 20th century. Some are Plater-Zyberk, "a place of polemics." painted in pinks and peaches and purples never to be As such, Seaside is an indisputable success. It seen in old Charleston or Nantucket, except as part of has been almost smothered with praise. Architecture a particularly gorgeous sunset. Nothing has become t critic Vincent Scully calls it "a model that could better known about Seaside than its hot pinks and stand for more democratic housing programs." Witold purples, bright greens and yellows-its hyperpastels. Rybczynski, the author of Home and The Most Photographs of Seaside have been widely repro- ~ ~ Beautiful House in the World, has compared its inti- duced, and its resulting public image is half Victorian, 4 : mate scale to that of Siena, Italy. Prince Charles sin- half Post-Modernist. But that is deceptive. Many of the gled the town out for praise in his television series and most-published photographs show the Rosewalk area ~ book A Fision of Britain. The Prince's well-publicized of town, centered on an interior garden space of roses, aversion to modern architecture and his advocacy of winding sand paths and a gazebo. Designed by Robert neoclassicism have many of the same sources as Seaside, Orr and Melanie Taylor, Rosewalk was one of the first notably the theories of architect Leon Krier, who portions of the town to be built. consulted on Seaside's plan and has built his own It is areas like Rosewalk that have led some archi- house there. tects and critics to deride the town as cute and I made my own pilgrimage to Seaside not long ago backward-looking, a brand-spanking-new replica of j and spent some time in one of its oldest houses (above), an idealized past. Critics can point to the names of the owned by Bill and Joan Wright of Dallas. To Bill houses as evidence: Fantasia, Peach Delight, Villa Wright, the appeal was an environment like the beach Whimsey, even Precious. areas he had visited as a child, not yet encumbered with Other critics fear the town may come to resemble a T-shirt stands and noisy dune buggies. The simple, residential version of those "festival marketplaces" like traditional architecture was another attraction. Baltimore's Harborplace or New York's South Street The Wrights' house, which they rent out for a good Seaport, which, when the novelty wears off, reveal portion of the year, is a fairly simple bungalow-derived themselves to be simply shopping centers with the dec- structure, with balcony and generous L-shaped screen oration of historical themes. But Plater-Zyberk asserts 1 porch, painted the dusky blue of a jay. That color is a that it is usuall>Â· architects who are the critics. "Lay peo- 85 Seaside's harmony of the old and new 39 -7- a.=11. 1 * 1 . Tupelo Circle's gazebo has hosted weddings, parties; streets, open spaces in Seaside, serve as public rooms. ple," she says, "understand Seaside immediately. It is the . architects who say that it is regressive or 'just style. Deborah Berke, who designed the Wrights' house, did her first house in Seaside in 1983 for a fee of $500. Iii To date she has created 15 in all, and in a very differ- 4' . ent style, the market and meeting hall in the town center. Her houses are not, like some of those in Sea- fj side, technically updated replicas, but what she calls 1 - / "intelligent generic" types, aimed at "distilling familiar forms down to their essential elements." This idealiz- 1% Elif ing of the vernacular, t00, is part of the Seaside ideal. The fence requirement is only a part of a code that 5/ si A , applies to anyone who buys a lot in Seaside and builds \ -"24 a house there. The Seaside Urban Code and Construe- 1, , }1. Lf 1 4 tion Regulations, administered by the Seaside Archi- tectural Review Committee, aims for "diversity within 2 2/ 9 2 framework. Along Seaside Avenue, for instance, 12 -' - where the lots are large, the houses must have full- width, two-story porches. The idea is to inspire man- sions not unlike those of Mobile or Pensacola. And the required white fence must not only be white (or, . rather, one of 13 specific whites, listed by brand and number, from Benjamin Moore No. 103 or 105, to 1 >fl 44 13-fe.*. wÂ·14*. '. .~~' Sherwin-Williams 107-8070 or Glidden 2100) but must 4 â€¢t~f" C ~ not match any other fence pattern on the same street. e ..: Those white fences are vernacular forms-shapes originating in common customs and tradition, shapes to which builders in earlier times resorted uncon- sciously, without desire to 6e different, and yet shapes : inevitably individual, like the accents of common AÂ· Local vernacular architecture inspired Tom Christ's speech. Seaside looks to many vernaculars, though. design for a simple guest cottage, called Precious. The result is a kind of anthology of the accents or 86 1,5. ; Urban theorist Leon Krier's award-winning "tower Walkway leads down to beach at East Ruskin Street. house," left of gazebo, was envisioned as a town gate. Streets ending at Gulf have pavilions at beach entry. dialects of vernacular, mingling the dulcet tones of way. Constant building gives it a sense of almost the double-porch Mobile mansion, the drawl of the frontier-town vigor. To deal with the building code, side-porch Charleston and the Cajun lilt of the Louisi- and since contractors must be approved by the town, ana spraddle-roof. most owners rely on architects and contractors who The material vocabularies of.these various dialects have worked there before and know the system. The have much in common: galvanized steel roofs, screen contractors, for their part, regard Seaside somewhat porches, certain window patterns and siding types. wryly: sometimes with skepticism but always with Exteriors are of wooden clapboard, board-and-batten appreciation for it as a source of remunerative work or occasionally shingle. Porches must cover a given (construction costs in Seaside run roughly twice as percentage of the facade. Power, telephone and televi- much per square foot as elsewhere in the Panhandle). sion cables must be run underground. Shutters must The code is not without its critics. Berke today be real-operable-not fakes. Lights along the fences describes herself as part of "the loyal opposition" to must be Progress P5204-38 "mushroom lights," or their the code: "The code could be far less strict and still equivalent, controlled by photocell-those gentle foot- succeed. The code has taken on a life of its own, lights of the Seaside theater. But Seaside's code tosses imparted by the already existing buildings. It's self- " more modern terms into this linguistic mix as well: perpetuating. The rule mandating variety for the Anderson-type double-pane windows, heat pumps and picket fences, for example, was part of an effort vents, and modern, efficient wood stoves. to guard against the architectural "lowest common There is still another difference between the old and denominator." But this fear of bland uniformity has the new-perhaps the most important of all. In the proved unfounded. It is the danger of excessive vari- small towns Seaside takes as its models, things hap- ety, if anything, that is on the minds of those who have pened unconsciously. Seaside is highly self-conscious. watched Seaside evolve. And residents, like their houses, are themselves con- Of late, the code has been under pressure. Around stantly on display. Seaside they speak, like test pilots, of "pushing the Sometimes one gets the impression that the fences in envelope" of the code. One house that did so, Walter Seaside are there to protect the inhabitants from the Chatham's double house of rough materials-including steadystream of visitors. Walter Chatham tells of people corrugated metal siding and shop-front shutters-was walking onto his property-opening the gate of his not popular (p. 88). "They watched like hawks," fence-and boldly knocking on the door. "I was amused Chatham recalls. "People went up to Robert [Davis] by it," Chatham says, "but my wife freaked out at first." and asked, 'Is that really within the code?' " A common activity in the town is simply walking The most dramatically different building is the first about and observing progress on construction under commercial building, a structure officially named the 87 - .. -, ... ....,&6 WÂ¥95.. iti . 4 , k .1 1 1 r :,1 , -1 1 1- 1 , 11 7 0 14 4,- 1 k . f'. ik 4 01 Walter Chatham's double house of rough materials fl - stirred up controversy in Seaside 'with its unusual * 'f F#Â£44 117 interpretation of the town'S e ..., 4, r V; f. building code. A modified "dogtrot," Chatham's house actually consists of two structures linked by a deck. Dreamland Heights Building but known to everyone with diagonals and curves, Seaside's plan gives it com- in Seaside as the Holl Building, after its award- mon space. Streets have focuses. Public spaces have winning architect, Steven Holl. focus, too, and a comforting sense of containment. Holl himself wanted to call it the Hybrid Building, "Outdoor room" is one of the favorite expressions here. given its mix of functions-apartments upstairs, offices The streets are supplemented by pedestrian paths- 4 beneath, stores on the ground floor. It is a dramatic sandy, backyard byways that avoid the streets and that departure from wooden beach houses, and not every- children love-a suggestion of Leon Krier's. These had " one likes it. C i ve learned to live with it, says longtime been used in the late 1920s as a critical elemern in owner Bill Wright, a bit grudgingly.) The concrete the layout of Radburn, New Jersey, an experimental i structure is in part evocative of an Old West hotel and suburban community. in part reminiscent of the rough industrial buildings in The center of toWn faces a semicircular town green, 4 an early Fellini film. The windows of the apartments focusing for now on a tiny Greek Revival-style post suggest something in Eastern Europe; the back, with its office, designed by Davis himself. (Eventually it is to be little awnings, looks like the loading area' of a small- moved, and in its stead a tower by Leon Krier will be t town, Midwestern feedstore. - constructed on the site.) Radiating to the northeast Next door to the Holl Building is the market, and is a grand avenue, simply "Seaside Avenue," designed fitted into its back, the toWn meeting hall. This struc- for the largest houses in town, which terminates in a ture was designed by Deborah Berke, but in a very pool with Palladian pool house where you can buy different idiom from her houses. lt is a reticent build- a hot dog. To the northwest, on another axis, is the ing of simple industrial materials, such al concrete center of a planned "lyceum" loosely modeled after block and exposed steel trusses. Like the Holl Build- Thomas Jefferson's University of Virginia campus. It ing. it suggests that, as Walter Chatham puts it, "style will serve as a combined education, conference and 1 doesn't matter" in Seaside. The town, he believes, performing arts center. , could be composed of high-tech metal houses and its Across Highway 30-A, and providing a series of gate- plan would still shape life the same way. "Style is not as ways to the beach, are not houses, at least for now, but important as the plan, as creating urban spaces," a set of pavilions, one containing a pair of restrooms , agrees Plater-Zyberk. shaped like tiny temples. There is also an open-air The plan attempts to strike the balance between the market of awnings and small closetlike buildings. i individual and the collective, the unusual and the typi- Called Per-spi-cas-ity, in the summer it sells baskets i cal, the style and the code, the house and the street; and clothes and "whimsical fish widgets." 1 - that is at the center of what Seaside is about. Like the To the east range Seaside's "honeymoon cottages, fences in Seaside, the plan does not so much separate as designed by architect Scott Merrill and inspired by mediate between the individual and the community. It Thomas Jefferson's honeymoon cottage, later incor- echoes past town plans the way its architecture echoes porated as an outbuilding at his beloved Monticello. past architectures. Breaking the standard town grid The honeymoon cottages have new efficient Mitsu- 88 bishi heat pumps; some of them also have Jacuzzis. at Antioch College in Ohio, he went to meetings of the The beaches that the houses look out on are almost Socialist Worker's Party, an inclination that did not ' entirely quartz and brilliantly white. The beach pavil- divert him from going on to Harvard Business School. ions tend to blue, green or white, colors that pick up After a stint working in public housing in Miami, Davis the varying colon of the water. T6 the west and north became a developer, building small, elegant town house of the town is a kind of rough frontier of pine and complexes in the Coconut Grove area, designed in the palmetto scrub forest that is wonderfully appealing. best tropical-modern tradition. "Are you a reformed The same might be said of the built environment modernist?" I asked him after seeing photographs of outside of Seaside: the ordinary buildup of Florida some of them. "Aren't we all?" he replied. seashore, its stylistic variety summed up by crime writer It was in Miami that Davis met the young architects Elmoie Leonard as "privies and spaceships." Duany and Plater-Zyberk. They, in turn, introduced Possessing a seedy, vigorous quality, these houses, him to the Luxembourg-born, L6ndon-based Leon with boats tucked beneath their green, translucent, Krier, the theorist of neoclassical urbanism, whom the fiberglass carports, represent a more recent vernacular: pair of planners admired. In the early '80s Davis took the vernacular of the off-the-shelf, of building-supply what he refers to as a "sabbatical," traveling in Europe chipboard and green corrugated-fiberglass panel. Call and driving around the Southern United States in a red it "shack vernac." Pontiac Bonneville. It was during this time that the Walter Chatham, for one, came to Seaside imagining ideas for Seaside began to come together in his mind. it would reflect more of the "shack" culture outside. As Davis has read widely in architectural history and a result, perhaps, the housk he built, compounded of theory. It is not by accident that Seaside's street listings two adjacent sheds of corrugated steel and exposed include both a Ruskin Street and a Ruskin Place- four-by-tens, became controversial in town. Now he named after the author of The Stones Of Venice. Davis sometimes jokingly fantasizes about an anti-Seaside- was inspired also by Camillo Sitte, whose The A rt Of an apotheosis of the shack vernac he calls Darkside. Building Cities reacted against wide, straight boule- Without the surrounding palmettoed Panhandle, vards-fine for an emperor's procession, but not for the Seaside might not seem so different. But a world full man in the street-in favor of streets with ends, destina- of Seasides would lack something-a vigor, a freedom- tions, and intimate, encloied, public spaces. that the existing Panhandle culture provides. The first impression Davis makes is not unlike the It was a love of the Panhandle's natural environ- fences of Seaside: what at first seems in him reserve is ment that inspired Seaside's creation. In 1980, Robert soon understood to be thoughtfulness and neighborly Davis inherited a parcel of land from his grandfather. consideration. He listens well, thinks calmly, and As a child, Davis spent his summers in this area. Later, speaks articulately about the town and his ideas. That, .7 Â·/1 ptL . - -- Â¢ Ail ' Presiding over town center J . 10 . r Es Steven Holl's Dreamland . E Heights Building (right), Seaside's first commercial structure. Holl thinks of it as ' the "Hybrid Building" for , its mix of residences, offices .â€ž 35- and stores. Deborah Berke . designed the market at left. 90 i h. i on the beach during the day and stay up late talking 9 -1 about Big Ideas." o And, whether owners or visitors, people in Seaside 4 c . 1 do walk, talk, interact. "Your paranoia slips away," says j<. New Yorker Walter Chatham; "there is a kind of spon- taneity to life in Seaside. You head for the post office - and meet someone who suggests you have a cup of Â·coffee, and then maybe you go walk on the beach together." And despite the steady glow of the television ~. sets one sees at night, people do come out on their porches. "We've worn out three porch swings," Bill i Wright told me, "and two sets of rocken." r// Ff , W 311--Â» 1,1 Seaside's success has led to imitations and successors- r some of them by Andr6s Duany and Elizabeth Plater- Zyberk themselves. The couple's firm has designed more than 30 towns or developments, and a dozen of \ them are now under construction. "They have changed the way developers look at land use," says Deborah Berke. It is thanks to their propagandizing and the example of Seaside that a buzzword among developers 2{. around the country today is "Traditional Neighbor- Â· hood Concept." 4 It was, of course, the financial success of the toWn that, for the developer, legitimized its esthetics. Suc- cess, too, has had the consequence that prices for lots and houses have gone up dramatically-perhaps quad- View from bedroom doorway of Leon Krier's classical rupled. When I visited, Charleston House was for sale cottage evokes longing for intimate scale, past times. at $295,000; a small shotgun called Ivy Cottage, for $179,000. By contrast, in nearby Seagrove, houses of comparable size may sell for only half as much. New houses in Seaside are larger and more dramatic; I quickly concluded, is a major part of his job. He *is as the town's fame has grown, architects and owners part counselor, part court of appeals, the man to whom feel pressure to make statements with each new struc- people go with complaints and suggestions. He is as at ture. Deborah Berke notes, "The original intent was to home talking about the practical as the esthetic, warm- create a series of repetitive bungalows not unlike the ing to praise the efficient, superquiet heat pumps Wrights' house. Now with land prices higher, people f outside the honeymoon cottages, discussing on-street are building far grander homes. You're not going to i parking as a device to slow traffic, or deploring the build a $40,000 cottage on a $70,000 lot." Houses take tyranny of the traffic engineer. "Any toWn worth its advantage of every allowed square foot, "maxing out salt," he says, "has a parking problem." the buildable envelope," as architect Scott Merrill Davis' office in the Holl Building, filled with rather explains it. 1 . I stern Arts and Crafts furniture, could as easily be from 1920 as 1990. A single window abdve his desk frames a The bittersweet price of success view of the Gulf. He looks every bit the intellectual despot he jokes about being; with his wire-rims and Success has made Seaside more expensive and has no-nonsense haircut, he suggests a cultural commissar heightened criticism that it is an unrealistic enclave, a from the early, heady days after the Russian Revolution. dream town, escapist. A house here is a luxury almost From a small cluster of houses, Seaside's growth and like a yacht, and many houses bear signs with their the acclaim it has received have startled Davis and names, along with the names and hometowns of their those who were with him at the beginning. Indeed, owners, exactly as on the sterns of pleasure craft. among veterans there is a lot of nostalgia for the But with houses so expensive, the real luxury- "frontier" days of Seaside. Deborah Berke recalls a which few owners, tied to jobs or businesses elsewhere, mood that reminded her of Paolo Soleri's disciples at can afford-is to live in their houses instead of rent work on his Utopian city in Arizona, a sort of "summer them out. Even in the middle of the summer, owners camp for architects, where you would play volleyball actually in Seaside represent a minority. Had Seaside 1 1 92 been located somewhere else, had it been a bedroom the town was scotched by owner resistance even before suburb rather than a resort, things might have been it reached the floor of the meeting. To some Seasiders, different. "What is missing from the equation," says the idea had overtones of a tourist gimmick-fine for Walter Chatham, "is the workplace." Robert Davis Williamsburg or Disneyland or Central Park but not originally erlvisioned a town with more permanent resi- here. Others were more daunted by the prospect of dents, who he imagined as staying in touch with. distant equine emissions than by automotive ones. offices by computer and fax machine. But even Davis The real test may come this year, when Davis and does not expect that more than a third of Seaside's family move to Italy on sabbatical for six months, with owners will be permanent residents any time soon. a fellowship from the American Academy in Rome. Davis' joking references to himself as despot suggest "Sometime," he admits, "this place is going to have to that democracy is still an unbuilt part of Seaside's plan. get along without me." The corporation dominates the town, although, each If Seaside was once like a camp, it is today a campus. January, owners get together for their equivalent of the It should perhaps be seen as the latest example of the town meeting. Their power has proceeded only so far. American tradition of uplifting colonies-from the It was owners, to be sure, who nixed the original plan Transcendentalists' Brook Farm to Chautauqua. Is for streets of crushed shell. Bill Wright recalls, "We Seaside, then, "real life"? No-fortunately. But it is a didn't want the dust from the shells." Owners were real town-real in the sense that the lines of an archi- assessed for the additional cost of brick. tect's plans are not, but the walls built from them are, . More recently, a proposal by a private entrepreneur or that the lines of a property survey are not, but the to reduce traffic by providing horse carriage service in fences that run along them are. . 0'. Soft light accentuates the harmonious diversity of ~ plan and code have struck a successful balance between Seaside's mandated pitched roofs and porches. Town's past and present that serves as a model for the future. t .RÂ«k i ./iN 4,~r. .,9 1.AbLL==~'.L<,â€¢*a~..~~. =~~.~U'i~2.., 1~~ L ~~ }Ai4*.Â£*1,-*, 't ~~~~~'~~f ' . ..#' . F .4, 4.. 1 4. .~ # i :* Â· ,#i ' Â· Â·. 4 . . : Ir,grÂ·=4=L i 7,Â£328/ I $~A ..110* , 44 8, 9< yED 1 5 17 'U b , ... L. J , 44. , /11/ '. , 8134 1 L.6 7/// fl., F-:9 '4~ Lt , -3~- 1 . -. . . i.3 . . ./. r i 1 , 44 4 R . 9 1 14-0.8 1 . , b.1 ...11~ /f, 1/A, 4. 11 ,40'.1 A' 42Â¥.:P' fl - , -li + . . -1 a. b 1 0 4,& rtÂ¥ P ~-2. 14.4,3 '... I. 0,19/26*t,rl.:.,fu 4 j? 1 , 1 M~ 2 1 /MY /4 42 6 I j 1 7..f' 1 Ri16 13Â·~ . *P . - lor R3 r b' /19,4 , 7,7 :,1.1 .- V I *t r iL .,Q .c~*11.>vtÂ¢ , jit ;v t:'ll F . Z '41 3 1 '4. U.*, / 4, '4 1 2 f,1 Â· 1 P 11 44 tf . UNM N.5~40 - r I , .10 1 4 0 1, lf. 14 I ,{ 9â‚¬.443~241. .2 ,~t.' I# r.4 * - D 4.1 . , . . 14 ,Â·ro k ./. . ER ****************ALL FOR STATE 4./ 4 ~ 4, C 01(9 64 I. . ' ,) A t'., 311764 ELI ASPENP94 ..Â· 74 4. 0 4 M Â· t.1 I C O Â·CITY HALL BLNB I.F.71 00 Kld /0 I S *' ROXANNE EFLIN J/F 91 LA..' *74 1 6 co 81611 U 1'Â· 2 :> . ASPEN PITKIN PLANNING CO #86 4' .1 ~ 196Â« . .., 6.Â·... 0 ASPEN 9 9 ouse moving is an extraordinary technique there had been moved, and ' 4...~ for obtaining or saving an old house. Some- that another 10 percent were Am"Millimilli//HZ, where between jacking a floor and launching suspected of having been ~ house lovers have *oyed mith. No one move, *nousalyu#90,42-0 1Â¢,Q.-d~~~~ gives an adequate ovel,le* of this procesd, 86 4 â€¢Uhich':,N9*RIE'BouBe - *we have put together three articles - a case ' molen and moved to an ad- 2*-,114: 1 - history, an interview with amover, and a sulvey joining *Fn*0 n Lewes, a - to giveanyone thinking about moving an - '*urd~ ihitflifbeen moved ~25'nalmill- old house an idea of what they need to know, three times hs kno*h dist.e:#aÂ£*igwith,scnewÂ»*c, 1873 and what they're in for. 31 'hiveling church." 1- zt~'. Today, buildings of all kinds are moved because they sit , 4 - on 11nrl that Â·is more valuable without them, or because MoreThana they are in the path of highways, railroads, reservofrs, or urban renewal. In such cases, the building can often be =INIiI,,2,~ had for the cost of Change of Addre ss =--7 -- houses- however, 4 I....././.--. ......-/Li~ relocation. Old by Stephen Del Sordo ~ moved with the 8 aim of rescu- 4 or most people, a house is a sohd, Rationafy ing the build- .- ... structure. For some, however, any building, b -Â· a..ap,~ ing itself from Cm i.- -.il-~pa no matter how small or large, is simply a big ~ oblivion, or re- box that can be moved wherever they get a ~ locating it to an -~A= notion to put it. Relocating complete build- Once â‚¬ tbe foundation, tbe building sits area *Ir=tu- ings from one site to another is not a new or far-fetched on a nenvork Â«steel beams. more .,e===~::U idea, but rather a long-standing technique for "recycling" in -â€¢.ar, the materials and labor invested in construction. keeping with the architecture or where its value is ~Ar, In the days when houses were built largely by hand, increased. ~>i moving a house by roller, rail, or water made much more Most historic preservationists feel house mov- ~ economic sense than razing it. For instance, the Delaware ing should be considered only when the alter- .4-2 *a State Historic Preservation Office's recent survey of pre- native is losing the structure to demolition. This '32119 1945 buildings in Broad Creek Hundred, Sussex is especially true for historic buildings 6606: - County, revealed that 10 percent of the 600 houses where, they argue, moving dislocates the ., 0 4 Al -/P: a -r .- - c.al.L .-- *I'-*.I . -+ a. , A. , 11 #. -i Al A. .1_.aia.--1 U/*A - 11, 2 - . - - 1 r- ,U.[0~FLID == 6.- ./. - i 26 Pboto. Sarai building from its original site and destroys its relationship on the road, heavy equipment stuck in dried creek beds,XX with the surrounding landscape - often as important as and weather are what cause problems. Having moved two the building itself, Similarly, moving a building to become buildings in the past three years and consulted for several $ part of .an over-restored architectural petting zoo is also other moves, I have ~ inappropriate. Dismanding a house and moving the pieces found that the most 1 is rarely a good idea either, because much Of the original important things to L fabric (such as lath, plaster, and trim) is lost in the process, have are lots of ex- 2- and putting the parts back together-is a difficult and ex- perienced help, lots pensive task .f* of money, and lots of 1873. S In theory, house moving is not difficult An average job patience. involves positioning steel beams under the frame of the , Sit building, then raising the building and beams off the foun- Getting Help 1 . ir â€ž#r ,~ use g dation with jacks, and finally attaching wheels (called dot- There are two first 6,-g- site just like a tractor- once the decision is ~ t of 9 -=..L ~ trailer. Setbacks made to move a ~ )ld h NMF~kt- such as flat tires building: 1) hiring a ~ reputable, compe- ~ ttly k tent mover and 2) ~'.50*'-24 theF _~~ hiringa reputable, ~ --- -----====~,.~1%59fpm---~~~===-26~~~~-~ri*- competent Cook House @*) and Goldsborougb general Stable (above) b~fore tbeir moves contrac- . d. b\ tor. The house mover (also known as astruc- ... 0.- tural mover because the industry moves - 9x = --- structures, not solely their con- =.4=Â»2 tents) handles the work of - actually moving the ./2.//536,7-+L ' Â· '/1 house. The general con- - ..Â·..4.- -0 -V - ' tractor takes care of the related construction_ .d- .., ./Cal2W -:21 such as prepar~ --~ -~ -- - -~-=~ - the new site a~â€ž. - -/9- , . , .. 03- .:3334.*- 2 - JOI _~ --32-24 9 JJ building the foun- J- -6. v . 4 Â©,4 4 . ,=2* >2*144#<hfjv ' .*A -CZ -1- --1- - ./. ,~ - House moving by 1.--4 -~-:- - water *om San Diego to Coro,iado, 484, in bbe 1910s. --. 27 *2 noteci SteWai I).13ordo 5 4 4Â»Utu .Â¢,1 1."twt' Ht:,t</hal jutiet , i K Un l lii,~L,Ic/, h J E 4~aM AL[u~talt} -f dation (although some movers may contract these jobs as disconnection fees, if an A . In addition to plans and speci- well). Both crews must work closely together to coordinate fications similar to any other construction project, the new schedules and ensure that the new site is ready and tailored site may require a soil test and a survey. for the building. An architect or engineer also can be hired The Cook House.project required two moving permits to plan and oversee the project. because the roof had to be detached from the house to When shopping for a mover, find out 1) if the mover's simplify the move, but the total fee for both trailers was experience and equipment match your project; 2) what the only about $100. Permits are good for just a few days and proposed schedule will be; 3) what parts of the job the must be signed for in person. In addition, the house was mover will do; 4) what insurance coverage or bond surety 18' x 25', which meant that some bridges along rural the mover carries; 5) what guarantees the mover will make. road$ had to be carefully measured. (The narrowest was All agreements should be set down on paper, preferably only one foot wider than the house.) :168./1,9////pg"/Ii//+- in a contract. Height of the building on the trailer is also critical. The It The cheap- Goldsborough Stable stood almost 25 feet high on its $ z:Nal....~4' est price is not trailer, and all of the utility wires along the travel foute ~ always the best had to be dropped. Although this meant that homes were ~~~ ~~ way to travel. without services while the house moved along, the families - ~I My first house did not complain; instead, they came out to watch and - 11~ move was a cheer. House moving always attracts a crowd. .MIM.EMVM-l- -1 'Illed storey, plank Preparation ~ dwelling While the permits are being acquired and the new site is ---I- known as the prepared, the building must be readied for its move. First 11 Cook House, on the list is disconnecting services such as plumbing, Preparing tbe stable by blocking in wall voids which had td sewage, gas, and electrical connections. Because construe- and excavating tbe foundation. travel 125 tion varies from building to building, any preparatory brac- miles from ing must be individualized to the building according to Smyrna, Delaware, td the National Building Museum in the mover's experience. Sometimes this involves little Washington, D.C. When none of the movers from whom I more than closing in windows and doors (which are weak requested bids appeared at the site meetings, I should have points in the wall) with sheets of heavy plywood. Diagonal suspected trouble. The Museum accepted the low bid of or "X" braces made from planks and timbers may also be $5,000, but I spent a great deal of time working with these required inside rooms to prevent racking or distortion of movers to keep the project near schedule. The second the building. In the case of the Cook House, a Supporting ehugh- building I moved was the circa-1790 Goldsborough Stable frame of 2 x 10s had to be constructed to hold the gambrel in Cambridge, Maryland. It was brick, and so only one roof together. Older masonry buildings are often tricky. $15,000. However, all I had to do with this mover was show "'04//&*4/e2.EMT#la/limvilm"/1/98/*~ Ilillillilimmili him the new location, take him to the original site, and write a check for his fee. Paperwork 1 -im .4(41 7,Â¥R@L,j~ I.,- .E~ 3~ it *, - 1} enerally, it is the owner's responsibility to take care of the "red tape" needed for a move. This includes 1) securing all necessary building permits (for both locations) from municipal building departments; 2) securing all moving petrnits from state and local highway depart- ./ ments; 3) arranging police escorts, if required (some 10- ~ calities furnish escorts, others request they be hired); 4) arranging for moving overhead utility wires; 5) arranging for moving highway obstructions such as signs, markers, Tbe Cook House bad to be sectioned in order to make its 125- or lights. Highway departments also need to know basic mile journey practical. kft: removing tbe roof by crane. Rigbt information for the moving permit, including the width, cutting away tbe added wing. height, and length of the trailer and house, the number of tires or axles, and the weight of the entire vehicle with its For the brick stable, the mover removed and saved all the load. The department also will require proof of insurance windows and door frames. The masonry contractor then and a bond from the mover prior to issuing the permit. bricked in all the voids and repointed the exterior. Other paperwork is tied to construction at the old and In addition to these preparations, the owner or inter- new sites. The owner must be prepared to arrange for ested preservation group should make a complete pho- demolition of the old foundation, and pay water- and gas- tographic record of the building and the grounds prior to i 28 the move, and then one of the move itself. For historically I saw two weeks added to our moving schedule. Much \, . significant buildings, measured drawings of the entire later, after the damage to the crane was repaired, the roof ' structure will was lifted offwithout difficulty and set upon its own trailer. be valuable p records in the Taking Off % ~~ Ihe C8ok House mover gave me a few anx- rare event that nce the building is supported by steel, it can the building is be moved away from its original location. damaged or lost during the ious minutes when he took the house into l: 2 move. Having a an adjoining field, pulled out the tractor ~ , clear plan for throttle, and hopped out of the cab. He then proceeded the eventual to run around the truck and house while it moved forward restoration and without a driver. After he was satisfied with the way the use of a build- house sat on the trailer, he jumped back into the tractor Even cut, a moving bouse can be a tight fit ing is also an and parked the house. under utility lines or over bridges. important part On moving day - three months late for the Cook House of moving and one month late for the Goldsborough Stable - all of preparation: The Cook House may soon be demolished - because the museum no longer has a use for it. Once the interior of the building is secured, the mover ~~ can begin work on the exterior. Whole chimneys some- times do not move well because the section above the roof 571 is laterally unbraced and is usually in the weakest condli- ~- ---,---9***=i' E tion If the chinlney cannot be braced back temporarily, it may be easier to drop it to the roof line and haul the brick I01.4. R. .1-*//0&W--- 1-.1 ~.~re:; 2--t Z to the new site for reconstruction. (This procedure also -p/44""ig//wiwe/"/1/MELT/*d~m/A lowers the highest point On the building.) Â·Porches and -, wings do not move well either, and can be dismantled for Supported entirely by cribbing and steel, tbis seaside bouse later reconstruction or moved separately. A length of 60 awaits its new foundation. feet is usually the outside limit for a safe move. The Cook House wing, an early-20th-century addition, was left be- the drivers and escort vehicles assembled one hour prior hind. The house mover cut away enough of the wing to to the scheduled departure time. The actual timing of a allow him access to the covered gable end of the main move is usually controlled by the various police depart- body of the house. ments involved. Most request that oversized loads, such as K The next common step in the preparations is excavation houses, be moved at night or on Sundays. However, almost , near the foundation so the house mover will have room all house movers refuse to operate at night because they to position equipment under the house. The Cook House consider it too dangerous. The usual compromise is to , sat on a slight knoll with a full basement underneath, so start the move at ciaybreak or after rush-hour traffic. 1 the mover dug away one end of the knoll, knocked out The average speed of a moving house is five to fifteen the basement wall, and then built a ramp with heavy tim- miles per hour, with fifteen considered the upper limit ] bers. The Goldsborough Stable was built at ground level The first vehicle is an escort car with fashing lights and a with a two-foot-deep foundation, so that house mover had large sign announcing the oversized load. The last vehicle to dig under the building and foundation. in the caravan is another escort vehicle, usually an off-duty t The Cook House roof was removed with a thirty-ton policeman and patrol car hired for the occasion. The Cook crane donated for this purpose by a local construction House roof was considered a separate load by the highway conipany. Unfortunately, the crane operator drove off the departments of Delaware, Maryland, and Washington, D.C., farm lane to , il=Dul , and so it required its own escort vehicles. The two trailers avoid some Â·' 7 -246/6/.4 11 also were instructed to travel at least one mile apart. How- 1 muddy spots ever, that requirement was never enforced; in fact, the State ' ~ and went into a , 4., Police preferred that we travel close together. While not 16' 2,2 always required, two-way radio communication between dried creek . ~, . i bed. As the ~ lA Ir- i 'BJâ€¢â€¢.23-ika.Â¥ all the vehicles is very helpful. Someone also has to be responsible for watching the building from ground level giant crane ~ sunk into the 0 1 .1 1 -i....=~ to make sure it Clears roadside obstacles and overhead creek up to its EK,0~iia;*~~a~ lines. As a warning device, some movers rig a piece of axles - in ,~~zE~ plastic pipe as the highest point on the building - which front of the lo- lillillillilla<=1~~=~~=,3~"'~ is much safer than perching a man on the roof. cal and na- Tbesolid-brickstable moving oftbeoldfoun The house mover has to be equipped for emergency tic)nal media - dation and onto tbe road. repairs. The Cook House suffered three flat tires en route ll 29 Pboto: Ron Ziel - to the new site, but the mover was able to jack up the the holes through u'hich the steel passes are filled in, t~ house and equipment on the spot and change the tires, foundation is complete. The Goldsborough Stable mover had to stop his work Once tools and materials are removed, the job of the halfway through the move to temporarily replace a sheared Â· house mover also is finished, and he will expect the final pin on the truck's dutch linkage. Any travel schedule must check for his services. Some movers do not remove steel allow time for breakdowns or accidents. or will not set the house down until almost all of their fee is paid. Payment schedules vary from mover to mover, but At the New Site many*operate similar to other building contractors and ask ~~ die mover wiM drive 5e house to im per- ~ ~ A newfoun nce the building has reached its new home, a down payment of a third to half of the total cost of the manent location and support it on cribbing ~ dation and while the foundation is finished. There are I ~ boles lâ‚¬# 4, two approaches to foundation work: pre- ~:~ steel. building within two courses of the final height before the ~ house arrives, and building the complete foundation "up ~ to the house" after it has arrived. The choice of method depends upon the house, as well as the experience and .,ai:-1-.5KJWI#<~'1 preference of the house mover and masonry contractor. Grading is also important to allow for convenient delivery ~ of the house. Unfortunately, this is not always possible. At the Goldsborough Stable site, the maneuvering space was project up front. A partial payment may also be expected , tight due to a neighboring driveway and trees that had to halfway through the project, particula'rly if it stands to take be left in place.When the stable arrived, the mover decided more than a short time. As with all construction jobs, it's to dig back the foundation pit on all sides to gain clearance. best to keep the size of the payments in proportion with Exact positioning of the building - both location on the progress of the work. Generally, a house mover can the site and height above ground - is critical. Once the be expected to fulfill a performance contract: for example, mover's equipment is removed, there is no practical way 'Move house from point A to point B by a set date for a of reposition- set amount." While this means expenses to cover during ing the build- ~ ~ :g~ the move, if for some reason the mover cannot finish and 44 ing short of ~,~*, , 399 you have to hire another company, you do not want to rejacking have to pay twice for the same job. which will cost One part of moving historic houses which is often over- almost as much ~~r="'1116 1 - looked is archaeology at the present and future sites. With Â·81*$131- as a move. The 1512,~~ the Goldsborough Stable, the Maryland Historical Trust Goldsborough ~ lill~kid sent a team of architectural historians and archaeologists Stable mason @,@i'EN ~U... who were able to make a quick survey of the interior of was at the new m=:d~ J~ the stable, which established the original arrangement of ' stalls and work areas. site to assist the k---.--Â« ... _. mover with the - - Both these buildings were significant to their respective Time for delays - sucb as tbis broken dutcb placement of - sbould be built into scbedules. states - one was the home of a former governor and the the stable. other a rare building type - and so these two moves Even though the foundation was covered by fill scattered received unusual attention from their state preservation by the mover's bulldozer, the stable placement was perfect offices. While not every building has the history of this and the mason had no trouble building up the foundation. house and stable, the level of care they received should The Cook House's final location was not ready when it be given to every -relocated structure. Old buildings that arrived. Accordingly, the house was set on cribbing in a are moved may corner of the back parking lot of the National Building lose the integ- 71,e restored Goldsborough Stable, a bag-mile Museum. rity of being on from its original site. Once the building is in the proper location, it is sup- their original ~ ported by jacks and cribbing which are placed under the site, but they ~ ~ steel beams. After the mason has finished the foundation still represent ~ up to the bottom of the building, the jacks are released portions of our I Alll =IIA and removed and the steel is withdrawn. The new foun- history 1 ~ dation should support the house at the same points as the Stepben Del~ original foundation - "ghost marks" on the undersides Sordo is an bisto- I91MgfI.-lihpjal*H5iZA&29IaQ of existing girders, beams, and sills are all clues to proper rian witb tbe Del- ~1~ aware Bureau of ~1--Â·----- Â· foundation placement. Additional piers. pilasters, or base- ArdneologY and ~~~~8~W~.-8.IlI49~IFF;11/P ment steel beams and columns also may be needed, as Historic well as a detail to anchor the house to the foundation. After Preservation. 30 - 7% t. ?.1 /2 4 -- Â¥+15 Lai - C Â· 3 . I # ... , C - 1 ./ e i: , 2.4 4 -4/ 1 - 1 . 1 2- .- h . --46 4 Z.N.A..41...4 - 4- f 4. b . L ' J/4-~. *foOK%~<)2-/:1~~~ 4% - 7~*18 system.-5171&*e-- Â· eâ€¢â€¢g Â· . -4 ' 9 i.- . ..$ / - e-- , 7 ... To get a look at house moving tbrougb tbe eyes of.someone as it goes by. 'Ihere are rough movers. Make sure the job wbo does tbe work, I spent a pleasant In*an Summer you look over is similar to yours. afternoon cbatting witb Carl Tuxill at bis borne in Elbridge, Matching the mover to the work is important. Some re. New York. In tbe course of 35 years in tbe business, Mr. businesses justdoconcrete orbrick buildings. Others don't Tuxill bas moted structures ranging from cottages to air- like to do historic buildings. Matching equipment is im- plane bangars, including a wide variety Of historic build- portant too. Just because you're a house mover doesn't ingsfor tbe Genesee Country Museum in upstate Mumford, mean you're geared for any project. A two-storey, brick- New York. Since retiring, be bas embarked on a new career veneered building is heavier than a plain wood-frame t as publisher of The Structural building, and a house with solid masonry walls is even Mover, tbe magazine of tbe In- heavier. You have to add extra dollies to carry the extra ternational Association of Struc- weight of masonry, and the mover has to have enough rural Movers. It's a job tbat keeps dollies to do these kinds of jobs. bim in close toucb witb state-of- The majority of house movers are small, family-run busi- tbe-art moving projects across nesses with crews of up to five people. Most operate within + . -4.6.j North America, and ever "on tbe a hundred-mile radius of where they're looted, so word- mope." of-mouth and The Yellow Pages are the likeliest sources - for names. While there is no master index of all movers, i â€¢ some belong to state or regional associations that may have 6 by Gordon Bock listings Folks are also welcome to write us here at IASM for names of movers in their area. (Send an SASE to In- Gordon Bock: If someone wants to move a house, what ternational Association of Structural Movers, P.O. Box 1213, 1 should they look for in a house mover, and where can they Elbridge, NY 13060.) find one? GB: Is there any limit to the size of house that can be Carl Tuxill: It's always a good idea to get references and moved? see where a prospective mover is working or has worked CT: People in this industry are often called on to move - you can't hide the quality of a moving job. Look at his bridges, oil tanks, ships - structures much larger and equipment. Is it in good shape? See how the movers treat heavier than a house. A three-storey masonry building is the house. Are they careful? Meticulous movers might go not out of the question for somebody with the equipment as far as holding back trees to avoid scratching the building and experience. /1 31 1 Photo: Ralpb Heronema -ill----I--- GB: How do you disconnect a house from its old foun- dation, and how do you get it on the new one? CT: If the building just sits on the foundation, as many 6 A- 3 older houses do, it simply lib off. If there are anchor bolts set in the foundation masonry tying it to the building sill, 1+~ . *4, it's often possible to wrench the nuts off from inside the basement (if you can find them) or to hacksaw them off. I I - Otherwise, you can destroy a course of block in the foun- .. dation with an airhammer to cut the building loose - whatever it takes. For simple houses, it may pay to prebuild the foundation. u. -..,--.cut-:73 7,7Fere-Â»: 11*42,34 74. An Most movers and masons, however, prefer to build the Tedmical<r, no house is too big to move. 7benat constrains are foundation after the house is on cribbing so there are no orten time and money. Â· mistakes in wall locations. It is very hard to accurately premeasure the dimensions of an existing foundation, es- GB: What kind of equipment does a house mover use? pecially if there are any complicated angles. In addition, Cr: The days of wooden beams and hand-operated screw you cannot set a masonry building down on a foundation jacks are gone. All-steel wheel dollies are pretty much out- because of the irregularities left in the bottom after moving; moded too. Basically, house moving involves placing a you have to build up to it. network of steel beams under the building and then adding Y Ff| ~= GB: How does dollies to move it. The beams used most often today are _-1- ----: a house Inover wide-flange H beams rather than old-style I beams. With h~-2 4,%- .J~2~ price a job? H beams, the flangesat top and bottom are roughly as wide ~~.A IfT#1*I How do you 2~r=~2eU a~r~~-C 52 tohit '0 I.1,0,'lill#I~I~I~~ .~ ~smuilly pay n roll with less friction than steeL Most movers also use ~ CT: There is no unified hydraulic jacking systems to actually lift the building -/I'VIN~ standard for- 4,â„¢= 9 .0,> off its foundation. These systems are designed for equal ./.6*- f'MIN//liNA'.b'MFI'llimRallill'll - ..r.aeâ€ž...i,.i.....,,i.,.....~ mula for bid- travel regardless of the weight ofthe load. With this equip- ~ ding a house. nient, all points of the building can be lifted at the same Utility lines -and evenpoles-are common, moving job - rate. The tractors used to pull the house might be heavy- â‚¬*ensive obstacles, everybody has duty, diesel construction trucks, big, off-road construction their individ- equipment, or even military trucks. ual method. Some go by square footage for wood-frame For most house moves, you have to "go three points" buildings; others price heavy masonry by estimated ton- either mechanically or hydraulically. That is, while the nage, which also determines the number of wheels and building is off the foundation, it must be supported at only amount of steel that will be used on the job. Basically, the three locations so that it is not subject to any distortion, mover has to cover the hourly or daily expense of em- In geometry, three points determine a plane, which in this ploying men and equipment, so time comes into play too. case is the most stable shape: a triangle. Stability is what I used to figure that one-third of my costs were moving is necessary when you move a house so you don't distort equipment in and out of the site. It depends upon the style the building. The three points are usually three dollies or of theÂ· job and where you are. Here in the East, we tend gangs of dollies under the steel. But the third point can to carry more of the original building; in the West, where also be the fifth wheel on the tractor if it's hitched to steel there is a lot of slab construction, they tend to not carry that extends out of the front of the building. the slab. For short Schemes for paying the bill vary from a single payment - . - - , distances on a to several payments. Whatever the arrangement, it should i.. 7/A- ....#464 level plane, be determined and set down in writing before the move. - such as mov- Some states require this. A typical schedule might be a &~fiy j - t.Â·-1393*'EFF ingbackafew down payment of so much when the contract issigned, so ~ feet on the much when the building is ready to roll, and so much same lot, when it is delivered. - buildings are GB: What distances are buildings usually moved? i sometimes Cr: Ideally, they can be moved 30 to 40 miles a day, but + just rolled on a lot depends upon the building and where you are. In "Going tbree points": two dollies (atrear) and a steel craw- relatively flat, open places like the American Southwest, tbe tractor'sfiftb wbeel. ler or skate 200 miles is not unheard of. The same might be true in dollies. There Canadian provinces like Manitoba. Up here in the con- :irc also special versions of these dollies which swivel for gested Northeast, most moves are only a few miles or manuevering a building out of a tight lot. fractions of a mile long. Wire costs cut down a lot of the /- 18* 32 Pix)to courtesy ofIASM PbotoÂ· David Fischetti 0 'r .. Pboto: Penny Scbl . 2 ~jIIll.i~=/b=m~ moving in this GB: What about insurance? , 41 5 f --22--I~*-~ part of the CT: Three basic insurances are needed. Workers Com- 1 ~ ~ ~'Pill,6~-4: Country. pensation covers the contractor's employees. Automobile wire insurance covers personal injury and property damage ji - costs ' you caused by the use of the vehicles. Then, general liability 7 mean the ex- insurance is needed for personal injury and property-dam- pense of get- age liability from the general operations. None of these - ~ ting overhead cover the "cargo" or building being moved. ~ utility lines out Insurance against damage to or loss of the building itself 11 also can be obtained, but this is a matter of choice. The ~ Footings may be pre-poured, but most foun- CI': Yes. Some- moyer has to obtain this insurance because it is based on dations are built up to tbe house. one - the his experience and record. House-moving accidents do . mover or the happen, just as new buildings occasionally fall down. customer - has to call each utility company and tell them It is also a you're scheduling a move. Then, they each send out an good idea to - 1 W. 1.'.At- -P/~9 engineer who calculates the difficulty of moving or drop- decide who - -diw/- -A/, f.r tm vv - -ii ping the lines. The National Electrical Code recommends either the ~0.Lilillitil,f -:.: ..'-<* m that utility lines be 18 feet above street level, so theoreti- owner or the ~ cally this is the limit. In many communities, you are re- mover - is re- - quired to place a deposit on this estimate - which is no sponsible for .laillillillilill IIIHIII guarantee of what the actual cost will be. Crews from each the "care and ~ utility are on the route the day you move, and afterwards custody" of the ~ i you receive the bill which may be more than the estimate. building whi}e ~ Wire costs kill a lot of jobs. In my area, I've seen them the job is un- --im--Ill- go to $15,000 or $20,000 more than once. In the West, it derway. This ./7/1//3/Fi,NK,Kil=.6,yiwilidillial isn't as much of a problem because there aren't that many means insur- a lines. Sometimes, you take a longer route just to avoid ance against -0- wires. There have been cities, Los Angeles, for one, which fire and theft or ~ have permanently relocated all wires to a higher minimum vandalism. The --- -= ..",F94~~1~~~~~~ height (25 feet) along a set corridor to minimize their own nature of this wire costs. kind of insur- ~ GB: When do you consider sectioning the building to move ance depends ~ k/HÂ£ it, say, when you remove the roof or a major wing? upon the insur- ...............Xglighte...... -/-.rk' CT: Basically, the decision to cut a building depends upon ance company ~ economics. You cut when it's cheaper or more economical and the envi- Top pnpanngacutbouse. Above. steelband- 1 to move a building in small pieces, particularly for long ronment of the ing usedÂ» masono. 7 distances where the wire costs can add up. Of course, job. i cutting also costs because it requires a lot of effort to put GB: How much prep work is necessary before the move? the house back together again. If the house is going to CT: Again, it depends upon the house, the route, and judge- need extensive restoration work anyway, though, this ex- ment of the mover and other contractors. If the building pense be- ~ ismasonry and not ingood condition, the mortar condition . comes less of ~ ~_ ]~g tells you what to do. Some movers use a technique for ' an issue. masonry buildings where the building is carried on the GB: It sounds ~ '* steel banding. Steel beams are positioned on each side of like house each wall. The steel banding is then placed over the beams a 1 moving ties up and underneath the masonry wall. These stops, placed a lot of cash. - - . I ......-1<.. about every one or two feet, carry the building. Sometimes j CT: Moving a - it is necessary to place steel cables horizontally around the house requires ..- -==e,> building, to put the building under compression. Door 2 a big cash out- and window openings in the wall are usually braced at this lay.Youhaveto Skate dollies riding on steel may be usedfor time. It also depends upon the grade you're talking about; pay for wire sbort moves. slope puts a tremendous strain on a building. costs, which For a wood-frame house, though, with a clear shot - can be substantial. You have to pay the mover. Also, you that is, a move with no obstacles - you can probably ride have to buy the lot before you move if you don't already in the house if you want to. own property, and this can mean a big cash investment. A lot depends on the job and the route, but in my ex- Basically, banks mortgage the house, not the ground it sits perience, it's possible to put a glass ofwater on the kitchen on. In some areas it's more difficult to get a loan 06 un- table before you leave the old site and arrive at the new . improved land. site without spilling a drop. 1 33 Fbon , Met' ana 10**I Pboto COU* oBASM 1 . - ~ 02 -er. - 190veg*-4 Â© nsurveyof#onii#ide- 9~-334!fÂ¥ 1. I , .'1 4*nging bouse moves . 1Â·'4. . 1- r 1 X- t . 1 F fti - j. 1 1.. . Lt. 6 16, . 414 ; 1. -IMaN.. -Il I . 41 A- 1 - Â» l 41 21%-. -. :rhe Kettering House House Size: 5,000 sq.ft.; 583 tons We had given Construction: Brick and stpne Distance of Move: 16 blocks up looking for Moving Time: 4 days of move, 4 montht of work an unremud- Cost of Move: $140,000 died brick Vic- Cost of House: Free - -~al / 11/ torian house to Other Significant Costs: Foundation, $95,000; wire and other restbre and costs, over $45,000 .,.. had decided to Most Difficult Part of Move: Finishing the new foundation. ~ build new (lhe actual move went smoothly.) ~ when we Was the Move Worth It?WouldYou Do It Again? Financiallv, ===-=.~ found the 1884 the move probably wasn't worth it. Historically, it definitely was /8881*F Kettering and I would do it again. House. We were lucky that it could be moved through an - Ralph Heronema and James Alleman open cornfield, as it:s sheer weight would have buckled Denver, Colo. the road and crushed underground utilities. House Size: 12 rooms, 5,000 sq.ft. Endangered Species Construction: Brick This 1899 Distance of Move: 4,000 ft. beauty became Moving Time: About five weeks of work available be Cost of Move: $45,000 I'll cause the U.> Cost of House: Free Other Significant Costs: Basement cost of $15,000; no wire ~..._.~==i Fish and Wild- costs due to the open field life Service Most Difficult Part of Move: Convincing inspectors and county purchased the officials that the house could be moved and that we weren't crazy. 1119 land, and al] Was the Move Worth It? Would You Do It Again? Yes, and ~ buildings had Yes. ~ to be moved or - Stephen and Christine Kelleher ~ destroyed. To Massillon, Ohio move the house we had to brace the porch, remove two chimneys, and cut down several trees. Colorado Colossus House Size: 12 rooms Construction: Wood frame The 1893 Milheim House (see photo at top of page) is the Distance of Move: 7 miles largest structure ever moved in Denver. The house, in Moving Time: 3 days pristine condition, was close to demolition for two years Cost of Move: $7,000 while the property owners looked for someone willing to Cost of House: $1,200 move the building. My partner and I decided (literally at Other Significant Costs: Basement, $4,500, wire costs, $460 the last minute) to take the risk. Most Difficult Part of Move: Finding land and moving withi I % 34 ..I--- R 1- 0 LE_Wty Wlm dUUVUINJ t~ ' '- two months after buying the house. Itinerant Italianate was the Move Worth It? Would You Do It Again? Yes. 'h.y.- Even though it was built in three sections at different times *6 - Steve and Denise Raymond (cirea 1845,1870, and 1890), we moved this solid-brick . Funk, Nebr. house in one ~ .. 18*3534:21~3 a 0Â«4,421 37.1.-- 19 4 - ~* 48Â·ML~ .ligl~ piece. The 1+ 9 The Third is the Best Ill*~El'~~i-'Â·~ move allowed 4 ~ We live in a 94-year-old Queen Anne that has been forced ..4..2/128/5 G of the way of a highway by a steam-powered tractor in 111'.r 1.P-1.12.... = 4'~ Â·~ 1958. We 4. ..frmi 1 moved it again ~ , , '#!A in 1978 to save ----z--= tyâ€ž.r.Â· r 7 li....Illillim it from an ex- ~ AL-1. - us to correct most of the settling in the structure, and the : panding gas A-12-7---~ new basement is dry - all 2,500 square feet of it! stauon. #Rim~~ikti"i~ House Size: 15 rooms, 4,600 sq,ft Construction: Brick rooms, 5,050 Distance of Move: 150 feet ~ Â· ~ Consguction: =-c---1-mu,p'~'9'-~.---.~145,5,-m~*-6&~s~ Cost of Move: $97,000 sq.ft ~ Moving Time: 6 months Â· 4 Wood frame Cost of House: $1 Distance of Move: 6 blocks Other Significant Costs: None 4 Moving Time: 14 hours Most Difficult Part of Move: House mover and general con- Cost of Move: $6,800 tractor did not stay with job. They were two days on, then off for Cost of House: $1 a week. li Other Significant Costs: $13,623 for excavation, foundation, Was the Move Worth It? Would You Do It Again? Yes and wire costs - David and Donna Russell * Most Difficult Part ofMove: Delays by mover and village board. pewee valley, Ky. M The town delayed the move until the ground was frozen; the 'i mover was hard to get started (call after call after call. .) i ~. **RtA - '1 Was the Move Worth It? Would You Do It Again? Yes! Maybe HOUSE MOVING CHECKLIST again - but in another lifetime. Every job is different, but here are points to consider - Gregory C. and Carol T. Hargus before planning to move any house: St. Joseph, Ill. O Check the house for soundness. Have a structural engineer or architect review the existing framing sys- Greek Revival Revival tem if the house is complicated. Â· Built almost completely of tulip wood, this 1830s farm 0 Check zoning ordinances and deed restrictions at i the new site to make sure they permit relocated houses home had been a privately owned residence until the . - 1 1950s. In 1988 the land was purchased by a John Deere ,Â· and houses of the size you plan to move. dealership and , O Check with local transportation and building de- ~ the house, not partments to make sure they permit moving houses. zoned for com- O Confirm that the new site is accessible. While the ~ ~-=~--~--=a~' .~3 mercial use, mover will ultimately decide the route, avoid locations i 3-* was unwanted. that mean moving the house over interstates, railroads, 1 u'#*Â¥Â¥~ House Size: 10 bridges, steep hills, narrow streets, or long distances. I rooms 0 Take the time of year.into account when planning 1 ~ illl Construction: a move. Many jobs, for instance, benefit from the frozen .....Im".6...4.' Wood frame ground of winter, but masonry work may not be pos- Ilillill#IMMIill<~~ Distance of - sible in cold weather. - Move: lmile O Consider building a full basement on the new site, Moving Time: 9 AM to 7 PM both for convenience and added house value. Cost of Move: $15,000 O Plan to protect the house from intruders while the Cost of House: $1 work is in progress. Obviously unoccupied houses are Other Significant Costs: $1,500 for wire costs prime targets for vandalism and arson. Most Difficult Part or Move: Finding a parcel of land in the O Plan the move like any other large construction area. No one wanted to sell even an acre. project, Prepare thorough architectural plans and ac- Was the Move Worth It? Would You Do It Again? Yes - but count for the standard building details at the new site not immediately. such as water, sewer, and utility hook ups; foundation - Victoria Romanoff and Sarah Adams waterproofing and insulation, and site grading. 5 Ithaca, N,Y. li 1 35 1- 1 NATIONAL CENTER FOR PRESERVATION LAW 15 31ST STREET, N.W. 0 SUITE 400 0 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20007 0 (202) 838-0392 PRESIDENT EXECLÂ·TIvE DIRECTOR PAUL F. MCDONOUGH, JR. ESQ. STEPHEN X. DENNIS, Eso. PRESERVATION LATV UPDATE 1990-45 December 28, 1990 Does a Trained Attorney Give a Commission an Unfair Advantage? Florida's Dade County Historic Preservation Board is fortunate to have had consistent legal advice since 1983 from one individual, Assistant County Attorney Thomas W. Logue. Logue is the author of "Avoiding Takings Challenges While Protecting Historic Properties From Demolition" in the Summer 1990 issue of the Stetson Law Review. If Logue's article is typical of the advice he has provided to the Dade County commission, that commission is in extremely good hands. Certainly any local preservation commission needs to I have readily available and unquestionably competent legal advice. But this may be a more important precaution in Florida than in some other states, for Florida is a state lacking a state supreme court decision interpreting (and upholding) a local historic preservation ordinance. This single fact means that every preservation commission in Florida is constantly on the line, lest it inadvertently commit a procedural error or through bad advice (or no advice at all) render a decision which exceeds its basic' authority. Unhappy property owners in other states have been known to file Suit against a preservation commission. Until the Florida courts create a body of precedents which commissions can rely on, Florida commissions do well to rely heavily on advice from a city or county attorney, or from an attorney known as a specialist in both historic preservation law and the law of the specific state. Logue's article states at the outset (and in summary): At the heart of the American structure for historic preservation is the ability of local preservation boards to regulate and, if necessary, prevent the demolition of historic properties. .... [W]e should keep in mind the words of Charles Crandon, an early pioneer in Dade County, Florida. Looking back on the incredible growth in Florida in his lifetime, he warned that unless we develop a "broad workable policy of preserving what we have, we will end up having nothing that anyone really wants." TEE "PIBIEIVATION LAW UPDATE" SERIES IS MADE POSSIBLE IN PAIT BY A GIANT PROM TE)! J, M. HAPLAN FUND, ' C NATIONALâ‚¬ ENTER FOR PREMERVATION LAW Logue's article shows a thorough familiarity with the extensive body of court decisions interpreting the powers of local historic preservation commissions. Logue has obviously read both the cases and commentary on them, such as summaries by the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the Preservation Law Reporter or the National Center's "Preservation Law Updates." The lead-time needed for a law review article almost guarantees that some point addressed in an article will be less than current by the time the article is printed. Cases involving the regulation of historic religious properties have sprouted across the country, and Logue's discussion of this issue is already dated. But the article offered an up-to-the-minute treatment of the law on interior landmark designations, an issue of interest to many Florida commissions (see "Update" 1988-40). After dealing quickly with the possible "ripeness" defense against a challenge to a preservation commission decision, Logue splits his article into sections dealing with "legitimate state interest" and "economically viable use": The Supreme Court of the United States stated that a land use regulation, such as historic preservation, does not constitute a taking if it: (1) substantially advances a legitimate state interest, and (2) does not deny an owner all economically viable use of his land. The Logue article will make it much easier for a threatened Florida commission to defend itself in the future. Logue quietly but thoroughly covers several key issues, and articulates the standards he obviously expects Florida courts to follow: At the designation stage, the [board] should concentrate solely on whether the property is significant enough to deserve designation. If it is, the property should be designated. Only after the property is designated should the Board consider the owner's application for a certificate to demolish or for a variance based on hardship. At the hearing on the application for a certificate of appropriateness or for a variance, the board will have to determine whether the owner has proved that the continued regulation of the property deprives the owner of "economical use." The cases are clear that the owner has a high burden of proof in this regard and must show that the present use under the regulation is uneconomical, that renovation and rehabilitation are technically or economically unfeasible, and that the property cannot be profitably sold or rented. Unless this burden of proof is met, the owner cannot claim that a denial of a permit to demolish is a taking. (Membership in the National Center for 1990 is $65 and entitles one to receive the series of forty-eight "Preservation Law Updates" which the Center will be issuing during 1990.) NATIONAL CENTER FOR PRESERVATION LAZV i 15 316:r STREET, N.W. 0 SUITE 400 0 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2 0007 â€¢ (202) 338-0392 PRESIDENT FEB - 5 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PAUL F. MCI)ONOUGH, JR., ESQ. STEPHEN X. DENNIS. ESQ. PRESERVATION LATV UPDATE 1990-44 December 28, 1990 Historic Districts in Maryland County Threatened The opposition of one property owner in Talbot County, Maryland to the asserted jurisdiction of the Talbot County Historic District Commission has called into question the Commission's authority over all existing historic districts in the county. The owner Of the 76-acre "Fairview" property challenged the Commission's authority to review proposed new fencing and lamp posts. The existing Talbot County preservation ordinance tracks the original language of Maryland's enabling legislation for local ' historic preservation commissions (Article 668): Before the construction, alteration, reconstruction, moving or demolition of any structure is made within the district, if any changes are involved which would affect the exterior appearance of a structure visible or intended to be visible from an adjacent public way in the district, the person proposing to make the construction or change shall file with the commission an application for permission... (emphasis added). Unfortunately, when Article 66B was amended in 1990 to delete the underlined language of the Talbot County ordinance, no conforming change was made in the preservation ordinance of a county where "historic districts" are large single-owner properties. many The Talbot County Board of Appeals ruled on December 21, 1990 in Appeal 817 that this language remains in the Talbot County preservation ordinance: Talbot County has adopted the charter form of government under the Maryland Constitution, Article XI-A. Having adopted the charter form of government the enabling statute for historic district zoning contained in Article 668 does not apply to Talbot County. Therefore, changes in the State's enabling statute do not automatically change Talbot County's historic district provisions and the language of the County ordinance controls in this case. TME "PIBIEIVATION LAW UPDATE" SERIES IS MADE POSSIBLE IN PART BY A GRANT FROM THE J. M, KAPLAN FUND, 1 N ATI O N A 1, C ' E vr r T' TO R P it }C M. E R VATI O N LA ~ The Talbot County Board of Appeals ruled that it could not delete the problem language from the county preservation / ordinance in order to interpret the ordinance, because of the possibility that somewhere in the county there might be a single- owner property containing a public way: A zoning ordinance must be interpreted reasonably with regard to the objects sought to be obtained by the ordinance. Where the intention of the legislature is clear in the language used then the statute must be interpreted in keeping with its evident spirit, intent and reason. If, however, the intent of the legislature is not clear then the reviewing body cannot speculate upon any supposed intention not expressed in the ordinance. ... When a drafting error makes the plain language of an ordinance meaningless the reviewing body can interpret the ordinance to give effect to the clear intent of the legislature. If its terms will permit, a zoning ordinance must be given an interpretation which makes it valid rather than invalid. . . . In this case the Talbot County Council is the legislature which adopted the County historic district zoning provisions and the Board of Appeals is the reviewing body. The only guide to the Council's intent is the plain language of the ordinance itself. If an interpretation by the Board that the ordinance does not apply to the Appellant's property were to make the historic district ordinance invalid or meaningless, then the Board could reasonably overlook its clear language. However, that is not the case. While all of the properties designated as historic districts within Talbot County under this ordinance so far are single owner properties, it is not clear that none contain public ways. It is certainly conceivable that a single owner property designated as an historic district could have a public way within its boundaries. Further, there is no reason under the ordinance that an historic district within Talbot County need be a single owner property. . . . The plain language of the ordinance requires that a structure must be visible or intended to be visible from an adjacent public way in the district before alterations are subject to approval by the Historic District Commission. The application of this plain language of the ordinance in the circumstances of this case does not render it invalid and the Board of Appeals cannot infer a meaning to the ordinance not clearly expressed by the County Council. This decision highlights two problems: (1) the failure of a county historic preservation commission to realize that it operates in a county not subject to the basic state enabling legislation; and (2) the omission of nearby "public ways" from the original designation of a local "historic district." (Membership in the National Center for 1990 is $65 and entitles one to receive the series of forty-eight "Preservation Law Updates" which the Center will be issuing during 1990.) NATIONAL CENTER FOR PRESERVATION LAW 15 {31ST STREET, N.W. I SUITE 400 â€¢ WASHINGTON, D.G. 20007 0 (202) 338-0392 PRESIDENT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PAUL F. MCDONOUGH, JR., ESQ. STEPHEN N. DENNIS, ESQ. PRESERVATION LAA- UPDATE 1990-45 December 28, 1990 Amoco Unable to Avoid Penalties for Improper Rehabilitation A lengthy and important decision from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma in Amoco Production Company v. Department of Interior (No. 89-C-209-B, decided December 18, 1990) adds two important holdings to the court precedents interpreting the rehabilitation of certified historic structures (see "Updates" 1987-42 and 1988-41). Amoco stands for the proposition that the National Park Service (NPS) may make its tax act certification decisions on a case-by-case basis and is not to be bound by prior decisions relating to similar issues for other structures. Amoco also stands for the principle that an owner who has elected to pursue certification for the rehabilitation of a historic structure and has been denied such certification by the National Park Service cannot later seek to have a structure already listed in the National Register of Historic Places removed from the National Register in order to pursue other alternative tax advantages. Amoco also illustrates the lack of sympathy which a federal court is likely to show toward a sophisticated corporation which gambled on a questionable rehabilitation scheme without obtaining full approvals from the National Park Service in advance. Amoco's Philcade Building in Tulsa, Oklahoma was completed in 1931 as a thirteen-story structure "with two tower wings forming a light well and allowing natural ventilation for interior spaces." In its rehabilitation of the structure, Amoco chose to add a "connecting link between the open wings of the 'U', partially set back, which would eliminate potential entrapment of the occupants of the wings" in the event of fire. Amoco made other interior changes and replaced the building's windows, but it was the addition of this "connecting link" which led finally to the denial of tax act certification. The court noted that Amoco had a choice of tax strategies when it decided to undertake rehabilitation of the Philcade Building, and risked pursuing the more advantageous, which required National Park Service approval: Tim "PIE,EIVATION LAW UPDATE"SERIES Iâ€¢ LADE POSSIBLE IM PART BY A o,U]rr]-OM ram J. M. KÂ£PLAN FUND. 4 NATIONALIENTER FOR PRENERVATION LAW Amoco's decision to rehabilitate and modernize the Philcade was guided, in part, by the tax incentive provisions of the ) Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. Under that Act, two modes of tax incentives allowed a building owner to obtain either (1) a 20 percent tax credit for rehabilitation of structures at least 40 years old or (2) a 25 percent tax credit for the rehabilitation of a "certified historic structure." ...To qualify for the 20 percent tax credit, a building owner need not seek National Park Service approval; the only substantive requirement was that the building be at least 40 years old. Consistent with the two methods of seeking federal tax subsidies, the 20 percent tax credit was not available if expenditures were "attributable to the rehabilitation of a certified historic structure." Evidence indicated that rehabilitation work had already started when the Oklahoma Preservation Review Committee considered in July 1986 Amoco's request for Part I certification ("the nomination of the Philcade for listing on the National Register of Historic Places"). The National Park Service denied Amoco's application on April 21, 1987, and the Park Service's Chief Appeals Officer denied Amoco's appeal from that decision on March 31, 1988: The overall character of the Philcade Building rests in its integrity as a complete architectural composition, and not , merely on individual ornamental elements, rich though they certainly are on the lower levels of the building. The shape of the building, determined in large measure by the unadorned wings and the deep well, gives the whole a presence that is evident from even a cursory glance at photographs taken before the project began.... Amoco's Petition for Reconsideration made four principal arguments: "(1) The Philcade's most important historic and architectural feature was its lobby/arcade and not its external form; (2) the decision to construct the connecting link, and not internal stairs, was not a 'matter of preference' but was made to prevent damage to the lobby/arcade and the exterior street-level facade; (3) the placement of the connecting link, slightly set- back into the building, and the addition's design and materials [preserve] the original historic form and architectural style and character; (4) the National Park Service had previously certified other rehabilitation projects involving similar 'infill' additions." On October 12, 1988, the Park Service's Chief Appeals Officer issued a second decision responding to Amoco's Petition for Reconsideration, including the following comment: I wish to make it clear that my determination regarding this project is based on its effects on the Philcade Building, not on Amoco's failure to submit an application before NATIONALCENTER FOR PREHERVATION LAW commencing rehabilitation work. Amoco was free to apply for h [NPS] review before, during, or after rehabilitation work. However, if by waiting to apply until the project was well underway, Amoco reached a point of no return, it may not place the blame retrospectively on the Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Office for Amoco's own failure to act. The court held that the National Park Service was not ' required to make a site visit before reaching a decision based on its "discretionary authority": The Court finds the National Park Service's arguments persuasive and rejects Amoco's contention that the Park Service provided an unreasoned or conclusory certification denial. The [Park Service] is necessarily bound by regulatory standards defining certification of historic structures, but it also is vested with discretionary authority upon evaluation of all relevant evidence. ...A site visit by the [Park Service] to the Philcade certainly would not have been detrimental to its consideration of Amoco's application. Ample evidence existed from these applications, however, to make a reasoned analysis and decision, and a finding that evidence supports the decision of the [Park Service]. The court refused to permit Amoco to challenge the National Park Service on the issue of which features of the structure were architecturally significant: Essentially, Amoco's contention boils down to a question concerning the architectural significance of the two wings, which it claims is overshadowed by the interior lobby. On numerous occasions, however, Amoco referred to the exterior architecture in its description of the historic nature of the Philcade. ... Combined with information concerning the history of such structures in the 1920's and 1930's, it was not unreasonable for the National Park Service to determine that the characteristic historic nature of the Philcade was its exterior form. [The Park Service's] determination included an evaluation of all relevant evidence regarding the Philcade including the interior and exterior. It simply does not follow that, because the Park Service differed wdth Amoco in what it considered the Philcade's chief historic characteristic, its determination was unreasonable. Amoco lost also on the issue of whether the National Park Service should be somehow "bound" by prior decisions on other tax act certification projects: Amoco argues further that evidence of other rehabilitations where the National Park Service granted certification compels it to make a similar ruling in this case. It is not necessary for the Court to elaborate on each of the case examples provided by Amoco, as the Court rejects the attempt NATIONALâ‚¬INTER FOR PREWERVAT]ON LAW to bind the National Park Service's discretionary authority to precedent. Each application must be viewed individually, and a reasoned decision must be made with certification only upon a project's consistency with the Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation. The court found no equity favoring retroactive delisting of the Philcade Building from the National Register: Although Amoco can seek the Court's equity jurisdiction, the equities of this particular scenario do not favor retroactive delisting of the Philcade from the National Register. Amoco was aware of the modes of obtaining federal tax credits prior to its attempt to have the Philcade listed on the National Register. The choice to have it nominated for listing, and the completion of Part I of the two part certification process, necessarily requires that it fulfill the Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation. The attendant risk of pursuing such a course involves potential denial of certification, as was seen in this case. The risks involved necessitate that a building owner seek approval prior to, or in the early states, of rehabilitation. Preliminary approval of projects is allowed and suggested by the regulations. Having been informed of such risks by both the State Historic Preservation Officer and the National Park Service, Amoco cannot now claim that it was unaware of the consequences of certification denial. [T]o allow the retroactive delisting of the Philcade and thus make Amoco's expenditures available for tax credits at the 20 percent level would permit a building owner to improperly rehabilitate a certified historic structure, obtain a retroactive decertification, and then claim the federal tax credit for the non-historic rehabilitation. . . . While Congress sought to provide incentive for historic rehabilitation, it also sought "to provide a strong disincentive for failing to properly rehabilitate a certified structure." ... Therefore, [we find] that such a retroactive delisting would not further the Congressional intent with regard to rehabilitation of historic structures. The court showed no sympathy for Amoco's situation: "Through a series of questionable judgments in its approach to the certification process, and in analyzing the potential risks which necessarily are involved in administrative procedures, Amoco has placed itself in the present unfavorable situation. The [Park Service] acted reasonably and within its discretion in making its decisions regarding the Lproject], and gave thoughtful and thorough review upon appeal and reconsideration of its certification denial" (Membership in the National Center for 1990 is $65 and entitles one to receive the series of forty-eight "Preservation Law Updates" which the Center will be issuing during 1990.) .. Aspen/Pitw~ing Office 130 ~treet As~1611 (303) 92-~ 920-5197 January 31, 1991 Aspen Custom Builders Att: Mr. Frank Ross Mr. John Davis 400 W. Main Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Paepcke Park Gazebo Dear Frank and John: The Aspen Historic Preservation Committee would like to express our thanks to you for the fine job on the new construction of the Paepcke Park Gazebo. Politically, this was a tough project, and we appreciate the time and level of craftsmanship you put into the new structure. We have heard good comments from the community on the new gazebo, and wanted to pass these along to you as well. Sincerely, Bill Polss, Chairman Aspen Historic Preservation Committee /4/L.\ /1 .f- >-\\ / I 1//16 2 13 Glenn Rappaport, Proj ect Mortitot-- Aspen Historic Preservation Committee CC: George Robinson, Parks Department Bill Efting, Assistant City Manager Jed Caswall, City Attorney og.acb ~ recycled paper