The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19910327AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE March 27, 1991 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM 5:00 5:10 5:30 5:40 7:00 I. Roll call and approval of Feb. 27, II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS A. 1991 minutes Minor Development to approved Final Development: 17 Queen Street Clarification of CD approval: 409 E. Hopkins Final Development - 309 E. Hopkins/200 S. Monarch: Lily Reid project NEW BUSINESS A. Conceptual Development & Landmark 716 W. Francis St. - Public Hearing Designation: 8:00 VI. 8:15 VII. REMINDER: APRIL 8, PUBLIC HEARING TO PAEPCKE AUDITORIUM. COMMUNICATIONS: A. Project Monitoring: 501 E. Building Exterior Lighting B. Draft Historic Preservation Community Plan ADJOURN MEADOWS REHEARSAL HALL CONTINUED PUBLIC NEARING - 1991 - 2:00 P.M. ON-SITE FOLLOW (3:00 - 5:00) IN CONFERENCE ROOM Cooper - Independence Element of Aspen Area AT AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE March 27, 1991 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of Feb. 27, 1991 minutes (~ K< II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:10 A. Minor Development to approved Final Development: 17 Queen Street 5:30 B. Clarification of CD approval: 409 E. Hopkins 5:40 C. Final Development - 309 E. Hopkins/200 S. Monarch: Lily Reid project V. NEW BUSINESS 7:00 A. Conceptual Development & Landmark Designation: 716 W. Francis St. - Public Hearing 8:00 VI. COMMUNICATIONS: A. Project Monitoring: 501 E. Cooper - Independence Building Exterior Lighting B. Draft Historic Preservation Element of Aspen Area Community Plan 8:15 VII. ADJOURN REMINDER: MEADOWS REHEARSAL HALL CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - APRIL 8, 1991 - 2:00 P.M. ON-SITE PUBLIC HEARING TO FOLLOW (3:00 - 5:00) IN CONFERENCE ROOM AT PAEPCKE AUDITORIUM. akgo,-- 9100?WÂ· AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE March 27, 1991 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of Feb. 27, 1991 minutes-inw-Ai j 1/1 ju 4 C. IJ. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:10 A. Minor Development to approved Final Development: 17 Qpeen Street ~1(1//, (~00/5-0/f h'-2 30 < A-_3 , 0 1%1 ot Lk I-*D " n,â‚¬1-l u e O 5:30 B. Qlarification of CD approval: 409 E. Hopkins Jic jr, A LL.>L--ct-4Â» /k)42.- c> /L/6~14 /9. 5:40 C. Final Development - 309 E. Hopkins/200 S. Monarch: Lily Reid project Gic/J caciv~ h - Do 2,- 0/41 V. NEW BUSINESS 7:00 A. Conceptual Development & Landmark Designation: 716 W. Francis St. - Public Hearing 4 6/u. 61 A) a jj, L .w-/12 (34 0 5 e U~n n - ljO n =R--c Â· /' /< 8:00 VI. COMMUNICATIONS: A. Project Monitoring: 501 E. Cooper - Independence 91.+us. LiATE Building Exterior Lighting Ge-J- 111_f - /4-- B. Draft Historic ~Preservation Element Af-hÂ·Aspen Area Community plap \ 13 n- - 34'f-- 8:15 VII. ADJOURN REMINDER: MEADOWS REHEARSAL HALL CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - APRIL 8, 1991 - 2:00 P.M. ON-SITE PUBLI C HEARING TO FOLLOW (3 : 00 - 5: 00) IN CONFERENCE ROOM AT PAEPCKE AUDITORIUM. k /5. , u)~rit ,;, S /1 .' 1.- ./ 5 10Y0-4, MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Â· Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Minor Development: Revision to previously approved Final Development proposal for 17 Queen St. Date: March 27, 1991 SUMMARY: Following the Final Development approval for the Landmark parcel at 17 Queen Street a few weeks ago, staff received a revised set of drawings that indicated a change to the proposed stairway on the rear addition of the cottage. This revision is considered to be Minor Development, requiring HPC approval. Staff's ability to sign off on changes is limited to insubstantial technical considerations, or changes that do not involve a character alterhtion to the exterior. The revision is minor in nature and involves a slight reconfiguration of the north elevation stairway. We find that this change does not impact the basic character of the cottage's addition, and recommend HPC approval. It should be noted that additional Final Development conditions are still pending, such as the letter of guaranty or bond for the cottage relocation, the review covenant over the remainder of the parcel, and the survey indicating the precise boundary (and legal description) of the designated landmarked portion. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant approval for the Minor Development revision to the previously approved plans for 17 Queen Street. Additional comments: memo.hpc.17QS.FD.AMEND PELLECCHIA OLSON MAR - 4 ARCHITECTS 27 February 91 Ms. Roxanne Eflin Historic Preservation Planner Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 SUBJECT: TRETTIN MINER' S COTTAGE . PELLECCHIA OLSON ARCHITECTS' NO.: 8905.01 Dear Roxanne: This letter will provide back-up information regarding the slight plan shift for the stair element attached to the miner's cottage. We made this plan move primarily for two reasons: 1. As a response to a comment made in the minutes of the H.P.C. meeting of 23 January 91, in which it was noted that the orthogonal placement of the stair in relation to the cottage weakened the concept of differentiation of new and old; 2. to allow us to make the stair element appear as more of an outbuilding and thereby recall some of the sheds on the site. To further emphasize this second reason, we will explore reusing some of the shed materials on this portion or use a wood siding pattern that is more like the sheds than the house. In addition to the above two reasons, we gained a little "found" space within the intersection of the cottage and the stair which helped with some functional aspects of the plan. The cottage now stands quite clearly on its own and yet with these two small additions functions as a three bedroom house in approximately fourteen hundred square feet of finished space. Please call if you have any.further questions. Sincer~ly, ~ * Geoffrey B.~~Fis PELLECCHIA (Wi ARCHITEC 1, p. c. GBH/kd CC: Henry Trettin Lana Trettin Ted Guy Lennie Oates A Professional Corporation 1442 Market Street Denver, Colorado 80202 303 534-4114 ... .. -1 '910 21\ BCÂ»4 2104-10 Â© 9\80'01~.3 TV-U*=-9-aTr3-9--7 00 9" 1 rw -2 111 1 1Â»j 9 - - 740\1V/11-11 le,v-2~4-1.-iOH . ric 9 /11Â«-9 / 1 -44 %*'2/4 1 3 0/ 1 - -- 3 ~ -...r ~1--5.'", 1~ 01 '-'CLI~~~~~~-~ ~IL.- Url :1 11 0 4 11 14 4144 - 4 V v u~---J 0-3 - r 1 -1 1 1-- 91--1 - . --- 11 -1 Ii I --- L -11 11 11 11 11 -I- - f. i Frr /i /3 , -9 -- -4 -- --- --- ----------- /f< h L \ 1 P-- - / .Â«* 1 ..1 - --- --4,7.- --- .9 - -. -I------ - I-#-.4-----1,----Ilâ€žâ€ž- P,-1 -/ <~7 1 1/ -4 rv ~,fr- --ri -- il 4 f t; L 21 211 '- t-AG, 1 4 -,\IA- Â«.1Â» i:; 45 9~Â« 3 f ' h O \ iVA-2 -1 1 19Â«-2HIC) 09 t - ' C --- 1----- ---------- - 1 1 I -- 0 7- - ~1 T/-32 ~1 r? l 1 1 11 1 3 t LA /6 - 1 -- FI--.I=22~-5- 1- - , --- f ==Ir=ZE' t- ' .-NNI i m j \ r-- , V---- - ill--------- - ------- W .-I..-+4.-W. - -Â· ~//2927- / 1 1Â«93Â»17 / / A 1 , it 1 Af--7 ct <0 ~16 hLJ 1/1 1 1 1 0, f 1 ... - .M -Y : ' &.' I. I .. I 9 :.. . 1. ..1 1 + -.*- 4'.. R 1 , I ---------------------- ----~------- --- ------------------------------------ ~ ->--~-~-----~~----~~~~--t----j~---- ---~ , + 1 I t ' ~ 14 1 .... " \ 9 - -1 -- - + 8 1 -4 - r 1 7.n . F-- fl , - - -- - -11- H - --4...- 9 2 -:fl- 0 2:.. ; 143<~'' :: /Â· â‚¬. 1,j . % -- I- . it:4 . . Â·Â·Rf 1 471 - i:. -9. D. r . q. : k Â·: . -- 1 2 0 2 d ., t . Â· . Â· . -v .Â· . 3 2 Â¥â‚¬ f , 1 t ./'44' 1, : I /7 b ., r . .3 ./ :Â·: illÂ·~,1-+ :.>:t:1 ':Â·'P...tÂ·' hi=-:tÂ·AÂ· i- 11.4 1 Tv... --.-5 . fri + . 1. - t. 1, - 10 - 21 . . v,h K.:t . . , 1.. .., 1 I. I , 1 I ..1 . I -- t-, . 11 Â· - Â·. . ./ I .1 â€¢Â·Il Â· f Â· 1 12..1<kt-CD+il..1.,U. .;-13-:, :< + 9. t.: + 1 . I: -72"1 --7 01 . . -- 1 i,;t -f ~ 3 - . IL ''' ' .1. 2~,2. . i .. T ELEVATION ~ 7 .6-3 5-4- 0.61jils \ j .A - 'I. I' - ' Ve>- fl;;,-Â·Cl.... S t r - -.4\ / Â· . r . T---1 - , 1 . -lT - , r#k =jr=t> \1 --1- : e k) 04-imu)03 1 1 1 ' : 4 1 -/ - -- -1. -- T- 2- - T I-Ii-*~3f# 2.In-></e :\ \ 2__ L ,# 10 14 037~il 4'bul, /dittia --lri 1 \\ Ar --- -------- - - -- \\\.u t. 0 .f --| ~+Â· ,Â§ Â·,Ff . ~' -foft-o-i [3_~_Ell pittan tok#.2-1 - . - 0. . -------- I i I . f . . .. 1 1 1 1 -1 . . r-- ---i -r-L~Lii-1 Kjl T 1/-1 <3- ' 2 ' 1- .-. 11 11 1 t==ZIZE 2 7 .0-- [ 12*' R III -2--Ilr22-1--1.-~ 1 .. IN it 1/ 30Â«4Â«ft N&=J --- 11 k--1 - .31 1 k %~ '11,11,"Â¥ \ ./.t: 2/2 2~13----1-1-4 1 ' 4- + 14&47Â¢393RAQR**:4*433*%3Â§84*FR- ----Â· 1--2~----r---Â·2--~5~-*-*-22---/~1~ i- _-- 1---_fl-2.~. --/-.- ft 11-u_* . -- --1 , 4 . r Â· i -- - -I--t -------- -' ~ ~~~~ ~ ----_- J--42-vvi-6----2/--_--12194-f-" r - --1 1,1 1 . 1 - -- - --- 1 - 11 1 ji' ~ i.~--1-L :9 1 1 -1-.1.-21-L-ll.....1-6..11.U-al--1.. -LÂ·Â·Â·Â·~--1-31----AL---JA.1-i._ il 5 / -~ I . i EVATION P 0 6 -11 ltÂ·81 .9 C ~ 44 -27 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Clarification on Conceptual Development approval: 409 E. Hopkins, demolition of non-contributing building Date: March 27, 1991 SUMMARY: On behalf of the applicant, consultant Joe Wells has asked for and HPC clarification on the previous Conceptual Development approval action taken on 409 E. Hopkins. A final development application has not been submitted for HPC review at this time, however, it is staff's understanding that this application is currently in the process of being prepared. The clarification is requested due to the current demolition code provisions in Section 7-602 that require the applicant to comply with all demolition review standards in order for the HPC to grant demo approval for structures located within an "H" Historic Overlay District or for Landmarks. Please refer to Joe's letter (attached) for additional information. The purpose of the exemption clause is to allow a non-historic, non-contributing structure that is found to not contribute to the overall character of the district to be exempt from the strict demolition standards, but not exempt from HPC review and approval. As you recall, this code amendment is necessary for three current project: The Lane Parcel (Collins Block out- parcel, Final Â· Development approved), 409 E. Hopkins (Conceptual approval only) and the Lily Reid project (Conceptual approval only). RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC take action on the following motion: "The HPC granted Conceptual Development approval for the redevelopment of the parcel located at 409 E. Hopkins, recognizing that a code amendment for Section 7-602 was necessary in order for the demolition of the non- contributing structures to be approved under an "exemption" clause. Such amendment language has been prepared by the Planning Office, reviewed and approved by the HPC, and has been forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their concurrence prior to first reading by Council. "In order for the HPC to grant Final Development and Demolition approval for 409 E. Hopkins, the code amendment must be adopted by Council in order to create the exemption provisions that would apply to this proposal and others pending in the Commercial Core Historic District. The HPC understands that final adoption may occur in May, 1991. "As an element of Conceptual Development approval, the HPC finds that the existing structure at 409 E. Hopkins meets the proposed criteria for "Exemption" under Section 7-602 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. Final Development approval is pending." memo.hpc.409eh.code.clar Joseph Wells Joseph Wells, AICP Land Planning and Design March 1, 1991 Ms. Roxanne Eflin Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen CO 81611 Re: 409 East Hopkins Dear Roxanne: As you know, the City granted a Commercial GMQS allocation to the 409 East Hopkins project several months ago. Further work on the project has been delayed, however, pending the approval by the City of the project's employee housing proposal (which we believe will occur very soon) and revision of the demolition provision. It is my understanding that the minor changes to the City's land-use code regarding demolition of existing structures within an Historic District which were recommended for approval previously by the HPC is not scheduled for discussion by P&Z until March 19. Because City Council must consider an amendment to the text at a first and second reading of an ordinance, there will be no final action on these amendments until some time in April, at the earliest. Because of the delays in the consideration of these code changes, it is necessary that I request time on an HPC agenda during March to ask the HPC to make the necessary findings to approve the demolition of the existing non-historic structure at 409 East Hopkins. This is necessary in order to permit further work to proceed on the project so that construction of the project approved conceptually for the site by the HPC can begin as soon as possible. In my own recollection, the City has been aware of the problem created by this la ruage at least since the consideration of the Collint, Block/Lane Parcel project well over a year ago, but has not yet taken the necessary steps to correct the problem. 130 Midland Park Place, Number P. Aspen. Colorado 81611 Telephone (303) 925-8080 FacÂ«ile (303} 925-82-5 ' Ms. Roxanne Eflin March 1, 1991 Page Two The HPC has had several Code discussions regarding problems in present Code language, including the apparent confusion in the demolition standards which requires that a finding be made that a building is not structurally sound in order to approve demolition, regardless of the historic significance of the structure in question. Staff has recommended that this provision be amended to allow demolition if a finding is made that the structure in question is "non- contributing. " The structure on the site which is proposed to be demolished is not identified in the Historic Inventory as a contributing structure, and therefore would be eligible for demolition once this provision is amended. In the meantime, however, we believe that the necessary findings can be made if HPC wishes to resolve the problem so that the approved project can proceed. In order to permit the HPC to make the necessary findings, I am forwarding our responses to the various review criteria: i. The structure proposed for demolition is not structur- ally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure. If the HPC takes into account the project approved for the qite, the structure to be demolished is not structurally sound, because in order to implement that plan, it is not possible to utilize the structural system of the existing building. In other words, the present building is not "structurally sound" for the use envisioned for the property. ii. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on-site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property. The reuse of the existing non-contributing structure would prevent implementation of the plan approved for the site. iii. The structure cannot be practicably moved to another site in Aspen. There are no available sites to relocate the existing structure, nor is the building suitable for such an effort. Ms. Roxanne Eflin March 1, 1991 Page Three iv. The applicant demonstrates that the proposal mitigates to the greatest extent practical, the following: (a) Any impacts that occur to the character of the neighborhood where demolition is proposed to occur. The impacts of the project on the character of the neighborhood are positive. The approved project complies to a much greater degree with current historic guidelines than does the existing structure. (b) Any impact on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels. The impacts of the project on the historic importance of structures off-site are positive because of the sympathetic design of the proposal which relates very well to the historic structures-on either side of the proposal. (C) Any impact to the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels. The impacts of the project on the architectural integrity of structures off-site are positive for the reasons stated above. We appreciate HPC's consideration of this proposal in a timely minner so that design development can proceed on the project without further delay. Sincerely, r L. 6 L/' Joseph Wells, AICP JW/b , r 0 -/2.1 0- . .1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Addition of Exemption Clause to Demolition Provision of HP Code Language and Clarification of Section 7-602 DATE: March 19, 1991 SUMMARY: These amendments are necessary to process prior to the large code clarification/clean up ordinance, due to two projects currently underway in the Commercial Core. One is the Lane Parcel, associated with the Collins Block; the other' is the (former) Alpine Bank Building at 409 E. Hopkins. Neither are historic and are considered non-contributing. The Lane Parcel received Final last year subject to this code amendment; 409 E. Hopkins has only received Conceptual. Both are slated for demo to allow the new development to occur. This code amendment is necessary in Â·order for the HPC to act within the code to allow those projects to proceed. PROCESS: This code amendment is scheduled before the P&Z at a public hearing for March 19. From there it goes to Council for first reading and then on to final reading (public hearing) and adoption. Amendments proposed to Section 7-602 A. General. No demolition, partial demolition or relocation of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to Section 7-709, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay District shall be permitted unless the demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the applicable standards of Section 7-602(B),fC) or (D). unless exempted pursuant to Section 7-602(E). The next two paragraphs of this code section should be eliminated. E. Exemption: The demolition.'partial demolition or relocation of a structure located within an ~H" Historic Overlay District may be exempt from meeting the applicable standards in Section 7- 602(B), (Cl. or (D) if the HPC finds that the following conditions have been met: . 1. The structure is not identified on- the ' Inventory of . Historic Sites and Structures. 2. The structure is considered to be non-contributing to the historic district 3. The structure does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district. and that its demolition. partial demolition. or relocation does not impact the character of the historic district. _4_._ The demolition. partial demolition or relocation is necessary for the redevelopment of the parcel. 5. The redevelopment or new development is reviewed by HPC. (formerly E) . Procedure for review. A Development Application shall be submitted to the Historic Preservation Officer before HPC approval of demolition, partial demolition, relocation, (or exemption within an "H" Historic Overlay District), which shall be reviewed and approved by 'the HPC pursuant to the procedures established. in Common Procedures, Article 6, Division 2. G. (formerly F). Application for Demolition or Relocation. (Language is unchanged except to eliminate F.2 and "partial demolition" from 5 (a) and 5 (b) ) . H. Application for Partial Demolition or Exemption from Demolition, Partial Demolition or Relocation. A Development application for partial demolition shall include all items specified in Section 7-602(G)(1).(2),(3) and (4). I. (formerly G). Penalties. This is to remain the same. RECOMMENDATION: Approval by vote, or recommendation to staff to bring this item back again for further discussion, amendments and/or approval. memo.hpc.demo.code.amend 2 . , LAND USE REGULATIONS Â§ 7-602 (5) A statement of the effect of the details of the proposed development on the original design of the historic structure (if applicable) and character of the neighborhood. (61 A statement of how the final development plan conforms to the representa- tions made during the conceptual review and responds to any conditions placed thereon. (Ord. No. 6-1989,Â§ 9) Sec. 7-602. Demolition, partial demolition or relocation. A. General. No demolition of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to Section 7-709, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay District shall be permitted unless the demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the standards of Section 7-602(B). - No partial demolition and removal of a portion of any historic landmark or any structure within an "H", Historic Overlay District shall be permitted unless approved by the HPC as necessary for the renovation of the structure, and because it meets the standards of Section 7-602(C), or unless the partial demolition and removal is exempt because it creates no change to the exterior of the structure and has no impact on the character of the structure. No relocation of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to Section 7-709, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay District, shall be permitted unless the relocation is approved by the HPC because it meets the standards of Section 7-602(DX1) through (4). When deemed appropriate due to the significance of the project, the HPC may require a performance guarantee in a form acceptable to the city attorney as assurance that the demolition, partial demolition, or relocation will be completed as represented. B. Standards forreuiew of demolition-No approval for demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met. 1. The structure proposed for demolition is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure; and 2. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property; and 3. The structure cannot be practicably moved to another site in Aspen; and 4. The applicant demonstrates that the proposal mitigates to the greatest extent prac- tical, the following. a, Any impacts that occur to the character of theÂ·neighborhood where demolition is proposed to occur. b. Any impact on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels. c. Any impact to the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels. Supp. No. 1 1713 Â§ 7-602 . ASPEN CODE ' , , C. Standards for review ofpartial demolition No approval for partial demolition shall be .f~ 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 or. the parcel. b. Impacts on the architectural integrity of the stiucture or structures located on the parcel. D. Standards for review of relocation. No approval for relocation shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: 1. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site to provide for any reasonable ueneficial use of the property; and 2. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structure will not be diminished due to the relocation; and 3. The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for reloca- tion; and 4. A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond with the engineering depart.ment, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation; and 5. The receiving site is compatible in nature to the structure or structures proposed to be moved, the character of the neighborhood is consistent with the architectural integrity of the structure, and the relocation of the historic structure would not diminish the integrity or character of the neighborhood of the receiving site. An acceptance,letter from the property owner of the receiving site shall be submitted. E. Procedure for reuiew. A development application shall be submitted to the planning director before HPC approval of demolition, partial demolition or relocation, which shall be reviewed and approved by the fIPC pursuant zo the procedili-* s established in Common Pro- cedures, Article 6, Division 2. The HPC shall be authorized to suspend action on a demolition, partial demolition or reloca tion application when it finds that it needs additional information to determine whether the application meets the standards of Section 7-602(13) or that the proposal is a .matter of such great public concern to the city that alternatives to the demolition, partial demolition or relocation must be studied jointly by the city and the owner. Alternatives which the HPC may consider having studied shall include, but not be limited to finding economically beneficial uses of the structure, removal of the structure to a suitable location, providing public subsidy Supp. No. 1 1714 . 1 Â§ 7-603 LAND USE REGULATIONS . - to the owner to preserve the structure, identifying a public entity capable of public acquisition of the structure, or revision to the demclition, partial demolition or relochtion and develop- ment plan. The HPC shall be required to specify the additional information it req.uires or the alternatives it finds should be studied when it suspends action on the development, partial demolition or relocation application. Action shall only be suspended for the amount of time it shall take for the necessary information to be prepared and teviewed by the planning director, but in no case shall suspension be for a period to exceed six (6) months. F. Application for demolition, partial demolition or relocation. A development application for demolition shall include the following: 1. The general application information required in Section 6-202. 2. The name of the structure proposed for demolition, partial-ddmolition or relocation. 3. A written description of the structure proposed for demolition, partial demolition or relocation, and its year of construction. 4. A report from a licensed engineer or architect regarding the soundness of the struc- , ture and its suitability for rehabilitation. 5. An economic feasibility report that provides: a. Estimated market value of the property on which the structure lies, in its current condition, and after demolition, partial demolition or relocation. b. Estimates from an architect, developer, real estate agent or appraiser expert enced in rehabilitation addressing the economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the structure proposed for demolition, partial demolition or relocation. c. All appraisals made of the property on which the structure is located made within the previous two (2) years. d. Any other information considered necessary to make a determination whether the property does yield or may yield a reasonable return on investment. 6. A development plan and a statement of the effect of the proposed development on the other structures on the property and the character of the neighborhood around the property shall be submitted in cases when the HPC requires a development plan to evaluate the appropriateness of demolition or when the applicant believes the sub- mission of a development plan will assist in the evaluation of the proposed demolition. 13. PanG]ties N violation of any portion of this Section 7-602 shall prohibit the owner, successor or- assigns i-rom oblaining a building permit for the affected properly for a period of five (5) years from the date of such violation. The city shall initiate proceedings to place a deed restriction on the property to this effect to insure the enforcement of this penalty. (Ord. No. 17-1989, Â§ 1) Sec. 7-603. Insubstantial amendment of development order. A. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order Inay be authorized by the planning director. An insubstantial amendment shall be limited to technical or engineer- Supp. No. 1 1715 . '1 - MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Final Development: 309 E. Hopkins and 200 South Monarch - Lily Reid Cottage/Aspen Arcade: Significant development, demolition, partial demolition, on-site relocation, temporary off-site storage, waiver of cash- in-lieu for parking reduction Date: January 10, 1990 PROJECT MONITOR: To be assigned at this meeting. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Final Development approval for the significant development, demolition, partial demolition, on-site relocation and temporary off-site relocation/storage activities for the project located at 309 E. Hopkins/200 S. Monarch. HPC approval of the waiver of payment-in-lieu for the parking reduction of 19 spaces is also requested. BACKGROUND: On September 27, 1989, the HPC met with the applicants in a worksession to discuss the basic conceptual ideas of an on-site relocation of the cottage and the proposed new detached construction behind and to one side of the cottage. The Committee was generally in favor of the proposal, finding it to be a reasonable solution for the parcel's overall design. In 1988, the HPC conceptually approved the relocation of the historic cottage to a site outside the Commercial Core Historic District, to the A.C.E.S. property near Hallam Lake. A 600+ name petition was submitted to Council, requesting an appeal of that HPC decision, at which time the applicant withdrew the application, and sponsored legislation amending the code to favorably incorporate additional preservation incentives for projects such as this. The code amendments Â·were passed in the spring of 1989 (sliding scale for affordable housing impact mitigation, open space and parking variations, etc.) Since that time, a revised application was submitted for HPC consideration. HPC PREVIOUS ACTION: Conceptual Development approval with conditions was granted on the "Lily Reid" project on January 10, 1990, and extended to April 10, 1991 by HPC approval on January 9, 1991. Please refer to the applicant's Final proposal for a complete description of these conditions, and their responses. COUNCIL ACTION: Landmark Designation for the entire parcel was granted through ordinance last year by Council. SUMMARY: The Final Development application involves four specific elements, which are summarized as follows: 1) Demolition: The proposed demolition involves the non- historic, non-contributing one-story building on the 1 corner, containing Uriah Heeps and the Cleaners. The applicant has addressed the Demolition standards, however, it is clear to the Planning Office that these standards have not, and perhaps cannot, be met. Therefore, in order for demolition approval to be granted by the HPC, a code amendment allowing for an exemption process from the standards is required to be adopted by Council. Said code amendment is in process, and will be heard at first reading on April-87 1991. Staff believes that the structure proposed for J demolition meets the proposed criteria for ~_.exemption, and recommends that the HPC make this finding when taking Final Development approval action. 2) Partial demolition is proposed for the small addition furthest to the rear of the cottage. The earliest rear addition is proposed to remain, although information has not been presented as to how this structure could be moved with this addition intact, or if the applicant 34<- , is considering dismantling and reconstructing the Nflatâ‚¬ addition, once the cottage is re-sited, both - permanently and temporarily. If this addition is removed, what is the percentage of material salvage? How will this be phased, stored, protected, etc? We are recommending both clarification on these issues, and tabling, if necessary, to allow the applicant time to address all partial demolition aspects more fully, pursuant to Sec. 7-602(C). 3) Relocation: The HPC must find that the Relocation Standards (Sec. 7-602{D}) have been met prior to approval. The proposal involves the relocation of the historic brick cottage some 60+ west to the corner, which site would be made available with the demolition of the non-historic corner building. The site plan indicates the cottage is projecting to the north of the Mill St. Plaza facade edge, which may be appropriate, however, we ask the HPC to carefully consider this issue in relationship to the following: 1) The cottage' s original setbacks 2) The front and sideyard setbacks of the historic cottage directly across the street from the proposed new location 3) The facade edges (these vary) of the Mill St. Plaza building 2 The exact new location of this cottage is very important dimensionally to the new construction and the streetscape of the historic district. We are not in favor of an off-site temporary storage situation, believing the risks to be far too great for this historic resource. (Note: The community was fortunate that the temporary relocation and rehab of the wooden cottage at 1004 E. Durant went as well as it did.) This project appears to be much more involved, due to the marginal condition of the brick and mortar. The application does not provide the Planning Office a high enough level of .detail of the actual relocation, stabilization, and protection, either in off-site or on-site storage, to - recommend Final approval at this time. The applicant also states that Ryberg Movers insurance ' Will cover the city's bond/performance guarantee 60 4'.A requirements, which staff does not agree with. We are ( ilx-to 1,41 referring these legal issues to the City Attorney, and 44 C L recommend that the HPC not take action until he is khe 4% L.4 comfortable with the level of documentation and 1 protection mechanism provided by the applicant. The 4 / 1 1 bond or performance guarantee insures mitigation 9 measures in case of moving and re-siting failure as â‚¬. -2 43Â«, Well as to insure that the structure find its way back zin- Â·,-/24 0~.54 2 home in the unlikely case of a financially failed L//A development. How will structural _damage_ be repaired? C- Will the brick be repainted? Pkint__removal- is not 4- recommended. 7th and Main is proposed to be the storage site. Is this appropriate for the Main Street Historic District? A recent code amendment was enacted to allow temporary relocations to occur, however, the applicant is proposing this temporary relocation last for six months. The 1004 E. Durant cottage temporary relocation ended in six weeks. On the other hand, due to the extensive level of excavation (the entire 9,000' parcel) and the safety hazards as a result of the cottage being supported mid- air by steel beams, not allowing a temporary relocation seems to be as much of a risk. (Reference: The Collins Block.) This aspect of the project was not discussed at Conceptual, and staff strongly recommends that the HPC consider all the ramifications of this temporary relocation - including community perception. 4) Significant Development - Cottage: The plans indicate that the detached cottage serves as the focal point 3 within a retail capacity, and the new "L" designed development provide the backdrop. The application states the cottage would be restored. However, . we find that in fact a "restoration" is not, by definition, occurring, as windows are being added. Staff feels that the HPC should hold the line on this cottage's restoration. A 700+ sq. ft. historic resource that is being wrapped by three levels of GMQS exempted commercial development deserves to be carefully and authentically treated as an illustration of Aspen's mining heritage. The community and our visitors deserve to experience this unique brick cottage as it was originally conceived and constructed, even relocated within its new context. New construction: The proposal of a three-story ~ ~ commercial (retail/office/housing) mass is located to the side and rear of the cottage. The design concept provides a traditionally proportioned storefront level and stepped second and third floor to relieve mass and ~ Eu- 81 bulk impacts. This new construction includes two facades - one on Hopkins, and one on Mill. The HPC should consider the Final Design details, and whether these - two facades should match (should one take precedence in relation to the facade of the cottage?). Due to the significant design impact this new construction will have to the Commercial Core Historic District and the Lily Reid Cottage, the Planning Office requests that the HPC take the time to review the architectural details of the Final application very carefully. It has been over a year since the HPC has worked on this project, and staff wishes to insure that the HPC finds that all the Development Review Standards and conditions of Conceptual approval have been thoroughly met. The plaza surface treatments are especially important <c~- to consider in their relationship to the vernacular 4/ design and small scale nature of the cottage, and in 44.1 how these materials effectively tie the new and L . historic structures together. Are they harmonious in texture and color? What about landscaping? Staff is concerned that the raised planter boxes around the cottage may not be appropriate, and may provide a formal front yard for an otherwise modest and quiet miner's cottage. Parking and Open Space: A waiver of the payment-in-lieu fees for the parking reduction of 19 spaces is required by the HPC at the time Final Development is granted. In order to grant thi 4 waiver, the HPC is required to make the finding that the three spaces proposed on site are the maximum number allowed by design. rf -7 It is also recommended that the HPC direct Staff to prepare a d memorandum to the Board of Adjustment supporting the open space =14 . dimensions as proposed (per Section 7-605). Materials: The applicant will be providing samples of all major building materials at this meeting, as well as a detailed massing model. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1) Grant Final Development approval for the Lily Reid project as proposed, subject to approval of materials, finding that the development review, partial demolition -3- 9 3 7 \11 payment-in-lieu for the parking reduction of 19 spaces and relocation standards have been met. A waiver of r is approved, finding that the three space proposei, on site are the maximum number allowed by design. Staff is directed to prepare a memorandum to the Board of Adjustment supporting the open space dimensions as proposed. This Final Development approval is conditional on the adoption of the code amendment ordinance ( in process) creating an "exemption" clause to the demolition standards in Sec. 7-602(B). The HPC finds that the non-historic, non-contributing structure proposed for demolition meets the proposed exemption criteria. A permit for demolition shall not be granted until such code amendment is adopted. 2) Grant Final Development approval (as stated in Alternative #1) with specific conditions to be approved by the staff and the project monitor (to be assigned at this meeting) prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3) Table Final Development approval to allow the applicant additional time to respond to the issues brought forward by staff in the memo and by the HPC at this meeting. Specific issues staff requests be more fully addressed are: --a) --- Partial Demolition - Sec. 7-602(C) 1, 19 C b) Relocation and re-siting - Sec. 7-602(D) /74 C) Bonding/Performance Guarantee /// / 1 d) Restoration of cottage 4/ C e) Plaza surface treatment/landscaping f) Compatibility in' architectural details and 11 <4-materials -ofnek constructica -7- 4) Deny Final. Development approval, f inding that speci f ic 5 Development Review, Demolition, Partial Demolition and Relocation standards Â·have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC table Final Development approval for the proposal referred to as the "Lily Reid House" at 309 E. Hopkins/200 S. Monarch, to allow the applicant additional time to respond to the issues brought forward by staff in this memo and by the HPC at this meeting. Specific issues staff requests be more fully addressed are: a) Partial Demolition - Sec. 7-602(C) b) Relocation and re-siting - Sec. 7-602(D) c) Bonding/Performance Guarantee d) Restoration of cottage e) Plaza surface treatment/landscaping f) Compatibility in architectural details and materials of new construction Additional comments: memo.hpc.309eh.fd 6 HPC PROJECT REVIEW CHECKLIS-T Does the Project meet the Standards for Development? Does the Project meet the Development Guidelines? Does the Project support the Community's Preservation Goals? SITE PLANNING ROOF Siting of the Building: Shape (gable, lean-to, etc.) Setback Pitch Facade width . Overhang Spacing between buildings Dormers Skylight Chimneys Delineation of street space: Creation of continuous street WINDOWS edge Separation of public, semi-public, Type (double-hung, easement, etc.) and private areas Shape and proportion Fences Rhythm and balance Blinds/shutters Garage placement DOORWAYS Landscape plantings Placement and orientation Type (paneled, etc.) Site improvements: EXTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL Walkways ELEMENTS Driveways Retaining walls Door platforms and steps Porches BULK, PROPORTION and Exterior stairs and decks SCALE (building size) Roofwalks and platforms MATERIALS Height Facade proportions Wall surfaces Scale Foundation Roof MASSING (building shape) TRIM and MISCELLANEOUS Mass of main portion: DETAILS Form Roof shape Trim Orientation Gutters and leaders Louvres, vents, etc. Additions: House lights Placement Public utilities Form Bulk COLORS SPECIFIC DESIGN SUGGESTIONS: : i,DEZOEd ; 31,VG *Â»Â·?ft'-.9 Â«*0*332=TAE+924Â»26 L 1-LÂ¥ R *I Dy .,6<*493**OUg#58'zip*Al.4,0.isi.-54 41*5#Â£4~:-5.:k:*....<.- Â·Â· .* Â·*94*t'>49:91Â·:port:G'~~ FINAL HPC DEVELOPMENT PLAN & GMQS EXEMPTION REVIEW EXHIBIT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1) Project Name ASPEN ARCADE BUILDING/LILY REID HOUSE 2) Project Location 200 South Monarch Street, Aspen, Colorado; Lots A, B and C, Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen 3) Present Zoning CC 4) Lot Size 90x100 - 9,000 sq. ft. 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # Mr. Larry Brooks, General Partner, Aspen Arcade, Ltd., 1148 Fourth St., Santa Monica, CA 90403 (213)394-4938 6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # Joseph Wells , AICP 602 Midland Park Place, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303)925-8080 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual Historic Dev. Special Review Final SPA X Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Conceptual FUD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final PUD Historic Demolition Mountain View Plane Subdivision Historic Designation - - Exemption Hallam Lake ESA Text/Map Amendment GMQS Allotment Condominiumization - X GMQS Exemption Lot Split/Lot Line Adjustment 3) Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing structures; appro- ximate sq. ft. ; number of bedrooms; arry previous approvals granted to the property). Brick masonry, one-story Victorian miner's cottage of approximately 900 sq. ft., built around 1889, and an approximately 5,325 sq. ft. one-story masonry, flat-roofed building with glass storefront. Both structures are presently occupied by retail tenants. 9) Description of Development Application Restoration of miner's cottage on northwesterly portion of site, and construction of new three-story building for retail, office, and afford- able housing uses to the south and east of the site. Total of 13,200 FAR sq. ft. proposed. 10) Have you attached the following: X Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents X Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents --X- Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application el February 5, 1991 THE LILY REID HOUSE APPLICATION FOR HPC FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVAL TO TEMPORARILY RELOCATE AN HISTORIC LANDMARK, SPECIAL REVIEW AND GMQS EXEMPTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF AN HISTORIC LANDMARK, AND REQUEST FOR GMQS EXEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND VESTING OF APPROVALS Submitted to: The City of Aspen and The Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-920-5000 FAX: 303-920-5197 Applicant: Mr. Larry Brooks, General Partner Aspen Arcade, Ltd. 1148 Fourth Street Santa Monica CA 90403 Phone: 213-394-4938 FAX: 213-393-7988 f -. CONSULTANTS ARCHITECTS: Hagman Yaw Architects, Ltd. 210 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-925-2867 FAX: 303-925-3736 ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS: Charles Cunniffe & Associates 520 East Hyman Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-925-5590 FAX: 303-925-5076 ATTORNEYS: Gideon I. Kaufman 315 East Hyman, Suite 305 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-925-8166 FAX: 303-925-1090 Chuck Brandt Holland & Hart 600 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-925-3476 FAX: 303-925-9367 LAND PLANNER: Joseph Wells, AICP 602 Midland Park Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-925-8080 FAX: 303-925-8275 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR 14 SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL CORE HISTORIC DISTRICT INVOLVING AN HISTORIC LANDMARK (Â§7-601(F)(4)) III. REQUEST FOR HPC APPROVAL TO TEMPORARILY RELOCATE 31 AN HISTORIC STRUCTURE OFF-SITE (Â§7-602) IV. REQUEST FOR SPECIAL REVIEW (Article 7, Division 4) 37 V. REQUEST FOR GMQS EXEMPTION FOR ENLARGEMENT 42 OF AN HISTORIC LANDMARK (Â§8-104(B)(1)(c)) VI. REQUEST FOR GMQS EXEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING 46 (Â§8-104(C)(1)(c)) ,J EXHIBITS A. General Application Information (Â§6-202) 1. Application Form 2. Applicant's Letter of Authorization 3. Disclosure of Ownership 4. Certificate of Limited Partnership B. Minutes of Prior Land-Use Actions Regarding the Lily Reid Site 1, Minutes of January 10, 1990 HPC Meeting Granting Conceptual Development Plan Approval, Approval of On-Site Relocation of the Lily Reid House, Approval of Demolition and Partial Demolition within the Commerical Core Historic District and Recommending Landmark Designation of Lots A, B and C, Block 81. 2. Minutes of April 3, 1990 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Recommending Approval of Landmark Designation of the Lily Reid Site (Lots A, B and C, Block 81). 3. Minutes of May 14, 1990 (First Reading) and July 9, 1990 (Public Hearing) of City Council Approving Ordinance 36 (Series of 1990). 4. Ordinance 36 - Series of 1990 - An Ordinance Designat- ing 200 South Monarch Street/309 East Hopkins Avenue (Lots A, B and C, Block 81) As H, Historic Landmark, Pursuant to Division 7, Section 7-701 of the Land Use Code. C. Letter from Ryberg Cosntruction Company Regarding Relocation of Lily Reid Cottage. D. Letter from Owners of Lot A through C, Block 19Â·Granting Permission to Temporarily Relocate the Lily Reid Cottage onto the Property. I. INTRODUCTION This application for H.P.C. Final Development Plan review of Significant Development and Temporary Relocation of an Historic Landmark, for Special Review and GMQS Exemption for Enlargement of an Historic Landmark by the Planning & Zoning Commission, and for GMQS Exemption of Affordable Housing and Vesting of all approvals by City Council is filed on behalf of Aspen Arcade, Ltd., owner of the Lily Reid Cottage and the adjacent commercial building located on Lots A, B and C, Block 81, Aspen Townsite. On January 10, 1990, H.P.C granted Conceptual Development Plan approval for the proposed restoration of the Lily Reid Cottage. At that time, H.P.C. also granted conditional approval for demolition and partial demolition and for relocation of the historic structure from Lot C to Lot A; finally, HPC also recommended approval of Landmark designation of the entire site. Following that approval, P&Z also recommended approval of Land- mark designation of the entire site on April 3, 1990; City Council approved Landmark designation of Lots A, B and C on July 9, 1990 (see Ordinance 36, Series of 1990, Exhibit 34). On January 9, 1991, HPC granted a 90 day extension in the one-year filing deadline for Final HPC Development Plan review following approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. 1 The Lily Reid cottage is the last remaining brick cross-gabled Â· cottage in the Commercial Core Historic District, and one of only a few remaining in Aspen. Information in the Planning Office indicates that Lily Reid was the first owner of the property. Franz Berko, noted Aspen photographer of the post-war/early ski era also owned this property for a number of years and maintained his studio at this location. The concept for the redevelopment of the parcel remains consis- tent with prior approvals, including an "L" shaped multi-use building wrapping behind the detached Lily Reid Cottage, which is relocated to a prominent corner position and surrounded by landscaped public space, as illustrated on the following architectural drawings. Important design considerations which were previously noted by the Planning Staff have been maintained in the design, including no below-grade open space, orienting the primary facade toward on Hopkins, not Monarch, and the use of new materials which are non-competing to the Lily Reid Cottage. The proposal includes approximately 2,300 sq.ft. of open areas at the plaza level. The site is within the Commercial Core zone district. An FAR of 1.5:1 is allowed (13,500 sq.ft.), or up to 2.0:1 (18,000 sq.ft.) by Special Review when on-site affordable housing is provided. Consistent with the prior approvals, the FAR proposed on the two 2 sites is 1.47:1 (13,200 sq.ft.), or up to 2.0:1 (18,000 sq.ft.) affordable housing to be located on the second level of the new building. The two existing buildings on the site presently include 6,200 square feet of FAR, so that the net FAR expansion is 7,000 sq.ft. The project will include retail, office and affordable housing 'uses as well as storage for these uses and other accessory space. The new structure includes a ground level of 3,433 sq.ft. of retail space, the second level includes 2,451 sq.ft. of retail and office space and 1,506 sq.ft. of affordable housing and the third level includes 3,156 sq.ft. of office space. The basement level will include approximately 7,550 sq.ft. of retail space to be used for a restaurant and secondary display space for some of the retail uses on the ground floor. This is being proposed in order to provide these long-term local tenants with additional space which can be rented at a lower rate than that of the ground level space, therefore in turn keeping their overall rents low. There is an additional subbasement level which will be used for storage for the tenants in the building and for mechanical space, to minimize the amount of roof-top mechanical equipment. 13 II. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL CORE HISTORIC DISTRICT INVOLVING AN HISTORIC LANDMARK (Â§7-601(F)(4)) The Applicant requests. Final Development Plan approval by the HPC of the proposed restoration of the historic Lily Reid Cottage, which is to be relocated to the northwestern corner of Lots A, B and C, Block 81 as well as approval of a new structure to be constructed along the eastern and southern portions of the site. The ownership is a 9,000 square foot lot which has received Landmark designation; it is located within the Commercial Core Historic District, as illustrated on Sheet 3 of the architectural drawings (following page 2). Submission requirements for Final Development Plan review are as follows: A. The general application information required under Â§6-202: 1. The City's Application Form, which includes the names and addresses of the Applicant and his representative and the street address and legal description of the property, is attached as Exhibit Al. 2. Applicant's Letter of Authorization is attached as Exhibit A2. 14 3. Disclosure of ownership is attached as Exhibit A3. 4. The Key Map on the Site Plan (Sheet 3) locates the subject parcel (see architectural drawings). 5. Under the provisions of Â§6-205(E)(4)(a), no notice is required for Special Review, GMQS Exemption or Final HPC Develop- ment Plan applications. 6. Compliance with Final Development Plan review standards are addressed in this Section, beginning on page 28. B. An accurate representation of all major building materials, such as samples and photographs, to be used for the proposed development: Samples of major building materials will be presented at the Final HPC presentation as will a scale model which is more detailed than the one used for the conceptual presentation. The new model provides a clearer indication of the scale of materials and colors to be used for the project. The Lily Reid Cottage will be restored as closely as possible to historical accuracy. The restoration will be an interpretation based on other existing houses in the neighbor- hood. The shed structure which was added to the rear of the building and is not historic, will be removed, the rear facade 15 cleaned up and windows added. The enclosed front porch will be returned to its original state as an open porch. The exterior brick will either be cleaned to its original finish (if possible, without damage) or repainted. This decision will be made with HPC's assistance. All wood trim, fascias and gable ends will be restored and repainted. The roof will be redone in wood shingles. The ground level facades of the new building which face the street will be constructed from red brick with simulated sand- stone banding and detail. Canvas awnings will protect windows at street facades. Rails, exposed spandrel beams at awning loca- tions and window trim will be painted in colors to complement the relationship to the Lily Reid House. In order to create an appropriate back drop, or foil, for the Lily Reid Cottage the second and third levels of the new building are stepped back from the court and, with the exception of glass, will be delineated with matching dark colored mater- ials. Upper level building dlements include glazing members, rails and planters, wall surface, soffit and fascia surfaces. C. Scale drawings of the proposed development in relation to any existing structure: Reductions of the architectural plans of the proposal are included following page 2. Full-size drawings are being submitted separately. 16 D. The effect of the details of the proposed development on the original design of the historic structure and character of the neighborhood. The Lily Reid project offers a unique opportunity to truly enhance the visual character of downtown Aspen. The site is an entrance and point of transition in the approach to downtown, in terms of zoning, open space and architectural character. To the north and west of the site are Bass and Paepcke parks and wood frame residences with lawns which are characteristic of Aspen's Victorian residential neighborhoods. To the east and south are typical downtown core buildings - vertical brick facades, 30 feet or more in height., flat-roofed and fronting directly on the sidewalk. The concept for the project creates a true "gateway" to the downtown, and improves the transition from residential to commercial in the following ways: 1. The Lily Reid Cottage is presently hemmed in by bigger, dominating buildings. It will be relocated to the corner, freeing it and creating a focal point in the approach to downtown from the west and north. The house will be fully restored to echo and complement the houses along Hopkins. It will be set in a landscaped garden to enhance its historic, residential character. 17 2. The new building provides a backdrop to the Lily Reid Cottage, wrapping around and behind the historic structure in an "L" shape. The two end facades of the new structure relate very directly to their immediate downtown neighbors - Mill Street Plaza, Crystal Palace and Wheeler Opera House and echo the period character of the core area in general. Facades are red brick with sandstone banding, echoing the typical brick/sandstone facades in the downtown. Street-front facades are two stories in height, lower than the adjacent neighbors, while the stepped back third floor relates to the upper level of these same projects in height. In the center of the site, directly behind the cottage, is a paved courtyard and public space to provide access and to enhance the more urban character of the new building. Portions of the plaza will be snowmelted as required. At each of the corners are exterior stairs, providing access to upper level roof terraces, and making a transition to a more subdued facade which could best be described as a "backdrop" to the cottage. This facade steps back at each upper level, thus reducing the mass and improving the view plane to Aspen Mountain. By relocating the important historic residence within the site, restoring it, and giving it a meaningful. visually prominent, environment, this project will give the Lily Reid Cottage a true and historically appropriate presence in the 18 downt6wn, and provide a much improved "edge" to the downtown core. It is an opportunity to let the historic building live expresively, rather than subordinate without expression between two larger commercial structures on each side of its current location. E. Conformance of the Final Development Plan with the represen- tations made during the conceptual review and with any conditions of approval. The conditions of the prior approvals granted by HPC are discussed below: 1. Conceptual Development Plan: Conceptual Development Plan was approved by HPC subject to the following conditions: a. Detailed elevations, site, roof and landscape plans. Full-size drawings are being provided separately. Reductions of these 1/8" and 1/4" scale drawings are included in this application following page 2. b. Massing model. A more detailed massing model of the project has been completed and will be presented to the HPC at the hearing regarding the Final Development Plan. 19 3. 1 c. Complete, accurate restoration plan and detailed drawings for the historic cottage. including (but not limited to) partial demolition activities, front porch and window restoration, relocation methodology and protection during adjacent demolition, cleaning methods, foundation and excavation plan, measured drawings and photographs. Full-size drawings of the Lily Reid Cottage restoration plans are being provided separately. Reductions of these drawings are provided on Sheets 7 and 8, following page 2. As discussed in Section III, a decision has been made to temporarily store the cottage off-site during construction to avoid possible damage during construction. d. Performance Bond or Letter of Guarantee, approved by the City Attorney for relocation of the historic cottage. Ryberg House Movers has stated that providing a separate performance bond is totally unnecessary in light of the excellent insurance coverage which that company maintains. If the City does not agree, the Applicant will provide an instrument satisfactory to the City Attorney. e. Project phasing report. It is presently anticipated that upon final approval, the Lily Reid Cottage would first be relocated to the proposed temporary storage site on Main Street by Ryberg House Movers. The newer commercial building remaining on the site would then be demolished, site excavation would be undertaken and 20 construction of the new commercial building would proceed in a single phase. Once the plaza level is completed and construction staging permits a safe relocation, the Lily Reid Cottage will be returned to the site by Ryberg and placed in its new location in the northwest corner of the site. f. Restudy of horizontal features of new construction. The elevations of the new structure have been restudied to not only emphasize the vertical elements of the building but also to detail the building in a manner which is compatible in scale with that typical of victorian commercial structures in the area. g. Accurate representation of building materials. Building materials are discussed above in Section IIB, page 15. h. Information to support Demolition Standard B. The Planning Office has stated previously that the newer commerical building on the site proposed for demolition is not an important architectural contribution to the Commercial Core Historic District, and that the request for demolition is generally appropriate, considering the scope of the parcel's redevelopment plan. 21 h Subsequent to HPC's consideration of the conceptual application for the project, HPC has had several Code discussions regarding problems in present Code language, includ- ing the apparent confusion in the demolition standards which requires that a finding be made that a building is not structurally sound in order to approve demolition regardless of the historic significance of the structure in question. HPC has recommended that this provision be amended to allow demolition if a finding is made that the structure in,question is "non- contributing." The structure on the site which is proposed to be demolished is not identified in the Historic Inventory as a contributing structure, and therefore would be eligible for demolition once this provision is amended. i. The structure proposed for demolition is not structur- ally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure. If the HPC takes into account the project approved for the site, the structure to be demolished is not structurally sound, because in order to implement that plan, it is not possible to utilize the structural system of the existing building. In other words, the present building is not "structurally sound" for the use envisioned for the property. 22 -1 ii. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on-site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property. The reuse of the existing non-contributing structure would prevent implementation of the plan approved to enhance the prominence of the contributing structure on the site. iii. The structure cannot be practicably moved to another site in Aspen. _ There are no available sites to relocate the existing structure, nor is the building suitable for such an effort. iv. The applicant demonstrates that the proposal mitigates to the greatest extent practical, the following: (a) Any impacts that occur to the character of the neighborhood where demolition is proposed to occur. The impacts of the project on the character of the neighborhood are positive. (b) Any impact on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcles. The impacts of the project on the historic importance of strucures on- and off-site are positive. (C) Any impact to the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels. The impacts of the project on the architectural integrity of structures on-and off-site are positive. 23 7, i. Restudy setbacks of relocated cottage. There was some discussion among HPC members and staff about precisely where the Lily Reid Cottage should be located. For instance, the minutes reflect that Roxanne Eflin suggested that the house should be moved back into the courtyard further; Glen Rappaport felt it should be moved forward toward the sidewalk. The Commission did not make a final determination on this issue, requesting instead that the architects consider the specific placement of the historic structure for Final Submission. After further consideration of the design issues, a decision has been made by the architects to place the cottage as shown on the architectural drawings. The issues which have been considered, in order of priority, are the relationship to the victorian house across Hopkins Avenue, the relationship to the project courtyard (which we believe will become an important public space in its own right), and the relationship to the Mill Street Plaza Building to the east. In addition, the historic guidelines suggest that buildings in the commercial core should be built out to the sidewalk, but residential structures usually, if not always, were built with a small front yard. The victorian residence across the street is rectangular in shape and is set back approximately 7 feet from 24 Hopkins Street and 8 feet from Monarch Street. The Lily Reid Cottage is an L-shaped structure with a porch built into the i notch in the L and a shed roofed element in the rear. The proposed setback along Hopkins is between 5 and 10 feet and along Monarch it ranges from 4 to 10 feet. This places the cottage in front of the nearest facade of the Mill Street Plaza, which is set back 10 feet, but still preserves a small landscaped area between the building and the sidewalk. Shifting the cottage further to the east and south would have a negative impact on the plaza area. j. Specific information on variations requested. The only variations required are with regard to parking and open space, as addressed below: (i) Parking: Under the provisions of Â§8-104(B)(1)(c), Enlargement of an Historic Landmark, parking shall be provided according to the standards of Article 5, Divisions 2 and 3, if HPC determines that it can be provided on the site's surface, and be consistent with the review standards of Article 7, Division 6. 7he parking requirement in the CC Zone is 2 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. of net leasable. Based on the final program for the project, a total of 22 spaces would be required, but only if HPC determines that it can be provided on the site's surface. 25 In order to preserve as much open space as possible around the Victorian and still maintain a reasonable amount of ground floor commercial space, surface parking has been limited to only three spaces. Limiting the off-street parking is necessary for the viability of the project, and for compliance with HPC's review standards. The Applicant therefore requests HPC' s approval of the off-street parking proposal and a waiver of payment in lieu fees for the balance of 19 spaces. (ii) Open Space: The open space requirement for the project is 25% of the total site square footage, or 2,250 sq.ft. Approximately 2,300 sq.ft. of the site is devoted to the plaza, but because the open space definition now requires that open space areas be a minimum of ten feet in depth and extend at least 50% of the length of the lot frontage, none of the open space along Monarch can be counted in open space calculations. Therefore only 1,650 sq. ft. of the open space within the project complies with all aspects of this definition. Under the provisions of Special Review (Â§7-404(A)(3)), when the H.P.C. approves the on-site relocation of an Historic Landmark into required open space, such that the amount of open space on-site is reduced below that required by this Code, the requirements of this section shall be waived. During conceptual review, the H.P.C. deferred until Final Development Plan review a decision regarding the 26 extent of the open space waiver required for the project, pending a final decision regarding the siting of the Lily Reid Cottage. In Section IV (page 37), the Applicant is requesting Special Review approval of the siting of the cottage as shown and a waiver of 600 sq.ft. of required open space. Open space is being provided equal to the square footage required. However, the placement of the house is more important than the technical compliance with the open space measuring criteria. 2. Demolition and Partial Demolition. Approval of demolition and partial demolition involving an historic landmark was granted by HPC subject to the following conditions: a. That the Applicant address Standard B of Â§7-602. See Section II(E)(1)(h), page 22. b. That subsequent drawings and the architectural model reflect the actual conditions of the existing structure, including but not limited to the cross gable. The architectural drawings submitted with this application and the model to be presented at the H.P.C. hearing accurately reflect the existing historic structure, including the cross-gable which will be preserved. As Sheets 7 and 8 indicate, certain non-original elements (including the bay window, porch enclosure and storage shed which was added to the rear of the 27 building) will be removed and restored in a manner more typical of the original structure. 3. Relocation. Relocation of the*Lily Reid Cottage within the site was approved by HPC subject to the following condition: a. Further study of setbacks and precise siting of the historic building. Refer to Section II(E)(1), Condition "i", page 24. F. Development Plan Review Standards For All Development Involving Historic Landmarks: The proposal complies with HPC's review standards, as follows: 1. Compatibility: "The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel, and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay district, or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot, or exceed the allowed floor area, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements." The design of the proposed commercial building is intended to provide an architecturally understated backdrop to the small 28 victorian cottage in order to give visual prominence to its scale, form and detail at its new corner location. The exterior materials and detail of the commercial building are similar to neighboring buildings in order to provide continuity and compatibility with the immediate built environment. Massing, setbacks and building facades are also configured to assure a compatible relationship to neighboring structures, as well as to provide a transition in scale to nearby residential areas. 2. Neighborhood Character: "The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development." The proposal provides for a suitable transition from the scale of the buildings in the commercial core to that of the residential areas to the west, and creates a visual relationship with the victorian house at the corner location across the street. The project also provides a necessary transition between contemporary structures on the block and Victorian structures in the neighborhood. 3. Cultural Value: "The proposal enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development of adjacent parcels." 29 D. . The proposal enhances scale transitiqn in the neighborhood from commercial to residential, both in terms of architectural massing and proposed uses. The design character of Aspen's commercial core is reflected in the materials and period character of the project's architecture. 4. Architectural Integrity of Historic Structures: "The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof." By relocating the historic Lily Reid Cottage within the site, and providing an open space buffer around the structure, the new location for the building will much more closely approximate its historic setting, and will permit a view of its form and detail on all four sides. In its present location, the Lily Reid Cottage is ungraciously located between larger commercial buildings and only one facade can be readily seen. The new location and historic renovation will restore architectural integrity to the Lily Reid Cottage and all four sides of the building will be visible. 30 III. REQUEST FOR HPC APPROVAL TO TEMPORARILY RELOCATE AN HISTORIC LANDMARK WITHIN THE SITE (Â§7-602) Following approval of Landmark designation, the Applicant has worked closely with the architects and contractor regarding construction phasing of the project. As a result of that planning, a decision has been made to temporarily relocate the Lily Reid Cottage to an off-site location at Seventh and Main Street. Temporary relocation is necessary to protect the structure from possible damage during the .construction effort. The concept established for the project is clearly dependent on the successful relocation of the Lily Reid house and it is important to take every precaution to protect the building during this effort. A. Standards for Review of Relocation (Â§7-602(D)). Approval forrelocation may be granted if the HPC finds that all of the followin& standards are met: 1. "The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property. " The Applicant proposes to temporarily relocate the historic structure off-site during the construction phase. Once 31 17 construction staging permits, the structure will be returned to the site and placed in its approved location. 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 neighbor- hood and ajacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation. The Applicant has continued to consult with Ryberg Construction Company, structure Moving Contractors, who have moved numerous small residential structures such as this. The company anticipates that the structure can be relocated without historically significant alteration to its integrity. 3. "The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting." The ability of the structure to withstand relodation has previously been addressed in letters from Ryberg Construction Company and Integrated Engineering Consultants; these were included in the Conceptual Development Plan application. 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." It has been concluded that demolition of the existing commercial building to the west of the Lily Reid Cottage and subsequent subgrade construction poses a possible hazard to the 32 Lily Reid Cottage. The Applicant has received written permission from the owners of a parcel at Seventh and Main (see Exhibit D) to temporarily store the cottage on their property. Ryberg House Movers will move the cottage to the Main Street site where it will be stored on steel beams and then moved into its permanent location as soon as construction of the new struc- ture on the eastern and southern portion of the lot permits. 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 accceptance letter from the property owner of the receiving site shall be submitted." The temporary receiving site on Lots A through C, Block 19, is within the Main Street Historic District. It is presently anticipated that the cottage will be stored on the site for no more than six months. An acceptance letter from the property owners of the temporary receiving site is included in Exhibit D. B. Application Requirements for Relocation. A Development Application for Relocation shall include the following: 33 1. General Application Requirements: The general application requirements of Â§6-202 have been addressed previously in Section II, beginning on page 14. 2. Name of Structure: The name of the structure proposed for relocation is the Lily Reid Cottage. 3. "A written description of the structure proposed for relocation, and its year of construction." The existing Lily Reid Cottage is a brick masonary structure with wood trim and a metal roof, originally constructed around 1889. This former residential structure is representative of Aspen's Mining Era, and illustrates the home environment and lifestyle of some of the residents of Aspen at the time. An unusual feature of the house is that it is constructed of brick. In those days, brick was considered a more elaborate building material because of its greater cost and longer life. Therefore, some status or stability is represented by this Victorian Miner's Cottage. 4. "A report from a licensed engineer or architect regard- ing the soundness of the structure, and its suitability for rehabilitation." Lawrence Doble, of Integrated Engineering Consultants, has previously evaluated the historic structure and has concluded 34 that, using proper moving- techniques, the structure can be safely relocated (see conceptual application). 5. An economic feasibility report that provides: a. "Estimated market value of the property on which the structure lies, in its current condition, and after relocation." Mollica & Associates, Inc. previously completed a "Limited Appraisal Assignment" for Lot C in April, 1990 (see conceptual application). In Mollica & Associates' opinion, the existing building tends to damage the value of the property and the proposal to permanently relocate the existing house to the northwest corner of Lot A would substantially enhance the Victorian character of the structure. b. "Estimates from an architect, developer, real estate agent or appraiser, experienced in rehabilitation, addressing the economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the structure proposed for relocation." Mollica & Associates concluded that by relocating the structure to the corner of the site, the Victorian appeal of the Lily Reid Cottage will be enhanced, and a buffer will be provided between it and the new structure to be built behind it. c. "All appraisals made of the property on which the structure is located made within the previous two years." The Limited Appraisal Assignment included with the conceptual application is the only appraisal of the subject property in the past two years. 35 d. "Any other information considered necessary to make a determination whether the property does yield or may yield a reasonable return on investment." "As is", the existing structure was not expected to generate net operating income to support its appraised value, because the site is considerably underdeveloped relative to its present zoning. An addition to the rear of the building would be very expensive, and would not provide prime retail space. Mollica & Associates concluded that by relocating the Lily Reid Cottage, the building will be preserved near its original .location, but will be exposed more fully to view, creating prime retail space, and acting as a drawing card to the remainder of the building rebuilt around the Victorian structure. 6. "A development plan and a statement of the effect of the proposed development on the other structures on the property, and the character of the neighborhood around the property shall be submitted in cases when the HPC requires a development plan to evaluate the appropriateness of demolition, or when the applicant believes the submission of a development plan will assist in the evluation of the proposed demolition." Demolition is not contemplated for any buildings or building elements with any historic significance. 36 11Â£LU..12 - HAGNAM YAW 2 ARC,In'BCTS 1.A=:~, MECHANk'Al. Rotl t MEIÂ·HANKÂ·AL R{XIM AC-b i Mi 41 1,-Au.-Â£ E a I 180 1 .m:irr t.7-1-> 1 1. :" f-1 - El.E'ITOR FOUTTMENT |M .1 nq E SUBBASEMENT PLAN â‚¬tÂ»d>b..r I. !1111II1I 1 .. 1 j 103/01Id 11, i Z'.. 1 HAC,MANâ„¢W - ARCHITECTS 2 /41-6 ..1.,0 4. 1 1/RCH CHAIR 11. I RETAn, â€¢ 1- nt.IGHT urr ~ [4#ell, 1 . Gil 1 1 8 .- 4,01!i' ffil-1--1 M. RETAIL ME: REVISD 85: -- 4-- .- BASEMENT PLAN li,â€¢â€¢2 w :-d .LOGWOHd C[[2[N XFI HH,L CRYSTAL BALACIE Ancit!11:0 - L COOPER /ENUE -maR /1â‚¬ 230 - C]NJ 41-rl--23 (90 ALLEY 1 1 11â„¢AN /11*Ur .. 57--==>~ PARKDIC ,- Â· u T"/1 Co/Â»070~ morile -DIVE 4-. 4 4-1-24 Op D LFÂ°Pal A IJV~ - P , ma/.1,/r mm ---~ . i~|1!1+bl .-7 /,1 N #2 EFiCHI 100% Ey n 1, id ch 0 ' 1 101 r 1 1 NETAIL 1.,i, ij AL 2 KEY PLAN ' ,~_~_A 1-1 - Â· * '#111#146 - g BASS B<RK 4 *-/7-- Â¥=:&6.Wau&4, 1 11 \ Roc~,0,1 To /YT, , == 11.5 I . 31~ '<1 .j _ f~ ;ZA. RETAIL V 4 71.1 't (0-- \$ 1, .191 MILL STREET PLAZA REall; / { / Of-j 0- 70.1.r 4 . 1-6/ fol~ f 1.m- 1- -,0-1-~-9- -9- -1 177..8-4 - 12 4 -- 2 f 11 4 7.ink 11 1 ,f ' , 0 0 0 te) NAP\j vi 4 / 31 HOPKINS AVENUE i . i .di SITE & LEVEL ONE PLAN .L 11,1,1.... 1031'01Id GISH X111 . - MAGMANWV - ARC,I,CTS - iÂ»lotmt- A~FK('.'$".~'" AFFORDABLE HOUSING - Pli 1 91 1-1 , L HI -12. â„¢1 1 1 \Illo 1 k.i.T---3 2%1 L -7241 - .=~ 1-4 It _, %01 ~ RETAnjOFFICE EXMat-~Um- ti 2 IL i {'4 wos 1 ' ' 1 -c. a.. , M Ve'll ----- -2!MTIT-'0 j r,ykl *+- ' %~ . l Tr-1 ~ Â»t' / MILL XPREET PLAZA , d'ill ~1. t .tuâ‚¬.95/ ---- *111 [D i 1 -I..... t.1 'flY rIM.ernâ€¢ TO 5 i - Â»11 V 'kETAn./OFI:'!CE ~ 1Â«- g WAE' HOUSE BELOW 01/6,Â»& VI -- - --- 217*3 - ,/...TY LIWI . --1 1 1 7 U al 64Il. 1i 153*E . LEVEL TWO PLAN - 11,1.,1.. 102[fOHd GINH XIII SHL 11111 I TIE 4 < F 0>It . : -HAGMAN"* - AROUâ„¢CTS I mi* . OFFICE .I 11'AU.T FUJR -0 m== - lmENT MILL arREET PLAZA i 7--0 , 221- - -R i. - 92 --111 . MAN.- m.. m OMICE HOUSE BELOW r ..... .-7 ~.1 I 4 em El Rns.Â»D . LEVEL THREE PLAN Â£11 fU,- 103.folid GIYR - HAGMAN*W 2 mmwi 0 4 . A -,- HOM>*4,lele* Â¥ 44 %.9 1 , <>3 34' ". y R!,-24Â« \\/7 9 42 -= t_ i im 4 ' r=,7 111'ill Â·Â·Â·4.01 MILL ErREET PLAZA - - 10*0 - .'*kITY NNI ROOF PLAN $ /9 . 1111111 jut-Â£- 11 1 1 1 111 - HAGMAN'"%* - ARCINâ„¢CTS 2 ..61 - Arrr,"p 1 1 -1 'A --1 -1. t, 1 1 1 ...... 4~51 LE - C-1 . - ---- / -1=g U- ----- I Mi r -=7--1 .. --71/., ---- --- -- . ---- -. ..JA6I - --- . _&&Lah -- - 72â‚¬F?9, , f-r r! 1-lirritâ€ž 1 ,: ,;,iâ€ž ,//le,â€¢ooer 'f--4 1- /-0- Bre:06*râ€¢--4 EAST ELEVATION SOUTH-ZI.Eam!1 r f ... ,-0 *0- -1 1 1 rl 'A 1 1 ' 1--ft-/.r--it-~ 17 , i ,.Ch-/.W \.. 11 / ' *40 1\ I i t-- '7',-_---4-1 1 / - . ---fE-d=El,1~1*f~-1 7/. =,=-=Uittl rÂ» Upts --i.331_3 - 18% r 11 c lill i : L ' EE- f -ZE=21._ --- - -1-f -11 - 1 1 ~ 1 1 31-4 Â¢ 4- Ill @d p EMEUL--3, EM -il nill[TÂ» Â·11-lkâ‚¬*- .--a --- -- -Â·- --- .-- 7-'- r-~--4â‚¬44-+4=r , 1 ' r- T 1 -- - ....u...00,0--4 -I.....9,/16// .......44 NORTH ELEVATION WEC.ELEYATION ...1: I - C 'Il-. -- Z , #-.*.5 Iii ./31 11/- . 111 11 11.-111 n .=A 11 .-â€ž. 05%22 11 rl ~- 4.k 11 1 t kE.-1 . -- . Dll....4 - t a 3 9 --- 1 17. 4 . M.I- ~~ EXETING PLAN Lily REED HOUSK 7I 12 j . EXUMING -11 111111 IOD \ 01.5 5 9/V---- r- Â· HAGMANYAW - ARCHnECrS - - .=a.; - - - ------- -- 10125Â·Ill 2--* 6 -- - - A#N ~41,/ev.14 - - N......... ----ti===S47&/1F7F1-rr-Ull-\11-Ut . -- : -- EEb=4-1-tterN- E ]11 --- ~~*===em~t ii ~IE~ Ae~tn~~~6*U/A47 - _ - - -5---5-~-E:rese=6; ~~9 - &21 .1.2,- RAST ELEVATION squ"CELEVATION ~ A JC ./U. 6,-6./6y ~0&4- --------ES T Be'llao - ---5-:_~1--_ i~-4-4Â«-17 ~Re------=Â»=EÂ«=---inE:Er f -- Sjoil, LAFMRPA. - -Â·51_~-~.~Na--1-1923- *Loc"F E ---'-i--i- kilk - 2% - Per *Â¥ -aH ._ . -- --- _ _- L__ -1 ~ + 0 ..4 0.4-0.4 - 2 / t//&/C* W - m 2 1 - 1 1 LI , 1.-- 1 - 2 - Ill L Â·1 1 J h - -2226=y t==. lFIr-9 4 .1- ~.1 -0 NORTH ELEVATION *UX. WEEr ELEVATION 0 /9 us rf 1 .=m=7 . . REVISIONS: 0 -- 1 4 H/DeÂ»4 9 -U. a%7- L .1 , 1 *61 /00<no. -r r -4 / 1 4 1 ........'.' I 7 "*â€¢ NO CA.....& I -- .MN ""CS'.4 L-- ---__gat== - ~h PROPOSED PLAN LILY REm HOUSE ~ --#--- F--*..G~*ilici. PROPOSED CHAN . r-UT HAGIIAMIWIX ARCHn,CIS f 9/--ra-e 4*I cEEEFE~ 4==-= , i t========--===i.--I--Ill--IWgAilil---liuW~--~ .41.- . 1 . 1[--3 -1111- li 11- 11 12 ill !1 1]Ilf 11 Ill f 811Ll'Ii ll If F--I[ --ll IL -lf- -1---~I I~ i~ E :1 I .--- -- -Â·t @59*ffTY=f==1#12-9-- Dre-3 --1 EE_ [1 1- fli - '.-Il *.I , - aâ€¢ec-r r =L___PiL____=INL_____-IL 1 - -.rri 2111 - 1~1---- --- -- -1# ---- -- 71.-2 1 g '11 1= - - --- 1 -4,-1 ~ 8 A.04 MONARCH STREET ELEVATION a 9. *..ILâ‚¬,1 bar,â€¢04 + 11.M ,eâ€¢â€¢-ete ,/Â·epâ‚¬. â€¢L,re~.900> a. WIM NO *04 .or' 4.Â¥ 0. 1 Tr -- r-1 '--------7 2 .../.-.I r T gl --E== 7 25///E/.-#c:2~j.--~ zu :L- -- ~ ~ ~ _ 60~10*f~Sl.,0 - -- -0-3Â»-~ -4 -2 4 3 11~ . /â€žCA = 1fjt.' Â° i -- .1 - -r~ -m 2- 1 1 1 - == - Ip - ""./ C~Wâ€¢â€¢W - -' & 1-f-/1. f --- 1 Le--1...... e-!Ne 1/144. O,FS* A,/~IRM#60,Ne HOPKINS AVENUE ELEVATION 9 42 - FLAGMAN YAW .. 10.1.= // 4 ~~41041 -ill]11]~~111[1] 1 ~3[~~1 NELEÂ®JIB Â»1(1 + --1-Â®_] . 1-1... Ck ~12 ,- - 4~i --(Il. . 3-0 Â£ 1 1 1- -- Lufl 1-1 Eli. - T r-=L 1__1_1--2 -2 ..2. 3 4 I 11 11 1 . - ---- -- ALLEY ELEVATION * * 1/*i -+-- M"Me 1 "Pic M -4 .f \ 9 - 2 \: ~er / -Â·d r ~ m m -- il----- *Il/Â«t./. I.'I..."Il 11 IL ..1. 1 11 ra 0 1*,aâ‚¬'.-0, REN Elli %-1-1[--2.--- -# 0 --131 1 E ---- ' Il Â· 4 -80*.,4.9Â· -- - -8//*4,4., -~ 1--1 -- %/&'",2,-0, ,ter7 1 -7 - UGHTWEU BLE,WrION CORNER ELEVATION . *~111111' 1" '' 0(IVHOI00 7259 EXHIBIT C Letter from Ryberg Construction Company Regarding Relocation of Lily Reid Cottage f.:.ft ~ ~Â·~/...11. . Â· RiatÂ¢*ji V . WF ARB ALWAYS PHUMic .. NO MAT' :14 HO A L ON) 0-Â· 1 AKES. RYBERC CONSTRUCTION CO. "SHORING & STRUCTURF MOVING CONTRAS- 3, 9900 E. FLORIDA AVE.#2 DENVER, CO 80231 H.CARL Pvs[Hz H..Ila. 2 6 SON . â€¢ (5.3. 7- 342Â£ Ovec 36 4 January 1991 yoars 01 Service First in Area to Mr. Charles Cunniffe CHARLES CUNNirFE & ASSOC. Move Charles Cunniffe and Assoc:iarps ASPEN CO BriCk aftd 520 E. Hpan, Suite 301 M diton ry Buildings Ascpn, CO 81611 Re: Belocating a pre-age era masonry censtructed residential structure wit} Demolition lin\e and sand mortar joints With two or more courses of brick exteric walls. Excavation Dear }t. Cunniffe: Rentention Systems These types- of constructed house structures are the most difficult to re- locate: however, they can be relocated in almost excellent candit.'ton using th. correct :coving procedures. During the last forty years I have rclocted hun Shoring â€¢Jnderpinning fired= of these pre-age era masonty constructed struct-ures. The house you called about will be an easier one to move due to its small size (627 square feet). Structural Confirming the faxed quotes 4 January 1991, the moving cost will be in the Reatoratior $12 - 13,000.00 range. Out of town and travel cost inchÂ£led in the about quote. All risk special transportation insurance * also available at S .71 per hundred dollars of coverage. A $1,000.00 deductible applies to eact -oundation loss. FieplaGemenl Providing the decision is to relocate the structure, it is possible to move the structure c}{11-0 n 13asement and/or garden level d so desired. If yol Founclatici, proceed with the relocation and get to Denver in the interim period, I have a Extwision photo album wi th pr inted inserts that explain all phases of a masonry reloca- UP Or Down tien Which mal be helpful te you. Additionally, for Lhe Aspen arcade or other projects, if sharing Or injerÂ» pinning is required I would estimate that type of work for you. Flue Ehl:Inates Sincerrly, in Denver Area Free Relocation Pamphlet ' RD,berg Oonet. . b' tor Customers 'WE HAUL OA RESTORE YOUR MOST PRIZED POSSESSION FOR YOU 0 EXHIBIT D Letter from Owners of Lots A through C, Block 19, Granting Permission to Temporarily Relocate the Lily Reid Cottage onto the Property February 5, 1991 Re: Temporary Relocation of Lily Reid House to Lots A through C, Block 19, Aspen Townsite TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Our letter is to notify the City that we are the record owners of Lot A, B and C, Block 19, Aspen Townsite. We have given permission to Aspen Arcade, Ltd. to temporarily relocate the Lily Reid house onto our property during construction of a new building on Lots A, B and C, Block 81. Yours truly, -90 -/ f. C #1-ia thfula-- Charles Rolles> JohYÂ¥'Olson il <h MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Landmark Designation, Conceptual Development, partial demolition and rear yard setback variation: 716 W. Francis St. (Public Hearing) gate: March 27, 1991 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Landmark designation, Conceptual development, partial demolition and rear yard setback variation for 716 W. Francis St. The proposal includes the addition of a two- car attached garage, dormers, and the addition Of an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) connected to the main house by a one-story sunroom. A $2,000 designation grant is being requested from* Council. LOCATION: 716 W. Francis St., Lots N and O and the West 15' of Lot P, Block 15, City and Townsite of Aspen APPLICANT: John R. Beatty, represented by Joseph and Delia Bellina. Charles Cunniffe and Associates are representing the purchasers, Joseph and Delia Bellina. ZONING: R-6. SITE, AREA AND BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Lot Size: 7,500 sq. ft. Allowable FAR: 3,450 sq. ft. Proposed Total FAR: 3,007 sq. ft. Max. allowable height 25' Proposed maximum height 19' Max. site coverage 4,875 sq. ft. Proposed site coverage 3,445 sq. ft. Parking spaces required: 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS: The subject cottage is a vernacular two story, built c. 1890. It has received some modifications over the years, particularly in the form of a rear shed and exterior stairway leading to the second floor. The porch has been extended along the western perimeter. An historic outbuilding is located at the alley (this structure needs some work). 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); Partial Demolition Standards are found in Section 7-602(C) of the Land Use regulations. Landmark Designation Standards are found in Section 7-702. 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, and we are recommending designation: Standard E. (Neighborhood Character): This cottage and parcel is a significant component of an historically. significant neighborhood (West End). Standard F. (Community Character): The structure 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. Response: Staff is generally pleased with the conceptual design as proposed. It appears from the proposal that the changes may enhance the character of this structure, as the addition design is not adding significant bulk and mass that would affect the facade. The accessory dwelling unit is a small scale one story element, located well to the rear and to one side of the parcel. The amount of demolition proposed (42%) does not mandate compliance with Ordinance #1, however, the applicant wishes to volunteer the ADU, which the Planning Office supports. A full basement is proposed, therefore requiring excavation. An Engineering report and bonding will be required for Final approval, to insure project completion. Will the finished grade level of the structure be raised above its current location? How will the foundation be treated? 2 Staff also recommends a detailed preservation plan be submitted at Final. Sunroom/Breezeway: Current land Â·use regulations do not permit this element. This connector will either need to eliminated from the proposal for code compliance, or the applicant would be required to seek approval through the \Board of Adjustment. We find that with the elimination of this breezeway, the ADU makes Â· an ideal detached "Cottage Infill" unit, that appears to meet the design and use intentions of this innovative affordable housing program. Variations: A rear yard setback variation of 5' (for the garage) and 10' (for the dwelling unit) is proposed. The HPC should c consider whether this variation request can be granted .based upon the required finding that it is more compatible in character than would be development in * accord with dimensional requirements. Due to the significant character of this particular alleyscape, the HPC should carefully consider what impacts zero lot-line development of a new garage and the ADU will have to this context. It also appears that a side yard setback is required. A minimum of 15' total sideyard setback is required by code, and the proposal falls short of that. The applicant should clarify this .issue in the Final Development application, and the HPC should consider whether this sideyard setback variation is appropriate to grant. No other variations are requested or needed for this proposal. Streetscape and Landscape Material: We find that the streetscape is generally unaffected by this proposal. 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. Alleys and Parking: The applicant has not addressed the demolition of the historic alley building. Due to the historic alleyscape found in this block, perhaps one of the most original remaining in the West End, we are recommending the applicant provide an alleyscape sketch that indicates the new construction in relationship to the alley context. This will provide the HPC with additional information to help them address the applicability of the rear yard setback variation request. Three parking spaces are required, which the applicant is providing. There will be a net loss of one bedroom. Parking is 3 not required for the studio unit ADU. ( u'< Rooflines: Conceptually, we find that proposed dormers appear U d slightly out of scale when viewed from the south. The existing A F shed dormers on the west are proposed to be eliminated, and k i A ty'- 92 replaced by gable dormers. Two new gable dormers are proposed for the east. The need is functional, and their roof peak is well below the peak of the center roof ridge. The HPC should consider whether these dormers are appropriately scaled for this structure. Doors: We recommend all original doors (if any) remain on the structure, and that new doors be compatible though not replicative. This detail should be clarified in the Final Development application. We recommend that the applicant restudy the number of small divided lights in the French doors, which should be reduced for compatibility purposes. The garage doors appear compatible. Windows: As with doors, we recommend all original windows and glass remain on the historic cottage, with storm windows installed on the interior as necessary. The application does not address the preservation plan for the original windows, which will. be required for Final review. The fenestration pattern proposed for the new addition appears compatible, with the exception of the number of divided lights. The conceptual sketch indicates a large number of six-over-six windows throughout, which is clearly an inappropriate choice for windows of the Victorian era - these appear Georgian. We strongly recommend the applicant restudy an appropriate window design (one over one, or perhaps two over one) for the Final application. The windows proposed for the cottage unit are in-keeping with the small cottage scale of this ADU, however staff recommends the applicant restudy the north elevation window for scale and division compatibility, and restudy the entrance door and sidelights. Porches: It appears that the original porch has been either extended or completely remodeled. We recommend the applicant provide clarification on this issue. for Final. The new proposal indicates a projecting porch element on the west to allow summer outside dining with the benefit of garden views. The HPC should consider whether this impacts the character of the facade; staff is neutral on this issue. 4 The conceptual sketch does not detail the porch column design, which will be required for Final. Materials: The proposal calls for horizontal wood overlap siding, which we find appropriate. We ' recommend that the HPC consider whether the addition of fancy-cut shingles to the qable end of the ADU is appropriate. or whether the siding treatment should simply carry through to the peak. The new dormers are also shown to have this shingled gable end treatment. We recommend a simplification here, to allow the historic shingled gable end facade to read through as the original decorated element. The applicant is proposing asphalt shingles throughout. Staff is recommending wood shingles on the principal structure with the option of asphalt shingles on the ADU. 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 alley structure also appears to be consistent with this standard, provided however (as mentioned previously) that an alleyscape sketch indicate character compatibility. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structure located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: We find that proposal does not detract from the cultural value of the parcel, with the exception of the demolition of the historic outbuilding. We recommend the HPC consider the merits of this alleyscape in terms of its contribution to our community's overall cultural landscape, and (at a minimum) suggest mitigation measures for any potential impacts here. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Partial demolition, excavation and the preservation and remodel issues must be more completely addressed in a Final Development application in order for staff to determine if this Standard has been completely met. 5 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 L.,1 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 (42%). The application is not clear on the defining the age of the additions proposed for removal, or the level of importance they provide to the architectural or historic integrity of this structure. These issues must be clarified prior to an HPC approval for partial demolition. 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 of the structure have been mitigated. We are recommending that this issue be addressed fully at this meeting (or perhaps tabled) to provide the HPC ample information in order to address the Partial Demolition standards. Obviously the remainder of the proposal hinges on the applicant's ability to meet these standards, and the HPC granting approval finding the standards have been met. 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 and rear year setback variation (finding required) as proposed. 3) Approve the Conceptual Development application with the following conditions to be met in Final Development application: 6 a) Compliance with Partial Demolition Standards found in Sec. 7-602(C). Engineer's report and bonding is required. b) Compliance with Demolition Standards found in Sec. 7-602(B) regarding the historic alley building c) Detailed preservation plan for the structure, including all materials and architectural features (windows, doors, porch, etc.) d) Detailed site and landscape plan. Fencing shall be detailed, and shall be open in nature. e) Massing model indicating alleyscape f) Material representation, including chimneys. Roof material of principal structure shall be wood shingle, asphalt shingle is alternative for ADU. Restudy fancy-cut shingle treatment for non- historic gable ends. Consider carrying through siding material to gable peak. g) Eliminate breezeway connector (per code restrictions) h) Provide alleyscape sketch to assist in determining appropriateness of zero-lot line setback at rear i) Clarification of side yard setback, and revised application posing variation request if necessary j) Restudy fenestration: reduce number Of divided lights throughout. 4) Table action to a date certain, to allow the applicant , time for restudy (setback variation issues, demolition and partial demolition, alleyscape, fenestration, breezeway). A revised application shall be submitted to the Planning Office no less than two full weeks prior to the tabled public hearing date. 5) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Standards have not been met. 7 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC recommend Landmark Designation for the property at 716 W. Francis St., finding that Designation Standards E and F have been met. The Planning Office further recommends that the HPC grant Conceptual Development approval for the proposal at 716 W. Francis St., subject to the conditions as stated in Alternative 03. Additional comments: memo.hpc.716WF 8 HPC PROJECT REVIEW CHECKLIST Does the Project meet the Standards for Development? Does the Project meet the Development Guidelines? Does the Project support the Community's Preservation Goals? SITE PLANNING ROOF Siting of the Building: Shape (gable, lean-to, etc.) Setback Pitch Facade width Overhang Spacing between buildings Dormers Skylight Chimneys Delineation of street space: Creation of continuous street WINDOWS edge Separation of public, semi-public, Type (double-hung, easement, etc.) and private areas Shape and proportion Fences Rhythm and balance Blinds/shutters Garage placement DOORWAYS Landscape plantings Placement and orientation Type (paneled, etc.) Site improvements: EXTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL Walkways ELEMENTS Driveways Retaining walls Door platforms and steps Porches BULK, PROPORTION and Exterior stairs and decks SCALE (building size) Roofwalks and platforms MATERIALS Height Facade proportions Wall surfaces Scale Foundation Roof MASSING (building shape) TRIM and MISCELLANEOUS Mass of main portion: DETAILS Form Roofshape Trim Orientation Gutters and leaders Louvres, vents, etc. Additions: House lights Placement Public utilities Form Bulk SPECIFIC DESIGN SUGGESTIONS: : 10Hf OZid .31VU Â· MUXI*i]*?r i .. IAND USE APPLICATION FCaM, 1) Proj ect Name Bellina Residence 2) Project location 716 West Francis St., Lots N&O and the West 15 feet of Lot P, Block 15, City and Townsite of Aspen. (indicate street address, lot & block number, legal descriptian where appropriate) 3) Present Zoning R-6 4) Lct Size 7500 sq.ft. 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # Joseph & Delia Bellina Suite 810, Ona Galleria Blvd., Metairie, LA. 70001 (504) 861-4903 6) , Representative's Name, Address & Phone # 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Use - Conceptual SPA - Coneeptual'Historic Dev. ~ Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Conceptual POD - Minor Historic Dev. - Stream Margin .Final ED -Â· Historic Danolition - Mountain yiew Plane _ Subdivision _1_ Historic Designation - Condcminiumizaticn Text/Map Amendment - GMOS Allotment ____ Lot Split/Lat Line Adjustment - 9433 EboEmption 8) Description of Existing Uses (Ilmber and type of existing structures; approximate sq. ft.; number of bedroans; any previous apprc,vals granted'to the property). 1 Residence, Approximately 2878 sq.ft. of existing F.A.R., 4 existing bedrooms. 9) Description of Development Applicatian Alterations and Addition to 2 story residence including 2 car garage and , an accessery dwelling unit. 10) Have you attached the following? Response to Attachment 2, Minim= Subnission Ocntents Response to Attachment 3, Specific Suhnission Ocntents Respanse to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application CHARLES CUNNIFFE &ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS --- EAST HYMAN SUITE 301, ASPEN CO. 81611 303/925-5590 . CHARLES L CUNNIFFE, A.IA APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION COMPLIANCE WITH RELEVANT REVIEW STANDARDS A. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER According to historical data, it has been determined that the west Francis Street residence was constructed in 1890. Similar to many of its west end neighbors, this 101 year old structure embodies simplistic victorian form as well as ornate detailing. These two elements, prevalent in victorian architecture are historically significant. To preserve this structure is not only important for the residence itself, but also for the maintenance of the historic neighborhood character. B. COMMUNITY CHARACTER This historic structure, located in the west end, is indicative of traditional victorian style of architecture. Constructed over a hundred years ago this residence was constructed, along with several other residences in the community, those residences set the standard for the character of the entire west end of Aspen. The historic designation of this residence is critical to the preservation of this victorian architectural style throughout the Aspen community. U" ip- AA:99 9.".7 / 4 4 -69*0412#34* f- '.4 12 ...L;f.,.;~f,..4~1Â·,Â·i,zÂ· P.Â·0 .I '44 jr- 1 1 1- . 05.14 ' t , CHARLESCUNNIFFE &ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS Â·flf.432 :4*'44ki.# i 520 EAST HYMAN SUITE 301, ASPEN CO. 81611 303/925-5590 MÂ·?Â·,...3 .' CHARLES L CWNNIFFE, A.IA . I. GENERAL APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS A. Letter of Consent by applicant is attached as Exhibit 'A'o B. The street address and legal description of the parcel of the proposed project is; 716 W. Francis Street Lots N&0 and the West 15 feet of Lot P Block 15, City and Townsite of Aspen C. Disclosure of Ownership is attached as Exhibit 'B'. D. A vicinity map for the area in which the site is located is attached as Exhibit 'C'. E. I. Compliance with relevant review standards 1. Design compatability with existing structure. The proposed development will have little effect on the original historic structure. Two small gable dormers will replace existing shed dormers on the west side of the residence. And to create symetrical balance two small gable dormers have been added to the existing structure, on the eastÂ· side, one to house a stairway, the other to provide head room in the Master Suite. Some French doors have been added along the west facade to provide access to the Victorian garden which faces south. Also some windows have been added at the Library/Study and at the Music Room, however they will reflect the vertical form of the existing fenestration. The new elements; the Accessory Dwelling Unit and connecting sun room are situated back on the northwest corner of the site, emulating the carriage houses of the past. Not only does this addition screen the Victorian garden from the alley, it further enhances this property's character by its reiteration of form and materials of the main structure. 2. Consistancy with neighborhood character. The proposed renovation and addition to the original residence, done in traditional historic style, reinforces the original Architectural Character while at the same time providing a much more useable dwelling by modern standards. In keeping with the character residences in the surrounding neighborhood, this renovation clearly enhances rather than detracts from the Victorian flavor prevalent through out the entire West End. <99- I CHARLES CUNNIFFE &ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS - -0 EAST HYMAN,SUE 301, ASPEN, CO. 8161! 303/925-5590 CHARLES L CUNNIFFE AIA 3. Enhancement of the Cultural Value of the Structure. The limited changes to the west Francis Street facade are in keeping with the original structure's character. In addition, the large Victorian style garden is screened from the alley by the Accessory Dwelling Unit, which reflects the traditional character and reiterates the scale of the original structure. These combined elements can only enhance the cultural value of the Renovated Structure. 4. Enhancement of the Architectural Integrity of the Structure. The proposed renovation and addition not only encompass the original elements of this historic residence, but also the use of scale, detail, traditional fenestration and the creation of a Victorian garden; the architectural integrity of this structure can ony be enhanced. II EXISTING CONDITIONS PLANS A Building permit survey prepared by Aspen Survey Engineers, as well as field measured plans and elevations illustrating existing conditions are attached in Exhibit "D". III STATEMENT OF EFFECT OF PROPOSED DESIGN The restoration and studio addition (A.D.U.) which we propose for the residence at 716 W. Francis Street , Aspen, Colorado, is planned to enhance its character as well as that of the neighborhood. The changes to the existing structure will help to improve its liveability while maintaining historic charm. We have added two gable dormers on the east side which mirror replaced dormers on the west side in order to provide headroom in the stairwell going to the second level master suite as well as in the Master Suite sitting room. We feel the addition Of these dormers balances the South elevation of the structure thus improving upon the original structure. The addition of a small studio and connecting sunroom reflects the historic charm of the main house as well as creating a natural boundary for the south facing Victorian garden. Not only does the studio open onto this historically traditional garden space but french doors along the west facade of the main house provide access, which further reflects and enhances this property's historic flavor. -1-5 . ., 1â‚¬0 17.11,#Et-t,1 9 . . 1-,1.3-41.r ./.Â¢94.law...1 CHARLES CUNNIFFE &ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS ' 4 I .1- %# 444 z -&' ' 520 EAST HYMAN SUITE 301, ASPEN, CO. 81611 303/925-5590 - >4}0'*,4 -16 -- ~ .~ CHARLES Le CUNNIFFE, A.IAD<0~ 4% It is the intent of the applicant to maintain the structure's historic character, while adapting it to a more up to date lifestyle. The resulting modifications will not only improve this residence but will help to enhance the character of the entire neighborhood. The proposed development is illustrated in Exhibit 'E', attached. IV APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION The applicant wishes to have the residence and the site given historic designation and is applying for historic designation grant provided for by the City Ordinance. A letter of intent by the applicant is attached Exhibit 'F'. V APPLICATION FOR SETBACK VARIATION The current code requires a minimum 5' -0" setback for the garage only. However in order to keep the new constuction within the parameters of the original structure; it was necessary to encroach on the 5' -0" setback with the new 2 car garage. WeÂ·believe this variance is necessaryÂ·in order to maintain the historic character of the original structure in our renovation as well as within the nieghborhood. We are requesting the same variance for the rear setback of the Accessory Dwelling Unit which not only screens the south-facing Victorian garden from the alley but also allows this garden access along the entire west side of the main house. Again, this not only enhances the traditional historic flavor of this site but also that of the entire neighborhood. VI APPLICATION FOR PARTIAL DEMOLITION The existing structure has historically been added on to in stages. Along the north end at the alley is a one story shed and stairway which will be demolished as well as a secondary addition which we propose to demolish due to structural instability and warped floors. The partial demolition of the north end of the existing structure will provide adequate space to build a new 2 car garage and porch above accessed from the master bath at the second level. This new construction will reflect like materials of the existing structure, thus not detracting from its original historical significance. Partial demolition of approximately 42% is indicated in Exhibit 'D'. EXHIBIT 'D-8 ' BELLINA RESIDENCE EXISTING CONDITIONS Lot Area 7500 sq.ft. F.A.R. Allowance 3450 sq.ft. Main Level 1952 sq.ft. Upper Level 926 sq.ft. Total Floor Area 2878 sq.ft. Maximum Height 25'-0" Parking 2 Spaces Allowable Site Coverage 4875 sq.ft. Actual Site Coverage 2943 sq.ft. CHARLES CUNNIFFE &ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 520 EAST HYMAN, SUITE 301, ASPEN, CO. 81612 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, A.I.A. EXHIBIT E-8 BELLINA RESIDENCE PROPOSED CONDITIONS Lot Area 7500 sq.ft. F.A.R. Allowable 3450 sq.ft. A.D.U. 580 sq.ft. Sunroom 128 sq.ft. Basement 62.4 sq.ft. Main Level 1452 sq.ft. Upper Level 785 sq.ft. Total Floor Area 3007.4 sq.ft. Maximum Height 17'-6" Parking 3 Spaces Allowable Site Coverage 4875 sq.ft. Actual Site Coverage 3445 sq.ft. EXHIBIT 'D-2' LEGEND AND NOTES FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT AS DESCRIBED 1 FOOT CONTOURS BASE ON TBM 100 AS SHOWN SNOW ON GROUND AT TIME OF SURVEY NO TITLE INFORMATION FURNISHED NOR WAS ANY RESEARCH PREFORMED BY THE SURVEYOR SURVEY CONTROL POINT BUSH EVERGREEN TREE DECIDUOUS TREE FENCE 0 98.7 SPOT GRADE WITH ELEVATION ROOF ELEVATION TABLE A 122.6 B 117.0 C 109.1 0 109.3 E 105.1 FIRST FLOOR AT FROMT ENTRY 100.1 BUILDING PERMIT / TOPOGAPHIC SURVEY OF LOT N,0 AND THE WEST 15' OF LOT P, BLOCK IS, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN. PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO. PREPARED BY ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEER'S INC. 210 9. 0*LENA ST P.O. BOX 2506 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 ( 303) 925-3816 DATE JOB NO. 2/91 21036 0.00. A CONC 97.1 aLLEy UTILITIES BLOCK 0 10 20 ENCROACHMENT 2 s 75'09' 2.87 l S A 97.3 & PARKING 11.E O 97.8 7, / 91/ 98.3 DECK OVERHANG EXTENDS INTO ALLEY UTILITIES 96.3 SHED IS FALLI STAIRS AREA 7.500 0/- S. F. 1 E 4 IN HOLE 400'r,4,/ . 97 11 . 0 / l \ b /0 1 - B \11 1 1 51 1 M . P it '1 1 / li, 0 f */ N - 1\1 1 1 /6 -1 112! 0 1 Fi_ u / O, A $ 8 110 l ././ 1 - A , /3 5 0 5 8, ~ 99.7 \ 80 -- GO l.- -1-2174.04 7 0-0 RE.AR 0 l .4,4 2\\ 3.14 0 0 5*09 1 W 5.00 ~ f P - --- 0\ 0 0 9184,99.2 9.9.9.6 e 99.6 ............ N 7909'114/ 105.00' CITY ut"Iaa EDGE. OR,.PAYEA,Em ....... * 99.7 HORIZ. CONTROL . 99.7 ---2-ts=2294â„¢ BAS I S OF BEARI\*40~ - --SET P-K TBM I OO WEST FRANCIS STREET --0 h~ R-H CERTIFICATION 'untilfli/m . #N M HONORTH HERESY CERTIFY â„¢AT THIS SURVEY WAS PLOTTED FROM FIELD NOTES 0/ A SURVEÂ¥ W* 4*00 * SUPERVISION. 46>(AD..0....P"Sbt &*ADong>~4Â· DATED TH: 1--11_ 0+Y W -FEEL_ 1 99 1 . 1.4.01 3Â·Â·: (U orb. Â·4>Tpy.Â°6\ 47. 11 0064,~~2% / d*4 M HOWORTII F.L. S. 25947 :72 6.>, $?P4 %311 25947 co.-2 :CC i %96 AGADUI !, ce,Â©~.DO L.,1 Â¥92 WIT Â©C-Iia -r La,4 601 Im IMO W. 0- Câ‚¬y-ECI IN TMIS I.,bâ‚¬Â¥ ilâ„¢111 T.Â£1 vEM.* WTER M FIUT 01100Vll alÂ¢11 0â‚¬ni. 114 10 M/. 16Â¥ mr ACTION w. WIN %~900 003â‚¬4 IW GOECT U â„¢11 mlin DE 0~la/-9 *# 1107 10, WAS FICI DE DATE V 14 laTIFICATIN, -Â·%3Â·770, 72'.0 9 99(\ L.3.40. r.\1.11., i : M'#/ EXHIBIT 'D-7 ' //it â€ž 1 S *340-L Â¢.. ---hk â€¢ ==Sh--=re AINAMP< TO leys PEMOD+HED ) , Â»L - A. . 1 1 . 1 r4 - 1 P~ \214 Â» 41-IED TO PED - . . N.- :44: *El/Aol-169 4 - - 1 . - . Â¥r .. h!00:[14 ele.*pord (e) 4 . tirrit,I Â· - A. j t.k' r f,rj Frril 4.0&. ' . ===2: n , i I lt~ 39223 l . 407 u 1 . 1 1 -1 - - --- .- --- - eouTH 'BleÂ»TIOH * 1 FABLLINA RE:611231468 4%4~ i CHARLES CUNNfFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHTTECTS 1 9 lili -liB l/4. PRANDIO eT ,&,6 1*h| , CO, *Ber.. P O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 8I6I2 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 1 EXHIBIT 'D--6' ,. >, 11-,1-11 l 41-0 . .1 1 11 IC ; -7 C. . 1 ,2 . 11 11-~ - b 7 1 r. - 14 ' r- 1 CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS DELLINA 12Â·261{FENCE 941Â·91 1 I * A . FluÂ«tol<, 4.11-, ~ exut, Â»FIEN, (04 Pr, ARY 7414 Ale,=Al rry noArn rit.,7 Tri cri-,ANic ir,im,c.cce. 1 1111 111 <2*3# - 3-0/-!=43 CIO 5111/911 - ~10111101/424 -- (XY 440\-9/99 -1944 . EXHIBIT 'D-5' 1 ./0 1 1 1 . 1 c m lilli]- E-11 1mil-nT - ID 9 + f\\\ - 2 1 1 11 -1 , 3 C -4 - :Imt-- , 54 E /1 . 1 r lilli. -1-1 C -7[-T'TI-, 1 1 I i Â·/ 1 1 lk--/.-I-//:I..:v-1~. r-== CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 1 BELLINA 12â‚¬:610?ENCE 7 Â£ 1 4 | 1 I 0 H . FIZAK! 0-ld 41[, 4%101-- AS FEN, CO. PO BOX 3534. ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEf+IONE 303/925-5590 ILION- --92 71.7 140Â»Â¥d do elly\Ill 24 0 Ill/} oMaa - EXHIBIT 'E- 1' 21-- : ! 1 1 1 0 1 r dj 2 - FLÂ· 0 // 6191 43351 44@ 1 1 P y- ..1.. .0035.h, 1/ , , I -1,4 , 55#b I FAMIkisEj#at~61 4 tars#% 1 1Â·Tr2 1~ ~ f 1 9 . J (c .*2:Ami . 2 -z -2 m 0 250% i 1 /76182*8,89 ,.me 2%1>ttl[ FiE?ill/ 0 c \117-1-1 11. - 1- -~4mT[r[Frd t Â¢32- A 10 9 e3 1 L. f 41 9 2 ~ 3 48 DELL KIA F-FLIÂ·[PENDE- CHARLES CUNNfFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS - -11-611 09 1 I (> M. P]2Â»140 Â£70 Ao FIE-%1, C.CD . PO. BOX 3534. ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925Â·5590 , Mal=l MaA) ACLU99920 r*IXEl EXHIBIT 'E-3' .Cb 390 1 I Â· 17Â· E " /, 7 - FIT 1- ~- f-- 1 1 , i r.,4 V 11 2 U .5 Z 7 111 1- F f ..1 1. 9*VT 17 &4 - /09% u \-77 .I - i| 9 . $-I/_13 -1- 11- a i 1 - -L '1.-1. 1 Ill '< 1 -Â·~1 ' ~ 111 0 14 ~ 9\ ~ - -- 11 FI0-1 6 5 -2 J 11 .. - 9 3 4-19 Of 4 036 CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHrrECTS IDELLI KIA @84 1 PENCE 11 0 vt . FF/44 6. Ir) OT. Â· Â»FEN) CO. PO. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 EXHIBIT 'E-2 1 *=&&~&,1 ke.-1 ~l E .1 1117 ,%21 1+ f 1.7 1 11 11,1 1, !),~.IN 'll' Â·.10 X 1 1 i 1.1, 5Â· i :~ s ...4, th J L 11- lili 11 1, 11# iiiÂ·1 1.--1 4,) \ ~ 1 1, 1 1.1 1, 1 lii!' .ip. L.Â·.1 1111.1 4 t 'll, 11':1 1,1 1 3 1-I .1 : Ell_Ill Ht- 4 9 2 - I I It 0 il'#SPME~~k 1 1 1 IP -im --- 1 < 1 4 3111' Â·Â· - 10- 1 - JIll 16': - 4 1 8'6- 2912''d 11 1 1-- 1-IL.-1-1 . 111 1 ' iii ilr' "' Â· 11 1 'j 1 Â©1-1 --Fol 'Tlimil 111 j : Â· 1< 1 1 li lit 1,1 Im pj i 1111'.Ilitill li l< 9 1 -1 1 PmtÂ¢P-' h L _4 agiate - .- .-4 --- ... ... .-9 EEC32Â§ _ Ill 1 1 *1 1 . .1 \1- Cl~ . 229[.LINA Feol]78.08 0@ - CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHFTEcts i /2 - I I 9 1 1 1 07 24 . IÂ° BA,JET) 6T. ADVEN, CO . P.O. BOX 3534. ASPEN COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5540 M -1 #4*n- NEIN 170@Me'24 .~ Flod-Â«halâ‚¬ 1 1 42% - Nen CONGINT\04 , 1, 1\ M Qu 1 - NEH 604>Le Z U fl- / {FOR-MER,6 1 - -It / -- 'I.I. --- -- -00- --t"A 1 MEN COVEeg 1 0 3'M 2-*a H*uu~=f fo FC+4 10-4 G --- " 1 . k-- - --------- r a==33-1 Â»==Â«Ul=4 / - 17 14ttl[~11--:-1 -L'111=,-- 1--0#~E 7 Lu ul E -7 -1.- L[1121Â«lf 1.-12.1 -1----- - â€¢ 3 . 1=1 1 7 2 1. -- 1 + 1 17- - , - 02-%. 3-a mt'14-1/4--~im-JE-Â·f-*440 -3 -- 4 -' - 41-UPlo EFENed[ KITCHER ~ ~ t:21 N ING AMI t UVING RM NOOK- 41814 FFERIC,H 222%. 1~ NE*\ Cokle[@Ua~Obl T---v EXKPTIN 6 nIMT BLEÂ»TION (VIE:01 PFolvt eN;4261Â·4) !/8, 0-i-00 . Â¢ 010 lb.11,Â·6 @66.4 iw, a,ywr=2 14 CMU uUÂ¥:OU IU-; Nddby IR XOW Od 1103.LIHDUV/531Â¥1)055Â¥ 9 34:11NNAD S3-IHVH) 1 1 1 -4. EXHIBIT 'E-*- EXHIBIT 'D 'ST"IL '~A/0 9 401 ED F-- 2 ..14 Ill , LHED 9 +~0'T!014 ' A-,7- f,ec>F coM 1 719ZY f CL f 14 t-- - 630,2, Ul.127 e Â£3 11 114 b F eL el 13 13/ -1 ~ ' 4, 1 Â«FOO[Upe 1 - OF-le|14Â»L 1 -- 1 R ' 1 F-- b 'clro,-leN r.i--2 87'~212Â©;~ 0 0 9. 0 1 , 1 2 1 -' f * 121141 KIa f -4/4 goopl f cL 0 , i . '28PiÂ°Â»4 If , gi. 1. 1 1 UVIHe /0 E- 11 1 '1 . i Â· fR:,12':&4 3 ,r M RET M-a=12 1Â»14 1 (EXIGTINS) 1/r. , " - Â«4 'I 811*L, LINA REOIPENCE CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHrrECTS 2 111/ 1 1 62 (/4 . PgAN 6.(63 6-[. ,&42[3,4, 00. P.O. BOX 3534. ASPEN COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925Â·5590 EXHIBIT 'D-4' . &11 11 1 ~- 4-2! I KEÂ©6=1~ i 1 \7 1 13 . 11~ 1 1 6 1.- 1 0> 'ID ~ Â£9 111 11 1 1, j UL= 1 .r 1 1 11 1 1 i r 1 . i -r=RÂ· 1 1 1 1 UVI'-Idâ‚¬ / 91 Hlhe 1 J i 5 9, CL, 1 i t>EOpd:PIM | 1 = t 1 47 -40 - 4-- -t> 1 1 i ' 4DCONIP LEVeL FLÂ»1 i P >< 15' T Â£ f-4,19 Ver| *.lt-ot' CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHfTECTS IDELLI NA B.04 1 VE'doe 316 IN, FRALICIO GT. 66'FEN I CO, P.O. BOX 3534. ASPEN. COLOkADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925Â·5590 Â· 1\10 1 le, 001 1 - 1 1-7. covepLED 1 'C U H 1 -4+ i ~~Lr-_ng==PFIr-~ r-Â·r-*,0_-7-A-"f ~-439:-~.-:xz=:~ 1 Â·- i i //-ip * \ , ./ 4 & 4-41 -411-'7-9, i- * + .4-4*8472##~- 1 7 l Z: 11 0 - 1 tb 9 4 C=Zzer --7-- ;-T El -- 644 -LI. m-:=2 1 1 47 13 , 1 V 1 1 - 1 ; 1 1 1 1 1 MA/orr- teop..4 i '1 1 r . :91 1 L---U 0 ~ E 0-3_Qi IC Of'ErN TO tor-Â·l.z?Fi .3 : 1 M." 1 Â·Â· .._1-9 1. If \ -Â«1 r Â£38Â«,M PLaÂ» FLAÂ·14 - 759 4, F 1/5:,1 [1.01, - ....I - - 16.00 1 EXHIBIT 'IE--2 CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHrTECTS DELL MA F-%1 522%2 11 0 Ir\, P RAN oÂ·Id; er. Â»fEND 00\ p O, BOX 3531, ASPEN, COLORADO 8169 TELER-iONE 303/925Â·5590 Alape â‚¬' 16'09' Il" -76.00' U - 6 - Enczzl- 2 I 40-- 4 f : Â» I [--9-09%-03-iÂ°=3 L I 4 Â· f -4 7 , Â·13?,i ir -1 1 K i -- J 1 1 401 : - 40 x 9.9 t' h H 4. U ..11_ ; 9- - k i -mi 2 1...324 4..J I': ir . 0 f â‚¬Tupl D Â·'20 >< 9 4 40 14 ROOM 4 2 gri-- 1 . R'Vt : 1 1- MOO c [~ - i -- I exil 11 * 11 3.1 1 1 8,-2 " i Fo IMA - 1 m i 2 A!0014 - O 0 21 'eglert 0 1 6. 1 I UBB"Zi// . / 90'Ot . 1 1 +1 ~ 1 9 1 1 120'x Ib -1 -~M DINING, KITOWÂ»' f ~ 1. 0 fi -. r.- 0 11"24 11 * 1 8 0 0 1 1 t- cri A r t:)111'149 10,/1, .- \j ~~~~~ C 1L<" - 11 LU F 31nt=Â£43 1 9- 1 -1 9 81 ri ~ dI Mu '31 0 &~ 0,! 1,2- x 1 9 4 LIVIND L - ~ 1 = - POOR/1 'At I. 1'20>< 14 Li 1 Folal-1 11 1/- â€¢ - X/ plizE ploptz PLAN 1110 9. F, kb# = 1' Â· 0 H , --- 1. - I .... --* I hi 160 09' 0 \hi 16,001 . EXHIBIT 'E-50 ! ' DELLI NA R N I PEN 6 8 CHARLES CUNAUFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHFTECTS 1 1.11 41 liD 1/1. FF,Â«16(4 6-6 /64 FEND CO. PO BOX 3531. ASI'EN. COLORADO 81612 TELEfÂ·'HONE 303/925-5590 -2 - . 0 . /.. '111.1. J. , 1., .t lifl: ' 'rd' 1 It I- ir 1 - 11-3 {1 1 1 -3 ..A 9 lit 111:1 1 1 * 1&1 EX@p<3142 III 0 1#.5 14 Â· 1 Â¢0061 113 1% 1 4. '24* x 91 le - * P f : 4 { --1 1 0 1 1#1 - 0 0 21, A-, A c= r--1 1 4 4/LFL .0 1 ,... *I CiO lilli 1-7 1--. {11 i 1/1 1 NE- . 4 --7 i. . 1 - Â·G 1 1 48, 11 iÂ» t INe 1 '1 -1 1 ff ~ I. i 1 M h 11 63[E;AM 1 23%UNA ' RM . 1 1. -- 4~70*e e// / 1 ME:CH/tÂ·4 \CAL '~ C m -';F~(;GJJ;I~;5~,â€¢â€žcml:.16i~i1 luT (7 f L--Â« , EÂ»eMENT 14Â»1 |479 4.R VE' e i-0 li 1 i . -- .-. -----40- EXHIBIT 'E-7' ' bell,INA FEÂ©IPEHOE CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS gilÂ·41 110 M . FBANÂ£316 'GE me:14 > OP. P.O. BOX 3534. ASPEN. COLOHDO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925Â·5590 i,1Â·5Â·': .3 '-: ATma]MENT 1 LAND USE APPE[CATION FUM 12 *. 1) Project Name 1 He (BM> YÂ»1 ANA Â¥-SfObUL project location 350/ E. LOOP#11 .IN DePENÂ£)tENC15 6{-[Xo i er fLOON- (indicate street address, lot & block mmber, legal description uiere appropriate) 3) Present Zoning 4) Lot Size 5) Applicant' s Name, Address & Phone # TFIE &'AP 6100 CH.â‚¬*ILY AVE, SAN 130Â·u,Jo CA . 140(06, 44- S-4400 6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # AL OVAJAINCorM,11 409 AARic- AspeR co 81&11 9= 9- â€ž4-, 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Use Oonceptual SPA - Conceptual Historic Dev. Special Revia, Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD ~ Minor Historic Dev. 1 Stream Margin Final POD Historic Demolition Mountain View Plane Subdivision Historic Designation Colilaniniumization - Text/Map AmeIxlment (203 Allotment Int Split/Int line GM33 E]oeuption Adjustment 8) Description of Existing Uses (rnmber and type of ecisting stnlctures; approximate sq. ft.; nmber of bedroams; any previous approvals granted to the property). 00*1*DrUARt- Stto PS c i MOTE:L- 9) Description of Develgment Application DUOULD LIK-0 -to ADD F IVE (~5) LAul-8%4) grrusÂ· 1-14' HT-Â£ TO Â©01 l.-DING *CTE421O,2- 0) Have you attached the following? Response to Attadmerit 2, Mininlim Sulmission Contents Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents Respanse to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application ~,Â· 1 -,0 2, 1 liwnsmittal r. AI Oi" 1 4,~644 1 Fisher Development, Inc. General Contractor -+49â€ž,n&#1 6)457~40~73)'1 1485 Bayshore Blvd. Offices in: San Francisco, CA 94124 San Francisco Telephone (415) 468-1717 New York Toll Free (800) 227-4392 Chicago Telefax (415) 468-6241 Fairfax, Virginia Date Z- -Zâ‚¬- 1/ Job Number ZO /0 % wo e#ATAA1k- Rd>rl F c_ 1 Go ' 60' 4'C - ---- - --- Items ( 13 540Â¥. 4*G-- -1 jf.2 -4<76Â«-O - _p-17 0-9 -f~Qruk- 1~4 49_U ~owb 4 4J A-g_-_4.W_ Zr 1 9 -1 i fore_ ti,sÂ¢ -- m --yliA,_43 -4- -44- te. Afl. ___ ____ _ ___- _ _ -_ _ Enclosed Under Separate Cover Via By 7->lk- - ce 70 C â‚¬ Cq Gif ... Re Â· Â·)X- , Z _ 44 -"t~: b *7 -rl I 'Â· -, f -, 2 4'1: lit ' 1=41, 0.- 14Â¥~-4'42~-- 1 N 0 - i 7 -r , - ii 12- - + de ; 4 1.-,1#~/ p 4-1 1 , 13 -2,11,1 1 1 1.-1 - 1 1. - 11 1 t" 12 * i 1 4 , 1 - f'al=k Of' '4 Â·29$-1- ~ 4 , i * 1.Pt ' ~ fJ t-*~r ft)Â¥YÂ¥ 1 1- j _,'*Fjf E-~ 2-*,L .- 2 =~, 4-k E . : 1 1, 4 1 1- liT iNT- f 1 - . 71114 -11 4,044% i'*11,1 - t# 146 L $+ , -* - -1 -111 1. 1 1,1, 1 1 1 1 1. I.~1 rf 11~ '1 ~114 ~Ll J , |~i|*~1 - 1 - 81.- i. 9. 1. 1- 11 1 :~ ill iii 1 ID 11! 11 11 11 Ii' ! .1. 4 111 4 '!i I 1. 11 . 1 11 Ill.- I P 1 1.-I .11 L -- Iii - n Z -li 8 1, Â· 1 T . 11 1 lili 114 11 I 1 ~|1 1 11 16 1 111 i'i , A 1 4 IN li~ 11 4 .-*-11.-1-/ 1 ~ ~ =-----iJ ~-- ---- - j ir=.- -14 1 -- ._.... .-i -ji IC -Ia ,-~.~--U|.1. I.I. I ------2--1 -Fl-i-.~~il6.13 23+~ - -I 31.. ..-- _ J_ -_---_._.- ._ .3 lilli -- .1''F. try L' --Jh' e. -i-- ---------- ----- - ---- --- E-m-v*-mi EEG Â· - I . .L - . - -__-/'ll'In - Iwl,>li REI'UnIC B#Yul, RlirtintiC =â€¢'- 6Â»'L' m MZ~ 1.-/ #80'9_40 .. 1 r T-r-1. 11 11 41 11 ./ V ' 11 1 1 11 0 -- 1 4 | li 3-"0 - J 1 -- .-- ..4 "/ - 1Â»Vt#ROf .JC Â· ; 1~YViliREM 011â‚¬ &1NiRREM N *; ....---- ---------- -1 ---- - ... - .L===7 - ---- -PIBIL M 1 -- 1 - U .rÂ· 1.le:Ju Â·i. 1-1 DELI(DUE 451 . ./-.- . g-i-/ I.-..*--+I) .. REFRONT SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4"= - .. PROJECT LOCATION . STORE NO 0 -4 1- A 1171 1 r 6, L~ 4,15 U -- T. S. 4 5 LAPE fbi 0% d h.1Ek t 04---1, 12,1-ACPE SiAL] ,41 ki l L,15~ FRAM! E - =====:==24 ./ h y â‚¬ lutt 4 BALâ‚¬gIC- SUIÂ«] Et:P SY 1-/Qh.]DI_DQ c> . 4 0- I I AL,j U I k|(A ClgAPi-1106 EY< SL.12,6.ou-rg~<:Ink, 3, - - li 11 f 1 li J' 11 1 1 ) as EL r,323 -re, I , A 1 - - --3 *2-/7 L RE 1 . (-1- ------- 0 f = ,=t= . 1 .i , 14: ~ ~ 1 L 9 - 1 m=== j 1 r 1 1 I ~ 02.1-100Â£ 49~ / - , 4.T.S. full size from Development, STOREFRONT EAST 1/4"=1'-0" Â·2 STOREI opment, Inc., ELEVATION 3, 6 ./ V MEMORANDUM Â¥-de. and Press Release To: Historic Preservation Committee CC: All Local Media and Press From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: National Historic Preservation Week activities Annual Preservation Honor Awards - call for nominations Date: March 13, 1991 Attached is the National Trust brochure on Preservation Week, which will held May 12-18. National Preservation Week 1991 celebrates the 25th anniversary of the National Register of Historic Places. Aspen's 25 National Register properties will be adorned with silver ribbons both in honor of this silver .anniversary and our community's famous silver mining heritage! Each year for the past four, the City through the Â·Historic Preservation Committee has sponsored the annual Preservation Honor Awards, with recipients receiving engraved plaques and certificates worthy of framing. THIS IS A CALL FOR NOMINATIONS! Please submit your written nominations (letter form is perfectly acceptable) to the Planning office (attention Roxanne) no later than Friday, April 19. At least one slide and color print should accompany the nomination. Nominations are accepted from anyone. General categories in the past have been: Commercial Rehabilitation Residential Rehabilitation Commercial Infill (new compatible construction) Residential Infill (new compatible construction) Crafts people Other: projects of merit, such as restored landscapes or gardens, successful preservation efforts, public projects, etc. National Preservation Week activities are beginning to take shape. Please reserve Monday through Thursday evenings that week from 6: 00-8: 00 p.m. to participate in our series of "Preservation Forum Seminars" - condensed sessions on preservation techniques from color and paint to interiors and design compatibility. We will end the week with a reception honoring Aspen's National Register property owners and the presentation of the Preservatio Honor Awards - all to be held and co-hosted at the National Register Wheeler Opera House! *114*44*44**444**$**14*444*41*44***tittitilitilitilitillititilitiliti.Li ;U~t~ 44,1 IN\ 1 + * Wig-MUWme $ 1 Â§*. 448 1 1 : :++ . 1:,+ 1:+I. A i MAR 2 I i r,i ..IN . 1,+I i 1- , I' lip. 111.+. .+42. 4.4 44 10+I- 44 1:*. R++. 414 North First Street 12+1â€¢ Aspen, Co 81611 1%+4- 4. March 20, 1991 4. 11+I. . 4. 1:++. ..4 11+ +. ..4 mt.. 4... 4 4 ... . 11++ 4+ 1:+I e,+Â· 11++ 4+ 1++. Historic Preservation Committee 1!,+. t:+I. .+4 City of Aspen 4.. 4. City Hall 1},4. i:++. 130 South Galena Street 4.. 14+ . Aspen, CO 81611 4'.. . 1Â§++. 4. 4.. To the Members of the Historic Preservation Committee: 4... R... R... 11+I. I, Elizabeth Paercke, have just returned to Aspen and was 11... 44.. horrified to see the issue of the Times Daily of March 15 4. showing a rendering of the proposed spec house on the e. + 4.7 property which we nnce owned. it. Â·.+tl This proposed building, if allowed, is to my mind an ... ..+~1 44Â§1 architectural excrescence. It has nothing to do with the 60+ 44;1 I+.Â· Â·+411 original Pioneer Park building in shape, detail, or feeling. 60 + ..+7 14. ..+5 It is not even true Victorian. In short, if built, it e: 4. 44.+ -+4+1 would be an architectural nightmare which the City of Aspen 4. -â€¢ e 4.. should be ashamed of. I weep when I think of what is 11* + Â·+411 10++ 441 happening to that lovely property where Walter and I once 11*+. 10++ 44Â§1 lived. M. 44* T+I- Very truly yours, ... Â·4â‚¬1 - e.Â· +4 . + e 4.Â· F!,141â‚¬ H. (7/w Â·Â·Â·el Elizabet,11 11. Paepcke " 0.. 44+ +441 !~IÂ· 4++ 4+3 4. Â·â€¢â‚¬1 1:... Â·+4:4 4+ ..4 E4 + 44;: '71'. 1:*+ Â·I+;1 Â§1, I .: ...................ttt......Â·tlt. 3 ......... t.Â·t.tt-t...................7-3.7-T.T.trt-l.-Itte.-1 T MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: CLG grants, FY '91-92 Date: March 27, 1991 We were successful in receiving only. portions of the two grant requests we submitted earlier this year - but as Lane Ittelson pointed out: There was less money to go around due to a greater number of CLG's in state! Therefore, we received $2500 for ski museum planning assistance to the Aspen Historical Society. We were not funded the additional $4700 requested for the Guidelines update. We did received $2150 out of our request of $4000, for the Aspen/Telluride combined application to conduct the "Sense of Place" seminar. These details have yet to be worked out, since Telluride's HP planner (Lance McDonald) and I have to amend our thinking a little! I'll keep you informed, but I am targeting the IDC (3rd week in June) as a way to combine efforts. Please be thinking about the best time you would like travel en masse to Telluride to experience their landmark district. We have a little money to help offset travel expenses. I want to remind vou that the non-profit ASPEN HISTORIC TRUST still has a great number of "Guide to Historic Aspen" books that thev are selling at cost. Please see Roxanne for details. Your help in purchasing these is needed. I - es-z- p- 4 :.t MAR 14. COIDRADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY The Colorado History Museum 1300 Broadway Denver. Colorado 80203-2137 March 7, 1991 The Honorable William L. Stirling Mayor of Aspen City Hall, 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mayor Stirling: It is a pleasure to inform you that Aspen's request for a Fiscal Year 1991 Certified Local Government matching grant from the Colorado Historical Society has been approved. Applications for funding greatly exceeded the amount allocated for the Certified Local Government program. We are, therefore, unable to fully fund all requests. However, the Colorado Historical Society is able to commit $2,500 to assist Aspen with its historic preservation program. We look forward to working with you. Sincerely, 1ames lE. Hartmann ~eput# State Historic Preservation 42#ficer JEH/LI:ng cc: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Bill Poss, Historic Preservation Committee _NATIONAL CENTER POR PRESERVATION LAW 1133 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W. 0 SUITE 300 0 WASHINGTON, D.G. 20036 â€¢ (202) 338-039 PRESIDENT ExEOUTIVE DIRECTOR PAUL F. McI)ONOUGH, JR., Â·FSO. STEPHEN NEAL DENNIS. ESQ. PRESERVATION LAW UPDATE 1991-3 February 20, 1991 Buildings Do "Go Crash in the Night" In 1988, the Real Estate Law Journal published an excellent article which has not received the attention it deserved. Ralph Mtchael Stein's "Buildings That Go Crash in the Night: A Special Prel,1:.-4 in Historic Preservation Law" examines penalty provisions in 'ccal historic preservation ordinances and concludes that a serious problem exists: Research suggests that the relatively low status given to preservation laws, even by their sponsors and supporters, and the small penalties associated with their violation, assures the concealment of a real problem. Stein was unable to locate very many cases (and in fact overlooked the important Chicago Roppolo decision reviewed in "Sulate" 1990-20), but nevertheless the Stein article is almost the only examination in print of the current effectiveness of penalty provisions in local historic preservation ordinances: It is difficult to determine the extent to which owners and developers irrev-ersibly alter or-destroy historically- significant structures either to avoid historic designation status or in frank contumacy of such designation. Although some cases have been reported, it is clear that reliance on case research will not reveal the existence of a major problem. Informal interviews with both public employees involved in historic preservation and attorneys involved in disputed ,Â¥ on preservation designation matters suggest that the knowledge the street" may be more reflective of actual conditions than the paucity of cases and the absence Of discussion in specialized texts would indicate. . . . In the course of preparing this article, I spoke with attorneys in the private sector, specialists in historlic] preservation (attorney and nonattorney), and a few individuals who had been subject to historic preservation procedures. Several of the private practitioners stated, but without permission for attribution by name, that they believed willful demolition while historic preservation proceedings were being contemplated was mor common than many believed. THE "PRESERVATION LAW UPDATE" SERIES IS MADE POSSIBLE IN PART BY A GRANT FROM THE J. M. KA-PL.A-N FUND. NATIONALCENTER FOR PREKERVATION LAW Stein believes that unauthorized demolition is often an action necessarily involving other felonious activities (such as arson or reckless endangerment): An additional facet of unauthorized and illegal alteration or destruction of historically valuable buildings emerges from initial analysis. Stated simply, some Of the reported instances of this destruction reveal plainly the commission of one or more major felonies which, apart from a particular motive to prevent historic preservation designation, are frequently encountered crimes punishable by severe penal sandtions. Stein suggests that states should create a new felony to deal with the problem of unauthorized demolition ofÂ·historic structures: It is suggested that in each state new felony, entitled Unlawful Building or Site Alteration or Destruction to Avoid }liAtoric Preservation Provisions, be enacted. The new statute should be based on a mens rea model of knowingly, with the actus reus to be the act of causing or assisting in the alteration or destruction of a building or site designated as possessing historic interest or of one in which proceedings to so designate the building or site havebeen appropriately initiated under existing preservation laws. Once such an act is designated as a felony, the crimes of solicitation, attempt, conspiracy, and facilitation can be charged easily in ~ appropriate cases. Thus both choate and inchoate aspects Of willful evasion of historic preservation measures by alteration or destruction of premises will be sanctionable. Stein argues that without effectively stiff penalties, historic structures will continue to be destroyed in violation of local historic preservation laws: The degree of felony to be enacted is of relatively little importance since felonies generally provide for a minimum sentencing of incarceration for one year as a discretionary judicial disposition. The availability of nonincarceration sanctions for nonviolent, low-grade felonies is widespread and should be the case here, too. What would be different and what would be important is the possibility of a sentence of a year cr more of prison as well as the social and legal consequences of felony conviction. If Society considers the willful violation of historic preservation laws of sufficient importance to merit felony treatment, the general appreciation of the importance of these enactments will rise and collateral benefits will ensue. Or, to put it simply, the Chinese are not protecting pandas by imposing slight fines for their killing. Ncr are they causing people in China to rethink the importance of animal preservation laws by provisions for slight penalties. If you kill a panda in China, you are in real trouble. Should i..Â·J not destroyers of our architectural heritage be in real ~ trouble, too? Currently, they are not. '29-36 NATIONAL CENTER FOR PRESERVATION LAW 0 - 18(33 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W. e SUITE 800 0 WASHINGTON, D.G. 20036 â€¢ (202) 338-0531 PRESIDENT Ex.nouTIvE DIRECToR 1-1.UL F. McDONOUGE, Ji?. EsQ. STEPHEN NEAL DENNIS, ESQ. PRESERVATION LAW UPDATE 1991-4 February 25, 1991 Sacond Denial of Permits for Inappropriate New Construction Upheld for Victorian Garden Suburb in Maryland A determined neighborhood group has succeeded twice now in fighting back development plans which would have resulted in oversized new residences on small lots in a Maryland suburb just north of the Washington Beltway. The Montgomery County (Md.) Board of Appeals unanimously upheld on February 21, 1991 denials by the Montgomery County Historic Preservation Commission of requested work p'ermits for new construction on two lots in the Kensington Historic District (Case Nos. A-3031 and A-3032). A Maryland trial court had earlier sustained on appeal the Commission's first denials of permits for slightly different projects (see "Update" 1989-48). The appeals procedure in Montgomery County had been changed after the Commission's first decisions through an amendment to the Montgomery County historic preservation ordinance, so that an initia] appeal from a Commission decision now goes to the Board of Appeals rather than to a trial court. The tenacity of the neighborhood forces in the Kensington situation points up again the need for a preservation commission to build an adequate record and make a clear decision as well as the need for supporting groups to prepare to present, as needed, documentary and statistical information which a preservation commission may lack the staff to assemble. The Montgomery County Board of Appeals noted several points at the outset of its decision: 1. The hearing is to be de novo. 2. The Board can "affirm, modify or reverse" the decision of the Commission, but it cannot remand the matter to the Commission. e The Board noted that the matter before it was "a case of first impression": THE "PRESERVATION LAW UPDATE" SERIES IS M.ADE POSSIBLE IN PART BY A GRANT FROM THE J. M. K*PLAN FUND. NATIONALCENTER FOR PRESERVATION LAW Although we shall address the matter at length later in this decision, we wish to state at the outset that we are fully cognizant of the delicate ba.lance which must govern our actions. On one hand, we are aware of the public's desire and need to preserve the priceless heritage and ambiance of our past. On the other hand, we are similarly aware of the constitutional prohibition of, and public aversion to, the taking of private property without just compensation. The Board first interpreted a provision of the Montgomery County preservation ordinance which mandates the issuance of a work p.ermit upon a finding that "[a J proposal is necessary in 0,-der that the owner of the subject property not be deprived of râ‚¬Â£,sonable use of the property or suffer undue hardship": While, technically, any diminution of value of property can be claimed to constitute "undue hardship", clearly the statute envisions a reasonable economic imposÂ·ition upon the landowner, otherwise the statute would be me-aningless. If all economic expectations had to be fulfilled, there would be no need for a Commission, there would be no need for a Historic District. As we fashion our ruling in this case, the result we intend to reach will still remain within that zone of reasonableness permitted by the statute. The Board reviewed quickly the history of the lots in question: the purchase of three adjoining lots for $435,000 in May 1988, and the simultaneous sale for $295,000 of the middle 1ct and itS house: Appellants entered into a contract to buy Lots 15, 16 and 17 in August 1987. Their plan was to sell Lot 16 (on which there is an existing building) and consequently to develop Lots 15 and 17. The structure on Lot 16 is a designated primary resource as defined in the Kensington Historic - District Master Plan Amendment. The appellants have had prior experience in building in historic districts and have had experience with the historic control agencies . ... The contract specifically acknowledged that the buyers were aware of the location of the property in a historical district.... Much of the Board's well-reasoned and carefully-written decision deals with the question of "footprints" and whether the two houses designed for small lots were out of scale with existing Victorian houses in the Kensington Historic District. On this point, the Board was clearly influenced by the efforts of neighborhood leaders to bring their case effectively to the attention of the Board: The Board was impressed by the professionalism of the experts on both sides of the controversy and by the extensive exhibits, briefs and mock-up which were presented during the course of the hearings. NATIONALCENTER FOR PRESERVATION LAW The Board made a specific finding that the den'ial of the work permits did not constitute a "hardship" within the Maryland ordinance: The Board is cognizant of the fact that the appellants may have sustained some monetary loss. However, we cannot sacrifice the purpose of the Historic District at the altar of pure fiscal expediency, and the appellants have not demonstrated to our satisfaction that the denial of' the HAWP has crossed the permissible constitutional or statutory line and would constitute a "taking." tsome] factors which we considered . . . are that appellants are experienced businessmen who knowingly entered an enterprise which they knew to be heavily regulated and that some of the perceived loss is based on market forces which occurred during the regulatory lag. The Board finds that the Appellants failed to meet their burden of proof and did not show that the proposed structures are necessary in order that the owner of the property not be deprived of reasonable use of the property or suffer unusual hardship.... [MrÂ·J Paul Flaherty testified that a "scaled down" house would sell on Lot 17. Mt. William Flaherty testified that if the original plans had gone ahead that they might have made $110,000 on the total transaction. The Board finds that it is not clear on the record presented by Appellants exactly how much money they have lost. Further the Board finds that Mr. Leonard Taylor testified that the Historic Preservation Commission would approve a proposal that it found acceptable on the properties in question. As the discussion of the case law in this Opinion shows a mere diminution in value does not alone result in a constitutional taking. The Board concludes that a constitutional taking has not been proved, as the Appellants have not shown that they are deprived of all reasonable use of their property. The Board also reviewed with care in its decision pertinent U.S. Supreme Court precedents on the "taking" issue: Pennsylvania Coal Company v. Mahon . . . cited by the appellants helps them very little. The impact of the case has been sharply limited by the recent case addressing practically the same issue, Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictis ...in which the Supreme court upheld the facial challenge to a Pennsylvania regulation which would have limited coal mining under certain buildings. The Court ruled that the companies' reasonable "investment backed expectations have not been materially affected by the additional duty to retain the small percentage that must be used to support the structures...." The specificity with which the Board referred in its decision to testimony and exhibits presents a model which other local historic preservation commissions might do well to emulate in their own future decisions: NATIONAL CENTER FOR PREWERVATION-LAW The Board finds that the size of the two proposed buildings on Lot 15 and Lot 17 is too large for the surrounding historic district environment. This is based on the testimony of Mr. Martin, the appellants' own witness who testified that the ambiance of the era which is sought to be preserved called for a maximum of open space (land being cheap in those days) and a garden setting, both of which the Board finds are negated by the size of the structures being proposed by appellants. [Appellants] have not met the burden of persuasion in that the "carriage house" concept espoused by the appellants, is not truly effectuated by the proposals, given the testimony [of] Mr. Taylor, Mr. Little and Ms. Morris that a carriage house should be markedly smaller than the building it is supposed to serve. The Board further finds that the "carriage house" on Lot 17 and the proposed "Georgian" house on Lot 15 .clearly overwhelm the existing house on Lot 16. The oral testimony related in the preceding portion of this opinion and a comparison of Exhibits 4, 16, Appellants' exhibits 2, 3, 4 and 5 and the rary impressive mock up prepared by the appellants, clearly leads the Board to the conclusion that the two proposed structures are actually and visually too large for their historic district setting. Not only do the proposed structures appear to dwarf the existing house on Lot 16, but the Board finds that their total visual appearance negates the openness which, as the appellant's own witness testified, is the key to the architecture of the period. Insofar as the proposed structure on Lot 15 is concerned, the Board also considered the proximity of the historic Noyes Library to this structure. The Board finds that the size and massing of the proposed structure on Lot 15 negatively impacts on the historic resource on Lot 16 and the Noyes Library historic resource. The Board concluded its opinion by suggesting strongly that there should be some solution to the situation before it on which all parties involved might agree: [WeJ wish to go on record as stating that we will not countenance an endless series of [denials] when the size of the building reaches a point at which we believe the purpose ef the Historic District has been met. To that extent we suggest to all sides that they make serious efforts to reach an accord, recognizing that much of the controversy deals with nuances and perceptions. We hope that this Board can exercise a positive influence in bringing this matter to a satisfactory conclusion. The Board adopted a formal resolution affirming the county preservation commission's denial of the requested work permits. (Membership in the National Center for 1991 is $75 and entitles one to receive the series of forty-eight "Preservation Law e Updates" which the Center will be issuing during 1991.) a~ATIONAL CENTER FOR PRESERVATION LAW 1338 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W. â€¢ SUITE 800 0 WASHINGTON, D.G. 20038 0 (202) 338-03 PRESIDENT EXECUTrvE DIREOTOR huI. F. MCDONOUGH, JR., ESQ. STEPHEN NEAL DENNIS, ESQ, PRESERVATION LAW UPDATE 1791Â·-5 March 7, 1991 St. Bart's Meets Ultimate Roadblock of Constitutional Law When an elephant decides to sit, it has great discretion in choosing a location. On Monday, March 4th, the U.S. Supreme Court ennounced its decision to deny certiorari in the St. Bart's case, which had been appealed by the church from a September 1990 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (see "Update" 1990-35). This action ends the St. Bart's litigation. The Supreme Court is asked each term to hear arguments in more. cases than it can possibly decide. A denial of certiorari is a' frequent action by the Court, but its implications are often a t.~ subject for continuing debate and discussion among attorneys who have followed the issues in individual cases. Fortunately, the implications of the denial of certiorari in che St. Bart's case are made clear by a second action the Supreme Court also announced on March 4th, in another case involving the question of whether governments may regulate religious properties to accomplish historic preservation objectives. In City of Seattle r. First -Covenant Church, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the decision by the Supreme Court of Washington that the landmark designation of the exterior of a Seattle church had violated that church's First Amendment rights (see "Update" 1990-11). The U.S. Supreme Court more specifically remanded the Seattle case for further proceedings in light of its earlier decision in an important 1990 First Amendment casd, Employment Division v. Smith, 110 S.Ct. 1595 (1990) (see "Update" 1990-14). The clear implication of this action is that the U.S. Supreme Court intends its Smith decision to apply broadly, and that the lengthy discussion in Smith about abandoning use of a "compelling governmental interest" test in Free Exercise situations must be taken seriously by lower federal and state courts. The Supreme Court of Washington issued its First Covenant decision less than one month before the U.S. Supreme Court decided e Smith. The City of Seattle asked the Washington court to reconsider its First Covenant decision in light of Smith, but the court refused, and the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court followed. THE "PHESERVATION LAW UPDATE" SERIES IS MADE POSSIBLE IN PART BY A GRANT FROM THE J. M. KxpI..AN FUND. NATIONALCENTER FOR PRESERVATION LAW Obviously the Second Circuit was correct in it.s analysis of - Si,ith in the St. Bart's case: As the [Supreme Court] recently stated in Employment Division v. Smith . . . the free exercise clause prohibits above all "'governmental regulation of religious beliefs as such.'" . No one seriously contends thgt the Landmarks Law interferes v ith substantive religious views. However, apart from impinging on religious beliefs, governmental regulation may affect conduct or behavior associated with those beliefs. Supreme Court decisions indicate that while the government may not coerce an individual to adopt a certain belief or punish Lim for his religious views, it may restrict certain activities associated with the practice of religion pursuant to its general regulatory powers. . . The critical distinction is thus between a neutral, generally applicable law that happens to bear on religiously motivated action, and a regulation that restricts certain conduct because it is r-ligiously oriented. ... The Landmarks Law is a facially neutral regulation of general applicability within the meaning of Supreme Court decisions. The City of Seattle's Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the <Â· First Covenant case called the Washington court's decision "flatly 1 inconsistent" with recent Supreme Court decisions: If followed elsewhere, the decision would elimiâ‚¬ate a core part of a program deemed important by every state and numerous ~ municipalities. The state court's attempt to define the relationship between the free exercise of religion and the public interest in historic preservation amply warrants this Court's review. A still-unanswered question is whether there can be indenerdent grounds under a state constitution for recognizing religious freedom. The Immaculate Conception case in Boston (see "Update" 1991-1) turned in the end on this issue, as the Supreme Jud;.cial Court of Massachusetts reached its decision without citing a single U.S. Supreme Court decision. Though the Supreme Court of Washington had referred in passing to the Washington Constitution in its First Covenant decision, it *.s clear that the Washington Court did not rest its decision, whi h repeatedly cited U.S. Supreme Court precedents, independently orÂ· thi Washington Constitution. Whether the Washington Court may now dpcide to attempt to issue a new decision resting entirely on the Washington Constitution remains to be seen. Thus the First Covenant lititation may beÂ· far from over, as religious groups which will see the St. Bart's decision as a loss transfer their attentions across the country to a different case. (A subscription to the 1991 series of "Preservation Law Updates" is $75.00. Organizations receiving "Updates" may reprint individual ~ "Updates" with appropriate credit to the National Center.) . MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Addition of Exemption Clause to Demolition Provision of HP Code Language and Clarification of Section 7-602 DATE: March 19, 1991 SUMMARY: These amendments are necessary to process prior to the large code clarification/clean up ordinance, due to two projects currently underway in the Commercial Core. One is the Lane Parcel, associated with the Collins Block; the other is the (former) Alpine Bank Building at 409 E. Hopkins. Neither are historic and are considered non-contributing. The Lane Parcel received Final last year subject to this code amendment; 409 E. Hopkins has only received Conceptual. Both are slated for demo to allow the new development to occur. This code amendment is -necessary in Â· order for the HPC to act within the code to allow those projects to proceed. PROCESS: This code amendment is scheduled before the P&Z at a public hearing for March 19. From there it goes to Council for first reading and then on to final reading (public hearing) and adoption. Amendments proposed to Section 7-602 A. General. No demolition, partial demolition or relocation of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to Section 7-709, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay District shall be permitted unless the demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the applicable standards of Section 7-602(B),icl or (D), unless exempted pursuant to Section 7-602(E). The next two paragraphs of this code section should be eliminated. E. Exemption: The demolition, partial demolition or relocation of a structure located within an "H" Historic Overlay District mav be exempt from meeting the applicable standards in Section 7- 602(B), (C). or (D) if the HPC finds that the following conditions have been metz 1. The structure is not identified on- the' Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. 2. The structure is considered to be non-contributing to the historic district 3. The structure does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district. and that its demolition. partial demolition. or relocation does not impact the character of the historic district. 4. The demolition. partial demolition or relocation is necessary for the redevelopment of the parcel. 5. The redevelopment or new development is reviewed by TIPC. (formerly E). Procedure for review. A Development Application shall be submitted to the Historic Preservation Officer before HPC approval of demolition, partial demolition, relocation, (or exemption within an "H" Historic Overlay District), which shall be reviewed and approved by 'the HPC pursuant to the procedures established. in Common Procedures, Article 6, Division 2. G. (formerly F). Application for Demolition or Relocation. (Language is unchanged except to eliminate F.2 and "partial demolition" from 5(a) and 5(b)). H. Application for Partial Demolition or Exemption from Demolition. Partial Demolition or Relocation. A Development application for partial demolition shall include all items specified in Section 7-602(G)(1),(2),(31 and (41. I. (formerly G). Penalties. This is to remain the same. RECOMMENDATION: Approval by vote, or recommendation to staff to bring this item back again for further discussion, amendments and/or approval. memo.hpc.demo.code.amend 2 Â· LAND USE REGULATIONS Â§ 7-602 (5) A statement of the effect of the details of the proposed development on the original design of the historic structure (if applicable) and character of the neighborhood. (6) A statement of how the final development plan conforms to the representa- tions made during the conceptual review and responds to any conditions placed thereon. (Ord. No. 6-1989, Â§ 9) Sec. 7402. Demolition, partial demolition or relocation. A. General No demolition ofany structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant w Section 7-709, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay District shall be pe~mitted unless the demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the standards of Section 7-602(13). - No partial demolition and removal of a portion of any historic landmark or any structure within an "H", Historic Overlay District shall be permitted unless approved by the HPC as necessary for the renovation of the structures and because it meets the standards of Section 7-602(C), or unless the partial demolition and removal is exempt because it creates no change to the exterior of the structure and has no impact on the character of the structure. No relocation of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to Section 7-709, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay District, shall be permitted unless the relocation is approved by the HPC because it meets the standards of Section 7-602(D)(1) through (4). When deemed appropriate due to the significance of the project, the HPC may require a performance guarantee in a form acceptable to the city attorney as assurance that the demolition, partial demolition, or relocation will be completed as represented. B. Standards for review of demolition No approval for demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met. 1. The structure proposed for demolition is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure; and 2. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property; and 3. The structure cannot be practicably moved to another site in Aspen; and 4. The applicant demonstrates that the proposal mitigates to the greatest extent prac tical,-the following. a. Any impacts that occur to the character of the neighborhood where demolition is proposed to occur. b. Any impact on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels. c. Any impact to the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels. Supp. No. 1 1713 Â§ 7-602 ASPEN CODE ~ ~'Â· /- A C. Standards for review of partial demolition No approval for partial demolition shall be . J granted unless the HPC fi nds 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 structureÂ·or structures located on the parcel. b. Impacts on the architectural integrity of the sti ucture or structures located on the parcel. D. Standards for review bfrelocation No approval for relocation shall be granted unless the HI?C finds that all of the following standards are met: 1. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site to provide for any reasonable Deneficial use of the property; and 2. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the characteir and integrity of the structure, and- the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structure will not be diminished due to the relocation; and 3. The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for reloca- tion; and 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; and 5. The receiving site is compatible in nature to the structure or structures proposed to be moved, the character of the neighborhood is consistent with the architectural integrity of the structure, and the relocation of the historic structure would not diminish the integrity or character of the neighborhood of the receiving site. An acceptance letter from the property owner of the receiving site shall be submitted. E. Procedure for reuiew. A development application shall be submitted to the planning director before HPC approval of demolition, partial demolition or relocation, which shall be reviewed and approved by the HPC prirsuant to the proce-dures established in Common Pro- cedures, Article 6, Division 2. The HPC shall be authorized to suspend action on a demolition, partial demolition or reloca tion application when it finds that it needs additional information to determine whether the application meets the standards of Section 7-602(B) or that the proposal is a matter of such great public concern to the city that alternatives to the demolition, partial demolition or relocation must be studied jointly by the city and the owner. Alternatives which the HPC may consider having studied shall include, but not be limited to finding economically beneficial uses of the structure, removal of the structure to a suitable location, providing public subsidy Supp. No- 1 1714 - LAND USE REGULATIONS Â§ 7-603 - to the owner to preserve the structure, identifying a public entity capable of public acquisition of the structure, or revision to the demelition, partial demolition or relocAtion and develop- ment plan. The HPC shall be required to specify the additional information it requires or the alternative-s it finds should be studied when it suspands action on the development, partial demolition or relocation application. Action shall only be suspended for the amount of time it shall take for the necessary information to be prepared and reviewed by the planning director, but in nq case shall suspension be for a period to exceed six (6) months. F. Application for demolition, partial demolition or relocation. A development application for demolition shall include the following: 1. The general application information required in Section 6-202. 2. The name of the structure proposed for demolition, partial- ddmolition or relocation. 3. A written description of the structure proposed for demolition, partial demolition or relocation, and its year of construction. 4. A report from a licensed engineer or architect regarding the soundness of the struc- , ture and its suitability for rehabilitation. 5. An economic feasibility report that provides: a. Estimated market value of the property on which the structure lies, in its current c.ondition, and after demolition, partial demolition or relocation. b. Estimates from an architect, developer, real estate agent or appraiser experi- enced in rehabilitation addressing the economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the structure proposed for demolition, partial demolition or relocation. c. All appraisals made of the property on which the structure is located made within the previous two (2) years. d. Any other information considered necessary to make a determination whether the property does yield or may yield a reasonable return on investment. 6. A development plan and a statement of the effect of the proposed development on the other structures on the property and the character of the neighborhood around the property shall be submitted in cases when the HPC requires a development plan to evaluate the appropriateness of demolition or when the applicant believes the sub- mission of a development plan will assist in the evaluation of the proposed demolition. G. Penn,46.s. A violation of any portion of this Section 7-602 shal] prohibit the owner, '.1, successor or assigns trom obtalnlng a building permit for the affechÂ·d property for a period of five (5) years from the date of such violation. The city shall initiate proceedings to place a deed restriction on the property to this effect to insure the enforcement of this penalty. (Ord. No. 17-1989,Â§ 1) Sec. 7-603. Insubstantial amendment of development order. A. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order may be authorized by the planning director. An insubstantial amendment shall be limited to technical or engineer- Supp. No. 1 1715 MEMORANDUM ~ TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Addition of Exemption Clause to Demolition Provision of HP Code Language and Clarification of Section 7-602 DATE: March 19, 1991 SUMMARY: These amendments are necessary to process prior to the large code clarification/clean up ordinance, due to two projects currently underway in the Commercial Core. One is the Lane Parcel, associated with the Collins Block; the other is the (former) Alpine Bank Building at 409 E. Hopkins. Neither are historic and are considered non-contributing. The Lane Parcel received Final last year subject to this code amendment; 409 E. Hopkins has only received Conceptual. Both are slated for demo to allow the new development to occur. This code amendment is necessary in Â· order for the HPC to act within the code to allow those projects to proceed. PROCESS: This code amendment is scheduled before the P&Z at a public hearing for March 19. From there it goes to Council for first reading and then on to final reading (public hearing) and adoption. Amendments proposed to Section 7-602 A. General. No demolition, partial demolition or relocation of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to Section 7-709, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay District shall be permitted unless the demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the applicable standards of Section 7-602(B),IC) or (D), unless exempted pursuant to Section 7-602(E). The next two paragraphs of this code section should be eliminated. E.. Exemption: The demolition, partial demolition or relocation of a structure located within an "H" Historic Overlay District may be exempt from meeting the applicable standards in Section 7- 602(B), (Cl, or (D) if the III?C finds that the following conditions have been met: . .. 1. The structure is not identified on the' Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. 2. The structure is considered to be non-contributing to the historic district 3. The structure does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district. and that its demolition. partial demolition. or relocation does not impact the character of the historic district. 4. The demolition, partial demolition or relocation is necessary for the redevelopment of the parcel. 5. The redevelopment or new development is reviewed by HPC. K.1 (formerly E). Procedure for review. A Development Application shall be submitted to the Historic Preservation Officer before HPC approval of demolition, partial demolition, relocation, (or exemption within an "H" Historic Overlay District), which shall be reviewed and approved by 'the HPC pursuant to the procedures established. in Common Procedures, Article 6, Division 2. G. (formerly F). Application for Demolition or Relocation. (Language is unchanged except to eliminate F.2 and "partial demolition" from 5(a) and 5(b)). H. Application for Partial Demolition or Exemption from Demolition. Partial Demolition or Relocation. A Development application for partial demolition shall include all items specified in Section 7-602(G)(1),(2),(3) and (4). I. (formerly G). Penalties. This is to remain the same. RECOMMENDATION: Approval by vote, or recommendation to staff to bring this item back again for further discussion, amendments and/or approval. memo.hpc.demo.code.amend 2 LAND USE REGULATIONS Â§ 7-602 (5) A statement of the effect of the details of the proposed development on the original design of the historic structure (if applicable) and character of the neighborhood. (6) A statement of how the final development plan conforms to the representa- tions made during the conceptual review and responds to any conditions placed thereon. (Ord. No. 6-1989, Â§ 9) Sec. 7-602. Demolition, partial demolition or relocation. A. General No demolition of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to Section 7-709, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay District shall be permitted unless the demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the standards of Section 7-602(B). - No partial demolition and removal of a portion of any historic landmark or any structure within an "H", Historic Overlay District shall be permitted unless approved by the HPC as necessary fdr the renovation of the structure, and because it meets the standards of Section 7-602(C),or unless the partial demolition and removal is exempt because it creates no change to the exterior of the structure and has no impact on the character of the structure. No relocation of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to Section 7-709, or any structure within an -H" Historic Overlay District, shall be permitted unless the relocation is approved by the HPC because it meets the standards of Section 7-602(D)(1) through (4). When deemed appropriate due to the significance of the project, the HPC may require a performance guarantee in a form acceptable to the city attorney as assurance that the demolition, partial demolition, or relocation will be completed as represented. B. Standards for review ofdemolition No approval for demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met. 1. The structure proposed for demolition is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure; and 2. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property; and 3. The structure cannot be practicably moved to another site in Aspen; and 4. The applicant demonstrates that the proposal mitigates to the greatest extent prac- tical,-the following. a. Any impacts that occur to the character of theÂ·neighborhood where demolition is proposed to occur. b. Any impact on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels. c. Any impact to the architectural inteirrity of the structure or structures located on i the parcel and adjacent parcels. 0 Supp. No. 1 1713 Â§ 7-602 ASPEN CODE C. Standards for review ofpartial demolition. No approval for partial demolition shall be j granted unless the HPC fi nds 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 sti ucture or structures located on the parcel. D. Standards for review of relocation. No approval for relocation shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: 1. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site to provide for any reasonable Deneficial use of the property; and 2. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structure will not be diminished due to the relocation; and 3. The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for reloca- tion; and 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; and 5. The receiving site is compatible in nature to the structure or structures proposed to be moved, the character of the neighborhood is consistent with the architectural integrity of the structure, and the relocation of the historic structure would not diminish the integrity or character of the neighborhood of the receiving site. An acceptance letter from the property owner of the receiving site shall be submitted. E. Procedure for review. A development application shall be submitted to the planning director before HPC approval of demolition, partial demolition or relocation, which shall be reviewed and approved by the HPC pursuant zo the procedures established in Common Pro- cedures, Article 6, Division 2. The HPC shall be authorized to suspend action on a demolition, partial demolition or reloca tion appligation when it finds that it needs additional information to determine whether the application meets the standards of Section 7-602(B) or that the proposal is a matter of such great public concern to the city that alternatives to the demolition, partial demolition or relocation must be studied jointly by the city and the owner. Alternatives which the }IPC may consider having studied shall include, but not be limited to finding economically beneficial uses of the structure, removal of the structure to a suitable iocation, providing public subsidy Supp. No. 1 1714 a .. LAND USE REGULATIONS Â§ 7-603 Â· to the owner to preserve the structure, identifying a public entity capable of public acquisition of the structure, or revision to the demclition, partial demolition or relocition and develop- ment plan. The HPC shall be required to specify the additional information it requires or the alternatives it finds should be studied when it suspends action on the development, partial demolition or relocation application. Action shall only be suspended for the amount of time it shall take for the necessary information to be prepared and reviewed by the planning director, but in no case shall suspension be for a period to exceed six (6) months. F. Application for demolition, partial demolition or relocation. A development application for demolition shall include the following: 1. The general application information required in Section 6-202. 2. The name of the structure proposed for demolition, partial- ddmolition or relocation. 3. A written description of the structure proposed for demolition, partial demolition or relocation, and its year of construction. 4. A report from a licensed engineer or architect regarding the soundness of the struc- + ture and its suitability for rehabilitation. 5. An economic feasibility report that provides: a. Estimated market value of the property on which the structure lies, in its current condition, and after demolition, partial demolition or relocation. b. Estimates from an architect, developer, real estate agent or appraiser experi- enced in rehabilitation addressing the economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the structure proposed for demolition, partial demolition or relocation. c. All appraisals made of the property on which the structure is located made within the previous two (2) years. d. Any other information considered necessary to make a determination whether the property does yield or may yield a reasonable return on investment. 6. A development plan and a statement of the effect of the proposed development on the other structures on the property and the character of the neighborhood around the property shall be submitted in cases when the HPC requires a development plan to evaluate the appropriateness of demolition or when the applicant believes the sub- mission of a development plan will assist in the evaluation of the proposed demolition. C. Perick ics A violation of any portion of this Section 7-602 shall prohibit the owner, successor or assigns troni obtaining a building permit for the affected ;;roperly for a period of five (5) years from the date of such violation. The city shall initiate proceedings to place a deed restriction on the property to this effect to insure the enforcement of this penalty. (Ord. No. 17-1989, Â§ 1) Sec. 7-603. Insubstantial amendment of development order. A. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order may be authorized by the planning director. An insubstantial amendment shall be limited to technical or engineer- Supp. No. 1 1715