The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19910109-- AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE JANUARY 9, 1991 50 40\ REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of December 12, 1990 minutes. II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:10 A. Vested Rights Resolution/Public Ijearing: 801 E. Hyman -GA ie-/3 -M,u a 3 4- '11$, D': - A'>7 4 jÂ» 5:20 B. Cip-Extension: 309 E. Hopkins (Lily Reid I}yoject) 4* 6 U 3 the,D 73 4 F k I il'Â·j 'gin --~ '\,-c.j~ , V. NEW BUSINESS 5:30 A. Minor Development - 210 S. Galena, (Hard Rock Cafe awnings)Duh- ellap kof- 6 kf 'h 0- 5:50 B. CD and Relocation (on-site) - Public Hearing: 100 Park Avenue 13~Utu-* fU.1.0 / 9 ir/Â·~. 130,>. - -3 o t.- 9 9-tilottd - Ck o. p Les - Li 5 7:00 C. Sideyard setback vqriation - Public Hearing, 212 Lake Avenue-dâ‚¬ 44Â£,19 4 92,-0 / h \Â»,0Â» 4-\-- POI-Navl- C'*66~4,3Â·loa) _e 7:15 VI. WORKSESSION A. Sportstalker revisions -lai-L/57(r- CÂ«LI l'U--C.Â·L~--26- 7:30 VII..COMMUNICATIONS 8 1 0 A./ ~-1-k -, , , 2 - - - L l. b:- Required January meetings: HPC worksession/goals: Jan. 16, 5:00 p.m. Council/HPC worksession: January 21, 6:00 - 7:30 p.m. HPC regular meeting: January 23, 5:00 Rehab Tax Credit Workshop: January 31 Interiors worksession with State architect: 3:00 Workshop for general public: 7:00 - 9:00 p.m. (Hotel Jerome Ballroom) Project Monitoring Staff: '91-92 CLG grant application topics Attachments: Preservation Law Reporter newsletters Preservation Planning article 8:00 VIII.ADJOURN / j Z...7./.-svill.1 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 12, 1990 801 E. HYMAN - FINAL DEVELOPMENT AND DEMOLITION .. 1 PITKIN COUNTY COURTHOUSE - MINOR DEVELOPMENT HANDICAP LIFT ........... ............ 5 PRE-APPLICATION 442 W. BLEEKER, PIONEER PARK ........ 8 PAEPCKE PARK GAZEBO ......... 11 17 .â€¢ HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of December 12, 1990 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Georgeann Waggaman, Joe Krabacher, Don Erdman, Charles Cunniffe, Glenn Rappaport, Jake Vickery and Roger Moyer present. Leslie Holst was absent. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to approve the minutes of Nov. 14, 1990; second by Joe. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Don made the motion to approve the minutes of Nov. 28, 1990; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS. Roxanne: On January 21st City Council has requested a worksession with the HPC from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. The topic will be the expansion/overlay of the entire townsite. From 5:00 to 6:00 they will be discussing the Ski Museum with the Historical Society. Joe will be the monitor or the ski museum. Bill: I received a call from Little Annie's this weekend as they needed some onsite review from HPC to make corrections to the structure that supports the false front. Because of the necessity of the seven day construction schedule, I have given them the approval representing the HPC Board to change it to a wood structure. It was concrete block and they needed a steel lintel and over the weekend could not get one. I didn't feel that it effected the architectural integrity because it was structural within the building itself. _ Roxanne: January 3 lst .at the Hotel Jerome from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. will be the State Rehab Tax Credit Workshop. 801 E. HYMAN - FINAL DEVELOPMENT AND DEMOLITION Roxanne: At the last meeting the applicant received approval with two conditions: 1.) That the final development application shall include detailed elevations and a site plan of the new structure and that an revised massing model shall be presented. And that the HPC continue to encourage the relocation of the alley outbuilding structure of the main house. Our recommendation is that we have found that the applicant has met those conditions and a model will be presented tonight and that we are recommending final development and demolition approval be granted finding that the conditions have been met. We further recommend that the HPC require the demolition permit to be granted by the Bldg. Dept. concurrent to, not prior to the new construction permit. That the applicant actively continue to still seek relocation in the interim. 1 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 12, 1990 Stan Mathis, architect: There is a glass wall on the east elevation that curves around. There are two small windows on the side. There is stone but it is not carried all the way to the ground. There will be shingles in the gables. We will keep the size of the fascia down. We also do not agree with waiting until we submit for a building permit to demolish this building. That was never part of the deal. Georgeann: Why is that a problem? Stan: John may want to tear it down. John Elmore: I have never seen this condition and do not feel it is a proper condition. The people looking at the property at 803 Hyman were thinking of buying this lot and using it as a yard. The movers told us that the house is not movable. The garage structure is certainly not movable. We have advertised in the paper and people have looked at it and it cannot be moved. Roxanne: There is precedence for that condition. The Planning & Zoning put that condition on a review of a multi-family dwelling demo and reconstruction. I have reviewed this condition with the Planning Director and the City Attorney. The followup discussion after the demolition of 624 Hopkins: Should demolitions occur for just land clearing when new construction is not going up right away. Bill: There have been a few lots in the past that have set vacant. John: What _if the next door wants to use it as a yard. Bill: Then you would make application for that. John: That is not what we operated under. It seems onerous at this point to add this condition. What guarantees do I have that what we do here is going to hold? Roxanne: Vesting your rights for three years. After the loss of 624 the HPC and the Planning Office received numerous phone calls from the community stating that it was not OK by the community, that land be cleared for clearing sake. It is our responsibility representing the community that you consider this requirement very carefully. Joe: If we have agreed that the structure can be demolished why should somebody maintain that structure and keep it if they have an approval to demolish it. It seems unfair we have said that it 2 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 12, 1990 can be demolished then say you can't demolished it until you go through the expense of putting together working drawings and filing for a building permit. Joe stepped down. Georgeann: I definitely feel John should be give assurances and if the person nuxt door wanted to buy the property and turn it into a yard that would be an excellent use for it and open the space up. It would also be traditionally historic. In this age of the shortage of employee housing I can't see tearing down something people can live in but Joe has a good point of why should you have to insure it. Stan: Roxanne is talking about vested rights, well that is for three years and those vested rights go by and we are back in here again applying for a demolition permit if John decided that he doesn't want to continue with ...... The vested rights were really not for our approval. He has to do something in three years per then he has to come back. This way you are forcing us to come back in and that is not correct. Bill: How are they forcing you to come back in before your vested rights expire. Stan: If you don't give us the demolition permit and we get a vested rights approval, if John decided not to build anything on that project then he has to come back through and we have to go through the whole routine again, this way he has to build something within three years or then his approval has to come back through. Every- three years we would have to come back and go through-the demolition permit again. Bill: That is why the code is written that way so that it doesn't go for eternity. Roxanne: It is a site specific development plan that involves a demo and new construction. Stan: There is a subtle difference. We would have to build there within three years. John: People in town are afraid the rules will change and that causes demolition to occur earlier and other things to happen early just because these kinds of things happen. It is disturbing that we have spent a year to try and comply with everything and spent a lot of money and then to come in here and find an entirely new set of rules on the last night, it is just not right. 3 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 12, 1990 Bill: Rules change in this town and are going to change. John: No, it is a different interpretation of the SAME rules. Bill: I will admit this got added onto at the end of your application. John: Where would I find that in here so I can look at it and read it? Bill: When someone comes in for review there is the possibility of conditions placed on your approval. And every time you come in conditions can be added onto or taken away. That is the process. We are trying to get to a point in order to vote on this. Georgeann: Perhaps we could give him the right to demolish but that there be no hole in the ground and trees should be left standing so that it doesn't look too bad and that we recommend that the house remain to be used as rentable space for as long as it can. That could only be a recommendation and this is only a thought. Roger: That is a good idea. Bill: In this particular case the applicant has started quite some time ago and we have changed our outlook as to whether we should retain buildings and I agree that we should be fair and not let applicants get caught in the middle of a change made by the Board. If it was torn down and the grading was replaced and made to look in a very nice.manner I tend to think, - on this particular case, that I would be in favor of that. Don: If you add up the expense for carrying insurance and subtract what you could get in rental.. we have a housing problem and to be able to keep a building as long as possible that would serve as a dwelling unit is a beneficial thing. I don't understand what the real problem is by waiting for demolition? Georgeann: Is there anyone living there right now? John: Yes, but they are my partner in the house next door and would like to see it demolished and they feel it is a detraction in selling the other house. I honestly don't know that I am going to demolish the house. Jake: The only other reason to keep it there, it would give you more time to find a place to move it to, and if in fact it is not 4 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 12, 1990 a movable building it negates that argument. I don't feel we should be adding things at the last minute on this on-going process. Charles: I believe that the applicant has cooperated quite well with all of our request in the past and he has arrived here trying to do it again. He had tried to move it to the Eagles and spent considerable amount of money in trying to plan that. It is only fair to let him proceed as we had promised in the beginning. Roxanne: I don't consider this a change of the rules. I consider this being responsive to the needs of the community. We never discussed in the past whether demolition would be tied to it. This is clarifying what should happen. Bill: It is a matter of how we are dealing with an applicant. In the future we should advise clients what our philosophy is. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion that we grant Final Development and demolition approval for the parcel at 801 E. Hyman on the condition that if demolition occurs that the site is left level and no hole in the ground; major planting temporarily intact and not looking raw and looking reasonably finished. Also the recommendation that the applicant keep housing there for someone for as long as it is possible; second by Roger. DISCUSSION Charles: Should there be an amendment stating that if there are any significant changes to the final development as approved the building has to come back before HPC for a new approval. Roxanne: That is already required in the code. Charles: We have had problems with the Building Dept. before letting permits occur without understanding what HPC conditions are. AMENDED MOTION: Georgeann amended the motion to add the condition that if there are any changes to the final development plan as presented that this project has to come back to HPC for re-review; second by Roger. All approved of motion and amended motion, motion carries. 6-0 Jake: From an historic point of view it is hard to justify tearing down an historic building anytime earlier than it has to be torn down. I would like that reflected in the records so that in the future we can refer back to this. Because the applicant entered the process a year ago we were able to do this. Our 5 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 12, 1990 policy is historical preservation. We still don't have examples of materials, windows etc. Bill: This is not the normal project that is historically designated within an historic district. This happens to be a project that just got caught. Roxanne: This is the first one under ordinance #17. Roxanne: The applicant is not absolutely sure of the materials. The stone is presently red sandstone. PITKIN COUNTY COURTHOUSE - MINOR DEVELOPMENT HANDICAP LIFT Charles seated. Roxanne: The courthouse has not been accessible by mobility impaired since it was built 100 years ago. The county has this application before you to be considered. This is a temporary solution as they have budgeted $190,000 for a permanent solution of which we have not seen. We had recommended at a previous meeting to have the ramp access the north or east with an electric lift. They have chosen a lift that will access the west elevation. I am not sure this is the best solution and they need to get something immediately. Since it is temporary in nature we recommend minor development approval for 12 months for this lift with the following condition: That an HPC monitor or sub- committee work with Tom Newland and Tom Isaac to examine all other options for compatibility to this very critical resource prior to the issuance of a building permit. They still have to apply for a building permit. - Bill: The 12 month restriction would force them to put the elevator in. Scott Mackey: We have researched and feel this is our best alternative. Aesthetically it does not look that good but will be on a temporary and the BOCC approved 190,000 for an elevator. Everyday we delay the approval we delay the handicap access. Don: I see in the plan that the proposed lift take up approximately 60% of the stair width of the west entrance. Have you checked that the remaining stair width is legal as far as egress requirements? Scott Mackey: I cannot answer that. According to Tom Newland's memo that would be adequate. 6 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 12, 1990 Don: It appears that the space would be taken up all the time and we want to be sure that the City and County Building Dept. treat Pitkin County the same way they treat the public. It has to fulfill the requirement of the minimum width egress. That would be a condition of approval on this application. Georgeann: It would sit at the bottom of the stairs and be about the same size of a refrigerator box. It then would go straight up and ramp over. On one of the pages it states almond color. We would want something subtle. Bill: When you measure Tom's chair he needs 59 inches clear; you can order a large enough platform size to fit. This type states 40 inch maximum size so you would need a custom size platform made, otherwise the chair will not fit in. Tom Isaac: I am also getting a new chair. Bill: This is a required exit out of this 100 year old building and you will not be able to reduce the size of it. I thought we could remove the sandstone and take it apart block by block and save the block. The way this works you need to come in one way and as you exit out you continue in the same direction. We could bring in a walk and Tom could turn and the lift would be on its side. In moving those blocks, the lift would be hidden by the stairs and you only remove the sandstone at the landing top portion. When you got to here then you would swing through the doors. That would require the exit to exist down right on through and would be screened. We could store the sandstone and just rebuild it when the elevator goes in as that egress is illegal. Bill: We would want to work out the landing on top so that there is enough room for Tom to make the turn. If need be you could create a wood step that would come straight out and make the landing large enough and safe enough for Tom to maneuver so that there is no possibility of tipping downstairs. Charles: So you would have a temporary wooden step over the existing stairs. Tom Isaac: We also looked at an elevator inside the building and that would cost more and be more disruptive. The permanent elevator would be on the outside of the building similar to the Elks Building and the Opera House. I also agree with the one year condition because for years we have been trying to get an elevator put in. Glenn: The egress is not legal so it has to be as Bill 7 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 12, 1990 suggested. Judging from the scale the space is only two feet wide. Roxanne: It might be stated in the motion that a revised application must be submitted and approved by the monitor and Staff and that the stone should be removed and numbered. Proj ect monitoring is absolutely crucial in this project. MOTION: Jake made the motion that HPC approve the installation of the lift as specified in the location to the north of the existing stair connecting to the existing walk to be of some temporary wood or paving walk and that the connection onto the existing landing occur by removing and saving the existing stone/brick to be returned to its existing condition upon the end of the 12 months or when the lift is removed. This shall have a 12 month restriction; second by Roger. AMENDED MOTION: Don made the amended motion that the landing area be increased for sufficient maneuverability of a wheelchair which would entail construction of a temporary wooden stair over the existing stone stairs as required to allow for adequate movement and access to and from the building. Prior to the issuance of a building permit that a revised application be submitted and said application adheres to all building codes that pertain to the city and county. The project monitor and Staff be responsible for verifying the applicability of this application. An exact restoration will occur according to specifications; the stone Will be removed carefully numbered and preserved and photographed; second by Roger. All in favor of motion and amended motion, motion carries. PRE-APPLICATION 442 W. BLEEKER, PIONEER PARK Roxanne: This is strictly an opportunity for the Board to get more informed what the applicant is seeking. No formal action will occur at this meeting. This building is listed on the National Register. Les Kaplan: There are eleven lots that face Bleeker Street and the property was subdivided in 1986. Lot 1 consists of five city blocks with the existing structure and a parcel which is on the other side of the alley. Lot 2 consists of four city blocks with ' 12,000 square feet. We intend to submit to the HPC a conceptual review application for both sites. By doing that it will improve the way the HPC reviews the project by seeing what we are doing with the existing house in relationship with what we are proposing with the new house. On the existing house the floor plan is obsolete. There is basically no dining room and no family room. We have a dysfunctional site plan; the garage is 8 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 12, 1990 right now on the other side of the alleyway. It is a three car garage and there is no way to get into the house unless you go thru the alleyway. Another problem is deterioration, there are structural cracks in the foundation and every element on the outside needs some attention. The third floor needs work and window casements in many cases are rotten. The fence has been vandalized and needs completely repaired. A lot of the additions that were done over time were done insensitively and were not in keeping with the character of the house. There is an addition or the west side of the house which is the bedroom and an addition on the east and south side which is the kitchen and an exterior stairway going down to the basement. They were done in the 60's. We are not proposing to touch that. We are proposing to put a different addition onto the rear which exposes some of the major elements which is more in keeping with the house. The four issues are floor plan, site plan, deterioration of house and the fact that additions were put on over time that were not in keeping with the house. This will not be an exact replication. We would like to reintroduce its prominenc e as a viable residence and in order to do that we would have to add additional space to it and renovate the outside. We are dealing with forms and function. We would like to move the garage from the north side of the alley back onto the major part of the property. We are not proposing to tear anything down and build a new garage structure. We would like to take the existing extension to the carriage house and use that as a garage. It might have been used for horses years ago. One of the problems is that it is too narrow and we would like to extend the wall out. In the process of doing that we would like to restore the fenestration or detail which is on the outside to as it did based upon the best research that we have. There would also be an addition to the rear. We would take off the addition that is currently the dining- room and stairway and adding a larger addition. We are also proposing to use the basement as active living space. We would have to introduce some windows around the east side and west side of the house. All the changes that we are proposing of the exterior alterations are to the rear of the house or to the front of where the old stables are. My relationship to the property is that I am the purchaser of lot #2 and the co-developer and renovator of lot #1. The present owners of lot #1 and myself will be renovating the house. Bruce Sutherland, architect. The south side of the house which is the front, there will be no alterations whatsoever. The connecting stables that were built after the original carriage house we are intending to extend that out slightly and bring to back to what it used to be. We are proposing to extend the detailing, the facade element the whole way around. One of the design elements we have not shown, and we are not sure what to do 9 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 12, 1990 with, we would like to see an ornamental iron cresting around the top of the fascia as we think it once was. The only thing we could find was an artist rendering and we are not sure that it is correct. We would like input on that. On the east elevation the addition was done in frame and we are proposing to remove the frame portion and add out to the back and expose the detail. We believe we can do this in a brick structure that will still not destroy any of the original character of the existing house. On the east side we will have three windows. On the west side we are planning to add windows in the basement and above. We also intend to remove the iron stairs and ladder. In looking at the new residence the distance between the two houses is approximately 60 feet. We have not removed any of the trees. The top of the ridge of the new house will be lower than the existing and will be set back. We do not want the new residence to impose on the existing facility. Jake: What do you propose to do with the existing garage site across the alley? Bruce: We will tear the garage down and have surface parking. It was built in the mid 60's. Jake: What about using it for the cottage infill program? Roger: Could that be part of the requirement? Roxanne: Les has talked about it. Georgeann: When you move the wall forward, are you going to keep that in the existing brick? Bruce: Our intention is to use the existing brick. Roger: When the Historical Society gives a tour, Weber, the mayor, was ousted from office because he owned some buildings that were rented to prostitutes. He was run out of town because of public opinion because they were sure he killed his wife by poisoning her. Shortly after she died the live-in niece became his wife. When he left town he rented the house for around $10. a year to a local blacksmith. The local blacksmith built the carriage house. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Georgeann: I have no problem with the windows on the back of the carriage house. No problem with taking the ladders off and no problem visually with the "eyebrow" being removed or keeping it simple. It is a distracting element. I am not in favor of 10 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 12, 1990 making the new additions or the old additions in brick. I like them in siding because it clearly says this was the original building and this is where the additions were. I am also in favor of changing the large window and in favor of moving the wall out as long as it is carefully done so that it is still the original brick. Roger: Because the basement is going to be put in I would recommend that there be close monitoring about moving anything so that the integrity of the house is not destroyed or damaged. Don: How much of the allowable FAR is being used in the basement because you are producing three light wells and that triggers the FAR calculations? Bruce: We had two meetings with Bill Drueding prior to our calculations and we all seem to be on the same level. Three hundred feet of our FAR is going to the basement. Dick Fallin: We are orienting the new structure toward the trees. Don: What is the architectural expression of the new house? Les: The house will stand on its own. We will try to use older elements on the outside so that there will still be a "marriage" between what is old and new. Dick: One of our major considerations is where the house will go on those four lots. There are two enormous trees that have a 20 foot spread and are 100 feet tall and those two trees dictated where the structure should be. Les: The new house will be a two story house with four bedrooms/basement. We are also trying to decide which end of the house the garage will go on. Jake: As I look at the drawings I like the arch as it is a unique element. Glenn: I agree with Jake on the arch because it was there originally. I am concerned about the additions as to whether they should be clapboard or brick and if they should try to stand out a little bit or look subordinate to the house. I also have concerned about the fences and the material proposal. I am also in favor of preserving the character of the house. Don: Is there some reason you didn't want to push the new residence back toward the alley or to the north? If you do so 11 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 12, 1990 you have a much larger apparent lot size and the visual encroachment on the pioneer park is less and you get more south exposure. Dick Fallin: We do have another plan but we wanted to present the extreme first. Bill: I have no problem with the expansion as you presently show it. I feel brick might be more appropriate as far as the expansion is concerned. I would like to see how the connection is made between new and old. I also agree with Glenn and Jake on the arch. On the streetscape possibly a new roof interest to get a rhythm going would help fit in the context of the neighborhood. Stepping it back is appropriate and lowering it. The massing should not get too big and off balance the elements that are existing. Any renovation should occur in a sequence and not put on a hold. We are presently talking about requiring that the applicant proceed in a timely manner to the code once they start to demolish, that it gets rebuilt and goes on. Jake: The banding on the east side goes around and terminates. Possibly that needs continued or an integration of it. PAEPCKE PARK GAZEBO Roxanne: The Paepcke Park Gazebo is being rebuilt with careful project monitoring with Glenn, Bill Efting and myself on the materials. I would like the Board to discuss any kind of motion or action that you wish to take in the form of a statement that you would like to make to the City or whomever on this particular issue. In April when we approved this we were very specific with our conditions and those conditions did not change. The Parks Â· - Dept. put it out to bid and did not get anybody and finally got somebody and by that time it was getting very late in the year. I was getting concerned that with heavy snowfall it was going to continue to damage the existing gazebo and possible would have the potential to fall over. I felt that it was very important that they start it. We finally got Aspen Custom Builders to come in and they started in without any notification to the Planning Office and they tried to contact Glenn on time to tell him they were going to start dismantling the building. That happened a week ago Thursday. They started hand dismantling. I have asked repeatedly for a copy of the actual contract from the Parks Department and have not received it but I will tell you I signed off on the Building Permit and attached a copy of the motion of the exact specifications from the HPC to that permit. The conditions very specifically stated that there shall not be a complete dismantling, a demolition. We knew that the majority of the materials were gone but there would always be a structure 12 /. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 12, 1990 there; just done differently than a mass demo. Thursday afternoon they started dismantling and couldn't prop a ladder up without moving it a good distance; I have heard one to two feet and the contractor at that time made the decision and told the Parks Department we've decided that it is unsafe and are concerned about safety over the weekend and we feel that the best way to handle it now is to bring in a front end loader and let it go down . Basically the Parks Department acting for the City, one person, Ken Collins not George Robinson said OK, if that is what you think needs to happen. Friday morning I got a phone call from a City councilmen inquiring about the front end loader. And from there it all started. Monday we had an emergency meeting and went over the plans, Glenn was there, and made some decisions about exact materials and where they were going to be ordered from and the scheduling of the process of reconstruction. I had a couple of phone calls about if the old one isn't there why not put it out for a design competition, why do we have to do it like that? I had another call about not having the gazebo in the Park at all. The majority of people I talked to basically said as long as it looks as it did it is OK. The majority of the City wants to see a gazebo that has the character of the old gazebo. None of the materials were salvaged. They had to go to the dumpster to get them to show people the level of deterioration of the materials. There was noting that was savable. Then we got into an archaeological situation and when they started excavating for the foundation they found bottles and jars. It turns Out that Paepcke Park was originally a dump from the 1910 to the 40's. The artifacts found were donated to the Historical Society and they came and took away everything they could. In the meantime we are proceeding with the reconstruction of the gazebo with the contractor. Bill: When they decided to tear it down was there someone in the City who was not familiar with the process and did not contact Glenn or Roxanne? Possibly we should set up a system who the monitor is and how the process works so that in the future we are contacted in a crisis. Glenn: They knew I was the monitor and called the day before and said they were going to begin work. Bill: But they made the decision to tear it down on their own. We need a crisis-management system set up where people can be called so we can issue something immediately and be part of that. We are the city's arm of preservation in this community. Although things like this happen, I don't think it is going to go away, it will happen in the future because people can't contact individuals. 13 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 12, 1990 Roxanne: Mary Martin was present at the Council Meeting and three council members responded and the other two did not. Margo and Bill Stirling asked Carol O'Dowd, City Manager to look into some kind of fine that would be applied or what the penalty would be. Jake Vickery also called and was very concerned about the penalties involved. There are three penalties for an unapproved demolition or a violation of their building permit: $300. fine, 90 days in jail or 5 year sterilization of land. Bill: If Staff were to prepare a memo to be given out to all people who are doing restoration/renovation that explain what to look out for, it would make everybody aware of the process. New contractors and people who have not worked with us before do not know the procedures. Roxanne: I am willing to prepare something. Roxanne: Jed is going to be recommending an amendment to the building code regarding approvals on historic properties. Jake: I take this seriously and did allot of research. I called Gary Lyman, John Davis and talked to Frank Ross at Aspen Builders and the Parks Director. What I got from all of that was that the bottom line was in a situation like this, the contractor because he is the license professional in the picture and the person taking the permit out from the town ends up being the responsible party. The people working for the City do not necessarily know all the rules about a project, however a licensed contractor should be expected to know the rules. Whether it was a lack of willingness or knowledge I do not know but there is a problem of destroying an historic structure without a building permit. ' I think it is important to give a. clear message to a contractors that if they violate this they are in jeopardy because they are responsible professionals. One option for action is to recommend that Roxanne in cooperation wit the building officials review the situation and consider taking it to the board of appeals and examiners who are the people that basically license contractors in the city of aspen. It is real clear to me that this demolition happened without a demolition permit. Who the city goes after is the contractor because they re the licensed professional. There are other issue that are brought up: what was the selection process used to obtain this contractor, what are his qualifications? If there is a problem with the stability of the structure there are things like scaffolding, bracing, fencing etc. all kind of options and we did not get a chance to look at those options. Two people make a decision on their own on a Friday afternoon. It doesn't do any good to go through policies etc. if they get ignored, or avoided. There has to be some authority behind what we do. the best channel that I have 14 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 12, 1990 is by referring these contractors back to this committee and if they are unwilling there license should be considered for possible revocation. It isn't this specific situation it is all situations like this. Roger: There are two issues communication and education. The fine should go to the contractor and another issue was the contractor present. It is the sensitivity to an issue and allot of contractors are not sensitive to the issues but they need educated. Bill: In the zoning code the contractor is responsible for people working on the job. There are about six projects on Main Street that have really come together and there is an interest. There are allot of people in the community that feel we do not have a tooth and their only goal is to get it done. Rather than pass a resolution that has not bite we might recommend to the City that they do refer this to the Board of appeals. Roger: A letter of reprimand. Jake: I am prepared to make a motion that has two parts to it. Glenn: I agree with everything but part of the problem that comes from the legal aspect is being liable if someone is injured. From my discussion with John Davis that was the factor. Glenn: Possibly there is a way for the city to be liable on public property until it is sufficiently stabilized and maybe there is a way to shift that. Jake: That.point of view could be abused. There are- all kind of dangers and according to the bldg. inspector no evidence has been submitted to that effect. That is not his call and he has liability insurance to protect him. Charles: The Parks Dept. took it upon themselves to go along with the contractor and demo it. Glenn: He did ask who he thought was the responsible person. Charles: You can't put all the blame on the builders because he turned to the Parks Dept. for an answer. Glenn: The Parks Dept. does represent the city. MOTION: Jake made the motion that in situations that a contractor would act in non-conformance to conditions imposed by the HPC that upon the vote of the HPC that their action be 15 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 12, 1990 reviewed by the Board of Appeals and Examiners. Point #2 is that we find that the contractor in this particular case violated the conditions of his bldg. permit and did not seek a demolition permit through proper channels; second by Roger. All in favor except Georgeann, motion carries. Roxanne: The conditions were not met. Jake: We will leave it to the Board of appeals and Examiners to determine the appropriate action. It is a lot easier to call us up and talk with us than go thru this process. Glenn: The city acted irresponsibly and took it upon themselves to make that decision when in fact it was not their decision to make. Bill: It may come out that way. This should be discussed with Jed also before it is pursued. Also Gary Lyman. MOTION: Bill made the motion to table the rest of the agenda (Meadows) to the next meeting; second by Jake. All in favor of motion and amended motion. 6-0 MOTION: Don made the motion to adj ourn; second by Glenn. All approve, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 16 1_Y_ 69 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 801 E. Hyman Ave.: Approval of Vest Rights Resolution (Public Hearing) Date: January 9, 1991 Attached is the Resolution granting Vested Rights for the Final Development approval for 801 E. Hyman Ave. The HPC approved the Final Development plans with conditions on December 12, 1990. The conditions were as follows: 1) that upon demolition {or relocation off the parcel} the parcel shall be left in a "finished" condition, 2) that the existing structures remain on the parcel as long as possible {prior to demolition}, and 3) Any changes to the Final Development plans as approved by the HPC shall be submitted for review and approval by the HPC (prior to the issuance of a building permit or change order). RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC approve the Resolution granting Vested Rights for the Final Development proposal with conditions for the demolition and new construction at 801 E. Hyman Avenue. memo.hpc.801eh.reso RESOLUTION NO. (Series of 1991) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE VESTING THE SITE SPECIFIC FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH CONDITIONS FOR 801 EAST HYMAN AVENUE WHEREAS, John Elmore has submitted Final Development plans to the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee for approval of the site specific development plan and demolition at 801 East Hyman Avenue, Lots A and B, Block 111, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee finds that the Final Development proposal constitutes the site specific development plan for the property, and; WHEREAS, John Elmore has requested that the development rights for said property, as defined and approved with conditions by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee in the site .specific development plans, be vested pursuant to Section 6-207 of the Aspen Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee desires to vest development rights in the 801 East Hyman Avenue site specific development plans with conditions pursuant to Section 6- 207 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen for a period of three (3) years from the effective date hereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 The Aspen Historic Preservation Committee of the City of Resolution No. 91- Page 2 Aspen, as a consequence of its approval of the site specific development plan, and pursuant to Section 6-207 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby vests development rights in 801 East Hyman Avenue, Lots A and B, Block 111, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, for a period of three (3) years from the effective date hereof. The following conditions to the Final Development approval are hereby made a part of this Resolution: 1) Upon demolition (or relocation Of the existing structures off the parcel), the parcel shall be left in a "finished" condition 2) The existing structures shall remain on the parcel as long as possible (prior to demolition) 3) Any changes to the Final Development plans as approved by the HPC shall be submitted for review and approval (prior to the issuance of a building permit or change order) Failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Section 2 The approval granted hereby shall be subj ect to all rights of referendum and judicial review; except that the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of this resolution following its adoption. 2 Resolution No. 91- Page 3 Section 3 Zoning that is not part of the site specific development plans approved hereby shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. Section 4 Nothing in this approval shall exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances of the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. Section 5 The establishment of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulations by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site specific development approval, the applicants shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. Section 6 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or 3 . Resolution No. 91- Page 4 portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 7 Nothing in this resolution shall be construed to affect any right, duty or liability under any ordinance in effect prior to the effective date of this resolution, and the same shall be continued and concluded under such prior ordinances. APPROVED by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee at its regular meeting on January 9, 1991. By William J. Poss, Chairman Aspen Historic Preservation Committee ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Assistant City Clerk hpcreso.801eh 4 JVJ ~4 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 309 E. Hopkins (Lily Reid Project): Conceptual Development extension Date: January 9, 1991 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Extension of Conceptual Development application for the proposal at 309 E. Hopkins St., aka the Lily Reid Project. An extension time has not been specified by the applicant. DISCUSSION: Section 7-601(F)(3)(c) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations provides for an extension of Conceptual Development approvals by the HPC. Such approvals are valid for one year of the date of the original approval, which was January 10, 1990. This code provision does not provide specific language on the maximum or minimum amount of time such extension may be good for, however, staff generally recommends a one-time, six (6) month extension on similar requests. We feel six months provides ample time for an applicant to submit Final Development plans, or withdraw an application. However, in this case, project representative Joe Wells, has informed staff that 30-90 days should be ample time for an extension. They are preparing the Final Development application now. The Planning Office recommends HPC's approval for a 90 day extension. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider alternate time frames for such extension. Staff is not recommending additional conditions be attached to the extension. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant a one-time Conceptual Development extension to April 10, 1991, which is 90 days from the date of the one year anniversary of the original Conceptual Development approval, January 10, 1990. memo.hpc.309eh.exten A - CHARLES CUNNIFFE &ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 520 EASTHYMAN, SUITE 301, ASPEN, CO. 81612 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, A.1.A. DEC 2 8 1990 December 26, 1990 Ms. Roxanne Eflin c/o Planning Office City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Aspen Arcade Ltd. (AKA Lilly Reid) 301 East Hopkins Ave. Aspen, Colorado Dear Roxanne, I am writing on behalf of Mr. Larry Brooks, managing partner for the referenced project. We are applying for an extension of the conceptual approval granted by HPC on January 10, 1990. I have been retained by Mr. Brooks as a design consultant for the final drawings which are being prepared by Hagmanâ€ž Yaw Architects. These drawings will be ready for final review by HPC soon, but not before the anniversary date of the conceptual approval. We will be glad to provide you wirh any additioral documentation that may be required. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincersly, \ f 01-Â»LOF, Charles L. Cunniffe, AIA Principal P.S. Happy Holidays! CC: Mr. Larry Brooks Mr. Larry Yaw c:\wp5\clients\8811\ext.let 1 N--- 4) MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Comm-ittee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Minor Development: 210 S. Galena, Hard Rock Cafe, awnings Date: January 9, 1991 APPLICANT: Hard Rock Cafe, Ray D. Brooks, represented by V.W. White, Omar's Awning and Tent Company APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Minor Development approval for six (6) retractable window-specific awnings. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Development Review Standards are found in Section 7-601(D) of the Land Use regulations. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay district or is adjacent to a Historic Landmark... Response: Staff finds the application to be generally - appropriate, meeting this standard, with the following exceptions: 1) Consistency: Existing awnings on the adjacent Esprit (south facing) storefront are off-white and appear light and neutral. In the past the HPC has required matching or compatible awnings for different businesses located within the same building. The Hard Rock Cafe awnings proposed are dark green acrylic. The application involves a west-facing storefront. Esprit's awnings are south-facing. We find that as neither set of awnings are generally perceived at the same time, the HPC may find that the difference in materials and widths (for two different types of businesses) is not a concern. 2) Width: The awnings project 4' from the building. This is wider than many awnings found throughout the district, which are generally 2.8-3.5'. We understand the applicant wishes to cover the sidewalk as much as possible (and therefore screen customers queuing outside from inclement weather). However, we feel 4' is wider than what we consider . -------144jf 3< 8-5:-.5&(flg:7-117 #-- _ .. 4114 1- - 42: 4 -= 1 . 5 1'..~ .-9' 431 I 1.- 2 *râ€¢ r - 1328.12 -& . I ~ =r 4.-4 _ - *rer . , ..4-1 -11 -1, 1 1 1- j// 34&*Â·4.*a92Â»44#iff#t -4-4*43.234:24.,25(Lvi.:,,Ax.3,<.02Â£' -4*9*94Â§1*9â‚¬44&042 94. "Mi.JAJ .ZE# ..mt'.93Â£01:2-U.-1-â‚¬:-ry:.1.- - Z qi*wqe~,~~~237449*~~ ~~~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~L.~ .. 3~7333~~1{,Â«~*Â·s-.6(=~:~44Â·Â·~ L- 11 1 - t -.-732..8 . 4- 04#24*78.quw*95*'A***49$42*44: Â·7*S.~*1'6~Â·bitÂ·:Ry#iÂ·-Â·.4542U.N.Mil.3.7:.Â·:It-. ' t.u. -1 1 1Â£~0.52*421~ = -4--Â·' '. :*M, r.Â·t,5,--7.':Â·Â·:,>.r..t=Â·ie.be._r.,1.1-tÂ·Â·hÂ·Â·Â·Â· Â·- -,4-141 -11- 7,,7.4*419#4 1343:Â· 4444Â· i., vit~*A: , -2' 1 -r '~' *= ~-CE 14lL:~~ 'L....24,14>*.~~4...P % .....22%3...7131;6%.Itf:;.i?-;i(i:%1;lÂ·3 0:-... >-fÂ·:Â·9Â·. :4jf~*9' ..2 . o 7 4 - * 4..'"-..ir.,;_r.fÂ·**i, -q .2- i - 1.m.p. liril ~ rbi ' Â·Â·~ - -..Â· t Â· Â· . o; , Â¥ IT , 4; F.*4*Â·ii'Fl'/an~~9?7~:,. 31 Â¥ v Â· ~ ~ ,~ ~ gFS,>JEr, f , - bcÂ«10. 24,-11,/ , . r--1:1.4*$:Â·-.---4.:03:3%%-; A-Z'..'r .*1(41?N/4.1&.4,406' , I ..1 S .' I ruâ‚¬'*tly@:ff 2 14.:41 : ' :**u ...:- Â· A BWf.â‚¬4.fe*95*6~- . , 085*7Â·,4-4Â»Affet /*48>,Ced,i - 1 -$ A . 4 - I 1,1.- 4 lilli'. 7 -144.,4-* 4.W t, t., t .i . . -- .Â· . xy fâ€¢ee-1 : w-~,Â·.:..0....r ., b&t-6/5 ./M~â€¢'g yÂ·'Â·-:~ 5.Â· ,. Â·:Â·.Â·Â·r:F.r .....:1, 17,9,414LL2Â·;,i~ . '.ANSWS,1~â‚¬fY,?APzf:~'i< ~-44 44 - -41,4-,-e. 4--,--.i.>,Â·4 ~0' Â·riv 90-4: 1 k,li:E<Â·4021,MiMAMB*4 4<78749&,kk .1 . .. .. Â·Â· .. Â·:~-...t. v~tâ€¢~100*r-~94Â·~ewÂ»~~f#Â·94.64â‚¬,ti ..:... .... .... .1.~4..3.C ...:6912934?$147~ki~*AVAM/g#&#br. Â·'..3Â¥:2,t'T}J,j-*i,1 Â·'Â·Â¢4*FAN-+4' 0,4 awh/-â€¢â€¢ Â·. BEAT THE WEATHER! 444.. Rain. Snow. Gusty winds. Our new 1,) tf '~Câ‚¬'I Â·- ' - Â· '.-'2 1- Compact Awning can weatheritall. Sleek storage design. With the style and features of a full drop awning. 40~Â®*4179-Â«Â·2~~leÂ· 4 i, Our Perma System Compact awning offers 1< &, complete protection for retracted awnings in the 4-9-44- -..~,=r.4.-2 27:<lit.*7~ weather-tight aluminum enclosure. The front .344* r 42#/0.-:i<re>*:4 profile seals a retracted awning against the -t:Â·4*.4 .4'Itiof:,+1'"4: ?V/*43:~{f / Jf,t,f ft ..,0':i ~ :1'.3+ 4. : 1.3.- C B weather. Andactsasastyiized weight bar when :ji...0._.u:.p ..,.- fl<tÂ·~ 4 'flf./ I Or the awning opens to any of its positions within Â£48.-:,)"MA<1*. + ING e the 160 degree drop. These Perma System awnings are simple to ., j w Â§ i ~t~,i. lk*u;16'<~s,~ :s.44Â®,~ '~ , - -Â£-4 70,1' 1#48 operate, easily installed and maintenance free. ' We give you top quality and design at a price 2~ 1, that's hard to beat. Call your area Unitex representative today for information regarding the new Compact Awning and other Perma System Awnings. PERIVIA.~ SYSTEM 91 the cadette awning specifications 6 - 1 1 .~ -t~ ,/'...'..'./....,/. 4 4 Â¥ 9 2'ARM - 2'2" ~~ 3' ARM - 3'2" 4' ARM -4 L /1,0. 1 7 f Measurements Shown in Inches Width 3' -15' Projection: 21 - 3' - 4' Arm Angle: 0Â° - 135Â° 2.5 3.5 1 7 Made In USA Printed in U.S A .1 "â‚¬. L. ?h. 4/ r - i . . .: %*7*94*ri 04/0-. /' ~Alf .4*: ...Wt././5Â· 7. : Â·. I Â·Â· 4.4-,4..-4'.1 :2 .22: " , . N.,2..t. :.. 1 ' 3.t fa#hi fic.Â·~ 3:1 'Ar Â«. .Â·.. -- --*,-L ': /# I-~~:#At"#46 41*$1 9" . r:. Â©--,9- A . ..: .'.Â·Li-.2*..3 â‚¬14â€¢Â·5944 Â·Â·41:b- 7 r Â·. - ~1-4. ~' . 23#/ ;Ii:904311%42Â¢04 3*~ I .t â€¢ 4 :yeitifl'via**Â·..Â· 1 2. F jf~ f ~~'~ r ~~*'~~~ '~~ t:,1*Li,662zailÂ·4...,- f )ijlt,?14(. 1. .~Ili .., JE 1):4 v i. lf; *.7~444E*404Â·-1 Â· Â·-Â· :Â·0Â·Â·,~ 31:fl ., Â·Â·Â·...4f>'' ' 414324 rt, WSid. 4 4 i-4 ~:'Â¥Nt.?'f.-.Â·r' 924*-..I-.., miÂ»r tt'Â·t.,relt''S)th' < i-Â£*.EL .L'irt=-I , Ii, t.2,0.4,0/.'.2.+Â·c...~ 6 61 . 0 , r . 1 .. 1-I' I., 2 11: ..126 , 1' ' . 4-,1 4 -4$*.#*Â·-41/* :.*4'td 6., - W -=li=~56~fi' %25 I.% a '/ 1 11 3,82 .1 1.1 .1 1,;4 ... A : bl . . i: 4261,2~~.*4 33*. :24014.11=39.1/: a y - 11 - , .. 'L -4. '. a ./42'. 2 :,4./ 13-4-i~{{iff':itt.91&3 1.'1. i *.. Â·I, IÂ·~tt:It A + C *; 1 21 f? .11:. ..MI *pbf j. A ... 1 1 r F 4 ' ,.Â· ff iI .<Â·'~ .. 0,i; i ~ i. Â·#: '44 :41 .0 1. r-.., ,~1 -4 -ilâ„¢'fti/;~f flÂ·Â·~Â·~if'...â€žiti{ !Â·I -~1 Lf '~ ~ Â£ ,) <' Heajmtf.~~ Â·' ~ ~ ''-~ *4 wi'*121>4Â©NA . '?ts:+1,1.f..1- . 4, 29(%44 . : * , ' V.1. V ' 11.- -3.4 ..Â· I 'Â· 40" f '% 8/*1,~IM?.TÂ·< r ~<, t r,i- &-f.... -9 . 1 ..491'.4.6,..1 1 1 . - Â·.*Plyâ€ž.46*:.aâ€¢*... p..I--"Ill.'I'-I I + ...4-..Ill-- k â€¢L 46> " 1 ./. ..1 Â· 1Â» 47 4. , - 14 ..S- . . ,â‚¬1Â·1- .. 1 41///1/1.A//1 . .2/,1.Â·7 5~ ' ~ U.4 t.:*b l 'i = A, 4* the cadette mechanism -1 1,- -5" - - - 3 Tabular Motor Manual Gear T---- f223*- \. th. 0 -1- 1" 1: 1 1*14 ) . 'Â· 7- 0 1 -m 0 0 03*~ 4" 400 2" ~ 0~0 ----Â·--~~ilt ~21.15*r~Â·Â· 11 -L /*afL -rD?22*5M .-*EAB,I/&/1//68~2/2 0 24 0 00-I -I --hut' Ul ~. - 1 Kil. Â¥ i 1 13410 13405 -. 14207 Plk H 14050 lÂ» 13018 f 14250 14304 14305 14350 -- 14306 14307 13121 13120 15302 ~-.. - 14002 13102 1< I 13103 61 14392 13303 13104 Made m USA . 1 Side Wall Mount c:21 v- .â€ž82 - 13122 / %' W \ \ Er, 1 CO-)11 11 [st 17 \ U r P 1 Vi 4003 --4 CO 1 " 14393 0 1 1 ~0. Printed in U S.A 1,/0.~ I . . HARD~ROCK CRFE OF ASPEN Al,0 k} i M -6 P ROPULA L t 9- l-1 PG - 1. M l- HAR~ HA K. LI l . 9 - 11 1 - - SCALE- e k s l' OmARS ft(rol/06 41ENT CD . <VI.:...4........ - Acal-Ic- FngÂ£(c *44 37 PRDJECTioN 4' -[Rea Bl.!il.DIN6 YPCE- 142(ed T PR,Al 511-)5 /.PAL P rv i 't 1,7 /,1 , MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Conceptual Development and on-site Relocation: 100 Park Avenue (Public Hearing) Date: January 9, 1991 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual development approval for the on- site relocation of an historic one-story cottage, with a rear and partially below-grade addition, and the new construction of five (5) two-bedroom free market units. The project also includes the demolltion of four (attached) non-historic dwelling units. LOCATION: 100 Park Avenue, described as follows: A tract of land situated in Section 7, Township lOS, Range 84W, being fully described by metes and bounds in Book 192, Page 214, less two tracts of land described in Book 230, page 39 and Book 230, page 49, less a tract described in Book 408, page 407, City of Aspen Colorado. APPLICANT: Margaret Stanzione on behalf of William H. Lane, represented by Gibson and Reno, Architects ZONING: RMF-PUD. This parcel is not landmark designated at this time. Staff is recommending that the applicant consider submitting an application for designation. SITE, AREA AND BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Lot Size: 14,086 sq. ft. Allowab16 FAR: 14,086 sq. ft. Existing cottage FAR: 1,588 sq. ft.* - Existing FAR (parcel): 2,890 sq. ft. Proposed cottage addition (FAR): unstated Proposed Total FAR: unstated Open Space required: 35% Max. allowable height 25' * Clarification is required on the exact size of the historic resource. The application presents conflicting information Â·(stating that the cottage's original size was only 517 sq. ft.).Â· EXISTING CONDITIONS: . The subj ect historic cottage was relocated to this site, near the center of the parcel; in the early 1970's. It is not oriented to the street (Park Ave.). Immediately adj acent to this relocated cottage is another frame one-story Â· dwelling unit, age unknown, (not listed on the Inventory). 4 Connecting these two dwelling units into a U-shaped configuration is a one-story cinder-block addition. A few mature cottonwoods and pines are located on the parcel, which is surrounded on two sides with a wooden (non-historic) fence. A small (non-historic) outbuilding also exists in the corner of the parcel, and is proposed for demolition. PROJECT SUMMARY and REVIEW PROCESS: The applicable Guidelines are found in Section VI. Residential Buildings - Renovation and Restoration, beginning on page 47. The Development Review Standards are found in Section 7-601(D); Relocation Standards are found in SectionÂ·7-602(D) of the Land Use regulations. Ordinance 17, Series of 1989, required HPC review and approval over the demolition/partial demolition/relocation of all historic resources identified on the Inventory, whether "designated", "located within a district" or not. The Relocation Standards (7- 602{D}) and the relocation review process ties directly to the basic Development Review Standards (7-601{D}). Proposed amendments (as approved by the HPC last year) to clarify the language in the Development Review Standards as they relate to projects specifically like this one, are still pending adoption by P&Z and Council. Where the Standards state "designated historic structure", "historic resource" will substitute. The Planning Office has responded accordingly under each standard. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with (designated historic structures*) located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay district or is adjacent to a Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks Where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. (*historic resource) Response: The Planning Office is pleased to see a proposal that protects, preserves and highlights a historic resource, especially within the context of affordable housing. Our overall concerns focus on 1) the preservation of the historic cottage, and 2) the general compatibility of the new construction in its relation to the historic cottage. We find the mass and scale of the new units somewhat overwhelming and competitive to the cottage. Staff feels that while the applicant is seeking to maximize building and number of units on the site, a restudy is in order to reduce height (while still retaining a compatible roof pitch), and reduce the massive-appearing decorative elements (chimneys, east elevation gabled bay window, 2 etc.). Spacing: The site plan indicates a diagonal relationship in the spacing of the new proposed construction and the relocated cottage. It appears that this site design is the most effective way to maximize the number of units and FAR, while allowing the cottage room to breathe, somewhat, on all four sides. The HPC should carefully consider the compatibility of the new construction orientation in relationship to the historic cottage. The Guidelines' also. address additions as follows: "Locate additions to original.houses so that they do not alter the facade. Additions should not be designed so that they obscure the size or shape of the house. A possible option is setting backÂ·the addition so that it does not affect the building's front." Staff finds that the proposal meets this Guideline very well. The addition is modest and lower in height to the historic cottage, which we applaud. Streetscape and Landscape Material: No significant vegetation is proposed to be removed. We are recommending further study for a landscape buffer between the cottage and the new construction. A landscape plan will be required at Final. Fences: Staff recommends new fencing consistent with page 49 in the Guidelines. Open space requirements are specific in requiring fencing to be "open". Alleys and Parking: No alley exists. 13 parking spaces are required, which the applicant is providing on site, at Â·the rear. Rooflines: The proposal generally meets the standards for roof pitch. We are unable to determine eave overhangs in the new construction, which sh6uld be clarified. Doors: We recommend all original doors remain on the historic cottage, and be repaired as necessary. We are unable to determine the style of doors proposed on the new construction. Windows: As with doors, we recommend all original windows remain on the historic cottage, with storm windows installed on the interior as necessary. The fenestration pattern proposed on the new units appears basically vertical in nature, however, we have some general concerns of compatibility. The east elevation in 3 particular, the one perceived with the facade of the cottage, is not compatible in our opinion, and requires further study. The large multi-pane windows, and the large projecting bay appear out of scale, and should be revised. It also appears that the north elevation gable end are filled in with glass, which the HPC should consider for compatibility. Materials: It appears from the application that horizontal overlap wood siding is proposed on the east elevation of the new construction, and vertical siding is proposed on the north.Â· It ' also appears that metal Â·standing seam roofin* material is proposed. "Shingled decorative trim" is also proposed, although the elevations do not indicate such. We are not clear on the window material, as well. All these ~ shall be clarified in a Final development application. The applicant has stated to staff that they intend to use metal standing seam roofing material on the cottage, which we strongly disagree with. Wood shingle roofing material is preferred, and will assist in allowing the historic cottage to read through on this parcel. 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, which is extremely varied in architectural style and density. We do feel, however, that this parcel will be changed significantly in character, with the replacement of the very small scale dwelling units with the five large 2 story townhomes proposed. Setback: A subtle setback/rhythm exists along much of Park ~ Avenue, with exceptions, this parcel being one of them. The proposal has merit in relocating the cottage to a Park Ave. frontage, which should help strengthen the front setback pattern of this street. We are excited to see it relocated in a more appropriate streetscape orientation, which will enhance its prominence on the parcel. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of (designated historic structure*) located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. (*historic resource) Response: The Planning Office finds that the proposal enhances Â· the cultural value of the historic resource by creating more of a prominent space for it, making it more visible to the community as a whole. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not 4 diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a (designated historic structure*) or part thereof. (*historic resource) Response: Staff feels this standards has generally been met with the proposal. We are pleas@d that the applicant is intent on keeping the original materials' as stated in the application: "Fortunately, the cottage is in reasonably good repair, which means that existing siding, trim, windows and wood decoration can generally be repaired and retained. Â·The interior trim and original doors are Â·also in place. " Staff is recommending a detailed report on the material preservation of the cottage be approved by the HPC prior to final approval. Porches: The existing historic porch is in need of repair, the repair details of which have not been discussed in this application. Staff is requiring this important character- defining element be repaired, with features restored only where repair is not possible. This porch is a nicely understated yet decorative feature of this cottage, and should be very carefully preserved. It is not clear if the applicant intend to have the porch removed during the relocation, and put back on once relocation is complete. This issues shall be clarified prior to Final approval. Also, the porch foundation shall be specified in this * report. Currently it sits on brick supports. It appears from. the .elevations that the porch orientation above grade shall be duplicated in the move (approximately two steps . above grade). We recommend no higher. PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND RELOCATION STANDARDS: The Standards for ' Partial Demolition are found in Section 7-602(C). The Standards for Relocation are found in Section 7-602(D). These Standards must also be met along with the basic Development Review Standards (above), prior to HPC granting approval. Partial Demolition: No detailed discussion regarding partial demolition has been included in this application, which ia required for approval. The applicant is required to submit detailed information as required in Section 7-602(C) prior to approval being granted. Relocation: No approval for relocation shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: Standard 1. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property. 5 Â·Â· Response: The structure is being rehabbed on site, ahd converted to a deed-restricted affordable duplex. Standard 2. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation. Response: The Planning Office finds this proposal clearly meets this standard. Standard 3. The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re- siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. Response: This structure was relocated approximately 15-20 years ago to this site. Therefore, it appears reasonable that ' it can sustain another (short-distance) move. A structural report (as detailed above) shall be required in the Final Development application. Standard 4. A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond with the Engineering Department, to insure the sale relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preservation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Response: This standard has not been met in this Conceptual Development application, and shall be met within the Final Development application. Standard 5. The receiving site is compatible in nature to the structure or structures proposed to be moved, the character of the neighborhood is consistent with the architectural integrity of the structure, and the relocation of the historic structure would not diminish the integrity or character of the neighborhood of the receiving site. An acceptance letter from the property owner of the receiving site shall be submitted. Response: As the "receiving" site is within the same parcel, we find that this standard has been met. The character of the neighborhood may be enhanced due to the on- site relocation to a more prominent setting on the parcel. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Conceptual Development application as .6 proposed. 2) Approve the Conceptual Development application with conditions to be met in Final Development application, such as: a) Compliance with Partial Demolition Standards found in Sec. 7-602(C). b) Compliance with Relocation Standards found in Sec. 7-602(D), (3) and (4). c) Detailed preservatioh plan for cottage materials and architectural features, including all porch details d) Detailed site and landscape plan, indicating existing vegetation and including a study of enhanced vegetation buffer between historic cottage and new construction. Fencing shall be dgtailed, and shall be open in nature. e) Massing model f) Restudy Of massing, scale, height and fenestration of new constructipn, (east elevation, chimneys, etc.) in its compatibility relationship to the historic cottage. Full.elevations of new construction shall be submitted. g) Existing elevations of historic cottage h) Restudy/reduction of light wells on historic cottage. i) Major materials representation 3) Table action, to allow the applicant to restudy specific issues of the proposal. Tabling to a date certain (to allow a continuance of the Public Hearing) is recommended, provided the applicant feels they have ample time to submit revisions to the Planning Office prior to submission deadline, for that meeting. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC table action to a date certain, to allow the applicant additional time to restudy the issues and consider the conditions, as stated above in Alternative #2. .7 (Recommendation continued) We further recommend the applicant consider submitting an application for Landmark Designation (and apply for a $2,000 designation grant) for the cottage. memo.hpc.100PA REVIEW COMMENTS: .. 8 Al'l:Aa IMINf 1 4 ? , , IAND USE APPLJRZATIC)N FORM 1) Project Name IDC) PÂ«-K- AVEN uP _ 2) Project location 100 PARK- AVE 01â‚¬ers- f 15>auNDâ‚¬53 (indicate street address, lot & block number, legal descriptial where appropriate) 0 ) present z~ling /Gl 4/f: 1/Â· P 4) Int Size /4-0 '56 5:F 5) Applicantis Nam, Address & PkiyE # /~AKG,10Â£1:r- ST*,02/06(5, 92 ~ 417 1 lb'f r, Fluee..f N.Cr. , 08>751- Cp-0 A :140 -/23+ 9 Representative' s Nan,3, Pdaress & -Phcne # <:2 / fJEE>,4 f AE-N O ; Aâ‚¬-C,N . 448 5Â· CoofFA- Ave; ASPEN, Co 42-9 - 5948 7) Type of Application *lease check all that apply): Corxlitional Use - Conceptual SPA ~ Conceptllal Historic Dev. Special Review FiI1al SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Conceptual FUD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final FUD _ Historic Demoliticn Mourrtain View Plane Subdivision Historic Designaticm . Coalaniniumization _- TedyMap Anrrrl,â„¢mt (PUS Allotment Lat Split/Lot Line - QI)S ExEsption Adjustmerrt 8) Descriptian o f Existing- Uses (number and type of existing structures; apprcocimate sq. ft-; number of bedroams; anY previous approvals granted to the property). 1419-PRIc. MIN ER.25 467-r-AGF. CUR-ED 5 -) 4,16 MoveD lt> 5/Te- ERÂ©M WES[- bfAÂ·, O 90 /,J EAR-c,1 70% . 5\-t *=. II (9, PR-â‚¬358JI-27 A ONE - fbe. D\AJ E-U-i Ae. 9) Description of Development Application KELocâ‚¬rE -THE CorrASE- ON A NEW FDUNDA - -11DN ) FAC-1 NG FAR-14- AVE.. RELPAI 2.- f REert>EE 3#E 5%' :C51-t ki(3- EOT-thâ‚¬-4 01:t. p{NISHESÂ· 4 FEâ‚¬T 01226. 10) Have you attached the following? Response to Attadment 2, Minintnn Sulnission Contents Respanse to Attachment 3, Specific Submissian Contents Respanse to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Applicatian GIBSON & RENO Â· ARCHITECTS December 5, 1990 Roxanne Eflin Historic Preservation Commission 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 100 PARK AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO Dear Roxanne: The 100 Park Avenue property is a multi-family structure containing 5 legal living units. One of these units is an historic miner's cottage (rated "3" on the historic inventory of City structures). This 517 square foot cottage dates from the 1890's and was previously located in the 600 block of West Main Street from where it was moved to its present site in the early 1970's according to Building Department records. The current site configuration of the cottage is part of a 5-unit multi-family structure, with the front porch facing toward the side lot line. The new site plan proposes to place the historic cottage on its own separate foundation, facing toward Park Avenue with its own gated access off the street. This streetfront relationship is repeated in the new townhome which completes the Park Avenue elevation with another gated sidewalk access and front entrance. The proposed new structures on the site are designed with steep gabled roofs, vertical fenestration and clap-bearded siding which seeks to respond to the historic victorian miner's cottage. Fortunately, the cottage is- in reasonably good repair, which -means that existing siding, trim, windows and wood decoration can generally be repaired and retained. The interior trim and original doors are also in place. The new design proposes using the cottage as affordable resident housing with a 1-bedroom unit on the first floor and a 2-bedroom unit in the new garden level. I look forward to discussing this project further with you and the Commission. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, /~07 f 4 9/l~,Â» David F. Gibson, AIA CC: M. Stanzione S. Vann DFG/pr 418 E. COOPER AVENUE â€¢ ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 , 303/925-5968 â€¢ FAX 303/925-5993 L 0--- GIBSON & RENO Â· AACHITECTS December 7, 1990 100 PARK AVENUE RESPONSE TO REVIEW STANDARDS a. The subject site is not in an "H" Historic Overlay District, nor is it adjacent to an Historic Landmark. However, one unit of the present 5 multi-family structure consists of a 1588 S.F. victorian cottage rated as a "3" on the City inventory. We propose to demolish the other four non-rated units, replacing them with new units, and to relocate the historic cottage to the Park Avenue street frontage on a new foundation where it will provide on-site resident housing. "COMPATIBILITY" is a concept which is somewhat difficult to apply to the surrounding Park Avenue neighborhood. The street layouts, buildings and neighborhood fabric have developed haphazardly and unevenly. Most of the buildings have been built during the post World War II era of Aspen and are a mixture of large scale multi-family structures and modest single family residences. By way of compatibility with the neighborhood, our proposed project includes this same mix of large multi-family and small residential structures. b. The CHARACTER of the neighborhood is reflected in the proposed new site development plan in the following ways: 1. There is a mix of a larger multi-family structure and a smaller residential structure. - 2. -The large cottonwoods along the west and north edges of the property are proposed to be retained. 3. Auto court entrance and auto storage is directly off the street. However, in the proposed plan the new auto court is recessed below natural grade, and screened by means of a 5' fence so that autos will be less visible. C. The CULTURAL VALUE of the historic structure will be enhanced by its place in the proposed new site development plan in the following ways: 1) The front of the cottage will now face the street rather than into the interior of the lot as at present, thus establishing a "street front" presence. 2) The cottage will be physically improved and repaired both on its interior and exterior and brought up to codes, thus extending its attractiveness and life. tlS E. COOPER AVENLIE â€¢ ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 â€¢ 303/925-5968 â€¢ FAX 303/925-5993 1 I 3) The historical integrity of the cottage will be improved, as it will now stand alone as it once did rather than being attached to an incompatible non- historic structure, as it is at present. d. As mentioned above, the ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY of the historic cottage is enhanced by cutting it loose from the multi-family structure to which it is presently attached, and allowing it to stand free On all four sides. The integrity is further increased by the new site location which faces the front porch toward the street frontage as it surely must have faced in its original site configuration on Main Street. e. Other pertinent HPC guidelines which are relevant to this project are as follows: 1) Setback and Spacing: Although the surrounding neighborhood buildings are set in a somewhat helter skelter fashion with no consistent setback or frontages observed, the new site development plan which we have submitted proposes to re-establish more consistent street front setbacks and building orientations which face 90 to the streets. 2) On-Site Parking: Although the prevalent pattern in the neighborhood is for exposed auto court and auto storage facing the street, we propose to recess below grade and screen our auto court by means of 5' high fencing to minimize the visual impact of the autos. 3) Orientation of Entrances Toward the Street: The Historic Cottage and the adjacent new multi-family unit both enter off of Park Avenue and use porches, gabled coverings, fences and gated entries to define the entrance sequence from the street. 4) Roof Lines: In keeping with the steep roof line on the historic cottage, only 8:12 and 6:12 roof pitches are used on the proposed new residential units. 5) Windows and Doors: In keeping with the vertical fenestration and doorways, similar shapes and proportions are proposed for the newly-constructed multi-family units. 6) Materials: To respond to the clapboard siding and shingled decorative trim on the historic cottage, these materials are also used on the proposed new construction. EXISTING CONDITIONS 100 PARK AVENUE LEGEND AND NOTES O F[k~NI] S~JevEÂ·r â€¢9Â·u~,ENT ~S DE'~Cell![D S UP.'ReED ON PP[ VI OUS 980'VE Y D[INE 8YSEI . 1970 .MIT #ME ..NOWN 0 U.t:Tr POLE EDGE or p~Veâ‚¬NT I .AS METER 1Â·-'0Â· ./ --E~- f ENCE 0 10 20 . TRE .' DIA . f.Â»â‚¬ATEP 1 CON. 0/PS ./SED 197â€¢ A'PEN ..... SURVEY 8 C I. VATER .NE ]I PAPK AVE ASPEN WATER tvt,rM ,â€¢â€¢r 8 ' SEVER LINE IN P.I. AM) lilli. AVE '.'PEN SAN./.14 ... Â· NATUR~L GAS L INE IN PAPâ€¢ AND MIDLANO AVE 'Gâ€¢S DMTRUBTION MAPÂ· 91 7. r ., Q#11,/u/ N 09'p 00 ~ ; 12 39 r, ril - P -*- 7 011 I ELECTRIC SER'[CE 203'.ep 47 9 2'81?1\11 91.11Rh 0 No DocIâ‚¬MS y 1/ORD WEI Ffi,9â‚¬0 TO D{ 9/fÂ¥/ im ANY NTLF lilli I lilli *WAACH 'llâ€¢ED Bv ./.7. 1210, *917/ lilli ti\' 4 1 /1. , â€¢Pr. 0/ BUILD!,6 '001/R]NT 421 lillf I 2 ,90 â€¢/- Sr EXCLUDING DECKS 1 7//A i \\'r F 11 4-1\\\\\ \\ 4 15 6 i i.*%51, P 1 11 d **04,4.4 1 LI L lili -H_Liki*~>~j - L iii \ till h 129 i j 'Ii\\1 * 833 7 1 ra o AREA l1lt 11 1 \ IM .* -r 11 1 it .1 111 'Al p... 1 "r, t<* 0 111 lili I HIâ€¢Tolic 1. It 11 1 1 1 1 For.Al., 1% 11 1 |f . /,4, . * I I <41# Cy. , 9984 00*05/1 OVER.E.0 , Atte> %11- - - -Â·-ro-Â«a-(_3 13> , // / i< 1 ....S i. '1'\ i- --- - j ---- 414574.<5/2 - 79Â·12 - r -- 9-1Â§ (/ ~~- \\ --- *1 67 /1 I i '4> ---- -- 3 1 75 f OUND 91.4/J , 7/ 4663< \ 0 '1. /376 \ S 87 46 E 511 /9 Nt' SUPV[YF. 9 .9'â€¢6 00 r â€ž. 1 -.S . .*iNGS $ i..1 M.AS: Câ€¢r 0...10" , 3/6099 RIM 794! 4 1 ~.. _ _ _-___-_ 1--- ..1~ 0,Â·EPSI DE ADDITION 10 THECITY [lf At'EN - 3.05 -0 CERTIFICATION - #fl.ID .0[1 ..BY C.firv i#T bNS 'up.. v. ri[LD Sl,VEYED ./1,6 JULY ,% 04 TI .el* . Tâ€¢â‚¬ rEâ€¢Tâ€¢ LEGAUT ....D â€¢IrltÂ»4 AND 1% CO-ECT ,â€¢SED ) Dâ‚¬ F 1,-1, rvIDEâ€¢Â«t 5.- Iâ€¢ I.ls 'LIT /% r-KND -. 1//1 T................ ...ICT: 3,1JR'lls ]N ./. . 0{Â»eARY LI- CVLICTS ,!6â€¢ts Cr vAâ€¢ 1. ~1[LD EvIDE~f [)Â» â€¢40- TO I EXCEPT AS $â‚¬,ErÂ». 'HOVI ~REPA'ED IlY *Im% .mIES VIN, I Â¥]tiBLE Al,CMGâ€¢ol~.D vâ€¢LVE rrES â€¢Wâ€¢nES I ODâ‚¬* APPUe[Mâ€¢NCI ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEER S INC AND DOCUMFNTS rY .C|~1) h~ SLPPLIED TO - SI~btr~ AP[ [~CCMED 210 I GALE- ST Po DOX ..06 DITED THIS _DIÂ¥ 0. 1/30 ASPEN ccuÂ»Inn â€¢i.,i I ./.0 .0.1925 .. .D. I ,U,1)*TH PLS 259â€¢7 100 PARK AVE. 7/90 0090 DATE JOB NO 3 .,2 3nNJAV >18Vd MIDLAND AVENUE 30 .0/ . " ILL -Unl-41 PARK AVENUE H-6-~--Ii$*--110.4~~L /3 ./ F -- - 01 â‚¬ZZL_ '4,0.-/ 4.- - 1 1 -1 .22 -71 Ga n --14/' 4----C-F-7 .. 61-1 /06 i ' .- J _ Â£ _- I 0 ' r,- f -.2 1,1 0-ful f 'i 4- l- "~ 1 21 ~ -1-- - - I tog-u ~~ '1 i 7,--ir~I- .J-r -7 11,1 11 1 10- 1 ... J h I, 0- ft-2:-. _.._ f F - L '43 1 01 r 7 1 // I[rl~ FT z -- -- - - 9 Â£ -- . Â»-- -/ 1 ...---L- ~ _iÂ»/ . i 17,1 0 3. - L C P '111 11 0 rt ' ' % , -1 1:41, C 0 1 ...4 <.3 ----' i~E# 9-><i ,//*6'!T'~~~, 41/zzr~li,11 1 Â«*49'liliÂ»79.-91 -1 F at 2 -0 A f * 4 91 1 /7,/ . 1 1 / 1 2\ --- 1 10... -- -- -- -- MIDLAND AVINUE 1 |~ 11] ~ IOO PARK AVE ace .O -ViSÂ·ON: 10/17/90 DATE' .O/3/90 C.....O SCALE 1/4.1 1 ~-- GIBSON arRENO Â· ARCHITECTS =Al 303,925 5992 le -FLE=~â€¢*.. 303'92/.leÂ».e -13â„¢. C.Ol CAAL - 9,Â¥B" O/01>.Al:-7 13 . NV-Id a-LIS n.*... Flulp' Street lilli 11 R 02 - . b r -1 -V r' ' a; G 1 1 ..4 4 kil 42 9 _-=--T=f [iff '14 +~ 144Â»Â«Â»1 ~ , _ _ --- -- 312 ,iÂ»]ha # ~11 IP--- - -/'ry & ' 111 1 - t:Y .- m 1 : 11 - r.â€ž_..1 - LL.. . ~~ .*23..,.. - --=9Â¥4111 z Fltrelet 1 11 1 1 ~'EAST ELEVATION u hi / 31_-Ef}34-3211 -7--9 Park Ave. SOUTH ELEVATION 1 1 40 EU-11 1 W 1= 3 . ~ < '.' 2 -- 111 > 1 0 1 0 !1 3 8 4 WEST ELEVATION / 7Â·, I 9~ 1~Â©' '' 1 J..1.19 Â¢ ~ f- 4-10[_ fflu- 1 4-791*fLif IJALI I IN-Ti , 1 -1 1 1 A* i d 9 1 481.,E IM- lf- 1,1 41~8%4-.~48 -r '111' ~ 4 m - r!â€¢GlIZTflmlilligrumr-11.121 - P 1 2-*ilitifi~ 1'it*1' 1 -ul-1 am Tmm [L MI lilli Ave. 1 - -- 1 INIM 4 j 1 111~ I-11-~3 -ifiI y- 0 11 Ark Ave. 21--24-47--1-1,--- 27 ..Â¢ I M,111114,11 .1,11111117 l' Il .-~ 1 g NORTH ELEVATION ~ ~ -& Iâ€¢Â·IC,~A.Â£,3/0 *.6 CK-~.0 'CLD 81.03.LIHOEIV Â· ONabl a NOS819 *-92â‚¬.COC :-J>.,31,6 v-b-*AÂ¥ .Dt~X)3 AS~I .4. 0*ag~236/COE ... 8-1%ros :O-04-3 3..C 1-,7,=a 7-Irr--G;2 :ON eor ar-INEAV >48Â¥d OC]! 4~ 1. 8 + i -- 4 d 11 1*11 f t 4/LL:L- La'-1. _- 1 U -2 .1 11 1 1 I -e. 1- i i,1 1 14 1 rk - p 1 1 LUM| p |02 -- -.4.-f -1 -702Â°jUE ill U mit.turl 1 __ _ DE? 312{1*~_jl P 1 b 71 â‚¬21 - T 1 1 Irr~'1'Nv:,u 91[-1. 1 L--7 1,111,~1 ~~~;~~11 L---_~ b 1 4'l ---11 I - 1 1 C 1 1% 1104 14 Irl- 2 ; 7 1 -6 ,*11 1 1 r-' 1 1, m r-- 1-1 1 I - l Â·I-Ii.tfi 1 1 9 -2 111 :,1 i, 11,~27--Frrilill L ir:tra 74*#m 0' ' Â¥ 2-22-_--1 C 9 .2 .r-/ + 1 :i 1 -r i 044 i 1 --3 j z ~ : 42 I -7=-. 4 w E 6 1 E : 1 -Ill 4 CI - Â· 0 m 11 1 1: LR:Mi-lidiln, L:Al.-il.. 1414Â· ' 1Â· 0 t -Â·--- 4 ! un '8 8 2 - butsn laAE=11 LEVEL 4 t .1 32 -- -.an . 1 4,6 : ~ 1 # Ill J L 1 1 1- '- 4 2 1/ 1 1-1 ill ' I U..... 9 . Ill t $ 1 ,%:: ilithi-; 1,/01 : 4 r :141249 140/0 1 Y - 4 411 div~.*Pt*,IN~~i> 14" ' L ./... g/11Â»8 -\ k,j . " ma*LAZ2~Lifity 7''St , i ,\ 1, ,~ \\1-~ . r 22Â¢frilk~lt>- '>rÂ·r ~râ€žâ€ž,_ 2 . : ,4 &/. , .\ \ 11 0 Â·i, L, Â· *dt f.1 i 11 11 1 , ! E >Â· 7 16 -Â·r. 11 , Lit . 5.417, 0 ,- h.i /1/ ': + 144 1 ')Â·02#AD #1 1 i 3 1 1 t: 9 4 21,4 lili \' â€¢â€¢Id,lt. ::2 + I t.4 40..te\ V ~ :; 'E*,1.~i'.:Â·; liÂ· 11 t.':44 . ';1: i I t : A 'Rk;4*. A 0.6 11.lit â€¢ 1 liil, /1 11 â‚¬, SH i . .,11,1.1 1 '~1 /1 -1 1 4 111-11 4- t 4,- I 2 1 1 1 Â¢ it 5- - .. 1 1 1 .1 1 f uh /4 -1 * '05.:> -=9â‚¬E-fe-ff<~i----c-=e,-2,95 .mia ~ -- A -cs/n X Â¥42" V- 11 lifilli~ellillillillill ' 4 E.=3 illit >. ttil 1-41 Ek Fl IE.:~351 9*Mil , 1 --- - 1 -14 *lk i - ~ 011Â¢. 44% I - Ad',2 *V~*N'fohÂ£ASÂ·Â£,W@,4--AB / i -* 2 41 -0#4*kp-4- Â· - :i 1 I .4/ . 0- k i R !1.: I : 11 6 .1 - . 1 .- 2,1,1 1 ., 1 11 1-1 ... 11 1 1 1,1 + 4't.4. 1 901 4 0. â€¢ .8 . 41 e & .,4 11 41= ffe 1 -.. 1 ...I- = 19&'IC :+ 4 1 -11, C.---- likff?%~~;411111 irl.~ . '67 0190*12 ...Â» Ime f E .4 15, 4. 21 1 % 141. JI U.24+11 15':Â·Â·â‚¬kt.Z Â· ,>f'.2.0~'="~ 4272'.7#*41 100 PARK AVENUE . : ' .Â· 2.00//8.-//a 2.191*Oll/3 . -I-#- le- . ...1- --7/6~'~1,4 ~ * 7 -1 -4 = 4~1~h2%*1 r k . 9 /110~ /25<Â« 6 2, -4. ..V - ..~ - Â·Â·w~ Â£ i .4 I'./.f-I - 1-1 *2.1,9,% *50+ - - 'M~Â· 12,4. - - . 1 4 -2---*- -. -- - ---- -- ~7-----Â·---- -O# *-- I z U . , ~~ 1 . .-&-1 Ne . '0~ ~ Â«resÂ· -14-1--4.- v ~I. #./. I ' 1 4,- 4 ' -f pL.r 67â‚¬YL.,7,(22%fi-Z 1 .... 0. . ..EÂ» ./1 te .- I % Hte,>,C # 41- .1 7*ct I. ... 3 1 .1 1 Â£222-Ii % _22222--- -* M ~-- > .- Â· *111$& *:, 1*14 tt . Â¥a ~ Â»Â»-. Â«â‚¬2 - Â· t.pje'- f ' I *-7 itÂ¢ t i , --~~-8â‚¬~7=~ -%~ T =23.44 2 *, p 1 6* jâ€ž7..b 1 1 2:002"B>li*â€¢ do- \ 1 -%â€ž.. 7 1,4 +4*49 1,*48 3 9 ..2 k . 9/Qi/1:2,1.- -.....7 >Â·r f 32 -. + . t. 33 t, 100 PARK AVENUE A 1, 1 1 2 1-1.1 41 1 9 C-7--- MEMORANDUM i To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Sideyard setback variation (Public Hearing): 212 Lake Avenue Date: January 9, 1991 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting HPC's approval for a sideyard setback required for the second floor dormer addition on the west elevation. HPC previously approved a minor development application, which included this dormer. However, the applicant failed to request a sideyard setback variation in that application proposal, a problem discovered by the Zoning officer upon plan check. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 212 Lake Ave., Unit B, 212 Lake Avenue Condominiums, According to the Declaration Thereof Recorded in Book 416 at Page 510 of the Public Records of Pitkin County, Colorado. APPLICANT: Peter B. Lewis and Jonathan D. Lewis, represented by Welton Anderson, architect ZONING: R-6, Historic Landmark DISCUSSION: The Standard for variations is found in Section 7- 601(D)(1)(a), as follows: Standard 1. 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, then would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Response: The Planning Office originally found that the (November, 1990) Minor Development proposal generally met the first portion of this standard. Since no variations were requested, the second portion of the standard (variations portion) did not apply at that time. In November, we found that the cumulative effect of the new proposal did not detract from the historic resource to any greater extent than what currently existed in the form of a large rear addition. We did feel that the most significant alteration proposed was the- addition of the double dormer on the west elevation. Although relatively small in scale, these dormers come the closest to the original cottage, and of the changes proposed, were the most visible element from the street. The problem now comes in finding that the encroaching dormer in question is "more compatible in character" with the historic landmark, as required in the review standard. It should be noted that the addition to this cottage was constructed "pre-FAR". The parcel is, therefore, non-conforming in three areas, as reported by Zoning: 1) Current FAR requirements are exceeded 2) Current site coverage requirements are exceeded 3) Structure encroaches into the west side yard setback Staff is not able to make the finding that this new double dormer is "more compatible in character", and therefore, we cannot recommend approval for the variation. The options are for the applicant to remove the dormer from the plans, or proceed to the Board of Adjustment for their review. ALTERNATIVES: Approval of the variation as requested, due to the recent Minor Development approval in November, 1990. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends HPC deny the sideyard setback variation for 212 Lake Avenue, finding that the proposed dormer is not more compatible in character to the historic landmark. memo.hpc.212LA.var 2 , C Welton Anderson & Associates Architects 31 December, 1990 831UE RE: 212 Lake Avenue, Lot 18 Block 103 Hallam Addition Aspen AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING & POSTING FOR HPC HEARING This letter is to certify that Public Notices of the HPC hearing for January 9, 1991 were mailed to adjacent homeowners on December 26,1990 and the property was posted on December 31, 1990. Sven Erik Alstrom Welton Anderson & Associates signed ogn 44-7>hu date /g-J ~34 ~98 - Planning / Architecture / Interior Design Box 9946 / Aspen ,Colorado 81612/(303) 925- 4576 . MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Worksession: revisions to proposed Sportstalker building, 204 S. Galena Date: January 9, 1991 SUMMARY: The applicant has submitted three revised elevation sketches and is requesting HPC's comments in worksession format at this meeting. As these revisions were received post-deadline for formal staff review and memo preparation for this meeting, the Planning Office has recommended to the applicant either a worksession format for general discussion, or the submission of a formalized revision for inclusion in the January 23 HPC meeting. The applicant chose to meet informally with the HPC at this meeting. STAFF DISCUSSION: Formal action (approval, tabling, denial) may occur only if the HPC votes to place this item on the agenda as a formal action item. Our recommendation is that the applicant present the revisions to the HPC for general discussion. Should the HPC wish to give direction to the applicant for further restudy, a revised application incorporating these comments shall be submitted to staff for future scheduling with the HPC. memo.hpc.204sg.wrksn . I C Welton Anderson & Associates Architects. January 3, 1991 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado RE: SPORTSTALKER BUILDING, 204 S. Galena Tabled Application Gentlemen: Please find several studies for the Sportstalker Building. We would appreciate the opportunity to review these new approaches in a work session on January 9, 1991 to see if any of them can be developed into a building that will satisfy H.P.C.'s wishes. I will go into detail at the meeting. If these suggestions do not meet with any semblance of a positive response, then we will be requesting that HPC reconvene the tabled Final Hearing for a vote of approval or denial. Sincerely, 90 14- C. Welton Anderson Architect JNi - 3 r Planning / Architecture / Interior Design Box 9946 / Aspen ,Colorado 81612/(303) 925- 4576 1 .1 . -i. / ; , , Ple>... C 31 , 1 , . . . 2. ' 11 ,4. 4 4 1 - :40. ' 55 . 1 j-9.. k Crt Â» 3. I i. /2. i. Â· ' tâ€¢ "t . 0 :1-1.: 'kit i â€¢2 .1 ... , 2. 4 - f .1 7 ..t ./ .2...... Â¢ I.li i. 2114*11-129 - 1\10112* 71:31 1921 /1 - i. Â·31 , - 4 ~N/*94 lONI C,91\!IN/*9 5 <4 92[\11071[162 - 7.,2 7rÂ»1Â£31-8290 -- 4 HOS, hÂ»Z:LL 59Â¥-119 ~ < 33'rtago 6 - 5/40014 1 /1 -r. i , b - / LIN<3213 32#69.01 113(3 1/11 .~ 4 1 1 --4 i I , I--' - + - /:2Â·'tij2 4 4-1.4 -i~Â·444, . rÂ·~ Â· -1, 2 =~9-44 -I -_{ rm*7 i 1 Â· r-~7'+'5. ; ' '' // 'I 1 14 - 1 1 t -- V ; 1 1 I t 1 1 JI ; il it- ilit; it /-1- ~ 1 1 2--. 4 - ti 1 tr= 1 1 1 -- li 1 4 11 1 i 1 0.- U b.1 , 1 - 1 - 1 . 4---ill R & li - 1 - C. 1 - i. ., : 4. E 11.- -- \E-- 11 1, i.1 74. . ri tÂ· f .'<- it /'I.~ i' 1----_31_- ~-1-1 i 1 . ., .Ll . '1 . . i 21.-- 1\_ 1 - 4-6=-. 1 Â£ 9< . . ter 'INA\V..;:11;:./tf.}frft[IFF?Â¥**Fi}i;it;~i''Piff)(;ttur97Â¢hl:Tm.19---'~~-' 1 q ... 1 1 0\ I /' I I - 1 0 - . . e 1 1 I \' 4 C; 31492~142 : / -1 -- \ .. - ..4.-â€ž..1.----41 - -'- *-===r 2. I .......1 , ~--r-- Â¥ 11 C r.. le--It ? 1 1.1--11 . '. 11\ , '.....~A R. l .--I -- 1 , 1 1 -- . /1\,10 '1 - 3 9 -,- \9 ' I. ' . C C b,4 ' ' : 11 1 / 1/ r >1 I =-1 0- 1 5 4. r J Ul_Â£.Ii 00 f .1 1 . ... . f . ' e VIA 1 1 4 a 1 .1 t 1 1 , 4 - ...1-*ZI--'t.'377- 1.4.-CEUCIO I.- '.-IÂ·Â·--- A'' .* ~ ---~ 1 5 I la I. ... . 4 . . ....-.--.I--I--.1*W../.- . Â· " ./- Ir-I...+. -- ' - , r. 11 . .-1.-...... . Ak:.77.. ... .1 19.... 1 6 /1~ ....... .. 1 --I - 9 ./0 .'h W-' 1-'i tl L I. '4 4 4: 4 4 1.-- 1 . 1â€žJ i T ~ 9 -011 . 1..: . 1 le..Â¥1 . LIli..1~ 2 . ~** 2Â£5~4125* ru,:'1'11 -t= . , 1 ,(%;iÂ¢i . f .111.-1 -,1/ 1 -Ud:tiÂ· Â·Â· .. 41.. . .. , , 2 - . 'i . ' - . 1'' F==g=== tp. .. ..... . I ' - t 4 /6.LiÂ«A k , ' /44 ru==Â· Â·Â· ii #. EE2=H ,Â¥<*24- .1 .. 12... N ' - 1.00:15'f-'- . . 4..W, - 1 ...-1-11 .1 1- .:I, 1 I ilÂ·FÂ· 1 5 - Â· El--1 . _-_1_-3 0 .4. 4 . . 9 1%&/1 1-2.11 1 . -_-_f Fl. .-I 1 2 :P.- T ... rh k. 2 , 3. 1 " ..4- . 7 -1 0,24122 - i r .9Â·:,>f . I +A' ._. b..--9 -1.-Ilie<L ''4AP k:, F -91, 778:-- ; : . . h i .rÂ«Â£ -- 1 0 4. 1 ' . 91 491. . .7-739,; 41 % 7.3-1 - - - --*...--I... I. - T,-/. . : % /' 1- ~ % 'Fqr<~6;26dr 2, b ----*64-L.~fi; bv-EaqiÂ·:Â·-7 " ! \ i Â«12 -1-NA 4 ' 1 + .. t-â‚¬2/62- p I I .t .... 1 l. NE 1Â«21 <-321142102 k 11/%/<31251 \ \ 1 - K/4 - . X. - \\-c. Hal-SAP 0,11'113 - P .... .. 4. 0141 fil.Ng t.~2' dage:qi 1*3rfilÂ·.4 -2 . I t j 04 Â· . p,%7 -aÂ·Â·-~ [1- 32 01â‚¬2 1 Mi*'?(i -- -*41243 (237[1.Le-, ll/\Arlot -: Prol-Â·43 0---Â· 4 770% OFT,4- *0 '*09 1.- 14. 1.1 , , ' ...... j 1,/2 1! S>RICK 7-1LE ONI STUC<DO SY51-rM IhoNDER6069 D OVER 264 DIN@ COR NICE, f * 2.... e 1 H R SNEATH-1 Nia ONI lAi I NDOP\1 TRI NÂ·'1 METAL STUDS Â·/4 ; /./498,24 :i' 4:*3 1 1 / r*Z==Zes<31:o 5>'-,2:rrz==729@L 'Â·2.... f 1 - 2 %02==4,7-1- 9/. pi 1 ' ! - 1. 0 - 1 fori--<T-=----. .. .-I _ . I ."61<IZZL-- 12 , /:1-d-----.~..&_I-#-/.' // - .-. W----I L.2- 1 . S y Vii - - f f . , ' '; ~-~ ~ ~ ;E~29==pi>4-~~traminaw-*~ . i â€¢AN KA ... - -;1 - -77* . /1 14- . , .......M -I - . -- % '. - Clr -9-*di 4--, A- 1\ 1 . . 1 4- 2\ -- , - 4-- I.-. / 0, 9.-> i,A 1 1 2 -I. 1/' 1 I -- =H- " A. C 71- t'{ 4Â« r-*-=--=11 Â· - li â‚¬7- . ..4 1, , - -m *4. ij f r .- I 'Â· C C .f'' :Gli1 .; ;..i ..==--1. , 't 1 1 f. -- , 1~ .--& f. --- a 1, la 111_fl Â· : 1 U . Â· : -- - 42 .6/.t ..9...- 713:ELy U I .....e~ ....4 -- . tw - I ' t L .[ f:{ 2, 44 1 41 (11 11 ' ' Â· 4Â· O FK . 4 6-TUCCO , 21-- 734- ., . d . . 0 ' r - - --*------*--fr,=*----=====r=====L---I-- --r.Â·.s- -â€¢ ,- i, : 4, . I Â· , I .1 , L =244=~=f=--r~=:g=~Â«as'*"-I-- I ' L ~ .7--2.-- 7 46326-7.LEâ„¢"*~1~------ . . rr-:.-/.-/.. ---,r.--P -----M 9Fm.twr=r-- 1-- 4,~rmÂ»-7564 . .6.-_ __.Â¥ i â€¢1 v ----=...- i.Â·Â·91!cZEL 1 1 '.--*.-t-)*-W.-. . â€¢ J , f.#1 -Â·... - - 7 . 1 N Â·,44:*4Â· Â·7 4-Â·-AIL_..211 2#. , It 21 6 - no~'. TÂ«-Â¥ ri-Â·tÂ· ,.4 i ji ill :1 -3/r-A~/1/M/9-*---v/44 + 7<-8,//--4 1 ... - . I . V. --,4.--* 1 - n.& ........ 21 4 ...1 .' 4.--*.............Â»-W. ..1 ," ..:Â·: Â· -I-1/4Wl----Ji -1[E~EE-- 11 . 41=4 2 Â· '9' 1 11 ,=S=k> .1 :1: ah' 1 ir<My[ - 1.2 34 7 . . 4./r,10 19 7 , ." tu '-1 . 1 f Â·Â· 111 . E]El ZEFF.==2.-2 C==12. 11_-4 1 -- I- : - 1 CORNER 1 1 ; . I - *- -. ~- .4.1.4,---- I f -TT C LENTRANCE 1,---F#:117 i 1- 4----â€ž..=-_L._.- / INEL/4 111 ' :S, f 'i 4- ' wr--- -,---- 1 ,t.-1. ..â€ž-*t a . Â·Â·: I Il! 1 ' -I 1~ s i I If li li,qi u.1.- H:-. j hA Abi,~7fi - -Tr~" / ST-CREF:Bo 41 4 1 11[ll 1 3 p fi k 4 ~ fÂ· ~ ti # 1 - '11# -13* IJ 1- 1 4 4,4 1 ; 1.1 0 1 :. 11 1 1 M t-j'-1 1 P.,1 11 .Â·. p, 1, i' ti-:i, 1 41 1- ~ 1) 1,R d' 4 -ap NCAST -IRC> Â· 4 1.1 1! It 7 1:It i A,1 2 411 Â¢# 1 1. 1 i : : '1-lÂ·Â·-1[ Li I 6-TYL 5 1 11 , 4 j ...3: I. t. " 3.511 11 2-1 *4 1 -1 f If 1 4 1 : fiN : :~1- 11 L_ U l . '1 1 44 FWI ; . :41 1 -24=-i'F==:4131 1 i jt '9 97 R Ect LI I f:225 1 11 i[ 1 -Â·11 !Â·i 1 8 ... .' 1 5 Ne-REAC Le. '' 1 ~ Â· NE 2\1 EN-1-B,ANCE ~ OPOR-7-6-JACKER BULDIT <34 A r --4 INEST ELEVATION - SCH-E- E 2 . 3 \JAN 11 . ' C 1 - 1; . A.Â·' ;, ~1" 61 1 9<4 -TELE ALU\1, 6 16-7-Fv] DCT/V. 7 5 1 d: 0- N A"-, , V ....: ON INONDERBOARED 1 //05\11-i-CUSE Â·~ . 53 5-7.2, s-ruth.<4 OVER 1 49 54 FATH, NE' /~ (3 l.tR-TA} N: NA l. L j ON MITL, STUDS -/ N E LN E N 334'~'~ 23 E "' ' / 1 1 /9///1.\1\ 2 1 1 ..4 .f/ --r-2 -4.b 4-â‚¬-Ch.- f 4 1/ mit - ill #i:11 5.- ..d .----- -. I T E' r.---- ~- - -- -.-- :w#.ittÂ·,11*Â¢ 4"E -.- ..- -- 1 tr i.Â· ,- ---.-*-.- - . p.- 0-.- .- M li ......:T-7- !7939=--7----- - -- -- m--3-27--3-==7tiff , rÂ·'91~ -223-33.IE ?~TrEZE:- 9 9 " .h, , 4 -1 - r ~ ~J.: il -~6'11--1TtifIi- - : .1 1 :11 ; Ir- 41.- Â· ' '--Â·-4#94 ,-t r.i Â£ -71 . C 1 Mir 2 . -f .8.1 f t 1 4 : i l 14'.eft-1/4.. . .,1 ' Â· .Af - 04't==-.r.z..==r--- 1 â€¢ -/-/ - f .';:-7.-. - , 1 9.1. J %'- 1--1 i .t -I it :i: :1 1 , 1 1 . '..': . 4, I - 1 - 1 1 11'72: - Aâ‚¬:. 1- 1 , - 2*. . --r - r--- ' .r,N EF~H ~TrfV-- ti .4 -1-,---t. ; . ., r .7-.I.â€¢ t â€¢4Â· - --*1 3* 7=<79 =T 4- . -i + h .1. =All-* ir-,1--4/*pri.--#A-4. 4-4.-42;*3 '.11 I i JEEal;714'02 :Ril,ki~~ sk- 40(2 111;.9~, L--]L. 4 2 r /-7*471 I 1~ ~ IiÂ«El 7 11-32Â»3,-=RÂ·*~Â·Â«i,;1~~*:~f-gitf~,9. i fil h ; 1 I - r. z F=- u P Eft...: .60 ' EEFE FER':4; 1Râ‚¬&8 .=.21 .1 1 . . 1,11 N .1 i :' I 1 11 f ... ' -==.-/2,0.-U. f '~ 11,7 1.7-Il:Â· Â· -----7=15T+E=Tz*Arri+39*T E.Â£13'=121*22*Lkik .A/'., 4-0- 4----- ,61:73?rr'W.-... 21 .. -- 4 '1*IT-*' ~Â·42*--4- -*-.---*-------- 4,-1"~*~p..~-amf512%-:,2.ME?. 47~<tr~ /-~~~ *S I-Â·12 ~170~--- - NE ir CION - tl : 6 4===1 1 â€¢11.. - 1 - ,-. 5 ~2-- i-f- f~â‚¬.I:-,1,1Eq.,G-t -'' 1. , , 24;1 3-re=Fle: 1 1 1 -T ...2 4 a 11 11 , i ~1 4 '1 21 1 11 1 , If ." 14 1 1 w.Â· - 1 4 i f : /1 1 -4 P. 1 . 1 9 EÂ·g!-1 'RES 1 1 4 {: '~' h 1 4 ~4.f.' , 0.1 *.I \ j i J.i,zi tj 1 41 . i >.f - 11 U 11 i 4 - f + 1. ~~ ~ ENG 90Â«0-i: i t < 1 1 , .1 : 1 . 'b' 1 741 , : 1 -1 ; 0 11 11 11 .it... G 19 1 1 ' 1111 & , 1 i '31 4 L ~1 1- I_==*JI-,_ ~ --- ..1 i J.u-t--0-4 :-~T 4 } 1 . .. . f I f.-7 ... ~273 1 i zy-- - - :Â·: - -41 ru- i f.lip. -1 2 45 4-1 1 4 ---- 4,4----.aL- - Â·.-2-Â·ti- ... _ 4- 4 1 L-SPO R-79-34 1 k/:=Â©) DLJILE,)1 4,45 0 1 1 ' k/4 5 6 i 5 L F 91.-\ FO>,1 - -C--.C .--1 -- V. --- -,) r + a HPC PROJECT MONITORING Update: January, 1991 PLEASE REVIEW AND INFORM STAFF OF CHANGES. THANK YOU. HPC Member Name Prolect Address Status Bill Poss 413 E. Hyman Approved Little Annies U/C 430 W. Main U/C County Courthouse Approved Highway Entrance Design Committee Charles Cunniffe Guido's U/C Holden-Marolt Museum In Process Don Erdman 501 E. Cooper (Independence) U/C 210 S. Galena (Elks) U/C The Meadows In Process Glenn Rappaport Paepcke Park Gazebo U/C 17 Queen St. In process Cottage Infill Program In process Leslie Holst 215 W. Hallam U/C 221 E. Main - Explore U/C 212 Lake Ave. Approved 210 Lake Ave. Approved Joe Krabacher 801 E. Hyman In process Ski Museum In process Jake Vickery The Meadows (alternate) In process Roger Moyer Holden-Marolt (alternate) In process 1004 E. Durant U/C Georgeann Waggaman Wheeler-Stallard House Approved hpc.monitoring . NATIONAL CENTER FOR PRESERVATION LAW 15 (31ST STREET, N.W. 0 SUITE 400 0 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20007 0 (202) 338-0392 PRESIDENT ExEOUTIvE DIRECTOR }~Al'L F. McDONOITC.H, .JR. ESQ. STEPHEN N. DENNIS, ESQ. PRESERVATION LATZ' UPDATE 1990-42 December 13, 1990 How Much of a Landmark Should be a Landmark? Rumors have abounded in the American preservation community for several years now that in a few key cities "partial designations" have become acceptable as a compromise with eager developers or recalcitrant owners. Now there is a trial Court decision in the District of Columbia that finds such an approach to the preservation of a historic structure to be acceptable. The court in Art Deco Society of Washington v. Burka (No. 90 CA 10856, D.C. Superior Court, decided December 6, 1990) refused to hold that the landmark designation by the D.C. Historic Preservation Review Board of the facade and entrance lobby of the Senator Theatre, but not the also-proposed designation of the auditorium interior, was contrary to the powers of the Review Board. The court upheld the Review Board's decision that because the structure was arguably composed of two "buildings" either could be designated to the exclusion of the other. The decision may be disappointing to those who had hoped to - ensure the preservation of a "streamlined" Art Deco-neighborhood theater with a largely-original interior, but it is consistent with preservation law as it has developed in other cities: no court has yet ruled against a preservation commission which has refused to designate a clearly meritorious resource. Unfortunately, the D.C. court chose to hide behind the Review Board's "expertise" at making "aesthetic judgments": The HPRB is charged with a broad statutory mandate to designate and keep an inventory of historic places.... The HPRB has the sole discretion to decide whether or not a property meets these threshold criteria. Once the HPRB finds that the criteria are met, the HPRB must designate the property as an historic landmark; thus lacking the discretion to keep it off the historic inventory if it found that the criteria were satisfied. Conversely, if the HPRB finds that the property does not meet the threshold requirements, then the property will not receive historic designation. The nature of the HPRB's decisionmaking is succinctly described in [Donnelly]: THE "PIEIE=VATION LAW UPDATE" SERIBB IS MADE POSSIBLE IN PART BY A GRANT PROM THE J. M. K.PLAN FUND, NAT]ONALCENTER FOH PREWERVATION LAB Judgments about the historical, architectural or artistic significance of buildings, sites and architectural styles and the like are generally matters of opinion . . . The ultimate decision whether to preserve a structure, once its significance has been evaluated, involves aesthetic and policy determinations that do not easily lend themselves to a characterization as right or wrong. Further, in [Dupont Circlej, the court explicitly recognized the expertise of the HPRB, thereby admonishing that a reviewing court does not avoid its responsibilities when it defers to the aesthetic judgments within that agency's discretion. The D.C. court made much of the distinction between "historic" and "architectural" significance. Because a staff report to the Review Board found that the auditorium portion of the theater lacked the "architectural" significance of the facade and entrance lobby, the court looked to possibly contrary evidence that the auditorium had instead "historic" significance: The Court concludes that the HPRB acted within its broad authority when it failed to designate the auditorium and its interior as historically significant. The HPRB adopted the staff report which explicitly stated that, unlike the facade and the lobby, the auditorium and the interior did not meet the threshold criteria for architectural significance. Without a finding by the Board that the auditorium and interior had historic significance, the Court cannot find that the HPRB's failure to designate was an ultra vires act, particularly where there were grounds in the record before it to support the conclusions it reached. The court found that the D.C. Review Board had the power to "bifurcate" the proposed designation of the Senator Theater: The plaintiff states that when application is made for designation of the whole building, the HPRB is without authority to designate anything less. On the contrary, the statute instructs the HPRB to designate only those properties that have historic significance. Eligible properties include buildings, building interiors, structures, monuments, objects, features, works of art, neighborhoods, sites and landscapes.. . . . The statute clearly concedes that something less than an entire building can have historic significance. Although the plaintiff's application was for designation of the entire theatre, the HPRB only hasÂ·the authority to designate that which meets the historic criteria. When the HPRB found that only the lobby and the facade had architectural significance and it alone contained sufficient integrity to convey the architectural qualify of John Zink, severing it from the auditoriuum was within its authority. NATIONAL CENTER FOR PREKERVATION LAW The D.C. court repeatedly indicated its deference to the "authority" or "expertise" of the D.C. Review Board: [Plaintiff argues] that the HPRB acted arbitrarily and capriciously by not finding that the entire theatre met the [designation criterial. The staff and the HPRB have the qualifications to judge the historic significance of a property in the context of significant events or symbols of a heritage. [Plaintiff] offered evidence of the [theatre's] historical role as a neighborhood theatre and as a place where certain events occurred. Whether or not these events and the theatre's heritage are historically significant constitute the threshold judgments strictly within the HPRB's authority. The Court cannot reevaluate the evidence and make a substantive decision different from the aesthetic and historical decisions that the HPRB was created to make. The plaintiff made several unsuccessful arguments that the Review Board had ignored or violated required procedures. The D.C. court disagreed with each contention. The court found that the Review Board's decision to designate only a portion of the theatre was not an "amendment" of the original application and that the staff report to the Review Board did not have to be released to anyone prior to the public hearing: [T]he Court finds that the HPRB decision to designate only part of the theatre was not an amendment of the application . . . to designate the entire [theatre]. Its decision to designate only the facade and the lobby was a discretionary one by the HPRB for the purposes of historic significance. . . . [T]he plaintiff was not entitled to receive a copy of the staff report prior to the July 18, 1990 meeting. [0]nly the HPRB is entitled to the staff report. The staff report is the only evidence that the regulations require the HPRB to consider before reaching its decision. Furthermore,- the HPRB record remained open until August 10, 1990. The plaintiff had ample opportunity to counter the staff recommendations by filing supplemental documents with the HPRB. Thus, the plaintiff suffered no prejudice because it did not have the staff report prior to the July 18 hearing. The developer-defendants in the case made an intriguing initial argument which they effectively waived in the alternative unless the court chose to modify the Review Board's decision on the auditorium space: Private defendants Burka, Celia and Delbe have asserted an additional argument for overturning the HPRB decision, in which the defendant District of Columbia does not join. Essentially the private defendants claim that the HPRB did not act within the 90 day statutory time limit set out for it to act on historic landmark designations. Accordingly, they argue that if the HPRB does not act within that 90 day limit, then its decision must be set aside and the property I , NATIONALCENTER FOR PREWERVATION LAW loses its historic designation. However, the private defendants waived their 90 day argument with request to the HPRB's decision of September 19, 1990, but they have asserted that they have not waived this right if the HPRB decision is modified in any way as to the auditorium. As a final intriguing argument, the Art Deco Society asserted that because the staff report "found that the Senator Theatre, as designated without its auditorium, satisfied the criteria for the National Register of Historic Places ... and recommended it for listing" only the entire structure could have been designated by the Review Board. The court disagreed entirely with this clever reasoning: [The D.C. Code] requires the HPRB to recommend an historic landmark for registration on the [National Register] if the HPRB finds that it is eligible. However, the plaintiff is in error when it contends that the HPRB is bound to follow the federal guidelines established for evaluating properties for the National Register. The HPRB is bound to follow only the local law when rendering its historic landmark decisions. Thus, the National Register's regulations which require that nothing less than an entire building is eligible for listing is not relevant to the HPRB's decisional process. ... The plaintiff offers the National Register Guidelines as the means for interpreting the meaning of "building." ... For National Register purposes an entire theatre is noted as an example of a building. The Guidelines also note that parts of buildings are not eligible for listing on the [National Register]. The Court does not find the National Register guidelines as persuasive. The [National Register] is governed by federal statute while the case at bar is governed by the District of Columbia's local historic law. Moreover, the HPRB concluded that the facade and lobby comprised a separate building. The D.C. court found explicitly that the HPRB's decision did not show any impermissible reliance on the "considerable written and testimonial evidence" about redevelopment efforts which would be thwarted by designation of the full Senator Theatre: Lastly, the HPRB had considerable written and testimonial evidence before it with respect to the economic virtues and vices of demolishing or saving the Senator Theatre. That evidence focused on the neighborhood's redevelopment efforts andÂ· the obstacles that the Senator Theatre imposed on the project. For purposes of deciding the theatre's historical value, this evidence was irrelevant. The decision of the HPRB contains no indication that it relied on any part of that testimony when reaching its decision. (Membership in the National Center for 1990 is $65 and entitles one to receive the series of forty-eight "Preservation Law Updates" which the Center will be issuing during 1990.) t 10 ATIONAL CENTER FOR PRESERVATION LAW 15 31ST STREET, N.W. 0 SUITE 400 ' WASHINGTON, D.C. 20007 â€¢ (202) 338-0392 PRESIDENT EXECUTIvE DIRECTOR PAI 'L F. >161)0.OUG}i,.JR., ESQ. STEPHEN N. DENNIS. Eso. PRESIERVATION LATV UPDATE - 1990-43 December 19, 1990 A New Preservation Law Wrinkle in Richmond? Major cities sometimes do strange things with their historic resources (see "Update" 1990-22). In Richmond, Virginia, the politically-polarized City Council is having trouble deciding whether the National Register-eligible Church Hill North Old and Historic District is really a historic district, but a group of residents of the deteriorated area are determined to make the City Council play by its own rules in reaching any final decision which might threaten the district's local designation. A Bill of Complaint was filed on November 19, 1990 in Burton v. Richmond City Council (Chancery No. HA 1168-3, Richmond Circuit Court). The suit seeks a judicial declaration that the Church Hill North Old and Historic District does exist, and that a Richmond City Council attempt to de-designate the district failed because the council did not adopt an amending ordinance by the super-majority vote required because of a timely formal protest to the proposed action by neighborhood residents. Questionable suggestions have surfaced in Richmond that the gradual purchase of vacant structures in the Church Hill North area by young (and largely white) professionals might cause older minority residents to leave the neighborhood. The Richmond City Council adopted an ordinance on June 11, 1990 to add the proposed new district to the list of designated local historic districts in Richmond. But on July 2, 1990, after council membership had changed, an ordinance to "delete" the historic district was proposed. A week later, on July 9th, an alternative ordinance delaying implementation of the new historic district until November 1, 1990 was offered to the council. Before July 23rd, residents of the newly-designated historic district filed a formal protest with the Richmond City Clerk ' under a provision of the Richmond City Charter: If a protest is filed with the city clerk against such amendment, supplement or repeal, signed and acknowledged before a person authorized to administer oaths, by the THE "PIESE=VATION LAW UPDATE" SERIES IS MADE POSSIBLE IN PART BY A GIANT PROM THE J. M. KAPLAN FUND, 1 ./ NATMÂ»rALCENTER FOR PRESERVATION LAW owners of twenty percent or more of the total area of the lots included in such proposed change or of the total area of the lots outside of the proposed change any point in which is within one hundred and fifty feet of the boundary of such area, the council shall not adopt the ordinance making such amendment, supplement or repeal, by less than seven affirmative votes. On July 23rd, the Richmond City Council adopted an ordinance delaying implementation of the increasingly controversial district until November 1st. On October 22, 1990, the city council voted five to four (after an initial pre-tabulation vote of four to four with one abstention) to "delete" the historic district. This vote was racially fractured, with one black member of the council voting in favor of the district and one white member of the council voting finally against the district. The Burton suit alleges that deletion of the district "will eliminate the protection to plaintiff's individual investments provided by the regulations, standards and procedural requirements" of that portion of the Richmond City Code dealing with local historic districts: Plaintiffs will be adversely affected by the elimination of the protection of historic buildings and places in the area of the [districti which would have been provided by [its inclusion in] ... the City Code. They will experience a diminution in the value of the real property that they currently own within the [district's boundaries] as a result , of actions taken by the City and other property owners that will destroy or impair historic buildings and places in the [district]. They will also suffer the loss of the historic, aesthetic, cultural and educational values associated with the historic buildings and places that would be destroyed or impaired as a result of actions that may be taken lawfully as a result of the deletion of the [district from the Code.] The twenty-six individual named plaintiffs in the litigation own collectively sixteen parcels within the disputed historic district and all participated in the protest filed between July 9th and July 23rd. They claim that they are "the owners, then and now, of twenty percent or more of the total area of the lots included in the Historic District. The suit argues that "[t]he Council's adoption of [the deletion ordinance] by less than seven affirmative votes, after the filing of the Protest . . . was ultra vires and therefore void ab initio." The suit requests a judicial declaration that the challenged ordinance "was in violation of applicable law and is, therefore, null and void." (Membership in the National Center for 1990 is $65 and entitles one to receive the series of forty-eight "Preservation Law Updates" which the Center will be issuing during 1990.) . Three Perspectives on Preservation Planning Bruce J. Noble, Jr. ~](-'he role of planning in improving of "fully developed historic detect patterns indicated by the lack 'i state and Federal management of contexts." These contexts consist of of consensus. cultural resources served as the the following components: Based on what the patterns re- theme of a recent group presenta- veal, the committees may recom- tion entitled "Developing Effective a narrative overview outlining a mend the development of certain Cultural Resource Plans." This pre- historical or archeological theme contexts to facilitate understanding sentation was one of over two dozen within a defined region during a of a particular property type. In re- sessions offered during the "Preser- defined time period; sponse, the SHPO staff will some- vation Challenges for the 1990s" times initiate preparation of the con- conference held in Washington, DC a list of property types associated text and, in other cases, contexts on June 5-Z 1990. This article will with the theme; will be developed under contract. summarize the perspectives offered Â· The committee members comment by three speakers during the confer- characterization of property type on all drafts of these contexts. In the ence session on cultural resource locations within the region; end, a ceritext document is pro- planning. duced which helps to build consen- ***** a detailed analysis of property sus between the SHPO and Federal Pat Stein, preservation planner in type significance; agencies by providing a body of the Arizona State Historic Preserva- information which will assist in tion Office, was the first speaker. In a discussion of the integrity re- evaluating properties whose signifi- Arizona, not only does 44% of the quirements necessary for determin- cance had previously been a matter total land area fall under Federal ing the property type's National of debate. ownership, but also agencies spon- Register eligibility; Concluding points included an sor many undertakings on non- acknowledgement that producing Federal land which still require the an explanation of threats to the fully developed contexts is both la- Federal government to provide a li- resource base; bor intensive and costly. In many se, funding, or other forms of cases, neither the SHPO staff nor istance. Thus, the Arizona SHPO identification of research gaps the Federal agencies have the per- rogram must devote considerable which need to be filled to perform sonnel and money necessary to de- time to reviewing Federal agency * further identification, evaluation, or velop all the contexts needed. In projects to monitor compliance with treatment activities; spite of these concerns, the SHPO Section 106 of the National Historic staff has witnessed increased use of' Â» 1 Preservation Act. This orientation a prioritized list of management historic contexts by Federal agencies , has strongly influenced the develop- strategies. and notes with satisfaction that their ment of the SHPO preservation state preservation planning process planning process in Arizona. In using this formula to develop produces useful documents which In certain cases, the SHPO and historic contexts, the Arizona SHPO frequently come off the bookshelves Federal agencies in the state have does not work solely within their and into the handiof people who difficulty reaching agreement about own office. Rather, context develop- need them. a particular resource's National Reg- ment takes place as part of a Judy Propper, regional archeolo- ister eligibility. These situations usu- broader initiative for building con- gist in the Southwest Region of the ally find the SHPO supporting eligi- sensus between the SHPO and Fed- U.S. Forest Service, spoke next. The bility with the agency opposed. eral agencies operating within the Southwest Region of the U. S. Forest Experience has demonstrated that state. To achieve this goal, two com- Service administers 11 national for- these disagreements do not result mittees have been established. One ests consisting of over 20 million from agency efforts to circumvent committee has a prehistoric orienta- acres in New Mexico and Arizona. the Section 106 process or from tion, while the other has a historic The region also oversees three na- overzealous application of the Na- focus. The committees consist of tional gFa.sslands in Texas and tional Register criteria by the SHPO. representatives from Federal agen- Oklahoma. Instead, most disagreements revolve cies, the SI-IPO staff, academia, and The National Forest Management around resources whose significance private sector preservation groups. Act (NFMA) of 1976 established the is difficult to determine within the During the year, the SHPO staff modern framework for resource broad framework of the National maintains Â·a "context log." This log management planning in the U. S. ister criteria. identifies property types whose sig- Forest Service. The NFMA imple- o address such concerns, the Ar- nificance the SHPO and a Federal . menting regulations, issued in 1979 na SHP.O has developed a system. agency cannot agree upon. The and 1982, defined two planning lev- for evaluation of "problematic" committees meet once a year to re- els. Planning guidelines would be property types which involves use view the context log and to try to (continued on page 6) 1990 No. 5 5 4 Three Perspectives on Preservation tion of elevating the profile of cul- : same planning needs as a property , Planning - tural resources in the Southwest Re- nominated to the National RegisterÂ· (continued from page 5) gion forest planning process. Still, agencies may want to prepar' Among her concluding points, nominations 1when seeking special developed at the regional level. Judy Propper stated, "For years in objectives such as commemor ' These guidelines would be employed the Forest Service, archeologists like certain aspect of agency histo at the national forest level to pro- myself wefe so wrapped up in the veloping information for inte (tr duce detailed plans. struggles of compliance with Section programs, or drawing attention to a The implementing re*llations 106 that we thought we didn't have resource of particular importance. listed cultural resources among 14 time to get involved in the tedious The Advisory Council, the Na- principles upon which to base over- and rather abstract workings of tional Park Service, and the SHPOs all forest planning efforts. In addi- long-range planning." However, ex- serve in a "semi-regulatory" capac- tion, the regulations listed cultural perience has taught that planning ity in that each provides various resources among a group of subjects offers a way to assure that the man- sorts of advisory direction to Federal destined to receive individualized agement process commits to the agency historic preservation pro- treatment in further planning stud- present and future preservation of grams. In spite of all the well- ies. Thus, the opportunity existed to valuable cultural resources. If the intentioned advice, agencies rarely move ahead with specialized cul- importance of including cultural re- have the staff necessary to imple- tural resource planning activity. sources in the planning process is ment the comprehensive preserva- In reality, however, cultural re- not recognized, Federal agency cul- tion programs which all the "regu- source management in the Forest tural resource professionals will pro- lators" envision. In the "real world" Service during the early 1980s did vide only a support service for the experience of Federal agencies, ar- not move beyond completing the management of dther resources and cheologists must sometimes oversee 11 basic minimal work required to al- many opportunities will be lost. the rehabilitation of historic build- low other resource management Brit Storey, senior historian with ings and architects must coordinate activities to proceed. The small the Bureau of Reclamation in Den- the stabilization of an archeological amount of money allotted to cultural ver, CO, concluded the session on site. Federal agency cultural resource resource activities did not allow for planning. In delivering his presenta- staffs need personnel with expertise the initiation of serious planning tion, Erit also drew on 14 years of in archeology, architecture, history, efforts. As a result, forest plans gen- experience at the Advisory Council and sometimes ethnography. Rarely erally included only generic cultural on Historic Preservation. Comment- do such staffs exist. resources "boilerplate" stating that ing on the session's planning theme, Given these staff limitations -- ost forest management would occur in Brit remarked that perhaps his talk agencies do not have the lux accordance with the National His- should have been titled, "A Plan engage in comprehensive pl toric Preservation Act, Section 106 Without the Underpinnings of Agencies should develop histor.. would be complied with, and eligi- Money and Staff is Merely a contexts as the basis of their plan- ble properties would be nominated Dream." ning activity, but they frequently Â· to the National Register. In short, The entire national preservation lack the money to implement their cultural resources had not entered program was once intended to serve basic program objectives. Under the agency's planning mainstream. as a planning process for Federal these circumstances, planning re- This situation changed in 1984 agencies. Section 106, the National mains a remote possibility as agen- when the region's cultural resource Register, and Section 110 all repre- - cies scramble to keep their cultural program became the target of a law- sent components of that planning res6urce programs afloat. suit. After two years of litigation, an system. However, the structure of The Bureau of Reclamation has out-of-court settlement was reached. this system has changed consider- encountered a number of planning With respect to planning, the settle- ably over time. challenges in the process of manag- ment agreement specified that the The National Register, for exam- ing their 8.5 million acres of land individual forests would each pre- ple, was originally envisioned as a located in 17 western states. Recent- pare cultural resource planning as- Federal agency planning tool. The ly, Jim Maxson, Reclamation's Fed- sessments which would more fully National Register offered a means of eral Preservation Officer and chief address the NFMA regulations. incorporating information about sig- archeologist, has developed a Pro- The planning assessments pro- nificant cultural resources into an gram Mission Statement which vided an opportunity to analyze the agency. planning process. Presently, serves as a plan for implementing cultural resource work undertaken the overall national preservation the agency's historic preservation in individual forests in the past. program has reached a point where responsibilities. The mission state- This analysis then served as a basis Federal agencies have little interest ment includes tasks divided into th, for recommending future projects in using the National Register as a following areas: comprehensive in- and management initiatives. The planning tool. Federal agencies find ventory of historic properties on region is now using the plan it easier and cheaper to enter into Reclamation lands, inventory of amendment process to incorporate consensus eligibility agreements Reclamation-constructed pr the recommendations resulting froni with SHPOs. Most Federal agency and their features, develop the planning assessments into each cultural resource personnel believe regional management plans - as- of the individual forest plans. This that a property determined eligible toric properties, a publit education represents a major step in the direc- through this process serves t}ie (continued on page :- 6 1990 No. : . Three Perspectives on Preservation projects in a number of states, agen- gesting that we have yet reached a . Planning cies have to deal with multiple SI-IPO state of planning nirvana, the three (aintinued from page 6) programs, each of which interpret speakers demonstrated that plan- their preservation responsibilities ning has assumed an important role nd information program, and a somewhat differently. The need to in many cultural resource manage- ocess to assure appropriate cura- use different inventory forms in each ment programs. n of artifacts and records. state forces agencies into a confusing The mission statement establishes confrontation with the lack of national a five-year deadline for identifying inventory standards. Bruce Noble is a historian in the Intera- all historic and archeological sites on Brit Storey concluded by stating gency Resources Division, National Park 25% of the land managed by the that the national preservation pro- Service, Washington, D.C. Bureau of Reclamation. When ac- gram has operated effectively during counting for land already surveyed, the 24 years since the enactment of this deadline will require reclama- the National Historic Preservation tion to survey 3% of their total land Act. The program has demonstrated area during each of the next five sufficient flexibilitv to evolve to meet A Trip to MARS years. At this pace, 28 years will changing needs. Brit expects this (continued from page 9) pass before completion of the entire evolutionary process to continue inventory. into the future. When the MARS facility is full, it The magnitude of this lengthy In summary, each of the three is expected to house almost 200,000 inventory task indicates certain im- speakers discussed preservation historic objects and two million ar- pediments. In addition to the time planning activity within the context cheological artifacts. That is quite a required to complete the inventory, of the western United States where lot of history under one roof! the process will ultimately discover preservation efforts remain focused All of this would not have been thousands of National Register on the need to minimize the impact possible without the support of the properties. An expensive database of Federal projects on cultural re- regional director and his staff,and will have to be developed in order sources. Pat Stein discussed the way the encouragement of the chief eura- to effectively use the inventory in- in which the Arizona SHPO plan- tor's office. Their awareness of the formation as a planning tool. If an Iling process helps to successfully importance of our resources and the agency with more extensive land- manage Federal agency cultural re- need to document and retain them holdings embarked on this sort of source activity in the state. Judy for future generaiions has allowed inventory project, the expenditure of Propper recounted efforts to inte- the concept of MARS to grow into onsiderably more time and money grate cultural resource planning into the "model storage facility for the s. ould obviously result. the broader agency resource plan- National Park Service" according to To further complicate matters, ning structure in the Southwest Re- the American Association of Muse- Federal agencies must work within gion ef the U.S. Forest Service. Fi- ums Accreditation Team. the framework of a national preser- nally, Brit Storey highlighted some Â·Â·Â· vation program which emphasizes of the difficulties which Federal the uniqueness of each SHPO pro- agencies can expect to encounter gram. Often working out of central- when launching a comprehensive Pam West is regional curator, National - .1 ized regional offices which conduct planning process. While not sug- Capital Region, National Park Service. = u 0 - The Planting Stick They embody much of what the Na- explain. It was a toy set, "Big Chief" (continued from page 10) tional Park Service is. brand, consisting of a fluorescent- When the 25th Anniversary of the feathered headdress and a rubber minded attention to references Gateway Arch is marked this Octo- tomahawk, and after all the ques- therein to Native American ber, will we recognize it as that sym- tions had surfaced in my mind, the concerns. bol which puts into artistic shape one feeling that I left there with is Seek out the National Native the glory of the westward move- that we have a long way to go in News on National Public Radio; ment, or will we ".. . seek to this agency, to be what we say we view Native American cultures as present factual, balanced, and to the are about. Thanks to the dedicated resou rces, not historical curiosities extent achievable, vatue-neutral pre- people who made the first Interpret- that ceased to exist years ago. If you sentations of both native and non- ing Native American Cultures course a are a specialist in the fields of an- Native American cultures, heritage, reality, we are learning to walk... thropology, archeology, history, or and history", as directed by Chapter and to listen. museum curation, offer to give a 7 of the Management Policies? talk to the interpretive staff at your During a recent visit to a national Reid Miller is a park ranger at Agate ark-share what you know, and do, park with archeological resources as Fossil Beds National Monument. His nd feel. The cultural resources that its primary focus, I found myself interest in Native American cultures be- we manage-that we interpret-are staring at an item in one of the con- gan in 1971 when he first read Across far more than inanimate objects. cessioner's stores that is difficult to The Wide Missouri by Bernard Devoto. 1990 No. 5 17 ,