The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19901212 . d f AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 12, 1990 REGULAR MEETING NOTE: DUE TO ROOM CONFLICTS, THE HPC WILL BE MEETING AT THE SHERIFF'S CONFERENCE ROOM - LOWER LEVEL - COURTHOUSE FOR THIS ONE MEETING. 4:00 PRE-APPLICATION: 442 W. BLEEKER, PIONEER PARK, 4:00 P.M. - MEET ON-SITE! 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of Nov. 14, and Nov. 28, 1990 minutes II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:10 A. Final Development and Demolition: 801 E. Hyman ' -/9 9Â£46 hBU-Â·r V. NEW BUSINESS 0-2101|42,Â§ 2 5:45- A. Minor Development: Pitkin County Courthouse si/Ji ~382Â°rary handicap lift 6:15 B. Pre-application: 442 W. Bleeker, Pioneer Park VI. COMMUNICATIONS 7:00 Project Monitoring: Paepcke Park Gazebo statuas report - staff Meadows report - Don Erdman and Sub-committee 7:30 ADJOURN PLEASE REMEMBER! HPC sponsored Christmas Party Thursday, December 13, 5:30-7:30, Caribou Club! I â‚¬.â€¢ Ly-9 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Minor Development: Pitkin County Courthouse Wheelchair lift Date: December 12, 1990 SUMMARY: The County is requesting HPC's approval for a temporary lift at the west entrance of the Courthouse for the mobility impaired. They are interested in ordering the electric lift devise as proposed as soon as a building permit is granted. Tom Newland, Assistant County Manager, Will be presenting the application at this meeting, and informs staff that the temporary devise was the best option out of three considered, and carries with it the least impact visually to the National Register structure. $190,000 has been approved and is budgeted to construct a permanent elevator tower sometime in 1991. APPLICANT: Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, represented by Tom Newland, Assistant County Manager STAFF COMMENTS: The Development Review Standards are found in Section 7-601(D)(1), and are referred to in the application. Handicap access is becoming an increasingly important issue in historic buildings nationwide. Our Courthouse presents difficult obstacles to wheelchair-bound individuals, and to designing a compatible solution for access. The applicant states that the problem with entering the building at basement level (north or east) is that interior restrictions prevent a lift design. Staff is requesting this interior lift alternative be examined thoroughly with the help of an HPC architect. The west entrance is secondary to the facade, and the applicant states that this appears to be the best option to meet access needs, however, neither the south or west elevations are appropriate for the visual and physical impact of this devise. Although staff finds that the lift devise as proposed generally does not meet the Development Review Standards, we have not found another, better solution. It is temporary (up to one year), and funding for the permanent solution has been budgeted. The Planning Office recommends that the HPC (sub-committee or individual project monitor) work with Tom Isaac and Tom Newland to examine all other options for compatibility to the historic resource, prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project. Should a better alternative be agreed upon by this group and staff, the HPC will be notified and asked for their endorsement. We also recommend that the structure be approved Pitkin Coun December 6, 1990 Roxanne Eflin Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: COURTHOUSE TEMPORARY HANDICAP ACCESS PROJECT Dear Roxanne; Please accept this letter and enclosed application form as the complete application submission for review of the above listed project by the Historic Preservation Committee. Pitkin County wishes to install, on a temporary basis, an electric wheelchair lift and associated improvements to allow for handicap access to the Courthouse. This project will allow immediate access to this public structure until a permanent elevator can be installed in 1991. The applicant for this proposal is: The Board of Commissioners Pitkin County, Colorado 506 East Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 920-5150 The applicant's representative is: Tom Newland Assistant to the County Manager 530 East Main Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 920-5200 The location of the project is as follows: A parcel of land located in the southwest quarter of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, more fully described as follows: Administration County Commissioners County Attorney Personnel and Finance Road and Bridge 530 E. Main, 3rd Floor Suite B Suite I Suite F Fleet Management Aspen, CO 81611 506 E. Main Street 530 E. Main Street 530 E. Main Street 20210 W. Highway 82 (303) 920-5200 Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611 FAX 920-5198 (303) 920-5150 (303) 920-5190 (303) 920-5220 (303) 920-5390 a printed on recycled paper W Lots K through P, Block 92, Aspen Townsite and Lots 1 through 6, Block 19, City of Aspen, Colorado. Containing 0.83 acres, more or less. The Street address of the project is: Pitkin County Courthouse 506 East Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 Attached for your review as Exhibit A please find a letter from Mr. Tim Whitsitt, County Attorney declaring ownership of the property and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for a development application. Further attached as Exhibit B please find a vicinity map locating the subject parcel. As summarized above, Pitkin County wishes to place and operate a temporary wheelchair lift to allow for handicap access of the first floor of the Courthouse via the west entry portal. Handicap access will be afforded via a small lift or elevator which will be capable of raising an individual and wheelchair 6 feet to the level of the west entry. Attached as Exhibit C please find the following graphic representations of the project: - A brochure of the wheelchair lift proposed, depicting the lift and describing specifications; - A specific site plan of the Courthouse property, indicating the location and placement of the lift; - A detailed site plan showing the lift and it's connection to the west entry portal and electric power source; - - An elevation drawing showing the west side of the Courthouse Pitkin County is requesting the temporary use of this wheelchair lift until a permanent elevator accessing all floors of the Courthouse. It is felt that a 12-month time period is adequate for the temporary use. Funding for a permanent elevator has been requested within the proposed 1991 county budget. The county has undertaken this project primarily to gain temporary handicap access to the first floor of the Courthouse. The lower floor can be accessed at ground level. It was felt that the west entry portal was most appropriate for the handicap access because it was the least visible of the two first floor entrances. Three options were investigated concerning this temporary access: 1) A ramp structure which would allow handicapped individuals to access without negotiating a flight of steps; 2) A mechanized chair that would lift handicapped individuals up the stairway from the lower floor to the first floor; 3) A wheelchair lift. Option #1, the ramp, was discounted because of it's potential impact on the visual appearance of the Courthouse. To conform with federal handicap access requirements, the ramp would have to start at the corner of Galena and Main Streets, travel 65 feet to the west entry portal, and provide for pedestrian access to the lower level under the ramp. Option #2, the internal stair lift, would not impact the outside of the Courthouse. However, this solution did not conform to federal handicap access standards because it's operation is dependant upon assistance from non- handicapped individuals. A person confined to a wheelchair would have to be assisted onto the chair, the wheelchair would have to be brought up the stairs separately, and then the handicapped individual would have to be assisted out of the lift device and back on to the wheelchair. Additionally, the mechanized chair may not be in conformance with fire code as it would restrict the width of the steps, which are the only access between the lower and first levels. Option #3 was selected because it seems to be the best solution to the situation. Although visible on the outside of the building, it will not be as noticeable as the ramp. The outside lift can be operated and utilized by handicapped individuals without assistance. The lift can be installed and removed relatively easily, unlike the ramp or mechanized chair options. When the lift is in operation, the west entry portal will not be used for general public access. Pedestrian traffic will be re- routed to the main or south entrance. The west entrance, will, however, be available for use as an emergency fire exit, as approximately 2-feet of the existing steps will remain usable. I would like to address the Review standards for Development Involving Historic Landmarks, of which the Courthouse is SO designated: a. The proposed development is generally compatible in character with the designated historic structure. However, this is only because the development is temporary in nature and will be removed once a permanent elevator is installed. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The development will allow access to a public building by all members of the public. Although the structure will be a noticeable introduction to the neighborhood view-scape, it's temporary nature will not significantly alter or impact the neighborhood in the long- run. C. The proposed development will not detract from the cultural value of the designated historic structure. The wheelchair lift and stairway ramp will be placed and constructed in such a fashion SO that, when removed, no noticeable appendages or improvements will remain. d. The proposed development Will not detract from the architectural integrity of the historically designated structure because of the temporary nature of the proposal. There is no doubt the wheelchair lift will not blend in with the existing architectural style Of the Courthouse. However, the temporary nature of the lift assures that impacts to the architectural presentation of the building facade will not impact the structure in the long-term. I hope the information supplied within this application is complete and suitable for your review. If there is further information required, or you have any further questions concerning this application, please contact me at the phone number listed above. Sincerely, PITKIN COUNTY ADMINI~yRA ON OFFIC g~*rf Newland, Assistant~e the County Manager tan:hpcl.app CC: Scott Mackey, Building Maintenance Tom Issacs, County Assessor EXHIBIT Pitkin Coun December 6, 1990 Roxanne Eflin Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: COURTHOUSE TEMPORARY HANDICAP ACCESS PROJECT Dear Roxanne; , This is to affirm that the Board of County Commissioners, Pitkin County, Colorado are the sole owners of the Pitkin County Ceurthouse. As owners the Board of County Commissioners have a ' demonstrated right to apply for the above mentioned Development i Application. 1 j Sincerely, PITKIN COUNTY ATTORNEYS OFFICE Tim Whitsitt, County Attorney Administration County Commissioners County Attorney Personnel and Finance Road and Bridge 530 E. Main, 3rd Floor Suite B Suitel Suite F Fleet Management Aspen, CO 81611 506 E. Main Street 530 E. Main Street 530 E. Main Street 20210 W. Highway 82 (303) 920-5200 Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611 FAX 920-5198 (303) 920-5150 (303) 920-5190 (303) 920-5220 (303) 920-5390 6. printed on recvcled paper ~ 11 -~*it**493>*61(r~t*.ELf.'~$454 , * le Y 2 ./ I Am*;4444445Â§Â»12 -.- 24.-*:w, Afek..Â»A@-,44444 â€¢~- ~t~ ..zo .N~ 4~~9Â£~,r 1% fill Â· ify:&~.a.*,%9#â€ž64#.L~.,...~ ~allqlll-I t.2 ~:-" '14~ar- 1 ....r &00....1 ..412.r, n' â‚¬ e: >,4,4,Â·:trÂ· p~=I/~*9*0.04: -...........I Â·â€¢i IT<g**+We>:49*tÂ¢9*'A#Â»4 ve ~ 15468~4-~*i:*f:wi~*5474fliij-frfia:. '1 3-2ueF~ ~ 9 I I ./; .VI $Â·L 4 ~ 19â‚¬F . â€ž r.bâ€¢ t- -4.PA//LG Q C , .. â‚¬ '.40~ - - 30 45:.44 ---- *94*3:iti.tritia:4%22'.93.:Ird:m<Y.&~drisio.Billit,3,/Ill:IEjld$:21/I.....,1//Alimilitilril....#&*4/,#.... b,it '. I.:4 * y Illymr 8 3~~90:42..52:2:%.~<:~gyout Â¥04,1. -,,: fâ‚¬'21:K . )r :4: * .. ,&,r-, ~~235~~~2~2'i :k I ...- I - . 4 m. f J.1 . v , ... . 0 4* 04.-Â·44*4407 N , 7> Â»**%44**44%410%44%44994,14,4#, .. 0 . 1 0.17 2 +4â‚¬%40*404 -r - $ 9,7*9 1.V & I . . . . . f' .. a. , , U 4 Ot Iâ€¢.-4 t-/ 2 5Â» 1-4 - 1.26-2 Â· ..... 3..,Â·C:t %' . . i /7.13 . m, 1.,â€ž -â„¢41- gam#0,44471*,ark&*A <w ri,L~&4~,4.ijl....:ft:.i. -7 4, E V- 4 1 >412Â·Â·Â·Â·IM~N ,:'21Â¢24â‚¬'tt~h-,4." 'Â· Â·'~ q , : 2â‚¬8335 -'<~WA<E..7. :'..t:ti .-,4 1 - 11 - 41#31*3 r:~ 0 v. <*Eis 2:41 ---- .-- . . I . . :401 1. -12.k==i/- . & -1.:51.31-=-9 ~~ 8 - IÂ·.edrt-541; . 4 1 0 2~1.41 3 i F 3 + 4 : - - d .., : 4 2 - f ' 43 K. . t. -I U 2%66*0* 9. ./ 43,.w 1. 22 1 49*,2.Et,-215;IA, Â¥- r-K- 1 9 1 1 17 %,9 1 4 Di' i - 4 -* 44 i-1---- st/E - . I.r. th- :sz.*.*4#j#IBE .-7--27-11Â»41 dim"Nmalip 2 &*)*34=-'~=*iffs,3. Y;r.- 'f2 Â·91-t . 4 1 -- . i. 14 '- -3 # re' 5 7% 44. Â· 4-04..42 =p .-4 . ' /7 0 . :d.-2. .4 - . 0- -2,7 - - -4- 0..4-4. 1 16. 4. . W -2. ' 4 â€¢ .f._ *L . - + 4 ,iÂ». 1)16 -Gwak-1-10.,1.2*6- -Ill...Wadheaf)*-- ... i *. --1--i-:.-Â«42 4 ....ffr~*203 -4, . a.. 4.- ' 4(ti;r:C .21.2 'i'*. Â¥,1 - 41 1.1 =.re .3:41 ..315##235( 2%421= I 43 7 . 1:1; . , . :i:;,;1 29.0.eff ..0Â».. - :9.,47.-flm .p.Â·a.. fijii,:tgkd.&'d.of . A-:t r ea $ 7 19 a - ~~*~~1.. P,?'.,f.~~6~ .~~b~~ir .21Â£41~~ 1 ~ *I'~' 4 e~,t~?,i. . . ---60' k-< 4 ,:Tak :~4: StÂ·tr , . ...... 4. - . -P -I~I';~~.429Â·-Â·442212~~,J-~-Uf' 0,Â· , ,.. ~ t* ~' 4 EXHIBIT C Brochure Â¥lm:11.1.1. PL=TG GROUP: ~Toe-Guard" telescoping action - f ~ 13 0$.2. . 8 .... 42.-9 Â». UA- . f.,weÂ·.. ~De.. ...lit'....:248 '1% I.**Ublf:...Ii,-432~ Uq 47 1Â§49 â‚¬ 1 B- 4 *899Â¢ 4 - 9 3 -4 -Â·--9147/4- *7 1 2:,Â·t' ... _ 7 -aL.11 -AL:*9&121-+ As the PL-TG model ascends to the 6Â· top landing, the telescoping Â· Toe-Guard" design completely protects the underside of the platform. i,i/. MAm, , ,4 - . i~~ ' Pler- 1, T' 4 â€ž4",0ypi- 29 di~ 1' &- -t. . Â·Â· ' I 4- I -' I 'Â· r ~.~I '4~ -Fr- P 3~ k . N - + 1" 4'9 9Â¢84Â·3 1 ~ li-- :Wi?* 4 2 0.12 11 11 Â¢1 -1% f ~ i i -Ar 4LP j. 2*21* I illimillizi:*i tÂ· e A This innovative "Toe-Guard" Two models, PL-TG 48 and 84, â€¢ Manual lowering device design represents another provide maximum lifting heights â€¢ 42" platform guard rails â€¢ 12 sq- ft. non-skid platform surface industry "first." As the lift of 48 and 84 inches. Both meet all â€¢ Low voltage controls (24V) ascends, walls telescope upward requirements of ANSI, Al 7,1, â€¢ Electro-mechanical brake from the stationary sides, Section 2000, rule 2000.lb, for â€¢ Ball screw drjve â€¢ Instant reversing motor protecting the underside of the public buildings. â€¢ Beige epoxy powder coated finish platform. In areas around the â€¢ 3 V-Belt drive system with monitoring Standard Equipment device country where codes require or â€¢ Platform control switch (key activated) â€¢ 500 lb. capacity , . where another design type is â€¢ Emergency stop on platform control g. preferred the PL-TG is a great switch Optional Equipment â€¢ 42" top landing gate â€¢ "Call-Send" control switch (key solution to the problem of â€¢ 42" platform gate activated)' accessibility. â€¢ Lower landing gate â€¢ "Call-Send" control switches with â€¢ Fascia emergency stop (Key activated) â€¢ Grab rail â€¢ Emergency stop and signaling device on â€¢ Fixed access ramp plattorm control switch â€¢ Emergency stop and signaling device on 1~ "Getting up and over the steps platform and "Call-Send" control switches to the library opened a whole â€¢ 750 lb. capacity (PL-TG 84) f 7!~A- new world for me." â€¢ Removable base (PL-TG 84) : â€¢ Special color paint LA u&"Mdilrt â€¢ "Over-The-Step" bridge A i â€¢ Wiring and electric door lock : Â¥El l â€¢ 15 sq. ft. platform 17.lio. (PL-TG 84 only) A'*mall g=;224 sle i : E.Â·.3-34;'2,Â©14'17- Â·~ --0 . - -9 1 1 ..L, r illilillillillill'll/:Imimil". :Cata I '-- : d I '11*/in/+41//4311"di' #f : -1nzi-~=I il#inilillil/'ll'll/lli 735=11 -, Mi &21=~ 4=1 -1. - :$.14-. =Ilif~.1 b .4292 . .6, & 1,14 --a,rÂ¥.admi Illimilliluilillilill'll'llilli . *Vi M..Elli' - , 11.5 2, 11-Ir-I.- i .... i/- _- e=41 - . Â·Â·19 4 ,...1-- -t E - 2:aa- - 12- I ~4././.",-mi//2- .-=1 -*-~--~1115.*/irt- 67' -5 - '-- 1, Â£1SdkAX'/9./#31-0- VV/- A#41 *trl IAFFH Fa:1 - 44â„¢,9~~ I t3 -' 041505/6%14"'llillill'll/2,/01/'ll 424 : ti u ~73,019*20;~ ~m--~bR8WtuaaÂ£*tu-----~ ........ 4-KA:4 - 1:PÂ· 4 9----6----01 ~,)A&~ 1 "autok'- N -1 te}4- *-4 -2-%- 4~ - + 1 0.:./iÂ«rlÂ·=*el- - ,/=l Ftl --1 /7./2 4 Rk,1 9,1 / k ''SUIP _*Et-V~ 6 - I H 1 -. a /2 1 4-+ - -- 4 1 - tp' L.=- 1 - i.1- - 14 -i; â€¢ -UL- Â· â€žb Â· ' ..+ al//-i- =t ~~-'9 -12=#*== M -1 1-11- -7- 1 4 \ 1 Â· r.= M."71- -â‚¬4 1 ,) ~ ~, ~~1~,-4, %1~ ~ - r, -11 1 +T- 1 Â¢-24-- I -4- - /Â· ! r.--: rAMhAÂ·36=14---4 1 7J ' 12- ~- tf 41 + i 1 Ill-1114 12iligA, 4; i,Flt:-- I 9 1, ,Â·/ , . : :2:? 1?ji'.WH'.Vie~M 1 4- . JI. 11:,1 1 1 --- 4, 5 - r D.Uni~millitituou I 1 1 111,14 .4~~*Tri=-: "! L \ 'Al 'in- 1, Tl--0,k-sy= 1- - - '.Ill...'ll.'-; -t= 2 ' J'Z' ~JI-1.! 4~i 2 -4-â€¢ ., \ 'ftl - Â· 1 Â·,Â·a.- <Il -erÂ·r,rÂ·m=g : 2.- 1:1.1=El, â€¢ 'b-I.~4.r--im--p, p . -1'4 4 k: E- I .41,44.1 1 2-r ~. 1-- - h,~ r . I . :---1.7 2.2. .%7- 1 1-1101 ~ /4 9, r:fk. ''.1; -, L' r .../.' .t,I.12- MIÂ·. ,~, I~iN 91 ' i :- lf:r ,le-Â·Â· ~. - - -1-g!-I - - --r-- 4~ ,~ ,# \ 1. . ; _:=- t -Il, i ./.i' 41. Â· -2, I 1 ~pR' ~' i.4-9 =1â‚¬4-fl. -.Â·51**Mitwi /4.kj . 44- -4 3- :p--1.Â¤- 3662.-1.- 11 .-6 -1- . 1 -- E i I .5-.:--7, -TE .-* 1 ..641*--RI- 2 5 1 24 r0Â·.rq.k- ,1,L Â·. 41:0""93799 1.1 598-432*:. 41.Â· . 2.4 \W k -TA'' '-mmetic . 1..~ ]- *4.. : 49 ..:. -EL. Â£ tr' i.~ 11 if 1 91 10 4\ t. 9 4~.9 1 1 1,3 4, 1 . - f ~. %3 * 1 j: ~i - -*- C 4 - 9Â» ' L 27 .4 1 - 44' 1 6 1-4 , 1 41,% 1 â€¢U# %Â£:. 2 Â· ..=eÂ·it,f -r ** A;~ 'd' r -2.==-1-6. e â‚¬ i -- 3/ -. *P .Ip&/1m/. I .. ......5:.<.YE-I:Obb- - -Â·: .:d -*. 1 .<. - AES~._ '.* . - - Â·r-TI : . g L 6 1 4 2~-:.~11. . . Â·L 1.- It ..(242--2Â£-S.:b 14Â¢Rt . . 1./ 44.1'r......293 -2....4-- Â· I-~ f 3 49-4Â» O - *2~ ~b ,Â· Â· . i M 'li ***"*b*.ft:73<;( 1***Â» Â· .3*t@+It';93~mt~~0~95â€¢4/ae Â·,stÂ·, Â· ..44 - ./. ' I : I .r$ ~ ~ .~1~ ~ ~ ~,~- .0 - --- *74 41///// 6 101 =-1- i 4 FOR APPLICATIONS ' Nt *Pe-,~42-- 2 -LI i~'41/1 . 1 THAT REQUIRE 7,1 THE USE OF 0 . .. . 0 0 ... ..0 - 0 . a . . .0 ... A HOISTWAY ... ..1 '11311,1.11'111 '0 - PORCII.1.1. -â€¢ ini.i~ *1 - . 1~Uif-LIi' j I[ f VERTICAL PLATFORM LIFT ./. ~,2-=- 1 f i ~. Elegant, sleek, simple, and practical. The newest PORCH- k LIFT Vertical Platform Lift models, the ENCLO-SURE group, d are designed to fit those applications that require the use of a 4 p hoistway. Designed and constructed for both indoor and 1. outdoor use in public and commercial buildings and private homes, the PORCH-LIFT ENCLO-SURE models provide a cost-efficient, user-effective, "accessibility package" for low- $.,A ,;: rise lifting heights up to 12 feet. r=U L All ENCLO-SURE models incorporate a 6'8" door at the 1 - h 142 1 /KIU, 6-7 $ 2.- ditht#Â£***4. .c - - bottom landing. Electric locks are used to prevent the unit 4.1111Â¥141.- 11 'IriV.<i#~P"~ i, platform from moving unless the door or gate is closed and locked. The attractive almond color structure, with full view 1 . 0. bronze plexiglass door and panels, is made of aircraft quality 00 - 6063 T5 aluminum alloy extrusion and it becomes an integral .. ... . 0 part of the PORCH-LIFT unit when it is erected and attached ... to the unit's frame and the smooth fascia portion of the ./. I .. ENCLO-SURE. A fixed access ramp is provided at the bottom landing for I r-I t.- easy access and exit from the unit. In some cases the unit r--1-- -1.1 1 - 1 might be "pit-mounted" making an access ramp i i unnecessary. R'. 1. If , : At the top landing you can choose a 42" high gate or a 6'8" 1: 1 1 1 11 door. Both have bronze plexiglass panels matching the door 2 1 li E 12 1 I ------- at the bottom landing and the side panels that extend to the :1 6 j, j gate or door height. A plexiglass dome is available for p 1 â€¢ ': 11 li 1, i complete enclosure of the hoistway in applications where a 6'8" door is used at the top landing. i ..- - - The PL-EN models meet ANSI, A17.1 Section 2000, rule 2000.la for use in public building. Illf[.1 0*~~~~~~~~~~~~ ' ' if-,~_.fÂ·:.2.Â·ing.~;.:3:-4.:'Â· 1- r, 1 .1-22:Â£5:-*.2-27~%22.4. L 4 .P~.553?g-5.Â·5:7311 f:Â£ , ~ .?Â·Filit.:-:65*03:"i 1,1 ...49&2...1.....t: -Nel.14,6/: V 1*1*i . - -, L 341% ' ..."..., I â€¢I!*:m. ' / ACCESS AMERICA 1 WITH PORCII-1.10' VERTICAL PLATFORM LIFT 8*Sm:fy- ' 3 ;,3,7.-7-'-7-'-A.mi<M 1 ' . i. I - L....,.z~ + *.28.2 1 - M i ~ P - ..,Â¢44:*-Â·f**RA:24 - .. 'i .Â·,/â‚¬3*0~25â€¢ ?./6%~&;N;**: Â·Â·goâ‚¬4 /1. ::%44. Â· 9- 4 -1 r 1 + Â·A', ' RE 31- f,-~*Â«->'Â« F 6.1 4 0% 2 -7= 49 - . # â‚¬.3,94 r Â·fl* Â· 4 I : 2 -e -- 1 .- i . PORCH-LIFT Model PL-S50 2.-4 996-Â·10:eVEging'u~ Â«.& ... with top landing gate . Ifs the American Way! U 97::L, ~AMERICAN STAIR-GLIDE CORPORATION The leader and moving up! PORCII=1.10: PL-LD GROUP: Â¢3. our dependable light duty space-saver Standard Equipment : 1 .3: @1 /. .4 â€¢ Platform control switch (key activated) Â· -r L.1.--289,02' .U t L . 6. â€¢ Automatic access ramp & guard rail PaÂ· .b.. 1/7<1127-,1/â€¢ill-! â€¢ Platform safety pan ' â€¢ 42" platform guard rails 0 12 sq. ft, non-skid platform surface â€¢ Ball screw drive (PL-LD 48B) 1 9*igaltil ! 1.1 11 1 â€¢ Electro-mechanical brake (PL-LD 488) â€¢ Low voltage controls (24V) 1-1 L â€¢ Acme screw drive (PL-LD 48A) . r1 -4-r78-- . Instant reversing motor â€¢ Beige epoxy powder coated finish ~ â€¢ 3 V-belt drive system ~. â€¢ Manual lowering device (PL-LD 486) â€¢ 500 lb. capacity I./lill........BUA*'/I"/Ill./. $ Optional Equipment , PL-LD group is designed for use â€¢ "Call-Send" control switch (key in those applications where a activated) . "Call-Send" control switches with j low-rise lift is needed to serve a f. emergency stop (key activated) : limited number of people. â€¢ Emergency stop on platform control The "LD" (light duty) model 9r*Â«~ I -M IÂ·Â·la. I switch â€¢ Emergency stop and signaling device on group consists of two models -- the 1-1.1:7**al platform control switch PL-LD 48A and 48B with different ~-,-*~ll-;7Da .1 lt:B.tfl â€¢ Emergency stop and signaling device on ar drive and electrical systems. The ~~1Â©fl platform and "Call-Send" control ~ 48A utilizes an Acme Screw Drive i.i'...Â£&.... --I 1 iÂ· -492 1.1 switches System and the 488 incorporates â€¢ 42" top landing gate â€¢ 42" platform gate r a Ball Screw Drive -- two systems â€¢ Fascia 1~ 1 â€¢ Special color paknt to match your drive system 1â€¢~ i.3 0 Grab rail preference and budget. Both have - â€¢ "Over-the-Step" bridge a maximum lifting height of 48 6, 1 â€¢ Manual lowering device (PL-LD 48A) â€¢ Wiring and electric door lock inches, and meet the requirements .. i ' -â€¢9??7%'-T *,i ' defined by ANSI A17.1 Section 1Â¥14:1,0~ y . ..1 2100. #f~14*iwef'Mir M The LD models are space . efficient and easy to install and ..1 Fill...i...er ..; I maintain. PORCII=I .IFT PL=AO GROUP: our "attendant-operated" vertical platform lifts. The same in design, operation, Major differences are: grab rail on the guard panel as and lifting heights as our popular 1 Unit control on the platform has standard equipment. PL-S Series, these five models are no "up-down" buttons, only an designed to be used as "Attendant emergency stop. Attendant at a Models PL-AO 50,72,96,120, and . Operated" as defined by ANSI remote location operates 144, offer maximum lifting heights A17.1, Section 2000, rule 2000 controls. of 50, 72, 96,120 and 144 inches, .lc, for public buildings. 2. A vertical fascia, top landing respectively. 1 and platform gates are provided along with "Call-Send" controls at lower level and a 7*f e 9 1.72+61 , EXHIBIT C Detailed 0 ' Site Plan 1- 0/59 * 1%/7,/,21* 4 - L... Vt> 10=5; A ERÂ¢Ee-T,44 25> F FeAM klÂ¢* _Sp ~5 e C -4-10 . I. . 1.11-2.lin -1 - fT.\ _ :Ir-Â· f-Â·j-~i i )-1 It- 2 , t~ ..A.. 0 :. .C 13?-21 -32-kIL: 7.- f.--- Â£ .,1 - 1 V. / ir- yk f 19~ri, .,-L -1 1.1 6 77 i. -r. ' ' .1 1 i C 3 1 ' - ' t. , 7 5 ~ 1 1 j. r. A , 1 1, f . A 14 +. 7...1. 1 - -1 i 71,1,4 i - .- il. 94. 1 7-41 ., =1 1 1 - . .. k -IGr.1 f JT f jf 7.44~ 3.1211.43 4.-i _.. 1.~./ 7 7- C, - - 4.-Woes. h L - 1 /9 tr. : ~ -- - FAMp . - 1 T w r. , LIFT ),4 L - --- -~ill 6.1 6*I- 1241"U - - 0 , ----312 7 ,#r. i r * 1.4. Z . -0 - P-- 1 p. 0624' V.*91$.*W 9.7Â« Ir,.:,#rk.â€¢ 1 T Ze *EN#Ok'ap 1 ff - 1) A- *Ad--f'bate f, 4 9. R,=L . 1.A.-Â·t~~1.4 1 + ipt f ;.e 44 2. 0/Ch .1 0Â£1-7 f I . / - EXHIBIT C -1 V,i.-Aft; (. 1+B#4#.Ae A 4,7 2 1197 ' 7 Specific ./r- %Â·>Â·.t. 9 3.Â· - Elli Site Pl L Z Z-r r,30 4.ONT *150% f.,7%/,:,E= 1 - 4 -,1 Ir"*Ei@â€¢ * 77 .,6 A ReE-enaq 25 Fi F:Avlk]6? -*SEE: 133Â·46-3 414-em *dlal . 4 -- : r :tb 14;-2/grk- 1 6 -*10 1-lyâ„¢8 >/ 0-2 21 1 -MAE-04 (44 10 ICS>' i n frovemmt - -# 1 1 1 , /"f-93/ \ 4 1 1 .-r- - -<roo-,42 j'Â·. / Frrid-1 W COUN-EV 42~U 12-1-Nouâ‚¬,Ea . - -L- Cl)/ 1 : 1,1, -- --* 1%44. 404+49* 1 V..4. 1.:fill..\4-.OIL 1 T'' ' . '111,21- 1 Ii- - 0. I. 1331& ./ .,6}46 ~..3 1,/ . 1,1 - 1 : i ! [ ~ ~ P 1:\Il f \1 3.---- ---... ..f:" 44*... '1 1. ; 1 9 . -, '.1, - - '111 - . -.------ - I.,~ 46 14 7 16, I . 0 ..=je't'-f;C@44Â¢f#-Ft:*pe 1 -... 1. 0 .. 1 1 1 mADVE Z,515Â¢:>TEP+ 1 i OC; 5494 A-ACE 1 Cfc:N ; kJAW guerÂ¢ s;ilmrte- i FetÂ«142 4 â‚¬fT':;ru g /6"Â·1 Akt Â¢7 ge i.,SUrÂ·rt Â»-eet 61-IY I E,Jai Nee,2* -ro rd oelu w G.T COED.1 62 1 CleÂ«1 htbi Pitia*TE ABTE -723 CSA.6 MeTTEâ‚¬ eUrUS(]fE firrf# er 44, : 3.-, 7 - e.-0 44 - t *13 02>'OP'*1:-7, 5 -37*CL--1.2 . r.>.\ 1 1 1 1 D :I e.â‚¬ p Â·--' ..:li/7 . r.w .. 1 * - '~exp,libILE *eke 12:41 1 1 'tlf *32/ Pif-4*I -FÂ«-4 c ~,e~620?~~~hj~ 1 1 3, ./' .2 Al Â¥Â«r 17 %*MAIKI \ , - +,11 ft $4,5 A-Â· ..2 ftiax-lia& 7 46." W 14 4. 1 1.-4-6/ r -- . X .Â· ~ prfes, 1 '23': 349' Â·4..Â¥ 3. Lit/.130 49*Std'*;* ~ 4 , * - 1. r . b.$ .. . 4, y.fâ€¢f I. . r 1401'19Â·' hetâ‚¬Me UÂ¢AIdG - ' 1 1 Ph>/E011 , VELFV Â»/ 1-Al 1 Cry FLAN )3114&â€¢arMIC#, / ' l-494-TÂ¥;Ne oFKIEW?AN-rk:QUe d[*12/ET LI,%*T-* ANC> N*Â»9â€¢4Â£9 Â»/1464 ip /7 1 ./. 1 > / . hlyÂ·r N <:~=r.Pricâ€¢Â£=r \ , listÂ»/iE Â¢â€¢Â»044'L- A.kk) 0Â»464#Â£ 4 ~1-2 + get - --- BEEMA'e C CZÂ¢*6â€¢&â€¢PR-4 + Ana:NTE le...E,U #11221 10 4544%&t -3'l \ ' I. - 1 1 .. -- .-r . . ' ' , 1-, lr o '. ., .. . .. 1 . , Â¢ ' . . r ./... f: i ,rt~141-r' --~' '- -** -- 94*74 0 ' 4,riÂ¢â‚¬6.- 12 4 4 -Â· â€ž34.2 X 4 4204 ' . f , 9 / 44\%~gâ€¢10/& .. .644 . -' --0 9-:=-74 '/ :r 7 81*. . 2 . ~AL,~| , I [' I 5 -1 c r -1 i 779 :.4..,0252. b.< : JG \ fi: Â· g K 0<733 , :1Â·335 ri.q..72 h - 0......Fr. -- 1 30 - --,---- 5 8 p ( 4) 11'YJ,In,Ir ncir'. 'IVE SYSTI- M I 1684 SPECH ICATIONS _ 1 0 lili UNOR: 1/3 11 P. 1725 R.P.U. 120 V.A.C. GO HZ. 7A INSTANT REVERSING - O/2 H.P. OPT-IONAL) I MODEL MAX. LIFT HEIGI IT UNI 1 HEIGHT 1 1/ 1 ., 1 11 DRIVE: OALL BEARING NUT AND SCREW ~ TG84 84" 116 1/4 Â£ 11 , 11Ul-TI V- OELTS AND p U urrs | 1 L u ANUAL i O WE RBIC 1 1 11 DEMCE ACCESS 1 1 LEFT HAND UNIT SHOWN 1 11 11 SAFETY DEVICES: 50 - 11 1 UPPER & LOWER UMIT SWITCHES 14 1 ANAL Uk(IT SMTCH I ELECTRO--MECHANICAL BRAKE 11 2| 21 V. A.C. CONmOLS GROUNDED SYSTEM BALL SCREW SAFETY DEVICE LE -2 22 - - - - -Â·11 6 KEY LOCK ON CONTROLS NON-SUP SURFACE ON PLATFORM AND RAMP - ' Â· ~1 BALL SCREW -ANTI-HHIP UECHANISM ON AO-120 & AO-144 PLATFORM SAFETY PAN EMERGENCY-STOP ON UN[T CONTROL 48 PLATFOR M - 1 1 4 ALARM SYSTEM (OPTIONAL) 1 53- GATE MECPANICAL LOCKS w/ELECTRICAL CONTACT MEW SHOWN WTH PLATFORM IN ~ 2 FULL HEIGHT. SUOOTH Â· METAL FASCM ON TOP UU,DINC SIDE A PARTIALLY RAISED POSITION. rn3 1 0'.,4 SAFETY FACTOR OF 7.5 TIMES RATED LOAD FOR 500 LB. CAPAOTY UNIT 5.0 TNES RATED LOAD FOR 750 LB. CAPACTY UNIT -1 lou /-6 \ ~q- RE).IOVABLE FULL HEIGHT FRONT PANEl 1 1 FEATURES: I * . PROVIDES ACCESS TO RE DRIVE u CCHANIC.1.4 500 LB. CAPACITY STD. 1 (750 LB. CAPACTY OPnONAL) 42 5 10 FPM RATED SPEED \. flXED ACCESS RAMP AT LOWER LANDING LANDING i MANUAL LOWERING DEVICE STD. GATE UNIT CONTROL HAS UP/DOWN CONSTANT PRESSURE Â· CONSTANT PRESSURE --,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ BUTTONS & EMERCEACY STOP BUTTON COfÂ·ITROL 96:TCHES ~ REMOTE CALL/SEND STAnONS (Of'nONAL) EMERGENCY STOP - 2 x 2 x 1/4 STEEL TUBE CONSTRUCTION ~ ~ CALVANtZED SHEET METAL PANELS OTHER OPTIONS AVAILABLE ~~~ ~ ~ ~ 1 - CONSULT FACTORL f11 I 1 le 01 116 - | Ad || r 4 --1 HM In 01 1 ff= 0 1 1 ~111 1 'Â§3*ig*' 1 Lin 54 0 . ~ ~ ~ 1122,4(XEN*3'41 1 !' 11 1 84 MAX 11 - 1 HEIGHT 45 1 / 0 . - 31 1 l- <~ I'll'llin ===35 ill 1 1 INSTALLER TO PROVIDE 14 CA- CONDUCTORS - 3 11 lilli 1 1 //11 -- 3'9 -ul 54 1/4 1 FOR POWER AND 18. CA. CONDUCTORS FOR -1 11-1- 11 lilli 2.3 | /8 F- 2:V%~ -lf 11 FIXED 7 REMOTE C ON 1 R OL STATIONS, ALARM BELL, AND CELL I bl= 4 7 4 9/ 1 ,\37 I " 111 1 f- 3 Ilti' 1 , ____20__ 2-64-2 -- LANDING GA1 E TO MEET LOCAL CODES. I 4 ~- OUTER GATE WIDIM - 53 1 TYPICAL PIT DIMENSIONS 40 2 tioni y Ocip AT , 10 =ICS: 3 50 - 4 - CONSTRUCT]ON: Y/ELDED AND/OR BOLTED PANELS AND DCALIR: (VILLQIÂ·(LE FRAMES OF .040 Or< HEAVI[-R STEEL ',7 1 UNJUFACTURER: 1111LRIIAL WIRING: ALI. El.C.CIT<ICAL. CO>/.PONENIL /Â·P.E U.L USTED AMERICAN STAIR-GLIDE CORP 7'084 PORCI/- LIFT Toi.Er<NICES- 1 1/32- LEVELInG TOL. 1 1/2 1001 EAST 130!h STINÂ·IT WHEEI C}IAIR LIFT PAINT: COOK f-LA1 -IAN DAKING ENAM[-1 8.11 -11-',77 Â£,1, / _/ I. U- I# GRAWDVIEW, MO 01030 (u,ill.5-1 Onit.HME.( 94.C041}) U ~Ii[R I CA N S 1 A I R - CL I OC Cadul,( 710â€¢, PRI).<Efe 511[ R. V,1.15. 111[)t;Una/Â·.1 WAÂ·J{ PRD.1{ 1Â¢ f '4'73 7 ./ MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Pre-application: 442 W. Bleeker St., Pioneer Park Date: December 12, 1990 SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking to initiate a dialogue with the HPC regarding the new development at Pioneer Park. An addition is proposed to the rear of the National Register structure on Lot 1, and a single-family residential structure with accessory dwelling unit is proposed for Lot 2. Please note that a site visit has been scheduled for 4:00. prior to the meeting. Please plan to meet on site, at the main house, for a complete tour inside and out. Please bring your packet to that site visit. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC study the pre-application information, and allow the applicant to present their ideas on the development/preservation of both parcels. No formal action shall be taken at this meeting, which is scheduled only for the benefit of information gathering and a general overview of the proposal for future review. memo.hpc.442wb.pre < titial - ille KAPLAN CO-MPANY December 3, 1990 Roxanne Eflin, Historic Planner Aspen City Planning Department 130 So. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Pre-Application Meeting with HPC Pioneer Park Subdivision, Lot 1 & Lot 2 Dear Roxanne: Thank you for arranging the December 12th pre-application meeting between the HPC, Sutherland/Fallin and myself to convene at 4:00 at 442 W. Bleeker Street and to continue, after a field review, at City Hall. In that we intend to submit concurrent applications to the HPC -- one for the renovation/preservation of the existing structures on Lot 1 and another for the new, single-family residence on Lot 2 -- this pre-application is an opportunity for us to present the direction we are taking on each project and how they interrelate. We have endeavored to research the history of exterior alterations on Lot 1 in order to help determine what has been changed. This information, along with an ownership history, is nearly completed and will hopefully be ready to share with the HPC by December 12th. As you can see by the drawings accompanying this application, the proposed renovation attempts to restore the prominence of the existing buildings within the context of guidelines set forth for renovating historic structures by the Secretary of the Interior. We have also attempted to feature the existing Main House as the dominant element of the streetscape. Existing natural conditions of the Lot 1 and Lot 2 properties themselves help to facilitate this. Both the profusion of mature blue spruce at the intersection of Bleeker and Third Streets and the tall cottonwoods bordering the property form a natural buffer for the new residence. Perhaps more important is the 5 foot lower grade west to east between the Main House on Lot 1 and the new residence on Lot 2, and the 2 foot lower grade north to south between the rear and front of Lot 2. The actual high point of the new residence is actually lower than the historic mansard room of the Main House. 1060 Sailors Recf Â· Fort Collins, Color,do 80525 â€¢ 303/226-6819 Aspen: 920-4048 Roxanne Eflin December 3,1990 Page 2 In an effort to even further highlight the existing Main House, the new residence has been designed to orient toward the Bleeker/Third Street intersection, so that the historic structure remains the only house addressing Bleeker Street. The entryway to the new house is onto itself, not competing with the Main House. Additionally, the new structure on Lot 2 has been set back from Bleeker Street 4 feet beyond the Main House on Lot 1, and its west sideyard is effectively 28 feet where the minimum is 15 feet. To assist the HPC in understanding and commenting on the direction we are taking with both projects, the following information accompanies our pre-application: 1. Site plan for Lot 1 and Lot 2 showing building placements. 2. A "Preliminary Statement of Problems, Objectives and Implementation Elements for Lot 1." 3. Existing elevations for the Lot 1 Main House, Carriage House and Addition. Elevations of proposed changes. 4. Schematic interior floor plans (three levels) for renovations to the Main House. 5. A streetscape elevation of the new residence, comparing its height - to the existing Main House. I would appreciate your forwarding this transmittal letter on to the HPC along with copies of the above-mentioned attachments. We will have more detailed elevations of the Lot 2 residence for the December 12th meeting. I look forward to your comments and any additional guidance you might have prior to this pre-application meeting. Very truly yours, K ,/5,(-<3 741(.Yt-_-Â·,~ j Lester M. KaplaW Enclosures HPC PRE-APPLICATION "PIONEER PARK": Preliminary Statement of Problems, Objectives and Implementation Elements for Lot 1 (Existing Structures) 1. Problems Associated with Existing Structure A. Obsolete Floor Plan -- Floor plan contains extensive, dysfunctional design elements resulting from an indeterminable number of remodeling attempts over the last 50 years. Existing conditions include poor room arrangement, absence of essential spaces (i.e. dining room, family room), inadequate room sizes, antiquated bathrooms, and etc. B. Deficient Site Design -- Includes portion of living area for Main House (office and guest room) in detached structure, and remote garage located across the alley from Main House. C. Deterioration -- Sign of structural weakening in foundation to Main House and Carriage House. Decaying electrical, heating and plumbing systems. Vandalism and deferred maintenance to wrought iron fence. All major exterior elements in need of repair, including windows and casements, roof, brick, shingles, trim and wood fencing. D. Inappropriate Exterior Alterations -- Additions to rear of Main House inadequately sized and undermine historic character. Window, doorway and roof line changes to front facade of Carriage House and Addition have created false sense of original design. 11. Renovation/Preservation Obiectives A. To preserve and, in certain respects, to enhance the historic value of the property, both to subsequent owners and the Aspen community. B. To restore the historic use of the property as a prominent and vital residential anchor in the West End. The historic character of the property shall be retained and preserved by returning its historic potential as a cultural, political and social gathering place incidental to its residential use. C. To upgrade the aesthetic appearance and historic value of the property as an historic landmark and focal point in the West End. D. To accomplish such necessary repairs to the Main House, Carriage House and Addition and to introduce such required living spaces and modern amenities so as to help insure another 100 years of active, residential use for this property. HPC Pre-Application "Pioneer Park Page 2 111. Implementation Elements All modifications to existing buildings on the property and to the site design can be accomplished within the present F.A. R. and non-conformities on the property. Alterations to the exterior building design will occur only under one or more of the following criteria: 1) corrective of an improper and historically insignificant previous alteration, 2) required to correct deterioration or to promote physical life and 3) absolutely necessary in order to introduce the required living spaces and amenities to the property. The major exterior design alterations are as follows: A. Eliminating the wood frame three car garage on the north side of the alley and remodeling the Addition to the Carriage House (once used as stables) into a three car garage. The existing F.A. R. in this Addition, consisting of an office and guest room, once converted to garage use, would then be utilized as part of the Main House renovation. Remodeling the Addition includes extending its south wall approximately 4 feet forward, introducing three garage door openings to the rear -- three existing openings are eliminated by the removal of the existing garage -- and connecting the new garage to a re-configured and enlarged addition to the rear of the Main House. A second window is being added to the north facing second level of the Carriage House. B. Otherwise restoring the historic detailing to the front the the carriage House Addition. This includes replacing certain windows, doors and roof decorations. C. Removing the existing bedroom, kitchen and stair well exterior additions completed in the early 1960's and re-configuring a new, one story addition. Walk-out deck elements from the second floor to be atop portions of this one story addition. The exterior wooden stairs from the living room to the east yard patio is being replaced with a wider stairway. D. Excavating a full basement within new footprint of Main House. Adding basement windows along base of Main House for light, ventilation and escape. No physical changes to the exterior of the existing buildings are intended for the purpose of promoting design preference, creating a false sense of historic development, or introducing a distortion between what it old and what has been added. S DEC - - U JU A In.Â·i.r. 4 me KAPLAN COMPANY December 1, 1990 Mrs. Walter P. Paepcke 999 Lakeshore Drive . Chicago, Illinois 60611 Â·, Dear Mrs. Paepcke: I am writing you at the suggestion of Mr. and Mrs. Fritz Benedict who were kind enough to give me your address. Recently, I entered into an agreement with the Weaver family of Aspen to purchase the "Pioneer Park" property, where I understand Mr. Paepcke and yourself lived from approximately 1945 to 1964. I intend to remodel the main house and carriage house, hopefully in a manner which preserves its history and restores its promi- nence in the West End. I am currently researching the various remodelings of the property. In that Aspen Building Department records do not begin until the mid 75's, your recollections are indispensible to my efforts at historic accuracy. The Aspen Historical Society has several old photos of the main house which are somewhat helpful, and has en- couraged me to contact you for additional information. Of course I will return to you any photos that you might share with me, and any information you might have on physical changes would be most valuable. Specific questions I have of you are the following: 1. When was the brick addition on the East side cf the house which widened the living room done? 2. Is the structure currently connected to the carriage house, between the carriage house and main house, an original part of the carriage house, or was it added and when? 3. Was there ever any roof ornamentation on the main house, such as a cupola or roof cresting? Any other ornamentation on the main house which you know was removed? 4. Any information you have on exterior changes from the original structures built by Mr. Webber. 1060 5.zilors Re# â€¢ Fort Collms, Color,de 80525 â€¢ 303/226-68 19 Mrs. Walter P. Paepcke December 1, 1990 ' Page 2 If you would be good enough to telephone me in Aspen collect, write me a brief note, or even communicate with me through the Benedicts -- whatever is the easiest for you -- I would be most appreciative. My Aspen phone number and address are: Lester M. Kaplan 201 Midland Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: (303) 920-4048 j Thank you in advance for your interekt and cooperation in the renovation of the structures on "Pioneer Park". Very truly yours, J I /' h L.. 'Â»L<Â© / lc.~rs>~'t_s-~- Lester M. Kaplan ec: Mr. & Mrs. Fritz Benedict 21 3 ; , : ~1 1 .-1- 4 -,0 1.Â· 3 1 ; 4 3 -3 I S 4 + 44.-10.11,â€¢14 474324*3 * 6 4~elwâ„¢ '7 V- ". V 2. 163Â®' :B,. 9 0Â· 39*9,EUBM,~i,~~d L r. ~ - F.... '' 0 - C . .Nkâ€¢deÂ· ~.Â·--Â·..Â·,Â·Â· Â· Â·Â·Â· Â·Â·Â· l.-4Â· - .,- Â· -, . . , . c -* . *AL'it'Tek*,Mij:,81#*<". f i i :. j j Â·,i ~ *': 4., ,-1: #h-&444iLi#- 1 1.: t I 1 1 : 1 c. .:.1 2 3 1 LL '1 j '? ~ ,. .. i / 1 -' 1 i 1 4 1 2. J , 1 L . >fta--1.- - 1/2,1 # , '4 ,-, tr p -Â·- .47 '~-Â· 4-4 -Â·- <--.w. 3-- :Um T . ... , % I.2/.pl rÂ·â€¢ ...c.~% V..4., 1 . 1, 1, L. .../ 1 U $: :1 #? I : . , **Â· .A*.' 1 9, 9 I ... -<43' 446 rlÂ¥-43-~. 2-. fe'Â·.Uil. Â·:Â»*:il -3.~Tk:;41Â«~-,~ f-*mijm 117 -?.-' ZE .1,9-- .!39Â·â‚¬*x*~*Dri: - . 4.... ..... r. A. I .i-.0 -.t-tj:.1.-Â·-0.r.Â·~ai.-c.F' ryÂ·-934: M t' .2.43Â·'33 Rdilty. 4 17'~ElÂ»-6-22.-.63.6 r~ 33Â»J.L.1 -9.1, . flÂ·*90Â«6rtÂ· 33-2.'.'.~~,, A -- .#Â· ri:*Â·rÂ·- -" '94..' ' . -;U-Â·â€¢, 4*4 J.$Â·AZÂ·* ...r. ' f ....,i ,,- ... 1 - ...... 9. I. 41 6" W â€ž- -972 - : 4...2_61'.15.6-.-22 -,s, . ..Istrl/.1 1 38**5.-. u-27. P.'.- t.t r ..303..Ii-i:% .:432----P,4.-fekÂ·3-1 ~1Â·Â·' 915*gr-- , 1.-- 1 -1 ,- - -M,tor.--e, ' :U'.F ,7 .- :4.-295.-t f.,.....:- :k-Â·'-:41 -1.-- i . F F... ~:Z t-- . Â»XZ~ - -- - .:41Â·?Â·.Â·:dh '.Â· ..... Â·. 1:390Â·721..[372 9:D-:tf/*iq#*in.-ful-1.-2 i. 7,14 it?~'Â¥Â·f:-4-f.-22 ~-i-, - =2Â·-f- I::7:--4.2Â¢'1*421112 - . ., t. r.. 5{~11.Lfier 41[089'f rlil; 1- 12.4.F...rfl.01 ,:%- 4-- :en Â· Â·Â·*0.-i: 0-97&. ve:it#Z:U... ?,4-1-01.:.:r.'-- - V. . . ' 09 1 1 .. 1- 1,/ 4- Â· Â·Â·/'AL'/'447Â· - - L : T. i ./ 1 - i. 962.. 1 'F)*i.*.5;*47.<:44.- 0 #t 2 ...1 .Â·. c Al 11.1 -/6.,,er ,-.1. 11 4 , 4/.r- I. 7 ' ~:}.~ 74..-2[ -94 ..tiÂ·c..?.11 3-/ .40 --trelÂ·*iÂ®-:Â·,--- 4.- 2 4.0 - - r -f' N.:AÂ·Â£-7343 ~.-24.Â·.0:4Â·:'2.1 t,4-tÂ·tÂ·...):i i . --.~ -i 0% i ...1 22..' 1 v s.: . 1.rÂ· k.r.~ % iÂ«â€¢:~. â‚¬ -Â·Â·: . ,ink . . 1 .- 44 . -~: ~ ~ ~-I:w-: *..E: 117*;Â·+R-- r 3wkil~:"e,u ..?...11 11. .,. 1. ES li -llt- 1,1~*:c,er. ~-:%~1Â· 11Â· .-Â·?!_1.3:Â£ .1-4,1 2. i 114 2.:47 -~ -- ..; 2. <24,tt:?0riAL'..;4;i~â€ž~: I;Â·i.~,At-*.,4-4r..1 4~ *Zl .~ 3 W .4 %,.-~ .~.h - . -:....i 1~1~~11~~-i .~-1]~1.,F~ 7.Il 0.~}-i~{tr~ift~ 4- 1*w ILL: Â· 6 kl ' 44..2. 111'J ... . 9'..:;â‚¬.17. . :.. M:'>.'..Â·2~0 49/REFJMP, : 94Â»Â¥:t~ ~, -M ..':.*' .2Â§. 1 ... -r :p_Â· ' ty t..ver.,....=. I tÂ· A- ./., tiff@jAN-f flf>liÂ·iti-B:)747Â·g-ri ~iA';A.*5.34 ; - 4*jit~Â¥~41Â»-2~:4Â·10:0 -44. I ..84 '41*:45 :*le..~4Â·61.4.4,Â·.6-Â·-Â· . . ' !.9442. 1244*=Ebtri.A;v.t .,t~.,I,t>1 .2i..4.>~2.---1:Ul?i.f,-z:.;-.. 1 1 rt*t7<',,~431.-(Â·:I:F:T lE/1631/.Lil:.jll -*%19,3/41Â·,Â·~65%3%"~ I 4 -. I Â· 441-42 )..4,7,27(.* 4.i: . :1 0,9 7... r *T-'r.* 120 -4 6 Â· 3, .. 1:Â·.r...919.1.-2 ...4 ... . Â«313.-e*. I -'.U , . Â·,4 4 -Â· â€¢Â· 3' â€¢Â· ~Â· - v 1r Â·L 1 . 1Â·Â· , '29:ir -4.11 V 1,3.3. IleN*A'1'52~ Â· ~ g ,-2-..9,~twrr Â· 4.. L .-t -0- 44 *Â·Â·Â·Â» Â·4'4'Â·4â‚¬. ~ .r.#*11 - .Â·ft Â· , '12 6 7 +F--Â· 2. 01* 1 ' 7 i I.4 1. 6..1 ' 22Â« '*3/â€¢A.- 77 . .Â« ..f_(02440Â¥.1 f I 'P. t' 4,/ - 1----t *9Â· f. â€¢ek-'Â·- I r 'X...Â».Â·-tu~ 4 1 Â· 2 el.4 3 272 2.31*:7%'177* -- ,#4.(frÂ· I<%Â·-~-~-'4'4~~~-~ . 1, - r ,-5-- i 4111 L,40. , - ,: - ~,~Â·.i.<.~ ,-Â· Â·--:6?i:x:,t ~-~2'*filf>#8,33*FB - _~.:737 /82&.. 5- :lii -9-1.1.46+1; 4.--~ .I.:.- 1 ~:227-f-2 4 : Â·.6,r..,; * 42Â·,4 4Â·â€¢.18Â£1 - s . Â·.-b- - ::I'Vt ?46 *=,6.; * ~ 2?93/ ~.7,~1 ItC-.3* F '4# g. .. -p,---11 - 2 I. I lit. 2-39.- Â·2673-*- tR***iÂ·Â·: -'1.fiÂ·..I.L .44~ ~ f-Z" 3Â£999:.' - 6 4 , .... /6, 1.1 1.1,-1 33,~ _26:74 4. . - r,49 ..pf ...,0 :r f U'illEarn Hodges, Jr., of Denver. Many other prom- the big ski development project, Johnny Litchfield inerrt names were added to the roster as the years and Percy Rideout, two ex-Dartmouth skiers and passed. IValter Paepcke was initially, however, the 10111 Alountain men, joined Friedl and tile Wil- leading force in the Ski Corporation and the man loughby brothers to take on the work of mountain responsible for obtaining the major chunk of capi- surveys and plans for the lift system and ski runs. tai involved. The Smuggler-Durant Aline gave a lease on 131 The Aspen Skiing Corporation now faced the acres out of the total of 863 acres involved; 18 per formidable job of unravelling the network of pri- cent of the mountain representing Forest Service rate mine holdings, Forest Service land, Pitkin land was leased, and the balance was cleared County interests, and the D.R.C. Brown holdings through the D.R.C. Brown interests and Pitkin that, together, comprised Aspen Mountain. While County holdings. William Hodges, Jr., became the other members of the Corporation set about raising attorney for the Skiing Corporation and handled all needed capital and luring prominent investors to litigation involved in the transaction. 17 ... . . 8 -|..:,4 ,-- Ill . - b A I .... I 9.. ./, t. I . . 11 . , I . . A - -~,1 .... J, Â· " : 4 -4. - ' ./ , , /,I / ..' -- ' 2/0*0~tr.'Z:,1 r. Kia - e- t . -'. /.i ;./.:...R: I : - : 1 6 ..1465 -' . I 4, . .1 . . A- ..4 .Â¥-Il k V. -- --' - r. ... â‚¬L. - / I 42% r ..,4 4 , A. h r. . 3%.e. - I .,Â· 46 r, 1% 1 .1, 1 1.-- - I t ./ - ' - r-Â·~Â·- . Â· '.â€ž-k,t,k- t..Â·t>t \Â·:,Ap 'Â·Â·'3.--> ., 3-iIJ-~-IJ~EF-R-:i~Â£i.il>i.:- 4 . -I K .,4 4 4 4471.â‚¬ I ~,.~~. . D 7.fI~~k'~~~ ~ .r I Â· *46 .,..> . '4>9~'u- ,& r. . 77.J .. *'.. I I . I. . . 1 , I / . 3 6* ....-61' 9%7 52% 1. ~ >C. 0,21% .4Â»:>5' '-. I.A --Â·> - -'~ A , -Jtâ€¢9â€¢ *- : Â· to:.YAD-,-22. ' FP ip f 4*:4Â£ .r.A ... .12=1 ,- ' 4.- +1,-U - -*' --~--- - 9Â¢3:9. zy*?f-Ir.660*-..~:97.1~41Â¤-*4:3XS#:lu'*y ..rJ. 4*,* . 3- , A,-..- * * - .7+Atrr&Â£- -, co.c . z.Â·0'~165'3:Â·~Â·~- 1 - I Â·tyke ty...tr,:,-p~~,idÂ·~~.F -- 3Â·.' 3 <ee 0 *4Â· 161,<~ 1,99221-.'. Â·c'/â€¢,1.2.723'P:.. ... " .. 4:â‚¬ . 9Â· t. ue* 4 - . 4, . r < -f r 1 - -- 32:- - , A... . , . 2...4 1 -6 6--4 4 -rÂ· r.. 0 '0.14 1/ / b.- 2 46&& W & t/14 &_ 1Â·f~ _-u, C:. , Â¥ 2 -. - .A I .... ./. L .7. . --449*4,2 5.1/.3. I. 4, .9 <. .- - t./ . - -- t- P - Al. - . I .. f .7'.4, "Â·4- % r : C..... - i .... 14 -- - .-1 t.-i;1.7.3-2~: LE-4.4-:M *.39;.,27- 14 *1. 1 I. . L 0. M,:Â·~1 .ast'@61'1: --- - , ' ~de,%,4**F'-2V~Lf "37:224Â·.47=412 :..r,JZ:.1.yM..is-- 'Flw -~~~4 4 Â£mt~ I-7 Â·iz .:2111~-,~gÂ®.Â¢,gÂ£-0-Â·"m -Ff' b' (*1 4 'tpl- 9 &9 -* â€¢â€¢304*6Â«~iqiÂ£%Â·~;6*1 *uÂ·~-Â·~Pu-Â·pf.. .At. ,. ... ..i.... I. ..Â·Â· .All:.4- Ir .f'.'>ft)~~ tir-*ld,LVS_Â·UTift-B~~-11Yjfa~-+412/043 --- -., .ti~ 2'Â·GÂ»+th.t.03,2,wc--'.2 1,2 ~'49:r'*1,215â€¢1&'-3 râ€¢ 5-INDJrl' 11Â£61-1~0â‚¬1-2.14:,7.----- 'Â·Â· I .. Â¥ r ' 1,â€ž 1 ; 2 132 /Â£ -2 1'02 =l, % It E= 1302/9 - - .0 Â· = 07~' = . 6 - 5. ra :---\ 0, V 03,Ag . - 241 A --= .6 kiâ‚¬g , 1 727 COM IiÂ¥ 7 FE - ........ 1441 -3 4 Ell i ' -:c..r- Cl. ,-: t:I L *'- 1 , L--r bl>.3 4 MLIMI-* 11 i "10<139 -Â£.7- I 1*.4 :flit 4.0 g 7 -:22*~ Ti M&51-7- f . . 4 2 4- . 3 . 1/ r ... ' 4 - 4 ---- 4 24-7-7 -7+a= 1 4 8 -4 1.':i~ --.-1 71 g . .. ---1 .. 1... 1 . 1' 72 On the mountain, Frank Willoughby surveyed new lift when he described tile beginning of As- the lifâ‚¬ line and his brother Fred, with his big bull- pen's skiing: dozer from his Midnight Aline, hacked out tile old mine roads, opening them up to transport the tim- We opened up in the middle of December of 1946. bers and tower equipment for the lifts. These old At the ski school that first year there were four of us switchback roads that wind bÂ·acl< and forth up the including me; we grossed $3,000. IVe didn't have anv Ivil_ trails except the koch Run. Spar Gulch was skiable, mountain came to be called "Avenue de ,, but birch-. And we had no snow and the lift didn't loughby" as an affectionate tribute to the hard drirÂ·- w.ork half the tinic. The lipper lift IiÂ·is niore or less a ing. altruistic Willoughby brothers. The timbers of borne-niade job, an old mine tram, and it was alwavs the second lift that replaced the old boat tow came breaking down and the chairs jumping off the cabld- awful. The onlv restaurant in town, then, was an from the Park Tunnel mine tram, and to say this old s aloon called Gallagher's that is now the Red ne,v lift was a jur)--rigged contraption is not over- Onion. The Jeronie was the only hotel. It looked verv stating the case. Friedl Pfeifer touched upon the discouraging that first four or five years. Peopfe cS,1,41 .;;;*--JURJ{fi~--7.3.-TI.~7*79,23,7; Jl '.f r , . 4.- 1. f 'm"# AY,42/6 C. .. 30148*:i'~:<1 i:;Ri, Ay./1 46~3'1#0%- .'m,1 "1614# '* 10 , \ 16*Ed -4.*..... it /0, * f ?fd /4- 1,2 2,% &4164#6%,1 HA' 4.-4. I. - 9 <42#p . ' 1,=. , 0 1 ,~.--4 - -/.$-r'/ 12(4}/Fl - 6,/4.,0, ~e~ . . rt, 1, '.*f-5.Â· --4r4lk, , r ...... J ~'Â«~.j'ijÂ¢+Nt. Â¥*74 -7 .1 f f 51Â¥A ?k~'444/ 014 13 3 3 - *3_-1-3- f.121~,47=g=*r *Â· = > A1 11*398242~ly1 Â· -~4Dtk~%~4Â¥1*.- ~.~~ I,~,i4&~ -u,:'Â· 2*t=NEFI 2931-4~tS*FAAE#*4. f Â¢*17 -- .2%-419~71[2.3.~:Â· *. -6 i;Â·t~.~Â«Â«-+- --1.- .--tplt, . UA. _14*4*04* q:1::44 -P_ye,-f;f, : 19*PL,~~?TeffilAM':~~2 LL .46&'Spi, . I L 1*f-lu;~116'k. t- 7731/-1?13*-f 6 *"Me :44.*Cru li, F{14*1 p* =-:.*7Â¥KT i>li j :. 1 1.*ft, ify,mr .~11. f'ffm ~ -I- 4- 7.-11.5-2 8 4- . 1i"D'tlf~$â€¢i 9. . tat ii â€¢~ 7-1----~i ~-~ LLN~ 444'i ' : 2~T(7 1*41Â®11 g. Â· it likzc.:Â·f:'li Il~~RN#:t- 9 2442 \1Â¢41?62,-;L-/Irt- 84 -.-I. 41.--L:- 7.3.-1112 3 1 '' r 0 ~ t=,0---~~#LF&,1Â¢ 7â‚¬-3 .FÂ·Â·-2-*:.m-<3! i.. ti: *;.2 m.-nia,tit .i.- l.f W *1- iii r I i ruetr. 2 ..11*463_ i:.9., <E-'~ph/4zÂ·:4"*, P-Â·n 1 + ill:jt It~trat]. Ft . j..1- # 0 It ,Â£.tr i: 4,1,42RP 4 + ., Â£ r.1 1-'*.milwk ....4 F 1 , 1 1 .1...J t.i ..4.- 4 ~ - 1-t -T] 1 :LI~1~1.4~-4.... .. ''11Â¢i,1, lill:1 + - 12 7 3 W-- ..I--- -i...Il. -lill- -*--~ REMOVE Ext 61-INA | a ARAB El L-- 0 -- Â· 3 - ALLE-Y 1404 .132 An. 1 Â¥ A , IfÂ·, -- -- f r NEW ADDITION C 'j 0 0 47099.*41 0 4. V 9*muly'f- -- -- ---- 1 I 1/1 11/1,1 jill, st 0 9 1 1 1 -A,/ # IC Â«1111; jillil/ll//ljj/tjljilOr- i iÂ»4<10%4%3~ -4Â»~~'~ ~~ 12 _a,aÂ£go 50 ~-- . ~RELGZATED Â¤ 3 O' 0 0 ~ Had RES;113ENCE_ - PIONEER 1 1 Ill - -' 1/jil//T//Imufflfl-itjt// * 14 z E _ _ FARK L_ 0 o O '- 12,><1 5-rl Na FDUL ' 1 i it- & f 04 1 \ . 0 1 - -*-.-.- ~Ulltll/lifiliti l- 0 01 I o o r -7- 'I 1- r.r" - ./ 1 . - r - 1 .. 14 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 - I . 000 00000 r. . . d . 1. " I 1 --- . e 11 4 1 -- I .4 190204' 119(0.925' Â©LEEKER --- 51[:98 13-r - -- -- , - 'Uk 51 -TE_ PLANI (31 i = ,255> I - CE>" CF 1 0 0% 7.- . n -- j - 7% Fy f---- ~ff ~ LS ----~- ~~1 f Â· ~~ 22\ -- 1 i 3 I \\\ 1 - 4 1 1 b il \ A -- - 1. 1==3J il~-Â»0-3- -- 4 41- 1--- M.h-...tj j. .Â«, 4 Lt 1 11-17 E , 1 ' lf--7 ~11 ~i 1 -7 -1 '1 ' 1 IJ f -f-- b k-1 Fl k fâ‚¬Â»1 77 . R f d R t__r- u "- 1 ~1 9 -] 1 1 1 l 4 4 2~ ~ ~ F ~ ~4 - 4 - - 9" 212Lzy Pc__~~ 1- 1 1 - i -- 1â‚¬22Â»t -1 --- 7--- T --7 -- -- 7 --==11 <' - J,lilli _.=. .Zibl:t L ~ 2 |Lrt-=: - -74- 5- - i la= 11 1-_ 1 f.--1-1- -1. i + E-nipor-E+i--:9~-7-----*11Â»--6' Â« -_- -- -_- -In - irÂ©..# -r- E- 1 * 4 - -d T 01-- 2- UfFÂ«-2 !_031=_--3__2-_27< fl f -. --- . 11=-- - ---!1 414 #'! --, -- A '- 1-1- , L W 1 111 1 - i (- 3 . L L-.1 --' r--7 En==1 P -1 1 - - - EO_ITrÂ·J (1=:Ck=74Â«.-) Z-ZVAT,~Phi - -K Â·-1 It=Ff F 1 % u \A l= -1 \1\ .4 El 3 r- 1 ==- Fli -1 - E--\\ ---1 -- 1- ---- TV==:===i- - 9111 /0 - - -- --~- -~E 52541Â«f fUÂ»344 0 --1 -1 -0- - - i. Â·1 8 0 H C L . . Â·-- - 7 -' 1 0-- \\ r - % rt=trl-- LÂ» 1.-7~11=r Tkr=--4 l--- - 7- ./- -1 Lâ€ž .., -r, --,- Â·Â·~---- n _ (1 - Â· -- fl C b gy k 1- -- -- Â·4 - 1 t-~= 2' - . "L - . 1- -- 1 '7 - - 1 - fi, - I f-1- 1 1 1 A- 1 - 1 -- 1 7 1 1- 1 Iii 1-1 -1 ~ i' LI F 11 1 -r.*u. .:_ - 11 iii I ----â€ž _Ta-I . t i 21# -- 1 --1 - - - - - f~1 - i-_ - ---- --- --- ~ o T --- = D./4- 4571 -- . 0 9 pEF I '--N - f.-L ----,3 - I - ---- - i -U Â¢ 5--2 1 1, -- - --- 2--- F Uni -- - -- - - - _ -1 -_._- 'r '1 I- --. -7 71- 8 8 N N K --- -1 -- - 7/ f IN- F 7- Ze- EE--2 -1 t.__ It & - 11_____ - 11 _-_2- _11~f - _ 1 3 -- --- ~~~F_ _7 7-- - - -- -- t -- m- 11 1 , 3 L . - 1 f--1/ U-- ..1 .--Ifty -- - NOFER (fEAÂ© ELEVA-LON S,LA-5 S '4.-Â·~â€¢Ite. . --, <-Â«Â« a~<OJ , 1___. 7 127-0 7 ~it==pi 14/.-itu - 1 1-161 - f ~~ t i-li - - - 1 -1 11 il - ill - 1- r :Â«ju _31IX-r - - . 4 8 1 A , ... 1.. Mtf C .1 - 4 r 1 r. r. E _ ----- 1/2-i-- 111 p - 2 - I - a rf & 11 Q Ii--d li C n M MIr 1---- ____ - - i i --- j E-==- il 1 -- 724 -. 3 j fir_ 111 _27 4 - L- T N /77-VE---=FrÂ» . _Â·_ 1 == -- li,fl---- _ it- .. ... 0 -1 1 -1 -1 1- . - - --- - ~| I --(1 5 - I I I ---1' ' ~ 1-_ I - 20 1 L ---- - - t33351-7 t - ----~ --~ - - -=m-] --- 9 1~1 , -9 -- A Eâ‚¬,7 1 _ f..14 A1-- CO'xl 3,-Â». E - 32 4 F==--Lfit r=f 1 1 i r ~00-4/ -== - Fof=31, i - ~' ~ -===- 11/ 1 1 11 It a 1 6 \1 -- 2_g - \ i- t , 1 1- 11 -; tfL e tful-fl_ _ -_tiou too- -- -\: / it>==tlj 111--11 - -- al 0 - - S E- - 3 '1 - _f-M NE- 111 -ti t}- -1- -- - -f =fJ~Z-1 ' E//.1.-.b:-tr~221~~~"-= 6 - - 1 - ~- - I , 1-- J. ~.7-1 -141 It -~ -4 /4 / / 11 --====1 -1 _~ J ~ 1 1 U ~ - - --< i -- H " 1 :1 4 4| 4 ' 1 I i 1 9 ~ r~ .0 - - ------ -- - 39~232Â»_-r-Â·cEIVT=--r-Â«21- 1-ilj~~.Â·_ c- 1 11-- --1 5- l-r-- 4 6 --. ==1 # -1 1-1. --- ~ ~~ -te 4 4 11 4 -.* T-- 1 11 1 11-1 4 - - - 11 + ; i . L P ===r L-J 4 i 1: 1 -1 11 11 1-E 1 - 1 1 +-1 5 1 P. i 1 1 12_. 1 . 14=--mi 4P====4- tr- -.-1---*-----1--.Ii 90_IT,-1 (F Roh . ) L-.- . r-7, i oK! CREVWN-Â£7 ) - F =VAJ - J 7.~ =elÂ«> - - - 1/277-,* \1 lf: L \\\ 1 3- ji Â°1_0Â»17=11-1 --ig - 6-flitâ‚¬Â» --=ET - - -1 -=7[fil- -2 Â· 't L h f ~5â‚¬"-- ,-,n , -.- - --- - tra==-Â»- r .-I U -- U b. -1----1 Li c d id ---~ - - I - 02-IxJV-*wfc--- - .. / - 1-' ) /\ ,----.-*3. ._ ti -Â·- _il ft=-F -1- -=10=33=7= 1-Foll- -4 4i---ille Â£ -0 1-21{~ 1~- -[f-~1 j f- atiÂ« 7 1 -----1 r--3 11 --,-, i' 111 1 Â£ E 11 - - 1.1 J 11 9 4 - ~ 4 L h ~0-- i *f=- 1- 1 'r------i, 'F- i VE--1 (I 1 A -1 i--Il h- 2 2 1 --- :Ii ~D' 12 1 -- -- -- - ,-T - -7 r -1 :$ 1 111 1 \ 11=== .. ... --- -- - U.- 1 J -4 :1 g --7 .-17 1- - L-1 l EAST S.EVA--i~</Revieeci)--- -=--- L 66-1 : 4 . 1 '-o' L 454 4~-4Â«~' 1 9124$723#y~I-1 - Â·Â·DEPeteÂ¥-4 f .~91 ~ ~11 1 i nÂ©** IN 11! 3/ Iff "1 1 84 , :'.\:i F r:=r -I C H. L W==11 *=1- i 4 . .1-24- r. 1 1 ! 1 1 Oil 11 --r 0 LT -1 4 it 1---_vitretÂ». ~-- ~ - - _ 137<220â‚¬le. ~Â· 142-tâ‚¬tz.i:12=y.744 44 11 01 Â£3, R -37 02 :rf':.. >*tf...ry \ i . 1,491-017. M .1 ' 1.4,1 ...%. ,9.pwv:,:./ ,#r ~0,~;4.,4- i":.i''Â·-449 , 1 - 'Ar 1 1* 1 \ ltv: ___zn~~+00:PnNO A~y\23rwta,-1~2--2.-- / r --~-iii 111 , Ill , M fl .' bâ€žFism.=6.lk- Ltbâ€¢*I**--drl. 0 1 Ca _ -- - #-45-0 ..f .1Â· - - 5<./AL-4 1- - F.1 N----3~77- - r m ./ -1 t.7 pIt / L.-10 0 14y,23* 5/4-4- -L . - 1 n r/--1 T L th. ci *y--r..1 r k 1 -- J LLE=in.-- 4 41--.TA-3 1 1~~ 1 1 1 F.. & n- . - -r-1 tu-,)-;74. f-----' /, 3 i- ~---3 r f.mt- ---L 1 / 12 1 1 5, r,al:in~ . 4 ..fi,AL'#Gpw.-- ~ --Uil 1 0 ........ Ci:J t . . __-Lify..c MU/IEZ--efiJECIPf - Â· - Â·DEC:lcot-1.- :- t...Â·_ -199/.ftL / ----121 Dt4â‚¬ER--- flhe.LEÂ«UfffEE- - LE*tu _R i - 1 - C-J COEâ‚¬- 1 -{â‚¬)20 ---- - , t . 41,474 17=1 01 i 4 11';1 14 411 - Fâ„¢ 3 4 I 07-'rr#BL 1,1 14.1 43 1 1 ;11 -i Â· 1 i v 4 181 - --./. *31 4 i m.h- Â»<enbki Afbwal,â‚¬hn- 1 --~ AAE.6+\ 4 - - - =r,-7-ft --CAZ_- C.AWAÂ»E -1 -:. Â·I â€¢ 11 i ---t- y , 1, i -- t/Â·12-PÂ£LM _0_ r-~~44%~ -I.-110Â¢P,UE. -1 ..i - 11 _ & __ ~_ __ U ~ __ . 721~= 4 4-1.-ji .. I r 11 1 'i i 1.--6 1 it + 1 . 3, - U 533p~r=+-i. *F=:U --t---1 Ji = 11 * 1 1 I 1 04---- - 1 Tri.-I LEâ‚¬t. ,Â·- V -- W-,FI_f :.--- - -/- t>fwl KL-6 -- 1 P.~ S 14 1 > hÂ· riad J : 3.Sic -4 9 2Â·262.- -_Ar =-U=*.4 I - ---Â»MM.2/_r 9013,4 .--i_ 0 - . _f_ _ _ 7~ 1 #Rim r i 61 ? i ' 9,1 ! LI y 1 :\21 2204 \ i - , 6...4 .2-19*1 r rvel 19 . I- ' Ir-----~ . 11 F XMyr-114-Â· Lir M 1341 1 t 44* it'i 1 1 --9 F ' 4 i 1 mil 2 2 ta 1 1 - ~41-yv P / 1 m L - 4 40 9 1 2. Rolleâ‚¬L--1*Ek__ _-- WhiEK/LE>/El_flb\4----6-4/d'* 1'-0': - - ---Â· --- ----- - - - ----Â·- \020 ----------- . 2 121 .t@ 3-1 -1,1 \ 35*<er~-Akomrpitt.it.--u~ _ Mi - , 4 f .. -. 1 / 1< 1 -- 5-/227115-JI .- U --" u flur---15;trjkrif . Ei C i # .1 =L --r .-* Bzjb A - t ~ -14Â¥70- 1*TH --1-: . -4-7 f} C 1,; 1. ....i ..! fl' : lili -r:--i_le*~ ~illf.11.15/~rvf.-1.~.* 1 ZY \ 01 -9 -I L__1 -: 4 --1 \U- 1 t - 320Â©Â£25)t-1 - - t..1-- 2 1 -7 11\ ./ 1 i I / , /1 11 - , I _ 1/ ---1-1-(ff-Â·Â·- FloHEEK 7/1.21!4- -- l,[ Â·ffte l.fivEL- fU:44 - ' 220 1 <eDo , / 4 . d.\ ..gr~ 1 M.1 j. 1 1 1 1=Z = 1 l,1 2, 1 -71\ 1 11 i lillil Ind , m- w f 13> 52-01 : *_:-12=T di~224 = i A---4111 - U > ' 'TTT-,- 11 ~ -- .. 1 L]1 1 1 1 1 lil'Ill Il - -i01 e A I . 2-11 2 ' '_- I Â·_1- tif _f- 7 [ 11 1-2- 1-1 f-_ li k LU 1/7 9 1 -/4 y 0 1 1 , 2 , 1 hi 9 ' 11 -IT) 1 I 11 .=r t li ! -33 E 11-- 11 4 -1 1 1 1 --1 i +......... - 1 1 1~1~~11 1 1 1 Cr 1 CIL 372426- ' 111'"i'"lithm"111'11'"l',11' c-L- ~ ' | ~ |li | y~ e 1' ct E h__. _I 2,4L--1 . -/ 1--1 llU_JEIi,E-.1:'.ill.:il':i.p-41'.Â£.1-~ / 1 1-1- U- $T/0-_ -CINS--~--- 24#-----=-34Â» 4* lin.--/ . 1 br-t _- _ ---41 : C . 1 L,12-1 ti-_1 - P +/58>\ . =. 3 -04 - -1 - 1 -? -6 - = "!Fl C H It 1 tilt: 11 M I I F . _inct 11- r r.- - E- - . \ 9 e==1 11 b # 11 .. 11 -=nill - -7 =====- - l i i:Â· 11 , :i 1 9.- T '11 1 11 ---- . -1Â» 1 -- 1 i - lk=Z=~ 1 * Â· Â· Â· 1 4 ' 1 /5 - I - --~~'~~ - -- c~.*--- -- - -% ' ~~ ~~ L --- ~ ' 1 1 ft_--.'_ 9 _tj__ ~'~LfL â€ž 2/1 I r Â· 1 1,1 __1 16- - ij li i .i 14 '. : : i: - 11 1. -- I 1 1,1 --79 -lk;% 1 . r - -1 NOR-EN (REAR) ELEVATION ~1<bate.CE>~ SCALE s W'.1-0. j iti~Qiiiiiiii,iAilli -10 . MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Paepcke Park Gazebo status report Date: December 12, 1990 Staff will present a status report on the Gazebo project at this meeting. We recommend you reserve approximately 30 minutes for discussion on this project. It should be noted that the specific conditions for the restoration of the gazebo were attached to the Building Permit application, which specified that complete dismantling or demolition was not authorized to occur. One HPC member and at least two other community citizens have asked staff to investigate why/how this violation occurred, and what action can be taken to prevent this from happening in the future. It may be appropriate for the HPC to formalize a statement regarding the gazebo project (approval process, unfortunate demolition and reconstruction details) and specific actions to be examined/adopted to prevent a similar incident in the future. memo.hpc.gazebo %*LLIANCE ~REVIEW ~XEC NEWS from 'Ae NATIONAL ALLIANCE of PRESERVATION COMMISSIONS FALL 1990 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR HISTORIC DISTRICTS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING by Nord V. Winter P ublic officials often find them- i selves reviewing designs for Specing between buildings is one of the rnost important characteristics newconstructioninhistoricdistricts of Remington Avenue m Forl Collins The core group used thlS illustration to weigh the relationship of spacing to other visual todetermine theappropriateness of characteristics of the street. proposed new buildings. These people are accustomed to dealing 3!AffT TKZE:> 'VKE EVENLY OF>â€¢CD NO FLIJACD, VPNCM CZATES A ST't,Ne FÂ»IrtKN. with standards for rehabilitation, based on the Secretary of the / 1 X * 7< 7 Interior's Standards, that are gener- ally applied uniformly from one *_~ *~_, *_* Roors jurisuction toanother. When deal- ~ 51.CPED ing with the issue of new construe- tion, however, theyareoften rudely awakened towide variationsinlocal t,JA- , I n, . . . 4%:tkrt' V.1~t 18 . 1 '1AlF 11.LU design policies for new construe- TCIANCLL/Â« VNDOVA (:*82D 41 Al.SED. | rO<Crl MOLDIN<35 tion. The reason is that design poli- VerreLLY. cies for new construction are not developed in a pristine setting in mustration from the Forf Collins design guidelines prepared byNori Winter. which "pure" preservation theory establishes the playing field. Local governmental structure, public opinion, and basiccommunitygoalsinfluence the standards as do variations in the physical characteristics of the individual historic districts themselves. THE FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE LOCAL DESIGN STANDARDS Governmental structure affects the character of the guidelines. The degree of regulation provided for an individual historic district will greatly influence the level of review and the specificity of the standards that are applied. City governments usually hold the strongest review powers. Some county governments have similar powers, but rnany have advisory capabilities only. Some state governments may alsoprovide for design review of historic resources on state-owned lands, but the level of protection and detail of review varies widely. Even federal projects that involve the Section 106 process may yield widely varying results, depending upon the particular agency and the corresponding State Historic Preservation Officer. Community goals also affect the character of the guidelines. Communities seeking to encouragedevelopment and growth may be less restrictive in their preservation mgulations for historic districts than governments that are trying to limit the rate of expansion. Even where protection is provided for historic resources within the district, guidelines for new construction may be quite lenient. Other communities may seek to encourage new, creative architectural designs and therefore may feel that inhibiting creativity through design review in the histeric district is inappropriate. They may argue for very limited criteria in order to allow wider flexibility in design solubons for new construction. Conti.ed on page 2 , 'ni: ALLIANCE REVIEW Continued from page 1 Executive Directors Message The agenda of neighborhood givups may also influ- ence the outcome of design review for new construc- Welcome to Charleston, South Carolina and the 44th tion. Theyareusuallymoreconcerned aboutchangein National Preservation Conference. Here we are in the social character of the neighborhood than in the reha- city that not only boasts the birth of historic district bilitation of the existing buildings. Other factors, in- design review butalso isthebirthplace oftheNational cluding land use, traffic impacts, and property values Alliance of Preservation Commissions. Thanks for often color their response to new design proposals and helping us celebrate a beauuful city that has literally these sentiments frequentlycome tolight inthedesign changed the nation's definition of our sense of place. review process. This issue of The Alliance Review is dedicated to The desire to preserve general community character design guidelines. More and more review commis- thatextendsbeyond theboundariesofdefined historic sionsarerealizingtheimportanceofhavingaroad map district boundaries may also influence local design to follow when they make decisions and both Nor6 guidelinesand the publicreviewprocess.Designguide- Winter and Dale Jaeger have pointed out how impor- lines for "transitional" or"conservation" areas may be tant design guidelines are to effective local review developed in such cases. programs. The NAPC strongly encourages commis- sions to begin the process of developing and using Other community goals for the overall density of de- clear, concise and thorough guidelines as the basis for velopment, as defined in local zoning regulations and their decisions. Communities which have become building codes,mayalsoinfluencethecharacterof new Certified Local Governments have an even greater construction. These policiesoften suggest architectural opportunity touse thegrant money that is available to solutionsthatcontrastwith theexistinghistoriccontext them for the production of guidelines. You should and may be in direct conflict with stated policies in the contactyourStateHistoricPreservation Office formore design guidelines information about how to take advantage of this pro- gram. The physical setting also greatly influences the de- tails of the guidelines. Eachdistrictisa uniquecombi- tany of you have received an invoice formembership nation of physical characteristics, many of which may 1 the Alliance recently. Some of you have already contribute to the historic significance of the area, and responded and renewed for anotheryear, we appreci- someof which donot. An inventory of the characteris- ate that! Those of you who are waiting to renew....doit tics of the district helps to catalog those features that soon, the Alliance needsyour support! Ourhardwork- contribute to its significance and toestablish priorities ing board of directors and all volunteer staff want to for writingguidelinesbased ontheimportance of these continue serving your commission or preservation characteristics. Features to consider when conducting organization, so let us here from you. a visual survey include: â€¢ The physical characteristics of individual Pratt Cassity, buildings, including theirstyle, materials, and Acting Executive Director scale â€¢ The physical character of the landscape, including fences, plantings and paving. â€¢ The spatial arrangement of these features, infrastructure including buildings, site elements and public â€¢ The natural site forms and topography that often influence the way things art arranged ..-b---.a -Al - Temporal issues also influence the guidelines. Our attitude about design standards is also influenced by how important weperceive the physical characteristics of the district to be. Our perception of this character is 2 Fall 1990 oftenamixtureofwhatis waslikehystericallyand how residents, because of housingpressures of a ski resort. it exists today. Our sense of priorities for design stan- The town cannot expand its boundaries to allow new dards is also influenced by how we anticipate the development on the periphery without altering its district will appear in the future, given current devel- usmall town" character that is an essential marketing opment policies and trends in the community. ingredient and source of civic identity. OPERATING IN A CHANGING ARENA Should the community allow an increase in density in its established neighborhoods to provide close-in What do these factors mean, in terms of developing worker housing, or does it maintain the historic low designs for new construction in historic districts? They density, forcing new housing out of town and causing suggest that officials should be prepared to operate in an increase in commuter traffic by employees who a political environment that holds a high degree of must then drive in to work? Such questions arise with variability. Local zoning mgulations may contradict each new development proposal. The results of the what are assumed to be federal standards. For ex- review process, thedesigns of structures thatare built ample, local regulations may allow an increase in site and of those thataredenied permits will varyeach year density, resultinginareduction ofopenspacethatisan as the politics, local sentiment and community needs important characteristic of the area. are blended into evolving preservation policies. In some cases, the historic context is so"sub-standard" Most communities with historic districts face similar with respect to todafs building codes that any new questions. Each must find their own answers to these constructionbydefinition will differ from thecharacter are related designpolicies, which, if founded onclearly of the original architecture. Local zoning may also articulated goals and well understood design policies allow new uses, with correspondingly different build- will help to retain the unique character of the district. ing types, that were unknown historically. If current zoning allowsautoservicebusinesses in thedistrict, for Nori Winter ispresident of Winter&Company, a consultingfirm example, thereislittlelikelihood that structuresbuilt to in Boulder. Colo,ado, specializing in historic presemation and accommodate them willresemblea row oftownhouses, urban design. He has deueloped design guidelines and has con- nomatter how materialsare used or whatstyleisused. ducted designreview training programs for numerous communi- tieand states.Recent projectsincludedesignguidelines forBiltmore In these cases, therelationship of preservation goals to Villoge, North Carolina,design review trainingfor the counties of broader community plans and goals becomes very Hawai'iandplanning fo,Flagstaff, Arizona and Aspen,Colorado. important. A residential neighborhood that seeks to Winteralso direds the architectural ttum fortherehabilitation â‚¬f the Colorado governor's mansion and is memba of the board of reservedevelopmenttosinglefamilyoccupancystruc- directors of the National Alliance of Preserpation Commissions. tures may therefore oppose a multi-family apartment project, even if the massing is configured to resemble the established building fabric. Some confusion often occurs in the review process because localboardshavea dual allegiance. Theymust Design Guidelines for serve their local masters (their town councils) by law, the Landscape for these are the groups that cmate them. On the other hand they also seek to conform to what are perceived to be national standards for historic districts. In some by Dale laeger cases they are more strongly obliged to promote such Design guidelines have typically addressed buildings standards by participating in the Certified Local Gov- and have given little attention, if any, to the landscape ernments program. setting. Thepreservation movementin recentyears has moved away from this building-only orientation to a Blending planning and preservation policies. Poli- recognition of the important role a setting plays in cia for new construction will be a combination of the creating and preserving historic character. A compre- factors described above. As an example, the review hensive set of design guidelines should include all board inthemountain resort ofTelluride, Colorado,of aspects of the built environment, induding the land- which a significant part is a National Historic Land- scapesetting, naturaland nun-made.Todevelopguide- mark District is concerned aboutloosing historicopen lines forthe landscape one should begin with a recog- spaceintheyardsintheresidentialneighborhoods, but nition of theoverall form of a setting and the arrange- it also seeks to accommodate more employees as local ment of elements within it, and identify the details 3 1'* Gli, ALLIANCE REVIEW which characterize it. In the following article, the ele- that the inforrnality found at the town's periphery be ments which effect design guidelines are identified preserved and the formality near the town centermain- and examples of each from Georgia and South Caro- tained. lina cities are discussed. Overall Form and Elements within the Form - The Formal Streetscape Section overall form of a setting is its layout. Layouts can be ~ formal or informal. The most typical example of a ... .4,4- .--'.-Suk- formal layout is the grid, the town plan found in most historic southern cities. An informal layout contains a Ar#411/I curvilinear street pattern and is many times reflective MA'.1 of terrain. Design guidelines should identify the ./.S district's form, evaluate its importance, and make recommendations on how this form should be treated in the future. In most cases, the form of a town or district should be preserved in its original configura- T I .p T tion. Parkway Str,et Curb I Paved Private Walk Yard Groen:pace The unique town form in Aiken, South Carolina, is the Fence/ Wall framework upon which the community's built envi- ronment hasevolved.Withoutthisintact form,Aiken's historic resources would lose much of their meaning Informal Streetscape Section and context. The plan contains a grid street pattern -with most avenues containing landscaped medians, known asparkways. A majority of the structuresin the community face theparkway spaces, giving the entire community a park-like character. This grid form of streets divided by parkways has only experienced minor alteration and this has been limited to the busi- Parkway Ft.let Pedestrian 1 Private may or may not pivea r unpaved Walk I Yard ness district. Here the parkway space has been lost to be present grass or gravel a central island which contains a double row of park- Gr.enspace Curb Fence/ ing spaces. Preliminary, discussions for downtown may or may not Wall improvements include a desire to see the parkway be prisent space either completely reconstructed or at least re- Fonnal Streetscape Sectionlinformal Strectscape Section Aiken, built toaccommodate both cars and vegetabon. South Carolina. Aiken's parkways are the community's most unique Fitzgerald, Georgia, provides another example of a feature. Illustrations of walkway systems within the uniquegrid planinasouthern city. Foundersof thecity parkway spaces appear on Sanborn maps from the came from the Midwest and brought with them town tum-of-the<entury. This attests to the significance of planning traditions. The city wat, laid out in 1895, one theparkways, since Sanborn insurance maps typically mile square and divided into four wards. The two only documented building data. The character of the central streets included landscaped medians. Every lot 200 parkway spaces varies, and depending on the within the city was accessible through an intersecting location within the community, the parkway may be pattern of streets and alleys. In this flat south Georgia curbed with lush plantings or flush with theroad with landscape this regimented street pattern created long sparseplantings. The individuality ofeach parkwayis vistas, butrecent developmentinFitzgerald interrupted whatisimportant. Retain the diversityand the historic this pattern. In one project twoblocks were assembled character is maintained. for commercial development and a street closed, while in another, a multi-story housing structure utilized In a similar manner to the parkways, the streetscape former alley space. Both projects resulted in visual and elements in Aiken relate to the location within the physical impacts. The continuity of the street system town. The public right-of-way space near thecenter of waslost as views were blocked and former circulation town is formal and isdivided intodistinct sections.The pathshindered.Guidelinesdeveloped forFitzgerald in streetscape layout at the periphery is more inforrnal 1989 emphasized preservation of town form, including with less defined edges. It is important in the future its grid street system, the alleys, and parkways 4 Fail 1990 Details -Details specific toa district playan important The Laney-Walker Historic District, a large minority role in the creation of district character. To assess the neighborhood in Augusta, Georgia, has an informal details wit}una landscape setting, one should consider landscape character. Large hardwood trees planted in the dominant materials, particularly vegetation, and randompatternslinethe streets. Dominant tree species other elements, such as street furniture, walks, drives, includeelmswith theirdroopinghabitand indigenous and enclosures. Guidelines should identify the details, varieties, such as sweet gums and sycamores. The note the desired approach for their treatInent in the addition of Bradford pears to the district was a feder- future, and also, if appropriate, providetechnicalinfor, ally-sponsored effort to '-improve" the area. Today, mation for sensitive repair. isolated plantings of Bradford pears stand in sharp contrast to vegetation in the remainder of the district. Materials - In most cases, dominant materials in a ThepyramidalshapeoftheBradford pear aswell asthe community have a direct correlation to location. His- regularity of its planting in straight rows reinforce the torically, shipping of materials was difficult and ex- foreign character of this plant material. The guideline pensive, solocal productsrelied onindigenousmateri- recommended for this situation stated that the infor- als. InMilledgeville,Georgia,auniquematerialisbrick mal character of street tree plantings should be main- and decorativeceramicand terra cotta piecesproduced tained through thepreservation of existing trees orthe from local piedmont clay and made by a master crafts- replanting of trees using historic or native species. man, James Wilson McMillan, around the turn-of-the century. McMillan'senterprise, known as "Milledgev- Plant materials also give clues about the age of a ille Brick Works" reportedlyproduced 17millionbricks district. Plant materials appropriate to the age of struc- per year. The community is filled withMr. McMillan's tureordistrictconveyauthenticity. Vegetation and the products, including, coping, end posts, fence slots, way it wasusedin the garden areareflection ofpeople newerums, birdbaths, and a variety ofornamentation and the time in which they lived. Aneasy correlationis as well ascommonbricks. Bricksare found prirnarilyin the Victorian-era. It was a time of "fussiness" in both commercial and institutional building, but are also a architectureand landscape.Building styles, such as the common materials for walls and fences. One of the Queen Ann, were heavy in detail and texture. Descrip- most interesting is a pierced-brick wall, enclosing a tive words for Victorian landscape design are exotic, former home of Flannery OConnor. This wall histori- colorful. and full of variety and ornamentation. A cally encircled the entire block which also contains the popular plant material was the Mahonia aquifolium. original Governofs Mansion. Commonly known as Oregon Holly grape, the plant features spineyleavesand yellow flowerclustersin the In contrast, Fitzgerald, Georgia, located within the spring. It is a striking plant in the landscape, one that is sandy coastal plain, is characterized by an abundant appropriate to the character of turn-of-the-century use ofconcreteblock.Produced locally withina 10year architecture. Suggested plantlistsareahelpful element period, the rnolded concreteblockisoneofFitzgerald's in design guidelines. most character-defining features. Known locally as "granitoid," and produced by the "Fitzgerald Grani- Plant materials also convey the physical location of a toid Company," products included window sills, arch district and provide a method of expressing regional blocks, keystones, chimney and sidewalk tiles, sewer identity. Nativevarieties werealwaysavailable for use pipe, and porch columns. In thelandscape, the block is in the garden. The selection of the Palmetto tree for a , found primarily in walls and as sidewalk paving. streetscape concept plan in Beaufort, South Carolina, According to historical data, the companyconstructed addressed functional requirements and at the same 10 miles of the city's sidewalk surfaces utilizing hex- time utilized a historic and native material. There was agonal pavers. Guidelines for both Milledgeville and little existing vegetation in the Beaufortdowntown. In Fitzgeraldidentified these uniquematerials, offeredan an area where summer months can be oppressively understanding oftheiruse through historical informa- hot, greenery was desired, but, space was limited. In tion, and provided technicalinformation onhow these onelocationtheexistingsidewalkwasonly fourfeetin materials should be repaired or reproduced. width. The palmetto tree was recommended. Its verti- cal form with branching at the top, provided the neces- Vegetation - Vegetation is a particularly important sary shade and green character, while at the same time feature of a district In most cases, vegetation isusually it required minirnal space at the pedestrian and auto- themostabundantdetail. Dependingontheplacement mobilelevel.Thepalmettoreinforced thecommunity's of the plant material or its inherent form, vegetation location. Although the palmetto is the state tree of can create informal or formal settings. South Carolina,itcan only be found growing innature fromthecoast toa point approximately60miles inland. 5 716 ALLIANCE REVIEW Street Furniture - Street furniture can also express the Enclosures - Enclosures include walls and fences in a age of a district. This is particularly important for variety of materials, heights, and design. Enclosures guidelines in historic downtowns. Street furniture, can be transparent or solid. The character of a which typically includes benches, trash receptacles, community's enclosures should be analyzed and rec- and lighting, can be re-created based on documenta- ommendations developed on how these features can tion or a new compatible element introduced. be maintained in the future or how new compatible enclosures should be designed. Repairs to existing If a former feature, such as a historic light, can be walls and fences should utilize approved preservation documented and theageofbuildingsin thedowntown methods. Additions to existi ng historic walls should district are appropriate to the character of the fixture, complement the historic walls through design and the recommended approach might be to duplicate the material. formerlight fixture orrepair the former fixture, if itstill exists. In Rome, Georgia, an "acorn-style" luminaire In the city of Aiken, the diversity of that community's witha fluted metal baseused inthecommunityaround numerous enclosures made strict rules difficult. A the turn-of-the-century reinforced the age of the dis- guideline developed for a unique situation was a rec- trict, which wasdominatedbyVictorianera structures. ommendation on a method to perpetuate the vegeta- tive hedge. Located on a comer lot near the center of town, was a vegetative hedge almost eight feet high, In contrast, the approach in Beaufort, South Carolina, encircling a frame dwelling with an arched entryway was the introduction of a new fixture. In Beaufort the cut into the hedge. The hedge was deemed such an evolution of the district with buildingsdating from the important feature that an underplanting scheme was early 1800's tothepresentwasexpressed. Acontempo- sought. Consultation with a local county extension rary fixture made of copper was selected.Its simplistic agent resulted in a guideline that stated, "annual thin- design and quality ofrnaterials related toall periods of ning and shaping of the common privet, utilized in development. many vegetation hedges, producessuckersasa method of self-rejuvenation. Other typical hedge materials, 11 L , such as abelia and holly, will need to be refurbished 2 L ' through replacement plantings as hedges age." 8 ElE EEI - - 'Wee *t= 1?fIFYV '64LGE >7\ Â·in:.~U. 4 Flic,W.&#39 + R .71 K ** ETREETSCAPE ELEMENTS , - 14-*Ge'Y .'240, f Â»jth "4. .; -~~â€¢G:-= Beaufort, South Carolina, Stnetscape Section showing palmetto ,< Inal,k st,eet trees and contemporary light fixtures. Zfft* 62,16~ Walks and Drives - The materials and design of walks ~. =2.=39*024~ and drives contribute to the character of a community. In the city of Aiken, the informality of the small town environmentisreinforced through its walksand drives. Many are surfaced in gravel, an important element to retain in the future for visual as well as functional Vegetative Hedge in Aiken, South Carolina. reasons. Pervious surfaces in thelandscape alsohelpin storm watermanagement. Otherdetails of importance Landscape settings are filled with character-defining to consider with walks and drives include unique elements. The identification and evaluation of these paving patterns, such asherringbone brick, a common elements providesabasisinthedevelopmentofdesign historic paving pattern. Double driveway tracks of guidelines. Elements include the overall form, the ele- concrete are another common feature thatmightbelost ments within that form, and details, such as, materials, asadditional widthisneededand newpavingisadded. vegetation, street furniture, walks, drives, and enclo- Driveway tracks can many times be retained as a sures. These landscape elements are an important distinct part of the new paved surface. foundation in the creation and perpetuation of historic character. 6 Fall 1990 Dole Jarger, a Laâ€¢dc,~pe Architect and Preservation Planner, has religious orcharitable activities in itsexisting facilities. assisted in the development Of design guidelines k â€¢number Of The court emphasized that a religious organization communitiesthroughout thesoutheast,Ms. Jaegerisâ€¢Principal in does not have the constitutional right tomaximizeits the jinn, Jaeger/Pyburn, which is located in Gainesville, Georgia. 77.e .firm provides serrices in Historic Presercatien, Landscape revenues to support its religious activities. A,chitecture, Architect.,e and Planning. New Address for the National Center for Preservation Law NEWS YOU CAN USE Effective August lst, theNational Center for Preserva- Victory in New York tion Law has a new address. Please note the following address for your files: St. Bart's Decision Upheld National Center for Preservation Law The long awaited decision in the celebrated preserva- Suite 300 tioncasesurroundingSt. Bartholomew Church inNew 1333 Connecticut Avenue,N.W. York City has finally been issued. On September 13, Washington, D.C. 20036 1990, the U.S. Court of Appeals for uie Second Circuit (202) 338-0392 affirmed unanimously the application of New York City's landmark laws to a church-owned structure In its new location a block below Dupont Circle, the under the first and fifth amendments of the U.S. Center is closer to the National Park Service, the Na- Constitution. The three-judge panel affirmed the dis- tional Trust forHistoricPreservationand Preservation trict court's ruling that the City's landmark laws did Action. not impose an unconstitutional burden on St. Bartholomew Church's ability to freely exercise its religion and did not constitute a "taking" of property "Zoning News" without just compensation. New York's Landmarks Preservation Commission had denied the church's application to demolish a community house adjacent The AmericanPlanning Associationencouragesyou to to St. Bart's main church building to construct a -7- subscribe to "Zoning News," its monthly four-page story office tower. The National Trust for Historic newsletter devoted entirely to local land-use controls Preservation, together with a large number of national and innovative development regulations around the andlocal preservationorganizations, filedamicuscuriae country. Foryour copy, write to: briefs in suppon of the City of New York. ZONING NEWS St.Bart's wasconstructed in 1917underthedirectionof American Planning Association architect Bertram G. Goodhue. The adjacent oommu- 1313 E. 60th Street nity house was constructed by associates of Goodhue Oucago, IL 60637-2891 and complements the main church in terms of scale, 012)955-9100 materials, and decoration. St Bart's had wanted to demolish this community house to build a new office tower, maintaining that therentalincomederived from COMMISSION FOCUS it was needed to carry on and expand the church's -ministerial and charitable acAvities that are central to The Office of Cultural Affairs of the New Mexico its religion." Historic Preservation Division announced this sum- mer the designation of an Albuquerque landmark. In making Bis decision, the US. Court of Appeals for Anson Flats, the oldest existing apartment building in the Second Circuit relied entirely on Supreme Court Albuquerque, was designated a city landmark at the precedent, significantly diminishing the likelihood of March 19, 1990, Albuquerque City Council meeting. reversal by the high court. This decision has left little This listing was in response to the apartment owners' room for constitutional debate. Under the rulings in request for a permit to demolish the vacant structure. this case, application of neutrallandmarklaws to relig- ious institutions should be upheld unless a religious WhenAnsonFlatswasbuilt in 1910,Albuquerque was organization can show that it cannot carry out its enjoyinga period of widespread growthbroughtonby 7 'Ilic ALLIANCE REVIEW . theincreasing influence of therailroad.Building mate- -A Nation can be a victim of amnesia. It can lose the rialsand architecturalstyles werebeing imported from memories of what it was, and thereby lose the sense of the eastern United States, and as the New Mexico what it is or wants to be." Territory neared statehood, Albuquerque was striving Sidney Hyman, in With Heritage So Rich to be a typical American town. The varied architecture of single-family dwellings in 7reservation is an oven act in response to a threat; theneighborhoodssurroundingdowntown Albuquer- conservation is the continuing love that forestalls the que reflects the community's interest in copying east- need for preservation." ern architecture. Anson Flats, reminiscent of eastern Nonal White. The Architecture Book row houses, is the only remaining example of this influence on multifamily design. "Sooner orlater weshall have to face it: tomodemman, Although portions of the interior have been exten- all buildings are buildings of historic interest." sivelydamaged by fire, developersstate that thebuild- SirJohn Summerson ing is structurally sound and are interested in rehabili- tating the apartment house for use as low-income housing, utilizing tax credits and other incentives for -Buildings are not so neatly categorized as birds." historic preservation. Carole R#kind. /1 Field Guide to American Architecture 77:e Alliance Review wants to hair from you. In 350 words -Culture is highly perishable, and therefore cannot be oriess, send usanarticle on what yourcommission has done excavated. No one has ever dug up a political system, or is doing that would be helpM to others. Send to:Manag- a language, a set of religious beliefs, or a people's ing Editor, Alliance Repiew, c/o G.S.U History Dept., atlitude toward their ancestors." University Plaza, Atlanta, GA. 30303. James Deetz, Invitation to Archaeology "It is time to move historic preservation froma move- ment of enthusiastic proponents to a national ethic." STIRRING QUOTATIONS FOR Carlisle H. Humelsine, foreword to preseroation: Toward PRESERVATION HOMILIES An Ethic in the 1980s by Robert Vogel -I'he bottom line for architectural preservation must Beforeeachgatheringofpreservationists,ormorelikely ultimately be what is and what is not saved. " at the closing of preservationists' talks before general Margaret H. Floyd, Architectural Preservation Forum audiences, there is what I call a "preservation homily," in which the speaker reminds his or her audience that enjoying old buildings isnotenough, that they have to -Tohaveabuildingtorndowncanbea terrible setback actually go out and save something. and it can make you despondent, which is perfectly normal. Butthen justlook around your neighborhood The Preservation Homily is usually organized around or city and see whafs still there." stirring quotes from famous people on the subject of St. Clair Wright, American Presereation April-May 1979 historic preservation. Because many preservationists are hard-pressed to remember the exact wording and sources that once raised his/her spirits, the editors of Robert C. Vogelis the Historic Preservation Opicerfor the City of fbi have allowed me this space to provide a sampling Cottage Grove, Minnesota, and is o contributing writer for pres- of choice quotes a sort of preservation version of creation Matters.the monthly newsletter ofthe Preservation Al- Bartlett's which mayprovidesomehelpfuladditionsto hance #Minnesota. your next Preservation Homily. -Wewill probablybe judged notby themonuments we build but by those we have destroyed." New York Times 10-30-63 8 Fall 1990 Join the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Become part of the network of over one thousand landrnark, historic district commission and boards of architectural review in the United States. The National Alliance is a network of local commissions organized to provide information and education to each other. As a member of the National Alliance you will not have to"re- invent the wheel" in your community. You can benefit from the ideas and experiences of local communities throughout the United States working to protect historic districts and landmarks through local legislation. Your membership in the National Alliance includes: & I The Alliance Review, a newsletter brimming with practical information for staff and members of local preservation commissions and review boards L I Technical seminars and conferences, special regional events, and an annual meeting and workshops for commissions held in conjunction with the National Trust for Historic Preservation's Annual Preservation Conference &' A resource center of information used and developed by commissions across the country such as educational materials, forms, guidelines and ordinances L. 3 A voice foryourcommission inWashington with theNational Parks Service, the National Trust for HistoricPreservation,The Advisory Coundl ohHistoric Preservation,and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers. COMMISSION MEMBERSHIPS ~ $10 Basic: Commissions with budget under $100 or communities less than 1000 population ~ $25 Sustaining: Commissions with budget of $100-500 or communities of 1000-5000 population ~ $50 Supporting: Commissions with budget of $500-$5000 or communities of 5000-50,000 population ~ $100 Contributing: Commissions with budget over $5000 or communities over 50,000 population ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIPS |1 $15 Subscription to Alliance Review ~ $25 Category for local non-profit organizations ~ $50 Category for regional or state non-profit organization ~ $100 Category for national non-profit organization /state government / business / sponsoring associate Commissions have the option of having the ALLIANCE REVIEW mailed direct to their members for an addi- tional payment of $10 per name and addirss NAME OF COMMESION OR INDIVIDUAL ADDRESS Orr STATE ZIP PHONE Return this form with payment to: NAPC Me.[BERS}E, HALL of STATEs, Sum 332,444 NoRTH CAPrrol STREET, WAslimeroN, D.C. 20001 9 . ' 7%, ALLIANCE REVIEW National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Mailing Address: Hall of States, Suite 332 Newsletter: The ALLIANCE REVIEW 444 No. Capitol Street William Nicholson, Managing Editor Washington D.C. 20001 Thomas Zahn, Design/Production Editor Acting c/o Georgia State University Executive Director: Pratt Cassity History Department School of Environmental Design University Plaza 609 Caldwell Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3083 University of Georgia Athens, Georgia 30602 1990 Board of Directors: G. Bernard Callan, Jr., Chairman Ron Emrich Kevin Tremble 217 West Patrick Street Dallas I.andmark Commission 7 Huyler Avenue Frederick, Maryland 21701 City Hall, 5DNorth Tenafly, New Jersey 07670 Dallas Texas 75201 Timothy Crimmins, Vice Chairman Mary Turkel GSU, Department of History Karen Gordon Providence Historic District Commission University Plaza 1531 38th Avenue 44 Washington Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Seattle, Washington 98122 Providence Rhode Island 02903 Lynne Monroe, Treasurer Dorothy Miner Nor& Winter Preservation Company New York Landmarks Commission 475 Poplar Avenue 5 Hobbs Road 225 Broadway, 23rd Floor Boulder Colorado 80302 Kensington, New Hampshire 03833 New York, New York 10007 Thomas Zahn David Cameron I,ouisa Pieper University Club P.O. Box 611 Ann Arbor Historic District Commission CO Summit Avenue Santa Monica, California 90406 312 South Division Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 PaulineChase-Harrell , Boston Affiliates Gail Rothrock 156 Milk Street Maryland-National Capital Park Boston, Massachusetts 02109 Planning Commission 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive Upper Marlboro, Maryland 20772 The ALLIANCE REVIEW William Nicholson, Managing Editor . U.S. POSTAGE PAID BULK RATE Georgia State University ATLANTA, GEORGIA History Department PERMIT NO. 2223 University Plaza Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3083 05848 ~ REDSTONE PRESERVATION COMM. V PLANNING DEPARTMENT 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ' DEC - 5 1990 ASPEN CO 81611 10 4 NATIONAL CENTER FOR PRESERVATION LAn' 1015 31ST STREET, N.W. 0 SUITE 400 0 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20007 0 (202) 338-03 PRESIDENT ExECUTIVE DIRECTOR PALL F. MCDONOUGH. JR., ESQ STEPHEN N, DENNIS Eso. PRESERVATION LA~ UPDATE 1990-39 November 15, 1990 How Much Do We Really Know About Preservation Commissions? Robert E. Stipe startled the preservation world with a well- aimed grenade in his 1980 article "A Decade of Preservation and Preservation Law" in the North Carolina Central Law Journal: It would not be amiss to suppose that perhaps ninety percent of all the decisions of all historic district commissions in North Carolina (and elsewhere) would instantly be overturned by a court on appeal for procedural defects alone. Has the situation improved? How can we hope to tell unless i we know who and where the players are, and who makes the rules for the game and why? As the literature dealing with the work of local historic preservation commissions increases, it is time to ask what we know (or don't know) about such commissions. For starters, it's quite obvious that we don't know how many commissions there are across the country ("Update" 1990-2). The National Trust for Historic Preservation's State Legislation Project issued an important report in 1983, State Enabling Legislation for Local Preservation Commissions. Prepared by Pamela Thurber and Robert Moyer, the report is still available through the Trust's Center for Preservation Policy Studies for $15.00. This report contains in chart form extremely important information about variations among state Statutes. Though the Trust had initially intended that this chart would be periodically updated and reissued, no subsequent version has ever appeared. Pratt Cassity and Timothy J. Crimmins of the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions are the authors of Local Preservation Ordinances and Cultural Resources Protection in The Mid-South. This report is also available from the National Trust's Center for Preservation Policy Studies for $4.00. This 28-page report (which gives an overview of the work of commissions in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North ( Carolina and Tennessee) offers a suggestive prototype for further regional studies of the effectiveness of local preservation commissions. TZE "Pn,zivATIoN L.w UPDATE" ..Int, 1, MADE POS,IBLE IN PAET Bâ€¢, A ORA]rr noM TRE J. M KIPUN FUND NATIONALCENTER FOR PRESERVATION LAW . r There is remarkably little in print dealing with the work of - individual local preservation commissions. Margaret B. Tinkcom's article "The Philadelphia Historical Commission: Organization and Procedures" appears in a 1971 issue of Law and Contemporary Problems devoted to "Historic Preservation." In New York, a small but attractively-printed journal which few outside the city have ever seen, Village Voices, covers the work of the New York Landmarks Preservation Commission (and appointments to the Commission) from a highly-opinionated angle. Perhaps the work of other major commissions is reviewed from time to time in the newsletter of a strong local preservation organization, but few of these newsletters are available to the general reader. (A fairly complete file of such newsletters is available at the National Trust Library at the School of Architecture on the University of Maryland's College Park campus, and the University of Virginia Law School is adding such newsletters to its Historic Preservation Collection.) Most people interested in the work of local commissions are predictably interested in the work of one commission, the one in ~ their community. The effectiveness or weakness of this commission is certainly going to help determine over time how attractive or chaotic the community will become. Keeping up with local brushfires can be an exhuasting hobby for even the most committed individual, and there is often little reason to focus on a historical account of the local commission's work But this is precisely what we need most, and should now begin to generate for leading commissions across the country. Do they do their jobs adequately? Can they even hope to? The Cassity-Crimmons study suggests that some regions in individual states are less likely to create commissions than others. Is this characteristic of states outside the Mid-South? The same study notes that one small Georgia community simply disbanded its commission after it had functioned briefly because property owners considered it "too restrictive." How many commissions have been abolished in other states? The "everything's fine" theory of local commissions may help when a new community is being lobbied to create a commission, but ultimately problems which are being ignored will surface to haunt the preservation community as persuasively as Professor Stipe's occasional bombshell suggestion that a capable first-year law student could take apart almost any preservation commishion in the country. It's time to put some time and energy into the close analysis of how leading commissions do their jobs, to discover how the work of less capable commissions might be improved. (Membership in the National Center for 1990 is $65 and entitles one to receive the series of forty-eight "Preservation Law Updates" which the Center will be issuing during 1990.) NATIONAL CENTER POR #fÂ¢4~~ RVATI 0 N LA 170' 1015 31Â®T STREET, N.W. 0 SUITE 400 0 WASHINGTON, D.C, 2 0007 0 (202) 338-0392 PRESIDENT ExiounvE DIRECTO PAn. F. MCDON'01.'GH. JR., Eso STEPHEN N. DENNIS. ESQ. PRESERVATION LAW UPDATE 1990-38 November 3, 1990. Boston Court Upholds Denial for Side-Opening Garage Door A Massachusetts trial court has upheld a decision by Boston's Back Bay Architectural Commission to deny a certificate of appropriateness for "the construction of a garage door in the rear of [a] building" in the Back Bay. As the facts of the case show, this was to have been no ordinary garage door! John R. Devereaux, Assistant Corporation Counsel in the City of Boston's Law Department, has termed the decision by the Â· Suffolk County Superior Court in Connaughton v. Back Bay Architectural Commission (No. 89-6302, decided September 21, 1990) "significant in that it is the first challenge of the Commission's application of its guidelines to the rear, or alley- side, of the district." Connaughton has worked for several years "to renovate and convert [a Second Empire Back Bay structure] into six luxury condominium apartments." It first applied for "permission to install a conventional garage door in the rear of the building to enable cars to be parked in the basement of the building." The Commission denied this application without prejudice to refiling, stating in part: The commission noted that your proposal for openings in the rear masonry wall to accommodate a garage door and an entry door was inimical to its policy of not allowing the widening of masonry openings to accommodate new elements. It also noted its desire to retain the historically important brick garden wall at the alley line. The Commission denied a second Connaughton application in July 1989. The commission stated in part: District guidelines clearly state that masonry openings should not be enlarged or otherwise altered in form.... Openings of this kind which have been approved in the past have been found to be unsuccessful, and the commission has developed policy to avoid these instances in the future. A TIE "Pn*m,VATION LAW UPDATE" SERIBI IS WADE POISIBLE IN PAIT BY A ORANT FROW TIE J. M. EAPLAN FUND NATIONAL CENTER FOR PRESERVATION LAW Â¥ BU f .) Irt sloping courtyard and an entrance below the typical grade level also intrudes upon the uniformity of buildings in the area. The commission requested the applicant return with a proposal for a landscaped parking court with wrought iron gates. Connaughton then turned to a MIT professor and structural engineer, who designed a very different door: The [door at issue] appears as a regular brick wall with an ordinary passage door and window. However, the brick would actually be a facade attached to a stainless steel frame that would be inserted in the building's rear masonry wall and support a large opening that would be cut in the wall; within that frame would be a second steel frame that would be the frame of the .gArage dohr. The door would .be hung on three sets of Stanley hinges on the right, and would open inward, into the proposed garage. It would be operated hydraulically. The door would be roughly seven by ten feet in dimension, and would weigh somewhere between 1600 and 2045 pounds. Neoprene gaskets would be used instead of mortar at the joints of the door. The court indicated that Professor Connor had experience in designing "much larger doors that operate with hydraulic forces including lock gate doors such as those in operation at the Panama Canal." The Commission denied a third Connaughton application, for the Connor door, in October 1989, and gave five reasons: The commission asserted that an architectural district is not an appropriate testing ground for new technological applications. ... The commission determined that it would not be upholding its statutory obligations were it to accept a solution that had no proven prototype. ...If all design details of the proposal could be worked out successfully, the introduction of such a large scale opening within the wall, and its intrusive appearance when the door is open, would remain an inappropriate solution. The commission also expressed concern over an architectural element that is designed to appear as something it is not.... There was additional concern over the... elevation's changing appearance over time.... The commission expressed concern over the potential malfunctioning and maintenance problems associated with the proposed door. The court found that an expert witness for the Commission had expressed "valid concerns about the functional capability and soundness of the proposed door as currently designed." The court noted that although the rear of the building in question is relatively undistinguished the proposed door would "[disrupt] the integrity of that fabric": NAT]ONAL â‚¬ ENTEH FOH PHEMERVAT]ON LAW .. The rear of the building is more utilitarian with few if any . significant architectural details. The rear, however, does continue the same proportional alignment as the front, essentially a vertical one (openings and features are taller than they are wide). This vertical proportion is characteristic of the second empire style and the architecture of the Back Bay in general. Both front and rear elevations of the building are essentially unaltered from their original form. . The proposed garage door would be primarily a horizontal rather than vertical opening and it would be substantially larger than any of the building's existing openings for windows and doors, including those in the rear elevation. In addition, the door would constitute a new opening in the original-fabric of the buil'ding, Fisrupting the integrity of that fabric. Although the door is designed to be invisible when closed, the door will be open whenever one of the residents of the building's condominium units enters or exits. ...In addition, as the Commission's expert . .. indicated, the proposed garage door will cause disruption (in the sense of an alteration) of the building's original fabric whether the door is open or shut. The court was "persuaded by this reasoning, and by [the expert's] further opinion that creation of what is basically a false door... could have an adverse impact on the historical and architectural value and significance of the building in relation to its ... surroundings." The court noted that the Commission (which acquired its jurisdiction over Back Bay alleys in 1981 and has developed guidelines for the alley sides of Back Bay buildings) "has never approved 'false' architecture on a scale contemplated by the proposed garage door." The court found its review of the Commission's decision limited to: "(1) whether the reasons given ... for [the] decision are 'insufficient in law' ... and (2) whether the Commission's reasons are 'warranted by the evidence'": It is necessary to reach the second question only if the determination is made that the Commission's decision is [not] on legally tenable groundg. The court concluded "that the Commission's reasons for its October 19, 1989 denial cannot be deemed legally insufficient." The court found that each of the Commission's five stated reasons for denying the application was satisfactory: The Commission's first reason relates to its questions about the design of the proposed garage door and more specifically to its concern that there is no proven structural prototype < for the door. ... [S]tatutory provisions give sufficient authority for the Commission to be concerned about functional capability of a new structural design. . . . The 4 NATIC/NAL CENTER FOR PREMEHVATION LAW Commission's second stated reason for denying Connaughton's application focuses on the fact that the proposed door would involve a significant cut into the original fabric of the building's rear elevation. This reason falls within the criteria relating to the historical and architectural value of the structure, the relationship of the feature in question to the rest Of the structure, and a comparison of the original structure to the proposed change. . .. Similarly, the third reason--a concern about approving an architectural feature designed to appear as something it is not--relates to the historical and architectural value and significance of the structure as well as the compatibility of the proposed changes with the original structure and neighboring structures. ... The Commission's fourth reason relates to its belief that the proposed door would change in appearance over time. This concern comes within the scope of the criterion dealing with 'general design, compatibility with neighboring structures, arrangements, texture, materials and colors of the original structure and of the proposed change or addition.' . . . Finally, the Commission's fifth reason, concerning doubts about the capacity of the proposed door to function as designed, is linked to its first reason and comes within the scope of most of the same statutory criteria as the first. The court found that the Commission's reasons had been supported by the evidence before the Commission: The concerns expressed by Maurice Reidy about the design of the proposed door and its structural and functional soundness support the Commission's judgment that the door's design posed risks that were not appropriate to take in carrying out the lordinance's purposes]. [A]part from questions about design, as the findings above indicate, the evidence supported the Commission's further judgment that an opening in the original masonry wall of the dimensions and horizontal orientation proposed was incompatible with the purposes of safeguarding the historical and architectural history of the area in which the building is located. The court cautioned that its possible disagreement with the wisdom of the commission's decision was not a reason for it to overturn the decision: If the decision whether or not to approve the proposed garage door were mine to make . . . I might reach a different result than the Commission. ...On the record presented, I conclude that to annul the challenged decision would require me in effect to substitute my judgment for that of the Commission. Such a result is not permitted. (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.) A â€¢ NATIONAL CENTER POR PRESERVATION LATV 1929/#Cli"141%47/,09 . SUITE *00 0 WASHINGTON, D.C. 00001 0 (202) 338-03 1333 C,NMS<-rIC.Ur Ave:,NW. 30. 2.0 0 36 PRESIDENT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PAUL F. MCI)O*ouox. JR.. ESQ. -1 STEPHEN N. DENNIS, ESQ. ~/~ November 15, 1990 f -Dear Preservation Commission Chairman:/ American courts will make crucial decisions in the coming year which may affect the powers of all American preservation commissions: * Seattle has decided to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court the unfortunate decision last March by the Washington Supreme Court that the landmark designation of the exterior of a religious structure violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. * St. Bartholomew's Church in New York City is likely to appeal the September 1990 federal court decision holding that the landmark designation of the church and subsequent denial of a certificate of appropriateness for construction of a high-rise office tower did not violate the church's First Amendment rights. * In Massachusetts, the Supreme Judicial Court has heard arguments in a case challenging the interior landmark designation of a portion of a Catholic church in Boston's South End neighborhood. \ * In Pennsylvania, the state supreme court will soon decide a Â¢ase challenging Philadelphia's regulation of the interior of an Art Deco movie theater. The National Center for Preservation Law is following all of these cases closely. The Center filed an amicus curiae brief in the St. Bart's case before the Second Circuit, and is likely to file other amicus curiae briefs as needed in key pending cases. Renewal of your subscription to the "Preservation Law Updates" now will guarantee that you receive PFompt information about these cases as they are decided. Sincerely yours, 54, A DU Stephen Neal Dennis Executive Director MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Final Development and demolition: 801 E. Hyman Ave. Date: December 12, 1990 SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking HPC's Final Development approval for the demolition and redevelopment of the parcel at 801 E. Hyman. LOCATION: 801 E. Hyman Ave., Lots A and B, Block 111, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. APPLICANT: John Elmore, represented by Stan Mathis, Architect PRIOR HPC CONSIDERATION: Staff offers a review of the HPC meeting history on this project for perspective. On August 23, 1989, the HPC considered a request from the applicant for the demolition of the principal structure at 801 E. Hyman. They also appealed unsuccessfully to the Planning Office and HPC to allow the structure to be removed from the Inventory due to its low ("1") rating, and to be allowed to not submit a redevelopment plan. Action was tabled to September 27, 1989 to allow the applicant time to prepare a redevelopment plan addressing only mass and scale. On September 27, 1989, the HPC granted Conceptual Development and "demolition or relocation" approval for the project, subject to the three following conditions: 1) An investigation of the structure necessary to reveal that no significant historic material exists under the asbestos siding 2) The applicant shall make a concerted effort to relocate the structure until March 30, 1990 3) Massing shall be reduced to be considered more appropriate with the parcel Further, the HPC did not approved the depressed located of the new residence, and formed a sub-committee to assist with the structure investigation. The Public Hearing was continued to October 25, 1989, to allow time for the on-site investigation and subsequent report back to the HPC. On October 18, 1989, the applicant appeared before the HPC informally, with conceptual ideas of a relocation, as opposed to outright demolition, for the principal cottage at 801 E. Hyman. The conceptual proposal also included the adaptive use and renovation of the alley-oriented outbuilding, to house the accessory dwelling unit (required by code). On October 25, 1989, at a continued public hearing, the applicant gave an update to the HPC on their revised proposal, requesting that the public hearing and conceptual development approval be tabled once again to November 8, 1989, to allow time to develop the information for the Committee's review. The HPC approved the request. Conceptual Development approval was granted on November 8, 1989 for the relocation Of the existing principal cottage and redevelopment of the parcel, subject to the following conditions: 1) The new location of the relocated structure shall be compatible and that every effort be made on the part of the applicant to provide the structure for an affordable housing use. Staff shall assist in the relocation process. 2) The Final Development application shall include detailed elevations and a site plan of the new structure and the adapted outbuilding. 3) The Final Development application shall include detailed information on the renovation of the outbuilding, including percentage of original materials being preserved, foundation repairs, garage door treatment, etc. 4) The Planning Office continue to pursue the "Cottage Infill Program" and that the applicant sponsor the code amendment addressing FAR bonuses for detached accessory dwelling units. The cottage remain and the original - house be moved when an appropriate location is determined. Landmark Designation be sought to keep the cottage (outbuilding) on the property. On April 25, 1990, Landmark Designation was recommended for the historic outbuilding, and Conceptual Development was approved subject to nine conditions. These conditions primarily dealt with the relocation of the principal structure, the details of renovating the outbuilding, and staff's referral memos to the Board of Adjustment and the Engineering Department regarding variances and the alley encroachment. The applicant was to continue efforts in finding a new home for the main cottage, and work with staff has necessary to accomplish this. During this past summer (1990), after considerable study by the applicant to adaptively renovate the alley building, a sub- committee was called together to meet on site. Staff attended 2 - with Steve Kanipe (Building Department), Les Holst and Bill Poss from the HPC, the applicant and Stan Mathis, architect. The Building Department stated their interest in working flexibly with the UBC under these historic circumstances of adaptive rehab. The applicant made it very clear to the sub-committee that he had decided to not carry through with the outbuilding rehab project, and that he would be removing the structure from the parcel. Revised Conceptual Development approval was granted bv the HPC on November 14, 1990, with the following two conditions: 1) The Final Development application shall include detailed elevations and a site plan of the new structure and a revised massing model 2) The HPC continues to encourage the relocation of the alley outbuilding structure and the main house PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The applicant has submitted detailed elevations and a gite plan as required by the HPC. A revised massing model will be presented at the meeting. The new single family structure with attached dwelling unit will be constructed using rusticated sandstone as the primary exterior wall material, with cut shingles in the gable ends. The basic form appears vertical in nature, and consists of stepped massing, multiple pitched roofs, tall narrow windows with arched transoms, and wide soffits. The structure loosely refers to Victorian-era architecturally, however, takes a very modern approach in detail. We find its general character is not inconsistent with the eclectic nature of the East End. Efforts to relocate both historic structures have not succeeded, therefore, we find that the applicant has met the condition of Conceptual Approval granted by the HPC last year (actively seek relocation rather than demolition). ALTERNATIVES: A number of alternatives are available for the HPC to consider: Final Development and Demolition approval as submitted, approval with specific conditions to be reviewed and approved by staff and the project monitor prior to the issuance of a building permit, table action to allow the applicant time for specific restudy, or denial based upon the standards for development and demolition have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Final Development and Demolition approval for the parcel at 801 E. Hyman, finding that the conditions Of the Revised Conceptual Development approval have been met. Staff further recommends that the HPC require the demolition permit be granted by the building department concurrent with (not prior to) the new 3 4 7 construction permit, and that the applicant actively continue to ~ seek relocation for both historic structures in the interim. memo.hpc.801eh.fd 4 -- e.Â·.yift.'tt 1 ,, r. December 7,1990 3 1-VAU'hi- 2, 'ili L.IL.4 11 *-0Â·==pli,11 1 7,3 0 13 .1 0 n o C + A - n -.., 1~Â· in C' 1 4.1 ' M op-/1, LIU U t U . 1 D E 0,6 1 g ... u v 1 L. 1-!Ult ICI, CÂ·.5- V 1 0 8 U 1 li 'U 1 Oppi i LÂ· 0 4.1 1-111 L.i 2 3 i (Â·.. U r Â·. 1,1 1 1 10. At the 11114/90 HPS meet.ing, v,Â·'e we re granted Revised Coriceptual Li C '0' C i u pl i i c. i i t. A El t., i i, Â·,: u 1. 1 U 1 11 0 i i L. 1 1-1 01 11'4 N. r .,' LÂ· upt C 0 Ji i. 1 1 13 -0 1 1. c p i 'J 1 1 Â·U j i'J aleviDtions for 801 E Humor; Avenue 33 revise,3 tEN- the Flriol Bevel opri-i e 1 1 m kj ki i uvul. i i i u Â·-, c. p i u i i o i d l it! L. i .2, LÂ· O 1 0 G 1 1 U Ill U -2, C: 11 i :4 , u .3 EÂ·,1 6 i i u cÂ· ?Â·iÂ· i i i u Li -A' i OUU LIU,1, Â·_1 1--U., Ulll~ . Ui lu 1 Lilli 111;COILO UIi/OUUIC 1.U ii,OUL li,0 '_. Ul I U i ll L, 1 1 -D U 1 1-Â· 1-1 1 1 1.- Op LU Ul App, u '.' 1-1 1 Uur revised model will be presented fit the n:ext meet-lrig depicting :311 1 i U :,â€¢ 1 0 i UilÂ·Z, I i 11JUU LL| Li IC pl U ~ 0 1.- L. ~r ~,-- Ul 'J 1 CLiuc; Â·=,t. i i i,4 1 1 1 lu i , 41 ,_Â· rik'kil i-,11, u 1 U 12/12/90 1 1 :J 1 2 2.. 1 UU, Â·-iÂ·.u,1 i i:.Li,1 - STAN MATHIS 1 Prum "Ti-12 1 .AllÂ·ultill,lillill. L ~ U PL\All\(; Post Office X n .rado 81612 303/920-1434 IJ WOOP =bHINC,1.-Es NrÂ·- STOKIECABH LAÂ© ON WHIMINEY 4 WALLS .SE--b 1, 1 - -- --- r - - -- -- _441 . AUU -- - 1~EFÂ·d~ .----. .-- -- -- - -*- -.--*- f -- -- -- -- - - 1@*â€¢DE=-17 - irrr- 1 , A..17.N=SED=Â¤72 -=1 A-- A. 11'qk\NE--- == ---- 3-=29 /0/Fl:/12/h.*- -~Z==--Awili65* -*-T --547 4,50 . _._ ~* *5':"'- i; 11 i d U 144 8- -- --2- --J''W r. - --.--2- -/ 4..92/ 93 I " 1/---- ------ 4 00/i / 1_ Ilk/"/EPIT./VIFI I /'I./5,5,/VAW,1 0 1,VIR 0 -- -1 t- -In~-N - - -- i j i 1 . 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 4 1 m c 6.- -- M.- 11Â· 116 - 4-17- ../1 till-t - 1. r . zz,t i ' 1 - ~ , 1 Â· Â·'~1 ,~ ~-r. . F=Ep-.1...ir:::F - Lzj s n.-,.,wsz~-..p. 2 ---41=@5*444- 72_--wÂ·Â·-t-/_ lil_ -.- ~. r 9/ N ~--_V,/62:2:'P C.,01-UK/lkâ„¢IS + 1-,N-Tal- , Z--24 Â·63-Fold E 44*ST 21-E\,06-104 -Â«Tb-AW E>AE,2 -- -- 948,4-- 1.-C>,1 Stan Mathis (802 M Lf MIA hi eT Architecture & Planning, P.C. Box 1984, Aspen, Co. 81612 Phone 303-9204434 .- C.-1-2 - 7--E=,7.--r a - - - =-- --- WOZO 17~:SHIKI#LES - 1-A-- I *Ill----- 2 1 1. * L 94 ~ ~ ~ . _ lr- --1 , 11 1 1 It :. 6-TONE VE N EEK 1-7 -' ./ I ~ tEr-tri- '1-- r - - 1.~L-.1~ 7 U 5 - 71 -1 ~~14--~917Â»LÂ« - 93 7-1 - -il U , , Il i ! TL -3~ , (1- . 1 1 " , 1 --, 3 L_J ~ L_.1 ki - c <C L , , r V 1 1 A--4 L J , - , 1 1' * - E k e - r.- -f [2432-r -,/c - 2 6 HORTH ELNAIION Stan Mathis Architecture & Planning, RC. Box 1984, Aspen, Co. 81612 Phone 303-920-1434 t ' I- \ -4.-11 , _ --- =22=7 -=- -- 1 L__- WL;7270 'SHIFJOLEL -= =31 . - 'r ,\13Â»7=tl =L- 1 1~.Â»~*25~ . 1 1%.%=El 641 HLAIÂ© Â·0111 ITT / 5 1 I 111 1 11 1 - *-25:93=--2.2..)2= :44 -F -- & -4701 Z:*9-11:.3443-.:53 2-;*~.=.-1.1 W. .6- 0-7 -1 # 1 -1 ' '/ - 1 , - I . 1 1 4 i " 0 9-1 1 -L_J! 1 -14 + 1 1 - 1 Â·60 LITH ELEVA:-ricki L H YMAAI - 6-1:) -- - -- - 0 49 1 Hi Y MA 14 46 T Stan Matrus Architecture & Planning, RC. Box 1984, Aspen, Co. 81612 Phone 303-920-1434