The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19900411e l AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE April 11, 1990 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM City Hall 4:00 SPECIAL WORKSESSION 4:00 - 5:00 ATTENDANCE REQUIRED Guest: Frank Peters and Kathy Adams, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C.; Lane Ittelson, State Historic Preservation Planner 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of Feb. 14, 28 and March 14, 1990 minutes.Lyâ‚¬-0 1,Â£,inâ€ž- dwi- II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:10 A. Final Development - The Lane Parcel - 204 S. Mill V. NEW BUSINESS 6:00 A. Landmark Designation - 132 W. Main, Asiatb/?/4/3 - + '0 hi/%9 1 fli j h . â€¢, A r--i- ,) ( '- - - - ---2 6:30 B. Annual Preservation Honor Awards: Nominations 6:45 C. West End Elementary School sites development: action requested VI. COMMUNICATIONS 7:00 A. Holden-Marolt Site Earth Day improvements B. Preservation Forum Call for slides! C. Main Street Historic District Study: HPC comments requested D. Inventory Re-Evaluation forms; explanation 8:00 VII. ADJOURN PLEASE VIEW THE STREET SIGN THAT IS UP ON THE LIGHT POLE ON THE CORNER OF GALENA AND HOPKINS. CCLC IS WORKING ON A STREETSIGN PROGRAM AND WOULD LIKE HPC'S INPUT. 0 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Worksession: CLG Laboratory Workshop, meeting with National Trust for Historic Preservation Program Associates and State Historic Preservation Planner Date: April 11, 1990 SUMMARY: As you know, Aspen has been chosen as one of six CLG communities in the country to participate in the 1990 CLG Laboratory Workshop. The workshop is a combined effort of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the National Park Service, the State Historic Preservation Office and the local CLG. The purpose of this worksession is to meet the National Trust program associates, and begin the dialogue of preservation concerns and successes that will carry into the June Workshop with the larger group. Frank Gilbert, Kathy Adams and Lane Ittelson are here on their initial reconnaissance visit to become familiar with Aspen's preservation climate. DISCUSSION: Included in this memo are excerpts from the letter staff sent to Frank and Kathy in March, outlining our concerns and goals for the Workshop. Please utilize this information in your worksession discussion today. "On behalf Of the City of Aspen and the Historic Preservation Committee, I'd like to nhank you for selecting Colorado, and in particular Aspen and Telluride, to participate in this year's CLG Laboratory Workshop. We enthusiastically welcome the National Trust, National Park Service and the State Historic Preservation Office in April and June. "I am optimistic that the educational benefits we will receive will be shared equally by the national participants as well. As co-host community, our desire is to initiate a dialogue with you on the issues outlined in this letter, and clarify logistics and agendas. In discussing general local issues with you, Frank, I feel confident that an excellent foundation for the workshop has been developed. "An appropriate theme for the Colorado workshop might be "The Problems of Success", the effects are which are perhaps as dramatic in Aspen and Telluride as anywhere in the nation. Soaring land values in these highly desirable historic/resort communities have pressurized our preservation efforts to the extreme. "The issues facing Aspen and Telluride are very similar. our landmark review boards have been forced to evolve into highly professional groups, warding off demolitionist developers and negotiating compatible solutions with property owners. These boards members are on the front line, in need of as many tools as possible to accomplish the protection and preservation of their respective heritage resources. Small scale vernacular structures, as well as historic landscapes, are vanishing to make way for new, larger development. Selling the community of the economic development benefits of preservation is an everyday event, albeit difficult and, at times, frustrating. "Three principal areas of concern Aspen wishes to focus on are as follows: 1) The Problems of Success How do we maintain the distinct, historic qualities of the community with skyrocketing land values? What tools do we need, or need more of, to assist in the protection and preservation of our historic and older resources? How do we balance success with the need for heritage tourism? 2) Comprehensive Preservation Planning We want a clear roadmap through the 90's, so that we are not drifting toward the 21st century. Our Historic Preservation Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan needs updating, conflicts exist in zoning and building code issues, and the city is faced with critical growth, housing and transportation issues that must be addressed within the context of community preservation. 3) Landmark Review Board Procedures and Training Areas needing the most help: Education of both the Board and the public Architectural design and compatibility issues Preservation incentives The Cottage Infill program Outbuilding preservation and adaptive use What do we save, what do we let go? CLG powers and responsibilities Community image of the HPC/public relations Effective methods in working with the public 2 Significant changes have been made to the south (alley facing) elevation, per HPC's requirement. The architect has taken a very contemporary approach, which we find goes too far astray from the previous arched window submittal. We are recommending that the HPC give specific guidance to the applicant in south fenestration, with the goal of providing a more compatible window treatment without duplicating the arched windows in the Collins Block. Possibly simple double hungs of a taller scale would be appropriate. DEMOLITION: A one-story non-historic (c.1960?) stucco storage building currently exists on the Lane Parcel. It is proposed to be demolished. The applicant has submitted the information required by the HPC at Conceptual Development approval. Staff is continuing to prepare a code amendment to address "exemptions" under the demolition section. We have met with the City Attorney to discuss this, and we agree that in cases where demolition of non-historic, non-significant structures is proposed, the ability should exist to allow the HPC to grant an exemption from the rigorous review requirements stated in the code. Staff feels that the structure proposed for demolition could comply with the spirit of the exemption provisions.Â· Its rehab and reuse appears to be of little value to the traditional and historic nature of the district. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Approve the Final Development application as submitted and the demolition of the non-historic structure currently located on the Lane Parcel. 2. Approve the Final Development application w ith conditions and the demolition of the non-historic structure currently located on the Lane parcel: Conditions: Restudy of south elevation windows and materials, for monitor and staff approval. 3. Table Final Development approval to allow the applicant further time to study the proposal, incorporating the comments and guidance from the HPC in a revised proposal 1 4. Deny Final Development approval finding that the application does not meet the conditions of Conceptual Development approval. 2 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Final Development: 204 Â·S. Mill St., the Lane Parcel Date: April 11, 1990 LOCATION: 204 S. Mill St., the South 20 feet of Lots D and E, Block 88, City and Townsite of Aspen, (referred to as the Lane Parcel) HPC MONITOR: Don Erdman APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Final Development approval for the new construction of a detached two and one half story residential building oriented on the alley between Hopkins and Hyman. Two covered parking spaces are proposed for the ground floor. The demolition of the non-historic one story structure currently located off the alley is proposed as well. PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: The HPC unanimously granted Conceptual Development approval on February 14, 1990, subject to the following conditions: Approve the proposal with the following conditions, which shall be met at Final Development review: 1) Exact materials representation: brick or a brick form of concrete block. 2) Restudy of the all elevations 3) Restudy of the south elevation fenestration and ground floor doors 4) Information to the Planning Office as to why the structure proposed for demolition should be exempt from the criteria for approval PROBLEM DISCUSSION: We find the conditions Of Conceptual Development have been met with the following exceptions: 1) Materials. The applicant is proposing dark grey block, which we find does not meet the intent of HPC's condition. We are recommending that the HPC be more specific in materials desired, which the applicant has verbally agreed to comply with. Please refer to the applicant's proposal (attached) for more specific information on materials and trim. "In concert with the educational and networking benefits we will be receiving, my principal goal is to involve the press and media on a local, regional, and statewide level. Public relations are a critical element of "marketing" historic preservation, and I feel this opportunity is an excellent one to utilize in this way. Therefore, I am requesting your direct involvement to promote this prestigious CLG Laboratory Workshop. It is important for the HPC and community as a whole to understand how their involvement relates to the national/local perspective. I would like to receive a copy of the final report of last year's workshop activity (Kentucky, Texas, Mississippi and Utah), as well as any additional support documentation. Articles or story information would be extremely helpful for Lane at the state level, I am sure. "I am confident Colorado will prove to be an excellent study state for the group. We are enthusiastic about your visits, and look forward to hosting a fun and informative workshop! Frank and Kathy received the following information: 1) Historic Preservation provisions of the Aspen Land Use Regulations 2) Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines 3) Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Historic Preservation Element 4) Resolution adopting new HP goals 5) Preserving the Past for our Future, brochure (2) 6) Aspen Summer 1990 brochure 7) The Aspens - A Guidebook 8) Aspen Picture Map 9) Wheeler Opera House marketing portfolio 10) Aspen Historical Society flyer 11) A variety of recent press coverage on the historic preservation program RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC take this opportunity to discuss the problems we face and the successes we have had with Frank, Kathy and Lane, requesting their guidance in these areas. We further recommend that should you have specific suggestions regarding the June workshop, that these be brought forward for discussion at this meeting. memo.hpc.clg.workshop 3 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC approve Final Development and the demolition of the non-historic structure currently located on the Lane parcel subject to the condition that applicant restudy of south elevation windows and materials, which revisions shall be submitted for monitor and staff approval. memo.hpc.Lane.fd 3 QJ FINAL HPC DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR THE COLLINS BLOCK March 14, 1990 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL CORE HISTORIC DISTRICT INVOLVING AN HISTORIC LANDMARK (Â§7-601(F)(4)) 4 A. A Written Description of Proposal 4 B. General Application Requirements (Â§6-202) 5 C. An Accurate Representation of All Major Building Materials 9 D. Architectural Drawings 9 E. A Statement of the Effect of the Details of the Proposal on the Design of the Historic Structure 9 F. A Statement Regarding Conformance to Conceptual Approval, Including Any Conditions 10 CONSULTANTS Design Consultant: Wayne Poulson, Architect The Brand 205 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-8466 Attorney: Andrew Hecht, Esq. Garfield & Hecht 601 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1936 Land Planner: Joseph Wells, AICP 130 Midland Park Place, Nc. F-2 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-8080 I. INTRODUCTION This application, filed on behalf of Harley Baldwin Associates, requests Final Development Plan approval by the Historic Preser- vation Committee of a new structure to be built on the Lane Parcel, located on the south 20 feet of Lots D and E, Block 88, Aspen Townsite (referred to as the Lane Parcel). This structure includes affordable housing, off-street parking and trash service related to the restoration of the Collins Block, presently underway. GMQS exemption for enlargement of an Historic Landmark, conditional use, and special review were approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 6. City Council granted first reading approval for GMOS exemption for affordable housing, condominiumization and lot line adjustment on February 26 and will consider these aspects again at the public hearing scheduled for March 26. Upon approval by the City Council of the lot line adjustment request, the Collins Block and Lane parcels will be replatted as a single lot. The Collins Block was constructed in 1892. It has served as a rooming house and a commercial building, housing from time to time a mortuary, a hardware store, and other retail establish- 1 men ts. The building is a designated Landmark structure with a rating of "Excellent" and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The origins of the simple one-story structure on the Lane Parcel are unknown, but in recent years the building has been used for storage. The program for the Lane Parcel building as approved by P&2 includes in two affordable housing units, 300 square feet Of trash service and two parking spaces. An electrical equipment room will be provided at the west end of the ground level. Until egress can be established between the Collins Block and the Lane Parcel building through one of the adjoining properties, the access corridor shown on the drawings will not be constructed, so that storage can also be provided at the west end of the building. There is a net increase in FAR square footage on both parcels of 3,796 square feet, to 14,752 square feet on the 8,321 square foot site. Net leasable space is increased by 3,649 square feet, to 19,649 square feet, including 1,508 square feet of affordable housing. Because of the difficulty in shoring and the potential for disruption of alley circulation, a decision has been made to eliminate the basement previously proposed for the Lane parcel. 2 The Engineering Department has requested a 4'x 4' pedestal easement immediately adjacent to the alley on this site. Upon further study, it is apparent that such an easement cannot be provided by the applicant unless a parking space is eliminated or the frontace of the trash service area is reduced even further. We request that this requirement be reconsidered; the vacant site to the east is a more appropriate location for such an easement, in our opinion. 3 II. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL CORE HISTORIC DISTRICT INVOLVING AN HISTORIC LANDMARK (Â§7-601(F)(4)) A. A Written Description of Proposal: The Applicant requests Final Development Plan approval by the Historic Preservation Committee to construct a new structure on the Lane Parcel, as illustrated on the attached architectural drawings. H.P.C. previously granted Conceptual Development Plan approval to the project with conditions on February 14, 1990. The project includes retail and residential expansion on the Collins Block parcel and affordable housing and accessory uses on the Lane Parcel. A total of 14,752 FAR sq. ft. is proposed in the project. The project represents an expansion of 3,796 sq.ft. Of FAR, including 1,508 sq.ft. of affordable housing. The site is within the Commercial Core zone district. The maximum FAR allowed is 1.5:1, or up to 2.0:1 by Special Review when 60% of the additional space is affordable housing. The FAR proposed on the two sites is 1.77:1; the on-site affordable housing represents 66.4% of the square footage over 1.5:1 FAR. 4 B. General Application Requirements (56-202): (a) Application Form is attached as Exhibit "1". (b) Applicant's Letter of Consent is attached as Exhibit "2". (C) The street address of the project is 204 South Mill Street. The legal description of the site is the north 80 feet of Lots A, B and C, the south 20 feet of the east 25 feet of Lot D and the south 20 feet of Lot E, Block 88, Townsite of Aspen. (d) Disclosure of ownership is attached as Exhibit "3" (e) The Vicinity Map, included as Exhibit "4", locates the subject parcels. (f) Compliance with relevant review standards (Â§7-601(D)). The proposal complies with HPC's review standards, as follows: 1. Compatibility: "The proposed development is compatible in character with desig- nated historic structures located on the parcel, and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay District, or is adjacent to an Historic Land- mark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot, or exceed the allowed floor area, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements." 5 The design of the proposed Lane parcel affordable housing project is intended to provide an architecturally quiet backdrop to the existing Victorian structures located prominently on the block. The proposed building is in scale with other buildings in the commercial core; the height of the building is approximately 12 feet under the 40 foot height limit in the zone district. Three sides of the building are contiguous to private property which is eligible for redevelopment under CC zone guidelines. A grey block which is darker than a standard concrete block has been selected as the predominant building material throughout for consistency of treatment; simplified banding details with a brick red block are proposed. (See samples submitted separately.) The treatment of the windows on the south facade has been revised so that the rhythm does not imitiate that of the Collins Block as strongly, as recommended in the guidelines. The arched windows have been eliminated in favor of a simpler, more contemporary window design. At the ground level, it was not clear in the previous submission that the parking and trash service areas are not proposed to be enclosed, for ease of access from the alley. 2. Neighborhood Character: "The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development." 6 The character of the commercial core neighborhood is predominant- ly one of two- and three-story flat-roofed masonry structures in a mix of historic and contemporary styles. Massing of historic commercial buildings generally employed box-like rectangular solids with low-relief ornamentation, generally narrow in width and two to three stories in height. Infill construction should have the same general size and character, with walls that are flat planes and designs that do not imitiate historic styles according to the guidelines. The design of the structure to be built on the Lane Parcel anticipates the ultimate expansion of the existing structure on the neighboring property to the north, as permitted by present zoning. Once this occurs, the Lane Parcel building will only be visible as one passes by the alley. Because the Lane Parcel building is set back 80 feet from the street and is screened in good degree by the existing structures to the north, the proposed building will not impact greatly on the character of the block, which is well established by the two historic structures built out to the streetfront. The use of a concrete block which is colored will help make the building blend in with the surrounding structures more so than would have the use of the standard block masonry unit proposed previously. 7 3. Cultural Value: "The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels.' The proposed building reflects the mix of quiet newer structures interpersed with the highly articulated historic structures in the Commercial Core. The Committee may be unaware that the neighboring property to the north is presently under contract for purchase; because buildout on the site is presently significantly under that permitted, it is very likely that the purchaser will propose an expansion in the near future. The Lane Parcel building will be screened entirely from view from Hopkins Street once redevelopment occurs to the north. 4. Architectural Integrity of Historic Structures: "The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof." The Lane Parcel building is separated from the historic struc- tures on the block by over 30 feet; the height of the building has been limited to 27.5 feet -- four feet below the height of the Collins Block and two feet below that of the Brand Building. The simple detailing of the east, west and south facades of the building is both dictated by building code requirements and desirable to avoid detracting from the larger, more predominant and more richly detailed historic structures on the block. The 8 use of a colored block is appropriate for this site. C. An Accurate Representation of All Major Building Materials: The applicant proposes to use a dark grey concrete masonry unit (Dotsero Block #60-781) for all facades, with a simpler pattern Of brick red block (#1117) banding incorporated into the construction than proposed previously, as illustrated in the architectural drawings. Metal frame windows painted red oxide will be used to avoid imitating the appearance of the Collins Block too closely. A sample of the block and trim colors to be used will be submitted separately by the architect. D. Architectural Drawings: Revised architectural drawings Of the 'Lane Parcel building prepared in response to conceptual approval are attached as Exhibit 4. E. Statement of Effect of the Details of the Proposal on the Design of the Historic Structure: The Lane Parcel has no street frontage and abuts other private property on three sides where no setbacks are required under 9 present zoning. Architectural opportunities are limited. HPC did not object to the massing of the building at conceptual review, but requested further study of the detailing of the building; the applicant's response to those issues are addressed elsewhere in this submission. F. A Statement Regarding Conformance to Conceptual Approval, Including Any Conditions of that Approval: The HPC granted Conceptual Development Plan approval for the Lane Parcel Building on February 14. Conceptual approval was granted with the following conditions, to be addressed by the applicant at Final Development Plan review: 1. "Exact materials representation (looking toward the use of more brick or brick-like form of concrete block)." A dark grey concrete block has been chosen for use throughout the building. Limited banding in a brick red block is proposed to add some interest to the facades. Painted steel spandrels will be used over openings and the operable windows will be metal frame; a red oxide color has been selected by the architect. 2. "Restudy of all elevations." Other than the addition of a door to the north facade to accom- modate anticipated access between the Collins Block and Lane Parcel buildings at the ground level, the only revision proposed 10 to the three facades abutting private property is the change in building material to a colored concrete block. Otherwise, the treatment of these facades remain extremely simplified, with only a single band of continuous detailing added near the top of the facade. 3. "Restudy of south elevation fenestration and ground- floor doors." The most significant revisions ha ve been made in the south facade, which has received a more contemporary treatment, consis- tent with the guidelines. Exposed steel spandrels are proposed over openings and a metal window unit has been selected. At grade, doors are not proposed for the parking or trash service areas, so that these areas can be accessed more readily. 4. Information to be provided to the Planning Office as to why the structure proposed for demolition should be exempt from the criteria for approval." At the time the City adopted new guidelines for demolition, the need for an exemption procedure for demolition of structures which have no historic significance was overlooked. City staff is presently attempting to correct this oversight by proposing a code amendment for adoption. 11 Because the code amendment has not yet been adopted, the applicant has addressed the relevant review criteria for demolition of the existing structure on the Lane Parcel. This information is adequate, in our opinion, to allow the HPC to make the necessary findings that the proposed demolition is appropriate. Section 7-602 states that no demolition of any structure within an 'H' Historic Overlay District shall be permitted unless the demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the standards of Â§7-602(B), as follows: 1. "The structure proposed for demolition is not structur- ally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure." The existing one-story storage building is a concrete block bearing wall structure which cannot readily be modified for the various uses which have been approved for the property. Exten- sive structural modification would be required to accommodate both the required ground floor uses of trash service and parking as well as the affordable housing expansion above the ground level. As such, the building is not structurally sound as constructed to permit modification for the uses previously approved for the property. 12 2. "The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on- site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property." The Commercial Core zone district is the most intensive in the City, with an FAR of up to 2:1 permitted by special review, and with a wide range of uses permitted by right and by conditional use review. Setbacks are not required in the CC zone and the height limit is 40 feet. The property's present value is established by these criteria of the underlying zone district. The existing one-story structure includes 679 square feet of enclosed space at an FAR of .6:1; the building is set back from the property line on two sides. The structure is suitable only for storage. Because of its configuration and construction, the existing building cannot be reused to achieve any reasonable beneficial use of the property. 3. "The structure cannot be practicably moved to another site in Aspen." The cost of relocating the existing structure would far exceed the building's value, both in terms of its actual replacement cost or its historical or cultural significance. 13 4. "The applicant demonstrates that the proposal mitigates to the greatest extent practical the following: a. Any impacts that occur to the character of the neighborhood where demolition is proposed to occur. b. Any impact on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels. C. Any impact to the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels." The HPC has previously judged the impacts Of the proposed demolition on the character of the neighborhood and on the historic importance and architectural integrity of adjacent structures as acceptable in concept, subject to further study of the building's detailing. 14 Revised M 12, 1990 EXISTING (INC. AREAS UNDER PERMIT) AS PROPOSED Accessory Accessory Lot Size (Stor., Mech., ( Stor., Mech., (SF) Comm'l & Circ.) Res'l Total Comm'l & Circ.) Res'l Total PARCEL A 7,200 (COLLINS RUDCK) (N. 80' of Lots A, B, C, Block 88) A. Rase ment 6,407 838 -- 7,245 6,407 838 -- 7,245 B. First Floor 5,232 532 -- 5,764 5,810 552 -- 6,362 C. Second Floor -- 172 4,361 4,533 -- 172 4,36] 4,533 D. Second Floor Loft -- -- -- -- -- -- 1,563 1,563 TOTAL: 11,639 1,542 4,361 17,542 12,217 1,562 5,924 19,703 FAR: 5,232 704 4,361 10,297 5,810 724 5,924 12,458 Non-Far: 6,407 838 -- 7,245 6,407 838 -- 7,245 Net Leasable: 11,639 - 4,361 16,000 12,217 - 5,924 18,141 II. PARCEL B (LANE) 1,121 (S. 20' of E 25' of Lot D & S. 20' of Lot E, Block 88) A. First Floor - 659 -- 659 -- 684 -- 684 -- 102 1,108 1,210 -- R. Second Floor -- -- C. Second Floor Loft -- -- -- -- -- 400 400 -- TOTAL: - 659 -- 659 -- 1,786 1,508 2,294 FAR: -- 659 -- 659 -- 786 1,508 2,294 -- -- -- -- -- Non-FAR: -- -- Net Leasable: -- -- -- -- -- 1,508(1) 1,508 TOTAL SITE: 8,321 TOTAL: 11,639 2,201 4,361 18,201 12,217 2,348 7,432 21,997 FAR: 5,232 1,363 4,361 10,956 5,810 1,510 7,432 14,752 (1.77:1) Non-FAR: 6,407 838 -- 7,245 6,407 838 -- 7,245 Net Leasable: 11,639 - 4,361 16,000 12,217 -- 7,432 19,649 (1) Affordable Housing 7-:,- rÂ·.Â·r, i.1 1 1 . r i Itt i./r,L .1 1 â€¢ r f 'i , ' , I r -LA /46 bUIL--PIr-l* H o A-ra 5-2.9/Ar-- 10 1-1 - Ts- i , ,-1 r f ft i : r 1 1 1 1.2 , I L.L-L.... I ITIVI-7 3 TI--r- 1- S - - - LÂ».R- buil.â€¢071.-160 - >...de 6 u , L. 7,1 A b - 1-1 0 ->-r' a L- E-,Frt,-4 16"'â€¢ 11.'. - -4 - n - I : 10) 1 3 1 1 0 . _1 6 Z , 4 1 4 C i - - 3 1 1 11 1\ 1 4- 1 1 ! 1: 1 il Al - & ' 6 -+ 1 4 //* a !6 9 / Â· L i -U..110 I 1 4 T Op.. .. CÂ·K.I. Â£ 1-,4,40 3 - t- >. j CT--4 ,-6 * 1 :fil.LU- - -2-- - 7-- <4% 1/ 4 1 ---f 1 - lib -~~, 569 #004 ~ ... -ft, 1 94<44/1 -1,1-'. 03 1 2 . / 1 A : -r- L . V 0- 6- lecct,47 _52'5- ./O -r L * J *-M : 400.- 7- A -4 4%' c \ -2. Ct' ,'' ~~--1-_] 1 ~'i 1 ~t. ii..1.J.|I..W ~.L~~ ~~Iii': 5, .Ii Â· 1.11 9 4,1 1 1, 1--11--11--r--r-r--ir-- 1/ I . X --1, t 13 - -31/ . 1 : ..I...=-=r....= - = - -- .... 1 - -lay-- -- 41 - 1, - - - 1 ' ' -Â· - - -Ieâ€¢â€¢.'.5. 5---~--/g-1--~~-r- Â· i E-th= 2 . -=-u_---- -0 -2~~'7~- =-1 ti___~~_ -,/ .-- .-I/=1+1-J -~-- f;7.-..I=--6._ . 1 9=-r---73 ..24=-3.2- Tt-p: *- I i - 04.19z3---_u- r-=1491 - j 0 2 -&111 :ik , L . Â£ ---=Â·3-<y~rf-iwi-zr.22- ...LÂ«ii.~i--t.III 1 -1.IC --23.-42-2 --*DITTZ,JZU.uain-n--FLI-41"=='.'-72275=--=--- 1 Ocru, 064 K /1 - - tâ„¢- 1 1.T-3-33&) Â£26-=- 051Â« 1994 4 1 . 0 Itt===- - == Â·- 4 - . - 4 ... - 11*-444--410 -- -Â·- l'PA*k h.â€¢so-~-r, O. I - L i'' -'.---=... ..,4.1 . 1 1 1 - 2 1/ A.. r-1 2- S u 1 6, 17 i N 0 E. HOPKINS AVE. Â£ 15 C.. ) Â»Mr' / ..._-<11 1,4,41(1-3 - Ii' ./. C, .A, I. 1- , r 0 -- ao & r.ru r. i ,-j (N 79#87,1 Â·9.'107-01 ,~-~ -12 f Â·1' *Â·,tr.â€¢ 1~ ' ..... i-Or f . 1 4 , 14 ., MIL , - 1,-I. 4, Dink 14.1 /9 I. J. . O,Â· 1% C. . I \ 1 04 W .2 M[-1 N 0 10Â· i o. E L -72 â€¢ 1 /1 10 , ' .f . 510. r 13Â« 12 <. p ..m..Oil* .A- 4/. f,1 , / 5 I Â£. ic,Rie.EL 13 1 f a . f 1 41(, 1 111 1 Ile 9. A B |C D E Ft! 'RE: W 19 ''- 1. : d .1 U) -1 1 J 2 1 1 -{l .4- th k] 1,3 1 â€¢GÂ· . cr) . i fl M~TAL 1. 1 - - . - .,0 cn d-'Er. 1 1/8 IMPROVEMENT SURVEY r.wl /, r , 1.1 * 3 HARLEY BALOW I N 6 3=1 Z.-c' 4 (â€¢1-15- C.."le) I I , fÂ¥1 -pr.LF,-O-i'24>t.Ob,T y /0 / , -, - 30 Cy' r ..ki ff//Of/f 13'50Â·5/ f~51416,535/fli'i '52' ~~~ ... 1 -- dll -11 - -- 0 1,2 â€žJ 9 Th, North 10 r,â€¢t of Lot~ A. R u.. nlo'-k '-. City ~nd rewÂ¥1~1*~ of 1 ..T OIl -Bn 4-cipting t#t r,rtion of -I Lot C convâ€¢4,â€¢d b,r Cult Cli'm Mid / .,â€¢r' pr< ,/ p...'12 ' ,/ 1 ILoonÂ·. r,cordâ€¢d . 800/ 2.7 at Pâ€¢gâ€¢ 425 of Pitkin County Mccordâ€¢I ~-~ ~25~/2~~f~--~f footjit>~titt~-,Â·359-*95/>!>-F~ _~ ~__,.2:30~t_ And ~ Parc~~ ~â€¢â€¢crib,he. . r ilt) Â£ ulA n/, 14~,~ 412..191./.4_w | U **glaning 't Cornâ€¢r No. 1 which 1, th, So~thâ€¢â€¢â€¢t corâ€¢.- 4 tot D in Bleck '. of th. CJ'Y â€¢rad Te-râ€¢,St* of A~Mn, M. th, South-* Cor-r of t . Lo~ I in â€¢â€¢Id Block theneâ€¢ r.inning /1-,r,g th, â€¢coâ€¢th D-nel.rY 'f 6â‚¬et D . . ...i/.1/ d./.tion . d'-â€¢nâ€¢/ I' .' '/I' t. lilli' ./ |â€¢ ~0 t 1 04'Uâ€¢ 11. n-0, runn'n, M . 04.th~,1, 41.,iâ€¢1,â€¢ )â€¢r..1 ~â€¢ thâ€¢ -â€¢t -qkâ€¢,v imia Let D â€¢ dlitÂ«ne:/ Df 20 /â€¢at to I I ALLEY BLOCK 88 U."t'NUY &1 V""UJ'tiÂ· ar- ..... â€¢4*// FL In''i 'â€¢fp '3:~Il, tiâ€¢~T ~~E~u p~ i:,.~43~.1:iI:; 4**lii:!iNI 7.11 - 6.1 OUNI> lil , 1 I .'': # :. i .40 ir' .1 ./ r,(, n,~ South 'bâ€¢-,ty ~201 fe~t of tt- E~.f thtr--a fj~/ fâ€¢â€¢t a. Lat A..4,â€¢d :- in .ock ... City ./. /0-1.12â€¢ t,Â¢ A.p,~/. .."' U.. '. .' " Init i I i, i I 'L" ~I ~,'Ir'..'~ f.'.,1, ./1/K Thi South rw-nty *20) f,â€¢t of thâ€¢ Mt Tw,nty Flvâ€¢ (M râ€¢â€¢t ed tot I IL: ',1' 1'..1,1~Al.; 1" '11.. . ~ ."Irld -O- 1/31./. 88. /1.... lownâ€¢lt' of #p~n. ~ ~~ â€¢'~'r 'y ~ t~â€¢â€¢,â€žM;e ,~~ r r.ii, 1, 1 N T~~ r. 14: .... d. IÂ·,4/Â»I 'Icl a,rrâ€¢'â€¢1,â€¢4Â· I,St-t t S. r. FEB ' '' /4#*A CITY AND TOWNSITIOF AMÂ·EN. Nor 3944 C .?4 low -1 11 leâ€¢â€¢ ./:i ":I'llul â€ž' 1/15 Coown OÂ¥ PITKIN, \1 5Â·rATE er COLORADO r.oÂ·, i -,tiâ€žÂ·. 91â€¢!15 1'Â·=fr i... . - 1.z:--El.. --f'*,F~ , OE, ./ Al I.. 015, *,7 â€¢â€¢rnlrril Aspen 5urvey Engineers, Inc. . 210 S /â€¢Lt/, 0/ I 0 00Â¥ 2501 MIN, COLO*A60 /02 C[knAâ€¢00 LAW irn, ,â€¢119~ (-11MMFâ€¢rE ANÂ¥ LEGAL ~T IC{ i Accrlâ€¢In 1 â€¢r; 10 ..Tâ€¢(IN .-EE YEAAS (303 921Â·31,1 â‚¬ , 1 CÂ», 1,Asr I I trâ€¢ Ai,Â¥ DEf[CT t. â„¢15 61,â„¢ i I -1.. - r,RsT UISCOVFR 91:/ OFfECT. I,i ,Â«1 1 VENI . M~Â¥ ANÂ¥ ACTI= -SED 1,0.â€ž4. .~Erl tâ€ž T â€¢ 1 9 Gul Â·Â·E â€¢ - Conâ€¢~ â€¢â€¢Cl o MonE ./. H. Â¥.-l 'AOM nÂ·â‚¬ DATI Or til ...11'1[Atl'. 9./. IM[IN. JOB NO. 19022 4 1 â€¢1 144'. ID â€¢q E)(e0 08 2 20'-0" -- r k .4 9791...4r / Â·Nad)*713489/ 6/.10-TING *CULPT-ORE- CÂ·,Al<.[DE U 1. - :....$ 111 4. i t' 4;6# ' - 4 I + #hipAY,1 3/ iÂ»*37 * 1 Ji pr ' 2.#P,â€¢r th j ,&++0+12 t.t- 11 frEK)7. POPF EFAINS -4 J It reli !*43 ' S'L:~~~+~'-4~t-4 Â·(--Ljâ€¢-JE 0, e)<,bl-iâ€¢Â·,Joi #/19/At.JI=- ALLE~ --) I ' r Â·rr~,LiÂ£~'.., ; ' 11 1 ./22/fLium/1 tiNÂ«1 KIG~ A LPI hi E EÂ»101â‚¬ De!%21%91- V' Li N e 00' - 4 ~.--~ifforti -=- ' -' *101-4 2 - TE)Â©f CENTE.1 - ve M+ON#Of et[Â» . 2 4 A -LEW 423-61/99 fllÂ·CXDS BLPB. Â·. i SITE PLAN MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Landmark Designation: 132 W. Main, Asia parcel Date: April 11, 1990 LOCATION: 132 W. Main, Lots K, L, M., N and the West half of Lot 0, Block 58, City and Townsite of Aspen APPLICANT: Steve and Lily Ko APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Landmark Designation for the entire parcel in order to take advantage of the incentives offered a designated landmark. The parcel consists of 132 W. Main (previously designated), 122 W. Main, which has now been moved forward on the lot and attached to 132 W. Main, and the vacant parcel to the east of the structure. PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: Landmark designation is a three-step process, requiring recommendations from both HPC and P&Z (public hearing at P&Z level), then first and second reading (public hearing at Final reading) of the designation ordinance by Council. HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION STANDARDS: The Standards for Landmark Designation are found in Section 7-702(A) of the Land Use Code. Any structure or site that meets one (1) or more of the standards may be designated as a Historic Landmark. A. Historic Importance. The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of historical significance of the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Response: 132 W. Main, the c.1888 George Moser House, was designated in the 1970's. 122 W. Main, referred to as the c. 1888 Jason Freeman House, has not yet been designated. NO information on the Freeman's or exist to meet the criteria in Standard #1. No information has been received on the vacant lot to substantiate Standard #1 criteria. B. Architectural Importance: The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character. Response: While both cottages have been changed substantially over the years, particularly in the early 80's when they were joined, we find that they still represent the miner's cottage style architecture common in Aspen. The vacant lot does not meet this standard. C. Architectural Importance: The structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen. Response: The Planning Office finds this standard is not met. D. Architectural Importance: The structure is a significant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: The Planning Office finds this standard is not met. E. Neighborhood Character: The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Respense: The Planning Office feels that the preservation of the two cottages is critical to the context of the Main Street Historic District. Previously, the HPC granted Final Development approval for a detached infill structure on the parcel. The applicant's need for office allocation is obvious, however, we feel that designation of the parcel to bypass the GMQS competition is not the intent of the designation provisions of the code. Another argument can be made that the community is not getting a "preservation project" from this designation request. To staff's knowledge, no plans have been made to renovate and clean UP the existing historic cottage "complex". P. Community Character: The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Response: We find that the two cottages meet this standard, however the vacant parcel does not. SUMMARY: It would appear from the last designation review (Lily Reid) that the HPC should revisit the intent of this standard, 2 specifically the meaning of the word "site" when making this determination. The preservation of a vacant lot does not meet the intent of this standard, in our opinion. The Planning Office maintains that "site" is defined as the land immediately associated with the historic structure, visually and/or historically. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: In discussion with the HPC, the applicant's principal reasons to pursue landmark designation for the entire parcel are timing and exemption from Growth Management (allocation). The Planning Department feels that it is not appropriate to use the landmark designation mechanism in this way, believing that a negative precedent will be set. In other similar cases, we are recommending designation for a portion of the larger parcel immediately associated with the historic resource (i.e. 17 Queen Street, 801 E. Hyman). The Planning Office supports Landmark Designation for the remaining non-designated historic cottage (122 W. Main), however, NOT the vacant parcel. We find that the remainder of the parcel does not meet the criteria for Landmark Designation, as stated above. The incentives program has been specifically developed to aid in the preservation, rehabilitation and adaptive use of historic and significant structures that have received landmark designation in Aspen. The Planning Office feels that the entire parcel does not meet the standards to be eligible for designation. The Planning Office will work with the applicant should they wish to pursue sponsoring a code amendment to revise the office quota allocation. We are in support of the new office space/structure proposed. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC Â· recommend Landmark Designation for the remaining portion of the parcel containing a historic structure. We recommend that the applicant define the legal description of the lots associated with the historic cottage-complex and submit same to the Planning Office prior to scheduling this item for review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. memo.pz.309eh 3 - t. 1 r A . . . -1 ASIA RESTAURANT AND OFFICE BUILDING Proposal For Historic Designation March 1990 , LAND USE APPLIC:ATIat FOEM 1) Project MaIne Asia Restaurant 2- Projeat location 132 W. Main, Int.9 K,| IMJN and the wnct half of Lot o. 12% %~- ' 6 City and Townsite of Aspen (indicate street ackiress, lot & block rl=ber, legal descripticn where appropriate) 3) Present Zoning 0 - Office 4) Lot Size 13,500 sq. ft. 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # Steve and Lily Ko, 132 W. Main, Aspen. CO. 81611, (303) 925-5433 6) Representative' s Name, Address & Phone # Dennis Green and Brian Busch, 617 Main, Suite B, Aspen, CO., (303) 925-1885, 925-4517; Charles Cunniffe & Assoc. 520 E. Hyman, No. 301. Aspen. CO.. 975-5590 7) Type of Application (please.check all that apply): Conoeptllal Historic Dev. Conditional Use Conceptlial SPA - Special Review - Final SPA Firal Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Corneptllal PUD - Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final FUD Historic Demolition Maurrt-A in view Plane Subdivision X Historic Designatian Condcminiumization __ Taxt/Map Amercmenu - GMDS Allotment - ht SpliVIat Line - CMDS Eba=ption Adjustment 8) Description of Existing Uses (rumber and type of existing structurÂ·es; approximate sq. ft. ; rumber of bedraces; any previous approvals granted to the property). Restaurant ond offices in one existing structure, approx. 9,000 sq. ft.: con-, ditional use for restaurant granted in 1976; Historic development approval for new structure granted in 1989 9) Description of Development Application See Attachment 3b 10) Have you attached the following? yes Response to Attactment 2, Minimum Submission Contents yes Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submissian antents YeS Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application lilli ATTACHMENT 2 Basic Submission Date 1. Letter of Consent by the Applicant for Brian Busch, Dennis Green, and Charles Cuniffe & Assoc. to act as representatives of the Applicant is attached as Exhibit "An, 2. The project is located at 132 W. Main, Aspen, Colorado. The legal description of the property is Lots K,L,M,N and the west half of Lot 0, Block 58, City and Townsite of Aspen. 3. The Ownership Certificate is attached as Exhibit "B". 4. The Vicinity Map is attached as Exhibit "C". 5. This proposal consists of two components and is part of an overall development plan for the entire site. First, the applicants seek historic designation for the entire site, consisting of 41 city lots. Second, they seek approval for minor historic development to allow changes,mainly to the interior, of the existing building. In 1976 pursuant to ordinance 1976-56 the prior owners of the property obtained historic designation for what was then known as Arthur' S Restaurant. The building was designated as a historic structure and Lots K and L were designated as an historic site. This application sees historic site designation for the remainder of the property, Lots M,N, and the west half of Lot O. A companion aplication seeks approval for minor clianges to the existing building. The applicants believe that this proposal complies with the review standards for historic designation for the following reasons. The site itself is of significant historic importance. The existing building consists of two structures, which have been joined together. The portion of the existing structure on the western-most side (i.e. at the corner of Main and First Street) was one of the earliest buildings along Main Street. It has been in place at that same location for over 100 years. One of the architects involved in earlier approvals reports pulling old newspapers from the walls dating from the mining era. Thus, the site is manifestly identified with and was part of the history of Aspen as a mining town. The portion of the structure on the eastern side also dates from the saine period and is part of this history. It was located on another spot on Main Street before being moved to its present location and being merged into the present structure. Thus, both the structure and the site have significant historic value and importance. Both the structure and site are important components of an historically significant neighborhood. The site sits squarely in the middle of the Main Street Historic Overlay District and thus is crucial to the City's efforts to preserve the character of this District. The structure consists of two buildings dating from the mining era both of which have been located along Main Street for over 100 years. For the same reasons, the structure and site are critical to the preservation of the Aspen community as a whole. The fact that the City has, to this point, designated only two Historic Districts, and that this location is right in the middle of the Main Street District, illustrates the importance of the location to the character of the entire community. The structures involved are similar and approoriate to others along Main Street in terms of size and architecture. Indeed, they are some of the earliest examples of the miners' cottage style from that era. As such, the site and structure reflect a unique and distinct part of the Aspen tradition. As other buildings from the era are lost, moved. or destroyed, the importance of preserving such buildings increases. The additional structure, approved by the Historic Preservation Committee in November 1989 is designed to be consistent with the above considerations. The applicant spent a great deal of time and revised its plans based on the specific concerns of the H.P.C. before approval was granted. As approved, the new structure is sensitive in scale and style to the neighborhood, needs of the site, and the existing building located there. The new building is compatible in character with the existing Asia Restaurant. The messing and sensitivity of scale is compatible with historic Victorian design theory, and the building is separated by a ten-foot open space, to avoid a "hodge-podge" look. The new building is consistent with the diverse character of the neighborhood, which is composed of various mixed-use building types. The proposed employee housing is consistent i.ith homes north of the location. This housing will help relieve employee needs of the neighborhood in general. The new office building will enhance the cultural and social values of the existing parcel. The proposed building is consistent with both existing structures but has a unique personality of its own. Respecting scale and sensitivity of "place", while enhancing the existing structure, our building plans will not copy or repeat any existing Victorians. The scale and forms do, however, mesh with the essence of historic Victorian architecture. The modern materials, decks and general configuration enhance the clean look of the adjacent Hotel Aspen. ATTACHMENT 3 1. A boundary description is attached as Exhibit "D". 2. The applicant does not intend to request a grant for this project from the City Council. March 12, 1990 Aspen Historic Preservation Committee, Aspen Planning Commission, and City of Aspen c/o City of Aspen Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO. 81611 We, Steve Ko and Lily Ko, the owners of the property at 132 W. Main, Aspen, Colorado, hereby authorize Brian Busch, Dennis Green and Charles Cunniffe & Assoc. to act as our agents, and to present submissions to the Historic Preservation Committee on our behalf. Mr. Busch is coordinating the planning and renovation for our application, Mr. Green is our legal counsel for the project, and Charles Cunniffe & Assoc. is the project architect. --7~~ /04Â« Steve Ko 0. 0 Lily Ko Asia Restaurant 132 W. Main Aspen, CO. 81611 (303) 925-5433 EXHIBIT A ASPEN CITY DIRECTOR-Y 1889. CITY GOVERNMENT. TREASUREN........._........ .............LOUIS 151' 16 1 CITY CLERK......................... .......M. L. COOK ATTORNEY.--- .--- .... -- ----------- .....-WM. O'BltIEN POLICE MAGISTRATE ........._--_....J. W. JOIINSTON MARSIIAL........._---_---_......... ....C. N. CROWDER CITY ENGINEER.... ...................._-JO[INAIcNEIL CITY PHYSICIAN_--_ ---- .- -- -_ _ _------A. .T. ROBINSON CITY COUNCIL. LRIBST ~ARD-P. II. Donnelly and H. C. Kennedy. SECOND WARD-Thomas Latia and J. O'ltiley. TINED WAI;D-.faines Leonard :ind C. J. Glassbroak. STANDING COMMITTEES. FINANCE-Latta, Donnelly and Glassbrook. IVAYS AND MEAN,4-Glassbrook, Leonard and O'Itiley. FluE DEPAR'rbiENT-Latta, Donnelly and Glassbrook. POLICE-Kennedy, Glassbrook and Leonard. LICENSics-O'Riley, Leonard and Kennedy. 0121,INANCES-L,ltia, Donnelly and Leoiiard. STIUCE'IS AND ALLEYs-Dozinelly, Latta and Kennedy. WATER AND Lic:lIT-Domielly, Leonard and Kemiedy. PluNTING-Glassbrook, O'Riley and Donnelly. 8 Exhibit F '4/hi.~ Â· * 4,-1 I a.ou~.40*4* % V. - - - A Â£ 11 P, 4 *24 ' 31; CIR/ .ReemÂ·d. N. STATE OFFICERS. 14 1.4 ~ JOB A. COOPER ----__--- __-----_-----_-_---GOVERNOR . W. A. SM]Tll.................LIE.11'1'1(NANT GOVERNOIt #k # JAMES RICE ---- --------4.......SECRETARY OF STATE "6 iI. W. BRISHANE .... -_-_ --------_-------_-_TliEASUREH j p LOUIS SCHWANBECK .... -----_â€ž._.--_--__---_ AUDITOR C-k b. S. W. JONESn_--------_---__-ATTORNEY GENERAL 1 10'RED. DICK --â€ž._-_-_SUPT. OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION %1 ti COUNTY OFFICERS. . tj F. Ir. STOCKMAN --_--__-_--_--CLERK AND RECO]tl)Ell L JOHN W. WHI'PE __.......--..-____............SIIE]11FF 1% W. E. TURLEY.....-----------------------.....CORONER GEO. II. MOSER----.---___.__....--...TREASURER J. A. DEAN...._-----SUPERINTENDENT 01'SCHOOLS ................_-_____ASSESSOR PITILIP CARBARY.__--- THOMAS A.RUCKER .....__- JUDGE DISTRICT COURT thÂ· D. W. STRICKLAND_....___--JUDGE COUNTY COURT JOIIN M. REACII----.-___.-CLERK DISTRICT COURT J. E. ROCKWELL ......-_...... .DISTRICT ATTORNEY C. S. WILSON COUNTY ATTORNEY fj . 1/ . BANKS AND BANKERS. FIRST NATIONAL BANK-W. S. Cheeseman,,d?resident; 1 David R. C. Brown, Vice-President ; Theo. G. Lyster, Cashier. * Located at the corner of IIyman avenue and Galena street. - J. B. WIIEELER & CO.-D. M. Van IIâ‚¬evenbergh, Cashier; IL T. Tissington, Assistant Cashier. Located Opera IIonse Block, cor. IIyman avenue and Mill street. Â¢ 1 0. 11 344 . 1 Â·Â· Il 9. llâ€¢ ~.- -1. 1 a r Av. same. V. .el', [Iop- 1 34 1Iy- :111 ' av. jet. S. S. to St. Gents Furnishing Goods in end- leâ€¢â€¢ varieties. Opera House. The WeinbergCIothingCo MOR 95 MYS MORGAN CECIL C., mgr, Bonny Bell Mine, r. E. Main, opp. Hotel Jerome. Morgan Joseph, miner, r. 719 E. Cooper av. Morgan Jack, police officer, r. 119 E. 1Iopkins av. Morgan W. J., miller, r. 729 E. Hopkins av. Morrell J. F., clk, Tomkins Bros., r. E. Durant av, near It Monarch. Atorrell A. W., bkkpr, Tomkins Bros., r. 200 W. 1[yman av. Morris S. L., mgr, Schiller Lease, r. same. Morris D. F., bkkpr, R. J. Boles, r. con Main and Galena. Morris J. C. Mrs., laundry, 930 E. Durant av. Morrissey Chas., miner, r. 712 Durant av. Morrison W. 0., life insurance, bds. Clarendon liotel. Morrisson J. H., mining, 313 S, Spring. .Morrison J. E., mining, Windsor IIotel. Morrison Robt. lI., carpenter, r. 434 W. liopkins av. Morse Frank, musician, r. 313 S. Spriug. Morse Mary-Miss, stenographer, F, S. -Rice, r. 108 S. Monarch. Â¤ Morse lIenry, lab, bds. Clarenclon IIotel. Morthland G. H., painter, r. 222 W. Francis. Moser Geo. II., county treasurer, r. 134 W. Maine. Moising Katie, boardinghouse, Mill, opp. Itio Grande R. R. :, ~ depot. Mowl Geo., tailor, 310 S. Galens, r. same. Moynahan T. J., machinery, con Dean and Mill, r. Lead- ville. Mugler Geo., brewer, Aspen Brewery, r. same. Muir Chas. E., musician, Theatre Comique, con Cooper av. B S and Spring- Mulgrave J., mining, r. 434 W. North. , Mull C. E., barber shop, Hyman av, r. 624 W. IIallarn. Mulqueen Andrew, clerk, post office, r. 108 W. Smuggler. Muentern H. R., miner, bds. Schafer 1Iotel. Munn -, miner, r. 308 S. Hunter. Munson B., miner, r, Gilbert, bet. Aspen and Monarch. ' Murphy John, miner, r. 808 E. IIopkins av. Murphy John, miner, r. 635 W. North. Murphy Dave, miner, r. 021 S. Mill. Murray ThoM., miner, r. rear 724 E. Hopkins av. MURRAY W. J., liquor merchant, 416 E. 1Iyman av, r. 185 W. 1Iopkins av. Â· Murray Ed., bkkpr, r. 2 LaFave Blk. Murtha Owen, miner, bds. Tibbet House. Myser Geo., miner, Ute av. Ready-made Dreamel ~ C. A. GOSS & CO. j Be fitted if neo. for Ladies and gary, without Children. Hyman, next to Opera House l 7 charge. i OVRENIS QUIU ~2009 m *sts?N T'Atm 310 HYMAN AV: T m Sheets. 6996. rÂ© ~ CO Q,~ a *LOU-3 8\7 9 r--~3 \ 79 \ 4 -eA,imr,1~0= r--\ 1 00 1 L--4 *v. /37 ([55~-h\\\\\ 1--247> 1 \4>91 0 9-4 - 4 4~il MAPiR> /@/ e /POPULAT,8*dto<&' c 4.7~M~Rv.~ ~ 3000. \ 4 Br[AirÂ·LE Citte & Hup,YERCREE, /,Râ€¢â€¢111Â¥ SM- Ard PRES- t.,11 1 46.-kilaUT'ES .SEENOTE. ViRIER fac,unrd: 3 0,SluiCT Â¥NTE. 301.8.234 }ED 19/1 'kÂ¥â€¢i.:1,6 -= W INM Â·iftek ' 5=&2 > 5.*f Â·200 .St PER all m. 2 JETTLING TINME ON CASTLE CP'til< '1 I 9] 3!FAM & No HAAP'NÂ·Â·'NE n -M â€¢ CIPÂ·r or 80.000 6ALLS 20 ,toc,â€¢TED 325' 48Â¥ GRADEDâ€¢ 1~ ~ r---~1 \33\\> AVÂ· r--3/ ?yallam \1 Â· < 2 06' CEMER 67. 9 SETriING TANÂ« IN Hly,rit* LPâ€¢tr. *i-In A 15 41 1 ===23. ZYâ‚¬7 8 4./.9-'i O ER,4 OF *.000 GILLÂ·6 E/., LOCATEU =5 ' 4/ apâ€¢/C or M,\ 94 \ CE-~ 1 , iN POOR CONO~r/Â£;A, 07 ~~ AÂ¢*'. ..37 /*ASE /70 "Â¥7- 2,0 . I 3...Git I C f-. lake. ~ 8*2~Â£~tr ~ S,Al&l7. 2 *%Â£6 0/1-2~. 2-4, , 7 -r~ APAS. 63 ASPEN - CD~rEN*NATO' 35 L----' ~ifiki~E- *2. GE 299-: 2 PRI .E. 3â‚¬06 1'0,0â€žTEERs .:7â€ž \A â€¢ E Roarld /24 10 . R MEMBEÂ®IHIP oF 75 MEN Gâ€¢MEâ€¢ELi Flpt Rinepri J.vs, EM, 'll~ 921\ i . em'%21139.-~ 3:L-Ui-US;Â° 4â‚¬ ~11~ COLEF" *><l~# fOSTRTiONS.GEN. Re:mâ€¢ SEn Y ING,Nf AC}. /-2 HONIE %43 ~.u-~, PITKIN COUN17'; Erl- WORTH 57: 1 - HOSE m POOR CoN),TION AT ENG.Ho. To n./. 610- 21 O 14]SE, NEW, EFTER Mar 10'- :304 . 2 HOR: E L. & %2,243:11-2-94Â»4&0 Z, 5.8,2 72 Ner P.8 98./C- 2.6 .7. Ear Z E-Ul-1~~~~521-fili}-f=~A~l - -',Â·q~s4OM/AY. 8%1~94#~ J I 5MUGGLER ,57- â€¢ 4- ~h.4,~1â€¢E SANâ€¢eqg..e< ~- -4 River. 0 INDEX. r 1--21~--d STREETS. uâ€¢â€¢r Hyman Ave.,1:........ 700-935 11 0 21- 70Â£51 8 W. E. er A *' 0, W.,........700-334 -5 Christian ebureh,-.......... . E ~ 1 Alpen, N.â€ž..............100-219 6 â€¢. . ., .. ......101-119 -7 Citi..4 Ho,pilal, .............. p-IF,/im " 1@8 181 0 1 u w .2 -~ 4 -A'. - City HA....... .........â€ž 4 1 0 1 D Bleeker, 1, ]00-335 6 T 1, Conina Bjoek................... J . Cobenboven Tunnel Drdnag,â€¢ al- J.an, Transportat. Co.,....... - FR. 8 MALLAM ~ W. t t. . -- 7 Col. MidL R. R. DepoL 71 toi - --U-4 0~ ~ ............ 400-635 4 0, ,- Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·........-400-635 9 and Framing Mill,........... . P % 1 8 ' L_1.1 U , 9 0 -9 0\ ............ .400-635 9 '; W.,.............100-335 5 M~n. ]3.................100-335 6 Compromi#-Durant Tram Hou- - L...1 Â·Â· ' . -. ;08-921 3 Â·Â·Â·- Â·-Â·Â·Â·--Â·Â·Â· 700-913 11 County Court Hou-,............ ._11_ 0 1 BLEEKIR W ' f C ;: ~ -- ': ~~ ~4 00-enhmen Bl-4 Center, N.,..............100-218 -6 n â€ž D Â·Â· 700-995 3 D & R. G. & C M. R. 12. Depoâ€¢... " ..............300-409 13 .. ., Â·' ..............101-219 -5 Mill, N.,................ 100-218 ~ !3Â· & R. G. fl R Rouuo Houâ€že, - L___lk " S.,..............100-218 -6 â€ž 2 -Â·-Â·Â·Â·-Â·-Â·--Â·Â·--Â·~j~g~~ .9 1.â€¢urant Framing Mill, .......... . d e............ ...... Â·Â· MIne .............. ,- .. MAIN' Aj ty . /9 E. ..:,- c= 0 ~ 0 .. ----~---~101-219 -5 I " ............. 300-615 7 :: her Ilow,.......... Tram House, -~ I~ Cooper Ave., E.,.........100-335 7 M -- " .................301-633 â€¢7 z " 'â€¢ ........ 400--635 8 - ;' -~' l~ ]00-219 6 S.,.......... 10(k-219 6 Emmet Block,...... ....... LU .-' ".. -00-941 11 ............300-033 7 Episeopal Chwreh, ~co~ e-/ 'tiOPKINS AV. â€¢ W. E. ~ ,â€¢ . ' RÂ·4i. . " " .......iMO-]047 14 N E.rek. Hotel, ....... .. ....... ' â€¢â€¢ W.,........100-135 7 North,...................401-033 -13 F - -.- --11-1 9-1 Ff] [-9 [31 5 W 0 4~1 â€¢ i~jri,769--14 Nt,in'.O 1 1 1 Deane Ave........ ......100-335 7 Original, S.,............ 100-419 11 " PreÂ®byter,an Church,....... D O First Meth. Epise. Church,.... ........ 400--635 8 500-6*,1 12 Free Silver Miniug Co.,......... - 91--_J 0- ~ *,wmv MV. Â· e â€¢ 4 â€¢ - ~91.-4 ~ 40035 S Second, N., .............100-219 5 Garfheld School,................ Durant Ave.,E.,.........]{10-335 7 -h. I G AVE. ,..<- Moun ta,0 -7 E--~~-1 F~"--~-1 -ZI----12 m1M H .. .............. 306-409 13 a |&11 ~ 1*~Â£~4| 83 @ u ~ 1> it 10 i i,i i, 3, g r-,9 1 ~ 11 " . - " S.............. 100-219 5 3,fie 41 j & E Seventh, N.,........... 100-325 3 Holden Mill;Â»g I,id Smelting C... H \0\ 9.. E. â€¢C GOPER~ P Fifth, N.,............... 100-319 4 " " 400-520 -6 Hunter Creek 11,11 :â€žge{,-.Coneent-r Eighth, N 100-325 v â€¢ S., .............100Â·129 3 Hotel Burt,.................... F Sixth, Nâ€ž.... ......... 100-319 -4 â€¢â€¢ Jerome'....._.. ....... â€¢â€¢ Lineoln. .............. ... 101-319 Â·~ 47 .. v Iinifill m 1 1 z 11 0/ 11 *11 //2 H #,14 57 400-521 13 " " 0, . 6,) f. 4;6-JILL-2 L.Â£._Ii S.,...............100-118 Â·. IC First, N.,................100-219 5 " " ...............101-119 -3 Koell, H G., Saw Mill, No. 1, â€¢ 300-412 13 Smuggler,........ .... 400-637 13 ...201-Zio u Â· OP 5 1=:-4~3 ~[13~ [Â£23 2-*-3 Unit, CEE_I [2221. LILI L 1 -5Â©Fourth, N.,....... .. ..100-319 4 r--2JI [1-T-&/''lif,5\tj>/\9441/'. , â€ž , ~ .~........400-21 13 ....... .....101-219 - 9 La Salle, P., Mining & Power C.. 0 2 R G R. R. 1. -T J Fnnees, E.,.............100-115 13 " "...000-010 Â·12 S.,............. 100-]]9 4 " ........ .. 31-4,09 -S Lineolu Sehook ...... .... w.'...... . 1(30-3.3 13 'r M 3 - W M " .~.......*. 400-034 13 Third, N., .......... .. 100-218 -5:1Iellor'. Fo,indry 6.tta:hine S!.e~. " ........... 401-633 -4 Â·' Â·' ...... .. .... ]01-319 -4~110]lie Gibion Alill. Tbe, Â¢ 1% 4 PA ~ 0 I ............TOI-933 -3 Â·' " ...... 300-31Â§ Â·13! â€¢â€¢ Â·â€¢ Mile, Tber. " " ...... ..... 400-519 13 Monivill,Ho.. ... ..... Err (}ILBERT " S................ 100-2,8 -5 ; Mt- Sepris Miâ€¢ing & Dramage Co . i 'RE WA. 016 4/ I.OF ,/ 1/ nnir?&*stze,Al'-, co~~ ~~ ~~*~~~~ ~~~~*mb;19 -4 + *1~12 / . Galena, L..100-119 9 100-219 9 0 " I ..............300-6Â£ 8 tt,LL 12|c,per. House Block... ...... WOOCCOR/,CE _-"IREWAL.1811, A.4.00 H W K -I-- O/El:â€¢i Will ....00/ 06 .. Â·. ,, ...... 50,1/45 12 Â·Â· OIL. 071 Hallam, E.,..............100-114 13 West End, S.,............](41-419 11 ' }toaril,L:Ferl }.1.L.&Pow,Co.,Neâ€¢â€¢ Â·Â· 'STANDARD- Â·' " ............. 214-33.1 -10 RON DOOR .- 1, U 1 S â€¢in/ove, a,noâ€¢, sNerÂ·TE#. Â·' SPECIALS. 11 itil <1~Fj ~~~DiwikY:5-*- - - 600-635 9 1 Mt. Mar,-3 4'athohe Church, ............ 101-335 -5 ~ 5"der. C.. Br"ery. A SeÂ·llueler& /te,elider,Copeent.nÂ·-ks. 01 03 ' â€ž .............400-636 4 Adventist Church,............... 5 Stuuggder Mw,ing Co., .... 9, 1,1 . C~ STAIL, T 6 - 4 ~ Argentum Joi,iata Miuing Co.0. .. 12 , Sparr Cobsohdated Mining Co.,. ......... COL'Ht' ..LLOW All FRA'E Hor,kins AL,e., E.,I....:..:%tz:R 9 A.ren ~i~Bloe ............... ~:bred,sh Luther- Church,. L= - DRICK 41 0 Â·-Â· Â·Â·Â·Â·-- C ~ Taylor & BrunteÂ», Ore HOUSe, 6 - STONE " " ........;00-940 11 Brew . GRAY IRON â€ž " W.........16-3.6 -0 0. High g:&%. ADOÂ»E ,4 4 0, *. 4U0-634 4 ,, Ahne ......12&14 w SPECIALS AYIVE â€¢E~GHTS. + ALTERIATE ST/KET NUMIERS Aâ€¢E ACTUAL 2 Coâ€¢â€¢icurmt ..En .05 -1 ....TMAR'.40 D,H. ASPE i| 0. . .. C i - 1- 1 d *, 80_CESE :vi...4.-6.3..12.i...LL C MAY1904-~ 43 11 .2 - 1 ASPEN 1 A 11 A --A PIP I I.= -==-==- S. 201 /35-3 )31-29 /27-5 123-21 /19-17 /M-/3 m-9 /07 -5 /03-1 11 0 76' % 1 1 1 1 e r/- -- -91 11 00' 2-2 L , > 9 1 1/#-0 4 3 # \ 1 11 1 0 11 -22] 5) 11 li/ 0 0 ji A B C D E F GUI 0 li e N D / X [3 1 A| N r 2 11 57 0 1 11 ~I 01<6,Y 'W.C.1 1 p' 71 %11 2 1 11 M L M N o LINCOLN SCHOOL S & 4 11 x Har. ty*,65 ~ 11 ~ 2/2/8 : NONE 1 21 N e d y t\.1 --7 0Â£4272 11 I iLl 1 0 11 0 202 200 84-2 ISO-28 t26-4 /22-20 118-/6 //4-/2 //0-6 /06 -4 /02-/00 ~ 4|| 4 111 4 kia -il- -- - 201 135-3 /3/-29 /27-3- 123-21 1/9-/7 #5-/3 m-9 /07-5 /03-/0/O l),t# %~ iii 32-ri 1 1 11 f M /1/ 01 -7-TE -2-[~57-3,-If -1 3 J-~ L -v *F-- -4 , 7 11 (0 _ 1 Â« r| -[; Oil/ 01 1 0 11 -- 'ki E 1/0 11 un BC o FG ---R , 0 - Shâ‚¬J 1./ 0 4 [m' 1 4 El / X /4 0 [3 131 [r 1/7/X 1- 58 & z Ml 1 k 13><9 2) W 41-11 S go a SAl P 2 M /1/ O 1 11 XI -r' 1 1 F 7 t& 1 I - ' *-I .11.f 1 1 4 11 1 011 1/0 . ,l 4% M L- .1 1 Z -,w [7--~ .12 \ '/ *rz-ZE~1 ey 4-5 1 1 ell 202 200 134-2 /30-28 120 -4 !Â·9 //6 114-12 1/0-8 100 /02- || 05 /22 20 . li ========= 11 = â‚¬f - 203-201 135-3 331-29 127-5 123-2/ 1/9-)7 115-/3 //1-9 Iot 103- 107Â·05 --1 11 1 - --*-- *.-i- - . rT - -41 r7 - ./ // 11 1 '01 101 /03 105 /07 /09 If 1 /3 114 117 J 19 toi 205 207 209 91 218 2/5 . 100 100 }02 )04 /06 ;06 110 112 04 /16 1,8 200 202 204 206 208 2/0 212 EM- 61/ Li / 34/ 101 V & MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: 3rd Annual Preservation Honor Awards: Call for Nominations Date: April 11, 1990 DISCUSSION: It is time once again to honor those projects and individuals who have contributed to the preservation of Aspen's heritage. The awards will be presented on May 16 at Preservation Forum, and are in the form of engraved brass plaques and certificates. Projects eligible for nomination are those completed prior to December 31, 1989. As of this date, no formal nominations from the community have been received in the Planning Office. Five categories have been used in the past, which the HPC decided to retain this year as well: Commercial, Renovation Commercial, New infill Residential, Renovation Residential, New infill Other (people, objects, special efforts, public projects) Therefore, the burden (once again) appears to lie heavily on you. The following projects have been completed, and are eligible for nomination. I mention these to you as a point of reference, seeking your ideas. o Shadow Mountain Building, 600 block West Main New commercial infill o /71 Smith-Elisha House Commercial renovation 0 309 W. Main (Bergman's cottage) Commercial renovation o Aspen Art Museum Commercial renovation 0 715 W. Smuggler Residential renovation 0 525 N. 2nd - the Shilling-Lamb House Residential renovation 0 113 E. Hopkins Residential renovation 0 @201 W. Francis - Carriage House 3 39 - 4 . ij all r-_ Residential/Adaptive Use renovation 0 222 E. Hallam New residential infill 0 1490 Red Butte Drive (Caroline Miller) Relocation and renovation of 1946 "Strong" cabin o Aspen Historical Society (under "Other") , for their efforts in obtaining the lease agreement with the City for the Holden-Marolt site rh Main Street Bakery and Cafe (under "Other") for their efforts to preserve a use! ARCA Gazebo/Kiosk, Commercial Core Craftspeople (under "other") with particular sensitivity to historic preservation l-7 1 - tom< #An s 4,A-t)&~ t< o r ,Â£, f/-1- pa~.-,p,~4 V Kij-- Your ideas for nominations: Note: You may consider giving an award to the City (Engineering Department) , under "Other" for the historically sensitive and compatible fencing material chosen to surround the historic Aspen Grove Cemetery(!!!). RECOMMENDATION: Nominations from the floor, which shall be officially voted on by the HPC as a whole at the next meeting. memo.hpc.award.nominations 2 00 0 \/ Y. CL MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: West End Elementary School sites: Discussion and request for HPC position statement Date: April 11, 1990 BACKGROUND: Recently, a city/county committee was formed to address the land use planning issues of the west end elementary school sites. Amy Margerum, Planning Director, and staff have discussed the HPC's involvement in planning at this early stage. Amy has requested the HPC formulate their position on the school sites, and voice their concerns and suggestions in the form of a Resolution. DISCUSSION: Staff and the HPC have considered for some time formalizing the proposed West End Historic Overlay. Staff feels that the design issues associated with the development of the elementary sites are critical to the contextual character of the West End, specifically, and Aspen in general. For historical perspective, the red brick school was constructed in 1941 from the bricks reported to be of the 1890 Washington School. We feel this structure has historic merit from an age, material and design perspective. The yellow brick school was constructed in the 50's, and its contributing significance can be argued. one option which has been discussed is retaining the red brick school on site and adaptively renovating it for a compatible use, and demolishing the yellow brick school to make way for small scale cottage-type housing, with appropriate spacing, setbacks, massing, bulk, height and materials. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC direct staff to prepare a Resolution stating the committee's position on the future development of the west end elementary school sites. Said Resolution shall be signed by the Chairman of the HPC, and will be incorporated into future site planning discussions by the Planning Director. memo.hpc.school.sites TO: Board of County Commissioners Mayor and City Council FROM: Amy Margerum, Planning Director ~,1 THRU: Bill Efting, Acting City Manager Reid Haughey, County Manager RE: School District Downtown Sites: Proposed Planing Process BOCC Worksession: February 20, 1990 City Council Agenda: February 26, 1990 DATE: February 15, 1990 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends that the Board and Council discuss joining and supporting a planning process for the downtown school sites in conjunction with the School District. We ask that your respective bodies discuss the process separately prior to the joint Board/Council meeting on March 6. BACKGROUND: The City Council met with School District representatives in a worksession on February 5, 1990 on the future use of the downtown school sites. The conclusion of that meeting was an agreement to begin a joint planning process to set some basic land use parameters for the two downtown school sites. The City Council asked the joint Planning Office to work with the County and the School District to formulate such a process. DISCUSSION: Amy Margerum met with the County Manager's office and Frank Betts of the School District on February 8, 1990. It was proposed that a planning process similar to the Meadows planning process, but truncated, would be mutually beneficially to all parties involved. We propose that an Advisory Committee be appointed which would include: - Two members of the School Board - Two members of the City Council - Two members of the BOCC - One member from each Planning Commission Staff would be represented from each agency with the Planning Office managing the overall process. The use of an outside consultant was discussed but not yet determined. The process would begin with the priorities already established for the school sites by the School District's Advisory Committee and would include involvement from the surrounding neighborhood. The following guidelines were discussed with the School District: - The plan should be mutually beneficial to the School District, the City and the County; - The plan should provide some level of affordable housing for the School District and the community; - The plan should be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and impacts mitigated to the maximum extent feasible; - The plan should be a continuation of the advisory process previously undertaken by the School District; - The plan should contribute to the financial solvency of the School District; In addition, the County has asked that the project be timed so as to be consistent with issuing bonds this summer in order for them to be in a position to contribute financially if necessary. RECOMMENDATION: Direct the Planning Office to continue to work with the City, County and the School District in undertaking a joint planning process. Formulate any questions and/or concerns you would like to have addressed at the joint meeting on March 6. - 1~WI~~2~~I'"~Im"d :~-tij/49219~1/AILI.Paw#*ip_,~.41- 11Â£41Â».104.11~ ,*NLETuk'~'9 ...: . . 1 1 Ilistoric district meeting spiked Civic president hits law's enforcement 94 reruiling its future. By Michael Blankenheim In light of those developments, Pot- ler deferred the uÂ·ork session for now. . F Amid more charges that Vienna's He said he wanted to let the situation settle down and consider the results of historic district is mishandled, town I'lanning Commission Chairman Mar- the residents' meeting before moving shall Potter canceled last night's dis. any further. -4 cussion of the issue. ~We need somr clarifiation; we Commissioners were scheduled to need to hear what comes of the mee- conduct a work session March 14 to con- ling," said Potter. IX. ~, sider how the law governing the 56 After residents meet, the commis homes in the district should be rew-Tit- sion will most likekÂ· take up the issue r 7 ten. They have been studying the issue once again, he said. 4 4 since last fall when they conducted two The ordinance that governs the dis- 7 .1.â‚¬ public hearings. triet. established iii 1979, stipulates that E Â· But this week charges and coun- prniwertyowners ofthe 56 homes cannot tercharges flew back and forth between make major nipairs until they first re- 7 residents and town officials over wheth- reive permission frnin the Historie Re- er administration of the district is too view Board, after assuring thit there- strict. AlsÂ« an effort waq launched to pair or alteration â€ž il! not disturb the -3 4 bring all district residents together in nature ofthe neighborhood. one meeting to resolve the controversy * See HMTORIC, AG Historic district battle heats up have supported the district in repairs. are "not accept,ble.- content results from the provi- the past to want out. This causes Hembree cleclined to com ratherthan the administration of sions found in the ordinance i I u: iri â€¢0parable harm," wrote ment on the letter. However, in same, " wrote the town manager. Sloan. *= HISTORIC, From At attempts to rruÂ·rite the regula- permission for changes on items a memo to the cotineil, Town I.ast month, 30 homeowners tien< are not proceeding well. that shoitld not he considered Sloan also chastised Heinbree Manager John Schoeberlein During the council's work Bubmitted a petition to Town Sloan's letter was aritiresse~1 major rymirs. for allegedly attempting to re- wrote that Sloan's charges are session Monday night, Vienna write the law.However, much of off base. Schoeberlein stated Mayor Charles Robinson Jr. aaid Council requesting that their togÂ·eg liembree, Vienna's plan- Sloan ehided Hembree, writ- that effort was done last,Jurie by that a swimming pool, under the the council must rework its homes be taken otil of the dis- ning and zoning director. Sloan, ing that homeowners should not the Viemn, Town Council during togn's code, is a separate strue- changes to the ordinance beeau:se friet. And this week, Charles who supports the distriet. wrote have to seek permission for in- ilic work session which lure requiringboard review. of residents' apparent dissatis a pul Sloan, president of the Malcolm- that, after questioning some of stalling a swimming pool or re- Sloan did not attend. faction. Windover Civit.Association, the petition'g Rigners, he con- placing a roof with identical Also, under the proposed In an interview Wednesday, changes to the law, residents re- During thal meeting, Coun- wrote town officials that the law cluded they are upset because materials. governing the ordinance is toâ€ž Hembree is requiring residents Sloan conceded that accusing placing a roof with identical cilinan Robert Robinson walked severely administered and that to go before the board to seek "The original intent of the or- Hembree of rewriting the law material would not have to seek out in protest because he said dinance was to allow people as was not entirely on target. the board's permission. having even a brief discussion much freedom as possi- â€ž about the district without first I don't want to get in a situa "Many times, it is necessanÂ· notifying the public is unfair. ble ... Your strict legalistic changes tothe ordinance," re- if any, room for flexibili- all district homeownent for April approach is causing people who tion of pointing fingers . . W- for town staff to enforce ordi- hat matters is that the proposed nance prnvisions that leave little, Sloan scheduled a meeting of ~quiring detailed drawings for all ty . 1 contend that such dis- 3. - THE LONGER VIEW In his classic economics text the Nobel laureate Paul Growth Samuelson defined what he calls the "fallacy of com- position": the idea that what 'is good for one may not necessarily be good for all. His example is personal sav- 1 Management ing. Although great for the individual, high lates of sav- ings are bad for society because, unless they take the Good for the Town, form of real capital investment, they can lead to a reces- sion. Bad for the Nation? amine the applicability of the fallacy of composition to Taking a leaf from Samitelson's book, I propose to ex- land policy, particularly to growth management. I see Benjamin Chinitz the issue as whether individual communities, as they im- plement land use regulations to protect the quality of their own environments in tile face of growth, exacerbate i orameliorate the contemporary environnienta} concerns } of the nat'ion, or for that matter, the world as a whole. 1 My presumption that community-level land policy has wide nonlocal ramifications derives from the fact that a j number of important environmental concerns are land- use-related and are tied to growth. Thus, 1 would argue ' that local growth management programs arÂ·c a mixed blessing. In some ways they assist in achieving national and global environmental goals and in other ways they detract from this mission. Growth and the Environment 1 define growth aS the expansion of developed space. Its sources are typically increases in population and eco- nomic prosperity, which generate higher demands for housing, workplaces, service establishments, roads, and schools, and jead to the exploitation of land and natural resources. It is a mistake to define growth only in pop- u]ation terms, although it might be hard to argue that in Califo:-nia and Florida. It must encompass giÂ·owtli in em- "Unmanaged" growth depletes the capacity of nature ployment and income as wellÂ· to support economic activity, a high standard of Mving, and life itself. This loss creates environmental stress. In a recent report, The Crucial Decade: Tile 1990s anc! tile Global Environmental Challenge O 989), the World Re- sources Institute enumerated several growth-related problems: global warming. acid rain. deforestation. and the reduction of biodiversity. The institute viewed these concerns as having worldwide dimensions. It argued that these problems can be resolved only through interna- tional cooperation. and urged tile Bush administration to exert leadership in this area. While the United States shares all these global con- cerns, it also has a broader national environmental 4 0 agenda. Among the issues of concern are reduced air Chinitz, an urban economist, completed his doctoral quality for a large fraction of the urban population. loss work at Harvard in 1956. As professor, author, consul- of valuable wetlands, poor water quality, the pollution tant, and public servant, he has focused his attention on the factors that produce growth or decline in urban areas of lakes and oceans, and tile inadequate disposal of all and regions, and the role of public policy and local ini- kinds of hazardous wastes, including nuclear wastes. tiatives in affecting these trends. In September 1987. Clearly, land use patterns contribute to both global , Chinitzwasappointeddirectorof research at the Lincoln and national environmental losses. In fact. unnianaged Institute of Land Policy in Cambridge, Massachusetts. growth has two manifestations. The first is USING THE APA IOURNAL 3 WINTER 1990 + all. BENJAMIN CHINITZ WRONG LAND. An example is appropriating wetlands policies to comply with federally promulgated air and for development. The second is USING LAND THE water quality standards. WRONG WAY. Urban sprawl that encourages auto- A growing but still short list of state governments have mobile use and results in an inappropriate pattern of de- developed legislation to help manage growth through velopment is illustrative. The major "villains" in the link land policy. Oregon and Florida were the pioneers in the between growth and environmental degradation are 1970s. In the 1980s they have been joined by Maine, technological advances that encourage the burning of Vermont, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and most recently fossil fuels and behavioral attitudes that encourage the by Georgia. In Oregon and New jersey the focus is on undisciplined use of the private automobile and the gen- state planning to influence where growth occurs. In Flor- eration of large volumes of solid and liquid waste. ida, particularly since new legislation was enacted in 1985, the emphasis has been on assuring that new de- The Environmental 'Problem' at the velopment will occur concurrently with the provision of Local Level the needed infrastructure. Other states use carrots and sticks to encourage local comprehensive planning com- When I lie awake at night in Newton, Massachusetts bined with regional review of proposed projects that have (a Boston suburb that is experiencing further develop- regional impact. ment in the absence of population growth) and worry At the local level, some towns, cities, counties, and about the security of my environment, al! these global regions have engaged in a flurry of growth management and national issues provide the backdrop for an agenda activity. In recent years, particularly but not exclusively that is a lot more "local," I worry about potential de- in California, the November ballot has been crowded velopment projects in town and I am afraid they will with referenda to somehow "limit" or"control" or"plan" increase traffk on my street, affect my route to work, for, or "charge" for, growth. From San Diego to Virginia make parking even more difficult in the nearby shopping Beach, hundreds, possibly thousands, of communities villages, and spoil the visual setting that I enjoy when I have introduced new systems ofland use regulation under look out the window of my house or my car. I worry the banner of growth management. Some communities about my water supply, both its quantity and quality. I like Boulder, Colorado. have emphasized impact fees. worry about the preservation ofopen space in the neigh- Others, like Aspen, have focused on quotas. Vi: mia borhood and the rest of the town. I am concerned that Beach and Montgomery County have resorted to transfers all the suburban landscape that I treasure and that con- of development rights (TDRs) to restrict development to tributes to my sense of well-being will be irreparably certain zones. Amherst, Massachusetts, has introduced damaged by the unmanaged growth I see around me. open space zoning. My list is perhaps shorter than the standard list in the However the locals go about the task of managing expanding literature on growth management, which growth within theirjurisdictions, their actions will affect might also include such concerns as localized air pollu. which lands are developed and which are not, and the tion, hazardous waste disposal, wetlands management, pattern of development that emerges. 'Wliich brings us and water pollution. But then, I ask myself, who is in back to the question: are local and state efforts to protect charge? Which governments that command my loyalty environmental assets in the course of growth consistent and my taxes can I trust to protect my treasured envi- with national and global goals for the environment? Are ronment? locally determined land policies productive, counterpro- ductive, or neutral in this regard? Who Makes Land Policy? Development versus Conservation: Land policy in the context of growth is public policy What Are the Costs? aimed at modifying "market"-driven land use choices in waysthat would reduce the negative environmental con- The most unambiguous role for local growth manage- sequences of growth. It can refer to local, state, and fed- ment land policy in preserving environmental assets in eral jurisdictions. Many actors participate in making land the face of pressures generated by population and cco- use policy. For example, the federal government, which nomic growth is to confront hard choices between de- is the majority owner of land in our country, makes de- velopment and conservation. But can land policy aimeel cisions on the disposition of such land. h decides whether at preserving lands possessing high social values be putÂ·- to retain it in its natural form, develop it into national sued simultaneously at alllevels of government in a iÂ·ea- parks, or make it available for natural resource devel- sonably consistent manner? opment. In addition, in recent decades the federai gov- At first blush, the answer would seem to be, Yes! We ernment has dealt directly with such growth-related en- have national parks, state parks, and local parks. Cu- vironmental problems as air and water quality and the mulatively, that adds up to the preservation of a lot of disposition of wastes. Although these activities do not open space. I f Community A acts aggressively to protect explicitly involve land policy, they do involve procedures, its wetlands, it contributes to the national goal of pro- such as the preparation of environmental impact state- tecting wetlands. If the state of Florida succeeds in its ments (EIS), that might require a locality to alter its land efforts to "save" the Everglades, it will not complicate APA TOURNAL 4 WINTER 1990 , 0,140\\'771 MANAGEMEN-I 9 ->9403*52.1- - ' A.i ...I . '2 -gy,1911111- 29 1 . 7/.A. 4 8 . 8/= - -un I -i .65*22 44 11 - f r i -4 4 -' i I '/ 1 + I *â€ž1 'Lf IR- 1 . ,/1. - St _ -t2UI~82**4 f. ,-t-i ./ . .XrÂ·le ..1. - r lilli - r/-'_'- ~' A.1-1 I . 1151 .4 J 1 u'l-t' , . . u '- 1 5 -1 -91 , r + - f. f 1 I . -- - Â·r -r -I.-.e2~ - Â·, - 1 /-1 --â‚¬1 , =74-4 / A.>--. . 1 4 .1 - 4 mil. *Vi 6 K A . .- r - 357 A I. - 1 ~EWE~ipâ€¢- ..2= I 1//04%~allf , " 11'1:Br- /'hmegraph hy Sarah S. LÂ£Â·11': Chris Anderson, House in Search of a Site, 1989. oil, charcoaL paste!, granhite on paper, detaH, 60" 7.76" h<Illil.11' CEOrt.4 iii Other .11'9.13 of tile countiv. In New tile 111-lillting neighhor. clia'.:nhu'te. 11, .:Iing to ilipport 1-Â®And. where callhervationists arc intent on pre.herving tile Coll.hel-vation .11-C.!.. the northern wood, in M .litic, \ Criliont, and New Recognizing the inierdependence of Co;11111,1111119 4 in H..ilpsili!-C. which are thicatened bv development. the 1.iii(I lise decidon, and the tact ill:!t coillillitilitic . 111.Ir 34 of publie fillid. to acquire .hitch T,1-l,jxltic.% i.%110! 111.ik- dil[Cr in their Cl)111111'Itilieli.i .0 Cl~t~,CiÂ·\.Ilion qu:thliC. blit i,1 life till)IC (lillicult for 01'ncr rettion. 01 alle' Coun' 4. ill)90 not BL'12.112 the Cil' c.Â·...ion :11:It. in.01:i' .1. local Irclorc we le.Ip to the Cl)Ill'|/101,)It 111,11 11/Cili ~.till -,11- 21'ou th 111.12..1.3.'1,1&11. .11,1,1, Â· .:1 c .11111'.Â·t', .Ii :..11/ Coilh:'1 - =''alion efforts Lire LI]1110.%1 11(CC>,h:11'1|v additive l':1[ner vation. thei c.in Int\:' .1 1. L. IliC.I.uic 01 aililill\'It\. 12 s) compelitive or conllicling, weliced toi-eckon v. lili the iniplicatiotls of ille frec Ilow of ])Cople acl-oss-Â·jilt~i>- Land Use Patterns, Suburban Zoning, dictional 11(,litid.Ine.h. Open 41.ice M Cl )1111111]I,it> :1 ili .I\ and Grou'th Nlariageinent ve o[ villuc to rchic|ents in the adjoining .Colillill!!lit> 11. The collective -demand for preserving the.hpace woull 1.(,Cal gl-inith Ill,!11,!ge!110':1, progril!11\ 0|le!1 lieternlitiC r.ntifv withhol(ling it from development, 11:11 l)11 ith inut. how. when..in.. it),Â· un:It Fir:ll),C lic\'Cloped I.Itill .Ill)lilli anullullit\' .4 might favolÂ· lievelopment, for open ..pace be ihed. 1.l):72 bciore the 1,Â·1-111 '11!Â·outh 111,1114!Cement Co>hil> lo m.litilain illid developed I.ind vicki> 1.1.\ 91,- |)C..111'iC f.1.\|'i;,111.'DIC. ,(,L'.1|IIiÂ·.'\ h.idliCCI~!Cli litill I.!Ill| lihe come, which open space does not. And Community !1, decibions woilld 1101 be left entively to the marketpluce, \1'\ B ' I 14\\ 5 \\1\Ill< 10 BENJAMIN CHINITZ and developed a reasonably elaborate regulatory system: they fai]ed to appreciate the dominant view that subur- zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, and building banization reflected consumerchoice in the marketplace codes. Theiriationale was thailand malÂ·kets donor work and public choice in local land use policy. To the extent perfectly because developers might not necessarily take that federal housing and transportation programs subsi- into account the costs or the benefits they might confer dized such growth, it could also be argued that the people on others by their decisions concerning tile precise use, were using legitimate democratic processes to advance density, design, and timing of the development. Thus, their goals. localities assumed that tile public welfare could be pro- But the energy crisis and the growing concern over tected by public planning and regulation processes and air pollution in the early 1970s contributed to a change implemented the appropriate measures. in public opinion. Now, land policy that encouraged auto Before we consider this aspect of land policy in the dependency threatened the nation's independence in the context of growth management, we should ask whether conduct of foreign policy and endangered the health of good, old-fashioned local land use planning and regu- a large number of its citizens. And, of course, the high lationin the pursuit Oft}le local publicintetestcontribute price ofoil and the linesatthegasolinestation also were to Or complicate tile resolution of national and global cause for reconsideration of the contemporary land use environmental concerns. The term "local" embraces a practices that had engendered the suburban sprawl life wide range of community sizes and types. It includes style. governments of large cities like New York and Los An- From a planning point of view, a more important mile- geles, as well as of small towns in rural arÂ·cas. and sub- stone in the change in public attitude towards sprawl urban governments in metropolitan atÂ·eas. For the pur- occurred in 1975. with the publication of The Costs of poses of this essay, 1 will address suburban land use plan- Sprawl, a study conducted by the Real Estate Research ning. Corporation for a triad of federal sponsors: the U.S. In the 1950s and 1960s suburban land use planning Council on Environmental Quality, the Department of came under attack as critics argued that current practices Housing and Urban Development, and the Environmental were self-serving at the expense of the national interest. Protection Agency. This study of four hypothetical com- The argument expressed in such books as Matimade munities, ranging in density from very high to very low, America by Christopher Tunnard and Boris Pushkarev concluded that high density conferred significant econ- (1963) was that suburban land use regulation that en- omies in energy consumption. Such economies resulted couraged low density development and the rigorous sep- from two sources: less automobile travel and more ef- aration ofdifferent kinds ofland use contributed to sprawl fective insulation of housing units. This study was ex- and discontinuous development. Pointing to the dra.matic ceedingly important because it established a basic intel- "consumption"ofland per capita in the post-war peI*iod, lectual framework for ten years of planning and public Tunnard and Pushkarev and others maintained that land policy thinking. policy that maximized rather than minimized the diver- sion of land from other uses was bad. They argued that it raised the costs per capita of providing infrastructure Enter Growtli Management and that it contributed to auto dependency. They asserted that, to put together a complete life of work and play, Differing in theory and practice from suburban large- people "had" to travel a lot more than they did in the lot zoning, growth management regulates the rate and big, old, high-density city. They had to commute to their timing of growth. It also involves developers in tile fi- jobs; they had to drive to shopping centers, recreational nancing of infrastructure. And, in contrast to zoning, and cultural opportunities, schools and churclies. and which is passive and static, growth management is active relatives and friends. Furthermorc, these critics charged, and dynamic. While zoning defines the desired fully built mass transportation modes could not function efliciently town. the ultimate equilibrium. growth management and profitably in low density areas. seeks to maintain an ongoing equilibrium between de- Critics of sprawl resented national and state policies velopment and conservation. between various forms of and programs that favored single family homeownership development and the concurrent provision of infrastruc- and thus tipped the scales in favo:Â·of subulÂ·ball >plinil. lure. between the demands for public services generated They also objected to the aggressive support and subsi- by growth and the supply of revenues to finance those dization of the construction of highways so essential to demands. and between progress and equity. the mobility of the auto-dependent suburbanite~ in effeCt, The question remains. How will the use of locally based they criticized the then-current view of the national in- growth management techniques aimed at the simulta- terest as defined by these programs. Tiley sought to re- neous pursuit of these equilibria affect patterns of de- direct public attitudes to a deeper appreciation of the velopment, and will these effects be productive or coun- nation's environmental assets. ' terproductive in terms of national and global environ- Until the advent of the energy crisis and the "nation- mental concerns? As with traditional large lot zoning, alization" of clean air as a social goal in the seventies, the key issue is whether growth management will en- the critics of sprawl were clearly on the defensive. Per- courage urban sprawl and thereby increase automobile ceived as harboring elitist conceptions of urban design, usage, which will contribute to the problem of pollution Al'A IOLRNAL 6 \VIN-11.11 1990 GROWTH MANAGEMENT with its adverse health and global warming conse- ofManhattan drives fewermiles than the average resident 4 of Long Island, it is still not obvious that the average i quences. resident of Suffolk County, the outer county of Long is- land, drives that many more miles than tile average res- Growth Management and ident in Nassau, the inner county. Thus, even i f suburban Urban Sprawl growth controls "bump" development outward, it does The answer to this question is not clear. Some re- not follow that average commuting distances will be in- searchers, represented by economist \Vi:Mom Fischel creased and that average miles driven will be increased. But additional studies challenge another important as- (1989), argue that: sumption of the anti-sprawl critics who equate dispersion [1]and use controls, especially overall growth con- with low density development. Real estate analyst Rich- trol programs, arc important constraints on the land ard B. Peiser (1989) drew on evidence from Dallas, Texas, market.... Inemciently restrictive growth con- Montgomery County in Maryland, and Fairfax County in i trols probably cause metropolitan atÂ·cas to be too Virginia tu argue in his article "Density and Urban Â¢ spiÂ·ead out. [L]ocal ordinances cause devel- Sprawl" that "a freely functioning urban land market Opers to go to other communities. The most likely with discontinous patterns of development inherently alternative sites are in exurbari and rural commu- promotes higlier density of development...by later nities, where the political climate, at least initially, infill." He concludes that, "if higher densities closer to is more favorable to development.... Dispersion the CBD are desired, then cities should avoid policies of residences and jobs promotes more automobile which require sequential development." travel and longer trips, creating more congestion Peiser's findings show that, when a community says and pollution. to a developer, "Go away," the developer is just as likely to move to the built-up area of the metropolitan region Others, such as transportation analyst Alan Altshuler as to the periphery. The density of that development is 0977), professorof public policy at the Kennedy School, just as likely to be greater in the new location than it Harvard University, had earlier raised serious questions might have been in the original chosen location. Fur- about the base study of all these allegations, The Costs thermore, given the substantial decentralization of em- of Sprawt, noting that the difference in estimated mileage ployment. it does not follow that new housing develop- of auto travel between high and low' density communities ments on the periphery will lead to higher average com- has been frequently gross!y exaggerated and so therefore muting distances. have the estimated costs of low density in terms o f energy savings and reduced emissions. Growth Management: Pro and Con But setting aside tlie validity of the conclusions of the Costs of Sprawl, we must recognize that we face a dif- On the basis of the arguments and tile evidence ad- ferent situation today from the one we confronted a de- dressed above, it is hard to apply the "fallacy of com- cade or two ago. The traditional view of the suburbs as position" to local growth management efforts. These ef- primarily residential (i.e., having more workers than jobs) forts may not contribute to the "solution" of national and is no longer valid. In the six largest metropolitan areas global environmental concerns, but they do not contrib- in the Northeast, tile suburbs accounted for 55 percent ute to the problem. Land use patterns that result from of the population in 1984 and for 57 percent of employ- local growth management programs are not Jikely to be ment in the four major sectors-manufacturing, retail, counterproductive from the perspective of normal and wholesale, and selected services. In the six largest met- global environmental goals. ropolitan areas in the South ancl West, suburban resi- Local efforts to conserve lands that are crucial to the dential share still exceeded suburban job share, but the preservation of the environment are more likely to be excess had shrunk from 16 percent in 1950 to 9 percent complementary than competitive with similar efforts at in 1982-1984 (Heilbrun 1987).The traditional view was the normal and global level. The direct line that some based on the belief thal workers traveled from their people have drawn from growth management through homes to central cities. Today we know that 62 percent urban sprawl to greater automobile usage and its adverse of all workers have intra-suburban commutes. Thus, the conscquences for the environment is fraught with fallacy. assumption tliat sptÂ·awl leads to greater commuting in- It is based on the logic of an earlier period in tile post- stances may not be as accurate as it used to be. World WaiÂ· 11 history of metropol'itan growth, a logic that In a recent study, "Congestion, Changing Metrofolitan was seen to be fallacious even then by some observers Structure, and City Size in the United States," economists and is definitely seen as so now. Peter Gordon, Ajay Kumar, and Harry W. Richardson I don't. however, worship unquestioningly at the altar (1989)shed new light on this issue. 1-hey survey ten major of local growth management. Clearly, growth manage- metropolitan areas and conclude "that relocation and ment has drawbacks. For example, Fischel's research re- Other spatial structure adjustments by households and view proves rather conclusively that local growth con- firms have avoided severe tramc diseconomies in large trols tend to increase housing prices, in part because of metropolitan areas." Granted that the average resident constraints on supply and in part because of the added APA JOURNAL 7 W]NTER 1990 BENJAMIN CHINITZ "amenity" value. Neighborhoods that are effectively Regulation. Unpublished paper prepared for the Lin- protected by growth management are more desirable coin Institute of Land Policy. places to live. Regional planners focus on the impossi- Col-doll, Peter, Ajay Kumar, and Harry W. Richardson. bility of reconciling supply of and demand for infi-astruc- 1989. Congestion, Changing Metropolitan St!Â·ucture, ture without "regional" as opposed to local planning. andÂ·City Size in tile United States. International Re- But these important reasons for being critical of local gional Science Review 12, 1: 45-56. growth management do not extend to environmental HeilbiÂ·un, james. 1987. Urban Economics and Public concerns. On the whole, growth management policies policy, 3d ed. New York: St. Martin's Press. merit continued development, monitoring, and evaluation Peiser, Richard B. 1989. Density and Urban Sprawl. Latid to further refine their beneficial qualities. Ecotionlics 65.3: 193-204. Real Estate Research Corporation. 1975. The Costs of Sprawl, Washington, D.C.: Real Estate Research Cor- REFERENCES poration. Altshuler, Alan. 1977. Review of The Costs of Sprawl. Tunnard, Christopher, and Boris Pushkarev. 1963. Man- journal of the American Planning Association 43,2.. Made America: Chaos or Control? New Haven, CT: 207-209. Yale University Press. Fischel, William A. 1989. Do Growth Controls Matter? World Resources Institute. 1989. The Crucial Decade: A Review of Empirical Evidence on the Effectiveness The 1990s and the Global Environmental Challenge. and Efliciency of Local Government and Land Use Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute. The APA Journal Congratulates winners of Urban Land Institute 1989 Awards for Excellence RockefeHer Center, New York City, New York for mixed-use development Escondido City Hall, Escondido, California for small-scale office development Rowes Wharf, Boston, Massachusetts for large-scale urban/mixed-use development Town of Reston, Fairfax County, Virginia for new community development Commonwealth Development, Boston, Massachusetts for rehabilitation development Pratt-Wilner Neighborhood Revitalization Program, Buffalo, New York for public/private urban revitalization and National Trust 1989 Preservation Honor Awards Union Station Redevelopment Corp., La Salle Partners, the Federal Railroad Administration, and the National Railroad Passenger Corporatioit, Washington, D.C. for the restoration and renovation of Union Station The Center for Rural Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts for its rural design manual, Dealing with Change in the Connecticut River Valley: A Design Manual for Conservation and Development, and its public education outreach program Mary Magdalen House, Cincinnati, Ohio for helping the homeless City Lands Corporation, Chicago, Illinois for rehabilitating the Jeffery Highlands Apartments Al>A JOURNAL 8 \VINTER 1990