The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19900110AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE January 10, 1990 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM City Hall 4:00 WORKSESSION WITH PLANNING DIRECTOR AND ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR - Housing and Incentives 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of Nov. t~, 29 and Dec. 13 minutes. II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:10 A. 334 W. Hallam, Final Development Approval Extension requestdi)â‚¬b 004 0 V. NEW BUSINESS 5:30 A. 309 E. Hopkins~ & 200 S. ~ Monarch, Landmark \3~ Designation, Demolition, Relocaltion and Conceptual Development Approval (Aspen Arcade/Lily Reid ci~/Cottage) Public Hearing 7:00 VI. SPECIAL BUSINESS A. HPC Resolution - Goals -14 \44 c.f~\ VII. COMMUNICATIONS Project Monitoring ADJOURN by 7:30 c n _L Â£1 0) i n if rn Li v k crx,4 5 Â· tpi,J-l , 0 v) ----~~ @ 15-p k tâ„¢ G i ~ il -v-â€ž 7<~4- L L \ 1\3 2/ MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Worksession on Housing and Incentives Program with Planning Director and Assistance Planning Director Date: January 10, 1990 Please take this opportunity to address the Planning Office on your concerns, thought and ideas for the Housing Replacement issues Tom Baker has been working on with P&Z. Tom will present an overview of the program. Also, additions to the Incentives Program should be brought up with Amy and Tom, such as your ideas on FAR variations for porches, waiver of tap fees, etc. This is an opportunity to brainstorm some on making the preservation program even more effective in terms of comprehensive planning and meeting a variety of community goals. memo.hpc.planning.wrksn. id \ 11- 9 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Final Development Extension - 334 W. Hallam St. (tabled from December 20, 1989) Date: January 10, 1990 SUMMARY: Final Development approval was granted to the renovation of the property at 334 W. Hallam St. approximately 20 months ago by the HPC. Code requires that a building permit be granted within 18 months of a Final Development approval (unless vested), or an additional review and approval will be required. At the last HPC meeting, the applicant presented his request for an extension of the Final Development, stating that the only difference in the proposal would be a completely excavated basement as opposed to partial (under the principal, historic house). The committee restudied the proposal, finding that the west elevation (3rd St.) second floor bay window and first floor entrance did not meet the Guidelines and should be restudied for compatibility. The applicant has submitted three alternatives for HPC's review and approval on this elevation (attached), in order to receive the extension for Final Development as requested. Alternative A retains the 2nd floor bay. Alternatives B and C eliminate the bay, replacing it with three narrow double hung windows. However, both B and C include a gabled roof feature, which staff finds inappropriate. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC approve a hybrid alternative between B and (Ct upper floor Windows as proposed and no gable on either flohor, and grant the request for Final Development extension. Also, we recommend that the two windows on the ground floor match in size (cottage size windows preferred). memo.hpc.334wh.2 -17:n 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN. COLORAD081611 TEL: (303) 925-4755 December 22, 1989 Roxanne Eflin Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 334 W Hallam Dear Roxanne: This letter is to request placement of the 334 W Hallam Project on the earliest possible H.P.C. Agenda for review of the west elevation. Enclosed are alternatives for the Boards review. -,Sincerely, . ~/// 94& m 04Â»li r / Larby McKinzie Enclosure LM:lah 1 i.iI :-. i._Â· -1-_- ..: 1 â€žf-_L .2. 1 -i-..-~'*~ I I ' ' ; ' / 1 ; ..... #2 Â·' 1 1. i-- 1.- 1- J 1 .lili -- '1~ , 1 1~ 1 -- ---- 11 -'il i N " i 41 7- ~TI - . 1 !1 1 11 1 i r -1 ' 1 1 11 - IiI --- -1;1 7 11 #-i 1 :~i -,lili t - 1 -- 11?1 * Â· 1 :li -rL. .Li-LL-lu_J__ 1 L 1 1 , - DEC 2 2 1989 ~ It j_ =- EL . i 11 1-; 11 1 ---1 1 C. 1 ,4 , L:.i ' + 41 . .1/1*fofs*X k 11 ,, E t .~-4- -#8%1<#4<64 p 1 1 1 1 , 1I - -11 r-- --. i 1 --- 1 1 1 1 --- --2 H E--- ---- -- -- -- i . - -... .. 1 1 1 I r-- - - ...! i ! 1-- - It , L DEC 2 2 1989 ~ 1.--1 - 1 ;-1 - Ir - 1;> 11 1 1 - 0 - .1 i. i 1-1 1 1 ~11 11&. lili L . - 1 i 1 L 1 ~ 4 - -- -./ /' . . 1 ..,1 1 - 1 1.-i 1 1 :. 11~ ANW - ... r.-.1. ] 1 6,11 f Ii! 1 -1711 11 t- 1, $ 1 :!1-1 1 1 .- 1 : Ir-r \<4\ 4 , 94X - 1\ \\i -1 Iii '61 1 11 1Â¢ J 0 /9/ ill: :i ' 'l' 1111 1 liel /4/, . 1 1 1 1 1 -1 - 11 ; LITIft ,Â»/, 11 11 11 11.:11 //99. 1 11 , ; : 1 11 //// C 1 111'll:~111 1 lilli /1 . ' iL-_2~ -- L T . 1 Â£ 1 -1 ri ... .. r ~ 8861 8 8 030 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: 309 E. Hopkins and 200 South Monarch - Lily Reid Cottage/Aspen Arcade: Landmark Designation, Demolition, Relocation and Conceptual Development approval - Public Hearing Date: January 10, 1990 SUMMARY: This proposal involves four specific elements, which are summarized as follows, and reviewed in detail in this memo for HPC's review: 1) Landmark Designation: The applicant is requesting Landmark Designation for the entire 9,000 sq. ft. parcel, of which the historic resource (Lily Reid Cottage) comprises approximately 1/3. 2) Demolition: The proposed demolition involves the non- historic one-story building on the corner, containing Uriah Heeps and the Cleaners. Partial demolition is also proposed for the small rear addition to the Lily Reid cottage. The application states the demolition of the corner structure is necessary in order for the entire parcel to be appropriately developed. 3) Relocation: The proposal involves the relocation of the brick Lily Reid cottage some 60+ west to the corner, which site would be made available with the demolition of the non-historic corner building. 4) Conceptual Development: The plans indicate that the relocated historic cottage would remain detached, and become the focal point of a pedestrian-designed, landscaped plaza; all four sides visible. The cottage would be restored, including the front porch and bay. The new three-story commercial (retail and office) construction remains detached from the cottage, each floor stepping back to relieve bulk and mass from the facade. Affordable housing units Will also be incorporated in the new construction. It is designed in an "L" configuration, with storefront space on both Hopkins and Monarch streets. The applicant is requesting variations from the HPC on open space and parking. The applicant has also requested a $2,000 designation grant. Designation grants only apply to residential structures. Project Name: Aspen Arcade Building/Lily Reid Cottage Project Location: 200 S. Monarch St.,-309 E. Hopkins: Lots A, B, and C,- Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen Zoning: CC - Commercial Core; Historic Overlay District Applicant: Aspen Arcade, Ltd., Larry Brooks, General Partner Representative: Joe Wells Site, Area and Bulk Characteristics: Lot Size: 9,000 sq. ft. Allowable FAR: 1.5:1 without affordable housing *2:1 with on-site housing Existing Sq. Footage: 5,325 + 900 = 6,225 Max.allowable Sq. footage: 13,500 *18,000 Proposed Sq. Footage: 13,200 Max.allowable height: 40' Open Space: 25% required View Plane? Yes, Hotel Jerome PREVIOUS HPC CONSIDERATION: On September 27, 1989, the HPC met with the applicants in a worksession to discuss the basic conceptual ideas of an on-site relocation of the cottage and the proposed new detached construction to wrap behind the cottage. The Committee was generally favorable about the proposal, finding it to be a reasonable solution for the parcel's overall design. In 1988, the HPC conceptually approved the relocation of the historic cottage to a site outside the Commercial Core Historic District, to the A.C.E.S. property near Hallam Lake. A 600+ name petition was submitted to Council, requesting an appeal of that HPC decision, at which time the applicant withdrew the application, and sponsored legislation amending the code to favorably incorporate additional preservation incentives for projects such as this. The code amendments were passed in the spring of 1989 (sliding scale for affordable housing impact mitigation, open space and parking variations, etc.) STAFF COMMENTS: Landmark Designation: The Standards for Landmark Designation are found in Section 7-702. Any structure that meets one (1) or more of the following standards may be designated as H, Historic Overlay District and/or Historic Landmark. A. Historic Importance. The structure or site is a 2 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: Information in the Planning Office indicates that Lily Reid was the first owner of the property, however, no further information is available on her to support the applicability of this standard for designation . Franz Berko, noted Aspen photographer of the post-war/early ski development era also owned this property for a number of years, and maintained his studio at this location. The Planning Office finds that Designation Standard A. applies to Franz Berko's association with the property under cultural significance. The Planning Office finds that only the historic structure and its immediate "site" meet this standard. We find that the remainder of the parcel does not meet this standard. B. Architectural Importance: The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character. Response: The Lily Reid cottage is the last remaining brick cross gabled cottage in the Commercial Core Historic District, and one of only a few remaining in Aspen. We find that its architectural style is both traditional in form and unique in material. We find that the non-historic corner building does not meet this standard, nor would the land once the proposed demolition of this building occurs. We further find that the architectural importance of the proposed new construction, in concept, 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 of site is a 3 significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Response: Clearly, the preservation of the Lily Reid cottage has been found to be an extremely important element in the overall character preservation of the Commercial Core Historic District. Staff finds that its proposed relocation of some 60' to the northwest corner of the parcel does not diminish its applicability to this standard. The existing structure and proposed new construction does not support this standard, in our opinion. F. 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: The Planning Office finds the Lily Reid cottage clearly meets this standard; however, the existing corner structure or proposed new construction does not. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office supports Landmark Designation for the Lily Reid Cottage, finding that the applicant meets Standards A, B, E and F. We find that the remainder of the parcel does not meet the criteria for Landmark Designation, as stated above. Therefore, we recommend that 1/3 of the 9,000 sq. ft. parcel, or the land that will be immediately associated with the relocated cottage, receive landmark designation along with the cottage, and that the incentives, benefits and variations should be applied, or transferred, to 1/3 of the overall project. 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 while the entire parcel is not eligible for designation, that an percentage amount equal to the amount of the parcel that is receiving designation, should be applied in the form of designation benefits to the project as a whole. The Planning Office will work with the applicant should they wish to pursue sponsoring a code amendment to provide benefits for the commercial development of non-historic structures that do not meet the standards for landmark designation. 4 0 . & P STAFF COMMENTS, CONT. DEMOLITION AND PARTIAL DEMOLITION: The applicant does not --include a discussion on how the demolition proposal of the Cnc n-historic structure meets the Standards in Section 7-602 -2-2-) ~ The Code required HPC approval for all demoliti8ns ocdurring in an H, Historic Overlay District, and that "no approval for demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the standards have been met.." In our review of the proposal, we find it meets all the -t-- 1~ Standards for Demolition with the exception of Standard #1: " The Structure proposed for demolition is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure." The applicant has not providing information to support this standard, which we are recommending be submitted for further HPC review. The Planning Office feels the building proposed for demolition is not an important architectural contribution to the Commercial Core Historic District, and feel the request for demolition is generally appropriate, considering the scope of the parcel's redevelopment plan. The proposal for partial demolition meets the standards in Section 7-602(C), in our opinion. RELOCATION , The Standards for Relocation are found in Section 7-602 (D). The applicants have provided significant information in the application to support the relocation of the historic Lily Reid Cottage. (Please refer specifically to letters from Ryberg Construction CO. and Integrated Engineering Consultants, Ltd.) We find their request to be a reasonable and innovative solution to a design dilemma on this block, caused by insensitive adjacent development. We are recommending approval for the on-site relocation, subject to conditions as noted in Staff's Recommendations, finding that the standards for relocation have been met. It is very critical that traditional, appropriate set backs be achieved for both Hopkins and Monarch streets. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT The Development Review Standards are located in Section 7- 601(D). The Guidelines for Commercial Buildings - New Construction begin in Section V, page 35, and should be carefully reviewed in association with this proposal. 5 Standard A. The proposed 'development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark... Response: We find that the general concept meets this Standard. The redevelopment of the parcel includes an "L" shaped multi-use three-story building to "wrap" behind the detached Lily Reid Cottage, relocated to a prominent corner position and surrounded by landscaped "public space". The Planning Office has not received detailed enough information on storefront design to review it in this memo. However, the general two-story massing at the street edge, conceptual storefront proportions and association with the cottage appear to meet the Guidelines. The HPC should carefully review the strong, distinctive elements that set the character of the new construction. It appears to staff that bold, horizontal elements are utilized, which detract from the goal of verticality in the District. Lessons can be learned from the adjacent Mill Street Plaza building, and should not be replicated on the subject parcel: inappropriate storefront design, horizontal design features and inconsistent setbacks. The HPC should consider other important design elements, which staff recommends should be incorporated into the design: 1) No below grade open space 2) Primary facade to front Hopkins, not Monarch (Monarch elevation to be secondary in pedestrian use and design) 3) New materials should generally be soft and non- competing to the Lily Reid cottage; brick may be appropriate on the storefront facade, however, careful consideration should be given to the use of alternative materials, such as clapboard, in the courtyard storefront area and upper floors. The applicant is also proposing this. 4) Just as a great deal of attention to detail will be required on the restoration of the historic cottage, we feel the same attention should be paid ' to the new construction (as previously discussed by the HPC) 5) Landscaping and surface treatments should also be carefully considered for compatibly and enhancement purposes for the cottage. 6) Review and careful consideration of the Guidelines. 6 ' 'I We are requesting the applicant bring detailed drawings of all elevations, including alley and internal storefronts leading to the common public space, to this meeting. Standard B. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development Response: We find the application generally meets this standard. Appropriate scale is a critical issue on this corner parcel, adjacent to a lower density zone district, and across the street from four smaller scaled structures (three of which are historic). Standard C. 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. Response: We find that the proposal to restore the Lily Reid Cottage greatly enhances the cultural value of the structure and the neighborhood. Its restoration and adaptive re-use may be precedent setting, and the Planning Office is in unanimous support of such a proposal. Standard D. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. - Response: As stated above, careful attention to massing, height, scale, detail, materials, setbacks, landscaping, and pedestrian patterns are critical elements necessary to meet this standard. The proposal at this stage is extremely conceptual, and therefore, difficult to review in great detail. We recommend that the HPC be specific in its conditions of conceptual approval to guide the applicant 9 correctly for Final submission. e ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives for action: 1. Recommend landmark designation, for the entire parcel, as requested by the- applicant, and grant approval for demolition, relocation and conceptual development, and the variations as submitted. .6 2. Deny landmark designation for the entire parcel, finding that the standards have not been met, and grant approvals as stated above in Recommendation #1. ' 1 t 3. Deny landmark designation for the entire parcel, as requested, finding that the standards have not been met, recommending instead landmark designation for the Lily Reid Cottage and its associated 3,000 sq. ft. lot (1/3 of the entire parcel), and granting 1/3 Of the variations requested. Also, grant approval for demolition, relocation and conceptual development with the following conditions to be met at Final Development: a. Detailed elevations, site, roof, and landscape plans b. Massing model C. Complete, accurate restoration plan and detailed drawings for the historic cottage, including (but not limited to) partial demolition activities, front porch and window restoration, relocation methodology and protection during adjacent demolition, cleaning methods, foundation and excavation plan, measured drawings and photographs. d. Performance Bond or Letter of Guarantee, approved by the City Attorney, for the relocation of the historic cottage e. Project phasing report f. Restudy of horizontal features of new construction g. Accurate representation of building materials h. Information to support Demalition.Standard A. f tw2216.261 2 :x- t .....t--.--/06- 'A~La LatitÂ·-Â·oa.JCEZP C.-C'Â«ClÂ£--,Â£k-,5-,2--- . 4. ,Table all or partial action, finding that additional ~ information is needed by the HPC to make a determination, \fnd allowing the applicant additional time for restudy. Iyl 52(-9 0'*,u.Â·dI.tuÂ·~,~c,c-==Â» P-->-' ./Ail.12Â£:60.Â· I I V-9.3 \ u.1-3/ - .9 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC deny landmark designation for the entire parcel, as requested, finding that the standards have not been met, recommending instead landmark designation for the Lily Reid Cottage and its associated 3,000 sq. ft. lot (1/3 of the entire parcel). We further recommend that 1/3 of the parking variation requested by granted (5 spaces) accordingly. The Planning Office further recommends that the HPC grant approval for demolition, relocation and conceptual development with conditions to be met at Final Development as outlined in Alternative #3 stated above. memo.hpc.309eh 8 HER- 5 APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT, FOR HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND RELOCATION OF THE LILY REID HOUSE December 5, 1989 CONSULTANTS: ARCHITECTS: Hagman Yaw Architects, Ltd. 210 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-2867 ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS: Charles Cunniffe & Associates 520 East Hyman Aspen, Colordao 81611 925-5590 ATTORNEY: Gideon I. Kaufman 315 East Hyman, Suite 305 Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-8166 LAND PLANNERS: Joseph Wells, AICP 130 Midland Park Place, F-2 Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-8080 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: Integrated Engineering Consultants, Inc. 411 East Main Street, Suite 206 Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-5913 STRUCTURE MOVING CONTRACTOR: Ryberg Construction Company 990 East Florida, #2 Denver, Colorado 80231 755-3426 APPRAISER: James J. Mollica & Associates, Inc. 300 East Hyman Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-8987 D 'fÂ¥ 1 i December 5, 1989 Ms. Roxanne Eflin Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 200 South Monarch Street Dear Roxanne: This application for H.P.C. Conceptual Development Plan Review of Significant Development, for Historic Landmark Designation of Lots A, B and C, Block 81, Aspen Townsite, and for the relocation of the historic structure within the site is filed on behalf of Aspen Arcade, Ltd. H.P.C. granted conceptual approval last fall to Jack King's proposal to relocate the historic Lily Reid house from Lot C to a site at the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies, and for a new building for Lot C. Following that approval, it became clear that there was some community resistance to the relocation of the miner's cottage. This concern led to the filing of an appeal of H.P.C.'s decision with City Council; however, prior to the hearing on that appeal, Mr. King requested that the matter be tabled in order to allow time to process Code amendments aimed at offering incentives to owners of historic landmarks. Ordinances 16/89 and 27/89 incorporate some of those amendments. Subsequently, Mr. Larry Brooks, General Partner of Aspen Arcade, Ltd., has purchased Lot C. We believe that the enclosed development proposal for all three lots offers a greater opportunity to preserve the integrity of the historic structure than would the separate redevelopment of both parcels. We look forward to discussing the proposal with the Committee in the near future. Sincerely, / C V re ./9 0 f f Joseph Wells, AICP L-/ Doremus & weuLs an association of land planners C C] December 21, 1989 Ms. Roxanne Eflin Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Roxanne: . 241- - .It As you requested, I am forwarding additional information regarding the Aspen Arcade project, including the conceptual program, parking variation requested, open space and ownership. Mr. Brooks has also forwarded a letter concerning my ongoing representation which I have attached. 1. Conceptual Program Depending on the outcome of further reviews with the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council, the applicant presently plans to demolish approximately 5,600 sq. ft. of existing FAR space on the site preserving only the 600 square foot Reid house; demolition of the existing building is necessary in order to implement the relocation plan. The project to be built on the site would include approximately 13,200 FAR sq.ft., including the ~ Reid house, or 7,000 sq.ft. of new FAR space (12,600 sq. ft. minus I 5,600 sq. ft.). ' The net leasable commercial and office space in the new project would total approximately 15,000 sq.ft., or 8,800 sq.ft. of new leasable space. This would include 4,500 sq. ft. of retail space on the ground level, as well as 4,500 sq.ft. ,of commercial space in the basement. The balance of the leasable space on the second and third floor is presently planned for office uses. Not included in the net leasable figures are eight bedrooms of affordable housing presently planned on the second floor of the new building. Any additional affordable housing obligation will either be handled through the purchase of off-site units or an offer of a payment-in-lieu; the method will be determined at the time of submission of other required applications for P&Z review. 0 - 608 east hyman avenue o aspen, colorado 81611 0 telephone: 303 925-6866 . Ms. Roxanne Eflin Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office December 21, 1989 Page Two 2. Off Street Parking The parking requirement in the CC zone is 2 spaces/1,000 sq.ft. of net leasable for commercial uses which can be varied by HPC under the provisions of Â§8-104(B)(1)(c)(2); there is no parking requirement for residential uses for projects located on landmark sites. The parking requirement for the project's new commercial space is (8,812 sq.U. x 2 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. =) 18 spaces; the variation requested 18 therefore 15 spaces. 3. Open Space As you requested, I have analyzed the open space resulting from the proposal. The open space requirement in the CC zone district is 25% of the site, or 2,250 sq.ft. Open areas within the project as submitted total approximately 2,570 sq. ft. If it is the intent, however, (under the current open space definition) to exclude any open areas which do not meet all of the ten characteristics which are listed in the definition, then some of the open areas cannot be counted as open space. This is because the open areas along the Monarch Street frontage which are at least 10 feet in depth do not extend one-half of the length of the Monarch Street lot line. In addition, some open areas along the Hopkins Street property line are not 10 feet in depth from the property line. The enclosed drawing identifies the open areas which comply with all open space characteristics. If this very conservative interpretation is applied, then only 1,896 sq. ft. of open space is provided. It should be pointed out, however, that this interpretation would force all applicants in the Commercial Core Historic District to violate the Historic District Development Guidelines, which encourages "maintaining the existing edge created by the building facades at the sidewalk"; this is said to be one of the most important characteristics of the commercial core (page 19 of the Guidelines). Under the provisions of 57-404(A)(3), when the HPC approves the on-site relocation of an Historic Landmark into required open space, such that the amount of open space on-site is reduced below that required by the Code, the provisions regarding payment-in-lieu of open space shall be waived. 8;'f' ' Ms. Roxanne Eflin Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office December 21, 1989 Page Three While the Reid house could be shifted so that a depth of ten feet would be maintained along the street frontage to meet the open space requirement, we believe that this would constrain the courtyard area unnecessarily and create an awkward relationship between the two buildings. Ownership 4. A new Ownership and Encumbrance Report confirming ownership of Lots A&Bby Aspen Arcade Limited is attached. 5. The Certificate of Limited Partnership confirming the fact that Larry Brooks is the General Partner of Aspen Arcade Limited is also attached. If you need further clarification, please give me a call at 925-8080. sifcÂ«ely, Joseph Wells, AICP a /b I. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT The Applicant requests Conceptual Development Plan approval to relocate the historic Lily Reid House from its present location on Lot C, Block 81, to Lot A, and to construct a new three-level structure along the eastern and southern portions of the 9,000 sq. ft. site, as illustrated on the attached architectural drawings (pages 17 through 21). The project will include retail, office, and affordable housing uses. A total of approximately 13,200 FAR sq. ft. is proposed in the project. The maximum FAR allowed for the site 4 at 2:1 is 18,000 sq. ft. The two (2) existing buildings on the site presently include approximately 6,200 sq. ft.; therefore, the project represents an expansion of 7,000 sq. ft. The site is within the Commercial Core zone district. A. SUBMISSION CONTENTS: (Â§7-601[F][3][a]) 1. General Application Requirements (46-202): (a) Application Form is attached as Exhibit "1". (b) Applicant's Letter of Consent is attached as Exhibit "21'. -1- ' I (C) The street address of the project is 200 South Monarch Street. The legal description of the parcel is Lots A, B, and C, Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen, hereinafter referred to as the site. (d) Disclosure of ownership is attached as Exhibit "3". (e) The Site Map - Existing Conditions, included on page 17, locates the subject parcel. (f) As required for Public Notice (Â§6-205[e]), a list of all owners of property within 300 feet prepared by Stewart Title is attached as Exhibit "4". (g) Compliance with Substantive Review Standards: The proposed project is compatible with the character of the existing neighborhood. It provides a showcase for the Lily Reid House. The building will complement the adjacent and surrounding buildings, and will enhance the historic flavor of Aspen. The building design utilizes historic forms existing in Aspen, combining the historical form with contemporary materials, providing a positive addition to Aspen's commercial core. Specific Conceptual Development Plan review standards are addressed beginning on page 5. -2- f 14, 4 1 2. Sketch Plan of the Proposal: The Site Maps on pages 17 and 18 illustrate existing conditions and proposed improvements. 3. Conceptual Selection of Major Building Materials: The Lily Reid House will be restored as closely as possible to historical accuracy. The restoration will be an interpretation based on other existing houses in the neighborhood. The shed structure which was added later, and is not historic, will be removed from the back of the building, the rear facades cleaned up and windows added. The enclosed front porch will be returned to its original state as an open porch. The exterior brick will either be cleaned to its original color (if possible, without damage) or repainted. All wood trim, fascias and gable ends will be restored and repainted. The roof will be redone in wood shingles. The facades of the new Arcade Building which front Hopkins and Monarch will be red brick with sandstone banding and canvas awnings over windows. The facades which are set back from the street and around the courtyard will be primarily glass, wood trim and lapped siding, painted in colors to complement the colors of the Lily Reid House. -3- 4. Statement of Effect of Proposed Development upon Neighborhood: The Aspen Arcade Project offers a unique opportunity to truly enhance the visual character of downtown Aspen. The site is an entrance and point of transition in the approach to downtown, in terms of zoning, open space and architectural character. To the north and west of the site are two City parks and wood frame residences with lawns, typical of residential, Victorian Aspen. To the east and south are typical downtown core buildings - vertical brick facades, 30 feet or more in height, flat-roofed and fronting directly on the sidewalk. The concept for the project creates a true "gateway" to the downtown, and improves the transition from residential to commercial in the following ways: (a) The Reid House is presently hemmed in by bigger, dominating buildings. It will be relocated to the corner, freeing it and creating a focal point in the approach to downtown from the west and north. The house will be fully restored to echo and complement the houses along Hopkins. It will be set in a landscaped lawn/garden to enhance its historic, residential character. (b) The new Arcade Building provides a backdrop to the Reid House, wrapping around and behind the historic structure in an "L" shape. The two end facades of the new -4- structure relate very directly to their downtown neighbors - Mill Street Plaza, Crystal Palace and Wheeler Opera House. Facades are red brick with sandstone banding, echoing the typical brick/sandstone facades in the downtown. Street-front facades are two stories in height, lower than the adjacent neighbors, while the stepped backed third floor exactly matches those projects in height. In the center of the site, directly behind the Reid House is a paved courtyard and public space to provide access, and enhance the more urban character of the new building. At each of the corners are exterior stairs, providing access to upper level roof terraces, and making a transition to a more subdued facade which could best be described as "backdrop" to the Reid House. This facade steps back at each upper level, thus reducing the mass and improving the view plane to Aspen Mountain. By relocating the important historic residence within the site, restoring it, and giving it a meaningful well-designed backdrop, this project will give the Reid House a true presence in the downtown, and provide a much improved "edge" to the downtown core. It is an opportunity to let the historic building live, rather than die between two larger commercial structures. -5- f.1 1 t B. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS: (Â§7-601(D)(1)). The proposal complies with HPC's review standards, as follows: 1. Compatibility: "The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel, and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay District, or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot, or exceed the allowed floor area, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements." The design of the proposed commercial building is intended to provide an architecturally quiet backdrop to the small Victorian house to be located prominently on the site. The building materials to be used for the proposed building are contemporary to provide continuity and compatibility with the neighboring structure. The proposed building is sized in scale and massing with both adjacent buildings. The only variation from the standards of the CC Zone district which requires HPC's review is with regard to off-street parking. Under the provisions of Â§8-104(B)(1) (C), Enlargement of an Historic Landmark, parking shall be provided according to the standards of Article 5, Division 2 and 3, if -6- HPC determines that it can be provided on the site's surface, and be consistent with the review standards of Article 7, Division 6. In order to preserve as much open space as possible around the Victorian and still maintain a reasonable amount of ground floor commercial space, surface parking has been limited to only three (3) spaces. Limiting the off-street parking to three (3) spaces is necessary for the viability of the project, and makes compliance with HPC's conceptual review standards possible. We, therefore, request HPC's approval of the off-street parking proposal for the project. 2. Neighborhood Character: "The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development." The proposal provides for a suitable transition from the scale of the buildings in the commercial core to that of the residential areas to the west, and reflects the Victorian house across the street. The project also provides a necessary transition between contemporary structures on the block and Victorian structures in the neighborhood. -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 transition in the neighborhood from commercial to residential, both in terms of architectural massing and proposed uses. The design character of Aspen's commercial core is reflected in the new building's architecture. 4. Architectural Integrity of Historic Structures: "The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof." By relocating the historic Lily Reid House within the site, and providing an open space buffer around the structure, the new location for the building will much more closely approximate its historic setting, and help undo the damage to its architectural integrity. II. REOUEST FOR HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION. The Applicant requests consideration by the City of historic landmark designation for the site, under the provisions of Article 7, Division 7. The site is eligible -8- , 4% 1 under Â§7-702, Standards for Designation, under the following provisions: A. Historical 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 to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States." B. Architectural Importance. "The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct, or of traditional Aspen character." C. Architectural Importance. "The structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen." D. 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." E. 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." Â§7-703 Procedure for Designation. A Development Application for a proposed designation shall be reviewed in accordance with the procedures established in Common Procedures, Art. 6, Div. 2. The Application for Historic Designation shall include the following: A. The general application requirements of Â§6-202 have been addressed previously in Section I. B. The site is depicted on the Site Plan, page 17. A -9- .. 1 . survey will be provided upon approval of the Designation request. C. The Applicant requests a designation grant of $2,000.00 to be used for renovation of the structure once it is relocated, provided the structure meets the eligibility criteria for a landmark designation grant, and provided that the program has been funded in the annual City of Aspen budget. A letter to that effect is attached as Exhibit "5". III. REOUEST FOR HPC APPROVAL TO RELOCATE AN HISTORIC STRUCTURE WITHIN THE SITE (Â§7-602). A. Standards for Review of Relocation (7-602[Dl). No approval for relocation shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: 1. "The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property." The Applicant proposes to relocate the historic structure approximately sixty feet (60') to the west. Therefore, it will remain within its historic setting, and yet assume a more important role on the block. 2. "The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of - 10 - . '. the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation." As a small residential structure, the Lily Reid House has had an awkward relationship with the existing commercial buildings on the block, particularly since the completion of the Mill Street Plaza. Relocation of the structure will provide the house with open space around the structure, more typical of its historic setting. With its newly found prominence on the site, the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood will be enhanced, rather than diminished. 3. "The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting." The ability of the structure to withstand relocation has been addressed in letters from Ryberg Construction Company (Exhibit "6") and Integrated Engineering Consultants (Exhibit "7") . 4. "A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond with the Engineering Department, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation." The applicant has previously consulted with Ryberg Construction Company, Structure Moving Contractors, with regard - 11 - to the proposal to relocate the structure to Aspen Center for Environmental Studies (see Mr. Ryberg's letter, Exhibit "6") . As presently proposed, the relocation within the site will be a simpler procedure. It is anticipated that demolition of the existing commercial building to the western portion of the site, and construction of the basement will be completed first, so that the historic structure can then be moved into its permanent location prior to completion of the new structure on the eastern and southern portion of the lot. 5. "The receiving site is compatible in nature to the structure or structures proposed to be moved, the character of the neighborhood is consistent with the architectural integrity of the structure, and the relocation of the historic structure would not diminish the integrity or character of the neighborhood of the receiving site. An acceptance letter from the property owner of the receiving site shall be submitted." The receiving site on the lot next door to the present site is at the perimeter of the commercial core. Relocation of the residential building will provide for a suitable transition to the larger commercial structures to the east. Once the house is relocated, Hopkins Avenue will be framed with two strong examples of small-scale Victorian residential architecture. The receiving site is within the same ownership as that of the existing structure. - 12 - B. Application Requirements for Relocation. A Development Application for Relocation shall include the following: 1. The general application requirements of Â§6-202 have been addressed previously in Section I. 2. The name of the structure proposed for relocation is the Lily Reid House. 3. "A written description of the structure proposed for relocation, and its year of construction." The existing Lily Reid House is a brick masonry structure with wood trim and a metal roof, originally constructed around 1889. This former residential structure is representative of Aspen's Mining Era, and illustrates the home environment and lifestyle of some of the residents of Aspen at the time. An unusual feature of the house is that it is constructed of brick. In those days, brick was considered a more elaborate building material because of its greater cost and longer life. Therefore, some status or stability is represented by this Victorian Miner's Cottage. 4. "A report from a licensed engineer or architect regarding the soundness of the structure, and its suitability for rehabilitation." Lawrence Doble, of Integrated Engineering Consultants, has evaluated the historic structure (see Exhibit - 13 - "7"), and has concluded that, using proper moving techniques, the structure can be safely relocated. 5. An economic feasibility report that provides: (a) "Estimated market value of the property on which the structure lies, in its current condition, and after relocation." Mollica & Associates, Inc. completed a "Limited Appraisal Assignment" for Lot C in April (see Exhibit "8") . The land value was estimated at between $450,000.00 and $500,000.00, and the existing structure was assigned a value of $25,000.00. In Mollica & Associates' opinion (see October 30, 1989 letter, Exhibit "9") , the existing building tends to damage the value of the property. This is because of the potential difficulties in expanding the floor area due to the location of the existing structure, and the inability to create a new street-front addition to maximize retail exposure. The proposal to relocate the existing house to the northwest corner of Lot A would substantially enhance the Victorian character of the structure and, in general, Mollica & Associates believes that it will also be advantageous in terms of rental income. - 14 - ' 0 , t (b) "Estimates from an architect, developer, real estate agent or appraiser, experienced in rehabilitation, addressing the economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the structure proposed for relocation." Mollica & Associates feels that, in its current location, renovation and expansion of the existing structure would be awkward and extremely expensive relative to the value of the final product. The addition would represent secondary retail or office space, and would appear out of place sandwiched between more modern commercial buildings. By relocating the structure to the corner of the site, the Victorian appeal of the Lily Reid House can be enhanced, and a buffer can be provided between it and the new structure to be built behind it. (C) "All appraisals made of the property on which the structure is located made within the previous two (2) years." The Limited Appraisal Assignment (see Exhibit "8") is the only appraisal of the subject property in the past two years. (d) "Any other information considered necessary to make a determination whether the property does yield or may yield a reasonable return on investment." "As is", the existing structure is not expected to generate net operating income to support its appraised value, because the site is considerably under developed relative to - 15 - '. 1 4 its present zoning. An addition to the rear of the building would be very expensive, and would not provide prime retail space. Relocating the Lily Reid House preserves the building near its original location, yet exposes it more fully to view. It creates prime retail space, and acts as a drawing card to the remainder of the building rebuilt around the Victorian structure. It allows for more realistic income potential of the Lily Reid House, as well as for the enhancement of the appeal of the new structure. 6. "A development plan and a statement of the effect of the proposed development on the other structures on the property, and the character of the neighborhood around the property shall be submitted in cases when the HPC requires a development plan to evaluate the appropriateness of demolition, or when the applicant believes the submission of a development plan will assist in the evaluation of the proposed demolition." Demolition is not contemplated for any buildings or building elements with any historic significance. - 16 - 1. 7 L 7 L 3/ JL ...........m==...m................m....mm..............m.m.mm.m.m. ASPEN STREET ...m.mm. 9 9 - . r. - m m 0 00 m .0 1 = m .= 0 4 -7./ m . 4 - m mr .......1 Q. 7 3 4 N .0 0 ......m. 3 C m ....IM.. C Â· 5 P- o Eborr' i i 3P 42 hi- = : m i- MONARCH STREET 0l 41< 1 - 1 L.La E-ic 1 0 1- - rco n J 0 1 LI.It elz} m..m........... M MILL STREET 0 Af-0 - 3 24-9-~I~ ~ ~1 - 49 L GALENA STREET ~ f J I i 31 fr I I A [ 1 F e . , I . - 17 - lf-IN~AV %133000 ..m....... SNOILIGNOO ONILLSIXH - dÂ¥* 31,IS r. VISULNE) 4443 NlÂ» 11.V kll!14 E>Hoodwoo 032 8N1'I 3010- . R.1,2,.I~~iÂ·l. J,I 'r'i.. p , 9.~j I)111 ; 11 ..8.* .1. 1 I â‚¬2"I" ' '' i' *2:fo.",5,~1&#1<,W.1'.:.EE:i:iiii'"'~~'~'.?NiOC.~ 1 1.33= . Ill Cul~BE:,E':9"%*af~:~B4*/.AU~B~*:ie>o 111 - 2.~< 65Â·~~VN~ *fj))Â·Z, * --1.-#.- - ' I lilli- -I'll .. I- grn>lt,Frisliffi ./ 4 11 gil -111 -/ 0Â¢94*%4/EMB# 4~-&A- 1 , 'A :;.:A....jj#Â¥#"4 v . / . 1 Wa....fJOi#BLY- - f: 1. 11 1 1 ;. .*fig itt V777"WiU 4 - . 4 1, ......9, . //A\.1- 7 :4 + r-1 11 4.91 w/RDGe< 1, 114'Ii'11 111 1 111. r- 11 - 204"4174, - u. . 1 ........... . Â· - I Â· 4 ~~Q:&*Fir ' P-11,111,8 1 - Aff# 16;4* : ....z.*..~. ii@%*%4%32Ail:% 0 / 04'311-K Oft''ey :Â· .32:;6';: :;-<:1:#*%$%%2?15 N . 4- ~4-41- 21*nOH di#1 1 1 -4...i :44*9 bL ... . 4 j 44,1. 72> . L Â¥ 7,7-r -*-1'-,"'r - Ii:im,.:..,....:siE:WAÂ· 1 : h,th E-I=,O.:ARWas.......'...'.~...:il; 1 2:~:."bt/&. 1 J ,$:Ve/*32 0 1 , ... 1[,ZÂ¢..:4.'..'..t:t,GotÂ·:Â·>~:i:Ets:'..,mi.P..:,1 124*19Â£+A. . teNE'm<maw#WATR:9'*I #t 11 .1 .~ iÂ·,6'NA, 1 :1 6 i l' 1 . 0 ' TN",Ii/9,Â·Â·%Â·' 2491 +154 7 /IM<.%;M /19%" â€¢ 1.<t Â·~W . 1 m *.1 41wc , , 1.2--~LAP- le:.: 12 #11~111. 1 .4 4.jit 4/ ' 2Â¥ , - ..4,Â·rPrJÂ·61 &% ' 1 .. 51% Ati i, Â· i,-#,2.x.z.,-.4~4....:9*%949:Â·:i449:iÂ·Â·4?:!Â·Â·.i*943.%****,....2 r- '1 1 1 1 -â‚¬5:..**4-*,I..,I.:::~3~~~.E~.1~%8*2*88.Eiti:.:57.. i:i:f ..3 -F nÂ· ..8Â·Â·rAIr[XÂ¥ ..Â· ..Â·......:L [7IVISII ~~?Rri,f f .:1 ...L rÂ·*4:p~Â·2*'1Â·.Â·.a:j#Â·:.,.11-t.....3...,:~..,. Af, 4" 1 r -: 1 1 ..............:4 1 1 ..tft:''fay"je'BRV-Â·Uâ€¢' .,Â·....... -4'il[,11-1-11 1 27 1 L 121 0 -1 1 1 - 1 1 .; 1... :*i,1,1=1-1 1~ 111 - 1- -.2#.156(51,5#ta3222#3<:firik:tr#Agubil N M / - ' 1/ 1 1 1-1 .t.7......m.......z.).......,..FK***j.:0 Â· :. - -- .+ .Â· -3 ./ ' 111 11 1 - 1 1 .4- .1+ i .'11:4 1 1 1 â€¢ 02 ili-th'r - r~I I 9 i - - i i r k~33~:~;ii~i:Wi::i;Â·i,:bAilii~~~~~.~~p,%Â·.Â·-Â· 7 41,93'Mt 1.1,4 4.7 21 e . 1 4. 4. -4-1 - . â€¢ . U U I. .- 0 . 3Â·.4 i - 991 4 Ip /1 - I 2 0 * 4-ft_- 1 - 4.1. f ..4 m m ty- 412,44 6 I 4- -,4 I-+ 4 .1, I 1 -4 W & 4/1 +59'3: F 044 7 L , C , L MAIN STREET . 3 El 80./=.1 lf~ . r- m ELCUE 0 -&.Ill. 009 4 0 Ili7 yr]EF 0 00 , ' HOPKINS AVENUE -h ' â€¢1& ' ASPEN ARCADE , 1 RASR}Â·Al<19 21,1--11 1/ ( t'. 1 . . .1 1 M . .4 , 1= - t- , Z ' W , A ' 0. , c: . c. ' 1, ~:.~'Silt.:310:, .1 1 11. ..,1 111. 4.' ... ,1*41{Flt: ..3. f.Â·li:' 11 00 lili . r-1 L__ - It--2 01 . HYMAN AVENUE . .. -I: 1] . V 1 . I /3.1 r-J--m . 't _101_ r , 1 Lf~-~3 %3 21 4 L COOPER AVENUE *Af:NER PARK , -~CÂ·- I Ira <-2 SNE MAP -PROPOSED Llm_.r--1 ASPEN STREET /h 0 9 9 9 CHRYSTAL i*!.ACK KILEY - , . ..0. U.,1 ~ It J 6 . TRAM '2Â» OF}leE 1 2. 1 i. 6 1*1[KING 44 1 O171CE,Ar}Ul!!)'19' 1,OtiSING 11*1:Â·.40' ' I /1 1 1 /1 RETAIL ' 0 74#0 1 1 i e Ir# 1 --77 12>L I 11, \ 1 1--2-1:1:221'J itfir. ...=1 . . . 1. . .. , i 44% 3 1 - 5 1 1 _ TERIR. E . 1 1 i.\ A . 4 1 Â«e , i ' I TERMI - :... 7............ 2 9 .1/ 1 .4/ Mi ~ s~Eâ„¢I. ......A Hi: 1 / d.11;.74" -Â·511 UNI. Iii ) A.I. ' 1- 4 1 6, 1 21? a KEn) HOUSE ~ 14 Â· 1.-,i lie, . Ht.3 ! E- 4 4 1 ---r==rn/El 'fi:'.S bull. sr. piAZA gl 435fta .Alt% Liw il Vt L..77 I I r : . u cÂ·>cL_ J .2. $.ci 1 ...1.- : ../1 K--- l_..2 -1, 1 ,._ _ . '4421, ... 1,". - I HOFKINS AVE. LEVEL THREE LEVEL ONE I.EVEL TWO FAR. 3046 &/. FAR- 4704 &/ FAR. 5427 EF. FI.OOR PLANS 'AL. 6....Ii i: ,--- i 19 fONÂ¥â€¢OM 1 , 1 , ' 1 -1 f o I Â®111 ill HITE~L TIFFFI CLE 2 - 1- 1 l d Mnt. STREET Mn.L STREET PLAZA REID HOUSE Al. PHM.UPS CI,EANERS .MON,ARCH <T EXISTING ELEVATION HOPKINS STREET 0Z 4 L /-44 , Oa Â·Â· . Limm-7:4:':.f~.9- Ll =-1 '.= 1- i 22*=%b.1,11 4(L...% . Z.tx u ' U 11 77'1~1411- . p,fiDEEEP?90:1-2/ . 'h.*~*.4-.-U=$==tt--â€¢tÂ·N~t~ 111/38 MI~11}.2/PIjlNE :Ay./A .__ 17 I tb- 4*litawkil - ' 1=-Ul-11 -Â·... ' 1-Ul HOPKINS STREET REID HOUSE ' ASPEN ARCAI)E ALLEY ; CRY<ETAL PALACE WEST ELEVATION MONARCH STREET Â¥ j i .. 1 o"""""""'31.Ji PFFFW 11 11 11 il -=1- 1 i. ::; =:::iT:::::: =----4-4 . 1 HIT/"-7-73 .....0. .. . 1 -Â· - Â·Â· 4.&4-44--AMMA 19- 19 - 24.1 9 8 1 1 1-194 -ft 1 6~ ff-Â·12 -1.--11 , 1 lifT- 4.9.6 -I --4* 4 M .-/.#-+ 4 r#*Pf*/7ie#11 Pr . r-1 i . - Am-1-1-J-trtÂ».lf#jig All!~JUML. 10- MILL STREET MILL STREET PLAZA ASPEN ARCADE REID HOUSE MONANCit . D NORTH ELEVATION HOPKINS STREET . 'V. IE .. WE ARE ALWAYS PROMPT...NO MATTER HOW LONG IT TAKES! RYBERG CONSTRUCTION CO. EXHIBIT -"6" "SHORING & STRUCTURE MOVING CONTRACTOR" 9900 E. FLORIDA AVE.#2 DENVER, CO 80231 H. CARL RYBERG President & SON Colorado House Movers Assn. (303) 755 - 3426 Over 35 16 November 1989 years of Service First In Mr. Joseph Wells Area to Move Doremus & Wells Brick and 130 Midland Park Place, Suite F-2 Masonry Aspen, CO 81611 3ulldings RE: Relocating a pre- age era masonry constructed structure with lime and emolition sand mortar jointed two or more courses brick exterior walls. Dear Mr. Wells: xcavatlon entention Systems These':types.J of constructed house ,/st&ctures ,are Â·the-zinost difficult to relocatdift?Hooever';' they ~"dian~9156 reld&â‚¬3*1.0(fn'.f~almostÂ»xdellent .condition 'using :r the correct: moving0procedures...~ During thellastmfo#ty years- I Â·have ShorIng , relochEEd.J-hundrods,?i'6Â£3 thei@ f pte--Yo.~age~ ;46&~ fmadon~G 328~istfudted ~.:strdctures . : derplnnIng : Thetholise?;9;ou'called -'about;Â·WilI..bet'an <ekkier on'el â‚¬bfmove :due {to its small'Â·~ size.(627,square Feet:) , ..Â·- ConfirmingÂ·'the- quotes. I gave you over-.the phone,f.the -mEving cos*thhl-i.1 1 Structural beh:het $12.00.Â·fper ?s'quare .fdetÂ·-' of.the.Â·structure..:?plusl$.1500;bo.:~1 $2000..00 : fori estoration outÂ·-~of areaÂ·travel' cost toiperform.~.tlieÂ·.job*thls-87'I? wilfÂ·'cbristruct IfthdffBuR*. dation system for the project providingtthe decision -is ...to relocatell. the] ),4 oundation structure. It is possible to relocate the structure onto a basmentÂ·~and/or; :placement garden level if so desired.. ..If .you-proceed. with:the'relocation Â·.and.~ getitci , Â· Denver in' the inter.im..period,f I: have.-~a,.photo.IalbUIiffuith printed :duttinserts that explain all phases .of:,6 Â·~~Inas;onry'telodhâ‚¬.idni'%,Hichrniapt bÂ¢th@lbfult:â‚¬0'i<youJ oundation iAlso, I have available all risk transportation:.insurancepto cover -the'/struc-1 I Extension ture from pick up point until set upon the new foundation. :,Â·fedstzis/$50.00, p or Down per $10,000.00 of coverage. Â· Â·. .~ 32.-1~-Â·-, .7.'c,ieÂ·,7? -4 Free Sincerely, Estimates C 1 In Denver 1 0 Area R : Carl Riber{3 ~~0' j Free Ryberg Const.l,0:1.,~ Structure 6 'I lelocation Pamphlet for Customers - ~ "WE HAUL OR RESTORE YOUR MOST PRIZED POSSESSION FOR YOU" . INTEGRATED ENGINEERING (ONSULTANTS , Ltd. -1 ' tt? ..7 .r. A 411 Edst \Idin Street Suite 106 .Aspen.Colorddo 81611 (303) 92 f.Â· %913 EXHIBIT "7" October 19, 1989 Job # 89032 Mr. Larry Brooks Aspen Arcade, Ltd. 1148 4th Street Santa Monica, CA 90403 Re: Lilly Reid House 309 E. Hopkins Aspen, CO Dear Mr. Brooks: This letter is to confirm our conversation with Joe Wells of this date with regard to the above project. The Six Hundred Twenty Seven (627) square foot masonry house can, using correct moving procedures, be relocated and maintain its structural integrity. If you have any further questions, please call us at 925- 5913. Sincerely, INTEGRATED ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LTD. 1 ~~4031 Lawrence A. Doble, PE - President . 4 I . EXHIBIT "8" :1 LIMITED APPRAISAL ASSIGNMENT of the THE BERKO BUILDING Block 81, Lot C Aspen, Colorado April 17, 1989 ,/3 FOR: Mr. Larry Brooks c/o Aspen Arcade, Ltd. I.-1 1148 Fourth Street Santa Monica, CA 90403 1-3 PREPARED BY: Randy Gold, MAI Appraiser-Consultant Scott M. Bowie, MAI -3 Appraiser-Consultant ti jililleS J. j[Olliell &A~sociates, Inc. Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants 2 ..2 .. !111}let J. MOIIiâ‚¬tt & Associates.Ine. Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants Crystal Palace Building â€¢ 300 East Hyman Avenue â€¢ Aspen, Colorado 81611 â€¢ 303/925-8987 April 17, 1989 Mr. Larry Brooks c/o Aspen Arcade, Ltd. 1148 Fourth Street Santa Monica, CA 90403 RE: Limited Appraisal Assignment: The Berko Building, Block 81, Lot C, Aspen, Colorado Dear Larry: In accordance with the request of Mr. Larry Brooks, we have personally inspected the subject property and have reviewed recent market data with the purpose of providing you with our estimate of Market Value. However. at the client's request and in the interest of time, this letter is being offered on a summary basis. It does not contain a detailed analysis of market sales nor does it include a complete description of the subject property, its zoning, highest and best use, etc. typical of a formal analysis. However, if a formal appraisal should be required at a later date, one could be completed from information contained in this letter and in our files. In the course of our investigation we have completed the following: 1. We personally inspected the subject property. A brief property description along with supporting photographs are attached to this letter. 2. We have rev iewed applicable sections of the Aspen Zoning Code and have tried to ascertain its impact upon development of the subject property to its highest and best use. 3. We have reviewed recent land sales of comparable commercial vacant land in and near Aspen's central core. A chart summarizing this data, along with a brief analysis of applicable sales, is also included in this letter. 4. We have reviewed the purchase contract dated February 22, 1989 between Mr. Brooks and the seller, John King. The purchase price is $500,000, cash to the seller. We recognize that there is currently some uncertainty regarding the development future of the subject site. We are unsure how this ASSOCIATE APPRAISERS 1~~~ Scott M. Bowie, MAI Alice Davis -RT?1~ Randy Gold, MAI Elizabeth Fobert - James J. Mollica. MAI controversy regarding renovation and expansion of historic structures will be resolved. However, while we feel that this factor is important and may dissuade some buye rs, we feel that it is also important to recognize that there is currently a severe shortage of available development land in the commercial core. We feel that the subject property is very marketable no matter how this issue is resolved. Based upon our analysis of the sales attached to this report and after also considering the contract on the subject itself, in our opinion the Market Value (most probable selling price) of the subject property, as of April 17, 1989 is: FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS $500.000 The reader should note that our analysis includes typical real estate sales commission of 6%. that characteristic for improved properties in our market. Attached to this letter is a brief property description along with a summary of applicable canmercial land sales. Additional data has been retained in our files and can be reviewed if necessary. If we can be of any further assistance in the interpretation or application of the findings in this letter, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. Respectfully, ~, Randy lGold, MAI Appraiser-Consultant 6-4-- Scott M. Bowie, MAI Appraiser-Consultant James j. ilollica &.issociates, Int. Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants . 1 PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION The subject property is legally described as Lot C, in Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is located at 309 East 1 Hopkins Avenue, two lots removed from the intersection of East Hopkins and South Monarch. The property is situated on the south side of East Hopkins Avenue. The subject property totals 3000 square feet of land area and is zoned C-C (Commercial-Core). The Commercial Core zone provides for a floor area ratio of 1.5:1, resulting in an allowed structure size of approximately 4500 gross square feet. Development in the Commercial Core zone requires two parking spaces per 1000 square feet of net leasable area which may be provided via a payment in lieu ($15,000 per space) for commercial development. While we ackna,ledge that residential use is also a possibility for the 1 j subject site, the privacy of this location, the small site, and 1-J proximity to canmercial uses are all factors which, in our estimation, preclude residential construction from being the primary highest and best use. However, a mixed use project with a residential unit in the upper level does coincide with our perception of highest and best use. Â·3 The subject is not currently designated a landmark historic structure. However, when Mr. King tried to move the Berko Studio to another site and develop the property, a public furor developed. We 1 think. in all likelihood, the property will be designated "Historic" with a stipulation that the structure remain and become part of a larger building. With Historic designation, the property could , avoid Growth Management Plan Quota System application for expansion, although under current zoning it will still have to mitigate community impacts in terms of employee housing and parking i necessitated by the expansion. Hcwever, avoidance of the Growth . Management Plan Quota System eliminates many of the risks and delays inv olved in development in the commercial core. j We understand that there is now a "historic landmark code amendment" before the City Council for approval. The amendment has already passed with Planning & Zoning Department approval and met with success at Council's first reading. We understand that the public hearing is scheduled for May 8, 1989. If approved, the Code amendment will reduce employee housing requirements for expansions of historic structures, mitigate parking requirements including .1 relief from the cash in lieu fee as well as several other less significant changes. We refer the reader to the addendum to this letter where excerpts from the Aspen Daily News have been included. Jill]WS J. 1 1()IIiâ‚¬'11 &.WoriateN, Ine. Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants ..1 I. 2 The development plan surrounding the subject is primarily a function of the existing "miner's cottage" which is ncw on the site. The improvements include approximately 1000 square feet of finished area; a Victorian structure which is of frame and brick construction. The property is currently divided into four rooms plus a small entry area. The original portion of the structure, built in 1888, is of brick construction with a 15 x15 frame addition built in 1971-72. Clearly, the existing structure does not maximize ~'i the highest and best use of the land. However, suffice it to say that any development of the site will require incorporation of this structure into the new development plan. We understand that the ~- Code amendment proposed may allow for relocation of the structure nearer the site's northern boundary without penalizing the developer for using open space. Obviously, the presence of the existing Victorian complicates any development plan of the site, a factor which has been considered in our valuation of the subject. Because the existing improvements will require relocation, we feel that they contribute only minimally in value to the property. As we discuss in the Valuation section of this letter, we do feel that approximately $25,000 is reasonable. As the reader can tell from the preceding discussion, development of the subject site to its highest and best use is complicated by the i existing historic structure, its location within the purview of the Lf Historical Preservation Committee and its smaller than typical 3000 square foot lot size. It is impossible to predict with any certainty the outcome of the pending Code amendment process and its '44 i impact upon development of the subject site. While this may tend to dissuade scme purchasers, it is also important that the reader 1 recognize that there is currently no supply of available vacant land 4 in the commercial core. As we also discussed in the Valuation 1 section of this report, we are aware that in addition to Mr. Brooks' purchase contract on the subject, an additional purchase contract Â·i was also submitted on the site at $500,000 which was then increased -I.Â· to $510,000. Both offers were cash and no contingencies. Because of the extremely limited supply of available vacant land in the Â·' commercial core, we feel that the subject would be very marketable, 3 possibly for land banking and not for immediate development. no matter how the Code considerations are resolved. We should also note that it is our understanding that there are currently two leases affecting the subject property. These are included as part of the purchase contract as Exhibits A and B. i, Exhibit A provides for three separate parking leases which are structured at $50 per month per space or approximately $1800 annually. The improvements themselves are leased to Michael Shemin. Although the lease we reviewed terminated in April. 1988. ,|imles J. Mollit'll &. ithociates,Inc. Real Estate Appraisers and Consultanti 42 Â·Â·Â· Lit WI-/& I. I. 3 we understand that the lease has been extended verbally. Currently, the lease is structured at $1500 per month, with the lessee paying all expenses except taxes and insurance which are paid by the lessor. We understand that both leases are on a "month to 1 month" basis and are subject to 30-day termination clauses and on this basis, in our estimation, they do not negatively impact the marketability or value of the property. LÂ·-3 :q 11111 les J. Molliell & 14,ociates, 111( . Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants 4 VALUATION SUMMARY On the facing page can be found a chart showing the most recent land sales of Ccmmercial-Core, C-1, and Office-zoned properties in the 1 Aspen area. Sales have taken place between May, 1986 and the present. Where terms of sale or contributory value of improvements , were present, we have adjusted the sale price showing an effective ' price. Comparables have all been adjusted upward for time. We note that Comparable 3, sold at $550,000 in October, 1987. Prior to that, it sold in January, 1986 for $385,000 and in February, 1984 for $350,000. These two resales show .4% per month compounded appreciation between 1984 and 1986 and 1.7% per month between 1986 and 1987. The resale of Comparable 6, Block 80, part of Lots B-D, shows much higher appreciation. However, we note that the property was under contract for almost 7 months prior to the first sale. Still. the appreciation rate is better than 2.5% per month compounded monthly. We feel that this is an aberration and the initial sale price may have been low as part of a bulk transaction. We have applied 1% per month as an appropriate appreciation rate. : In fact, although this is probably accurate over a long term, the severe scarcity of available commercially-zoned properties in our 3 market may suggest that for more recent sales this appreciation rate is low. The only exception we have made is Block 73, Lots L and M. It appears to us that this property was purchased above market. We do not feel any appreciation rate is warranted for time of sale for this property. We have shown the size of each of the properties. Their differing zoning categories, however, allow various size buildings. C-C zoned 1 properties allow a floor area ratio of 1.5:1, while the C-1 zoned properties are 1:1 and the Office-zoned properties are .75:1. We have made two exceptions in applying these ratios. Comparable 6 and 6A, Block 80, Lots G-I and B-D, are both located within a viewplane. Consequently, building height will be limited on both properties, and we have applied ratio actually received on a building constructed on Lots G-I to that property and the same ratio to Lots B-D. This ratio is nearer 1.37:1 than to 1.5:1 allowed by zoning. The updated price per square foot shown per square foot of building area has been adjusted for our perception of locational differences, zoning category advantages and disadvantages, and for the size of the site. As a general rule, the smaller the size of the site, the higher the price per square foot is paid for the land. Locational 1 adjustments are based upon the property's proximity to the main focus of the central core. The subject is located at the periphery of tourist pedestrian traffic. Comparables 1, 2, 3, and 5 have substantially superior locations while Comparables 4A and 6 are Jit ! 1 1(,9 J . Mo|| ica & 1%42 )('int es, 11 l e. Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants 0 . 5 slightly superior. Comparable 6A is located 1 block north of the subject on Main Street, outside the area of primary tourist traffic, a location substantially inferior in the current market to the - subject's. Location of Comparable 8 is similar while Comparables 10 and 11. Office-zoned sites, are located 11 blocks west of the Hyman Avenue Mall on Main Street and warrant a large upward adjustment. There is no effective difference between C-C and C-1 zoning in terms of allowed uses. Office-zoned properties, however, do not allow retail uses so that rental rates must be lower. We feel upward adjustments are warranted for all the sites zoned Office. Adjusting our comparable sales to the subject shows a range from $80-$155/SF. We feel the Office-zoned sites should be given secondary emphasis as they have inferior locations and require the ; largest adjustments. The C-C and C-1 zoned sites which remain range from $80-$141/SF. The predaninant range is $80-$125/SF, and we feel the subject should fall within that range. i The reader will note that we have not had any C-C zoned property sales since October, 1987. This is the result of a severe scarcity , of available properties rather than a lack of demand. We had one C-1 zoned property, Comparable 9, which sold in May, 1988. However, it was purchased by a neighboring property owner who is developing a 4 duplex and it may have been her intention to develop this property 1.4 with residential housing rather than a commercial/office use. The severe scarcity of available competitive land sales in the C-C zone aÂ·-i 1 makes precision in our final selection of a value difficult. A brief discussion of an additional sale is perhaps warranted. We ~1 feel some attention should be given to the recent sale of the Aspen Lumber & Supply Building, located 1 block east of the subject. It closed in March, 1989 at $2,700,000 (Block 88, part of Lots A,B, and C). The site is 7200 square feet zoned Commercial Core and it is improved with a Victorian commercial structure built in the 1880's of approximately 9594 square feet. The main level could be excellent retail space although it is outdated in terms of finish detail and is currently unpartitioned. The second level had been cd gutted for conversion to office space and was not in use at time of sale. The building does contribute intangible value to the property because its renovation can avoid the Growth Management Plan process, because it is an historic structure. In addition. its Victorian desigÂ·n and appeal is a strong attraction to the market. The ' developer's intention at the time of purchase was to avoid the GMQS process through exemption for historic structures. However, proposed legislation effecting the development of the subject may ' also impact this property. It is difficult to place a value on the improvements. Hawever, if we given them $100/SF it would show Jil 11 ws J. 1 1( Illit'll &,\AMociates, h ir. Real Estate Arprai.ers amd Con,ultants I. I. 6 approximately $1,000,000 to the structure leaving $1,700.000 to the land, or $236/SF. Applying the 1.5:1 floor area ratio in the C-C zone to this property would show a sale price of $157/SF for the land. This site is substantially superior in location to the subject, only 1 block from the Hyman Avenue Mall and on a very active, pedestrian-oriented corner. Although the site is larger than the subject, its corner location is unusually desirable. We feel a negative 20% adjustment for location is warranted and only a small 5% positive adjustment for size resulting in a total negative adjustment of 15%. This would suggest an indicated value for the subject of approximately $133/SF of buildable area, a value from the upper end of our range. This sale is difficult to be precise with given the necessity to estimate a relatively large portion of value to the improvements. However, it is an indication that with a total lack of supply of competitive Cammercial-Core zoned sites that appreciation rates have been higher recently than shown by the : comparable sales in 1986 and 1987. Finally, we note the last sale of the subject itself in October, 1987 at $350,000 (Berko to King, Deed Book 548, Page 557). The I property was identical in condition and layout then as it is ncw. The sellers carried $275,000 of financing but we did not feel that ~ t any cash equivalency adjustment was warranted. Applying $25,000 to Â·u the value of the improvements, then, results in a land sale of $325.000 or $72 per buildable foot. Adjusting this sale for time at 1% per month suggests a current value of approximately $86/SF of buildable area. In fact. this is well below the current contract price and would suggest that our appreciation rate may be slightly low over the past year and a half. This last sale of the subject fÂ·-i , property can only be evidence of the lower range of value in the current market. We remind the reader that our C-C zoned properties, including the Aspen Lumber & Supply Building, showed approximately $80-$133 per buildable foot, adjusted for differences. The most recent sales requiring the least adjustment for time and physical characteristics are Comparables 1, 3, 7, and 9. They show a range from $93-$118/SF. Of these sales. Comparable 9 is perhaps most similar to the subject in its location, size and appeal. Like the subject, it lies on the periphery of the commercial core but within a half block of higher quality commercial space, and in an area into which the commercial core is expanding. We give this sale strong emphasis in our analysis. We feel the upper end of the broader range set by our sales is not justified because of the subject's interior location in the block 0111111(TJ. ?11()Iliell&\forMUÂ·~.Ine. Real Estate Appraiscrs and Consultants .... 7 and controversy surrounding development of the site. As .we have already discussed, the Berko Building has become a "touchy" issue locally and its historic designation will no doubt complicate the development of the rest of the site. Having to incorporate the i structure into a larger building may suggest that the total allowed FAR of 1.5:1 will not be obtainable on the site. and if the existing structure remains as an "entry" to the building, there may be little street-front display space as an attraction to renters. For all these reasons, we feel a per square foot value from nearer the middle of the range is most applicable. In the final analysis, we have selected $100-$110/SF for land value. On top of that, we feel a small allocation for the contribution of the improvements is justified. We have already discussed that they are currently under month-to-month lease both for the structure and for parking behind it. This lease provides an interim i income-producing use while a redevelopment plan is pursued with the City. Although the structure may be allowed to be moved on the site slightly, it will have to remain because it is a historically designated property. Although there will be costs associated with designing the building around the structure and incorporating the improvements into that new, larger building and renavating then, we still feel the structure contributes minimally to overall value of the property. In addition, its presence indicates that same tap fees have been paid. Overall, we feel the improvements contribute a - nominal $25,000 to the overall value of the whole property. Thus, i we feel a final value of the property is justified as follows: 3 Land Value: $100/SF x 4500 SF of buildable area = $450,000 $110/SF x 4500 SF of buildable area = $495,000 Land Value (rounded): $450,000 - $500,000 Contribution of Improvements: $ 25,000 Total Value of the Property: $475,000 - $525,000 We are aware that the subject is under contract for $500,000 to the owner of the property adjacent to the west. However, we also understand that there was a backup offer at $500,000, cash, which was subsequently raised to $510,000 from another party. This market activity is evidence of the scarcity of supply and strength of demand. It has been useful in our final selection of a value from within our range. ,lililies J. 11(Illit'll & *Asi,riatedne. Real Eitate Apprai,er, and Consultants I- I . 8 In the final analysis, we feel a value from the middle of the range is best justified and we select a final Market Value for the subject as of April 17, 1989 of: : FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS 8500.000 Please note that our final value estimate includes real estate commission typical in our area for commercial properties and reflects a cash or cash-effective transaction. F i N r I fl 'I ll 1 1 l es / . M ( ) 1 l it'41 k . /4 %( IC' i a t es . I l l c . Real Eflate Appraiser. and Confultarts 1...4" , -, . EXHIBIT "9" LIMITED APPRAISAL ASSIGNMENT VALUATION OCMMENIS of the IARRY BROOKS PROPERTY (Berko Building) Block 80, Lot C Aspen, Colorado October 30,*1989 FOR: Mr. Joe Wells 130 Midland Park Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 PREPARED BY: Randy Gold, MAI Appraiser-Consultant Scott M. Bowie, MAI Appraiser-Consultant James J. .ilollita&:isiociates.Ine. Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants . I. Janies I. Mollica & Associates,Inc. Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants Crystal Palace Building â€¢ 300 East Hyman AvenueÂ· â€¢ Aspen, Colorado 81611 â€¢ 303/925-8987 October 30, 1989 Mr. Joe Wells 130 Midland Park Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Limited Appraisal Assignment: Valuation Ccmments Regarding the Larry Brooks Property (Berko Building), Block 80, Lot C, Aspen, Colorado Dear Joe: At your request, we have reviewed Section 7-602 of the Aspen Land Use Code (Demolition, Partial Demolition, or Relocation of Victorian Structures), Subparagraph F entitled "Application for Demolition, Partial Demolition, or Relocation" dealing with requirements to be met for such application. You have asked us to address Subparagraph F(5), Items (a)-(d), the portion of the Code dealing with the econcmic feasibility of the project. We have also reviewed preliminary plans for the restructuring of the Aspen Arcade, which include a proposal for moving the existing Berko Building onto Lot A (the corner of Monarch and Hopkins). Please note that the comments which follow are based not upon a detailed and supportable study, but upon our combined 25 years' experience in the Aspen real estate market. The sections of the Land Use Code you have asked us to deal with are as follows: (a) estimated market value of the property on which the structure lies, in its current condition, and after demolition, partial demolition, or relocation; We have not completed a formal appraisal of the subject property as of the date of this letter. However, we did do a detailed "Limited Appraisal Assignment" of Block 80, Lot C, dated April 17, 1989, for Mr. Brooks in conjunction with his purchase. The purchase closed in May, 1989 at $500,000 (King to Aspen Arcade, Deed Book 591, Page 367). It was our opinion that the sale price was justified, and we appraised the property at $500,000. In that appraisal, we estimated land value at between $450,000 and $500,000, and added a small contribution for improvements of $25,000. We recognized that there would be costs associated with designing a building ASSOCIATE APPRAISERS 579;< 1 Scott M. Bowie. MAI Alice Davis, RM ~ 1 Randy Gold, MAI Elizabeth Fobert '~ 1 James J. Mollica, MAI 0. .. around the existing Victorian structure and incorporating the improvements into that new, larger building and renavating them. Nevertheless, we felt that the existing improvements added minimal value to the land for existing tap fees and the small structure in place. We recognize that the existing . improvements tended to damage the site. Although we felt, unimproved, the site would have a value from the upper range shown by our camparable sales due to the rapidly appreciating market, having to incorporate the structure into a larger building, potential difficulties in obtaining a full FAR available for the site because of the existing structure, and the inability to create a new "street-front" atmosphere maximizing retail e<posure to pedestrians, were all factors which we felt damaged the value of this land. After reviewing our appraisal of April 17, 1989, we feel it would have been our opinion, at that time, that the site, vacant and unconstrained by the existing Victorian structure, would have had a value similar to that reported in our appraisal for the imprcved property. The proposal is to relocate the existing improvements to the northwest corner of Lot A. The structure would be free standing, instead of being "sandwiched" between the Aspen Arcade Building and the Mill Street Plaza and would be wholly exposed cn all sides to pedestrians. It appears to us that this plan would substantially enhance the Victorian character of the structure, making it both more visible and more accessible. It would be misleading for us to try to value the existing structure after relocation, because it can only be relocated in conjunction with the demolition of a neighboring building and a total restructuring of the three lots comprising the current location of the Berko Building and the Aspen Arcade. In general, we would state that, in terms of rental potential, relocation of the Berko Building is advantageous. (b) estimates frcm an architect, developer, real estate agent or appraiser experienced in rehabilitation, addressing the economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the structure proposed for demolition, partial demolition, or relocation; Rehabilitation of Victorian structures has been popular in Aspen's Ccmmercial Core. Such rehabilitation has been successfully completed in numerous buildings, including Andres, the Aspen Block, the Independence Lodge, the Brand Building, the Hotel Jerome, the Wheeler Opera House, the Wheeler Block Jailles J. 1 lollita & AsBociates, Int. Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants I . Building, and others. Hcwever, it is our opinion that in the subject's current location, renovation of this Victorian building would be awkward, appear out of place, and be extremely expensive relative to the end product. Leaving the Berko Building where it currently stands will necessitate construction of an addition on the rear portion of the lot. Access to this addition will be difficult and it will provide no street exposure. Thus, the addition will represent primarily secondary retail or office space, leaving only the existing Berko Building with its minimal street exposure as prime retail. Also, because the Berko Building is located on a single lot, a Victorian building created from an addition to the Berko Building will appear long and narrow and out of place sandwiched between the more modern Aspen Arcade and Mill Street Plaza Buildings. The expense involved in trying to incorporate the Victorian structure in a new building could also be dramatic. We do not knaw the state of the foundation or soundness of the structure, but it has been typical in other Victorian renavations that we have experienced that developers discover unforeseen pmblems and increased e*enses as soon as renovation begins. We understand that one proposal was to actually pick up the existing structure and mave it slightly forwar'd so that it has better exposure to Hopkins Avenue and pedestrian access along that street. This would also facilitate a basement and a new foundation, and would permit more ready access to the site for foundation work for the remainder of the building. We anticipate that the expense of construction will be unusually high in trying to retain the ecisting structure in its current location. "Tieing in" a new addition to this Victorian building will create both awkward and relatively low income-generating space at unusually high On the other hand, by relocating the structure to the corner of the site, the Victorian appeal of the Berko Building can be enhanced and well separated frcm what we presume will be a more contemporary or Neo-Victorian Aspen Arcade Building surrounding it. The relocation creates a courtyand effect for which the Berko Building stands as a "gateway". Part of the expense of moving and renovating the Berko Building will be offset by savings involved in not having to tie it in to a new structure on the site, plus the convenience of having the Berko Building separated from the actual foundation construction of the remainder of the building. (c) all appraisals made of the subject property on which the James j. 1 lollica & l,sociates. Ine. Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants .. structure is located within the previous two (2) years; We have already discussed the fact that we completed a Limited Appraisal Assignment of Block 81, Lot C, dated April 17, 1989. We assume that Mr. Brooks will make available to the City a copy of this, report. Mr. Mollica also prepared a letter similar to this for Mr. King in February of 1988 addressing demolition possibilities for the property. We have not campleted any other written appraisal assignment on the subj ect property for the past two years. (d) any other information considered necessary to make a determination whether the property does yield or may yield a reasonable return on investment. As regards this request, we might first discuss potential value of the property "as is", assuming no addition was permitted to the rear of the site. The existing structute is approximately 1,000 square feet including additions, which we feel could not rent for more than approximately $40/SF annually. Adjusting for vacancy and credit loss and a small allocation for expenses results in a net operating incame of approximately $35,000. 'Ihe most recent commercial sales in our market have shcwn overall rates ranging from 8 1/2 % to 9%. Examining even the most favorable cverall rate for the subject building would suggest a value not in excess of $400,000 for the property "as is". We have tried to be aggressive in this cursory analysis in every way. In its current configuration, a sale price of $500,000 would not be justified without the potential for some additional construction on the site. As we have discussed, a structure built on the rear of the prcperty would not provide prime retail space and would be extremely costly. There is no question in our minds that a better, more economically feasible building could be constructed if the Berko structure was razed or moved to some other location. It appears to us that the proposed plan associated with Lots A and B to move the Berko Building to the corner of Lot A is the "best of all worlds". It leaves the Victorian in its approximate original location, yet exposes it more fully to view, new hampered by commercial buildings on both sides. It creates a prime retail space surrounded by courtyards and acts as a drawing card to the remainder of the reconstructed Aspen Arcade Building. It allows this Victorian residence to not only maximize its income potential, but to enhance the appeal of a neighboring structure as well. JailleS J.,1 lolli/a &.issociates. Inc. Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants Obviously, the information in this letter is not a formal analysis of the subject's feasibility or value. Rather, its brief camments and valuation parameters are offered only to assist the client and the City of Aspen in detemining the outccme of the proj ect. We must say, personally, that outside the concerns of econamic feasibility, that the proposed plan to relocate the Berko Building appears to us to both enhance its visual presence in the neighborhood, yet retain its original Victorian appeal, which we all agree is inportant in the Aspen cc~unity. We hope these brief camments are helpful in the decision-making process. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call us. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. Sincerely, Scott M. Bcwie, MAI Appraiser-Consu*ant Randy~ Gold, MAI Appraiser-Consultant Janies Jollollica&\ssociates.Inc Real Estate Appraisen and Consultants Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 10, 1990 334 W. HALLAM, FINAL DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL EXTENSION .... 1 309 E. HOPKINS & 200 S. MONARCH, LANDMARK DESIGNATION, DEMOLITION, RELOCATION AND CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL ....................... 2 9