The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19900214-'ll AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE February 14, 1990 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM City Hall C-3 4:00 - Site visit 200 E. Main 0 U O 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of Jan 24, 1990 minutes. II. Committee Member & Staff Comments 0 0 0 0 III. Public Comment f-/ 5:10 IV. OLD BUSINESS '~ A. Public Hearing - Vested Rights Resolution Â· .- 0 U o 624 E. Hopkins d?f,5*rL 4,2 5/0,1/7/~- Ofor,6,7,4, 0/7,3 0 o 5:20 B. Resolution - HPC Goals o 5:30 V. NEW BUSINESS o A. Conceptual Development - Public Hearing 3 204 S. Mill St. - Lane Parcel N AN 64- 5 --O,3 7 Â¢6 kl-]1 -20Â·0, 6,.f 6:15 B. Resolution - Supporting House Bill 1033 (Statewide Rehabilitation Tax Credits) 6:30 C. Pre-Application - The Independence Building (Storefront Remodel) 6:45 VI. COMMUNICATIONS A. Annual Honor Awards - National Historic Preservation Week B. Project Monitoring Adjourn 7:30 0 0 1- A 0 6. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: 624 E. Hopkins - Approval of Vest Rights Resolution- Public Hearing Date: February 14, 1990 Attached is the Resolution granting Vested Rights for the Final Development approval for 624 E. Hopkins. The HPC approved the Final Development plans on January 24, 1990. The Committee also voted at that meeting to approve a Resolution granting Vested Rights, to be executed during a Public Hearing today. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC approve the Resolution granting Vested Rights for the Final Development proposal for the demolition and reconstruction of 624 E. Hopkins Street. RESOLUTION NO. (Series of 1990) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE VESTING THE SITE SPECIFIC FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 624 EAST HOPKINS WHEREAS, Philip and Mariann Altfeld have submitted Final Development plans to the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee for approval of the demolition and subsequent redevelopment of 624 East Hopkins Avenue; and WHEREAS , the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee finds that the Final Development proposal constitutes the site specific development plan for the property, and; WHEREAS, Philip and Mariann Altfeld have requested that the development rights for said property, as defined and approved by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee in the site specific development plans, be vested pursuant to Section 6-207 of the Aspen Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee desires to vest development rights in the 624 East Hopkins Avenue site specific development plans pursuant to Section 6-207 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen for a period of three (3) years from the effective date hereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 The Aspen Historic Preservation Committee of the City of Aspen, as a consequence of its approval of the site specific development plan, and pursuant to Section 6-207 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby vests development Resolution No. 90- Page 2 rights in 624 East Hopkins Avenue for a period of three (3) years from the effective date hereof. However, failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Section 2 The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; except that the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of this resolution following its adoption. Section 3 Zoning that is not part of the site specific development plans approved hereby shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. Section 4 Nothing in this approval shall exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances of the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. Section 5 The establishment of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulations by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical Resolution No. 90- Page 3 codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site specific development approval, the applicants shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. Section 6 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 7 Nothing in this resolution shall be construed to affect any right, duty or liability under any ordinance in effect prior to the effective date of this resolution, and the same shall be continued and concluded under such prior ordinances. APPROVED by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee at its regular meeting on February 14, 1990. By William J. Poss, Chairman Aspen Historic Preservation Committee ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Assistant City Clerk hpcreso.624ehopkins I 1 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Resolution - HPC goals Date: February 14, 1990 Staff will present the goals resolution for HPC's formal adoption at this meeting. The goals will be taken from the brainstorm session held January 10, 1990. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Conceptual Development: 204 S. Mill St., the Lane Parcel - Public Hearing Date: February 14, 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) ZONING: CC - Commercial Core APPLICANT: Harley Baldwin HPC MONITOR: To be assigned at this meeting APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual 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. The applicant is also requesting HPC's approval for a parking variation of two spaces, which the HPC cannot grant due to the Lane parcel not being a designated landmark. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Development review standards are found in Section 7-601 of the Land Use Code, and are reviewed below. The applicable Guidelines are found in Section IV. Commercial Buildings - New Construction, beginning on Page 35 of the Aspen Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay district or is adjacent to a Historic Landmark. Response: Please refer to the applicants narrative explaining the simplistic nature of the infill design. The unique characteristics of this particular site seems to dictate a rectangular mass, with relatively little elevation articulation and window openings. Three sides of the parcel abut other private parcels, each with zero lot lines. The proposal meets building code requirements which do not allow openings on lot lines. Materials and detail are extremely simplified, using concrete block and brick banding. We feel the opportunity exists to further study design compatibility issues of the north elevation (in particular), such as: Temporary window openings, which could be bricked over or removed when an adjacent parcel were fully developed. The dwelling units would have more light and possibly become more livable spaces. This would require a Board of Appeals approval. Move the building envelope in 3 feet from the north property line to allow for window openings. This may be impractical due to the potential canyon effect if a new structure were to be constructed where the sculpture garden is now, or if the Alpine Bank Building were to be enlarged. Utilize a variety of building materials to break up the large expanse of blank wall space. South elevation: We feel that the south elevation requires further study, particularly in fenestration. The arched windows reflect the Collins Block, which may be appropriate, however, the five central windows (three-pane) appear incompatible. A redesign of these windows and clarification of the ground level garage doors is recommended. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: We find that the proposal warrants further study to meet this standard. We do agree with the applicant's general concepts that the structure should be extremely subordinate in nature to the surrounding historic structures, and functional due to siting and use. However, we feel there is room for improvement on the design, particularly the visible north elevation. Even though this is alley infill, its design should not be discounted as an important element of the fabric of the Commercial Core Historic District. The design of this structure should be treated more sensitively due to its adjacency to a number of historic structures. The Guidelines state: "In all new commercial construction, compatibility to adjacent building types should be considered." We recommend the applicant review the Guidelines and utilize them when restudying the elevations. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic 2 structure located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: The Planning Office finds that the cultural value of the adjacent landmarks are not necessary diminished by the proposed new construction, however, their cultural value is not enhanced either. Cultural value may be described in this case as those buildings that add value to the community due to their identifiable elements and the nature in which we have become familiar with them. In this case, the proposal involves a structure that Will be rarely experienced by the pedestrian, and whose north elevation will be the one primarily observed. However, its overly- functional presentation to Hopkins Street is not compatible with the Guidelines or the nature of the Commercial Core Historic District, and warrants further study for those reasons. The assumption that the sculpture garden parcel Will be fully developed "someday" cannot be a valid consideration in promoting the rudimentary design and subsequent cultural impact inherent in this proposal. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: We find that the proposal does not enhance the architectural integrity of the surrounding historic resources. Our principal concern is in its basic block form and surface treatment. In our opinion, the somewhat hard, urban feel of this structure should be softened to compliment and enhances the integrity of the adjacent structures. We support the use of modern materials, however, concrete block is not appropriate in this application, in our opinion. The use of more brick, for example, or even earth-tone aggregate are possible alternatives. 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 not submitted the application information as required in Section 7-602 of the Land Use Regulations, however, staff offers the following information: 1. We are preparing a code amendment now to address "exemptions" under the demolition section. Staff has 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. 3 2. Staff feels that the structure proposed for demolition could comply with the spirit of the exemption provisions. Its rehab and reuse appears to be of little value to the traditional and historic nature of the district. 3. The applicant shall supply information to the Planning Office as to why the structure proposed for demolition should be exempt from the criteria for approval. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Approve the Conceptual Development application as submitted and the demolition Of the non-historic structure currently located on the Lane Parcel. ~ 2.3 Approve the proposal with the following conditions, 7 which shall be met at Final Development review: Exact materials representation rrÂ¢Afff//96/ Al'r /0 f 1-424 - B % 1 Restudy of the all elevations Restudy of the south elevation fenestration and ground floor doors . Information to the Planning OFfice as to why the structure proposed for demolilion should be exempt from the criteria for approval 3. Table action to a date certain to allow the applicant further time to study the proposal, incorporating the comments and guidance from the HPC in a revised proposal, and the recommendations stated in Alternative #2. 4. Deny Final Development approval finding that the application does not meet the development review standards. A denial would constitute a re-notice of the public hearing. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC table Conceptual Development approval to a date certain to allow the applicant time to restudy the proposal as recommended in Alternative #2 stated above, and incorporate suggestions from the HPC at this meeting. memo.hpc.Lane.cd 4 i , EXHIBIT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1) Project Name COLLINS BLOCK PROJECT 2) Project Location 204 S. Mill Streeet, Aspen, CO 81611 (North 80' of Lots A, B and c, and South 20' of Lots D and E, Block 88, Aspen Tbwnsite) 3) Present Zoning CC 4) Lot Size 8,321 sf 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # Harlev Baldwin Associates 205 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Cblorado 81611 (303) 920-1800 6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # Joseph Wells 130 Midland Park Place, No. F-2, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-8080 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): X Conditional Use Conceptual SPA X Conceptual Historic Dev. Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final PUD Historic Demolition Mountain View Plane Subdivision Historic Designation Condominiumization Text/Map Amendment GMCS Allotment X Lot Split/Lot Line X GMQS Exemption - Adjustment 8) Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing structures; appro- ximate sq. ft.; number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted bo the propertyI. Basement Cbmmercial & Accessory Space = 7,245 sf 1st Floor Commercial & Accessory Space = 5,192 sf 2nd Floor Residential & Accessory Space = 4,533 sf Existing total square footage = 18,201 sf (10,956 FAR sf) 9) Description of Development Application HPC Conceptual Development Plan Review Of Significant Development, GMOS Exemption For An Historic Landmark, Conditional Use and Special Review By The Planning and Zoning Commission and Lot Line Adjustment Review by City Council 10) Have you attached the following: X Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents 7- Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents 7X- Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application 1 11>4 1 THE BRAND **** EXHIBIT 2 January 5,1990 Ms, Amy Margerum, Director ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Amy. This letter is to confirm that I am the record owner of the Collins Block, Lots A,6,and C, Block 88 and the Lane Parcel, Lots D and E, Block 88, Aspen Townsite. We have requested that the attached application be prepared on our behalf. Joe Wells will be our representative in Aspen during the City's review of this submission. Sincerely, *406 Harley Baldwin HB/ws Enc. 205 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 303.920.1800 FAX 303 920.3602 . II. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (Â§7-601(F)) The Applicant reauests Conceptual 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. has previously granted Final Development Plan approval to the project presently under construction on the Collins Block site. The project includes retail and residential expansion and afford- able housing. A total of 14,752 FAR sq.ft. is proposed in the project. As approved previously, the Collins Block project includes 10,297 sq.ft.; the existing building on the Lane Parcel includes an additional 659 sq.ft. Therefore, 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 niaximum 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. 3 0 A A. SUBMISSION CONTENTS: (Â§7-601[F][3][a]) 1. General Application Requirements (Â§6-202): (a) Application Form is attached as Exhibit "1". (b) Applicant's Letter of Consent is attached as Exhibit 11 911 . (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) As required for Public Notice (Â§6-205[e]), a list of all. owners of property within 300 feet prepared by Pitkin County Title is attached as Exhibit "5". (g) Compliance with Substantive Review Standards: Specific Conceptual Development Plan review stan- dards are addressed beginning on page 6. 2. Sketch Plan of the Proposal: The attached Improvement Survey and architectural drawings illus- trate existing conditions and proposed improvements. 4 . 1 3. Conceptual Selection of Major Building Materials: The alley facade of the Lane Parcel building will be brick, selected to match the size, color and appearance of those used on the Collins Block. Arched double-hung painted wood windows will also be used to mintain consistency of appearance with the Collins Block. The other three facades of the building adjoin private property which is subject to probable redevelpment in the future. Building code requirements prohibit windows in these facades, although the applicant is prepared to install additional window openings which would then be removed once expansion occurs on these parcels, if this can be permitted by the City. For similar reasons, the applicant proposes to use a concrete masonry unit for these facades, with a pattern of banding incorporated into the construction for added interest, as illustrated in the architectural drawings. HPC has previously reviewed and approved all aspects of the redevelopment proposal for the Collins Block site, including the detailing of the storefronts to be utilized in completion of the infill building. 5 4 4. Statement of Effect of Proposed Development Upon Neighborhood. The Lane Parcel is an unusual one in that it is one of the very few parcels in the commercial core which has no street frontage and which abuts other private property on three sides where no setbacks are required under present zoning. Architectural opportunities are therefore limited; a decision has been made to detail the building as simply as possible and to keep the height of the structure well below the height limit of the zone district as well as that of the two important historic structures on the block. The uses proposed for the building are highly desireable in the neighborhood. The need for affordable housing in the community is well-documented and provision of a covered trash service area and parking for the project accessed from the alley addresses a need which could otherwise not be met. B. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS: (Â§7-601(D)(1)). The proposal complies with HPC's review standards, as follows: 6 .. 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 Lane parcel affordable housing project is intended to provide an architecturally quiet backdrop to the existing Victorian structures .located prominently on the block. The building materials to be used for the alley frontage have been chosen to provide continuity and compatibility with the neighboring structures. The proposed building is sized in scale and massing 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. The only variation from the standards of the CC Zone district which requires HPC's review is with regard to off-street parking.Â· Under the provision 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 HPC determines that it can be provided on the site's surface, and be consistent with the review standards of Article 7, Division 6. 7 .. Surface parking has been limited to only two spaces. Because of the limited alley frontage, provision of two spaces of off-street parking is all that is possible and still include provisions for a trash service area. We therefore request that HPC approve the off-street parking proposal for the project by finding that provision of additional surface parking would not be compatible with the Commercial Core Historic District. 2. Neighborhood Character: "The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development." The character of the commercial core neighbhorhood is pre- dominantly one of two- and three-story flat-roofed masonry structures in a mix of historic and contemporary styles. The design of the structure to be built on the Lane Parcel anti- cipates the ultimate expansion of the existing structure on the neighboring property to the north, as permitted by present zoning. 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. 8 3. Cultural Value: "The proposed development enchances 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. It is inevitable that the building will some day be screened entirely from view from the street once redevelopment occurs to the north of the site. 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 building is both dictated by building code requirements and desirable to avoid detracting from the larger, Â· more predominant and more richly detailed historic structures on the block. 9 tâ€¢ Â£ MI'-I'....,-' . I - r ' E. HOPKINS AVE. -Â·1 (1500 ) / Culls, *M 0 1 h I OUGHT( 7.t . 0.- -1- 37- 1 -g ." VAL_VI OVE.'IANG M. ET- C- - 71 ..... ' 2.0.UN'.S 90 26 CALC ~%-LK elÂ»'C X ~ c N .:CYâ€¢'11- W .0.1 1 160 5/ S ..0. 017* -Â·Â·-4---0/ -~ 1, â€¢ AL DISK TO al...O 1,0 1-1 1 - i St . ( ' '9--4--r-J#/ --I- --p:.-' --,1 1Glte, eLOCK Cd. C ~ I. u. ,â€¢â€¢O Mr) 1 Â¥/IMI- I OOR.,I .]l eg,cK WAL.L . 0- . 0. /J 1 \ ON W 'LE aNO N 01'~ '1 13 -- 1 OF- e ! J U -0 4 I 0 1 - ' ~ILOING ' Z Â·STORY ERICK ~ 1 PAV~.0 1 1 55 ST....EL ' ' M..0 I ' 13 14% t J 1 I 1 3 ., A B |C 7 D E W .W 1 1 1 1 ..1 5 5 . n I 0 1.5 . an -ta o 4 4. : 5.-1â‚¬0 0 -3 U) A Z \ M..AL 0 / 1 d - S 4. SEE eÂ·De'o=-' I'Nr IMPROvEMENT SURVEY 1 44Â·REPLMENT â€¢rig | 0 0 ZÂ·â‚¬ 1.4 k f - G li IL lin_E .1.. 1 Â¤'5. Er-Al \/A/ 6-1,-C"'11"-1 9,0 3 8. t.. 0Â·. â€¢7. 7 I 1 HARLEY BALOW INI , - I....4 1 [=l al 1 1 -OIl m Nolh le <Nt ef tot, 1. B M C. ~lock'80. tie; â€žÂ·d Town~lt, of 11 jilljfj'j 1....7 *.P'*r' t""Pting that portl" 01! 0.14 Lat C '004-7,6 4 Quit Clai~ 0-,41 Loc... r,corded in I=/ 207 - Pe- 4~9 02 -tkin County ReÂ¢ord~' CMU r .1.-U,5 >21 1/ /////1/ EL)!LOI/6 And I lareet d-ulb,4 ./: ~ [23'J . ICI J 1. r.3 J B~glania, I. Conâ€¢r ./. 1 which 1/ thi Seuth~â€¢~t cor#r of tot D in Block 11 of th' CitÂ·y ed /0-48 0/ Aâ€¢Pâ€¢n, and tb, South-It Corn*r " . 1 0 Lat 1 10 â€¢â€¢ld Ilock thene, running 0 1-0 thi South ~-adarÂ¥ of Lot D in '- --- 74-1122134-5---- L. U ovâ‚¬R t thine, r..1/1/9 1/ / Ner,herly /1/,/tion Par/11/1 /0 th, 10//t /0//8/IÂ¥ I â€¢â€¢â€¢terly 41//ction â€¢ diâ€¢tane' of 24 2â€¢/t to Cor'Ir NoÂ· *. I of lud Lot 0 I dt,tancl of 20 f,lt to Corn,r ./. S. tboocr, running in w Za,torly dir,ction perall*l to th0 Setth 1-,4-Â·Â¥ of ..id Lot, D and E I .1-Inc. of 41 ./t to -er ./. 4. th.... ALLEY BLOCK 88 rÂ·annlng la I .0,0-rly direction Frallel to thi b- beurd.rÂ¥ 62 **id Lot 1 , 41,tenc, of 20 f,et te Corner lie. 5. thenc, Â·running in I W..t*rly dir,ctlon ~long th, Sogth Doundary of ,eld Lot I I diâ€¢teâ€¢e, of CIAT ..Ir ./ ir*, 17 fe,t to cornâ€¢r No. 1. thâ€¢ placi of bâ€¢ginning; ror: f.'p. CLJT.. r,â€¢AT .â€¢17, 5./.V WAN I ./0 .1. t./9 01, PIC . OUND OF TI. ' rEs,Vi FE:-022 Â· W. [; ./.i ECT En/Ee [N T"L IÂ·.UND 9,0 1 11Â·.* ...1- r.. NU B South T-ntly {20} f,-t of Â·# râ€¢â€¢t Thlrâ€¢â€¢â€¢r. (li) f..t of Lot c....' .T'. 0.- 1 Ill -C. 1,01/.Al I LIli littâ€¢râ€¢et ./. in Block 01. Clt' Id "1"/it, r>Â¢ Aâ€¢p~n: Z.. '.Â· S.lilli'Â·'' Or , .1,11... , ...,11:, 1 Â· tal (- 1 i.Â·, I'T Al Â·ru ./10 3/.1 : â€¢ 1, wrriâ€¢ Â·Â·, ''.â€¢.1/Â·â„¢,iu /,1/â‚¬ -Â· /):, 6 â€¢ KI ..â€¢.Uâ€¢I'Â·In . 1"-11,4.~11: (,I "1[JAO Â· Th, Se,Ath Tâ€¢â€¢"ty {20) fâ€¢,t of th' Ea"t "â€¢Inty '190 VS).f"t " tot ~~~~ ~~ 07Â·,tr ,.tr i..1â€¢ ~D. 8911/1"i. Â«-~TE. -1 -- 'Â·Â·. .~ Z-Â·4: â€¢1Â·,I Â·IMâ€¢â€¢aâ€¢.I INCIOArtH ~NTO litt,r,d -Dâ€¢ 18 Block 01. City â€¢nd Teâ€¢'Bilt, of Aip.a. M4......*~ -'r~ â€¢teâ€¢,3 ,â€¢Â·Â·~[. .9 swnÂ», NO CENTA'N-4 Â· 8,3tl t. S.r. 6 Â·. _ FEB EME'OAC~*UN- LIZEÂ· M Â·21 7 ~I--~ Ir-:-"rÂ· :. ./.vEâ€¢25 'I'.E ~Â· 5 I -Â·Â· C i I -tl- I IN /7-1.- .IT Ing r i â€¢i E ./5/ NO. FrE'al 'TICN (F W. 30:+9_.- -...... 1â€¢F 2847 1,1 .iqvr ... C.1 . I E-7 -: tÂ·.1'p...TION ....,8/0 - T.1/ CITY A.â€¢D ...ITE OF AS'EN. COUNTÂ¥ 0...... COr-1-MEN'. STATE Or CO[.ORADO -~9'.. F... C. --7 -Â·- --E=:- IMÂ·- -LOCK V 'Alt.. 0,51 1612" ./. Er -: -Iâ‚¬ Â·//,â‚¬iÂ·.Gr c....P t,LOCK /1 Asi;eA Survey Engineers, Inc. ,â€¢-1 1â€¢i 'TEET Â·Â·-~ t z~ -Â· 32t.t 'TE- 110 1 .ALE.. ST *%. Acco~INr, To c<*-â€¢00 LAW vou â€¢â€¢u~ COM.... ANV LEGAL . O 10* 2501 A./EN, COLO.A.O .â€¢1'Z <-- Invo uFON r.1,Â¥ ./.FÂ·-' 1,4 Â·,iB r.Â·.rY ,(!Tâ€¢* THIM'E Â¥â‚¬AAS arrl. iou Flâ€¢ST DISCOVER S,JICâ€¢ DFIECT. [N NO ..... MAI ANY (3031 925Â·).10 - 4-7 1 0. -9.6 l, ./ r/NÂ¥ DEFECT IN r,2 i . SUPÂ·,CY ./ cx,â€¢-r,â€¢clo â€¢oeâ‚¬ ~ ... TEN ....5 FROM r./ DAIE OF ./1/ CERTIF 'CAT ION E.,0~IN ....... JOB NO. 19022 t PYÂ©JK-_fÂ»900Â·lATE? A RED MI FT-~rc~re 4 IS E )-1 +IMJ AVE '205 A#PE-Al. CO 81(,1 1 gca-+25 -7141 Ze'-O --t- ' THE ' . LANE BUIL[2[NOR F:-ON 1- . 1 *z# *2, .4:Â¥ P *'#'r. *3%*42 Ali- P 19- u 47/L-'*e- = '- CAL DW I N _4 GARCEU AÂ«<21 jAI Ee -' /4&24*1 0- S /'ifty. <f / T '471 1 # r 'Pih 4 i-4* 12 2 + d. U / ..I 1 tr-6--0504 -131,9.. AF ~.2644 7 -Â·2 ''%4Lti-:t' 1 "TE.moc PL.* Efltd 149 ~ > ;i r 9-7,4Â¥ DE*'Gi KI 67' 0' 36. r.. 4.9 Â· ~ 4 +-, t_lkIE 04 2Â»eÂ¥-I,UCM WAYNE R.-ULÂ¢Ek] .. fit .1 -Â¥Â¥- 15 608 425 -81 Gb ' I i Â»64''AUL.z- AL-LE~'-) 3/ 4 -EX'Â«[1+14 ALPINE 3.1 ' EÂ» Wlt. BUILD lk,3 ./. f .. ./ . 0.1/we;/Lot.6.--~ 1 ~ R-4 ~> ~Â· N '~~ '~ "- ' il' -.4 $1 -9 1 . ..",161 2 910%7 Ce'TE<_:e glyâ‚¬*TY .9.XÂ» 0.-I) â‚¬f A LUET ' t *- COL=11Â«3 EfLOCK ELDA. 1 F. SITE PLAN 4 WT 1 0%5 44 3 Â·5.1 A i - CrEIR WaOCIATN Ae.HITECT'16 4 6 E #Â»14.1 Ave ' 205 M*. CD .41# 3/1 ?24- 7/1 THE LANIE BUILONG M:oR - IDA L C.w I h. 1 9---- BliFUJU[Ilid(TE IiiI[1]192 TUB[-Il-I[TUTi i[B~itj- 'I~ _ 1 00Â«XIA-rES iUUETIAFF#11 1Tn-lin-In i - '- -1.-- EU U U UBBEE r, i ; t. p 1 r Z E C ..._i Â· P .i a 1- 0- L-â€ž_ ..~"hz=Â·51- - --- -- - ---- I 14 1 1.1 . 0090 N 1*Y -T--r --'-fri~EIFF,- 11'.9:419 -Alt WAYKIE 'tul.ZEd 373 -926 81 (-4 liu' c:z==In o q,1,11 1 ~,11 1 21 , -=)94;lch--Er.--,1. BRAND Bul Lei He, LANE MUI LDIIÂ·*9 BEHIND SCULPTURE GAKOE,-1 ALFIHE BANK DOLL! 115 Blix.K HOPK]lfb AVE 5-TREET ELEVATION *.d â€¢5 0, 5 AF?CH 11'*Cre 416 5 0 *IAN /4,6 ' laÂ» Aâ‚¬Ff N CO 8/6#1 - IMF- 93Â·?26-741 , ,!r 'toc K- LAKIE BUILDIKIQ 'f- 4' 2.LOCA C. E,fT-) Foff 1 ' lilli 1 1 ~9447 - - - -- - . -- 4~ BLOCK 3111,1,4 1- 3 LQ_el-AK/ME-< BA LOWIKI 9 1 1 â‚¬62=37, 6237-1 t-h C=r--3 . Aâ‚¬,6Â«141-54 -===i C=.7 - 1 0 2 0 103 -3 21 - - 2200=10 ! 0/916kl MY - WAYNE FOIJLf?ON 1 - : 3/3/.Eil I '323-926-8466 ' COLIO BLOCK 0 ----3621 - - 1 - 4111 1 11 1 ' l 7IE- -IE=E ---- LwakiT/bs -El _L_ D o i=- 22 <42â€ž2-2~ Li_.6-3 - -0-- OXJC PAKI EL - SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION / 8- Bl.L<-c / 1 -4 2.1.-Ce< -- --1 Â£ 1 11 - 4 bl),lul' i,Il'' 11,11.!Illitil lillil, L r 4.4 .Lock ,p 16' 9-1 _ -: - Â·Â·Â· - --COUC. ULLOK.--- ' ASS.iLE,%17 VALL , 1 Â· 1.2 - - C..384 4, .EL -- 1 1 WEST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION 4 -1-0- 4--10 SH-7-4 OF 6 ~ [1] ~F- -- - 1 Â«- Ilt . DYEK Â¢ MÂ«34 ter-0 - ARCH ITECTD . 416 E HYMIALI /ve *200 Ae reA| CO. 8161) 933-716--7149 2 -9.XEl- ~ 070[Â«5& -~ ~ 6-- fof C *rofÂ»* a n -r-R.Ae E-1 LANE BUILDINA BALDW 1 14 4 AfESCXL l/<TEâ‚¬p a A r Peel 4 KI eY â‚¬31-ZORE MELCH 1, Mt:%â€¢lee! , 74 . .-Up op WL WANN E POULSEKI Il TREACStl~ 303-426- 8464, .-4-EINS il STD RE 44 . 0,1 1,1111 1 71 - L (1 *TORAGE 2 CAR Â·04. r.Fer=T- ..~) 6 TOÂ· :LAB CA TO PCY , 7' EL -100.-0 9/ EL, 90'-0- FOA/Efi F341 EL.fo /1 BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR PLAN (13 FIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN â‚¬HT 2 op 5. 41"- 1 0-0. ARCM IT-ECTED , EVER 9 *06 ATE 416 E, HIÂ»1Ak] Ave F====- â€¢ 20 6 02.DKOL) 1Â«1 8 61 l-- Pr El 447 e W 60. 81 GIl 503-125-7Mt IMC_ L,Ak-IE BUILDIkl@ 1 Â·eu c..$, L. C -Â» e. 11 #OR 117 - PALD 91/1 kl g LIV' 9 Aeecid\ATed K. 110, E 41 E T r E \A/AÂ»le FCULE:EXI 11 -2,661459 62 303 426 - 84 66 Â· LkJ 5.1319-9,7-E _3 LINI NG' EL - 110Â·-O i 4.1/ Or j - FM & 6 .- , 3-Ek' 19.1 L f 1-J Fir v b BED-tÂ«)05/1 1~ re LOP- ~'EL- . lie'-â‚¬ , liD> j Â© SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN c-, THIRD LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 9647301=-6 44'll'-O " RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN, COLORADO HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE SUPPORTING THE PASSAGE OF COLORADO HOUSE BILL 1033 WHEREAS, the protection and preservation of historic sites and structures in Aspen, Pitkin County and throughout Colorado is of primary concern to the government and the citizens of our community, and; WHEREAS, the local, regional, and statewide protection and preservation of historic resources is essential to our economy and quality of life; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee and preservationists throughout the community and state support the passage of Colorado House Bill 1033, which creates a Statewide Rehabilitation Tax Credit and Statewide Preservation Fund, fundamental to the protection and preservation of our irreplaceable historic resources. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee does hereby support the passage of House Bill 1033 by the Colorado State Legislation in 1990. APPROVED by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee at their regular meeting on February 14, 1990. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE by William J. Poss, Chairman ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Assistant City Clerk ATTEST: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner reso.HB1033 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Storefront remodel - the Independence Building Pre-application Date: February 14, 1990 Michael Ernemann, Architect representative for the proposal purchase of the (condominiumized) first floor of the Independence Building, will be presenting the changes proposed to this floor. The changes involve the restoration of a storefront entrance on the Cooper Street elevation, and the addition of a new storefront and display window on the Galena Street (west) elevation. Retractable shed awnings are proposed for the entire length of both the north and west elevation. No changes are proposed at this time for the west elevation lobby entrance. RECOMMENDATION: The HPC should offer guidance to the applicant at this meeting, however, these comments are non-binding. The applicant wishes to begin a dialogue with the HPC, with staff has encouraged. ' . 511:bialimitaiail"Phy:49#Jit~/19*Gil t.\ . ,/ - I # ~ 96% i . fi FRA**34,~ -- ... 9 # J. 1 ~6%71 i UÂ·.Â·e-tjar. il:- 25Â· 0 Â·, mt .i -Â· ' 1 1 . 1 \.. Â· .'A â‚¬:A 11 $ 17304*'**2-In.tin-...2 I + Â· '.324-74;22:U,tÂ·-5, ,t ..4.- 2...fÂ·., :' h Â·. 4~41 . FLIT.32/SEAL:Â£Â·en - 4 ..... U. - . .. r 1 f ~1\;t>.24:r 21 ,Â·71:1-Ieâ€¢Ba--4 1 1 ' 46.*t 1 ..1 4~ 8, 2.-,C: -'/ I 41 wk*R:Wrik=22~n 13..ii?**11 4$1/*/811/49/2/95 -: R in '11. 7.-/.ap~fr~''Al\,~ .... \4 .1 , :~~114;~;~/Wi#~ 1/r9*-M-t---5~-*4 .-Â·it \73, . .1,3 ,-11! #,m.*i~-is*.cr:#L .- t.13 . 14'jj ?3, W-1vmEF=i-#9 26+1 4Â¤2.56*s,it--~~~~~: - -:. 171 .....1,91 tt..â€¢ . \, 9 \F>:f,:.--1--1 Â· -Â·, Â·~~ , ~ 1-' *.1, i, t. 1 Â· t>,49 .1 1 - Lic.\' A. 1 4, C i ~ 3 91 1 7,11 i1i57E ), .t- :Ir 4 2 irts'zat:(4 14 : ' 84*449-2.- IÂ»4+ 1 6-i 34 Â· 5:1Â·*STENV~,2.,754938* I ~,. ; ~ ~ f 1 3*4-~->f .' ~ '-2 ~ -. Â· t-t 'Â· b.&7--â€¢Â»fâ‚¬m:k.. *'.I*#7'.' :' ik. . ' 9 I Â·Â· .. 1,; '.....t.48'tg.;6.%4... 1 I I ' - 3 :-J-4 0 z !Â·i).t'. ' -,- I :-$=. 4.[U .W=01'.42.(-1 Â¥1.1 1.1 X..il,/f 1.4 ... I.A. 5 k .t L.j l.r u,}. .Y . - r-â€¢e-, - - - - - - -- ~44.,wir~â‚¬:9.1*SP*&-I~rXspen His-]#orical.society- ~FF . - f.... ' :,i 4.t , A i .1 t - I. C. 344:'iki-i?423*Â»322 Ac~'ession -NE! 7~.41,<06.-' 1 1-r=ll. ... 61.r:Ms.Ii.....1~ ,. b : 4-4 9 6 I. I .. , . ..... ' ' 1 ./1 3-~3~Â£311 &~1*~<~7',~.~~-t-=fil--~ 1 K . 3 14 2 ' rr ... , iÂ· i.%+11 >901,6:ii,jmz- I.reÂ»,~" --".. , 1 J. ....L .i-1-J, c a t., :92-ak<,6.:.qU:=::==::d-wr ,. ' .2'A..Uâ„¢,4 11~44. 5 4 r . 6 NI #b-f.l2-5.r,itjm . .11 L . r 1. 4,1 ti =- . , $ . b .'',: . ftÂ·i 117 1-, 1 6, . - --ri;Â·Â· i '1 RU ~A %â€¢16:EM~ 4 ' . . ~ m .râ„¢ , G. I , '1> FirmintsÂ«mt, i- :.- ijt)* ~AK':W.gi);Â·Â·, ~-:-l- -)1.,.456 i#flau&$=*imprk' j . 7 :2.1â‚¬....dia*g i 71 tilÂ· 4 9,~ 1- Â·.'_GEL 1 10 ,; Ij '11. 1 , 14(fr 1 1..., 1 ' 1 yl.4,7'Â·'.-Â· t. ' Fiffr \~itpaYSTFCZEB ..i:.-i-'lfr-4,1*=,amgr 1.- :Â·Â·Â·-flf.fm-fre Â·Â·....ti. 2.:.Â·62*,g:~ Â·Â· {Â·'~:AWL.M~ ... .-'. 6 Q.-kAXNII:frit.'1-i~?i:;.-2.-J.- ~Â·4#MAN ii.j , 14, "pti; 7 1 Â»2*4Â«- 6 041 It! - 1-n- ->=i-~ La- 1-,In\1 -741 34-11 24\11-4-11 6-11-41 Lci]- AF-Ur-f ] v L 11 V u 1-*11-ULLID-1 1/1 2-1 221 li' 1 - 1 11 - -1 1 -.1 1-1 1 1-12!~ -- 1 1 - 1 1-1 1 -1 1 - 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1! 11 11 1 1 1 1 -3 1-1 1 --/. . *9 9 - - -- l-Li IL 1 1 -- 1 1 - 1 1 1====. 1 1- i i 1 111 1 1 1-- 1. 1-1 - -I:-r i 1 -- 4 .-CCL-- v-LL. ~4-L=.1-Â·'_-L-ELL.~I-LlLLÂ·1'IL LV- 1 1.11 -11 - 11 -0[ 11- 1-12 4rgIL 1 1 ----r-r-1-~-- ~16 Â£ L 1 11111111 1-7-Ill - Â·---- T ---- - I- ------~ 1 -u..... IL!?4.dl, L Existing Cooper Street Elevation 0 1 1 . . . ./ pleÂ©endence Building 1 i 10,1 ill 'Â©~u~Ulg~=lu~u l~ t;~ I~? 'Awl A A r 10 1 ] 7 4 A A a al n n WUUUu ,JUUU. UU:l I.IU. 1. 1 IL'.2~ IUUL LUJJJ ILL/U OUUULJ ULUUUI 'JUL:.- 61)C..'-L__ JVVI. J V V U U U _c_ 2 d E JEJI 33 .~ L 1 -- 1-- .-i -- ---'I -2-I-- BE,2 1 - -I- .=====>. 1- lili @11333 A-li#F "m/f@*Â«i ~Â« ~1Â« ~_ 1 _.22~IZZ _ 3 -I =-=7== 111111111 ' 1 1 1 11*!]11!WiEilill 1 L= I ., ==.a UU--4- 4 +L.4-4- Existing Gaterna Street Mall Elevation 1/4 - â€¢ 1Â·Â·0 0..... .. hydeperâ‚¬jere* Bulldng .FÂ©'E 1111-1 /1 A 44 -r r-- ~Ry ; rr_Â·0.-r..frfB~T 1]33{F<.dlifR-TA ~I ~~El[ -gli~ i-% _ --- - ---T --U - ~. I ! -2==T ----4;J - â€ž-LIt= 1LIL--=- -_ C I] 1 EFILL 1 1 1 1 -3 1 - 1 1 - i I -1 -- -221 2-_211 r.-2 I-22-: r _~g 1 -1_ 313 UN- 3.42 J -- 2 Aernc- L-Â·râ„¢ 1 3 1 .-7... I / 31 -'. 6 Add Awrirâ€¢gs - Â· -Â· -1"â€¢17 ZEÂ»jij: * _.cy@22] - - Ciffjk - 031- -4323 - 1 , ' 1 7 LN. WMI [lek>- W,de- myp) ~-- 7.- nt*x, Entry D- L 7. Ne. Wbod Erâ€¢ry [Â»or 1 Add New Edry & Doo' './.C-Wdâ€¢,v. .... C--c. ho-- PROPOSED COOPER STREET ELEVATION ,/<.is 01,1.. .. ffilmmi;Jn!211-6.uS# iuuju -uu,-uu. i.uuju - uubuu J.ru 1 w.ru i ,--~ - i-7 - -- --- - - 1- '2362:;*-i;lÂ·Â·mrÂ· L.v- iÂ·,j:--1-.71 ;-- 6-11-fL~-Â·ti-f 1-21_,-n-1 2% 122%-- ,431 w w u 1.- 1 1- .1 1. 1 1--lt 3 3 4 U N 1 3 ' U ~In Â· 1--_ CL~ 21-Zi._. 11 1 1 -1 1, 1 1 --|_ | | | | | || ~-~ |r- - A-~ |'-| i|--i 1.- 1-- 17-â„¢ - 11 It 6 1 1 1-1 6-- L.-1 i 111 11! . .=4==. 1 --1- f ==:= r- - C===.1 -==1 1 11 1 I 1 1 I i ) 1 Ill 1 1 1 1 ./...1.- I~_U.=1=_'U -=1_1___= | H.â€¢ 1' 1 1 fe -'744*4 -ll.>-04_ Ill 44*6 6.Add ** T - 1-- f 1/3:1 41 --1 - 11.- ELI _ 1-2.- ,_IN+61Â«i t-IiI 11'ID!:-11-14!tiveff;4-1-1-144 -- -UttlltTE-ltrfi ll' -23721-1- -LI.1-3.--32]1 4---7-~~ < / 1 7, N. Wood Emy Door 7 =y= 3 Add Whlow 4. Add New Storef#w & Entry Door 1 5 New Will Betw W,n<low (Typh Mawiy to Match Exist# Storeffâ€¢nt -,-â€¢-- lulkiâ€¢. Ceâ€¢Â¥-r.1 -0-1- PROPOSED GALENA SmEET MALL ELEVATO 1,61' Â· ' 0 Z Illili lili] rl. , . -am?4MmiN0m~EN*N7~' 4- 1 Retail Space No. 3 // 11,â€¢â€¢I Lâ€¢â€¢â€¢1 1'00 d /7 EF i Le-/i L.*20.,+ Â» 1 4 0 P;.re... St.. low=â€¢110. Te., 2,20 â€¢1/7 ./-W lâ€¢â€¢,1 ll [gi â€¢ Â· . I I. ----- k & ..5/12 // A. *1 Lecâ€¢.8 A ~ Wal Local- C ~ 1 2 /52 11 1 - A. a m m & Rk; Retall Space No. 2 ~0 ,~ 0 An. A '400 il. /5/ 7// /43/ All. C %30 â€¢1.,(/ 11 1, 11 1 PI' , , O,0/. L~Pull-u, I 11 1 --lti il 1 1 / P,ee.,.d .1.. L...â€ž1- ; 10 LOW., l...1 1 1 -907-1 f- 17 L- ---------a Llob6,;,81 1 1 Itt Ir--9 ---- - -t;33*Fi.Brâ‚¬ 1 bi AE~i. Retail Space No. 1 Retail Space No. 4 Relall Spacâ€¢ No. 5 ~t Alt. A 10,0 1 1 T,1/ 1270 ..1. /1.. l...1 0,0 ..1. All. 0 ....1. 4 #:rn,-1 lowâ€¢, t.â€¢â€¢â€¢1 11*0 â€¢i fluX ..0. 701.1 26.0.1 23, &, 71 ---1 11.9...-.-.*li 4 '7 Ill IIi . 9.-2.-1... 1-22. . 4 N k__j -3 5.-_--1 1.--- --. . 1-/3 -â€¢0-d-,eâ€¢ 8-*,0 Co-nlicâ€¢1 14Â·or.ill.â€¢ O/1/nâ€¢ SI,Iâ€¢I U.11 PROPOSED STREET LEVEL FLOOR PLAN "1 Draw#: m not b,iÂ«f " %*d wuy dil, ard r-Â¥ 801 -cH:* 10 10~1~. -'.- */ / A.eâ€¢â€¢â€¢c,i 4 S ' 4 4% 1 3 i lower LeÂ¥,I R*lall Space No. 3 6 1/.1 li./ 1 I:4 &>31 #--A C m ,=4 1.w=.....Â£]AwÂ·:i a g 1 1.1...t l... 1 I 9 7<2 Lower level Relall Space No. 1 /01 03 1 51 \~ 1--1-~ 1-[1 ~:-~--1 Mo* Glf,;,41.-rÂ·tu Â© ' N ~=j ............ ,1.--ch.1 .......1 PROPOSED BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 0. 9~35095#*94 0 ' MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: 1990 Preservation Honor Awards Date: February 14, 1990 SUMMARY: The time is upon us to request nominations for the 1990 Preservation Honor Awards, which Will be presented at the Preservation Forum, Wednesday, May 16, during National Historic Preservation Week. BACKGROUND: The past two year's awards have been in the form of engraved brass plaques and paper certificates worthy of framing. I am interested in your suggestions to make this years awards even better. You may also wish to change the categories, or eliminate categories altogether. The first year we presented awards, there were no defined categories, however, all the award winning properties were interestingly distributed! Last year, we chose to have the following categories: Historic Renovation: Residential Historic Renovation: Commercial New Infill: Residential New Infill: Commercial Miscellaneous (i.e. people, public spaces, objects, sites) We have required that the projects be completed by December 31 of the year prior. A cash award was suggested last year, however, we have been able to budget only for award plaques and some minor expenses to promote National Historic Preservation Week. Any suggestions are welcome. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the HPC determine at this meeting what form the Honor Awards should take, and what categories are appropriate, if any. We also recommend that a minimum of one person volunteer or be assigned to work with staff on the Honor Awards Project and Preservation Week activities in general. memo.hpc.awards i â€¢ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Hospitality Night at the Aspen Historical Society Date: February 14, 1990 The HPC has been invited as guests of the Aspen Historical Society to their Wednesday Evening Hospitality Night, February 21, from 5:00 to 7:00. Please make it a point to stop in, say "Hi", check out the new exhibit, and voice your support. <TATIONAL CENTER FOR PRESERVATION LA-FV 1015 31ST STREET, N.W, I SUITE 400 I WASHINGTON, D.C. 20007 â€¢ (202) 338-0392 PRESIDENT ExEctÂ·TIvE DIRECTOR 1-'ArL F. >1C1)(>NOL-C.H, JH., Es{D. STEPHEN N. DENNIS, li5O. PRESERVATION LATV UPDATE 1990-2 January 18, 1990 Needed: An Accurate Listing of American Preservation Commissions Why is there no comprehensive listing of American historic preservation commissions? This is one of the enduring conundrums in historic preservation law, and the answer must be as much political as legal. Many people want to know how many such commissions exist, and it is currently impossible to give an accurate answer which can be verified. The working estimate at the moment seems to be "at least 1,500 preservation commissions," but this guess is subject to challenge and one estimate has gone as high as 3,000. When arguments are made in favor of proposed preservation ordinances, it is helpful to be able to state with confidence how many other communities in the same state already have such ordinances. As the number of court decisions interpreting the powers of local preservation commissions increases, it would be interesting to know if the number of commissions is showing a corresponding increase. A complete listing of local preservation commissions would by implication pinpoint those cities which have yet to begin to create local historic preservation programs and lack a preservation commission. One can state with certainty, though, that the compilation of such a list would be one of the least stimulating jobs one could undertake. There is also limited sales potential for such a list. These unpleasant facts may explain why there have been limited incentives for the compilation and publication of such a listing. Many wish "some one else" would do the job. Even the creation of the Certified Local Government program has not been enough to encourage the National Park Service to undertake the compilation of a list of local historic preservation commissions other than those in CLG communities. The National Trust for Historic Preservation did compile such lists sporadically from 1975 through 1981 and published in 1981 a Directory of American Preservation Commissions, but the Trust has not issued a list of commissions since 1981. NATIONALCENTER FOR PREFÂ·,El{VATION LAA- Â·~â€¢ The National Alliance of Preservation Commissions has a good working mailing list of local commissions, but the Alliance does - not pretend that its list is truly comprehensive. (At one time it was the Alliance's official policy not to release information from its list which might have identified even those commissions known to the Alliance.) The National Center for Preservation Law has worked for more than a year with a tentative list of 760 local commissions, far fewer than the actual number thought to exist. In a few states, there is a statutory requirement that the state historic preservation office be notified as a local historic preservation ordinance is being drafted, and that office may be empowered to approve the creation of a local historic district. In other states, though, if the state historic preservation office receives no notification as new commissions are created, it may be months (or even years) before the office becomes aware that a new commission has been created in the state. What is the problem? Are some commissions simply invisible because they are almost inactive? In fact, many commissions in small communities have no budget whatsoever, and this makes communications with other preservation organizations a matter of a chairman's energy and whim (and money). If an ordinance is known to exist but a commission has become inactive, there may be no one at the town hall who can give out the name of a chairman for the commission, and many commissions have no "official" mailing address as applications are normally filled out at town offices and hand delivered to an appropriate individual. For some commissions, an address is a chairman's office or home. When a new chairman is elected, the commission's address has automatically but unofficially changed. Unless an effort is made at least annually to verify a mailing address for a commission, any list containing that commission's name is likely to become inaccurate within two years or less. Unfortunately, many local commissions do not return questionnaires or other forms, and maintaining contact with these commissions becomes difficult. Only a few states have Certified Local Government coordinators who travel routinely to visit commissions in their state. These state employees are busy enough with other duties, and it is the active commissions in their states which present the most interesting issues and need information frequently. The other commissions can easily be forgotten, and some CLG coordinators would have to admit that they aren't certain whether some of the supposed commissions in their state still function. (General membership in the National Center for 1990 is $65 and entitles one to receive the series of forty-eight "Preservation Law Updates" which the Center will be issuing during 1990.) NATIONAL CENTER FOR PRESERVATION LAW 1015 31ST STREET, N.W. 0 SUITE 400 0 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20007 0 (202) 338-0392 PRESIDENT EXECUTIVE DIRECToR PA[Â·1. F. Mel)ONOUGH, AR., ESQ. STEPHEN N. DENNIS. ESQ. PRESERVATION LATV UPDATE 1990-1 January 17, 1990 Preservation Law: A Prescriptio<for the 1990s Where should historic preservation law go in the 1990s? This is a question which a number of organizations may be asking themselves in the opening days of the final decade of this century. Here are ten suggestions, the full accomplishment of which could take much of the decade: 1. A thoughtful observer will write a history of the American historic preservation commission, including a careful look at failures of nerve as well as successes in regulation. In Chicago in the 1970s, the Louis Sullivan Stock Exchange was demolished. Why did the city lose this building of unquestioned international significance? In San Francisco a few years later, the city steadfastly refused to designate locally the City of Paris, which had achieved listing in both the National Register and a California state register. 2. Funding will become available for an annual compilation of addresses for local preservation commissions. This tedious and unprofitable task has been delayed or avoided too long by national historic preservation organizations. It is a basic necessity, and for the full accomplishment of the goals for the Certified Local Government Program may need federal encouragement. 3. An on-line computer data base will be developed to give the current status of each pending historic preservation case. An attorney who is putting together a new case will certainly be interested in reported precedents, but may be even more interested in arguments which have been made in pending cases. Locating such a case and learning its current status is now difficult, suggesting that preservation law is an unorganized thicket. 4-31 4. As a help to lobbying efforts, state historic preservation legislation will be included in an on-line database. NATIONAL CENTER FOR PREP#ERVATION LAW l , This project may be the first to be completed, as one national organization is now moving rapidly in this direction. 5. An index will be prepared to arguments in complaints and briefs in historic preservation cases. Developments in historic preservation law have depended for too long on the memories of a few key participants. Significant briefs have certainly been written on points of law which have not in the end been decided in specific cases. This information is now buried. 6. A casebook for historic preservation law will be published. Too few American law schools teach seminars in historic preservation law. This problem is compounded by the lack of basic teaching materials. Available materials are either dated or too expensive for classroom use. 7. A volume on litigation strategies in historic preservation cases will be published. These "war stories" remain at present largely unwritten. The detailed histories of the ten or fifteen most significant cases could prove extremely instructive. 8. A series of "Guides on Guidelines" will be developed for local preservation commissions. Certain issues recur from commission to commission: window replacements; the location of air conditioning equipment and gas and electric meters; standards for hardship determinations; etc. Generic treatments of these issues based on actual commission decisions would help other commissions. These are long overdue. 9. Preservation commissions will have an annual conference. The work of these commissions is too important to be covered, as it often is now, in a handful of sessions at a general preservation conference. 10. Specialized continuing legal education courses in historic preservation will be offered on a regional basis. Efforts to attract attorneys to national preservation law conferences have not in the past been very successful. Statewide conferences attract a small audience. Regional conferences may be far more realistic. (Membership in the National Center for 1990 is $65 and entitles one to receive the series of forty-eight "Preservation Law Updates" which the Center will be issuing during 1990.) ... NATIONAL CENTE* FOR PRESERVATION LAW 1015 31ST STREET, N.W. 0 SUITE 400 , WASHINGTON, D.C. 20007 0 (202) 338-0392 PRESIDENT ExEct'-nvE DIRECTOR PAL'L F. MCDONOUGH. JR., Eso. STEPHEN N. I)ENNIS, ESQ. PREHIERVATION LA'~V UPDATE 1989-47 December 7, 1989 Have Some Local Preservation Commissions Become a Joke? Despite a rapidly growing body of law dealing with the powers of local historic preservation commissions, there are troubling hints that in many communities existing commissions do not (because they cannot) do an adequate job of protecting local resources. There may be several reasons for such a problem: 1. A weak local preservation ordinance, which prevents the commission from protecting local resources adequately. 2. Lack of staff support for the commission, which makes it difficult for the commission to issue suitable minutes, to draft certificates of appropriateness and to monitor work on approved projects. 3. An inadequate budget for the commission's work, which prevents staff and commission members from attending training workshops, national or regional or statewide preservation conferences, and makes subscribing to basic materials which might help the commission in its work difficult or impossible. 4. Lack of support from a city or county attorney,Â·meaning that challenges to the commission are weakly defended and that basic legal advice to the commission chairman, members and staff about the commission's powers and proper procedures for conducting hearings is unavailable. 5. Political interference with the operations of the commission, perhaps taking the form of poor appointments to the commission or a tendency for the city council to overrule the commission almost automatically whenever an owner files an appeal to the council from a commission decision. 6. The failure of commission members to understand the : local preservation ordinance they administer and the appropriate role of the commission on which they serve. TEE "PEE=ZEVATION LAW UPDATE" SERIES IS MADE POSSIBLE IN PART BY A GRANT PROX TEE J. M. KAPLAN FUND. 3/7'10:411. CENTER FOR 1'1416*}Â·:12ih<F ION LA n .... What can be done about these problems? The first approach to a solution is for local preservation leaders to assess- the situation and try to identify the basic problem. (Some unfortunate commissions may exhibit all of the symptoms listed above, and help for these commissions will require some careful political groundwork over a period of many months or even years.) If a local ordinance is weak, it may be very difficult to strengthen the ordinance until the commission has shown that it can be a helpful player on the local scene. A city council is not likely to give additional powers casually to a commission which has not yet proved its worth. Advice from the state Certified Local Government Coordinator can be extremely useful in alerting a commission to areas in which its ordinance is weak when compared to other ordinances in its state. Contacting a state Certified Local Government coordinator may also be a good way to learn about staffing and budgets for typical preservation commissions across a state. This statistical information can then be used locally to argue for stronger staffing and a more adequate budget for a commission. Commission members, local preservation leaders and representatives of the press should be aware that in many smaller communities the city or county attorney fills this role on a part-time basis and mav work on a contract arrangement. Political leaders may be reluctant to permit an expensive outside consultant to devote scarce time to preservation questions until they understand the risks of not providing necessary legal advice to the local commission. A beginning preservation commission must bear in mi.nd the importance of its educational activities. Local property owners, the city attorney, and members of the city council must be reminded frequently of the purposes of the new preservation ordinance and the importance to the community as a whole of identifying and protecting its cultural resources. The commission must learn not to be shy about emphasizing its good work and pointing to obvious achievements. Each new member of a local preservation commission should be given basic materials to help that member do a better job as a commission member. Some commissions develop notebooks containing copies of state enabling legislation, the local preservation ordinance and any rules of procedure or design guidelines the commission may have adopted. A set of minutes from the commission's previous year may help orient a new commission member. Every effort should be made to convince a new commission member that he or she has serious responsibilities that will need to be addressed in a thoroughly professional manner. (Membership in the National Center for 1989 is $55 and entitles one to receive the series of forty-eight "Preservation Law Updates" which the Center will be issuing during 1989.) RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN, COLORADO 7 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE, ADOPTING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Resolution 90-2 WHEREAS, it is the responsibility of the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) to periodically re-evaluate the Goals and Objectives of the historic preservation program, and revise and amend the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Historic Preservation Element accordingly; and, WHEREAS, the HPC has reviewed and discussed the goals and objectives that will become the foundation for the effective implementation of Aspen's historic preservation program in the ( --3 future; and, WHEREAS, the underlying goal of the Historic Preservation Committee is to bring positive public awareness to the on-going historic preservation program in Aspen, and to work in harmony with individuals and historic and older neighborhoods to retain and enhance their individual and unique traditional character; and, WHEREAS, the HPC has determined that amendments to the Goals and Objectives provisions of the Historic Preservation Element are necessary to provide direction towards the year 2,000; and, WHEREAS, the following Goals and Objectives shall be incorporated into the Historic Preservation Element: 0 Goal: Continually review and revise when necessary, the Historic Preservation Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, which is the primary tool to interface historic preservation into all other community goals and objectives. Objective: Complete the review and revisions of the Historic Preservation Element by the summer of 1991, for formal adoption by the HPC, Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. GOAL: Maintain the historic preservation program's active presence within the community. Objectives: Actively educate the community of the need for (and benefits of) historic preservation through presentations, special programs and events, written and visual aids, lectures and honor awards. Encourage other groups and organizations to sponsor and promote Aspen's heritage resources; co-sponsor events when possible. Retain full-time staff within the Planning Department, principally dedicated to the historic preservation program. Become more visionary and proactive. Anticipate community challenges with regard to changes in traditional character 2 and fabric. Encourage individuals to utilize the Committee and staff as a community resource, a helpful tool to achieve goals, not a hindrance and obstacle. GOAL: Expand the Inventory to include all historically and architecturally significant structures in Aspen. Objective: Continue to actively re-evaluate sites and structures included in the official Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. Recognize the significant work of local architects as community resources. GOAL: Continue to evaluate, revise and expand as necessary, the Preservation Incentives program. GOAL: To expand technical skills of the Committee Objectives: Become "Sister City" with similar HPC, and exchange information and experiences Seek and obtain funding for Committee training and education Continue to evaluate the purpose of the program and the Committee. Spend more time together studying the overall 3 mission, to obtain consensus on community preservation issues. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Goals and Objectives as stated in this Resolution be approved and incorporated into the Historic PReservation Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. APPROVED by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee at their regular meeting on February 14, 1990. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE by William J. Poss, Chairman ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Assistant City Clerk reso.goals 4