The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19890927 1 AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE September 27, 1989 REGULAR MEETING FIRST FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS City Hall 3:00 - On-site visit at 17 Queen Street 3:45 - On-site visit at 624 E. Hopkins 4:00 - Worksession on Lily Reid Project (Berko) 5:00 - Regular Meeting 3:00 On-site visit 3:45 On-site visit 4:00 Worksession on 309 E. Hopkins - Lily Reid Cottage 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of September 13, 1989 minutes II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:10 A. 801 E. Hyman - Continued Public Hearing (tabled from 8-23-89 - Demolition application V. NEW BUSINESS A. Public Hearing 620 W. Bleeker - Wheeler Stallard 4 House (to be cancelled) 6:00 B. 624 E. Hopkins - Public Hearing, Demolition & Re- development (conceptual) 7-hioN & 0) #, 1 s j , 61 7:00 B. 17 Queen Street - Public Hearing, Demolition & Re- development (Conceptual)9 .* w 31.1 O.NUE,8 -1. .-P <NI - VI. COMMUNICATIONS A. Project Monitoring & Sub-Committee reports Adjourn 8:00 p.m. Enclosed is schedule for upcoming HPC meetings . 1 'f MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Worksession: 309 E. Hopkins St. - the Lily Reid Cottage (formerly referred to as the "Berko Project") Date: September 27, 1989 BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY: It was approximately one year that the HPC reviewed and granted conceptual development approval for the "Berko Project", which consisted Of the relocation of the historic brick cottage to allow room for a new commercial three- story infill building. A 600+ name petition was presented shortly after that to City Council, requesting an appeal of the HPC conceptual decision. Council called a worksession with the HPC, at which time the project pros and cons were presented by staff, in a recapitulation of previous discussions by the Planning Office, the HPC and the applicant. Following that worksession, the applicant withdrew the development proposal and began work on developing a privately-initiated code amendment that would allow development to occur on the parcel, yet still keep the brick cottage in place. The proposed amendment created a number of preservation incentives, and allowed for the waiver of many city exactions associated with commercial development. That code amendment application became adopted at Ordinance 16, Series of 1989, and was technically amended via Ordinance, #27, Series of 1989. Within this past year, Larry Brooks, owner of the adjacent 6,000 sq. ft. corner parcel, has purchased the Lily Reid cottage parcel (3,000 sq. ft.) from previous owner Jack King. Larry wishes to develop the entire corner, leaving the brick cottage relatively in place, and "featuring" it in a design scheme that allows the cottage to be "restored" in its original small form, with new commercial construction behind. One design concept is to relocate the cottage approximately 50' to the west, to the corner. Landmark Designation Discussion: There has also been discussion by the applicant regarding the possibility of Landmark Designation for the entire 9,000 sq. ft. parcel, of which 3 000 sq. ft. is (at this time) directly associated with the historic cottage. The Standards for Designation are found in Section 7- 702 of the Land Use Code. Staff's initial response is based on whether the parcel meets the standards: we find that the Lily Reid cottage does, overwhelmingly (Standards B, C, E, and F). However, we find that the remainder of the parcel does not, and therefore, the benefits for designation would be appropriate for the development directly associated with the historic landmark. /3 X j This worksession is designed to present initial ideas; more detailed discussion regarding designation is appropriate in a regular meeting with a review of an actual designation application. GOALS OF THIS WORKSESSION: The applicant has requested this worksession to simply begin the dialogue process with staff and the HPC on the appropriate and compatible development of this parcel. The applicant's attached cover letter expresses their interest in "focusing on the preservation and enhancement of the Lily Reid building". Two architectural firms are involved: Hagman Yaw Architects and Charles Cunniffe and Associates. You may be interested in sharing your individual comments at this meeting, or choose to reserve them until a later time, after you and staff have had the opportunity to review site studies, elevations and preservation methods proposed for the historic miner's cottage. Future worksessions will no doubt be scheduled, with the public invited to comment, on this very high profile preservation/redevelopment project. memo.hpc.LR.project 2 1 1 8,~ t 6- AGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS LTD 210 SOUTH GALENA ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 September 14, 1989 303/925-2867 Ms. Roxanne Eflin Planning Department City of Aspen 103 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: HPC Informal Review Aspen Arcade Building i Dear Roxanne: 1 We appreciate your efforts to schedule an informal review of the Aspen Arcade building at the regular HPC meeting on 27 September. The architectural firms of Charles CunniMe and Hagman Yaw have teamed up for the purpose of developing jointly the design concept for this important historic site in Aspen's downtown area. Although we have developed the roots of a development concept which focuses on the preservation and enhancement of the Lilly Reed building, it is our strong desire that the meeting be participatory so that the conceptual thinking of your office and HPC can be reflected in the subsequent steps of ~ design development. : At the meeting we will make a brief presentation of our concept and the factors which have determined development to that level. Our discussion will include urban design and growth factors; site relationships, historic/architectural fabric cf downtown sector, relationship of Lilly Reed ~ building to adjacent development, site open space and pedestrian opportunities. Although we have done enough work for initial discussion, we view this meeting as a beginning point of a design process that combines the best of both the public and private sector collaboration. In addition to design issues, we would like to discuss in further detail the historic designation of the project site. , 1 Letter to Ms. Roxanne Eflin September 14, 1989 Page Two Please feel free to call me at any time regarding a pre-meeting review. We would appreciaze your comments. Thank you. Very truly yours, 4 r Larry Yaw, AIA I P ann e r 19 \ LY:sv CC: Charles Cunniffe Larry Brooks Jim Gibbons Mark Henthorn t C. 1 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: 801 E. Hyman Ave., Public Hearing, continued Demolition and Redevelopment Date: September 27, 1989 SUMMARY: On August 23, 1989, the HPC reviewed an application for the demolition of the "1" rated historic structure located at 801 E. Hyman. Action was tabled to this meeting to allow the applicant time to 1) physically investigate the structure to clearly determine whether any historic materials were under the 50's siding, and 2) submit a redevelopment plan for review. DISCUSSION: The applicant has responded to the two conditions of the August 23 meeting. Their investigation turned up no historic materials under the siding, however, the degree Of the "investigation" was not disclosed in their cover letter. Therefore, staff is unsure if more investigation is warranted. The applicant should provide photos at this meeting and discuss completely their method of "investigation". Secondly, the applicpnt has submitted a conceptual redevelopment plan, indicating a single family gabled structure surrounded by a three foot (+/-) sunken "courtyard" on both the Hyman and Original sides. Due to this sunken effect, the roof ridge height is 25' from street level, and closer to 29' from base to ridge. The architect has attempted to cascade the roof forms back from the one story corner element to break the mass and articulate the facade. The HPC's primary concerns, should the removal of the miner's cottage be approved, were: height, massing and scale. The Committee should consider whether those basics have been adequately addressed in this redevelopment plan, and whether a sunken courtyard meets the Guidelines and is appropriate. No FAR figures have been submitted by the anplicant, which thev should be prepared to do at this meeting. Regarding details, gable peak glazing is indicated, as well as wide soffits, however, materials have not been conceptually called out. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff finds that application has not met Demolition Standards 1, 2, and 3, Section 7-602. The structure appears to be structurally sound, no discussion has been given as to the "reasonable beneficial use" Of the structure, and relocation has not been addressed. For these reasons, the HPC may consider denying approval for the demolition, or suspending action as stated under "Alternatives". t As stated in staff's review memo of August 23, 1989, this is the first opportunity the HPC has had to review a demolition application under the provisions of Ordinance #17, Series of 1989, and one involving a lowest rated structure with questionable historic integrity. The original intent of revising the code requiring HPC approval was to allow staff and the HPC an opportunity to examine all possible alternatives to demolition, and to allow the Committee to review the redevelopment plan, if a demolition or relocation is approved. The questions brought up in staff's August 23, 1989 memo appear to have been met. In staff's opinion, this particular structure has lost its historic architectural integrity, therefore, requiring a great deal of historic documentation to eliminate the "guess work" that would be necessary to reconstruct it authentically, as a vernacular miner's cottage. It is reasonable to concur that historic photos may not be available to base its accurate reconstruction, a method used in significant historic buildings. Due to the vernacular, drastically altered aspects of this structure, the Planning Office finds that a removal is reasonable. However, in light of the application being unable to meet Demolition Standards B.1, 2 and 3 in Section 7-602, it is clear that relocation is appropriate in this case. The structure has been well maintained over the years. Our final recommendatior includes the requirement Of the submittal of a relocation application. ALTERNATIVES: Many alternatives are possible for the HPC to consider in this application. 1. Approve the demolition application as proposed 2. Approve the demolition application with the following conditions for the redevelopment: a. The sunken "patio" level garden surrounding the new construction on at least two sides be eliminated. Grade Will remain at street level, consistent with historic site design. b. The proposed maximum height of the new structure Will be reduced due to above mentioned grade considerations. C. The mass and scale be reduced to more accurately relate to the historic resource it is replacing. 3. Table action, finding further study is necessary on both the demolition request and the redevelopment. 2 4. Deny approval finding the application is not complete as stated above 5. Deny the demolition application, finding that relocation is a viable alternative. An application for relocation shall be submitted to the Planning Office for HPC's review and approval. 6. Suspend action, per Section 7-602(E) of the Land Use Code, which states: "The HPC shall be authorized to suspend action on a demolition, partial demolition or relocation application when it finds that it needs additional information to determine whether the application meets the standards of Section 7-602(B) or that the proposal is a matter of such great public concern to the City that alternatives to the demolition, partial demolition or relocation must be studied jointly be the City and the owner. Alternatives which the HPC may consider having studied shall include, but not be limited to, finding economically beneficial uses Of the structure, removal of the structure to a suitable location, providing public subsidy to the owner to preserve the structure, identifying a public entity capable Of public acquisition Of the structure, or revision to the demolition, partial demolition or relocation and development plan." "The HPC shall be required to specify the additional information it requires or the alternatives it finds should be studied when it suspends action On the demolition, partial demolition, or relocation application. Action shall only be suspended for the amount of time it shall take for the necessary information to be prepared and reviewed by the Planning Director, but in no case shall suspension be for a period to exceed six (6) months." RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC suspend action per Section 7-602(E) for a period not to exceed six (6) months, to allow time for the City and applicant to study a relocation alternative to demolition. The applicant shall submit the information necessary for staff and the HPC to review the relocation activity, based on the standards specified in Section 7-602(D)(1-5) of the Code, within the six (6) months time period. We further recommend that the applicant work with Planning Staff to find a suitable new location for the two historic outbuildings located on the parcel. memo.hpc.801eh.2 3 , STAN MATHIS 1,37731 6,Â·3 73.11)32[D)JOCRJUill= Architecture & Planning P. 0. Box 1984 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 4- Â£ L DATE JOB NO. 9 -7-0 -8 9 (303) 920-1434 ATTENTfON R F g Ro~Â»,aot Ef/in 5301 f., N 7 lit Ad FOf" f IrÂ»$01,5 Offit' fk- A-.frite:Â£ 11+Xbf * r ' WE ARE SENDING YOU E Attached E Under separate cover via /4,4,r,/ 662Â·1'6?92( the following items: L Shop drawings ,/ Prints/' _ U Samples Dj Specifications 6 Copy of letter E Change order m COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 11 9 -20 -*41 SITE. fl,AN 3 9 -26,49 OR't('JAU AlÂ£ 60'fi'A'flon -3 1 gr--:ze - 99 Â¢11'MA,8 fr</9-0- Fl,f'VIETI~ON THESE ARE l RANSMITTED as checked below: E For approval E Approved as submitted O Resubmit copies for approval D For your use U Approved as noted 9 Submit copies for distribution - C As requested I Returned for corrections E Return corrected prints O or review and comment L 2 FOR BIDS DUE 19 2 PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS /<~,Ka 64 i :7 er 1 \ lue v Â·c f.,1 142(/ scy'Il-t of 4.-U- 9-Â¥* h;'~ Ela - 6 ff- 6 6- Y-14 1 hoj<14_ 0~.Ad lidbt ~discove,erÂ¢ -th'*t- ...1/ferÂ·~ 1% f,Â© ojjatr 5.ld"a) ,1Â«fpfral L,Ailâ‚¬, 4112* f i S Pre 52/4-1 c.t 5720,: Ij'<-A \ J 0- Â»ed k (94Â«7 * fraike ye; ilÂ·ti & fl?cÂ·-kvrh , f 419 044 r fla ey/Er:cr e/*46+fcÂ«, wio Afk:,C' ~0*41-11 ' COPY TO 4.21 1 SIGNED.' / /JÂ»-- 1/l /1 .Â·~*--- 0/ LL'.40 ~ V UD PRODUC 240.2 , i22* in: 6,oton. Mas, 014-, U enciosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once - 1 11 1 1 -E= -= 23'=i ~ - -=284-=9.-7 + 1 7E~:n- ---I..... i 19====== 1 ~=E~ 1--, Ik --- + .... 3, --- -r ; 1 li . ..1 4 1 ,- 1, 4,Â· ~ -' -I. ~1 ..4 111.11 L I .I li f 1 4 -1.- + Â· - A,1 -11 ~ el i 1 - f. T, ]1-11 A 1 11 * 1 11 t. - 1 . , 5 UU J, 1 -- =32, , 1 Â· 1. 1 -17-2 1 EXIST 6 *412E t ; 1 1 u .2-22-1-- -Ill FLoolt (-15464 lie" --f-fikno LaY:Gl- ---1-- 414_ >46' Eax*T-12>_ dI___~f~Â·= -- Stan Mathis - Architecture & Planninl, P. C Box 1984, Aspen, Co. 81612 Phone 303-920-1434 - â€¢01 92 . t 1 . A c ----I-- 4 - - 1 - #- -I- #-- - i--I~ 1 . .: 1 1 - --11 - 1 - . f#-- -1 I 1-j'.3 IJ-- IF 1- 1 - - -- -I--.-.*../4-------~---N-- - .t=&,ha*AIFF/&4252/--iTtr~EFI---Hilli.t.**P . "--1221 - ---_3-rit-7-Â«-~"4"-7--77-2-31 ======1 / --*---.-: c 1 - 1 - ... It 1;Â· 0,Â·- Il . 1~ Ilr . = 1 â‚¬ B ! 2- 1 1 - Â£ == 1 ' ' 11/ 3-7 - r-91 - 2 Â·-- - 1 J - - - ,- *-f-- :-~p_-_ ~ . i ~â‚¬F- . . - Â·*r L.: - 1 4 2 - t . 1 1 '' ' A 'ita-- 1-U --- ...... -'E-+Arip-.5696(-- 1 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ffif~22UAUL~*:ZAAÂ©kalÂ»2_- 9-4, -j 0 7 Stan Mathis Architecture & Plannino, P, .. Box 1984, Aspen, Co. 81612 Phone 303-920-1434 2 ju 2-1 / \\1 5@j . - t.0 -1 927 \ 5 31 k N 0 rÂ»71 18 T # - 3 r 1 A , 0 111 0 4 8 Â§f 8 d 8 Y 4 - . - 2 E co L - WV _ mog - 2 - 6 - ZO -1J 11 .1 . 3 ~ d ~ 0. 1 1 1 lilli : 1 0 ------=====i -111,;'-:i102zy=-~-".EYEUZI~ 0 - ----- 1 -*~PIE~~Ifipt' 11 l.11 1111'illritillit' 11'licid 1 ~ 111 10 , 2 4- ~ rl ---- 111 9=i 1 1 1 * 1,11Ii Ii)'w n il 11-# !1=I 1 11Â» 1-- U =I- 5 4-0 0- 1 , 1 - ab- , 1111 1 ~ 1 11 '111 c,Â©co Ullu ~ ,==1 - 1 1-- 1 - ki P .F-----.'=3 c N '- 8 2 4-/ < 0- 2282 I 7-3- 1-111-- -32---=---- -- lf-6 i ' 1 1[4 1,kt u ul<ma- 1 1~ 1 11111.11 =.f (D 1 1 1 111 7----64- 1-J~ tive#z - 2 1 -.Eli-1-4-2 -2"--------I,/IM-- - ======- 1 Ill 'll Â» Â»7=tkey=Â«=Â»07-= 4 1 1 . .r- W 9 lili,1 A- 1M ... --1---1-1--- - }--1--f--1 E-- [{fi~lifiEF?f~----- 1 1 I E~ ~-I[ 71 1 ---T- g--.--2---_L_i ---'. .-.--1.=1-~=, 1 '1 -- --- - _- 7-z- .-~fi I~'~Ill 03 1 1-,1 12 T~#-1IP--1<~~~--n~ - 0 \3> 1 1 I 11- ]11111111 la- --- --- 2 j' ill.fll 1, I -1 F //71*Flilvn IMNNI -*-IP#L#Li- -'-Lfr-%1 9 04' 1 1 1--- F---1.---Tul' 1 1 ?~ Â©i ~ d tril-T -9--[-[ 16 6 u u - -9 ~-s-BA-ff=1 9 ~-Jill,11,4 ~--1-431~4}TT T--!1 1--l-Ekll 2 2-EEL 111 eL' -_-_=Â»--_-6 -=Â«L~J~223_-1 9* 4111 4 '44ffoo t *9-Â»Uf-1 ~ lAizrl '00 1,/ 1 -j ' 'IL '11 11 --- dew L 4-j fl_44-] IY- - /; 111 1: .111'lil' ,. 3------P- - - - -- f 0 u i < - - 0 1 -1,4~*'-1_ 1 '' ifil -1__73 1f>1- 1 1 1 083 1 01- 11 (,00 -33 â€ž blp,02 ot> 1 N ) -1-IN3W\-i-EMI Z33(431 - +I [-11 Q )- D El 0 3 1- 0 63 --~1__13Â·' CJ , .// 620- 0 1 ' Llâ€ž.1 o C < 8 8 - fol , 1 0. (,QUSL ) .-. - &W WA 1 0 8 em'*r g US 1VNISIHO 'S L 'n NK fr, 0 15 8.1 1 Mathis - 1'%: 10 MEMORANDUM ? To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Demolition and Redevelopment: 624 E. Hopkins Ave., Public Hearing Date: September 27, 1989 On Site Review: September 27, 3:45 p.m. LOCATION: 624 E. Hyman Ave., Lot Q and the East 1/2 of Lot R, Block 98, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado ZONING: C-1, Commercial RATING: "1", not designated (Note: Please see attached Inventory Forms and associated comments) AGE OF STRUCTURE: c. 1891/92; rear addition - 1949; front pol- Oh enclosure - 1963. APPLICANT: Philip Z. Altfeld, (proposed purchaser) on behalf of owner Ellen J. Kuper (formerly Ellen Condon), represented by Sunny Vann of Vann and Associates HPC MONITOR: not yet assigned APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Demolition approval for the single family structure located on the parcel, and redevelopment. SITE, AREA AND BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Lot size: 4,500 sq. ft. Minimum Lot size-commercial: 3,000 sq. ft. Minimum Lot size-residential: 6,000 sq. ft. (Note: Existing conditions constitute a non-conformity) Existing FAR (dwelling unit): 750 sq. ft. approx. Proposed FAR: 2,783 sq. ft. (Note: This total does not include the attached 500 sq. ft. garage, or the 2,846 sq. ft. basement) Allowable FAR: 2,820 sq. ft. Existing height: 16-17 ft. approx. Proposed height: 35 ft. to median pitch, 40 ft. to roof ridge Allowable maximum height: 40 ft. Setback requirements: none (Note: The exception regards the rear/alley area) Open Space Requirement: 25% - 1,125 ft. 1 PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Ordinance 17, Series of 1989, amending the Land Use Code approved by Council last April, requires HPC approval for the demolition, partial demolition or relocation of any structure identified on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. The Standards for Demolition Review are located in Section 7-602(B)(1-4). The Land Use Code States: Section 7-602.A.: "No demolition of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to Section 7-709, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay district shall be permitted unless the demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the standards of Section 7-602.B." Staff finds the application to be complete. Standard 1. The structure proposed for demolition is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure. Response: Letter responses (attached) indicate the structure is rot structurally sound. There is no evidence that the present owner has made efforts to properly maintain the structure evidently due to personal financial constraints. Standard 2. The structure cannot be rehahilitated or reused on site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use Of the property. Response: Letter responses (attached) from the applicant indicate major effort would be involved in a rehab of this nature, which staff does not dispute. That fact is evident from the visible deferred maintenance of the property. The applicant further states that the economics of such an extensive rehabilitation make the project unreasonable, using a $350/sq. ft. rehab cost. Staff believes this figure is questionably high, considering that this modest cottage was not originally constructed of high price materials that require extensive restoration or replication. While we have no doubt that extremely upgraded rehab materials could force the cost per square foot to this $350.00 limit, we believe a figure between $125/$175 per square foot is reasonable to provide for the rehabilitation of this structure. A rehab of this structure is possible, as demonstrated first hand by no less than four (4) recent HPC approved projects: The Smith-Elisha Carriage House, the 201 W. Francis carriage house, the 334 W. Hallam carriage house, and the entire Hallet House at 432 W. Francis. Each of these projects involved extensive rehab work, both inside and out, and though considered nearly "reconstructions", the original structural system left in tact 2 provided the framework on which to apply new fabric. The results have been very good and the historic form maintained. It appears obvious, therefore, that a reconstruction is feasible. On the other hand, we are currently witnessing the incompatible results of a non-approved demolition (code violation) and reconstruction, where no original structural members were left to serve as the "blueprint", and the redevelopment is bearing no relation to the original historic structure or its adjacent neighbors (920 Matchless Drive.) The applicant addresses Part 2 of this Standard regarding reasonable beneficial use by stating "the condition of the house renders it unfeasible to add onto for adaptive reuse". This is assuming an addition of a very large size is necessary for an adaptive use. While it is reasonable to expect that some type of addition would be necessary to simply expand the existing space, we believe this could be accomplished with an innovative and compatible design that would not (in the applicant's words) "dwarf the house". The HPC has reviewed and approved adaptive use/addition projects in the past. We understand the applicant wishes to construct a single family/townhouse dwelling on this site, however, it is important that the HPC examine closely the intent and applicability of this standard addressing "reasonable beneficial use". It is not our desire in any way to disallow development on the site thereby creating a hardship on the current owner, who is in process of selling the property to Mr. Altfeld. Staff's issues focus on the important role this :storic resource. plays in the overall community picture, and feel that, particularly in this zone district, that many alternatives exist that have not been examined by the applicant. For years, preservation incentives have been allowed for designation landmarks. The "incentives/benefit package" has been significantly increased, making the "economics of historic preservation" much easier for a property owner to handle. It is appropriate to encourage the applicant to study these incentives, within the conuext Of the stated purpose Of the C-1 zone district, and to create an adaptive use program for the historic resource. Currently a #1 rated cottage at 706 W. Main is in the process of landmark designation now; the owners wish to take advantage of the preservation incentives package in their multi- use program for the cottage ("Office" zone) . Ordinance #55, Series of 1989, expected to be adopted by Council at Final Reading on September 25, 1989, provides for permitted and conditional uses on non-conforming size designated parcels. The basic "designation/incentives" alternative has not been addressed bv the applicant. Standard 3. The structure cannot be practicably moved to another site in Aspen. Response: Letter responses (attached) indicate a move is 3 improbable and impractical, however, this same house mover has worked with staff before in relocations, and has stated "they can move anything". Staff is not questioning the technical and practical considerations associated with the relocation. It is interesting to note that in last year's "Berko" project (309 E. Hopkins), involving a much more fragile historic structure - also hemmed in between two larger buildings, that a relocation was recommended and guaranteed by the house movers! It can be argued that relocation is one step above demolition in that either action destroys original context. However, in light of attempting to meet a number of community needs, historic preservation being primary for this Committee, the Planning Office is working with the City Manager and the Director of the Housing Authority to determine if any "repository" land is available, or could be available, to accept orphaned historic resources, either within the city, or somewhere in the county. Our final recommendation reflects the need for additional time to further examine this and other issues. Standard 4. The applicant demonstrates that the proposal mitigates to the greatest extent practical, the following: a. Any impacts that occur to the character of the neighborhood where demolition is proposed to occur. b. Any impact on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels C. Any impact to the architectural integrity Of the structure or structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels. Response: Staff's response combines three issues in Standard 4. Obviously, a demolition would irretrievably impact any historic and architectural importance of the structure, which is, granted, of relative lesser importance due to the alterations that have taken place over the years. The Planning Office strongly feels that the applicant has not met Standard 4 to mitigate impacts that occur to the character of the neighborhood where the demolition is proposed to occur. The Issue of Context: Directly across the street from this cottage exist three historic structures of nearly the same size and scale. These are the last four remaining historic resources in this entire C-1 zone district. Staff is extremely concerned that once the subject cottage is removed, the precedent will be even more firmly set to allow the demolition of these, and others throughout this neighborhood, as well. The "lack Of context" issue is becoming a favorite of developer consultants. As the HPC 4 1 t allows more demolitions, obviously the lack of historic context becomes an even greater argument for yet more demolitions. This block alone of East Hopkins once contained no less than 15 structures (in 1893); the East End historically contained hundreds of (mostly) vernacular cottages. There are ncw only a fraction of those left, scattered throughout blocks of larger eclectic architecture. We have the ability to stop a total loss of historic resources in this end of Aspen through a combination of preservation incentives and creative rehab design solutions. The non-profit Aspen Historic Trust may be able to assist. The dimensional requirements of the C-1 zone district are not conducive to the preservation Of small residential cottages. The East End can be described as the C-1 zone, a transition from the dense CC district to the next block zoned "Office", and on into the RMF (Residential Multi- Family) zone. Therefore, it could be said that numerous small-scale historic structures are trapped in this end of Aspen, requiring difficult reviews and decisions by the HPC for their preservation. Many of the East End historic structures have been allowed to deteriorate significantly over the years, making the arguments for preservation (form, materials, etc.) extremely difficult for the Planning Office and HPC to convince property owners to do. However, as previously discussed, the multitude of preservation incentives developed over the last three years for landmarks provide many benefits and positive reasons to preserve. With the amount of local design talent and technology of renovation, outright demolition of Aspen's finite historic resources, at whatever level on the "integrity" scale, disregards the long-range preservation goals of the community, the Planning office and the Historic Preservation Committee. REDEVELOPMENT LACPOSAL: .'he appllcant has submitted a redevelopment application, (enclosed) indicating a single-family townhouse development: three (3) floors above grade, one floor Delow grade; for a total height of 40! at the roof ridge. The basement includes a walkout terrace. The conceptual materials are sandstone ana clad windows. The design is very similar to other East End townhomes, and bears no relationship to the height, mass and scale of what it proposes to replace. The applicant states, basically, that the proposed infill structure provides some articulated relief next to the "KSNO" building. Should a demolition or removal action be approved for the historic cottage, the Planning Office recommends a significant re-study of the redevelopment, with some historic compatiblity in mind. STAFF SUMMARY: We commend the applicant on submitting so 5 thorough a proposal. There is little question that the historic cottage is in an advanced state of deterioration, and that its current architectural merits are few. There is also little question that a relocation would be difficult. If the HPC, as representatives of the Aspen community, wishes to see the east end be entirely converted to eclectic, larger structures with limited or no relation to historic scale, then demolition (or relocation) approval is the most reasonable action to take. However, as we look at the drastic changes that have taken place in the East End just since 1986, we can only predict that the remaining 25 historic structures in that end of Aspen will vanish before the year 2000. The rate of recent historic demolition in this neighborhood has been three per year. Dense zoning, the very nature of "eroding context", close proximity to the gondola and consequently rapidly rising land values, makes the East End preservation task extremely difficult, and one which the Planning Office feels the community, not just seven individuals on a Review Board, should help determine. Zoning and a lack of comprehensive architectural review over the East End for the past decade may have already contributed to "setting the precedent", one which the HPC, acting alcne, can do relatively little about, especially without the cooperation from a willing property owner. In this case, the architect feels that the historic rerource is actually a "liability" to the property owner. Obviously, staff disagrees. Th Gre are manv examples throughout Aspen's commercial districts ,-.f successful adaptive uses of smaller historic resources. Similar examples are found in every small town and large city across the country. With the permitted uses found in this C-1 zone district, it makes sense to work cooperatively with the applicant-team and assist them in both landmark designation and significant renovation/restoration work to bring this cottage up to a marketable standard, and allow a compatible addition to the rear. ALTERNATIVES: Many alternatives are possible for the HPC to consider in this application. - r :1 r .0. r. -9 - i. ; -/-/ A E. - - .K I .1 - .. &*. k Â£. I-- 1 L. _1 L.' A L... .Aw - C.V.C. . .-_ .1 Â·. ..iLS, _ L C .2-1 ,- 1 - -C u -1-J-1 (12 proposed 2. Approve the demolition and redevelopment application -7--r. Vi .1 LA J u U i 1 U . tions, particularly on the proposed redevelopment 3. Table action, finding further study is necessary by the applicant on specific issues 4. Deny approval finding the application does not meet the following Demolition Review Standards: 6 #1: Evidence of property maintenance #2: Rehabilitation to provide for any reasonable beneficial use #3: Relocation #4: Impacts have not been mitigated 6. Suspend action, per Section 7-602(E) of the Land Use Code, which states: "The HPC shall be authorized to suspend action on a demolition, partial demolition or relocation application when it finds that it needs additional information to determine whether the application meets the standards of Section 7-602(B) or that the proposal is a matter of such great public concern to the City that alternatives to the demolition, partial demolition or relocation must be studied jointly be the City and the owner. Alternatives which the HPC may consider having studied shall include, but not be limited to, finding economically beneficial uses of the structure, removal of the structure to a suitable location, providing public subsidy to the owner to preserve the structure, identifying a public entity capable of public acquisition of the structure, or revision to the demolition, partial demolition or relocation and development plan." "The HPC shall be required to specify the additional information it requires or the alternatives it finds should be studied when it suspends action on the demolition, partial demolition, or relocation application. Action shall only be suspended for the amount of time it shall take for the necessary information to be prepared and reviewed by the Planning Director, but in no case shall suspension be for a period to exceed six (6) months." RECOMMENDATION: U u U ..Ll:1 - h. . U- that the Un~ The D - mnr - n ,-r Office 1-= n emn pnrl c 4-- U susnenc acthnn - -,c P S / r 3 4 -- c nc - 4 nx ..V- FL- -1- Â·J# - 1 L. u UL UL IÂ·_ #USL l . six (6) months, to allow time for the City and applicant to pursue alternatives to demolition that retain the historic resource as a focal point of the sine. Additional information shall be submitted to the Planning Office by the applicant on or prior to six (6) months from the date the suspension action was taken, at which time the proposal will be scheduled for review by the HPC. memo.hpc.624eh 7 -- vJANN ASSOCIATEE. ENC. - E p r r n 3 - 2 (~ 0 4. : [ ap:I 3 September 1, 1989 C- 4 Â£ . p) l, c.34' 6 13 5 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Roxanne Eflin Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Altfeld Demolition Application Dear Roxanne: Please consider this letter an application to demolish a single-family structure which is located at 624 East Hopkins Avenue in the City of Aspen, Colorado (see Land Use Applica- tion Form attached hereto as Exhibit 1). The application is submitted pursuant to Section 7-602 of the Land Use Regulations by Philip Z. Altfeld, the prospec- tive purchaser of the property (see Exhibit 2, Authorization to Submit Application). The owner of the property is Ellen J. Kuper, formerly Ellen Condon, (see Exhibit 3, Title Commitment). The Applicant's representative is Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, Inc., Planning Consultants (see Exhibit 4, Permission to Represent). Project Site The project site consists of Lot Q and the West 1/2 of Lot R, Block 98, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property contains approximately forty-five hundred (4,500) square feet and is zoned C-1, Commercial. As the Vicinity Map on the following page illustrates, the property is located on the north side of Hopkins Avenue near the middle of the block. Man-made improvements to the property are limited to a small single-family residence and a detached outbuilding. Existing land uses in the immediate site area include a mixed use office structure, KSNO, and the Professional Building, which border the property on the east and west, respectively. Smith's commercial building, the so-called Troyer duplex, two small victorian structures which are 20Â·J'COSIMCOKIns A.en-, 0 182'er, '22Â·ory.v- 2--'- -"- -~- -- # -WJ W-C --VL-- Ms. Roxanne Eflin September 1, 1989 Page 2 presently used for commercial purposes, and a victorian residence are located across the street from the property. The Stage 3 Theatres building is located across the alley to the rear of the site. The existing structure is included in the City's Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. The structure was inventoried and evaluated in October of 1980. According to the Planning Office's files, it is Victorian in style, was constructed between 1891 and 1892, and is referred to as the M. 0. Berg/James D. Cooper house. With respect to the architectural/historical significance of the structure, the files contain the following observation. "The significance of this residential structure is not of those who owned it or lived in it, nor of its architecture, but that it is representative of Aspenis Mining Era. It is of historical importance by illustrating the family/home environment and life style(s) of the average citizen of Aspen which was then dominated by the silver mining industry.~ The structure was subsequently rated a "1" in connection with the 1986 numerical rating of the City's so-called "notable" historic structures. Based on conversations with Ellen Kuper, and a review of the property's available chain of title, it appears that the structure was purchased by Mrs. Kuper's father in 1947. At that time, the structure contained only two rooms. The present kitchen, bedroom and bathroom were added with the help of various family members in the spring of 1949. A front porch was also added and the structure covered with imitation brick siding. In 1963, the front porch was enclosed and various windows - and doors removed or replaced. The entire building was covered with aluminum siding and imitation rock veneer was placed below the present front window. The structure looks much today as originally remodeled in 1963. The original two room miners cottage, however, is barely discernable given the extensive remodeling of the structure which has occurred over time. Proposed Development The Applicant proposes to demolish the existing structure and to construct a new single-family residence on the property. Based on the size of the property, and the Ms. Roxanne Eflin September 1, 1989 Page 3 dimensional requirements of the C-1 zone district, the maximum floor area of the proposed residence is limited to approximately twenty eight hundred (2,800) square feet. While there are no setback requirements in the C-1 zone, there is a minimum open space requirement of twenty-five (25) percent. The preliminary design of the residence is depicted on the schematic architectural drawings which accompany this application. A detailed discussion of the structure's architectural concept and its relationship to surrounding development is attached hereto as Exhibit 5. Review Requirements Pursuant to Section 7-602.A. of the Regulations, no demoli- tion of any structure included int the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen shall be permitted unless approved by the Historical Preservation Committee. The specific review criteria, and the proposed demolition's compliance therewith, are summarized as follows. 1. The structure proposed for demolition is not structural- ly sound despite evidence of the ownerls efforts to properly maintain the structure. At the request of the Applicant, the structure was inspected by William H. Newell, P.E., the president of Design Struc- tures, Inc., a consulting engineering firm. Mr. Newell's comments with respect to the structural condition of the house are contained in his August 29, 1989 letter which is attached hereto as Exhibit 6. In summary, Mr. Newell found the structure to be in poor condition and quite possibly in the early stages of col- lapse. Mr. Newell observed excessive settlement of the foundation, extensive cracking of walls and ceilings, and advanced deterioration of the house's structural systems. In his opinion, the restoration of the house's structural integrity would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible" to accomplish. It should be noted that the structure was in an advanced state of deterioration in 1986 when Mrs. Kuper moved in following the death of her mother. The substantial invest- ment required to renovate the structure, and Mrs. Kuper's limited income, have precluded her from undertaking the necessary repairs. It is her intention, therefore, to sell the property, the proceeds from which will allow her to Ms. Roxanne Eflin September 1, 1989 Page 4 purchase a condominium and to remain in Aspen with her family. 2. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property. As discussed in Mr. Newell's structural analysis, restora- tion of the structure would be extremely difficult if not impossible to achieve. The extent of deterioration would most likely require the demolition and total reconstruction of the structure. Mr. Janver Derrington, A.I.A, has also inspected the structure and concurs with Mr. Newell's observations. As he notes in his letter of August 31, 1989, attached hereto as Exhibit 7, "the condition of the house renders it unfeasible to add onto for adaptive reuse". Mr. Derrington further states that "there would be virtually nothing that could be reused in a practical or meaningful way, and its lack of architectural merit would not warrant showcasing it by replicating it on-site." Even if it were feasible to renovate the structure on-site, any reasonable addition would dwarf the existing house. The resulting project, we believe, would be out of character with surrounding development, particularly if only the historic portion of the structure were retained. 3. The structure cannot be practically moved to another site in Aspen. William Newell also commented upon the ability to success- fully move the structure to another location. In Mr. Newell's opinion, the structure probably would not be able to withstand the stress of the move due to the advanced state of deterioration of the house' s structural systems. His opinion is supported by Bill Bailey of Bailey House Movers in his August 25, 1989 letter attached hereto as Exhibit 8. Mr. Bailey indicates that, in addition to the deteriorated condition of the structure, there are practical consider- ations which significantly affect his ability to move the liouse. Given the constraints imposed by adjacent develop- ment, the approximately fourteen hundred (1,400) pound steel beams which are typically used to support the structure during its relocation would have to be manipulated by hand as inadequate clearance is available to use machinery. Even Ms. Roxanne Eflin September 1, 1989 Page 5 if he could get the beams under the structure, he will not guarantee that the house will hold together. Due to the extensive amount of hand work required, his quoted price is three (3) times his normal charge with no guarantee as to success. 4. The Applicant demonstrates that the proposal mitigates to the greatest extent practical the following. Please see also the project architect's discussion of the proposed development plan attached hereto as Exhibit 5. a) Any impacts that occur to the character of the neighborhood where demolition is proposed to occur. We believe the present contribution of the structure to the character of the neighborhood is, at best, question- able. The adjacent KSNO building represents a bold, almost brutal architectural statement, which reflects little sympathy for the scale of the house in question. The project site needs a structure which will stand-up to, and lessen the impact of, the KSNO building. Such a structure, we believe, will be a positive addition to the Hopkins Avenue streetscape, and should more than offset the loss of a structure of questionable architec- tural and historical significance. b) Any impact on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels. No designated structures are located adjacent to the project site. The proposed development should have no adverse affect upon the two historic structures located across the street from the property. The structure located at 623 East Hopkins is rated "4", and will most likely be preserved in its present form. The structure at 625 East Hopkins, however, is rated "1", and may someday be a candidate for redevelopment. Regardless of their future, the proposed single-family residence should have no impact upon the way they are perceived, whether from the street or from either sidewalk. c) Any impact to the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels. As the existing structure is to be removed, the proposed development will have no impact upon its architectural Ms. Roxanne Eflin September 1, 1989 Page 6 integrity. As noted above, no designated structures are located adjacent to the project site. Summary In summary, we believe the requested demolition complies with the applicable criteria of Section 7-602.B. of the Land Use Regulations. The existing structure, a substantial portion of which is non-historic, is in an advanced state of deterioration which cannot reasonably be reversed. This condition also precludes the Applicant's ability to practi- cally relocate the structure to another site. Similarly, the structure cannot reasonably be expanded to accommodate the Applicant's needs. Finally, the proposed redevelopment plan mitigates, we believe, any adverse impact upon neigh- boring historic structures. Based on the above, we respect- fully request that the Applicant's demolition application be approved. Should you have any questions, or recuire additional infor- mation, please do not hesitate to call. As the Applicant wishes to resolve this matter in as timely a manner as possible, your scheduling of the application for the Septem- ber 27, 1989 HPC meeting would be sincerely appreciated. Very truly yours, VANN ASSOCIATES, INC. -\ Sunny Van~2 AICP SV:CWV Attachments cc: Philip Altfeld .1 EXHIBIT 6 DESIGN ~Â«FRUCTURES, INC. iÂ·11'am M \1'..I P: 29 August 1989 Vann Associates, Inc. 230 E. Hopkins Ave. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attn: Mr. Sunny Vann Re: 624 E. Hopkins Gentlemen: On 28 August 1989 we made an observation of the house located at 624 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado. The purpose of our observation was to review the structural integrity of the house. The house is a wood frame single story building with a crawl space. It was apparently constructed in several phases, with the later phase constructed around 1948. The house shows signs of severe distress due to excessive settlement of the foundation on the west side of the house. There are numerous vertical cracks in the footings near the northwest and southwest corners of the house. We understand the excavation for the construction of the building to the west undermined the foundation on the west side of the building. The floor in the bedroom on the west side of the house slopes downward to the west about 8 to 10 inches. There are also numerous cracks in the walls on the west side of the house. Full height vertical cracks were noted in both corners on the west wall, and there is also a horizontal crack at the top of the west wall where it intersects the ceiling. The foundations are exposed in the crawl space. The center portion of the house is founded on vertical timber poles about 12 inches long bearing on stones. The exterior bearing walls bear on masonry foundation walls. The northern masonry foundation wall is badly deteriorated. Several of the bricks have fallen out of the wall, and the wall disappears entirely about 2 feet from the west wall. 1 6 t, 0 â‚¬ 2:' er,teent h S trep' â€¢ Quite 2 0 0 â€¢ Denver (- i, I or a (1 0 8 (12 0 2 â€¢ 1 3 0: 1 4 2 4 -4 (12 - â€¢ FAX 1 3 0 3 1 4 2 3-8 1 : 4 The front porch of the house is severely deteriorated. The floor and roof joists appear to be rotting and are sloping downward to the west. There is a metal panel on the lower portion of the north wall of the house. We removed a portion of the panel, and discovered that the wood behind the metal was completely rotten and had delaminated. This wood appeared to be incapable of supporting any structural loads. The roof over the rear of the house consists of corrugated sheet metal nailed to the roof joists. The roof joists have rotted to the point where the nails holding down the metal roof deck will not stay in the wood. A strong wind could probably pull parts of the metal roofing off. In general, the structure of the house appears to be in poor condition. The decay and deterioration of the wood structure and foundation creates a very grave situation, and the house could be in the early stages of collapse. Restoring the structural integrity of the house would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. First the foundations on the west end of the house would have to be lifted up 8 to 10 inches. This operation in itself would inject additional stresses onto the wood structure, causing additional cracking throughout the house. The foundations of the house would need to be reconstructed to provide proper bearing for the floor structure. The rotted and decayed wood, including the lower exterior wall siding under the sheetmetal cover, would need to the replaced. Much of tne roof beams and deck would probably need to be replaced also. The total extent of decayed wood to be replaced is not known at this time. In our opinion, moving the house would be very difficult. The decayed wood structure probably would not be able to withstand the stresses from the move. If the house were moved, much of the work noted above would have to be performed after the move to restore the structural integrity of the house. Please contact us if you have any questions or comments. DESIGN ~'~ STRUCTURES, INC incerely, ESIGN STRUCTURES, INC. i 2/uÂ· u Li_ ' ../ 1 ' William H. Newell, P.E. President cc: Charles Cunniffe and Associates Phil Altfeld '0 & 076 .tdi,-72-4-1. O N. ,9 47 , P.\ f.. Â»/U .seÂ«EE Z~ El-91, ' )3 **92* n. 4 XECETA 14 /31{ onelt- E i- 15681 2\?43 A" n . 1%~1 . â‚¬ 442 .'\ \ *1 . twa 3,74 11 '1+447/ \ ....r)43. WIXAM H. NEWELL %142/@2â‚¬%2 , "49* v 'imt.im# DESIGN ~'~ STRUCTURES, INC 0 /0 EXHIBIT 7 ' CHARLES CUNNIFFE &ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 520 EASTHYA/LAN. SuiTE301. ASPEN. CO 81612 303'925-5590 C,mARLES L CUNNIFFE. AIA August 31, 1989 Ms. Roxanne Eflin Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 624 East Hopkins Aspen, Colorado Dear Roxanne: At the request of Phil and Mariann Altfeld, we have inspected the existing house presently situated on the subject property to evaluate its condition and potential for relocation and/or rehabilitation. As you know, the house has an historic rating of one (1), which is the lowest rating that can be given. In our opinion, the house is of highly questionable historic significance and has no architectural design merit that would warrant the extensive work needed to attempt to restore it. Structurally, we found the house to be in an advanced stage of deterioration. There are numerous cracks in the drywall which indicate significant differential settlement. We have been told that during the excavation for the construction of the KSNO building to the west, the foundation of this house was actually undermined and started shifting into the sloughed-off bank cut that apparently was not adequately shored. This has left the house in an extremely unstable condition. We have learned that the house was added onto at least twice. The additions do not appear to be very solidly tied to the original house and probably would not hold up or stay together if an attempt is made to move it. The house moving contractor has made his own evaluation and estimate of cost to move this house, which appears to be prohibitive. A copy of his letter is attached for your review. Even if it could be moved, the deteriorated condition of the house makes it highly unlikely that it could be utilized for anv beneficial use, whether on its present site or any other location. There is practically nothing that could be reused and incorporated into a renovated residence, office, shop, or whatever. The structure, glazing, insulation, heating, plumbing, electrical, etc., would all have to be completely replaced in order to meet current building code requirements. In other words, nothing can be saved, so it makes no sense to go to the trouble and expense of attempting to move it. , CHARLESCUNNIFFE&ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 520 EASTHYMAN, S'JITEÂ·301, ASPEN CC 816,2 303'925-5590 CHARLES L C CNNIFFE, A A Similarly, the condition of the house renders it unfeasible to add onto it for adaptive reuse in any of the categories allowed under the zoning code on the present site. There would be virtually nothing that could be reused in a practical or meaningful way, and its lack of architectural merit would not warrant "showcasing" it by replicating it on site and adding a new structure behind it. Therefore, we recommend that the house be demolished to allow for construction of a new building that is more functional, appropriately contextual and in scale with the buildings on either side of the property. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Janyer C. Derringto~ A.I.A. Ardhitect encl. c:wp5~work~8920(1).let EXHIBIT 8 BAILEY HOUSE MOVERS I.ICENSED - INSL'REI~] L-*gE,7 [72 07 9-3 C. 1 IC ; %.Â· Win. G. 11.AILEY 618 34'Â· Road ~ Clifton. CO 81520 .,Â·.bi<LES Cljiâ€ž:IfEE & ASSOC 303-434-976:1 Aepre An 2 5 19 /737 rÂ¥1 p , u A- r .-1 \/ 417-Â· A, 140 E 744 02.-' , A-' 5 A cE /1 9 FF # 0-1 : - i /6 t l RE ,Â¥92 ff -5 f.l . U -1 L ti .1 /1 1-1 s er A C tryl R -1 / A 62 14 r - 4. 0 /2. t? F c ,iiÂ«-r- -1 ) I . SEL /.5 / -7 (-4.f 1 h /3 33 7- EL MeouTRTUI. ./05- /1.67 ir. 4â‚¬24 fl .7 . 1 -2*21, ru,(b r-1 1--r 74 +15 1 1 1--T Ur 3, J u ,-7- 2 40 --9- l. .i / E- 04 357 L.3,â‚¬44 1 - \ . . .. .1 t.:US J ! -74 F ,-*'/ 0 2 f-~ 5 ~7 A.1 ALL 2 2 2 - 41Â£ A 04 ~.'c a, 22 E- 0~ -â‚¬ mz.171 2-5 /1 C-p fc ss , 8 2 9 -,rf'-A Â£ 47/4 rd 442 c.3, LIA- i. ~3 31 2 -UELF ,( /)' C c r Â·--t-, S 1- 79Â£4 5-1 - (t<aL th /UEE b --T _ 6 0 4 4 STEEL --j e 74 7 3 . Â· --A i \ uÂ» A Â» BAILEY HOUSE MOVERS LICENSED - INSURED - BONDEB Wm. G. BAILEY 618 .34 4 Roed Clifton. CO 8:520 303-4,34-9,63 19 -3 +44 0- E 2 d f -3 ~y-0 r E ,5 - /7 Â»- e Â«-Â· A L../v D E R 7 - t.'1 ~z-- 4- C '7 'C , 1.-+ , f.. d E Â£-7 123 ~ .17,Â· d E c B l i '1 L -r-% f Â£ i- j 9 .( bul ..1 /13<.,-7 / 9 FF i.7 ~'LE-.126.4.cr (C / Â·14't E ~u, L b (te 61 I u i -r- 4 7 y-Â·1 AD -D Â£835 0 9Â£1~ Ofc CL) LS -r- -6 0 0 I -3 / el , Hy mv, 5 p-C ACL ..C- , / .4.10&,L.0 ~<fh:-0â€žP. E._ C j L) i G â‚¬ i & 6- 64, 4 ,Â«1 /00.0 Â» c D 9 -,4, 2 , 4: G- ,A/f AD 7) 7 0. , 1 - /3 -- , 13.1 4 / W A .6,Â·11> 5 , C,~ /C~~ b LE â‚¬ 5 4414 c 3-1 -7 C/. F ,' 9Â·. c F -r--5 <7' Â·-2 (I.:,EN. .5-3 ,)/ Â«o C z 23 ) Li.-f' colz.,3 25.- 7 .' .~ -3 4 / i ; /4. A , 7-t i L) c f<? /\-07 ~1 1 ...1 e Ll / A~ A R Lf & 41 u E 'u / r fl - f :z &44 LD (77 â‚¬ 7- f m F -r 23 T 42.,; A cu (1''t 0 â‚¬ R / 7- j (.13 f L L r.. c - G e.Â· A 2 Â· A- A-,7 E F , m-Â« 7 li 1- R L f fÂ·' 74 L 42 0 -7 r-k v 5 9. 52. PAP AT(t/4. / -7 u_ 5 1-7 4-44 5 '6 O E-- G \C< 23 T L , BAILEY HOUSE MOVERS LICENSED - INSURED - BONDED Wm G. BAILEY 618 344 Road Cliftorl CO 91520 30 J-434 9;63 19 ' 44 G i l e 2 3 1 j ILL ~HAR G 4 A /0 6 0.4 11 3-(001 e ff 1 0 Â·CAL / -Li F n,' 3 757, 20 5 / C H A T- / 7- /'.,0 6 C, 4 0 - ~6/ ~7 - ~c 5 7- ! r j f-- .. 4* C.CALÂ© 94â‚¬7 1 ; 1 A C U / Al 4 /9 9 /4./.5 22 . ./7 f--1 rd :1 . - /FOPPOP: A 7:4LL t-% fg l., j n' PRAC-7-/9 AE.. 11 j C 0 4- 4,7- 74 c r / m PC 55 / 8LE_. .-7 0 ,-0 /2 AN T-â‚¬ 4-5, r' --- 4 2 7 4//U r :/, Ljoz U Ch | r L-Â·,1 z L , n.:- L / 1- ~7.-1 u j *'Au E. 7~,t ..1 ~1,/r 5 -,1 /41, y. -f c t: P 5 ' BULÂ· 1 2 /LL -~4 â€¢ LEL{ ~ -1 4 f-k., St Phr.\CU E le ..3 3/fr- >Â«172 4/ a ~;AL / CTO *u Le a.. 5 / 5-- 20 fS -TIi g dou s Â£ / 5 41 L Se < -/0.-. 3-1 '- L -7--3 Ge 0% ra> bl' cO / P 6 S. b i. T Ze R -T-Ac K 1-1 60, AE fJECPL E_- ~-ELEcT<ZIL 9 -FiLEP+4(*4â‚¬h CHA'RLES CUNNIFFE &ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS CHARLES - CU' .1>JIFFE /Â·:., ,A 520 EASTHYA<,AN. SUITE <01,,Â·.5,PEN. CO 81612 30.-'/9/,-~,590 September 7, 1989 Ms. Roxanne Eflin Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Altfeld Demolition Application 624 E. Hopkins Avenue Dear Roxanne: In accordance with your requirement for review of this application, we wish to address the question of whether the existing house can be rehabilitated or expanded with a reasonable return for the owner. The existing house is about 750 square feet and as we noted in our letter of September 1, 1989, it is in such poor condition that its rehabilitation would amount to practically a total replacement or "replication" with new materials, equipment, fixtures, etc., to meet current building code requirements. We do not believe this can be done without demolition. A piece-by-piece replacement would be a very inefficient, time-consuming and inordinately costly project that is not justifiable considering r.'s minimal, if any, historical value. The house's location on the site would create a very awkward space flow if an attempt were made to adapt and add onto it for either a townhouse or a fully developed commercial project for which the land is zoned. To make the house usable for commercial space, the interior partitions would have to be removed or at least relocated, thus requiring new steel or glue-laminated wood beams, and columns with concrete footings to be installed to support the roof. Our cost analysis is as follows: A. Rehabilitation of existing structure in place (without demolition, if possible): $350 per s.f. x 750 s.f. = $ 262,500.00 B. Replication of existing structure (total replacement after demolition and adaptive remodeling of interior space): $225 per s.f. x 750 s.f. = $ 168,750.00 Â· CHARLES CUNNIFFE &ASSOCIATES#ARCHITECTS FWAR' Ex. i r Â· 69,Â·:cIA z .1 5.20E.AST HYM.Â·AN, SUITE-4(..i ASPEN ((2.81(,12 doj '925 5590 The reason we believe the cost of rehabilitation (option A) is so high is that the work will be extremely labor intensive for the piece-by-piece replacement approach. Option B is also higher than average construction cost for this area because everything has to be measured and drawn for exact duplication and then rebuilt precisely as it now exists for the exterior, while modifying the interior to Suit a new use. This requires introducing a new structural system within the shell of the original house. The architectural and engineering fees for this type of project are much higher than normal and are included in the project cost figures. The full cost of rehabilitation/replication of the existing house could not realistically be added to the value (i.e. sale price) of the property. It is very possible that the owner could not get any more than the raw land price regardless of the condition of the house, since it's value to a prospective buyer is negligible. In our opinion, the house is in fact a liability to the current owner or any future owner. Therefore, we see no economic incentive to rehabilitate or replicate the existing house. If you have any questions regarding any of the above, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 7- //9. 'f/L--1.- l Janver C. Derrington,/AIA Architect JCD/sm A MEMBER OF THE SEARS FINANCIAL NETWORK FAX 0041) 426 437H THE ASPEN BROKERS LTD. September 8, 1989 Mr. Sunny Vann, AICP Vann Associates, Inc. 230 E. Hopkins Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Vann: At your request, I have inspected the property known as 624 E. Hopkins Avenue and have reviewed many sales recorded by the Aspen, Colorado Multiple Listing Service. In doing so, I have considered the size, zoning, time of sale and other factors affecting these sales. I have concluded that the demand for property in downtown Aspen is strong and will continue to be strong in the near future. It is an area which offers many amenities and has potential for continued demand by purchasers. MoÂ· conclusion is that should this house be razed or removed and this 4500 square foot lot be considered as raw land, I would estimate the value of this property with the excisting improvement to be more or less 3500,000.00. If, however, the house must remain and cannot be razed or removed, I would estimate the current market value of the property with the excisting improvement to be more or less $200,000.00. It is unlikely that the seller would be motivated to sell at this priceas she would be unable to find another residence in Aspen with these limited funds. If there is any furlher information you require, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely yours, /1, Lion Anne Austin Broker Associate, GRI AA/jh wIR .- -.-1 An InceoendeÂ«y 06'992 art ODerateo Versor of Coldwell Banke' ResÂ·oer,1 al ANINates Inc \ MLS CHARLES CUNNIFFE &ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 520 EAST HYMAN, SUITE 301, ASPEN. CO 81612 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUiNNIFFE, A.LA EXHIBIT 5 September 1, 1989 Ms. Roxanne Eflin Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado Re: Architectural Concept for 624 East Hopkins Avenue Redevelopment Plan Aspen, Colorado Dear Roxanne: We have prepared Conceptual Design drawings for the referenced property in compliance with the Planning Office requirement for a Redevelopment Plan in order for the Demolition Application to be approved. As a part of the submission package, we will elaborate on the design parameters that were addressed in developing the concept. The subject property is located in a C-1, Commercial Zoning District. However, it is the intention of the Contract Purchaser to construct a three story residential townhouse on the site for the personal use of the purchaser and his family. As you know, the property is surrounded on both sides by relatively recently constructed buildings. The KSNO Building to the west is as high as current zoning code permits (40 ft.) and the Professional Building to the east is approximately 25 ft. tall at the ridges of the sawtooth roof. This situation dictates that in order for any views to be captured, the living area must be sufficiently elevated to enable the occupant to have views above the Professional Building toward Independence Pass to the east. The one story Victorian houses across Hopkins Avenue to the south do not obstruct the views of Ajax nor does the proposed residence obstruct anyone's view from any direction. . Page 2 With this in mind, and considering the rather small amount of F.A.R. area allowed for single family use on this property (2,820 sq. ft.), we have designed a three story solution that adjoins the KSNO Building but leaves a fairly generous side yard view corridor along the Professional Building. The 25% open space requirement (1,125 sq. ft.) is met in the front yard and in the view corridor which focuses on the two specimen blue spruce trees to the rear of the lot. We believe the preservation of these trees and the attention they will draw to the overall aesthetics is a real plus. Also,the center of the side yard terraces down to allow a court at the basement level for some living area that is exempt from F.A.R. restrictions. The architecture is conceived as a slightly contemporary interpretation of Victorian forms and motifs that Will be compatible with the Historically Designated houses across Hopkins Avenue. The height and proportions of the proposed building will be compatible with the KSNO Building, but the pitched roof forms and articulation of balconies and decks, fenestration, etc. of the Â·-'Â«cad building will scale it down to a more residential i. 1, J k.-i.... townhouse character. This will provide a pleasing counterpoint to the rather brutal scale and massing of its neighbor. The materials being contemplated include sandstone masonry walls, wrought iron balcony/deck guardrails, clad wood windows, exposed aggregate or stamped pattern concrete walks and Class B rated wood shingles. The overall effect being sought is a soft, somewhat "countryfied" character that is at ease in a small town environment and tones down the rather urban look of -it' s immediate neighbors. ' 0 Page 3 We respectfully believe this proposed residence will be a handsome and contextual addition to the neighborhood and will help to soften the transition from the C-1 commercial to the Office/Residential areas to the east. We will be glad to provide any further information you may require in your evaluation of this submission. Please do not hesitate to call. Thank you for your consideration. S inp-sp ely, ~ i~j <<*--*r<A -- C L - L./~/u/t'e L-0-~ lial@>1,Â·Lit* l,/Â·- Janfer C. Derrington; AVA Archicect 1 JCD/sm Encl. 1 1 - 1 0 - R Fy . )- B 3 b . ------ ------1.---- 1 n /-,4 1 1.1'n 3 -Â«01*ff_-- 1-- -- - - 7 9 - - -. G 2 f 9 7 1- 3 1 -1 (Â·.:1 i 41-* Fi) 0 ~~~~ ~~~~~~__~_~_~ a 5 -2 1 8 r' 1 - I OP. 1 -- V- 9, D r N 11 r) 1 f 4 6 -R 1 i.. 1 yoy I J \ Fr-7, p U : k &842 00 / -1 1 . 1 - --- F r: 7 71 1 b r 2 r / 1 71 11, -- C & I . ._--- 0 -- /B l__ L i .../ : E -- 3 3 7 > ~ Â·Â« 2 3 ~ Cil<--~, _cj~ --4111I1T-F . ' -1- I 1 1 4 --- r 4\ .4, -1 i 1---- I iMIT-493 2 f l 1--Ill-$ *fl----T-'-il-- - - ...L. . 73 Â·. I 4 8 - 4 .- , 7-3 80'9 rif 11' - t' 7 </ ,\ . Z F -2- . r f 1 - C i-- M 1 =1 m 5 9 -1 - . U 7<- if lit m 8 4 <-0 â‚¬ 1, i 5 $ --- - 3 8 i r im fi C Z 2 . /4 2, C 4/ 7 1 . 2.-1 1 1 1 6,24 E, Horh r.-1, /5 Â»/ E-h](.vE CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCH[TECTS K 1 REE-DEVE[-of/,AF'11Â·4T Flâ€žAN i C.1 .-1.-L 43 6 1 4 :i 603- r E N, Col--Cr=,10(3 P O Pr). 1534. ASPEN. COLOIR,rx) Al/,t 2 TFI Ff-1 IONF- 101,'72.,Â·.,r,90 07<= 2741*95 '=1 1 r -4 ./--9 I \ 9Â·ro KA4 E l f f â‚¬ TZ- F,E C.-2 212-0 EL 2:22; E z 3~= 1 W ! 6PE-(46 4-KEE- Kâ‚¬-4 CD 5,0 -Dwo . r -P. 6-DE 7-7 ~ -1 124. lEi. 4 1- 1 E,/DIL --- L -401 2 1 . i 'r 1 I 1 1 1 r 1 1 i i K u 1 -/cou .4 j T 1 N TEM-A.C.E 9 - - r-/-377/14- L ~ S TO Â£ AG Â£ 1 C B keE. 4'\ E k: - PLA k r. ~\4\ .-1 64 0 t,Â¥-1 C k. 1 / -If 1411: 0 Ecp LiÂ· . ~ -Â» 2 1 1[=-1 lil L -0 HE h N I - -- -1 EX / - 1 C LI'- \ 3 -/ i .1 I ' ri If r -- 4 i El EL-3 -4 1 (,1 1 h H d -- 1 1 (111111 1,1.2 1. 114 Ill, 1 6,14 E. H c-'T~>LI N 0 2~29' E.NLI E C}W?LES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHUTECTS 03 6 31 6 A F.EPEEVE.l Â·f..?f-/.1/'. EEH-T T 1-Abl AQrIE,4 , Col 712..'..DO PO BOX 3534. AUTN, COLOMIX) 81612 TFLFfl for'JF 101,'925 7,90 - i O 1 -1 k,iNG -1-3 . A . 2 XII .r j llc 1 r < ran f , 2 . 1 , 411 -4 , 1. 1. ' t,1 J '11! 1 1, 1' , it , 1 L - MI- i-, 1 1 1 ,>\ 11 ' 1 1 1 ' lu M --- \ : 1, ; 1 1~ fr= i 9 i. ' ) f f . Lt 0-E.â€¢4 1 / 1 / 1 1,4 ..III j . - 1 111 :_ 4 / , V - t - â‚¬,- L-- SECOND #10012. 12.-AN /// 4 - 5. D = 1-Ji 25 A) 9, -, 0 - --------I- 1 t, C /. '1 1 t 9 I -- N { 011<1< 1, .,i lifil--I-fl FEll 11 1- - -- L 11 A -i- ---- .-- - - --- n - -- U 3 / 1 KNN 1 It' 0 n f / 7, ... -- 4 -1-2- i 1 9 6 1 9 - H 7 3- low- n 11 r. -1 0 . 1 -. -- #.1--.I in L vt>1 ' 1 1 11 it. C f -1- -=:1.---:- 1, . y h. \./ fu, i r' N -, T \ I ' - .-<./.--1 li 2- .,0 4 1 -- , 1 ' o 2 C.J. r ' l ---\ \ r 9 4,24 E. 11421 Y.,l' 1 'r 'A:/FIL}J l] FE CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIUFF//V?CI ITTECTS A . D E BED EVE Lon'' i n r I T el A i j i f. 6 1 17-,- 1.-4 'r. D 6.AFEN, C..'UL,-?12.5 1 ''-7 PO BOX 3531. AVEN, COI C.yaDO PIA,17 TE-1 F n fONE 101,/77; r r'r~0 1 i ALLEY BLOCK 98 1. . c. W.DE. 42. t.â€¢?41:.2 E-â€¢ /90.. t 2.,' ENCROAC~MENT \ ,Â·S' ENCK,940441:NT ' / . El,GE OF i.j-HA- r / 7 - - %. . :e /1 --1 ': 7>' rÂ·U'..'E REL 1 .1 11 1 4... i ' Al., . n . .1 -U- - U- 2 F.-4 2, 4 1 - 1 1 1 - I.. 1. '' 1 J -1, 6-. -Ii-li --I- r 1 -- E E. C 1 -- 1 1 - - ' *I . - Â·i) , 1 1 0 % I 6,1 .JI *M '-i-- = 2.-1 -1 . I. .' .-1\.; - ~ - 1 1 , 0 3, ,/., Ul,U, 14 : , e- 6- 2/2 \1' 4 1 - -1, \ 11 Pr METEK - i e 7 .9 - 6 - -2 ul , 1 1i -- 11 'I- I . 1 - , -- I -I. It AÂ·DITT- ADDREIF â‚¬2' , 34 2, E J Z 0/' \ 1 7 6., \. 1 IF/ 1 + 1 1 '1= i .61 â€¢A- 1 r 10 00 'IN- ! -/ ..1 : . - r r â€¢79; i ' - 1,,-ELâ€¢7uil.1 , 0 , k E F fre..- i _ 1 j p~*' kiI. c :*2.KET: LAIL WA-1. 1 F LOw L I NE OF CURE ' ). - In ') C/ . I '. . - ... .4. .Z. 1 LITr All,4- -â€¢ vz 2 + L-' L 913+*.- , v ift ._ 7. END I ' Aa FT 04 ' 4 ;.'< L 'U-Â·1~1 â€¢,Al,lit , >6 ILS .9:il; 3 0 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Demolition and Redevelopment: 17 Queen Street Public Hearing Date: September 27, 1989 On Site Review: September 27; 3:00 p.m. LOCATION: 17 Queen St., Aspen, Colorado, described as Parcel 1, of the boundary agreement plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 13 at Page 35, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado ZONING: R-15 A (Moderate Density Residential) RATING: "4", not designated AGE OF STRUCTURE: c. 1891 APPLICANT: Lana Trettin, proposed purchaser, for Ethelyne E. Vea, owner; represented by Leonard M. Oates (attorney) and Marc Friedberg HPC MONITOR: not yet assigned APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Demolition approval for the single family structure located on the parcel, and redevelopment to include a single family home. SITE, AREA AND BULK CHARACTERISTICS: 1~t size: 0 undetermined-approx.20,000' Minimum Lot size 15,000' Existing FAR (dwelling unit): approx. 1,000' Proposed sq. ft. undisclosed Allowable sq. ft. approx. 4,800' Existing height: approx. 16-18' Proposed height: undisclosed Allowable maximum height: 25' Open Space Requirement: none PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Ordinance 17, Series of 1989, amending the Land Use Code approved by Council last April, requires HPC approval for the demolition, partial demolition or relocation of any structure identified on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. The Standards for Demolition Review are located in Section 7-602(B)(1-4). The Land Use Code States: Section 7-602.A.: "No demolition of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to Section 7-709, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay district shall be permitted unless the demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the standards of Section 7-602.B." Staff finds the application to be complete, with the exception of a full conceptual development application for the redevelopment. Standard 1. The structure proposed for demolition is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure. Response: Letter responses (attached) indicate the structure is not structurally sound. We believe these statements to be generally correct. There is no evidence that the present owner nor the resident has made efforts to properly maintain the structure for many years. (Please refer to letter from tenant Steve Crockett enclosed.) We find that "demolition by neglect" does not meet the goals of the community, and the purpose of the HPC. We find that the application has not met this standard. Standard 2. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property. Response: Letter responses (attached) from the applicant indicate tremendous effort would be involved in a rehab of this nature, which staff does not dispute. That fact is evident simply in the visible deferred maintenance of the property. The applicant further states that the economics of such an extensive rehabilitation make the project unreasonable, using a $200/sq. ft. rehab cost. Staff has received a number of public inquiries on this project, ranging from "demolition is appropriate" to "keep it exactly as it is". This property has significant integrity as a historic resource in very original (though poorly maintained) condition. The problem it faces is in its location, trapped in an area of Aspen that is becoming more densely developed, with neighbors growing more intolerant of its dilapidated state. For example, if this complex of historic miner's buildings were located in a more rural, rustic setting, it could be considered "charming". This is a difficult parcel for the HPC to review, as the historic integrity is not readily evident to most. The property obviously didn't look that way when it was built, so "keeping it as is" does not seem to be a reasonable alternative. It could serve the entire community (and a tenant) better if in were in reasonably renovated condition. Currently, its condition violates Section 7-606, the Minimum Maintenance Requirements, of the Code. The cottage's focal point, the front porch, appears 2 totally original, one of only a couple dozen original porches left in Aspen. The preservation of its form and columns is desirable, and restoration of the remainder extremely simple to accomplish. Staff questions the need to totally strip off the exterior clapboard, and refers to information published by the National Trust "Preservation Briefs" regarding the rehydrating of older exterior siding to allow paint to adhere. The main structure's scale, massing, and height directly relate to historic western vernacular architecture prevalent in Aspen in the 1880's and 1890's. We believe that a rehab is not unrdasonable, as demonstrated first hand by no less than four (4) recent HPC approved projects: The Smith-Elisha Carriage House, the 201 W. Francis carriage house, the 334 W. Hallam carriage house, and the entire Hallet House at 432 W. Francis. Each of these projects involved extensive rehab work, both inside and out, and though considered nearly "reconstructions", the original structural system left in tact provided the framework on which to apply new fabric. The results have been very good and the historic form maintained. It appears obvious, therefore, that a reconstruction is feasible. On the other hand, we are currently witnessing the incompatible results of a non-approved demolition (code violation) and reconstruction, where no original structural members were left to serve as the "blueprint", and the redevelopment is bearing no relation to the original historic structure or its adjacent neighbors (920 Matchless Drive.) The applicant addresses Part 2 of this Standard regarding reasonable beneficial use by adding the cost of rehab ($200,000) to the cost of the land ($500,000) and calculating the debt service vs. the potential income over the period of the loan (30 years), thereby making the rehab. We understand the applicant wishes to construct a single family dwelling on this site of very different architectural style, however, it is important that the HPC examine closely the intent and applicability of this standard addressing "reasonable beneficial use". It is not our desire in any way to disallow development on the site thereby creating a hardship on the current owner, who is in process of selling the property to Mr. and Mrs. Trettin. Staff's issues focus on the important role this historic resource plays in the overall community picture, and feel that many alternatives exist. For years, preservation incentives have been allowed for designation landmarks. The "incentives/benefit package" has been significantly increased, making the "economics of historic preservation" much easier for a property owner to handle. It is appropriate to encourage the applicant to study these incentives, This basic "designation/incentives" alternative has not been addressed by the applicant. The Planning Office is examining ways to preserve whatever 3 historic housing stock exists. This zone district was apparently overlooked in past code amendment pertaining to two detached dwelling units on one designated parcel, a situation which we ( hope to remedy shortly. Duplexes are allowed, but the design issues might be too overwhelming for the small cottage. Staff intends to prepare and process a code amendment which would allow the similar incentives found in the R-6 zone district here (and in other zone districts were historic resources exist). Time is needed to examine this avenue and process accordingly. This two- dwelling-unit incentive would allow the parcel to contain both the applicant's new residence AND the (renovated) historic cottage, providing rental income to- the owner. This would eliminate the argument of no "reasonable beneficial use", and would in fact be an excellent incentive to renovating the historic cottage. Landmark designation would be required, and other incentives may be had such as setback variations, minimum distance between buildings, FAR (up to 500 sq. ft. over the maximum - 1/2 of the existing building!), and parking. Also, the $2,000 designation grant is available from the City. The Planning Office strongly encourages the applicant to use some creatively in this development plan by taking advantage of all the benefits that might be available to them to preserve this structure. We find that the application has not met this standard. Standard 3. The structure cannot be practicably moved to another site in Aspen. Response: It is quite obvious that a move, at whatever distance, would be delicate. Staff is not questioning the technical and practical considerations associated with the relocation. It can be argued that relocation is one step above demolition in that either action destroys original context. However, staff recommends strongly that the HPC consider a relocation on site, and a revised application addressing the topography and siting issues associated with this. other individuals have approached the Aspen Historic Trust and the Planning Office discussing the potential to move the structure(s) down the hill (across Queen St.) to the City-owned "park", which has remained rough and undeveloped for years. Their goal involves a "museum-type" structure, and involving the Aspen Historical Society. Staff does not readily support this concept over others, however, if the HPC considers this a feasible approach, the Aspen Historic Trust should be consulted for their advice and assistance. We find the application has not met this standard. Standard 4. The applicant demonstrates that the proposal mitigates to the greatest extent practical, the following: 4 a. Any impacts that occur to the character of the neighborhood where demolition is proposed to occur. b. Any impact on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels C. Any impact to the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels. Response: Staff's response combines three issues in Standard 4. obviously, a demolition would irretrievably impact any historic and architectural importance of the structure, as well as the neighborhood. Granted, the historic context of the Smuggler Mountain area has diminished over the years, however, this cottage has withstood the test of time (so to speak) at this location, somewhat of the "entrance" to the area. To lose this reminder of our working class past not only sets a precedent for future demolitions throughout the Smuggler area and the entire community, but it does not meet the goals of the HPC and the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. With its demolition, a complete loss of historic importance and architectural integrity would occur, and the historic neighborhood character would further diminish. Many of the Smuggler Mountain area historic structures have been allowed to deteriorate significantly over the years, making the arguments for preservation (form, materials, etc.) extremely difficult for the Planning Office and HPC to convince property owners to do. However, as previously discussed, the multitude of preservation incentives developed over the last three years for landmarks provide many benefits and positive reasons to preserve. With the amount of local design talent and technology Of renovation, outright demolition of Aspen's finite historic resources, at whatever level on the "integrity" scale, disregards the long-range preservation goals of the community, the Planning office and the Historic Preservation Committee. We find the application has not met this standard. REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: The applicant has submitted a redevelopment application, (enclosed) indicating a single-family development, in extremely conceptual form. The design bears no relationship to the height, mass and scale of what it proposes to replace. Should a demolition or relocation be approved by the HPC, the Planning Office recommends a significant re-study of the redevelopment, with some historic compatiblity in mind, combined with a complete conceptual development application. 5 STAFF SUMMARY: There are approximately 16 historic structures left in the Smuggler Mountain area. Historically, this area was more sparsely populated than other neighborhoods in Aspen. Just as in the East End, we can only predict that the remaining historic structures in this neighborhood will vanish before the year 2000. Zoning, the very nature of "eroding context", and rapidly rising land values, makes the preservation task extremely difficult. However, we have worked hard to develop a comprehensive set of incentives for projects just like this one, that allow a win-win: the property owner is allowed to develop the property as they (generally) prefer, while saving a historic dwelling unit which might possibly produce rental income. 17 Queen Street IS unique. There is little doubt that the historic cottage is in an advanced state of deterioration. While its dislodged and sagging front porch, pealing paint and cupped siding might indicate it is a "shack" and totally devoid of historic and architectural integrity or importance to the community, it still represents historic Aspen and deserves to be renovated. The outbuildings are in unbelievable original condition. The exterior clapboard is in better condition than one might think at first glance, the front porch can be exactly replicated. The roof appears to be in relatively good shape, and the additions are quite and subservient in nature to the main cottage. The interior does need an overhaul; building code violation issues seem obvious. The "lack of context" issue is becoming a favorite of developer consultants. As the HPC allows more demolitions, obviously the lack of historic context becomes an even greater argument for yet more demolitions. Just as in the East End, the Smuggler area is just as vulnerable to historic resource eradication. There are now only a fraction of those left, scattered throughout blocks of larger eclectic architecture. We have the ability to stop a total loss of historic resources in this end of Aspen through a combination of preservation incentives and creative rehab design solutions. The Planning Office recommends that more effort go into saving this finite historic resource, utilizing the incentive resources available as previously stated. ALTERNATIVES: Manv alternatives are possible for the HPC to consider in this application. 1. Approve the demolition and redevelopment application as proposed 2. Approve the demolition and redevelopment application with conditions, particularly on the proposed redevelopment 3. Table action, finding further study is necessary by the applicant on specific issues 6 - 4. Deny approval finding the application does not meet any of the Demolition Review Standards, as stated in staff's memo. 5. Suspend action, per Section 7-602(E) of the Land Use Code, which states: "The HPC shall be authorized to suspend action on a demolition, partial demolition or relocation application when it finds that it needs additional information to determind whether the application meets the standards of Section 7-602(B) or that the proposal is a matter of such great public concern to the City that alternatives to the demolition, partial demolition or relocation must be studied jointly be the City and the owner. Alternatives which the HPC may consider having studied shall include, but not be limited to, finding economically beneficial uses of the structure, removal of the structure to a suitable location, providing public subsidy to the owner to preserve the structure, identifying a public entity capable of public acquisition of the structure, or revision to the demolition, partial demolition or relocation and development plan." "The HPC shall be required to specify the additional information it requires or the alternatives it finds should be studied when it suspends action on the demolition, partial demolition, or relocation application. Action shall only be suspended for the amount of time it shall take for the necessary information to be prepared and reviewed by the Planning Director, but in no case shall suspension be for a period to exceed six (6) months." RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC suspend action per Section 7-602(E) for a period not to exceed six (6) months, to allow time for the City and applicant to study alternatives to demolition, and seek the assistance of the Aspen Historic Trust. Additional information shall be submitted to the Planning Office by the applicant on or prior to six (6) months from the date the suspension action was taken, at which time the proposal will be scheduled for review by the HPC. memo.hpc.17Q 7 9; + p . - . - 1 t' 4. 219,312': k lj.! ~ = : f: ':1 q-,4 Ii,Â£2*.,I<,;< 46634) 4<te#ittj~01#.tai<XWSTA:2*Laft&11.-31 4 311.1 1 973â€¢Â·-------------L_.0,Â¢eME,inZeRZF)7,1 .....4 k Â»~233Â«tdi**49~.y3iEbid#~%%7~~~~~;t~~'~~~w.~Â»4Â»144~~~:Ai.*~.~.~~:~:fiL.47:~3: . L i 2/ , -I . TOLF.gb Li: 10,5444Â·, , 1' j 14. \1 \41/-vt h \ j pv *tritte.*83.1 9 :344. . ///Al.*7 ..4/ I 2Â»*A<-G ~' 1 ..: -2 9/.2~Â£~S~~~~~~.~~ //Â« / 1/ /26*217<*-~'. , \ 41.- f ' / 3 .ke *: vi....f..1 3%*\7-"fit 2//2 %el-- 4 1 i. / 4. 1.+ i. r f 1 /4.....-*- --- r././. 4 -/â‚¬37.-- / / ./ 1, 16 1 / 1 --JUVf f / impvme-, / , 4,WI -' t 1 \,1 , 1 1 . ki ,\'~ 4 '~3~ 1 '~~~~</ ~ V ' 4, 4/~ .,2 ~ - / i /3 \\ 11 (44<11 t., CHI /1 . V ' 3 /17, 1 i 1 j. 0 .A -- t,1 1-litt /r#x .. ~k.â‚¬;1-4.-,-Â·2*~tÂ· 'C) 24,-Â·51.9-4- 6.-41-~Â·f YS, d "/ 0.77.-5 /05'..1 1.l * '. ..~. OIl1 A , :.>1. . --IZ . ......~ 46' , 4 1 {731.. . O M O 3 2 , i 0 1 (1 I 44\..\\\ \ 1 ,\ f.'-'. ' ..'.-Â·9-, f> 'f'34#1744\ 1\\XU.,y NE,AL- *4'ENUE MAten-4 5;UOY z Til.,064. g_ i.-4. cc- '422.. . OR..4- O.Ja.L<4_y.c. I M â€¢5â€¢,6-,604 t'l 61 r"th * 1;:11-5* ,~~fit, Â»tÂ·-Â·'~ 14 . ~ 11 11 ..0-,:E,;wA.'i'*Xi 41 A - F:A 1 1 vâ€¢-er-r.,t 7-9*61*H,Â¥ , Â¥4 r ' A*,4â€¢ ''0' 2 2 M. a -0 *41*04 4,1.*..44Â·flf Â·-Â· . V -' 4 , - - .rr . ~~.,Aimr#*p~.19930;f#* 2=.t'*49 IiiÂ·41.-ti/*+9 4**, 0.#, ~ . 10 f.2/ 4/, 47 2,3,4 #0,1 -ky , Â· Â·Â·~:i i,Â· â€¢f- â€¢~ 7,- 1 '1 U If - ..,-r. '~ . . A,~., ip e.4.~0:*Â¥'193.4,p~771 *41 1, :::5;44*Â¥,y , 12:1 Â·4~,-ikÂ«*44*'jp**49;(.5-;:92'f(:3.t:, *44Â©u :LAP il 9 131 Z t?:.44.) .1111.Z: 11#M;fitt; 1 6).24 y i, C.22.1 .2 4 7 4 ~ i I; 1.72 72941:1,247 ' 81*4# Â¥*J~}* :' A - 2 4. ,.2.*, ' â€ž f <33<Â£ 1 1< 4-_21,~:Â« , f. I '11->i. . crki A / /-- - - H'- h C ' ~01- l'f..7-1 -1-41 2~ 7/ r ~ E - r +6*-.-1.-40.- f Nk -. 5 ~.k: - - i .1 f 11 - 1 1-:-/ 1 , 1 1 . :' 1, Gl. : 2..1 ' / 1.1., r.-2 ..{ 'll-,-' .0 -.Ilt ./ 1 't/Â£. Â· Il MT,77:irrzj6Â¥i'N"r- . t. 1 ..1 7-- v.40*Â·Â»t'IP.844.:<iN-dfli.'~, 71 j Â·AÂ¥ 541 Â·'5Â£630 '\3:44*42.1, 1 1, -1 . 1 7.1.... ./. . r - I- Â·-1 1 1 1 TT . Â¥ 1 ... *Â· 2if' 1 4,4444*411116%it.- 1,/- 325>p'. 1 1 -1 ---- ...4 V L tÂ· ' T . +12 1 , tti. i ....1 3 \ 1 i 7 LIRT' d-: 1 -, .-- T 1. (1 1, 1 ' ' i , i U Â·Â·Â· 1.1 \ 1 1 1/1 ' I , rk "It. --- .-,1- .....1.---0:1.-4.-1 \\\.4-\\ /l:. .2 4' 4, 1. ..1 1 \f.Â· // , . -* *.* :' 1 't::'T\V;. ' ''' ' 'M <w )Â· //4 b i i. Iii'$ i .~ff:i . i Â· f k ' \ . 1.' ' 1.1 :w-ii 437 b 33-;4*-6 C -1-64--ceÂ·- ./ e.ft,-L+ - CÂ»E c."C <1*L,3.Di p.c. ~ . ro, 6-Â£.fr.,1....EJe'VAM ..02 %29.\) rl,r ~,/ 525. >; / 1 /7.4.- 1 4 2 11 4 1. 1 > - -- 75 0, .\ Int. --- --~-- -" - L.- 1,1. 11 Nek\- AvekILÂ¥ 9.Al>enAJA N-OC>r' Tu >6*ki 12.-2--cul-60â‚¬-- 6.Lw 9% 0.-cÂ»U... : 0227* cb.Jubit, e.c.. 3, t.,4.-t,4Â«0, 19 7 9 f./ 1. 3 STANDARDS FOR REVIEW OF DEMOLITION (TRETTIN HISTORIC DEMOLITION) The following is intended to address the demolition review standards contained in Section 7-602B1-4 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code to the extent not addressed elsewhere in the Trettin Historic Demolition Application. The references herein are specifically to Sections (B) (1) through Section 4C, in- elusive: 1. As is evidenced by the report of Wayne Rudd, the report of Theodore K. Guy Associates, P.C., Home Owner's Evaluation Sheet and the letter of Steve Crockett, the present tenant of the subject property, it is clear the structure is not structurally sound. See attached collage of photographs which reflect the overall condition of the property. At least two major additions have been made to the house since it was built which clearly diminishes the structure's historic significance. It is estimated that only approximately 200 square feet remain of the original structure, consisting of the front entry and hall. (See the second paragraph of the June 26, 1989 letter from Stephen Peightal, P.E. of Theodore K. Guy and Associates.) Mrs. Vea is an elderly person and resides in the Pacific Northwest. She has personally had no opportunity to maintain the structure. She has not lived there since 1941. Obviously, she has owned the property for many years, and was unaware that she would ever be held accountable for the condition of the property which had deteriorated to an extremely poor condition even before the City of Aspen applied a standard thereto intending to penalize property owners for failure to maintain. Maintenance of the property has been the sole responsibility of the present tenant of the property who has resided there for 17 years. Lana Trettin is a contract purchaser and has no ability to do so. The responsibility therefore, for the maintenance has been with the existing tenant of the property. 2. Because of the structure's extremely poor condition and size relative to the lot and the hillside topography of the lot, the existing structure does not lend itself to being rehabilitated or reused and integrated on the site to provide a reasonable beneficial use of the property. The contract purchaser of the property, Lana Trettin, intends to occupy the property as her family residence with her husband and children. Any attempt at rehabilitation or reuse of the structure in a renovated condition on the site would not permit the development of the remainder of the property in a practical manner for the purposes intended by Mrs. Trettin. 3. Efforts have been made to work with a local historic preservation groups in order to find a suitable place to move the structure. That group is The Aspen Historic Trust. 4 Mrs. Trettin would not propose to demolish the structure until approximately April 15, 1990. As a consequence additional time is available to find a location for the structure in conjunction with the local groups and agencies. The Applicant will remain committed to efforts to try to find a location to which the structure can be moved in conjunction with these various groups. 4 (a) . The neighborhood in which the property lies does not contain a significant number of buildings of an historic nature. Immediately across the street from the subject property and to the west is Herron Park. To the south is a vacant area and then the Roaring Fork River. To the north of the property is King Street and to the west of property are shacks, converted trailers, etc., vintage 1940-1950's which are in extremely poor condition. As a consequence, any redevelopment will be a definite upgrade of the neighborhood. Recently, the Tacker house immediately across the street from the subject property was purchased and is in line for an upgrade. Another piece of property on Queen Street of a contemporary nature was recently upgraded. (b) Upon demolition of this property, there will be no impact whatsoever because there are no structures on the subject parcel. Also, to the best of our knowledge, there are no historic structures located on the adjacent parcels. (C) Because the lot will be redeveloped in its entire- ty there will be no impact on the architectural integrity of any of the structures located on the subject property or adjacent parcels. There is no common thread of design appearance or type of structure in the neighborhood, or either on the subject property or on the adjacent parcels. LMO13.04 -2- . Al BRADEN McCORMICK REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE PROPER TY MANAGE MENT August 24, 1989 City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Attention: Roxanne Eflin RE: 17 Queen Street, Aspen, Colorado Dear Roxanne, I have been asked to render my opinion of value of the subject property under the following conditions. 1. In its Current Condition. At this time the property is uninsurable and totally uninhabitable for obvious health and safety reasons. Under these conditions, the property is of no real value without extensive rehabilitation. 2. Rehabilitation Feasibility. The structure has been so neglected that to consider a rehabilitation of the structure would entail an expense at least double the cost of building the structure from scratch. I would estimate that to tear the building down in a manner that would allow for saving any of the exterior materials, building an entirely new substructure, including all new electrical, plumbing, etc, would run at least $200,000. Added to the $500,000 cost of the land and assuming servicing a debt of $700,000 for 30 years at 10%, the monthly payment would run $6,143. Rental income from a rehabilitated structure of 1,000 square feet in its present location could not be expected to net more than $2,000 per month. A negative of $4,100 a month for 30 years would require a total subsidy of $1,476,000 over the life of the mortgage. Of course the rents would increase over time, but this would be mitigated by increased costs and maintenance. 3. After Demolition. The purchase price of $500,000 would be a reasonable price for the lot cleared of structures less the cost of demolition. 4. After Partial Demolition. I cannot comment on this aspect without knowing the extent of demolition. 5. After Relocation. The land would have a reasonable value of $500,000. 400 East Ihirnan Avenue Aspen. Colorado 81611 (303) 920-4700 FAX(303) 920-4432 Historic Preservation Commission August 24, 1989 Page 2 My experience in the real estate field includes 10 years as a Colorado Real Estate Broker and 6 years prior as a Real Estate Broker in California. I have constructed over 3,000 apartment and condominium units throughout the Western United States and several commercial projects. My rehabilitation experience includes over 400 apartment and condominium units and 9 single family homes. I earned a degree in Real Estate from Valley College in Los Angeles which included several Real Estate Appraisal courses. I have been a resident of Aspen for 10 years and I am very familiar with the subject property. If any further information is required, please feel free to call me. Sincerely,_--sns:Sy ---- Ralph Braden Broker/Owner 1 - 1-1 L. LL 1-Â· 1_ 1~ 1 11 11 1-Â·. L. dI PELLE(ICI-iIA Â· OLSON ARCHITECTS 25 August 1989 Aspen Historical Preservation Committee Ms. Roxanne Eflin c/o Braden-McCormack 400 East Hyman Aspen, Colorado 81611 re: Trettin Residence Dear Ms. Eflin: We have been asked by Henry and Lana Trettin to identify our reasons for recommending the demolition of the existing structures 'on their site. The existing structures are in very poor condition and are actually falling apart. The largest structure, the residence, is located directly jn the center of the site. Any attempt to relocate it would undoubtedly result in total collapse. Piece-by-piece disassembly would be the only salvage option. Were the present buildings retained, two basic planning options would exiSt. The first is to build alongside and among the existing structures. Given the site dimensions and the Trettins' program, the new building would be either pushed to the required setbacks at one or the other end of the site or be forced to straddle the old building. The second option is to encompass the old structure in the new building, as a museum would. This would greatly increase the scale of the new construction, both in terms of building mass and sight coverage. Either of these options would present an obstacle to efficient circulation patterns through the house and impose a specific lifestyle on the owners. Stylistically, were the original building retained, the most obvious choices are to mimic its Victorian era style in the new construction or to totally contrast it. Neither of these are appropriate to either the site or to the desires of the Trettins. A Professional Corporation Roxanne Eflin 25 August 1989 Page 2 Although not yet designed, the basic concepts of the new house have been discussed and somewhat defined. The house is to be perceptibly small on the site. It will be inwardly oriented, but take advantage of the spectacular views. It will physically follow the contours of the land. It will be quiet rather than ostentatious. In summation, it is our perception that retention of the existing building is incompatible with the Irettins' program and design goals for the new house. Sincerely, Jeofref W. Olson, AIA PELLECCHIA-OLSON ARCHITECTS, P.C. 8905 -, 2 : I J June 26,1989 --- Lana Trellin P.O. Box 6149 Snownuss Village, CO 81615 Re: Structural Observation . (ben St.reet ~ Dear L,u: At your request. I mada a visual inspection of the above refurenced structurs on May 17,1989. The Intent of this walk through Is to observe Signs of distress and record condition of building elements. The original massing of this dwelling, forming a T-snape In plan. ts bellavad to be a turn of lh8 century 'miner's- cabin. Additional massIng has been added to the east which Serves as kitchen space, and to the north Â·which serves Presently as storage space. A utility room and a bathroom , ha've been added, both constructed slmilar to rool cellars on the north and east sides. Large gaps exist between thess two elemants. at the frame walls. Exurtor concarns include the condition of Lhe horizontal wood lap siding. Considerabla areas of delerionation and weathering exist. Lateral integrity of the building has been greally reduced. Without any treatment in recent years, pjanks are so dry they will fall off from impacl. Roof ridges indicate 3 sag of the roof structure. Wood shingle5 are dried ouL, and in Some areas splil and missing. Metal roofing is loose and curled up at some areas. A hole in the roof has been allowed to remain open . This exposure of frame to weather has loken a toll on both the finish and primary structure. It is anucipalad thal the roof live load capacity of this structure would be found as dangerously low. It is fell that structural collaose has been avoided during winter months due only to the cononuous snow removal by the tenant. Exoosure of the primary frame to the elements 15 evident by the extensive water slains, sagging and rolled ceiling planks over the kitchen and storage areas. The north wall of lhe storage area has been buill into l.he side of the hil), with soil up against tha wood fram6. The occupant reports the soil is moving above 1- per year. This area also shows extensive wood rot. out of plumb framing, and Seltlement. Floors at the storage area and Ilving room have areas of rot, and holes covered by carpet. The foundation Is stone with a coal of Cement parging breiking off in many areas. It appears as though soi) is very close to the floor joists, leaving no real crawl space. No ventitalion 18 found, and extensive wood rot is anticipated through-out the floors. No doors apgear to work weil at all. Some are failing off of hInges. The porch structure on the west side is in total disrepair and deterioration. The porch roof and deck framing has dropped down and pulled away from the main building. Also. the south porch roof lacks any real Structural Integrity. Intarior wall board is falling away from lt,e structure al the south west room. and old ball insulation is stuffed Into place. CONCLUSIONS Recommended work deols primarily with structural concerns only. Il is advisAd that a cUe review De performed to belter address short comings of other life-safely concerns. It Is recommended thai Lhe two hot cellar components be demolished. Safe reconstruction is nol considered as viable because little remains that is salvage,Dle. The storage room to the north Is also best demolisned. - and holds very little Integrity as built int.0 the upper slope. - JUM SO '89 10:40 THEODORE K GUY AS'SOC PC A P.3 THEODORE K GUY 1SSOCIATES PC AACHITEC78 ANO BTR ,'UAAL ENOINIERS I-/ V Lana Trellin CLÂ·.AL...1 216*.r-â€¢â€¢,MURn Cueen Street Page 2 Should il be elected to upgrade the original miner's cabin, and the east kitchen addition, for occupancy the following ls a general list of structural work required. 1. The stone foundallon depth is unknown, with questionable integrity. Worsl case approach may include removal and replacement. Possible foundalion repair may include re-grouling |0058 slone, provided adequate bearing depth is present. 2. The inlegrily of Uie floors and floor joists can be considered as lost. Complete noor structure will need to be replaced and Includes sheathing, Joists, glrders, post and pads. Crawl space excavation and ventilation is required. 3. All inttrior finish material will need lo be removed to reach the roof, wall and floor framing. The roof framing will need to be reinforced or rebulll 10 safely handle snow loads. Replacing roof sheathing and new roofing will be required lo prolacl the slruclure from the elements. 4. The majority of Ute exterfor wall sidIng and Sheathing will need to he removed. Areas of delerloraled frame will need reinforcement or replacament. New wall sheathing and siding will be required lo prolect the Structure from ftirther decay. 5. None of Ute lhree porch Structures Is fell to have repairable cornponents. Complats removal and replacament is required lo reclaim porch roof and deck structures. Should iL be elected lo move the dwel]Ing, the following are Suggested struclulÂ·al considerations: 1. The porch structures should be Dulled away from the main structure, and demolished. Il is antlcipated Uial the two original miner's cabin units could be prepared for moving. Il Is recommended thal the remaining componenls be demolished, Including the kitchen area lo the north. 2. In order to withstand the slr8Ss of moving, interior- walls will need lo be shealhed with plywood panels, Interior cros5 bracIng will be required al the ceiling and belween lhe walls to prevent collapse. 3. Since Il is fell thal the int,agrlly of the floor Systam is nil, a rebuill floor is also expecled to be required just lo transport. Il 15 evident that very Iltlle existing framing Is fell lo be of any structural value with regards to OCCUDancy or physically moving the dwelling, EÂ¢onomles will need to ba studied to decide extent of work required, Sincerely, , Â· r L / 7 Stephen K. Peightal, PE TI W.0000Â£ K GUY ASSOCIATES PC SKP/pre 8953611 STEPHEN S. CROCKETT 17 QUEEN ST. ASPEN, COLO. 81611 303-925-6542 August 28, 1989 Mr. Leonard Oates Oates, Hughes & Knezevich P.C. 533 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colo. 81611 Dear Lennie, As per your request, the following is a description of the general condition of the house on 17 Queen St. As you know, I have been renting the house from the current owners for ap- proximately 17 years. I believe the house was built around the turn of the century and reflects the type of construction used at that time for this type of dwelling. I will try to break down my assessment into general categor- ies. STRUCTURAL: The foundation of the house runs the gamut from good, solid rock and mortar on the southwest corner to literally no founda- tion at all under the northeast corner and everything in between. The root cellar, however, is a totally poured concrete structure including walls and roof but is separating from the rest of the house. The floor joyce of the house are in about the same condition as the foundation; that is ranging from solid to non-existent under certain parts of the house. The underlayment is also in the same condition with holes or weak spots scattered throughout the house; specifically in the living room and bathroom. The underlayment, floor joyce and foundation in the north bedroom have deteriorated beyond repair. The walls are constructed of upright 1" X 8" boards with 1" X 5" beveled siding nailed to the outside and some form of thick wall paper on the inside. On the inside, the wallpaper is covered in most sections of the house by a new layer of foil-face 3 1/2" fiberglass insulation covered by 1" X 8" ship-lap cedar siding. The structural integrity of most of the walls appears to be in as good a shape as can be expected for a house this old and built in this fashion. The exterior siding on the southern, southeastern and eastern exposures of the house is in bad need of repair if not total replacement. The siding on the west facing exposure is in pretty good shape other than needing a coat of paint. The siding on the northern exposures varies from good to irreparable on the north side bedroom. I should add here that the north side bedroom and the front porch are beyond repair; structural, roof, foundation, walls and interior and exterior siding. The main roof is constructed of 2" X 4" rafters covered by 1 " X 8 " boards overlaid with shingles. The roof pitch is ap- proximately a one to one pitch that has to be shoveled regularly during the winter months. Once again, the structural integrity of the roof is in pretty good shape considering the age of the house and the way it was built in the first place. However, all of the shingles are in dire need of replace- ment. The sections of the roof that are not covered by shingles are comprised of either asphalt mineral roofing or tin. The asphalt roofing on the north side bedroom has been replaced within the last year. The remaining sections of tin roof over the entry way and back porch need to be replaced. The north side roof leaks in spite of the new covering and there is a "intentional leak" from a hole for an old stove flue which waters a plant. WIRING: Most of the house still has its original electrical wiring. I have rewired certain sections of the house and have had the fuse box and breakers refurbished by a licenced electrician. Most of the wiring, whether old or new is exposed and there are numerous covers missing from switches and outlets. GAS: In the seventeen years that I have lived here, the house has undergone various "improvements" to the heating system. At this time Rocky Mountain Natural Gas services the property and has inspected and passed the service and all of the fixtures (central heater and water heater) with the exception of the small heater in the bathroom which was simply too close to the dresser. SANITATION: The property has, in the length of my tenancy, always been served by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. I totally refurbished the internal waste water plumbing approximately ten years ago. . WATER: The property has always been served by an underground well approximately eighty feet deep installed by the original owners. I replaced the old "jet" pump with a new submersible pump ap- proximately a year ago. The installer informed me that the well casing was starting to plug up at the bottom and would someday have to be either "surged pumped", re-drilled or a new well drilled. The water line from the pump house to the main house has never been replaced to my knowledge and is probably due if not past due for replacement. The roof of the pump house was replaced within the last year. I have totally refurbished the internal plumbing for the domestic water supply to the house. APPLIANCES: All of the appliances in the house were paid for and installed by myself. There is an old chimney in the center of the house but I have no idea what kind of condition it is in. WINDOWS & DOORS: All of the windows in the house are the original sliding sash type single pain windows. Very few of the windows are operable. I built and installed a form of removable storm windows. I believe all of the doors are the original doors to the house. However, due to extensive settling throughout the years, none of the doors, both interior and exterior, really operate or fit very well. SUMMARY: With the exception of the north side bedroom and the front porch which are beyond repair, the structure as whole is in the kind of condition that could be expected for a house this old and built in this fashion given the serious " deferred maintenance" that has taken place. I hope that this letter satisfies your request. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to help. Your anticipated continued assistance on this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Stephen S. Crockett