The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19891108@23--B Lf ~7-2- c g A (_LAJ (D 0 m AGENDA 11 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE November 8, 1989 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM City Hall 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of Oct. 18th and 25th minutes. II. Committee Member & Staff Comments .. .. III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS 61*44 + r.1 9,2 x 5:10 A. Demolition and Redevelopment - 624 E. Hopkins (Public hearing continued from 10-25 & 11-1-89) BRING YOUR PACKETS FROM 10-25 ON THIS! 6:00 B. Relocation and Redevelopment - 801 E. Hyman (Public Hearing Continued)/0/4>/7-'00 V. NEW BUSINESS 6:30 A. 210 S. Galena St. - The Elks Bldg. - Conceptual Development Public Hearing 7:00 B. 940 Matchless Drive - Conceptual/Redevelopment- Public Hearing VI. COMMUNICATIONS: A. Staff and Committee Member comments B. Project Monitoring Meeting adjourned 8:00 p.m. 0 3 (AL) as ki e 14 1 0 43 /9 f-1-0 f ch 7 Ce -Ct (2.-<, 4..,E 0~3 ij-j e-,~fll> 10 2364 h. 40,<12 Pkb October 25, 1989 TO THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMITTEE OR TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: This letter is written on behalf of Ellen Kuper and the plight she currently is finding herself in. Born and raised in this town, she is one of the few true locals left. She is not from a rich family and the home that she wishes to sell is far from a decent living situation. Anyone, in or out of Aspen, would find this home to be old, worn, cabinets falling off walls, haphazard layout of rooms, cramped, drafty and deserving of a bulldozer. I agree with the HPC's concern about preserving the beautiful, quality victorian homes in our town, but there is a limit. We all want to live in a beautiful town, but to require saving homes that are basically shacks, just because they are old, is ludicrous. Equally ludicrous is requiring Mrs. Kuper, wiLh lillie finaticial resources and a family to Taise, to remodel her existing home if she wishes to upgrade her living situation, and that is the message being sent by the HPC. Although the land is valuable, the house is just not worth saving or remodelling. Many outsiders with money have been allowed to bulldoze homes much nicer than the one Mrs. Kuper owns, rebuild (I should say overbuild) and make lots of money off of this town with the HPC's and everyone else's blessing. Now that there is negative publicity about the "boogiefication" of Aspen does not justify the unfair treatment given to Mrs. Kuper and her buyer. I strongly urge the HPC, City Planning or whoever to grant the necessary approvals for the sale of and subsequent development of that lot. The little pink shack just does not add to the beauty of Aspen anymore, and you cannot expect time to stand still. MARCIA POUTOUS MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: 624 E. Hopkins - Demolition and Redevelopment- Continued Public Hearing Date: November 8, 1989 PLEASE BRING YOUR OCTOBER 25 PACKET WITH YOU TO THIS MEETING. Staff's October 25 memo is attached for reference. PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION: The HPC tabled action to October 25, 1989, after reviewing the demolition application and redevelopment plans at a public hearing on September 27, 1989. At that meeting, the committee At the continued public hearing (October 25), a quorum was not present for this item, as Charles Cunniffe stepped down. On behalf of his clients, the Altfelds (applicant/purchasers ), he asked that a special meeting of the HPC be held November 1, and that the public hearing be continued to that date. The Committee agreed to the request, and voted unanimously to again table the public hearing, allowing time for the applicants to return to Aspen and appear. Staff was notified the morning of November 1 by Charles Cunniffe that the Altfelds were not able to finalize their travel arrangements and therefore were not able to attend that evening's special meeting. He requested that the Committee again table action to November 8, which they did. GOALS FOR THIS MEETING: 1. The first issue for the Committee to come to an agreement on is the demolition proposal. The committee should decide whether the proposal meets the standards for demolition. Minutes of the discussion at the September 27 meeting should be reviewed. It appeared to staff at that meeting that the HPC was asking for a renovation of the original front portion/two room element of the building, using whatever existing materials are sound, specifically the structural members. The HPC was acceptable to an addition to the rear. The applicant's revised proposal does not incorporate a rehab or renovation into the program. The plans call for a complete demolition, and a redevelopment that includes a replica cottage entrance with a large addition to the rear. With direction from the HPC, the applicant may choose to revise their proposal to a partial demolition rather than a complete demolition. 2. Once action has been taken on the demolition proposal, either to approve or deny, (or approve a partial demolition with conditions), then the redevelopment shall be reviewed. Its design compatibility within the block and the community, based on the Guidelines and in its relation to the cottages across the street, has the ability to set a precedent of scale and traditional character. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office's recommendation remains the same as stated on the October 25 memo, attached. memo.hpc.624eh.3 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Demolition and Redevelopment: 624 E. Hopkins Ave., Public Hearing, continued Date: October 25, 1989 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: 1,1,1 , not designated AGE OF STRUCTURE: c. 1891/92; rear addition - 1949; front porch 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. PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION: On September 27, 1989, the HPC tabled action, to allow time for the applicant to revise the proposal to incorporate the "front (original) portions" of the cottage into a rehabilitation. A sub-committee meeting was held with the applicant, Bill Poss and staff after that time to examine alternatives in the infill design. 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: Updated figures needed Allowable FAR: 2,820 sq. ft. Existing height: 16-17 ft. approx. Proposed height: Updated figures needed Allowable maximum height: 40 ft. Setback requirements: none (Note: The exception regards the rear/alley area) Open Space Requirement: 25% - 1, 125 ft. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Standards for Demolition were reviewed in staff's September 27 memo, as well as a detailed discussion on the context issue. The applicant maintains that demolition, as opposed to rehabilitation, is the only option, therefore, the revised proposal amends the redevelopment plan, and does not incorporate physical elements of the existing historic structure in a rehabilitation. Staff reminds the HPC that the code clearly defines the permitting of a demolition: - 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). The issues are very clear: If historic preservation is the goal, then a rehabilitation allowing a compatible addition to the rear is to be the end result. If we are not preserving, merely allowing the structure to be completely razed and replaced with a new structure, then the issues are urban design. If the complete removal is allowed, then the basic premise for its design is to be based upon our Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior Standard #3: "All buildings, structures and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged." This particular block, not located within a historic district, is extremely challenging to design an appropriate infill structure within its context. However, as our sub-committee meeting revealed, a total of five parcels may be affected with this rehab or redevelopment: the subject property, its corner neighbor, and the three cottages across the street. Therefore, being able to set an urban design precedent in this portion of the block is critical. Staff feels the revised plan does not yet meet that goal, however, comes closer than the original proposal. However, the intention of small, compatible "street scale" has been missed, we believe, with a replication cottage somewhat tacked onto the front of an extremely out-of-scale addition. We believe there are other alternatives which have not yet been addressed, that still incorporated small scale issues in the facade without fooling the passerby. Simplified details are necessary, and a more compatible transition into the "addition" would appear to better meet the Guidelines. Staff believes that the proposal's intention is basically good, and commends the applicant for restudying the issues, however, we cannot totally support the revised proposal as historic 2 < preservation is dismissed as an alternative, and that the revised design not only incorporates a replication element, but then goes one step further by attempting to integrate a very large, out-of- scale addition to the cottage. The questions seems to be: What is it we are ending up with, what precedent is being set, and how does this proposal meet Council's and our goals? 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 one additional time, finding that further study is necessary by the applicant on specific issues 4. Deny approval finding the application does not meet the following Demolition Review Standards: #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 (discussed in the September 27 memo.) RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC table action one additional time, to a date specific, to allow time for the applicant to restudy the preservation and rehabilitation issues of the proposal, and develop a compatible addition design appropriately integrating the cottage/entrance element. memo.hpc.624eh.2 3 , MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: 801 E. Hyman - Relocation and Redevelopment - Public Hearing Continued Date: November 8, 1989 SUMMARY: On October 18, the applicant appeared before the HPC informally, with conceptual ideas of a relocation, as opposed to outright demolition, for the principal cottage at 801 E. Hyman. The conceptual proposal also included the adaptive use and renovation of the alley-oriented outbuilding, to house the affordable dwelling unit as required by code. On October 25, at a continued public hearing, the applicant gave an update to the HPC on their revised proposal, requesting that the public hearing and conceptual development approval be tabled once again to November 8 to allow time to develop the information for the Committee's review. The HPC approved the request. REVISED PROPOSAL DISCUSSION: The attached proposal indicates the number of variances required by the applicant in order to achieve the joint goals. Obviously, a smaller structure that fits within the building envelope would not require these variations. The options are: 1) Landmark designation for HPC variations. An application for Landmark Designation has not been submitted by the applicant at this time. If the HPC wishes to assist the applicant in pursuing Landmark Designation, careful review is required of the Standards for Designation to determine if the entire parcel meets the criteria. 2) Code amendments for the dimensional considerations, and the ability to detach an accessory dwelling unit. The Planning Office is currently studying these exact issues in the "Cottage Infill Program", however, the proposal has not yet been presented formally to Council. We anticipate this by January. The applicant should consider sponsoring this code amendment, utilizing this project as the case study to set precedent for future development of this nature. 3) Referral by the HPC to the Board of Adjustment for the variances requested. Code amendments may still be ' required for FAR bonuses for detached accessory dwelling units and the ability to have the accessory unit detached. MASSING ELEVATIONS: The revised elevations indicate similar building forms as those existing, incorporated a larger, gabled mass located nearer the southeast of the parcel. The applicant's idea is to relieve the predominant corner (Original and Hyman) from building mass, stepping down the structure to the west. The affordable unit is brought up from below grade to occupy the renovated historic outbuilding. The revised plan RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant conceptual approval for the relocation of the principal structure at 801 E. Hyman, and the redevelopment of the parcel as proposed with the following conditions: 1) The new location of the relocated structure be compatible and that every effort be made on the part of the applicant to provide the structure for an affordable housing use. Staff shall assist in the relocation process. 2) The Final Development application shall include detailed elevations and a site plan of the new structure and the adapted outbuilding. 3) The Final Development application shall include detailed information on the renovation Of the outbuilding, including percentage of original materials being preserved, foundation repairs, garage door treatment, etc. 4) The Planning Office continue to pursue the "Cottage Infill Program", and that the applicant sponsor the code amendment addressing FAR bonuses for detached accessory dwelling units. memo.hpc.801eh.4 l 2 0 0 ,. October 31,1989 City of Aspen ~1_ Planning & Zoning Dept. ~ 130 S. Galena St. 1 Aspen, CO 81611 Attn: Roxanne Eflin Dear Roxanne, Attached is a site plan showing the footprint of the proposed residence and the detached accessory dwelling unit located in the garage. The schematic massing elevations show overall size of both structures as viewed from Hyman Ave, Original St. and the alley, I will provide to you prior to the Nov 8 meeting a scale mass model of the entire project. It would appear the following items will need to be addressed with City Council. 1) Encroachment license and setback variances for the accessory unit. 2) Additional F.A.R. to offset the 460 s.f. accessory unit. 3) Setback variance and no deduction of floor area for the porch. 4) Off-street parking variance for the accessory unit. 5) Sideyardvariance on the east property line for 2.5' where the dining room floor overhangs. I think this is necessary to break up this long straight wall. STAN Please call if you need additional information. j[\Tills 11{(IlrfEâ‚¬Tll{E \\D PLiMING Post Office Box Sincerely, 1984 Aspen Jolorado 81612 303/920-1434 <CÂ» (fififip~> ill'.er ~ 4'-60:' ~h i <p'-9't ve-or */ 1 1 14.0. 144 11 6 0 1 1 C r'EÂ¥310,3 0, crâ€¢*2*P 40 - 1 ~0026 14 1 1 râ€žw*- 2:>r-' .<. ~ -1 1 i lf-F~ i tbr., *tre,bâ€¢:p,â€¢Â· Ly EEÂ«kfEEE~Â» * ~. 2 - 12 P *Em.2,8Â»1 . 1 : 34 , ~ yi====~ ll 1 9 P I 1 1 1 + 6- ! I I -1 1 34- 1 1 .; - T> 97 1 i \ 4 -14/ 1 1 #1 :,1' 1 f 11 9/Hi41 FENCE- 2 1 1 1 1 1 UNE DF OVESÂ¥Â»M<A J 41 AÂ«09â‚¬â€¢OÂ« ; , - rÂ¢1 2:Wel-LHE, 1 1 ~-- Trival,Â·4,%6> | Â« 1 UNrr- 466> 4Â·R+ j th nernoM of Exter , 4- -*L _,13Â»Ull-CIHC. 13 eÂ» 15Eplx - 94 2 r. AL - 1-,CBM.VIX' 1 P.B:nou /'/ 5,0*r. j - /1 ' 1 Ce K.O.W. 2 1 1- 1 -r- rÂ¥ n ; 1 -2 0 1 -4- ALLE-< VA#.0 5*-TISA Â»9191 42104 S. 012.14 1 NAL 51. 15,94 044* ,4: 1 -*PA+14~ 7 _|~_4194-,5--IÂ· Â·. i - 1/4- 1.-6 i . .1 1,4 P 1: -1.== C , -IEN 23#4110< fT Mil-Z f - 1-91 1 -Tr. .1 41 7-*, rriljj i= iz~tf - 11 0, ~ 1 6% Ii...,121- 1 â‚¬ V /46".- : 1 I t!,2 44-Â·Â»-ky_ f _ 1--r-V - -- ... il ' --2115â„¢M~76--- .r .0,-2--22- 4 - 8,1 -7.41 14'k 144 -4 Â£Â»4- /- 7 S# I-1-21~- j 442=ru-Pt 4-L-1 ==f, 7- -15648.Mi 1 -0 04 0 -. A ''1! ,4 1 Tz i P L41, - [ _-â„¢24â€¢1,=MP - LfA(26â€¢5.B 6.VMS: 10 1 1 f 1 f LoWer/libaT 1 11 1--- - - 2--- lili. 1 1.-- -6411Â¢di9Â¢]Ei 'b-;--- 1-- -4- U / / r- i . Foop 11=44 1 - - < Â· 8 -XiI 1 1 1 . A''f =Ateate,1 1 - ' 1 j - ~ '<M 37,1 7* 1 1 ' ...1 / 1 . mt-4, It i_ 0 ~+Wr Â¢30*Â· 71 - e--4 f MA<,44104 - i 160" 12- 1042% 112 l'T 1,9 7.6 1.1 35'Ek 1 1- 1 i 1-MNE. Wal ~ .4 20 -K Z:b'Â· 7% 1 1 1 1 ...li.-- 570"4 -i - le'-A Z.ty- 381}\N MATHIS HYMAN _-_ - Ih. ARGEECIUREAND PLANNING UFFEK- P 1.250 2. 131 POST OFFICE BOX 1984 â€¢ 303/920Â·1434 1 FPEN. COLORADO â€¢81812 i 1 1/ 1 ~ ~ 0 1 JY - 4.- 11 I \ '1 .4.- i lit OF-!61 11'AL :fjf KEET 9.LENA~T loti / A]Eer,3 : Rir .C'IMEN, -421.0-1 4 f -, Fic*2669 ,â€¢Cce,5,~ter U kirr Â£ I m('111 J ,---,i 25'-o' P,M,=01 0 0 . .LJ 44 1- I .' j tl 1 . -1 -- T . 1 151Â£18[[ 1 â‚¬M:-Ef FLUBY -- CALLEY ELE\ATIOIN /901414 ) -- f 1 1 - ell' k 7 9 2 2-1 f q 1 2/ . f / 1 - . fff:>F=592,&56955014 Ut-117~ .=Er t. L \ 1 f . /C / \34' 1= 0 li ./. Y -- 162- 6,1 Â¢ exer, 4.rgoor. 3 1 HYMATi STFEET Eit\A[ lori (HOF[M) Bri r.2301 E. 1-17~IMAId Â· 16~-k}0&1URE AND 219220 LORAD 1 - 1 Â·PUSLUESCE BOX 1984 Â· 10.30Â·ept 1* MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Conceptual Development: 210 S. Galena St., The Webber Block (Elks Building) - Public Hearing Date: November 8, 1989 LOCATION: 210 S. Galena St., Lots K, L, and M, Block 94, City and Townsite of Aspen ZONING: CC - Commercial Core, "H" Historic Overlay District Designated Landmark APPLICANT: The Elks Club #224, represented by Ed Irwin HPC MONITOR: To be assigned at this meeting APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual Development approval for a new elevator/stair tower at the east elevation, and the renovation of the Galena Street storefront (excluding the previously renovated Esprit space). A "vest pocket park" greenspace will be created at the east elevation between the Hyman Street sidewalk and the elevator tower. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Development review standards are found in Section 7-601 of the Land Use Code, and are reviewed below. The applicable Guidelines are found in Section IV. Commercial Buildings - Renovation and Restoration, beginning on Page 19 of the Aspen Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines. The technical brief: Exterior Stair Tower Additions, as an interpretation of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, is included as information in the packet. This is a potential ITC (Investment Tax Credit) project, therefore, careful review is required in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation (please refer to your blue manual). We commend the applicant on the future renovation, restoration and preservation of this National Register eligible landmark. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay district or is adjacent to a Historic Landmark... Response: (TOWER) The Elk's need for an exterior elevator/stairway tower are due to the relocation of the club from the first to the third floor, to allow for retail/commercial utilization of the first floor. The project is very similar to the Wheeler Opera House's tower, whose design was utilized as the basis for this one. In reviewing the technical brief attached, we find that the proposal generally meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, and Standard #1 stated above (with the exceptions as noted below). - Our concerns focus on the width and proposed height (43'), which is 3' above maximum allowable, and approximately 5' below the existing height of the building. The applicant has stated the proposed height is as low as they are able to design to access the third floor and provide the mechanicals, and states they have kept the interior width at a minimum. The HPC may consider ways to reconfigure the interior stair and elevator to reduce the width. Also, provided the HPC is not able to work with the applicant to determine ways to further reduce the height, the Planning Office recommends that the HPC recommend the Board of Adjustment approve a variance request from the applicant. The tower sits 25' to the north of the Hyman St. sidewalk. The plans include a "vest pocket park"/landscaped area. This may be changed slightly to accommodate the existing 1st floor opening (3' or so to the south). We recommend that the Final Development approval include a landscape plan for the greenspace, and indicate parking and trash areas. The front entrance to the tower is canopied with a suspended, arched glass covering, similar to the covering over the "Shooters" stairs on Galena. One alternative to this may be to incorporate a coordinated awning design for portions of the storefront level. Signage should also be addressed. Me / recommend that the Final Development approval include a 1 detail of the tower entrance and landscaping. The materials indicated appear compatible to the existing landmark. The rusticated sandstone handing aligns ~ horizontally with the banding on the landmark. We recommend compatible brick though not exactly matching. The required i- 4 vertical break between structures is treated as stacked 4 windows on the south elevation. The north elevation i ~ indicates a very narrow transition between old and new, which appears to meet the Guidelines, however, the transition element should be restudied to provided a slightly more pronounced break. (STOREFRONT): Galena Street storefronts are among Aspen's 2 34 most pronounced character defining feature. Their 2 ' preservation (and restoration) set standards throughout the community, certainly in the Commercial Core Historic District. The careful review and approval of this portion Of the proposal is critical to not only the historic integrity of the Webber Block, but it may determine whether tax credits may be taken or not. The proposal does not disclose enough information on the // existing Galena Street storefront elevation in order for \Â£ staff to recommend approval. The existing conditions drawing (west elevation) does not include the original - sandstone base elements. Original windows and other materials, especially those hidden beneath plywood, have not been thoroughly examined for preservation purposes. Preservation of original materials is required over replacement. Staff recommends that a project monitor be assigned to review the storefront preservation issues with the applicant. architect and staff. It might also be noted that the "new" Esprit storefront is beginning to show signs of chipping paint and rust. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: We find that the proposal generally meets this guideline, and refers exceptions to this in the response comments above. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structure located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: The cultural value of this exceptional Aspen Landmark will be enhanced with the implementation of an on- going maintenance plan for this building. We find that a restoration of the Galena Street (west elevation) storefront will greatly enhance the building's cultural value to the community through the removal of inappropriate materials. Due to the placement on the east elevation, we find that the elevator/stairway tower does not detract from the cultural value of the Webber Block. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Tower: We recommend the HPC study the transition/break between old and new very carefully, utilizing the 3 Guidelines and information provided by the National Park Service; we find that the proposal generally meets this standard. Storefront: We find that 3:he proposal for the storefront does not meet thiav standard, as discussed fully in staff's response to Standard #1 above. The removal of original features does the diminish the architectural integrity of the landmark. Handicapped ramping should also be addressed in the proposal. - ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Approve the Conceptual Development application as submitted 2. Approve the proposal with the conditions (staff's recommendations for conditions are stated below) 3. Table action to allow the applicant further time to study the proposal, incorporating the comments and guidance from the HPC in a revised proposal. 4. Deny Final Development approval finding that the application does not meet the development review standards. A denial would constitute a re-notice of the public hearing. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Conceptual Development approval for the elevator/stair tower, with conditions, and that the HPC table Conceptual Development approval for the storefront proposal to allow the applicant time to further study the proposal. We find that the storefront proposal does not meet Standards #1 and #4. Conditions of Conceptual Development approval, to be submitted for Final Development Review: Restudy width and height of tower element (for reduction purposes) 9 2. Partial demolition (east elevation) shall be detailed c-. 2. Restudy tower design transition/break between old and new . -17, 1.--P.4,Â¥.-360 -t 1,0,-.1-ka-Nee 'Lrf St pe-F,- i-Z*,J 9 3. All mechanical equipment will not exceed respective roof height. 4 4. All mechanical equipment shall be clarified, i.e. relocated ground floor equipment, east elevation < st+Aou 4 l/5. Tower entrance detailed drawing, including canopy, windows, door, signage. 6. Exact material representation, including sample of brick and sandstone Maintenance plans for entire building, addressing external surface cleaning, brick repointing, storefront system repainting, etc. 8 . C 41 1 6 DE':4- e-EhSEST{L,...Eb:,1 6 N #Jer.i-k â‚¬LiEV. e râ€¢ STa t r:- Tr-142- 14- memo.hpc.210sg.cd 5 HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS MEMORANDUM LTD 210 SOUTH GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 303/925-2867 TO: Planning Director, City of Aspen FROM: Michael Doyle RE: Replies to Attachments 2 and 3a, Significant Historic Development Application DATE: October 31,Â·Â·'1989 As noted on the coversheet, the Elks Club wishes to renovate and refurbish parts of its building at 210 S. Galena. The two proposed changes which have significant impact on the original historic structure are one, the new elevator/stair tower and two, renovation of storefront where the Elks Club currently resides. 1. New Elevator/Stair Tower. Since the Elks Club is proposing moving to the 3rd floor and many of its members are elderly, a new elevator/stair tower is required. In concept, we would propose a similar solution to that employed at the Wheeler Opera House. That is a tower using similar sized and colored bricks as the original structure. The fenestration is of similar sizes and aligns to the openings on the historic structure. The tower would be set back 25 ft. from Hyman St. to create a vest pocket park. 2. Renovation of storefront along Galena Street. Since this portion of the building will be returned to retail, we propose removing the existing painted plywood and returning to a storefront similar to that of the rest of the building's ground level. In addition to these two major items, the entire building- will be cleaned and checked for crumbling mortar, etc. The attached block structure in the alley will be cleaned up as well as the loose wires, etc. in the back. We feel these proposed changes maintain the integrity of the historic structure ' and will benefit not only the building, but also the surrounding neighborhood. T.!11.\.'\'1\ AM Â· 2\Nk),1.9.'u' \IA - 7 HAGMAN YAW - 7 ARCHITECTS I E :Liguaâ€ž U UE, COLLI##1 - ALLEY . ELA'> (1.1'It RI- #11 }It ; i -NEW grAIR/ELEV, TOWER LILES E~DON] MASON & MORSE BUILDING E-L- =114 ASPEN. COLORAIN, ' L-j I 11%9 E ECANOPY ABOVE 1 REVISKM: ULNDSCAPED AREA 1 41-- e , ,-I L,!1 , Â©111 6-4 - i 43-3 -& rÂ» '1,1 I HYMAN AVENUE --- SITE PLAN - -- SCA1Â£ 1/8..â€¢ 10-r â€¢--1---Al.~11 1Illllllll 1 lili 1 E 7 HAGMAN YAW - ARCHITECTS - .1......1/A e , 11 4 'UM % c JLOR,d,W 0 lon 10)g' 2/' 1.'. 1.1,1 1. I --- 1 -r 9 - - n 1 1.- al- 1- 11 - 1 1 -8 1 t ~i I I u wi_ A--j i~ ~ ' r-; i--1-~ -# - ==2919 L~~ 1-1 n M -91 mi - -4 Alm- 1,-Â·61~1.-1 0 -- Fil' IFI U ~ ~ ~ 1 w i 1-1 , pill @1.---nÂ·---rF--Â·n--r---+1 UL,6222=f...Ele//E//ELEEE,~//4/ELL--li--- Ii-- EAST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION --' ' 1 . ' 10 V-,Â·O . 7--I--/---~ YEP r-7---7------ -1-==. I.3-1 - RE -Â»Â»42-41*82Â»41 511=0119 m=III -n -L_.1 -e q - 4 --- ~ij*EZZIEZZLI = ---1-~3=Â»-=-Ar6-y=4=-==--:22 . -=_ i. .:= = 66, -7~i-affJ -- - - - 4-A -- - A- A-W [GEE -_Eig-Ew,VATION -- NORTH ELEA*TION 44.-0, AS BUILT ELEVATIONS Â·E~ , ' I. - ml - 4 - 3- r:.3 7 -ri- - HAGMAN YAW E ARCHITECTS lrD L //TH//NA .VE' GLOU/316/ .... - ' 1 t===a=~~~an:12~ 4.~- - ---- ENTIR. BUILDING EXT 2 - - ---~tr &,M-TON: ..1~ - RIL.WI IXITING PU'Â¥â€¢00~ // - n ** **' Pttli 4 = - h=,-gyK..11.- H_IFE..619 / 7081CLEANED ANU WIMDOWS - R:,LACI WIâ„¢ T I NI[-819=RONTAN.KICK~LATE 1.4hdUr~-8# 12- 4,A- 11-11<2 19-1 Ir=i- tr-1 r-1 --i : 11 111 11 1,111 .-1 -1 - . 4 â€ž 1 -9 BRICK TO R. TUCKED 1 1 . 1- 1 1-:211 - SIWILA,1 m TWK 7111!ATME~fr 211/3- - M. POINTED - 81[1 -MUAR . =. = 11 11 1 1 1 - cou.,0.1.1 -1.1 2~11[_411.--21110~72 -- ilf733071 tr --t-- -. - 1- - 1 ** 1** :*91 Â·e: iM 1 '1 " -1 ;- - 1 -1 t it Jt[-- 'Ltv-}11rmti=-1 1 --1 -1 ' 22. M=-1_1 i.- - ZI -* 4 [22' r..4 n rTETTTIrn - 1- 4 r,*-4*IN,c,No,r -IM- mi 1 -LU-Lila==12 . -- - ===P=I 4 EAST ELEVATION -- SOUTH ELEVATION NEW grAIB/ELEV. TOWER St//ELEV. TOWER BE'IDND miltÂ«*1 ~19 - - r-r------------ // e =4 - - ISSUE __1 CID ,--2 0 _CED _32222_29 _52...., - -= ,-REEE*6-----~ - m .UL- -_111 -13-L U U-LI-Lp (2 1- ~~~,--~EÂ£_f__t _- - - 7- XILIX#- - -= 7 REROOF AND PAINT ATTACHED - I - __ H./. 5TRUCrAUM r------- --- - - . 122247Â» 91Â«0914 --- Z- - -- - WESr ELEVATION --* &- .NORTH ELEVATION -- -- - 1 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS r: iCALL 1,/r â€¢ iÂ·-/0 M-7--1--1--1--1--7--7-7-- 1- L-1111 Technical Preservation Services Preservation Assistance Division nterpreting i National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior -ffie--Secretary of the Interior's Washington, D.C. ( Standards tor Rehabilitation Number: 82-037 Applicable Standards: 9. Compatible Contemporary Design for New Alterations/Additions (nonconformance) 10. Reversibility of New Alterations/Additions (nonconformance) Subject: EXTERIOR STAIR TOWER ADDITIONS Issue: Creating two separate means of egress from the upper floors of commercial buildings is a fire code requirement that generally must be dealt with in rehabilitating older buildings. Only in a very limited number of cases are variances given for this important life safety feature. In a historic rehabilitation project, this code requiremeM often. makes.iL necessary to construct a second stair, either within the building or as an exterior addition. When such a new interior or exterior fire stair addition is required to meet code and 10. These Standards address the important issues of retaining historically requirements, its construction and detailing must be in conformance with Standards 9 significant building material during rehabilitation and designing contemporary new additions that are compatible in scale, color, and material with the historic character . of the building. Finally, the new additions should be attached in such a way that future removal will not impair the essential integrity and form of the historic structure. If it is determined that locating the new fire stair within the building would result in the destruction of significant interior fabric, the required stair should be redesigned as an exterior addition, preferably on a secondary facade. NPS certification that an exterior fire stair is necessary to avoid loss of significant interior fabric means that the owner's construction costs are eligible for tax benefits under IRS regulations 26 CFR Parts 1 & 7. If, on the other hand, the owner chooses to construct an exterior fire stair rather than an interior fire stair solely to avoid losing valuable interior rental space, the cost of the new construction may not be included in the overall rehabilitation expenses. Application: A 1909 two-story stone building, formerly a town hall and individually listed in the National Register, was being rehabilitated for use as professional offices Gee illus. 1). The interior had been altered several times and there was little remaining original fabric. The exterior, however, was almost in its original configuration and the owner was taking great care to clean the stone and replicate any deteriorated features. 82-037 1 addition resulted in loss of less historic fabric; and the addition was clearly / contemporary in design, and of a scale, color, and material appropriate to the historic structure. Accordingly, the overall project was determined to meet the Secretary's Standards. Prepared by: Sharon C. Park, AIA, TPS These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S.- Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the.Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 0 11 82-037 4 . IrfEfÂ¥ Â£7 r 61Â£,Â£~_7 V 7EAL . ~>YEA,5 WLJTZACCE= I-2- flilli â‚¬~9Arf .... - 1 Emij gc I.-I. al Ffhrr- ELIrm:LE. ( 5. Existing plan of the building. 6. Plan of the building with proposed stair tower shaded in. -i 0 , MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Conceptual Development: 940 Matchless Drive - Public Hearing Date: November 8, 1989 LOCATION: 940 Matchless Drive, Lot 4B, Block 1, Alpine Acres Subdivision, City of Aspen, Colorado ZONING: R-6 PUD APPLICANT: Joe and Lucy Dunn HPC MONITOR: not yet assigned APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual Development approval for the redevelopment of the parcel known as 940 Matchless Drive. PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION: The HPC met with the applicant on two previous occasions, once in a regular meeting to receive initial information on the demolition and again in worksession format to s discuss the proposal, gain additional information on the applicant's needs, and to guide the applicant on compatible design issues. The first meeting was attended by the city attorney, who responded to the applicant's concerns about continuing the construction with "Proceed at your own risk", which the applicant has done. The HPC should review the plans as they would any proposed project. Prior to these meetings, the applicant met once briefly (15 minutes) with staff in the spring, per Bill Drueding's direction, to discuss the general proposal. The applicant stated at that time that he was planning to add on to the rear of the 940 Matchless Drive structure; staff's initial response to the applicant was in the form of encouraging voluntary landmark designation and information on the criteria HPC would consider for a compatible addition. The information presented to staff during that initial meeting would have made an HPC approval for an addition unnecessary as the structure was not a designated landmark, located within a historic district, nor was there any discussion about significant partial demolition. Staff does not recall seeing any plans at that time. No further discussion between the applicant and Staff had occurred, until the Building Department notified the Planning Office in July that a demolition was underway. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Ordinance 17, Series of 1989, requires HPC . review and approval of all demolitions, partial demolitions and relocations of any structure identified on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. The Development review standards are found in Section 7-601 of the Land Use Code, and are reviewed below. The applicable Guidelines are found in Section VII. RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS - NEW CONSTRUCTION, beginning on Page 63 of the Aspen Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay district or is adjacent to a Historic Landmark... Response: There are no designated historic structures located on the parcel, nor is this property located within a historic district. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: We find that the proposal does not meet this standard and does not conform with the objectives of the Guidelines. The two-story facade with steeply pitched (nearly Gothic-style) roof is not in keeping with the one .-. story character of the three immediate neighboring structures, or the established architectural pattern of the street. The proposal also does not resemble the character of the historic cottage that it replaced. The Planning Office also finds that the rear (north) elevation gambrel roof form does not meet this standard or the Guidelines. A simplified gable is compatible with the adjacent structures and Aspen's traditional historic character. (TO staff's knowledge, Aspen has only one gambrel roof structure, 611 W. Main.) Staff has received negative public comments regarding the visibility of this roof form from the hillside neighberhood behind. Details such as the stacked bay windows and casements do not meet the Guidelines, nor are they compatible with neighboring historic resources. The Planning Office is interested in working with the applicant to reconfigure the square footage on the parcel, to provide him an opportunity to enjoy reasonable, beneficial use of his property. Consistently, the HPC, using the Guidelines and national standards, requires additions and expansions to structures be added to the rear 2 1 b of the structure, to preserve the small scale characteristics of the cottage. We recommend that any additional square footage necessary should be designed compatibly to the rear of the structure: examples are 715 W. Smuggler and 134 W. Hopkins (both structures). 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structure located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: The Planning Office finds that the cultural value of the parcel has been eliminated due to the demolition of the historic cottage. However, the cultural value this structure could provide its neighbor cottages could be enhanced simply with a compatibly scaled replacement with the two story structure nearly completed. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The structure is not a designated landmark, therefore, staff's comment ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Approve the development proposal as submitted 2. Approve the proposal with the conditions (staff's recommendations for conditions are stated below) 3. Table action to allow the applicant further time to study the proposal, incorporating the comments and guidance from the HPC in a revised proposal. 4. Deny approval finding that the application does not meet Development Review Standard #2. We recommend that the HPC form a sub-committee to actively assist the applicant in appropriate revisions of the proposal. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Conceptual development approval as submitted 2. Conceptual development approval with conditions 3. Table action to a date certain to allow the applicant time to study the proposal and revise plans according with the Development Review Standards and the 3 . Guidelines 4. Deny approval, finding that Standard #2 has not been met RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC table Conceptual Development approval for the project to a date certain, allowing the applicant time to restudy the proposal with the HPC sub-committee. We find that the application does not meet Development Review Standard #2, however, in lieu of denial, we feel this unusual situation warrants special consideration by - the HPC, in the form of technical design assistance. memo.hpc.940md.cd 4 krrh ek w. 4 -0 L t. 40 A_-1 .l G,ey ~32) u4LA/ 1027 00Â«24 649 24, 925- 941 6 - -411- Appl~ e44-7-- u.-3 '(l -13*0-00(_ -ru_ _ A urAM- t lit AAP AA$224 777/~ 116 0 L q 40 tAL#-FC-A- 49 9 34, 407- 4-6 -ZiUCA C ,1 Atput Ac-Le-% gaTI>Zoilt,04 . A-spA-0,4 20. 17. ,00 Az<AA+I f -1 1.alc) hi 111 2 7AO/0% 4- 1 -70 Â£ 4 eÂ«.A_%02.- -ru- -pÂ«LeW-7- 1 Cloo GS, F Â·n yo 2-4-8 5- CR. Pi.- I NPZ) /9-204 0-fr Â»// d.,9(71 ff~ 4,5 6-c~ ,69.9 A-Ub A-4 AÂ·45~2> ty-7 04 ;0-F 2_85 s* -pr: to +U-/- -E:>Ack O -F- 7-U- Ac 41- , 1.1 Kirpc 4 9 03 /-rk -r-U- act 9 LA,44 4-1 ed , 722 dry-a<k O/0:55 -7-72 Â»ace. 73:32- jl,-,ae f-409 5 dA-ELE R 00 -i= 02) 4 4 -U- *4 *7 4 Th + 0-i) 45 Luu.11 As -r-U_ 4,-ot_% -F- -2 628R g tz__e-- A-AU> â€ž46(947, A Q i Â¥ -Â¥-00-7- al--T-1 4 7 t.04 64Â§ 8-0,u-C - FE-boit> -LIT- uu-2,4 -7--U_ { 9:I- 46(60Â« 4,11> . 40 641 -TO A LUO J -R> A- A--0--LA#(A.,e--71- f.Â£-At L EAE>7F~ --Â« 7-34 2--â‚¬2 ,.52 .7-4 7.-7-ZÂ£- Â»of L , 41 1 4 -7-ke -EAC k- 0-F -T-U_ A us.e_- ;A-*S C A--rÂ¥A Uk lAu Nl- L FI .4,43 728 04 So 744 â‚¬*202 at CE 0 Â·E- 7-ke- C-4_015 C- 42 (~, 03 1 d 44 7~ ~A.4_ ,(Al--O,\ucp -i.X- D . -T-k.L orU,1 id A-U +(05< -p UsA 41Â¥5 -eaul MAAL,1-7--~4-/4.-4,0 4% At- of 4% 6 0-F 74Â£ F 43,4-bo O 011-14/49 S 7*, _2,1/72/04 ' 481 2 l it -al_ 17--2_1 AUDD U l -F-k . 7-Ac- O'7 t,/Af_ 6/7/07-2</ 4-Â« 7-2//0, k 1 P i L ft-PE A JA,MAL,4 1- 1> A- t,1 Ae-ki Tj-crÂ»-/LA L T LA-n< alâ‚¬--0 A-3-16-6 4 5 -- ~90 Ad<-0 T L A-f W- -4- 0 4. -Lud A--r--7--4 C-_Attib e 1 1 L. Â«LL *Al glAIAL c--(,Ap-BO A-~1 27~1>t/~19 149 1 AL- Mai %/7-270/13 , 00 0* -0~52,9904_ 46~4'9 ,' 41-24 N 4/(_- J i 4-2>6 2 3 0 c d ~ga._-- oLL-223 , A ic (1 4111 u\UYi--*1_- 46 -E Jill 11__ 4+1 97--4-l Al)1. <4# 0.84 Â§ L N A- L / L 2-7-6 O A-6/ -T--R- t ".- -P ;6-7-*t / i B L l' C ~LL os.ft> 7-A A-0(X.~ A-0*7, 36. AS 774-4 ou-4, 4-~ ~ *U4444*CAL -7- U L 7424 4-v 7--9 \11 2/0(Â»t U l .ll / 61 uu U.+1 A- LUI - sp- Ll-M (LArrl 1-~6 0 01_ 906 01 (1> 044-1Al-74-1 2 Jlt-773Â«l44 2_LAARÂ»_-71Â« O.72 -r-Â«_ , Â· -07~00(54 /4 66 61-2~ 0 10~~ /4- 420/Â« 2260>Z>a/C Al$/ S l y _Â¥30.5-7 04 ED le- c-rt 0 4 4-Gi> ET-l 0 4 LS A- S U u.-3 4--4 ( u.01 *ecT o N -I-4 -40 u-U_ A-4--D ALU G ll, 10 C ( Al 9 4UU-% As 6..9~94 l-gU_ 4-4 A--d 0.03 C -rÂ« ~-f p Â«-r- C 6 5 41 L. 604 -~ Alt 64 b-F A Vt-~d_Ut-i~u,U._ ujk.U_t J -6~ ~, l Al 2,419<51 L A-1 -E(0164- 4 UA L 4 0,,UU-- -Â»*d 20 f ' -Fri- .t...\4QN 4 '% 1 3-41 iI4 1t 2 01 0 21\3 9 Â» 3 21 3/2 3 4 9 3 4 1 43 4 4 11341-Â»g u k NFL j 10 F F h 0. 1 7 67 ij 49\ .- 4 g 0 \ \U k- 1--1 4 --% 9 Â»4 -6\24 1 o ft 0 a f it-~4 1 Â£ s 4 Â» \A ch 9 23 3 4 Voke r <00 t 14 4 1 1-- 1 49 1% --l-G -GE, 4j ~ c-tÂ«&-0 44 ul,d U.- 6.04% 1%-7-4 01&65 6 Aci. wul d -F -5 -6 0/4-0/ 4*- L 10 i O-7-6 U A-Af 1-4 1 TO~Lu <Fy.9 \ P_07_~D~-39, <rf 222d- /9 -42- -7.i 1 7 72') *Zpytal-p 7 1 * p 1 -3 fy g 76 04- P .1-9 1 8 m-,- 6/~' P 0 -93-1- 49 Â»Â«lpnv-04 44 g p,q _+7-31 9_0 3- 0 -ryÂ»o < 0-09-Â·-1ML~'11 1 741\ 6 N ED 3-7 VI P.-8 1 3311-j Opod_ 59 469 tv p 6/ SPEL ]9 P ) 6 730 v 7-71 SN)--1-1_p 1-9yv)1 _1}vi-* cL53Tp-e- --9 -~~_i- '---D FfÂ«b &<09 9-3, O-9 9- 7 5 -r>- 4 9Â·v,--0 1-9 <rn_} --301 TrLL 00 0/7 4-32* c~Â°Â° 9 13 -yÂ» 74-1 9-1- Â»7227-27 -2Â« S --3'' F-/ / 5-0-3/ 32 72/7~32-7772Â« S --7F--2- 7-0- 1 (-Â«1 ,~ p; cf~y/31 9 7 67 5 11 4-1/ v 1-3-Y? 0~2- 1-9 p 7 5 1-90 3-~ -a o k 9.7__L--D79 1-~ - 11 701 vt_L *-1- f,0 2-.1-/ q?fl,3/ [.19.9.- .k 76\ 3\. 742. ,02_ <3261Â«9 0 P~/311 17) 110 /.W).99 \\\\\ 1-22 34'M~ <Uy-0 62-15-/9/9 --ric '22 ' fv o -)-1/ Cl--3.9 tu.Â© 7 1 0-2-9 1 00-4.- + 073 9 41 2071/qg..9 --Â»0 >j- 99 0/473 ~ 1 -- 90)) 9 ) 11Â«6 41_Z 9 -gll E>1>94- 94 i h0)93*-D SV /V 9 7 3 9-~-1 -3 /UP /5 1-70 -30,1~l--- feL \ 6 >v_7 9Â«1 CLM n 1 5 tÂ«3-94- -4 1 n-*a-'.-zv ~~< 9~ 4 --Vvyu-9 -9-1.5 )-'UN) 6 )yo 9- 97 7-?113-.ytw 99 %? _1-p mt 49 â‚¬-7-prcr- tpo641.--93~U :v~1 4 -1 p -n,vt -V) -D VJ+V ,.,~ . 1 f- 9 1 , \ : 43. .r \ 1 1 il 41 . I 4 Â· i r ; 4 ..01 .'. 1,/ 42 i -- 4 \, If- 1 9-4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! f, Iii 1 - , i 1! 4.-4 Iii i , 4. L i ....1 I lit L : â„¢ 1 9-17123 al,9,0 4 4022$ SÂ« 3-2 L-Lorq -711â‚¬(r~| /soJ 6- 12-2 24.7-v/ LAW OFFICES CATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH NOV- 7 PROFESSIONALCORPORATION - THIRD FLOOR ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING 533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LEONARD M.OATES ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 AREA CODE 303 ROBERTW HUGHES TELEPHONE 920-1700 RICHARDA KNEZEVICH TELECOPIER 920-1121 JOHN M ELY November 6, 1989 OF COUNSEL: JOHN THOMAS KELLY Ms. Roxanne Eflin Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Joseph and Lucy Dunn, Block 1, Lot 4B Alpine Acres Subdivision Dear Roxanne: This office represents Joe and Lucy Dunn, who are the owners of Block 1, Lot 4B Alpine Acres Subdivision. The Dunns have recently demolished the old house on the property (which was moved to the property in late 66). Joe has demolished the old house, pursuant to a building department demolition permit issued July 15, 1989. There is currently a new house under construction on the Lot, again pursuant to a building permit. Initially, I would point out that the furor and adverse publicity which has surrounded this matter has been very distressing in addition to being financially burdensome to my clients. The purpose of this letter is to set forth Joe and Lucy's position on this matter. By way of background, my understanding of the facts is as follows: Around the last week in April, 1989, Joe visited Bill Drueding in the building department and reviewed his preliminary plans with him. Bill advised Joe that he needed to check with you and he did so. At that time, he was advised that he was rated "2" and accordingly HPC effectively had no , control over his plans. Joe was requested to voluntarily designate his property as historic, and he declined. Later, around June 10, Joe submitted his plans to the building department. As you are aware, there were substantial delays in obtaining permits this summer as a matter of course. Accordingly, since it was imperative that Joe begin work, he requested and received a demolition permit from Bob Gish. Joe then commenced work. Originally, he had intended to use three OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P. C. Ms. Roxanne Eflin November 6, 1989 Page 2 walls of the house, but it soon became apparent that the walls were not structurally sound and accordingly a whole new structure was built. Around August 20, 1989, Joe was temporarily red tagged, and Joe for the first time became aware he had a problem with your office. To me, the central issue is whether or not Joe acted in good faith. In the absence of bad faith, I believe the Dunns were entitled to rely on and act within their permits. In this regard, I have seen no evidence to even suggest bad faith on Joe's part. At that time Joe first visited the building department and your office, there were no ordinances in place which would prohibit Joe's plan due to his low rating on the historical scale. Later, I believe in early May, Ordinance 17, which requires review by HPC was enacted. Joe, unaware of the Ordinance, then applied for his permit in mid-June. At no / time was he informed by anyone at the City that his project f was subject to historic review. Joe is a carpenter and small contractor. Like most citizens, he does not keep track of all ordinances enacted by council. He, like the building department, had no idea there was a problem with his project. I simply do not believe a case of bad faith can be made in this case. It is our position that Joe obtained and relied on his demolition permit in good faith. Under that permit, he was entitled to demolish the old structure, which he did. At that point, since the house was demolished pursuant to a valid permit, the jurisdiction of HPC ends, and they have no right to review the new structure. In addition, I would point out that Joe has never made a secret of the fact that he intended - to add a second story to the house. He mentioned this several times at public meetings during the land use process which he completed a year or so ago. The addition was the very reason for that process. In closing, I would add that it is not my or my clients' purpose to cast blame. It is a simple case of a mix-up between City departments. With the volume of legislation enacted by the City, it is almost inevitable that interdepartmental mix-ups and mistakes will occur. Further, my client is sensitive to historic preservation and the goals of HPC. He has, in fact designed his new home in a victorian mode. The house further follows the same footprints of the old buildings with a new second story added. I would also point out that the reason for the expansion is to accommodate Joe's growing family. This is his home, not a "spec" house. GATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P. C. Ms. Roxanne Eflin November 6, 1989 Page 3 If you would like to meet with Joe and me, I would be happy to do so. I will be out of town until November 13, 1989, but will be happy to meet with you at any convenient time after that date. Sincerely yours, OATES, HUG~S~~~ 1// Jbtrb T. Kelly JTK/klh JTK1.00 CC: Joe and Lucy Dunn f Sandra Stuller, Esq. Amy Margerum \ 0 1 -L\-1 - 7 El--64 . 215-- (p \14\ r \ ..11. \... -/: / i 1 h.1 -7/17 -11\ 1 . . \ 1 1 1/ 1 / ..L. ~ 3/2-J - - -- - / , --- i /' - - - / - -- 1 2-2.6-2 1 1 1 //4 ' - - -----1 k 4 7 77v L L; 0,9-<-Â· 1 1<~ , 1 t= , / :1921 1 1: 'f ~1 .l --- N 1 --- - ---' -0- p 11 1------- -- 1 1 --- 1 : 1 1., J. 11 li CA Al .6 j i 4- 5 f I --- b 1 -7,\ 1 1 , A \ 1 It 1, il\\ . i i //\ , 1 / 11, 1 1 \ 1/1 1 / ~ x ~ 13 < /~;.4-21_31 ~ \,1 1 i / 1/ -.--.--11 1 L. I.--mi ~- -- / - + I I ./ --1- 9 . . \ \ / Chi + , -ET-1*I-,F+-__ __- ' . -1 it \ 1 : Â·Â·,4. -1 t' i, ' If t \ i 7 44~ , j 1 2' 11 Â¢ 1 '3 /Gial,41 .3/0~26-- f 2~1~~ 1 -- 1 1- 11 11 11 1 1 11 L. 1 {- \ Dl-INN 136â‚¬IP.ENCE Souropt . 341 4 Le l l4- -- lf-- 0~ 946 141117 LE- ' -- CAL i T=- 1 r. , / A 10~, . . 1 , '22:75.4 &4 " -7:.Â·3* 4 1 . . I ' Â£ ~r . ' r r f 1 Â·... 1 ... 1 . 6 , iD . 1.. g. Â·Â· . . 1% , .1 1 . A , 'rY,4... .11 ~4~ - - f jit--I~ ?-f- Ir ..1, 'A /"'. , - 1 - 49- 1 / 1 : G .... , \\ I i -4-' ' t V.Â·' Â· piÂ·i;:Â·ty.,, 4 7 i t 1 V 1 \\ 1 - 1 \\ 114 â€¢ t 1 / 19 -- . l / 7,0 -#.\.t . , ;â€¢tt ~3~~~ / \ .1. 1 1 i . '1 fy , /f \ 4-Â·Â· 1 Â· 4 11. i ---1 7 1 6. Â¢ 1-Â· 4 Eli.. 3.414-~ >41>1 1 . 1 2 . .1 / V , Â· 11 1 .\ - 1. I . 1 16 1. '' ' h.' 0 , --71 J~./ - - -i-/.I., ~ *--I- -- 744 t.Â·,n.Â·,~0 ; 1- 4. - ..2,41 Â·Â· 1 ..f' .1 Â·: ;1% - ~ -.i:,9 9 '.0,r.:p;<' . *:Cf.LL'i:. 4.2 , . 19 1 :.13.,.M,,?t..,,3 :12'. 1W .:1 . . I :," 74 1 . .. ... ... 1: 1 ... 6 . ' i'â€¢4 F . , .1, 't" . 4 ... U . ...9 .1 1 , 1 r - t .,4 <-,4. 1 . t.. i-- 3.2.Â· ~Â·'.. 0 lt,:Â»9501-2>2*:U-:-,1 ..~,-ti:Â·:-:-:.7. 1 ..r, 1 I. % b . D .1 .....1 1, ~446%41-49.%*3.At.y.f~~i ~.1 't, 1. I 4- 7,.9..1-2-~ ~ ...:...6 . - 1 ... , 1 -9 '. I - ... ,. f..1.- . .11 1?IGREÂ¢*imiÂ·414Â·T; e -:A 4-00Â·/Â·-Â·7;-: : 262.:4.-t...fle,4 4:I .tr. , 1.. . . 7.. 4./.*:/JX '. 43 ? . ... t 'L , . , ... ' 1 f I ' -I-'/; ' ,. ':lilli . , 1 '' -1 , ...1.4 1 1 1 1- 6 1 I. 1 .' ... $ 1 -1 1 1 -4 J . . AP-CA>VI , f , UÂ·r t, Â· .. . , - -Â·r. \W, ., { 1 ....:.- - i 1, 4 1 ./ ' ' 1 Â·Â·Â·1.4 ~-- i Â· 4 49 Â· 1 ,Â·/ ... 7. -1 a . 61Â». 6 ;- -4/40 - I'l: I I. - : I ---r....1--r---------- -, 1 1t..a\.111.\11\11 \.11 ---27--+----ZIZZI-ZI-IN~---2ZZLIZEZZILZE.Z~> 7--IZ7.-,- >--3LE#~L..17-------f-- p---7---- t H H ti il ' :-4'R:. 613 / --ZnLEIZ@ZEZE:ZIZE: IZE-ZEZIDEZOLIZIEJE---I~ZIEZZIJEJEZZILE-ZI-*-2-9,--4--------t:ZE-ILIJ~~2.-CE:ZL-ZZLIâ€žINZE-Z----T-I-EL-"- -'-----Ir------------------Izz:ZE' .-I -,---4.-- lirÂ·Â·Â· . u. It--- 1 r-- 0 . ..1 W- p . 1% -t-4 -1 - '' , I k ..' ., 1 + 1 1. 1 /Â»\ / 111 01.' , /1 1 U. I. \Ii J 1 /11--- $ /1 --7----7-==u~kit-15 4-11=-==11 L 2*~~~ 11. Â«,4.211=z=Ez' .+112213*11=~ e li J r/471, ------I----1 1 4 4..1 1. . . 1. -' "31 - , 1 ./ .' F*-*.~--I. .--*.u-/*--I--J~r-/ I -- f--*-.Ill:.*. , - . -5 |'' 1 ~*. --. 1 . . ..6 :r -I -,4.,7- ..Â·A~-Â·,.3 w . ' . ... 1 , I. /'r U LOT 5 ALF]NE ACKED DUE,rj /1 ttlcE EtÂ·te.10Â·CHES I.4 FEET- FOt ,[{[30 FLANT IC CAF ON KE' e.4.A N37Â°46'15"E 165.16 FENCE -- ~ _ 1 L.9 1/2701 , - f ~ - - 'AwQQ?zz~zI_-r. __u--1 94- 7-Â·r=+Â·'. ---71 V 1, 2/ 10 F F ./ 1' i 1, X T 1 0.Â· 4 2.1 9 1 -d-n _ 1 I rÂ· I r- 7-EL .2161 T . (205 , 22 82----_p -Z j~ 1 ~ 65,~94.~994Â»Â·'92 Â»22Â· 6,>t >45'/. , .Ir I E-L.â€¢ 9, 1 7~ 1 /I 1'1'Ill . i 1 Off~ ~ 1 1<----21 9----01- 4 b i / lfiil/// /INfill/ill,/6/"ON/lf- 1-\ OT 413 /~Whm1 i~ <27 .i = ~ 4~Â«,0/4~. #41<94Â¢f 1 4\ *1 --ILT\~ i /l/fillillt"ill1/-lifill/C/lii9?1 ill &F) a A.F[INE ACRES 4 4.37 ONE STORY ~ / | / ,FRAME GARAGEX / ' j | h'' 01 0 2, 5 BDIVISION I-570 ////7//\ 'i lilli ~ . 8 901 5Q. FT 1/////A. \ INÂ«~-t ; -- 1 2 /4* P fl'd h 7 1 ---------2-f---_ 1 8-49 f / 1 49.1&-------LE_ 7--- LE=L."It G 1 / 1.0 IN42'07'00"E - - N37543'15"E / 1. FENCE ~ .M.. I 95. GO / --- 1-_.35.F 4 / ~* EL - 11 1 0.17 >/kof/295Â»2. '351..{~foit~A / g EL â€¢ 41.12 /04.1 /'0- ~~ ' 4542/~ ' / 'g~ft,.59Â»o,gy~///~/Lrl Â»4 v 1 -1 4 4 LOT 4 A r U 43 j T ' <04/,A / TE ALPINE ACREÂ© 0 9///////, 4 Al 8>UBDIVISION ' / ' 41 I t.nE,4.599~59021'~6014 -*NcH w,< 77062 5@. FT 1 <4 1 01 l j / < El. s q,1 1 -- ------4442 1 0 1 in EL. â€¢ 94Â·/2 ~ 9~7 0 - â‚¬\ 1 1 N / \L / . 1 537Â°46~ ID"W 185.125 ...... F<O-NI YARD 8 35 4/ 4'0 61 ,// 1 6 1 11 1 /1 -- ------0-------0---0-0------- - I .-- ---------- lili / \ \ Eli 1 lili , \ I'll 1 -1-7-/--+~-----------t-(f_ It 11-i/11- ---1-_- ili --9242 l -- ---7-r ---- - -.W 1 AOVE EXISTING PLYWOOD 7- = .1- I - - A '--) WINDOWS -REPLACE WITH | 1 - --~ r :,-; ,-V FULL HEIGHT GLAZING AND 1 1-7-4~L---19 E-]-2-2-JUUÂ»GALL-11 1--I-- 1- r ~ --1- - 1--1 OU 110-5 4 +Ub.41 Ja- 1 ---- - 1 -- 1-7 12- 1 - - ---- _ La -- -1 1 - 2-]f -- .[-1 1 -- C I . I I ' . C -EZZ- ELI .:C - , E=El E=-1 1~ -u- T~~~~ 9 [--1 9 U *21-93IzÂ»tulÂ»~2~22-262 -= 1 . -- - . - L 1 f- 121110--f - -- 1 1 ---- 1 - -- C= ~ -1 - - 1 1 - -- - - -1 - l- ---------1 -f ~ . I -2-2.--7- -217-632%55---T 1- 1 -- -- 11 '11111 -----1 1 lilli Ell lilli 1111111 1 ---- 1 111 iiI lilli ,-1-[ f-Ill] NEW SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING NEW SANDSTONE INFILL TO MATCH EXISTING EAST ELEVATION , B Historic Preservation Incentives Aspen, Colorado Prepared by Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner - Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office November, 1989 ### Aspen's historic preservation program actively began in 1972, with the formation by City Council of the Historic Preservation Committee. This landmarks review board has diligently served the community consistently since that time, to protect and preserve Aspen's irrepla,ceable and invaluable historic resources. Thousands of hours in research and review have served as the foundation for one of the state's most respected preservation programs. Two historic districts (with an additional pending), over 100 locally designated landmarks, the preservation of countless historic resources, and a community proud of its traditional Victorian mining heritage are the results of the HPC's commitment to the community of Aspen. This publication discusses preservation "incentives", a term widely used to describe tools to assist a property owner in achieving community goals, in this case: preserving the traditional, historic character of our town. We have focused on incentives, separating them from the other complex issues of historic preservation, of which the Planning Office has a great deal of expertise and written information on. Our goal is to present preservation incentives in a way we might describe as "user friendly". Some of the terms are simple to understand; others are much more complex and the brainchild of specific projects that have demanded specialized attention. It should be understood that the nature of this publication is only to identify and briefly touch on each incentive. The Planning Office has an immense amount Of information on each Of these topics, and should be tapped at anytime along the "preservation way". We'd like to offer this analogy: Historic buildings, and sites, are like people: they have to be loved and nurtured to survive. Preservation incentives are just one way to insure the survival of our finite and fragile heritage. Why "Incentives to Preserve"? 1) Preservation incentives encourage the effective preservation of irreplaceable historic resources. 2) Preservation incentives assist property owners in the economics of the project. Historic buildings are often intricate, constructed in an era where labor was less expensive, and pride of the individual craftsman was evident in the end result. The extra time and expense to properly restore, renovate or rehabilitate a historic resource cannot be underestimated. 3) Preservation incentives create a partnership in the protection and preservation of our heritage. The preservation of a community's heritage is the responsibility of every citizen. Therefore, to help with the complex issues of preservation, incentives have been developed to help offset the costs to a private property owners. Nationally recognized incentive tools: 1) Rehabilitation Investment Tax Credits (RITC). Certified, income producing National Register properties may be eligible for 20% tax credits (reduced in 1986 from 25%). 2) Facade or Conservation Easements: The donation of an easement to a tax-exempt non-profit organization reduces the amount of taxable assessed value of a property. 3) Revolving Funds: A tool used widely in the East, this -- is a mechanism for a non-profit organization to purchase ar endangered structure, stabilize or (sometimes) renovate it, then resell the property to a qualified party, usually with conditions or . restrictions. The proceeds of the sale of the property "revolve" back into the non--profit's fund to be used for future purchases. 4) Transferred Development Rights (TDR): Generally used in urban settings, TDR's are extremely effective to protect smaller scale structures within denser zone districts, by allowing the potential development rights to be purchased and "transferred" to another property that could accept such development. However, TDR's are complicated to administer, and require an appropriate repository, able to accept the larger development. 2 5) Purchased Development Rights (PDR): Rural areas and scenic landscapes have been protected from new development by utilizing PDR's, an actual outright purchase, from the property owner, of the potential value of the property if it were to be developed. A PDR program is being considered in Aspen, and would be very effective in urban settings as well as rural. State Inventive Tools: Colorado is about to become the 4th state to pass legislation allowing a State Tax Credit (RITC) for the rehab of historic properties. The provisions are to be more liberal than the Federal RITC: 25% credit, residential (non-income producing) properties are eligible, and properties do not have to be listed on the National Register, as long as they are Designated Landmarks within a CLG :Aspen, for example). Other than this proposed legislation, Colorado has relatively little to offer in the way of preservation incentives. Some states provide grants (mostly matching) or loans, generally on a competitive basis, some waive state property taxes for rehab projects, still others provide funding for endangered properties. Colorado has a long way to go in the area of significant funding for historic preservation, however, with the passing of the proposed RITC legislation, a state preservation fund will be set up, providing needed funding for targeted projects. 3 Local Incentives We are pleased to have as a model one of the West's most extensive incentive programs for historic preservation. However, we must continue to examine all avenues to prevent demolitions; it appears we are still not there. First, it is important to identify all the players involved with Aspen's historic preservation program: City Council Historic Preservation Committee Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen Historic Trust (private, non-profit) Aspen Historical Society (private, non-profit) Historic property owners Development Community Community-at-Large Without the support of the entire community, historic preservation simply cannot happen in a comprehensive manner. We shoulc also identify the State Historic Preservation Office and the National Park Service. Aspen has the designation of "Certified Local Government", capable of receiving grant funds for program administration, training and specific projects (such as National Register nominations and the Main Street Historic District Study, to name. but a few). The SHPO and the NPS are direct players in local tax act projects, coordinating local National Register nominations and in administering CLG funding. Deciphering Preservation: Ratings, The Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures vs. Local Landmark Designation Local Landmark Designation vs. the National Register Local Historic Districts vs. National Historic Districts As we enter a new decade, it appears obvious that comprehensive community planning must incorporate historic preservation as a significant element in achieving "balanced community" goals. Concern is expressed about the rapidly expanding scope of the preservatian field and the speed with which traditional concepts have changed. The subject matter is preservation is no longer focused entirely on the oldest and the best. Now there is talk of preserving cultural and designed landscapes, the intangible cultural heritage, ethnic tradition and conservation areas. 4 Along those lines, one may be assured that the web of preservation terminology and technology will not become any easier for the layman to decipher or understand. With that in mind, we have attempted to break through the clutter, and address those issues which appear to be most often confused. The three most important things to understand are these: 1) Identification and "rating" on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures does not mean Landmark Designation The 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures was established, and identifies over - 250 historic resources, of which 105 are Designated Landmarks. The Inventory includes all historic resources built prior to 1910 (regardless of current architectural integrity) as well as other significant architectural resources, such as the Aspen Institute. In 1980, three categories were created to slot all the historic resources identifiell on the Inventory: Exceptional, Excellent and Notable. In 1986, the Inventory was re-evaluated. All Notables received a numerical rating, from 0 to 5, 5 having the most integrity. Historic Inventories must be updated regularly. The Code requires this be done at least once every five years; we are currently in the process of eliminating the cumbersome and confusing numerical rating system, apply more standardized language to certain integrity categories, and reach into the community. 2) The National Register program has no direct relation to the Aspen Landmark Designation program Aspen has 25 properties, including two bridges and one silver mine, listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Four additional structures are eligible for listing, and four more are currently in the process. Most of Aspen's National Register properties are also local Designated Landmarks. Only Local Designated Landmarks are eligible to take advantage of the local incentives. Only National Register properties (or those certified 5 within a National Historic District) are eligible to take advantage of federal incentives. Listing on the National Register of Historic Places carries with it NO restrictions or review capacity whatsoever. Listing on the National Register does not take away any property rights nor does it effect ownership, use of the property or zoning. It does not require the owners to maintain their property nor does it involve any outside agency in the maintenance. Listing in the Register is an honorary, national recognition Of buildings, sites and districts which have significance in local, state and national historv. The National Register is maintained by the National Park Service and is headquartered in Washington, D.C. A property must meet established criteria to be considered eligible. 3) Aspen has two local historic districts, the Commercial Core Historic District, established in 1974, and the Main Street Historic District established in 1975. Aspen does not have a National Historic District. National Historic Districts must contain a minimum of 75% contributing resources. In this context, contributing means 1) over 50 years old, and 2) ' ' containing enough original historic integrity to warrant to honor of "National Historic District". A portion Of Aspen's West End, including the Hallam Lake/Triangle Park/Community Church area may qualify for such status. The proposed West End Historic District is -- - pending; the HPC is studying this area now. All development involving sites or structures, old or new, located within a local historic district, require approval through either the Planning Office or the HPC, depending upon the extent of the development activity. 6 LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION PROCESS Aspen's Landmark Designation program began in 1974. It was designed to encourage voluntarv designation by historic property owners primarily for two reasons: 1) To allow property owners to take advantage of benefits to preserve their properties (incentives) 2) To allow the HPC the review and approval of alterations anc'/or additions to historic resources. The program has been extremely successful. Over 100 Landmarks are enjoying that status today. Six (6) Designation Standards were designed, requiring that the property meet at least one of these to be considered eligible for Landmark status. Landmark Designation is a zoning overlay, requiring the adoption of an Ordinance changing the zoning in perpetuity of the parcel. The process begins with an application to the Planning Office. From there the meetings are as follows: 1) Review and recommendation at a scheduled HPC public ~ meeting 2) Review and recommendation at a public hearing at a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting 3) First Reading by City Council of the Ordinance 4) Second and Final Reading by City Council at a Public Hearing of the Ordinance. Approval of a Designation Grant would be made by Council at this time as well. Following Ordinance approval by Council, the City Clerk sends the documents to the County Clerk's office for recordation, and the Planning Office zoning map is changed to reflect the "H" overlay. 7 LIST OF LOCAL INCENTIVES We have discussed the differences in local and national programs, terminology and process. We have also discussed why incentives are necessary in a community's overall preservation program. Now we'll discuss the list of local incentives, adopted by City Council and made a part of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. Understand that this list is more of an outline. Each one of these incentives can be fully described to you by the Planning Office, in their relation to your specific project. Fees/Grants/Loans: o No processing/application fees for HPC review (savings of approximately $750 - $1500) o Exemption from competition in the Growth Management Quota System 0 $2,000 Designation grant available for residential properties o Park Dedication fee may be waived by Council (approximately $2,000) 0 $10,000 zero-interest city loan for minimum maintenance available to property owners demonstrating economic hardship; to be repaid within 10 years or at transfer of title, whichever comes first Uses: o A variety of Conditional Uses, such as Bed and Breakfast, Boarding House, etc. o Non-conforming size Landmark parcels are allowed permitted and conditional uses as specified in zone district Variations: All variations require the HPC to find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. o Side, rear and front yard setbacks o Minimum distance between buildings 8 o FAR up to 500 sq. ft. o On-site parking mitigation o Open space for on-site relocations within commercial zone districts o Two detached dwelling units on a smaller than required lot size in the R-6 zone district - Other: o Lessened impact mitigation for affordable housing in commercial projects, based on a sliding scale in relation to maximum build out o Change of Use exempt from GMQS and impact mitigation (Planning Director signoff) o Expansion below grade exempt from GMQS and impact mitigation o Expansion above grade, provided expansion is NOT both FAR and net leasable, is exempt from GMQS and impact mitigation (Planning Director signoff) o Flexibility in the UBC (Universal Building Code), under the Historic Preservation provisions NEEDED: o Active PDR program o Matching grants for "bricks-and-mortar" projects o Grants for technical/design assistance o Funding for stepped up community outreach/education (Add your suggestions or needs here:) 9 RESULTS OF THE INCENTIVES PROGRAM: Aspen has had many preservation successes. The Hotel Jerome, the Wheeler Opera House, the Pitkin County Courthouse, the Sardy House, the Brand, the Aspen Block, the Wheeler-Stallard House and many, many more throughout our community exemplify "preservation- in-action". The results may be summarized as follows: o Innovative preservation projects o Compatible alterations and additions o Adaptive uses o Economics that work - o Neighborhood and community preservation o Sense of place preservation o Community pride! We are very pleased with the interest and dedication in preservation demonstrated throughout our community, and look forward to perpetuating the protection and preservation of our invaluable heritage for years to come. ### (Please list your needs and suggestions here) ### Prepared by Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office Roxanne is available for consultation by phoning 920-5090. 10