The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19890628 T r j AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE JUNE 28, 1989 WORKSESSION: 4:00 - 5:00 Attendance required TOPICS: Main Street Historic District Study Re-Evaluation of the Inventory REGULAR MEETING 5:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.m. FIRST FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS City Hall 4:00 - 5:00 WORKSESSION - DON'T FORGET 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of June 14, 1989 minutes. II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. OLD BUSINESS 5:15 A. Final Development Amendment: 432 W. Francis- Request for rear yard setback variation. 'AL=.\4-~ - 5:30 B. Final Development: 413 E. Hyman Ave., Reide's City Bakery 9,-j -15 7 6 r /''Kbl (4- V. NEW BUSINESS 6:00 A. Landmark Designations: 100 E. Bleeker St. 706 W. Main St. P94,9, '/4.2, J 6:10 B. Minor Development: 315 E. Main St. - fence and sign -jÂ« Â·)-Â« C. RFTA bus benches and kiosk signs - Main Street Historic District 1-,361 4.-C_ 6:45 VI. COMMUNICATIONS A. Staff: Revised Historic Preservation provisions of the Land Use Code (attached) Statewide Preservation Workshop, July 28- 30 CLG required - (application form/agenda attached) B. Project Monitoring and Sub Committee Reports 7:00 VII. Adjourn MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: WORKSESSION: Special project work plan: Main Street Historic District Study Inventory Re-Evaluation Date: June 28, 1989 INTRODUCTION: The time has come for us to determine our plan of action for the remainder of the year, involving two very significant projects: 1. The Main Street Historic District Study: Existing Conditions Report and Implementation Plan 2. The Re-Evaluation of the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures This memo has been prepared to outline the issues and alternatives and provide a method to begin a dialogue between staff and the HPC. I am extremely interested in your thoughts and ideas of these two projects, and enthusiastic that as a team we may effectively meet our goals, while providing the entire community with a two preservation planning tools and basis for implementation. MAIN STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT STUDY: Steps for study: 1. Brainstorm: What are we trying to accomplish? 2. Determine study area boundaries 3. Produce Existing Conditions report 4. Inventory/report analysis 5. Brainstorm again: Have our goals changed? 6. Develop Alternatives - 3 preferred 7. Reach consensus on Preferred Plan 8. Produce Implementation Plan Elements of the study for consideration: A. Specific architectural and environmental design issues: amend Guidelines accordingly B. Land Use Issues: Zoning - FAR, dimensional requirements, uses, etc. C. Preservation Incentives D. Pedestrian and Transportation elements: street furniture, sidewalks/walkways, parking, etc. We recommend that a sub-committee "team" of very interested HPC members be appointed to work closely with staff on this project, bringing information back to the whole committee as the study progresses. We wish to have this report concluded this fall. RE-EVALUATION OF THE INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES: Overview: In 1986, the rating system for all "Notables" was implemented, and code language created (Section 7-709) to address the issues of re-evaluation. Please refer to the three paragraphs of this Section in your Code. Of particular importance are Paragraphs B and C, which state (in part): "... It shall be the responsibility of the HPC, based on the recommendations of the Planning Director, to evaluate the inventory of historic structures at least once every five (5) years, and to hold a public hearing to solicit comments on its evaluations. The purpose of the evaluation shall be to determine those structures which are to be removed from the inventory, and structures which should be added to the inventory, and to rate all structures which remain on the inventory... "... Structures shall be assigned with a rated value of between 0 and 5, based on guidelines established by the HPC and ratified by Ordinance Of City Council. Structures which are rated 0 and 1 shall be deemed to have no historic value and shall be removed from the inventory. Structures rated 2 through 5 shall remain on the inventory and periodically be re-evaluated as provided above." To date, the structures that received a rating of 0 and 1 have not been removed from the inventory. The number of "0"'s and "1"'s is approximately 35. A re-evaluation of the Inventory was promised by Staff to Council when Ordinance 17 (the Demolition Ordinance) was passed two months ago. No firm date was established for the completion of the re-evaluation, however, fall was targeted as the time to begin. It is anticipated that this re-evaluation may take between 3-6 months. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: In 1926, the rating system was an appropriate and effective 2 tool in evaluating and categorizing the various integrity levels within the vast number Of "Notables" (some 210). Those current HPC members who were on the Committee at that time remember the confusion, problems, time and effort that went into that project. It is my intention to eliminate these frustrations from the re-evaluation process. The Planning Office feels strongly that the rating system is cumbersome, confusing and out-dated. A new, simpler method for "rating" historic structures must be incorporated into the preservation program. We have analyzed rating methods in other communities, and feel strongly that the following methods will vastly improve communication with the public, provide better project review by staff and the HPC, and strengthen the program's image in the community: 1. Utilize National Register language which Will provide continuity with State and National programs, i.e. CLG reporting 2. Clearly define "category" language with clear, appropriately defined review standards which should ease some of the confusion we have experienced with applicants in the past 3. Eliminate the numerical system ("I'm a 2; They're a 3") ; the stigma of better vs. worse historic resources has created numerous problems over the last few years. The seven current "rating" categories for historic structures will basically be reduced to three non-numerical categories, each one as important as the next, yet with distinct characteristics for project and design review based on the application of review standards from rigorous to more basic. 4. Section 7-709 will need amending accordingly, once the Re-Evaluation process is complete Recommended Categories and appropriate Review Standards: A. Contributing - Significant: All those resources currently rated Exceptional, Excellent, or those resources individually eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Total: 64 Review Standards: o Aspen Development Review Standards as specified in the Land Use Code o Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation 3 Aspen Development Review Guidelines NPS and NTHP Briefs and Technicals where appropriate B. Contributing: All those historic or architecturally significant resources that do not meet the above rating criteria. These resources have maintained their historic integrity or represent unique architectural design. Total: approximately 175 Review Standards: Aspen Development Review Standards as specified in the Land Use Code Aspen Development Review Guidelines Optional: Secretary of the Interior Standards where appropriate C. Supporting: All those historic resources that have lost their original integrity, however, are "retrievable" as historic structures (or sites) . These structures have received substantial alterations over the years, however, with substantial effort could contribute once again. Total: Approximately 25 Review Standards: o Aspen Development Review Standards as specified in the Land Use Code o Aspen Development Review Guidelines D. Non-Contributing: All those structures that are either: a) New or not-historic construction within a historic district, and b) historic structures with complete loss of integrity, either within or outside a historic district. Non-contributing historic structures should be completely removed from the Inventory. Total: Unknown - new or non-historic construction Approximately 10 - historic Review Standards: o Aspen Development Review Standards as specified in the Land Use Code o Aspen Development Review Guidelines 4 00 0 00 The Re-Evaluation process will involve a block-by-block sidewalk study, new photographs, inventory form updates and new Inventory map preparation. It will also involve a commitment on the part of the members of HPC to assist planning staff, and the community to provide input and comments in a public hearing, or a series of neighborhood group meetings. Staff wishes to begin the Re- Evaluation process this fall, and utilize the effort to promote the historic preservation program and the HPC within the entire community, and work hand-in-hand with individual historic neighborhoods to determine their individual and unique issues of character retainage, design and desired general improvements. RECOMMENDATION: Main Street Historic District Study: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC appoint the "Main Street Study Team" (sub-committee), and reach consensus on the goals for the study, at this meeting. The Inventory Re-Evaluation: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC reach consensus on the recommended "rating" categories as specified in this memo, and appoint 2 members each to study the three remaining areas of town: West End East Aspen Townsite and "Shadow Mountain" neighborhoods Smuggler Mountain area, and all fringe areas memo.hpc.spec.projects 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Amendment to Final Development Approval: 432 W. Francis St., the Hallet House (Hernandez Residence) Request for rear yard setback variation Date: June 28, 1989 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Approval from the HPC for a variation for rear yard setback of 4" due to a recalculation of the garage addition. This is a technical consideration only; no additional exterior changes are proposed. STAFF'S COMMENTS: The applicant has explained his request for the variation by stating that once partial demolition took place, a remeasurement of the existing structure, with internalized log cabin, produced slightly varied calculations. Instead of the required 5' rear yard setback for the garage off the alley, the construction will be located 4' 8" away from the rear property line, an encroachment of 4" into the rear yard setback. Project monitor Don Erdmann inspected the situation and reports . 4 no negative affects will occur with the variation approval. Staff finds that the request does not directly affect the historic character of the structure, and finds no reason to deny the request. Variations may only be granted by the HPC. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant approval for the rear year setback variation for the project at 432 W. Francis St. as proposed. memo.hpc.432wf.variation ATmaÂ·IMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM Hernandez Residence 1) Proj ect Name 2) Project Location 432 W. Francis Street Lots K, L, & M, Block 34, Aspen Townsite (indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) 3) Present Zoning R-6 4) Lot Size 9,000 sq. ft. 5) Applicant's Name, 2*irr-.cs & Phone # Cecil and Noelle Hernandez 380 High Street, Denver, CO 80218 (303)777-1650 6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # Charles Cunniffe & Associates 520 E. Hyman Ave., Suite 301, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303)925-5590 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Use - Conceptual SPA - Conceptual Historic Dev. Special Review - Final SPA - Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline __ Conceptual FUD X Mi.nor II.istoric Dev. Stream Margin Final FUD - Historic Danolition Mount-nin View Plane Subdivision Historic Designation Condaminiumization Text/Map Amendment . - GOS Allotinnt Lot Split/Int Line - GMQS ID)=aption Adj ustment 8) Description of Existing Uses Â· (rnmber and, type of existing strucfures; approximate sq. ft.; number' of bedrocrns; any previous approvals granted to the property). Existing residence with H.P.C. approval for renovation and additions to the Carriage and Main house. 9) Descriptian of Development Applicatian When the approved demolition of the former mud room entry was accomplished and accurate dimensions were established , it was determined that the garage would encroach the rear setback by ( see next page) 10) Have you attached the following? Response to Attachment 2, Mininum Sulnission Contents Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission antents Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application Page 2 Hernandez 4 inches. To allow reconstruction to proceed, the H.P.C. Monitor, Donelly Erdman reviewed the structure at the site and gave tentative approval to reduce the rear set- back at the garage to 4'-8" from 5'-0". This approval must be confirmed by the H.P.C. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Final Development Review: 413 E. Hyman Ave., Reide's City Bakery Building Date: June 28, 1989 LOCATION: 413 E. Hyman Ave., on the Mall ZONING: CC - Commercial Core, Historic District, designated landmark, listed on the National Register of Historic Places APPLICANT: Lis G. Sorensen, represented by Welton Anderson HPC Monitor: none yet assigned, to be assigned at this meeting APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Final Development approval from the HPC for construction of a partial second floor dwelling unit, and the repair and restoration of the facade. PRIOR HPC CONSIDERATION: Conceptual Development approval was granted for the proposal on May 24, 1989, subject to the following conditions: 1. The height of the two-stage addition shall be reduced by at least 12 inches on the first stage and at least 24 inches on the second stage so that neither can be seen from a point directly opposite at the north edge of the mall with a view point of 5' 6" from the mall surface. 2. Partial demolition shall include as little destruction of the original portion of the structure as physically possible. 3. The glare producing aspect of the south elevation glazing shall be mitigated by changing the angle to vertical. 4. Building materials used in surfacing the addition shall be "quiet" and non-matching with the historic structure. The materials should be compatible but non- duplicative, and be different in appearance to the original structure. 5. Foundation/Structural information be submitted detailing protection methods for the original structure, with a Performance Guarantee letter to be approved by Staff Attorney Fred Gannett. 6. Story poles, both parallel to and perpendicular to the facade, shall be erected on or before May 30, 1989. Horizontal definition of the entire proposed addition is required. Further, staff discussed with HPC the need to obtain an opinion from State Preservation Architect, Lane Ittelson, on the project as a whole. Discussion also focused on the need for a massing model, which is generally required on projects like this. STAFF COMMENTS: We feel that the applicant has met most of the conditions of HPC's conceptual approval, however, we feel that the height reductions are still not adequate to meet the intent of Condition #1. Condition #1. We have voiced and written our concerns for the addition of a second story to this small, one-story National Register commercial structure in the last two meetings when this project was reviewed. Our concerns remain the same: if the structure is visible from within the historic district and perceived to be an addition to the structure, then the proposal is wrong for this building. We have requested guidance from State Preservation Architect Lane Ittelson, who has responded verbally. His concerns are identical to staff's, however, he feels that while roof top additions are generallv not approved for tax credit certification, this project may be close with additional modifications. As with all National Register structures, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation are used in review. Standards #1 and #9 are applicable, which state: "Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property which requires minimal alteration of the building, structure, or site and its environment, or to use the property for its originally intended purposes." "Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical, architectural, or cultural materials, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood, or environment." Staff has photographed the story poles, which are visible from within the mall, and are primarily visible from directly in front of the Wheeler Opera House on the corner. 2 We feel that further study must be accomplished to scale back the addition further, so that its impact, or perceived impact, is much lessened. Condition #2: Partial Demolition: After a lengthy discussion about the proposed partial demolition with Lane Ittelson, we are recommending that all original materials remain, with a new structural system built inside the middle, historic portion of the structure. The committee, staff and the applicant have spent some time discussing the reasonableness of retaining original materials that are not seen-and staff has come to the conclusion that a C"facadechtomy" p is NOT historic preservation. We are, the-BifEFE,-requiring that all original materials be retained, repaired and preserved. "Facades" are not listed on the National Register, buildings are. It is reasonable to expect this structure may be de-listed if 80% (or more) of the original building no longer exists. For that reason alone, Staff cannot support any proposal to further remove any original materials. The preservation of existing fabric will need to be worked into the renovation plan. Condition #3: This condition has not been met by the applicant, who states that studies indicate glare will not be a problem, and that awnings will be used in the summer months to cover the windows. The HPC should consider if the applicant's arguments meet this condition of conceptual approval. Condition #4: Materials: Originally the applicant proposed stucco, then decided upon clapboard after some discussion with staff. After discussing HPC's concerns and the pros and cons of look-alike materials vs. new, quiet materials with Lane Ittelson, we are recommending stucco, which can be painted neutral to match it surroundings and in essence, allow the addition to disappear and become disassociated even more with the historic resource. Condition #5: Foundation/Structural Information and Performance Guarantee: We have received a structural report from Enartech, Inc. (Charles Peterson) that discusses the foundation plan of action. It also states the existing structure is inadequate structurally to support a second floor, which we expected. (The building wasn't constructed originally to support a second floor.) We do not support the engineer's request to demo historic portions, and feel that other alternatives exist, such as constructing an independent support system just within the existing walls. We have not received the required Performance Guarantee letter, required as a part of this condition of approval. Final Development approval should not be approved until such 3 document is submitted to staff and approved by the city attorney. Condition #6. Story poles were constructed, which staff photographed to request feedback from State Preservation Architect Lane Ittelson. (See Staff's response above to Condition #1.) ALTERNATIVES: Alternative actions the HPC may take are: 1. Grant Final Development approval for the proposal as submitted 2. Deny Final Development approval, finding that the application does not meet all of the condition of the Conceptual approval. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC deny Final Development approval finding that the following conditions of Conceptual approval have not been met. A revised Final Development application may be submitted at any time which meets the conditions of the Conceptual approval. Condition #1: Height of the second floor addition has not been adequately reduced to meet the criteria. Staff has spent considerable time on the mall studying the proposed addition, and with the State Architect: we feel that further reductions are necessary to mitigate perceived visual impacts to the historic structure. Condition #2: The demolition plan proposed leaves only a facade to "preserve". We cannot support this proposal, and strongly recommend that the HPC require the preservation of original materials, and clarify specifically this condition of Conceptual approval in motion form at this meeting. Condition #3: The applicant has not met this condition of the Conceptual Approval. HPC should consider his arguments and restate this condition accordingly. Condition #4: After further study, we agree with the applicant's first approach to materials: stucco, painted to blend in with the surrounding structures. The current proposal is for clapboard, which does not meet HPC's condition of Conceptual approval. Condition #5: Structural information has been submitted, however, the Performance Guarantee letter, requiring City Staff Attorney approval has not. This shall be submitted to staff and approved prior to a Final Development approval being granted. memo.hpc.413eh.fd 4 cljr v. c c u C Welton Anderson & Associates Architects To: Historic Preservation Committee Re: Reide's City Bakery, Final Development Plan Submission JM 2 Date: 2 June 1989 This constitutes final development olan submission for the Reide's City Bakery Building. Because of earlier noticing delays at conceptual approval stage, the applicant resDectfully requests final aporoval not be delayed a full month until June 28 but be scheduled on the June 14 meeting in the time period that was alloted fo the continuation of the conceptual public hearing. Enclosed please find three sets of plans and elevations, revised. Also enclosed is a sketch study showing the angle of the sun and its reflection at various times of the year superimposed on a sight line study of Aspen Mountain from the proposed apartment, and photocopies of photocopies of photographs of portions of Block 89 from the archives of the Aspen Historical Society. Condition 1: Reduce height so as to be invisible from across the mall- Story poles were erected on May 30, 1989 defining the edges of the major -oof eaves as proposed to be constructed. Physical inspection confirms that the addition will not be visible from across the Hyman Avenue Mall at a noint 5'-6" above the pavement. Condition 2 and 5: Minimal demolition and foundation/structural information- Logistical problems for construction: The enclosed letter from our General Contractor outlines the difficulties of constructing the new second floor above the rear 28 feet of the frame structure. Practical difficulties include numerous Itminor" demolitions of floors, walls, ceilings, and roofs with all the temporary shoring and supports required, matching, patching, and "minor" repairs to existing conditions uncovered that turn into major reoairs. New foundation excavation will have to be done by hand shovel and bucket briaade. Concrete for new footings will have to be brought in by hand in buckets. Keeping the existing walls in place gives us no ooDortunity to repair or replace the bulk of the rotted or decayed siding or stud framing members and to prevent their further deterior- ation. The west wall was last seen (repainted) prior to 1947, the east in 1971. They continue to be exposed to moisture and tem9erature extremes, but are Planning / Architecture / interior Design Box 9946 / Aspen, Colorado 81612/(303) 925- 4576 Page two Reide's City Bakery, Final Development Submission high maintenance materials trapped in zero maintenance voids between buildings. Neighbors Concerns: The applicant's architect was called May 31 by Andeline Griffith who owns the building to the west. She voiced her concern that there have been numerous leaks over the years into her building caused by the patch- work of roofs on our building. She noted that her building was "all that keens your building from falling over". She expressed hope that the proposed new construction would be able to solve the leaks and releave her concerns about our building collapsing further onto her Droperty and damaging her building. Conclusion on Conditions 2 and 5: After exhaustive inspection, structural evaluation, consultation with engineers, and analysis of existing conditions the applicant concludes that the east and west walls must be replaced in their entirety (including those portions to the north of the walls originally proposed for replacement. New foundations , floors, walls, ceilings, and roof will be constructed in the same configuration as original with only the front facade not replaced. New framing and siding materials (where not visible) will be of non-combustable and no-maintenance materials as required by code. This is the only feasible method of halting the deterioration and water damage of the building and maintaining its presence on Hyman Avenue. Conditions 3 and 4: Glare reduction from glazing on south and materials- The sun angle studies show clearly thet there is no direct reflection of the sun off the proposed slooed glass onto Aspen Mountain at any time when there are skiers on the mountain. We respectfully request that we be allowed to retain this feature to maximize our solar gain in winter and views. We Dlan to Drovide awnings over the glass in summer to prevent overheating. As discussed at conceptual, major materials will be bevel (clapboard) siding on all exposed surfaces, detailed as shown and painted a color to blend into the wall to the east. Your consideration of our final application is appreciated. ENARTECH Inc. Consulting Engineersand Hydrologists June 5, 1989 Mr. Welton Anderson Wellon Anderson and Associates -0~10'M~.V P.O. Box 9946 Aspen, CO 81612 ALAA RE: Structural Review 413 E. Hyman Street Dear Welton: On April 17, 1989, I conducted a cursory structural review of a building located at 413 E. Hyman Street on the Hyman Street Mall. The purpose of the review was to advise Liz Sorensen, building owner, as to the feasibility of remodelinE the structure and adding a second floor onto the rear portion of the building. The building is situated on a 100 foot long lot. The lot width is 16.44 feet for the first 51 feet and 20.44 feet wide for the remaining 49 feet. The structure consist of three distinct sections. The front section, which is 21 feet long, is the original building constructed before the turn of the century. The middle section, measuring 30 feet long, proportedly was added at an unknown date. The back section, which is constructed of hollow n,asonan, units, was constructed in Cie 1950's. The building, which has no basetnent, appears to be constructed over a shallow foundation of unknown quality. Because the buildings on the adjacent lots are of equal or greater height, the side walls are not visible or accessible for inspection. Following the construction of the neighboring buildings a shed roof was added to drain all runoff water to the rear of the lot. The shed roof was built over and conceals the original hip roof. - Following a review of the structure and the project goals, we recommend the following actions: I. Front Section: The front 21 feet of the building has been identified as having historical significance. We therefore recommend that this portion of the building not be altered in any way that would cliange its visual appearance. If, during the remodeling, it is determined that individual structural members do not meet current building code requirements or have deteriorated to the point where their integrity is in question, those members should be replaced in such a manner as to preserve the original building appearance. The flooring support system and the foundation should be reviewed during construction to determine their adequacy. The floor should be leveled and the foundation re-supported as required. 302 Etohth Street, Sulte 325 P,O. Drawer 160 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 (303) 945-2236 Mr. Welton Anderson June 5, 1989 Page -2- II. Middle Section: No portion of the original construction of the niiddle section of the building is visible from the Mall area. The walls are concealed by the adjacent building and the original roof covered by the new shed roof. Due to the setback of the middle section, the height of the front section parapet wall and the location of the adjacent buildings, the remodeling of the middle section with the addition of -a second floor will likely have no visual impact on the front section of the building as viewed from the I-lyman Street Mall. We see no benefit iIi attempting to salvage the existing walls or roof in this section because they are nearing the end of their useful life and are not easily accessible for repair. We therefore recommend that this section of the building be brought up to current code requirements by the construction of new walls and foundation. III. Back Section: The back section appears to be structural]Y adequate for it present use. However, since tile section has no historical significance and is not visible from tile Mall area, there should be no reason why this section cannot undergo major changes to meet the needs of the owner. If you or the building department have any questions about this report, please feel free to contact me. Thank you. Sincerely, ENARTECH, INC r?/ 0 0 ne OÂ»-7 c i,rt,Li / C .Flf/ -L L-- Charles Peterson P.E. Structural Engineer - 262-01 CC: Liz Sorensen -% re< 59 0 0 &.2 r 2 0 '11,1,7/3 67 / 2 f H, f, c. 1 N j,/1 0.Â«ex 011Â» 3,Â»,dit.3 ~-4 ~ _~A~,443? Â« 1Â« de~~111 11-4- ~4 -8/0-41, 11,-4.Â£4-. ALQ Jvvt- .,a,Â«pr-~C- ck 0 8 '19-7 Â»cu.6'C * .J r~~- c-~-_ k yit- 4/11Â£2;* -~g~._ i_< 3-tt-Â«-R_ .,dÂ£ 1:o- f li~ .Â£02Â»7 J Â», "dj )46147 -4/2,4- ' 3 Â£ ..~rn- C.â€¢1004. f .16 oft .A.â€¢11-7 44'."Â·-u A-~alt- ..4 6*5Â»Â« Avou-liel .1 Â£ 1Â·Â·,Â«. A Â»Ju-Â« Â»t , L 01 1*1 4+41 A- jw-rul-k ble .,4,911Â«J- cel&64 13 - f - 'Lti f el)- r 3 t- cblt-f-LI 314_ cal 1 id .44 'Â« 0-1 keÂ»,41<_ .u.-1..._ Gle -;1 1- 14- ctÂ« 9 Â»*i J< tijaâ€žAC~~fj 15- Fitll,- 0 44*ly 22 A U.x_ . 01Â£ 14 A-L glia 04 It V"Litu cil'( 1: Â»-BJ,2 .,La e.r',464-6.4 t,4 1/Â».1.4. 4 ~12 -114 b vt -f Ili CÂ»kiÂ« 41 tic LA A p.11& 1* #4 d,4/19 i.1-6 -efrA~ 4 ,Â«tÂ« f- 3 -~/LU.24Â« CL pdÂ« Â»- Â£ Li -a,31., p. --2- 1 Â»7~-.141 1 7~U '1/1 4 1- P J, 1747 L ' 61/ 29Â« .x CÂ»9 ~ a ~ <it b 4,- 1 j i r s Aspen/Pitkin#Blanning Office 130 s*'alg~jmiG.street asp e Ir~RE!*!EgIER 81611 June 5, 1989 Mr. Lane Ittelson, Preservation Architect COLORADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY 1300 Broadway Denver, CO 80203 Re: 413 E. Hyman Ave., (Reide's City Bakery), Aspen, CO Dear Lane: I am writing to request assistance in reviewing this renovation, a potential tax credit project. The Aspen HPC has already granted conceptual approval for the project subject to many conditions which must be met at Final Development review. I am not comfortable reviewing the final plans until I have received feedback from both you and Bonnie Halda or Keith Everett at the Park Service. The historic Reide's City Bakery located at 413 E. Hyman Ave. is located in the center of the Hyman Avenue Mall in Aspen on aÂ·very narrow (18.5' +/- x 100') lot. The one story frame commercial structure is noted as one of two surviving examples of Aspents early commercial development, and was listed on the National Register in 1986. The storefront remains in very original condition, receiving a restoration a few years ago by architect Welton Anderson, also the current project architect. The existing conditions are important to note. The owner of the structure, Lis Sorensen, wishes to renovate the interior, repair the exterior storefront and add space above in the form of a stepped back second floor, which will be used as her own dwelling unit. A cinderblock addition was added to the rear of the structure c. 1960; this is proposed to be demolished. As the photos indicate, the four-story (40') high "Roaring Fork Building" directly to the east Of our building, was built approximately 12 years ago, with a 3" or so void between their side wall and our clapboard wall. The structure immediately to the west of our building is not historic, built in 1947, and has also created a 3"-6" void between walls. Severe restrictions in maintaining these side walls are obvious. There is no original foundation; the floor waffles significantly, and there is indication of side wall sagging at the front corners. The only original portion of our building still visible is the facade. I am encouraging a restoration of the facade, and the preservation of as many other original materials as possible, within reason. These "other original materials" consist of walls that probably will never be seen or painted again due to their inaccessibility. Is this reasonable? The development proposal includes the following items which I need your advice on: 1. The second floor addition. The building is unique in its placement and perception on the mall. Vertical and horizontal story poles have been placed on the roof to indicate the maximum height of the addition. As you can see from the photos, the addition is proposed for the rear 2/3's of the lot, and will not be constructed above the original portion of the historic building. As the photos indicate, the second floor is visible from a portion of the Hyman Avenue Mall (west "entrance" across the street corner from the Wheeler Opera House), and down Hyman Ave. to the Commercial Core Historic District's far west boundary, one block away. What is interesting to note is the disassociat-ion the addition has in relation to our small building at this perspective. From the only angle of viewing the addition, one cannot determine easily which building it is on. The row of one and half story commercial structures to the west is fairly consistent in height (none of which are historic except ours), and the very overwhelming 40' side wall of the Roaring Fork Building provides the backdrop when looking up at the roofs from the west edge of the mall. I think it is reasonable to allow some kind of second floor addition to this structure; one with as little impact as possible, that meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, (especially to provide for a dwelling unit). The proposed height of the first step is 5'6" above the parapet, set back 21' from the facade edge; the second step up is 2' higher, stepped back approximately 52' from the facade edge. We have already requested a reduction in height from the originally proposed project; it may be reasonable to require further reduction, although the space is very limited already. If we are able reach an agreement on massing and height, style, materials and detailing are the next hurdles. Horizontal painted clapboard is proposed, which I support over stucco or brick. The thought is to paint the addition to blend in with the red brick of the Roaring Fork Bu-ilding, making it as invisible as possible. 2. Potential adjacent development: The four structures to the west of the subject property are all below maximum allowable FAR (floor area ratio). With the current development boom in Aspen, it is extremely likely that roof additions Will be added to these commercial structures in the near future. If and when that happens, the second floor addition in question will be completely invisible from any pedestrian view from anywhere in the district or on the mall. Granted, we cannot review and approve projects based upon speculative development, but this is a factor the HPC and the applicant have discussed. 3. Partial demolition: The facade is in good shape. There are conflicting opinions between the architect, owner and the contractor as to how much of the original structure remains. Reports indicate the front 21' is original, with questions regarding the "middle" 25' (+/-); the rear section is cinderblock which was added c. 1960. Equally as confusing are the many roof members, some hidden under new. It appears that the false front screened the original gable roof form, and that a shed roof was added sometime later to the middle portion, then more recently a flat roof was constructed to cover everything. The architect would like to demolish everything but the facade; I am opposed to this "facadechtomy" plan, finding that the original structure can remain, repaired from the inside, and a new structural system built inside to withstand any potential new rooftop addition. Is this reasonable? 4. Foundation: No foundation exists, which must be corrected. It is my opinion that footers and a perimeter foundation around the front 21' section is reasonable, with a new interior floor to correct sag. Lane, as you can see, there are many issues facing us on this project, a small but very important renovation/restoration. I would appreciate your written feedback as soon as you are able. I am scheduling the Final Development Review with the HPC for June 28, therefore, my deadline for memo preparation is June 20. Your comments, along with Bonnie's or Keith's, will be included in that review. The architect is familiar with RITC Step Two documentation forms, and he may be phoning you directly with comments. Thank you so much for your assistance. sincerely, Roxanne Eflin /j Historic Preservation Planner enclosures: photos, plans, memo, application narrative, etc. CC: Bonnie Halda, NPS Welton Anderson, project architect og.chs.ittelson /<Cul . hÂ«Â£ 1 TAKE= m thip--'- -44 United States Department of the Interior PmDE w--w-#-- fÂ°W -r *- 2, *I AZEXCAI'll"Immi 11 - ov NATIONAL PARK SERVICE \4'.-ah - ROCK~ MOUNTAIN REGIONAL OFFICE . \3%*21/ 12795 W, Alameda Parkwav -. P.O. Box 25287 Denver. Colorado 80225-0287 IN REPLA' REI 1 R TO: JUN i .; 1383 H36 (RMR-PR) Ms. Roxanne Eflin Historic Preservation Planner Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Ms. Eflin: Enclosed is the material you sent to our office regarding the proposed rehabilitation of the Reide's City Bakery in Aspen. The material included copies of letters, plans, and photographs which you had submitted to Mr. Lane Ittleson of the Colorado Hist,crical Society. We appreciate your interest in receiving comments from this office concerning rehabilitation work in Aspen. We were pleased to offer assistance for the review of the Collins Block and hope the comments we provided were helpful. We provided this assistance due to the fact that the Colorado Historical Society did not have a historical architect on staff at the time. Now that Mr. Ittleson has joined their staff, he is handling all requests for technical assistance from Colorado's Certified Local Governments . Our office will, of course, respond to any 'requests from the Historical Society concerning problematic projects. Our office does provide technical assistance to Certified Local Governments that are struggling wish design review issues. The best format for this usually is conducting and/or participating in workshops and training sessions. As such, we are looking forward to participating in the workshop scheduled for July 28-29, 1989, in Aspen. In the meantime, we are confident you will get sound advice from Mr. Ittleson and the Colorado Historical Society regarding the proposed rehabilitation of Reide's City Bakery. We would also like to take this opportunity to commend you for your enthusiasm and support for historic preservation in Aspen. Sincerely, J. Keith Everett, A T L Chief, Architecture Unit Branch of National Preservation Programs Enclosure CO: Lane Ittleson, Colorado Historical Society, Denver, Colorado 2:'.1fi --tht'.~ zZN Q A.Â« eer / 2â€¢Â«- 15 r,' F-*> M F-â‚¬bk!-T r Z.NO Fl,aL *er L j ' Fco'-4 ,rCoRM- - AL; . . . , 4,4-4.- 1. ~- ~ , -e-- .-- - 1. , ..... / 1 1 0 1 L. . t 4 ... 1.- 1 00 7.6, 1, 84 1 , 1 4 1 I 1 -- . r Â·= 1/ . -. ----- ./ - I.---... -17 +111/ lili 1[!11 ~flirn/' \Ard> 51 M '. I 1 Â· I f 1.- 1 t. ...IYYVV. 4 .11.1 .9..1 ! C< J EN~L --n--r 044 44 6 li 1 1 $ PED f r 6'J iL,-C,) F k.16% L--4 .- 1. 1 % r , I- ) 1 11 1 11 1 't tnt Â·Â·Â· 'St. ... I . 10 0-TU 2-1-eX/Â»Jod ~4 19,l L0 t 1- 1 1 1 - 1 f 51Â£Â¥50 NoN -,SLACE 51**dZE 6,1.,166 dtÂ¥ 616, 1-1-1 Â£7 dâ‚¬yaN D -7 1~4,2lf\|Gl F292ic - 0 -- --- i edi LO' h-161 --- 1 : FtlVACY sceerâ‚¬.1 Â·-- - 1 - - 1 1 1 , 591>kl reujrl L.- 1 [-42Â£ 0/Ah.14 -7- -. I -I -- .-- - - -- - -- -- - 1 1 1 1 1.i . 17, 1 Fl- 9 APT i 77.-- 41 fÂ« 1 J BvEL ekÂ· -*., ----- - --- . FIE' FL Â¢ M 4:+1 L.4'F 1 - \\/0 1 12- -7 2- C1- Fld FL 0 2/TAIL j d\\ -5 kil-It 15- Lâ‚¬%Allord / *0.-21 t Â¢141 Fkpg,ti e> OILLD' t..461 //74 -- -- h /// . ' i.--- i 6 0 633-3-2*EPILIÂ£â‚¬706-13583467?32i _ 122-- -/ . ...2 -2==1 Â» -. - 222.-.7-El=Ift--_-8**r]Ni- FAN-T._ - . -1 . ._- .. PAINTED- -D- .'.r-[47241 gg/\INE -- L '946-qf .70'\hN<t .FE>AL 2201.Clrt, . â€ž- 1 . FiN!.fl-d' ApT -1 - 4 - 1 - - _1 31*.14.4 21%41,662. 4 , 1 ; t - - --I - I.--- 0 Â£53â‚¬,U LIA -) - --- ' --&. 4 1 d /-- - ~ Jet~~etati ---- -p --- 1 11 i-- ----- -------------- ----------------------- -------- - + -- --14- -5 11 - 1 1 'L - ---- --1 1- L -- --- - - \b./2.~ESIT BLE-POATION] . . !4.w to" - - t.--20 , 7.... . R '1 y/ f 4/, /71 i fl j W, , 4 re i , -1 0 '-C f. ' i / .. I -- / f/ -- - \ \\ 1/ / 1 --77 - 'Â«1-1- Ord< F?Zat-/1 \\ 1 '2#0 9 t MAL L. 16 1 -1* 11 li - 1.-t '(0 i li 1 -- 1 T----1 'Â·Itt - 1 1 '1 . : i /4.1/0-\/ Mi ! In ! uy. 19411- 3-44_ ~___ _ 9 10 VJ> i T V. 4, MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Landmark Designation: 100 East Bleeker St. Date: June 28, 1989 LOCATION: 100 E. Bleeker St., Lot K, Block 65, City and Townsite of Aspen APPLICANT: Edwin and Adeline Grosse APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Landmark Designation for the c. 1884 cottage at 406 W. Smuggler St. A Landmark Designation grant of $2,000 is also being requested by the applicant, which should be granted by Council at second and Final reading of the Designation Ordinance. HISTORIC EVALUATION RATING: 11 3 11 SUMMARY: This property will become Aspen's 99th designated historic landmark. PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: Landmark designation is a three-step process, requiring recommendations from both HPC and P&Z (public hearing at P&Z level), then first and second reading (public hearing at Final reading) Of the designation ordinance by Council. The designation grant is expected to be approved by Council at Final reading as well. HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION STANDARDS: The Standards for Landmark Designation are found in Section 7-702(A) of the Land Use Code. Any structure or site that meets one (1) or more of the standards may be designated as a Historic Landmark. Staff finds that the application meets both the criteria in both Standards E. (Neighborhood Character) and F. (Community Character). Standard E. Neighborhood Character: The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Response: Located adjacent to the yellow brick elementary school, within the proposed "Community Church Historic District", 100 E. Bleeker contains typical characteristics of an Aspen Victorian miner's cottage with front gable and projecting bay window, of cross gable styling with centrally located chimney. Block 65 has the highest concentration of significant historic structures in Aspen: nine. The preservation of this vernacular miner's cottage is critical to the block, the neighborhood and the entire community of Aspen. Standard F. Community Character: The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Response: The Inventory file in the Planning Office states: "The significance of this residential structure is not of those who owned it or lived in it, nor of its architecture, although this structure is representative of Aspen's mining era. This modest single level structure is of historical importance by illustrating the family/home environment and life styles of the average citizen in Aspen which was dominated by the silver mining industry. This residential structure is a good representation of a typical Aspen Victorian-era miner's cottage." The structure has received a relatively small, compatible addition to the rear, which has been referred to by staff as C an extremely good example of compatible design within a historic structure. We are pleased the applicant has chosen to landmark designate this important historic structure. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC recommend for approval Landmark Designation for 100 East Bleeker Street. memo.hpc.100eb 2 ~OF.ADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Colorado Preservation Office 1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 ARCHITECTURAL/HISTORICAL COMPONENT FORM li IMPORTANT: USE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE GREEN INVENTORY RECORD FORM FOR I ~ FOR RECORDING HISTORIC STRUCTURES AND DISTRICTS. USE SEPARATELY FOR CL-- -h-' RECORDING STRUCTURES LOCATED WITHIN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES. 1) Resource No. 5PT-117 2) Temp No. 12 3) Name JAMES HARKINS [louse 4) Address 100 East Bleeker Street 51 District Name Community Church Historic_Qj_st. I. INTEGRITY: 6) Condition: Good * Fair Deteriorated 7) Original Use Residential 81 -Present Use Residential ; 91 Original Si'te * Moved Date(sl ef Move: N/A ---- -Ill- 10) Unaltered Altered * Explain: Original open porch of cross qable has been en- closed. II. DESCRIPTION; 111 Building Materials .Wood 121 Construction Date circa 1884 131 Architect/Builder unknown 14) Architectural StyleÂ¢sl Victorian Miner's Cottage 5) Special Features/Surroundings:. Typical characteristics of an Aspen Victorian Miner's Cottage with front gable with projecting bay window; cross qable with centrallv located chimney. 161 Archaeological Potential: Yes NO Unknown * Explain: III. CULTURAL ACTIVITIES: Key the resource type (ie: house, barn, shed, school, church, etc) to the cultural activity theme and sub-theme category associated with it. 17) THEME Residential 18) SUB-THEME Urban 19) TYPES Single-family . I n pihibli 577-11- .. 44 4 , i , r V. ' ff. 61 -Aft. 1 lf.-1-.,~93:39 '-Â· Â· - ~ - I .g* . 7'leek. -- 13 A Franc Number ,/4 r' 1 , 44 21" 4.2 .1 u.. .L- . % ~Z 92 Â£ A-/ , 1 Â·.. Â·*Â£ .1 .Â·. Facade Orientation y ront 1 4 -. 1 1 31% U . 2-7Â©Â·~I,~ 4 - , u.-34.M<FPE - -.0.4,;.0-- ..,..CY',*2@Adpt Â· C. -'-321,Jte ' it--- -il .,u..Siu :FICANCE: Assess Wnerner OL tlu. L L. L. ical or architectural merit by checking app:opriate categories 22 1 justiryinn below. Include any relevant historical data. )) Archizec:uual Significance.: 21) Historical Significance: -L ... ,-- ,-Aor Represento 4 ..,C DULÂ·/ Associated wit- signizicant persons . Pessess high artistic values Associatef =in significant eve.n:s ur + Represc. -s a type, period, or patterns * method ci construction Contributes to the signifi :ance of Ckl historic district The signi=irance of this residential structure is not of those who owned it or lived n it, nor of its architecture, althougn tnis 0 6/ Uu, u. e is representative of Aspen's . 3:ing Era. irns modest single level structure ts 07 nistorical importance by illus- -rezing tr.e Tar.1 iy/home environmert and life styles of the average citizen in Aspen qhict was dominated by the silver mining industry. This residential structure is a good representation of a typical Aspen Victorian liner's Cootage. 2) List Any Associated Cultural Group:__ noon Dirr:mirre . ~itkin County Abstract of Lotz Books (title search); Assessment Card :anborn and Sons Insurance Mac,- .CORDER Vera G. Kiri:Datrick DATE Ovt. 30. 1930 ' 7. b 71 p.1- 1 1 V. 01 I MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Landmark Designation: 706 West Main St. Date: June 28, 1989 LOCATION: 706 West Main Street, Lot Q and the West 20 feet of Lot R, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen APPLICANT: B. Joseph Krabacher APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Landmark Designation for the c. 1894 cottage at 706 W. Main St. HISTORIC EVALUATION RATING: 11 1 " SUMMARY: This property will become Aspen's 100th designated historic landmark. Congratulations to the owners! PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: Landmark designation is a three-step process, requiring recommendations from both HPC and P&Z (public hearing at P&Z level), then first and second reading (public hearing at Final reading) of the designation ordinance by Council. HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION STANDARDS: The Standards for Landmark Designation are found in Section 7-702(A) of the Land Use Code. Any structure or site that meets one (1) or more of the standards may be designated as a Historic Landmark. Staff finds that the application meets both the criteria in Standard A. (Historical Importance), Standard E. (Neighborhood Character) and Standard F. (Community Character). Standard A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Response: The Planning Office Inventory file indicates the name of the structure as the "Celestine Bourquin House", however, this structure may be most commonly associated Aspen' s first employee, Harold "Puppy" Smith, who purchased the property in November of 1959. We are pleased that our looth Designed Landmark has this historic significance! Standard E. Neighborhood Character: The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Response: Located within the "first" block (far west end) of the Main Street Historic District, 706 West Maint contains typical characteristics of an Aspen Victorian miner's cottage. The preservation of this vernacular miner's cottage is critical to the block, the Main Street Historic District and the entire community of Aspen. Standard F. Community Character: The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Response: The Inventory file in the Planning Office states: "The historical significance of this residential structure is not of those who owned it or lived in it, nor of its architecture, although this structure is representative of Aspen's mining era. The exterior siding is contemporary. The typical horizontal clapboard siding may lie beneath or even an original , log house." The structure has received alterations to the rear, however, we find it significant in its small scale, roof form and original location. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC recommend for approval Landmark Designation for 706 West Main Street. memo.hpc.706wm 2 COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Colorado Preservation Office 1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 ARCHITECTURAL/HISTORICAL COMPONENT FORM ~ IMPORTANT : USE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE GREEN INVENTORY RECORD FORM FOR FOR RECORDING HISTORIC STRUCTURES AND DISTRICTS. USE SEPARATELY FOR RECORDING STRUCTURES LOCATED WITHIN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES. 1) Resource No. 5 PT-114 2) Temp No. 414 3) Name CELESTINE BOUROUIN House 4) Address 706 West Main Street 51 District Name Main Street Historic District I. INTEGRITY: 6) Condition: Good * Fair Deteriorated 7) Original Use Residential 8) Present Use Residential 9) Original Site * 'Moved Date(s) of Move: N/A 10) Unaltered Altered * Explain: Substantial size additions on the past and rear(north) of the original structure. II. DESCRIPTION; 111 Building Materials Wood 121 Construction Date 1894 131 Architect/Builder unknown 14) Architectural StyleCs) Victorian Miner's Cottaqe 15) Special Features/Surroundings:. N/A 16) Archaeological Potential: Yes NO Unknown * Explain: -I .- .III. CULTURAL ACTIVITIES: Key the resource type (ie: house, barn, shed, school, church, etc) to the cultural activity theme and sub-theme category associated with it, 17) THEME Residential | 18) SUB-THEME Urban 19) TYPES Single-family . 1 4,}1%4 ,. At\7-4 1 Frame Namber 8~ Roll Number 12 I . Facade Orientation South Front eli ./. - â‚¬L .1 - 9%-,3.XRVÂ»---r JUL . I .--- ', -1..-â€¢ w#///EN< I . 4 -<-im'kNELIM.4-. #G 4: .j 72 > 4 1.. '.91 - 4- 1 cM ; - 7 i.- - - .)6 -~1â€¢0- IV. SIGNIFICANCE: Assess whether or not the resource has any historical or architectural merit by checking appropriate categories and justifying below. Include any relevant historical data. 20) Architectural Significance: 21) Historical Significance: Represents work of a master - Associated ~ith significant persons Possesses high artistic values Associated with significant events or * Represents a type, period, or satterns method of construction 2.ontributes to the significance of an historic district The historical significance of this residential structure is not of those who owned it or lived in it, nor of its architecture, although this structure is representative of Aspen's Mining Era. The e'xterior siding is contemporary. The typical horizontal clapboard siding may lie beneath or even an original log house. 22) List Any Associated Cultural Group: none V. REFERENCES: Pitkin County Abstract of Lots Books (title search) Pitkin County Assessment Card Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maps - 1890, 1893,1898 John P. Stanford DATE 10.23.80 RECORDER 9.6 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Minor Development: 315 E. Main St., Jill's Carpets and Alpine Construction Company, Inc. Date: June 28, 1989 LOCATION: 315 E. Main St., Lot D, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen APPLICANT: Carl Bergman, owner; Alpine Construction Company, lessor and representative (Don Westerlind) APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Minor Development approval for the installation of a historic (salvaged) wrought iron fence around the side and front perimeter of the property line, and signage for the businesses ZONING: CC - Commercial Core RATING: "4", in the process of Landmark Designation ADDITIONAL REVIEWS REQUIRED: An application for Change of Use is required to be submitted and approved by the Planning Director (per Ordinance 16, Series of 1989). Landmark Designation is required prior to granting such approval. All signage is required to receive Zoning Officer approval for size and other code criteria. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicable Guidelines are found in Section VI. Residential Buildings - Renovation and Restoration, beginning on page 47. The Development Review Standards are found in Section 7-601 of the Land Use Code, and are reviewed below, with staff's comments following: 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: Staff finds that the proposal meets this development review standard, with the exception of the gate. Both the signage and fencing are appropriately scaled and are Of compatible materials to the structure and the district. We find that the gate is unusually tall (approximately 5') for this application in the Commercial Core Historic District, and are recommending that a smaller one be utilized. The proposed gate currently leads to a residential multi-family structure, which we find to be more appropriate in that application. We feel that any fencing (gates included) in front of commercially-adapted residential cottages should adhere to the Development Review Guidelines, and be low in nature. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Staff finds the application meets this standard, with the exception of the gate height as stated above. We find that any compatible improvements made to this property will enhance the character of the neighborhood. 3. Standard. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of the designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: We find that the proposal enhances the cultural value of the structure. We are pleased to see this proposal which Will bring attention to the historic cottage. Occupied historic structures are much more compatible than vacant ones; deterioration is much less likely to occur. 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 fencing proposed does not detract from the architectural integrity, in our opinion, however, we find the large gate incompatible with the small scale of the cottage and the lawn setting. We strongly recommend that the owner adhere to the Minimum Maintenance Provisions in Ordinance 7, Series of 1989. Historic structure deterioration is no longer tolerated by the community. Staff is extremely pleased to see any proposal request for compatible changes to this historic cottage. We recommend that the applicant work closely with the owner and staff to repair deteriorated architectural elements of the facade, and apply paint immediately. We feel this is an excellent opportunity to bring this structure (and its next door neighbor) Up to district- enhancing standard. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Minor Development approval for the application for 315 East Main St. as proposed, with the condition that the applicant install a shorter gate, as close to the height of the fence as possible, utilizing a historic gate if one can be located. memo.hpc.315em - --- /2,25 - â‚¬ 61,777- Â·P.*,Â¥44? 1 ...I -*- 11 r 1 31/4 1 , . ' ' ff~ 4 ''t'j 4 tI 41 144<*,1 ~ f exc i 5 F --4 r $ /8 :: Af , Â· ' . y -" 9 0 8â€žiriy.,r,/.W . er'_125 -71~ -1, i --- 7 ,Â· #;,1 4:*' ,- Aft 4,Ar~',TCK'.1#170 1,~fit;l .# h , Â· ; 'f~ - ' , 1 n , n ...h , , 1 1 WM U W. /! ; ,//r 4 A Â¥7: f, 1 4,1 4.7+Tr '' 3 -~4~ , 2 40 <4*bitr d , #i 'A .4 rjr 4 ' , I ' 4 1 1 ./ i .,4344 Â·4 4 ., 1 .,1444,1 . 2. 6~4 ~,4.di'' 1Â·,1..Â·X.-1 UN. r k'A9444. ,'V 9 , fi. .- , :1,-C f* ~1 / 6 '11 0:-*74.A'rp.S/< 914 ' ~~1'r ~<ARL,2.11 ' M Â¥**E:*GMW:ZÂ£-24 tr. - a . 2-I' 4.tafI. i 1 . 1 I - -- i''r fu .i - 11311_ ung"'- - ..4 - . .... -- er - , JILLS CARP[1 JILLS CARPET 1-2 2 4 --- k in: --. . - -W . ,5*(41 ''...4 - '96,1, --- , 4 , .- L . e,EA. 4, 1 .. ~ 11 7 4 . ~.1 . 11 4 r Â¥ i - .9 4 c 41 i/Â·.; , T - , g I -- Â· : 44:,t , --- . --Iial - h 1 4 te-'. * 4.) =E= ---3---- . 1---- - 1 .*.-/ f. LI =.2 -14- 3 - 1% lili -IX, 21==254 j U .1 1 + r IL I JILLS CARPET ' 5 160, ' dY E : A m-- - un i *ma:0 -- - ---- 4 . Lirr - - *L -11 L.- 0 -,026 1. 1.27 - ,. y,9 :4 .2.h. I 'L lia. . . 3Â¢imt' ffraÂ· ,)-7 ' ,tÂ·,N , r '=~ -j.- .N t. 0, 1-. . 14 . ' ' 'LA A.8 I. 4 %7.7 4% 60/25/ 1 . I I .. . LEE"'5Â£ i.:Â·0403;Pm .1,4,644Â¥1.6- 3~11.. './4,Â». /17.gul://13'll/91"*-- 1 I 1. -50 1.S L LOp l TE Â£01 7- 4 8 1-DZÂ· LEI-TE)26 -Â·Â·Â·.Â·Â· ri -?534 ERINE 20CONSTRLE.1 0., I Â«22. 925 -700 '4-9,222 U ./I, -Â£2 '3573tt. - .Â·ar '- g.c.1:5>:*fÂ·fi,â€¢f. 1 ' Bug. UD; +4 - A ' 5%<44'2-- 64.Â·.-:2 Li t>ki-4 le~ler L 2 0 . -0 dcL,4 L h 4' *44?j ~ fliral +44,! 41 '~~. <0) 01 7 ,-41*L?o-2Â·' - d/f/173 | OR,mA '2,4 13.-4 + 3.**f' 4117#x 't 9- PHGlsi< 1 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: RFTA bus bench proposal, Main Street and Commercial Core Historic Districts Date: June 28, 1989 APPLICANT: Roaring Fork Transit Agency (RFTA), Bruce Abel, General Manager APPLICANT'S REQUEST: HPC approval for 15 bus benches and/or bus bench/kiosks: 14 in the Main Street Historic District, 1 in the Commercial Core. Overall plans include the installation of an additional 8 along fringe areas of Highway 82 in the city. The proposed bench design matches existing benches in the mall (photos attached). STAFF'S COMMENTS: Street furniture and public improvements in general have, for the past decade or so, been studied in small and large historic districts and downtowns extensively. The specific applicability to the individual district has often been overlooked by communities in their interest to provide for elaborate, and often times inappropriate, street furniture. The benches proposed are extremely simple, and contain no Victorian- era character elements. Improvements of this nature, street lighting not excluded, have been discussed on and off by the various city boards and committees, however, it appears that nothing has been concretely established as to public improvement design criteria within the historic districts. The benches on the mall were apparently not reviewed and approved by the HPC, and the Development Guidelines, unfortunately, do not specifically address the topic of benches, street furniture, bike racks, etc. We are also concerned with the "kiosk" design for signage, and recommend that a more detailed study of alternatives be completed. Staff recommends that more accurate drawings with supplementary photographs be submitted for future HPC review and consideration. Staff feels that to determine design appropriateness for this proposal, Development Review Standards #1 and #2, stated in Section 7-601(D), should be carefully considered. 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... 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The Planning Office feels strongly that public improvements should be very carefully considered, especially in the historic districts, as they have the capacity to either strengthen or detract from the intrinsic, historic character of the neighborhood/district. Historic documentation should be researched to base the approval on. We feel strongly that "replicated" benches that may be appropriate in San Francisco or Philadelphia may not necessarily meet our design goals, particularly in the Main Street Historic District. On the other hand, we feel that if no historic documentation can be found to determine the basis for any original design, consideration should be given to a bench design that would best enhances the character of the Historic Districts, while meeting functional and economic considerations at the same time. THE MAIN STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT STUDY: Staff and the HPC have committed to an extensive study of the Main Street district, which will include an Existing Conditions Report and Implementation Plan. The Design Guidelines will be amended to reflect key elements of the District, such as guidance for applications exactly like the one before us now, therefore: 1. We feel the big picture should be studied and design recommendations made by the HPC prior to approving this application. The study may determine any number of design issues that have yet to be considered. 2. Historic bench design should be researched, with new design based on historic, if possible. It is possible that duplicative design may be impractical or inappropriate. Modern design alternatives may, in fact, be more compatible with the districts. RFTA wishes to have these bus benches and kiosk/signs installed as soon as possible, as a service to their riders, and as a way to encourage additional ridership, which we applaud. Therefore, we recommend that the HPC Main Street Study Team (sub-committee) take on this task as a top priority, and involve the archivist with the Aspen Historical Society, as well. We understand that the CCLC will also be reviewing the application, as well. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that action be tabled on this proposal until such time as appropriate and 2 compatible design alternatives for historic district street furniture may be studied, and recommendations made by, the HPC sub-committee. We further recommend that Bruce Abel, or another RFTA representative, a member of the CCLC, the HPC sub-committee and staff meet in worksession format to examine alternatives. memo.hpc.rfta 3 1 / L_= _.../...Â·~ .t-7-7. / Lowk. 60.- L'i'-D - 3 DATE: June ]5, 1989 TO: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner FROM: Bruce A. Abel, General Manager Â«tp 95 RE: Bus Stop Benches In response to numerous customer requests, tlie Roaring Fork Transit Agency would like to install benches and/or customer information bench/kiosks at our bus stops along the Main Street corridor. Accordingly we are requesting your assistance in securing whatever approvals are necessary to install such benches and/or kiosks. I have attached a map which indicates the locations of our bus stops along the Main Street corridor. You will notice that, in general, RFTA has designated bus stops at every other corner along Main Street for the length of the Main Street corridor from Seventh Street, around Original Curve, to Durant. While ji is not our initial intention to install benches or kiosks at every stop we are requesting permission to do so in order that we will be able to phase in the appropriate improvements over time without having to come look for additional approvals in the future. It is our desire to install benches which are similar in design to the benches installed in Aspen's pedestrian malls. Hopefully by doing so we will be able to provide some continuity/consistency of character to the pedestrian improvements that are made in Aspen's core area. These benches seem to reflect a natural or perhaps mountain character that seems to be appropriate and fit well the heritage of our community. In additions from a more practical perspective, the natural materials employed in the construction of these benches are relatively easily maintained and the slot construction of these benches allows customers i o stand their skies in the benches if they so desire while waiting for the bus. The proposed bench/kiosks Will allow RFTA to communicate the information necessary for people to better understand our public transit services and how t. 0 use them. Hopefully by better communicating such information we will be able to generate additional public transit ridership and help alleviate some of our community's transportation problems. It is our desire to keep our customer improvements small in scale and minimal in nature so as to make a minimum visual impact on the street-scare. We feel that the proposed benches and/or customer information bench/kiosks are indeed minimal while still allowing us to provide the amenities necessary to better serve our customers in order to make public transit services in Aspen a more appealing transportation alternative. We look forward to further discussing this request with you and are hopeful that we will receive the appropriate approvals to move forward with this community project. Thank you for your time and assistance. VICTOR STANLEY ~ ' ERIES V d great design choice... patitria /g direct thric-bolted construction, all -lirlded steel 3, and expanded inounting optious... // , 1 , -9 I .1- 15. 5 1. 9.14, - * M .. : : 'tz.tNt,. . t. I - - . I '.-%..t- 2:Â·~4*14?i.b .. . . ..~ 7-ZSNE.'' Â· .- N=r Â£ : e .14...,32*r.C 'i '-4,4 'fi -/./.- - Model 46, a flat bench made with 4 2\4 iii- . ct-lor Alats .711d 4,4 outside members. Â· '- 2 L I . -Â», - i.*'. I. -,YAL#=dia tki~ I . [713 9448 alti.filihillillilill":1"1*24"miliw . .... r â€¢, No''CSâ‚¬,fiâ‚¬94*11,9.:m.~St~-6,'8. ~ ocie] 48, a con tou: bench with f, 2,4 inte- Model 8, a Centlv contolited bench with >licilt reve! 6.' contour li>1114 â‚¬ 2.,4 >lat>. Tlie !11Â£,Lic. u-members,ind 4,4 out:ille 6 15 e\tremekÂ· comtortable at moderate Coct. t,embers V -t I - I 3 91. ff'. 20 . Â· - .eÂ· /5 ..... .9 cfwk.4 : J *tri '3 43 . ->.4.,b: 31. -21: . 1 -rtfe - I 1'<, ... 1:- 4%" I -~2;~r'4;M Model 44 [12!l 1..,ic 1, 11 '1 Ill t,Illi-!IlkÂ» 9 . petllient :Cal>. .1'. iiI Jibl- !L d Ikerellr \\ 1 Ilki /4-- - I -N., .1.1.4,21.1.4. ..33 -1 1 :111Ckne>Â·Â·Â·c> 1 >etÂ· t~nee h-: ,1 11:'t \\ Ittli C., 'NtÂ·- board lit'l]O!1Â·â€¢...\1.,1,1'.AllaDie *F.... . ./ . 4- ... *, 1 : I: r , â‚¬49 --r .fâ€ž 4 .Model-12. tu:11:\\l)Ill~IlptÂ·Illit'llt ~~4-3,3/ 9-0 .0*INV~-,.':01*46:, 1 Aninc.. Belll nl:k,-, 'rttonah,3 \h'0'! *' . 1.-2 if~.~1.-,2.7 Za... , Alt Â·.- : n .~' â‚¬. ...1;%404 .1 1.--4. . Â·. 4,1 , %2~~ . 7 ':,~:! k. JFL_.- :Â·.133 '9ego:u 44,ill.1.\1(,LitÂ·142-2911. 'Â·--i'!31Â£4('61'11:11', c di)del 14 1' h'p t .l i t) 11tt il! !-cd 1,1,14 kll'-- [lt'th 11 ill,lie]4,.Â·i .impli' 11,il [,t'll,h Â«,\Â·,11,:3,151 â‚¬,2.1- 111,111 Pulou 3)Cle.l lb,('00.4,0.'1...111.lrill'litcrpitÂ·Â·Â·t iii 2Â·vÂ·; pincanll licion Ill hi Il'l|Hood. i: hetâ€¢ 171-1~l' 11'â€¢d 4 - Â·Â·t . THE HOMESTEAD ,...4 dramatic dioice of Lruches, Ituth mid zi'ithout lx-lcks ... oftel ing exception.al Tri.L fraines, Pillilicotel.\1 171'otectioll, ct?lrtillh/ selected and mcticillously finished zo. 4 MOUNTING OPTIONS #9E~ 21,56*#~41/ Permanent in-ground and suriace mount available as standard . . specify at time o! purchase. Gull-wing, wall mount. center post mount and back-to-back mount avaiiable at additional cost. See price list. Al] tubular steel is high-tepile strength materia] and all steel bar* 1.-" thick. t=.1,~ Armrests are available prr'all benches with backs. See price list #-Â£-;*&-WW----Ii---- Model 28: .An eiegant curved bench shown with eicht 3,4 redwood s latÂ· . 1 -a / *3?by:Â·4.,9.f- /////1/8////m////i//////////77 ~hÂ·Â·A' I 'M'- ' . ----=-W--.// .... :<.-1- :i. Lis-tralf~tÂ·:' EE'51.' . UK 9Â©,L , .5- .7.. . -- T -Ii//351*. .Empi 2/ urGÂ·. 1 . r , ' Alodel 32: Grent conitortiii a Ii'\ cr.t'-Con 7 IdÂ·Anre:e -:A~~,0 ,Â·.2 t,-n - ~ . *t loured 0011011 Il'ati:1'11.11 t'Illileer, 253 -1,it- 1 '.4 92419,-4:'Â·4092'4 ; N T- 4 ,+7Â·.,;121%Â£-73* -. r.,1-' 1 r ~,Â·Â·=..reÂ·.4%,iyb'~~44%.3.kAr- t. .A a STANDARD: *. Model 24: A truly gracetu;, trailitional Dencil, snown in redwood. with (-1Â·Dtil)Ila] gull- <fl ln-ground Surface-mount v.'inK lecs . teature> 9\ 4\4 slat: with lai-cle radius ea.ed edie on top an:. tront slat. liso A:'nit'Mulc. Model 23-icien:ical to Model 24, but z:tihze> 6 each 3 x4 blats. Â· .. \'..4 - 22, , OPTIONAL: ' /\ Wall-mount - Â·Â·%03*9*2:51â‚¬0,%--2 A. Gull-wing rk ~ *-22&~*9#Â·44. 244/~t~4735, i.\ HI\.\ 444%,hAPS#'MAtgAMB":W~31,6-A#* ' i #12<c ~:t--1 it GÂ·..-uy ~ - 1-/ Undel :1: T hou:atid, in ti,e Ilationwilic tchtit, to the great wiluc 41! tlit, deÂ«n. h Il i b);'L<Â·ri. u~~-11,1-C; .Â·Â·-1' , 1 â€¢,i_. 1 i.Â· .1 - c \JE.. l!.&,111,\ ,1, a lud'-Wt prio.Â·. Shown \\Â·1111 permancnt 1('Li.,ind ":Nb'â€¢1,11.11'11-reÂ·tÂ· 113 \\Cliltlit-,:amcil lt'li\\,1,),i Two sided Metal Sign , J 2.4 Size Town Sign *' H x 12' W Hiway Sign 24' H x 18' W Background Color White R;TA Logo f**Ii#*#we Blue - I International Bus , Incorperate RETA Colors P05t5 Decorotive Cedar or Redwood incoperating a bench on both sides , 1 { t.fu ~ ur- V 4 ! , =- par * bit. â„¢ t i Ut 1 1 t .-4 --Â£â€¢r 1 - -64 ... - I ~ - .- 24* HI~ ......'.5.Â· 0.-5 , Â·ezPY;=;~ - -~ - 1/Af'--~ ' ,=2-Â·3397-2,Â· Â·--- ) CE*-39---1 1._1-.# 22CCL--1 -2-,----~- - A- -- - . 4 ppitia I 0.1 i Â· Mlk.'*La :k,tyÂ¢,A'â€¢L 3-..40 Y~ â‚¬*Sk Tlle 13-76 - The Victorian Bench is beautifulkÂ· hand- finished, substantial and ven- durable. 11 is available in 4', 6' and S' leng.ths with Or without custom lettering and Coin- menit,rative medal|ic,Il. lm- h ~ 11Â·telitale ileltiÂ·crv Ls avatiatile - -- <-0 14 - inr stock sizes. It is esreciallv . 4, i ilesigned for: Shorrin<,Cent. , / ers, Mails, Pla=as, Parks, ..... 132- Screerse:ilie> and Don Tlt 41'.lÂ·n / ..0/13Â·ILS' ,-1.z _ 9/.14 1 ' A C.toratiC)110. , -r55,~14%:f i dr-' ~ r Â·~.,~â€ž0~~ I h 11 /41-0=4:lk.Ia:\ \0\\ L L 32!f-t. & .9 371 i i C \ BEN('11 MAN[Ili,\('f'~1-~1{ING CO. 6 , P.O. Bur 158 ., Concon] .\1.Â·7 01742 IcliÂ·phon.Â·: 0,17) 371.3080 lekÂ·x: 24 -34 39 Binch di ] 1 f ) I . 1Â¢ B-70 - a will be rle:isanthÂ· furpribed at the high qualiti 1 and low price. It also comes with a compatible . 1 designed plaza bench. This bench is best used in protected areas or for private places such as: Residen- tial, Hospitals, Institutions, Garden Clubs, Hotels, Multi.Housing. Traditional, Ladder Back, Custom, . â‚¬ Lettered Commemorative Medallion are all available | on this model. Stock products are available for inimediate delivery. It is available in 4' ani ' U) ' lengths. Aa1 i blt. < 11**8 d 1%89 44* 04' *â€ž r 'A,2,3 4 2.-14- 2., 'rt ' . 44*%#74 Li- -:.,1. lip .1 1 4. ,- 2Â·.Â«,4 91'' . L 51 2.434Â¢ C. -L.f~. $ I ' - 4 L yÂ·4'*:Â·it. ~~Â©i.t ~.- ~~ ik...4. Alix....,R** - ~'14>4=f..2; r. p i ... 7*229./4 FtÂ·* 21 c Â· . ~Â£ . ~meâ€¢ 3 45 +Ah/At- 9 910...'.< .-lifs. .. 4. ; r u .LL ....t i Â· -%34?lfAMNR 11 J . 4 ., 1; C - '24 0--ir 60 .:/ ... \41 44(- -Â·,13-K - 4 f j. S+} k ..1 .r + 46:21 .2. i. .... .t '. 4. 2 . 1, fr . 4-,5. -2&4-- . -/ t 02' . , Ri# . 15.- -' ....345 , - 0.-- - f....~ - =..31= 4-- :3.-,anâ‚¬. 4 Â· Â·-Â£ 26-Â·t E.U....et:.710.2,12.Ji . *--di:..:. ti .... BENCH M.ANTEA('T[rl{I.\(; Co. F V.- .1Â·' ' 44: ' 0:Â·f. ': 7-'4214:f' P.O. Box 158 Concord \ t.Â·\ 01742 telephone: (617) 371.3080 Telex: 283439 Bench r , AÂ· 30. 6 41 1,8 e._pes.,~ ' i -rj v e v 00.- >,rAN' ' 1-71 - 1111.ikÂ·.nv Jitti inulti- - ~ ach i.~ hand tine.hcd. It 1..1\.11|able-/-- iradition:11, Ladder Back, Cubtom- L-ettered :ind Commemorative Atellal- lion. This bench is best used at: Beacheb, Marinas, Public Parks, Multi-Housing, .:49 CemertÂ·ries, Shopping Centers, OMerva. Â· tories~'m-hnsportation Centers and .t- , r. C.. . alinost anvwhere a large number of r ...~ -- - K -- . E people will be using them. otock prod- Al Â·t â€¢1 r â€¢ 11Cts irl sizes 4 ', 6' and 2% are arailatile tor % immelliate delivery. . *Tr 2 . U - ki 4 r 1 . - 1- 1 /99â€¢Â· I ..Dr ..7 .. . - . D - Â· I- .a< 7.ki-1 +5 1 C ,4,2/)$-t * ---Ill Il 4 ./. â‚¬.. ' - ..... f. 4. # 1\0 111 â‚¬ 1-1 . 1 .1 .e\ \\ I I -p 1 - -C U Â· Jel'=A i 9 -7 - '. 9. 4- Â· 1// . I 3113-1 I..-1 . , MC,-,1 7' 429&* 1 - 4 .9 .4 1- ,-r. r. 1 b ]!1~11'j(1%11111!11{ 1-9- ' ~I,1,3 '11?1.4*14'#'Iilil:!: -~-- . 1;~: ..09:~~~11/ '11 ..~10 62 . 11. ' e .t- 11-11 4**i*~f ~ ' , t .... I - fl - .. 1,)>,7- 1112<Cll .\1.-\NLTACI Z.:INNI; CO. $ '.t - L.,ilder-1.:, -k 1 1.,tetir .Â·\pplic.1 1,,r . PAIN=k--0\ De,Atkill#Â£'Blbol. /9~. .. #- ASPEN MOUNTAIN~ -6 ~Ct<Utâ€¢ S.,i,noac,-*18,~~ r '. WHE CIWEIEMÂ¥ ...h\ h , L.'T I. 1 1 7 ,.N..., -0-*ft#44 I l.ic==i. ~ r--1 . . 1%)2$64 I 1 i 1-4.- 8-r.-a.Cl --Â·â€¢I - 1.==7 9-C] LITTLE NELL D <UP 1 /,4.- -ATER' AVE L I -1 r. ullucl, 1/~, 'i .0'' .11(4 411~1 Juâ€¢~ 51 J ' '!ji' fl' 1-4,1-11 0.- Â»f St?; i , Rubey Park l r.â€¢f "-- 11 t W. 1 Dumâ€¢â€¢47 AVE =4___ ,--6 11 11--/11 11 1 11.....-- 1#6 Â· ZÂ·11.1,C,, 0.-- ....'- SHADOW MOUNTAIN fuliti ' Â·' -- -,6,1-4 Â¥ 12 'AMA WAGNE* CDC)pER â€¢vf 1 ....4, CIT -DDY J - - t 6.- . \ 1 C *75"E. - 1.... 0.1 6. & 0 . - - -11 11.-11 < Castle Creek 4 Ullcr \ l \~.Ag I 1.... / 0 0 In . â‚¬. 4 exâ€žfb 1 \UN & - 3 -VU, 4 AVE 1%41 .1 R=7 M 6- 1*1 PAAK d H...6-.. .4./.6. A PI __ ~ IiI ~ ta.ss Z - ASM 4 vA L LE r , â€ž0- . .' ..O-JNS 'VE . =&11 .111%Â¥12 .11 11 ' LILI (....... . 11 C-=,41 . t.- ClrÂ¥ MALL ,-- -6 PAE-CRE Ch...1-.1 PAA. .... '6. M... 9-I -~â€¢,4.2.1 % C=i ...... .... ..Alâ€¢ ST MIGâ€¢-,AY &2 5'04C â€¢10 â€¢â€¢5- 51â€¢tt - 4,1 411 3. - OUE Â£ N ST COUN,r COUâ€¢Ti P--7 |HOTEL LIB~â€¢Ry ] ~ ~ 1- % .- .... MOUSI 1 1 1 ~EMOUE 4,1 - HER/OI P ki 1.-6. -AK ..0 "DEE PAR".GU I! 6 BLEEKEâ€¢ ST - m- ' ~lY".Irl â€¢~ t-, I . -. -0 11 1 MISTOR-1:1 . e . P.'L~AY~~~ Soc:Ny ~5 -11 - 1 11. 11 Â£:d i / ALL*/ 51 0 , _ ~_~~~ .. f / 1._919- 11 11 1 f ,~41, - 1 1 Ze@-â€¢-1 h 15-W_7 1 1- // r jl L# . fl-',0~6 ~6 -IS 5 \ /LATS 40 111 n P 11*ANCS S , GOLF COUR 1 -0â€¢,0 7,â€¢1/ 11- /1 2 11.-31 U 1 11'.1 -117 4~ I posT c>FACE N..4 7 12\ 0 1 SiLâ€¢UGGL EA S ASMâ€¢â€¢ .:NL // CENTEM *0â€¢ TNE VISUAL . I N Nk-31 11 AIrs ~ 1-1 11 1 - NORTH ST Centennial ex --/- %. N . - /// 1\ 19-1 : .3/-1 : 47\\ 0, 4467 4 66Â« 4 ,\ \ Ells ' \ PrirS/CS â€ž,STâ€žUTE 4- 1 4â‚¬...2 + Â¥-relll '--- 0. \ .. C L}%\\ \1~ Hallam Lake - Hunter Creek : . .. : couwUN,ry \v/ 2. CENTEM 4 Huntâ€ž 0... n.,i .. ~' â€¢spew:.sr,rurf ' === | NEXU ALO,FOAIUU On .-/ i ....>h MED BUTTE CEDâ€¢f TIMY < : i-\ 1 24Â«\ 64 \\ Music Tent -or-'00- D"49' Con-ence â€¢1 -O- . \3 "CAL'. ctirt. Hunter Creek % J 67. / 1 %<> i\ Re,nrino Fork River ~- - ' r 40F0r-- - .............. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROVISIONS OF THE ASPEN LAND USE CODE, REVISITED! (Sections 7-601 through 7-710) Date: June 28, 1989 Attached you will find the ENTIRE revised version the HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROVISIONS of the Aspen Land Use Code. These have been concisely put together (like a jig-saw puzzle!) by staff for your ease in project review. This revised section includes those HP portions of Ordinances 6, 7 and 17, all Series 1989. For those of you who received your Technical Manuals at the last meeting, please replace this revised section with the old; however, DO NOT ELIMINATE ORDINANCE 16! Ordinance 16 deals with preservation incentives and amends other provisions of the Land Use Code, NOT in the sections I have provided you here. Confused? Call me at 920-5090 with questions, or better yet, bring your questions to this HPC meeting! Thanks! memo.hpc.hp.provisions.rev DIVISION 6: DEVELOPMENT IN AN H, HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT OR INVOLVING AN HISTORIC LANDMARK Sec. 7-601. General applicability and requirements. A. Overview of development review in an H, Historic Overlay District or involving an Historic Landmark. Any development within an H, Historic Overlay District or development involving an Historic Landmark must be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of this Sec. 7-601 and Common Procedures, Art. 6, Div. 2, unless exempted by the Planning Director under Sec. 7-601(C). If not exempted, development is categorized as Minor or Significant Development which must obtain approval of the HPC. Minor Development review and approval is a one-step process and requires no public hearing. Significant Development must go through a Conceptual and Final Development Plan review and approval process, with a public hearing occurring at the time of concep- tual development plan review. B. General Prohibition. No development shall be permitted within the H, Historic Overlay District or involving an Historic Landmark unless: 1. The development is not subject to the provisions of this section; or 2. The development is exempted pursuant to Sec. 7- 601(C); or 3. The development is approved by the HPC as either Minor or Significant Development pursuant to the procedures outlined in Common Procedures, Art. 6, Div. 2, because it meets the standards of Sec. 7- 601(D). C. Exemption. 1. Development which is not subject to the provisions of this section shall include any interior remodeling of a structure, repainting Of the exterior of an already painted structure and choice Of color of any exterior architectural feature. Such development shall not require the review by the Planning Director or HPC, and shall proceed directly to building permit review, when a building permit is required for the development. 2. Development which the Planning Director shall exempt shall include repair of existing architec- tural features, replacement of architectural features when found necessary for the preservation of the structure, and similar remodeling ac- tivities which create no change to the exterior appearance of the structure and have no impact on its character. 3. Before any proposed development can be considered for an exemption under the provisions of this section, an Application for Exemption shall be submitted to the Planning Director and Development in the form provided by the Planning Director. D. Review Standards for all Development in H, Historic Overlay District and all Development Involving Historic Landmarks. 1. Development in Historic Overlay District and all Development involving Historic Landmarks. NO approval for any development in the H, Historic Overlay District or involving Historic Landmarks shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met. a. The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements; and b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character Of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development; and C. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels; and d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. 2. Additional Development Guidelines. The City Council, upon recommendation of the HPC, shall establish additional guidelines for use by HPC in - the review of all development in an H, Historic Overlay District, and involving Historic Land- marks, in accordance with the procedures in Art. 4, Div. 1. E. Minor Development. 1. Procedure for Review. Before HPC approval of Minor Development and of all development involving Historic Landmarks, a Development Application shall be submitted to the Planning Director and reviewed and approved by the HPC pursuant to the procedures established in Common Procedures, Art. 6, Div. 2. 2. Definition. Minor Development shall be defined as follows: a. Erection of an awning, canopy, sign, fence or other similar attachments to, or accessory features of a structure, provided however, that in the process of erecting said attach- ments, none of the original materials of the structure are destroyed or removed. Inciden- tal destruction or removal necessary to erect any attachment shall not make the action Significant Development; b. Remodeling of a structure where alterations are made to no more than one (1) element of the structure, including but not limited to a roof, window, door, skylight, ornamental trim, siding, kickplate, dormer, porch, staircase, and balcony; C. Expansion or erection of a structure wherein the increase in floor area of the structure is two hundred and fifty (250) square feet or less; or d. Erection or remodeling of combinations of, or multiples of no more than three (3) of the following features: awnings, canopies, signs, fences and other similar attachments; or windows, doors, skylights and dormers. Erection of more than three (3) of the above listed features may be defined as minor if there is a finding that the cumulative impact of such development is minor in its effect on the character of the existing structures. . 4, . 3. Application. A Development Application for Minor Development shall include the following: a. The general application information required in Sec. 6-202. b. An accurate representation of all major building materials, such as samples and photographs, to be used for the proposed development. C. A scale drawing of the proposed development in relation to any existing structure. d. A statement of the effect of the proposed development on the original design of the historic structure (if applicable) and character of the neighborhood. F. Significant Development. 1. Procedure for Review. Before HPC approval of Significant Development within an H, Historic Overlay District and of all development involving Historic Landmarks, a Conceptual Development Plan and Final Development Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the HPC pursuant to the procedures established in Common Procedures, Art. 6, Div. 2. 2. Definition. Significant Development shall be defined as follows: a. Erection of an awning, canopy, sign, fence or other similar attachments to, or accessory features of, a structure that, in the process of erecting, cause original materials of the structure to be destroyed or removed; b. Erection or remodeling of combinations of or multiples of any single feature of a struc- ture which has not been determined to be minor; C. Expansion or erection of a structure wherein the increase in floor area of the structure is more than two hundred and fifty (250) square feet; d. Construction of a new structure within an H, Historic Overlay District; and e. The development of the site of an Historic Landmark which has received approval for demolition, partial demolition or relocation when a development plan has been required by the HPC pursuant to Section 7-602(B). 3. Conceptual Development Plan. a. Development Application of Conceptual Development Plan. A Development Application for a Conceptual Development Plan shall include the following: (1) The general application information required in Sec. 6-202. (2) A sketch plan of the proposed develop- ment showing property boundaries and predominant existing site characteris- ties. (3) Conceptual selection of major building materials to be used in the proposed development. (4) A statement of the effect of the proposed development On the original design of the historic structure (if applicable) and/or character of neigh- borhood. b. Effect of Approval of Conceptual Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall not constitute final approval of Significant Development or permission to proceed with development. Such approval shall constitute only authorization to proceed with a Development Application for a Final Development Plan. C. Limitation on Approval of Conceptual Develop- ment Plan. Application for a Final Deve- lopment Plan shall be filed within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Unless an extension is granted by the HPC, failure to file such an application shall render null and void the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan previously granted by the HPC. 4. Final Development Plan. a. Submission of Application for Final Develop- ment Plan. A Development Application for a Final Development Plan shall include: (1) The general application information required in Sec. 6-202. (2) An accurate representation of all major building materials, such as samples and photographs, to be used for the proposed development. (3) Scale drawings of the proposed develop- ment in relation to any existing structure. (4) A statement of the effect of the details of the proposed development on the original design of the historic struc- ture (if applicable) and character of the neighborhood. (5) A statement of how the Final Development Plan conforms to the representations made during the conceptual review and responds to any conditions placed thereon. Sec. 7-602. Demolition of a Historic Landmark. A. General. No demolition of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to Sec. 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 Sec. 7- 602(B). No partial demolition and removal of a portion of any Historic Landmark or any structure within an " HI' , Historic Overlay District shall be permitted unless approved by the HPC as necessary for the renovation of the structure, and because it meets the standards of Sec. 7-602(C), or unless the partial demolition and removal is exempt because it creates no change to the exterior of the structure and has no impact on the character of the structure. No relocation 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 " HI' Historic Overlay District, shall be permitted unless the relocation is approved by the HPC because it meets the standards of Section 7-602 (D)(1) through (4). When deemed appropriate due to the significance of the project, the HPC may require a Performance Guarantee in a form acceptable to the City Attorney as assurance that the demolition, partial demolition, or relocation will be completed as represented. B. Standards for Review of Demolition. No approval for demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met. 1. The structure proposed for demolition is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure; and 2. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property; and 3. The structure cannot be practicably moved to another site in Aspen; and 40 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. C. Standards for Review of Partial Demolition. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: 1. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure; and 2. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel. b. Impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel. ./. D. Standards for Review of Relocation. No approval for relocation shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: 1. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property; and 2. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation; and 3. The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness Of the structure proposed for relocation; and 4. A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond with the Engineering Department, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) Of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation; and 5. The receiving site is compatible in nature to the structure or structures proposed to be moved, the character of the neighborhood is consistent with the architectural integrity of the structure, and the relocation of the historic structure would not diminish the integrity or character of the neighborhood of the receiving site. An acceptance letter from the property owner of the receiving site shall be submitted. E. Procedure for review. A Development Application shall be submitted to the Planning Director before HPC approval of demolition, partial demolition or relocation, which shall be reviewed and approved by the HPC pursuant to the procedures established in Common Procedures, Art. 6, Div. 2. 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 . 0 or relocation must be studied jointly by 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 development, 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. F. Application for Demolition, Partial Demolition or Relocation. A Development Application for Demolition shall include the following: 1. The general application information required in Sec. 6-202. 2. The name of the structure proposed for demolition, partial demolition or relocation. 3. A written description of the structure proposed for demolition, partial demolition or relocation, and its year of construction. 4. A report from a licensed engineer or architect regarding the soundness of the structure and its suitability for rehabilitation. 5. An economic feasibility report that provides: a. Estimated market value of the property on which the structure lies, in its current condition, and after demolition, partial demolition or relocation. b. Estimates from an architect, developer, real estate agent or appraiser experienced in rehabilitation addressing the economic feasi- bility of rehabilitation or reuse of the structure proposed for demolition, partial demolition or relocation. C. All appraisals made of the property on which 41 . the structure is located made within the previous two (2) years. d. Any other information considered necessary to make a determination whether the property does yield or may yield a reasonable return on investment. 6. A development plan and a statement of the effect of the proposed development on the other structures on the property and the character of the neighborhood around the property shall be submitted in cases when the HPC requires a development plan to evaluate the appropriateness of demolition or when the applicant believes the submission of a development plan will assist in the evaluation of the proposed demolition."; G. Penalties. A violation of any portion of this Sec. 7- 602 shall prohibit the owner, successor or assigns from obtaining a building permit for the affected property for a period of five years from the date of such violation. The City shall initiate proceedings to place a deed restriction on the property to this effect to insure the enforcement of this penalty. Sec. 7-603. Insubstantial Amendment of Development order. A. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order may be authorized by the Planning Director. An insubstantial amendment shall be limited to technical or engineering considerations, first discovered during actual development which could not reasonably be an- ticipated during the approval process. An insubstan- tial amendment shall be defined as a change in shape or location of a single window, awning, door, staircase or other feature on the structure or use of a material made by a different manufacturer that has the same quality and approximately the same appearance as originally approved. B. All other amendments shall be approved by the HPC pursuant to Sec. 7-601 or 7-602, whichever is ap- plicable. Sec. 7-604 Appeal and Call Up A. Any action by the HPC in approving, approving with conditions, or disapproving a development order for development or demolition or suspending action on a demolition application or in rating a structure on the Inventory of Historic Structures may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property within I {1 r sixty (60) days of the decision. The reasons for the appeal shall be stated in writing. The City Council may also call up for review any decision of the HPC approving, disapproving, or suspending action on a demolition or relocation of a historic landmark or any structure on the Inventory rated as a "4" or "5" by the HPC by serving written notice on the HPC within fourteen (14) days of the HPC's decision and notifying the applicant of the call UP. B. Within thirty (30) days after the date of a decision by the HPC which is appealed or called up by the City Council, the Council shall hold a public hearing after publishing notice pursuant to Section 6-205 E.3.a. C. The City Council shall consider the application on the record established before the HPC. The City Council shall affirm the decision of the HPC unless the City Council shall determine that there was an abuse of discretion, or a denial of due process by the HPC. Upon determining that there was an abuse of discretion or denial of due process, the City Council shall be authorized to take such action as it shall deem necessary to remedy said situation, including but not limited to reversing the decision, altering the conditions of approval, changing the length of time during which action on a demolition application has been suspended or the terms of the suspension, or remanding the application to HPC for rehearing. Sec. 7-605. Variances. The Board of Adjustment shall not take any action on a Development Application for a variance pursuant to Art. 10, in the H, Historic Overlay District or development affecting a Historic Landmark, without receiving a written recommendation from the HPC. Sec. 7-606. Minimum Maintenance Requirements A. Purpose. The intent of this Section is to reduce the incidence of "demolition by neglect". B. Requirements. All buildings and structures identified in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures as described in Section 7-709, and all structures located within a historic district, shall be maintained to meet the requirements of the Uniform Conservation Building Code (UCBC) and the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Said structures shall receive reasonable care, maintenance and upkeep appropriate for the preservation, protection, enhancement, rehabilitation, reconstruction, perpetuation or use in compliance with the terms of this article. Every person in charge of such building or structure shall keep in good repair: 1. All of the exterior portions Of such improvements. 2. All interior portions thereof which, if not so maintained, may cause or tend to cause the exterior portions of such improvements to deteriorate, decay or become damaged or otherwise to fall into a state of disrepair. The Historic Preservation Commission, on its own initiative, may file a petition with the Chief Building Official requesting that said official proceed under the provision of this Section to require correction of defects or repairs to any structure covered by this article so that such structure shall be preserved and protected in consonance with the purpose of this article. C. Demonstration of Hardship. Any owner of a structure identified in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures which HPC and the Chief Building Official finds requires such maintenance and repairs as described in this Section may make application requesting from the City Council a one-time, no interest loan, in an amount not to exceed $10,000.00, which the owner shall agree to pay back to the City within ten (10) years or when the property is sold or the title is transferred, whichever is the soonest. An extension of the payment period may be granted by the City Council, following written request by the owner. To be eligible for the loan, the owner shall submit a written request to the Planning Director, which shall include a description of the proposed repairs necessary to maintain the historic structure and approximate costs for such repairs. The loan request shall also demonstrate economic hardship which previously prohibited these repairs and that the loan amount is the minimum needed to maintain the structure. The loan request shall be considered by the City Council. Any loan granted by the Council shall be administered through the Planning Director, who shall obtain copies of bills from the owner substantiating all expenditures made to maintain the structure with monies obtained from the loan. D. Penalties Waived. The general penalties for violations of the Aspen Municipal Code contained in Chapter 1, Section 1-8, shall not apply to violations of these minimum maintenance requirements. DIVISION 7: HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT AND HISTORIC LANDMARKS Sec. 7-701. Purpose. The purpose of this division is to: A. Ensure the preservation of Aspen's character as an historic mining town because of its importance to the economic viability of the community as an inter- national ski resort and cultural center. B. Promote the cultural, educational and economic welfare of Aspen through the preservation of historic struc- tures and areas and the preservation of the historic character of the community. C. Encourage productive and economically attractive uses of historic structures. D. Support the implementation of the Aspen Area Comprehen- sive Plan Historic Preservation Element. Sec. 7-702. Standards for Designation. Any structure or site that meets one (1) or more of the following standards may be designated as H, Historic Overlay District and/or Historic Landmark: A. Historical Importance. The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. B. Architectural Importance. The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character. C. Architectural Importance. The structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen. D. Architectural Importance. The structure is a sig- nificant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. E. Neighborhood Character. The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant , neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighbor- hood character. F. Community Character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other struc- tures or sites of historical or architectural impor- tance. Sec. 7-703. Procedure for Designation, Amendment, Rescinding. A Development Application for a proposed designation, amendment to a designation, or rescinding of a designation, Ii, Historic Overlay District and/or Historic Landmark, shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval by the Planning Director, at public hearings by the HPC, and the Commission, and then approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved at a public hearing by the City Council in accordance with the procedures established in Common Procedures, Art. 6, Div. 2. Sec. 7-704. Application. The application for Historic Designation shall include the following: A. The general application information required in Sec. 6- 202; and B. A boundary description of the site; C. If the applicant intends to request a grant from City Council, a letter making the request shall be submitted, provided the structure meets the eligibility criteria for a landmark designation grant and provided the program has been funded in the annual City of Aspen budget. Sec. 7-705. Recordation of Designation. Upon the effective date of an act by the City Council designating an H, Historic Overlay District or Historic Landmark, the Secretary of the HPC shall notify the City Clerk of the designation, who shall record among the real estate records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado, a certified copy of the ordinance creating the H, Historic Overlay District or Historic Landmark. The ordinance shall contain a legal description of the structure or site designated. Sec. 7-706. Placement on City's Official Zone District Map. , Upon the effective date of an act by the City Council designating an H, Historic Overlay District or Historic Landmark, the Secretary of the HPC shall notify the Planning Director and the Planning Director shall place the H, Historic Overlay District designation on the City's Official Zone District Map, which is kept in the Planning and Development Agency. Sec. 7-707. Rescinding Designation. An application for rescinding designation shall follow the same submission requirements and review procedures as for designation described in this division except that with respect to Sec. 7-704(C), an explanation shall be included describing why the designated site or structure is not consistent with the standards in Sec. 7-702. Sec. 7-708. Establishment of District. There are two (2) existing H, Historic Overlay Districts in the City. These districts are the Commercial Core District and the Main Street District. In all cases when districts are discussed in this chapter, these two (2) districts are the only districts to which reference is being made. Sec. 7-709. Establishment of Inventory of Historic Structures. A. There is hereby established an inventory of historic structures in the City of Aspen. The inventory shall be maintained in the offices of the Planning and Development Agency at all times for inspection by the general public during regular business hours. The inventory of historic structures shall include all structures in the City of Aspen originally constructed prior to 1910 which continue to have historic value, and such other structures identified by the HPC as being outstanding examples of more rodern architecture. B. It shall be the responsibility of the HPC, based on the recommendations of the Planning Director, to evaluate the inventory of historic structures at least once every five (5) years, and to hold a public hearing to solicit comments on its evaluations. The purpose of the evaluation shall be to determine those structures which are to be removed from the inventory, any structures which should be added to the inventory, and to rate all structures which remain on the inventory. C. The HPC evaluation process shall proceed as follows. The structures on the inventory shall be categorized as to whether or not they are Historic Landmarks. No further action need be taken with respect to Historic Landmarks. All structures which are not Historic Landmarks shall be evaluated by the HPC as to their current architectural integrity, historic significance A N and community and neighborhood influence. Structures shall be assigned with a rated value of between 0 and 5, based on guidelines established by the HPC and ratified by ordinance of City Council. Structures which are rated 0 and 1 shall be deemed to have no historic value and shall be removed from the inventory. Structures rated 2 through 5 shall remain on the inventory and periodically be re-evaluated as provided above. Sec. 7-710. Development approval for historic landmark. Whenever development approval is conditioned upon a structure receiving historic landmark designation, such condition shall be deemed satisfied only if the particular structure has received individual designation pursuant to Art. 7, Div. 6; inclusion of the structure within an historic overlay district shall not be sufficient to satisfy the requirement of historic designation. No final development approval conditioned upon receipt of historic landmark designation shall be granted until the designation ordinance is adopted by City Council Â· t , L_1_. / 23- MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Statewide Preservation Workshop, here July 28-30; co-hosted by the HPC! Date: June 28, 1989 Attached are registration forms with the agenda for Aspen's first Preservation Workshop. Under our CLG contract, HPC member training is required, therefore, I strongly recommend you make plans to be in Aspen that weekend, particularly July 28, Friday. I have elected to host the workshop specifically so that you will be able to attend. Nellie Longsworth, the President of Preservation Action in Washington, D.C. will be one of our keynote speakers. We are expecting preservation professionals from California, Wyoming and Kansas to attend as well. This will be an excellent workshop, addressing many of the issues we deal with daily. Please review the brochure and contact me with questions, thoughts, ideas! I am looking forward to showing off our preservation program in Aspen to other Landmark Commissions and preservationists from around the state. memo. hpc.cpi.conf.