Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.hpc.19890823
: AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE AUGUST 23, 1989 REGULAR MEETING 5:00 p.m. FIRST FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS City Hall IMPORTANT: PLEASE NOTE 4:00 - On-site Review of 801 E. Hyman Ave. 4:30 - On-site Review of Guido's, 425 E. Cooper Ave. 5:00 I. Roll Call (Note: August 9 minutes will not be available for approval at this meeting.) II. Committee Member and Staff comments III. Public Comment 5:10 IV. OLD BUSINESS Ati A A.u 6 6 A. Final Development - 211 W. Main,<3PR Mde/3 W NA re)-u/1 %« 1.14 '2 61+ 1 V. NEW BUSINESS 5:30 A. Demolition - Public Hearing 801 E. Hyman Ave. FAE> I t..9 Lj,j'' 4-7 6:15 B. Conceptual Development - Public Hearing 425 E. Cooper Ave. - Guido's Restaurant 7:00 C. Conceptual Development - Public Hearing 132 W. Main St. - Asia Restaurant 7:45 VI. COMMUNICATIONS Project Monitoring Sub-Committee Reports 8:00 ADJOURN »,1 .7 0 - J 1 . MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Final Development; 211 W. Main St. Date: August 23, 1989 LOCATION: 211 W. Main St., Lot F and the West 15 feet of Lot G, Block 52, City and Townsite of Aspen ZONING: "0" - Office Zone, "H" - Designated Historic Landmark APPLICANT: Claire Newkam, represented by Ron Robertson, architect HPC MONITOR: not yet assigned APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Final Development approval for the remodeling and slight enlargement of the main historic house, and approval for the (now revised) plans for the remodel of the alley structure. SITE, AREA AND BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Lot Size: 4,500 Max. Allowable FAR 2,820 Existing FAR 2,416 Proposed Total FAR 2,725 Existing median height, principal structure 24' 6" Existing roof peak height, principal structure 29' 6" Existing roof peak height, alley structure 14.0' Proposed roof peak height, alley structure 21.0' PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION: Conceptual Development approval was granted to the main house on July 26, 1989, with conditions (please refer to the minutes of that meeting). The approval did not include any changes to the alley structure. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: (Note: Due to staff's required jury service, consisting of three days this past week, a complete written review is not available at this time, however, we Will be prepared to address the . application at the meeting. However, upon our initial review of this application, we feel the conditions of Conceptual have been met. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Approve the Final Development as submitted 2. Approve the proposal with the conditions 3. Table action to allow the applicant further time to study the proposal, incorporating the comments and guidance from the HPC in a revised proposal. 4. Deny Final Development approval finding that the application does not meet the development review standards. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC approve Final Development for the proposal at 211 W. Main St, with no variations being granted. memo.hpc.211wm.fd 2 . I 1, 1 111/ / r & ,· 4.6 ' , '. 4. 4 > #hft I G fs./ 411 :11 E t~ 4 15 5*r, 11 f '.. - ~ 6, 01 h ' 1111111 .k:77 U 111. 14, 1 .„ ' r. '.t t., ' ,-1. , . Al, 1 At, 4 4, + 4 J. ., r.w £' ~t¥ -' ' h .¢4. ,· ·~t'. 1''£ /1, :;' ilftrfi"1(' A~ 4, 1 4,1 -'' '* - + 4 . #£ I '' 1/r *2 4414#*"' 2.Pi" . * . I. 'I ''.Ah, >31,< ,. .. •41,it.· c h 1 1 1, 1 7 4 # 1 .4 r ht#'40 : ' ' I I , 'ta '&, 4/ I .' . '' ' ' k, 04' . /*i:0 .,/,4 •49&. . • ' -6,#'r a f r. 1,4. iii kt 2¢'f.4,79 , 1 f "r 1 8, . 93 & ' '* 5, VEN'' ~ 9 ip, 4 / 1.: I . 0 1• I /1/ 41, 11~ ; r ..4,1,79<F'A' 41//1// . , 194 & 11're*~ ;i· ' '.c 4% :.. ::1 F .,A,44& I y 1 22 ~ 41, - , ./RE , 'e.4/1% '3•£4 ' 1 4,1.. ./ 1 4 - ,-. 'YO. 447*11! . , r,t . ,- i .--- ...lb 4 , f i & 4.' ¢442 44 €1 h 1 +144>11,1 4148*flyj..44*1; h. .... ... 7449,*tr.: wi " , tifi'%'c WifA ¢:i''.'1p k 9 I ' ~N .1,4 Irt:t; 'h.~7'~" **t.' 3 "i f.79,41.20 , A 40 z. 0 4.j .:...... I -- 0 441~ 46 ;~~ ~~~24*~- ' ' 79 . 14, A *0 1 . :&*Ah,ti*<·· r '4'.141' . 4'. I ·1'#1','A.*P' .:CA .: - f.¥.-~t i:L·W)*-://1*/Mii/~,Zij 1, - .il , r '11'.,4 f» 304: 14 1 ... I 42#44. .4 " ; 4 : i '0 0 7, 1 4 9'I . ~ -1:#,E.- x~,(,t%~.„Fij,~Ififi,{3: ~1,0 'F,4 1. 5., ..1 iwk, ~;2 -r 1.1'.,t / 4 ..1.1.1- .4 " I I . .&----*-U-/*AN *47·44,Ok; 149:41-1 4,1 1.·444'ttili;f.*1 A*P .JIEf18,& 36 z -,. wd ~ 1'0 4% ' C ~ % L 1 ..11 -''F t.1,11,11.;f>.dj#:yiffi~:B, #I,%14<~,<Jirit,(Kt 1 . i .4 >40 0.. 0 3, 73- ' ·- ;' e #t-X.,i, :A'th 10'/9. A · 62 4-wr c·, -.01· t .8 2, rearm·•-• . _ -2, a. ': 13 149' l. 40.41,69 23,1/.wi _. , .. 1 . I r. ...... p . . p'$'4·i ...©'.2;~'1242.,I.,;*#I-.-=* ' 6 ,7 4 'ty 7 4 i Umr bit-;Fj,u i f·fi.,· apt. ' 41 ......JAM . 6:14'Jt,ta" 1.~r,r~,2. -- 1. 2 , 1, l flt.f t(ef #> t 4 } 1 1,1, 4 I /1, 4 4.31 4,1 'ted•Ui;t».*/i *4 - 9 4 ;414*'; ' ]'29'v#•~d;4'3 411'9$*Mtit;44<541,~ i ...tle' , ~ · ,~·3„,1~I i'~464it<Fl,1, •j~~k=,1~.. :-: 1 :44~7+91 146 t; t, i ~t~' ~ 1:34 F42. 4 #i: 1,~,3,%17 '"wti4* r-j 4&5 ...4,0 0;, 2444*** 1 1, 4>"13.1. •'0 ~ ' 10'1 /44·· 49*1~, ... ..t·,·.' 2 ,i'•-~I "; A ~*lk:8?24~En>,i,,~ ..f lj,LLEL+~L , , . 7,~00*/#R#6X 49Q-- *6- " I '6 - i *& ' 0. . 9 4 • ' 4<46 . . 1 44 -4:_21/ 1 - 4 ->¢My':-42: ,~44 1 . 4, , &-'*Ail'Pri-WAE ii, , •,2. 9/26 . ' 4 W '.%,4 lit't : . ·•, M ;'* /4 44,40 , 1 44.41 t . I -~4.,. I-.,0:%124**0 -a* .r ' 3 0 ·41 R A* .b , '131:. C 1 - ' 61% 04-Irt. ir: At< 5 - w ~I YA „94 1:t 9 0, 1 -h - 4 y t. tvt',29 i - .f,02<1*0«~'te EL - ....F.-, <'1~ t , 76' A ·,4 10, i 4*4, f.YrA'Nbt; A 31 2~ 1, 4.. , 'wilk J' . 1 -4741-4.ha".9*71~' 4 «4*1 22- k-39 2«It;16 - 35 4. » '' A. 1 £ i• *' 334*1,41 4,1.1,1,rpi-,t c 44.'4:<1*.,1 --1 *719" 61,1' .1 .4 1.fet'.tj .al ..51 ./4 + .L~ $ 11 6 '.4-t94**1>:14.Z-41).,:?4¢. 7'.- 1, ¢1 i. 9 ' 1 4;,RE ,4 _.' *B,el' I - -. ' . ' :#-'I... - - 4/4 /4,/IA ---:34~'~~'*34*4 I. i 4-'',/ '41*441 1 .....se.:pac,e'431·r~PE) 49.4 1: +1154%0.lict\- : 4 :* 2#mb ) * : - / ~41'*11, '-'*71* ~543*'f . ·7•·9('4ft\ ¢ e . ....p#t.*r'%,1 .4 ...9:'4~1 .2 = -··· . 69 ·,4,6719 f ~1 0•4941 e -1 .2:==1 I · ', :431.91*,244'Uvi':4941:,#Fly¢-,I=~ ¢ 4-ij:·~fl 1, , '.. b '1 ~%1% A Ep ·1Nt*Z~~2 .1,(t'·'·' (4=495:1 4% I :r 0. I U,91 Wt,~U.~/#61**~4~iHt)$~/£::~. '· /' ,~ *.4.,; 2. t . Li ~T t: · 7-*,6,14,4- ·01 3 + 1 . M. -7 ,¥*..,·95'7 324, i U :*f.ty: 4.14 6 I.. - ; ",f. %~PI ..~.gi#6&4 914,;ti #4 0 1, \\\ .te . 92.:9*' € ' grt' * 7:4¢t/'.. 10~.,;,14. i/i . ,5 :rf*£14{¢. .F.3ff <1-933£¢ x 0,57 / 4.4,4 R VS#*do Ze419=.F.71 ": , .= "5 1,4 7 I 2 44% *,1 p k, P. 1.35.11 7....44' 4 -Al:*261 :*I'- +9.e~k# 2 10, 1 9%*it~?90.*44 ' AtufTF e Miff:- 5% *4 ~ trit?4% i: .:14 ,,r~i,::YF- .'4 2,,. , 7"'. I ' ' · :11/7 ' ' r il 'rf' . i I. ... ..1 nl___ .r 71*6, '4 /14 A i 01 1 . i r< v.,1-V-I-hb -.- i - 110 e«' p 41 - V ,... & 11 ---- ,#t>1~4 ~ j} , 4#lk.ept-NIP#-1 (Ly}.4 A- ------- k~~&.1, 4v oc----~- ~ L .4 7 1 . /7 -1 1 i 2 4 7 1 -4- i 92 I_ _._ i ei V|ALIL 'i L '' ,,6,6.TOP- 14( 5 .(26 +91 61 1 1 Coff°: 4 - ' C K tiz¢*lipt-ft- )t) '01· P 1 ' , 2 . 6 -1.-4 -4 -1 - 1 0 < 1 - - L | SFACG€ ~ j~ -1 t-'4 deri- _izzl le .) -c//AIRKING , 0 1_42 2-1-". 11-3 \) 722_ ' (FAv€AO N 00 '3,lf--b«14-1110¢+10 4 -- 4 BU F - ir ptlvcl . H U';' Li 121!11- 14~!1 111111.11 I-9 4'Plgijt 4944% · ~%~tilt« i" . .'4~ HI br ~z~--, 1 /4 1 1,- 416 "1 71 p Mofl - ~i , 'I-''I../. - /1 1,1 J/9 /--/-V\/ '1 4 11 1. .1 vt_) (1'. 00 z lau f . 01'fr .AP..8 1 \ DA ; T -39/ . 1 1, 1 . 4 GOUD -L..1 .ji 11~ 11 D PDF 1 POT Gel-~ LIA 14,0.--c, 1'' 4 .AC / '1-1, 9 NOW Bo*I) / 5 2 1 F-44 1 ~14 1 .1 111 U N i t~@~~~) " ~~ 314/\ 4 9 , wN 9 6 1 .--- ·-' NV89 441. c PRD 1+9 ~ '203 ij- 1 - _ 1--43* SpIll)C € 1 -· . TA Aj 1 0 1. 1/.il -1 111112 1 0 . r fri t'.1 1 ) 0.. 1 . 0 ·104 £,I·- ------~FAvel p t.i ~~ 81.1 -00 0 He»joof.. 9€96- 1 - 1-\1 / 1 - 1 0 1 4 p N ( 7-~ 1 0. 1. . D O 0 O '01 .,1 0. . 1 1 ~, u 6 1 1 b . 0 - , 1 0 1 . . -0 5 1-5.: .0 0 1 - .' 4 17 & WOO O O C 04 i 2/ 11 -__'-Beht ..-7 1- 28 60 dOCY /< 214 vAIN FENCE c l-1 f:€9(1 4 V . 2 z ·4 -trl - 11+24 -t- j _ 3 f I.-L~L . 1--heft,ReING 1 -· 9?ACe: . .., - 11'' r (G FAVE L ) J E WIC·A /0 12.240[5« , ~ 6._2. ~-'-'.. _. - r...2299--2 zE= ------ ~_-~- 7-2 37'*hip~-STJ---Asp EN I CD' r -L--- - 1 j , , . r ' t 17'27~----- 1 li 1-C Meel=Tovi *al rreer 1 OF le 2 /4-/ A 6/11 SIT PL R N I- ., 19/ 47 9 273 ' 71 Vorl09 40 @ t. 4: \ 402 0.3 1)31-Nodv': AC)31743901 0 7 09 19389/ 15 91'VW '4 )11' --------- 40.1 1 19(10\4/ 99 W ly 68 N - 'A 3 1 -3 4 1 -8 0 IN R 9 N WOINV'W- $64-19/4 0 91Sre'wl.5 1006 A-41-he Nort -.1 - .:. 04(3 43 9 (£) 1-1 N Q *Rfi=:411*~4- -««L--4-1-:Irif ©lift-007:93-44-rirlill-4--'i~».3 i ~ F 3 :11'igfu,3-32*7 '~0. I '1 : -__ -. __ __ - -i - I.-4 k.'1 ill . . @ Id idi • i, 1 [1- - *Tr#FA.,flri r;- ~- ;- _---- 1- --_---_-__- - 1 11 1 0 1 11 44-9-ovt'v-Juvu~.j.luv·49.JUV©jo ,¢667.- 7. I 1 1 4.14 44:1)-7, U-OUUU[jUDI_il ' Jl/l.' u,; ci'.,U,hiL-7(-712_V.11,40 1 J 1 , 9 " 1 07-- -1-6-2-2 ----- 1 L.- -----il , 1 .. , A , \, - r. -- --- 1 , 1498£10 91,She '' -I I k . wl IMOONIN C-1 -- -c If ,~ 1- /f~l £ 4 1 -------- i__ -_- - __ SNAH 160 NJN ~1~ --- -- 1 1 , : 1 C -- --t_.- -- M.---- -- - .------- . - 1 0 ' 0- . , ., -#--«- . .-1 2 IN/VJ MAN - WI-di. 04/ ---- -- g '9-r-m-- ·lf r I €)Nkuls: CRJOM SLS,9-3 1- 9 Z \ 13 1 ' ---- r--9,4 1.- M--- / 10 & g I . , - £./-01 1 Itul tar,r--7 1 -- -- -- -- ,2, .,01 1 ~ ---_ ----1- 7TxT-2 . ~. //- -1 A -. t.- 1; 3 ./ - s- -- Wjnd 79dn ~-- 90-1--- 0_334-1-t---I-I ~...7 _. '4 UX 11 ~~ 1 L -- - +. - L -I - -M---5_j!~_ 1.- - - · - - ------ ---4 -2.F-r-,c·T--LEZIP; Inri- ·=i, - : 0, 1 FLit -3227-1 1 -- -------------~ -1Lt Lt-11-1 , ll- I IL t,Ad {/: -- I //7 'VT»r--¥' n \\ 1 th< 1 irry·» /~7 7-7 27711 re (ree« / / / E]- 11 1 ·O· Ifhn i f 1,-Y h Or r Fi I ll i:' 1. N i *d MON \44 \ illeNull 1 1 111 /, r //0 \ 11VPS 45 14 ~ --- 3),13' 1,3 !!i ~ thi; Ne\\\ €31-1 ri- Ce,-N-1 / ' '/ '<4 r-Car-YX ' -fli~ D' 1 1 -/ 5/44 \ /2. \ . 1-1 979 « 1 1%3 K OLUV dooM MON -·--·-' t~ ~.9 »y/7 im lilli 1-1 1 1 . i ,=14-2.-r-Lt --- 1.1 11.11 . 1.,tril-~12 1 1 1 1 1, -- .. lim--137- , 1 -1.-17+4, L 1 -- --- -- 1 -Lr 1 11 - 1 --- i i L-- -- : 1 _ 1_ 1 -- --1 - -- t- -- --- ~-1----Jiftlf-3-fi'---I>Mew (70{Aft gl~ft,EN-6 FCC>p r-1.-1-- 11.- ill! 1 .1 ill- 1 ---- --3 -1[2--3111 -'tl-ZLE.LI 1 - - C 'i# Hi-" i , 14 21' 1 I, I - 1 1 1 '--1-11-1-1"i i'.7- 7,7-r--1-li. 11 11 ---- 1 1 1 3-1-f.T---1 -1 1 14-T 1 1.11 1 I tri l' i '1 1 1 1 -1 1 '1,1 *i ITE 1 1 11 LG.,1.- .: - . _11 1 -1 -I ' f~i'~- i ---.7* ,' i ' 1 ' -I! 1 Il .. I , I 1 1 1 1 1 i' l• 1 3," lit,~1 <1 1 .~f 11' 1.~ d -1 1 ' 1'1 9 1 L 111 1 / I c- €*\SIG f EDI LT-DE' PCOF - - --- --- -- --- --- --- - -- - ---- - - ,- - -------- 1 1 1 - 4- 1+....0 lili 0 1-- -1--- --- 4=« 149_4 I 0 .1 - 4-1 9 ro ! 1 - - -------- ' f lE , ! 7-L' 1 1-" , 1~ 7 1 + 1 -r h ·T- J U f P G« Ft-£300- I , , . 7- 7-1 11 ... A '-lf-- -r -- Tr -1 --1 --~---- $ 0 -la--1-1.- : 1.4_' 1 1....9. J..UJ_+~ r I (0'. 9" i 1 -<#ii 1. : ~1 i >- ---- 2- r f , L .. c-'t 11.-1,1 Y!-#;11 1,1 1.-1-1 4 <6, 1 . C P C I 0 [6. Er.. - -oi --IL-2 -2 -72 -2-7-- 2 .--20_.:1-_._-- - ---- -2 1- -_ 4 "- I . -.-7 3>4131·=[L]H 1 .. 0-- I. I , . 0 0. If i.0 _ e 1 / 11 , =1 - 111 - --t 1 1 ti 11 .116 [ 51 -- --- /*1 14 12-LCOP_ 1 /: 21- T r ·/ aL. 0 1 m*..S. 7.t· 2--:733.33<~' 7-..9*QW= -:.,41-4=44~4~FU~4&41444%~A:4~&~ME4~1~24~*~~»-j .-~.- ~ 91· t?545 :~~'~~3- .;'1=-;1-*f~.1 F~·-; ~~ .·1- - -- ~-1.*i: - - ,.hu~. 22'~.~6),.~~:.2.--sl.cit-~f . :-~1~~' I . UNIT ~ '- poy *OODSID/16 3(17/NC#¢ TA-\M (,16 1-r--r (i) f© $ ic©i. o" , O,1 51'G Nd©D 44 -ty-<AA -4 10 AAA1O1 6+191-G · NOT-ff: G--- W GAST 61 L G V. 1. Al,L WINDOWS All€ NEW 0 OF- lED 744 -1 4 0'i N G>NRA.·U < f€:NVIXN-- -,2 I I ·.;. ABids=r 55'P €£4 -,CD (1'C FaCf-1-904 1 Al€All€0 7-0 64 13 72) CAP-gogrAL€ co 11'ff 1 -Z 95 1 ; 11 0 41 you 0.01,1 VU MON 5 Z. 4-14 n d llc.GO W /) 19 1 V MA.9 N 17 $.0 11 4,3 W. l.«*1 e € 4-9 19 3 H 3-1-V W Ok + 1 1910*AE) OC©© rAD N 6 .6 3 1 -0 1 1 / 1 0 6 6\ ..9 N · 93-10 N 3 5.91 NA u.3 N 51 WI-* 199[VIOI50O0/VI 1-19 l; 40)N -hle SNOCINI M -1-19 7 1Na vr39/8 al- : 5310 N , £ ; . 11 K 1 It) D/\ 1 9%330* -1 / . 1, 40 79<2 1 1.-4 t-- 1- --- tiN 4 C --I---- 1 '- -6. -; -05)91-j HIV* \ 1_, 1 11:11! , 1 11 '.1 1 1 1 '-.1 lili1; 1 P 1,-Jj~ 1 . A--11 1 21 : Ir 1. 1 IL 1 11 1 . r ,------/ 41 .L- 1111(2 "'ON ./ \ ------ 22- un-r--172=7_13_ --2--71_--_Eli--7.EL-- 2-2-__-2--IT-ll ¥ ~80(,)13 1,CUr) i '-E/3, ii-Tr I,-F-T- -U-- FLU-t' C~:Ii¥ 1, 1 El',I-Ii--ti-12· --- --------- 11 il # 1 i~:.1 ./ 4 1 li h : 4%1111,1 r, ---:ZTTL~ ,~_!:L-ti-_it_ji IU_o b M Ad 3 -4 24 1' rl it i j'· ~t ~'i, - - 7/ v 7 ~1 -__ \Y}Ill &0>NJOj.6 -- ---- 11 - 1~ d. V D 111 M 1 ./ 1 4- ---- - -- - 11 A ODOM 913173\ . - -, 1 L 1 / 1 1 9 1. 1;r-+- - -TE ~,1 ------ -- --9 4 -. / ---- --- -/"/ Dj j / 1 91 40 Cli .- y. /2 k)941151¥. HC)01713 God -0 4 93' Aled*/ 1-1 NNW 4 \It, 130Oyyld vv + 99 N *, c, 1<-w oe/4 1 6 (LP ' r r.9 1, 1 L U., 2 0 00% It 12> CAP·®av(>11, t/&3~ -- ' 3 ~~~T„..11 !11!1~~ !IIi i'~1<1~6 1.lilli, lili '11-413 1!'111,11111'~Ii 11- lilli-11~-111'11-1111-111~11'111 ~1111~1~~~~1~1,11!11 ~:1111111!1 11 1~ 0 111 11 1 11, 1 11~ lili 1 1 '1 11 ' 1 .i / h' , ~ \\1 i 1 1 1, i · 1 I , 1 1 ~PX-«1 1 1 £ 1' 1 \.4« 1 11 1 1- --1 1 604 -. -4 -0 N 4 viLSBBj i jI. Ar ~ * 1 U 1 1 K 4-H , 1 11 ! '111 1 11 1 11:iii:1 1 1 i d 2 1.4 .1.1 i 1 ' e 1;1:, (1 11 Licirl'i 'll~ 11; ;!, it .1 }f .1 1 IL'. : / 1 1 11 1:1 1 ;11 1411 1151 1, 1 1,11,11 il 11 111 4;11,111:1 1111'i'11 " dillilillii,~ 1. .~ .- 1 1,1 11 f 1 + 1 - 1 1 1 1 E I ll 1 1 1 1 "11r- - 4 .1 1 : .- -n 1 e ~ 11 Ul 1 1 1 1 1 l F · . 1 , 1, 1 1 11 ' , It 1 1 / 7 1 1 1 1 1 i » C=*11 - - :16 1 1 , d -1 -i i 1 - 1 1 11 11 1 1: 1 :111 :r~ ~ _~~ ~ ~!1.11 It L I 'lilli' ! 1 . llc 1 -- A--- i - L_ 6- 1f 9 4 + F A 9 -r 6- L E- 4, UNIT 4 N 6-«\N 9 0- a- T M a G 6-v U h 11 4 '/41-lcow - 1(41\ -1 ( /0,1 4 1 F eMENAA 9-E AL(JOEL 2, 11 *, "Al N Tr.. Ape/v 4 9 6 F O f* ul . T 5 ON A lla 1,1 T UDr ' 2 0.50+ 1398 CAROMVY#2&21 ' ~~i~-4.1~-<~~~~A--<1 1 -- -------'---~ -. - - - - - \ \44 297 ''Ti' fiTIT·*77, ...h /:,!32 111 '. , 1 1 1/i:il; ; 1, P 1 1 i i '1·i j it- b '.1 i . 1 " 7 4/4/13 , I i 1 1, i , 949,/77 1.~ - 1. 1 Lie \\4\ t. i i fAO# 1 91 --~----- // 4 . 1 1 1 ~ L 1 1 i ~ f. fli /1,1 11,j 1,1 :2 :.2,: ~ , ;j z;: ~ 1 , i j~i , c 6331~: ~i'' . . ~* ~.' _~~ „ii!~'~·, 1 J h - -" 0 1 f.\01 ..1.-- 17 A--~- .- ---- -. .-- - - 4-L ., - p.-«---4-- I ---*----.. ----1.- 1 ' L r. '4 -1 11 w- 11 1 11~---Pli .i h i 3 3 1- + c ! i : 0/ 11 0, 1 , 1 -i,/ i '; 1 *I L-, ' ~ ~ , · 1 1 l.-- W~ LI ilf : 1 =ZE====9 1 . 11 . :, 0 .C--, 1 ! 1'1 1-~ 1 4 itt !11 !11 . , 1 I 1 ,1 1, 1 , 1, 1 4 0 T : 1 4 . 1 1, 1 . C 1--95 41 , , . 9. 11.1:it 5- -5 plkh __- . 2 0, i i j, t: 1--1--_ 2-_1- L 1% 1 i U L-hw-- \4 CAN W ET-r 4-- 6.- 6- 9 u N I f-4 14 6 \N N O A- r tt 6- 9 46-1. 0, C r-4 - 4 L <- 1 L L) b T, , 7 ·th 9 . t MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: 801 E. Hyman Ave., Application for Demolition Public Hearing Date: August 23, 1989 LOCATION: 801 E. Hyman Ave., Lots A, B, C, and D, Block 111, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado ZONING: RMF - Residential Multi Family RATING: " 1" , not designated (Note: Please see attached Inventory Forms and associated comments) APPLICANT: John A. Elmore, represented by Sunny Vann, Vann & Associates HPC MONITOR: not yet assigned APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Demolition approval for the single family structure located on the parcel. (Note: The demolition application does not address the two historic outbuildings also located on the parcel. These are located at the alley, undoubtedly encroach into the rear setback, and may even encroach onto city property.) OTHER COMMISSION REVIEWS: On June 26, 1989, Council approved the GMQS and Subdivision exemptions and Lot Split for this property, with conditions. The Lot Split action effectively divided the large 12,000 sq. ft. parcel into two sites or two potential building envelopes for two single family homes with deed restricted accessory dwelling units. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Ordinance 17, Series of 1989, amending the Land Use Code approved by Council last April, requires HPC approval for the demolition, partial demolition or relocation of any structure identified on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. (Note: Please review the Demolition Provisions in the Code, beginning with Section 7-602. These are attached for your reference.) The Standards for Demolition Review are located in Section 7-602(B)(1-4). Response: Staff finds that application has 1.Ot met Standards 1, 2, and 3. The structure appears to be structurally sound, no discussion has been given as to the "reasonable beneficial use" of the structure, and relocation has not been addressed. For these reasons, the HPC may consider denying approval for the demolition. STAFF COMMENTS: This is the first opportunity the HPC has had to review a demolition application under the revised code, and one involving a lowest rated structure with questionable historic integrity. The original intent of revising the code requiring HPC approval was to allow staff and the Committee an oppurtunity to examine all possible alternatives to demolition, and to allow the Committee to review the replacement/redevelopment plans, if deemed appropriate. The questions to be examined in the case appear to be, though not limited to, the following: 1. Does this structure have any historic integrity worth preserving? 2. Would its removal off the site damage the historic context of the neighborhood? 3. Is there any historic context remaining? 4. What action is the most appropriate for the HPC to take, keeping in mind the other priority goal of the community: affordable housing? 5. How should the historic outbuildings (with integrity) be treated? In staff's opinion, this particular structure has lost its historic architectural integrity, therefore, requiring a great deal of historic documentation to eliminate the "guess work" that would be necessary to reconstruct it authentically, as a vernacular miner's cottage. It is reasonable to concur that historic photos may not be available to base its accurate reconstruction, a method used in significant historic buildings. Due to the vernacular, drastically altered aspects of this structure, the Planning Office finds the removal request reasonable. However, opportunities exist to incorporate other community goals into this project: affordable housing. The structure has been maintained quite well over the years, and the current owner has just recently invested a few thousand dollars into the interior in the way of upgrades. He intends to occupy the home through the winter, eliminating the great immediacy for demolition. In our opinion this is a nice, small home, perfect for a small family or two single people. Although "affordable housing" issues are not necessarily an HPC concern, an opportunity is before you to help meet two pressing community needs. You may also decide to look at the conceptual plans for redevelopment, if you feel this is appropriate. Recommendations may also be made 2 f for massing and height, if you wish to not examine fully redevelopment plans. Context: Arguments may be made in support of either side of the issue Of "neighborhood context". Most of Aspen's eastern neighborhoods have severely reduced historic context, with historic cottages scattered throughout. The question lies in whether these historic resources should be preserved on site, providing enough small scale relief in these C-1, Office and RMF zone districts (and as a subtle reminder of our Victorian past), or whether this entire area is in such transition that these lesser rated structures, positioned in mostly (now) non-historic neighborhoods, should be allowed to make way for new. This eastern end of Aspen only has 25 historic resources left - they are all altered miner's cottages. Only 10, including the subject property, are located on Hwy. 82, the principal corridor into and out of the city. Should the HPC be interested in preserving these small scale cottages of particular visibility? In his application, we feel Mr. Elmore and his consultant, Sunny Vann, have provided the HPC with a number of issues, many of which may mirror other community concerns. The HPC's review and action on this application may be precedent setting and should be considered carefully. ALTERNATIVES: Many alternatives are possible for the HPC to consider in this application. Any number of scenarios 1. Approve the demolition application as proposed 2. Approve the demolition application with conditions such as: a. only the main st -ucture shall be demolished b. the two out-buildings will be preserved on site C. the two out-buildings shall be relocated to an appropriate site within the city (preferably) or within the county; such relocation shall be reviewed and approved through staff 3. Table action, finding further study is necessary, and to allow the applicant time to prepare redevelopment plans for HPC review and approval 4. Deny approval finding the application is not complete as stated above 5. Deny the demolition application, finding that relocation is a viable alternative. An application for relocation shall be submitted to the Planning Office 3 f for HPC's review and approval. 6. Suspend action, per Section 7-602(E) of the Land Use Code, which states: "The HPC shall be authorized to suspend action on a demolition, partial demolition or relocation application when it finds that it needs additional information to determine whether the application meets the standards of Section 7-602(B) or that the proposal is a matter of such great public concern to the City that alternatives to the demolition, partial demolition or relocation must be studied jointly be the City and the owner. Alternatives which the HPC may consider having studied shall include, but not be limited to, finding economically beneficial uses of the structure, removal of the structure to a suitable location, providing public subsidy to the owner to preserve the structure, identifying a public entity capable Of public acquisition of the structure, or revision to the demolition, partial demolition or relocation and development plan." "The HPC shall be required to specify the additional information it requires or the alternatives it finds should be studied when it suspends action on the demolition, partial demolition, or relocation application. Action shall only be suspended for the amount of time it shall take for the necessary information to be prepared and reviewed by the Planning Director, but in no case shall suspension be for a period to exceed six (6) months." RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC suspend action per Section 7-602(E) for a period not to exceed six (6) months, to allow time for the City and applicant to study alternatives to demolition, such as finding a suitable new location for the structures. Prior to, or at the end of, the six (6) month suspension, the applicant shall meet with the HPC to report on the relocation study. At that time the HPC shall take action according to the results of that study. memo.hpc.801eh 4 $ F 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 11 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 "H" 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 p I 1 that the demolition, partial demolition, or relocation I 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 V. The structure cannot be practicably moved to another site in Aspen; and 4. The applicant demonstrates that the proposal mitigates to the greatest extent practical, the following: a. Any impacts that occur to the character of the neighborhood where demolition is proposed to occur. b. Any impact on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels C. Any impact to the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels. 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 L. lfe 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 winh 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 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 cap ble 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 3==hould_studied when it suspends action on the <Apy-e-1-op-mmak-7 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. 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 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 suck. 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 A-QLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Colorado Preservation'Office 1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 ARCHITECTURAL/HISTORICAL COMPONENT FORM /1~~ IMPORTANT: USE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE GREEN INVENTORY RECORD FORM FOR - *~lK -~ FOR RECORDING HISTORIC STRUCTURES AND DISTRICTS. USE SEPARATELY FOR (,~...~ RECORDING STRUCTURES LOCATED WITHIN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES. 5PT-194 1) Resource No. 2) Temp No. 202 3) Name 801 E. Hyman House 4) Address 801 East Hvman Ave. 51 District Name none I. INTEGRITY: 61 Condition: Good * Fair Deteriorated 7) Original Use Residence 81 Present Use Residence 91 Original Site + Moved Date Cs) of Muve: N/A 10) Unaltered Altered * Explain: Alterations have so extensive that integrity of original structure has been lost. Place in 'Inventoried Category' II. DESCRIPTIONi 111 Building Materials Wood 121 -Construction Date 1880's 131 Architect/Builder unknown 141 Architectural Style Csl. Victorian 15) Special Features/Surroundings: none 161 Archaeological Potential: Yes No- Unknown - * Explain: I-.-*- Ill- .----- III. CULTURAL ACTIVITIES: ·Key the resource type (ie: house, bam, 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 9 r n- -· Al - kESOURCC . A ·--4,, ~ ·7. : 7.1 34< 9- 1 1 ... . t 1,-4. · Frame Number V - *. Roll Number 6 Facade Orientation Front Iii' BR1~ ~~~~~ki 9 1 .. T - , -7-2.'1* + . 3·' 444* 9 4 c - .:34'F 4-4 1, 11/:C . 7*et 0 • i 1 k 1 - 7 / - 4 '11 -- 11 rV. SIGNIFICANCE: Assess whether or not the resource has any historical or architectural merit by checking appropriate categories and justifying bilow. Include any relevant historical data. 20) Architectural Significance: 21) Historical Significance: Represents work of a master Associated with significant persons Possess-es h.igh artistic values Associated with significant events or Represents -1 type, period, or patterns method of construction Contributes to the significance of an historic district The histo'ical significance of tnis residential structure has been diminished by the drastic remodeling of the exterior. The integrity of the original structure has almost been lost and therefore, this structure has been placed in an 'Inventoried Category' which means that it was built in the 1880's but contributes little to historical or architectural significance because of los of integrity. n,-na 22) L=st Any Associated Cultural Group: 11/ ,1- V. REFERENCES: RECORDER V.G.'f rkpatrick DATE Oct. 30, 1980 T. TA GE © Im 8%_f 1% ~i itt 1 U ! iii 11:\ : JAN 16 lEft- ~ i January 14, 1987 \ .d\\1 . Steve Burstein Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Burstein: Pursuant to your letter dated January 5, 1987, consider this a response in opposition to the proposed designation of 801 East Hyman as a historical structure. In its present condition, virtually nothing remaining about the house's appearance is original or hasn't been remodeled at least once. My opinioA is that the decision to subject specific properties to this type of designation without the owner's intent violates the rights of real property ownership. These rights are infringed upon when property is designated in such a manner that it interferes and impedes the probability and profitability of resale, which is a given ownership right. Since nothing is awarded to the property owner for this type of designation, i.e. property tax breaks or oth*r incentive, there is no reason to comply with the decision. Should your department continue to involuntarily select properties, a group of objecting citizens, myself included, will be in contact with an attorney to represent our rights as property owners. More consideration should be given to the citizens of Asoen.before such a measure is instituted, especially those citizens who have lived here long before such bureaucracy existed. Sincerely, Elsie Snyder 801 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 ES/ks SITE PLAN ------- EXISTING - * J 11 (-4 S. ORIGINAL ST. \ 02. 18' j . \ \ /1 Z -1 0 » 1-0 12 2 2 ize ?r .4 f € .;CR D'D-Ati€>t -T- ; U< N..:14.22 ·9"EL CO CC' ) , ' \ D 1 2 1. 1 M }9 u RO G= 0 .7 1 1 11 9 3 4 1 320 32 1 < n >15 m, DOE 9 0/ * Or' 68 n 4 1 PI mud En _ PI . 1 > /1 - 6 1 36.0 X 4 19 3 0 3 I *tim L/4 JIJ \ D L 0 4 30 9 5 01 - 3 9 r g z u 'V >1 / r' .. a - U b 67 1 -~ 7 n A l.32 -Li L (AD 2 '09 // - A 3 3] 2 Z 00 y RO-AT-t\112_ /3 ' '· J 400 *73 ANED - PardD-Zfy<23 f VANN ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning Consultants uuly 20, 1989 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Roxanne Eflin Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Elmore Demolition Application Dear Roxanne: Please consider this letter an application to demolish a single-family structure located at 801 East Hyman Avenue (see Land Use Application Form attached hereto as Exhibit 1). The application is submitted by John A. Elmore, the owner of the property and applicant (see Exhibit 2, Title Commitment). The Applicant's representative is Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, Inc., Planning Consultants (see Exhibit 3, Permission to Represent). Project Site As the Vicinity Map on the following page illustrates, Mr. Elmore's property is located at the southeast corner of Hyman Avenue and Original Street. The property, whj-ch consists of Lots A, B, C and D, Block 111, City and Townsite of Aspen, was recently subdivided into two (2) separate lots via the City's "lot split" subdivision exemption procedure. The structure in question is s_ituated on Lot 1 (i.e., Lots A and B) of the Elmore Lot Split. The existing structure is included in the City's Inventory Of Historic Sites and Structures. The structure was inventoried and evaluated in October of 1980. According to the Planning Office's files, it is Victorian in style and was constructed in the 1880's. With respect to the archit- ectural/historical significance of the structure, the files contain the following observation. "The historical significance of this residential struc- ture has been diminished by the drastic remodeling of the 230 East Hopkins Avenue· Aspen. Colorado 81611 - 303.925-6958 Ms. Roxanne Eflin July 20, 1989 Page 2 exterior. The integrity of the original structure has almost been lost and therefore, this structure has been placed in an Inventoried Category which means that it was built in the 1880's but contributes little to historical or architectural significance because of loss of integri- ty. 11 The above notwithstanding, the structure was subsequently rated "1" in connection with the 1986 numerical rating of the City's so-called "notable" historic structures. Proposed Development The two newly created lots contain six thousand (6,000) square feet each and are to be offered for sale to prospec- tive purchasers. Each lot has received an exemption from growth management for the construction of a single-family residence and attached accessory dwelling unit. Based on the area and bulk requirements of the R/MF zone district, the maximum floor area of each residence is approximately thirty-two hundred (3,200) square feet. Similarly, each lot must provide a minimum of twenty-one hundred (2,100) square feet of open space. The maximum building height is twenty- five (25) feet. Review Requirements Pursuant to Section 7-602.A. of the Land Use Regulations, as amended, the demolition of all rated structures included in the City's historic inventory is subject to HPC approval. It should be noted, however, that Section 7-709.C. of the Regulations states in part that "Structures which are rated 0 and 1 shall be deemed to have no historic value and shall be removed from the inventory." We believe that this provision applies to the structure in question and, as a result, HPC approval should not be required. The Planning Office, however, has taken the position that this language does not apply to the 1986 ratings but rather to those inventories which may be undertaken in the future (see Exhibit 4, Request for Interpretation, and Exhibit 5, Alan Richman's response). The Planning Office's position leaves the Applicant with three (3) alternatives: 1) appeal the interpretation to City Council, 2) request HPC demolition approval pursuant to the provisions of Section 7-602, and 3) wait for a future reevaluation of the inventory. As a new inventory is not ' f Ms. Roxanne Eflin July 20, 1989 Page 3 anticipated until late this year, the Applicant has elected to seek HPC approval for the requested demolition. The review standards for HPC approval of a demolition request are contained in Section 7-602.B. of the Regula- tions. In our opinion, these standards are designed to address the preservation of significant historic structures. The City's intent, we believe, was not to require the preservation of those structures which had lost their historic integrity over the years and which would otherwise be dropped from the inventory (i.e., structures rated 0 and 1). You emphasized this point in your April 10, 1989 memorandum to City Council stating in part that "The intent of this ordinance (i.e., Ordinance #17) is to allow the review of demolition proposals so that all practical impacts may be mitigated." We submit that while the structure may be structurally sound, and could continue to be used for a residence either on-site or in a new location, its loss of historical relevance renders these criteria inapplicable. In fact, were the structure to be reevaluated and its current rating sustained, it would be removed from the inventory and this application would not be required. Furthermore, as there are no other historically rated structures in the immediate site area, no impact upon the historic or architectural character of the neighborhood will occur as a result of redevelopment as proposed. In summary, we believe the point here is not whether the structure is structurally sound, or whether or not it can be economically restored. The point is that the structure has lost its historic integrity over the years and should be allowed to be demolished to, as you put it in your April 10, memorandum, "make way for the new". The two lots, and their respective building envelopes, have been designed in accordance with the area and bulk require- ments of the R/MF zone district. The resulting floor areas will be consistent with, if not less than, those of sur- rounding structures. In the absence of any other historic structures in the area, no -impact upon the City's historic resources would appear to occur as a result of the demoli- tion and redevelopment of the structure as proposed. Based on the above, we respectfully request that the Applicant's demolition application be approved. Ms. Roxanne Eflin July 20, 1989 Page 4 Should you have any questions, or if we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. As the Applicant wishes to resolve this issue in as timely a manner as possible, any assistance you may be able to provide with respect to scheduling would be sincerely appreciated. Very truly yours, VANN ASSOCIATES, INC~ Sunny Vann#AICP V SV:CWV Attachments cc: John Elmore EXHIBIT 4 VANN ASSOCIATES, INC. P A 1-3 1-1 r. g L. DIR<-i LJ ' 1 a MIL June 26, 1989 HAND DELIVERED Mr. Alan Richman City Planning Specialist Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Request for Interpretation Dear Alan: Please consider this letter a request for an interpretation of certain provisions of Section 7-709 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations and Ordinance #17, Series of 1989, which pertain to the City's inventory of historic structures and the demolition thereof. More specifically, Subsection 7-709.C. states in part that "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." As we discussed, I have a client whose residence was rated "1" in connection with the 1986 numerical rating of the City's so- called "notable" historic structures. As I read Section 7- 709.C., the residence should have been subsequently deleted from the inventory as structures rated 0 and 1 are "deemed to have no historic value." Apparently, however, the required deletion never occurred, as the residence in question continues to appear on the City's historic inventory. As Ordinance #17, Series of 1989, extended HPC review to all structures included in the inventory, demolition of my client's residence is now subject to HPC approval. The demolition criteria, however, are designed to address the preservation of significant historic structures. As a result, the ability of a reason- ably sound, non-historic structure to comply with the criteria would appear impossible. . EXHIBIT 5 CITY OF ASPEN 130 south galena street July 5, 1989 aspen, colorado 81611 Mr. Sunny Vann 303-925-2020 Vann Associates 230 East Hopkins Ave. Aspen, Co., 81611 Dear Sunny, The purpose of this letter is to respond to your letter dated June 26, 1989. In the letter, you request an interpreuation of the statement in Sec. 7-709 C of the Aspen Land Use Regulations that "Structures which are rated 0 and 1 shall be deemed to have no historic value and shall be removed from the inventory". Section 7-709 C was written to codify the administrative review process utilized in the 1986 rating of Aspen's Inventory of Historic Structures. It documents the process which was followed at that time so that the periodic re-evaluations required by Sec. 7-709 B would be done in a similar manner. To understand Sec. 7-709 C, you must first recognize that the subject language was written in 1987, after the evaluation took place. Therefore, I do not find that it was intended to cause an immediate removal of all structures rated "0" and "1" from the inventory. Instead, the language must be read in the context of the requirement to re-evaluate the inventory, at which time removal of structures could take place. As you know, the Planning Office and HPC intend to re-evaluate the inventory this fall, fully two years ahead of the Code's 5 year deadline. If the re-evaluation finds that the structure is "non-contributing", it Will be removed from the inventory. Please note that staff is recommending a simpler process for the re-evaluation, which will require us to first revise Section 7- 709 B. Your comments on the process and the re-evaluation itself will, of course, be welcome. Until then, it is your client's responsibility to demonstrate the reasonableness of his proposed demolition, based on the standards of Sec. 7-602, as amended. I hope this clarifies the issue for you. Please let me know if I can otherwise be of assistance. Sincerely, 4-1/-63 Alarl Richman City Planning Specialist . r Mr. Alan Richman June 26, 1989 Page 2 My client's predicament, I believe, is readily apparent. Although his residence is deemed to have no historic value, it remains on the inventory. As a result, demolition is subject to HPC approval. However, he can't comply with the demolition criteria as they are designed to preserve historic structures. As no immediate reevaluation of the City's inventory is anticipated, I intend to submit a demolition application to the HPC. Since the residence in question cannot comply with all of the demolition criteria as required, I intend to base my request on the fact that the structure should not be on the inventory and, therefore, should not have to demonstrate compliance with the demol-ition criteria. Obviously, your interpretation of Section 7-709.C. is paramount to my argument. As my client wishes to resolve this matter as quickly as possible, your timely response would be sincerely appreci- ated. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, VANN ASSOCIATES, INC. Sunny Vann, AICP SV:CWV .. MEMORANDUM ; To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Conceptual Development: Guido's Restaurant and Adjacent building - 403 S. Galena and 425 E. Cooper St. Public Hearing Date: August 23, 1989 LOCATION: 403 S. Galena St. and 425 E. Cooper Ave., Lots E, F, G, H, and I, Block 90, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado ZONING: CC - Commercial Core, "H" Historic Overlay District APPLICANT: Guido Meyer, represented by Kim Weil of Bill Poss and Associates, Architects HPC MONITOR: not yet assigned APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual Development approval for the enlargement of the chalet-style restaurant building (rear, second floor), remodel of the adjacent building facade, addition of a third floor to that building, and a "bridge", linking both. No variations are being requested. PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION: A pre-application with the applicants was held with the HPC August 9 to begin a dialogue on appropriate and compatible design issues. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: (Note: Due to staff's required jury service, consisting of three days this past week, a complete written review is not available at this time, however, we Will be prepared to address the application at the meeting. However, since the pre-application, the applicant has presented to staff revised plans that incorporated many of the issues mentioned at that meeting.) ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Approve the Conceptual Development application as submitted 2. Approve the proposal with the conditions 3. Table action to allow the applicant further time to study the proposal, incorporating the comments and guidance from the HPC in a revised proposal. .. 4. Deny Final Development approval finding that the application does not meet the development review + standards. A denial would constitute a re-notice of the public hearing. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Conceptual Development approval for the project with the conditions that: 1. the height of the third floor, as indicated by the proposed story poles, meets the viewplane criteria and the Committee's approval 2. materials for the building at 425 E. Cooper be further studied 3. the bridge be completely eliminated from the proposal. Final Development plans shall include a complete disclosure of accurate materials and meet all conditions of conceptual approval. memo.hpc.425ec 2 R. R. Woods 314 South Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 David Fleisher 401 E. Cooper Aspen, Colorado 81611 August 23, 1989 Aspen Historic Preservation Committee: Although we are unable to attend the public hearing regarding the Guido Meyer redevelopment, as adjacent property owners we want to place on record our objections to the third floor addition at 425 East Cooper. We feel a third story is completely out of scale with the existing structures on the Cooper Avenue Mall. All other buildings are two stories or lower. This proposed third story is out of character, and would block off more of our ever shrinking view, would further darken the mall, and would over power the surrounding structures, many of which were required to meet guidelines to prevent these very concerns. We would embrace and support a remodeling of the building if it is to scale and compatible with neighboring buildings. Sincerely, ««46»411 49<.22/- ~ R. R. Woods, Owner/~19 E. Cooper I./, /-/+41 David Fleisher, Owner 401 E. Cooper i f 1 & , ./ .1.2 ¥'. 0 . - p+19~k» /'64 £ 423% i k. b k A • 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 TEL (303) 925-4755 July 28, 1989 Roxanne Eflin City of Aspen Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Guido's Redevelopment Dear Roxanne: The owner's of the above referenced project wish to renovate and expand their property located on the southwest corner of Galena and Cooper Streets. Since this property is located in the commercial core of the historic district, review by the HPC is required. As a first step, we request a public hearing to consider our conceptual development plan. In accordance with section 7.601.F.3.a(4), what follows is a statement of the effect of the proposed development on the original design of the historic structure and/or character of the neighborhood. To aid you in evaluating the information, this statement is arranged according to the review standards for development in a histroric overlay district: 1. Compatibility with designated historic structures. The project consists of two buildings. The restaurant which was built around 1953 and the adjacent business building which was built around 1971 and remodeled in the early 1980's. Presently, neither building relates very well to the adjacent historic structures; the Red Onion and the Independence buildings. Both of these structures are brick and sandstone examples of Aspen ' s mining heritage architecture. ' 3 1 - r 1 k ··-rv - . 1.94' ... r g... /1 It t The restaurant is a ski chalet style wood and stucco building reminiscent of Aspen's early ski days. Planning staff has indicated this type of architecture is worthy of saving as an example of the resurgence of Aspen. It is our intent to renovate this building retaining as much of the original structure as possible. An addition on the south end of the upper floor has been designed to compliment the dominant features of the buildings, wood trim, low roof pitch, strong horizontal lines and stucco. The major work on the project will be the addition and renovation of the business building. The facads will be changed to relate more to the surrounding histo*ic structures and compliment the restaurant building. 2. Compatibility with neighborhood. The completed project should enhance the neighborhood and be more consistent with its character for the folowing reasons: A. The renovation and restoration of the restaurant. B. The replacement of the business building facade. 3. Protection of cultured values. With the renovation of these two builings,the viability and cultural value of this neighborhood should be enhanced. 4. There are presently no designated historic structures on the property. However, the designation of the restaurant building is a possibility and the remodeled business building is more cornplimentary to the restaurant. p ..... r 0 F. i ,it F. 4 L './ . 174-" ..Efe/Fi ar,-6 · .-. t.t f ,- t -274.2 F·I. r ./. 1 f r F - I realize the accompaning drawings are sketchy but at the conceptual level, we are most interested in discussing messing and overall style rather than individual details. I hope this information helps you understand the project. I will bring a rough study model to the meetings. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, 234 Kim Weil Enclosure KW:lah 11 - 1 , % ·· 11 E- . 1 11 m 1 1 1 EL [39 *1- 1 U 1 1 11 1 1 2 . m . E i Z · * . 1 I.-- * ':9 - I r . -1 1% i I . IN - ------__ ____ - ____Il GUIDO'S REDEVELOPMENT - 60/ik-• hi --W -i 1 - 1-1=-- SE ND LEVEL O '4 0-0 1441:'BID+32- *)14©04-1 29*U'We eN l€i-)08 29'ka-UWa + 2 ~ ctil .thy-18.* fi EZ fl 12,-,~c: 7 11 1 -------- -- i MT- - r- --5 FFE= MVE: UNrr R __- C W iLa- Vt- 9 i '~ 1 - -1 p'H I 1 0 --DR 1 1 .. - i --- . - f - .02... - - HALL 0 -_: 111 Lb i 1/ i Ptzte ,*r: UNIT [c > 00 -=sel/==6:-1.-43=-=797//P .1/'ll./.41/a 3 1 0 D . , 44. 0, 9% 3 1 Hi 1N3V\Id013A3 1I 4 - 1 : 1 1 le-n 1 11 1 1 lili - 4 -+1 -11 \ 01=111 - I 91 1 11 11 I. 11 1 11 E 11 11.14 /1 ~ .-- - 111 1! / . I. 1 I '4 11 1 \\411:?..0%6 1 I. «63449 6 1 -- 1 1 E -- 1 1 N . 1 04 lili 1 .11 1 1 1 - a 1 j 1 -- U. - 83 1 -- ~4-~- IT+r- 11.11 1 -,¥14 1 - L=. i, ill i , ri,=n.4 r...P.ILLr-'- 1:=·· r= -4 - FL 1 8 O #----- - m r m 1 ! , f ..1 =1 11 b 1 -- 1.- GUIDO'S REDEVELOPMENT 1911 k!~TH El_EVATION 4109 0 f Jip,«TeF 1 452.-TFIM -1-EFF-A CJEEA -- - WO TRIN\ Tg FFA 2277> h iN 2 - 7,92 1 AA -~~ ~ ~ 4.5-3000 ~ L 7 1 - 4/ 1 3143. d 6.--~-4 -1 4 . 4 F 1,1 1 41 -9 7 -, 14 !11. 1 ' 11 1 1 ~ :I 4 11 1 11 11 1 :11 11 i lili 11 4 'k 11 1 1. L Il , Nrn-,- 12(UP Lci;44ip#2 1 -M ~ ~ ) 1'| It ~ 1 ., ~0~#AliTTTLT#,1 TFHN\ - - ---= 1>1-V i t_ . 1--B-9~ Vii , 1 134.44.£---ZX--I-IX- -.&.1 *4 : 3 -1 - 1 A$#**423. : 1 111 r 11 11 11' 1- i 1-1 li_ !! 1 A-- i -+1== .=7= -*-v , 1.-43=li ~EE# -- - -4 . - - J 4 i i 1./.'I r-rbin ir·,7 1-1 1 1 i~ 1 1.1 1 1 -i . : h [J 11 )' 111 - . 1 - 6 1 4\ 13«*h / 41 1 1 r-# #= * »N»*lt' / - .-1 11, LU 7) be .91. 4 NOilVA711" H 1N3~\Id01 AEG323 9 OalnE) . T 1 1 1 -1 3 T 3 y - 71 -*1 4 11 * I 1 1 1 ~1 1. 14 ~= 11 1 1 73 =9 1 ·-1 ---4 - 4 , :1 it , 1 9 4 1 i . GUIDO'S REDEVELOPMENT E T ELEVATION ;~4 61 '- a W . FLE€f 1%06 ---<Ch 6 321:1 · ./ Vkbr':rmo';-,;7-;y v M IR Vt. 7:i Jlt.jA 1 4 -- .. .1 .-6.... yl BE 111 1 Il l 1 -111 Il - . 7.4 T lili Il Ill 9% 1 11 1 1 ( .1 -1 1 f 1 2= 1-r ~3 A- r A W E 6 0 .1,1 1 t. C. i-4 ir r 11 1 , e: 4 0 5 ~Emb * TT ~ ° m m 70 1 IT + I *ti E«-» 1 .24 1 r 17 - 1 - 41: . · . -*- 12 11 1 : 1 1 L . 1--- 0 ..- 1 - l 1 0 -7 . - ' -5-3 4 2 r 7 . ~. 4 -. 1. 0 · e e- '. . FLI N f - 1 - -6 - -. -Ar l -- GUIDO'S REDEVELOPMENT .t'lu ¢ 4 0 Imh MALL LEVEL -- I..-... 044.61 te 10: di Z MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Conceptual Development: 132 West Main St., Asia Restaurant, Public Hearing Date: August 23, 1989 LOCATION: 132 West Main St., Lots K, L, M, N and the west half of Lot 0, Block 58, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado ZONING: "O" Office, "H" Main Street Historic District Note: Lots K and L were landmark designated along with the western most historic structure prior to the development connecting the two buildings APPLICANT: Steve and Lily Ko, owners, represented by Brian Busch (Realtor) and Dennis Green, Attorney HPC MONITOR: not yet assigned APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual Development approval for the construction of detached infill structure on the vacant parcel, comprised of Lot N and the west half of Lot O. The proposed structure includes sub-terranian deed-restricted dwelling units, and office on the first, second and "loft" space of the third floor. Future plans include the "renovation" of the Victorian complex, as yet undefined to staff as to the extent. OTHER COMMISSION REVIEWS: This project is required to receive approval under the Growth Management Quota System from P&Z and allocation from Council prior to the issuance of a building permit. It is not exempt as it is not a designated parcel. An application has not yet been received in the Planning Office for GMQS review and approval. Code provisions require HPC conceptual approval prior to P&Z's review. PRIOR HPC CONSIDERATION: At the last meeting, August 9, the applicant appeared before the HPC in a pre-application to present two different conceptual plans, both Of which received significantly varied comments from the Committee. Staff previously met with the applicant in a pre-application meeting and addressed the same issues the Committee brought Up, summarized as follows: 1. The structure's verticality appeared compatible to the site and the district 2. The overabundance of Victorian-inspired architectural elements did not meet the intent of the Guidelines of the Development Review Standards. Suggestions were made to reduce these significantly, while respecting the character of the district. 3. Materials were addressed, with suggestions to examine utilizing a more modern approach instead of utilizing horizontal overlap siding and cut shingles in the gable ends. 4. The front setback issue is of extreme importance, either strengthening or breaking the historic rhythm and pattern of the district; and how the front "garden entrance" area will be treated. Direction was given to the applicant to submit a site plan for the block, and model the parcel. 5. NO variations may be granted on this infill development, which must be designed carefully to fit within the building envelope, remain small scale and complement, not compete with, the Asia complex. 6. Vice Chair Georgeann Waggaman asked staff to look into a previous decision she remembered the HPC had made in the early '80's when the two buildings were connected, prohibiting further development on the site. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Development Review Standards are located in Section 7- 601(D)(1) of the Land Use Code. Staff's comments follow. The review Guidelines may be found in Section VII - Residential Building - New Construction, beginning on page 63. Standard 1. 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: The Planning Office feels that the vertical features of the proposed structure meet the guidelines in the area of compatibility with the historic landmark located on the parcel and with the Main Street Historic District. our primary concerns deal with the following: a. Fenestration: Please refer to Guideline VII (E)(1-3), beginning on page 69. We find that the solid-to-void ratio has not been met 2 - on the facade, and that the size and the proportion of the windows are less compatible than desired. We feel further study is warranted here, as fenestration is a very critical element in the overall compatibility of this new infill structure. b. Materials: The use of "modern yet compatible" materi:is has been suggested to the applicants in previous meetings, however, staff feels the currently proposed materials do not meet the intent of "compatibly modern", nor the guidelines. The vertical siding appears Gothic in style (board and batten) and the strong vertical lines of the proposed standing seam metal roof seems too dominant for this structure. Staff recommends a softer approach to materials, with the elimination of the metal roof, as well as horizontal siding, of wood is chosen as the preferred material as the Guidelines suggest. The applicant may wish to consider a new, compatible asphalt roofing material. c. Details: Staff's concerns were mentioned at the pre-application, that the exuberant Victorian detailing on this structure appears to compete too heavily with the existing landmark. We feel further study is warranted to bring the new infill structure into a subordinate nature with the landmark. (Staff will comment further on detailing at the public hearing.) Standard 2. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development Response: Two significant issues face us in reviewing this development proposal: 1. Does the setback proposed interrupt the established historic pattern of (residential) Main Street, taking into consideration the district as a whole, not just this block? 2. Does the treatment of the sub-terranian space establish a precedent for future below grade courtyard design in the District? 3 ' 3. How "different" does the treatment of modern materials have to be to be creative and "1980's" and yet be compatible, the foremost goal? Standard 3. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: The Planning Office finds that the parcel's cultural value to the Main Street Historic District was diminished early in the 1980's when the two structures were connected. Certainly "complexing" Victorian cottages Kas been proven inappropriate from a historic preservation and design compatibility standpoint. The issue is: how do we allow more development potential without making a questionable situation worse? Staff feels that "detached" is the only answer, and keeping its massing, scale, materials and design features subordinate and quiet. Standard 4. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The Planning Office feels the infill development can be a success, and compliment the existing historic structure(s) if a great deal Of sensitivity and innovative design goes into the new building. The following issues should be incorporated to protect the architectural integrity of the parcel: 1. The height of the new structure must not exceed the existing height of the historic. We feel it should be lower by no less than 12" to provide as much relief as possible. 2. We feel significant restudy needs to go into the materials, fenestration and detailing. We feel the general massing is appropriate. 3. Staff is still not satisfied with the conceptual landscape plan to warrant such a significant front setback. We request a master plan for landscaping be 4 submitted. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 1. Approve the proposal as submitted 2. Approve the proposal with the conditions to be met at Final Review 3. Table action to a date certain, as recommended by Staff below, to allow the applicant further time to study the proposal, incorporating the comments and guidance from the HPC in a revised proposal. 4. Deny conceptual development approval finding that the application does not meet the development review standards. A denial would constitute public hearing re-noticing. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC table Conceptual Development approval for the proposal at 132 W, Main, finding that too many significant design issues are left unresolved, and that a great deal of restudy needs to be done particularly in the areas of materials, fenestration and detailing. We recommend tabling to the next meeting, September 13, to allow the applicant time to respond to Committee member comments at this meeting in order to meet the submission deadline to staff of September 1, and to provide a massing model. (Note: The GMQS application deadline is not until September 15.) memo.hpc.132wm 5 , ATTACHMENT 2 Basic Submission Data 1. Letter of Consent by the Applicant for brian Busch and Dennis Green to act as representatives of the Applicant is attached as Exhibit "A". 2. The project is located at 132 W. Main, Aspen, Colorado. The legal description of the property is Lots K,L,M,N and thewest half of Lot 0, Block 58, City and Townsite of Aspen. 3. The Ownership Certificate is attached as Exhibit "B". 4. The Vicinity Map is attached as Exhibit "C". 5. This proposal complies with the review standards in the following ways: a) The proposed office building-is compatible in character with the existing Asia Restaurant for the following reasons: 1) The massing and sensitivity of scale is compatible with historic Victorian design theory. 2) The building is separated by a ten-foot open space, to avoid a "hodge-podge " look. It is also set back twenty-five feet from the property line, and offers an attractive oriental garden at the Main Street level. 3) The new bffice building has separate entrances. Thus, the new building does not interfere with existing restaurant pedestrian patterns. 4) These design features help separate the new building from the old, thus making each unique and special in its own right. b) The new building is consistent with the diverse character of the neighborhood, which is composed of various mixed-use building types. The diversity of Aspen's Main Street is what makes it an exciting and successful business environment. Our building changes will help both restaurant and hotel business in the area. The proposed employee housing is consistent with homes north of the location. This housing will help relieve employee needs of the neighborhood in general. c) The new office building will enhance the cultural and social values of the existing parcel for these reasons: 1) The design will have a handcrafted, beautifully-detailed, oriental look. The lantern and bay windows will present a beautiful, rough-hewn look, contrasted with the more modern look of the roof and siding of the adjacent Hotel Aspen. 2) Directly in front of this building will be a colorful oriental garden. This will enhance the cultural beauty of of an already meticulously well-groomed landscape. d) The proposed building is consistent with both existing structures but has a unique personality of its own. Respecting scale and sensitivity of "place" is the lesson to learn from Victorian architecture. While enhancing the existing structure, our building plans will not copy or repeat any existing Victorians. The scale aid forms do, however, mesh with the essence of historic Victorian architecture. The modern materials, decks and general configuration enhance the clean look of the adjacent Hotel Aspen. The ten-foot buffer helps avoid the existing problems of a so-called "hodge-podge". This condition resulted from a previous owner's decision to "stick" two buildings together. Our office building is designed to leave Asia Restaurant as is. Our ten-foot setback further enhances Asia's uniqueness on Main Street. The new design is also set back twenty-five feet from the property line, creating a nice green open space. This will enhance all neighboring gardens, with the creation of a beautiful oriental garden. This project will beautify the existing neighborhood. 9741:1 8)* 4'3 N.d·30 1'412,-Ja v £ 1 .. j . f h'.1.~N - , . 43<60.«94 '-·</ f t:p Adri.19 5 7 / . 2?4, i #1 ~, »f 42»194 <A ./ \3 j / 6 \/ //,/. 144 4-)./ j K.«314JA:=.N~ 11,i x / ~- - r /A .VT, A . . - k- R .«360 j.34 ~ 495 :lrs< 1 -Ntt .«=44, ~ .:ifl L ./. 1 ' / %.711 30 Ch i ' I-< I '& -L I / 1 /Vird / , 15 A 1 1 >,f . .9/ '41 trul/ - / 1 \ f i e ; J 42-4 . . 9 -- 1 1 4 - , 1 i 11/f'' 1/ i ./4 4. i // 4 \\ \}j , »N , : ir , »/ i U li y , i ex 1 1 i f ; /7, 1 1 ; ~iN, _ __:. I. 1' 1 \ %hi / 1 1 1 1, 2 11 Ill · C 14 111 1 , :1 ; P '~1 i : i: 11' il 11 ': 1,· !! / 1 R 1 ji 11!~ 11 It I !. 11 4 1 l.- [ 1 HJ#1 : 1 1 111-1-1 1 L,11.- - r L==1 L.J L d i __1 Y 1 1 '11 11 '11 1 1 i! 1 b 1 11 11 4 7 - 1 ..... -- -1 1 , lilli 1 111 -1 i H i IL- 1 11 ·t j - i 2-- ; Dll 10 11 1 2-- i ,· : · iplurl I 1 11 : 1 f f ' ' 1 - IJ ' _ 1 0 H 1 lot j I 1 1 11. 1 1 L____2 11 . i I 1 - 11 1 I hiSED «2973-d El_..2 %.,IL\TiO\~d 6 :17 1,- 0 .. 1/ ' 1 r . HOTEL- AE>FE~J PLF- i t 1 1 1 1 1 1 \\ 1 1, 1 f , ,900 L 1 1 -~ \ - . i ---- ---'' \ 4 1 , 0 ~ABS:,14 - ix' ti t. U . 4/11 434)- 009 - l r-- 1 - < . Cli· 2-L<2.1/.:-3,f <262 *66632 Ar ,· . : ry 11 7 4 - - 5 1 . 1. ' 1 4 , f ..~f - - j. 1 IUENTAL 6,1 R.C>EN&7.3 b< , / -- k /-1.X....0 (%- -3 CL,-222>~ vi. 3·- ~ :i; C, ) L~-2 -1.- 91 -1-h i U ....... , t L. V. ...... - I . <A.. 1 - . · ' -t . 1 1 4 k--·' CE ,+ ' .. .- 1 -7,4rf---1.%% U. t 1 - PO«-1 f'H 1 / 1 1-1[------1 H 11 1171 : \11 - !1 1 . '2134.h i 2 ' ' U. 1 29 4 1 r. . L/- :.=.==........2G.~ : /7-7 11/0 1 E. 1 , 4 .1 . 1 31 11 1 · 1,<11 + A ----~ MET-AL- noc>FI I :It 1 1 !1 b ,·9 ; i , 11 ; 1 li i 11 : '. A y :-, El R i la 11 11 h , 1 4 11 1 , 1 1 . .LA 1 1 1 1 . 1111 1! / 11 1 1 11 11 1 \ 1 1 1 1 11 : 1 -rt"= 1 Ent -f--1 - - - v Eal-, c- 'N '50 0 F) 1 -7 1. li P ~ - 2 r-1 RE] f-3 11 A itill 11 1 1~ ~- ~- 1 'F ki J 11 1 1 4Olk.le -- T 1 1,; 4, :1- E 11 i FI .[. 4 :. 11 7-T- rUT - - =tri-" rr 1 1 ' ti il TTE ; - , -42~Clit#ll#-1_1___ ~~ 1 ) 11 1.,t 1.1; r 6 ··-- I f 1 _!_L 1-' id-'- ..P=--1-i-1-7, r-7 -1 1 1 1 1111111; 111 i l 11'1 1:-2.-.-- !r- - 1 V.' IN bc»45 1 1 -- CASE.Mi€NT- ~*IA. abrok'D 3.11 4-- .- .- 1 1~ 1 1 i 4 1 . 1 ! \ I \1 t 1,-t-f i '* 11, 1 1'/1=-4 ' P-- -- -- ===--7.- -- - U l _ 1/i!':· .i- 1 1 11 i t'•'/ · ''7 .9 1 r / 1 r. 1 LATIC E-AST-' ELEVATIOU V I !,4 16 1 LO, /16/6 Ot~FICE 50.Il_DIF,Ja r. . Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 23, 1989 211 W. MAIN STREET ......... 6 801 E. HYMAN AVENUE ......... 7 403 S. GALENA & 425 E. COOPER ST. ..... 11 132 W. MAIN ST. - ASIA RESTAURANT - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT . 14 17