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.19890110
AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE January 10, 1989 - Tuesday 2:30 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. FIRST FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS City Hall 2:30 I. Roll Call and approval of Dec. 20, 1988 minutes II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Minor Development: 113 E. Hopkins, Bucher residence (amendment to Final, enlarged garage/ dwelling unit. V. OLD BUSINESS PLEASE BRING THOSE MEMOS AND ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR DECEMBER 20TH PACKET THAT WERE TABLED TO THIS MEETING. A. Final Development Approval: Smith-Elisha House B. Approval of Resolution adopting revised By-Laws, amending Art. 4 of the Land Use Code (tabled from 12-20-88) C. Review of Ord. #50, Series 1979, "Conflicts of Interest" (tabled from 12-20-88) D. Review and approval of amendments to Land Use Code (tabled from 12-20-88) VI. COMMUNICATIONS: Project Monitoring Reports AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE January 10, 1989 - Tuesday 2:30 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. FIRST FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS City Hall 2:30 I. Roll Call and approval of Dec. 20, 1988 minutes II. Committee Member & Staff Comments III. Public Comment IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Minor Development: 113 E. Hopkins, Bucher residence (amendment to Final, enlarged garage/ dwelling unit.,0/0/1/01"/J V. OLD BUSINESS PLEASE BRING THOSE MEMOS AND ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR DECEMBER 20TH PACKET THAT WERE TABLED TO THIS MEETING. A. Final Development Approval: Smith-Elisha House B. Approval of Resolution adopting revised By-Laws, amending Art. 4 of the Land Use Code (tabled from 12-20-88) C. Review of Ord. #50, Series 1979, "Conflicts of Interest" (tabled from 12-20-88) D. Review and approval of amendments to Land Use Code (tabled from 12-20-88) VI. COMMUNICATIONS: Project Monitoring Reports 1 V. /4 4 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Minor Development - 113 East Hopkins, garage enlargement Date: January 10, 1989 LOCATION: 113 East Hopkins, Lots C and D, Block 68, Townsite and City of Aspen APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting HPC's Minor Development approval for the enlargement of the alley accessed detached garage, which will contain a caretaker dwelling unit. The originally approved garage exterior dimensions measured 32' x 14', of which the eastern most 20' 6" x 14' was designated as a one-car garage space. The remainder western most 11' 6" x 14' was approved for storage. The applicant wishes to reorient the storage space to provide a studio caretaker unit, which must be slightly enlarged by 105.5 sq. ft. to meet the minimum building code standards for a dwelling unit. Two additional windows narrow one-over-one windows (code required) are proposed. The applicant also wishes to install two approximately 22' x 30" flat roof skylights in the south elevation (alley facing). ZONING: R-6; H, Historic Overlay PROJECT SUMMARY: To accommodate the enlargement, the footprint of the detached garage is extended in an "L" shape 4' to the north, and the entrance door is reoriented slightly. Two additional windows (one on the north, one on the west) are proposed which will match the previously approved narrow, one- over-one. The 4/12 roof pitch will remain the same; it will extended to serve as an eave overhang covering the north elevation walkway to the dwelling unit entrance door. No other changes are proposed. PRIOR COMMITTEE ACTION: On June l, 1988, HPC granted Final Development Approval for project at 113 East Hopkins, summarized as follows: 1. Partial demolition of the 1970's addition to the main historic structure (landmark) 2. Construction of a new two-story addition to the main house 3. Demolition of the detached storage/bandit dwelling unit (completed) 4. Reconstruction Of a detached one-car garage with storage DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS are found in Section 7-601(D) of the Land Use Code, as follows: 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 a H, Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to a Historic Landmark. Response: Staff finds that the proposed development is compatible with the historic landmark. Its design is strictly non-competing in nature and the enlarged footprint will be mostly hidden from the primary Hopkins Street view by the proposed main-house addition. The two skylights proposed face the alley, are not visible from any principal elevation, and are flush with the roof, which staff finds meets the Guidelines. Standard 2. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Secondary/accessory structures are commonly located off the alley. The enlarged structure will serve two important community needs: off-street parking and affordable housing. 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: Staff finds the proposal does not detract from the cultural value of the historic structure. It is low in profile and detached from the historic landmark. 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 finds that the proposal does not detract from the architectural integrity of the landmark. The materials chosen for the detached structure match those for the new main-house addition, and have not been changed from the materials previously approved by HPC. The existing mature landscaping and the proposed new addition to the main structure will mostly screen the 2 garage/dwelling unit from the principal facade. Staff finds the proposed Velux skylights are not incompatible with the garage structure (non-historic) and are located on the alley (south) elevation, meeting the Guidelines. ALTERNATIVES: Alternative actions which the HPC make take include the following: 1. Approval of the development application as proposed 2. Approval of the development application with conditions 3. Table action finding that additional information is required 4. Deny the proposal finding that the development activity does not meet the review standards specified in Section 7-601 (D). RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Minor Development approval for the proposal at 113 East Hopkins, subject to the Planning Office receiving a revised south elevation scale drawing indicating the exact placement and size of the two flat roof skylights. hpc.memo.113eh.2 3 li Il Il Il Il Il IlllIIHIInlll F I It H_Ll_l__Ell_1_11_Ll_11_1_Li_Ll_LL11_1_1__1__1_-1_1_ij»u " i Lij~Ir-----i.IM3/-- ----illf*----Il-1/--- - FIg 11 r- -#- -- - 6-*--6-*-.Ii-- 4121 L- ==4 22«- -] 1 LJ 113 *=izz=uzzl 1. r-1 E-=23 i 1 ---1 1 -1 U d U t Q*«EL L.....S-- NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION SCALE : 1/1"=1'0" SCALE : 1/4"=1'0" 'SIL/- ,«/ \\\ ELLd 0 0 --- - - El El . SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION 43 1.,4 U -- .3 •4:- V f 15'-6" ' 19'-6" 4 1 7.911 0,1 7, 18, nt, 9'-6" 1 J -0 t f 1 1 1 1 1 11 , 1 . I , 1 1 0 29*72 SH TG (36*80 9P COVERED WALK IM \ 1 8'0" Xt- 1 1 01 \ A i X + I. 1 10 21x72 SH TG :e 1 100 i X ' QUARTERS v {fl~'' 1 1 1 CD 1 a 1 + \ GARAGE 1 1 Co l :94+ 1 1 1 KITCHEN /1 - BATH . Q I ED + 1 \ 1 \1 1 1 t. 9'7" 5'11" ' ./.9 I 1 44 T 1 - FLOOR PLAN 2.64¢'43 ; 7.-· 1,2. SCALE : 1 /4" - 1 0" 1, I F/N : 87129A31 DATE: 12-23-88 *4.4 . 10'-6" 21x72 SH TG 2 - i · Yif 1 +4. P.. <ty 4:$ .STORM DRAIN 94.5 EXISTING SIDEWALK I.D. EL.-94.74 EXISTING CURB & TO REMAIN 2 INV.EL.-91.54 EXISTJNG CUREf '.1 -- Et 94.5 0- 9 6 ' HOPKINS AVE. 0 97 - P. *.40 REBAR 8 CAP REBAR 8 CAP SET IN PLACE - 98 SET -1*_PLACE _ / S 75° 09' 11" E 6c od-** . 98 0 5-/1 - 4------ - EXISTING-TREES TO REMAIN - . 2 -0- 11 - - C ... IW '' 1 99 - , C I 1 4, 1 ' --- 99 0 1 / 2 25 71: I I : 185' ! $ I. 0 , /1 , h kl PORCH 1 1 -~1 ' ~ 4., 0 - :2.00 ~·< 31 Z - ---- - -2 . Ni < . 11 100. i 1 1 kf 0 , t·.** O 11 EXISTING ONE 14 1 5 STORY ORK. HOUSE &(· 1 >- 12 0 x <12 * 4'i f 0 '' . TO REMAIN b el Y~Ze--DKA74, j i ) c- RELOCATE .S F.F.-100.0 r 52 k' EXIST~IG TREE l~ EXISTING TREE 1 v - 1 9 I TO R = ill' - 1 9 61 1 ly-- = . 4,2/2 -0 6 + U :0- p f :tr-imp-J JJ- '-72--J-YhiL,- :- 4 - 7 0 X | 4-95 7 2 3 4, a T A-- $ i : i 0,0 1 . · 10 0 V ~J| 4.2- _123-_F -4-1 '11.T - I - 0 0 N C0 :at ·· r... ' ~ I~*=~--~~*~EMil.~.~il~E)%*10N r 0 ./-*=1®=%,4,™*P,9/* 4 45' i f' S.5 E-/ Il . 1. 4 - 11. 1 1 rojE~.S**9 -d EXIS~ING 0 - =r 2,37:.2-- 4-1452 1-fw ~ - TWOr STORY ADDITION i-- TO ME REMOVED toMlin lilli lili 1 |* tki .- l 03 'VAw*ti.-4W.-1~, k : 97.5 97 5 LI 7Oe*2<- -- 99.5 - 2 7 -:-- , 43- r 98 !, h« -98 99.5· L 98.5F.L. 2- ... -. & 1 ~ 1 PATIO Rf. -. '12' x 120 x 120 120 x 12' x 1 21--- - \< *. .- - 2 E }~ -(100) NEW R.R TIE i 4 YARD DRAIN * - ~ ~~~ 99.4.6-£ RETAININ'G WALLge,412 ..«---' YARD DRAIN/ 4-1 103 -7~'-p" tll&2*'2~~. L.,103.8 ·-,0' ~ ~ ~~ ~~101.0 z i EXISTING JACUZZI O. 104 10Mk¢64 . -.,PLANTER - 1- 92 103.2 lot ----- i 67:*013__40.0 .a_] 1 1 ~€0#{06'ICONbaerE_WALKS AND STAIRS (102) -~' - - - -EQU*~52~41'04.5· ../B , , .1 - --- 11 2 - .104 1 t-<.-Z-Z- 1 - .- I ...... 4710 ~ 104.25 ,·os,! EL-104.5 . 1 :/~ CONCREI.E..PAVI#JG % ~~~~~44~- -26-~ PARKINEE P 1 ,/ / il,Jaq"/.Wirk'.iNE N 21*. OUTLINE OF 7. ' 1., a~25,EL'-"il=~1==GE-49 -=A K!% '...aaM-/.7.U£,·~· 4,2 3'12§2~1, ~ ~ EXISTING QUARrTiERS . ~'- 0'- --- --f11~1' WHICH HAS BE tll)1 REMOVED 01 I. N 2 , -1 REBAR 8,CAP SET IN PLACE e - 11 1 105 --RE BAR 8 612P 106 6 ed--\ ! 2 ~00' " 1 78 SE.I IN PEACE 106 -0 , 10 1, N 75° 09' 11 2\ 60 oct \ 4& ASSOC141-65,INC.) A'.4.CATV 4 3¢2400, DOMEIZEBY CER - -FLUE . 6 7 20'-00 -#- I 16,1,-IAVG EXAMINED TUE i NORTH 2 IMPROVE:MGN-75, EASE- ALLEY CAME- 45 SUOWN ON-TWIS t :6:ed sir c~.71320 SITE PLAN 4 2: 91 0018 4 '<X..f.... : Svq,1 F.....I· :7 V- A MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Final Development Review, 320 West Main The Smith-Elisha House Date: January 10, 1989 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Final Development approval for the proposal regarding alterations to the Smith-Elisha carriage house, demolition of the detached metal shed and partial demolition SUMMARY: The applicant has submitted a final development application addressing all the conditions of conceptual approval. Staff has forwarded revised plans to State Historical Architect Jay Yanz for his review. Jay's comments approving or denying have not been received by the Planning Office at this time of memo preparation. OTHER BOARD/COMMISSION ACTION: At the time Of this memo preparation, the second and final reading of the landmark designation ordinance is scheduled before City Council January 9. It is anticipated that this ordinance will pass at that time. The Change-in-Use/GMQS Exemption application is scheduled before the P&Z on January 17. - PRIOR COMMITTEE ACTION: On December 20, 1988, the HPC reviewed the Conceptual Development application and granted approval for the following renovation activities: Principal Structure: 1. Demolition of non-historic detached metal shed at rear of main house to provide for on-site parking 2. Partial demolition of the wooden structure covering the rear basement stone stairs to provide for on-site parking, subject to approval by State Historical Architect 3. Installation of metal grate over stairs for protection in parking Carriage House: 1. South elevation: enlargement of central dormer, subject to approval by State Historical Architect 2. South elevation: addition of matching double hung window, main level, subject to approval by State Historical Architect 3. East elevation: glazing installed into existing small window openings, main level 4. West elevation: addition of two new matching double hung windows adjacent to existing window, main level Site: 1. Walkways installed leading to central seating area 2. New replacement plantings 3. Removal of brick bar-b-que Those changes not approved are as follows: 1. The addition of two gabled dormer windows, south elevation, Carriage House 2. Railings across the north elevation hayloft doors, carriage house 3. Other site changes, including elevated grade, stone wall replacement and a cut in the wall to provide for sidewalk access A recommended re-study of the entire north elevation of the carriage house was made by the HPC, to allow for needed light and egress into the proposed second floor dwelling unit in lieu of adding inappropriate dormers on the south elevation. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Staff finds that the proposal meets the Development Review Standards and the Guidelines, with the exceptions as discussed below. The applicant has addressed all the conditions of conceptual approval. This memo will discuss only those items which have not previously been approved by the HPC or have been revised after conceptual approval. 1. CARRIAGE HOUSE: The north elevation has been restudied, and the applicant is presenting the following changes: a. One gabled roof dormer located to the west of the large central dormer; bedroom has been relocated to this portion of the second floor. b. Flat roof skylight relocated to the east of the central dormer C. Second floor hayloft doors split into dutch-style doors; railings deleted The south elevation central dormer proposal indicates the enlargement to include an additional double-hung window, as presented at Conceptual, and the first floor double-hung window remains. STAFF'S RESPONSE: In an effort to retain the original historic integrity of this unique and substantial carriage house, the only one as visible in the Main Street Historic District, the Planning Office continues to not support the dormers as proposed, or the addition of the south elevation 2 main floor window. The preservation of the simplicity of the south elevation should be the utmost concern of the Committee. Equally, it may be argued that the north elevation is secondary, although historically this elevation was the primary " front of the building" due to its historic access off the alley. The balance and scale of architectural details on both elevations should be preserved in its original state, while allowing adaptations necessary for the adaptive use. The applicant may wish to include an additional flat roof skylight in the north elevation as opposed to the gable dormer. 2. MAIN HOUSE: The applicant is requesting to leave the wooden structure in place over the rear basement stairs, which staff supported in conceptual review and now during Final. HPC approved the partial demolition of this feature, and the incorporation of a metal grate over the stairs to protect them. Although a reasonable alternative, both the applicant and staff find it to be inappropriate after further study. The stairs serve as required egress from the basement; a grate covering them prevents their use and may be determined illegal by the building department. STAFF'S RESPONSE: Staff agrees with the applicant that the original wood covering (structure) should remain. Elyse Elliott of the Engineering Department stated they would support an encroachment license for such a small amount in order to preserve this historic feature. The stairs and original covering should be preserved; an unnecessary - partial demolition to provide for parking which may accomplished another way is not in keeping with the historic preservation goals of the community. 3. SITE: The applicant has taken into consideration HPC's concerns regarding alterations to the site and is proposing to only change the grading of a small portion of the lower grass terrace in the area immediately adjacent to the concrete and stone terrace in front of the carriage house. Seating will be integrated into that terrace, thereby leaving the bulk of the lower grass terrace in tact. Approximately 70 sq.ft. of terrace area will be affected. The cut in the stone wall at the sidewalk has been eliminated and the existing wall will be cleaned, repaired and repointed. STAFF'S RESPONSE: Staff finds these revisions to the site to be satisfactory. The relatively small amount of terrace grade change will provide a usable area for seating and outdoor use, while the majority of the sloping terrace, most visible from Main Street, will remain in its original 3 condition. This recommendation is subject to approval by the State Historical Architect. ALTERNATIVES: Alternative actions which the HPC may take are as follows: 1. Approve the Final Development application as presented 2. Approve the Final Development application with the following conditions: a. Enlargement of the carriage house south elevation central gabled dormer to match in size the north elevation dormer, with compatible, not duplicate details of the north dormer (subject to approval by the State Historical Architect). b. Elimination of the proposed carriage house south elevation main floor double-hung window C. Elimination of the carriage house north elevation gabled roof dormer, replacing with flat roof skylight d. Retention of the main house rear stair covering, denying the partial demolition of this feature to provide for parking. Parking may Still be obtained at this location by the approval of an encroachment permit, subject to the Engineering Department's recommendation and Council approval. 3. Table Final approval, finding that further study is required 4. Deny Final Development approval, finding that the conditions of conceptual approval have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC approve the Final Development Application for the Smith-Elisha House subject to the conditions as stated in #2, a-d, above. hpc.memo.320wmf 4 . C Welton Anderson & Associates Architects 22 December 1988 Roxanne Elfin 1}EC 2 7 Historic Planner Dear Roxanne, The following text and drawings constitute the submission for Final Development Plan for Significant Development to the Smith-Elisha House and Carriage House. 1. The proposed develooment is to restore and convert the house to office use and to restore, remodel and convert the carriage house to office and resi- dential uses. 2. Building materials (where not original to be retained and reoaired) shall duplicate original materials exactly. See attached photograohs. 3. See attached drawincs. 4. The effect of the details of the prooosed develonment on the original desian of the historic carriage house: The applicant feels that the comprimise agreed to for the south elevation at conceptual successfully maintains the carriage house character by keeping the facade simple and subordinate to the house with only one dormer breaking through the eave. By enlarginq the dormer, the basic proportions are not dramaticly altered and are arguably improved while allowing a reasonable improvement in solar access and views to the upper floor. On the north elevation, the new dormer is similiar to the one removed. By placing the required egress window on the non-Drimary elevation its impact is minimized. East and west elevations are unchanged from conceptual. Site: The aDplicant proposes to only change the grading of a small portion of the lower grass terrace in the area immediately adjacent to the concrete and stone terrace in front of the carriage house and to integrate the seating into that terrace, thereby leaving the bulk of the lower grass terrace in tact. Planning / Architecture / Interior Design Box 9946 / Aspen ,Colorado 81612/(303) 925- 4576 Elisha House Page 2 5. Statement of conformance to conceptual review and conditions: Carriage house: 1) South elevation- two flankinq dormers deleted. 2) North elevation- glass reduced in carriage house door to top row of panels only. Bedroom reoriented to north with new north dormer. Skyliqht moved to eastern part of roof. Railinas deleted and doors solit into Dutch doors. 3) East and west elevations- no change from conceptual. Main House: Revised drawings show a hatch type cover over the rear stairs that would allow the front end of a car to overhang the stairway. This solution meets the requirements of conceptual approval but is not prefered by the applicant or the building department because the stair is unuseable if a car is overhancing it. The applicant still prefers to oreserve the back of the house as is with a strong recommendation from HPC to Council to grant an encroachment licence for a 1'9" deep bv 17'0" wide strip in the alley. Site: A more "subtle" aporoach was suaaested at concentual for the regrading of the lower portion of the site. The aoplicant proposes to move the seating area to the north and to integrate it into the existing concrete and stone terrace. This can be accomplished by raising an area of only approximately 70 SF in the northwest corner of the lower arass terrace away from the vegetation on adjoining property. The sidewalk from the street and cut in the stone wall have been deleted. The stone wall abuttinq the sidewalk will be cleaned, repaired and repointed. Your consideration of this asplication is aooreciated. Sincerely, f ttp-: C. Welton Anderson, Architect - 0 41 C. l f 1 -.. /1 4/ilkix A 1 -68/3 3 LO\4 -- - . » '1416,73* 44--- -\3 /725 42 '041-16,11-r bli 14 / 11 'L 9?941 . 6. - , W • ' .t 41 1 .. /4 11 -4 40 1 . - 9/4- 6 - . -- 1 .- 1 11 -- -- - E----6 , rr-F- 1 , 1 f , f }i » - 1 -- 11 - i i 3125 -- L- .~ i i i i :i ! i .,- k:.3.· 4 HE%X" a+Ive,er -0 ,7 1 %61*5 - .. 17L1-2+1 /2*< 6 rl r] 1 1.-911,-, i ii -- 444 11111;1 111 il III 1 1 24 -- LL:Zil lk=J i |LI| ibli i ,· tdfak/ 6;LADS 14 1 , 114 1*19,16161 0064 44 13( 1 1 1 1 - [1 4 11 14,16 1 , 49 • . 11 i i ~ 'A,26 44 1 '. i i .. 4/ N.B./ I .. , . · 1 :i Ne./ 1 4 ... I i.li i .: *Ai. 4 - -.- 1 · ~ 2--1 i - .. .- . 1 . , . 1 - I. . et· 6.7232 11/4 - . I . 5.6:4'- * '11 I-: ./ *. . k#32.-1- . i A -fl.. - Hoe--1-14 Ell-EX/*-1-loNi ·44: 6.: 1 . . I-1111 £=14-$ 1 7 1 r-- ---=--- 14 ...04 \N X UX //>11 114..YN 1 . L,%4\\ i- U ......." , 1 ! 1,\,h..34.~.\ , -v-17. 1 kfixt , r,7 ,>04,' i I i 2-,j [f.U- 1.,~~/ 1 1 -__1 B. \ up- 1 1 , rOI. A '60-1 < . FW j hi \ ift -7..fY. )37'L -1 \ ..61 3 1.-1 1->4- .24:644£ 4/ 1 T=1 -1 --r= r----1 , 11 i 1 r.. 'Pr , 3 - 1 blexv 6,1,495 N grl€FrIN¢h ofEN,H66 / -- T I . pi--*29.-*E~3 . Viracb---J CP OR, 7--7,0Eic=SED - L- _-1 L.J...1 *- --1.- Ort= - - E»EST ELIEW»:-1-to hi . -- ALL 81 27 600© 4 4 / DMOL M £04- ·5•'EP 6 -19. 09 i 11 K E, l . 1 1 ' I i , TUNS~T -9 , 1 . L------j ' ' 41.I'_ 1-. .IL=-1~ AE' Id 4 ' 1 ti ' '' 1 1 cohIC, BuHA*·-1--7--\ 11~= 3.2- 3 - 4 9 r, 1 . 1 1.7 . j fel*E | 4 . I Woop %21£ur--,1-1 / 1 1 1 , 1 ''..1 1 11 1,1 1 1, 8/1 1.1 1 1 . I 1 4 1 4 i„ -. 24 ...... - -X"-1 - 1 1 1 1 .. 1 -- r , .L 1 1 11 1 - .'·1 'll,Ij'i , 1 . : P|!tortii' 11 1 , * - ./ 1 1 - -0 i ~. 1 4 -Uillip i: Ii!1!:, L.-.....IitA , L 1/ 1 fIT;I 1 . 111 1 . I LL; ' li /i; 1:1: ,£=1.-=- 114 ; 1 11 .. !1 10 11, , , 1 1 9 }f · 1 1. 2 ..,1.·t 11 .t - 1 7--i 1, i---, 1 1 - . 4 t i 41€tj I '1~1*1, 2~,2-37.--, -2:-2.--P L.1 J«> L.1 , / % 1 7 1.1 , - 4 e t '14 h. 4 , ~rrt D , « I ' ,·I 0% ..2 - , , / · 'It '* tij -t--N-4=-1 **~64,0,.,1.':'~d;,·.fll> ~ i ' 0. i u.1,17, it '<, ,rl.' 1 1 + , I .8 . L._ lilli.1 1 1 1, 1 / 4 18. il . I. 1,~4 . i ' i·)19,1.:1 Jtit . + , -- -I. 11*fii!+11!41 ~* ~{112 :-~ 1 i, 1 , k . i ~ j: .' ft'*EL··,··,,)·i-4.1.-f,Gr t, p.#Wil It A 1 1 ' 1 . :.E-1 1 <" ':iw~.6- -':114 01 - -I. - ; 1 DENCY' 4 r../ 1 1 · R ·'ll,71~T~--:0'1 '·41.Al ,· ' !1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 .' . /1 i i ike>41 ~ ~NAv coN-bl,*5 ,„ bl ,/jjr /1 4 1 . i '11 1, UG:28 ONLY .1 1 . 7 24} 1 4.. j.. . 1 , ---- 92*. 0.-op e 1 , 4 1:. gilim#6, * '' 6 5 - 2 1 1 1 1 t <255 --* 1 j : 44*Aft#* Lo-r N . LOT O l.<7-F F /1 , 80 », 6-7ONt *Alk 12 czew• 1&260 ' Mi ,..4: 57/W,1.5 f 41 4.,:M#Vljjkly..rfi~~~,~~~~~~~~S-~~~F~ '~t-*~:V~E~~A~W:.,0iv , : ,-„ 4 ~ u*., 414,~.,. .,* r , ,,b# 4..2, ,~4 •~~~4'. - ~f , < Leit,rAereNE vALL -/' \V 4 2*,7•46.2 N 7 9 °09 0 t I p 642 N & 0 0'r & €>16·42\VALIC -*- 67€EE-r LIN f op auge. ' 1«161 N EFFEEET acla - _ _PLANJ. 1 166 1 D, . 1 r·t:Lpt-:- 1 11'-1- I 4"Al'#42 9. . *IHILIAti -To //41 _;f · 9,~<~ NOUU (704&*-4 ee - _ /'*flit·-"it *140 11415 410€ 4 36 -4 --. iiI 7 1 A\ -/1 / -- . L --; 1 le- i66 M. 1 1,1 32-% -1 . i == -- t, +4 E»/ : AJEAW -- - , 4 3 . -/ i -- 1 '14 i 1 - ..2 - 7 1 \D W - -. -1,9 . .:1-6 :" ; 1-t - -3 al i I blev ~ 0.17*4 643124 :j..~ , 1 • 0 .2 -: -. 1. ..6 >.. -. 1,1 V -,4/41 1 1- · .2,1 3 ©OUTH BLEVATON 1...C» - I., ........ 99000 |5719 1'880 0123 111 l il li I i 1 /' 47 lib i .1 1. UJ I i -2 lilli - 1 . 1- i tif 1· 11. ** ! . 1 '9% 29:XOF-2==U- 37.. th ' i , , Ary#(zr f)'11 %2 9 ' htful'i V :, i 4 v.43 :b J, / 1 10% " .*(44*44>9,4 It 11 /-1 /50, - ..1 - ----0 30i - 43 . -# . ~ 1 1 \(1 4 . · it -- 33 k.-C .'' .· 5 1 111 U 1 084 . Ner . .- I .. r 99 1 v./31 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Resolution to adopt Revised By-Laws and changes to Article 4 of the Aspen Land Use Code Date: January 10, 1989 Attached you will find a staff-prepared resolution for your review and approval at this meeting. This resolution formally adopts the revised By-Laws and amendments to Article 4 of the Aspen Land Use Code. The revised By-Laws were included in your December 20, 1988 packet. Please bring these to this meeting for review. The By-Laws will be attached and made a part of this resolution. RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE REGARDING CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 4 OF THE LAND USE CODE RESOLUTION NO. 89- ~ WHEREAS, on October 11, 1988 the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee (also referred to as the HPC) held a regular meeting and reviewed the issue of conflict of interest as it affects the business of the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee; and WHEREAS, the HPC - has -np_t_ experienced --~problemsc with confl jctgo f interest among memberk of th@heommit€-ed; and \»kl -/ WHEREAS, the HPC found that only minor amendments to Article 4 of the Land Use Code were appropriate regarding the purpose of the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee and qualifications for membership. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the HPC makes the following recommended changes to Article 4, Sections 4-401 through 4-406 Of the Aspen Land Use Code (new language is underlined and in bold): hpc.reso.art.4 1 V - 6, MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Code Corrections Date: January 10, 198~ Attached yOU Will find code correction recommendations that Planning Director Alan Richman took before the Planning and Zoning Commission last Tuesday. Of the 50 items to be amended, added or deleted, many focused on the historic preservation sections of the code. I have attached copies of those items being amended for your review. These changes will affect the review process for historic preservation projects. Please review these carefully and offer your comments at this meeting. Please also note that significant changes in preservation incentives are NOT included in the proposed Code Correction Ordinance. These recommendations are being prepared by staff and are forthcoming for HPC review and recommendation. hpc.memo.code.corrections #7 Supplement #1 of all proceedings before the HPC. G. The Secretary of the HPC shall be the City Clerk or the City Clerk's designee. The Secretary shall keep the minutes, shall mail notices of regular meetings to members three (3) days in advance and for special meetings shall either mail notice, serve personally or leave notice at a member's usual place of residence two (2) days in advance, and maintain the files of all studies, plans, reports and recommendations made by the HPC. H. Any member of the HPC who has four (4) or more absences from regular meetings during the calendar year may be subject to removal by the City Council. Sec. 4-404. Staff. The Planning and Development Agency shall be the profes- sional staff of the HPC. A representative of the Planning Office and a representative of the Building Department shall be avail- able at all meetings to provide advice to the HPC. Sec. 4-405. Quorum and necessary vote. No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order, without a quorum consisting of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring vote of a simple majority of the members of the HPC then present and voting. Sec. 4-406. Meetings, hearings and procedure. A. Regular meetings g,ES€ii€~RFe'~9+41-1 be held on the second and fourth Ttteqdfy Wednesday oheach month. Special meetings may be.Ch,1.1,22-by-thelirman or a majority of members. B. All meetings and hearings of the HPC shall be open to the public. C. Public hearings shall be set for a date and time certain. DIVISION 5: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY. The Planning and Development Agency (hereinafter "Planning Agency") shall perform the planning functions for the City of 4-10 #14 , r Supplement #1 to the provisions of Art. 5, Div. 3. 1. All residential uses: 1 space/bedroom 2. Lodge uses: N/A 3. All other uses: 4 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. of net leasable area. Sec. 5-213. Office (0) . A. Purpose. The purpose of the Office (0) Zone District is to provi.de for the establishment of offices and associated commercial uses in such a way as to preserve the visual scale and character of former residential areas that now are adjacent to commercial and business areas, and commercial uses along Main Street and other high volume thoroughfares. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Office (0) Zone District. 1. Detached residential dwellings, duplex dwellings 1 1 and multi-family dwellings; 2. Professional and business offices; 3. Accessory residential dwellings restricted to affordable housing guidelines; 4. Home occupations; 5. Group homes; and 6. Accessory buildings and uses. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Office (0) Zone District, subject to the standards and procedures established in Art. 7, Div. 3. 1. Only for those structures that have received , historic J.'r,Amay-le. deaiUnation: antique store, art studio, Cbed and breakfift> boarding house, bookstore,-662643*in-dj--- gtation, church, dance studio, florist, fraternal lodge, furniture store, I mortuary, music store (for the sale of musical instruments), music studio, restaurant, shop craft industry, visual arts gallery, and provided, however, that (a) no more than two (2) such conditional uses shall be allowed in each struc- ture, and (b) off-street parking is provided, with alley access for those conditional uses along Main Street; 2. Two detached residential dwellings or a duplex on a lot containing a historic landmark with a minimum area of 6,000 sq. ft. 5-36 1 #20 Supplement #1 gross floor area: warehousing and storage. F. Retail sales areas. All of the square footage limita- tions on use shall not restrict the square footage of the total retail sales areas in these Zone Districts, or any buildings occupied by any combination of more than one (1) of the above uses; provided, however, that any business enumerated above, of the same type which occur individually or jointly in a single structure or combination of structures situated upon a single tract of land under the same ownership, shall be considered one (1) business and together restricted to the maximum gross floor area provided in this section. Sec. 5-505. Kitchens in lodge units. Whenever kitchen facilities are installed in a lodge in the Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) Zone District, such unit shall be deemed a multi-family unit and the lodge shall be required to satisfy the minimum lot area requirements for a multi-family dwelling unit as provided in this chapter. Sec. 5-506. Domestic animals. The keeping of domestic animals shall be permitted in the Medium Density Residential (R-6) , Moderate-Density Residential (R-15), (R-15A) and (R-15B), Low Density Residential (R-30), Residential/Multi-Family (R/MF), Residential/Mobile Home Park (MHP), and Rural Residential (RR) Zone Districts, provided that the keeping of such animals is incidental and subordinate to the principal residential use of the premises, shall not change the basic character of the residential use, shall not constitute a commercial activity, and shall not violate any health, sanitary or other regulations of the City or state, or otherwise consti- tute a public nuisance. C Seer-5-567= <) Hisberie-tandmark-desietmatier¥·r Whenever - devetepment- -approve€--irs - eendit-ierted- -upen--0--abrue- 4»-·-~ ~ bure--reee+,i·ng---hi=960rie--1-endnarrle-- des-ignatieti;--stieh--eendibiren C= A sha*b- be-deemed--sabi:·sfired--entky- -if> -bhe-p·artietider--struebure- -has BJ ~.,0 reeeived-designabiren -pursuant-be -Prrbr-7-r-Bir¥=-tr-ineblts·ben-of-the Ax 4\ struebure-within-apt-hisberte-everbay-·el·bs-brireb-shabb-net-be-stiffi- ~C.P~< ' ei·ent-be-sabirsfy-bhe -requirement-ef-hisberire-<iesignabiren: * = Sec. 5-508. Zoning of Lands Containing More Than One Underly- ing Zone District. %2$~) Whenever any parcel of land shall contain more than one under- 4 04 lying Zone District, the following rules shall apply. A. Proposed use not allowed in all Zone Districts. When a 5-78 C.U /7 ./."FE= interest bearing account Such funds shall only #21 -3 Supplement #1 be used for the acquisition of land for public park and recreation purposes, including trails, and for capital improvements to such newly acquired or existing park and recreation lands. Sec. 5-605. Refund of Fees. Fees collected pursuant to this ' section may be returned to the then present owner of property for which a fee was paid, including any interest earned, if the fees have not been spent within seven (7) years from the date fees were paid, unless the Council shall have earmarked the funds for expenditure on a specific project, in which case the Council may extend the time period by up to three (3) more years. To obtain a refund, the present owner must submit a petition to the Finance Director within one (1) year following the end of the seventh (7th) year from the date payment was received. For the purpose of this section, payments collec- ted shall be deemed spent on the basis of the first payment in shall be the first payment out. Any payment made for a project for which a building permit is cancelled, due to noncommence- ment of construction, may be refunded if a petition for refund is submitted to the Finance Director within three (3) months of the date of the cancellation of the building permit. All petitions shall be accompanied by a notarized, sworn statement that the petitioner is the current owner of the property and by a copy of the dated , receipt issued for payment of the fee. Sec. 5-606. Affordable Housing/Historic Landmark . Whenever ; the City Council shall have determined that any part of a proposed development constitutes an affordable housing development and wishes to ! subsidize its construction, the City Council may exempt that part of the development from the application of the Park Development Impact Fee, or V ,„reduce by any amount the fees imposed by thiA fsection. City council may also exempt any~ K'Historic Landmark from the application of the Parkj # Development Impact Fee, or reduce by any amount ( \~-he fees imposed by this section. Sec. 5-607. Enforcement. All park development impact fees, from the time they shall be due and payable, shall become and remain a lien upon the land or improve- ments against which they are assessed and may be collected against any owner of such lands or improvements. Any claim for payment may be 5-82 #22 Supplement #1 parcel on which the development is proposed to occur. 3. A disclosure of ownership of the parcel on which the development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right ko apply for the Development Application. 4. An 8 1/2"x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. A written *8#irripti_an of the proposal and~an -3-165,2-' £4 2, ay --2-:.p'~17 explanation ¢in Written, graphic or model form)f why how the BtBFO-sed JeleIZFmenE--co~plies wfrM-Ehe subit'anbive development review standards relevant to the Development Application. C. Consolidation of applications. If an applicant has requested the consolidation of Development Applica- tions, the Director shall waive any overlapping application submission requirelpents__in_th_e-consolidated Development Application. ,r---- + L. 1,41[tgL, i £'41·41 1 AL<---3 D. Copyrighted Materials. The City--of -Aspen will not accept for development application or recordation -- -- purposes any materials to which copyright applications have been made. Any person submitting a development lifzte' application shall consent that any document submitted to the City of Aspen as part of a development application may be utilized by the City in any manner deemed necessary to preserve the representations made during the development review process. Sec. 6-203. Initiation of Development Application. A Development Application may be initiated by over fifty percent (50%) of the owners of real property of a proposed development. In addition, the City Council or the Commission may initiate a Development Application to amend the text of this chapter or the Official Zone District Map (Art. 7, Div. 11) or to designate a Specially Planned Area (SPA) (Art. 7, Div. 8) , and the City Council, Commission, or HPC may initiate a Development Application to designate an H, Historic Overlay District or Historic Landmark (Art. 7, Div. 7). 6-9 1/ju Supplement #1 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. 3. Application. A Development Application for Minor Development shall include the following: a. The general application information required in Sec. 6-202. 50~0 .A tn . b: A--writ-ten---dese·ri·pt-kon---ef --t-he---p-repes,ed cs, . AVvin , .A deveirepment: D. An accurate representation Of all major • 5 building materials, such as samples and b> photographs, to be used for the proposed development. 7 -26 #31 Supplement #1 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 4/ e. Th* (~eirelopment of the site of an Historic 1,12519 n __,- Landmark which h*5 received approval for demolitio~when a ~evelopment plan has been e NocodieN=, required by the HPO pursuant to Section 7- 602(B). 3. Conceptual Development Plan. a. Development Application of Conceptual Development Plan. A Development Application ~ 7 -27 Supplement #1 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 p Final Development Plan shall include: (1) The general application information required in Sec. 6-202. f,r-, ~2+ A-4226*ben--deseriptien--05--the--proposed C .u r deveberment: cp *jfek J 7 -28 -----*-------1--.*. 1 A, Supplement #1 480 (»19 Sec. 7-602. Demolition, Partial Demolition or Relocation of a Historic Landmark. A. General. No demolition and-+0684--remevat of an W r:·4. ..€~-~ 111-z'.1:3243 Historic Landmark or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay District or any structure rated as a "4" or a "5" by the HPC in its evaluation of the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen pursuant to Sec. 7-709, shall be permitted unless the demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the standards of Sec. 7-602(B).4-th-thfetigh 63*r No partial demolition and removal of a portion of any Historic Landmark or any structure within an "H", Historic Overlay District shall be permitted unless bhe paft·i·a-1--de·med:4*-i-ofr--bs required for the renovation of - the structure, and approved by the HPC because it meets the standards of Sec. 7-602+B}-44>--through-+6+ (C), or unless the partial demolition and removal is exempt ; because it creates no change to the exterior of the t ~ 1 1 structure and has no impact on the character of the it structure. Uj i No relocation of an Historic Landmark or any structure i within an "H" Historic Overlay District or any , structure rated as a "4" or a =5" by the HPC in its 11 2 evaluation of the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen pursuant to Section 7- 709, shall be permitted unless the relocation is approved by the HPC because it meets the standards of Section 7-602 (D) (1) through (4). 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. i I 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%.beneficial use of the property; and 3. The structure cannot be practicably moved to another site in Aspen; and 47 A- deme+i+ierr -and· - fedeve@opmen€- -pl-an- -i-0- - se·bmi-bbed 85ZlifiSi./. when required by HEC, or for any partial demoli ili-,9 7 -30 336 64 CAM~~~.8 7 Supplement #1 1,--Ill- ---- tion, that mitigatco to tho greatest extent: READ praebbeabr-any-i-mpae€--bhab-ee-ears -be-the-eharaeber e f -ttre- -ne»hberheed- whefe--demol-it-ifir -72-prepesed be -eeear r -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. 5-r 'Phe-·deme-birbien--p:1:-en·-m·it-i.·g-atee-r-te-·*he-grea-best extent practical, any impact thc proposed dcmoli 64-e-n- -19 a.s--en-«4-re· -49-i-s-*-er€-e--impe€+an€-e--e f -+1¥-e st- feet-u-ree·-3.eee·t-ed--en-*he-- paf -eel--and-*6*eee-n·b pareebs r -and- 67 Th e--dernebi·t=4 en--i,]:-an --m-iti-g-a-b·e s -to- -b·19·e-,3-r-e·ete-at extent- -pr-aebiee-]:-· -any- impae € - -on- +he -arehi-beebe-red: integrity of a ntructurc. 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 7 -31 2..i.¢.i.jit?~, #33C Supplement #1 44 %66 parcel. D. Standards for Review of Relocation. READ CARERJUY 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 annbeneficial use of the property; and ,)A~10*413<E 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 4«c relocation and resiting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation; and 3. 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 4. 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, withi·n-en-47--H-ieter-ie--ever-bay'-Bist·fiet--of i 01-v-e 4-v-i #1-9-- - H-·i-3-6 e-r-i-e - mira ft-d·me f 4<-9- r - -a-- be-¥ e-1.*p m-er¥-t App 440#-t>i»ft- - f ef- -demeM+ion- -shal-1. -be- -subm-i-t-·t·ed- -60--bhe Pia-nok·ng--B-i-r-e©*e-r--efid which shall be reviewed and 7 -32 I Ill//./...I-I.-- #33D Supplement #1 - approved by the HPC pursuant to the procedures'.1 established in Common Procedures, Art. 6, Div. 2. -i. Th e HPC sh a 11 -be_.-a-u-t.112.rized t o Ea209.nd-eet:*en-en-_~ . ··s demolition,Cpartial demolition or relocat-Lo application when iE finds that it Reeds additional information to determine whether the application meets the standards of Section 7-602(B) or that the proposedal-deme**tien is a matter of such great public _ concern to the Cit--that alte-E_na~LL.Zes_to the demolition, <i~rtial demolition Or relocationyust be studied jointl-y- by the City aR-3- 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 acqui- sition of the _atructure, or revision to the demolition. Ciartial demolition or relocation)and redevelopment plan. The HPC shall be required to specify the additional information it requires or the alternatives it finds should be studied when it suspends-2.glign on the development,cpar-ti-aT demolition or relocatio~ application. Ac~Ero~rr--sher:B-EFfIy be suspiended Far 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 structu-pe-p-g-caa.sed for demolition, ef partial demolitioor_glocat-i~ED 3. A written description of the structure proposed foraolition, ef partial demolition or ~locati~ 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. 7 -33 #33E Supplement #1 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,-of partial demolitioiarrelocatio. 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 pcoposed-ford@molition,-er partial demolition(Er 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. rpc.3-/ <evelopment plal.-and a statement of the effect or' the proposed (*lievelopment on the other structures on th@'property and the character of the neighborhood around the property shall be Adkbmitted in cases when the HPC requires a (~~0evelopment plan to evaluate the appropriateness demolition or when the applicant believes the submission of a·(~Kievelopment plan will assist in the evaluation orthe proposed demolition. 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- 7 -34 .. I'/-/,-..2//5,<~V #34 A \ 44--__%6%- Supplement #1 plicable. Sec. 7-604. Appeal and (Eall Up-3 .1 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 sixty (60) days of the decision. The reasons for the appeal shall be stated in writing. Frhe City Council may also call up for review any Ch»*·-6,- M Fly M ( decision of the HPC approving, disapproving, or ~ suspending action on a demolition or relocation of a Jhistoric 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. -v »44/6/61 B. / Within thirty (30) days after the date of a decision by i; t/.1,-- / the HPC which is appealed or called up by the City t Council, the Council shall hold a public hearing after <publishing notice pursuant to Section 6-205 E.3.a. B: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 Upon determining that there was an abuse of discretion discretion, or a denial of due process by the HPC. or denial of due process, the City Council shall be P 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. 1 7 -35 . C 41 2 Aucty Mort watl 443®6% Sec. 7-606. Minimum Maintenance Requirements. 0 . 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 ~f 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. , i- .34~ I 1 21 1 .9 £ KAAM 3 Morts. 1 31, 2 V Aegis L . 1 i UPL-- 0/l/AX<il , I -U GH N' tb: l U I U C Clf L 21 42:~ Ck}3 Orjq)/ U .4 /,Ze .t-~ '. ' ·7 - 4 -f \ Z C r- 11 6 , - 0 /6, - . r 66'04 ~A L-~_~~71\) ht) , i .CC 4 1 1£./2 / / , I 1 - min.maint.requirements ..,0,2 1 Supplement #1 D. Architectural Importance. The structure is a sig- i 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, Rescindinq. A Development Application for a proposed designation, amendment to a designation, or rescinding of a designation, H, 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 I following: A. The general application information required in Sec. 6- 202; and B. A boundary c;lescriEtion of the site; and a \Elle F23*1 c-, -- *F the..eplia.tis a c. 1 ..Ue€*14-raIuest,ng a grant from City Council A provided / *~ C-J the structure medbs the eligibility criteria for al. j 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, 7 -34 i i : b , #50 Sup~keSent # 1 i/- / F./4 HPC Conceptual Approval. In the event historic ~ / J preservation committee (HPC) approval is needed for any / t proposed project, the committee' s conceptual approval l 7 must be secured prior to submitting an application for \ )a development allotment. The applicant shall be / / required to secure final approval of the project from ( / the committee prior to submission of an application for ~ ~ building permit. Sec. 8-106. Procedure and standards for development allotment. A. Annual submission dates. A Development Application for a development allotment for the following types of development shall be submitted to the Planning Director pursuant to Common Procedures, Art. 6, Div. 2, on or before the following dates. Development Submission Date Tourist Accommodations August 1 Commercial/Office September 15 Residential November 1 B. Application contents. A Development Application shall consist of twenty-one (21) copies of the following information: 1. The general application information required in Sec. 6-202. 2. A written description of the proposed development including statements about: (a) How the proposed development shall be connected to the public water system, includ- ing information on main size and pressure; the excess capacity available in the public water system; the location of the nearest main; and the estimated water demand of the proposed development. (b) How the proposed development shall be connected to the public sewage treatment system; the excess capacity available in the public sewage treatment system; the nearest location to the building site of a trunk or connecting sewer line; and the expected sewage treatment demand of the proposed development. 8 - 13 NATIONAL CENTER ]F{DR PRESERVATION L_UPV 1233 2 OTH STREET, N.W. 0 SUITE 501 0 WASHINGTON, D.G. 20036 (202) 828-9611 PRESIDENT EXECUTIVE DIRECTON TERSH BoASBERO, ESQ. STEPHENS. DENNIS, ESQ. PRESERVATION LAAW UPDATE 1988-46 December 9, 1988 Can a Preservation Commission Become a Toothless Tiger? Occasionally, members of a local historic preservation commission decide for personal or political reasons not to exercise their full authority. Such decisions can set extremely bad precedents for the commission, and may make it difficult for the commission to resume its full powers in the future. A 1957 court decision involving the Vieux Carre Commission in New Orleans shows one danger that can arise from erratic enforcement of a local preservation ordinance. In City of New Orleans v. Levy, 98 S.E.2d 210 (La. 1957), a property owner argued that the Vieux Carre Commission had winked at many violations: With respect to the Vieux Carre ordinances the record conclusively discloses that in recent years there have been innumerable non-conforming alterations Of buildings throughout the French Quarter against which the city has sought no injunctive relief; some, in fact, were authorized by officially granted permits. The existence of this widespread condition was freely admitted during the trial by two former members of the Vieux Carre Commission who are architects by profession. The court found that the city had acted improperly in singling out for prosecution one property owner when other owners who had similarly violated the local ordinance had not been prosecuted: In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances we are forced to conclude that the present action constitutes an unfair, unjust and illegal discrimination as to these defendants and that the injunctive relief sought against them should not be granted until and unless the regulatory measures under consideration are enforced in like manner as to all other persons similarly situated. But unequal enforcement of a local preservation ordinance is only one problem which can arise. What happens when members of a commission misunderstand the basic powers of the commission? ,£, NLTIONALCENTER FOR PRESERVATION LAW This may now be the situation in Charleston, South Carolina, where increasing development pressures are leading to tension ( between the city's preservation forces and both the Board of Adjustment and the Board of Architectural Review. Local preservation groups such as the Historic Charleston Foundation - feel that buildings of a scale unsuited to the city's Old and Historic District are being approved by both boards. There is growing uncertainty over where arguments against overscaled buildings can most suitably and most effectively be made. The recent trial court decision in the Krawcheck case (see "Update" 1988-45) clearly indicates that such arguments must be made to the Board of Architectural Review. Yet the current vice- chairman of the Board of Architectural Review, architect Thompson Penny, is now on record as having stated that he believes a decision by the Board of Adjustment that a building conforms to zoning regulations is binding on the Board of Architectural Review: Although I have concerns about size, I feel the major envelope is set by zoning standards, and that gives the developer certain rights. . . . If it meets zoning requirements, I feel it is our responsibility to make sure the building meets design requirements within that framework. The BAR recently gave conceptual approval to a five-story office building and parking garage because Mr. Penny cast the < deciding vote on the matter. The Charleston Evening Post noted in an editorial: Some preservationists at the meeting challenged that interpretation of BAR powers. Honest disagreement could be useful in this instance if it helps clarify the authority of the BAR, given its role in maintaining the character of the city's old and historic district. ... Scale, proportion in relation to setting, is one of the characteristics that makes Charleston the architectural treasure trove it is. Scale provides the harmony of streetscapes in old and historic districts. And size, after all, is a function of scale. The* BAR, it ought to be remembered, considered size--mass-- when it studied plans for Charleston Place. Size, it ought also be remembered, was considered when the controversial federal courthouse annex plans were under scrutiny. Size is part of the architectural picture. It shouldn't be left out of considerations of what's suitable in Charleston's old and historic neighborhoods. Though some local historic preservation ordinances might preclude a preservation commission from considering the scale of proposed new buildings, Charleston's does not: NATIONALCENTER FOR PRESERVATION LUV In passing upon an application for new construction in an old and historic district, the board of architectural review - shall consider, among other things, the general design, the character and appropriateness of design, scale of buildings, arrangements, texture, materials and color of the structure in question, and the relation of such elements to similar _ features of structures in the immediate surroundings. The board of architectural review shall not . . . make requirements except for the purpose of preventing developments which are not in harmony with the prevailing character of Charleston, or which are obviously incongruous with this character. Quite arguably, an overscaled building would be "obvioualy incongruous" with the "prevailing character of Charleston" and could be denied a permit by the BAR for this reason alone. The Charleston BAR's power is quite different from the power of the Nantucket Historic District Commission, whose power to review the scale of buildings is specifically circumscribed: The Historic District Commission shall not consider detailed designs, relative size of buildings in plan, interior arrangement or building features not subject to public view. The commission shall not make any recommendations or requirements except for the purpose of preventing developments obviously incongruous to the historic aspects of the surroundings and the Historic Nantucket District. This provision of the Nantucket historic preservation ordinance was construed by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in 1977 in Gumlev v. Board of Selectmen of Nantucket, 358 N.E.2d 1011 (Mass. 1977): The question whether the commission may properly consider the length of buildings has been fully argued. It is likely to arise again, and we think the answer is clear. Under § 9(c) the commission is not to consider "relative size of buildings in plan," but length of buildings is part of "general design" and "arrangement," which, under §9(b) , are to be taken into account, together with "the relation of such factors to similar features of buildings and structures in the immediate surroundings and the position of such building or structure in relation to the street or public way and to other buildings and structures." The Charleston situation and the New Orleans and Nantucket court decisions point up the importance to local preservation groups and commissions of a clear understanding of the powers a preservation commission may--and should--exercise. (A subscription to the "Preservation Law Updates" series for 1988 is available for $55.00. Please send inquiries to the National Center at the address listed at the top of this "Update.")