Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.19880712AGENDA -N. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE July 12, 1988 - Tuesday 2:30 P.M. to 4:30 P.M. First Floor Council Chambers City Hall REGULAR MEETING 4:00 I. Roll Call II. Approval of Minutes-June 28, 1988 III. Committee Member and Staff comments Staff-refer to Sidewalk memo in packet IV. Public Comments V. Monitoring Projects VI. PRESENTATION Special guest speaker Rebecca Waugh will speak on "Developing a Local Historic Trust" (Rebecca is the Admin. Director for the Summit County Historical Society: The public is encouraged to attend this presentation and discussion. The Aspen Historical Society Board of Directors have been invited) VII. NEW BUSINESS A. ARA Kiosk B. Pre-Application for significant development at 200 E. Main-Applicant: Don Fleisher C. Public Hearing: Conceptual Development Review: 715 W. Smuggler-Applicant: Jennie Lang VIII.OTHER BUSINESS A. Inventory Update B. Sidewalks C. Historic Preservation Tax Incentives NOTE: Coming up-Special guests for 7-26-88 HPC meeting: State Preservation Planner Chris Pfaff and State Historic Architect Jay Yanz VI. MEMORANDUM - To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Special Presentation: Developing a Local Historic Trust Guest speaker: Rebecca Waugh, Summit County Historical Society Date: July 12, 1988 Attached is the press release distributed for this presentation, including information on our guest speaker, Rebecca Waugh. I heard Rebecca speak last year at the Arvada Center (Denver) regarding historic preservation in the Breckenridge area, and was extremely impressed with her enthusiasm and creative building- saving ideas. I am sure you will enjoy her as well. The Board of the Aspen Historical Society has also been invited, as well as the general public. PLEASE plan to attend this HPC meeting; your ideas, questions and comments are needed. This presentation basically begins a required feasibility study on the formation of a local historic trust, an activity specified in the CLG grant contract by the State Historical Society. ? t~%4 Aspen/Pitki*Bl*#ning Office 130 so#*,1~Tgal¢»abitreet ,4,·13.·,1. ¥./ aspentcoloradd 81611 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 21, 1988 Contact: Roxanne Eflin, City Hall Planning Office 925-2020, ext. 223 PRESENTATION ON FEASIBILITY OF LOCAL HISTORIC TRUST CREATION Is Aspen ready for a local historic trust? An organization who could go where no organization has ever gone? Leap historic buildings in a single bound, and preserve them with adequate funding and enthusiasm? The public is invited to a special presentation on the development of a Historic Trust in Aspen, on July 12, Tuesday, at 2:30 p.m., City Hall, at the beginning of the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee meeting. The purpose of this meeting is to begin a dialogue within the community on the feasibility of the creation of such an organization. The guest speaker is Rebecca Waugh, who has served for eight and one half years as the Administrative Director of the Summit Historical Society. The Society's successes with Rebecca at the helm include the creative exchange of density rights to save the 8 acre Lomax Placer Gulch, acquiring endangered "Victorians", miner's cottages, and assay offices, and purchasing sites for their relocation IF on-site preservation is not at all possible. t Rebecca's approach has always been one of "win-win" for developers and the community itself. She has sought and received endowments to buy-out and maintain historic property and will present slides and the "Breckenridge story". Her entertaining style will leave you with an invigorated sense of what historic preservation is all about in a resort community. For more information on the meeting or developing a local historic trust, please contact Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Specialist, City of Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 223. V I LA. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: ARA Kiosk Date: July 12, 1988 Background: At the June 28, 1988 HPC meeting, the recent installation of the ARA Kiosk (Cooper and Galena) was discussed among the Committee, particularly with respect to the need for it to receive design review. Its design was considered inappropriate and the entire structure appeared to list to the west. Staff was asked to check into the issue; an ARA representative will appear before HPC at this meeting in response to the Planning Office inquiry. The purpose of this meeting is to assist the ARA through partnership and give them direction for kiosk development. Summary: The kiosk appeared a few weeks ago on the mall, to serve as an informational booth through the summer. HPC is very supportive of the activity, however, has concerns regarding the design and construction quality of this structure. It is considered an extremely visible element in the center of the Commercial Core Historic Overlay District. Its location and purpose throughout the summer season warrants design planning. Problem Discussion: ARA representatives met with City Council last winter, requesting a small donation to build the structure; the materials were donated. Information was given to the ARA that no building permit was required, and consequently, no direction was given regarding the required HPC development review. This activity is considered Minor Development, a one step review process. Staff concurs with HPC that the design and construction quality of the structure does not meet the standards of development HPC is striving to achieve in the community. We also understand the kiosk was vandalized the evening of July 6, and that the ARA plans to appear before Council in a couple weeks requesting additional funds to repair the damaged structure. The opportunity exists to examine a number of alternatives for better design, in staff's opinion. Alternatives: Funding considerations notwithstanding, a quality- designed kiosk would serve this community very well. It could be used at other times of the year, serving a variety of functions and purposes. If safely stored, the kiosk could be used for many summer seasons to cgme. The ARA may find design services (for trade?) within their membership. Possibly design assistance could be volunteered by a member of the HPC. Recommendations: The Planning Office recommends the ARA apply for Minor Development review for a new kiosk to be situated within the Commercial Core Historic Overlay District. Scale drawings will be required in the application. The Planning Office also recommends that the HPC members come to this meeting prepared to offer whatever design ideas you feel are appropriate to assist in this voluntary community effort. 1/ I July 7, 1988 Mr. William Poss, Chairman Historical Preservation Committee City Hall of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Bill: I apologize to you and the HPC board for any misunderstanding as to the required permits for the Aspen Visitors Center Kiosk located at the intersection of Cooper and Galena Streets. We went to City Council in September of 1987 and were given permission and funding at that time to proceed with this much needed project. It was brought to my attention only yesterday that we were not in compliance with the proper permits. The concept of having an informational kiosk has proven to be of benefit to both the current overcrowded Visitors Center, located in the Wheeler Opera House, and to the visitor enjoying our malls. In the first twenty days of its opening we have assisted over 5,000 guests and have had overwhelming support from adjacent retailers. We clearly understand that the current kiosk is not the quality of building structure that is needed in our malls. Funding was the limiting factor. However, now that we have the opportunity to work with your committee, I am hopeful that together we can create a structure satisfactory to all. I look forward to seeing you on July 12, 1988. Sincerely, -10 - Thomas D. Hines, DVM Director of Guest Services TDH:bsb ASPEN RESORT ASSOCIATION 303 EAST MAIN STREET · ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 · 303-925-1940 ASPEN CENTRAL RESERVATIONS 700 SOUTH ASPEN · ASPEN, COLORADO · 303-925-9000 Ir ~ 1 7-7-- VISITOR CENTER/KIOSK COMPARISON FIGURES NUMBER OF VISITORS 1988 1988 1988 1987 DATE VC/WHEELER VC/KIOSK COMBINED VC/WHEELER ONLY 6/18/88 206 121 ' 327 504 6/19 142 164 306 477 6/20 305 285 590 493 6/21 462 232 694 484 6/22 421 362 783 485 6/23 438 197 924 486 6/24 451 90 rain 541 464 6/25 432 183 615 540 6/26 361 278 639 647 6/27 306 668 837 6/28 408 201 609 731 6/29 389 279 rain 668 663 6/30 500 161 rain 661 848 /1 546 186 rain 732 551 /2 751 360 rain 1111 885 /3 731 265 rain 996 1455 1/4 576 728 rain 1304 1268 823 197 rain 1020 684 TOTALS: 8,593 4,595 13,188 12,502 TH:bsb VCVIS ... lai - 01 , .U , 1 1 -1 -42-:b,Wert, kfit,4111, .4+ .11 l.~,3.1[ .1?,ll,{-''l:. 1.:1.11'~ .1.. ; h...11 *f liu U ... lit ' .* -:' ./. 1 1 j '. **,24<tiot, HYM':.--4-:.11. ,~f:j: -_-5 ¥4 9+ t.:,·.~'.·1·~e,'.{tiff xjf~~~ ; 4-24#72.:t.~*.i*.j t. 114.43© .01,7, I ~ 361;N 5.*, ... t:. ' ~ .' 1. '4..:I,g., . 2%00 VV #ti»·- - it Nt«.-11 V 41 - t. »t·' Y - ~'-:I:E:En_.- ~ 4 <--'/0--4 5- U#<A « h 0 1 3 g (C /7 O \ i 7# 1 . t '.OD . 3 ¥ 1 j 1 1 1 /7 .t 0 clock 7 d 3 404 040 f t r + .k 9 v 4 9 f *~ ~~·~t \1 2 i 1 1 4 . f. / 'u-or 1 ./>'k -- + Lt-1-4/ .9 1 / 1 It - 4 "16 - 4.. --- -I L - .--122605. 74& .=24 .-1.-'- * 6 1 1 -.IX--- 1 1 1 9 ' 1 .2 11 fi. · 1 1 1 ; 1 -t .--1. ... 7- -* -- ---Z--2--0322*0 -7D .. 1-4 --: -=33"-'--71....01(-6=. -I I 11 111 1 -' r!1 ~ . . I ' ' *- 10 i li ~ 1 . ., 1 - 1 lir=11 4 It!_1 1- · · ' R - 2. . .3:6.-1 4 A©FiA L.-5 3 EL€V,ATION M AIN »T , 1 «l-1 -liqg,2-2 /1.-r·< D f=ALL-1 N , Fc--- t U' 0 1-1 LV 1 1 266 ,.t..f '.· r :; - f...i ' ./. 1€-3,7 .·9: '. 9 1,00 / 91-- -71 -c--4 t -- -... - I \ \/\ ----... -- - I - . --- .... .--.-~4 - - . L./ -----1 ....V-- .r:- ·- .·-t·-7:-"7· 27-·7-~Z~89- ...i_·=E=/--2.0' ' ....T .---,-\-Im'.......- .. - ,-.,m. --- - -t IM TI'll,11 ..REI 1-- , .~1 i , 7=0 1 '11 '.< bit. 1 1 £ i lit i i i .-f 1 %-T . 6 . 1 262 1:~ - - 1! ... i /1_L 1 ... I. · · · 1 .1 it iii 1 ! 1 i ''J -- Ill :. 1 Ut'.4, i I j ....1 1 -- : I I ., ':..1 < - ;;intil i i -Ill--- t .'1 i f i .1-1 l J f ----1 - 1 :1 . 4.-4 i -*<ill"* rm --:-4 L--11-. ---- ... 4*-F" ' _412.27 -A 0 7 6, 14 Of· 6 L E-VAT 1 0 A A 1 -r- F- '7 k i .A i-C - t.1 72\ 1 H 4271. ,1 lilli [/.Oil = #.0 70 T ri 641.LAN O rALL ! hi I N 6 YIE B. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Pre-Application Conference regarding Significant Development for 200 East Main Date: July 12, 1988 LOCATION: 200 East Main, Lot K, Block 73, Townsite of Aspen ZONING: 0, Office Zone H, Historic Overlay District (Main Street) Individually landmark designated APPLICANT'S REQUEST: At this meeting, the applicant is requesting preliminary information from the HPC regarding the proposed development of Lot K, a 3,000 sq. ft. lot. The applicant wishes to construct a 2,250 sq. ft. two-story structure for office use on this site, which is across Aspen street from the Sardy House and adjacent to Gracy's, the two white 1880's cottages. The applicant wishes to begin the development review process as soon as possible, beginning with this pre-application meeting. BACKGROUND: In Staff's review of the 1904 Sanborn Insurance Map for Main Street, only a small one-story outbuilding is noted on this site, located at the northeast corner off the alley. In our research, no other structures have been identified as appearing on the site The intent of this research was to discover the size and siting of any previous building which may have occupied this site as a basis for new development review within the Main Street District. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: This is an extremely aesthetic-sensitive site, in our opinion. Located within the Main Street Historic overlay district, it is highly visible, located across from the Sardy House and diagonal from Paepcke Park. The 200 block of East Main contains a heavy concentration of historic residential structures, primarily vernacular miner's cottages, in relatively original form. The issues of Setback, Height, Alignment and Rhythm of Facade Details, Massing, Windows and Openings, Materials, and Signs must be thoroughly examined to determine the best possible development for this site. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation state: "All buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time" and "Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the historic and development of a building, structure, or site and its environment. These changes may have acquired significant in their own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected." The Aspen Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines address new construction within the Districts as follows: "New construction is expected on Main Street and in the Commercial Core. The possibility still exists to drastically alter the original character of these important districts. New buildings do not need to damage the historic integrity if they are designed to respect the relationships among buildings that have already been established. "In all new commercial construction, compatibility to adjacent building types should be considered. Broad-scale characteristics such as the range of the building heights and their alignment at the sidewalk should be studied. At the same time, the designer should recognize fine-grained aspects such as facade composition and decoration. "The characteristics that have already been established can be respected while at the same time developing new and creating building designs that avoid the imitation of earlier historic styles. The intent of the design guidelines for infill construction is to identify the elements most critical to the character of the historic commercial area and to insure that these elements are incorporated into new design. Creative expressions of modern design solutions are sought, rather than recreations of 19th century architecture. By incorporating these critical elements into modern architectural expressions, new buildings will fit harmoniously with the old." Development within the Main Street Historic Overlay District is also guided in the "New Construction - Residential" chapter of the Guidelines. Additional issues such as Landscaping and Rooflines are to be addressed within the Main Street District. The Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Historic Preservation Element discusses the Main Street District at length. As stated: "...Main Street is one of the areas of greatest historic importance and visibility in the City, and that the historic structures contribute a great deal to maintaining the mixed residential boulevard feeling of the street. .. . It seems clear that the long-standing policy of preventing Main Street from becoming a commercial strip should be maintained. It also appears reasonable to maintain current restrictions regarding FAR, set-backs, height restrictions and requirements pertaining 2 to off-site parking." In examining architectural compatibility, massing and styling for this site, staff draws HPC's attention to the variety of historic structures found in the immediate area to this lot. The Sardy House, directly across from Aspen Street, is a well known landmark, highly regarded for its elaborate Queen Anne had been lauded as extremely compatible, developed to retain the historical integrity and distinguishing original qualities of the main building. Gracy's cottages are locally designated, and are significant for their contribution to Aspen's historic character as being a sign of their times: modest one story miner's cottages with decorated front porches. Appropriate design for this sensitive site is challenging. The sketches reflect a two-story structure, narrow with steeply pitched (at least 12/12) roof. The proposed footprint does not encroach into any required setbacks, however HPC may wish to consider optional siting if the new development is found to visually encroach into the adjacent Gracy's building. The site plan sketch reflects a 10' setback which is the required setback in this zone district. Required side and rear yard setbacks are 5' and 15' accordingly. The site plan also compares the existing immediate neighboring buildings as well as streetscape showing height and massing comparisons, and existing landscaping in the right-of-way. The applicant has presented two alternative fenestration sketches. HPC may wish to consider the following questions: 1) Does the design as presented reflect all the critical compatibility issues as outlined in the Guidelines, Comprehensive Plan and Secretary of the Interior Standards? 2) Is* the height of the proposed two-story structure too dominant for this particular site? 3) Are the details, such as roof pitch, front entry and fenestration appropriate and do these details relate to the character of the Main Street Historic District? 4) Is the massing and alignment too severe for the site in relation to the adjacent structures? 5) Would additional undulations on the west and east elevations add more architectural interest to this structure? 6) Could increased depth of undulations soften the extreme verticality of the structure? Would HPC consider a variation in sideyard setback to allow for such design? 7) Is the front yard setback appropriate in relation to 3 adjacent historic structures? 8) What materials may be utiliZed to set this building off-, allowing it to read as a new structure, yet still blend in compatibility? RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Office is sensitive to the economic needs the applicant has stated to develop the site to its maximum FAR potential, however, we feel the sensitivity of this site in relation to the adjacent and neighboring historic structures warrants further study to reduce the size of this proposed structure. It appears dominant for the site and slightly incompatible in fenestration, a critical design issue. Staff recommends the applicants submit their full conceptual development application based on the direction given to them by the HPC at this meeting. Notes: HPC.memo.200EM 4 VII 6. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: 715 W. Smuggler, Conceptual Development Date: July 12, 1988 LOCATION: 715 W. Smuggler, Lots E and F, Block 15, Townsite of Aspen, Colorado ZONING: R-6 with H, Historic Overlay Designation APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Significant Development Review, beginning with Conceptual Review at this meeting. The development involves a partial demolition of three 8' x 10' (not original) walls at the rear of the structure, the attachment of a two-story addition to the rear, a new single carport, and a mostly-restored front porch with repositioned front entry and added gable. SITE, AREA AND BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Lot size: 6,000 sq. ft. Allowable FAR 3,240 sq. ft. Existing FAR 1,535 sq. ft. Proposed Addition 837 sq. ft. Total Proposed FAR 2,372 sq. ft. All required setbacks have been met. No additional bedroom are proposed, creating the need for additional parking spaces. PROCEDURE FOR PROJECT REVIEW: The application is for significant development, a two step process, involving conceptual and final development approval. Conceptual Development Review is a public hearing. A Final Development application must be submitted and reviewed for completeness prior to agenda scheduling for same with the HPC. The Final Development application must address any and all conditions placed upon conceptual approval, plus include accurate major building materials representations. The application as currently submitted does not require any special review from other Boards or Commissions, nor does it require special variation findings from HPC. HISTORIC BACKGROUND: This structure was relocated to this lot approximately 20 years ago. The applicant has attempted to research its original siting and has not uncovered the mystery as of yet. By determining its original location, the possibility of finding archive photos of the structure is more likely, therefore aiding accurate front porch design. The 1904 Sanborn Insurance Map does not include Block 15, so no historic footprint information is available to the Planning Office. When the structure was relocated, the new foundation was built quite a bit higher (most likely) than the original foundation for the structure. Therefore, the front porch was accessed via five stairs, which are currently located to the east side of the porch. The front entrance orientation is not historic as it currently stands, and the proposal addresses this issue. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Standards for Conceptual Development Review and Partial demolition with Staff's response follows: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel. Response: It is the opinion of the Planning Office that the proposed development is mostly compatible in character with the designated structure. The addition will be located well to the rear of the property, and only very minor demolition of three walls (not original) is proposed. The primary construction will take place on the addition, with the exception of the front porch (See Staff's response to Standard #4). Compatible and matching materials will be utilized, and details will be preserved. The verticality theme is carried through with the new addition, and the existing roof pitch is replicated in the addition. The proposed development is found to meet Standard #2 and #6 of the Secretary Of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, specifically: "The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure, site or its environment shall not be destroyed..." ,and "Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, wherever possible." The new addition appears compatible with the original structure, and by its rear orientation does not compete with the main historic facade of the existing house. However, due in part to the lot slope to the north, the new addition's completed height will be 26.6' at the roof ridge and 22.0' at the median point. Although a majority of new additions to historic structures are two story, a reduction in addition height would be more compatible and less dominant to the historic structure. The addition steps back approximately 70' from the front property line New Construction: The proposed south elevation of the new addition consists of a two-story six sided mud room/balcony, which is 8' in diameter. This mud room is located near the center of the south elevation, mostly hidden from the :front 2 facade by the existing house. The roof pitch is a slightly lesser angle thAn the existing roof pitch. Although two-story towers rarely, if ever, existed on vernacular miner's cottages, it is located at the very rear of the structure, is not readily viewed from any main facade, and serves as an entry way off the garage area. The remainder of the south elevation is 16' wide, and includes a 7' oriel window on the second floor, capped by a pediment of the same pitch as the gable roof. Decorative brackets are shown at the lower level of this oriel window, which serves as a cover to the double set of French doors accessing this area from the main rear yard level. All the windows are shown to be compatible with the existing house: double hung, wood sash. Painted wood trim and eave mold, 1" x 6" wood beveled siding, and simple balcony railings and balustrades are shown on these plans. Proposed Carport and Existing Outbuildings: The plan proposes to add a one-car carport to the southeast rear of the site, accessed off the alley. The applicant will present carport elevations at this meeting. The carport dimensions are 10' x 15', and will open on three sides, with the north elevation enclosed. The carport will feature a 12/12 roof pitch; the height at the gable peak is 14'. Materials will match the new addition, and simple cut shingles will appear as gable decor. Interestingly, two historic outbuildings are encroaching a few feet onto the east/rear portion of this site (Lot F). These outbuildings are primarily situated on Lot G, apparently owned by an out-of-state property owner (700 W. Francis). Neighbors have filed complaints with the City Manager's office regarding the poor state of the vacant lots immediately to the east of the parcel being reviewed by HPC at this meeting. The complaints focus on the tall weeds and dilapidated outbuildings. (Of the enclave of outbuildings found in the immediate area surrounding 715 W. Smuggler, only one has been found severely deteriorated.) The applicant has expressed interest to save the encroaching outbuildings by having them moved slightly off Lot F; the two owners will begin the dialogue necessary to accomplish this task. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The three neighboring vernacular cottages across the alley to the south are all rated "4", and are of very original quality. However, throughout the neighborhood are a variety of cottages which have received additions. The addition aspect of the proposal appears necessary to allow the owner the interior square footage necessary, and the development as presented appears to meet those contemporary needs well. 3 ~ ~ ~,~1~~~~~ However, historic neighborhood character is greatly influenced by front - facades, primarily front porches that were the home's calling card. Staff agrees with the applicant's desires to re- oriented the front porch entry to align directly with the house from Smuggler Street, however, feels accurate porch restoration is an important element of the over development of this site. While more square footage is required of the current owners, proposed to be accomplished by the rear addition, an accurately restored front entry is necessary to balance that activity, in staff's opinion. The proposal reflects a new gabled addition to the front porch, projecting nearly 4' from the original facade. 3. Standard: 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 proposed addition does not adversely effect the cultural value of the original historic house, in our opinion. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Staff finds that the proposed porch and height of the addition as proposed does diminish to some degree the historic architectural integrity of this structure. Reference is made to the Aspen Development Guidelines - Porches: 1. "Maintain front porches as an important facade element. Unless reconstruction is necessary, do not remove original porches. Preserve the appearance of transparency in porch enclosures." 2. "Preserve original porch materials. Decorative elements that are not known to have been used o the residence should be avoided." The proposed gabled porch entry is not original to this structure. The applicant has the opportunity to restore the front facade of this historic miner's cottage while adding a new addition to rear. Porch restoration is strongly encouraged and will help increase the integrity of the original structure, while allowing the rear addition to serve contemporary needs. Staff recommends the applicant redesign the entry porch to its original status, using similar original porches as a guide if accurate historic documentation is not possible. Height: The height of the proposed addition is quite high in comparison to the original structure. The argument is made that the new addition is primarily only visible from the West and 4 - 1 steps back approximately 50' from the front property line. By attaching the two story addition so far to the rear of the structure, the original house mostly reads as a one story cottage. Staff feels that the general design is good, however, a reduction in height is warranted. PARTIAL DEMOLITION: The partial demolition proposed is very minor. Staff finds the proposed demolition meets the Demolition Review Standards 4 through 6. The activity is required to remove the inappropriate alterations currently located at the rear of the structure to allow for the new addition. Three 8' x 10' walls will be removed - the applicant will present reference photographs of this existing south elevation at the meeting. ALTERNATIVES: Actions that HPC may take include: 4 2. Grant conceptual approval for the proposal subject to 1. Grant conceptual approval for the proposal as presented. 1/ conditions of height reduction, front porch redesign and required final development review application items, i.e. U /)< accurate building material representation. Also, a 't-~\ structural response letter is required regarding the f \~ stability of such new development activity, attached to a Lhistoric structure. 3. Table conceptual approval until the applicant returns with further study of addition height reduction and front porch detailing. f 4. Deny conceptual approval for reasons that the size of the addition and various design concepts are inappropriate on this site. Direction may be given to the applicant to consider: a. reducing the height of the addition b. restoring the original front porch without adding additional detailing; keep open c. eliminating the number of Victorian-replicated details on the south elevation RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends Conceptual Development Approval for the project at 715 W. Smuggler, subject to the following conditions: 1) That the applicant further study the front porch design to restore the original, and return to HPC with revised plans 2) That the height of the addition be reduced to be more compatible with the original historic structure : 3) Accurate major building materials representation be made 5 at Final Development review 4) A structural response letter be submitted with the Final Development Application addressing the stability of the existing structure with regard to the attachment of the addition. Staff also recommends that the property owner assist in preserving the two outbuildings that currently encroach. If moving the structures slightly to eliminate the Lot F encroachment is found to be the best possible action, Staff would support such activity. Notes: HPC.memo.715WS 6 NOTE # 1 Architectural elements effected: There will be minimal effect to existing elements 1. New Foundation under existing dining area; New roof over kitchen and dining New roofing over front entry porch 2. New Gable Roof (with same pitch as existing gable) over proposed 2-story addition with matching trim and eave details. 3. Restored front entry porch as near to original as possible. F.A.R. Requirements: Lot size 6,000 sq. ft. Allowable F.A.R. 3,240 sq. ft. Existing structure 1,534.8555 sq. ft. Proposed addition 1st floor 340.625 2nd floor 496.375 Total For Addition 837.00 sq. ft. Total For New Structure 2371.855 sq. ft. New construction: 2 story addition to include expanded family room, bedroom, 41- bath, mudroom, interior stairs to basement and second floor, hot tub and deck. - New fencing, compatible landscaping - Single carport - Proposed gable roof at rear of existing structure will add 7'6" to overall height of building. r Building Materials: All exterior siding, trim and architectural detailing to match existing All exterior doors and windows to match existing styles wherever possible. Where necessary exterior doors and windows to be compatible with existing style. Decks, railings, walks, fencing, and other landscaping materials to be in the style of or compatible with existing elements of "Miners' Cabin" style. NOTE # 2 -V Although "Miners' Cabins" were traditionally one-story structures, after careful evaluation of the owner's needs, the existing site (including grounds and vegetation) and the surrounding neighborhood, it is felt that a 2-story addition at the rear of the structure (this is the S.W. corner and nearly 70' from the street) will create minimal impact to the facade and integrity of the original "Miners' Cabin" architectural style as seen from W. Smuggler, will be consistent with other homes in the adjacent blocks (many of which are 2-story, both remodeled and original), will effectively accommodate the owner's lifestyle. The proposed improvements to this property are meant to stabilize historical architectural value and integrity by repairing and restoring the original structure. At the same, the project is seen to increase the building's present value through an addition which will better serve the functional requirements of a contemporary lifestyle, remaining historically sensitive to materials, scale and architectural detailing. There will be minimal impact from demolition as only 3 (10' x 8") walls at the rear of the house will be removed. This section of the house is not original and does not contribute. in any way to the architectural significance of the "miners' Cabin" style. 1\ 1 -__ -=21 ~9 \ \\ \ 4 41 16 1 1 94 r + € X i 4 -1-1 e HORT14 BLEATION - 1....... * 1 - ....... /~St 1. NX 7./07 0.-1*1.- . -=\ \\9'L / / "121*..2 -2 -\ \« - 4 f.. , , h. »A . \ .. 1 , - -I-' i f 1 , i bil r. '. . 4 34 '1 ·ty 0,144 I E-X U 41 8 · 72,7 - 1- ..4: 4 SOUTH f - .ELEVAVIONIT-_ ----fl . .1...96 ·' '~)~127*X 41*,/F'-6.*5 , 1 t. ' r, 1 Air ' ' . T,2.4' LFUL,· t. , 90.2 2 --..1.f.,71.'- ~* - i . EEm-4 -·- --t· -·---1183E", 1/ 0¥13 N ) ,5 -t "012 i 4 fgy,-9,73 3 .,3 M 31 3-4 1 0-911 1191*3) / te l N 45 1 H-3 Oopi r 40 -9 90 / 42 f 4- 1 - n @)3 VA Q.1-9 1 1 20 1 C * - >6 + 1 MCION '13)11 U 1 e 1, / 26= p--1 1 9 < 1 1 h ¥ 1 1 1 1 lili -- .,% . 1 1 9 1 ) 1 V Y ./ 1 1! ' 1 -----9 111 ~ ' -r-tn . 1 1 1 (MaN) -0- llc>-19,1 1 t=.7 41 2 - 41 -1 0 0 5 > 1 + 4 l t 0: 1 1 4-luE- e r FLAT- Rzop 1 1., i .9% X N 1 - -1 Al \\ »4 . 1 41 4 3¥ OLOF€ SUOF€ 2 i .. --P * L- $ -4/ \ APPITK)k) Ower 1 . 1~ 11 7-7 - 1 MILLER 12€61 [DENICE 1 le IAL €*AUGGLEFR *6 'FE N, Colol<PrOG) GFUSH €k) GAE+J woot-2 4 MACC/PrES, 1 Ak:L. <Gle,lATIC, ROOF PLAKI G-Il.%% CIL OCAL€: 4• & I -i W. SMUGGLER ST. (-16.C=c>'vjic'g- ) E-vaL__-9£~ a A.>'PU€1-1, / Lze- -. ------ C i z.1,-t p r--11 z." 611 € 4 3 Fr. F.O -fe- 51.te' 8 46 -1 594 'it k 66>. ce:, ') @ 0 1 2 0 ke 4 i -0 +l ,-grad«" 52£ 9 s PLA,·.Pr ELL r- - L - - fl \ 4 -agp,Ja#trre- 3 12.0 PAC 25.61 1 >9 0 1 8 18 1 e T * 1.-C€M T .1 7 20£.a J = 1 CO £ 1 44===- out- «67& 10 3 4 1 19 i Al W=*)P F·12-:*- rt \0 1 6 1404)46_ ve// - 123 1 1 4 12>A «E- r/\ E-hj -r ~ -~~ t. I T . ad€369<:APE- i WArt.~. ME.yEAD e.££42-1 144&11.*L t 444€2 •Ae.72-L \,0 000 F CA K.,1 E- 23fty£'57 - 3?r i e.der' '22 Ill 00 -- -- .4 , I • 12.6 f , 1 i «-- -7/7 »P. I * Vuot>/2 / U I 1 /-6 / / At 9£04 7/- 1 /1/ 1 'p PROR:)960 - 4 1 z..s 23. 6 f '5640(01 TION 16- -60+Act 1 ©30¢7 - ~+Jl-22(2// r. 744%,Loop' ) f//27 F CA »t EL_ U 4 1 IC'.'Z- Suar 1 ¢ ACe-A =(6,·sco ea.p·r.) Ul ,1 Y fee,Arep = 5, 1018 €79 eli :fl ~ LOT D ~ LOT~E *LOI F- 4 :- OT G A Ir---1- 2+1290€_ - ~ FC<DEP-vic «01.4 v'E.L. \,0 000 f PAL*-J h-~d~ ed 6-7 ~-75,05.< 11"W ~42.(75:4~ 00 ~ .- - 4( 1 0 7 7 31 U 90.02-«Et_3» - S~ 1 /ALLEY t BLOCK 15 (2.0.16' \,0'Jive j 14 p°Wt.L PUOUE_ 41 6-4 66-6 -r-/ 1. 1- of e L Om' 7 161 61*Z:.425 expl /vi 6-1,~ c.)S. k -elE__-___ (WEW 6At LE ROD€) tf 19'th 11 0 7-- 1 D (£ 1,2 1 i P 11 ;1 / 1 ~. It j f \C <% 1 :1·=. _ 3 Cp--4 0 N 11 i : 1 ' )3 i li il[ . B // i; Ir fr i tf =1--.-r,LI- 7=·411 i I 1 i f ' 7 -7-4 ' 17--a 4 1 . 1 .-+ 1 -1 i T i»-:=1 2 I I ti i . £ i ~I' t, ti ' i i. 1 : j , 1 1 1 .1 -c==1 1 ' ' -r- .-··m ' 1 i -L-- 2--1 2 r .r . 3 20'-4 : "1 1 \- 1 0 4.-1-r· 6-1.u ' ' 1 1 14 12 EXIOT I KG lo i kt 50(iE. ---__L - - - TO A n t - I A 1 K.1 - ./~ 67«\ 0 *76 I -- .. NELAI IEREK K.+4 tt~25 9%19 1 WG, 99706-tufE tv\ 1LL€12 R EfbIOEKEE 7 19 !20. 6#AUGGLEK 666 MareS 60Otki ELIE)All ok] 1*261\1 , ColoRACO 685[04 03 61266KIWED'D 4 AGGc . m IT,-1, 47,1 00 0. 14, k! «0 , i Al_ L WODIP 'OUR A' C , WOOU T+244 1 th* / 0 6 U t /' A \ ¥-0 €>E. PAIK)1-El.3 10 , O-4 «•KV·.il- DE-TAIC> 1.1 //LAN\\ 0 111+ A £ Ii} p;A l U 1- E Ol.01· 1 Pr 'FF,)lot-11 « A .%43, 1 1A1,Sk' E'ftc..1-M·16. ,/,/0 \ ' rti- Hcx-):AE. t; / it / RD)7 -44 3 96( ED .' 3 r - ~ 1 -\ - 23<1-~~ 0 UEL,u 1 -Coc- / 1 1- 7 f ~ \ 474/-/rk;.1-34. 4 \2. 1 \ 4.1 0.- T. 4 . 11 1 11 3 ' 1 <6 39·;'8.ED · ~161 -'-~P,7.11-1 -PA 010143-4 4' t 1 .. = . 91'4012 41-4 03'le 1 · . CA! UN»- 9 1 1 03€.3 1 : · i EA')60 1.2 E 1 4-2. ·,4-·~44+ *=*t- : 1~n#* fl~~t.ST"9.91',MY'.·':2 it r- 1- 1 WDCo CA. 1 KN€'9 ' 1 't ; FLOWER R>ly< tip 34 OA t LITE.g V 1 4-le>t'f ! A k) - r./1-€ 1 'f » i 15 --'FT-5..4 tr* i' 6 6 , i: : ' ~ + 4 wooc) eMPE.6,6 7,3 1 DE-»' t.-. 1. ~jc 500¥bLE- 1 lotle 1 1 1,1 11 . --€'.-1=r =' 1 112:12 WHEF& NEreD«p pr:-~AFFAR. 10•57 /1100 0 W ~ N 00 W S ' i -1 - - , P .e··=4 /-: *-ti e--·-1 i 1120tbET 1.Ow 1 0 i{ ¢ 4 ! - MAT-0+ 64 19; i \365 ~ · . . . , '1 $ 1 ~-= 1- , 4' · 4- Z.:I.72C1 l. :=u_--l·»-zz.:.r--__ 1 4-1-01' -24-/(01 h-1-401- 6610 STFUGU¢-4 1 1 11\ -9 J - 0 .2-1- - 1- 1 , :1 !1 t- ~B~ .-1 1 .L -- -- 11 11-11 -j 1 1 €)((3 fj~~ - MILLER RESIDENCE . 7-14 EST._BLEVATION- -1--3- EXTEFOR ELM/ATIONS - 6%16 JUNE: 11, ]162> 66.ALE; 34" = 1'-00 --.-ir¢~~ ¥ R .-'.f.Pl<.2 . 1, -l 2 -1 1 E 14 IP 11 .i.-451:1M i ./ 1 9 022\ .08 -- "t- I. \ , 1 11 44 1 0 1 Nt',2 1 -14- * 1 1 i .9 -4 1 44 - -I-'-I--li- 3 It I t--' " ~-1 7 1 1 kt-·.-/1 -·=i 1 - 1 3 Eize" - 1,- ' V ! 4*IA© Ret-. op Rpee '22 L .1 t .....MI 1 h i - =.4 ad,ze> sri 11619(a \- 1. - -44\ _1 - 1 1 / 1/ j 16 / 7. ..1:1 :1 :L i ig gE: E blgr:,/ . ../ j 17 0 3 000-154-* ElejA-„: DO 0 77 . , '. . 11\ / .4 %-lix 1 1 H 1 11 It . 1 f 1: 4 40 1 ~ , 3 -7- + 1 1 - -- ---- 1 - 93 2 , r , . , . 1 1 7 4 .- U.., 67-1 -- --- -- -- - ------ -t' - -:t 1 P 1 3 1 11 1 L- - ' 2 #'42, £ Of TIOU F.ce- MILLE F. ff>l DE K.kf_ 18#wifhfekfaf # 1 1 9 00, 41- IUS<BLE K 64:>flkj, C Ol OR?/\ Do i MI 5/31- ti- k\LKI Al UL '613 - U'OF-9 4-1 1 1 tr /9-Il, 90 L. 1, 1 '24,1-011 3 '-© b j-*---i ..Ji 4-'* jU--'-#L-ji;. i--- i . --- 114 ---1.-1 1 111: - 1 , 20# ' 1 L 4 j i · , i tr- ... 3- 6 · A ' ' + 1 : , I , 1 , i l/4 : i 1 1 t - 9 11 i 13612@CDOM 1 i 1 - 17 -- il BATH 7-52: -4 I. 1 * 3- 12 /1 / i , --1.,_- _g]If!* . -1-=11-1 I.-Il ...==U==:I.---1- € -- If I $ i 4 ,/*flor - TUB Tr 6 4 1 \ 11 0 / 1 \ ' »6. //// - 7 - ' i 1 4 t-----4~ 11 \ O -T 013. C 1 1-1 : -1=~Z=- 1 80 1 36:PBOOFT STUDY 1 - BATH - , < _---4 1[-1-/A. 1 -0 - O - -- - E --if--- Im -1 1 1 a# \ 1 H 11 2 11 E- 1 11 11_ 1 d /~ - df_L - · KITCHEN I - 1 T---1 1 1 DINING L-_--4 - LIVINGPOOM T FofsH fl 1% U - /1091 111 1 -3.----t 1 .1 1 1: 1 11 0 1 1 . 4 1: 1 ' it 1 It ; 1 : :1 1 11 1 i 1 1 1 1 ! i It - 431-10411 61-1411 1 1 11 1 111 1, 41 1 1 1: tl- C -1 E - -- --1~06 : 1 1 1 1. 1 \\\ ----- - 1 1 Ir, 1 1 111 1 - \ j i. H' 1.; 11 1 ---- -- ' 1 4 L r E ' 1 1.-al'lk..... -~1~L---. ]!- ---- - - 1 111 't - 1 1 1, 11 1 1 1 1 - --311 11 11 1 EAOT ELEVATION - July 12, 1988 Mr. Bill Poss, Chairman Members Historic Preservation Committee City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Poss and Members: I wish to register my protest at the demolition and significant development being applied for at 715 W. Smuggler Street in Aspen. I support the concept which resulted in the formation of the Historic Preservation Committee. This concept reflects the feeling of Aspenites that there is value in keeping and preserving the flavor of old Aspen. The West End epitomized this flavor with its porches, pretty yards and above all, its open space - which distinguishes country from city - where one could walk around the neighborhood, see people that you knew, communicate with them and feel as though you were a part of a small town filled with friendliness. I feel that this development being applied for at 715 W. Smuggler will be destructive to our environment. A two-storied, 837 square foot addition would take up most of the ground in back of this house. This is a residential area that was designed for a certain size house and when people buy a house and lot in the West End, any changes should maintain the scale of the original house. If someone wants a large house, let them purchase a large lot with a large house. Why should the HPC make an exemption for those persons who buy a house in Aspen for its "charm, " then proceed to destroy that very charm by turning their environment into exactly what they left in Lake Forest, Tampa, Los Angeles, or wherever? The Committee's existence then becomes meaningless. Aspen is beginning to take on the look of city apartments and townhouses. The new addition to the house opposite me at 700 W. Francis has eaten up every bit of earth and grass. The house at 715 W. Smuggler proposes to do the same. Much of my neighborhood now has fencing around the very large, always two-storied houses, which almost always fill the lot lines. Aspen is fast becoming an all-of-a-piece wooden structure, divided only by roads. page two I PROTEST the size of this proposed addition the desecration of Aspen by those who move here for its charm and then proceed to destroy that very charm Sincerely, 9-1.2 42.1/ 4192~229 Heather Tharp 712 W. Francis Street Aspen, Colorado 81612 - t133 A. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Inventory Updates Date: July 12, 1988 The following properties are under consideration for rating evaluation and inventory at this time. The Planning Office is interested in obtaining additional information on all of these sites; HPC members are encouraged to submit details to the Planning Office. 1) Marolt Barn on the site of the Holden Lixiviation Works (determined eligible for individual listing on the National Register) 2) Castle Creek Power Plant, now known as the Roaring Fork Electric Company and City Shops (determined eligible for individual listing on the National Register) 3) The Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies 4) Riding Ring Race Track and Fairgrounds (additional information is needed on this site) Note: I found notes from the February 27, 1987 meeting rating both the Sheeley Bridge ("5") which was relocated from Garfield County, now serving as an entrance to the Aspen Art Museum, and the Red Butte Cemetary ("5"). The Inventory Update procedure involves rating structures and sites which have not previously been rated, plus a public hearing, with 15 days minimum notice given. That public hearing may be set for August or September. Structures which have been demolished since the Inventory Form was first completed should be eliminated from the inventory at that public meeting. These are: 222 East Hallam (4), 701 E. Hopkins (3), and 726 W. Bleeker (1). Please bring to staff's attention any additional properties which should be removed from the inventory. You may also wish to discuss re-evaluations at this time. Please inform Staff when you wish to schedule the "rating meeting", and subsequent public hearing. STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS C:==-=a 4201 East Arkansas Ave. - f:~-#~ 3999~2 Denver, Colorado 80222 .....I- - r.'.4 (303) 757-9011 \ 90 4 -572.4 ..·. Ili.I~.. // · July 1, 1988 Ms. Barbara Sudler State Historic Preservation Officer Colorado History Museum 1300 Broadway Denver, CO 80203 Dear Ms. Sudler: This letter and the attached pages constitute the survey report and a request for concurrence of our eligibility determinations for Project FC 082-1(14), East of Basalt to Aspen. Determinations of effects will be discussed in future correspondence when an alignment has been selected. The Colorado Department of Highways, in consultation with members of your staff, has concluded that the following sites are eligible to the National Register of Historic Places: A.B. Foster Ranch (5PT 471) Castle Creek Power Plant (5PT 498) 920 West Hallam (5PT 537) Airport Ranch (5PT 538) Holden Smelting & Milling Company (5PT 539) We hereby request your concurrence with this determination. Your response is necessary for completion of the Federal Highway Administration's compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (as amended) and with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations 36 CFR Part 800. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. We would appreciate your response within three weeks. If you need further information, please contact CDH historian Sally Pearce at 757-9786. Very truly yours, Barbara L.S. Barry Manager Office of Environmental Review and Analysis Enclosures VI\\ 16. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Sidewalk development issue in historic neighborhoods Date: July 12, 1988 Background: At the June 28, 1988 HPC meeting, some concerns by the public were raised regarding the City's requirement of sidewalks in certain targeted historic residential areas of Aspen. The issue arose in specific response to the two projects the Committee was reviewing at that meeting: 134 W. Hopkins and 334 W. Hallam, both corner lots, both historically sidewalk-free properties, surrounded by other sidewalk-free sites. Both Of these particular sites are landmark designated, however, do not lie in within historic overlay district boundaries. In the 1970's, a sidewalk improvement plan was passed which the Engineering Department is required to enforce. Sidewalk width, curb and gutter is addressed for targeted streets throughout Aspen. The particularly sensitive issue lies in neighborhoods (or individual parcels) of historic character, as we discussed at the last meeting. During the development stages of the Comprehensive Plan: Historic Preservation Element and the Guidelines, the sidewalk issue was addressed by the HPC, from a design and historic perspective. Great emphasis was not given to sidewalks in these two documents, in staff's opinion, though probably an adequate amount in relation to HPC's purview over such issue. Discussion: This is an area where HPC should be concerned. Some folks feel sidewalks are very necessary in this pedestrian- oriented city, ESPECIALLY in the West End, near elementary schools primarily. Victorian era neighborhoods were commonly developed with some sortof off-street walkway, sandwiched in between landscaped areas (mostly lawns). The precedent, though, of no residential sidewalks in Aspen has been set. However, the obvious safety features of sidewalks is the focus of the Engineering Department's requirements. Asst. City/County Manager, Ron Mitchell, as directed Chuck Roth in engineering to produce a "sidewalk paper" and study the issue. Probably HPC's timing couldn't be better to provide citizen input to this process. Chuck stated his timing for this study would begin within the next weeks or so, therefore, HPC has a few alternatives: HPC memo - July 12, 1988 Sidewalk issue Alternatives: 1) Continue to respond to the sidewalk-design issues on a site-specific, case-specific basis, making recommendations as you have. 2) Take a specific stand on the issue at this (or another) meeting formally as a motion, and respond in writing which letter may be presented before City Council by you. 3) Take a more general stand as a Committee on the issue, and individually respond to the issue in writing and in person before Council, as citizens. In Our Opinion: In staff' s opinion, the "have or have-not" sidewalk issue is an important one which HPC should address , as a recommending body. In our opinion, sidewalks CAN be an appropriate design element linking residential neighborhoods to their adjacent commercial areas. From a historical perspective, the late 1880' s "City Beautiful" campaign saw the advent of pedestrian planning throughout the west, and simply landscaped walkways were a part of that. Aspen is unique, however, in its rougher mining roots and sidewalks were not common, and apparently never used throughout the residential areas. The argument remains, however: Does that indicate how it should always be? Aspen in the 1980's is no longer considered a mining town. It has become more cosmopolitan and pedestrian in nature, creating the need, in many people's opinion, for sidewalks. Walkways can be designed to appear softer in appearance, and not so urban. Recommendation: Any of the above alternatives may be extremely effective in relating HPC's historical and compatible design concerns with sidewalks. Should HPC wish to take a strong stand in support of no sidewalks, you should also consider addressing curbs and gutters as well. One alternative which Staff supports and HPC may wish to consider, is recommending a sidewalk design that is not urban or sub-urban in nature, IF sidewalks must be incorporated into the overall site design connected with new development. Staff will provide additional information on the sidewalk issue following Chuck Roth's study, if the Committee wishes to continue the dialogue. Villa- MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee - - ~ From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Historic Preservation Tax Incentives - FYI Date: July 12, 1988 Attached is an information brief on the Rehabilitation Investment Tax Credits available for certified historic structures. A few of you had requested information following the news that the State Historical Society has cancelled the RITC seminar scheduled for this past month in Glenwood Springs. Certainly, tax incentives are the single most important economic issue which can make or break major commercial-oriented preservation rehab projects. I personally see advantages to the community in a technically informed HPC, available to offer advise to help make rehab projects pencil out. State Preservation Planner, Chris Pfaff, will be in Aspen July 25 and 26. She and State Historic Architect, Jay Yanz, will be attending the HPC meeting, as well as making a presentation before City Council the previous evening. I have asked Chris to brief us on RITC as well as a variety of other issues. Bring your questions at that meeting. 1- 11 1 ,..... ~ , t '* ...>~ 0.0, 90 0 - \ .t -11- . 9 e G, ' I .·'».41¢,r ' 1- 1 IL-_AL' '2 0. ·rt . ,·P. . I , 6' i . -- 411+ 1,+- ,-- :-*e~+ *SerVIce?tdf408%40:·7.,ra: s ..·ti' 9 WHAT ARE 5 THE HISTORIC PRESERVAT[ON TAX INCENTIVES? 4 Tax incentives for the preservation and rehabilitation of historic properties are among the most useful tools a local government can use to protect and enhance its historical environment. C Some States and local governments provide reductions in property taxes and other State and local taxes to encourage preservation of historic properties, and there are several Federal tax incentives that apply to particular kinds of preservation activities for particular purposes. The 1< two most widely used Federal incentives, however, are the historic rehabilitation tax credit and 4 the charitable contribution deduction. Historic Rehabilitation Credit The Tax Reform Act of 1986 permits owners and some lessees of historic buildings to take a 20% income tax credit on the cost of rehabilitating such buildings for industrial, commercial, or rental residential purposes. The law also permits depreciation of such improvements over 27.5 years for a rental residential property and over 31.5 years for non-residential property. The rehabilitated building must be a certified historic structure that is subject to depreciation, and the rehabilitation must be certified as meeting standards established by the National Park 9 Service (NPS). What is a certified historic structure? A certified historic structure is: y * a structure individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places, or: 1 * a structure certified by NPS as contributing to a registered district. A registered district is one that is listed in the National Register, or designated .li.d° under a state or local statute which has been certified to contain criteria 442 29?9: which will substantially achieve the purpose of preserving and rehabilitating buildings of significance to the district, and which is certified as substantially meeting all of the requirements for listing of districts in the National 1«41 B Register. '4« -larrE . The standards used in certifying structures within districts are given in Appendix 1. 3*3 f k ~ r .- ~ %/-.4 4. , #~4·9 -f·· I.3-~.>4·t.i.f25%~....#.:6*I.. 1.,Th: 93..Af*.34.·--·:44. -- · - I -t 24-4,11 What is a certified rehabilitation? A certified rehabilitation is a rehabilitation certified by NPS as being consistent with the historic character of the propei'ty and, where applicable, the district in which it is located. NPS refers to the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation" provided in Appendix 2, in certifying rehabilitations. How is a building or rehabilitation certified? NPS requires that owners complete a special form, the Historic Preservation Certification Application (Form 10-168), for all certification requests. The form is divided into three parts: Part 1 for evaluating the historic significance of a building; Part 2 for describing rehabilitation work, and a third part requesting certification of completed work. All applications are submitted to, and reviewed by, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) before submission to NPS, which makes the final certification decision after considering the SHPO's recommendations. Part 1 evaluations need not be prepared for buildings already individually listed in the National Register. A building within a district must be certified, based on review of a Part 1 application, as contributing to the significance of that district. Part 1 applications are also used to gain preliminary determinations of significance for individual buildings not yet listed in the Register; these determinations become final when such buildings are actually listed. Proposed rehabilitation is described on Part 2 of the application form. NPS issues a preliminary approval of proposed work to projects that, as described, meet the Secretary's Standards. The preliminary approval becomes final when the work is completed and NPS can certify that the "Standards" have, in fact, been met. Is there a fee for certification? NPS charges a fee for reviewing rehabilitation certification requests, based on the cost of rehabilitation. Where can application forms be obtained? Historic Preservation Certification Application forms are available from SHPO's and from NPS Regional O ffices. How is a State law or local ordinance, or a local historic district, certified? State and local governments that wish to have State laws, local ordinances, or local historic districts not included in the National Register certified so that the rehabilitation of buildings contributing to such districts may qualify for the Federal historic rehabilitation credit should contact their SHPO's for assistance in preparing and submitting requests to NPS for such certification. Charitable Contributions Taxpayers may deduet from their Fedefal income tax the value of historically important land areas and certified historic structures donated to governments and other appropriate recipients for historic preservation purposes. Donations of partial interests in such properties (e.g. easements) are also deductible. The range of properties on which deductions can be claimed for donations is broader than that on which the rehabilitation credit can be claimed. Archeological sites, rural historic districts, and other land areas on or eligible for the National Register are included, as are land areas within historic districts and lands adjacent to properties individually listed in the Register where such areas contribute to the historical integrity of such properties. Properties do not have to be depreciable in order for the charitable contribution deduction to be taken. How does a taxpayer claim a charitable contribution deduction? The documentation needed to support a claim for a charitable contribution deduction varies, depending on the property, the interests donated, and other factors. S}IPO's and NPS Regional Offices can provide assistance in developing the necessary documentation. For further information, see: "Preservation Tax Incentives for Historic Buildings." U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, and National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (1987). Free brochure available from SHPO's and NPS Regional Offices. Prepared by H. Ward Jandl and Patricia L. Parker, National Park Service, May, 1987 APPENDIX 1 The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Evaluating Significance Within Registered Historic Districts 1. A building contributing to the historic significance of a district is one which by location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association adds to the district's sense of time and place and historical development. 2. A building not contributing to the historical significance of a district is one which does not add to the districVs sense of time and place and historical development; or one where the integrity of the location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and assoc iation has been so altered or has so deteriorated that the overall integrity of the building has been irretrievably lost. 3. Ordinarily buildings that have been built within the past 50 years shall not be considered to contribute to the significance of a district unless a strong justification concerning their historical or architectural merit is given or the historical attributes of the district are considered to be less than 50 years old. APPENDIX II The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation 1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property which requires minimal alteration of the building, structure, or site and its environment, or to use the property for its originally intended purpose. 2. The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure, site or its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible. 3. All buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged. 4. Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the 5 history and development of a building, structure, or site and its environment. These changes may have acquired significance in their own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected. 5. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which ~ characterize a building, struc ture, or site shall be treated w ith sensitivity. 6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, wherever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, f physical, or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other buildings or structures. 7. The surface cleaning of structures shall be undertaken with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that will damage the historic building materials shall not be undertaken. 8. Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archeological resources affected by, or adjacent to, any project. 9. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical, architectural, or cultural material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood, or environment. 10. Whenever possible, new additions or alterations to struc tures shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired.