The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19880825AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE August 25, 1988 - Tuesday 2:30 P.M. to 4:30 P.M. FIRST FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS City Hall REGULAR MEETING 2:30 I. Roll Call II. Approval of Minutes-None III. Committee Member and Staff comments IV. Public Comment NEW BUSINESS 2:45 A. Conceptual Development-Public Hearing 309 E. Hopkins-The Berko Building, Relocation, Restoration, Redevelopment 4:15 Adjourn I i MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: 309 E. Hopkins, aka The Berko Building Demolition (Relocation) and Redevelopment - Public Hearing Date: August 23, 1988 LOCATION: 309 E. Hopkins, Lot C, BLock 81, City and Townsite of Aspen ZONING: Existing site: CC - Commercial Core, Historic Overlay District Proposed relocation site: R-15 - PUD HISTORIC EVALUATION: Rating: "4", Undes ignated APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting HPC's conceptual development approval to relocate the "Berko Building" to a site adjacent to the current Professor's House on the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies property, on Puppy Smith Street. The proposal also includes the redevelopment of the 309 E. Hopkins site to construct a three story commercial structure which would contain approximately sq. ft. of main floor retail, second floor office space and a one-bedroom employee housing unit and a two bedroom apartment on the third floor. Please refer to attached site, area & bulk characteristics calculation sheet. PROCEDURE FOR PROJECT REVIEW: Demolition/Relocation review is a public hearing. Redevelopment review is Significant Development, a two-step process, beginning at the Conceptual Review stage, which is also a public hearing. Landmark Designation is a three step process, with recommendations from both HPC and P&Z taken before City Council for first and second ordinance reading, of which second reading is a public hearing. The applicant must apply for GMP review, and special review for parking and trash reduction. SUMMARY: Three major elements are involved in this project's review: 1) the historic structure's relocation, pro and con; 2) the proposed relocation site and renovation activity, pro and con; and 3) the proposed redevelopment for the cleared site, pro and con. Staff has attempted to break each of these issues out for ease in Committee review. This is a question of historic integrity of the Commercial Core Historic District, scale each relates heavily with the others, and should be considered. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The proposal presents a classic historic preservation dilemma:, continued economically-beneficial use for historic structures whose historic integrity has been diminished due to changing neighborhood context. Staff refers to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, Aspen's Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines, the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Historic Preservation Element and a variety of technical preservation briefs as a basis for recommendations presented in this memo. REVIEW STANDARDS: The Standards for Development Review are located on page 7-24 of the Land Use Code, Section 7-601(D). The Standards for Review of Demolition are located on page 7-29 of the Land Use Code, Section 7-602(B). DEMOLITION/RELOCATION REVIEW The Berko Building Summary of Demolition/Removal Application: A demolition application has been submitted. HPC should refer to Section 7- 602(D), detailing the requirements for an Application for Demolition, in particular the requirements of the economic feasibility report. Staff finds the submitted report from James J. Mollica and Associates to be inadequate in providing substantial information addressing requirements 5(a)(b) and (c). In particular, 5(b) requires "estimates from an architect, developer, real estate agent or appraiser experienced in rehabilitation addressing the economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the structure proposed for demolition or partial demolition. Estimates have not been included in the application packet. Further, 5 (c) requires "all appraisals made of the property on which the structure is located made within the previous two years". The property was purchased in 1987 by the owner from Mr. and Mrs. Berko; the property appraisal for that transaction has not been submitted in this application. Mr. Mollica states in his letter, which he admits is not a formal analysis of the subject's feasibility or value, rather brief comments and valuation parameters, that it is not totally infeasible to keep the original structure and add on to it. Staff finds the economic feasibility report lacking in specific information which HPC may use to base their determination for action. 2 A copy of the application was sent for technical review from the State Historical Society preservation planner, Chris Pfaff, and the State Historic Architect, Jay Yanz. Their reply letter should be received in the Planning Office prior to this meeting; their verbal comments are condensed as follows: "Prior to approving a removal of the Berko Building, the applicant and HPC must examine every alternative for on-site rehabilitation, taking into consideration the individual significance of the building and whether its significance is dependent on the setting. Would an addition be compatible with the building, or would it alter the character substantially to diminish its historic integrity? HPC should consider whether the building's significance is in its contribution to its surroundings, and would a removal disrupt or destroy the historic streetscape. Questions must be adequately addressed if the structure Will survive the move, and if any architectural features will be destroyed or damaged in such a move." Demolition Review Standards: Section 7-602: A. General: No demolition or total removal of a Historic Landmark or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay District or any structure rated as a "4" or "5" by the HPC...shall be permitted unless the demolition is approved the HPC because it meets the standards of Section 7-602(B)(1) through (3). No approval for demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met. (Note: Although the Standards specifically deal with DEMOLITION, as opposed to RELOCATION, they are interpreted for relocation purposes in the application and the memo.) Standard 1. The structure proposed for demolition is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure. Response: Per a brief statement from Integrated Engineering Consultants, the structure is in fact structurally sound, making possible any consideration for relocation. As Larry Doble states in his letter: " The 627 sq. ft. masonry house, can, using correct moving procedures, be relocated and maintain its structural integrity." Standard 2. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused to provide for any beneficial use of the property. Response: Staff feels the applicant has not adequately addressed the beneficial use issue for this structure, in its current 3 location. Please refer to staff's comments regarding the economic feasibility report for additional comments. Staff refers to commercial renovation projects using residential-in- nature historic structures, and their great success as a marketing tool for the commercial business located within. Few examples of lesser scale commercial structures exist in the Commercial Core District; examples nationwide of successful restoration/renovation projects in downtown settings exist, which retain the historic scale and nature of the structure, yet provide adequate and unique commercial space for the business. Alternatives for on-site renovation have not been presented. Staff recommends HPC require the applicant to study the many alternatives which exist for reusing the historic structure on site, proving that any addition or alteration will not diminish its historic integrity. A facade restoration, including porch and bay window restoration, should be required which will provide the owner the most beneficial use of the property, value wise. It should be noted also that this block is located on the fringe of the district, scaling down to the park just across Monarch Street. Across Hopkins on the corner is the "Excellent" rated Victorian miner's cottage, and the two adapted cottages at 308 and 316, both rated "3" 's. The block is an eclectic mixture of adapted historic residential cottages and modern, commercial retail space. Often times facades have an economic life of their own, outside the overall "functional" life of a historic building. Adequate economic "beneficial use" arguments have not been made to warrant HPC's approval of this building's relocation, and the site's redevelopment, in staff's opinion. Standard 3. The structure cannot be practicably moved to another site in Aspen. Response: After much study, the applicant has found a site which appears to be suitable for this building's relocation, if such action is approved by HPC. The site is on the grounds of the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies, adjacent to the existing (designated) professor's house at 101 Puppy Smith Street. Please refer to the Standards for Development Review under "A. C. E.S. Site" for specifics. Standard 4. A demolition and redevelopment plan is submitted when required by HPC that mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact that occurs to the character of the neighborhood where demolition is proposed to occur. Response: The redevelopment plan as submitted presents a very different scale replacement structure to the Berko Building. 4 Staff feels that the historic character of the block, and the Commercial Core Historic Overlay District in general will be diminished with the removal of this structure. The Berko Building is significant enough historically in its brick, cross gable cottage design and original siting, that is structure. The Goals and Objectives. for the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Historic Preservation Element are intended to provide the basic direction to the staff, the Historic Preservation Committee and the Planning and Zoning Commission. The following objectives address the requirement of Standard 4: Encourage renovation and maintenance of historic structures through development review incentives and economic benefits. Encourage productive and economically attractive uses of historic structures. Discourage demolition of significant historic structures 0 identified and evaluated in the 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structure as it has been amended in 1986. Allow historic designated structures to be moved if demolition appears to be the only alternative. Standard 5. The demolition plan mitigates, to the greatest extent practical, any impact the proposed demolition has on the historic importance of the structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels. Response: While the redevelopment plan may mitigate impacts by basing its design on neighboring buildings, to visually continue the dominant massing newly created, Staff feels that the loss of the sense of small scale of this block will diminish the historic integrity of the cottages across the street. The Berko building lends a balance of scale to strengthen the historic scale in the remainder of block. Relocating a historic structure from its original site does impact on its historic importance. The Berko building is unique in that it is the only brick miner's cottage remaining in the Commercial Core District. Standard 6. The demolition plan mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact on the architectural integrity of a structure. Response: The Berko building is noted for its unique brick construction, and remains the only brick miner's cottage within the Commercial Core District. Its unique architectural character associated with its original site cannot be overlooked in importance to Aspen' s historical ~9.mm=giakdevelopment. 5 The risk always exists in the structure not being able to withstand the move. Even with the most careful of moves, damage or complete destruction can be made to architectural features, structural integrity and, as a worse case scenario, the entire structure. Settling may occur at the new location, which could cause further damage not anticipated in the immediately move. Staff received a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers dated August 13, 1988, stating: "We are aware of large areas of wetlands on property owned by the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies. The building which will be relocated to ACES-owned property should not be sited in wetlands." Any settling of land once a masonry building has been moved has the potential to cause serious undermining of its structural integrity. Should HPC approve the relocation of the Berko building to the site proposed, Staff recommends soils tests be made by a licensed engineer or geologist, and that site prep and foundations be prepared accordingly. (Please refer to "Bond Posting", pg. ) HPC may wish to reconsider the structure's historic evaluation rating of "4" if a new location is approved. A "4" rating is specific in association with the original site, however, the proposed restoration may balance the negative elements of a non- original site vs. increased architectural integrity. Relocation Site Review A.C.E.S. property - Puppy Smith Street SUMMARY: Should HPC find that a more beneficial use for the Berko house would include its removal from the Commercial Core Historic District, the applicant there are two sites on the ACES property which are suitable for its relocation. The site of preference as submitted (next to the Professor's house) is probably one of the most compatible for the Berko's relocation. The problem associated with this site is in the dimensional requirements of the R-15/PUD zone district. The minimum lot size is 15,000 sq. ft. for a detached residential dwelling. Code allows two detached residential dwellings which contain historic landmark designation on less than the 10,000 sq. ft. per unit requirement. However, the minimum of 7,500 sq. ft. per landmark building is still not met as the parcel currently exists, and requires ACES acquiring a small portion of land from Mrs. Paepcke (owner of the adjacent lot) and receive a lot line adjustment. A Master Plan for the ACES site has been requesting by the Planning Office and the site is required to be developed in accord with the PUD regulations. 6 Staff continues to recommend non-removal based on the alternatives which may exist for its on-site rehabilitation. However, the ACES site provides a variety of positive points which HPC should take into consideration when reviewing the project as a whole. These include returning the building to its original residential use, providing a residential setting for it, possibly giving it and possibly a new life outside that of a commercial-oriented adaptive use. Certainly relocating a historic building is preferred over its total demolition and MAY even be preferred over the structure receiving an inappropriate addition. The Standards for Development Review are located in Section 7- 601(D), Land Use Code page 7-24. Response to Standard A (Character Compatibility): Staff finds the proposed development is compatible in character with the adjacent designated historic structure. The architectural, scale and massing similarities are very good. The primary difference in the two structures is material, the Berko being more substantial constructed in brick, reflecting a different philosophy and economic background than would be associated with the architectural of the adjacent Professor's house. However, the similar massing, scale, front facade elements of porches, bays and decoration, as well as cross gables construction and proposed setbacks are remarkable. A restored Berko house on this site could enhance the architectural integrity of the Professor's house as a certain sharing of design would exist between the two, in staff's opinion. Response to Standard B (Neighborhood Character): The environmentally sensitive nature of the ACES site is suitable for the relocation of this house, however, Staff is concerned that this area may become a repository of orphaned historic structures, making this area somewhat "theme park-ish" in nature. To restore the Berko house to its original use as a residence is commendable, especially during these difficult employee housing times in Aspen (which, staff reminds the HPC, is a historic problem in this community). Should HPC decide that a removal from the Commercial Core District of a historic resource would be better served at the ACES site, then this may be the best location for it, provided the setbacks align exactly and that the parking area be removed from the front "yard" o f the Berko house. Anything less would not be in keeping with the historic character established in Aspen's residential neighborhoods. 7 Response to Standard C (Cultural Value): Staff finds that the cultural value of the natural environment of the ACES site would not be diminished with the addition of the Berko house. In fact, the actual restoration activity of the historic structure may enhance the ACES grounds, strengthen the sensitive setting in scale and architecture, and return to original use a historic residence turned commercial. Staff, however, is concerned about the preservation philosophy of the ACES Board due to their current plans to raze the historic, 1906 barn at the edge of Hallam Lake. This portion of the ACES property sits just inside the county line, therefore, staff and HPC have no review capacity over the barn's demolition. Staff feels strongly that adequate preservation alternatives for the barn have not been investigated, and that trading one historic structure, which was never associated with the site, for the demolition on one intimately associated with the history of the site, does not indicate the kind of historic sensitivity Staff wishes to see in a relocation. In our opinion, this action indicates a general unawareness of the importance to the community of Aspen's historic resources. Should the Berko building be located on ACES property, a preservation maintenance plan should be required of ACES to insure the future structural and exterior integrity of the historic cottage. Response to Standard D (Architectural Integrity): Of all the sites considered, Staff agrees with the applicant that the architectural integrity of the adjacent structure could not be better considered. The proposed restoration of the Berko house, including the removal of the later additions, Will definitely enhance its architectural integrity. Staff has not seen a plan for the renovation of the masonry, which has been painted. The applicant should refer to the many technical briefs in the Planning Office for proper direction on preservation methods for masonry. The plans to move the structure appear to address all the issues of packing the walls inside and out, and prior site prep prior to lifting the structure. Additional Staff Comments: Should HPC approve the relocation, staff recommends the applicant post a bond with the City to guarantee the proper moving methods be adhered to, site prep and permanent foundation readied for such a move, including a soils nest from a licensed engineer or geologist, and restoration work oe completed. Referral comments from Elyse Elliott, Engineering Department Staff, recommend the bond cover the costs of moving, site prep, exterior restoration, structural repair if needed, and utility hookup, at the minimum. Staff recommends HPC require a breakdown of these costs and post a bond for at least that amount. A bond would help insure the owner would carry through with restoration promises made. 8 . i Landmark designation is required for resiting the Berko house as proposed in this zone district, which normally would require a lot area minimum of 10,000 per structure. Redevelopment Plan The King Commercial Building The Standards for Development Review are located in Section 7- 601(D), Land Use Code, page 7-24. The Development Guidelines address the new construction of commercial buildings on pages 35- 45. Summary: As the Guidelines state, "the possibility still exists to drastically alter the original character of the (Commercial Core) District. 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. Creative expressions of modern design solutions are sought, rather than recreations of 19th century architecture. By incorporated these critical elements into modern architectural expressions, new buildings will fit harmoniously with the old." Staff find the redevelopment plan consistent with the Guidelines in the areas of setback, alignment and rhythm of facade details, storefront design, and fenestration. The plan is inconsistent in the following areas: 1) "Infill construction massing should have the same general size and character as the existing building." Response: The infill structure proposed is not similar at all in massing to the Berko building. 2) Materials: "Use building materials that are similar in texture and finish to those found historically". Response: The materials presented reflect more the style of the modern adjacent building than what is historically accurate, however, staff feels the modern materials may be appropriate for this structure. Response to Development Standard A (Character Compatibility): The redevelopment plan as presented proposes a three story commercial-style building, referred to in this memo as the King Commercial Building, with a typical historic-in-scale main level storefront to be used as a retail space, a stepped back second story and even further stepped back third floor. The building borrows its design from historic commercial facades, yet is constructed of modern materials: glazed brick, glazed tile and 9 anodized aluminum railing and decorative arches. The neighboring Mill Street Station is contemporary in design, dictating the King Building's upper floor step backs. Staff brings to HPC's attention that the new design is not, however, compatible .in scale and massing to the historic structures (3) across the street, whose historic integrity will be diminished with the loss of the Berko Building to help strengthen scale of the block and balance on the other side of the street. A domino effect of demolition/removal may occur to this entire block should the Berko Building be allowed to vacate the lot it currently occupies. On the otherhand, valid arguments may be made that the Berko's alterations and neighboring buildings have diminished its historic integrity to the point where a relocation in a residential setting will enhance the structure. The proposed commercial King Building is very different in nature than the residential Berko Building, and the very character of the block will be dramatically altered, in staff's opinion. HPC should consider whether another intense infill commercial structure such as the one proposed is an attribute to the Commercial Core Historic District, and in particular this block. The new development will undoubtedly influence the possible (probable) development of the corner building, across the street from the park, and directly to the north of the Exceptionally rated Crystal Palace building. Response to Standard B (Neighborhood Character): The complete change in massing and scale of this block over the years has been dramatic. The Berko house stands out a human-scale vestige of the old, and with proper restoration would in fact be a gem on that block and within the Commercial Core Historic District as a whole. Can Aspen afford to lose any more original historic structures from their original settings? Staff tends to think not. Arguments can certainly be made that the Commercial Core deserves more intense development, and that historic residences turned-commercial have been caught in the wedge of contemporary architecture. Staff feels the development plans for the new building, though seemingly well designed, should not force the displacement of a small scale historic structure. Commercial streetscapes around the country have similar examples of historic, smaller scale structures, which continue to be strong in character, holding out against larger scale development. The infill building provides upper floor step backs which provide relief from a potentially massive facade, and care has been taken to blend fenestration and storefront rhythm with the adjacent buildings. While historic form is incorporated, contemporary materials are utilized providing a somewhat contemporary personality for the facade. Staff disagrees with the applicant that the parapet is appropriate, and would prefer a more original 10 design than the one presented, which is found throughout the district. The applicant states the new development lends visual continuity to the (south side of the) block, staff feels the dominant massing and scale of the block may not be compatible with the current community focus of smaller scale. Response to Standard C (Cultural Value): Staff feels that once a historic resource is removed from its original site, that site no longer contains the cultural value it could have had with the historic structure associated with it. The cultural value of the site would be greatly diminished with the removal of the historic Berko house. Response to Standard D (Architectural Integrity): (Please refer to Demolition Review Standard 6) ALTERNATIVES: HPC may consider the following alternatives for action: 1. Approve the demolition/relocation and redevelopment plans as submitted requiring an application for landmark designation be made. 2. Approve the plans as submitted with conditions 3. Table approval based upon the need to examine a variety of alternatives to relocating the structure off site 4. Deny approval based upon inadequate information RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC table action to allow the applicant to further study a variety of on-site rehabilitation alternatives to demonstrate to HPC why the structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused to provide for any beneficial use of the property. Tabling action is also recommended finding that the economic feasibility report required in the demolition application does not adequately provide the information required by Code (refer to Sec. 7-602(D)(5), and further that the application does not adequately address the Standards for Demolition Review: #2 (stated above), #4 (neighborhood impact), and #6 (architectural integrity - upon relocation) Notes for Review discussion: hpc.memo.309ehb \ <&-X. ~-A-/L>'/ 6 0 09 -*404-Qu R-~u ~ , 9-~-0 -<f _fEL -5 ~d,fe Lic/,/Eldi (.,2...Irfs.%;r.3..1 ]-AND USE APPLICATION 1Â©124 ATTACHMENT 1 Berko Building located at 309 East Hopkins 1) Project Namo - Relocation to A.C.E.S. Property adjacent to 101 2) Project Iocatlon Puppy Smith Street, Aspen, CO 81611 (indicate street address, lot & block numbar, .legal description where appropriate) 3) Piesent Z.011.1 1 9 R- 15 4) Lot Size Refer to attached rest 5) AIDpli.Calll' s Natte, Addless & 11101*3 1 'rom Cal-damone, Director 15 Wellingt Aspen Center for Environmental Studies (A.C.E.S.) / John L. King,Grosse Po~ Box 8777, Asuen Colorado 8 1 6 J 2 925-5756 CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOC. 6) 14)Fc=Nitativd' s flaite, Arkire:r; & 11ione # 520 E. Hyman Ave., Suit-0 301, Aspen, CO 81 l, 11 925-5590 '1~'ir o!. Arp] .icil-non (please cha.:h ,-11 1 th.iti .ily 1-ho : Con.Li.tiornl. U:.343 _.__.. Cur x Â·epl i 1,11. SPA -- __. <i,I}colitual Ilistoric Dev. SIX?Cial reviciv 1Â·'jP.1 1. .u.Â·; _._ l'Un--11 Ilistoric D.zv. 80Â·10 Greenl. i te _.___~ (')!)~-,71(_11,11. ltJ!) Minor-- Ijilloric Dav. Stroam ?'111:rgi-Il __. lÂ·ira L IUD Ifistoric Demolition Molintaill View P!,-trn ___._ :Slill i i v inion - _ . Iii:;l:.Oric Iousigration Cor -doot iniumiza Lion U 'i-xÂ·I 'c~i':Â·L ip Amen:.]1Innt _ aÂ·ES Allotmnt Int Split/Lot Lite -- - a.,33 Exemption A.cljustinriit 8) Description of Existing Uses (nurrinr and type of existing structures; approximate sq. 11. ; runinr of bodroans; any pixuials approvals granted to the pmperty). 730 sq. ft. one story - 5 room (inc}.uding enclosed porch) brick masonry Victorian Miners cottage built in about 1889. Many years ago, tile structure was converted to commercial use. 9) Description of 13:Eveloilinnt Application Relocation of the above mentioned cottage to one of two alternative sites.on the A.C.E.S. property. 10) Iiave you attad<cd the fo].lowing? X response to Attaclutunt 2, Minillmt Sl]131]UI;sion Contents _x _ A-ponse to Attachirent 3, Specific Submission Contents ux_ Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application = I . /1 CONCEPTUAL HISTORIC DEVELPMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR BERKO BUILDING A. APPLICATION: Refer to Attachment 1, Land Use Application Form The Applicant requests conceptual approval of relocation of the Berko Building to either of two alternative sites within the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies ("A.C.E.S.") property. One site is east of and on the same parcel as the Professor's House. This parcel contains 9,000 sq. ft., and Applicant is negotiating acquisition of adjacent property to create the required 15,000 sq. ft. lot. The other site is north of and across the alley from the Professor's House, within a parcel of approximately 35,000 sq. ft. Because of the proximity and similarity of these two sites, this Application addresses issues which pertain to either site. B. ATTACHMENT 2 RESPONSE/MINIMUM SUBMISSION CONTENTS OF APPLICATION: (Â§6-202(B)) 1. Applicant's Letter: Refer to Exhibits 11 A " and "B" 2. Street Address and Legal Description: Refer to Attachment 1. 3. Ownership: Refer to Exhibits "C" and "D". 4. Vicinity Map: Refer to Exhibit "E". 5. Compliance with Substantive Review Standards: The Berko Building is not compatible with adjacent and surrounding structures in its present location. The Berko Building has lost its economic viability in the existing commercial core. The present location significantly diminishes the historical character and integrity of the building. In its new location at the A.C.E.S. property, the Berko Building will regain compatibility with its surroundings because of the relationship of scale, size, height, and historical flavor with surrounding structures. Relocation of the Berko Building, a brick masonry miner's cottage, provides an opportunity to restore the building to its original residential use. The building's architectural integrity will be enhanced by -1- 1 rebuilding the front porch and restoring the front facade by removing the bay window. C. ATTACHMENT 3A RESPONSE/SPECIFIC CONTENTS - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: (Â§7-601(F)(3)(a)) 1. Sketch Plan: Refer to Graphic Submittal 2. Building Materials: The existing Berko Building is a brick masonry structure with wood trim and a metal roof. 3. Statement of Effect of Proposed Development upon Neighborhood: Upon relocation to the A.C.E.S. property, the Berko Building will enhance the entry to the A.C.E.S. property. This building will complement the existing Professor's House because of similar size and scale, character and architectural style from the same era. The Berko Building provides needed housing for A.C.E.S. and, furthermore, if additional historic residential structures are relocated in the vicinity in the future, the neighborhood will provide a real impres-sion of an authentic turn-of-the-century neighborhood. D. ATTACHMENT 4 RESPONSE/REVIEW STANDARDS: (Â§7-601(D)(1)) 1. Compatibility: As stated above, the Berko Building is not compatible with its present setting, and cannot compete economically with surrounding uses in its present location. The Berko Building is dwarfed and, perhaps, ignored, because of the scale of the surrounding buildings. In contrast, upon relocation to A.C.E.S. property, the Berko Building will, not only be enhanced by its surroundings, but will enhance the surrounding property. 2. Neighborhood Character: The Berko Building, in its new location on the A.C.E.S. property, will complement and be consistent in character with the neighborhood. It is in scale in height and mass, and is of the same era as the ex-isting Professor's House. Placement of the Berko Building on either of the alternative sites, and the intended use of the Berko Building, satisfy the need for A.C.E.S. housing, and enhance the entry experience to the A.C.E.S. property. -2- i 4 3. Cultural Value: Restoration of the Berko Building is not practical economically or historically in its present location. Rather than proposing that the building being used as an insignificant entry to a larger building on the rear of the lot, relocation presents an opportunity to restore the building to residential use in an area of cultural and historical significance and preservation. 4. Architectural Integrity: Relocation of the Berko Building will not detract from its architectural integrity. In fact, its architectural integrity will be enhanced. The Berko Building will be restored to its original form, restoring the front facade by rebuilding the porch and removing the bay window. If possible, the building's original color will be determined, and the building repainted to its original color. E. STANDARDS FOR RELOCATION: (Â§7-602(B)) 1. Structural Integrity: Refer to structural engineer's letter, Exhibit "F" . 2. Beneficial Use: To remodel the Berko Building in conjunction with a new building or addition to the rear of the site is not a viable economic proposition (Refer to Exhibit "G"). To achieve the necessary size for economic viability, an addition to the Berko Building, as permitted under the limitations of the zone district, would be domineering. Also, because the Berko Building allows minimum exposure to pedestrian traffic, it would be difficult to market retail space. A new commercial building on the current site of the Berko Building will enhance the adjacent structures, neighborhood, and commercial core of Aspen. Therefore, the applicant proposes to relocate the Berko Building and build a new structure on the existing site. Relocation of the Berko Building benefits the community by providing an additional employee residence, while saving the architectural and historical character of an historical structure. 3. Relocation of Structure: Refer to moving contractor's letter, Exhibit "11". 4. Relocation and Redevelopment Plan: Refer to Graphic Submittal and to Land Use Application for the King Commercial Building. -3- 5. Mitigation of Historical Importance and of Architectural Integrity: As discussed above, the historical importance and architectural integrity of the Berko Building will be best maintained by relocation of the building to A.C.E.S.' property. Refer to a letter from an expert on historical preservation, Lisa Purdy, President of Citiscape, Ltd., Exhibit "I". F. PUBLIC NOTICE: (Â§6-205(E)) Applicant shall mail a copy of the public notice to all owners of property within three hundred feet (300') of the property. \king\concept.pln -4- t ' 1 .1 6. - in-- + 41- ..t.,6 ? 24-, I -*11.--2:~Â· -7Â·L--~- ,-0.2 ,:0-1 4.:r*J,J'.22.--2 _ . - --,-- ,- .*-mr, F .-- - 1 1 3 f 1 0.- -:- 4-4- 1-7- b H r-1- - ''. ! 1 ili:Ii' 0 T.LEV. . 1, i . , '1 6--# :i i ' ' 1 1 -rrl/ 1 . 1-. ~ ___ : I 1! 1 'i , , . .. , 1 it AL- r- rl 1---' ' - -~ . 11 4 1 - . , L._ 'F : 1! 4 - + 1 f , r r - '' , -PECK. 1.- TWo ?DED;200<APT PECK ' 1 ..Â« 1 - --- - --=6 . 6"*7-1 1 112 9411 1---i]-I 1 ,- t.. i , L 1 1511 .- 1 uP-U - 11 1 -PF' -1- 1 -1 T Jl ' /1 - ' - ' - -4 - - .1 1 'CO ; b. 4 Â»1 4--SLA@U- 1.1 It-7 - st- Ill" 8 - Â·: .41 ~./ -7, 1 ' 3/ .. 1 Â· ..1- M.17 11 r-*w.ALL:Â· - ..._.-_44<-- 464.:21+64.4â„¢,i,-i..U,3:53~E*E~7~3RmmmM= -9-',e .~~~. 1- 1 CHARLES CUNNIFFE AND ASSOCIATES P. A. P. . : !092> 50. FT Architecture & Planning 7 111 Box 3534 Aspen, CO 81612 (215 055 AKE A : 1 (0 '> 1 5 6. p- 31 Rp P Loo ia 303-925-5590 0 - ~19'239,3..89-#. -rÂ·!1'.*s,Â»-.4,5~.I -0. 'k.=1*Â·c=,01*67:.2,#22,1~2=5-â€¢.MAA'dâ€¢-Â¥24044<8- r-.ta dET RENTAbLE 5 c A Le -1/ 2, d :1Â·0" - 1, pEPRM APT : 1 7'2 3 4Â£>. 97 KING COMMERCIAL .701& L NET : 401(2 59 FT -F o 1 & L 61 p 045 : 11 ab GQ FT BUILDING ToTA L F.4.11. . : 4=! 6 1 50.P: B B ..'. N E 1 70 01 B-O 55 . 1 . 1 4 < f t 1 . ~~~~~~-iuver@~..529~93Â«.-,!~~~;0-Â«~1~~ --- 11 "~FL--L . fit-- t>H 1 . I i i '11 1 r 3 11 *A / 11 1Â»-4 1, L. 31 1 !i 1 . I 1 -" 1 ALL- U D t_ 1 1 - ->1'3~ 1,1* i fil i 1 16=z=14 LO 4 Br 11 WFA 1. 1 7 HTL+ -twl-- I~ - 1 61-uplo APT 1 . DE./kl I ~ . C Fl 5 . 1 1 . 1 1 il tnt 4 1 . r-5 -4 D Â£ Ch Â£13/.-1 +I---Ill~ - - 13_1_T . .9 0 ff ! p Op. . , 0 3 :ICE L . . , 'L- i ! up i , > f.---DN ~SD:95~2Â£#1994%4.1:Fg:.9239272~ratt(JIT<,356Â£2:944414 th~IR--244*1:3..viff.40-1 --- - ---- 1 1 1 376 49 FT CHARLES CUNNIFFE AND ASSOCIATES ' Architecture & Planning 430% AREA : llc 2 ie. F- 5ECOND FLOOR Box 3534 Aspen, CO 81612 303-925-5590 NET <LENT A?>LE 9CALE - , 1 6 " c O F fICE. . '- 9 6 , a FT 4TUDIo 49; : 5-7 5- 5 0- F T TOTAL : 1 q 00 40 F: KING COMMERCIAL BUILDING l' i AWBE>' Ap:cht>E t>JILD'Ne_ 1 i i Ll! 11 7 kÂ·::-/t- -'~Â·.Â· LL. *.2./.-.-.- 7.D.4.4.16. '--'2:/0 2-2-Â·D. /.i, Â· ...Â·. ...,- I- -p---Â·. â€¢ - -7- - + '~ L . , 1 1 r cui 21 u i i 1 f ' :r=11 .Â· , '-4- ' - 1. i 1 1 t E . iÂ« Â·Â« t E L_E v. ,* .~ ~ 1 . 1L .1 , i PAP- 14 i *20 - 1 41 *=11 pw-->Â·00 4 i 5 4 1 4 KESTRoort I ' Z IL- ---~ -no_!2 -5 5 , A i 0 . - -- - Â· ' 4. - - 'r,-ST#'r 1 , 1 r . i--- 2 -Up ~! i , 26-1 ,DE Lo v~/ ---.+ ~ / , --,2--L,--,-r- 1 1- t. 1 1 ~ , ZE i ; i - . 1/4 .11 4 1, 1 /9 09-:V/J- . 1 i 5,<PLAT, 1 T 7. . .1 \1 --T-. A -0/ i -1~-#-c<11 -RE_T__Al_l 3 #4--9~2_ 1/--=t :1-- 4/J i ! .. pLANTER I :1,1 e ' 4. C -1 _ ._,/IT W 91 fl U ei' ~ 1 ~ifu - i--11Â¢3 2- 4 < : 5 \ - r i . KA--6- -AN Â¥1 4 0 E ! i 1 --93 > 90' 4 t--Pht . : clocf , int . 1 11.;.4.11-1.4 ..-:.,2.*-11,1..-,i.;:-, A:*w,+;.~:. Tibc ..:,. . ,. . ---LfutlfliSET.&4**F#APÂ§ANdme*XSâ€¢:1%*AM... 12 3#*SÂ·#4,2324Gt1&iiu4.8Â»e.k MILL STPEET #TATION _MALL p p.o P E P-T 1' 1 ~ LINE 1 1 tcHE*'IE 'b 631 Rol]ND P L O -O 11 F.X.B. : '23 30 5 a 02 055 ABR A : 1 !:b la HET CoMMERCIAL P.ENTAE, L Â£ AB.E A : I 1 2,2 50 CHARLES CUNNIFFE AND ASSOCIATES Architecture & Planning Box 3534 Aspen, CO 81612 303-925-5590 AFTe'*9Â·~â€¢ater-FHEr'ufFÂ·7>2 "-2-Â·44.: KING COMMERCIAL BUILDING 22Â·226:ai=~i . --. 4 -.. --1- 14 A.|1,-197.-79.:-~..=.-7.-. ...w.r.7..ty:r- 75*-7.:Z â‚¬ ZÂ·:21'e-:te -*'-2:3-'e .-k.,~ 19.t K. t--f. % 7.-4...i Â·4 ' Â·=1~A-~34.r....141'2:'*444:*42 > Â·â€¢ aL.tbM?.Â·1â‚¬9575,1-*rÂ·,4--2a~-:.A/â€¢â€¢t, =,M .:~u i-,i:-:Ir-3:~:.4Â·+ 72 Â·'~ 1: -1 '. 11 -I - If i u? ;1 1,!i . 4--3 4 .r=.PU==--1- ' 1 1 EL Evi i 1, " 1 1 . 1-p - - 2.11 E I! I 9 3 00"EM .MM_ 1 4 4 ~:- 5 1 -----1 + H 1 r. 0 Â¥ A ;1- 1 1 / .- m ; - 1 :2 M Â£ c HAWILAL 4 oPE N To I I 4 ELEv 11--3 6 4 & P 5 4 110F- Al> o v E ---- 1.-2 - --4 ; 3.62.Ul R -1 1 l 7- 1 1 . 41 11 ! .1 , . 1 1 1 1 1- 1 / e 1 -\- r t, 13- -4--r- a FI_- --3 ET & I _L ' / -- liu UP . y. 40 OPTIONAL 1>AgEMENT wALL LocaTIOR ------ 4 -- i '1 1 1 1,1 li a 't~blet.i !*0.44244*BAA-Ilatte-14-*.TE.-;Â£â‚¬-~. 9.4.F.. : NA CHARLES CUNNIFFE AND ASSOCIATES b 45 E NENT FLooP Architecture & Planning 04-054 AR-EA : 103 3 40 -3 Box 3534 Aspen, CO 81612 - 303-925-5590 NET CoMMEBC:AL 0 1 SCALE Ill - O,1 RENTAbLE AbiA Z 10 h : 50Â· PT KING COMMERCIAL BUILDING EM'(*"Pl~'ff,44644..!~ 'V.!.2. '4'., N. 1,1, 1 2 . ... \\ 4 10989 Â»1! _ A --- 1 55/3 7â‚¬h_L_._ Â·- _ f. L i j i ,Ti---- . 12- - - T 1 - I \ 1:1-~ -/IN - n 11 , D e .Jq LAZE D DRIC Ic. 1 llc L. J - < 4 1 i 0 -2 1 j . 1- 1 p |11 .1, t- - s . 2 -2-' ! .. 1 1 41 '[ < 1: ~ 1,\U l 9 [ 1 Â· Il Â·: -- - ---AN OP I ZED ALUMINIUM; 4.L-- --. 1/ i 1 r 1 1. i i--_ A , al u APÂ· b RAIL 1 , 7' 7: 1,1 1 !111 +74-- --------- Low 'E 1 01 LALI Wct 14 t.,1 90 ': P j 11 11 1 1: L _11 r 11 ti ~ 1| U ! j i| i *11-2-----7 631 L h Z E D TILE / 1 .. -_Lriho-- ---*- 1. / i E 21. $ Â· -/./.-d =//i-. 1 1 . '="e"'Â· 1.=t'r - : 1; A - P ': 1, r, n ~Ii h if iii ~i 1 219? 1 1,1 Kh , lili t A gLI Gpl___ata=4Lti=14 ; . 0 2 2 1; , Vt 4 1 f /11 Trli- /1 1 -i' 1 4,4 /1 7': ~.1-tric JEEMEL-+7Â·:' :FU.;141 fiquitte: *1141+u'W vir=140*411. :**iP 4 -fi, t.:~444'4Â¤t#b<**74*4.t<44713+4144 50 0 1-H ELEVATION + ALLET NORTH ELEVATION * HoPKINS 5 cALE - I /' 6 0 z I ''21 " 5 c ALE - 1 / 25 * = 1 '- 0 " CHARLES CUNNIFFE AND ASSOCIATES Architecture & Planning Box 3534 Aspen, CO 81612 303-925-5590 KING COMMERCIAL BUILDING EXHIBIT "F" INTEGRATED ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS , Ltd. 411 Eost Mdin Street Suite 206 Aspen,Colorado 81611 (303) glfÂ· f9'3 February 5, 1988 Job # 88107 Mr. Richard Klein Charles Cunniffe & Associates/Architects Box 3534 Aspen, Co. 81612 Re: Berko House 309 E. Hopkins Aspen, Co. Dear Richard: This letter is to confirm our conversation of this date with regard to the above project. The Six Hundred Twenty Seven (627) square foot masonry house can, using correct moving procedures, be relocated and maintain its structural integrity. If you have any further questions, please call us at 925-5913. Sincerely, INTEGRATED ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LTD. L /31 Lawrence A. Doble, P.E. President / LAD Â·.r@â€¢%.le -Â·:'. 3 - Â·- i 13 laty-1/444. EXHIBIT "G" Jil[Iles i MollICil & Associates, Int Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants Crystal Palace Building â€¢ 300 East Hyman Avenue â€¢ Aspen, Colorado 81611 â€¢ 303/925 July 29, 1988 Mr. Richard Klein Project Architect Charles Cunniffe & Assoc. P. O. Box 3534 Aspen. Co 81612 Re: Valuation Comments regarding the King Commercial Building (aka Berko Building) 309 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen Your Job # 88107; Our Job # 11023 Mr. Klein: At your request I have reviewed the proposed plans for the subject building and have read Ordinance 11, Series of I-87 City Council, for the purpose of offering you my comments regarding the economic feasibility report. Attached to this letter are excerpts from that Ordinance labeled (v)(aa), (bb), (ce), (dd). This portion of the Ordinance deals with the econanic feasibility of the project. Please note that I have not completed a formal appraisal on the subject property but rather have made a cursory analysis of the most recent land sales, construction costs, market transaction and current lease information. My comments are based on a substantial amount of market data contained in my files that could be converted into a formal file if necessary. The following are my brief comments regarding the Ordinance: (aa) estimated market value of the property on which the structure lies, in its current condition, and after demolition or partial demolition; The subject property was purchased in 1987 for $350,000. It is a 3,000 square foot commercially zoned lot improved with a 100 y ear old 730 square foot Victorian building. Based on my review of recent land sales including Little Cliffs, Cheap Shots and The Shaft, this value of $117/SF is well supported as land value only. A structure that currently exists on the property has little or no value to the site and actually could be considered a negative influence to value due to its small size and configuration. In the course of placing a value on the existing building, a minimal value of approximately $25,000 may be allocated as it serves as a 104~31 Scott M. Bowie. MAI Alice Davis Randy Gold, MAI Elizabeth Fobert James J. Mollica. MAI AMEâ€¢,4:Aâ€¢ Fl h INSI,!U'f 4 . 2 .1*-nwt 1 2 ....$10% ' 1 . 1 rental property during development considerations. it carries some GMP rights and has value for preexisting tap fees. (bb) estimates from an appraiser experienced in rehabilitation addressing the economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of a structure proposed for demolition or partial demolition; Typically commercial core rehabilitation of buildings is desirable and easily justified in the marketplace. This has been experienced in the Independence Building, the Aspen Block. the Grand and the Ute City Bank restorations. They offer desirable shopping atmosphere and unique visual characteristics. However, it is my opinion, the subject Victorian building, sandwiched between contemporary structures looks out of place and adds no particular advantage to the marketplace. Its small size, limited window display area and configuration would make it difficult to add on to without destroying the Victorian character. Therefore, the building is, in my opinions a deterrent to the underlying land value. Furthermore, restoration of that building would extremely expensive as it would require most of the work being completed from the alley side coupled with shoring up re-wiring and re-plumbing the existing structure. The result of such restoration would, in my opinion, be economically unattractive. (cc) all appraisals made of the property on which the structure is located made within the previous two (2) years; This office has not completed formal appraisals on the property within the past two years. (dd) any other information considered necessary to make a determination whether the property does yield or may yield a reasonable return on investment. I have made a cursory investigation of the two proposed buildings on the subject site. One includes adding to the back of the existing structure, a three-story building, and the other is moving the building to another site and building a new commercial building keeping to the Victorian motif. There is no doubt in my mind that the economic feasibility on a totally new structure would give the greatest net return to the land and consequently be the most feasible project. This is not to say that keeping the original structure and adding to it is totally infeasible, but rather that one is better than the other. Visually, from a personal standpoint, I would prefer a new building, especially one with the size and scale of the adjacent buildings. It is my understanding that the general consensus of the community is that Jill]Ies 1Mollifilt liv~Â·tate/lor. Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants the new building constructed on Little Cliff's site is pleasantly in keeping with the Victorian character of the town. This could be accomplished on the subject site with the res ult being a more attractive and economically feasible property. It is my understanding that the Berko House will be moved to ACES, on Puppy Smith Road. It would be placed next to an existing ACES Victorian in a wood, quiet neighborhood. In my opinion, this would be an appropriate move, emhancing the entrance to Hallam Lake. Obviously, the information in this letter is not a formal analysis of the subject's feasibility or value. Rather, its brief comments and valuation parameters offer to assist the client and the City of Aspen in determining the outcome of the project. I must say personally, that I am extremely proud of the Victorian restoration in Aspen. I am a firm believer of the emotional and aesthetic aspects of restoration, especially when coupled with economic feasibility. However, I personally feel that the subj ect' s building at its present location visually looks out of place and in keeping it there, decreases the economic feasibility of a proposed project. I trust that these brief comments are helpful in the decision making ~ process. If I can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to call. Thank you for this opportunity to be or service. Sincerely, I I James J. Mollica, MAI Appraiser-Consultant Jal]IfS 1 j1O1|Ifil ttigrIQI,1 1, Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants ' ' WE ARE ALWAYS PROMPT...NO MATTER HOW LONG IT TAKES! EXHIBIT "H" RYBERG CONSTRUCTION CO. "SHORING & STRUCTURE MOVING CONTRACTOR" 9900 E. FLORIDA AVE.#2 DENVER, CO 80231 H. CARL RYBERG President & SON Colorado House Movers Assn. (303) 755 - 3426 Over 35 years of Service 14 January, 1988 l. ~ WiJ ~. | 97Flf#lf 2 First in ~ ~ J AN i (11988 Area to Move ~~ L Brick and Mr. }lichard Klein CllARLES CONNIFFE& ASSOC Masonry 520 East Hyman Suite 301 ASPEN, CO Buildings Asven, cO 81611 Demolition RE: IÂ©locating a pre- age era masonry constructed structure with li,ine and saiid mortar joi.nted two Or more courses brick exterior wal-Ls. Excavation Rentention Dear Mr. Klein: Systems 9'hese types of constructed house structures are the most difficult to relocate. However, they can be reloctaed iii almost excellent condition oring using the correct moving procedures. During the last forty years I have .drpinning relocated hundreds of these pre- age era masonry constructed structures. The house you called about will be an easier one to move due to its small size (627 square feet.) Structural Confirming the quotes I gave you over the phone, the moving cost will Restoration be the $12.00 per square feet of the structure plus $1500.00 - $2000.00 for Out Of area travel cost to perform the job. Also, I wil construct the fourr- Foundation dation system for the project providing the deci.sion j.s to relocate the Replacement structure. It is possible to relocate the structure onto a basment and/or garden level if so desired. If you proceed with the relocation and get to Denver in the interim period, I have a photo album with printed out inserts Foundation that explain all phases of a masonry relocation which may be helpful to you. Extension Also, I have available all risk transportation insurance to cover the struc- Up or Down ture fran pick up point until set upon the new foundation. Cost is $50.00 per $10,000.00 of coverage. Free Estimates Sincerely, in Denver Area h j /2 ....&r/-1 1/ Free H. Carl Ryberb Structure Relocation Ryberg Const.1 Pamphlet for r tomers "WE HAUL OR RESTORE YOUR MOST PRIZED POSSESSION FOR YOU" 441â‚¬ti*49354?2*4~4*fjtg't}****ifi 4 *4~91*Â»4*194â‚¬~8Â»0â‚¬:~Â·~~194-*4119:~ ?hoffÂ«17 --1 ; ... 3.3 i..4/243.7 -L--LLULÂ«-AL /4-*/Pol. Â· .--JI-~,~~ Â·k~~90- ift:tierti . I. I -1- February 15, 1988 Mr. John L. King 15 Wellington Grosse Pointe, Michigan 48230 Dear Mr. King, Thank you for asking me to review your building at 309 E. Hopkins Street otherwise known as the Berko house. I have examined your property with three alternatives in mind: (1) demolition of the historic structure (2) redevelopment of the site with a new commercial building behind the historic structure j (3) relocation of the historic structure to 201 E. Hyman In evaluating these three alternatives, it appears that the best course of action from a historical standpoint would be to move the structure to the new site. This choice is predicated on the assumption that the building is structurally capable of being moved and that the site mentioned remains a viable relocation site. This would provide an opportunity to place this house in an historical setting that is more appropriate in terms of both scale and character than having it stand in isolation surrounded by larger scale new buildings. This alternative is also more preferable than demolition of an historic structure that the City of Aspen has determined to have significant historic value. This is my opinion based on years of work in the field of historic preservation. However, I also would like to address criteria that might be applicable to Aspen specifically, based on standards that are spelled out in Ordinance #11 (Series of 1987) Section-9.5. This part of the ordinance lists several issues to think about when reviewing a request for demolition. If we were to substitute the word "relocation" for "demolition" these issues might then be applied to evaluating whether the relocation of a historic structure is appropriate. (I use this method because no standards exist in the ordinance for evaluating relocations). Item #4 asks that the redevelopment proposal mitigate impacts to Â»..,b e ' : -, 'Â·.idÂ·Â£44##VA-21.4.9,%*4*Â¥4,&Â¥e.~4*Â¥Â·wek.,*ptel/*~~+~.a..37-,efi:M -2 Â·Â·Â·Me:4*16:2#*fiz page 2 Mr. John L. King . February 15, 1988 the neighborhood. Removal of this structure from this face block and replacing it with a new commercial building which is compatible with the adjacent buildings would seem to meet this criteria. Item #5 asks that impacts to historic structures located on adjacent parcels be mitigated. There are no adjacent historic structures on the current site but the receiving site has a historical building which will clearly benefit from the addition of this building. Item #6 asks that the architectural integrity of the historic structure be maintained. Moving this structure to a residential , and historic neighborhood and, renovating it for redidential use will bring the building back to its original form in use and design. Taking into account the above standards set by Aspen, it would seem that moving this structure to a more compatible historic neighborhood is appropriate. This is especially true when you consider the alternatives of (1) demolition, or, (2) attachment of a large and new commercial structure to the small historic house. Please let me know if I can offer further assistance with this. S incerely, --- 02*,fw-*XM- Lisa Purdy l.j~ President LP/ode 2,Â·61Â»*42*49Â«44?421~1Â»4940243-4-34/2.-4:25=91*1%252-4830*kimpÂ»94;1-4folullitâ‚¬4913iulat>Â«02.244 1-iscape Lia. August 1 1988 Mr. John L. King 15 Wellington Grosse Polnte, Michigan 48230 Dear Mr. King, Congratulations on vour selection of a new site for the Be,ko building. As stated in my memo to you dated February 15, 1988,1 belelve it is in the best interest of this historic structure to move it to 8 setting which ts inure compatible in scale and use than its' present site. T fns: is especially tr uo when weighed aganist the atter natives of either demolition or the addition of o large new addition onto this small historic house. I have reviewed the proposed slle for the Berko nuliding end evaluated it in ternis of the scale, setting, and proposeduse I believe thenewsite isappropriate from each of these standpoints. The scale of the two bulldlngs currently on either side of the Berko bullaIng Is disrespectful ancl 61,ninishes the historic building, In its new site, the Berko building will be next to an existing historte structure that is the same height and messing. The proposed setting for the Berko building Is also more appropriate than the current one where massive new buildings butt directly up to the property line on either side of the mstoric structure. Inlts' newsetting,the Berkobuilding will besurrounded by trees and landscaping allowing for the epproclation of architectural details of the house on all s,des. Piacing it next to another historic building of the same scale and historic era will 8IS0 contribute to the historic nature of this building. While the Berko building has been renovated for cominerical use 1n its present site, it is still more appropriate to return at least a portion of the building back to its original residential use which I understand ts Intended in this new site. In summary, I believe that moving the 8erko House to the ACES site to be an appropriate alternative that will prove benefical to this historic structure. 1(VP 11(111 1 !01' //A X 1 I .1.'! 144'1' C 1 1 24 ),4.)'Â·' ,3( ), 1 >lf 1,2.~ .il,12 P l ease let m e k now 1 f you need any addi t ional ana lys i s. Sincpfely, ~1 A 41/ Lisa Purdy president j j - COA Aspen Center for Environmental Studies EXHIBIT "B" TO: Historic Preservation Commission From: Thomas M. Cardamone, Naturalist-Director Date: August 2, 1988 Subject: Aspen Center for Environmental Studies as receiving area for historic structures The Aspen Center for Environmental Studies was approached recently by Mr. John L. King through Charles Cunniffee & Associates regarding the historic Berko Studio. Although we have not reached a final agreement, ACES' Trustees have registered a strong interest in receiving the Berko Studio for use as employee housing. To date we have discussed three receiving sites all near ACES' entrance on Puppy Smith Street. All are in the vicinity of ACES' professor house which is an 1880's vintage miner's cottage.. Attached you will find deeds indicating ACES' ownership of this property and a map showing ACES' property outlined in green. One of the sites is on land owned by Elizabeth Paepcke and although she is interested in the notion of preserving an historic structure, further discussion would be needed to seriously consider that site. I will represent the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies to the Historic Preservation Commission and Charles Cunniffee & Associates may also act as ACES' agents. \U, 1.11 -/ld /9 (j L / t,u., 4Â£1 I C TrL-'-1,1. C.'hes,Â¢- 'Ihomas M. Cardamane Enclosure P.O. Box 8777 â€¢ Aspen, Colorado 81612 â€¢ Phone 303/925-5756 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SACRAMENTO DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS 65OCAPITOLMALL SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA 958144794 .i Â·i ..QQ AU.3 r .UU ATTENTLN OF August 13, 1988 Regulatory nection Mr. Bill Po-,6, Chairperson Aspen Historic Preserration Committee \spen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South (in L ena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Voss: This e-neerns your notice of public hearing on the 309 k.ist Hopkins Demulition/Relocation and Significant Development. l,,1 will not be attending the hearing but we wish to offer the following comments. We regulate the discharge of dredged and fill material ii; waters of the United States which includes wetlands. We are aware of large areas of wetlands on property owned by the AspeÂ·n Center for Environmental Studies (ACES). The building which will be relocated to ACES-owned property should not be sited in wetlands. If you or the proponent wish an appointment to ; determine the extent of our jurisdiction, please contact Gar> Davis of this office at (303) 243-1199. S~~terely, } , 1 0 f- '24 Ui- \ / A A gj n \1 / w V Grady ~ MeNure Chief ~kegulatory Unit 4 764 Hotizon Drive, Room 211 Grand Junction, Colorado 81506-87]9 3. Statement of Effect of Proposed Development upon Neighborhood: While the Berko Building's historic authenticity is diminished by recent construction in the area, the proposed building will blend well with the existing neighborhood. The proposed building will help define and provide a visual continuity within the block which is presently lacking. The building design and choice of building materials impart a distinctive historic flavor while tastefully reflecting the contemporary times in which we live. Because the proposed building will provide critical infill in a transition neighborhood with elements of historic and contemporary design, the architecture provides a design for windows, height, mass, setbacks, and detailing is in scale with the existing , 1 r 1 , 1 neighborhood and Aspen's historic character.(Refer to Exhibits D ~ i D. ATTACHMENT 4 RESPONSE/REVIEW STANDARDS: (Â§7-601(D)(1)) 1. Compatibility: The design of the proposed commercial building derives its historical form from existing and past historic commercial buildings in the City. However, because the adjacent buildings are contemporary in nature, the building materials to be used for the proposed building are tontemporary to provide continuity and compatibility. The proposed building , is sized in scale and mass with both adjacent buildings, while the siting provides distinctive presence. 2. Neighborhood Character: The proposed commercial building will provide continuity and unity for the existing neighborhood. The building will serve to provide a necessary transition between Victorian structures and contemporary structures on the block. 3. Cultural Value: The proposed building will reflect the needs of the community, and the transition in the neighborhood from residential to commercial by providing commercial retail, office and residential spaces. As stated above, the historical heritage of Aspen's commercial core will be reflected in the building's architecture. 4. Architectural Integrity of Historic Structures: The existing historic Berko House will be relocated to a site on property of the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies where it will be in better context with its surroundings. Therefore, there will be no historic structure on this site. -2- E. PUBLIC NOTICE: (Â§6-205(e)) Applicant shall mail a copy of the public notice to all owners of property within three hundred feet (300') of the property. \king\building.app -3- EXHIBIT "A" BERRY, MOORMAN, KING & HUDSON P MOV ES BION AL CORPORATION JOHN L KING' 600 WOODBRIDGE PLACE RAYMOND H. BERRY ThOMAS L LOTT (191Â·1959) DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226 DONALD D. COOK A. H. MOORMAN ROBERT A HUDSON (313) 567Â·1000 (1914 1979) FRANCIS J, NEWTON. UR. THOMAS M SULLIVAN TELECOPIERÂ· (3131 567Â·,00 ROBERT E. MILLER CAULEÂ· 31:ARYMOOR JOHN P. ROLLY' WLLLIAM C. SCHAEFER| . A ..0 ...11" 0 14 0.10 t GEORGE R. SOKOLY ./.0 .0.1./.0 iN ./w Volâ€¢ GARY D. BRUHN , AL./.0/ITTED,lilli CA SHERYLA LAUGHRCN DENNIS M. MITZEL JAMES P. MURPHY SCOTT J. RYNEARBON EILEEN K Hl.'5*IAND DRAW~ANA A CIO[.)~NMOâ€¢ I JOHN T. PETERS, JR, C.â€¢Ant.vii c g, t_G:TIA MITCHELL K. GASCHE HUDSON A. MEAD August 3, 1988 Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Aspen, Colorado 81612 Re: 309 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado Dear Members of the Committee: - As you are aware my wife, Eileen, and I purchased from Mr. -~ and Mrs. Berko their commercial building at 309 E. Hopkins. Eileen and I have been skiing in Aspen for the last 25 years and have fallen in love with the community. Our daughter, Molly Olednick and her husband, Bob, live in Carbondale and work in Aspen. Several years ago, we decided that we would like to own property in Aspen and have been working with Sara Kane at Mason & Morris over the last several years. When the Berko building became available we were intrigued by the location and the possibilities for developing the site. For your general information and background on us, I was formerly Mayor of the City of Grosse Pointe, Michigan and in that capacity was head of its Planning Committee. As a result, I am very conscious of maintaining the community in keeping with the plan developed by the City Council and your Committee. It was my general understanding that, including employee housing, we would be able to redevelop the site so that a building of approximately 6,000 square feet could be constructed. To this end, we have employed Charles Cunniffe and Associates/Architects, of Aspen to work with us in developing the site within your guidelines. We have asked Mr. Cunniffe to appear before you on our behalf to present sketches that he feels would be appropriate for the site and in keeping with the desires of your Committee. The purpose of this letter is merely to introduce ourselves, assure BERRY, MOORN'IAN, KING & HuDSON, P.C. Aspen Historic Preservation Committee August 3, 1988 Page Two you that we would like to work within your guidelines and further to advise that we would be happy to develop a building which would meet your exterior specifications. We are pleased and excited that the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies is agreeable to accepting the miner's home as a gift from us and. will use it for employee housing. We would very much appreciate your suggestions regarding the building and your approval of the square ,footage requested. Thank you for your consideration. f~neerely/44&, 41 i \ L/,1/\ Lf -2--7- 1/ /131*jw. Ying / 1 JLK:mat M A Â»b-Â·~'~--~~ CC: Mr. Charles Cunniffe i 1 - isca-oe - August 1 1988 Mr John L King 15 Wellington Grosse Pointe, Michigan 48230 Dear Mr King, Per your request I have reviewedthenew commercial building you have proposed for 309 E. Hopkins I have evaluated the project based on my professional experience in dealing witr: the inflpl of new buildings into historic districts and from the standpoint of the HISTORIC DISTR ?CT AND HIS1-ORIC LANDMARK DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES written by Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office staff and the HPC In January of 1988, From theelevations that were sent to me in late July, it appears that Charks Cunniffe & Associates/Architects have creatively designed a building that respects the historic context without imitating other historic styles. While it is clearly a newly â€ž designed bul}ding, lne architects' treatment of setbacks, windows, and mosslng echo 61ements found In histor re buildings, Speclflcally, I found the followlng elements to reflect the above referenced Guidelines Setbacks - Careful attentton has been paid to the placement of this boilding so that 4 does not break the desired continuity of facade 81 tgnments along this street. Massing - The messing of this building is definitely vertical in scale which echos other historic buildings in the area. The density does not overpower its' neighbors and the three story helght of the bullding is appropriate. Windows - The proportion of the windows ore strongly vertical on all floors of the buildtng on the front facade, and they maintain an appropriate ratio of solid to void. Architectural Detailing - lhedetalling of architectural elements hes teen greatly . simplified compared to authentic victorlanstorefront buildings This allows the ounding to blend into the neiohborhood without replicating the historic detailing of otrter structures, The front pediment with the construction date mounted flush recalls historic as well as current architectural vocabulary, The recessed entrywoys and arched detailing also give the building just enough style to allow it to contribute to the overall context of the street. I w Ish you success with this project. I believe it will enhance the downtown core of Aspen. Strpprely,2 23-414 *Ify-4 Lisa Purdy (J 49 tb 41 \ S t T 1 5.2:*kt*+03&*>-419:t,%.2%66*14442&*imi*4* 1 ... 0-r.*~~'~96Â©lit##47%*3*%7'b* 13#~f.Â·3#,i~..r- ~~ tenq~R 1,7~/ 12 0 f .f.j- 3 43144*APO+O Â·' .:. - A - I -v, I: I . 1 *'' e- February 15, 1988 Mr. John L. King 15 Wellington Grosse Pointe, Michigan 48230 Dear Mr. King, Thank you for asking me to review your building at 309 E. Hopkins Street otherwise known as the Berko house. I have examined your property with three alternatives in mind: (1) demolition of the historic structure (2) redevelopment of the site with a new commercial building behind the historic structure (3) relocation of the historic structure to 201 E. Hyman In evaluating these three alternatives, it appears that the best course of action from a historical standpoint would be to move the structure to the new site. This choice is predicated on the assumption that the building is structurally capable of being moved and that the site mentioned remains a viable relocation site. This would provide an opportunity to place this house in an historical setting that is more appropriate in terms of both scale and character than having it stand in isolation surrounded by larger scale new buildings. This alternative is also more preferable than demolition of an historic structure that the City of Aspen has determined to have significant historic value. This is my opinion based on years of work in the field of historic preservation. However, I also would like to address criteria that might be applicable to Aspen specifically, based on standards that are spelled out in Ordinance #11 (Series of 1987) Section-9.5. This part of the ordinance lists several issues to think about when reviewing a request for demolition. If we were to substitute the word "relocation" for "demolition" these issues might then be applied to evaluating whether the relocation of a historic structure is appropriate. (I use this method because no standards exist in the ordinance for evaluating relocations). Item #4 asks that the redevelopment proposal mitigate impacts to fâ€¢,5%61*11~,6-Er'-birs.:,-Â·.=.Â·%Â·RilGAP.~~4"~,4,4~~*)$4&*~~,~~~~~~.'*.-,.,t:',~~NEJ~~:,e:~ :~'.Â·K>Â·:.t~~.14 .1.:trir:12 .fti,545..:6 .Â·tot,I-Ii?Â¢93(SIN,( 12'.I. 2.: -: page 2 Mr. John L. King February 15, 1988 the neighborhood. Removal of this structure from this face block and replacing it with a new commercial building which is compatible with the adjacent buildings would seem to meet this criteria. Item #5 asks that impacts to historic structures located on adjacent parcels be mitigated. There are no adjacent historic structures on the current site but the receiving site has a historical building which will clearly benefit from the addition of this building. Item #6 asks that the architectural integrity of the historic structure be maintained. Moving this structure to a residential. and historic neighborhood and, renovating it for residential use will bring the building back to its original form in use and design. Taking into account the above standards set by Aspen, it would seem that moving this structure to a more compatible historic neighborhood is appropriate. This is especially true when you consider the alternatives of (1) demolition, or, (2) attachment of a large and new commercial structure to the small historic house. Please let me know if I can offer further assistance with this. S incerely, - - -f)45}.44/0- Lisa Purdy ~ President LP/ode . - ill.1. - '3> , -V ee /,1 h . ,'' 'fli ,,/1./4/Zir**I i ,* - - - 1, I ' t.jÂ« I '' p' L 1 1 7 J - . - ,1 1 , \' .,r. 3 . -, ..5-7 --6 4~--*1 -.,2*eq~tr" ,' I i.' i -_T i'Â» . ~~~"- 4. ru~ 01 4 .. ..3,69/<..., 1 4 '6 i . . 16 . .\t~ 1 Â·i FL 1 Â·.- Al_-~ f~~. 4 / 1 .... 11 1/W, W . 81 -' 7 0 ,Â· 1- -:i. 1.-11Â·1 il:.04'H .r 2.-7- j':j,I' ~- Air\.4 'Ory W, . 4 1*ek*49/ZeXHS) .Â¥ -14 iu_all_L.=-*b - + -' -:.1-Ir, : .- f , h. li lit::j d 2, 4.W j k lilli i. 11 1 1 4 6 1, ' t.Â· ~'~ ~ 47~917Â»}TEEFF ' i, , f.'# .. - 1 t '. 1 I . I I 1 11 1 .I-,'/4 2&;f~~~I~~ .... Â£ i f ~Nk~CAX@ki 10% . 1â‚¬, In 1 k. ->4 , ~. ?/ 1/1 412 - , 1 4 .\, rl A-:-.v-- 7 3 45.-0. 3- z, iw tir.ftil ", ,# /4 47..6 , 9% .*.k..496 U fo 'D/Â¥ 1 Â¥ t. .-- . 5 k. 7.1.0194 \Â»rt , \1 . ... ..../..,<30<5:de,Flcri.1 . . jL Â· b '4 l .p. _ 'Awk./1 1 \1'),i .~.) 1%2:~ .J -3.#14 3. 4 1 -> 1 7 i dll 9 fl / 4+ ~t-~43 4669 I <tix t 42' - .*Z-ZE:312)1 -1.24 i.1-- u ' )1.... I. .~40- 4 + r -2. . . I .% ..... 'Dll t' .2. J. /42'~2:lau- 91-5 .11 4,1 %\ %:lit ,- ./ I .Aff\,lk _ & 14Â» Z ON :0&41*1UBC' \ 4 i FP Â£ -6*L--Lwjb#. 0 . 4 % 1 ~ ~ t I.>-- 1,1, kist ./ - , 9-140 . 4 LU" 44,1 . ./. ! 1 -2 . Ar.,LI \ ' , 1 i . -â‚¬1 1~ - 1 r--1 1,1 8 V.. - a % AL , LL-~--1 . I. Vt . 0 i - I - 3\\ 0. N A ; 1 rti J ..1/kil . t 1 11J -I 11 F I ' 1 Ilf IN.. - 1 -7 .1 1.1 1111 .1 1 B wi A 11 ' 2 f 11 .1 BE r / . #00- '71 , . L I u / -- . .CL.,Â· I. V ..........' p .4 24- L.- . â€¢ 0 . 1 ' 't~ A. e*6 e . ,>L t.1 ' 1 , Â« , . 94=94 r .... N .0 1 ~ A~'44~.,. f. . 7, .. '19 r 44: X ...1 tâ€¢ij2>1*ipâ€¢Â¢Â·'- :31P- 1 - 1 11 1.1 01... .<. rf \ 0 1 ' w 0 4 ' *F \ 1, Â· ; , ., rrÂ·r,â€¢Â·fÂ·rÂ·++râ€¢Â·1174~- Â» I . r 3 t r-i. . 1 .:......... r F 1 1. 4.%./ Â· , 1 11 0!104Â£...1 I ir , \ 4 0 B 9 'dr-2 -YrÂ«il-4 11 t, f .... ../ 01.044 4'.* . 2 I .. 1 \" i:.:: P 4% 4, .it 1 -/ /1 1 .1 .4 4 1 1 11 -- M.. .J . 1/ .3..- it!. J I. 1 h -7 4;b j#:! il - ~frk==uj ]1 4 i. i~.90~ ,~*#Fv;2kl,#Av Â·+Â· :0 'OfÂ·ji,,.w Ff .04- 1 : 1 'r'J 14 â‚¬ ~ 1 01 " 1 . 1 11 97<A 2 0) , 2 94.Â·2 - a j 1. .i"i *. 3 Cri" I. r 1, .)* I * r \ \ 'f ' i ' ~' j 1 4.- f WA 111 f BERKO HOUSE RELOCATION CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS i m m '( ~ 1 3_ ASPEN CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES 6 0 9 9 PIJPPY SMITH STREET ASPEN COLORADO f'.O BOX 3534. ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 30.3/925-5590 ER) ILLVA 373 338-LS Hill/VS t -44At~i Â·â€¢4, .;4Â·Â¢';~~,, ''.7r' 1,1..~ ,$ - , - i '1 ' / 11 ' f rÂ· 1 < ..1 0-1 0 U /4 ., 6 JJ FL- -44*, ra t...A / 19.'i /4 / t. Â¢ --6 77Â»~ .Lk ; :4-- -1 4, . 47 1, p \ -AL W . I / f., Â»C 01 f m *---*1<vw- 119"2/m...-- , 2'7.6...Il.- ' , '. 41-1 :Â»ji ./,/1 --1 / U.,7 C!-_ L-I 73, C : , 1 1 1, 1. 201 . .f r / i , ;) 1 1 0 0 /711 J, 2%. '. + 71 2,74 - 1 - 8 - m 4 le,? 1,Â· U; O (frup..ji . C) ~ 2-4 Â·Â· ... W O Z // -i in 0 ~AL .... 1 . I. ..r â‚¬ 1 . / 41 . El' 2 0 1 Â·) f '' j 0 1 L. 0 00 ' 11>0Â» S %1 r 1 - 1 1 1 . I :.,43~ I df. '' U tl 1 muw*%94*L 11 . { ...4 r 4. 1. .,4,91-) '4, 4 02 i I 0 1 1 t ' 0 0% mm . 31...9Â¥10?,7,(w:,C.%013 A.. T j,Â¥,3.3.' 1 9 .'<--1 7,!~ 11 r 1. 7 33 1 4 9*1 j x '' /O . '' 4 -Ir 1 1 7 0 h. ~16 6 1 30 1 -W 0g 0 L -/-/~m-% . mi~ -t--~ C) 1~ , 1, Lut~.5." 1 4,52 e" ..rh : 1-1 O m m .- AÂ· 1. 1 - ....11 ' b tr'-1,-91 ~I F t; 1 4 -Â·- -Â· *. //Ii: I' Rl ;Â· 1 4 1 i f .4 f 1 .0 I Â·Â·112,1 :,1 121 i , .1,Â·j if :/ IF\ ... r i ..#17..~. -â€¢ -4 1 1 6 9 f ....- 0 ' r 'Â·1 Â»â€¢â€¢-C~ J 11 6 2 .1 U -' -~ f i, 0--2. . C -1 4 1> 1?9Â·.~271â‚¬z=,6:=4 ,/t i , ''-4/Ji\\32Â¢ / '.\ -/lip.I- ' 35~72 . -44--- U ----- -W=1 f Z .- r. , - f ... et Uld L 1 Ir...1, . 1/11 f aÂ·' i 44///A .1,- /) C- rl -4 411Â· 7 Ug- 4 .,./ ' '' V ACW \ ~AN* -~â€¢â€¢-/ I --&/./.17"Ill -'. -7,Â· 3604 134'a' , , -PQ ". 1 4 7 Â£ W 4 11- f ' ~~F :LA ,/ \ .1 4==- , f 0 m 1- 0 TO OVERFLOW PARKING -vv -rve\ 64. ....WL. % 34 . -1 1 iR 9 BERKO HOUSE RELOCATION CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHTTECTS E ASPEN CENTER FOA ENVIAONMENTAL STUDIES PUPPY SMITH STAEET ASPEN COLORADO P.O BOX 3534. ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 . Na UNIC]-linalnC) DNIJLSIX-a~ HIS H_LIES Ad ENTRY GATE Â£ AIDâ‚¬ ON 1 32*13 i- Jt 33 ~ :kli 13'g Â£* ,-- -' *il [gR k; i .2. -/ 4*LY; 1/r-~ --rk n* rja= .JA .4,Â· /4'fli , ./. 1. /114. r 6 4 ,Â·14 -9.44117Â£.UNY:iVIT~ ... 4-14 <:3 1 1 Jal 47 11*j;-6-- - 1- 4. 1 -#- .L~* FL*. * $ ~, r. ~:5'JT.I"# .1- ---4/ %.2.4 l 7 - 4.Â» - -A.aL- 1- -- '6,021*k- lid uty>9-El.~ e Lefle. f - - /111Utiffri-.-4-- a..~,Â· -:â‚¬ Â·Al: u-- 1~?:1 - t. i Uou<â€¢SE 41'64113 ~~I Â»-spptÂ·1-low. 1 â‚¬'.. -:t .... -7 /1, . ..0-7 %7 _ .:3.I 2--4--1 1111 13*4f342**1-4.-VÂ·' * 1 7-4 1/714 -. M An . %41/ L n. 7 4 2 . L , ' 1 . 1 ..5... TX I t:L K :0,1 . -4,1&.24 < 4/04%02*11-4 7 Â·-Â·.- 4.'9:22Â¥svaiz.0, - I _ .1191 t.Â«' '67- - an:,4 â€¢, , /'*41&. 10.-1.'30: 1. .212. 4 4, .-- ad<L: 4(3~0-- - . . - ~ 183/1 . Â·Ill- r :. I I-T ET--'%4#hiÂ£20%*aiL,ir:Imi,ACE'j,li,XET~.,B 864 . 1- Â«*022-77 -3 r- i AÂ·.-,Â·imofiXMBEE,j-/i.-- â€ž*.:; -Â·,-1, . . I - 1617,Â«F' -.x,2-~44U*~'' t<3;i~.:ip-'--I~ti, 4 . -73'-9 L . 4StÂ·04:.4-S-~> 4 J.2. 0333=- .'aLT?WZiÂ»,. . FTNÂ· vLÂ·PÂ« 1 ~ f- 1-) 1,1!04-1-- *Le>/: CHARLES CUNNIFFE AND ASSOCIATES Architecture & Planning Box 3534 Aspen, CO 81612 303-925-5590 BERKO HOUSE ASPEN CO t.iÂ·4 itz':4~ 1 1 - ,- 1 1 1% I 1 /r,- 4 - 1 - 62\11 1 . 6- V 1. . 1 1, 7 Fl 0-7 I ' I tt. 1 ~ I ; 1, /1 i Â·2,; 1 1 1 , 2.- :Â· Â· .,4 ;.i i :.. 11 -49 11 1 d , a . .. .4 ...... 1 3 Â· Â·.- c- A* . I ./ . ./ I I - E- , A 4 . : 1 4. 1 , .- E- 1 . 1 W h P . 4 -/ 1 4 1 . I ... -- â€¢ ~ - -- ---1-1.--- 2.6-.4*4 L I 5:.~~/ I . .FltÂ»-46 11 C. 3.4 r â€¢i >Gr frâ€ž 4 -/. 1 440$-4 4.. r. D Le FUMÂ» ft..Â»,1 ' 1 - I.Zi' f 7/5 b iek 1 - 65>~1 CHARLES CUNNIFFE AND ASSOCIATES Architecture & Planning Box 3534 Aspen, CO 81612 303-925-5590 BERKO HOUSE ASPEN CO 14,1.,9 ---- - 4600 -8%4 \ /W A--1 < ~~~~pARING FORK RIVER ~ '0 ----7--0 7/1 BIRD OFPREYHOUSE ~ ~~ ~~ ~t ~ AREA SITE PLAN ~E~ : AF-1 1 CARDAMONE HOUSE , I AC.E.S. 1 -4 01 + . el {30 . 6.- A.C.E.S. EXHIBIT HAL'. %* \~~HAL LAM LAKE .. -**1" 0 m ~ : STAFF HOUSE ~ c. 13:C.E.S.-~ \9\ 1 4 . |A.C.E.S. | // *~*~ ~~TR~~NHA~1fESE 151 1 n /, .. 1 b._ â€¢ RELOCATI 1 4,1 .49' 4% 13 --- --- , 7~ - 'll- " 4.- -0 - - .. 0 - . ELECTRICAL : ~ ~SUB-STATION / 0.-........4 -7--7.--.< t 0 ZONING LINE . I. Efk:~ '. 0 - PROPOSED ~ 1 BERKO HOUSE ~ 0 %\ PROiESSOR'S ~--< RELOCATION ~ J hOUSE 1 - f 1 W 4 Sm Â° t Z 5 ~ PAEFCKE PARCE~ / , 1 /1 w Z ill- R-6 1 1 LL R-15 ' Cr 41 ./ U.S. POST OFFICE ~ Â· z W Z W - O 0 A ~ GIVENS INSTITUTE 1 4~k LLF' ' A LU g . 0 eks # 4 11 ---0)-1 \ - . -- .-/ *..1-*-----*- -- - I 51)311HDUV/931Â¥DOSSV T R.13!NNr[) SErUMÂ·O ' NO IlÂ¥00138 3SAOH 0>lEi 0655Â·526/EOE 3NO~W3131 21918 OCWO-10-3 NPR 'DESE X08 Od 00980100 NadSV lS H.LIINS Addnd IAND USE APPI.ICATION FORM ATTACI{~ENT_1 1) Project Name King Commercial Building .-- 2) Project location 309 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lot C, Block 81, City of Aspen (indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) 3 ) 14-annt Zoni ng CC 4) lot- Size 3,00 0_sc:._ft. 5) Applicant's Name, Address & ilione # John L . 1 5 Wellington, Gross Pointe, Michigan 48230 (313) 567-1000 6) Itepru.:Dentative.'s 11,711,3, Akiress & 111otici # Ch-i ~ 1 *Ds Canniffe j. 2 -- , 4 / U O C 1 J 1 0, S _120_in-1.]autil_i)__ilY-C_Ll-LLC .,--viljiL/gl.~.._=12/211,---Colul=Liu Hin]1 (803) 925-5590 7) 71Â·'ir- af- All Jlicat. ion (I)14:1:-43 chcd: all 1.-hit- .-ipply) : Coniit.ieinl th-c G DI X.rptual 610,1 -12. Collcry,1.ual Historic Ikiv. A :Special Icov.1 eu - Fin-11 SPA Final Historic Illv. (to follow) 8040 Grealll.inc _____ (101 looptual l UD . Miner ili:ctoric 11]v. Stat.1111 !4719ill -_ Final JUD ___ - 1!istoric Dmrolition Mountaill View 19 anc _ Subdivisi Oil -_- Ilistoric Il-:sigr.ation Cor-iianiniumi 7.atiori __ __ t[UxtuMap AIren:.inzjnt _3__ dÂ·Ky; Allotnui it (to follow) Iiat Split/Lot Line -_ GMOS Exastption Adjustrent 8) I.loscu-iption of Ikisting Uses (number and type of existing structures; approximate sq. ft. ; n.mber of bedroaus; any previals approvals granted to the pruperty) . The property in question currently has the Berko Bldg. located on it. We propose to relocate the Berko House to a site on the A.C.E.S. property. 9) Description of Development Application Conceptual HPC approval is requested so that the project may proceed to compete in this years commercial and office development G,M,P, 10) Have you attached the following? XX Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Subnission Contents 2-7 Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents A Â£ Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application Wi CONCEPTUAL HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR KING COMMERCIAL BUILDING A. APPLICATION: Refer to Attachment 1, Land Use Application Form The Applicant requests conceptual approval of the proposed commercial building to allow Applicant to proceed with his GMP application. B. ATTACHMENT 2 RESPONSE/MINIMUM SUBMISSION CONTENTS OF APPLICATION: (Â§6-202(B)) 1. Applicant's Letter: Refer to Exhibit 11 A 11 2. Street Address and Legal Description: Refer to Attachment 1 3. Ownership: Refer to Exhibit 1, B" 4. Vicinity Map: Refer to Exhibit llc" 5. Compliance with Substantive Review Standards: The proposed building will be compatible with the character of the existing neighborhood. The building will complement the adjacent and surrounding buildings, and will enhance the historic flavor of Aspen. The building design utilizes historic forms existing in Aspen, combining the historical form with contemporary materials, providing a positive addition to Aspen's commercial core. C. ATTACHMENT 3A RESPONSE/SPECIFIC SUBMISSION CONTENTS - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: (Â§7-601(F)(3)(a)) 1. Sketch Plan: Refer to Graphic Submittal 2. Building Materials: Glazed brick and tile, painted steel or anodized aluminum storefront, painted steel or anodized aluminum guard railing and ornamentation, and low "E" glazing, -1- -7/7'.--A .2.,1 9 _ - _ ,&. 11.2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall August 23, 1988 2:30 p.m. Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Nick Pasquarella, Charles Cunniffe, and Joe Krabacher present. Excused were Zoe Compton, Augie Reno, Georgeann Waggaman and Charlie Knight. MOTION: Nick made the motion to approve the minutes of Aug. 9, 1988. Charles second. All approved. Motion carries. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS Joe: In the New York Time, August 7th, had an article about Aspen and they specifically mentioned "recent restorations of vintage homes, hotels and the Wheeler Opera House point out the victorian charm that lends yet another dimension to the resort and the architecture dates to the 1880's when Aspen was a booming mining town. A lot of the new homes echo the original two story victorian design with pointed roofs and scrolled woodwork. My only point is that maybe it does make a difference in terms of the community and the image of the community to be trying to preserve these houses. Bill: I went before City Council last night to request direction from Council on expanding our incentives for designated structures and restorations and they are requesting Alan Richman to get back with me the first week in September so we should be thinking of things that we want added to as incentives. I would specifically request that maybe the City Council could waive the park dedication fee for restorations which is in the area of $2,500 and up depending on the number of bedrooms that you have. Roxanne: The first draft of the modifications for the landuse code will be in the works in December. Joe: Presently there is no really great incentive. PUBLIC COMMENTS Bill: We will not have a quorum for the Berko Bldg. at 309 E. Hopkins so at this time I can take comments from the public for the record and I will re-read them on Thursday. Ann Altemus: I live on Third St. and I have lived here for 28 years and I am definitely opposed to tearing down or moving the Berko building. I don't mind a lot of things that go on in town but I do mind doing away with a small handsome structure. Margaret Johnson: I have lived here since 1960 and we own property across the street from this and I feel that the downtown HPC.MINUTES. August 23, 1988 is loosing so much of its original victorian character and I would hate to see it modified even to the extent that visually it has lost its character. Relocating it is pointless. Leslie Holst: I live at Waters and would like to read a petition to you. We the undersigned are in opposition to any alteration or moving of the old Berko bldg. at 309 E. Hopkins in Aspen, Colo. We feel that this building does have redeeming architectural value and is an important link in Aspen's past. I have almost 100 signatures and by Thursday I should have 300 or 400 signatures all Aspen residents. All these people are strongly aware of the problem and a lot are afraid to come here. When I was going door to door one lady said they have ruined my neighborhood and I am afraid to come out at night as I get frightened. Things are happening and nobody is paying any attention to. The overall picture is being ignored on individual projects. I am a proponent of the book "A pattern language" and I will read: "People cannot maintain their spiritual roots and their connections to the past if the physical role they live in does not also sustain these roots. Whether the sacred sites are large or small, whether they are in the center of towns, neighborhoods or in the deepest countryside established ordinances will protect them absolutely so that are roots in the visible surroundings cannot be violated." It looks like every month there is a battle loss. Aspen used to work and it still barely works and if we loose more of these little buildings the town will literally stop working. John Moore: I live at 12 Salvation Circle in the County not the City. I agree totally with what has been said here and the building should be preserved where it is and try to retain some of the character of the core of Aspen. The way the public seems to be feeling it is time to draw the line and say "Hay we have a perfect example of a remarkable building here. Leslie Holst: It has been my experience in Denver that moving a 100 year old brick building is a very tedious proposition. The day you jack that building up and start moving it around anything can happen to it and I don't think this building can be moved. If you give somebody permission to do it they should put up an enormous amount of money to rebuild it from scratch if it doesn't get there or something that is punitive if they are leading us to believe that this can be done because I don't think it can be done. Kathryn Thalberg: When a building is moved out of central core it no longer serves the purpose of what we all would like to see building remain for. A couple of buildings have been moved from Hopkins and you don't see them and one had been totally remodeled and is not recognizable. I don't think that HPC has the duty to 2 HPC.MINUTES. August 23, 1988 worry about the economic interest of property owners. I don't think that is HPC's concern. I think a lot of buildings have been let go because people said this is not economically feasible but that is not your concern. At a certain point HPC will have to say no and I definitely think that people who have these should be rewarded in some way: Tax rebate, utility rebates etc. that would give real incentives. HPC is here to protect the interest and character of the town. Frank Berko: I agree and this should have happened long ago trying to preserve houses. From the beginning we had said it would be nice to leave the front and you have the whole back to build within the limits and with a little ingenuity that could occur. I also agree with the tax incentive and that would make it easier for them. Victoria Fuller: I have lived her for 15 years and I'm seeing all the cottages being knocked down and the character of the town is being lost. I do not think this house should be moved and perhaps you could expand it in a way where it would still look like a victorian and still keep the character of the building. To move it is a terrible mistake. I also was against the moving of the houses on Hopkins. Margaret Johnson: I would like to emphasize what Kathryn had said about the function of this board that it should be firstly to preserve the character of the town. MOTION: Bill: At this time I will entertain a motion to reschedule a special meeting to review 309 E. Hopkins, the Berko Bldg. relocation, restoration and redevelopment. Meeting will be held Aug. 25, 1988 at 2:30 p.m. Nick: I so move. Joe second. All approved. Motion carries. MOTION: Bill: I will also entertain a motion to continue the public hearing to Thursday, Aug. 25th at 2:30. Nick: I so move. Joe second. All approved. Motion carries. Joe: I would like to address what Victoria said, those buildings on E. Hopkins we had no control over because they weren't designated and you can demolish them if they don't have a high enough rating. A lot of the people are concerned about issues coming up and maybe if we had broader authority it would certainly help our ability to do what you want us to do. Victoria Fuller: Any kind of building that has victorian character shouldn't be torn down. 3 HPC.MINUTES. August 23, 1988 Bill: Last year we tried to expand our districts and that issue was defeated. Joe: At the schools we have no district right now and we have no control over that area. Victoria Fuller: How does one get a district. Joe: Through Council. Victoria Fuller: Why can't each individual house be designated. Roxanne: It is voluntary and we are encouraging everyone who has an historic home or site to voluntarily designate. Right now we have about 60%. Joe: People are not going to designate because it is not in their economic interest to do so. Victoria Fuller: Is Frank's designated. Bill: Frank Berko's house is not designated and is rated a #4. Nick: You people here are making a very strong plea to save this house just as dramatically when we tried to evaluate houses about two or three years ago there were people saying don't tell me what I can do with my house. There are two big issues here that we have to face the economics and the preservation. Public: Who makes the decision on the area of the schools. Roxanne: It goes before P&Z right now. HPC has no purview because it is not an district but it is something that we would like to do. The community needs to let the Council know that you are interested in some type of district. 4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall August 23, 1988 2:30 p.m. Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Nick Pasquarella, Charles Cunniffe, and Joe Krabacher present. Excused were Zoe Compton, Augie Reno, Georgeann Waggaman and Charlie Knight. MOTION: Nick made the motion to approve the minutes of Aug. 9, 1988. Charles second. All approved. Motion carries. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS Joe: In the New York Time, August 7th, there was an article about Aspen and they specifically mentioned "recent restorations of vintage homes, hotels and the Wheeler Opera House pointing out the victorian charm that lends yet another dimension to the resort and the architecture dates to the 1880's when Aspen was a booming mining town. A lot of the new homes echo the original two story victorian design with pointed roofs and scrolled woodwork. My only point is that maybe it does make a difference in terms of the community and the image of the community to be trying to preserve these houses. Bill: I went before City Council last night to request direction from Council on expanding our incentives for designated structures and restorations and they are requesting Alan Richman to get back with me the first week in September so we should be thinking of things that we want added as incentives. I would specifically request that maybe the City Council could waive the park dedication fee for restorations which is in the area of $2,500 and up depending on the number of bedrooms that you have. Roxanne: The first draft of the modifications for the landuse code will be in the works in December. Joe: Presently there is no really great incentive. PUBLIC COMMENTS Bill: We will not have a quorum for the Berko Bldg. at 309 E. Hopkins so at this time I can take comments from the public for the record and I will re-read them on Thursday. Ann Altemus: I live on Third St. and I have lived here for 28 years and I am definitely opposed to tearing down or moving the Berko building. I don't mind a lot of things that go on in town but I do mind doing away with a small handsome structure. Margaret Johnson: I have lived here since 1960 and we own property across the street from this and I feel that the downtown HPC.MINUTES. August 23, 1988 is loosing so much of its original victorian character and I would hate to see it modified even to the extent that visually it has lost its character. Relocating it is pointless. Leslie Holst: I live at Waters and would like to read a petition to you. We the undersigned are in opposition to any alteration or moving of the old Berko bldg. at 309 E. Hopkins in Aspen, Colo. We feel that this building does have redeeming architectural value and is an important link in Aspen's past. I have almost 100 signatures and by Thursday I should have 300 or 400 signatures all Aspen residents. All these people are strongly aware of the problem and a lot are afraid to come here. When I was going door to door one lady said they have ruined my neighborhood and I am afraid to come out at night as I get frightened. Things are happening and nobody is paying any attention. The overall picture is being ignored on individual projects. I am a proponent of the book "A pattern language" and I will read: "People cannot maintain their spiritual roots and their connections to the past if the physical role they live in does not also sustain these roots. Whether the sacred sites are large or small, whether they are in the center of towns, neighborhoods or in the deepest countryside established ordinances will protect them absolutely so that are roots in the visible surroundings cannot be violated." It looks like every month there is a battle loss. Aspen used to work and it still barely works and if we loose more of these little buildings the town will literally stop working. John Moore: I live at 12 Salvation Circle in the County not the City. I agree totally with what has been said here and the building should be preserved where it is and try to retain some of the character of the core of Aspen. The way the public seems to be feeling it is time to draw the line and say "Hay we have a perfect example of a remarkable building here. Leslie Holst: It has been my experience in Denver that moving a 100 year old brick building is a very tedious proposition. The day you jack that building up and start moving it around anything can happen to it and I don't think this building can be moved. If you give somebody permission to do it they should put up an enormous amount of money to rebuild it from scratch if it doesn't get there or something that is punitive if they are leading us to believe that this can be done because I don't think it can be done. Kathryn Thalberg: When a building is moved out of the central core it no longer serves the purpose of what we all would like to see. A couple of buildings have been moved from Hopkins and you don't see them and one had been totally remodeled and is not recognizable. I don't think that HPC has the duty to worry about 2 HPC.MINUTES. August 23, 1988 the economic interest of property owners. I don't think that is HPC's concern. I think a lot of buildings have been let go because people said this is not economically feasible but that is not your concern. At a certain point HPC will have to say no and I definitely think that people who have these should be rewarded in some way: Tax rebate, utility rebates etc. that would give real incentives. HPC is here to protect the interest and character of the town. Frank Berko: I agree and this should have happened long ago trying to preserve houses. From the beginning we had said it would be nice to leave the front and you have the whole back to build within the limits and with a little ingenuity that could occur. I also agree with the tax incentive and that would make it easier for them. Victoria Fuller: I have lived her for 15 years and I'm seeing all the cottages being knocked down and the character of the town is being lost. I do not think this house should be moved and perhaps you could expand it in a way where it would still look like a victorian and still keep the character of the building. To move it is a terrible mistake. I also was against the moving of the houses on Hopkins. Margaret Johnson: I would like to emphasize what Kathryn had said about the function of this board that it should be firstly to preserve the character of the town. MOTION: Bill: At this time I will entertain a motion to reschedule a special meeting to review 309 E. Hopkins, the Berko Bldg. relocation, restoration and redevelopment. Meeting will be held Aug. 25, 1988 at 2:30 p.m. Nick: I so move. Joe second. All approved. Motion carries. MOTION: Bill: I will also entertain a motion to continue the public hearing to Thursday, Aug. 25th at 2:30. Nick: I so move. Joe second. All approved. Motion carries. Joe: I would like to address what Victoria said, those buildings on E. Hopkins we had no control over because they weren't designated and you can demolish them if they don't have a high enough rating. A lot of the people are concerned about issues coming up and maybe if we had broader authority it would certainly help our ability to do what you want us to do. Victoria Fuller: Any kind of building that has victorian character shouldn't be torn down. 3 HPC.MINUTES. August 23, 1988 Bill: Last year we tried to expand our districts and that issue was defeated. Joe: At the schools we have no district right now and we have no control over that area. Victoria Fuller: How does one get a district. Joe: Through Council. Victoria Fuller: Why can't each individual house be designated. Roxanne: It is voluntary and we are encouraging everyone who has an historic home or site to voluntarily designate. Right now we have about 60%. Joe: People are not going to designate because it is not in their economic interest to do so. Victoria Fuller: Is Frank's designated. Bill: Frank Berko's house is not designated and is rated a #4. Nick: You people here are making a very strong plea to save this house just as dramatically when we tried to evaluate houses about two or three years ago when there were people saying don't tell me what I can do with my house. There are two big issues here that we have to face the economics and the preservation. Public: Who makes the decision on the area of the schools. Roxanne: It goes before P&Z right now. HPC has no purview because it is not an district but it is something that we would like to do. The community needs to let the Council know that you are interested in some type of district. 4 1 9 -' r= 0 8 3 57 ~-4 t 1 -Al-1-3* -VEM UXJ -,7.18 17 2r 47-6 -4~17-AL L.TY.72<YMI- rr-y-7/. 79-37 7Â»-2,3 7-m/79.- 3 027-7 7.1,7-ye '777' r-71'3rn/ *7 97 mvry--07 + 7-0"-"1--pe 0--T "EX-91 7-V*-3(913 13 -Â¥1 -F 9 -FÂ»~Â»-01 - y.m.-7.--.6 , fb d H - r--now-v-TAND 9-=-9/ - L.9(IN 1- -4 -71-)91 0~1_ -=~ at J ThelfleisherCompany Commercial Real Estate iii Aspen August 25, 1988 Mr. Bill Poss, Chairperson Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Aspen, Colorado Dear Bill: In consideration of the deep concern of the community for the preservation of Aspen's historic structures, I do not understand how the Historic Preservation Committee can give serious consideration to the demolition of the 'Berko Building', or more importantly, its relocation from its present historic location. This relocation would remove the building from a site where it is presently appreciated by the general public as a contribution to the historic character of the community, to a site where it would not be able to receive acknowlegement as a historic structure by most people. Great care has been taken in Aspen to preserve the historic structures of the community, and thereby maintain the quality and character of the City. The 'Berko Building' represents the true historic character found in the commercial core of Aspen. The decision to relocate the structure would effectively eliminate yet another piece of historic Aspen. What if a proposal was submitted to relocate the Wheeler Opera House, the Aspen Block, or the Elks Building? As far as I am concerned, the relocation of the 'Berko Building' can be compared to the relocation of any other of Aspen's significant historic structures. The Historic Preservation Committee has played an extremely important role in the continuing effort to preserve tne historic character of our community. Therefore, I urge the Committee to carefully consider compromising Historic Preservation and the eventual consequences of a decision to approve the demolition and relocation of this historic structure, the 'Berko Building'. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, 1 8 -10. 4 9/411/ 1 J. Fieisher 710 East Durant Avenue Â· Aspen, Colorado 81611 Â· 303/925-2122 . 0 WE THE UNDERSIGNED are in opposition to any alteration or - moving of the old Berko Studio Building at 009 E. Hopkins in Aspen. Colorado. We feel this building ..L.. reaeeming architectural value. and is an important link with Aspen's past. -mr *-- \ \LO- .0/11$34Â£1 -_ 1% 5~p.<,r - .0-,r g. _kÂ« orif ......._--...1-11.-- 3. ~ iu_CE. i AL Ag? 2-JO ~4\_ 306.3...1-_LUALTOE 16 (/ 27Â»â€ž03 50 6 3. A'Un 7. 34!.> u.0+04 4+1 Ae,-1 ~pL-1 &4 i k. A 9 â€ž Il#.Rh,..,,,. 1 Al.3, . ALi-lk .â€ž-1/~~A..â€ž-14...... 4Â·spEN Fl \CD / - 1 1 r 00 6. COD/Â» 4 1 'T: -1. ... . ....MA ....................................... . 14. /(CUL Z.Lot tal 4*_429,LQ---1-- 0{%2~n r/d t _ -Apn,r=GO)------3-0-9 -EJ>luollwÂ« )(laa,h-3 1. 6. A- -10 4*40 - --Â· //5-/~ 34>hÂ·Â·11 22 gzgL, U f/2 .1, A 9.40 Â£43%,Â»41...."- ClaeÂ«--) 86/2=- 1 7 gâ‚¬tu.,t<-+ r , 18. 37 __ 6362_ C- 34Â¢,94 Â£*20Â£0Â» i C: 20. 30-64 . c~â€ž AVO#IM~ __ 69--*-F- -- 1- - 1 *Â«do 491-3 ,~124 920 14J 4-a_>~8 /J k......~..~*3_6.../ 79_- _. -â€ž..l*21.. --..~~~.(NO- 41 G 12- 23. WE THE UNDERSIGNED are in opposition to any alteration or moving of the old Berko Studio Building at 309 E. Hopkins in Aspen, .- . .1. ..., ........... . We f=.1 this building does have redeeming architectural value, and ie an important link with Aspen's past. /1 NAME / ADDRESS 1. 0 64#ual/E> ~Â»f /4., 4_cef---~ 3..Â·t~6â‚¬~~-~~gd~c 4 dn/1- Da L &1.44.2 - â€ž L_-4 , v 2 - IDAN/F 1126 - - 8- .-6..4.â€ž.aL,EPF /7/*T7-72Â£09 4/ 7 zE . r-o, Y) a R\ 11. C )AvyÂ·114 ke v/4/0 9->u{Cloffl Ql~41-~â‚¬<11(21 BST 70 4*-tu U o . el 84-2/ Aey'59 61 243,MtÂ¥, U H?0 91 0-L 1 E - 144-97 42/3.*---------------23Â« -4(74-01*47-'Â·Â·Â·a-' 7-KI. is. -_.Uel~i -8 1-AAa 4624(4â€ž.3?lfl...j... Â«&1.-_. 1 9 , ~Â¢2Â£ d.1*. 3 .. /~23Iv.,_..C-Â© eld // 1 1.-4. 21. ..... -'. 1Â«1~~" Â·~4~BA4461, - -__-t*t-!~3 <9464 41.2~.. 4*4063) L 3\ ~ 2,% j ..0.*Ckd* ~...-_.~.....~.. __ay &4449 624*67~ 612 ;00< t.Â«,4 LOO~e, k.f+.876(/ 0 . WE THE UNDERSIGNED are in opposition to any alteration or Rig C moving of the old Berko Studio Building at 3 Hopkins Colorado. We feel Â·6 6. 2Â·Â·Â· 1Â·Â·Â·, â€¢ â€¢ Â·i 1 ,Â·Â·i Â·inf A' Â·7Â· Â·Â·Â·Â· 'Â·Â·Â· - ' ' --~ redeeming architectural value, and is an important link with Aspen's oastâ€ž NAME ADDRESS /7 A 1 / - 81_521_*51Â»lu-0.9.Â· --I-/ -/-1. -I - ---I .... LI. -7. DeD I =62<24%â‚¬/520' Â»LZ m. &47-_-.---~.._-- --,f,22I--4<#M~~~166-/47 2/ d '..% tÂ© \ 4 2 1 4Â»*un-/ 1 /(b.WL- 10. r 11. 44*AA 11 Â· A tj L-Â·'4 1-, i n -11-- r ,-n. i./ /v-r--)-r-r ' i 1/ â€¢ - - 2220 2*MI/442 14 , y>J c. qz/2 - ZI_ f_ - 1 16*z-giti--,~*L:-v,4 --f.04!111013*11* V 1 41.-3 1 / ....1 - . isâ€ž '33242- 0~:445-- -<4--ZatiC- Â»7' -Â»94â€ž_ ShiÂ¥,A ) 14 O A lee, \* l.0-- 9> ki c>/ Po 15 663> Aesâ‚¬29...4. 19 -92 71 .1.1 1 '-32 c- 5ILL~ C_-r U ucjib /771772(Liff,/e)-Imf 682 8 2/98 zm*Â· pÂ· AgÂ·31 OM/ Â¥9 01 "~~--~~~~~" - *9f Â·910 - i C,Â· 2 / 9 8 )A RXJW -1-- I> i)-ii;f#6*1,6***-'79.--*.ol-~ -i,~ DI----- -~--- ~--- -**~ --3-J-t>a ~~}7 ... .WIGE "Eli Â°9 4 ( 496 ~07>7Â© 471-~37**&Â»ibu- d-1 1 ~ 4 -ke--,3.<, , r Â«9797'4 -ma-Â· - (,4 f -bl If. T â€¢CilÂ· 1... J 1/013 2 /9/9 -03 7-.699* "53-67- >75------CY42AW14--9Yll5- rI )1918 pad-s4Â· --zodogÂ·-Â· "Â·"o Â·-Â·Â·Â·"Â·kz-r --* -- py*Vt,9t407 , k.1_ (Jr -2/ 9/*--143-""41~22%/ 1-9.-0/1--i* -~--------- 7-0773'3,*' 32*94 "I 1 CD -Jl-ti .8 -*6-9 104 4-/Â«4 *In?Uve-* 1 3 40) 10 9.,-,18Â»/f.Â» ' ./ :3 K-ze40;9 52*Â»'~iÂ« 96 / 0 PFIE- "b --421 : C__AL-)6_-7~ V ti:)Â·t:?.::j,ZIUU'V / BWUM +=, cÂ· u s, Uau:og 47{M Huy{ awe*JodwI ue SI pue 'anIPA leanlialIWOJe butweepai aaew seop buIPTIng SINJ L Ci 27 y = 19 012, E.' ..m 'Bil '*' l..1â‚¬) dsW t..1 I ' SUIHdoH -3 60Â£ ge Al'.1-6. LIng OzpnlS OHAE,8 pro 64-4 +0 BUTAOW Jo uor-ieual Te Aue 01 uozlysoddo u r ade GENqISHECING 31-11. 3M 1- 6 " vic "6I .D f. .LI "9I ht -- "ill 2.. i ..................................................... Gl *~Y i ~2 -4 Lat~~- Flh.%/4 9 0Â£ 01 j J~"- 4974 E lajÂ·(p .i r 7~*49 ~~pffflf W---~~03 --~ (3932/F. ~(-) -f -pd %4 2 1-1. 9.9, 0 11 %2 / 7 Â¤ O 2,4.649 f.4-1779-~.023.........Â»Opprofc---" .- .-i -COTL/J.~5**4~ ~ 9 7>IÂ»"V77 ----3597 9/817 z3zm.9..7327?7~~-44*Â«~ Â·-Â·gÂ·Â·-gÂ·Â·F_......4 4422â‚¬~ ~~2:r .V 7 314VN, ~Clsed s, uadse 44 IM HU T I '.1. l,-1 y.2 I]. ..,1(~~) dW I l..1 8 St 13 t.1 e 6 a nI 49 A Ie ..An#33-1.-1: r..i :z; ..i~e ~~15 t..i Iwee pe ..,t secip Guiplinq SI44 Tee* eM -O pe...10107 ' Nadsw l-1 -1 cm I. c.Â· 4 - SUINdoH -3 602 42 bui:PT.Ing 07:pn48 03Jag PIo au4 40 bu IAOW .AO UOI-le-Aa-+Te Aue. 01- uoil.Isoddo ul: a.Ae GENJISh]3GNn 3Hi HM I . . . I .. WE THE UNDERSIBVED arÂ· e in 0--- .- -r,2 t. ion to any alteÂ· ati on or in Aspen, Colorado. We feel this building does have redeeming architectural value, and is an important link with Aspen s past. MUMF -- I.------- -I 4. 8. 12. 14. 3. t.3. i it i -7 i tÂ·Â·Â·.