The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19880322AGENDA 0 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE March 22, 1988 - Tuesday 2:30 P.M. City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall REGULAR MEETING I. Roll Call and approval of March 8, 1988 minutes II. Committee Member and Staff Comments III. Public Comments IV. Monitoring of Projects V. NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARINGS r-~ A. 222 E. Hallam, Demolition/-9 63,66--F B. 113 E. Hopkins, Partial Demolition and Conceptual Development Review *QQI Ou--.l VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Amendment to approyed plani Sculpture ,~Garden Entry Gate and Wall,4411 /E. Hopkins Avenue Oldeu "-.-t ' B. Clarification of Motion: 334 W. Hallam, Conceptual Development Review VII. Adjourn 4:45 7% im C a C LÂ» V rp LIN -3; <I--, --4 HPC.MINUTES - March 22, 1988 222 E. HALLAM--DEMOLITION ...................1 113 E. HOPKINS, PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ........................... ....15 411 E. Hopkins Ave, Sculpture Garden Entry Gate and Wall . 19 CLARIFICATION OF MOTION-334 W. HALLAM .....19 22 Â· VA MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: 222 E. Hallam Demolition (Public Hearing) DATE: March 22, 1988 LOCATION: 222 E. Hallam Street, Lots K and L, Block 71, Townsite and City of Aspen. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Joseph A. Amato, owner of the property, requests permission to demolish the existing house and replace it with a new two story house and garage. PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND HPC ACTIONS: On January 15, 1987 HPC gave an historic evaluation rating to 222 E. Hallam of "4". As part of Ordinance 11 (Series of 1987), adopted May 11, 1987, all structures rated "4" and "5" are subject to demolition review. Upon appeal of the applicant, City Council remanded the historic evaluation rating to HPC on January 11, 1988. HPC affirmed its original historic evaluation rating of "4" on February 9, 1988. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: A. Referral Comments: 1. Engineering Department: In a March 13, 1988 memorandum from Chuck Roth (attached) the following comments were made: a. Construction costs for a new residential structure are estimated at $85 per square foot, using Building Permit fees; and there is no indication that the structure could not be repaired for less money than it would cost to build a new structure. b. A visual examination of the exterior of the structure shows that the roof and eave lines appear to be basically straight and level. As the house does not show these signs of structural distress, the question arises if the struc- ture would not remain in its existing condition for another sixty to one hundred years. Perhaps a second opinion should be obtained from a professional whose specialty is renova- tion. c. There is a significant disparity.*etween the applicant' s estimated renovation cost of 4850Â·~000 and the Building 1 Department figure of $210,000. The City may want to obtain a _/ renovation cost estimate from a second party. 2. Building Department: On March 15, 1988 Rob Weien made a verbal report on the structural and moving analyses. Points made are summarized below, as approved by Mr. Weien: a. This house appears to be fairly typical of old wooden structures in its state of structural soundness. b. Evidence has not been presented that there is significant structural failure due to serious problems such as dry rot or water damage. c. It is usually possible to reenforce weak structural systems without substantial demolition. There are many examples of Aspen homeowners regroating mortar, replacing the entire perimeter or portions of a foundation wall, and adding supportive beams in floor or roof framing systems. Without more detailed inspection and analysis, he cannot concur with the project engineer that these rather typical remedial techniques cannot be successful. d. Inspection of the house by a housing assessment inspector, rather than a structural engineer, would be helpful in determining what rehabilitation options may exist. e. This house may in some ways be easier to fix up than many other old wooden houses because it is small, only one story, and there is a lot of workable space around it. The cost estimate for renovation submitted by the contractor does not detail the minimal cost Of preserving the structure. f. It appears reasonable that the house probably cannot successfully be moved, as claimed by Integrated Engineering and South House Movers, due to the number of additions. g. The Building Department has some flexibility in UBC requirements with an applicant remodeling an historic house and building an addition. One important point is that any addition cannot be built in a way that would make the existing building more hazardous. Typically this can be accomplished. B. Staff Comments: Demolition of historic structures was one of the key issues addressed in the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Historic Preservation Element, leading to the rewrite of the City's historic regulations. Revision of demolition and removal review became the highest ranked short term priority of the Plan Element. Plan Objective 1.d. of the Plan Element states: 2 "Discourage demolition of significant historic structures identified and evaluated in the 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures as it has been amended in 1986." Ordinance 11 of 1987 established more stringent demolition review standards. The purpose of the demolition review was to discourage demolition if feasible options are available. Whereas statement #6 of Council's findings states: "The purpose of the demolition review is to provide a process of obtaining agreement between the City and owner with regard to the most appropriate use and preservation plan for the structure whenever possible, and to avoid the imposition of economic hardship on the owner of the structure." In addition, the historic incentives created through Ordinance 42 of 1987 were intended, in part, to discourage demolition of significant historic residential properties by providing special options for development and use of designated landmark proper- ties. The Planning Office has the following comments in response to the standards for demolition and removal of historic structures in -ion 24-9.5(b) of the Municipal Code: 1. ~tandard: The structure proposed for demolition is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to 1__.properly maintain the structure. Response: Larry Doble, P.E. of Integrated Engineering Consultants, Ltd. has provided a structural evaluation of 222 E. Hallam in a March 4, 1988 letter to Joseph Amato. Included in his letter are the following points: (1) The foundation is not structurally sound in large part (63%). There is evidence of movement and an "advanced state of deterioration of the brick masonry foundation system. " (2) 51% of the floor framing system is not structurally sound. It is described as a hodgepodge of framing that has evolved in the process of addition and modification and inadequate to support safe live loads. (3) Just over one third (35%) of the roof framing system is not structurally sound. The already marginal framing system has been undermined by many modifications and additions. It is "in a virtual state of collapse and is inadequate to support actual snow and ice loads," according to Mr. Doble. (4) 2 4% of the roof framing system does not have an adequate 3 support system. The interior foundation system must be re- z supported to prevent damage to the serviceable roof framing system. According to Charles Cunniffe's letter of March 4, 1988 no efforts have been by Mr. Amato to maintain the structure because of his involvement in appeal reviews during the time of owner- ship. It is noted that various efforts were made by the previous owner to maintain the structure; however, those attempts were not successful. Repair efforts by the prior owner included replacement of siding, masonry foundation repair, and replacement of metal roof. A site visit by Planning Office staff and the applicant's representa- tives was arranged on March 14, 1988. Staff's impression from the site inspection was that a relatively high degree of upkeep has been applied to the interior living spaces. We did not observe any signs of serious structural failure, although the floor was wavy in places and doors had been recut so to com- pensate. Nonetheless, we cannot declare that the structure is not in imminent threat of structural failure, as Mr. De]Ble has concluded; it just does not appear to be so. The Building Department has seri~us doubts that there are not other approaches that could successfully save the house. Inspection by a housing assessment inspector is recommended. The Engineering Department suggests that a second opinion by a structural engineer whose specialty is renovation be obtained. 2. Standard: The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused to provide for any beneficial use of the property. Response: There are three (3) aspects to this standard which we believe are pertinent to this application: structural, financial and liveability considerations. In more detail, we believe the concerns in this standard relevant to this applica- tion are: _04-_the-prart icability of structural repair to make the house liveable, (2) economic fe-isibility of remodeling and adding ( onto the house,-indluding utilization-of historic incentives to undertake a rehabilitation project, and (3) whether critical aspects of the size, layout, siting, etc. are so deficient to --Â· make the house unreasonable to inhabit. Regarding structural concerns, the project engineer concluded that the portions of the foundation, floor framing, roof framing, and roof support system that are unsound cannot be rehabilitated and must be replaced. The job of such "partial" demolition and replacement, as envisioned by the engineer, would entail damage to interior and exterior walls and removal of windows. In Mr. Doble's opinion, very little of the existing structure would remain undamaged in the process of replacing the unsound areas. He further states that to remodel or build an addition would 4 44/ 4-- create an additional burden of meeting current UBC requirements in those so impacted. The conclusions reached by Integrated Engineering are that the structure cannot be practicably rehabilitated. However, both the Engineering and Building Departments believe that there may be other acceptable approaches to the structural rehabilitation. Financial feasibility of rehabilitation was addressed in part in letters dated February 24, 1988 and August 31, 1987 from Scott Bowie, appraiser with Mollica and Associates. The primary question that Mr. Bowie addressed was the portion of property value within the existing house. He concludes that the present structure's value is only $20,000 to $40,000. He suggests that the remaining economic life of this structure, as with other comparable properties, is extremely abbreviated, if not complete- ly over. He states the house should either be razed or totally remodeled and expanded. We ask the question, can the existing house be remodeled and added onto in the rear (or a second structure built) in a way that would allow for a "reasonable return on investment?" This would be capitalizing on Mr. Bowie's second approach, to totally remodel and expand the house. The historic incentives created through Ordinance 42 of 1987 would provide, upon designation, a $2,000 grant and options for dimensional variations and condi- tional uses. In particular, the ability to build a second structure may be a beneficial approach to further developing the property. Don Westerlind responded to Richard Klein in a March 3, 1988 letter addressing cost estimates for three scenarios. "Renova- tion" would cost $850,000. Renovation through saving only exterior walls would cost $419,760. And demolition and building a new (and larger) house as planned would cost $419,760. It is not clear what assumptions were made in the $850,000 renovation. Neither of the City referral agencies can concur that only such an expensive approach is possible. Further addressing both financial and liveability concerns is a letter to Richard Klein from Sharon Tinnes, Sales Associate with Colwell Banker. Ms. Tinnes argues that the interior spaces are "badly confused" and not compatible to a Bed and Breakfast use. Ms. Tinnes also believes the B&B would not be an acceptable use to the neighborhood. Charles Cunniffe reenforces the argument that the historic incentives do not provide adequate options for uses, lay-out needs, or financial return. The infeasabilities of a B&B, boardinghouse, duplex or second home on the property are discussed. The house lay-out is considered "non-functional." Staff suggests that there Still may be opportunities for remodeling the interior to create a suitable lay-out, replace 5 additions and further add on, or build a second home on the site. There is sufficient land area in the R-6 portion of the property to be eligible for a duplex or second house use under Ordinance 42. Perhaps these options deserve further consideration by the applicant in conjunction with City-sponsored assistance. -3.e_ Standard: The structure cannot be practicably moved to another site in Aspen. Response: Dennis E. South of South House Movers in Grand Junction recommends in his February 22, 1988 letter that the house not be moved due to its age and the way it has been constructed. Rob Weien of the Building Department agrees. 4. Standard: A demolition and redevelopment plan is submitted when required by HPC which mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact that occurs to the character of the neighborhood of the parcel where demolition is proposed. Response: The proposed new house is a two story "new victorian." Lisa Purdy of Citiscape, Ltd. wrote in a February 22, 1988 letter that construction of a newly designed victorian will mitigate impacts to the neighborhood if efforts are made to align the front set back from the street with adjacent parcels, and if the massing is not out of scale with the neighborhood. The replication style is appropriate because it is of the same era and next door to the Glidden House which is also a replication. Staff's position is that this review criteria is best applied to partial demolition, when the redevelopment plan replaces a portion of an historic structure not impacting the original structure to which it is added. Another situation where this stnadard may apply is when the redevelopment plan is a replica of the historic structure on the site, such as the Glidden House. Total demolition of an historic structure is, in our opinion, contrary to this standard when that historic structure is replaced by a new house designed to look "historic" yet lacking any historic authenticity. The character of the neighborhood and historic importance of the structure are significantly impacted by the total loss of the house. 5. Standard: 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: No important historic association has been identified for the house, nor would be effected by demolition. 6. Standard: The demolition plan mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact on the architectural integrity of the historic structure or part thereof. 6 Response: HPC affirmed the "4" historic evaluation rating of the house, recognizing that many alterations have been made, however the historic character of the house is preserved. The applicant has continued to argue that the architectural integrity is very limited. Staff agreed with HPC that the "4" rating is appropriate, and that this house possess corresponding historic significance. Demolition of this house would obliterate that historic significance and represents an accumulative impact on the City's inventory of historic structures. ALTERNATIVES: Actions that HPC can take include: 1. Approve the demolition and redevelopment plan for 222 E. Hallam, finding that there are no practical alternatives to demolition and that the redevelopment plan mitigates to the greatest extent practical impacts on the neighborhood. 2. Deny the demolition and redevelopment plan for 222 E. Hallam, finding that the applicant has not demonstrated that the house cannot be retained and used for a beneficial use. 19. Table action on the application to allow the applicant to vfurther investigate alternative feasible options and approaches to demolition. < 41) Suspend action, finding that HPC needs additional information to *determine whether the applicant meets the standards of Section 24-9.5(b) of the Municipal Code or that the demolition must be studied jointly by the City and owner. PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION: We conclude that the applicant has not demonstrated that the structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused to provide for any beneficial use of the property. There appear to be some other feasible options and approaches. The Planning Office recommends that HPC table action on this application indicating unwillingness to approve demolition and direct the applicant to further study alternative approaches with regard to structural soundness, renovation techniques and costs, and construction of an addition or detached structure. sb.222.demo 7 f . MEMORANDUM To: Steve Burstein, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, Assistant City Engineer ~.f~ Date: March 13, 1988 Re: 222 E. Hallam Demolition Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. The Engineering Department was first consulted concerning this case in response to the Integrated Engineering Consultant letter of August 11, 1987. Our comment was that new construction for a residential structure costs about $85 (this number is from the Building Department) per square foot, and that there was no indication that the structure could not be repaired for less money than it would cost to build a new structure. 2. In response to the structural engineer report, a visual examination of the exterior of the structure shows that the roof and eave lines appear to be basically straight and level. Porch roofs are items which typically sag, and in severe cases roof ridges, such as at the Mikkelsen residence, sag severely. The structure at 222 E. Hallam does not show these signs of struc- tural distress. If the newest portion of the structure is sixty years old, and the oldest is nearly a hundred years old, the question arises whether the structure would not remain in its existing condition for another sixty to one hundred years. Perhaps a second structural opinion should be obtained from a professional whose specialty is renovation. 3. Exhibit B to Charles Cunniffe's letter of March 4 states that a renovation would cost about $850,000. If the Building Depart- ment figure for new construction is used on 2,472 square feet of structure, the result is a cost for new construction of $210,000. It appears that the City might want to obtain a renovation cost estimate from a second party, and perhaps one which is more experienced with renovation. 4. There is more to historical preservation than preserving existing materials. If it is not economically feasible to preserve the existing structure, perhaps the applicant could be permitted to recreate the existing structure using new materials. There is also more to historical preservation that preserving noteworthy architectural specimens. There is the element of preserving the architectural and/or historical character of neighborhoods and towns. The structure in question certainly provides a worthwhile character to the neighborhood and town. It appears that if the applicant were to reconstruct the structure as a replica, and if more volume were desired, that the volume could be provided below grade. CC: Jay Hammond, City Engineer Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office CR/cr/memo_88.24 CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, A. I.A. APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION I. a. Property Owner: Joe Amato P.O. Box 179 Monroe, New York 10950 b. Owners Authorization Refer to Exhibit A II. Property Address: 222 East Hallam Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Legal Description: A tract Of land situated in Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. being mor-e fully described as follows: Beginning at the south west corner of Lot M, Block 71, City of Aspen; thence N 14 degrees 50' 49" E 163.12 feet, thence S 78 degr-ees 23' 00" E 66.08 feet, thence S 22 degrees 58' 00" E 116.19 feet, thence S 12 degrees 69' 00" W 75.09 feet, to the nci-the,-11 line of Hallam Eureet; thence N 75 degrees 09' 11" W 139.65 feet, to the point of beginning containing 19,592 square feet more or less. III. Description of Structure Pr-oposed for Demolition: The existing structure at 222 East Hallam Street in Aspen is a single family residence, one story in height with horizontal wood siding and a standing seam metal roof. It is a product of numerous additions and alterations. The original residence built in 1887 was approximately 12 feet x 44 feet in size, with clapboard siding and a wood shingle roof. None of this structure l S in existence today except for the log foundation laying under the existing house which was built about a year later in 1888. Through the years this building was (Sec. III Cont.) added onto in 12 different locations. Today, the only portions of the house in existence that still dates back to the "mining days" are two walls of the sun room, originally added on in 1893. IV. a. Engineers Report: Refer to Exhibit B b. House Mover Report: Refer to Exhibit C V. Economic Feasibility Report: Refer to Exhibit D VI. Review Standards for Demolition: 1. Refer to Exhibit B 2. The structure in question can not be rehabilitated as as demonstrated by the engineer (Refer to Engineers Report, Exhibit B). It might be possible to reuse some portion of an exterior wall as was the case recently with Elli's in Town. Such an action would constitute nothing more than a false facade, which both the Owner and Architect feel is inappropriate. 3. Refer to Exhibit C 4. See Graphic Submittal 5 & 6. Refer to Exhibit E VII. a. Redevelopment Plan See Graphic Submittal b. Statement concerning effect of proposed redevelopment on neighborhood. Refer to Exhibit E CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, A.LA March 4, 1988 H.P.C. SUPPLEMENT FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: 222 East Hallam, Aspen, Colorado In response to Planning Department Letter Dated March 2, 1988: I. Owner Maintenance - In response to your inquiry concerning the owner's effort to properly maintain the structure, please be advised that during the adoption of Ordinance 11, the issue of retroactive requirements was raised, as well as concern about penalizing people who did not have the economic wherewithal to make improvements to their property. It was made clear during the review process that Or-dinance 24-9.5 was not intended to penalize people who had no obligation to maintain their homes, nor the economic ability to put money into their property. The maintenance requirement was only to apply to property owners after the ordinance was in effect. Mr. Amato has owned the property for less than a year. During this time, he has been involved in review processes appealing his score and now seeking a demolition. It makes no sense to require him to take any action in this limited time period until an ultimate disposition of his review processes is finalized. In the Structural Engineer's letter, he mentions previous attempts by the owner- to maintain the structural integrity of the house, even though those attempts were not successful. II. a. Structural Practicality - As indicated by the Structural Engineer's report from Integrated Engineering Consultants, Ltd. (Exhibit A) updated on March 4, 1988. the residence at 222 East Hallam Street, Aspen, Colorado is not structurally sound. The brick masonry foundation l S in an advanced state of deterioration, and must be replaced. The floor framing system cannot adequately support people and furniture in many areas and is in danger of collapsing. Page Two (Re: 222 W. Hallam Residence) The roof is sagging along the ridge, running lengthwise of the house. This l S due to an inadequate roof framing system which has been compromised by the numerous additions to the house. In reviewing the Structural Engineer's report, it is evident that the residence is not structurally sound, cannot be economically rehabilited or reused, and could not even be moved to another site. II. b. Remodel - A new structure could be added onto the rear of the existing house as long as it is structurally independent. This .i S not a viable solution however, due to the economic infeasibility of renovating the existing structure. III. Economic Feasibility - 1. As indicated by the Building Contractor who generated a cost analysis (Exhibit B), the structure cannot be economically renovated. For this reason it is also not feasible to add a new building to the rear of the existing building. 2. The incentives offered through Ordinance 42 will not provide a reasonable return on investment. The existing building could not feasibly be modified to become a boarding house or a bed and breakfast establishment. This is due not only to the haphazard layout of the existing building but also to the inability to feasibly modify the structure and create a reasonable interior room layout. The $2,000.00 grant available is not of sufficient amount to offset renovation costs. Currently the property at 222 East Hallam is zoned R6 and SCI. Because of this situaton, there is insufficient land available in the R6 Zone to construct a duplex or second home on the property. 3. As demonstrated by Alpine Construction, the Building Contractor retained to provide a cost analysis (Exhibit B), it is not feasible to renovate the existing structure. Page Three (Re: 222 W. Hallam Residence) IV. Livability - As Sharon Tinnes of the Aspen Broker Ltd. and Don Westerlind of Alpine Construction both point out in their letters (Exhibits B and C), the existing house layout (a product of numerous additions) makes little sense and does not function effectively. It is not reasonable to preserve a non-functional layout from a cost standpoint and is an impractical burdon to impose on the owner. EXHIBIT A Â«.0 ....Â· INTEGRATED ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS , Ltd. 4" Ecist \Idin Street Suite 206 Aspen,Colorado 86:i (303) 92-4-, 1-913 March 4, 1988 Job # 87147 Mr. Joseph Amato c/o Plymouth Construction, Inc. P. 0. Box 179 Monroe, New York Re: 222 E. Hallam Aspen, Colorado Dear Mr. Amato: At the request and with the assistance of Charles Cunniffe & Associates/Architects, Integrated Engineering Consultants, Ltd. has conducted an structural evaluation of the above residence. The inspection covered only those structural elements which were readily visible and did not include concealed elements due to the cost and disruption of exposing them. Based on our visual inspections and structural evaluation of the above residence, we conclude that: 1. SIXTY THREE PERCENT (63%) of the foundation is not structurally sound. The brick masonry is in an advanced state of deterioration, is not protected against frost action. This lack of protection against frost action will, not only result in continual movement and ultimate failure of the foundation system; but, will contribute to further deterioration of the wall, floor and roof framing systems and lead to their ultimate failure. In addition to the imminent failure of the above systems, there are the continual nuisance factors of in the interior walls and ceilings, doors and windows that will not open or close, and floors that tilt. There is evidence that the former owner was forced to replace approximately one third of the thirty seven percent (37%) of the serviceable foundation. The advanced state of deterioration of the brick masonry foundation system precludes the possibility of rehabilitation; and, will require demolition and replacement. 222 E. Hallam March 4, 1988 Page 2 2. FIFTY ONE PERCENT (51%) of the floor framing system is not structurally sound. In spite of the many amateurish attempts by the former owner, the hodgepodge of framing that has evolved, in the process of addition and modification, is inadequate to support safe live loads (i.e. people and moveable furniture). The above lack of protection against frost action in the foundation system and the inadequate floor framing system will, not only result in continual movement and ultimate failure of the floor system; but, will contribute to further deterioration of the wall and roof framing systems and lead to their ultimate failure. In addition to the imminent failure of the above systems there are the continual nuisance factors of cracks in the interior walls and ceilings, doors and windows that will not open or close, cracked floor tiles and tilting floors. The inadequate floor framing system, because of the hodgepodge of framing that has evolved, will require a combination of new floor framing system and a new interior foundation system; and, preclude the possibility of rehabilitation; and, will require demolition and replacement. 3. THIRTY FIVE PERCENT (35%) of the roof framing system is not structurally sound. The many modifications and additions that have occurred; and, the attempt, by the former owner, to maintain the structural integrity, by the addition of the new roofing material have, in fact, undermined an already marginal framing system to the point that it is sagging and is in a virtual state of collapse and is inadequate to support actual snow and ice loads. In addition to the imminent failure of the roof system, there are the continual nuisance factors of cracks in the ceilings and leaks in the roof. The spider web of the roof framing system precludes the possibility of rehabilitation; and, will require demolition and replacement. 4. TWENTY FOUR PERCENT (24%) of the serviceable roof framing system does not have an adequate support system. An new support system must be added to the interior foundation system to prevent damage to the serviceable roof framing system. 222 E. Hallam March 4, 1988 Page 3 In addition to the specific structurally unsound areas identified in items 1-4 above, there is a high probably for damage to structurally sound areas that can occur in the process of demolition and replacement. Since a majority of the interior walls, in the areas that require extensive repair, are plaster, there is a high probably they will be damaged. The same is also true for exterior walls. Exterior windows will have to be removed to avoid damage, thus endangering the windows and exterior siding. It is our opinion that very little of the existing structure would remain undamaged in the process of replacement of the unsound areas. In addition, attempts to move the structure would result in equal if not greater damage to the existing structure as well as require complete disassembly of large sections of the structural system. It is important to point out that we are not trying to bring the existing structural system up to the current UBC code requirements; but, instead to generally accepted design and construction techniques. Any attempt to remodel or add on to the existing structure will face the additional burden of current UBC requirements in those areas that are impacted by remodel or addition work. Based on the above observations, it is our opinion that: 1. The Structure is not structurally sound. 2. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused. 3. The structure cannot be practicably moved to another site in Aspen. If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of any further service, please contact us. Sincerely, INTEGRATED ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LTD. Lawrence A. Doble, P.E. President /LAD EXHIBIT B ALPINE CONSTRUCTION CO., |NC. 728 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PHONE 925-7007 March 3, 1988 Charles Cunniffe & Associates/Architects 520 E. Hyman Ave. Suite 301 Aspen, CO 81612 Attention: Richard Klein RE: Amato Residence 222 E. Hallam Aspen. CO Dear Richard, Per your request, Alpine Construction Co., Inc., has made the following estimates in regard to the Amato Residence. 1) To renovate the house from a historical aspect, ie: E ave every i tem possible, it would cost Eight Hundred Fifty Thousand dollars minimum (*8504000.00). 2) To renovate the house by saving only the exterior walis, building a new structure within, and then reapplving the existing walls would cost Four Hundred Nineteen Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty dollars (1419.760.00)â€ž The two examples above involve a two thousand square foot (2000 sq. ft.) house and a four hundred seventy two square foot (472 sq. ft.) WorKshop. 3) To demolish the existing house and workshop and construct a new home per your plans would cost Four Hundred Eight Thousand Four Hundred Eighty dollars ($408,480.00). This example involves a three thousand two square foot (3002 sq. ft.) house, a four hundred eighty four square foot (484 sq. ft.) garage ar~acned by a one hundred twenty square foot (120 sq. ft.) hallway. Items one and two above do not make any sense since the existing layout of the house has been haphazardly added on to without logic ano function. Why should anyone reconstruct a non-functional layout? These concerns are valid both from a structural point of view and functional point of view. Following are my credentials from Alpine Construction Co., Inc.'s AIA Contractor Qualification form: I . Don Stem Westerlind - President and Chle; Executive Officer. With Alpine Conscruction Co.. Inc. since 1962. BS - Civil Engineering and BS - Business from Universitv of Colorado. Presently serving on City of Aspen Board ot Appeals and Examiners, Pitkin County Board of Appea s, Treasurer Tor ine Aspen Historical Society. First Baptist Church Board of Trustees and former Treasurer of Young Life, ~spen. Formerly served on City of Aspen Historical Preservation Committee, Aspen Sanitation Board of Directors and as Treasurer and President of the Aspen Lions Club. In my experience of remodeling homes, the cost is greater and the end result usually less satisfactory than in building a new home. The costs in my :stimates rellect this. If I can be of further assistance or if you have any questions, please contact me. Thank_ you, / ' I nuL-=. ,; C.- ( 0.~ (j<Â·D ;141#.,i_jL- '~ <Don Sten Westerlind ~ Fresident \t DEW/dw \ EXHIBIT C .. A MEMBER OFâ„¢E SEARS FINANCIAL NETWORK 720 E DURANT AVENUE ASPEN CO 81611 COLDUSeLL BUS (303) 925-6750 :1.v J KeR (1 THE ASPEN BROKERS LTD. March 4, 1988 Mr. Richard Klein c/o Charles Cunniffe & Associates P. 0. Box 3534 Aspen, CO 81612 Dear Richard, In response to our conversation the other day; I really feel that the layout of the interior of the Amato house is so awkward due to the multiple, and I might say badly jumbled, additions, that no matter what you added to the rear of the existing structure, you would not be able to bringthe front of the house into line with the back for commercial value. What real estate purchaser wants what basically amounts to a spacious add-on to a badly confused and apparently structurally deficient front unit. The end result would flow like night and day. As to the Bed and Breakfast idea. I think you are dreaming if you feel that you can convert the house to that use. First and foremost the layout is not compatible to a Bed and Breakfast. Second, I feel the cost of bringing the house in line would be prohibitive compared to the anticipated commercial return. Third, I really do not feel that the neighbors would accept a Bed and Breakfast in the neighborhood in light of what has happened so far. I am really bewildered at this point as to just what Mr. Amato can do to recover the investment in the property he has already made! Sharon Tinnes Sales Associate ST:crs An Independently Owned and Operated Member 01 Coldwell Banker Residential Allmates, Inc. EXHIBIT C February 22, 1988 Charles Cunnifee & Associates/Architects Attn: Richard Klein, Project Architect 520 E. Hyman, Suite 301 Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 222 Hallam Street, Aspen Dear Richard, After inspecting the above mentioned property we have found that it has had approximately 11 additions to the original structure. Due to the age of the building and the way it has been constructed it would have to be cut into at least six pieces to be moved. We have been in our profession for over 30 years, and it has been our experience that the re-construction of the building once it has been cut would not be financially feasible or structually sound. After taking into consideration the above items, it is my recommendation that the building not be moved. Sincerely, Dennis E. South SOUTH HOUSE MOVERS mms enclosure EXH-IB-IT "D" JIimes J &10111*Lit & Asseclities Ino Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants Crystal Palace Building â€¢ 300 East Hyman Avenue â€¢ Aspen, Colorado 81611 â€¢ 303/925Â·8987 February 24, 1988 Mr. Joseph Amato c/o Mr. Richard Klein Charles Cuniffe and Associates P. 0. Box 3534 Aspen, CO 81612 RE: Consultation on the Amato Residence, 222 West Hallam, Block 71, Lots K and L Plus Metes and Bounds, Aspen, CO. Our File #10635 Dear Mr. Amato: This letter is in response to your request for reconsideration of our Consultation dated August 31, 1987 concerning the subject property. In brief, this letter is only intended to reinforce the statements we made in our letter at that time. We still feel the subject structure is outdated in terms of layout, size, quality and appeal to the market. We feel improvements contribute only minimally to value for the tap fees and short-term ,income-producing use which they represent. In the current market we J feel the vast majority of buyers will still raze, or totally remodel L construction if permitted by the City. The structure contributes only and expand the existing residence in the process of new luxury home minimally to value, in the $20,000 to $40,000 range. We have not been asked to provide a formal updated opinion of value. However, the market has remained strong for single family building sites in the West End. The last two sales have been at $365,000 and $430,000 for roughly 6000 square foot sites in prestigious areas of the West End. It is likely that a formal analysis of the subject property would find the original sale price to be low in the current market necessitating a small upward adjustment for current value. If we can be of any further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Scott M. Bowie, MAI Appraiser-Consultant Scott M. Bowie. M.A.I. Randy Gold, M.A.I. 1~ James J. Mollica, M.A.I. 0. . EXHIBIT D Jitmes J. Mollifit & tssoritiips, Iiir Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants Crystal Palace Building â€¢ 300 East Hyman Avenue â€¢ Aspen, Colorado 81611 â€¢ 303/925-8987 August 31, 1987 Mr. Joseph Amato c/o Mr. Richard Klein Charles Cuniffe and Associates P. O. Box 3534 Aspen, CO 81612 RE: Consultation on the Amato Residence, 222 West Hallam, Block 71, Lots K and L Plus Metes and Bounds, Aspen, CO Dear Mr. Amato: At the request of Mr. Klein, I personally inspected the subject property with the purpose of providing some preliminary consultation involving questions of valuation. It is my understanding that the function of this brief letter is to assist in arriving at some value conclusions for application for destruction of the existing house on the property through the I-Iistoric Preservation process. Questions addressed to me are: 1. What is the current value of the property? . L 2. What portion of that value lies in the existing improvements? Attached to this letter is a list of the most recent sales of building sites in Aspen's West End. Among these is the subject itself, shown as Sale 17 at 0335,000 in May of 1987. The market has been strong all during 1987, although we have little evidence to suggest that the subject would sell for a higher price currently than it did three months ago. The sale price was the result of normal negotiations between the buyer and the seller and, to our knowledge, represented an arm's length transaction. For this reason, we suggest that the recent actual sale price of the subject is the best possible indicator of current value of the property at 0335,000. To answer the second question, we have personally inspected the subject improvements. The home is a Victorian vintage structure of approximately 1700 square feet in poor to fair condition. We have been provided with an engineering report that shows the foundation to be inadequate and recommends that the structure be demolished rather than renovated. That engineering report is attached to this letter. From our inspection, the structure's layout is awkward and inefficient. The home is laid out as two bedrooms and 1-3/4 baths with an oversized kitchen, parlour, living room, small study and dining room. The porch overhang all but eliminates any potential view from the structure. Separation of the parlour and living room by a wall is very awkward, creating two small spaces rather than one large and functional space. Scott M. Bowie, M.A.I. ~ Randy Gold, M.A.I. DZ)~ James J. Mollica, M.A.1. The kitclien is outdated iii terms of cabinetry, floor coverings, etc.; and all appliances have been removed. Both the interior and exterior show many items of deferred maintenance. The reader should be aware that the West End real estate market has been extremely active for both land and improved properties for the past 18 months. Buildable land has been severely depleted. The result has been to drive up r prices of available building sites, and in many cases fairly substantial homes - have been purchased for the land only and the houses razed for new construction. Sales 1, SA, 12, 14 and 16 were lots improved with at least one relatively large single family home and in some cases there were two structures on the property. The rest of the sales except for comparables 6, 11 and 13 were improved with outdated Victorian structures in various states of repair and quality, but all of which had been removed or are intended for razing for , new luxury construction. In all cases where structures were included with tile properties, we have made some deduction for value. This is a result of the fact that the existing structures carry sewer and tap fee credits and also can act as an income-producing use during the planning stages for new construction. In some cases, the properties have even been "land banked" pending some future development and the structures used temporarily either as an income source or the buyer's personal use. In all cases, however, the remaining economic lives of the structures are extremely abbreviated, if not completely over. We suggest that such is the case with the subject. The improvements can contribute some minimal value for the tap fees and short-tenn income-producing use. Nevertheless, we feel the vast majority of the market will raze, or -- totally remodel and expand, the existing residence in the process of new luxury home construction. We feel the only value that the structure affords is for the tap fees and its short-term income-producing use, and these factors may produce as much ab 020,000 to #40,000 in value. As with all our comparable sales, most of the value of the property lies in the land. The structure is a "hodge podge" of styles and additions. These additions have left the interior layout extremely awkward. For any buyer to maximize the value of the site, it would be necessary to rue the structure or so substantially alter it as to make it unrecognizable in its current state. Given the foundation problems suggested by Integrated Engineering Consultants, it is our opinion that economics would demand that the structure be razed for new luxury construction on this site. I hope this brief letter is sufficient for your needs at this time. If we can be of any further assistance in the application or interpretation of the findings in this brief letter, please do not hesitate to call. I hereby certify that I have no present or future contemplated interest in the subject property; that to the best of my knowledge the information contained jill]WS 1 11(111lfil & issi~fidies,Iii(Â·. Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants herein is true and accurate; that my fee is not contingent upon the valuation stated herein. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. Sincerely, Scott M. Bowie, M.A.I, Appraiser-Consultant Â· '1011]fs 1 ~.:--12 & ism+81#: Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants Effective Price w/0 Sale Location Price Improvements Date Lot Size 1 Blk. 41 Lots K-M 0415,000 0365,000 4/85 9,000 SF 2 Blk. 34 Lots ARB 250,000 230,000 4/85 6,000 SF 3 Blk. 35 Lots H & I 235,000 225,000 6/85 6,000 SF 4 Blk. 35 Lots F, G, 250,000 240,000 7/86 7,500 SF & part of H 5 Blk. 20 Lots 4,5,6 215,000 239,000 7/86 9,000 SF 6 Blk, 2 Lots K-P 435,000 217,500 ea. 6/86 8,800 SF ea. 7 Blk. 14 Lots A-F 425,000 415,000 6/86 18,000 SF 8 Blk. 26 Lots F-I 425,000 415,000 10/86 11,300 SF 8A Blk. 26 Lots C-E 375,000 350,000 9/86 9,000 SF 9 Blk. 60 Lots HLI 250,000 240,000 8/86 6,000 SF 10 Blk. 45 Lots KRL 235,000 225,000 3/87 6,000 SF 11 Blk. 39 Lots A-D 230,000 230,000 10/86 12,000 SF 12 Blk. 41 Lots O-P 555,000 525,000 3/87 9,500 SF 13 Blk. 8 Lots R & S 240,000 240,000 7/87 6,000 SF 14 Bl. 33 Pt. A,B,C 410,000 385,000 6/87 8,100 SF 15 Bl. 35 Lots AUB 285,000 275,000 12/86 6,000 SF 16 Bl. 14 Lots K,L,M 410,000 375,000 5/87 9,000 SF 17 Bl. 17 Lots K,L & 335,000 310,000 5/87 16,580 SF metes and bounds 18 Bl. 27 Lots H & I 365,000 350,000 7/87 6,000 SF ..0: 1 4$4i'26.,21.,1.04'gret/Sif4%4,Â£&4*Naâ€¢ it,6. , . 4/?,LI:i{PA ti:r:.4,'.,5 ,#f ~tr,:*61*4/9 6:f : 44**FV . A' A#, T..4: 7 I ,- /1 ' ''>3 ~IA' 9,1, â€¢ ~44 */ 0 Â©~ 't â€¢> ' 41.09 /'*J:~Â§'Â· , 11)>,i.~"A Â»'., di~~:g.3,11:;; 4, ..4-,74:t;Â·ffirbqi*9lii,~liÂ¢Â·tili-9~'7'* 0 - <1 I / I I 4 ' ... fij-- ....1. 8-cr .:10-~., ~: 3-f f. th 97.~2;148*~,.,1 ziot;:>:iu40.*':,rra,N~11$: ;iX* f..f:.3, 0.'- ,- ' 1~tfv ./IN 8.5:Â·7â€ž73~46â€¢101 49Â¥33il ''*:7 . . I ..4.i,tÂ·,;(42.4: I. ~., '. ,<t i..,-Â·Â·pt,~4 - f*yoCA ..1. 4 ' - t~ U, ./. . ., ' 44 914* Ytlk-1 - 1 4 '. ..2 1-1 41 . 12. 2, 61'. I 2 3 t, .' â‚¬'Â· Â· ~*f~00Â¢WY' 4, aQUeÂ»ULR.Zt~~*13 ,4F- 14Â· AL Fiet'~riâ€¢~ .Â·4 4'4*4:L'~~,1?;,~ F<' Af. .Â·~.*~,~. . :1.--.4 12 t. 1 , 19.1, 4 : , 4/j;34.SM-td-,4 9' 15*Ty'.?2,'L:il~#5 4 1.1-1.:t' t... h: 11/a.m,Â»*f..1 Ellii<01 . A, 6, I Ir I IÂ· ' 1 '.I ./. 4 F , , 0 -1 I. .1. ,/.-421' .1 1-' ' .lip:. :3: 1 I .. . .4 0. <fbRY<JZ - 046 -a., I~k- -1Â·4, g y,Â· ti, ,*~t.4 ~ ..... 244*k% 6.# .. . C-â‚¬-" 4 : -- E. . ':f,1 - Att lit'14. 3 ~, d R,i j .1 I ~;46 ,~ ~~Â·,~ , ;'~ 97 U , , 4 :':Â·,,. 210~ * ft 1 1 . '' *:..Â©Â·Â·p- - - rvAL,2/* F.EX .. .. .r'. 1 - . . 1-,(-t~:lf f!~...~,3.'b,'' '-t,~C ''A.~~'~~~.~'.,~I'A#:~~~~~~,'44.*1'67*~92Â·. 4,Â· ..1,-ftlf':211Â«fti{347 <.34-242Â·'-1?jt-.trizerst.,AÂ»- - , .....+ <,DitÂ·?-4,9 05;206. Â· 12' 2Â« Â·Â·U F.- A.. 4:UFf:Â·Prlk*N?:.r Â·' 0 -r,. . 4.... 'iÂ· 76*Â·f.. * I + 1. -,tice :A,ir*RE&,215. c.Â·{-i.#:FO~ 1Â·If- . 4;}D~45ej'PÂ·4 -..Â·~:n t , .' 1 Â· TES.Â·13 - .,44.:;*.43*S,t'h:ptiOf-5 -:,fltigi.-:44;.~:~- - V . 41.1 4 . .Ril 't,- : :-':.6 4~47:04 " 1.1 16 4.4$; . Â·ti, tifir,0 Â·\ I 4.4,1[, ..0,Â¢ , .2.4 . Jet <H:#0 --3.. . - .*-.Â¥.40. f 3 4t .f'*litiff: <4 .. . 'Pi...S:Â»**vdgg~+48, -,Â·,grk **'.I 'P. .V ce. 1.-6,4:911103&Art.V' I W , ?Ali.>\'". fs*f&42 ,. Â·2'~- - L :.v' : .7.TRY,i.~..,tÂ»;Â·4 394*Filk*95*53.fi':.~f~*~~5'.z:f.ti 1 , ~'4fff{,Pilfi~~,,...2. , *:- *Obtio,-:", r;~ty:1 7$4015,4.,1,1 .Â£)irt.e,b/,9'P,% :414,4,1>-3~;y: A **~~~~~4~79 1-Â· : asi>Â£92418Â·3, ifilf ~ :,Li~..~.'.49.?~~**~*yu%.:l39 i-AÂ· lit, Â»:e,3*..rs 4,4/4, t.:4*40,11 i:{3413~~..'fr#,~â€ž1.. #*~.,#23*4,4:4tp*6?294%1--~4#Â·9*Â»4.,9 .~*.k - ...:4*â€¢.4,t':y-1-MO..1...~'.Â£,ittk:42 .~t.&:' Â·Â·.Â· :?,...:t .21*.~.Ar .....4.. 'M ~4 4 U ~19~,t.~'Â· 1'/.by~ - + i /4, /.0 I . :.:. N. 4, /,76 - Ipd,Ni///F--1.* '7 V 44 1/4 ' ;1 x i.4,0,/ 1...r.... - i '' |'' 6.4 11: 516(' 49$<4'j, ~.WÂ·.K. Â·' 414*ht,Ell/'84Â·*L.' 1'4/dii'- -- 4-' ,~â€¢.. -.i 2 , j 'L 4312' Â· r AC-~,;Â· 1 ';~'ki liyf::'6*.11 : 133 â€¢4''Vi . ~'-' Â· ,- --v ''.741-3- "' fi/- -'- Â· a,43â€¢11â€¢ Abf,<46. ;'~ b> Â· -9 tl; -...i , '44Â·42/1 948 Â· d .Â·~ -1 + .1 /7/Bf ' I .-- 01 .001 'J I ': .. .~4.,t t: 4~*4,$ . D D QUALIFICATIONS OF APPRAISER Scott M. Bowie, M.A.I. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, M.A. I. #6848 Instructor, University of Colorado Continuing Education Division Licensed Real Estate Broker in the State of Colorado Member of the Upper Colorado Board of Realtors Member of the National Board of Realtors EDUCATION: Harvard University, BA, 1971. Phi Beta Kappa, Magna Cum Laude University of Colorado Continuing Education Division: Real Estate Law; Real Estate Finance American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers: Course 1-A, Principals; Course 2, Urban Properties; Course VIII, Residential; Course 1-B, Capitalization Techniques; Course VI, Evaluation Procedures BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE: Appraiser-Consultant, James J. Mollica & Associates, Inc., 8/76-present Colorado Real Estate Broker: 1974-present Condominium Property Management: Durant Condominiums, Aspen, CO 1971-1976 Designated M.A. I.: March, 1984 MAJOR CLIENTS SERVED: Aspen Skiing Co. Aspen Savings & Loan Ute City Mortgage Bank of Aspen City of Aspen County of Pitkin First National Bank in Aspen First Western Mortgage Empire Savings TYPES OF PROPERTY APPRAISED: Commercial, Office & Retail Lodges-Hotels Residential Special Purpose Buildings Ranches-Farms Apartments Subdivisions-Vacant Land Industrial Condominiums PURPOSES OF APPRAISALS: Acquisition Insurance Mortgage Condemnation Estate Planning Tax Planning STATEMENT OF CERTIFICATION: The American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers conducts a voluntary program of continuing education for its designated members. MAI's and RM's who meet the minimum standards of this program are awarded periodic education certification. I am certified under this program through September 15, 1990. Jollifs .1 ilollifil d 1 ssm'lilles. Inc Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants EXHIBIT E (i-iscape Lic_, February 22, 1988 Mr. Richard Klein Project Architect Charles Cuniffe & Associates P. 0. Box 3534 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Dear Richard, Per your request, I have analyzed the impact of the proposed demolition of 222 E. Hallam and the consequent redevelopment of that site with a new "victorian" house. In this analysis, I have assumed that your engineers and structural consultants will adequately demonstrate to the Aspen HPC that the current house is so structurally unsound as to make rehabilitation or removal of the house to another site impractical. I looked at Ordinance Number 11 (series of 1987) for standards for reviewing both the demolition and the redevelopment. From this I determined that the demolition should: (1) mitigate impacts to the character of the neighborhood, and, (2) mitigate impacts to the historic importance of adjacent parcels. I believe that construction of a newly designed victorian house will mitigate impacts to the neighborhood if efforts are made to align the front set back from the street with adjacent parcels, and if the massing is not out of scale with the neighborhood. Impact on the historic significance of adjacent parcels will be mitigated by the above and by replicating details from the victorian houses of the same era as the Glidden house. Since the Glidden house is also a replication of a victorian house, the proposed new house will not detract from the historic significance of this property. 1033 Steele Denver CO. 80206 303 399-4891 page 2 Mr. Richard Klein February 22, 1988 Standards (in Ordinance #11) for evaluating redevelopment of the site state that the project: (1) be compatible in character with designated structures on adjacent parcels, (2) be consistent with the character of the neighborhood, and, (3) enhance, or not detract from, the cultural value of designated structures on adjacent parcels. Again, maintaining compatibility with both the neighborhood and adjacent structures can be accomplished by designing a house which echoes the major design elements of the era of houses surrounding it. Compatibility will need to be reflected in scale, materials, colors, fenestration, roof lines, set-backs and style. As a last step of this analysis, I looked at the proposed design for the new house at 222 E. Hallam. It appears to me that this design addresses each of the issues I have mentioned above. It is compatible and in character with both the neinhborhood and adj acent structures because of its victorian details, scale, massing, set back from the street, colors, fenestration and materials. The roof echoes the pitched roof lines of the victorian era, the double-hung windows represent the appropriate time period, the steep chimney, cupola, and open front porch all portray design elements that are both appropriate and well-designed to be compatible to the neighbor- hood. Even the garage is detailed in an appropriate victorian manner. In addition, the site plan demonstrates that the massing and placement of this structure will not detract from either of the adjacent structures. . page 3 Mr. Richard Klein February 22, 1988 Given that it is not feasible to either move or renovate this structure, it would seem to me that this proposed new house will be a good addition to the neighborhood. Sincerely,~1 615?L /625 Lisa Purdy President LP/ode cc: Mr. Joseph A. Amato EXHIBIT F CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, A.I.A. AMATO RESIDENCE EXTERIOR MATERIALS o Foundation - Concrete o Siding - Beveled Clear Cedar, Painted o Trim - Clear Cedar, Painted o Windows - Marvin, Wood Sash, Painted o Doors - Wood - Solid Coor, Panel, French o Garage Door - Sectional Wood Panel Roll-up o Millwork - Cedar or Redwood, Painted o Roof - Cedar Shakes or Metal Standing Seam, o Flashing - Copper o Masonry Fireplace - Used Brick FEVISON L L Â·01 ./ Â· r, --Z. -7~ \ ly \ 1111 -4 - ----- -/4 pesaa:,Â·4 2- ,m GPEK,~ 7-0 LIVIKA- ~ iw fupor-1 2,6-LOW MA#Â·rtg DEFFULFI plf/\ aff--4 \lu 1 1-_1-Zr -1 vt 126 j -9 . N:$53 r 1 11 A-",TH 51 41: beaaa,1 3 1 l 22 4- //7 1 - -1- ~< -- Rk-~ L--~~ - A rt /i /07/ AA 131 r=zs /Â£p# f : 1 -1- \1 \ -1 empgakl 4 - | 1 . I . 1 02-Oil> LE----2 1 DRAWING 5442,4.rk=- PES: 4/.1 - wrrm. 1-EvEL .Â£8 Nâ‚¬1 -81/5 + .L- ~ U FrEd< LEVEL FLOOR PLAN U) NORTH DATE 8.7Â· 87 \ PS' 1, r. i...V L 9Â·â‚¬E I .O -â‚¬E' 0/ Sl.13.LIHDUV/SaLVIDOSSV Â¥ 3:IdINNnj 2181Â¥14) 0655-SZ6/E0E ENOHd3131 2198 OCIV28O-103 'N3dS/ 'DESE )(08 Od '00'Nid US INV-1-1Â¥H 18Â¥I 888 BONECISER REVISON t I U 2 11 1 1 1 -4 1 _2212Â£3 4-cass . 4-4 - . - 0 7 11 1 1 1 . TWO CAR. eARAAE _ 1 1 flul 11 - F==1 IC F Z LIVING FOOM --= 1 2 M 10 .1 - 3 eD 1 9--7 ~ 1 9 Â·. 1 11.11 i/1 1 - -J 1 - EZE, 4 f- 1 1 MA \1 i A ,Â¢>' 121+Wr Rju 607 // 9 M o r--4 1 FIEAKE"T TUr -1-7- J- ~ 11 LAp 2 1 rli ILL 12% _22 ,11 111 0 1-1 1!1 - 1 1/ 0 1-1 141-ra,1 1 : Fl Â« L-1-1- I li -1 Mr n L------. DRAWING 9.41.42â€¢4AT, c- 00416+J - -141â€¢4 Le-Vel. rlroc Joe NO Â®71 5 - C.VE 0-7 - #7 MAIN LeveL FLOOR PLANI --ur NORTH -W Sâ€¢-EE' NO E.-#: 2 *â‚¬E T 0/ 06SS-SZ6/EOE 3NOHd3131 2!918 OC]V3O1O-3 'N36/ 'DESE XO8 0 d DO'NadSV tle WV-1-19)4.1.SVEI 282 UVHI) .LVI/V V FEVISC",1 1 - I -I 35-Ty ..- 1*~EP U p --1 - ~ - 2 2 23 1 J /3 - J 1 1 49 E , ~ 4.-4 N .- 10 - Mri 0[1 LL - L - 1 - 1-- 11'11'11'11'~111111 ~ill '1111'ii 6 0 -- 1,1 , 14 i __,1 Fri z ~ _--L 11 =:=== f-4 f EAST ELEVATION !40 - t- oâ€¢ il 7 -i * / 21 1 ;11! 11111 111 1, 4 'H -fs-, 2 : X 1.1 ,/1 = J FE - //i- - i /1 - 'FEEBTEILe - - 11 21 142/ . 1 Ile~ 11 n U LI =I=== ~1 1 'me=r 7=1 11 -= lili Bil = = 0..WING '54'EN,AT-,6 2Â£64'4 - E.L,ENXIO.le, 1 64 4 -- - I I 1 1-1 , -naia 0715 04Â¥â‚¬ 6- 7- 67 4.' Â· WEST ELEVATION 5 14â€¢ r- cpâ€¢ Bâ‚¬ET OF S.C)3.UHDHV/S31Â¥DOSSÂ¥ 9 3.1.11NNn) 53-IHVI-D Olvwv 0655-SZ6/EOE 3NOHd3131 21918 OaV3O1O3 'N3dSV 'DESE X08 Od -00'NldeV US INV-1-1VH .1-893 822 BONECISE= - 1 , 1 -2 1 1 Z 41* l i l i 11 A 2 1 ill 1 1 *tz 1101 1 -4 E - 4 1 4 4 4 ITI - Z ~ 011~ 0 E~ol 0 i. 1 It ELI E -21 I ' 111 2 ill 1 AMATO CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS N + 4 101:11 111,21!Ill RESIDENCE nr 1 114311 IN Ill 222 EAST HALLAM ST. ASPEN, CO. P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 i f . Â»30 %.2 $ /<44 / 7 .C - 4 e /4 i If r 3 3 2 -8 / +r 1 0 0 - r ' i J ' 1, A / I. I 74 / I- 4 / / e. \ 1 \ 4/1 il :#-- . 4\ V / 1/ K Â« 6 7 -\ ,\ .. I \\ '/1 H /1 , 1 . . i vi . < 4, U . , \. % ......\ N / /\ . 2 \ / \ / 16 4 0 / \ I. 3 3 / / 6 / I l . / L I / \ % .4 . / \: . 0.1 .1 - . -4 ./ \ In , N / \ i \/ \/ \R , . , 1.7 14 \ G -U : I. 95 1; i.' '' 00 1.: '' 1- I , m \/ 7 Ir 15 rx , , L< ~ >1 EE . 1 , 1 . , \' '' ' I I ..1 ' ' I I ff U V ' 1 /\Il ' - , 52 / / 0 .. 4 . + . ' , .. lk . ' I . . // 1 I , / I 1 1 .' 4 \ I. /42 / 21 7 9 1 \ / i / V / / il ///7/ - 1-i 1 m r. 0 > AMATO CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS * 4 4 ;6 m 2&1 9 - 6 23 2 3~6 RESIDENCE ~ 4.-1 2 "3 222 EAST HALLAM ST. ASPEN,CO. P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 L ~ '4# 15>UILDIâ€¢jel 417 - "ACK 1-WL -4-Ivâ€¢-latt, FAAMIL 11,116 1,177, H i.,it -Â·c-1-0 00Â·,O! â€¢ : 0 1-9,0 1rl'E 9-1,râ€¢2â€¢â€¢1 >[33Â·-.-,Â· 19*,Al,4 71.,Lk; ~ -00-- 03Â» Â·191xl 01-4: ~AVEL ALLIE; wâ€¢r r,EVISIDI , 0---- , Residence Proposed . f 222 E. Hallam 11 + li \ \ 1 li It! - ' I 'L_ . 1 |L 11 1 L .1 -. 1 1- --' -1 1 .1 1 11 .....923-1-13 -_...__ 9793:5.-_ . ' 0.....ING 4 'TE Cl-+1- 'me'l 4. Meâ‚¬%- -06 NO e>-7 \75 9 0â€¢TE 4-1 . '213 - i 40 9â€¢EE T NO 1 . 11 -, - Hill-Bittililit- S-â‚¬ET cy 23 05 11)311HJHV/SalVIX:)SSV Â¥ 3=1=11NNn) S3-IHVH) olvl/\IV ~ 0655-526/EOE 3NOHd3131 ZRS OC]VVO-IOD 'N3dSV 'DESE )(08 Od '00"yBdeV 18 WV-1-1901893 282 BONBOISEEI 4 4% MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: 113 East Hopkins Avenue Demolition and Significant Development Review (Public Hearing) DATE: March 22, 1988 LOCATION: 113 East Hopkins Avenue, Lots C and D, Block 68, Townsite and City of Aspen, Colorado. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Demolition of the 1972 addition to this original 1888 structure, and Sig- nificant Development Review, which would add an additional 1,040 square feet of living space to the house; maximum height of the addition would be 25 ft. In addition, the existing rear shed would be removed, replaced with a one car garage with storage. A new chimney would be added to the original structure and the large pine tree located closest to the structure would be removed. SITE, AREA & BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Lot Area: 6,000 sq.ft. Existing Floor Area: 1,348 sq.ft. Proposed Floor Area: i 2,388 sq.ft. Proposed Maximum Height 25 ft. Proposed new building front yard setback 50 ft. HISTORIC DESIGNATION STATUS: Designated, Rated "Notable". PROCEDURE FOR PROJECT REVIEW: Applicants are requesting partial demolition; application must meet the standards in Section 24- 9.5(b) (4) through (6). The HPC shall hold at least one public hearing on its consideration of the application with public notice published in the newspaper. The two-step Significant Development Review process involves both Conceptual and Final approval by HPC. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Planning Office has the following comments in response to the standards for demolition stated in Section 24-9.5(b) of the Municipal Code, followed by review of the proposal according to the development review standards in Section 24-9.4(d). r DEMOLITION REVIEW STANDARDS ~ f -n - 1. Standard (4) : A demolition and redevelopment plan is submitted when required by HPC, or for any partial demolition, which mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact that occurs to the character of the neighborhood... Response: The applicant is requesting to demolish the 1972 addition to the original structure and redevelop, adding 540 sq.ft. to the footprint. We are primarily reviewing this application as a Significant Development, as the original historic structure remains intact with no demolition proposed. However, upon review of the proposed redevelop- ment plans it is apparent at least one very large pine tree will be removed, which is not recommended and discussed in the Guidelines (pg.49). We believe the landscape features of this property have historic integrity and contribute to the neighborhood's character. Removal of critical landscaping would negatively affect this neighborhood, directly across from Paepcke Park. 2. 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 parcels... Response: The applicant is requesting demolition only o the 1972 addition to the original structure, as well as the existing shed/outbuilding at the rear of the site. The 1904 Sanborn map does show a one story outbuilding at the rear of the site (alley access). We doubt the historic authen- ticity of the existing outbuilding. 3. Standard (6): The demolition plan mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact on the architectural integrity of the historic structure... Response: Again, the applicant is requesting demolition only of the 1972 addition to the original structure. It appears that the structural integrity of the original historic house will be fully maintained. If siting, massing and detailing are designed to be more compatible with the original house, as discussed below, staff believes that distinct architectural qualities of the house will be preserved. Conceptual Development Review 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the 2 h . subject site is in a Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to a Historic Landmark. Response: The Planning Office finds the Development Plan appropriate in many areas. The maintenance and care of this historic property in the redevelopment is addressed in the application. In reviewing the Aspen Historic Landmark Development Guidelines, staff finds the proposed new development appropriate in front yard setback in relation to the original historic structure. The visual pattern of spacing along the street is maintained. However, the location of the new exterior addition could be better designed to lessen the overall impact to the original structure. Limiting the size and scale of the addition in relationship to the historic building is recommended. We feel the massing issue is critical in the new development and would like to see further study of the location of the addition, possibly moved to align with the east side wall, or taking advantage of the historic preservation incentive for encroachment into side yard setbacks. This would lessen the impact into the west side yard, eliminate the need to remove or move the large pine tree and reduce the visual impact to the original historic facade. The roof pitch and type proposed is in keeping with the Guidelines. The eaves should overhang and should be incorporated into the new construction. The 1904 Sanborn Map reflects both a shake and a metal (or tin) roof on this original structure; the proposal is for metal true standing seam, stainless steel coated with a terne alloy which oxidizes to a gray patina. We find the gable dormers and additional detailing proposed in the new addition create more of a busier Queen Anne style to this original Miners cottage. Page 67 of the Guidelines states: "The integrity of the genuine historic structures will possibly be compromised by the introduction of newer buildings" (new additions) "that imitate historic styles and appear older than they really are." We feel the replicated architectural details proposed for the new addition may not be considered appropriate when considering the scale and original use of this home, and the neighborhood. It is recommended in designing new additions to make clear what is historic and what is new. With the removal of the large pine tree from the side yard, the new addition is quite visible from the street. Simplification would serve this project better, and would focus more attention on the original historic facade. In general, the fenestration proposed on all elevations is of good consistent design, with the exception of the highly decorated dormers. Four French doors are proposed on the 3 a rear elevation, which is fairly unobtrusive from the side streets. The proposed upper level balcony centered betweer the two dormers will afford a good view, and as this is on non-character defining elevation (rear), it has minimal impact on the historic integrity of the original house. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is con- sistent with the character of the neighborhood. Response: This block contains a variety of architectural styles, reflecting various developmental eras of Aspen. As the applicant states, this is the only designated structure in this block, classified as notable. It faces Paepcke Park and has strong historic neighborhood character illustrating the life style of turn-of-the-century Aspen family/home environment and lifestyle. Landscape: This particular neighborhood has an abundance of beautiful, very large trees, particularly pines. One of our concerns with the redevelopment plan is the removal of the large pine next to the house. The Planning Office received a copy of the letter to Mr. Bucher (applicant) dated March 15, 1988 from Midland Landscape Contractors, Inc. reporting that upon review of the situation they felt the tree could be moved and the survivability rate "would be high". It should be noted that in previous discussion with our Parks Department with regard to moving large trees their comments are it generally takes three years to know if the tree will survive. The Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Historic Preservation Element specifically discusses historic landscapes under Goals and Objectives (II.3) and states: "Preserve and encourage timely replanting of cottonwood trees and other species of the urban forest that contribute to the streetscape beauty and historic scale of buildings in relation to vegetation." The Planning Office would like to see further study of this issue, and the readjustment on site of the new addition to eliminate the need for tree moving. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: There are no other designated historic structures on adjacent parcels. Our previous comments on development design for the proposed addition stand. The applicant states it is his desire to "perpetuate the general ambience of the (historic) house and create a cohesive architectural design and size...(and will) increase the positive impact the house will have upon Paepcke Park and the surrounding area." 4 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: An attached exterior addition to a historic building expands its "outer limits" to create a new profile. Because such expansion has the capability to radically change the historic appearance, an exterior addition should be considered only after it has been determined that the new use cannot be successfully met by altering non-character- defining interior spaces. New design should be clearly differentiated so that the addition does not appear to be part of the historic resource, yet to be compatible in terms of massing, materials, and relationship of solids to voids and color. The Planning Office recommends further study of the elevations to address these issues. ALTERNATIVES: Actions that HPC can take include: 1. Approve the request for partial demolition and conceptual development for 113 W. Hopkins, subject to minor design alterations, if any. Final Development Review requirements should be specified in this motion. 2. Deny or table the partial demolition and redevelopment plan for 113 W. Hopkins, finding that the redevelopment plan needs further study in areas of siting, massing and detailing. Direction should be given to the applicant to assist him in submitting a new plan for the addition. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends tabling of demolition of the 1972 addition to the existing structure at 113 East Hopkins and Conceptual Development based on the siting, massing and detailing of the new addition, as previously specified. We feel there are more than minor changes that need to be made to the development plan to obtain historic compatibility with the original structure. memo.113.e.hopkins 5 Â¥ APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DE VEL OPMENT REVI EW Applicant's Name and Address: J. Gary Bucher 522 Fall River Road Houston, Texas 77024 Proof of Ownership: Attached copy of Deed of Trust Property Address, Legal Description: 113 East Hopkins, Block 68, Lots C and D of Aspen Town Site, Pitkin County, Colorado Type of Review: Significant Description of Proposed Development Activity: Applicant proposes to make a significant rennovation of the existing structure by preserving the general architectural continuity and elements of the original structure built in 1888, deleting the addition of 1972, and adding a new architectural space to the edifice as illustrated by Exhibit A of this application. Currently the house contains 1348 square feet. With proposed modifications, the total square footage would become 2388 square feet for the main house. The existing shed on the rear of the lot would be replaced with a one car garage and storage. The Victorian historic theme would be carried throughout the addition architecturally. A brick fireplace would replace the Franklin stove and would again be representative of the historic style. Maximum height of the structure would be twenty-five feet. Illumination consistent with the architectural period would be employed. Building materials to be used on the exterior would be consistent with what currently exists, 2x4 lap siding and wood sash windows which would be of appropriate dimensions of the historic style but upgraded as to thermal insulative capacity. The metal roof would be replaced with a metal true standing seam design which is stainless steel coated with a terne alloy which oxidizes to a gray patina. Decorative shingles, filigree, and trim work would be representative of the Victorian Period. The exterior paint scheme would be consistent with the structures of the locale. The addi t i on woul d be compliant with the current FAR's. Statement of the Effect of the Proposed Development on ' 2, the Original Design of Structure and/or Character of the Neighborhood, and why the Proposed Development meets the Review Standards of Section 24-9.4(d): In order to comment fully as to the effect of the proposed development, one must look at the surrounding envi ronment as well as the history of the house itself. Firstly, the house is set in the west Aspen (Shadow Mountain) area of historical district number five which has less original construction than many of the other areas because of the removal of mining and railroad facilities in this area as well as the demolition that occurred at the base of Aspen Mountain. The house faces Paepcke Park which was a WPA project in the 1930's and is abutted to the west by the Bishop house built in 1888 and remodeled in 1958. To the east is the Millard house of Tyrolean character built in 1956 and remodeled in 1979. The next house completing the block on East Hopkins that faces Paepcke Park is the log house of Margaret Willson built in 1950 and remodeled in 1964. Behind this block facing south are the Hearthstone Lodge, Corkscrew Condominiums, and the Chalet Lisl, all built in the 1955-1968 time frame of various architectural styles. It should be noted that there are no historically designated structures that face Paepcke Park from either the Garmisch Street or Aspen Avenue sides. In 1980 when an inventory of historical structures was conducted, only one house along block 68 was designated, 113 East Hopkins. Accordingly, the structure was classified as notable, the lowest category of historic designation based upon the fact that it represented a type of period or method of construction of historical relevancy, comparable to a number 2 rating of the exhibit to City Ordinance 11 of 1987. It was stated that "the significance of this residential structure is not of those who owned it or lived in it nor of its architecture, although this structure is representative of Aspen's mining era. This structure is of historical importance by illustrating the family/home environment and life style(s) of Aspen's population etc." At that time the residence was considered to be unaltered as indicated on the inventory worksheet series of 1980. However, as attested to by Fitzhugh "Tam" Scott, a former owner of the residence, an extensive rennovation and addition were done prior to 1972. This included the replacement of all the siding, the addition of stained glass windows, and an increased living area from 660 square feet to 1348 square feet and the addition of an out building. In 1976 as shown by permits at the city building office, a metal roof was placed on the structure. From all persons interviewed and all available documents, the only potentially original exterior materials are the porch columns. The general architectural outline of the original 660 square foot structure has been preserved at bes t. There appears to be no documents available to substantiate pro or con as to the originality of the structure prior to 1965. Based upon all the facts and particularly those mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, the structure app ears to be of limited historic value and questionable authenticity as to original existing exterior materials used. However, it is the desire of the owner to perpetuate the general ambiance of the house and create a cohesive architectural des ign and size that would be in keeping with the concepts and goals of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Historic Preservation Element dated October 1986 and City Ordinance 11 of 1987. The rennovation will clean up the existing features of the orginal structure and increase the positive impact the house will have upon Paepcke Park and the surrounding area. The addition sets back 20 feet from the face of the original dwelling and 50 feet from the street minimizing its impact upon the structure as a whole as perceived from Paepcke Park. The footprint of the proposed changes reflect an addition of only 540 square feet. The garage will be of the same genre as the house and essentially be equivalent in square footage to the structure it is replacing, but will be conforming with the current FAR's. It is felt that because of the size fo the addition relative to the currently existing structure and its inferior position to the original facade and maple trees of 6-8' circumference as noted in Exhibit A. , Front Elevation, the overall impact will be moderate and ultimately be compatible with the original structure and its character. The design maintains the character and flavor of the original dwelling, but at the same time allows for an improved use of the site and living area for a single family residence. It is sincerely deemed that the proposed development not only meets but exceeds the concepts and standards set forth in Section 24-9 of the Municipal Code and other documents pertinent to review and preservation. mil,iAnD LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS, INC. 0726 137 Road . Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601 Â· 303-945-5098 March 15, 1988 Â».il 1 3 Mr. G. Bucher 522 Fall River Hous ton, TX 77024 Re: 40 foot spruce tree located at 113 E. Hopkins, Aspen, CO Dear Gary, I have visited the site of the tree to be moved and would note the following: 1.) Although considerable expense is involved, the tree can be moved by "ball and burlap" method by our experienced crew. 2.) It should be moved within the next four weeks prior to new buds forming - A.S.A.P. preferred. 3.) It can be moved to the west property line to create additional screening of the building. 4.) There would be a high survivability rate. The root system is naturally contained close to the tree because of the existing building and other trees nearby. Sincerely, /.7 C U L9'70,<-Lo Carl J. Midland ~ ~ cc: CR Planning and Zoning Dept. Pitkin County 130 S. Salena St. Aspen, CO ... . -=---- Tifff791 --255% lili H I I 1 71 --- 21Â¢17-In----Â»-4 Ir---0 -T 1 1 ] Jr-- f ~ 21111 ' r . 1.2 +Imt=ir-1 1 1 111:1 1,1 - - --- li i --=LI.--- glil ~lill ril 1 -PT- 811141 1, 111111<' 11:111,1111~111' ill/1 R' *7--I Â·Â·-19 1 3.11111]1 '11 ./1- :iilll - 44# _1-]Lit[~ '' rÂ·L lili 111111111 6, rotÂ»11* L 11 .61 -- _11 U=~31_ -j- NIOILVAECi[ iN[OHEI 0 ll-Â¥ A EA<EL : 1 L ij P~r-J-F-L:::9$<ES+A-- -1*54 1 i $ i 0 1-\042 WIt 11.1. 144/ , F IiÂ»<=10-k=n \ 11 1 1 11 1 11 1 /A 1. 1 1. IL 41[1,1 1~ 1~ 11 % 11. ./9'*1 1. 1: - 4 1 i 11 !1 i: t 11 -,eÂ«/----72=at 6Â¢1 4 , ,2ND FLf 1-1 ---- ___- i r ' ! _JU=es:LkÂ·-- _ -- -Â· -ux>e * 4 '0, /1-4Â»â‚¬2.-~ 4%6kk . 11 1 11 .' ' . '.- - I- .r- 11 1. 1 .i -5//,I"ll./1-.- 5- - d . 1.1-~ _ 1 4 . _L]1-4 - , 1 ST FL .,i , ~ > EXISTING HOUSE EAST ELEVATION SCALE : 1/80-1'00 4.--j 25'0' . 10'0' 1 1, It 11 1 1 1 4 ,+ - O t--Â· .- 1 1.'Fl; +L.m lilli. r 44Â«f-_id-At-=c--4-1--1~_44 . 11' 1. i,~+! pe 1 ---1/ 1 1 1 L 11 1 11 1 â€¢ 11 ' 1 11:1 1 1 --... .. : 1 ..- <Ill:189:1 â€ž:2~-4 11 i : ~-L - CO - ru 4' -1--72 *f 1- 31.-_-2~72171--7 2 3 1 I 11 i f l! 1 i E 1- -- / i ~ i -7-7 -- - _-_-_ -- -- -2ND,FL , 1 [ I' ' l I 3- -9--4| ~ Â· ~ I il '.> ------1---- 0 t - ---- 0 - - ----- -- -- O PE--~_-- - -f--~__ --4 ~ -2 2-__~ 181 ------- --1 - r. P - - J =6:zl -2 --; - -2 2Â«.ca_:~f ~-4~ ------.-------- --------- L--11--------- . - -- . -- -- - 1- --222_.2-27-7 -mr f.- 39 - - 1 ST FL T i J i I F I * EXISTING HOUSE < WEST ELEVATION ~ SCALE : 1/80-1'00 00,93 ./ 6 1 1~ 1~ ~ 111.~1 i 11 1- Ill 1 11 - 1 1 11 11 11 1 11 4 . 1 1 11 12- 1 4. ~ . P . ~12 '1 i , E ~i.12 P-3- -JA P <01 ES , -)-9-IN q 2 I .911 1~ k Â»/ 1 , 1 12 1 11 1~11 - JI-n le___,0, A- < 1 ~1 ~1 ~ 1 1.- . 6 ---- -=1-= g-- IN--1114-1~ --2 211~-f--- ! 0 b CO f -~ p Al r. , d 7-1 1] 0--1 3 - 232 1- 1 ' - - --- r- 1 1 ki_ I _ .2 2-2 ~2 ~ 6Ii---- ,1ST FL 1.-1 -L -- ----1 - ->EXISTING 1 , HOUSE REAR ELEVATION ~ SCALE : 1/80-1'00 25'00 10'0' 9 HOPKINS AVE REBAR 8 CAP REBAR 6 CAP SET IN PLACE ~- SET IN PLACE S 75' 09' 11" E 60 Cd Q ---- EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN --- 3 --- 2 in I , :~/j X ki 1 U * i Â·2.25 :1 85 . 4/ 5/ 1 PORCH . ' 2.00 " ~ -0 ~ a=, EXISTING ONE OI STORY ORIG. HOUSE k TO REMAIN lo EXISTKNG TREE _. F 1 TO R EMAIN n . 1 , /14/'/ ~ U t U.,1 NEW \ TWO STORY At>DITION . 1 11-1.--ult O vj R TO EMSTNG Â° - ONE STORY j;!OUSE u EXIS~ING -t Z Itâ€¢ 51 TWOr STORY ADDITION +t 1 2, 65' ' TO gE REMOVED l W U Z. UJ LL C D Zt Ul 0. 5'-Q" 8 1 1 T 1 . OA ~ NE-i' ONE CAR'iGARAGE 1 1.03Â·f ~ 1 STORAGE NEW DRIVE WAY ~ A l ++1 AU 1 -1 .,1 h -" In 1 f + ~ EXIE#TING ONE STORY ~| Â·1 dr TO! BE REMOVED-Â· n -~ REBAR 8 CAP SET IN PLACE L REBAR28 CAP ad- ----29.00' . - IN PLACE bc i 4 1 78' N 75Â°09' il'W 60 00' EL LOW & ASS Oct al- CS. INC.3 A A COLORADO, DO VERE 5V CER - ER, t 975, 1 WAVE: EXAM IN ED TUD NORTH )0 -TUE IMPROVEMGN-T-5, EASE- ALLEY . T14 E SA M GAS SUOWN ON -TUIS 5.CNC. e o::Â·; Tirilp4: Â·. 6 <)\ SiTE PLAN 0 .:9 1 A V , 4 2: & M,Â»,09 0,1 S ,00 001 10000' \/5. A MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Steve Burstein, Planningoffice RE: Amendment to Approved Plan:Sculpture Garden on E. Hopkins DATE: March 22, 1988 Architect Bill Lipsey has made some fairly minor changes to the Sculpture Garden wall which was approved by HPC on February 8, 1988. Height of the wall has decreased from 5 feet to 4 feet. The entrance has been moved to the far west corner, closest to the Aspen Jeweler's Building. And the over-head water fall has been modified. Staff finds the changes to be appropriate, having no greater impact on the character of the Commercial Core Historic District than the approved plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the amended plan as presented. r - :~ 1 Â»1 f -'-- 6. .E.fptulos- 4 2 V 2 =Crub F 9=3 =ti lue'. L frA Y L- - t Nx (fe=-24]%3Â» â‚¬711--Vt N 'e, 11 -2 *74 942 1 4_21 U> \44% 3/4/ U.. -~ 3 - L ~~~~2Â·Â·Â·klt ' ~~1 . -001:i;1773 r.-z â€ž-, 11 4 9 -. r/'fi--/ll ; h-yr 3 c _1- 0 0 L.â€¢â€¢--1 21 0 u B i 49- 1 I . .yf-lf ". . / 4.1 141 Ir------1-L 111 li li i Fll' 81! 11 r. 0 0 - - 1 1' R ' ibiwi' 74 41 * 6+ 4 Â· i 1- li li -Â·el .9-I- 4 .1 1,\4' -4~ , i '1 B 439 0 . . 4 - 1 0 . jA. - -14 - , r Er. AW#M . h --Â·yEW- f4-1 . -dcALL. VAULÂ· M#.0 .e-.19 29.,T- â‚¬01.Â·01- TWT- ~ 9 =Efyi U. A fp 4: 0 6,5. #1: /7 74 1 U 24 -U .~Al Um 4..1 [M + 1 n VI B, MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office RE: 334 West Hallam Street, Clarification DATE: March 22, 1988 LOCATION: 334 W. Hallam St., Block 42, Lots K, L, and M, Townsite and City of Aspen, Colorado APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is seeking clarification of the motion made in HPC meeting of March 8, 1988, specifically regarding the connection between the main house and the carriage house. The applicant feels the motion was not specific enough for their further design work to continue as is. The motion passed included a condition to further study the detached approach. The applicant felt the motion was to restudy the connection from the approach of design. If the attachment is not approved, the applicant would need to make application through P&Z for conditional use. The Planning Office would like the applicant to clarify more specifically to the committee at this meeting the proposed two foot addition to the carriage house. We feel this issue was not formally addressed to the committee, although it is reflected in the plans submitted. CITY OF ASPEN,~~ MEMO FROM ROXANNE EFLIN Historic Preservation Specialist March 16, 1988 To: Historic Preservation Committee Re: National Historic Preservation Week I have attached copies of the information I received this week from the National Trust on National Historic Preservation Week scheduled for May. I feel there are plenty of excellent community awareness activities we can do, or encourage, and am seeking your input and direction on this A cooperative effort with the Aspen historical Society would be excellent! Please let me know. Thanks. //9/69 - - VAL 1 27*RE PRESERVATION WEEK ACTIVITY REPORr - Help us tell the story of Preservation Week 1988. We will report on your Preservation Week activities in National Trust publications and at the 42nd National Preservation Conference in Cincinnati next October. Please fill out this form (use extra pages if needed), and send it along with any pramotional materials you used, to: Office of Public Affairs National Trust for Historic Preservation 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 1. What did your organization do for Preservation Week 1988? Organization: City: State: Zip: Contact Person: Telephone (hame): (office): area code area code 2. Briefly describe events and activities your organization sponsored to celebrate Preservation Week 1988. 3. Were your local or state government officials or congressional representatives involved in a Preservation Week event? Describe how. 4. Please outline the type of publicity you generated for Preservation Week 1988 and send us copies of clippings and transcripts. 5. Please send us any pramotional material your group produced for Preservation Week, including press releases, newsletters, posters, invitations, calendars, buttons and T-shirts. Celebrate Preservation Week 1988: The PeoplEs Choice r I a- 6 i,. - ~ ~7 U ~ 1 -~|~~/ ~ MM./ p / t.4 1-,1- .4 11 - Ill / ~11 I IF ~ THE PEOPLE'S CHOICE : y .1- ..Â·2*9 NATIONAL_TRUST- FOR HIST~RIC- PRESERVATIONÂ©79 Actual size of bumper sticker: 3' x 11 Ih". Removable. I Rally for preservation in 1988! Join the Na- Actual size: folded to 4- x 9Â· tional Trust as we put a nonpartisan soapbox S on the Main Streets of America. Some 5,000 \25 local preservation organizations will shout q 15 01 ation the Peop Choice our message to the rooftops during National ;, i~- les a *,ce. pres:r: '0 1931 'a :~feston, Historic Preservation Week, May 8 to 14. You, 1 More been rehabilitated according to federal preservation too, can celebrate preservation's popularity 0,30 h": guidelines, and advance its visibility as a campaign issue all public leaders must address. The *stonc tilstact. f as esubuswa ular recreat ional ast p,p Choice 17,000 historic buildings 800 cmes and town le's s C thete ale 6,047 h,stonc distacts hsted ~31 , ahead of visiting museum 1 800 cities and tx stel th m . Ies a faceÂ· Pres~tori~~~i~~g~~Yed'eral preservadon 1 Visttlng histonc the fou, guidelines. ational Regl of Historic Places, 9 sites,5 a./4 4 cating 15 0.S ca 0 30 * Ot activity the create version and reuse 1 rum 1 rehabilitated a there are 6,047 historic districts listed In nicking, fishing hoating The first historic district was established in 1931 in Char d by the co~ house . t 01 households form the last 000... (.10.0 ace e 97 11 . the Â· Kwo. \5 V J %0 sr sorn historic buildings. Older and historic buildings Land Institute foun house v,elt: Or\~210 tion. ficent of a\\ Aroct,ost,9. 93 strongly favor historic preserva strong C , percent believe should have a voice in preserva %11 1 A GA\ugaw'Bbll they voug * to 86 w reÂ· u~ â€¢ 81\\ Â£0*ucted to~ the it that Am Â· ntatives *h ro rese . M.,1.- ahead of non questions. + s.cÂ· fodaN . ster is eerf"%4:3> W â‚¬'-'/- National Regi of Historic Places. v \. 0 10 1983** Flte 01. last ong)nal facade, West Fron ost pop Â¥....I ... th - U s. Cap .01 3 ,-*2* 026 billte l. q~- -N+0001 99.4 41 , r-ful/$ 1 H,int to joill the caltip.kiun ir.IiI lot priÂ·Neriation: To help campaign for preserva- tion, the National Trust offers Nanne the Campaign Chest: , Orgin/inon - Colorful bumper stickers, three- / inch political buttons, and It's a y Street Addrexs - .---... Fact, flyers that provide dozens 3 . 1 , E ,Â· t CIty -- of facts to convey exactly why 47 F[. 5 1- ~ Â·' Â·Â· - . 6 4 Preservation is the People's 41 FÂ», ,"11 Ef= 7 0. Re-34 w ,$ r State _ Zip Choice. 8 r AILE FUE fie *" '*g k ; 1 1 ,Â£ 66 1 1 Â·Â· itÂ· ~ 4 2 1. O 4 = Order in bulk! Forum members Non-members Tell the world that you support 9 THE PEOPLE'S CHOICE 50 bumpers, 50 Ilyers, 25 buttons $25.00 $40.00 Preservation: The People's 25 bumpers, 25 ilyers, 12 buttons $18.00 $25.00 Choice. Order today on the Â·~ 10 bumpers, 10 flyers, 5 buttons $9.00 $12.50 printed at the right. .. PriceS Include postage/handjing Total enclosed Make checks payable to: NTHP Preservation Week Actual size: 3' - . Please send check or money order to: Safety pin back National Trust for Historic Preservation Office of I>ublic Affairs 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W Washington, 1).C. 2(*136 F,irum meniher.hip number THE P~OPLES'S CHOICE ..1!ff-ENAATEELEER--MEEES_mERERVATION ~ THE PEOPLT'S CHOICE NATIONAL TRUST FOR MISTORIC PRESERVATION 1 7 2-h ---r] --~r--1-~ n )~-li L ~ 3 ----7 - PRESERVATION WEEK 4 1 .1 /1 - I> ~C 'tai' 92 V. MAY 8-14,1988 THE P =i--'LE'S CHOICE *1 Â«2* TEl -- UÂ» NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION Preservation Week 1988 Celebrates 1...f,e..1,7.. :* A~ ...1 2.2 THE WHITE HOUSE I. g........ 4 'Historic Preservation: 4123: WASHINGTON LSiliâ‚¬S:..1 Tbe People's Choice - -Â· . , M-11â€¢VII,I National Historic Preservation Week k2~t2&Â·in,2.1 %*Z*kfr May 8 - 14 1988 : 1.i.~f.1 BÂ·y J. Jackson Walter, President, . 4..4 34.-4 [*41 Warmest greetings and congratulations to everyone National Trust for Historic . .: joining the National Trust for Historic Preservation in observing National Historic Preservation Week. Preservation We can all echo the theme of this year's event that ; Â·40Â·I --3 In 1987, the bicentennial of the United preservation is truly "the people's choice. " The :Mik,irÂ·,:* 2 American people continue to make that abundantly clear , ;...:3...$. N States Constitution provided the opportunt- as they seek to preserve the many buildings and sites ; ...34.-0 29 that are the physical record and reminder of so much of E :,;Â·:N-Â·.Â·.~A. 4 ty for a serious and reflective celebration of our past. As citizens offer their labor and savings to 4 4 i#:..:% America's enduring system of democratic ~ restore old neighborhoods, as communities reconvene ; 074*3 government under the theme "Landmarks around historic Main Streets, and as business leaders invest with confidence in the past -- as older buildings .'/Â·%Â·,*l...3 of Democracy." In 1988, the Preservation are revived to provide Americans with places in which Week theme, "Historic Preservation: The Â· - to live, work, and play, and to remember with pride Â· Â·Â·Â·Â·1â€¢2Â¥~Â·1~ and gratitude the contributions of those who have gone , :astfi3 People's Choice," promises to thrust all of before us -- historic preservation continues to play a :c â€¢ .1-/te,~ us back into the hard knocks and noise of strong role in our ethos and our economic life. ....ariÂ·'.. .. ...4 .,.IA,rÂ¥/ 21=511 presidential and local politics. We need to 9.--:Â·.:-.6.W ..Â·.~riycÂ·eia e A nation that respects its past builds a solid future. P .4.75Â«;21 ork to assure that whenever candidates de- 9" f :t.El When we save the best of what we have acconiplished, r,61%,40.4. b e. .. I. ate, hopefuls orate, and polls reverberate, 09Â£Â·DBY&9 Â·Â· we inspire future generations to create their own ; Â· .' r..2*591 landmarks. All Americans should seek to make National i preservation is featured as a key issue. His- 21'MIN, Historic Preservation Week and every week a celebration torie preservation has joined the mainstream of our national heritage. , 9 Â·,~.Â·Â·*L~ of American life, and from May 8-14 we are e ..wf--1,Â·Â·Â·3 t::.Â¢3*Al going to put a nonpartisan soapbox down hoÂ»293 every Main Street sidewalk and in every town Â· ~7-1 '7:.7.Â·d square and shout about it to the rooftops. Ii*'251 eg-'* raoÂ¥--- The empirical truth is that Americans are fid-*Il spiffing up their urban and rural heritage. F:59.441 F *A:rd...., .44.>:,1.4.4 After years of neglect, Americans are lavish- , ing love and sweat on old downtowns. As Time magazine put it in a cover story last fall: of government. This year, National Historic pecially in your own community's "choice" "How did Americans manage to forget Preservation Week will be part of the most landmarks. for so many years that downtowns are in- important event of that government in ac- In this kit you will find a form called the vigorating and old cities grand? That the tion, the quadrennial presidential election Preservation Week Activity Report. We dignity and Gemutlicbkeit o f 18th century and the selection of the 101st Congress. Pres- want to hear from you about your activi- buildings and 19th century streets are in- ervationists from coast to coast will ties-and your successes-during National comparable? That the physical past is worth organize events to call attention to the con- Historic Preservation Week 1988. We will preserving? Did a majority of Americans in tributions old buildings and sites make to use the information to document the high- 1970 actually prefer Century City to San the quality of life in all of America' s com- lights of this year's efforts in our publica- Francisco? Were people fetched by the shiny munities. We want to broaden that base of tions and media program. new discord of Houston suburbs more than support now enjoyed by our old buildings. 1988 marks the year when historic preser- by shabby, genteel New Orleans, by the And we will increase that support not vation became the people's choice. Our old glass and steel of downtown Minneapolis only by focusing on the election but also on buildings-whether of local, statewide or more than by the brick and stone of down- its aftermath. Historic preservation should national significance-play a central role in town St. Paul? have a seat at the table when the Staffing de- our understanding of America's history. "If so, then the nation has had a great cisions for new governments are made. Pres- Only by recognizing this can Americans face change of heart. The change has been so ervation advocates should be significant re- the present and approach the future with complete that it is difficult today to remem- sources to election winners when they begin confidence. Our past, and the physical re- ber how recently people were blithely rip- making ai~pointments, from the Cabinet minders of it, impart a firm foundation for ping out and throwing away the warp and down to the zoning board. healthy communities. Irt's make sure Na- woof of America's cities.... As you plan your celebration of Preserva- tional Historic Preservation Week 1988 "So the tide has turned." tion Week, please use this kit to help gener- spreads the word far and wide that historic Last year we celebrated an enduring form ate interest in historic preservation, and es- preservation is the people's choice. I .111 ...1 F A 1 . .4.. 4 Â· ...-Â·Â·; * ~ ~1 .-. 1 944 YOUR 1988 PRESERVATION WEEK KIT Your kit contains a wide variety of items designed to help celebrate Preserva- tion Week 1988. You will find: .. â€¢ A message from President Reagan supporting Preservation Week 1988. â€¢An order form for your 1988 campaign chest materials. â€¢ Two articles for use in your hometown newspaper or preservation newslet- ter. The articles, by Michael Leccese and Jonathan Walters of Preservation :.*6.1 ---F~ ~ - News, focus on aspects of this year's theme, "The People's Choice." You can edit these articles to fit your needs and place them under your by-line in your - local newspapers or magazines. You can expand them to include local angles. .,emp- -Â·- â€¢ A list of suggested activities to celebrate Preservation Week and your commu- nity's historic places, compiled by Amy Dorbin of the Maryland Historical Trust. . Â· â€¢A sample news release and a planning and media guide to help you gain maximum support and publicity for your activities. 4 . 3Â¢3%91.- ~~~~~~.Â·--cf-~ ~~ ~Â·Â·Â·Â·-,1 â€¢ A sample proclamation you can use to bolster President Reagan's official rec- ognition for Preservation Week 1988 in your state, city or town. .. ....:..4 â€¢ A 30-second public service announcement for use by your local radio and TV stations. f-".6%2. I i â€¢ A Preservation Week activity report form. :.t-.. u' ' & 1 I Â· tâ€¢ ':-9...*..VÂ·t ': - PROCLAMATION 4*hft I. 373'This sample proclamation can be filled ~ WHEREAS: Preservation enjoys bipartisan support among Ameri- 1374*17 in and submitted as is or revamped 1 cans; *iNA.lf and sent to mayors. school superinten- .4 *",iÂ¥4466:206" supervisors and gover-Â·,-tq WHEREAS: The greatness of America is founded upon appreciation AÂ·.nors.Be sureto re*peitor; yourlocil -1 of our heritage and upon knowledge of the historic 23 7-pr,servation organization's ,tationery. 111 events and places that have shaped our national identi- eÂ»*421 -:42:'Find more ideas on page 6.Â·34 ty; ?31 *gÂ·:Ang-~i-Â· 27Â·'0433-7Â· 3.drO<6153 3.r~%&3%444*-A~ feg WHEREAS: Historic landmarks contribute to the economic. social and cultural well-being of our cities, towns and rural 2~41-.Iâ‚¬230 -0 .Â·Nf Â·Â·--:.tÂ·..,iÂ·t,NyÂ·--2-429.4'?Te,1, e,2 k'2*jt-:e,.4-U/ ..Â· i., t.Â·Â· 3,Â·Â·'a:i ~~* ~fd Â·â‚¬Â·1~t~,twiM areas; Â· >V..V L K WHEREAS: National Historic Preservation Week 1988 provides a -z splendid opportunity for Americans of all ages toget involved with the political process to help preserve our heritage for future generations. WHEREAS: "The People's Choice" is the theme for Preservation Week 1988, cosponsored by the National Trust for li WA.,5 1,Â·9:F ...;:r<t'. - 1.'4 ...4 ,<.4:1Â·ji?44-4.-t' i &~3~,i.1.4::~:11-4.':u'rÂ·. *,#-7 :~Â·~ 4-8,4,Â·Â·-,-ij.Â·425 7.r neighborhood organizations in this [state, city]. Historic Preservation and the local preservation and -J':44*li,1.-Â«3~:Â·RÂ·*hÂ·*-4;,..Â·3~~g; 4 2 Â·949k~Â·f~ M~,?311:Â»-6-!,:C.*:>0. Â·-,i:-''i-!Â· 2 7.5/AÂ· Ah>-:i *ki.h**84 Now, therefore, 1, [governor of the state of, mayor of the city .. . . 71 of] , do hereby proclaim May 8-14,1988, as National Historic Preservation Week ~ and call upon the people of 0 ' to recognize and participate in this special observance. v - -4 Â·Â·:er?:71,1.,Â·, j Prtf,h 'Â·Â·4~ -::t.:6:iÂ· ....lkÂ©.: -- .......:trht 11%14*33%7?t# i PAGE 2 MAY 8-14, 1988 PRESERVATION WEEK .PE 94. 1 . e '-2Â·*Di-fi~eÂ·.:Â·:Â·3~Â·~IÂ·:-Â·~ . 5Â·22Â¥8>.422'36 6.2.F.eft-:4 - SAMPLEy 1 PRESS REP EASE ....0..R#W "". This press release should be filled in 24 Contact: [Name of event coordinator and telephone number] and retyped on the stationery of your 4 23 local preservation organization. Send it 6 1 For immediate release to local newspaper editors, assign- IN 1988 ELECTION YEAR, HISTORIC PRESERVATION IS'THE ment editors for radio and TV news, 41 and public service announcement di- 1 PEOPLE'S CHOICE' rectors for the local media. For more ,; [Your city or] Washington, D.C. [insert daw ] . . .No matter who WinS the ideas see page 6. 1 Presidential election, historic preservation will surely emerge as - Â· Â· the people's choice." "Preservation: The People's Choice" is the theme for the 16th annual National Historic Preservation Week, ... . May 8-14, cosponsored by [name ofyour group] and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Mayor [name] will participate in the ..7.?Â·.Â·th:it ....: -... - -Â· :. 1.- 46 ;-:.,5ii ' â‚¬.ef;215:k?~~,c t.?i:~ , observance on [insert date] by [describe how] -4. In a special message from the White House, President Ronald Rea- gan urged all Americans to "echo the theme that preservation is ~74:u. ....Â· -Gi.Â·I.'.4.:':t: ...tÂ·.1 truly'the people's choice.' The American people make that abun- dantly clear as they seek to preserve the many buildings and sites that are the physical record and reminder of so much of our past." l Thousands of preservation groups across the nation will campaign ..4 for a basic platform: That preservation builds community spirit 1 A: . :1:.1 while providing cultural and economic benefits. It protects neigh- .{ borhoods, creates jobs, revitalizes Main Streets, provides new hous- ing, and fosters appreciation of history Increasingly preservation - M 1. v Â·. .4 advocates have jumped into the thick of politics. They have orga- . . missions or even run for office. nized neighborhoods, served on one of 1,200 historic district com- - 4-1 In addition, preservationists will take their message to candidates . Â·Â· for the nation's half-million elected offices. They wiLl invite candi- - Oâ‚¬Â·01Â· .. dates to address their organizations, sponsor debates at historic ...~ t.Â·2.....L 'i-Â·.i..f.:4.2.6.':~4;i sites, and press for stands on preservation issues. Their efforts will make preservation an important issue in the 1988 elections and the post-election period when official appointments are made. Here in [name of your city or town] Preservation Week 1988 will be ob- - :.*tff~bitÂ·*frta"De/*F,k'*9Â·74- served by [llst local events with dates and locat,lons]. 4.4.kZ48/p#Rwa#ikerlve.,~46:47. *+R k'i:.96:644,1+J :56/.:4**ti,ki#-~FLE~~: "Preservation is a success in terms of economics, politics and aes- thetics. It's not identified with liberals or conservatives. We expect any candidate who seeks to improve their community to discuss -~ <2*3Â»./':SÂ¢::..VI.vif:~.*~~.t...:43*d:3~3 the role of preservation," said [ name of preservation officer or chairperson ]. [Insert several descriptive sentences about your organization. ] The National Trust for Historic Preservation, the sponsor of Preser- 4 61*419*14?.: fÂ·zi~c~ 3%9,*5 I' 2 - - ~ vation Week, is the only private, nonprofit membership organiza- ' ..b?@abl:'......:;:.:-64. 6. S.?f:%.P>Â·Â·i:.:.~.~.~~.0.6:. I tion chartered by Congress and dedicated to the preservation and continued use of .America's architectural, cultural and maritime heritage. The National Trust has regional offices in Philadelphia, Boston, Charleston, S.C., Chicago, Denver and San Francisco, and a field office in Fort Worth, Tex., which provide financial, legal, and 1% 1 21 661.:.4.:.-*.---stit-i-*79*44 technical advisory services to National Trust members. 22 449488.--~~.545/+44>Â·~0*Â·#RE. 43; Â· Â· 9.'I%Â·34* -,.7.7'' .TI,Â·*t.0,~4"2*~*.1'2~*.?~ -30- IZEZI PUBLIC SERVICE 1 Historic Preservation is more popular than ever. It is truly"the *" -ANNOUNCEMENT< people's choice." During this presidential election year, we should work through the political process to ensÂ·ure that our heritage This Public Service Announcement can .,id survives for future generations to enjoy Join [preservation read over local radio stations. Retype .81 organization ] in declaring "Preservation is the People's Choice" 4 on the letterhead of a local preservation<*~ during National Historic Preservation Week, May eighth through . organization and submit it to PSA 13 fourteenth. *p. . 1 42.; t.directors. More details on page 6401 K A.-n 4 PRESERVATION WEEK Â·.-MAY.,84-14,1988 PAGE 7 '94.-5 ,- . r '88 is tbe Year to Celebrate Election Landmarks By Jonatban Walters the nation's 32nd president followed elec- that threw the country into a decade and a non night returns during an unprecedented half of turmoil. In 1880, Dow, a staunch They represent winners and losers, moments four victories in a row. supporter of temperance, was the Prohibi- of brilliance, turning points in the course of A structure better known for sports than tion Party's presidential candidate and nations. String them together and they write politics, the Los Angeles Coliseum, was put helped lay the groundwork for the 1919 a historic document stretching from Thomas on the election landmarks map by John Volstead Act-and prohibition. Jefferson to John F. Kennedy. They are Fitzgerald Kennedy, who announced to the In Morristown, N.J., you can visit the what America is all about: The People's thousands gathered there in June 1960 that modest clapboard home of Thomas Nast, Choice, landmarks that represent great mo- he would accept the nomination of the the political cartoonist who gave us the por- ments and individuals in this country's cleo Democratic Party as a candidate for presi- trayal of Democrats as donkeys and Repub- tion history. dent of the United States. licans as elephants, while his biting Harper's Among the best known is Monticello, the Election landmarks are not only about Weekly cartoons helped bring down New Charlottesville, Va., estate of Thomas Jeffer- winning, however. In Lincoln, Neb., you York City's corrupt Boss Tweed. son, and the platform from which the sec- can visit the home of William Jennings Landmarks from as large as the Los An- ond president of the United States proved to Bryan, the sparkling Chautauqua orator geles Coliseum to as modest as a frame an apprehensive nation-and to a skeptical who ran three unsuccessful Democratic earn- home in a small town, representing the re- world-that the young country could indeed paigns for president, but who nonetheless vered and the obscure; landmarks that guide the orderly transition of power from left a deep political imprint on the country. served to launch some campaigns and sink one party to another. And such landmarks are not only about others. Obscure but of vital significance is national icons, they are about bygone days. You may have to look no farther than Cooper Union in New York City, where in The 1891 Queen Anne-style house in Mar- next door or downtown to discover such February 1860 Abraham Lincoln delivered ion, Ohio, from which Warren G. Harding landmarks in your own community: A con- the speech that transformed him from a ran his celebrated and successful "front- gressman's home, the hall where the firSt dark-horse candidate to the choice of a na- porch" presidential campaign in 1920 is elections in your town were held, your city's tion, a speech during which he offered his now a museum, operated by the Ohio State first newspaper office. eloquent interpretation of the Founding Fa- Historical Society. 1Your local example here] thers' philosophy as fundamentally anti- In Portland, Me., Neal Dow's home still This Preservation Week, take some time slavery. stands, an obscure monument to an idea to seek them out. After all, they symbolize Still rolling is the Ferdinand Magellan, the the most closely held of the democratic 1928 railroad car from which presidents This feature should be re-typed, double- ideals, free choice, reminding us that when Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry S. spaced, on the letterhead of your local preser- we make a choice as a nation, it is indeed Truman ran successful re-election cam- vation organization. Edit and add local exam- the people's choice. paigns and which was rolled out for presi- pia and use the by-line of a prominent local dential campaigning as recently as 1984. preservationist Send copies to editors of local And a latter day Monticello exists in Hyde papers and news departments of TV and radio Walters is a contributing editor to Histâ‚¬)ric Park, N.Y., site of Roosevelt's home, where stations. More ideas on page 6. Preservation magazine. National Trust Regional Offices . National Trust ' 1 , .:~ , -., Â· ..,: - 4%.1 Â·'Ar Iliae?4933 Mid-Atlantic Regional uffice John W. Meffert, Director i.Â·,e, for Historic preuroationily.@ili-1 :6*id Cliveden '. ..r--:La>Â·,Â·Â·'â€¢L Wa F-*-*Obuitp#licA#dirs ~~fir~,iÂ·Z;25.6*11 6401 Germantown Avenue Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, #*1785 Mhsatbusetts Avenue,3N.W.i:,444 1 Philadelphia, Pa. 19144 (215) 438-2886 Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North 6,-~twashingion, D.C~2003ttkfj?%41 Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee Linda Ellsworth, Director ME#flyâ‚¬3*H?.diwewte*67.*,92 @*Ruli;~A~~%144 birktir <**:~g 1 Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Mountains/Plains Regional Office \ 511 16th Street, Suite 700 4 - Michael Ucces6, Preserbation-Week --41 New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Virginia, West Virginia Â£172 Carl L Nelson, Communications Ser-.:Â·râ‚¬3 Denver, Colo. 80202 (303) 623-1504 M:*coordinatortaâ‚¬Nd".4'-74%4~2:49 Clark Strickland, Director i 1+ vices'Manager and Editor ~':-Â·t >~ ' -'c*'M Midwest Regional Office .- 6.- Ok?8 4 7 1 53 West Jackson Street Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, 0*Stephen Kraft, Designer:29.'.69**3**4 i Suite 1135 North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, 41*The National Trust for'Histip P[66?* ' F**"rÂ«.Â· WA:Â·' 9Â«1044#**~%4'4*Ege' Chicago, Ill. 60604 (312) 939-5547 Wyoming ;.vation is the only national private, non-,A@ Tim Turner, Director 44 profit organization chartered by Con-<21 Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Texas/New Mexico Field Office i, 6 - gress with the responsibility for 0Â£743 500 Main Street, Suite 606 ~'tr,; encouraging public participatiod in the Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin Fort Worth, Tex. 76102 (817) 332-4398 Â¤!(preservation of sites, buildinghn361?4~ Northeast Rezional Office Libby Barker Willis, Coordinator 8 Ctijects significMÂ¥ in American hiktdry a;;d., Old City Hall ~:-~ fulture. Support for the Natiodal Ttusâ‚¬0 45 School Street New Mexico, Texas :.:, ts provided by membership Ilues; 20'.5&' Boston, Mass. 02108 (617) 523-0885 ~ .& dowment funds, contributions and --1.1.Al Western Regional Office : - T matching grants front**U.S. Depart- 1 Vicki Sandstead, Director One Sutter Street, Suite 707 Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New San Francisco, Calif. 94104 (415) 956-0610 F - ~ vice, under provisions of the bialhSRal '4~~ L :tment of the Interior, National Park Seb,3 Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont Kathryn Burns, Director : , Historic Preservation Act.of 1966. Ther I i opinions expressed in this publicationrit~ Soutbern Regional Office Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, D'=Â»re not necessarily thoseof the U.S.'Â·Deâ‚¬N 456 King Street Charleston, S.C. 29403 Idaho, Micronesia, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, ~ 1' partment of the Interior.' 66Â·.t.'gs?4~:'?Jg! (803) 722-8552 Washington u.=444:tilimitiaroppki,Ed'ims,Â£5,/2,69:51/Al t'*414'out:4.-1'i : .:f t .4144Â·91 Preservation Wins small farmers preserve their landscapes; and New Yorkers approved a $250 million rd*3921 1 .2:-;.*t-Â· -Â·.Â·.i~~;3 at Polls, on bond issue to provide matching grants to properties listed in the State and National ~ Â·42...4.........4-'.:...I...1-- .:-:..2.2---76-3.1-:.f Â·37 Campaign Trail Registers of Historic Places. The New York b 2; ' :- : '- :p'-'..:Â·0 . '1 KY:.' t-: i.-'9. 10. Â¥A-;.f.1:-2,-4,%.. victory resulted in part because preserva- tionists were smart enough to sell their issue as part of a popular $1.45 billion bond issue teÂ¢ v.*s4&v:Up<t'h..4 :'64-- f:~ .:.U:.*49*94~~ By Michael Leccese aimed at cleaning up toxic waste sites. ..:Â»,â‚¬/2. ) 1 . Preservationists have clearly learned to 1- '. .v,This op-ed piece should be re-typed, - R In 1986 Linda Nadolski of Phoenix was a employ the political system. Other examples: ' double-spaced, on your organization's 'Â·.. neighborhood activist fighting a three-mile â€¢ From California to Ohio, state legisla- ;j.:94%Â· Â· letterhead and submitted to local.*.1 freeway extension through her neighbor- tors have convened Heritage Task Forces to 3 1:-2 newspaper editors and news assign- 2 hood. The homemaker and mother of five 23 ment editors for radio and TV stations. 3 3 argued effectively for her cause, securing a set up agendas for preservation legislation. 4./ â€¢ When the city of Cincinnati issued its 4 14% Feel free to edit or add material to suit :45; compromise that cut the length of a pro- 7,621youfneeds and place them under your.?g posed roadway in hal f. But as Phoenix Year 2000 planning report for downtown, five historic districts were mentioned as as- -4 =2041.-2Â£.own by-line. See page 6 formore .4 Planned even more freeways, she sensed the sets to be cultivated, not impediments to limitations of fighting City Hall. progress. So she decided to join City Hall by run- â€¢ City planners in Roanoke, Va., used so- phisticated public polling techniques to gain IZ.~~4~~4Â·Â£.21.3*K-1~4 ning for a council seat. Backed by a cam. paign chest of $18,000, she parlayed a sim- ZZ Â·Â· .%382,Ullâ‚¬2'.:.2 1%. . h...h .'Â·) 'OF'l,~i.'2~42'v'.a-V Â·LU .~Lt.Â· iI.1;R:.4* pie strategy into a run-off victory by a 3- support for "Roanoke Vision," a revitaliza- ...1<:8,1752-3/---: '5*1~D~'-Â·fnÂ·'7.-;~.2-Â·pa:yrt'%$ Nif~Â·-Â· Â·- ~-Â·f-gpÂ·.1-tift>,-9......:f-*3,14.4 to-1 margin: "1 talked about what I believed tion plan based on preservation precepts Moreover, preservationists have become 1*5*M,~f~- '~".7.~(flf.-I Â·'.9v.::7774-9 for me.'" in and said, 'If my values match yours, vote more savvy in their cultivation of elected of- ficials. A politician who does not see the val- , Nadolski's transition from advocate to ue of saving historic resources is no longer %4*45~47~.4 .'. 4.#.*M#A*; politician symbolizes a new era for preserva- the subject of anger, but the target of an ed- 3- -9 a,43, 1.. ; Â· ''' Â·Â· '~' , -Â·.Â· C: *97.4 -...â€¢A-1 non activism. Where preset-vationists once ucation campaign. The Historic Preservation picketed city hall and blocked bulldozers to . Fund of North Carolina would not hold an achieve such ends, they are now more likely annual meeting, or most any sort of public to hold one of 500,000 elected offices in the meeting, without inviting a member of the U.S. or to serve as members of zoning and state's congressional delegation. Such tactics . -: I : I '- 'Â· * Â·-Â·. I-j..66~-44.:r .:9 planning boards, Â· Praise for such action comes from Robert have paid off, says the Fund's J. Myrick Howard: "We now have anincredibly pres- H. MeNulty, president of Partners for Liva- ble Places: "Preservationists have taken bold ervation-minded delegation." Advises U.S. Sen. John Chafee (R-R.I.), a '. -I . Â·Â· PE.*24-;49- ..343.4.94.472Â§*.*14#:t.Â·'Â·9ikfo~NÂ·j action to change their cities. Many have strong supporter of federal tax credits for -:1-i.29.f..f:F~ f.-:jit ;-ftitiÂ·~4 253.3.):f~Â·:.Ad:-Â·579 goneon tohold political office. Preservation ,9.*42+W-12Â·~tz..:...:-in:.1,33-Se-r-)4:67,4,4 %34:.4.:ft#?-ig seems to be the bedrock of civic training. â€ž historic rehabilitation: "Do more than cele- brate your successes. Take your senators and congressmen to visit the rehabilitated Politicians and the public alike have real- ized that preservation contributes to more properties in their communities. Make them than civic pride. It also helps build the tax conscious of what these tax credits have base, provides new housing for all income levels, and removes Might without resorting meant in terms of jobs, housing, scenic Â·~ to wholesale clearing of landmarks and beauty and the quality of life." When not out influencing politicians, preservationists are taking care to educate Increasingly preservation issues are put up their constituency. Such grass-roots efforIS -,T, n 4=*2Â·44*;-*s.Â·~~14~Â·itt5***46-4~ to public vote. Results confirm the move- pay off, discovered Stephanie Ferrell, direc- ment's popularity. In recent years Rhode Is- land's electorate approved $14.5 in public tor of the Historic Tampa/Hillsborough ,~22:rtf.:43- ...: .2....7~4.2** funding that included a $2 million bond is- Preservation Board. She gasped when part of the real-estate community in Tampa, Fla., ~~*9*Bter4evij-,j,1~0~-*.j~*j~ sue for bricks-and-mortar preservation and went door-to-door to campaign against a $53 million for restoration of the landmark new preservation ordinance. "They hung these State House. signsondoorknobs-:Warning! Your property Passage of the Ocean State bond issue *UÂ«#A**GAA rights are about to be violated,' " she says. took both guts and smarts. After suffering But Ferrell and other city preservationists an initial defeat at the polls, preservationists had already gone door-to-door to explain bounced back the next year, setting up a the benefits of preservation. Strong support network of volunteers in the state's 39 cities convinced City Council to adopt the ordi- and towns and working closely with a rep- resentative of U.S. Sen. Clairborne Pell's of- nance bv a 6-0 vote. fice. Result: A 1984 defeat turned to a 1985 [Your community example here] Â·it:42#14*iltÂ·*ir*tjA*fiti#iti5%463$34; victory.In 1987 Rhode Island voters gave Linda Nadolski of Phoenix concludes that -~: 1~Â·'MV~*:kgi. Mit.e WEL/#ek.WREAW,i an even more enthusiastic nod to a $65.2 preservation battles are worth fighting Â·:. .1..'1023~~~.Â·IJ,~:~'~,~1=:.1:'I-fl million bond issue to save open space. It through the political system even when you passed with nearly 80 percent of the vote. lose: "You cannot experience community if " 44Â«694443:44Â« In addition, Maine recently approved a you don't roll up your sleeves and work for *3-ty,.*~i-lfl;*rÂ·*;~P~:Â·.4.-â€ž*LE,=t,*a~* $35 million bond issue to save lands in the a goal. Even if you don't win, you fuel the way of urban sprawl; Pennsylvania passed a fires of activism. ~94?fi*-*44'*tiliti)*Bilig referendum to provide $100 million to help Leccese is former edttor of Preservation News. ......1 5/A:f;,PRESERVATIC)N WEEK ..MAYcBtl,4,1988 PAGE 3 Â· I .:: I . ' .1 /4..... ./ I. I'....e#* .,0 , . . .'' .ept.-*-\, preservation Week Activities:Wbatet 1 -4 4. URF.~14;2 *1&.41 - ,.1 , W c ,: ,% 2 By Amy B. Dorbin, Maryland Historical Trust .. i., L'. - '013% t.' t - ' 24Â¥'6419':41 In> e!,99 .- Â¢ 4.4 ' / 'PNO*M mf.i(ARA;r. EZ>j S . 4/ .>4 4. #/4. - ./ 'L'- Â· Â·./ 4&/ . a. I.'5111Â£~liz~/r' -7 - ..4 1,< I ,.1..<1,1 i 2. /4/bitlit?RE*.'19 - ,/ilimilel: ElltitlWU.Lielkiigilii,6 3 r . 2 4 ~ 4. Barm. a=61&=19,8.6::a,. . t. PI'. ...2-CE'Lt. e 54 1.7 . 91.: :02: 127735Â»2Â¥. . 3, ' mil'Egal. ---7,'llil'$2,29 ~ 1 7 Â¥-& 1...li//rxH,m.Mi. r.:' . . I # Â¥ 1 Â·2 . . .4 --- ///P,8 1,6 k **,Irli~~1*'li~ifil'li... /44. * TAr-- 1 + E m 11 446Â« I A r 0 3 /1 al :I:limIn =:34 i *. UNC 40 Â· 4 1 - '4-.If 0 -1 &-2_Â·,2.1 - 4/1 .J#4\4 /LE 1 . R -ip 1 44 \ 1 - -i,Pt., .-,% 4 .iew/Evyw *t 4,6, '. 121, '44 0 1.C'. 1.1. .14'*Â¥ 4ill I I 6 $,Y . 4/'ll"-/drill//I'll/ .mill.4.lia= -... â‚¬Fy'*1. The fourth-grade class of Father Kolbe Elementary School of C.*1 44 -0, -- ' â‚¬.4. A . Baltimore partook in a Fell's Point scavenger hunt. Led by -Lt â€¢ 1 3 ~IA- Carolyn M. Donkervoet of the Society for the Preservation of 7 6=94.441 Federal Hill and Fell's Point. the kids -scavenged" architec- Irâ€¢jer<. tural details from 200 years past. -'*: .,9 , .- .fy.%.19-4 Runner-up in architectural photography competition held as a Preservation Week activity in Meridian, Miss. Image of the 1885 Elson-Dudeley House was taken by Laura Ward. Since the 1988 theme is "The People's ficials after the preservation project has been could be held when a National Register dis- Choice," it is appropriate to cultivate new funded and completed. trict is newly listed. friends for preservation among our elected officials. Here's a score of ideas: Political Galas in Historic Sites Dinner at Historic Sites Historic Sites Tours for Elected Officials Market your historic site to elected officials Sponsor a dinner in a historic building. A and candidates to use for their special events restoration- in-progess would be ideal. Sponsor a bus tour for your elected officials and fundraising parties. Candidates like ele- of the significant architectural gems in your gant and unusua| settings to host their Service Auction city, county or election districts. Include re- events. Your historic site will gain support Auction off the donated services of local stored historic properties, as well as ne- as they come to know it. contractors, artisans and architects to raise glected or abandoned properties to empha- money to preserve a threatened landmark. A size the need for funding and incentives for C.andiciate's Nigbt for Historic variation would be to auction ofi items sal- these historic sites. Be sure to give partici- Preservaticm vaged from demolished historic structures. pants a brief synopsis of each property, in- cluding any information on the property's Cosponsor with the League of Women Vot- An Unusual C.beck-Passint, needs and associated costs. A variation: ers a local candidate's night where all the L, Conduct the tour by boat or plane to illus- candidates running for the saine office come The traditional gimmick to publicize a gov- trate development pressure from industry or to a public place and present their proposals ernment grant or loan has been to prepare high-density housing. for preservation along with their platforms. an oversized check for an official to pass to Encourage candidates to include a preserva- a recipient. If the grant is for re-wiring a his- Breakfast witb tbe Candidates tion statenient on their platform. Ask local torie building, substitute a giant light-socket. Host a preservation breakfast at your favor- newspapers to publish the results. If it's for plumbing, an oversized wrench. ite neglected historic site, inviting city, National R exister Presentatl())IS Neigl)11(,rbood Cle,in-lip (..impaign county and stateÂ· officials, as well as your U.S. congressmen. Take them on tours as Invite local public officials to award certifi- Elected officials love to see improvemen they munch on a niuffin and drink their cof- cates to properties newly listed in the Na- their districts, including parks, courthouse fee. An appropriate follow-up would be to tional Register of Historic Places. A special greens and city streets. Encourage citizens to host an evening reception to thank these oft ceremony or block party in a neighborhood donate $1 and one hour of their time to a 1, A (; 1. 4 ,MAY %-14, 1988 PRI hERVA FION \VI-lA Wet#=Â·' :r You Do, Invite a Politician ~'4*4#*.IÂ·:3 44 90.>/ ~ - -,Â·. *2-Â·Â·12.9.~Â·33Â·34Â·4Â·.~ , 1-3, 1 U. 4 . i. - 3 --*P * ~ % ./r /1 --. -Â· jÂ·I; Â· r. Â·A : 'Il:.Â·.9:* \ -4 ' :-C? 41 -' '. J-t .01 .#> * Â¥a 44*iÂ·:Â· ~' 14 --: . - .. . - .. ... â€ž,4 '' 4 - /,7.le..3,... if .OCK,gl~<.61 . . e f b I "1 D / 6 Ax/E~LZ U,fl / / i I \ 1"2 !11 1 '' 1-2.- L*7 .7 N . ' 4 .6 . 4 +1 . ?< t 4 -. I '14% Another Preservation Week '87 special: Banner Day in I Birmingham, Ala., where kids dressed as their favorite local 8 landmarks. - 4 lili - -- First-place winner from same competition taken by Wil- liam B. Carter. Photo depicts Merrehope, a mansion listed - in the National Register of Historic Places. - clean-up effort. Ask your local government Lecture Series Favorite Buildings Contest to match the money donated by citizens. Present elected officials who are knowledge- Invite local officials to pick their favorite able about local history. Get them to dress buildings in your community. Publish pho- Arcbeological Digs in costumes or period clothes. Hold the se- tos of their selections in your newsletter or invite elected officials to visit an archeologi- ries in a local landmark, or build attendance in local newspapers with their own explana- cal dig. Once at the site, let them take part by presenting the lectures just before city or tions about why those buildings are impor- in the excavation and handle the artifacts. county council meetings. tant. Be sure that the media is there. A variation: Bring artifacts or significant remains of a Preservation in tbe Classroom Adaptive Use Contest building detail when testifying on a preser- Get civics teachers to invite local politicians Sponsor a contest for citizens of your city to vation issue. Be sure to pass the artifact and preservationists to discuss how preser- submit plans for the best adaptive use of an around for all to see and touch. "Show and vation laws protect resources. abandoned or threatened building in your tell" is an incredibly effective tool. community. If the building is saved, the win- Trade Show and Worksbop Courthouse Exhibit ncr should take part in a ribbon-cutting cer- emony with public officials. Sponsor a preservation trade show, inviting Ask preservation lawyers and review com- local artisans, contractors and vendors to missions to prepare an exhibit on preserva- Preservation Awards exhibit and demonstrate their products and tion battles fought through the courts. Be services. Conduct workshops at a historic sure to document big victories. Sponsor an annual awards program to property to illustrate how to restore or re- honor local pri,jects and volunteers. Invite hab. Recogmze Political Support politicians to officiate. Present the awards at one of the prc,jects to be honored. Honor supportive officials at special events Advocan \Vorksbop held at projects they have endorsed. Itc sure R adi{} 1'al|: hbow Invite citizens to learn about lobbying. Talk to invite the media. As a special thank-you, about letter-writing campaigns, special present the politician with a plague, coin- Coordinate a call-iti show where local pres- events, and preparation of legislative testi- menic,rative certificate, or key to the historic ervationists and government officials field mony. district. quest! C )[ls. 19<161 Ii\'Al[()N U'1-1- K MA Y 3-1 4, 1 98,4 l'A(,1Â· i Communicating Your Preservation Week Program By Rutb Lyn Tbompson Here are some tips to help you put into ac- Follow up promptly with the reporter or â€¢ Write captions in the present tense. ~ Non your communications program for Na- producer with the information to fill the â€¢ Identify people starting at the left. tional Historic Preservation Week 1988. gaps in the story. Meet the deadline. Ask the reporter when the story will appear. Be sure â€¢ Put your organization's name, phone Encouraging Politicians to Take to thank the reporter for the coverage. number and contact person on the cap- Preservation Stands When the story or editorial appears, clip tion sheet. it and send a copy with a note to your elect- Preservation groups that are also 501(c)(3) ed officials. If on television or radio, ask for â€¢ Type captions on white paper and attach nonprofit organizations must be wary when a transcript. Or make arrangements to get a them with rubber cement to the back of approaching candidates and elections. Ac- the photograph. video or audio tape of the segment. cording to IRS regulations, they must not Radio and te|evision are the primary â€¢ Don't write on the backs of photos, espe- endorse or even appear to endorse any can- source of news for more than three-quarters daily with a ball point pen: it may dam- didate. Even printing pro-preservation re- of the American people. Each station de- age the image. - marks by one candidate may be construed partment has its own editorial staff, so if as an endorsement. For more information â€¢ Include a credit line for the photographer. you have news of interest to more than one contact your local chapter of the League of Women Voters or write for "Permissible Ac- of them, send each a copy. Public service an- nouncements go to the public service direc- Op-Ed Pieces tivities of 501(c)(3) Organizations During a tor. News stories go to the assignment edi- The term "op-ed" usually refers to the page Political Campaign" from Independent Sec- tor. Editorial suggestions go to the editorial opposite the editorial page where articles of tor, 1828 L Street N.W., Washington, D.C. director. Suggestions for guests on interview syndicated columnists appear. Many news- 20036. and talk shows go to each show's producer. papers will accept for publication articles That does not mean you must avoid all Some stations do calendar listings of public ("guest opinions") by writers representing contact with candidates. You can invite events. These are either handled by an editor themselves or organizations on issues of cur- them to hold special events at local historic in the newsroom or by the public service di- rent or future importance. Use the op-ed properties. You can send them an informa- rector. piece on "Preserving America's Election tion package about preservation and en- Landmarks" contained in this packet on courage them to address the issue in their News Releases page 8. Or develop your own of about 750 speeches and debates. You can invite candi- words. Just be sure to write clearly and con- dates to address your local organization. If Your news release about local Preservation cisely and do your homework about the your state has a primary coming up. you Week activities should follow the standard newspaper where you want your opinio have a good chance of landing a Presidential format. Some tips: be printed. Then submit a single copy, candidate. and double spaced, to the editorial page â€¢ Follow the format of the sample news re- tor. Special Features/Editorials lease printed on page 7 in this kit. How do you get radio, TV and newspapers â€¢ Make sure the name of your organization, - to cover Preservation Week? the date, the telephone number and the , .,.. .... Â·Â· -- 9:.':V ' , l. V:;42Â·94:-#il &121 4*.94Â«:.- 5< 1%5465<fz#6.2 Timing is crucial. Several weeks before name of the person to contact are at the ~44/,dwimpr,94*<U I Preservation Week, approach your strongest top of the release. *alÂ»â€ž;48-â‚¬ 1.*37Â»41 media contact first-a reporter who has reli- ht#&12&4*SÂ¥*|' .*A lt#Â£4#k- -4--1 â€¢ If appropriate, place a release date at the FS':126/5,0914/.847- -1 ably reported your stories in the past and 40-~'>TtÂ»4. ..1 ' -4.Nres-:*-1 top of the release. Otherwise, place the with whom you have established credibility words "For Immediate Release" there. as a news source. The reporter may cover IMMArrecillrMSÂ¢oil'o~za!*Mul neighborhoods, urban affairs or business. â€¢ Make your headline catchy. 12#44*iving I>esenÂ®**eck ailiafl Then have your media representative call r.merriber; of Preser'vitioh Fonib ihe NAT@bl â€¢ Write your release like a news story, with 1$*li*60;' I ./ . 4.- i ./cL Â·-- to discuss a story angle on preservation. Use meinbalikii~&21*43 f@P693 Preservation Week 1988 as the "hook" to the "who, what, where, when, why and ~24,1 4*â€¢07â€¢.4.-7'â€¢ '' 4 'Â·22;TY,> .913 /*~' ~"' Â·Â·14,4-3~~~ f,prFessionals and orga995Jhemore.224 how" information at the beginning of the get the reporter's or producer's interest. article. r. -'ihaf~31000 Fonâ‚¬h~~0*ir*filife?3 Be prepared! Names and phone numbers ;Â·lfid iMdtidii*ikhkat,alsista~,c.4,grqup;%2~ of preservation leaders, the state historic â€¢ Make sure your release reaches the right preservation officer, local National Trust editor. If you do not know who should re- & pubhcations Members also receive *6 6%11 grant and loan recipients; examples of sue ceive your release, call and ask which edi- K:Kiual*ly:'PrU#(Uti046;*166;61,'t~#~4 cessful preservation projects and their im- tor or reporter covers preservation issues. ~ Â·bimondily Aman newsletter,Hi#oric,221*, pact on the city or community; knowledge r)444*ZA~6*493pkie,M+Zn,5821 of the local ordinances and legislation on â€¢ News releases should be typed and double preservation; names and phone numbers of spaced, never handwritten. Place the word ~1~~~~~~~~~fe~~~~~~<~~~~ interview subjects; your plans for Preserva- "MORE" at the bottom of the first page EAvt#.NÂ¢RMWa~w'trocp:Â¢*03 ~~~~~~~ tion Week; names and addresses of local if you are providing more than one. At ts..(201) 67.3-4296. 141â‚¬SÂ»(;9.,st~*,Â·:sg historic places-all of these should be at the end of your release center "-30-" fresÂ¢:-*2*'711~4}*e*49#fiAi your fingertips. or "###." This lets the editor know that Thoroughly describe the effect historic your message ts complete. F:*,ts:#.424*3~*iwky)*24-7*tÂ¢'PS preservation is having iii your community. Send a photograph with your release. 42:ilÂ·*25'0:= '4 * k--flÂ·kki' \Z?*14' r.-icâ€¢,~â€¢+***i . "t'/4 - ,-* 1 ..4 Suggest that an article, feature or editorial Most newspapers prefer 8- by 10-inch **Â£4065.241~9.62146&4, Cor series of them) run the week of May 8- glossy black and white prints. Write a 14. (The two articles in this PreservationWeek short caption that explains and clarifies kit were written to be used in your series.) what is iii the picture. h.-Aw=./.6â€¢ 22/.-4â€¢,Gh,/./.*U*Cl/*/U/.,// PAGE 6 MAY 8-14, 1988 PRESERVATION WEEK . (EA P . b!:shed & thÂ¢ Cotorade Hatorical Soael, (ISSN 0895-0083) 1300 Broad-, Deâ€¢#. Coloredo 80203 lul 6 A A F,1-,1988 Good news on the preservation front j. BY CHRISTINE PFAFF, Director, Preservation Planning in October 1987, the Aspen city council passed an ordinance creating incentives for historic landmark ~ N RECENT MONTHS, several Colorado commu- designation of residential properties. The implemen- nities have considered the adoption of local incen- tation of preservation incentives had been identified tives to promote historic preservation. While approxi- as a high priority in the city's comprehensive plan mately twenty communities in the state have adopted a year earlier. The incentives now available to instituted ordinances to designate and protect historic designated residential structures include: limited vari- buildings through design review, few areas have cre- ations in setback and floor area ratio requirements, ated positive incentives to encourage owners to main- plus conditional uses for bed and breakfasts, boarding- tain and rehabilitate their historic properties. houses, and two detached houses or one duplex In Manitou Springs, a revised preservation ordi- where the lot area allows for only a single family 8 nance was passed in September that includes two house. A grant program for owners designating their innovative provisions to encourage the rehabilitation properties was also established. A total of $2,000 may of historic structures. The effort to rewrite the be dispersed by the city council to the owner of a ordinance to include incentives was spearheaded by ' highly rated historic structure at the time of landmark city council member Bill Koerner, who serves as the designation. Steve Burstein, the Aspen city planner liaison to the historic preservation commission. who developed the incentives, is hoping that they will The first incentive grants a rebate of 50 percent of help save the important historic residential properties I i the increased portion of city property taxes to any in that city. owner who constructs Improvements to an individual New historic district and historic landmark guide- 1 landmark or a building within a historic preservation lines have been scheduled for Aspen city council's district. The second incentive entitles any person who renovates a landmark or a building within a the guidelines should occur this month. adoption by resolution in January 1988. Publication of historic preservation district to claim a refund of 50 I The city of Boulder is in the process of creating a percent of the Use Tax on construction materials used Â· package of incentives for landmark structures. In during the rehabilitation. Roxanne Eflin. a long-time response to a 1987 city council gobl, the Landmarks member of the Manitou Springs historic preservation commission, is excited about the incentives and thinks Preservation Advisory Board developed' three pres- ~ they are a "definite positive" in the ordinance. Fur- ervation initiatives that were considered at a city ~ thermore, she says, "Everyone benefits from the council meeting in December. incentives, both the small property owners as well as The first incentive allows for the continuation of k the big ones. We're really looking forward to the - non-conforming uses for structures designated as 1 coming construction season to see how many people individual landmarks or located in historic districts ~ take advantage of the incentives." beyond the current one-year grace period. This initia- The revised ordinance, which was passed after tive was passed by the council. Two other incentives months of debate, replaced one originally adopted in debated at the December meeting have been tabled 1981. The new legislation maintains the existing his- i pending further study. The first of these is a waiver of torie preservation commission, a design review pro- city sales tax on construction materials used to cess, and the local historic preservation district, which includes over 1,000 structures. Also carried tive is a rebate of the increased portion of city ~ rehabilitate designated structures. The second incen- over into the new ordinance is a provision that stirred property taxes due to the rehabilitation of designated considerable discussion and controversy. Property structures. While the city council responded favor- owners were given the option of withdrawing from the local historic preservation district within 60 days after ZINY achoonuc~patdoofp~~e~e~~at;Pet~c~v~~~~ ~t ~ passage of the ordinance. By opting out, an owner is differentiate based on owner's income and property not subject to the design review process but is also values. As an alternative, the council has suggested not able 10 take advantage of the preservation incen- the possibility of a grant program that could be tied ~ tives. In most cases, when a property that is with- more to demonstrated need. An incentives package drawn from the district is sold, it automatically will continue to be discussed at future council reverts back into the district. Approximately 25 per- meetings. cent of the district property owners have applied for exclusion. In Aspen, a revised historic designation ordinance ~ was passed in May 1987. The new ordinance replaces the original ordinance written in 1972 and includes nicu-e comprehensive provisions for demolition review. . . 1 Reflections on some recent losses g.een,?013*ntit,i Shards of problems What's the use? --Ap*44..1:,: BY GEORGE ORBANEK. Editor â€¢nd Publisher. Thc (,rand J..ct,on Daily Sentinel BY LESLIE E. WILDESEN. VEe-praident. ArcUeology and ~~~-'-~~~-~Â·~'Â·~~'4~4~ ~ fi.4,1..Â·*40<Ai Editogs Note: Reprinted by permusion of the authm from the Ili.tâ€žrâ€¢Â· Preservatin. Deput, H,stonc Preservit-Officer, and October U. 1987 issue of The Grand Junction Datly Sentinel. MateÂ· Archaeolog:st Imi .. 4, Â£r,Â·dâ€¢,~ . IX 7 HEW! For a while. it looked as if Third District 444:i...444-,iÂ·,'A""161#33:,4.5-/:.Â· V V Representative Ben Nighthorse Campbell was m danger of being declared a thoroughgoing scofflaw by REalti~Â°ueÂ£igtojnd~strIito *4Â¢,ttf%.373-it,1': j of archaeological sites in the American Southwest. As 4%,*049. Â·*!m.tâ€¢~~14 -, , : t,,; ,... --, none other than the US. government, Campbell has been in Cortez this week taking part tri a congres- I came into towii 1 automatidly looked across the 34/'*54**124 4~51+'Â·Â·.t~~ river to my left for my 6rst view of the Durango .Â·.l'~Â·XÂ·%'.5.01.44.:.*:2. sional subcommittee hearing charged with examining I ' C. .1.-5 smelter stack The stack 200 feet high, with walls up -1-8:1-4.77:.'iÂ·?:4 ' ~~ the enforcement of federal legislation that prohibits St***:/*.- 4 the looting and destruction of Indian artifacts from the to six-feet thick, was built in 1880-81 as part of the San . .' -- M.;./.gL#. - ~-E Â· . Â·- - nation's public lands. Juan and New York Smelter for gold and silver. The 11.: t--Al?*f:2,-Â·17' . kit&/-2/ It seems that Campbell. whose paternal ancestry smelter stack was the last remaining building directly : 7 -r,Â·va associated with Durango's early mining and industrial ~"6i-5*E2: '... -.- - 44,;%4644' 1 is partly Native American, is the curator of a knife that development. and was considered an "outstanding '~ ..-.&.;-4 1 - 5# *f#; 4 was found years ago on Montana s LIttle Bighorn. the -43~~5Â·31~ ~ s~eg~Ot' tto~~fe~uT~1~slrot- 2:Â°Jtu example of nineteenth century industrial â„¢r. *IN--' <im*i mentedÂ® be an Indian wamor who took part in the architecture. Although studies and negotiations to decide the Battle of Little Bighorn. That warrior. known as fate of the stack were conducted beginning in 1982, it 112104>47Â· ,%' . 7 1,-- 0 was demolished in April 1987 as part of the United #'~tr:50* 4 Because the federal Archaeological Resources Prc>- r '41Â®43=10.- 1 Blackhorse, was Campbell's great-grand father. States Department of Energy's -remedial action pro- 6 1 â€¢ 4-t..: I Â· Â· tection Act forbids the removal of Indian artifacts from gram" to decontaminate radioactive sites throughout Th, Dwraâ€¢go Smilt., as it stood o.iside of Duiango .nt.1 public lands, Campbell theoretically could be in tech- Colorado. Why? Because no one had come up with a Am] 1987 nical violation of the legislation. Any worries Campbell potential use for the building that would justify saving might have had about being thrown into the hoosegow it. I certablly don't wish to ignore the economic or, worse yet, having his congressional dining priv- In the fall, two turn-of-the-century houses on practicalities of preservation work. But, to quote ileges revoked for owning his great-grandfather s knife California Street in Denver were slated for demolition 1,eopold again: were assuaged by attorneys who said that the weapon by their owner because he could not find a way to use could be classified more properly as a family heirloom. them for the new office space his business needed. To sum up: a system of conservation based Besides, they noted, Campbell came into possessi Both houses anchored a block at the edge of the solely on economic self interest is hopelessly of the knife several years before the artifact laws w Curtis Park National Historic District: one of them lopsided. It tends to ignore, and thus eventually into effect. Thus, he would probably not be conside was even singled out in the nomination as being an to eliminate, many elements in the. . . commu- in violation of federal artifact protection legislation. excellent example of the Italianate architectural style. nity that lack commercial value but that Tongue-in-cheek comments about hoosegows and Despite last minute attempts by local preserva- are... essential to its healthy functioning. the like aside, Campbell's situation is particularly tionists. the houses were demolished in October noteworthy because it goes to the heart of the issue 1987. Â· John Kenneth Galbraith put-this in a slightly namely, that the statutes are virtually impossible to regardlng enforcergeoLOUt:derat.antiquities statutes, waste should be cleaned up or businesses should build different way, in a 1979 presentation to the National enforce. None of this is to diminish the importance of new offices-of course they should! The issue Trust for Historic Preservation: revolves around use. and the trap about which Aldo federal efforts to protect such an invaluable part of this nation's cultural heritage. In the Four Corners 1.,eopoId and other eloquent conservationists warned Preservationists are the only people in the area, looting of ancient Anasazi ruins has reached us earlier m this century. The trap ts thls: once we world who are invariably confirmed in their scandalous proportions. According to federal start justifying the value of some non-economic wisdom after the fact... . Preservationists resource through economic means. we are caught must never be beg'uiled bv the notion. . . that authorities, 95 percent of the region's 80.000 recorded archaeological sites have been plundered by ti,e,tricably in a web of our own exaggerations. As we can rely on the markeL If they do, a large pot hunters and/or vandalized. 1,Â·c>p~,Id said, we need to make -the nk,re honest number of important art objects. artifacts and argument that [these resources] are members of the buildings will be sacrificed [because] the mar- l'hat said, it doesn't necessarilv follow that con- community, and that no special interest has the right ket works on a short-time [sic] dimension and ducting armed raidsÂ· of the homes of private citizens to exterminate them for the sake of a benefit, real or the people who respond to the market are such as that which occurred ir the h,ur Corners area fancied, to itself." He goes on to point out that "in different from those who ultimately gain during the -Great Pottery Raid of 1986- constitutes some instances, the assumed lack of profit in from... preservation....It will always favor reasonable enforcement measures. in tact, the,- these... areas has proved to be wrong, but only after the people who are in immediate possession, as border on the unconscionable. The Four Corners area inost of them had been done away with." against the large social and economic interests 0 f Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona com- Of course. one could argue that the California of the community. Preservationists must never prises millions upon millions of square miles. Anyone Street houses had economic uses, either as resi- doubt that they are engaged in a public and who believes that federal authorities can adequateliÂ· dences or remodeled as offices. Further, no matter philanthropic and social enterprise and should police such an area against persons collecting pots is how delapidated, their simple presence prevented never. . . be the slightest degree apologetic. the type of person who would make Don Quaote look like a realist. non-residential incursions into Denver's oldest neigh- borhood. So, is the highest and best use in this The looting of the West s millions of archaeok,gical context really a parking lot until a new office building Galbraith goes on to make a point I think is as sites. unfortunately. is yet another of the many prob- can be built? Or is their use as an anchor, a buffer, an crucial today as it was then: lems that is beyond the capacity of government to solve. archetype high and good enough? And the Durango smelter stack, which has served -There should also be no doubt that there are as a landmark since 1941, when the uranium plant was cultural, educational, and aesthetic values that dismantled, clearly stated that -now, you are in are well beyond the range of economic calcula- Durango" in a way that a nearby K-Mart could not. tion end that assure us we are right!" (emphasis added) National Park Service Why is that use not valued? Cannot use as a landmark in fact be the highest and best type of use for some preservation packets kinds of edifices? The Statue of Liberty, Empire State Over and over we see this is true: hindsight is Building, and Eiffel Tower come to mind, along with always 20-20. That is why most preservation laws available the Royal Gorge Bridge, the D and F Tower, and the (including local ordinances) have mandatory delays Mount Evans Crest House. closer to home. built into them, for negotiating and cajoling and fund All of which leads me back to the original reason raising and cooling off. But the fact remains that 'P HE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE has announcet 1 the availability of their popular bulletin "Pres- for my trip to southwest Colorado-to help preserve today's concept of economic benefit does not support ervation Briefs" as a fourteen-package set. These archaeological sites. While these may have economle long-term thinking, even by preservationists. uses for scholars and pot hunters alike, isn't their real For in the scramble to "prove" that preservation is sets should be useful for preservation and use to enable us to be awed by the fact that real live cost-effective, we become too dependent on tax rehabilitation workshops and conferences. For more information contact Kay Weeks of the human beings were using these chunks of landscape incentives that can disappear tomorrow, or on spec- National Park Service at RO. Box 37127. Wash- as condominiums and supermarkets and hardware ious arguments by developers or artifact dealers who ington DC 20013-7127. or call (202)343-9588. stores, while Europeans still thought the earth was alone reap any economic rewards from destroying our Rat? society s common heritage. 0,0 lilli . a ...... 01"8:WI~/~~~I~'161 a:.~6=,O~Nm)1. 949. a.1-$/~:~J 49 1 Â»2& :11.- -ye-Zi~,.u':Lm:/2.~MI.' Was'Whgpo ~~ s. Â· Â·ei,=e~iÂ©r~Iwn#~ii~Â§1~:~ ~<~~> 9*2 .,1 '11*> 1.- 10&. I *ZiggfE:-- Els. " . 1- mig<*1; I -0#/ I. .Fa - 1:'hp' -,-,4 1 1 24' 2-. . .. 10 0 . . A . .. ' . . * P " P ar n B 111' 1 9 1Â· 1 ! * :' Il!. :i fi t.it t t ri' f f 't f 0 - ' r kl i' [ 1 1 1 t I - 1 :. , 7 ': ' t P ' 1 1t t , , 904/IAOkk L ki I r : 1 tÂ·FF 1-.- r. i 1 ~ K i 1~ U- 1 34 , 4 1 1 1 1. 1 1 ~ 111 11~ 1 pk 8 - 1 ~ ~ _b~-dAFf, <a--~-o-i: -!.; Ji'!bal J Il 1~ ill" l :-I -F---- N - 11 11 it; ~ F 1':ili t 6 billi- 1 11'H ,/ 11 1 ViB/- ' Â»-4 M -14111 - -- liz= - - 0 - - , h__1Â·y fpÂ·-2--un.Â«fz - li ____ --UL__ ---- --= ----- c_-a ..11| [-- 0 51---IZEIZIEÂ¢~~ ~___ _22 r -1 .-1 FRONT ELEVATION 1 if l]; 1{.1,10=46% Ille Blik.' ---In-- - ~ Ill 111 1 P .4 9 11 1 11 1 - 1 0 ./ T Â» i. ill - *--~-1 -1.ji~ - --=9 --J .. '' 4 # i. f , i lili fl , 2 - 4-1 11 h l: 2 -!il; 1 11 , . 1 1- .U 1 11'J O ---I f 4 1 1,11 1 1 ---1 K - ~ n li f H f i] 11 1/Â· - I. 1 111 0 - .. 2ND FL -- -1 -- . 11 1 ----- -1 - ' 1 11 - 1 ---- --7----21 1 7, 9 8 K ILl f $ +------- PL,1 -- _ 4 - ~1 11 1 -- ---- - - 000 1 O O - 1 1ST,FL - ~---3 EXISTING HOUSE EAST ELEVATION SCALE : 1/8'-1'0' 25'00 1 1 1 it il '1.- -11, P i 1 1, 4 li 1 . 11 , 1 1 , 11, El +L, 11 billi: il ;, 1 11 11 li 1 -- Divilibl - 01 . 11.39 11 f i 11 f' 1 1! { - - E A -- 1 7-= 1 - ' ' -------I 501 f ------------- 1 11 ! 11 + 1 --_ - 1 ----*------ C 1 B 11 1 ----- 1!i! b Â£ 1, 1------2- ----2---2- 6 -- ---NR~ --0 71 [3 -- 34-f -11'Fl Y , -- A< - 1~~==~~~~~-Â«_=~+_r--6-- F-==- li Il - =--3- - I ~ IL_]I -~ 9-4-0-_i--- LIE 'I 1 ST FL EXISTING HOUSE <--Â·-9 WEST ELEVATION ~ SCALE : 1/80-1'00 1. "U,v ) . . Â·Â·Il' Â·4151, i~ 11 '111111,jÂ¢'i!!Ill'11:!'ill; l'. :1 '! It.,Af!1.1;11,1 A I t~ 1 1 112,-I; I 1 1 1 i I. ~ N , 12- i k li ii , 1~~ !, A121- f; ~ 1 1 'Â· ~ ik ~ (121--3,/}*:~ 1 : f li i i 1 0 , 1 P CD. // 4:11 . + .t 114=s<trxx*ba 11 r - -i 1 1 11 11/: 1; 11 -Li ul' 1~ i/v -fip=*4-,r,-- T L - ti t 1 - 2 4=4 4Â«-1 Ff' El Â© =1 L --M.L.--- t. M:, . - - 1.-LE O 70 9 31====11 2 III - iMilitit' iIi i ~ 2ND FL O.' - U., -- o 222 1- - 0 4_ 1 1-- 1 - 1 ST FL --=- 2 327Â» =A== 1 -- --- t r 1 *->EXISTING HOUSE REAR ELEVATION SCALE : 1/80-1'00 25'00 40.-0.1 - 1 4# 913 l hui -~ 1 -5 -V BREAKFAST LAUNDRY . Cler, \ .J MASTER B.R. .1 1 j, 4 - 1. 11 --- -- ~,61- 4 L O 1 ed,~~DER=j -lk It--1 MBATH 01 , .. --1 : 1 -Â»_lk] 0 UP i. '1===- . NEW FRONT PORCH rt- 71 n _ 1,i/ 20'-00 : /1 Â¥)214+IRWH66Â§*,-id,iekikitig - Â·,Ij;!I Â·Ill- 12. 1 t . i.. j ...1 lili '664/S'k/ NEW{ 1 t 1.1 1 1 } FIRE PLACE . 1 il/ / fili ' i f. ,/EX)ST'iNGf.37:Glf. J 11I1?.I!''1 1st FLOOR : EXISTING - 660 S.F. NEW - 864 S.F. TOTAL 1st FLOOR -1524 S.F. 2nd FLOOR : NEW - 864' S.F. TOTAL 2388 S.F FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE : 1/8'-1'0' < 11-./ DATE : 9-03-87 NORTH REV. 1 : 9-10-87 REV. 2 : 9-14-87 REV.3:10-02-87 REV.4:1--20-88 .0.31,1'8 :.0.4 BALCONY B.R.+1 B.R. +2 1-MALL -- 1- -3 - DN. 1~ $ 7- 1 1 4 1 - - dly-. 1,7 f \4- 0 . 314 lf) CGI 4 FÂ» BATH 1 - 4-* L L'--1 1 V 1 ROOF 1 1 I T /. 1 I 1 / l 1 I 1- - - --- - - ----4- -1 SECOND FLOOR PLAN r-Th SCALE : 1/80 - 1'00 4JL . 'i DATE : 9-03-87 NORTH REV.1 : 9-10-87 REV. 2 : 9-14-87 REV.3:10-02-87 REV.4:1-20-88 HOPKINS AVE. 4 --4 REBAR 8 #AP REBAR 8 CAP SET IN PL~ACE ~. ~ S 75Â° 0 11" E 60,Od 1--bf-\21-ACE 0 4 Z ~/EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN --7--- h~ 2 9 4 ( 12.25' 11.85' poRCH \- al + t2.00' f- 5 EXISTING ONE STORY ORIG. HOUSE TO REMAIN Â«--/2 4 RELOCATE - 9 0 EXISTING TREE < EXISTING TREE 3, 9 1 , - -TO REMAIN n , i + ,- . 11*/. I.' I C L.2 --T -2 ' 14--r l--5t--46'4 *=1&=:-~11- 1*6r*c;;*4*gg- ~ ~ to 0 0 - 0#90*~A N ' ~ EXISTING r=~-4- 4--2- 1 TWO STORY AbDITION 1 .6 1- I 2 1 + t.-3 -4'24'C - ---2 -p ' TO BE REMOVED + -â‚¬ C -- D ..0. 5'- ' S **014*nle*RAGE j ~W NEW DRIVE WAY - a W.-F-Â¥F f fl 1.. . z~ EXISTING ONE STORY ? 2 N r TO BE REMOVED-, ~ 8, -1 REBAR 8 CAP SET IN PL c JO . REBAR' 8 CAP Lad- L --- mii-01 - -- -- L.uN SET IN PLACE \ 1.78' N 75Â° 09' It' W 60.00' ONGFELLOW& ASSOCIA-T-CS, INC.) A , -- STE OR COLORADO, DC)14EQEBY CER- .1915, 1 WAVQ EXAMINED -TUE NORTH E IMPROVEMQNT5. EASE- ALLEY 02 SAME,AS SHOWN ON -TUIS 3 6-ret>.INC. -0/op,Jo 63:Parinea SITE PLAN M 34,46-2EE--Â«- _- 30N33 t PATTILLO ASSOCIATES STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS -- March 21, 1988 Mr. Joseph Amato c/o Charles Cuniffe P.O. Box 3534 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Re: 222 East Hallam Our Job #87068 Gentlemen: At the request of the owner, the undersigned inspected the above residence on May 28, 1987 to evaluate its present structural condition and to determine whether renovation was feasible. My conclusions are presented herein. The structure is a timber framed, single-story residence located on a relatively flat lot near central Aspen. The original building was probably "tee" shaped, approximately 28 feet wide (east-west) by 24 feet deep (north-south), and several additions have obviously been made over the years. The number of separate additions probably number at least nine, including: 1. The front porch addition/expansion. 2. The east green room. 3. The east flat-roof addition. 4. An old north wing (probably a kitchen and bathroom addition) . The north and east expansion of the north wing. The west expansion of the north wing. The north addition. The northwest addition. The west "infill" addition. The additions have been made in a rather haphazard and careless fashion, using minimal construction techniques. The floor elevations vary with nearly every addition, internal circulation patterns are very poor, and the roof shape is a series Of gable, salt-box, shed and flat roofs, all with varying slopes. Specifically, with regard to structural stability, I found several substandard conditions. The floors are framed for the most part with 2x6 native joists, spaced at 24 inches on center. Various makeshift beams support these joists and are themselves randomly shored with concrete block piers resting on the soil. The crawl space does not meet minimum standards PO. BOX 751 G GLENWOOD SPAINGS, COLOFRADO 81 602 0 [303] 945-9695 LOCO-Jecrl 1 222 East Hallam March 21, 1988 Page two Â·- for clearance below the joists, and a good part of the crawl space under the original building is practically not accessible. Foundations consist of old brick grade walls, or newer concrete block construction; neither is reinforced or provides adequate frost protection. The mortar in the older brick foundations is soft and has eroded in areas which are not covered with stucco. Even the newer additions are not particularly well founded; untreated timber cribbing has been used to retain soil within the small cellar space under the north addition, for example. With regard to the roof framing, several poor and unstable conditions exist. The older roofs are typically framed with native 2x4's spaced at 24 inches, and the newer roofs are framed with 2x6's. The area just north of the original building is in particularly bad shape, as portions of older roofs have been sawn away, leaving an unstable configuration of random struts and scabbed rafters. A bearing wall was apparently removed in this area, probably during an addition phase, and was never replaced with a beam. The cracks in the ceiling attest to its present condition. Several interior walls serve as bearing walls for the various rafter braces installed above. These walls are not properly supported by foundations below. That this roof has not completely collapsed in years past is probably due to thermal losses and the metal roof which have prevented snow loads from accumulating to any significant degree. If this house were to remain occupied during the winter months, or if the property warranted protection, all snow loads should be removed from the north central portions of the roof. In consideration of the various structural problems observed with the foundations, floors, and roofs for this building, I believe that any attempt to preserve it is, quite simply, a waste of money. There may be some intrinsic value with the original building due to its historic character, but certainly all of the aforementioned additions are a tribute only to poor planning and mediocrity, and should be demolished. To preserve even only the original structure, the cost will be high, and may not justify whatever intrinsic benefits gained. Repairs would be required to the roof in the form of companioned rafters and new connections, to the floor with new properly sized and supported girders, and most significantly, to the foundation which should be replaced. This would probably require that the original house be moved, and other associated expenses would be incurred with rewiring, replastering, and (perhaps) replumbing. The same 222 East Hallam March 21, 1988 Page three aesthetic effect could be obtained much more efficiently by - replicating the existing facade, or allowing a similar looking new structure to be built. For a seemingly average period house, the extensive efforts which would be required to preserve a few original joists, studs and rafters seems excessive, especially considering that the original elements would be hidden by new finishes. This completes my report. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions or require further information. Best regards, Rob~rt M. Pattillo, P.E. RMP/kmk PATTILLO ASSOCIATES SELECTED PROJECTS Foundation Distress/Repair Red Mountain Terrace Subdivison, 1981 to 1985 This recently developed area of Glenwood Springs has experienced problems associated with hydro-compactive soils. With six of the affected homes involved in litigation, we conducted settlement monitoring studies and developed a deep pier repair system for releveling and stabilizing the structures. Mr. Pattillo served as an expert witness in the case, spending more than twenty hours in testimony during hearings and the trial. John Strickland, Construction Manager 945-4952 Mountain Rivers A.R.U. Building, 1985 A water service line leak was determined to have caused a significant amount of settlement at a corner of this two-story, 100-year old masonry building, Repair plans have been developed to stabilize the building by installation of deep piers arid reinforced concrete grade beams below the existing walls. Keddie Brooks, Director 945-8439 Stephens Residence, 1983 Due to soil consolidation, one side of this structure in Glenwood Springs had settled more than six inches. Steel pipe piles were driven adjacent to the house and bracketed to the foundation. Subsequent level monitoring has demonstrated the success Of the system. George Stephens, Owner 945-2049 Aspen Chance Residences, 1985 to 1986 Three new exclusive ciis tom residential structures required special foundation support due to their location on up to 20 feet of mine tailings. Previously augered pile placement attempts had failed. A new procedure was developed, utilizing rotary drilling to place post-grouted rej.nforced "Micro-piles". More than 180 installations have been completed to date, placed with an accuracy of placement of less than two inches. Burt Hartmann Hartmann Engineering & Construction 245-6200 David Finholm, Architect 925-5713 PATTILLO ASSOCIATES SELECTED PROJECTS Page 2 Foundation Distress/Repair Glenwood Springs Water Treatment Plant RFP, 1986 We provided assistance to tlie City of Glenwood Springs in preparing a "Request For Proposals" for the design and construction of repairs to the City's water treatment plant. This facility has been plagued for more than eight years with foundation settlement problems. The proposal solicits solutions which will stabilize the structure and seal the soil from further water infiltration, without affecting the plant operation. Kevin Kadlec, City Engineer 945-2575 Brettelberg Condominium Foundation Repair, Current Excessive wetting of the subsoils and a poor original construction effort have jeopardized several major support piers on this three-story structure. Repair plans have been prepared to provide shoring support for underpinning each problematic footing. This will also result in additional lower level space which may be utilized for storage, garages, or additional units. Tom Jankovski, Manager 945-7491 Other Similar Projects, 1982 to Current Schall Residence Stabilization, Glenwood Springs Bullock Residence Monitoring/Repair, Silt Browning/Thompson Residence, Glenwood Springs Swanson Residence, Meeker Olson Residence, Glenwood Springs Sturges Residence, Glenwood Springs Diener Residence, Gypsum Risch Residence, Gypsum Schiesser Residence, Glenwood Springs Mangurian Residence, Glenwood Springs Gert Residence, Glenwood Springs Fitzgerald Residence, Glenwood Springs Purcell Residence, Glenwood Springs Wisch Residence, Glenwood Springs Slayton Residence, Glenwood Springs Bankert Residence, Glenwood Springs Making Waves Building, Glenwood Springs PATTILLO ASSOCIATES General Information Pattillo Associates was established in 1980 to offer expert engineering consulting service geared to construction conditions in Western Colorado. We specialize in structural engineering exclusively, in the interest of providing our clients with the best available service in a technically complex field. We are proud of our innovative engineering skills which have been developed by our experience with demanding architectural forms. These structures must support heavy snow loads and are frequently located on difficult sites. Based in Glenwood Springs and serving primarily the high mountain valleys of Western Colorado, we have been associated with a diversity of projects ranging from residential additions to large multi-story condominium projects. Our experience includes several commercial and historical renovations, design of industrial facilities, pedestrian and vehicular bridges, and literally hundreds of custom residential buildings. We have also developed proprietary construction techniques for repair of distressed foundations common to this region. Basically, our job responsibility is to assure that a structure remains stable under a variety of externally and internally applied forces. Oftentimes, we must "bridge the gap" between the concepts of the architect and the reality of the construction effort. Hence, we believe that it is essential for our personnel to be thoroughly familar with field conditions and construction techniques to compliment their expertise in structural theory and code requirements. We presently employ three engineers (including the principal) along with our office manager and drafters. Our offices are conveniently located in downtown Glenwood Springs, in the recently remodeled upper floor of the Silver Club Building. We believe that there are specific advantages with utilizing a locally based consulting firm. These benefits include better response time and overall efficiency, familiarity with local conditions, availability for site observations, and direct involvement by the principal engineer. With regard to technical support systems, we have direct access to sophisticated mainframe computer software, and we utilize in-house computer programs for timber, steel, and concrete design, along with word processing capability. , ROBERT M. PATTILLO, P.E. Principal Engineer Resume A resident of Western Colorado since 1968, Robert began his professional career in the Roaring Fork Valley in 1975. His technical expertise has grown with and contributed to the area s increasing level of design sophistication. EDUCATION University of Colorado, Boulder B.S., Civil and Environmental Engineering, 1975 (With Honors) REGISTRATION Colorado Professional Engineer #16794 EXPERIENCE Pattillo Associates Engineers 1980-present Eldorado Engineering Company 1978-1980 Collins Engineers, Inc. 1975-1978 With regard to experience, he has been directly involved with several hundred projects totaling more than four hundred million dollars in construction cost. General types of work and selected projects are listed below: CUSTOM RESIDENTIAL Annie Denver Residence, Aspen Pitkin Reserve Residences, Aspen MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL The Charter at Beaver Creek St. Michaels, Telluride SCHOOLS Re-1 Facilities Evaluation, Glenwood Springs and Carbondale COMMERCIAL Spring Street Post Office, Aspen Alpine Banks, Glenwood Spgs. & Eagle HISTORIC Redstone Inn, Redstone Epicure Building, Aspen GOVERNMENT Carbondale Post Office INDUSTRIAL Union Oil Maintenance Facility BRIDGES 7th Street Bridge, Glenwood Springs Serving as the Prime Designer, Robert's experience also includes the Glenwood Springs Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge, a five span, 530 feet steel truss bridge. He has also helped develop proprietary construction techniques ( "Micropiles" and "Compliant Brackets") for use in repairing distressed foundations common to this region. 41 1 ~CD -1-I.---7~204.,3 4.9 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office o 0,0 1 r.Â£ CO 1 0,3 Coff , LU / 1-1 , U. 130 south galena street ri C r-Â·Â· i iE W 022 15* 2 aspen, colorado 81611 liD 'f, I c.2 4 r f .33 ...Ec (/) .- iu r-2 r-- 1 .----1.1 1 01 (Z March 2, 1988 .*--5.---u.1 45 r-1 C.5 1.J Mr. Charles Cunniffe Charles Cunnifee and Associates/Architects P.O. Box 3534 Aspen, CO 81612 RE: 222 East Hallam Demolition Dear Charles, Pursuant to the conversations with yOU and Richard Kline yesterday, I am writing this letter to inform you of concerns that your application for demolition should address. The public hearing for this review has been scheduled for March 22, 1988 as we arranged (see Public Notice attached). You promised to submit the additional information by no later than Friday, March 4, 1988. Section 24-9.5(c)(2) (as amended in Ordinance 11 (Series of 1987)) of the Municipal Code esthblishes the submission require- ments for demolition review. Subsection (vi) states "A written statement of how the demolition conforms to the review standards of Section 24-9.5(b)." Of the six review standards in Section 24- 9.5 (b) we are concerned that (1) and (2) have not been directly addressed in your application. " (1) The structure proposed for demolition is not struc- turally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure." Please submit evidence of efforts made by Mr. Amats or the prior owner to keep the house structurally sound, which worked and did not work. "(2) The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused to provide for any beneficial use of the property." There are three aspects to this standard which we believe are pertinent to this application: structural practicality, economic feasibility, and livability. Regarding structural practicality, the questions are: Is there evidence that health and safety problems currently make the house unlivable? UBC violations alone do not indicate that this is the case. Can the existing house be remodeled and added onto in the rear without undermining the structural integrity of the house? Regarding economic feasibility, the appraiser's reports state that the house is "outdated" and should either be razed or totally remodeled and expanded. The pertinent question which has not been answered, pursuant to Mr. <- Bowie's.analysis of the options, is: Can the existing house be remodeled and added onto in the rear (or a second structure built) in a way that would allow for a "reasonable return on investment?" In this analysis, the historic incentives created through Ordinance 42 (Series of 1987) should be considered for this approach, including the $2,000 grant available, conditional uses for duplex use or detached dwellings on the property, B&B or boardinghouse, and area and bulk variations. Of course, these incentives are subject to historic landmark designation and reviews by HPC and the P&Z. Richard indicated that he wants to approach this question also through analyzing compara- tive costs for remodeling and adding on and redevelop- ing the property. We agree that such cost estimates would be relevant to help HPC understand relative merits of different scenarios. Regarding the livability of the house, a determination should be made if the particular size, layout, siting and other critical aspects of the existing house and property are so deficient to make the house unreasonable to inhabit. I realize that, as this is the first significant demolition to be reviewed under the standards of Ordinance 11, there may be misun- derstandings of what needs to be addressed in an application and HPC's review. I appreciate your cooperation in supplying us with additional analysis in the areas that we believe are most crucial for review of this demolition proposal. I look forward to receiving the information on Friday. If you or Richard have any questions, please call me or Roxanne Eflin. Sincerely, 96 8 AÂ« Steve Burstein, Planner cc: Alan Richman Roxanne Eflin letter.222 2 CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, A.I.A APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT I. Significant Development The proposed building is a single family home, two stories in height with an attached two car garage at the rear. Its architectural style is Victorian and in keeping with the character of the adjacent buildings of the neighborhood. II. .onceptual Development Plan a. Redevelopment Plan: Refer to Graphic Submittal b. Building Mater-ials Refer to Exhibit F c. Statement concer-ning effect of proposed redevelopment on neighborhood Refer to Exhibit E i 31(-3 --) E- h 3.72 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 54 34 13 0.0 Ill..Jo 1.- 1 LA. 0 130 south galena street r -- -1- aspen, colorado 81611 ...., ,Â£ l.4 --2 4 17' 33 L. C/) March 2, 1988 , Â·l.J Mr. Charles Cunniffe Charles Cunnifee and Associates/Architects P.O. Box 3534 Aspen, CO 81612 RE: 222 East Hallam Demolition Dear Charles, Pursuant to the conversations with you and Richard Kline yesterday, I am writing this letter to inform you of concerns that your application for demolition should address. The public hearing for this review has been scheduled for March 22, 1988 as we arranged (see Public Notice attached). You promised to submit the additional information by no later than Friday, March 4, 1988. Section 24-9.5(c)(2) (as amended in Ordinance 11 (Series of 1987)) of the Municipal Code esthblishes the submission require- ments for demolition review. Subsection (vi) states "A written statement of how the demolition conforms to the review standards of Section 24-9.5(b)." Of the six review standards in Section 24- 9.5 (b) we are concerned that (1) and (2) have not been directly addressed in your application. " ( 1) The structure proposed for demolition is not struc- turally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure." Please submit evidence of efforts made by Mr. Amats or the prior owner to keep the house structurally sound, which worked and did not work. "(2) The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused to provide for any beneficial use of the property." There are three aspects to this standard which we believe are pertinent to this application: structural practicality, economic feasibility, and livability. Regarding structural practicality, the questions are: Is there evidence that health and safety problems currently make the house unlivable? UBC violations alone do not indicate that this is the case. Can the existing house be remodeled and added onto in the rear without undermining the structural integrity of the house? Regarding economic feasibility, the appraiser's reports state that the house is "outdated" and should either be razed or totally remodeled and expanded. The pertinent question which has not been answered, pursuant to Mr. Bowie's analysis of the options, is: Can the existing house be remodeled and added onto in the rear (or a second structure built) in a way that would allow for a "reasonable return on investment?" In this analysis, the historic incentives created through Ordinance 42 (Series of 1987) should be considered for this approach, including the $2,000 grant available, conditional uses for duplex use cr detached dwellings on the property, B&B or boardinghouse, and area and bulk variations. Of course, these incentives are subject to historic landmark designation and reviews by HPC and the P&Z. Richard indicated that he wants to approach this question also through analyzing compara- tive costs for remodeling and adding on and redevelop- ing the property. We agree that such cost estimates would be relevant to help HPC understand relative merits of different scenarios. Regarding the livability of the house, a determination should be made if the particular size, layout, siting and other critical aspects of the existing house and property are so deficient to make the house unreasonable to inhabit. I realize that, as this is the first significant demolition to be reviewed under the standards of Ordinance 11, there may be misun- derstandings of what needs to be addressed in an application and HPC's review. I appreciate your cooperation in supplying us with additional analysis in the areas that we believe are most crucial for review of this demolition proposal. I look forward to receiving the information on Friday. If you or Richard have any questions, please call me or Roxanne Eflin. Sincerely, 94*i 8 w.44 Steve Burstein, Planner cc: Alan Richman Roxanne Eflin letter.222 2 LAWRENCE A. DOBLE, P.E. PRESIDENT EDUCATION University of Maine, Orono, Maine 1971 Bachelor of Science - Civil Engineering . Special Areas of Study: Structural Analysis and Design Shelter Institute of Bath, Bath, Maine 1976 Passive Solar Design PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Professional Reg: Colorado, Maine, Utah, Delaware, Pennsylvania Member of CECC & ASCE EXPERIENCE Integrated Engineering Consultants, Ltd. Aspen, Colorado 1986 - Present - President and Design/Construction Engineer performing principal review, structural, civil and construction engineering services for various residential, commercial and public works projects. Collins Engineers, Inc. Aspen, Colorado 1984 - 1986 - Senior Project Engineer performing structural, civil and construction engineering services for various residential, commercial and public works projects. Lawrence A. Doble P.E. -Aspeny-Coldrado 1983 - 1984 - Provided structural analysis and design of residential buildings, structural evaluation of existing buildings for remodeling and repair, structural design and evaluation of new or existing bridges and foundation design. Amory B. and Hunter Lovins Snowmass, Colorado 1982 - 1983 - Responsible for the supervision and training of a volunteer labor force used to construct The Rocky Mountain Institute, a combination private home, bioshelter, and research center. Coordination with project architects, engineers, suppliers and subcontractors. Wasatch Solar Engineering and Construction Co. Salt Lake City, Utah 1978 - 1982 - Provided construction, remodeling, engineering and architectural design services in conjunction with passive solar technology. State of Maine, Dept. of Environmental Protection & Dept. of Transportation Augusta, Maine 1971 - 1977 - Assistance to municipalities in design, development, and solid waste management utilizing computer applications. - Bridge Design & Construction Engineer. COMMERCIAL/PUBLIC STRUCTURAL PROJECTS Weinglass Building 1987 Location: Aspen, Colorado _a ~~ __ ___ Structural design for a 3-story, steel - framed, 14,000 S.F. commercial building. Cost: $ 1,200,000 - 520 East Hyman Building (Pitkin Center) 1986- 1987 Location: Aspen, Colorado Structural design for a 3-story, steel framed, 14,000 S.F. commercial/residential building. Cost: $ 1,000,000 - Pitkin County Courthouse Attic Remodel 1986 Location: Aspen, Colorado Structural design for extensive remodel of 100 year old historic building. Cost: $ 650,000 - Myers & Associates Building 1986 Location: Basalt, Colorado Foundation design, exterior & interior craneway design for 25,000 S.F. steel fabrication shop, warehouse & office building. Cost: $ 1,000,000 - Aspen Sanitation Building 1986 Location: Aspen, Colorado Structural design for 4,200 S.F. addition to existing maintenance facility. Cost: $ 300,000 Snowmass Country Club Homes, Phase II-IV 1981- 1987 Location: Snowmass Village, Colorado Structural design of timber framed condominium complex including reinforced concrete foundation and retaining components. Cost: $12,000,000 Snowmass Mall 1985 Location: Snowmass Village, Colorado Structural design for extensive remodel of concrete and timber construction shopping mall built in 1960. Cost: $ 250,000 INTEGRATED ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LTD. COMMERCIAL/PUBLIC STRUCTURAL PROJECTS Aspen Grove Building 1985 Location: Aspen, Colorado Structural design for extensive remodel of concrete and steel commercial building. Cost: $ 100,000 - Sardv House Remodel 1985 Location: Aspen, Colorado Structural design for extensive remodel and addition to convert a historic victorian residence into a Bed & Breakfast Inn. Cost: $ 1,500,000 - Hotel Jerome 1983- 1984 Location: Aspen, Colorado Structural design for extensive renovation of 100 year old historic building including foundation underpinning and use of needle beam shoring techniques. Cost: $3,500,000 INTEGRATED ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LTD. RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURAL PROJECTS - Rotko Residence & Barn 1988 Location: Westchester, Pennsylvania Structural design for 4,500 S.F. timber framed luxury residence and 3,000 S.F. timber framed barn. Cost: $ 1,000,000 - 701 East Hopkins Townhomes 1988 Location: Aspen, Colorado Structural design for two townhome buildings. Cost: $ 1,000,000 Hunter Creek Ranch Residence 1987 - 1988 Location: Aspen, Colorado Structural design for 14,500 S.F. timber and steel framed luxury residence. Cost: $ 2,400,000 - Kane Residence 1987 - 1988 Location: Red Mountain, Aspen, Colorado Structural design for 6,000 S.F. timber and steel framed luxury residence. Cost: $ 800,000 700 East Hyman Duplex Buildings 1987 Location: Aspen, Colorado Structural design for two duplex buildings. Cost: $ 1,500,000 - East Hyman Townhomes 1987 Location: Aspen, Colorado Structural design for two townhome buildings. Cost: $ 1,000,000 Cerre Residence 1987 Location: Snowmass Village, Colorado Structural design for new timber & steel framed residence. Cost: $ 300,000 INTEGRATED ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LTD. RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURAL PROJECTS - Wang Residence 1986 Location: Red Mountain - Aspen, Colorado Structural design for extensive remodel of timber framed residence. Cost: $ 750,000 - Peters Residence 1986 Location: West End - Aspen, Colorado Structural design for timber framed new Victorian residence. Cost: $ 400,000 - Braver Residence 1986 Location: Starwood - Aspen, Colorado Structural design for timber and steel framed luxury residence. Cost: $ 1,200,000 - Smithburq Residence 1986 Location: Snowmass Village, Colorado Structural design for 4,700 S.F. luxury residence. Cost: $ 500,000 - DeBoer Residence 1985 Location: Aspen, Colorado Structural design for 5,000 S.F. timber framed luxury guest residence. Cost: $ 500,000 Schostak Residence 1984- 1985 Location: Aspen, Colorado Structural design for 7,000 S.F. timber framed luxury residence. Cost: $ 850,000 - Meens Residence 1984- 1985 Location: Aspen, Colorado Structural design of 3,000 S.F. residence located in avalanche zone including extensive concrete retaining component design. Cost: $ 350,000 INTEGRATED ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LTD. CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE. AIA APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT I. Significant Development The proposed building is a single family home, two stories in height with an attached two car garage at the r-ear. Its architectural style is Victorian apid in keeping with the character of the adjacent buildings of the neighborhood. II . Conceptual Development Plan a. Redevelopment Plan: Refer to Graphic Submittal b. Building Materials Refer to Exhibit F Statement conceriling effect of proposed 'redevelopment on neighborti(Dod Refer to Exhibit E