The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.1988020944 AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE February 9, 1988 - Tuesday 2:30 P.M. City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall REGULAR MEETING 2:30 I. Roll Call and approval of May 26,.1987, June 9, 1987 and Jan. 26, 1988 minutes. .p*>Â·se.of' - II. Committee Member and Staff Comments III. Monitoring of Projects IV. NEW BUSINESS: Public Hearings: Significant Development 2:40 A. 516 E. Hyman Demolition, Reconstruction and Addition Kim Wiel 9-0-'Â£,*Â»L 3:10 B. 300 W. Main, Historic Designation and Conceptual Development Review Scott and Caroline McDonald A 9fc uÂ»-=17 3:40 C. Remand of 222 E. Hallam Historic Evaluation Score 03 (Le ,.v i..,. Ll 4:10 D. Minor Development: Sculpture garden entry gate and wall, 411 E. Hopkins Avenue 4:30 V. Adjourn 2.9.88 agenda 2 P G HPC MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1988 516 E. Hyman Demolition, Reconstruction and Addition . . .1 300 W. MAIN HISTORIC DESIGNATION AND CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ...........5 REMAND OF 222 E. HALLAM .........11 MINOR DEVELOPMENT-SCULPTURE GARDEN, ENTRY GATE 411 E. HOPKINS .........................14 17 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: 516 E. Hyman Demolition, Reconstruction, and Addition DATE: February 9, 1988 LOCATION: 516 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot O of Block 94, also known as Lot 1 of Pitkin Center Subdivision, Townsite and City of Aspen. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: SJA Associates request approval to demolish the existing structure at 516 E. Hyman Avenue (formerly the Cheapshots building, currently the Mickey Mouse House). Redevel- opment plans are to build a new commercial building with 2,250 square feet on the first floor in Phase 1 and 2,250 square feet on the second floor in Phase 2 subject to GMP allocation. The design concept is to make this building appear as a continuation of the Pitkin Center building immediately to the east through the use of the same sandstone and brick and similar detailing and fenestration patterns. SITE, AREA AND BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Lot Area: 3,000 square feet Existing Floor Area: Proposed New Building Floor Area: 4,500 square feet (1.5:1 (Floor Area Ratio) FAR) Phase 1 First Floor: 2,250 square feet Phase 2 Second Floor: 2,250 square feet Prnpnged New Building Maximum Height: 31 feet (top of parapet) Proposed Front Yard Setback: 15 feet Proposed Open Space (%): 450 square feet (15%) PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Demolition of the existing building is subject to demolition review in Section 24-9.5 of the Municipal Code. New construction is reviewed as significant development according to 24-9.4(e)(4) involving two steps, conceptual review and final review. In addition to HPC's reviews, this project's creation of 15% open space and cash-in-lieu for the remaining 1 0% required (total of 25% required in the CC zone district) will be subject to special review by the Planning and Zoning Commission once the new code is adopted. Following are staff's comments in response to standards for demolition and significant development: 1 1. Demolition Review: Criterion 1: The structure proposed for demolition is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure. Response: The building consists of a frame structure sheathed with corrugated metal siding and roofing and a cinder block addition to the rear. The project architect has stated that there is no foundation and wood framing rests directly on the ground. He stated that the wood framing is rotting. When excavating for the Pitkin Center Building next door, the east wall of the structure almost fell into the hole and had to be reenforced to survive a few more years. The front part of the building is visibly deteriorating, as seen from Hyman Avenue. One may say that this is the only example of "blight" in the Commercial Core Historic Dis- trict. Criterion 2: The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused to provide for any beneficial use of the property. Response: While the building is currently occupied for commercial use, it appears that its useful life is limited. The building is not a good candidate for rehabilitation because it was not well built nor does it have distinguish- ing historic architectural features, in staff's opinion. Criterion 3: The structure cannot be practically moved to another site in Aspen. Response: It does not appear practical to move this struc- ture to another site because it has questionable structural stability and it does not, in our assessment, possess historic significance so to warrant the trouble and expense of moving. Criterion 4: A demolition and redevelopment plan is submit- ted, 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 to occur. Response: The redevelopment plan is commented on in response to conceptual development review below. We find that the impact of demolition and redevelopment on the neighborhood is generally positive. Criterion 5: The demolition plan mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact the proposed demolition has on 2 the historic importance of the structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels. Response: The building does not appear on the 1904 Sanborn's Map in its present location. Possibly this barn-like building was built during the Mining Era and was moved to this location at a later time. The 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures did not identify this building as an historic structure and denoted it as "visually non- contributing" to the historic district. There is no evidence that this structure possesses historic significance; and we concur with the 1980 Inventory that it does not contribute to the character of historic district. Therefore, we find that the demolition plan does not impact the historic importance of an historic structure or adjacent structures. -Criterion 6: The demolition plan mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact on the architectural integrity of the historic structure or part thereof. Response: As stated above, the structure does not possess architectural integrity, in staff's opinion. 2. Conceptual Development Review: Criterion 1: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel, with development on adjacent parcel in the Historic Overlay District and with adjacent historic landmarks. Response: The "Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines" discuss concepts of setback, align- ment and rhythm of facade details, massing, storefronts, windows and openings, and materials for compatible new construction Of commercial buildings. With regard to sctbacks, the applicant proposes to have a 15' dccp "land- scaped plaza." This setback is midway between the Pitkin Center's 8' setback (on the western portion of the buil- ding) and the Mason and Morse's 20' setback on adjacent sides. The Guidelines express concern that building facade alignment along a bleck be respected. In the case of this block, there is a variety of setbacks with no consistent facade alignment. Most prominent on the block is the Elk's Building, which facades are aligned directly on Hyman and Galena. The project would be "splitting the difference" in facade alignments of its neighbors. This placement seems mainly appropriate to flow fairly well with the Pitkin Center Building and not create too pronounced of an inset along with the Mason and Morse Building. If this lot had been included in the Pitkin Center design, a continuous frontage and the combined open space could have been made more useful. To move the building forward to the front 3 property line would appear to work less well. The fact that all the buildings on the block are somewhat set back helps to maintain the prominence of the Elk's Building. Regarding alignment and rhythm of facade details, this design utilizes the pattern of the adjacent Pitkin Center building. The storefront scale is very similar to historic commercial buildings and seems to work well with the adjacent structure. The two foot high bulkhead (or kick- plate) is the same height used on Pitkin Center storefronts. The vertical doors on the first floor seem especially appropriate. The vertical windows on the second floor are mainly consistent with the historic pattern of upper story windows. The muntined central group of windows are not a historic pattern, more modern in feel and chosen to tie into the Pitkin Center fenestration design. Another treatment might be more successful in creating this building's own identity and further adding to the sense of verticality. Massing of the one story design for Phase 1 is an 18' tall and 30' wide rectangular box. This is typical of one story commercial buildings in the historic district, and is appropriate in our opinion. Phase 2 would add a second story to arrive at a height of 31 feet. This massing closely resembles the Mason and Morse Building. If not for the vertical fenestration treatment, it would seem that the building should have greater height or less width so to not appear too squat. Building materials of the front facade consist of brick, sandstone, wood and slate. These materials are appropriate in the historic district and would continue the fairly rich treatment of the Pitkin Center facade. The slate tiles are a different material than on the Pitkin Center and help distinguish this structure. The sides and rear of the hui l rling consist of conorpte hlocks, as have been typically used in new buildings. Detailed identification of the materials at final development review will be needed so to better understand their texture and scale. Criterion 2: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The question arises whether this structure is actually too similar to its neighbor and may give excessive emphasis to a new architectural theme in a City with diversity of modern architectural styles. Given that it is a small building, we are not particularly bothered by this. Criterion 3: The proposed development enhances or does not detract form the cultural value of designated historic 4 structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: There are no designated historic landmarks on the parcel or adjacent parcels. Criterion 4: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Resporide: This criterion does not apply. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of demolition of the existing structure at 516 E. Hyman Avenue and conceptual development for both Phase 1 one story and Phase 2 two story proposals subject to the following conditions: 1.Â· Detailed representation of materials shall be presented at HPC's final development review. 2. The second floor central windows shall be studied as to how the window spacing may better relate to historic upper story window patterns, how these windows may give a stronger sense of verticality, and how this building may be better differentiated from the Pitkin Center building. The results of this study shall be presented at final development review. 3. Ma-ssing shathpe-studied_-prior to finail>development/review to determin*vit a In - re -vartiCAL-lim~nson â‚¬*L.~hetw~. Jito_Ry building Pan--be achieved. 4. Prior to final development review, approval from the Planning 2 and Zoning Commission for reduction in required open space shall be obtained, or a revised design with 25% open space shall be submitted. sb.516e.h *ia-7 0 11 . 5 &*di#*-4-7ii , ~, 17-illlc o 8 Tal 9 julfÂ· 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEL: (303) 925-4755 January 8, 1988 Mr. Steve Burstein Planning Office City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 516 East Hyman Avenue, Pitkin Center Subdivision, Lot 1 Dear Steve, I am writing this letter to briefly explain to you our program and concept for the above-referenced project. The existing structure will be completely demolished and removed. The new building in its place will consist of two floors above grade each containing 2250 gross square feet. The upper level will require a GMP allocation before it can be built. In addition, there will be a full basement containing mechanical and storage space. It is our feeling, that building should appear not so much as an addition, but more as a continuation of the Pitkin Center building immediately to the east. At the same time, it should be sensitive to more contemporary flason and Morse building on the west. We feel we have accomplished both of these goals by first, using the same sandstone and brick colors, similar detailing and fenestration patterns as Pitkin Center. Secondly, we attempted to have a similar height and massing as Mason and Morse. Finally, we hope to take advantage of the proposed cash-in- lieu for open space. This would allow us to move the building slightly ahead of Mason and Morse, but behind Pitkin Center, creating a more desirable flow of open space down the block. 4~,97 1 4 C 111' 1 1 ( 111 11,4 1 Mr. Steve Burstein 1 9 - I i January 8, 1988 Â·Â·1 4 LILA Page two 1 I IJ~M...~.,.-1 I hope this brief explanation helps you to understand the project better. If you have any further questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, \0 Kim Weil Project Manager KW:dem U - <- --~ TTTI 1 | 1 + +401186 -04(pj X -f ...3- 1 9 -_-n P----1/ZE Ii --~ rl I ' U -- - L eNâ‚¬>51-ONE 6126 - -11}1391 --1 1-1 -Â»0[=mull-1 3 -Â«Â»=77 ILL ---- -- 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 ' 1 ' ! ! 1 ..... - 4 - . -mt--- -7 E--1 7Â« li zf AWN*ONFÂ·) A | | 11 1 11 1 Â£ _1 I L__ 1 1~ 1- i B E---3 - 1 1 i [-1 - - 7 1, 1 11$11-2 E--4_-111 - I - ~1111 1 11 1 i L.-1 ..trk"17 Bl.WÂ·HelÂ·[> Crff'.) I 1 1 . By /3 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: 300 W. Main Historic Designation and Conceptual Development Review for Addition DATE: February 9, 1988 I.# LOCATION: 300 W. Main Street, Lots Q, R, and S of Block 44, Townsite and City of Aspen. ZONING: 0 - Office zone district. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Scott and Caroline McDonald request historic designation of the subject property and conceptual development review to build an addition of approximately 2,600 square feet wrapped around the north and west walls of the existing log house. Minor changes to the original log house are also proposed, including re-roofing with "pro-panel" standing seam metal roof, adding skylights on the east and south sides of the roof, and partial enclosure with glass of the west porch entrance. SITE, AREA AND BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Lot Area: 9,000 square feet Existing House Floor Area: 1,280 square feet Proposed Addition Floor Area: 2,600 square feet Proposed Total Floor Area: 3,880 square feet Maximum Allowed Floor Area: 6,750 square feet Existing Site Coverage: 1,280 square feet ( 14%) Proposed Total Site Coverage: 2,928 square feet (33 %) Proposed Min. Allowed Front Yard Setback (south side): 42.8 ft. 10 ft. Rear Yard Setback (north side): 5.2 ft. 15 ft. Sideyard Setback (west side): 4 ft. 5 ft. Sideyard Setback (east side): 26 ft. 6.6 ft. PROCEDURE FOR PROJECT REVIEW: At this meeting the applicants are requesting HPC's recommendation for historic designation and conceptual development approval. The applicant's next step is review by the Planning and Zoning Commission to obtain their recommendation on historic designation. City Council would then 1 hold first and second readings (two meetings) of an ordinance to accomplish historic landmark designation. Conditional Use review and GMP exemption for commercial expansion of historic landmarks (under new code) would then be held by P&Z for the restaurant use. The conditional use and GMP exemption are only eligible to properties that are designated historic landmarks; therefore, that application must follow designation. GMP exemption for employee housing would lastly be reviewed by Council. PRIOR HPC CONSIDERATION: On December 8, 1987 HPC held a pre- application meeting with the McDonalds to discuss interest in historic designation of the log house and concepts for design of the addition. HPC expressed considerable interest in historic designation. There was no interest by the Committee in moving the log house on the property in order give more space for the proposed addition. HPC was not in favor of locating the addition any further towards Main Street than the existing house. Special concerns of the HPC for the design of the addition included: saving the trees and the current Main Street and Second Street views of the original house, design of the addition to distin- guish the old from the new and respect the identity of the old, keep the height of the addition in relation to the existing house so to not dwarf it, and possible encroachment on the identity of the Elisha House carriage house. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Standards for historic designation are stated in Section 24-9.3(a) of the Municipal Code. The development review standards are stated in Section 24-9.4(d) of the Municipal Code. Following are the Planning Office's comments in response to both sets of standards: 1. Standard: The structure or site is commonly identified with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Response: The applicants researched Assessor's records and concluded that the original structure on the site was built prior to 1893 and torn down some time between 1930 and 1940. This house was built around 1944. There is no documentation that the house or site has significant historical association. 2. Standard: The structure reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character. Response: The house is one of the only log structures remaining in Aspen, along with the cabins at 205 S. Third Street and 527 W. Main Street. While it is newer than these other two cabins, it is in a more prominent location and setting. Log construction with chinking, the cross gable roof, and the square windows with small panes are typical of the Pioneer (1850-1930's) and Rustic (post 1940) styles now rare in Aspen. In 1885, prior 2 to sawmills in Aspen, virtually all buildings were log construc- tion. The Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures in 1980 considered the log house to possess distinctive characteristics of "type, style of architecture, and construction" and to be "a noteworthy surviving example of a style becoming rare in the locale or is identified with a street scene or other landscape." The fact that it was built so recently (1944) makes historic landmark status dubious. However, given the structure's unique status, we feel we can support the viewpoint that it meets this criteria of architectural significance. 3. Standard: The structure embodies the distinguishing character- istics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen. Response: The log house embodies the characteristics of the rustic residential building type, which is identified in the "Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines" as an historic architectural style in Aspen. 4. Standard: The structure is a significant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: It is unlikely that a house of this type was designed by an architect. The applicants' research indicates that Leo "Pope" Rowland, an old-time Aspenite and the brother of "Red" Rowland, was the primary builder of the house. John Parsons, a mason who did work through the Valley, is credited with building the stone fireplace and chimney. The stonework in particular is outstanding; and it may be that Mr. Parsons' work did influence other use of moss rock in and around Aspen. No research has been done to confirm this. 5. Standard: The structure or site is a significant component of a historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character.- Response: The log house is considered visually contributing to the Main Street Historic District, according to the 1980 Historic Inventory. The major spruce trees on the site have a special, rustic character that contributes a sense of maturity, permanence and visual relief from buildings on Main Street. 6. Standard: The structure or site is critical to the preserva- tion of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location, and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or archi- tectural importance. Response: The log house has a certain prominence in the community because of its visibility on Main Street, in staff's opinion. 3 Conceptual Development Review Standards: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel. Response: Alterations to the existing structure thus far identified in the conceptual application include adding sky- lights, replacing the roof with a standing seam metal roof, and partial enclosure of the front porch. The "Historic District and Historic Landmark Developmentduidelines" address concepts of compatibility applicable to these proposed alterations. Guideline VI.F.1 advises property owners to generally "avoid adding inappropriate features such as new skylights unless their appearance is concealed from principal views. They should avoid being placed on any portion of the roof that faces the street. Skylights should be mounted flush with the roof to avoid altering the lines of the roof." We recommend that the skylights shown on the east side (facing 2nd Street) and on the old portion of the roof on the west side which would be visible from Main Street be deleted from the design. Standing seam metal roofs are generally considered appropriate on historic houses, as noted in Guideline VI.F.3. According to Scott Carpenter, this house has a number of old layers of asphalt roofing. It could be argued that wood shake roofing would also be complimentary to the rustic character of the house. Guideline VI.I. states "Enclosing of porches is a common way to gain space and energy savings, but should be approached carefully to maintain the appearance of transparency." It is difficult to envision the porch enclosure and the manner in which glass might butt up to the vertical logs supporting the porch. A more clear representation of this detail will be needed at final develop- ment review. The proposed 2,600 square foot addition raise concerns of location, massing, size, roof types, window and door patterns, and materials as these features effect the original house and adjacent parcels in the Main Street Historic District. These concerns have obviously received a great deal of thought from the applicant, and we find that there are clearly several ways of assessing the design challenges posed by the addition. The applicant's locational concept is to wrap the addition around two sides of the existing house to rear. By so doing, the Main Street and Second Street elevations remain visible and unaltered - although flanked with new construction. Variances for sideyard and rearyard setbacks are also needed because of the tight area remaining in the northwest corner of the property proposed for development. Guidelines VI.B.1 and 4 address spacing of historic structures and additions thereto, as follows: 4 1. "The visual pattern along the street should be maintained. Additions to existing structures should be set back from the facade so that the visual pattern of the spacing of struc- tures along the street is maintained." 4. "...Additions should not be designed so that they obscure the size or shape of the house..." Because the structure is on a corner, the visual impacts from both Main Street and Second Street must be considered. Even the rear facade of the original house is important because it can be seen from Main Street; and that particular view strongly influen- ces the perception of the house's modest size. Unfortunately, the long straight walls of the addition (22' of wall along Main Street, 52' feet along the western border and 50' along the alley) tend to obscure the size and shape of the original house, in our opinion. All of these dimensions are greater than the corresponding elevation elements of the old house. Particularly when continuous rooflines are run, or there is a flat roof, the addition envelopes the original small house. Reducing the scale of the addition, and giving it a clearer distinction from the original house are necessary to better meet the design challenge for this project. Guidelines from Chapter VI.F. on rooflines relevant to this project include: 1. "The existing roof type and pitch should be maintained. Additions should attempt to use the same roof type and pitch as the original structure..." The applicant has attempted to keep the roofline low (generally not exceeding 19' 10") and no higher than the original house through use of a combination of flat and one-sided pitched roofs. The objective was also to minimize the- reduction-of-viewplane-for the Elisha carriage house less than four feet from the back wall of the proposed addition. The original log house roofline consists of 12/12 (approximately) cross gables. This feature defines the relatively small scale of the house and is typical of the rustic architectural style. The long (approximately 42' length) one-sided pitch on the south elevation disrupts the scale of the original house, as seen from Main Street. The rectangular quality of flat roofs dominate the west and north elevations and create a scale of wall very different from the original house, in our opinion, perhaps eliminating one of the qualities of the building that is most attractive. The continuation of the roof on the east elevation seems to work well because it is separated by a cross gable. If the design could incorporate the same pitch of gables, with cross gables and dorners, perhaps this would be the single most 5 important improvement to enhance compatibility in staff's opinion. Some of the design concepts employed by the Sardy House Annex and Elk Mountain Lodge may be applicable. Even if the ridge line extends slightly higher than the 18' now proposed, it would seem to be a more appropriate design theme. One of the likely results is a reduction in usable floor area on the second floor. Windows and doors in new construction are addressed in Guidelines VII.E.1, as stated: 1. "Use windows and doors of similar size and proportion to those historically seen in Aspen...Contemporary interpreta- tions may be considered if they are used in limited numbers as accents." Most windows on the addition have not yet been depicted because the interior layout has not been determined. When designing those windows, the size and shape should be mainly consistent with the windows on the original structure. Skylights on the addition may also be appropriate. The principal openings shown are the 6.5' by 12' french or sliding doors on the south elevation. The first floor set of doors appear to be practical and appropriate. The large inset and large area of glass on the second floor appears quite out of character and should be further studied. An applicable guideline on materials is Guideline VI.J.1., "Match materials as closely as possible,...pay(ing) particular attention to the scale..." The applicant proposes to use logs with chinking and rough sawn paneling. This treatment appears primarily appropriate. At final development review the type and finish of logs and the extent of the rough sawn paneling should be looked at in detail. 2 - Standard: The proposed develormpnt reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The log addition is unique within the neighbor- hood, given that there are no such log structures this size. We are concerned that the size and massing of the addition be appropriate, as discussed above under compatibility with the historic structure. The addition does further limit views of the Elisha House carriage house back wall; however, we believe that the height is so far below the key architectural detail on the wall - the upper window and surrounding moulding - that its effect is acceptable. We are concerned that the mere four foot separation between the back wall of the addition and the carriage house tends to crowd its neighbor to the west. If possible, further separation between the buildings is desireable. At a minimum, we believe that the 5 foot setback should be respected. 6 Refinement in the design of the straight wall and roof line of the north elevation (alley-side) should occur so to improve this face to the residential neighborhood. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: The proposed addition does not adversely effect the cultural value of the original log house. If successfully designed and used for a restaurant as intended, it can be argued that the cultural value is enhanced because then more people can enjoy the house. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Staff finds that the addition as presently designed does detract significantly from the architectural integrity of the original log house. For this reason we suggest that HPC consider the alternatives discussed below in response to this request. ~~~~ ALTERNATIVES: Actions that HPC may take include: 1. Grant conceptual approval for the proposal as presented. 2. Grant conceptual approval for the proposal subj ect to condi- tions that clarifications are made at final development review pertaining to massing, rooflines, fenestration, and materials. 3. Table conceptual approval until the applicant returns with further study and other -design--concepts regarding massing, rooflines, fenestration. 4. Deny conceptual approval for reasons that the size of the addition and various design concepts are inappropriate on this site. Direction may be given to the applicant to consider: a. Reducing the size of the addition. b. Moving the house in a southeast direction on the parcel and building a smaller addition within setbacks and/or constructing a separate structure minimizing design conflicts. The dilemma in designing a substantial addition to a small house on a corner lot is that the original house is not large enough to "hide" the addition and all sides are visible from public rights- of-way. Staff suggests the approach that with certain changes to 7 the proposal, an acceptable design can be achieved. The appli- cants' effort to retain the log house and construct an addition that is modest in size relative to the maximum bulk allowed by zoning is laudable, in our opinion. The alternatives of moving the house forward on the property or building a detached struc- ture in the southeast quadrant of the property entail significant disruption of the site and possibly undermining the structure's stability. The approach of moving the building was not acceptable to HPC at the pre-application meeting. We believe that tabling action is most appropriate to allow the applicant to respond with design changes. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends to HPC to table the requested historic designation and conceptual development review of 300 W. Main Street with directions to the applicants to consider the following changes to the project: 1. Deletion of skylights on the east side and on the old portion of the roof on the north side of the house. 2. Roof types should consist of primarily gable end and cross gables at a similar pitch to that on the existing house and dormers rather than one-sided pitch and flat roofs. Height should still be kept low enough to not overshadow the original house nor obstruct views of the Elisha House carriage house, with particu- lar concern for the carriage house's second level window and surrounding trim. 3. The massing of the addition's south elevation (Main Street), west elevation, and north elevation (alley) should be further broken up to achieve a scale of elements similar to the scale of the existing log house. The east elevation (Second Street) of the addition is in an appropriate scale to the original. 4. The second floor 6.5' by 12' french or sliding doors and the inset for these doors should be changed so to create a pattern that is more in keeping with the style and scale of the original log house. 5. The addition should be located no less than 5 feet from the eastern property line. sb.30Ow.main 8 ' 9 5.77 -7# rÂ¥ 0 /1 / C N o D ..2 + d daN ' GS / It , dil.15 -UNO- e (V /7 ' (Ng:(17~"O,sql Z '-3(V rpoh '1-4.,-h f'91/939.152(3 P*'L'34, WO D)1 9 1 ./ 1 025'11/~cy /1// i , '1 5(122.5 22/- 9 '/2.9 Â·21*' 2'4/~714 :140-rAmI 1-2-Foads -IO dWD '0Ouao-FI rjuem -Ippoloue SE LIOns ':}up:)-r-16*r Ac[ papeau s-le.o.Iddv Al-[0 13470 Auv 1 17, elÂ·, a 3 / / 9 4 5 51 -B k +. Â·61 )11 jaL 5 439,15' lEi 2,41- (100/4 2' 09 f-/9/grl g j.j -1. do U -aL_3 tfuett D 7#UnDâ‚¬Ill H.29 9/11 W92,4 1793-1-9(3 -Lor\1 5-8 0(1 t/24/V No'j.'FPV 153 <39Â£4 -901-1 grvv Â»+I-1- E!0+11)0,21-6 -7-Urd,9,2,0 -1:~I-)1 do ill,6-19-21611 -7 -de rpl.DELÂ£/ HDU U :EP-/+ (2 rq v r' -t : tÂ·~42* Â¢ 719 ' -p-'' 849 '>-3 A 'bri /vlri t ti vi n 55/f/'7 /ovu =01<J Â»fv, t, 7-z~~ W, -2,4-1-Ur,-1 //t/(~4 -3-52 01- 2-38-r)1.312+Z> 7Â¢/7/9/2/77 11 r. / 1 9 i -2 0 4 19722 ry O 7 'ppÂ¢/ 96'-4 4 0 2 g Scdz:0 -- wln-jonl-As laq-4 Jo Act.-ribaa.uT Ipancl.033.-[Uole ao an-[PA Teinct.Ino auct. moll slopil.ap 10 seounque =I.T laul.eum pue 'poouloqubjau atil Jo lact.021240 qulÂ·Im ADual. -STSUOO 'al.TS 943 UO S>[lumpuUI OTiolÂ·STU Jo ial.Opirtio UT Al.I-[Iq -Tukedmoo 04 BuTUTE=lied) (P) D ' 6-*1 uo-rloes Jo spiepuwas PlaTABM aul. slaam rjuamdo-IDAaa pasodold aur# Aupk pue ' pooIiaoqub-gaN 044 Jo =aloulrul 10/pup (DIcreo-[Idde JT) aln=I.On.Il.S Jo UDIsea IBUILI/0 , 0113 uo quemdoIDAaa Pasodoid aul JO 400JJFC 043Â· Jo ZI.uamarjelÂ·s , Spl "1~...,7 14% 4+o V 2/93 ,,79 7,914-rid-7:ur'92 79.12,4 114139 at> //vt/ 5 23(17 Voli 11 r '-7179-16-4 1-tv#),) *02*,6 449,92'P?Dr?2/6 97/151*3 1/tfl #424 4 //fiHS .rÂ¢U#_1,adtf '3Ii A 1';)3- f491.JÂ£'8-3-7g arv,-7 Â¥003 UrÂ¥12'F?t,liaÂ¥ if w <3=32#79169 27 //t'j-/5 p)n~~rÂ¥, 11Â·S 1, W 7Vry,9,20 -Eull ' 9.Â¥Â¥,97011 j)'1*J/clwe C!99 220(4,9<1'52~2# N'U $1 1)98 -il- 173 0032., 41 8339 9rY,-4,-7 TVolt-ir)-atiNODO'737'Sgo,5(4/,"03 gri# *54(n S.M2/'111272/25 -74/rÂ¥,4/20 2.41- 1-)1_ 93/f.I>i/Zf't/ :79Â·'li:/F.,p~ 4(Â¥,rl ,Â·;7 9-77 1.74 9/0 ve/7-Â£ ci Â¥'0 De.'7L')~"iA +5fq<'1) --uorx -EuT=nIIÂ¥ pue sIET/al.em BuIPITnq 'cl.ubTaq ' (aIquoTIdde JT) abe=;003 alenbs -reuoTaÂ·IPPE ' PaloaJJa sluamaIa Ze.Inioal.TI.Iole :01. parj-IMI-FI l.ou ang buTpnIouT 'Al-FAIZIÂ·OV luamdoIDAaa pasodoid Jo uol-adjaosaa p 09#'p<~_'0/6:~5 : CluuouribIS 10 -Iou-rw) ADIABZI Jo adALL â‚¬ E ' 0 9 07 1 6 4 31 7 0721 '/f/,6/4' / 32(,7 002 :aureN pUB uo-rld-flosea I-ebal ' Ssalppv Aliedold :/aumo i.ou JI Aliadoid uT 4saialuI s, luuOTIddv Jo quemal.elS 2 86/ 7-1) ' 90*r<7 08(.,2,47-,2'\/ :d-iuslaut~o JO Joola 1/71 8 - "/07) Ved.%9 t N'909 /1 7(17 00Â£ < Ul-enfo~ C''Pr/~,,6/Â·7 75 : ssaippv pUU aUIEN s. lueD-[ -Iddv -I MNIAHH .INEWdO'IEAaa SI~ILLIWWOO NOILLVAUEISENd JI~OLLSIH HO.I NOIJ,VOIUddÂ¥ 2 1 NVP 3 3 1, C C REQUEST FOR HISTORICAL DESIGNATION REQUESTORS: SCOTT AND CAROLINE MCDONALD PROPERTY: LOG HOVER 9 300 W. MAIN ST. BLOCK 44 LOTS Q,PAS. REFERENCE: ATTACHED CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY FOR 300 W. MAIN ST. HOUSE CONSTRUCTION ON 300 W. MAIN WAS COMPLETED IN 1944, SIX '-' Ant C.T./77->Fo n r, riliT,n :-.'.1 51 . 1-..1 ..3 ..1 &10 50 YEAR REOUIREMENT. THE STRUCTURE DOES MERIT HISTORICAL DESIGNATION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. TIIE HOUSE IS THE ONLY PROMINENT SURVIVING CITY STRUCTI]RE --.....,â€ž.Â·c..5.- REPRESENTATIVE OF TURN OF THE CENTERY LOG HOUSE CONSTRUCTION. MANY LOG STRUCTURES EXISTED IN VICTORIAN ASPEN AND WERE LATER SHEATHED WITH FACADES. THIS SHEATHING PRACTICE OCCURED UP TO THE MID 1960s. 2. HOUSE CONSTRUCTION WAS PERFORMED BY OLD TIME ASPENITE LEO "POPE" ROWLAND, "RED" ROWLANDS BROTHER, AND VALLEY MASON JOIIN PARSONS. 3. TIIE HOUSE IS ONE OF THE FIRST HOMES BIJILT IN ASPEN AFTER TIIE TIJRN OF THE CENTURY C C THE LOG CABIN 300 KEST MAIN BLK 44 LOTS Q. R.& S. CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORICAL FACT SHEET 1893 ORIGINAL STRUCTURE ON WILITZ MAP AT EXACT SAME LOCATION ON LOTS R A S, ORIGINAL SNED ALSO AT MAPS LOCATION -FRAME AND CLAPBOARD 1893 ASPEN DIRECTORY SHOWS A.B. SHELLEDY, SURVEYOR AND S.A. SHELLEDY AT 304 MAIN ST. (LOTS Q.R.AS.) STRUCTURE REBUILT OR TORN DOWN 193-1940 ? 1937 - 1944 "ONE OF THE FIRST STRUCTURES BUILT AFTER THE 1890's" ROMONA MARKALUNAS BUILT ACCORDING TO RECORDS AND EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS (KAREN CONNORS, ASSESSORS OFFICE) BETWEEN 1937 & 1944 1. WAREN CONNORS NOTED LEO ROWLAND BUILDING ON IT IN 1944 (COUNTY RECORDS SHOW L. ROWLAND TAKING A LIEN ON VERA WURLS" PROPERTY IN 1937.) 2. MR . CONNORS ALSO SAW JOHN PARSON, THE VALLEYS MASON BUILDING "TILE EXCEPTIONALLY LARGE AND UNUSUAL ROCK FIREPLACE" APPLICATION FOR HISTORICAL PRESERVATE-3 APPLICANTS: SCOTT AND CAROLINE MCION.&12 INTRODUCTION APPLICANTS REQUEST FOR HISTORICAL DESIGNATION 7 300 W. MAIN ST. IS PREDICATED ON THE INCENTIVE OF CONDITIONAL USE OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AS A RESTAURANT. THE HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE ORIGINAL 52.--CTURE IS TrNITA.\Trli'n ONLY BY PUBLIC VIEWING OF THE INTERIOR. THE PRESENT HPC, PAZ, CITY COUNCIL REVIET 1--2118 DOES NOT INTEGRATE HISTORICAL DESIGNATION WITIi. CONDITIONAL USE OF A PROPERTY. THAT IS HISTORICAL DESIGNATION BEING CITINGENT TO GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE. THIS IS NECESSARY TO ALLOW ALTER- NATIVE PROI Â£,1611 DEVELOPEHENT. )Tin,11,/ IF CONDITIONAL USE OP TU17 ORIGINAL STRITCTURE AS A RESTAURANT IS DENIED ALTEL--ATE DEVELOPE- MENT OF THE PROPERTY MITST PROCEED . DUE TO THE CE--FRAL LOCATION OF THE STRUCTURE RELATIVE TO LOTS Q, RAS CONNIESCAL DEVELOPE- MENT WOULD NECESSITATE DEMOLITION. UNDER THE PRESENT REVIEW PROCESS OF BEING HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED FIRST COID ELIMINATE THE mHOLITION OPTION OR ALTERNATE DEVELOPEMENT IN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME. THIS WOULD BE AN UNREASONABLE EUNDMIC HARDSHIP. THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED ADDITION MINIMINLE THE VISUAL IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IS VISUALLY SUEORDINATE TO THE 1. 1 1-4 1 4.1-3 - F ~.~--2-qÂ·i.4-Â· -.RE\14-44<B. -01_. _0.1.. .ff_ ..._:.__ LL-300 WESE ._MA/A/_4 _Rlutk 49. LOTS k R /1- 1....4-$.....4 <2+~ //, 9/88 ir i -1 ---/*FOPOSED 5/72=' AE1,2*,9984'~- By : KCar, 4 24*AF /4<Ded/Ah> - *. * ' - AjoYEs t , 9 TE. ARE A 4 gla k CJ/ARA C-1-EW,57,-d.' 1 1' 9/7-E AREA'. 90009.F . 6- - .fz- 4 ----- -/-_ /(DOF/6,4. NATEe,4, i 6,(IkEKI *86-PANEL*Â£3 Ell,ST,<G NousE FLOOR A#4 1280 1.p . -1- 3 S,DeD Le.6.Â·s , fi'/9.' FLAT- 7-6841-, ANE 02 SpRUCE, NATURAL F,VisA . PROPOSEC) ADD,7-,049Â£ FLBORAREA U - -2600%.P- --- - - L- - -- -3- PANNEUNG ROUGH EAWN, NAnARAL F/41,4, - 7. 7 - - - MAX . 412 oweD ROOR AAEA *ATERNAA 6750 5.P 1-4- 76"/4,Â£,0 W,#46 W S k),TH UP.Pu,A/4. FREut-lf OR 5 6,4,44 80(14, - ADD/T/ONAL 2250 FAR - TOTAL- 9000 S. F { 7-_7 U - 4 -9- CONCRETE DECK, - fx/57,NG <27'E CAPEAA#45 344. _21._Iabor .P )91 __-_ ._-_- __- _.- .- ~0f'*EÂ©~7077}495/28- Cot/E,6~62 .1--_29285'Pti. 232.j-2,ILLic- --\~ -3 :-1- OPT,*NAL.5.Ky/,4/,Ts ft.-. 2 - - -- i--~' t ~- - ;.MAk: /?nowED. Iâ‚¬/72 dot/ef,Us_ f- 675 of.F 752.-- 2-1~:1 ~- --.-8,2-PARTIAL- PORW ENUos URE --5'UG,DE ,F~/?Tin,04, 62/?SS. NO~ l)tP/c7* 0.--v-- x ~.--1 -41-4 -2.-1 .-.-. -f.~-'.--.-4. -- . t*Z)/Et)5241 6?dM E SETRAL)Â¢6. p.) -7/2.8 Ft., E-_ILM-? 1_Ntt-32 1. 1 - ---797-W,A,Dows /4/76 A/ar DEp/Â¢770-DuE,)7/,gri/4/7-E/7,0/8.12-.--' LifI-=-:-4"30 i --1-:--131--LAYOUT- W,95- /vCr, 8264 -CETERMâ€¢NED JEL----7 -Â·f~ALLD*jeoff#6/97* 16+~24(, k"~-"f-- 16.0-Â¢4. ~AiN ,-2._nfut.rf. 0 - ---\--4- -Â·. \3--1. 1-Â· -103. uhdi~, AJ 6-4.ullb~7-11 :--f.9i~kl.O"~-T :-- '~ -- ~7 - ~ . ' i - P Rol?ose/0 5/02 072/92# (W. F,oe) 12/,O 6/,~-7 29~ i -1-LI -0- RAdi PORCU +9420 Nat Depic-TED (612/6/AJAC..466. h/ouss,\AlÂ«TSID~ AlloWEI)1 9/DE SET/34<K L -~~. -''f -*2-Mr,5991447,Â£'3-'45â‚¬1 Rec_116 . - 1.-".---1- - PROPOSED- Allel SETE,44,1 IN.%,De) ---_5.2 ft, ~ ALLOWEDÂ· ALLE7 S ETBACK L. --- -- /5.oft' 2 ' - , ' ~ -~ + i'~ '~ - - N/â‚¬TDBLAL EVALUAT,64 RAT,N6 1 -6- Abat'TAR ANI)6RAVELLL._-_ _ - L- 1 1 1 1. ' ..1 1 -+~ -- 1. ./-. 1 ./ r + I. ~ 1- 1*rm& HAQ A/67"- 28/Al Als, wuED . ANALY'&,s - *~ ' *~ - & + I 6. I i. . ~ .~ , bÂ¥- /4/,T64/UIL 96AHFICAAM.E DATED 1980 RAT//Vs oF 9 OF A ASS, 6/e /8. 'j ' , - 1 1 - . .- i - - -- : :-: JI--- - Â·-1'.~-- .--2-2:*.2_ . -: 5 ~i-I-.~- 2-.} C:I.'-i~ Ii-71Â·-4--: .i-r-+-*4Â·Iii-iÂ·r; 1 . , 1 i. 7; ... r ~"iTt. PIN:t!-trigi- - 7--' , i.li-1.1 i.[-2-i.Lt...:.: ..'_...:-... 1 300. W'.A Aw 94_ ,Â·. N d 2- -11-__.4 T. 45-/Â·TEE;>VAN;-1 41 Â·t.t.-f-' --~~-.P _i- '4 ~-33 i--,- ~ P . :n. ~.I--%-1.2. :-tfI.*-11.--1141.:13_ill .L:---... .~~ ~2~,~. 1.-*_i-1- 1% + I .4 -t4 F- C I -I~ 2. ' - 1. REVZ. OR/G. -- 1 :1/ I '~ I . ' I .~' / l.- .f , ~ ' i I . '~T . --/. t. -- 4141 lit'lies -, ' i I '' ;& ' 'f ''Â· .~ * I ' : -M -I# ' r.'; , ' . '. I --- .s-. 4 v 47 --: Â·-' a.... 4- KZ. -: , Â·-5- Â·Â·'-4-- 1 -1.- 1-4-- 1.4 1.4;.42.14.--:.--,4.-1.1. 1 .1 1 ... 1 -- ri -- - -- up.t -CONÂ¢L *6 2 - - ' - I I .- 9, I. ~* . ~M~ ~.#* ~%~ M\11 -__-v-2 221 DENÂ¢f-* 3-lt --31.Abbit/hN -61 f-f-1---I:. -- 1 ~2 _- \-1 - -4 .i '- .~il# ' i ---1~--2 -u: - 4 - -4 + 2.446_2/07/701 -*-L - -FI - iÂ·Â· .L--_.-- i__ 1./ ~_2-4.70/?C*._9 5,44FA. 1zo_Ii _ -- '-2-0--- ~n >* 7-0 458 Z;fe401/5Â» 1 'â€¢ - jo'..12 07 9 -- : ////r/Â»h\\20404/ . _- 2, 1-- ..4---4 - I. 4 I --7 ---.-- --- - - - *Il , Â»<A/:' \X P Â«\ -' -FLUil--iII-10-1.~]-21.--01222 211),ViSTREET--19 1----- l T: Ji- :- 6----4-Ji- *9124Â»O~emiNAL#J~Nt ,5-Â° -64 / 14.~-Alze>+31-' Li 1 1 4--: 4 Â«Â»r,-4041 7-/255Â»-R<\ t:- .--1 J'eli' 1 /1 1 1 1 lii I \A r / -1 \\ \1 -T-. \ \ - \\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\ -- 1 I. 1- - --- - - I - .4- 1.--'' ..-- J -:-, \ - A- i --i. - , --- 12*6X /. T -e -3.i 1 +:. Iff\\ ... .4. - 4 -/8. > 5.2 - Il Poutta\\ T i/-1 -~ - , i i. ' -1 -- , 1/X - - , 1.4 1 , - 1. f 1 - 7- - 1 . I ~ . I-.f- : .-r. - 7 --- ~ r ~ --i _I ---1 : I-<-**i-2-jlf -6 2 - . 4 1 $ 1 , +\ - /17.1 - U>RUG: :- '-u-1 - 3*: - -lft-2/ TREES . I - 1/- . - i. :t-1 Lt J /009 F \J- - 1 -L . .1 .-~.11 1 ., .2. 1 -~1â€ž.i V=- ;.71-'....i-il-.--F.l., -V- 1-:1(.U : :.i -L-4 ....1112.14+t_ 7'1.-- .< !,I.i -:-L i.-j~ .' Fl-Â·- .-:.i.1.-1.-1 ! Â·'t# 1':: 1,11 1 1 , 4 1 4 '. 2 1 ,_1 -- Â·-u _44. i_-. : 3-.3-. 94-t--- L,;- 1-r--Â·41 ---1 -:- 3-i-l :I ------2 6--E.-2 -3 -' 1. L. --f-_::~:~ _~ ~7-: ' f"-Â·ffÂ» 11- ~ ,'5 _ -4444#42-14 4-1-Old i.1.4.1 k' : 511'z, -4451.1... 2*42*.01 -: h-i 1-!R-* h t r ; ' I . 0 [-Fl , i:Â·Â· 1-Â· ~-i-'- i--4-4+4.-Â»1 i-7-iÂ»-ITHi .fli-i- 1: i , 1 Â·'i Â·,1 ! !-i t} 1--r 1-1-1-1-1.-1-41-El ' 1-LTIC-1 r i-tI-1 : n-Jd-T 1-:.2 1-111-4.-: 1 -' 1 1 1 0424Â·-1-t{-L'-3 121 11Â«3 1. 2 -:- L L-1Â£ 41 4.!ttill t.k[4 1-] 44 -'i ~--)24 ,;13 1-1-JJRS , -1 4 - Efli r -~ 1.-99 i '-1-1 -[ t i-:-~-ti ---19-"'6 7Â·-- + -r---7 - - - EV 20 Ri et '1,1 - ~. - -* ~- I~ i~ - 1 - f. _f.21 -f-2-:I- 1_-2---1 -1-- -----A/f~W 2--r-A/45772~LlcT/ON- - ~f -- fi ' ' 1 -------I---I-.----il------I- 1 , 1 -. 1 - 11 Â· .. - -- -4- - , , 1--4-SAAZE .187171_222-_2-~ 42_-an_ _lf-_-__.----2--_ 11 1 1 1 1 + -- i - -- i, 1 ' , -2--/0, -- -*. +: + i I ll 1 ' 1 I '21 1-- U-- /-4----.-Ill- * -it- -- -1-4-1--- 1 1 1 In ./ i - 1, 1 1, - 1 1 1 1 -4--- ' f - riÂ·=-1-1-1_1_i--1--m 42.----- -~-1-12_14-1-1.- 1-1_+--J--14Frn= 2 - -1 4- Aulty_-_t-- f -1-4-_.- _ . -+17 -33-- -2 -'~~ 3-Itf~i Â»-JJIOn_-9122-2 0 r - 1 1 -t 1.-1-4---1--:-4 ---11-1 1 47=14-9.--1-~-rld.t- ----Clit -Tint=Tl- -_t---1-----5-----~ .042-r-[-1_-tlr- '-1-__, __Q 11- - ... _ 1 1 1 11 ' 1-+ 1, I ttiULE.1 1 -70-271Lf_t~323-26 T-,4,".EJ--- -331--- i l 'It 1,1' Â·if, - F- - J~~ '- I ' i~~ L -t ' '~ 4-71 1- ILIE--; 3-*- - - 1 11 1 4 4-71 7-Â»'- - 1- 1 1 -- - Â· - 4--- - -- -4 - - - -- -Â·- 1-- ----- --- - -- 1 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 '' '1 1 1 1 , I. --- - 11,1 1, '' 1 -- . .1 -2-- - A - - + -4--4--- 1 - -- -- 1 1 1 IT Ti' ~ 41-1 1 1 -- -1 1 - 1 1 1 I t, 1 , 1-1-- . - L ! +~) ' 67 â‚¬ 7 1 - -- - - - f 1 2-- 2 5*64'~A/4 1 1 11 4 - --\.*2 W/A/Dot, f 1 1 - ! 14 - ---- - --- -â€ž-- -- . - . .- - * 1 1 1- , J. - -1 6 :I 149 i ' '1 5/(, ud, /o Pe.Ki - ~_ -1-1- 1- -------- - 1 1 _ - ___ ~ # ~-2 * I t.2232+~ j. 224d'/12611-i-_--- 11-1- -- +- 4 W' - A g . -- /*A,b 7/W--71 - - 11~7 9 -1-ifn.ir-11 li-f~Jilpititi-44-Ii-i 441-4-31- - U- 0 ,-3.- -1 11 '11,1 1.1 1 ' 1 1 -i-~_I ~ ~ 7-1-_~ _r-*-- liffitittifl _=41.2:j---- ~4-3Â«-+22-4-4-4-41- . L ' 4 -i , 1-*_L 2 11' .....%- -1-... -- Â·Â·- :11 .1 11 '11'll' 1 -.- r .-LL- 1 - 1_L_.- /'ill'r 1- i - 1- r :- t- r -1 i 3 7-- I_~33:-L-2--2~TEZI~-39 -tti j.-1-4-7.6-i r-r-1-14--t-7-Â· - T 1--rn-, - 1--r fÂ«i{-~3-4 f{ j -~ttij-tpi#f-+i_: i . 12]f*-4-Â»02Jf~-4-2-U-7--- -4-1 46 12_ 1 11 111]J Lill.1 1 - .1-1 ) i 1-f -1- - 1 I it 111-L i_' '.1 1 -1 f- 2 Li -1-1 L . 1 1- 7-LI- 1- Li 1- 11. -1-1 1 41-1 *+41 f 1 9-2-449 1-ti- 041--1_j ,-i--rt-Fr-}--i- W -4--- =-ki--in--i--tÂ·- ~j-Â· . -$--r .- F - i 2 Trt 71-1 1 , 3-, -1 -,- - -r- ,-1- -4-1-T , $ , 41 050(1 kl. /14/A'. . REV. 012,6. - ; Csv~ t//1/88 ' 4 VIE-4/ t PLANE - SOLIT/4 -Â·-4/DE ----- - - - ------ --------- N E W CONSTR U CT/ON i -' SCALE ; 87/" /d O 405' -+W I -. . - r. -r. --- 1.---. 1 1 '' 1,1 -t-6. ..4 -,r-â€ž . - .- - - /1-1,1 d,7-- , ' e , - 1 '--T-t'-*11-4- - 4-0-1-, L , : - - ...'.-- - --- -1-.:.-.--1- -,--.1-----..,-- --*. .-4 -1.6 1. L. 1 7.1-1.3 1 2 CARRIAGE //8 ./9 6 . . -7 i 22' ' Â· r 1 1 ~#fâ€ž14.-- -1.It)--1-#'Irti-I .--_._ 0-6.j- . ... 1 1 11 , ' ' .. 7/Â· 73=-___EAT_&12Â£1Â£L t , - . 1.1 - ---- 1-Â· D =-wgI K -12 *WEIr----- 1 ~ -I. t..' ~ -4 -f .. 1 1 -- Â·Â· .1: 1 - - i7-r- -- - --1 - DA ru M . I HI-l' 'I q 1 , -- Ittt -!-4. - 4 , N T,#-7-t-- r 1 1 - 1,1 1 lift--1.fili-- -31.1.1---7-3-I ..: :+ -- 1-I- ' 7? RE . 1-141.Elliti _li-2 ' b iIi-irc_1-4.-4 -4-i-V#EN--04-*----- 1-jl--i--~3-"-LU ..rk".fti 1-1 2512-21-2. .9 ...Â£~!_11 -_.u , 11 -1.1 r I -i--1.... ~ f{4-1--t-1.rtÂ· Â·-9 L.2-_.._~ 1... 1- ...94Â·LÂ·Â·f-144-* 4-f-~-~-I-Â·Kt TÂ·Â·: i r-I--1Â«-1- T- 1-, -1-1 T 1 '1,1.0,1 1 1,1 1 1 1 1 ..Â·Â·Â·-Â·- tH-17.-l-IÂ«1-411- 4-Fit-tÂ·i-j -Â·Â·- 9-1,-1-213.-t"Fl- --lilkitful-lTI+; p~ 1,-Â·rk: 4.... :-trti- i-1-1-1-Â·T 'i-- 4 + 4-1.1.Ll- 1 Iii'-13 .. ---*.1-W.--I '. . Ah. 4-,-- -t 1 + -+11 1 2 00 k' 1 84 'Al, .21-2.- - REU. OR,6 < 5--- . : . .---~ - L --= - -1 4- 1//1/BS 13. -- 1 14 1 , V 1 E \W PLA N E - N ORT 14 9 DE ,.... NE\d CONSTALL CT/ 04 MIT I + SCALE; 8"'" 'Â· 11- -i -- 1 4 Â· . Â· - . '. 1,11' ~~ ~ ~ 1 1 It Â·Â· S~ |,L ft--r,-' Â·- : :~~ t~i . â€¢- ~- -Â· - ~- - - I. .-Â·-â€¢ -- - -Â·.---Â·. - I I i; 1,1 1 i.r + . â€¢ ~Â· 4 1 44. ' .L_ --I ' CARA/AGE 40 ,Â«$ E -\ . Â· Â· 1-1- Â· Â·-T 11:: 4 - - .4-* -- - - - -___ ~~_ ~~~ ~~ ~~ :5.1.-41--Â·flt -44 -- --t- --- - -- , ~ :- 1 Â· Â· I . i r -Â·~ '-'I -'2 1-4 1 ' 1 1 1 - . 1 - 1 1 -1 , 1 22' --Â« ~}4' --- \ 7 - -- -1 64,Voyfe F - /?Uny 68pe .~ 740-4 k,4.6 - + 000â‚¬ :J 95" -r. 1 . 1, 45" 1 DATUH _- . _-- 1 . .. - - r -- 3 -/ -i- - 1 .,1 Â· ....... -- ------J 1, 0.' 1 . ' . r. --- 4 1 , 1 , 1 I r---1 Â·Â· / . k. Â·-- ,- Â· ~ Â·_ 1 ti.i 2-- -7,7~2 <1- --i .- - 9-1 - 631-14~~-44 d-,--t : A L_ -_ -, I-LECil-:-t.~ .1 --- -- -'- -r.-l'if_Fi z-" .-_- _ ---_2-1 3-51-~Et-f[- fr-114-1 Â· L \ i *_i~-~-~t-, t.t[.13{ i.-[Ii-iLE.L-I .ttit.-b-Lf. 1-[-3--in-i-i--2-'-- 1, '- ._Iliti-- ..1-1 Lf__-2 ....... i.Â· -' -4--1----4-- i .- 1 --1.- ~ -4...- ..1-1-,2.-.~_--4 1+2 4.-L -0-1 ---4 ... -11+1.4-1-4 -1- 44+ r- 11 -' i : - '49< T, a t~+-ti-- 71 1- 1:i _-12--LIMILiff -221~ti i.u 2 -- - p~___ _ -___ |~~~| v 1+.---+4----Â·24.4-â€¢m -L--- ---- f ,--- .. --. --- 0 .- -r--1- ,- 7 -Â·- ~Â·i-1-. .!--~ q rl--7 -rt- ! 7-1 1.-r- T-1 -i; 1.:1!1 -Iri,J:lt;:'!ili:il .-L+91----714-irit--[ i-44-4--1-.fl :. i.-'-t kjlt' ' ' .j.1--1-kit-tÂ«+34-44 t ..9-1-4 +-1.:-4471-4.9-6-:4-Aff---~-t-f--t---it ~ti 1-~- fit-1-ti-4-; ZIINI IN;iNI; Hid:Ii,--ME-K-F-+9;-i'4LL---122: 4.0-:3.FFT-FIRP:i,Mi~#,~1:3> ' 1. Ill !' 1, 1 ' --- _ 1. . _-1.- .- !-, 2 1-1 i-i.-1...1 :': .. _1._1.- L..'_LI-1 ---+4_1 ! 1.-t. : - ~ 4-Lt 1 4.-1-] f -t--1 Â·1Â· ti' 1--i -L_}._,L x rÂ·$ 1. .2 2- ~ : , .... J--- - * ' L./ . ..4-I . ./. 1 -> rE-t--1-i r tt --:-rÂ·Â· i M *J: ...I--:... 31_~. 1. j_'--_.1-i.2 4.1.-: afy,7 ILLO- 30(j k.1, r.,A /,v- - --*- REV. 0 '11 6. 45- 1//,/1% ViE W PlA NE EAST 9 DE NE\d CANCT'Ruer-iON rf A LE ,' 8'1 /" 1 1 1,1, /0, 0 45 I -I j-I-- .P --- 1.,1 Â· 11 . -.L= -1-,-r-3.--, ... - 1 ! i 1 4 1. 1 ... p.--- -- - 7 - - - '=.--7-1 _:-7-33.1' n.9,>1 1 1= 1 -1- .:--41 ... --I--- -- - .1 -i-| Eli- Ir - _ -1-Â·-4 -- -- L. 2 1 4 / / 18' 1 ., ' .U--- 1 P.1/>2072 -- - 1 1 ; 1-. .. . NO",1,6 . 6 RADE /2,25~ 2-R: 21 4-AI:.2 2 7 -: ~ DAT IKM . 4 - I .:~7 J_~1- 1.3--t - L---/. L .1 . -ILIE.ilan- i ... ----2 0- .53 - ..=p-J - .-11.._27 7 - ' Â·' -r-7-- t--:- 7..1....-1.7-C> 1,-b i 1 1 1 ,1 .- '11,1 : ~ 1 1-1 j-1-'it hi 't-F-k--rE â‚¬41.1. 1-1-1.11-IL~it.-4.-lf--1-i J-Fi-;- -, .-..r-IL.u-1 --3.Â·_ :i-U-~n-i-!~f }-tf .' ~--r,-[-t.jit-r-11-143-4-Lf-Flft: -93-13_I--7~ 2.---i--21~- -=I-f-II~Lbl J.-, l t.._ -Li-1-1 in t. -LL i.1... -_41 4 -11 -414.-1-34 14-4-- 44-:: b. e.--- r-t-t-ri--t-r-L- i: t-- -''rl- :-1---'J H-%4-1--i â‚¬ L . I 1 . 1 1 1 ENT-[-r-r~i~- VOT->T- E.J -1- 1-4.1...& 3-}-if..&-p.:.-,11.t.414.1-1.-1. M 1_. , L.t..r-++f',-,4- -L.U.-!.;-L: - iti 4 ./ I .. ,... 4 1 r: . â€¢. -4-4.k~ k-Â· â€¢ 1 00 Al I r-, 410.- -- ..' - - .9 1.- -. .-I- f...-----7.-I .- -----#.-6-- 8EU. OR,64 --i -Â·--Â· '--I - - Ill- - VIEW PZA Alt - \6/Ell- - â‚¬/2>E N Ev C.6 Ner R Lu:17 04 .4 - - SCALE : 87 /*' 1 11 l o. 0 ~ 4'5' -- - . . -,1 . ~ -- .- . .- ... - --- * 8 I.--Il-*- * - L . ...0.- ..1 .. 1 - -- . , U ' --n-, / 0/,f,oA,Al Â·SK, 4,6#71\\Â·- -- ('-;h ..21.1-2.1-I-i.l.! -LIi-:~ 1 .i. 11 1. 1 I -7 _ . 1. 1 '<3-' Cj-- i -/16 Al-PLAr-AD, -1 k----5 .1-N/.-:P--.. 1 ' - # - .Â£$ -:- . - .*-T. - .-. -'I,v *"r. -Â·r=-1 /1/ i - -Loc, A/oribef:Yf~eA~141 i~/- ..~ .--i-E ..1 ./ 0 . i . I , -Â·&1 ~-1.-I.. : ~-. , ~.I -1... 11-11-4# 4-r-+U-~ -i . -' 1 in 4 --'-,At,41-"--,Â·-- - :! ' 1=' ' k-' 2 AE' { 9- 'Â·-Â· Â·-r'Â·4~7>/1J. Â·- ' . 4/VI 1 . j1 33 5-' : "= 1, I f-: 1 : .... \ 11 2 ; 1--4 .3 2--1-1-- L; 92'-i-WL \.lit -' 2.-7.9 L-.1.74 ' t I. , _ 0. :4 rfl"i-t- '-; 1-1 1 97 1 . = 1 1 : ; r . r , 1 ... ... ......' I. .~+t 11 '' Â· Irr, I 1.1 1 4: 1/V , 1 40 8 : , 2 1 1 -- A'je~ 1,1/.1, Â·Â·'- - t.-'73 ,/ .'. i - i . r.j 2. . : ...L 7 =- 1ir-inll, , ,.7 . .1 . , -.1- - E. ./ t.#i '*.---+ ' - 5+ : -1-t- 1-LI--9- ' r. ~-LIU ' -- ...!--6..1--Â·--t--t,-f-ri-jÂ·Et , 21-f-te- it i - -T~ril- 7-1-T -[ 7-i=-1-4 i-, -- 1-1 T i [ :- 1 7- ! Â· r-+ : - i-li_ IT' L f. 1,1, 1 , i .,fI; 5-; a , &fl,LiI-: 7-: fii--li~: Ift-41- --4-4-1-*LAL:- I.1=-I_-1-!.:.Â· - 1.--r-Â·1.LL_Ll_L_tit--k--_i...'-L-~~. ,~.~r .44--t < Â·-1 *t44444,7- -24 1 ! 1 ! i . i 21 ,_.11_.a 1-1.Ld_-1 1!. " 'i 112- .f_ ''i.' i;ii;, /5 9'I i';i:,i:,1 1111!11,1-illil j' I ]Ii ,-7 ir,; T-r---t'Â·t----tir---, 7--7-~%-T-:-~!-[1'- 31 4-7. i- ~-, : .15 Ti.;~- 115..1.1-['l Li.:.'....L 1.11; 1 :li-'t :.; i.j--4-1 1- 1 .L_1'-ll-! .1.1.3 l.4-4.-Â·-1.--[ 1,,44 LI---r : i' .., 5.4-1 . 44 !-1 -14, 1 Â·41-2...I t..1 ,!4...:1. 0 :i: , = - 1 -1 I--23~~~_MI7 .t.! Â· 300 UJ, MA/W 4 ...... 0 REV, 6)21(0. .1 2- -. - 41.f //Â§713'8 -1- . -- -- - - -- -- I- VIE\d PLA NE - \N EVE S 1 bE -. Â£-1-' #%. *. + -77//?L< WEST \UALL OF CAA/?/AGE /46(45Â£ SCA 1 E : 8'/ 1 " -- _- _ - . _ --_--- -- , _ _ _ - - _ - _ 1 1 .. 1.1 9 - LUS. _ . .., -- 1 7- + k -<' -"1-- 04 . ' i~ t..-. # 7 ' - . -.. IWI+- -- &+- .1 , - '2.-:. 1-3. A ~ , 1 r'. 1 , 1 -- , L L [-7.44.-- .- 41-- 1 1 . i - i Â·Â·' 1 -- - --1-, N L /1 i. in + - 1 7 . : ~ , I I . , . . 1 . Â· 1 1 1.t Â·' 1 .'41 1 â€¢, .... 1 2/4.7 1 Â· '. i.. ..~ ' 1 T .... y, -9 .... 1 -1 '. --- j ' 1 1 1 4 t: i -t , 1 J - -Â« - ./.4 -f- 8.:r ET:-illb,0 -iji-'It -9 + -- 1 7~ . ~ - 1. ' I' . 2.-1--- i .-Â·~ .-,-1 if ' ~' 1 - 1-1 -1 - 1- 1 , i c- .'--f* 9 4-r- ~- 1-38Â·' 6*be f :04;, R. Dedâ€¢,Zaa.Li-5/bs_*1 --1-f..1.-1 .-- DA7ZM'l ; Mt ,~~*S. J..{.11 ----1.'i_-/-1.-- + Â· l 1.-L_ ...1 *Â·] ... L..â‚¬-LE-f -i-1-44-1-4.14 Â·4.1.....1.t.1:.2,1'12, 1:-~ , , . 411.Li~7? Pi.i~--_i 7-- - ._: _,L. -4-1-; -T-~-4-I ~ 1 4. - ..tt-titi - t!- 1-~ i.-' 1-*.-. -. . r . f r-: 1 -1--H- ~ tj -t L ++1 >-9-t-f- 1-2- *I:1-t-1.L+_111112 ki.flt-:f:_i i-_ '.-i-' 11.I-1, I il---- L .. 11- 7-34Â·r--T'--f-'-Â· Â·-i-~ ---*Â· r-tÂ·'-Â·Â·Â·Â·-Â·f- 6 +4-1 4.-1.-1-1-1-- ttlÂ«.Tri 1 '''T,i , .J ~'Irlv,11111.:1,+1'Ii< i 11FIT*MIi ,$44-- ft-ki-1- ~-4-f-1- il.-1--,PT-t~ '~-Â·~f-t~ Lf-ti ;-- ~ Â· ~ --~ ~' ~:_ _-tlÂ·Â·L'-ijrj-jjj~t ' -f,tf~~ffÂ·f--Libl~ 121 Â· ~i:Â·~ 4, 14~~~t!- T ... 4 -1 +4 L-1=TL | t '* + ~ -' -' - - i . .-*...# f , . 1 :4:*l; ALf:4 , 1 :2 1-14 -t 1/ 1 , 1 1. 1 , -, ---- -- 1 goo \At. ..7-- 1- ..4 REV. 00/6.i -1 - 41641 PLANE - 41Â£11-t </DE - - 1 .-I - I.* . - . I# - --/*. & -I. I I ..~ + . #. 1 ORIG/MAL Â£06 /400%6 -9- SCAL E 218 7/7_ lili /0. 0. 4' S _' i i Â·Â· Â· . 1 ' 1 7'-E Â», 1 ~ r 1,J-'---9.-- --2/_~. . ~ -_.:-4-4 . 4-..............1.--1.-1-+ - -â€ž------ . i ~Â·i---- .-. ---42-1-4-1 --t-4-&--- -: -~~~---- + . .-,1.-~ *-I~ *-* -': i - 4 11 f. --6.- -- - , .....1--- I-I-,; --, L--+- ....1-.-------- $ -. - Â·' --T-'---7-- ... -----/ - 7- 1--- s 4 â€¢. -. - *. ~. -. 1 . - . ' :-L--- -~ c.- . ;. i , 1 Â· -2 4-1- L i - ' i ' I .. I * .-.Â£. i .: i. L !14- tId_- 1__~.._1.14 2-2.1._~..L. 1.1 * -1- - - 1 ALLEV : .1 - ..29" Fowutar,{291 EV ~ - PATUM ' r :... t.7. 1,jk - L. 1 Â· Â·- i-4-1_..._~., .~_g_._ -~ I ,_--T~#i-14-f-~22_.- 1----4 41-tii ifift--2-1 Lf=Zi t.4 1 1-2.14+J-- - Â·I -Ut 1- . 0 -- 3 - - 1 '~- -1-ti :-7--,471--1-T'rÂ·1-'7-- , 7-7---;-4 '-i-- -9-4-1 -w-;4 Â·rtÂ·:--1-,Â·-1 44 - 744*NT - 444-Â£31.23-14 1- iff.~Â·~ Al-1 . i 7-i.-_i-].~: 1 ~ ..- Lif .. L f-J~ Di16-:--: --t lif-94Â· r- 1 1-j.2.-:_1 2_11 _ -0+L_ __313-h~ht-_L J._ - .: S#Ep t/-6 1-0- MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Remand of Amato Historic Evaluation Score DATE: February 9, 1988 LOCATION: 222 E. Hallam St., Lots K and L, Block 71, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: R-6 Medium Density Residential. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: On January 11, 1988 City Council remanded the historic evaluation rating of 222 East Hallam Street to HPC for rescoring. HISTORIC EVALUATION SCORE: "4", meaning "Structure has been altered in a way that is considered compatible with the original architecture; and the historic character is preserved. Structure typically has strong positive influence in the neighborhood's historic character and may be associated with important historic persons or events. In all cases, structures were in their original location, to the best of staff and HPC's knowledge." APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE: As part of the historic designation regulations of the City of Aspen, the process of HPC evaluation of structures on the Inventory of Historic structures was established whereby those structures were asvigned rated values between 0 and 5. According to Section 24- 9.5(a) of the Municipal Code, any structure rated "4" or "5" is subject to the demolition and total removal review provisions. Section 24-9.7 of the Municipal Code allows for appeal to City Council of HPC's ratings on the Inventory within one hundred and twenty (120) days of adoption of Ordinance 11. Expiration of this time period ended September 11, 1987. The Amato Appeal was received on September 4 and was postponed several times to the Council meeting date. City Council's discretion in appeals is stated in Section 24- 9.7(b) as follows: "The City Council shall consider the application on the record established before the HPC. The City Council shall affirm the decision of the HPC unless Council shall deter- mine that there was an abuse of discretion or denial of due process by the HPC. Upon determining that there was an abuse of discretion or denial of due process, the Council shall be authorized to take such action as it shall deem necessary to remedy said situation..." PROBLEM DISCUSSION: After considerable discussion, Council decided that the applicant should have the opportunity to present new information and a new argument to HPC. Council determined that this rehearing would be more fair, even though Council did not make the determination that HPC had abused its discretion in overscoring the house according to the evaluation criteria. It may be of interest that 3 of the 4 Council members voting on this matter stated that they believed the "4" rating is still correct. Please note that staff recommended remanding the rating to HPC, also concluding that the new information warranted further review, but did not conclude that the rating should be lowered. HPC made its historic evaluation of 222 E. Hallam on January 15, 1987 considering the following information: the house was built in the 1890's in its present location; distinctive Victorian features include the cross gable layout, vertical sash windows, and gable end shingles. Contribution to the historic character of the Community Church neighborhood was also considered. Owner Marvin Reynolds was present at the meeting and stated the house had been in the same family as when it was built. He stated he had no objections to the evaluation rating but was concerned about the uncertainty of the affect, if any, on property value. The applicant has assembled new information about the house at 222 E. Hallam Street which was presented to City Council. The applicant argues that based on this information, the structure would be more appropriately rated "2" or possibly "3!'. It is argued that so many additions and alterations have been made to the house that it's historic condition is significantly changed; and the house is structurally unsound. Professional Engineer Richard Cieciuch inspected the house and pointed out foundation and roof problems that lead him to believe the house is not structurally sound. Using an examination of the foundation, the applicant posits that there was an oblong log cabin on this site circa 1887. A frame house was built over the log cabin circa 1898. Five little additions are believed to have been added between 1898 and 1904. A new front porch was built circa 1924 and again rebuilt to extend approximately 3 feet in 1977. Small additions behind the dining room on the west and behind the sunroom to the east, and behind the kitchen in the rear were built in 1952, 1977 and 1982. The Willits Map of 1896 shows the basic shapes of houses, including the house at 222 E. Hallam. We obtained copies of Sanborn Fire Insurance Atlases of 1890, 1893, and 1898 from the Denver Public Library Western History Department. And we reviewed the 1904 Sanborn's Atlas on file in the Planning Office to help 2 determine alterations to the house. Comparison of these maps indicates that the house changed only slightly between 1890 and 1893, with the addition of the sunroom on the east side and the kitchen area to the rear. No changes were recorded by Sanborn's from 1893 to 1904. In summary, since 1904 it appears that the following changes to the house occurred: - siding has been replaced (narrow siding probably matching original); - masonry foundation has been repaired and extended under additions; - original windows (except in the sun room) have been replaced with new windows (double sash style probably matching original); - a new metal roof has been installed; - an addition behind the sunroom was built; - an addition behind the dining room to the west was built; - the front porch has been altered, its dimensions changed; and - a new workshop (built in 1964 and 1984) has replaced the original outstructure. Staff contacted next door neighbor Mona Frost to ask if she recalled alterations to 222 E. Hallam Street. Mona stated that since she moved next door in 1940 (47 years ago), the house has remained basically the -same.-She-remembered-some of the additions being built, but believed the front of the house had not been much changed; and she noted that the house has been the same color green through the years. Lisa Purdy, preservation consultant, states in her letter of December 11, 1987 to Joseph Amato that the lack of original fabric and the various additions lead her to conclude there is little architectural significance in the house. The house has no documented association with historic persons or events. In addition, Ms. Purdy questions the significance of the house's contribution to the historic character of its neighborhood. Questions posed by the presentation of new information on altera- tions include: 3 (1) At what point in time does the "Period of Historic Significance" end, so that changes that occurred after that date are considered alterations changing its historic character? (2) Do the alterations that occurred since 1904 negatively effect the house's historic integrity? (3) How heavy should the contribution of this house to the historic character of the neighborhood be weighed? Staff appreciates the additional information gathered by the applicant and we believe that valid concerns are raised. After additional review of the facts, it still appears to staff that the numerous renovations of the house were undertaken to keep the house in good repair and have not significantly effected the front of the house or the historic character of the property. Please note that virtually every structure in Aspen has been altered; and the very purpose of the historic evaluations was to assess the extent to which those alterations are compatible with the original architecture or diminish the historic character. In addition, HPC consistently considered the contribution a struc- ture makes to the neighborhood's historic character. In the case of 222 E. Hallam Street, HPC gave a high assessment of neighbor- hood influence because of its location between the Glidden House and Frost House, both important historic resources, and its inclusion in the Community Church historic neighborhood. Of the "historic districts under consideration," delineated in the 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, the Community Church area has the highest density of historic structures (see map attached). The applicant also presented a letter from Historic preservation consultant Deborah Abele which we received December 8, 1987 (attached). She remarks that the evaluation of 222 E. Hallam is inadequate in documentation -in-the-following areas: - Description of the salient features of the Community Church historic district in the 1980 Inventory as updated; - inadequate discussion of those aspects of 222 East Hallam's physical condition or history; - lack of description of criteria and methods used in the evaluation; and - lack of information on how judgments were made in the evaluation of alterations and neighborhood importance. 4 Staff believes that the HPC properly undertook the evaluation of 222 East Hallam using the best available public information at a public meeting. While the Inventory can clearly be improved, it provided basic information on the year of construction, some alterations (other alterations were identified by the applicant after substantial research during the last three months), photo- graphic documentation of the structure, consideration of the structure's quality as illustrating the family/home environment of the average citizen in Aspen during the silver mining era, and some neighborhood context. The Historic Inventory map, staff recommendation notes explaining rationale for the recommended evaluation score, and notes taken at the public meeting of both owner and HPC member comments further supplement the public record. In review of the ratings of others structures on the Inventory rated 2,3,4 and 5 we think this evaluation was consis- tent. The additional information presented certainly provides us with better detail on what specific alterations occurred and when, but does not undermine the basis of HPC's first assessment, in staff's opinion. The structural integrity of buildings was explicitly excluded from HPC's criteria for evaluating historic significance, as you can see from the attached rating scale. This area of concern is one of the standards for review of a demolition proposal and would be considered if such an application were made. ALTERNATIVES: Alternative actions for HPC to take include: 1. To affirm the rating first made by HPC; or 2. To down-score the rating. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends to HPC to affirm its original historic evaluation rating of "4" to 222 E. Hallam Street. 222e.hallam 5 .Exhibit to Ordinance Number 11 (Series of 1987) 0- Structure was incorrectly placed on Inventory and is actually neither old nor reconstructed. 1 - Structure is old, but has been so drastically altered to not be easily recognizable as a Victorian or mining era struc- ture. Its situation in the neighborhood typically has minimal historic influence because the neighborhood has been substantially rebuilt with new structures of a larger scale, or the structure is badly deteriorated. 2 - Structure has been altered in a way that has negatively affected its historic architectural integrity. Typically, the structure - -cannot be -associated with any important historic person or event, and is merely representative of a miner family home environment. Neighborhood influence is also not significant because the structure's historic qualities have become nominal. 3 - Structure has been altered in a way that negatively affects its historic architectural integrity; however, the structure retains some historic significance because of particularly distinctive historic structural elements and/or its contri- bution-to the historic character of a neighborhood. In a few cases, the structure has been associated with an historic person or family. C - 4 - Structure has been altered in a wdy- that- - i.-s ---dbridiaered compatible with the original architecture; and the historic character is preserved. Structure typically has strong positive influence in the neighborhood's historic character and may be associated with important historic persons or events. In all cases, structures were in their original 16cation, -to the kfsâ‚¬ of -staff and HPC' s knowledge. 5 - Structure appears to be unaltered or has been carefully restored/reconstructed. In some cases, structures were rated in the 1980 Inventory as excellent or --exceptional rather_than notable. Typically, these structures are very good representatives -of an historic architectural style and craftsmanship, and have a strong positive influence on the neighborhood's character. Structures evaluated at_ 5's may also be associated with important historic persons or events. ~cquoÂ»-1 - ~lj FIGURE Ill.2 <- 1- 1 1 1& pli - r 1/402< ~fl to INVENTO~Y tOR HISTORIC SfTES AND STRUCTURES : '~ LEGEND e. \\ 1986 UPDATE Exceptional Structures 8 designated . not yet designated O ASPEN. COLOB.90 . *2 -1 ~ 1 f \\ EZ.Cellent_-2Â£.w~luÂ£.el 1. 111- /-~4 designated â€¢ not yet designated 6 PREPARED BÂ¥ THE ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING FACE 9-86 Notable Structures -- - 21> - designated 0 aol not yet designated O 100 --26 h . Contributing Structlres o 37 4 0 200 400 EXISTNG HISTORIC DISTRICTS 1. man street 2. conÂ·rnercial core \ U /9 HSTORIC DISTRICTS UNDER CONSIDERATION 3.west bleeker/hallam street 4.hattam lake ic ))1Â« 5.community church 6.lift 1 4 4 '' U UK#.033:923 ....- D , 4/ \ \.--â€ž.9;-,*13,>.4 4 : ~ Gr /* ~ 934;2-34Â·Â»-1 \1111 -- 4 --- I- ' *-71 G -I #--Rtifi--.. T.% mr /8 ;t :' /*I &O 0 ; 0% Pif , 'U -/ , â€ž . 1 ~ , ~ Ffil,Of 1 -1 .. Â»4-'6Â» 1 , ' lf[R-11.; Rairip :. W~ij -- .1 - I . It - \#Â»MWO,j//' r.h ' . 4961 -Lu ..11..._, I - . _.w - -frâ€¢--2" fll!-77 m : m=alf, 133Fi~i Zija~#,~ - - ../,)2-fl - :/ -31\ cl . -O - - Ourt ' b : A 141 -inLIE.dEL.:--- , p Ul*ill . L. 1- . -'- --- - -05 0 ~EEE-lil.,.......33[.21Â· mIFiet Vitil'll-Â·4111:11 111[41.~L ~ifl4:L~ - Â· 1 ~~... i.1| i._- - -I...,1.....I 1 I E. -- rT-T-,-TTTI. 11 6*-4 , - . li-r---, f-rr-'-r'rn IllÂ®j Â·_Llint 1-0428 1 III- \ Ul*Utâ‚¬ i d--4,9 1 Li-I - TRTTi Vi -ra 0110 n I-71 .. 1 1 1 : j lilil#11 Lt-,4 _i~~ - /1 - 1 .1 â€ž 94:1-1 - ~ utlittfil in ' 0 -1-1 GEV 1 f . 1 '.1 .. - -Â» , / 1 - . I 0 111 dififild [1144121 Â«13-1 13 \ \ -7-1 -- U Â»-I\14- f 1/ E- 0 th 1 '-Rv In Or, 1- 3 ' LAWOFFICES GIDEON I. KAUFMAN L A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ~ 1 , BOX 10001 GIDEONI. KAUFMAN ' TELEPHONE 315 EASTHYMANAVENUE,SUITE305 -- -- AREA CODE 303 RtCHARD S. LUHMAN ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 925-8166 September 2, 1987 Mr. Steve Burstein Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office HAND-DELIVERED 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: HPC Appeal Dear Steve: Please consider this letter an appeal on behalf of my client, Joe and Debbie Amato, owners of 222 East Hallam Street, also described on Legal Description attached hereto. This property received a score of 4 during the HPC review process. I do not feel that the score is indicative of the true historic value of this property. I believe that if the HPC had the benefit of more information, a score lower than 4 would have been assigned. The physical evidence of deterioration which poses an imminent danger to the health, safety and welfare of the occupants is apparent when one observes the pronounced sagging of the roof joists between the intermediate bearing walls and the bowing out of the outside walls. The floors are sagging in numerous places, and there are changes of level in the house which may be dangerous, as well as non-functional. The brick foundation walls are loose and crumbling at the slightest touch. In addition, there is no continuous footing under the majority of the brick foundation which bears directly on dirt a few inches below finished -grade. There have been haphazard additions and remodeling done over the years to the house. The house originally was a rectangular box of clapboard siding, wood shingled roof and no porch. The clapboard siding was removed in 1963, and new cedar siding was instalied. The roof lines of the house were changed in the 1920s when a kitchen was added. There have been eight different additions to the house, including porch and porch facades, as well as major renovations which took place in the 1950s. The original house is a rectangular structure of approximately 12' x 44'. The size of the house has doubled since that time. Even the comments from the HPC architectural historicial component form do not justify the score of 4 for this house, and I quote: "The significance of this residential structure is not of those who owned it or lived in it, nor of its architectural, although the structure is representative of Aspen's mining era. This modest structure is of historic importance by illustrating the family home environment and C C Mr. Steve Burstein September 2, 1987 Page 2 lifestyle of the average citizen in Aspen, dominated by the silver mining industry." When you take that lack of significance and couple it with the condition of the structure, as well as the numerous changes that have taken place to that structure, I believe its is apparent that a score of 4 is not appropriate. A complete structural analysis has been done on the house by Integrated Engineering Consultants, Ltd. which confirms the problems existing with the house. A copy of their report has been included for your review. My clients did not own the house at the time designation took place. The owner at the time was confused about the significance and importance of the designation. While he felt some attachment to the house because it had been in his family for many years, he did not want to see the property devalued or arbitrary constraints placed upon it. He did not understand the true significance of what a 4 designation would be, and therefore, did not make a presentation including this information to the HPC. Because of these factors, I feel that an appeal is appropriate. Concerns such as ours led the City Council to specifically designate an appeal process for owners to get a fair and full hearing on their designation. I look forward to discussing this matter with you and would like to see it directed to the City Council for the appeal. I believe that a more appropriate score should be issued to this house in the neighborhood of a 2, and would like to set the-record straight on the true historic significance of this property. Once you have had an opportunity to review this letter, please contact me. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, a Professional Corporation By ff 1~-- Gideon~~bufman GK/bw CC: Joseph A. Amato Enclosures Received by Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office this 4th day of September, 1987. 13 fgj9la.- f f ~ INTEGRATED E-NOINEERING CONSULTANTS , Ltd. 41' East Main Street Suite 206 Aspen,Colorado 81611 (303) gifÂ· f9'3 September 3, 1987 Job #87147 Mr. Joseph Amato c/o Plymouth Construction, Inc. P. 0. Box 179 Monroe, New York 10950 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 a preliminary 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 inspection, we conclude that the above residence is essentially not-structur-ally sound and modification of its' existing structural elements would be prohibitive and very expensive. The roof does not meet current U.B.C. requirements, is virtually in a state of gradual collapse and would need to be modified significantly to remain in service per U.B.C. requirements or to accommodate any modification to its' supporting elements. The floor is in similar condition as is most of the foundation. The brick masonry of the foundation is in an advanced state of deterioration and is not protected against frost action. It is our opinion that very little of the original structure would remain if an endeavor was made to rehabilitate or modify it. In addition, attempts to move the structure would be quite extensive in that considerable effort would be required to keep the structure intact. Based on the above observations, it is our opinion that it would be more cost effective to demolish the existing structure. /473#WWâ€¢Â· ( 222 E. Hallam September 3, 1987 Page 2 If you have any questions or if we can be of any further assistance, please call 303 925-5913. Sincerely, INTEGRATED ENGINEERING CONS~LTANTS, LTD 11 1 0 Richard T. Cieciuch, Jr., P. E. Sr. Design/Construction Engineer RTC/skc CC: Charles Cunniffe & Assoc. Fam February 5, 1988 Historic Preservation Committee c/o Kathy Strickland 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Historic Preservation Committee: I am the owner of 232 East Hallam and have been involved in historic preservation for over 10 years. I have been on the board of Historic Denver, the Historic Paramount Foundation and the review board for Curtis Park Neighborhood Development. I have personally restored buildings and had them designated National Landmarks. I am appearing today to protest the request, before this board, by the owners of 222 East Hallam St., Aspen, Colorado. This request is to change the historic designation of the property from 4 to 3. This reduction has one advantage to the owner. That advantage is of being able to demolish the existing house without any impact review on the neighborhood of a new plan. There is no advantage to Aspen. While I do not believe this house to be a most significant Victorian structure, it has a meaning for the neighborhood beyond what it originally was or now is. Aspen may be noted primarily for its late 19th Century charm. However, it has been a continuous community with a continuous history. There hardly exists a 100 year old house that is pristine in its original configuration. People lived in these homes and modified them for their own lives. That is a living record. That also is history. Except for historic designation capabilities, it hardly matters what is left of the original construction. Virtually nothing was left of 232 East Hallam but today it looks exactly as it did in 1889. The effect on the neighborhood and our understanding of its history is no different than if every board had been there since that time. In most every decade there have been neighborhood changes -- new construction occurred during prosperity, modifications occurred other times. This is all part of a varied visible physical history. We are now in danger of losing that. /44 S ..1 Â£ February 5, 1988 - Historic Preservation Committee Page 2 For a hundred years grand and modest structures existed, side by side. This speaks to the heritage and values of a frontier democracy. Are we prepared to say if it is not an "important" or an unmodified Victorian it has no meaning in the historical continuum of the West End? Are we prepared to say there is no value in old and new, large and small co-existing? Are we prepared to distort that visible history? There is a great deal of new construction in the West End. Some of it is quite attractive. However, some of it exemplifies an extreme abuse of zoning regulations and does not co-exist in scale, in peace, or in harmony with its historic neighbors. I do not believe that old is good because it is old or that new is bad because it is new. I do believe in neighborhood planning and review that goes beyond mathmatical formulas. This board must share in that belief or the now appealed designation could not exist. - , The present owners of 222 East Hallem knew the designation of this / property before they purchased it. There were thoughtful reasons why it was so rated. To now ask for a change, whose only benefit is to allow a demolishing without a neighborhood impact review on the successor structure, is to subvert the process and render it meaningless. Such a change would be, quite simply, one more step in the one house by one house eroding of the West End. I thank you for your time, today. Since rely> -4/42- Louise Vigoda / LV/dr 1 75 ' 'Le. 4--N. 11 sca---043 120_ 2 Mr. Joseph A. Amalo i Kent Licili~,gement Group 1 ' JAN 2 1 600 Route 32 1 High.land Hills, New York 10930 December 11, 1987 1)ear tÂ·lr. Am:ila, I have now completed my historic evaluation of your house at 222 East Hallam in Aspen. The research entailed iii this included a visit to the subject property and a tour of other properties that were ranked from 0-5 by the City of Aspen. I also examined Ordinance Number 11 (series of 1987), the Colorado Cultural ReSOUree Survey (completed 10/23/80), miscellancous research materials on the history of the house and information given to your attorney, Gideon Kaufman, regarding the foundations that have been altered and/or added through the years. Upon inspection of the building I noticed that tliere is very little original fabric in place. This was confirmed by information from the engineer and foilner owners . In all, it appears that over 90% of the exterior facade has bean covered or deleted. The 1904 Sanborn map confirms that the porch at that time wrapped around the front of the liouse, wliile the configuration of the sun porch and rear portions of the house were different than the current layout. I was struck with the aesthetically pleasing nature of this house. However I could see that the historic- fabilu licid Le:en cil Le-nud-to-the-point that its historic integrity was gone. Although the house was built in 1887-90, (according to former owners Marvin and Susanna Reynolds), there is little architectural significance and research shows the house is not associated with significant persons, events or patterns. This was confirmed in the Cultural Resource Survey conducted by the State of Colorado, which concluded that, "The significance of this residential structure is not of those who owned it or lived in it, nor its architecture, although the structure is representative of Aspen's Mining Era. This modest structure is of historical importance by illustrating the family/home environment and lifestyles of the average citizen in Aspoli 11 dominated by the silver mining history. With the information I gathered, I then set up a checklist for each of the different numerical rankings, using the criteria from Ordinance Number 11. In each category, I checked off those items applicable to 222 E. Hallam with the following results: 1033 Steele Denver CO. 80206 303399-6391 #2 RANK Structure has been altered in a way that has negatively affected its historic architectural integrity. L/'~ Typically, the structure cannot be associated with any important historic person or event, and is merely representative of a miner family home environment. Neighborhood influence is not significant because tlie structure's 11istoric qual.ities have been nominal. #3 RANK l~ Structure has been altered in a way that negatively affects its historic architectural integrity; however, the structure retains some historic significance because of particularly distinctive historic structural elements and/or its contribution to the historic character of a neighborhood. In a few cases, the structure has been associated with an historic person or family. 04 RANK Structure has been altered in a way that is considered compatible ... with the original architecture; and the historic character is preserved. Structure typically has strong positive influence in the neighbor- hood's historic character and may be associated with historic persons or events. l~ In all cases, structures were in their original location. As you can see more items in category (2) apply to this structure than in ... categories (3) or (4). After ranking 222 E. Hallam according to the criteria in the Ordinance, I then compared this house to others in the 2,3 and 4 categories within the West End District. It would appear from this that a three would be a more appropriate ranking based on the physical appearance of other properties. r (There is always a danger in ranking the historic significance of properties based only on the physical appearance because significance is based on association with historic persons or events as well as architectural integrity. It is also difficult to conclude what is the original historic fabric without more intensive research.) Given all of the above in fonnation, I would suggest that a more appropriate ranking for this property would be some where between 2 and 3. While there is some significance attached to the fact that the building represents a miner's family home, the numerous alterations and additions to the house have caused it to lose its historic integrity. While the building is pleasing from an aesthetic stand point, the historic significance is not strong enough to merit a 4 in my opinion. I,et inc add that it is not unusual to change tile ranking of a building based on further research. We have just done this recently in Denver in our Lower Downtown area. Although an initial survey of all the historic build- ings was carried out three years ago, within the last month, some buildings 11ave either been added or deleted to the list of "contributing" structures based oil additional infonnation that was not available when the first survey was done. Please let me know if you need additional information or research on this. Sincerely ' O A aÂ«Â«4 Lisa Purdy President, Citiscape, Ltd. Preservation Consultant To the Members of the Aspen City Council: I am writing this letter for your consideration at the request of Gideon Kaufman on behalf of Joseph A. Amato. I was retained as a professional historic preservation consultant to review the property at 222 East Halman, Aspen, Colorado, to assess its significance as a historic and architectural resource and its corresponding evaluation and ranking by the City of Aspen under Ordinance Number 11 (series of 1987). As part of my work on October 6-7, 1987, I conducted a thorough investigation of the house and its vicinity as well as a brief survey of other historic properties and areas within the community. I also reviewed all materials pertinant to the property and the evaluation and designation procedures that were made available to me by the City Planning Department and representatives of the property owner. It is my opinion that the property does possess local significance. However, information to support this determination is lacking. Specifically, there is an absence of materials related to the 1980 Inventory of Historic Places and the 1986 staff update of the Inventory in the following areas: -No description of the salient features of the Commmunity Church Historic District that make it historically or architecturally important to Aspen . -Inadequate discussion of those aspects of 222 East Hyman's physical condition or history that make it a contributing element of the Community Church Historic District. -No description of the criteria and methods used to determine the relative integrity of locally significant resources. Furthermore, documentation also is lacking in regard to the objective standards and procedures that were used to assign the HPC scores. Since no information is provided as to how judgments were made to determine the effect of alterations upon structures or how structures contribute, in varying degrees, to their neighborhoods and why these neighorhoods have importance to the community, it can be argued that the property in question merits a ranking other than the "4" it is currently assigned. Without the benfit of information related to the above concerns and with only the information contained in the "Survey Architectural/Historic Component Form," the official documentation of the attributes that make the property significant, and the notes which were provided describing the basis of the_City staff's rernmmpnrlati ons for evaluation, a ranking of a "3" or even a "2" might seem appropriate. I support the City's historic preservation efforts. However, as a result of my review of the HPC score for 222 East Halman, I believe that the current procedures and criteria for assessing local significance need clarifications and supplemental information, so that property owners and the larger community might better understand why and how these important local resources should be preserved. Sincerely, UtoÂ·06 14 e u 44- ,I DEC 8 --111-_ E da,Q- ' ' h 'Â·â€¢'4121 .....'425 444:. f 4 Lisa Purdy, president of Citiscape, brings with her more than twelve years of experience in the fields of real estate c development, historic preservation, land use regulation, urban planning, and design. Her work began in construction and design where she worked as a 5 site superintendent and apprentice architect before she formed a real estate development firm that successfully renovated , multi-family properties in Denver. Ms. Purdy also worked in the development packaging division at The Denver Partnership where she offered technical assistance to the business community in the areas of preservation eccnomics, zoning, and downtown retailing. She worked on the rewriting of several downtown zoning ordinances and coordinated the group that lobbied for passage of the Transfer of ~, Development Rights (TDR) ordinance. While at Historic Denver, Ms. Purdy administered the Facade Easement program and established an on-going city-wide alliance of preservation organizations. She also supervised the renovation of 43 .:f< historic houses. , U: e Ms. Purdy is author of the highly respected The Preservation Handbook which details the economic incentives available for renovation, the Lower Downtown Zoning Manual, and of numerous ..4 articles on urban preservation including an article on Denver's . 0 +,Â· br... -92 -cler TDR story which won an award from the American Institute of Â· . 15 Real Estate Appraisers. Ms. Purdy has lectured throughout the United States and has conducted workshops for the American Planning Association on the revitalization of cities. . 1 ..,3...lf Ms. Purdy served as a mayoral appointee to the Downtown Area 4% e. Plan Steering Committee and worked extensively on the formation 29 of a .new plan and zoning ordinance for Lower Downtown Denver. LE: She is a trustee of both Historic Denver and Preservation .. ....47.. Action (Washington D.C.) and was appointed by the National Trust to the National Easement Valuation Panel. As head o f Citiscape for four years, Ms. Purdy .has supervised 4.2, the renovation of numerous buildings, analyzed development opportunities for new and historic development, been involved . 61 in revisions to several zoning ordinances, and developed political strategies for a wide variety of projects. 3 44Â» Â·Â·Â· 4 **b, ' .,Â· 74~'Wi REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS CONTRACTED WITH CITISCAPE LTD. (All projects in Denver, Colorado unless otherwise noted.) F.X.4 40 Historic Consultation K IN. * The Ghost Building (18th and Stout) Supervision of renovation plans. Liaison with Denver Landmark Commission and National Register agency. * Lafitte Building (Larimer Square) Analysis of economic incentives. for '~ renovation. Preparation of National Register application. * Schlaes and Company (appraisal firm in Chicago, Illinois) Research on the valuation of conservation easements in Arapahoe County and Roswell, Georgia. ' * Blake Street Bath and Racquet Club (18th and Blake) Preparation of designation and TDR applications. Represented owners at hearings. * City of Denver and Colorado Historical Society (North Capitol Hill) Historical survey of 300 buildings. Joint venture with Hammer, Siler, .Â· George Associates. * The Warren Mansion (Cheyenne, Wyoming) Consultation on the conversion and renovation of mansion into law offices. Managed the "certified rehab" process and prepared the National Register application. * The Neusteter Building (16th Street Mall) Preparation of National Register application. * The Navarre (17th and Tremont) Analysis of TDR's and conservation easement donation. * The Denver Building (16th Street Mall) Cost/benefit. analysis of renovationÂ· using various economic incentives. Report prepared for the City of Denver. * The Denver Partnership (B-7 zone district) Prepared a "laymen's version" of ~ t Lower Downtown zoning. Conducted seminars with property owners to explain 8-7 zoning. Â· * The Denver Partnership (B-7 zone district) Prepared report on the .. availability o f TDR' s in lower downtown. Also calculated potential need' and 2. possible sites for parking districtsÂ·. * First National Bank of Englewood (Humboldt Street, Mansion) AnalysisÂ· of g Â· 2 development opportunities for large mansion with input from neighborhood and Â· .; city regarding zoning changes. * The National Trust for Historic Preservation and The Denver Partnership* ~ .1)4, (Lower Downtown) A report on the agreement .between property owners and ''g. W 'Lt preservationists for a plan to revitalize this historic warehouse district. Â·Â· ". Â· 4%,r * Lower Downtown Property Owners Association (B-7 zone district) Presentations .. ' Â·:>tÂ·, on current and proposed zoning ordinances and analysis of the effect on, ;7, properties in this area. .- X- * Denver University Building (Law School campus) Analysis of renovation . ,:Â·g potential using ITC's, an easement, and historic designation. - 6/-9 * American Planning Association (Savannah, Georgia; Chicago; and .Austin,f Â· '.723 Texas) -Conducted seminars, entitled "Preservation as a Tool * for,Â·Â· ..14* Revitalization," on survey techniques and the politics of preservation. . ...Ki-g * Woods Lake Ranch (Aspen, Colorado) Analysis of methods for protecting ..Â· .3 3. historic ranch. Preparation of National Register District nomination for -Â«.4 2,92.7 the 33 buildings. * Bradford Publishing Building (1743 Wazee) Involved in all aspects of renovation process including the selection of architects and contractors, preservation aspects, and management of construction. * Parsons/Swenson Building (Longmont, Colorado) Coordination of certified rehab process and designation. * Historic Denver Formulation of political strategy for the passage of a historic district ordinance. . Â«U--4 caN 2 8 /30-1. APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW -- --t Applicant's Name and Address: Laura Donnelley 2350 McLain Flats Road Aspen, CO 81611 Proof of Ownership: Statement of Applicant's Interest in Property if not owner: Property Address, Legal Description and Name: Lots E&F Block 88 City of Aspen Type of Review (Minor or Significant): Minor Description of Proposed Development Activity, including but not limited to: architectural elements effected, additional square footage (if applicable), height, building materials and illumina- tion: The development consists of a sculpture garden enclosed by the Brand Building to the East, the old Aspen Jewelry Store to l.lic We,L, and Ecibl- Hupkillb SLieel- to the South. The bmuggler Land Office will have a paved terrace enfronting the garden. The garden is separated from the street and sidewalk by a 5' high concrete wall. Th= cullu.Li:Le will be Liilled with pigment. An entry ga-te to the garden will contain a water element. Statement of the Effect of the Proposed Development on the Original Design of Structure (if applicable) and/or Character of the Neighborhood, and why the Proposed Development meets the Review Standards of Section 24-9.4(d) (pertaining to compati- bility in character of historic landmarks on the site, consis- tency with character of the neighborhood, and whether it enhances or detracts from the cultural value or architectural integrity of the structure) : The develÂ®ment results inupgrading of an existing *cant lot into a sculpturegarden open to the public. The existing sidewalk will bc replaced by a lit:w uuic blitillcu Lu Llie new one in front of the Brand Building. In addition a new row of shade trees will be added along the curb. The new wall will be of a sandblasted texture and warm color compatible will-i l.lie c:~djuining s L.L ucÂ·Luies. An existing eyesore will be cleaned up and turned into a park where the best art available will be madeaccessable to the public. Any other City Approvals needed by Applicant, such as encroach- ment licence, GMP or Special Review: City Engineering Dept. Approval for sidewalk and curb SB.APP