Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.HPC Amendments.1987CA - - of ...mil: -40 HPC-CODE amendment CI AJ A� CITY OF ASPEN INVENTORY OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES: Undesignated Structures Evaluated By Historic Preservation Committee January, 1987 Structures Scored 4 and 5 EVALUATION AREA ADDRESS LOT BLOCK SCORE Commercial Core 305 E. Main 1/2B, C 80 4 309 E. Main D 80 4 309 E. Hopkins C 81 4 303 E. Main A, B 80 5 406 E. Hopkins K, L, M 87 5 209 S. Galena 88 5 419 E. Hyman F, G 89 5 506 E. Hyman/ 210 S. Galena K, L 94 5 529/531 E. Cooper/ 405 S. Hunter 96 5 Main Street 616 W. Main 24 4 205 W. Main H, I 52 4 527 W. Main C 31 5 320 W. Main N, O, P 44 5 West End 716 W. Francis O, 1/2P 15 4 712 W. Francis 1/2P, Q 15 4 700 W. Francis R, S 15 4 609 W. Smuggler G 21 4 323 W. Hallam D, E 43 4 121 W. Bleeker D, 1/2 E 58 4 834 W. Hallam K, L 10 5 421 N. 5th H, I 21 5 629 W. Smuggler A, B 21 5 334 W. Hallam 1/2 K, L 42 5 214 W. Bleeker N, O, P 50 5 515 W. Gillespie 4, 5, 6 99 5 0 0 Undesignated Structures Evaluated by HPC Page 2 AREA ADDRESS LOT BLOCK SCORE Community Church 127 E. Hallam F, G 65 4 110 E. Bleeker M 65 4 134 E. Bleeker R, S 65 4 216 E. Hallam K, L 71 4 222 E. Hallam M, N 71 4 202 N. Monarch K, L, M 78 4 105 E. Hallam B, C 65 5 Hallam Lake 514 N. 3rd A, B 40 4 225 W. Smuggler D, E 48 4 314 W. Gillespie 6, 1/2 5 91 4 330 W. Gillespie 4, 1/2 5 91 4 240 Lake 1/2 12, 13, 14, 15 103 4 120 W. Francis N, O, P 55 5 330 Lake 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 103 5 W. Bleeker/ W. Hallam 610 W. Hallam Q 22 4 1000 E. Cooper K, L 34 4 623 E. Hopkins F, 1/2 G 99 4 West Aspen Mountain 212 W. Hopkins P, Q 52 4 219 W. Hopkins D 53 4 124 E. Cooper P, Q 69 4 214 E. Hopkins N, O 74 4 TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr. City Manager FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director RE: Continued Second Reading: Ordinance 11 DATE: April 21, 1987 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends final approval of Ordinance 11. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: At your regular meeting of April 13, you directed me to make a series of changes to Ordinance 11, to respond to concerns of the public and Councilmembers. Since I will be out of town on the night of the continued public hearing, I wanted to communicate directly to you all of the changes made to the Ordinance. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Following is a brief summary of the changes which you requested and our response. 1. Categorical Exemption- You directed us to eliminate the application to staff for activities such as interior remodel and exterior painting. This has been accomplished on page 12 of the revised Ordinance. 2. Good Cause to Suspend Action- You directed us to revise the provision by which HPC can suspend action on a demolition application. On page 24 of the revised Ordinance, we have rewritten the procedure to require good cause for suspending action. We have more clearly defined the circumstances under which a suspension of action can occur and have explicitly stated that the applicant can appeal a suspension action to Council, to tie this decision to you as the representative of the electorate. 3. Appeal Limitations- On page 25 of the revised Ordinance, we have responded to your direction to provide Council with greater discretion to resolve appeal situations. We have done this by adding denial of due process to the causes for an appeal, and by expanding the remedies beyond just reversal and remand of the application. Additional remedies proposed include altering the conditions of approval, changing the length of time during which action on a demolition application is suspended or the terms of the suspension or such other action as Council may deem necessary to remedy the situation. 4. Demolition Review- There are two locations in the • 9 Ordinance where we have responded to Council's direction to add all structures within the Main Street and Downtown districts and all 114's" and 115's" from the inventory to the group of structures subject to demolition review. First, on page 20, we have specif- ically cited the additions. Secondly, on pages 10-11, we have established the inventory of historic sites and structures, and the procedure by which structures are placed on the inventory, periodically evaluated by HPC and either removed from the inventory (if they are rated 0 or 1) or made subject to demo- lition review (if they are rated 4 or 5). Though Council did not discuss this section during its prior review, staff believes it is essential to provide notice to the public as to how a struc- ture is rated 4 or 5 and how the public can comment upon the evaluation process. 5. Remove Redundancy- There were a number of cases where the terms "compatible" and "character" were defined in the Ordinance. These redundancies have all been removed. We have also worked hard with the City Attorney to consolidate the language in many other portions of the Ordinance to improve its clarity and reduce its wordiness. Finally, the typos and incorrect cross references which we mentioned at the last meeting have all been fixed. 6. Eliminate Masculine References- Throughout the Ord- inance, the terms "he" or "his" have been eliminated. The term "Chairman" has been changed to "Chairperson". In addition to the six changes requested by Council, and add- ressed in the Ordinance, there are two other important Council comments from the prior meeting which should be addressed. These comments and our responses are as follows. 7. Ordinance is too Long- It was mentioned that while Section 24-9 of the Code takes up only 11 pages in the Code, it requires 28 pages in this Ordinance. While I certainly agree with the Council that this Ordinance is quite long, I believe that the length can be explained. First, the 28 pages contain about two pages of "Whereas" statements and adoption language which will not be codified. This means the Ordinance is actually 26 pages in length. Second, to make this Ordinance consistent with the Code Simplification program, Section 24-9.2 was added, identifying and defining the responsibilities of decision making bodies. When the new Code is finally prepared and adopted, this Section will not be part of the Historic Preservation regula- tions, but instead will appear in a separate Article. This will effectively remove 5 more pages from this Ordinance. Finally, please recognize that while an Ordinance that is effectivly 21 pages long is quite lengthy, it is so in part because we have tried so hard to spell out submission requirements and review procedures, consistent with the intent of the simplified Code. There continues to be repetition in these sections, but the Consultant's opinion is that each procedure will stand better on its own and can more easily be given to an applicant as one document. We expect to continue to work with the consultant on this problem and believe that when the provisions in Ordinance 11 are incorporated in the Code rewrite, we can eliminate the remaining redundancy in such items as public hearing requirements and the actual review procedure. The Council should therefore view this as an interim Ordinance, to be put into effect for its substance and procedure, but with its form to be improved by the Code simplification. 8. Wait for Code Simplification- It was suggested at the last meeting that we may be better off waiting for the entire Code to be rewritten than to try to clean up this one Section. Although, in general, we concur that piecemeal revisions at this time should be avoided, we feel that this Ordinance, and the Historic Incentives Ordinance which will follow on May 11 are exceptions to that rule. This Ordinance will help HPC to function better during this building season. It will allow activities to be exempted from review or to go through only one step, rather than the current two step process. It will protect our historic resources through a stronger demolition review process which will affect a wider universe of structures than is presently the case. Finally, it has been reviewed by the Consultants, is consistent with their work and is recommended by them for adoption. Any changes which need to be made after a season of experience with the Ordinance or due to the form of the other Articles can easily be incorporated in the rewitten Code. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to adopt Ordinance 11, Series of 1987". CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: J 0�'V Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 ^F1^ ^F2^ RE: ^F3^ Dear ^F4^, April 29, 1987 Please be advised that a public hearing will be held before the Aspen City Council at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado on May 11, 1987. The purpose of the hearing will be to consider revisions to Section 24-9 of the Municipal Code pertaining to Historic Overlay District and Historic Landmarks. The proposed revisions to Section 24-9 effecting demolition and removal review include: 1) The establishment of an Inventory of Historic Struc- tures, 2) The Historic Preservation Committee's (HPC) evaluation process for the evaluation of undesignated structures, 3) The ratification of guidelines which the HPC used to rate each structure on a scale of 0-5, 4) The provision that any structure rated a 4 or 5 is subject to the "demolition and total removal" regula- tion within this ordinance. The intent of the demolition regulation is to allow the community the opportunity to review demolition plan, for all significant historic structures in order to determine whether or not com- munity resources should be used to preserve these structures. All owners of structures rated 114" and 115" are receiving individ- ual notice of this public hearing. The Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) held neighborhood meetings in January, 1987 and regular meetings for further study and evaluation during January, February and April, 1987 to evaluate all structures on the Inventory of Historic Structures based on the 110-5" guidelines During that process, your structure at ^F3^ was rated "^F5All. • The Inventory of Historic Structures Evaluation Guidelines are as follows: 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. 4 - 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. 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. For further information contact Steve Burstein in the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 223. s/William L. Stirling Mayor, Aspen City Council PUBLIC NOTICE RE: CONSIDERING REVISIONS TO SECTION 24-9 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT AND HISTORIC LANDMARKS, INCLUDING CHANGES TO DEMOLITION AND REMOVAL REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Aspen City Council to begin at 5:00 P.M. in the 1st floor City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado on May 11, 1987. The purpose of the hearing will be to consider revisions to Section 24-9 of the Municipal Code pertain- ing to Historic Overlay District and Historic Landmarks. Proposed revisions to Section 24-9 effecting demolition and removal review include: 1) The establishment of an Inventory of Historic Struc- tures, 2) The Historic Preservation Committee's (HPC) evaluation process of the evaluation of undesignated structures, 3) The ratification of guidelines which the HPC used to rate each structure on a scale of 0-5, and 4) The provision that any structure rated a 4 or 5 is subject to the "demolition and total removal" regula- tion within this ordinance. The intent of the demolition regulation is to allow the community the opportunity to review demolition plans for all significant historic structures in order to determine whether or not com- munity resources should be used to preserve these structures. The Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) held four special neighborhood meetings in January, 1987 and regular meetings for further study and evaluation during January, February and April, 1987 to evaluate all structures on the Inventory of Historic Structures based on the 110-5" guidelines. The guidelines read as follows: 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. 4 - 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. 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. For further information contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925- 2020, ext. 223. s/William L. Stirling Mayor, Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on April 30, 1987. City of Aspen Account. A r • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr. City Manager FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Second Reading of Ordinance 11 DATE: May 6, 1987 Attached is Ordinance 11, which now includes the revisions requested by City Council at the hearing on April 27. At the meeting we will point out to you the minor changes we have made. As requested by Council, public hearing notice was given in a newspaper of general circulation in Aspen and through letters to each owner of a structure rated 114" or 11511. The letter informed the owners of the demolition and total removal provisions under consideration by Council. Since the time of publication and mailing, we have had some public inquiries in our office, and we expect some comments to be made at the hearing. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to adopt Ordinance 11, Series of 1987." CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: �,, ( tt' \it)^`�� IJr i. ��)J�r�•.,� ��Z4 p'►14p �r ��Nihi�l ZUJ fOV ovd. 11I f �4L i� / "" rP,/kby 6joe TO ik l - ! I il'Vv✓YW) G -fvib� ��� �"�'(,�'�� � �b,7lf �i? ✓N..� !.✓L`r �r ' - ,� p �.,r'�� �, ':, � ''J � t y arnc,nat' I • n-fwjP't", P '7 • d� I � f•1 � � , � T�. � y �I Af P.Z; — A�PQAI, f bV,,;s1 '1 41 VV 44 'A� MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office + 1' RE: Revisions to Section 24-9, Historic Preservation, Second Reading - Public Hearing DATE: April 8, 1987 SUMMARY: The Planning Office, Planning and Zoning Commission and Historic Preservation Committee recommend that City Council approve Ordinance 11, (Series of 1987), repealing and re-enacting Section 24-9 Historic Designation, on second reading. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The Code Amendment before you is an implementation action in response to the Historic Preservation Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, adopted in October, 1986. When Council adopted first reading of Ordinance 11 on March 23, 1987, it was requested that P&Z and HPC hold a joint meeting to resolve the different revisions of the Ordinance being brought ,forward. This meeting was accomplished on April 7; and the Ordinance attached contains the jointly agreed -upon language. ADVISORY COMMISSION VOTES: The Planning and Zoning Commission has been working on revisions to Section 24-9 since October, 1986. Five meetings were held to consider the Code rewrite prepared by the Planning Office and Code Simplification Consultant. P&Z Resolution #87-2, recom- mending the repeal and re-enactment of Section 24-9, is the outcome of P&Z's efforts. HPC has also been involved in review of Section 24-9. Several HPC members attended P&Z's sessions on the proposed code amend- ments and made comments which were incorporated into the Ordi- nance before you. In addition, meetings of the HPC were held on March 12 and 31, 1987, out of which several other changes were proposed in HPC Resolution #87-1. These changes were incorpora- ted into P&Z's version (same as Ordinance 11). 9 PURPOSE OF MEMORANDUM: The purpose of this memorandum is to give background and issues analysis of the proposed revisions to Section 24-9. The main body of the memorandum is the same as the Planning Office March423 memorandum enclosed in Council's packet of the same date. BACKGROUND: Existing Section 24-9 of the Code identifies procedures and standards by which structures are designated "H" and by which development reviews are conducted by HPC for individually designated structures and for structures in the Main Street and Downtown Historic Districts. Staff, P&Z and HPC are presenting a significant rewrite of this section to you in an effort at streamlining HPC's review procedures for the coming building season and to address other substantive issues discussed herein. These procedures are necessary for all structures currently subject to HPC review and should be reviewed whether or not any further designations ever take place. Please note that the attached lengthy ordinance does not repre- sent new regulations but is replacement for existing code language. Please also note that this ordinance is not the incentive techniques, which will be forwarded to you in a separate ordinance this spring. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: 1. Intention for Rewriting Section 24-9: The Historic Preser- vation Plan Element identified two areas that involve amend- ments to Section 24-9, constituting the top priority imple- mentation action: a. Demolition and Removal review. b. Expiration of HPC approvals (in the event that no building permit has been issued within eighteen months after HPC approval). While looking at these code changes, considering individual designation and district concepts and working on historic development guidelines, staff, P&Z and the public recognized that the entire article on historic designation needed work. The following concerns were added to the above priority action: a. Clarification and simplification of the historic designation and development review standards and procedures. 1. The format of historic preservation regulations should be consistent with the code simplification effort underway. 2 2. The processes and standards involved should be clarified for the benefit of applicants and the reviewing bodies (HPC, P&Z and Council). 3. Unclear language, out-of-date assignments of responsibility, and confusing cross-references should be removed. b. The review process should be organized to be relatively easy for smaller projects and more comprehensive for complex projects. This would streamline the existing code which sets forth a single comprehensive process for virtually all proposals, creating unnecessary cost, delay and hardship for some applicants. 2. Chief Concerns of Staff, P&Z and HPC: The following is a brief explanation of the areas that received special attention in the rewrite of Section 24-9 by staff, P&Z and HPC. Public comments made at P&Z's public hearings were also very helpful in formulating the amendments, and were, for the most part, incorporated in the Ordinance. Purpose of 24-9 and Standards for Designation: The purpose of the article, Section 24-9.1, and stand- ards for designation, Section 24-9.3, both contained vague, unclear language. We have attempted to better state the meaning of historic preservation and historic significance. Administration and Decision -Making Entities: Section 24-9.2 explains the administration and decision making entities in the historic designation and review process. This entire subsection was drafted by the consul- tant for inclusion in the new simplified code and will be incorporated as Article 4 of that Code, (which was presented to you by the consultant). Section 24-9.2(d), the provision for constitution and operation of HPC, has been taken from the existing HPC By-laws. Most of the suggestions in HPC's Resolution 1987-1 pertain to this subsection and reflect the Committee's concerns on how to better organize their group and functions. These concerns are relevant as the Committee by necessity will have to operate in a more formal manner with increased caseload and more sophisticated review processes. Review Standards and Submission Requirements: The proposed review standards and submission require- ments for exempt, minor and significant development are stated in Section 24-9.4. Development exempt from HPC's review would be approved at staff level. "Minor" develop- 3 Mir f y; J! ment would include limited alterations, attachments, and additions and be reviewed in one step. "Significant development" would include projects larger in scale than minor and require a two step conceptual and final review process. The current language of the Code allows for exemption for "no change" by the Planning Office, pre -application review by the HPC in cases of "minor repair projects" and a public hearing /final review. Almost every project considered by the committee is now subject to go through the two step public hearing/final review. However, in actuality the Committee spends a fair amount of time determining when a project should undergo the two steps. The new language creates more distinct and meaningful differences between the one-step "minor" and two step "significant" review, correct- ing this problem. The main issues raised by P&Z and the public were: (1) how much'authority should be given to the Planning staff and (2) how can the review process by expedited when the scale and issues of development are not great? The staff is proposed to have a limited role in exempting projects from review by HPC with a minimal of discretion (see Section 24-9.4(c) on page 11). This approach does not accomplish as large a transfer of responsibilities to the staff level as some would like to see. The Code Simplification consultant and Planning Office position is that it is not appropriate to give staff open-ended, discretionary power in an area where there are so many variables and viewpoints as in historic preservation issues. Minor development review, explained in Section 24-9(e)(3) on pages 14-16, allows HPC to approve minor attachments, alterations and expansions no greater than 250 square feet in a one step review process (no public hearing) allows HPC to approve multiples and combinations of attachments and alterations that have a minor cumulative impact, giving the Committee discretion to approve a project above what it presently has for a one-step review process. Significant Development Review: Significant development review, explained in Section 24- 9.4(e)(4) (on page 17), consists of conceptual review (public hearing) and final review. A more complete set of submission requirements is set forth for the easy under- standing of applicants and HPC. The current code requires "preliminary drawings and other data... sufficiently clear and explicit," leaving it up tog staff and HPC to muddle through some poorly assembled applications. 4 Approvals of significant development plans would expire if a building permit is not granted within 18 months of HPC's approval of said,- plan, necessitating renewal review (see Section 24-9.4(vii)(ee) on page 21). Such "sunsetting" of approvals is not currently in the code and will allow HPC to review the proposal as to whether it still is compatible within the neighborhood, or to see if the neighborhood has changed since the prior approval. Demolition and Removal Review: The proposed demolition and removal review in Section 24-9.5 applies only to historic landmarks and not to non -historic structures in our two historic districts. Our current demolition review is grouped with erection, construction, reconstruction and remodeling activities and applies to all structures designated and in historic districts. The present code is vague with regard to what the applicant needs to demonstrate to justify demolition and what the HPC needs to consider. Strict review standards (Section 24- 9.5(b) on page 22) and comprehensive submission requirements (Section 24-9.5(c)(2) (on pages 23-2 ) would be established by the new ordinance. A special provision of this review is that HPC can suspend action on a demolition application for up to six months (see Section 24-9.5(c)(5) on page 25). During this time, the City and applicant have the responsibility to work together investigating the feasibility of an acceptable alternate plan, including looking at economic options, moving, purchase and similar alternatives. At first reading, Council requested that the issue of demolition review within the existing Main Street and Commercial Core Historic Overlay District be addressed. The P&Z and HPC discussed the matter at their April 7th meeting; and the alternatives favored will be discussed at Council's April 13 meeting. Should Council wish to adopt one of the alternatives suggested by P&Z and HPC, some revision to Ordinance 11 will be necessary. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office, Planning and Zoning Commission and Historic Preservation Committee recommend City Council to repeal and re-enact Section 24-9, Historic Designation as that revision reads in Ordinance #11 (Series of 1987), amended to include the suggestions in the HPC resolution. PROPOSED MOTION: "Move to adopt Ordinance K1, (Series of 1987) on second reading." 5 CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION: SB.24.9 !D % 0 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Consideration of HPC's Proposed Revisions to Section 24-9, Historic Preservation DATE: April 3, 1987 BACKGROUND: The Planning and Zoning Commission adopted Resolu- tion 87-2 (attached) on March 3, 1987 recommending the repeal and re-enactment of Section 24-9. HPC members had participated in the P&Z's discussions prior to that meeting, and also held a special meeting on March 13 to make further recommendations on revisions to the code section (HPC Resolution 87-1 is attached). When City Council held first reading of Ordinance 11, they requested that P&Z and HPC hold a joint meeting to resolve the different revisions of the Ordinance being brought forward. PROBLEM DISCUSSION; The pertinent language in P&Z's version of Section 24-9 has been denoted to help highlight the+differences. Most of the recommendations in HPC's Resolution 87-1 pertain to Section 24-9.2, Administration and Decision -Making Entities. Their suggestions reflect the Committee's on -going concerns on how to better organize their group and functions. Staff supports the suggestions made. We believe that provisions such as: (#1) the ability to make recommendations to P&Z to initiate amendments to the article, (#4) clarification of excused absences as grounds for removal of an HPC member, and (#7) requiring staff to provide HPC with information on historic preservation items before other City boards, are constructive improvements to Section 24-9 that should help the HPC operate in a more productive manner. The HPC has also recommended several changes in substantive areas of the code that need to be considered. Recommendation #8 would clarify the submission requirements and review procedures for an application to rescind designation. Recommendation #9 would require as part of demolition review a redevelopment plan and statement of effect unless waived by HPC. The committee's assumption is that in the majority of cases they would be interested in reviewing redevelopment plans. Section 24-9.5(c)(5)(i) (on Page 23) states the public hearing requirement for review of a demolition application. A public hearing with notice in the newspaper is required. The code does not make a distinction between partial and full demolition public hearing requirements. Two issues arose from the HPC's discus- sion as follow: (1) A public hearing is excessive for the partial demoli- tion portion of a minor development proposal. (2) Notification of full demolition review public hearings should be accomplished by the posting of notice in a conspicuous place on the property and letters sent to neighbors, similar to how variances and major land use applications are treated. Partial demolition should not be subject to the same requirements as full demolition. Partial demolition is typically part of a development plan and should be included in either the minor or significant development review process. However, in a situation where so-called "partial demolition" encompasses a significant part of the structure, the proposal should be subject to all of the provisions of Section 24-9.5. We propose the following changes to Section 24-9.5(c)(5)(i): "Upon receipt of the recommendations of the Planning and Development Director, the HPC shall hold at least one (1) public hearing on its consideration of the application. Partial demolition shall be exempted from the public hearing requirement unless the Planning and Development Director Ihjlrt determines that the proposed demolition involves removal of a portion of the structure possessing signifie ccordinq to the standards of Section 24-9.3(a). Notice of the time an p ace of the a given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises for which the application has been made at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing date, by publication in a newspaper having a general circulation in Aspen and by written notice sent by first class mail at least ten (10) days, or delivered personally at least five (5) days, prior to the hearing L ate, to owners of property within three hundred (300) feet f theproperty in question. A list and stamped preaddress- d envelopes with the names and addresses shall be supplied s the names and addresses appear upon plats or records in he Pitkin County Clerk and R corder's office ando_Dthetax eQrds of _._ _itkin- --Count.__ The HPC - sfia 1 approve the application if it meets the standards in Section 24-9.5(b) (1), if for demolition, and Section 24-9.5(b)(1)(iv)-(vii) if for partial demolition, suspend action on the application for a period not to exceed six (6) months if HPC concludes that additional time is needed to investigate the proposed demolition or partial demolition, or deny the application if it does not meet the standards of Section 24-9.5(b)(1) or Section 24-9.5(b)(1)(iv)-(vii), whichever is applicable." 2 0 • The other issue of demolition review, raised by City Council and HPC, is whether demolition review should apply to all inventoried structures within our two existing districts. We would like to discuss alternatives to accomplish this review at the April 7th meeting. Finally, staff would like to suggest a different definition of "compatibility". Section 24-9.4(d)(1)(i) (on Page 11) defines compatibility as follows: "The proposed development is visually compatible in terms of design, finish, material, scale, mass and height with designated historic structures located on the parcel. The HPC shall also find that the proposed development is compatible with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to a historic landmark. For the purposes of this standard the term "compatible" shall mean consistent with, harmonious with, and/or similar to, in the context of the architecture of an individual structure or the character of the immediate vicinity." As you recall, P&Z was concerned that compatibility not imply that all new building designs should be "similar to" or identical with historic styles. The new proposed definition reads: For the purposes of this standard, the term "compatible" ` h�Cr� 4I shall mean consistent with, harmonious with, similar to and/or enhances the mixture of complimentary architectural styles, either of the architecture of an individual struc- ture or the character of the surrounding structures. sb.92 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Revisions to Section 24-9, Historic Preservation, First Reading DATE: March 23, 1987 SUMMARY: The Planning Office and Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that City Council approve Ordinance 11, (Series of 1987), repealing and re-enacting Section 24-9 Historic Designa- tion, on first reading. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The Code Amendment before you is an implementation action in response to the Historic Preservation Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, adopted in October, 1986. The time schedule for amending Section 24-9 has been in part determined by the Moratorium on Demolition of Historic Structures to be extended by Ordinance #10 (Series of 1987) to June 22, 1987. City Council affirmed at a joint work session of HPC, P&Z and Council on January 13, 1987 and at a subsequent meeting on February 24, 1987 regarding the Moratorium that it desires to make final consideration of revising Section 24-9, a program of incentives for designation historic properties, and designations on or before the expiration of the moratorium. ADVISORY COMMISSION VOTES: The Planning and Zoning Commission has been working on revisions to Section 24-9 since October, 1986. Four meetings were held to consider the Code rewrite prepared by the Planning Office and Code Simplification Consultant. P&Z Resolution #87-2, recom- mending the repeal and re-enactment of Section 24-9, is the outcome of P&Z's efforts. HPC has also been involved in review of Section 24-9. Several HPC members attended P&Z's sessions on the proposed code amend- ments and made comments which were incorporated into the Ordi- nance before you. In addition, a special session of the HPC was held on March 13, 1987, out of which several other changes were proposed in HPC Resolution #87-1. BACKGROUND: Existing Section 24-9 of the Code identifies procedures and standards by which structures are designated "H" and by which development reviews are conducted by HPC for individually designated structures and for structures in the Main Street and Downtown Historic Districts. Staff, P&Z and HPC are presenting a significant rewrite of this section to you in an effort at streamlining HPC's review procedures for the coming building season and to address other substantive issues discussed herein. These procedures are necessary for all structures currently subject to HPC review and should be reviewed whether or not any further designations ever take place. Please note that the attached lengthy ordinance does not repre- sent new regulations but is replacement for existing code language. Please also note that this ordinance is not the incentive techniques, which will be forwarded to you in a separate ordinance this spring. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: 1. Intention for Rewriting Section 24-9: The Historic Preser- vation Plan Element identified two areas that involve amend- ments to Section 24-9, constituting the top priority imple- mentation action: a. Demolition and Removal review. b. Expiration of HPC approvals (in the event that no building permit has been issued within eighteen months after HPC approval). While looking at these code changes, considering individual designation and district concepts and working on historic development guidelines, staff, P&Z and the public recognized that the entire article on historic designation needed work. The following concerns were added to the above priority action: a. Clarification and simplification of the historic designation and development review standards and procedures. 1. The format of historic preservation regulations should be consistent with the code simplification effort underway. 2. The processes and standards involved should be clarified for the benefit of applicants and the reviewing bodies (HPC, P&Z and Council). E • • 3. Unclear language, out-of-date assignments of responsibility, and confusing cross-references should be removed. b. The review process should be organized to be relatively easy for smaller projects and more comprehensive for complex projects. This would streamline the existing code which sets forth a single comprehensive process for virtually all proposals, creating unnecessary cost, delay and hardship for some applicants. 2. Chief Concerns of Staff, P&Z and HPC: The following is a brief explanation of the areas that received special attention in the rewrite of Section 24-9 by staff, P&Z and HPC. Public comments made at P&Z's public hearings were also very helpful in formulating the amendments, and were, for the most part, incorporated in the Ordinance. Purpose of 24-9 and Standards for Designation: The purpose of the article, Section 24-9.1, and stand- ards for designation, Section 24-9.3, both contained vague, unclear language. We have attempted to better state the meaning of historic preservation and historic significance. Administration and Decision -Making Entities: Section 24-9.2 explains the administration and decision making entities in the historic designation and review process. This entire subsection was drafted by the consul- tant for inclusion in the new simplified code and will be incorporated as Article 4 of that Code, (which was presented to you by the consultant). Section 24-9.2(d), the provision for constitution and operation of HPC, has been taken from the existing HPC By-laws. Most of the suggestions in HPC's Resolution 1987-1 pertain to this subsection and reflect the Committee's concerns on how to better organize their group and functions. These concerns are relevant as the Committee by necessity will have to operate in a more formal manner with increased caseload and more sophisticated review processes. Review Standards and Submission Requirements: The proposed review standards and submission require- ments for exempt, minor and significant development are stated in Section 24-9.4. Development exempt from HPC's review would be approved at staff level. "Minor" develop- ment would include limited alterations, attachments, and additions and be reviewed in one step. "Significant development" would include projects larger in scale than minor and require a two step conceptual and final review 3 0 0 process. The current language of the Code allows for exemption for "no change" by the Planning Office, pre -application review by the HPC in cases of "minor repair projects" and a public hearing /final review. Almost every project considered by the committee is now subject to go through the two step public hearing/final review. However, in actuality the Committee spends a fair amount of time determining when a project should undergo the two steps. The new language creates more distinct and meaningful differences between the one-step "minor" and two step "significant" review, correct- ing this problem. The main issues raised by P&Z and the public were: (1) how much authority should be given to the Planning staff and (2) how can the review process by expedited when the scale and issues of development are not great? The staff is proposed to have a limited role in exempting projects from review by HPC with a minimal of discretion (see Section 24-9.4(c) on page 10). This approach does not accomplish as large a transfer of responsibilities to the staff level as some would like to see. The Code Simplification consultant and Planning Office position is that it is not appropriate to give staff open-ended, discretionary power in an area where there are so many variables and viewpoints as in historic preservation issues. Minor development review, explained in Section 24-9(e)(3) on page 12, allows HPC to approve minor attachments, altera- tions and expansions no greater than 250 square feet in a one step review process (no public hearing) allows HPC to approve multiples and combinations of attachments and alterations that have a minor cumulative impact, giving the Committee: discretion to approve a project above what it presently has for a one-step review process. Significant Development Review: Significant development review, explained in Section 24- 9.4(e)(4) (on page 15), consists of conceptual review (public hearing) and final review. A more complete set of submission requirements is set forth for the easy under- standing of applicants and HPC. The current code requires "Preliminary drawings and other data... sufficiently clear and explicit," leaving it up to staff and HPC to muddle through some poorly assembled applications. Approvals of significant development plans would expire if a building permit is not granted within 18 months of HPC's approval of said plan, necessitating renewal review (see 4 Section 24-9.4 (vii) (ee) on page 19). Such "sunsetting" of approvals is not currently in the code and will allow HPC to review the proposal as to whether it still is compatible within the neighborhood, or to see if the neighborhood has changed since the prior approval. Demolition and Removal Review: The proposed demolition and removal review in Section 24-9.5 applies only to historic landmarks and not to non -historic structures in our two historic districts. Our current demolition review is grouped with erection, construction, reconstruction and remodeling activities and applies to all structures designated and in historic districts. The present code is vague with regard to what the applicant needs to demonstrate to justify demolition and what the HPC needs to consider. Strict review standards (Section 24- 9.5(b) on page 20) and comprehensive submission requirements (Section 24-9.5(c)(2) (on pages 21-22) would be established by the new ordinance. A special provision of this review is that HPC can suspend action on a demolition application for up to six months (see Section 24-9.5(c)(5) on page 23). During this time, the City and applicant have the responsibility to work together investigating the feasibility of an acceptable alternate plan, including looking at economic options, moving, purchase and similar alternatives. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office, Planning and Zoning Commission and Historic Preservation Committee recommend City Council to repeal and re-enact Section 24-9, Historic Designation as that revision reads in Ordinance #11 (Series of 1987), amended to include the suggestions in the HPC resolution. PROPOSED MOTION: "Move to read Ordinance #11, (Series of 1987)." "Move to approve Ordinance #11, (Series of 1987) on first reading." CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION: SB.24.9 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager�� FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Historic Designations and Extension of Moratorium on Demolition of Historic Structures DATE: March 18, 1987 SUMMARY: The staff recommends approval of Ordinance 5 and 10 on second reading. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTIONS: Ordinance 5 (Series of 1987) was approved by City Council on first reading on February 24, 1987, to give individual historic designation to eight (8) structures. At that same meeting, direction was given to the Planning Office and City Attorney to draft an ordinance extending the Moratorium on the Demolition and Removal of Historic Structures to June 22, 1987 because the historic preservation incentives program and code amendments are still being studied and considered. Ordinance 10 (Series of 1987), accomplishing the extension of the Moratori- um, was approved by Council on first reading on March 9, 1987 PROBLEM DISCUSSION: DESIGNATIONS: The following eight struc- tures were evaluated by HPC within the top categories (3,4, and 5) and have been requested for designation by their owners: Elli of Aspen Building, Aspen Times Building, Chitwood Building, Sorensen's Antiques, 333 W. Main Street, 420 W. Francis Street, 215 W. Bleeker Street, and 500 W. Bleeker Street. The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended Council to designate the above listed structures at a public hearing on February 3, 1987 and follow-up meeting on February 17, 1987. Recommended Motion: "Move to approve Ordinance 5 , Series of 1987 on Second Reading." • PROBLEM DISCUSSION: MORATORIUM: Attached also is the Ordinance 10 (Series of 1987), extending the Moratorium on demolition and removal of historic structures to June 22, 1987. Recommended Motion: "Move to approve Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1987 on Second Reading." CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: SB.21 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRII: Robert S. Anderson, City Manager FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Off irY -�� Paul Tadclune, City Attorney RF: Extension of Moratorium on Oemnl ition of Historic: Structures OATF: March 4, 1987 PRFV I i7US COUNC I I_ ACTION: At City Cou n c i I' s regular meeting of February 23, 3987 direction was given to the Planning Office and City Attorney to draft an ordinance extending the Moratorium on the Demolition Of Historic Structures to n1une 22, 3987 because the historic preservation incentives program and code amendments are still being studied and considered. ACTION ITEM: Attached is the Moratorium Ordinance as requested and a Resolution authori: ing an administrative delay on the processing of applications for demolition or removal permits for the one day gap between the expiration of the orignanI morat.oriurn ordinance and adoption of the ordinance extending the moratorium. RFCOMMFNDFn MOT 1 ONE, : "Move to read Od i n a n c e No. I—Q , Series of 1987. " "Move to pass Ordinance No. Q, Series of 3987 on First Read— ing-" "Move to adopt Resol ut ion No. Q , Series of 1987.'' SR. 21 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL TO REPEAL AND RE-ENACT SECTION 24-9 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, HISTORIC DESIGNATION Resolution No. 87 - WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (herein- after "Commission") adopted the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Historic Preservation Element on October 7, 1986 in which the implementation program included: creating procedures for review of demolition and removal of historic structures, creating procedures for sunsetting or extension of HPC approvals, and study of historic district expansion; and WHEREAS, the Commission held regular meetings on October 17 and 29, 1986 to discuss historic preservation issues and ap- proaches, and public hearings on December 2, 1986, February 3, February 17, and March 3, 1987 to consider revisions to Section 24-9 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen is involved in a code simplifica- tion effort to make the code more understandable; and WHEREAS, as the discussion of Section 24-9 developed, it became clear that there are numerous aspects of Section 24-9 that need clarification, reorganization and procedural simplification. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby recommend that the City Council repeal and re-enact Section 24-9 of the Municipal Code to read as follows in Attach- ment A. Resolution No. 87- Page 2 APPROVED by the Commission at their regular meeting on March 3, 1987. ATTEST: Q Jd Carney, De y City Clerk ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION By C - Welton Anderso Chairman sb.57 ATTACHMENT A ARTICLE-IV_--HlSTQRTC_QVERLAY_DTSTRICT-AND-HISTORIC_LANDMARKS Sec. 24-9.1 Purgose_ The purpose of this article is to: (a) Ensure the preservation of Aspen's character as a his- toric mining town because of its importance to the economic viability of the community as an inter- national ski resort and cultural center. (b) Promote the cultural, educational and economic welfare of Aspen through the preservation of historic struc- tures and areas and the preservation of the historic character of the community. (c) Encourage productive and economically attractive uses of historic structures. (d) Support the implementation of the Aspen Area Comprehen- sive Plan Historic Preservation Element. Sec. 24-9.2 Administrative-and-Decisionmaking_Entities_ (a) General_ There are four (4) decisionmaking entities that shall carry out the purposes of this article. These entities are the City Council, the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) and the Planning and Development Director. (b) City_Council_ The City Council shall have the following powers and duties in regard to this article: (1) Approval of the designation of H, Historic Overlay Districts and Historic Landmarks, Sec. 24-9.3 ( b ) ( 5 ) ; (2) Review of appeals from decisions of the HPC ap- proving, conditionally approving, or disapproving a permit application for development or demolition of a Historic Landmark or a permit application for development or demolition in an H, Historic Overlay District, Sec. 24-9.7; and (3) Adoption of Historic District and Historic Landmark development guidelines, Sec. 24-9.4(d) (2)• 1 • (c) Planning__and__Zoning__Commission_ The Planning and Zoning Commission shall have the following powers and duties in regard to this article: (1) Recommendation of approval or disapproval of the designation of an H, Historic Overlay District or Historic Landmark to the City Council, Sec. 24- 9.3(b)(4). (d) Historic_Preservation_Committee_IHPCI_ (1) Powers--and--duties. The Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) shall have the following powers and duties in regard to this article: (i) Recommendation of approval or dis- approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council of the designation of Historic Landmarks and an H, Historic Overlay District, Sec. 24- 9.3(b)(3); (ii) Review and approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval of develop- ment involving a Historic Landmark or development within the H, Historic Overlay District, Sec. 24-9.4; (iii) Review and approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval of demolition involving a Historic Landmark, Sec. 24- 9.5; (iv) Recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval to the Board of Adjustment on a request for variance involving a Historic Landmark or development in the H, Historic Overlay District, Sec. 24-9.8; and (v) Recommendation to the City Council of Historic District and Historic Landmark development guidelines. (2) Qualification -for -Membership. Members of the HPC shall be qualified electors in Aspen and residents for two (2) years prior to appointment. (3) Membership__Appointmentt_remov_all_terms_and_ vacancies. 2 (i) The HPC shall be composed of seven (7) members and three (3) alternate members, and shall be appointed by the City Council. Nominations for membership shall be presented to the City Council by the Aspen Historical Society and the community -at -large. Each member shall hold office for a term of three (3) years. An alternate member shall attend all meetings and shall be allowed to vote in the absence of a regular member. There shall be no restraint on the number of terms any member may serve. Members of the HPC, to the extent prac- ticable, shall be composed of persons with expertise and experience in archi- tecture, landscape architecture, city planning, history, real estate, finance, law, fine arts, general contracting, commerce and industry. Members shall serve in accordance with the laws of Colorado and may be removed before the expiration of their appoint- ment, for cause, by a majority vote of the City Council. In the event that any member is no longer a qualified elector or is convicted of a felony or an offense involving moral turpitude while in office, the City Council shall terminate the appointment of such person. (iv) Members shall serve without compensa- tion. (v) At the first regular meeting in August, the members of the HPC shall elect one (1) of their members as Chairman and one (1) as Vice -Chairman. In the absence of the Chairman, the Vice -Chairman shall act as Chairman and shall have all powers of the Chairman. The Chairman shall be eligible for re-election, (vi) The Chairman of the HPC shall administer oaths, shall be in charge of all proceedings before the HPC, shall decide all points of order on procedure, shall transmit reports and recommendations of the HPC and shall take such action as 0 0 shall be necessary to preserve order and the integrity of all proceedings before the HPC. (vii) The Secretary of the HPC shall be the City Clerk or his designee. The Secretary shall keep the minutes, shall mail notices of regular meetings to members three (3) days in advance and notices of special meetings one (1) day in advance, and maintain the files of all studies, plans, reports and recom- mendations made by the HPC. (viii) Any member of the HPC who has three (3) or more unexcused absences from regular meetings during the calendar year may be subject to removal by the City Council. An unexcused absence is one in which a member has failed to give advance notice to the Secretary that the member will be either (1) out of town at the time which the regular meeting is to be held, or (2) is physically unable to attend the meeting due to illness. (4) Staff_ The Planning and Development Agency shall be the professional staff of the HPC. A represen- tative of the Planning Office shall be present at all meetings to provide advice to the HPC. A representative of the Building Department shall also be assigned to the HPC to provide advice for its review of applications for development pursuant to Sec. 24-9.4, or applications for demolition pursuant to Sec. 24-9.5. (5) Quorum_and_necessary_v_ote_ No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order, nor may any business be transacted, without a quorum consisting of at least four (4) members being present. All actions shall require the concurring vote of a simple majority of the members of the HPC then present and voting. (6) Meetings,_hearings_and_orocedure_ (i) Regular meetings of the HPC shall be held on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month. Special meetings may be called by the Chairman or a majority of the members. 4 0 0 (ii) If a matter is postponed due to lack of a quorum, the Chairman shall continue the meeting as a special meeting to be held at the same location within seven (7) days thereafter or to a date mutually agreed by the applicant and the HPC. In case of delays caused by other reasons, the hearing should be resched- uled to the next regular HPC meeting. The Secretary shall notify all members of the date of the continued meeting and also shall notify all parties. If a matter is postponed to more than two (2) regular HPC meetings after the meeting for which it was scheduled, due to lack of quorum, then the application shall be deemed approved. (iii) All meetings and hearings of the HPC shall be open to the public. (iv) Public hearings shall be set for a time certain. (e) Planning__and__Deyeloement__Director_ The Planning and Development Director shall have the following powers and duties in regard to this article: (1) Exemption of development within an H, Historic Overlay District, Sec. 24-9.4(b); (2) Approval of minor modifications to a develop- ment order, Sec. 24-9.6; (3) Approval of minor modifications to a develop- ment order for demolition, Sec. 24-9.6; and (4) Provision of planning and technical assistance including recommendations to the HPC, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council in regard to this article. Sec. 24-9.3 Designation__of__H,__Historic_Ov_erlay_District_and Historic -Landmarks. ------------------ (a) Standards_for_Designation_ Any structure or public site that meets one or more of the following standards may be designated as H, Historic Overlay District and/or Historic Landmark: 5 (1) Hietorical_ImQortance_ The structure or site is a principal or secondary place commonly identified or associated 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; (2) Architectural_Importance� The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character; (3) Architectural_lmQortance_ The structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen; (4) Architectural__Importance_ The structure is a significant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. (5) Neighborhood_ Character_ The structure or site is a significant component of a historically signifi- cant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the main- tenance of that neighborhood character. (6) Community__Character_ The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similar- ity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. (b) Procedure_for_Designationt_Amendmentt__Rescinding_ Any structure or public site that meets one or more of the standards in Sec. 24-9.3(a)(1)-(6) may be designated H, Historic Overlay District and/or Historic Landmark, by the City Council in accordance with the following procedures: (1) Initiation_ A proposed designation, amendment to a designation, or rescinding of a designation, H, Historic Overlay District and/or Historic Land- mark, may be initiated by the City Council, the HPC, or one hundred (100%) percent of the owners of the property proposed for designation. (2) Submission_of_Application_ and_Sufficiency_Rgv_iew_ Before any structure or site shall be considered for an H, Historic Overlay District or Historic Landmark designation, an Application for Historic Designation shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Director. (i) The application for Historic Designation shall include the following: (aa) a boundary description of the site; (bb) a street address and a description of the structure or site; (cc) an explanation of why the designation is consistent with one (1) or more of the standards in Sec. 24-9.3(a) (1)-(6); and (dd) any other evidence that supports the proposed designa- tion. Determination_-of___Comeleteness_ The Planning and Development Director shall determine whether an Application for Historic Designation is complete within ten (10) working days of its receipt. If it is determined the application is not complete, the Planning and Develop- ment Director shall notify the applicant of the deficiencies in writing. The Planning and Development Director shall take no further action on the applica- tion until all deficiencies have been corrected or otherwise settled. (3) Recommendation --- of --- Planning --- and --- Dev_eloQment Director_ Within ten (10) working days of a determination of completeness, the Planning and Development Director shall complete his review of the application and submit a written recommenda- tion to the HPC regarding whether the application conforms to the standards in Sec. 24-9.3(a)(1)- (6). (4) HQC_Reoommendation_ The Application for Historic Designation shall be reviewed by the HPC and a written recommendation shall be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission within thirty (30) days of receipt of the Planning and Development Director's written recommendations. 7 0 0 (5) Planning_and_Zoning_Commission-Recommendation_ [i) The Planning and Zoning Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed designation and make a written recom- mendation to the City Council within forty-five (45) days of HPC's action on an Application for Historic Designation. For a proposed designation of less than fifty (50) individual properties, a written notice of the public hearing shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. A written notice shall also be sent at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing date to the owner or owners of the property subject to the proposed designation. In the case of Council and HPC initiated designations, written notice shall be sent by certified mail as specified . In the case of owner initiated designations, written notice shall be sent by first class mail as specified. For a proposed designation of fifty (50) or more individual properties, the public hearing shall meet the require- ments of Sec. 24-12.4 of the Municipal Code. (6) City_Council-_Review_and__AQQroyal_or_DisapQrov_al_ Upon receipt of the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion's recommendation, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on the proposed designation, con- sider the recommendations of the HPC and Planning and Zoning Commission, and may designate the structure or site H, Historic Overlay District and/or Historic Landmark, if it meets one or more of the standards in Sec. 24-9.3(a)(1)-(6). The public hearing shall meet the requirements of Sec. 24-12.6 of the Municipal Code. (c) Recordation -of -Designation. Upon the effective date of an act by the City Council designating an H, Historic Overlay District or Historic Landmark, the Secretary of the HPC shall notify the Building Inspector of the designation and shall record among the real estate records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado, a certified copy of the ordinance creating L the H, Historic Overlay District or Historic Landmark. The ordinance shall contain a legal description of the structure or site designated. (d) Placement_on_City's__Official__Zoning__Mgp. Upon the effective date of an act by the City Council designat- ing an H, Historic Overlay District or Historic Landmark, the Secretary of the HPC shall notify the Planning and Development Director and the H, Historic Overlay District designation shall be placed in Aspen's Official Zoning Map, a copy of which is kept in the Planning and Development Agency. (e) Establishment_of__Districts_ There are two existing historic overlay districts in the City of Aspen. These districts are the Commercial Core District and Main Street District. In all cases when districts are discussed in this section, these two districts are the only districts to which reference is being made. Sec. 24-9.4 DeveloQment_in_an_Hi_Historic_Overlay__District_or Involv_ing_a_Historic_Landmark_ (a) Oyerv_iew__of-_DeveloQment__Rev_iew__in__an__H,__Historic Overlay_District_or_Invv_olv_ing_a_Historic_Landmark. Any development within an H, Historic Overlay District or development involving a Historic Landmark must be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of this Sec. 24-9.4, unless exempted by the Planning and Development Director under Sec. 24-9.4(c). If not exempted, development is categorized as Minor or Significant Development which must obtain approval of the HPC. Minor Development review and approval is a one-step process. Significant Development must go through a Conceptual and Final Development Plan review and approval process. (b) Gengral_Prohibition_ No development shall be permitted within the H, Historic Overlay District or involving a Historic Landmark unless: (1) The development is exempted by the Planning and Development Director pursuant to Sec. 24-9.4(c); or (2) The development is approved by the HPC as either Minor or Significant Development pursuant to the procedures outlined in Sec. 24-9.4(e) because it meets the standards of Sec. 24-9.4(d). (c) ExemQtion_ 9 (1) The Planning and Development Director shall exempt development from the terms of this section if he determines that the development consists of remodeling or expansion of a structure that creates no change to the exterior appearance of the structure, and has no impact on the character of the structure. Development which the Planning and Devlopment Director shall exempt shall include but not be limited to : any interior remodeling, repainting of the exterior of an already painted structure, choice of color of any exterior architectural feature, repair of existing archi- tectural features, and replacement of architectu- ral features when necessary for the preservation of the structure. For the purposes of this standard, the term "character" shall include height, site coverage, setbacks, siting, massing, materials, scale of materials, and fenestration. (2) Prior to initiating any development which an owner believes to be exempt under the provisions of this section, the owner shall consult with the Planning Director to obtain a determination of exemption. All interior remodeling, repainting of the exterior of an already painted structure and choice of color of any exterior architectural feature shall be deemed by the Planning Director to be exempt from the terms of this section and a certificate of compliance with these provisions shall be issued by the Planning Director to the Building Inspector within one (1) working day of the consultation. All repair of existing archi- tectural features, replacement of architectural features when necessary for the preservation of the struture or any other development which the owner believes is eligible for exemption from the provisions of this section shall require an Application for Exemption to be submitted to the Planning and Development Director in the form provided by the Planning and Development Direct- or. The Planning and Development Director shall determine if the application is complete within five (5) working days of its receipt. If it is determined that the application is not complete, the Planning and Development Director shall notify the applicant of the deficiencies in writing. The Planning and Development Director shall take no further action on the application until all deficiencies have been corrected or otherwise settled. Once the Planning and Development Director determines the application is complete, a decision whether the proposed development may be exempted from the terms of this section shall be 10 made within five (5) working days in the form of a Certificate of Compliance issued by the Planning Director to the Building Inspector. (d) Rev_iew__Standards__for__all__Dev_eloQment_in_H,_Historic Overlay_District_and_all_Dev_eloQment_Involying_Historic Landmarks_ (1) Dev_eloement_in__Historic_Overlay__District_and_all Dev_eloement__invv_olv_ing__Historic__Landmarks_ No approval for any development in the H, Historic Overlay District or involving Historic Landmarks shall be granted unless the HPC finds that: (i) The proposed development is visually compatible in terms of design, finish, material, scale, mass and height with designated historic structures located on the parcel. The HPC shall also find that the proposed development is compatible with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to a historic landmark. For the pur- poses of this standard the term "compa- tible" shall mean consistent with, harmonious with, and/or similar to, in the context of the architecture of an individual structure or the character of the immediate vicinity. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the "neighborhood" of the parcel proposed for development. For the purposes of this standard the term "character" shall include height, coverage, setbacks, siting, massing, fenestration, materi- als, and scale of materials. 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. (iv) The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. 11 0 • (2) Additional__DeveloQment___Guidelines_ The City Council, upon recommendation of the HPC, shall establish additional guidelines for use by HPC in the review of all development in H, Historic Overlay District and all demolition and develop- ment involving historic landmarks, in accordance with the procedures in Sec. 24-9.2(b)(3). (e) Procedure_for_Rev_igw_ (1) General_ Before HPC approval of development with- in an H, Historic Overlay District and all development involving Historic Landmarks, an Application for Minor Development, or Application for Significant Development, whichever is applica- ble, shall be submitted to the Planning and Deve- lopment Director and shall be reviewed and approved by the HPC. (2) Initiation_ An Application for Minor Development or an Application for Significant Development shall be submitted by the owner, an agent author- ized in writing to act on the owner's behalf, or other person having a written contractual interest in the parcel of land proposed for development. (3) Procedure for Rev_iew__of__AQQlication__for_Minor QeveloQment_ (i) Minor Development shall be defined as follows: (aa) Erection of an awning, canopy, sign, fence or other similar attachments to or accessory features of a structure, provided however, that in the process of erecting said attachments, none of the original materials of the structure are destroyed or removed. Incidental destruction or removal necessary to erect any attachment shall not require the development to be considered significant; (bb) Remodeling of a structure wherein alterations are made to no more than one (1) element of the structure, including but not limited to a roof, window, door, skylight, ornamental trim, siding, kickplate, dormer, porch, stair- 12 • 0 case, and balcony; (cc) Expansion or erection of a struc- ture wherein the increase in floor area of the structure is two hundred and fifty (250) square feet or less; or (dd) Erection or remodeling of combina- tions of, or multiples of no more than three (3) or more of the following features: awnings, canopies, signs, fences and other similar attachments; or windows, doors, skylights and dormers. Erection of more than three (3) of the above listed features may be defined as minor if there is a finding that the cumulative impact of such development is minor in its effect on the character of the existing structures. For the purposes of this section, "charac- ter" shall include height, cover- age, setbacks, siting, site massing, fenestration, materials, and scale of materials. Submission-of__Ag2lication_ An Applica- tion for Minor Development shall be submitted to the Planning and Develop- ment Director. It shall include the following: (aa) The name, and address of all owners of the property. If the applicant is not the owner, the applicant's name, address and interest in the property. The owner's authorization for the applica- tion to be submitted must be included. 13 0 0 (bb) The address of the property and the name of the structure (if applicable). (cc) A written description of the proposed development. (dd) An accurate representation of all major building materials, such as samples and photo- graphs, to be used for the proposed development. (ee) A scale drawing of the proposed development in relation to any existing structure. (ff) A statement of the effect of the proposed development on the original design of the historic structure (if applicable) and/or character of the neighborhood, and why the proposed development meets the review standards in Sec. 24-9.4(d). (gg) Any other information consid- ered reasonably necessary for the review of the application. Determination__of___C�omeietgngae_ The Planning and Development Director shall determine if an application is complete within ten (10) working days of its receipt. If it is determined the application is not complete, the Plan- ning and Development Director shall notify the applicant of the deficiencies in writing. The Planning and Develop- ment Director shall take no further action on the application until all deficiencies have been corrected or otherwise settled. (iv) Rgg2mmgn4ation_of__Planninq-and_Develoe_ ment_Direct_or_ Once the Planning and Development Director determines the application is complete, he shall complete his review of the application and submit a written recommendation to 14 the HPC regarding whether the applica- tion conforms to the standards in Sec. 24-9.4(d). (v) Rev_iew__ty__HPC_ Upon receipt of the recommendation of the Planning and Development Director, the HPC shall review the application. If the HPC finds that the application meets the standards in Sec. 24-9.4(d), and the procedural requirements of this article, the application for minor development shall be approved. (4) Rev_iew_of_AQQlication_for_Significant_Dev_eloQment_ (i) Significant development shall be defined as follows: (aa) Erection of an awning, canopy, sign, fence or other similar attachments to or accessory features of a structure that, in the process of erecting, causes original materials of the structure to be destroyed or removed; (bb) Erection or remodeling of combina- tions of or multiples of any single feature of a structure which has not been determined to be minor; (cc) Expansion or erection of a struc- ture wherein the increase in floor area of the structure is more than two hundred and fifty (250) square feet; (dd) Construction of a new structure within an H, Historic Overlay District; and (ee) The redevelopment of the site of a historic landmark which has received approval for demolition when a redevelopment plan has been required by the HPC pursuant to Section 24-9.5(c)(2)(vii). Rev_iew___ and --- AQQLov_al--- of__ConceQtual CeY§122Ment_P1an- 15 Submission--of--Agglication-for_AQerov_al of_Conceptual-Dev_eloQment_Plan_ Before HPC consideration of approval for a Conceptual Development Plan, an Applica- tion for Approval of Conceptual Develop- ment Plan shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Director. The application shall include the following: (aa) The name and address of all owners of the property. If the applicant is not the owner, the applicant's name, address and interest in the property. The owner's authoriza- tion for the application to be submitted must be included. (bb) The address of the property and the name of the structure (if applic- able). (cc) A sketch plan of the proposed development showing property boundaries and predominant existing site characteristics. (dd) Conceptual selection of major building materials to be used in the proposed development. (ee) A statement of the effect of the proposed development on the origi- nal design of the historic struc- ture (if applicable) and/or character of neighborhood, and why the proposed development meets the review standards in Sec. 24- 9.4(d). (ff) Any other information considered reasonably necessary for the review of the application. Determination--of-_-ComQietgness_ The Planning and Development Director shall determine if an application is complete within ten (10) working days of its receipt. If it is determined the application is not complete, the Plan- ning and Development Director shall notify the applicant of the deficiencies in writing. The Planning and Develop- 16 ment Director shall take no further action on the application until all deficiencies have been corrected or otherwise settled. (iv) Review_by_HPC_ Upon notification that a complete application has been submitted for review, the HPC shall hold at least one (1) public hearing on the applica- tion. Notice of the time and place of the public hearing shall be given at least fifteen (15) days in advance by publication in a newspaper having a general circulation in Aspen. The HPC shall approve the Conceptual Development Plan if they determine that the plan meets the standards in Sec. 24-9.4(d). (v) Effect ... of ... Appro_val___of--- Conceptual Dev_el2pment_Plan_ Approval of a Concep- tual Development Plan shall not con- stitute final approval of significant Development or permission to proceed with development. Such approval shall constitute only authorization to proceed with an Application for a Final Develop- ment Plan. (vi) Limitation__on__Agprov_al__of__Conceptual Dev_elopment_Plan_ Application for a Final Development Plan shall be filed within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Unless an extension is granted by the HPC, failure to file such an application shall render null and void the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan previously granted by the HPC. (vii) Review_and_Final_Apgroval_of_Significant Development_Plan_ (aa) Submission_of_Application_for_Final Dev_elopment_Plan_ Before consider- ation of a Final Development Plan, an Application for Final Develop- ment Plan shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Director. The application shall include: 1. The name, authorization for submission of application and 17 address of all owners of the property. If the applicant is not the owner, the applicant's name, address and interest in the property. 2. The address of the property and the name of the structure (if applicable). 3. A written description of the proposed development. 4. An accurate representation of all major building materials, such as samples and photo- graphs, to be used for the proposed development. 5. Scale drawings of the proposed development in relation to any existing structure. 6. A statement of the effect of the details of the proposed development on the original design of the historic struc- ture (if applicable) and/or character of neighborhood, and how the details of the proposed development meets the review standards in Sec. 24- 9.4(c). Also, a statement of how the final plan conforms to the representations made during the conceptual review and responds to any conditions placed thereon. 7. Any other information consid- ered reasonably necessary for the review of the application. (bb) Determination-of_Comeleteness_ The Planning and Development Director shall determine if an application is complete within ten (10) working days of its receipt. If it is determined the application is not complete, the Planning and Develop- ment Director shall notify the applicant of the deficiencies in 18 • • 0 writing. The Planning and Develop- ment Director shall take no further action on the application until all deficiencies have been corrected or otherwise settled. (cc) Recommendation ... of ... Planning__and Dev_elopment__Director_ Once the Planning and Development Director determines the application is comp- lete, he shall complete his review of the application and submit a written recommendation to the HPC regarding whether the application conforms to the standards in Sec. 24-9.4(d). (dd) Rev_iew_by_HPC_ Upon receipt of the recommendation of the Planning and Development Director, the HPC shall review the application. If the HPC finds that the Final Development Plan conforms to the approved Conceptual Development Plan and the substantive and procedural require- ments of this Article, the Appli- cation for Final Development Plan shall be approved. (ee) ExQiration_of__Aeerov_al_ Failure to obtain a building permit for final development approval granted by the HPC within a period of eighteen (18) months following the commit- tee's action shall render such approval invalid. Renewal of a prior approval may be granted by the HPC for an additional period not to exceed twelve (12) months upon receipt of a written request for such review from the applicant. In granting said renewal, the HPC shall consider whether conditions in the neighborhood of the applica- tion or in the community have changed such that renewal is not in the best interest of the community. Sec. 24-9.5 Demolition_of_a_Historic_Landmark_ (a) General_ No demolition and total removal of a Historic Landmark shall be permitted unless the demolition is 19 approved by the HPC because it meets the standards of Sec. 24-9.5(b)(1). No demolition of and removal of a portion of a Historic Landmark shall be permitted unless the partial demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the standards of Sec.24-9.5(b)(4)- (7). Exempt from the terms of this section is removal of a portion of an historic landmark which creates no change to the exterior of the structure. (b) Standards-for_-Review_of--Demolition_ No approval for any demolition of a Historic Landmark shall be granted unless the applicant has demonstrated that: (1) The structure proposed for demolition is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure; (2) The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused to provide for any beneficial use of the property; (3) The structure cannot be practicably moved to another site in Aspen; (4) A demolition and redevelopment plan is submitted when required by HPC or for any partial demolition which mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact that occurs to the character of the "neighborhood" of the parcel where demolition is proposed to occur. For the purposes of this standard, the term "character" shall include height, coverage, setbacks, massing, siting, fenest- ration, materials, and scale of materials; (5) The demolition plan mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact the proposed demolition has on the historic importance of the structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels; (6) The demolition plan mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact on the architec- tural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and (7) A plan of redevelopment of the site after demolition is submitted which is compatible with and/or enhances the historic character of the immediate area or neighborhood. 20 (c) Procedure_for_Rev_iew_of_AQelications_for_Demolition_ (1) Submission_of_Application_ Before HPC review of proposed demolition or partial demolition of a Historic Landmark, an Application for Demolition shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Director. (2) Application -for -Demolition. An Application for Demolition shall include the following: (i) The name and address of all owners of the property where demolition or partial demolition is proposed. If the ap- plicant is not the owner, the ap- plicant's name, address and interest in the property. The owner's authorization for the application to be submitted must be included. The address of the property where the demolition or partial demolition is proposed and name of the structure proposed for demolition or partial demolition. A written description of the structure proposed for demolition or partial demolition and its year of construc- tion. (iv) A demolition and redevelopment plan. The redevelopment plan shall meet the requirements of Sec. 24-9.4(e). (v) A report from a licensed engineer or architect regarding the soundness of the structure and its suitability for rehabilitation. (vi) An economic feasibility report that provides: (aa) estimated market value of the property on which the structure lies, in its current condition, and after demolition or partial demolition. (bb) estimates from an architect, 21 developer, real estate agent or appraiser experienced in rehabilit- ation addressing the economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the structure proposed for demolition or partial demolition. (cc) all appraisals made of the property on which the structure is located made within the previous two (2) years. (dd) Any other information considered necessary to make a determination whether the property does yield or may yield a reasonable return on investment. (vii) A redevelopment plan and a statement of the effect of the proposed redevelopment on the other structures on the property and the character of the neighborhood around the property shall be submitted in cases when the HPC requires a redevelopment plan to help the committee evaluate the appropriateness of demoli- tion or when the applicant believes the submission of the Plan will assist in the evaluation of the proposed demoli- tion. The statement shall also address why the proposed demolition and rede- velopment meets the review standards in Section 24-9.5(b). The redevelopment plan shall meet the requirements of Section 24-9.4(e). (viii) Any other information considered necessary for the review of the appli- cation. (3) Determination_of__Comelgtgness_ The Planning and Development Director shall determine if an application is complete within ten (10) working days of its receipt. If it is determined the application is not complete, the Planning and Development Director shall notify the applicant of the deficiencies in writing. The Planning and Development Director shall take no further action on the application until all deficiencies have been corrected or otherwise settled. 22 (4) Recommendation___of___Planning... god___Dev_eloQment Director_ Once the Planning and Development Director determines the application is complete, he shall complete his review of the application and submit a written recommendation to the HPC regarding whether the application conforms to the standards in Sec. 24-9.4(d). (5) Rev_iew-by-HPC_ (i) Upon receipt of the recommendation of the Planning and Development Director, the HPC shall hold at least one (1) public hearing on its consideration of the application. Notice of the time and place of the public hearing shall be given at least fifteen (15) days in advance by publication in a newspaper having a general circulation in Aspen. The HPC shall approve the application if it meets the standards in Sec. 24-9.5(b)(1), if for demolition, and Sec. 24-9.5(b)(1)(iv)-(vii) if for partial demolition, suspend action on the application for a period not to exceed six (6) months if HPC concludes that addi- tional time is needed to investigate the proposed demolition or partial demolition, or deny the application if it does not meet the standards of Section 24-9.5(b)(1) or Sec. 24- 9.5(b)(1)(iv)-(vii), whichever is applicable. (ii) When action on an application is suspended, the applicant shall work with the HPC to investigate the feasibility of a modification of the plans, alternate use of the structure or site, the possibility of tax relief or public acquisition of the structure or site involved, removal of the structure to a suitable location (when demolition is proposed), and revision to the redevelopment plan. Following the completion of this work, the HPC shall either approve the demolition or partial demolition application, with any conditions which may apply, or shall deny the application. Sec. 24-9.6 Insubstantial --- Modification___ of__DeveloQment__or Demolition_AQQroval_ (a) An insubstantial modification to an approved develop- ment or redevelopment plan may be authorized by the Planning and Development Director. An insubstantial modification shall be limited to technical or engineer- 23 ing considerations, first discovered during actual development and not reasonably anticipated during the approval process. An insubstantial modification shall be defined as a change in shape or location of a single window, awning, door, staircase or other feature on the structure or use of a material made by a different manufacturer that has the same quality and approximate- ly the same appearance as originally approved. (b) All other modifications shall be approved by the HPC pursuant to Sec. 24-9.4 or 24-9.5, whichever is applicable. Sec. 24-9.7 A2ggal_ (a) Any action by the HPC in approving or disapproving a development order for development or demolition may be appealed by the applicant to the City Council within sixty (60) days of the decision. The reasons for the appeal shall be stated in writing. (b) 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 there has been an abuse of discretion, in which case, the decision shall be reversed and remanded to the HPC. Sec. 24-9.8 Variances. The Board of Adjustment shall not take any action on a variance request for development in the H, Historic Overlay District or development affecting a Historic Landmark, without receiving a written recommendation thereon from the HPC. Sec. 24-9.9 Violations -and -Remedies. ---------------------- (a) Whenever the performance of any act is required or the commission of any act is prohibited, pursuant to the terms of this article, failure to comply shall consti- tute a violation of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. All penalties therein contained shall be applicable. (b) Any development or demolition ordered by an official or agency of the City of Aspen within the H, Historic Overlay District or affecting a Historic Landmark, for the purpose of remedying conditions found by the official or agency to cause immediate danger to life, health, or property shall be construed as not being in violation of this article. 24 . �J MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Proposed Revisions to Historic Preservation Regulations CPublic Hearing) DATE: February 27, 1987 At the February 17, 1927 meeting PIZ reviewed proposed revisions to Section 24-9 and directed the Planning Office to make a few more changes to the document. We have prepared a new draft incorporating those changes Cusing the "Read Carefully" stamp to show changes). We have placed the entire document in the form of a resolution, to facilitate your taking action at this time. City Council discussed historic preservation at their continued meeting on Tuesday? February 25th. At that time Nick De Wolf voiced his opinion that demolition review should be conducted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, based on an HPC recommenda— tion with respect to the historic preservation issues. We believe there is some merit to this idea because land use related issues are involved in a demolition decision, including impacts on the neighborhood and economic and real ec nfa-=tors- PIZ deals morese issues than does HPC: while HPC is better suited to review historic significancee7 structural stability and rehabilitation potential. The down— side of this arrangement is that demolition review is I ikel y to take more time particularly if the procedures for appeal to City Council (Section 24-9.7) are invoked. In such an instance? HPC, PIZ and Council might each review a demolition request C3 steps) - If you agree that PIZ should be involved in demolition review then we will draft the appropriate language in Section 24-9 prior to the Chairman signing the Resolution. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to approve Resolution No. 87—_— recommending the City Council to repeal and re—enact Section 24-9 of the Municipal Code: Historic Designation. sh. C_ 10C 0 4 -�o by the fact that the primary business of the Sardy House is the provision of lodging and therefore first consideration will always be given to serving the needs of inhouse guests. Four parking spaces will be provided on -site on a valet parking basis in the vacated alley to accommodate the possible needs of outside guests_ To ensure the continued compatibility of Sardy House with neighboring uses, lunch will not be served on any regular weekday basis." Given the above conditions, parking, the one potential problem identified by you in our pre -application con erence, is a problem solved. Four spaces will more than eet the Code's parking requirement for a commercial resta rant establishment comparable in size to the Sardy House din'ngroom, bar and kitchen, even making no allowance for ou inhouse guest base. At the same time, I would like to note tha more often than not, even with the hotel fully booked, we h e parking slots available. And while Aspen Street immediately ad' cent to the Sardy House is used by commuters, library users d shoppers during the day, and sometimes is without free spaces during the afternoon, it is virtually never crowded with parked cars in the evening. Also regarding the potential for a parking or traffic problem arising from our operation of the Sardy House, it should be noted that only ten to twenty outside guests will make a busy night for us, and many, if not the majority of these, can be expected to be pedestrians - given the fact that at present there are nearly four hundred tourist pillows within two blocks of the Sardy House, a number soon to approach five hundred with completion of the Jerome. In conclusion, I believe comply with the zoning c objectives and purposes even as I believe the execution, has proven o land uses and a bene it Thank you and hap `�s application should be found to de and to be consistent with the of the Code and the Office zone district, rdy House project, in its design and be most compatible with its surrounding to our community as a whole. new year.A Sincerely, Daniel D. Delano General Partner, North & South Aspen Associates cc: Mr. Paul Taddune • � --T. 'q1t . N. ate MEMORANDUM � 1 a q — - I TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Glenn Horn: Assistant Planning Director E:ehrendt Subdivision Exception: Condominiumization DATE: February 26, 1957 BACKGROUND INFORMATION APPLICANT: Michael Behrendt. APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Rich Luhman. LOCATION: Lots N 1 G- Block 46/3 2 W. Hyman Avenue- SIZE: 6,000 square feet ZONING: R-6 Residential. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Michael Behrendt, the owner of a four—ple located at 322 W. Hyman seeks a subdivision exception for the purpose of condominiumization. The applicant also requests an exemption from the condomini.umizat ion requirement in Section :0- 2Cb) that units be restricted to six month minimum leases with no more than two shorter teancies per year. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject site is located just to the east of the St. Moritz Lodge. Michael Behrendt is the former owner of the St. Moritz lodge. In 19 the City approved a lot split which legally separated the four —plea from the St. Moritz. In spite of the lot split, there still remain two staircases from Unit 1 of the four—plex which crosses the property boundary from the four —plea to the St. Moritz. Occupants of the four —pie share the pool faci I ity with the St. Moritz- and the units have been managed through the St. Moritz. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL C0DE: Section 20-22 of the Municipal Code states requirements with which an applicant rust comply. In summary, the requirements are: a• Fxisting tenants shall he given written notice when their unit is offered for sale and a ninety —day option to purchase their unit or first right of refusal to purchase. h. All units shall he restricted to six month minimum leases with no more than two shorter tenancies per I i Sec. 24-9.10 Definitions."' c Character means the height, site coverage, setback, massing, fenestration, materials, and scale of materials. H, Historic District and Historic Landmark development guide- lines shall be established to give further explanation of the qualities that compose character. Demolition means the act of demolishing a structure. Development means the carrying out of any building activity, or the making of any material change in the appearance of any structure, except demolition. Development includes remodeling, erection, alteration and redevelopment. Exterior architectural feature means the architectural style, design, and general arrangement of the exterior of a structure, including but not limited to the texture, materials, windows, lights, signs, and other fixtures appurtenant to a structure. Neighborhood means the area adjacent to or surrounding a Historic Landmark characterized by common use or uses, density, style and age of structures and environmental characteristics. H, Historic District means a site or area designated by the City Council as an H, Historic District under the provisions of this Article. Historic Landmark means a structure designated by the City Council as a Historic Landmark under the provisions of this Article, either within or outside of an H, Historic Dis- trict. Partial demolition means the act of demolishing part of a structure. Site means one (1) or more parcels with one (1) or more structures. Structure means anything constructed, installed, remodeled, or portable, the use of which requires location on a parcel of land. It includes a movable building, used either temporarily or permanently. Structure also includes walk- ways, paths, fences and signs. 25 « � S A G E N D A ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 17, 1987 - Tuesday 5:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall REGULAR MEETING I. COMMENTS Commissioners Planning Staff II. MINUTES January 6, 1987 January 20, 1987 III. NEW BUSINESS A. Wheeler Opera House View Plane IV. PUBLIC HEARING A. Mountain View Residential GMP Conceptual Subdivi- sion/Rezoning/Street Vacation (Hearing to be continued to March 17) B. Proposed Revisions to Historic Preservation Regs. V. ADJOURN MEETING A.COV a-- • u MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Proposed Revisions to Historic Preservation Regulations DATE: February 13, 1987 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- P&Z reviewed a proposed draft of Sections 24-9 Historic Designa- tion on February 3, 1987. The public hearing was continued to the February 17, 1987 meeting. Attached is a revised draft of Section 24-9 with changes made in response to P&Z's comments and public review comments. Signifi- cant changes in this draft are noted with the "Read Carefully" stamp. Staff will be prepared to discuss at your meeting the new language drafted by the Planning Office and Code Simplification consultant. sb.044 E • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager ill FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office A RE: Historic Designations and Moratorium on Demolition and Removal of Historic Structures DATE: February 12, 1987 SUMMARY: The Planning Office, P&Z, and HPC recommend approval of Ordinance �_ (Series of 1987) on first reading, giving indivi- dual historic designation to eight (8) structures. We also recom- mend adoption of Resolution _(Series of 1987) deleting 46 structures from the Moratorium on Demolition. Finally Council should decide at this meeting or a subsequent meeting prior to March 22nd whether or not to extend the 6 month Moratorium on Demolition of Historic Structures. PREVIOUS COUNCIL AND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTIONS: The Historic Preservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan was adopted by P&Z on October 7, 1986. The two highest priority implementation programs in the Element were demolition and removal review and study of historic district expansion. A 6 month Moratorium on Demolition of all structures on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures was adopted by Council on September 22, 1986. A joint work session of the Council, P&Z and HPC was held on January 13, 1987, to develop a strategy on designations, the Historic Compatibility Overlay District, incentives, and level of development review. At that meeting it was decided that the preferred approach was for individual designations in conjunction with an incentives program. The concept of a new overlay district was terminated at that time. BACKGROUND: Based on the decisions you made at the January 13, 1987 meeting, the Planning Office pursued the following strategy: 1. The HPC performed a technical evaluation of all of the structures on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures which are not now designated to determine if they would qualify for individual designation. Evaluations were done at four neighborhood meetings in which property owners were invited to bring information on the history of their structures and altera- tions made to the structures to help the Committee make evalua- tions. 2. These evaluations were brought to the Planning and Zoning Commission on February 3, 1987. Structures evaluated in the lowest 2 categories were recommended for deletion from the moratorium and from any further consideration for designation. All the other structures on the Inventory will be evaluated (following the formulation of an incentives program by the City) later for possible individual designations. 3. A decision was made by P&Z, HPC and staff to not pursue designation of any structures at this time unless: a. the owner requests designation; and b. HPC evaluates the structures in its top three categor- ies. 4. A decision was made by P&Z, HPC and staff to stop the public hearing process on designation until an incentives program can be developed. 5. Staff will return to you in phases over the next several months to: a. propose incentives b. re-evaluate structures for consideration of designa- tion. 6. Staff needs a decision on extending the moratorium on the remaining structures to give us time to complete this work without risking demolition of any of the 130 structures not yet recommended for designation or removal from the list. PROGRESS REPORT: Explained in more detail below is the progress made in the evaluations of individual structures and code amend- ments. 1. Evaluations: HPC held four neighborhood meetings (January 14,15,21, and 22, 1987) to conduct technical evaluations of the historic significance of each structure being considered for designation. A follow-up meeting was held on January 27th to conclude the evaluation process. Structures were scored by the HPC according to the following standards: 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 structure. 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 negative- ly affected its historic architectural integrity. Typically, the structure cannot be associated with any 2 important historic person or event, and is merely representative of a miner family home environment. Neighborhood influence is also not significant because the structures 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 contribution to the historic character of a neighborhood. In a few cases, the structure has been associated with an historic person or family. 4 - 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. 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 as 5's may also be associated with important historic persons or events. It should be noted that qualitative discretion was involved in the evaluation process to balance the level of alterations, the neighborhood's present fabric and character, and historic association. Following is a tabular summary of the evaluation process: Summary of Historic Evaluations Neighborhoods 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total West End #1 West End #2 Shadow Mt., Main St. & C.C. East End & Smuggler Area Total 0 5 7 4 7 3 26 2 6 14 13 13 5 53 0 5 8 12 13 9 47 ** 7 21 13 9 2 0 52 9 37 42 38 35 17 178 *** 3 u Aspen Institute structures should be in a special category wherein HPC would have the opportunity to review and make comment prior to any change. The structures included in the Academic Parcel: Boetcher Hall, Paepke Auditorium, and Seminar Building; and in the Meadows Parcel: Health Club, Restaurant, marble garden, and geodesic dome. ** City Shops should be in a special category wherein HPC would review in the case of a demolition application only, and not alterations. *** HPC still has four structures to evaluate on 2/24/87. 2. Code Amendments: On December 2, 1986 P&Z reviewed proposed code amendments to Section 24-9 of the Municipal Code, Historic Designation. Further discussion was held on February 3 and February 17, 1986 and with recommendation for adoption now scheduled for March 3, 1987. The Planning Office and Code Simplification Consultant have been working with the P&Z and HPC to come up with a more understandable version of this code section. The revision does not put in place the incentives program; instead it simply cleans up HPC's existing review procedures and sets new standards affecting demolition of historic buildings. It is scheduled to come to Council for First Reading on March 23, 1987. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Individual Designation of Eight Structures: The following five structures were evaluated in the top range (4 and 5) and have been clearly requested for designation by their owners: Ellie's, Aspen Times Building, Chitwood Building, 333 W. Main Street, and 420 W. Francis. On February 17, 1987 the HPC and P&Z both recommended designation of three (3) additional structures for which the owners requested designation and pursuant to the February 3rd public hearing. They are: Sorensen's Antiques, 215 W. Bleeker, and 500 W. Bleeker. Sorensen's Antiques and 500 W. Bleeker were rated 4, while 215 W. Bleeker was rated 3. It would be appropriate to move forward on designating these eight structures at this time. Advisory Committee Vote: The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended Council to designate the above listed structures at a public hearing on February 3, 1987 and follow-up meeting on February 17, 1987. Recommended Motion: "Move to read Ordinance (Series of 1987). "Move to approve Ordinance (Series of 1987) on First Reading". 4 2. Deletion of Non -Significant Structures from Moratorium on Demolition: 178 structures in total were evaluated by the HPC for historic significance (not including the Aspen Institute structures, City Shops, and four structures as referred to in the table on page 3 above). 46 of those structures fell into the two lowest categories (0 and 1) . The Planning Office, P&Z, and HPC believe that these structures have either no historic signifi- cance or very minor historic significance and should be removed from the Moratorium on Demolition. Furthermore, it is clear that these 46 structures should be given no further consideration for historic designation. Resolution f' (Series of 1987) would remove the 46 struc- tures from the demolition moratorium. The following table summarizes the status of our historic inventory: No. of Structures Total structures on Inventory & Moratorium 271 Designated Structures (as of today) 87 Structures to be designated 8 Structures to be deleted from Moratorium 46 Undesignated Structures subject to Moratorium 130 Total structures remaining on Moratorium (Designated and Undesignated) 225 Advisory Committee Vote: On February 3, 1987 P&Z voted unani- mously to recommend that the 46 structures evaluated 0 and 1 be deleted from Ordinance 41 (Series of 1986) , Moratorium on Demolition. Recommended Motion: "Move to adopt Resolution (Series of 1987) . 3. Extension of Moratorium: The 6 month moratorium will end on March 22, 1987 if not extended. Unfortunately, the evaluations process, code amendments and incentives program have taken a much longer time than expected. We concur with Council's decision not to move forward on designa- tions until an incentives program has been developed, in hopes of avoiding entirely the issue of mandatory or City -initiated designations, in favor of voluntary designations by owners who recognize the benefits to the community and to themselves of the program. In support of this program,the following historic preservation legislative agenda has been proposed: March 23 - 1st Reading of Revision to Section 24-9 April 27 - 2nd Reading of Revision to Section 24-9 5 n LJ April 13 - 1st Reading of Historic Preservation Incentive Programs Phase I May 11 - 2nd Reading of Historic Preservation Incentive Programs Phase I June 22 - 1st Reading of Historic Incentives and Designa- tions Phase II July 27 - 2nd Reading of Historic Incentives and Designa- tions Phase II This time table suggests that the moratorium will need to be extended by approximately 130 days. If Council is not ready at this time to act on the Moratorium then extension must be considered within the next month or we risk the possibility of another "run" on demolition permits as was experienced last fall. We recognize that there will be some added inconveniences created for property owners by extending the moratorium. It is likely that several exemptions will be requested on a case by case basis during the extension period. However, on balance, we believe that extension is in the best interest of the public, and recommend that you direct us to return at your next meeting of March 9 with a resolution extending the Moratorium on Demolition to 7/27/87. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: 6 • A G E N D A ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 3, 1987 - Tuesday 5:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall REGULAR MEETING I. COMMENTS Commissioners Planning Staff II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Moses Rezoning/Subdivision Exception B. Individual Designation of Historic Structures C. Proposed Revisions to Historic Preservation Regs. III. ADJOURN MEETING A.COV 13 0 I _V1i1W. a9ii 7 1 TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Historic Designation and Code Amendment (Public Hearings) DATE: January 29, 1987 BACKGROUND: On December 2, 1986 P&Z reviewed proposed code amendments to Section 24-9, Historic Designation. A public hearing was held on December 16, 1986 for consideration of historic designation of individual structures. Both public hearings were tabled to February 3, 1987. A joint work session of City Council., P&Z and HPC was held on January 13, 1987 to develop a strategy regarding individual designation, the Historic Compatibility Overlay District, incentives program and levels of review. It was clear from that meeting that Council and the appointed bodies preferred individu- al designations, but only in conjunction with the incentives program. The concept of a new overlay district was terminated at the meeting. HPC held four neighborhood meetings (January 14, 15, 21, and 22, 1987) to undertake a technical evaluation of the historic significance of each structure being considered for designation. A follow-up meeting to conclude this evaluation was held on January 27, 1987. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The HPC evaluated in total 178 structures that were identified on the 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures as updated in 1986 and which are not now designated. Following is a description of the evaluation process and a summary of the results. A. Evaluation Process: Section 24-9.3 establishes the stand- ards that historic structures and sites must meet in order to be designated, including: historic importance, architec- tural importance and geographic influence. In evaluating the structures HPC used the 1980 Inventory, recent photo- graphs, information on structural alterations and history given by property owners and recommendations from the Planning Office. Most of the buildings looked at were in the notable category of the 1980 Inventory, which is the lowest of the three identified categories. Structures were scored 0 to 5 according to the following stand- ards: 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 structure. Its situation in the neighborhood typically has minimal historic influence because the neighborhood has been so 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 contribution to the historic character of a neighborhood. In a few cases, the structure has been associated with an historic person or family. 4 - 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 on 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. 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 architectural styles and craftsmanship, have a strong positive influence on the neighborhood's historic character and may be associated with important historic persons or events. It should be noted that qualitative discretion was involved in the evaluation process to balance the level of alterations, the neighborhood's present fabric and character, and historic 2 • 0 association. Evaluation was a tough job! When property owners or representatives were hostile because of concerns over the implication of designation, rather than offering information about the structures, evaluations became even more difficult. Nonetheless, the Committee strived to be objective and consis- tent. Following is a tabular summary of the evaluation process. Summary of Historic Evaluations Neighborhoods 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total West End #1 0 5 7 4 7 3 26 West End #2 2 6 14 12 13 5 52 Shadow Mt., Main St. & C.C. 0 5 8 12 13 9 47 ** East End & Smuggler Area 7 21 13 9 2 0 52 Total 9 37 42 37 35 17 176 *** * Aspen Institute structures should be in a special category wherein HPC would have the opportunity to review and make comment prior to any change. The structures include the Academic Parcel: Boetcher Hall, Paepke Auditorium, and Seminar Building and the Meadows Parcel: Health Club, Restaurant, Marble garden, and geodesic dome. ** City Shops should be in a special category wherein HPC would review in the case of a demolition application only, and not alterations. *** Two structures must still be evaluated: 423 N. 2nd Street and an old house on A.C.E.S. property. B. HPC Follow-up on the Historic Evaluations Neighborhood Meetings: The HPC had the opportunity to look at Aspen's historic resources in more detail than ever before, as well as to meet with many residents of Aspen to discuss historic preserva- tion. As a result, the Committee has learned a great deal about changes that have occurred to historic structures and issues of designation, neighborhood changes, and appropriate review standards. HPC members will each write issues papers which will be the basis of further discussions during February and March. We would expect to schedule a joint HPC/P&Z work session after the papers have been written so you can jointly consider the issues they uncovered. C. To Designate or Not to Designate (Recommendation): As you know, Council has given staff, HPC and P&Z direction that 3 individual designations should not proceed without the incentives program for the structures. We need to give time for the incentives program development and code amendments to Section 24- 9 to catch up. HPC has completed its technical evaluation of structures and the next step becomes the combination of the related elements and political decision -making. The Planning Office believes that it would be highly inappropri- ate to move forward on any mandatory designations before the incentives program is developed. Only those structures whose owners have clearly requested designation and which have been evaluated in the top range (4 and 5) by the HPC should be considered at this time. They are: Ellie's, the Aspen Times Building, Chitwood Building, 333 W. Main Street, and 420 W. Francis. Staff also believes that it is obvious that structures in the lowest two categories (0 and 1) of HPC's evaluations have no historic significance. They should not be further considered for designation and should be removed from the list of structures subject to the Moratorium on Demolition. There are 46 such structures listed in Attachment A; and photographs of each will be available at your meeting. After this action, the public hearing should be closed. When HPC and P&Z are ready to go forward on designation with incentives, all owners of structures finally considered will be renotified of the subsequent public hearing. It cannot be overemphasized, that when the remaining structures are considered (127 structures) we would expect further removals to occur from the list based on the historic values involved and the owner's desire or lack of desire to be designated. We expect the incentives program to strongly influence owner decisions at that time. We hope to have an incentives program ready for review in a couple of months. D. Revision to Section 24-9: Attached is a draft version of Section 24-9, Historic Designation. The Planning Office and Code Simplification Consultant have prepared this revision. Changes from the existing text are primarily procedural. They clarify roles, designation standards and procedures and provide develop- ment and demolition standards and procedures. This revision does not put in place the incentives program. Lest you be alarmed and dismayed at the size and complexity of this version, please compare it to the existing regulations of Section 24-9. Staff believes that this version is much more clear and makes for simpler procedures to follow. It is likely that you will not have time to go through the entire draft tonight, and staff recommends that the public hearing and discussion be continued to your special meeting of February 10 or regular meeting of February 17, 1987. 4 • • RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Office recommends the following motions: (1) "Move to recommend individual historic designation of Ellie's, 101 S. Mill Street; Aspen Times Building, 310 E. Main Street; Chitwood Building, 100 S. Mill Street; 333 W. Main Street; and 420 W. Francis Street at the request of the owners." (2) "Move to recommend Council to delete the structures listed in Attachment A from Ordinance _ (Series of 1986), Morator- ium on Demolition." (3) "Move to close the public hearing on consideration of individual historic designation of structures identified on the 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures as amended in 1986." (4) "Move to continue the public hearing on revisions to Section 24-9 Historic Designation to February 17, 1987. A 11 • ATTACHMENT A List of Structures Evaluated by HPC To Not Have Historic Significance (Scoring 0 or 1) Neighborhood: West End 831 W. Bleeker Score: 1 726 W. Bleeker Score: 1 120 N. Fifth Score: 1 716-718 W. Hallam Score: 1 610 W. Francis Score: 1 209 E. Bleeker Score: 1 205 W. Bleeker Score: 1 213 W. Bleeker Score: 1 203 E. Hallam Score: 1 305 W. Hallam Score: 1 327 W. Hallam Score: 1 407 W. Hallam Score: 0 421 W. Hallam Score: 0 Neighborhood: Shadow Mt., Main St., and C.C. 101 E. Hopkins Score: 1 205 W. Hopkins Score: 1 325 W. Hopkins Score: 1 706 W. Main Score: 1 709 W. Main Score: 1 Neighborhood: East End and Smuggler Area 935 E. Cooper Score: 1 801 E. Hyman Score: I 1020 E. Hyman Score: 1 1022 E. Hyman Score: 1 1031 E. Hyman Score: 1 625 E. Hopkins Score: 1 624 E. Hopkins Score: I 719 E. Hopkins Score: 1 718 E. Hopkins Score: 1 720 F. Hopkins Score: 1 811 F. Hopkins Score: 1 819 E. Hopkins Score: 1 120 N. Spring Score: 1 600 E. Bleeker Score: 1 220 Puppy Smith Score: 0 230 N. Spring Score: 0 390 N. Spring Score: 0 470 N. Spring Score: 1 720 Bay Score: 0 930 King Score: 1 i 925 King Score: 0 935 King Score: 1 101 N. Park Score: 0 170 N. Park Score: 0 980 Gibson Score: 1 990 Gibson Score: 1 920 Matchless Score: 1 930 Matchless Score: 1 sb.30 ii h MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Historic Preservation Committee r�A�_ THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director IL \ Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Historic Preservation Work Session DATE: January 6, 1987 The Planning staff, along with our Code Simplification Consul- tant, have developed an approach toward resolving the many questions which have arisen with respect to our initiatives in historic preservation. We propose to lead you through a working session at your meeting on January 13 at 5: 00 P.M. which we believe can effectively allow you to reach consensus among yourselves and provide direction to the staff. The exercise we propose is not easily explained in memo form, but should be easily followed at the meeting. In order that you will be prepared for the meeting, we ask you to consider the follow- ing 1) There are two types of activities which are of concern to us in historic preservation, these being development (i.e., additions to, modifications of or a new con- struction) of structures and demolition (partial and complete) of structures. 2) There are two forms of development or demolition which can take place, these being to structures on our historic inventory or to structures not on the inven- tory, but which fall within the boundaries of the proposed district. 3) There are three concerns relative to development or demolition of an inventoried or non -inventoried structure, these being the length and form of the review process, the type of standards and guidelines, and who will be eligible for incentives (economic and land use) to compensate for the new regulations. The first thing we want to determine with this exercise is whether you have the same regulatory purposes for the non - inventoried versus the inventoried structures, particularly as 0 • regards the standards for review and the incentives programs. If so, then we believe that it will not be necessary for us to pursue designation of individual structures, as the same purpose can be served by a district. If, as we suspect, the standards and incentives are different between inventoried versus non - inventoried structures, then a list of designated structures will be needed. Presuming for the moment that both a list and a district will be needed, we will next try to obtain your direction on the extent of the resource we will be protecting; that is, how big the district will be and how aggressively you wish to pursue designa- tion of the "notable" structures. At this point we feel that some of the notables are clearly deserving of designation, while others just as clearly have been altered and are not significant. The issue, therefore is, to determine a strategy for those structures falling in the middle which neither clearly are worthy or unworthy of designations. As a final item, we will be prepared to present to you our research and recommendations with respect to incentive/compensa- tion programs in order to raise your comfort level on implement- ing the strategy on which you reach consensus. Please feel free to contact either of us if you have any ques- tions or comments prior to the meeting on the 13th. AR.019 2 MEMORAMMM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director RE: Historic Preservation Regulations DATE: January 2, 1987 The Planning staff, along with the City Code Simplification Consultant have been spending considerable time revising the draft of the Historic Preservation Regulations which was presen- ted to you last month. While we have made considerable progress on this project, we have reached an impasse due to the need for some policy direction on the review procedure. Therefore, we will be unable to present the regulations to you until after your joint work session with City Council and HPC, scheduled for January 13. We recommend that you table tonight's public hearing to February 3, which is the next available regular meeting date. We may request that you hold a work session prior to that date depending on the progress that we make with rewriting these provisions and depending on the results of the work session. As the situation becomes clearer, we will advise you accordingly. L RECORD OF -PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING DECEMBER 16, 1986 Meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Welton Anderson. Roll call was taken with Ramona Markalunas, David White and Roger Hunt answering. Jasmine Tygre, Mari Peyton and Jim Colombo arrived shortly after. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS There were none. PUBLIC BEARING / HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE AMENDMENTS Welton announced to the large number of people present that the public hearing scheduled for this meeting is going to be tabled until after there is a work session in City Council with P&Z and HPC. There had been a number of comments made by the public at the last meeting which sent the Planning Office back to the drawing board in its approach toward this whole thing. Further work is being done in regard to incentive, the extent of the overlay district, the houses to be designated historic and the wording and general organization of the ordinance. He told everyone that no action would be taken on this matter until after public hearings scheduled after the first of the year. Alan Richman told the audience that this public hearing is being tabled at the direction of City Council so that City Council, P&Z and HPC could all meet together and reassess the direction they are taking to make sure they are all in agreement about the proper direction on this historic preservation program. The key dates for everyone to be aware of are January 6, 1987 with the P&Z. At that date we hope to have some draft regulations. The regulations are now being reviewed by the consultant trying to make them more understandable. Then on January 13, 1987 there will be a joint meeting between P&Z, HPC and City Council. That meeting really is for those three groups to talk with each other and determine what the overall direction they would like to propose is and what direct- ion they would like to give staff. He said he didn't know if public comments would be taken at that time. February 3, 1987 is the date scheduled for the actual review data of the designation of the 185 structures. We have been out taking pictures of those structures and studying them to see if it makes sense to designate any or all of them. He asked if anyone had information pertaining to any of the structures, the Planning Office needs to know that and would use it in making decisions on historical designation. He said we are not anxious to designate structures which have no historic integrity. A lot of feelings are being voiced about what designation means. Designation is not as onerous as many make it out to be. An educational handout is being developed in the Planning Office to explain what it means if your structure is designated. Designation only means a structure is subject to review by the HPC. An example is the Glidden House on Bleeker. This was a designated structure and was taken down to its very timbers, reconstructed and added onto. Because a structure is designated does not mean you don't have any rights. But it does mean a lot to an individual in terms of whether the property is easily saleable or whether it can be added onto in the future. If we designate your house we do understand we have a responsibility to come up with a positive compensation type of program to award you for the fact that your house is designated. If anyone has any ideas about how to award we want to hear it. We don't want this to be a negative program or infringe on the rights of anyone. What we are trying to do is preserve the historic resource that we think makes this community a special place to be. Welton then informed the audience before opening for public comments that the board would not be making any decision on anything tonight. But if anyone had any comments about the philosophy of the overlay of the historic districts, the individ- ual designation, or the changes in the zoning and streamlining of the review procedures, the Board would be happy to hear those comments. Paul Taddune pointed out that the Planning office is not in a position at this time to unilaterally take a house that is on the list off the list. But that if someone had a house that was designated which they felt should not be designated they would have to appeal to the Planning Office. If the Planning Office was in agreement then they can make a recommendation to the HPC. Alan said if the HPC does not recommend a structure then that structure is not designated according to our regulations. Welton then opened the meeting for public comment. Debbie Segwin, 203 East Hallam, asked how do you get the Planning Department to make note of your structure. Alan said that it was only this afternoon that we really came to the conclusion that the 185 structures should be evaluated individually by the HPC. And that her house was on the evaluat- ion list at this point. Debbie then said she did not understand what it means to her house if it is declared historic designation or historic overlay. Alan explained that there two things that the HPC and the P&Z are considering. One is the historic compatibility overlay district. 2 The other is the individual historic designation. The historic compatibility overlay district is essentially the Aspen Townsite and the early additions to it. It is most of what we know as Aspen. The way we are looking at it now structures that are in that district, the new buildings, that happen to sit next to a historic building would be reviewed for three things. That is massing --how big the building is, siting --where does it sit on the lot, and materials. It is really more of a compatibility review for compatibility with the neighboring historic structures. He said the big thing that is different about individual designa- tion as opposed to the district is demolition review. If a new structure in the overlay district is to be demolished, that is not a problem. It is not subject to review by the HPC. However if an individually designated structure is to be demolished, that is subject to review by the HPC. The direction we are trying to take with that demolition review right now is not to say you cannot demolish a victorian structure. That is not reasonable. There may be no economic value in the structure. But if we do find that it is a valid usable structure, we may want to assist you in moving that structure to another site. We may want to look at public compensation to purchase that structure or the entire site. All a review does is give us an ability to look over your shoulder and say before you demolish that structure, give us a chance to save it for the future for the rest of the community. It does not say you can't do anything. We have lost about 20 of these structures in the past 6 years which is about 10% of the inventory that we had designated 6 years ago. Norma Dahl, Snow Queen Lodge, said they were designated notable several years ago. They just put a lot of money and effort into a new addition. What I am concerned about is I am not sure I want to be designated under the historic overlay if it says we don't like the colors you painted or something like that. Welton explained it has nothing to do with colors --only approp- riateness. Alan also explained color is not a review criteria. Norma then asked about their being designated notable and others were designated historic. Welton explained the catagories as being: notable historic, excellent historic and exceptional historic. Doug Allen asked what is going to happen on January 6. Allan Richman said at the end of this week we will get back a new draft of Chapter 24-9 which is the historic preservation regulat- ions. Staff will be reviewing it for about a week and will be 3 presenting it to the P&Z on the 6th. It will be ready right after the first of the year for public review. What it does is it takes the existing historical preservation process and simpli- fies it. We hope it does nothing more than that. Since we are going to have a lot more structures under the purview of the HPC we want a process that is clean and simple. Doug then asked if color is regulated. Allan said color has been an area of discussion but not in HPC's guidelines for review. City Council made it clear that color was not something they were interested in regulating. Eloise Elgin suggested that the designation of houses be broken down into increments of 20 and invite the owners of those 20 to meetings so that they have something to say about what is happen- ing. Alan agreed that that was a very sensible suggestion. In looking at the structures individually we would want to do something of that nature. Manard Dahlyard said he has lived here all his life and owned his house for a long time. And does not see where you have the right to tell us it has to go on the historical list. That is up to us to say that. You are taking our rights from us. By putting it in the historical if we put it up for sale --I have my house up for sale and this is one of the reasons why I am doing it --is that you are stopping a sale for our houses. I don't have anything to say about it, it's my property, I pay the taxes on it and it has been in the family since 1917 and now you are coming around and telling me it has to go in a historical district. That is not right, you are dictating to us. Ray Bates, 819 East Hopkins, said he does not want to be in the historical district. There is no reason for it. Who is going to decide whether our structures are going to be in or not. Are you going to take my word that I don't want in it? Or are you just going to put me in it. Can you do that? What makes it historical? Welton told him yes. Some of the qualities for architectural designation are whether there were people of historical signifi- cance who lived in the house initially, geographical influence, and how it relates to the rest of the neighborhood, its relation to historic people or events. Ray then said that he is completely surrounded by condominiums and that no one asked him if he wanted some open space. They just went ahead and built and they are still doing it. Welton said if your structure falls within a historical district something like that could not happen again because anything built around a house like yours will have to be reviewed so that it 4 • doesn't block your view. Alan said the final decision on historical designation is made by the City Council. They are the final body that has to adopt or not adopt the ordinance designating structures. Right now we are working with the HPC and the P&Z Commission. They will make a recommendation to the City Council who will make the final decision. Mary Martin a member of HPC said she is in favor of the historic overlay of the old townsite. One of the reasons we are looking at this overlay is so that the old houses wont be surround- ed by condominiums. Buzz Dopkin, 816 East Cooper, wanted to know what precedent is there from our cities or what basis is there that you really can set up a committee to do this and that it has to be followed through. Paul Taddune answered that historic designation and historic designation procedures are in place in every major city in the country which has been in existence for more than 75 years. It is a very common zoning technique. Historic preservation regula- tions have been challenged in New York City where the regulations have been upheld. This is principally in connection with the proposed demolition for alteration with the Penn Central Train Station. This was a case that was very controversial and received a lot of national news attention. The concept is not unique. Whether or not the criteria, the standards, the particular houses ought to be individually design- ated --those are all determinations which have to be made with regard to the facts. Buzz Dopkin then asked are you going to set up your own criteria or are you going to be using some proven methods which are going to be fair to everyone. Paul said in most instances the current historic preservation provisions could be improved. We have an opportunity in this regard in the sense that we have on board land use consultants who are now looking at the entire landuse code and evaluating whether or not it should improved, altered, coordinated, consoli- dated, integrated, simplified, etc. I have instructed them to start working toward revising the code of the historic preservat- ion regulations. They have national experience and we are hoping that we can rely on them from some of their experience. Richard Pabst asked if the city is considering providing incent- ives to the owners for being designated historic. Welton said there are a lot of ideas along these lines and the Planning Department is open to suggestions. We would take the input from people. 5 Paul Taddune warned that, until city council puts these incent- ives in place, anyone who had historic structures should not presume at this point that those incentives are available at this time. None of these regulations have been installed. No decision has been made with regard to compensation. Alan Richman said the City Council has given clear direction that incentives have to be a part of this program in order for it to be successful. We are continuing to investigate this part of the program. Any input from the public will be welcome. Every meeting will be a public hearing. We will not do anything and then let you know about 2 months later. Dieter Bibbig, Park Avenue, said it seems you are taking on a big job going for these 185 houses. You are going to have to hire more people. Maybe you should just have everybody get a building permit before a house gets demolished. So if somebody gets a building permit you say don't demolish it, we are going to buy it. Then other people who maybe look like they need help with their house, approach them and maybe help them. Then leave the others alone because they seem to be doing pretty well so far with keeping their houses up. This way it won't be such a big job. Jim Boyd asked if there was any information available to the public which would show why a particular structure was chosen for designation. Welton said there is a page of information and a photo on each of the houses on file in the Planning Office which merits it for inclusion. Steve said this was first done in 1980 and is not complete in all cases. Catherine Lee, 124 West Hallam, asked if anyone on the P&Z, HPC or the Planning Office owned any of the 185 houses. Mary said her house and the Mayor's house was designated a long time ago. And that she and her husband were opposed to it at that time and it was automatically designated. This is a fair solution to the whole thing. If you stop and think you have a lovely house now and nobody is going to change your house. Nobody is going to do anything to you. But if across the street somebody wants to build a massive duplex, if it is zoned for duplex then it has a review process. You are not going to be affected by this except that there is an overlay over the old townsite to keep what we have as much as possible within the confines of what it was --a victorian town. Catherine then asked what qualifies a person to be the judge or the arbitrator and delegate what is victorian and what isn't. I. • Welton told her the people who would be doing the reviews are the HPC. They have a certain set of guidelines that are applicable to historic structures and guidelines applicable to new struct- ures in historic districts. We have had historic districts on Main Street and in the commercial core for 8 years. Georgeann Waggaman said the reason people were informed so early is that we are in the process of making these decisions. We are not trying to surprise people. We are trying to protect people like Ray from having so many structures around his house it has destroyed his value because it has been overwhelmed. We are trying to protect people like you from that happening in your neighborhood. We don't have all the answers. And we are not trying to throw anything over on you after the fact. Anyone can join the HPC. We have 3 vacancies now. Paul Taddune said there are written guidelines for anyone who is interested in historic designation to refer to in the municipal code. These are not being invented at this point, they already exist. Welton then called upon the gentleman in the back in the center to identify himself. Bill Stirling, Mayor of Aspen, stated that this was the first P&Z meeting he had come to in the last 3 and 1/2 years. But that he felt so strongly about this particular issue that he did want to come. Fundamentally he felt that what his motivation is as an elected official and as a citizen is to save the old buildings but be fair. That is quite a challenge for us. But that is what everybody who has any kind of position of responsibility is attempting to do here. For us as a town as opposed to a town like Keystone or Vail, the past is our hallmark. It kind of sets the standard for us and leads us into the future. We need to have respect for that past and a lot of reverence for it because it is what sets us apart. It is what makes Aspen distinctive. It is part of what makes people come here both to live and to visit. For a long time now people have only been paying lip service to this caricature and slowly the inventory of victorian homes is eroding. I do not like lists and am not particularly enthusiastic about being on a new list. That is what this inventory is trying to clarify. It is another list. For me the problem with a list is it is intentionally discrim- inating, it has onerous aspects to it and it has inequitabilities to it. To me the most fair thing is what we have been doing in two districts in the town now for almost a decade and that is the historic overlay. All of Main Street has a historic overlay and all the downtown commercial core has a historic overlay. So it doesn't matter whether you are a new or an old building in those two historic districts, every time you want to do something to the structure, you have to come in and have a review process. 7 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Historic Preservation Code Amendments, Individual Designation of Structures and Historic Compatibility Overlay District DATE : December 11 , 1986 At the request of the City Council, all action on historic preservation code amendments and individual designations of structures should be tabled. Council has scheduled a joint Council, P&Z, and HPC work session for Janua_ry__13_,_ 1987 to discuss designation of the historic inventory and establishment of the "Historic Compatibility Overlay District". The public hearing scheduled for the December 16, 1986 meeting of P&Z and HPC for consideration of individual Historic designations should be opened and tabled to February 3, 1987. The Overlay District need not be continued, since as we have previously indicated to you, it cannot go forward due to notice problems and awaits the revisions to Section 24-9. The proposed code amendments to Section 24-9 are being revised in conjunction with our code consultant and the City Attorney and will be presented to the Planning Commission at the January_6_, 1987 regular meeting. sb.345 S ` • VA .4 TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Historic Preservation Zoning Code Amendments - Public Hearing DATE: November 26, 1986 INTRODUCTION: Attached are proposed amendments to Section 24-9 Historic Designation, Section 24-3.1, definition of duplexes, Section 24-3.2 adding two detached dwellings to the list of conditional uses when duplexes are a permitted use, and Section 24-2.1, creating the HC, Historic Compatibility Overlay District. The public hearing scheduled for tonight is for the purpose of considering these zoning code text changes, which are necessary to implement the proposed new district and the designation of all historic structures identified on the 1980 Inventory as updated in 1986. The intent of the Code amendments is also to streamline the HPC review process, develop review procedures and criteria for demolition and removal of historic structures, provisions for anti -neglect, and provisions to sunset HPC approvals after eighteen months. A joint public hearing of the HPC and P&Z is also scheduled for December 16, 1986 to consider the actual designation of the 185 individual structures with H, Historic Overlay and (if we can accomplish the required public notice) to establish the bound- aries of the Historic Compatibility Overlay District. That public hearing will give the HPC and Planning Commission and the public the opportunity to consider more specifically which structures should be designated and what areas should be incor- porated into the Overlay District. Incentive programs are still being considered by staff as well as the HPC and P&Z and continue to be a key element in the entire strategy for historic preservation revisions. Complicated programs such as Transfer of Development Rights will take some time before proposed zoning code amendments are ready for formal consideration. We have placed this work item on the 1987 Planning Office work program. You will note that one incentive program, two separate structures on parcels permitting duplexes, is before you tonight as a code amendment. BACKGROUND: Briefly, the historic preservation code revisions have their inception with the Historic Preservation Plan Element and Ordinance 41 (Series of 1986) 6 month Moratorium on Demoli- tion and Removal of Historic Structures. In the Plan Element demolition and removal review and historic district expansion were the two top priority implementation actions. The moratorium was called for by City Council because of the concern that undesireable and inappropriate demolition of historic structures might occur during the time we are developing regulations. The Planning Commission and Historic Preservation Committee have held several meetings to consider the issues and develop ap- proaches for review and incentive programs. At the joint meeting of P&Z and HPC on November 6, 1986 there was a consensus of both groups that the designation of individual historic structures and creation of a large district is the preferred approach. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: A. Procedural Revisions to Section 24-9: Section 24-9 has been reorganized and partially rewritten to follow the general approach of the Code Simplification effort underway. Please note that most of the material proposed to be included in the new Section 24-9 is already part of our Code. Please refer to your copy of the Code when reviewing this material. Some of the important changes proposed are: 1) Organizing the section to be consistent with other sections and easier to follow containing purpose, authority, designation, development review, violation and remedies, role of Board of Adjustment, and defini- tion subsections. 2) The procedures for designation and review are stated more simply and follow the steps in consecutive order. 3) Submission requirements and review standards are listed in an outline format. - 4) The procedural distinctions between a minor applica- tion, conceptual review application and final review application are more clearly defined. B. Substantive Revisions to Section 24-9: Some of the important substantive changes include: 1) The purpose statement includes reference to the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the concept of protecting community character, and greater emphasis on economic considerations. 2) Standards for designation include "community character influence." 3) Deleted from the procedure for designation of H, 2 u Historic Overlay Districts is a required joint HPC-P&Z public hearing, replaced by separate public hearings. Council's hearing is to be consistent with that for other zoning map amendments (Section 24-12) , that is, Ordinance adoption. 4) The Planning Director or designee would have somewhat increased authority to exempt projects from HPC review through the "minor application" process. 5) The HPC would have increased authority to give final approval at the conceptual stage, without need of a public hearing and second meeting. 6) Demolition and removal review is given its own sub- section, and the submission requirements and review standards are more specific. The option of suspending action on a demolition or removal application in order to explore alternatives is expressly stated. The authority to disapprove an application remains in effect from the 1975 Ordinance. 7) A separate subsection for the development review of erection, construction, reconstruction and remodeling (not demolition and removal) has been created for the Historic Compatibility Overlay District. Included in this subsection is: a) Exemption procedure, defining a 300 foot radius around the property of individually designated historic structures as the area for which develop- ment review is subject to HPC review. b) The process is parallel to review activities in the Historic Overlay District, in terms of the minor application (Planning Director sign -off) , conceptual review (1 step) , final review and public hearing, timing, modifications and appeal. c) Submission requirements are less extensive than for historic structures. d) Review standards pertain only to the massing, siting and materials of a proposed improvement. Demolition and removal in this district is not subject to review. 8) An anti -neglect provision has been added to ensure that historic structures do not fall into a state of disrepair, which may lead to a claim that demolition is necessary. 3 9 0 C. Amendments to Section 24-3.1 and 24-3.2: These amendments would allow, upon conditional use approval by P&Z and final approval by HPC, construction (or conversion) of a second detached dwelling unit on the property of a designated structure zoned for duplexing. The property owner would be given an option for expansion that might better save the historic integrity of an existing residence. The FAR, setbacks and other area and bulk requirements would still apply. Conditional use procedure and criteria allows the P&Z to make a case -by -case analysis of a proposal to ensure the Commission is satisfied that such development if compatible. HPC likewise reviews each proposal for confor- mance with its standards for preservation. An addition amendment to this definition for purposes of Code clarifications is proposed to take care of recently identified problems in what constitutes a common wall for duplex purposes. D. Amendment to Section 24-2.1: This simple amendment creates the HC, Historic Compatibility Overlay District. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office continues to have reserva- tions about the large overlay district approach. We feel that given the exemptions and limited review standards (massing, siting and materials) the Historic Compatibility Overlay District is more manageable. However, we are not satisfied that the there is great enough need to require this action; and we fear that the primary function in the local historic preservation review system, preservation of significant historic structures, may be diluted or worse, dissolved. We, therefore, do not recommend adoption of the HC Overlay, or the creation of the regulations to administer this overlay. The other proposed procedural and substantive changes to Section 24-9 appear to make the section easier to read and should help the process function more evenly and expeditiously. We recommend approval of these revisions. Staff also recommends approval of the amendments to Section 24- 3.1 and 24-3.2, allowing for two separate structures on the property of a designated historic structure when a duplex is allowed by zoning. SB.004 0 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION REGULATIONS Article IX. Historic Designation Section 24-9.1 Purpose The purpose of this article is to: a) Promote preservation and continued existence of historic structures and sites. b) Ensure that new construction does not diminish the community character, as it has been established by historic structures and compatible new development. c) Promote the educational, cultural, economic and general welfare of the public by preserving historic struc- tures. d) Encourage productive and economically attractive uses of historic structures and maintain the economic viability of Aspen. e) Support the implementation of the Aspen Area Comprehen- sive Plan. f) Establish standards and procedures for the construc- tion, reconstruction, remodeling, demolition and removal of structures and combination of structures within legally designated H, Historic Overlay District. Section 24-9.2 Authority a) Creation There shall be established an historic preservation committee with seven (7) regular and three (3) alter- nate members all appointed by the city council. The \ composition of the committee shall include members with \v expertise in the fields. of design, architecture, history, real estat4'A'W ea*0Taw. The alternates shall attend all meeti ngs11� and be allowed to vote in the absence of a regular ember. b) Power and Duties? The powers and duties of the committee are hereinafter prescribed and include, in part: a) To make recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council on the designation of H, Historic Overlay Districts and to provide support material necessary to justify such designation; b) To review and render decisions on individual building permit applications within H, Historic Overlay Districts. c) Staff The planning director or designee of, shall be assigned as a liaison to the historic preservation committee and be in attendance at all meetings. The planning director or designee shall also be delegated the authority to exempt applications from the historic preservation committee's review for minor activities as described herein. A repre- sentative of the building or zoning department shall also be assigned as a liaison to the committee and be available to give advise and pertinent information to the committee. The city clerk or designee shall serve as the secretary to the committee. d) Quorum and Necessary Vote A quorum of the Committee shall exist when four regular or alternate members are present. e) Meetings, Hearing and Procedure Regular meetings of the committee shall be held on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month, and shall be conducted according to the by-laws of the committee as adopted by resolution of said committee. Section 24-9.3 Designation of H, Historic Overlay Districts a) Standards for Designation Structures, combination of structures, sites or areas to be included within an H, Historic Overlay District shall be evaluated and considered based on the follow- ing standards: 1) Historic Significance: The structures, combination of structures, site or area: a) Has character, interest or value as part of the development, heritage, cultural charac- teristics of the City of Aspen, the State of Colorado or the nation; b) Is the site of an historic event with an effect upon society;. c) Is identified with a person or group of 2 persons who had some influence on society; d) Exemplifies the cultural, political, econo- mic, social or historical heritage of the community; e) By its preservation, promotes the health, safety or welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the community. 2) Architectural Importance: The structure or combination of structures: a) Portrays the environment of a group of people in an era of history characterized by a distinctive architectural style; b) Embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type specimen; c) Is the work of an architect or master builder whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen; d) Contains elements of design, detail, mater- ials or craftsmanship which represent a significant architectural style. 3) Community Character Influence: The structure, combination of structures, site or area: a) Because of being part of or related to a square, park, neighborhood or other distinc- tive area should be developed or preserved according to a plan based on an historic cultural or architectural motif (including the motif of successive contemporary styles within some neighborhoods) . b) Due to its unique location or singular physical characteristics, represents an established and familiar visual feature of the Ci ty. b) Procedures for Designation 1) Evaluation by Historic Preservation Committee f\ Structures, combination of -structures, sites or areas to be considered for designation of an H, Historic Overlay District shall be evaluated by 3 the historic preservation committee according to the above stated standards. Whenever, in the opinion of the committee, a structure, combination of structures, site or area meets the standards for designation, the committee shall contact the owner and, if possible, secure the owner's written consent for each designation. Following this contact, the committee may proceed by adopting a resolution stating its findings of historic significance, architectural importance, and community character influence and its recom- mendation to the planning and zoning commission for designation. If the historic preservation committee is not in receipt of the owner's written consent to such designation, the committee's resolution shall state why the committee feels designation should proceed without such consent. 2) Evaluation and Public Hearing by the Planning and zoning Commission At a public hearing described herein, the planning and zoning commission shall evaluate proposed designations of H, Historic Overlay District, to structures, combination of structures, sites or areas with respect to: a) Its relationship to the Aspen Area Comprehen- sive Plan; b) The effect of designation upon the surround- ing neighborhood; and c) Such other planning considerations as may be relevant to the proposed designation. The public hearing shall be scheduled at a time, date and place certain for proposed amendments to the zoning district map designating, amending or rescinding an H, Historic Overlay District. A written notice of said hearing shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing and a written notice shall be sent first class mail at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing date to the owner or owners of the property included within said amendment. The name and address of the owner or owners used shall be as they appear upon plats or records in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office and on the tax records of Pitkin County. 4 3) City Council Designation Public Hearing Upon receipt of the historic preservation commit- tee's resolution and the planning and zoning commission's recommendation on the proposal to designate a structure, combination of structures, site or area as an H, Historic Overlay District, city council shall hold a public hearing for consideration of an ordinance meeting the require- ments of Section 24-12.6 of the Municipal Code. H, Historic Overlay Districts, as designated by the city council through adoption of ordinance, will be classified for zoning purposes by the existing zone district designation plus the suffix nH n c) Recordation of H, Historic Overlay District, Designa- tion Upon the effective date of an amendment designating a structure, combination of structures, site or area as H, Historic Overlay District, the planning director or designee shall notify the city building inspector of the official designation. The secretary of the committee shall also record among the real estate records of the clerk and recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado a certified copy of the ordinance designating specified property within an H, Historic Overlay District, as a structure, combination of structures, site or area for preservation,_ which ordinance shall contain a sufficient legal description of the struc- tures), site or area designated. d) Rescinding or Amending Designation The designation of a structure, combination of struc- tures, site or area as an H, Historic Overlay District, may be amended or rescinded by following the same procedures under which the original designation was made. Section 24-9.4 Development Review for A Structure and Combination of Structures within Designated H, Historic Overlay District a) Procedure No building permit shall be issued for erection, construction, reconstruction, or remodeling of struc- tures designated H, Historic Overlay District unless given approval or conditional approval by the historic 5 0 preservation committee, from the committee review, provided for belowx NJ ,. ik'll planning director exemption or approval upon appeal as 1 1) Minor application: The planning director is authorized to determine from the submission of preliminary drawings and building specifications that no change or a minor change to the exterior FQ_RS appearance of a structure or combination of structures will result, having no impact on the historic or architectural significance of the structure. Upon such determination, the planning director may exempt the applicant from the conceptual and final reviews with the historic preservation committee and shall notify the building department to continue to process the building permit in accordance with appropriate regulations. 2) Conceptual Review Application: In cases where significant exterior changes will result, the planning director or designee shall notify the committee promptly of each application received and shall set a meeting date for conceptual review. In cases of minor repair and alteration projects in which it is determined by the commit- tee from the submission of required materials that the project complies with all development review criteria and a final review stage would be redundant and unnecessary, the committee may grant final approval or conditional approval at the conceptual stage. All other applications shall be processed through the final review application stage following conceptual review, as described herein. 3) Final Review Application and Public Hearing Requirements: In cases where final approval is not given at the conceptual review stage the following procedures shall apply. The historic preservation committee shall hold at least one public hearing, notice of the time and place of which shall be given at least fifteen (15) days in advance by publication in a newspaper having general circulation in the City of Aspen. If the exhibits submitted for the conceptual review are deemed inadequate for holding a public hearing and for forming a clear idea of the proposed work, the committee shall postpone action until adequate exhibits have been submitted. After such public hearing, the committee shall:_ 0 a) Approve, or approve with conditions, the application; and the building inspector shall then continue to process the building permit in accordance with the provisions of this Code; or b) Disapprove the application and the building inspector shall deny the building permit. Recommendations of approval, di sappr ov al or conditional approval shall be noted in the minutes of the proceed- i ngs . b) Submission Requirements Applications submitted pursuant to this Section shall be filed in triplicate with the Planning Office (upon forms prescribed by the historic preservation committee or in a letter) including at least the following information: 1) Names and addresses of all owners of the property. If the applicant is not the owner, the applicant's name, address and interest in the property. 2) Address of property and name of structure (if appli- cable) . 3) Written description of proposal. 4) Accurate representation of all major building mater- ials, such as samples and photographs. 5) Statement of effect of the proposal on the original design of the historic structure and/or character of neighborhood. 6) Scale drawings of the structure or structures. 7) Details as appropriate to fully document the proposed changes. c) Review Standards The historic preservation committee shall consider the following standards in review of applications within H, Historic Overlay District: Whether the proposed change is compatible and compli- mentary in design with the designated historic struc- tures and sites on the property and within the neigh- borhood. The Committee may promulgate guidelines and dards.to u n in making any such decisions. w�.�n►�flot J ,j 7 2) Whether the designated structure, site or area posses- ses architectural, historic and community character significance that would be greatly diminished or lost due to the proposed change. D�te�M,��l brt4 c,,.it, rt (3A+ J 1) the st„I"i btS�.ink I•Sc.t:..`L`t_9.3. d) Timing for Review and Expiration of Approvals 1) The Historic Preservation Committee shall conduct conceptual review within thirty (30) days after submission of a completed application. Provided that the applicant has filed all submission materials deemed adequate for a public hearing, final review shall be scheduled no more than 45 days after conceptual review has been completed. 2) Failure to obtain a building permit for a Bevel oFment approval granted by the committee within a period of eighteen (18) months following the committee's action shall render such approval invalid. Renewal of a prior approval may be granted by the committee for an additional period not to exceed twelve (12) months upon receipt of a request for such review from the appli- cant. In granting said renewal, the committee shall consider whether conditions in the neighborhood of the application or in the community have changed such that renewal is not in the best interest of the community. e) Modifications 1) Minor Modifications: Minor modifications in an approved application may be authorized by the planning director or designee of upon application for such review. The planning director shall utilize the review criteria of Section 24-9.4 (a) (1) in determining whether or not the amendment is minor. 2) Major Modifications: All other changes to an approved application may be made only after development review approval is received from the historic preservation committee pursuant to Section 24-9.4. (f) Appeal Procedures Any action of the committee in disapproving or conditionally approving an application may be appealed to the City Council. Any action of the Committee so appealed shall not become effective unless and until approved by the Council. Appeals shall be submitted in writing to the planning director or designee within 60 days of the committee's decision, stating the reasons for the appeal. The planning director or designee shall present the appeal to the city council which may: 0 • 1) Grant exceptions or waivers from the provisions of this tL,Oa article when required to prevent a substantial hardship n`" ,�JC�Iriu to the effected landowner or injury to the public; or—�°��t��{�ti�v�� C -AV7:47_ C 2) Explore all means for preserving the historic structure or site including, but not limited to, the feasibility of a modification of the plans or alternate private use of the structure or site which would substantially preserve the original character thereof, or the possibility of tax relief or public acquisition of the structure or site involved. Section 24-9.5 Demolition and Removal Review for a Structure and Combination of Structures within Designated H, Historic Overlay District a) Procedures No building permit shall be issued for demolition or �;'A removal in part or in whole of structures designated H, Historic Overlay District unless given approval or Q conditional approval by the historic preservation committee or approval upon appeal as provided for below: f 1AA �,..+ dGl►.4;�i;, 4µ"n-1.�,r,c �"' P1.,,,,t..nri�,, °u >at�,I t. ezenp IP V 1) rt;.Jr Q'p��c.i �a . l �j 1i ✓I t#kU-�I�a. ftW�f✓.y J•I^A��I {)tin• Mfl�•y d�,t,�a{J�o�th icf Sr'c+Jrc � Conceptual Review Application: The planning 61 rCw�rw� ,(� (," director or designee shall set a meeting date for ""N A4A ont"tA conceptual review by the committee, at which time fkk,,t",..k4ftIJr the committee will review the application accord- ing to the standards and criteria of this section. dItkA'w" All applications for demolition or removal shall be processed through the final review application stage following conceptual review, as described herein. _.. 2) Final Review Application and Public Hearing Requirements: The historic preservation committee shall hold at least one public hearing, notice of which shall be given in a newspaper having general circulation in the City of Aspen. After such public hearing, the committee shall: a) Approve, or approve with conditions the application; and the building inspector shall then continue to process the building permit in accordance with the provisions of this Code; or b) Suspend action on the -application for a period not to exceed six (6) months, during which time the applicant shall work with the committee to investigate the feasibility of a modification of the plans, alternate use of the structure or site, possibility of tax relief or public acquisition of the structure or site involved, removal of the structure to a suitable location (when demolition is proposed) , and revision to the redevelopment plan. 3) Final Consideration: When the committee has suspended action on the application as allowed by subsection (2) (c) above, and has concluded its investigation of alternatives and revision to the development plan, the committee shall: a) Approve, or approve with conditions the application; or b) Disapprove the application; and the building inspector shall deny the building permit. Recommendations of approval, conditional approval suspension of action or disapproval shall be noted in the minutes of the proceedings. b) Submission Requirements Applications submitted pursuant to this section shall be filed in triplicate with the Planning office (upon forms prescribed by the historic preservation committee or in a letter) including at _least the following information: 1) Names and addresses of all owners of the property. If the applicant is not the owner, the applicant's name, address and interest in the property. 2) Address of property and name of structure (if applicable) . 3) Written description of proposal. 4) Statement of effect of the proposal on the original design of the historic structure and/or character of neighborhood. 5) Year of construction of the historic structure. 6) Report from licensed engineer or architect regarding structural soundness of any structures on the property and their suitability for reha- bilitation. 10 • 7) Economic feasibility report: a) Estimated market value of the property in its current condition, and after demolition. b) Estimate from an architect, developer, real estate agent or appraiser experienced in rehabilitation as to the economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the existing structure on the property. c) All appraisals obtained within the previous two years by the owner or applicant. d) Any other information considered necessary by the historic preservation committee to make a determination as to whether the property does yield or may yield a reasonable return to the owners. 8) Statement of proposed redevelopment of the property. c) Review Standards The committee shall consider the following standards of application for demolition or removal of structures within H, Historic District Overlays: 1) Whether the designated structure, site or area possesses such architectural or historic signifi- cance, or contributes so greatly to the community character that its demolition or removal would be a detriment to the public interest. The committee.. may promulgate guidelines and standards to rely upon in making such decisions. 2) Whether the building is structurally sound and can practically be rehabilitated and reused. 3) Whether rehabilitation and reuse is economically feasible. 4) Whether the proposed redevelopment is compatible with surrounding historic structures and the neighborhood character. 5) Whether the structure could feasibly be moved to another site within the City of Aspen. : 11 • • d) �-N\,,-Nye qJ Timing for Review and Expiration of Approvals The same provisions of Section 24-9 .4 (d) shall apply to applications submitted under this subsection. Modification The same provisions of Section 24-9.4 (e) shall apply to applications submitted under this subsection. Appeal Procedures The same appeal procedures of Section 24-9.4 (f) shall apply to actions taken pursuant to this subsection. Section 24-9.6 Development Review for a Structure and Combination of Structures within Designated Historic Compati- bility Overlay Districts a) Procedures No building permit shall be issued for erection, construction, reconstruction and remodeling of struc- tures located ithin designated architenctural compat- ibility overla districts unless giv approval or conditional app oval by the historc preservation committee, buildinv department or pl nning director exemption from committee review,, or appeal upon approval as provided below. Provisions of this subsection shall not, however, in any case apply to a structure or combination of struct res designated H, Historic Overlay District. 1) Exemption / (a) Upon determination by the planning director or designee that 'a /building permit for erection, construct' n, reconstruction and remodeling of stru res is requested on property located mor ton three hundred feet from the closest property line (lot line to lot line) , of 6n H, istoric Overlay District such development activity shall be exempt from the provisions of this section. A letter of the determination of exemption shall be submitted by the planning director or designee to the building department prior to the issuance of a building permit. (b) Demolition and removal of structures in the Historic Compatibility Overlay District shall be exempt from the review procedures of this 12 se cti on. 2) Minor Application: Should the Planning Director or designee determine from the submission of prelim- inary drawings and building specifications that no change or a minor change hav' g no impact on the exterior appearance and char cter of the compati- ��� bility overlay district and the closest historic overlay district, the planni ' g director may exempt the applicant from the conc ptual and final review with the historic preservat on committee and shall notify the building depa, tment to continue to process the building permit in accordance with appropriate regulations. 3) Conceptual Review Appl cation: In cases where significant exterior c ange will result, the planning director or designee shall notify the committee promptly of ach application and shall set a meeting date for conceptual review. Final approval may be grante by the Committee upon the determination that the project complies with all architectural compatibility review criteria and a final review stage would be redundant and unneces- sary. 4) Final Review Application and Public Hearing Requirements: In cases where approval is not given at the conceptual review stage, the procedure stated in Section 24-9.4 (a) (3) shall be followed. b) Submission Requiremen s An applicant for historic compatibility review shah_ file an application in triplicate with the Planning Office including at least the following information: 1) Names and address 's of all owners of the property. If the applicant's of the owner, the applicant's name, address and inte est in property. 2) Address of property and name of structure (if appli- cable) 3) Description o proposal. 4) Accurate re resentation of all major building mater- ials. 5) Scale drawings of the structure or structures. 13 6) Statement of this ffect of the proposal on the community character of the neighborhood and speci- fically in regard o the closest historic overlay district and all designated structures and sites therei n. c) Review Standards The historic preservation committee shall consider the following standard in review of applications within the historic compatibility overlay district: 1) Whether the pro sea massing, siting and materials are compatible with and complimentary to the designated historic struc res and sites in close proximity to the structure and r review and the character of the neighborhood. The committee may promulgate guidelines and standards to rely upon in making its decisions. d) Timing for Review and Expiration of Permits The same provisions of Section 24-9.4 (d) shall apply to applications submitted under this subsection. e) Modifica ion The sam provisions of Section 24-9.4 (e) shall apply to applic tions submitted under this subsection. f) Appe Procedure The same appeal procedures stated in Section 24-9 .4 (f) shall apply to actions pursuant to this subsection. Section 24-9.7 Violations and Remedies a) Remedying Dangerous Conditions In any case where the building inspector, health officer, fire department or any other duly authorized office or agency of the City of Aspen shall order or direct the construction, reconstruction, remodeling, repair or demolition of any improvement or any other necessary action to a structure, combination of structures, site or area designated as an H, Historic Overlay District, for the purpose of remedying condi- tions found by said agencies to be immediately danger- ous to life, health or property, nothing contained in this section shall be construed as making it a viola- tion for any person to comply with such order or 14 9 • committee. Any such department, agency or officer shall give the committee as early notice as practicable of the proposed or actual issuance of any such order or directive. b) Anti -Neglect (y►D�� v The owner or owners of a structure or combination of �a�� �^ ��_ ^A structures individually designated H, Historic Overlay District shall not permit such historic structure to i� fall into a state of disrepair which may result in the deterioration of any exterior architectural features so o re clude or tend to produce in the judgment of the Commission a detrimental effect upon the character of the historic districts or upon the life and character of the historic structures, or which could lead to a claim that demolition is necessary for public safety and reasonable use of the-prope_-ty t, c) Compliance w the Provisions of this Article Whenever, by the provisions of this article, the performance of any act is required or the commission of any act is prohibited, failure to comply shall consti- tute a violation of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of r"" ` %. the City of Aspen and all penalties and remedies therein contained shall be applicable. Section 24-9.8 Role of the Board of Adjustment a) The Board of adjustment shall not act on any variance or exception pertaining to property within an H, Historic Overlay District, without first consulting and obtaining the written report of the historic preserva- tion committee. No appeal shall lie to the Board of. Adjustment from any of the decisions of the historic preservation committee. Section 24-9.9 Definitions a) Remodeling: Any act or process which changes one or more of the exterior architectural features of a structure, combination of structures, site or area designated as an H, Historic Overlay District. b) H, Historic Overlay District: Any structure or improve- ment and its surrounding environs, a group or combina- tion of structures, sites or areas and their surround- ing environs designated for preservation as an H, Historic Overlay District, under the provisions of this article. 15 0 • ii• 1 c) Exterior architectural feature: The architectural style, design, general arrangement and components of all the outer surfaces of a structure or improvement, including but not limited to the texture and materials, and to the type and style of all windows, lights, signs and other fixtures appurtenant to said structure or improvement. d) Improvement: Any building, structure, place, work of art or other project constituting a physical betterment of real property or any part of such betterment. 16 w • PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE ALLOWING TWO DETACHED DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY ZONED FOR DUPLEX USE Section 24-3 .1 (f) (2) Two -Family dwelling (also known as a "duplex"): A detached principal building containing only two (2) dwelling units sharing a common wall comprising no less than twenty (20) percent of that common wall between both dwelling units or sharing a common ceiling or floor, in whole or in part connecting two (2) dwelling units. The common wall between the units shall be one of the principal walls of the structure and not an accessory design feature; l` therefore a breezeway or similar feature shall not be considered to consitute a common wall. One unit of the two- family dwelling cannot contain less than thirty (30) percent of the total floor area of the other unit. Two detached one -family dwellings on properties containing individually designated historic structures that meet all area and bulk requirements of the Section 24-3.3, will be considered to be a duplex, if granted conditional review approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to Section 24-3.3 and final approval by the historic preserva- tion committee pursuant to Section 24-9. Section 24-3.2, Permitted and Conditional Uses: In the following zone districts listed in Section 24-3.2, there shall be added to the conditional use table "Two detached one - family dwellings for structures which have received historic designation": Residential R-6 , Residential/Multi Family, Commercial C-1 , Office O, and PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE CREATING THE HISTORIC COMPATIBILITY OVERLAY DISTRICT Section 24-2.1 add "(a) (29) HC, Historic Compatibility (Overlay) • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Bob Anderson, City Manager FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Historic Demolition Moratorium Ordinance (No. 41) Public Hearing DATE : September 16, 1986 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends your final approval of Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1986. We also are providing you with some of the results of our research to date so that you feel more comfortable with the alternatives which may be proposed to resolve this issue. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council adopted this Ordinance on September 8 on first reading and also adopted a companion resolu- tion imposing an administrative delay on processing demolition permits during the time between first and second readings. BACKGROUND: On August 25, the Council adopted Resolution No. 25, Series of 1986, endorsing the Historic Preservation Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and identifying as its highest priority implementation action a Code amendment to provide for a public review procedure prior to issuance of a demolition permit for any historic structure. The Planning Office has been collect- ing information to implement this Code amendment for the last 4-6 weeks, and has only recently identified some alternatives which we believe will accomplish Council' s intent. During the time in which this research has been ongoing, at least two structures have been demolished (Marquand House on Lake Avenue and 407 W. Hallam) while two others (Farny House, Bayer House at 240 Lake Avenue) have received demolition permits. The purpose of the moratorium, therefore, is to provide adequate time to evaluate our historic inventory and develop the proper review procedure without risking the loss of any additional portions of the resource. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION: The problem which Aspen faces with respect to its historic structures is not a unique one. Since many other communities have faced the threat of demolition of historic structures, we have searched for examples of other ordinances addressing this problem. Our principal findings from this survey are as follows: 1. A tool commonly used by other communities faced with demoli- tion permit requests is to condition the granting of a permit 1 on a six month delay until it can be effective. The purpose of the delay is to give the government and other civic bodies an opportunity to find other beneficial uses for the structure without having to react in an emergency atmosphere, including, but not limited to moving it, having another individual purchase it, compensating the owner to preserve it, or similar incentive techniques. It is likely that we will propose such a tool for use in Aspen, possibly using the Historic Society as the intermediary between the government and the owner. 2. It will be important for us to offer incentives to owners of historic buildings to compensate them for the new regulatory approach. Options being used in other communities which we would like to investigate including transfer of development rights, facade easements, tax credits and fee reductions. 3. We will need to establish criteria for the review of a demolition application. Issues to address would include whether or not we can actually prohibit demolition, what importance we can place on economic value of the structure and whether structures in different categories (i.e., excellent vs. notable) should receive different forms of attention. 4. We need to work with our Code Simplification Consultant to properly integrate the new review procedure into our regula- tory program. ALTERNATIVES: Given the problems we are facing, we can envision several possible alternative solutions. Based on the way in which our Code is presently written, it is apparent that the first decision we must make is to define what resource we are trying to protect. The reason for this conclusion is that once we decide which structures will be designated and/or included in historic districts, the Code already requires they be reviewed by HPC for their demolition or alteration. At the present time, this resource includes 84 designated structures. Some of the alternatives which you could follow to expand the inventory of structures which are subject to review are: 1. Designate the Aspen Townsite and early Additions thereto as a historic district. 2. Proceed with a policy of mandatory (rather than the current voluntary) designation by the City of those structures on our historic inventory; or 3. Proceed with mandatory designations by the City of some of those structures (i. e. , exceptional and outstanding but not notable) on our historic inventory. Following is a preliminary review of these alternatives so that you can see some of our thinking. We would expect to expand this 2 analysis as an issue paper to be presented to P&Z and HPC in October. The designation of the Aspen Townsite and early Additions is an alternative which has the appeal of insuring that all structures in the designated area will be protected, without concern that the inventory we have compiled may miss structures which are of importance. However, there are the following problems with this approach: o The Code will need to address a method of exempting non - historic structures from the review procedure. o Unless the exemption procedure is properly written, many homeowners will be faced with time consuming review until they can alter or demolish their structure. o There are a number of structures outside of the Townsite (for example, the structures on Matchless Drive in the Smuggler Area) which are on our inventory and will not be covered by this district alternative. The other two alternatives, having the City designate all or a portion of the inventory, have the advantage of directly addressing those structures which the City feels are deserving of protection. We are presently surveying the entire community to insure that our inventory is up-to-date and that no significant structures are missing. In this work, we have discovered that since 1980, 18 structures which were on the inventory have been demolished, 32 structures have been significantly upgraded while another 30 structures have had minor changes (such as adding a dormer and the like) . We have also found the following comparison of structures on the list to those designated: SUMMARY OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES INVENTORY AS AMENDED* Exceptional 23 Total, 18 designated or 78% designated Excellent 36 Total, 25 designated or 69% designated Notable 206 Total, 41 designated or 20% designated Contributing 6 Total, 0 designated or 0% designated Total 271 Total, 84 designated or 31% designated * Please note that during the 1986 survey, staff has identified four structures (3 notables and one excellent) which have been added to the inventory, 3 which have been deleted due to their condition and 18 due to their having been demolished and four which have been upgraded from one category to another. The above information indicates that a substantial portion of the inventory still remains undesignated, and undertaking either mandatory designation procedure (particularly if the notable 3 • • category is included) will protect a much larger portion of our resource. Using this approach in conjunction with identification of limited new historic districts where there is a concentration of historic structures and retention of existing districts may turn out to be the strongest and fairest approach to historic preserva- tion we can employ. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to adopt Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1986. " Uwe 4 1980 INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES: 1986 UPDATE AREA ADDRESS LOT BLOCK Commercial Core 310 E. Main N, 0 79 330 E. Main P, Q, R, S 79 303 E. Main A, B 80 305 E. Main 1/2B, C 80 307 E. Main D 80 101 E. Main H, I 80 302 E. Hopkins K 80 308 E. Hopkins M, N 80 316 E. Hopkins 0, P 80 309 E. Hopkins C 81 300 E. Hyman K, L 81 314 E. Hyman N 81 328 E. Hyman Q, R, S 81 100 S. Mill A, B 87 406 E. Hopkins K, L, M 87 204 S. Mill A, B 88 208 S. Mill A, B 88 203 S. Galena G, H, I 88 209 S. Galena 88 426 E. Hyman 88 432 E. Hyman 88 413 E. Hyman C 89 423 E. Hyman F, G 89 303-309 S. Galena G, H, I 89 420 E. Cooper 0 89 506 E. Main K, L, M, N 92 104 S. Galena A, B, C 93 130 S. Galena K, L, M 93 533 E. Main G, H, I 93 530 E. Hopkins Q 93 532 E. Hopkins R 93 534 E. Hopkins S 93 506 E. Hyman/ 210 S. Galena K, L 94 501 E. Hyman/ 3 0 4-3 0 8 S. Galena A, B, C 95 312 S. Galena K, L, M 95 501 E. Cooper A, B, C 96 529/531 E. Cooper 96 405 S. Hunter 96 Main Street 604 W. Main R, S 24 612 W. Main P, Q 24 616 W. Main 24 • 0 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures: 1986 Update Page 2 AREA ADDRESS LOT BLOCK Main Street Continued West End 633 W. Main A 25 627 W. Main B 25 611 W. Main F, G, H, I 25 510 W. Mai n 30 500 W. Main R, S 30 527 W. Main C 31 400 W. Main R, S 37 430 W. Main K, L, M 37 332 W. Main K, L 44 328 W. Main L, M 44 320 W. Main N, 0, P 44 333 W. Main A, B 45 211 W. Main F, G 52 205 W. Main H, I 52 132 W. Main K, L 58 122 W. Main M, N, 0 58 135 W. Main A, B 59 125 W. Main C, D 59 128 W. Main P, Q, R, S 66 Paepcke Park Gazebo 67 202 W. Main L 73 208 W. Main M 73 216 W. Main N, 0 73 201 W. Main A, B, C 74 221 W. Main D, E 74 229 W. Main F 74 165 S. Monarch 74 706 W. Main Q, R 18 734 W. Main K, L, M 18 709 W. Main G 19 505 N. 8th 2 834 W. Hallam K, L 10 831 W. Bl ee ke r 12 920 E. Main 14 715 W. Smuggler E, F 15 716 W. Francis O, 1/2P 15 712 W. Francis 1/2P, Q 15 700 W. Francis R, S 15 610 W. Smuggler Q, R, S 20 610 W. Francis Q 21 609 W. Smuggler G 21 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures: 1986 Update Page 3 AREA ADDRESS LOT BLOCK West End Continued 421 N. 5 th 629 W. Smuggler 522 W. Francis 500 W. Francis (& Carriage House) 501 W. Smuggler 513 W. Smuggler 533 W. Francis 523 W. Francis 319 N. 4 th 1/ 2 434 W. Smuggler 406 W. Smuggler 400 Pl. Smuggler H, I 21 A, B 21 M, N 27 S 27 H, I F, G A, B D G, H, 1/ 2I K, L P, Q R, S 515 N. 3rd/401 W. North 9,10 432 W. Francis 420 W. Francis 421 W. Hallam 407 W. Hallam 403 W. Hallam 320 W. Hallam 334 W. Hallam 327 W. Hallam 323 W. Hallam 305 W. Hallam K, L, M N, 0 l/3 C, D, E G l/ 2 H, l/ 2 I 333 W. Hallam 1/ 2A, 233 W. Hallam 219/215 W. Hallam 229 W. Hallam 214 W. Eleeker 233 W. Bleeker 217 W. Bleeker 215 W. Bleeker 213 W. Bleeker 205 W. Bleeker 124 W. Hall am 100 W. Hallam 131 W. Bleeker 129 W. Bleeker 121 W. Bleeker 500 W. North 515 Gillespie 639 N. Fourth 1/ 2 M, N 1/2 K, L A, B, C D, E G, H, I 1/2B, C, D A, B, C E, F 1/2D, 1/3E N, 0, P A, B, 1/3C 1/2D, 1/2E 1/2E, 1/2F 1/2F, 1/2G H, I 1/ 3 L, M Q, R A B D, l/ 2 E 18, 19, 20 4, 5, 6 9, 10 27 27 28 28 28 33 33 33 33 34 34 36 36 36 42 42 43 43 43 44 50 50 50 50 51 51 51 51 51 56 56 58 58 58 99 99 99 �J 1980 Inventory of 1986 Update Page 4 AREA ADDRESS Community Church Hal 1 am Lake Historic Sites and Structures: LOT BLOCK 101 E. Hallam A 65 105 E. Hallam B, C 65 123 E. Hallam C, D 65 133 E. Hallam F, G 65 131 N. Aspen H, I 65 100 E. Bleeker K 65 110 E. Bleeker M 65 126 E. Bleeker Q, R 65 134 E. Bleeker R, S 65 216 E. Hallam K, L 71. 222 E. Hallam M, N 71 232 E. Hallam Q, R, S 71 203 E. Hallam B 72 223 E. Hallam E, F 72 200 E. Bleeker K, L 72 214 E. Bleeker N, 0 72 232 E. Bleeker R, S 72 209 E. Bleeker C, D 73 227 E. Bleeker F, G 73 218 N. Monarch A, B 78 212 N. Monarch A, B 78 202 N. Monarch K, L, M 78 514 N. 3 rd A, B 40 301 Lake 40 525 N. 2nd R, S 40 423 N. 2nd H, I 41 229 W. Smuggler A, B, C 48 225 W. Smuggler D, E 48 234 W. Francis K, L 48 202 W. Francis R, S 48 201 W. Francis 1/2E, G, H 49 414 W. Smuggler A -I 55 120 W. Francis N, 0, P 55 126 W. Francis 1/ 2L, M 55 135 W. Francis A, B 56 123 W. Francis 1/2B, C, D, E 56 330 W. Gillespie 4, 1/2 5 91 314 W. Gillespie 6, 1/2 5 91 405 W. Gillespie 6, 7 100 701 N. Third 7, 8 100 714 N. 3rd 1, 2 102 • MEMORANDUM T0: Aspen City Council THRU: Bob Anderson, City ManagerAID FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Moratorium Ordinance and Resolution DATE: September 8, 1986 The attached Ordinance and Resolution was prepared by my Office and the City Attorney at the request of the Mayor. The Mayor will be requesting that you add this item to your agenda on Monday in response to the recent loss of a historic structure to demolition and the need to insure that this does not happen again until the City addresses this issue comprehensively. we will be available at your meeting to answer any questions you may have concerning this item.