Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.523 W Francis Dikeau A57-94 .~ ,r'\ CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET city of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 08/01/94 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: 2735-124-25-002 A57-94 STAFF MEMBER: LL PROJECT NAME: Dikeou Reauest for Director Interpretation Project Address: 523 West Francis Legal Address: APPLICANT: Lucv Dikeou Applicant Address: 25 Polo Club Circle, Denver, CO 80209 REPRES~NTATIVE: Jake Vickery 925-3660 Representative Address/Phone: 100 S. Sprina, #3 Aspen. CO 81611 -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- FEES: PLANNING $ 215 # APPS RECEIVED 1 ENGINEER $ # PLATS RECEIVED HOUSING $ ENV. HEALTH $ TOTAL $ 215 TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: -1L 1 STEP: 2 STEP: P&Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO DRC Meeting Date --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- REFERRALS: city Attorney city Engineer Housing Dir. Aspen Water City Electric Envir.Hlth. Zoning Parks Dept. Bldg Inspector Fire Marshal Holy Cross Mtn. Bell ACSD Energy Center School District Rocky Mtn NatGas CDOT Clean Air Board Open Space Board Other Other DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: DUE: ;~;~=;~;;~;~~================~~~~=;~~~~~~~f;r~~~;~~~~~~~&), ___ City Atty ___ city Engineer ___Zoning ___Env. Health ___ Housing ___ open space ~ Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: ,"""" r--" August 30, 1994 Ms. Lucy Dikeou 523 West Francis street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Planning Director Interpretation - section 24-7-602 As I understand from Jake Vickery I s letter, you request three interpretations from the Planning Director: the applicability of section 24-7-602 to the removal and replacement of a portion of your home; if the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) could review that removal and replacement; and, if your development proposal is exempt from Ordinance 35 requiring a Special Review for development that exceeds 85% of the allowable floor area of a parcel. First, the Inventory of Historic sites and Structures is compiled using the legal description of a parcel therefore all structures on a parcel that is on the Inventory do fall under the review of the Historic Preservation Committee. The HPC reviewed your partial demolition because your parcel is on the Inventory. section 24- 7-602 states that: no demolition, partial demolition or relocation of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to section 7-709 (which is the establishment of the Inventory)...shall be permitted unless the demolition, partial demolition or relocation is approved by the HPC because it meets the applicable standards of section 7- 602 (B), (C), or (D), unless exempted pursuant to section 7-602 (E). The definition of partial demolition "means the act of demolishing part of a structure,." The definition does not limit partial demolition to a certain percentage of the structure being demolished. Unfortunately, the city planner reviewing your demolition application in March 1993 made a mistake when she exempted your demolition from review because it was less than 50% of the structure. However, the fact that your 1993 demolition request was not properly reviewed initially does not waive the City's obligations to apply the Land Use Code to further demolition review. Therefore, the HPC does have the authority to review your partial demolition. Secondly, section 24-7-602 defines the standards for review of a partial demolition. Standard number 2 indicates that the HPC must find the applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible r-. 1"""\ the impacts on the historic importance of the structure and the impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure. Having reviewed this section of the Land Use Code and the 1989 ordinance and City council memo that added the standards of review for partial demolition, I have come to the conclusion that the recent review of your addition by HPC was wi thin the intent of the Ordinance and standards that were adopted in Section 24-7-602 in 1989. Specifically, Ordinance 17 requires a HPC review of the entire Inventory of Historic sites and Structures for demolitions, partial demolitions, and relocations. The May 8, 1989, memo states that specific review standards will be applied to each demolition, partial demolition, and relocation. The memo also states that "the intent of this Ordinance is to allow the review of demolition proposals so that all practicable impacts may be mitigated." In order for the HPC to effectively review the impacts of your proposed addition they requested a development plan. section 24- 7-602 (F) Procedure for review - provides the ability for the HPC to request additional information from the applicant to determine whether the application meets the standards. Therefore, HPC I S request for a redevelopment plan showing any proposed new construction was not a policy change by the Committee but was a utilization of the Land Use Code to make findings with regard to your partial demolition and proposed addition. Finally, Jake's letter requests confirmation that your proposal is in the "pipeline" regarding Ordinance 35 which placed an interim overlay over all residential development that exceeds 85% of the allowable floor area on a specific parcel. As I understand, the HPC granted you a partial demolition approval with conditions. All development proposals that have received a HPC, Planning and Zoning commission, Board of Adjustment, or City Council approval, prior to July 19, 1994, based upon a development plan are not affected by Ordinance 35. If for some reason a substantial change or a new review of a proposal occurs then those projects must also adhere to Ordinance 35. In addition, all parcels on the Historic Inventory or within a Historic Overlay Districts are exempt from a seperate review by the "sub-committee". Those projects will still be reviewed pursuant to the Neighborhood Character Guidelines as adopted by Ordinance 35, but the review will be conducted only by the HPC. Sincerely, Leslie Lamont Interim City Planning Director cc: Jake Vickery John Worcester, City Attorney Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer AUG 26 '94 07:47AM ARC~ECT JV - AT~ , " P,1/1 r-" 2b "-' , AlJS 12 ~~ .11I .' Auqulllt 10, 1994 Mr.,. . Lucy Di,keou 25 Polo Club Circle Oenver, ,Colorado 80209 Dear Mrs. Oikeou, ;r have r.cei ved your Planning Director I s interpret.at.ion request and hav.e.deter.mined that your request i~ a completed application, I have al:"'!ady mE\t with the city At.torney's office and with the Historic :.. 3servation Officer and will. continue to meet with them to formal ~e my 'interpretation, After ,tincUnq the application complet.e, 't.he Land Use Code provides the direotor fifteen (15) days to render an interpretation, Hopefully, I will be able to provide you with a response before August 25, 1994,' . AsPEN . PITKIN PuNNINC Ie ZoNIJ'G DEPAm.caN't '",,-- ~OerelY, ' DS~ Leslie Lamont, Interim Planning Director, cc: Jake Vickery ------ --- -'- Post-it" Fax Note 7671 To '-", ,- 130 SovrH GALSN' S"lE' . AIr.N, Co"'.^~ 81611 . l'lfoN.30U20,509() , PAll 303.920.5191 hlMIdGII.~"t*d,.. ,.,......, '-". August 1, 1994 HAND DELIVER Ms. Leslie Lamount Acting Director Aspen/Pitkin Planning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Dikeou Residence, 523 West Francis Request for Director' Interpretation Please regard this letter a formal request for a Planning Director's interpretation regarding the HPC's jurisdiction over the review of (1) demolition and (2) new construction proposed for the non-historic portion of the house referenced above. This project received Partial Demolition approval with conditions from the HPC on 8 June 94 and this approval was amended with conditions by the HPC on 22 June 94. The conditions imposed by the HPC effect areas of the house critical to the Applicant and she maintains the HPC acted outside of its jurisdiction and established policy by requiring and conducting this Partial Demolition review. This request is submitted on behalf of Lucy Dikeou, owner of 523 West Francis, pursuant to Section 11-101 of the Aspen Land Use Code. Background The house is a one story wood frame miner's cottage with substantial non-historic additions to the rear. The Applicant plans to renovate her residence to bring it up to current livability and code standards by, among other things, adding additional bedroom space and a garage to the non-historic portion of the residence. To accomplish this objective she commenced working with the City and concurrently with her architects on or before March of 1993. The Timeline attached hereto as Exhibit 1 shows the flow of this work. The proposed work has remained consistent in scope since its inception until present. On Sept. 13, 1993, a building permit application was submitted for the full scope of work. A portion of this work required a Board of Adjustment variance for Site Coverage. It was reviewed and was denied as part of a larger review on 30 sept 1993. Consequently, the building permit application was amended and reduced in scope to omit the non-conforming portion of the work, specifically a two story addition to the rear ra J J,. K E ----~--- 1""""'\ 1""""'\ which contained a garage and master bedroom suite. This partial building permit was approved on 11 Oct 94 and issued on 18 Feb. 94. Demolition work required for this building permit was not required to be reviewed by HPC because it was less than 50% of the existing residence. The established HPC policy in effect at this time was as follows: that demolition of less than 50% of a structure on the Aspen Inventory of Historical Structures would not be required to be reviewed by HPC as per letter from Kim Johnson to Lucy Dikeou dated 23 Mar 93 attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Subsequent to the Board of Adjustment denial. a revised plan was devised containing only the garage and an upper deck. The Applicant requested and received support from the HPC for this design and a new smaller Site Coverage variance that it required on 26 Jan 94. It was reviewed by the Board of Adjustment on 24 march 94 and approved with conditions. These conditions further reduced the size of the garage and did not permit any additional uses above the garage whatsoever. This approval was effectively unusable by the applicant in achieving her objectives. Further, direction given the Board of Adjustment by its Staff regarding Planning Department policy for the proposed uses above the garage was confusing and inconsistent with prior determinations. The policy issue regarding rear yard setbacks was later corrected in a meeting with the Chief Zoning Enforcement Officer, however, any amendment to this approval would have required reapplying to the Board of Adjustment. A slightly revised scheme (of similar scope) was designed that provided the desired garage and master bedroom suite, conformed to allowable FAR and Site Coverage. and needed no variances. At this time, however, reversing previous instructions from Staff, the Applicant was informed that she would be required to go through a Partial Demolition review including design review of any proposed new construction. The newly revised scheme was reviewed and approved with conditions by HPC on 8 June 94 and partially amended with conditions on 22 June 94 at the request of the Architect. HPC POlicy Change Sometime between the 26 Jan 94 HPC meeting and prior to the 8 June 94 HPC meeting (apparently in March and April) the HPC changed its policy regarding its interpretation and application of the Partial Demolition section of the Code. Prior to the time, as mentioned earlier, projects demolishing less than 50% were not reviewed at all. This policy change had 2 parts to it: (1) that all demolition of Inventoried properties would now be subject to HPC review and (2) that a redevelopment plan showing any proposed new construction would now also be required for this review. Part (2) of this review would be limited to "mass and scale" of the addition and its connection to the existing historical resource. ,-..., ,,.-, Design Issue Even with the amendment, the conditions of approval remain problematic for the Applicant in that the HPC required the height of the master bedroom walls and ceiling be lowered by 2 feet. The additional height in the master bedroom is crucial to to the Applicant's use of this space. This house suffers from functional obsolescence on the interior. Relevant here, there is no suitable master bedroom. The new work is primarily focused on making the bedrooms larger and more useful. As proposed the new Master Bedroom is approximately 14.5 x 17.5 feet. This is adequate but certainly not oversized. Reducing the plate height to 6 feet (the condition imposed by the HPC) would effectively reduce the usable to area to 10.5 feet by 17.5 which is unworkable for the applicant. Requested interpretation The owner maintains that she began her work with the City Boards months in advance of the HPC policy change; that the flow of the project has been continuous; that no substantial changes in scope have been made from that which was initially proposed; that she relied on the policy provided to her by City staff in making critical decisions and making a sizable investment in her plans; that there was no formal adoption, documentation or publication of the HPC policy change and that it has been unfairly applied to her project; and that there is insufficient language in the Code to justify or support HPC's jurisdiction over a review of the proposed new construction on the non- historic area of the house; The Code makes a distinction between demolition and partial demolition. The submittal and review requirements and standards are significantly different and limited for Partial Demolition. The Code does not require a development plan for Partial Demolition applications. In fact, the code clearly and specifically does not include this requirement in that section of the code as it does in the section for full demolition. We believe that Partial Demolition Review is solely an evaluation of the historical value of any historical material proposed to be removed; that if historical material is to be removed then the associated impacts of this removal on the integrity and importance historic resource should be mitigated to the greatest extent possible. We believe that the focus and intent of this section of the Code is on the preservation of existing material of historical value. No documented historical material of any kind is being removed as part of the proposed work. This work is located on what is believed to be a non-historical part of the house. The historic resource itself has suffered much inappropriate change and as such has minimal remaining historical integrity or historical importance. This structure is rated a 3 (lowest category) on the inventory. Outside this context, the Code does not provide any language relating to the review of the compatibility or design of non-historic disassociated new construction. By stretching the Code, the committee brings in issues for which applicants and their representatives are not required or prepared to discuss for this level of review. It is constructive for the r-.. ,,~, committee to make recommendations, but placing such recommendations as conditions of approval is not supported by the Code. In addition, We submit that Section 7-602 of the Code is not or should not be applicable to Ms. Dikeou's application. The portion of the structure involved consists of a non- historic addition, the removal of which has no effect on the architectural or historical integrity of the historic portion, no more than the construction or demolition on adjoining property would have on the historic portion of Ms. Dikeou's property. In summary, the applicant feels she should have never been required to submit to a Partial Demolition review because she was in the pipeline when the policy was changed; that the policy change regarding review of new construction is not supported by the Code; and lastly that because this change was not properly adopted and adequately published, it should not have been in effect at the time of her review. Further, that this section of the Code and precedent concerning it are confusing, poorly defined, and inconsistent to the point of being unenforceable. Regarding the Neighborhood Character Guidelines Review and in reference to the City Council meeting on July 25, we further request confirmation that this project in the scope as currently and previously proposed is considered "in the pipeline" and is exempt from this review or previsions this ordinance. This situation is similar to the one discussed above regarding pipeline projects. For all the reasons stated above, we request a planning director's interpretation making a finding that the HPC went outside its clearly established policy and exceeded its jurisdiction in requiring a Partial Demolition Review and conducting it in the manner stated above. We further request that the conditions of approval be removed and nullified from this project and that this project be "grandfathered" exempt from currently pending legislation. dV~' Jake Vickery Jake Vickery Architect 100 South Spring Street #3 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone and Fax 925-3660+ r'\ ,r-" .. ASPEN. PITKIN June 27, ,1994 PLANNING & ZONI!'IG DEPARTMENT Dear Lucy, Attached are minutes from the only three "partial demolition" cases which have recently been reviewed by the Historic Preservation Committee. As you will note from those discussions, HPC did establish in the Iglehart review that they -cannot approve a reql.lest for "partial demolition" without findingthat the applicable standards in the Land Use Code (attached) have been met, and that they cannot make a findingon these standards without a thorough ,evaluation of the mass and $caleof the proposed addition. You will also note that the 'condition of approval placed on the Iglehart case, total design review of the new construction, might be . considered much more strict that the one foot height reduction that resulted in your case. . I have discussed this situation with the acting City Planning Direct9r and the City Attorney, and they have informed me that the HPC decision on your project during the reconsideration on June 22, 1994 is final. If you wish to come to some other solution, you should consider submittinl? a substantial amendment to your proposal ora completely new application. I was not aware of the letter you received from Kim Johnson during the few months when she acted as Historic Preservation Officer. This letter indicated that there was no review procedure at that time. Anew policy was in effect' at the time when your most recent design was ,submitted and Ms. Johnson'sletter is in no way a waiver of the'prov!sions of the Code. I appreciate that you are not completely satisfied with the result of your case before HPC,. qr perhaps With neighboring projects which have received HPC approval in the past. I share your distaste for a great, deal of damage which has been done to the character of the West :End and am putting all' of my effort into avoiding such mistakes in the future. With respect to the historic relevance of your home, it has been identified on the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Sttuctures"since 1980. In the most recent adoption of the Inventory in 1992, the HPC, Planning and Zoning Commission and City Councililll supported listing of the property at 523 W. Francis and the property owners received full public notice of this designation. . . Please let me know if YOl.l would like to submit a new proposal to HPC, The next HPC meeting is July 13 at 5 p.m. in the second floor meeting room of City Hall. The first fifteen. minutes of every meeting is the time for public comments, 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET.' ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 . PHONE 303.920.509.0 . FAX 303.920.5197 " Printed<lnrecycloopap<r r" .~ Historio Preservation Committee Minutes of Maroh 9, 1994 Jake: Everything else has no panes. Donnell"~y: I cannot support this at this stage because I do not know.'enough about it. Joe: Give us a detailed drawing and justification why it works. MOTION: Joe made the motion to table the application for the direction that the applicant restudy the second floor to retain the existing opening and to eliminate the balcony and potentially eliminating the railing. That the applicant simplify the door treatment on the first floor; second by Donnelley, All in favor, motion carries. )lSl""J>filyfi;~_ - PARTIAL DEMOLITION {'4'''~'W:fl,tih~~- ---- , -" - - \ / Roger: For the public our job is to preserve the landmark and not change it, We are trying to be proactive, Amy: HPC made a site visit to this property in January and the building has been vacant for a couple of years and is in somewhat deteriorating condition. The applicant is proposing to demolish the back wing of the building which is not original and build a new addition. They are also asking to change the existing pitched roof on the garage which is a contributing structure into a gabled roof. I have recommended approval of the demolition on the historic structure but not to approve the demolition of the roof on the garage because I feel it would make a significant change in the character of the structure. Scott Lindenau, architect: We will leave the garage as is and will restore the roof to its original quality, Amy: We are reviewing this as to whether it impacts the character of the building, the ,demolition. We are not here to discuss the size of the windows on the addition. This building is on the inventory and not a landmark. We are looking at whether the partial demolition is appropriate. Scott: The back of the building has been added onto and is non- functional and we propose taking that off. We propose to keep the existing house, porch and adding a rear addition with a courtyard bringing light into the interior. The large trees make it dark. We will keep the old garage. We are keeping it consistent with the neighborhood of the west end. The house is 2,200 square feet and when completed it will be 2,900. We are allowed 3,400. CLARIFICATIONS 11 I""'. 1""'.. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 9, 1994 Jake: will you tell us about the piece of roof. Scott: Right now we are keeping that section so that we don't go over the 50% demolition problem and the only thing we will be doing is lowering the floor of the interior to nine feet to get the upper level workable. The plate in the second floor is only three feet nine. Amy: From the maps there was an original gable off the back and then a one story wing. Roger: We are either approving or not approving a partial demolition, Amy: We can make comments but we have no review authority. But we do have some control for example they are adding a gable and chimney and there will be some demolition and if the Board thought that inappropriate you could say no don't demolish that part of the roof. That is how you can direct what would be an appropriate addition to the house, ) Joe: I thought approving a partial demolition included review of a redevelopment plan, Amy: Demolition requires a redevelopment plan and so does relocation. If partial demolition was more than 50% then we would review redevelopment, Roger: Historically was there a gable that came out to the east side? Amy: No, but right now there is a gable. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Karen: Dropping the floor on the second story is appropriate, Donnelley: This is a wonderful design and the addition to the east is quite defendable and the detailing has been so conscientious to create a fabric that you cannot tell where the old and new are, You can do that because we have no purview over it, It would be kind of fun to get some twist to give people an indication that you have done a rather extensive addition to an historic structure. The entire fabric is integrated so well that you have a hard time indicating between the old and new. On the garage roof form I am in favor it being remaining as is. Roger: For reference new additions should be distinct so that you can tell the older building from new building and that the new 12 1"""\ I"""\, Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 9, 1994 addition does not over power the existing structure and in so doing that we will be asking that people step the addition back connected by a hallway or breaking it up into two smaller buildings rather than one large mass. On the east side you have the historical building and you have created a courtyard which is much more appealing instead o,f having a long plane wall, Jake: Yes, our goals are to preserve the historic structure and hyphenate into the new addition. Then you preserve the integrity, MOTION: Roger made the motion to approve the partial demolition as requested for 330 Gillespie street with the understanding that the roof on the outbuilding will remain as is; second by Donnelley. Joe: I have been through this house and it is really in bad shape and I would like to see a condition relatively strict in preserving the historic house and reusing all of the materials that are there, Le, lattice work. ) Amy: I have a new condition of approval that we could incorporate in this proj ect, The paint contractor for this proj ect came in and visited me and wanted information on how to do the project right and I felt that was terrific. On this project and future projects the monitor could meet onsite with the contractors and discuss specifically how to preserve the wood, windows etc. Joe: In the past we have had projects where the siding has been torn off and they end up replacing it. Roger: The shutters are not original and the porch is not original and the siding is not original. There is very little on the house that is original expect perhaps the windows. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended his motion to include all historic parts to be retained and if there are questions it should be dealt with staff and monitor; second by Donnelley. All in favor of the motion and amended motion; motion carries unaminously. RESOLUTION 1, 1994 - GUIDELINES Joe: We have a resolution adopting our development guidelines for roof top equipment. MOTION: Donnelley made the motion that HPC approve Resolution 1, 1994; second by Karen. All in favor, motion carries, Jake: As a requirement for an application I would like to see that there be a roof plan submitted showing roof top equipment. 13 r--, r--., Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 13, 1994 Joe: And the transition from the 48 inches to the 42 inches is that going to be done with a six inch drop or a gradual. I personally would prefer a gradual drop. Amy: The issue is whether the fence should be 48 and drop to 42 or 42 inches the entire 90 foot span. Amy: The monitor and myself can discuss that issue when we finalize the design, '_il4lf~~l'Miii~:~ - PARTIAL DEMOLITIO:N ) Amy: This is an application for a partial demolition of a victorian house that is listed on the inventory. I have brought maps of the footprint of the house in 1896 and 1904 which I can present to you and again HPC is only reviewing the partial demolition whether or not it compromises the historic house. I have found that the demolition did not meet our partial demolition standards. I did say that the applicant can demolish the existing porch because it has already been changed and it is not the original porch. I recommended that the applicant request landmark designation because the house is worthy of it and it is the best way for us to allow them to have the additional space that they want, Jim Terry, Gibson Reno Architects: l,ii~~i8 owner: . /_,-~,.,...,,-",' ,. ....~>< ."'~ - I Jim Terry: Our major view of this in going through the standards for partial demolition is somewhat confusing in our minds as to how the leanto on the back of this building holds any historic value, We are looking at demolishing the leanto in the back. Having looked at the structure it is deteriorating to the point that something has to be done. It is settling throughout the building significantly. The leanto was added on to the original miners cottage and it was the easiest and'cheapest way to increase the living area. Amy: The footprint of 1904 indicates that the leanto was added around that same time. Jim Iglehart: What is the validity of that map? Amy: It is the Sanbourn fire insurance map and it is extremely accurate, Amy: The house was built in 1888 and the leanto was built by 1904. 4 1'"", r-. Historic Preservation Co~ittee Minutes of April 13, 1994 Roger: What will replace the leanto? Jim Terry: We are looking at different scenarios at possibly adding onto the back, new entries etc, Roger: Does the leanto have a basement and will you be putting in a basement underneath the historic structure? \ ) Jim Terry: It is a possibility. Roger: It is reco~ended that you landmark and does that interest you? Jim Iglehart: I have seen no value in landmarks and I have been to many meetings and they designated and were denied additions and subtractions to their houses. I see no financial value either. I do not need any variances. On the one hand you say there are financial benefits and on the other hand it costs $1,000. for the application, I am not interested in a full blown review process. Amy: It is not $1,000 it is around $269. Landmarking is free and their is a two step review. Jim Iglehart: I am still not interested, Roger: Do you review over the historic house if it is not landmarked? Amy: Just partial demolition and relocation but not what is added on. Jake: It states that you are demolishing 46% of the house. Jim Iglehart: That is basically the leanto and the front porch. Jake: How did you calculate that? Jim Terry: floor area. We took it off survey maps and used square footage and Jake: The evidence of house? kitchen is presently in the leanto. Is their any a kitchen earlier than this in the front part of the Jim Iglehart: No, there is a livingroom and bedroom, Jake: When they built the house they had to have a kitchen and if this leanto is non-historic where did the kitchen go? 5 1'"", ,,,,,,,",, Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 13, 1994 Jim Iglehart: Jake, I do not know as it was 100 years ago. Maybe they didn't have a kitchen. They had an outhouse and I can answer that. Roger: If, the leanto is not removed and a foundation were placed under it would that give it enough structure so that it could be secured better. Jim Iglehart: I have been in this valley for over 20 years and yes given enough money you can do anything you want to do to make it work., I have earned every penny and I intend to stay in this town. I have no interest in chasing good money after bad money and have no intentions and that is not my goal. My goal is to save the front part of the house which is the most interesting and work around that and make it something attractive. I have a monster next to me that the HPC approved and I am not interested in building the same kind of monster. They designated it to get more mileage and I am not interested in doing that. I am only asking for permission to take down a portion of the house that restricts my ability to add a two car garage and do a couple of other rooms around the building otherwise if I don't my only other option is to do my monster on the left side of the house and back and build \ around it and there you go, you have something less attractive than ) what you are seeing today or what you may see. Unfortunately since I am only asking for 46% you guys don't have any review over it. I do not know how I can assure you that once I do something maybe you can take a look at it and give me input if you want. I would be glad for anybody on this board to come over and help design whatever it is you like without me having to designate. I will not go through a full blown review. I would like to have your input on the design. Roger: If you were allowed to demolish the leanto would you allow historical review of what you were going to add on in mass and scale compatibility with the historic house? Jim Iglehart: In a worksession yes I wOuld. If I didn't agree with it since this is my personal property and I have owned it since 1980 and in 1986 was put on the inventory. All my dreams and aspirations have gone down the tube. I am making a concession by making the front part of the structure which is the most highly viewed portion of the house somehow intact. I have watched the process with my next door neighbor and I know the amount of money he spent and I know how it turned out and quite frankly I See no historical value in what was allowed to happen to that house. It is the house to the west of mine. People walking by want to know what happened architecturally. 6 ~. ,-.., Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 13, 1994 Joe: In the photographs it shows a chimney but it is not in the drawings, is it old or new? Jim Iglehart: It is a flue for a boiler room. There is no chimney or fireplace connected to it, There is forced air heat. Roger: On drawing C4 that looks like a large addition. Jim Iglehart: Those are drawings that we had done a long time ago but I brought them as I thought people would have some questions. I didn't choose any of those and we are still looking and trying to refine something that is appropriate. I know what the square footage is that I need to live in the 1990's. I know what my family needs to live in and presently I do not have that in the existing situation that I have, I am trying to figure out with the size of the lot that I have, to deal with how I can build enough square footage to deal out with three kids and a wife and live there in a comfortable fashion. If I had three lots I would do something like down the road on Hallam across from the red brick school, Quite frankly I have spent a lot of time and money to try and get satisfaction, ) . Joe: The shed room that you are proposing to remove connects to the historic structure; is it your intent to remove the top section of the roof and restore the existing roof to its original gable form? Jim Iglehart: That existing roof lives under there. We will re- shingle. Jake: What is the square footage of the existing as it looks really close to me? Jim Iglehart : We actually knocked off five feet and didn I t add that on, so if you need the five feet we have it. Amy: One of the reasons we end up with certain designs is that people want to max out their property and we are dealing with small buildings. The committee can do only so much as it is up to the architect to do a good design. Jim Iglehart: I watched Cunniffe do the first design on the house beside me and it was a much better design and then it got changed due to recommendations from this board and it is worse. I am interested in working with something that I know will work for me not what the committee wants. Amy: By denying your tearing down this portion of the building is historic preservation. There is a code pending that inventoried 7 "'" ,--. Historio Preservation Committee Minutes of April 13, 1994 structures are going ,to have design review over their additions. Jim Iglehart: I see what is coming down the pike and that is why I am here today. The house that I live in was a mobile home of the 1800 and it was not intended to be lived in this long. I understand that there is architectural qualities that this town wants to maintain. I am here to tell you that the integrity of some of these miner cabins is causing a great degree of burden on some of the people in town. If I was 80 and lived in there and want to sell the property there is a financial burden on it. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS \ ) Joe: standard A, partial demolition is required for the renovation and restoration and rehabilitation of the structure. I feel that this standard has been met because I do not see anyway realistically you can rehabilitate this structure without using the back of the property in some fashion. Joe: Standard B, the applicant has mitigated to the greatest extent possible impacts on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel. I guess the problem I am having- with this standard is the same problem with the other partial demolitions that we have reviewed which is I do not know what the impact is on the historic importance of the structure without seeing what else is going to happen on the parcel. I am up in the air on that standard. Joe: Standard C, impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure, Againm, I am not sure I can find that the applicant has mitigated that impact to the greatest extent possible without having some idea of what, it is that is going to be impacted in the architectural integrity of the structure. In other words what is the new addition and how is it going to impact the existing structure. I have the same concerns because I have a house that is an historic house and I am going through this process myself and I share the same frustrations. Historic houses are stigmatized and the people who own them, it costs them money because it is not the same as the property next door. Roger: There are two issues one is philosophical and one is what we are here to do. By the guidelines it would be difficult to allow demolition. The philosophical point is that when I came here the town was far more charming and part of that charm was the Ii ttle old houses. I have seen a immense percentage of those disappear and horrendous things be constructed in their place. I agree that HPC has gotten a lot better and a lot of mistakes have been made and that the additions to historic structures some have been OK and some awful. At least it was an attempt and the 8 ~ ~ Historic Preservation committee Minutes of April 13, 1994 historic structure wasn't removed. Qui te frankly a lot of architects that come in do not grasp the significance of the Ihistory of the town or have any concept on how to work with it. They don't seem to care about it. I would like to work with you so that we at least have mass and scale. Jim Iglehart: I would be willing to show you what I intend to do. I do not want to go through the hoops of saying you will tell me what I am going to do. I will work together and I am not sure I have seen that in the past with this Board. I have a fear for that and I had a fear for that in 1986. If I had the Stallard House I wouldn't be sitting here asking for this change. I have a little miners cabin and I have the right to do what I want to do and you have the right to deny it and I have the right to appeal to council. I could build something on stilts over top of the thing that I am trying to get rid of. It would be an architectural nightmare. I would jeopardize my position for resale but does it jeopardize it anymore than what I may end up with if this board doesn't approve something that I would like to live in, maybe not. Jim Iglehart: restoration. If I demolish less than 50% it is called ) Amy: The code is very clear. Jim Iglehart: Yes, but in the language the definition of demolition is there. Amy: If the applicant was denied partial demolition it would be difficult to add onto the house unless it were landmark designated because HPC has the ability to give some variances, I tried to work out the impact of the recommendation that I was making and if we were to give a variance for the back yard there is the possibility of building a two story addition with a total square footage of about 1,000 more or less. Roger: If the applicant decides to add on without the partial demolition does he have to come to us? Amy: No, he would not have to come to HPC. That only applies if he is demolishing something on the historic building. Roger: If we allow partial demolition he still can add on the 2000 sq. ft. Amy: Absolutely. Jake: The evidence that Amy brought in establishes that the leanto 9 r-, ~ , \ Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 13, 1994 was added around 1904 which establishes it as an historical piece of the house. If this were an addition in the 70's or 80's I would have no prol:llem granting' the partial demolition. But because it is an historical portion of the house my position in general is whatever is going to be added to make the house livable has to be considered at the time you are deciding what has to be demolished. Like Joe says how else do you know what the impact is going to be. Jim Iglehart: Then you have to change the rules Jake because they do not say that right now. You have to vote your conviction as to what is there now. You and Roger have said you would like to review it and until you change the laws and rules then it is impossible for you to do that. You have to rule on what you have in front of you. Jake: Then lets go back to the standards, kitchen off and the bath off. It says restoration and renovation. I do not know if you are taking necessary for it is. the the ) Jim Iglehart: Its not, I could build 1,000 square feet. Your code is written so broadly that you can do or say anything. This is the loosest code that I have ever read. I know there have been similar situations Hyman and Aspen, the little white house that Dr. Hartman owns. It is an historic designated house and you allowed him to tear down approximately 2 to 300 square feet of a similar leanto on the back and I know because I built the addition. And it is historically designated and it had a full blown review. If you are telling me that I have to get in the historic register list to be able to get your permission I am feeling strong armed about that and coursed that the only way this is going to happen is if I go with what you want it to represent, Presently that does not have to happen. I also have problems with the code the way it is written, Amy: The code is written that way to not allow things to happen that are not within our goals. It is a judgment call. Jim Iglehart: And when you are done is that preservation, that is a big question of mine being a resident of this town for 21 years. I do not want to see the character of this town change, ' Sandra Iglehart, owner: We are not going to jeopardize the integrity of the front part of the house. We want to keep that looking historical and work around that and we do want to work with the Board. MOTION: Joe made the motion that the HPC approve the partial demolition for 610 W. Hallam with the following conditions: That in order to satisfy Standard #2 that the HPC will review the 10 !""""\ !""""\ Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of April 13, 1994 massing and scale of any proposed addition; second by Martha. DISCUSSION: Scott: I feel this is appropriate because when you are on the street you cannot see that leanto no matter what. Scott: The motion is important because if you drive down town some of the mass and scale is horrendous. ) Jim Iglehart: I do not mind coming in here and asking for your input as long as it does not have legal reprocussions, You can look at it but I don't want you in my way and making it look like the one beside me when I am done. I am concerned about mass and scale and I want to keep the front part of the house. Joe: The city Attorney will have to do a ruling and I am sitting on the Board not as a lawyer but I read the standard as the applicant has mitigated to the greatest extent possible impacts on the historic importance of the structure that have been caused by the partial demolition. I do not know how to make that determination without seeing what is the impact to the historic structure as the result of the partial demolition. That is why I am suggesting this motion because it is a compromise. It you wanted us to call the vote you would get a denial of the partial demolition. Jim Iglehart.: the code book historical. How to you propose to do that under the language in because I am not going to designate this house Joe: I am not asking that you designate it. I am stating that the condition of granting your partial demolition in order that we can evaluate the impacts of the remaining structure that we look at the mass and scale of the proposed addition, Jim Iglehart: What kind of teeth do you have at that point? Amy: The committee does have the authority to put on any condition of approval that they want and that is why it can be discussed, The idea behind us looking at it is so that we can have an input. Joe: It would have some input or rather teeth but the only issue we are looking at is mass and scale, We are not going to look at the detail of windows, materials. We will look at height and how does it connect to the historic structure, Roger: Let me offer a suggestion. I the current climate of the city council they are very seriously contemplating overall design 11 I'"" t"""\ Historio Preservation Committee Minutes of April 13, 1994 review so if we reject your proposal and you go to city council my feeling is that they will say no because they are getting really serious about historic issues. I My feeling in knowing how you work, if you came to us in a worksession with your plans I bet you will have no problems with the Board. And at the same time we have to believe in what you are doing because you are compromising also. We are only asking, for mass and scale. It is a two way thing. Jim Iglehart: My intentions are the same as the Boards, Roger: When I came on the Board it was reactive and since then it has become proactive and the majority of other projects after the dialogue betwe,en the applicant and Board said they had a better project. Roger: There are some things that were approved that we didn't like but like or dislike they got approved. Go with the motion. Jim Iglehart: Go ahead and read the motion again and I am willing to work with the committee. I heard mass and scale. ') / Joe: The motion stated in order to review standard number 2, A & B of the memo that we look at mass and scale of the proposed addition which would include height, bulk of the addition and how the new connects to the historic house. We will not look at window placement, window design or material design. VOTE ON MOTION: All in favor of the motion. Motion carries. 520 E, DURANT STREET - MINOR DEVELOPMENT (CHANEL) Amy: The applicant wants to lower the window ceil heights where the new Chanel store will be and also install new entrance doors. This is a new building but we need to look at the different types of doors, Chris Carlson, Brand & Allen Architects representing Chanel: What is distinct from the other spaces in the building is that this is the corner leased space. It is cut at the ,corner on a 45 degree. Due to the size of this particular lease it is the largest tenant and it starts to become the anchor corner and faces Little Nell and the gondola. Chanel is a fashion company and therefore they need to use manikins to display from head to toe. The present windows do not allow for the size and proportions that we need. Our colors are black and white. Because of the covered walkway around and because of the intense sunlight we have in Aspen it starts to become a very dark storefront. 'What we are trying to do is visually open it up so that you can see our retail store. We ! ) 12 r-.. i""""\ , . ) Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 18, 1994 original building to the rear or to the north which is then in the alley and that the applicant relocate the existing historic studio office away from the sidewalk, I am agreeing with the concept of the addition to the east and agreeing with the corc~pt of a tower, The applicant come up with a. good solution to the snow problem on the east side between the two buildings. That the exterior materials be studied because brick might be too over powering over the historic structure, although practically I like it; second by Les. Motion paSSes 5 - 1, Martha opposed. . OIScUSSION: Linda, Donnelley, Les and Scott stated that the brick was not compatible, Martha: Is there anyway that the tower can be free standing? Donnelley: Not with their present program, Roget: Can you go over the six points. Roger: In the motion I dealt with the tower, out building, the stepping, the connection and dealt with moving the main house, The only thing I did not say anything about was the parking, ) Donnelley: We can give a parking variance if the committee is satisfied with meeting the standards, Les: I have no problem with getting rid of parking, Roger: I do not either, MOTION: 8th for carries. Roger made the motion to table the public hearing until June 303 W. Main Street; second by Les. All in favor, motion Les: Roget, this project is going to work, ;i,'."" , , : , ,~ "",'.;;,"';;;;:'.;;~;;Y",,,,,,~,,. ;,4'';'l="''''''' "",,"'~', - PARTIAL DEMOLITION Amy: On this block there used to be three houses in a row that were identical, I have no problem with the addition but with the treatment of the historic house, I do not think any windows that are historic should be removed. I do not think that the ornate trim should be added and I am concerned about the solution on the entrance porch, Generally porches were only shed porches, The dormers are original and the wrap around porch is not historic, Scott Lindeneau, architect: Right now it faces north and the snow sheds on the entry, The entry is currently on the side door which we have determined is not historic either, We would like to change the 16 I""". , ,-,. , Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 18, 1994 roof due to snow and the columns will be single four by four raised off the concrete. The rear is non-historic. We would like to add dormers that are simil~r in the same language as the house. We will not move the windows,. The conservatory in the back will be added and a deck that faces the vacant lot. Amy: The thing in question is that there is this type of little closed vestibule entrance-way and a hipped roof and that is somewhat represented of what used to be the front of this house. You might want to look at 314 Gillespie Bruce Berger's house which is a different house but it also has an enclosed entrance area, Donnelley: We need to know what has been eliminated, Scott Lindeneau: The fish scale stays, The front entry dormer the spring point is from the corner board as opposed to extending beyond, It will be slightly smaller, We have added a window above the conservatory to the east, On the west elevation we have eliminated the vertical mullions in the lower windows, Donnelley: The east elevation is basically buried against the adjacent house, ) Roger: There is an existing door on the east elevation and you are taking that out. Amy: All we are reviewing is partial demolition but I consider demolishing historic windows and things like that in the application, Linda: The back of the house had an addition in the 1960's and that is being removed, Donnelley: The main issue is the north east corner, the changes to the entrance as far as demolition and of course removal of the new addition, CLARIFICATIONS Roger: Most probably when that house was built the original house peak had a door and an alcove, At some later date someone put something over the doorway. It is obvious what is there is not original, Amy: On the adjacent house the architects who worked on that project said the roof was part of the structure of the house and that the vestibule below it had been changed too, That is what I am basing my opinion on how the roof should have looked like, Donnelley: You are proposing not restoring the entry as it was original built, You are proposing pulling forward the front door so you have an air lock, 17 ~ "-', Historic Preservation Commi ttee Minutes of May 18, 1994 Donnelley: I would like to see the entrance different from the house next door so people do not ,think that they both were original, Amy: I am proposing tPat he bring it back to the original because that is part of the partial demolition, He is asking to change the entrance and there is a window there now but there is also an historic door. Scott: The problem is how does the roof meet and ponnect, Roger: To me Scott's proposal is not a major issue because I do not feel it was original looking at the entire configuration, I feel whatever was put there was put there later, A lot of these houses were simple and then things were done to them, Roger: If the porch on the model were flush with the gable face wouldn't that be less overpowering? Amy: That would be less awkward, Scott: It is for the snow conditions and that is very important, The one next door is set back. Donnelley: Scott has improved the entrance because now you can see it from the street, ) MOTION: Roger made the motion to approve partial demolition to 229 W, Hallam with the following conditions: That the north gable face not be changed in any way except for the removal of the shutters, That the entire historic west side not be changed in anyway except for the addition of a gable on the second floor as shown on the model, That the east side is approved as shown on the model and that the entrance be restudied with Staff and monitor to pull the existing roof in line with the siding of the north face and that all attempts be made to not have the little gable over the entry and that the posts on the wrap around porch be made to the same sc~le of the traditional posts used in Aspen which is a turned round post, the lower,part of which does not exceed three feet and that the upper top be between a foot and eight inches in height so that it is not like the posts on the house next door but more of a traditional victorian; second by Les, All in favor, motion carries, . Amy: What about the shed dormers? Roger: In the motion it is OK to add the shed dormer that is indicated on the model, Donnelley: Do you have an objection to the shed dormer? Scott Lindeneau: developed, I feel it is inconsistent with the language 18 r'\ I~ , , Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 18, 1994 Amy: I am trying to avoid making an example of the house next door, Roger: I have found nothing historicfabout that dormer, Linda: I feel these are more in keeping with the architecture of the house rather than a shed dormer. Scott will be the monitor, CARIBOU ALLEY - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Harley Baldwin, owner: I thought Alan Richman was out of his mind when he told me that there was this 25%, open space, I was in the middle of a project and didn't have time to fight him so I just tried to deal with it, Creating a plaza on the northern face is a very difficult thing and is probably something that shouldn't happen and the requirement for open space has created some of the worst spaces in Aspen, Ever since I started the building I have been trying to make that space work and more warmer and inviting, The thing that is working is the Alley Cafe and it has brought in lots of people, The tables in the summer really work and we have flowers and are doing architectural xmas decorations in the winter to try and make it an inviting space. To create this cafe we need something over it that is unobtrusive, We would also like to find some late 19th century gas lamps and install two at the front of the Caribou Alley and two in the back next to the cafe, The whole idea is to come up with ideas on how to warm up the space. A lot of this is how humans feel in the space not all architecture, We are trying to create a space that people want to be in, Roger: What will the canopy be made of? Harley: Nylon and will be attached but it will be seasonal from Memorial Day to October 15th. Roger: Why did you not proposal some kind of clear canopy? Harley: There would be an FAR problem and it is not allowed, Amy: They are required to have 25% open space and the only reason he can do this at all is because of the ordinance that allowed a trellis at the Cantina. The County and City Staff decided this would be acceptable over the open space as long as it can roll away and open up, The space is to be open from the ground to the sky, Roger: I feel it should be covered with glass as you can see up to the sky and you are creating dynamic activity in that space, Harley: If we did that we would have to have doors on the front, I did the Alley Cafe riOl: at all as a business, I thought that space needed it and it has really worked, I also feel it needs that flicker 19 V{ I MEMORANDUM To: Aspen City Council Thru: ,{l.....:,- Robert s. Anderson, Jr., Ci ty Manager,'-.... Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office ~~ r\\"-.. From: Re: Second Reading, ordinance amending regulations governing the demolition, partial demolition or relocation of historic structures Date: May 8, 1989 =====~=================================~=======~================ SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends Final app~oval of Ordinance 17 (Series of 1989) on Second Reading. BACKGROUUD: At the April 3, 1989 Council meeting, this "demolitionU portion of Code Correction Ordinance #7, Series of 1989, was removed from that ordinance, for review and adoption on its own. The reason for removing this item fro::1. that ordinance was the desire of Council and staff to expand ~s scope beY01.l what was included in the public hearing notice. l!he substantl.ve c~'angc .....<'\5 the inclusion of the entire Inventory 0: Historic structures to the list of required r~views involving the demolition or relocation of historic struc~Y.ties or structures located within an H, Historic Overlay, Distric~ City council unanimuusly passed this ordinance on first reading on April 10, 1989. OISCUSSION: It is clear to the Planning Office and the Historic Preservation Committee that our current legislation involving the review of d~molitions, partial demolition~ and relocations is not adequate to address the serious situation facing this community r.ow. Last year's building season saw thp loss of five historic resources, and so far this year an additional five properties have been id~ntified by the P1annlng Office as endangered. Immediate action is necessary to prevent the further demolition of historic structures. The proposed amendments to Section 7-602 of the Land Use Code primarily separate out the three issues, and apply specifi~ review standards to each. These are: De~olition, Partial Demolition, and Relocation. Originally Historic Preservation Ordinance #11, Series of 1987, combined all of these, making effective review very difficult for staff, the HPC, and the applicant. Staff drafted the revised code language last fall, approved by the HPC, to clarify these three development activities. It was in March of this year when Council directed the Planning Office to expand the demolition review focus to include all structures on the Inventory. Section leA) includes the fOllowing language, requiring C,-) demolition review by the HPC on the entire inventory: "No demolition of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic sites and Structures of the city of Aspen, established pursuant to Sec. 7-709, or any structure within an "H". Historic Overlay District shall be permitted unless the demolition is approved by the HP~ because it meets the standard.. of Section 7-602(8)." Similar language is included addressing Relocat,ions, as \,"el1. It is important to understand that the HPC generally feels that not u.l Ithistoric" structures, that is Sll'\.J!. structure dating prc- 1910, should be preserved. The 1986 rating system wa~ designed originally to analyze existing historic resources in an attempt to determine which structures, if any, had lost their historic integri y over the years, and should be allowed to "make way for ne" Ihe intent of this ordinance is to alluw the review of it' n nrocosals so that all Dra~ticable imoa~Ss maY be ~itiaated. It is a way to allow the City's Historic eservation Committee and staff to review demolition or relocation proposals, analyze the situation, and seek alternative~ to mitigate impacts. Relocation standards were drafted to specifically address the pcssibility of moving, rather than simply razing, historic structures. The Planning Office feels, that with this new provlslon, a commitment on our part to ~ comprehensive r.eview of the Inventory is requireu. That Inventory revi.ew wou:d consist of cl,ropping those historic structures which have no value and to take l>ublic comment from the individual property:owners. This review. wO'.lld follow adoption of this Ordinance and, if necessary. result in further action. or even repeal of -this "temporary" action. It is not the intent of this ordinance to "Saran Wrap" Aspen, creating a living "museum". However, as it currently stands, only a Building Department delllolition permit is required to raze a structure rate-j below ,a "4", not included within a historic district or listed on the Inventory at all. Aspen's heritage is not simply represented in the "High Style Victorians", but rather the mixture of "miner's cottage" housing stock that speaks to our workinq-class past. The Planning Office feels strongly that the preserva.tion of our "community" requires the inclusion of all historic structures identified on the Inventory in demolition or relocation review before the HPC. RECOMMENDED MOTION: .~;ove to approve Ordinance 17 (Series of 1989) on Second Reading" CITY Ml\IlAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:. memo.cc.ord.17 c:. MEMORANDUM TO: THRU: THRU: FROM: . DATE: RE: Mayor and Council ~, /' Carol 0 I Dowd, City Manageyv ; " ~. MY Margerum, Planning DirectorCl~\' Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer:,,- May 13, 1991 2nd Reading, Ordinance No. 9 (Series of Section 7-602 of the Aspen Land Use include an Exemption Clause to preservation demolition provisi~ns 1991); 1'.T:1ending Regulatior,s to thE< historic ===~========================~==================================== SUMMARY: Planning staff recommends that you adopt on 2nd Reading Ordinance 1<0,9 (Series of 1991) aI:\ending Section 7-602 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations, COUNCIL COALS: The Planning Office finds that Council Goals #14 (governmental process) and #10, (preservation of character). are met with this code amendment. This code atlendrc,e"t allows :c,r a reasonable exemption process from the applicable land use regulation standards to allow for compatible LQdevelopment within a historic district. BACKGROUND: These amendments are necessary to process prior to the large code Clarification/clean up ordinance, due to three projects currently underway in the Commercial Core Historic District. One is the Lane Parcel, associated with the Collins Block; the second is the Alpine Bank Building at 409 E. Hopkins, and the third is the "Cleaners Building" located next to the Lily Reid cottage (200 S. Monarch). These three structures are not historic and are considered by the HPC to be non-contributing ...ithin the context of the Cor..r.,ercial Core Historic District. Both the Lane Parcel and the Lily Reid project received Final Development approval subject to this code amendment; 409 E. Hopkins has received Conceptual Development approval. Al" three buildings are slated for demolition to allow for compatible ndevelopment to occur. This code amendment is necessary in order for the HPC to act within the code to allow those projects to proceed. The Planning Department and the HPC have discovered that in tightening up the demolition/partial demolition/relocation standards (Ordinance 7. Ser .1989) that the process becaC',e too strict to allow some redevelopment to occur, We have carefully considered the application of such an exeI:\ption clause to other ... "'."", .::;'if':I~t;, - " ' .~ .' PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve on 2nd Reading Ordinance No. g ( Series of 1991), amending Section 7-602 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. CITY MANAGER COMKENTS: .;- ,On ,.n. memo,hpc.demo.c~de.amend.cc.2 2 ,-" ,-, € )(H(~ 11" 1 DIKEOU / 523 WEST FRANCIS TIMELlNE 23 MAR 93 LETTER FROM CITY OF ASPEN ( Kim Johnson) 13 SEPT 93 BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTED 30 SEPT 93 BD OF ADJ (Submitted Sept 20) 11 OCT 93 PARTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPROVED PREAPP? 26 JAN 94 HPC MEETING - REQUEST FOR HPC SUPPORT @ BofA 18 FEB 94 PARTIAL BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED 09 MAR 94 SUBMITTED BofA APPLICATION 09 MAR 94 330 GILLISPIE REVIEWED (NEW POLICY APPLIED) 24 MAR 94 BD OF ADJ REVIEW - MISINFORMATION 08 JUN 94 HPC PART DEMO REVIEW - APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS (Submitted Jun 2) 22 JUN 94 HPC AMENDMENT TO PART DEMO APPROVAL 07 JULY 94 LUCY DIKEOU REQUESTS RECONSIDERATION BEFORE HPC ISSUES: 1. Timing of processing and rule change. 2. Partial Demolition Ordinance and its interpretation/application to this project r"\ ,-. fix. HI SIT Z en treet 611 Lucy OeQue 25 POllo Club Denv~r, co. Circle 80209 March 23, 1993 RE: 523 w. Francis st., Aspen Dear Ms. DeQue, Regarding required reviewa by the HPC (Historic Preservation Committee) on the above property, I offer the following information. ~he property is listed on the inventory of historic structurea, but is not a designated Historic Landmark. For invQntory structures, the HPC has review authority only when relocation, complete demolition, or demolition greater than 50% of t.hll!l structure is proposed. From whO-t :r understand in my dis<..:u:o:;;ion with you a couplQ ot days ago, you wi:sh to' add french doors to the real:' of the house but propose no demolition. Thi:;; project would not require review by the HPC. 'Iou must obtain a building permit for construction of this type. The permit would be routed through Zoning and I would initial as exempt from HPC approval. If you have any other questions, I may be r~ached at 920- 5100. Jf~ Plan~n:~~ ~nterim Historic Preservation Officer @ r~~ydcd fJ,Jp_'