The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.222 E Hallam St.HP-1988-08g. r' 1, 1 f 2/ LK Apt"J 04 0-9 / 16 < At|/1 11 37 IL WOOTS IybPIsal:I oqalfi ' '49 UIE-[TEH '2 EZE - 80 2%51 -6 8 1.24*61 1. 9 f MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council 4 h ov-, lifc 5Â£â€¢r '0 , THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager -1 w,fl AL i M ff Atiti FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office AA. , MN) 1 f fl'An' Al off j 1 hqtiD5â€¢4 ~v*~1-6 (byt RE: Amato Appeal of HPC Score 4 2 2Â¥rÂ·A ~f /94 DATE: January 11, 1988 5ht,1/ L 1019 -64 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends that City Council remand the HPC historic evaluation rating of 222 East Hallam Street to HPC for rehearing. PRIOR COUNCIL ACTION: Action was tabled on the Amato Appeal on December 14, 1987 until the January 11, 1988 City Council meeting. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Attached is the Planning Office December 14, 1987 memorandum on the Amato appeal. In it we recommended Council to affirm the rating of "4" made by HPC. This recommendation was based on information thus far presented indicating that while several additions and replacements of original materials had been made, the structure's basic appearance from Hallam Street had not significantly changed. In addition, this house contributes to the historic character of the Community Church neighborhood. At the meeting, the applicant presented a great deal of information- some of which was new - to argue that even further alterations have occurred to the 222 E. Hallam house since the time of historic significance at the turn of the century. The letter and presentation by historic preservation consultant Lisa Purdy (attached) raised other concerns that we think deserve to be presented to HPC for their review in the historic evaluation. Based on the new information gathered by the applicant, we believe it is appropriate to remand the evaluation back to HPC. This does not mean that the Planning Office supports lowering the "4" rating for 222 E. Hallam, but simply that we conclude that HPC should have the chance to re-evaluate the total collection of information. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to remand the historic evaluation rating of 222 East Hallam Street to HPC for rehearing. " f#4 CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: 222e.h.2 Sec : M fc f, 8 4 AN AD DE M% L 1 -0 I N (211 2.AAA,nlj Afc,+E-1 "4 3 L MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager ~~3i'- FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office AiL. RE: Amato Appeal of HPC Score DATE: December 14, 1987 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends that City Council affirm the HPC historic evaluation rating of "4" for the structure at 222 E. Hallam Street. LOCATION: 222 E. Hallam St., Lots K and L, Block 71, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: R-6 Medium Density Residential. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Current owners of 222 East Hallam Joe and Debbie Amato are appealing the HPC evaluation of "4" for their house. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE: As part of the historic designation regulations of the City of aspen , the process of HPC evaluation of structures on the Inventory of Historic structures was established whereby those structures were assigned rated values between 0 and 5. According to Section 24- 9.5(a) of the Municipal Code, any structure rated "4" or "5" is subject to the demolition and total removal review provisions. Section 24-9.7 of the Municipal Code allows for appeal to City Council of HPC's ratings on the Inventory within one hundred and twenty (120) days of adoption of Ordinance 11. Expiration of this time period ended September 11, 1987. The Amato Appeal was received on September 4 and was postponed several times to the present Council meeting date. City Council's discretion in appeals is stated in Section 24- 9.7(b) as follows: "The City Council shall consider the application on the record established before the HPC. The City Council shall affirm the decision of the HPC unless Council shall deter- mine that there was an abuse of discretion or denial of due process by the HPC. Upon determining that there was an abuse of discretion or denial of due process, the Council shall be authorized to take such action as it shall deem necessary to remedy said situation..." PROBLEM DISCUSSION: HPC made its historic evaluation of 222 E. Hallam on January 15, 1987 considering the following information: the house was built in the 1890's in its present location; distinctive Victorian features include the cross gable layout, vertical sash windows, gable end shingles, and contribution to the Community Church historic neighborhood. Owner Marvin Reynolds was present at the meeting and stated the house had been in the same family as when it was built. He stated he had no objections to the evaluation rating but was concerned about the uncertainty of the affect, if any, on property value. Gideon Kaufman states in the September 2, 1987 application letter that a number of additions have been added on to the house significantly changing it and the house is structurally unsound. New information has been provided by the applicant about the additions through further historical and structural analysis. Professional Engineer Richard Cieciuch has also inspected the house and pointed out foundation and roof problems that lead him to believe the house is not structurally sound. The following changes to the structure since 1904 have been noted, with some documentation: - siding has been replaced (appears to be the same narrow siding); - the front porch was rebuilt and extended forward approximately 3 feet; - masonry foundation has been repaired and extended under additions; - 3 additions have been added to the house located behind the original sun room on the east, behind the dining room on the west and behind the kitchen to the north; - original windows have been replaced with new windows; - new metal roof has been installed; and - a new workshop (built in 1964 and 1984) has replaced the original outstructure. Staff contacted next door neighbor Mona Frost to ask if she recalled alterations to 222 E. Hallam Street. Mona stated that since she moved next door in 1940 (47 years ago), the house has remained basically the same. She remembered some of the additions being built, but believed the front of the house had not been much changed; and she noted that the house has been the same color green through the years. It appears to staff that the numerous renovations of the house were undertaken to keep the house in good repair and have not significantly effected the front of the house or the historic character of the property. Please note that virtually every structure in Aspen has been altered; and the very purpose of the 2 historic evaluations was to assess the extent to which those alterations are compatible with the original architecture or diminish the historic character. In addition, HPC consistently considered the contribution a structure makes to the neighbor- hood's historic character. In the case of 222 E. Hallam Street, HPC gave a high assessment of neighborhood influence because of its location between the Glidden House and Frost House, both important historic resources, and its inclusion in the Community Church historic neighborhood. Of the "historic districts under consideration," delineated in the 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, the Community Church area has the highest density of historic structures (see map attached). The applicant also presented a letter from Historic preservation consultant Deborah Abele which we received December 8, 1987 (attached). She remarks that the evaluation of 222 E. Hallam is inadequate in documentation in the following areas: - Description of the salient features of the Community Church historic district in the 1980 Inventory as updated; - inadequate discussion of those aspects of 222 East Hallam's physical condition or history; - lack of description of criteria and methods used in the evaluation; and - lack of information on how judgments were made in the evaluation of alterations and neighborhood importance. Staff believes that the HPC properly undertook the evaluation of 222 East Hallam using the best available public information at a public meeting. While the Inventory can clearly be improved, it provided basic information on the year of construction, some alterations (other alterations were identified at the meeting or by the applicant after substantial research during the last two months), photographic documentation of the structure, considera- tion of the structure's quality as illustrating the family/home environment of the average citizen in Aspen during the silver mining era, and some neighborhood context. The Historic Inventory map, staff recommendation notes explaining rationale for the recommended evaluation score, and notes taken at the public meeting of both owner and HPC member comments further supplement the public record. We have intended to pursue with the State grant funding work that would address Ms. Abele's suggestions to better document the City's historic inventory. Descriptions of historic neighbor- hoods and additional research information on individual struc- tures will be written. This work will be assigned to the historic preservation specialist who is expected to be hired in January. The Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guide- lines also do much to describe historic architecture types and neighborhood characteristics. 3 The structural integrity of buildings was explicitly excluded from HPC's criteria for evaluating historic significance, as you can see from the attached rating scale. This area of concern is one of the standards for review of a demolition proposal and would be considered if such an application were made. ALTERNATIVES: Alternatives that Council has in responding to appeals of HPC's actions include: 1. To affirm the rating made by HPC; 2. To down-score the rating; or 3. To remand the rating to HPC for rehearing. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to affirm HPC's rating of "4" to the structure at 222 East Hallam Street." CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: 222e.hallam - :1 I .&-3. . PA N - - 1 ' I ' 6 ' 10 JA !61UR ' 0 4 . -Exhibit to Ordinance Number 11 (Series of 1987) C 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 wdy---tha-â‚¬- - i---16Iikiderdd 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 18cation, -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 dxceptional 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. C -r- / FIGURE Ill.2 7--f--f- i . ~ Â· r Â· rt,PX - /01//11 129â€žl] ip INMEATORY ~OR HISTORIC ES AND STRUCTURES : ' LEGEND -e- - E 3- , 1986 UPDA~ E Exceptional Structures designated . ASPEN, COLOR~ 0 ~ i Â· f 91- _22=2 1- ; ft not yet designated O E=e.linaL-St[Uglurni designated A not yet designated a f - PREPARED BÂ¥ THE ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING FFICE 9-88 . Notable Structures .. 4. . designated I 100 800 not yet designated O 61.._1 J Coit!1131!knatructures 0 0 200 400 021 4 0 1. main street U /7/0- . !1! SIOBIQ-DISIBICISiEQEELCQN2QEBAIK~ 2. commercial core V /7 3.west bleeker/hallam street 4.hallam lake / 5.community church 6.lift 1 Al ' I.(~C=)2 /=k- il.xj/ ,04 N&0-27- Â· 2)37- , 'Â·Â·Val--- 4 em: t ". Vy Nk \ 4 / \ 4 \93 t: : ) 1 *0.5- - ei.-*AU -----m C U.... \1 L Â·Â· mi 1 O.. 11~'*~ --. :1-t'_22 .-0 . , ''. 1 CE>- h 1 [113 fIII Â·il=U -- Â·: . .. 1 1, H. Â«Jax #bj . V 0 4.1.13 h ' , mi i EWIE IXIM @B~ 3 - .r=----PL -- - - 77,~E-Ii-f] . '.lit~42--E . CIEE~-[1 :!1~@I[*1Â·: - - -, . i, . , , L --<3 . -0 - n :-1.11.Tl C3~0&<f 'ImrTrn 1 [maill ! II[Wffill UWIi[] i -4 or -[ImIE -- D. 0 Quff I ~ l,1,14 FLU -U t . 4 1. 1 .... MaÂ» Elu NE 1 J =th Fert' 1 J 9 -11 -44#. 1--1 lit n''In,Ii,Ilâ€¢o~o.ID JOI \ L ll[*1111&1 . -r\- 8 0-Â®17.LI[Lk -rEE] . i-ITH!119 IT[RE I[RE@ 111111* g[III[[[11]TITE[[1 -- rlintlm i niglin] Iffic JULIN BEJBMÂ·'EW[[[~ FF~fi~t~~*Â·ENI[[1Â· WMAWNÂ¢| ||IP . 1 ~. ~--6II~IF~JID 1 0//3880 . [IINIC [ 1- - 01/0//0 i:Emi] 1 --; --rn--el [T~TTITTT1, 1 11 1111}Eal mfEN*11] 11~WIR] mimi' F-I [[[1111'11111'1111 [T-m [177-IAV~:~ f~EL~ [i*B_- , - AUL.u .. --- Trit _ 442 &41 %3 4 ..E - v/-/\ f r lili 11 , ... 7-20 :Qu- . f-ar= [Il~Un--1 ' r-*31 4 , Un'J ,Â· 1 miti] [03%1 . .4 C LUS 01111-1 AEfF i UE Â· lq-44.,1 rr-L7l /L- ABL 1,2 Â· 421121Â£11/ V- / \Nkluy . . -6- . 13 :i, Â© R E f./.- 1 1 1 14 LAWOFFICES 11 1 F f SEP 4 : 9 9 3 ~ GIDEON I. KAUFMAN 1 i il\\ i A PROFESSIONALCORPORATION 1 LJ r.1 K ---- --- -- - BOX 10001 TELEPHONE GIDEON I. KAUFMAN 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE. SUITE 305 AREA CODE 303 RICHARDS. LUHMAN ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 925-8166 September 2, 1987 Mr. Steve Burstein Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office HAND-DELIVERED 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: HPC Appeal Dear Steve: Please consider this letter an appeal on behalf of my client, Joe and Debbie Amato, owners of 222 East Hallam Street, also described on Legal Description attached hereto. This property received a score of 4 during the HPC review process. I do not feel that the score is indicative of the true historic value of this property. I believe that if the HPC had the benefit of more information, a score lower than 4 would have been assigned. The physical evidence of deterioration which poses an imminent danger to the health, safety and welfare of the occupants is apparent when one observes the pronounced sagging of the roof joists between the intermediate bearing walls and the bowing out of the outside walls. The floors are sagging in numerous places, and there are changes of level in the house which may be dangerous, as well as non-functional. The brick foundation walls are loose and crumbling at the slightest touch. In addition, there is no continuous footing under the majority of the brick foundation which bears directly on dirt a few inches below finished grade. There have been haphazard additions and remodeling done over the years to the house. The house originally was a rectangular box of clapboard siding, wood shingled roof and no porch. The clapboard siding was removed in 1963, and new cedar siding was installed. The roof lines of the house were changed in the 1920s when a kitchen was added. There have been eight different additions to the house, including porch and porch facades, as well as major renovations which took place in the 1950s. The original house is a rectangular structure of approximately 12' x 44'. The size of the house has doubled since that time. Even the comments from the HPC architectural historicial component form do not justify the score of 4 for this house, and I quote: "The significance of this residential structure is not of those who owned it or lived in it, nor of its architectural, although the structure is representative of Aspen's mining era. This modest structure is of historic importance by illustrating the family home environment and . Mr. Steve Burstein September 2, 1987 Page 2 lifestyle of the average citizen in Aspen, dominated by the silver mining industry." When you take that lack of significance and couple it with the condition of the structure, as well as the numerous changes that have taken place to that structure, I believe its is apparent that a score of 4 is not appropriate. A complete structural analysis has been done on the house by Integrated Engineering Consultants, Ltd. which confirms the problems existing with the house. A copy of their report has been included for your review. My clients did not own the house at the time designation took place. The owner at the time was confused about the significance and importance of the designation. While he felt some attachment to the house because it had been in his family for many years, he did not want to see the property devalued or arbitrary constraints placed upon it. He did not understand the true significance of what a 4 designation would be, and therefore, did not make a presentation including this information to the HPC. Because of these factors, I feel that an appeal is appropriate. Concerns such as ours led the City Council to specifically designate an appeal process for owners to get a fair and full hearing on their designation. I look forward to discussing this matter with you and would like to see it directed to the City Council for the appeal. I believe that a more appropriate score should be issued to this house in the neighborhood of a 2, and would like to set the record straight on the true historic significance of this property. Once you have had an opportunity to review this letter, please contact me. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, a Professional Corporation Gideon/ phufman GK/bw CC: Joseph A. Amato Enclosures Received by Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office this 4th day of September, 1987. 116942_ a - AUÂ»=-- .. LAWOFFICESOF GIDEON 1. KAUFMAN, P.C. BOX 10001 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 305 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 _Â»._ Ut-1.1- 'i ..0 :,/ A ullwy,04Â¥1 *601 :1116.41 40'* 1 , 4/.-0 .1Â·.4 - . .. - 1 â€¢6 42....Atif:11"r i .diM.. - ':Â·0=21. i .AN 1. . /1 '* 212 644* 1 - :.. rettle.1 2 1, 11* 7 r /4",1 + , .Â». 7.141 - 'r 1, â€ž1 1 .11 41 01,1 -4.. 4 1 4* 1- - 2. 2 11 - '4 gliT:'~Ild 1 4. - 222 East Hallam 4. The porch railings and the porch and the interior of the house just behind the porch, has all been severdly altered and radically changed, in the late 1950's and 1970's. /4.Â»r .. U- 71 .7 Â£ I A . tpogi-*1, t I .G.ate: 4Â¥79/1 . -1. ../ 71 222 East Hallam 1. Looking in a southerly direction, i.e., towards the front of the house. Note the 2 X 4's by the aluminum pipe which is one of the newer segments of the house. Note the isolated greenish tinged sheathing and the old roof line of the original 12 X 30 rectangular box. Looking beyond the chimney note the roof which has been altered in the front of the house just above the sitting room and porch area. The latter taking place in the late 1950's and 1970's. :I: 1 1 . A -- L '0 . Vt: . . I . , 40Â»Â» *:1 4 . ....r . N d '64/'. Â¥ 4//-/ ... I 'W/ t, . .. 'ti....a:,iÂ©,.: I . 4 te. 2.-0 - . I. I . I I 4.-Al,ALÂ¥,1-ft. - 7-.t , 222 East Hallam 2. A closer view of the older roof line and the newly altered structure of the 1970's which is just beyond the chimney. 4 ..4 I A .--1-777- 4/*A 1 Â· 4 1 11: 1 1 1 ...72- / .CL 0~ - -.1- , tÂ¥,!/ 3,2 4 1 9 00 41 y Â£ $70 70 ~ 6 979 0 '11 D < 5,!* Al t= Â£12 1 04 9.,1 ~1}41, 1 . p 331 0 7" 24 40 1 4,4 Â£ 15â€¢K ALIDDEÂ»'4 Â»EXT - t . 4 e ..0 1. t 4 ; . 11' L . . a 94, 1, 'VIUMT/"/ 6 b Xn . Â»> r , 11 , L Pecer-SSLJOY ~ k_j ~-oce'll 7 D OCT 1987 U 11 0 APKIL' 255 '. 4 444*%- 2- - 4 .. .: , 91 'c'*11, 2, 1 0 ec':-w##tr#D + M .P ..0, '4 â„¢*4443.7Â¥, ,~9.7/ 7 7%,.7.-#-Fl Â·... % ..: ...i.... pe 1190 caziL- *D F.- 11V l / 042 f. - ffÂ« 6 Cre - tudi& _ A wAIJ ve . 16,6 Apadab- 420 61 3 1*_RUGE-5-c . pa ~ 2-* _ (FL C.i )j El/~- . A /lf. liu - /* -44 4 41 (44-, 0-69- f c-ye.. C.(4Â« 46.~~ '9- 2 d / 6- i Lf (Un d (al- olfc_ T u.ga i . -_ hbo te#LI+X ock 04 - 14Â»- 9-0.0/ . tioL--44.- U. 2 0 1.. 2 .1. --- I Â¥.209â€¢9â‚¬i?-itu~ ou. d fidjrâ‚¬j I vid,re fl, i.e 7% 6 0 4 14 imuir* 151 k. 10\â„¢ 51. h fl #43*. bilÂ¥,0- ti OLL,L Avy MA TUM &-t''gl. fri j4 1 lovS.e. U 1 -' A - - 5-trv/firi, v#o rkke,l g ' 4 4 ir'.A* +L HÂ¥ c; ki)Â·f,71& .ov,1,#444 4 shdurâ‚¬, 0* 44 I,vt,k#4 14 1' Thvi, Ute *,4 %in..ollv~ Mddlbvu Net dulr Ji' rjd 4 9) Clil-A h k,i,kjâ€¢l <con,i,Wl. Ext lf#j *#j kjA<vie <ty.*ivt k 11,10 J.444) ---- Aft &#11.142 21. 44 14]i. 4;49 4 6*vke li,147 chkbt,/11,4 Pr,4 994 - 5 (/Yu ilf In*/744 &11*Mje) 'â€¢c,|Â¥11'3 Atw 1 111,19 A'WI M'1(U..PÂ· 11 r,Ar 4 firlÂ·Â·17'i. - jd*hYUffÂ»~ 0 A A. ft. - h.c-jbAbbrk#DJ lifive#r' 1 601hh'Â¢41'0~) (vrd''ll,11&a Bi 3-9 1, 4 0 Â¥,Ay * "f, - Avt bfrt, otv Â¥4 6+4-I lttj (Ail tj. A~~fi.0,4 1,k j,J >* Ct,1*"r ink J All YA; tinw) j taH- IwL., A P C Mlt\,~1 eJ~wll 9 4 rty'rtud , #f; 42-9.j A~f"rvilli ,41 i, -, -- - 01(414 41\ il<vA'vt *8 4,Â£ A Â£14â‚¬r.l i. firk Ar,0. 'llg Nfl 'j,f'eltic fuff'DM _12 041480 L jv.1 '41104 1~1 &40#*df~j +L ton,f jx,7,1, /; Alinkt/,112 . ~!42Â§19, 6.\16Â·f pib thi bfrh/1 vÂ» aa. A ik rit h,)+ ft; Avtli,tit,11 .4,4 4-----0 RvA N+0\~04./1 ~4-f'khr, .0.3;,~'0Â·j ~r,1Â·~14 Â°~74'*0, fiIJ*Â·4{, iluh( â€¢ L A i>toyi & 021[+ 8*6#,v &11; plog,15 km 1.6.1 tk poifj) Ad v'it i,ili lia ,*pl Â£1941,- 6,9 Ill- 4 ll.Orhj wo - 0ffirh, t. 2â‚¬ lhA h (4 02 tfts...A L orj 002~< ~4hJÂ£ eV#judi~ 6,#,r. - __ -- f-2.219Â·) 11&3 f-1,1-t_ 7172-EiÂ»+Ii _ , *JÂ·"r 4 I â€žfpr#*fib] - n,t i,J,Â£â€¢Al)â€¢DA 6 vtÂ· 814's - M~lf W L jill'<!12 CLA~,3 j A *6 4,41 40 01, jA,\ d,ffic.1.} to.e.Al\)414 - not A~*119 BRAtil.tk 41 4 4 4 it*; . 'ty. -N Fa , h tght, 35 L Art/ Obb k 1- LA, furtly _ svmy 63*E,y t,&,ifvff -4 4)4# % 19 *pij 1 91,7 121, --- 5 tb 3)~-Or -=- S 6&01 6 Â£,tch_ 0 1 tâ‚¬twr, i C, A *1 914 1Â®;Al ftÂ» t-4. 044#. fi,+ 4, 6-A-sy#i 0,*lu> 6,1 1â€¢'k 514*k JluA 63040,1, Duct . Jil al to.cvl- 'pj fko. fALk,â€¢46 61 J+L M,GL *trp f.,t bvt,A jitdA trww,W,4 f,Ani 44 fnt,jin, 11' C'AS krA olory915444/- _ P \ 4.aÂ·, 9 offl o Jo, 54,~ifts -fl rift,41 ~.erlâ€¢d j jiva, 46 ,#-5,11 LA'lll NP~ pb"m) YL 'trn..: Rops,r~tÂ»svivt)1 1 +64744'(f < f 4 fin v.1/0/ 4PY1Lit Fe.*9. t b{ 144,11:## i e,0#â„¢â€ž6 r ' 6Â¥4â€¢~ 144 â€¢v.1,1 6 14#AL*4. u:4 9 * te>- .evtm p r.,A ./. Clav~ . 4. 5434 et 4. 0 "11> v Bit'k 44(, Cdv 4-jÂ·-1., v,wy aff(A mib *_ 16@ 153* .#Ge,1.554 2 1 ed. ./.i 4 -*11 f L 164- ifi /1 M. rrf'. CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS P.O, BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, A.LA February 23, 1988 Project: Amato Residence Aspen, Colorado Property Owners withih 300 feet: 1st National Bank in Grand Junction Trustee for Mona Frost P.O. Box 608 Grand Junction, CO 81501 Susanna E. Reynolds 222 E. Hallam Avenue Aspen. CO 81611 Vigoda Family Ltd. Partnership A Colorado Ltd. Partnership 50 S. Steele Street Denver, CO 80209 William L. Sequim P.O. Box 2067 Aspen, CO 81612 Ferenc and Mirte Berko P.O. Box 360 Aspen, CO 81612 John Light 733 13th Street Boulder, CO 80302 William G. Brumder 2054 First Wisconsin Trust Co. Milwaukee, WI 53201 William G. Par:ybok, Jr. 1719 Collindale Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 Charles W. Dwight III P.O. Box 7669 Aspen, CO 81612 Page Two Donald Paul Krumm P.O. Box 879 Aspen, CO 81612 Richard B. Johnson & Montae Johnson 6820 Bradbury Dallas, TX 75230 Marian Nedl Lyeth c/o Bank of the Southwest P.O. Box 35688 Dallas, TX 75235 Kermit S. & Jenny W. Sutton Suite 710 317 6th Avenue Des Moines, IA 50309 Edwin J. & Adeline M. Grosse 34135 Hunters Row Farmington Hills, MI 48018 Wilson V. & Janella H. Garrett 7j.58 Hillgreen Dallas, TX 75116 George S. & Shirley M. Weaver c/o Virginia Hurst 1 Central Union Building Wheeling, West Virginia 26003 Priscilla Anne Sadler P.O. Box 2989 Aspen, CO 81612 Robert G. & Yvonne Hammond P.O. Box 280 Evergreen, CO 80439 Page Three J.E. Abels P.O. Box 4707 Aspen, CO 81612 Mrs. Walter P. Paepcke c/o Morrison K. Morrison, Ltd. 105 West Adams Street Chicago, IL 60603 -1.-Ue 1 1 I MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Remand of Amato Historic Evaluation Score DATE: February 9, 1988 LOCATION: 222 E. Hallam St., Lots K and L, Block 71, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: R-6 Medium Density Residential. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: On January 11, 1988 City Council remanded the historic evaluation rating of 222 East Hallam Street to HPC for rescoring. HISTORIC EVALUATION SCORE: "4", meaning "Structure has been altered in a way that is considered compatible with the original architecture; and the historic character is preserved. Structure / typically has strong positive influence in the neighborhood's historic character and may be associated with important historic ) persons or events. In all cases, structures were in their original location, to the best of staff and HPC's knowledge." APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE: As part Of the historic designation regulations of the City of Aspen, the process of HPC evaluation of structures on the Inventory of Historic structures was established whereby those structures were aggigned rated values between 0 and 5. According to Section 24- 9.5(a) of the Municipal Code, any structure rated "4" or "5" is subject to the demolition and total removal review provisions. Section 24-9.7 of the Municipal Code allows for appeal to City Council of HPC's ratings on the Inventory within one hundred and twenty (120) days of adoption of Ordinance 11. Expiration of this time period ended September 11, 1987. The Amato Appeal was received on September 4 and was postponed several times to the Council meeting date. City Council's discretion in appeals is stated in Section 24- 9.7(b) as follows: "The City Council shall consider the application on the record established before the HPC. The City Council shall affirm the decision of the HPC unless Council shall deter- mine that there was an abuse of discretion or denial of due process by the HPC. Upon determining that there was an , abuse of discretion or denial of due process, the Council shall be authorized to take such action as it shall deem necessary to remedy said situation..." PROBLEM DISCUSSION: After considerable discussion, Council decided that the applicant should have the opportunity to present new information and a new argument to HPC. Council determined that this rehearing would be more fair, even though Council did not make the determination that HPC had abused its discretion in overscoring the house according to the evaluation criteria. It may be of interest that 3 of the 4 Council members voting on this matter stated that they believed the " 4" rating is still correct. Please note that staff recommended remanding the rating to HPC, also concluding that the new information warranted further review, but did not conclude that the rating should be lowered. HPC made its historic evaluation of 222 E. Hallam on January 15, 1987 considering the following information: the house was built in the 1890's in its present location; distinctive Victorian features include the cross gable layout, vertical sash windows, and gable end shingles. Contribution to the historic character of the Community Church neighborhood was also considered. Owner Marvin Reynolds was present at the meeting and stated the house had been in the same family as when it was built. He stated he had no obj ections to the evaluation rating But was concerned K about â€¢the uncertainty of the affect, if any, on property value. The applicant has assembled new information about the house at 222 E. Hallam Street which was presented to City Council. The applicant argues that based on this information, the structure would be more appropriately rated "2" or possibly "3". It is argued that so many additions and alterations have been made to the house that it's historic condition is significantly changed; and the house is structurally unsound. Professional Engineer Richard Cieciuch inspected the house and pointed out foundation and roof problems that lead him to believe the house is not structurally sound. Using an examination of the foundation, the applicant posits that there was an oblong log cabin on this site circa 1887. A frame house was built over the log cabin circa 1898. Five little additions are believed to have been added between 1898 and 1904. A new front porch was built circa 1924 and again rebuilt to extend approximately 3 feet in 1977. Small additions behind the dining room on the west and behind the sunroom to the east, and behind the kitchen in the rear were built in 1952, 1977 and 1982. The Willits Map of 1896 shows the basic shapes of houses, including the house at 222 E. Hallam. We obtained copies of Sanborn Fire Insurance Atlases of 1890, 1893, and 1898 from the Denver Public Library Western History Department. And we reviewed the 1904 Sanborn's Atlas on file in the Planning Office to help 2 determine alterations to the house. Comparison of these maps 1 indicates that the house changed only slightly between 1890 and 1893, with the addition of the sunroom on the east side and the 7 kitchen area to the rear. No changes were recorded by Sanborn's from 1893 to 1904. In summary, since 1904 it appears that the following changes to the house occurred: - siding has been replaced (narrow siding probably matching original); - masonry foundation has been repaired and extended under additions; - original windows (except in the sun room) have been replaced with new windows (double sash style probably matching original); - a new metal roof has been installed; - an addition behind the sunroom was built; - an addition behind the dining room to the west was built; - the front porch has been altered, its dimensions changed; and - a new workshop (built in 1964 and 1984) has replaced the original outstructure. Staff contacted next door neighbor Mona Frost to ask if she recalled alterations to 222 E. Hallam Street. Mona stated that since she moved next door in 1940 (47 years ago), the house has remained basically the same.-She--remembered-some-of-the-addit-ions being built, but believed the front of the house had not been much changed; and she noted that the house has been the same color green through the years. Lisa Purdy, preservation consultant, states in her letter of December 11, 1987 to Joseph Amato that the lack of original fabric and the various additions lead her to conclude there is little architectural significance in the house. The house has no documented association with historic persons or events. In addition, Ms. Purdy questions the significance of the house's contribution to the historic character of its neighborhood. Questions posed by the presentation of new information on altera- tions include: 3 (1) At what point in time does the "Period of Historic t Significance" end, so that changes that occurred after that date are considered alterations changing its historic 0 . character? (2) Do the alterations that occurred since 1904 negatively effect the house's historic integrity? (3) How heavy should the contribution of this house to the historic character of the neighborhood be weighed? Staff appreciates the additional information gathered by the applicant and we believe that valid concerns are raised. After additional review of the facts, it still appears to staff that the numerous renovations of the house were undertaken to keep the house in good repair and have not significantly effected the front of the house or the historic character of the property. Please note that virtually every structure in Aspen has been altered; and the very purpose of the historic evaluations was to assess the extent to which those alterations are compatible with the original architecture or diminish the historic character. In addition, HPC consistently considered the contribution a struc- ture makes to the neighborhood's historic character. In the case of 222 E. Hallam Street, HPC gave a high assessment of neighbor- hood influence because of its location between the Glidden House and Frost House, both important historic resources, and its inclusion in the Community Church historic neighborhood. Of the "historic districts under consideration," delineated in the 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, the Community Church area has the highest density of historic structures (see map attached). The applicant also presented a letter from Historic preservation consultant Deborah Abele which we received December 8, 1987 (attached). She remarks that the evaluation of 222 E. Hallam is inadequate in documentation-in the-following areas: - Description of the salient features of the Community Church historic district in the 1980 Inventory as updated; - inadequate discussion of those aspects of 222 East Hallam's physical condition or history; - lack of description of criteria and methods used in the evaluation; and - lack of information on how judgments were made in the evaluation of alterations and neighborhood importance. 4 Staff believes that the HPC properly undertook the evaluation of 222 East Hallam using the best available public information at a public meeting. While the Inventory can clearly be improved, it provided basic information on the year of construction, some alterations (other alterations were identified by the applicant after substantial research during the last three months), photo- graphic documentation of the structure, consideration of the structure's quality as illustrating the family/home environment of the average citizen in Aspen during the silver mining era, and some neighborhood context. The Historic Inventory map, staff recommendation notes explaining rationale for the recommended evaluation score, and notes taken at the public meeting of both owner and HPC member comments further supplement the public record. In review of the ratings of others structures on the Inventory rated 2,3,4 and 5 we think this evaluation was consis- tent. The additional information presented certainly provides us with better detail on what specific alterations occurred and when, but does not undermine the basis of HPC's first assessment, in staff's opinion. The structural integrity of buildings was explicitly excluded from HPC's criteria for evaluating historic significance, as you can see from the attached rating scale. This area of concern is one of the standards for review of a demolition proposal and would be considered if such an application were made. ALTERNATIVES: Alternative actions for HPC to take include: 1. To affirm the rating first made by HPC; or 2. To down-score the rating. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends to HPC to affirm its original historic evaluation rating of "4" to 222 E. Hallam Street. 222e.hallam 5 __ - gxhibit to Ordinance Number 11 (Series of 1987) 0- Structure was incorrectly placed on Inventory and is actually neither old nor reconstructed. 1 - Structure is old, but has been so drastically altered to not he 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 o f a neighborhood. In a few cases, the structure has been associated with an historic person or family. - 4 - Structure has been altered in a wdy--tha-â‚¬- - is --dbrikiderdd 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 loca-tion,-to the kgsâ‚¬-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 representative-2- -62 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. C - 1-F -r- i- 01 2. rÂ«t P% --1-< \ FIGURE 111.2 10 INVENTORY [OR HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES : ' LEGEND -e- 1 --. t 23 - .1-_ -1 -/ '1986 UPD~~~E Exceotional Structures. I designated I ASPEN, COLO ,\0 - i ~, not yet designated O / designated a not yet designated A PREPAAEO .1 'HE AS/Eluprnal pt..1...O FF~CE .-8. Notable Structures designated â€¢ ioo .00 not yet designated 0 J--L--1 1 . Contributkig Structtres O 0 200 400 D.tv 1. main street 25> -, r . f 2. conmercial core HSTORIC DISTRICTS UNDER CONSIDERATION ;d 3.west bleeker/hallam street A. ' - 4.hallam lake 5.community church 6 lift 1 , & 't=. n -*-- 1/ .7. 37-1 f --I j 5/41 - . Â·,<Fl \ 4 u-es.-1 / A.4 11 .-. \Â·-=ECII-~-- el , -a weplat an /.:'-i 'I.'-1 1 -- . ---------~-Il. o U.111 Ull-4,~~.,- ~ ,/ ..1,1,1 3 \1 +1 1 imÂ·ir-n F --Â¥--'Tr-1 -- I.*#-/0.27- /-. ; ULLE- -'92---- ~kiNE~\-' : . 1 7 .. -C\ ...---9.4 r~~~~~m I,\ 9\ 1 ,. 0/ '62.9#!Lip ati...- 1,1 - I _.'.. . I. - 1- f - . -911*11-lu].1.H-li~LICIfiliB Â·1{i~ili*L[~IyiJ~.IioLL 7 ---- . -0 - . rTÂ·VT-TTT I . n â€¢ r 1 - 61 â€¢ . E etÂ°Â© -21.......:_32:.UÂ· U[LI'lt: BE 11, i ..u,t ..~.w' - - EEP 'Emmi; â‚¬112Â® EI[[20= TABA [OFFMfi i â€¢ r. 1. 0 - BI il,-:2:2= ..1-0,9,2.12, t,1' 1,_- -jillu~- DPI - 1-Wl rui 3-InilÂ·iÂ·FÂ·E-3. ~ I ' 'i 21.1- 2 '.1.Le- L.11 .LU _..., rp:FIFj Li> foil_13 9%ml [*Imi[[[W[QII. ~im! .m#63 ---- - ~1.Â®1! MjEII] IIi lili Ill- [[[[[~ ,LLLMUU] .. mmim-ME -[-[1-~3]Ti itT- A-f h 1 U.1-- 1-â€¢- -~am grag , RIT[Tiln F. UTINill i ]VI I ~ - Â·it ~Â·ifiem lt'% kA *: 1 i . /- UL- 1 1 64 WHIGS:til U /2 A 6 - Mffiftito hthit -il[El] Â·1 ~. 1 2 - 6{ - Â»444. 1.-911-- . 1 - . 43 [lfortfl ~ 1~ L " - 521 : 1521 11 1*-4 -- W -'t~ . 30\ --- A y O -- ' 1 1/99 . rh_ 1 C Ff,2 LAWOFFICES lip: i SEP 4 GIDEON I. KAUFMAN APROFESSIONALCORPORATION BOX 10001 GIDEON I KAUFMAN TELEPHONE 315 EASTHYMAN AVENUE. SUITE 305 AREACODE 303 RICHARDS. LUHMAN ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 925-8166 September 2, 1987 Mr. Steve Burstein Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office HAND-DELIVERED 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: HPC Appeal Dear Steve: Please consider this letter an appeal on behalf of my client, Joe and Debbie Amato, owners of 222 East Hallam Street, also described on Legal Description attached hereto. This property received a score of 4 during the HPC review process. I do not feel that the score is indicative of the true historic value of this property. I believe that if the HPC had the benefit of more information, a score lower than 4 would have been assigned. The physical evidence of ) deterioration which poses an imminent danger to the health, safety and welfare of the occupants is apparent when one observes the pronounced sagging of the roof joists between the intermediate bearing walls and the bowing out of the outside walls. The floors are sagging in numerous places, and there are changes of level in the house which may be dangerous, as well as non-functional. The brick foundation walls are loose and crumbling at the slightest touch. In addition, there is no continuous footing under the majority of the brick foundation which bears directly on dirt a few inches below finished-grade. -- There have been haphazard additions and remodeling done over the years to the house. The house originally was a rectangular box of clapboard siding, wood shingled roof and no porch. The clapboard siding was removed in 1963, and new cedar siding was installed. The roof lines of the house were changed in the 1920s when a kitchen was added. There have been eight different additions to the house, including porch and porch facades, as well as major renovations which took place in the 1950s. The original house is a rectangular structure of approximately 12' x 44'. The size of the house has doubled since that time. Even the comments from the HPC architectural historicial component form do not justify the score of 4 for this house, and I quote: "The significance of this residential structure is not of those who owned it or lived in it, nor of its architectural, although the structure is representative of Aspen's mining era. This modest structure is of historic importance by illustrating the family home environment and C f j Mr. Steve Burstein September 2, 1987 Page 2 lifestyle of the average citizen in Aspen, dominated by the silver mining industry." When you take that lack of significance and couple it with the condition of the structure, as well as the numerous changes that have taken place to that structure, I believe its is apparent that a score of 4 is not appropriate. A complete structural analysis has been done on the house by Integrated Engineering Consultants, Ltd. which confirms the problems existing with the house. A copy of their report has been included for your review. My clients did not own the house at the time designation took place. The owner at the time was confused about the significance and importance of the designation. While he felt some attachment to the house because it had been in his family for many years, he did not want to see the property devalued or arbitrary constraints placed upon it. He did not understand the true significance of what a 4 designation would be, and therefore, did not make a presentation including this information to the HPC. Because of these factors, I feel that an appeal is appropriate. Concerns such as ours led the City Council to specifically designate an appeal process for owners to get a fair and full hearing on their designation. I look forward to discussing this matter with you and would like to see it directed to the City Council for the appeal. I believe that a more appropriate score should be issued to this house in the neighborhood of a 2, and would like to set the record straight on the true hic+nric significance of this property. Ohce you have had an opportunity to review this letter, please contact me. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, a Professional Corporation By ff If~ Gideon~~bufman GK/bw CC: Joseph A. Amato Enclosures Received by Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office this 4th day of September, 1987. 1135 9~1+2_ 0. &222~AVA INTEGRATED ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS,Ltd. 411 Edst Main Street Suite z06 Aspen.Colorado 81611 ~fs 009 glf- mil . September 3, 1987 Job #87147 Mr. Joseph Amato c/o Plymouth Construction, Inc. P. 0. Box 179 Monroe, New York 10950 Re: 222 E. Hallam Aspen, Colorado Dear Mr. Amato: At the request and with the assistance of Charles Cunniffe & v Associates/Architects, Integrated Engineering Consultants, Ltd. has conducted a preliminary structural evaluation of the above residence. The inspection covered only those structural elements which were readily visible and did not include concealed elements due to the cost and disruption of exposing them. Based on our visual inspection, we conclude that the above residence is essentially not-structurally sound and modification of its' existing structural elements would be prohibitive and very expensive. The roof does not meet current U.B.C. requirements, is virtually in a state of gradual collapse and would need to be modified significantly to remain in service per U.B.C. requirements or to accommodate any modification to its' supporting elements. The floor is in similar condition as is most of the foundation. The brick masonry of the foundation is in an advanced state of deterioration and is not protected against frost action. It is our opinion that very little of the original structure would remain if an endeavor was made to rehabilitate or modify it. In addition, attempts to move the structure would be quite extensive in that considerable effort would be required to keep the structure intact. Based on the above observations, it is our opinion that it would be more cost effective to demolish the existing structure. . 222 E. Hallam September 3, 1987 Page 2 If you have any questions or if we can be of any further assistance, please call 303 925-5913. Sincerely, INTEGRATED ,ENGINEERING CONS~LTANTS, LTD. Led,41(-Fr Richard T. Cieciuch, Jr., P. E. Sr. Design/Construction Engineer RTC/skc CC: Charles Cunniffe & Assoc. j , February 5, 1988 Historic Preservation Committee c/o Kathy Strickland 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Historic Preservation Committee: I am the owner of 232 East Hallam and have been involved in historic preservation for over 10 years. I have been on the board of Historic Denver, the Historic Paramount Foundation and the review board for Curtis Park Neighborhood Development. I have personally restored buildings and had them designated National Landmarks. I am appearing today to protest the request, before this board, by ) the owners of 222 East Hallam St., Aspen, Colorado. This request is to change the historic designation of the property from 4 to 3. This reduction has one advantage to the owner. That advantage is of being able to demolish the existing house without any impact review on the neighborhood of a new plan. There is no advantage to Aspen. While I do not believe this house to be a most significant Victorian structure, it has a meaning for the neighborhood beyond what it originally was or now is. Aspen may be noted primarily for its late 19th Century charm. However, it has been a continuous community with a continuous history. There hardly exists a 100 year old house that is pristine in its original configuration. People lived in these homes and modified them for their own lives. That is a living record. That also is history. Except for historic designation capabilities, it hardly matters what is left of the original construction. Virtually nothing was left of 232 East Hallam but today it looks exactly as it did in 1889. The effect on the neighborhood and our understanding of its history is no different than if every board had been there since that time. j In most every decade there have been neighborhood changes -- new construction occurred during prosperity, modifications occurred other times. This is all part of a varied visible physical history. We are now in danger of losing that. .. ~ 1, February 5, 1988 Historic Preservation Committee / Page 2 For a hundred years grand and modest structures existed, side by side. This speaks to the heritage and values of a frontier democracy. Are we prepared to say if it is not an "important" or an unmodified Victorian it has no meaning in the historical continuum of the West End? Are we prepared to say there is no value in old and new, large and small co-existing? Are we prepared to distort that visible history? There is a great deal of new construction in the West End. Some of it is quite attractive. However, some of it exemplifies an extreme abuse of zoning regulations and does not co-exist in scale, in peace, or in harmony with its historic neighbors. I do not believe that old is good because it is old or that new is bad because it is new. I do believe in neighborhood planning and review that goes beyond mathmatical formulas. This board must share in that belief or the now appealed designation could not exist. , The present owners of 222 East Hallem knew the designation of this property before they purchased it. There were thoughtful reasons why it was so rated. To now ask for a change, whose only benefit is to allow a demolishing without a neighborhood impact review on the successor structure, is to subvert the process and render it meaningless. Such a change would be, quite simply, one more step in the one house by one house eroding of the West End. I thank you for your time, today. Sincerely) Louise Vigoda LV/dr To the Members of th spen City Council: I am writing this letter for your consideration at the request of Gideon Kaufman on behalf of Joseph A. Amato. I was retained as a professional historic preservation consultant to review the property at 222 East Halman, Aspen, Colorado, to assess its significance as a historic and architectural resource and its corresponding evaluation and ranking by the City of Aspen under Ordinance Number 11 (series of 1987). As part of my work on October 6-7, 1987, I conducted a thorough investigation of the house and its vicinity as well as a brief survey of other historic properties and areas within the community. I also reviewed all materials pertinant to the property and the evaluation and designation procedures that were made available to me by the City Planning Department and representatives of the property owner. It is my opinion that the property does possess local significance. However, information to support this determination is lacking. Specifically, there is an absence of materials related to the 1980 Inventory of Historic Places and the 1986 staff update of the Inventory in the following areas: -No description of the salient features of the Commmunity Church Historic District that make it historically or architecturally important to Aspen . -Inadequate discussion of those aspects of 222 East Hyman's physical condition or history that make it a contributing element of the Community Church Historic District. -No description of the criteria and methods used to determine the relative integrity of locally significant resources. Furthermore, documentation also is lacking in regard to the objective standards and procedures that were used to assign the HPC scores. Since no information is provided as to how judgments were made to determine the effect of alterations upon structures or how structures contribute, in varying degrees, to their neighborhoods and why these neighorhoods have importance to the community, it can be argued that the property in question merits a ranking other than the "4" it is currently assigned. Without the benfit of information related to the above concerns and with only the information contained in the "Survey Architectural/Historic Component Form," the official documentation of the attributes that make the property significant, and the notes which were provided describing the basis of the City staff's recommendations for evaluation, a ranking of a "3" or even a "2" might seem appropriate. I support the City's historic preservation efforts. However, as a result of my review of the HPC score for 222 East Halman, I believe that the current procedures and criteria for assessing local significance need clarifications and supplemental information, so that property owners and the larger community might better understand why and how these important local resources should be preserved. Sincerely, bd~tooA lige a 6ia_ DE. 8 ~ i- ~ INTEGRATED ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS,Ltd. 411 Edst Main Street Suite 206 Aspen,Colorado 81611 (303) gif Â· f9'3 September 3, 1987 Job #87147 Mr. Joseph Amato c/o Plymouth Construction, Inc. P. 0. Box 179 Monroe, New York 10950 Re: 222 E. Hallam Aspen, Colorado Dear Mr. Amato: At the request and with the assistance of Charles Cunniffe & Associates/Architects, Integrated Engineering Consultants, Ltd. has conducted a preliminary structural evaluation of the above residence. The inspection covered only those structural elements which were readily visible and did not include concealed elements due to the cost and disruption of exposing them. Based on our visual inspection, we conclude that the above residence is essentially not structurally sound and modification of its' existing structural elements would be prohibitive and very expensive. The roof does not meet current U.B.C. requirements, is virtually in a state of gradual collapse and would need to be modified significantly to remain in service per U.B.C. requirements or to accommodate any modification to its' supporting elements. The floor is in similar condition as is most of the foundation. The brick masonry of the foundation is in an advanced state of deterioration and is not protected against frost action. It is our opinion that very little of the original structure would remain if an endeavor was made to rehabilitate or modify it. In addition, attempts to move the structure would be quite extensive in that considerable effort would be required to keep the structure intact. Based on the above observations, it is our opinion that it would be more cost effective to demolish the existing structure. 222 E. Hallam September 3, 1987 Page 2 If you have any questions or if we can be of any further assistance, please call 303 925-5913. Sincerely, INTEGRATED ~D N~TEERING CONS~LTANTS, LTD. 97 Richard T. Cieciuch, Jr., P. E. Sr. Design/Construction Engineer RTC/skc CC: Charles Cunniffe & Assoc. 0- ' b Ctisca-09 Lid_. Mr. Joseph A. Amato Kent Management Group 600 Route 32 Highland 1Iills, New York 10930 December 11, 1987 Dear Mr. Amato, I have now completed my historic evaluation of your house at 222 East Hallam in Aspen. The research entailed in this included a visit to the subject property and a tour of other properties that were ranked from 0-5by the City of Aspen. I also examined Ordinance Number 11 (series of 1987), the Colorado Cultural Resource Survey (completed 10/23/80), miscellaneous research materials on the history of the house and information given to your attorney, Gideon Kaufman, regarding the foundations that have been altered and/or added through the years. Upon inspection of the building I noticed that there is very little original fabric in place. This was confirmed by information from the engineer and former owners. In all, it appears that over 90% of the exterior facade has been covered or deleted. The 1904 Sanborn map confirms that the porch at that time wrapped around the front of the house, while the configuration of the sun porch and rear portions of the house were different than the current layout. I was struck with the aesthetically pleasing nature of this house. However I could see that the historic fabric had been altered to the point that its historic integrity was gone. Although the house was built in 1887-90, (according to former owners Marvin and Susanna Reynolds), there is little architectural significance and research shows the house is not associated with significant persons, events or patterns. This was confirmed in the Cultural Resource Survey conducted by the State of Colorado, which concluded that, "The significance of this residential structure is not of those who owned it or lived in it, nor its architecture, although the structure is representative of Aspen's Mining Era. This modest structure is of historical importance by illustrating the family/home environment and lifestyles of the average citizen in Aspen dominated by the silver mining history." With the information I gathered, I then set up a checklist for each of the different numerical rankings, using the criteria from Ordinance Number 11. In each category, I checked off those items applicable to 222 E. Hallam with the following results: 1033 Steele Denver CO. 80206 303 399-6391 Given all of the above information, I would suggest that a more appropriate ranking for this property would be some where between 2 and 3. While there is some significance attached to the fact that the building represents a miner's family home, the numerous alterations and additions to the house have caused it to lose its historic integrity. While the building is pleasing from an aesthetic stand point, the historic significance is not strong enough to merit a 4 in my opinion. Let me add that it is not unusual to change the ranking of a building based on further research. We have just done this recently in Denver in our Lower Downtown area. Although an initial survey of all the historic build- ings was carried out three years ago, within the last month, some buildings have either been added or deleted to the list of "contributing" structures based on additional information that was not available when the first survey was done. Please let me know i f you need additional in formation or research on this. Sincerely, 0441Â« Lisa Purdy President, Citiscape, Ltd. Preservation Consultant 9 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office ?541)72.1 RE: Amato Appeal of HPC Score DATE: October 20, 1987 Gideon Kaufman, representative for the Amatos, requests tabling of the appeal of HPC's evaluation rating of "4" for 222 East Hallam Street until Council's regular meeting of November 23, 1987. He wants this time to collect more thorough information on alterations of the house. Staff has no objection to tabling. sb.amato1020 . 4 0 LISA A. PURDY 1033 Steele Denver, CO 80206 (303) 399-6391 WORK HISTORY: 1984-present Citiscape Ltd. - President President of a real estate development consulting firm providing services on the financial aspects of historic renovation, architectural design, zoning, and preservation planning. 1982-1983 The Denver Partnership - Project Manager, Development Packaging Consulted in the areas of zoning and historic preservation to developers and other professionals in the development field. Authored The Preservation Handbook, a guide to the economic incentives available for tile renovation of older buildings. Initiated and produced a conference entitled "Profitable Preservation" for Continuing Legal Education. Prepared a business plan and financial projections for a Ticket Kiosk. Worked on the structuring of private/public partnerships to bring retailers downtown. 1981-1982 Historic Denver, Inc. - Historic Preservation Specialist Supervised the renovation of 43 historic houses in a low-income neighborhood. Administered the Facade Easement Program and Revolving Loan Fund. Spearheaded a city-wide committee that wrote and lobbied for passage of the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) ordinance, encouraging the preservation 01 historic buildings. Heavily involved in the revision of zoning for the 16th St. Mall and Lower Downtown to encourage retail development and the conservation oj historic buildings. Established an on-going city-wide consortium of preservatior. organizations. 1978-1981 Citiscape Ltd. - President Owned and managed a small real estate development business that renovated inner- city properties. Handled all aspects of business including acquisition of properties: feasibility studies, financing, architectural design, budgeting, construction management and marketing. Projects included the successful completion and sale of several single and multi-family houses, a 6-unit townhouse project and an 18-unit building renovation. 1977-1978 Center for Community Development & Design - Education Specialist University of Colorado Established a continuing education program for architects, landscape architects. interior designers and planners. Initiated a community education program for inner-city neighborhood groups. 1976-1977 Center for Community Development & Design - Community Developer North Denver Workshop Assisted with the space programming of a Mental Health Center and with the development of a comprehensive plan for a small mountain community. 1976 South East Metropolitan Board of Cooperative Services - Program Assistant Taught child developrnent classes, teacher workshops and parenting seminars. Included work in Denver Public Schools, Head Start Programs, and an Indian Reservation in South Dakota. Lisa A. Purdy Resume Page two WORK HISTORY: (Continued) 1972-1975 Boulder & Denver Public Schools - Teacher Substitute taught grades one through nine. 1972-1975 Various jobs in the architectural and construction industry as laborer, construction superintendent and apprentice architect. 1973 YMCA - Camp Director Administered a summer camp in the mountains. Supervised staff and developed the summer programs. 1971-1972 Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich (NYC) - Assistant Editor Read and evaluated incoming manuscripts and assisted Senior Editor with various administrative details. EDUCATION: 1974, M.A. Educational Administration, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO (course work in child development, psychology, curriculum development, and political science) 1971, A.B. Elementary Education, with honors, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (course work in curriculum development, cominunity relations, and administration) Additional Studies: * Mountain View Center on Environmental Education, Boulder (1973). Selected to A study experiential education with British and American experts in the field. * Urban Land Institute, "Co-Development: City Rebuilding by Business and Government", New York City (1982) * New York School of Interior Design, New York City (1972) SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS: 1986 Denver University, "Creative Zoning and Historic Preservation." Utah Heritage Foundation, "The State of Preservation Today," Salt Lake City. Boulder Pedestrian Conference "The Consensus Building Process." National Trust for Historic Preservation Conference, "Marketing Inner City Properties," Kansas City. 1985 Urban Design Forum "The Redevelopment of Lower Downtown," Denver. 1984 Evansville, Indiana, "How the Business and Preservation Community Can Work Together to Achieve Common Goals." 1983 Conference of State and Local Preservation Commissions, San Antonio, Texas. "Denver's Transfer of Development Rights Ordinance." Conservation Foundation/American Bar Association, San Francisco. "The Politics of Passing a TDR Ordinance" and "Managing ..i Facade Easement Program." Continuing Legal Education of Colorado. "Local Economic Incentives for Historic Preservation." Lisa A. Purdy Resume Page three SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS: (Continued) Denver University. "Transfer of Development Rights in Denver." American Bar Association, Denver. "Transferrable Development Rights." 1982 American Planning Association, Denver. "Passage of the TDR Ordinance." ARTICLES AND BOOKS: o Wrote a Handbook on Denver's lower downtown (B-7) zoning, published by The Denver Partnership. o Co-authored "An Update on Denver's TDR Ordinances" with Peter Bowes; published in Spring/Summer 1985 edition of REAL ESTATE ISSUES. o Authored The Preservation Handbook, published by The Denver Partnership and Historic Denver in 1983. A 150 page guide to the economic benefits of renovating older buildings written for the professional in the renovation arena. o Co-authored "Denver's Transferrable Development Rights Story", with Peter Bowes; published in the Spring/Summer 1982 edition of REAL ESTATE ISSUES. AWARDS, APPOINTMENTS & VOLUNTEER WORK 1986 Appointed to the Speer Boulevard Committee to formulate design guidelines for future development along this historic boulevard. Selected to participate in the Denver Community Leadership Forum - a one year series of seminars and an Outward Bound outing to develop leadership skills. Jury Chairman for Utah Heritage Foundations' Annual Design Awards. 1985-88 Board of Directors of Preservation Action, a national preservation lobbying organization in Washington, D.C. 1984 Recipient of the Wagner Award by the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers in recognition of a contribution to the advancement of appraisal knowledge. Appointed by Mayor Pena to the Downtown Plan Steering Committee as a representative of the historic preservation community; a two year appointment to develop a comprehensive plan for central Denver. Actively involved as a committee coordinator in the lower downtown planning and rezoning process. Conducted a series of classes for elementary school children on the development of the City of Denver, under the auspices of the American Institute of Architects. 1984-89 Board of Directors of Historic Denver. 1983 Appointed to the Easement Valuation Panel by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, a nationwide panel assernbled to formulate guidelines for the valuation of easements. 1980 ' "Inner-City Elegance Award" from the Denver Board of Realtors for the townhouse renovation of Corona Square. 1. F _ r d .- 1 r U 1 ( ~ 4-;, i *16 '.V.0. 4,Â«d L ectpji Jil:i 3- 4--li l -- .. 9. iu~ 1 ~1.:2-1 9-~ - .*.4,ill-~.-.:.6L M#.:Â·~1,< 1 1 .bal\ LEGEND - ST_.4 1. 6.-.-E**4-0 1 sr LazZ.-.j -, ZONE BOUNDARES 5- * r' -tf ! : t ' ..t'.+ . 9 1 :fi. 21.1-:'. 1. 10 -- ..... 1 ;O<.-,~ , :*2 - FIRE Â· -./:21 - 1 . -/1 I ' ce:.i~~STATION-~ ~ --2 0-l'. L. ..0 ! ~ ~ ~ Immzm BUILDING i . < - *. 4 .4 -; P ':9 , . 4 - ' CITY HALL-i .. MALLS LP.Up-- AI- HOPKINS - Ay. 7 < HOPKINS ' AV. -.- l. 4 - :. i t/Â·3 it_f' I :! ! 1 @ . - b... * 1. -+ 4---1 ----i :A-< :- '~ E- : i ji-Â·4]441 8;Â·L O, 96 - -- W . U .Â·tl. AW. :-+L-3-ity -*3-,-6 ,c ,; .i. ZL-,37.- 8 %-197<-!.47111~k:--5-- ---i 'i'_,~-fr~~~~~~ I-- -frttN - il 1~!FF~ 21/1~7.' --:.4 .i' .i_~~7~,~PEDEST-;ild.- :~. E=7=Â·:m.~\99- --- I~-: 4-1.1 t'Tt &192- fia. 1 i. 41*Z A. 7 7Â·~ ..sy.2 _ - 2-'7 - ~<Â«3 .%. .-M Â·0Â·~ -44=-341-2 i C+X uN. / ,.1- i 't s :0 :-*A.- 4- 6Â·. 7- 7-,J' 1.>WiG.NER PARK -i/71- -Â·. - -0 ,~#>= , -/.... i 4 1 'bl-=ni~ ~~. u .. , roQ. : Â·-- 46 I.-/-/-/- . ~[4 - -F :-4-F., 6 -~Â·44*31- I .~3 4 ~ e - NC , 4- 1 5 1. 7..CL t . c 1 1 0 .. 1 - U+AN, - -7-727Ei:EOFF;--ri--b T-r -' ./- I | hÂ·..Â·~ 'CED 12Â·q_2Â·*22. , *k-- 2 .-K - .Ri ~r>--19.- 4-3tt~Â·it..ic./..zÂ·.1 - ... i ..CL 1. i.Â·- -cc- -r! i LL_ f --Â·L.L,_4.=14~SPA ![. ,.....- 8 - -434,4 -f U . 111 . W~~ 2--/ --~'1 1 .-â‚¬2.17*-- . A Ur \ r- j / /- 42--9EF HOLE 1-LkALI~Lit-f~ i_-12-.3254.- 2 F . 1 -a i 1--b. 1 U- -- ~<=ar= 'b-- . -_Â£-i , - 04.-Â·..., L.11.%~49.6.-: b-i-A i /9- 1-0 2 ..' 11 2/91; 9 1 ///.1 - 1 ./__../. Ix u. 29! iÂ· ZI . - ..1 1/- (. 7 31, i; 3 - i-3 .<tx Â· ~ 24M1Â· 70 - -- -mt ! /K- r - -- 2 : 1 L -, L td. 1 HA FJ 1-MAÂ·wl--E - i .~1~32~~79- Er-.7: . 11 - 1 C -, I . . 1.- 1 l : 1-9-Ii-,/--- .0 6,1 t*3 ~ Â·'C~ -- 4- . ~1 Il â€¢-3 ,Â·---12=) ;:4.-1"~ 1 Â· ,. -----, . ----C .--- 1 - /9 ''~i.1; 1 .ragk=Â»1#V~J.>-L6-64~"A#.U -PROPERTY K h 4/-Oft-31*416f-66**4 LE<23-~~-ififf--M . /.-4 LOCATION O-7 ns---; 241Â«41-4.20'.':!1 13/' *7:fl,~U)/f--;r -frN.f--4il E-----21#74< K 709/%29: 552 - 1 LOCATION/ZONING C. 'C]VN19480 -â€¢-â€¢ Sl)311HDUV/531VIDOSSÂ¥ 7 33:IllNNn) S31UVH) S3WOHNMO1 3nN3AV 31fl LZZ 0654Â·5&40â‚¬ ]NO,111131 (19,9 00'000) N119V Af XO0 Od 00Vuoloo 'N3dSV (ilisca-oe L Citiscape Ltd. is a real estate development consulting firm specializing in the financial and procedural aspects of historic renovation, community and government relations, zoning, urban planning, and design. These services benefit both the historic property owner and the developer of new property. For the owners of older buildings, Citiscape will: * Determine the economic feasibility of renovation by analyzing the potential for investment tax credits (ITC's), conservation easements, transferrable development rights, and other incentives. * Prepare a cost/benefit analysis of local and/or national historic designation of the building. * Coordinate the regulatory and procedural aspects of "certified" rehabilitations. * Do historic research and prepare designation applications. For the owners of new property, Citiscape will: * Expedite the passage of development projects through zoning and other : government procedures. * Work with neighborhood organizations and other interest groups. 1,2.'13: * Calculate base densities, use scenarios, and development requirements for properties in downtown Denver. * Work as the owner's representative to contractors, professional , advisors, committees, and boards. * Coordinate the design aspects of a project. Citiscape will work with the public and non-profit sectors to formulate programs that will preserve the physical character and revitalize inner-city neighborhoods and downtowns. A Citiscape also works with other professionals in the legal, design, financial, f and planning fields in providing up-to-date advice to clients. . .t. .-,6.N In addition, Citiscape lectures and conducts seminars on topics related to historic preservation and urban planning. 1033 Steele Denver CO. 80206 303399-6391 lA.*-~ ~ - 'Â·f:-3- N Ki . -4{* 44<i Â·f.b. Lisa Purdy, president of Citiscape, brings with her more than twelve years of experience in the fields of real estate development, historic preservation, land use regulation, urban planning, and design. Her work began in construction and design where she worked as a site superintendent and apprentice architect before she formed a real estate development firm that successfully renovated multi-family properties in Denver. Ms. Purdy also worked in the development packaging division at The Denver Partnership where she offered technical assistance to the business community in the areas of preservation economics, zoning, and downtown retailing. She worked on the rewriting of several downtown zoning ordinances and coordinated the group that lobbied for passage of the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) ordinance. While at Historic Denver, Ms. Purdy administered the Facade Easement program and established an on-going city-wide alliance of preservation organizations. She also supervised the renovation of 43 historic houses. Ms. Purdy is author of the highly respected The Preservation Handbook which details the economic incentives available for renovation, the Lower Downtown Zoning Manual, and of numerous articles on urban preservation including an article on Denver' s TDR story which won an award from the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers. Ms. Purdy has lectured throughout the United States and has conducted workshops for the American Planning Association on the revitalization of cities. Ms. Purdy served as a mayoral appointee to the Downtown Area Plan Steering Committee and worked extensively on the formation .W of a new plan and zoning ordinance for Lower Downtown Denver. She is a trustee of both Historic Denver and Preservation Action (Washington D.C.) and was appointed by the National 4 Trust to the National Easement Valuation Panel. t...9 *4'. As head of Citiscape for four years, Ms. Purdy has supervised 347 the renovation of numerous buildings, analyzed development opportunities for new and historic development, been involved .'.rÂ· in revisions to several zoning ordinances, and developed political strategies for a wide variety of projects. Â· 1 Â·'Â·,Â· ~ 7.Â·01Â·f-4,1~*~/74 ~ 4. S 1 /, ... REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS CONTRACTED WITH CITISCAPE LTD. (All projects in Denver, Colorado unless otherwise noted.) Historic Consultation * The Ghost Building (18th and Stout) Supervision of renovation plans. Liaison with Denver Landmark Commission and National Register agency. * Lafitte Building (Larimer Square) Analysis of economic incentives. for â€ž renovation. Preparation of National Register application. * Schlaes and Company (appraisal firm in Chicago, Illinois) Research on the valuation of conservation easements in Arapahoe County and Roswell, Georgia. * Blake Street Bath and Racquet Club (18th and Blake) Preparation of designation and TDR applications. Represented owners at hearings. * City of Denver and Colorado Historical Society (North Capitol Hill) Historical survey of 300 buildings. Joint venture with Hammer, Siler, George Associates. * The Warren Mansion (Cheyenne, Wyoming) Consultation on the conversion and renovation of mansion into law offices. Managed the "certified rehab" process and prepared the National Register application. * The Neusteter Building (16th Street Mall) Preparation of National Register application. * The Navarre (17th and Tremont) Analysis of TDR's and conservation easement donation. * The Denver Building (16th Street Mall) Cost/benefit analysis of renovation using various economic incentives. Report prepared for the City of Denver. * The Denver Partnership (B-7 zone district) Prepared a "laymen's version" of Lower Downtown zoning. Conducted seminars with property owners to explain B-7 zoning. * The Denver Partnership (B-7 zone district) Prepared report on the availability of TDR's in lower downtown. Also calculated potential need and . : t ' possible sites for parking districts. < * First National Bank of Englewood (Humboldt Street Mansion) Analysis of development opportunities for large mansion with input from neighborhood and city regarding zoning changes. * The National Trust for Historic Preservation and The Denver Partnership .t (Lower Downtown) A report on the agreement between property owners and preservationists for a plan to revitalize this historic warehouse district. * Lower Downtown Property Owners Association (B-7 zone district) Presentations on current and proposed zoning ordinances and analysis of the effect on, properties in this area. * Denver University Building (Law School campus) Analysis of renovation potential using ITC's, an easement, and historic designation. '' 1 ., * American Planning Association (Savannah, Georgia; Chicago; and Austin, Texas) Conducted seminars, entitled "Preservation as a Tool for. Revitalization," on survey techniques and the politics of preservation. * Woods Lake Ranch (Aspen, Colorado) Analysis of methods for protecting historic ranch. Preparation of National Register District nomination for Â·0 i.4 the 33 buildings. * Bradford Publishing Building (1743 Wazee) Involved in all aspects of Â·Â· renovation process including the selection of architects and contractors, preservation aspects, and management of construction. * Parsons/Swenson Building (Longmont, Colorado) Coordination of certified rehab process and designation. * Historic Denver Formulation of political strategy for the passage of a historic district ordinance. . 112: 4 #4.-:e i l' I ..4 r,r.- .*: REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS CONTRACTED WITH CITISCAPE LTD. (All projects in Denver, Colorado unless otherwise noted.) ~ff? 1- Real Estate Development Consultation Â·I:Of,Â·.:- * Zeppelin and Company - Determination of allowable building densities, 1 1.-/1 parking allocations, designation possibilities, and Denver Urban Renewal Authority requirements on large commercial building. f.,tÂ£ 'Vt. * The Bill L. Walters Company - Lobbied City Council and downtown civic organizations for the successful passage of revisions to a zoning ordinance. ' * Downtown Investors, Inc. - Researched available subsidies for housing. * First Interstate Bank of Denver - Prepared a zoning analysis of development potential for a 12-lot parcel of land in lower downtown based on current and ; :I' proposed zoning ordinances. * Kitt McCord Associates - Analysis of leasing potential for renovated buildings in downtown Denver. ...:. * Miller, Klutznik, Davis, Gray - Community and government relations for 082; proposed zoning in the Platte Valley. Preparation of a " laymen' s version" 04 of zoning ordinance. Consultation on a political strategy for passage of ' Â·*Â·.K the ordinance. , ,% * Semple Brown Roberts - Consultation on compliance of firm's proposal for renovation of arts complex with recommendations of Downtown Area Plan. .... * Zeppelin and Company - Coordinated the preparation of a multi-family bond ! -t Â·~~ application for new 300 unit residential project. Coordination of project with city agencies. ,----sg=- * Mayer, Brown & Platt - Consultation on possible revisions to Denver's transferrable development rights ordinance. Design Consultation :Â·-t: * Downing Leach Architects (Bridgewalk Project, Boulder, Colorado) Design and 1 ./ installation of furniture and artwork for model apartment in 120 unit housing project. Selection of interior finishes for entire project. , lit. (Received award from AIA). * Janet and Frank Lewis (Boulder, Colorado) Residential interior design iti~ consultation. , 1 4 1..11 * Accent Builders (Denver, Colorado) Selection of interior finishes for two .1 .1 new houses. r' 31 * Utah Heritage Foundation (Salt Lake City, Utah) Chaired a jury for a , statewide renovation design program. Was keynote speaker at awards presentation. * Snyder/Frick House (Boulder, Colorado) Design consultation on the remodel of a residence. Selection of interior finishes and design of new bathroom. 1, IMLM Â»LS H '.7 of:-1 HU v.... 5 1 7 -1 '11 , CHARLES CUNNIFFE AND ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING r, r-/4-7' c--, r;=, r.tr~ r- - BOX 3534, ASPEN, CO 81612 [Llk u U li:,Dif Â®IF Irma@9803[107731 303-925-5590 Date-16/ S - bb | Job # (61 IS TO : (2 VTT. C F &9 E M Att: STEVE URSTEIN *NIN 'blet t) Ept, ae: AMATO 855. GENTLEMEN: WE ARE SENDING YOU ~Attached [3 Under separate cover via thB following items: O Shop drawings '*'Prints O Plans O Samples O Specifications bccopy Of leller [3 Charice order Â¥ puMID Copies Date No. Description 11Â·, 1 PR,krrs ap Blt*. Eyfu,stoN 1 1,111 1 1 LETER PRdi 44:6-rfokc C.USOL-r AFT 1 1 0 5 \ pllato OF FLJOQ~ Il VE.STICAh-nON Tli[SE ARIE TRANSMITTED as checked below: O For approval O Approved as submitted O Resubmit____copies for approval ~For your use O Approved as noted O Submit___.copies for distribution '1~ As requested O Returned for correclions O Return--corrected prints O ror review and comment O D FOR BIDS DUE 19 O PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US Remarks: 6-rEy L - I r Aet' QUEST; 0Â»5 i F LE.LiE- 64 lu E. ME 4 c ill Copy n ( r j 'KieUARD KLEIN jj p SANBORN'S MAP 1904 1 2/HYO V#{04 6 O T t, f \\ \\ 1 \\ \ Tugy 7Â§81.E 1 9 4 1 -Cla 0 U. R. R. ROUNG HO. \\ a li 0 U 0 % -11 r 4 li % 4 4 % 1 - \ % %% 1 \~\/ i XI 8/q 1 - 1/ 9 \ \\ 1 \ 1%\ / \ 1 ----- - . g 10\ \1\ ALLEY (NOT- OPENEO) I--<i- - -- -- -N - K 71 pÂ« f - N O p Vi- Q g. s I 4 . \ 0 8 % O\ % 271 --<220>. \\ r , '-1 1 5 - Gl 2 103 9+ -Dll % 61 CD I 1 1/ i 1 1 14 4 [ 1 * \ 1 /1 1 .4 / ILL_Ill . W__ _-O t-L 0| ----- \ \\ \J >9 Kwest Fots .0 (foRK -\ j n %14 0/6 2/8 820 22% 224 226 233 234 e %34 . (28Â·230) \50 \ ..\\. - 633 e 4 W. p/pa- b-j = = = S=.HALLAM= == = === ~M-= = =Â©S =. : 1 V (NOT 0 2* 11 11 , 75 . 1 H. N. MONARCH ST CORL MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning office ~\(4 RE: Amato Appeal of HPC Score DATE: December 14, 1987 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends that City Council affirm the HPC historic evaluation rating of "4" for the structure at 222 E. Hallam Street. LOCATION: 222 E. Hallam St., Lots K and L, Block 71, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: R-6 Medium Density Residential. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Current owners of 222 East Hallam Joe and Debbie Amato are appealing the HPC evaluation of "4" for their house. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE: As part of the historic designation regulations of the City of aspen, the process of HPC evaluation of structures on the Inventory of Historic structures was established whereby those structures were assigned rated values between 0 and 5. According to Section 24- 9.5(a) of the Municipal Code, any structure rated "4" or "5" is subject to the demolition and total removal review provisions. Section 24-9.7 of the Municipal Code allows for appeal to City Council of HPC's ratings on the Inventory within one hundred and twenty (120) days of adoption of Ordinance 11. Expiration of this time period ended September 11, 1987. The Amato Appeal was received on September 4 and was postponed several times to the present Council meeting date. City Council's discretion in appeals is stated in Section 24- 9.7(b) as follows: "The City Council shall consider the application on the record established before the HPC. The City Council shall affirm the decision of the HPC unless Council shall deter- mine that there was an abuse of discretion or denial of due process by the HPC. Upon determining that there was an abuse of discretion or denial of due process, the Council shall be authorized to take such action as it shall deem necessary to remedy said situation..." PROBLEM DISCUSSION: HPC made its historic evaluation of 222 E. Hallam on January 15, 1987 considering the following information: the house was built in the 1890's in its present location; distinctive Victorian features include the cross gable layout, vertical sash windows, gable end shingles, and contribution to the Community Church historic neighborhood. Owner Marvin Reynolds was present at the meeting and stated the house had been in the same family as when it was built. He stated he had no objections to the evaluation rating but was concerned about the uncertainty of the affect, if any, on property value. Gideon Kaufman states in the September 2, 1987 application letter that a number of additions have been added on to the house significantly changing it and the house is structurally unsound. New information has been provided by the applicant about the additions through further historical and structural analysis. Professional Engineer Richard Cieciuch has also inspected the house and pointed out foundation and roof problems that lead him to believe the house is not structurally sound. The following changes to the structure since 1904 have been noted, with some documentation: - siding has been replaced (appears to be the same narrow siding); - the front porch was rebuilt and extended forward approximately 3 feet; - masonry foundation has been repaired and extended under additions; - < 3 additions have been added to the house located behind the original sun room on the east, behind the dining room on the west and behind the kitchen to the north; - original windows have been replaced with new windows; - new metal roof has been installed; and - a new workshop (built in 1964 and 1984) has replaced the original outstructure. Staff contacted next door neighbor Mona Frost to ask if she recalled alterations to 222 E. Hallam Street. Mona stated that since she moved next door in 1940 (47 years ago), the house has remained basically the same. She remembered some of the additions being built, but believed the front of the house had not been much changed; and she noted that the house has been the same color green through the years. It appears to staff that the numerous renovations of the house were undertaken to keep the house in good repair and have not significantly effected the front of the house or the historic character of the property. Please note that virtually every structure in Aspen has been altered; and the very purpose of the 2 historic evaluations was to assess the extent to which those alterations are compatible with the original architecture or diminish the historic character. In addition, HPC consistently considered the contribution a structure makes to the neighbor- hood's historic character. In the case of 222 E. Hallam Street, HPC gave a high assessment of neighborhood influence because of its location between the Glidden House and Frost House, both important historic resources, and its inclusion in the Community Church historic neighborhood. Of the "historic districts under consideration," delineated in the 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, the Community Church area has the highest density of historic structures (see map attached). The applicant also presented a letter from Historic preservation consultant Deborah Abele which we received December 8, 1987 (attached). She remarks that the evaluation of 222 E. Hallam is inadequate in documentation in the following areas: - Description of the salient features of the Community Church historic district in the 1980 Inventory as updated; - inadequate discussion of those aspects of 222 East Hallam's physical condition or history; - lack of description of criteria and methods used in the evaluation; and - lack of information on how judgments were made in the evaluation of alterations and neighborhood importance. Staff believes that the HPC properly undertook the evaluation of 222 East Hallam using the best available public information at a public meeting. While the Inventory can clearly be improved, it provided basic information on the year of construction, some alterations (other alterations were identified at the meeting or by the applicant after substantial research during the last two months), photographic documentation of the structure, considera- tion of the structure's quality as illustrating the family/home environment of the average citizen in Aspen during the silver mining era, and some neighborhood context. The Historic Inventory map, staff recommendation notes explaining rationale for the recommended evaluation score, and notes taken at the public meeting of both owner and HPC member comments further supplement the public record. We have intended to pursue with the State grant funding work that would address Ms. Abele's suggestions to better document the City's historic inventory. Descriptions of historic neighbor- hoods and additional research information on individual struc- tures will be written. This work will be assigned to the historic preservation specialist who is expected to be hired in January. The Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guide- lines also do much to describe historic architecture types and neighborhood characteristics. 3 The structural integrity of buildings was explicitly excluded from HPC's criteria for evaluating historic significance, as you can see from the attached rating scale. This area of concern is one of the standards for review of a demolition proposal and would be considered if such an application were made. ALTERNATIVES: Alternatives that Council has in responding to appeals of HPC's actions include: 1. To affirm the rating made by HPC; 2. To down-score the rating; or 3. To remand the rating to HPC for rehearing. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to affirm HPC's rating of "4" to the structure at 222 East Hallam Street." CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: 222e.hallam 9 - -7 4 *81 . . :Â«7*: . /11:Jilli~E G. 1 1 1 .... 1 4 1 7T7T 0- MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr. , City Manager /092 FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office AK RE: Amato Appeal of HPC Score DATE: January 11, 1988 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends that City Council remand the HPC historic evaluation rating of 222 East Hallam Street to HPC for rehearing. PRIOR COUNCIL ACTION: Action was tabled on the Amato Appeal on December 14, 1987 until the January 11, 1988 City Council meeting. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Attached is the Planning Office December 14, 1987 memorandum on the Amato appeal. In it we recommended Council to affirm the rating of "4" made by HPC. This recommendation was based on information thus far presented indicating that while several additions and replacements of original materials had been made, the structure's basic appearance from Hallam Street had not significantly changed. In addition, this house contributes to the historic character of the Community Church neighborhood. At the meeting, the applicant presented a great deal of information- some of which was new - to argue that even further alterations have occurred to the 222 E. Hallam house since the time of historic significance at the turn of the century. The letter and presentation by historic preservation consultant Lisa Purdy (attached) raised other concerns that we think deserve to be presented to HPC for their review in the historic evaluation. Based on the new information gathered by the applicant, we believe it is appropriate to remand the evaluation back to HPC. This does not mean that the Planning Office supports lowering the "4" rating for 222 E. Hallam, but simply that we conclude that HPC should have the chance to re-evaluate the total collection of information. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to remand the historic evaluation rating of 222 East Hallam Street to HPC for rehearing." CITY MANAGER' S COMMENTS: -F 6,0 /0012 ~;20â‚¬1~M 222e.h.2 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager Apx.4--< FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office IC\R~. RE: Amato Appeal of HPC Score DATE: December 14, 1987 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends that City Council affirm the HPC historic evaluation rating of 11 4 11 for the structure at 222 E. Hallam Street. LOCATION: 222 E. Hallam St., Lots K and L, Block 71, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: R-6 Medium Density Residential. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Current owners of 222 East Hallam Joe and Debbie Amato are appealing the HPC evaluation of "4" for their house. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE: As part of the historic designation regulations of the City of aspen, the process of HPC evaluation of structures on the Inventory of Historic structures was established whereby those structures were assigned rated values between 0 and 5. According to Section 24- 9.5(a) of the Municipal Code, any structure rated "4" or "5" is subject to the demolition and total removal review provisions. Section 24-9.7 of the Municipal Code allows for appeal to City Council of HPC's ratings on the Inventory within one hundred and twenty (120) days of adoption of Ordinance 11. Expiration of this time period ended September 11, 1987. The Amato Appeal was received on September 4 and was postponed several times to the present Council meeting date. City Council's discretion in appeals is stated in Section 24- 9.7(b) as follows: "The City Council shall consider the application on the record established before the HPC. The City Council shall affirm the decision of the HPC unless Council shall deter- mine that there was an abuse of discretion or denial of due process by the HPC. Upon determining that there was an abuse of discretion or denial of due process, the Council shall be authorized to take such action as it shall deem necessary to remedy said situation..." PROBLEM DISCUSSION: HPC made its historic evaluation of 222 E. Hallam on January 15, 1987 considering the following information: the house was built in the 1890's in its present location; distinctive Victorian features include the cross gable layout, vertical sash windows, gable end shingles, and contribution to the Community Church historic neighborhood. Owner Marvin Reynolds was present at the meeting and stated the house had been in the same family as when it was built. He stated he had no objections to the evaluation rating but was concerned about the uncertainty of the affect, if any, on property value. Gideon Kaufman states in the September 2, 1987 application letter that a number of additions have been added on to the house significantly changing it and the house is structurally unsound. New information has been provided by the applicant about the additions through further historical and structural analysis. Professional Engineer Richard Cieciuch has also inspected the house and pointed out foundation and roof problems that lead him to believe the house is not structurally sound. The following changes to the structure since 1904 have been noted, with some documentation: - siding has been replaced (appears to be the same narrow siding); - the front porch was rebuilt and extended forward approximately 3 feet; - masonry foundation has been repaired and extended under additions; - 3 additions have been added to the house located behind the original sun room on the east, behind the dining room on the west and behind the kitchen to the north; - original windows have been replaced with new windows; - new metal roof has been installed; and - a new workshop (built in 1964 and 1984) has replaced the original outstructure. Staff contacted next door neighbor Mona Frost to ask if she recalled alterations to 222 E. Hallam Street. Mona stated that since she moved next door in 1940 (47 years ago), the house has remained basically the same. She remembered some of the additions being built, but believed the front of the house had not been much changed; and she noted that the house has been the same color green through the years. It appears to staff that the numerous renovations of the house were undertaken to keep the house in good repair and have not significantly effected the front of the house or the historic character of the property. Please note that virtually every structure in Aspen has been altered; and the very purpose of the 2 historic evaluations was to assess the extent to which those alterations are compatible with the original architecture or diminish the historic character. In addition, HPC consistently considered the contribution a structure makes to the neighbor- hood's historic character. In the case of 222 E. Hallam Street, HPC gave a high assessment of neighborhood influence because of its location between the Glidden House and Frost House, both important historic resources, and its inclusion in the Community Church historic neighborhood. Of the "historic districts under consideration," delineated in the 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, the Community Church area has the highest density of historic structures (see map attached). The applicant also presented a letter from Historic preservation consultant Deborah Abele which we received December 8, 1987 (attached). She remarks that the evaluation of 222 E. Hallam is inadequate in documentation in the following areas: - Description of the salient features of the Community Church historic district in the 1980 Inventory as updated; - inadequate discussion of those aspects of 222 East Hallam's physical condition or history; - lack of description of criteria and methods used in the evaluation; and - lack of information on how judgments were made in the evaluation of alterations and neighborhood importance. Staff believes that the HPC properly undertook the evaluation of 222 East Hallam using the best available public information at a public meeting. While the Inventory can clearly be improved, it provided basic information on the year of construction, some alterations (other alterations were identified at the meeting or by the applicant after substantial research during the last two months), photographic documentation of the structure, considera- tion of the structure's quality as illustrating the family/home environment of the average citizen in Aspen during the silver mining era, and some neighborhood context. The Historic Inventory map, staff recommendation notes explaining rationale for the recommended evaluation score, and notes taken at the public meeting of both owner and HPC member comments further supplement the public record. We have intended to pursue with the State grant funding work that would address Ms. Abele's suggestions to better document the City's historic inventory. Descriptions of historic neighbor- hoods and additional research information on individual struc- tures will be written. This work will be assigned to the historic preservation specialist who is expected to be hired in January. The Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guide- lines also do much to describe historic architecture types and neighborhood characteristics. 3 The structural integrity of buildings was explicitly excluded from HPC's criteria for evaluating historic significance, as you can see from the attached rating scale. This area of concern is one of the standards for review of a demolition proposal and would be considered if such an application were made. ALTERNATIVES: Alternatives that Council has in responding to appeals of HPC's actions include: 1. To affirm the rating made by HPC; 2. To down-score the rating; or 3. To remand the rating to HPC for rehearing. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to affirm HPC's rating of "4" to the structure at 222 East Hallam Street." CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: 222e.hallam - .>,1 4 -624; -1 r I 3109,-, 19'.. -2412,6.. <4 - . -- 1 .. . r Â· f~Â·Â· Â· 4 1 1 1 1 1 1,1-~:1~Jig/O ' .- .-/ I. 4 1 I ./ 1 -. 4 gxhibit to Ordinance Number 11 (Series of 1987) C 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 o f a neighborhood. In a few cases, the structure has been associated with an historic person or family. 4 - Structure has been altered in a waythat - is Porikidered 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 18cation,-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 representative--2 -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. C LdÂ«_433~~1 - FIGURE Ill.2 10 INVEI~-1-OPY * H~NORIC ES AND STRUCTURES : ' LEGEND _ -6- C-- 1 1-3 Â«3 4 1986 UPD E Excnlignaltructures designated I ASPEN, COLOR O 4 < not yet designated O \ Excellent Structitaa designated â€¢ not yet designated s --' - 1 PREP ARED BY THE ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING FFICE g-86 L/-9 f Notable Structures designated I 100 800 not yet designated 0 ..r-L-1 -1 0 200 400 9 (*but-Stogives C EXISING.112IQBIQ-DISIBICTS 1. main street 2. commercial core Ul /11 . 1:?RIQB!Â£-2!SIBICIS_UNDER_QQNSIDERAIIQN .y : 1 / - 4.hallam lake 3.west bleeker/hallam street it %%1 5.community church 6.lift 1 .., 4., Fil~C-3.,0 n -4 1 4404 1 A 1 ....#.*. 91 Â· rps'/Lk<2*.U>%N\ 94414 01 ------- 24% t/.al 1 1.1.IJV 7 4 I [Ill[E 194Â« - 1811 Nily D. ..7 6- -// , 5 J r o Yrih #, ar.~ ~ L1116[1111 llc.1, +E .- -.14Â¢-Â·,i. - 1 + -- - 4 ,1 v - 0 4/./.r 1 . [3*3 1Rf i _! li [ 021~ 1-lul ' '~ 6 w - ': 1 444 ,~ / 1 1 Â¥Tnil' k 1 -1-. 31 Jaim [mEN 533] i %~[$; ,/r----- . ,- 0 -,0 r ; -1.q 'TITITT-1 - d EL 1-it-b 1 1,111 'hi < LE 7. ' 0.0 .. 0 134113 3-3~ iNE] j ikilt ! 3101 1 1[WIE1~ii Iwii rt[W[G - - .... I NA., Â©33Ed:, H..._ Â·'â€¢51 1.J .1-11Wl* Ijkilliti]El [.11111.1 LIftÂ®1 311111!11 i OW 0 r ' ' 9]Ifli â‚¬141-1-[1] Mip[1 ~ =11-1 Â¢11 ~ 112"11] Elit-l [1] Wil.(bUk HU[ , -Â®Mti i 1111111111[[[T . =mi- , ~ 111 3% NWEIFO ' 11[12 WHI M Ellwl- 49111.11 '111111110 -lam - 3 --9410] ElE 12-[I] i [Hilifil] IF_Hi' 3 JIWIL- EÂ¥25Â·IN[[III 11141111Ii[[141111.&~4[111] i 6.3~[Ii[E r En ' 1261 .E[~Ilf [---- [TT[[EN rdillTIED 11 1111111. [mtÂ®] j [[1]1Â®1'1 411111 +111411 11Yllj \ m-Alll NI Imlilf- 1\ - - 19. .. 9 Lle I A Flim (''AÂ·Tie] 414'WrIÂ·] , 1 1 '11'21' I 1 ET[fi Il J - 111 11 1 1 I . L.Â«M *1: . j . + u.ifiÂ·[* MikeÂ·=i- AÂ©4- 1 -:Cj~ ~Â° , 1, - r./ /771 - . . 12- 4, Â·, --1 -i fif-~ -1- Ltj B Â«FR--lf ; U. f R\011\ / / \*aiy 0-- 1 . . 1 11 1 1 -,- -A -- -3 E 0%713 8 LAW OFFICES ~~ 9 4 1987 -3 - GIDEON 1. KAUFMAN i APROFESSIONALCORPORATION BOX 10001 GIDEON IE KAUFMAN _ TELEPHONE 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 305 - AREACODE 303 RICHARDS. LUHMAN ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 925-8166 September 2, 1987 Mr. Steve Burstein Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office HAND-DELIVERED 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: HPC Appeal Dear Steve: Please consider this letter an appeal on behalf of my client, Joe and Debbie Amato, owners of 222 East Hallam Street, also described on Legal Description attached hereto. This property received a score of 4 during the HPC review process. I do not feel that the score is indicative of the true historic value of this property. I believe that if the HPC had the benefit of more information, a score lower than 4 would have been assigned. The physical evidence of deterioration which poses an imminent danger to the health, safety and welfare of the occupants is apparent when one observes the pronounced sagging of the roof joists between the intermediate bearing walls and the bowing out of the outside walls. The floors are sagging in numerous places, and there are changes of level in the house which may be dangerous, as well as non-functional. The brick foundation walls are loose and crumbling at the slightest touch. In addition, there is no continuous footing under the majority of the brick foundation which bears directly on dirt a few inches below finished grade. There have been haphazard additions and remodeling done over the years to the house. The house originally was a rectangular box of clapboard siding, wood shingled roof and no porch. The clapboard siding was removed in 1963, and new cedar siding was installed. The roof lines of the house were changed in the 1920s when a kitchen was added. There have been eight different additions to the house, including porch and porch facades, as well as major renovations which took place in the 1950s. The original house is a rectangular structure of approximately 12' x 44'. The size of the house has doubled since that time. Even the comments from the HPC architectural historicial component form do not justify the score of 4 for this house, and I quote: "The significance of this residential structure is not of those who owned it or lived in it, nor of its architectural, although the structure is representative of Aspen's mining era. This modest structure is of historic importance by illustrating the family home environment and Mr. Steve Burstein September 2, 1987 Page 2 lifestyle of the average citizen in Aspen, dominated by the silver mining industry." When you take that lack of significance and couple it with the condition of the structure, as well as the numerous changes that have taken place to that structure, I believe its is apparent that a score of 4 is not appropriate. A complete structural analysis has been done on the house by Integrated Engineering Consultants, Ltd. which confirms the problems existing with the house. A copy of their report has been included for your review. My clients did not own the house at the time designation took place. The owner at the time was confused about the significance and importance of the designation. While he felt some attachment to the house because it had been in his family for many years, he did not want to see the property devalued or arbitrary constraints placed upon it. He did not understand the true significance of what a 4 designation would be, and therefore, did not make a presentation including this information to the HPC. Because of these factors, I feel that an appeal is appropriate. Concerns such as ours led the City Council to specifically designate an appeal process for owners to get a fair and full hearing on their designation. I look forward to discussing this matter with you and would like to see it directed to the City Council for the appeal. I believe that a more appropriate score should be issued to this house in the neighborhood of a 2, and would like to set the record straight on the true historic significance of this property. Once you have had an opportunity to review this letter, please contact me. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, a Professional Corporation Gideon/Khufman GK/bw CC: Joseph A. Amato Enclosures Received by Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office this 4th day of September, 1987. * 9,92_a . thdlc~ - To the Members of the Aspen City Council: I am writing this letter for your consideration at the request of' Gideon Kaufman on behalf of Joseph A. Amato. I was retained as a professional historic preservation consultant to review the property at 222 East Halman, Aspen, Colorado, to assess its significance as a historic and architectural resource and its corresponding evaluation and ranking by the City of Aspen under Ordinance Number 11 (series of 1987). As part of my work on October 6-7, 1987, I conducted a thorough investigation of the house and its vicinity as well as a brief survey of other historic properties and areas within the community. I also reviewed all materials pertinant to the property and the evaluation and designation procedures that were made available to me by the City Planning Department and representatives of the property owner. It is my opinion that the property does possess local significance. However, information to support this determination is lacking. Specifically, there is an absence of materials related to the 1980 Inventory of Historic Places and the 1986 staff update of the Inventory in the following areas: -No description of the salient features of the Commmunity Church Historic District that make it historically or architecturally important to Aspen . -Inadequate discussion of those aspects of 222 East Hyman's physical condition or history that make it a contributing element of the Community Church Historic District. -No description of the criteria and methods used to determine the relative integrity of locally significant resources. Furthermore, documentation also is lacking in regard to the objective standards and procedures that were used to assign the HPC scores. Since no information is provided as to how judgments were made to determine the effect of alterations upon structures or how structures contribute, in varying degrees, to their neighborhoods and why these neighorhoods have importance to the community, it can be argued that the property in question merits a ranking other than the "4" it is currently assigned. Without the benfit of information related to the above concerns and with only the information contained in the "Survey Architectural/Historic Component Form," the official documentation of the attributes that make the property significant, and the notes which were provided describing the basis of the City staff's recommendations for evaluation, a ranking of a "3" or even a "2" might seem appropriate. I support the City's historic preservation efforts. However, as a result of my review of the HPC score for 222 East Halman, I believe that the current procedures and criteria for assessing local significance need clarifications and supplemental information, so that property owners and the larger community might better understand why and how these important local resources should be preserved. Sincerely, Itit,LE=Â·.-r-%Â· " E (ti E_Ul~jif-~.f- 2.411 btbeh Â° ' e o MtÂ«_ 1~ li ~ DEC 8 1987 ~ -. ~ ~ 11 1/'1\ 1 '74/ 1 Illut-.... 1 FZ INTEGRATED ENGINEERING LONSULTANTS , Ltd 411 Edst Main Street Suite zob Aspen,Colorado 81611 (303) 94Â· <913 ,&,% September 3, 1987 Job #87147 Mr. Joseph Amato c/o Plymouth Construction, Inc. P. 0. Box 179 Monroe, New York 10950 Re: 222 E. Hallam Aspen, Colorado Dear Mr. Amato: At the request and with the assistance of Charles Cunniffe & Associates/Architects, Integrated Engineering Consultants, Ltd. has conducted a preliminary structural evaluation of the above residence. The inspection covered only those structural elements which were readily visible and did not include concealed elements due to the cost and disruption of exposing them. Based on our visual inspection, we conclude that the above residence is essentially not structurally sound and modification of its' existing structural elements would be prohibitive and very expensive. The roof does not meet current U.B.C. requirements, is virtually in a state of gradual collapse and would need to be modified significantly to remain in service per U.B.C. requirements or to accommodate any modification to its' supporting elements. The floor is in similar condition as is most of the foundation. The brick masonry of the foundation is in an advanced state of deterioration and is not protected against frost action. It is our opinion that very little of the original structure would remain if an endeavor was made to rehabilitate or modify it. In addition, attempts to move the structure would be quite extensive in that considerable effort would be required to keep the structure intact. Based on the above observations, it is our opinion that it would be more cost effective to demolish the existing structure. 222 E. Hallam September 3, 1987 Page 2 If you have any questions or if we can be of any further assistance, please call 303 925-5913. Sincerely, INTEGRATED PN5IfEERING CONS~LTANTS, LTD. 1-0 1 tALÂ¥1Aut~-49:LILLM~ Richard T. Cieciuch, Jr., P. E. Sr. Design/Construction Engineer RTC/skc CC: Charles Cunniffe & Assoc. 0 -, 11 -- 1 18(20[02 -_j D_, Mr. Joseph A. Amato Kent Management Group 600 Route 32 Highland Hills, New York 10930 December 11, 1987 Dear Mr. Amato, I have now completed my historic evaluation of your house at 222 East Hallam in Aspen. The research entailed in this included a visit to the subject property and a tour of other properties that were ranked from 0-5by the City of Aspen. I also examined Ordinance Number 11 (series of 1987), the Colorado Cultural Resource Survey (completed 10/23/80), miscellaneous research materials on the history of the house and information given to your attorney, Gideon Kaufman, regarding the foundations that have been altered and/or added through the years. Upon inspection of the building I noticed that there is very little original fabric in place. This was confirmed by information from the engineer and former owners. In all, it appears that over 90% of the exterior facade has been covered or deleted. The 1904 Sanborn map confirms that the porch at that time wrapped around the front of the house, while the configuration of the sun porch and rear portions of the house were different than the current layout. I was struck with the aesthetically pleasing nature of this house. However I could see that the historic fabric had been altered to the point that its historic integrity was gone. Although the house was built in 1887-90, (according to former owners Marvin and Susanna Reynolds), there is little architectural significance and research shows the house is not associated with significant persons, events or patterns. This was confirmed in the Cultural Resource Survey conducted by the State of Colorado, which concluded that, "The significance of this residential structure is not of those who owned it or lived in it, nor its architecture, although the structure is representative of Aspen's Mining Era. This modest structure is of historical importance by illustrating the family/home environment and lifestyles of the average citizen in Aspen dominated by the silver mining history. " With the information I gathered, I then set up a checklist for each of the different numerical rankings, using the criteria from Ordinance Number 11. In each category, I checked off those items applicable to 222 E. Hallam with the following results: 1033 Steele Denver CO. 80206 303 399-6391 .... Given all of the above information, I would suggest that a more appropriate ranking for this property would be some where between 2 and 3. While there is some significance attached to the fact that the building represents a miner's family home, the numerous alterations and additions to the house have caused it to lose its historic integrity. While the building is pleasing from an aesthetic stand point, the historic significance is not strong enough to merit a 4 in my opinion. Let me add that it is not unusual to change the ranking of a building based on further research. We have just done this recently in Denver in our Lower Downtown area. Although an initial survey of all the historic build- ings was carried out three years ago, within the last month, some buildings have either been added or deleted to the list of "contributing" structures based on additional information that was not available when the first survey was done. Please let me know if you need additional information or research on this. Sincerely, 0Â«41Â« Lisa Purdy President, Citiscape, Ltd. Preservation Consultant Vii L 1\. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr. , City Manager,â‚¬3Â£.,g. _ FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office 44< RE: Amato Appeal of HPC Score DATE: October 20, 1987 Gideon Kaufman, representative for the Amatos, requests tabling of the appeal of HPC' s evaluation rating of "4" for 222 East Hallam Street until Council's regular meeting of November 23, 1987. He wants this time to collect more thorough information on alterations of the house. Staff has no objection to tabling. sb.amato1020 1 - PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PROJECT: /9/hito Â£23/Jehet 0â‚¬*plitior~(931 U). N.lw 8-/7-3 7- APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: C ll A rle E C' u ' r ' 1-+ f REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: , 2 r - 9 5-9 D OWNERS NAME: /1 ma-4 SUMMARY 1. Type of Application: 0â‚¬ FM>:.'T?)M 4 1-~, +Dric S 1/Dis li j |v,le, '/20 N 2. Describe action/type of development being requested: 'Ike (ABL. hi-7 .t, ur,ktÂ·, 9 1 :%AAM20 th elli. U~.4 2,4 Al,p,48 J l,34 o_ 4Jur icitr 9 1 4'1 3, fra ke-',0 1 3. Areas in which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports requested: Policy Area/ Referral Agent Comments \ {-,r planni A Col1114 - Affhc#/ 1Ao ~1.J 6 614> Aff pep)Â£*jÂ» A+AM, App'rejvjrp*hl '34-99 4 En &,Ad"fU'i Grt. <Uh Of' tric;0110 +11 , I f f! 1 - 'p Â».o,/ 3.*~CY,lf 4 r.ep D rry r.,r, 5 7f u j\>4~ $ D Uf't ,~ Mt < 1~w 6UJU - k,Ne 4 J A.4.4. yp.,4,114 6.U 10 444 4 4.- ijA+JO _ 0Â£90% R,th kikj 2/4.61'fit,uttv,J fv,Men, 1411.,tv, W'ill;6,,1~~4'~001,~ j *,4, ,< -24 BA.5Â· 24 Glg 1 t,#r< 044 rANÂ»4. N pc - AL,}evalo,-4 -14 Stivituril st,Li '141 ,rek,lil,it'0n, pâ€ž1(414(nlbux)] 44 +4 4 41Â»444 ,~}M,4~,4 9\1,94 4 6.flajÂ«A CO 42 4 (444-4 p \ Afh. 4. Review is: (P&Z Only) (CC/BOCC Only) (P&Z then to CC/BOCC) 5. Public Hearing: (~YES>b (NO) 6. Did you tell applicant-to submit list of ADJACENT PROPERTY k/#44 300 fd OWNERS? 1(YES) (NO) Disclosure of Ownership: (YES) :(NO) 7. What fee was applicant requested to submit: 1 Â»/ 8. Anticipated date of submission: 5 -2 5--39 9. COMMENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS: 0 TiC, t'.Â»I f.MI 4,5.-1.r .fj, DoU !'f fruv'i\, l\Dot, 4,o irrull,m, ;24 0,1 1 cp, U,wd}, 2444 bm; / C - fiCÂ¥HW 1-~Allo.J <Mv-(1,0.643}i\4 erlit.\ 19'Â»Al (74.>gote-h - Ppti'44 4, *Ah }b~ict!'Al 00~)16 ~4Â»+ 0 4.1Â· I ji ' { 41 1 /U-Afn -->...> . Mo ou'T,49Â» Â·477 4Â»v- 4Â»'rt 4 tu (evrrk.*.54 ~,4,1 ./h h,J - 41Â» Â·f 41 644 /1Â» r pla.. fl,rd,~ A-Â«DÂ· . CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: 39 /9- 27 STAFF MEMBER: PROJECT NAME: Amccto / I.gle har-9 Agoea-/ o-f #Pc- 3-or f Project AddreJ,st <62&& E. 'H a-/66Â·n / 4 /0 60.~ 1#a. //2 k APPLICANT= G â‚¬ 2-behb; â‚¬ Apnoof-o / Ji- 4 Ict /t hort- U Applicant Address: REPRESENTATIVE: Representative Address/Phone: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Appecul +0 CC_ of H-PC- ,50>rE-- PAID: YES a AMOUNT: 1 STEP APPLICATION: P&Z MEETING DATE: PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: 2 STEP APPLICATION: CC MEETING DATE: PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: REFERRALS: City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District City Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas Housing Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW) Aspen Water Fire Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ) City Electric Fire Chief Bldg:Zon/Inspect Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork Roaring Fork Aspen Consol. Transit Energy Center S.D. Other FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL: City Atty City Engineer Bldg. Dept. Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: ~~IGLEHART CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 7I5 West Main Street â€¢ Aspen, Colorado 8IfI I â€¢ 303/925-5990 PRE70.glil ~ i I AUG 3 1 1987 IL J L-.--.--- ...............1---... 1 1 August 27, 1987 L__---- Steve Burstein Aspen Planning Department This is a letter to appeal the designation of my residence located at 610 W. Hallam. I am aware of a number four rating that has been assigned to my home and am familiar with the incentives and disadvantages of such a designation. I request to be removed from the number four designation or rating to allow me the right of enjoyment of private property. As a General Contractor I am completely aware of the major expense of remodeling a hundred year old miner's shack that is in structural disrepair. My only option at this time is to remove my house and build a new structure. I am therefore requesting the designation be removed from my property due to the major expense and lack of integrity needed to restore the present house. Sincerely, Jim Iglehart 'r 9 Aspen/Pitliti~%04Â»ing Office 130 sAW~~t~treet aspen3*01 orilid#il'r 81611 Mr. Jim Iglehart Iglehart Construction Company 715 West Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 September 4, 1987 Dear Jim, On August 31, 1987 we received your letter of August 27, 1987 appealing designation of 610 W. Hallam Street. I request that you clarify two matters at your earliest convenience: 1. Your appeal appears to be for the historic evaluation rating of "4", and not for designation since the house has not been designated as a historic landmark. Is this correct? 2. Rating of "4" means the "structure has been altered in a way that is considered compatible with the original archi- tecture; and the historic character is preserved. Structure typically has strong positive influence in the neighbor- hood'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." Please address in writing why you believe that 610 W. Hallam Street does not fall within this category. The 1980 Inventory of Historic Structures noted the original appearance of the front gable , bay window, cross gable, covered porch with turned posts and scrolled brackets, and long, narrow windows. These original characteristics are th# basis for the relatively high evaluation of architectural significance. Physical condi- tion and expense of remodeling were not considerations for evaluation ratings, but would be looked at in demolition or removal review. If the above information on the original architectural elements is incorrect, please inform us. Sincerely, Steve Burstein, Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office sb.610 Legal Description LOTS K AND L, BLOCK 71, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, according to the Willits Map recorded in Plat Book 2 at Page 37. AND A parcel of land being a part of Lot 4 of the TRUEMAN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERICAL PROJECT, as said Lot 4 is shown in Plat Book 5 at Pages 70 through 75 in the records of Pitkin County, said parcel is more fully described as follows: Beginning at the most Southerly corner of said Lot 4; thence N 43'08'33" W 70.76 feet, more or less, along the Southwesterly boundary of said Lot 4 to the intersection of the West Line of Lot K, Block 71, City and Townsite of Aspen, Projected Northerly; thence following said Northerly projection N 14'50'49" E 94.42 feet, more or less, to a point on the Northerly boundary of said Lot 4; thence S 74'04'00" E 157.97 feet, more or less, to an angle point on the Northerly boundary of said Lot 4; thence S 51'16'37" W 54.37 feet to an angle point on the Southerly boundary of said Lot 4; thence N 78'33'40" W 65.98 feet along the Southerly boundary of said Lot 4; thence S 14Â©42'02" W 81.26 feet along the Southerly boundary of said Lot 4 to the Point of Beginning. TOGETHER with that part of vacated alley in Block 71 adjacent to subject property. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. 0655-526/EOE 3NOHd3131 2 19 18 00~0103 'N3dSV '+ESE X08 ~Od -- - 0.<,1 2. p.::'Â· fr/-2Â·21.91.8 '05 'N3dSV ..4' - .: -'; 1 ~i Â·---'; . - 4 i Â· i 1 F'NÂ©~'63Â£ 31.' :.AU ' rt.- 1 1 . l Q - . UU u 4% Â· 1, 01 : -=41,4 1*ttl 191 0 11 nil-5 -I~A tic,1219*)11$16Â«1 i-115 f 9t ~ W Â· Â· . a 1/ E 4 1~ < .94.-' C I /- ..... Sl)31#-DUV/531VDOSSV Â¥ 3=1=IINNn) 5318VH) , 30N3aIS38 olvl/\IV 0 -1 0 ~ Ul 2 ~ 44 1 -Â· ~ ~'- . .. 4. . -/ / ria-6 -IA 1 1/ 5,71 b _30Â»11 1 - 11 to > r â‚¬-83\ fit v -1 V - 1 0* ' 85 1 0 3 % 1 1 -4- - 2 1 - 44 -1-+ 7 - i .,-~F *t- 4 - 22-4-JA- 6 4, J I lili & 4 1 9 b. . 111 -1 el J 1 1 k --I ' -rB--22_*p-; 4 - L_11 ==4 -1 .1 L A 3 =,A 1 FDA 4 -1 . M i - c l~- *-,4 4 i V a 0 ,-: . - --4 Li I 1 \ 141*J # 1\ ! 4, 7 1 1 1- 4 - 1 C L 1 ~i ; E t-LU- 4- Â°~ ___ _ /19-3 i . 1 ---- . 3- - -- r 2-;*5 J 44 79 4 1 - ---- -*.3-= .96:-L..... m'.tit;Â·2 -- 11 0 I â‚¬-- 11 Err 1 FPN 3 1 1 .2 -4 1- lu 8 /-11 -0 Â« ..7 - i 4--1 . 4%1 11 /6 1 C - 111 -1- 111 1 - 2 01-2 t -UU-1,= 11--4 1 -1- 1 : 1 K i . -- 4- . 01 /21./ 6 - =. ' *. 1 - 1 1 )1%1 1 -7 1 / 71, 3 j - Ill < f~- 1 CV 0 g.tÂ·,0. nu'l<22( 11 6\\ T 1 - 4 - 1 1 /6 -11-@> - .31 -1 --â€ž,d/1.. '4., -11 --/t 11 1 ~r-7:-:,L - 1 01 0,1 l , .\,4 V- -- 4 .- i 1 \ / 2443 z 1 J - 1 -0 \>0 44/20 12-2 (Ili --~ 6 -- #s ---r j 1 Â· ~Â· - ---f - 4 1 1 I il L -- -2 t t ' U-11 \91 t \J 1 1 1 Lo 9 fbN - 11 1 4= Te â‚¬ ~ 9 d U 4 j -14- O 9 1 ' 1 i.. ".. / .1 7-. . i UN, 1 11 t# C Â£ 7, C 6 -r. ... - \2-DW PL G VOt b t. , I ,=10 2.:133HS 470rf - 7