The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.HP.309 E Main St.16A-873 0 q E M,G-1A- 9- ILA--37 = 309 & 315 Main St., Houston Res~ B1ock79 2.2 -- 2-4 -\ A le C 15 1 H 97/ 1 83# 11 2-1% . lul P 1 .A 7 It'. , /-- 1 l.._ ' CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET < City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 5~26/27 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: Pr139--073 -19-002 /6/\-81 STAFF MEMBER: 5 1-â‚¬ u 42- PROJECT NAME: Houaton Anned of- 1-\-PC-- 60.trt Project Address: 30 9 +3/9 07 ain 'St. APPLICANT: Held.E HoustÂ© n Applicant Address: /35 E. Cooper /fsfen REPRESENTATIVE: 4,-deon hauffnan Representative Address/Phone: 2/5- E. 4Yrhan Aspts, CO 5-,/66 TYPE OF APPLICATION: PAID: YES *97 AMOUNT: 1 STEP APPLICATION: P&Z MEETING DATE: PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: 2 STEP APPLICATION: ~~ MEETING DATE: 2 &,t 9ft- PUBLIC HEARING: YES ~ NO ~ DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: -*20 REFERRALS: 6/ 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: t./.-/71 INITIAI.*tu,/0.-- - City Atty City Engineer Bldg. Dept. Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: icalift A ff ' 'LAti L Â£ ii} 1 3 '3 3~LA ro tv,1 e>--h -1 L / 1-3 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office 4 'gyÂ©~ RE: Houston Appeal of HPC Score DATE: June 22, 1987 LOCATION: East 1/2 of Lot B and all of Lots C and D, Block 80, Original Townsite of Aspen, 309 and 311 East Main Street, City of Aspen. The two small houses are situated between the Miner's Building and the ARA/Van Loon Residence. 309 is next to the ARA/Van Loon residence, and 311 is next to the Miner's Building. ZONING: Commercial Core (H-Historic Overlay District) APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Heidi Houston, contract vendor for the property, is appealing the HPC's evaluations of the two small houses at 309 and 311 E. Main Street. APPLICABLE SECTION OF MUNICIPAL CODE: Ordinance 11 (Series of 1987), adopted by City Council on May 11, 1987, amended the entire historic designation regulations of the City. As part of the new regulations, the process of HPC evaluation of structures on the Inventory of Historic Structures was established whereby structures were assigned rated values between 0 and 5 (see attachment A). According to Section 24-9.5(a), any structure rated "4" or "5" is subj ect to the demolition and total removal review provisions. Section 24-9.7 allows for appeal to City Council of HPC's rating of structures on the Inventory within sixty (60) days of the adoption of Ordinance 11, accomplished on May 11, 1987. 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: At a special neighborhood meeting on January 21, 1987 HPC considered inventoried structures in the Commercial Core and Shadow Mountain areas. Notice was published in the Aspen Times and sent individually to all owners of record telling the date, time and purpose of the meeting. The HPC scored all structures in those neighborhoods at that meeting. The two structures under consideration were both scored "4". The following information was considered by the Committee. 311 E. Main Street 1980 Inventory of Historic Structures: The Inventory stated the house was built circa 1883-1884 on this site. It was noted that a kitchen was added in 1902 (in rear). Regarding historic significance, the Inventory stated: "One of the few remaining single-family residences of Aspen's Mining commercial district that still remains in its original appearance, although its use has changed to commercial." Regarding architectural signifi- cance, the Inventory stated: "Containing typical features of an Aspen Victorian Miner's Cottage. Front gable (steep pitch) with projecting bay window, and cross gable." In the "Analysis of Historic Significance, " points were given for its "distinctive characteristics of type/style architecture/construction" ( 1 point), status as a "noteworthy surviving example of a style becoming rare in the locale or is identified with a street scene or the landscape" (2 points) , and "possessing high artistic value" (1 point). The integrity of the structure was observed to be "fair". In HPC's discussion, the Committee gave particular emphasis to the significance of the structure's apparently original appear- ance on Main Street close in to the commercial core, and its contribution to the streetscape, given that it is one of three contiguous historic miner's cottages on this block. 309 East Main Street 1980 Inventory of Historic Structures: The Inventory stated the house was built circa 1885-1886 on this site. Additions (most likely from the early 1900's) to the rear of the structure were noted. Regarding historic significance the Inventory stated: "The historical significance is not of those who owner it or lived in it, nor of its architecture, but that this residential structure is representative of Aspen's Mining Era. It illus- trates the family/home environment and life style(s) of the average citizen in Aspen which was then dominated by the silver mining industry." In the "Analysis of Historical Significance" this structure received the same evaluation as did 311 E. Main. The integrity of the structure was observed to be "deteriorated" HPC commented that this structure has much the same significance as its neighbor to east. It should be noted that the ARA/Van Loon residence to the west, similar in character but restored, has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 2 Submitted in the applicant's letter of appeal and accompanying structural inspection by Robert M. Patillo, P.E. is additional information on the structures. An attempt was made to identify additions and structural soundness of each house. With regard to additions, the HPC took account that alterations have occurred to the rear of both buildings; however, the front facades appear to be basically as they were at the time of construction or shortly after in the early 1900's. It was believed that those additions did not detract from either house's historic integrity. Mr. Patillo indicates that there is an east addition to the 311 E. Main St. house, which is observable from Main Street. Neither the Inventory nor the 1904 Sanborn maps give information to determine if and when this part of the house was added on. If it was an addition, we expect that the date of construction is in the early 1900's because of its condition and match of scale and materials. The structural inspection does indicate that there are real questions as to the stability and longevity of the houses in their present state of repair. However, structural stability was explicitly excluded from the HPC's criteria for evaluating historic significance, as you can see from the attached rating scale. This area of concern would have brought the Committee into technical issues that go beyond the identification of significant exterior architectural features and historic associa- tion. Structural soundness is one of the standards for review of a demolition proposal, and would be considered if such an application were made. It should be noted that these structures are subject to HPC review (development and demolition) because they are situated within the Commercial Core Historic District; and the "4" ratings do not effect any additional review. Staff believes that the houses at 309 and 311 E. Main Street were properly evaluated. ALTERNATIVES: City Council has a broad range of discretion in determining how to respond to appeals of HPC action. Alterna- tives include: 1. Affirm the ratings (one or both) made by HPC; 2. Down-score the ratings; or 3. Remand the ratings to HPC for rehearing. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to affirm the HPC's ratings of "4's" to the structures at 309 and 311 East Main Street." CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: k.64*01,4. 1-0 -14 9?.0,#prÂ¢Ct -4 8-i Yow fhu~ te,ou' i LY 3% 12* c.-rk 4(/IK (11&11'27' 00/ 6 lot./}/Ft,/ s 5 61460 U 0 05 5 4%01 i F D BAA. Lt f ! :4/ i 9 N?fltED f#&. Pl 9 4%Â·51 mj f , JQ fÂ¥Mt.Ll,12 AL # .1-> sb.houston No T A-T I # 6 e A{) 0 1 7 10/'> Â§*Rh> TO liAAL '1ew '4 %,0, & 1 C 3 F ow R U Â£ 7-4 9 / C , 6,~- 3 I INVENTORY OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES EVALUATION GUIDELINES 0- Structure was incorrectly placed on Inventory and is actually neither old nor reconstructed. 1- Structure is old, but has been so drastically altered to not be easily recognizable as a Victorian or mining era struc- ture. Its situation in the neighborhood typically has minimal historic influence because the neighborhood has been substantially rebuilt with new structures of a larger scale, or the structure is badly deteriorated. 2 - Structure has been altered in a way that has negatively affected its historic architectural integrity. Typically, the structure cannot be associated with any important historic person or event, and is merely representative of a miner family home environment. Neighborhood influence is also not significant because the structure's historic qualities have become nominal. 3 - Structure has been altered in a way that negatively affects its historic architectural integrity; however, the structure retains some historic significance because of particularly distinctive historic structural elements and/or its contri- bution to the historic character of a neighborhood. In a few cases, the structure has been associated with an historic person or family. 4- Structure has been altered in a way that is considered compatible with the original architecture; and the historic character is preserved. Structure typically has strong positive influence in the neighborhood's historic character and may be associated with important historic persons or events. In all cases, structures were in their original location, to the best of staff and HPC's knowledge. 5- Structure appears to be unaltered or has been carefully restored/reconstructed. In some cases, structures were rated in the 1980 Inventory as excellent or exceptional rather than notable. Typically, these structures are very good representatives of an historic architectural style and craftsmanship, and have a strong positive influence on the neighborhood's character. Structures evaluated at 5's may also be associated with important historic persons or events. SB.IHS r- LAW OFFICES GIDEON I. KAUFMAN APROFESSIONALCORPORATION BOX 10001 GIDEON !. KAUFMAN 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 3O5 RICHARDS. LUHMAN ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 May 21, 1987 --J Mr. Steve Burstein Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Appeal of HPC Score Dear Steve: Please consider this letter an appeal on behalf of my client, Heidi Houston, Contract Vendor for the East j of Lot B, and all of Lot C and D, Block 80, City of Aspen, also know as 309 and 315 Main Street. These two properties received a score of 4 during the HPC review process. We do not feel that the scores are indicative of the true historic value of these properties. I believe that if the HPC had the benefit of more information on these properties, scores lower than 4 would have been assigned. The property on 315 Main Street had an original small structure, and had three additions made to it. Neither of these buildings have exterior foundations to support the superstructures. There is only rotten timber below grade with no evidence of any kind of masonry foundation. These buildings have decayed around the perimeters and settled along with most exterior walls. Extensive damage has been done to the floor joists on the bottoms. Many of the doorframes and window openings have racked significantly, and severe distress is apparent in interior walls which run east to west. The roof on both structures are in terrible condition, and are in danger of collapse. A complete structural analysis by Patello Associates in Glenwood Springs is available for your review. Because of the uncertainties surrounding the early designation process, my clients were not aware of the date the actual scoring was to take place and, therefore, were not present. They also were unaware of the significance the HPC scoring would have. Because of these factors, I feel that an appeal is appropriate. Concerns such as mine 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 to see whether the appeal should go directly to City Council, or whether we would like to seek HPC input into this process prior to that meeting. I believe that these properties are unique in that a lower score does not take away ultimate review on what is done with these properties. These Mr. Steve Burstein May 21, 1987 Page 2 properties sit in the Main Street Historic Overlay District and, therefore, the HPC still has an opportunity to review. However, we feel that a 4 is not an appropriate score and would like to set the record straight on what the true significance of these properties is. Once you have had an opportunity to review this letter, please contact me. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, a Professional Corporation By *f h Gideon /KAufman GK/bw V PATTILLO ASSOCIATES STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS April 10, 1987 Heidi and Sam Houston 135 East Cooper Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 309 Main Street 311 Main Street Aspen, Colorado Dear Heidi and Sam: As requested, the undersigned conducted a visual examination Of the two residential structures noted above. The inspection was made on March 10, 1987, and this report was prepared for the purpose of determining the existing structural condition for both buildings. My observations and conclusions are presented herein. Both structures are single story, timber-framed, single unit residences. The original portions of the structures appear to have been built at about the same era, probably in the late 1800's. The methods of construction and materials are similar; both are built from rough-sawn native timber utilizing balloon framing and were founded on timber mud-sills. From the structural viewpoint, the buildings are considered to be in poor to very poor condition. Specific conditions for each building are noted below. 311 MAIN STREET The house at 311 Main Street is situated on the south side of Main street and directly west of the. Miner' s Building. The building consists of an original small structure approximately 35' north-south by 12' -6" east-west, a 14' wide east addition (including the covered, porch and kitchen areas>, and a south 1 bedroom addition. At the time of my inspection, snow and ice had accumulated on the unheated porch roof, and the front porch beam was excessively deflected. This member is probably severely undersized for normal snow loads. The interior walls have been recently covered with sheetrock, SO little evidence of interior distress was noted. With the addition of the east wing, the original symmetrical gable shape of the roof was altered to provide a more I moderately sloping roof over this addition. The roof structure was not visible in this area, but we would expect that the typical rafters would be comprised of 2x4' s spaced at 24" on center. Based on current design standards, this roof structure would be considered inadequate. P.a BOX 751 0 GLENWOOD SPRINGS COLORADO 81602 0 [303] 845-8695 309 and 311 Main Street April 10, 1987 Page two A small cellar exists under the east addition. The walls of the cellar are of board-formed concrete, which appeared to be in relatively good condition. However, the floor joists which are ~ exposed in the cellar area are 2x6' s at 24" on center spanning some 10 to 11' between sporadically supported and sized beams. Other areas of the floor structure were not readily observable, but this portion is considered structurally inadequate for residential floor loads. Perhaps the most significant structural aspect of this building is that no exterior foundations are present to support the superstructure. An excavation was made by hand at the southeast corner of the east addition. Some concrete has been placed along the building perimeter which attempts to divert water away from the exterior walls; however, this small concrete apron does not serve to support the building in any significant way. My examination revealed only rotten timber below grade with no evidence of a masonry foundation. This type of construction was actually fairly common with small buildings Of this era. The difficulty and cost of preparing a masonry foundation was often bypassed in the interest of constructing a shelter within a short period of time. The result now is that the building has decayed around its perimeter and settled along most exterior walls. Damage to the ends of floor joists and bottoms of stud walls has occurred due to moisture infiltration and subsequent decay. Repairing thefoundations to present building standards would be difficult and costly. Foundation underpinning would be required, along with replacement of decayed timber materials. This would probably include most of the floor joists for the building. 309 MAIN STREET This building suffers from many of the same defects as discussed above for 311 Main Street, however, to generally a greater degree. Again, exterior foundations are apparently nonexistent. A concrete curb has been placed around the building perimeter in an attempt to provide support; however, this is not effective. Decay is apparent along all exterior walls. Approximately 3. to 4" of settlement has occurred along both the entire east wall and ' the west wall of the structure. As a result of this settlement, | the door frames and window openings have racked significantly, and severe distress is apparent in the interior walls which run in the east-west direction. The back door Of the building is severely distorted so that a very wide triangular-shaped opening between the door head and frame is apparent. 309 and 311 Main Street April 10, 1987 Page three This building is approximately 28' wide (east-west) by 44' long (north-south), including the covered porch area. The roof is a full hipped-shape with a short north-south ridge line. Roof slopes are relatively steep, approximately 10 (vertical) to 12 <horizontal), and the rafters are comprised of 2x4's and 2x6 native timber, spaced at 24" on center. The ceiling joists are 2x8's at 16" on center, with very little insulation above the ceiling surface; approximately 3" of vermiculite was noted. In the small cellar area, the earth has been simply dug away to provide the underfloor cellar space. NO masonry or concrete walls were used; untreated one inch thick boards have been placed to retain the sloughing soil. The floor joists were visible as 2x8 native joists at 16" on center and span approximately 13' -6" between the east and west ends of the building and a center mud-sill type bearing support at the center of the building. The floor joists here are considered marginally adequate for supporting residential floor loads, and they suffer from decay and lack support along the building perimeter due to the absence of a proper masonry foundation. Also, in that area of the floor outside of the cellar space, inadequate clearance between the floor joists and soil below was noted; generally less than 6" was provided. Similar to the adjacent structure, snow and ice had also accumulated on the roof of the porch, causing extreme deflections in the porch -beam there. Again, this area of the structure is probably severely overstressed and potentially dangerous under normal snow loading conditions. In summary, the following items would require repair, from the structural viewpoint, to meet current building code requirements: 1. Provide new perimeter footings. This would include underpinning the i structure and releveling both buildings. 2. Replace decayed timber. This would include most floor joist ends, some stud ends, and other timber located near the grade line of both structures. 3. Provide adequate underfloor clearances. Hand excavation would be required to provide the required 18" clearance between the floor joist and grade within the crawl spaces of both buildings. 309 and 311 Main Street April 10, 1987 Page four 4. Replace undersized floor joists (311 only). Adequate structure must be provided to support residential live loads. 5. Place cellar retaining walls (309 only). New concrete or masonry retaining walls must be placed around the cellar perimeter. 6. Strengthen roof structures. Both buildings have understructured rafters and support beams. Companioning existing elements with new timber would be required to meet 75 PSF snow load requirements. 7. Replace existing porch beams and associated structure. Both buildings would require this. 8. Repair cosmetic damage. Releveling Of the buildings Will result in substantial distress to interior walls, doors and door openings, and windows. Gutting of all interior surfaces would be desirable prior to the restructuring along the building exterior. New plumbing and wiring systems would probably also be required at this phase. Accomplishing the aforementioned repairs would obviously be a difficult undertaking. As with most remodeling or renovation projects, many unknown conditions exist and must be addressed on an individual basis upon discovery. Considering their age and poor structural condition, renovating these buildings Will probably pose more problems than most other remodels. Careful consideration must be given to the cost for renovation versus the overall benefits that such an undertaking would offer. In my opinion, from the structural vantage point, the Benefit to Cost ratio is very low. This completes my report. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions or require any further information in this matter. Sincerely, '983370- .7 1 1*,1*66+ fet. Robert M. Pattillo, P.E. ,Â£ t- 7 7 :- *:.' / '-.0 - *IJ 'J ~ M ~~Â·- v :' 3 -r t: *E ev...th rf: O~ RMP/kmk 9. /' %:s cc: Gideon Kaufman '~~P co\.0-u'~F 315 East Hyman Avenue ommlmltittl,0 Aspen, CO 81611 ' m MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office A--4\ RE: Houston Appeal of HPC Scoring DATE: September 9, 1987 The applicant requests that the Houston appeal of historic evaluation scoring for 309 and 311 E. Main Street be tabled until City Council's regular meeting of October 26, 1987. MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Houston Appeal of HPC Score DATE: June 8, 1987 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Gideon Kaufman on behalf of his client, Heidi Houston request- ing appeal of an HPC score for the East 1/2 of Lot B, and all of Lot C and D, Block 80, known as 309 and 315 Main Street. These two properties were designated with a score of 4 and the appli- cant believes that they lack sufficient historic integrity to merit such a high score. Please review this material and send in your comments no later than June 15, 1987 in order for this office to have adequate time to prepare for its presentation before CC. Thank you. CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 5-)c26/j>7 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: 2191-0,73-29-003 joA-81 STAFF MEMBER: 51-6 u 42. PROJECT NAME: Houaton A opead of M-PC_ detre Project Address: 30 9 +3 /9 07 Q 1 91 +S/- . APPLICANT: 1-teld< Hous/-on Applicant Address: /3 5 E. Coapâ‚¬p- /fsr-en U REPRESENTATIVE: (ti de on ha ufma n Representative Address/Phone: 2/5- E. #y rn an /74 mes, CO 6--g,66 TYPE OF APPLICATION: PAID: YES *gy AMOUNT: 1 STEP APPLICATION: P&Z MEETING DATE: PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: 2 STEP APPLICATION: (~~~ MEETING DATE : (~(,UL@-3-- PUBLIC HEARING : YES ( NO j ,1 DATE REFERRED: 4,~tx f; 1 * '~INITIALS: -* 0 9 REFERRALS: 6/ 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: ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-2020 Date: (~ A w K 09 % 3-- di , d,ut Aili FAE kj~ 319 -O -C )A+majÂ« ROU. ()4) pti K 3 CBS f C (c C 1 RE: ~ 2-91-6--60 d-,47,4UL j.-9)4 39Â»LÂ« Dear E j Ju-Â»__ This is to inform you-that the Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of/the) captioned application. We have determined that your application lcE) NOT compl ete. Additional items required include: Disclosure of Ownership Cone copy only needed) , Adjacent Property Owners List/Envelopes/Postage (one copy) Additional copies of entire application Authorization by owner for representative to submit applica- tion Response to list of items (attached/below) demonstrating compliance with the applicable policies and regulations of the Code, or other specific materials A check in the amount of $ A. Your application - comolete and we haylÂ¢ scheduled it for review by Fhe G-63 061il(li... on (_1~41 *U->-<- We will call you if we nedd any additional inform~tion prior to that date. Several days prior to your hearing, we will call and mil able a copy of the memorandum. Please note that it CLS_- NOT your responsibility to post your property with a sign,-w i ch we can provide you for a $3.00 fee. B. Your application is incompl ete, we have not scheduled it review at this time. When we receive the materials we have requested, we will place you on the next available agenda. If you have any questions, please call 144 p the planner assigned to your case. Sincerely, AS+1*IN PLANNING OFFICE c=O &/lt.4 . *j/ // LAW OFFICES GIDEON 1. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONALCORPORATION BOX 10001 TELEPHONE GIDEON I. KAUFMAN 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 305 AREA CODE 303 RICHARD S. LUHMAN ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 925-8166 May 26, 1987 HAND-DELIVERED JELE-J31% Mr. Steve Burstein Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Heidi Houston 309 and 311 East Main Street Dear Steve: Per Gideon's request, I am enclosing a copy of a letter from Patillo Associates for your review. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, a Professional Corporation By <1 2 4 .71-{ C %-glf'/Â© ~hard Sj Luhman RSL/bw Enclosures