The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.303 S Cleveland St.HPC031-003Uj D. blevelaliu AeqU=bL LU . C 1 0 litu V Â£ %-1 I from_inventory , A-CO:=.Cl 44 \ per bÂ« dÂ· 0 -51 1 1 a ....1 â‚¬*A=- _p.:i 15 -.1 bt.M 462â‚¬65kti E . W .. . PARCEL ID: ]2737-182-31002 DATE RCVD: |10/12/00 - # COPIES:1 CASE NO~HPC031-00 CASE NAME:~303 S. Cleveland Request to be removed from inventory PLNRV PROJ ADDR:|303 S Cleveland CASE TYP:]Request to be removed from inventor STEPS1 OWN/APP: Charles Tower ADRI C/Siz:] PHN:| REP:|Micheal Hoffman ADR:~106 S. Mill St., ste 202 C/S/Z:~Aspen/CO/81611 - PHN~920-1018 FEES DUE:|None FEES RCVD:|None STAT:F- REFERRALS~ Â· REF:~ BY~ DUE:| . MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED , -- . #~w-mm-v-- DATE OF FINAL ACTION:| CITY COUNCIL: REMARKS< PZ: / CLOSED:| BY: ~ DRAC: PLAT SUBM]TD: ~ PLAT (BK,PG): ADMIN: 9 f .t MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Directo FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer r RE: 303 S. Cleveland Street- Request to be removed from the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures," CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: October 11,2000 SUMMARY: The property at 303 S. Cleveland Street contains three cabins. On the northern end of the site is a 500 square foot one bedroom unit built in 1948. A duplex cabin with two studio units, built in 1950, sits along the west property line and a third duplex with two studios, built in 1952, is sited along the alley. 303 S. Cleveland Street was identified as significant in the 1991/1992 "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures," and formally adopted to the inventory by City Council Ordinance #34, Series of 1992. The property owner contends that he did not receive notice. Starting in about 1995, Community Development Department staff, the property owner, and his architect, began a series of discussions about what sort of redevelopment could take place on the property. Aside from historic preservation regulations, various other land use code issues, such as affordable housing and allowed density, would have an impact on the site, as would some non-conforming aspects of the structures. No clear direction that would satisfy the owner could be determined. The owner then inquired as to the process to be removed from the inventory. City staff informed him that he needed to wait for the next update. The inventory is to be reviewed every five years, which would technically mean that an update should have occurred in 1996/1997, however because of a change in staff during the 1992 process, and an adoption schedule that took until 1995, it was determined that 1999/2000 would be the most appropriate time to visit the inventory again. Nonetheless, the owner of 303 S. Cleveland Street has expressed a desire to have his property discussed, and has therefore been allowed to meet with HPC on a separate track from the other already listed sites. Please note that HPC will have the final decision in this matter, and that the applicant may appeal to Council only on the basis of a denial of due process, or if it is felt that the HPC exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. APPLICANT: Charles Tower, owner, represented by Michael Hoffman. LOCATION: Lots H and I, Block 35, City and Townsite of Aspen. PROCESS: During the summer, this site was visited, photographed, and recorded along with the other 109 properties that are already listed on the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures." The property was evaluated as viewed from the public right-of-way, and entered onto the form created by the Colorado Historical Society. REVIEW STANDARDS: Section 26.420.080 of the Land Use Code provides guidance on the evaluation of the inventory. According to that passage, the Inventory shall include all structures in the City of Aspen which are at least fifty (50) years old and which continue to have historic value, and such other structures identified by the Historic Preservation Commission as being outstanding examples of more modern architecture. All properties included on the inventory will be adopted by legal description and the Historic Preservation Commission will have the appropriate review authority over the entire property. All structures shall be evaluated by the Historic Preservation Commission regarding their current architectural integrity, historic significance, and community and neighborhood influence and shall be categorized as follows. (Please note that the category for each resource has no effect on the review process. It is merely a method to understand the overall quality or level of alterations made to properties on the inventory.): Significant: All those resources which are considered exceptional, excellent, or those resources individually eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Contributing: All those historic or architecturally significant resources that do not meet the criteria for "significant," provided, however, these resources have maintained their historic integrity or represent unique architectural design. Supporting: All those historic resources that have lost their original integrity, but are "retrievable" as historic structures or sites. The structures have received substantial alterations over the years, but with substantial effort could be considered "contributing" once again. Non-Contributing: All those structures that are either new or non-historic construction within a historic district, or historic structures with complete loss of integrity, either within or outside of a historic district. RECOMMENDATION: The recently completed survey form for this property is attached, along with the property owner's 1997 application for landmark designation. At the time of that application, the owner was trying to work with the HPC to find a solution for the site. Unfortunately no conclusion was reached, however, it is important to note that in their own analysis of these structures, the property owner' s architect came to the sarne conclusions that have been reached on the inventory form; that the property has significance as a representation of the type of housing that was being built for the average citizen in Aspen during the early ski era. Following is a section of Suzannah Reid's context report of the inventory update, "Aspen's Architectural Context, Post World War II." "Rustic Style 1800's - present The Rustic Style emerged from the original pioneer structures that were created out of locally available materials, were of straightforward construction, and had housed people since the beginning of white settlement of the West. A taste for Rustic Style can be traced to England and the mid 18th century, where gardens and folly buildings were created out of natural materials in their natural forms, such as twigs and tree trunks. When the modest structures of the American frontier became associated with "rugged individualism" and were romanticized, America's Rustic style was born. The Rustic Style became the preferred style for the National Parks and examples range from simple rectilinear log structures to elaborate structures of log and stone, with varied roof forms, dormers and expressed structural details. The structures, based on indigenous materials, blended into the landscape and became expressive of that landscape. Whether in rolling hills and lakes, such as the Adirondack camps of the late 19th century, or in the dramatic mountain settings of Yellowstone and Yosemite, these structures came to embody the idea of 'simple' mountain living. (Note that the Pan Abode is the standardized and manufactured version of this style.) While this style continues to be built today, in very elaborate fomis, the character defining elements listed below are related to the more modest local structures from the 40's and 50's. These structures were used as simple vacation homes and inexpensive housing for early ski workers. A variety of log "types" were used in more modern structures, to replicate early log structures, from machine cut logs assembled in the traditional way to manufactured applied logs used for siding frame structures. Characteristics ofthe Rustic Style: Buildings are constructed out of locally available materials, usually log; stone may be incorporated at the base, or in the form of a fireplace and chinlney. â€¢ Buildings are usually single story, with a low pitched gable roof. â€¢ True log construction with overlapping log ends, coped and stacked. Logs may be dressed and flattened for stacking or may be in rough form. Chinking infills the irregularities between the logs either way. â€¢ Window openings are spare and usually horizontally proportioned, wood trim is used to finish out the window openings. Building plans are simple rectangular forms, with smaller additive elements. â€¢ Roof springs from the log wall, and gable ends are infilled with standard framing. This may be a small triangle or a second level of living space. â€¢ The emphasis is on hand made materials and the details come out of the use of the materials, otherwise the detail and decoration is minimal. â€¢ Materials in later buildings are used to simulate log construction and refer to the particular visual details of the original log structures. Specific details of traditional log buildings, and construction techniques are not always carried forward into the newer structures." The context report was written as part of the inventory update process, to provide a framework for the analysis of each site. It serves as background by which the property' s place in our local history' s patterns, themes, and trends, can be understood. Two of the three structures at 303 S. Cleveland Street are at least 50 years old. The inventory form describes their historic value as being derived from their "position in the context of Aspen's rebirth as a resort community. The emergence of skiing as an industry required low cost housing for workers, and the continuing summer activities attracted families to the area whose needs were simple." The early ski era has been clearly identified as an important period in Aspen' s history and the development of the ski industry led to a complete renaissance in a town that had become economically depressed. In addition, those two cabins represent the qualities that are described as being key to the "rustic style," specifically that they are one story, rectangular plan buildings with a low pitched roof, built out of local materials, in this case milled logs, with small, horizontally oriented windows, and little detailing. They maintain their architectural integrity, and their original setting, arranged in a "U" shape around a courtyard. There have been no exterior alterations of significance since their original construction. Building permit records document the addition of the pop-up skylight to the northernmost cabin in 1976 and minor window alterations to the same building in 1986. The third cabin on the site was built in 1952, making it 48 years old. This minor difference in age in no way makes the cabin along the alley less significant than the others. Fifty years of age is a rule of thumb and that building has all of the same characteristics that make the older pair significant. Staff would also point out that the language regarding designating only "outstanding examples" of buildings that are less than fifty years of age does not mean that the buildings have to be an outstanding example in terms of their artistic qualities; it means that the buildings have to be outstanding examples of their type. Even if the HPC determined that the third cabin did not measure up to the term "outstanding," the other two buildings clearly qualify for the inventory by virtue of their age, indicating that the property should remain designated. Based on the criteria listed earlier in this memo, staff recommends that the entire property be categorized as a "contributing" historic resource. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Resolution #_, Series of 2000, retaining 303 S. Cleveland Street, Lots H and I, Block 35, a contributing property, on the City of Aspen "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures." Exhibits: Resolution #_, Series of 2000. A. Architectural Inventory Form for 303 S. Cleveland Street. B. Attachments from the property owner's 1997 application for landmark designation. C. Letter from property owner's representative. RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RETAINING 303 S. CLEVELAND STREET, LOTS H AND I, BLOCK 35, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, ON THE INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES RESOLUTION NO.~\ , SERIES OF 2000 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has conducted an evaluation of the City of Aspen "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures" to identify any properties which should be removed from the inventory due to loss of integrity, to nominate any sites which should be added to the inventory, and to rate the resources using the terms "significant, 55" contributing," and "supporting;" and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has forwarded a recommendation to the Historic Preservation Commission; and WHEREAS, Section 26.420.080 of the Land Use Code provides guidance on evaluation of the inventory. According to that passage, the Inventory shall include all structures in the City of Aspen which are at least fifty (50) years old and which continue to have historic value, and such other structures identified by the Historic Preservation Commission as being outstanding examples of more modern architecture; and WHEREAS, Section 26.420.080 of the Land Use Code also requires that all structures on the inventory be evaluated by the Historic Preservation Commission regarding their current architectural integrity, historic significance, and community and neighborhood influence and be categorized as "significant, .,0 contributing," or "supporting;" and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated October 11, 2000, provided the Community Development Department's recommendations in regard to 303 S. Cleveland Street, a property currently listed on the inventory; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting on October 11, 2000, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the staff recommendation, and approved this resolution by a vote of _ to _, finding that the structures on the property are at least fifty (50) years old and continue to have historic value, or have been identified by the Historic Preservation Commission as being outstanding examples of more modern architecture. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the HPC finds that the standards established in Section 26.420.080 of the Land Use Code are met and that 303 S. Cleveland Street, Lots H and I, Block 35, City and Townsite of Aspen, shall remain listed on the "Inventory of LIistoric Sites and Structures" and shall be categorized as a "contributing" historic resource. 1 APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 11th day of October, 2000. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to Content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Acting Vice-Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy 2 I . ATTACHMENT 4 This proposal seeks landmark designation for the three cabins located at 303 S. Cleveland Street, Aspen. Colorado. Response to attachment 4 (Standards for Designation) . A. Historical importance. The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associaterl with a person or an' event of historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. It could be argued that these cabins at the time they were built were a direct response to a significant cultural and social change in the history of Aspen. Small dwelling units built during this period 1948 - 1952 were specifically intended to acknowledge the beginnings of the tourist industry created by the establishment of skiing in Aspen in 1946. B. Architectural importance. The structure or site reflects and architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant of unique architectural type, (based on building form), or specimen. Although not magnificent examples of more glorious architectural styles. These cabins do clearly represent an architectural type that was both practical and easy to construct. The stacked log" style was extremely cost effective and become the predominant architectural style during the post war beginnings of Aspen as an international resort. C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Does not apply. Alida i 6 D. Neighborhood character. The structure or site is a significant component of a historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. The small scale of these cabins was very much like the other small miners cabins that once dotted Aspen's East end. This character has changed dramatically over the past years as lodges, condominiums and large homes have been developed. Even though these smaller structures are no longer part of a larger context they help to retain a sense of the past and point out differences even in Aspen between the kind of development that occurred on the West end verses that on the East side of town. E Communitv character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location, and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Aspen continues to fight to retain some of its small scale character. Smaller structures can still be valuable as housing for Aspen's work force as well as insuring a diversity of population within neighborhoods. As well as preserving examples of an important sedes of social changes in Aspen, these structures can allow a few members of the local work force to live close in to the downtown area, an opportunity that where it still exists should be protected. Â·:i Hyman ave. 5.16' ~_ Cabin A 1948 9 - --1 1 B. Rm. 501sf. Cabin B 1950 -4- Studio ~ i ------- --- Cleveland st. ' t , Studio 544sf. 1 1 Cabin C 1952 ' Studio ~ Studio 559sf. TOWER north 1-=20' Alley LotArea 6 000 s f. Zone RMF BLACIâ‚¬ SM A CK ARC H I T ECT BOX 276 ASPEr' COLOA/00 -I ~ " 1 From: E. Michael Hoffman To: Amy Guthrie Date: 10/2/00 Time 9.25 32 AM P=age 2 of 5 LAW OFFICES FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS IN KANSAS CrY. MESSOU-EU IN ASPEN COLORADO 106 SOUTH MILL STREET FREILICH, LEINER & CARLINE-E ATrORNEYS AT LAW DAVID J MYLER, PC 1 SUITE 202 E MICHAEL HOFFMAN 1 AITORNEYS Air 6431 SHANE J HARVEY ' ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ROBERT H FREILICH, p C. 2-" AD11!TTEDINCO' MARTIN L LETINER, PC 2 FACSIM[LE RICHARD G CARUSLE. PC 2 SIEPHEN J MOORE, PC 2 (970) 920-4259 S MARIK WIUI'E 23 TELEPHONE KYLE E FOOTE 2 (970) 920-1018 ADIC'/b IN .01, CA., -, IC ' CERTIFIED LAND USE PLAP*NEAS MICHAEL J LAUER. AICP JENNIFER K BARRErr, AICP KIM S BROPHI-r. AICP April 10,2000 John Worcester, Esq. Aspen City Attorney 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Property of Charles D. Tower 303 S. Cleveland (the "Property"). Dear John: This firm represents Charles Tower in connection with his efforts to redevelop the Property referenced - above. Mr. Tower has owned the Property since 1976, which is improved by two duplexes and a single family residence. Each structure was constructed from a kit and has an exterior of wooden logs. They were built in 1948, 1950 and 1952.1 Mr. Tower Was Originallv Denied Procedural Due Process In June of 1992, the improvements on the Property were added to the City of Aspen's Inventory of Non-Landmark Historic Sites and Structures by the Aspen City Council's adoption of Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1992. The ordinance was the result of a review process conducted by the Aspen Historical Preservation Commission (HPC) pursuant to Section 24-7-709B of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. Under those regulations. both the City Council's and HPC's review of the historic inventory were to take place before duly noticed public hearings. Section 6-205(E)(4)(C) of the Common Procedures required that such notice be by publication, posting and mailing. Although Mr. . z -wer was identified as the owner ofthe Property in Ordinance No. 34, he never received notice of any public hearing by mail. There is also no evidence in the City's records that Mr. Tower was sent notice that his Property was being considered for inclusion on the inventory. Because the City did not make him aware of that possibility, he did not participate in the relevant discussions before the HPC and City Council. The result was that his rights to develop the Property were substantially eroded. i Construction dates were provided to Mr. Tower by the original owner ofthe Property. Ed,ti L l 4,62<- From E. Michael Hoffman To: Amy Guthrie Date: 10/2/00 TimeÂ· 9 25 32 AM Page 3 of 5 FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE Tnhn Worcester, Esq. April 10, 2000 Page 2 It was important that Mr. Tower receive actual notice of these proceedings. Many ofthose who did receive notice actively objected to the addition of their real property to the inventory. The HPC responded to these objections by evaluating them and removing certain properties from the list.: Interestingly, Mr. Tower's Property was one of only five to be added to the inventory that year. The record reveals that a timely objection from Mr. Tower may have persuaded the HPC to I121 include his Property on the inventory. The onlv discussion of the Tower Property occurred spontaneously at the HPC meeting in which additions to the inventory were being considered. Commissioner Roger Moyer volunteered that "303,305,307 S. Cleveland are not historic as they came about in the 40's, early ski area. We are starting to move into that era and we haven't thoroughly discussed this era."3 Although other members of the Commission believed the improvements on the Tower land had "historic value," none apparently felt strongly that the Property should be added to the inventory. If Mr. Tower had known that the discussion was taking place, he or his representatives might have succeeded in having the Property removed from consideration. The City has admitted that problems existed with the notioing procedure used to inform property owners of the potential listing of their property on the historic inventory. In a memorandum to the HPC, Amy Amidon (now Guthrie) wrote "[alt the time ofthe 1992 hearings, not all property owners cre correctly identified and there were some errors in the public notices.'54 Apparently because of those problems, the City conducted a Round II and Round III of the evaluation process.5 Unfortunately, Mr. Tower was never provided an opportunity to object to the inclusion ofhis Property on the Inventory because these later rounds did not involve his land. Mr. Tower Continues to be Denied Due Process In October of 1996, Mr. Tower approached the Aspen Community Development Department to explore the development potential for his Property. At about that time Mrs. Guthrie first informed Mr. Tower that his property was listed as "contributing" on the Historic Inventory. She also told him that the improvements on the Property could not be demolished without HPC approval and that it was unlikely that that approval would be granted. In the alternative, Mrs. Guthrie suggested that Mr, Tower either request that the Property be removed from the Historic Inventory or be developed in a 2 Comments of Bill Poss, Chairman of the HPC to Aspen City Council, Official Minutes of the Regular Meeting ofthe Aspen City Council, June 22,1992, Page 9. 3 Official Minutes ofHistoric Preservation Commission, March 25, 1992, Page 7. 4 See Memorandum to Aspen Historic Preservation Commission from Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer, RE: Evaluation of properties proposed for inclusion on the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures", Round II, dated September 13, 1994. 3 See Aspen City Council Ordinances No. 4, Series of 1995 and No. 5, Series of 1996. From E. Michael Hoffman To. Amy Guthrie Date: 10/2/00 Time 9:25:32 AM Page 4 of 5 FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE John Worcester, Esq. April 10,2000 Page 3 manner consistent with the City's historic landmark regulations.6 According to Mrs. Guthrie, the Usistant City Attorney said the Property could not be removed from the Historic Inventory until the next periodic review of the Inventory which was then scheduled for 1999.7 The development scenarios suggested by Mrs. Guthrie required that the Property be designated a historic landmark. 8 Because the only realistic option appeared to be development along the lines suggested by Mrs. Guthrie, Mr. Tower sought landmark designation for the Property. The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission considered Mr. Tower's request at a public hearing held July 1, 1997. It voted to recommend approval of Landmark Designation to the Aspen City Council. 9 Before the application could be heard by the City Council. however. Mr. Tower decided to withdraw his request because he felt that historic landmark designation would overly restrict development of the Property. Instead he opted to ask that his property be removed from the Inventory. The National Historic Preservation Act of 196610 requires the Secretary of the Interior to establish regulations certifying local governments to carry out the purposes of the Act. 11 The regulations promulgated by the Secretary require that certified local governments (including Aspen) "maintain a system for the survey and inventory of historic properties â€ž12 which "[p-]rovide for adequate public participation in the local historic preservation program as a whole."13 The City complied with this requirement by adopting an ordinance which has been codified at Section 26-420-080 of its Land Use Regulations. "The Historic Preservation Commission, based on the recommendations of the Community Development Director, shall have the responsibility of evaluating the inventory of historic structures at least once every five (5) Years and of holding a public hearing to solicit comments on its evaluations." (Emphasis supplied.) From a survey ofthe ordinanoes referenced in the first section ofthis correspondence, it is clear that the HPC has not carried out a complete review of the Historic Inventory since 1992. The only 6 See Letter of August 21.1998, to Glenn Rappaport from Amy Guthrie (including fax cover sheet to me dated December 7, 1998), attached to this correspondence as Exhibit A. 7 See Numbered Paragraph 2, page 2 of Exhibit A 8 The development scenarios are described in some detail in Exhibit A 9 See Official Minutes of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, July 1, 1997, page 5. 10 16 U,S.C. 470, et seq 1136 C.F.R. 61.1(a)(2). 12 36 C.F.R.61.6(Â«3)(March 7, 2000) 13 36 C.F.R. Â§ 61.6(e)(4). From: E. Michael Hoffman To: Amy Guthrie Date: 10/2/00 Time 9:25:32 AM Page 5 of 5 FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE John Worcester, Esq. April 10,2000 Page 4 properties considered by the Commission in 1995 and 1996 were those segregated as Rounds II and III from the 1992 "Inventory adoption process. â€ž14 Given that the last complete review occurred in 1992, the HPC should have conducted another evaluation in 1997. It did not. In that year Mr. Tower was told that he would have to wait until 1999 to have his request considered. Even that promise was breached. In November of 1998, Mrs. Guthrie informed me that a consultant would be hired by the HPC the following Spring to assist it in evaluating the Historic Inventory. For reasons which have not been fully explained, the "RFP" for a consultant was not disseminated until last fall. We were informed that a candidate was selected early this year but that he recently resigned because he could not complete the contract within the cost constraints required by the City. We understand that another RFP either has been circulated or will be soon. The HPC will re-evaluate the Historic Inventory no earlier than this coming Autumn. All of this delay has denied Mr. Tower the ability to timely seek a removal of the Property from the Historic Inventory. In combination with the absence of actual notice of the initial listing of the Property on the Inventory this denial has resulted in a material erosion of Mr. Tower' s property and Constitutional rights. We are appealing to you, as counsel to the HPC, to help establish a procedure by which Mr. Tower's rights may be vindicated. We will appreciate any assistance you can provide. Sincerely, FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE P ALL 44/-0- E. Michael Hoffman 14 See the fourth recital of Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1995, and the fourth recital of Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1996. From: E. Michael Hoffman To Amy Guthrie Date: 10/10/00 Time 11 03 00 AM Page 2 of 12 CITY OF ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 HEARING REGARDING CONTINUED INCLUSION OF 303,305 AND 307 S. CLEVELAND ON HISTORIC INVENTORY Commissioner Mary Hirsch: Start at the top: 303 South Cleveland. Michael Hoffman, attorney: I represent Charles Tower, the owner of 303. 305, and 307 South Cleveland. You know that Mr. Tower has been working with you to find a design which satisfies your desire for historic preservation, but which also meets some of Mr. Tower's goals to profit from his long-term ownership ofthe properly. We originally brought a request for de-listing of Mr. 9 Tower's property in April of this year for a number of reasons that I will cover. 10 11 Mr. Tower's goal is to have the property de-listed. You have been told that there is a 12 substantial financial penalty for having your property on the historic inventory. There are 13 , three 500-square foot structures on the inventory. They were originally placed there in 1992. 14 lhe Land Use Code, at that time, required the City to mail a notice regarding the proposed 15 listing of his property on the inventory. Mr. Tower never received that notice. He didn't know 16 about it until years later. I have gone over the city's records and there is nothing that 17 demonstrates it sent the required notice. Because he didn't know about the process, Mr. 18 Tower didn't participate in the hearing, which took place in1992. There was plenty of 19 discussion in the HPC at that time from those property owners who did show up. Several of 20 them were successful in having their properly removed from the inventory. There was 21 discussion at that time among members of the HPC regarding Mr. Tower's property, they were 22 concerned that the three structures were not yet 50 years old. The city at that time did not 23 have the architectural context document that has been used in this process. Because Mr. 24 Tower was not there to protest, his property was included on the inventory. 25 26 Late in 1986 Mr. Tower came to the Planning Department asking what he could do with his 27 properly. At that time -- for the first time -- he learned that the three structures were on the 28 inventory and that nothing could be done to the exterior of the buildings without HPC 29 approval. He attempted to work with Amy and the HPC to find a development plan which 30 would meet everyone's interests. The outcome, unfortunately, was gridlock because the city 31 had so many regulations dealing with the structure: employee housing; the zoning District 32 building constraints; the multi-family housing replacement program: the definition of what 33 constitutes a duplex; and on and on. He finally decided that his only option was to have the 34 ' euperty de-listed. 35 36 In 1997 the city told him that he would have to wait until next time the inventory was 37 reconsidered. The Aspen Land Use Code requires the HPC to fully consider the inventory no less than once every five years. That Code provision was promulgated pursuant to regulations 39 of the National Park Service under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Because 00-Â·Â·3030-IAU)[Â»P From E- Michael Hoffman To: Amy Guthrie Date 10/10/00 Time 11'03:OOAM Page 3 of 12 Historic Preservation Commission September 13,2000 Page -2- 1 the full inventory had last been considered in 1992. the city should have reevaluated the list in 2 1997 -- which was the year that Mr. Tower asked to be de-listed. Nevertheless, he was told 3 that he would have to wait until 1999 to have his request heard. He complied, he waited; 4 1999 came and went. Finally, in the spring of this year, three years after the time he should 5 have been given an opportunity to freely develop the property, he demanded that his request 6 he heard. 7 8 The effect of all this has been to deny Mr. Tower a right to develop his property. In 1992 the 9 city lacked the regulatory framework to justify listing Mr. Tower's properlY- Regulations 10 dealing with the property which less than fifty years old had not been fully developed. In 11 terms of process, his property is no different than those properties that are being considered 12 for the inventory for the first time now. I witnessed what you guys have been sitting through 13 for the last couple of hours of this process, and I don't envy you. But the result of this for Mr. 14 Tower is that he was denied the opportunity to seasonally offer the same complaint that those 15 folks will have an opportunity to offer. 16 17 As I have said, the HPC's jurisdiction over these structures was much more tenuous in 1992 18 than it is now. The potential exists for the 1992 decision to be the basis of your decision here 19 tonight. Please do not allow administrative inertia to further denude Mr. Tower's o f his right 20 ' - have a meaningful hearing on these issues. 21 0,3 We do not believe the structures found at 303,305. and 307 South Cleveland meet the criteria /L 23 necessary to preserve them as historic in perpetuity. As stated in Amy's notice of August 31 st: 24 "The inventory shall include all structures which are A) at least 50 years old and continue to 25 have historic value: and B) such other buildings identified by the Historic Preservation 26 Commission as being outstanding examples of more modern architecture." We offer that Mr. 27 Tower's property does not meet either of those tests. At the time that these structures were 28 listed they were not 50 years old: not all of them are 50 years old yet. They are not 29 outstanding examples ofmodern architecture. 30 31 I have with me here today Mr. John Feinberg, who is an expert in the field of historic 32 preservation. Mr. Feinberg is associated with the historic preservation firm The Collaborative, 33 Inc. in Boulder, where he has been a principal for over 26 years. For 19 years he was a 34 visiting professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, where he taught historic 35 preservation and planning and design law. Mr. Feinberg has worked as an expert in historic 36 preservation in every state in the Union, and in other countries. He is currently involved in a 37 $165-million renovation ofthe state capitol in Kansas. He has often worked with the National 38 Parks Service and the state historical societies of Colorado and four other states. Mr. Feinberg 39 will discuss his findings regarding Mr. Tower's properly. 40 1 From: E. Michael Hoffman To: Amy Guthrie Date: 10/10/00 Time 11 03:00 AM Page 4 of 1 2 Historic Preservation Commission September 13,2000 Page -3- 1 John Feinberg, expert: First ofall, I wantto say Hito Amy. Hi Amy. She is a former 2 student. 3 4 Commissioner Hirsch: We've met you. 5 6 Mr. Feinberg: I appreciate the fact that we had the opportunity to chat tonight. We will try 7 and be brief because I'm sure this list is big, and there are a lot of people in the audience who 8 want to, perhaps, talk about their project. I will also try to project so people can hear in the 9 back of the room. 10 11 And my brevity in remarks doesn't mean I'm not ready to talk more about any of them - You 12 have, of course, an ex-professor here. 13 14 The individual listing aspect: this property is individually listed. It is in the middle of a built- 15 up neighborhood. It is a wonderful oasis of greenery that is privately owned. But this 16 property, for individual listing, has way too many intrusions on it for consideration. It has five 17 skylights on it, as an example. It has the shed roof addition. which breaks the skyline up and 18 changes the volume of one of the buildings. And it has a substantial proportion of 19 [unintelligible] windows in the building. 20 21 The second thing is, I think ifs wonderful that you want to preserve and have a rustic style 22 that you have set forth in this architectural context. But I just want to use that style against 23 examples with respect to this property because that is what you have adopted, I assume, as 24 your defining document by which you judge whether one of these meets those architectural 25 ~ o,ylisties and elements. 26 27 The thing about this, and I'in going to read these verbatim. I'm going to tell you the ones we 28 absolutely agree with: "...single-story XXX low-pitched gable roofs." Yes, they are single- 29 story, low-pitched gable roofs. "The window openings upstairs [unintelligible] wood trim is 30 used to finish out the windows upstairs." A good two-thirds of the window openings are, in 31 fact horizontal. The other third are not. If one counts the additions, it' s about half-and-half. 32 "The building plans are simple rectangular forms added development." That is true, they are 33 rectangles, in which there's a repetition of the form, so they do have the form. But there is 34 substantial emphasis here. This is rustic. "The rustic style [I am now quoting] became the 35 preferred style for the national parks. The examples range from simple rectilinear log 36 structures to elaborate structures of log and stone, with varied roof forms, dormers, and 37 stressed structural details." Well. these bullets don't match these descriptions as found above, 38 number one. And number two the building doesn't match the bullets below. So you have 39 both internal inconsistencies in style, and you have inconsistencies between the architectural 40 inventory form and style. For example, you can see that the rustic style is the preferred style Fr"- - 3 -' ' -' u-ffrian To: Amy Guthrie Date: 10/10/00 Time 11Â·03-00 AM Page 5 of 12 Historic Preservation Commission September 13, 2000 Page -4- elaborate structures of log and stone. These are neither logs nor stone. They are milled lumber that have been taken out of fulllogs, but they're not log structures. In fact, it goes on to say further that "...a true log construction, with overriding log ends, coped and stacked." For those ofyou who are not familiar with the term "coped," that is saying that these logs will not just lay on top of each other's flat surfaces: that they will actually be formed to the log below. And there'll be a full log, so that there is just a small gap between the two. In fact, these are all stacked logs and there is no coping, and there is none of the three typical log construction details for the cornices. So they fail in each count for log construction, which is interlocking. saddle coping, in other words, single dove-tailed or double dove-tailed 10 11 [fades to unintelligible between tapes]. 12 13 . . . logs don't even fill the requirements here because theyre just infill. The next one says, 14 "Chinking infills the irregularities between the logs either way." That's whether they have 15 been stacked, stemmed, as we talked about, and coping. And there is no chinking on these 16 logs because they're milled. So they can't be chinked. There's dobbing, but there is no 17 chinking. The dobbing, by the way, is the typical seam material. but ifs what you might call 18 the mortared approach between to the logs and the chinking is actually the wood. 19 20 And as we go on it states, "The emphasis is hand-made materials. and the details come out of 21 the use of the materials. Otherwise, the detail in deeoration is minimal." These were all 22 machine-made, so there are no hand-made elements on these buildings. 23 2 4 Lastly, you have a very interesting statement that I wish to read. After being very specific, it 25 says (the last bullet is), "Materials in later buildings are used to simulate log construction, and 26 refer to the particular visual details of the original log structures. The next sentence is not a rm LI full sentence. I don't know what is missing. but there are some words missing. "Specific 28 details oftraditional log building and construction techniques are not always carried forward 29 into these structures." So after being specific. it says (the last quote), Don't worry about 30 wnatever you said above because we can decide that itjust looks enough like that . And that 31 is not proper architectural context. This is insufficient specificity. So that it becomes just too 32 vague for any of us in preservation, in fact to figure out what it is that the style is. And it 33 could be anything. 34 35 Additionally, on the inventory form -- and, obviously this is trying to say whether it does meet 36 it -- it says "three-milled log one-story cabin." So right offthe bat it says they're not hand- 37 made. So you've eliminated yourself from consideration. "Log ends overlap slightly, and 38 chinking is inconsistent." Well. there is no chinking whatsoever. "Windows are minimal, 39 small, horizontal units with no muntons." In fact, I was observing Mr. Tower's windows 40 today, and ofthe 25 windows in the building 18 ofthem have muntons. So. actually, 18 out LDOO -103 0-1 aw[UP From: E. Michael Hoffman To: Amy Guthrie Date 10/10/00 Time: 11Â·03:00 AM Page 6 of 12 Historic Preservation Commission September 13, 2000 Page -5- 1 of 25, it is my sense is that thafs the majorily. And the other thing about it is, all the others 2 one that were plain, without muntons, were all installed by the owner since 1976. So, because 3 they failed on the window aspect totally. As well, approximately six of those windows are not 4 horizontal. 5 6 The other thing with respect to the inventory form that is a problem that [unintelligible.]. So, 7 there's no fascia, there's no muntons, there's no chinking, and all of these are not hand-made: 8 they're all milled, and they're not log structures, Built with milled timber that does appear 9 somewhat likes logs. but it doesn't overlap. 10 11 Commissioner Hirsch: Do you have some response to this. Do you have this? Do you want 12 to look at it as you respond, or what? 13 14 Commissioner : Isn't this Pan Abode? 15 16 Susannah Reed [City Consultant]:: No, it isn't Pan Abode. 17 18 ~ Commissioner Hirsch: Do you have this? Do you want to look at this while you respond? 19 20 Reed: In terms of the context report. and in particular the last paragraph. that was to 21 recognize that there are in fact structures that copy the rustic style and copy in some ways 22 details of the rustic style in the visual manner. It was not intended to be an opening that 23 anything that has a slight appearance ofthe rustic slyle would qualify under that category. It 24 was simply a recognition that the rustic style has been elaborated on into current times. In 25 terms of the Pan Abode, I mean, the Cleveland Street building, certainly they do not meet the 26 specific requirement of the rustic style. 27 28 Commissioner Hirsch: Okay, lefs take a minute because I'm going to have a lot of questions. 29 O.k. Rustic Style, it has just gotten holes shot through it. But lefs take a time-out if ifs okay 30 with you two. 31 32 Hoffman: Sure. 33 34 35 36 [There was a break in the meeting and, after the meeting reconvened, several other 37 matters were considered. ] 38 39 Commissioner Hirsch: O.k., I'm going to continue on with you and then we'11 do Snowflake. 40 My question to you [unitelligible] From E- Michael Hoffman To: Amy Guthrie DateÂ· 10/10/00 Time: 11:03:00 AM Page 7 of 12 Historic Preservation Commission September 13, 2000 Page -6- 1 Reed: I have to point out one thing which is the line on the form that you're probably reacting 2 to that says "modern ...er ...late 19th and early 20th century..." on that form. That is one of 3 the lines that is guided by the lexicon of words and terms that the state historical society 4 requires me to use. So I am required by them to find the best category based on the terms 5 they provide me to fit these buildings into. 6 7 Amy Guthrie [City Historic Preservation Officer]: You do that so people can research in a 8 broad way the different kinds of buildings, the periods, and things like that. 9 10 Reed: Right. So when you see that term in there, as the [unintelligible], that is the closest 11 definition that I was able to find from the lexicon of terms that was provided to me to be used 12 on that line. 13 1 4 Commissioner Hirsch: These are the things that we should have known going into the 15 things. I didn't know there were specific terms that the Colorado Historical Society meant for 16 us. These are the things this Board didn't know and were the things we should... 17 18 Guthrie: I didn't have time to explain to you why some people have raised issues of the 19 inaccuracies in our report. We're explaining to you now, there are certain categories and 20 terms that we were required to use. 21 22 Commissioner Hirsch: And you're explaining it to your professor, too. 23 ' 2 4 Guthrie: Uh huh. 25 26 Commissioner Hirsch: And everyone? 27 28 Commissioner : This particular building site doesn't necessarily fit all of the 29 characteristics or all ofthe traits of rustic? 30 31 Reed: Right. 32 33 Commissioner Hirsch: And this particular, did you hear Suzannah said? 34 35 Speaker: I just said this particular building type may or may not fit the exact criteria of the 36 specific qualities that rustic exemplifies. 37 38 Speaker: But I had choices between things like Victorian...and thafs also why you would see 39 under the chalet style, in particular, the modern movement novelty. Because that is the closest From: E. Michael Hoffman To: Amy Guthrie Date. 10/10/00 Time: 11:03:00 AM Page 8 of 12 Historic Preservation Commission September 13,2000 Page -7- 1 I could get under the lexicon that was available to me to place that. And I was as careful as 1 2 could be to determine that there were no other categories [unintelligible]. 3 4 Commissioner Hirsch: Any other questions regarding this? Does everybody understand? 5 6 Commissioner Sanchez: I have a question for Mr. Feinberg. It was interesting that you went 7 , through the list of characteristics of the building styles. At the beginning of the list were all 8 items that appeared to be evident in the property and buildings. Then you shared with us the 9 things that weren't common. or weren't necessarily characteristic in the documentation. I 10 guess my question about that is, Would it be reasonable to expect every building that 11 identifies with a particular building type to exemplify all those characteristics, or is there some 12 sort of percentage that you use? Is 90% of those characteristics a reasonable number, or 13 75%? 14 15 Mr. Feinberg: I think ifs a wonderful question, and it's one that I'm sure everybody here 16 tonight wants to know the answer to. Ifs one ofthose questions thafs probably the most 17 difficult to answer, just like your other question you've been trying to resolve on Category 1 18 of, When is it so far gone that you call't retrieve it anymore? And we get shocked on that in 19 registry nominations, where we put a building up and they say, "Ifs lost too much integrity. 20 you can't put it on.Â°' Well, ifs the same real issue here. It doesn't really represent that style 21 sufficiently to be appropriate and maybe it did at one point but it lost enough integrity that ifs 22 no longer a viable model for that style. And I think the key word here is "model." We want it 23 to really personify rustic in order to say, There's a shining example that we deserve to have 24 preserved in our community. So it really is somewhat of a qualitative term. 25 26 I think the other point you brought up was [unintelligible] early vernacular buildings are very 27 simple. They're basically very simple forms. However, the Appalachian cottages in the 28 National Park Service, they're not simple. They're very complex fornis. There are a lot of 29 dormers. They're multiple stories often times with covered porches, often times with 30 members o f the Adirondack style that goes down to the twig level, to create that wonderful 31 style. And we have very few examples ofthose in Colorado. When the context is established 32 for the state, in whaf s called "R-23 Planning," that' s the term for the National Park Service, 33 you define these styles by what' s important in the largest form for United States that is 34 represented in your state, and then hopefully you can refine it down to your locality. 35 Sometimes in that process of refining down to the next level, you stretched it too far. It was 36 too much of a reach. 37 38 Commissioner Sanchez: My next question is the notion that while the original intent ofthese 39 buildings probably fit the rustic style, that through the evolution of construction and particular 40 craftsmen that put them together and brought their unique style or their own unique ideas From: E. Michael Hoffman To: Amy Guthrie Date: 10/10/00 Time 11:03'00 AM Page 9 of 12 Historic Preservation Commission September 13,2000 Page -8- 1 about how the building should go together or how something should be detailed that yet 2 starts the general description of what the rustic style is. So then you start to have 3 subcategories of each style. 4 5 Mr. Feinberg: Yes, exactly. You could do that. You have to consider the context. You have 6 to deal with the evolution of the community. But the rustic style was full of character, and 7 thafs the real key to remember. It was full of character. You see it and even the lay person 8 immediately can identify, for example, Adirondack style or what the National Park Service 9 adopted as its style for all of its structures during this time period of development in the parks. 10 A very homogenized, uncharacterful, very, very simplistic plain, with the hand-tooling and all 11 the stuff that was talked about in the main body. Thafs really the key to that style. And at a 12 , certain point, when you don't have anything left like that you don't have that style. You kind 13 of intuitively know a little bit. This. to me, is a black-and-white one. 14 15 Commissioner Hirsch: Has there been an attempt over the past (how many years, seven?) to 16 work with him to do some expansion on his site, since there is all that lovely space? 17 18 Guthrie: Yes, and you know they've actually been to us for Work Sessions briefly. and I 19 think we're making good progress. I totally agree with Mike statement that we've spent a long 20 time before that debating, trying to figure out because this properly is just very complex. But 21 I feel we're making good progress in the Work Sessions toward a good compromise. 22 23 Commissioner : Does the applicant feel we're making progress, or...? 24 25 Commissioner Hirsch: I guess he doesn't, if you're asking to be taken off. 26 27 Hoffman: I struggled on this question, Why are we here tonight? There is a substantial 28 penalty for any property owner to have its property included on the inventory. And if the 29 property can be de-listed... 30 31 Commissioner Sanchez: If you have a moment. though. after that I'd like you to elaborate on 32 , what the penalty is. Because I keep hearing this term "penalty." I doll't know of any evidence 33 of that. I would just like to understand what it is. 34 35 Mr. Hoffman: For instance, Mr. Tower went to the Pitkin County Assessor and he said, 36 "No, no, you have overvalued my property because I'm on the historic inventory. And the 37 assessor said, "Yes, you're right. He decreased the value ofthe property 25 to 50%. The 38 answer to the question is... 39 40 Commissioner Hirsch: Thank you, Tom. From: E. Michael Hoffman To Amy Guthrie Date 10/10/00 Time: 11 03 00 AM Page 10 of 12 Historic Preservation Commission September 13,2000 Page -9- 1 Guthrie: Actually, in my experience, the assessor's response has been that they won't adjust 2 the property value because they see [unintelligible]. And so I don't know how to respond to 3 that one, but in my experience [unintelligible]. 4 5 Mr. Hoffman: The answer to the question is, If we can be de-listed we would like to be de- 6 listed. 7 8 Commissioner Hirsch: Do you have comments regarding this site? I think we should vote on 9 this or do you want to [unintelligible]? Does anyone have a comment other than Gilbert? 10 1 1 [unintelligible discussion] 12 13 Commissioner Hirsch: My answer to that is, He's on the inventory; this is his night; he's here 14 ; with his expert he deserves an answer tonight is my feeling. This doesn't have, really, 15 anything to do, so to speak, with [unintelligible]. 16 17 Commissioner : When were the structures built? 18 19 Feinberg: It's 1948 and '50. I don't remember the age of the third one. 20 21 Guthrie: So you should be aware. then. that two of them don't need to meet the outstanding 22 example of more modern architecture criteria. 23 2 4 Feinberg: Except not when they were listed. 25 26 Commissioner : They were moved to the site in 1992? 27 28 Hoffman: Moved to the site? No. 29 30 Guthrie: They were added to the inventory in 1992. 31 32 Commissioner : Got it. 33 34 ; runintelligible discussion] 35 36 Commissioner Hirsh: ...answer the question, Do we need a Motion? And then we need to 37 vote for or against it. Can I have a Motion? Riley? 38 39 Commissioner : I make a Motion to include this property on the historic 40 inventory. From- E. Michael Hoffman To. Amy Guthrie Date: 10/10/00 Time: 11:03:00 AM Page 2 of 12 CITY OF ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 HEARING REGARDING CONTINUED INCLUSION OF 303,305 AND 307 S. CLEVELAND ON HISTORIC INVENTORY Commissioner Mary Hirsch: Start at the top: 303 South Cleveland. Michael Hoffman, attorney: I represent Charles Tower, the owner of 303. 305. and 307 South Cleveland. You know that Mr. Tower has been working with you to find a design which satisfies your desire for historic preservation. but which also meets some of Mr. Tower's goals to profit from his long-term ownership of the property. We originally brought a request for de-listing of Mr. Tower's property in April of this year for a number of reasons that I will cover. 10 11 Mr. Tower's goal is to have the property de-listed. You have been told that there is a 12 substantial financial penalty for having your property on the historic inventory. There are 13 three 500-square foot structures on the inventory. Thev were originally placed there in 1992. 1 4 l'he Land Use Code. at that time. required the City to mail a notice regarding the proposed 15 listing of his property on the inventory. Mr. Tower never received that notice. He didn't know about it until years later. I have gone over the city's records and there is nothing that 1O 17 demonstrates it sent the required notice. Because he didn't know about the process. Mr. 18 Tower didn't participate in the hearing, which took place in1992. There was plenty of 19 discussion in the HPC at that time from those property owners who did show up. Several of them were successful in having their property removed from the inventory. There was 21 discussion at that time among members of the HPC regarding Mr. Tower's property. they were 77 concerned that the three structures were not yet 50 years old. The city at that time did not 23 have the architectural context document that has been used in this process. Because Mr. 2 4 Tower was not there to protest his property was included on the inventory. 25 26 Late in 1986 Mr. Tower came to the Planning Department asking what he could do with his 27 property. At that time -- for the first time - he learned that the three structures were on the 28 inventory and that nothing could be done to the exterior of the buildings without HPC 29 approval. He attempted to work with Amy and the HPC to find a development plan which 30 would meet everyone's interests. The outcome. unfortunately. was gridlock because the city 31 had so many regulations dealing with the structure: employee housing; the zoning District 32 building constraints; the multi-family housing replacement program; the definition of what 33 constitutes a duplex; and on and on. He finally decided that his only option was to have the 34 ' pioperty de-listed. 35 36 In 1997 the city told him that he would have to wait until next time the inventory was 37 reconsidered. The Aspen Land Use Code requires the HPC to fully consider the inventory no 38 less than once every five years. That Code provision was promulgated pursuant to regulations 39 of the National Park Service under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Because 1 241 LD CO -1 01 Ui *- W lu 1-1 From: E. Michael Hoffman To: Amy Guthrie Date: 10/10/00 Time 11:03:00 AM Page 3 of 12 Historic Preservation Commission September 13.2000 Page -2- 1 the full inventory had last been considered in 1992. the city should have reevaluated the list in 1997 -- which was the year that Mr. Tower asked to be de-listed. Nevertheless, he was told that he would have to wait until 1999 to have his request heard. He complied. he waited; 1999 came and went. Finally, in the spring of this year. three years after the time he should have been given an opportunity to freely develop the property. he demanded that his request he heard. The effect of all this has been to deny Mr. Tower a right to develop his properly. In 1992 the city lacked the regulatory framework to justify listing Mr. Tower's properly. Regulations 10 dealing with the property which less than fifty years old had not been fully developed. In 11 terms of process. his property is no different than those properties that are being considered 12 for the inventory for the first time now. I witnessed what you guys have been sitting through 13 for the last couple of hours of this process. and I don't envy you. But the result of this for Mr. 1 4 Tower is that he was denied the opportunity to seasonally offer the same complaint that those 15 folks will have an opportunity to offer. 16 17 As I have said. the HPC's jurisdiction over these structures was much more tenuous in 1992 18 than it is now. The potential exists for the 1992 decision to be the basis o f your decision here 19 tonight. Please do not allow administrative inertia to further denude Mr. Tower's ofhis right 20 ' - have a meaningful hearing on these issues. 21 22 We do not believe the structures found at 303.305. and 307 South Cleveland meet the criteria 23 necessary to preserve them as historic in perpetuity. As stated in Amy's notice of August 3 1 st: 24 "The inventory shall include all structures which are A) at least 50 years old and continue to 25 have historic value: and B) such other buildings identified by the Historic Preservation 26 Commission as being outstanding examples ofmore modern architecture.' We offer that Mr. 27 Tower's property does not meet either of those tests. At the time that these structures were 28 listed they were not 50 years old; not all of them are 50 years old yet. They are not 29 outstanding examples ofmodern architeclure. 30 31 I have with me here today Mr. John Feinberg, who is an expert in the field of historic 32 preservation. Mr. Feinberg is associated with the historic preservation firm The Collaborative, 33 Inc. in Boulder. where he has been a principal for over 26 years. For 19 years he was a 34 visiting professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, where he taught historic 35 preservation and planning and design law. Mr. Feinberg has worked as an expert in historic 36 preservation in every state in the Union. and in other countries. He is currently involved in a 37 $165-million renovation of the state capitol in Kansas. He has often worked with the National 38 Parks Service and the state historical societies of Colorado and four other states. Mr. Feinberg 39 will discuss his findings regarding Mr. Tower's property. 40 , - 1 O 00 4 0)01 A W N From: E. Michael Hoffman To: Amy Guthne Date: 10/10/00 Time 11:03:00 AM Page 4 of 12 Historic Preservation Commission September 13,2000 - Page -3- John Feinberg, expert: First of all. I want to say Hi to Amy. Hi Amy. She is a former student. Commissioner IIirsch: We've met you. 5 6 Mr. Feinberg: I appreciate the fact that we had the opportunity to chat tonight. We will try 7 and be brief because I'm sure this list is big, and there are a lot of people in the audience who 8 want to. perhaps, talk about their project. I will also try to project so people can hear in the 9 back ofthe room. 10 11 And my brevity in remarks doesn't mean I'm not ready to talk more about any of them - You 12 have, of course, an ex-professor here. 13 14 The individual listing aspect: this property is individually listed. It is in the middle of a built- 15 up neighborhood. It is a wonderful oasis of greenery that is privately owned. But this 16 property, for individual listing, has way too many intrusions on it for consideration. It has five 17 skylights on it as an example. It has the shed roof addition, which breaks the skyline up and 1 8 changes the volume of one of lhe buildings. .And it has a substantial proportion of 19 [unintelligible] windows in the building. 20 21 The second thing is, I think ifs wonderful that you want to preserve and have a rustic style 22 that you have set forth in this architectural context. But I just want to use that style against 23 examples with respect to this property because that is what you have adopted. I assume, as 24 your defining document by which you judge whether one of these meets those architectural 25 ' a,ylistics and elements. 26 27 The thing about this, and Pin going to read these verbatim. I'm going to tell you the ones we 28 absolutely agree with: "...single-story XXX low-pitched gable roofs." Yes, they are single- 29 story, low-pitched gable roofs. "The window openings upstairs [unintelligible] wood trim is 30 used to finish out the windows upstairs." A good two-thirds of the window openings are. in 31 fact, horizontal. The other third are not. If one counts the additions, ifs about half-and-half. 32 "The building plans are simple rectangular forms added development." That is true, they are 33 rectangles. in which there's a repetition of the form, so they do have the form. But there is 34 substantial emphasis here. This is rustic. "The rustic style [I am now quoting] became the 35 preferred style for the national parks. The examples range from simple rectilinear log 36 struclures to elaborate structures of log and stone, with varied roof forms, dormers, and 37 stressed structural details." Well. these bullets don't match these descriptions as found above, 38 number one. And number two. the building doesn't match the bullets below. So you have 39 both internal inconsistencies in style, and you have inconsistencies between the architectural 40 inventory form and style. For example, you can see that the rustic style is the preferred style ?1 ; â‚¬7.3 2 AWNE-â€¢ Fr.- - 3 -- '- - -' 9-ffmart To: Amy Guthrie Date: 10/10/00 Time: 11Â·0300 AM Page 5 of 12 Historic Preservation Commission September 13. 2000 Page -4- 1 elaborate structures of log and stone. These are neither logs nor stone. They are milled 2 lumber that have been taken out of full logs. but they're not log structures. In fact it goes on 3 to say further that "...a true log construction, with overriding log ends, coped and stacked." 4 For those of you who are not familiar with the term "coped." that is saying that these logs will 5 not just lay on top of each other's flat surfaces: that they will actually be formed to the log 6 below. And there'11 be a fulllog, so that there is just a small gap between the two. In fact. 7 these are all stacked logs and there is no coping, and there is none of the three typical log 8 construction details for the cornices. So they fail in each count for log construction, which is 9 , interlocking, saddle coping, in other words, single dove-tailed or double dove-tailed 11 [fades to unintelligible between tapes]. 12 13 . . . logs don't even fill the requirements here because they're just infill. The next one says. 14 "Chinking infills the irregularities between the logs either way." Thafs whether they have 15 been stacked, stemmed, as we talked about, and coping. And there is no chinking on these 16 logs because they're milled. So they can't be chinked. There's dobbing, but there is no 17 chinking. The dobbing, by the way, is the typical seam material. but ifs what you might call 18 1he mortared approach between to the logs and the chinking is actually the wood. 19 20 And as we go on. it states. "The emphasis is hand-made materials. and the details come out of 21 the use ofthe materials. Otherwise the detail in decoration is minimal." These were all 22 machine-made, so there are no hand-made elements on these buildings. 23 2 4 Lastly, you have a very interesting statement that I wish to read. After being very specific, it 25 says (the last bullet is), "Materials in later buildings are used to simulate log construction, and 26 refer to the particular visual details of the original log structures. The next sentence is not a 27 full sentence, I don't know whatis missing, but there are some words missing. "Specific 28 details oftraditional log building and construction techniques are not always carried forward 29 into these struclures." So after being specific, it says (the last quote), Don't worry about 3 u ' wnatever you said above because we can decide that it just looks enough like that . And that 31 is not proper architectural context. This is insufficient specificity. So that it becomes just too 32 vague for any of us in preservation, in fact to figure out what it is that the style is. And it 33 could be anything. 34 35 Additionally, on the inventory form -- and, obviously, this is trying to say whether it does meet 36 it -- it says "three-milled log one-story cabin." So right offthe bat it says they're not hand- 37 made. So you've eliminated yourself from consideration. "Log ends overlap slightly, and 38 chinking is inconsistent." Well. there is no chinking whatsoever. "Windows are minimal, 39 small, horizontal units with no muntons." In fact, I was observing Mr. Tower's windows 40 today, and ofthe 25 windows in the building 18 ofthem have muntons. So, actually, 18 out r I 1 From: E. Michael Hoffman To: Amy Guthne Date: 10/10/00 Time: 11:03:00 AM Page 6 of 12 Historic Preservation Commission September 13,2000 Page -5- of 25. it is my sense is that thafs the majority. And the other thing about it is, all the others one that were plain, without muntons. were all installed by the owner since 1976. So, because they failed on the window aspect totally. As well, approximately six of those windows are not horizontal. The other thing with respect to the inventory form that is a problem that [unintelligible]. So. there's no fascia, there's no muntons. there's no chinking, and all of these are not hand-made: they're all milled, and they're not log structures. Built with milled timber that does appear somewhat likes logs. but it doesn't overlap. 10 11 Commissioner IIirsch: Do you have some response to this. Do you have this? Do you want 12 to look at it as you respond, or what? 13 14 Commissioner : Isn't this Pan Abode? 15 16 Susannah Reed [City Consultant]:: No. it isn't Pan Abode. iT 18 ' Commissioner Hirsch: Do you have this? Do you want to look at this while you respond? 19 20 Reed: In terms of the context report. and in particular the last paragraph. that was to 21 recognize that there are in fact structures that copy the rustic style and copy in some ways Â° 9 details of the rustic style in the visual manner. It was not intended to be an opening that L 4- 23 anything that has a slight appearance of the rusic style would qualify under that category. It 24 was simply a recognition that the rustic style has been elaborated on into current times. In OR terms of the Pan Abode, I mean, the Cleveland Street building, certainly they do not meet the 4- J 26 specific requirement of the rustic style. 28 Commissioner Hirsch: Okay, lefs take a minute because Pm going to have a lot of questions. 29 O.k., Rustic Style, it has just gotten holes shot through it. But lefs take a time-out, if ifs okay 30 with you two. 31 32 Hoffman: Sure. 33 34 35 36 [There was a break in the meeting and, after the meeting reconvened, several other 37 matters were considered.1 38 , 39 Commissioner Hirsch: O.k., I'm going to continue on with you and then we'll do Snowflake. 40 My question to you [unitelligible] 'i w 00 4 03 01 A W N H From: E. Michael Hoffman ToÂ· Amy Guthrie Date 10/10/00 Time: 11 03:00 AM Page 7 of 12 Historic Preservation Commission September 13, 2000 Page -6- 1 Reed: I have to point out one thing which is the line on the form that you're probably reacting to that says "modern ...er ...late 19th and early 20th century..." on that form. That is one of the lines that is guided by the lexicon of words and terms that the state historical society requires me to use. So I am required by them to find the best category based on the terms they provide me to fit these buildings into. Amy Guthrie [City Historic Preservation Officer]: You do that so people carl research in a broad way the different kinds of buildings, the periods. and things like that. 9 10 Reed: Right. So when you see that term in there, as the [unintelligible], that is the closest 11 definition that I was able to find from the lexicon of terms that was provided to me to be used 12 on that line. 13 1 4 Commissioner Hirsch: These are the things that we should have known going into the 15 things. I didn't know there were specific terms that the Colorado Historical Society meant for 16 us. These are the things 1his Board didn't know and were the things we should... 17 18 Guthrie: I didn't have time to explain to you why some people have raised issues of the 19 inaccuracies in our report. We're explaining to you now, there are certain categories and 20 terms that we were required to use. 21 22 Commissioner Hirsch: And you're explaining it to your professor. too. 23 ' 24 Guthrie: Uh huh. 25 26 Commissioner Hirsch: And everyone'? 27 28 Commissioner : This particular building site doesn't necessarily fit all of the 29 characteristics or all of the traits of rustic? 30 31 Reed: Right. 32 33 Commissioner Hirsch: And this particular, did you hear Suzannah said? 34 35 Speaker: I just said this particular building type may or may not fit the exact criteria of the 36 specific qualities that rustic exemplifies. 37 38 Speaker: But I had choices between things like Victorian...and thafs also why you would see 39 under the chalet style, in particular, the modern movement novelty. Because that is the closest 1 /i co 4 0, 01 A W fo From: E. Michael Hoffman To: Amy Guthne Date: 10/10/00 Time: 11 03:00 AM Page 8 of 12 Historic Preservation Commission September 13.2000 Page -7- I could get under the lexicon that was available to me to place that. And I was as careful as I could be to determine that 1here were no other categories [unintelligible]. Commissioner Hirsch: Any other questions regarding this? Does everybody understand? Commissioner Sanchez: I have a question for Mr. Feinberg. It was interesting that you went 4 through the list of characteristics of the building styles. At the beginning of the list were all items that appeared to be evident in the property and buildings. Then you shared with us the 9 things that weren't common. or weren't necessarily characteristic in the documentation. I 10 guess my question about that is, Would it be reasonable to expect every building that 11 identifies with a particular building type to exemplify all those characteristics. or is there some 12 sort of percentage that you use? Is 90% of those characteristics a reasonable number. or 13 75%? 15 Mr. Feinberg: I think ifs a wonderful question. and ifs one that I'm sure everybody here 16 tonight wants to know the answer to. Ifs one of those questions thafs probably the most -/ i i difficult to answer, just like your other question you've been trying to resolve on Category 1 18 of. When is it so far gone that you can't retrieve it anymore? And we get shocked on that in 19 regislry nominations. where we put a building up and they say, "Ifs lost too much integrity: 20 you can't put it on." Well, ifs the same real issue here. It doesn't really represent that style 21 sufficiently to be appropriate and maybe it did at one point but it lost enough integrity that it' s 22 no longer a viable model for that style. And I think the key word here is "model." We want it 23 to really personify rustic in order to say, There's a shining example that we deserve to have 2 4 preserved in our community. So it really is somewhat of a qualitative term. 25 26 I think the other point you brought up was [unintelligible] early vernacular buildings are very 27 simple. They're basically very simple forms. However, the Appalachian cottages in the 28 National Park Service, they're not simple. They're very complex forms. There are a lot of 29 dormers. They're multiple stories, often times with covered porches. often times with 30 members of the Adirondack style that goes down to the twig level, to create that wonderful 31 style. And we have very few examples of those in Colorado. When the context is established 32 for the state, in whafs called "R-23 Planning," that' s the term for the National Park Service. 33 you define these styles by what's important in the largest form for United States that is 34 represented in your state, and then hopefully you can refine it down to your locality. 35 Sometimes in that process of refining down to the next level, you stretched it too far. It was 36 too much of a reach. 37 38 Commissioner Sanchez: My next question is the notion that while the original intent of these 39 buildings probably fit the rustic style, that through the evolution of construction and particular 40 craftsmen that put them together and brought their unique style or their own unique ideas Co-J o' u,A W N 1-' ~ From: E. Michael Hoffman To: Amy Guthrie Date: 10/10/00 Time: 11 03 00 AM Page 9 of 12 Historic Preservation Commission September 13.2000 Page -8- about how the building should go together or how something should be detailed. that yet starts the general description of what the rustic style is. So then you start to have subcategories of each style. Mr. Feinberg: Yes, exactly. You could do that. You have to consider the context. You have 6 to deal with the evolution of the community. But the rustic style was full of character. and 7 thafs the real key to remember. It was full of character. You see it and even lhe lay person 8 immediately can identify, for example, Adirondack style or what the National Park Service 9 adopted as its style for all of its structures during this time period of development in the parks. 10 A very homogenized, uncharacterful. very, very simplistic plain. with the hand-tooling and all 11 the stuff that was talked about in the main body. Thafs really the key to that style. And at a 12 , certain point when you don't have anything left like that. you don't have that style. You kind 13 of intuitively know a little bit. This, to me. is a black-and-white one. 14 15 Commissioner Hirsch: Has there been an attempt over the past (how many Years, seven?) to 16 work with him to do some expansion on his site. since there is all that lovely space? 17 18 Guthrie: Yes, and you know they've actually been to us for Work Sessions briefly. and I 19 think we're making good progress. I totally agree with Mike statement that we've spent a long 20 time before that debating, trying to figure out. because this properly is just very complex. But 21 I feel we're making good progress in the Work Sessions toward a good compromise. 22 23 Commissioner : Does the applicant feel we're making progress, or...? 24 25 Commissioner Hirsch: I guess he doesn't if you're asking to be taken off. 26 27 Hoffman: I struggled on this question, Why are we here tonight? There is a substantial 28 penalty for any property owner to have its property included on the inventory. And if the ' 29 property can be de-listed... 30 31 Commissioner Sanchez: If you have a moment. though. after that I'd like you to elaborate on 32 , what the penalty is. Because I keep hearing this term "penalty." I don't know of any evidence 33 oflhat. I would just like to understand what it is. 34 35 Mr. Hoffman: For instance, Mr. Tower went to the Pitkin County Assessor and he said, 36 "No, no, you have overvalued my property because I'm on the historic inventory. And the 37 assessor said, "Yes, you're right. He decreased the value of the property 25 to 50%. The 38 answer to the question is... 39 40 Commissioner Hirsch: Thank you, Tom. 1 Ul A W N P From: E. Michael Hofrman Tc: Amy Guthrie Date: 10/10/00 Time: 11:03 00 AM Page 10 of 12 Historic Preservation Commission September 13,2000 Page -9- 1 Guthrie: Actually, in my experience, the assessor's response has been that they won't adjust 2 the property value because they see [unintelligible]. And so I don't know how to respond to 3 that one, but in my experience [unintelligible]. 4 5 Mr. Hoffman: The answer to the question is, If we can be de-listed we would like to be de- 6 listed. 7 8 Commissioner IIirsch: Do you have comments regarding this site? I think we should vote on 9 this or do you want to [unintelligible]? Does anyone have a comment other than Gilbert? 10 11 [unintelligible discussion] 12 13 Commissioner Hirsch: My answer to that is, He's on the inventory; this is his night he's here 14 ; with his expert; he deserves an answer tonight is mx feeling. This doesn't have, really. 15 anything to do. so to speak, with [unintelligible]. 17 Commissioner : When were the structures built? 18 19 Feinberg: Ifs 1948 and '50. I don't remember the age of the third one. 20 21 Guthrie: So you should be aware, then. that two of them don't need to meet the outstanding 0 9 2- = example of more modern architecture criteria. 23 24 Feinberg: Except not when they were listed. 25 26 Commissioner : They were moved to the site in 1992? 27 28 Hoffman: Moved to the site? No. 29 30 Guthrie: They were added to the inventory in 1992. 31 32 Commissioner : Got it. 33 34 1 [unintelligible discussion] 35 36 Commissioner Hirsh: ...answer the question, Do we need a Motion? And then we need to 37 vote for or against it. Can I have a Motion? Riley? 38 39 Commissioner : I make a Motion to include this property on the historic 40 inventory. 41 4 d A From: E. Michael Hoffman To: Amy Guthrie Date: 10/10/00 Time: 11 03.00 AM Page 11 of 12 Historic Preservation Commission September 13,2000 Page - 10 - 1 Commissioner Hirsch: Is there a Second? 2 3 Commissioner : Second. 4 5 Assistant City Clerk Kathy Strickland: Gilbert? 6 7 Commissioner Sanchez: Yes. 8 9 Assistant City Clerk: Jeffrey? 10 11 Commissioner Halferty: Yes. 12 13 Assistant City Clerk: Mary? 14 15 Commissioner Hirsch: No. 16 17 Assistant City Clerk: Susan? 18 19 Commissioner Dodington: Yes. 20 21 Assistant City Clerk: Christie? 22 23 Commissioner Kienast: No. 24 25 Assistant City Clerk: Lisa? 26 27 t Commissioner Markalunas: Yes. 28 29 Assistant City Clerk: Rally? 30 31 Commissioner Dupps: Yes. 32 33 Hoffman: If I can respond to that . . . Suzannah has said [unintelligible]. 34 35 Feinberg: You've just destroyed your entire historic preservation process in Aspen by that 36 vote. Everything else goes away. 37 38 Commissioner Sanchez: I don't know why. I disagree. 39 t From E. Michael Hoffman To: Amy Guthrie Date: 10/10/00 Time: 11 03:00 AM Page 1 2 of 12 V Aistoric Preservation Commission September 13,2000 Page - 11 - 1 Feinberg: You just took the foundation out from underneath it, and every inventory form is 2 an automatic [unintelligible-]. 3 4 Commissioner Sanchez: Your argument is that ifs not rustic. [unintelligible] But the only 5 categories that are available...it's certainly not Victorian. It's certainly not the other categories 6 that were described. It has to fit somewhere. It goes to this notion that it has to fit 7 somewhere, where does it fit? It' s in one of those subcategories that hasn't been described yet. r-. . .1 1 i .~ 1 39,7.k 1% 4 MA-47'>& - +A (3) 1-30_ %-.-Clelf' ' Ff L_ l-/ th- 2 f - f~ -* /Fil,\Uvi 61/bu,4 7.0.4,95 - 4 -7-,-*UW .*fe,l~ ' - - D , L -257 r 0,1 ?D# 03 6.-,1.'01 ;55Â»" (j> 1112Â· ; (Bli'k, f- 2*A~~ 1 -j (3 26'Q C i A t (0Â·/l JA; cIJA~~*,&40 Â·Â·Â·A L.'y J.: .),i ft-35 2 l.- to, 2 #44. 4 * 1 - -2- le...0,47 7 ( /4, 41,-4 - 1 Muy 45-/1.-~g,~) 1 1 ** l â€ž '2 1 3 * 2 1 4.. 9- 7 -5- f &6'cv - U 04- ~Â£- 3 0 1 0 " 31444- 7 -0 -IN 7Â£ "02Â»4- 344 Â« - ff ,<Iptz,8 -p \\ -tilk,1 5 -64 k 5 k-pu r ___c._1 - * P 3 16, 2- AÂ«luod 1,161 1 ~ u L k Flk L 1 , v.,4 - J U + 1 -> ol L k % 4165 â€žu,n r-- ' .-i 1 4/ i 1~ ,-) L c..4 011,4 . Lly -1 Â£ 14 L - 373 'j i CA<,aut,in A -4 r~Allht ~lip ' 63,5,1,n --9 7 1 (hit'MIA 3011:.Lij 1[ ( -192- 1,-12'4, -4 0 - 01. 12/,/ p . A/1 j,L ./1. 11 1.1 /8 j th MEMORANDUM TO: Â© Michael Hoffman FROM: John D. Feinberg DATE: November 7,2000 RE: Tower Property Introduction The process of placing a property on the national, the state. or a local register is subject to a protocol based on many interconnected linked decisions. Characteristically if any link in the chain is weak or faulty. the chain breaks. This protocol. established by long years of practice. is contained in numerous documents published by the National Park Service and supplemented by local states in which the property is located. The protocol is based on informed judgements with a basis of scholarly research. archival research, and close inspections of the physical resource. The links in the protocol chain. to which the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission needs to pay particular attention are where you are in less charted waters and/or are away from the standard protocol. When you are away from the norm. your justifications must be well researched. your research must stand-up to scrutiny, your reasoning must be obvious. and your process must be clearly set out for all to see and understand. In other words. if you replace a link in the protocol chain. it had better be strong for it will be tested. A typical protocol is presented as a process flow diagram on the attached sheet. It is a macro-scale assessment. There are many mini-chains within each individual item. This memo addresses just a few of the weak links in the Aspen protocol evidenced by treatment of Mr. Tower's property during the last eight plus years. These are: 1. The development of your local historic context 2. Connecting this context to building uses 3. Connecting local history to architectural style 4. Understanding architectural style defined for the nation and the state 5. The rationale basis of definition of your style 6. Assessment of defining characteristics of Rustic and Mr. Tower's buildings 7. Integrity Historic Context LL,/ e. 74>,/4.1 ..)+VÂ»a~ , C. 1 i Le..1 e.â€¢v ) - Cl,/1. C i Li 4.- *z'~~ (Câ‚¬ 2 60~;,0.3/, /#fi- 1 , j 4 6% 1 ./1 +A AjoL b '4,1 --ft tz u-FtÂ· 41 6.1 i// 5 4 K 9-14. -D /1 / c '07 7-;.,46 2 ..74 i4 In the Aspen architectural context. the historic basis for the "Rustic" style is the development of Aspen as a ski resort community. The foundation of significance is assessed as being due to the selection o f this rustic style to house summer vacationers and ski area employees specifically: "These structures were used as simple vacation homes and inexpensive housing for early ski workers." Source: Aspen's Architectural Context: Post World War Il This use basis requires research to determine that this was both the purpose for which these buildings were constructed and how they were used. No such proof has been provided. Further, there is no link established between ski area development and the use of the "Rustic" style. other than serendipity. While the rustic style could be said to be influenced by Swiss Architecture (specifically, the Adirondack style). no reference has been found by us in current literature of the influence of Tyrolean architecture. per se, as set forth in the historic basis for the architectural styles of Aspen. The units in which ski area workers resided were not designed to be part o f a ski area Tyrolean architectural style. There is no connection or link established between the development of Aspen as a ski resort and a pervasive "Rustic" style. Process A key question is whether Mr. Tower's mock log buildings are of sufficient status to be considered "significant", that is, "All those resources which are considered exceptional. excellent. or those resources individually eligible for listing on the National Register" (memorandum from Amy Guthrie to Aspen HPC dated October 11,2000, p. 2. Review Standards). Ms Guthrie, however, further states that "the category [e.g., "significant"] has no effect on the review process. It is merely a method to understand the overall quality or level of alterations made to properties on the inventory". This statement would seem to say that the overall quality or level of alterations made to properties has no effect on the decision to place a building on the inventory. In other words. Aspen has inventoried everything regardless of quality or level of alterations (integrity?). The inherent assumption. given nomination procedures and protocol. is that the evaluation of quality and integrity comes between initial inventory and nomination. Further. this assumes that some buildings will be judged to possess too little quality and/or integrity for further consideration and will be rejected. This review process is established to allow judgement and demand further research between inventory and nomination. Just because a building is old and has been inventoried, doesn't mean it is exceptional. 2 excellent, outstanding, unique, or rare, and therefore significant: nor does it possess sufficient integrity for further consideration. On page two of the same memorandum, Ms Guthrie says "The property was evaluated as viewed from the public right-of-way, and entered onto the form created by the Colorado Historical Society". This form is assumed to be the form attached to the memo. titled "Architectural Inventory Form". To date, we have not seen any Nomination Form. We have also not seen any revised inventory form refiective of other than a windshield survey or walkabout survey. If you can't see it fully, you can not evaluate it fully. Accepted protocol requires more complete evaluation and research. Rustic Style: Defining Characteristics, Basis, Ability to Judge This building does not meet the characteristics of "Rustic" style expressed in the Architectural Context previously referenced. The characteristics of style must be clearly and fairly unequivocally articulated so that a surveyor can make a clear determination as a result of fieldwork and research. As such, a description which is overly broad is without usability. This is particularly true for the "Rustic" style. Here is why. The National Register defines a very large number o f styles. "Rustic" is not one o f them. A building which meets one of the classic styles is assumed to be architecturally significant. subj ect to integrity and historic significance issues. A surveyor can choose the " Other" category but then must face the need to define the style and its defining characteristics fully. and to tie it to an historic context. In essence. "Other" does not mean etcetera. The State of Colorado does believe that a "Rustic" style exists for the state. Sarah Pearce. in A Guide to Colorado Architecture" published by the Colorado Historical Society. provides multiple characteristics through descriptive text and photographs. These are: Defining Characteristics Tower's Bldgs 1. Natural setting x 2. Use of log and stone x 3. Designed to blend in with the environment x 4. Used as vacation homes, hunting lodges. dude ranches or 4 tourist facilities 5. More refined than Pioneer log structures x 6. Traditional building techniques x 7. Handeraftmanship emphasized x 8. Majority built after 1905 4 9. Battered walls x U J 10. Overhanging roofs x 11. Small paned windows x 12. Stone chimney x In a review of 25 state approved register nominations with the "Rustic" style categorization, Judith Broeker, historian, distilled the most mentioned defining characteristics as follows: Defining Characteristics Tower's Bldgs 1. Stone foundation x 2. Stone chimney/fireplace x 3. Gabled Roof V 4. Blend with natural surroundings x 5. Uncoursed. rough cut stone x 6. Overhung rafters. open eaves, overhanging roof x 7. Wood shake/shingle roof x 8. Small paned windows x 9. Casement windows x 10. Peeled log posts x 11. One story 4 12. Walls notched logs, peeled logs x 13. Concrete walls covered with stone veneer x 14. Wood framed windows x 15. Wood frame structure x 16. Rectangular (smaller structures) V 17. Concrete mortar x 18. Siding/clapboard on upper walls and gable ends 1/2 In Aspen' s definition of"Rustic" style, there are a great number o f equivocating terms used: "not always", "may", "otherwise", and "usually". In addition, the description references two fairly well documented styles-Adirondack and National Parks-and sets forth some of their defining characteristics but seems to back away from these defining characteristics by allowing alternative expressions or essentially watered down versions as well as the real thing. For example, instead of real logs, simulated logs; instead of traditional log details, referred details: instead of true log construction, none; and so forth. Even more equivocal are the following two contradictory statements: 4 1 True log construction with overlapping ends, coped. and stacked. 2 Materials in later buildings are used to simulate log construction. Equivocation can not help. In development of defining characteristics. there is no ability to be tlexible. Practicality and fairness demand specificity. Even with this lack of specificity, one can examine the "Rustic" style definition in the .Aspen Architectural Context manual and provide a list of characteristics that are unequivocal. We have provided this list which is followed by those characteristics that are equivocal. The list begins with the characteristics described for the Adirondack Style and the National Parks architectural style as set forth in the same Aspen Architectural Context. Adirondack and National Parks architectural style (conceived by Aspen Architectural Context as progenitors of a local style) specific defining characteristics are: Defining Characteristics Tower's Bldgs 1. Simple rectilinear structures to elaborate 1/2 2. Log and stone x 3. Varied roo f forms x 4. Dormers X 5. Expressed architectural details x 6. Indigenous materials x 7. Blending into the landscape. and x 8. Expressive of that landscape x "Forty' s and fifty's modest local structures" specific (unequivocal) characteristics are: 1. Locally available materials 2. True log construction with overlapping log ends, coped. and stacked. 3. Chinking 4. Window openings are spare 5. Wood trim is used to finish out the window- openings 6. Building plans are simple rectangular forms, with smaller additive elements 7. Roof springs from the log wall, and gable ends are infilled with standard framing 8. The emphasis is on handmade materials and the details come out of the use of the materials, otherwise the detail and decoration is minimal. 5 Equivocating characteristics and alternatives include: 1. Stone may be incorporated at the base, or in the form of a fireplace and chimney 2. Buildings are usually single story, with a low pitched gable roo f 3. Logs may be dressed and flattened for stacking or may be in rough form 4. Windows are usually horizontally proportioned 5. This [?] may be a small triangle or a second level of living space 6. Materials in later buildings are used to simulate log construction and refer to the particular visual details of the original log structures. Specific details of traditional log buildings. and construction techniques are not always carried forward into the newer structures. A quick comparison review of the States various defining characteristics for "Rustic" style and those of Aspen indicates the Aspen manual has major differences and a lack of definitiveness and specificity. Still. how do Mr. Tower's buildings fit the Aspen manual' s characteristics for "Rustic". ASPEN'S SPECIFIC CHARACTERISTICS TOWER'S CABINS Imported to Aspen, Source 1 " Locally available materials" unknown "True log construction with overlapping log ends, Not logs, machined lumber. no 2 coped, and stacked" coping, 1/2 overlapped 3 "Chinking" No chinking 4 "Window openings are spare" Multiple windows. not spare 5 "Wood trim is used to finish out the window None openings" 6 "Building plans are simple rectangular forms, with True smaller additive elements" 7 "Roof springs from the log wall, and gable ends True are infilled with standard framing" 8 "The emphasis is on handmade materials and the Milled materials. no log details details come out of the use ofthe materials. No handmade materials otherwise the detail and decoration is minimal" 6 Conclusion: Five out of eight required items are not present for Mr. Tower's buildings. For the equivocal items. Mr. Tower's buildings compare as follows: No stone foundation No stone chimney No dressed logs No rough form logs No stacked logs Mixture of window types Yes. single story, with smaller additive elements No reference to visual details o f original log structures Yes, simulated logs Six no's. two yes's. one maybe. Our conclusion: Mr. Tower' s buildings do not meet the vast majority of characteristics presented in the Aspen Architectural Context manual for "Rustic" style. His buildings are not "Rustic" style. Integrity 1. The maj ority of windows have been changed; this alone would cause the delisting o f an already listed structure. 2. His buildings have modern doors. 3. One building has a major addition of a shed roof solar-gain dormer. 4. His buildings have plastic skylights. 5. His buildings do not blend in with a natural environment. they are on urban lots always have been. Even if his buildings were considered "Rustic", it is our considered opinion that they lack sufficient integrity for listing. 7 November 13, 2000 Michael Hoffman Attorney at Law 106 S. Mill Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 303 S. Cleveland Street Request for Removal from the Historic Inventory Dear Michael, On behalf of your client Charles Tower, you are currently before the Historic Preservation Commission requesting that the property located at 303 S. Cleveland Street, Aspen, Colorado, be removed from the Historic Inventory. Section 26.420.080 of the Aspen Land Use Code provides guidance on the evaluation of the inventory. According to that passage, the inventory shall include all structures in the City of Aspen which are at least fifty (50) years old and which continue to have historic value, and such other structures identified by the Historic Preservation Commission as being outstanding examples of more modern architecture. All properties included on the inventory will be adopted by legal description and the Historic Preservation Commission will have the appropriate review authority over the entire property. All structures shall be evaluated by the Historic Preservation Commission regarding their current architectural integrity, historic significance, and community and neighborhood influence and shall be categorized as significant, contributing, supporting, or non-contributing. You are certainly entitled to present evidence directly related to those issues. However, you have attempted to introduce evidence that is not related to those issues, but that is related to a jurisdictional issue from the early 1990's. Although the City disagrees with your arguments, you have attempted to insert evidence that the HPC exceeded its jurisdiction in listing the property in the early 1990's. % This issue is beyond the jurisdiction of the Historic Preservation Commission - specifically the Aspen Land Use Code does not pit)vi(le the Historic Preservation Commission with the legal authority to determine this issue. To the contrary, the issue should have been brought in a timely manner before the District Court pursuant to a Rule 106 appeal. The issue was clearly one for the Courts and not for the commission. Therefore, you will not be permitted to present this issue to the Commission. The Commission will only be permitted to hear evidence and rule upon evidence regarding review standards of Section 26.420.080. You may, at the hearing, present a written offer of proof as to the jurisdictional issue to preserve whatever appeal rights, if any, that you have to that issue. Hopefully, this has provided clarification so that we may proceed to resolution of this case. Sincerely, David Hoefer Assistant City Attorney ec. John Worcester Julie Ann Woods Fred Jarmin City Clerk , 21.4 I,4- 12. U 4 lf . I -I j 1 6, MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 303 S. Cleveland Street- Request to be removed from the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures," CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (from 10/11) Â£401.J nov i +04 DATE: November 15,2000 -6,3 0, j~Jitit 27 11 u~~U.V./2~> ,/46'i~Aii,-\ Â·fbv'w,Â·' -~ f"f' Â§ tr-c.. .u~~ 4o.~ f*... 4L ,Â»1 49+'4 . SUMMARY: The property at 303 S. Cleveland Street contains three cabins. On the nerthern end of the site is a -00 square foot one bedrooml unit buiir in 1948. A duplex cabin with two studio units. built in 1950. sits along the west property line and a third duplex with nvo studios. built in 1952. is sited along the alley. 2 S. Cleveland Street was identified as significant in the 1991,4992 ..Inventon of k iric Sites and Scructures." and formaily adopted to the inventory by City Councii Orc nance â‚¬4, Series of 1992. The property owner contends that he lid not rece::-e no Z. 5 -ing in about 1995. Community Development Department staff. the property owner. 1.- - his architect. began a series of discussions about what sort Of rede:.lopment cou.d ta: place on the property. Aside from historic preservation regulations, various other land use code issues. such as affordable housing and ailowed density. would have an impact on the site, as would some non-conforming aspects of the structures. No clear direction that would sarist) the owner could be determined. The owner then inquired as to the process to be removed from the inventory. City staft informed him thar he .ieedecl to wait for the next update. The inventory is to be reviewed every :ive years. which would technically mean that an ..odate should have occurred in 1996,1997. however because of a change in Staff during the 1992 process. and an adoption schedule that took until 1995, it was determined that I -99/2000 would be the most appropriate time to visit the inventory again. Nonetheless. the owner of 303 S. Cleveland Street has expressed a desire to have his property discussed, and has therefore been allowed to meet with HPC on a separate trÂ·ack from the other already listed Sites. Please note that HPC will have the final decision in this matter. and thar me applicant may appeal to Council only en the basis of a denial of due process. or if it is felt that the HPC exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. APPLICANT: Charles Tower, owner, represented by Michael Hoffman. LOCATION: Lots H and I, Block 35, City and Townsite of Aspen. PROCESS: During the summer, this site was ViSited, photographed, and recorded along with the other 109 properties that are already listed on the "Inventory o f HiSIOriC Sites and Structures." The property was evaluated as viewed from the public right-of-way. and entered onto the form created by the Colorado Historical Society- REVIEW STANDARDS: Section 26.420.080 of the Land Use Code provides guidance on the evaluation of the inventory. According to that passage. the Inventory shall include all structures in the. City of Aspen which are ar least fifty (50) years old and which continue to have historic value. and such other structures identified by the Historic Preservation Commission as being outstanding examples of more modem archirecrure. All properties included on the inventory will be adopted by legal description and the Historic Presen-ation Commission will have the appropriate review authority over the entire properD'. All structures shall be evaluated by the Historic Presen ation Commission regarding their currenr archirectural integrity. historic significance. and community and neighborhood influence and shail be categorized as follows. (Please note thar the category for each resource has no effect on the review process. It is mereiy a method to understand the overall quality or level of alterations made ro properties on the inventory.): Significant: All those resources, which are considered exceptional. excellent. or those resources individually eligibie for listing on the Nationai Register o f Historic Places. Contributing: All those hiSIOriC or architecturally significant resources that do not meet the criteria for "significant." provided. however, these resources have maintained their historic integrity or represent unique architectural design. Suooorting: All those historic resources that have lost their original integrity. but are "retrievable" as historic structures or sites. The structures have received substantial iterations over the years, but with substantial effort could be considered "contributing ' once aizain. Non-Contributing: All those structures that are either new or non-historic construction within a historic diStriCI, or historic structures with complete loss of integrity, either within or outside of a historic district. RECOMMENDATION: The recently completed survey form for this property is attached. along with the property owner's 1997 application for landmark designation. Ar the time of that application, the owner was trying to work with the HPC to find a solution for the site. Unfortunately no conclusion was reached, however. it is important to note that in their own analysis of these structures, the property owner's architect came to the same .. conclusions that have been reached on the inventory form: that the property has significance as a representation of the type of housing that was being built for the average Citizen in Aspen during the early ski era. Following is a section of Suzannah Reid's context report of the inventory update, "Aspen s Architectural Context. Post World War II." "Rustic Style 1800's -present The Rustic Style emerged from the original pioneer structures that were created out of locally available materials. were of straightfonvard construction. and had housed people since the beginning of while settlement of the West. A taste for Rustic Style can be traced to England and the mid 18th century. where gardens and folly buildings were created out of natural materials in their natural forms. such as twigs and tree trinh. Fllen the modest structures of the American frontier became associated wirh "rugged individualism- and were romanticized. Ameica's Rustic sn-le was born. The Rustic St>le became the prefer:ed style for the National Parks and examples range from simple rectilinear log structures to elaborate structures of log and stone. with varied rent forms. dormers and expressed structural detaiis. The Strucal:eS. based on indigenous materials. blended into the landscape and became expressive of that landscape. Ute /40- L Â£ i.#. in rolling hills and lakes. such as the Adiror.dack camps of the late 19* centurv. or in the dramatic mountain senings of Yellowstone and Yosernite. these structures came to embody the idea of 'simple- mountain living. (Note thai the Pan Abode is the standardized and manufactured version of this style.) While this stvle continues to be built today. in very elaborate forms. the character defining elements listed below are related to the more modest local structures from the 10's and 50 s. These structures were used as simple vacation homes and inexpensive housing for early ski workers. A variety of log "types" were used in more modem structures. to replicate early log structures, from machine cut logs assembled in the traditional way to manufactured applied logs used for siding frame structures. Characteristics of the Rustic Style: Buildings are constructed out of locally available materials. usually log; stone may be incorporated at the base, or in the form of a fireplace and chirnney Buildings are usually single story. with a low pitched gable roof. True log construction with overlapping log ends, coped and StaCked. Logs may be dressed and ilattened for stacking or may be in rough form. Chinking infills the irregularities between the logs either way. Â· Window openings are spare and usually horizontally proportioned. wood trim is used to finish out the window openings. .. '. Building plans are simple rectangular forms, with smaller additive elements. â€¢ Roof springs from the log wall, and gable ends are infilled with standard framing. This may be a small triangle or a second level of living space. The emphasis is on hand made materials and tile details come out of the use of the materials, othenvise the detail and decoration is minimal. Materials in later buildings are used to simulate log constr'uction and refer to the particular visual details of the original log structures. Specific details of traditional log buildings, and construction techniques are not ., always carried forward into the newer structures. The context report was written as part of the inventory update process, to provide a framework for the analysis of each site. It sen~es as background by which the propernrs place in our local history's patterns. themes. and trends. can be understood. TWO of the three structures ar 303 S. Cleveland Street are at least 50 years old. The inventory form describes their historic value as being derived from their -Dosition in the context of Aspen's rebirth as a resort community. The emergence of skiing as an industry required low cost housing for workers. and the continuing summer activities attracted families to the area whose needs wer. simple." The earlv ski era has been clearly identified as an important period in Aspens hiSIOry and the development of rhe ski industry led to a complete renaissance in a town that had become economically depressed. In addition. those two cabins represent the quaiities that are described as being key to the - mistie style." specifically that they are one story, rectangular pian buildings with a low pitched roof. built out of local materials. in this case milled logs, with small. horizontally oriented windows. and little detailing. They maintain their architectural integrity. and their original setting. arranged in a "U" shape around a courtyard. There have been no exterior alterations of significance since their original construction. Buiiding permit records document the addition of the pop-up skylight to the northernmost cabin in 1976 and minor window alterations to tile same building in 1986. The third cabin on the site was built in 1952. making it 48 years old. This minor difference in age in no way makes the cabin along the alley less significant than the others. Fifty years of age is a rule of thumb and thar building has all of the same characteristics thar make the older pair significant. Staff would also point out that the language regarding designating only '-outstanding examples" of buildings that are less than fifty years of age does not mean that the buildings have to be an outstanding example in terms of their artistic qualities: it means that the buildings have to be outstanding examples o f their type. Even if the HPC determined that the third cabin did not measure up to the term "outstanding," the other two buildings clearly qualify for the inventory by v rtue of their age. indicating that the property should remain designated. Based on the citeria listed earlier in this memo, staff recommends that the entire property be categorized as a '-contributing" historic resource. . 4 RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Resolution #_, Series of 2000, r4@#ffÂ¢303 S. Cleveland Street, Lots H and I, Block 35, a contributing property, on the City of Aspen ;'Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures." 2- dy- K Exhibits: 6,Â·l 6#1 - X Resolution #_,Series of 2000. 0,54/ - )( J.#/4 0 JL A. Architectural Inventory Form for 303 S. Cleveland Ytreet. B. Attachments from the property owner's 1997 application for landmark designation. C. Letter from property owner's representative. j 4 t t f 26.420.080 26.420.080 Establishment of inventory of historic sites and structures. A. Purpose and Intent. Fifty (50) years old is generally the age when a property may begin to be considered historically significant. Aspen's ski history and modernist tradition are very important parts of our local history and significant resources from these periods must be addressed or they are likely to be lost. It is not the intention of the Historic Preservation Commission to include insignifi- cant structures or sites on the inventory. The Historic Preservation Commission will focus on those resources which are unique or have some special value to the community. B. Establishment of inventoo. There is hereby established an "inventory of historic sites and structures" in the City of Aspen. The inventory shall be maintained in the office of the community development department for inspection by the general public during regular business hours. The inventory of historic sites and structures shall include all structures in the City of Aspen which are at least fifty (50) years old and which continue to have historic value and such other structures iden- tified by the Historic Preservation Commission as being outstanding examples of more modern ar- chitecture. Historic sites are land parcels which may or may not have structures on them, but which primarily have significance as parks, cemeteries, archaeological resources. or similar types of land- scapes. Archaeological resources are sites which include material remains, both above and below ground, of prehistoric or historic human activity. All properties included on the inventory will be adopted by legal description, and the Historic Preservation Commission will have the appropriate review authority over the entire property. When an application is made for a lot split on an invento- ried parcel, HPC shall review the application in terms of impacts on the significance of the historic resource and shall forward any appropriate conditions of approval or a recommendation for denial to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. C. Periodic evaluation of inventoo. The Historic Preservation Commission, based on the rec- ommendations of the Community Development Director, shall have the responsibility of evaluating the inventory of historic structures at least once every five (5) years and of holding a public hearing to solicit comments on its evaluations. The purpose of the evaluation shall be to detennine those structures which are to be removed from the inventory, any structures which should be added to the inventory, and to rate all structures which remain on the inventory. D. Process. The Historic Preservation Commission evaluation process shall proceed as follows: The structures on the inventory shall be categorized as to whether or not they are historic land- marks. No further action need be taken with respect to designated historic landmarks. All structures which are not historic landmarks shall be evaluated by the Historic Preservation Commission re- garding their current architectural integrity, historic significance, and community and neighborhood influence and shall be categorized accordingly as follows: 1. Signi#cant. All those resources which are considered exceptional, excellent, or those re- sources individually eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. All struc- tures or sites within the City of Aspen, which are listed on or eligible for listing on the Na- tional Register of Historic Places shall be reviewed according to the "Secretary of the Interior' s 547 (Aspen 4/00) 26.420.080 Standards for Rehabilitation" in addition to the review standards of this Chapter. The "Secre- tary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation" are as follows: a. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property which requires minimal alteration of the building, structure, or site and its environment, or to use the property for its originally intended purpose. b. The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure, site or its en- vironment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or dis- tinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible. c. All buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged. d. Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of a building, structure, or site and its environment. These changes may have acquired significance in their own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected. e. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a building, structure, or site shall be treated with sensitivity. f. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, wherever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical, or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other buildings or struc- tures. g. The surface cleaning of structures shall be undertaken with the gentlest means possi- ble. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that will damage the historic building mate- rials shall not be undertaken. h. Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archaeological resources affected by, or adjacent to, any project. i. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical, ar- chitectural or cultural material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood, or environment. (Aspen 4/00) 548 26.420.090 j. Whenever possible, new additions or alterations to structures shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. 2. Con#ibuting. All those historic or architecturally significant resources that do not meet the criteria for "significant" provided. however, these resources have maintained their historic in- regrity or represent unique architectural design. 3. Supporting. All those historic resources that have lost their original integrity, but are "re- trievable" as historic structures or sites. These structures have received substantial alterations over the years but with substantial effort could be considered "contributing" once again. 4. Non-Contributing. All those structures that are either: a. New or non-historic construction within a historic district. and b. Historic structures with complete loss of integrity, either within or outside a historic district. .. ACTION: Minor Review All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District. or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. Standard 1: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Standard 2: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Standard 3: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Standard 4: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof.