Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Land Use Case.222 E Hallam St.HP-1988-07
222 E. Hallam St., AMAID RESIDENCE-~ . '01·:,· '~ ' '..L r-~ir---- 222- 2 l-tall * 51. case i liP- [Ct/KS -*O.--j~ /9 DEMO. AND RESTRUCIURE -Block 7/1 - H cIm 1 lili NO. 1526E HASTINGS. MN LOS ANGELES-CHICAGO-LOGAN, OH McGREGOR TX·LOCUST GROVE. GA USA --41 1j 1 , ..... ¢ 2 I ...4 4 0 - 1-*CAJA 1 1 1 1. tr:Unt i ' 0» 1 11 1 1 - Ill 1 --11 9 , E-=Edi -9 1 1 1 Ef-- R.1 Il 1 - .- --*.\ 11 1 , I X 111 1 111 21--t U=266/ j EN 1 -1'V -- 14 [[El> 1 -- 3 1 1,t 1 r-- I I aIILI - 31-1 iii 1 ltv ill El. 1-1 7 I t< -*-. H IRIT „1-fE] 'I. ¢ i-- I ... I.-1 0 1 IN-f~ . -- 4.- d. 111 IL -11 1 - -0-- 1 1 1= 1 "11-_h k tilt-==6- 1 -1 , I-'Ry I Ill Uft \ 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 '. i i : 1 i J f - ' i . 1 i 2 t... 1 il I 1 L + a 'e-,1 , i I Itt 1 1 4-6...-h- 4 1 - It i i 1 + 2 *.73 i.i ! \ i 1- : 2 11 1 1 117---r-917 , 2 ,%, '!1 1 66-4 1 ; l ~' JIL--,--14 !1111 4 U 1 1 1 Ik H M 1 1 3 1 h 1 - ' EL 1 - H | :i'.1'MUM f- P-/-1-* IHER 1 '11!:,J-9- 11=:-- 121.4 a I -- -I \ v -0----9--Tr---r~ 2 r==1 1 ~ It lili»-7- / 11 44 J -3»04 1 a 1 1 lili , p 7 ''11 C- 1 - - . 1 1, -- 11'.T-11 11==JEN I /' 1 li 1 lit r- ir 1 J-UN ~ 1,1 11.111 e-,41 - Ii I N = L 26 1 1< 111 1191 r t»=7- f j 1-k , 1 1 ~ 21- 1:7 i y N j: . - 1 - 1 - / 4 ' 14-7 1 1 W.4 1 1 1 1 L._-ED [1 1 11.» 1 1 - 11 1 p 1 1 - , 1 FFI----PAR,grrflin -4 0 0 421. 7. 24. F A 1- O 1 mi CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS m33-1 F-T71 6 24/1/ 11 $91 ..e- t Ill III Gll 1/ , I W ·· ~ 7 . 3 1 -.. - 0 51 P \/ ATIONS r-Ni P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 LE-1L * 1 . .. 4.. i=. lily+tl, 4.4...,•4% 7/-F#-u'&4, · :A 6;/=i#.-a=Git:~14~LU,~t~g~ a-*8~w·.4.=,R .48;uals:.4.-£*2,0~ . /5*94'32#fLU,di/Rms/REaai)/mi E E, r. rh 13 0- 9. 1 11 44 , Wi- 1 A-4 -les--7- 7 --14,==--- 7 ~ LF 4= X j 1 ¤ -0 1 11 9 1/ I. -- 1 + S /-tjl \ i i lu El , /rj 3 ~ / 1/ ~~ 1 1 / h f 01 / Apt / / '. IL i 1 ' AE ·R~'MI'/ / 1 - i / 84.=1 L / , ' U / 41/1 I. 1 ' ' I 1 4- 7 --2 9 1,1 -gr: rk - 05 Im . te .- 11$1: 1 ./.iti......154*3/6/2... 5 - -- / 1 - 1 l AH-«/9/ 9-« - 1 1 1 22 '. 1 W... i I 1.143 1 .- M 30¥6 7 1 / 1. - px I 3 1% i i\\\ i /Fl 1 1 :5?' r --4 1 4 - .3 1 q ./ 4.LED IL-, b' 6 }P "/2~ 4.--IL -141 3&·6.. 1, 1 -ler, : / /1 7 1-4- 7 11 'F. * ....1/B/,2/i:. ;6.-1-1 R I 3 -4 -1. 63 -~ -1 1 4 / LI El , 44¢V 1/1 -1 ~ 1 9. V I , a ·4 4 1- - AMATO RESIDENCE CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS OL , 0 I I >0 7 E i ~7 m; 0 8&2,2 , 4~*~ 4 Q - f ect_ 7/ f ASPEN, CO. 81612 P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 1 .;...1...:'1.-el..~. ~0|k-;-WI-Il.-.-.0-glh'.-11 - in.'14' , I....I ..........,I... X 11-, - ..~a>u4,~by..., . ;~ ~ . 'll'--1-·./ *. 2-1 982 a<.7 12.-7***al. REVISION -¥E_ i- 6-6 T h , U -1-- 1 11 G t- FrE 0% P 0- F V .. --- 7-El-a M Tri - 1 1 \4 E- &-1- R= t .· 1- =7[ 2- FA 1 4 :1 4 . 9 4 4 14- , 4 - - .9.* b 1 P + P -9 "9 -2. W -fi 1 I 7-- .9 17-- 1 4- ==FIL---31=5 . 4 Le= ELL 1=4 .1 ' I E 41 ' -le=¥~ i 1 ==44 ;1 li 1 jIii E /\ 1 -- EN v - L 4 \ 00 . X / \ 1 L -1 1/ 1#/ d 1 r\ -- 3 4 1m 1 1 4 er-4, DE I 1 ' Ill lWI \\ 4.-6 1 ' 1/N 4, ' 7 ~ , 40 i 1.1 /. ill Eh · 1'· 1 \ / 1 - 2 -4,1 - ~4 V - /A 1\3 F- 0 V' -- . /h b O.- 9- -A -- 1 A- 6 / 7 /1 . \\ 7 1 a 31=1 , r 1 ¢ f ill f .~: h 4 /7 1\1 /4/ _1_U 1 . 0% 9.-71~4 - 944 1- 1 f » I 0L I AMATO RESIDENCE 94+440 1 CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS W f 2 2 // Ar ml m -1. Z ~ TO 41 1 i 4 15 i mi 0 . 1 /3 , . f. 1 F 0 - 3 2:1 ASPEN, CO. 81612 - 2 P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 1 I i. 4. . 1.. , 4 -- 4. 2. al li 12 £ _E- U ja ------ -fir : 1 ah/*/8 0 -2 1 1 - l 1 --------3 Itt ID 1 13 n !1 11 Li 1 . 1 · 1 L - 2 - 1 1 -1 . 1 11 11 1 ft-- - -1- 1 - 1-1 1 .dill#- i 1 82 .//I/+IF 14 R -LL , 1, 1 .r lilli ' -4/--AH-1 -lili- 3 - t 1 - 41 1 iii -/r- a t 1 -- Er-] . ©14 6 4 '2 Ur 4 3 19 3-00 5131 __4--1-- , 1 i 241 1 1 + f t -_-1-- 1 \ 1 ' 11 1 l th 1 3-1 -> R f - 12 i F Ig 1 .1 . 1 ) C LF .4 -- --1, I A « 9 3 1/-3- -7 1 1 4 11 1 -, 9- t{,4. i. f '€21. lili 90' - 0 -S<317 U) O L . L-* r.----~---1---- 3 I I AMATO RESIDENCE -*» 27 CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 1 m m (441 L/ 1 - 1 . -~ * 1 1 L -- 31 f 1 9-70 9 I. r- 3.9 11 il I pluu 0 9 ms ~~ -= Ii . 0 -~ 1 € ·r:,3. .... ' 2 1 J b.''W I *- A 1 ' B ]· i· · ~..==iv :. :: A ASPEN, CO. 81612 :4.4,4.0 2,4€.1.9 -i.c<22 I P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 . 1 =EIV 1 4-,4·~%€:fk; i?';" 1- i lilli 1 1 - - h \4\ \A 1 9 N\ , 1\ 3.1 I -14=1 ...T 9 - 0 ' -I ! -If-- IllIIIiI!1'I . 4=JI pul !"IN I lili?jill lilli ="+1-1 1 1;it 7--*-4- -1--462 -il ~~-rvr-~F~ 0----- - ------11 1 4. - ft 1 f /4 H ihi 41 - TES/ARCHITECTS EPHONE 303/925-5590 14 31",1.2 2*1., i CrfT.,4, , , ' I I 1 . 4 . - I . %.4,6. A 3-4.-1 7(41. ip.tx, d E-fr,7 :ifi~'t I.,l¥, ii. 4 0 1% 49¥: ' k 6 0 4.41: ';Ni ·iv «>0. 1-1 1-1 f li i .1 1. i-Sk 1,13; €,I «i«t . 4:f 4 1 0 A A ... .. 1 .. . . 0 . . / -4 . A . .. .... -3, .-* My.·~"-' -:' -,• - a'--'.--'.,a-- --~-'.-~ j - j === 1 .r. 3%1 4 -r I 9 ..43/9 Ln ' Ii"I · il ~~ LA 4 j fNI )- A 1 O m i . y.1 11 1 1., 1 i Ii! ~ i.. ; .: 1,1. a.-ff-,ML -Fi"14 94 , 1 F· 1. 1 1 . 11, , , 11 ZE O , ly'1111 1 - Lili :. 1 FIll i..· ;.til Al H 2 11 ?,iII · 141 . ./ I.- nuz ~.~. ~ *r- O '21 66 '1 1 11 'i \ I I l\.i.1 11 P - 0 1;4 J M -_ /-1 k i CLMy L ....._ .._.-_.4 - 44,4.*I 1 11 i . . 20'. 04 / I 0 It .2 . 1 0 . " A . 11 1 a ./ . ./ I:: 4 0 V /9 0 / 42 . 0 - . ..h I . - - L . / . P lilli!*11 -1 / 1 . 0. - .. , I .. 3. ..5; g. - 1 ./ /,11. , . 404 7-* I I .-2.-914?ES:*.4 ..tik,?~ .4~£~5 X.11,-.~ 44~ #21*,2.i., 4>€g<222'2':~ :0*'~3Ej ~4~f·JI =-f·~8<Ani.. :lk,wr.4 27"15*¢,24,% 1 . '14 - ' - 44*bw Ak.7, 0.- ... .4.-Urt.k...664.St.«';I#=_ .,t€ ·. · - 14 * ' , 2 1 ~t„b~ti·„·yiff *·22*3*41-'·t,!~:C ¥.,i~#41.+1~ d•fite@Ii~.~.@~4.?.24' **47~2Ji9:-*,i#red-t *b•,2~ .1 14•ibE ·r&,7. - '' * IL e ,"~.-2 ~, + -2' 'U ~ -·,; ·· r 2 -q ,;. f, k_f ME#Ry-rzt~ · 43*;·qx~'t~,P-MY·Ulk···:- Q, i :' . .4 .:r.4. 12....Ia· *·pen:·91 1 ./.1/ . 42 13:n,i' # l ~. ~ ..I' *i; · - ~ ' f,< . C r''t'.15:;i . ~ 4... w *:),F.A . i,·9'!m It,:# 4---~rf·k£'.p .„ t.: -.~ ' I L 1 ". -1.- 5-. . - -- I 1 \ 1 - . r n · 443 - 0 . . --,L 4 a '1. ./ + 4 .. , 94 . . a . 0 4 . 'R .4247 • 4 *10 . lit 1% 1 . . .. ti . 1 it ./ 4 't / . h.: «U-« / / y 4.'6 £ 6 h.0 3- a 3 ... I. (12 ./ 4 *4 1,50 2. r, . .. / . &97"17 ' .. fliTE3~~IP.. :. ..24+15: ? . · ..le' .£41*=96,9 t.5*,4. 4-•Mi.,h£ ·· 1. b 4.3~ 4£14.1 1 *69 10, '3 11 7. 1/ ./. I *S Cl f,- i 1 1 4 - -. 4 47 1 7 1 . iw 4, 1 - ~ 1 - I T-- i - -li 1 } --4 - ---1 .I.--i- .Ii.---* -I-- -- -- 0 - - -- - i.l--I'll -Il-*-I- .i--I.-- 1 1 1 ( f.-4 L. 1. f~ -1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 il.1 1 lt--4 1. 1 1 1 e 1 gri 1 1 f r -- / . -- 0 1 0-- 1 \ 1 e R-,1 1 r--ri<- t30/JI tai, I --- 14-1.--- - --- --7 ~ ~ 1 -P T, mil ~ T. , 11 8.- % 1 0 0 .2 It 1-4 'KE W 1~ liw * Ung i 1 - 11 EY; 1 -- _ rn --1- 1 1 ' 1 1/ i 11 141 - r- 1 11 f i Tx %* i 11 N.\ 1 I.-i , 1 111 1 f 11 \ 11 \ 1 1 r 1, , \ 9 i I r- --% 1 1 - p i Tri O . i 1 4 ,) 7 .\\(0 1 \\\\0 M o N » 9 6 +1 st --/ 1 7-,i -1 -1 / 14 //i / C ,/ 1 iii . / i ,-11 A 0 -- 0 M *,1 E 1 · k. i I t .~.~ . i t- \2 2.1 i 1 U » 0% , -- 9 0---d t-_7 1 . -h 11 U 0 r--4 y / E-l ~r-1 4. CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 0 b. k zloto AVIL 2 -2-2 E Wa_-9Ur« + 01. 261 - 1 1 1-1TO © 1/ r- J L 1. I 24-C/t- 7% 8 1 b . Id ~-J »f-%» 417 & ·r L »90 P,O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 1~27'.19416~tu' 2.0 ''6 8 4 , .7 B 169:* 44-· ... . 1 - ...../.*I...........#m"/R. r....a'.·.25 =490/Ziet .- .... .1,~%11=,45:f'.4''Af .i·~~6.„U·~.4-I ' ---- r-4. 1 ! 1 1. 1 ' H \ U Sl)31 0655-5, . '472 . 3. 4', c '44 2 -1 C t..72 - *3· · t 211*,PL A.2& I- V - *f.. . 13 -1- · : 6- t. 1 . 7. St, 4.V ~ ...2 I 3,32 0 + 0. 7 F. .7 ~44 .4.i . .. .. .G . . t.*4- f.€A- • 91 3 t~tir:- 01'LL . 4* 2 -S - 21 .J 1 v f. • P.,Ut . ed . .£3,6 .. 4634 077-1 S...4 47.,3 lifet -,0 i I :tay , ·r. t 3. G. *.. ./9 | 4 ..¢ , -7 69,91.1./1 . ·--3,3 . 4714 4 W 4 4 4/ <17 tlyt. €'F ¢4 >1 ¢*i . - W;-...L'- - I . - 1.-3 . \(,1 )2/ i ·1.' 'Rg'/2 I .* . R ;2*4 C. . 1 JOB NO 9,4 1 -30.3 1 - 1 1 l - 1\1 j *73 -: I 41?t 411 0 -*€ . V 9 AT 6 . . ~%:=/ 1 1 04 15,2.1 . : .p. 14. f . ./.94 4 167 • 04€ - 1 ,. . 'Wl... 4 4 I . ... 9£1 , /. '-Fl i 4,1 - f . , . 4,9 .il i · I '~ t · 92 . - I /,I .4 3- ~ f 6 4 . . m. •t <' A~~ V .A *, -114* 4/k . 0 E ...: 4 P•• 4-: 1 1 f. . T:. . .1+ . I I . 1·0 *- a 1 4 0 -- .4 'Al , .e 14( N , . ..gi I ·LET- 1 2~1.25 · ' 0,1 - I .. - ~=501///////////:/ 1/. D , 4 f. 1 , 110 4 . D.,4 .1 0. . ...1 4 - / 4 /1 /'1 + 10* 0 \ \ 1 1 4 4 i 1 i \ \ / Al , \ \ \ 1 \ \ 4 44 1 / \ 36 1.Wk ,/1 \ :;imii- \/ 1 u O .V Tivw # 0 4 ~ 1-- i .~dvv.0€4~Idk~" 0 9~#~ ~~\ 1 / A OR /134/ < / 4\ 52 / 144*A 1//; 3%5< .0. 7 N \\ - h, i. 4.1/ V /V . - f b \\ , A - 1 - \ 4 0 - . 1 / / /11 i i \\20 \ 2/ \ \4 , , / / lili \S / f \ \ 1 . /" S.\ ' 4 0 , I \ 404*77. 0 \ ./ i X - 1./ 2 0 .13 \ 34 021 / 1 11 \ \=40 / 9 ,\\ / 400*,Sfr / \ » 21» . 1 +444</,4414\,r - --ho---- \ ~14' \ 0 4,2940' I. 1)- b /%3~ 1* . 1 A -\, f \\ / 2<b 4 4/.Xl /- , * * >246 -1\ i . : +2.,r,r. /7 \ 1 --- 4:#tro/S. 0 1 /-44« 1 \. '0 ,/ 1/ 1 / ** r / 1, 1 1 iii...1 1- :,1 1 1.11 12.444 ' V.1 \ . \0, 40> //f, 1.3. / III .~ 1. : A ' 4 \i .61\ /4/9/ 1 13-3 .AM / \ L<*4* , gv '< .10, --1/1 1.1 1 /7. , , -=*,- ./ 2 ~ - - - -,73:79--*.----~-·-v-,V- 7 f. -_ // / 4 / 49 , /P» 1 7./ ./12 / / *Bler ew,101*4 I ' 4 / r :dr ~ ./3 - <Ir ill ed » , -r .9 r / . r 92¢/ 67 4, / -ik ij 10~,/494 -, i »-4,2/4,3 >IP /.\ V . - 4\ / h k -YS .' - '14 / ' fil . . Fuk· , - .1 . tri;~ 4 1 - \ 1 . \4 --~ - 0 te:ll?' ~ * 449.1, - /'/\ 21- .-0.4,% A I - i», e .. t \. / 0 - I '' 1 ~RI- * lit , 11 1 - , - t 54,40-71 , 74/ ..4 // / K i 9 .. \ i ,- 4 510 16'3711 W 0- A , \ />\ 0 . / lAi ' \ / ./ ./. I rN DO. .66 '$ 2 J 0 , 1/ \ 1 '<.4.VES<4'' / 14 ': h :, 1 '' ty»' vmk,>' SI TE PLAN -1 , 9\4 1 3/' '' /./. 1- +89"1 5-06,·T lew 02 , I Xm/ SCALE : 1- = 10' -O" i/4:Ne° , / 0. 9*« 91@901-115 31 1%15. 4-/ / I .DJ 4\0 / . I . I I . 4,4 \ 4 $ Nor-79 (0 / 92 \ . 1/ t« I /21:: 4 I I / 14 - ' .,0 442 0 - i--2 -:---- -1 Ill t . vII m / ell a\ (U 10 / 1 oiligilit ilfilili#fiFialifiaffamilififfifiliFilisilifIE#laiffilifial~. \ I €* + 1.1 /. 1 <' A / 0 4 2 = -aiti Lft - 6 - ©1 . / t,1 - enNE-99 NOT&4 . a / / / . 256 1%5*Al-. 0640?.114=10!44 /-4 GRON,14 291.1 T#414 SITE P LAU x DRAWING , / / ;V / r --~ ~4 ri~~b*Z &*664<rA¢k@1%2 431)41&1.- / . h %-Re'* 41. g 1 -1043 NO. e-701 ·f- dS,991,1. 4 3%15'>24. / i »L'f'INE 44»/574 ING / - .8. 5,€-»/,6.-94 4 44442344 48+1'l 699¥0'AM -72) 444'.fr· to U.*.4. JOB NO. 87 ID 5 4 ASPEN H*TORIGfRESERVATION COMMITTEE >~¢ 6-6,2)*tr'·aTWF 4·HALL JH,2'Up#· Ry#77/TION 0% g~]*1-?144 OATE ..ll|lr. 11'66_ r . / 1 ¢ / 1 CHAIRMAN~*l ~)b. DATE_.04~€, 8,2 z~ y>em*%*H ,-T <*111-99]0*r wFNFIs .7 'fliceN'P't~. 1 1 SHEET NO ~ 4 EVI431*1 K&$15 H 15 'MEN DEM'<71.190&.5 · 5111 A<,rE.KI PIT#-iN -I---4, APPROVED ~ DENIED ~ \ FE*toNAL built>Mi t>EMAKTMENT bull.t,INC~ PRAMIT APPLICATICA CONDITIONS 1.12 1,201+ 1 PATE» 11*r N 1 lib¥5 - - b <Al: 1 ANY l'EVIATION FROM THESE PLANS MUS7 ·'. P i -1'Er FOR REAPPROVAL. A. LI )21.2-.1 2.3 2.4·~ 3.1 /3.2._ DA'im . 7~2-7180), - SHEET OF 1 i/ 124#d/*//&/.-'L.~7~~2 1142*.i,~.1 /.. ,. 5.4/2/*hu . 1~- k M. . f113.LIHOEIV/53.LVIDOSSV ¥ 3.IdINNn) S31HVH) 0666-626/EOE 3NOHd3131 2 l918 00~10103 'NBdSV 'DESE XOEl Od -00'NadSV 0 //9,\ A 1, 0 A 5, 19 3- 1 . 1 1 -C 1 4- -14 0 24 1 \0 CHARLES L CUNNIFFE 1... 200* 1 _ p.leir--9 ©4034 . -11.To 1 ~ED ARG+~ m«BM- AMA *==1 9 . . ~ 64*66 "f 1 -3 1 - $ PL. 1 15-3 . _ _ _ _ _- -,1. .be PLF·· r~ A-· 110-3 fril-li i . . 1 --I-- 1 r m -1 -1 I 10 4 Ul 01 01 01 OK' 5 1 1. **»».b..6,2. rat Sl)31!H)HV/Salq 0656-626/EOE 3NOHd3131 21918 00~0101 'N3dSV 'DESE XO8 0 d -00'NadSV -0ilillillillill Illih Iii .~1 ill """"""""'.... .1-1.1 I . 1 niiiiii:~vijijmi~IEdmij~i;4iiii Iiiiiri w z-,11.1.-11111111 . lk-- -1 -I .... w, i,•@im<iI*'11~iN~~~"~1~~IiI~ ' . , A A . . , 7.07 P D A1 m --Ill Wilri#..1-I ,/ -I-'lli~...=- ilililili... 1... I . - 1911.1,1 1 - 1 1.1 11~~111.11111~1 m 1* - 1.===m 1- , , . a . 1.11 - - 1.1 I //h¥=-111/- 1 '1 - 0 , - ... . 0 . ' 191;R~.*46.{3£.*I€»41(04:4-i ' ·~ .2 ¥·--;,1-a':·Udf.Oly©493:,3.t~ ~L, .' f f ~' ~~~ & 6%46:fl¥.,2'~#416&6*12;I-V~* P.»:1»Ak«*93 t .Sit~,ft~~4~4~ 413. 1 % 1-: . r. '2'Ag, N. '4'1 y.>jyt· 4<. 4,9.51.·44.4 1 ?72, ie .1 ... ...4 9,4 ' 2.011 4·~>ii a ~ A *. .· 35:j<~ ~'-~'~I frf+2 .21417/all"*6"Ihihia#64 + . .1 - ,/AW -- - 9 34*'yf- ,:~i .LE 24:y .:.AN- Dtr v ~M' ~~~''~ , '. I '.~.....14% 41 :04 ".'. t€ltvt':%13'ft N.' : /- ' --1# 1 - ..,. r» f "~-4 f.·~ 4 1 REVISION " 1 A6,51 . A*.9, J 7 3 1 1 1 1 1 r,=,r~ 14F W. hpx' \O. .. 7, CHARLES L CUNNIFFE , C-3034 ~+SED ARCB~ 12. . lit 11 -714 . i ]Fil , 6 i I 1 10- 1/ 2>2 Le.· ~7-pu- 110-0 WE Cul illnEE=37 i 1 "rl-111 1 3 fhml 1 1 1 lilli 4 'JU " -- Ul -14/110 -fld 1.T ir==~=er: ~ I 5* 47/ FAL. M. r + 2 - t -- -- - - - -. -- -- ---4- ------3 2 3 U 4 L 21 /33 NORTH ELEVATION ~ SCALE : 1 /4- = 1' -O- L~ 1-6 1 ~ 11.-1 A e j *; 4 6 3 A %. 1/1- X«-f-7 d 0 4 1 U.L. - f l Hp, fru@ .98,1 F4 f 2 15.03 60.00*1, rer- pr*'Lb*H4. . -le:=2¥€· cl m 0 31. '140 -60' 11 o. C.W I M P!-1 1,25 -41 - 1 SA\V\49r To. 1 El -- 70 0 1119 -r . FOOP -·-ZI---1 - EL 1/1 · 10 ' 1 - 10 541#eLE M-ooP -- 1- m - T.. 2473'/ AW E *L· ~ 11 ,-6 4 f WOOF FY+GY,· :-3.i 10-2._52Zb_182- r. -- r] 3 - 1 , 1 - -1 J- P ». 119 4 1 411 I b 12 0 fl/*HIR¢*· r-r _- 2 3 .lill Ilr-~r.111 IF=;111 i ?1 7 2 1--1 L-,12._41>19£_I/____~ _- 1 . t-- v. gu. 11.· - 111 - 1161 lIL;~ .IW!11 1 1 /- 4 - - r 1 e f I -_ 0 0 fL6»-Sdr.-*hly - PL»- 4 W * 01 - 0 I. *6. 1101-0. /:10; .. c°Fwp, 04*~ - 1 [III - 4 it fn ML»~16 ov" 212. 1 1 4-{Gwh 1 DRAWING PIN- *BOK. il/~ I JOB NO. 8-0 1, 1 1, FL· 41 -9 )1 0.· 11 - C•Jiv--- M*-,u,r-E35-1 Z . =k gx 47/ 319, - 7-*07-301 2- 01 -I--1-dild 1 1 1 . 1 = ~ SHEET NO I l 1 1 IA).1 1 1 N SCALE : 1/4- = 1'-0- ~_SHEET OF ~ 0665-526/EOE 3NOHd3131 Zl9I8 00~0103 'N3dSV 'DEE X08 O d 61 ,=i~.L_.0™al,lit,ElS 1 . CFR )4 35,0 37. 1 1 Xy y 42 % Frr /2 rE- n---- -1 I \ / 1 \I F --- -0 1 i-1 ¥ 1 1 I - 1 /1 / I le j L---I---- ----2---- 2-1 / 1 -Und 7 » , 10 /1 /-~ ~f- 4' 0 i , \\/ i V f P i / /1 4 3 NIA \ i \N I /-1 9 1* D « ~a 1 1 I 1 1, El 4 -S I 14 1 ff - -1 -716 71 1 4-7 --ViC 4 b '<7 f · 6/ /1 / /50/'P-14- 12- -Ta- /2 1--'~<-1. k%& 44-1/41 1 1% / ·':Ft# 9 0 9 1 0-44% 7 (8 7 lit - \ ///6 r 114 -Fs . 7 4-1, 1->t h . I , I k ' 71-1 9,· 1 -48 m h '' 1 -18-, \ 4 .6 \ 1,2 \ | 1 4 1 1 1 -1@ DA*% 7 - 1- &btl .'12 /% \ +1. 1/ 3 . ~1 . r I 19 4 »& 0 1... .. f. 0 - -- r - 1_1¥ i &* 'V 16 - Dma 3~<4~ »f//-//€i 21=Z.==11 1 . r· 1 '1-4 < 1 0< - 4% 1 ftl' 1 1, 1 ..ti ij 0 11 1. t m 1/\ / rffit + T , 1 \ 1/1 11 1 1-3 / 1 r i 1 1% M -1 , 1 - f. 1/ i 1 =Pl 49 94 2 f 1 4.4-- \ , r .l\\ 1: / 1 1 I ./·•9·· 1 . Imix> 1 7 lot// / 1 a 1 - 1 if f\%4 0 9 7 1 -7 \ A~-h\\ , 9 fl 12 0 / \ 111 1 k -G 15 1 n Nt-h\ ./2 1 2.2 * t -:1 to j F= C r. . --0 2}vi ' p 101 lu-1 11 .... .4 , 4 3 6% \ 2 / Z. \' ri / rf N A I . - 14 E-1- -3 1 1 % 72 -Irr 41 · ¥ 69 4 £ 44, 0 2444917 - LA¥Wrd.~ 4 , NE'1001 -*r =Ve 11 lift E , -14: 1 1 SI F# ~"T*Z R,5 ' €-404-:353 4 .4:<44 1 1 IN -£ 4 -fi ~i t -1©1 h 1~> f L 0 0 ]7 4/6, N $ iii[Voia,%4.-i L E-, 8 6-¥ 8 3 -1 -2 fl & 1, B fit e 1 1 r i.*7 e A m 92 3 1 3 -1 1,2 93 2 -f =Ct' 4 L 116 1 ·,3,7 - Fll @1 )¥V » 0 0 741-a €k E ' 39 -17 1 9 0 3 & 4 6 1 ¥ Tr f ;F i -4- Fit 3 1. 11 U 4 1% 1 m . CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS I m m -1 Z 0 U) RESIDENCE 222 EAST HALLAM ST. ASPEN,CO. P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 4/t .. A 06 9.2 V q 9 1 -1 'll P r alvo G 11-€ ON, eor ' 931120 /9-1 & . t. '0' 4 >< 2, /*Al _r (i) 1 -7 4. I. t- 1 4, 1 , i .r -- 1 1 1 - e it 17 w 2./1/0/ e 1/21¢22> <-, 0,;26 f --'r - - m rl;h /42 1 1 .2/ 9 i- 4 4 0, = .. P .. «d, *-- *<11 31: 127_ ... Z_mr. - . \ P - . 3. 2-2-1 1 6,1. 1 /1 L~:0"~1 · 3 ®2 Y 1 el 8'-o" 1 %- 41 ~ .XII . I tr--106-3 -1,1 A. *A 1101 , CER} ~ 3~ ~4 1 -~ 0 1% -7--4#2~ ir 21~jo- T . I . I 11 to " . .r 2 i r 4. url tlY u-110 1j1 1qq ¥ 1 Ag -li CIATES/ARCHITECTS f 1 i 2 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 **@790 M 1.0*¢10410- 9 H'.loi'g" 652 1 - 1 11 111111. 511 ' . , , - I . . £ 2 /=.1 m , -0 e 0 m e 1 3 4 , . & I ;4 4 e % /4 4 -1 4 1 m . ' P e , -em 4 . 'h - . 1 I k e. 0 e 1 0 \ . I f e a e e , *b. -7 »· .fe,£. F64 '· 0, ./ e- , \ , .3 L I \ ' I. , , i I . , 1 4 b . I , U , 8 - . 2 *44 b . 3% 4.9,yl. T # 'n kt: "4 1 1 2€ ' '.1~ f :; 2 X . A .. p , .1. . A . 4 . a .. .... ... .... · ·4- '7 -· 4' '444£ 1 / 6 -,7-1. ,~I~%~b- V C . A f« I \P / 4% Kit t 72 ' *7; ' b 24-4 oF TURRE , KVVING OUND FL. PL No. 8715 E -h|Lr '11.1 ET NO ·- 1 A 2.2 J1 ~ 1 *44ft-7---f- BONaa 'sati AP. Vill"I, I - I I . I ' I .,¢ I . 1 0 I ' 1 .k ' 0 - -1 0 000 0 0 --1 00 01 1 1 0 10 0 0 t e ./-, 1. 1 /.al . I ' - 4 0 1 1 0- , 'R - 1 -1 4 0 1 ' I J 100 . 0 0 . I , 1 7 --- 1- , .. ' - I / a A '' 1 '' I I It .. / / 0 - - - - ll.' 1 0 el , , 11 i 4 4 1 t - 0 - - 4 1.. e 0 0, f ' 4 - 4 6 . . . , , e , 4 . . 0 , -./ - E I - - 1 12,2 11 *P" .. - .. 4*,4.tum'*j:t .= A. I . 9 . 4? I .. 1 . . . 4 0 , I : . . 0 0 .9/ ..90 Tili·'4'f. 1. ' .. -411/66 '6>A,25-1%~t' ' .· -1 LT· 4,1~~26 4 4.WE 54# TZ' 1'.11 DK+14 404 1.,el:.1- */ 4 + 41+1 H 4,L.«1+ MI PA *e, j -1-0 ee»]*11 - 45% ekpre A .1 4 » S.,2 1 / 1'. o " :: . 41. IC J. 4 % $ I. e = 0 k -- 0 -. 0 a . C : e 2 4 .. 16 a s _ -• 0 -, i I A..tj at ..:.. EL SHEET OF 4. o.' 1 8,1 .oIl 4. 9 3 · 97 I '.. 2 ;J ~7; - , I , I . . , - i 1 0 - .. - ,. 4 ... , lie *64 . I , /. , .. 1 ., 2 0 .... , I . 4. , . , .. , 1 . . . I ./1 . . I . T · a - . . 1 . .8 , I I . 1 - 6 t ... 4 / I '/ I I . / 1 , I . f . . - ... ... 4 .. . I ' P. .. . .. I k . .- I . S. ./ - . .. - . D . . . 275 .6'% 44 9 »'b,334 . ¥· 2. p- A. ... .4 .. 39.1 4. 0.~'.: ·' /2 r- -'/ 0 ....'In-'ll ; ;'·~ ~ 2~»ck<b'~,U-~.. + ' - HP 47 222 E. Hallam St., AMATOW L 666 1 l*49%%-07 RESIDENCE, DEMO. AND RESTRUCTURE r 1 F H P r Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galena Cstreet aspen, colorado; 81611 ~ March 2, 19881~ Mr. Charles Cunniffe Charles Cunnifee and Associates/Architects P.O. Box 3534 Aspen, CO 81612 RE: 222 East Hallam Demolition Dear Charles, Pursuant to the conversations with you and Richard Kline yesterday, I am writing this letter to inform you of concerns that your application for demolition should address. The public hearing for this review has been scheduled for March 22, 1988 as we arranged (see Public Notice attached). You promised to submit the additional information by no later than Friday, March 4, 1988. Section 24-9.5(c)(2) (as amended in Ordinance 11 (Series of 1987)) of the Municipal Code establishes the submission require- ments for demolition review. Subsection (vi) states "A written statement of how the demolition conforms to the review standards of Section 24-9.5(b)." Of the six review standards in Section 24- 9.5(b) we are concerned that (1) and (2) have not been directly addressed in your application. " (1)The structure proposed for demolition is not struc- turally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure." Please submit evidence of efforts made by Mr. Amato or the prior owner to keep the house structurally sound, which worked and did not work. "(2) The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused to provide for any beneficial use of the property." There are three aspects to this standard which we believe are pertinent to this application: structural practicality, economic feasibility, and livability. Regarding structural practicality, the questions are: Is there evidence that health and safety problems currently make the house unlivable? UBC violations alone do not indicate that this is the case. Can the existing house be remodeled and added onto in the rear without undermining the structural integrity of the house? Regarding economic feasibility, the appraiser's reports state that the house is "outdated" and should either be razed or totally remodeled and expanded. The pertinent question which has not been answered, pursuant to Mr. Bowie's analysis of the options, is: Can the existing house be remodeled and added onto in the rear (or a second structure built) in a way that would allow for a "reasonable return on investment?" In this analysis, the historic incentives created through Ordinance 42 (Series of 1987) should be considered for this approach, including the $2,000 grant available, conditional uses for duplex use or detached dwellings on the property, B&B or boardinghouse, and area and bulk variations. Of course, these incentives are subject to historic landmark designation and reviews by HPC and the P&Z. Richard indicated that he wants to approach this question also through analyzing compara- tive costs for remodeling and adding on and redevelop- ing the property. We agree that such cost estimates would be relevant to help HPC understand relative merits of different scenarios. Regarding the livability of the house, a determination should be made if the particular size, layout, siting and other critical aspects of the existing house and property are so deficient to make the house unreasonable to inhabit. I realize that, as this is the first significant demolition to be reviewed under the standards of Ordinance 11, there may be misun- derstandings of what needs to be addressed in an application and HPC's review. I appreciate your cooperation in supplying us with additional analysis in the areas that we believe are most crucial for review of this demolition proposal. I look forward to receiving the information on Friday. If you or Richard have any questions, please call me or Roxanne Eflin. Sincerely, *L. 8«24 Steve Burstein, Planner cc: Alan Richman / Roxanne Eflin 4 letter.222 2 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: 222 East Hallam, Minor Development, Modifications to previously approved plans Date: 4 August 9, 1988 ~ LOCATION: 222 E. Hallam, Lots K & L, Block 71, Townsite and City of Aspen. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of the modifications to the previously approved redevelopment plans for the site. The changes proposed increase the FAR by 6', from 3,362 to 3,368 sq. ft., and primarily focus on roof outline near the rear portion of the house due to a slight change in the interior floor plan, and fenestration. PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: On March 22, 1988, HPC approved the demolition of the 1888 structure on the site based upon its structural instability and impractical economic re-use. At that meeting redevelopment plans were presented by the applicant with action tabled by HPC until the next meeting. Brief comments to the redevelopment plan's appropriateness in areas of massing, height and detailing were made by HPC on March 22, to provide the applicant with direction for requested amendments to the plan to be presented at a future meeting. On April 26, HPC formally reviewed and approved the amended redevelopment plans. SUMMARY: The historic cottage was razed in May, and the lot currently sits empty with the exception of a few small shed-type buildings located at the rear (north) Of the lot. The modifications as presented create no significant change to the overall visual character of the new structure, in staff's opinion. A closet is being added into a second floor west bedroom, creating the need to modify the roof detail creating a hip, changes are proposed in window locations and larger, undivided windows on either side of the fireplace are presented. Fenestration changes occurring on the east elevation include a shape change in the transom windows above the dining room doors from rectangular to "eyebrow", a reduced kitchen bay which no longer extends to the ground and is receiving a lesser pitched roof, and the addition of another window in the master bedroom, next to the turret. On the south elevation, the windows at the door to the roof deck have changed somewhat in size. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: When taking into consideration the entire character and design details of the new home, these changes do not, in staff's opinion, alter the character of the Victorian Revival style. The roof height has not increased and the footprint is modified only slightly to accommodate the new closet. Staff brings to HPC's attention the west elevation fenestration, which is extremely varied in style, placement and shape. Staff recommends a more uniform approach in fenestration to visually blend this elevation into the remaining elevations. Seven different window sizes and styles are proposed; staff feels the degree of difference is extreme and recommends the applicant further study the fenestration of this elevation. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that HPC grant minor development approval to amend the previously approved redevelopment plans as proposed, with the exception of the west elevation fenestration, which requires further study for design uniformity. memo.hpc.222EH2 Ill 1 /1 CHARLES CUNNIFFE AND ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING ~FIECE ®[F FORA[71]00300FFA0=, BOX 3534, ASPEN, CO 81612 303-925-5590 8/4#41 08' 1 Job # Et '$5- To: Cllr of kipEN Att: 4®xhitHE EFLIN 1PLABBI"Q:t et)LPT , Ia: AMATO 12£1. 1 9,0 1. diALEUP- Afful . co &\(oU GENTLEMEN: WE ARE SENDING YOU ~Altached O Under separate cover via the following items: O Shop drawings O Prints O Plans m Samples O Specifications O Copy of teller O Change order 1-1 Copies Date No. Description 97 b..88 2, LAut) uSL APPLICATIOW j 1 · 0,33 1 'PR W-[4 THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: O For approval O Approved as submitted m Resubmit____copies for approval p; For your use O Approved as noted O Submit_-__copies for distribution O As requested O Returned for corrections O Return____corrected prints O For review and comment O O FOR BIDS DUE 19 O PRIN1S RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US Remarks: Copy To: \ 404/4»*R-D \<LEIL} AIA ATEACIMINT 1 AND USE APPLICATION FORM '' '~'~~~ 1 t~·'14~10~. --74~;..f..itti Amato Residence 2 1 23' 'fit. 4%44. 1 1) Pmject Name 2) Project Location 222 E. Hallam Street, Aspen Lots K & L, Block 71, Original Aspen Townsite -6 Adjoining tract (indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description whem apprcpriate) 3) Present Zoning RG, SCI 4) I£]t Size 10,093 sq. ft. 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # Joseph Amato P.O. Box 179 Monroe, NY 10950 (914)928-9121 6) Representativels Name, Address & mone # Charles Cunniffe & Assoc. 520 E. Hyman Ave., Aspen, CO 81611 (303)925-5590 - 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA - Conceptual Historic Dev. Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Conceptual FUD -X_ Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final FUD Historic Demolition Mountain View Plane Subdivision Historic Designation Corxlaminiumization Text/Map Amerxlment (NES Allotment Iot Split/Lot Line - GUS Doemptian Adjustment 8) Description of Existing Uses, (Inmber ard type of existing structures; approximate sq. ft.; number of bedroans; any previous approvals granted to the property). The existing site is empty, the previous structure having been demolished. H.P.C. has on the date of May 5, 1988 approved plans for a new 4 bedroom residence 3368 sq. ft. F.A.R. 9) Description of Development Application Fpry glight modifications have been made to the proposed residence concerning the roof outline (at the rear of the house)and window sizes and locations. We seek approval of these modifications. 10) Have you attached the following? X Response to Attachment 2, Miniann Subnission Contents X Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIAT_-ARCHITECTS - ~ 520 EAST HYMAN, SUITE 301 PO. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, AIA AMATO RESIDENCE August 1, 1988 ATTACHMENT 2 Please refer to H.P.C. Submittals dated: April 18. 1988 March 04, 1988 February 25, 1988 ATTACHMENT 3 Please refer to H.P.C. Submit,tals dated: April 18, 1988 March 04, 1988 February 25, 1988 PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO AMATO RESIDENCE: F.A.R.: A change of 6 sq. ft. from 3,362 to 3,368 sq. ft. North Elevation: No Change South Elevation: Windows at door to roof deck change in size. East Elevation: The transom windows above the dining room French doors are now eyebrow in shape, not recti- linear. The kitchen bay now does not extend to the ground and has a lesser roof slope. There is a n additional window in -the Master Bedroom, next to the turret. West Elevation: Larger windows are now located on either side of the fireplace. Because of a closet change in plan, the exterior wall jogs at the Guest Bedroom and Bedroom above. This results in a hip roof from and new window sizes and locations. · 24*100,% 0,4,;AO:' t. 04. 7 44*.4 m.k.W - E}z?1, : I ,#B„ '·i * Crp?3 4 11/1 .'' t~ ,;'zi.,4';·t' ' ·. b,j:,2,,,~,~/.,p. ,,;brl j,3,2~~~/4,111/ # 1111, 1 1 , 11 · 4,"N ~·*, i, 12i'1'l'!'*ii)'~:.~ji k~.,i:·,i li:.„·2 2,Lri,<4%1*Mi%'~,~~:~,<:i: r 1 .1 ;0* " 1,<,0..41 lili, 4, *,rwa 4$ 4 1,3 11 4,11,1 J. , 1 . 1 1%3 1,1, I el , 1 %913£6821~y 1 10#, 4 1,1.414,11,11.14, t,10/'i' j",c 'Nf ~ ,$4*0*19 , , 'jit,Ert~~':v )4 A,4 -4 ;,f i :''I:%.;' ' 1,,, ,7 . ~ ., ·:,t ~0,·Ii,·,·ff·,t ',„1'1 1 i~ qi,il·:,:i,~~'i'AO~'Ii' '" '1 44/ ' 1ttlwtwfl ''11, ,~ "P'dFL, 2..f411,1, t\: 1~ 11 1, 1, Ill 4 11 1111'14%1070 0', P H 'MiMA·*6.1,1,1 1. 1 .11 ' 11 ..11 .3 ,2 / 1 0 ' ; '1' 1 lanEL % 1 , 11 1 1 ., 6*~dd C h 1 4 ./ /4 ' P ! 1 ':' i .' # 1,:k' , , X ~ , ~,;.~,j,~~12&%%%#%5~*1}i~~ljt,1 i 6 L:1': Prl''ll'1*11,~1:1:;13:'!).?'i,14#1';i'l'!it:1:141'::Lili;Fii"ll,011,1l~~;l'61l'~~~~ 14 ,444 ~~1!1I~|1•~1~,I,'i ~fi~~Iq w~1111,1{11':Ii:'lilf :'f, ,5,10,'%%'I' 44\ 11:1:,11:11'r.-.1 1. l ' .Fla % OWZ ' 0 4.4 1 ./ 89,1121 wanc ~ EL'f:~.', ,~11'~41" 4'44&65%4&,j'1i.'"„,I,Eq~i;#~1~,':#' ZNg*·b ,,v,i,,1'!,,8J,'.i';¢4,i ip;i ,;,ri.'~'4. „Fir.~,~ 448 .,ti; .. ,#FL,j ,Ll i„,4, 4,·,'~{4,~,~~'bFf,'i1%1.1.114 N~% 4 , ki " 1 6 2 . 1 1 , ··· 1%1*@44*i*312 k 1 / 1'~00'J|&~ '1~ lit ' 41 - dR *4*1/90%&AE.NA/*AvA 4v-,c~§(imm#*n Q~; ~ ~ 1 ' ' k ~f /21 .24 Ffulf ' ' t¢?, ' '... ikim'' 1 , , 14 \E £ 4 -+, 24 0 Ms: t f ... 4 0 1. 11 p wi AW '14 8 90 Fq J , ..,IREK.lip . cts.W ·'' *kh*'44&,3,_(1~%**54,t,A:.45,1~,., 4}i 0~f,L,)64 +4 ·<t'~#'.2 h ~~ 3'.'.4 r: 42 v*'~~' #83 ' A. t 'r '/1' pkgfvly)#,ff,9,44%40f~KEE<918# ft*K~ Ar , ELIN · . . ··· .~ 5 ?,36 Mmealam,·, ; ~':'A'l,96,2,12:.3.49*4444/* ~~ 111* '*. 9, - g'h f.,1.1 9»0.11'k.< 1,4,1.<,~,§11.,1¢]M05*%},%*2*9.0(14 **149""4' f?%&:i\14 1 '1 111,; ~449]*Fy,64©'11,4.,1,264*8%45Ly#g,1,&6?;A':, 9% 5 · 1 .,5 ..1 a de ' 9 ' •'"4196.6 . . 4 .4.11 9 ' 4 , itt};i '11~941 : li 1 111~ 111 lili.,1 *1,4.:41/*-1,4,.' ~ 1-6} .~6,s p Rift ·~ ; ~ %11 liffr * AM 4 '' Irti;Lka"jkvt/g</It/*94'~"P' 0 0,. : 9.98;j ' -·· 0.14 lip 1 1 0.*1 1 1*404*Vm , AM, 40 '· r •' ·, ikwAM . , , CHARLES CUNNIFFE AND ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING LIE'Ulf,iE® ®F FORA[MISE]OFFA[L BOX 3534, ASPEN, CO 81612 303-925-5590 Date AU'! 47 &~b # 8-115 To: Ch-f ot hir E.B| Att: ROPANNE, EFLIN ?LAPPIWGI DEPT ae: AMA-to REI. 160 1. 64 A LEN h )#SPRN ' Co. 61(011 GENTLEMEN: WE ARE SENDING YOU ttached [] Under separate cover via the following items: O Shop drawings O Prints [] Plans O Samples O Specifications [3 Copy of leller O Change order rl Copies Date No. Description 8 6.3 1 ' 1 17 Abbrffic <,05Mt-WAL 4- s.5 -1 11 9 1 t.r\.1. O%141#4LS THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: O For approval ¤ Approved as submitted O Resubmit copies for approval bikor your use O Approved as noted O Submit-copies for distribution O As requested O Returned for correclions O Return--correcled prints - O For review and comment O O FOR BIDS DIJF 19 O PRINTS REIURNED AFTER LOA11 TO US Remarks: PLE,5 E- lzETuRN -TIA E P.M.T· 5 Arrk.p » O IF. d«V k.]OFF Is DODIE - -11*plc- 9 Copy To: Signed: 71 MI- r 12, c" A 80 M L E-1 » N 1 A. . I 10%:.' . #Rea 7. Aspen/PitktijiNU**ning Office 44*34®A:i»{rit 130 south:941*miQ,treet aspen;'Fcolortalaj) 81611 ..... 1 t , 43'riff,9 t May 23* 1988~ Mr. Charles Cunniffe, Principal Charles Cunniffe and Associates Box 3534 Aspen, CO 81612 Dear Charles, I have reviewed -*QU~--letter_dated_Mol_20 with respect to the redevelopment ofc 222 East Hallam Avenue. 3 In that letter, you describe to me that the- sie is zoned both R-6 and SCI. Your plan for the site indicates that approximately 63 square feet of the garage will extend into the SCI Zone District. You wish to permit the garage to be located on that portion of the site, even though a single family residence in not an allowed use in the SCI Zone District. Reviewing Section 5-508 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations, if the proposed use is not allowed in all zone districts crossing a property, it must be developed on land in which it is a permitted or conditional use. Since the house is all within the R-6 Zone District, it is only the garage which is in question. I concur with your request that the garage be considered accessory to the residence, which is a permitted use in the R-6, thereby allowing it to protrude slightly into the SCI zone. It is my determination that this minimal protrusion into the SCI Zone District is the preferred design solution of the property. Further, it seems unreasonable to require a rezoning for such a minor activity, particularly when a rezoning would significantly increase the development potential of the site. Therefore, I hereby approve your request with the following limitations: * the land zoned SCI cannot be used to justify additional FAR or density, but can be used to meet setbacks and similar dimensional requirements; * the garage shall extend no more than 63 square feet into the SCI Zone District; and * you shall make all reasonable efforts to preserve the existing large tree in its present location. I hope this satisfies your request. Please let me know if I can otherwise be of assistance. Sin~erely, Alan Richman Planning Director 4%*'-79 , f-. k CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, A.I.A. May 20, 1988 lilli' Itl//: Mr. Alan Richman 11 *ME.ijlljll Planning & Development Director- City of Aspen/County of Pitkin 130 S. Galena L.- - Aspen, Colorado Re: Interpretation of Split Zoning 222 East Hallam Avenue Aspen. Colorado Dear Alan, We are preparing plans for a new residence to be located at 222 East Hallam Avenue. The zoning on the lot is split by two zone districts, R6 and SCI. The R6 District portion of the lot exceeds the minimum required 6,000 square feet and is therefore a conforming residential lot. The floor area for the house and its two car garage does not exceed the allowable F.A.R. for the R6 portion. There is a very large existing spruce tree at the southern or street side of the parcel. In order to preserve the tree and its root base, we have pushed the house and garage to the north. As the attached site plan indicates, a small section of the two car garage extends approximately 63 square feet into the SCI Zone. Sec. 5-211A Of the Municipal Zoning Code suggests that a residential parking garage would be permitted as a "customary accessory use". Sec. 5-211B also suggests that vehicle storage is a use permitted as of right. The H.P.C. has reviewed and approved the design and configuration of this house and the appropriateness of its placement on the lot. We would like to ask the Planning Office to make an interpretation that since a garage is a customary accessory use that the 63 square feet of floor area be permitted in the SCI Zone portion of our split zone site. Thank you for your assistance. Please call me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Cliuu Charles L. Cunniffe, AIA Principal MEMORANDUM TO: BILL POSS, HPC CHAIRMAN FROM: ROXANNE EFLIN, PLANNING OFFICE RE: 222 E. HALLAM, REDEVELOPMENT REVIEW DATE: ~ APRIL 11, 1988 * Bill, it was my understanding in the last work session of the HPC, April 7, that we could not review the redevelopment plans on 222 E. Hallam at the 4-12-88 meeting due to the fact that the Public Hearing of the 3-22-88 meeting had not been formally continued, to any meeting date. Joe Krabacher brought up this fact, and I mentioned the earliest we could review the project due to the need to public notice was 4-26-88. Earlier, Charles Cunniffe and I discussed his other project, 212 W. Hopkins, which was not properly noticed as it should have been for the 4-12-88 meeting, due to conceptual review. It has been public noticed for the 4-26-88 meeting. I explained we could go ahead and review the project for historic designation purposes on 4-12, to get that ball rolling, and in that process would look at the plans but not take formal action on them until 4-26. I explained I did not want him to lose any time and I felt this would be O.K. with the HPC. I believe Charles has confused the two projects regarding dates for review. Charles called this afternoon to find out where 222 E. Hallam was on the 4-12-88 agenda. I attempted to double check with you and was finally able to reach Joe Krabacher, and questioned him on his recollection of the decision made at the 4-7-88 meeting. Joe's recollection was that we were not going to review 222 E. Hallam, except to announce the public hearing is to be continued to 4-26. I called Charles back to reclarify, and he told me it was "everyone' s understanding" we were going to review 222 E. Hallam on 4-12-88, but just have the public hearing on 4-26. I understood we were referring to his project at 212 W. Hopkins, NOT 222 E. Hallam. I discussed options with Charles, specifically to ask someone to add 222 E. Hallam to the agenda, but felt since it had been noticed to 4-26 that it should be reviewed then. Charles said "that was why the meeting was scheduled at 1: 00", and I explained to him that the reason for the earlier meeting time was to handle ALL items on the agenda, not just 222 E. Hallam. If I misunderstood, I offer my apologies. I felt I understood what the committee was reviewing, when. Please clarify! Thanks. MEMORANDUM TO: BILL POSS, HPC CHAIRMAN FROM: ROXANNE EFLIN, PLANNING OFFICE RE: 222 E. HALLAM, REDEVELOPMENT REVIEW DATE: APRIL 11, 1988 Bill, it was my understanding in the last work session of the HPC, April 7, that we could not review the redevelopment plans on 222 E. Hallam at the 4-12-88 meeting due to the fact that the Public Hearing of the 3-22-88 meeting had not been formally continued, to any meeting date. Joe Krabacher brought up this fact, and I mentioned the earliest we could review the project due to the need to public notice was 4-26-88. Earlier, Charles Cunniffe and I discussed his other project , 212 W. Hopkins, which was not properly noticed as it should have been for the 4-12-88 meeting, due to conceptual review. It has been public noticed for the 4-26-88 meeting. I explained we could go ahead and review the project for historic designation purposes on 4-12, to get that ball rolling, and in that process would look at the plans but not take formal action on them until 4-26. I explained I did not want him to lose any time and I felt this would be O.K. with the HPC. I believe Charles has confused the two projects regarding dates for review. Charles called this afternoon to find out where 222 E. Hallam was on the 4-12-88 agenda. I attempted to double check with you and was finally able to reach Joe Krabacher, and questioned him on his recollection of the decision made at the 4-7-88 meeting. Joe's recollection was that we were not going to review 222 E. Hallam, except to announce the public hearing is to be continued to 4-26. I called Charles back to reclarify, and he told me it was "everyone' s understanding" we were going to review 222 E. Hallam on 4-12-88, but just have the public hearing on 4-26. I understood we were referring to his project at 212 W. Hopkins, NOT 222 E. Hallam. I discussed options with Charles, specifically to ask someone to add 222 E. Hallam to the agenda, but felt since it had been noticed to 4-26 that it should be reviewed then. Charles said "that was why the meeting was scheduled at 1: 00", and I explained to him that the reason for the earlier meeting time was to handle ALL items on the agenda, not just 222 E. Hallam. If I misunderstood, I offer my apologies. I felt I understood what the committee was reviewing, when. Please clarify! Thanks. T 95\4 ti -2-2 7 i - iscape Lid, ~'Ell 8 1988; Mr. Joe Amato Kent Management Group 600 Route 32 Highland Hills, N.Y. 10930 Dear Joe: I have just reviewed the newly revised plans for your house in Aspen on 222 E. Hallam. 1 believe the architects have done an excellent job of incorporating comments from the Aspen HPC and of designing a house which is compatible in scale and design with both the adjacent houses and the neighborhood around it. A number of areas which were of concern to the HPC have been addressed: Simplicity - By reducing the number of windows in the turret and front porch and some of the elaborate detailing, a simpler and more refined style ls shown. Height and Scale - By bringing down the height of the chimney and narrowing the front elevatlon, the appearance of the house is less massive while retaining 1ts distinctlve sense of verticality. Massing - By shifting more of the density of this house to the back of the property, the front of the house appears smaller and therefore more compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. While revising the above areas, you have still retained setbacks that are parallel to the adjacent properties, put the front entrance on the street, maintained the typical spacing pattern of the street, maintained the orientation and dimensions of porches, maintained a steep pitch line for the roof that reflects neighborhood styles, designed windows that are vertical in proportion and fairly regularly spaced across the building facade. Finally, the materials are similar in finish and texture and scale to those used historically. All of the items mentioned in this paragraph were not mentioned at the HPC but are referenced in the HISTORIC DISTRICT AND HISTORIC LANDMARK DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES that were published by the Aspen HPC in January of 1988. While the details of any design could be debated endlessly by any group of people, I believe this latest design for your house reflects a successful attempt to address the concerns of both your needs and the those of the Aspen HPC. 1675 Larimer #600 Denver CO. 80202 303 893-5444 Good luck with your endeavor! 5*erf,0 0 tl y Metwer Lisa Purdy / / President u . APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to §24-9-4, please consider this an Application for Significant Development. This proposal is for a single family home, two stories in height with an attached two-car garage in the rear. Its architectural style is Victorian in keeping with the character with the adjacent buildings in the neighborhood. An accurate representation of all major building materials is attached as Exhibit "A. " Scale drawings of the proposed development in relation to the surrounding properties was submitted to the HPC on April 11, 1988. Supplemental graphics requested by the HPC which show variations on window treatment in the turret are also enclosed. Attached is a letter from Lisa Purdee of Citiscape in which she talks about the design of the house and its compatibility and scale with the adjacent houses and the historic neighborhood. Lisa also points out that we have retained setbacks that are parallel to adjacent properties, put the front entrance on the street, maintained the typical spacing pattern of the street, kept the orientation and dimension of porches, and the steep pitch line for the roof that reflects the neighbood styles and building facades. The proposed residence derives its form from the Community Church neighborhood and adjacent residences. The gable portion of the building which projects closest to the street is in scale with the adjacent residences to the west of Mona Frost. It is the same height and width as the Frost gable. The building then steps back ten feet (10') to the turret which derives its form from the Community Church. The turret helps to balance the house visually. Behind the turret the house is two stories but with the low six foot (6') high second story wall it reads lower. The roof is hipped, sloping towards the center of the building visually decreasing the apparent height and bulk of the building. Dormer type windows are introduced on the second level, as are protruding bay elements reflecting the architecture of the adjacent residences. By incorporating these elements and forms the proposed building is in harmony with the neighborhood, and in fact enhances the street scape and the Community Church neighborhood. We feel that we have responded to the concerns of the HPC at our original meeting by reducing the apparent mass and feel of the building and simplifying it. The HPC seemed very pleased with the changes and the only issue that remaines outstanding (the windows) has been addressed in the newest sketches which will be discussed with the HPC at their next -1- meeting. We feel that we have submitted all information necessary for final approval of a significant development plan. If there is any additional information that is requested, please feel free to contact Richard Klein. RK/kl Land\Klein.App 4/18/88 -2- 46.72- ..:,1~r i.tif EXHIBIT,F A CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, A.I.A, AMATO RESIDENCE EXTERIOR MATERIALS o Foundation - Concrete o Siding - Beveled Clear Cedar, Painted o Trim - Clear Cedar, Painted o Windows - Marvin, Wood Sash, Painted o Doors - Wood - Solid Coor, Panel, French o Garage Door - Sectional Wood Panel Roll-up o Millwork - Cedar or Redwood, Painted o Roof - Cedar Shakes or Metal Standing Seam, o Flashing - Copper o Masonr-y Fireplace - Used Brick 9*41 '.lik:i·.~ i - isca-oe Lie_. April 8 1988 Mr. Joe Amato Kent Management Group 600 Route 32 Highland Hills, N.Y. 10930 Dear Joe: I have just reviewed the newly revised plans for your house in Aspen on 222 E. Hallam. 1 believe the architects have clone an excellent job of incorporating comments from the Aspen HPC and of designing a house which is compatible in scale and design with both the adjacent houses and the neighborhood around it. A number of areas which were of concern to the HPC have been addressed: - ..EL Simplicity - By reducing the number of windows in the turret and front porch and some of the elaborate detailing, a simpler and more refined style is shown. Height and Scale - By bringing down the height of the chimney and narrowing the front elevatlon, the appearance of the house ls less massive whlle retaining its distinctive sense of verticality. Massing - By shifting more of the density of this house to the back of the property, the front of the house appears smaller and therefore more compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. While revising the above areas, you have still retained setbacks that are parallel to the adjacent propertles, put the front entrance on the street, maintained the typical spacing pattern of the street, maintained the orientation and dimensions of porches, maintained a steep pitch line for the roof that reflects neighborhood styles, designed windows that are vertical in proportion and fairly regularly spaced across the building facade. Finally, the materials are similar in finish and texture and scale to those used historically. All of the items mentioned in this paragraph were not mentioned at the HPC but are referenced in the HISTORIC DISTRICT AND HISTORIC LANDMARK DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES that were published by the Aspen HPC in January of 1988. Whlle the details of any design could be debated endlessly by any group of people, I believe this latest design for your house reflects a successful attempt to address the concerns of both your needs and the those of the Aspen HPC. 1675 Larimer #600 Denver CO. 80202 303 893-5444 Good luck with your endeavor ! Si,cerely,j /7 »f UNA. U. h Lisa Purdy ~ ~ President V LAWRENCE A. DOBLE, P. PRESIDENT EDUCATION University of Maine, Orono, Maine 1971 Bachelor of Science - Civil Engineering Special Areas of Study: Structural Analysis and Design Shelter Institute of Bath, Bath, Maine 1976 Passive Solar Design PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Professional Reg: Colorado, Maine, Utah, Delaware, Pennsylvania Member of CECC & ASCE EXPERIENCE Integrated Engineering Consultants, Ltd. Aspen, Colorado 1986 - Present - President and Design/Construction Engineer performing principal review, structural, civil and construction engineering services for various residential, commercial and public works projects. Collins Engineers, Inc. Aspen, Colorado 1984 - 1986 - Senior Project Engineer performing structural, civil and construction engineering services for various residential, commercial and public works projects. Lawrence A. Doble, P.E. Aspen, Colorado 1983 - 1984 - Provided structural analysis and design of residential buildings, structural evaluation of existing buildings for remodeling and repair, structural design and evaluation of new or existing bridges and foundation design. Amory B. and Hunter Lovins Snowmass, Colorado 1982 - 1983 - Responsible for the supervision and training of a volunteer labor force used to construct The Rocky Mountain Institute, a combination private home, bioshelter, and research center. Coordination with project architects, engineers, suppliers and subcontractors. Wasatch Solar Engineering and Construction Co. Salt Lake City, Utah 1978 - 1982 - Provided construction, remodeling, engineering and architectural design services in conjunction with passive solar technology. State of Maine, Dept. of Environmental Protection & Dept. of Transportation Augusta, Maine 1971 - 1977 - Assistance to municipalities in design, development, and solid waste management utilizing computer applications. - Bridge Design & Construction Engineer. COMMERCIAL/PUBLIC STRUCTURAL PROJECTS Weinglass Building 1987 Location: Aspen, Colorado Structural design for a 3-story, steel framed, 14,000 S.F. commercial building. Cost: $ 1,200,000 - 520 East Hyman Building (Pitkin Center) 1986- 1987 Location: Aspen, Colorado Structural design for a 3-story, steel framed, 14,000 S.F. commercial/residential building. Cost: $ 1,000,000 Pitkin County Courthouse Attic Remodel 1986 Location: Aspen, Colorado Structural design for extensive remodel of 100 year old historic building. Cost: $ 650,000 Myers & Associates Building 1986 Location: Basalt, Colorado Foundation design, exterior & interior craneway design for 25,000 S.F. steel fabrication shop, warehouse & office building. Cost: $ 1,000,000 - Aspen Sanitation Building 1986 Location: Aspen, Colorado Structural design for 4,200 S.F. addition to existing maintenance facility. Cost: $ 300,000 Snowmass Country Club Homes, Phase II-IV 1981- 1987 Location: Snowmass Village, Colorado Structural design of timber framed condominium complex including reinforced concrete foundation and retaining components. Cost: $12,000,000 - Snowmass Mall 1985 Location: Snowmass Village, Colorado Structural design for extensive remodel of concrete and timber construction shopping mall built in 1960. Cost: $ 250,000 INTEGRATED ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LTD. COMMERCIAL/PUBLIC STRUCTURAL P.vJECTS - Aspen Grove Building 1985 Location: Aspen, Colorado Structural design for extensive remodel of concrete and steel commercial building. Cost: $ 100,000 - Sardy House Remodel 1985 Location: Aspen, Colorado Structural design for extensive remodel and addition to convert a historic victorian residence into a Bed & Breakfast Inn. Cost: $ 1,500,000 - Hotel Jerome 1983- 1984 Location: Aspen, Colorado Structural design for extensive renovation of 100 year old historic building including foundation underpinning and use of needle beam shoring techniques. Cost: $3,500,000 INTEGRATED ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LTD. t IDENTIAL STRUCTURAL PROJ S Rotko Residence & Barn 1988 Location: Westchester, Pennsylvania Structural design for 4,500 S.F. timber framed luxury residence and 3,000 S.F. timber framed barn. Cost: $ 1,000,000 - 701 East Hopkins Townhomes 1988 Location: Aspen, Colorado Structural design for two townhome buildings. Cost: $ 1,000,000 - Hunter Creek Ranch Residence 1987 - 1988 Location: Aspen, Colorado Structural design for 14,500 S.F. timber and steel framed luxury residence. Cost: $ 2,400,000 Kane Residence 1987 - 1988 Location: Red Mountain, Aspen, Colorado Structural design for 6,000 S.F. timber and steel framed luxury residence. Cost: $ 800,000 - 700 East Hyman Duplex Buildings 1987 Location: Aspen, Colorado Structural design for two duplex buildings. Cost: $ 1,500,000 - East Hyman Townhomes 1987 Location: Aspen, Colorado Structural design for two townhome buildings. Cost: $ 1,000,000 - Cerre Residence 1987 Location: Snowmass Village, Colorado Structural design for new timber & steel framed residence. Cost: $ 300,000 INTEGRATED ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LTD. e RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURAL PROJEuiS Wang Residence 1986 Location: Red Mountain - Aspen, Colorado Structural design for extensive remodel of timber framed residence. Cost: $ 750,000 - Peters Residence 1986 Location: West End - Aspen, Colorado Structural design for timber framed new Victorian residence. Cost: $ 400,000 - Braver Residence 1986 Location: Starwood - Aspen, Colorado Structural design for timber and steel framed luxury residence. Cost: $ 1,200,000 - Smithburq Residence 1986 Location: Snowmass Village, Colorado Structural design for 4,700 S.F. luxury residence. Cost: $ 500,000 DeBoer Residence 1985 Location: Aspen, Colorado Structural design for 5,000 S.F. timber framed luxury guest residence. Cost: $ 500,000 Schostak Residence 1984- 1985 Location: Aspen, Colorado Structural design for 7,000 S.F. timber framed luxury residence. Cost: $ 850,000 - Meens Residence 1984- 1985 Location: Aspen, Colorado Structural design of 3,000 S.F. residence located in avalanche zone including extensive concrete retaining component design. Cost: $ 350,000 INTEGRATED ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LTD. l' PATTILLO ASSOCIATES STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS 1 March 21719881.~ Mr. Joseph Amato c/o Charles Cuniffe P.O. Box 3534 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Re: 222 East Hallam Our Job #87068 Gentlemen: At the request of the owner, the undersigned inspected the above residence on May 28, 1987 to evaluate its present structural condition and to determine whether renovation was feasible. My conclusions are presented herein. The structure is a timber framed, single-story residence located on a relatively flat lot near central Aspen. The original building was probably "tee" shaped, approximately 28 feet wide (east-west) by 24 feet deep (north-south), and several additions have obviously been made over the years. The number of separate additions probably number at least nine, including: 1. The front porch addition/expansion. 2. The east green room. 3. The east flat-roof addition. 4. An old north wing (probably a kitchen and bathroom addition). 5. The north and east expansion of the north wing. 6. The west expansion of the north wing. 7. The north addition. 8. The northwest addition. 9. The west "infill" addition. The additions have been made in a rather haphazard and careless fashion, using minimal construction techniques. The floor elevations vary with nearly every addition, internal circulation patterns are very poor, and the roof shape is a series Of gable, salt-box, shed and flat roofs, all with varying slopes. Specifically, with regard to structural stability, I found several substandard conditions. The floors are framed for the most part with 2x6 native joists, spaced at 24 inches on center. Various makeshift beams support these joists and are themselves randomly shored with concrete block piers resting on the soil. The crawl space does not meet minimum standards PO BOX 751 0 GLENWOOD SPRINGS COL_OFRADO 81602 0 [303] 945-9695 i 222 East Hallam March 21, 1988 Page two for clearance below the joists, and a good part of the crawl space under the original building is practically not accessible. Foundations consist of old brick grade walls, or newer concrete block construction; neither is reinforced or provides adequate frost protection. The mortar in the older brick foundations is soft and has eroded in areas which are not covered with stucco. Even the newer additions are not particularly well founded; untreated timber cribbing has been used to retain soil within the small cellar space under the north addition, for example. With regard to the roof framing, several poor and unstable conditions exist. The older roofs are typically framed with native 2x4's spaced at 24 inches, and the newer roofs are framed with 2x6's. The area just north of the original building is in particularly bad shape, as portions of older roofs have been sawn away, leaving an unstable configuration of random struts and scabbed rafters. A bearing wall was apparently removed in this area, probably during an addition phase, and was never replaced with a beam. The cracks in the ceiling attest to its present condition. Several interior walls serve as bearing walls for the various rafter braces installed above. These walls are not properly supported by foundations below. That this roof has not completely collapsed in years past is probably due to thermal losses and the metal roof which have prevented snow loads from accumulating to any significant degree. If this house were to remain occupied during the winter months, or if the property warranted protection, all snow loads should be removed from the north central portions of the roof. In consideration of the various structural problems observed with the foundations, floors, and roofs for this building, I believe that any attempt to preserve it is, quite simply, a waste of money. There may be some intrinsic value with the original building due to its historic character, but certainly all of the aforementioned additions are a tribute only to poor planning and mediocrity, and should be demolished. To preserve even only the original structure, the cost will be high, and may not justify whatever intrinsic benefits gained. Repairs would be required to the roof in the form of companioned rafters and new connections, to the floor with new properly sized and supported girders, and most significantly, to the foundation which should be replaced. This would probably require that the original house be moved, and other associated expenses would be incurred with rewiring, replastering, and (perhaps) replumbing. The same 222 East Hallam March 21, 1988 Page three aesthetic effect could be obtained much more efficiently by replicating the existing facade, or allowing a similar looking new structure to be built. For a seemingly average period house, the extensive efforts which would be required to preserve a few original joists, studs and rafters seems excessive, especially considering that the original elements would be hidden by new finishes. This completes my report. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions or require further information. Best regards, Rob*rt M. Pattillo, P.E. RMP/kmk l % PATTILLO ASSOCIATES SELECTED PROJECTS Foundation Distress/Repair Red Mountain Terrace Subdivison, 1981 to 1985 This recently developed area of Glenwood Springs has experienced problems associated with hydro-compactive soils. With six of the affected homes involved in litigation, we conducted settlement monitoring studies and developed a deep pier repair system for releveling and stabilizing the structures. Mr. Pattillo served as an expert witness in the case, spending more than twenty hours in testimony during hearings and the trial. John Strickland, Construction Manager 945-4952 Mountain Rivers A.R.U. Building, 1985 A water service line leak was determined to have caused a significant amount of settlement at a corner of this two-story, 100-year old masonry building, Repair plans have been developed to stabilize the building by installation of deep piers and reinforced concrete grade beams below the existing walls. Keddie Brooks, Director 945-8439 Stephens Residence, 1983 Due to soil consolidation, one side of this structure in Glenwood Springs had settled more than six inches. Steel pipe piles were driven adjacent to the house and bracketed to the foundation. Subsequent level monitoring has demonstrated the success Of the system. George Stephens, Owner 945-2049 Aspen Chance Residences, 1985 to 1986 Three new exclusive custom residential structures required special foundation support due to their location on up to 20 feet of mine tailings. Previously augered pile placement attempts had failed. A new procedure was developed, utilizing rotary drilling to place post-grouted reinforced "Micro-piles". More than 180 installations have been completed to date, placed with an accuracy of placement of less than two inches. Burt Hartmann Hartmann Engineering & Construction 245-6200 David Finholm, Architect 925-5713 PATTILLO ASSOCIATES SELECTED PROJECTS Page 2 Foundation Distress/Repair Glenwood Springs Water Treatment Plant RFP, 1986 We provided assistance to the City of Glenwood Springs in preparing a "Request For Proposals" for the design and construction of repairs to the City's water treatment plant. This facility has been plagued for more than eight years with foundation settlement problems. The proposal solicits solutions which will stabilize the structure and seal the soil from further water infiltration, without affecting the plant operation. Kevin Kadlec, City Engineer 945-2575 Brettelberg Condominium Foundation Repair, Current Excessive wetting of the subsoils and a poor original construction effort have jeopardized several major support piers on this three-story structure. Repair plans have been prepared to provide shoring support for underpinning each problematic footing. This will also result in additional lower level space which may be utilized for storage, garages, or additional units. Tom Jankovski, Manager 945-7491 Other Similar Projects, 1982 to Current Schall Residence Stabilization, Glenwood Springs Bullock Residence Monitoring/Repair, Silt Browning/Thompson Residence, Glenwood Springs Swanson Residence, Meeker Olson Residence, Glenwood Springs Sturges Residence, Glenwood Springs Diener Residence, Gypsum Risch Residence, Gypsum Schiesser Residence, Glenwood Springs Mangurian Residence, Glenwood Springs Gert Residence, Glenwood Springs Fitzgerald Residence, Glenwood Springs Purcell Residence, Glenwood Springs Wisch Residence, Glenwood Springs Slayton Residence, Glenwood Springs Bankert Residence, Glenwood Springs Making Waves Building, Glenwood Springs PATTILLO ASSOCIATES General Information Pattillo Associates was established in 1980 to offer expert engineering consulting service geared to construction conditions in Western Colorado. We specialize in structural engineering exclusively, in the interest of providing our clients with the best available service in a technically complex field. We are proud of our innovative engineering skills which have been developed by our experience with demanding architectural forms. These structures must support heavy snow loads and are frequently located on difficult sites. Based in Glenwood Springs and serving primarily the high mountain valleys of Western Colorado, we have been associated with a diversity of projects ranging from residential additions to large multi-story condominium projects. Our experience includes several commercial and historical renovations, design of industrial facilities, pedestrian and vehicular bridges, and literally hundreds of custom residential buildings. We have also developed proprietary construction techniques for repair of distressed foundations common to this region. Basically, our job responsibility is to assure that a structure remains stable under a variety of externally and internally applied forces. Oftentimes, we must "bridge the gap" between the concepts of the architect and the reality of the construction effort. Hence, we believe that it is essential for our personnel to be thoroughly familar with field conditions and construction techniques to compliment their expertise in structural theory and code requirements. We presently employ three engineers (including the principal) along with our office manager and drafters. Our offices are conveniently located in downtown Glenwood Springs, in the recently remodeled upper floor of the Silver Club Building. We believe that there are specific advantages with utilizing a locally based consulting firm. These benefits include better response time and overall efficiency, familiarity with local conditions, availability for site observations, and direct involvement by the principal engineer. With regard to technical support systems, we have direct access to sophisticated mainframe computer software, and we utilize in-house computer programs for timber, steel, and concrete design, along with word processing capability. I ROBERT M. PATTILLO, P.E. Principal Engineer Resume A resident of Western Colorado since 1968, Robert began his professional career in the Roaring Fork Valley in 1975. His technical expertise has grown with and contributed to the area s increasing level of design sophistication. EDUCATION University of Colorado, Boulder B.S., Civil and Environmental Engineering, 1975 (With Honors) REGISTRATION Colorado Professional Engineer #16794 EXPERIENCE Pattillo Associates Engineers 1980-present Eldorado Engineering Company 1978-1980 Collins Engineers, Inc. 1975-1978 With regard to experience, he has been directly involved with several hundred projects totaling more than four hundred million dollars in construction cost. General types of work and selected projects are listed below: CUSTOM RESIDENTIAL Annie Denver Residence, Aspen Pitkin Reserve Residences, Aspen MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL The Charter at Beaver Creek St. Michaels, Telluride SCHOOLS Re-1 Facilities Evaluation, Glenwood Springs and Carbondale COMMERCIAL Spring Street Post Office, Aspen Alpine Banks, Glenwood Spgs. & Eagle HISTORIC Redstone Inn, Redstone Epicure Building, Aspen GOVERNMENT Carbondale Post Office INDUSTRIAL Union Oil Maintenance Facility BRIDGES 7th Street Bridge, Glenwood Springs Serving as the Prime Designer, Robert's experience also includes the Glenwood Springs Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge, a five span, 530 feet steel truss bridge. He has also helped develop proprietary construction techniques ( "Micropiles" and "Compliant Brackets") for use in repairing distressed foundations common to this region. 6 1 - MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Richman FROM: Steve Burstein RE: Demolition Review Policy Issues DATE: ~ March 24, 1988 ~ On March 22 HPC unanimously passed a motion to allow a demolition permit to be issued for 222 E. Hallam on the condition that the redevelopment plan be approved by HPC, which action is hereby tabled until a revised plan is submitted. Because this is the first significant demolition review, several issues with policy implications have arisen, briefly discussed below. 1. Code interpretation of review standards: Fred Gannett stated at the meeting that he views standards (1) through (6) to be sequential. Standard (1) is structural stability; Standard (2) is rehabilitation for any beneficial use; Standard (3) is moving, and so on. Therefore, it is inappropriate to jump over the first 3 standards to Standard (4), where the Committee may review the redevelopment plan. The Chairperson did carefully structure the order of HPC members' comments in the numerical sequence. Standard (4) seems to be the most problematic. The applicant argued that a redevelopment plan for a house that fits in the neighborhood meets the criteria of mitigating impacts to the greatest extent practical. Staff's stricter interpretation was that a new house with a new design cannot meet the criteria, as there remains a significant impact from the loss of the historic structure. HPC decided that historic compatibility is an appropriate mitigating factor, as you can see from their motion. Consequently, HPC intends to resolve the mitigation test through architectural review of the new house. Most HPC members felt that their ability to review the new construction is satisfactory consolation for the loss of the historic house. I think that the massing, height, streetfront facade width, and pseudo-victorian detailing are the major compatibility issues. Please note those comments were not in the staff memo nor voiced at the meeting. HPC made that same critique nonetheless. For HPC to now undertake design review in the essence and detail of district or landmark development review does not seem to be supported by the Code. Other concerns that relate to this issue are: One member may have voted in favor of demolition because he believes that a big addition to a small house is unacceptable. (This was stated privately after the meeting.) Some members applaud pseudo- 1 . victoriana; others believe the style is inappropriate. We may be hashing out that issue as part of redevelopment plan review. 2. Problems in HPC's assessment of technical and financial information. Unquestionably the "preponderance of evidence" indicated that the house is structurally unsound and there is no beneficial use of it. The applicant presented numbers that staff Still feels were bogus. The applicant brought forth new testimony during the meeting to show that more " independent" professional experts also conclude the house is unsaveable. Staff recommended tabling if for no other reason than to allow the Bldg. and Eng. Dept's to review the new evidence. The Planning Office was placed in the role as prosecutor and had no witnesses to call for the prosecution. Our strategy was to use the Bldg. and Eng. Departments to give a precursory review of the technical evidence and have the chance to raise questions about whether there may be other reasonable ways to practicably save the building. Neither Chuck nor Rob attended the meeting. Even if they had, it would have been extremely difficult for them to present a fair challenge to the applicant's entourage of experts. Rob's opinion is that there is no way that a reasonable counter- argument can be made without having competent structural engineers and housing assessment experts undertake the same type of detailed evaluation of a structure. Arguments can always be made that an old building cannot be practically rehabed - unless you want to do it. Everyone uses City Hall as the example. There may be a need for a City-financed structural analysis in demo reviews. A file showing "before's and after's" rehab projects with costs may also help HPC evaluate the arguments. I suppose that special interest groups might actually do this if the case were more significant and emotional. Please note that we have not gotten this same feedback from HPC- yet. Some members emphasized that this case set a good precedent in showing that an applicant must submit a huge amount of testimony. I am not sure if this is the "hassle factor" of governing or really effective use of expert analysis. 3. Ex-parte contact of an HPC member who is representing the applicant: According to the Chairman, contact was made with probably all of the HPC members. I spoke with Fred about this before the meeting. He advised me to ask the Chairman if he believes it relevant to make an opening statement asking the Committee to disclose ex-parte contacts. Bill did not do it. Fred knew of no other procedure for revealing this. 222post.mortem 2 ~~ VA , ' A %=h MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: 222 E. Hallam Demolition (Public Hearing) DATE: , March 22, 1988 ~ LOCATION: 222 E. Hallam Street, Lots K and L, Block 71, Townsite and City of Aspen. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Joseph A. Amato, owner of the property, requests permission to demolish the existing house and replace it with a new two story house and garage. PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND HPC ACTIONS: On January 15, 1987 HPC gave an historic evaluation rating to 222 E. Hallam of "4". As part of Ordinance 11 (Series of 1987), adopted May 11, 1987, all structures rated "4" and "5" are subj ect to demolition review. Upon appeal of the applicant, City Council remanded the historic evaluation rating to HPC on January 11, 1988. HPC affirmed its original historic evaluation rating of "4" on February 9, 1988. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: A. Referral Comments: 1. Engineering Department: In a March 13, 1988 memorandum from Chuck Roth (attached) the following comments were made: a. Construction costs for a new residential structure are estimated at $85 per square foot, using Building Permit fees; and there is no indication that the structure could not be repaired for less money than it would cost to build a new structure. b. A visual examination of the exterior of the structure shows that the roof and eave lines appear to be basically straight and level. As the house does not show these signs of structural distress, the question arises if the struc- ture would not remain in its existing condition for another sixty to one hundred years. Perhaps a second opinion should be obtained from a professional whose specialty is renova- tion. c. There is a significant disparity between the applicant's estimated renovation cost of $850,000 and the Building 1 1 1 AMATO RLS loalce i.~447 + 64 3< +1~ 0 . 166)1 3 tia 61.6 i= Department figure of $210,000. The City may want to obtain a renovation cost estimate from a second party. 2. Building Department: On March 15, 1988 Rob Weien made a verbal report on the structural and moving analyses. Points made are summarized below, as approved by Mr. Weien: a. This house appears to be fairly typical of old wooden structures in its state of structural soundness. b. Evidence has not been presented that there is significant structural failure due to serious problems such as dry rot or water damage. c. It is usually possible to reenforce weak structural , systems without substantial demolition. There are many N examples of Aspen homeowners regrohting mortar, replacing the entire perimeter or portions of a foundation wall, and adding supportive beams in floor or roof framing systems. Without more detailed inspection and analysis, he cannot concur with the project engineer that these rather typical remedial techniques cannot be successful. 4 inspector(-[rather thart a structural engineer, would be ---- d 2--Inspection of the house by a housing assessment helpful in determining what rehabilitation options may exist. e. This house may in some ways be easier to fix up than many other old wooden houses because it is small, only one story, and there is a lot of workable space around it. The cost estimate for renovation submitted by the contractor does not detail the minimal cost of preserving the structure. f. It appears reasonable that the house probably cannot successfully be moved, as claimed by Integrated Engineering and South House Movers, due to the number of additions. g. The Building Department has some flexibility in UBC requirements with an applicant remodeling an historic house and building an addition. One important point is that any addition cannot be built in a way that would make the existing building more hazardous. Typically this can be accomplished. B. Staff Comments: Demolition of historic structures was one of the key issues addressed in the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Historic Preservation Element, leading to the rewrite of the City's historic regulations. Revision of demolition and removal review became the highest ranked short term priority of the Plan Element. Plan Objective 1.d. of the Plan Element states: 2 "Discourage demolition of significant historic structures identified and evaluated in the 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures as it has been amended in 1986." Ordinance 11 of 1987 established more stringent demolition review standards. The purpose of the demolition review was to discourage demolition if feasible options are available. Whereas statement #6 of Council's findings states: "The purpose of the demolition review is to provide a process of obtaining agreement between the City and owner with regard to the most appropriate use and preservation plan for the structure whenever possible, and to avoid the imposition Of economic hardship on the owner of the structure." In addition, the historic incentives created through Ordinance 42 of 1987 were intended, in part, to discourage demolition of significant historic residential properties by providing special options for development and use of designated landmark proper- ties. The Planning Office has the following comments in response to the standards for demolition and removal of historic structures in Section 24-9.5(b) of the Municipal Code: 1. Standard: The structure proposed for demolition is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure. Response: Larry Doble, P.E. of Integrated Engineering Consultants, Ltd. has provided a structural evaluation of 222 E. Hallam in a March 4, 1988 letter to Joseph Amato. Included in his letter are the following points: (1) The foundation is not structurally sound in large part (63%). There is evidence of movement and an "advanced state of deterioration of the brick masonry foundation system." (2) 51% of the floor framing system is not structurally sound. It is described as a hodgepodge of framing that has evolved in the process of addition and modification and inadequate to support safe live loads. (3) Just over one third (3 5%) of the roof framing system is not structurally sound. The already marginal framing system has been undermined by many modifications and additions. It is "in a virtual state of collapse and is inadequate to support actual snow and ice loads," according to Mr. Doble. (4) 2 4% of the roof framing system does not have an adequate 3 • 1 support system. The interior foundation system must be re- supported to prevent damage to the serviceable roof framing system. According to Charles Cunniffe's letter of March 4, 1988 no efforts have been by Mr. Amato to maintain the structure because of his involvement in appeal reviews during the time of owner- ship. It is noted that various efforts were made by the previous owner to maintain the structure; however, those attempts were not successful. Repair efforts by the prior owner included replacement of siding, masonry foundation repair, and replacement of metal roof. A site visit by Planning Office staff and the applicant's representa- tives was arranged on March 14, 1988. Staff's impression from the site inspection was that a relatively high degree of upkeep has been applied to the interior living spaces. We did not observe any signs of serious structural failure, although the floor was wavy in places and doors had been recut so to com- pensate. Nonetheless, we cannot declare that the structure is not in imminent threat of structural failure, as Mr. Doble has concluded; it just does not appear to be so. The Building Department has seri~us doubts that there are not other approaches that could successfully save the house. Inspection by a housing assessment inspector is recommended. The Engineering Department suggests that a second opinion by a structural engineer whose specialty is renovation be obtained. 2. Standard: The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused to provide for any beneficial use of the property. Response: There are three (3) aspects to this standard which we believe are pertinent to this application: structural, financial and liveability considerations. In more detail, we believe the concerns in this standard relevant to this applica- tion are: (1) the practicability of structural repair to make the house liveable, (2) economic feasibility of remodeling and adding onto the house, including utilization of historic incentives to undertake a rehabilitation project, and (3) whether critical aspects of the size, layout, siting, etc. are so deficient to make the house unreasonable to inhabit. Regarding structural concerns, the project engineer concluded that the portions of the foundation, floor framing, roof framing, and roof support system that are unsound cannot be rehabilitated and must be replaced. The job of such "partial" demolition and replacement, as envisioned by the engineer, would entail damage to interior and exterior walls and removal of windows. In Mr. Doble's opinion, very little of the existing structure would remain undamaged in the process of replacing the unsound areas. He further states that to remodel or build an addition would 4 create an additional burden of meeting current UBC requirements in those so impacted. The conclusions reached by Integrated Engineering are that the structure cannot be practicably rehabilitated. However, both the Engineering and Building Departments believe that there may be other acceptable approaches to the structural rehabilitation. Financial feasibility of rehabilitation was addressed in part in letters dated February 24, 1988 and August 31, 1987 from Scott Bowie, appraiser with Mollica and Associates. The primary question that Mr. Bowie addressed was the portion of property value within the existing house. He concludes that the present structure's value is only $20,000 to $40,000. He suggests that the remaining economic life of this structure, as with other comparable properties, is extremely abbreviated, if not complete- ly over. He states the house should either be razed or totally remodeled and expanded. We ask the question, can the existing house be remodeled and added onto in the rear (or a second structure built) in a way that would allow for a "reasonable return on investment?" This would be capitalizing on Mr. Bowie's second approach, to totally remodel and expand the house. The historic incentives created through Ordinance 42 of 1987 would provide, upon designation, a $2,000 grant and options for dimensional variations and condi- tional uses. In particular, the ability to build a second structure may be a beneficial approach to further developing the property. Don Westerlind responded to Richard Klein in a March 3, 1988 letter addressing cost estimates for three scenarios. "Renova- tion" would cost $850,000. Renovation through saving only exterior walls would cost $419,760. And demolition and building a new (and larger) house as planned would cost $419,760. It is not clear what assumptions were made in the $850,000 renovation. Neither of the City referral agencies can concur that only such an expensive approach is possible. Further addressing both financial and liveability concerns is a letter to Richard Klein from Sharon Tinnes, Sales Associate with \ Cobwell Banker. Ms. Tinnes argues that the interior spaces are "badly confused" and not compatible to a Bed and Breakfast use. Ms. Tinnes also believes the B&B would not be an acceptable use to the neighborhood. Charles Cunniffe reenforces the argument that the historic incentives do not provide adequate options for uses, lay-out needs, or financial return. The infeasabilities of a B&B, boardinghouse, duplex or second home on the property are discussed. The house lay-out is considered "non-functional." Staff suggests that there Still may be opportunities for remodeling the interior to create a suitable lay-out, replace 5 additions and further add on, or build a second home on the site. There is sufficient land area in the R-6 portion of the property to be eligible for a duplex or second house use under Ordinance 42. Perhaps these options deserve further consideration by the applicant in conjunction with City-sponsored assistance. 3. Standard: The structure cannot be practicably moved to another site in Aspen. Response: Dennis E. South of South House Movers in Grand Junction recommends in his February 22, 1988 letter that the house not be moved due to its age and the way it has been constructed. Rob Weien of the Building Department agrees. 4. Standard: A demolition and redevelopment plan is submitted when required by HPC which mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact that occurs to the character of the neighborhood of the parcel where demolition is proposed. Response: The proposed new house is a two story "new victorian." Lisa Purdy of Citiscape, Ltd. wrote in a February 22, 1988 letter that construction of a newly designed victorian will mitigate impacts to the neighborhood if efforts are made to align the front set back from the street with adjacent parcels, and if the massing is not out of scale with the neighborhood. The replication style is appropriate because it is of the same era and next door to the Glidden House which is also a replication. Staff's position is that this review criteria is best applied to partial demolition, when the redevelopment plan replaces a portion of an historic structure not impacting the original structure to which it is added. Another situation where this stnadard may apply is when the redevelopment plan is a replica of the historic structure on the site, such as the Glidden House. Total demolition of an historic structure is, in our opinion, contrary to this standard when that historic structure is replaced by a new house designed to look "historic" yet lacking any historic authenticity. The character of the neighborhood and historic importance of the structure are significantly impacted by the total loss of the house. 5. Standard: The demolition plan mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact the proposed demolition has on the historic importance of the structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels. Response: No important historic association has been identified for the house, nor would be effected by demolition. 6. Standard: The demolition plan mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact on the architectural integrity of the historic structure or part thereof. 6 1 k 1 Response: HPC affirmed the "4" historic evaluation rating of the house, recognizing that many alterations have been made, however the historic character of the house is preserved. The applicant has continued to argue that the architectural integrity is very limited. Staff agreed with HPC that the "4" rating is appropriate, and that this house possess corresponding historic significance. Demolition of this house would obliterate that historic significance and represents an accumulative impact on the City's inventory of historic structures. ALTERNATIVES: Actions that HPC can take include: 1. Approve the demolition and redevelopment plan for 222 E. Hallam, finding that there are no practical alternatives to demolition and that the redevelopment plan mitigates to the greatest extent practical impacts on the neighborhood. 2. Deny the demolition and redevelopment plan for 222 E. Hallam, finding that the applicant has not demonstrated that the house cannot be retained and used for a beneficial use. 3. Table action on the application to allow the applicant to further investigate alternative feasible options and approaches to demolition. 4. Suspend action, finding that HPC needs additional information to determine whether the applicant meets the standards of Section 24-9.5(b) of the Municipal Code or that the demolition must be studied jointly by the City and owner. PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION: We conclude that the applicant has not demonstrated that the structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused to provide for any beneficial use of the property. There appear to be some other feasible options and approaches. The Planning Office recommends that HPC table action on this application indicating unwillingness to approve demolition and direct the applicant to further study alternative approaches with regard to structural soundness, renovation techniques and costs, and construction of an addition or detached structure. 0,\4,1 Irl,0,4 60:-171 t,it i.if~VU sb.222.demo - Lf@ A fl#ril le f'.10 0 6,* d dA in A- l'p¥~ 1 0 JO f. ~1 6 64 Wh i h JAWL*flt -4 Jlr. uh f d f)·4 N 4#'AF#, VV 7 MEMORANDUM To: Steve Burstein, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, Assistant City Engineer 6£_ Date: March 13, 1988 Re: 222 E. Hallam Demolition Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. The Engineering Department was first consulted concerning this case in response to the Integrated Engineering Consultant letter of August 11, 1987. Our comment was that new construction for a residential structure costs about $85 (this number is from the Building Department) per square foot, and that there was no indication that the structure could not be repaired for less money than it would cost to build a new structure. 2. In response to the structural engineer report, a visual examination of the exterior of the structure shows that the roof and eave lines appear to be basically straight and level. Porch roofs are items which typically sag, and in severe cases roof ridges, such as at the Mikkelsen residence, sag severely. The structure at 222 E. Hallam does not show these signs of struc- tural distress. If the newest portion of the structure is sixty years old, and the oldest is nearly a hundred years old, the question arises whether the structure would not remain in its existing condition for another sixty to one hundred years. Perhaps a second structural opinion should be obtained from a professional whose specialty is renovation. 3. Exhibit B to Charles Cunniffe's letter of March 4 states that a renovation would cost about $850,000. If the Building Depart- ment figure for new construction is used on 2,472 square feet of structure, the result is a cost for new construction of $210,000. It appears that the City might want to obtain a renovation cost estimate from a second party, and perhaps one which is more experienced with renovation. I ./ 1 / 2/r . 4. There is more to historical preservation than preserving existing materials. If it is not economically feasible to preserve the existing structure, perhaps the applicant could be permitted to recreate the existing structure using new materials. There is also more to historical preservation that preserving noteworthy architectural specimens. There is the element of preserving the architectural and/or historical character of neighborhoods and towns. The structure in question certainly provides a worthwhile character to the neighborhood and town. It appears that if the applicant were to reconstruct the structure as a replica, and if more volume were desired, that the volume could be provided below grade. CC: Jay Hammond, City Engineer Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office CR/cr/memo_88.24 PATTILLO ASSOCIATES STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS *March 21,_1988 Flo 9 4 4» Mr. Joseph Amato c/o Charles Cuniffe P.O. Box 3534 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Re: 222 East Hallam Our Job #87068 Gentlemen: At the request of the owner, the undersigned inspected the above residence on May 28, 1987 to evaluate its present structural condition and to determine whether renovation was feasible. My conclusions are presented herein. The structure is a timber framed, single-story residence located on a relatively flat lot near central Aspen. The original building was probably "tee" shaped, approximately 28 feet wide (east-west) by 24 feet deep (north-south), and several additions have obviously been made over the years. The number of separate additions probably number at least nine, including: 1. The front porch addition/expansion. 2. The east green room. 3. The east flat-roof addition. An old north wing (probably a kitchen and bathroom addition). The north and east expansion of the north wing. . The west expansion of the north wing. . The north addition. The northwest addition. . The west "infill" addition. The additions have been made in a rather haphazard and careless fashion, using minimal construction techniques. The floor elevations vary with nearly every addition, internal circulation patterns are very poor, and the roof shape is a series Of gable, salt-box, shed and flat roofs, all with varying slopes. Specifically, with regard to structural stability, I found several substandard conditions. The floors are framed for the most part with 2x6 native joists, spaced at 24 inches on center. Various makeshift beams support these joists and are themselves randomly shored with concrete block piers resting on the soil. The crawl space does not meet minimum standards PO. BOX 751 0 GLENWOOD SPAINGS COLORADO 81 GO2 0 [303} 945-9695 . 0 0 ..1 0 0-1 4. 222 East Hallam March 21, 1988 Page two for clearance below the joists, and a good part of the crawl space under the original building is practically not accessible. Foundations consist of old brick grade walls, or newer concrete block construction; neither is reinforced or provides adequate frost protection. The mortar in the older brick foundations is soft and has eroded in areas which are not covered with stucco. Even the newer additions are not particularly well founded; untreated timber cribbing has been used to retain soil within the small cellar space under the north addition, for example. With regard to the roof framing, several poor and unstable conditions exist. The older roofs are typically framed with native 2x4's spaced at 24 inches, and the newer roofs are framed with 2x6's. The area just north of the original building is in particularly bad shape, as portions of older roofs have been sawn away, leaving an unstable configuration of random struts and scabbed rafters. A bearing wall was apparently removed in this area, probably during an addition phase, and was never replaced with a beam. The cracks in the ceiling attest to its present condition. Several interior walls serve as bearing walls for the various rafter braces installed above. These walls are not properly supported by foundations below. That this roof has not completely collapsed in years past is probably due to thermal losses and the metal roof which have prevented snow loads from accumulating to any significant degree. If this house were to remain occupied during the winter months, or if the property warranted protection, all snow loads should be removed from the north central portions of the roof. In consideration of the various structural problems observed with the foundations, floors, and roofs for this building, I believe that any attempt to preserve it is, quite simply, a waste of money. There may be some intrinsic value with the original building due to its historic character, but certainly all of the aforementioned additions are a tribute only to poor planning and mediocrity, and should be demolished. To preserve even only the original structure, the cost will be high, and may not justify whatever intrinsic benefits gained. Repairs would be required to the roof in the form of companioned rafters and new connections, to the floor with new properly sized and supported girders, and most significantly, to the foundation which should be replaced. This would probably require that the original house be moved, and other associated expenses would be incurred with rewiring, replastering, and (perhaps) replumbing. The same 222 East Hallam March 21, 1988 Page three aesthetic effect could be obtained much more efficiently by replicating the existing facade, or allowing a similar looking new structure to be built. For a seemingly average period house, the extensive efforts which would be required to preserve a few original joists, studs and rafters seems excessive, especially considering that the original elements would be hidden by new finishes. This completes my report. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions or require further information. Best regards, Rob*rt M. Pattillo, P.E. RMP/kmk I * MEMORANDUM 96 TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee 9«- 64« FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office « RE: 222 E. Hallam Demolition ...&,/I.- DATE: ~ March 15~1988,~,- LOCATION: 222 E. Hallam Street, Lots K and L, Block 71, Townsite and City of Aspen. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Joseph A. Amato, owner of the property, requests permission to demolish the existing house and replace it with a new two story house and garage. PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND HPC ACTIONS: On January 15, 1987 HPC gave an historic evaluation rating to 222 E. Hallam of "4". As part of Ordinance 11 (Series of 1987), adopted May 11, 1987, all structures rated " 4" and "5" are subject to demolition review. Upon appeal of the applicant, City Council remanded the historic evaluation rating to HPC on January 11, 1988. HPC affirmed its original historic evaluation rating of "4" on February 9, 1988. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: A. Referral Comments: 1. Engineering Department: In a March 13, 1988 memorandum from Chuck Roth (attached) the following comments were made: a. Construction costs for a new residential structure are estimated at $85 per square foot, using Building Permit fees; and there is no indication that the structure could not be repaired for less money than it would cost to build a new structure. b. A visual examination of the exterior of the structure shows that the roof and eave lines appear to be basically straight and level. As the house does not show these signs of structural distress, the question arises if the struc- ture would not remain in its existing condition for another sixty to one hundred years. Perhaps a second opinion should be obtained from a professional whose specialty is renova- tion. c. There is a significant disparity between the applicant's estimated renovation cost of $850,000 and the Building 1 Department figure of $210,000. The City may want to obtain a renovation cost estimate from a second party. 2. Building Department: On March 15, 1988 Rob Weien made a verbal report on the structural and moving analyses. Points made are summarized below, as approved by Mr. Weien: ~-~a. This house appears to be fairly typical o f old wooden structures in its state of structural soundness. b. Evidence has not been presented that there is significant - ~ structural failure due to serious problems such as dry rot or water damage. c. It is usually possible to reenforce weak structural systems without substantial demolition. There are many examples of Aspen homeowners regroating mortar, replacing the entire perimeter or portions of a foundation wall, and adding supportive beams in floor or roof framing systems. Without more detailed inspection and analysis, he cannot concur with the proj ect engineer that these rather typical remedial techniques cannot be successful. d. This house may in some ways be easier to fix up than many other old wooden houses because it is small, only one ~ story, and there is a lot of workable space around it. lejrhe cost estimate for renovation submitted by the applicant does not appter-reasenabler ,44.1 74 .,avgE,1 Al,,.,.41 t.7,1 f"i #Av tk itadv't,90vfX,6*4:*1*I*,I e. It appears reasonable that the house probably cannot successfully be moved, as claimed by Integrated Engineering and South House Movers, due to the number of additions. f. The Building Department has some flexibility in UBC ~ requirements with an applicant remodeling an historic house E and building an addition. One important point is that any f addition cannot be built in a way that would make the ~ existing building more hazardous. Typically this can be -accomplished. B. Staff Comments: Demolition of historic structures was one gf the key issues addressed in the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Historic Preservation Element, leading to the rewrite of the City's historic regulations. Revision of demolition and removal review became the highest ranked short term priority of the Plan Element. Plan Objective 1.d. of the Plan Element states: "Discourage demolition of significant historic structures identified and evaluated in the 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures as it has been amended in 1986." Ordinance 11 of 1987 established more stringent demolition review fu,ti;,4 fli)/4#·"i J /'FIJi45,42 Efa¢,0 iy, m.2 init, r'k>2 5 14 74 *,4,6-tr ff, 1 €W/sti.,A 6 .;U.-4. '3.4., j 4.feEy)'.t.,11 urvi r., -< - kou :7 41•i" 44 i.,~liT'r standards. The purpose of the demolition review was to discourage demolition if feasible options are available. Whereas statement #6 of Council's findings states: "The purpose of the demolition review is to provide a process of obtaining agreement between the City and owner with regard to the most appropriate use and preservation plan for the structure whenever possible, and to avoid the imposition of economic hardship on the owner of the structure." In addition, the historic incentives created through Ordinance 42 of 1987 were intended, in part, to discourage demolition of significant historic residential properties by providing special options for development and use of designated landmark proper- ties. The Planning Office has the following comments in response to the standards for demolition and removal of historic structures in Section 24-9.5(b) of the Municipal Code: 1. Standard: The structure proposed for demolition is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure. Response: Larry Doble, P.E. of Integrated Engineering Consultants, Ltd. has provided a structural evaluation of 222 E. Hallam in a March 4, 1988 letter to Joseph Amato. Included in his letter are the following points: (1) The foundation is not structurally sound in large part. There is evidence of movement and an "advanced state of deterioration of the brick masonry foundation system." (2) 51% of the floor framing system is not structurally sound. It is described as a hodgepodge of framing that has evolved in the process of addition and modification and inadequate to support safe live loads. (3) Just over one third ( 35%) of the roof framing system is not structurally sound. The already marginal framing system has been undermined by many modifications and additions. It is "in a virtual state of collapse and is inadequate to support actual snow and ice loads," according to Mr. Doble. (4) 24% of the roof framing system does not have an adequate support system. The interior foundation system must be re- supported to prevent damage to the serviceable roof framing system. According to Charles Cunniffe's letter of March 4, 1988 no efforts have been by Mr. Amato to maintain the structure because 3 1 ' of his involvement in appeal reviews during the time of owner- ship. It is noted that various efforts were made by the previous owner to maintain the structure; however, those attempts were not successful. Repair efforts by the prior owner included replacement of siding, masonry foundation repair, and replacement of metal roof. A site visit with Planning Office staff and the applicant's representa- tives was arranged on March 14, 1988. Staff's impression from bjur site inspection was that a relatively high degree of upkeep has been applied to the interior living spaces. We did not observe any signs of serious structural failure, although the floor was wavy in places and doors had been recut so to com- pensate. Nonetheless, we cannot declare that the structure is not in imminent threat of structural failure, as Mr. Doble has concluded; it just does not appear to be so. The Engineering Department suggests that a second opinion should be obtained from a professional structural engineer whose specialty is renovation. The Building Department also has 4 serious doubts that there are not other approaches that could successfully save the house. 2. Standard: The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused to provide for any beneficial use of the property. Response: There are three (3) aspects to this standard which we believe are pertinent to this application: structural, financial and liveability considerations. In more detail, we believe the concerns in this standard relevant to this applica- tion are: (1) the practicability of structural repair to make the house liveable, (2) economic feasibility of remodeling and adding onto the house, including utilization of historic incentives to undertake a rehabilitation project, and (3) whether critical aspects of the size, layout, siting, etc. are so deficient to make the house unreasonable to inhabit. Regarding structural concerns, the project engineer concluded that the portions of the foundation, floor framing, roof framing, and roof support system that are unsound cannot be rehabilitated and must be replaced. The j ob of such "partial" demolition and replacement, as envisioned by the engineer, would entail damage to interior and exterior walls and removal of windows. In Mr. Doble's opinion, very little of the existing structure would remain undamaged in the process of replacing the unsound areas. He further states that to remodel or build an addition would create an additional burden of meeting current UBC requirements in those so impacted. The conclusions reached by Integrated Engineering are that the structure cannot be practicably rehabilitated. However, both the Engineering and Building Departments believe that there may be 4 other acceptable approaches to the structural rehabilitation. Financial feasibility of rehabilitation was addressed in part in letters dated February 24, 1988 and August 31, 1987 from Scott Bowie, appraiser with Mollica and Associates. The primary question that Mr. Bowie addressed was the portion of property value within the existing house. He concludes that the present structure's value is only $20,000 to $40,000. He suggests that the remaining economic life of this structure, as with other comparable properties, is extremely abbreviated, if not complete- ly over. He states the house should either be razed or totally remodeled and expanded. We ask the question, can the existing house be remodeled and added onto in the rear (or a second structure built) in a way that would allow for a "reasonable return on investment?" This would be capitalizing on Mr. Bowie's second approach, to totally remodel and expand the house. The historic incentives created through Ordinance 42 of 1987 would provide, upon designation, a $2,000 grant and options for dimensional variations and condi- tional uses. In particular, the ability to build a second structure may be a beneficial approach to further developing the property. Don Westerlind responded to Richard Klein in a March 3, 1988 letter addressing cost estimates for three scenarios. "Renova- tion" would cost $850,000. Renovation through saving only exterior walls would cost $419,760. And demolition and building a new (and larger) house as planned would cost $419,760. It is not clear what assumptfons were made in the $850,000 renovation. Neither of the City referral agencies can concur that only such an expensive approach is possible. Further addressing both financial and liveability concerns is a letter to Richard Klein from Sharon Tinnes, Sales Associate with Colwell Banker. Ms. Tinnes argues that the interior spaces are "badly confused" and not compatible to a Bed and Breakfast use. Ms. Tinnes also believes the B&B would not be an acceptable use to the neighborhood. Charles Cunniffe reenforces the argument that the historic incentives do not provide adequate options for uses, lay-out needs, or financial return. The infeasabilities of a B&B, boardinghouse, duplex or second home on the property are discussed. The house lay-out is considered "non-functional." Staff suggests that there Still may be opportunities for remodeling the interior to create a suitable lay-out, replace additions and further add on, or build a second home on the site. There is sufficient land area in the R-6 portion of the property to be eligible for a duplex or second house use under Ordinance 42. Perhaps these options deserve further consideration by the applicant in conjunction with City-sponsored assistance. 5 , , -D-amr<TI q n"44 4 3. Standard: The structure cannot be practicabl* moved to another site in Aspen. Response: Dennis E. South of South House Movers in Grand Junction recommends in his February 22, 1988 letter that the house not be moved due to its age and the way it has been constructed. Rob Weien of the Building Department agrees. 4 & 5. Standards: A demolition and redevelopment plan is submitted when required by HPC which mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact that occurs to the character of the neighborhood of the parcel where demolition is proposed. The demolition plan mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact the proposed demolition has on the historic importance of the structures located on the parcel and adjacent f t»« ic~ parcels. Response: The proposed new house is a two story "new victorian." The following dimensions are provided for comparison purposes: ~ Size of Existing House: 2,000 s.f. (+ 472 s.f. work shop) ~ Size of Proposed House: 3,002 s.f. (not including porches and balconies) ~ Height of Existing House: 19' Height of Proposed House: 291 Width of Front Facade-Existing: 25' Width of Front Facade-Proposed: 37' Height of Glidden House: 25' (rough estimate) Width of Front Facade-Glidden: 25' (rough estimate) Height of Frost House: 25' (rough estimate) Width of Front Facade-Frost: 17' (rough estimate) Lisa Purdy of Citiscape, Ltd. wrote in a February 22, 1988 letter that construction of a newly designed victorian will mitigate impacts to the neighborhood if efforts are made to align the front set back from the street with adjacent parcels, and if the massing is not out of scale with the neighborhood. The replication style is appropriate because it is of the same era and next door to the Glidden House which is also a replication. Staff finds the proposed new house really remarkable because it appears to encompass accurate victorian fenestration, detailing, rooflines and massing. The front facade style may be identified as high victorian, utilizing a bay similar to 334 W. Hallam and a turret unlike anything standing in Aspen. As one observer said, it conjures up the image of the banker's house in a northeastern town. If it had been built in the 1880's, it would clearly be one of Aspen's principal houses, on the par with the Glidden, Sardy and Gillespie residences. 6 We are concerned that, even though it appears to be a very fine replication, the high style does significantly impact the character of the neighborhood. The only houses in Aspen that may compete in the sense of high style and ornateness, in our opinion, are other new victorians, including the Levitz Lee House and the new house on W. Hopkins between Third and Fourth Streets. The Glidden replication is on the same location as the original, and for this reason, has historic significance. As shown in the table above, the proposed house is significantly 4 taller and somewhat wider than the surrounding Glidden and Frost Houses. More accurate dimensions of the neighboring houses would help us better understand the relationships. It appears that the new house would tend to dominate the Hallam streetfront. One impact of the new house on the neighborhood is to place further pressure on the demolition of the Frost House next door to also be replaced by a larger house with greater command of the streetfront. We agree with Ms. Purdy that the front set backs on Hallam have been properlv honored. W•.40 *lu. ful 44: ··$~P'WG~14,+D,Ii.'&~1 0~3'C,Jbn #44 6 U,u. 'rk,1 i. c{ 461.J 6, A.4.AUC , i · 1 ut 1 1 6. Standard: The demolition plan mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact on the architectural integrity of the historic structure or part thereof. Response: HPC affirmed the "4" historic evaluation rating of the house, recognizing that many alterations have been made, however the historic character of the house is preserved. The applicant continues to argue that the architectural integrity is very limited. Staff agreed with HPC that the "4" rating is appropriate, and that this house possess corresponding historic significance. Demolition of this house would obliterate that historic significance and represents an accumlative impact on the City's inventory of historic structures. ALTERNATIVES: Actions that HPC can take include: 1. Approve the demolition and redevelopment plan for 222 E. Hallam, finding that there are no practical alternatives to demolition and that the redevelopment plan mitigates to the greatest extent practical impacts on the neighborhood. 2. Deny the demolition and redevelopment plan for 222 E. Hallam, finding that the applicant has not demonstrated that the house cannot be retained and used for a beneficial use. 3. Suspend action, finding that HPC needs additional information to determine whether the applicant meets the standards of Section 24-9.5(b) of the Municipal Code. 4. Suspend action, finding that revisions to the redevelopment plan need to be made in order to further mitigate the impacts of the loss of the historic structure on the historic significance 7 4 . of the property and the neighborhood. PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION: Tit, applibant has mde-21*ngtAy LaRE~ q¥Ibq t~:>r!~ugh_„argumezrb€Qp/delhekition aeptance or -tlie reol,Yalopment plano We conclude that the applicant has not demohstrated that the structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused to provide for any beneficial use of the property. There appear to be some other feasible options and approaches. We recommend that HPC suspend action on this application for a period not to exceed six months, finding that additional information is needed with regard to structural soundness, renovation techniques, renovation and addition construction costs, and identifying a public or private entity capable of acquiring the property. k)•AM•,•44 11, HPL r.rtt ~Vh(,4, f„i,,A fr.Jit, +I'~fj,col,Ji•,te.,t& M.AN:t, 1 0 4:r;.j 4 Jif.knAR)'A«r , C •Mir 4 4% r R.1 r t At Jak .1447 Aff *•tr T 0 44 i. .. f.,14 A.J,ses. sb.222.demo 8 tMAR 1 7 98,8 . ~' March 14, 19889 Boulder, Colorado I . I. ..:1 -1 Aspen Historic Preservation Committee 130 South Salena Street, Aspen, Colorado . k 91* Dear Mr. Poss, < i..r '£ 1 . ~ I have no objections to the demolition of 222 East Hallam. Mr. Light and I hope strict adherence to the off- street parking regulations are met as well as property boundary lines drawn to assure the privacy of their most immediate neighbors to the East and the West. Traffic control around that very busy corner is of concern to the residents. The most important element of that is the safety of the school children. - Sincerely, /D Wit- ~ Joan E. LigM'ES owner 219 North Monarch P Aspen, Colorado M 49. i -1 I L 9 * I i 9 b- 4 7 4 - 4 CITY A.i/% PEN 130 ~~~~~~~~a ~reet asp eMB*,0 1#rad ¢~01 611 ----//7- j03-9*"Nib \rz> ..,, 99 0 MEMORANDUM \\PX 4,3--1 DATE: March 9, 1988~ TO: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office FROM: City Attorney RE: 222 East Hallam Demolition We have no comments at this time. PJT/mc /c E 4 /4 ' ~\ ---- / 9. MARIO .\ *I=....-*-I-- C /••i 1 */-0..#.*---- apen/Fiti,in Planning Ottice \ 1988 / - 30 S. Galena 989:L- ~421. j Aspen, CO 81611 ¥1.-14,0 roll ' 4»24-11 Donald Paul Krumm _2-0.-Re*-8 79 - W to- A-1 6- E Or B<)1 Aspen, CO 81612 t.· + · L. b t MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney Chuch Roth, City Engineering Department Rob Weien, Building Department FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office RE: 222 E. Hallam Demolition DATE: ~|~~ March 7, 1988~~ Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Charles Cunniffe & Associates/Architects on behalf of his client, Mr. Joseph Amato, requesting demolition of 222 E. Hallam St., Lots K and L of Block 71. We are requesting from the Engineering and Building Departments, assistance in determining whether the applicant has adequately investigated and exhausted possibilities for remodeling and possibly adding on to the house. Please review this material and return your comments to this office no later than March 14, 1988 in order for this office to have adequate time to prepare its presentation before HPC. If you have any questions or wish to arrange a site visit, please contact me. Thank you. . J .3 i.03 * Att f. Fly*, Aspen/Pitkid Plahning Office 130 southgaled i >treet aspen/Ulbrado' 81611 4:24'el'.P...' March 2, 1988 Mr. Charles Cunniffe Charles Cunnifee and Associates/Architects P.O. Box 3534 Aspen, CO 81612 RE: 222 East Hallam Demolition Dear Charles, Pursuant to the conversations with you and Richard Kline yesterday, I am writing this letter to inform you of concerns that your application for demolition should address. The public hearing for this review has been scheduled for March 22, 1988 as we arranged (see Public Notice attached). You promised to submit the additional information by no later than Friday, March 4, 1988. Section 24-9.5(c)(2) (as amended in Ordinance 11 (Series of 1987)) of the Municipal Code establishes the submission require- ments for demolition review. Subsection (vi) states "A written statement of how the demolition conforms to the review standards of Section 24-9.5(b)." Of the six review standards in Section 24- 9.5(b) we are concerned that (1) and (2) have not been directly addressed in your application. " ( 1) The structure proposed for demolition is not struc- turally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure." Please submit evidence of efforts made by Mr. Amato or the prior owner to keep the house structurally sound, which worked and did not work. "(2) The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused to provide for any beneficial use of the property." There are three aspects to this standard which we believe are pertinent to this application: structural practicality, economic feasibility, and livability. Regarding structural practicality, the questions are: Is there evidence that health and safety problems currently make the house unlivable? UBC violations alone do not indicate that this is the case. $ . Can the existing house be remodeled and added onto in the rear without undermining the structural integrity of the house? Regarding economic feasibility, the appraiser's reports state that the house is "outdated" and should either be razed or totally remodeled and expanded. The pertinent question which has not been answered, pursuant to Mr. Bowie's analysis of the options, is: Can the existing house be remodeled and added onto in the rear (or a second structure built) in a way that would allow for a "reasonable return on investment?" In this analysis, the historic incentives created through Ordinance 42 (Series of 1987) should be considered for this approach, including the $2,000 grant available, conditional uses for duplex use or detached dwellings on the property, B&B or boardinghouse, and area and bulk variations. Of course, these incentives are subject to historic landmark designation and reviews by HPC and the P&Z. Richard indicated that he wants to approach this question also through analyzing compara- tive costs for remodeling and adding on and redevelop- ing the property. We agree that such cost estimates would be relevant to help HPC understand relative merits of different scenarios. Regarding the livability of the house, a determination should be made if the particular size, layout, siting and other critical aspects of the existing house and property are so deficient to make the house unreasonable to inhabit. I realize that, as this is the first significant demolition to be reviewed under the standards of Ordinance 11, there may be misun- derstandings of what needs to be addressed in an application and HPC's review. I appreciate your cooperation in supplying us with additional analysis in the areas that we believe are most crucial for review of this demolition proposal. I look forward to receiving the information on Friday. If you or Richard have any questions, please call me or Roxanne Eflin. Sincerely, *te~ri £«Q"i Steve Burstein, Planner cc: Alan Richman /' Roxanne Eflin / letter.222 2 CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, A LA March 4, 1988 M MAR 4 10'99 1 i \ i : 1 11\\9 0 81 Mr. Steve Burstein Planning Office City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 222 East Hallam Street Aspen, Colorado Dear Steve. Please find enclosed a written response to your request for further information in your letter dated March 2, 1988. Also enclosed are exhibits which substantiate our discussion. If you have any further questions, please contact us. Sincerely, Charles L. Cunniffe, AIA Principal encls. 1 1 CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, A.IA March 4, 1988 H.P.C. SUPPLEMENT FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: 222 East Hallam, Aspen, Colorado In response to Planning Department Letter Dated March 2, 1988: I. Owner Maintenance - In response to your inquiry concerning the owner's effort to properly maintain the structure, please be advised that during the adoption of Ordinance 11, the issue of retroactive requirements was raised, as well as concern about penalizing people who did not have the economic wherewithal to make improvements to their property. It was made clear during the review process that Ordinance 24-9.5 was not intended to penalize people who had no obligation to maintain their homes, nor the economic ability to put money into their property. The maintenance requirement was only to apply to property owners after the ordinance was in effect. Mr. Amato has owned the property for less than a year. During this time, he has been involved in review processes appealing his score and now seeking a demolition. It makes 1-10 sense to require him to take any action in this limited time period until an ultimate disposition of his review processes is finalized. In the Structural Engineer's letter, he mentions previous attempts by the owner to maintain the structural integrity of the house, even though those attempts were not successful. II. a. Structural Practicality - As indicated by the Structural Engineer's report from Integrated Engineering Consultants, Ltd. (Exhibit A) updated on March 4, 1988. the residence at 222 East Hallam Street, Aspen, Colorado is not structurally sound. The brick masonry foundation is in an advanced state of deterioration, and must be replaced. The floor framing system cannot adequately support people and furniture in many areas and is in danger of collapsing. Page Two (Re: 222 W. Hallam Residence) The roof is sagging along the ridge, running lengthwise of the house. This is due to an inadequate roof framing system which has been compromised by the numerous additions to the house. In reviewing the Structural Engineer's report, it is evident that the residence is not structurally sound, cannot be economically rehabilited or reused, and could not even be moved to another site. II. b. Remodel - A new structure could be added onto the rear of the existing house as long as it is structurally independent. This is not a viable solution however, due to the economic infeasibility of renovating the existing structure. III. Economic Feasibility - 1. As indicated by the Building Contractor who generated a cost analysis (Exhibit B), the structure cannot be economically renovated. For this reason it is also not feasible to add a new building to the rear of the existing building. 2. The incentives offered through Ordinance 42 will not provide a reasonable return On investment. The existing building could not feasibly be modified to become a boarding house or a bed and breakfast establishment. This is due not only to the haphazard layout of the existing building but also to the inability to feasibly modify the structure and create a reasonable interior room layout. The $2,000.00 grant available is not of sufficient amount to offset renovation costs. Currently the property at 222 East Hallam is zoned R6 and SCI. Because of this situaton, there is insufficient land available in the R6 Zone to construct a duplex or second home on the property. 3. As demonstrated by Alpine Construction, the Building Contractor retained to provide a cost analysis (Exhibit B), it is not feasible to renovate the existing structure. Page Three (Re: 222 W. Hallam Residence) IV. Livability - As Sharon Tinnes of the Aspen Broker Ltd. and Don Westerlind of Alpine Construction both point out in their letters (Exhibits B and C), the existing house layout (a product of numerous additions) makes little sense and does not function effectively. It is not reasonable to preserve a non-functional layout from a cost standpoint and is an impractical burdon to impose on the owner. 6 0. 1 EXHIBIT A 4,114.0. INTEGRAI cD ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS , Ltd. i x . ./t . 411 East \lain Street Suite 106 Aspen,Colorado 81611 (303) 94- · 59'3 March 4, 1988 Job # 87147 Mr. Joseph Amato c/o Plymouth Construction, Inc. P. 0. Box 179 Monroe, New York Re: 222 E. Hallam Aspen, Colorado Dear Mr. Amato: At the request and with the assistance of Charles Cunniffe & Associates/Architects, Integrated Engineering Consultants, Ltd. has conducted an structural evaluation of the above residence. The inspection covered only those structural elements which were readily visible and did not include concealed elements due to the cost and disruption of exposing them. Based on our visual inspections and structural evaluation of the above residence, we conclude that: 1. SIXTY THREE PERCENT (63%) of the foundation is not structurally sound. The brick masonry is in an advanced state of deterioration, is not protected against frost action. This lack of protection against frost action will, not only result in continual movement and ultimate failure of the foundation system; but, will contribute to further deterioration of the wall, floor and roof framing systems and lead to their ultimate failure. In addition to the imminent failure of the above systems, there are the continual nuisance factors of in the interior walls and ceilings, doors and windows that will not open or close, and floors that tilt. There is evidence that the former owner was forced to replace approximately one third of the thirty seven percent (37%) of the serviceable foundation. The advanced state of deterioration of the brick masonry foundation system precludes the possibility of rehabilitation; and, will require demolition and replacement. I '1 222 E. Hallam March 4, 1988 Page 2 2. FIFTY ONE PERCENT (51%) of the floor framing system is not structurally sound. In spite of the many amateurish attempts by the former owner, the hodgepodge of framing that has evolved, in the process of addition and modification, is inadequate to support safe live loads (i.e. people and moveable furniture). The above lack of protection against frost action in the foundation system and the inadequate floor framing system will, not only result in continual movement and ultimate failure of the floor system; but, will contribute to further deterioration of the wall and roof framing systems and lead to their ultimate failure. In addition to the imminent failure of the above systems there are the continual nuisance factors of cracks in the interior walls and ceilings, doors and windows that will not open or close, cracked floor tiles and tilting floors. The inadequate floor framing system, because of the hodgepodge of framing that has evolved, will require a combination of new floor framing system and a new interior foundation system; and, preclude the possibility of rehabilitation; and, will require demolition and replacement. 3. THIRTY FIVE PERCENT (35%) of the roof framing system is not structurally sound. The many modifications and additions that have occurred; and, the attempt, by the former owner, to maintain the structural integrity, by the addition of the new roofing material have, in fact, undermined an already marginal framing system to the point that it is sagging and is in a virtual state of collapse and is inadequate to support actual snow and ice loads. In addition to the imminent failure of the roof system, there are the continual nuisance factors of cracks in the ceilings and leaks in the roof. The spider web of the roof framing system precludes the possibility of rehabilitation; and, will require demolition and replacement. 4. TWENTY FOUR PERCENT (24%) of the serviceable roof framing system does not have an adequate support system. An new support system must be added to the interior foundation system to prevent damage to the serviceable roof framing system. '. 222 E. Hallam March 4, 1988 Page 3 In addition to the specific structurally unsound areas identified in items 1-4 above, there is a high probably for damage to structurally sound areas that can occur in the process of demolition and replacement. Since a majority of the interior walls, in the areas that require extensive repair, are plaster, there is a high probably they will be damaged. The same is also true for exterior walls. Exterior windows will have to be removed to avoid damage, thus endangering the windows and exterior siding. It is our opinion that very little of the existing structure would remain undamaged in the process of replacement of the unsound areas. In addition, attempts to move the structure would result in equal if not greater damage to the existing structure as well as require complete disassembly of large sections of the structural system. It is important to point out that we are not trying to bring the existing structural system up to the current UBC code requirements; but, instead to generally accepted design and construction techniques. Any attempt to remodel or add on to the existing structure will face the additional burden of current UBC requirements in those areas that are impacted by remodel or addition work. Based on the above observations, it is our opinion that: 1. The Structure is not structurally sound. 2. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused. 3. The structure cannot be practicably moved to another site in Aspen. If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of any further service, please contact us. sincerely, INTEGRATED ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LTD. l--- si-2 Lawrence A. Doble, P.E. President /LAD EXHIBIT B ALPINE CONSTRUCTION CO., |NC. 728 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PHONE 925-7007 March 3, 1988 Charles Cunnifte & Absociates/Architects 520 E. Hyman Ave. suite 301 rt Aspen, CO 81612 Attention: Richard Klein RE: Amato Residence 222 E. Haiiam Aspen. CO Dear Richard, Per your request, Alpine Construction Co., Inc., has made the following estimates in regard to the Amato Resiaence. 1) To renovate the house from a historical aspect, ie: save every item possible, it would cost Eight Hundred Fifty --- I. 1Thousand dollars minimum <*Hbo,000.00). 2) To renovate the house by saving only the exterior walls, building a new structure within, and then reapplying che existing walls would cost Four Hundred Nineteen Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty dollars ($419,760.00)„ The two examples above involve a two thousand square foot (2000 sq. ft.) mouse and a four hundred seventy two square foot (472 sq. ft.) workshop. 3) To demolish the existing house and workshop and construct a new home per your plans would cost Four Hundred Eighc Thousand Four Hundred Eighty dollars (6408,480.00). This example involves a three thousand two square foot (3002 sq. ft.) house, a four hundred eighty four square toot (484 sq. ft.) garage attached by a one hundred twenty square foot (120 sq. f-c.) hallway. Items one and two above do not make any sense since tne existing layout of the house has been haphazardly added on to without logic and function. Why should anvone reconstruct a non-functional layout? These concerns are valid both from a structural point of view and functional point of view. Following are my credentials from Alpine Construction Co., Inc.'s AIA Contractor Qualification form: 0. Don Sten Westerlind - President and chief Executive Officer. With hipine Construction Co., Inc. since 1962. BS - Civil Engineering and BS - Business from Unlversitv of Colorado. Presently serving on City of Aspen Board of Appeals and Examiners, Pitkin County Board of Appeals. Treasurer for the Aspen nistorical Society, First Baptist Church Board of Trustees and former [reasurer of Young Life, Aspen. Formerly served on Cily of Aspen Historical Preservation Committee, Aspen Sanitation Board of Directors and as Treasurer and President 0+ the Aspen Lions Club. In my experience of remodeling homes, the cost 13 greater and the end result usually tory than in 1 ecc: c.)+ . c; .C ouilding a new home. The costs in my estimates reflect this. If I can be of further assistance or if you have any questions, please contact me. Chank you, { C < 6, 1 1 1-, 1-71« -f - < L©Ct -155 'C· 1 v Y, ..i_/ *4.- v- Don Sten Nesterlind President DSW/dw , D EXHIBIT C A MEMBER OF™E SEARS ANANCIAL NETWORK 720 E DURANT AVENUE ASPEN CO 81611 COLDWeLL BUS (303) 925-6750 BANKeR Il THE ASPEN BROKERS LTD. March 4, 1988 Mr. Richard Klein c/o Charles Cunniffe & Associates P. 0. Box 3534 Aspen, CO 81612 Dear Richard, In response to our conversation the other day; I really feel that the layout of the interior of the Amato house is so awkward due to the multiple, and I might say badly jumbled, additions, that no matter what you added to the rear of the existing structure, you would not be able to bring the front of the house into line with the back for commercial value. What real estate purchaser wants what basically amounts to a spacious add-on to a badly confused and apparently structurally deficient front unit. The end result would flow like night and day. As to the Bed and Breakfast idea. I think you are dreaming if you feel that you can convert the house to that use. First and foremost the layout is not compatible to a Bed and Breakfast. Second, I feel the cost of bringing the house in line would be prohibitive compared to the anticipated commercial return. Third, I really do not feel that the neighbors would accept a Bed and Breakfast in the neighborhood in light of what has happened so far. I am really bewildered at this point as to just what Mr. Amato can do to recover the investment in the property he has already made! Sin- Sharon Tinnes Sales Associate ST:crs An Independently Owned and Operated Member of Coldwell Banker Residential Affiliates. Inc. CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, A. I.A 1-: 71 m r·/ I h) 1 %--22-1 13+ i.-t. -0.-t 1 1 i 1 1 7C- W 1 1 February 25, 1988 4 1 FEB 26 1088 Mr. Steven Burst e i n LJ- 4 Planning Office 1 City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 222 East Hallam Street Aspen, Colorado Dear Steve, Please find enclosed an Application for Demolition with exhibits, an Application for Significant Development with exhibits, a Redevelopment Plan including Graphic Submittal, and a list of property owners within 300 feet of our proposed project. It is our intention to demolish the existing residence on Hallam Street and construct a new Victorian styled house in its place. I think we have adequately satisfied all requirements for the Application for Demolition and Significant Development. If you have any further questions, please contact Richard or myself at your convenience. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, 0 02«1 Charles L. Cunniffe, AIA Principal encl. Ir. CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 CHARL-ES L. CUNNIFFE, A.1 A APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION I. a. Property Owner: Joe Amato P.O. Box 179 Monroe, New York 10950 b. Owner-s Authorization Refer to Exhibit A II. Property Address: 222 East Hallam Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Legal Description: A tract of land situated in Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. being more fully described as follows: Beginning at the south west corner of Lot M, Block 71, City of Aspen; thence N 14 degrees 50' 49" E 163.12 feet, thence S 78 degrees 23' 00" E 66.08 feet, thence S 22 degrees 58' 00" E 116.19 feet, thence S 12 degrees 69' 00" W 75.09 feet, to the northerly line of Hallam Street; thence N 75 degrees 09' 11" W 139.65 feet, to the point of beginning containing 19,592 square feet more or less. III. Description of Structure Proposed for Demolition: The existing structure at 222 East Hallam Street in Aspen is a single family residence, one story in height with horizontal wood siding and a standing seam metal roof. It is a product Of numerous additions and alterations. The original residence built in 1887 was approximately 12 feet x 44 feet in size, with clapboard siding and a wood shingle roof. None of this structure is in existence today except for the log foundation laying under the existing house which was built about a year later in 1888. Through the years this building was (Sec. III Cont.) added onto in 12 different locations. Today, the only portions of the house in existence that still dates back to the "mining days" are two walls of the sun room, originally added on in 1893. IV. a. Engineers Report: Refer to Exhibit B b. House Mover Report: Refer to Exhibit C V. Economic Feasibility Report: Refer to Exhibit D VI. Review Standards for Demolition: 1. Refer to Exhibit B 2. The structure in question can not be rehabilitated as as demonstrated by the engineer (Refer to Engineers Report, Exhibit B). It might be possible to reuse some portion of an exter-ior wall as was the case recently with Elli's in Town. Such an action would constitute nothing more than a false facade. which both the Owner ang Architect feel is inappropriate. Refer to Exhibit C 4. See Graphic Submittal 5 & 6. Refer to Exhibit E VII. a. Redevelopment Plan See Graphic Submittal b. Statement concerning effect of proposed redevelopment on neighborhood. Refer to Exhibit E FEB-26-'83.15:14 I D: 11.=i: POE TUBE TEL NO:914-793-2372 47-0 PO- . EXHIBIT A JOSEPH A. AMATO P,O. BOX 603 HIOHLAND MILLS. N Y 10930 > (914)926 9121 February 26, 1988 Fax No. 303 925 5076 Charles Cunniffe & Ao,ociates Box 3534 - 300 South Spring Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attention: Charles Cunnlffe Re: 222 East Hallam - Lots K & L, Block 71, City & Town Site _of_8-REPn Gentleinen: This letter will serve as your authority to suumit on my .: 'fl ¥ behalf, an Application for Demolition anu bignlilcanu Develoixieat for the subject premises. Please submit whatever is required by Ordinance No. 11 to accompllsh the foregoing. Thank you. Ver~*~*gtoy yours, t , JAeph A. Aniato JAA: pmg • ' EXHIBIT "B" . ... I INTEGRATcD ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS , Ltd. .. 2 99 <f '4 411 Ecist Main Street Suite 206 Aspin,Colorado 81611 X, A t, 4 f I. 1,2 ... · .:£ (303) 92.f · fl?13 February 22, 1988 Job # 87147 Mr. Joseph Amato c/o Plymouth Construction, Inc. P. 0. Box 179 Monroe, New York Re: 222 E. Hallam Aspen, Colorado Dear Mr. Amato: At the request and with the assistance of Charles Cunniffe & Associates/Architects, Integrated Engineering Consultants, Ltd. has conducted an structural evaluation of the above residence. The inspection covered only those structural elements which were readily visible and did not include concealed elements due to the cost and disruption of exposing them. Based on our visual inspections and structural evaluation of the above residence, we conclude that: 1. SIXTY THREE PERCENT (63%) of the foundation is not structurally sound. The brick masonry is in an advanced state of deterioration, is not protected against frost action and must be replaced to prevent continual movement and ultimate deterioration. 2. FIFTY ONE PERCENT (51%) of the floor framing system is not structurally sound. The hodgepodge of framing that has evolved, in the process of addition and modification, is inadequate to support safe live loads (i.e. people and moveable furniture) and must be replaced. The replacement of the floor framing system will require a combination of new framing and a new interior foundation system. 3. THIRTY FIVE PERCENT (35%) of the roof framing system is not structurally sound. The many modifications and additions that have occurred have undermined an already marginal framing system to the point that it is in a virtual state of collapse and is inadequate to support safe snow loads and must be replaced. 222 E. Hallam February 22, 1988 Page 2 4. TWENTY FOUR PERCENT (24%) of the serviceable roof framing system does not have an adequate support system. An new support system must be added to the interior foundation system to prevent damage to the serviceable roof framing system. In addition to the specific structurally unsound areas identified in items 1-4 above, there is a high probably for damage to structurally sound areas that can occur in the process of demolition and replacement. Since a majority of the interior walls, in the areas that require extensive repair, are plaster, there is a high probably they will be damaged. The same is also true for exterior walls. Exterior windows will have to be removed to avoid damage, thus endangering the windows and exterior siding. It is our opinion that very little of the existing structure would remain undamaged in the process of replacement of the unsound areas. In addition, attempts to move the structure would result in equal if not greater damage to the existing structure as well as require complete disassembly of large sections of the structural system. Based on the above observations, it is our opinion that: 1. The Structure is not structurally sound. 2. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused. 3. The structure cannot be practicably moved to another site in Aspen. If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of any further service, please contact us. Sincerely, INTEGRATED ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LTD. L-- 3-f i xi Lawrence A. Doble, P.E. President / LAD EXHIBIT C February 22, 1988 Charles Cunnifee & Associates/Architects Attn: Richard Klein, Project Architect 520 E. Hyman, Suite 301 Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 222 Hallam Street, Aspen Dear Richard, After inspecting the above mentioned property we have found that it has had approximately 11 additions to the original structure. Due to the age of the building and the way it has been constructed it would have to be cut into at least six pieces to be moved. We have been in our profession for over 30 years, and it has been our experience that the re-construction of the building once it has been cut would not be financially feasible or structually sound. After taking into consideration the above items, it is my recommendation that the building not be moved. Sincerely, Dennis E. South SOUTH HOUSE MOVERS mms enclosure EXHIBIT "D" Jitmes J Mollifil & Associates int Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants Crystal Palace Building · 300 East Hyman Avenue · Aspen, Colorado 81611 · 303/925-8987 February 24, 1988 Mr. Joseph Amato c/o Mr. Richard Klein Charles Cuniffe and Associates P. 0. Box 3534 Aspen, CO 81612 RE: Consultation on the Amato Residence, 222 West Hallam, Block 71, Lots K and L Plus Metes and Bounds, Aspen, CO. Our File #10635 Dear Mr. Amato: This letter is in response to your request for reconsideration of our Consultation dated August 31, 1987 concerning the subject property. In brief, this letter is only intended to reinforce the statements we made in our letter at that time. We still feel the subject structure is outdated in terms of layout. size, quality and appeal to the market. We feel improvements contribute only minimally to value for the tap fees and short-term income-producing use which they represent. In the current market we feel the vast majority of buyers will still raze, or totally remodel and expand the existing residence in the process of new luxury home construction if permitted by the City. The structure contributes only minimally to value, in the $20,000 to $40,000 range. We have not been asked to provide a formal updated opinion of value. However, the market has remained strong for single family building sites in the West End. The last two sales have been at $365.000 and $430,000 for roughly 6000 square foot sites in prestigious areas of the West End. It is likely that a formal analysis of the subject property would find the original sale price to be low in the current market necessitating a small upward adjustment for current value. If we can be of any further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Scott M. Bowie, MAI Appraiser-Consultant Imm'm Scott M. Bowie, M.A.I. ~~~.~ Randy Gold, M.A.1. 529 James J. Mollica, M.A.1, 0F ' ~ EXHIBIT D Jitmes J Mollifil & Associates, inc Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants Crystal Palace Building · 300 East Hyman Avenue · Aspen, Colorado 81611 · 303/925*8987 August 31, 1987 Mr. Joseph Amato c/o Mr. Richard Klein Charles Cuniffe and Associates P, O, Box 3534 Aspen, CO 81612 RE: Consultation on the Amato Residence, 222 West Hallam, Block 71, Lots K and L Plus Metes and Bounds, Aspen, CO Dear Mr. Amato: At the request of Mr. Klein, I personally inspected the subject property with the purpose of providing some preliminary consultation involving questions of valuation. It is my understanding that the function of this brief letter is to assist in arriving at some value conclusions for application for destruction of the existing house on the property through the Historic Preservation process. Questions addressed to me are: 1. What is the current value of the property? 2. What portion of that value lies in the existing improvements? Attached to this letter is a list of the most recent sales of building sites in Aspen's West End. Among these is the subject itself, shown as Sale 17 at 0335,000 in May of 1987. The market has been strong all during 1987, although we have little evidence to suggest that the subject would sell for a higher price currently than it did three months ago. The sale price was the result of normal negotiations between the buyer and the seller and, to our knowledge, represented an arm's length transaction. For this reason, we suggest that the recent actual sale price of the subject is the best possible indicator of current value of the property at 3335.000. To answer the second question, we have personally inspected the subject improvements. The home is a Victorian vintage structure of approximately 1700 square feet in poor to fair condition. We have been provided with an engineering report that shows the foundation to be inadequate and recommends that the structure be demolished rather than renovated. That engineering report is attached to this letter. From our inspection, the structure's layout is awkward and inefficient. The home is laid out as two bedrooms and 1-3/4 baths with an oversized kitchen, parlour, living room, small study and dining room. The porch overhang all but eliminates any potential view from the structure. Separation of the parlour and living room by a wall is very awkward, creating two small spaces rather than one large and functional space. Scott M. Bowie, M.A.I. Randy Gold, M.A.I. EEMB James J. Mollica, M.A,1. O; The kitchen is outdated in terms of cabinetry, floor coverings, etc.; and all appliances have been removed. Both the interior and exterior show many items of deferred maintenance. The reader should be aware that the West End real estate market has been extremely active for both land and improved properties for the past 18 months. Buildable land has been severely depleted. The result has been to drive up prices of available building sites, and in many cases fairly substantial homes have been purchased for the land only and the houses razed for new construction. Sales 1, BA, 12, 14 and 16 were lots improved with at least one relatively large single family home and in some cases there were two structures on the property. The rest of the sales except for comparables 6, 11 and 13 were improved with outdated Victorian structures in various states of repair and quality, but all of which had been removed or are intended for razing for new luxury construction. In all cases where structures were included with the properties, we have made some deduction for value. This is a result of the fact that the existing structures carry sewer and tap fee credits and also can act as an income-producing use during the planning stages for new construction, In some cases, the properties have even been "land banked" pending some future development and the structures used temporarily either as an income source or the buyer's personal use. In all cases, however, the remaining economic lives of the structures are extremely abbreviated, if not completely over. We suggest that such is the case with the subject. The improvements can contribute some minimal value for the tap fees and short-term income-producing use. Nevertheless, we feel the vast maj ority of the market will raze, or totally remodel and expand, the existing residence in the process of new luxury home construction. We feel the only value that the structure affords is for the tap fees and its short-term income-producing use, and these factors may produce as much as #20,000 to 040,000 in value. As with all our comparable sales, most of the value of the property lies in the land. The structure is a "hodge podge" of styles and additions. These additions have left the interior layout extremely awkward. For any buyer to maximize the value of the site, it would be necessary to raze the structure or so substantially alter it as to make it unrecognizable in its current state. Given the foundation problems suggested by Integrated Engineering Consultants, it is out opinion that economics would demand that the structure be razed for new luxury construction on this site. I hope this brief letter is sufficient for your needs at this time. If we can be of any further assistance in the application or interpretation of the findings in this brief letter, please do not hesitate to Call. I hereby certify that I have no present or future contemplated interest in the subject property; that to the best of my knowledge the information contained jitliles J,Moll|filt imdaM. m~. Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants . 1 herein is true and accurate; that my fee is not contingent upon the valuation stated herein. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. Sincerely, Scott M. Bowie, M.A.I. Appraiser-Consultant ~Ilifil Vollfil ##w,ma~m; Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants Effective Price w/0 Sale Location Price Improvement s Date Lot Size 1 Blk. 41 Lots K-M 0415,000 0365,000 4/85 9,000 SF 2 Blk. 34 Lots AUB 250,000 230,000 4/85 6,000 SF 3 Blk. 35 Lots H MI 235,000 225,000 6/85 6,000 SF 4 Blk, 35 Lots F, G, 250,000 240,000 7/86 7,500 SF & part of H 5 Blk. 20 Lots 4,5,6 215,000 239,000 7/86 9,000 SF 6 Blk, 2 Lots K-P 435,000 217,500 ea. 6/86 8,800 SF ea. 7 Blk. 14 Lots A-F 425,000 415,000 6/86 18,000 SF 8 Blk, 26 Lots F-I 425,000 415,000 10/86 11,300 SF 8A Blk. 26 Lots C-E 375,000 350,000 9/86 9,000 SF 9 Blk, 60 Lots H & I 250,000 240,000 8/86 6,000 SF 10 Blk, 45 Lots KUL 235,000 225,000 3/87 6,000 SF 11 Blk, 39 Lots A-D 230,000 230,000 10/86 12,000 SF 12 Blk, 41 Lots O-P 555,000 525,000 3/87 9,500 SF 13 Blk. 8 Lots RNS 240,000 240,000 7/87 6,000 SF 14 81. 33 Pt, A,B,C 410,000 385,000 6/87 8,100 SF 15 Bl. 35 Lots A&B 285,000 275,000 12/86 6,000 SF 16 Bl. 14 Lots K,L,M 410,000 375,000 5/87 9,000 SF 17 81. 17 Lots K,L & 335,000 310,000 5/87 16,580 SF metes and bounds 18 81. 27 Lots HRI 365,000 350,000 7/87 6,000 SF : 2.2 , I '. 0 . .1 2,4 4 .. 4-'A » I f ' 9.164- ...... . 4 .. 6 e. ,. .0 ' 4 .4 9 2.· 9 .. + . · , l. - ,I . ~Nf ' i : A. ' 1 .. . L 1- &...: 1- 4 0 484 •U. 11 5 - ; . 1.-2 . :04 8'irte .: . ~. 9 9 . .;4 70/ . + ·,2 .... I. I I. 4. i 8 1/Iii"r! -- . + ·· 694. 10. ..... .. I::. 3 11 ' e 09 · E :9 ' 4 1 . & I. I I . ~ 0 I ; ' ' 1 - ,£ 2 t». I . 7 .* I .4. .J r 14\44 ' I.-. .1 ... '. rtlfi '9.'f· . f(~i ~1 ,~ ..,. : . -2 Bri.10 k t . 14,421.:i #Bll.. '.k :. t t....4 *. FIEN•£. 81...451,* am 4 ... ' ·r· i*.3./Efflumu<:2 ' t. t:-..., LI#*119,014**89'"Ki 4,kt:·*~rt-~S ; - -41*' I. . f- =77.p+J.U,t 1 , 'j,i Ii\11-EGRA-1-cD ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS , Ltd. 1..:x ,4.,·b.· L 1 '*,1 1/ fs i 41' Gst Main Street Suite 206 Aspen,Colorodo 8I6ll .... . 1 4, < (101) 92.f· f9'3 . August 11, 1987 Job #87147 Mr. Joseph Amato c/o Plymouth Construction, Inc. P. 0. Box 179 Monroe, NY 10950 Re: Amato Residence Dear Joe: At the request and with the assistance of Charles Cunniffe & Associates/Architects, Integrated Engineering Consultants, Ltd. has conducted a further structural evaluation of the above residence. The inspection concentrated on an evaluation of the existing floor framing and brick masonry foundation of the "sitting roomt' and "living area". Access to the crawlspace.under the "sitting room" was gaifted at the northwest corner of the "entry". Floor framing consisting of R.S. 2x6 @-12" o.c. spanning approximately 12' were observed in this area.* It appears that many of the floor joists are bearing on double 2x6 S4S spanning approximately 8' that in turn bear on 8" CMU blocks that in turn bear on the surface of the ground. This framing configuration does not meet current UBC requirements. Additional access to the crawl space under the "living area" was gained at the southwest corner of the living area by cutting a hole in the floor sheathing. A similar framing configuration was observed in this area. This framing configuration does not meet current UBC requirements. An exploratory hole under the existing brick masonry foundation was dug at the southwest corner of the "living area". As predicted on our letter dated, May 14, 1987, the masonry bears on the surface of the ground. During the course of the above exploration it was confirmed that the brick masonry is in an advanced state of deterioration. The above deterioration will probably preclude the possibility of underpinning. The typical construction was two wythe (9"1) running bond. . Amato Residence August 11, 1987 Page 2 Based on the above observations and past experience, it is + our opinion that the existing structure should be demolished. , : The cost of attempting to bring the existing structure up to code i in its' present state would be prohibitive. If you have any questions or if we can be of any further service, please contact us at (303) 925=5913. Sincerely, INTEGRATED ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LTD. / C U Lawrence A. Doble, P.E. President LAD/skc cc: Charles Cunniffe & Assoc./Arch.4 . . QUALIFICATIONS OF APPRAISER Scott M. Bowie, M.A.I. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, M.A. I. #6848 Instructor, University of Colorado Continuing Education Division Licensed Real Estate Broker in the State of Colorado Member of the Upper Colorado Board of Realtors Member of the National Board of Realtors EDUCATION: Harvard University, BA, 1971. Phi Beta Kappa, Magna Cum Laude University of Colorado Continuing Education Division: Real Estate Law; Real Estate Finance American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers: Course 1-A, Principals; Course 2, Urban Properties; Course VIII, Residential; Course 1-B, Capitalization Techniques; Course VI, Evaluation Procedures BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE: Appraiser-Consultant, James J. Mollica & Associates, Inc., 8/76-present Colorado Real Estate Broker: 1974-present Condominium Property Management: Durant Condominiums, Aspen, CO 1971-1976 Designated M.A. I.: March, 1984 MAJOR CLIENTS SERVED: Aspen Skiing Co. Aspen Savings & Loan Ute City Mortgage Bank of Aspen City of Aspen County of Pitkin First National Bank in Aspen First Western Mortgage Empire Savings TYPES OF PROPERTY APPRAISED: Commercial, Office & Retail Lodges-Hotels Residential Special Purpose Buildings Ranches-Farms Apartments Subdivisions-Vacant Land Industrial Condominiums PURPOSES OF APPRAISALS: Acquisition Insurance Mortgage Condemnation Estate Planning Tax Planning STATEMENT OF CERTIFICATION: The American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers conducts a voluntary program of continuing education for its designated members. MAI's and RM's who meet the minimum standards of this program are awarded periodic education certification. I am certified under this program through September 15, 1990. Jilliws 1 Mollifil # 1~*xioies, i,c. Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants . , DEFINITION OF MUIET VALUE: Market value i• the major focus of most real property appraisal assignments. Both economic and legal definit of market value have been developed and refined. nual refinement i• essential to the growth of the isal profession. The current economic definition rket value can be stated ag follows: The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale. the buyer and seller. each acting prudently, knowledgeably. and assuming the price ia not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in thie definition ti the consummation of a iale u of a specified date and the paving of title from miller to buyer under conditions whereby: a. buyer and seller are typically motivated; b. both parties are well informed or well advised, and each acting in what he considers hia own best interest; c. a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; d. payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and e. the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. (SOURCE: Federal Home Loan Bank Board, November. 1986) CERTIFICATION: The Appraiser certifies and agrees that: 1. The Appraiser has no present or contemplated future interest in the property appraised; and neither the employment to make the appraisal. nor the compensation for it. i• contingent upon the appraised value of the property. 2. The Appraiser has no personal interest in or bias with respect to the subject matter of the appraisal report or the participants to the sale. The "Estimate of Market Value" in the appraisal report is not based , in whole or in part upon the race. color. or national origin of the prospective owners or occupants of the property appraised, or upon the race. color or national origin of the present ownera or occupants of the properties in the vicinity of the property appraised. 3. Unless otherwise noted in the body of the report. the Appraiser has personally inspected the property. both inside and out. To the best of the Appraiser's knowledge and belief. all statements and information in this report are true and correct, and the Appraiser has not knowingly withheld any significant information. 4. All contingent and limiting conditions are contained herein (imposed by the terms of the aosignment or by the undersigned affecting the analyses. opinions. and conclusions contained in the report). 5. This appraisal report has been made in conformity with and is subject to the requirementa of the Code of Professional Ethic, and Standards of Professional Practice of the American Institute of Real Estate Apprainer•. 6. All conclusions and opinions concerning the real estate that are set forth in the appraisal report were : prepared by the Appraiser whose signature appears on the appraisal report. unless indicated as "Review Appraiser." No change of any item in the appraisal report shall be made by anyone other than the Appraiser. • and the Appraiger shall have no responsibility for any such unauthorized change. 7, The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers relating to review by its duly authorized representativee. CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: The certification of the Appraiser appearing in the appraisal report is subject to the following conditions and to such other specific and limiting conditions as are get forth by the Appraiser in the report. 1. The Appraiser assumes no responsibility for matters of a legal nature- affecting the property appraised or the title thereto, nor does the Appraiser render any opinion as to the title, which is assumed to be good ! and marketable The property is appraised u though under responsible ownership and management. 2. Any sketch in the report may show approximate dimensions and is included to assist the reader in visualizing the property. The Appraiser has made no survey of the property. 3. The Appraiaer is not required to_Bixelestimony or. appear in court because of having made the appraisal with reference to the property in question, unless arrangements hav, been previously inade- therefor.- 4. Any distribution of the valuation in the report between land and improvements applies only under the existing program of utilization. The separate valuations for land and building must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if go used. 5. The Appraiser assumes that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property. including but not limited to subsoil problems. structural deficiencies. zoning and building code incompliance. which would render it more or less valuable. The Apprai:er assumes no responsibility for such conditions, or for engineering which might be required to discover much factors. 6. Information, estimates. and opinions furnished to the Appraiser. and contained in the report. were obtained from sources considered reliable and believed to be true and correct. However. no responsibility for accuracy of ouch items furnished the Appraiser can be assumed by the Appraiser. 7. Disclosure of the contents of the appralial report is 8overned br_th,_Bylaws and Regulations of the American Institute of Real Eatate Appraiser,. 8. Neither all. nor any part of the content of the report. or copy thereof (including conclusions as to the property value. the identity of the Appraiser. professional designations, reference to any professional appraisal organizations, or the firm with which the Appraiser is connected), shall be used for any purposee by anyone but the client specified in the report. the borrower if appraisal fee paid by same. the mortgagee or its successor and assigns, mortgage insurers, consultants, professional appraimal organizations, any state or , federally approved financial institution, any department. agency. or instrumentality of the United States or any state or the District of Columbia. without the previous written consent of the Appraiser: nor shall it be conveyed by anyone to the public through advertising. public relations. news. sales. or other media. without the written consent and approval of the Apprailer. 9. On all appraisals, subject to eatisfactory completion. repairs. or alterations. the appraisal report and value conclugion are contingent upon completion of the improvemente in a workmanlike manner. 10. Zoning in the Aspen area im in a constant state of change. Certain portions of the zoning and land use code are open to interpretation. and the outcome of any application is subject to government approval. The Appraiser has made every effort to identify these issues and their application to the subject. However. the Apprainer assumes no responsibility for difficulties in interpretation of or changes in the land use code. CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN. COLORADO 8]612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, A.I.A. APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT I. Significant Development The proposed building is a single family home, two stories in height with an attached two car garage at the rear. Its architectural style is Victorian and in keeping with the character of the adjacent buildings of the neighborhood. II. Conceptual Development Plan a. Redevelopment Plan: Refer to Graphic Submittal b. Building Materials Refer to Exhibit F C. Statement concerning effect of proposed redevelopment on neighborhood Refer to Exhibit E EXHIBIT E 1-iscone Lift February 22, 1988 Mr. Richard Klein Project Architect Charles Cuniffe & Associates P. 0. Box 3534 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Dear Richard, Per your request, I have analyzed the impact of the proposed demolition of 222 E. Hallam and the consequent redevelopment of that site with a new "victorian" house. In this analysis, I have assumed that your engineers and structural consultants will adequately demonstrate to the Aspen HPC that the current house is so structurally unsound as to make rehabilitation or removal of the house to another site impractical. I looked at Ordinance Number 11 (series of 1987) for standards for reviewing both the demolition and the redevelopment. From this I determined that the demolition should: (1) mitigate impacts to the character of the neighborhood, and, (2) mitigate impacts to the historic importance of adjacent parcels. I believe that construction of a newly designed victorian house will mitigate impacts to the neighborhood if efforts are made to align the front set back from the street with adjacent parcels, and if the massing is not out of scale with the neighborhood. Impact on the historic significance of adjacent parcels will be mitigated by the above and by replicating details from the victorian houses of the same era as the Glidden house. Since the Glidden house is also a replication of a victorian house, the proposed new house will not detract from the historic significance of this property. 1033 Steele Denver CO. 80206 303 399-6391 4 1 page 2 Mr. Richard Klein February 22, 1988 Standards (in Ordinance #11) for evaluating redevelopment of the site state that the project: (1) be compatible in character with designated structures on adjacent parcels, (2) be consistent with the character of the neighborhood, and, (3) enhance, or not detract from, the cultural value of designated structures on adjacent parcels. Again, maintaining compatibility with both the neighborhood and adjacent structures can be accomplished by designing a house which echoes the major design elements of the era of houses surrounding it. Compatibility will need to be reflected in scale, materials, colors, fenestration, roof lines, set-backs and style. As a last step of this analysis, I looked at the proposed design for the new house at 222 E. Hallam. It appears to me that this design addresses each of the issues I have mentioned above. It is compatible and in character with both the neighborhood and adjacent structures because of its victorian details, scale, massing, set back from the street, colors, fenestration and materials. The roof echoes the pitched roof lines of the victorian era, the double-hung windows represent the appropriate time period, the steep chimney, cupola, and open front porch all portray design elements that are both appropriate and well-designed to be compatible to the neighbor- hood. Even the garage is detailed in an appropriate victorian manner. In addition, the site plan demonstrates that the massing and placement of this structure will not detract from either of the adjacent structures. page 3 Mr. Richard Klein February 22, 1988 Given that it is not feasible to either move or renovate this structure, it would seem to me that this proposed new house will be a good addition to the neighborhood. Sincerely, 1 Lisa Purdy President LP/ode cc: Mr. Joseph A. Amato • · .. EXHIBIT F CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, A.IA AMATO RESIDENCE EXTERIOR MATERIALS o Foundation - Concrete o Siding - Beveled Clear Cedar, Painted o Trim - Clear Cedar, Painted o Windows - Marvin, Wood Sash, Painted o Doors - Wood - Solid Coor, Panel, French o Garage Door - Sectional Wood Panel Roll-up o Millwork - Cedar or Redwood, Painted o Roof - Cedar Shakes or Metal Standing Seam, o Flashing - Copper o Masonry Fireplace - Used Brick a . 4 / p '' ..-/-/ 4 , b 11 Ki ·2 086 8 6,3 I 1 CHARLES CUNNIFFE AND ASSOCIATES IL__.0-21 ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING n [r,FocrprPRD /7 t.12&0381}E oF.FAL=:,=1 LLUL U U LAUU G BOX 3534, ASPEN, CO 81612 303-925-5590 DatetEC 3 0 51 | Job # 251 1 5 To: 011'1' OF ASPEN ~Att: 6-TENE BUR-5TEIN 'PLANNIN(q 'bEPT. Re: AMATO tEA GENTLEMEN: WE ARE SENDING YDll '0 Attached O Under separate cover via MEASENMER- the following items: O Shop drawings ~¢ Prints O Plans O Samples O Specifications m Copy of letter O Chance order 4 FBoros Oopies Date No. Description 1 XE.Boy op 1.»c. PR,Fluet ¥44. laROcruRAl PUct¢)5 EST68(/561/k,q ADDET/041, 10 OR/4. *£510£»CE. 1 DEc b | 60 PuoTOS 1 1, .1 Flatos PBoti 114 Rv KEYNo L-5 -ro TR• DE- Felt ORIRE 6( 5 THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: D For approval O Approved as submitted O Resubmit-copies for approval ~For your use O Approved as noted O Submit--copies for distribution O As requested O Returned for corrections O Return--corrected prints 0 1-or review and comment O O FOR BIDS DUE 19 0 PRINTS RETURNED Arl-ER LOAN TO US Remarks: Copy To: Signed: - 427'- - 1 P.ictislto 1<1-klk, I 30, 7 -i '.7 4 .2.. r f € 0 t. 4 t. I .m<' ? trit .0 z N 1-4. %4 •le %94.#.4£4·f . = CY'. • 2'V I 9 4*15 1- . 0 **49 9 . 41.. 1 . 4,0 4 44- ' 5»44, '11.„7424~,~~~,I.*~~~~~~..G ,14 1 9 ,,/ I. e V'"I: W In,I - 't:~ ~ -k ..$*44#¥1.%.475..r 32,2- t €21» , ; *I. * I. le, ·g ,·.4' ' 4K <2,4'tr - 1, 36. C .6941 . 4*04 :j; 9 #-34.'17,1 0 71 i *~2#1 ' , ~)·11; 9 , 544 43/ % TRH .... .q 14 - Mill ' 1 4 57· 1-1.-St:~~ 1,- r /illii/· , W..0/*4, M. P. 1 Af. r;67(h f * 4€ 19*rt .3 f / 41ji' f. ~i.- 3/. 0 L 'e.9. 43: f A.* 12 3' ' · 4 y 1 -40**« -4-8-----7-r< 11' fi#~04~:'~.~%07¥' **~4*'f:"~ilp 11#,5~~4 fre#94 4.14 7€1119 1. - 44,~Emin.~ibi'~.7=21.2.::·b*fajk~: St--;1:13(1> - ~7~4* 4/KY"*T'#476%.4 243.1 f, t, m.* 44 , 'i 0 41 *.1. ' fo .: 4 -~t- '1. A A¢* 1 .... ..4,1% 44¥t.k ' 0 911 I ¥ 1 ty ..I \NC tib ..4*4 ..4 * il: .9.44 h , ,J. 1 1 . 14.4 <yeD I 9,4....99 . C. 2 1.J <8 0 -q + JI , W . 1 1 ~Ii '! 2. ·· .~ - 0.34 1 · ~ r <4 1,11:'W.40:.'-·. 20/1 , K7.87 2 ~:. - - *·: 9,01£44- 3~\~ r d' <9·22 ¢ ' ·• . 4.451 L; --1 - Nk--6*~ 01 li·#,<- - :; * 31 1- 1-1·- - ·· • - i M 01 ' ie·.<· 1 % Pn 0 .1 €=lf-~v< 1,f k ....9 0 .4 N.-C:. H r,NO.. I-€*LE- m.i · I ./ I lo_ 1.*f..4 Y .7.1 1 ..., 49 Ab ·,s... ~. 1*' · ..k--·62£ 7,· 9 .4 - 04 4. 1 . '.r . 4. ...:1- I *.2,24%32 :. & -~~' 4 • :;~· E i.·. 2 'A '· 2 I369..t * ,·42.9·.42 ' f . 1,1 1.- ' 94<*84% + 9 2-i,.,t:i J . w. .·,5 ::.. 1:. , -144 D-7 . 2 2.016 h 3:it. 1 /4 .d C f' 1 00.4 h 641*A : 4% 2 Alf .4. 0, 26..1 ~t , - I. 0 (4%..3, )9'4: ; f *. \ 34. r . F I 7%?Al '*- '44 11.. X r / t.. <$::**L l -Vet' . 1.13 . 431. ..al' /JI V \. - I.*77:Wi...1 1 ~ I.51./~/fj/'~ijpt;21' ,"2 Fl' V 1--9 11 E?4464, .7. ···•·%%~t·~*VQj.'4 r. 7 1 . +C I .....ty.4.trt»FNJ . INTEGRru ED ENIGINEERING -_,ONSULTANTS , Ltd. 411 East Main Street Suite 206 Aspen.Colorado 8161: .... 1.-- ...71 7. (303) 94· 99'3 10'13 September 3, 1987 Job #87147 Mr. Joseph Amato c/o Plymouth Construction, Inc. P. 0. Box 179 Monroe, New York 10950 Re: 222 E..Hallam Aspen, Colorado Dear Mr. Amato: At the request and with the assistance of Charles Cunniffe & Associates/Architects, Integrated Engineering Consultants, Ltd. ~3 residence· has conducted a preliminary structural evaluation of the above The inspection covered only those structural elements which were readily visible and did not include concealed elements due to the cost and disruption of exposing them. Based oh our visual inspection, we conclude that the above - residence is essentially not structurally sound and modification of its' existing structural elements would be prohibitive and very expensive. The roof does not meet current U.B.C. requirements, is virtually in a state of gradual collapse and would need to be modified significantly to remain in service per U.B.C. requirements or to accommodate any modification to its' supporting elements. The floor is in similar condition as is most of the foundation. The brick masonry of the foundation is in an advanced state of deterioration and is not protected against frost action. It is our opinion that very little of the original structure would remain if an endeavor was made to rehabilitate or modify it. In addition, attempts to move the structure would be quite extensive in that considerable effort would be required to keep the structure intact. Based on the above observations, it is our opinion that it C would be more cost effective to demolish the existing structure. '. 222 E. Hallam September 3, 1987 - ~ -- _. Page 2 If you have any questions or if we can be of any further assistance, please call 303 925-5913. Sincerely, INTEGRATED ENGINEERING CONS~LTANTS, LTD. \ /2 4-4 cm/fjdLPLIUI~to Richard T. Cieciuch, Jr., P. E. Sr. Design/Construction Engineer RTC/skc r cc: Charles Cunniffe & Assoc.v/' C1 C t I Mr. Charles Cunniffe Charles Cunnifee and Associates/Architects P.O. Box 3534 Aspen, CO 81612 RE: 222 East Hallam Demolition March 2, 1988 Dear Charles, Pursuant to the conversations with you and Richard Kline yesterday, I am writing this letter to inform you of concerns that your application for demolition should address. The public hearing for this review has been scheduled for March 22, 1988 as we arranged (see Public Notice attached). You promised to submit the additional information by no later than Friday, March 4, 1988. Section 24-9.5(c)(2) (as amended in Ordinance 11 (Series of 1987)) of the Municipal Code establishes the submission require- ments for demolition review. Subsection (vi) states "A written statement of how the demolition conforms to the review standards of Section 24-9.5(b)." Of the six review standards in Section 24- 9.5 (b) we are concerned that ( 1) and (2) have not been directly addressed in your application. " ( 1) The structure proposed for demolition is not struc- turally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure." Please submit evidence of efforts made by Mr. Amato or the prior owner to keep the house structurally sound, which worked and did not work. "(2) The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused to provide for any beneficial use of the property." There are three aspects to this standard which we believe are pertinent to this application: structural practicality, economic feasibility, and livability. Regarding structural practicality, the questions are: Is there evidence that health and safety problems currently make the house unlivable? UBC violations alone do not indicate that this is the case. 1 9 1 . Can the existing house be remodeled and added onto in the rear without undermining the structural integrity of the house? Regarding economic feasibility, the appraiser's reports state that the house is "outdated" and should either be razed or totally remodeled and expanded. The pertinent question which has not been answered, pursuant to Mr. Bowie's analysis of the options, is: Can the existing house be remodeled and added onto in the rear (or a second structure built) in a way that would allow for a "reasonable return on investment?" In this analysis, the historic incentives created through Ordinance 42 (Series of 1987) should be considered for this approach, including the $2,000 grant available, conditional uses for duplex use or detached dwellings on the property, B&B or boardinghouse, and area and bulk variations. Of course, these incentives are subject to historic landmark designation and reviews by HPC and the P&Z. Richard indicated that he wants to approach this question also through analyzing compara- tive costs for remodeling and adding on and redevelop- ing the property. We agree that such cost estimates would be relevant to help HPC understand relative merits of different scenarios. Regarding the livability of the house, a determination should be made if the particular size, layout, siting and other critical aspects of the existing house and property are so deficient to make the house unreasonable to inhabit. I realize that, as this is the first significant demolition to be reviewed under the standards of Ordinance 11, there may be misun- derstandings of what needs to be addressed in an application and HPC's review. I appreciate your cooperation in supplying us with additional analysis in the areas that we believe are most crucial for review of this demolition proposal. I look forward to receiving the information on Friday. If you or Richard have any questions, please call me or Roxanne Eflin. Sincerely, Steve Burstein, Planner cc: Alan Richman Roxanne Eflin letter.222 2 . p + r CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I A fij I, kereby certify that on this «~ day of 10, oj f jo-L_ - 1986 , a true and correct copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was deposited in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners ap indicated on the attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case named on the public notice. <_-j u-yj t ( '13_f)-- Nancy Caeti f ... I r PUBLIC NOTICE RE: DEMOLITION OF 222 E. HALLAM NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 22, 1988 at a meeting to begin at 2:30 P.M. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee, in the City Council Chambers, 1st Floor, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO, to consider an application to demolish the house located at 222 E. Hallam Street, Lots K and L of Block 71, Townsite and City of Aspen. The structure, formerly known as the Reynolds Residence, received an historic evaluation of "4" and thereby is subject to demolition review. A "new victorian" two story house and two story garage would replace the existing house and outbuilding. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 282. s/Bill Poss Chairperson, Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Published in the Aspen Times on March 3, 1988. City of Aspen Accout. 222.ph , , C CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS PO. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, A.I.A. h [-I. r-. x. ! ' ~~ ~ - ' ' ~,3.3 -= March 4, 1988 ~ ff MAR 4 1\\ 1 , JUL Mr. Steve Burstein Planning Office City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 222 East Hallam Street Aspen, Colorado Dear Steve, Please find enclosed a written response to your request for further information in your letter dated March 2, 1988. Also enclosed are exhibits which substantiate our discussion. If you have any further questions, please contact us. Sincerely, LU- L- Lit Charles L. Cunniffe, AIA Principal encls. t CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, A.LA March 4, 1988 H.P.C. SUPPLEMENT FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: 222 East Hallam, Aspen, Colorado In response to Planning Department Letter Dated March 2, 1988: I. Owner Maintenance - In response to your inquiry concerning the owner's effort to properly maintain the structure, please be advised that during the adoption of Ordinance 11, the issue of retroactive requirements was raised, as well as concern about penalizing people who did not have the economic wherewithal to make improvements to their property. It was made clear during the review process that Ordinance 24-9.5 was not intended to penalize people who had no obligation to maintain their homes, nor the economic ability to put money into their property. The maintenance requirement was only to apply to property owners after the ordinance was in effect. Mr. Amato has owned the property for less than a year. During this time, he has been involved in review processes appealing his Score and now seeking a demolition. It makes no sense to require him to take any action in this limited time period until an ultimate disposition of his review processes is finalized. In the Structural Engineer's letter, he mentions previous attempts by the owner to maintain the structural integrity of the house, even though those attempts were not successful. II. a. Structural Practicality - As indicated by the Structural Engineer's report from Integrated Engineering Consultants, Ltd. (Exhibit A) updated on March 4, 1988, the residence at 222 East Hallam Street. Aspen, Colorado is not structurally sound. The brick masonry foundation is in an advanced state of deterioration, and must be replaced. The floor framing system cannot adequately support people and furniture ln many areas and is in danger of collapsing. Page Two (Re: 222 W. Hallam Residence) The roof is sagging along the ridge, running lengthwise of the house. This l S due to an inadequate roof framing system which has been compromised by the numerous additions to the house. In reviewing the Structural Engineer's report, it is evident that the residence is not structurally sound, cannot be economically rehabilited or reused, and could not even be moved to another site. II. b. Remodel - A new structure could be added onto the rear of the existing house as long as it is structurally i.ndependent. This is not a viable solution however, due to the economic infeasibility of renovating the existing structure. III. Economic Feasibility - 1. As indicated by the Building Contractor who generated a cost analysis (Exhibit B), the structure cannot be economically renovated. For this reason it is also not feasible to add a new building to the rear of the existing building. 2. The incentives offered through Ordinance 42 will not provide a reasonable return on investment. The existing building could not feasibly be modified to become a boarding house or a bed and breakfast establishment. This is due not only to the haphazard layout of the existing building but also to the inability to feasibly modify the structure and create a reasonable interior room layout. The $2,000.00 grant available is not of sufficient amount to offset renovation costs. Currently the property at 222 East Hallam is zoned R6 and SCI. Because of this situaton, there is insufficient land available in the R6 Zone to construct a duplex or second home on the property. 3. As demonstrated by Alpine Construction, the Building Contractor retained to provide a cost analysis (Exhibit B), it is not feasible to renovate the existing structure. Page Three (Re: 222 W. Hallam Residence) IV. Livability - As Sharon Tinnes of the Aspen Broker Ltd. and Don Westerlind of Alpine Construction both point out in their letters (Exhibits B and C), the existing house layout (a product of numerous additions) makes little sense and does riot function effectively. It is not reasonable to preserve a non-functional layout from a cost standpoint and is an impractical burdon to impose on the owner. ' ~ EXHIBIT A Vf.1.6:.1. :-W ... INTEGRAI ED ENGINEERING LONSULTANTS , Ltd. ¥ 4!] East \1oin Street Suite 106 Aspen,Colorado 81611 (303) 021- · 4-01 3 March 4, 1988 Job # 87147 Mr. Joseph Amato c/o Plymouth Construction, Inc. P. 0. Box 179 Monroe, New York Re: 222 E. Hallam Aspen, Colorado Dear Mr. Amato: At the request and with the assistance of Charles Cunniffe & Associates/Architects, Integrated Engineering Consultants, Ltd. has conducted an structural evaluation of the above residence. The inspection covered only those structural elements which were readily visible and did not include concealed elements due to the cost and disruption of exposing them. Based on our visual inspections and structural evaluation of the above residence, we conclude that: 1. SIXTY THREE PERCENT (63%) of the foundation is not structurally sound. The brick masonry is in an advanced state of deterioration, is not protected against frost action. This lack of protection against frost action will, not only result in continual movement and ultimate failure of the foundation system; but, will contribute to further deterioration of the wall, floor and roof framing systems and lead to their ultimate failure. In addition to the imminent failure of the above systems, there are the continual nuisance factors of in the interior walls and ceilings, doors and windows that will not open or close, and floors that tilt. There is evidence that the former owner was forced to replace approximately one third of the thirty seven percent (37%) of the serviceable foundation. The advanced state of deterioration of the brick masonry foundation system precludes the possibility of rehabilitation; and, will require demolition and replacement. 222 E. Hallam March 4, 1988 Page 2 2. FIFTY ONE PERCENT (51%) of the floor framing system is not structurally sound. In spite of the many amateurish attempts by the former owner, the hodgepodge of framing that has evolved, in the process of addition and modification, is inadequate to support safe live loads (i.e. people and moveable furniture). The above lack of protection against frost action in the foundation system and the inadequate floor framing system will, not only result in continual movement and ultimate failure of the floor system; but, will contribute to further deterioration of the wall and roof framing systems and lead to their ultimate failure. In addition to the imminent failure of the above systems there are the continual nuisance factors of cracks in the interior walls and ceilings, doors and windows that will not open or close, cracked floor tiles and tilting floors. The inadequate floor framing system, because of the hodgepodge of framing that has evolved, will require a combination of new floor framing system and a new interior foundation system; and, preclude the possibility of rehabilitation; and, will require demolition and replacement. 3. THIRTY FIVE PERCENT (35%) of the roof framing system is not structurally sound. The many modifications and additions that have occurred; and, the attempt, by the former owner, to maintain the structural integrity, by the addition of the new roofing material have, in fact, undermined an already marginal framing system to the point that it is sagging and is in a virtual state of collapse and is inadequate to support actual snow and ice loads. In addition to the imminent failure of the roof system, there are the continual nuisance factors of cracks in the ceilings and leaks in the roof. The spider web of the roof framing system precludes the possibility of rehabilitation; and, will require demolition and replacement. 4. TWENTY FOUR PERCENT (24%) of the serviceable roof framing system does not have an adequate support system. An new support system must be added to the interior foundation system to prevent damage to the serviceable roof framing system. 222 E. Hallam March 4, 1988 Page 3 In addition to the specific structurally unsound areas identified in items 1-4 above, there is a high probably for damage to structurally sound areas that can occur in the process of demolition and replacement. Since a majority of the interior walls, in the areas that require extensive repair, are plaster, there is a high probably they will be damaged. The same is also true for exterior walls. Exterior windows will have to be removed to avoid damage, thus endangering the windows and exterior siding. It is our opinion that very little of the existing structure would remain undamaged in the process of replacement of the unsound areas. In addition, attempts to move the structure would result in equal if not greater damage to the existing structure as well as require complete disassembly of large sections of the structural system. It is important to point out that we are not trying to bring the existing structural system up to the current UBC code requirements; but, instead to generally accepted design and construction techniques. Any attempt to remodel or add on to the existing structure will face the additional burden of current UBC requirements in those areas that are impacted by remodel or addition work. Based on the above observations, it is our opinion that: 1. The Structure is not structurally sound. 2. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused. 3. The structure cannot be practicably moved to another site in Aspen. If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of any further service, please contact us. Sincerely, INTEGRATED ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LTD. Lawrence A. Doble, P.E. President /LAD EXHIBIT B ALPINE CONSTRUCTION CO., |NC. 728 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PHONE 925-7007 March 3, 1988 Charles Cunniffe & Aa.ociates/Architects 520 E. Hyman Ave„ Suite 301 81612 Aspen, LU Attention: Richara Klein RE: Amato Residence 222 E. Hallam Aspen, CO Dear Richard, Per your request, Alpine Construction Co., Inc., has made the following estimates in regard to the Amato Residence. 1) To renovate the house from a hig-coricai aspect, ie: Save every item possible, it would cost Eight Hundred Fifty Thousand dollars minimum (5850,000.00) . 2) To·renovate the house by saving oniy the exterior walls, building a new structure within, and then reappiying the existing walls would cost Four Hundred Nineteen Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty dollars ($419,760.00). The two examples above involve a two thousand square foot (2000 sq. ft., house and a four hundred seventy two square foot (472 sq. ft.) workshop. 3) To demolish the existing house and workshop and construct a new home per your plans would cost Four Hundred Eight Thousand Four Hundred Eighty dollars (4408,480.00). This example involves a three thousand two square foot (3002 so. ft.) house, a four hundred eighty four square foot (484 sq. ft.) garaae attached by a one hundred twenty square foot (120 sq. ft.) hallway. Items one and two above do not make any sense since the existing layout of the house has been haphazardly added on to without logic and function. Why should anyone reconstruct a non-functional layout? These concerns are valid both from a structural point of view and functional point of view. Following are my credentials from Alpine Construction Co., Inc.'s AIA Contractor Qualification form: Don Sten Westerlind President and Chief Enecutive Officer. With Alpine Construction Co., Inc. since 1962. BS - Civil Engineering and BS Business from University of Colorado. P esently serving on City of Asnen Board of Appeals and Examiners, Pitkin County Board of Appeais. Treasurer for the Aspen Historical Society, tirst Baptist Church Board of Trustees and former Treasurer of Young Life, Aspen. Formerly served on City of Aspen Mistorical Preservation Committee, Aspen Sanitation Board of Directors and as Treasurer and President of the Aspen Lions Club. In my experience of remodeling homes, the cost is greater and the end result usually less satistactory than in building a new home. Tne costs in my estimates reflect this. If I can be of further assistance or if you have any questions, please contact me. Fhank you, / V - ../ Don Sten Westerlind President DSW/dw , EXHIBIT C A MEMBER OFTHE SEARS FINANCIAL NETWORK 720 E DURANT AVENUE ASPEN CO 81611 COLDWeLL BUS (303) 925-6750 BANKeR 0 THE ASPEN BROKERS LTD. March 4, 1988 Mr. Richard Klein c/o Charles Cunniffe & Associates P. 0. Box 3534 Aspen, CO 81612 Dear Richard, In response to our conversat-ion the other day; I really feel that the layout of the interior of the Amato house is so awkward due to the multiple, and I might say badly jumbled, additions, that no matter what you added to the rear of the existing structure, you would not be able to bring the front of the house into line with the back for commercial value. What real estate purchaser wants what basically amounts to a spacious add-on to a badly confused and apparently structurally deficient front unit. The end result would flow like night and day. As to the Bed and Breakfast idea. I think you are dreaming if you feel that you can convert the house to that use. First and foremost the layout is not compatible to a Bed and Breakfast. Second, I feel the cost of bringing the house in line would be prohibitive compared to the anticipated commercial return. Third, I really do not feel that the neighbors would accept a Bed and Breakfast in the neighborhood in light of what has happened so far. I am really bewildered at this point as to just what Mr. Amato can do to recover the investment in the property he has already made! Sin- Sharon Tinnes Sales Associate ST:crs An Independently Owned and Operated Member of Coldwell Banker Residential Alliliates. Inc. tiot to 3\Al/*4 4/1$ f 4444 .d . 1 AAC - MA\, (1(* (120. 1 . ob aok-r 15 0-1. t E Notes on 222 lit_ Hallam - Re: Application for Demolition Upon initial review of application received in office 2/26/88, the following comments are made for discussion and possible report: In reviewing Ordinance 11, Section 24-9.5 Demolition of Historic Structures, the application as submitted in incomplete in these areas: 1) evidence not submitted of the owner's efforts to ~ properly maintain the structure (see b-1), 2) evidence not \-submitted to demonstrate the structure cannot be rehabilitated or at~- . reused to provide for ANY beneficial use of the property, 3) an GY»°WEL economic feasibility report that provides estimated market value - 1- Al of the property after demolition (see Pg. 22 - aa) . +02' 00 Other areas of concern: Item #6, pg. 2, Ordinance 11 states 4)81- rliA the purpose of the demolition review. . .to avoid the imposition of---,%<6(~ economic hardship on the owner of the structure. This property ~ has a current value as the owner' s representatives have stated of Cle $335,000, and reasonable use of this property is, in fact, being allowed, consistent with the overall goals of the community. Al,•3 &4€©i~ How have the engineering consultants determined the percentages lu.t to of structural evaluation. Where is the supportive documentation *J 1»showing the foundation plan and floor framing system showing FYL 4 areas of deterioration. Is the argument that this property is UaW:41 7 6{ unsound based on the fact that it doesn' t meet UBC requirements? Most historic properties do not meet current UBC codes anyway! Mollica's statements in his letter of 8-31-87 refer to "outdated Victorian structures". What IS an outdated Victorian in his opinion and how does he estimate value added as a result of being in a "historic" neighborhood (or district) ?? His attachment reflecting 18 sales with no addresses stated. Are these all j residential? Addresses should have been included. How close to the subject property are these in radius? In Exhibit E, Lisa Purdy's letter, the glaring obvious is the fact that one of the adjacent parcels is a replication. The argument here is the fact the original fabric, the district, is ~ being destroyed, with unoriginal replications (of some older house, somewhere!) taking their place - what happens to the district and the economic value connected with it? With a "district" made up of replications, where is the real value? The proposed redevelopment is troublesome. The ultra Neo- Victoriana facade is overdone for the neighborhood. The massing is a concern, although both adjacent properties are two-story. It will be my recommendation the City Engineer be called in to look at this structural situation, and that we re-examine the 1 - r I 4 01 ui--fk.._ u.aL f- - Pol'k f f ourj C- 4 appraisal information in depth, possibly calling in our own for further study. If in fact the building can/should be moved, the Committee should seek hard to assist in finding a site appropri- ate for its "landing". This is an important case, and the Committee should be made aware very carefully of all their options in dealing with it. ## i#-34 Ma - 4--1) 4-t. ~ ---2 76-3 1-trof Al TV, 7/4 (7 1-70 49 Plo Vi Craj.1 -35r21< 3 00'rh L.<h / f 41 U f u / -n»./CAP?/12(37 -.3\4 -1/~ 6-46 Ed +An:~ - --0*J i.40-3 \14 -j 1 1/4,4 3-.4 -469 9 6 + Ong *-004*Tre ~ / 1 no / P j 403 TygY J ~ . 373 1.11 (41/3 -4 < 4 - h.16) f 9 -2 09% 1 + 14-4/ 9-1 -14 _~/3 7164 A.,0 1 ' Ap 1 49 7-f~194 -7(f>OrQ V ¢ 1 f'~9\14 ~ 3), ty, 1~41 -7, i,53·414 39) 3 4 0 0 «1/4 'hyfl -n ~,0 v vv »1*7 1-4 j# 4)41 1*10€1 47144,3 - U -\- f»16 f / 446 K 4~ 79 l) 0) ,-9 -P) iri-« 4- f 19- i »4112 -4 07 1 3- #de/~4)~10 »41 09»FO P < 91"/)09 4/9,4/32 OF -47 /1 14 /A 9 9 7 0*rf# ikf k. 003 --ipr ao -40-v j KT, / g K -/- 9 1i« 'U & 34 -33\ftp h(fi < 9 - \R/7// Notes on 222 *A Hallam - Re: Application for Demolition Upon initial review of application received in office 2/26/88, the following comments are made for discussion and possible report: In reviewing Ordinance 11, Section 24-9.5 Demolition of Historic Structures, the application as submitted in incomplete in these ~- areas: 1) evidence not submitted of the owner 's efforts to properly maintain the structure (see b-1), 2) evidence not fsubmitted to demonstrate the structure cannot be rehabilitated or Lreused to provide for ANY beneficial use of the property, 3) an ~-economic feasibility report that provides estimated market value of the property after demolition (see Pg. 22 - aa). Other areas of concern: Item #6, pg. 2, Ordinance 11 states the purpose of the demolition review...to avoid the imposition of economic hardship on the owner of the structure. This property has a current value as the owner's representatives have stated of $335,000, and reasonable use of this property is, in fact, being allowed, consistent with the overall goals of the community. How have the engineering consultants determined the percentages of structural evaluation. Where is the supportive documentation showing the foundation plan and floor framing system showing areas of deterioration. Is the argument that this property is N unsound based on the fact that it doesn' t meet UBC requirements? 5000 Most historic properties do not meet current UBC codes anyway! Mollica's statements in his letter of 8-31-87 refer to "outdated Victorian structures" . What IS an outdated Victorian in his opinion and how does he estimate value added as a result of being in a "historic" neighborhood (or district) ?? His attachment reflecting 18 sales with no addresses stated. Are these all residential? Addresses should have been included. How close to the subject property are these in radius? Al,y £ f 00 f; 41,4 In Exhibit E, Lisa Purdy's letter, the glaring obvious is the fact that one of the adjacent parcels is a replication. The argument here is the fact the original fabric, the district, is being destroyed, with unoniginal__rapl-igatiQns- (of some older 1 house, somewhere !) taking their place - what happens to the district and the economic value connected with it? With a "district" made up of repyications, where is the real value? fhte k i ll on, In IUS IA) U 4,00 0,111.49 £ 4 Y# 441 The proposed redevelopment is troublesome. The ultra Neo- Victoriana facade is overdone for the neighborhood. The massing is a concern, although both adjacent properties are two-story. It will be my recommendation the City Engineer be called in to look at this structural situation, and that we re-examine the appraisal information in depth, possibly calling in our own for further study. If in fact the building can/should be moved, the Committee should seek hard to assist in finding a site appropri- ate for its "landing". This is an important case, and the Committee should be made aware very carefully of all their options in dealing with it. ## /0.-1.: CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, A.LA 77 f 11 i :12 1 Ill / i FEB26 February 25, 1988 U lili Mr. Steven Burstein Planning Office --- -----*- City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 222 East Hallam Street Aspen, Colorado Dear Steve, Please find enclosed an Application for Demolition with exhibits, an Application for Significant Development with exhibits, a Redevelopment Plan including Graphic Submittal, and a list of property owners within 300 feet of our proposed project. It is our intention to demolish the existing residence on Hallam Street and. construct a new Victorian styled house in its place. I think we have adequately satisfied all requirements for the Application for Demolition and Significant Development. If you have any further questions, please contact Richard or myself at your convenience. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, 6/6 L 4~ Charles L. Cunniffe, AIA Principal encl. CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, A I.A JIJ« APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION I. a. Property Owner: . \ r , Jr 06 M>193j r >1/ 4 U k. L L 43 Joe Amato P.O. Box 179 \%,>r<+ 4 (fpr Monroe, New York 10950 ..4 1 b. Owners Authorization B 4* Refer to Exhibit A II. Property Address: 222 East Hallam Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Legal Desc'ription: A tract Of land situated in Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. being more fully described as follows: Beginning at the south west corner of Lot M, Block 71, City of Aspen; thence N 14 degrees 50' 49' E 163.12 feet, thence S 78 degrees 23' 00" E 66.08 feet, thence S 22 degrees 58' 00" E 116.19 feet, thence S 12 degrees 69' 00" W 75.09 feet, to the northeriy line of Hallam Street; thence N 75 degrees 09' 11" W 139.65 feet, to the point of beginning containing 19,592 square feet more or less. III. Description of Structure Proposed for Demolition: The existing structure at 222 East Hallam Street in Aspen is a single family residences one story in height with horizontal wood siding and a standing seam metal roof. It is a product of numerous additions and alterations. The original residence built in 1887 was approximately 12 feet x 44 feet in size. with clapboard siding and a wood shingle roof. None of this structure is in existence today except for the log foundation laying under the existing house which was built about a year later in 1888. Through the years this building was (Sec. III Cont.) added onto in 12 different locations. Today, the only portions of the house in existence that still dates back to the "mining days" are two walls of the sun room, originally added on in 1893. IV. a. Engineers Report: Refer to Exhibit B b. House Mover Report: Refer to Exhibit C V. Economic Feasibility Report: Refer to Exhibit D VI. Review Standards for Demolition: 1. Refer to Exhibit B 2. The structure in question can not be rehabilitated as as demonstrated by the engineer (Refer to Engineers Repor-t, Exhibit B). It might be possible to reuse some portion of an exterior wall as was the case recently with Elli's in Town. Such an action would constitute nothing more than a false facade, which both the Owner and Architect feel is inappropriate. 3. Refer to Exhibit C 4. See Graphic Submittal 5 & 6. Refer to Exhibit E VII. a. Redevelopment Plan See Graphic Submittal b. Statement concerning effect of proposed redevelopment on neighborhood. Refer to Exhibit E 3-'88 15: 14 ID:HONPOE TUBE -2, , 11-·• 141 1-n.Zi-_·-:7·7-4 Ll_ Iii_'• _·1/ :Li_i i_#i-1 EXHIBIT A JOSEPH A. AMATD P.O BOX 603 HIGH!-AND MILLS, N ¥ 10930 (914)928 9121 February 26, 1988 Fax No. 303 925 5076 Charles Lunniffe & Associates Box 3534 - 300 South Spring Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attention: Charles Cunniffe Re: 222 East Hallan - Lots K & L, Block City & Town Site of Aspen Gentlemen: This letter will serve as your authority to submit on my behalf, an Application for Demolition and Significant Developmen for the subject premises. Please submit whatever is required by Ordinance No. 11 to accomplish the foregoing. thank you. frol W vours, A vvyepii n. nnlato JAA:pmg EXHIBIT "B" 2.- :ff / 0. INTEGRAI ED ENGINEERING LONSULTANTS , Ltd 0.7. .1.:·'1*·. '47 VN, 41' East \Idin Street Suite 206 Aspell,Colorcido 81611 07 fil. e <303) 92.4- i-9'3 February 22, 1988 Job # 87147 Mr. Joseph Amato c/o Plymouth Construction, Inc. ~.~~2~ P. 0. Box 179 Monroe, New York / Re: 222 E. Hallam Aspen, Colorado Dear Mr. Amato: At the request and with the assistance of Charles Cunniffe & Associates/Architects, Integrated Engineering Consultants, Ltd. has conducted an structural evaluation of the above residence. The inspection covered only those structural elements which were readily visible and did not include concealed elements due to the cost and disruption of exposing them. Based on our visual inspections and structural evaluation of the above residence, we conclude that: 1. SIXTY THREE PERCENT (63%) of the foundation is not structurally sound. The brick masonry is in an advanced state of deterioration, is not protected against frost action and must be replaced to prevent continual movement and ultimate deterioration. 2. FIFTY ONE PERCENT (51%) of the floor framing system is not structurally sound. The hodgepodge of framing that has evolved, in the process of addition and modification, is inadequate to support safe live loads (i.e. people and moveable furniture) and must be replaced. The replacement of the floor framing system will require a combination of new framing and a new interior foundation system. , Juti- 3. THIRTY FIVE PERCENT (35%) of the roof framing system is not structurally sound. The many modifications and additions that have occurred have undermined an already marginal framing system to the point that it is in a virtual state of collapse and is inadequate to support safe snow loads and must be replaced. r S ~4*124~ - (%0 6,41 - Loub\Ol c r-·- A C A lan. 0 42/4/5(- IE.Ci'u / Pill.... 11 0,444- aki) c.4]k- 041. 410043 57% - ka ? 222 E. Hallam February 22, 1988 Page 2 4. TWENTY FOUR PERCENT (2 4%) of the serviceable roof framing system does not have an adequate support system. An new support system must be added to the interior foundation / system to prevent damage to the serviceable roof framing system. In addition to the specific structurally unsound areas identified in items 1-4 above, there is a high probably for damage to structurally sound areas that can occur in the process of demolition and replacement. Since a majority of the interior walls, in the areas that require extensive repair, are plaster, there is a high probably they will be damaged. The same is also true for exterior walls. Exterior windows will have to be removed to avoid damage, thus endangering the windows and exterior siding. It is our opinion that very little of the existing structure would remain undamaged in the process of replacement of the unsound areas. In addition, attempts to move the structure would result in equal if not greater damage to the existing structure as well as r require complete disassembly of large sections of the structural system. Based on the above observations, it is our opinion that: 1. The Structure is not structurally sound. 2. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused. 3. The structure cannot be practicably moved to another site in Aspen. If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of any further service, please contact us. Sincerely, INTEGRATED ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LTD. \11 C Lawrence A. Doble, P.E. President /LAD -1,0 a-1-5,~ct *k 1- d~ ,„ A -- A // - &4 FAL E. 4/il- &*24-.2-0 »A;* 1115 Q /901* - ot L ©Ik-- N®, 1 L. 0.-,24/d - AU--aeUp.c - -444*49 EXHIBIT C February 22, 1988 Charles Cunnifee & Associates/Architects Attn: Richard Klein, Project Architect 520 E. Hyman, Suite 301 Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 222 Hallam Street, Aspen Dear Richard, After inspecting the above mentioned property we have found that it has had approximately 11 additions to the original structure. Due to the age of the building and the way it has been constructed it would have to be cut into at least six pieces to be moved. We have been in our profession for over 30 years, and it has been our experience that the re-construction of the building once it has been cut would not be financially feasible or structually sound. After taking into consideration the above items, it is my recommendation that the building not ba moved. Sincerely, Dennis E. South SOUTH HOUSE MOVERS mms enclosure EXHIBIT "D" Jilmes J MOillfil & Assoclities. int Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants Crystal Palace Building• 300 East Hyman Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 • 303/925-8987 February 24, 1988 Mr. Joseph Amato c/o Mr. Richard Klein Charles Cuniffe and Associates P. 0. Box 3534 Aspen, CO 81612 RE: Consultation on the Amato Residence, 222 West Hallam, Block 71, Lots K and L Plus Metes and Bounds, Aspen, CO. Our File #10635 Dear Mr. Amato: This letter is in response to your request for reconsideration of our Consultation dated August 31, 1987 concerning the subject property. In brief, this letter is only intended to reinforce the statements we made in our letter at that time. We still feel the subject structure is outdated in terms of layout, size, quality and appeal to the market. We feel improvements contribute only minimally to value for the tap fees and short-term income-producing use which they represent. In the current market we feel the vast majority of buyers will still raze, or totally remodel and expand the existing residence in the process of new luxury home construction if permitted by the City. The structure contributes only minimally to value, in the $20.000 to $40,000 range. We have not been asked to provide a formal updated opinion of value. However, the market has remained strong for single family building sites in the West End. The last two sales have been at $365,000 and $430,000 for roughly 6000 square foot sites in prestigious areas of the West End. It is likely that a formal analysis of the subject property would find the original sale price to be low in the current market necessitating a small upward adjustment for current value. If we can be of any further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Scott M. Bowie, MAI Appraiser-Consultant Scott M. Bowie, M.A.I. Randy Gold, M.A.I. €~©El James J. Mollica, M.A.I. 0. ' EXHIBIT D Jilliles J.Mol lifit & Associuies, 1~ Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants Crystal Palace Building · 300 East Hyman Avenue · Aspen, Colorado 81611 · 303/925-8987 August 31, 1987 Mr. Joseph Amato c/o Mr. Richard Klein Charles Cuniffe and Associates P. 0. Box 3534 Aspen, CO 81612 RE: Consultation on the Amato Residence, 222 West Hallam, Block 71, Lots K and L Plus Metes and Bounds, Aspen, CO Dear Mr. Amato: At the request of Mr. Klein, I personally inspected the subject property with the purpose of providing some preliminary consultation involving questions of valuation. It is my understanding that the function of this brief letter is to assist in arriving at some value conclusions for application for destruction of the existing house on the property through the I-listoric Preservation process. Questions addressed to me are: 1. What is the current value of the property? 2. What portion of that value lies in the existing improvements? Attached to this letter is a list of the most recent sales of building sites in Aspen's West End. Among these is the subject itself, shown as Sale 17 at 0335,000 in May of 1987. The mattiet has been strong all during 1987, although we have little evidence to suggest that the subject would sell for a higher price currently than it did three months ago. The sale price was the result of normal negotiations between the buyer and the seller and, to our knowledge, represented an arm's length transaction. For this reason, we suggest that the recent actual sale price of the subject is the best possible indicator of current value of the property at %335.000. To answer the second question, we have personally inspected the subject improvements. The home is a Victorian vintage structure of approximately 1700 square feet in poor to fair condition. We have been provided with an engineering report that shows the foundation to be inadequate and recommends that the structure be demolished rather than renovated. That engineering report is attached to this letter. From our inspection, the structure's layout is awkward and inefficient. The home is laid out as two bedrooms and 1-3/4 baths with an oversized kitchen, parlour, living IOOm, small study and dining room. The porch overhang all but eliminates any potential view from the structure. Separation of the parlour and living room by a wall is very awkward, creating two small spaces rather than one large and functional space. Scott M. Bowie, M.A.1. Randy Gold, M.A.1. Eze James J. Mollica, M.A.I. 0. The kitchen is outdated in terms of cabinetry, floor coverings, etc.; and all appliances have been removed. Both the interior and exterior show many items of deferred maintenance. The reader should be aware that the West End real estate market has been extremely active for both land and improved properties for the past 18 months. Buildable land has been severely depleted. The result has been to drive up prices of available building sites, and in many cases fairly substantial homes have been purchased for the land only and the houses razed for new construction. Sales 1, SA, 12, 14 and 16 were lots improved with at least one relatively large single family home and in some cases there were two structures on the property. The rest of the sales except for comparables 6, 11 and 13 were improved with outdated Victorian structures in Various states of repair and quality, but all of which had been removed or are intended for razing for new luxury construction. In all cases where structures were included with the properties, we have made some deduction for value. This is a result of the fact that the existing structures carry sewer and tap fee credits and also can act as an income-producing use during the planning stages for new construction. In some cases, the properties have even been "land banked" pending some future development and the structures used temporarily either as an income source or the buyer's personal use. In all cases, however, the remaining economic lives of the structures are extremely abbreviated, if not completely over. We suggest that such is the case with the subject. The improvements can contribute some minimal value for the tap fees and short-term income-producing use. Nevertheless, we feel the vast majority of the market will raze, or totally remodel and expand, the existing residence in the process of new luxury home construction. We feel the only value that the structure affords is for the tap fees and its short-term income-producing use, and these factors may produce as much ah 020,000 to 040,000 in value. As with all our comparable sales, most of the value of the property lies in the land. The structure is a "hodge podge" of styles and additions. These additions have left the interior layout extremely awkward. For any buyer to maximize the value of the site, it would be necessary to taze the structure or so substantially alter it as to make it unrecognizable in its current state. Given the foundation problems suggested by Integrated Engineering Consultants, it is our opinion that economics would demand that the structure be razed for new luxury construction on this site. I hope this brief letter is sufficient for your needs at this time. If we can be of any further assistance in the application or interpretation of the findings in this brief letter, please do not hesitate to Call. I hereby certify that I have no present or future contemplated interest in the subject property; that to the best of my knowledge the information contained .~11X J. ~l0llifil a :I~~)(Inie~ inf. Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants herein is true and accurate; that my fee is not contingent upon the valuation stated herein. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. Sincerely, -SM &522--- Scott M. Bowie, M.A.I. Appraiser-Consultant Ji!11]fs J. Mollifil almrlotes, Im·. Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants Effective Price w/0 Sale Location Price Improvements Date Lot Size 1 Blk. 41 Lots K-M 0415,000 0365,000 4/85 9,000 SF 2 Blk. 34 Lots ARB 250,000 230,000 4/85 6,000 SF 3 Blk. 35 Lots H NI 235,000 225,000 6/85 6,000 SF 4 Blk. 35 Lots F, G, 250,000 240,000 7/86 7,500 SF & part of H 5 Blk. 20 Lots 4,5,6 215,000 239,000 7/86 9,000 SF 6 Blk. 2 Lots K-P 435,000 217,500 ea. 6/86 8,800 SF ea. 7 Blk. 14 Lots A-F 425,000 415,000 6/86 18,000 SF 8 Blk. 26 Lots F-I 425,000 415,000 10/86 11,300 SF BA Blk. 26 Lots C-E 375,000 350,000 9/86 9,000 SF 9 Blk. 60 Lots H 86 I 250,000 240,000 8/86 6,000 SF 10 Blk. 45 Lots K & L 235,000 225,000 3/87 6,000 SF 11 Blk, 39 Lots A-D 230,000 230,000 10/86 12,000 SF 12 Blk. 41 Lots O-P 555,000 525,000 3/87 9,500 SF 13 Blk. 8 Lots RNS 240,000 240,000 7/87 6,000 SF 14 Bl. 33 Pt. A,B,C 410,000 385,000 6/87 8,100 SF 15 Bl. 35 Lots A&B 285,000 275,000 12/86 6,000 SF 16 Bl. 14 Lots K,L,M 410,000 375,000 5/87 9,000 SF 17 81. 17 Lots K,L & 335,000 310,000 5/87 16,580 SF metes and bounds 18 Bl. 27 Lots HNI 365,000 350,000 7/87 6,000 SF \b~ 04_ o.kER*AL p *ug $711"041/3 iLL A 620.*&2;23 0©chaU G *9242, 13-- 81 l¤404_- .-/ A,00 (*A ge_ p.56 bals a.Wal 0, a ae € ARL> AA 4 A€d,~-~ AA£.2,5 ~*CJ : r. ...,1 . . --- ,, *u I : fA, . . 0 ..0 4 JW' ' :~.,I I'. . '.1 2;.. *% e,> .,@6¥,4 4 : 4 I ./ - - '1 I. . *L> ... 4 .. -:i-j,6 31.; ·i¢%*fft'.... 1 1 .. 0 '4 . I. v . M . 12* 1,r, -- .... n *4<fi¥ f<...TQ~:Lk Er r;f'..4541;. e - - - 1 1 1 --. . 1 . ... r ' : .6. 1*,1 kle #L ' 1.-.I~.......'-I'* t. 1 . . 1 - 41 92"will I.4 3-.-2.iIi Ullillil I~41 .. I - V.'. I + L .· 1 ...t ·:" ..1 , .. ... 1. ... 'i, I 4/ 14. I 94 . .r.. . ...'' .1 . " ' 1 i> 4 1% i :.4% 11... i *.. -1: 1 4 0%+ r .. • ... . 1.44. . · 49'}lecl~ r 6-~ 4.212.1~10 IL ...1 , 4, 4 € ~ / .'..4£1 '·LK,fi- -m , -1 r 1,4 11 p /,~ r 4 .. 'V'•-401'r- ·..~ . .1.--r t . '' 22,4. 2 7': 20·.~ f ,t·7'7~' t. . <41 49*imlit~Ar:U'9010¢:.~.6#1. r i .1 , .... INTEGRAi CD ENGINEERING c ONSULTANTS , Ltd. - 121 . ,471 , 4/ 11:S,l 411 East Main Street Suite 206 Aspen,Colorddo 8I6ll (303) 92<· f9'3 . 1 4 ..1 1 August 11, 1987 Job #87147 Mr. Joseph Amato c/o Plymouth Construction, Inc. P. 0. Box 179 Monroe, NY 10950 Re: Amato Residence Dear Joe: At the request and with the assistance of Charles Cunniffe & Associates/Architects, Integrated Engineering Consultants, Ltd. has conducted a further structural evaluation of the above residence. The inspection concentrated on an evaluation of the existing floor framing and brick masonry foundation of the "sitting room" and 'lliving area". Access to the crawlspace .under the "sitting room" was gaihed at the northwest corner of the "entry". Floor framing consisting of R.S. 2x6 @-12" o.c. spanning approximately 12' were observed in this area.* It appears that many of the floor joists are bearing on double 2x6 S4S spanning approximately 8' that in turn bear on ·8" CHU blocks that in turn bear on 'the surface of the ground. This framing configuration does not meet current UBC requirements. Additional access to the crawl space under the "living area" was gained at the southwest corner of the living area by cutting a hole in the floor sheathing. A similar framing configuration was observed in this area. This framing configuration does not meet current UBC requirements. An exploratory hole under the existing brick masonry foundation was dug at the southwest corner of the "living area". As predicted on our letter dated, May 14, 1987, the masonry bears on the surface of the ground. During the course of the above exploration it was confirmed that the brick masonry is in an advanced state of deterioration. The above deterioration will probably preclude the possibility of underpinning. The typical construction was two wythe (9"1) running bond. . . I Amato Residence August 11, 1987 Page 2 W Based on the above observations and past experience, it is our opinion that the existing structure should be demolished. n The cost of attempting to bring the existing structure up to code i in its' present state would be prohibitive. If you have any questions or if we can be of any further service, please contact us at (303) 925=5913. Sincerely, INTEGRATED ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LTD. - - l_~...1 Lawrence A. Doble, P.E. President LAD/skc I , cc: Charles Cunniffe & Assoc./Arch.4 ,t th, QUALIFICATIONS OF APPRAISER Scott M. Bowie, M.A. I. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, M.A. I. #6848 Instructor, University of Colorado Continuing Education Division Licensed Real Estate Broker in the State of Colorado Member of the Upper Colorado Board of Realtors Member of the National Board of Realtors EDUCATION: Harvard University, BA, 1971. Phi Beta Kappa, Magna Cum Laude University of Colorado Continuing Education Division: Real Estate Law; Real Estate Finance American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers: Course 1-A, Principals; Course 2, Urban Properties; Course VIII, Residential; Course 1-B, Capitalization Techniques; Course VI, Evaluation Procedures BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE: Appraiser-Consultant, James J. Mollica & Associates, Inc., 8/76-present Colorado Real Estate Broker: 1974-present Condominium Property Management: Durant Condominiums, Aspen, CO 1971-1976 Designated M.A. I.: March, 1984 MAJOR CLIENTS SERVED: Aspen Skiing Co. Aspen Savings & Loan Ute City Mortgage Bank of Aspen City of Aspen County of Pitkin First National Bank in Aspen First Western Mortgage Empire Savings TYPES OF PROPERTY APPRAISED: Commercial, Office & Retail Lodges-Hotels Residential Special Purpose Buildings Ranches-Farms Apartments Subdivisions-Vacant Land Industrial Condominiums PURPOSES OF APPRAISALS: Acquisition Insurance Mortgage Condemnation Estate Planning Tax Planning STATEMENT OF CERTIFICATION: The American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers conducts a voluntary program of continuing education for its designated members. MAI's and RM's who meet the minimum Standards of this program are awarded periodic education certification. I am certified under this program through September 15, 1990. Jilmes J. Alollicil d is~wiuieiim·. Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE: ket value is the major focus of most real property a--raisal assignments. Both economic and legal def ns of market value have been developed and refine ntinual ref inement i• essential to the growth of praisal profession. The current economic definit market value can be stated u follows: The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale. the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably. and ageuming the price te not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in thie definition te the consummation of a sale w of a ipecified date and the pan•ing of title from seller to buyer under condition, whereby: a. buyer and ieller ar, typically motivated; b. both partie, are well informed or well advised. and each acting in what he considers hi• own best interest; c. a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; d. payment is made in terms of cash in U. S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and e. the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. (SOURCE: Federal Home Loan Bank Board, November. 1986) CERTIFICATION: The Apprainer certifies and agrees that: 1. The Appraiser has no present or contemplated future interest in the property appraised; and neither the employment to make the appraisal. nor the compensation for it. is contingent upon the appraised value of the property. 2. The Appraiser has no personal interest in or bias with respect to the subject matter of the appraisal report or the participants to the sale. The "Estimate of Market Value" in the appraisal report is not based in whole or in part upon the race, color. or national origin of the prospective owners or occupants of the property appraised, or upon the race, color or national origin of the present owner• or occupants of the propertiee in the vicinity of the property appraised. 3. Unlese otherwise noted in the body of the report. the Appraiser has personally inspected the property. both inside and out. To the best of the Appraiser's knowledge and belief. all statements and information in ' this report are true and correct, and the Appraiser has not knowingly withheld any significant information. 4. All contingent and limiting conditions are contained herein (imposed by the terms of the assignment or by the undersigned affecting the anal,see. opiniong. and conclusion, contained in the report). 5. This appraisal report has been made in conformity with and is subject to the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Practice of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers. 6. All conclusions and opinions concerning the real estate that are set forth in the appraisal report were , prepared by the Appraiser whose signature appears on the appraisal report· unless indicated H "Review Appraiser." No change of any item in the appraisal report shall be made by anyone other than the Appraiser. • and the Appraiser shall have no responsibility for any such unauthorized change. 7. The use of this report ia subject to the requirements of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. CONTI}CENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: The certification of the Appraiser appearing in the appraisal report is subject to the following conditions and to such other specific and limiting conditions as are set forth by the r Appraiser in the report. 1. The Appraiser assumen no responsibility for matters of a legal nature a ffecting the property appraised 1 or the title thereto. nor does the Appraiser render any opinion as to the title. which is assumed to be good and marketable The property is appraised as though under responsible ownership and management. 2. Any sketch im the report may show approximate dimens:Long and is included to assist the reader in visualizing the property. The Appraiser has made no survey of the property. 3. The Appraiaer is not require-d to_give -lestimonI or appear in court because of having made the appraisal I with reference to the property in queation, unlees arrangements hav, been previously made- therefor. 4. Any distribution of the valuation in the report between land and improvements applies only under the existing program of utilization. The separate valuations for land and building must not be used in i conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used. 5. The Appraiser assumee that there are no hidden or unappa.ent conditions of the property, including but 1 not limited to subsoil problems, structural deficiencies. zoning and building code incompliance. which would render it more or les0 valuable. The Appraiger assumes no responsibility for such conditions, or for j engineering which might be required to discover auch factora. 6. Information, estimates, and opinions furnished to the Appraiger. and contained in the report. were obtained from sources considered reliable and believed to be true and correct. However. no responsibility for accuracy of iuch iteme furnished the Appraiser can be assumed by the Appraiger. 7. Dieclogure of the contents of the appr,_i,al re.port is Soverned bY_the--Bylaws and Regulations of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers. 8. Neither all, nor any part of the content of the report. or copy thereof (including conclusions as to the property value. the identity of the Apprainer. professional designations. reference to any professional ' ' appraisal organizations, or the firm with which the Appraiser in connected). shall be used for any purposes by anyone but the client specified in the report. the borrower if appraisal fee paid by same. the mortgagee or , its succeasor and assigns. mortgage insurere. consultants, professional appraisal organizations. any state or , federally approved financial institution. any department. agency. or instrumentality of the United States or any state or the District of Columbia. without the previous written consent of the Appraiser; nor shall it be conveyed by anyone to the public through advertising. public relations. newi. sales. or other media. without the written con,ent aDd approval of the Appraiser. 9. On all appraisals, lubject to satisfactory completion. repairs. or alterations. the appraisal report and value conclusion are contingent upon completion of the improvements in a workmanlike manner. 10. Zoning in the Aspen area ii in a constant state of change. Certain portions of the zoning and land use , code are open to interpretation. and the outcome of any application ia subject to government approval. The Appraiser has made every effort to identify these issues and their application to the subject. However. the Appraiser assumes no responsibility for difficulties in interpretation of or changes in the land use code. . CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, A.1.A APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT I. Significant Development The proposed building is a single family home, two stories in height with an attached two car garage at the rear. Its architectural style is Victorian and in keeping with the character of the adjacent buildings of the neighborhood. II. Conceptual Development Plan a. Redevelopment Plan: Refer to Graphic Submittal b. Building Materials Refer to Exhibit F C. Statement concerning effect of proposed redevelopment on neighborhood Refer to Exhibit E f J L_ 1 07 0 L -P L< Of ' EXHIBIT E Citcatoe L -0_> r I February 22, 1988 94 »4 1 Mr. Richard Klein ~~~~~~~~ Project Architect Charles Cuniffe & Associates P. 0. Box 3534 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Dear Richard, Per your request, I have analyzed the impact of the proposed demolition of 222 E. Hallam and the consequent redevelopment of that site with a new "victorian" house. In this analysis, I have assumed that your engineers and structural consultants will adequately demonstrate to the Aspen HPC that the current house is so structurally unsound as to make rehabilitation or removal of the house to another site impractical. I looked at Ordinance Number 11 (series of 1987) for standards for reviewing both the demolition and the redevelopment. From this I determined that the demolition should: (1) mitigate impacts to the character of the 2-6 *id 2 - neighborhood, and, (2) mitigete_impacts to the historic importance of #djacentpirce-12* -A-- I believe that construction of a newly designed victorian house will mitigate impacts to the neighborhood if efforts are made to align the front set back from the street with adjacent parcels, and if the massing is not out of scale with the neighborhood. Impact on the historic significance of adjacent parcels will be mitigated by the above\and by replicating details from the victorian houses"Brthe same era as the Glidden -hgus,4. Since the Glidden_house is also a replication of a- vikgrian house, the proposed new house will not detract . from the historic significance or---t-Mis-D¥60@rty.1~ ist¥ ax-S-: 126*F e.63- d.--1.4&7 U.*a, cL. M 44 6/5596< - U- c»60~w- A 1033 Steele Denver CO. 80206 303 399-291 U. -GE € AJ«J- F " - 0,~01024- page 2 Mr. Richard Klein February 22, 1988 Standards (in Ordinance #11) for evaluating redevelopment of the site state that the project: (1) be compatible in character with designated structures on adjacent parcels, (2) be consistent with the character of the neighborhood, and, (3) enhance, or not detract from, the cultural value of designated structures on adjacent parcels. Again, maintaining compatibility with both the neighborhood and adjacent structures can be accomplished by designing a house which echoes the major design elements of the era of houses surrounding it. Compatibility will need to be reflected in scale, materials, colors, fenestration, roof lines, set-backs and style. As a last step of this analysis, I looked at the proposed design for the new house at 222 E. Hallam. It appears to me that this design addresses each of the issues I have mentioned above. It is compatible and in character with both the neighborhood and adjacent structures because of its victorian details, scale, massing, set back from the street, colors, fenestration and materials. The roof echoes the pitched roof lines of the victorian era, the double-hung windows represent the appropriate time period, the steep chimney, cupola, and open front porch all portray design elements that are both appropriate and well-designed to be compatible to the neighbor- hood. Even the garage is detailed in an appropriate victorian manner. In addition, the site plan demonstrates that the massing and placement of this structure will not detract from either of the adjacent structures. page 3 Mr. Richard Klein February 22, 1988 Given that it is not feasible to either move or renovate this structure, it would seem to me that this proposed new house will be a good addition to the neighborhood. Sincerely, .n -30 · 1-/ U / Lisa Purdy President LP/ode cc: Mr. Joseph A. Amato ' EXHIBIT F CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, A.I.A AMATO RESIDENCE EXTERIOR MATERIALS o Foundation - Concrete o Siding - Beveled Clear Cedar, Painted o Trim - Clear Cedar, Painted o Windows - Marvin, Wood Sash, Painted o Doors - Wood - Solid Coor, Panel, French o Garage Door - Sectional Wood Panel Roll-up o Millwork - Cedar or Redwood, Painted o Roof - Cedar Shakes or Metal Standing Seam, o Flashing - Copper o Masonry Fireplace - Used Brick .... I.- I . - .. ~ i 4 ~ .4-49;f<(fill:.:A 0 - I . 6·)frititict~;f * c...j.*'. .-i--4,£+.i~ (£*·· 1 ft h... 4 ... . S I .%'4* ./' I .i 3,1'* 61.-2.i.:7 - 70 4- . I I 'r . Z~ . /. 1/ -4 , 0 4/1 . 4~AN- Ft****AL -lk,it%1¥4~ .4 .. 0 '. 1 11 . **45 - 8 .. 4 2, ci Ga-- li il P / 1 0 ll 11 -6 3 r. -0 A n C , / ----7 4<- // 7\ . /\ . / ' f N 7£1 - 6~0~ ~~ -- 10 % 44.X 4 49 941» I /1 V / I 1, A \\ / I. i / N. \\ .\ \. I. tt : 1,1 \1 1 . 1 / 1 I 11 r 0 . 09 , l ./ / \. Ptl, / 1\ 21 ../ In -A I 13 \ r L / / \\ 1 I /1-; 7 / I % \ ,\ I 4.11 \ 1 / i --A- - / 0/1 - , I ~ I '.Iii 1 11 \ . 1 . / \ 8 , / % P .I .0-1. I. 4// \ 4 3 A \ i 4 4 I 21 \ '' 1. 1- \ , 0, % I 06 2-' \ . 0 '' f. i ~< , 1 /5/ '' P \ *14 ./ ' . . 2 V / ' I ON + , . 1 X - - 0 A ' I , I y I / + I . ' , 3, / ' , , £ I I ' A 1 1 . g / '' '' . 0 / 0,70 / " "/ a 1 / / : /:63 . 1 r- AN / / -1 3 11 1 0 \ ''Ar JU . - ''' / I I / Il I ,/./.:/ i 1 # r // r- 7 £4:. // 1. 7, / 1 j I 7 - 1 Z ¥, 1 -9, AMATO CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS * W - U J' 9 ~ m :-6 F 01*2 -1 5 6 6 7 -9 5 8 9 79 r ZO RESIDENCE ~ 00- £ . 0 . 21 222 EAST HALLAM ST. ASPEN,CO. PO BOX 3534. ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 10'1 *40¥4 · lis WN,lclilled ->11•/•1<119 ~~02 FF-knE. ~ Od'•'0103 ' INg.bY . 111·21 1•b 14111'H 1 59 1 -. -c-o .1 - 3-.29 E: - 9,21'>rl,--L >:1-1·.1, 19*HAI·VC 14=A·, 62 . I. -- ET-----C-t 1 1 /9 -----34 1 1 1 1 1 11 / r.»~=n=s==A-% f# f ----«444 1 % NL \2© . - j 1 7---_1171 4 --*· I 41 *71- I 1 9. 7 '. 1 1 1 14 30 11 \ 3 1 IL==*,22 1 4----1.ee="1 1- I i'11 22 -1 1 \ 1 t- TIOLL 4 Tpl li_+AL-- 3[4, I 1 -*-11' 11 1 ' 1---1 i ·.-/ 1 9 \ 9 U g Tr--= n - Z ft 0 4- 49 1 f r E Q r" 0- ------ 1-1 1 R t< * 1 1 i. rt-If- - -1 f I 1 --1 2--1 4 It T ---4-1 1 1 ' i' 1 11 0 -1 y 9 8 4 1 -1 I 0 1 p l P -1 -0 1 l1 1 1 1 11 1 1 4-----------------1 e N ~ -6 le*55 AMATO CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHTTECTS , -1 0 12 '*6 RESIDENCE i 3 1 Z 222 EAST HALLAM ST. ASPEN, CO. P.O. BOX 3534. ASPEN, COL-ORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 I«'-bl' 7001=:1 1-2/\'21 HIVA FE VISICN L /1=.41 iLL----- ---7 -----FT 40/ 1 Im 4-----3 P.Ple=#41 2 -1 21 - 1 in bPEN TO LIVINE¥ Fe KSOM BLOW MA*TU DeFFee··/1 21=4=--~ 311 ©»41. I } T- -- -- -IL I 1 /--'.-17 jr==Ul - 17 14 - Gw#T< 544, ,£21£ANMI 3 1 -' 11 -=1- 1 I y> i -1----- \Lj 8 NAL_L-»«-1- 113 (2 / i 111 i 2 2 Ul I 1 --A 111 //]« - - <el .... --__ fil::122' · O Eepgzk:*4 4 ·n. Ul .-14' L./ 4 11 1 1 0 h 1/1 7 --- ----- ---- -- --- 1---1 111 L___. FE:4 t=*66*3 jil DAAvVING OCHE-,4.T.6 : UES' 4,4 - Mrrez LEN/ELL 1-LOOK MAN -08 NO. _2115 UFFEK LEVEL- FLOOR FLAN ~ NORTH DATE 8,7. 87 4. . 11- C. -- 1*+33. S,-€ET NO 3 2-€ET OF 2031#·OUV/531VDOSSV ¥ 3=13!NNn) S31HVH) O.LVIAI V 0655-5Z6/EOE 3NOHd3131 ZI9!8 Ca\~OlOD 'N3dSV 'DESE X08 0 d '0 0 ' 8 IN¥-1-19)4 levi 888 . 4 11114> Ill// NIZ ~ Al, -0 -2 ---- - - 1 i. ir» + ..9 Q pi I-~ an nOod 1>~ 1 1-1 Co n Ill On pl ~ f -2 12 0 -~ ID - Z ~ UEEZZE] O 0 15~ 0 - 6 - I - -92 - , 11 1 0 1 ' 111 1 1 -- - 1=-Ill==0 FE-iETI AMATO CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS I ./ I~"Iii i 4417%' 1 "1 1 1 131, lilil RESIDENCE m rt I 9 40 5 1191 1 191 1¢1 1 11#1311101111 1- 11 1 1 I I I ] 222 EAST HALLAM ST. ASPEN, CO. P.O BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 .. -1 6 m D ~ - -4 -- 70 tz E q _FEEEI ~ 1kmEL =1 Cal 1 - 000010 ze 1 24 1 14 U-Ill.!440!1; E37 9 ,=9 U (11 0 V 7 ! 0 E' 1~ ' i ' E-Er--1 ~ 1 I m E ¥ * E Un 06 A€35 AMATO CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 19 L' 1 1 1®1 1 ~l I luigi RESIDENCE ' 'Z' al I I el 19 1 L_ | Li-1-1 ]I[ U 222 EAST HALLAM ST. ASPIN, CO. P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 ON '3~. CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS P.O. BOX 3534. ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, A. I.A February 23, 1988 Project: Amato Residence Aspen, Colorado Property Owners withih 300 feet: 1st National Bank in Grand Junction Trustee for Mona Frost P.O. Box 608 Grand Junction, CO 81501 Susanna E. Reynolds 222 E. Hallam Avenue Aspen. CO 81611 Vigoda Family Ltd. Partnership A Colorado Ltd. Partnership 50 S. Steele Street Denver, CO 80209 William L. Sequim P.O. Box 2067 Aspen, CO 81612 Ferenc and Mirte Berko P.O. Box 360 Asoen, CO 81612 John Light 733 13th Street Boulder, CO 80302 William G. Brumder 2054 First Wisconsin Trust Co. Milwaukee, WI 53201 William G. Parzybok, Jr. 1719 Collindale Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 Charles W. Dwight III P.O. Box 7669 Aspen, CO 81612 . Page Two Donald Paul Krumm P.O. Box 879 Aspen, CO 81612 Richard B. Johnson & Montae Johnson 6820 Bradbury Dallas, TX 75230 Marian Nedl Lyeth c/o Bank of the Southwest P.O. Box 35688 Dallas, TX 75235 Kermit S. & Jenny W. Sutton Suite 710 317 6th Avenue Des Moines, IA 50309 Edwin J. & Adeline M. Grosse 34135 Hunters Row Farmington Hills, MI 48018 Wilson V. & Janella H. Garrett 7158 Hillcreen Dallas. TX 75116 George S. & Shirley M. Weaver c/o Virginia Hurst 1 Central Union Building Wheeling. West Virginia 26003 Priscilla Anne Sadler P.O. Box 2989 Aspen, CO 81612 Robert G. & Yvonne Hammond P.O. Box 280 Evergreen, CO 80439 . Page Three J.E. Abels P.O. Box 4707 Aspen, CO 81612 Mrs. Walter P. Paepcke c/o Morrison K. Morrison, Ltd. 105 West Adams Street Chicago, IL 60603 + 0 \ DIVIL ING,N EE. 1 i , -- D £117-VEJ~ ~ I 8 e 6 · 1 k 171 9 rk . 1 -·•M r 9 1 · NaTE~ .-I.Il ;-_:'/,9/ '9 el. [7*1 4- 3~ E-~)~ ~,1. *FE p, t i=JA . 2,41, ...2 Entr, Wi 1,4..... -- \ \ LE AVE• 0 10' .02 ... .00 ./O 7.0 ..0 . 00 CO 1.00 1 ·trn*rrr:r~ • 1 1-Tr~-P RE-1,1-~ ~1 \, f. '11 471 41,1 k 1 1 / 2. 1-5 · E9117L- r....., c - m C .~46 91 ~_J-LI_' ~ E-El_LU*- -- 0 42,Pt. 1 --crj 4 \ No i Lot Lotters -arked thus i.4 ce •a the Fracti•,9- a#.ck. .r. t•« Lot Litte,• .N.-a o. *~6• 14 4 k ..v . b 2.1 e \ 1 4 3 1 A T " 01 1,4 n t. 1 -fil. r 4 vul f \ 4 Record ./ Asps" Tor¥..RE PLAr T...ther L.tf•,i .,p.., ..th. O.•I• ,-A 6, 0--•r J.•og t.1 <le 4 i ll | ' 111 LI 13-1-LLL.&£-LAA*- e \ , \ 4 4 ry 1 1 4 \ \C - 4 W Av.. 4- 4 7,- - -mr---lif--15- ~ i 1-3 - /2 &6 , iD 11,1 7 \1 \ ul 1* 24 .3-,it€ 9: 'f u */, 'M!,r · ¥- _LL-7 M, • 1 *1-L-~ . * PLA/L Cou-r 06 '' ill //, \ . 0,\ EX ier 070.,£ Z lf' 1 f &--\Ch , U ..0 \ L+- ,4 / It \% 4 M P . j /////--I-I--1 8, " 1 -L 1/1 4 w . 1 U. ... - Id..4 . 1 1 -- e Y £_-1- B \\ , 1 T~'~UiKE' :€ *LA V .kLL I.,1-p£ \~.0 . -. r f 44 \- /4- AL.K'£44\ ~/j/14,/I w/#p L . ----- ' . .f.f.,4. 1.>\ 12 .tr«fc - - \\ 6 1•, , iri V /1/0. t:n. C fri ZEN 8 • -L t - f r q Pt) r ~ ~ 1 16 ~ NA luirl) F \14*»> \ / /3 , Ad•OCIATio L .t 0. 1 1- ..'c. - 4 1 7/ 0 0 - / 'I'Fhl 1 Er¢z-9,u-i.0 *, - Ah)17,6, . 1 i-1 L. / t /1 ~~1 ~ 1~ i ~t ' 14.- E-74 -4 0 I . 1 . r < - . 44%*C#r,gi~-1 i· - 2 'l * 1 v 5 - / 6 0 -h. ' • 'p-1 t - € i , / //,/20/ 1 , \?1\ 31- 1-1- -7 . 4 0 k - i. 6 1 ---%.) M - \ ¢ N ... e ./ r-»- 9 N 1 / /L." JT; 0 0,04 2, 0 O.-- C 4 9 -2 <15/Joi~ . ... ~ p··', 4 .16. 4 - < '~1 ##f . __ __~ FrA4 --1 0 Ar . 4% C.. - /, 4 - .- , - 1 m- # < -/'-- ./.0 _ail -- ~All. m a 4-1-2 1- /%ti627; 1/ i lia-T-r -~~7 140.Ll. u. 7Ch}frt t:a .os ' 1 2 /2 + S : £ 29 liti i-[ ' 6 Pu [IMAIM l. 1 1 1fkhc f ' ' i-*- F vr-- 6 94:-- ~« --=,4~121-i w, 2€29 -_31_ ~ 47* I~·. ~ ~Iji ;e~*~ 240 4 4 ij,lf.EF-Tn«,-»-- . i-laici~,1 I I 147-44 ~~2£.1.4Wkt . f--a, ,,4' I V- . 1- 0631£//994"-i,--- 0 - '' '~ al 4 L ...I-.I Pli f# hkcal~ 1 IQ' I .01 -*-t- h g ¥ k i + 13 4 i I . . .0 ..4 44 //5// 0, I . .... f 7,5'i,6(L ...t-4 2 + r*. -K 3 r. 0 61~~4'el:.Cl 1 1 dr-r--»--2 4 - .6 ' - - · '.= •e./,11¥ 4.1 1 1, 1.~ ··· 1 t. 0 11 i--A'--8•.LL -4 u L. 6 1 . f*- r ,/ch U: 1 / c -/2 6 .. L-¥Zp ...23%31 .C.- 0, -IA.4./. t..T A.<90 -- -c·=- i k j~*2~,·~.,~ . ALL /1, u «----7=4 k 1 - i_ , -L 1 1 6- 12 1-- 1 :51 I * 77/2 4 6 Iii 4 4 w z_./ ~i~4% A · 22 0 11 t e ' L I ON ,„el.>.v,or,/ -./ t. 111 .-: • C . X -- / / -9.La-t-- i \41,\1\- 42----it-1 1- k ~91 __il - 3 K 1 1 1'.1.·, 1-1 1 -7--- if¥?4EUT--«7~ 0 1811 2 hE'Al·41 , -»- 7«.All K.1"l-€ JLT fl-420 17 Vrik-,b, i r (3 1 -/ J C 2 ts • 44 19 F M , AC 12 » \ Et-L ~ 01,1 4 [ 1--11£ r i ¢ "62 /·COCC~-clu . 11 1/j UN .. / 1. 7 1 - I: 14-4 7 1 7»-·-.1 ri,Nial 1 0 0 - 4.• , 4 € 261.. ___.- _ --- - aul N i . £ " or I / -2 + f I -- . 1 7 %\\ -h - - 1 . , .. 2 + 1 L j e 0- \- ~ ' -7 --7 . . Ar n .. e. , \ 0 193=2 9> - 7/I---Fl . 64 c L a t + il' 2 4 -4 --- 4 . '4 ; . 5 1 SOU'M AVE ..4 4. C - K JI< f . 4 1644 *7... 1 .1 r- 1 2-2, . , , /0 1 1.11 9 , / 1 NJ . 1 1 9' 6.L .1 c -2 1//d~ / / / 6/ 4.~' ull, / £ \\ 'I -- 1VT ·, ~ , 4- , 1 1 4 : 1 - - rl CT--- 48 ; Pul t 0- - .- l 111 - 2 ~ 4q~J*7~64,IE16~ 4<<~4 «I# - r, 4'19 MA#r, liA» mr --- ki I \ \ \I 8 /1/, . 1 ... 052. - U-y\ + ,·,,·:.7474-23--L-J . .U - I J L . 1 1,1 , * 4- ... 41 . 1 1 0 . 4. 0 : £47' 02.1 1447 0 - 1 -74 r 197 Atbil QMW· 1 ¢ tukiziil3-¢/lp' - * . L-Ltch I- 1,!9 Fmw ' [.4 7 -kl- 4 .6 -4-1-1 9 t.\ X:7,1/ ' ' RM-L · 4--r---_ I l-119 0/*k, 9 - --- , /.2.* 81 , , , ' ' 1 1 .2¥y' out' a 7 67 . i .9 .l[ .i.72 £ ...' 523.1 -~27-r- b< 0 0.6~ 1.1-7 1-17*. . X tik._ ~ 4 j rt 32.-il~ (MA.~* Q&, . -%-- <,-) 9 ·.0 \ k A i !Jil VNHY , f- ; A/Al '' t A 912]2 P 41/1.0 ! 1 4 . 'li. .VA Irl . . " 1 4 974......2.<C / .c -Ll- /• f & - /V -c'Ye, -st C.E.* Y--44 4 /-6, 0/ , ,- d -1~t,k,4-/1/4. *18(T r:3~ e « am::C LE , 0 10/ f *1*1.1 :,r*o u_u ~ , · F•-1::r\ Oss 1 4 9 i 4.4 / + . 1, J 74 1 71, £24 2 5_ .4. : , f '. t'? .\ .2\ I'' 4 r~7~37·,6,2-,LEN.1 0 t 2 0 - i,Tl~| 0 -**44-1..]-ij.'+REI#, ¥ 14}110,1-ri@g•if ~ ~~ . 4. r *»+4 21- 1- 11~4) A -d .Le L 2 --._ ... ·:-k 67*4 / /72*p -12--444 ;r /-1.,;, -*I n , 1 . - - 1- --. v- j i ./4.* 10 1 4 -1 , , /77 /9, , 1 1 , #\\ \ 3 4 1 11 !1 f i 2 4 41 - / f 11 11 i \6.-~ 6 \ \ 1 \\ 4 1 3, 91 '\ \\ 0 \\ I \ -i \ \\ - h liti . 1/ * 1 13+96 \ 1/ ~ 12 1 :\ \ f , 1-1-1 __ ___ _2 ' -A tl e U Nob<trEN E 0 F.-7,1 \01\ (» ki, 49 \ \\\ \4//1 / ,» 9 CO i ...22. \\ 03 4 42 7 ..'.9 \91 \01 \44 \\ . D \' --7 V I '~ 4 9 \\ \Er- \ \\ 3 7 C at b \22 , \ 11/ .11 1/* 9,. f « 1, \ L __U -ur \ \\ 11 \\ 1 1 \\ 2/4 246 -/8 920-5tZ '23,1 -0,0 79,9- 50 7.7 ,,4 ~~ 7 x 4 4.4 Plof. .\ 1 4 . - 4.- tE: HAUL= .~ n Z= .=z -= '5' / A ivi j/Ve T OPENEO ¥ 11 N D. N --- 0 1' 11 \ - - ' Ill h. 52-p.H /990 3 0 ' 11 . N.MONARCH ST. ~j, 2 3 Uj \\ \ \7 \ 1 \\ \~ \P \ H4 1 1» f \ \ 70» EN 1 1) \ 1 1 7 \\ \ I 1\ ~L -n \ 1 Cn ALLE¥ ( Ab•. oper•ED) \\ \ - 1--1 1 i f \\\ / 0 -Lvt \ \ N. 0. p \1-1- - Q /7-- 6 21 9 7-3 m 0 1 \ -711 -/\ 0 1\ 1\ 8 1, 1 / \1/\ 0 40 . i % 1) 14, f 1- 1 \\ *74 Al ~ \\\ \ f . \\t -lia -/G -1,9 - 270- 22 - 274 - 26 · 726 -JO-232- 34 \ r \ ===E,NALLAM= A.,3, I a '' w. p Tr- * = - - *-~ t- y- =1 = trxz == = - 1 p = - = \7, r.1 7, ii. ./ =- 2). r 11 emy " 11 7,4/ N MON Ht?CH ST rl 11 A b. / 95 3 \ ....J #,1 Fi 94 11 1 // H \ \ \ f f \ ~«,90 \\ \T ~L___...El"12 6 \ L 0 4 \\ 4 // 4 \0 /U \\ 1/ 7. 1 1 1\ \ 8 1 \ 0 ' Xi 1 \ 1 1 I \\ 4---- --___J n\ cn 0 \\ _f'l- _9--fr-£2 \\ W 0 P >-1. - Q \\M~ l, r 4 , 9~ \\ \\ 7 1 , 2 4 7 1 A 0, El Dll e \10 \ \ 1\ 11.f N i Frk 7 .£21~2 1 -9 -9 1 N \ 'U - 0 - 18--7.20- 22- 1»- b-12&-30- 332 -34 + -274 .1 111 MA R. 1 99@ C © \ 21\ 4 \\ = ======= ETHAL=L=A~FC= == == n= 1UI Vor Or.Ne. 0 -... I n N 2 - A -t- i - ./74 L I 14* 4512* 11 / 8,a / pw SANBORN'S MAP 1904 2.Hvt, 4 ~ 7 i 14 0 T \\ N \\ \\ Tv/9 BLE ill \\ e, Q . ¢ a e \\ . ROUNG HO. f '4. \\ 0 4 4 ki \\1 . 4 2/4 1 . P *1 1 1/ X % >40 \ / . 1 It\ \\ ~-0.-0-1 \Gl ALLEY (1 our to) \1\ \\ \ \ \\ 1 \ rfi P-2- \ 4 L \ e p 1--l - Q R. 3 1 % 1/ 1 \m 4% - 1 M /'\1 0\ 7 -07-71 \\ r nl 1· CM g i°() A- 5 n \9 / n \ 1 11 xI ' 4 *i \ idi- A W -_-O 9--L Q| 1--e \\ m \ n \ Fer.Aj- Pots.o 6.*ry .4.- c.r ~-7 ~ 234 - ~ \ ~ 2,14 %18 2/8 2%0 ZZ% 224 766 230 Z34 234 . (228-230) )Ch \41-2~ \ = = = ~= EI=. MALLAM= === 47 "tfu~>1£ =(}fl= = =<A = =. ti l V (NOT OPE,vgo 11 + - . 2/0 11 11 , 75 11 --- - -- N UnuARri 97- ~ 0.#10&41 P 1% ~Z'HOJE I < 0 T N \\ % TUR BLE % \\ \\ 4 \\ ™<C 6 0 5/9- ill U. R, R. ROUNO HO. % 5 4 4 ~\ (2) \\ -tza 4 4 4 % B \\ 2/4 1 . P XI r-3 \\ 1 1/ K P\<\\ 1. 1 $ 1 - -Jr-- - - - -I..- - \ Gh \O\ \\ ALLEY C#Ox~peN go) lk.0 -- - _ _2\ ---I F X \ \\ 0 71 p-6. c L_ \\ N 0 p ~ - Q k, 3 \2 0\ ~ =-031 -4 7\ \\ \ r 11 d p 13 Qui 2 i©) -4%91:- 1 1 \ \\ 31.0 11/ XI 1 [di- *1 \\ 1.--e \ \ A '- -L Qui U 42 E-1- Pols-o 6-*ry 4.- 0/4 2/6 2/8 220 322 224 226 232 234 ci. 134 . (228·330) \\\ Ny \ \\ = = =El=. NA 6:LAM= = 4 37/1 e V (NOT OPEN#0 I 11 - 0 222 # - 75 N 11 - N.MONARCH ST I f MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Remand of Amato Historic Evaluation Score DATE: February 9, 1988 LOCATION: 222 E. Hallam St., Lots K and L, Block 71, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: R-6 Medium Density Residential. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: On January 11, 1988 City Council remanded the historic evaluation rating of 222 East Hallam Street to HPC for rescoring. HISTORIC EVAIIJATION SCORE: "4", meaning "Structure has been altered in a way that is considered compatible with the original architecture; and the historic character is preserved. Structure typically has strong positive influence in the neighborhood's historic character and may be associated with important historic persons or events. In all cases, structures were in their original location, to the best of staff and HPC's knowledge." APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE: As part of the historic designation regulations of the City of Aspen, the process of HPC evaluation of structures on the Inventory of Historic structures was established whereby those structures were assigned rated values between 0 and 5. According to Section 24- 9.5(a) of the Municipal Code, any structure rated "4" or "5" is subject to the demolition and total removal review provisions. Section 24-9.7 of the Municipal Code allows for appeal to City Council of HPC's ratings on the Inventory within one hundred and twenty (120) days of adoption of Ordinance 11. Expiration of this time period ended September 11, 1987. The Amato Appeal was received on September 4 and was postponed several times to the Council meeting date. City Council's discretion in appeals is stated in Section 24- 9.7(b) as follows: "The City Council shall consider the application on the record established before the HPC. The City Council shall affirm the decision of the HPC unless Council shall deter- mine that there was an abuse of discretion or denial of due process by the HPC. Upon determining that there was an . f . abuse of discretion or denial of due process, the Council shall be authorized to take such action as it shall deem necessary to remedy said situation..." PROBLEM DISCUSSION: After considerable discussion, Council decided that the applicant should have the opportunity to present new information and a new argument to HPC. Council determined that this rehearing would be more fair, even though Council did not make the determination that HPC had abused its discretion in overscoring the house according to the evaluation criteria. It may be of interest that 3 of the 4 Council members voting on this matter stated that they believed the "4" rating is still correct. Please note that staff recommended remanding the rating to HPC, also concluding that the new information warranted further review, but did not conclude that the rating should be lowered. HPC made its historic evaluation of 222 E. Hallam on January 15, 1987 considering the following information: the house was built in the 1890's in its present location; distinctive Victorian features include the cross gable layout, vertical sash windows, and gable end shingles. Contribution to the historic character of the Community Church neighborhood was also considered. Owner Marvin Reynolds was present at the meeting and stated the house had been in the same family as when it was built. He stated he had no objections to the evaluation rating but was concerned about the uncertainty of the affect, if any, on property value. The applicant has assembled new information about the house at 222 E. Hallam Street which was presented to City Council. The applicant argues that based on this information, the structure would be more appropriately rated 1,2 " or' possibly "3". It is argued that so many additions and alterations have been made to the house that it's historic condition is significantly changed; and the house is structurally unsound. Professional Engineer Richard Cieciuch inspected the house and pointed out foundation and roof problems that- lead him to believe the house is not structurally sound. Using an examination of the foundation, the applicant posits that there was an oblong log cabin on this site circa 1887. A frame house was built over the log cabin circa 1898. Five little additions are believed to have been added between 1898 and 1904. A new front porch was built circa 1924 and again rebuilt to extend approximately 3 feet in 1977. Small additions behind the dining room on the west and behind the sunroom to the east, and behind the kitchen in the rear were built in 1952, 1977 and 1982. The Willits Map of 1896 shows the basic shapes of houses, including the house at 222 E. Hallam. We obtained copies of Sanborn Fire Insurance Atlases of 1890, 1893, and 1898 from the Denver Public Library Western History Department. And we reviewed the 1904 Sanborn's Atlas on file in the Planning Office to help 2 determine alterations to the house. Comparison of these maps indicates that the house changed only slightly between 1890 and 1893, with the addition of the sunroom on the east side and the kitchen area to the rear. No changes were recorded by Sanborn's from 1893 to 1904. In summary, since 1904 it appears that the following changes to the house occurred: - siding has been replaced (narrow siding probably matching original); - masonry foundation has been repaired and extended under additions; - original windows (except in the sun room) have been replaced with new windows (double sash style probably matching original); - a new metal roof has been installed; - an addition behind the sunroom was built; - an addition behind the dining room to the west was built; - the front porch has been altered, its dimensions changed; and - a new workshop (built in 1964 and 1984) has replaced the original outstructure. Staff contacted next door neighbor Mona Frost to ask if she recalled alterations to 222 E. Hallam Street. Mona stated that since she moved next door in 1940 (47 years ago), the house has remained basically the same. Shc remembered some of the additions being built, but believed the front of the house had not been much changed; and she noted that the house has been the same color green through the years. Lisa Purdy, preservation consultant, states in her letter of December 11, 1987 to Joseph Amato that the lack of original fabric and the various additions lead her to conclude there is little architectural significance in the house. The house has no documented association with historic persons or events. In addition, Ms. Purdy questions the significance of the house's contribution to the historic character of its neighborhood. Questions posed by the presentation of new information on altera- tions include: 3 (1) At what point in time does the "Period of Historic Significance" end, so that changes that occurred after that date are considered alterations changing its historic character? (2) Do the alterations that occurred since 1904 negatively effect the house's historic integrity? (3) How heavy should the contribution of this house to the historic character of the neighborhood be weighed? Staff appreciates the additional information gathered by the applicant and we believe that valid concerns are raised. After additional review of the facts, it still appears to staff that the numerous renovations of the house were undertaken to keep the house in good repair and have not significantly effected the front of the house or the historic character of the property. Please note that virtually every structure in Aspen has been altered; and the very purpose of the historic evaluations was to assess the extent to which those alterations are compatible with the original architecture or diminish the historic character. In addition, HPC consistently considered the contribution a struc- ture makes to the neighborhood's historic character. In the case of 222 E. Hallam Street, HPC gave a high assessment of neighbor- hood influence because of its location between the Glidden House and Frost House, both important historic resources, and its inclusion in the Community Church historic neighborhood. Of the "historic districts under consideration, " delineated in the 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, the Community Church area has the highest density of historic structures (see map attached). The applicant also presented a letter from Historic preservation consultant Deborah Abele which we received December 8, 1987 (attached). She remarks that the evaluation of 222 E. Hallam is inadequate in documentation in the following areas: - Description of the salient features of the Community Church historic district in the 1980 Inventory as updated; - inadequate discussion of those aspects of 222 East Hallam's physical condition or history; - lack of description of criteria and methods used in the evaluation; and - lack of information on how judgments were made in the evaluation of alterations and neighborhood importance. 4 Staff believes that the HPC properly undertook the evaluation of 222 East Hallam using the best available public information at a public meeting. While the Inventory can clearly be improved, it provided basic information on the year of construction, some alterations (other alterations were identified by the applicant after substantial research during the last three months), photo- graphic documentation of the structure, consideration of the structure's quality as illustrating the family/home environment of the average citizen in Aspen during the silver mining era, and some neighborhood context. The Historic Inventory map, staff recommendation notes explaining rationale for the recommended evaluation score, and notes taken at the public meeting of both owner and HPC member comments further supplement the public record. In review of the ratings of others structures on the Inventory rated 2,3,4 and 5 we think this evaluation was consis- tent. The additional information presented certainly provides us with better detail on what specific alterations occurred and when, but does not undermine the basis of HPC's first assessment, in staff's opinion. The structural integrity of buildings was explicitly excluded from HPC's criteria for evaluating historic significance, as you can see from the attached rating scale. This area of concern is one of the standards for review of a demolition proposal and would be considered if such an application were made. ALTERNATIVES: Alternative actions for HPC to take include: 1. To affirm the rating first made by HPC; or 2. To down-score the rating. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends to HPC to affirm its original historic evaluation rating of "4" to 222 E. Hallam Street. 222e.hallam 5 gxhibit to Ordinance Number 11 (Series of 1987) C 0- Structure was incorrectly placed on Inventory and is actually neither old nor reconstructed. 1 - Structure is old, but has been so drastically altered to not be easily recognizable as a Victorian or mining era struc- ture. Its situation in the neighborhood typically has minimal historic influence because the neighborhood has been substantially rebuilt with new structures of a larger scale, or the structure is badly deteriorated. 2 - Structure has been altered in a way that has negatively affected its historic architectural integrity. Typically, the structure -cannot be -associated with any important historic person or event, and is merely representative of a miner family home environment. Neighborhood influence is also not significant because the structure's historic qualities have become nominal. 3 - Structure has been altered in a way that negatively affects its historic architectural integrity; however, the structure retains some historic significance because of particularly distinctive historic structural elements and/or its contri- bution-to the historic character o f a neighborhood. In a few cases, the structure has been associated with an historic person or family. C 4 - Structure has been altered in a wdy--thaJE - ii--660*idered compatible with the original architecture; and the historic character is preserved. Structure typically has strong positive influence in the neighborhood's historic character and may be associated with important historic persons or events. In all cases, structures were in their original 16cation, to the be-st-of-staff and HPC' s knowledge. 5 - Structure appears to be unaltered or has been carefully restored/reconstructed. In some cases, structures were rated in the 1980 Inventory as excellent or exceptional rather_than notable-· Typically, these structures are very good representatives -of an historic architectural style and craftsmanship, and have a strong positive influence on the neighborhood's character. Structures evaluated at_ 5's may also be associated with important historic persons or events. C 1 / FIGURE 111.2 60 'INVENTO|RY [dE H*TORIC NTEIS AND STRUCTURES : ' ~- LEGEND -0- 1986 UPI)< E designated . / Exutionalltructures ASPEN' COLOg. 0 .<1 / not yet designated O ]1 / E=ell*[]LS!£1!glu[Qi / p~ _uzzrzEZIEZI~ \ , designated a € , not yet designated a PREPARED BY THE ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING FFICE .-85 Ng!22-_StaigiwI!12 designated I 100 800 not yet designated o U-L_1 py h i ' Contributing Structures C 0 200 400 ' 9 EXISIINELLISIQBIC-DIGIE'/TS 1. man street »-7- a f 2. cor™nercU core t ·4 HSTORIC DISTRICTS UND 3.west bleeker/hallam street 2 31 4.hallam lake 5.community church 6.lift 1 . » t. -2 04 . 0 .. V /\.4 941 ..... - .-. ' 1 4&490 / --. <al • ' T.. T T,r y -1 X /- 4\ . 1 my ./ I . 1 1. 1 £11:il[LD li-=-2 11-ELL • .44 -7 -- - lf- ~ 3113 GUE€ ~lcu · . 141 3% 11 1 1 - O fig R 1 .--I ---1 --- LE 9-,7 r=Ir/" rrE-T-1 : E%* L€~111 ~ | + #! 1,15Itib ¢H u*-9-_ 21111'1|11 : . ruITTTI-O -*,4 -3- - _~L 3 .. _i i'l~-1 Ill Hilils (I!EfO .1 INk.[146 LM..LM_119 ' tiOLLULL, 1 , 12„ ~ -O - , - < -!:1_2..1-1._i-~ . -- Vgfroldkni . N- O 6 1-3·I;-71 Frid&%.,ijprilr : 1.11 \ O. ... 46 L.- .U .Al it . 1 .... 1/,1 .- 2. +...''Tri . ....1 - r- I. \ - - r,·TT-rTTT-n 11,1 -1 1.1 111 1 .0. Fl · 10! Llitillia• 11 1,-G .1 d ... - . ... rr-~-r-r~TTI -- l.111 ...I- „ 'll I. fi~_2 EF23-19Ii[1 ImmiIEIj I LL-*liI) .&®]4*2111 vJ,Tr ~PLE-;1.1/Or . ER[ti] Lit[E UHI IhI E[[El' El/1/0 [HIHE 11110111] u.liti*1 »4~i-1 . I LLLU - -/. - 12=4- ... 1 -- -; L4111.1 [*® - 91. [[1 1,- VI11 Ill Ill 29*~ ~ _L-LiLL.-# / --ODIED ®WI[ 0-1/ - , Immin E-- 11!11111111~1111111 -4 - 0%/2 i:, 2 1 - - 1, Il.~i/B L.IL- -1.-to- --' --- 22 8913~2 6 ,· : .1. 1 *Jij '53% Fid Lili Ul*1 42>Ft.El 13/ . I 24/01 1.2 .. 11 - 0 -- ----1-- . . 0 .h_ ---- -i~~ F / ra L.3 ; LAW OFFICES hi ~ CED 4 1 ¢ t qu GIDEON I. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ~' ,$,i BOX 10001 GIDEON I KAUFMAN ' TELEPHONE 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE. SUITE 305 AREA CODE 303 RICHARDS. LUHMAN ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 925-8166 September 2, 1987 Mr. Steve Burstein Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office HAND-DELIVERED 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: HPC Appeal Dear Steve: Please consider this letter an appeal on behalf of my client, Joe and Debbie Amato, owners of 222 East Hallam Street, also described on Legal Description attached hereto. This property received a score of 4 during the HPC review process. I do not feel that the score is indicative of the true historic value of this property. I believe that if the HPC had the benefit of more information, a score lower than 4 would have been assigned. The physical evidence of deterioration which poses an imminent danger to the health, safety and welfare of the occupants is apparent when one observes the pronounced sagging of the roof joists between the intermediate bearing walls and the bowing out of the outside walls. The floors are sagging in numerous places, and there are changes of level in the house which may be dangerous, as well as non-functional. The brick foundation walls are loose and crumbling at the slightest touch. In addition, there is no continuous footing under the majority of the brick foundation which bears directly on dirt a few inches below finished -grade. There have been haphazard additions and remodeling done over the years to the house. The house originally was a rectangular box of clapboard siding, wood shingled roof and no porch. The clapboard siding was removed in 1963, and new cedar siding was installed. The roof lines of the house were changed in the 1920s when a kitchen was added. There have been eight different additions to the house, including porch and porch facades, as well as major renovations which took place in the 1950s. The original house is a rectangular structure of approximately 12' x 44'. The size of the house has doubled since that time. Even the comments from the HPC architectural historicial component form do not justify the score of 4 for this houser and I quote: "The significance of this residential structure is not of those who owned it or lived in it, nor of its architectural, although the structure is representative of Aspen's mining era. This modest structure is of historic importance by illustrating the family home environment and Mr. Steve Burstein September 2, 1987 Page 2 lifestyle of the average citizen in Aspen, dominated by the silver mining industry." When you take that lack of significance and couple it with the condition of the structure, as well as the numerous changes that have taken place to that structure, I believe its is apparent that a score of 4 is not appropriate. A complete structural analysis has been done on the house by Integrated Engineering Consultants, Ltd. which confirms the problems existing with the house. A copy of their report has been included for your review. My clients did not own the house at the time designation took place. The owner at the time was confused about the significance and importance of the designation. While he felt some attachment to the house because it had been in his family for many years, he did not want to see the property devalued or arbitrary constraints placed upon it. He did not understand the true significance of what a 4 designation would be, and therefore, did not make a presentation including this information to the HPC. Because of these factors, I feel that an appeal is appropriate. Concerns such as ours led the City Council to specifically designate an appeal process for owners to get a fair and full hearing on their designation. I look forward to discussing this matter with you and would like to see it directed to the City Council for the appeal. I believe that a more appropriate score should be issued to this house in the neighborhood of a 2, and would like to set the record straight on the true historic significance of this property. Once you have had an opportunity to review this letter, please contact me. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, a Professional Corporation tf lk-- Gideon~ ~Au:Email GK/bw CC: Joseph A. Amato Enclosures Received by Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office this 4th day of September, 1987. * Sglt»-a . tkJ»-~ V INTEGRA-FED ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS , Ltd. 411 East Mdin Street Suite z06 Aspen,Colorado 81611 (303) 92 f· f9'3 September 3, 1987 Job #87147 Mr. Joseph Amato c/o Plymouth Construction, Inc. P. 0. Box 179 Monroe, New York 10950 Re: 222 E. Hallam Aspen, Colorado Dear Mr. Amato: At the request and with the assistance of Charles Cunniffe & Associates/Architects, Integrated Engineering Consultants, Ltd. has conducted a preliminary structural evaluation of the above residence. The inspection covered only those structural elements which were readily visible and did not include concealed elements due to the cost and disruption of exposing them. Based on our visual inspection, we conclude that the above residence is essentially not-structurally sound and modification of its' existing structural elements would be prohibitive and very expensive. The roof does not meet current U.B.C. requirements, is virtually in a state of gradual collapse and would need to be modified significantly to remain in service per U.B.C. requirements or to accommodate any modification to its' supporting elements. The floor is in similar condition as is most of the foundation. The brick masonry of the foundation is in an advanced state of deterioration and is not protected against frost action. It is our opinion that very little of the original structure would remain if an endeavor was made to rehabilitate or modify it. In addition, attempts to move the structure would be quite extensive in that considerable effort would be required to keep the structure intact. Based on the above observations, it is our opinion that it would be more cost effective to demolish the existing structure. N 2,2'fi.,t 222 E. Hallam September 3, 1987 Page 2 If you have any questions or if we can be of any further assistance, please call 303 925-5913. Sincerely, INTEGRATED 'EN3BTEERING CONS~LTANTS, LTD. 9-7 46¥1AE«~__a€1,(l-Lirm Richard T. Cieciuch, Jr., P. E. Sr. Design/Construction Engineer RTC/skc CC: Charles Cunniffe & Assoc. 711 1 - C 343(200(2 10-1 Mr. Joseph A. Am, itc.) ·· Kent Management Group JAN 2 1 600 Route 32 Iii ~ 1-ligh.1.and Ilills, New York 10930 December 11, 1987 Dear Mr. Amato, I have now completed my historic evaluation of your house at 222 East Hallam in Aspen. The research entailed in this included a visit to the subject property and a tour of other properties that were ranked from 0 - 5 by the City of Aspen. I also examined Ordinance Number 11 (series of 1987), the Colorado Cultural Resource Survey (completed 10/23/80), miscellaneous research materials on the history of the house and information given to your attorney, Gideon Kaufman, regarding the foundations that have been altered and/or added through the years. Upon inspection of the building I noticed that there is very little original fabric in place. This was confirmed by information from the engineer and former owners. In all, it appears that over 90% of the exterior facade has been covered or deleted. The 1904 Sanborn map confirms that the porch at that time wrapped around the front of the house, while the configuration of the sun porch and rear portions of the house were different than the current layout. I was struck with the aesthetically pleasing nature of this house. However I could see that the historic-- fabilu licid Luen cilleicd Lu Lhe Fulnl- Llial- 1-te---·~ historic integrity was gone. Although the house was built in 1887-90, (according to former owners Marvin and Susanna Reynolds), there is little architectural significance and research shows the house is not associated with significant persons, events or patterns. This was confirmed in the Cultural Resource Survey conducted by the State of Colorado, which concluded that, "The significance of this residential structure is not of those who owned it or lived in it, nor its architecture, although the structure is representative of Aspen' s Mining Era. This modest structure is of historical importance by illustrating the family/home environment and lifestyles of the average citizen in Aspen dominated by the silver mining history. " With the information I gathered, I then set up a checklist for each of the different numerical rankings, using the criteria from Ordinance Number 11. In each category, I checked off those itans applicable to 222 E. Hallam with the following results: 1033 Steele Denver CO 80206 303 399-6391 r i' J #2 RANK 1/~ Structure has been altered in a way that has negatively affected its historic architectural integrity. I/'~ Typically, the structure cannot be associated with any important historic person or event, and is merely representative of a miner family home environment. Neighborhood influence is riot signi ficant because the structure' s historic qualities have been nominal. #3 RANK & Structure has been altered in a way that negatively affects its historic architectural integrity; however, the structure retai'ns some historic significance because of particularly distinctive historic structural elements and/or its contribution to the historic character of a neighborhood. In a few cases, the structure has been associated with an historic person or family. #4 RANK Structure has been altered in a way that is considered compatible with the original architecture; and the historic character is preserved. Structure typically has strong positive influence in the neighbor- hood' s historic character and may be associated with historic persons or events. In all cases, structures were in their original location. As you can see more items in category (2) apply to this structure than in categories (3) or (4). After ranking 222 E. Hallam according to the criteria in the Ordinance, I then compared this house to others in the 2,3 and 4 categories within the West End District. It would appear from this that a three would be a moro appropriate ranking based on the physical appearance of other properties. (There is always a danger in ranking the historic significance of properties based only on the physical appearance because significance is based on 1- association with historic persons or events as well as architectural integrity. It is also difficult to conclude what is the original historic fabric without more intensive research.) . '1 , Given all of the above in formation, I would suggest that a more appropriate ranking for this property would be some where between 2 and 3. While there is some significance attached to the fact that the building represents a miner's family home, the numerous alterations and additions to the house have caused it to lose its historic integrity. While the building is pleasing from an aesthetic stand point, tlie historic significance is not strong enough to merit a 4 in my opinion. I,et me add that it is not unusual to change the ranking of a building based on further research. We have just done this recently in Denver in our Lower Downtown area. Although an initial survey of all the historic build- ings was carried out three years ago, within the last month, some buildings have either been added or deleted to the list of "contributing" structures based on additional information that was not available when the first survey was done. Please let me know if you need additional infonnation or research on this. Siticerely, <7 04 5 ojys Lisa Purdy President, Citiscape, Ltd. Preservation Consultant To the Members of t-_ Aspen City Council: I am writing this letter for your consideration at the request of Gideon Kaufman on behalf of Joseph A. Amato. I was retained as a professional historic preservation consultant to review the property at 222 East Halman, Aspen, Colorado, to assess its significance as a historic and architectural resource and its corresponding evaluation and ranking by the City of Aspen under Ordinance Number 11 (series of 1987). As part of my work on October 6-7, 1987, I conducted a thorough investigation of the house and its vicinity as well as a brief survey of other historic properties and areas within the community. I also reviewed all materials pertinant to the property and the evaluation and designation procedures that were made available to me by the City Planning Department and representatives of the property owner. It is my opinion that the property does possess local significance. However, information to support this determination is lacking. Specifically, there is an absence of materials related to the 1980 Inventory of Historic Places and the 1986 staff update of the Inventory in the following areas: -No description of the salient features of the Commmunity Church Historic District that make it historically or architecturally important to Aspen . -Inadequate discussion of those aspects of 222 East Hyman's physical condition or history that make it a contributing element of the Community Church Historic District. -No description of the criteria and methods used to determine the relative integrity of locally significant resources. Furthermore, documentation also is lacking in regard to the objective standards and procedures that were used to assign the HPC scores. Since no information is provided as to how judgments were made to determine the effect of alterations upon structures or how structures contribute, in varying degrees, to their neighborhoods and why these neighorhoods have importance to the community, it can be argued that the property in question merits a ranking other than the "4" it is currently assigned. Without the benfit of information related to the above concerns and with only the information contained in the "Survey Architectural/Historic Component Form," the official documentation of the attributes that make the property significant, and the notes which were provided describing the_basis of the City staff's recommentlati nnf for evaluation, a ranking of a "3" or even a "2" might seem appropriate. I support the City's historic preservation efforts. However, as a result of my review of the HPC score for 222 East Halman, I believe that the current procedures and criteria for assessing local significance need clarifications and supplemental information, so that property owners and the larger community might better understand why and how these important local resources should be preserved. Sincerely, Utuoi, 1*e a 64 , 1 DEC 8 cl- W , . jaN 28 APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - - - - i Applicant's Name and Address: Laura Donnelley 2350 McLain Flats Road Aspen, CO 81611 Proof of Ownership: Statement of Applicant's Interest in Property if not owner: Property Address, Legal Description and Name: Lots E&F Block 88 City of Aspen Type of Review (Minor or Significant): Minor Description of Proposed Development Activity, including but not limited to: architectural elements effected, additional square footage (if applicable), height, building materials and illumina- tion: The development consists of a sculpture garden enclosed by the Brand Building to the East, the old Aspen Jewelry Store to l.1-ic W=SL, cuid EcibL Huykinb Sheet to the South. The bmuggler Land Office will have a paved terrace enfronting the garden. The garden is separated from the street and sidewalk by a 5' high concrete wall. Tlit: cunciele will be Linted with plgment. An entry gate to the garden will contain a water element. Statement of the Effect of the Proposed Development on the Original Design of Structure (if applicable) and/or Character of the Neighborhood, and why the Proposed Development meets the Review Standards of Section 24-9.4(d) (pertaining to compati- bility in character of historic landmarks on the site, consis- tency with character of the neighborhood, and whether it enhances or detracts from the cultural value or architectural integrity of the structure) : The develdpment results inupgrading of an existing vacant lot into a sculpturegarden open to the public. The existing sidew alk w.ill bc replaced by- a new Ul= bilitilcu Lu Cle liew Une iIi front of the Brand Building. In addition a new row of shade trees will be added along the curb. The new wall will be of a sandblasted tcorture and rvv'arm color Col-Dpa'tible Wil-11 l.11= adjuilling b LI-uc. Luies. An existing eyesore will be cleaned up and turned into a park where the best art available will be madeaccessable to the public. Any other City Approvals needed by Applicant, such as encroach- ment licence, GMP or Special Review: City. Engineering Dept. Approval for sidewalk and curb SB.APP CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS PO. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, AIA APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT I. Significant Development The proposed building is a single family home, two stories in height with an attached two car garage at the rear. Its architectural style is Victorian and in keeping with the character of the adjacent buildings of the neighborhood. II. Conceptual Development Plan a. Redevelopment Plan: Refer- to Graphic Submittal b. Building Materials Refer to Exhibit F C. Statement concerning effect of proposed redevelopment on neighborhood Refer to Exhibit E PATTILLO ASSOCIATES SELECTED PROJECTS Foundation Distress/Repair Red Mountain Terrace Subdivison, 1981 to 1985 This recently developed area of Glenwood Springs has experienced problems associated with hydro-compactive soils. With six of the affected homes involved in litigation, we conducted settlement monitoring studies and developed a deep pier repair system for releveling and stabilizing the structures. Mr. Pattillo served as an expert witness in the case, spending more than twenty hours in testimony during hearings and the trial. John Strickland, Construction Manager 945-4952 Mountain Rivers A.R.U. Building, 1985 A water service line leak was determined to have caused a significant amount of settlement at a corner of this two-story, 100-year old masonry building, Repair plans have been developed to stabilize the building by installation of deep piers and reinforced concrete grade beams below the existing walls. Keddie Brooks, Director 945-8439 Stephens Residence, 1983 Due to soil consolidation, one side of this structure in Glenwood Springs had settled more than six inches. Steel pipe piles were driven adjacent to the house and bracketed to the foundation. Subsequent level monitoring has demonstrated the success of the system. George Stephens, Owner 945-2049 Aspen Chance Residences, 1985 to 1986 Three new exclusive custom residential structures required special foundation support due to their location on up to 20 feet of mine tailings. Previously augered pile placement attempts had failed. A new procedure was developed, utilizing rotary drilling to place post-grouted reinforced "Micro-piles". More than 180 installations have been completed to date, placed with an accuracy of placement of less than two inches. Burt Hartmann Hartmann Engineering & Construction 245-6200 David Finholm, Architect 925-5713 1 PATTILLO ASSOCIATES SELECTED PROJECTS Page 2 Foundation Distress/Repair Glenwood Springs Water Treatment Plant RFP, 1986 We provided assistance to the Citx of Glenwood Springs in preparing a "Request For Proposals for the design and construction of repairs to the City's water treatment plant. This facility has been plagued for more than eight years with foundation settlement problems. The proposal solicits solutions which will stabilize the structure and seal the soil from further water infiltration, without affecting the plant operation. Kevin Kadlec, City Engineer 945-2575 Brettelberg Condominium Foundation Repair, Current Excessive wetting of the subsoils and a poor original construction effort have jeopardized several major support piers on this three-story structure. Repair plans have been prepared to provide shoring support for underpinning each problematic footing. This will also result in additional lower level space which may be utilized for storage, garages, or additional units. Tom Jankovski, Manager 945-7491 Other Similar Projects, 1982 to Current Schall Residence Stabilization, Glenwood Springs Bullock Residence Monitoring/Repair, Silt Browning/Thompson Residence, Glenwood Springs Swanson Residence, Meeker Olson Residence, Glenwood Springs Sturges Residence, Glenwood Springs Diener Residence, Gypsum Risch Residence, Gypsum Schiesser Residence, Glenwood Springs Mangurian Residence, Glenwood Springs Gert Residence, Glenwood Springs Fitzgerald Residence, Glenwood Springs Purcell Residence, Glenwood Springs Wisch Residence, Glenwood Springs Slayton Residence, Glenwood Springs Bankert Residence, Glenwood Springs Making Waves Building, Glenwood Springs PATTILLO ASSOCIATES General Information Pattillo Associates was established in 1980 to offer expert engineering consulting service geared to construction conditions in Western Colorado. We specialize in structural engineering exclusively, in the interest of providing our clients with the best available service in a technically complex field. We are proud of our innovative engineering skills which have been developed by our experience with demanding architectural forms. These structures must support heavy snow loads and are frequently located on difficult sites. Based in Glenwood Springs and serving primarily the high mountain valleys of Western Colorado, we have been associated wi th a diversity of projects ranging from residential additions to large multi-story condominium projects. Our experience includes several commercial and historical renovations, design of industrial facilities, pedestrian and vehicular bridges, and literally hundreds of custom residential buildings. We have also developed proprietary construction techniques for repair of distressed foundations common to this region. Basically, our job responsibility is to assure that a structure remains stable under a variety of externally and internally applied forces. Oftentimes, we must "bridge the gap" between the concepts of the architect and the reality of the construction effort. Hence, we believe that it is essential for our personnel to be thoroughly familar with field conditions and construction techniques to compliment their expertise in structural theory and code requirements. We presently employ three engineers (including the principal) along with our office manager and drafters. Our offices are conveniently located in downtown Glenwood Springs, in the recently remodeled upper floor of the Silver Club Building. We believe that there are specific advantages with utilizing a locally based consulting firm. These benefits include better response time and overall efficiency, familiarity with local conditions, availability for site observations, and direct involvement by the principal engineer. With regard to technical support systems, we have direct access to sophisticated mainframe computer software, and we utilize in-house computer programs for timber, steel, and concrete design, along with word processing capability. ROBERT M. PATTILLO, P.E. Principal Engineer Resume A resident of Western Colorado since 1968, Robert began his professional career in the Roaring Fork Valley in 1975. His technical expertise has grown with and contributed to the area's increasing level of design sophistication. EDUCATION University of Colorado, Boulder B.S., Civil and Environmental Engineering, 1975 (With Honors) REGISTRATION Colorado Professional Engineer #16794 EXPERIENCE Pattillo Associates Engineers 1980-present Eldorado Engineering Company 1978-1980 Collins Engineers, Inc. 1975-1978 With regard to experience, he has been directly involved with several hundred projects totaling more than four hundred million dollars in construction cost. General types of work and selected projects are listed below: CUSTOM RESIDENTIAL Annie Denver Residence, Aspen Pitkin Reserve Residences, Aspen MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL The Charter at Beaver Creek St. Michaels, Telluride SCHOOLS Re-1 Facilities Evaluation, Glenwood Springs and Carbondale COMMERCIAL Spring Street Post Office, Aspen Alpine Banks, Glenwood Spgs. & Eagle HISTORIC Redstone Inn, Redstone Epicure Building, Aspen GOVERNMENT Carbondale Post Office INDUSTRIAL Union Oil Maintenance Facility BRIDGES 7th Street Bridge, Glenwood Springs Serving as the Prime Designer, Robert's experience also includes the Glenwood Springs Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge, a five span, 530 feet steel truss bridge. He has also helped develop proprietary construction techniques ("Micropiles" and "Compliant Brackets") for use in repairing distressed foundations common to this region.