HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.201912111
AGENDA
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
December 11, 2019
4:30 PM, City Council Meeting Room
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I.SITE VISIT
I.A.None
II.4:30 PM - ROLL CALL
III.MINUTES
III.A.DRAFT MINUTES OF 11/13 AND 11/20
coa.hpc.min.111319.docx
coa.hpc.112019.docx
IV.PUBLIC COMMENTS
V.COMMISSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS
VI.DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VII.PROJECT MONITORING
VII.A.Project Monitoring List
PROJECT MONITORING.doc
VIII.STAFF COMMENTS
IX.CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT ISSUED
X.CALL UP REPORTS
XI.SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS
XII.4:40 PM - OLD BUSINESS
XII.A.234 W. Francis- Major Development, Floor Area Bonus and Setback Variations,
CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO FEBRUARY 12th 1
2
XII.B.1020 E. Cooper Avenue– Conceptual Major Development Review, Demolition,
Relocation, Variations, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 23rd
HPC Memo.pdf
Resolution.pdf
Exhibit A_HP Guidelines Criteria.pdf
Exhibit B_Relocation Criteria.pdf
Exhibit C_Demolition Criteria.pdf
Exhibit D_HPC Minutes July 24 2019.pdf
Exhibit E_Application.pdf
XIII.NEW BUSINESS
DISCUSSION ITEM
5:45 PM - HPC Year in Review
XIV.6:15 PM - ADJOURN
XV.NEXT RESOLUTION NUMBER
Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings
1)Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda)
2) Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
3) Staff presentation
4) Board questions and clarifications of staff
5) Applicant presentation
6) Board questions and clarifications of applicant
7) Public comments
8)Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments
9) Close public comment portion of bearing
10) Staff rebuttal/clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment
11) Applicant rebuttal/clarification
End of fact finding.
Deliberation by the commission commences.
No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public
12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners.
13) Discussion between commissioners*
14) Motion*
*Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met or not met.
2
3
Revised April 2, 2014
3
1
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13, 2019
Chairperson Greenwood opened the meeting at 4:30 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer, Kara Thompson, Nora
Berko. Absent were: Richard Lai, Sheri Sanzone, Jeffrey Halferty and Scott Kendrick.
Staff present:
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
Amy Simon, Historic Planning Director
MINUTES: Mr. Blaich moved to approve the minutes of October 9th and October 23rd, Mr. Moyer
seconded. All in favor, motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:None.
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS: None.
PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon said she has one item she’s already resolved with Mr. Moyer and
one item for Ms. Greenwood to discuss after the meeting.
STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon reminded the board of the special meeting next Wednesday, so they
don’t have to meet on Thanksgiving eve. Ms. Greenwood said she will be absent, so Mr. Blaich will
chair.
CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Simon said she issued one today for some window
changes on a non-historic house on Neale Avenue.
CALL UPS: None.
PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan said all notices have been submitted.
OLD BUSINESS: None.
NEW BUSINESS: 234 W. Francis
Amy Simon
Ms. Simon said that Ms. Yoon is the lead on this project, but she is traveling on the east coast this week.
Herbert Byer used to live in this house. She showed a picture of it and said it’s a lovely and large Queen
Anne Victorian. There are two historic resources on this site and there is a Herbert Byer fence
surrounding the property as well as some beautiful cottonwoods. She showed a bird’s eye map and a
Sandborn map. There was a remodel in the 90’s which added on to the structures and this proposal is to
remove all of that and take the structures back to the original form, which is great. There is a proposal
to take the upper level off of the non-historic garage along the alley. This identifies a few of the
concerns brought up in the staff memo. We initially received a proposal for a pergola and an open trellis
structure to span between the two structures on site, and we objected to this. The applicant has since
4
2
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13, 2019
withdrawn that request. There are a number of large spruce trees at the back of the site which must be
retained, but they provide an obstruction to where we normally would like to see an addition occur.
We’re concerned that compatibility hasn’t been met yet between the historic resource and this aspect
of the addition. It feels pushed into the center of the lot, but we don’t have a great solution due to the
trees. The applicant did do a restudy of form, which brought down the height of the center element.
She showed the side street elevation. There is a request for setback variations to change the roof form
of the garage and they are maintaining the footprint. The setback variation criteria have been met.
They are also asking for a 500 square foot floor area bonus and this is our first project under the new
floor area criteria. We are recommending continuation for compatibility on the addition.
Mr. Moyer said we learned today that the historic fence is not actually on the property. Thus far, it can
be retained and asked if there is anything, they can do to not make it an issue in the future. Ms. Simon
said there has not been an encroachment license issued thus far, but we could certainly ask engineering
to do that.
Ms. Greenwood commented on the trees in the back and said HPC does have purview over parks
allowing trees to be removed if it will benefit the historic restoration. She asked what staff’s opinion is
since they are concerned about the addition being in the center of the lot. Ms. Simon said she’s not sure
if Ms. Yoon has spoken to the parks department. She said maybe the forester feels that these trees are
far enough away from the historic structure that they don’t have to be removed. These will stay put if
they are healthy and not impacting the structure. Ms. Greenwood asked about the addition. Ms. Simon
said there is room to add onto the site. Ms. Greenwood said that any applicant can make the argument
against it. Ms. Simon said she thinks, depending on how this conversation goes, the conversation can be
revisited, and we can decide that before the continuation date. Ms. Greenwood said it’s important for
all applicants to know this and it’s not a hard and fast rule. Ms. Greenwood asked if they want to go
over the FAR. Ms. Simon read through the criteria. Since the lot is 9000 square feet, it’s eligible for the
full 500 and smaller lots get less.
Ms. Greenwood asked if the project being presented is with the 500 square foot bonus and Ms. Simon
said yes. Ms. Berko was what the total FAR is, and Ms. Adams said 3660 and with the bonus 4160. She
said they are not asking for the full bonus, but just under that.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Sara Adams with Bendon Adams and Sara Lopergolo of Selldorf Architects
in New York.
Ms. Adams said that Selldorf Architects specialty is the joining of historic and modern architecture and
Ms. Lopergolo brought a physical model for everyone. Ms. Adams showed the existing conditions. The
building was built in 1888. She presented the Sandborn maps and included some documentation from
the historic society. There was a major renovation in the 1990’s and they are improving this and
removing additions and making it more compatible with new construction. She showed a diagram of
the constraints on the site. We’ve been checking in with parks along the way regarding the trees and we
want to work the design with them. The dripline does dictate a bigger setback. Our main goal is the
historic preservation plan. We are doing a complete restoration of the carriage house and preservation
to the main house, making sure the new addition is lower than the primary building. We are also
improving the 2nd street façade. The mix of roof forms is a little too complicated. We have pushed a lot
of development into the basement and it will be one single family home on this property. We are
restoring the rear dormer and reducing the existing lightwells and will be restoring the historic chimney.
5
3
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13, 2019
We are removing the non-historic side porch and also removing the front porch of the carriage house.
The carriage house got a lot of Victorian details in the 90’s that were pretty confusing, so we are
proposing to remove all of that. They can work with staff and monitor to figure out where the entry
was. We do have evidence that the windows were a lot longer than they are today, so we will be
restoring those as well. She said they have significant setbacks and explained all of them. Ms.
Lopergolo switched out the buildings on the model from existing to proposed and explained it to the
board.
Ms. Thompson asked if they would maintain the same material and Ms. Lopergolo said they were going
back and forth on that, but the idea is to use the same material; the cedar siding. We haven’t decided
yet whether we paint or go natural. The addition would be natural, and the garage should go in that
area, but we can also see it being painted.
Mr. Moyer asked what their thoughts are on treating the natural cedar and Ms. Lopergolo said in the
past, they’ve left it alone. He asked if they’ve done any homes in the mountains and she said yes. Mr.
Moyer said it turns black and weird and not appealing. She said they’ve done a house in Edwards and
would do the same treatment. She doesn’t remember the exact formula.
Ms. Berko asked about copper not being used on the windows and Ms. Adams said they are open to
staff’s suggestion on the lead coated copper.
Ms. Greenwood asked how the square footage is allocated and Ms. Adams said the allowable square
footage is 3660 total FAR, and we are proposing 4160. Derek Skalko explained in detail the numbers.
He said there is currently 861 square feet in the main Victorian, 587 in the mining cottage, and the
additional is 525. The connecting octagonal element is being removed and that is 700 square feet.
There is a slight reduction from the mining cottage as well since they are removing the non-historic
addition. The proposed
Mr. Moyer asked how wide and how long the connecting link is. Ms. Adams said it is 20 feet 10 inches
long and 15 feet in depth. Mr. Moyer asked how transparent it is and Ms. Lopergolo said it’sjust a side
door there and will not be very transparent.
PUBLIC COMMENT: David Dowler
Mr. Dowler said that his house is at 229 W. Smuggler and 426 N. 2nd. He has read the application and
wanted to say that he really likes Selldorf Architects and admires their work. He went through the code
and has written remarks which he passed out. He said his concerns are similar to the concerns of the
HPC staff regarding the scaled, the massing, etc. He asked if they considered putting the garage behind
the cabin and described what he did at his house. He really feels like walking along that street is one of
the great joys in Aspen and thinks that the structure of the addition is what disturbs his eye.
Ms. Adams said it’s a great idea to put the garage behind the cabin, but because of the spruce trees, it
cannot be located there. Ms. Greenwood said that HPC has purview over tree removal and Ms. Simon
said that is not the case. We can’t demand that parks issue a tree removal permit. Ms. Bryan said that
is correct, HPC doesn’t trump parks.
Mr. Moyer said hewent over on the weekend and stood on the south side. He thought all of the
removals were dead on. He looked into the yard and realized he would be looking at a big wall and said
6
4
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13, 2019
it’s a great big box. He said he walked to the east side and the first thing to hit him was the connecting
link. Both the width and length. He said the length is great, but he thought we want the connector to
show the separation from the historic to the new and that it be transparent. He said the open space on
this lot has always been a part of the history. He is not totally opposed or in favor of the 500 square foot
bonus, but he wants to see something special.
Ms. Berko thanked them for the model. She said this is one of the only remaining compounds to have
kept its original scale. It’s on the national register. It’s a part of the identity of Aspen’s history and spent
a lot of time there when it belonged to Robert Anderson. She’s attached to its openness. She really
needs to see more discussion regarding the integrity of the guidelines for her to feel comfortable. If you
take off the 500 from this calculation, what kind of an addition could be done that would still meet the
perceived needs. The open space is totally gone with this addition. She can’t really feel too enthusiastic
at this point and thinks the whole addition needs some reworking.
Ms. Greenwood said it’s a complicated project and she’d like for more discussion. She feels the
guidelines have been underwhelmingly unmet. To her, it doesn’t belong on this property. She could see
it downtown on its own. This isn’t a new concept for an old site here. She doesn’t think the addition
form relates. The windows don’t match the historic windows at all since there is a modern fenestration.
That’s not what is on the historic resource. She doesn’t think they’ve met form or fenestration and she
concurs with Ms. Berko and Mr. Moyer. She is not in favor of a 500 square foot bonus and said there is
too much building on the site which really affects the rhythm of this beautiful property.
Ms. Thompson said she thinks the form could be interesting if the materiality of that element was
developed further to not look exactly like the cabin but to provide a contrast to be a more modern
element. She likes the roof a lot better than the original proposal. It could be more delicate because
it’s too heavy for her.
Ms. Berko said it’s an amazing lot.
Mr. Moyer said that we all agree, it’s way too much mass.
Mr. Blaich said that all his thinking is to preserve what we have. When I went to the site, he went to the
back and realized what affect this has on the alley. It started to change his thinking. He wondered how
this could this be done better. He agrees with the comments by staff, but just saw the actual drawings
today for the first time. He thinks they are going in the right direction.
Ms. Greenwood asked if everyone is in agreement to continue and the board said yes.
MOTION: Ms. Berko moved to continue to December 11
th, Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion
carried.
Ms. Adams said she needs some clarification. She asked if they should include the bonus or not. Ms.
Simon said you have to design it and present it and that you shouldn’t walk away thinking you can’t ask
for it.
MOTION: Mr. Moyer motioned to adjourn, Mr. Blaich seconded. All in favor, motion carried at 6:24
p.m.
7
5
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13, 2019
_____________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
8
1
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2019
Co-chairperson Blaichopened the meeting at 4:30 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Bob Blaich, Jeffrey Halferty, Roger Moyer, Scott Kendrick, Kara
Thompson, Sheri Sanzone. Absent were: Gretchen Greenwood, Richard Lai, Nora Berko.
Staff present:
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
Amy Simon, Historic Planning Director
Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner
MINUTES: None.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:None.
CONFLICTS: Ms. Thompson said she worked on the project we are seeing tonight, a few years back. She
said it’s not her firms any longer and she can be objective. Ms. Bryan said she spoke with Ms. Thompson
and she feels that she can objective as well.
PROJECT MONITORING: None.
STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon said they will cover the year in review at the next meeting instead of this
one. She said they sent out an email to everyone yesterday from Sara Ott looking for a representative
from the board to be a part of the interview panel for the new community development director.
Attend a meet and greet and spend December 5th with them. Mr. Moyer said he will be available.
CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None.
CALL UPS: Ms. Yoon said this coming Tuesday, 333 W. Bleeker will be called up.
PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan has the notice for the old business item but needs the new business list of
addresses from the applicant. Kim Raymond said she will email it in the morning.
OLD BUSINESS: 201 E Main
MOTION: Mr. Kendrick moved to continue this project to January 8th, Mr. Halferty seconded. All in
favor, motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS: 223 E. Hallam
Amy Simon
Ms. Simon said this is a historic Victorianacross from the Red Brick. It is currently under construction
right now for an addition and a lot of restoration taking place. The request tonight is for a rear yard
setback variation. There is a connector between the new and old. There is a proposed spiral stair and a
hot tub which they want to move to the ground. There is a substantial amount of this lot that the
applicant cannot build on, so for this reason, staff finds the variation request acceptable.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Kim Raymond and Patricia Weber of Kim Raymond Architects
Ms. Raymond showed the site plan on screen and explained where they are placing the hot tub and the
spiral staircase.
9
2
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2019
Ms. Simon reminded everyone that this is a five-foot reduction, so the board would be granting a five-
foot variation.
Mr. Moyer said he concurs with staff and their recommendation.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
Mr. Kendrick concurs with staff on this and doesn’t see a reason not to approve.
Mr. Blaich asked if everyone is in agreement and the board said yes.
MOTION: Mr. Moyer motioned to approve resolution #20, Ms. Sanzone seconded.
Roll call vote: Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Kendrick, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes;
Ms. Sanzone, yes. 6-0, motion carried.
Kevin Rayes from the planning and zoning department addressed the board on the dockless e-bikes and
scooters.
The board agreed that this idea is not right for Aspen and gave Mr. Rayes various feedback.
MOTION: Mr. Halferty motioned to adjourn, Mr. Kendrick seconded. All in favor, motion carried.
______________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
10
C:\Users\EASYPD~1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF
8\@BCL@700E0BED\@BCL@700E0BED.doc
12/5/2019
HPC PROJECT MONITORS-projects in bold are under construction
Nora Berko 1102 Waters
602 E. Hyman
210 S. First
333 W. Bleeker
Bob Blaich 209 E. Bleeker
300 E. Hyman, Crystal Palace
Gretchen Greenwood 124 W. Hallam
411 E. Hyman
300 E. Hyman, Crystal Palace
101 W. Main, Molly Gibson Lodge
201 E. Main
834 W. Hallam
420 E. Hyman
517 E. Hopkins
529-535 E. Cooper Avenue
Jeff Halferty 232 E. Main
541 Race Alley
208 E. Main
517 E. Hopkins
533 W. Hallam
110 W. Main, Hotel Aspen
105 E. Hallam
Roger Moyer 223 E. Hallam
300 W. Main
105 E. Hallam
Richard Lai 211 W. Main
414-422 E. Cooper
Scott Kendrick 517 E. Hopkins
419 E. Hyman
302 E. Hopkins
304 E. Hopkins
210 W. Main
301 Lake
Sheri Sanzone 549 Race Alley
110 W. Main
Kara Thompson 981 Gibson
Need to assign:
422/434 E. Cooper
305/307 S. Mill
534 E. Cooper
11
Page 1 of 8
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
MEETING DATE: December 11, 2019
RE: 1020 E. Cooper Avenue– Conceptual Major Development Review, Demolition,
Relocation, Variations, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 23rd
APPLICANT /OWNER:
1020 E. Cooper LLC
REPRESENTATIVE:
Brewster McLeod Architects
LOCATION:
Street Address:
1020 E. Cooper Avenue
Legal Description:
The east 13.79 feet of Lot O and
all of Lot P, Block 34, East Aspen
Addition to the City of Aspen
Parcel Identification Number:
PID# 2737-182-32-006
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Single-family home,
RMF: Residential Multi-Family
PROPOSED LAND USE:
No change
SUMMARY:
The applicant has requested Major Development, Demolition,
Relocation and Variation review for a project which involves
demolishing two sheds on the property, relocating the historic
home forward and onto a new basement, and constructing a new
addition. A floor area bonus is requested. HPC reviewed this
proposal in July and continued the hearing for restudy.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant has responded to staff and board comments. Staff
recommends approval of the revised design.
Site Locator Map – 1020 E. Cooper Avenue
1020
12
Page 2 of 8
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
BACKGROUND:
1020 E. Cooper Avenue is a 4,379 sq. ft. lot
located in the RMF zone district. The site
contains a Victorian era home and two sheds of
an unknown construction date. The house has
been heavily altered in terms of replacement of
exterior materials and features and enclosure of
the original front porch. This area of town was
not included in the historic Sanborn maps and no
historic photos of this house have been located.
The home, in its current appearance is depicted
at right.
REQUEST OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals:
• Major Development (Section 26.415.070.D) for removal of a non-historic lean-to, and construction
of a new addition to the rear of the historic home. A 500 square foot floor area bonus is
requested.
• Demolition (Section 26.415.080.A) to remove two outbuildings from the property.
• Relocation (Section 26.415.090.C) to move the historic home forward 7 feet and westward 2 feet.
The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is the final review authority, however this project is subject
to Call-up Notice to City Council. The applicant intends to request Council approval to remove 250
square feet of floor area from the site as a TDR.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Following is a summary of staff findings. Please see Exhibits A, B and C for more detail.
Site Planning, Demolition, Relocation: The applicant proposes to demolish the non-historic addition
to the resource, lift the historic house on this site, move it 7’ forward and 2’ westward, and place it on a
new basement. Two sheds along the alley are to be demolished and two trees are proposed to be
removed from the site.
Staff supports the demolition of the sheds and the relocation of the historic resource as described in
Exhibits B and C to this memo. The sheds appear to have been built in about the mid-20th century, based
on the limited information that is available. They are not Victorian era and because of this they do not
13
Page 3 of 8
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
contribute to the representation of the property as a 19th century home. Their preservation should not
be required.
Staff finds that relocating the historic home forward on the site is appropriate and will not disturb any
historic patterns on this block, which includes two large apartment buildings that are of a different scale
and placement than the adjacent landmarks. The proposal meets the site planning guidelines which are
applicable to Conceptual Review. Additional detail regarding landscape will be discussed at Final.
HPC indicated general support for these elements of the proposal at the July 24th hearing.
Historic Landmark Alterations and New Addition: The home on this site was constructed in the
Victorian era, but it is not a classic miner’s cottage. Since the July meeting, the applicant has completed
asbestos abatement, which has allowed greater access for the contractor to inspect and assess the
building. An illustrated report is attached to the application. The contractor’s conclusion is that the
home is two separately constructed forms which, early in their history, were butted against each other
in an L form and “stitched” together. This creates some challenging conditions, including differing north-
south and east-west ridge heights.
This property is
outside of the area
covered by the turn of
the century fire
insurance maps that
are often relied on for
documentation of
changes to buildings.
No historic photos
have been located.
The home has been in
the current
appearance since at
least 1965.
The only record of the
building, other than
what can be
discovered on-site, is
the 1896 Willit’s Map
at left, which shows
the footprint of the
structure.
14
Page 4 of 8
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
It is not possible to tell from this map whether or not the house had a front porch. The entry to the
existing house, which appears to be an enclosed porch, is not Victorian era construction. Some original
framing and sheathing remain, but all other features of the original building, including siding, trim, doors
and windows have been removed. The July hearing included a brief discussion of the option to de-list
the property as historic, but HPC did not support that, indicating that the resource still has value. The
proposal is to reflect common characteristics of Aspen’s mining era homes in the redevelopment of this
home. Physical inspection and careful review of any new evidence uncovered during the construction
process will be part of the Final conditions of approval.
Based on staff and HPC feedback, the applicant has made a number of changes from the original
proposal, including removing the non-historic rear lean-to from the house to create a lower profile
connector that meets the design guidelines. The gable end of the addition has been made more narrow,
with a steeper roof pitch to relate more strongly to the Victorian. Materials on the addition have been
simplified and more reflective of the 19th century palette.
July 2019 December 2019
15
Page 5 of 8
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
The addition remains large in comparison to the historic resource, however the 508 square foot resource
is unusually small even amongst the miner’s cottages. The 7’6” plate height on part of the home and
east-west ridge height of less than 11’ also create challenges to screening the new construction. The
property is not big enough to allow for a lot split, or two detached homes, tools which are often
successful in reducing addition size.
The above grade floor area of the addition is 1,862 square feet. HPC guideline 10.4 restricts an addition
to no more than equal in size to the historic resource unless certain criteria are met, which staff finds is
the case as follows:
The total above grade floor area of an addition may be no more than 100% of the above grade
floor area of the original historic resource. All other above grade development must be
completely detached. HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more of the following
are met:
o The proposed addition is all one story
o The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic resource and
the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions of the historic resource
o The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is considered to
have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource
o The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors as
existed historically
o The project is on a large lot, allowing the addition to have a significant setback from the street
o There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to historic conditions
that aren’t being changed
o The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern designation, or
o The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints such as trees that
must be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc.
This property is located in the Residential Multi-Family zone district. The alternative to development of
a single-family home as proposed is a multi-family development that would be allowed approximately
1,000 additional square feet of floor area, or more. Given the context of the subject property, set
between two substantially larger structures, staff finds that the addition is an acceptable backdrop to
the historic resource, as rendered on the following page.
16
Page 6 of 8
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
FAR BONUS
Because the applicant has taken HPC’s direction to remove the non-historic rear lean-to on this home,
zoning regulations will consider the house to be demolished and a 20% floor area penalty is imposed on
the reconstruction. This amounts to a loss of 588 square feet of allowable floor area. The applicant
requests a 500 square foot bonus to offset this penalty. 229 square feet of the bonus will be built on
the site. The applicant will request Council allow for the creation of one 250 square foot TDR with the
remaining square footage.
This project was submitted for review before new standards for floor area bonuses went into effect. In
selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable
floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must
be demonstrated that:
a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines;
17
Page 7 of 8
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a
manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building;
c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance;
d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic
building's form, materials or openings;
e. The construction materials are of the highest quality;
f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building;
g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or
h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained.
Removal of the 60s addition is important to restoring the footprint of the historic building and allowing
a buffer between it and the larger portion of the addition. The applicant has asked to regain a portion
of the floor area penalty imposed as a result of this demolition in the form of on-site living area. The rest
will be removed from the site. Staff supports this with the condition that the bonus in excess of 229
square feet must be removed as a TDR or it is invalidated.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
The application was referred out to other City departments to preliminarily identify requirements that
may affect permit review. Applicant follow-up on these comments is needed prior to the next hearing.
Building: Building will require a 1 hour fire resistance rating on any eaves or walls that are less than 5’
from a property line.
Parks: The Parks Department will consider the issuance of tree removal permits as requested, however
the input of the neighbors to the east of this site is needed regarding the tree that is located on the
common lot line.
Zoning:
• Detailed Floor area calculations will be required at permit review.
• There appears to be a setback violation related to the depth of the eave at the north end of the building,
as an eave may only project 18” into a required setback.
• A feature over a garage window on the east elevation may intrude into the setback.
• The proposed mechanical equipment on the roof of the garage may be a setback violation.
Engineering:
• Detention to 100 year will be required if not discharging to city stormwater conveyance system.
• Lightwells must drain separately from foundation drain.
• A Load Calc form will be required to determine if a transformer is needed.
• Applicant must provide a preliminary utility plan.
18
Page 8 of 8
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Commission approve the project as outlined in the
proposed Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution #__, Series of 2019
Exhibit A – Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria /Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Relocation Criteria/Staff Findings
Exhibit C –Demolition Criteria/Staff Findings
Exhibit D- HPC Minutes, July 24, 2019
Exhibit E – Application
19
HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2019
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2019
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING
CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, DEMOLITION, RELOCATION AND A FLOOR
AREA BONUS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE EAST 13.79 FEET OF LOT O AND
ALL OF LOT P, BLOCK 34, EAST ASPEN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-32-006
WHEREAS, the applicant, 1020 E. Cooper LLC, represented by Brewster McLeod Architects,
has requested HPC approval for Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Relocation and
a floor area bonus for the property located at 1020 E. Cooper Avenue, the east 13.79 feet of
Lot O and all of Lot P, Block 34, East Aspen Addition to the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been
submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the
procedures established for their review;” and
WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the
application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the
project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per
Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections.
The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to
obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, for approval of Demolition, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen
Municipal Code Section 26.415.080, Demolition of a Designated Property; and
WHEREAS, for approval of Relocation, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen
Municipal Code Section 26.415.090.C, Relocation of a Designated Property; and
WHEREAS, for approval of a floor area bonus, the application shall meet the requirements of
Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.110.F, floor area bonus; and
WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on July 24th, 2019 and continued it for restudy.
Restudy was presented to HPC on December 11, 2019 and staff recommended approval. HPC
considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the consistent
with the review standards and granted approval with conditions by a vote of __ to __.
20
HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2019
Page 2 of 3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
Section 1: Conceptual Major Development Review, Demolition, Relocation and floor area
bonus
HPC hereby approves the proposed project at 1020 E. Cooper Avenue with the following
conditions:
1. Selection of exterior materials will be reviewed and approved at Final review. Samples
shall be provided.
2. HPC hereby approves a 479 square foot floor area bonus. 250 square feet of this
bonus is awarded for the purpose of creating one Transferable Development Right, if
approved by City Council. If the TDR is not approved, or is not severed from the
property by the owner, 250 square feet of the 479 square foot bonus award shall be
invalid.
3. During construction, a site inspection will be scheduled with staff and monitor to
review any original materials or evidence of original door or window openings found
on the building as demolition progresses. To the extent that this evidence indicates
that the approved materials, door or window placement should be amended, revisions
will be undertaken with the review and approval of staff and monitor.
4. As part of the approval to relocate the house on the site, the applicant will be
required to provide a financial security of $30,000 until the house is set on the new
foundation. The financial security is to be provided with the building permit
application, along with a detailed description of the house relocation approach.
5. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
(1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such
an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the
Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole
discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration
date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a
written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the
expiration date.
Section 2: Material Representations
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Historic
Preservation Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless
amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority.
21
HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2019
Page 3 of 3
Section 3: Existing Litigation
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 4: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall
be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the _____ day of _______, 2019.
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:
________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Gretchen Greenwood, Chair
ATTEST:
_______________________________________________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
22
Page 1 of 14
Exhibit A
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria
Staff Findings
23
Page 2 of 14
24
Page 3 of 14
26.415.070.D Major Development. No building, structure or landscape shall be erected, constructed,
enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or a
property located within a Historic District until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to
the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established
for their review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a development
order.
1. Conceptual Development Plan Review
b) The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major development
projects are as follows:
1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted
for conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are determined to be
complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the
HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section
26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c.
25
Page 4 of 14
2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's
conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections.
This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed
project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with
conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the
application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to
determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines.
3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application
to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny.
4) A resolution of the HPC action shall be forwarded to the City Council in accordance
with Section 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council, and call-up. No applications for
Final Development Plan shall be accepted by the City and no associated permits shall
be issued until the City Council takes action as described in said section.
Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines:
1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block,
neighborhood or district.
• Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns of the neighborhood.
• Allow for some porosity on a site. In a residential project, setback to setback development is
typically uncharacteristic of the historic context. Do not design a project which leaves no
useful open space visible from the street.
1.2 Preserve the system and character of historic streets, alleys, and ditches.
When HPC input is requested, the following bullet points may be applicable.
• Retain and preserve the variety and character found in historic alleys, including retaining
historic ancillary buildings or constructing new ones.
• Retain and preserve the simple character of historic ditches. Do not plant flowers or add
landscape.
• Abandoning or re-routing a street in a historic area is generally discouraged.
• Consider the value of unpaved alleys in residential areas.
1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces.
• Reflect the established progression of public to private spaces from the public sidewalk to a
semi-public walkway, to a semi private entry feature, to private spaces.
1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on
residential projects.
26
Page 5 of 14
• Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree or is typical
of the period of significance.
• Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style and install
them in the manner that they would have been used historically. For example on an Aspen
Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light grey concrete,
brick or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for most landmarks.
• The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for residential
properties. A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an AspenModern property.
1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site.
• Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large spaces rather
than many small unusable areas.
• Open space should be designed to support and complement the historic building.
1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process.
• When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be better
integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must include at
least a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed design must be
reviewed and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building permit submittal.
• Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from the
historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the site,
reduce the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into the
ground. Stormwater facilities and conveyances located in front of a landmark should have
minimal visual impact when viewed from the public right of way.
• Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements.
1.10 Built-in furnishings, such as water features, fire pits, grills, and hot tubs, that could
interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate.
• Site furnishings that are added to the historic property should not be intrusive or degrade the
integrity of the neighborhood patterns, site, or existing historic landscape.
• Consolidating and screening these elements is preferred.
1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark
trees and shrubs.
• Retaining historic planting beds and landscape features is encouraged.
• Protect historically significant vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Removal of
damaged, aged, or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department.
• If a significant tree must be removed, replace it with the same or similar species in coordination
with the Parks Department.
27
Page 6 of 14
• The removal of non-historic planting schemes is encouraged.
• Consider restoring the original landscape if information is available, including original plant
materials.
1.17 No fence in the front yard is often the most appropriate solution.
Reserve fences for back yards and behind street facing façades, as the best way to preserve the
character of a property.
1.18 When building an entirely new fence, use materials that are appropriate to the building
type and style.
• The new fence should use materials that were used on similar properties during the period of
significance.
• A wood fence is the appropriate solution in most locations.
• Ornate fences, including wrought iron, may create a false history are not appropriate for
Aspen Victorian landmarks unless there is evidence that a decorative fence historically existed
on the site.
• A modest wire fence was common locally in the early 1900s and is appropriate for Aspen
Victorian properties. This fence type has many desirable characteristics including
transparency, a low height, and a simple design. When this material is used, posts should be
simply detailed and not oversized.
1.19 A new fence should have a transparent quality, allowing views into the yard from the street.
• A fence that defines a front yard must be low in height and transparent in nature.
• For a picket fence, spacing between the pickets must be a minimum of 1/2 the width of the
picket.
• For Post-WWII properties where a more solid type of fence may be historically appropriate,
proposals will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
• Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment.
1.20 Any fence taller than 42” should be designed so that it avoids blocking public views of
important features of a designated building.
• A privacy fence should incorporate transparent elements to minimize the possible visual
impacts. Consider staggering the fence boards on either side of the fence rail. This will give
the appearance of a solid plank fence when seen head on. Also consider using lattice, or other
transparent detailing on the upper portions of the fence.
• A privacy fence should allow the building corners and any important architectural features that
are visible from the street to continue to be viewed.
• All hedgerows (trees, shrub bushes, etc.) are prohibited in Zones A and B.
2.1 Preserve original building materials.
• Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place.
28
Page 7 of 14
• Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments,
steps and foundations, should be preserved.
• Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired in place.
Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity.
• Original AspenModern materials may be replaced in kind if it has been determined that the
weathering detracts from the original design intent or philosophy.
2.2 The finish of materials should be as it would have existed historically.
• Masonry naturally has a water-protective layer to protect it from the elements. Brick or stone
that was not historically painted shall not be painted.
• If masonry that was not painted historically was given a coat of paint at some more recent time,
consider removing it, using appropriate methods.
• Wood should be painted, stained or natural, as appropriate to the style and history of the
building.
2.3 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on
primary surfaces.
• If the original material is wood clapboard for example, then the replacement material must be
wood as well. It should match the original in size, and the amount of exposed lap and finish.
• Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those
should be replaced, not the entire wall. For AspenModern buildings, sometimes the
replacement of a larger area is required to preserve the integrity of the design intent.
2.4 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for original building materials.
• Original building materials such as wood siding and brick should not be replaced with synthetic
materials.
2.5 Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate.
• Regardless of their character, new materials obscure the original, historically significant
material.
• Any material that covers historic materials may also trap moisture between the two layers. This
will cause accelerated deterioration to the historic material which may go unnoticed.
2.6 Remove layers that cover the original material.
• Once the non-historic siding is removed, repair the original, underlying material.
3.2 Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall.
• Enclosing a historic window is inappropriate.
• Do not change the size of an original window opening.
3.3 Match a replacement window to the original in its design.
• If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window must also be double-hung. If the
sash have divided lights, match that characteristic as well.
29
Page 8 of 14
3.4 When replacing an original window, use materials that are the same as the original.
3.5 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening.
• Changing the window opening is not permitted.
• Consider restoring an original window opening that was enclosed in the past.
3.6 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the
original window.
• A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window’s casing, the sash steps back
to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which individually
only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They distinguish the actual
window from the surrounding plane of the wall.
• The historic profile on AspenModern properties is typically minimal.
3.7 Adding new openings on a historic structure is generally not allowed.
• Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear or secondary walls.
• New windows should be similar in scale to the historic openings on the building, but should in
some way be distinguishable as new, through the use of somewhat different detailing, etc.
• Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a façade.
• Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character defining façade will negatively
affect the integrity of a structure.
4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening.
• Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height.
4.4 When replacing a door or screen door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the
original door or a door associated with the style of the building.
• A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement.
• A historic door or screen door from a similar building also may be considered.
• Simple paneled doors were typical for Aspen Victorian properties.
• Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic
evidence can support their use.
4.5 Adding new doors on a historic building is generally not allowed.
• Place new doors in any proposed addition rather than altering the historic resource.
• Greater flexibility in installing a door in a new location may be considered on rear or secondary
walls.
• A new door in a new location should be similar in scale and style to historic openings on the
building and should be a product of its own time.
• Preserve the historic ratio of openings to solid wall on a façade. Significantly increasing the
openings on a character defining façade negatively affects the integrity of a structure. 30
Page 9 of 14
5.4 If reconstruction is necessary, match the original in form, character and detail.
• Match original materials.
• When reconstructing an original porch or balcony without historic photographs, use
dimensions and characteristics found on comparable buildings. Keep style and form simple
with minimal, if any, decorative elements.
6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features are required to be based on
original designs.
• The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a
misrepresentation of the building’s heritage.
• When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence,
develop a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and
maintains similar scale, proportion and material.
6.5 Do not guess at “historic” designs for replacement parts.
• Where scars on the exterior suggest that architectural features existed, but there is no other
physical or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that are similar in
character to related buildings.
• Using ornate materials on a building or adding new conjectural detailing for which there is
no documentation is inappropriate.
7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof.
• Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Preserve the orientation and slope of the roof as seen
from the street.
• Retain and repair original and decorative roof detailing.
• Where the original roof form has been altered, consider restoration.
7.2 Preserve the original eave depth.
• Overhangs contribute to the scale and detailing of a historic resource.
• AspenModern properties typically have very deep or extremely minimal overhangs that are key
character defining features of the architectural style.
7.8 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to the
original.
• If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and
have a matte, non-reflective finish.
• Flashing should be in scale with the roof material.
• Flashing should be tin, lead coated copper, galvanized or painted metal and have a matte, non-
reflective finish.
• Design flashing, such as drip edges, so that architectural details are not obscured.
31
Page 10 of 14
• A metal roof is inappropriate for an Aspen Victorian primary home but may be appropriate for
a secondary structure from that time period.
• A metal roof material should have a matte, non-reflective finish and match the original seaming.
9.2 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
• In general, on-site relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those
in a historic district.
• In a district, where numerous adjacent historic structures may exist, the way that buildings
were placed on the site historically, and the open yards visible from the street are
characteristics that should be respected in new development.
• Provide a figure ground study of the surrounding parcels to demonstrate the effects of a
building relocation.
• In some cases, the historic significance of the structure, the context of the site, the
construction technique, and the architectural style may make on-site relocation too impactful
to be appropriate. It must be demonstrated that on-site relocation is the best preservation
alternative in order for approval to be granted.
• If relocation would result in the need to reconstruct a substantial area of the original exterior
surface of the building above grade, it is not an appropriate preservation option.
9.3 Site a relocated structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
• It must face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. In general, a forward
movement, rather than a lateral movement is preferred. HPC will consider setback variations
where appropriate.
• A primary structure may not be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building
in front of it.
• Be aware of potential restrictions against locating buildings too close to mature trees. Consult
with the City Forester early in the design process. Do not relocate a building so that it becomes
obscured by trees.
9.4 Position a relocated structure at its historic elevation above grade.
• Raising the finished floor of the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable if
needed to address drainage issues. A substantial change in position relative to grade is
inappropriate.
• Avoid making design decisions that require code related alterations which could have been
avoided. In particular, consider how the relationship to grade could result in non-historic
guardrails, etc.
9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation.
• On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on
a miner’s cottage where there is no evidence that one existed historically is out of character
and is not allowed.
32
Page 11 of 14
• Exposed concrete or painted metal flashing are generally appropriate.
• Where a stone or brick foundation existed historically, it must be replicated, ideally using stone
salvaged from the original foundation as a veneer. The replacement must be similar in the cut
of the stone and design of the mortar joints.
• New AspenModern foundations shall be handled on a case by case basis to ensure
preservation of the design intent.
9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells.
• The size of any lightwell that faces a street should be minimized.
• Lightwells must be placed so that they are not immediately adjacent to character defining
features, such as front porches.
• Lightwells must be protected with a flat grate, rather than a railing or may not be visible from
a street.
• Lightwells that face a street must abut the building foundation and generally may not “float”
in the landscape except where they are screened, or on an AspenModern site.
9.7 All relocations of designated structures shall be performed by contractors who specialize
in moving historic buildings, or can document adequate experience in successfully relocating
such buildings.
• The specific methodology to be used in relocating the structure must be approved by the
HPC.
• During the relocation process, panels must be mounted on the exterior of the building to
protect existing openings and historic glass. Special care shall be taken to keep from damaging
door and window frames and sashes in the process of covering the openings. Significant
architectural details may need to be removed and securely stored until restoration.
• The structure is expected to be stored on its original site during the construction process.
Proposals for temporary storage on a different parcel will be considered on a case by case
basis and may require special conditions of approval.
• A historic resource may not be relocated outside of the City of Aspen.
10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right.
10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.
• For Aspen Victorian properties, HPC generally relies on the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps
to determine which portions of a building are historically significant and must be preserved.
• HPC may insist on the removal of non-historic construction that is considered to be detrimental
to the historic resource in any case when preservation benefits or variations are being
approved.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one’s ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
33
Page 12 of 14
• A new addition must be compatible with the historic character of the primary building.
• An addition must be subordinate, deferential, modest, and secondary in comparison to the
architectural character of the primary building.
• An addition that imitates the primary building’s historic style is not allowed. For example, a
new faux Victorian detailed addition is inappropriate on an Aspen Victorian home.
• An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
• Proposals on corner lots require particular attention to creating compatibility.
10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the
predominant structure as viewed from the street.
• The historic resource must be visually dominant on the site and must be distinguishable against
the addition.
• The total above grade floor area of an addition may be no more than 100% of the above grade
floor area of the original historic resource. All other above grade development must be
completely detached. HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more of the
following are met:
o The proposed addition is all one story
o The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic
resource and the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions
of the historic resource
o The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is
considered to have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource
o The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors
as existed historically
o The project is on a large lot, allowing the addition to have a significant setback from the
street
o There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to historic
conditions that aren’t being changed
o The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern designation, or
o The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints such as
trees that must be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc.
10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
• An addition shall be distinguishable from the historic building and still be visually compatible
with historic features.
• A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material, or
a modern interpretation of a historic style are all techniques that may be considered to help
define a change from historic construction to new construction.
34
Page 13 of 14
• Do not reference historic styles that have no basis in Aspen.
• Consider these three aspects of an addition; form, materials, and fenestration. An addition
must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from
the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary
design response.
• Note that on a corner lot, departing from the form of the historic resource may not be allowed.
• There is a spectrum of appropriate solutions to distinguishing new from old portions of a
development. Some resources of particularly high significance or integrity may not be the
right instance for a contrasting addition.
10.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
• An addition that is lower than, or similar to the height of the primary building, is preferred.
10.9 If the addition is taller than a historic building, set it back from significant façades and
use a “connector” to link it to the historic building.
• Only a one-story connector is allowed.
• Usable space, including decks, is not allowed on top of connectors unless the connector has
limited visibility and the deck is shielded with a solid parapet wall.
• In all cases, the connector must attach to the historic resource underneath the eave.
• The connector shall be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary
building.
• Minimize the width of the connector. Ideally, it is no more than a passage between the historic
resource and addition. The connector must reveal the original building corners. The
connector may not be as wide as the historic resource.
• Any street-facing doors installed in the connector must be minimized in height and width and
accessed by a secondary pathway. See guideline 4.1 for further information.
10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially from the
front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original
proportions and character to remain prominent.
• Locating an addition at the front of a primary building is inappropriate.
• Additions to the side of a primary building are handled on a case-by-case basis and are
approved based on site specific constraints that restrict rear additions.
• Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter
the exterior mass of a building.
10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building.
• A simple roof form that does not compete with the historic building is appropriate.
35
Page 14 of 14
• On Aspen Victorian properties, a flat roof may only be used on an addition to a gable roofed
structure if the addition is entirely one story in height, or if the flat roofed areas are limited,
but the addition is primarily a pitched roof.
10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure historically
important architectural features.
• Loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices, and eavelines must be avoided.
Staff Finding: Since the previous hearing, the applicant has completed additional thorough
investigation of the historic resource and has made a number of adjustments to the project, including
complete removal of a non-contributing addition. This home is actually two small gable roofed
structures that were placed against each other in the typical L-shaped configuration of an Aspen
miner’s cottage. This seems to have occurred in the 1800s and creates some challenging conditions,
including differing north-south and east-west ridge heights. Original framing and sheathing remain,
but all other features of the original building have been removed.
The revised application now meets many of the design guidelines that were in question at the last
meeting related to restoration opportunities on the historic home. The architect proposes to reflect
typical materials and features found on similar homes of the period.
Based on staff and HPC feedback, the architect has also made revisions to the design of the proposed
addition to the resource. Removal of the 1960s rear lean-to addition allows for a better transition
between the resource and addition in the form of a connector which is distinctly narrower than the
resource and is one story with no deck on the roof. The addition is notably larger than the historic
resource, but the resource is particularly small in footprint and diminutive in height, making it difficult
to express the development rights allowed on the site in a similar form.
Staff supports the proposal finding that the appropriate gestures towards the historic resource have
been made. The context of the property, and the fact that it is a mid-block lot, allow for the addition
to appear as a backdrop to the resource.
36
Page 1 of 3
Exhibit B
Relocation Criteria
Staff Findings
26.415.090.C. Standards for the relocation of designated properties. Relocation for a building,
structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards:
1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect
the character of the historic district; or
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is
located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or
3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or
37
Page 2 of 3
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the
character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect
the integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic,
architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and
Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the
physical impacts of relocation;
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation
of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security.
Staff Finding: The applicant proposes removal of the non-historic addition at the rear of the house and
relocation of the remaining preserved structure approximately 10’ towards the front lot line and 2’ away
from the east lot line. No variations are requested.
There are two other Victorian era homes on this blockface, though a non-historic apartment building
sits between 1020 and those other resources, disrupting any strong relationship between them.
Based on the 1896 Willit’s map seen at right,
and the current aerial image below, buildings
on this blockface have historically lacked a
consistent front setback. (Please note that
this map also demonstrates that the existing
outbuildings were not present in the
Victorian era.) Staff finds that the proposed
on-site relocation of this home will provide
more adequate space for an appropriately
placed new rear addition, and will improve
the visibility of the historic structure.
Staff finds that the criteria highlighted above
are met and recommends HPC approve
relocation. Standard conditions of approval
regarding appropriate relocation techniques,
and a security to be held by the City during
construction are included in the resolution.
38
Page 3 of 3
39
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit C
Demolition Criteria
Staff Findings
40
Page 2 of 2
26.415.080. Demolition of designated historic properties or properties within a historic district.
It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have
demonstrated significance to the community. Consequently, no demolition of properties designated on
the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures or properties within a Historic District will
be allowed unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section.
4. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the
property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the
standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is
demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria:
a) The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety
and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner,
b) The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly
maintain the structure,
c) The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or
d) No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a) The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in
which it is located and
b) The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of
the Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent
designated properties and
c) Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of
the area.
Staff Finding: Two outbuildings at the rear of the property are proposed for demolition. The
construction date of these buildings is unknown. Neither appear on historic maps from the Victorian
era, demonstrating that they were not built concurrent with the primary home. The buildings are
not seen in 1920s era photos of the site available from the Aspen Historical Society. They are in
place in a 1974 aerial photo of the site.
The property was designated as a representation of the 19th century development of Aspen,
therefore staff finds that removal of these structures meets the criteria highlighted above. Staff
finds that the criteria highlighted above are met and recommends HPC approve demolition.
41
1
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24, 2019
Chairperson Greenwood opened the meeting at 4:29 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer, Kara Thompson, Sheri
Sanzone, Richard Lai. Absent were Nora Berko, Jeffrey Halferty and Scott Kendrick.
Staff present:
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney
Amy Simon, Historic Planning Director
Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner
MINUTES: Mr. Moyer moved to approve the minutes of June 26th, Mr. Blaich seconded. All in favor,
motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Greenwood said that Mr. Lai handed out something he would like to
share with the board as a citizen of Aspen. Mr. Lai said this has nothing to do with this commission. He
said he appeared before city council last night to make a comment on their deliberations regarding
office space. He wanted to inform his colleagues on what transpired the previous night.
Mr. Blaich said the latest edition of the Aspen Sojourner has an article about building community and is
all about Hunt’s projects. He saw this yesterday and said he would give a copy to Ms. Simon to
distribute to the board.
DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: None.
PROJECT MONITORING: None.
STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Yoon said she went to Korea and attended a 3D documentation class while
there, which she will do a presentation on at some point. Ms. Simon said at the end of the agenda,
there are code amendments for tonight, but we can wait until there are more board members if they
wish to hold off on the discussion.
CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: There was one for a replacement of all 3rd floor windows on the
Elks building and have been upgraded to energy efficient windows and will be installed soon.
CALL UPS: None.
PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan said all is in order.
NEW BUSINESS: 1020 E. Cooper
Amy Simon
Ms. Simon first wanted to acknowledge some things that were not conveyed in the memo. She said
there are 300 historically landmarked properties in town, of which, 250 of those are Victorians and half
of those are miners’ cottages like this one. This one has to be one of the most altered of the 125. This
property sat on the market for a long time and is not the easiest project to take on. We are all here as a
team to preserve Aspen’s history. There are staff and neighbor concerns, but she does want to
emphasize the end goal for everyone. The historic resource appears to be an L shaped cross gabled
cottage that has a porch which has long been enclosed with a lean-to addition on the back. There are
42
2
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24, 2019
two sheds along the alley. The applicant would like to demolish the two sheds and staff supports this as
they are not Victorian era. This part of town was considered the boonies, so the Sanborn maps did not
reach that location. We have looked at other maps and photographs and have determined that the
sheds are not Victorian era and are not historic. We don’t know when they were built and do not show
up in any photographs throughout the mid 1920’s. They do show up in an aerial photo from the 1970’s.
The second part of the project is for an onsite relocation. The applicant hopes to remove a portion of
the non-historic lean-to at the back of the miners’ cottage, pick up the remaining structure and move it
forward seven feet and westward two feet to more or less center it on the lot. They will put it on a new
basement and put on a new addition. Staff supports the relocation request and said it is important to
give as much room as possible for the addition and distance it somewhat from the resource. We don’t
feel that there is anything being lost by moving the building forward. We are struggling with the nature
of the restoration and addition to the historic building. We have raised some questions about what is
historic and what isn’t and particularly a proposed change to the roof pitch. The applicant will present
some photographs and we are not convinced about the accuracy of the way they want to reframe this
part of the house. This is the main goal obviously. All of the historic windows are gone, and the front
porch is enclosed. We want to expose the framing and learn, and in this case, it’s hard to make
assessments about what is right and wrong. Regarding the proposed addition, we are concerned that it
doesn’t meet most of the design guidelines. The resource that is being preserved is probably only about
500 square feet. The addition being proposed is about three times the size of the resource. They are
also concerned about the connector transition between the new and the old. Staff doesn’t feel that the
relationship between the new addition and the resource is being achieved. Ms. Simon said they have
reached out to other city departments to try to smooth out this project early on before submitting for
permit. The neighbors are concerned with tree removals. There are two spruce trees in decline, which
will be removed, but one of them is still being discussed. They are recommending continuation and
have some dates available.
Ms. Greenwood asked where the 500 square foot number came from and Ms. Simon said that is an
estimation, but they have requested more detail from the applicant. Ms. Thompson asked about the
floor area penalty and Ms. Simon said they don’t want to perpetuate single family homes, so if you are
demolishing over 40% and trying to reestablish, you take a 20% penalty.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Teraissa McGovern and Jamie Brewster of Brewster McCleod.
Ms. Brewster said the owners are also in attendance, Tracy and David. She thanked the board for the
HPC award on the Sardy House and for their time. She said this is a very unique building and recapped
the history. She said they want to restore the front porch back to the original intent, replace the
windows with double hung, remove the roof over framing and expose original roof line, remove non-
historic addition of shed roof on the back of the property and remove the sheds as well as look at the
addition of the rear of the house. She showed the various elevations on screen. The fence is not on the
property line, but it’s inset about a foot inside the property line. They want to relocate the historic
resource to comply with today’s codes. On the east side, they want to move it over 2.5 feet to make
sure it meets 5-foot requirement. They want to renovate the historic resource and renovate the 1960’s
addition as well as add an addition to the rear of the property. The square footage that would be
reduced is 557 square feet. She continued to show the plans on screen and walk through each.
43
3
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24, 2019
Ms. Brewster addressed all of the staff findings by each section of the guidelines and explained why she
feels they do meet each one. She said they are not asking for any variances on this project, but staff has
said that the floor area bonus would be a variance, but we do not see it as such.
They feel they are compliant with five out of the 8 exceptions in order for HPC to approve the addition.
Mr. Moyer asked if they remove the 1960 addition completely, how it adversely affects the project in
regard to square footage. Ms. Brewster said it reduces the square footage that they can build to by 550
square feet. We wouldn’t be able to build the property we are asking for. Mr. Moyer asked if the
shingles on the house are asbestos and Ms. Brewster said there are a lot of asbestos issues with the
property and are starting the abatement program.
Ms. Greenwood asked if they want to retain their TDR. Ms. Brewster said they are designing to their
current allowable square footage and floor area. They are looking for a 500 square foot bonus saying
they’ve done a good job with restoration and will be rewarded for that.
Mr. Moyer said he sees the 60’s as being a boondoggle. He asked if there is an opportunity for them to
be creative to work around that so it can go away, and the connector be more to the boards liking. Ms.
Simon said the issue with not being able to demolish more than 40 percent, without a penalty, is black
and white. This is a calculation of surface that might be removed. She doesn’t know how tight they are
on it or how much of the addition they could remove before they would have a problem.
Ms. Thompson asked if this is under the current guidelines and Ms. Simon said yes, it is under the new
guidelines, but they applied before the benefits were changed.
Ms. Sanzone asked about the mechanical aspect and where they imagine all of the pipes on the roof.
Ms. Brewster said they are looking at having all of the pipes on the addition versus the historic entity.
There will be a mechanical rooftop to be enclosed on all four sides so not to be disruptive to neighbors.
Ms. Sanzone clarified that the fence is not historic, and Ms. Brewster said no. Ms. Sanzone asked about
their plan to restore the miner’s cottage and Ms. Brewster said they aren’t trying to replicate, but just
preserve the forms. Ms. Sanzone asked about the storm water plan and if they considered drywells and
Ms. Brewster said they have started discussions with engineering and currently believe storm water is a
better resolution than doing the drywell.
Ms. Thompson asked how close they are on the demo percentage and Ms. Brewster said very close. We
are saying we’re not reframing the roof, but only taking materials off one side and recreating the other
side because that is part of the demo calcs. Ms. Greenwood asked if the front porch is part of this as
well and Ms. Brewster said yes.
Mr. Lai said he was confused about them requesting a bonus and also asking for TDR and asked for an
explanation and Ms. Brewster said they are looking at selling some square footage as well. She said they
are not necessarily going to use the 500 square feet on the property but may just want to use as a TDR.
Mr. Lai said he was still confused about the TDR and Ms. Simon explained it to him.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Patrick Rawley of Stan Clauson Associates on behalf of Buck Carlton who is a neighbor at 1012 E. Cooper.
He said he wants to seek collaboration because it is a very difficult project. He said everyone would like
to see improvements to the existing conditions, however, they can improve upon the presented design.
44
4
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24, 2019
He also provided an email for the record. The main issue is the massing and size. The addition is way
too big for the historic resource and makes the resource the secondary feature of the site. Regarding
section 10.4, they need to take into account both levels. The massing of the addition seems out of scale.
Section 10.8 should be reconsidered because this could be much more compatible. They need to look at
the alley a little more closely regarding the sheds because they are encroaching into the alleyway.
Whether they are historic or not, the nature of the sheds speaks to historic relevance and that should be
considered. An adaptive reuse as a parking area that works with the separation with the alley to the
main addition, could be successful. They need more dimensional details which people need to know.
The renderings presented today are helpful, but 3D models would be preferred. He also said the
neighbors have not been reached out to for discussion and would like to be included to take a look at
the proposal. This project needs to be refurbished and restored, but in a much more sensitive manner.
This neighbor is directly to the west in the Victorian multi family.
Baron Concourse at 1024 E Cooper directly to the east. Mr. Concourse welcomed the new neighbors
and said he is excited about the project. There is so much interest because there are 12-15 families and
home owners affected by what happens here. Our home is our number one asset, so we are all aware
of the historic preservation guidelines and don’t want the value of our homes affected moving forward.
He said he is in unit #10, the balcony on the east side. They will be impacted regarding sunlight coming
into the master bedroom or whatever it is, he would like everyone to take into consideration the gravity
of the decision being made.
Steve at 1012 E. Cooper. He welcomed the new neighbors and said one of their concerns is that their
condo is a lot lower than the property at 1020. For the two people on the side of the building, it’s a
vision blocker. He said this is really about being cognizant of the neighbors and trying to work with the
neighbors.
Kristy Genley at 1024 E. Cooper. She said she wants to see the new neighbors do the best thing and she
agrees with the other commenters about being cognizant of their building and the light. She’s in unit #8
and with a structure so big, it blocks all the light. She asked them to consider their views.
Ms. Simon said we do have three letters that arrived today and will be entered into the record. She
believes all authors are here at the meeting.
Ms. Greenwood closed the public comment.
Ms. Brewster thanked all commenters and said they have not reached out to the neighbors yet because
they wanted to see HPC first. We’re glad you’re here to be a part of the process. Regarding mass and
scale, it is in line with the city regulations of height and scale and are trying to match the roof forms. The
clients do not want a flat roof and do not like modern homes. We are looking at reusing the sheds, but
they would have to reconstruct, and it would be detrimental and block access to the alley. We want to
make sure we have a garage to access off the alley. We are happy to present dimensions as they are
needed and were not requested in the HPC packet. In regard to elevation of the fence, it is a 6-foot
fence and that is what the code allows. We do know there is a huge change in elevation, that fence
helps us maintain the stormwater management because they will grade into the back yard.
Ms. Sanzone asked if there are other examples of this same type of project and Ms. Simon said she
believes the Victorian to the west, triggered demo because they removed non-historic aspects of the
45
5
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24, 2019
building. This is really case by case and hasn’t come up that often. Mr. Moyer and Ms. Greenwood said
they are not happy with the connector and how the building is exposed. Ms. Greenwood said there are
creative ways to rework that. She said it very clearly doesn’t meet the guideline, so that is one issue.
She said they are headed down a wrong path regarding the mass and scale. She noticed that the
buildings on either side have articulation of architectural elements both in windows and fenestrations.
The addition they are proposing is a big box and inappropriate for that property. She is sensitive to the
neighbors on either side especially the ones on the east. The city doesn’t regulate scale but is really for
an architect to design a building that isn’t just a box.
Ms. Thompson agreed and said the only thing the Victorian has left is it’s massing because all the detail
has been taken away from it, so she has a really hard time with the linking element as well. She
understands the 40 percent, but you lose the form of the Victorian.
Ms. Greenwood said she doesn’t feel this resource is being restored at all, but just getting windows that
aren’t appropriate for a miners’ cabin.
Mr. Blaich said this might come as a surprise to Ms. Greenwood, but he agrees with all of her points. He
said she hit the nail on the head. He said section 10.4 was a major point for him. He said it’s a very
difficult property. He said the design they’ve done must be rethought. What the owners are asking for
is reasonable, but it creates bigger problems from a design point of view. He said he wouldn’t favor an
enclosed garage at all. It’s really a design problem, but he is not going to tell them how to design it and
they can take it from there.
Ms. Thompson said she supports the relocation and thinks it’s a big improvement and likes that aspect
and helps bring the Victorian to a bigger presence on the street.
Ms. Greenwood agreed that she supports moving it forward as well.
Mr. Lai said he has always been a proponent of buildings that are not so large in scale. However, looking
at page 100, the property is flanked by two very large buildings. The site visit concerned him because he
saw a cute little Victorian sandwiched between two very large buildings, especially the one on the east
side. It makes no attempt to follow the Victorian form. He believes that most people who commented,
live on the east side and worries that maybe they’re complaining about a building that is trying to mimic
the Victorian form, and yet, your building itself is a big shoebox. He worries about this kind of criticism
from people who have a shoebox as a building, saying that the smaller building isn’t to their liking. He
said he knows he’s treading on a lot of toes here, but he doesn’t know what the solution is.
Ms. Greenwood said if you look at the west elevation, it appears to be the same as the boxy condo
building. Mr. Lai said he doesn’t have an answer for this, but just worries about the pot calling the kettle
black and said it bothers him.
Ms. Greenwood said she doesn’t feel the resource is the star player on the site and said the Victorian
doesn’t get to respond back in a huge way because the building on the east is huge too. Mr. Blaich
agreed and said he feels the west elevation is misleading because you’re looking at it as though there is
nothing next to it. The solution lies in treating the original resource somewhat separately.
Ms. Sanzone said that additional study is warranted and thanked them for the presentation and detail.
They need additional time to study because it’s just not coming together. The most important aspect
46
6
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24, 2019
for her, is 10.4 and the ability to go above 100 percent for the new addition. The connector is not
providing the articulation that the board is looking for. They are just not convinced yet that we can see
this amount of square footage on the site without the additional design refinement.
Ms. Greenwood summarized that a reduction in floor area is important and that 10.9 is also an
important guideline to meet all aspects. The connector needs to be smaller. She thinks they would
really enhance the design if there was a breakdown in scale. She thinks the garage and the five-foot
setback is great. She said they should approach this from a pure restoration standpoint. She said the
bonuses are determined on whether the restoration is good, bad or indifferent and she said it’s
indifferent at this point. Ms. Thompson commented on the linking element and said to consider more
gracefully how it meets the roof of the historic structure. It appears to die into the historic roof, and she
doesn’t think that is appropriate.
Ms. Greenwood asked everyone if they were on board with the continuance vote and everyone agreed.
She said they are trying to give them some direction. Ms. Sanzone said there are a lot of clarifications
needed and Ms. Greenwood said Ms. Simon can probably give them more direction on how to handle
the redesign.
Ms. Brewster asked a few questions to clarify what the board is looking for. She listed mass & scale,
connector and drywell.
Ms. Brewster asked about delisting the property due to its poor condition. Ms. Greenwood said they
are always in poor condition and the board is not interested in delisting. Mr. Moyer also echoed that
the board doesn’t delist, they save the resource, if at all possible. Ms. Greenwood said since it was not
in the memo as something on the table for discussion, it’s not an option. Ms. Simon said it’s a question
worth talking about because this property is on the threshold and what makes the most sense. Letting
the resource disappear or doing a not so great restoration is the question at hand. There is more to find
out on the property and there has to be more evidence to guide us for preservation.
Ms. Brewster reminded them that they can’t explore until they do the abatement. Ms. Greenwood
asked if they own the property and Ms. Brewster said yes. Ms. Greenwood said maybe they can do a
site visit after the abatement process has started to take another look and said the board is here to help
preserve the small-town quality as much as we can.
MOTION: Mr. Blaich motioned to continue to August 28th, Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion
carried.
Ms. Simon summarized the changes to the HPC benefits for the board.
MOTION: Ms. Greenwood motioned to adjourn, Mr. Moyer seconded at 6:35 p.m.
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
47
BREWSTER MCLEOD ARCHITECTS, INC.
office@brewstermcleod.com – www.brewstermcleod.com
112 South Mill Street, #B Top Floor – P.O. Box 697 – Aspen, CO 81611 – T 970/544.0130 – F 970/544.9201
M E M O R A N D U M
Date: November 27, 2019
To: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
City of Aspen
130 S Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Project: 1020 E Cooper Ave
Re: Conceptual Application for HPC Major Development, Relocation, Demolition, Variations
From: Jamie L. Brewster McLeod
Brewster McLeod Architects, Inc.
Attachments:
• Exhibit 1: Steeplechase Construction Inc. Historic Resource Examination
• Exhibit 2: Preliminary Exterior Materials
• Exhibit 3: Dimensional Requirements Form
• Exhibit 4: 1020 E Cooper Plans and Elevations
• Exhibit 5: Exterior Renderings
Ms. Simon—
Enclosed please find our revised design and restudy of the project at 1020 E Cooper Ave for
Conceptual review by HPC.
As we have previously discussed this is not a typical Miner’s Cottage. From our research, it
appears to be two smaller buildings that were put together resulting in an L-shape cottage. The roofs of
the two buildings were at different heights and thus the roof heights of the east-west gable and the north-
south gable on the L-shape cottage are very different. As the historic cottage is most similar to the
Vernacular L-type or Miner’s Cottage on the AspenVictorian website, we are using this style as our guide
in the restoration for the window shapes and placement, exterior materials, and exterior trim details.
We have worked closely with you on changes to the proposed design to come to a project that
not only meets the intent of the Historic Preservation Guidelines but also has staff support before bringing
it back to the Historic Preservation Commission. Our responses to the feedback we received from staff,
the board, and the neighbors are detailed below.
The following items that were discussed, and tentatively approved, at the initial HPC meeting on July
24, 2019, are not included in this restudy:
• Demolition of the two non-historic sheds at the rear of the property
• Relocation of the historic resource to comply with today’s setback standards
The feedback we received from staff, the board, and the neighbors primarily pertained to the
mass and scale of the proposed addition and the preservation of the 1960s addition. We addressed this
48
Page 2 of 12
by removing the 1960s addition, reducing the proposed square footage, and reducing the width of the
proposed addition.
The removal of the 1960s addition puts the total demolition over the 40% level which reduces the
allowable square footage on the lot by 558 square feet and as a result, we are requesting a 500 square
foot HPC floor area bonus. Approximately 250 square feet of the bonus will be utilized on site while the
remaining 250 square feet will be retained as a Transferrable Development Righ t which has been
positively discussed in detail with staff. The result is a total proposed floor area of 2,476.92 square feet.
Staff also provided feedback about the historic materials that may exist on the historic entity and
requested a restudy of the structure and to provide further photographic evidence of the existing
conditions. The applicant enlisted the contractor, Steve Waldeck of Steeplechase Construction, to
conduct further review of the historic resource, which is included as Exhibit 1 in this application. As you
know, there was a significant amount of asbestos throughout the property when this report was initially
prepared, and the contractor has reviewed the findings after the interior abatement was complete and
there were no changes to the findings included in the report but some of the images have been updated.
We are including much of the information we received from Steve in the narrative below to address the
specific HPC Design Guidelines.
We have updated the Preliminary Exterior Materials to address staff’s feedback regarding the
previously proposed use of synthetic roofing and clad windows. On the historic entity, we are proposing
wood clapboard siding with traditional trim details, wood double-hung windows as is typical of Miner’s
Cottages, cedar shake roof on the gables, and a black metal roof on the shed roof over the front porch.
On the addition, we are proposing wood clapboard siding with no trim details, aluminum clad windows,
and black metal roofing. The revised materials are included as Exhibit 2.
We are also including the Dimensional Requirements Form as it was not requested with our initial
application, see Exhibit 3.
Based on the previous memo we received form staff, the initial staff findings found that the
following sections of the HPC Design Guidelines were not met and requested the following areas be
restudied:
• Chapter 2: Rehabilitation – Building Materials
• Chapter 3: Rehabilitation – Windows
• Chapter 4: Rehabilitation – Doors
• Chapter 5: Rehabilitation – Porches & Balconies
• Chapter 6: Rehabilitation – Architectural Details
• Chapter 7: Rehabilitation – Roofs
• Chapter 10: New Construction – Building Additions
Below are the revised responses to the HPC Design Guidelines based on the restudy of the
historic materials, demolition of the 1960s addition, and redesign of the proposed addition. Many of the
sections that were previously determined by staff as not met related to historic materials and the
documentation of the existing conditions. With the removal of the interior asbestos by the contractor, we
have been able to clarify these areas with additional documentation.
• Chapter 2: Rehabilitation – Building Materials
o 2.1 Preserve original building materials
▪ Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in places
• BMA: There is small portion of original siding that remains on north
end of the North-South gable. The siding is currently contained
within the roof over framing and the contractor does not
recommend reusing this siding as it is very brittle and damaged,
this is noted in the report from Steeplechase Construction, Inc.
49
Page 3 of 12
▪ Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls,
cornices, pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved.
• BMA: Not applicable, no masonry features exist on the historic
resource.
▪ Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired in
place. Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic
integrity.
• BMA: Based on the contractor’s review, only the original exterior
sheathing remains and is currently covered by asbestos siding.
The sheathing will be retained during the renovation. Further
investigation, after the asbestos siding is removed, is required to
determine if any of the sheathing will need to be replaced.
o BMA and the contractor will work directly with staff if
replacement is necessary.
• BMA: The north walls of the historic resource were removed and
rebuilt when the 1960s addition was added. The proposed
connector element will be located in this non-historic wall framing.
o 2.3 Match the original material in composition, scale, and finish when replacing materials
on primary surfaces
▪ If the original material is wood clapboard for example, then the replacement
material must be wood as well.
• BMA: A small portion of the original siding remains on the north
side of the gable. The original boards are approximately 5-1/8” in
width with a 3-1/2” reveal. If the existing condition of the original
siding allows for these to be repaired, they will be repaired and
retained in place. Based on the contractor’s review, he does not
recommend reusing this material as they are very brittle and
damaged, but he will conduct further investigation during
construction.
o All other exterior walls of the historic resource will be clad
in clapboard siding with a 3-1/2” reveal to match the
historic.
o The exterior siding will be painted as is consistent with
historic Miner’s Cottages.
50
Page 4 of 12
▪ Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair,
then only those should be replaced, not the entire wall.
• BMA: Original siding that is only on a portion of the north end of the
gable. Based on the contractor’s review, he does not recommend
reusing this material as it is very brittle and damaged.
o 2.4 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for original building materials.
▪ Original building materials such as wood siding and brick should not be replaced
with synthetic materials.
• BMA: As there are few exterior materials remaining on the historic
resource, BMA is using the AspenVictorian website as a reference
and propose the following on the historic resource.
o Wood clapboard siding with a 3-1/2” reveal—this will match
the small portion of siding that remains on the north side of
the gable.
o Wood double-hung windows—the size and locations will be
consistent with those appropriate for a Miner’s Cottage
o Window Trim—very minimal trim is proposed for the
windows.
• Chapter 3: Rehabilitation – Windows
o 3.2 Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall
▪ BMA: The contractor completed extensive investigation to see if he could
determine the original framing of the windows in the historic resource.
Unfortunately, it appears that all the original framing was removed, and we
are unable to determine the original location and/or size.
51
Page 5 of 12
North Window—All historic framing was removed
East Window—No historic framing is evident. Per the contractor’s review, the sheathing was cut
using a circular saw.
52
Page 6 of 12
West Window—Exterior sheathing is original. All window framing is non -historic
• If during exterior asbestos abatement, the historic locations are
found, BMA will work with staff to ensure the historic openings are
used.
o 3.3 Match a replacement window the original in its design
▪ BMA: The original windows were previously removed and there is no
photographic evidence of what they may have looked like. The design we
are proposing is a very simple wood window.
• If during exterior asbestos abatement, any original detail is found,
BMA will work with staff to ensure these details are matched on the
new windows.
o 3.4 When replacing an original window, use materials that are the same as the original
▪ BMA: Wood windows are proposed as was typical of Miner’s Cottages
o 3.5 Preserve the size and proportion of the historic window opening
▪ BMA: The contractor completed extensive investigation to see if he could
determine the original framing of the windows in the historic resource. The
sizes of the proposed windows are based on historic reference of windows
in typical Miner’s Cottage
o 3.6 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the
original window
▪ BMA: The proposed window sash and profile will be a standard profile
available. Cutsheets will be submitted to staff for review and approval prior
to installation.
o 3.7 Adding new openings on an historic structure is generally not allowed
▪ BMA: We are removing one window on the west wall of the historic
resource as we do not believe it is in a historic location.
▪ BMA: We will be replacing one window on the east wall of the historic
resource with a more historically appropriate window
▪ BMA: There are two windows proposed on the newly constructed walls on
the historic resource:
• (1) window adjacent to the front door in the newly constructed
south wall that we believe was previously removed when the porch
was enclosed. This is typical in other Miner’s Cottages throughout
Aspen.
• (1) window on the north wall of the Miner’s Cottage that was
reconstructed in the 1960s. This window will not be visible from the
street.
53
Page 7 of 12
• Chapter 4: Rehabilitation – Doors
o 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening
▪ BMA: The original front door was previously removed and there is no
photographic reference to review. The proposed front door is a simple
wood door with a window as was typical of the era.
• No evidence of the original entry door location or sizing was found
during interior asbestos abatement.
• If during exterior asbestos abatement, further details/ framing is
found that locates the original entry door, BMA will work with staff
to ensure the front door is properly located.
• Chapter 5: Rehabilitation – Porches & Balconies
o 5.4 If reconstruction is necessary, match the original in form, character, and detail
▪ BMA: The front porch was previously enclosed, and all the existing framing
was removed. The proposed reconstruction of the porch will include a
shed roof and (3) wood posts.
• The style of the posts will be turned posts with simple details and
square bases and crowns.
• Chapter 6: Rehabilitation – Architectural Details
o 6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features are required to be based on
the original designs.
▪ BMA: All original architectural details were previously removed. The
restoration will use very simple details without too much embellishment as
was typical of the era.
o 6.5 Do not guess at “historic” designs for replacement parts
▪ BMA: The proposed details were informed by using AspenV ictorian as a
reference as well as review of other Miner’s Cottages in Aspen.
• Chapter 7: Rehabilitation – Roofs
o 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof
▪ BMA: The original roof form was previously over framed. The existing
gables are contained within the roof framing and will be exposed. The
original east-west gable is significantly lower in height than the north-south
gable, this height difference will b e re-established.
54
Page 8 of 12
West end of East-West gable
North end of North-South gable
55
Page 9 of 12
o 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth
▪ BMA: The existing eave depth will be maintained. If during the removal of
the existing roof coverings, it is found that the historic eaves remain, the
historic eave depth will be used.
• BMA will work with staff to review materials if they are found onsite.
o 7.8 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color, and texture similar
to the original.
▪ BMA: The roof covering on the two historic gable roofs will be natural
cedar shingles.
▪ BMA: The shed roof over the entry porch will be matte black metal.
Chapter 10: New Construction – Building Additions
o 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historical significance in its own right
▪ BMA: The addition that was added in the 1960s has not achieved historical
significance.
o 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed
▪ BMA: The 1960s addition and roof over framing will be removed. Much of
the historic work that was compromised by this addition will be restored,
including the north wall, front porch and the roof forms.
o 10.3 Design a new addition such that one’s ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained
▪ BMA: The proposed addition is separated from the historic resource by a
connector element. This allows for the historic element to remain the focal
56
Page 10 of 12
point of the property and will maintain the historic character of the Miner’s
Cottage.
o 10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the
predominant structure as viewed from the street
▪ BMA: The Miner’s Cottage will be the entry point and the focal point as
viewed from the street. We are proposing to move the historic resource
forward to allow the separation between the historic resource and the
proposed addition.
▪ The total above grade floor area of an addition may be no more than 100% of the
above grade floor area of the original historic resource.
• BMA: The historic resource is quite small at 508.83 square feet and
based on previous discussions with staff, they are supportive of the
larger addition as it is particularly sensitive to the historic resource.
▪ The footprint of the new addition is closely related to footprint of the histor ic
resource and the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and
proportions of the historic resource.
• BMA: The historic resource is quite small at 508.83 square feet and
the footprint of the proposed addition does exceed the floor area of
the historic resource. Per the restudy, we have addressed staff and
HPC’s feedback by removing the 1960s addition which reduces our
allowable floor area by 558 square feet and are proposing a one-
story connector element that reveals all four corners of the historic
resource and is more sensitive to the scale of the historic resource.
▪ The project involves demolition and replacement of an older addition that is
considered to be particularly detrimental to the historic resource.
• BMA: The 1960s addition conceals much of the historic form of the
original building including a front porch and the original roof forms
of the gables. This addition will be removed.
▪ The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable
floors that existing historically.
• BMA: The historic resource is one floor and it will be fully utilized.
▪ The project is on a large lot, allowing the addition to have a significant setback
from the street.
• BMA: Not applicable.
▪ There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to
historic conditions that aren’t being changed.
• BMA: No variance requests are included in this application
▪ The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern designation, or
• BMA: Not applicable.
▪ The property is affected by non-preservation related site-specific constraints such
as trees that must be preserved, Environmental Sensitive Area reviews, etc.
• BMA: We believe the requirement for a stormwater management
area that is fully contained within this lot is a site-specific
constraint because of the small non-conforming size of the lot. We
have explored the options of replacing the proposed stormwater
pond area with a drywell, but the setback requirements for a drywall
exceed those of a pond and render it infeasible.
o as a product of its own time
▪ An addition shall be distinguishable from the historic building and still be visually
compatible with historic features
• BMA: The proposed addition references the historic resource in its
use of gable roof forms. It is easily distinguishable through the use
of a connector element and contemporary fenestrations.
▪ A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in
material, or a modern interpretation of a historic style are all techniques that may
57
Page 11 of 12
be considered to help define a change from historic construction to new
construction
• BMA: The proposed addition can be recognized as a product of its
own time through the change in the window material as well as the
use of the connector element with changes in plane along both the
east and west walls. We are also proposing a metal roof covering
on all roofs of the addition.
▪ Consider these three aspects of an addition: form, materials, fenestration. An
addition must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these
elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows
for creativity and a contemporary response.
• BMA: We are proposing an addition that is strongly related to the
historic resource in both form and materials. We are using both
gable and shed roof forms as are present on the Miner’s Cottage.
We are proposing horizontal wood siding throughout both the
restored Miner’s Cottage and the addition. We are departing on
fenestrations, proposing double-hung wood windows in the
historic, and contemporary aluminum-clad woods in the addition.
o 10.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building
▪ BMA: The historic resource is quite small in both height and square
footage. Based on the feedback we received from staff, the board and the
neighbors, the restudy design includes removing the 1960s addition,
adding a connector element, and a revised addition to more closely reflects
the form and scale of the historic resource. The overall width of the south
facing gable of the addition has been reduced by 3’ 10-3/8” feet.
o 10.9 If the addition is taller than the historic building, set it back from the significant
facades and use a “connector” to link it to the historic building
▪ Only a one-story connector is allowed
• BMA: The proposed connector is one-story in height.
▪ Usable space, including decks, is not allowed on top of the connector unless the
connector has limited visibility and is shielded by a solid parapet wall
• BMA: Not applicable, usable space is not proposed on top of the
connector.
▪ In all cases, the connector must attach to the historic resource underneath the
eave.
• BMA: Per our discussion with staff, the current eave height, at 7’ 2-
1/4”, is too low to allow the connection to be underneath the eave.
We are proposing a 9’-6” height on the connecting element to allow
the interior ceiling height to be consistent throughout the addition.
Because the north walls of the historic resource were removed and
rebuilt when the 1960s addition was added, staff supported this
solution.
▪ The connector shall be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the
primary building.
• BMA: The connector is 10’-0” feet long as viewed from the east and
between 17’-9” feet as viewed from the west.
▪ Minimize the width of the connector. Ideally it is no more than a passage
between the historic resource and addition. The connector must reveal the
original building corners. The connector may not be as wide as the historic
resource.
• BMA: The connector is 15’ 7-5/8” in width. Which exposes 14’-0” of
the north wall on the historic entity which was rebuilt in the 1960s.
All four corners of the historic entity will be revealed.
▪ Any street facing doors installed in the connector must be minimized in height
and width and accessed by a secondary pathway.
58
Page 12 of 12
• BMA: Not applicable.
o 10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure the
historically important architectural features
▪ BMA: All architectural features were previously removed. The proposed
addition re-exposes the four corners of the historic resource and restores
the front porch that was previously removed.
Sincerely,
Jamie L. Brewster McLeod, AIA
President
Brewster McLeod Architects, Inc.
59
Date: 8-6-2019
Job: 1020 E Cooper Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Examination of foundation, framing, windows and siding
Some conclusions about this report:
A) The original home consisted of L-shaped home (north-south portion between gridlines 2 and 3, and A and
D), (east-west portion between gridlines C and D, and 1 and 2), and (a front porch (gridlines 1 and 2, and B and
C). The historic structure appears to be comprised of two buildings that were connected at some point based on the
evidence of the exterior sheathing at the east end of the east-west gable and the floor system being completely
independent of the north-south gable.
B) Front porch was enclosed at a later date. 2x4 dimensional lumber of the porch roof rests on top of the main
roof shingled roof, and newer 1x6 v-groove boards were used to sheath portions of this porch roof. Opening
the wall of the porch along Gridline C between Gridlines 1 and 2 was achieved by installing a steel header.
C) No exterior siding remains under the new siding. The only old siding that remains is on a portion of the
original gable along gridline D between 2 and 3.
D) Windows do not appear to be historic based on the operating mechanisms, materials used, and
construction. This was confirmed with Rich Koch of REK Services during a site visit. Rick has 30 years of
experience in the window industry and specializes in repairs and replacement.
E) Window openings on historic house are cut in with modern tools, and framed with dimensional lumber.
Please don’t hesitate to call me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Steven Waldeck
President
Steeplechase Construction, Inc.
steve@steeplechaseconstruction.com
970-379-6286
60
1
Gridlines for reference
2 61
Crawl space - Transition from original construction to newer addition along gridline D
3
62
Original Rubble foundation transitions to concrete foundation at intersection of gridline D and gridline 3
4
63
Original gable at Gridline D between Gridlines 2 and 3. This is the only original siding remaining on the house, and is
only on a portion of the gable wall. The siding is worn, damaged and in limited quantities. Re-using this siding would be
challenging. I recommend using new wood siding with 3 ½” reveal to match the historic siding.
5
64
Drop beam at Gridline C between Gridlines 1 and 2. This represents the end of the east-west truss that spans between
Gridlines C and D. The header spanning this opening is a steel beam.
6 65
Entry porch was framed with a combination of newer 2x4 dimensional lumber and 1x6 v-groove sheathing, along with
some older wood, and was framed on top of an older roof.
7
66
Original truss roof between gridlines C and D, and Gridlines 1 and 2
8
67
Older sheathing is both below and above the original truss
Square and round nails penetrating roof sheathing below the peak of the truss
Only round nails found penetrating the older wood roof sheathing above the top of the truss
9 68
Gable along Gridline 2 between Gridlines C and D. This represents the end of the trusses for the east-west gable, and
has exterior sheathing.
10
69
Nailer along the north-south ridge is broken at the point where the ridge of the east-west truss intersects it. This
appears to be the point at which the original truss connection was made
11
70
Older 2x4s were nailed to the original truss to extend the ridge above the original truss. This has no relationship to the
original bearing wall at gridline D
2x4s nailed to the original truss
12
71
Older 2x4 boards that extended the original truss have a plumb cut, but no ridge exists now. This ridge world have been
at Gridline C.75 and no relation to the bearing wall at Gridline D. The sheathing along gridline 1 also has no relation to
the bearing wall at Gridline D.
13
72
Gable along Gridline 2 between Gridlines C and D
represents the end of the trusses for the east-west gable, and has exterior sheathing that extends down the main level
walls behind the drywall. This indicates this portion of the home was separate, then attached to the original home.
Structure defined by gridlines A and D, between 2 and 3 appears to be “original” based on the separate “older” floor
framing, and exterior sheathing that extends to the bottom of the floor frame
Floor framing for the structure defined by gridlines C and D between 1 and 2 are attached to the “original” portion of the
home defined above.
14
73
Window Key
15
74
Window 10 and 11 facing east. Opening was cut using circular saw. Sheeting around window opening was secured with
round, newer nails.
16
75
Window 4 facing west. Stud on north trimmer is older wood fastened with round newer nails. Blocking and cripples are
dimensional lumber.
17
76
Window 3 facing north. Header, trimmers and cripples are framed out of dimensional lumber.
18 77
Windows 4,5,10 and 11 are awning wood windows with hinges on the top and operators on the interior.
19 78
Windows 4,5,10 and 11 are awning wood windows with cabinet hinges on the top and operators on the interior.
20
79
Window 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are aluminum windows
21
80
Windows 1, 2 and 3. Window 1on the left is an aluminum slider. Window 2, center, is a wood slider. Window 3, right, is
a fixed window.
22
81
Windows 4, 5, and 6 on the west elevation. Window 6 is aluminum. Windows 4 and 5 are awning wood windows with
hinges on the top and operators on the interior.
23
82
Windows 7 and 8 on the north facing side of the house are aluminum sliders.
24
83
Window 9 is aluminum, windows 10 and 11 are wood awnings, and window 12 is a fixed wood window
25 84
Window 2 is a slider with latching hardware and screen or storm window latches
26
85
Windows I and 12 are both fixed windows. They appear on the home in the porch that was enclosed after the original
home was built. These appear to be site built.
27
86
Exposed sheathing with tar paper and newer siding. No older siding remains under the new siding
28
87
BREWSTER MCLEOD ARCHITECTS, INC.
office@brewstermcleod.com – www.brewstermcleod.com
112 South Mill Street, #B Top Floor – P.O. Box 697 – Aspen, CO 81611 – T 970/544.0130 – F 970/544.9201
M E M O R A N D U M
Date: November 27, 2019
To: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
City of Aspen
130 S Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Project: 1020 E Cooper Ave
Re: Preliminary Exterior Materials—Revised
From: Jamie L. Brewster McLeod
Brewster Mcleod Architects, Inc.
Ms. Simon—
Enclosed are preliminary images of the proposed exterior materials for 1020 E. Cooper Avenue. We will
submit samples during the Final Design Review.
Wood Siding
Horizontal Wood, 3-1/2” reveal
Traditional clapboard style to be installed as all original siding was previously removed
88
Page 2 of 5
Exterior Paint Color
Color: Benjamin Moore Custom White, SP16-138
Exterior Brick
Color would match exterior siding
Dimensions: 7-5/8” width x 2-1/4” height x 3-5/8” thick
89
Page 3 of 5
Metal Roofing
Color: matte black
Roofing
Natural cedar shingles; second image shows how they will age in a few years
90
Page 4 of 5
Front Porch Posts
Windows and Exterior Window Trim
Painted wood double-hung windows for the Historic resource
91
Page 5 of 5
Exterior Railing
Front Fence
42” High, White Wood Pickets
The picket spacing will provide a transparent quality per Historic Preservation Design Guideline 1.18
Privacy Fence
6’ High, White Wood Pickets
Fence will be located such that it does not block the public views of the historic structure per Historic
Preservation Design Guideline 1.20 and will comply with the Land Use Code
92
City of Aspen Community Development Department
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: November 2017
Please check the appropriate boxes below and submit this page along with your application.
This information will help us review your plans and,if necessary,coordinate with other agencies
that may be involved.
YES NO
00 Does the work you are planning include exterior work; including additions, demolitions,
new construction, remodeling, rehabilitation or restoration?
0 Does the work you are planning include interior work, including remodeling,
rehabilitation, or restoration?
00 Do you plan other future changes or improvements that could be reviewed at this time?
00 In addition to City of Aspen approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness or No Negative
Effect and a building permit, are you seeking to meet the Secretary of the Interior͛s
Standards for Rehabilitation or restoration of a National Register of Historic Places
Property in order to qualify for state or federal tax credits?
00If yes, are you seeking federal rehabilitation investment tax credits in
Conjunction with this project? (Only income producing properties listed
on the National Register are eligible. Owner-occupied residential
properties are not.)
00If yes, are you seeking the Colorado State Income Tax Credit for
Historical Preservation?
Please check all City of Aspen Historic Preservation Benefits which you plan to use:
0 Rehabilitation Loan Fund 0 Conservation Easement Program 0 Dimensional Variances
0 Increased Density 0 Historic Landmark Lot Split 0 Waiver of Park Dedication Fees
0 Conditional Uses 0 Tax Credits
0 Exemption from Growth Management Quota System
ATTACHMENT 3 -Dimensional Requirements Form
(Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
93
City of Aspen Community Development Department
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: November 2017
Project:
Applicant:
Project
Location:
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Lot Area:
(For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high
water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the
Municipal Code.)
Commercial net leasable:Existing:__________Proposed:_________________
Number of residential units:Existing:__________Proposed:_________________
Proposed % of demolition: __________
DIMENSIONS:(write N/A where no requirement exists in the zone district)
Floor Area:
Height
Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________
Principal Bldg.:Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________
Accessory Bldg.:Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________
On-Site parking:Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
% Site coverage:Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
% Open Space:Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Front Setback:Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Rear Setback:Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Combined Front/Rear:
Indicate N, S, E, W Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Side Setback:Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Side Setback:Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Combined Sides:Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Distance between
buildings:
Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued:
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed): ______________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Matrix of the City of Aspen͛s Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements
To review full procedures for all applications, reference 26.415 of the City of Aspen building code, Historic Preservation Ordinance.
When submitting multiple step applications, do not replicate submission materials. Two copies of the application are required for a
1020 E Cooper
1020 Cooper LLC
1020 E Cooper Ave
RMF
4,379 sf
4,379 sf
N/A N/A
11
>40%
1,075 2,228*
14-8-3/4" 25' 24'-1-3/8"
*** N/AN/A
022
N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A
17.3' 10' 10'-1/2"
42'-2-3/4" 10' 10'-Residential Building
*** 5'-Garage 5'-Garage
N/A N/A N/A
2.5' 5' 5'
West 10'-11-1/8"' 5' 5'-7/8"
13'-5-1/8" 10' 10'-7/8"
Varies 5' N/A
2,456.92***TheallowableFloor
area per the zone
district is 2,786 sf,
but because the demo
exceeds 40% it is
reduced by 20%.
**Historically
designated projects
are allowed to
request a floor area
bonus of up to 500
SF. The total bonus
is requested.
***The non-historic sheds in the rear of the property extend over
the property line and into the side setback. They are proposed to be demo'd.
The encroachments will be removed.
East
South
North
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109