HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.HPC.202008261
AGENDA
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
August 26, 2020
4:30 PM,
WEBEX
Go to: www.webex.com Click "Join" at the top right-hand corner
Enter Meeting Number 126 627 1235
Password provided 81611
Click "Join Meeting"
OR
Join by phone
Call: 1-408-418-9388
Meeting number (access code): 126 627 1235
Meeting password: 81611
I.SITE VISIT
II.ROLL CALL 4:30 PM
III.MINUTES
III.A.Minutes 7/22 & 8/12
minutes.hpc.20200722.pdf
minutes.hpc.20200812.pdf
IV.PUBLIC COMMENTS
V.COMMISSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS
VI.DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VII.PROJECT MONITORING
VII.A.Project Monitor List
PROJECT MONITORING.doc
VIII.STAFF COMMENTS
1
2
VIII.A.Update on a new Docomomo (Documentation and Conservation- Modern
Movement) chapter in Colorado
IX.CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT ISSUED
X.CALL UP REPORTS
XI.SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS
XII.OLD BUSINESS 5:10 PM
XII.A.1020 E. Cooper Avenue– Remand of the Conceptual Major Development Review,
Demolition, Relocation and Variations approved by HPC via Resolution #21, Series
of 2019, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 12TH
1020 HPC Memo.pdf
Resolution.pdf
Exhibit A_HP Guidelines Criteria.pdf
Exhibit B_Relocation Criteria.pdf
Exhibit C_Demolition Criteria.pdf
Exhibit D_Application for Remand of Conceptual Approval.pdf
Exhibit E Architect Response to Public Comment.pdf
Exhibit F_Public Comment in Response to Remand.pdf
Exhibit G_Council minutes February 25 2020.pdf
Exhibit H_December 2019 Conceptual Approval Application.pdf
Exhibit I_HPC meeting minutes December 11 2019.pdf
Exhibit J_December 2019 HPC Approval Resolution.pdf
Exhibit K_December 2019 Public Comments.pdf
XIII.NEW BUSINESS
XIV.ADJOURN 6:30 PM
XV.NEXT RESOLUTION NUMBER
#017
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
2
3
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.
Revised April 2, 2014
3
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 22, 2020
Chairperson Greenwood opened the meeting at 4:30 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Kara Thompson, Roger Moyer, Scott Kendrick,
Sherri Sanzone, Gretchen Greenwood.
Commissioners not in attendance: Bob Blaich,
Staff present:
Amy Simon, Interim Planning Director/Historic Preservation Officer
Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney
Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Halferty moved to approve the minutes from June 24th,2020.
Ms. Thompson seconded. All in favor. Motion carried 6-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None
CONFLICTS: Ms. Thompson has a conflict of interest with 110 Neal ave. and will not
participate in the conversation. Mr. Halferty has a conflict of interest with 500 W main and will
not participate in the conversation.
STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon stated that at this point there is no project motoring, call up
reports, or certificates of negative effects.
Ms. Thompson left the meeting
OLD BUSINESS: 110 Neale Avenue – Conceptual Major Development Review. Steve Wilson
with Forumphi representing owners.
Mr. Wilson reminded the commission that this project is a historic lot split and the historic
resource is on the lot above the project. He showed updated renderings of the proposed plan and
stated that the revised design reduces the roof mass at the center of the structure to create a lower
connector element. Mr. Wilson stated at the last hearing HPC had a question about what trees
were staying and which were going to be lost. He showed a map of trees that will not be affected
and the ones that will be lost. Mr. Wilson stated that they have been working with the Parks
Dept. on this tree issue. Mr. Wilson showed the new proposal renderings from all sides to
showcase the elevation, he pointed out that there is no obstruction in the view plane of the
historic resource on the hill. Mr. Wilson reiterated that the redesign was significantly smaller and
without adding unneeded complexity.
Mr. Kendrick asked how much was the roof lowered.
Mr. Wilson stated that they diminished the roof by 4 feet.
STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Yoon reminded the commission that this was a historic lot split and
the historic resource does not sit on this lot. She further explained that they will be looking at the
4
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 22, 2020
connecting element to the new addition which is next to the historic resource. Ms. Yoon stated
that staff had concerns with the relatability with mass and scale of the new addition as it related
to the historic lot. Ms. Yoon stated that the new iteration respects 11.3 in creating a scale and
proportion in relation to the historic resource. She said that the staff is in favor of the updated
plan. Ms. Yoon stated that other City departments have submitted comments and concerns to the
commission. Ms. Yoon reviewed the conditions for this project, that the applicant needs to work
with city staff and departments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Ann Short neighbor of the project submitted a letter. Attached to the
minutes.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Greenwood stated that she like the redesign of the
massing and is in favor of moving this project forward.
Ms. Sanzone agreed with Ms. Greenwood's comments.
Mr. Halferty stated that he was not at the first meeting but supports this project moving forward.
Mr. Moyer asked about the covenants the neighbors agreed to.
Ms. Bryan stated that the city does not get involved in these kinds of issues.
Mr. Moyer stated that he agrees with everyone's comments and would like to see this move
forward.
Mr. Kendrick stated no comment.
Mr. Halferty moved to approve Resolution #15-2020. Ms. Sanzone seconded.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Halferty, Yes; Mr. Moyer, Yes; Mr. Kendrick Yes; Ms. Sanzone, Yes; Ms.
Greenwood, Yes. All in favor, Motion carried 5-0.
Mr. Halferty left the meeting
Ms. Thompson joined the meeting.
OLD BUSINESS: 500 W. Main Street – Conceptual Major Development and Residential
Design Standards Review. John Broughton of Rowland + Broughton representing the project.
Mr. Rowland stated that this property was a lot split on one half there sits the historic storefront
and the other is a garden where the new addition will be located. Mr. Rowland stated that their
mission was to build a cute single-family home on the adjacent lot. Mr. Rowland showed historic
photos and Sanborn maps of what the lot looked like and then he showed new renderings of the
proposed project. Mr. Broughton stated that the lot is thirty feet wide and one hundred thirty feet
deep, he added that there will be ten-foot setbacks on the front and back with five-foot setbacks
on the sides. Mr. Broughton stated that the structure will be twenty-five feet tall with a carved
out front entry with a gable form. He explained that the carved-out portion will be placed on the
back of the building. Mr. Broughton showed models to showcase the mass and scale of the
proposed project next to the historic resource.
Ms. Thompson asked if the applicant could discuss the porch and garage design.
Mr. Broughton stated that the porch has a significant amount of planter boxes built-in and said
by code they will need to extend it by one foot. He said the garage door will be designed to
reflect a more historic feel. Mr. Broughton said that the garage door will be a signal panel.
Ms. Greenwood asked about the residential design and standards and if there was another
vernation being asked for.
5
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 22, 2020
Mr. Broughton stated that the sidewall length on the second floor is fifty feet and the ground
level is less than that.
STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon stated that the applicant requested transferable development
rights in the past during the lot split and now they have chosen to build a house on the garden lot.
Ms. Simon said that in this zone district there is an automatic twenty-five percent reduction in
floor area for homes rather than a commercial space. Ms. Simon stated that the applicant does
not need any setback variations or any other variations besides the residential design standards.
Ms. Simon stated that staff finds that they meet all the HPC guidelines for new construction on a
historic lot. Ms. Simon said that the mass of this project is well suited for the area and lot. Ms.
Simon stated that in the resolution there is a need for restudy on two issues. Ms. Simon said that
staff supports project and recommends approval with conditions. She said that there were three
letters of community input submitted with the packet and two others emailed.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Kendrick stated that this project looks very nice
however the mass seems a little too big. He said he is ok with approval.
Ms. Greenwood stated that the massing looks different from the model vs the rendering.
Ms. Thompson stated her disappointment that the historic cabin to the left of the property was
not shown with the model. She agrees with Mr. Kendrick that the mass is too big.
Mr. Moyer stated that the mass is way too large and the front entry is unfriendly. Mr. Moyer
explained that the model is a better visual than the rendering.
Ms. Greenwood stated that she agrees with the viewpoint that the massing of the front entry is
too big.
Ms. Thompson stated that she could be more supportive if the front façade had a restudy
referencing guideline 11.4 regarding the front elevation and front porch.
Mr. Moyer stated if you look at the project, the sidewall is very tall compared to the Victorian
next door. He further explained that the roof meets the wall with no overhang giving it an
industrial feel and look. Mr. Moyer followed up by stating he is not ready for this to move
forward and that this project needs to be reworked.
Ms. Sanzone stated that she would be in support of this project moving forward and letting the
applicant rework the mass facade.
Mr. Kendrick stated that he is in support of the variation. He said that he feels it is the planters
that make the porch feel so heavy.
Ms. Greenwood stated that she is in favor of moving the project forward with a restudy.
Mr. Moyer stated that the applicant could do so much more, and not in favor of it going forward.
Ms. Thompson stated she would like to see the applicant again before the final review.
Ms. Greenwood stated that this will be a staff and monitor situation.
Rachel Broughton with Rowland + Broughton stated that her team feels the project fits in with
the historic storefront that sits next door. Ms. Broughton explained if you striped the front façade
of the storefront you would be left with a two-story gable structure. Ms. Broughton said that she
has already started a redesign on the planters on the porch and how to lower the guardrail while
staying in the code.
Ms. Greenwood stated that when designing porches on main street one must be delicate in
design. Ms. Greenwood reiterated that she is still in favor of moving this forward with staff and
monitoring.
6
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 22, 2020
Ms. Thompson stated that she believes the applicant could come up with a thoughtful redesign
and would now support it to moving forward.
Mr. Kendrick stated that he feels that the overhang gives the mass a hollow feeling and
suggested the second floor sift back to create more room.
Mr. Moyer reiterated his stance on the unfriendly porch.
Mr. Rowland stated that he is taking the commissions comments very seriously and that the next
time they present to the commission HPC will be very pleased.
Ms. Sanzone motioned to approve Resolution #016-2020. Mr. Kendrick seconded.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Moyer, Yes; Mr. Kendrick Yes; Ms. Sanzone; Yes, Ms. Sanzone, Yes; Ms.
Greenwood, Yes. All in favor, Motion carried 5-0.
Adjourn: Mr. Moyer moved to adjourn. Ms. Thompson seconded. All in favor, Motion carried
5-0.
___________________________
Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk
7
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2020
Chairperson Greenwood opened the meeting at 4:30 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood.
Commissioners not in attendance: Bob Blaich, Jeffrey Halferty, Kara Thompson, Roger Moyer,
Scott Kendrick, Sherri Sanzone.
Staff present:
Amy Simon, Interim Planning Director/Historic Preservation Officer
Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk
Ms. Greenwood stated that due to an error in the publication of the packet, and the lack of a
quorum the meeting will need to be continued. Ms. Greenwood moved to continue the public
hearing for 1020 E. Cooper Avenue, Conceptual Major Development Remand is to be continued
to August 26th, 2020 at 4:30 p.m. and the public hearing for 616 W. Main- Growth Management
Change in Use, Special Review for Parking is to be continued to September 9, 2020 at 4:30 p.m.
Meeting adjourned.
8
C:\Users\EASYPD~1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF
8\@BCL@FC094B5C\@BCL@FC094B5C.doc
8/20/2020
HPC PROJECT MONITORS-projects in bold are under construction
Bob Blaich 209 E. Bleeker
300 E. Hyman, Crystal Palace
Gretchen Greenwood 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
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
Scott Kendrick 517 E. Hopkins
419 E. Hyman
302 E. Hopkins
304 E. Hopkins
210 W. Main
320 E. Hyman
Aspen Institute- Boettcher/Bayer Museum
Sheri Sanzone 549 Race Alley
110 W. Main, Hotel Aspen
125 W. Main
Aspen Institute- Boettcher/Bayer Museum
Kara Thompson 931 Gibson
201 E. Main
333 W. Bleeker
Need to assign:
414-422 E. Cooper
422-434 E. Cooper
305-307 S. Mill
227 E. Main
210 S. First
9
Page 1 of 9
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Interim Planning Director/Historic Preservation Officer
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2020
RE: 1020 E. Cooper Avenue– Remand of the Conceptual Major Development Review,
Demolition, Relocation and Variations approved by HPC via Resolution #21, Series
of 2019, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 12TH
APPLICANT /OWNER:
1020 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
RMF: Residential Multi-Family,
developed with a single-family home
PROPOSED LAND USE:
No change
SUMMARY: HPC conducted hearings regarding 1020 E. Cooper
Avenue on August 28th and December 11th, 2019 and granted
Conceptual, Demolition, Relocation and Variation approval for a
project which involves demolishing two non-Victorian era sheds,
relocating the 19th century home forward and onto a new
basement, and constructing an addition. An approval of this
scope requires staff to notify Council of the decision, allowing
them to uphold or remand the determination for further
consideration. On February 25, 2020, Council did remand the
approval to HPC, noting concerns with a tree removal contested
by the property to the east, and other neighbor comments.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The applicant has responded to
Council’s input with a design adjustment that preserves the tree
in question and lowers the height of a fence along the west lot
line. Staff recommends approval of the revised design.
Site Locator Map – 1020 E. Cooper Avenue
1020
10
Page 2 of 9
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)
This review is a rehearing and reconsideration of the application for 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 200 square foot floor area bonus is
requested, reduced from the 250 square feet granted in the original Conceptual approval.
• 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.
According to Section 26.415.120.E of the Municipal Code, the rehearing and reconsideration of the
application by the HPC shall be limited to the topics listed in the direction from Council. The Council
direction to HPC was fairly general. Two Council members questioned the scale of the addition, but
two did not, and noted that the guidelines were met. All four members comments touched on the
conflict over the proposed removal of the tree on the east lot line, and the design of the fence that will
surround the property. These are the topics that the applicant has directly responded to. Council made
no specific mention of the demolition of the sheds on the rear property line, the demolition of non-
historic additions to the resource, the relocation of the resource, or the floor area bonus.
The re-design provided in response to the Remand pulls the addition out of the dripline of the east tree,
to avoid its removal. While the Parks Department will require protection of the tree, setting the
development so that it does not extend into the surveyed dripline means that a tree removal permit is
not required and the development may proceed. Please note that the applicant has recently had the
tree re-surveyed and the surveyor has provided an affidavit of compliance with the City’s tree survey
standards. The Parks Department has accepted these representations and will allow the project to
proceed as proposed and allow a tree removal permit for an on-site tree towards the rear of the lot.
11
Page 3 of 9
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
Another aspect of the restudy produced for this meeting is that the proposed perimeter fence has been
amended so that it is 42” in all locations (even where 6’ is typically allowed by right). It will be open
picket in front of the resource as required, with no spacing between the pickets behind the resource, as
permitted by the design guidelines.
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 one tree is 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 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 granted approval on these topics in December 2019. Council did not request restudy of demolition,
or relocation. The adjustment to the site plan, depicted below, addresses Council’s concerns on the
preservation of the east tree. (The location of the tree is highlighted for clarity.) Staff finds that the
review criteria are met.
12
Page 4 of 9
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
13
Page 5 of 9
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
Although fence design is typically addressed at Final review, the topic was raised during HPC
Conceptual and was raised by Council as part of the Remand. Because the west property line was
moved westward as part of a quit claim action won by the previous property owner several years ago,
the adjacent neighbor is concerned with the impact of a fence on the tight yard condition on their side
of the common lot line. This applicant has the right to construct a 6’ tall privacy fence from the face of
the historic resource to the alley. Instead, they propose a maximum height of 42”. The fence will be
open picket for about the first 20’ back from the front property line, and then solid picket to the alley.
As shown in Exhibit A, staff finds that the fence meets the design guidelines, which address materials,
transparency and height. Staff has recommended a condition of approval to ensure the fence design is
not changed without further review in the future.
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. The applicant’s contractor inspected the structure
and provided HPC with a report documenting the remaining historic fabric. 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 6 of 9
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 is not Victorian era construction. Some original framing and sheathing remain within the
overall structure, but all other 19th century features of the building, including siding, trim, doors and
windows have been removed. 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.
During Conceptual review, the applicant worked to adjust the project to comply with the requirements
for the connector that links the historic resource and addition, and to propose an addition that relates
to the roof pitches and materials of the resource. The design was approved by a 4-2 vote. For this
Remand, the applicant has amended the design to remove some mass along the east property line, in
order to preserve the tree. The result is a slightly lower and narrower gable on the southern end of the
addition, which can only improve the relationship to the resource. There is some recapture of the lost
square footage on the west side of the shed roofed portion of the addition, but the project has been
reduced in overall floor area. The previous and current south renderings are compared below.
June 2020 December 2019
15
Page 7 of 9
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 1,824 square feet, approximately a 40 square foot reduction
since the December Conceptual approval. 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 (Note: there are no variance requests. The floor area increase is
termed a “bonus.”
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 site 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.
16
Page 8 of 9
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 was
awarded a 250 square foot floor area bonus to offset this reduction in December 2019. As part of this
revised design, the size of the project has been reduced and the bonus request is now 200 square feet.
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;
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 summary, staff finds that the amendments to the design address Council’s direction. The HPC
decision on this hearing will be final and concludes the call up review. The applicant has made no
“substantive changes” as defined in Section 26.415.070.E. 2 Substantial Amendments that are outside
the topics listed in the Remand from Council, therefore there will be no additional call up notice to City
Council.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
The application was referred out to other City departments to preliminarily identify requirements that
may affect permit review. The applicant will need to coordinate with these agencies when preparing for
building permit.
Building: Building will require a 1 hour fire resistance rating on any eaves or walls that are less than 5’
from a property line.
17
Page 9 of 9
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
Parks: The Parks Department has indicated that they will issue tree removal permits for all trees except
the one on the east property line. The east tree must be protected during construction.
Zoning:
• Compliance with all dimensional restrictions will be subject to final verification at permit review.
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.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Commission re-approve the project on Remand as outlined
in the proposed Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution #__, Series of 2020
Exhibit A – Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria /Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Relocation Criteria/Staff Findings
Exhibit C – Demolition Criteria/Staff Findings
Exhibit D- Application for Remand of Conceptual approval
Exhibit E- Architect response to public comment
Exhibit F- Public comment in response to Remand
Exhibit G – City Council Minutes, February 25, 2020
Exhibit H- December 2019 Conceptual approval application
Exhibit I- HPC Minutes, December 11, 2019
Exhibit J- December 2019 HPC approval resolution
Exhibit K- December 2019 Public Comments
18
HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2020
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION #___, SERIES OF 2020
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING,
ON REMAND BY CITY COUNCIL, 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
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-32-006
WHEREAS, the applicant, 1020 Cooper LLC, represented by Brewster McLeod Architects,
requested and received 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 via
HPC Resolution #21, Series 0f 2019; and
WHEREAS, a project of this scope requires staff to provide Aspen City Council a Notice of
Call Up and the opportunity to uphold or remand HPC’s decision. Per Section 26.415.120, City
Council reviewed the approval and on February 25, 2020, remanded to HPC for re-review of
topics including a proposed tree removal on the east property line, and a proposed fence
surrounding the site; and
WHEREAS, HPC conducted a hearing on the remand on August 26, 2020, applying the same
criteria and design guidelines relevant to the original review; 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
19
HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2020
Page 2 of 3
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 has considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and
found the revised project consistent with the review standards and granted approval on
Remand, with conditions, by a vote of __ to __.
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 200 square foot floor area bonus.
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. The approved fence design may not be changed without approval by the full HPC and
may not be changed so long as the development to the west sits 5’ or less at any point
from the common property line.
6. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
(1) year of the date of this re-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
20
HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2020
Page 3 of 3
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.
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 26th day of August,
2020.
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:
________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Gretchen Greenwood, Chair
ATTEST:
_______________________________________________________________
Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk
21
Page 1 of 14
Exhibit A
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria
Staff Findings
22
Page 2 of 14
23
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.
24
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.
25
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.
26
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.
27
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.
28
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.
29
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.
30
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.
31
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.
32
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.
33
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.
34
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: The applicant has completed 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.
During the review process, the architect revised the design to completely remove the 1960s rear lean-
to addition allowing 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 size. The addition has been designed to reflect the roof forms and materials of the
miner’s cottage.
In response to remand, a notch in the addition has been created on the east façade in order to preserve
a tree. The notch has the effect of creating a break down in mass as viewed from the south, which is
an improvement in staff’s view. Staff supports the proposal finding that the appropriate gestures
towards the historic resource have been made and the guidelines are met. The context of the property,
and the fact that it is a mid-block lot, allow for the addition to appear as a backdrop.
35
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
36
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.
37
Page 3 of 3
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 1 of 2
Exhibit C
Demolition Criteria
Staff Findings
39
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.
40
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: July 29, 2020
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 A: Floor Plans and Elevations
Exhibit B: Dimensional Requirements Form
Exhibit C: Renderings
Exhibit D: Preliminary Exterior Materials
Exhibit E: Tree Survey Affidavit
Ms. Simon—
Enclosed please find our revised design and restudy of previously HPC approved project at 1020 E
Cooper Ave for Conceptual review by HPC. The revised design addresses the feedback we received from
HPC during the December 11, 2019 hearing, City Council on February 25, 2020, as well as feedback
from the neighbors to the East and West sides.
The following items were approved at the HPC meeting on December 11, 2019:
Approval of demolition of the two non-historic sheds at the rear of the property
Approval of relocation of the historic resource to comply with today’s setback standards
Approval of Mass and Scale of the addition
Approval of an HPC Floor Area Bonus of 250sf to be used onsite
Items to resolve pertained to two areas:
The unhealthy and dangerous tree straddling the East property line, to address with 1024 E
Cooper neighbor
The privacy fence along the West property line, to address with 1012 E Cooper neighbor
The revised design addresses the two areas in the following ways:
Unhealthy and dangerous Tree straddling East Property line
o The City of Aspen notified BMA, after the City Council meeting, that the applicant could
not resubmit an application to HPC until the unhealthy and dangerous tree on the
property line was resolved
o The applicant received an email from the 1024 E Cooper HOA, that removing the
unhealthy and dangerous tree would not be considered
41
Page 2 of 2
o BMA revised the design of the addition around the existing unhealthy and dangerous tree
10’-8” dripline
East elevation was revised to accommodate the unhealthy and dangerous tree,
adding articulation to this elevation, and setting back a portion of the building 10’-
8” off the property line
Increased the East connector length by 1’-6” over the 10’-0” length that was
previously approved by HPC
Reduced the width of the South gable by 2’-7-5/8” and lowered the front gable
elevation by 1’-1-1/4” from the design previously approved by HPC
Reduced the overall square footage by 326.45s from the design previously
approved by HPC
Privacy fence along West Property Line
o We have reduced the height of the fence to 42” around the entire property, as requested
by 1012 E Cooper neighbors
The front fence will be an open design to allow the historic resource to be viewed
from Cooper Street
The mid to back fence will be solid, but will allow the historic resource to be
viewed from all sides and will allow more light for the neighbors to the West
As with the previous design, that was approved by HPC, the removal of the 1960s additional requires
demolition greater than the 40% threshold which reduces the allowable floor area by 558 square feet. As
a result, we are requesting a Floor Area Bonus of 200 square feet to be used onsite, rather than the
previously approved 250 square foot bonus.
Floor Area Breakdown, see Exhibit A: Floor Plans and Elevations
Total Floor Area Allowed: 2,228.00sf
Total Floor Area Proposed: 2,407.13sf
o Lower Level: 74.92sf
o Historic Resource: 508.83sf
o Main Level Addition: 830.05sf
o Garage: 136.35sf
o Upper Level Addition: 836.98sf
o Patio Fireplace: 20sf
Bonus Requested: 179.13sf, rounded up to 200sf
The updated Dimensional Requirements form is included as Exhibit B.
The renderings have been revised to reflect the new design, see Exhibit C.
The preliminary exterior materials have been updated to include the 42” privacy fence and are included
with this package as Exhibit D. These will be presented in more detail at Final Review.
Also included is an affidavit from the survey confirming the measurement of the trees, see Exhibit E.
We look forward to presenting to the Historic Preservation Commission. Please reach out if you have any
questions or need any additional information.
Sincerely,
Jamie L. Brewster McLeod, AIA
President
Brewster McLeod Architects, Inc.
42
COOPERN33° 32' 03"
W 687.12' TIEEAST COOPER AVENUEEAST HYMAN AVENUECLEVEL
A
N
D
S
T
R
E
E
T
ALLEY
(20.20')
13.79'LOT KLOT LLOT MLOT NLOT OLOT PLOT QLOT RLOT ALOT BLOT CLOT DLOT ELOT FLOT GLOT HCOOPER
A
V
E
V
I
C
T
O
R
I
A
N
C
O
N
D
O
A
S
S
O
C
PARCEL
#
2
7
3
7
1
8
2
3
2
8
0
2
1012 E C
O
O
P
E
R
A
V
E
ASPEN,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
STOVER
R
A
Y
M
O
N
D
J
H
J
R
&
M
A
R
Y
L
PARCEL
#
2
7
3
7
1
8
2
3
2
0
0
4
1006 E C
O
O
P
E
R
A
V
E
ASPEN,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
MCDON
A
L
D
S
C
O
T
T
PARCEL
#
2
7
3
7
1
8
2
3
2
0
0
3
1000 E C
O
O
P
E
R
A
V
E
ASPEN,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
RIVERSI
D
E
C
O
N
D
O
A
S
S
O
C
PARCEL
#
2
7
3
7
1
8
1
2
7
8
0
1
1024 E C
O
O
P
E
R
A
V
E
ASPEN,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
SILVER
G
L
E
N
T
O
W
N
H
O
U
S
E
S
C
O
N
D
O
A
S
S
O
C
PARCEL
#
2
7
3
7
1
8
1
1
2
8
0
0
E HYMA
N
A
V
E
ASPEN,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
VINCEN
T
I
C
O
N
D
O
A
S
S
O
C
PARCEL
#
2
7
3
7
1
8
1
1
2
8
0
0
E HYMA
N
A
V
E
ASPEN,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
SUNRISE
C
O
N
D
O
A
S
S
O
C
PARCEL
#
2
7
3
7
1
8
2
3
2
8
0
1
1007 E
H
Y
M
A
N
A
V
E
ASPEN,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
COOPER
T
A
C
H
E
C
H
R
I
S
T
E
N
PARCEL
#
2
7
3
7
1
8
2
3
2
0
0
1
1001 E
H
Y
M
A
N
A
V
E
ASPEN,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
RIGHT-OF-WAY
(73.70')
SUBJECT
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
PARCEL
#
2
7
3
7
1
8
2
3
2
0
0
6
1020 E C
O
O
P
E
R
A
V
E
ASPEN,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
4,379 S
Q
.
F
T
.
±
O
R
0
.
1
0
1
A
C
R
E
S
±S73° 21' 03"W 617.26' TIEFOUND #4 REBAR & YELLOW
PLASTIC CAP PLS 25947
0.2' BELOW GRADE
ELEV=7942.5
FOUND #5 REBAR &
RED PLASTIC CAP
PLS 33638
0.2' ABOVE GRADE
ELEV=7946.3
FOUND #5 REBAR
0.3' BELOW GRADE
FOUND #5 REBAR &
YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
PLS 19598
0.1' ABOVE GRADE
FOUND #5 REBAR &
YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
PLS 2376
0.2' BELOW GRADE
FOUND #5 REBAR &
YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
ILLEGIBLE
0.3' ABOVE GRADE
FOUND 1" IRON PIPE
FOUND #5 REBAR &
YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
ILLEGIBLE
0.1' BELOW GRADE
FOUND #5 REBAR &
YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
ILLEGIBLE
0.3 ABOVE GRADE
FOUND #5 REBAR
0.2' ABOVE GRADE
FOUND #5 REBAR &
YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
PLS 19598
FLUSH WITH GRADE
FOUND #4REBAR & RED
PLASTIC CAP PLS 24303
0.1' BELOW GRADE
SET #5 REBAR & ORANGE PLASTIC
CAP PLS 28643
FLUSH WITH GRADE
NEAREST INTERSECTION OFCOOPER AVE & CLEAVLAND ST(177.9')N15° 46'
0
3
"
E
8
7
8
.
9
5
'
ASPEN
G
P
S
-
4
WEST E
N
D
&
HOPKIN
S
ASPEN
G
P
S
-
1
WEST E
N
D
&
DURANT
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
I, Mark S. Beckler, hereby certify to: 1020 Cooper LLC, a Colorado limited liability company and Land Title Guarantee
Company
That this is an "Improvement Survey Plat" as defined by C.R.S. § 38-51-102(9) and that it is a monumented Land Survey
showing the location of all setbacks, structures, visible utilities, fences, or walls situated on the described parcel and
within five feet of all boundaries of such parcel, any conflicting boundary evidence or visible encroachments, utilities
marked by client and all depicted easements described in Land Title Guarantee Company's, commitment for title
insurance file no. Q62010331.1, or other sources as specified on the improvement survey plat.
The error of closure for this plat is less than 1/15,000.
_____________________________________
Mark S. Beckler L.S. #28643 2020-08-07
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Easterly 13.79 feet of Lot O and all of Lot P, Block 34, East Aspen Addition to the City of Aspen
According to the Lot Line Adjustment/Subdivision Exemption Plat of 1020 E. Copper, recorded October
8, 2019 as reception no. 659373.
County of Pitkin
State of Colorado
NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL
ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS
AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION
BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN
YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.
SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC
CIVIL CONSULTANTS
502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3
CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623
(970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM 8/7/2020 - 30111 - G:\2020\30111\SURVEY\Survey DWGs\Survey Plots and Exhibits\30111_ISP.dwg
VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1" = 2000'
GENERAL UTILITY NOTES:
The locations of underground utilities have been plotted based on utility maps,
construction/design plans, other information provided by utility companies and actual
field locations in some instances. These utilities, as shown, may not represent actual
field conditions. It is the responsibility of the contractor to contact all utility
companies for field location of utilities prior to construction.
IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT
1020 E COOPER AVE
THE EASTERLY 13.79 FEET OF LOT 0 AND ALL OF LOT P, BLOCK 34, EAST ASPEN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN
PITKIN COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO.
SHEET 1 OF 2
SOURCE DOCUMENTS:
·the Improvement Survey Map certified June 4, 2019 prepared by Tuttle Surveying Services, Job #19053 (not of the
Pitkin County, Colorado Records)
·the Plat of East Aspen Addition, recorded August 24, 1959 in Book 2 at Page 252
·Lot Line Adjustment/Subdivision Exemption Plat, recorded October 8, 2019 as Reception No. 659373.
·Historic Preservation Resolution #21, Series of 2019, recorded December 26, 2019 as Reception No. 661468
ALL OF THE PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO RECORDS-UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
NOTES
1)Date of Survey: July 2020.
2)Date of Preparation: July - August 2020.
3)Linear Units: The linear unit used in the preparation of this plat is the U.S. Survey Foot as defined by the United
States Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology.
4)Basis of Bearing: Bearings are based on the 2009 Marcin Engineering-City of Aspen Control Map, yielding a site
bearing of N 74°18'31" W from the SE Corner of Lot L, Block 34, East Aspen Addition, a found #5 rebar and yellow
plastic cap illegible, and the South East Corner of said BLock 34, a found #5 rebar and yellow plastic cap PLS 19598.
5)This survey does not constitute a title search by Sopris Engineering, LLC (SE) to determine ownership or easements of
record. For all information regarding easements, rights of way and/or title of record, SE relied upon a title
commitment prepared by Land Title Guarantee Company, Order Number Q62010331.1, Effective Date, July 2, 2020
and documents and plats of record as shown in the Source Documents, hereon.
6)Basis of elevation: The 1998 City of Aspen Drexel Barrel control datum, which is based on an elevation of 7720.88'
(NAVD 1988) on the NGS station "S-159". This established two site benchmarks, shown on page 1.
7)The FIRM flood map for this property is number 08097C0366E, effective on 08/15/2019, property is in area of
minimal flood hazard, zone X.
8)Slope - 0 - 10% per "Percent Slope within Aspen". City of Aspen - June 1, 2009 and per field work all natural slopes 0 -
10% this survey.
9)Geological Hazards - None per "Potential Geological Hazards Area". City of Aspen Master Drainage Plan. WRC
Engineering Inc. - 2001
10)Mud Flow
None per "Maximum Flow Depth, 100-Year Event". City of Aspen Master Drainage Plan. WRC Engineering Inc. - 2001
nor per "Aspen Mountain Mud Flow Zones". City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan Fig. 7.1 - 2010
11)Wetlands - None per "U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Map"
12)Contour Interval: One (1) foot.
13)Tree measurements were performed to City of Aspen standards (Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 13 Sec. 13.20.020).
14)Address: 1020 E COOPER AVE
15)Pitkin County Parcel No.--273-718-23-2006
SITE
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
020 20 40
20
8010
43
XGAS
X
G
A
S
X
G
A
S
XGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XU
T
XU
T
X
U
T
XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT
XWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXEL
XEL
XEL XEL
XELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x x x x xXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGAS
XGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGAS5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK
10'STBK10'STBK10'STBK10'STBK10'STBK10'STBK10'STBK15'STBK15'STBK15'STBK15'STBK15'STBK15'STBK15'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK10'STBK10'STBK10'STBK10'STBK10'STBK10'STBK10'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBKXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAEAST COOPER AVENUEALLEY
(20.20')LOT OLOT ELOT FLOT GRIGHT-OF-
W
A
Y
(73.70')
10'
SETBACK
10'
SETBACK
5'
SETBACK
5'
SETBACK
RAISED
WOODEN
PLANTER
RAISED
WOODEN
PLANTER
GATE
EX:7944.5'±EX:7944.5'±EX:7944.6'±EX:7944.5'±EX:7944.5'±EX:7944.5'±EX:7944.5'±EX:7944.0'±EX:7944.2'±EX:7944.1'±EX:7943.9'±EX:7943.9'±EX:7944.1'±EX:7944.0'±EX:7944.1'±EX:7943.6'±EX:7943.3'±EX:7942.9'±EX:7942.8'±EX:7942.9'±EX:7942.9'±EX:7942.9'±EX:7942.9'±EX:7943.0'±EX:7942.9'±EX:7943.0'±EX:7942.9'±EX:7942.9'±EX:7943.5'±EX:7943.5'±EX:7943.4'±EX:7943.4'±EX:7943.0'±
EX:7943.1'±EX:7943.0'±EX:7943.0'±794579457944
7943
7944
7943
7943
7943
794379437943 7943 7943
79
4
4
7944 79457945794412.2'5.0'17.5'35.0'29.7'40.0'
7.3'29.7'7.5'14.1'10.3'14.1'10.3'20.2'12.1'20.1'12.1'
MAILBOX
CONCRETE
CONCRETE SIDEWALKCONCRETE
GRAVEL
GRAVEL
GRAVEL
CONCRETE
P
O
R
C
H
WITH ROOF
O
V
E
R
H
A
N
G ASPHALTTOP BACK OF CURB
FLOWLINE OF CURB
CURB STOP
CABLE
BOX
BUSH BUSH
BUSH
BUSH
4 TREES
DECIDUOU
S
2.8"X6'
TREE
DECIDUOU
S
1.5"X3'
TREE
CONIFERO
U
S
14.1"X28'
FINISHED FLOOR 7944.8'±
FINISHED FLOOR 7943.3'±
FINISHED FLOOR 7943.2'±
FINISHED FLOOR 7944.8'±
BALLARD
CONCRETE
PAD
TRANSFORMER
& PAD
GAS METER
TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
TELEPHONE
CONNECTION
ELECTRIC METER
TELEPHONE
PEDESTAL
ROCK
RETAINING
WALL
ROCK
RETAINING
WALL
LOG DECORATIVE BORDER
4' WIRE FENCE 2.5' WOOD FENCE4' WOOD FENCE
3' WOOD FENCE2.5' METAL FENCE1 STORY S
I
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
WOOD FRA
M
E
STRUCTUR
E
1020 E CO
O
P
E
R
A
V
E
,
ASPEN, CO
8
1
6
1
1
CONCRETE
PORCH
WITH ROOF
OVERHANG
SHED
SHED
RAIL ROAD TIE RETAINING WALL EX:7945.3'±EX:7944.8'±EX:7944.5'±EX:7944.5'±EX:7944.3'±EX:7944.3'±EX:7944.1'±EX:7944.0'±EX:7944.3'±EX:7944.5'±EX:7944.7'±EX:7944.8'±EX:7944.8'±EX:7944.9'±S74° 18' 31"E 43.79'S15° 41' 29"W 100.00'N74° 18' 31"W 43.79'N15° 41' 29"E 100.00'
TREE
CONIFERO
U
S
10.8"X21'N74° 18' 31"W 239.94'(BASIS OF BEARING)2.2'
4.4'
3.7'
0.9'
2.4'
22.7'EX:7945.0'±EX:7944.7'±EX:7944.3'±EX:7944.3'±EX:7943.8'±EX:7942.7'±EX:7944.0'±EX:7942.5'±EX:7942.7'±EX:7942.5'±EX:7942.8'±EX:7943.0'±EX:7943.3'±EX:7943.3'±EX:7943.3'±EX:7943.4'±EX:7943.1'±EX:7943.2'±EX:7943.0'±EX:7943.1'±EX:7943.0'±EX:7942.8'±EX:7944.1'±PRINCIPLE BUILDING SETBACKACCESSORY BUILDING SETBACK15'
SETBACK
PRINCIPLE BUILDING SETBACKACCESSORY BUILDING SETBACK5'
SETBACK
METAL STAIRS FREE STANDING
TRANSFORMER
& PAD
2.09'
8'
2'
2'X8' ELECTRIC EASEMENT
(BOOK 126 PAGE 7)
8'
3.5'
3.5'X8' ELECTRIC EASEMENT
(BOOK 126 PAGE 7)XSATEE XSASAN SEWER
RIM = 7944.47
IN EAST 4" PVC = 7939.37
OUT WEST 4" PVC = 7938.45
SAN SEWER
RIM = 7938.68
IN EAST 8" PVC = 7931.98
OUT WEST 8" PVC = 7931.99
NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL
ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS
AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION
BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN
YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.
SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC
CIVIL CONSULTANTS
502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3
CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623
(970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM 8/7/2020 - 30111 - G:\2020\30111\SURVEY\Survey DWGs\Survey Plots and Exhibits\30111_ISP.dwg
GENERAL UTILITY NOTES:
The locations of underground utilities have been plotted based on utility maps,
construction/design plans, other information provided by utility companies and actual
field locations in some instances. These utilities, as shown, may not represent actual
field conditions. It is the responsibility of the contractor to contact all utility
companies for field location of utilities prior to construction.
IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT
THE EASTERLY 13.79 FEET OF LOT 0 AND ALL OF LOT P, BLOCK 34, EAST ASPEN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN
PITKIN COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO.
SHEET 2 OF 2
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
04 4 8
4
162
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
EXISTING CURB STOP
EXISTING GAS METER
EXISTING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
EXISTING ELECTRIC METER
EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
EXISTING STORM SEWERXSDXSD
EXISTING 8" WATER MAINXWLXWL
EXISTING 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN
EXISTING GAS
EXISTING TELEPHONE
XGAS XGAS XGAS
EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
EXISTING CABLE
XUT XUT XUT
XEL XEL XEL
XTV XTV XTV
XSA XSA
EXISTING LEGEND
1020 E COOPER AVE
52.0'
303.7'
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
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
57
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'-9-1/8"
*** 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
*TheallowableFloor
area per the zone
district is 2,786 sf,
but because the demo
exceeds 40% it is
reduced by 20%.
2,407.13
**Historically
designated projects
are allowed to
request a floor area
bonus of up to 500
SF. We are
requesting 200 SF.
***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
58
59
60
61
62
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: July 29, 2020
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
63
Page 2 of 6
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
64
Page 3 of 6
Metal Roofing
Color: matte black
Roofing
Natural cedar shingles; second image shows how they will age in a few years
65
Page 4 of 6
Front Porch Posts
Windows and Exterior Window Trim
Painted wood double-hung windows for the Historic resource
66
Page 5 of 6
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
42” 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
67
Page 6 of 6
Eaves on Addition
Eaves on the addition will be zero overhang (photo is for overhang only)
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
From:Bukk Carleton
To:Amy Simon
Cc:michael smith; Stephen Abelman; Robert Koffron
Subject:6/24/2020 HPC meeting
Date:Wednesday, June 17, 2020 8:02:36 AM
Attachments:3.31.20 Legal letter.pdf
Dear Amy,
Below please find a letter in response to the 6/24/2020 agenda item for the application of 1020 E Cooper.
Please confirm receipt of this email and disseminate to all HPC committee members.
Best, Bukk Carleton
-- Dear HPC Committee:
This letter is being sent on behalf of all owners at Cooper Avenue Victorian Condominium
Association located at 1012 E Cooper Avenue.
Last July, the owner of 1020 E Cooper came before your committee and was told the design
proposed was too large and massive for the lot. The owner basically made minimal changes,
waited the HPC out until it looked like he had done something, and amazingly got approval
last winter on basically the same plan he had proposed just six months earlier. Neighbors
contested that decision to the City Council which remanded it back to the HPC. Having found
success in doing nothing and waiting out the HPC, the 1020 owners have come back with
approximately the same design and plan with minimal changes.
The 1020 owner is also coming before the HPC with statements that many requests of its plan
have already been approved so those points should not be revisited. It is the neighbors
understanding that the Council would like the HPC to review the whole concept and its earlier
approvals because, once again, the design still does meet the HPC’s original determination
that the design was too massive for the lot.
There has been talk from the 1020 owner that he has been negotiating with his neighbors and
acquiesced to many of their concerns. This is absolutely false. The 1020 owner stonewalled
the neighbors and the only minor change he made had to do with the tree on the eastern line of
his property because he was told by the HPC that a change to conserve the tree was a must.
There are simple ways in which the 1020 owner could meet the requests of the HPC and the
neighbors:
1) Drop the height of the ridge line by at least 10’ of the rear building. There is no
functional need for this height and all it does is block the neighbor's air, sun, and sky.
2) Set back the building line on the northern side so if a car parks in front of the
building, the car will not extend into the City’s ROW.
3) On the east and west sides, match the building in respect to the existing outside
of the existing building in relationship to neighboring buildings. On the west side, this
80
would create more distance between buildings, and, at a bare minimum, this would
also respect the fact that the prior owner seized approximately 4’ of land through
adverse possession. There is no reason why the 1020 owners should be able to take
their building out to a property line that is not historic and certainly the building line
should not be such that it results in spacing between his proposed building and 1012’s
by less than 10’ feet which is not permitting in Aspen’s Zoning guidelines.
4) Certify that the fence between 1012 and 1020 is a historic feature. The HPC
accepted the owner/architect’s statement that this fence was not historic. To the
contrary, the fence has been there since historic times as it was old enough to allow the
former 1020 owner to obtain the 4’ of land under adverse possession. It was also
historic enough that the owner certified that the fence existed during her ownership of
the property (50+ years) and to her knowledge existed many years before that. Finally,
it was historic enough to match all the other older fences on East Cooper. This fence is
made of iron and is transparent. The owners would like to impose an opaque fence 18”
from the windows of 1012 E Cooper.
5) The owners have shown their complete disregard for the concerns of their
neighbors as evidenced by their letter sent to 1012 E Cooper (copy attached again)
regarding our need to have access beyond the fence for maintenance and repair needs
to the side of our building. As you will note, they categorically stated that at no time
would 1012 E Cooper be allowed on the other side of the fence. This extra 4’ of land
which they denied use of was created by the taking land of 1012 through an adverse
possession action. That lawsuit was ultimately resolved when 1012 E Cooper
reluctantly settled the case by issuing a quit claim deed to this property in 2005.
However, that quit claimed parcel (approximately 4’x100’ along the westerly boundary
of the 1020 lot) was never legally merged with the 1020 lot. Although the owners of
1020 E Cooper purported to accomplish this legal merger with a recorded Lot Line
Adjustment/Subdivision Exemption Plat recorded on October8, 2019 at Rec. No.
659373, this was not the proper means of accomplishing that objective. Instead, the
owners were required to seek a Major Subdivision Approval through the City’s Land
Use Code, which they never did. Put simply, the 4’x100’ strip of land that 1020 E
Cooper obtained through litigation from 1012 E Cooper back in 2005 remains a
“rogue” parcel, separate from the actual 1020 lot, and it was never legally merged with
1020 under proper Aspen Land Use Code procedures. As such, the original lot line –
actually 4 feet east of what 1020 currently claims - is the true lot boundary line to the
legal 1020 E Cooper lot. As such, this is the legal lot line from which the minimum set
back requirements to any further development on the 1020 lot should be measured.
This is a significant Code issue from 1012 E Cooper’s standpoint and should not be
overlooked in the HPC review.
In summary, we believe HPC to meet the needs of their original directive to 1020 that
the outside wall of a new building should not exceed the outside wall of the existing
building but certainly, as outlined above, any building constructed should not be less
than 5’ from the original building.
We are hopeful the HPC will review the entire application of 1020 E Cooper with fresh eyes
81
and, hopefully, require a new design in line with what the HPC originally required and
envisioned- a building that fits the property.
In closing, we would urge the HPC to look carefully at what the owners of 1020 have
submitted. As an example, their 3D projection picture shows a picket fence going around the
entire property but what they are asking for within the application is a completely opaque
fence dividing 1012 and 1020 with the fence, once again, just 18” from 1012’s windows.
If the 1020 owner had wanted such a large building, there are other properties in Aspen he
could have acquired rather than trying to wiggle through the HPC guidelines which are
designed to avoid exactly what he is proposing.
Best regards,
Cooper Avenue Victorian Condo Association
82
83
84
M E M O R A N D U M
Date:
To:
Project:
From:
June 22, 2020
HPC Members and Amy Simon
City of Aspen
130 S Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
1020 E Cooper Ave
Scott McDonald 1000 E Cooper
Greg Lucas 1024 E Cooper
Len Horowitz 1024 E Cooper
Joelle McDonough 1007 E Hyman Julie
Peters 1007 E Hyman
Penny Smilios 1007 E Hyman
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Comments from City Council meeting minutes asking for owners to work with neighbors
Exhibit B: Architect and Owners cancel a planned call to talk with neighbors (never reschedulued)
Exhibit C: Letter from Architect informing us they will be changing project to affordable housing
Exhibit D: Letter from Attorney regarding tree on property line
Ms. Simon and HPC Committee Members —
This letter is from a group of a dozen concerned citizens neighboring 1020 E Cooper.
On February 25th, 2020 the City Council remanded the application for 1020 E Cooper Ave back to the
HPC for a re-hearing. The two main themes from council members were concerns about mass / scale
and a request for owners to work together with neighbors in the spirit of community (See Exhibit A).
The owners and architect have not addressed either of these concerns since the February 25th meeting.
Despite offers from neighbors to work together, the owners and architect have chosen to ignore
neighbors and canceled scheduled meetings to talk (See Exhibit B). Furthermore, instead of working
together with neighbors as directed by City Council, they chose to send a letter informing us they are
turning the project into affordable housing (Exhibit C) and another letter from a lawyer regarding the tree
on the property line (Exhibit D). All of these actions are counter to working together in the spirit of
community.
As Mayor Torre states in the City Council meeting minutes, "the tree and the fence aren't the real issues
at hand." However, these are the only two items addressed by the new proposal.
When the owners purchased this property, they were aware of the HPC guidelines and the fact they
were purchasing a property between two large condominium complexes. We must ask ourselves why
have they refused for over a year to talk with and work with their neighbors on this project, and why have
they refused to address the concerns raised by the City Council. There are almost twenty homeowners
with properties that will be negatively affected due to the mass and scale of the proposed addition. If this
excessive mass and scale is approved, neighbors will suddenly be left without natural light into their
windows, blocked views of Ajax Mountain, and views of a blank wall of their addition.
We ask the HPC to consider the number of homeowners affected and the feedback from City Council to
push for a better solution that mitigates the excessive mass and scale and aligns with the intent of the
HPC's purpose and guidelines.
Mary Stover 1006 E Cooper
Baron Concors 1024 E Cooper
Laura Sumner 1007 E Hyman
Kristi Gilliam 1024 E Cooper
Greg Hamra 1024 E Cooper
Lucy Warbel 1024 E Cooper
85
Exhibit A – Primary concerns from the City Council- 1) Mass and scale and 2) asking the
owners and architect to work with neighbors on a new proposal
86
Exhibit B – Architect and Owners cancel a call to talk with neighbors and never
rescheduled it
87
1024 E Cooper
2 messages
Jamie Brewster McLeod <jamie@brewstermcleod.com>Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 2:05 PM
To: Baron Concors <bvc@concors.com>
Cc: Teraissa McGovern <teraissa@brewstermcleod.com>
Barron,
After our numerous meetings with the neighbors, we have come to the conclusion that the single family residence we
have designed was not going to be acceptable without substantial design changes to satisfy neighbor feedback.
As a result of this, we are now looking at changing the direction of our project.
The new plan is to use the site to accommodate an affordable housing multi family complex.
As your HOA has expressed interest in the proposed design of the property on our site, we would like to reach out and
ask what items you would like us to consider in the new design as we start this new direction.
Please meet with your HOA and send us your comments to review.
Sincerely, Jamie
Jamie L. Brewster McLeod, AIA
President
LEED Accredited Professional
Brewster McLeod Architects, Inc.
112 South Mill St. #B-Top Floor
P.O. Box 697, Aspen, CO 81611
T 970/544.0130, F 970/544.9201
www.brewstermcleod.com
Mon, Mar 16, 2020 10:22 AMBaron Concors <bvc@concors.com>
To: Jamie Brewster McLeod <jamie@brewstermcleod.com>
Jamie, thanks for reaching out. Our primary concern remains the same - please see below. Again, we would love to
meet / talk about how we can make this project work for you and the owners. We want to work together as the City
Council recommended to help make this successful. Best, Baron
Mass and Scale - with the current plans, some neighbors will have zero sunlight coming into their units. In addition,
some neighbors will have a blank wall to look at outside their windows. This will impact their property values. We
have spoken in the past about how some other projects in the neighborhood have been creative in making it more
visually pleasing to the neighbors.
Exhibit C – Letter from Architect informing us they will be changing project to affordable
housing and neighbor’s response
88
J. Bart Johnson
970.544.4602
johnson@wcrlegal.com
March 6, 2020
VIA EMAIL FEDERAL EXPRESS
Riverside Condominium Association
Re: Tree between 1020 and 1024 E. Cooper Ave., Aspen, Colorado
Dear Mr. Concors:
Our firm represents 1020 Cooper LLC, which is the owner of the property located to the
west of the Riverside Condominiums in Aspen, Colorado. We understand that you are on the
board of the Riverside Condominium Association and represent the Association.
As you know, there is a blue spruce tree located between 1020 and 1024 E. Cooper Ave.
that appears to be straddling the property line between the two properties. According to an
expert report commissioned by my client, this tree is in poor condition and the overall health of
the tree will continue to decline. The tree is likely to completely defoliate and die within the
next 1 to 3 years based on current conditions. These conditions include woundwood damage
being caused by a balcony on the Riverside Condominiums building and significant de-limbing
that has also occurred on the Riverside Condominiums side. The structural roots of the tree are
also negatively affected by the vast amount of hardscape that has been installed on the Riverside
Condominiums side.
My client previously applied for a City of Aspen permit to remove the tree. Due to an
objection from the Riverside Condominium Association, they were forced to withdraw this
application. The Aspen City Attorney recently confirmed in a public hearing that, but for your
ownership’s objection, the City would issue a permit for removal of the tree without requiring
any mitigation (i.e., no obligation to plant a replacement tree or pay a fee in lieu of replacement).
In other words, the condition of the tree justifies and warrants removal, but your Associat ion’s
objection is preventing my client from obtaining the required permit from the City.
My client is concerned that the tree represents a liability for both 1020 Cooper Ave. and
the owners of the Riverside Condominium Association. If the tree is not already an accidental
falling hazard due to high winds or other similar causes, it will soon become one. And with its
height and location, if the tree does fall it will pose an obvious risk to persons and property.
Please be advised that 1020 Cooper LLC refuses to accept any such liability. If the tree falls and
causes any personal injury, death or property damage for which anyone attempts to hold 1020
Cooper LLC responsible, my client will, in turn, hold the Riverside Condominium Association
legally responsible and pursue any claims necessary to obtain appropriate redress and
compensation.
Exhibit D – Letter from Attorney regarding tree on property line
89
Riverside Condominium Association
March 6, 2020
Page 2
Also, please note that 1020 Cooper LLC reserves all rights and remedies with respect to
the subject tree and the need to have it removed.
Sincerely,
Bart Johnson
for
WAAS CAMPBELL RIVERA
JOHNSON & VELASQUEZ LLP
cc: All Riverside Owners
David and Tracey McMahon
90
M E M O R A N D U M
Date:
To:
Project:
From:
August 10, 2020
HPC Members and Amy Simon
City of Aspen
130 S Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
1020 E Cooper Ave
Scott McDonald 1000 E Cooper
Greg Lucas 1024 E Cooper
Len Horowitz 1024 E Cooper
Joelle McDonough 1007 E Hyman Julie
Peters 1007 E Hyman
Penny Smilios 1007 E Hyman
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Comments from City Council meeting minutes asking for owners to work with neighbors
Exhibit B: Architect and Owners cancel a planned call to talk with neighbors (never reschedulued)
Exhibit C: Letter from Architect informing us they will be changing project to affordable housing
Exhibit D: Letter from Attorney regarding tree on property line
Ms. Simon and HPC Committee Members —
This letter is from a group of a dozen concerned citizens neighboring 1020 E Cooper.
On February 25th, 2020 the City Council remanded the application for 1020 E Cooper Ave back to
the HPC for a re-hearing. The two main concerns from council members were mass / scale of the
project and a request for owners to work together with neighbors in the spirit of community (See Exhibit
A - City Council meeting minutes).
The owners and architect have not addressed either of these concerns since the February 25th city
council meeting. Despite offers from neighbors to work together, the owners and architect have chosen
to ignore neighbors and canceled scheduled meetings to talk (See Exhibit B). Furthermore, instead of
working together with neighbors as directed by City Council, they chose to send a letter informing us they
are turning the project into affordable housing (Exhibit C) and another letter from a lawyer regarding the
tree on a neighbor's property (Exhibit D). All of these actions are counter to working together in the spirit
of community as directed by the City Council.
As Mayor Torre states in the City Council meeting minutes, "the tree and the fence aren't the real issues
at hand." Yet, these are the only two items addressed by the new proposal.
When the owners purchased this property, they were aware of the HPC guidelines and the fact they
were purchasing a property between two large condominium complexes. We must ask ourselves why
have they chosen to be combative with neighbors on this project, and why have they refused to address
the mass / scale concerns raised by the City Council.
There are many homeowners with properties that will be negatively affected due to the mass and scale
of the proposed addition. If this excessive mass and scale is approved, neighbors will suddenly be left
without natural light into their homes, blocked views of Ajax Mountain, and views of a blank wall out their
windows. We ask the HPC to consider the number of homeowners affected and the feedback from City
Council to push for a better solution that mitigates the excessive mass and scale and aligns with the
intent of the HPC's purpose and guidelines.
Mary Stover 1006 E Cooper
Baron Concors 1024 E Cooper
Laura Sumner 1007 E Hyman
Kristi Gilliam 1024 E Cooper
Greg Hamra 1024 E Cooper
Lucy Warbel 1024 E Cooper
91
Exhibit A – Meeting minutes from the Feb 25th City Council Meeting. Primary concerns -
1) Mass and scale and 2) asking the owners and architect to work together with
neighbors on a new proposal
92
Exhibit B – Architect and Owners cancel a call to talk with neighbors and never
rescheduled it
93
1024 E Cooper
2 messages
Jamie Brewster McLeod <jamie@brewstermcleod.com>Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 2:05 PM
To: Baron Concors <bvc@concors.com>
Cc: Teraissa McGovern <teraissa@brewstermcleod.com>
Barron,
After our numerous meetings with the neighbors, we have come to the conclusion that the single family residence we
have designed was not going to be acceptable without substantial design changes to satisfy neighbor feedback.
As a result of this, we are now looking at changing the direction of our project.
The new plan is to use the site to accommodate an affordable housing multi family complex.
As your HOA has expressed interest in the proposed design of the property on our site, we would like to reach out and
ask what items you would like us to consider in the new design as we start this new direction.
Please meet with your HOA and send us your comments to review.
Sincerely, Jamie
Jamie L. Brewster McLeod, AIA
President
LEED Accredited Professional
Brewster McLeod Architects, Inc.
112 South Mill St. #B-Top Floor
P.O. Box 697, Aspen, CO 81611
T 970/544.0130, F 970/544.9201
www.brewstermcleod.com
Mon, Mar 16, 2020 10:22 AMBaron Concors <bvc@concors.com>
To: Jamie Brewster McLeod <jamie@brewstermcleod.com>
Jamie, thanks for reaching out. Our primary concern remains the same - please see below. Again, we would love to
meet / talk about how we can make this project work for you and the owners. We want to work together as the City
Council recommended to help make this successful. Best, Baron
Mass and Scale - with the current plans, some neighbors will have zero sunlight coming into their units. In addition,
some neighbors will have a blank wall to look at outside their windows. This will negatively impact their property
values. We have spoken in the past about how some other projects in the neighborhood have been creative in
making it more visually pleasing to the neighbors.
Exhibit C – Letter from Architect informing us they will be changing project to affordable
housing and neighbor’s response
94
J. Bart Johnson
970.544.4602
johnson@wcrlegal.com
March 6, 2020
VIA EMAIL FEDERAL EXPRESS
Riverside Condominium Association
Re: Tree between 1020 and 1024 E. Cooper Ave., Aspen, Colorado
Dear Mr. Concors:
Our firm represents 1020 Cooper LLC, which is the owner of the property located to the
west of the Riverside Condominiums in Aspen, Colorado. We understand that you are on the
board of the Riverside Condominium Association and represent the Association.
As you know, there is a blue spruce tree located between 1020 and 1024 E. Cooper Ave.
that appears to be straddling the property line between the two properties. According to an
expert report commissioned by my client, this tree is in poor condition and the overall health of
the tree will continue to decline. The tree is likely to completely defoliate and die within the
next 1 to 3 years based on current conditions. These conditions include woundwood damage
being caused by a balcony on the Riverside Condominiums building and significant de-limbing
that has also occurred on the Riverside Condominiums side. The structural roots of the tree are
also negatively affected by the vast amount of hardscape that has been installed on the Riverside
Condominiums side.
My client previously applied for a City of Aspen permit to remove the tree. Due to an
objection from the Riverside Condominium Association, they were forced to withdraw this
application. The Aspen City Attorney recently confirmed in a public hearing that, but for your
ownership’s objection, the City would issue a permit for removal of the tree without requiring
any mitigation (i.e., no obligation to plant a replacement tree or pay a fee in lieu of replacement).
In other words, the condition of the tree justifies and warrants removal, but your Associat ion’s
objection is preventing my client from obtaining the required permit from the City.
My client is concerned that the tree represents a liability for both 1020 Cooper Ave. and
the owners of the Riverside Condominium Association. If the tree is not already an accidental
falling hazard due to high winds or other similar causes, it will soon become one. And with its
height and location, if the tree does fall it will pose an obvious risk to persons and property.
Please be advised that 1020 Cooper LLC refuses to accept any such liability. If the tree falls and
causes any personal injury, death or property damage for which anyone attempts to hold 1020
Cooper LLC responsible, my client will, in turn, hold the Riverside Condominium Association
legally responsible and pursue any claims necessary to obtain appropriate redress and
compensation.
Exhibit D – Letter from Attorney regarding tree on neighbor's property
95
Riverside Condominium Association
March 6, 2020
Page 2
Also, please note that 1020 Cooper LLC reserves all rights and remedies with respect to
the subject tree and the need to have it removed.
Sincerely,
Bart Johnson
for
WAAS CAMPBELL RIVERA
JOHNSON & VELASQUEZ LLP
cc: All Riverside Owners
David and Tracey McMahon
96
From:Gmail 2
To:Amy Simon
Subject:1020 E. Cooper Development
Date:Wednesday, August 12, 2020 9:43:30 AM
Dear Amy,
Please provide our comments below to the HPC Board.
Thank you
Dear HPC Board Members,
We own a condominium home at 1012 E. Cooper Ave #1, directly adjacent to the proposed
development. While we are very supportive of the overall HPC goal of preserving and
rehabilitating historic homes, this type of development can not be done outside of the existing
HPC rules and for the sole purpose of luxury development. The addition proposed for this
project directly violates HPC’s clear guidelines:
10.3 "An addition must be subordinate, deferential, modest, and secondary in
comparison to the architectural character of the primary building”
10.4 “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."
In response to city council sending this project back to HPC for reconsideration and reduction
of mass, the applicant has made a very small reduction in above grade floor area (3%), but the
fact remains that the above grade floor area of the addition (1,803.4 SF) is still 3.58 times
the size of the historic resource (508.8 SF). And since floor area excludes most of the
garage area, if the full footage of the garage is counted the total above grade square footage of
the addition is 4.3 times the historic structure. The addition towers over the historic resource
and covers far too much land on this small lot (4,379 SF). I can see no reasonable
interpretation where this addition properly satisfies the HPC guidelines. I recognize that per
10.4 "HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more” additional criteria are met,
but what would be the purpose of a 100% limitation if it can be stretched to 358% at the
discretion of HPC? Clearly the HPC rules exist for a reason, and distorting them to the point
that they are not recognizable serves no good purpose. If the intention is to allow projects
with an above ground floor area addition of 358% of the historic resource, then modify the
rules so they are not at risk of such subjective distortion. But please do not approve a project
under existing rules which does not reasonably meet the clear criteria.
Sincerely,
Michael and Tiffany Smith
1012 E. Cooper Ave, #1
email: msmith1012e@gmail.com
97
98
From:Bukk Carleton
To:Amy Simon
Cc:michael smith; Stephen Abelman; Robert Koffron; Patrick Rawley
Subject:Re: 6/24/2020 HPC meeting
Date:Wednesday, June 24, 2020 8:54:31 AM
Attachments:image003.png
Hi Amy,
Thanks for notifying us that the 1020 application is being postponed to August.
From my point of view and other neighbors, it appears that the 1020 owner is still not getting the message that the
building is too massive and large for the lot, so perhaps it would be time for the HPC- instead of just receiving the
same proposal every time- to tell the owners that at least at a minimum what the HPC is looking for in advance of the
August submission.
I would also suggest that the HPC break out items that do not cost the owner anything because, as we all know, every
square foot he loses is $2,500 in value which is apparently his motive.
The items that could be acquiesced by the owner without a dollar loss to him is:
1) reduction of the high pitch roof in the rear building which does not meet historical precedent wherein high pitched
roofs were limited to one story buildings and most of the other buildings were low pitch.
2) a determination by HPC that the fence is historic (which it is)
There are two other items based on common sense that I feel should be addressed.
1) Designing a building closer to another building within 10' makes no sense when you can just as easily back the
building up so that it is 10' away to meet fire department requirements. The fire department does not make up rules
out of thin air. They are designed to protect fire from jumping from one property to another. It also makes no sense to
design a fireplace on the deck which can easily put cinders up in the air, burn down our property as well as their own.
2) The garage. The neighbors would like to see (and we are certain the owner will fight back as it would entail losing
valuable SF) cutting back of the northern part of the building so that cars can park up against the building without
going into the ROW.
While there is a garage, we all know they fill up, people get lazy and house guests or teens have additional cars that will
still need parking so, once again, designing a building where you know rules are going to be broken does not make
much sense.
Perhaps a compromise would be a design that may not allow for say 18' of a vehicle, but perhaps a lesser amount
wherein cars could park diagonally and be out of the City's ROW.
Again, I think it would be helpful if the HPC gave the owners and the architect some guidance as to what the neighbors
are looking for (and hopefully the HPC itself ) as it is obvious that the owner isn't getting it and based on his letter to
our HOA, doesn't want to get it.
Many thanks, Bukk Carleton
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:09 AM Amy Simon <amy.simon@cityofaspen.com> wrote:
Good morning- I’ve just gotten word that the applicant wants to continue this review to August 12th
(first opening we have on an agenda.) They are surveying the tree on the east property line again, to be
absolutely sure that they are representing the full extent of the dripline that must be protected. They
have done this before, but have decided to re-verify.
I will be in touch with packet info as we get closer to that date.
99
From: Amy Simon
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 3:00 PM
To: Bukk Carleton <bgcarleton@gmail.com>
Cc: michael smith <msmith1012e@gmail.com>; Stephen Abelman <abelman56@gmail.com>; Robert
Koffron <rjkoffron@tetron.com>; Patrick Rawley <patrick@scaplanning.com>
Subject: RE: 6/24/2020 HPC meeting
Hello- tomorrow night’s HPC meeting (like all City meetings for the moment), will be conducted online
using a platform called Webex which allows for the applicant and staff to present, and for the board
members to discuss the projects, and take comments from the public.
If you would like to watch and participate in the public meeting, you will need to download the Webex
program to your computer or phone: (https://www.webex.com/downloads.html/)
+ Download and install the Webex Meetings
Once you download the app, to get into this specific HPC meeting you’ll need to:
100
The reference to join by phone above means that you can call in, without downloading the app, but you
will only be able to hear and speak, no video.
The packet and the meeting login info listed above can be viewed by clicking on this link:
https://d3n9y02raazwpg.cloudfront.net/cityofaspen/c87bcc2e-0186-4e45-9231-07c2e57a2d37-
41171f87-a501-48d1-9cf4-f0784e097578-1592593089.pdf
The meeting will open at 4, so everyone can make sure their access is ok, but it doesn’t begin until
4:30. There is another agenda item prior to 1020.
The meeting will be moderated by the Assistant City Attorney. She has control of the audio and will
typically keep everyone’s microphones turned off until they are speaking, to keep order to the meeting
and to avoid too much background noise. When it is time for public comment, the chair will call on you
and your microphone will be turned on.
Please let me know any questions.
From: Bukk Carleton <bgcarleton@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 2:45 PM
To: Amy Simon <amy.simon@cityofaspen.com>
Cc: michael smith <msmith1012e@gmail.com>; Stephen Abelman <abelman56@gmail.com>; Robert
Koffron <rjkoffron@tetron.com>
Subject: Re: 6/24/2020 HPC meeting
Yes, I would like to attend. Please send me the info. Thank you, Bukk
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 11:56 AM Amy Simon <amy.simon@cityofaspen.com> wrote:
Received- I will forward this to the Historic Preservation Commission.
Please let me know if you want to participate in the meeting next week. It will be a virtual meeting
on the WebEx platform and we will need to forward you some info on how to join.
From: Bukk Carleton <bgcarleton@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 8:02 AM
101
To: Amy Simon <amy.simon@cityofaspen.com>
Cc: michael smith <msmith1012e@gmail.com>; Stephen Abelman <abelman56@gmail.com>;
Robert Koffron <rjkoffron@tetron.com>
Subject: 6/24/2020 HPC meeting
Dear Amy,
Below please find a letter in response to the 6/24/2020 agenda item for the application of
1020 E Cooper.
Please confirm receipt of this email and disseminate to all HPC committee members.
Best, Bukk Carleton
-- Dear HPC Committee:
This letter is being sent on behalf of all owners at Cooper Avenue Victorian CondominiumAssociation located at 1012 E Cooper Avenue.
Last July, the owner of 1020 E Cooper came before your committee and was told the design proposedwas too large and massive for the lot. The owner basically made minimal changes, waited the HPCout until it looked like he had done something, and amazingly got approval last winter on basicallythe same plan he had proposed just six months earlier. Neighbors contested that decision to the CityCouncil which remanded it back to the HPC. Having found success in doing nothing and waiting outthe HPC, the 1020 owners have come back with approximately the same design and plan withminimal changes.
The 1020 owner is also coming before the HPC with statements that many requests of its plan havealready been approved so those points should not be revisited. It is the neighbors understanding thatthe Council would like the HPC to review the whole concept and its earlier approvals because, onceagain, the design still does meet the HPC’s original determination that the design was too massive forthe lot.
There has been talk from the 1020 owner that he has been negotiating with his neighbors andacquiesced to many of their concerns. This is absolutely false. The 1020 owner stonewalled theneighbors and the only minor change he made had to do with the tree on the eastern line of hisproperty because he was told by the HPC that a change to conserve the tree was a must.
There are simple ways in which the 1020 owner could meet the requests of the HPC and theneighbors:
1) Drop the height of the ridge line by at least 10’ of the rear building. There is nofunctional need for this height and all it does is block the neighbor's air, sun, and sky.
2) Set back the building line on the northern side so if a car parks in front of the building,the car will not extend into the City’s ROW.
102
3) On the east and west sides, match the building in respect to the existing outside of theexisting building in relationship to neighboring buildings. On the west side, this would createmore distance between buildings, and, at a bare minimum, this would also respect the fact thatthe prior owner seized approximately 4’ of land through adverse possession. There is noreason why the 1020 owners should be able to take their building out to a property line that isnot historic and certainly the building line should not be such that it results in spacing betweenhis proposed building and 1012’s by less than 10’ feet which is not permitting in Aspen’sZoning guidelines.
4) Certify that the fence between 1012 and 1020 is a historic feature. The HPC acceptedthe owner/architect’s statement that this fence was not historic. To the contrary, the fence hasbeen there since historic times as it was old enough to allow the former 1020 owner to obtainthe 4’ of land under adverse possession. It was also historic enough that the owner certifiedthat the fence existed during her ownership of the property (50+ years) and to her knowledgeexisted many years before that. Finally, it was historic enough to match all the other olderfences on East Cooper. This fence is made of iron and is transparent. The owners would liketo impose an opaque fence 18” from the windows of 1012 E Cooper.
5) The owners have shown their complete disregard for the concerns of their neighbors asevidenced by their letter sent to 1012 E Cooper (copy attached again) regarding our need tohave access beyond the fence for maintenance and repair needs to the side of our building. Asyou will note, they categorically stated that at no time would 1012 E Cooper be allowed onthe other side of the fence. This extra 4’ of land which they denied use of was created by thetaking land of 1012 through an adverse possession action. That lawsuit was ultimatelyresolved when 1012 E Cooper reluctantly settled the case by issuing a quit claim deed to thisproperty in 2005. However, that quit claimed parcel (approximately 4’x100’ along thewesterly boundary of the 1020 lot) was never legally merged with the 1020 lot. Although theowners of 1020 E Cooper purported to accomplish this legal merger with a recorded Lot LineAdjustment/Subdivision Exemption Plat recorded on October8, 2019 at Rec. No. 659373, thiswas not the proper means of accomplishing that objective. Instead, the owners were requiredto seek a Major Subdivision Approval through the City’s Land Use Code, which they neverdid. Put simply, the 4’x100’ strip of land that 1020 E Cooper obtained through litigation from1012 E Cooper back in 2005 remains a “rogue” parcel, separate from the actual 1020 lot, andit was never legally merged with 1020 under proper Aspen Land Use Code procedures. Assuch, the original lot line – actually 4 feet east of what 1020 currently claims - is the true lotboundary line to the legal 1020 E Cooper lot. As such, this is the legal lot line from which theminimum set back requirements to any further development on the 1020 lot should bemeasured. This is a significant Code issue from 1012 E Cooper’s standpoint and should notbe overlooked in the HPC review.
In summary, we believe HPC to meet the needs of their original directive to 1020 that theoutside wall of a new building should not exceed the outside wall of the existing building butcertainly, as outlined above, any building constructed should not be less than 5’ from theoriginal building.
We are hopeful the HPC will review the entire application of 1020 E Cooper with fresh eyes and,hopefully, require a new design in line with what the HPC originally required and envisioned- abuilding that fits the property.
In closing, we would urge the HPC to look carefully at what the owners of 1020 have submitted. Asan example, their 3D projection picture shows a picket fence going around the entire property butwhat they are asking for within the application is a completely opaque fence dividing 1012 and 1020with the fence, once again, just 18” from 1012’s windows.
If the 1020 owner had wanted such a large building, there are other properties in Aspen he could haveacquired rather than trying to wiggle through the HPC guidelines which are designed to avoid exactlywhat he is proposing.
Best regards,
103
Cooper Avenue Victorian Condo Association
--
Bukk G. Carleton President
Landtect Corporation
21 Technology Drive Suite 6
West Lebanon, NH 03784
603-298-9999
603-298-5065 (fax)
bgcarleton@gmail.com
--
Bukk G. Carleton President
Landtect Corporation
21 Technology Drive Suite 6
West Lebanon, NH 03784
603-298-9999
603-298-5065 (fax)
bgcarleton@gmail.com
104
From:Bukk Carleton
To:Amy Simon
Cc:Bukk Carleton
Subject:Public Comment for 8/12 HPC Meeting
Date:Monday, August 10, 2020 2:03:59 PM
Dear HPC Board Members:
Back in July 2019, David and Tracey McMahon submitted a plan to the HPC for theredevelopment of 1020 E Cooper.
The HPC Board responded to the applicants then that the plan was too large in mass and scalefor the amount of land involved -4,379sf.
The applicants waited 6 months and resubmitted essentially the same plan with minoradjustments and unexplainably the HPC staff and the Board accepted that proposal.
Upon appeal to the City Council by concerned neighbors in January, the Council unanimouslyremanded the plans back to the HPC with the same comment that the proposed structure wastoo large in mass and scale for the land.
So here we are a year later as the applicants have tried to wait this out and, once again, madeonly a minor adjustment for preserving the tree on the eastern line of their property and noadjustments as to mass and scale.
As we understand it, the HPC staff has, once again, recommended approval of this plan.
It would appear that the petitioner, the architect and the staff are not getting the message eitherfrom the initial HPC determination, from the Council, or from the neighbors that the proposedstructure is simply too large for the lot.
In the latest proposal, they have stated that various aspects of their plan have been approvedby the HPC and therefore, only need to make a few adjustments such as dealing with theneighboring tree. We understand both the Council and the neighbors want the entire project to
be redesigned and reduced as to mass and scale.
It is understandable why the owners would like to have a building as large as possible as everySF is worth $2200 in market value. Given the fact that the present owners are attempting to
sell their other home in Aspen for almost double what they paid for it 3 or 4 years ago, dollarsare quite important to them.
Also given the fact that the owners, unhappy with the Council remanding their plan, came upwith a proposal to circumvent the historic preservation and just put up a series of multifamilyunits.
What is hard to believe and what indicates the intransigence of the owners is that only 4 majormodifications to the plan are being requested by the neighbors and three of them do not (orbarely) involve them losing dollars.
1) The neighbors have asked for a reduction in height of the 2nd story building byapproximately 10’. Nothing is gained by this exceptional height as to usage by theowners. Most buildings in historical times had a low pitch and the only high-pitchedroofs were on buildings that were of a single floor. In this last proposal, they haveactually raised the roofline.
2) The second proposal by the neighbors is that the 10’ distance between buildings onthe western side of the property be honored as stipulated by the Aspen fire departmentin this section of the City. There are technical reasons that do not permit the presentdesign being closer than 10’ to 1012. The concern is further exasperated by the fact
105
that the owners are also proposing to put a fireplace on this deck. Aside from thetechnical reasons, there is a much simpler explanation why this proposed design shouldnot be approved.
It is just plain dumb.
Has no one ever heard of ashes or wind? Has no one ever heard of ashes being blownonto a roof and creating a fire?
The neighbors’ have heard mumbles that 1020 might protect their property with extrafireproofing but there certainly is no proposal to protect their neighboring property.
3) The owners- through their architect- are stating the existing fence is non historicand that a picket fence is appropriate to be placed in its stead and an opaque fence isappropriate to be placed between 1020 and 1012.
The HPC amazingly has agreed with the architect’s statements which has no foundation as tofact. The HPC itself states in its guidelines that historic fences were low and transparent innature and are exactly like the one that now exists on the 1020 property.
Not only does the fence between 1020 and 1012 go back at least 50 years as the prior 1020owner certified that in her successful adverse possession claim but she also certified that thefence’s presence far surpassed her 50-year ownership.
Another proof of the historical nature of the fence is the fact that it predates the professionaldelineation of the boundary line or it would have been placed on that boundary line.
This request of the neighbors to maintain the historic fence will not impact the owners’ abilityto sell their property at $2,200 SF.
4) The fourth request by neighbors will affect the resale value and one could expect asignificant push back from them in this regard. This request is to cut back thebuilding’s northern most outside wall from the 5’ setback to a setback that would allowroom for a car to park. The owners claim that since they will have a garage, they willalways use the garage and thus a further setback is not necessary. However, actual factis that in affluent communities, affluent people park their cars at their will. In Darien(an affluent community in CT) virtually every house has a garage and the largest crime
problem in Darien is car theft and car break ins. Not only do people not park in theirgarages even though they have them, people also have guests who will need a place topark , people find later on that they would like to put a pool table in place or use thegarage for other purposes and, of course, whatever the present owners say will not bebinding on any future buyers.Further, it truly makes no sense to design a building that one knows will, by definition,be adverse to the City’s ownership and easement.
The neighbors would like to see an attractive structure as its neighbor but is unwilling to havea structure built that will devalue its property. One could easily argue that having a high-pitched roof in the back of the historic structure with a large window overlooking that frontstructure detracts from the historical nature of the property. We, however, are talking aboutdevaluation and not about taste.
A wall 18 inches from our windows will create devaluation.
A high-pitched roof blocking our sun, air and views creates devaluation.
And even a small 10% devaluation represents a loss of over $2M for the neighbors.
A devaluation of 20% represents a loss of $4M.
Accordingly, one would hope that the staff and the HPC board would not spend their time
106
trying to rebut the concerns of the neighbors but would instead stand behind its own rulesalong with neighborhood concerns and make the applicants submit a truly responsive design.
We would like to see the HPC tell the owner they cannot cherry pick. The owners need tounderstand that they can get all the benefits under the HPC provisions but then in the case of afence, they cannot say that the fence is permitted under zoning laws. We would hope the HPCwould have enough interest and awareness of the neighborhood and of the total project thatthey would tell the applicants that if they get all the benefits of the HPC, they must abide by therestrictions of tghe HPC as well or they get none of the above and go to Zoning to see how wellthat treats them.
We would also hope that everyone concerned can understand that with the amount ofdevaluation the neighbors are facing, potential legal fees even in the hundreds of thousands ofdollars are well worth spending.
We do not know intimately the laws in the state of Colorado but some of us have beeninvolved in a lawsuit with real estate concerns who have gone to the NH Supreme Court four
times and lasted for 9 years. So, the concern is not only about money, but it is also about time.
Hopefully, this project can move forward in a timely and responsible way.
Sincerely
Bukk Carleton
1012 E Cooper Unit 2
bgcarleton@gmail.com
107
6
REGULAR MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 25TH, 2020
Steve Fallender – Mr. Fallender said he lives across the street. He said the paving of the bus lane is huge
for us and neighbors. He likened the dust problem to that of the winter squall a couple of days ago. We
appreciate that it is going to happen. The whole team has been responsive to the neighborhood and
wants to make sure the conditions on the list, stay there during the HPC meeting and thanked everyone
involved.
Ms. Simon mentioned more letters that were received today in support of the project.
Public comment closed.
Mr. Berkus explained the sidewalks and walkways. He would love for the ditch to go down Gillespie, but
it would have to be culverted up, and it would be a tiny little ditch. That’s not how the ditches work in
the west end and they run north and south. Ms. Simon said that the engineering and building
departments both heard feedback on the walkways, and they did consider it worthwhile.
Councilwoman Richards asked if staff checked with the water department and the rights and how the
ditch is being handled. Mr. Curtis said they did, and the water rights were dedicated to the city in 1992.
They’ve requested info and we are providing it currently. We originally had a water feature, but now the
Councilwoman Richards thanked everyone and said, in general, she’s in support. She appreciates the
affordable housing being adjusted. She said it’s important to separate the MMA activity and traffic they
cause. She said the paving is good. She wants a requirement to have a future sidewalk, and she thinks a
sidewalk will not be detrimental. She thinks it’s a gift to the community. The art isn’t directly on the
corner, but behind some bushes and tells people they are entering something special. All art has some
controversy around it. She’s glad they lowered it to meet the scale of the community. She respects and
understands the concerns. Compromise is what happens at the table and she’s very happy to support
this.
Councilman Mesirow thanked them for a wonderful project. He says hell yeah; it’s dead on and it’s on
time. He thanked them for getting on board with the affordable housing. The historic designation is
wonderful and said he’s happy to support this and the only comment he will make is he thinks the gate
is a wonderful celebration of Herbert Bayer’s fire and his works. The interactive art is the best in his
opinion. He prefers to see a more welcoming approach.
Mayor Torre asked Mr. True about Rachel’s comments regarding the parking and Mr. True said he has
some language, which Ms. Simon read aloud. Councilman Mesirow suggested an alternative transit plan
and Mr. Curtis said they can add that.
Councilwoman Richards motioned to approve Ordinance #01, Series of 2020; Councilman Mesirow
seconded. Roll call vote: Mesirow, yes; Richards, yes; Torre, yes.
CALL UP OF HPC’S APPROVAL FOR 1020 E. COOPER AVENUE – Conceptual Major Development,
Demolition, Relocation and Variation.
Amy Simon
Ms. Simon said this project involves a minor renovation of an existing miner’s cottage and construction
of a new addition. The goal is to preserve the scale of this small Victorian era home. The applicant is
proposing an addition behind it and lost 588 square feet of their development rights, but HPC awarded a
250 square foot bonus to try to close that gap. This is the only variation that HPC approved. The project
108
7
REGULAR MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 25TH, 2020
meets setback, parking, height and all other dimensional aspects. She pointed out the connector from
the new addition to the old cottage and is very important. The addition is quite a bit larger than the
resource. The HPC approval was 4-2 in favor and there were two hearings.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Jamie Brewster McLeod of Brewster McLeod Architects along with David
McMahon, owner of the property and Bart Johnson, the client’s attorney.
Mr. McMahon thanked the council for their time. He noted that they are in compliance with all of HPC’s
guidelines and understands they are here tonight due to neighbor’s concerns and we need to justify the
project.
Ms. Brewster McLeod said that this isn’t the typical property and there has been a lot of altercation to
the exiting building. This property was designated in 1992 and have received 18 of 100 points, where
the minimum threshold is 50 points for historic integrity. She showed the front elevation on screen and
talked about the existing fencing. She said there was a quick claim deed that was done by the previous
owner in 2005. She continued to speak about the existing conditions, elevations and the tree that is in
question, which is right on the property line. It has been severely limbed up on the 1020 E. Cooper side.
Councilwoman Mullins asked how the quick claim deed affected the property. Ms. Brewster McLeod
showed on screen where the property line is now and where it would be with red line on the west side.
She showed the sheds and the conditions in the alleyway. She said they would not like to delist the
property and gave figures for the property if it were to be multi-family instead of single family. The total
HPC approved designed floor area is 2,373 square feet including the historic resource, addition and
garage. We are adding 913 square feet or 60% larger existing floor area to the existing site. There are
many site constraints and limitations. This is a non-conforming lot size. We want to rectify the existing
setback and alleyway encroachments. She said that the parks department deemed the tree on the lot
line unhealthy and ok to remove, which Aspen Tree confirmed. She mentioned they held multiple
meetings with city staff to make sure they understood and listened to the neighbors, to HPC board
members and staff to make sure they were compliant with all guidelines and changes. She explained all
changes and restoration they were making to the historic resource. She showed the buildings to the
east and west and their mass and scale. She said they are in full compliance with the proposed fence.
She addressed neighbors concerns regarding the fence and the tree. They are asking for city council to
uphold HPC’s decision from the December 11th meeting.
Councilwoman Richards asked for above grade floor area and square footage. Ms. Brewster McLeod
said the floor area is 2,373 square feet and square footage is 2,809. The total above and below grade
square footage is 5,244 square feet.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Patrick Rawley of Stan Clauson Associates – Mr. Rawley said he was the land planner for this project,
and he is here as a representative for Buck Carlton, a resident of 1012. His unit is the one mostly
impacted by the 6-foot privacy fence from his dining room window. He said no one wants to rob the
owners the ability to create a family home, but we are dealing with a historic resource that is being
overshadowed. He said the resource should be the focus of the property and it’s getting lost. He goes
back to comments saying the proposal is half baked. We need to take a step back and look at the
ingredients going into this proposal. He feels they should pull some mass off of the north, articulate and
bring the height down to have a much more successful project.
109
8
REGULAR MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 25TH, 2020
Kristy – She said she lives at 1024 E. Cooper. She wants to see them do a nice project. She doesn’t want
the trees taken away; she loves the greenery. She’s also here speaking for Baron Concors who said they
did not approve the removal of the tree and the drip lines need to be protected. Mr. Concors has sent
numerous emails and has gotten no response. Kristy said the tree is on the majority side of their
property. She said they have had no communication with the new buyers about this and they still care
about this tree.
Mr. True said the tree is an issue. It is straddling the property line, so it become a problem when trying
to remove it. He doesn’t know what the solution is right now, other than the design not encroaching on
the drip line. Ms. Brewster McLeod said they are looking at options to work around the tree.
Councilwoman Mullins suggested mitigation of this tree.
Councilwoman Richards thanked the applicants and said she can see how they tried to be responsive
and she appreciates the challenges on site. She thinks some details could be refined. One of the major
issues for her is the height of the addition gable because it seems out of proportion. These design
requests aren’t about one neighbor, she feels it benefits the neighborhood and the community so it’s
worth the extra effort. Maybe you can find a work around for the tree and the fence. Let’s try to work
together. This is our chance to ask HPC for a little more.
Councilwoman Mullins said this is so tough. She has history on HPC and knows the architects, but she’s
kind of with Rachel on this. She doesn’t want to settle. She said the tree isn’t great looking and there
should be some deal you can make for a newer and better-looking tree, some sort of compromise. The
design changes are a tremendous improvement however, and she doesn’t feel the historic resource is
overshadowed. To allow something to go ahead with so many conflicts makes her feel uncomfortable.
She would like to see some of these issues resolved.
Councilman Mesirow appreciates what the applicants have done. He appreciates that it’s going to be a
lived-in home. It’s really important to give authority to our boards, but hearing Ann speak about this
and having come from HPC, he is taking those comments with some weight. He looks forward to seeing
this get approved with more cohesion in the neighborhood. He doesn’t feel the scale and character are
being preserved.
Mr. McMahon asked how many times we have to keep going through this and how much money do they
need to spend until people are happy. Councilwoman Richards appreciates that and said maybe the
code needs to be adjusted and they are questioning whether HPC should have these final decisions. She
feels that since the board wasn’t unanimous, it’s a reason to send it back to them.
Mayor Torre said this is really difficult. It’s a lot of pain for them to go through as well and don’t take it
lightly. He finds that since they have complied with the guidelines, the tree and the fence aren’t the real
issues at hand, but he will remand it back to HPC. He feels for them and thinks they’ve done a lovely
job. Another discussion with HPC could go a long way.
110
9
REGULAR MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 25TH, 2020
Mr. True suggested the motion that says to remand the application to HPC for a re-hearing for
resolution #21, Series of 2019. Councilwoman Mullins motioned to approve; Councilwoman Richards
seconded.
Councilman Mesirow said this is frustrating and costly, but after stepping back, it’s the insistence that
we listen to one another to engender the sense of community. Sometimes you have to walk slow to run
fast.
All in favor, motion carried.
Ms. Ott said on Thursday evening at the Aspen Chapel will be a meeting for Water Place Phase II to meet
with the neighbors.
Councilwoman Richards motion to adjourn; Councilman Mesirow seconded. All in favor, motion carried.
______________________________
Nicole Henning, City Clerk
111
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
112
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.
113
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.
114
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.
115
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.
116
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.
117
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.
118
Page 8 of 12
West end of East-West gable
North end of North-South gable
119
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
120
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
121
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.
122
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.
123
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
124
1
Gridlines for reference
2
125
Crawl space - Transition from original construction to newer addition along gridline D
3
126
Original Rubble foundation transitions to concrete foundation at intersection of gridline D and gridline 3
4
127
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
128
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
129
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
130
Original truss roof between gridlines C and D, and Gridlines 1 and 2
8
131
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
132
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
133
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
134
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
135
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
136
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
137
Window Key
15
138
Window 10 and 11 facing east. Opening was cut using circular saw. Sheeting around window opening was secured with
round, newer nails.
16
139
Window 4 facing west. Stud on north trimmer is older wood fastened with round newer nails. Blocking and cripples are
dimensional lumber.
17
140
Window 3 facing north. Header, trimmers and cripples are framed out of dimensional lumber.
18
141
Windows 4,5,10 and 11 are awning wood windows with hinges on the top and operators on the interior.
19
142
Windows 4,5,10 and 11 are awning wood windows with cabinet hinges on the top and operators on the interior.
20
143
Window 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are aluminum windows
21
144
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
145
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
146
Windows 7 and 8 on the north facing side of the house are aluminum sliders.
24
147
Window 9 is aluminum, windows 10 and 11 are wood awnings, and window 12 is a fixed wood window
25
148
Window 2 is a slider with latching hardware and screen or storm window latches
26
149
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
150
Exposed sheathing with tar paper and newer siding. No older siding remains under the new siding
28
151
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
152
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
153
Page 3 of 5
Metal Roofing
Color: matte black
Roofing
Natural cedar shingles; second image shows how they will age in a few years
154
Page 4 of 5
Front Porch Posts
Windows and Exterior Window Trim
Painted wood double-hung windows for the Historic resource
155
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
156
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
157
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
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
2
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019
PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Simon stated that they don’t need to submit any tonight because they’re
continued hearings.
OLD BUSINESS: 234 W Francis – major development, floor area bonus, setback variations
MOTION: Mr. Moyer motioned to continue the hearing to February 12th. Mr. Halferty seconded. All in
favor, motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS: 1020 E Cooper Avenue – conceptual major development review, demolition relocation,
request for a variation
Ms. Simon stated that the Commission saw this project last on July 24th. The Commission continued it
for re-study. The applicant thought they would come back in October, but needed additional time. This
property was a longtime home of Su Lum. This house is designated and considered a representation of
an Aspen miner’s cottage, but it’s pretty unusual. At the last hearing, there had been a lot of discussion
about wanting to dig in to understand the building better and there was asbestos abatement pending.
That held up the applicant’s ability to take a good look at the structure. They’ve now finished the
abatement and the contractor has stated that this is two separate structures that were pushed together
in a cross gable form in the 1800’s. They haven’t come across this at all with any other property and it
raises a number of issues. It’s not exactly like most of the miner’s cottages that make up the majority of
the City’s historic inventory. The ridgeline on the two gables is not of the same height. The roof pitches
are not at the same height. These are two individual structures that were kind of sewn together and
staff do not have a lot of information about the property. All staff have is physical evidence, which puts
them at a disadvantage in terms of determining exactly what this building looked like historically. At the
last meeting, one of the things that received a lot of discussion was that the applicant was planning to
hang on to a 1960’s era lean-to addition on the back of the house and add beyond that and the board
was concerned with that because they preferred going back to the original footprint. The applicant has
resolved that concern. They are proposing to remove that addition. Now the applicant is talking about
just preserving the historic resource. It’s a very small structure of only about 500 square feet. This
building is even more challenging to add on to in a way that is similar in mass. The downside for the
applicant in removing the ‘60’s addition is that they had to take on a floor-area penalty. In this zone
district, single -family homes aren’t necessarily preferred, so if you have an existing one and you
demolish more than 40% of it, you take an FAR penalty, which is part of the discussion tonight. They lost
588 square feet of their allowed floor area by following the Commission’s recommendation to take that
addition off.
Ms. Simon stated that the Commission was also concerned previously about the connector, how it met
the back of the house and transitioned to the larger addition. That has made some progress because
the ‘60’s addition is gone, it’s allowed some more flexibility for the architect in how to make a good
connector. The house is being lifted up, moved forward slightly, and put on a new basement. There are
two sheds along the alley that are not Victorian. It’s not clear when they were built. Those are
proposed to be removed. There are no variations as a part of this application tonight except there is a
500 square foot floor area bonus request. The applicant is asking for that to make up for the floor area
penalty. They only want to use a portion of that, 279 square feet, on the site. They want to go to City
Council and ask to sell the remaining part as a TDR. The staff memo includes a discussion about findings
about the FAR bonus. This is under the old criteria. Staff finds that it is appropriate to help them
174
3
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019
mitigate that FAR penalty. There are several criteria that staff believe are met, as noted in the memo.
Staff have had to address the design guidelines. There’s one in particular that the Commission should
focus on, which is the one that says that an applicant can’t more than double the size of the original
building with your addition, and they are about tripling the size of the building. The historic resource is
500 square feet, the above-grade floor area of the addition is 1,800 square feet. These are the things
the Commission needs to talk about and evaluate whether the property meets all the decision-making
points that they need to take into consideration. Staff are supporting the project. This is a challenging
site. They have talked to the applicant and the Commission about whether de-listing is the right
solution here. This is a building with pretty limited historic integrity. The applicant’s goal is to retain the
original fabric and interpret the building the best they can as a 19th Century structure. But it’s a very
small building with a lot of unusual circumstances in a relatively small lot. Staff have provided the
Commission with a resolution recommending approval. They have written it to say that, if City Council
does not approve the TDR that’s being requested, that portion of the bonus will become invalidated.
Mr. Halfterty asked how their design would be affected if City Council does not allow the TDR.
Ms. Simon stated that, if Council does not approve the TDR, the bonus expires.
Mr. Kendrick asked what the purpose of the FAR penalty if there is an appropriate bonus to give that
back. If it’s not in the Commission’s purview to make a project financially viable and they’re not
planning on using that, why would the Commission give them the TDR to sell?
Ms. Simon stated that, the fact that there’s a penalty for tearing down more than 40% of the house has
to do with Council having created a disincentive for single-family development in the neighborhood.
That doesn’t really have anything to do with HPC’s criteria for a bonus. Those are two separate issues.
The reason staff are making a finding that the FAR bonus is appropriate is that the applicant was
planning to retain that addition and has decided to work with HPC, try to meet common goals, and take
it off. That was a significant loss in square footage for them. Staff are recommending that the
commission try to balance that impact. It’s best for preservation. It is not that unusual that the
Commission will have a request for a bonus where some of it is retained and some of it is converted to a
TDR. That is allowable. Council makes the ultimate decision on whether or not the TDR is awarded.
Mr. Moyer stated that the Commission could potentially add a condition that the fence could be moved
for construction and put back when it was done.
Ms. Simon stated that a lot of public comments received focus on a proposed fence on the west side of
the property. At some point, this may have been only a 3,000 square foot lot and there was a decision
to change the property boundary that moved the lot line westward and pretty close to the adjacent
condominium building. That’s the reason why there’s a lot of concern about where the fence goes. It is,
in fact, owned by this applicant. They’re putting the fence on their property line.
Mr. Moyer asked Ms. Simon about the tree.
175
4
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019
Ms. Simon stated that there are a couple of trees proposed to be removed. They are not healthy and
not considered to be significant trees. One of them straddles the property line. At this point, staff look
to Parks to make the decision about what’s best for the health of the tree.
Mr. Moyer asked how complicated it would be to de-list the property.
Ms. Simon stated that de-listing requires a recommendation by HPC and a decision by Council. There
are two criteria for a Victorian property to be designated. One is that it was built in the 19th Century and
it is still standing. The other is a scoring process that has a 100 point system where you get a certain
number of points for a variety of criteria. You have to get 50 out of 100. If you don’t, the applicant or
City Council should be considering de-listing as an option.
Ms. Greenwood asked how staff resolve the issue of the size of the addition.
Ms. Simon stated that that is a guideline that was a big change in the 2015 update to the Design
Guidelines. You can’t more than double the size of the historic resource, which is not hard when you’re
adding on to a bigger building. The smaller the resource gets and the difference between that and the
allowed square-footage, this is a challenge.
Ms. Greenwood asked if they could get credit for the 550 square feet.
Ms. Simon stated that floor area of the addition can’t be more than the same size of the original historic
resource. They can’t look at the building as it exists now, they have to look at the historic building.
Ms. Greenwood asked if the shed has ever been counted.
Ms. Simon stated that it hasn’t and the City does not count detached buildings, just the building that is
being added on to. Because that’s a very strict rule, staff have created bullet points and the applicant
needs to meet at least two to grant an exception. Staff are finding that demolition and replacement of
that older addition is beneficial and they are fully using the interior of the house. They meet two of the
criteria, so they qualify for an exception if the Commission would like to grant it.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Jamie Brewster Mcleod, Brewster Mcleod Architects
Ms. Brewster Mcleod introduced the applicants David and Tracy McMahon and their contractor Steve
Waldeck.
Ms. Brewster Mcleod showed a photo of the existing property on the slide. She stated that this is not a
typical miners cottage, unlike the applicants had originally thought. Through investigation, it has
revealed itself to be just two buildings put together. The applicants are using the context of the miner’s
cottage for the reconstruction of this because they have no other resources to go off of. That’s what the
applicants have talked about with Ms. Simon.
Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that their project intent is to restore the historic resource. They are
planning to rectify the existing setback and non-conformities and are looking at adding an addition that
176
5
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019
compliments the historic resource and makes it the focal point of the project. She showed some photos
on the slide of what the existing building looks like. The proposed redevelopment is demolition of the
existing non-historic sheds, demolition of the 1960’s addition that was added on to the historic resource,
renovation of the historic resource including the removal of the roof over-framing, reconstruction of the
south elevation and the front porch, reconstruction of the north elevation, replacement of the non-
historic windows with more historically-accurate wood, and replacement of the vesta siding with the
historic clapboard siding. The applicants have not done the asbestos abatement on the outside of the
house, only on the inside, because they were worried about the building falling over if they started
taking off the exterior materials. They are also looking at an addition to the rear of the property using a
connector and adding this to the historic resource.
Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that, at their previous meeting, demolition to the non-historic sheds and
relocation of the historic resource was something that the Commission was in favor of. As such, she will
not cover those areas, she will move on to the other points. At the July 24th hearing, there were four
items that the board had asked to look into. One was the investigation of the existing materials on the
historic resource, demolition of the 1960’s addition, adding a connector to the historic resource to the
addition, and reducing the mass and scale of the addition. The applicants have worked closely with staff
to go through what they believe the historic guidelines are as well as what the board, staff, and the
neighbors have asked them to do. They have also had multiple conference calls with 1012 E Cooper,
which is on the west side of the building, and 1024 E Cooper, which is on the east side of the building.
They have met with both HOAs and people who were part of the HOA to get an idea of what their
concerns were after the July meeting. In response, the applicants have re-designed their project. They
are looking at the demolition of the 1960’s addition which reduces the allowable floor area. They have
added the connector, which meets the standards, and they have reduced the mass and scale of the
addition.
Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that the applicants have tried to find information about the historic
context. They found that there’s no existing framing for the windows and the doors. Some of the
framing was re-used, but it wasn’t re-used in a historic context. They believe that the entry port was
removed, although they don’t know what it looked like. The exterior sheathing does remain, which they
are planning to keep. The exterior siding is non-historic and will be replaced. There is one small gable,
which does show the historic siding. That’s what they are replicating on the rest of the house.
Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that they looked at demolition of the 1960’s addition. HPC had asked the
applicants to look at removing this even though it reduced their square footage. It does exceed the
40%. The accurate square footage is 558 square feet. It was reduced per the calculations that zoning
does. They are asking for a 500 square foot HPC bonus. 250 will be used on site and 250 square feet will
be used for a TDR. She showed a rendering of everything that is on site right now. She stated that the
third item they’re looking at is the connector. The proposed connector they are looking at exceeds the
minimum dimensional requirements. It is a one-story element. They are looking at exceeding the 10
feet on one side. It would not be the full extent of the historic resource. They are proposing a
connector at nine feet, six inches in height. There is an eave on the backside of the house that they will
have to reconstruct, which will be about seven feet two inches. She showed a rendering on the slide to
give an idea of where the connector would go. On the east side it is inset ten feet from the historic
177
6
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019
resource and on the west side, they are looking at adding a courtyard that will make it 17 feet nine
inches from the historic resource to the addition.
Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that the fourth item they looked at was reducing the mass and scale of the
addition, reducing the square footage of the overall addition, which they have done. The south gable
pitch, they looked at changing that to a twelve feet twelve inches, so that it represented the historic
resource more. They also set back the front south gable of the historic resource by thirteen feet one
and a half inches so it creates even more space. They reduced the width of the south gable by three
feet ten and three eighths inches, reducing the overall mass and scale. They added articulation on both
the east and west elevations.
Ms. Brewster Mcleod showed the south and north elevations on a rendering on the slide. She stated
that the historic resource will be prominent. On the backside, they are looking at moving the mass and
scale to the back of the building and away from the historic resource. She showed a rendering of the
west elevation on the slide. Right now, the sheds go over the property line and the resource is set back.
There are large multi-family buildings to the east, west, and north. They are moving the building five
feet off the property line. This is a small, non-conforming lot. They are setting everything back within
the five-feet setbacks on each side.
Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that they have done a re-study of the four major points that staff and the
board had issues with. They are looking at the historic materials, which are all conforming. They are
looking at the demolition of the 1960’s addition. They are adding a connector and reducing the mass
and scale of the addition on all sides. They are asking for the demolition of the two historic sheds. They
are looking at re-locating the historic resource forward so that it complies with current zoning
regulations and makes it the forefront of the project. They are looking at restoring the historic resource.
They are looking at adding an addition to the north of the property through a connector. As Ms. Simon
has pointed out, this project complies with three of the eight exceptions. They don’t think of the floor
area as a variance, it’s a bonus. They are fully within the height limits and the setbacks. In the
preservation benefits they are asking for, they have a floor area bonus of 500 square feet, an exemption
from the growth management quota, waver of the impact fees, and the TDR rights. She turned her
presentation over to her clients who wanted to speak.
Mr. McMahon introduced himself and his wife Tracey McMahon. He thanked Ms. Simon for her
patience with them during this project. He stated that this has been a difficult site and they are trying to
get the balance right between reconstructing the historic property while still ensuring they have a family
home to live in. They understand that there are historic guidelines to work within and they have put in a
lot of time for that. They are pleased with the final design that they have come up with and think it will
beautify this area of Aspen.
Mr. Halferty asked what the plate height on the front entry porch is.
Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that it’s about seven feet. It’s right at code minimum.
Mr. Halferty asked about the relationship with the cross gable.
178
7
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019
Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that the cross gable is not at 12’12”. It’s much lower than that. That’s why
it looks out of context. They’re coming up against a low-sloping roof.
Mr. Halferty asked if she thinks, historically, that the cross gable was that low-pitched roof.
Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that yes, that is what the framing indicates.
Ms. Simon stated that she did put a condition in the resolution that, as this project goes under
construction, they’re going to want to talk with the contractor about whether he sees any scars and
sheathing or anything that tells them more than they know now about where a porch might have been
positioned or anything like that. They are just making best guesses right now at some of this.
Mr. Kendrick stated that the issue of the fence was not brought up in the presentation. The rendering
shows a low white picket fence. He asked if that’s what they are proposing now as opposed to
originally.
Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that that rendering represents what’s actually on the drawings. They are
looking at a white picket fence in the front that meets HPC and City guidelines. Towards the back of the
house, they’re looking at a six-foot fence to create privacy. In some of the renderings, they didn’t show
the fence. That would typically be brought up at the next meeting, during landscaping. They wanted to
show the renderings without much of the fence so that they could see what the building looks like.
Ms. Sanzone asked if the gable height is ten feet on the historic resource.
Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that, based on their drawings of what is as built out there, they have the
historic resource. The 12’12” pitch has a ridge of 14’ 8 3/8” .
Ms. Sanzone asked if the ridge of the addition is at 28.
Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that the second gable, which is the lower one, which is basically a 5.5 has a
height at 10’9”.
Ms. Sanzone asked if the addition is at 28.
Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that it’s at 28.2’ ¾”.
Ms. Sanzone asked what the floor to ceiling height is in the top floor.
Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that it’s an 8’6” plate.
Ms. Sanzone asked what the lot size is.
Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that it’s 4,379. A standard would be over 6,000.
179
8
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019
Ms. Greenwood asked what the overall size of the project is from a finished floor area above-grade.
Ms. Simon stated that the addition is 1862 floor area and the house is 508. That that makes it 2,370.
Ms. Greenwood asked if that includes the 250 square foot bonus.
Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that it does. Right now, what they’re looking for is 229 square feet. They
would like the 250. They don’t plan on building anything above the 229, but what they’re looking at is if
the heights on the lower level change slightly, just because they don’t have structural or mechanical
drawings yet, they could use additional square footage for the below-grade space depending on what
that calculation is. They are not looking at adding any more above-grade square footage.
Mr. Moyer asked if it will be onerous to make some sections of the fence removeable and then they can
be reattached.
Ms. Brewster Mcleod asked Mr. and Mrs. McMahon if they are okay with someone else having access to
their fence.
Mr. Moyer stated that it will be necessary at some point. He would make it a condition.
Ms. Greenwood stated that that can be handled between neighbors, but if Mr. Moyer wants to propose
it she supposed they could discuss it as a condition.
Ms. Sanzone stated that, at their July meeting they talked about site utilities and how storm water
would be removed. There was debate about a dry well versus a pond or detention area. She asked if
the applicants have updated drawings that show that or if they could identify where the site water
holding area would be on the site plan.
Ms. Brewster Mcleod showed a rendering on the slide and pointed out where the storm water
management would happen, on the bottom left portion of the lot. Their civil engineer did talk to the
Engineering Department and they would prefer storm water area versus a dry well. Right now they
don’t comply with dry well regulations. The Engineering Department asked them to design towards a
storm water management. The designated area does comply with the regulation of a storm water
management.
Ms. Sanzone asked if the applicants have been thinking about the utilities.
Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that that was in their original application. She showed an area on the
rendering and stated that it is a mechanical roof with a three foot barrier with a railing around it that’s
solid. They are looking at putting their condensing units there. They talked to Zoning about it and they
were fine with it, instead of putting it right at the property lines.
Ms. Sanzone asked if they will be able to connect to the offsite transformer.
180
9
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019
Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that they have not done the electrical count yet. They’re waiting for the
mass and scale to be approved. They will do that for the next round.
Ms. Sanzone asked if they are under previous guidelines.
Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that that is correct.
Ms. Sanzone stated that they are looking for more information and more study upfront so that they’re
not surprised at final review by some of the utility requirements.
Ms. Simon stated that they are under the current design guidelines. They submitted before the new
floor area changes and the changes to the historic benefits went into effect. Under the new guidelines,
the floor area bonus would be a little smaller than 500 square feet based on the lot size they would have
to do more affordable housing mitigation.
Ms. Greenwood asked if that is the same for the other benefits.
Ms. Simon stated that they are still eligible for the exemptions and things that have been in place for 30
years. They are not subject to the changes that Council adopted last June.
Ms. Sanzone stated that they are requiring preliminary design for site drainage and utility placement. Is
that something that was submitted that’s just not in today’s packet?
Ms. Simon stated that there is information in the packet about everything that Ms. Brewster Mcleod had
indicated. There’s not a drawing, but there is text. If the Commission wants staff to ask for a drawing,
they can discuss that with applicants.
Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that at their original submittal there was a letter from the Civil Engineer.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Baron Concors introduced himself as the representative of the HOA Board for 1024
E Cooper. He stated that there is a potential impact to the neighbors of a building of this. The de-listing
is also something that the neighbors are concerned about. Regarding the tree, he stated that he has an
email from David Coon, the City Forester, stating that they can do whatever they want with the tree on
their property but touching the tree that’s on the property line will require the permission of the owners
of 1024 E Cooper. If that’s not obtained then the canopy and the drop lines would have to be protected
during the construction. On behalf of the HOA Board for 1024 E Cooper, he reached out to the architect
a few days after the last meeting because they want to see this project be successful. They were told
that the applicants would be back in touch with them, but he never heard back.
Patrick Rawley from Stan Clauson Associates introduced himself. He stated that he is here on behalf of
Buck Carlton who is the owner of Unit 2 directly to the west. His windows would look directly onto the
addition. His firm just wrapped up the Historic Preservation Plan of Colorado Springs and it was
approved just the other day. A big component of that preservation plan was adaptive reuse. From that
181
10
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019
standpoint, he is applauding the applicant for taking the historic resource, reusing it, and maintaining as
much of the character as possible. He understands that they have a desire to use this property.
However, compatibility is also a large thing to consider when adaptively reusing a historic resource.
They have regulations in the books that say that the addition can be no more than 100%. He
understands that the historic resource is small and limited, so maybe holding them to that requirement
is not realistic. However, some reduction should be made to the overall mass and floor area of the
building. The size of the historic resource is small because the site is small and that speaks to the
compatibility. There should be a happy medium where the addition is pulled back from the north.
Concerning the fence, it is a major issue. When you erect a six-foot fence, understanding that that is
within the bounds of the code, his client will have a six-foot fence immediately outside his window. That
poses a serious issue with maintenance of the building. When they talk about a removeable fence, that
is one option. Historically, this picket fence is an historic condition. Having a transparent and lower
fence would be more historically appropriate and much more amenable to his client. The size of the
addition needs to be drastically reduced, the massing should be pulled off of the alley towards the
south, and they’d like to take a look at the fence condition.
Ms. Greenwood stated that the setback is larger than what’s typical.
Mr. Rawley stated that they appreciate the setback from east to west. The fence cancels that out
because it is immediately outside the window. A potential solution is to bring the percentage of the
addition much more in line with code.
Claude Salter introduced herself as a representative of some of the homeowners at 1024 E Cooper.
They are supportive and excited about the changes and they do have concerns about the fence. She
stated that the HPC standard that is item 1.20 suggests that it is important to have the 42 inch high
fence to give the best view of the historic resource. They would very much like that to happen. There
are a couple of slides that show a different location of the fence. This is of great importance and
concern to her client because they have lost a quick claim deed litigation from a previous owner, not this
owner. They don’t dispute that they are, by right, allowed to build this privacy fence. Their concerns
are the proximity, but there is also another challenge which is that the elevations between the two lots
differ. The historic resource lot sits higher than her clients’ lot by a foot and eight inches. That means
that a six foot high fence on their property line makes it more like a seven and a half foot high fence
from their neighbors side. They ask that the applicant be aware that that condition exists. She would
like them to consider type of material or potentially not going to that six foot height. Also meeting the
standard that asks that the 42 inch fence goes as far around as it can before the six foot high fence
starts.
Ms. Greenwood asked how the grade can be resolved.
Ms. Salter stated that there is no real resolution to it.
Ms. Greenwood asked what keeps that grade higher.
182
11
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019
Ms. Salter stated that there is a garden there now and there is an elevation change. There are some
rocks along there, but it’s a natural grade change. Her client’s property sits a bit depressed on its lot.
That’s how it gets to be lower.
Ms. Sanzone asked Ms. Salter who she is representing.
Ms. Salter stated that she represents the rest of the homeowners. There are five of them in the
Victorian. It’s called Cooper Avenue Victorian Condominiums.
Ms. Greenwood asked Ms. Salter if the HOA she is representing had been meeting with the architects
about this issue.
Ms. Salter stated that there was conversation with the architect, but she wasn’t privy to that
conversation.
Michael Smith introduced himself as president of the Cooper Avenue Victorian HOA. He stated that
they had a call with the architect and expressed this concern. They’ve said they considered it, but they
don’t seem to have made any changes. The applicants put this privacy fence further forward than it
should be, according to the design guidelines. The lot does slope significantly as Ms. Salter pointed out.
The fence is close and, for maintenance, it would be helpful to have that section be removeable. It will
also create a visual barrier.
Ms. Simon stated that she has more public comment to enter into the record. Staff received four
letters, which she sent to the commissioners. Most of the comments in the email have been
represented or re-stated at this meeting. One is from a number of neighbors who think the size and
scale is too much and are concerned about the tree removal. Mr. Smith, who spoke, also sent a letter
mostly focused on the fence and the conditions along the east lot line. He made a comment about the
size of the addition. Buck Carlton sent two emails stating that he has concerns about the northwest
corner of the site and the placement of the addition and of the fence.
Ms. Greenwood asked Ms. Brewster Mcleod if there were any public comments that she would like to
address.
Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that the applicants did reach out to the neighbors at both 1012 and 1024.
They did say they would take their considerations into account when they were redesigning and working
with staff. They believe that they did because they have worked with staff to try to reduce mass and
scale to look at what they could do to address everybody’s comments. Regarding what has been said
today, they would really like to keep a privacy fence because it is a very small lot and they have three
buildings on three sides looking down onto this property. They are not asking to build a fence that is
beyond what is allowed. They’d be more than happy to look at the location of the six-foot fence on the
west side at their next landscape site plan. They would look at moving that towards the connection of
the back of the house. Regarding the tree that straddles the lot line to the east, they reached out to
1024 and talked to Mr. Concors. He had mentioned that he would like to get this through HPC first
before he’s willing to talk about the tree. At that point, they put the tree discussion on hold. At that
183
12
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019
point, when they did have a conversation with the Parks Department on site, they asked for them to
remove that tree. It was unhealthy and leaning and they were in favor of them removing both trees.
Regarding the mass and scale, they have reduced the square footage from their original presentation by
353 square feet which is a lot compared to how small this lot is and what is allowed. They feel like they
have taken measure and listened to the board and the staff on reducing that mass and scale and what
can be allowed on site.
Ms. Greenwood asked how the tree effects their development. Are they able to proceed?
Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that they would not be able to proceed with the development with the tree
there.
Ms. Thompson asked if the building is within the dripline of the tree that they’re discussing.
Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that it is. It touches the building itself and Parks felt like it was
deteriorating that building. That’s why they wanted it to be removed, because of the health of it and
how close it was to all the buildings.
Ms. Greenwood stated that there is considerable neighbor opposition to this project based on real
issues that haven’t been resolved in the design. The applicant has, from a visual standpoint, reduced
the mass from the last time they were here in July. In terms of variations, one of the big issues is that
they have a small lot, they’re asking for a 500 square foot bonus, but only using 250 square feet, which
they want to sell as a TDR. That’s not really the definition of a TDR. They have identified the area for
the civil drainage. The site is maxed out in terms of the uses that are going on the site, from the
additions to the historic residence, to the requirements of civil engineering. There’s considerable
concern from the neighbors on both sides regarding the mass. The apartment building is affected by the
mass development. That is a very difficult situation because that building is massive. If it were to come
off the historic register, is a better building for the neighbors going to be built? Doubtful. The
Commission should really address the neighbors’ concerns. The most affected seems to be the
balconies off the alley on the east side, directly adjacent to this addition, which is really affected by this
design. Considerable effort has been made by neighbors on both sides to study this project and let the
commissioners know how it affects them.
Mr. Moyer stated that, when he looks at the historic resource, something is missing. Most Victorians
around town have their front door on the left. The room on the front was usually a parlor. It looks too
clean and modern. It’s a great project and it’s marvelous that they’re getting back to a historic real
Victorian.
Ms. Greenwood stated that one of the reasons they changed their guidelines in 2015 was to not have
massive additions on the back of small miner’s cabins. Here we have a project that doesn’t do that.
Ms. Sanzone stated that the applicants believe they’ve addressed the exemptions that allow them to
come to the Commission and asked if the commissioners agree.
184
13
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019
Ms. Greenwood stated that what’s resulting is exactly what they are trying to prevent: a large addition
on the back. When it affects neighbors, it’s even more of a red flag. From the street, it masses out very
nicely. But from a development, it affects a lot of people. She is having a difficult time with the design
from the gable and back and the mass of it. It completely obliterates two peoples’ experience of living
on their property now. The Commission can’t ignore that. The neighbors to the east, there’s an easy
solution, which is to not approve a fence on that property. They have designed a very private space for
outdoor use that really does block the connecting element between the old and the new.
Ms. Sanzone stated that the fence was not presented tonight, it is part of final review.
Ms. Greenwood stated that they can make conditions and get it solved. Another issue is the bonus. She
would approve a 250 square foot bonus but not taking the bonus and selling it for a TDR. She would not
take this project to City Council in its current form because of the mass of the addition on the historic
resource.
Mr. Kendrick stated that he is torn on this project. On the surface it looks nice, it’s a beautiful house and
design. The mass and scale is too large for that lot in general. The City does want multi-family housing
on that lot, which is why there’s a penalty for tearing down the extra square footage. The scale could be
reduced a little bit. He is in favor of removing the historic designation as this project does not feel like it
has a lot of history in it.
Ms. Greenwood asked if that really qualifies for a 250 square foot bonus. That’s adding 20 by 20 square
foot space onto the building which could result in part of that addition being a one-story, which could
solve a lot of issues in mass on the property. Philosophically, they have moved away from bonuses.
They’re still getting the employee housing bonus, which is a huge number. These FAR bonuses have
always resulted in larger projects and they haven’t been happy with that in the end. A 250 square foot
bonus would reduce 250 square feet out of the addition and likely be able to bring part of the addition
to a one-story which may solve some issues on the east side. The Commission is here to solve those
issues. She asked how they all feel about the bonus.
Mr. Moyer stated that, when the owners bought the units, they were fully aware that something could
be developed on that lot. How much empathy should we give to people who that happens to? How
much should that affect the Commission’s decision?
Ms. Greenwood stated that it’s a nice project but it’s over-scaled.
Mr. Moyer stated that he is not in favor of giving extra bonuses to anyone.
Ms. Sanzone asked what the total square footage that would be allowed on this lot if this were not an
historic property and someone were to build a home on it.
Ms. Simon stated that the only thing they would be allowed to build as a non-historic property is a
single-family house. It would likely be a similar amount of square footage allowed.
185
14
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019
Ms. Sanzone stated that, regarding the bonus, in the recent past the Commission has really pushed on
the exemplary project and wanted something that’s really amazing. This project is a little bit different
because they have all of the additions that are on the site. The Commission asked them to take away
the 1960’s addition. In her opinion, they’ve done that, which is why she would consider granting them a
bonus.
Ms. Greenwood stated that she doesn’t have a problem with the bonus, she has a problem with the east
side and the general massing. None of that roof line steps down or breaks up. She always feels that
there is an architectural solution to problems like that. You have to consider the neighbors next door
and be a good neighbor. She does not think this addition on the back does that and the mass is an issue.
Mr. Moyer asked if they would have to table the hearing to a date certain if they if they mandate that
the applicants design that side a little better.
Ms. Simon stated that, if the applicant were asked to restudy the project and remove some square
footage, the place to remove it is on the south-facing gable end to get away from the historic resource.
She does not think that the HPC guidelines are focused on protecting views of a neighboring property.
The project needs to be respectful, but there’s a lot to juggle already on the site and their priority is
historic preservation concerns. She is not certain that a continuation to reduce mass along the alley is
something that serves HPC’s purposes.
Ms. Greenwood stated that they do have a public comment portion of the meeting and she does not
agree with Ms. Simon’s interpretation. Mass is mass. They don’t look at the building from one side, but
from all over. Mass is affecting neighbors and they’ve been asked to comment. In good conscience,
there are some architectural solutions that could be done easily to address that.
Ms. Thompson stated that she disagrees with Ms. Greenwood. The scale of the addition needs to
consider the context. To have a single-story home throughout this entire lot would not be speaking to
either building on either side. They’re very large in scale and the addition kind of mitigates that and
makes it feel more appropriate from the street. It does look significantly better than it did in July and it
is reduced in its width and improves it. She would support what Ms. Sanzone said about the bonus
being associated with their removal of the addition. The connector meets the Commission’s guidelines
and she thinks it really improves the connection to the addition. She would support the bonus.
Ms. Sanzone stated that it’s not in their design guidelines, but thinks that the response to the neighbors
seems appropriate. They have an articulated neighbor with the Victorian on the west side and this
project is articulating their elevation to respond. On the east side, there’s a very flat façade. This
applicant has responded similarly. It’s in kind. In urban design, that’s an appropriate response.
Ms. Greenwood stated that the east side is nicely articulated and it creates a nice relationship between
the two except for the fence. That’s an easy solution for the two neighbors to come up with something
that works. It is appropriate to have a two-story on this building. It looks very nice, but it’s still a long
massive roof. She asked how long the roof is.
186
15
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019
Ms. Brewster-Mcleod stated that it’s somewhere around 45 feet.
Mr. Moyer stated that he’d like to hear from Ms. Berko.
Ms. Berko stated that she’d like to see some tweaking that respects the neighbors’ concerns. She thinks
they’ve responded to three out of four, for her, but regarding 10.4 and 10.8, she does not feel that it’s
compatible. She feels as though there are solutions to make the backside, that eastern wall, more
compatible. It may just be that all the square footage is too much for a tiny lot. As regrettable as it may
seem to an applicant, if you have a small lot, you need a smaller addition. She finds it rather
overwhelming and would love to see it reduced. They want that kind of a streetscape. They don’t want
another wall. To her, it’s Su Lum’s house.
Mr. Kendrick stated that, considering all the aspects, he would be in favor of enough bonus to cover
what they need to do but not the additional bonus to sell off as a TDR. Table the fence discussion until
the final. Approve the project as is without the extra TDR.
Ms. Greenwood stated that the reduction would probably happen in the rear of the house. She does
not agree with staff that it would have to come off that south gable. They’ve stepped back that gable
very nicely. She asked if it is a roof desk.
Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that it’s not, it’s just a roof. They originally wanted a roof desk, but they
didn’t want to put railing or a parapet wall that would make it feel like an even bigger connection
between the two buildings.
Ms. Greenwood asked the commissioners how they all feel about the additional 250 to sell. She does
not think City Council is going to go for it.
Ms. Thompson asked if there is a precedent for selling TDRs on historic properties.
Ms. Simon stated that there is. You are allowed to earn a bonus and sell TDRs. It’s the Commission’s
decision whether they think the bonus is appropriate which facilitates them being able to sell the TDR.
Ms. Sanzone stated that she is in favor of the 250 bonus. They listened to what the Commission
recommended and came back with a plan doing what they asked them to do.
Mr. Moyer stated that he concurs with staff on everything. He would add a condition regarding the
fence to the conditions in the resolution.
Ms. Sanzone stated that she would not support a condition on the fence at this time. She would
encourage them to continue talking with the neighbors and come up with a solution.
Ms. Thompson stated that she thinks it should be considered with the landscape plan.
Ms. Sanzone stated that it should be the same with the tree.
187
16
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019
Ms. Greenwood stated that the tree is something that could just stop this project. She was thinking that
giving some concessions to 1024 might resolve that issue, design-wise. It would be nice if the applicants
had come in with that resolved.
Ms. Sanzone stated that they need more time to resolve the issues of the tree and the fence.
Ms. Greenwood asked if she would do a condition.
Ms. Sanzone stated that she would not for those two items because, technically, they are not a part of
this review. Technically they’re a part of final review.
Ms. Greenwood stated that she doesn’t have a problem with the 250 square foot bonus if there was
more support for this from the community. She asked staff to remind her what their position is on the
TDR.
Ms. Simon stated that they are supportive of it. They would award the bonus and leave it to City Council
to approve the TDR. If they say no to the TDR, that aspect of the bonus would go away.
Ms. Greenwood stated that the tree issue needs to get resolved before City Council.
Ms. Simon stated that the tree issue has nothing to do with HPC’s purview. That sounds like a
complicated discussion that involves Parks and a dispute between neighbors. She does not think HPC
should hinge its decision on that.
Ms. Sanzone stated that they have two paths forward. One is to continue and allow them time to
restudy based on what they’ve heard today. Or they can approve, with the condition that they may ask
them to look at the east elevation to see if there’s any opportunity to create articulation there. It
sounds like they can do that and still be able to create a conceptual approval that covers mass and scale.
She asked if that’s correct.
Ms. Simon stated that usually mass and scale is locked in at final. There certainly could be some
adjustment of a wall or change of fenestration from what the applicants are presenting tonight. There
should not be a noteworthy changing in massing after conceptual.
Ms. Greenwood stated that there may be different views as a board in terms of moving it forward.
Ms. Sanzone asked Ms. Simon if it would be okay if the volume or the mass is reduced.
Ms. Simon stated that the code actually says that HPC cannot ask for changes to the massing at final.
They’ve agreed to it here. It doesn’t say that the applicant can’t make some adjustments. Typically, the
Commission has looked for this to be an approval. They’re just down to materials, windows, and
landscape at final.
188
17
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019
Ms. Greenwood stated that it seems like most of the board are in favor of moving this forward with the
mass that’s been presented and the 250 square foot bonus. She is not clear on the additional bonus
with the 250 square foot bonus to sell for a TDR. She asked if they are making a recommendation to City
Council.
Ms. Simon stated that they are not making a recommendation on the TDR. The Commission would be
facilitating the bonus by granting the floor area, so they should decide whether the majority of them
want to get behind that or not.
Ms. Berko stated that they can do an FAR bonus of 250.
Ms. Greenwood asked if they can still go to City Council if the Commission approves just the 250.
Mr. Kendrick stated that they wouldn’t have the FAR to get the TDR.
Ms. Greenwood asked if they want to have a vote or have more discussion.
Ms. Sanzone stated that she’d like to have more discussion. She is confused about the TDR. The
applicants can choose to use it on the property, which none of the commissioners support. In lieu of
putting more square footage on the property, the applicants are saying they want to get the value of
that because they’ve earned it and this is an avenue for them to pursue, which is to sell it and have
someone else use it on another property. Ms. Sanzone stated that that’s why she supports it because
they’ve chosen not to put it on this property.
Ms. Greenwood stated that they don’t have it on the property. It’s not like the Commission is reducing
the mass on the property. TDR works when people don’t develop to their maximum potential. They are
developing 250 square feet over their maximum potential to begin with. They took that area away, but
that’s their decision. The Commission still needs to give them 250 square feet because they like the
project except for the massive roof. If something could be done there, she would be in favor. We’re not
going to grant them 500 square feet on an undersized lot.
Mr. Moyer asked what the TDR is worth.
Ms. Simon stated that it’s worth about $180,000.
Ms. Thompson stated that they’re doing the 40% demolition, so they’ve taken away the 558 square feet.
They’re getting 250 back.
Ms. Greenwood stated that the site is undersized. It’s maxed out.
Ms. Thompson stated that there are a bunch of lots in the west end that are 3,000 square feet that have
historic homes on them. That’s the standard lot size.
Ms. Simon stated that those homes have received 500 square foot bonuses and they’ve sold TDRs.
189
18
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019
Ms. Thompson stated that she doesn’t think this is very different from those.
Ms. Greenwood stated that there’s a reason why they changed their guidelines.
Ms. Thompson stated that she does believe that they are doing a significant restoration effort by
removing that ‘60’s addition.
Ms. Sanzone stated that she agrees. If this were a larger lot, they would have the ability to use the 500
square feet on the property, but they’ve chosen not to. They still want to realize the value of what
they’re not putting in the design, which is the 250 that they would request from Council to sell.
Ms. Greenwood stated that that’s exactly what they’re asking for. For 250, she thinks that the project
works. And they’re getting a break from employee housing mitigation.
Mr. Kendrick stated that they’re about 300% bigger than the historic resource. So they’re getting stuff.
It’s not like they’re not getting anything for their project.
Ms. Greenwood stated that they filled up the site.
Ms. Thompson stated that, if they approve the 500 square foot bonus, there’s the condition that says if
it’s not sold as a TDR, it can’t be put on the property.
Ms. Greenwood stated that she is not giving them a 500 square foot bonus for this property. She thinks
250 is appropriate. The building can’t really have anymore square footage on it due to the constraints of
the site and the size of it.
Ms. Berko stated that, for her it’s philosophical, regarding what they are representing as a Commission
going forward. Shouldn’t we be the ones who are making the right decisions?
Ms. Greenwood stated that this board has a history of watching these small miner’s buildings get these
large additions on the back and it’s been an issue for the Commission with bonuses because applicants
automatically sought out the 500 square foot bonus and they automatically get it. When you see this
come in over and over, City Council calls them up and moves to take away bonuses including employee
housing and reduce the bonus, it’s because that’s the direction that the community wants to go. It is
their job to be aware of that and be the ones to put that effort into decisions.
Ms. Greenwood would like to see that roof broken up and address the east side of the property.
Ms. Berko stated that she would too, but it either has to happen now or not happen. Unless it’s
continued.
Mr. True stated that the resolution states that HPC approves a 479 square foot floor area bonus.
190
19
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019
Ms. Simon stated that the applicant needs 229 but wants to have the flexibility as they engineer the
project. What if they need ten more square feet? They’re asking for the whole 500. 250 would remain
on site, 250 would go away as a TDR.
Mr. True stated that the number would change to 500 if that’s the direction HPC wants to go. Or it
could say 250, only to be used on site. What someone could do is make a motion to approve it one way
or the other and any other conditions. They could propose amendments to see if they can move this
forward. It seems like there are four votes to move it forward tonight. The remaining discussion is the
floor area bonus. It might be productive to make a motion as they feel is appropriate for that paragraph
in the resolution and whether anybody has any other conditions to add. They could do that through a
motion or through amendment.
Ms. Greenwood stated that, if they move to approve the resolution, it’s the 500 square foot bonus and
they go to City Council.
Mr. True stated that they can make a motion to say that it’s only 250 and there’s no TDR part of it.
Ms. Greenwood stated that she would be in favor of that. She would like to have that roof restudied.
Ms. Thompson stated that the hearing would need to be continued.
Mr. Kendrick stated that he does not think there’s enough support for that tonight.
Ms. Thompson asked if Ms. Greenwood would be in favor of the 500 if that roof was restudied.
Ms. Greenwood stated that she probably would because she doubts that City Council is going to
approve that.
Mr. Moyer asked if we can receive a comment from the architect.
Ms. Greenwood gave her permission.
Ms. Brewster Mcleod stated that they would be willing to back away from the 250 TDR with what
they’ve heard, if they board would be open to that.
Ms. Greenwood stated that this is not an example of what the Commission wants to see. They are doing
what they can to move away from that. Granted, even under the old guidelines, they would continue a
project to get a better design. They always get a better project when they ask for restudy.
MOTION: Ms. Thompson motioned to approve Resolution 21 with the revised floor area bonus of 250
square feet and the condition that the fence and tree will be addressed at final with additional study.
Mr. Moyer seconded.
191
20
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2019
Roll call vote: Mr. Kendrick, yes; Ms. Greenwood, no; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Berko, no; Ms. Sanzone, yes;
Ms. Thompson, yes. 4-2, motion carried.
New Business: HPC Year in Review
Ms. Simon stated that they are doing a quick summary of the year in review. They just started doing this
the last couple of years just to remind the Commission where they’ve been. In 2019, they’ve had 21
meetings. They’ve reviewed 28 projects, 21 resolutions, and eight staff approvals. They have their
annual HPC awards. They had two projects this year, Mesa Store and Sardy House. A number of
commissioners attended the annual conference. Other topics that have come in front of the board:
small cell is continuing on. They’ve had some changes to the HPC benefits, which really dominated the
early part of the year. They recently talked about the dockless mobility policy.
Ms. Simon gave a quick run through of the projects. 506 E Main, the courthouse looks like it’s just really
gone under construction for these accessibility improvements at the front. 931 Gibson is in for permit.
Hotel Jerome, that was the discussion about the artificial grass in the front that was approved. 300 W
Main, the remodel of the log cabin on Main Street is in for permit. 549 Race, this was really just an
approval of a fence, the addition to the property was approved some years ago. 105 E Hallam across
from the Red Brick is a recently approved addition. 302 E Hopkins was also a discussion of artificial grass
that was not approved in front of their property because they had less public use of that space in the
front. 304 E Hopkins, an infill project that’s in for permit. 517 E Hyman came in as an enforcement
issue. They had installed some speakers and wanted heaters in the front. 333 W Bleeker got a
conceptual approval, the Commission will see that pretty soon for final. 135 E Cooper is an existing
addition that went through an approval to be remodeled. 414, 422, that’s Red Onion. That had some
minor exterior changes but a major interior renovation of the upper floor for Jazz Aspen. 616 W Main
was a discussion of TDRs being removed from the property. They got approval to remove three. 301
Lake Avenue was enforcement, they removed the planters that were perched on the wall. They moved
them in front of the window in a location where HPC has less purview. 229 W Smuggler was a recent
discussion of a change to a side deck. 202 E Main has conceptual approval, went through call-up review
and will be coming back to the Commission for final soon. 314 W Main was a minor change to landscape
and marking space in the back. 223 E Hallam is the renovation of Ms. Berko’s old family home.
Ms. Simon addressed projects that have been completed in 2019 so far. 602 E Hyman, the Yellow Brick
and commercial building diagonally across the street. The Mesa Store, Sardy House, renovation of St.
Mary which was mostly interior but HPC did review some exterior work. 980 Gibson Avenue is the other
project that received a CO in 2019 so far.
MOTION: Mr. Kendrick motioned to adjourn the meeting at 7:04 PM. Ms. Thompson seconded. All in
favor, motion carried.
______________________________
Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager
192
RESOLUTION #21,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-oo6
WHEREAS, the applicant, 1020 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.o8o, 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 26.415.11o.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 4 to_2.
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 I I I I I 1111111111111111111111 I I I1111
RECEPTION#: 661468, R: $23.00, D: $0.00
DOC CODE: RESOLUTION HPC Resolution #21, Series of 2019
Pg 1 of 3, 1212612019 at 10:13:29 AM
Page 1 of 3JaniceK.Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO g 193
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
Section 1: Conceptual Major Development Review, Demolition, _Relocation and floor area
bonus
HPC hereby approves the proposed project at 102o 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 250 square foot floor area bonus.
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. The proposed fence design along the west property line, and the status of a request
for the Parks Department to permit a tree removal along the east property line, must
be addressed in more detail as part of the Final Development application.
6. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
0) 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.
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
HPC Resolution #21, Series of 2019
Page 2 of 3
194
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 lith day of December,
2019•
Appro/ecd, #worm: Approved as to Content:
n ria Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Gretckn Gre od, Chair
ATT STS.
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
HPC Resolution #21, Series of 2019
Page 3 of 3
195
December 9th, 2019
Re: 1020 E Cooper Ave Proposal
Dear Historic Preservation Commission Members,
This letter is in regards to the upcoming presentation on December 11th
regarding 1020 E Cooper. As immediate neighbors to 1020 E Cooper, we came in
front of the commission this past summer to express our concerns on the size and
scale of the project. The commission shared our concerns at that time and asked
the architect to make revisions to the plans including conforming to preservation
regulations and making the exterior more pleasing to the neighbors. Since that
time, we want to make sure the commission is aware of the following -
•We reached out to the architect in hopes of having a constructive discussion
on how we could work together to shape plans that both sides would embrace.
The architect was not interested in such a conversation.
•The size and scale of the project is beyond what is allowed and no changes
have been made to make the project more appealing to neighbors.
•It has come to our attention the owners of the property are not intending to
live in it and it is a real estate investment or a "flip." They purchased a
property in the West End in August 2016, remodeled it and flipped it.
•Their plans are dependent on the removal of a tree on the property line
between 1020 and 1024 E Cooper. The homeowners of 1024 E Cooper have
not approved removal of that tree.
Mary Stover 1006 E Cooper
Baron Concors 1024 E Cooper
Laura Sumner 1007 E Hyman
Sincerely,
Scott McDonald 1000 E Cooper
Greg Lucas 1024 E Cooper
Len Horowitz 1024 E Cooper
Joelle McDonough 1007 E Hyman
196
From:Gmail 2
To:Amy Simon
Subject:1020 E. Cooper
Date:Monday, December 9, 2019 10:23:27 AM
Hi Amy,
I have reviewed the November 27 memorandum to HPC from Brewster McLeod Architects
for the proposed project at 1020 E. Cooper. It was my understanding that this would be
reviewed by HPC at a public meeting on Wednesday December 11, but I find no such meeting
scheduled on the city of Aspen website. The message on the website is “no meetings are
currently scheduled for the week of 12/09/2019 - 02/07/2020." Will there be a public meeting
on Wednesday to review this project? Also, has staff prepared a memo related to this project
submittal, and if so, will you please provide a copy?
As a direct neighbor living at 1012 E. Cooper, and president of the Cooper Avenue Victorian's
HOA, I have some serious concerns about the scale and design elements of this project:
The 6’ solid privacy fencing proposed on the west side, which then connects to this
historic cottage at roughly the mid-point of the side of the house, seems inappropriate
based on HPC’s design guidelines and will create a visual barrier that detracts from the
historic resource and is wholly inconsistent with historic design.
The tall privacy fence will create a visual barrier on the west side that is particularly
detrimental to our property owners due to the fact that a portion of our building adjacent
to this property is only about 1.5 feet from the lot line. This situation exists because of a
revised property line that resulted from an adverse possession action by the prior owners
of 1020 E. Cooper. Our property on this side also slopes down from 1020 and the 6’
solid barrier will have the appearance of being even taller from our perspective.
The proposed tall (6’-7”) outdoor brick fireplace wall is a visual barrier that will detract
from the historic resource and is completely unnecessary given that a nice outdoor fire
element for the patio area can easily be accomplished without such a structure.
The west side addition for the proposed dining area extends will beyond the width of the
historic resource which is not consistent with the design guidelines an should not be
permitted given that there is no hardship to create reasonable dining space that fits
within the width of the historic cottage.
The overall above-ground additions, including connector, living space and garage, are
well out of scale with the historic resource, encompassing 2,302 SF while this historic
cottage is only 509 SF, a factor of 4.5 times this size of the historic. Again, this large
addition is inconsistent with the design guidelines and inevitably creates a visual which
dwarfs and detracts from the historic resource.
I have been told by some neighbors that if the applicants do not receive the approval for this
project, they may seek to withdraw the historic designation and proceed with a project that
would not require HPC approval. While I would think there is a high barrier to removing a
house from the historic registry so that a development can proceed without the restrictions of
HPC, the practical fact is that if the historic designation were to be removed, this 4,379 SF lot
falls below the minimum size requirements (6,000 SF gross lot size) per the RMF zoning
regulations. With the historic designation, these rules are reduced to 3,000 SF minimum size.
I’m wondering how any possible development could proceed if the historic designation were
197
removed. Clearly, there would be no hardship argument, since the very act of removing the
historic designation would create the hardship.
I look forward to your response. Thank you.
Michael Smith
713 703-6501 (cell)
msmith1012e@gmail.com
198
From:Bukk Carleton
To:Sarah Yoon; Amy Simon
Subject:Appeal- 1020 E Cooper Plans
Date:Monday, December 9, 2019 9:53:55 AM
Dear HPC Committee:
As an abutter of 1020 E Cooper, I have reviewed their most recent round of plans. My initialreaction is that the owners are sophisticated buyers who knew fully well the limits to whichthey could expand prior to purchasing this property and now they have come in with requests
for massive increases in the square footage.
It appears to me that their series of changes have been relatively insignificant (such asdropping the peak line by 1’) and it seems their objective is to just wear out the staff until they
agree to something way beyond the limits imposed by Aspen. If Aspen has limits and choosesto ignore them, then why have them at all? Why is the City not enforcing their limits?
All the reasons submitted by the developer and noted as “significant” by the staff for grantingtheir request to provide excess SF is nothing more than what any developer would argue in
trying to get a plan approved around City requirements.
I have other concerns:
1) An attached garage is certainly not historic, yet the staff is recommending approving it as a“modern necessity”. By designing a massive master bedroom on top of the garage, is certainlyfar beyond anything historic.
2) While a high-pitched roof in the front might be warranted against in order to keep the feel ofthe existing building, a high-pitched roof in the back makes no sense. On the most recentrendition, the owners show a lower pitch for approximately 1/3 of the roof so all that high
pitch does is block the neighbor’s windows and views.
3) Finally, by placing the fence on their property line, they are now limiting the area to merely1’ between our 1012 building and their fence. This makes it impossible to use a ladder for
painting or window work on that side of the building or even for a person to squeeze inbetween the fence and the building and of course, prevents even a lawn mower to be able to gofrom front to back. It should be noted that a) it makes our property’s visibility non-conforming with Aspen regulations and b) that the former owner gained an extra 4.5’ of landthrough a claim of adverse possession which was quite questionable at the time.
Hopefully, these comments will be addressed and will result in real changes by the applicantto design their building to be a positive addition to our neighborhood.
Best regards, Bukk Carleton
1012 E Cooper Avenue Unit #2
--
Bukk G. Carleton President
Landtect Corporation
21 Technology Drive Suite 6
West Lebanon, NH 03784
603-298-9999
603-298-5065 (fax)
bgcarleton@gmail.com
199
From:Bukk Carleton
To:Amy Simon
Subject:Re: Appeal- 1020 E Cooper Plans
Date:Wednesday, December 11, 2019 8:38:43 AM
Dear HPC Committee Members:
As a follow up to my letter on Monday, the two major concerns that jump out at me (and I would hope to
the HPC committee) are the following:
1) The additional floor above the garage being utilized for a large closet and another unnecessary use can
easily be either eliminated or moved to the ground floor. While one does not want to tell a neighbor how
to live their lives, it would be a great benefit to the remaining neighborhood if this floor was either
eliminated or significantly reduced so that the property could become closer to compliance with
regulations and also by removing this space from the 2nd floor, it allows neighbors to enjoy their present
views.
2) The fence, as presently described, is not close to being compliant with historic fences which were only
3’ high and did not block out the visibility between neighbors. There is no existing fence on the 1012 &
1020 property line at this point in time. It is certainly an unneighborly use of 1020’s property to put a
fence on its property line obtained under questionable methods so that 1012’s property cannot be utilized
for maintenance of its building with only one foot between the fence and the side of 1012. It is also
unneighborly to construct a 6’ high fence one foot away from the windows of 1012. We’d like to get that
fence put back from 1020’s property line if it is a major requirement of the owner and we’d like it reduced
to a historic height of 3’.
We hope these comments will be given consideration at tonight’s meeting.
Best regards, Bukk Carleton
Danny, Patrick
On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 6:03 PM Amy Simon <amy.simon@cityofaspen.com> wrote:
Hi- just letting you know that I received this and will forward to the HPC.
From: Bukk Carleton <bgcarleton@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2019 9:54 AM
To: Sarah Yoon <sarah.yoon@cityofaspen.com>; Amy Simon
<amy.simon@cityofaspen.com>
Subject: Appeal- 1020 E Cooper Plans
Dear HPC Committee:
As an abutter of 1020 E Cooper, I have reviewed their most recent round of plans. My initial
reaction is that the owners are sophisticated buyers who knew fully well the limits to which
they could expand prior to purchasing this property and now they have come in with
requests for massive increases in the square footage.
200
It appears to me that their series of changes have been relatively insignificant (such as
dropping the peak line by 1’) and it seems their objective is to just wear out the staff until
they agree to something way beyond the limits imposed by Aspen. If Aspen has limits and
chooses to ignore them, then why have them at all? Why is the City not enforcing their
limits?
All the reasons submitted by the developer and noted as “significant” by the staff for
granting their request to provide excess SF is nothing more than what any developer would
argue in trying to get a plan approved around City requirements.
I have other concerns:
1) An attached garage is certainly not historic, yet the staff is recommending approving it as
a “modern necessity”. By designing a massive master bedroom on top of the garage, is
certainly far beyond anything historic.
2) While a high-pitched roof in the front might be warranted against in order to keep the feel
of the existing building, a high-pitched roof in the back makes no sense. On the most recent
rendition, the owners show a lower pitch for approximately 1/3 of the roof so all that high
pitch does is block the neighbor’s windows and views.
3) Finally, by placing the fence on their property line, they are now limiting the area to
merely 1’ between our 1012 building and their fence. This makes it impossible to use a
ladder for painting or window work on that side of the building or even for a person to
squeeze in between the fence and the building and of course, prevents even a lawn mower to
be able to go from front to back. It should be noted that a) it makes our property’s visibility
non-conforming with Aspen regulations and b) that the former owner gained an extra 4.5’ of
land through a claim of adverse possession which was quite questionable at the time.
Hopefully, these comments will be addressed and will result in real changes by the applicant
to design their building to be a positive addition to our neighborhood.
Best regards, Bukk Carleton
1012 E Cooper Avenue Unit #2
--
Bukk G. Carleton President
Landtect Corporation
21 Technology Drive Suite 6
West Lebanon, NH 03784
603-298-9999
603-298-5065 (fax)
bgcarleton@gmail.com
201
--
Bukk G. Carleton President
Landtect Corporation
21 Technology Drive Suite 6
West Lebanon, NH 03784
603-298-9999
603-298-5065 (fax)
bgcarleton@gmail.com
202