Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20230524AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION May 24, 2023 4:30 PM, City Council Chambers - 3rd Floor 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 I.ROLL CALL II.MINUTES II.A Draft Minutes - 4/26/23 III.PUBLIC COMMENTS IV.COMMISSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS V.DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI.PROJECT MONITORING VI.A 227 E. Bleeker- Project Monitoring VI.B Project Monitor List VII.STAFF COMMENTS VIII.CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT ISSUED IX.CALL UP REPORTS X.SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS XI.OLD BUSINESS XI.A 205 W. Main Street- Minor Development and Relocation, CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO JUNE 14TH minutes.hpc.20230426_DRAFT.docx 227 E Bleeker Project Monitoring Memo May 2023.pdf Attachment_Applicant Proposal.pdf PROJECT MONITORING.doc 1 1 XII.NEW BUSINESS XII.A Mobile tour (by van) of HPC projects XIII.ADJOURN XIV.NEXT RESOLUTION NUMBER TYPICAL PROCEEDING FORMAT FOR ALL PUBLIC HEARINGS (1 Hour, 10 Minutes for each Major Agenda Item) 1. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest (at beginning of agenda) 2. Presentation of proof of legal notice (at beginning of agenda) 3. Applicant presentation (20 minutes) 4. Board questions and clarifications of applicant (5 minutes) 5. Staff presentation (5 minutes) 6. Board questions and clarifications of staff (5 minutes) 7. Public comments (5 minutes total, or 3 minutes/ person or as determined by the Chair) 8. Close public comment portion of hearing 9. Applicant rebuttal/clarification (5 minutes) 10. Staff rebuttal/clarification (5 minutes) End of fact finding. Chairperson identifies the issues to be discussed. 11. Deliberation by the commission and findings based on criteria commences. No further input from applicant or staff unless invited by the Chair. Staff may ask to be recognized if there is a factual error to be corrected. If the item is to be continued, the Chair may provide a summary of areas to be restudied at their discretion, but the applicant is not to re-start discussion of the case or the board’s direction. (20 minutes) 12. Motion Updated: November 15, 2021 2 2 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 26TH, 2023 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Peter Fornell, Roger Moyer, Jodi Surfas, Jeffery Halferty and Kara Thompson. Commissioners not in attendance: Ms. Pitchford Staff present: Amy Simon, Planning Director PJ Murray, Civil Engineer I Sarah Roy, Red Brick Council of the Arts Director Ben Anderson, Deputy Director of Community Development Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mr. David Scruggs commented on his repeated requests for HPC to hold hybrid meetings. He noted that there were many other people who would appreciate the ability to attend virtually or in person. He mentioned that he had appeared in front of City Council with this request and will continue to do so. He said that the City Council holds fully hybrid meetings and has complete transparency. Ms. Marsha Dowler supported Mr. Scruggs comments and request for hybrid meetings. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Ms. Thompson said she didn’t believe there was a member of HPC that didn’t support having hybrid meetings. Mr. Moyer agreed with Mr. Scruggs and thought in the modern age holding hybrid meetings should be possible. Mr. Halferty echoed some of the concerns regarding holding hybrid meetings, but acknowledged it was a staffing issue. He saw why it could be frustrating, as City Council holds hybrids meetings, but he recognized that it was the board’s current protocol, and he stands by staff’s direction on it. He also noted that it was nice to see some construction happening on the Main St. Bakery site. Mr. Fornell addressed the public comments and hoped that they hesitate to use the word transparency when speaking to City Council and staff as he did not believe that this Board is trying to do anything that is less than transparent. He thought it was more of a topic of public comment availability rather than transparency. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Simon if they needed to reassign any of Ms. Sanzone’s project, as she had resigned from the Commission. Ms. Simon said she would need to reassign 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 26TH, 2023 a few projects that Ms. Sanzone was the sole monitor on but would be reaching out to Commissioners soon. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Simon stated that she had approved two certificates of no negative effect. One for 530 W. Hallam where a lightwell was requested on the interior of the property. The other was for 332 W. Main to add a new ADA ramp onto the porch. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Johnson wanted to commend Ms. Simon as today marks her 30th year with the City of Aspen. There was a big round of applause. Ms. Simon reiterated that Ms. Sanzone had resigned her seat on HPC due to too many commitments. She then noted that on May 5th there will be a site visit to 835 W. Main St. as it is being considered for the National Registry of Historic Places. She also wanted to make sure HPC was aware that staff is getting close to issuing permits for a number of projects along Cooper Avenue from the Restoration Hardware building, to the other end of the block. The entire length of the block besides Aspen Sports is about to go under renovation. Since there is limited access to the sites, construction fencing will be installed on the length of the north side of the mall to allow construction vehicles access. Summary of City Council approval for Temporary Art downtown: Ms. Roy started by introducing herself and Ms. Murray and described the project itself. It is a public art project set to be installed in June and is a partnership with the Aspen Ideas Festival. It will be a pavement art mural. Similar projects have been shown to improve pedestrian safety and can enhance the neighborhood. It will also be a community-based project, with members of the public invited to help create the mural. She then went over the details of the installation at Mill and Hyman. Mr. Halferty asked about the project’s duration. Ms. Roy said the expectation is for it to last into the winter, but it is based on traffic and snowplow activity. Ms. Murray stated that the proposed paint is low toxicity and lead free. Ms. Surfas said she thought it was a great idea and was excited to see it. Mr. Fornell said he didn’t buy into it and while they say it will add to pedestrian safety, they are creating something for a driver of a vehicle to look at instead of traffic and for pedestrians to stop in the middle of the road and get their picture taken. He thought this would actually be a traffic generator. He then asked how long the impact to parking spaces and pedestrian access would be during the installation. Ms. Roy said it should be about 4-5 hours on Saturday, June 24th and then from about 8am to 6pm on Sunday, June 25th. CALL UP REPORTS: None. SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson said that she reviewed public notice, and that notice was provided per the code for agenda item. NEW BUSINESS: 205 W. Main Street- Minor Development and Relocation, PUBLIC HEARING Ms. Johnson went over the history regarding this project. She noted that an application came before HPC for this property several months ago. That particular application has been withdrawn. She wanted 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 26TH, 2023 to advise the members that now there is a new application and their decisions should be based on the information presented in the new application and public comment related to the new application. She cautioned against using information that may have been gained in a prior application to make decisions regarding the new application. She noted that the new application was submitted under a new provision in the Land Use Code and the applicant is entitled to request a review under those procedures. Applicant Presentation:Stan Clauson, Clauson Rawley Associates Mr. Clauson began by going over some of the background of the project including the original location of the building and the relocation to its current location in 1949. He noted that it sits on an approximately 7,500 square foot a lot which is effectively 2.5 townsite lots. It was purchased in 2021 in order to pursue an affordable housing project. He also noted that one of City Council’sgoals is affordable housing. Next, he went over the details of the relocation of the historic asset on the lot and noted that no variances are required, and it is fully in compliance with setback requirements. He then showed site plans showing the current location and then the proposed relocation to the NE corner of the property. The relocation will reduce the asset’s footprint to one historic townsite lot. He detailed the removal of non-historic additions and sheds on the property and noted that no additional floor area is part of this request. He stated that all Historic Preservation Guidelines are met, and all Zoning setback requirements are met. He went over the floor plan detailing the non-historic additions that are planned to be removed. He showed a few pictures of the non-historic shed and trash enclosure that will also be removed. Next, he went over in detail the conditions included in the resolution and the applicant’s responses to each of the conditions. In this he detailed dividing the proposed lightwell on the Northwest corner of the historic resource and he described the landscape plan. He finished by stating they believe that they have met all the conditions of approval and that this would be a benefit to the City and the community by supporting an eventual affordable housing application and by the restoration of a historic Victorian in a highly visible location. Ms. Thompson asked about the location of the proposed fence and if the intent was for it to be on the property line, to which Mr. Clauson said yes, it would be on the property line. Staff Presentation:Amy Simon - Planning Director Ms. Simon started by reviewing the process that is in front of HPC. She went over the new section of Growth Management Code that facilitated this review. For this project to come before HPC staff had to make sure that the historic resource would be fully detached from any new construction, that all non- historic additions on the resource would be removed and no new additions would be added to the resource. The historic structure would also need a 10-foot buffer around it. She said it was important to note that under the new Land Use Code HPC, in their review of the relocation, may not deny the relocation, but shall determine the location of the historic resource that best meets the City’s Historic Preservation Design Guidelines while accommodating the allowed development rights of the property. 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 26TH, 2023 She then went over the two review steps in the process. This hearing is the first step, and the second step is an administrative review of another application that would go over transportation mitigation, affordable housing credits, zoning requirements with no variance requests, and a limited design review conducted by herself and Ms. Thompson. She noted one of the successes of this project and why it was created is that it places the historic resource as a free-standing building, prominently located at the corner of the site. The are few examples in town where the preservation of a historic resource with no future additions has been secured. Next, she went over the details of each condition included in the resolution. She said that staff supports the project and find that the scope of work meets the guidelines and criteria in front of HPC. Ms. Thompson asked why a full preservation plan was not required or included. Ms. Simon mentioned it is usually something that HPC requires, and it could be added to the resolution. Mr. Halferty asked about the guidelines related to the relocation that staff is looking at in their recommendation. Ms. Simon detailed the criteria needed to be met, highlighting Criteria #4 and went over staff’s reasoning. PUBLIC COMMENT: Mr. David Scruggs asked if the basement was proposed to be expanded. Ms. Simon said that the existing basement will be fully demolished and new basement, limited to the footprint of the historic resource is proposed. Mr. Clauson said that the new basement would be structurally necessary to be under the entire footprint but was not sure if that would be an expansion. Mr. Scruggs said he asked the question because the new procedure does not allow any additions to be added. He claimed that the new basement would expand the square footage and thus be an addition. Next, he provided each of the HPC members a few handouts (added to packet as Exhibit C) that provide an overview of his comments. He then spoke to the idea of balance. Balance between the preservation of a historic resource and affordable housing. He said that he thought the reason for the relocation of the historic resource was to build nine affordable housing units, consisting of 22 bedrooms and 7 parking spaces. He said he wanted any affordable housing to be livable and to respect the historic resource. He did not think this project accomplishes those things. He asked that the proposed movement of the historic resource to 10 feet from the property line be adjusted to 17 feet from the property line. He also commented on other historic resources surrounding this project and their relative setback distances. He expressed his concerns about the drainage on the site. Ms. Marsha Dowler asked for the slide showing the site plan of the current location and proposed relocation of the historic resource be displayed again. She then went on to comment that the historic is being shoehorned with the relocation. She asked that this project be focused on protecting the historic resource and the proposed relocation of the resource contradicts this. She also noted the traditional setbacks that exist on neighboring historic properties. Mr. Clauson responded to the public comments by addressing the proposed location and clarified distances from the sidewalks and setbacks. He said that bringing the resource forward to the front setback is in line with the concept of build to lines. He invited Mr. Brian Beasley from DJ architects to address the comments regarding the proposed new basement. Mr. Beasley noted that the removal of the non-historic additions would be about a wash with any additional square footage of the new basement. Mr. Clauson said the clear intent was that there would not be a visible addition that affected the historic resource. 6 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 26TH, 2023 Mr. Fornell asked if there was additional City right of way space between the edge of the sidewalk and the lot line. Mr. Clauson said yes. Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Simon if in their review of the foundation that any below grade work must conform with the code whether it expands the basement or not. Ms. Simon said there is a section of the design guidelines that addresses additions, and it is very directed to above grade construction. Ms. Johnson further clarified the design guideline regarding additions and noted the language talks about additions and not additional square footage. Mr. Fornell asked that if any additions, above or below grade are proposed in the future that are conforming to setbacks that HPC would not see it. Ms. Simon stated that there will not be an opportunity to make an addition to this structure in the future which is what facilitated this process. Mr. Halferty asked about the additional floor area created in the basement and if it complies with the new code changes in this application. Ms. Simon again stated that in the design guidelines it was never the intent to consider a basement as an addition in this process. She further explained that if there was some way to add loft space inside the existing structure it would not be considered an addition, even though it is adding floor area. Ms. Thompson invited Mr. Scruggs to provide additional comments. Mr. Scruggs read the section of the new code related to this process, noting that all non-historic additions must be removed, and that no new addition will be made to the historic resource. He again claimed that the additional basement space is an addition. Mr. Clauson responded saying that the foundation being proposed is not the historic resource. The historic resource is what is visible above grade, and the resource is what HPC is charged with protecting. BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson started the board discussion by reviewing the items before the Board. She went on to provide her thoughts. She wanted the requirement of a full preservation plan be added to the resolution and she thought the front lightwell should not be on the same plane as the front wall of the resource. She also thought that more information regarding floor area and the basement will need to be addressed during the staff review to verify conformance with the Land Use Code. She believed that this does meet their criteria for relocation because this is not the original location of the resource, and she is ok with the relocation. She then clarified her thoughts regarding the lightwell location. Mr. Fornell noted that he was ok with the relocation and Ms. Thompson’s request that a full preservation plan be included in the resolution. Ms. Surfas commented that while the resource was moved to this lot and is not in its historic location, it has been in the current location for approximately 70 years. She was not in support of the relocation. She was ok with it moving, but thought it was going too far in both directions. She did think they should have a full preservation plan. Mr. Halferty said he was fully in favor of affordable housing. He said he understood the new code provisions and that HPC needs to comply with what is in front of them. He understood the applicants’ and neighbors’ concerns and hoped that there was a happy medium to be reached. He referenced the relocation guidelines and agreed with Ms. Surfas that they can approve the movement, but it depends 7 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 26TH, 2023 on how far. He agreed that a preservation plan should be required and with Ms. Thompson’s thoughts on the lightwell location. He also said that adding housing will always have an effect on open space and transportation and parking and that there is some room for give and take on this. He also agreed with Ms. Surfas again and thought there could be a compromise on the relocation. Mr. Moyer started by reviewing some of the history of other projects, some that included the addition of affordable housing. In this he described the Paepcke estate and 834 W. Hallam. He admitted that he voted in favor of the affordable housing project at 834 W. Hallam but thought that once complete HPC totally blew it with the Poppies project at that address. He went on to explain more of his thoughts on that project and the loss, in his mind, of the historic resource there. He noted the dilemma between historic preservation and affordable housing. He thought that the applicant and the City staff have deceived and been disrespectful to this board. He was disappointed that a two-person administrative review can take place here and said that he was very disappointed in the City government and staff. He thought they might as well dissolve the HPC. He said they should vote no on this and throw it in Council’s face. He wanted to know if employee housing is going to take precedence over historic preservation. Ms. Thompson responded to Mr. Moyer’s comments saying that she had participated in almost every meeting related to this code adjustment and was the only HPC member present. City Council’s direction to staff was to remove HPC’s purview on most of these items. Mr. Anderson asked Chairperson Thompson to address some commissioner comments. He said he respected the commissioner’s position on this but reminded them that they had a very robust and open conversation with HPC about this exact process and why they were doing it. He said they would not have gone to City Council without a recommendation from HPC about the process. He wanted to put on the record that they had received support from HPC on this. Mr. Moyer wanted to note that in those meetings he had commented that conceptually he liked the idea and was mainly thinking of a situation regarding a historic piece of land and not a historic piece of land with a historic house on it. He stated that Council needs to look at this as it is a very distressing situation. Mr. Fornell said he had paid very close attention to all the discussions preceding the new code adoption. He reminded the members that they have, in the past, approved the relocation of a historic resource from its original location to the setback lines in order to facilitate affordable housing, setting a precedent here. He thought the applicant has an appropriate relocation plan that gives the historic resource prominence next to the street but not in the setbacks and urged the board to approve the relocation as proposed. Ms. Thompson said she heard Mr. Moyer’s comments, but they cannot relitigate the code with this application. She did think there was an opportunity to discuss it further with Council. She wanted to confirm that Ms. Surfas and Mr. Halferty did not support the proposed relocation and wanted to understand what they would be in support of. Mr. Halferty said he hadn’t seen the streetscape or contextual information and just thought it was pushed as a chess move to plan for the next move. Mr. Moyer concurred with Mr. Halferty. 8 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 26TH, 2023 Ms. Thompson said, knowing that three members agree that the relocation is too far forward, she wanted to be able to provide the applicant with some specific information on what they would like to see to move forward. MOTION: Mr. Fornell moved to approve the resolution with the addition of the preservation plan to the existing conditions. Ms. Thompson seconded with the addition of the movement of the lightwell. Roll call vote:Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, no; Ms. Surfas, no; Mr. Halferty, no; Ms. Thompson, yes. 2-3 vote, motion does not pass. Ms. Johnson reminded the members that HPC cannot deny relocation but can determine an appropriate setting for the historic structure that best meets the historic preservation guidelines. Ms. Thompson said she had heard and could support Mr. Halferty’s request to see more context. There was further discussion about the request of the applicant to restudy the siting of the relocation and present it in relation to the context of Main St. Mr. Halferty agreed with the request for a restudy and said the siting needs to be consistent with the Main St. district, not just this historic lot. Ms. Surfas agreed with Mr. Halferty regarding the context of the district. Ms. Johnson asked if the board was suggesting a motion for continuance. Mr. Clauson said he was not clear what the point of a continuance was. He asked if the board was planning on deliberating on the question of what they would accept. Ms. Johnson said she understood that the board was requesting more information to better understand what the context is and maybe some reconsideration based upon the comments that have been heard. Ms. Thompson tried to clarify what she had heard from some of the members. She said they are looking for contextual studies of the neighborhood and the Main St. historic district showing the relationships to surrounding structures. She thought it was an appropriate ask for more context to be provided to help make their decisions. Mr. Clauson said they could provide more context. He also wanted to point out that zoning provides for a 10-foot setback and any non-historic building on Main St. could be built at this 10-foot setback. He said that if this historic resource were to be pushed back further for some reason it could find itself setback further than the surrounding buildings and receding in prominence and character. Mr. Fornell stated that the farther they push the resource back the less prominence it has. Mr. Halferty motioned to continue this item to May 24th at 4:30pm to provide more contextual language as far as the Main St. historic district that helps the board understand the relocation and addressing Ms. Thompson’s concerns regarding the placement of the lightwell. Ms. Thompson seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, no; Mr. Moyer, no; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 3-2 vote, motion passes. ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor; motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk 9 Page 1 of 1 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Planning Director MEETING DATE: May 24, 2023 RE: 227 E. Bleeker- Project Monitoring BACKGROUND: HPC Staff and Project Monitor Jeff Halferty have been engaged in reviewing and approving a number of clarifications to the rehabilitation/expansion of a Victorian era resource currently under construction at 227 E. Bleeker, particularly as removal of non-historic finishes have created unexpected opportunities for restoration. The property owner has goals for energy efficiency for the new home that would be advanced by adding a significant number of solar panels. Solar panels were not presented during the HPC design review process. Staff and monitor have approved panels to be installed on the new addition to the historic resource, but require HPC input on the proposal to place panels on a south (alley facing) roof plane and a shallow pitched roof which are both part of the historic resource itself. The design guideline applicable to this discussion is: 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. • Skylights and solar panels are generally not allowed on a historic structure. These elements may be appropriate on an addition. RECOMMENDATION: This project is on a mid-block lot. Adjacent development prevents views deep into the property, where the proposed panels are located. Staff supports the request, finding that the design guideline to minimize visual impact is met. ATTACHMENTS: Applicant proposal 10 501 E. Hyman Ave, Suite 201 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252 May 17, 2023 Amy Simon Historic Preservation Officer Members of the Commission City of Aspen Community Development Department 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 227 E Bleeker Street Request for solar panels on a historic roof Dear Amy and Commission Members, Thank you for taking the time to let us come before you again on this charming little miner’s cabin home. A little back story on the owner of this property, Ken Hubbard, as I believe this information will be insightful for you as we go through our presentation. I have included Ken’s bio at the end of this letter. He has been a pleasure to work with and truly an inspiration for all of the team to strive for excellence. Ken Hubbard has been working in the building industry for decades. In his vast experience with construction means and methods he became very concerned with sustainability. Ken brings a passionate concern about the environment and energy savings to his personal home in this project. From the beginning of our work together, Ken has been adamant about doing everything with sustainability in the forefront of decision making. His goal is to get a LEED Platinum rating for this historic home. This is an admirable and ambitious goal, and we are getting very close to making this happen. Ken also hopes that his historic renovation will become a model for other projects; showing that historic preservation and energy conservation and doing what is right for the environment can be done; and done well. We have completed substantial research and work with many professionals and have a construction team eager to get us to LEED Platinum. We are also aware that the City of Aspen has ambitious goals of its own; goals that are very much in alignment with our team. The new code is heading in the direction of requiring homes to be all electric or “electric ready” as we move towards net zero as a community in the coming years. 11 501 E. Hyman Ave, Suite 201 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252 To achieve our ambitious goal, we have gone back to the drawing board numerous times to change, adjust and tweak our mechanical systems to be the most energy efficient. Ken wants to have a fully electric home, as he sees that is where the building science is headed. We have included a solar system to offset as much of his consumption as possible. This is where you all come in. We need to get as many solar panels on the roof of this home as is physically possible to meet our goals of offsetting 50% of our energy use. We submitted plans for approval for solar panels on the roof of the addition and on the flat roof of the historic last year. It has come to our attention with our solar studies and the strict regulations from LEED that we need more solar energy to get us across the finish line. So, we are asking now, for approval to put solar panels on the south side of the gable roof of the historic cabin. These panels will not be seen from Bleeker Street as they face South and they will be set flat against the slope of the roof. The panels on the “flat roof” will also be nearly flat so they will be hidden by the small parapet walls on each side of this ‘flat’ roof. By placing these panels at the same slope as the roof at 1/12, we can double the number of panels as they will not shade each other or the panels on the gabled roof; and will be doubling the capacity of this section of the solar array. Please see the following diagrams, calculations and 3D rendered images that support our request. We realize solar panels on an historic structure have only been approved a few times by HPC, but we are confident that you will agree with us that this is important for not just this home, but for the environment and to help the City of Aspen to reach the goal of net zero; creating a model for other renovation projects as we respect and preserve our history, while at the same time, protecting our future. Thank you so much for your consideration of this very important subject and for your support of Aspen’s energy future. We have also included a letter that support our request from those concerned with sustainability. Exhibit A. Bio of Ken Hubbard Exhibit B. Letter from Russell Unger Exhibit C. Letter from Roger Platt, USGBC Respectfully yours, Kim Raymond Kim Raymond AIA Kim Raymond Architecture + Interiors 12 Ken Hubbard Senior Advisor Hines 400 North Flagler Drive Waterview Towers 1004 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Cell: (917) 538-7724 Ken.hubbard@hines.com Since joining Hines in 1974, Ken has been involved in all phases of development, management and acquisition activities. Ken is a founding member of the Hines Executive Committee (1985- 2010). In January 2009 Ken transitioned from his EVP/CEO position to become an entrepreneurial partner with Hines, and Ken is working on various projects initiatives for the East Coast, Southeast and other regions. He is an Honorary Life Member of the Urban Land Institute and was a Trustee of the Urban Land Institute (1998-2001; 2003-2009; 2010-2015). Ken was Vice Chairman of ULI’s Greenprint Center for Building Performance (2007-2010), Previously, Ken served as Founding Chair of the ULI’s Climate, Land Use, and Environmental Committee (“CLUE”) (2007-2010). Ken is a Trustee Emeritus of Duke University where he served as a Trustee from 2005 to 2013. He served on the Facilities and Environment and Audit Committees. He is on the Advisory Board of the Nicholas School of the Environment. Ken served on the Duke Trinity Board of Visitors (1994-2000) and also served as Chairman (1999-2000). In addition, he has been a Trustee of the Greenwich Country Day School (1985-1991) and the Loomis Chaffee School (1994-1997). Ken serves on the board of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute of Sausalito, CA. (2003-Present) Ken is graduate of Duke University where he earned his B.A. in 1965. Ken went on to Georgetown University Law School, where he earned his Juris Doctor degree in 1968. 13 14 May 10, 2023 Dear Members of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, I write in support of the efforts to restore and retrofit - to the highest global environmental standards - 227 Bleeker Street in Aspen, Colorado. My ambitions for this project are from a genuine, personal commitment to historic preservation, stemming from a lifetime of interest. In the early 20th century my grandfather, Roger Platt built a beautiful simple cabin in the tiny town of Placerville, 15 miles from Telluride, Colorado under the Homestead Act and it was demolished in the 1960s before preservation laws had taken hold. Ironically that was not the case for buildings created by his father the architect Charles Adams Platt. In the 19thCentury and early 20th century, Charles Platt designed multiple single-family homes, apartment buildings institutional buildings (e.g., the first Art Museum on the Mall in Washington DC/Freer Art Gallery). Many of these have since been designated as historic landmarks and have been beautifully preserved and retrofitted to modern levels of environmental performance. Another of Charles Platt’s sons, Geoffrey Platt was the first chair of the New York city Landmark’s Preservation Commission and a major force behind New York’s groundbreaking historic preservation law. This is personal. My entire family remains deeply committed to this issue as do I as a member of the Center for Architecture in New York. At the same time, I believe with all my heart that historic preservation and sustainability are naturally aligned and mutually reinforcing goals. As you all know, despite the great achievements in green building technology, the most environmentally responsible building, is not normally the “new build” but the one that is preserved and retrofitted to modern standards of environmental performance. Indeed, I know this to be true in part because of the 12 years I have spent an executive at the U.S. Green Building, the creator and administrator of the LEED Rating System used in 175 countries. Over those 12 years, I have had many occasions to see the synergy between the highest, modern (even futuristic) levels of sustainability performance and historic preservations. In fact, among the many historic buildings certified to LEED was a Venetian Gothic palace built in 1453 that is now Headquarters to Ca’Foscari University, or closer to home, the Fay House Built in 1807 as a private residence and later re-purposed as the first permanent building for Radcliffe University in Cambridge, MA. The Empire State and (may favorite) the Chrysler Building are both LEED certified. I am confident with the good will and constructive thinking of this Commission, we can make sure that the proposed solar panels on the Miner’s cottage can achieve the highest 15 levels of measured environmental performance while preserving an important historic legacy. Please let me know if our organization can provide any further support to this important project. At the end of the day as a country, we need now - more than ever - exemplars of how to do this integration of historic preservation and carbon-neutrality right. I am confident in a City as progressive on these matters as Aspen, you will find an inspiring way forward. Thank you. Roger Platt Senior Vice-President U.S. Green Building Council 2101 L Street NW Washington, DC 20037 16 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTURE+INTERIORS 418 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 201 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-2252 227 E. BLEEKER S TREET, ASPEN CO SOL AR PANEL L AYOUTCONCRETE SIDEWALKEFG2.503.501.5H31A 5.115°15°105°75°CBA421DPROPERTY LINEPROPERT Y LINE SETBACK LINE SETBACK LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINE PROPERT Y LINE PROPERTY LINEROOF 1 ROOF 2 ROOF 5 ROOF 3 ROOF 4 ROOF PL AN - PROPOSED SOL AR ARRAY SOL AR PANEL C ALCUL ATIONS 17 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTURE+INTERIORS 418 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 201 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-2252 227 E. BLEEKER S TREET, ASPEN CO SOL AR S TUDY1A 5.11A 5.11A 5.115°105°75°DECEMBER 21 (APROX. 13.58°)JUNE 21 (ELEVATION: 46.81°)MARC H 21 (ELEVATION: 31.13°) * SIMIL AR FOR AUGUST 21 SUN PATH SOL AR C HART Aspen, Colorado - Latitude: 39° 11'27.9528" - Longitude: 106° 49' 3.1404"W SOL AR EXPOSURE DURING THE YEAR ROOF PL AN + WES T ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION ROOF PL AN WEST ELEVATION ROOF PL AN WEST ELEVATION ROOF PL AN 18 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTURE+INTERIORS 418 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 201 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-2252 227 E. BLEEKER S TREET, ASPEN CO 3D VIEWS ROOF PL AN (SOL AR PANELS WON'T BE VISIBLE FROM S TREET) FRONT VIEW EAS T VIEW FROM S TREET EAS T VIEW FROM S TREET 19 HPC PROJECT MONITORS -projects in bold are permitted or under construction 5/17/2023 Kara Thompson 931 Gibson 300 E. Hyman 201 E. Main 333 W. Bleeker 234 W. Francis Skier’s Chalet Steakhouse 423 N. Second 135 E. Cooper 101 W. Main (Molly Gibson Lodge) 720 E. Hyman 304 E. Hopkins 930 King 312 W. Hyman 520 E. Cooper Jeff Halferty 533 W. Hallam 110 W. Main, Hotel Aspen 134 E. Bleeker 300 E. Hyman 434 E. Cooper, Bidwell 414-420 E. Cooper, Red Onion/JAS 517 E. Hopkins Lift 1 corridor ski lift support structure 227 E. Bleeker 211 W. Hopkins 211 W. Main 204 S. Galena 215 E. Hallam 500 E. Durant 413 E. Main Roger Moyer 300 W. Main 227 E. Main 110 Neale 517 E. Hopkins Skier’s Chalet Lodge 202 E. Main 305-307 S. Mill, Grey Lady 320 E. Hyman (Wheeler Opera House, solar panels) 611 W. Main 132 W. Hopkins 500 E. Durant Jodi Surfas 202 E. Main 305-307 S. Mill, Grey Lady 320 E. Hyman (Wheeler Opera House, solar panels) 611 W. Main 602 E. Hyman Peter Fornell 304 E. Hopkins 930 King 233 W. Bleeker 214 W. Bleeker Barb Pitchford 121 W. Bleeker 312 W. Hyman 132 W. Hopkins 214 W. Bleeker Need to assign: 209 E. Bleeker, 125 W. Main, Lift One Park 20 k,oru Antony Cullwick 2551 Dolores Way Carbondale, CO 81623 Ants@korultd.com (970) 963-0577 Amy Simon Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 Subject: Support for Modernizing Historic Homes to be Energy Efficient and Net Zero Dear Amy Simon, I am writing to express my support for modernizing historic homes to achieve energy efficiency and net -zero standards. By integrating sustainable practices into preservation efforts, we can balance the preservation of our cultural heritage with safeguarding our planet's future. Historic homes hold immense historical, architectural, and cultural significance. By upgrading insulation, windows, and implementing energy management systems, we can reduce emissions and improve home comfort. Technologies like solar panels and geothermal systems further minimize reliance on non-renewable energy sources. Preserving architectural integrity while incorporating energy -efficient features is crucial. By partnering with experts, we can develop solutions that respect the historic fabric while ensuring economic viability and environmental responsibility. Embracing energy efficiency and net -zero standards for historic homes inspires future generations. It demonstrates the integration of sustainability and preservation, fostering a deeper appreciation for our cultural heritage and responsibility towards the environment. I urge the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission to support initiatives that promote the modernization of historic homes to be energy efficient and net -zero. By engaging with homeowners, architects, and preservationists, we can collaborate, provide guidance, and share best practices. Thank you for your commitment to preserving our historical heritage. I look forward to witnessing the positive impact of merging historic preservation and sustainability in our communities. Ants Cullwick Koru UrnIted 2551 Dolores Way Carbondale Colorado 81623 USA Phone: 970.963.0577 Fax: 970.963.9389