The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20231213AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 13, 2023 4:30 PM, City Council Chambers - 3rd Floor 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 I.SITE VISIT II.ROLL CALL III.MINUTES III.A Draft Minutes - 10/25/23 - 11/08/23 IV.PUBLIC COMMENTS V.COMMISSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS VI.DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VII.PROJECT MONITORING VII.A227 E. Bleeker Street - Project Monitoring VII.BProject Monitoring List VIII.STAFF COMMENTS IX.CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT ISSUED X.CALL UP REPORTS XI.SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS 12:00pm - Site Visit to 227 East Bleeker St. minutes.hpc.20231025_DRAFT.docx minutes.hpc.20231108_DRAFT.docx Memo.227 E Bleeker St.20231206.pdf Exhibit A - Written Proposal.227 E Bleeker St.20231130.pdf Exhibit B - Proposed Drawing Set.227 E Bleeker St.20231130.pdf Exhibit C - Latest Approved Drawing Set.227 E Bleeker St.20230803.pdf PROJECT MONITORING.pdf 1 1 XII.OLD BUSINESS XIII.NEW BUSINESS XIV.ADJOURN XV.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 OCTOBER 25TH, 2023 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Barb Pitchford, Jeffrey Halferty, Kim Raymond, and Kara Thompson. Absent was Roger Moyer, Peter Fornell, Jodi Surfas and Riley Warwick. Staff present: Amy Simon, Planning Director Kirsten Armstrong, Principal Planner Historic Preservation Stuart Hayden, Planner - Historic Preservation Kate Johnson, AssistantCity Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: Ms. Pitchford motioned to approve the draft minutes from August 23 rd, 2023, and September 13th, 2023. Ms. Thompson seconded. Roll Call Vote:Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 3-0, motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: None. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Ms. Raymond noted that she would be conflicted on the 135 West Francis agenda item. Ms. Thompson noted that she was conflicted on the project monitoring agenda item, so Mr. Halferty would take over as Vice-Chair for that item. Ms. Thompson left the meeting. PROJECT MONITORING: 110 W. Main Street Ms. Simon introduced the item as amendments to the White Elephant hotel project and noted that a summary was included in the agenda packet. She said that this project has gone through a long review process and that the original concept was for the applicant to keep the front portion of the previous building, which drove many of the decisions of the project. A late change was to demolish the entirety of the building. There have been some recent proposed materials changes that she and Mr. Halferty as project monitor felt should be reviewed by HPC. These mostly dealt with the materials for the proposed “fins” at the entry of the new building. She said these were approved to be a terracotta material and are now proposed to be metal. She then explained her concerns. Mr. Halferty spoke to the reasoning for his concerns, again related to the “fins” as it is in the Main Street Historic District. Applicant Presentation: Sara Adams – Bendon Adams Ms. Adams began by introducing herself, and members of the applicant team. She then said she would start by showing a comparison of the approved and proposed plans on the monitors and then let the members look at the materials samples for the approved and proposed plans. She showed a rendering of the “rain screen” at the front entry and noted that the profile of the proposed metal “fins” would be the same as the approved terracotta ones. She also noted that the main reason to switch from 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25TH, 2023 terracotta to metal was that terracotta would show more damage and would be harder to repair than metal. Mr. Dan Artiges commented that with the sourcing issues that they have been dealing with, the aluminum material would also be easier to replace and easier to clean. He noted that the curved profile of the “fins” allows for better control of the light and that the metal material would also give more options for finishes. He said they are going with a more matte finish that will minimize glare. Ms. Adams continued by showing various renderings of the building. Mr. Artiges then went over sourcing changes in some of the proposed wood and metal materials on different sections of the building. Ms. Adams then showed several renderings of these sections. The members then got up and were able to look at the currently approved and proposed material samples side by side.Ms. Adams and Mr. Artiges described the differences between the materials and answered a few questions from the commissioners related to material finishes and sourcing. Ms. Raymond asked about the sustainability of the metal versus terracotta for the entry “fin” feature element. Mr. Artiges said the terracotta was going to come from New Jersey and the metal is more locally sourced. He also spoke to the sustainability aspects of the “fin” design related to reducing solar heat gain during the day and reducing light coming out of the lobby at night. BOARD DISCUSSION: Mr. Halferty started by noting some of the Main Street Historic District design guidelines that he had concerns over as the monitor. These related to the new proposed brick and other materials and their consistency in the Main Street District. He thought the initial approved brick material was appropriate but had some concerns about the texture and design of the newly proposed brick material. He also had concerns about the metal “fins” proposed on the entry corner. He thought the change of the wood materials was ok. Ms. Pitchford had the same concerns about the new proposed brick material and thought the originally approved brick was more subtle. She was also concerned about the potential reflectivity of the metal “fins”, noting design guideline 1.23. She also did not think the proposed materials changes met guidelines 3.10 ,3.11 and 3.12. She thought the use of metal for the “fins” was too out of character for the Main Street District. Ms. Adams mentioned that they had a “plan B” of using a wood material for the “fins” due to their concerns of using terracotta and not knowing how the HPC members would feel about the metal. Ms. Raymond thought that the matte finish on the metal was not as shiny as the terracotta. She thought the use of metal made it seem more modern, but while she did not think that was a bad thing, it did not follow the guidelines of using primarily wood materials. She understood the concerns of using terracotta and would not encourage it’s use. She did like the option of using wood but had concerns about the longevity of the wood and because the “fins” were long elements, she thought they would not look as good over time. Because of this she thought the metal was a good idea. She also had concerns about the new proposed brick material. Mr. Artiges said they could work with the new brick supplier to change the finished look and color of the brick. He then presented a sample of the wood material for the “fins” and Ms. Adams noted that it would still be painted a matte white. Ms. Simon went over some details and history of the project’s approvals over time, resulting in where the project is today. 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25TH, 2023 Mr. Artiges passed around the wood sample of the “fin” and detailed how it would be produced and its dimensions. Ms. Raymond explained her concerns about the wood material. She thought that an element that long and skinny made of wood would not be as stable and may curve and twist over time. Ms. Pitchford said the terracotta material was still the most visually acceptable option as well as the originally approved brick. Ms. Raymond thought the new proposed brick just needed to be visually calmed down a bit. She would be ok with using metal for the “fins” as opposed to wood or terracotta as it will continue to look better. Ms. Pitchford said the guidelines don’t talk about using metal and that HPC’s responsibility should be on the historical aspects and not the practicality side of things. She felt the wood and terracotta materials met the guidelines better. Ms. Simon reviewed the next steps and direction for the applicant and staff and Mr. Halferty as monitor. Mr. Halferty agreed with Ms. Raymond’s concerns about using wood or terracotta for the “fins”. He did agree that their concern is not the maintenance of the “fins”, but it was a practicality issue. Ms. Simon noted that Ms. Adams had requested that Ms. Raymond be added as a monitor, due to her design background. Ms. Pitchford again raised concern over the monitors potentially basing material approvals on sourcing and long-term maintenance issues. She noted again that none of those issues are mentioned in the design guidelines. Ms. Johonson noted that while this does involve some level of subjectivity, the design guidelines are guidelines and are supposed to be weighed and considered fully, but that certain members will take different perspectives based on their own subjective reasoning. Ms. Raymond explained that since the curved “fin” design element at the entrance is already approved, it’s now just a question of the materials. The reason she did not like the wood option is that they want to be proud of this building when they drive by in 10 to 15 years and if wood is used it will not maintain it’s cool look. Ms. Pitchford mentioned her concerns over the visual changes that have occurred on Main Street over the years and noted that this and the hotel building across the street are very big buildings that you see when driving into Aspen. Ms. Simon stated that staff had gotten direction that there are three particular materials that are unresolved and that herself and Mr. Halferty would stay as staff and monitor. Ms. Thompson reentered the meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Armstrong noted the Special Meeting planned for Wednesday, November 1st at 4:30pm to discuss past projects. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Armstrong detailed two Certificates that had been issued. One at 105 South Mill Street to replace four non-historic doors. Another at 400 East Cooper to add a recessed entryway on the east side of the south façade. Ms. Simon noted that a few other Certificates had been issued for this location and there would be one more change coming that staff would be bringing to HPC soon. 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25TH, 2023 CALL UP REPORTS: Ms. Simon noted both the 420 West Francis and 820 East Cooper projects were noticed to Council and neither were called up. Ms. Simon did note that Council did discuss their feelings about the setback variations granted for the garage structure at 420 West Franics. Staff informed Council of the minimum required distance between buildings and that the spacing requirements between the garage and the back of the main house pushed things toward the alley, contributing to HPC’s grating of the variation. SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson said that she reviewed public notice, and that notice was provided per the code for both agenda items. OLD BUSINESS: 517 E. Hopkins Avenue – Substantial Amendment/GMQS, CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO DECEMBER 13th, 2023. MOTION: Mr. Halferty motioned to continue this hearing to December 13th, 2023. Ms. Raymond seconded. Roll call vote:Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes. 3-0 vote, motion passes. Ms. Raymond left the meeting. NEW BUSINESS:135 West Francis St - Minor Development, Relocation -PUBLIC HEARING Applicant Presentation:Patricia Weber – Kim Raymond Architects Ms. Weber introduced herself and noted that this property came before HPC previously with a request for Major Development, but since has decided to go in another direction. They are here today with a Minor Development request for a basement remodel. She described the lot and property and showed a few pictures of the current conditions, noting that most of the conversation would relate to the north and west façades. She presented a slide showing the existing basement floor plan as well as the proposed expansion of the basement underneath the historic resource. She noted that they are requesting minor development to expand the non-historic basement, add two egress window wells and to replace an existing exterior stair with a window well. She noted that the exterior stairs that access the existing basement were an issue pointed out in the staff memo. While not the applicant’s preference, they would comply with staff’s requests and remove the stairway and the opening will become a window well. She showed the existing and proposed site plans and noted that they are not moving the house and the only exterior work would be removing the stairwell. She then went over some details of the proposed basement expansion and said that nothing is really changing on the main and second levels of the house, except for the addition of an interior spiral staircase to access the basement. She showed each of the elevations and noted that the applicant has agreed to remove the two wood and acrylic window roofs on the south façade. She reviewed and addressed staff’s comments and recommendations from the memo. Ms. Thompson asked if the existing foundation wall under the entire historic resource was cinder block. Ms. Weber said yes. Since they would be using a concrete foundation for the expanded basement area, Ms. Thompson asked if they could make the entire foundation consistent and potentially clad the existing cinder block to match the new concrete foundation. Ms. Weber said they would do this as well as creating a boarder around the historic resource to help with drainage. 6 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25TH, 2023 Mr. Halferty asked how positive drainage was be achieved. Ms. Weber showed a picture and noted that the ground is flat at the street, but there is a swale in the right of way that they would need help from the City on addressing. Staff Presentation:Stuart Hayden, Historic Preservation Planner Mr. Hayden thanked the applicant and Ms. Weber for their flexibility and taking staff comments into consideration in their design. He then went over some history of the property, while showing a few historic pictures of the house. In 1983 an addition was added on the rear of the historic resource that included a partial basement accessed via an exterior stairwell on the west façade. He noted that being on a corner lot, the prominence of the west façade makes the exterior stair, wood guardrail and acrylic shed roof readily visible, which conflicts with guideline 10.4. He went on to describe guideline 10.4 related to this property and the exterior stair. He said that removing the exterior stairs was the preferred alternative. Next, he addressed the wood and acrylic shed roofs over the two windows on the south façade and noted they do not meet guideline 10.7 that relates to roof materials. He noted the applicant’s presentation and said because of the new proposals, most of this no longer applies. He went on to explain staff’s support for the addition of the three lightwells and the underpinning and excavation under the historic resource for the expansion of the basement. He said that staff recommends approval with conditions, and he then went over these conditions. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. BOARD DISCUSSION:Ms. Thompson thought that the application looked great. Other members agreed. MOTION: Ms. Thompson motioned to approve the resolution with the removal of conditions #1 and #2 as presented by staff. She also wanted to add language to condition #3 that the design of the new foundation materials be consistent around the entire resource including the non-historic portion. Ms. Pitchford seconded. Roll call vote:Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson. 3-0 vote, motion passes. ADJOURN: Ms. Pitchfordmotioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Ms. Thompson seconded. All in favor; motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk 7 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8TH, 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, Kim Raymond, Riley Warwick, and Kara Thompson. Absent were Barb Pitchford and Jeffery Halferty. Staff present: Amy Simon, Planning Director Kirsten Armstrong, Principal Planner Historic Preservation Stuart Hayden, Planner - Historic Preservation Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Luisa Bern, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: None PUBLIC COMMENTS: None COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer repeated his ask for the creation of a maintenance guide for owners of historic properties. Ms. Armstrong said that this was on staff’s “to-do” list. Mr. Fornell asked if the maintenance guide would be recommendations or requirements. Ms. Armstrong said it would most likely be recommendations. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Ms. Thompson noted that she would be conflicted on the 216 W Hyman Ave. project. PROJECT MONITORING: None STAFF COMMENTS: None CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Armstrong detailed a certificate issued for 325 West Hopkins that included construction of a parking pad and modification of an existing fence around the pad and the removal of some trees that was coordinated with the Parks dept. CALL UP REPORTS: None SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson said that the two agenda items only required posting on the property and that both were posted per the Land Use Code. Ms. Thompson assigned Mr. Moyer chair and left the meeting. NEW BUSINESS:216 West Hyman Ave - Minor Development, TDRs -PUBLIC HEARING Applicant Presentation:Sarah Adams – Bendon Adams 8 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8TH, 2023 Ms. Adams started her presentation by quickly describing the property and going over the requests of the applicant, Ms. Ann Mullins. These included the addition of a lightwell, rear exterior stairs connecting to a non-historic deck, a skylight, and the request for HPC’s recommendation of 2 TDRs that would remove 500 square feet of floor area from the property. She went on to describe the reasoning for the various requests also stating that none of the proposals impact any historical materials. She then showed drawings of the proposed new exterior stairs and lightwell and expanded on the reasoning for their additions. Next, she detailed the proposed skylight and noted that it was to be on the rear of the house. The intent was for it not to be visible from the street. She showed the roof plan and said that the skylight is to be centered on an interior set of stairs. She noted that there would be no historic materials or rafters that would be impacted by the skylight. She then showed a slide detailing the amount of available floor area and noted that in February Ms. Mullins had removed 500 square feet of floor area from the property in the form of two TDRs. She is now requesting the ability to remove 500 more square feet, and if approved, it would leave 16 square feet of available floor area on the property. Ms. Raymond noted that the application did not show a guardrail around the lightwell and asked how deep the lightwell would be. Ms. Adams said that it was 3’ 5” on one side and 2’ 4” on the other side. She noted that they would try to regrade the area to reduce the depth, but they could explore a railing with staff and monitor if the Building Dept. required one. Mr. Fornell asked why the applicant chose not to ask for all four TDRs at once. Ms. Mullins said that with her experience on City Council, they were usually hesitant to approve more than two at a time. She also noted that the TDRs are intended to pay for the remodel of the property. Staff Presentation:Stuart Hayden, Principal Planner Historic Preservation Mr. Hayden started his presentation by stating that he had talked with the Building Dept. and they told him that since the lightwell would be more than three feet from a walkway that a railing was not required. He then described the history of the property, additions that had been made over time and showed a few historic photos. He noted that HPC had reviewed a number of applications for this property before and he described these. He then reviewed the applicant’s current requests. He went on to review the applicable historic preservation guidelines related to each of the proposed minor development requests. Referencing guideline 3.7, he noted that the proposed skylight is not similar in scale to the historic openings and because it is much larger than the existing historic openings, staff finds that the application does not fully meet guideline 3.7. He said that a reduction in size of the skylight would yield a more appropriate design. He noted that staff finds that a skylight over 3 feet wide and 13 feet long, extends beyond the apparent flexibility of guideline 7.3. He then mentioned that while more investigation may be required, cartographic evidence suggests that the roof materials on the subject roof section may be original to the historic resource. Staff finds that removing these materials to install the skylight would not meet guideline 7.7. He said that reducing the size and or relocating it will help mitigate the potential loss of original materials. Next, he reviewed the 10 standards the Land Use Code requires to be satisfied for the establishment of the requested TDRs. He presented and reviewed 4 of the most relevant standards (A, B, G, J) for HPC 9 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8TH, 2023 consideration. He stated that staff supports the proposed removal of the allowable development rights from the property and recommends that HPC provide a recommendation of approval to City Council for the creation of the 2 TDRs. He finished by stating that staff recommends approval with the condition that the applicant submit a proposal for a smaller skylight that is lower on the rear roof slope to minimize it’s physical and visible intrusion on the historic resource. Mr. Fornell asked if the skylight, as proposed by the applicant, would be visible to the public walking by on the street. Mr. Hayden said, as proposed, no. Mr. Warwick asked if there was an alley side of the property, to which Mr. Hayden said yes, but the view is relatively obscured by a detached structure in the rear. Ms. Raymond said that it seemed like staff thinks the roof materials are historic and the applicant thinks they are not. She asked if that is something that could be investigated. Mr. Hayden said that a physical inspection in the attic could confirm this. His concern was that the 1904 Sanborn map shows a similar roof form to what is there currently. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. Mr. Moyer allowed the applicant to respond to staff’s presentation. Ms. Mullins spoke to the request for the skylight. She said that the idea for the skylight was in response to the smaller window openings on the historic house as well as bringing more natural light down into the lower level of the house. When it came to the roof materials, she noted that the front gable was fairly steep, while the rear was much shallower. She said that from their research, the gables were the same pitch historically and the current rear gable was a more recent addition. Ms. Adams added that Ms. Mullins is attempting to make the house more livable without any additions and that that was really important and unique to this property. BOARD DISCUSSION:Mr. Moyer opened the board discussion by going over the requests. He asked if the board was in support of the TDR recommendation, the lightwell and rear stairway. All members were ok with these requests. He moved on to the skylight request. Mr. Warwick said that he was generally for the skylight, especially if you cannot see it from the street and it is not changing the historic roof pitch. He said that it was worth noting, when someone uses the TDR program, keeps the house, lives here full time, that is important. He thought it was a small exchange to ask to add a skylight. He was somewhat concerned that it could set a precedent though. Ms. Surfas commented about the “green” benefits of the skylight, and she also agreed that it could set precedent. She did think it should be slightly smaller and set back more so that there is no way it could be seen from the street. Overall, she was ok with the skylight if it was a smaller footprint. Ms. Raymond agreed with Mr. Warwick and Ms. Surfas that it could be a little smaller as the precedent it sets is big. She noted that many skylights have been denied for years on historic properties. She thought they needed to consider the precedence because of how big it is. Overall, she was ok with approving a skylight, she just wanted the size to be reconsidered. 10 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8TH, 2023 Mr. Fornell said he would be ok with the skylight as it was presented. He thought that if it cannot be seen from the street, he did not want to micromanage the development. He thought that with some other recent HPC approvals of skylights, the precedent may have already been set. He said that with the applicant’s history with historic preservation, he trusted their goals were altruistic. Mr. Moyer said that he was not opposed to the skylight and did not believe that the structure was historic in this case. He then asked the other HPC members if they thought the skylight issue could be something for staff and monitor. Mr. Fornell and Ms. Raymond agreed. Mr. Moyer then asked Ms. Johnson about what should be contained in a motion regrading staff and monitor’s review of the skylight. Ms. Johnson commented that if the motion did not contain staff’s suggested condition that calls for staff and monitor’s review of certain items, it could be interpreted by the applicant as a blanket approval with out the allowance for staff and monitor review. Ms. Johnson and HPC members reviewed staff’s suggested conditions. Mr. Fornell suggested that they include language that relates to a situation where if historic materials are found to exist that staff and monitor have review. Mr. Hayden asked regarding historic materials, are they only talking about the rafters or are they considering other roof materials, like trusses. Ms. Raymond suggested that the motion focuses on not seeing the skylight from the street, as opposed to saying it needs to be smaller or lower on the roof. The HPC members and Ms. Johnson discussed two conditions. One relating to the applicant submitting of a proposal that minimizes the skylight’s physical and visual intrusions on the historic resource and the other relating to the potential situation that if historic materials are determined to exist, that details would be reviewed by staff and monitor. MOTION: Mr. Fornell motioned to approve the resolution with the two conditions that were discussed. Ms. Raymond seconded. Roll call vote:Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes. 5-0 vote, motion passes. Ms. Raymond was assigned as monitor for this project. NEW BUSINESS: 400 E. Cooper Ave. – Minor Development –PUBLIC HEARING Applicant Presentation:Eric Westerman – 523 Architecture Mr. Westerman started his presentation by describing the property (Golden Horn Building) and its location in the downtown core. He then went over the request to lower four windows on the south elevation. He described the clad window design and showed a few renderings of the existing conditions through to the proposed changes. He noted that there had been a few prior staff approvals that had got them to were there are today with the windows about 18 to 20 inches above grade. The request now is to lower them to be much closer to grade, increasing the storefront and visibility into the retail space. He then showed a few pictures of other buildings in town that have windows close to grade. 11 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8TH, 2023 Ms. Thompson asked if the proposed windows had the same specifications and the previous approved ones and if it was just to change to a larger unit. Mr. Westerman said yes. He also described some details of the type of window units. Ms. Raymond asked how much space would be between the bottom of the windows and the ground. Mr. Westerman said that on the right-hand side it would be about 4 ½ inches and because the grade falls right to left, the left-hand side it would be about 9 inches. Staff Presentation:Kirsten Armstrong - Principal Planner Historic Preservation Ms. Armstrong started her presentation by describing the building and its location, noting that it is not a landmark building, but is in the commercial core historic district. She described the applicant’s minor development request to lower the windows. She went over some of the building’s history and detailed the previously approved certificates of no negative effect. She then showed the proposed elevations highlighting the larger windows. She went on to review the relevant design standards and guidelines and noted that staff found that the criteria had been met for the minor development approval. She also reviewed the recommended condition of approval, which was for a sample of the window be reviewed by staff and monitor. She noted that staff recommends HPC’s approval of the requested Land Use Review, with the condition. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Raymond made a few suggestions to Mr. Westerman about the sill height and referenced a few buildings in town that had taller sill heights. Mr. Westerman said they are trying to maximize the amount of glass but would not be opposed to going to 6 inches on the right side to create more of a sill. The board members discussed the possibility of going to 6 inches instead of 4 ½. Mr. Warwick, Ms. Thompson, and Mr. Moyer said they were ok with the proposed 4 ½ height. Mr. Fornell agreed. MOTION: Ms. Thompson motioned to approve the next resolution in the series with the removal of condition #1. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote:Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0 vote, motion passes. Mr. Warwick was assigned monitor. ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Ms. Raymond seconded. All in favor; motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk 12 Page 1 of 4 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Stuart Hayden, Planner II, Historic Preservation MEETING DATE: December 12, 2023 RE: 227 E Bleeker Street - Project Monitoring BACKGROUND: HPC Resolution #26, Series of 2020 approved with conditions Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Setback Variations and a Floor Area Bonus for 227 East Bleeker Street in December 2020. HPC Resolution #06, Series of 2021 approved with conditions Final Major Development for 227 East Bleeker Street in March 2021. The property was sold to its current owner in October 2021. Since then, HPC staff, the Project Monitor (Jeff Halferty) and HPC have reviewed and approved several elements, including the following: • December 2022, staff and HPC Project Monitor approved the replacement of an approved window with a door on the approved connector, the change of material and finish of the approved siding on the approved addition and connector, the addition of 13 solar panels to the roof of the approved addition, the change to the size and operation of the windows on the north façade of the approved addition, the change of roofing material on the historic resource, and the addition of a retractable fabric roof over the hot tub at the rear second-story deck of the approved addition. • February 2023, staff and HPC Project Monitor approved the relocation of previously approved new window openings on the south elevation of the historic resource, removal of previously approved fenestration on the west façade of the approved addition, as well as the addition of three heat pumps outside the approved addition. • Responding to staff and monitor request for direction, in May 2023, the majority of HPC members expressed support for the addition of 21 solar panels to the roof of the historic structure. • September 2023, staff and HPC Project Monitor approved the rooftop termination of a radon pipe and a gas fireplace vent on the approved addition, the venting of a gas fireplace through the northern historic chimney of the historic resource, and the replacement of non-historic windows on the east and west façades of the historic resource. The applicant now seeks the following changes for which staff and HPC Project Monitor request direction from the HPC: • Synthetic Roofing Material. The roofing material originally approved for the historic resource during HPC Final Major Development Review was wood shingle. Staff and HPC Project Monitor later approved architectural asphalt shingle as a substitute. The applicant now proposes to change the approved substitute to Brava synthetic roofing product, a New Cedar-colored plastic molded in the shape of hand-split wood shakes. The proposed product has either a five- or seven-inch-wide, 10-inch-long, 3/4-inch-thick exposure. • Exterior Wall Sheathing. Replacing one-inch-thick sheathing where existing and otherwise adding 7/16-inch-thick fiberglass-reinforced-magnesium-oxide-treated oriented strand board (OSB) under existing wood siding around the entire historic resource. 13 Page 2 of 4 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com The design guidelines applicable to this request are: 2.1 Preserve original building materials. • Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place. • 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. 2.3 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. 7.7 Preserve original roof materials. • Avoid removing historic roofing material that is in good condition. When replacement is necessary, use a material that is similar to the original in both style as well as physical qualities and use a color that is similar to that seen historically. 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. • 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. 7.9 Avoid using conjectural features on a roof. • Adding ornamental cresting, for example, where there is no evidence that it existed, creates a false impression of the building’s original appearance, and is inappropriate. RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not support the request to change the roofing material from the approved asphalt to the proposed synthetic molded shake. The proposed roofing material is not “similar to the original in both style as well as physical qualities” as is called for by Guideline 7.7. Shakes and shingles should not be conflated. The two are visually distinguished by their divergent finishes and dimensions. While shakes 14 Page 3 of 4 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com tend to be rough with a natural-grain face and rustic appearance, shingles are relatively smooth, uniform, and consistent in finish and size. Even the smoothest-dressed shakes are thicker than shingles, and applied with a larger exposure. Whereas an 18-inch shingle might have a 5½-inch exposure, a 7½-inch exposure is more common for an 18-inch shake. Accordingly, more individual shingles and an additional layer of shingles were required to cover the same surface area as two-ply shake roofing. The distinction may seem subtle but embodies a technological advancement with relevant historic information. Hand split with an axe, shakes long predate the mass milling of shingles revolutionized by steam-power in the early 19th century. Historic photographs of Aspen confirm the ubiquity of sawn shingles by the time the historic resource at 227 E Bleeker Street was constructed. Without material evidence to the contrary, wood shake, let alone synthetic shake, does not meet the Design Guidelines. Figure 1: Example of installed wood shingles and wood shakes. Figure 2: Certi-label® size table The divergent physical qualities of wood and plastic need little explanation. Most notably, the synthetic material proposed has a slightly reflective surface unlike the matte surfaces of wood and asphalt shingles. Similarly, the color of the proposed material appears to be marbled, a color pattern with no historic precedent in Aspen. Figure 3: Example of Brava Synthetic Shake Installed Figure 4: Brava New Cedar Synthetic Shake Color Reference 15 Page 4 of 4 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com In addition to not meeting Guideline 7.7, the proposed roof material fails to “convey a scale, color and texture similar to the original” as called for by Guideline 7.8. The use of shake-style roofing material at 227 E Bleeker Street “creates a false impression of the building’s original appearance” as cautioned against in Guideline 7.9. Staff find the synthetic simulated shake inconsistent with the Design Guidelines and inappropriate at 227 E Bleeker Street. Staff does not support the request to replace existing sheathing and otherwise add new sheathing. Replacing historic one-inch-thick sheathing with 7/16-inch-thick OSB does not meet Design Guideline 2.1 and 2.3. Rather than preserving original building materials as directed by Guideline 2.1, the proposal removes a portion of exterior walls “that could be repaired in place.” Guideline 2.3 similarly seeks replacing “only the amount required,” only those materials that are missing or “are damaged beyond repair,” rather than all existing sheathing as is proposed. The fiberglass-reinforced-magnesium- oxide-treated OSB proposed is approximately half as thick as the original sheathing, and therefore does not “match the original material in composition, scale and finish” also called for by Guideline 2.3. Staff find the replacement of existing sheathing inappropriate as proposed. Figure 5: Existing Sheathing Diagram Provided by Applicant in June 2022 ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Written Proposal Exhibit B: Proposed Drawing Set Exhibit C: Latest Approved Drawing Set 16 501 E. Hyman Ave, Suite 201 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252 November 30, 2023 Amy Simon, Planning Director Kirsten Armstrong Stuart Hayden Historic Preservation Officers Dear Amy, Kirsten and Stuart, As you know, our client, Ken Hubbard, is very concerned about the safety of his family that will be living in the home he is currently building at 227 E Bleeker. Along with the concerns for his family’s safety and wellbeing, he is working hard to make this project a model of energy efficiency and sustainability. His goal is to obtain LEED Platinum or Gold even with the extra effort needed to do this on the remodel of a historic cabin. At this point we are just a few points from achieving the platinum level. At this time, Ken is especially concerned about fire hazard. The fire in HI struck a deep chord in him and he is determined to find the best fireproof or fire resistive materials available on the market to harden the exterior of his home. Having learned that the City had passed an ordinance regarding the hardening of the exterior of homes in April of this year, he is very encouraged that he may be able to use materials that are specified in this ordinance. Ken has been involved in the construction industry for his entire career and is familiar with new construction and remodels of both residential and commercial projects. Ken’s work also included historic preservation of buildings in other communities, so he truly appreciates the need for careful preservation of history. He worked closely with the USGBC in helping to create the LEED process, back when our industry first started realizing the need for better building practices; thus his desire to have his home be a model of efficiency and now of safety. Attached below you will find a presentation of what was originally approved by the HPC for this home. This was before Ken had purchased the property; before he had any say in the decisions being made by the developer. At this point we are submitting some substitutes for the exterior materials to be used for the roof and walls of the historic portion of his home. Roof Material As he has seen practiced in other historic districts throughout the Country, Ken would like to replace the cedar shingles on the roof with a composite material that is reminiscent of cedar shingles to maintain the look of the historic home; but that have the sustainability factor of a material that is warrantied for a lifetime AND that has the fire resistive qualities to harden his 17 501 E. Hyman Ave, Suite 201 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252 home against fire hazard. The BRAVA New Cedar shingles that we are proposing are also made completely of recycled materials, adding to their sustainability. We believe that these look the best for a synthetic replacement for cedar shingles. We like the look better than the asphalt. The asphalt shingles that were originally approved are not an acceptable option for Ken as he has seen how much of this material ends up in the land fill after a short time when homes are being remodeled; or even after being removed from older homes because they are not protecting the homes anymore. Further the asphalt shingles are not recyclable. The lifecycle of asphalt is not as sustainable or energy efficient as some of the newer products that will last a lifetime. And in the event an owner makes changes to the roof, many of the options that are available now are 100% recyclable; even the waste during construction will be recycled. The other reason Mr. Hubbard and his family would like to use one of the proposed materials is that, to their eye, asphalt shingles do not look like historic shingles. The profile is too thin and the varying widths are not in keeping with the historic patterns of all the cedar shingles being very similar in size and shape and typically with more reveal than is an option with asphalt. After exhaustive research and sampling, we have narrowed our proposal down to the BRAVA New Cedar shingles. We believe the product from BRAVA meets the guidelines for a new roof on a historic resource. Siding Material The wood siding that is existing on the old home is actually in pretty good shape as it was protected from the weather for decades by, ironically, asphalt shingles (that are now in the landfill). That said, the material is old and in need of repair to look as it did when the home was first built. We will also have to mill additional material to match where we cannot repair and where the material is just missing. Mr. Hubbard has taken many steps to protect his home from any fire hazards, including the removal of any proposed trees to the site by the original developer; removing any landscaping that would create fuel for a fire near his home; and putting noncombustible materials at the base of the perimeter of his home as a caution against fire spreading up his walls. The last step he is very keen on taking is the hardening of the material. Please see the method outlined below. The other concern of Ken and others of our clients is the issue of getting insurance to cover their homes. Many insurance companies are now requiring homeowners to remove flammable materials on the exterior of their homes and replace it or underlay it with non-combustible material. I think the entire industry has become more aware of the need for entire communities to share in the responsibility to make their homes more fire resistant, thus making entire neighborhoods and towns less susceptible to the devastation that was just suffered in Hawaii. Aspen, in particular is in a similarly vulnerable situation as the islands of HI in that there is only one way out of the valley in the winter and two slow ways to evacuate in the summer. A truly tragic situation would be to have a fire blaze through town as many homes are completely covered in flammable materials, both the walls and the roofs. Those homes that have hardened the exterior materials will likely be the only ones standing. Thus, the structure of the historic 18 501 E. Hyman Ave, Suite 201 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252 cabin will be preserved and could be repaired. If the entire thing is burned down, it is just lost forever. We have included one roofing option and one siding assembly option for the consideration of the Commission that address the concerns of Mr. Hubbard. We believe that these materials are in alignment with the goals of preserving the history of Aspen, as the mass, scale, character and look of the cabin will be preserved. Please keep in mind seeing these materials in these small, close-up photos is quite different than seeing them on a roof. That is why we built the mock-up at the site; so you are able to see how these materials are perceived when installed. We also have the material options here for you to see. Ken has commissioned our firm and other consultants to do research into the new products that are available to harden the exterior of his home. Additionally, since the City has moved in the direction of requiring a hardened exterior, and Jan Legersky, our Fire Marshall, has recommended and is encouraging this type of construction; Ken is very eager to use these materials on his own home to protect his family and his investment. Historic Guidelines that are relevant to this project are addressed below; CHAPTER 2 BUILDING MATERIALS 2.1 Preserve original building materials. Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place. RESPONSE: Much of exterior siding of this home was fairly well preserved under the asphalt shingles for the past 40 -50 years; and some of it has been destroyed by the numerous additions and other work done by the owners down through the decades. This siding will need to be removed and replaced with wood that is milled to match the original. To preserve this home and the rest of the exterior materials, we are proposing to number and carefully remove the existing siding and trim to fully refurbish each piece. It will be sanded, repaired where necessary and given a layer of protective sealer on every side to protect it for the next 100 years. The newly protected wood siding and trim will be placed back in the exact same place from which it was taken. The new wood that is milled to match, to fill in where the old is either rotted through or broken beyond repair will receive the same protective layer of sealer. The structure of the home will be covered in 7/16” LP FLameBLock material before the siding in returned; this will protect the structure in the event of a fire. The exterior material may be lost, but the home will be saved. The other great benefit of this material is that is also a structural shear panel. This home, as you may recall, has no shear panels on most of the historic structure, and not a good layer of waterproofing. Our interest in using this LP FlameBlocker is three-fold; we can add much needed shear to the walls, give ourselves a solid and flat surface to waterproof the historic structure and create the desired fire rated assembly for the occupants. This is in keeping with current building science, and similar to the detail recently approved at 227 E Main. 19 501 E. Hyman Ave, Suite 201 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252 We will work closely with our monitor during the entire process; doing one wall or section at a time to be sure nothing is done out of sequence; and he can be sure we are following our protocol with each board going back to its original place. 2.2 The finish of materials should be as it would have existed historically RESPONSE: The wood siding and trim will be painted; as it was originally. 2.3 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. RESPONSE: We are determined to save as much of the historic material as feasible. Our intent is to be meticulous in removing the siding so as to put it ALL back. Since it has been protected from the elements for such a long time, we feel it is in good enough shape to be removed, preserved and replaced with very little loss of historic material. We have all of the means and methods available to us to make this cabin a model of preservation. Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for original building materials. RESPONSE: For the siding and trim, we agree that putting synthetic siding on the cabin will change the look and not maintain the historic integrity of the resource. We have searched for alternative material that would be suitable but have come up empty handed. This is why we are proposing keeping the existing siding, fully preserved, and installed over fireproof material. The 7/16” of material, will not noticeably change the look of the building materials; and we feel that this small difference, weighed against the potential upside of saving the structure is worth the effort, time and expense. As mentioned, the owner is willing to take on the huge expense of this sort of preservation for the safety of his family and the preservation of the home in the event of a wildfire. CHAPTER 7 BUILDING MATERIALS 7.7 Preserve original roof materials - Avoid removing historic roofing material that is in good condition. When replacement is necessary, use a material that is similar to the original in both style as well as physical qualities and use a color that is similar to that seen historically. RESPONSE: As has been the practice of the HPC and Historic Preservation officer for the past many years wood shingles have been replaced with asphalt shingles in the desire to follow city fire code and protect homes. We too will be replacing the old wood shingles as this home has already received approval to use asphalt shingles on the historic roof. At this juncture, we feel that there are other better materials to put on the roof than asphalt shingles to protect the home from the elements and fire. Since the City code has ban the use of wood shingles on all roofs, except for those on historic homes; and since the precedent of synthetic materials have replaced them we would like to propose a different material. For the reasons noted above, we feel the BRAVA shingles are a better alternative for this historic cabin than the asphalt shingles. 7.8 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to the original. 20 501 E. Hyman Ave, Suite 201 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252 RESPONSE: The synthetic shingle we are proposing is low profile like a cedar shingle, has little texture and comes in widths that are consistent with cedar shingles. Compared to the asphalt shingles that are much thinner and have a very different texture than wood shingles. Of course, all synthetic materials look “funny” when holding one piece in your hand, but when they are applied to a roof and the perspective is seeing them as one would see cedar shingles, they are much more comparable aesthetically. We will have a very low -profile metal flashing at the roof and windows, the minimal to provide adequate water proofing, but it will not detract from the look of the historic cabin. The flashing will blend in color with the roofing so as not to draw attention to it. The owners of this home are very grateful for the opportunity to come before you to discuss these alternatives. They are eager to preserve the historic cabin while also making it fire resistant and energy efficient. We believe we have come up with solutions that can be married successfully to achieve the goals of both the HPC and the owners. Thank you all for your thoughtful consideration of this information. Mr. Hubbard and his family are excited to finish the construction and move into this preserved home. Respectfully, Kim Kim Raymond Kim Raymond Architecture + Interiors 21 501 E. Hyman Ave. Suite 205 -Aspen, CO 81611 www.kimraymondarchitects.com OCTOBER, 2023 227 E. BLEEKER ST. EXTERIOR MATERIALS 01. ROOF MATERIAL 02. SIDING MATERIAL 22 227 E. BLEEKER STREET, ASPEN CO ROOF MATERIAL VIEW FROM STREET HISTORIC RESOURCE ROOF MATERIAL 01. ROOF MATERIAL 23 227 E. BLEEKER STREET, ASPEN CO ROOF MATERIAL APPROVED: ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF MATERIAL –APPROVED ASPHALT SHINGLE DESCRIPTION -THE LOOK OF TRADITIONAL CEDAR SHAKE WITHOUT EXTENSIVE MAINTENANCE -6”, 9” AND 12” WIDTHS -3/8” THICKNESS -MANUFACTURED FROM 25% POST INDUSTRIAL RECYCLED PLASTICS -CLASS A FIRE RATING 24 227 E. BLEEKER STREET, ASPEN CO ROOF MATERIAL PROPOSED: BRAVA NEW CEDAR ROOF MATERIAL –PROPOSED BRAVA –CEDAR SHAKE ROOFING DESCRIPTION -SYNTHETIC ROOFING TILE -FIRE RETARDANT: CLASS A OR CLASS C -CRAFTED WITH A BLEND OF HIGH-GRADE PRE-CONSUMER RECYCLED PLASTIC, NATURAL MINERALS, AND BINDERS. -FREEZE / THAW RESISTENT, MAINTENANCE FREE -RECYCLED/RECYCLABLE ROOFING MATERIAL -EXPOSURE IS SIMILAR TO HISTORIC SHINGLES -50 YEAR WARRANTY THE VARIATION IN COLOR LOOKS LIKE CEDAR SHINGLES THAT HAVE BEEN WEATHERED OVER THE YEARS BRAVA NEW CEDAR WOOD CEDAR SHINGLE 25 227 E. BLEEKER STREET, ASPEN CO ROOF MATERIAL VIEW FROM STREET HISTORIC RESOURCE SIDING MATERIAL 02. SIDING MATERIAL 26 227 E. BLEEKER STREET, ASPEN CO SIDING MATERIAL EXISTING: WOOD SIDING SIDING MATERIAL –EXISTING WOOD SIDING DESCRIPTION -4” WOOD SIDING TO BE NUMBERED, REMOVED CAREFULLY, PRESERVED AND RETURNED OVER NEW FLAME RETARDANT SHEAR PANELS -WILL BE PAINTED AS REGULAR MAINTENANCE OVER THE YEARS -EXISTING FLAMMABLE MATERIAL OVER LP FLAMEBLOCK FIRE RESISTENT PANELS AND WATER PROOFING THE EXISTING SIDING IS WELL PRESERVED SO WILL BE SUCCESSFULLY REMOVED AND PRESERVED ON FOUR SIDES, THEN RETURNED 27 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS 501 E. HYMAN AVE., SUITE 205 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 P. 970 925 2252 WWW.KIMRAYMONDARCHITECTS.COM 227 E. BLEEKER STREET: SUMMARY OF HPC ITEMS FOR REVIEW AUGUST 3, 2023 Amy Simon Planning Director City of Aspen We are submitting the following items per the Comments (issued on 06/30/23 for the Change Order, requesting Staff and Monitor review: 1. Radon pipe location. 2. Fireplace flue location 3. New windows cut sheets (attached to this letter) 4. Proposed porch columns Also attached in the same document, at the end, the solar panel attachments that you requested for your review and approval. Once we have worked these items out, we will resubmit the full set of comments to the Building Department. 28 SIGHTLINE SOLUTIONS 1052 Sun King Dr Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (734) 255-4054 Ted Belanger JW221200HP7 - Version 0QUOTE #::QUOTE BY SOLD TO SHIP TOKoru Rio Jacober 2551 Dolores Way Carbondale CO 81623 :: ::PO#227 E. Bleeker Double Hung + Lower Level PROJECT NAME ::REFERENCEGroundShip Via Exterior screens for the double hung units are included. I selected half height. U-Factor Weighted Average:SHGC Weighted Average:0.20.27 LINE BOOK CODE DESCRIPTION LOCATION SIZE INFO EXTENDED PRICE QTYNET UNIT PRICE Rough Opening : 32 3/4 X 82 Viewed from Exterior. Scale: 1/8'' =1' 1 H102, H103Line Frame Size : 32 X 81 1/4 (Outside Casing Size: 39 5/8 X 85 15/16), Siteline Wood Double Hung, Auralast Pine, Primed Exterior, Primed Interior, 4 1/2" Flat Casing, Standard Sill Nosing, DripCap, Brilliant White Drip Cap, 4 9/16 Jamb, Standard Double Hung, White Jambliner, Concealed Jambliner White Hardware, Insulated SunResist with HeatSave Annealed Glass, Neat, Protective Film, Black Spacer, High Altitude, Traditional Glz Bd, BetterVue Mesh Brilliant White Screen, Half Screen, *Custom-Width*, *Custom-Height*, IGThick=0.698(3/32 / 3/32), Clear Opening:28.2w, 37h, 7.2 sf U-Factor: 0.27, SHGC: 0.20, VLT: 0.46, Energy Rating: 17.00, CR: 45.00, CPD: JEL-N-885-01785-00001 PEV 2022.4.0.4074/PDV 6.824 (12/02/22)NW 2 Drawings are for visual reference only and may not be to exact scale. All orders are subject to review by JELD-WEN Page 1 of 4 (Prices are subject to change.) Quote Date:Last Modified: JW221200HP7 (Ver:0) - 12/16/202212/16/2022 12/16/2022 5.15 PMcust-65698 29 LINE BOOK CODE DESCRIPTION LOCATION SIZE INFO EXTENDED PRICE QTYNET UNIT PRICE Rough Opening : 30 3/4 X 62 1/4 Viewed from Exterior. Scale: 1/8'' =1' 2 H101Line Frame Size : 30 X 61 1/2 (Outside Casing Size: 37 5/8 X 66 3/16), Siteline Wood Double Hung, Auralast Pine, Primed Exterior, Primed Interior, 4 1/2" Flat Casing, Standard Sill Nosing, DripCap, Brilliant White Drip Cap, 4 9/16 Jamb, Standard Double Hung, White Jambliner, Concealed Jambliner White Hardware, Insulated SunResist with HeatSave Annealed Glass, Neat, Protective Film, Black Spacer, High Altitude, Traditional Glz Bd, BetterVue Mesh Brilliant White Screen, Half Screen, *Custom-Width*, *Custom-Height*, IGThick=0.698(3/32 / 3/32), Clear Opening:26.2w, 27.2h, 4.9 sf U-Factor: 0.27, SHGC: 0.20, VLT: 0.46, Energy Rating: 17.00, CR: 45.00, CPD: JEL-N-885-01785-00001 PEV 2022.4.0.4074/PDV 6.824 (12/02/22)NW 1 Rough Opening : 30 1/4 X 53 Viewed from Exterior. Scale: 1/8'' =1' 3 W101, W102Line Frame Size : 29 1/2 X 52 1/4 (Outside Casing Size: 37 1/8 X 56 15/16), Siteline Wood Double Hung, Auralast Pine, Primed Exterior, Primed Interior, 4 1/2" Flat Casing, Standard Sill Nosing, DripCap, Brilliant White Drip Cap, 4 9/16 Jamb, Standard Double Hung, White Jambliner, Concealed Jambliner White Hardware, Insulated SunResist with HeatSave Annealed Glass, Neat, Protective Film, Black Spacer, High Altitude, Traditional Glz Bd, BetterVue Mesh Brilliant White Screen, Half Screen, *Custom-Width*, *Custom-Height*, IGThick=0.698(3/32 / 3/32), Clear Opening:25.7w, 22.5h, 4 sf U-Factor: 0.27, SHGC: 0.20, VLT: 0.46, Energy Rating: 17.00, CR: 45.00, CPD: JEL-N-885-01785-00001 PEV 2022.4.0.4074/PDV 6.824 (12/02/22)NW 2 Drawings are for visual reference only and may not be to exact scale. All orders are subject to review by JELD-WEN Page 2 of 4 (Prices are subject to change.) Quote Date:Last Modified: JW221200HP7 (Ver:0) - 12/16/202212/16/2022 12/16/2022 5.15 PMcust-65698 30 501 E. Hyman, Suite 205 Aspen, CO 81611 www.kimraymondarchitects.com JULY 31, 2023 227 E. BLEEKER ST. -CHANGE ORDER 1 COMMENTS REQUEST FOR REVIEW -SOLAR PANEL ATTACHMENTS (05/30/23) 31 227 E. BLEEKER STREET, ASPEN CO CHANGE ORDER COMMENTS - 6/30/23 CHANGE ORDER COMMENTS REQUESTING STAFF AND MONITOR REVIEW: 1. 2. 3. 4. 32 227 E. BLEEKER STREET, ASPEN CO 1. RADON PIPE LOCATION KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTURE+INTERIORS 418 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 201 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-2252 227 E. BLEEKER STREET, ASPEN CO RADON PIPE LOC ATION FH 3'2'PROPOSED GRADE RADON PIPE FROM FOUNATION ELECT. METERTELEPHONECATVG T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY 100'-0" T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY 110'-0" TOP PLATE @ GABLE ROOFS 118'-6 1/4" 1/3rd POINT ON GABLE 121'-3" EAST ELEVATION: RADON PIPE 33 227 E. BLEEKER STREET, ASPEN CO 2. FIREPLACE FLUE LOCATION KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTURE+INTERIORS 418 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 201 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-2252 227 E. BLEEKER STREET, ASPEN CO FIREPL ACE FLUEEEFFGG 2.503.501.5HH15°105°75°8":12"SLOPE8":12"SLOPE8":12" SLOPE 8":12" SLOPE 7 1/2":12"SLOPE7 1/2":12"SLOPE7 1/2":12" SLOPE 7 1/2":12" SLOPE CCBBAADDPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE SETBACK LINEPARKING SPACESLOPE12":12"SLOPE12":12"SLOPE 1":12"SETBACK LINESETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE7 1/2":12" SLOPE 7 1/2":12" SLOPE FIREPL ACE 1 FIREPL ACE 2 NOTE: PLEASE LOOK AT THE FOLLOWING TWO PAGES FOR AN ENLARGED DETAIL OF THE FIREPLACE VENTILATION TERMINATION: - FIREPLACE 1 IS LOCATED IN THE LOWER LEVEL FAMILY ROOM. - FIREPLACE 2 IS LOCATED IN THE MAIN LEVEL IN HISTORIC HOME. 34 227 E. BLEEKER STREET, ASPEN CO 2. FIREPLACE FLUE LOCATION FIREPLACE 1: FAMILY ROOM (LOWER LEVEL) Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE HPC SET #1 PERMIT SUBMITTAL PLANS UPDATE COMMENTS 1 COMMENTS 2 PERMIT ISSUANCE CHANGE ORDER 1227 E. BLEEKER227 E. BLEEKER STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816111" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITH O UT W R ITTEN P ERMISSIO N. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT T H E S I T E . A N Y D I M E N S I O N A L DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. A .5.03 7/31/23 FIREPL ACE 1: FAMILY ROOM DATE 10/26/20 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 201 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-225205/28/21 12/30/21 03/21/22 09/13/22 PRINTED ON: 11/08/22 05/30/23 8'-2 1/8"9'-10"10'-2"2'-0"2'-10 3/8"1'-6"1'-3 1/2"1'-10"3'-11"1'-3 1/2"4"2'-3 3/8"3 1/2"2"6'-10" 7 1/4" 2'-3 3/8" 3'-0" 2'-3 3/8"7" 7" 4'-4"4'-4"7'-8 1/4"8'-2 1/8"7'-8 1/4" HORIZONTAL VENT TERMINATION CAP ABOVE FINISHED GRADE IN MAIN LEVEL HORIZONTAL VENT TERMINATION CAP CONVECTION AIR OUTLET: 288 SQ IN CHASE GRILL OPENING HEIGHT 15-1/16" CHASE ENCLOSURE MIN. 87" CLEARENCE TO SPRINKLER HEAD REGENCY GAS FIREPLACE: MODEL: CITY SERIES CB72EPV REGENCY GAS FIREPLACE: MODEL: CITY SERIES CB72EPV REGENCY GAS FIREPLACE: MODEL: CITY SERIES CB72EPV 85" TV TV TO BE INSET INTO NICHE F E 85" TV TV TO BE INSET INTO NICHE. FP-01CITY SERIES CB72E-CL LAUNDRY FAMILY ROOMTV 001 004 1 2 E F 1.5 1 T.O.PLY MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" T.O.PLY MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" T.O.SLAB LOWER LEVEL 85'-6" T.O.SLAB LOWER LEVEL 85'-6" A B PL AN SECTION A -A'SECTION B-B' SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"01 FIREPL ACE 1: FAMILY ROOM SCALE: 1:1.0402REGENCY: CIT Y SERIES CB72EPV 35 Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE HPC SET #1 PERMIT SUBMITTAL PLANS UPDATE COMMENTS 1 COMMENTS 2 PERMIT ISSUANCE CHANGE ORDER 1227 E. BLEEKER227 E. BLEEKER STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816111" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISS ION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT T H E S I T E . A N Y D I M E N S I O N A L DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. A .5.03B 7/31/23 FIREPLACE 2: LIVING ROOM DATE 10/26/20 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 201 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-225205/28/21 12/30/21 03/21/22 09/13/22 PRINTED ON: 11/08/22 05/30/23 CITY SERIES CB60E-CL 6'-7"1'-8"1'-6"1'-8 3/8" 2'-1 1/2"6'-7" 3'-4"6'-6"1-3/4"6'-6"3'-4"2'-1 5/8" 70" TV IN NICHE WITH FINISHED BACK PANEL TOP EXIT VENTILATION OPENING (1-3/4"MIN) TOP EXIT VENTILATION OPENING (1-3/4"MIN) 70" TV IN NICHE WITH FINISHED BACK PANEL UNDER CAB LED STRIP LIGHT. REGENCY GAS FIREPLACE. CITY SERIES: MODEL CB60E. (INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER. FINISHES BY INTERIOR DESIGNER) REGENCY GAS FIREPLACE. CITY SERIES: MODEL CB60E (INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER. FINISHES BY INTERIOR DESIGNER) REGENCY GAS FIREPLACE. CITY SERIES: MODEL CB60E (INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER. FINISHES BY INTERIOR DESIGNER) 70" TV IN NICHE WITH FINISHED BACK PANEL VERTICAL TERMINATION CAP (PER MANUFACTURER SPECS) VENTILATION PIPE THROUGH CEILING DAYLIGHT THROUGH BRICK CHIMNEY VENTILATION PIPE THROUGH CEILING VENTILATION PIPE THROUGH CEILING C 43 C 43 B A PL AN LIVING ROOM 105 City Series CB60E | 7 dimensions 71 14 " 1810 mm 11"279 mm 18"466 mm 1014"260 mm 35 58 " 905 mm 72 516 " 1837 mm 35 58 " 905 mm 8" 204 mm 5" 127 mm 13"330 mm 714"185 mm 20 516 " 515 mm 39"990 mm 16" (406mm) Dimensions - Bay Install Note: Height Dimension is taken with leveling legs fully inserted and may vary depending on the height of the leveling legs, when unscrewed or extended. Dimensions will appear as (inches)" / (metric) mm throughout this manual. The inches are rounded to the nearest 1/16" when convert- ed, when greater accuracy is required, use the metric dimensions. Note: These units are non-load bearing. ALL PICTURES / DIAGRAMS SHOWN THROUGHOUT THIS MANUAL ARE FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY. ACTUAL PRODUCT MAY VARY DUE TO PRODUCT ENHANCEMENTS. SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"01 LIVING ROOM FIREPLACE: DETAIL SCALE: 1' = 1'-0"02 REGENCY: CIT Y SERIES CB60E 227 E. BLEEKER STREET, ASPEN CO 2. FIREPLACE FLUE LOCATION FIREPLACE 2: LIVING ROOM (MAIN LEVEL) 36 SIGHTLINE SOLUTIONS 1052 Sun King Dr Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (734) 255-4054 Ted Belanger JW221200HP7 - Version 0QUOTE #::QUOTE BY SOLD TO SHIP TOKoru Rio Jacober 2551 Dolores Way Carbondale CO 81623 :: ::PO#227 E. Bleeker Double Hung + Lower Level PROJECT NAME ::REFERENCEGroundShip Via Exterior screens for the double hung units are included. I selected half height. U-Factor Weighted Average:SHGC Weighted Average:0.20.27 LINE BOOK CODE DESCRIPTION LOCATION SIZE INFO EXTENDED PRICE QTYNET UNIT PRICE Rough Opening : 32 3/4 X 82 Viewed from Exterior. Scale: 1/8'' =1' 1 H102, H103Line Frame Size : 32 X 81 1/4 (Outside Casing Size: 39 5/8 X 85 15/16), Siteline Wood Double Hung, Auralast Pine, Primed Exterior, Primed Interior, 4 1/2" Flat Casing, Standard Sill Nosing, DripCap, Brilliant White Drip Cap, 4 9/16 Jamb, Standard Double Hung, White Jambliner, Concealed Jambliner White Hardware, Insulated SunResist with HeatSave Annealed Glass, Neat, Protective Film, Black Spacer, High Altitude, Traditional Glz Bd, BetterVue Mesh Brilliant White Screen, Half Screen, *Custom-Width*, *Custom-Height*, IGThick=0.698(3/32 / 3/32), Clear Opening:28.2w, 37h, 7.2 sf U-Factor: 0.27, SHGC: 0.20, VLT: 0.46, Energy Rating: 17.00, CR: 45.00, CPD: JEL-N-885-01785-00001 PEV 2022.4.0.4074/PDV 6.824 (12/02/22)NW 2 Drawings are for visual reference only and may not be to exact scale. All orders are subject to review by JELD-WEN Page 1 of 4 (Prices are subject to change.) Quote Date:Last Modified: JW221200HP7 (Ver:0) - 12/16/202212/16/2022 12/16/2022 5.15 PMcust-65698 227 E. BLEEKER STREET, ASPEN CO 3. NEW HISTORIC WINDOW CUTSHEET KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTURE+INTERIORS 418 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 201 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-2252 227 E. BLEEKER STREET, ASPEN CO HISTORIC WINDOWS F E C B ADH 3' PROPOSED GRADE ELECT. METERTELEPHONECATVG A B C ED F G H 1 1.5 2 2.50 3.50 4 WEST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION SOUTH 2 ELEVATION H103 H102 H101 W101 W102 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTURE+INTERIORS 418 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 201 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-2252 227 E. BLEEKER STREET, ASPEN CO HISTORIC WINDOWS F E C B ADH 3' PROPOSED GRADE ELECT. METERTELEPHONECATVG A B C ED F G H 1 1.5 2 2.50 3.50 4 WEST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION SOUTH 2 ELEVATION H103 H102 H101 W101 W102 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTURE+INTERIORS 418 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 201 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-2252 227 E. BLEEKER STREET, ASPEN CO HISTORIC WINDOWS F E C B ADH 3' PROPOSED GRADE ELECT. METERTELEPHONECATVG A B C ED F G H 1 1.5 2 2.50 3.50 4 WEST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION SOUTH 2 ELEVATION H103 H102 H101 W101 W102 JELDWEN WINDOW SPECIFICATIONS * SEE ATTACHED FILE FOR DOCUMENT 37 227 E. BLEEKER STREET, ASPEN CO 4. PORCH COLUMNS KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTURE+INTERIORS 418 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 201 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-2252 227 E. BLEEKER STREET, ASPEN CO PORC H COLUMNS7'-9"2'-9"3'-8 1/2"CHAMFERED SECTION1'-3 1/2"5"2'-9"3'-8 1/2"CHAMFERED SECTION1'-3 1/2"2 1/2" NEW 5" SQUARE PORCH COLUMNS. CHAMFERED DESIGN AT CENTER PORTION. NEW 5"X 2 1/2" PORCH COLUMNS. CHAMFERED DESIGN AT CENTER PORTION. T.O.FF PORCH PORCH COLUMN PORCH HALF COLUMN PORC H COLUMN DET. COLUMN INSPIRATION PHOTO KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTURE+INTERIORS 418 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 201 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-2252 227 E. BLEEKER STREET, ASPEN CO PORC H COLUMNS7'-9"2'-9"3'-8 1/2"CHAMFERED SECTION1'-3 1/2"5"2'-9"3'-8 1/2"CHAMFERED SECTION1'-3 1/2"2 1/2" NEW 5" SQUARE PORCH COLUMNS. CHAMFERED DESIGN AT CENTER PORTION. NEW 5"X 2 1/2" PORCH COLUMNS. CHAMFERED DESIGN AT CENTER PORTION. T.O.FF PORCH PORC H COLUMN PORCH HALF COLUMN PORC H COLUMN DET. COLUMN INSPIRATION PHOTO INSPIRATION PHOTO HALF COLUMN COLUMN 38 418 E. Cooper Ave. Suite 201- Aspen, CO 81611 www.kimraymondarchitects.com MAY 26, 2023 227 E. BLEEKER ST. SOLAR PANEL ROOF ATTATCHMENTS 39 227 E. BLEEKER STREET, ASPEN CO ROOF VIEW 40 227 E. BLEEKER STREET, ASPEN CO PROPOSED SOLAR ARRAY KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTURE+INTERIORS 418 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 201 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-2252 227 E. BLEEKER STREET, 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 CALCUL ATIONS ROOF MATERIALS: NEW ASPHALT SHINGLE NEW TPO ROOF STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 41 227 E. BLEEKER STREET, ASPEN CO NEW ASPHALT SHINGLE: SOLAR PANEL ATTATCHMENT: INSTALLATION DIAGRAM INSTALLATION PHOTO Zilla base plate will be Attached to new “sintered” Roof structure. PROPOSED HISTORIC ROOF STRCTURE 42 227 E. BLEEKER STREET, ASPEN CO NEW TOP ROOF: (OVER NEW STRUCTURE) SOLAR PANEL ATTATCHMENT: INSTALLATION PHOTO 43 227 E. BLEEKER STREET, ASPEN CO STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF: SOLAR PANEL ATTATCHMENT: INSTALLATION PHOTO CLAMP DETAIL 44 To all, I would like to add a few comments to the points made In Mr. Moore's letter regarding historic structures and sustainability. I have been with the Aspen Fire Department now for nearly 30 years. During that time, 1 have had opportunity to see many changes within the fire service, sadly including wildfire, the changes in wildfire fire behavior, and its impact on communities. In the interests of keeping this response short, my concern is with historic structures and the importance of life safety. My hope is that a dialogue will be opened up to reassess requirements for historical structures within the City of Aspen and allow owners to use fire resistance materials to protect their homes. A few of my reasons for this are as follows: • Marshall Fire, Boulder County &Superior • Paradise, CA • Maui, HI • Coal Seam Fire, 2012, 29 homes lost • Lake Christine Fire, 2022, three homes lost; fortunately a mobile home park was saved • Insurance Over the last few months, 1 have been learning of more and more home owners and building owners faced with a choice by insurance companies to either protect their property by upgrading to class A roofing & siding materials, or face exorbitant insurance rate increases, or lose their insurance altogether. This isn't hyperbole, nor infrequent. It is fact. For the first time this year, Aspen Fire has been asked by homeowners who are in the planning phase of building to have a wildfire assessment done on their as yet empty lot. Again, this is a requirement coming from their insurance company. As of 2023, the City of Aspen began requiring that fire sprinklers be installed in all new residential construction. I do commend the City for this proactive decision. However, I would emphasize that interior fire sprinklers do not protect a home from wildfire. Any firefighter can and will tell you that. The best way to protect a home from the fire next door, or wildfire, is by using roofing and siding materials that are fire resistant in addition to creating a fire zone around their home. We are at a nexus point, and I would hope everyone would be willing to look closely and objectively at how best to protect the homes in this community. As has been pointed out, there are new and sustainable building materials that still have the historical look but provide much better protection for homes verses 100+ year old wood siding, and wood shake or asphalt shingles. As someone whose world is life safety, to me the choice is clear. Life safety. Respectfully, Jan Legersky Fire Marshal, Aspen Fire Joshua Martin, AICP, CNU-A 9 December 2023 Mrs. Amy Simon Planning Director City of Aspen Aspen City Hall 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Historic District Best Practices Mrs. Simon: Good evening. I hope this email finds you safe and well. My name is Josh Martin and I am a certified urban planner (AICP, CNU-A) with over twenty (20) years of professional experience in working in the many of the nation's oldest historic districts in the country including but not limited to Charleston, South Carolina (founded in 1670), Beaufort, South Carolina (founded in 1711), and Savannah, Georgia (founded in 1733). During m tenure at the City of Charleston, I worked directly for Mayor Joseph P. Riley (served for Mayor of the City o7 Charleston for 40 years) as the Director of Planning, Preservation, and Economic Innovation in which role I oversaw the design review (Board of Architectural Review) and the City's Zoning and Building Codes of the nation's oldest historic district --the first historic district established in the United States. Recently, I was asked to share my observations of changes in the government oversight of historic districts that face extreme weather conditions of wind, flooding, fire etc. The responsible opportunity from a Tannin and design perspective involves preserving the basic design of the street scape, massing, roof shapes, window fenestration etc. It 10 not practical to pretend to protect old siding, wood roofing, window frames, and similar materials that are not resilient to natural disasters such as hurricanes, flooding, and wildfires. New sustainable materials have been developed and continue to evolve that replicate wood but are energy efficient and fire retardant. Aspen can and should be at the head of the list of cities that are leading the way to encourage and mandate the best sustainable practices. If you have any questions or would like to discuss in more detail, please feel free to contact me at jlangem@ yahoo.com Respectfully Submitted, Joshua Lange Martin, AICP, CNU-A 424 Chilean Avenue Palm Beach, FL 33480 Architect Joeb Moore & Partners Joeb Moore, FAIA Principal Joeb Moore & Partners, Architects, L,L.C, 20 Bruce Park Avenue Greenwich, CT 06830 imooreCcioebmoore.corn www.Aoebmoore.com December 8, 2023 Re: Sustainable & Regenerafiive Bio-Regional Design Best Practices in Coastal &Mountain Communities "fo Whom it May Concern: My long-time client and friend Ken Hubbard has asked me to comment on environmentally sustainable and resilient design practices that are being advanced across the United States in historic communities and landscapes. The task of negotiating and finding a dynamic balance between ecological and cultural thinking requires extraordinarily integrative and complex bicircular analysis of overlapping and competing (even contradictory) concerns, controversies, and dilemmas with respect to current and emerging local historic preservation and regional environmental bio-circular conservation practices. I have been a Professor of Architecture at Columbia University &Senior Design Critic and Lecturer at Yale University for over 30 years. My focus of research and teaching is on the relationship between landscape, architecture, and art thru the lens of ecological, biological, historical, and cultural systems and thinking. In my teaching my students are studying and asked challenging questions about climate, climate dynamics/change and controversies as well as more detailed questions about carbon cycle flow analysis and strategies for the adaptive reuse/regenerative thinking of existing architectures and the embedded material and labor systems at play in them. Within the studio framework students are asked to identify and carefully consider social and environmental designs that will address this larger "circularity" of ecological systems at both the micro -biological and macro -ecological time scales. What I hope emerges is a series of visionary design proposals that can make visible a more profound "awareness" of the complex and interactive play between both cultural and environmental conditions and relations. These range across time and space effecting every physical, chemical, biological system on earth... from human labor to photosynthesis & plant and animal diversity.,.to invasive species and global material transport. I also serve on the board of trustees of The Cultural Landscape Foundation (TCLF.org), A Washington DC non-profit organization that helps bring together diverse, local communities &voices and larger, international research and academic communities to help steward significant cultural landscapes in various cities around North America that are in danger of being lost either to environmental challenges, climate change or our political and economic systems that have left these landscapes largely depleted or invisible and in danger of collapse. In my 30 years of private practice my design approach and philosophy is shaped out of the environmental and cultural ecologies of a place. I believe design excellence requires ecological and relational thinking and such a framework provides for how to build and live responsibly, Our firm, Joeb Moore & Partners, Architects (JM&P), has worked on a significant and growing series of adaptive reuse of historic structures and landscapes around the US, We are committed advocates for carbon flow analysis and energy efficient, sustainable, and resilient practices centered on broad environmental and social issues and justice. We continue to research and use many alternative bio-sensitive building materials and systems that are sensitive to historic conservation & preservation but also environmental sustainability, energy efficiency, and fire retardance and protection. I believe we must prioritize sustainability, resilience, and innovation in built environment, while also considering the awareness and desires of our communal historic past from concept to built -work. This means constantly expanding our knowledge and skills and collaborating with other experts in the field and being responsive and engaged in that dialogue. The City of Aspen is an extraordinary, if not ideal, site and opportunity for advancing these environmental and cultural goals and advocating for national standards of practice that further both historic preservation while advancing environmental sensitivity, sustainability, and resilience. Thank you for your time, consideration and concern about this important topic. 203 769 5$28 t 20 Bruce Park Avenue www.joebmoore,com 203 769 5827 f / Greenwich, CT 06830 Ants Cullwick 2551 Dolores Way Carbondale, CO 81623 Ants@korultd.com (970) 963-0577 Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 127 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 Subject: Support for Modernizing Historic Homes to Increase Resilience to Wildfire and Wind I am writing to express my support for modernizing historic homes to achieve sustainability, energy efficiency and enhanced wildfire resistance. By integrating these practices into preservation efforts, we can balance the preservation of our cultural heritage with safeguarding our community's and our planet's future. Historic homes hold immense historical, architectural, and cultural significance. By upgrading building material selections, we can improve sustainability and wildfire resistance. We feel it is incumbent on the City of Aspen, and the Historic Preservation Commission, to look for solutions that both celebrate our storied past and protect our future. As an integral stakeholder in community, we firmly believe that a commitment to building high -efficiency houses and comprehensive management of wildfire and wind mitigation is paramount to protecting our Aspen community. In our changing environment, demonstrated through warmer and dried climates, increased droughts, and longer wildfire seasons, these topics are foremost in our and your interest to address. We look to you to see the benefits of making the right decision that positively responds to the changing needs of modern-day homebuilding. ! urge the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission to support initiatives that promote the modernization of historic homes to incorporate sustainable, fire resistant materials. 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 modern building technologies in our communities. Ants Cullwick Koru, Ltd 0 0 a u D I? M Io 1'n C/! W N Z �Orn =iZ rn ern tnm rn corn 0N� SX � S cn C <n rn cn cn cn mS L rnC L <�<G �Z L rn ,n^� co 0 Q O O`� O = Q rn rn 0 rn D X r{ Z N_ W --- Tm LM NOW N rn rn L� � r`r ,x�, Co rn rn 0 X S rn rn rn r`n Z 0 D �� cnrrnnD �G �� WE; C U) c 70 N z rn` S V � {{ to rn rn v w OQo NG� =;7 DD �m D �� 73 D 0 N Z � � rn Cr 00 M:j�— Cf �y ;� 71 rn rn T tl7 Fn -t =i� O "'1 7 O -"-i ern_^' > T roX C�iQ N W _ N rn D X 7Z 0 x rn Q � C Z D HPC PROJECT MONITORS - projects in bold are permitted or under construction 12/8/2023 Kara Thompson 300 E. Hyman 201 E. Main 333 W. Bleeker 234 W. Francis Skier’s Chalet Steakhouse 101 W. Main (Molly Gibson Lodge) 720 E. Hyman 304 E. Hopkins 930 King 312 W. Hyman 520 E. Cooper 931 Gibson Jeff Halferty 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 204 S. Galena 215 E. Hallam 500 E. Durant 413 E. Main Roger Moyer 300 W. Main 227 E. Main 135 E. Cooper 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 630 W. Main 420 W. Francis 135 W. Francis 45 HPC PROJECT MONITORS - projects in bold are permitted or under construction 12/8/2023 Kim Raymond 630 W. Main 205 W. Main 216 W. Hyman Riley Warwick 420 E. Durant/Rubey Park 420 W. Francis 400 E. Cooper Need to assign: 209 E. Bleeker, Lift One Park, 46