Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20240410AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION April 10, 2024 4:30 PM, City Council Chambers - 3rd Floor 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 I.ROLL CALL II.MINUTES II.A Draft Minutes - 3/27/24 III.PUBLIC COMMENTS IV.COMMISSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS V.DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI.PROJECT MONITORING VI.A Project Monitoring and Certificate of No Negative Effect Report 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 227 East Main Street – Consideration of Penalties Regarding Alleged Violation of the Municipal Code, Section 26.415 – Historic Preservation, PUBLIC HEARING minutes.hpc.20240327_DRAFT.docx Project Monitoring And Certificate of No Negative Effect Report.20240410.pptx PROJECT MONITORING.pdf 227 E Main St.HPC Memo.20240410.pdf HPC Resolution #__ Series of 2024.doc Exhibit A.HPC Resolution 9 Series of 2020.pdf Exhibit B.HPC Resolution 13 Series of 2020.pdf 1 1 XII.NEW BUSINESS XIII.ADJOURN XIV.NEXT RESOLUTION NUMBER Exhibit C.Final Review elevations and renderings.pdf Exhibit D.227 E Main Street Response, Updated.20240321.pdf Exhibit E.227 E Main Street Remediation Narrative.20240222.pdf Exhibit F.227 E Main Street Apology Letter, Drawings, and Photos.20240228.pdf Exhibit G.227 E Main Street Updated Drawings.20240312.pdf Exhibit H.227 E Main Street.Letter to Owner.20240319.pdf Exhibit I.Contractor Timeline.pdf Exhibit J.Change of Contractor Policy.pdf TYPICAL PROCEEDING FORMAT FOR ALL PUBLIC HEARINGS (1 Hour, 15 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 (10 minutes for minor development; 20 minutes for major development) 4. Board questions and clarifications of applicant (5 minutes) 5. Staff presentation (5 minutes for minor development; 10 minutes for major development) 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. Prior to vote the chair will allow for call for clarification for the proposed resolution. Please note that staff and/or the applicant must vacate the dais during the opposite presentation and board question and clarification session. Both staff and applicant team will vacate the dais during HPC deliberation unless invited by the chair to return. Updated: March 7, 2024 2 2 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2024 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Peter Fornell, Jodi Surfas, Kim Raymond, Charlie Tarver, and Kara Thompson. Absent were Barb Pitchford, Riley Warwick, and Jeff Halferty. Staff present: Kirsten Armstrong, Principal Planner Historic Preservation Stuart Hayden, Planner - Historic Preservation Ben Anderson, Community Development Director Kate Johnson, AssistantCity Attorney Luisa Berne, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: Mr. Moyer motioned to approve the draft minutes from 3/13/24. Ms. Thompson seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 4-0, motion passes. Ms. Thompson wanted to confirm with Ms. Johnson that Mr. Tarver, as an alternate member would be voting because 3 regular members were absent. Ms. Johnson said yes, he would be voting. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer asked Ms. Johnson about a hypothetical situation where an applicant comes to staff with an application that staff believes “will not fly”, yet it still comes before HPC. He asked if there was anything they could do to prevent this. He wondered if the public was taking advantage of the two new HPC staff members, whereas in the past Ms. Amy Simon would have just shut it down. He wondered if HPC just had to keep saying no to applicants even if they keep coming back. Ms. Johnson explained HPC’s options when it came to either denying an application or continuing it. Per the Code, if the HPC denies an application the applicant is barred from resubmitting for one year. The applicant is also only guaranteed one continuance and the HPC is not obligated to continue an application beyond the first continuance unless they feel good cause is shown. She then said that she believed that the City has two highly skilled and intelligent Historic Preservation staff members. She did not have any concerns that things are getting by staff. Mr. Moyer concurred that they had great staff members. Ms. Surfas asked staff to clarify what HPC had approved for 413 E Main St. She felt what is there does not seem to be what they approved. Ms. Johnson stated that any commissioner could look at past HPC meeting agendas and minutes on the City’s website. She said that staff would get the info that Ms. Surfas was asking about. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Ms. Raymond stated that she was conflicted on both agenda items and would leave the meeting before the first item. STAFF COMMENTS: None 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2024 PROJECT MONITORING: None. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. CALL UP REPORTS: None. SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson confirmed that public notice was completed in compliance with the Code for the second agenda item that required it. Ms. Raymond left the meeting. NEW BUSINESS: 227 E. Main St. -Informational Memo Regarding Alleged Violation of the Municipal Code, Section 26.415 – Historic Preservation, NOT A PUBLIC HEARING Staff Presentation: Kirsten Armstrong - Principal Planner Historic Preservation Ms. Armstrong stated that this would be an information session to discuss alleged violations of the Land Use Code and approved building permit. She began her presentation by going over the history of this property, showing a few historical photos. She then detailed the history of previous HPC meetings and approvals for the project. She displayed some of the approved elevations and the conditions of approval that were placed on the project as part of Resolution #13, Series of 2020. She reviewed these conditions. She stated that the building permit, issued in May of 2022, noted that all historic framing, windows, and perimeter walls and roof were to be preserved in place with new structures sistered as needed. This note was also included on the structural plans. She then stated that on February 15th, 2024, staff received a voicemail from an HPC member with concerns that the framer may have removed the remaining historic framing on the west roof. She showed a picture that was taken by staff when investigating. Later that day they conducted a site visit with the City’s Chief Building Official and the project’s architect and contractors. She stated that the Chief Building Official issued a stop work order on the morning of February 16th. An email was sent to the project team requesting documentation, photos, and an explanation of what happened and why. She noted that the project superintendent does not currently have his Historic Preservation BEST card certification. He has applied for it and passed the test on March 13th, 2024, but the certification has not been issued as an investigation and enforcement are ongoing. She went on to review what had happened which is detailed in the agenda packet. She then noted that demolition calculations were requested and indicate the approved work came to approximately 11.5% demolition, while the unapproved work, including the removal of the historic roof rafters, totals 42.44% demolition. Next, she reviewed the Historic Preservation penalties as written in the Municipal Land Use Code and presented in the agenda packet. She referenced the response received from the applicant team, which indicates their willingness to reframe the roof in accordance with the approved structural drawings and to assist with contractor training documents. She noted the intent here was to inform HPC of the alleged violation and provide background information and that any discussion here should focus on what additional information HPC members may need from staff or the applicant in order to consider penalties at the HPC public hearing, scheduled for April 10th, 2024. 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2024 Ms. Thompson asked if any Floor Area Bonuses were awarded. Ms. Armstrong said there were no Floor Area bonuses granted, yet some setback variances were granted. Mr. Fornell asked if the contractor’s lack of credentials with the BEST certification had slipped through the cracks. Ms. Armstrong stated that her belief was that the project superintendent had changed a few times and the superintendent at the time the permit was issued had his BEST certification, but then left the company. In the shuffle it wasmissed somehow. She was not sure why, as it happened before herself and Mr. Hayden were with the City. Ms. Thompson said she felt the documentation that staff had provided was sufficient. She did ask that the existing and proposed elevations be included in the agenda packet for the public hearing. Mr. Fornell asked if the original application and approval predated the 40% rule on demolition. Ms. Thompson noted that Historic properties were exempt for the GMQS demolition rule. Ms. Armstrong said that was just to provide a number for reference. NEW BUSINESS: 227 E. Bleeker St.- Substantial Amendment -PUBLIC HEARING Applicant Presentation: Mr. Milo Stark – Kim Raymond Architects Mr. Stark introduced himself and Mr. Scott Hershey with Koru Ltd. who is the superintendent on the project. He then started his presentation by noting that they are seeking two separate approvals. One is for modifications to the historic wall assembly and the other is replacement of the historic roofing materials. He went over some background on the property and noted that it was covered in some asbestos transite shingles that were chosen in the 1930s for their fire-resistant properties. He then detailed the process of the removal of these shingles, which now has exposed the historic wood siding to the elements. He noted that the historic interior walls studs are either attached to the historic wood siding or to some internal vertical 1-inch wood sheathing. He showed a diagram of where the historic wood sheathing was located in the house. He then went over some of their concerns due to the existing conditions. One being that adequate structural sheathing is missing from half of the building. The other is the absence of adequate waterproofing. He went into more detail about these concerns. Another concern was that the wall assembly lacks adequate fire protection. He spoke to the current issues with wildfires and the risk they pose to this and surrounding homes. He noted that insurance companies are now requiring fire hardened materials and that some people are losing coverage due to a lack of these materials. He referred to a letter from the Aspen Fire Marshall that was in the agenda packet which also expressed concerns about historic structures and life safety and related insurance issues. He shared another letter that they received from a neighboring property owner Karen Kribs expressing support for the project. He moved on to describe the details of the current wall assembly, how it performs and the resultant waterproofing issues. Next, he described the details of the currently approved wall assembly. Then he went over some of their proposals to address their concerns while protecting the historic structure. This includes allowing them to carefully remove the historic wood siding, storing it in a safe place, restoring it to a paintable surface and then reapplying it after modifications to the wall assembly are complete. Also, allowing them to remove and discard the existing vertical wood sheathing. This would not affect the appearance or structural integrity of the house. Finally, the introduction of the adequate materials that address their concerns. This includes the proposed fireproof sheathing called LP Flame Block and a waterproofing membrane. They would introduce furring strips to try to emulate the thickness of the 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2024 historic walls. He then read some excerpts from letters of support from Ants Cullwick, the owner of Koru Ltd. and Rio Jacober, a project manager with Koru that were both included in the agenda packet. He went over the Historic Preservation Guidelines relevant to the wall assembly request and how and why they believe they are met. Mr. Stark moved on to their next request of the historic roof replacement material. He showed the conditions of the roof they found when they started the preservation work. He went over the history of the prior approved materials and a change in the home’s ownership in 2022. He showed the previously approved wood shingles and the currently approved asphalt shingles and detailed the positives and negatives of each. He noted that they had come before HPC in December of 2023 to request an alternative roofing material from Brava which was not well received by the board members. In January of this year, they presented another alternative roofing material from EcoStar to the monitor and staff and created a mockup on site. The monitor decided it was not a monitor level review. He then went over the specifics of the EcoStar product, and it’s benefits over asphalt shingles. He went over the Historic Preservation Guidelines relevant to this request and how and why they believe they are met. He said that with HPC’s approval of this request they can offer a viable roofing option that looks better than asphalt shingles and is safer than wood shingles as well as setting a precedent for using sustainable materials in historic preservation and practices. Ms. Thompson asked if the applicant team had any concerns about taking a historic stud that historically had the ability to move with the exterior siding and trapping it between an exterior waterproofing barrier and internal spray foam insulation. She asked if they had evaluated any other interior insulation material that would allow the studs to move. She said she had not seen any wall assemblies that had spray foam insulation on the interior. Mr. Hershey stated that they have the issue of humidified homes where if there isn’t a vapor barrier, the moisture can make it way through, hit a dew point in the wall and cause mold. He went on to describe how moisture can move through wall assemblies and why their assembly will prevent moisture issues to the historic siding. Ms. Thompson addressed the proposed shear wall and said that interior shear walls can be used. Mr. Hershey agreed but said that their proposal adds another level of shear as well as fire protection. Mr. Moyer asked if they were planning to back seal any of the siding that gets removed before they put it back up. Mr. Hershey said yes. Ms. Thompson wanted to confirm that they would be open to using the 6- and 9-inch widths for the synthetic roofing shingles. Mr. Stark noted that the mockup they built used the 6- and 9-inch widths as they better emulate shingles. Mr. Hershey mentioned that they presented their proposed wall assembly to the City’s Chief Building Official and that she was in support of it. Staff Presentation: Stuart Hayden - Planner - Historic Preservation Mr. Hayden started his presentation by saying that staff appreciates the conversation around building science, wall assemblies and roofing materials as they pertain to fire protection. He noted that HPC and staff are scheduled to have a work session at their next meeting to discuss these issues in more depth. While the HPC can act as a recommending body to City Council for any potential changes to the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, he asked that HPC consider the proposals in front them for 227 E. Bleeker with the current Design Guidelines in mind. He also suggested that the applicant’s proposed wall 6 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2024 assembly request would be best considered as two issues. One for the disassembly of the historic siding and the other being the removal of the historic sheathing. Mr. Hayden next stated that in staff’s assessment, the disassembly of the historic siding does not meet Guidelines 2.1, 6.1, or 6.2. He went on to explain the reasoning for this and staff’s concerns with the potential disassembly as referenced in the agenda packet. He said that staff recommends approval of disassembling the historic wood siding only where necessary for its restoration, or to access parts of the wall assembly where no sheathing exists. He moved on to the request to remove the historic sheathing. He stated that in staff’s assessment the removal does not meet Guidelines 2.1 and 2.4. He went on to explain the reasoning for this as referenced in the agenda packet. He said that staff recommends approval of the installation of new sheathing only where no historic sheathing exists. Moving on to the request to install the EcoStar synthetic shakes, Mr. Hayden stated that staff does not believe this meets Guidelines 7.7. 7.8 and 7.9 that call for the preservation of roofing materials and if new replacement materials are required that they should reflect and be similar to the original as much as possible. He then provided more detail of staff’s findings as referenced in the agenda packet. He noted that the Ecostar synthetic shakes have an exaggerated wood grain texture that is unlike the smooth grain finish of wood shingles as well as a reflectivity or sheen that is unlike a wood shingle. He also noted that wooden shakes have not been evidenced as existing in Aspen around the time of the original construction or at any other time, thus using them would create a false sense of the building’s original appearance. He said that staff would recommend approval of a roofing material that is more akin to the original in style, size, and color, but does not find that this product is it. He noted that staff does not want to close the door on the possibility that a product does exist, just that they have not seen one yet. He then showed a slide with staff’s recommendations and said that the proposed approval conditions allow for some level of flexibility without a full denial. Ms. Thompson asked if staff had talked to the building department. Mr. Hayden said that they are making no argument that the proposed wall assembly does not meet building code. Mr. Moyer asked if siding is removed would staff have a recommendation to seal the back side before it goes back up. Mr. Hayden said staff does not have a recommendation off hand, but something could be added as a condition of approval. Mr. Fornell asked if staff had a recommendation of a specific roofing material in a best-case scenario. Mr. Hayden no, but staff looks forward to having the conversation about alternative roofing materials at the next meeting’s work session as they feel it is a broader conversation. He said that interpreting the current guidelines would suggest original material of wood shingles would be the preferred option, yet there is also precedent to using asphalt shingles which were previously approved for this project. Mr. Fornell then asked if companies producing synthetic roofing materials been able to make a composite material that will most closely resemble a historic shingle product. Mr. Hayden said he was not aware, but staff would be open to such a product. Mr. Hershey then responded to Mr. Fornell’s question. He said that when they presented the mockup on site the comments were that the size and scale were correct, but the color was not. He then presented a few samples of the different materials and described the color and width options that EcoStar can provide. 7 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2024 Mr. Stark asked Ms. Thompson if he could respond to Mr. Hayden’s presentation regarding the sheathing. Ms. Thompson said yes. Mr. Hershey stated that they did not understand what staff’s recommendation was. Mr. Stark said the question they have is that only being able to install their proposed wall assembly in only a few locations where historic sheathing does not exist, does not fully address their main concern, that being fire protection. Public Comment: Ms. Thompson opened the public comment and asked all the board members if they had read the letter from Ms. Karen Kribs that was presented by the applicant. All members said yes. Ms. Johnson noted that she had emailed another public comment letter to the board members earlier that day that was from a City Council member. She noted that this letter should not carry any more weight because it was from a Council member. Ms. Thompson asked the members if they had read that email. All members said yes. Mr. Rio Jacober of Koru Ltd. commented that Aspen has always led the nation in many aspects of building science. He thought that they were seeing two conflicting things happening. He thought that doing nothing on these buildings and allowing them to just be rebuilt in ways that are not at the highest level of building science risks some negligence. He said that he understands the difficult position of counter acting direction from both the building code and the attempt to maintain historical integrity. He thought at some point the community needs to start to embrace modern building techniques and science and understand that the preservation of the town’s culture and look is achievable using those techniques and materials. Ms. Thompson closed the public comment. Mr. Hayden asked to respond to the public comment. Ms. Thompson allowed his response. Mr. Hayden displayed a technical data sheet for the applicant’s proposed EcoStar roofing material. He noted as a point of clarification, that the product is called the “Empire Shake”, not shingle, and is described in this data sheet as “designed to provide the look of natural cedar shake”. He said that staff believed the product is replicative of a material that was never historically used in Aspen and is therefore inappropriate for this project. He reiterated staff’s support of addressing issues of materials and the introduction of new materials but encouraged the HPC at this time to consider the project according to the current Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Board Discussion: Ms. Thompson opened the board discussion by stating, while not a reflection on current staff, that she was frustrated that shehad been asking staff for building consultants on this topic for three years and progress has not been made. She also said that requests to adjust the Design Guidelines were strongly dissuaded by former staff. She stated that they need to address these issues urgently. Ms. Thompson suggested the board split their discussion into the siding question and the roofing question. Mr. Fornell said that after hearing from the applicant regarding the condition of the historic siding, he believed the removal, treatment and replacement of the siding will likely extend its useful life. He said he would support the removal, treatment, and replacement of the siding if it is properly overseen. Ms. Surfas said that she recalled from their last meeting, that there might have been an issue with the dimensions of the siding and sheathing replacement in places, but it seemed that it had been resolved. Ms. Thompson said that in the past there was a concern with the thickness of the furring strips, but it 8 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2024 now seemed that the 1-inch sheathing was being replaced with 7/16-inch sheathing and 1/2-inch furring strips to replicate the original thickness. Ms. Surfas then said that she would be in support of the siding removal, treatment, and replacement. Mr. Moyer said the siding could be removed, saved, and replaced, but the point is it needs to be done slowly and carefully. He also recommended that the siding be back sealed with a water-based primer. Regarding the proposed sheathing he said that did have concerns about the use of new types of materials. He commented that with the building department being ok with the proposed wall assembly, he wondered if the other members were comfortable with that. He said that he was now relying on Mr. Stark to give them something that will work. Ms. Thompson asked that staff have Chief Building Official provide HPC with a letter stating her support of the proposed wall assembly details and materials. Mr. Moyer stated his support for the removal of the siding again. Ms. Thompson said she agreed with staff that this does not meet the current Design Guidelines, but she believed that it is a better building science decision. She said she had no concerns about this contractor but did not think every contractor is capable of this type of restoration and did not want to set a precedent. She said in other projects she would want to know exactly who the contractor was. Mr. Tarver asked about the longevity of a wall restoration if the proposed action of removing and replacing the siding takes place versus the restoration being done in place. He asked if there was any history of those two options. Mr. Moyer said that if the removal and replacement is done to industry standards it will be as good as it ever could have been. Mr. Tarver said that he supported the removal and replacement of the siding. Ms. Thompson moved on to discussing the roofing materials. Mr. Fornell acknowledged that a roof had to be put on as it currently has a metal roof. He said that you cannot put wooden shingles up, so you have either asphalt shingles, or the proposed synthetic material and he does not like asphalt shingles. With the one option left in his mind, he questioned what its aesthetic would be when it is installed versus in 30 years. He pointed to a lighter color sample that was presented. He said that with the material options available and the environment that we live in, he was in support of the proposed composite material. Ms. Surfas asked Mr. Fornell why he thought they could not use wooden shingles. Mr. Fornell said he thought it was a building code issue. Mr. Moyer said it was not. Mr. Fornell then said it was an insurance issue. He then took back his statement about it being a building code issue but said he did not want to force an applicant to use a certain material that would not allow them to insure their house. Mr. Moyer noted that they must look at the modern world. He referenced Trex and Hardy Plank materials as examples of new composites that have some major issues. He said they don’t know how long composite materials will last. He said that he had contacted a manufacturer of a different synthetic roofing material and asked if they could replicate a wooden shingle. He said he did not get a positive response. He said that the proposed material here is close, but it is not there. He said that as it sits, he would reject the currently proposed material. He thought potentially in the future a product might be 9 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2024 created that you could not tell the difference. He felt that HPC was stuck here as they had not had their discussion on roofing materials yet. Ms. Thompson said she felt torn on the roofing material as well. She said she would like to see the synthetic shingles get there but agreed with Mr. Moyer that this product is not there. She also found this challenging because she’d like to have the discussion with the whole board on the roofing materials issue. She also said that she would not say yes to the replacement of the sheathing until the board receives a letter from the Chief Building Official. She suggested that they continue this item, including the roofing materials and sheathing requests, until after they have had the roofing discussion at the next meeting. She clarified that she was ok with the removal of the siding. Mr. Fornell agreed that they should hold off on the sheathing and roofing materials requests. Mr. Moyer agreed. Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Johnson if they could approve the siding removal and continue the sheathing and roofing requests. Ms. Johnson considered HPC’s options and wondered if they could vote on just one of the items. The applicant team asked when the continuance would be until. Ms. Armstrong said the next available meeting would be April 24th. After that the next meeting would be May 8th. Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Johnson if it would be ok to direct staff and monitor to approve the removal of the siding. Ms. Johnson said she would be comfortable with that as this originated as a staff and monitor item, but she looked to staff for their thoughts realizing that some board members were not present at this meeting but may attend the next meeting. She thought that the proper procedure would be to continue the entire item to a date certain as the public noticing would indicate that the siding would be an item for discussion while it potentially may be taken off the table with a vote today. Mr. Fornell said that he was always a proponent of keeping people moving forward and suggested that they try to complete the entire request at this meeting. Ms. Thompson asked if they could split this into two resolutions. Ms. Johnson and the members discussed the ability to potentially split the two items and vote on a resolution approving the siding removal and continuing the sheathing and roofing material items. Mr. Anderson agreed with the idea of splitting the requests into two resolutions. MOTION:Ms. Thompson moved to approve Resolution #01 of 2024 with the following revision to condition #1, adding that the applicant is approved to disassemble all historic wood siding on the structure and to remove conditions #2 and #3 from the resolution. Ms. Johnson asked, with the boards’ approval, to change the first section to say “HPC approves the applicant’s substantial amendment request to disassemble all historic wood siding with the following conditions”. Ms. Johnson, Mr. Anderson and staff continued to wordsmith the language in the resolution to make sure it was clear that HPC was only approving the removal of historic siding and not the entire substantial amendment request. 10 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 27TH, 2024 Mr. Anderson then said that it seemed the intention here was clear and suggested that staff continue to wordsmith the resolution outside of the meeting, and the have the HPC Chair and the applicant review and approve the changes before the Chair signed the resolution. Ms. Thompson revised her original motion. She moved to approve Resolution #01 of 2024 with the intent to approve the removal and storage of the existing wood siding with the understanding that the second part of the first substantial amendment request related to the historic sheathing as well as the second request related to the roofing materials be continued to another public hearing and authorizing the chair to sign Resolution #01. Mr. Moyer seconded the motion. Mr. Tarver asked if the Resolution would allow the applicant to work on the siding after it was removed. Ms. Thompson said yes, it would allow it. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Tarver, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 5-0, motion passes. MOTION: Ms. Thompson then moved to continue the remaining items related to the exterior sheathing and wall assembly and roofing materials to April 24th, 2024. Mr. Fornell seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Tarver, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 5-0, motion passes. Mr. Anderson requested to make a few comments to which Ms. Thompson agreed. Mr. Anderson said he thought this was a very timely conversation and realized that it was frustrating for both the HPC and the applicant in that they were caught in this place in time where Aspen has been doing things in this arena for a very long time with a clear set of outcomes related to Historic Preservation. He spoke about his time living in Flagstaff, AZ having to respond to wildfire threats. He noted that the community here understands that the forest we have now is not the same as it was 25 or 30 years ago as it relates to wildfire risks. He agreed that the City’s Historic Preservation Guidelines have not kept up with the times. He stated that there is a coordinated effort across many City departments to coordinate a response to wildfire resiliency. He said he was looking forward to having conversations with HPC about targeted changes to the Design Guidelines. ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor; motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk 11 Project Monitoring and Certificate of No Negative Effect Report Historic Preservation Commission April 10, 2024 12 Project Monitoring • 630 W Main Street Certificate of No Negative Effect • 100 E Main Street, Unit 5 13 630 W Main Street Requests: •Locate rain garden along eastern fence and plant with wildflower seed mix. - Approved •Locate FDC hook-up below the FDC strobe. - Approved •Install clear plastic snow clips - Denied •Exploratory removal of siding between south corner of east façade and first window on the east façade from the base to the top. - Denied •Install 1- and 2-foot-wide-gravel borders on the east and south sides, respectively - Approved •Install a 4-inch-wide-gravel and 3-feet-wide-cement border around the west perimeter of the pan abode. - Approved •Penetrate the west wall of the non-historic addition for vents on the 1st & 2nd stories - Approved 14 100 E Main Street Request: louvered awning on second floor balcony facing Main Street 15 HPC PROJECT MONITORS - projects in bold are permitted or under construction 1/4/2024 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 312 W. Hyman 520 E. Cooper 931 Gibson 1020 E. Cooper 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 211/213 W. Hopkins 211 W. Main 215 E. Hallam 500 E. Durant 413 E. Main Roger Moyer 227 E. Main 135 E. Cooper 110 Neale 517 E. Hopkins Skier’s Chalet Lodge 202 E. Main 320 E. Hyman (Wheeler Opera House, solar panels) 611 W. Main 132 W. Hopkins 500 E. Durant Jodi Surfas 202 E. Main 320 E. Hyman (Wheeler Opera House, solar panels) 611 W. Main 602 E. Hyman Peter Fornell 304 E. Hopkins 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 Kim Raymond 630 W. Main 205 W. Main 216 W. Hyman 16 HPC PROJECT MONITORS - projects in bold are permitted or under construction 1/4/2024 Riley Warwick 420 E. Durant/Rubey Park 420 W. Francis 400 E. Cooper 17 Page 1 of 2 427 Rio Grande Pl, Aspen, CO 81611 | P: 970.920.5090 | aspen.gov Memorandum TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Ben Anderson, Community Development Director FROM: Kirsten Armstrong, Principal Planner Historic Preservation MEETING DATE: March 27, 2024 RE: 227 East Main Street – Consideration of Penalties Regarding Alleged Violation of the Municipal Code, Section 26.415 – Historic Preservation, PUBLIC HEARING APPLICANT /OWNER: 227 East Main, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Kim Raymond Architecture + Interiors LOCATION: Street Address: 227 E Main Street Legal Description: Lot F, Block 74, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado Parcel Identification Number: PID# 2737-073-28-003 CURRENT ZONING & USE Mixed Use, Single Family Residential PROPOSED ZONING & USE: No change SUMMARY: On February 16th, 2024, the City of Aspen Chief Building Official issued a Stop Work Order at 227 East Main Street (Figure 1), an individually designated AspenVictorian resource. The City alleges violations of the land use approvals granted by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), the permit granted by the Building Department, and the requirement of a Historic Preservation Specialty Contractor’s Certification. This memo intends to inform HPC about the alleged violation so that HPC may determine whether or not to impose penalties within their authority. What follows includes information already provided to HPC during an information only session on March 27th, 2024. New and updated information is provided on pages 7 through 9, underneath heading sections Contractor, Penalties, and Recommendations, and within Exhibits C. Figure 1. Site Locator Map – 227 E. Main St. 18 Page 2 of 3 427 Rio Grande Pl, Aspen, CO 81611 | P: 970.920.5090 | aspen.gov BACKGROUND The City of Aspen’s Historic Preservation Program saw its beginnings in 1972, when a citizen’s “Save the Victorians” group encouraged City Council to adopt the city’s first historic preservation ordinance. The program has grown tremendously since then, acquiring two historic districts, approximately 300 individually designated AspenVictorian resources, and approximately 50 individually designated AspenModern resources. Though change has occurred to the program from its inception, the purpose is still to protect, enhance and preserve those properties, areas and sites, which represent the distinctive elements of Aspen's cultural, educational, social, economic, political and architectural history. 227 East Main Street is a circa 1886, one- story, wood frame Miner’s Cottage (Figure 2, Figure 3). Prior to the 2020 Major Development approvals, changes that occurred to the resource over time include the installation of asbestos siding over the original wood siding, removal of the original porch and windows details, and a small addition to the rear elevation which can be seen by 1974 aerial imagery. 227 East Main Street underwent Conceptual and Final Review for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development, Relocation, Setback Variations, and GMQS Change in Use in 2020. The project received HPC Conceptual and Final review approval, both with conditions, through HPC Resolution #9, Series of 2020 (Exhibit A) and HPC Resolution #13, Series of 2020 (Exhibit B). Elevations and renderings submitted as part of the Final HPC review are included in Exhibit C. Approvals included the restoration of the historic resource, to be undertaken with evidence from historic construction, photographs, and additional research. Benefits awarded as part of the approval include the following setback variations: • A 5’10” front yard setback, where 10’ is required, to retain the historic house in its existing location. • A 0’ east and west side yard setback, where 5’ is required to retain the historic house in its existing location and to allow basement excavation. Figure 2. 1886 Sanborn Map. 227 E Main Street parcel highlighted with a red border. Figure 3. 1969 Photograph including 227 E Main Street to the right side, Aspen Historical Society, https://archiveaspen.catalogaccess.com/photos/152775 19 Page 3 of 4 427 Rio Grande Pl, Aspen, CO 81611 | P: 970.920.5090 | aspen.gov • A 3’ east and west side yard setback for the addition, above and below grade, where 5’ is required. SUMMARY OF ALLEGED VIOLATION TREK Builders LLC is serving as the general contractor for the 227 East Main Street project. On March 19, 2024, TREK Builders LLC provided a document in response to staff questions regarding unapproved removal of historic roof framing, see Exhibit D. This document provides detailed information. A summary of the unapproved work follows: • Westmost, north/south gable: Historic top plate removed, new top plate installed, with historic top plate installed on top of the new. LVL ledger placed too high. Historic rafters were removed and replaced next to new framing, resulting in a gable roof that is 4 ½ “ taller than it was originally. • Eastmost, north/south gable: Historic rafters removed and relocated 6” higher than original location. • East/west gable: Incorrect placement of LVL ledger resulting in a birds-mouth notch to the historic rafters, which was not an original condition. Although historic preservation projects typically do not include demolition calculations, which allows the program to incentivize removal of non-historic additions and alterations, in this instance staff requested demolition calculations be prepared to compare approved work and unapproved work. The demolition calculations provided indicate that approved work including the re-introduction of a historic door and the reconstruction of the front porch equals to approximately 11.45% demolition. Whereas the addition of unapproved historic rafter removal takes that total up to approximately 42.44% demolition. It should be noted that Project Superintendent Michael Monsauret does not currently have his Historic Preservation BEST Card/Certification. He has applied for and passed the test on March 13, 2024, but the certification has not been issued by the Chief Building Official as investigation and enforcement is ongoing. The representative team considered and addressed potential corrective action and appropriate penalties on page 4 of Exhibit D. Their writeup indicates their willingness to reframe the roof in accordance with the approved structural drawings, provides suggestion that they could assist with creating contractor training documents, and provides the offer to forgo the $30,000 financial assurance bond that was provided for the approved building relocation. NARRATIVE OF STAFF PROCESS UPON LEARNING OF ALLEGED VIOLATION On February 15th, 2024, staff received a voicemail from an HPC Board Member, stating concern that the framer may have removed the remaining historic roof framing on the west side of the resource. Staff went to the site to confirm, see Figure 4. Staff messaged the representative team to inform them of the alleged violation and coordinated with the Chief Building Official. Approved plans were reviewed to confirm that this approach was not to plan. A site visit was conducted February 15, 2024, with the Chief Building Official, Historic Preservation Officer, architect, Figure 4. State of construction at 227 E Main Street on February 15th, 2024. 20 Page 4 of 5 427 Rio Grande Pl, Aspen, CO 81611 | P: 970.920.5090 | aspen.gov project superintendent, and the framing subcontractor. By this time, new framing had been installed with the historic framing sistered on to new, see Figure 5. The Chief Building Official issued a Stop Work Order the morning of February 16th, 2024. An email to the representative team requested documentation including photos, narrative, and a timeline, regarding what happened and why. Staff received a letter from TREK Builders LLC on February 22, 2024, see Exhibit E. On February 28, 2024, staff received an apology letter, drawings, and before and after photos to illustrate what occurred, see Exhibit F. Updated drawings were received on March 12, 2024, see Exhibit G. When the updated drawings were sent, the representative team included the following narrative in their email: From my recent discussions with Trek Builders, the historic stud walls remained intact, with the only exception being the top plates on the west side gable. Those top plates were detached from the historic studs below, a new top plate was placed on top, and then the historic was put back on top of the new plate. That means that gable actually moved up 4 1/2” inches from its original location, not 3”. I’ve updated the drawings that you recently reviewed to reflect that and have also added an additional page showing some photos and explaining this alteration. I included a photo of the house being moved to remind everyone that there was no historic sill plate, and that the new double sill plates were always a part of the plan to place the historic studs back onto. On March 13, 2023, staff requested more detailed responses to the following topics/questions: • Please provide a written description of the historic condition, the current condition, and changes to the plan to accompany the drawings. Include specifics with measurements, etc. • Please list the names of all on-site supervisors on this project who hold/held a Historic Preservation Best Card/Certification, the dates of their involvement with the project, and the dates they held a valid HP Best Card. o If applicable, please explain why construction work that requires certain certification was performed without holding a valid certification for that work. • Please explain how often and in what ways the general contractor communicated with, checked in on, and supervised the subcontractor and their work. • What did the general contractor discuss with the framing subcontractor related to the historic resource, historic material, and the treatment thereof prior to and during the work, and after discovering deviations from the approved plans. • What happened to the existing historic materials once they were removed. o Include all disposal, storage, labelling, and reinstallation methods used. • Please explain who decided to remove, relocate and/or reinstall each material, as well as when they did and why. Figure 5. Condition at site visit on February 15th, 2024. 21 Page 5 of 6 427 Rio Grande Pl, Aspen, CO 81611 | P: 970.920.5090 | aspen.gov • Please provide the approved demolition calculations and updated demolition calculations according to the actual demolition. • Please explain how you would like to correct the violations, and which penalties you feel would be appropriate. Staff indicated that more detailed information will not only help HPC understand what occurred, and what corrective action may be appropriate, but will also inform the historic preservation program in a way that will help avoid similar circumstances in the future. Staff provided a rough estimate of schedule at this time, requesting information by March 20, 2024, in order to include an information only memo on the March 27, 2024 HPC agenda. A letter to the owner, providing notice and requesting a meeting to discuss the issue was mailed from City Hall on March 19, 2024, see Exhibit H. Additional information was provided to staff at the end of the business day on March 19, 2024, and updated on March 21, 2024, see Exhibit D. Additionally, a public hearing with the HPC has been noticed in the newspaper for April 10, 2024, in case HPC wants to provide recommendations concerning appropriate penalties in response to the alleged violations, and corrective actions to be undertaken. TIMELINE OF PAST APPROVALS What follows is a timeline of approvals as staff understands from the available record. Additional communication may have occurred that staff is unable to access at this time. 12 February 2020: Public hearing with HPC concerning the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development, Conceptual Review, Relocation, and Setback Variations. Staff recommends continuation with direction, particularly asking for clarification on drainage, future maintenance, and a restudy of the roof of the addition. HPC continues the hearing to 8 April 2020, citing concerns about the setback variation requests, and requesting restudy of the massing/roofline. 8 April 2020: Public hearing with HPC concerning the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development, Conceptual Review, Relocation, and Setback Variations, continued from 12 February 2020. Staff recommends approval with conditions, particularly requesting continued investigation of the need for a transformer, review of the impact of trees on adjacent properties, and additional study of the historic resource during construction. HPC approves the Conceptual Review, Relocation, and Setback Variations through HPC Resolution #9, Series of 2020 with conditions (Exhibit A) 27 May 2020: Public hearing with HPC concerning the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development, Final Review and GMQS Change in Use. Staff recommends approval with conditions, particularly regarding staff and monitor review of additional details, including different landscaping items, reporting on condition of historic materials and preservation techniques to be employed, restoration of historic doors and windows, porch restoration, roofing materials, stormwater, sidewalk, tree, and utilities plans, and change in use. HPC approves the Final Review and GMQS Change in Use through HPC Resolution #13, Series of 2020, with conditions (Exhibit B). Benefits awarded as part of the approval include the following setback variations: • A 5’10” front yard setback, where 10’ is required, to retain the historic house in its existing location. • A 0’ east and west side yard setback, where 5’ is required to retain the historic house in its existing location and to allow basement excavation. 22 Page 6 of 7 427 Rio Grande Pl, Aspen, CO 81611 | P: 970.920.5090 | aspen.gov • A 3’ east and west side yard setback for the addition, above and below grade, where 5’ is required. 7 October 2020: Building Permit application received for 0128-2020-BRES. 20 November 2020: Building Permit application deemed complete. Reviews are routed. 25 May 2022: Building Permit 0128-2020-BRES is issued. Approved architectural plans include the note, “All historic framing & windows at perimeter walls & roof to be preserved in place with new structure sistered as needed” on sheets A.1.04, A.2.01, and A.3.01. Approved structural plans include the note, “All historic framing in perimeter walls and roof of historic structure will be preserved in place. At existing historic house framing all existing structure is to be exposed. Any members found to be insufficient for today’s code loading will remain in place and have new members sistered on to meet today’s code requirements. Sizes shown on plans may change depending on existing conditions,” on sheet S103. 25 July 2022: Staff conducts a site visit to discuss the porch. 06 September 2022: Staff signs a letter written by the representative team that outlines their discussion from 25 July 2022, to serve as a written approval for the removal and preservation of the porch while the building is relocated for basement excavation. 06 October 2022: Change Order (0087-2022-BCHO) application submitted for Master Building Permit 0128-2020-BRES. Changes include new site 100’-1” (building lifted 6" out of ground), entry walkway and stair riser alterations, removal of window on east façade after deemed non-historic, siding updates after walkthrough with staff, update to window/door package to match field conditions, and updates to dimensions of the historic resource to match in field measurements after the house was placed in its final location. 1 December 2022: Michael Monsauret becomes the Project Superintendent. At this time, it appears that no one associated with the project holds a City of Aspen Historic Preservation Best Card/Contractor Certification. 22 May 2023: In response to being copied on an email discussion about historic rafters and sheathing, staff asks if input is being requested from the Community Development Department and elaborates that: “if the reference to “old slats” is about the historic sheathing that sits on top of the historic rafters, you are expected to retain that in place. If that causes an issue, please explain and we can discuss a solution.” The conversation continues, and it is asked if a second top plate can be introduced by “cutting all the studs.” A representative from Colorado Structural, Inc, provides the following response to which staff agrees and asks for coordination with the Building Department: “I don’t think you can add a top plate to the historic framing. You will just add a ledger inside attached with (3)-Timber screws @ 16”o.c. The ledger can bear on the tops of the new 2x6 that are sistered onto the 2x4’s.” 23 June 2023: Update to Change Order 0087-2022-BCHO to include additional historic entry door based on historic framing evidence. 2 November 2023: Staff and HPC monitor approve an updated wall assembly detail which includes the removal of historic siding, given existing conditions and lack of existing sheathing. 23 Page 7 of 8 427 Rio Grande Pl, Aspen, CO 81611 | P: 970.920.5090 | aspen.gov 2 February 2024: Staff and HPC monitor approve the consolidation of historic siding material on the street facing elevations. 13 February 2024: Staff and HPC monitor approve replacement siding sample for instances where original siding cannot be reused. 15 February 2024: HPC member leaves voicemail for staff outlining concern that the roof framing has been removed from the west side of the historic resource. Historic Preservation Officer and Chief Building Official conduct site visit. Representative team is asked for additional information about what happened and are informed that a Stop Work Order will be issued next day. 16 February 2024: Chief Building Official issues Stop Work Order. CONTRACTOR: The City of Aspen utilizes an online data management software to intake and process building permit applications. Staff reviewed the Salesforce record for Permit #0128-2020-BRES in regard to contractors and found the following timeline: 11 November 2020: Updated contact sheets were received by the City of Aspen indicating Steeplechase Construction as the general contractor, with Steve Waldeck listed as the contact. 07 October 2021: Updated contact sheets were received by the City of Aspen indicating Kaegebein Fine Home Building LLC as the general contractor, with Nate Kaegebein/Charlie Berger listed as the contact. 25 May 2022: Permit 0128-2020-BRES issued with Kaegebein Fine Homebuilding LLC listed as general contractor. 22 June 2022: Updated contact sheets were received by the City of Aspen indicated TREK Builders LLC as the general contractor, with Forest Jacober listed as the contact. It is unclear from the Salesforce record when Forest Jacober left TREK Builders LLC and Michael Monsauret became the superintendent. However, the representative team has provided their own contractor timeline provided in Exhibit I. The City of Aspen has a policy regarding change of a general contractor, requiring updates when a general contractor is changed (Exhibit J). However, it is less clear what is required when the superintendents change but the general contracting company remains the same. PENALTIES The City of Aspen Municipal Code includes general penalty provisions, penalties under Title 8, Buildings and Building Regulations, and penalties specific to the Historic Preservation Chapter of the Land Use Code. It is the penalties under the Historic Preservation Chapter of the Land Use Code which HPC may impose. The penalties under HPC’s purview as per Sec.26.415.140 include: 1. Any person who constructs, alters, relocates, changes the appearance or demolishes a designated property in violation of any section may be required to restore the building, structure or setting to its appearance prior to the violation. 2. Following notice and public hearing, the HPC shall prohibit the owner, successor or assigns from obtaining a building permit for the subject property for a period of up to 24 Page 8 of 9 427 Rio Grande Pl, Aspen, CO 81611 | P: 970.920.5090 | aspen.gov ten (10) years from the date of the violation. The City shall initiate proceedings to place a deed restriction on the property to ensure enforcement of this penalty. The property owner shall be required to maintain the property during that period of time in conformance with the Standards for reasonable care and upkeep set forth in Subsection 26.415.100(a). 3. Any variances or historic preservation benefits previously granted to the property may be subject to revocation. Please note that #2 above is not a mandatory penalty, despite the use of shall, and the HPC may impose this penalty or not. If HPC so choses to impose #2, the applicant would be required to finish out the current permit before this penalty would be imposed. Regarding #3, as an AspenVictorian designated property, 227 East Main Street was eligible for a number of preservation incentives made available by the City. The project approved through Resolution #09, Series of 2020, and Resolution #13, Series of 2020 benefitted from setback variations. Where a 10’ front yard setback, and 5’ side yard setbacks are required by the zone district, the following setback variations were granted per Resolution #09, Series of 2020: • A 5’10” setback is approved in the front, above and below grade to retain the historic house in its existing location. • A 0’ setback is approved on the east and west sides, above and below grade to retain the historic house in its existing location, and to allow basement excavation. • A 3’ setback is approved on the east and west sides of the addition, above and below grade. Additionally, the representative team has offered the following suggestions for how they might rectify the violation per Exhibit D. 1. Reframe the roof in accordance with the approved structural drawings. 2. Create a document with narrative and photos for HPC to use as training for contractors. 3. Forgo the $30,000 financial assurance, originally provided to ensure the safe relocation of the historic structure. 4. Daily or weekly site visits scheduled with HPC during the course of violation correction. Please note that following acts or omissions listed under Title 8, Section 8.12.020.b.1-13, the Chief Building Official has the authority to suspend, revoke or refuse renewal of any license or deny an application for said license, including the Historic Preservation Specialty Certification. The Chief Building Official may also “issue an order to show cause why the license issued hereunder to any licensee should not be suspended or revoked. Any such order shall grant the licensee ten (10) days in which to show cause and shall inform the licensee of the basis for issuance of the order.” Although this is under the Chief Building Official’s authority, and not the authority of HPC, HPC may provide a recommendation to the Chief Building Official regarding the contractor’s Historic Preservation Specialty Certification, as they see fit. RECOMMENDATION: HPC is asked to carefully review the summary of actions leading to the issuance of the Stop Work Order at 227 East Main Street, as well as the information provided by the representative team, attached. HPC will make a final determination of whether to impose penalties authorized to them by Section 26.415.140 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code described above, or to accept penalties recommended by the 25 Page 9 of 9 427 Rio Grande Pl, Aspen, CO 81611 | P: 970.920.5090 | aspen.gov representative team. Staff recommends that HPC require restoration of the building to its exterior appearance prior to the violation and accept the representative team offer forgoing the $30,000 relocation financial security, to be utilized to improve the historic preservation program. If HPC choses to require restoration of the building to its prior appearance, HPC should consider whether the approved plan set, issued as part of Permit #0128-2020-BRES, is acceptable, or if HPC would like to require updated plans which showcase current conditions and the proposed remedy, to be reviewed as a substantial amendment at a public hearing. Additionally, HPC should consider whether they feel additional penalties are appropriate or if a recommendation to the Chief Building Official should be made regarding suspension, revocation, or refusal to renew the Historic Preservation Specialty Certification. ATTACHMENTS: HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2024 Exhibit A – HPC Resolution #09, Series of 2020 Exhibit B – HPC Resolution #13, Series of 2020 Exhibit C – Final Review elevations and renderings Exhibit D – 227 E Main Street Response, Updated, March 21, 2024 Exhibit E – 227 E Main Street Remediation Narrative, February 22, 2024 Exhibit F – 227 E Main Street Apology Letter, Drawings, and Photos, February 28, 2024 Exhibit G – 227 E Main Street Updated Drawings, March 12, 2024 Exhibit H – 227 E Main Street, Letter to Owner, March 19, 2024 Exhibit I – Contractor Timeline Exhibit J – Change of Contractor Policy 26 HPC Resolution #02, Series of 2024 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION #02 (SERIES OF 2024) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) IMPOSING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 26.415- HISTORIC PRESERVATION, RELATED TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 227 EAST MAIN STREET, LOT F, BLOCK 74, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2735-073-28-003 WHEREAS,the applicant, 227 East Main, LLC, 312 Aspen Airport Business Center, Suite D, Aspen Colorado 81611, represented by Milo Stark, Kim Raymond Architecture and Interiors, 501 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 205, Aspen Colorado 81611, and TREK Builders LLC, 312 Aspen Airport Business Center, Suite D, Aspen Colorado 81611, received land use approvals and a building permit to undertake a historic preservation project located at 227 East Main Street, Lot F, Block 74, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS,the approvals are represented by HPC Resolution #09, Series of 2020; HPC Resolution #13, Series of 2020; and Building Permit #0128-2020-BRES; and WHEREAS,a site visit conducted by the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Officer and Chief Building Official on February 15, 2024 and observed evidence that violations of the land use approvals granted by HPC, the permit granted by the Building Department, and the obligations of the Historic Preservation Specialty Certification issued to contractors working on designated properties had occurred, and this led to the issuance of a Stop Work Order by the City of Aspen Chief Building Official on February 16, 2024; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.415.070 and 26.415.080 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, no repairs, improvements, alterations, or demolition of properties designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures or properties within a Historic District is allowed unless approved by HPC; and WHEREAS,Section 26.415.140 of the Municipal Code establishes penalties which may be imposed by the HPC in response to violations of Chapter 26.415 of the City Land Use Code and the historic preservation approvals granted thereunder; and WHEREAS,the Community Development Department scheduled a duly noticed information session before the HPC on March 27, 2024, and provided a summary of the permit history, actions leading to the issuance of a Stop Work Order, and of the possible penalties HPC is authorized to impose by Section 26.415.140 of the City Land Use Code; and WHEREAS,the Community Development Department scheduled a duly noticed public hearing before the HPC on April 10, 2024, and after taking into consideration the staff memo, information provided by the property owner and representatives, and public comments, HPC has made a determination by a __ to __ vote, that 227 East Main LLC is in violation of its land use 27 HPC Resolution #02, Series of 2024 Page 2 of 2 approvals and Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code pertaining to historic preservation, and that the imposition of penalties is warranted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1: Approval That HPC hereby imposes the following penalties related to unauthorized work at 227 East Main Street, Lot F, Block 74, City and Townsite of Aspen Colorado: 1. HPC Resolution #09, Series of 2020, required the applicant to provide a $30,000 financial security to be held by the city to guarantee safe relocation of the historic structure. As offered by the applicant in their March 21, 2024 correspondence, this guarantee will be retained by the City and will not be returned to the applicant due to the violations to the land use code that were found to have occurred. 2. Pursuant 26.415.140(1), the structure will be restored to its appearance prior to the violation. Areas where the roof has been raised will be lowered to the original condition. Plans to return the structure to its appearance prior to the violation will require review by staff and monitor and may require a substantial amendment application and public hearing before the HPC, and shall comply with all applicable City of Aspen codes and regulations. 3. Section 2: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 10 th day of April, 2024. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: ________________________________ ________________________________ Katharine Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Kara Thompson, Chair ATTEST: ________________________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE HPC SET HPC SET # 2 HPC SET # 3 1" 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 PERMISSION. 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 THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. G.0.01 5/5/20 GENERAL INFORMATION DATE 1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-2252227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816113/4/2020 5/4/2020 CONTRACTOR - - STRUCTURAL ENGINEER CIVIL ENGINEER - - MECHANICAL ENGINEER G.0.01 GENERAL INFORMATION SURVEY A.1.01 EXISTING SITE PLAN A.1.02 PROPOSED SITE PLAN A.1.03 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN A.1.04 EXISTING FAR CALCULATIONS A.1.05 PROPOSED FAR CALCULATIONS A.1.06 TREE REMOVAL PLAN A.1.07 PROPOSED EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN A.2.01 EXISTING PLANS A.2.02 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL PLAN A.2.03 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL PLAN A.2.04 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL PLAN A.2.05 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN A.3.01 EXISTING ELEVATIONS A.3.02 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS: NORTH & EAST A.3.03 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS: SOUTH & WEST A.4.01 PROPOSED BUILDING SECTIONS A.4.02 PROPOSED BUILDING SECTIONS A.4.03 PROPOSED BUILDING SECTIONS A.6.01 ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS A.6.02 ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS A.7.01 SCHEDULES - - - - 13 4 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Subdivision: CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Block: 74 Lot: F VICINITY MAP 227 EAST MAIN STREET 1 A7.1 LOCATION KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. 418 EAST COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201 ASPEN, CO 81611 970-925-2252 ARCHITECT 227 E. MAIN ABBREVIATIONS MATERIAL LEGEND VICINITY MAP PROJECT TEAMAPPLICABLE CODES PROJECT DATA SHEET INDEX (CONTINUED) SHEET INDEXSYMBOL LEGEND Subdivision: PARCEL ID NUMBER: ZONING: LOT SIZE: BLDG USE: OCC. GROUP: CONST. TYPE: CLIMATE ZONE: FIRE SPRINKLERS: LAND USE CATEGORY: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: SECTION: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PLT. S.T.D.SLOPE TO DRAIN A A.B. A.F.F. A.F.G. A/C ABC ABS ABV. ACB ACOU. ACT ADD. AG AHU AL. or ALUM. ALT. ANL ASPH. AVG AWG B.M. B.N. B.O. B.O.F. B.U. B/C BD. BLDG BLK. BLKG. BM. BR BRG. BRZ C.A.P. C.D. C.I.P. C.J. C.O. C.T. CAB CAM. CCTV CEM. CER CFM CH CKT. BKR. CL or C.L. CLG. CLKG. CLO. CLR. CMU CNTRD. COL. COMB. CONC. CONST. CONT. CONTR. CU d D.F. D.G. D.S. D/W DBL. DEMO DIA. or Ø DIAG. DIM. DL DN. DR E.A. E.F. E.J. E.N. E.W. EA. EL ELECT. ELEV. EMC EMT ENT EQ. EQUIP. EST. EVAP. EWC EXC EXH. EXIST. or E EXT. F.A. F.C. F.C.O. F.D. F.E. F.N. F.O. F.S. F/G FAB. FACP FDC FDN. FHC FIN. FL FLG. FLUOR. FP FTG. FURN. G.I. GA. GALV. GAR. GFCI GFI GL GLB GM GM GRC GYP. GYP. BD. H.B. H.C. H.M. H/C HDBD. HDW HGT. HOR. HTR HVAC HW HYD. I.C. I.D. I.F. ID IG IMC IMPG INCL. INSUL. INT. J-BOX JCT JT. K-D KD KO L.E.D. L.FT. LAM LAT. LAV LD. LIN. LINO. LT. LTG. LVL M.B. M.H. M.I. M.O. MAR. MAS. MAT'L MAX. MECH. MED. MFG. MFR. MIN. MISC. MOD MTL. MUL N.I.C. N.T.S. NCM NFC NLR. NO. NOM. O.C. O.D. O.H. O.I. O.R. OAI OH OPNG. OPPO. P.C. P.L. P.LAM. P.O.C. PERP. or PH or Ø PL. PLAS. PLUMB. PLYWD. PORC. PERF. PREFAB. PSF PSI PTN. PVC PWR. Q.T. QTY. R R.D.L. R.D.O. R.O. R.O.W. or R/W REF REF. REINF. REQ'D. RET. REV. RM RMV. S.C. S.D. S.O.V. S/L S/S SC SCHED. SECT. SES SH SHT'G. SIM. SPA. SPECS SPKR. SQ. FT. SQ. IN. STC STD. STL. SUSP. SW SYM SYS. T & G T.B. T.M.B. T.O. T.O.B. T.O.C. T.O.F. T.O.J. T.O.M. T.O.S. T.O.W. T.S. T.V. TEL. TH. THD. THK. THRU TLT. TRANS. TYP. UNF. UR V.B. V.I.F. VA VERT. WC WDW WCT WP WT. W/ W/O WD. W.I. YD. AMPERES ANCHOR BOLT ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR ABOVE FINISHED GRADE AIR CONDITIONING AGGREGATE BASE COURSE ACRYLONITRILE-BUTADIENE-STYRENE ABOVE ASBESTOS-CEMENT BOARD ACOUSTIC ACOUSTICAL CEILING TILE ADDITION or ADDENDUM ABOVE GRADE AIR HANDLER UNIT ALUMINUM ALTERNATE ANNEALED ASPHALT AVERAGE AMERICAN WIRE GAUGE ANGLE BENCH MARK BOUNDARY NAILING BOTTOM OF BOTTOM OF FOOTING BUILT UP BACK OF CURB BOARD BUILDING BLOCK BLOCKING BEAM BRASS BEARING BRONZE CONCRETE ASBESTOS PIPE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS CAST IN PLACE CONTROL JOINT CLEAN OUT CERAMIC TILE CABINET CAMBER CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION CEMENT CERAMIC CUBIC FEET PER MINUTE CHANNEL CIRCUIT BREAKER CENTERLINE CEILING CAULKING CLOSET CLEAR CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT CENTERED COLUMN COMBINATION CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION CONTINUOUS CONTRACTOR COPPER PENNY DRINKING FOUNTAIN DECOMPOSED GRANITE DOWN SPOUT DISHWASHER DOUBLE DEMOLITION DIAMETER DIAGONAL DIMENSION DEAD LOAD DOWN DOOR EXPANSION ANCHOR EXHAUST FAN EXPANSION JOINT END NAILING EACH WAY EACH ELEVATION "ELECTRIC, ELECTRICAL" ELEVATOR ELECTRICAL METALLIC CONDUIT ELECTRICAL METALLIC TUBING ELECTRICAL NON-METALLIC TUBING EQUAL EQUIPMENT ESTIMATE EVAPORATIVE COOLER ELECTRIC DRINKING COOLER EXCAVATE EXHAUST EXISTING EXTERIOR FIRE ALARM FAN COIL FLOOR CLEAN OUT FLOOR DRAIN FIRE EXTINGUISHER FIELD NAILING FACE OF FLOOR SINK FIBERGLASS FABRICATE FIRE ALARM CONTROL PANEL FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION FOUNDATION FIRE HOSE CABINET FINISH FLOOR FLOORING FLUORESCENT FIRE PROOF FOOTING FURNISH GALVANIZED IRON GAUGE GALVANIZED GARAGE GROUND FAULT CIRCUIT INTERRUPTER GROUND FAULT INTERRUPTER GLASS GLUE LAMINATED BEAM GRADE MARK GATE VALVE GALVANIZED RIGID TUBING GYPSUM GYPSUM BOARD HOSE BIBB HOLLOW CORE HOLLOW METAL HANDICAPPED HARDBOARD HARDWARE HEIGHT HORIZONTAL HEATER HEATING, VENTILATING & AIR CONDITIONING HOT WATER HYDRAULIC INTERCOM OUTLET INSIDE DIAMETER INSIDE FACE IDENTIFICATION ISOLATED GROUND INTERMEDIATE METALLIC CONDUIT IMPREGNATED INCLUDE, INCLUSIVE INSULATION INTERIOR JUNCTION BOX JUNCTION JOINT KNOCK DOWN KILN DRIED KNOCK OUT LIGHT EMITTING DIODE LINEAR FEET LAMINATE LATERAL LAVATORY LEAD LINEAR LINOLEUM LIGHT LIGHTING LAMINATED VENEER LUMBER MACHINE BOLT MANHOLE MALLEABLE IRON MASONRY OPENING MARBLE MASONRY MATERIAL MAXIMUM MECHANICAL MEDIUM MANUFACTURING MANUFACTURER MINIMUM MISCELLANEOUS MODULAR METAL MULLION NOT IN CONTRACT NOT TO SCALE NON-CORROSIVE METAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION NAILER NUMBER NOMINAL ON CENTER OUTSIDE DIAMETER OVER HANG ORNAMENTAL IRON OUTSIDE RADIUS OUTSIDE AIR INTAKE OVER HEAD OPENING OPPOSITE PRECAST CONCRETE PROPERTY LINE PLASTIC LAMINATE POINT OF CONNECTION PERPENDICULAR PHASE PLASTER PLATE PLASTIC PLUMBING PLYWOOD PORCELAIN PERFORATED PREFABRICATED POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH PARTITION POLYVINYLCLORIDE POWER QUARRY TILE QUANTITY RADIUS ROOF DRAIN LEADER ROOF DRAIN OVERFLOW ROUGH OPENING RIGHT OF WAY REFRIGERATOR REFERENCE REINFORCED REQUIRED RETURN REVISION ROOM REMOVE SOLID CORE SMOKE DETECTOR SHUT OFF VALVE SKYLIGHT STAINLESS STEEL SELF CLOSING SCHEDULE SECTION SERVICE ENTRANCE SECTION SHEET SHEATHING SIMILAR SPACE SPECIFICATIONS SPEAKER SQUARE FEET SQUARE INCHES SOUND TRANSMISSION CLASS STANDARD STEEL SUSPENDED SWITCH SYMMETRICAL SYSTEM TONGUE AND GROOVE THROUGH BOLT TELEPHONE MOUNTING BOARD TOP OF TOP OF BEAM TOP OF CURB TOP OF FOOTING TOP OF JOIST TOP OF MASONRY TOP OF SLAB TOP OF WALL TUBE STEEL TELEVISION OUTLET TELEPHONE THRESHOLD THREADED THICK THROUGH TOILET TRANSFORMER TYPICAL UNFINISHED URINAL VAPOR BARRIER VERIFY IN FIELD VOLT AMPERE VERTICAL WATER CLOSET WINDOW WAINSCOT WEATHER PROOF WEIGHT WITH WITHOUT WOOD WROUGHT IRON YARD VCT VINYL COMPOSITION TILE JOISTJST. ALL CODES REFERENCED ARE TO BE USED AS AMENDED BY THE STATE OF COLORADO AND LOCAL JURISDICTION. -2017 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE -2017 INTERNATION MECHANICAL CODE -2017 INTERNATIONAL PLUMBING CODE -2017 INTERNATIONAL FUEL & GAS CODE -2015 IECC (INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE) -2014 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE FINISH WOOD WOOD STUD BLOCKING STEEL STEEL STUD FRAMED WALL BATT INSULATION PLYWOOD CONCRETE STONE CMU SAND GRAVEL GWB COMPACTED SOIL SPRAY-FOAM INSULATION RIGID INSULATION GRID LINE BREAK LINE MATCH LINE REVISION A-701 ELEVATION MARKER SECTION MARKER DETAIL CUT DETAIL 1 A-501 ELEVATION D01 W01 ROOM NAME 101 INTERIOR ELEVATION MARKER ELEVATION NUMBER SHEET NUMBER SECTION NUMBER SHEET NUMBER DETAIL NUMBER SHEET NUMBER SHEET NUMBER ELEVATION NUMBER SPOT ELEVATION DOOR MARK WINDOW MARK ROOM NAME AND NUMBER 1 A-301 1 A-201 11 MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA: 1,920 SQ FT ALLOWABLE DECK (15% OF MAX FLOOR AREA): 288 SQ FT FRONT SETBACK: 5'-10" SIDE SETBACKS: 3'-0" REAR SETBACK: 5'-0" MAXIMUM HEIGHT (PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE) (FT.): 25'-0" 227 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 PLANNING APPROVALS 35 Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE HPC SET HPC SET # 2 HPC SET # 3 1" 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 PERMISSION. 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 THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. A.3.01 5/5/20 EXISTING ELEVATIONS DATE 1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-2252227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816113/4/2020 5/4/2020 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 EXISTING EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3 EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"4 EXISTING WEST ELEVATION 36 Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE HPC SET HPC SET # 2 HPC SET # 3 1" 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 PERMISSION. 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 THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. A.3.02 5/20/20 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS: NORTH & EAST DATE 1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-2252227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816113/4/2020 5/4/2020 4.5 4.5 W21 D21 W22 W40 W41 W26 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINET.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY @ HISTORIC 100'-0" T.O. BASEMENT SLAB 88'-0" T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY @ HISTORIC 100'-0" T.O. BASEMENT SLAB 88'-0" 6 6 4 4 1 1 3 3 2 2 5 5 EXT-1 EXTERIOR LIGHT PV PANELS TO SLOPE W/ ROOF T.O. EAST GABLE RIDGE 113'-9 3/4" T.O. WEST GABLE ROOF RIDGE 114'-8 1/2"SETBACK LINESETBACK LINETOP PLATE @ STAIR FLAT ROOF 121'-1 1/2"TOP PLATE @ GABLE ROOF 120'-6" T.O. PLY @ GABLE ROOF RIDGE 127'-10 3/4" TOP PLATE @ STAIR SHED ROOF 118'-3 1/4" T.O. PLY @ GABLE ROOF RIDGE 127'-10 3/4" W23 W24 W25 W28W29W30 W27 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINET.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY @ HISTORIC 100'-0" T.O. BASEMENT SLAB 88'-0" D D C C B B A A J J G G F F E ESETBACK LINESETBACK LINETOP PLATE @ LINKING ELEMENT 108'-0" T.O. PLY @ GARAGE ROOF DECK 111'-4" T.O. BASEMENT SLAB 88'-0" T.O. ADDITION MAIN LEVEL PLY 101'-2" T.O. EAST GABLE RIDGE 113'-9 3/4" T.O. WEST GABLE ROOF RIDGE 114'-8 1/2" T.O. GARAGE SLAB 101'-10 1/4" WINDOW HEADER @ GARAGE 109- 10 7/8" FINISH LEVEL @ GREEN ROOF 112'-0 7/8" T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY 111'-6" 1/3rd POINT ON GABLE 123'-11 3/4" 1/3rd POINT ON GABLE 123'-11 3/4" TOP PLATE @ STAIR FLAT ROOF 121'-1 1/2" TOP PLATE @ STAIR SHED ROOF 118'-3 1/4" T.O. PLY @ GABLE ROOF RIDGE 127'-10 3/4"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINET.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY @ HISTORIC 100'-0" 6 6 3 3 2 2 5 5 PV PANELS TO SLOPE W/ ROOF T.O. BASEMENT SLAB 88'-0" T.O. BASEMENT SLAB 88'-0" WINDOW HEADER @ ADDITION 109- 4 7/8"SETBACK LINESETBACK LINETOP PLATE @ LINKING ELEMENT 108'-0" T.O. ADDITION MAIN LEVEL PLY 101'-2" T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY 111'-6" TOP PLATE @ STAIR FLAT ROOF 121'-1 1/2" TOP PLATE @ GABLE ROOF 120'-6" T.O. PLY @ GABLE ROOF RIDGE 127'-10 3/4" TOP PLATE @ STAIR SHED ROOF 118'-3 1/4" T.O. PLY @ GABLE ROOF RIDGE 127'-10 3/4" WINDOW HEADER @ ADDITION 119- 8 7/8" SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 2 37 Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE HPC SET HPC SET # 2 HPC SET # 3 1" 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 PERMISSION. 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 THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. A.3.03 5/20/20 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS: SOUTH & WEST DATE 1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-2252227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816113/4/2020 5/4/2020 W31W32 W47W48 W34 D23D25 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINET.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY @ HISTORIC 100'-0" T.O. BASEMENT SLAB 88'-0" A A B B C C D D E E F F G G J J EXT-2 EXTERIOR LIGHT PV PANELS TO SLOPE WITH ROOF SETBACK LINESETBACK LINETOP PLATE @ LINKING ELEMENT 108'-0" T.O. PLY @ GARAGE ROOF DECK 111'-4" T.O. BASEMENT SLAB 88'-0" T.O. ADDITION MAIN LEVEL PLY 101'-2" T.O. EAST GABLE RIDGE 113'-9 3/4" T.O. WEST GABLE ROOF RIDGE 114'-8 1/2" T.O. GARAGE SLAB 101'-10 1/4" WINDOW HEADER @ GARAGE 109- 10 7/8" FINISH LEVEL @ GREEN ROOF 112'-0 7/8" T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY 111'-6" 1/3rd POINT ON GABLE 123'-6" 1/3rd POINT ON GABLE 123'-6"TOP PLATE @ GABLE ROOF 120'-6" WINDOW HEADER @ ADDITION 119- 8 7/8" T.O. PLY @ GABLE ROOF RIDGE 127'-10 3/4" 4 4 6 6 1 1 5 5 2 2 4.5 4.5PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINET.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY @ HISTORIC 100'-0" T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY @ HISTORIC 100'-0" EXT-3 EXTERIOR LIGHT T.O. BASEMENT SLAB 88'-0" T.O. BASEMENT SLAB 88'-0" TOP PLATE @ LINKING ELEMENT 108'-0" T.O. EAST GABLE RIDGE 113'-9 3/4" T.O. WEST GABLE ROOF RIDGE 114'-8 1/2" DOOR HEADER @ HISTORIC 107- 2 1/4" HEADERS @ LINKING ELEMENT 107- 9 1/4"SETBACK LINESETBACK LINE1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 6 6 5 5 4.5 4.5 W46 W44W45 D30 W33 D22 W43 W42 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEEXT-2 EXTERIOR LIGHT PV PANELS TO SLOPE W/ ROOF T.O. GARAGE SLAB 101'-10 1/4" T.O. GARAGE SLAB 101'-10 1/4" T.O. BASEMENT SLAB 88'-0" T.O. BASEMENT SLAB 88'-0" T.O. PLY @ GARAGE 101'-4 1/8"SETBACK LINESETBACK LINET.O. PLY @ GARAGE ROOF DECK 111'-4" T.O. GLASS RAILING @ ROOF DECK 115'-0 7/8" T.O. PLY @ GARAGE ROOF DECK 111'-4" FINISH LEVEL @ GREEN ROOF 112'-0 7/8" TOP PLATE @ STAIR FLAT ROOF 121'-1 1/2" WINDOW HEADER @ GARAGE 109- 10 7/8"WINDOW HEADER @ ADDITION 109- 4 7/8" TOP PLATE @ GABLE ROOF 120'-6" T.O. PLY @ GABLE ROOF RIDGE 127'-10 3/4" TOP PLATE @ STAIR SHED ROOF 118'-3 1/4" WINDOW HEADER @ ADDITION 119- 8 7/8" T.O. PLY @ GABLE ROOF RIDGE 127'-10 3/4" SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 2 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 1 38 Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE HPC SET HPC SET # 2 HPC SET # 3 1" 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 PERMISSION. 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 THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. A.9.01 5/5/20 PROPOSED MATERIAL RENDERINGS DATE 1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-2252227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816113/4/2020 5/4/2020 4" HISTORIC WOOD SIDINGWOOD SHINGLE ROOFSTANDING SEAM METALTRANSPARENT GLASSALUMINUM CLADWOOD SOFFIT PAINTED WOOD LOUVERS FROSTED GLASS 6" HORIZONTAL SIDING (BUTT-JOINTED) 39 Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE HPC SET HPC SET # 2 HPC SET # 3 1" 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 PERMISSION. 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 THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. A.9.02 5/5/20 PROPOSED MATERIAL RENDERINGS DATE 1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-2252227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816113/4/2020 5/4/2020 4" HISTORIC WOOD SIDING STANDING SEAM METAL TRANSPARENT GLASSALUMINUM CLAD WOOD SOFFIT PAINTED WOOD LOUVERS FROSTED GLASS 6" HORIZONTAL SIDING (BUTT-JOINTED) PERMEABLE PAVERS 40 Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE HPC SET HPC SET # 2 HPC SET # 3 1" 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 PERMISSION. 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 THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. A.9.03 5/5/20 PROPOSED MATERIAL RENDERINGS DATE 1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-2252227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816113/4/2020 5/4/2020 4" HISTORIC WOOD SIDING ALUMINUM CLADWOOD SHINGLE ROOF METAL GUTTER & DOWNSPOUTSPAINTED WOOD TRIM HISTORIC GLASS ALUMINUM "WATER TABLE" HISTORIC BRICK CHIMNEY 6" HORIZONTAL SIDING (BUTT-JOINTED) 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 TREK BUILDERS LLC Date: 03/18/24 Trek Builders LLC Response to: HPC Narrative for 227 Main Stop Work Order Dear Kirsten, Please see the below responses to your questions regarding what deviated from the approved 227 Main HPC plans and why. We would like to take this moment to once again explain that none of these framing errors were done maliciously or intentionally. I believe there were many factors that contributed to the errors getting made. Trek Builders had to switch to a different framer mid- December in the thick of the project which left a larger than normal margin for error in the transfer of information from one to the next. In addition to this change, the project superintendent was involved in a ski accident that took focus away from the project. There was also a change to the steel beam inside the historic home that opened the door to plan inconsistencies. Finally, there was a gross misunderstanding between the new framer and Trek about what they were allowed and not allowed to do with the historic materials. We are deeply sorry for the mishandling of this historic resource and are eager to make amends. • Please provide a written description of the historic condition, the current condition, and changes to the plan to accompany the drawings. Include specifics with measurements, etc. The following bullet points are intended to demonstrate the differences between what was approved by the HPC and the Building Department in our permit and what happened in the field. The errors by the framer have resulted in discrepancies that relate to the historic conditions compared to the current condition and are highlighted in corresponding drawing sheets “HPC 1” “HPC-3”. - Top Plate and Roof Rafter Framing o The originally submitted and approved plans of the historic resource depicted a method of structural reinforcement that would not require the removal of historic framing members. Details provided by Colorado Structural, Inc. showed how existing top plates were to remain in place and additional 2x6 wall studs and 7 ½” LVL ledgers were to be installed to support the new 2x12 roof rafters. These additional framing members were to be installed from within, as to not disturb historic framing of the walls or roof. o In two of the three gable roofs of the historic resource, these details deviated by: § The East-West gable roof (shown in Section 1) top plate was not altered and remains in its original location. However, with an incorrect placement of the LVL ledger, the historic roof rafters were altered at their connection to the top plate with incorrect birds-mouth detailing. § The construction of the smaller North-South gable roof (shown in Section 2) shows the top plate is in its correct and historic location, and the LVL ledger is also located correctly per the structural plans, but the new roof rafters and historic roof rafters are 6” higher than they should be. This shows the historic rafters were removed in and relocated to a non-historic location. The photo on sheet HPC-1 shows the historic rafters are floating 6” above the historic top plate. § The North-South gables (Section 3) historic top plate was removed, a new top plate was added on top of historic wall studs, and the historic top plate 49 TREK BUILDERS LLC sits atop that plate. The LVL ledger is located incorrectly, being placed too high. As a result, historic roof rafters were removed from their original locations and then added back with the new 2x12 rafters. This gable roof is 4 ½” taller than the original condition. - Historic Wall Framing o Except for the southernmost wall that we received approval to remove to introduce the linking element, all other exterior historic walls are intact. The historic framing that was approved to be removed is saved in the garage. o When the house was picked up and moved, the historic studs were exposed and revealed a lot of superfluous framing (see photo below). Note, a lot of this framing was rotten from the lack of a proper historic floor system. The original historic resource was collapsing into the ground at the time of construction commencement. o Some of these framing members, which provided no structural support, were removed; the thought by the framer was that it would allow for new 2x6 studs to properly sister onto full height historic 2x4 studs. § Many random horizontal framing members were removed in order to achieve proper structural integrity when the new 2x6 studs were sistered onto the existing historic studs. • Please list the names of all on-site supervisors on this project who hold/held a Historic Preservation Best Card/Certification, the dates of their involvement with the project, and the dates they held a valid HP Best Card. o If applicable, please explain why construction work that requires certain certification was performed without holding a valid certification for that work. Michael Monsauret is the Superintendent for Trek on the project. Michael has his Unlimited Certification Best Card and thought this was the highest level of certification required. Michael has since tested/passed and is pending approval of his HP Best Card should he be allowed to continue as project superintendent. Michael Monsauret took over for the previous Project Superintendent Forest Jacober Dec 1, 2022. 50 TREK BUILDERS LLC • Please explain how often and in what ways the general contractor communicated with, checked in on, and supervised the subcontractor and their work. Michael has daily check-ins with the subs onsite, including the framer at the beginning of the shift. They would review the tasks of the day and review plans together. Michael uploads daily logs with photos and a list of site activities which is shared in Procore with the project team. We also have documentation on when the architect and structural engineer were onsite to witness work in place. Michael was in a ski accident late December. In January, he was back onsite but with limited mobility in the trailer, and was in and out of physical therapy for Jan and part of Feb. This is certainly not an acceptable reason for the lack of oversight but I believe contributed to the mis- communication between the new framer and Michael. • What did the general contractor discuss with the framing subcontractor related to the historic resource, historic material, and the treatment thereof prior to and during the work, and after discovering deviations from the approved plans. Michael and the framing contractor discussed that anything historic was not to be touched, the plans are highlighted, and also marked in red as-to the historic pieces that needed to stay. There was a language barrier and misunderstanding in terms of not understanding that when you cut something, despite keeping it and using, that this is viewed as the same as removing it in the eyes of HPC. When the kitchen ridge was cut and put back in place Michael then realized we had a problem with the framer not adhering to the plans. Michael said the framer did this because he was trying to work around the steel which increased in size per the architectural drawings but then didn’t fit with the as- built historic framing. The framer should have stopped work, Trek should have sent the architect an RFI about the inconsistency and asked how to proceed. The structural plans say that the framers are not allowed to notch or cut any structural member, but this was not followed. The framed did not follow this because he couldn’t make the plans work without cutting/altering. The architect sent a photo of the roof in the living room being opened up and that’s when Michael flagged the issue to everyone involved. Michael instructed the framer to get the roof closed up to protect everything. At the same time, Milo, Kirsten, and Bonnie came out to see the error and then Trek was informed that we would receive a stop work notice the next day. Trek stopped work and waited for instructions. • What happened to the existing historic materials once they were removed. Please explain who decided to remove, relocate and/or reinstall each material, as well as when they did and why. o Include all disposal, storage, labelling, and reinstallation methods used. When the framer removed the living room roof rafters, he took off the historic members and re- applied them to the new framing. Nothing was thrown away but altered from the HPC plan. The top plates are in place, and these are shown on the new drawings from KRAI. Walls are plumb and level with the historic framing attached to it and are completed. There are a handful of historic studs that we kept and are storing in the garage. They came from the living, dining, and corner of the house that was replaced with steel per the approved drawings as explained above. The historic siding was labeled, categorized, bundled, and is stored in the home to go back on when appropriate. The historic doors, hardware, and window are in Chris Thompson’s storage to be refurbished and put back when appropriate. • Please provide the approved demolition calculations and updated demolition calculations according to the actual demolition. As is typical with most historic preservation projects, permitted demolition of the original resource is supervised and approved by the HPC at a very early stage. For this project, it was deemed that 51 TREK BUILDERS LLC only the section of wall to allow for the linking element along with a non-historic shed and the addition of a new door in the living room were to be removed. The entry porch roof was also approved to be removed and reconstructed because of the deteriorated condition of the existing roof by Amy Simon. No additional demolition was expected to be done. Therefore, for COA Master Permit procurement, no additional demolition calculations were submitted or approved. (This has been the typical procedure for HPC projects for decades). However, in light of the events that have occurred, “original” demolition calcs and “current” demolition calcs have been provided per Kirsten’s request. Please see sheets HPC-4 and HPC-5 for calculations. o Original demolition totals 11.45%, o Current demolition totals 42.44% of materials touched after top plate and roof removal. o The historic materials that comprise the additional demo were put back into the structural system of the historic home. The siding that has been removed, as was approved by Amy Simon; was numbered and is being stored safely on site for re- installation. • Please explain how you would like to correct the violations, and which penalties you feel would be appropriate. To correct our mistake, we would be willing to remove the newly inserted framing that is not in line with the structural details and reframe the roof in accordance with the approved structural drawings. That said, we believe it will cause more damage to the historic fabric that remains. Any wall studs that were removed that were not long enough to reach the floor due to being rotten will be “sistered” back onto the new studs, as to show the effects of water damage to the historic structure and how it can be properly dealt with. We realize that this is not perfect, but it would go a long way in restoring the historic structure. We would also be willing to create a document with narrative and photos for the HPC to use as training for contractors in what TO DO and what NOT TO DO. The owner of this home has restored dozens of historic homes in the past 20 years and is completely dismayed that this has happened. Our team can use this narrative, photos from the site, and photos from other past projects to create this guide. In addition to the above we will forgo the $30,000 financial assurance bond provided to ensure safe relocation of the house if HPC allows the project corrections to commence immediately. We would like to have HPC walk the site daily/weekly during the corrections so that everything is done according to HPC directive. Thank you, Tiffany Phipps Trek Builders & 227 Main LLC 52 Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE HPC SET HPC SET UPDATES HPC SET ADD. INFO227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN 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 PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. HPC - 1 3/18/24 HPC SECTIONS & PHOTOS DATE 2/27/2024 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-22523/12/2024 3/18/2024 NOTE: 5:12 ROOF TO BE RECONSTRUCTED NORTH HPC SOUTH HPC HPC2 HPC2 HPC1 HPC1 HPC 3 HPC3 SLOPE 5" : 12" (V.I.F)SLOPE8" : 12"SLOPE8" : 12"SLOPE 8" : 12" SLOPE 8" : 12"SLOPE9" : 12"SLOPE9" : 12"HISTORIC TOP PLATE NEW LEDGER ROOF MOVED UP 6" INCHES NEW SILL PLATES HISTORIC STUDS REMAINED INTACT NEW SILL PLATES HISTORIC STUDS REMAINED INTACT HISTORIC ROOF RAFTERHISTORIC TOP PLATE NEW LEDGER ROOF DID NOT MOVE UP OR DOWN NEW SILL PLATES HISTORIC STUDS REMAINED INTACT HISTORIC TOP PLATE NEW LEDGER ROOF MOVED UP 4 1/2" NEW TOP PLATE HISTORIC TOP PLATE NEW LEDGER NEW TOP PLATE NEW SILL PLATES NEW SILL PLATES HISTORIC STUDS REMAINED INTACT, SET ONTO NEW SILL PLATES SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 0 HISTORIC RESOURCE - ROOF PLAN HPC - 1 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 2 SECTION 2 HPC - 1SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 1 SECTION 1 HPC - 1 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 3 SECTION 3 HPC - 1 N SOUTH GABLE REFRAMED 6" ABOVE HISTORIC TOP PLATE. NEW LEDGER LOCATED IN CORRECT SPOT PER APPROVED STRUCTURAL DETAILS. ORIGINALLY APPROVED HISTORIC AND PROPOSED RAFTER INTERFACE DETAIL. NEW LVL LEDGER SUPPOSED TO BE SLIFH WITH TOP OF PLATE. WEST SIDE ROOF RAISED 3". HISTORIC TOP PLATE HIDDEN BEHIND INCORRECTLY LOCATED LVL LEDGER. NORTH SIDE HISTORIC TOP PLATE AT CORRECT ELEVATION. NEW LVL LEDGER INCORRECTLY LOCATED, HISTORIC RAFTERS CUT TO FIT 53 Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE HPC SET HPC SET UPDATES HPC SET ADD. INFO227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN 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 PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. HPC - 2 3/18/24 HPC ELEVATIONS & PHOTOS DATE 2/27/2024 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-22523/12/2024 3/18/2024 ROOF MOVED UP 4 1/2" INCHES DASHED FILL INDICATES HISTORIC LOCATIONEAST-WEST GABLE DID NOT MOVE ROOF MOVED UP 6" INCHES DASHED FILL INDICATES HISTORIC LOCATION ROOF MOVED UP 4 1/2" INCHES EAST-WEST GABLE DID NOT MOVE NOTE: 5:12 ROOF TO BE RECONSTRUCTED NORTH HPC SOUTH HPC HPC2 HPC2 HPC1 HPC1 HPC 3 HPC3 SLOPE 5" : 12" (V.I.F)SLOPE8" : 12"SLOPE8" : 12"SLOPE 8" : 12" SLOPE 8" : 12"SLOPE9" : 12"SLOPE9" : 12"SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 1 CURRENT NORTH ELEVATION HPC - 2 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 2 CURRENT SOUTH ELEVATION HPC - 2 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 0 HISTORIC RESOURCE - ROOF PLAN HPC - 2 N SOUTH GABLE REFRAMED 6" ABOVE HISTORIC TOP PLATE. NEW LEDGER LOCATED IN CORRECT SPOT PER APPROVED STRUCTURAL DETAILS. SOUTH GABLE RIDGE WITH SPLICED HISTORIC RAFTERS, PRESUMABLY TO GET STEEL RIDGE BEAM INTO PLACE. WEST SIDE ROOF RAISED 3". HISTORIC TOP PLATE HIDDEN BEHIND INCORRECTLY LOCATED LVL LEDGER. HIPS AND VALLEYS REFRAMED WITH HISTORIC RAFTERS RE-ATTACHED 54 Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE HPC SET HPC SET UPDATES HPC SET ADD. INFO227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN 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 PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. HPC - 3 3/18/24 HPC SECTIONS & PHOTOS 2 DATE 2/27/2024 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-22523/12/2024 3/18/2024W21D20 W23 W22D21W37D26HPC2 HPC2 HPC1 HPC1 HPC 3 HPC3 HISTORIC TOP PLATE NEW LEDGER ROOF MOVED UP 6" INCHES NEW SILL PLATES HISTORIC STUDS REMAINED INTACT NEW SILL PLATES HISTORIC STUDS REMAINED INTACT HISTORIC ROOF RAFTERHISTORIC TOP PLATE NEW LEDGER ROOF DID NOT MOVE UP OR DOWN NEW SILL PLATES HISTORIC STUDS REMAINED INTACT HISTORIC TOP PLATE NEW LEDGER ROOF MOVED UP 4 1/2" NEW TOP PLATE HISTORIC TOP PLATE NEW LEDGER NEW TOP PLATE NEW SILL PLATES NEW SILL PLATES HISTORIC STUDS REMAINED INTACT, SET ONTO NEW SILL PLATES SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 0 HISTORIC RESOURCE - ROOF PLAN HPC - 3 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 2 SECTION 2 HPC - 3SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 1 SECTION 1 HPC - 3 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 3 SECTION 3 HPC - 3 N PHOTO OF HISTORIC TOP PLATE ON TOP OF NEW 1 1/2" TOP PLATE. STUDS WERE NOT CUT, BUT TOP PLATE WAS REMOVED AND PLACED HISTORIC RESOURCE BEING MOVED. NOTE, EXISTING DETACHED FROM EXISTING FLOOR SYSTEM (PER PLAN). PHOTO LOOKING WEST UNDER EAST-WEST GABLE ROOF: INTERIOR FRAMING OF HISTORIC RESOURCE PRIOR TO MOVING. PHOTO LOOKING WEST UNDER EAST-WEST GABLE ROOF: INTERIOR FRAMING OF HISTORIC RESOURCE IN CURRENT CONDITION. HISTORIC TOP PLATE NEW TOP PLATE 55 Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE HPC SET HPC SET UPDATES HPC SET ADD. INFO227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN 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 PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. HPC - 4 3/18/24 ORIGINAL WALL & ROOF DEMO CALCS DATE 2/27/2024 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-22523/12/2024 3/18/2024 320 sq ft 24 sq ftDEMO 40 sq ft DEMO16 sq ft 5 sq ft 4 sq ft 6 sq ft 299 sq ft 36 sq ftDEMO 30 sq ft24 sq ft19 sq ft 301 sq ft 312 sq ft EXISTING WINDOW DEEMED NON-HISTORIC, TO BE INFILLED NEW HISTORIC DOOR REQUESTED BY HPC12 3 4 110 sq ft 108 sq ft 95 sq ft 111 sq ft 140 sq ft 151 sq ft 182 sq ft 2 sq ft 2 sq ft 140 sq ftTO BE REMOVED & RE-BUILT REMOVAL & RECONSTRUCTION APPROVED BY HPC 1 2 43 5 6 7 1 WALL DEMOLITION ELEVATIONS 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 ROOF DEMOLITION ELEVATIONS 1/4" = 1'-0" TOTAL DEMO = 11.45% 56 Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE HPC SET HPC SET UPDATES HPC SET ADD. INFO227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN 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 PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. HPC - 5 3/18/24 CURRENT WALL & ROOF DEMO CALCS DATE 2/27/2024 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-22523/12/2024 3/18/2024 320 sq ft 40 sq ft DEMO 5 sq ft 4 sq ft 6 sq ft 299 sq ft 3 sq ft (TOP PLATE REMOVED & RELOCATED) 1 sq ft (TOP PLATE REMOVED & RELOCATED) 24 sq ftDEMO 16 sq ft 36 sq ftDEMO 30 sq ft24 sq ft19 sq ft 301 sq ft 312 sq ft EXISTING WINDOW DEEMED NON-HISTORIC, TO BE INFILLED NEW HISTORIC DOOR REQUESTED BY HPC12 3 4 110 sq ft 108 sq ft 110 sq ft RE-FRAMED 108 sq ft RE-FRAMED 95 sq ft 111 sq ft 140 sq ft 151 sq ft 182 sq ft 2 sq ft 2 sq ft 140 sq ftTO BE REMOVED & RE-BUILT 182 sq ft RE-FRAMED 151 sq ft RE-FRAMED REMOVAL & RECONSTRUCTION APPROVED BY HPC 1 2 43 5 6 7 1 WALL DEMOLITION ELEVATIONS 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 ROOF DEMOLITION ELEVATIONS 1/4" = 1'-0" TOTAL DEMO = 42.44% 57 February 22, 2024 Kirsten Armstrong (HPC Principal Planner), Stuart Hayden (HPC Planner II) City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 227 E Main Street: Trek Builders’ Summary of Work Performed on the Historical House (Week of 2.12.24-2.15.24) Site Project Manager: Michael Monsauret, Trek Builders LLC Framing Contractor: Eduardo Lopez, LC Construc�on LLC Trek Builders LLC and LC Construc�on LLC was tasked with the framing of the historical resource, which involved the removal of the exis�ng non-historic metal roof, and addi�onal and supplementary wall/roof framing be sistered on to exis�ng framing per the approved plans. The addi�onal framing at the eastern walls and gable roofs were framed and installed according to the plans, as is preserved in place (see image below of approved structural plans’ note). When it came �me for work on the west side of the house, however, the approved framing prac�ces were lost in haste, and done so incorrectly. Although the inten�on was to sister roof ra�ers onto the exis�ng historical framing without removing any historical members, all historical framing on the west side was inadvertently removed. This was not inten�onal, as there was a misunderstanding regarding the importance of historical restora�on and preserva�on, as well as the specific requirements outlined in the approved plans. 58 Upon realizing the mistake during the removal of the Historical Framing Members, immediate ac�on was taken. LC Construc�on completed the installa�on of the new 2x12 framing with the sistered historical roof members atached and in their original posi�on. Addi�onally, the historic 1x8 roof slats were reinstalled atop the framing, also in their exact historic loca�ons. Photos of the work completed were also forwarded to Colorado Structural Engineering Services (Mike Arbaney) to review and comment. His comment was: from what I see in the photos it looks good structurally as it is now. A site mee�ng was convened to address the viola�on of the approved plans and a STOP Work Order was issued un�l the mistake and discrepancies could be iden�fied and rec�fied with the Historical Preserva�on Commission and City of Aspen Community Development, by Trek Builders and Kim Raymond Architects. This mistake occurred on the a�ernoon of Thursday, 2/15/24, and all correc�ve work was completed on the same day by 5:00 pm. We sincerely apologize for the oversight and understand the gravity of the situa�on. We are commited to rec�fying our mistake and ensuring compliance with all relevant regula�ons and standards. Sincerely, Michael Monsauret Site Project Manager, Trek Builders LLC Eduardo Lopez LC Construc�on Framing 59 TREK BUILDERS LLC From; Tiffany Phipps, Owner, Trek Builders LLC and development consultant for 227 Main LLC Date; 02-28-2024 To; Kirsten Armstrong and Stuart Hayden Dear Kirsten and Stuart, I would like to sincerely apologize for the gross error that Trek Builders and our sub-contactor LC Construction has made in relation to the historic roof and rafters at the 227 Main project in Aspen. As the owner of Trek Builders LLC I am deeply troubled by the lack of oversight from our on-site team which created this situation. Our site superintendent, Michael Monsauret, has years of experience in building historic homes in Aspen’s west end with great success. He never wanted to deviate purposefully from the HPC directive, nor did our framing sub-contractor LC Construction. LC Construction has also completed historic homes in Aspen and assured us when we hired them that they would adhere to the HPC directive. I believe there was a breakdown in communication, what was allowed and not per HPC standards, language barrier issues, and an understanding of how to address inconsistencies in the plans to the HPC directive. Mark Friedland and I have partnered on many successful HPC projects over the last 8 years. I will venture to say we’ve restored more historic homes in Aspen than any other person to date. Our HPC projects have won awards and there is no one more committed to preserving historic homes in Aspen than us. I am personally responsible for the following HPC projects over the last 8 years. This list is long and I hope goes to show how committed we are, over anyone else in this valley, to historic preservation as it’s proven by the sheer number of projects. 110 Bleeker 208 Main 227 Bleeker 233 Bleeker 100 Main 105 Hallam 131 Bleeker 209 Bleeker 60 TREK BUILDERS LLC 223 Hallam 227 Main 417 Hallam 442 W Bleeker (future) 526 W Hallam 530 W Hallam 602 E Hyman 625 E Hopkins This was a mistake and error on the part of our whole team, myself as the business owner and developer most importantly, but nothing was intentional or malicious. Our architect Kim Raymond is not only the leading architect in historic preservation in Aspen but also sits on your HPC board. Her associate Milo Stark, who is the project lead architect, has also done many historic projects and walks the project site frequently. I highlight this point because with literally decades of HPC experience, 15 completed historic projects, and maybe the most qualified team in Aspen and we still made a mis-step. It was a mistake and one that I am so sorry happened. We hope that you please consider all of the presented facts when you make a determination as to the disciplinary action. I think everyone involved, including HPC does not want to see this home sit on Main Street boarded up for another year from our mistake. We would invite HPC to come by our site weekly, should we be allowed to proceed with some kind of corrective action, so that no further mis-steps happen on this beautiful historic cabin. I look forward to hearing back from you all and appreciate your understanding. Thank you, Tiffany Phipps Tiffany Phipps, Owner Aspen Dev Co & Trek Builders 970.901.7613 www.aspendevco.com 501 E Hyman Ave. Ste 201 Aspen, CO 81611 61 Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE HPC SET227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN 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 PERMISSION. 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. HPC 2/27/24 HPC SECTIONS & PHOTOS DATE 2/27/2024 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-2252NOTE: 5:12 ROOF TO BE RECONSTRUCTED NORTH HPC SOUTH HPC HPC 2 HPC 2 HPC 1 HPC 1 HPC 3 HPC 3 SLOPE 5" : 12" (V.I.F)SLOPE8" : 12"SLOPE8" : 12"SLOPE 8" : 12" SLOPE 8" : 12"SLOPE9" : 12"SLOPE9" : 12"HISTORIC TOP PLATE NEW LEDGER ROOF MOVED UP 6" INCHES HISTORIC TOP PLATE NEW LEDGER ROOF DID NOT MOVEUP OR DOWN HISTORIC TOP PLATE NEW LEDGER ROOF MOVED UP 3" SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 0 HISTORIC RESOURCE - ROOF PLAN HPC SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 2 SECTION 2 HPCSCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 1 SECTION 1 HPC SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 3 SECTION 3 HPC N SOUTH GABLE REFRAMED 6" ABOVE HISTORIC TOP PLATE. NEW LEDGER LOCATED IN CORRECT SPOT PER APPROVED STRUCTURAL DETAILS. ORIGINALLY APPROVED HISTORIC AND PROPOSED RAFTER INTERFACE DETAIL. NEW LVL LEDGER SUPPOSED TO BE SLIFH WITH TOP OF PLATE. WEST SIDE ROOF RAISED 3". HISTORIC TOP PLATE HIDDEN BEHIND INCORRECTLY LOCATED LVL LEDGER. NORTH SIDE HISTORIC TOP PLATE AT CORRECT ELEVATION. NEW LVL LEDGER INCORRECTLY LOCATED, HISTORIC RAFTERS CUT TO FIT 62 Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE HPC SET227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN 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 PERMISSION. 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. HPC 2/27/24 HPC ELEVATIONS & PHOTOS DATE 2/27/2024 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-2252ROOF MOVED UP 3" INCHES DASHED FILL INDICATES HISTORIC LOCATION ROOF MOVED UP 6" INCHES DASHED FILL INDICATES HISTORIC LOCATION NOTE: 5:12 ROOF TO BE RECONSTRUCTED NORTH HPC SOUTH HPC HPC 2 HPC 2 HPC 1 HPC 1 HPC 3 HPC 3 SLOPE 5" : 12" (V.I.F)SLOPE8" : 12"SLOPE8" : 12"SLOPE 8" : 12" SLOPE 8" : 12"SLOPE9" : 12"SLOPE9" : 12"SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 1 CURRENT NORTH ELEVATION HPC SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 2 CURRENT SOUTH ELEVATION HPC SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 0 HISTORIC RESOURCE - ROOF PLAN HPC N SOUTH GABLE REFRAMED 6" ABOVE HISTORIC TOP PLATE. NEW LEDGER LOCATED IN CORRECT SPOT PER APPROVED STRUCTURAL DETAILS. SOUTH GABLE RIDGE WITH SPLICED HISTORIC RAFTERS, PRESUMABLY TO GET STEEL RIDGE BEAM INTO PLACE. WEST SIDE ROOF RAISED 3". HISTORIC TOP PLATE HIDDEN BEHIND INCORRECTLY LOCATED LVL LEDGER. HIPS AND VALLEYS REFRAMED WITH HISTORIC RAFTERS RE-ATTACHED 63 TREK BUILDERS LLC 1 227 East Main Street Photos – PRIOR TO ROOF/FRAMING 64 TREK BUILDERS LLC 2 65 TREK BUILDERS LLC 3 66 TREK BUILDERS LLC 4 67 TREK BUILDERS LLC 5 68 TREK BUILDERS LLC 6 69 TREK BUILDERS LLC 7 227 East Main Street Photos – POST ROOF/FRAMING 70 TREK BUILDERS LLC 8 71 TREK BUILDERS LLC 9 72 TREK BUILDERS LLC 10 73 TREK BUILDERS LLC 11 74 TREK BUILDERS LLC 12 75 TREK BUILDERS LLC 13 76 TREK BUILDERS LLC 14 77 TREK BUILDERS LLC 15 78 TREK BUILDERS LLC 16 79 TREK BUILDERS LLC 17 80 TREK BUILDERS LLC 18 81 TREK BUILDERS LLC 19 82 TREK BUILDERS LLC 20 83 TREK BUILDERS LLC 21 84 TREK BUILDERS LLC 22 85 TREK BUILDERS LLC 23 86 TREK BUILDERS LLC 24 87 Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE HPC SET HPC SET UPDATES227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN 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 PERMISSION. 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. HPC 1 3/12/24 HPC SECTIONS & PHOTOS DATE 2/27/2024 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-22523/12/2024 NOTE: 5:12 ROOF TO BE RECONSTRUCTED NORTH HPC SOUTH HPC HPC 2 HPC 2 HPC 1 HPC 1 HPC 3 HPC 3 SLOPE 5" : 12" (V.I.F)SLOPE8" : 12"SLOPE8" : 12"SLOPE 8" : 12" SLOPE 8" : 12"SLOPE9" : 12"SLOPE9" : 12"HISTORIC TOP PLATE NEW LEDGER ROOF MOVED UP 6" INCHES NEW SILL PLATES HISTORIC STUDS REMAINED INTACT NEW SILL PLATES HISTORIC STUDS REMAINED INTACT HISTORIC TOP PLATE NEW LEDGER ROOF DID NOT MOVE UP OR DOWN NEW SILL PLATES HISTORIC STUDS REMAINED INTACT HISTORIC TOP PLATE NEW LEDGER ROOF MOVED UP 4 1/2" NEW TOP PLATE HISTORIC TOP PLATE NEW LEDGER NEW TOP PLATE NEW SILL PLATES NEW SILL PLATES HISTORIC STUDS REMAINED INTACT, SET ONTO NEW SILL PLATES SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 0 HISTORIC RESOURCE - ROOF PLAN HPC 1 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 2 SECTION 2 HPC 1SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 1 SECTION 1 HPC 1 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 3 SECTION 3 HPC 1 N SOUTH GABLE REFRAMED 6" ABOVE HISTORIC TOP PLATE. NEW LEDGER LOCATED IN CORRECT SPOT PER APPROVED STRUCTURAL DETAILS. ORIGINALLY APPROVED HISTORIC AND PROPOSED RAFTER INTERFACE DETAIL. NEW LVL LEDGER SUPPOSED TO BE SLIFH WITH TOP OF PLATE. WEST SIDE ROOF RAISED 3". HISTORIC TOP PLATE HIDDEN BEHIND INCORRECTLY LOCATED LVL LEDGER. NORTH SIDE HISTORIC TOP PLATE AT CORRECT ELEVATION. NEW LVL LEDGER INCORRECTLY LOCATED, HISTORIC RAFTERS CUT TO FIT 88 Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE HPC SET HPC SET UPDATES227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN 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 PERMISSION. 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. HPC 2 3/12/24 HPC ELEVATIONS & PHOTOS DATE 2/27/2024 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-22523/12/2024ROOF MOVED UP 4 1/2" INCHES DASHED FILL INDICATES HISTORIC LOCATIONEAST-WEST GABLE DID NOT MOVE ROOF MOVED UP 6" INCHES DASHED FILL INDICATES HISTORIC LOCATION ROOF MOVED UP 4 1/2" INCHES EAST-WEST GABLE DID NOT MOVE NOTE: 5:12 ROOF TO BE RECONSTRUCTED NORTH HPC SOUTH HPC HPC 2 HPC 2 HPC 1 HPC 1 HPC 3 HPC 3 SLOPE 5" : 12" (V.I.F)SLOPE8" : 12"SLOPE8" : 12"SLOPE 8" : 12" SLOPE 8" : 12"SLOPE9" : 12"SLOPE9" : 12"SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 1 CURRENT NORTH ELEVATION HPC 2 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 2 CURRENT SOUTH ELEVATION HPC 2 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 0 HISTORIC RESOURCE - ROOF PLAN HPC 2 N SOUTH GABLE REFRAMED 6" ABOVE HISTORIC TOP PLATE. NEW LEDGER LOCATED IN CORRECT SPOT PER APPROVED STRUCTURAL DETAILS. SOUTH GABLE RIDGE WITH SPLICED HISTORIC RAFTERS, PRESUMABLY TO GET STEEL RIDGE BEAM INTO PLACE. WEST SIDE ROOF RAISED 3". HISTORIC TOP PLATE HIDDEN BEHIND INCORRECTLY LOCATED LVL LEDGER. HIPS AND VALLEYS REFRAMED WITH HISTORIC RAFTERS RE-ATTACHED 89 Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE HPC SET HPC SET UPDATES227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN 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 PERMISSION. 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. HPC 3 3/12/24 HPC SECTIONS & PHOTOS 2 DATE 2/27/2024 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-22523/12/2024W21D20 W23 W22D21W37D26HPC 2 HPC 2 HPC 1 HPC 1 HPC 3 HPC 3 HISTORIC TOP PLATE NEW LEDGER ROOF MOVED UP 6" INCHES NEW SILL PLATES HISTORIC STUDS REMAINED INTACT NEW SILL PLATES HISTORIC STUDS REMAINED INTACT HISTORIC TOP PLATE NEW LEDGER ROOF DID NOT MOVE UP OR DOWN NEW SILL PLATES HISTORIC STUDS REMAINED INTACT HISTORIC TOP PLATE NEW LEDGER ROOF MOVED UP 4 1/2" NEW TOP PLATE HISTORIC TOP PLATE NEW LEDGER NEW TOP PLATE NEW SILL PLATES NEW SILL PLATES HISTORIC STUDS REMAINED INTACT, SET ONTO NEW SILL PLATES SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 0 HISTORIC RESOURCE - ROOF PLAN HPC 3 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 2 SECTION 2 HPC 3SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 1 SECTION 1 HPC 3 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 3 SECTION 3 HPC 3 N PHOTO OF HISTORIC TOP PLATE ON TOP OF NEW 1 1/2" TOP PLATE. STUDS WERE NOT CUT, BUT TOP PLATE WAS REMOVED AND PLACED HISTORIC RESOURCE BEING MOVED. NOTE, EXISTING DETACHED FROM EXISTING FLOOR SYSTEM (PER PLAN). PHOTO LOOKING WEST UNDER EAST-WEST GABLE ROOF: INTERIOR FRAMING OF HISTORIC RESOURCE PRIOR TO MOVING. PHOTO LOOKING WEST UNDER EAST-WEST GABLE ROOF: INTERIOR FRAMING OF HISTORIC RESOURCE IN CURRENT CONDITION. HISTORIC TOP PLATE NEW TOP PLATE 90 March 19, 2024 227 East Main, LLC c/o Mark Friedland 312 Aspen Airport Business Center, Suite D Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Stop Work Order for City of Aspen Building Permit #0128-2020-BRES at 227 E Main Street Dear Mr. Friedland, It has come to the attention of the City of Aspen that construction at 227 E Main Street, related to City of Aspen Building Permit #0128-2020-BRES, deviated from approved plans. Approved plans indicate that “All historic framing in perimeter walls and roof of historic structure will be preserved in place. At existing historic house framing all existing structure is to be exposed. Any member found to be insufficient for today’s code loading will remain in place and have new members sistered on to meet today’s code requirements.” On 15 February 2024, the City of Aspen was informed that historic roof and wall framing on the west side of the historic structure at 227 E Main was removed. After inspection on the 15th of February 2024 by the Chief Building Official and the Historic Preservation Officer, a Stop Work Order was issued by the Chief Building Official on the 16th of February 2024. This letter shall serve as additional written notice of the violation. The City of Aspen is currently working with the applicant team to understand the extent of damage to the historic resource, and what corrective actions there may be to the situation. Staff intends to provide the Historic Preservation Commission with an Information Only Memo on 27 March 2024; and will be noticing a public hearing for 10 April 2024 in case HPC wants to provide recommendations concerning appropriate penalties in response to the violations and corrective actions to be undertaken. Any corrective actions to the structure will likely require an application for Substantial Amendment to the existing project. Staff would like to meet with the owner of 227 E Main Street to discuss the violation and the enforcement process related to such. Please reach out to Kirsten Armstrong, Historic Preservation Officer, at Kirsten.Armstrong@Aspen.gov by 29 March 2024, 10 days after the date of this notice, to schedule a meeting. Community Development 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 CC: Luisa Berne, City of Aspen Assistant Attorney 91 April 4th, 2024 Historic Preservation Council City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 227 East Main Street: Contractor Timeline October 8th, 2020 (COA Permit Submittal) Permit submitted with Steeplechase Construction (Steve Waldeck) listed as GC October 7th, 2021 (COA Permit Review) Comments submitted with Kaegebein Fine Homebuilding (Nate Kaegebein) listed as GC May 25th, 2022 (COA Permit Issued) Permit issued to Kaegebein Fine Homebuilding (Nate Kaegebein) June 15th, 2022 (Transfer of Permit) Permit transferred to Trek Builders, Forest Jacober as Trek’s contact on COA Portal July, 2022 (Work Begins) Trek Builders begins work onsite. High Country Building Group hired as framing sub-contractor August, 2022 (Historic Resource Moved) High Country Building Group assists Bailey House Movers in shoring & adding additional framing support for house move December, 2022 Michael Monsauret appointed superintendent to assist Forest Jacober with workload March 15th, 2023 Forest Jacober leaves Trek Builders, Michael Monsauret still superintendent now with Todd Curley as PM April 10th, 2023 (Historic Resource Moved Back to Original Location) High Country Building Group assists Bailey House Movers in putting historic resource back in original location October, 2023 Michael Monsauret still superintendent, Todd Curley replaced by Ryan Steuven as PM December, 2023 High Country Building Group let go as framing sub-contractor. Hired LC Construction as framing sub January, 2024 Trek/LC Construction begins framing historic resource February 16th, 2024 (Stop Work Order) Stop work order issued due to work not to plans 92 Memorandum of Policy Building Codes From: Mike Metheny Date: March 12, 2020 Revised: 10/25/2023 Change of General Contractor Responsibilities of either Old General Contractor or Owner: 1)Submit a letter stating that the old general contractor is no longer employed. a.Include any sub-contractors no longer employed 2)Request a progress inspection to document the progress of the permitted work to date. 3)Return permit, field set of plans, and inspection records to the City of Aspen. Responsibilities of New General Contractor: 1)Possess: a.Salesforce account b.Current contractor license c.Business license d.CMP certification 2)Submit updated copies of: a.CMP b.Special inspection agreement (if applicable) c.Signed permit contact form 3)Receive and print re-issuance of the permit to be kept on job site 1)Submit a letter from old sub-contractor or current general contractor stating the old sub-contractor is no longer employed on specific permit(s) a.This will cancel the sub-permit belonging to old sub-contractor Change of Sub-Contractor: Responsibilities of either Old Sub-Contractor or current General Contractor: 1)Possess: a.Salesforce account b.Current contractor license c.Business license 2)Submit new sub-permit application through Salesforce 3)Receive and print reissuance of sub-permit to be kept on job site Responsibilities of new Sub-Contractor: 93