The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20241211AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 11, 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 - 10/9/24 III.PUBLIC COMMENTS IV.COMMISSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS V.DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI.PROJECT MONITORING VI.A Project Monitoring Reports VI.B Project Monitoring Committee Assignments VII.STAFF COMMENTS VIII.CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT ISSUED VIII.A Certificates of No Negative Effect IX.CALL UP REPORTS X.SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS XI.SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT XII.OLD BUSINESS minutes.hpc.20241009_DRAFT.docx Project Monitoring Reports.20241211.pdf Project Monitoring Committee Assignments.20241211.pdf Certificates of No Negative Effect.20241211.pdf 1 1 XIII.NEW BUSINESS XIII.A 333 W. Bleeker St. – Consideration of Penalties Regarding Alleged Violation of the Municipal Code, Section 26.415 – Historic Preservation, PUBLIC HEARING XIV.ADJOURN XV.NEXT RESOLUTION NUMBER Staff Memo.333 W Bleeker St.20241211.pdf Draft HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2024.pdf Exhibit A - HPC Resolution #10, Series of 2019.pdf Exhibit B - HPC Resolution #02, Series of 2020.pdf Exhibit C - Building Permit Sheet A-256.00.pdf Exhibit D - Building Permit Sheets S.2.03-S.2.04.pdf Exhibit E - Insubstantial Amendment.20231221.pdf Exhibit F - Insubstantial Amendment.20240416.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. 2 2 Updated: March 7, 2024 3 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 9TH, 2024 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Barb Pitchford, Peter Fornell, Kim Raymond, Dakota Severe, Jodi Surfas, Riley Warwick and Kara Thompson. Staff present: Gillian White – Principal Preservation Planner Stuart Hayden, Planner - Historic Preservation Ben Anderson, Community Development Director Kate Johnson, AssistantCity Attorney Luisa Berne, Assistant City Attorney Tracy Terry, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: None PUBLIC COMMENTS: David Scruggs gave the board members and Ms. Johnson a letter (entered into the record) and he went over the letter which dealt with the board going into Executive Session. He felt HPC should seriously think about not going into Executive Session. He questioned why they needed to have a secret meeting and continued to go over his thoughts contained in the letter. Mr. Moyer asked if they could discuss this in the meeting and if so when. Ms. Johnson replied that they will be voting to go into executive session to get legal counsel that she will provide. She noted that the Executive Session was being requested due to numerous questions from board members about the project at 205 W Main St. which she felt required a legal analysis. She confirmed that after the Executive Session, if the board wanted to waive their privilege with respect to any pieces of information, they could discuss that at that time. She also clarified that no decisions are allowed to be made in Executive Session. Ms. Pitchford asked if they vote to go into Executive Session, if she could disseminate the information received as an individual and Ms. Johnson replied no, the privilege to release information resides with the board as a whole. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson confirmed that public notice was completed in compliance with the Code as needed for the two agenda items. OLD BUSINESS: 300-312 E. Hyman Ave, formerly known as Crystal Palace Discussion Ms. Johnson noted that at the end of the public hearing on this item at the October 2nd meeting she reported that a written Resolution would be brought back to the HPC. She said that after a review of the approval and application by the Attorney’s office it was determined that a Resolution was not required in this situation by the Land Use Code. Ms. Thompson acknowledged that it had been a long meeting and a difficult discussion and that she was disappointed in the outcome. She felt they had made a mistake and did not have enough information to 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 9TH, 2024 make a decision. Going forward she wanted to make sure they give applications the attention they deserve. Mr. Moyer asked if they could bring that item back up. Ms. Johnson noted that a member who voted in favor of the approval could ask for reconsideration of the approval. Mr. Moyer requested that someone who voted in favor of this item make a new motion to take back this approval. He said that he was very disappointed and didn’t sleep that night. He wondered how they should deal with a new member who can vote at their first meeting without, in his mind, proper training. Ms. Pitchford also said that she had sleepless nights over this. She had prepared a statement and was concerned and disappointed in how the board conducted themselves at the last meeting. She said her concern stemmed from their disregard of the guidelines and inconsistencies of their decisions. She continued with her prepared statement, noting that since the building is still listed as Historic, the guidelines for demolition still apply. Mr. Moyer agreed and asked again for a member who voted in favor to change their vote. Ms. Thompson noted that she believed that City Council could vote to call this item up. She said that she would be writing a letter to them to ask that they call this up and remand it back to HPC to be reconsidered. Ms. Raymond felt that as the last meeting was getting late into the night and members were all making comments, the discussion got a little confusing and members may not have known what was being voted on. She wanted to make sure in the future that members were not talking over each other and letting everyone finish their comments. Ms. Thompson and Ms. Pitchford agreed. Ms. Severe felt that it was a hard topic but thought they did do the right thing because all that was there was a wall that was such a hodgepodge. She felt what was presented by the applicant did do homage to the historic nature of the mural even though it was not the original mural or original wall. OLD BUSINESS: 117 N. Sixth St. - Minor Development –PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Hayden said that the applicants have struggled to find a different material to propose and asked for a continuance. He said that staff agreed with a continuance to December 11 th, 2024. MOTION: Ms. Thompson motioned to continue the hearing to the December, 11th, 2024 meeting. Ms. Raymond seconded. Mr. Fornell wanted to clarify that HPC had already given the applicant a few material options that would be acceptable. Ms. Thompson said yes. Ms. Johnson noted that in this case one continuance must be granted, but any further requests for continuance would be at the discretion of the board. Mr. Hayden clarified that the applicant’s representatives had told him that they could not get ahold of the landowner to verify with them what material they were comfortable with. Ms. Thompson agreed to give them one more continuance. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 7-0, motion passes. 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 9TH, 2024 NEW BUSINESS:Response to Colorado HB23-1255 Staff Presentation: Haley Hart, Long Range Planner & Ben Anderson, Community Development Director Ms. Hart gave an overview of the House Bill (Exhibit C in the agenda packet). She noted the request is to review the code amendments as redlined (Exhibits A & B in the agenda packet) and make a formal recommendation to council as prescribed by the Land Use Code. She said this is a discussion in response to HB23- 1255 - Regulating Local Housing Growth Restrictions. She then gave some history of the bill’s passage and its goals as detailed in the staff memo. She noted that this bill only addresses residential development. She said that the City of Aspen uses the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) as a regulatory tool to measure growth and development which is tied to the Affordable Housing Mitigation System. She handed the presentation over to Mr. Anderson. Mr. Anderson gave a brief history of GMQS as outlined in the staff memo. He noted that while the system was originally being developed, there was discussion regarding what growth meant and that it wasn’t just about population but also about the impacts of residential, lodging and commercial development. He described the “allotments” that were developed as part of the system and noted the total allotments and their usage over time. He noted that since Aspen is mostly already built out, especially on the residential side, the allotments haven’t been being used, by in large. He noted that this new state law has forced staff to ask questions about how we use the allotment system. He said that staff is concerned about the new law because so many other things are built on our allotment system, most notably affordable housing. He then listed a few other City policies and programs that are connected. He reiterated that this Bill only targets residential development. He noted that staff really only focused on responding to the areas in the Land Use Code required to keep us in compliance with HB23-1255. This meant eliminating the 13 residential allotments specified in the Code and leaving the rest of the system untouched. Mr. Moyer noted that this was pushed by the Governor, and it was his belief that it was put on hold until more studies were completed on how it would affect certain communities. Mr. Anderson said that this Bill is a very targeted aspect of a whole series of proposals from the Governor and affordable housing advocates. Ms. Pitchford noted that it seemed like the City had to respond to this. Mr. Anderson said that we were able to decide how we responded, but that ultimately, we had to do something to bring our Code into compliance. Ms. Hart continued staff’s presentation by going over the process by which staff got to where they are today. This included a subsection-by-subsection thorough review of the GMQS system and what areas would be in conflict with the Bill. She described staff’s process for this review. She noted that it was important to make sure the edits would not affect any of the other areas of GMQS. She noted that after the review staff identified Section 26.470 (Growth Management Quota System (GMQS)) and Section 26.212.010 (Planning and Zoning Commission – Powers and Duties) as sections that need to be brought into compliance. She went over the changes / edits made to the sections as outlined in the staff memo and detailed in Exhibit A and B in the agenda packet. Ms. Hart concluded by stating that staff recommends HPC approval of the Resolution to bring the two sections into compliance with the House Bill. 6 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 9TH, 2024 Mr. Fornell asked what might happen if Aspen did not act on this to change our Land Use Code to conform with the House Bill. Ms. Johnson said that if someone was seeking to develop and GMQS was used to limit that development, the City could be challenged on it as it would violate State law. Mr. Moyer asked if this would affect any of Aspen’s historic land or resources. Ms. Hart said she did not believe so. She noted that HPC gets a subdivision by right, so no allotments are being used when a historic landmark subdivision occurs. Mr. Warwick asked how, in layman’s terms, this will affect Aspen. Mr. Anderson said that in practical terms, he did not think that it would affect the community. Ms. Hart added that in staff’s reading of the House Bill and in their opinion, they are responding in the best way to bring our Code into compliance. Ms. Pitchford gave staff kudos for all their work on this. MOTION:Ms. Thompson moved to approve the next Resolution in the series of 2024. Mr. Moyer seconded. Ms. Raymond and Mr. Fornell also commended staff for their work on this. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 7-0 vote, motion passes. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Fornell commented that he had attended the City Council meeting the previous evening and noticed that an Action Item was on their agenda of the review and preliminary approval of the Armory remodel. He handed out a packet with historical pictures of the Armory and renderings of the proposed remodel to the other HPC members. He commented that the changes that are being proposed are sweeping and, in his opinion, inconsistent with HPC’s mission. He continued by noting that per the pictures in the packet he handed out, the proposal conflicts with several sections of Chapter 10 in the Historic Preservation Guidelines. Ms. Johnson wanted to add some context to the conversation and noted that what was in front of City Council was the design team seeking feedback on certain designs in order to submit a land use application that would come before HPC. She cautioned HPC members of making decisions outside of that public process once that application comes to HPC. Mr. Fornell continued by saying that during public comment he asked the City Manager when this would come before HPC. He said the City Manager’s response was that HPC would only be a referring body on this. Mr. Fornell then stated that HPC’s job was to review and be the final determining body on historic assets. He felt that for the City to circumvent HPC on this was a big disappointment. Ms. Thompson said that in her understanding, this is not yet an application submitted to Council and that it was just on their agenda to give direction to staff, but she confirmed that the intent is to have HPC only be a referring body. Mr. Anderson said that this project has had a lot of community interest and talk at Council about what the building’s future uses and programming should be. He noted that staff had been working with an architecture firm on the potential programming and designs. He confirmed that no land use application had been submitted yet and he described a provision / process in the Land Use Code called “Public Projects Review”. He said that the only real difference between a Planned Development Review and this 7 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 9TH, 2024 Public Projects Review is that the conceptual and final review phases are combined into a single review with City Council being the ultimate decider. Ms. Thompson felt it preposterous that a historic structure in a historic district would not have to go through the standard process with HPC. Mr. Anderson said that there is specific language in the “Public Projects” section of the Land Use Code that spells out HPC’s role in the review. Ms. Pitchford asked if the Wheeler went through HPC review when it was remodeled. Mr. Anderson said yes and then noted that there was a big distinction with what is eventually going to happen at the Armory. He said because of the multitude of issues and uses that are associated with project, in his mind it was not a choice between HPC major review and Public Projects review, it was between Public Projects review and Planned Development review. Mr. Warwick asked that because of the scale of the projects and planned changes that it was vastly different to the Wheeler remodel. Mr. Anderson said, in his opinion, yes. Mr. Fornell said that if the architects had read any of the Historic Preservation Guidelines, they would not have shown the pictures to Council. Mr. Anderson said that once a land use application was submitted, staff would bring forward review criteria and their findings on those criteria whether from the Land Use Code or the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Ms. Raymond wanted to know whose decision it was to utilize the Public Projects review. She noted that the architects on this were very talented and had worked on other historic projects, yet it seemed they were told from the beginning that they did not need to follow historic preservation guidelines. She felt the rendering were ridiculous. Ms. Thompson agreed and said that it was a slap in the face. Mr. Anderson said HPC’s decision to write a letter reflecting the board’s position on this was well within their jurisdiction. Ms. Surfas noted that she had heard the term “community interest” on two projects recently and said that it seemed the City was willing to really twist the rules for their own projects that they want to push through when it benefits the community. She didn’t understand why the City was able to do whatever they want while others in the general public have to follow the rules and come before HPC for review. Mr. Anderson disagreed with Ms. Surfas’ basic framing and noted that the Public Projects portion of the Code had been in existence for, to his knowledge, many decades and is used as a path. He stressed that it does not waive any of the rules and all the review criteria are still there. He noted that the renderings that Mr. Fornell handed out are not a land use application, but rather a move towards a schematic design and have not gone through any formal review. Ms. Johnson clarified that the Community Development staff in front of them tonight are not the staff leading the project team and that this would come before HPC in a public hearing for a recommendation of approval with conditions or a denial to City Council. She noted that the Community Development staff would be reviewing the application and may not find that it is in compliance with all the relevant criteria. She also noted that it was in HPC’s purview to write a letter to City Council stating their concerns about their involvement in the process, but she cautioned them from making a decision before the actual application comes before them as it may end up disqualifying them as a board member. 8 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 9TH, 2024 There was more discussion about how this process would play out and what HPC’s recommending role would be. The Public Project Review section of the Land Use Code was displayed for reference. The conversation included discussion of the differences between this Public Project Review and a Planned Development Review using specific and hypothetical examples. Ms. Thompson stated that, in her view it seemed that the City Manager’s office had decided to pursue the Public Projects Review approach and what HPC could request of City Council is that they use the Planned Development process. Because of the flexibility he saw would be necessary on this project, Mr. Anderson suggested that the two potential options would be either the Public Projects or Planned Development process. Ms. Thompson said she would like to revise the draft letter to City Council and have staff include it at the next meeting for the board’s review and vote. Ms. Severe asked why the Public Projects process was chosen, to which Mr. Anderson explained the many aspects and circumstances that existed in this project that lent it to that process. He noted that in his belief the normal HPC major project review process does not have the capacity to respond to these issues and the areas of flexibility that this project will need. Mr. Moyer suggested that the letter be sent directly to all Council members as well as the City Manager. Mr. Fornell asked Mr. Moyer if, in his many years in town, had he seen something like this before. Mr. Moyer said nothing before Sara Ott. There was some discussion about the process of reviewing the letter at the next meeting and submitting it to City Council. Ms. Thompson suggested they also send it to the newspapers in a letter to the editor. The HPC members and staff discussed the scheduling of when the letter review would happen. It was decided to request the item be included on the October 23rd, 2024 meeting agenda. Mr. Moyer commented that it was very disappointing that architects in the area have total disregard for what HPC does and for historic buildings. He further commented about the size of additions and how they can be so much bigger than the historic resources they are built behind. He realized that it is out of their hands as it was part of the Land Use Code and allowable square footage. He noted that Pitkin County had made big changes to their Land Use Code and suggested that HPC could do the same and ask to reduce the huge amount of square footage that is allowed to be built behind or next to historic resources. Mr. Moyer then reiterated his belief that if an HPC member is listening to and basing their decisions on the comments and information provided by an applicant’s team and supporters then that member should not be on the board. Ms. Johnson clarified to the members that neither staff or the applicant should be given greater weight under the code. Members need to consider all the evidence presented and make an informed decision based on the criteria before them. Mr. Warwick commented that in many of their decisions it is a balance of “bricks & mortar” and the fabric of the community. He thought it very important to take into account public comments on projects, be them from neighbors, consultants, business owners, or other members of the community. Ms. Pitchford said that she was very disappointed in the process that happened at the previous meeting, where they basically de-listed a property because the action they took disregarded the historic 9 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 9TH, 2024 preservation guidelines. She felt the board needed to come to a common understanding of the guidelines and the board’s general purpose, as she felt they were very disconnected. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Thompson noted that there were a number of projects that were still assigned to a previous HPC member and that she wanted to go through them and assign new monitors. She went through each of them and made suggestions of who should take them on. All members agreed with her suggestions. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None CALL UP REPORTS:None STAFF COMMENTS: Mr. Hayden updated the board regarding Ms. Pitchford’s question at a previous meeting of the material finishes of the Pan Abode on Main St. as well as a question from Mr. Moyer about the removal of paint on a brick structure that was done without approval, causing damage to the brick. Mr. Anderson responded to questions from Mr. Moyer about the status of a few other non-historic projects. Ms. Pitchford left the meeting at 6:30pm. Ms. Thomspon then moved on to the Executive Session and noted as Ms. Johnson had explained that the board would have to vote to go into executive session. MOTION:Ms. Thompson then moved to go into executive session for the discussion of approvals given to 205 E. Main St. Ms. Severe seconded. Mr. Fornell commented that if he knew what they would be discussing he could make a better informed decision about voting to go into executive session. Ms. Thompson noted that there was nothing prepared in writing for this discussion and that they could decide afterwards if the discussion should be made public. Ms. Johnson explained that there were questions raised by HPC and specifically the monitor on the project about the approved resolution and other information that had come to light since. She noted that the discussion would be about the legal implications of the new information on the approvals and HPC’s legal options. She further explained the general purposes of an executive session. Roll call vote:Mr. Fornell, abstain; Mr. Moyer, no; Ms. Surfas, no; Ms. Severe, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 4-2-1 vote. Motion fails as two thirds of the members must vote yes to go into executive session. Ms. Johnson noted that this item was not noticed for a public discussion and that staff was not prepared for that. Mr. Moyer asked about the status of the rear addition to the property. Ms. Johnson reminded HPC that Resolution #09, Series of 2023 very clearly stated that the “non-historic” addition can be removed. She noted that the questions raised related to whether that addition was historic or not. MOTION:Ms. Severe made a new motion to go into executive session. Ms. Thompson seconded. 10 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 9TH, 2024 Ms. Raymond noted that she had accompanied Mr. Hayden to the site and did not believe a final determination had been made on whether the addition was historic or not, which is why she believed they needed to talk about it. Roll call vote:Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, no; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-1 vote, motion passes. Mr. Scruggs took issue with the procedure of the last motion to go into Executive Session. MOTION:Mr. Fornell motioned to go into Executive Session. Ms. Raymond seconded. Roll call vote:Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, no; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-1 vote, motion passes. The board moved into Executive Session. MOTION:Mr. Fornell motioned to exit the Executive Session. Ms. Thompson seconded. Roll call vote: Ms. Severe, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes. 7-0 vote, motion passes. The board exited Executive Session. ADJOURN:Ms. Thompson moved to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk 11 Project Monitoring Reports Historic Preservation Commission December 11, 202412 •720 E. Hyman Ave. •227 E. Bleeker St. •343 E. Cooper Ave. •335 Lake Ave. •216 W. Hyman Ave. Insubstantial Amendments •110 W. Main St. •214 W. Bleeker St. •520 E. Cooper Ave. •820 E. Cooper Ave. •316 E. Hopkins Ave. 13 720 E. Hyman Ave. Requests: Approved with Conditions: Only metal components shall be painted. Using color "RAL 8019" for all exterior metal components of the building. 14 227 E. Bleeker St. Request: Approved with Conditions: -The finish must be matte/non-reflective. -The screening shall not exceed six feet above finished grade Substitute the approved mechanical screening on west and east sides of non-historic addition with white BOK Modern, C08 pattern and flat/no pattern aluminum panels. 15 434 E. Cooper Ave. Request: •Removal of previously approved canopy above second-story terrace. •Relocation of two doors and removal of one door from second-story terrace. Approved Previously Approved Proposed 16 335 Lake Ave. Approved Old Proposed Request: Replace the approved first- and second-story windows with one two-story window on west end of the south facade of the non-historic addition as represented. New 17 33 5 L a k e Av e . Request: •Replace approved concrete pavers with the proposed flame-finished light-gray quartzite paver on the east side of the property and between the main house and the garage. •Alter the approved location of pavers/hardscape on the east side of the property. •Install stone pavers in the southeast light well. •Reduce the size of the concrete pad. New Old Approved 18 Request: •Install blown and bibbed insulation in historic walls. •Install closed-cell spray foam and batt insulation over a protective drainage mat barrier in historic roof. 216 W. Hyman Ave.Approved 19 110 W. Main St. Requests: Substitute Trespa Pura NFC 6” vertical siding for the HPC- approved siding at the 3rd floor parapet of the south and east facades. Approved Approved Substitute Arborwood Black Oil Finished Burned and Brushed 5” vertical siding for the HPC-approved 6” vertical siding at the inset decks on the 2nd and 3rd floors of the south and east facades. 20 214 W. Bleeker St. Requests: •Relocating and restoring the historic shed at the rear of the property as previously approved (without the basement addition approved for the house) Approved with Conditions: 1)Provide financial security of $15,000 and a detailed description of the relocation approach. 2)Install a 12" maintenance border around the historic shed to distance plants and sprinklers from the structure.21 21 4 W . B l e e k e r S t . Requests: •In-kind replacement of non-historic railing on non-historic addition •Installing 3 ground- mounted AC condenser units in various locations Approved 22 214 W. Bleeker St. Request: •Remove the shed-roof addition from the west elevation of the historic resource and repair the resource Approved with Conditions: 1)No historic material may be removed. 2)Only missing elements or material damaged beyond repair may be replaced and must match the original material in composition, scale and finish as closely as possible. 23 Request: •Substituting the glass panels of the approved guardrails on the second, third, and fourth balconies/walkways with a 3/16-inch steel cable railing infill. Approved 520 E. Cooper Ave. 24 Request: 820 E. Cooper Ave. Relocating the approved drywell from the north to the southeast corner of the property and installing a sodded drywell lid cover. Approved 25 31 6 E . H o p k i n s A v e . Installing CMU courses to top of existing CMU wall abutting cooler/freezer Request: Approved with Conditions: •Material shall not be attached to the historic resource 26 316 E. Hopkins Ave. Request: •Installing black standing-seam metal roofing and scupper atop non-historic trash enclosure •Replacing existing board and batten siding of non-historic trash enclosure in kind atop a layer of 5/8" exterior gypsum sheathing Approved Approved with Conditions: •The finish of all material must be matte/non- reflective. 27 HPC PROJECT MONITORING COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS 12/6/2024 Kara Thompson 300 E. Hyman 201 E. Main 333 W. Bleeker 234 W. Francis Skier’s Chalet Steakhouse 720 E. Hyman 304 E. Hopkins 312 W. Hyman 520 E. Cooper 1020 E. Cooper 110 W. Main, Hotel Aspen Lift 1 corridor ski lift support structure 134 E. Bleeker Roger Moyer 227 E. Main 135 E. Cooper 517 E. Hopkins Skier’s Chalet Lodge 202 E. Main 611 W. Main 132 W. Hopkins 500 E. Durant 211 W. Main Jodi Surfas 202 E. Main 611 W. Main 602 E. Hyman 820 E. Cooper 227 E. Bleeker Peter Fornell 304 E. Hopkins 233 W. Bleeker 214 W. Bleeker 128 E. Main 414-420 E. Cooper, Red Onion/JAS Barb Pitchford 121 W. Bleeker 312 W. Hyman 132 W. Hopkins 214 W. Bleeker 630 W. Main 420 W. Francis 135 W. Francis 227 E. Bleeker 215 E. Hallam Kim Raymond 630 W. Main 205 W. Main 216 W. Hyman 335 Lake Ave. 434 E. Cooper, Bidwell Riley Warwick 420 W. Francis 400 E. Cooper 414-420 E. Cooper, Red Onion/JAS 134 E. Bleeker Dakota Severe 434 E. Cooper, Bidwell 28 Certificates of No Negative Effect Historic Preservation Commission December 11, 202429 •404 S. Galena St., #301 •302 E. Hyman Ave. Certificates of No Negative Effect •110 E. Hallam St. •400 E. Cooper Ave. 30 404 S. Galena St., #301 Request: •Remove a window air-conditioning unit from and restore the upper sash of a third- story window to match original conditions •Install on the roof, exterior mechanical equipment and an equipment stand no more than 3 feet tall, 4 feet long, and 2 feet wide. Approved 31 30 1 E . H y m a n A v e . Request: •Remove existing exterior stairs and reinstall to building code. Approved 32 110 E. Hallam St. Requests:•Route bathroom vents through the roof •Re-roof the gymnasium with standing seam metal roofing. •Install air handling and air-cooling units. Approved with Conditions: •Penetrations are to be minimized. •Screen and/or paint the proposed equipment to blend in with the building. 33 400 E. Cooper Ave. Request: Remove a chimney from the southeast corner of the second-story deck. Approved 34 Page 1 of 9 427 Rio Grande Pl, Aspen, CO 81611 | P: 970.920.5090 | aspen.gov Memorandum TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) THRU: Ben Anderson, Community Development Director FROM: Gillian White, Historic Preservation Officer MEETING DATE: December 11, 2024 RE: 333 W. Bleeker St. – Consideration of Penalties Regarding Alleged Violation of the Municipal Code, Section 26.415 – Historic Preservation, PUBLIC HEARING Applicant /Owner: Bleeker & 3rd, LLC Representative: Derek Skalko, 1 Friday Design Location: Street Address: 333 W. Bleeker St. Legal Description: BLEEKER ST PTNRS HIST LANDMARK Lot: 1 Parcel Identification Number: PID# 2735-124-01-401 Current Zoning & Use R-6 – Medium-Density Residential, Single Family Residential Proposed Zoning & Use: No change Summary: The City of Aspen alleges violations of the City of Aspen Municipal Code Sections 08.12.020 and 26.415.0707 at 333 W. Bleeker St. (Fig. 1), an individually designated AspenVictorian resource. This memo intends to inform the HPC about the alleged violation and the proposed recompence offered by the representative, hereafter referred to as the proposed penalty, such that HPC may determine whether to impose penalties within their authority. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the draft resolution imposing the proposed penalties. Fig. 1. Aerial Image with 333 W. Bleeker St. Property Line 35 Page 2 of 9 427 Rio Grande Pl, Aspen, CO 81611 | P: 970.920.5090 | aspen.gov BACKGROUND The City of Aspen’s Historic Preservation Program began 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, more than 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. The property at 333 W. Bleeker St. is a 6,000 square foot corner lot in the R-6 zone district. It is an individually designated local landmark and is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The primary building, a one-and-a-half-story cottage, was likely constructed circa 1892 based on “Design No. 17” from George F. Barber’s 1891 pattern book, The Cottage Souvenir, No. 2 (Fig. 2). It first appears on historic Sanborn maps in 1893 (Fig. 3), and is included in Augustus Koch’s 1893 Birds Eye View Map (Fig. 4). Fig. 4. 1893 Bird’s Eye View Drawing Fig. 3. 1893 Sanborn Map with 333 W. Bleeker St. Property Line Fig. 2. The Cottage Souvenir, No. 2, 1891, p. 40 36 Page 3 of 9 427 Rio Grande Pl, Aspen, CO 81611 | P: 970.920.5090 | aspen.gov The secondary structure is a one-story garage purportedly converted from a relocated outbuilding/barn with an unknown construction date. Similarly sized buildings appear elsewhere on the site in the 1904 Sanborn Map. By then, a porch had also been added to the back of the house. The 1987 National Register of Historic Places Inventory – Nomination Form states that “the house has changed little over the years and still retains its original integrity…the kitchen and bathrooms have been updated and the back porch enclosed, but little else has been changed on the interior.” The 2000 Architectural Inventory Form states “some small alterations have been made to the back of the structure, a small shed addition and window alterations,” but that “most of the materials and windows are original.” It goes on to explain that a “single story hipped roof addition has been added to the rear. the second level window was enlarged and replaced with an unsympathetic unit. Some window alterations have been made to the east side. Dates unknown. An addition along the rear of the site, connection to the existing structure on the altered end, and connecting the outbuilding was approved for construction in early 2000.” Regarding the building’s historic physical integrity related to significance, this inventory form called the structure “almost completely intact. It has been very well maintained with a minimum of incompatible intrusions.” In 2002, the HPC approved a historic lot split that resulted in the Bleeker Street Partners Historic Landmark Lot Split, allocating 2,280 square feet of floor area to Lot 1, containing the historic resources, and 1,800 square feet of floor area to Lot 2, to the east, containing a new house. HPC Resolution #10, Series of 2019 (Exhibit A) and HPC Resolution #02, Series of 2020 (Exhibit B) granted the temporary relocation of both resources, basement excavation, removal of the enclosed rear porch, construction of a new one-story rear addition, and rotation of the existing historic outbuilding/garage. Benefits awarded as part of the approval include the following setback variations: • A 1’7” reduction of the rear yard setback for the historic outbuilding, above and below grade. • A 2’-2” reduction of the west yard setback for the historic outbuilding, above and below grade. Fig 3. 333 W. Bleeker St, 1980. Fig 7. Garage at 333 W. Bleeker St, 2000 Fig 6. East Façade at 333 W. Bleeker St, 2000. 37 Page 4 of 9 427 Rio Grande Pl, Aspen, CO 81611 | P: 970.920.5090 | aspen.gov • A 5’ reduction of the rear yard setback for a lightwell. A building permit (#0016-2022-BRES) was issued by the City on June 7, 2023. The permit application included sheets A-256.00, “TYP. WINDOW DETAILS” (Exhibit C), showing “proposed sill head and rail condition at new windows” and “proposed jamb condition at new windows” with existing material clearly present. It also included Sheets S.2.03 and S.2.04, “UPPER FLOOR & LOWER ROOF FRAMING PLAN” and “UPPER ROOF FRAMING PLAN” (Exhibit D), noting that “the existing historic exterior 2x4 wall studs of the victorian will remain in place and typically be sistered with 2x6 studs.” On December 21, 2023, Historic Preservation staff approved an insubstantial amendment (Exhibit E), approving the replacement of some, and the disassembly, repair and reassembly of all other, siding, trim, and detail elements; the replacement of all sheathing; the installation of a weatherproof wrap; and the application of spray-on closed-cell foam insulation atop a removable mesh underlayment/netting in the roof. Notably, this insubstantial amendment request states an intent to “protect the existing historical framing.” On April 19, 2024, Historic Preservation staff approved with conditions an insubstantial amendment (Exhibit F) for the application of spray-on closed-cell foam insulation atop stucco wrap to all walls. The insubstantial amendment request included statements regarding the historic wood structural framing, including claims that “proposed new structural framing to be sistered onto and between existing historical framing conditions,” and “work proposed to be minimally invasive for efforts in preserving historic material to the extent still existing.” The request also included Sheet A-256.00, “TYP. WINDOW DETAILS,” depicting “proposed sill head and rail condition at new windows” and “proposed jamb condition at new windows” with existing material clearly present. On May 17, 2024, Historic Preservation staff received a request to inspect the placement of the historic resources on their new foundations such that the $45,000 assurance/deposit may be returned. Historic Preservation staff visited the site on June 6, 2024, confirmed the buildings were in place on their new foundations, and documented the condition of the historic resources. The City released the full bond on June 16, 2024. Fig. 8. West wall of primary building on June 6, 2024. Fig. 9. Roof of primary building on June 6, 2024. 38 Page 5 of 9 427 Rio Grande Pl, Aspen, CO 81611 | P: 970.920.5090 | aspen.gov SUMMARY OF ALLEGED VIOLATION AND ENFORCEMENT PROCESS On September 26, 2024 City of Aspen staff observed work at 333 W. Bleeker St. that appeared to be inconsistent with land use approvals, and the approved permit (Fig. 12-13). On October 3, 2024, City staff asked the project representative and general contractor to pause any work affecting all wall and roof framing of the historic section of the primary building, and work affecting all wall framing of the garage pending further investigation by City staff. On October 7, 2024, City staff, including the Chief Building Officer, visited the 333 W. Bleeker St. to conduct a more detailed investigation of the framing. Staff documented the conditions of historic material and observed inconsistencies with the approved plan set. It appeared historic studs, rafters, blocking, and other framing elements, including fenestration rough openings had been altered, likely disassembled, rearranged, cut, and attached to all new framing (Fig. 14-17). Presumably, historic material was also discarded. Staff asked the project representative and general contractor for documentation of staff or HPC approval(s) of this apparent work. On October 11, 2024, the project representative responded to City staff’s findings, explaining why the work was performed, and citing communication and process challenges, including City staff turnover, a pandemic, and building department moratorium. Fig. 10. East wall of primary building on June 6, 2024. Fig. 11. North wall of primary building on June 6, 2024. 39 Page 6 of 9 427 Rio Grande Pl, Aspen, CO 81611 | P: 970.920.5090 | aspen.gov On October 22, 2024, City staff again asked the project representative if the work received approval(s), and, if so, for documentation thereof. On October 23, 2024, the project representative stated they had already provided staff with all approval documentation, and believed the work had been performed “in accordance with the approvals, permitting, and ensuing discussions held to date, and executed with the intended best interests for the long term preservation of the property.” The representative asked for more information about staff concerns, the issues in question, and how they could resolve the matter. The project representative also informed staff that the historic resources were not “dried-in,” subjecting them to weather damage. On October 28, 2024, City staff referred the project representative and general contractor to the section of the Aspen Municipal Code forbidding alterations to designated historic property without the review and approval of the Community Development Director or HPC (Sec. 26.415.070), as well as those sections (Sec. 1.04.080 and Sec. 26.415.140) pertaining to the possible penalties of violating Sec. 26.415.070. Staff permitted the general contractor to proceed with only that work on the exterior of the structures which is necessary to protect them from weather on the condition that work on the interior of the historic structures remained paused. The project representative and general contractor asked to meet with City staff to discuss the apparent violation and next steps. City staff met with the project representative and general contractor at City Hall on November 12, 2024, to better understand why work veered from the approved plans and Code- required approval processes, and to discuss rectifying the damage to the historic resources and/or plans to prevent such violations from occurring in the future. The general contractor suggested process improvements, such as requiring a pre-framing plan, historic preservation staff accompanying the Building Department during framing inspections, and requiring sub-contractors and architects to obtain the HP BEST card before working on historic properties. The general contractor identified Argo Construction as the framing sub-contractor at 333 W. Bleeker St. The representative and general contractor offered to provide the City a schedule of upcoming major milestones and invited historic preservation staff on site to oversee and direct work. Staff asked for updated drawings reflective of actual framing conditions for the record, and informed the representative and applicant that the HPC would be made aware of the violation and the meeting. Fig. 12. East wall of garage on September 26, 2024. Fig. 13. South wall of garage on September 26, 2024. 40 Page 7 of 9 427 Rio Grande Pl, Aspen, CO 81611 | P: 970.920.5090 | aspen.gov At the November 13, 2024 HPC meeting, staff included 333 W. Bleeker St. in the Project Monitoring Report, updating the Commission on the observed violation, the request to stop selective work, and responses of the representative and general contractor. Several members of the HPC thought it necessary and appropriate to issue a formal Stop Work Order on the entire project and expressed a desire to enforce the Aspen Municipal Code. They encouraged City Staff to seek penalties, but shared a willingness to consider a reasonable offer of restitution. Commissioners also asked for an explanation of what happened, where failure occurred, and why mistakes were made. On November 18, 2024, the City of Aspen Chief Building Official issued a Stop Work Order for work found to be inconsistent with the land use approval and approved building permit. To lift the Stop Work Order, the representative is required to amend land use approvals per City of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.070 and apply for a new permit/change order with an accurate representation of the work. On November 20, 2024, the City of Aspen sent a Notice of Violation to the owner, representative, and general contractor of 333 W. Bleeker St., identifying the alleged violations of the City of Aspen Municipal Code Sections 08.12.020 and 26.415.070. On November 21, 2024, the project representative acknowledged their failings in the execution and communication processes regarding the structures at 333 Bleeker St., wishing there was a way to physically undo the violating work, and hoping to reconcile the matter. The representative proposed paying a fee of $30,000, consistent with the relocation bond, for the alteration and mishandling of the primary building. The representative acknowledged the alterations to the historical materials around and adjacent to the rough openings in the garage may also warrant a monetary fee, but asked for the City to propose a fee commensurate with that work relative to that of the primary building. Fig. 14. West wall of primary building on October 7, 2024. Fig. 15. Ceiling of primary building on October 7, 2024. 41 Page 8 of 9 427 Rio Grande Pl, Aspen, CO 81611 | P: 970.920.5090 | aspen.gov Speaking with the project representative on December 5, 2024, City staff suggested $45,000 would be more appropriate recompence for the irreparable damage to the historic resources. The project representative agreed to this amount and agreed to provide a more detailed narrative and timeline of the unapproved and unpermitted work. This information may help HPC and City staff better understand deficiencies in the system and help prevent similar violations from occurring. PENALTIES The City of Aspen Municipal Code includes general penalty provisions (Sec. 1.04.080), penalties under Title 8 (“Buildings and Building Regulations”), and penalties specific to Chapter 26.415 (“Historic Preservation). By accepting the attached settlement agreement (Exhibit G), the City is forgoing further pursuit of the general penalty provisions (Sec. 1.04.080) for the violations identified above. The HPC, however, may seek additional penalties. The HPC may recommend the Chief Building Official suspend, revoke, deny an application, or refuse renewal of any license, including the Historic Preservation Specialty Certification; or “issue an order to show cause why the license…should not be suspended or revoked” for acts or omissions listed in Section 8.12.020(b). The Chief Building Official, however, has final authority. The HPC may also directly impose the penalties enumerated in the City of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.410.140. These penalties 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 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 Fig. 16. East wall of primary building on Oct. 7, 2024. Fig. 17. Northwest corner of primary building on October 7, 2024. 42 Page 9 of 9 427 Rio Grande Pl, Aspen, CO 81611 | P: 970.920.5090 | aspen.gov 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,” the HPC may impose this penalty or not. If the HPC so chooses to impose #2, the applicant would be required to finish out the current permit before this penalty would be imposed. Regarding #3, the project approved through HPC Resolution #10, Series of 2019, and HPC Resolution #02, Series of 2020 benefitted from setback variations. Where the minimum rear yard setback is 10 feet for principal buildings and 5 feet for garages and outbuildings, and the minimum side yard setback is 5 feet in the R-6 zone district, the following setback variations were granted: • A 1’7” reduction of the rear yard setback for the historic outbuilding, above and below grade. • A 2’-2” reduction of the west yard setback for the historic outbuilding, above and below grade. • A 5’ reduction of the rear yard setback for a lightwell. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend that the HPC approve HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2024, imposing the proposed penalties ($45,000 and a detailed account of the unapproved and unpermitted work), and forgoing any additional penalties related to this violation. ATTACHMENTS: Draft HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2024 Exhibit A – HPC Resolution #10, Series of 2019 Exhibit B – HPC Resolution #02, Series of 2020 Exhibit C – Building Permit #0016-2022-BRES Plan Set Sheet A-256.00, Exhibit D – Building Permit #0016-2022-BRES Plan Set Sheets S.2.03 and S.2.04 Exhibit E – Insubstantial Amendment Request Sheet Stamped December 21, 2023 Exhibit F – Insubstantial Amendment Request and Determination of April 19, 2024 43 HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2024 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION #__ (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 333 WEST BLEEKER STREET, BLEEKER ST PTNRS HIST LANDMARK LOT: 1, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2735-124-01-401 WHEREAS, the applicant, Bleeker & 3rd, LLC, 5532 Drane Dr., Dallas, TX 75209, represented by Derek Skalko, 1 Friday Design, PO Box 7928, Aspen Colorado 81612, and Madigan + Company, 230 E Hopkins Street, Unit 103, Aspen, CO 81611, received land use approvals and a building permit to undertake a historic preservation project located at 333 West Bleeker Street, BLEEKER ST PTNRS HIST LANDMARK Lot: 1; and WHEREAS, the approvals are represented by HPC Resolution #10, Series of 2019; HPC Resolution #02, Series of 2020; and Building Permit #0016-2022-BRES; and WHEREAS, a site visit conducted by the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Officer on September 26, 2024, and the Chief Building Official on October 7, 2024, observed evidence that violations of the land use approvals granted by the 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. The unapproved work includes the alteration of historic framing, including wall studs, roof rafters, and fenestration rough openings; 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, at the November 13, 2024 HPC meeting the Community Development Department provided a summary of the approval and permit history, the apparent violation, and the potential penalties; and Section 26.415.140 of the City Land Use Code; and WHEREAS, after taking into consideration the information provided by staff, the HPC found that Bleeker & 3rd, LLC is in violation of its land use approvals and Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code pertaining to historic preservation, and that the imposition of penalties is warranted, and the HPC directed staff to issue a Stop Work Order and to pursue penalties; and 44 HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2024 Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, on November 18, 2024, the City of Aspen Chief Building Official issued a Stop Work Order; and WHEREAS, on November 20, 2024, the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Officer placed a Notice of Violation on the property, and after discussions with city staff Bleeker & 3rd LLC offered to pay the full relocation deposit of $45,000 to the City of Aspen as a means of recompense; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department scheduled a duly noticed public hearing before the HPC on December 11, 2024, and after taking into consideration the staff memo, information provided by the property owner and representatives, the recompense plan offered by the applicant, and public comments, the HPC has made a determination by a __ to __ vote, that Bleeker & 3rd, LLC is in violation of its land use 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 As means of resolving the outstanding violations, the applicant will pay the City $45,000, the amount equivalent to the bond that was previously returned on June 16, 2024. In exchange for forfeiture of this amount, the HPC agrees that no further penalties allowed by Sec. 26.415.140(a)(2) will be pursued in relation to the violations observed on September 26, 2024, and October 7, 2024, and detailed in a Notice of Violation Letter sent on November 20, 2024. In addition, the HPC recommends to the City of Aspen Chief Building Official that the Stop Work Order, issued November 18, 2024, remain in place until proper documentation is submitted to the City of Aspen. This documentation includes an Insubstantial Amendment, a Change Order, and a narrative detailing the chain of events that lead to the violation. Unless modified in accordance with the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the applicant shall comply with all applicable land use approvals, and City of Aspen codes and regulations. 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 11th day of December, 2024. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: ________________________________ ________________________________ Katharine Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Kara Thompson, Chair 45 HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2024 Page 3 of 3 ATTEST: ________________________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk 46 RESOLUTION #10, SERIES OF 2019 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, RELOCATION AND SETBACK VARIATIONS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 333 WEST BLEEKER STREET, LOT 1, BLEEKER STREET PARTNERS HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION PLAT, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2735-124-01-401 WHEREAS, the applicant, Bleeker & 3"' LLC, Mark S. Moussa, manager, represented by Haas Land Planning, LLC, has requested HPC approval for Major Development and Setback Variation for the property located at 333 West Bleeker Street, Lot 1, Bleeker Street Partners Historic Landmark Lot Split Subdivision Exemption Plat, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for approval of Relocation, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.090.C, Relocation of a Designated Property; and WHEREAS, for approval of Setback Variations, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.110.C, Setback Variations; and WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable review standards and recommended approval of Conceptual Major Development and Setback Variations with conditions; and WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on February 13, 2019, March 13, 2019, and April 24, 2019. HPC considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and granted approval with conditions by a vote of7to0. 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 HPC Resolution #,0, Series of 2019 RECEPTION#: 656769, R: $23.00, D: $0.00 Page 1 of 3 DOC CODE: RESOLUTION Pg 1 of 3, 06/19/2019 at 03:51:04 PM Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO 47 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development, Relocation and Setback Variations for 333 West Bleeker Street, Lot 1, Bleeker Street Partners Historic Landmark Lot Split Subdivision Exemption Plat, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO as follows: Section 1: Conceptual Major Development Review, Relocation and Setback Variations HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development and Setback Variations as proposed with the with the following conditions: 1.) For Final review, design the curb height of the skylights and lightwells around the historic house to the minimal requirement. 2.) Further discuss the design of the storm water mitigation system with all relevant City Departments for compliance. Final design to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor before building permit. 3.) For Final, work closely with all relevant City Departments on the design of a minimal secondary walkway from Third Street, and the restoration of the historic ditch for compliance once the existing driveways are removed. 4.) For Final review or during construction, investigate the historic framing on the west and south elevations for any evidence of historic material and openings. Any fenestration changes will be reviewed by HPC or approved by staff and monitor before proceeding. 5.) The historic structures will remain on site during basement construction. If any changes are necessary, details may be addressed for Final review. 6.) Removal of the five spruce trees in the public right of way must be completed by the applicant. A tree removal permit will be required to assure proper technique, but no mitigation fee will be charged. The applicant may request the Parks Department allow credit for the costs of this work toward on-site tree mitigation. 7.) For Final review the applicant will be required to provide a financial security of 30,000 for the historic house and $ 5,000 for the historic outbuilding until they are set onto the new foundation. The financial security is to be provided with the building permit application. 8.) The following variations are accepted: A 7" (seven inch) reduction of the rear yard setback for the new addition. A l'-7" reduction of the rear yard setback for the historic outbuilding. A 4' reduction of the west yard setback for the historic outbuilding. The combined side yard setbacks for this structure are approved as represented in the drawings. 9.) A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one 1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration HPC Resolution #io, Series of 2019 Page 2 of 3 48 date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (b) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. Section 2: Material Representations All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 3: Existing Litigation This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 24th day of April, 2019. Approved as to Fprm: Approved as to Content: i i A rea r>4n, ssI's tant City Attorney Gretc Greenwood, Chair Z va, Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk HPC Resolution #io, Series of 2019 Page 3 of 3 49 50 51 52 53 #5637 05/26/2023 03/06/2023 ShumsCoda/JH BARCODE 01/25/2023 kylas 54 05%#.'Ä .19'4411((4#/+0)2.#0 (4#/+0)2.#0016'5 4'#4%*61%10(+4/#0&8'4+(;#..&+/'05+105 (4#/+0).#;17655*190#4'4'24'5'06#6+8'#%67#..#;176561$' &'6'4/+0'&+06*'(+'.& ':+56+0)(4#/+0)+0#4'#51(0'9914-5*#..$'':215'&#0&8'4+(+'& 016+(;'0)+0''41(&+5%4'2#0%+'5 722'4(.114 (.#6411( 61(4/) Ä 61(4/) Ä .8."1% 6;26*+5411( $%+"1% 6;2(.114,1+56701 $%+"1% 6;24#(6'4701 $%+"1% 6;24#(6'4701 56#+4 9 Z %1.7/ 0 9Z ( 4 # / ' Ä . 8 . Ä . 8 . Ä . 8 . Ä . 8 . %1 . 7 / 0 9 Z ( 4 # / ' (4#/ ' % 1 . 9Z (4# / ' % 1 . 9 Z 9Z (4#/' 9Z (4#/' (4#/'(4#/' .8. "1% .8. "1% $%+"1% 6;2(.114,1+56701 $%+"1% 6;2(.114,1+56701 Z). #& & . 5 . 6 1 ' 4 # ( 6 ' 4 5 6 ; 2 #& & . 5 . 6 1 ' 4 # ( 6 ' 4 5 6 ; 2 4'%4#(6'0)+0''45 9Z=Ä? Ä.8. 9Z DH Ä.8. Ä . 8 . %1. 7 / 0 *55 Z Z % 1 . 7 / 0 * 5 5 Z Z % 1 . 7 / 0 * 5 5 Z Z % 1 . 7 / 0 * 5 5 Z Z $69 0 2156 Ä . 8 . -+0)5 64/45 -+0)5 64/45 (4#/' % 1 . *55Z Z Ä . 8 . 9Z9Z 9 Z = Ä ? = Ä ? 9 Z *5 5 Z Z (4 # / ' (4# / ' % 1 . *55 Z Z 9Z DH Ä . 8 . .8. /+0.'&)'4 9Ä6+/$'4.1-U2'4 567&61567&9#.. 5*''601 5 241,'%601 &4#90$; ,,4 '0)+0''4 ,,4 &#6' %WUVQO4GUKFGPVKCN5RGEKCNKUV +PVWKVKXG%QPUVTWEVKQP&TCYKPIU )NGPYQQF5RTKPIU%1 'OCKNLKO"LLTUVTWEVWTCNEQO 2JQPG(CZ ÄÄ #..&4#90#0&94+66'0+0(14/#6+10 *'4'+05*#..016$'&72.+%#6'& &+5%.15'&1416*'49+5'75'& 9+6*1766*'94+66'0%105'061( ,#/'5,#%-51041/'15647%674#. &'5+)0%1057.6#06..% 722'4(.114 .19411( (4#/+0)2.#0 5*''66+6.' &#6' +557'5 4'.'#5' 1( 4KXGT8KUVC %1.14#&1 #52'0 $.''-'4 4'/1&'. *+5614+% 564''6 CV 4'5+&'0%' #&&+6+105 2'4/+6ÄÄ 24+%+0)ÄÄ 016' 6*'':+56+0)*+5614+%':6'4+14Z9#..567&5 1(6*'8+%614+#09+..4'/#+0+02.#%'#0& 6;2+%#..;$'5+56'4'&9+6*Z567&5 ÄÄ 4ÄÄ 01/13/2023 03/06/2023 ShumsCoda/JH 55 05%#.'Ä 722'4411((4#/+0)2.#0 (4#/+0)2.#0016'5 4'#4%*61%10(+4/#0&8'4+(;#..&+/'05+105 (4#/+0).#;17655*190#4'4'24'5'06#6+8'#%67#..#;176561$' &'6'4/+0'&+06*'(+'.& ':+56+0)(4#/+0)+0#4'#51(0'9914-5*#..$'':215'&#0&8'4+(+'& 016+(;'0)+0''41(&+5%4'2#0%+'5 (.#6 411( Ä . 8 . Ä . 8 . Ä .8.Ä .8 . Ä .8 . Ä .8 . Ä . 8 . Ä . 8 . Ä . 8 . Ä . 8 . Ä.8. Ä . 8 . Ä.8. Ä . 8 . Ä . 8 . #& & . 5 . 6 1 ' 4 # ( 6 ' 4 5 6 ; 2 #& & . 5 . 6 1 ' 4 # ( 6 ' 4 5 6 ; 2 #&&.5.61 '4#(6'456;2 #&&.5.61 '4#(6'456;2 Ä.8.Ä .8 . Ä.8. Z).Ä . 8 . $69 0 2156 $69 0 2156 016' .5.%100'%6+10561':+56+0)4#(6'459+.. $'&'6'4/+0'&72104'/18#.1(6*' +06'4+14(+0+5*'5#0&(+'.&'8#.7#6+101( 6*'':+56+0)5647%674#.%10&+6+1056;2 016' ).%100'%6+1061.8.411($'#/59+..$' &'6'4/+0'&72104'/18#.1(6*'+06'4+14 (+0+5*'5#0&(+'.&'8#.7#6+101(6*' ':+56+0)5647%674#.%10&+6+1056;2 5*''601 5 241,'%601 &4#90$; ,,4 '0)+0''4 ,,4 &#6' %WUVQO4GUKFGPVKCN5RGEKCNKUV +PVWKVKXG%QPUVTWEVKQP&TCYKPIU )NGPYQQF5RTKPIU%1 'OCKNLKO"LLTUVTWEVWTCNEQO 2JQPG(CZ ÄÄ #..&4#90#0&94+66'0+0(14/#6+10 *'4'+05*#..016$'&72.+%#6'& &+5%.15'&1416*'49+5'75'& 9+6*1766*'94+66'0%105'061( ,#/'5,#%-51041/'15647%674#. &'5+)0%1057.6#06..% 722'4 411((4#/+0) 2.#0 5*''66+6.' &#6' +557'5 4'.'#5' 1( 4KXGT8KUVC %1.14#&1 #52'0 $.''-'4 4'/1&'. *+5614+% 564''6 CV 4'5+&'0%' #&&+6+105 2'4/+6ÄÄ 24+%+0)ÄÄ 016' 6*'':+56+0)*+5614+%':6'4+14Z9#..567&5 1(6*'8+%614+#09+..4'/#+0+02.#%'#0& 6;2+%#..;$'5+56'4'&9+6*Z567&5 ÄÄ 4ÄÄ 01/13/2023 03/06/2023 ShumsCoda/JH 56 57 58 59 1 To: Ms. Kirsten Armstrong, Mr. Stuart Hayden & The City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission From: Derek Skalko, Designer & Local Project Representative 333 West Bleeker Street Residence E-mail: Kirsten.armstrong@aspen.gov/ Stuart.hayden@aspen.gov Date: April 12, 2024 (Revised April16th) Phone: K: 970.429.2759/ S: 970.920.5144 Pages: 2 Re: 333 West Bleeker Street – Insulation Request CC: file 333 West Bleeker Street Residence Insulation Alteration Request/ (Mineral Wool / Closed Cell Usage) Dear Kirsten, Stuart & Members of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, We are formally requesting a modification regarding the vertical wall insulation assembly for the historical structures situated at 333 W Bleeker. Per HPC’s request, we are providing this package for your review. The detailing is as provided / approved within the 333 W Bleeker permitting package (Sheet A251/ details 2 & 4). I want to stress any approved change to the insulation will have no visual / aesthetic change or impact to the structures as they have been discussed and approved extensively already to date. Again, for a recap to the reviewing members, and to clarify our processes a bit further, our intention would be as follows: 333 W Bleeker – Main Victorian Insulation Request: Regarding the main Victorian structure, we do intend to remove the exterior siding in full as approved in 2023 for multiple reasons. Per field findings, we estimate at least 90 percent of 333's exterior material was removed initially during the mid nineties renovation the property underwent, and the vast majority of the existing material is not historical in nature. What we have discovered is a Tyvek weatherproof wrap was installed in a piecemealed fashion underneath the existing siding, and, in order to properly waterproof / weatherproof the home, it was determined essential by Amy Simon that we be allowed this ability to correct this situation forward by the removal of said siding material (12-21-23). The closed cell option would exponentially improve the home's energy performance, in addition to better improving the long term protection to the weatherability of the home going forward, hence our ask for the insulation change to the main Victorian. 333 W Bleeker – Garage Insulation Request: As for the garage, although we have been granted the ability to remove the exterior siding on this structure in its entirety additionally, what we are discovering in the field is giving us serious consideration if this avenue would actually be in best practice for trying to maintain and preserve the existing siding. This building is essentially intact historically, and due to the fact of how it was constructed (siding affixed directly to the historical structural members), there is no possible way to weatherproof / waterproof said structure in a mineral wool route - unless, we take off all of the PO BOX 7928 Aspen, CO 81612-7928 Phone: 970.309.0695 E-mail / Web: derek@1friday.com / www.1friday.com 60 2 siding, which, likely becomes detrimental to the preservation efforts itself via damage of the material due to the manner in which it was installed initially. It is our professional observation a closed cell usage (with a Tyvek stucco wrap protecting the interior structural members) that completely "seals" the vertical wall surfaces lends to a far more successful solution in the interests of all parties' desires, which ultimately, provides the long term viability of the project from both preservation and performance / non-failure building intent. Thank you kindly Kirsten, Stuart and members of the HPC regarding our request on this matter! Respectfully, Derek Skalko, 1Friday Design Local Representative, 333 West Bleeker 61 62 63 64 : Review: 65 day of : Determination: : 66