The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19990210AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 10, 1999 REGULAR MEETING, 5:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5:00 I. Roll call II. PUBLIC COMMENTS III. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS IV. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) V. Minutes (May 13, 1998) VI. BUSINESS 5:05 A. 920 East Hyman-Final Review Ct,bal 44 -10 . 3//3,4 1 9 j 5:35 B. 234 W. Francis Street - Show Cause Hearing 7:00 C. ADJOURN CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: ~34 W. Hallam (Poppie's), expires April 26, 1999 123 W. Francis, Lot B (Vickery), expires May 13,1999 214 E. Bleeker Street (Greenwood), expires August 12, 1999 920 W. Hallam Street, expires August 12, 1999 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS 1999 1. 117 N. 6th ST. Coulter 2. 920 E. Hyman Ave. Lot N. Block 32 0 PROJECT MONITORING oger Moyer 303 E. Main, Kuhn ISIS 514 N. First 112 S. Mill St. Susan Dodington 712 W. Francis 918 E. Cooper, Davis Meadows Trustee and Tennis townhomes 234 W. Francis 203 S. Galena, Gucci 516 E. Durant Suzannah Reid 303 E. Main, Kuhn 702 W. Main, Pearson 218 N. Monarch, Zucker 414 N. First 1008 E. Hopkins, Bellis Mary Hirsch Meadows, Trustee and Tennis townhomes 420 W. Francis Street 203 S. Galena, Gucci 920 W. Hallam Gilbert Sanchez 1008 E. Hopkins, Bellis 414 N. First 303 E. Main 520 E. Hyman 112 S. Mill St. 307 S. Mill 232 E. Hallam 117 N. 6~ St. Jeffrey Halferty 234 W. Francis, Mullin 414 N. First 701 W. Main 101- 105 E. Hallam 920 W. Hallam 240 Lake Ave. Heidi Friedland 420 W. Francis Street 712 W. Francis Street 514 N. First 232 E. Hallam St. 117 N. 6th St. Lisa Markalunas 520 Walnut Street Christie Kienast 520 Walnut Street 4Ft. 11,0 19 9 WITNESS LIST* AGENDA ITEM: (1310 NAEr M-q MA,4 NAME OF WITNESS: i. API Y 6 !17*Â©LE . Staff Person 2. Rf)Gen:a~ -KER=A_ 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. * Includes staff persons, but excludes staff attorney and board members. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 920 E. Hyman Avenue- Final review DATE: February 10, 1999 SUMMARY: The applicant requests Final approval in order to remodel and make an addition to the existing building, which is to be landmark designated. Conceptual approval was granted on January 13, 1999 with conditions. Staff is in support of the project, however, recommends final approval be continued to the next meeting to resolve and clarify a number of issues, particularly with regard to preservation of existing materials. APPLICANT: Veronika Inc., represented by Roger Kerr, architect. LOCATION: 920 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot N, Block 32, East Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, City of Aspen. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). 1 66,6,4- A Response: HPC reviewed and rejected a proposed design for an addition to this house in October 1998. Subsequently the architect attended two worksessions to present alternative schemes, one of which involved landmarking the property and asking for a rear yard setback variance to reduce the visibility of the addition. HPC encouraged the applicant to pursue that alternative, which received conceptual approval on January 13, 1999. Old House The existing cottage has had several modifications, including replacement of many windows, installation of skylights, and an addition on the back of the original cottage. (From the 1904 Sanborne Map, 1896 Willit's map, and Building Department records, it appears that a one story lean to which was added onto the house sometime between 1896 and 1904 was either removed or consumed by the second story addition made in 1977.) The applicant proposes to remove all of the construction at the rear of the house and to restore the original cottage. On the original cottage, the applicant proposes to remove the skylights and fill in with shingles, to retain existing materials and repair what cannot be salvaged, and to replace original features that have been removed, including installing more historically appropriate windows. Staff is in support of these actions, with the condition that all window replacements on the original cottage are based on physical evidence such as cuts in clapboards, framing evidence once the structure is exposed, or photographs. Additionally, it should be investigated whether one of the two original front doors (the one that would have faced E. Hyman Avenue) has been filled in. If so, it must be recreated, with the character and placement of the second door to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. The applicant proposes to rebuild the roof and fascia over the front porch, and to replace the existing porch posts and railing, representing that none of this material is historic. If that is the case, staff agrees that the porch posts may be replaced, with a simple turned post. Because the original appearance of the front porch is unknown, adding decorative elements that are conjectural, not based on fact, is to be avoided. It is certain that turned porch posts would have existed, but not certain that there would have been a porch railing, or what the character of porch scrollwork would have been. Therefore, the applicant may not install a rail and may only install very simple scrollwork on the porch, if approved by HPC. The applicant also proposes to replace the existing front door and windows on the south faGade of the house. This is not permitted unless those materials are not historic. Additionally, the new double hung windows, which are to be installed in the old house, must be 1 over 1 (as opposed to the 4 over 1 windows shown on the south elevation under the porch.) 2 The existing house contains a wood burning stove, however no chimney or vent is indicated on the "as-built" or proposed drawings. The applicant must indicate how the fireplace will be vented, as well as any other vents which will appear on the outside of the structure. New Addition The applicant proposes to add approximately 1500 square feet onto the 500 square foot cabin; a substantial addition, although about 400 square feet less than the maximum that would be allowed by zoning. One variance was requested; a five foot rear yard setback variance to allow some flexibility in the placement of the addition. The lot is only 3,000 square feet and the house is set back 23 feet from the street, causing some restrictions on where the new square footage can be placed and what character if will have. Generally speaking, staff finds that the project raises the same "hunchback" addition issues that HPC is very opposed to allowing to continue. The situation is mitigated on this site because the property is dwarfed by adjacent construction and the addition will not be easily viewed from anywhere, however this argument should not be used to allow inappropriate construction. Acknowledging that the applicant has a right to a certain amount of square footage, it is therefore required that the architect be very creative in how that square footage is handled. The architect has addressed this by pushing the addition back on the site to the extent possible, and by lowering upper floor plate heights. One element of the design continues to raise issues of appropriateness, and that is the second floor deck which enroaches onto the historic building. In the conceptual review, staff stated that the deck should not encroach onto the old building at all, but acknowledged that the site constraints given the location of the house on the lot and the large spruce tree limit the buildable area. Since the conceptual meeting, the deck has been increased in size from 5 feet to 12 feet, so that a large section of roof on the back of the old house is removed. This is not a situation which will be particularly visible from the street, however staff finds that the integrity of the historic house is affected and that the HPC philosophy to retain what is original and add on behind it is violated, as is the concept of "reversibility" of an addition. Therefore, staff finds that the deck must be reduced in size and may meet the existing roof, but may not cut through that original roof plane. Site Plan In terms of the site plan, the storage and trash areas at the rear of the site are not historic structures and are to be demolished. The applicant must work with the Engineering Department to move the utility pedestals currently in the alley onto private property. The gravel parking space in front of the house must be removed and all parking shall be accessed from the alley. The area in front of the house must be revegetated. 3 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The site is located in the East End, where relatively few of the original Victorian homes still remain. The entire neighborhood is in great transition and very affected by large-scale redevelopment. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The house will be preserved as a representation of Aspen's history and the history of the East End neighborhood. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposal improves the architectural character of the cottage by restoring some of its original features. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any ofthe following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the Development application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) â€¢ Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC continue the review to February 24, 1999, with the following issues to be resolved (a second site visit will be conducted by HPC): 1. The porch roof and fascia may be rebuilt if it is confirmed by HPC that they are not historic construction. 2. The porch posts and rail may be removed if it is confirmed by HPC that they are not historic construction. If that is the case, the architect must amend the drawings to 4 show a simple turned post, and possibly a simple bracket. A porch railing cannot be installed because there is not historical basis for it. 3. The existing front door and windows on the south faGade of the house may not be replaced unless it is confirmed by HPC that they are not historic. 4. Where new windows are approved for installation, they must be double hung, 1 over 1 wood windows. The windows shown on the south elevation, under the porch, must be revised accordingly. 5. The architect must revise the drawings to indicate how the existing fireplace will be vented and to show any other vents which will appear on the outside of the structure. 6. The second floor deck must be reduced in size and may meet the north slope of the historic cottage's roof, but may not cut through that original roof plane. The drawings shall be amended accordingly. 7. A landscape plan must be submitted for review, including revegetation of the parking area that currently exists at the front of the lot and any fencing proposed. Any future amendments to the landscape plan as approved will require review and approval by HPC staff and monitor. Following resolution of the above issues, the application will be recommended for final approval to include the following conditions: â€¢ The HPC grants approval for significant development review and partial demolition. The project complies with the "Residential Design Standards." â€¢ New windows may be installed on the east and west sides of the old house, based on physical evidence of original window locations such as cuts in clapboards, framing, or photographs, to be approved by HPC staff and monitor. â€¢ Investigate the framing to determine whether one of the two original front doors (the one that would have faced E. Hyman Avenue) has been filled in. If so, it must be recreated, with the character and placement of the door to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. â€¢ The storage and trash areas at the rear of the site are not historic structures and are to be demolished. â€¢ The applicant must work with the Engineering Department to move the utility pedestals currently in the alley onto private property. â€¢ The gravel parking space in front of the house must be removed and all parking shall be accessed from the alley. â€¢ Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the historic house are to be removed as part of the renovation. â€¢ Submit a preservation plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating how the existing materials, which are to be retained, will be restored. The requirement is to retain/repair all original materials and replicate only those that are determined by HPC staff and monitor to be beyond salvage. â€¢ No elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist. No existing exterior materials may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor. 5 â€¢ HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures. â€¢ There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. â€¢ The preservation plan described above, as well as the language of certain conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. â€¢ The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. â€¢ All representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to continue final approval review for 920 E. Hyman Avenue to February 24, 1999." Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated February 10, 1999. B. Conceptual approval. C. Drawings for final approval. 6 a 1 4., _- â‚¬-C . 401 ftp T t34 - -4 . 1 Â£ L -16=0 0.13 31 ~~ 14 2- UL-li-fi--1 .it;83 Z.2-I Ed - . -_z~- ~-263 -- --3- 4]j#it-*44k. ST --- - 2-2--r-a- 4- f:,J -9 1 1/ 1 T - - cd-- ' f I -4 -4 1 1 f nfl , I 4 + 93 rl 21 0 'c7 Iz=L_-C J. -Â·-Â·-i ---- - ------.1. /Â«f -3 1 1 LIt 0-,4, 1 i . - 1 1 m 1 ..J r.,-%. 1- - 3 l 1 1 l &- .... 11 un[!Ir~-_-- 1 -' Â·Â· 1 -- â€¢ 91 2#494-A :, M#MA-: U -- . :lizj I tof--_- i h tiols#- J 27Â· 9. a '04 1/J I TÂ©trj -_ 4 LF= _23*J-_-0-2 --- L-, ,â€¢41 - ----- \ 21 r - - -Â·- - A - - - 4: 1 NY ] 44 +~ 1 . i r.. | \4 h C 1 - râ€¢2 -55 L__1 1. ~ . it Ill 11. ! 111 I *r41' '1 Â·Â· --Ll \ /-7.I : 1Â·â€¢, *0:4 tÂ·Â·;lq4 : 1 J.el ...1 1...1 ..1.k \ Â¥49 ".1 41, | , I . , J . p t i- - e -- - Â·It~ f 1.+ Plo IiI d *.I \FÂ« 1 021 4 \A t- %11 0 , - it// 1 l--~ Jf - - ~ se Â»=4213% T % t n tte \- 1.-EN 22 .< 5 0\ \- I - -liC -144==-41 - 1.. Ji'...e___ /2,74 it}' 2 -1 A 11- a ( It ~33325 ~-41411(41- . -t - - = i - L ~ 1 - 1 1 - - 1 41: .-' 1 - -0- - - - 4 1 1 0- T -- I. 9 44 --- -- -- i! , - - 'Q<22*- '-f ' â€¢ 1 . , lili lilized==1 i ' -11.ll-'11'EG' - N 1 il . ~ It 1 4 l ;toi - 1 H Ii t 1 f 1 ' X k 1 Â·A 1- L L .-. a.. 1 AW - l' 1533911 14.-0-1-, 1 -I, 11 i 1 --- 11 -4 --- 1 1 1--- - 1, i 4 \4 t , 11 1 1 it \.l 1 1 - 0 t .2.11 ! 1 . ./ -41131+11 +14673 I 1 1 11 1 1 b \ 1 1 31:111. 1 1 11 ' fj'. 1 r 1 - 1 + * 191 h 6 ." M A -31 17 .0 I 1 1 ... 1-4. E - Â·Rt Al"/u........... 4â€¢ 414-1- r 0 - 1 , 4 . 1 -[*-4 - -- 4 07 -- - r-- - -- -- , rÂ· r 1 -- 044. i L 1 -- 't Ule f 1 1 1 -0 1 1, . 1 0 24.( 1 t l. 1 1 1/ 4 r l 1 4 u l -iÂ«/ & I -9 C Ell Jl .1\ i " P.6 7 - -1 1 - i~ 1 Â»Â«,77% c 11/ 1 l 21-ZIE- 4 - EF~ -- 4 11 1 - 11 I. Â£-- -- ..=--I- '.*.-0 --4 -, 12 P . U U _~Â»c â‚¬2-Â»*L l- tz -17 V t,_1 +F- 0 1, - lilli 1-1 L C.-1 i,47*43*/I#: r~ 3'- I A Ut . r.:i...21.....bÂ¢16..42- 30/ge '.Â·,944,1 .22/2415f7141 S -tili#/Ii 1 .-- 491:ie. 274*.: ., 'rm#A. 1 j ..... Mi>Â· te: , .Â·:tul.4/18 . 34:k % 1.~.' 'f:'4.1(1<!...4y:,?.f 71- 1 \L - f 2:.:. .*.tÂ·*:-~4'641 1 1 1 t . 1,4 5 1 1 1. e */ . .- 44, 1 . 4% 4 1- .3 .Â£ JIP- r.~r-- 4 - 4 1% , 1 . 0 .. .. .2. !1 1 ' 1 . 1 1 e- 1 0 0 1 L.#EL -44==4 "if 111 4.0. 1 /14 41 _i:t f 1 0, 1 J Tr i 14,1 J 1 1 W ,< x 315..0 JryÂ·Â£26 - T.,0 r a 91 0 /4-Â» 0.1 Â»,6 /0.-0 r râ€¢ -'.3 5 (B 3&~. (?18 _ _19:853 2 06 %\ , 4 (2 -- 90Â¢u/ --"-- n 947 . Hy V O-/= 2/ /4 , *.-p; -18 -- 0 1 9' 1 L . 1 . 1 u 1 . 1 1 ..=- Ii-# . 1 1 1 . 1- 1 - 1 , 111 . -- rh - 92 '' 1 91 2 r - - yt idisÂ· 11, r 7z .70.0- - ;V kit h 4 y. L 4 h ~ 0 1 1 1 . 1 , 1 1 L. Â¢ 2 W. 2,- 3. >K-i-*T- 1- -si I , 0. . US l,4.v' ... rk'% 14 /4:(r,1 ~*2 lii.~~~/.At- ~Â«eff# Â·<1 7 â€ž 770'*6* I 1 ... */00 4 1, . 99.. 4.,~ - , Lif;Â¢;Pi.~<432:5-L-., -Gr - 1102697%9~ t7/9- > 1 /,<Mi- R.1 \.i.,JA~ . m.. . 4 111/%1 61%<~~~4~~~~ s. 42Â«~4.12Â».11\\TY*&4172-4*1 imt:*7 18Â¥G,L " - ~ /./.i.41*.EE.SE,~2 - a//=,*:f~*~Â»~Aa .,<30>X- \.\4\4<"b ..: 1253:ypÂ»- 3, tÂ·f' wil'VÂ·, q' Â· 1/1.10 1 - 41 4,1 i .fl J.l .2 - - 1 M j!~j;\~4~~~~~UN~2~4*~41~--9~~<2 M~/s~vi"w 47 .-;://1-,r /f//4~/1kt<** . ~ -- 7.P~-t 4- t<f' w pol Â¥/~1~ "43=ur#Â£:AÂ·<rnâ€¢â€¢4#LÂ·&4% *,6, aLuisid.,twri#d-,ri.#fpkÂ£2.Â· Â«Â«# ii~: /~~9,1, 0421$1-4~%.FLA<A;#,-32 ~<":~*~11. -5.;11['.!af....'I ' i, -11 ti' - , U IU \/Uu'/ itei/i.4/FIAVEJAW:ANBM-:RB 1Â·lb f 40 0~24\11*lame\\ c\1\1jnr\'3*~\44<W:<r~~Cr 7~~4<~41 ~~~irf..1,~ -- _ 11100*~ ~' %,1*11,â€žmi\' .'A \,~,RN,I.pm-iv .,ty 'j., -1/- A--i 4~fl~ -ItÂ»23*4Ua/3. - - Â¥ L , VAN.,1 \-1\4- 1,4 ...F.dp..sn,%,1,<râ€žiming,"~p~:~~f~#jv&~~'~~~~1j ~1 It:- 6.,1,/15/(13, '7 -~5 65/0/&52,0,412,1,11;Em--532 9,"V-- Â¢*/,11, b ,At/Quh 1%\39â‚¬9> -, - -- -6~-----------~ ~~~~~ /'11~ 1 h./5.1,/1,~ Â·7 ,/ Â· Â»d,r,ng:fj~,4,â€ž,cr,-abiri&%g/,,4W1' -Â»91'l Â¢113~../1:.acill'.,2..... 11;/ 1 f .\ :' t 3.r '21.'-4 -/ .'..1/.' Or.119*21 NA, 1~ f vi -~Ii/=.~i|~|~:Ill!1, t.-124~7329Â»,1 1 . 1 ---{.6..~ ii~Imittilltjl~111111,i,<Â·â€¢~,;/. 1 4, i,li~l .~t~.~~~P~1~~.~~:f~,~~-i. 1111!1~~1111111~1~11~1111t~iÂ¢> .' Â·iÂ· I. 02-r: Ip*.0444.2, .i - 1 #1 \ 1 & ..0*- -k, u.*- 1 t / 1, 1,1 - ~ T.: 1:..1 '/4 E v. 1 11 . '.1 1 111 - S>:-- ' 6, 0 x- L 5: 1 . 1 0 i, U. 1 '*: /6/ 311 0,0, \#11 $--~;3- *415;'-i:it iii.Ar//Al Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·.:,Â·Â·Â·,Â·-4.Â·Â·:-Â·t i |;1' 1~1~11.,Ili:ili.> 1 -- 1 - mm n killi 1,1 ..\ . - 1 - , . ~11111-~., 1 1 8 ~a i :I.,'A' d , i 'lil!1141;illil / 1 4.'- â€¢>,f . A,AR 13 , 8*El~[t~6::mii I ~~~pi , !:di~iquUm(3.1 0,1,=1 . -- 0 / 4 4 '11 ~ i k...Avf/'AM-!11 1 , -----11-4. 9.'mn 4 1 -ji. 7,0 .'< 31 :t~lf....~..'t/,LIC{14- i wmwill'[2./.41.-- 005 /- 1" ~ ~~~1 ~~..6<hâ€¢F/hniflp4 1*59'~ ~iÂ¢ I t*~;l f. h , . 'Fifil<il .1., i...1 41},J/#/,\Â»- - \e L Vil T,rl,&,I Ift 'llo ,&IMT#â€¢1â€¢â€¢1~: -- -~ ./1, .< .1 \h: ~- / 0111-1474 4. .1 . / i. /1.X'V . .:~~~~~,~N~~ . 1~ ~ . I. ~ il; 1, ;2tz"00:,|Ii i =<0-~11 - r Â· ..-1,19- UL:wit. 44 '0.' 1 -~-- , iâ€¢.*444 ~Fi/r--vifixÂ·~Â«417 . ~ ~ r,7 4,4.. Â¢12.i >369/ all....ia 441 - -- * ,+it. A./#14 4~it <\\\4 j\\1\\ 491 ..9/ .. r :\ l' ~ \34114 271~3 -, -~ 1 --f ~Â· 1 34\ bt F lt' 'A :;'~.~.1*~P,~4~,~~~~-*33 --,- v/empv- 0.6 *ph - - 7<4.0 19 j r ....~ --- \~11(44,2â‚¬*~ -- -- ... - h ,--0-- 4 / -2 2,6.0 -j 224 /, --I --. .4 2=- LkÂ»-=ko-- 1>9m, 0 '70 Â£~-2 /3â‚¬2~-/01492.remp'//9,/FI. / , j==0***I....Ip-- 94740#,balli:--7 vo-- 1-0- \ 400Eppy/ \ I V ft ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE EXHIBITS 234 WEST FRANCIS, ASPEN, COLORADO 1. "Order to Show Cause" On File with City Clerk 2. Minutes of HPC Meeting - October 8, 1997 3. Minutes of III'C Meeting = November 24, 1997 4. Minutes of HPC Meeting - December 10, 1997 5. Minutes of HPC Meeting - January 28, 1998 6. Minutes of HPC Meeting - May 13, 1998 7. Minutes of HPC Meeting - May 27, 1998 8. Minutes of HPC Meeting - June 10, 1998 9. Minutes of III'C Meeting - January 27, 1999 10. III'C Resolution No. 2, Series of 1998 = January 28, 1998 11. HI'C Resolution No. 17, Series of 1998 . June 10, 1998 12. City Clerk's File for HPC Application at 234 West Francis Judicial Notice 13. Building Department Permit File(s) for 234 West Francis Judicial Notice 14. Summary of Alleged Violations of HPC Approvals at 234 West Francis 15Â· V LU>eD p [6154-1 C, s k t.rE, 1(00. 2,0ARÂ©4DF: aln-rDS Â¥~Rem HPC=. N4Ew,-iNG, S FlÂ·. Window -tri rn 18 + ?0575 6/014+RecaeÂ©) 1 q . ReM Al Al /4 4 5112>/ Al Er 20. 61-1-ER- 'PRom Beacâ‚¬ A'ELM , Owe> 00â€¢)TRATOA 2-1, ~Bax>4 MeUDi N 4- u/ippen 33. 900-rr Lt Al Bgkl AM La72Â¥U 43 ' -%Â«. 6. WA1-5 Lerrifai /* Â· Â©AA LErn - gATURAVE 251 Nu#rABLI PL+VIND LE / burl da-6 1 M,0 E Us h CR- aÂ·?. CASG rrY 60.5. (2 osc#go Historic Preservation Commission October 8 1997 234 W. FRANCIS - PUBLIC HEARING Amy Guthrie, historic preservation officer, stated that this building is on the national register of historic places plus being a local landmark. This is a wonderful red and black house on a corner. Numerous important people in Aspen's history have lived in the house. This is a minor application with several items involved. On the alley in back of the house is a carriage house that is not historic. At one time it was a garage and now it is a living unit and the applicant desires to change it back to a garage, add some dormers and change some windows. Staff has no concern with those changes as it was not historic construction. There is a wing that runs between the garage toward the back of the house that is partly old construction and partly not. The part that is not old construction, the applicants plan to open up into breezeway,. They are going to demolish. It is not historic construction, so that use is appropriate. On the historic house the proposal is to add an octagonal kitchen on the northeast corner of the house. This will not be particularly visible to the public. It is one story and does not do any damage the architectural integrity of the building. Ms. Guthrie said this is somewhat of a more ornate element than the rest of the house. There is also a proposal to extend a dormer on the back of the house out about 5 feet to accommodate a stair tower. Ms. Guthrie stated she is not in support of this change as the dormer is original feature of the building and will be visible from the street. It is too much of an alteration. The small lean-to at the back of the house has been modified. Originally it was a shed roof addition. The applicant plans to returned to its original state, a shed roof. Scott Lindeau, architect for the project, told the Commission the existing garage contains a rental unit when was never deed restricted or approved. The applicants would like to return it to a garage with access to the alley and add a dormer to the rear to alleviate snow shedding concerns so the snow is not falling on the garage doors. A small dormer to the south is also proposed to get light into the upper level. Lindeau said adding the octagonal kitchen is disguised from the street elevations on Second and EXHIBIT i I I Historic Preservation Commission October 8 1997 0 Francis. This will give more light and more square footage to the kitchen. The existing dormer, which staff feels is not totally appropriate, is currently up in the attic space and will add about 5 feet to a stair going to the upper level. This is on the north elevation, the least visible elevation. The applicants want to add one window to the east elevation. Lindeau noted drawing #15 is the new window to be added. Lindeau said the window trim easing in the additions will be the same as in the existing house to keep those consistent. The breezeway separates the garage from the main house and there is access through there to the streets. Lindeau said they want to add a dormer to a detached guest cottage on the property, to the north elevation, which faces the interior courtyard. Ms. Friedland asked why an octagon. Lindeau said the way the house is situation, the was the landscape works and the courtyard, the octagon gives a lot more view into the interior. If it was squared off you would loose the views too much. Ms. Reid asked why this is a minor review. Ms. Guthrie said this is pushing the definition of minor; minor is defined as less than 250 square feet, which this is. There is a description of cumulative dormer 0 window changes; this is pushing it; however that is the way staff allowed the application to come in. Moyer said page 13, the west elevation of the carriage house which will be transformed into a garage, there is a square window in the middle of the wall, wouldn't it be more appropriate a slender double hung. Ms. Guthrie said she brought this up to the applicant; it is new and that is a way to distinguish it as new construction. Moyer asked if staff had a problem with the dormers on the carriage house, which will become a garage. Ms. Guthrie said she does not; it is not historic construction and is a fine way to use the space. Moyer said there were some concerns about the tower ~ which becomes a kitchen. Ms. Guthrie said the house is extremely simple architecturally and the form would not be consistent with the simplicity; however, it is one-story. Moyer asked why the shape is designed as an octagon. Lindeau said the main level is also dark and the ceilings are low so the proposal to do the octagonal adds more light to the eating space. Ms. Reid said the dormer on the historic house seems to go out farther than 0 it is shown. Lindeau said it could be pulled back a couple of feet for the 2 . 9 Historic Preservation Commission October 8 1997 pitch on the stair. Ms. Guthrie said the dormer that can be seen from the street is an interesting detail but is not so compatible with such a historic buildings. Gilbert Sanchez said he has no problems with most of the proposal; the octagon is a little strange but is a fun new element and because it is in the back it can work. Sanchez said he does have reservations about the stair tower; the proportions seem strange. It is even more of a problem from the side just because it's a tall blank wall that pops out from the rest of the building. Sanchez said the stair could be moved back so the vaulted ceiling area would be the landing.. Sanchez said it is a good proposal but he would like the stair tower reviewed. Moyer said he would like to see the tower deleted and would make the window in the west side of the garage to be more in keeping with the historic character. Moyer asked what the shed roof is trying to relate to. Ms. Guthrie said the current lean-to addition has a gable roof, a shallow pitch gable roof, which is being changed back to a shed. Ms. Guthrie said she would like to reserve sometime to look at the lean-to to see another picture or the framing. Lindeau said the windows are low on the upper level, 8 inches above finished floor, and they may have to be reglazed to meet energy standards. Ms. Guthrie noted UBC has exemptions for historic buildings. Ms. Guthrie said she would like to reserve final solution until she has more information on the shed. Ms. Reid agreed the tower is a problem. Ms. Reid said she would like to see the tower moved back so that the eave runs through it. Moyer asked if there is a skylight on the carriage house. Lindeau said no. MOTION: Gilbert Sanchez moved to approve the proposal for the minor development, partial demolition of 234 W. Francis St. with the condition that the applicant look at revising the rear stair dormer so that the wall aligns with the building wall below and that more research be done on the slope of the original roof on the rear addition of the house to be approved by staff and monitor, second by Roger Moyer. Sanchez recommended that the extension beyond the building wall be eliminated. Sanchez said he has no problem with a dormer that aligns with 3 ... Historic Preservation Commission October 8 1997 0 a building wall. Ms. Guthrie noted that is a change to an original historic building and it depends on how strictly HPC wants to look at their procedures. Sanchez said it is the north elevation and is not that obvious. The proportion of the proposal is way out of balance. VOTE: Passed 4 - 3. Yes vote: Gilbert, Roger, Mark, Suzannah. No vote: Mary, Melanie, Heidi. Ms. Guthrie asked why those members who voted no were opposed. Ms. Roschko said it is an important house for the changes that are being made. Ms. Guthrie noted part of this is a restoration. 4 Historic Preservation Commission November 24. 1997 234 West Francis - Lightwell Amendment Amy Guthrie, historic preservation officer, reminded the Commission alteration to the house were reviewed in October. The applicants find they need a lightwell. Arthur told the Commission the owners would like to put a full basement under the house. They would like to put a lightwell on the Second street side, flush with grade. There is an ordinance stating one cannot have a lightwell beyond the front facade of a house. Arthur said the proposed location is the logical place for this lightwell. Arthur said city code requires two lightwells if the proposed basement is larger than 1,000 square feet. The proposed basement is 1100 to 1200. A second lightwell is planned for the private yard side of the house. Arthur said it is difficult to place this lightwell as there has to be a distance between the windows equal to greater than half the diagonal distance of the basement. The proposed lightwell is about the minimal size proposed by code. Besides egress, they also have to have the light requirement which is 10 percent of the floor area of the room being served. Moyer asked if this lightwell would require a setback variance. Ms. Guthrie said one is allowed to have a lightwell project into a setback asÂ· long as it is at the minimum size UBC requires. Arthur said the zoning ordinance prohibits a lightwell from being put in the yard between the building and the street. Ms. Guthrie said a lightwell does not need a setback variance if it is the minimum size required by UBC. This proposed lightwell is drawn in the setback and a variance is not needed. The HPC needs to look at this as a historic building and that this request violates the design standards. Ms. Hirsch said requesting a full basement is a much larger discussion than the lightwell discussion. Arthur said the basement does not change the exterior of the house at all. Ms. Guthrie asked if the house is being picked up and if so, how will it be protected. This was not outlined in the original plans and the applicant did not request approval to pick the house up to dig a basement. Mark said they need to resubmit this request. Arthur said he was not present at the earlier meeting and thought the basement was the EXHIBIT 1-71 3 1 Historic Preservation Commission November 24, 1997 intent all along. Ms. Hirsch said she has never heard of picking up this house. Moyer asked if the house is being returned to exactly where it was. Arthur said yes. Arthur said they have to put in new foundation walls because old floor are warped. There is a 3 inch step between two parts of the house. The owners would like to put a radiant slab in the main floor of the house. There will have to be a new exterior foundation wall, and if they do that, why not put in a full basement. Arthur said this will not affect the appearance of the house at all. Ms. Hirsch said it is the responsibility of the HPC to protect the house. If the house is going to be moved, they need to know how it is going to be moved. Arthur said that has all been discussed. The current thinking is to life the house vertically 5 or 6 feet with two large steel beams, which will extend beyond the house. A bulldozer will come and excavate underneath the house. The basement foundation wall will be put in and then set the house back exactly where it is currently positioned. Right now there is not a permanent foundation; it looks like there is metal flashing between the siding and grade. The applicants will insulate on the insider of the foundation walls as opposed to the outside. Ms. Reid said these plans should be brought back to HPC so they can be reviewed and the lightwell can be reviewed at the same time. Ms. Guthrie said for moving a building, the City requires a structural report, information on where it will be moved, a bond for relocation of the building. Ms. Guthrie said this plan was not given to staff for review. The Board would also like to see elevations showing how much foundation is exposed, what material it will be. Ms. Reid said she would also like a detail of how the house is going to sit on the new foundation. Moyer said he would like to see a design showing the actual size of the lightwell, if there is a railing around it; how it is landscaped. Arthur said with regard to railing, it is his understanding from the building department that a railing around the lightwell is not needed and it is a judgment call by the building inspector if the lightwell is near a walking surface, they will require a railing. If there is a grate on the lightwell, a railing is not needed. Arthur asked if the structural report can be done by the house mover; they have an engineer to do the structure on the house as keeping the outside shell while doing all the work on the inside will be quite an exercise. Ms. Guthrie said she will pass on the submission requirements. 2 .. . IIistoric Preservation Commission November 24, 1997 Moyer said with a new foundation, the structural integrity of the housing will be maintained, which is a positive point. Ms. Reid said getting there is the problem. Mary Hirsch said this move is a surprise to the HPC. Arthur said he did not know the HPC was unaware of the plan. Arthur asked about the non-conforming structure in the back. The applicants have discussed rotating it in order to put the gable end on the alley side so that it does not convert snow into the alley. Arthur said this move is okay with the zoning enforcement officer and asked if it is all right in terms of historic preservation. This is the apartment carriage house. Arthur said according to zoning, the can demolish that structure and rebuild it as long as they maintain the present configuration. Ms. Guthrie said rotating the building will means there is shed dormer space in the street. Arthur said they may not rotate the building. The problem is they got into looking at the existing structure, which has 2 by 6's for the rafters, which is total minimum. To meet the energy code, they have to companion new rafters onto the existing and in terms of costs, it makes sense to perhaps demolish the building and build it back again. Mark pointed out if the building is changed, it has to be reviewed by HPC to review its compatibility to the historic structure. Arthur said they will resubmit with drawings of the basement, drawings of the little well and the report can be by the house movers. Ms. Guthrie said the report should be by a structural engineer. There is a requirement to tell staff how the building will be braced, which can be done by the house mover. Arthur said he will be back at the December 10th meeting. Arthur asked if the HPC had known about the basement, does it seem feasible they could do the lightwells. Sanchez said there are positions around the house that would satisfy the city ordinances and get a variance. Arthur said the issue is that they have to have a certain distance between egress windows which has to exceed the diagonal of the basement. Arthur said if they put the lightwells on the east side of the house, they cannot get the dimension. Ms. Dodington asked for a floor plan of the basement. Arthur showed the basement floor plan with a recreation room. Arthur pointed out the only place a stair will fit. If the rec room is placed, there will be a tiny lightwell, and showed the lightwell on Second street. Arthur 3 Historic Preservation Commission November 24. 1997 said if they have to put a lightwell, it would be a storage room rather than a 0 rec room. HPC suggested two lightwells on the east side. Arthur said lightwells cost money. Arthur said they cannot move the lightwell because the door above cannot be moved. HPC suggested a smaller lightwell just for light. Arthur said "just for light" has to be 10 percent of the floor area and 10 percent is teeny for a room this big. HPC and Arthur discussed designing the basement and lightwells. Arthur asked what would the objection to a lightwell on the west side would be. Ms. Reid said that would be an Ordinance 30 variance. Arthur said it is down low on the ground and no one will see it; flowers go around it and it does not affect the appearance of the building. Moyer said several years ago HPC had a lengthy tour of lightwells and developed a philosophy about lightwells. This has not be done recently. Moyer suggested doing this again and developing a general philosophy on lightwells. Moyer said the city is getting a lot of applications for pits and HPC tried to figure out ways to make the pits work into the landscape. Arthur said he could see reasons to do that so as not to have huge excavations from the sidewalk down in. Moyer said the point is to maintain historic structures the way they were, not adding bay windows or doors, particularly landmarks. 0 4 Historic Preservation Commission December 10, 1997 234 W. FRANCIS - LIGHTWELL AND TEMPORARY RELOCATION 0 Amy Guthrie, historic preservation officer, reminded the HPC this temporary relocation and lightwells was discussed at the last meeting, and the project was reviewed for minor development in October. This is a request is to raise the house and to excavate a basement below. HPC is looking at a temporary relocation and as well as a request to put light wells in to service the space. Ms. Guthrie recommended approval of the application. The conditions of approval lay out HOC requirements, including a letter of credits. Ms. Guthrie recommended the letter of credit be in the amount of $30,000, which is a standard amount. The applicants need to provide HPC with some information about the current appearance of the foundation. Ms. Guthrie said she supports the alternative which places the light wells away from the street. Ms. Guthrie pointed out she has added condition to clarify HPC's position on removing any materials from the property without HPC approval, historic exterior materials. Scott Lindeau, Studio B represented the owners Don and Gwen Mullins, presented photographs depicting the current foundations details. It was originally built with robowall and is predominantly covered with tin just because of the leaking problem. The applicants are proposing to re-use and make a new stone foundation similar to what is there. There is a drawing showing how that would work. That would be a stone facing on the on the exposed parts. Ms. Guthrie asked if the current material would be salvaged. Lindeau said new sandstone will be used otherwise it will crumble everywhere. The house has settled. Lindeau said the existing house will be raised up 6 feet. They are not moving it off the site. Ms. Guthrie said the temporary relocation means it is moving from where it is now. In this case, they are just moving the house straight up 6 feet. Art Younger, Studio B, indicated that they might have to move the house horizontally depending on the condition of the existing garage structure on the alley. That structure might be demolished and reconstructed and staff had no concerns about the reconstruction of the garage. Younger said it may make excavating easier. In order to bring the existing garage structure up to code, it is probably cheaper to demolish it and rebuild EXHIBIT E-1 iN 1 Historic Preservation Commission December 10, 1997 rather than to attach new members to all the existing members to bring it up to code. If that structure is removed, they will not have to lift the house vertically but just slide it back. Moyer asked if a $30,000 letter of credit is enough. Ms. Guthrie said that is the traditional amount and the city has never, to date, drawn on any of these bonds. The garage demolition has not been approved but it is not a historic structure. Ms. Guthrie said staff was under the impression earlier that this was a remodel. If HPC has a concern with this structure being replicated, they should mention it. Ms. Guthrie said she does not have a concern. Applicant said the wall are currently 2 by 4 walls and in order to structure, they would have to tear a lot out to insert a ridge beam. The floor currently is 18 inches off grade and in order to use it as a garage, it will have to be brought down to grade. It will be easier to tear it down. Art Younger asked if it is possible to put the lightwells on the west rather than the east. Younger said they will have a 6 inch concrete curb with a steel grate over it. The lightwells are needed for light and egress. Scott Lindeau stated that an extensive landscape plan is proposed for the court yard and the 2 lightwells on the east side would detract from that, the west side would be 20 feet from the street, put a grate over it and it is essentially invisible. That is what the applicants would prefer. Staff s recommendation was for the east. Ms. Guthrie stated Ordinance #30, design standards, states that lightwells are not to face the street; therefore, they should be on the east side. Sanchez asked the concerns about the plan with the lightwells away from the street. Younger noted there is a walkway going from the main house to the carriage house and this has been designed to have the residual space be landscaping. HPC member said she is concerned about the moving and the windows; if they are historic glass not being broken as the house is moved. The big window that faces the west is old glass, at least the top pane is. It is important to save those windows. The applicant should be careful not to destroy the old glass when the house is moved. Lindeau noted that single glaze windows do not meet current standards of the energy code. They may be able to get around that because the house is historic but they may contemplate replacing all if it and making the sashes and sills look identical. 2 Historic Preservation Commission December 10. 1997 Ms. Dodington asked if this is allowed in old buildings. Ms. Guthrie said this is a difficult question. In some cases HPC has required windows visible to the street to remain and allowed other windows to be replaced or changed. It is case by case; what is the condition of the windows, how significant is the building. Ms. Guthrie said she did discuss this with the applicant on site, but HPC has not discussed this. Ms. Dodington said she is concerned about the windows that look historic, the big window that faces west is obviously old glass. It is important to keep the prominent windows. Younger said the two larger ones might be able to stay with them the way they are. The window on the west catches the light and one can see the undulations in it; it is important in an old historic building. Roger noted in some instances in the past, the contractor deliberately threw the windows away and suggested that as a condition that as much as possible be done to insure the protection of the existing historic windows to include even plywooding them over for vandalism and so that the applicant is fully aware just because they are lifting the house, moving it on the site or a different lot, that HPC would look very unfavorably upon windows being broken. Ms. Guthrie pointed out there is a condition that the applicants cannot remove anything without prior approval. HPC could add some about extra caution to prevent accidental damage, that would be a good idea. Moyer said it is important that whoever the contractor is, that person is well versed in what HPC expects because most contractors are not. If they do not care, they just rip the siding off assuming it can't be saved, where it could be or throw a window away when it could be fixed, just because it might be a little more difficult. Ms. Reid suggested part of the condition that if anything happens to the windows and they need to be replaced that HPC needs to review it again. Younger said his clients would like to put screens on windows; how does HPC feel about that. this would be only the operable windows, not the larger ones. Moyer explained what was historically used on windows to keep the bugs out rather than the aluminum framed ones. These are a full panel on the outside. HPC said if there is a viable option for the lightwells without having to grant a variance, that would be preferable. A variance should be granted 3 Historic Preservation Commission December 10, 1997 only when there is no other option. Ms. Dodington said she said the lightwells should be on the east side. Ms. Reid said if something is to happen with the windows and screens, this needs to come back to HPC and not be decided by the monitor. MOTION: Moyer moved to approve the temporary on-site relocation of 234 W. Francis Street and lightwells with the following conditions: 1) A letter of credit, escrow agreement, or bond in the amount of $30,000 is to be provided prior to building permit to ensure the safe relocation of the building back onto the new foundation. 2) The required lightwells are to be on the east side of the house as presented by the applicant. 3) The applicant will salvage if possible all the foundation stone or re- create as existing. 4) No exterior materials on any part of the historic structure may be removed without the prior approval of HPC, excepting those areas that were approved for remodeling on October 8, 1997. 5) Ali windows be covered for protection during construction. 6) Any changes or additions to the windows to come before Staff and monitor. 7) All conditions of October 8, 1997 minor development approval must be met. seconded by Ms. Dodington. Ms. Guthrie said the HPC wants to make sure the building is protected, whether the building is moved horizontally or vertically, the contractors make sure that people do not have access to the building when it is in a precarious state. Ms. Reid stated as a standard condition a detailed description of the temporary move of the house should be provided and that the city knows what the new relationship to grade will be, and what the existing relationship to grade was. This is important for the records. The Board had concerns with the relationship of the grade and that the base of the siding stays the same and that the house is put back on the original site. Amended motion: Moyer moved to amend his motion to include that a detailed description of how the house will be moved and determining the final location be submitted as condition #8, second by Susan. 4 Historic Preservation Commission December 10, 1997 All in favor of motion and amended motion. Ms. Friedland asked if it is sufficient to have staff and monitor review on the windows. Ms. Reid said if staff and monitors do not want to sign off on any changes, it will be brought back to HPC. Ms. Guthrie said if HPC is concerned, they can assign an additional monitor. Susan Dodington was assigned along with Jeffrey Halverty. Suzannah relayed that if an issue comes up with the windows it is to be reviewed by Staff and monitor. All in favor, motion carried. 5 Historic Preservation January 28, 1998 0 234 W. FRANCIS ST. AMENDMENTS Scott Lindenau, architect, was sworn in at an earlier meeting. Arthur Yuenger, architect, was sworn in. Amy Guthrie, historic preservation officer, told the Board she has broken the proposal into 3 aspects and what has already been approved and what is being proposed now. Of this proposal, half is alternations to things that HPC has already approved and half of the proposals are new ideas. On the carriage house, which will be used an accessory dwelling unit, there is a flat roofed porch which was not original and was added several years ago, the proposal is to remove the roof and replace it with a gabled roof porch. Ms. Guthrie recommended this change not take place. The original building had nothing on the front of it. This is adding a character and a detail into the building that it did not have. If the applicants do not like the element, they ought to remove it, which will be a restoration to the front of the building. 0 The court yard facing elevation faces the historic house and the proposal is to remove the flat roof trellis that is not historic and replacing it with a gabled roof and staff is opposed to that change. On the back of the carriage house, HPC has already approved the addition of the shed roof dormer; instead they want a closet addition and move over a set of windows. The windows currently exist and will be pushed over. The windows are not original and staff recommends approval of the change. It is more compatible than the shed roof dormer. On the historic house a kitchen already has been approved and they are asking to make the windows more vertical. Ms. Guthrie said that change is fine. On the courtyard elevation of the house, they want to take the porch off and put on a gabled porch that matches what the applicants are showing on the carriage house. Staff has concerns with the removal of the transom window in order to accomplish that so staff recommends against that change. The applicants are asking to put a skylight in one of the bathrooms; it is not visible from the street. EXHIBIT 0 1 Historic Preservation January 28, 1998 Another skylight is proposed on the street side and staff recommends against it because it is visible to the street and adds too modern an element to the particularly important historic house. On the street side there is an enclosed area that links the house to the garage and they are asking to open it up into a breezeway again to add light. Ms. Guthrie said this change is fine as it is not historic material. Ms. Guthrie said she needs more information about plans to alter an existing porch. Ms. Guthrie presented what HPC has approved on the garage, a new dormer. The applicant is asking to change the orientation of the windows from double hung to horizontal on the front and back of the garage. The garage is not a historic building. Ms. Guthrie said it is more compatible to stay with the vertical double hung window. The courtyard facing elevation of the garage has a single gable; the applicant request to do a popped out little element. Ms. Guthrie said that change is fine. Ms. Guthrie said the way the carriage house is now is existing construction with a portico over the front and side doors. This is recent, not historic construction. This was not addressed in the original approval. Lindenau indicated that the proposed gabled porticos, which the architects feel is more compatible with the projects, were designed to shed snow away from the doors. On the main house, they would like to take off a little addition which probably housed wood. Lindenau showed that it is probably newer construction. Lindenau agreed to go back to the more vertical elements in the dormers on the garage. Lindenau said in the upper level of the house, the windows go down to 8 inches above the floor. To make the fioor plans work in the upper level, the windows compromise what can be done with the bathroom and closets. Lindenau said they are putting closets behind the windows and the only way to get light is with a skylight. Lindenau said a skylight is constructed that only sticks up 3.5 inches so it does not detract as a modern element. Ms. Reid brought up the large dormer on the north side which is only revised in one drawing. Ms. Guthrie noted a condition of approval at the December 10, 1997, meeting that the applicants are to revise that dormer. This is the staircase dormer on the backside. This has not been discussed with the applicant. Lindenau said he understood that was approved as long as the face was the same plane as the existing house. Ms. Guthrie said it is 2 Historic Preservation January 28, 1998 not drawn that way. Lindenau said the porticos are fairly flat and retain the snow and get heavy. If it is more a gable, it will shed the snow better. Ms. Guthrie said the lean-to adjacent to the porch on the west elevation is proposed to be pulled off. The issue is they want to pull the wood shed off. There is an outstanding condition of approval that the slope of the roof on the lean-to, right now it is a flat pitched gable that slopes towards the street. The applicants propose to take that off. and slope it toward the alley. There is a photograph the applicants have that suggest their amendment is the right thing to do. Ms. Guthrie noted there is a conditional of approval that the applicants are to revise the back dormer. The drawings do not show that revision yet. Ms. Dodington asked if it is going to be as tall as shown. Lindenau said it is currently that tall. Ms. Reid said drawing #9 reflects the breezeway completely removed. Moyer said the existing house, south side, is a flat roof. A gabled portico is distinctly breaking the pattern of the historic house. Ms. Guthrie pointed out on the peaked roof of the octagonal kitchen, the applicants are proposing a skylight. Ms. Guthrie said she does not have a problem with that skylight. Carriage House - Jeffrey Halverty said the resolution of the closet is more sensitive than the suggested dormer initially proposed. Halverty said the two street elevations are the most important. He favors the portico on the courtyard side but not on the street side. Ms. Friedland said she would like to see the portico restudied. It does not go with the rest of the house and there must be some other solution. This is a beautiful, simple, elegant house that there must be a better way than to put porch structure with a gabled roof on. Ms. Roschko agreed leaving the way the portico the way it is; a gabled roof is too formal for this structure. Ms. Dodington agreed with either leaving the portico on the carriage house flat roof to match the flat roof of the porch on the main house or to take it off. Ms. Dodington said she is not so concerned with the gable on the west part of the carriage house. Yuenger noted this is not a portico but is a trellis. Ms. Dodington . agreed with removing the trellis. 3 Historic Preservation January 28, 1998 Ms. Hirsch said she feels sandbagged on this project. It started out 0 October 8th, as a minor development to a very wonderful historic house that is landmarked. Ms. Hirsch said she did not feel this was a minor development. The application passed 4 to 3 and the 3 dissenting votes said at that time felt it was a simple house and the applicants would do a good job. Ms. Hirsch said those in opposition did not speak up about their feelings; they were opposed to changing the historic house. Then the applicants came back and HPC learned the house would be raised and lightwells installed. Now the applicants have 14 more changes; Ms. Hirsch said these do not feel minor to her. Ms. Hirsch said if the applicants had brought the entire project in at once, it would have been a major project and would have been looked at more carefully. This is an important corner lot with an important house on it. Ms. Hirsch said this will not look like a historic house when this project is done. Ms. Hirsch said she does not think the applicants have been fair. Ms. Hirsch said she has no problem with the carriage house closets. If the applicants do not like the gable, then remove it. Ms. Hirsch said she has no problem removing the trellis. Ms. Hirsch said there is no reason to build a new portico at the west elevation of the carriage house. Sanchez said he finds all proposals for the carriage house satisfactory. Â· Sanchez said he does not have a problem with the porticos. The proposal does not effect the essence of the historic building. This is a small add on. Sanchez said he feels a gabled roof portico goes with a gable roof structure. One needs a porch over a door on a south elevation. Sanchez said there is a tradition of very simple fundamental buildings that have a porch that becomes the important element. Moyer concurred he had no problem with the closet and would allow the trellis be removed. It makes sense to have something over the doors. Moyer said there is nothing wrong with a gable on a gable. The front entry of the main house has a flat roof and this is a deviation. Moyer said he would prefer the gable. Ms. Reid said most changes to the carriage house are fine. The gabled portico takes the building into a different realm. The flat pitches seem to be more in character with these houses. Ms. Reid said she would not support adding a gable on the courtyard side. Ms. Reid said the flat roof is more in keeping with the character of the building. 4 Historic Preservation January 28, 1998 The gable should not mimic what is on the historic house. Halverty said 0 the simplicity of the elevation of the south side of the carriage house is one of the better elevations of the entire site. A majority of HPC wants to see a study of a flat porticos on both the south and the west. Garage: Ms. Guthrie said the garage windows were changed from double hung to horizontal. The courtyard side has a popout staircase. The building is not historic. Moyer said the applicant did not have a problem with the change from horizontal to a more vertical window. The garage is not historic so the popout is not a problem. Sanchez agreed. House: Halverty said the skylight bothers him as the roof has such a presence on the western elevation from the streetscape. Halverty said it is fine on the courtyard side. Halverty said he does not have a problem with opening up the breezeway connection piece; it will help break the buildings up. The proportions on the windows are better long and tall as opposed to fat and squatty. Ms. Guthrie asked if the transom window has to be removed to do a gabled porch. The applicant said they would not have to remove the transom window but they are proposing to. Halverty said he would like to see the transom window remain. Ms. Friedland said she is okay with windows in the kitchen, skylight in the kitchen and the breezeway, the skylight facing the courtyard. Ms. Friedland said she would like to see the two portico issues restudied along with the carriage house portico issue. Ms. Dodington agreed about retaining the transom window. Ms. Dodington suggested the flat roof portico where the transom window is. Ms. Dodington said she does not want a west side skylight; east side skylight is OK; breezeway fine. Ms. Hirsch said she likes the feeling of the breezeway. The skylight in the kitchen is fine because the modern element of the kitchen addition has been introduced. Ms. Hirsch said she opposes introducing skylights to the historic structure whether it is street side or not. Generally preservation is that the historic house is not changed any more than one has to. Ms. Hirsch agreed with the portico restudied and retaining the transom window. 0 5 Historic Preservation January 28, 1998 Sanchez said the portico on the east elevation is important to maintain the 0 transom that is there, which would eliminate the gabled portico. Sanchez said in another location it is appropriate to have a portico that relates to the entry of the house. Sanchez objected to the skylight proposed for the wet side but not on the other side hidden from view. Moyer concurred. Ms. Hirsch asked about a lightwell detail. Lindenau said they talked about having a stone apron on the foundation wall and showed HPC the detail of that. The existing house where the foundation is has cheap metal tin covering the existing foundation. The applicants propose to put a stone veneer to bring is back historically. It makes sense to let the stone continue into the lightwell. Ms. Reid said regarding the breezeway, she likes how it ties into the porch on the west side in terms of the roof slope. Scott said this is a complex project involving a historic house, a so-called historic carriage house which has been covered inside and out, and a garage, which was never a garage. Scott said in doing light demolition to see what the structure was, they started seeing the foundation and that is how those changes came about. What is limiting this project is the upper level of the main house, the windows, which there are many of, limit what can and cannot be done with the plan. Because the windows are so limiting, they are historic and cannot be changed, the only option is to try and square in a sink between two windows or cover the windows with closet and clothes. That is why the skylights came into being; it is a natural design process on a complex project. Yuenger said he would like to keep the porticos flat throughout the project and rebuild the ones currently there as they are about the fall apart. There should be a slight cant so the snow will slide off. Yuenger said he does not mind eliminating the western skylight; everything else is all right with them. Moyer asked how the Board feels about the windows being blocked off; this is contrary to everything the HPC is trying to do and is disruptive to a landmark house. Ms. Hirsch asked why the owners want to live in a historic house. Lindenau said they are not going to cover the windows. On the upper level there are windows everywhere. Ms. Hirsch said that is 0 what one gets in buying a historic house. Ms. Dodington said the light 6 IIistoric Preservation January 28, 1998 from the existing windows should be used. Lindenau said in order to make the upstairs work, it limits what can be done. Lindenau said in order to put a bathtub in, the bathtub skin would go to the middle of the window. HPC has not seen the floor plan. Yuenger said in one bathroom, a skylight is not needed because there are two windows. In another bathroom, there are no windows and is a logical place to put a skylight.. Moyer noted the HPC tried not to grant variances and while he has been on HPC they have not approved skylights in historic structures, particularly landmarks. Moyer said he would prefer not to approve skylights. HPC agreedno skylights. Ms. Friedland moved to approve the amendments to 234 W. Francis St. with the following conditions: 2,3,4,7,9,10,13 and 14 of the Jan. 21, 1998 memo. Rejected 8, 11 and 12 of the Jan. 28th memo and to restudy 1,5 and 6 of the January 28th, 1998 memo. The porticos are to be restudied to have more of a flat roof and the transom window is to retained on the east side of the historic house; including all conditions of the October 8, 1997 and the December 10, 1997 minor development approvals must be met; seconded by Moyer. Ms. Hirsch said the changes approved at this meeting are only to the carriage house and the breezeway not to the historic house. Moyer asked about the wall on the stairway tower. Ms. Guthrie said this is an outstanding condition of approval. Moyer asked if there will be a list of all conditions so that none of them get lost. It is fairer to the applicant and easier for the monitors to keep track of. Hoefer said these will be restated in a resolution. Ms. Dodington said she has a concern about the historic windows and moving the house and suggested that the windows be removed before the house is lifted in order to protect the windows. Gary Wheeler, general contractor, told the Commission they are planning to remove, store and replace all windows. Ms. Dodington said the glass on the west window is old and it could crack even if plywood is put against it. Wheeler said the whole windows will come out, same window and glass will go back in. Ms. Dodington asked if this is written somewhere. Wheeler said this was 7 Historic Preservation January 28, 1998 in the previous approval. Ms. Guthrie said the condition about lifting the 0 building had a condition about covering the windows for protection, but this is better. The contractor is going the extra mile. Lindenau said there is $30,000 is escrow on this project. Ms. Hirsch said they do not want the windows to have to be replaced. Lindenau asked what restudy of the porticos means, staff review, monitor review, return to HPC. Halverty suggested it be staff and monitor. 8 Historic Preservation Commission May 13. 1998 234 West Francis Conceptual and Final Approval David Hoefer, assistant city attorney, said an affidavit of notice is needed in order to proceed. Affidavit of notice was provided for by the applicant. Hoefer noted the applicants have not provided proof of the parties the notice was mailed to. Hoefer recommended the hearing proceed on the condition that this list be provided to the city clerk's office by 5 p.m. May 14th or the approval will be withdrawn. This should be restated in any motion for approval. Julie Ann Woods, community development department, reminded the HPC this project has been before them several times seeking various approvals. The applicants have received approval for renovation of the structure, changes to the carriage house, new kitchen addition, and a new basement. Ms. Woods said the applicants want to demolish the garage and have a new connecting element, and the HPC requested this be reviewed in total. The applicants are proposing to remove the existing non-historic garage, located at the rear alley side part of the property; reconstructing a new garage in the same location but being set back onto the property. Right now this structure is in the alley right of way. The applicants are asking for 3 variances; allow for a 2 foot setback on the rear, where 10 foot is required; a zero foot setback on the side property line along Second street, which is approximately where it is located now; combined side yard where both sideyards combined have to be 15 feet and the applicants are asking for a variance of 12'4" to give them a 2'8" margin of error. Ms. Woods said the applicants have provided drawings focusing on the garage element, seeking partial demolition in order to remove and reconstruct the garage. The applicants have included a connecting element. When the applicants looked at moving this 2 feet back in the property in order to have a turning movement into the garage from the alley, they found they were too close to the main house and could not meet a building code requirement of distance between the structures. The applicants are proposing a connecting element of an enclosed breezeway between the back of the main house and the garage. This would connect not directly to the historic resource but to the mud room area, which was previously approved by HPC. EXHIBIT 1 Historic Preservation Commission May 13. 1998 Ms. Woods attached a letter from Ramona Markalunas regarding concerns of demolition of the historic garage; she thinks it is eligible for historic landmarking. Ms. Markalunas included the 1904 Sanborn map showing the property on the corner of Second and Francis which shows no garage at that time. Ms. Woods said there are also letters from the neighbors, Mr. Carl Zessler, who indicated he does not have a concern but did want to know what is going on. Also a letter from Joel Sax who is in support of the variance as proposed. Ms. Woods said staff reviewed this application against the criteria in the historifc zone district for a non-contributing structures and against partial demolition. Ms. Woods said staff feels this is exempt because it does not contribute the historic significance of the inventoried parcel. Staff recommends approval with conditions related to conceptual/final review. One, it be built in the same proportions, height and materials and the existing garage. there is modification on the back with a new stairwell, the east elevation, will be slightly different. That the garage be granted the variances as noted and all previous conditions of approval from October 8, December 10, January 28 still must be met. Arthur Yuenger, Marty Pickett, Jonathan Lewis, Phillip Hodgson were sworn in. Arthur Yuenger, architect, said from the materials, it appears the garage was built in the '70's and was built in a substandard manner. It does not meet the building code requirements existing today. Yuenger said the rafters and floor joists are inadequate. The foundation is inadequate. It appears that reinforcing rods were not placed in the concrete foundation because there are substantial cracks in it. Yuenger said this structure needs to be rebuilt to make it livable. It would be costly to add on to the existing structure; they would have to companion new studs in the stud walls. these are 2 by 4 stud walls and the building department would like 2 by 6 stud walls with full batt insulations. The roof rafters are 2 by 6 and they would have to companion on 2 by 12's and bring up to code. Yuenger said this would be very expensive and it makes sense to demolish it since its not a historical structure and rebuild it. 2 Historic Preservation Commission May 13, 1998 Yuenger said if they can demolish the garage, it would be good to move it back so that cars can negotiate the turn into the garage from the alley. Yuenger said it makes sense to rebuild it the way it is with the stair projection on one side and two dormers, one on each side of the roof. The applicants think this will be a fine structure when done and will blend in with what is there. Yuenger read the letter from Joel Sax. Yuenger said before the Mullins purchased the property, they met with representatives of HPC. The Mullins fell in love with the property and loved the charm of the house. They met with members of the HPC to see what they could and could not do. They were told at that time the only historical part of the property was the main house and they could make renovations to the rest of the structures. The Mullins want to cooperate with the city. They want to keep the charm of the building. Yuenger said they do not know what has been holding the main house up all these years. Yuenger said the contractor told him some of the floor joists are starting to rot out in the main house. Yuenger said it is timely the Mullins purchased the property and are willing to put the money and effort into renovating the house. The Mullins want to do the best job as possible and maker it an asset to the community. Moyer opened the public hearing. Phillip Hodgson told the HPC Davis Waite, governor of Colorado, built the house. Hodgson said Ms. Markalunas thinks the garage may have been built in the '40's or '50's and since it is over 50 years old, it should be historically designated. Hodgson said at the historical society he found a picture of the house dated 1930's. Ms. Woods said there is nothing on record on the age of the garage; it is clearly a later addition and does not seem to be contributing the historic resource. Ms. Dodington asked about the fence. Yuenger said part of the fence had to be removed. Ms. Dodington asked if this fence is stored somewhere. Gary Wheeler was sworn in. Wheeler, general contractor for the Mullins project, said the fence is being stored per the HPC recommendation to be replaced after the project is 3 Historic Preservation Commission May 13, 1998 complete. The windows and doors have been boxed up and are in storage in Basalt and will be replaced at the appropriate time, to save the glass. The red siding is being stored as well. The posts removed from the porch are also being stored, even though they are considerably rotten. Wheeler said they will do their best to patch and replace the wood. Wheeler said he wants this project to be what the HPC and what the Mullins want it to be, a project everyone is proud of. The applicants are going to extraordinary lengths to preserve and to replace what the HPC has asked. Wheeler said he went to the county offices and there are no dates on when the various buildings were built or added to. Wheeler said based on his construction experience, the building type and structure it appears the garage was built late '60's, early '70's. Md. Dodington asked if the house will be dug under. Wheeler told HPC Bailey movers of Grand Junction will lift the house vertically where it stands. There are survey points from a registered surveyor exactly where it is now; it will be raised vertically 6 feet, dug underneath, do a foundation, and place it at those survey points. The are not moving to another part of the property because of the vegetation. Sanchez said staff s recommendation is that the new garage will be built be to the same proportions, heights, details, etc. Sanchez said the drawings has two shed dormers and the photographs do not have these. Applicants stated this was in the previous approval. Moyer said it would be helpful to have a review of the previous approval, went over it with the monitor, and if there is something that is not written, the HPC can deal with it. Yuenger said they have to link the two buildings because the structure is closer than 5 feet for the octagonal part of the plan. This is a zoning consideration. If the buildings are independent of each other, there has to be a minimum of 5 feet between structures. By connecting them, they are not independent structures; this is the reason for the connection. Moyer asked how far back is it to the connector from the street face of the garage, what is the depth. Yuenger said about 12 feet. Moyer asked the height of the door and lights in the new connecting. Yuenger said it is a 6'8" door; the transoms are a foot high although they may have to be eliminated. Moyer asked the height of the existing doors 4 Historic Preservation Commission May 13. 1998 on the historic structure. Wheeler said they are 6' 8". Over the years they built up 3 different fIoor systems in the historic structure and have had to cut off the doors every time a new floor is added. Moyer asked what the doors may have been originally. Wheeler guessed over 7 feet. Sanchez said he doesn't have problems with the proposal but does have questions about some details. Sanchez said moving the structure and granting a variance would be all right. Sanchez said the letter about the historic character of the elements on site, he does not agree with the idea that any building that may have any historical quality whatsoever shall not be cut. That seems unreasonable. Sanchez noted in previous discussions, the HPC determined the garage did not contribute significantly to the historic character, or the architectural character or the cultural character of Aspen. Sanchez said he is concerned about the link and the treatment of the glazed connection. Sanchez said he is concerned that the treatment of the mullions and the trim around it relates to the historic building. Sanchez said glass makes sense as it makes the connection "go away". The detailing has to relate to the historic building somehow. Ms. Hirsch said she is opposed to the project as too much, too broken up. Ms. Hirsch said if the whole project has been put before HPC at once, she may have a different feeling. Ms. Dodington said she is concerned and cautious about demolishing anything that could be historic. Ms. Dodington said she would prefer not to vote on this until she knows the exact history of the garage. Ms. Dodington said other than that concern, the design is fine. This is a significant property. Ms. Dodington said she appreciates that the applicants are doing all they can to keep it exactly the way it was and saving the windows, fences and posts. Ms. Friedland said she, too, would like information on how old the garage is. Ms. Friedland said she preferred the original idea of turning the garage and using it. Ms. Friedland said moving the structure closer to the house and the breezeway link is fine. 5 Historic Preservation Commission May 13. 1998 Halverty said he feels the garage does not have the degree of important that the other 2 structures have. Halverty said he does not have a problem with the design solution or the setback requests. Halverty said the shed design is appropriate and shelters some of the octagon shape in the back. Halverty said it is worth commending the contractor and/or architect when they do a refurbish approach as opposed to replacing. They should be commended for the integrity about the windows and fence, making sure it is all well kept. Halverty said he agrees with the conditions. Ms. Friedland said if this is to come before HPC again, since the project has been so confusing, has so many components, it would be helpful if a set of the most recent approvals and drawings could be given to the Board members. Moyer concurred with Sanchez; however, he would like to know what the materials are. That is part of the requirement for final approval. If the applicant does not have the material list, this should be tabled or conditioned upon the materials being brought in and reviewed by staff and monitors. Moyer said he does not feel the age of the garage should be an issue. Moyer said it is unfortunate this project has gone through such a segmented process. Moyer asked the applicant to address in his presentation the setback issue, the statement about notice, the fact the fence is being saved, an implicit statement about the replacement of the historic objects that have been removed and their integrity, how these are repaired, etc. Moyer said Commission members and staff have hints on repairs. Moyer said the Commission needs a clarification on the dormers and a review of all that has previously been approved. Moyer said any motion made should be clear that the dimensions of the opening breezeway be equal to other openings in the house. Ms. Woods said the previously indicated plans did indicate the dormers; these were not approved in January but were looked at by the Commission. Ms. Friedland said the original proposal was to pick up and turn the building. Sanchez pointed out there is only one elevation of the garage. Hoefer said based on these concerns and what the prior approvals actually were and the question on historic nature of the garage, this should be tabled to the next meeting. 6 Historic Preservation Commission May 13, 1998 Marty Pickett, attorney for the Mullins, noted the draft resolution from previous approvals has #12, garage, the non-historic structure, located on the alley may be converted into a garage including new doors on the alleys, new dormers with double hung windows on the north and south sides of the building, removal of doors and replacement of windows on the west and south and an addition for a staircase of the east side of the garage. This resolution lists all of the previous conditions. Moyer agreed it would be good for the Commission members to have this draft resolution when considering this project. Ms. Friedland asked the age of the garage be verified. Ms. Pickett said the applicants did not have a copy of Ramona Markalunas' letter and were not prepared to address it. Ms. Pickett said they have been told since the beginning the garage was not historic. Ms. Pickett asked what evidence of the age of the garage would work for HPC. Ms. Dodington suggested previous owner, Julie Smith, be contacted. Ms. Friedland motion to continue to May 27, 1998, before which the Commissioners will receive information on previous approvals and drawings to compare with this presentation, to verify the age of the garage that has been questioned by members of the community, the materials of the proposed new garage, the list of people notified; seconded by Bill Greenwood, adjacent neighbor, said none of the previous owners have proposed to renovate this house and give it the care it should have. Greenwood said he has talked to the owners about trying to preserve the exterior and keep it looking like a Victorian. The owners looked for a long time in the west end to find a house that appealed to them. Greenwood said he hopes they are doing what they said, which is preserving the house. Greenwood said in speaking with Gary, that is what he is talking about. Greenwood said accessing the garage is a major advantage to people living in the house and is an advantage to the neighborhood and the city, because the snow plows have a harder time to plow with cars out on the street. Greenwood asked if the fence is considered historic; it is not very attractive. Ms. Dodington said the monitors, staff and owners had a meeting about the fence. Staff discovered the fence was possibly designed by Herbert Bayer because there is another one down the street just like it. It is a unique style of fence. Greenwood said the owner might want to put up something that looks better, is more permanent, and fit into a Victorian era - like a wrought iron fence. Bayer dates from the '60's. Moyer 7 Historic Preservation Commission May 13, 1998 suggested the owner discuss this with HPC. Ms. Dodington said the owner decided to save it after discussing this with staff. Yuenger said the owner would rather have a wrought iron fence. Wheeler said there is a portion of the carriage house roof to be repaired, where the closet was added and instead of patching 3 different roofs, the applicants are requesting to replace the roof with wood shingles. Ms. Friedland said this was not part of the packet. Hoefer suggested the applicants meet with staff before the next meeting to detennine whether this is an issue or added to the continued meeting. All in favor, motion carried. 8 IIistoric Preservation Commission May 27, 1998 0 234 W. FRANCIS - CONCEPTUAL & FINAL - PH - (table Julie Ann Woods, community development director, stated that her research indicated that the age of the garage is 1956. The HPC also requested more information on the materials being used for the garage and breezeway addition. The applicant has provided that information. Ms. Wood said the actual request before HPC is conceptual final review, partial demolition of the non-historic structure which is the garage and the variances from the rear yard, side yard and combined side-yard setbacks. Ms. Woods said she has attached all previous staff reports and minutes. Staff recommends approval of this project. Scott Lindeau, Studio B representing the owner, said the garage is built less than 50 years ago. There are building permits from 1956, 1959 and 1970 showing that the garage is an assemblage of 3 different added on structures. What is there now was built in 1970. The original garage showed in the first permit was only 12 feet by 15 feet. The second one shows an addition of 15 feet by 13.5 and the permit dated 1970 shows the upper story was added with a bathroom so what is there now is essentially from 1970. The proposal is to re-build the garage in its exact configuration and moving it two feet closer to the main house in order to get the vehicle in the garage. The garage will be built as the same materials as existing house and the connective breezeway will be similar materials. Lindeau has photographs in 1952 and shows it without the garage. Ms. Woods stated there are two letters of support from Tobin' s as well as Mrs. Alien, homeowner at 420 North Third. Gilbert Sanchez said HPC has not granted any approvals regarding the garage. Ms. Woods said HPC approved the eastern portion where the enclosure of the stairwell is; however, this is not attached to anything. Lindeau said the original set of drawings showed the garage as a detached structure and originally there was a connector piece. The building code requires there is a minimum of 5 feet separation to the main house and garage. Because the garage is moved closer to the house, the separation is 0 4 foot 8 so the building code states there has to be a connector. Sanchez 1 Historic Preservation Commission May 27, 1998 said HPC is being asked to approve a garage and there are no elevations except the west elevation and at the last meeting, all the HPC members had concerns about what the elevations looked like. Lindeau said the garage was approved at the first meeting and the elevations have not changed other than the breezeway, which does not affect fenestration or the stair case. Sanchez said there are no approvals for the garage at this point. There are dormers and new windows. Lindeau said those have been there since day one. The only thing that has changed is the connector from the December 10th meeting. Ms. Woods said the garage was different through the process but now since they are demolishing it and building a new one, HPC does have authority to look at the garage from scratch. Amy previous approvals related to a different building. Lindeau showed some elevations. Susan Dodington asked the condition of the existing garage. Originally the applicant the garage just turned and moved closer to the house. Lindeau said the applicants considered turning it because the ridge sheds snow over the house. Ms. Dodington asked about using the structure as a garage. Lindeau said there is no floor. Susan asked about lifting the existing garage up and pouring a new floor. Lindeau said it wouldn't support a second floor or the slab for concrete. Right now it is a wooden floor with a small crawl space. Ms. Reid asked if these drawings accurately represent what HPC is being asked to approve. Ms. Woods said the Commission needs to see the east and north side elevations. Heidi Friedland said HPC approved a west elevation different from this one. Ms. Wood said this is a different structure than the one looked at in December. Ms. Reid said if the HPC is going to treat this as a new building and approve it as a .... , they need to have something to approve that represents what they are approving. Ms. Reid asked HPC if they want to see all 4 elevations as accurately as possible before proceeding. Ms. Friedland said it is upsetting how many times this project has come back with changes. However, is there a way to approve this request based on accurate drawings being given to staff and monitors to try and keep the 2 Historic Preservation Commission May 27, 1998 process moving. Ms. Reid said the HPC is trying to be very clear about what they are approving every step of the process. It is hard to assemble this approval from a bunch of previous applications. Halverty said one issue is demolition of the existing garage. The HPC could give approval for that and review plans for the other request at a future meeting. The applicant said this would work and allow them to continue while HPC is making a final decision. Lindeau said the only thing that has changed in 7 months is moving the garage 2 feet close to the house and changing the outside stairwell. Moyer said HPC can approve the demolition and variances because the footprint is not changing if the Board is comfortable with that. Ms. Reid said one thing the HPC is trying to avoid is piecemeal approvals. Sanchez said he is not comfortable with proceeding without knowing what will be in the place of the demolished building. Sanchez said he would prefer to table and not continue the discussion until there is a complete package of information. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing. Sworn in were Joan Lane, who worked for Herbert Bayer. Scott Lindeau, architect Romania Markalunas, public, previously sworn in. Joan Lane stated she worked for the Bayer's from 1951 to 1954. She worked in the breezeway, which was an office and attached to the garage. There was a garage in 1951. Ms. Lane said the garage was not new in 1951. Ramona Markalunas stated that the 1904 Sanborn map shows the breezeway but not the garage. The Bayer's bought the property in 1946 and built a garage on it and the Anderson's bought the property in 1953 from the Bayers and they remodeled the garage into the caretaker unit that it is today. The 1946 date is well within the 50 years that it would take to make the building historic. The historic garage is now an historic caretaker unit that was converted by R.O. Anderson. Julie Anderson the daughter of R.O. is married to Morgan Smith who is Jim Hopkins Smith' s son. R.O. Anderson was very instrumental in funding and getting the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies started. Governor Davis Waite 3 Historic Preservation Commission May 27, 1998 lived in the house and the title to the property was carried in his wife' s name. He also ran one of the six newspapers that were published in Aspen in the 1880's and 1890's the Union Era. He was oriented in having women vote and was Colorado's only Populist Governor. This building became a landmark, one of the first, in 1982 and it met the qualifications, not only for architectural but key figures have lived there; Herbert Bayer, Governor Waite and R.O. Anderson. To demolish a very historic part of a building without a complete plan is not doing what the preservation commission is established to do. The Commission has a very important position in Aspen, and it is difficult. Ms. Markalunas said it is very important that HPC protects the "Aspen treasures" because they are not being made any more. It will take 100 years for the houses currently being built to become historic. It is totally changing the character of Aspen to allow these buildings to be reconfigured, destroyed, demolished. Chairperson Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. Moyer relayed that there may have been something where the garage is but it has been changed so much over the years that it is a similar parallel to the Paepcke house. The real historic portion of the structure is the original house. Moyer said he is comfortable allowing demolition on a structure that was build in the 1970's. Moyer stated that he went through his records he found he painted the house in the 1970's when the remodel was done. He stated that he is comfortable allowing the demolition because an error was made by the City in that there was not a complete set of drawings submitted. Moyer said he would prefer to hold up on the setbacks and variances. Sanchez relayed his gratitude to Ramona in identifying individuals who have lived in the historic structure. He also asked what other elements of the garage/guest quarters she felt provided contribution to Aspen. Ms. Markalunas stated that the garage was turned into the caretaker unit and the caretaker still lives in Aspen. Most of the larger homes in Aspen had caretaker units. Sanchez said he wants to have all the information before making a decision to insure HPC is maintaining the character. 4 Historic Preservation Commission May 27, 1998 Ms. Dodington agrees she does not want to approve demolition of the 0 garage. Ms. Dodington opposes tearing down things that can still be used. Ms. Dodington said a neighbor commented the old garage was an eyesore. She does not consider any old buildings an eyesore. Ms. Dodington said this is an attractive addition to the property and she would rather see it be used as a garage as originally proposed. Jeffrey Halverty told the Commission he visited the site with the contractor, Gary Wheeler. Halferty said Gary is doing his very best to keep all the historic conditions such as the windows and siding; he has properly stored them in a dry, safe place. Halferty said he did an analysis of the foundation of the main house as well as the garage; walked into the crawl spaces and looked at the rafters and existing framing in the two structures. You could see the break to the attached breezeways etc, where the foundation becomes apparent it is less historic. The garage has 30 year old construction techniques. The framing, nail patterns, hangers are all of the 70's and 60's. There may have been something there but it has been significantly altered. Halverty commended Wheeler for his site organization in keeping with HPC concerns. Halverty stated that he could e vote for demolition. Halverty said he would like to see the elevations presented all at one time. Ms. Reid said she has concern about approving demolition without having something back in its place. Ms. Reid said in this case there is a close representation of what will be built. Lindeau stated the garage is not historic and they are virtually building it back in the same proportions with the same details. The two dormers will be added which shed snow from the garage doors. MOTION: Moyer moved to approve the demolition of the non-historic garage at 234 W. Francis with the following conditions: 1) A full set of drawings be submitted for the June 10th meeting which reflect the drawings that were submitted today. PIans to include a landscape plan. 2) Variances will be considered at the June 10th meeting; also final material selections will be reviewed. 5 Historic Preservation Commission May 27, 1998 0 MOTION: Roger also moved to continue conceptual and final and the public hearing until the June 10, 1998 meeting. Motion second by Jeffrey. All in favor, with the exception of... motion carried. Motion carried 5-2. Moyer said the applicants have to present to HPC a set of plans for the garage and breezeway in order to get approval to build the garage. Melanie Roscko stated that HPC approved an addition to the house; she has not favored the garage design and the connection. Ms. Roscko said if the garage is not historic, she would like to look at another design that would work better with the historic house. Ms. Reid said she opposes approving demolition when the Board does not have a reasonable expectation of what will be there. Lindeau said after they found out the original plan for the garage would not work, they like the proportion and materials and are rebuilding it to the same proportion and materials. The original drawings approved by the building department are the drawings at this meeting but they did not have a connector. The connector is added because of the building and fire codes. Moyer reminded the applicant when they come in for final approval, they need a landscaping plan, the fence needs to be discussed, as well as final materials. 0 6 Historic Preservation Commission June 10, 1998 0 234 W. Francis Julie Ann Woods, community development department, reminded the Commission they reviewed this at their last meeting and felt there was not adequate information on the elevations to take action. The Commission did recommend approval of demolition of the garage structure itself finding it was not historic. Ms. Woods noted City Council has 14 days in which to call up an HPC decision related to demolition. Council considered this Monday night and decided they were in agreement with the commission that the garage structure was not historic and did not call it up so the demolition of the garage can proceed. Ms. Woods said tonight's consideration has floor plans, elevations, information from staff. The applicant is requesting 3 variances; rear yard setback 2 feet from the existing alley. With the demolition of the structure, the new structure will be placed back and the extra space is needed for turning radius. The sideyard setback will be 0 from Second street, the same position the structure is now. The combined sideyard setback is requested at 2' 8". Ms. Woods said the applicant has a photo board of the 0 neighborhood, a sample board of materials. Staff recommends approval of the proposed garage subject to conditions. Scott Lindeau, Marty Pickett, Gary Wheeler were all sworn in. Lindeau reiterated Council confirmed approval of the demolition June 8th. Lindeau presented material, elevations, details of windows. Ms. Roschko asked why the city requires a closed connection between the garage and building. Lindeau said if buildings are closer than 5 feet, the concern is for fire safety. The reason for moving the building closer to the house is to allow enough room in the alley for turning radius. This structure is not a garage; it has been living quarters. Wheeler noted the 1970 building permit application states this is being remodeled from living quarters into a garage. Moyer asked how the fence is being taken care of. Lindeau said they are constructing the fence back to what is there now. EXHIBIT U 1 Historic Preservation Commission June 10, 1998 Ms. Reid opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Ms. Reid closed the public hearing. Heidi Friedland said the applicants have clarified her questions from the last meeting. Susan Dodington said she does not favor demolition and is concerned about the connection. Ms. Dodington asked if the glazing has been discussed. Lindeau said this is a 5 foot connector with a door and 2 sidelights; the door is all glass. Ms. Roschko said this project has gotten more and more massive; moving the garage closer, adding a solid element makes it seem there is nothing left on the lot. Ms. Roschko said she understands they are reconstructing what was there but she has a problem with the connector. Gilbert Sanchez said he finds the proposal acceptable and supports staff recommendation. Moyer agreed and asked if HPC is allowing the applicant to do anything they want with the fence or to reconstruct it as it. Ms. Friedland said she thought it was to be left as is. Ms. Woods said a person can request a fence permit at any time. Halferty agreed with the proposal. Halferty said he contractor has saved the original fence and is stored property as are the existing windows that HPC requested be saved. Halferty said he supports this. Moyer said he would like that all elements removed shall be restored and replaced from the same area from which they were removed. Moyer moved to approve conceptual and final plans for garage and breezeway connection, and setback variances for 234 West Frances subject to the following conditions: 1 2 3 2 Historic Preservation Commission January 27, 1999 0 Amy Guthrie, historic preservation officer, told the Commission a problem has arisen with 234 West Francis Street, the Mullen project, which HPC reviewed last fall and spring. Ms. Guthrie noted this house is on the corner of Second and Francis and is on the National Register of Historic Places. The original owner was Davis Waite, who was the Governor of Colorado. Herbert Bayer and R. O. Anderson also lived in the house. Until this time the house was basically unaltered. The applicants got approval to make minor modifications to the old house plus an addition to the rear. Ms. Guthrie told the Commission all the siding has been removed and replaced on the east side of the building; all the window trim has been removed and replaced; the porch has been rebuilt; the porch posts have been reconstructed; detailing does not match what existed originally; the original materials are not present. Ms. Guthrie presented Resolution #2, Series of 1998, with condition that no exterior materials on any part of the historic structure may be removed without the prior approval of HPC, excepting those areas approved for remodeling on October 8, 1998 (sic). Resolution #17, 1998, says all material representations made by the applicant shall be adhered to and shall 0 be considered conditions of approval; all elements removed shall be restored and replaced from the same area from which they were removed from. Minutes of May 13, 1998, sworn in Gary Wheeler who is the contractor and is present at this meeting. The minutes state that Gary informed the Commission that the fence, doors, etc. are being stored and will be replaced after the project is completed. The windows are boxed up and covered with plywood and are being stored in Basalt. The red siding and posts are also being stored. The building permit application is labeled on the historic structure, existing structure repair and refurbish all defective siding trim and structure as needed. Neither repair nor refurbish means replace. Ms. Guthrie said this fall Susan Dodington, monitor for the project, informed her the siding had been removed from the house, which was not approved. Ms. Guthrie told HPC she went to the site and spoke to Gary, who informed her they needed to wrap the building with Tyvek to improve its insulation qualities and that all the siding was being replaced. Ms. Guthrie said they discussed this on site. Ms. Guthrie said she was shown an area where the siding had been replaced; she told the contractor it was being done well and left with EXHIBIT 1 Historic Preservation Commission January 27, 1999 the understanding that the rest of it was going back on. Ms. Guthrie said there has been tremendous damage to the integrity of the building. Ms. Guthrie told Council work has been stopped on this building as of Monday morning. David Hoefer (assistant city attorney) and Ms. Guthrie met with Scott and Gary on Monday. They were given some assignment to complete; one is they were to inventory exactly what was removed and tell the city where it is and to provide the city with before and after photographs. Scott (?) said he was asked to make an inventory and a list of the things that have changed on the property. The wood siding, and there are before and after photographs. David Hoefer told the Commission he asked... to address the reasons this was done. It should have been done with approval. The city also wants to know what call be done to correct the situation. X told the commission on the siding what transpired was at the removal of the sheet rock on the interior of the building, the workers saw water stains coming from the siding side into the inside of the building and staining the inside of the wood as well as the flooring areas. In order to raise the building to put a foundation under it, they removed the lower 3 or 4 feet of the siding so they would not have to cut through it. At that point, they discovered the structural planking underneath not only was water stained, it also had gaps anywhere from 1/2 inch to 3/4 inch between the boards. It was evident that water was getting on that and going through the cracks into the interior of the building. The back of the siding was also water stained. At that point, it was decided to Tyvek or house wrap to weather proof the building. They started on the lower section and replaced the siding as they could. X said most of the damaged siding is on the lower portion around the building from the snow depth or the more water at the base of the building. X said he has samples of the siding for HPC to look at. X said as they started Tyveking the home, they found the siding was deteriorating to the point where it wasn't a cosmetic deterioration. It was rotting, splitting the wood. X said he also brought samples of this deterioration. The samples are the better of what was there. X told the HPC for the house to be weatherproof, being the moisture kept on the siding and to the outside of the home, is the reason he took the siding off. 2 Historic Preservation Commission January 27, 1999 Roger Moyer asked if Ms. Guthrie was consulted before the siding was removed. Ms. Guthrie said she was not. Moyer asked if there was an understanding between Ms. Guthrie and the contractor that before anything like this was done, he would talk to Ms. Guthrie or the monitor; was there anything written. Ms. Guthrie said the drawings for the building permit set are clearly labeled that there will just be repair of existing siding. Ms. Guthrie said the contractor is not normally present at meetings, but in the case Gary was present at several meetings, heard every conversation about how important all of this is, was sworn in and gave testimony that he understood it. Susan Dodington said she had a personal conversation with Gary who stood up and said he understood how important this was and that he would do everything he could do and promised the HPC he would bring the structure right back to where it was. Person asked where is the siding that has been taken off. X said what is left, less 150 square feet, is on the building at this time. Person said on the east side of the building the siding is all removed; where is it. X said that siding is gone; it is not stored. HPC members asked if he did not understand this was not to be thrown away. Susan said people do not throw parts of historic buildings away. Moyer asked to see the siding. Â· Ms. Guthrie told HPC once the siding was removed from the building and what Gary felt could be salvaged was put on the west and south sides, not in its original location but was used to side was the contractor felt were the public side of the building. Gary showed examples of the better siding; the rest is on the structure. Christie Kienast asked where the siding originally taken off by Bailey's is. Gary said it was stored under the plastic and is not back on the house. Moyer said the siding that was determined solely by Gary to be unfit, without talking to a monitor or to city staff, is no longer around. Gilbert Sanchez asked if Gary determined a post of be usable or not. Wheeler said structurally he determined it not to be usable. This post was from the little porch on the west side. Moyer said some of the samples are funky. There is a product called Albatron, a liquid and a paste. One pours the liquid into the post, it solidifies the wood. Then one can put the past in 3 IIistoric Preservation Commission January 27, 1999 and sand it. Moyer said none of the samples are really rotted. Moyer said the same thing can be done with siding. Moyer said the siding dries out and dissolves but it is easy to bring it back. Where the siding is cracked, one uses screws rather than nails, apply Albatron or caulking. Mary Hirsch said the contractor has been through all the HPC meetings, heard the members comments, Wheeler was sworn in, Scott was sworn in. The Commission members were upset how the project came through, a little bit here, a little bit there. HPC members discussed the importance of the house, it is on the National Registry. Ms. Hirsch asked what was the thinking that made the contractor feel he could make the decision to destroy something is irreplaceable. This house will never be the same again. Wheeler said in his opinion the post needs more than filling with epoxy. Ms. Hirsch asked if Wheeler talked to Scott about this. Wheeler said he did not. Ms. Hirsch asked if Wheeler talked to the Mullins about this. Wheeler said he did and it was fine with them. Mr. Mullins said he did not want the old rotten siding put back on his house. Ms. Hirsch said this is a corner lot that had a historic house on it. Ms. Dodington asked if Wheeler was aware he has to ask Amy and the HPC's permission to do these things. Wheeler said he was told that there would be two monitors but he was never given any telephone number or names and that was it. Ms. Dodington said Amy is available all the time; this is her job. Wheeler said he does not feel he was properly informed what a monitor's job is to do. Suzannah Reid said regardless of a monitor, the resolution clearly states he has to consult staff and monitor. Ms. Guthrie said this argument has been used before that it's the monitor's fault because they didn't see it happening. Ms. Guthrie said monitors cannot be on the site all the time. Susan Dodington said she has been ill and has not been by the site since early January. Ms. Guthrie said it is the applicant's responsibility; HPC cannot be on the site every moment. It is not their fault because they did not see this why it was in progress. Ms. Reid said HPC has to figure out what to do. Heidi Friedland said people are buying sites as real estate and not because they love the historic 4 Historic Preservation Commission January 27, 1999 building on it. Ms. Friedland said what is telling in this meeting is the owner' s statement that he did not want the rotten, old siding back on his house. Ms. Friedland said this should not be seen as rotten, old siding. These owners are making a beautiful home; they are not renovating a historic house. The owners first course does not seem to be to preserve the house. Ms. Friedland said this is a horrible situation and she is not sure what the HPC can do about this. Ms. Reid said it was very clear in all the discussions; the HPC has no control over why people buy properties. Ms. Guthrie said the HPC cannot go any further than was put into this project. The HPC has never had such explicit discussions; the contractor is not usually present; the owners were present. Ms. Guthrie said there happens to be an interesting piece of sworn testimony in the record from a long time family friend of the owners, "There were a lot of places the owner could have bought but they chose this house." Ms. Guthrie said their representation to HPC was they appreciated it and understood it and the HPC cannot go any further than that with anybody. Ms. Hirsch said HPC followed their procedures, the applicants were sworn in. Ms. Hirsch said she had a long discussion with Scott after the second meeting, and they worked hard to try and get a relationship on an evenÂ· plane. Moyer asked if Scott was hired to supervise the project. Scott said he has a limited service agreement with the Mullins. He is not really doing CA; their daughter is doing all the interior. Scott said if Gary calls him, he goes to the site. Scott said in the last few weeks he has not been at the site very much. Scott said on the monitor issue, is it during construction anytime there is a question are they to be calling Amy or the monitor. Ms. Reid said Amy should always be called. Scott said if the contractor come into a situation, which could be on a daily basis, Ms. Reid said Amy is to be called. Scott asked what the role of the monitor is. Ms. Reid said Amy calls the monitors and gets together with them. Ms. Guthrie said monitors try to keep an eye on what is going on at construction sites; however, monitors are not there to enforce, they are to observe the project. Ms. Dodington said she drives by this project and her big concern was when she saw the siding come off and she told Ms. Guthrie right away and it was discussed right away. The monitor goes by a project as much as 5 Historic Preservation Commission January 27. 1999 they can and notices if they think something is wrong and then calls Ms. 0 Guthrie. Roger Moyer asked when the siding coming off was discussing at an HPC meeting, did not the contractor state the siding was being saved. Ms. Dodington answered yes. Moyer said the Commission expressed that the siding was being saved; it was not to be disposed of along with the windows, etc., and it was disposed of. Ms. Guthrie said the siding was removed, it was pointed out to her by the monitor, Ms. Dodington, Ms. Guthrie went to the site and discussed it, Mrs. Mullen was present and she was told it was all going back on. Moyer said the two issues are how to correct as much as possible the damage that has been done and what are the penalties. Moyer said the penalties should be pretty severe. Moyer said he drove by the house; the main view plane of the house is the corner, which is the west wall and the ~ front. The siding is on the lower west wall, there is a little alcove with some new siding. The first question is there any existing siding that can replace the new siding in the upper second story alcove. Wheeler said yes. 0 Moyer said that new can come off and existing siding can go back up. Wheeler said that is the 150 square feet. Moyer said the trim boards around the windows and corner boards have been replaced; are the originals available so they can go back on. Wheeler said no they are not. Moyer said on the front of the house all siding seems to be intact. The trim boards and corner boards are missing and there is nothing to replace those. Moyer said it appears that the type of trim that is put up is not the exact replica of what was there. Moyer said that has to be reproduced exactly to what was existing. Moyer asked if this can happen. Wheeler answered yes., Moyer said the east side of the house is not terribly visible, so do they have to put on old siding or live with what is there. Moyer said he can live with that, it is acceptable to him. Ms. Dodington asked how much siding is left that can be used. Wheeler said the amount above the front door is all that is left. Moyer asked if the post has been replaced and other like it. Wheeler said he has two posts, one which has a metal bracket holding it together. These two posts could 0 be put on the porch. Ms. Guthrie said the front porch posts have been 6 Historic Preservation Commission January 27, 1999 hacked off in two places with two pieces replaced. Ms. Guthrie asked if the contractor has the sections that were removed. Wheeler said he does not. Ms. Reid said it makes sense for the commission to go to the site and go through piece by piece. Hoefer agreed that is what has to be done. An inventory has to be done. Moyer said the person who will reconstruct this material has to show the HPC that they have the skills to do this work. Ms. Dodington asked if the contractor still had the windows. Ms. Guthrie said the windows sash are the only thing that is present the way it was supposed to be. Ms. Dodington asked about the west bay window. Wheeler said the upper window was broken. Ms. Dodington said Wheeler told the monitors (Dodington and Jeffrey Halverty) he would save that window personally; that it was protected. Wheeler said he has the front window, which is the south window, and is the old wavy glass on top and bottom. The west one is broken but he was a circa 1900 wavy glass on order; it has the small seeds and the dimples. Ms. Guthrie asked about the fence. wheeler said the fence is stored on site and is protect. Ms. Guthrie said the problem is that no one has the items that are to be replicated. Ali of the window trim is gone. The porch has been rebuilt; it does not match the photographs. Ms. Guthrie asked if the contractors have any components of the porch. Wheeler said he had one at this meeting. Ms. Guthrie said HPC can scheduled a site visit but the contractor needs to prepare a plan to replicate exactly what was existing, whether they have photographs to generate measurements from or not. Ms. Friedland asked if the concept of having an architect stay on site until the project is finished would have helped. Ms. Guthrie said Wheeler was present at the meetings, and this was his responsibility. Sanchez said the contractor is responsible for what happens on the site, they have overview of the site. Ms. Hirsch said she has spoken to former HPC members and to P & Z members and all think this is serious, that this very important house which was on the registry has been compromised. It is time for HPC to really take a stand. The HPC did their job and the applicants did not. Moyer said the HPC members all volunteer; the members have lived in Aspen a 7 Historic Preservation Commission January 27, 1999 long time and love the community, they love the historic Victorians and have provided the most information. Moyer said he is disappointed with what happened. Scott said he is not doing CA on this project. Wheeler asked how adhering to energy codes relate to a historic structure. Ms. Guthrie said historic buildings are exempt from the energy code. Wheeler said there is old material in a project like this that should be tossed and who decides that. The answer is HPC does. Moyer said literally no material has to be tossed. Moyer said it can all be saved; it isn't easy or cheap. It is difficult to take old siding off a house. The end result is when the old siding is put back on, there is a historic resource with the patina of the ages that everybody loves. Ms. Dodington continued this hearing to noon on January 29, 1999 at 234 West Francis; seconded by Ms. Friedland. All in favor, motion carried. Moyer said he would like to see contractor education, historic preservation license that is part of the building license, more information to the builder from HPC, and enforcement. 0 0 8 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, TEMPORARY RELOCATION, AND APPEAL OF "RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS" FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED AT 234 WEST FRANCIS STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 1, SERIES OF 1998 WHEREAS, the applicants, Don and Gwen Mullins, represented by Studio B Architects, have requested minor development, partial demolition, temporary relocation, and appeal of "Residential Design Standards" approval for the property located at 234 W. Francis Street. The property is a designated historic landmark; and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and WHEREAS, all applications for partial demolition of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay district, must meet all of the Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.020(C) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1.Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel; and EXHIBIT Cil /0 2.Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a.Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. b.Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure; and WHEREAS, all applications for temporary relocation of any structure included in the Inventory ofHistoric Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay district, must meet all of the following Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.020(D),(3), and (4) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 3.Standard: The structure has been demonstrated to be capable ofwithstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation; and 4.Standard: A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be ~ prepared in advance of the physical relocation; and WHEREAS, all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.58.040 must meet one of the following statements in order for the Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception, namely the proposal must: a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff reports dated October 8, 1997, December 10, 1997, and January 28,1998, recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meetings of October 8, 1997, December 10,1997, and Januag 28, 1998, the Historic Preservation Commission considered and approved the applications with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That minor development, partial demolition, temporary relocation, and appeal of "Residential Design Standards" for the property at 234 W. Francis Street, Aspen, Colorado, as represented to the HPC on October 8, 1997, December 10,1997, and January 28, 1998, be approved as follows, and with the following conditions: Historic house: 1. A new double hung window which matches the existing windows may be added on the east wall of the historic house. 2. Two lightwells are approved on the east side of the historic house; none on the west side. 3. A skylight may be installed on the east side of the roof o f the historic house. 4. An octagonal addition for a kitchen may be made on the northeast corner of the historic house. The windows in the new kitchen addition will be as presented to HPC on January 28,1998. A skylight may be set into the peak ofthe kitchen roof. The roofing and siding are to match the historic house. 0 5. The existing dormer on the north side of the house may be altered, however the applicant must revise the proposal for the dormer so that the north wall of the dormer aligns with the building wall below, for approval by staff and monitor. New siding and roofing materials are to match existing. 6. The existing roof on the one story lean-to addition at the back of the historic house may be altered, provided that the applicant produces more research into the original slope of the roof, for approval by staff and monitor. Any alterations to the entry porch on the west side of the addition that are needed must be submitted for approval by staff and monitor. 7.. The breezeway connector between the historic house and garage may be removed. 8. The applicant will salvage the original stone from the foundation of the house and reuse it or, if this is not possible, use matching stone to recreate the foundation to match the original condition. 9. No exterior materials on any part ofthe historic structures (house and "carriage house") may be removed without the prior approval of HPC, excepting those areas that were approved for remodeling on October 8,1998. 0 10. No changes are approved for any windows on the historic house. If the applicant 0 wishes to add exterior screens or storm windows in the future, they must be reviewed and approved by HPC. 11. The wood shingled roof may be replaced to match the existing roof. Garage: 12. The non-historic structure located on the alley may be converted into a garage, including new doors on the alley, new dormers with double hung windows on the north and south sides o f the building, removal o f doors and replacement of windows on the west and south, and an addition for a staircase on the east side of the garage. Carriage house: 13. The applicant is to restudy the proposal to modify entry porches on the south and west of the carriage house and east side of the historic house, so that the porches have a flat or slightly pitched roof, for approval by staff and monitor. 14. A closet addition is approved for the north side of the carriage house. The pair of double hung windows in this location may be shifted to the west. A vent may be added on the west side ofthe closet addition. 15. The trellis on the west side ofthe carriage house may be removed. Temporary relocation: 16. A letter of credit, escrow agreement, orbond inthe amount of $30,000 is to be provided prior to building permit to ensure the safe relocation of the building back onto the new foundation. 17. The applicant must provide a site plan showing how and where the building will be stored during the temporary relocation. Construction fencing or other barricades must be placed around the historic house to protect it during the temporary relocation. 18. A report from a licensed engineer or housemover must be submitted prior to relocation showing how the structure will be braced and protected to withstand moving. 19. All window sash in the historic house will be removed and stored safely during construction, so that there is no damage to them. All window and door openings into the house will be covered with plywood until the house is set onto the new foundation and the original window sash re-installed. n APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the J faay of JAâ€ž 1998. V HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION , Chairma~~ ATTEST: *) 1 0 1 el- /,1 /j CC/~Â·Allt./ k )/ -..<7- Chief Dep46 Clerk RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT RELATING TO A GARAGE AND BREEZEWAY, AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED AT 234 WEST FRANCIS STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. ( 7, SERIES OF 1998 WHEREAS, the applicants, Don and Gwen Mullins, represented by Studio B Architects, have requested significant development approval to demolish and reconstruct an existing garage, to add a breezeway, and receive variances for the property located at 234 W. Francis Street. The property is a designated historic landmark; and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a"H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and WHEREAS, Julie Ann Woods, in her staff reports dated May 13, May 25, and June 10, 1998, recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meetings of May 13, May 25, and June 10, 1998, the Historic Preservation Commission considered and approved the application by a vote of 5-2 with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: EXHIBIT [-1 1 )1 That significant development approval to demolish and reconstruct an existing garage, to 0 add a breezeway, and receive variances for the property located at 234 W. Francis Street as represented to the HPC on May 13, May 25, and June 10, 1998, be approved with the following conditions: 1. The garage will be constructed with the materials indicated and location set forth on the drawings submitted, dated Received, May 29,1998 in the Community Development Department. 2. The proposed garage shall be granted the following variances: The rear yard setback shall be established at 2', thereby granting an 8' variance; the sideyard setback along 2nd Ave. shall be 0', thereby granting a 12 " variance. 3. All conditions ofthe Oct. 8,1997, December 10, 1997, and January 28, 1998 approvals must be met. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions o approval, unless otherwise amended by a decision-making body having the authority to do so. 5. All elements removed shall be restored and replaced from the same area from which they were moved. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the /5 day 0 of~k.â€ž1998. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Chairmin 1 V ATTEST: #14:=Â«az.a~_.c~ Chief Deputftlerk 0 Waite / Mullins House 234 West Francis St. Site survey of historic materials, 1/29/1999 West Side 1. All historic window trim and sills have been replaced with new, new details added, no original materials exist. 2. Three vent penetrations were made through the historic walls. 3. Historic porch materials, posts and roof structure, have been removed. Posts are in storage, otherwise materials have been destroyed. West historic door is in storage. 4. New copper guides in historic double hung windows. 5. Large pane of historic glass was broken, at large double hung. 6. All historic siding, comer boards and fascia trim on the one story section have been destroyed. 7. Areas of historic siding, on the main house, were relocated to this area from original locations, corner boards have been replaced. 8. Pre existing porch "floor" materials were demolished, materials which have been represented to be installed were never approved. North Side 9. All historic siding and corner boards have been removed. 10. All new window trim, new details added, none of the historic materials exist. 11. New copper guides in historic double hung windows. East Side 12. All historic siding has been removed and replaced with new siding and comer boards. 13. All new window trim, new details added, no original materials remain. 14. An existing historic window, just north of the doorway, has been replaced with a new one, the historic window still exists and is in storage. 15. Two vent penetrations have been made through the historic wall, with large trim details. 16. New copper guides in historic double hung windows. South Side 17. Historic siding has been relocated from other areas to this fagade. Siding in the area above the entry roof has been removed. New window trim in this area. 18. All new window sills and trim, with additional details, have been installed, none of the historic materials exist. 19. Entry porch fascia, soffit, and expressed structure have all been reconstructed, new materials do not match the historic materials in size or profile. New materials continue along one story element at entry. One piece of historic crown molding still exists, in storage. Historic roof framing is apparently intact below the new construction. 20. Entry columns have been altered at the base and at the top with materials which do not replicate the original posts. While portions of the posts remain, the historic integrity has been destroyed. New boards behind the "pilasters" adjacent to the door are new. Scroll work from entry still exists and is in storage. 21. New door trim, with more elaborate detail, has been added, historic trim materials were destroyed. Historic door and transom are in storage. 22. All historic siding in the area above the entry porch roof has been removed and partially replaced with new. 23. Pre existing porch "floor" materials were demolished, materials which have been represented to be installed were never approved. 24. Areas of comer boards are new. EXHIBIT I 14 Waite/Mullins House 234 West Francis Sl. Site survey of historic materials, 1/29/1999 West Side m All historic window trim and sills have been replaced with new, new details added, no original materials exist. a Three vent penetrations were made through the historic walls. â€¢ Historic porch materials, posts and roof structure, have been removed. Posts are in storage, otherwie materials have been destroyed. West historic door is in storage. â€¢ New copper guides in historic double hung windows. â€¢ Large pane of historic glass was broken, at large double hung. â€¢ All historic siding, comer boards and fascia trim on the one story section have been destroyed. â€¢ Areas of historic siding on the main house, were relocated to this area from original locations, comer boards have been replaced. â€¢ Pre existing porch "floor" materials were demolished, materials which have been represented to be installed were never approved. North Side â€¢ All historic siding and corner boards have been removed. â€¢ All new window trim, new details added. none of the historic materials exist. â€¢ New copper guides in historic double hung windows. East Side m All historic siding has been removed and replaced with new siding and comer boards. â€¢ All new window trim, new details added, no original materials remain. â€¢ An existing historic window, iust north oi the doorway, has been replaced with a new one, the historic window still exists and is in storage. â€¢ Two vent penetrations have been made through the historic wall, with large trim details. â€¢ New copper guides in historic double hung windows. South Side â€¢ Historic siding has been relocated from other areas to this fa,ade. Siding in the area above the entry roof has been removed. New window trim in this area. â€¢ All new window sills and trim, with additional details, have been installed, none of the historic materials exist. e Entry porch bscia, soffit, and expressed structure have ail been reconstructed, new materials do not match the historic materials in size or profile. New materials continue along one story element at entry. One piece of historic crown molding still exists, in storage. Historic roof framing is apparently intact below the new construction. â€¢ Entry columns have been altered at the base and at the top with materials which do not replicate the original posts. While portions of the posts remain, the historic integrity has been destroyed. New boards behind the "pilasters" adjacent to the door are new. Scroll work from entry still exists and is in storage. â€¢ New door trim, with more elaborate detail, has been added, historic trim materials were destroyed. Historic door and transom are in storage. â€¢ All historic siding in the area above the entry porch roof has been removed and partially replaced with new. â€¢ Pre existing porch "floor" materials were demolished, materials which have been represented to be installed were never approved. â€¢ Areas of comer boards are new. EXHIBIT E--1 I4 BRUCE HELM ~UILDERS, INC. 8 - February 10,1999 Charles Brandt 420 E. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 Don Mullin's Home DearCharles Brandt: I want to take this opportunity toclarify anymisconceptions thatmay standregarding lile replacement of aiding and window trim on the Multin's home. After removing the siding much of it was found to be unsound. It was riddled with dry rot water damage, and splits. Great care was taken to reuse the existing material as much as possible, to the extent that pieces were pieced and spliced together. The unsound materials were then disposed of as unusable. The windows of the house have weight and pulley systems, Which had to be restored to working order. The window trim was 1bund to be inthesame condition as the siding, and while some material could be salvaged, some could not be used. It was unsound. Sincerely, *UUL L 4- Bruce E. Helm, Pres. Bruce Helm Builders, Inc. lih cc: Gary Wheeler EXHIBIT r-1 1 20. . Box 495 â€¢ Basalt â€¢ Colorado â€¢ 81621 â€¢ 963-9540 res':74&94-* .-1.- 1 .1 * 1 23-1 1994 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE / 4 1994 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE + 4 .Nt ' 0 ly 1.* PIN KNOT, not over 1/2 inch (13 mm) in diame- from burrowing of larvae in the growing tissue of HEAVY STAIN, difference in cok ten the tree. 2- 9 nounced as practically to obscure tl 4 ,* the wood. SMALL KNOT, over 1/2 inch (13 mm),but not R 4 ~il: over 3/4 inch (19 mm) in diameter. RAISED GRAIN, roughened condition of the sun . 0 LIGHT STAIN, slight difference in o C p face of dressed lumber in which the hard summer- will not materially impair the appear: piece if given a natural finish. wood js raised above the softer springwood, but PECK, channeled or pitted areas or pockets as not torn loose from it. :.4 MEDIUM STAIN, pronounced diff sometimes found in c,dar and cypress. color which, although it does not ot A PITCH, accumulation of resin in the wood cells in A grain of the wood, is customarily obji SAPWOOD, outer layers of growth in a tree, ex- in a natural but not in a painted finis a more or less irregular patch. clusiveof bark, which contain living elements; usu- SUMMERWOOD, denser fibrous outer HEAVY PITCH, very evident presence of pitch ally lighter in color than heartwood. A each annual ring, usually without coi showing by its color and consistency. SAW BUTTED, trimmed by a saw on both ends, pores, forrned !*in.the growing perioc LIGHT PITCH, lightly evident presence of pitch. SEASONING, evaporation or extraction of mois- ture from green or partially dried wood. U )1 MASSED PITCH, clearly defined accumula- SIDE CUT, where the pith is not enclosed within / i ( UNSOUND, decayed tion of solid pitch in a body by itself. L the four sides of the piece. 9 'r V- MEDIUM PITCH, trace of pitch slightly more SLOPE OF GRAIN, cross grain or deviation of the Â·d J Â¥Aa'AI'QALINS**ING, a deviation fro evident than light pitch. fiber from a line parallel to the sides of the piece, 4 2 of cut. Slight variation is not over 1/16 inc and may consist of diagonal grain, spiral grain, or ff i 1-inch (1.6 mm scant in 25 mrn) lumber, PITCH POCKET, an opening between growth .4 0 2-inch (3.2 mm in 51 mm), 3/16 inch in 3 both. rings which usually contains or has contained res- 7 inches (4.8 mm in 76 to 178 mm), and in or bark, or both. MEDIUM CROSS GRAIN, slope of grain rnore 9% f 8-inch (6.4 mm in 203 mm) and up. than 1 inch (25 mm) in a length of 15 inches Â·513 CLOSED PITCH POCKET, does not show an (203 mm), but not more than 1 inch (25 mm) in *1. :Â· W opening on both sides of the piece. a length of 8 inches (203 mrn). %2 WANE, this isbark or lack of wood from : LARGE PITCH POCKET, width or length ex- SLIGHT CROSS GRAIN, slope of grain not 34 T on the edge or comer of a piece. ceeds the maximum permissible for medium r I.'/ pitch pocket. more than 1 inch (25 mm) in a length of 15 MEDIUM WANE, over 14 inch (6.4 inches (381 mm). not over 1/2 inch (13 mm) wide on th MEDIUM PITCH POCKET, not over 1/8 inch STEEP CROSS GRAIN, slope of grain more rltr on which it appears, for one sixth of 1 and one fourth of the thickness of th~ (3.2 mm) in width and not over 8 inches (203 than 1 inch (25 mm) in a length of 8 inches (203 46 mm) in length; or not over 3/8 inch (9.5 mm) in 9*.7 C mm). : I.' C 1 width and notover4 inches (102 mm) in length. LARGE WANE, over 1/2 inch (13 mrT the surface on which it appears, or STRAIGHT GRAIN, slope of grain limited to 134 OPEN (THROUGH) PITCH POCKET, is cut 1 inch (25 mrn) each 20 inches (508 mm) of 262 across on both sides of the piece. length. 497 SMALL PITCH POCKET, not over 1 /8 inch (3.2 SMOKE-DRIED, seasoned by exposure to the 5* 9 mm) in width and not over 4 inches (102 mm) heatandsmokeoffiremaintainedbeneathorwith- %fit in length, or not over 1/4 inch (6.4 mm) in width in the stacks of lumber. and not over 2 inches (51 mm) in length. /24Â« t~ SOFTWOOD, one of the group of trees which %50 F VERY SMALL PITCH POCKET, not over 1/8 have needle-like or scale-like leaves. The term 44 inch (3.2 mm) in width and not over 2 inches has no specific reference to the softness of the j>; (51 mm) in length. wood. PITCH SEAM, shake or check filled with pitch. c>OUND,fmeofdecay. /43 9 t. PITH, small soft core in the structural center of a SPIRAL GRAIN, fibers that extend spirally about P:.1Â£4 -: log- instead of vertically along the bole of a tree. ./4, 2 BOXED PITH, where the pith is within the four SPRINGWOOD, more or less open and porous 332, faces of an end of a piece. tissue marking the inner part of each annual ring, REF I. formed early in the period of growth. r Â·ft PITH FLEX, narrow streak resembling pith on --t the surface of a piece, usually brownish, up to sev- STAIN, discoloration on or in lumber otherthan its /2 1 eral inches (1 inch = 25.4 mm) in length, resulting natural color. 4Â»2 9 4.tin 1.1 3-700 4. r : 4 -19 '14 N. .'..2.1....C f 9 ..Id:'.,I - ~Â·2Â· f?.Â·:-/.Cm).'..r.h~,2...i{42 &â€¢--2â‚¬â€¢,~n.*-.#A+ ". g Mt*24Aw~ (10â‚¬697â‚¬ts 'tiJC[/ enCUMÂ¢- 4: 520 soulful â€¢ spade soulÂ·ful \'sol-f@1\ adi :full of or expressing deep feeling eral direction between south and west 2 lei; i point midway between south and west 3 - soulÂ·fulÂ·ly adv isound \'saÂ£md\ adi 1 : not diseased or sickly 2 : free or countries southwest of a specified or ,; t. i, -~ from flaw or defect 3 : FIRM, STRONG 4 : free from error - southwest adior adv - southÂ·west.ei 4 4g; or fallacy : RIGHT 5 : LEGAL, VALID 6 : THOROUGH 7 - southÂ·westÂ·ern \- 'wes-torn\ adi 34..'' Vp : UNDISTURBED <- Sleep> 8 : showing good judgment - souÂ·veÂ·nir \iSO-vo-'nir\n [F] : something s 96 f.:iÂ· I soundâ€¢ly adv - soundÂ·ness n minder 2.ound nl:the sensation of hearing; also : mechanical sou'Â·westÂ·er \saft-'wes-tor\n:a long w: energy transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves worn in storms at sea; also : a waterprc (sound waves) (as in air) that is the stimulus to hearing 1sovierÂ·eign \'sa-vron, -ve-ren\ nl: one I -1.k . i - 69:-41 ..; Â¥,All 2 : something heard : NOISE, TONE; also : hearing dis- supreme power and authority in a state : 4../. $*r'*' tance : EARSHOT 3:a musical style - soundÂ·less adi - of the United Kingdom 4Â·Â·..96 soundâ€¢lessâ€¢ly adv - soundâ€¢proof \-.pruf \ aclj or vb overeign adj l : EXCELLENT, FINE 2 : sup 3sound vb 1 : to make or cause to make a sound 2 : to or authority 3 : CHIEF, HIGHEST 4 : havin order or proclaim by a sound <- the alarm> 3 : to con- authority 3. U .2 5.:, vey a certain impression : SEEM 4 :to examine the con- dition of by causing to give out sounds - soundÂ·able sovÂ·erÂ·eignÂ·ty \-te\ n, pl -ties 1 : suprem power 2 : power to govern without exte \' saun-de-bel\ adi : the supreme political power in a state 4sound n: a long passage of water wider Than a strait of- soÂ·viÂ·et \'so-ve-iet, 'sti-, -ot\ nl:an el 4-84. ten connecting two larger bodies of water <Puget -> mental council in a Communist country *04.:.41 ssound vb 1 :to measure the depth of (water) esp. by a weighted line dropped from the surface : FATHOM 2 people and esp. the leaders of the U.S. : PROBE 3 : to dive down suddenly <the hooked fish adi, often cap - soÂ·viÂ·etÂ·ize vb, often, 34!... lsOW V sail\n : an adult female swine -ed> - soundÂ·in* n soundÂ·er \:saun-der\ n : one that sounds; esp : a device 2sow \'sa\ vb sowed; sown \'sOn\ or sowed: for making soundings plant seed esp. by scattering 2: to strew, 19):-i 1 soundÂ·stage \'safind-,stai\ n : the part of a motion- scatter abroad - sowÂ·er \'st-or\ n picture studio in which a production is filmed sow bug \'sail-\ n : WOOD LOUSE 4.Â· ': I soup \'sup\ n l : a liquid food with stock as its base and sox pl of SOCK 16/09, often containing pieces of solid food 2 : something hav- soy \'s6i\ n:a sauce made from soybean 'k. - J :'Ut: -Â£-4.':i i ing the consistency of soup 3 : an unfortunate predic- brine ament <in the -> soyÂ·bean \'sdi-,bdn\ n :an Asian legume '"-'*?i; i soupÂ·,on \sop-'son\ n [F, lit., suspicion] : a little bit for forage and for its edible seeds that y ALK I : ITRACE 2 oil (soybean oil); also : its seed soup up vb: to increase the power of sp abbr 1 special 2 species 3 specimen 4 s 43% i soupy \IsO-pe\ ad/ soupÂ·iÂ·er; -est 1 : having the consis- Sp abbr Spain .*flf:.1: ~ Â·Â· tency of soup 2 : densely foggy or cloudy SP abbr 1 shore patrol; shore patrolman isour \' saur\ adi 1 : having an acid or tart taste <- as vin- 3 specialist Â·:: i# ,1 ti - I egar> 2 : SPOILED, PUTRID <a - odor> 3 : UNPLEASANT, spa\'spa\ n [Spa, watering place in Belgit DISAGREEABLE <- disposition> - sourÂ·ish adi - sour- with mineral springs 2:a health and fitnâ‚¬ 0 iÂ·T ly adv - sourâ€¢ness n hot tub with a whirlpool device 2sour vb : to become or make sour ispace \'spas\nl:a period of time 2:so Source \'SOrs\ nl: ORIGIN, BEGINNING 2:a supplier of surable distance, area, or volume 3 : thi information 3 : the beginning of a stream of water in which all things exist and move 4:a isouse \'sails\ vb soused; sousÂ·ing 1 : PICKLE 2 : to plunge 5 : the region beyond the earth's atmosI *74. into a liquid 3 : DRENCH 4 : to make drunk inite place (as a seat on a train or ship) 2souse nl: something (as pigs' feet) steeped in pickle 2 2space vb spaced; spacÂ·ing:to place at int : a soaking in liquid 3 : DRUNKARD er n e.j,filt.. isouth \'sauth\ adv :to or toward the south; also : into space-age \'spas-,Ai\ adi : of or relating a state of decline space exploration 2South aofi 1 : situated toward or at the south 2 : coming spaceÂ·craft \-.kraft\ n:a vehicle for tra 1.'* .0.â€¢,1 fronn the south earth's atmosphere *. 9 i i .4.-4. :{Ill,1. 3south n 1:the direction to the right of one facing east space.flight \-.flit\ n: flight beyond the 2 : the compass point directly opposite to north 3 cap sphere Â·e y'* t ~-i'.; Â· ' : regions or countries south of a specified or implied space heater n:a usu. portable device fo point; esp : the southeastern part of the U.S. - south- atively small area erÂ·ly \Iso-ther-18\ adi or adv - southÂ·ern \'se-thorn\ spaceÂ·man \'spls-iman, -mon\ n : one w SouthÂ·ernÂ·er n - southÂ·ernÂ·most \-,most\ adi side the earth's atmosphere adj - â€¢Â·25Â·:Â· I ..tÂ· , - southÂ·ward \Isauth-word\ adv or adi - south- spaceÂ·ship \-iship\ n:a vehicle used for wards \-wordz\adv space shuttle n:a reusable spacecraft def South African n: a native or inhabitant of the Republic port people and cargo between earth a of South Africa - South African adi , space station n:a large artificial satelli south.east \sail-'thEst, naut sail-'3st\ nl: the general di- base (as for scientific observation) rection between south and east 2: the compass point space suit n:a suit equipped to make lif 1 A.- Ap .44:, fnr itq weâ€¢Arer J41%?Â· eÂ· . a.,ik. - STUDIO B architects 9 February 1999 Charles Brandt, Attorney US Bank Building 420 East Main Street Suite 204 Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 234 West Francis Street Dear Charles, As the projects' architect, I have been asked to provide my professional opinions and observations in regards to the above mentioned project. I have resided in Aspen as a practicing architect since 1985 and established my firm, Studio B Architects in the Fall of 1990. I have been licensed in the State of Colorado since 1991. During the last several years, I have directed several projects in the West End of Aspen governed by the HPC approval process. These included 229 West Hallam, the Pinnington Residence, 939 East Cooper Street, the Hatem Residence, 303 Gillespie Street, the Horsey Residence, and finally my previous studio located at 303 1/2 East Main Street Two of these projects were equivalent in scope as the Mullins Project and were of the same architectural era. Both the Pinnington House and the Horsey Residence, completed in 1996, involved substantial exterior renovations and additions. New roofs were added to both, exterior siding removed and replaced, new windows, completely new structural systems, copper gutters and downspouts, etc. During both of these projects, I did not experience any of the difficulties we are having on the Mullins Residence. I cannot answer the procedural question as to why the contractor, Gary Wheeler, did not contact the HPC staff in regards to the issues at hand or as to why he discarded the exterior siding and trim. I can only assume that his methods and procedures utilized on the completed historic carriage house were in his judgment, sound and proven. He believed his track record was working and since the exterior in question had been in progress for several weeks prior to the Red Tag, he assumed he was within the guidelines. I have discussed at length with Gary, the remedial 'Plan of Attack' in order to put things right. We have provided numerous exterior photographs depicting the project prior to construction and during construction at various stages. From these, he will be able to reconstruct the front porch entry, it's cornice and trim details, and the column details. Unfortunately, the old rotted siding, window trim, and corner boards have been discarded. However, they have been replaced with dimensionally correct material with the same detailing. r-mimr, |1 _22Â«__ | 555 n. mill st. aspen co 81611 970Â·920Â·9428 fax 970Â·920+7822 .. Great lengths were taken on Gary's behalf to restore the historic windows in order to have them once again operate. 1hey were painted shut and many of them had broken pulley systems. In order to remove them, the window trim had to be removed, and once replaced to their original locations, required weather-stripping and flashing to prevent moisture problems and air infiltration. One of the great difficulties faced in the renovation of these historic projects is the fine line between bringing a building up to current building standards and how these methodologies can be in direct conflict with the historic structure. Examples are energy efficiency, insulation, mechanical systems, plumbing and electrical codes, structural design, egress requirements, etc. In my opinion, the architectural character has not been significantly altered or lost. When this project is completed with both a new landscape and exterior color scheme, this project shall again live up to its expectations and be representative of its architectural period. What seems to be at question here aside from the procedural issues, is who has lived here in regards to its historic importance as opposed to being an exemplary example of an architectural style. I know that Gary Wheeler and the Mullins acted in the best interest of the community and the project itself, and by no means acted in a cavalier attitude in regards to the significance of this house or in its restoration. There was never any attempt to mislead the city or the HI'C committee intentionally. I also know that Gary Wheeler and the Mullins will make every effort to correct the situation and that Gary has the crew and ability to restore the areas in question to the level the HPC will require. Please call me with any additional information that you should require. Best Regards, 44*Â«A Scott A. Lindenau, Architect. 00/~g.,1 =c= 1 -0-C 5152569111 ECWA SECURIT- LCADM: PAGE 01 0 I . Hisicrical Preservation Commission February i 1999 Aspen. Colorado I Frahk S. Waite would like to submiI the fotle#ing comments and proposal for your consideranon in the matter of the Mullin project at 234 W. Francis St First i have to thank the HPÂ¢ for their dedication I,ith the goal of Presening the original architectural characrer of .Aspen. In addition 1 would like to 5ay thank you to Mr. Don Mullins for saving the home from further decay. and the contractor. MI. Gary Wheeler for his hard work and artention to detail in Preserving and Restonng the estate. It appears that some questions have arisen regarding the disposal and replacement of original materials to the extener of the home The problem lies in the definitions of Presen-ation v. Restoration Ill order to Preserve. it is often necessary to Restore. the original character and design of the original. I did have a chance to make an appraisal ofthe estate while on the market in 1997. and an inspection of the PreservatiorbRestoration process in 1998. It was my personal obsÂ¢nation then and now that certain items would have to be replaced because of decay and neglect. In Ihe histonc Sherman Hills District in my community, this same problem has occured from time to time. and is 0 due in pan to interpretation of the rules pertaining to Preservation and Restoration. Local i5sues may arise from another standpoint of compliance of local building codes that pertain to safety. For example. do we preserve a rotten porch with epoxy and hope that someone does not fall into it. or do we replace it with like materials and original architectural design ? In the matter of the siding material. during projects such as this. one can discover more decay as more removal is performed Do we attempt to Present siding material that is rotten and ,+grped and hope that it lasts for a couplÂ¢ of bears. or replace part of it with replicated material ? These am the type of Tests and Standards that need to be incorporated into this project and filture projects in Aspen. As a member of the Aspen Historical Society, I 1,*ould like to see more projects of this nature take place in the conimuniry. 1 belie;'e in order for that to happen. we need io encourage. not discourage potential investors in the matter of Preser.-ationi Restoration. Mr. Mullins has made a great investment in the infrastructure of Aspens funtre. and hope that more people like him Bill come tbrth and save Aspens hIStory I support the work. and etTorts of Mr. Mullins and Mr Wheeler for their dedication to bjstory and Preservation. After reviewing the Standards for Rehabilication for Histonc Buildings 1.e The Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines. believe the owner and contractor have followed the rules. The rules do allow for replacement of decayed matenal if necessaoÂ·, with the intent to replace not improve the overall appearance. I believe the contractor acted in Good Faith ,#irh his intentions in the Retitoration Process. and errors due in part to interpretation of niles and mis-communication with HPC officials. I respectfully pray that this matter will be resolved in a manner that will not disrupt the resroration project at 234 W. Francis Street. I am confident that that the HPC will adjudicate this matter with fairness and understanding. A compromise that uill ensure the orginal character and design of these magnificent homes. will not be altered. 0 Respecrilly. EXHIBIT Frank S. Waite 800 S E Hackley- Ave. Des Moines. la 30315 Joel Sax 303 W. Francis St. Aspen, CO 81611 February 10, 1999 Ms. Suzanne Reid Chairman Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Gwen & Don Mullins Home - 234 West Francis St. Dear Suzanne: I would like to address several items with the members ofAspen's Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) regarding the home of Gwen and Don Mullins. My interest in writing this letter is two-fold. I live across the street at 303 West Francis, and have had the opportunity to develop a friendship with the Mullins, and learn more about their historic home. More importantly, I am supportive ofthe historic preservation efforts in Aspen, and am very concerned that the Mullins have been singled out by the HPC and press as "uncaring part-time residents." This could not be further from the truth. My fear is that they will not be granted the opportunity to resolve their situation in a fair and reasonable manner. For the record, the Mullins are not uncaring part-time residents from Texas. The Mullins were part of the original investors who developed Snowmass in the 1960's. They have also had a home in Pitkin County for many years. Over the years, I have observed a variety of restoration and preservation efforts throughout the Aspen area. One of the distinguishing factors that sets Aspen apart from other mountain resort communities are our historic buildings. Most o f us are proud of the historic building that dot the landscape, and would like to see these buildings maintained and occupied into the next century, and beyond. I appreciate the efforts of the HPC volunteers to oversee the HPC program. As appointed representatives, you dedicate countless hours of your time to the city's historic preservation program. I personally felt that the HPC was treated unfairly by the press and the community in regards to the Paepcke home. There were many unwarranted accusations made by uninformed people, with emotions running high. It was frustrating that people did not take the time to read the relevant ordinances and meeting minutes, or view the model of the new home. Several HPC members.were criticized in a negative and hurtful manner. As a result, I thought that the HPC members would be more sensitive towards individuals (the Mullins) when they discussed current projects with the 0 press. While these residential projects are different in many aspects, there are similarities in terms of the "character" attacks leveled at the owners. I am troubled that several HPC members made negative public comments regarding the Mullin's project (and their integrity), when they should have reserved judgement until the appropriate information was made available to them. Shouldn't appointed committee members, representative of the city, set a higher standard? Isn't it time that people in this community set aside their destructive verbal volley's, and withhold comments until they have had the opportunity to review all of the project's factual information. Renovating an historic home is a time consuming and very expensive venture, one that is not taken lightly by the Mullins. I have watched the historic renovation of this home over the past year, and believe that the historic integrity of the home has been preserved. There may be some specific items that need replaced or corrected, but suspending the building permit for this home accomplishes nothing. Isn't it one ofthe community's goals to ensure that historic homes are lived in by the owners, and visually enjoyed by the community? It is inconceivable to me and the many residents I have personally spoken to that the HPC would further delay this project because of a serious breakdown in communication. I feel the HPC is sending a negative message to future individuals interested in renovating and restoring historic buildings by making an "example" of the Mullins. 0 Rather than making it so difficult and painful for the homeowners, why not set up a comprehensive process where the various parties involved (e.g. contractors, architects, owners, HPC monitors, staff) know exactly what their responsibilities are, and are educated in the technical areas of historic renovation. The HPC should take a leadership role in developing a useful, educational and practical process, instead of everyone searching for "someone to blame." While most of us appreciate the final product, we do not always understand the nuances of historic preservation, and the specific techniques needed to successfully complete a project. The focus should be on educating those individuals directly involved in the renovation of historic buildings, and setting up better communication channels. One of the goals should be a better process that works for all parties involved, and the elimination of the finger pointing and hurtful accusations that impact everyone. We do not have a perfect world, and it is my view that the HPC may be overreacting. The consensus of opinion is that the benefits of completing this project far out-way the revocation of the building permit. The benefits of completing this project include an improved attractive site, increased tax revenues, and the preservation ofAspen's history. What possible benefit could be gained by not allowing this project to be completed? I strongly urge you to carefully weigh the interests of the homeowner and the community before you make a decision. You have the opport:unity to work with the homeowners to 0 2 complete this historic project in a way that works for everyone. I hope that you will move forward in a open-minded way, with a balanced view of the project. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 9 9% Joel Sax CC: Historic Preservation Committee members Stephen Kanipe, ChiefBuilding Official Amy Gutherie, HPC Officer Amy Margerum, City Manager Julie Ann Woods, City Development Management Director 3 02/88/1999 1/:5/ 9/09281129 M HIRSCH VAGE 83 . Dzc08Â·'99 14:16 Cl 3113 623 15118 VT}if> - 1!PRI I 121"(11 MOIJNTAINS/PLAINS OFFICE NATIONAL TRUST *HiSTOUC PREEKVX'rION February 8,1999 The Honorable John Bennett Mayor, City of Aspen 130 South Cialenl Street Aspen, Colorado 31611 Dear Mayor Bennett I am writing to express my extreme disappointment that the original porch, trim, and stding of the historic Waite Housc have been lost as a result of a poorly executed rehabilitation project it 15 my understanding that the Waite House is not only an important element of the West End Historic District, but that it is also individuall, significant as the home of a former Govunor and prominent Aspei newspaper publisher and attorney. When we met last August to review Aspen-s Pistoric preservation program, the group spent a considerable amount of time debating thc value of saving real, authentic buildings Bom Aspen's past as oppojed to recreating them. Most people have no difficultly understanding that an antique chair as greater value than a reproduction chair. The same is 1rue with architecture An authentic house with original matenals han historic value as a unique, one-of-a kind structure. Prservation is about saving real places. Probably the most universally accepted guide..ines for historic preservation in this country are the Secretary of the interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Two of these standards address this issue. Skudwd Five states that, "dislinctive moterials. features. jinishes and Construction techniques or uumples oid era#smanship thot characterize a properly will be preserved StandaId 6 saw, "delerieraled historic features wili be repaired rather than repkiced" Unfortunately. work at thc Waite House igno. ed both of these standards. While it may be too late to save original mate:rialii at the Waite House, it is not too late to make the public statement that Aspen treasures its ilistonc buildings and will enforce existing preservation laâ€¢*s to protect them. Towards that end. I would like to congratulate the City Planning Office and the Aspen Historic Presâ‚¬:rvation Commission for upholding the city preservation ordinance and stopping work on tile Wtlite house while you search for a remedy to this unfortunate situation. If che National Trust can provide any assistance to You as you work through the process. do ilot hesitate to can crl,:. Sincerely. DateACk le Barbara H. Pahi, Director Protedin&,p the Irrepjaceable Mountains/Plains Office Â¥ 970 1671â€¢ SÂ·r,4*r Â· Svt-124 1100 - DENVEK, CO 8091,0 303.693 1906 â€¢ rAX. 31,1 623.1008 Â· WW,Â¥.NATIONALTRUST ORG 3 er: Ing co, rs. .'ir. Es. 4Â·17. JO & Wy EXHIBIT 1 26* 9 -t.Â·142 JAU'14lr[Fil, 0,1 111.Â·-ilÂ·. _. -==EL U.Â£/ Ud, 1 1:325 12:32 9/092101129 tri MikbUH rauL 04 02208/99 JOX 18:27 FAI 212 873 4082 NTHP PRESIDENT S OFFICE 2 0 0 2 NATIONAL TRUST 16. HISTORIC PRESERvATION RIC:HARo MOE PRES,PEN-r February 8,1999 Ms. Mary H. Hirsch Aspen Historic Preservation Commi3aigner 1590 Silver King Drive Aspen, CO *:.61 1 Dear Ms. Hirsch: Thanks so much for your letter and articles regarding the urgent preservation issue$ that are emerging in Aspen. Its distressing to see that a town with the historic character and tradition of Aspen is los izg some ofits most significari buildings. Ive heard of the dcvelopmcnt pres5urcs and I can believe that they are mounting. We are eager to be of whatever help we can and I'm asking Barb Paill the director of our Mountain/Phins Office in Denver, to contact you to see how we can be most effeclive You wil] be hearing from her very shortly and as soon as the two of Mou agree on a:Rrategy. I will sign on. We'rn eager to belp. Thanks for all that you are doing to preserve that wonderful town. Warmest regards. Since,rely, f i I j. - 4 Richard Moc RM:bb Protecting the Ir'*lortabl. 1713 -MASSACHC,ETTE AVENcEÂ·, NWÂ· WASHINCTON DC 10935 202.680.6108â€¢ FAXÂ· 202.508 1082Â· WWW NATIONALTRUSTÂ·025 EXHIBIT 1 ate h; i jil 1 177' -DIE*- 02/ Uy/ 19'95 11:54 3709281123 M Hlkbuti PAGE 02 FROM : UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA PHONE NO. : 706 542 4885 Feb. 09 1999 01: 06PM PS 0 'L 12 t-J . NATIONAL ALLIANCE ef PRESERVATION COMMISSIONS P.O. BOX 1605 ATHENS, GEORGIA 30603 February 8,1999 To Whom It May Concern: T Arn wrifinG tki* 126*er on beh.lf ef 11. 14*tiv..41 Alli.u ;Le i,f PrtÂ·:,iriÂ·,trlon Commissions {NAPC>-a nationwide non-profit organization that assists local premervation commissions in their coirmunity efforts--concerning the Davi,; Waite house debacte. A wiwerned citizen brought this issue to our attention and 1 wanted to let the Aspen commumty know that we, as an organization, strongly endorse the position of the Asperl, Historic Preservation Commission and the preservation laws that they enforce. It is absolutely essential for any thriving community to respect and cherish their historic resources and to make sure that others. especially part-time residents, understand this and are fullv cognizar,t of the re~ulatory laws that are in place for preservation purposes. You must not stand for the continuation of property owneâ„¢ claiming total ignorance aboul the sensitivity and standards of 0 rehabilitation work on Aspen's priceless historic resources. As an organization we strongly recommend the retention of at least one full-time staffperson for historic preservation (c immissions; if this was the case in Aspen the difficult monitoring issues that the commission are having could be ameliorated. The fact that the contrador for the Waite house project was able to get that far along in his insensitive rehabilitation work is an indication that full- Llute Al.fr 18 1.*de,-1 lu buvl.'le.uâ€¢#ail lt., dullig vi the voluitlect uâ€¢Uuilidullele>. We advise +e city to use this unfortur.ate event as a platform from which to re- evaluate the efficacy of Aspen's historc preservation policies. Don't let this happen again, be,ause it could start a trend if it han't already. Good luck. Sincerely, Pratt Cassity rmmii-~ 1 51 7- 0 RECT,1/7- 7 FEB 0 3 1999 ASPE,4 1 e! 1,<iN Melanie Roschko Call' 'U~"" i DEVELE-"-':- .'I. ,~11 1 , 0257 Eastwood Road Aspen, CO 81611 February 1, 1999 Aspen City Council Aspen City Attorney Historic Preservation Commission 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 To All Concerned; I was extremely upset to hear about the damage to the Waite house. Upset, but not surprised. The outcome was destined from the start of this project. At that time, I was a member of the Historic Preservation Commission. Mr. And Mrs. Mullins, Scott Lindenau and Gary Wheeler had little knowledge or understanding ofhistoric preservation, not did they appear to care. That is now blatantly obvious. Unfortunately this type ofproblem has occurred before. HPC has urged the City Council and City Attorney to put in place legislation to deal with such abuses; preservation education for owners, prospective buyers, real estate sales persons, contractors and architects; and special licensing for contractors dealing with historic properties. Stiffpenalties will not replace this historic resource, but they must be made extremely damaging to the pocket books ofall involved. There have to be economic deterrents to prevent future problems on new projects. Perhaps public service, jail time and public embarrassment will work. Replication of damaged resources is not preservation. ! I urge you to inflict the strongest penalties available on all parties involved. They knew what they were doing! Sincerely, Melanie Roschko EXHIBIT FEB 09 '99 05:07PM TOWN OF TELLURIDE P. 1/2 ~DE_ Box 397 Telluride, CO 81435 (9703 728 -307 [ 01181" FAX (970) 728 -3078 BY FAX TO (970) 920-5439 February 9,1999 The Honorable John Benner Mayor, City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mayor Bet]netl I was extremely disappointed te learn that most ofthe historic materials and fisatures of the historic Waite IIouse have been lost, despite the best efforts of the Aspen .Historic Preservation Commission to ensure the preservati.on oftbe National Register-listed property. As the IÂ·Â·listoric Preservation Planner for Telluride, I understand al.1 toe, well the pressures your preservation commission faces. and why the work they do is critical io the community. From time to time here in Telluride, it has been suggested by some that Telluride should no longer be aNational Historic Landmark District, because itis not "convenient" However, preservation is not arnatter of convenience forindividuals. Hintoric preservation is a stewardship, a promise that we will protect those places from the past whicharc importmnt, for thebenefit offuture generations, Preservation of our histek resources is what creates community identity and ensures livability. In the posts we have had surprisingly few cases of blatant disregard for nur preservation regulations. perhaps because in all eases we have prosecuted the properly owners tothc fzdlest extent possible, 49 well as sought remedies whenever feasible. However, enor Commission is constantly asked to allow the removal of himotic materlak from buildings, and to even demolish the building and build a replica. Because consistency of action is c.rucial for continued effectiveness, our Commission has stood firm, refusj ug *to grant any such Tequests, eveR though the applicant for Â©ach proposal believes that th:: conditions oftheirproperly is uniqu.e, with no possible comparison to (ither historic buildings. In fdct, what is usually described as rotten or beyond repair is simply in need (,f a little care, repair, and maintenance. Unfortunately, some owners and builders urc reluctant to spend some extra time and energy to restore the existing meterial, and insteaâ‚¬ take the most convenicm approach, resulting in the impal=nent of hiGtoric integrily. At the recent Colorado Preservation, Inc. conference in Denver, Lieutenant Governor Toe Rogers related how his parents instilled inhim a respect for the past# saying. "Nevn: forget where you came from to get where you're going." In rapidly changing places such EXHIBIT EF-1 FEB El'9 ' 99 05: 08PM TOWN CF TELLURIDE P. 2/2 0 as Aspen, an understanding ofthe past is critical to preserve community. '[his was reaffirmed this past August at your Historic Preservation Symposium. For your preservation commission to remain credible in the eyes ofthe community. it is essential to enforce all regulations and conditions of approval. Additionally, the ful j political Support ofthc City Council is needed. Otherwise, the Commision wil! become powerless. If you give up even one historic building, your ability to protect eli other buildings will be compromised. I urge you to support tbe Historic Preservation Commission though en-forcement of your Land Use Code and preservation laws, as wei ! as seek a remedy to this unfortunate loss ofahistoric building that is important not,):ily :o Aspen, but the citizens of Colorado. Sincerely, *N-* t-J V' 'Pj 4........./ Kaye Simonson Historic Preservation Planner 0 . c522}o hol 1 ~ +Jft Mul Lal /8 f U.) A -1-5 -*ME 9 Hou) CE-ASE- U-g 40*61*w44* -49 8 2~ 5 4 42~42*24 I . -4Â» 4Â¢qâ‚¬-Â©/45*. 342 LA/0u-i, 4,/LEEi-ee CO_Â«41 *cd eAU 2*6 9#Â£-24 *Unt,7 6 9 -DaÂ»J _121- *ew=f fr~ot'- blibt.6 *10*6L ~444M.-_ AL O *ec, 4,1*4+VEL _- FU,tut/Jl LL.0Â£ Ate< ~u--0*SLL-/ Iu~ AR~1~~A-3 #4454.- alt IA-U,- 9-7Â«V 2 (l n ,>LL-a.<-*-UU C./14 - 1 IIA>lal /31Â£.Â£L-~-0*-LS--~ te.-12- -OU*2- fLS-m 44 ' 54*1 jj g RE 431 lo I Yl q 9 ' ~2- *2Â£~-2 9'U 0-1 6Â¥=U-Q +Â» 0-1~-n ", ce-" /Utit 0(-Ulf Y ~,~-oLeJ-wL li.+AL 4~- -DeÂ»al .{2*-et s ....0,-Jazo,-c ent 152.-66&_ rÂ»- r-@Â»L..crl 11.20 ---- -1-ul-LU --1-A- ,-&,v-utyn- â‚¬44*f SU~1,1 13>1>2 (j 2.2-0 Lk,Â£- Ar. - a--U- 1174 VQ-6 ..... 11Â©94 - l (24-~ql-yt-2.4,-el URAU-4. 02*L |4~8JUJUIke:, ....0 &,P 8-td-- *uP de_2 p* Mbo Â»A.7 *-c,14%*4 A'Juu. GA-eQUP C-t429- *--4-2 14 . 12061> 1726 - Star Loork em(-er: 1*,4 AkÂ» IlkuQQ-J ~0~n,-d-- UL adm.Q..4*.~ Flu.,674.L.+,AL q- â€¢4- V I dU-Â© . 6,4 0 LL-AU \49U-09. 4. beÂ£,=2 of- 0&%5*5 46Â£10176 -d Â£& 127 /0 <91uu_* uju.e + Xk/%648- 115.12 7 PHS& 946~ Q)" SAZAD t. puju Dawd 1*4 +~a 4-'- LVAL*45-ke-# -21[ 'IULLA.. "--, Z&-0'u-4 -773 Dt 1~97~~_-~ Kkizz:U 1 ~-14-/93 >KNEÂ«-ffl~Â£fe-l ~/l-â‚¬-~~ --1-44-Pe - ,/ ALL- Â«-2Â»A-1 *pu-Ujt-- - Â«2.Â»Â»g - Cluu.._R~ Jk-.6--Lk.9-Q-J Witiflz -1-96 :;-Ef - Q-01,~ . #/ 5-7-D~/t C.,7 jtaw=Z-CA'VU-GL=-) LL-2 - 1 2-~ 2-Â·~9 4 - -y-FLULaÂ« -Spiaf,se<9# 6+-62*L-,124- A b -,u@.+UZ.- ~-J Ck t 5?84.29*Ta-2212b - /720Â£06 iÂ£91=. - AU~+ JUW ,/C#+FtlAÂ»1- Atelk. e*fpt,\3 UFL/J~~ i%31~2tz< 1 64Â£. ~0-U,4-6/ ~~d,u-k&0 913 Â«.C) +20!U*dÂ»-n #E~-,4 1363 Vidit- /] * +91 Ce /4 fr)aDM - /Luyb<~ Lklf.LA i 444.~~~~Â»0,60 0-AA~@R, 0* afe-002.0 >10"J# 30Â·U Â»#-Â¢22.- -Wt=ZErtgferÂ« nmE 'Â»R Â» Uke 45~~tOtt) ~Â»â‚¬rrr~ ox Ggirr,~EL lf-tÂ£Ierv*61*11 ry.3-577 38{n -vul -28 0 Â¢ , "7'i<*LLE 329 6,8 trEETe #Al-rff ~y~~n i~_*r-FO- 1 ~-r*~_ 4â„¢lerÂ«%494 37-Â»9-1/ 91â‚¬* f-)472 C-/ C-~r 70 7 19602 Qg619) 9,24#223 =141 999 91-4-9 -11~*i79 n #eo,w c>~to,-4 V u-844-0 1 3322&-0Mppd~ c_-0~7~-ZF'--~m ~ L>p-0 -$*imt& L/â‚¬40,16--2221/~7 14-2/3>932 04=*0967 9-ev, *PJA ctw~ suâ€ž~ 6--L-LAU" ~ ./LE--+aâ‚¬ Â°3 6Â«-4-24.1-12-8 l./ AXE-0 M,4- 11,14 -452- 3-fl/95 601/(F/92*99--/0â€ž 4-2126& 71.-2-9Â«-dnA,- C:Aue ky 2Â«-/ tixeil k, 6-<A Â»_100 A . /+U<U-Â«a-- Al\-9-AÂ»64 i Efc.1/60*14-2-2/ a-#up )6&44 + 9 -,a:3&41 VUL epinil#~~~29-I-~dlv~~slbi<Nul JAJ -- 91Â£0*GAA-2.-Â©. fmwatathut Â»42.Â·P-/7Â£Â«~fÂ«* Aus#-- LK~Â·0~ + All,t~v~uÂ·iL l99 8 -&Â£0*W#8 A~A . *'51 . A RJUUÂ»*<L .uy\--. c-i-u~ 7]43 Â·*Pe_ 1,22~f-F~~UL.4 - 61&497 atfulk 2-EÂ« - ~l_Â» 0-n C#-rx-,0,Â·-4-Â»,U-D-CL< 9*t=-Amattl v,1%Â£*%-142 wte 1.a - (:3-4'00-4 - Nt-t,LA----A-LA_/{ 0-~_. JE NA Â·* iAli~3T~, Lente-, 2->1Â£61~ SJoyÂ».0 C 24 i e-. C 74-z-- 24*Â»Ls #etÂ«--- 44*ULAME riÂ»Â» 10 ED:!g /999 9.f- 'r,'1p)114,166/ 1"71/1 -P-906.fE 1-g#In V}30 *f --314Â£:> '-32C2PrrrrF 9 d \1 '-va l, , fr, 4*fu- 224 9%44%o u~7 ru'7-939 ~7-1771*,0 _~~ _9~ -14 0-eo-Â·~~~ fIC=31 V. --7-22 -1- ~Â»604 1/Li<408 IEL m--v wL yr-9 90,4 Ar-O 1 7-0<1/0/vi JE-"Â© -9-1#Â»41 I 7-74EM# fi-446 wdi (4 -poÂ·AN' 722 re-r*-W Â·-r-~.r-9rp *V -UV bÂ«Â»Â«UirD rg?34 44â€ž09 -Q~ \*v_1**49, 6Â»6'*4 l Fl ' ~Â«0 06&6 43 eDÂ«#69 1 15.Qw-L-4.- - Wt-A~~*4.*- 3*Utt--9- --199 Wl*~10#ka - 4jA* (56 '-~-- - W61~~0 722'34 " o>-44 *46' dilU,<* VuQ-4- &_t~Ul~Qelle.j clu-ckn 444fidu -ok.W -9 060'LP o--- L.*PÂ« c .WA.t-,CC311 -.2_.(D gi.4.AÂ· -116/\-Â¤-<*-~,+727-CED (Lâ€žÂ«Itot 1 U>00<:, u:ti-u, C.-cP L..u 2 0-t, 5â€žJa-<) 4.-4Â£4 FeafT r--2-<bÂ». 014/1-2Q rÂ©ffÂ» 49.2 Kibl - gblu-ef~uA*2Â£~=-eu....c- 9-47&*~f 01*U-Q- _ 4--- 44#LiD-u db NuwfL. ~4-~aa.2-2,/114J-L-,DEU-1. f.3 kga Cadeel-, 1 â‚¬ Upt,~1Â«0- 1~414- 5-2- dQ~ 56 rao *-2- 611- MAÂ».1 -0- 9-692'15 , cptÂ»Â» 6,-dUA LAu-8*.44 Â»,U-,DOD IAW) $*G-1,624- W-6 , -,~0~-I*LU-a ,Â£LCEILLU-- 16 ~Â»46/K 2221'**+R_ fat-A-ZE *ck- (NALea Al.QJUED PCOA --' 1-fam +AUUW +43~Â«LU) *02/2.0* 371 021,2.4.AÂ£B,co#-Ajzi-zs~ , U V.A 40*ZC,iD*f0EtÂ» *ANilkfU'~Cf 2,~L.2~1 00-024 4 *44 ~%219dca~~gf-. 1 44 Â« (249. rf PiY JÂ·z-M /8Â«4 0.44 'fwyn L-~ fuu16-f 229dattliturtof>122- (2_~-9- (-u~ eÂ£AAA_Q_40 -Sub ll-9.aF--3-uk, *U-L--2=21 n397511_â‚¬f-/l-4*-â‚¬a<-Â£-~691 9,4%24 u.)-aso c.5-Â£-21 -~- A-Rt~tal-10 +1Â·JÂ£-11 VL,g~O teo unma 1242& ,A ~~LLAAA 6 9-0 81:6}- 0*->+h-â€¢*--1Â£,4D_ 6.19-j 4:th.UUA..40. 71-0 2 Q-4 >Uu 01.,Â»Â»X CLE:r~ Mul- lÂ£711 x_Pe--pf--9-4- l0,jEWG-OjÂ©â‚¬-~ ~A A A,h, 1-UO (1*122,0 2-0-*toÂ¢*-/ 6412-,Lt PLQ-u/- 9%-14Â«- w-ce 44 &4444 - CDÂ«CAEL IA- I) UU-<5Â£311 *10.--- p:*trjJcE- RF1(1 )654 ?J-0Â¤Â« LLUit kiu) (*â‚¬*6 0--awedl L,0-2- 4 2-29 \MQ,A+9Â» 9,04 ./WUP- *Ek- -1/9 2Â£.-6*u Â»eÂ»*2-4 *-11, Flw /U-Ada 6"4 0 - IRA 4- /'PY#J WVAL*tj--- *1./UP CLÂ£04>yLee,r)- 5Â£,)1(-4 M~u,#b - t..~0â‚¬~t 0134_44- AP {> bi *#5-6/-30 + Ald. ALLO l.4-RLALD. (3oZL~_QAAÂ£2-9â€¢19 0<126-0 - Ldi~ 4-9 hiLAA-~+*-1-Q_, UAAALÂ·~UEE-' 9-91,0 gLAL-- _ 61-* m K.,2- &-A "Â£uic ika>u -At . 3 5+2 - 4-8 i *4xat p~1._~A â€žt ejUâ‚¬g- - /9//1Â£61/2 t~td.gli pdÂ·dlel/ 022=eÂ·- 0 . W,UN- 68.uQ-92-4&' .,40Â»Q,LI A.2.Ati-/4/3277*%..9*..w..7-, 9.0.- O'-&0-MÂ»- 44-pkuL- C0Â«Q-Q 4940.ro_ iÂ£*28= 02*Kr teef-9rn (,U-PÂ«j---Â»U/~1~Al- 3â‚¬9Â«kt /v**4010Â§ 4--- A"QU-,di .46*lu t~LA_Q_~-0 ~Â¥Â«c,+ 896*6 45Â£?. .Q~di~ 03-~Li</IA_426 ges blt/A *di,0 04-4/ ttle 06 30-,~a_' Old)1) 0Â»v er r A:U h\, /UUOU Uud) u/l>J-4*5*a /NÂ»r - 02.fa,c22 490141 (3,5~k 0461 -/ljl,/IA~u~~i i_A-9- t]24111- Q 9~&45*n Nyt-k ADIC) ** 2 0-4 *wg L 5,1 & / 1Â»215&Â» -2- AQ 0513'JAL 449+ 9 9('~2Â« 413-+ gk'9-- -0. '3â‚¬. CeÂ«Â£,0 6-+Uo /leÂ»U RAa#&12 atta (EL--IL 8- OWL 112-~ 1%95*4 e-91-= L~LA~ &51'11 p-~~,-Â£---c~ ca-niA 1.0)UNI;R- 1<.rrcaJV~ . 2', li SuÂ»,A-.0~lu-n ... - 9-Fm . -to Sk~1- Buc,t)- rtÂ»to -..... 6*~LN_D Aku-_ C-c-J ou#Â«ufÂ· b 41Â»uk) ca-*44194 z.0 Fue.w-,Ct, u-WkÂ·al,-i Â»4Â»0~4/ Mg-,~ duALL 1%,ju ~~gza301 4*94 . 00~ Â»421. t.a-4-49 44* -~t~-1 u..,4 0,0-2 Â»} - 7,4-23--9-64 AA~y*. 1311- C.8-al-:EX:zÂ» kie=P+D ZI 2,:44--AbQ- -ilit Â£-MICE_~i,-0~~~CuP stâ€ž~~- Lc~ '- 1+ Lplx Â»1Â£-42-1 'AA=Lf A,40 -0-- l l.22 199 +4*'C- L.~-6t QU-1--1 (9... Spw ~LU~.2Chu-aL_ 0-â‚¬k-,-2-glsk... C,0-*N 174- PLa -Â£0Xu-ai~ PÂ·IIL_=4 M-4*-~,Â«_Q 26Â»*- Q'-1- frfc--Â£ 900,- 2,9.- 1hk,-,ul---o 11Â£u- Ueltk-> 0 ; 4 27 --VIA A t_ per- 441 6+416/+Li/1 AF 2 Â»-Ittle.1940 9 11(96%, C- O/3.~9~144670 J G21_ LOV&bil Rk&Mid' 5*'1-24-Â£ 9~ /-71.-/ 40_a_a-w-n_~Id- L G DId- Q-FUAt GL.<A- -CwtarrY/---20:Â«784Â«J.=Vi~ =Sl*UCL 1 4~gwet, 35Â«-d~luP - * BA z. Stto) 4-ad-,6 -y 41.v>40 h &. -n - 1/46-L~-8-4 92,,11 Jbt-Lk %1ul,EL AU-"*. 4*Â»14 j Â»Â·n, 61*E- A.JUR,--9 CL.*1 9-0.016~XUh *Â«8+ *A M.-k9Â» ' s Of<%4641 Ur&-9 9.typqgy 0.40 *-u *LitEZ-0 Lay<-41 6#L-~i -- AtÂ»AD-,tijc _~.Ua- Oka AÂ»-D -Qf#*Ll 01--1*.Z-jb-L.~-0,~ I. juNÂ£124 SLLYL-%0 1 +1~1 /k+LÂ¥11 8_P 41f.C ,#+11- 0-â‚¬2=3' 4 87Â»1 - 1>08 -79 2*rD 0-4 8844*0 - 0/L,62.-Eft -2.:A.~Â£49- 10 ,Â£) 1 0-4u*:,/,0 .-.k'.0 .ile;0'1:Ii:d Â·+ a.,-~u, 43..0.02/61 1> CAL,31*al/' 94-,/ P"' 0,=-12.- 0.-,AÂ« uÂ»l AA"-1 *-enÂ».tt 0-1 4 FlÂ»2u-#Â»pil~ - .h--#-A /Nzzf 14,-Ezi **11 kg-*121.4 ,414-1.I4L.55$~rET~Irrir42;1;iffi:&211t-~/*rj./1.)., via~2-6-444 di.AU-~. Ck.ul- 0444; h-2.-12=Â» --*-' -O- /1 - ?P A-0- U U - lb,A.M-~*-44.Â£~i-K k~K l-91Â» |b-4 - pout \gtnA /1009:0--ta tle.2-ko- 4 Vile- i Â»0-jIÂ» 4 GoÂ«.tu.uUL.Â·- 62.- cle 29 1<_, h_, 1,LÂ®CQ- ObouL,66=-- ~ue-ow,+2-9 \3) e-~Ci,QU#44 d~-tÂ»LE-pML(QidBA~ + *2~-NGLU it,4-Ud tfÂ£k &~* OUÂ»leD 4>23Â· ~lyua,-,i~je_ a . LE)Â£2.ch_> ~6-Â£40 A Cb-a.e_ n Waite / Mullins House 234 West Francis St. Site survey of historic materials, 1/29/1999 West Side 1. All historic window trim and sills have been replaced with new, new details added, no original materials exist. 2. Three vent penetrations were made through the historic walls. 3. Historic porch materials, posts and roof structure, have been removed. Posts are in storage, otherwise materials have been destroyed. West historic door is in storage. 4. New copper guides in historic double hung windows. 5. Large pane of historic glass was broken, at large double hung. 6. All historic siding, corner boards and fascia trim on the one story section have been destroyed. 7. Areas of historic siding, on the main house, were relocated to this area from original locations, corner boards have been replaced. 8. Pre existing porch "floor" materials were demolished, materials which have been represented to be installed were never approved. North Side 9. All historic siding and corner boards have been removed. 10. All new window trim, new details added, none of the historic materials exist. 11. New copper guides in historic double hung windows. East Side 12. All historic siding has been removed and replaced with new siding and corner boards. 13. All new window trim, new details added, no original materials remain. 14. An existing historic window, just north of the doorway, has been replaced with a new one, the historic window still exists and is in storage. 15. Two vent penetrations have been made through the historic wall, with large trim details. 16. New copper guides in historic double hung windows. South Side 17. Historic siding has been relocated from other areas to this fagade. Siding in the area above the entry roof has been removed. New window trim in this area. 18. All new window sills and trim, with additional details, have been installed, none of the historic materials exist. 19. Entry porch fascia, soffit, and expressed structure have all been reconstructed, new materials do not match the historic materials in size or profile. New materials continue along one story element at entry. One piece of historic crown molding still exists, in storage. Historic roof framing is apparently intact below the new construction. 20. Entry columns have been altered at the base and at the top with materials which do not replicate the original posts. While portions of the posts remain, the historic integrity has been destroyed. New boards behind the "pilasters" adjacent to the door are new. Scroll work from entry still exists and is in storage. 21. New door trim, with more elaborate detail, has been added, historic trim materials were destroyed. Historic door and transom are in storage. 22. All historic siding in the area above the entry porch roof has been removed and partially replaced with new. 23. Pre existing porch "floor" materials were demolished, materials which have been represented to be installed were never approved. 24. Areas of corner boards are new. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING FEBRUARY 10. 1999 234 WEST FRANCIS. ASPEN. COLORADO WITNESS LIST Amy Guthrie, Historic preservation Officer Stephen Kanipe, Chief Building Official David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Chuck Brandt, Attorney Gary Wheeler, Contractor Don Mullins, Owner Bob Pattillo, Engineer Suzannah Reid, HPC Chairperson Gilbert Sanchez, HPC Member Jeffrey Halferty, HPC Member Susan Dodington, HPC Member Notes from hearing 24 jo{ 019 WITNESS LIST* AGENDA ITEM: 615 4 \Alâ‚¬:5-r 92,4.ACC.6 5 St-lovu CAUSE *tale),4 4 NAME OF WITNESS: 1. AMY Atrrle,Gl 14~ 6-r[>R,c, 7>226 ,- Staff Person 2. 5-1-*PA424 40 ANI, lit) 30 -D AN LD MOEPEREL j *551 Srpe~Er- OrTY 4. -3-kle le Le-r,1-1,41 ) PEPLIT~ 0-iTY GLER.i<- 5. C*Â¥U-CAL. OBAd DiT- 4-8 i DR-Alef 6. GIARY COM-EELE!2-,) COATQACRO R._ 7. Dod MULL / Al.5 1 0 \AidER-1 s. 64 Wal H li L...l_. LA.15 ) 0 wdeR@ 1, ktar-Â·1-aimeÂ¥) 9. 2273 8 FA'rrl l_Lo ~ eds (dâ‚¬962 to. SUE: A,AIA J All- KM D i ttâ‚¬C- C#Al R- ii. Q j Liebaer- 9<14CAAâ‚¬ 2 j 140FC- 48#1542. 12. 3-EFF=TE,2-< UAL F Eerm NaL Ualdder 13. 'Sulâ‚¬*4 C>OD/ki@i-1734j H-PC, MEHeaL 14. 15. 16. * Includes staff persons, but excludes staff attorney and board members. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING FEBRUARY 10. 1999 234 WEST FRANCIS. ASPEN. COLORADO WITNESS LIST Amy Guthrie, Historic preservation Officer Stephen Kanipe, Chief Building Official David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Chuck Brandt, Attorney Gary Wheeler, Contractor Don Mullins, Owner Bob Pattillo, Engineer Suzannah Reid, HPC Chairperson Gilbert Sanchez, HPC Member Jeffrey Halferty, HPC Member Susan Dodington, HPC Member Notes from hearing _~PENDAXY NEWS, Thursday, February 11,1999, PagÂ¤_ LOCAL ' ....1 1 1 ' " ~ 1"+~ ""''r, 113.7 04*1 32 1 1,1 141? ~ : lif #Al, 1 3 11 11 1141. 1~ 1, k LI '1,%11,1 7 % 1 v 1 14,111 4 .1. l. 11 ,1 4,~ 11 1 j 11111111 1 2-4 "NEfP#*fl /13 61' *11'â€ž, 11' fill #-111 1 1 a U '11 ' 1 A. 44 j : q '1 1 4- :gil 4 -4. -i f 1 1 Ililli 1 141,11 1 %=NI 11 - 1 - 111 11 111 1 i I I ,â€¢ i l'i) il, i c( b - r' 11,01 -1 11 4 - - Elli lilli'' 1 1 ,~ 111 1 I-- - _ - i:: ~ i..",1,1~'4/â€¢p-i. Â·Â·,z, "'i' r~ ~ _ -_ ilt-4 | ~ - ' 1 1 1 111 11111 411 . 1 11 f 1 + 1 1 1 1 + 1.1 lili 1111 (1 11, el : lilli 11.11.1.--1 111 - 12-7- 11111%1''Tilly'll Â£0 lf'lit'111 0211 bul=--1 - 1~ 114#'111.'il'I,1,~1- .4.11-Lrf ' il - i p i , 1-- ;. '-1 -4(Ti ;~ '|,~ lilli i ~; 111 111 i- 1,1 ~1. 11 1 4 11 11.- L' '24 l : 111 ~141 1 1 111,1111 4 lili 1~11 ~/11, 1; 11,1,1 1 ' t i i I Le ' 4 , 22] 11 1 21 toi . 1 .1 1 2 4 1 1, , 11 - 1% 1 1 71 fl:4 1* 1 1 L r b i 1 Â·Â· I - U 1 1 4/ 8 , '21-i..6 - ' L 1 4 --- ful. 4*. 2 11 1.11. . Stefani4 Deutsch/Aspen Daily New, Local contractor Gary Wheeler explains the unapproved changes to the historic Davi# B. Waite house to members of the city's historic preservation commission last month. See related story dn page one. LOCAL/STATE ourt settlement over vodka maker's ad company that marketed Absolut Vodka with a had prepared the promotion, then the latest in a photo of a cast bearing the words "Absolut series of ads such as "Absolut Psycho," in Vail." reference to a movie, long before the deaths. The ad went out shortly after the deaths of Witt said the advertising company, TBWA Michael Kennedy and Sonny Bono in ski Chiat-Day Inc., will make a contribution to Vail accidents during the last ski season, and Vail said Resorts' skier safety programs. The amount was that made it offensive. The ad company said it not disclosed. ippy with a men's or women's race host country. Then, an Kasper said Whistler, which has of all you need good American skiers," ich as the U.S. Ski Team attempted to host races the past three he said. venues are the best for years but has not successfully The drganizers also want to comp16ted any of the downhills due to encourage more of what he calls "ski im president Bill Marolt, poor weather and snow conditions, is festivals." Vail's World Alpine Ski Aspen native, was vulnerable. Championships offer myriad off-snow about Aspen's chances, "We are not going to accept activities for spectators, including at "there's a lot to be Whistler any more," he said. When rodeos, concerts, ballet performances, :tween now and May. asked if that's the date Aspen could public draws and fireworks. hen." grab, Kasper noted, "we'11 leave it up Kasper said, "I don't want to sites for men's events to the two nations to decide it." prostitute the sport, but it should not irk City, Utah, and Vail. The FIS president is dismayed by just be ski races. In order to attract 1 possible that the the continued lack of enthusiasm young people, the publicity and date could be awarded among American businesses at an advertising need to be much higher." . "There are so many event with the grandeur of the World He spoke of the value that an event World Cup races," said Championships. "When I look around, of this stature has abroad. "Vail was :sident. "We only take I see 75 percent EuroDean soonsors." not verv well.known in Fliran, 1 n Joel Sax 303 W. Francis St. Aspen, CO 81611 February 10, 1999 Ms. Suzanne Reid Chairman Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Gwen & Don Mullins Home - 234 West Francis St. Dear Suzanne: I would like to address several items with the members ofAspen's Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) regarding the home o f Gwen and Don Mullins. My interest in writing this letter is two-fold. I live across the street at 303 West Francis, and have had the opportunity to develop a friendship with the Mullins, and learn more about their historic home. More importantly, I am supportive ofthe historic preservation efforts in Aspen, and am very concerned that the Mullins have been singled out by the HPC and press as "uncaring part-time residents." This could not be further from the truth. My fear is that they will not be granted the opportunity to resolve their situation in a fair and reasonable manner. e record, the Mullins are not uncaring part-time residents from Texas. The Mullins 1 el 1.11 were part ofthe original investors who developed Snowmass in the 1960's. They have also had a home in Pitkin County for many years. Over the years, I have observed a variety o f restoration and preservation efforts i throughout the Aspen area. One of the distinguishing factors that sets Aspen apart from other mountain resort communities are our historic buildings. Most of us are proud ofthe historic building that dot the landscape, and would like to see these buildings maintained and occupied into the next century, and beyond. I appreciate the efforts o f the HPC volunteers to oversee the HPC program. As appointed representatives, you dedicate countless hours of your time to the city's historic preservation program. I personally felt that the HPC was treated unfairly by the press and the community in regards to the Paepcke home. There were many unwarranted accusations made by uninformed people, with emotions running high. It was frustrating that people did not take the time to read the relevant ordinances and meeting minutes, or view the model ofthe new home. Several HPC members were criticized in a negative and hurtful manner. As a result, I thought that the HPC members would be more ~~7Â·â€¢9' I .6 . 1- â€¢412%:ti-- - w - -- :~4333/ I sensitive towards individuals (the Mullins) when they discussed current projects with the 0 press. While these residential projects are different in many aspects, there are similarities in terms of the "character" attacks leveled at the owners. I am troubled that several E[PC members made negative public comments regarding the Mullin's project (and their integrity), when they should have reserved judgement until the appropriate inform~tion was made available to them. Shoul(in't appointed committee members, representative of the city, set a higher standard? Isn't it time that people in this community set aside their destructive verbal volley's, and withhold comments until they have had the opportunity to review all of the project's factual information. Renovating an historic home is a time consuming and very expensive venture, one that is not taken lightly by the Mullinf. I have watched the historic renovation of this home over the past year, and believd that the historic integrity of the home has been preserved. There may be some specific items that need replaced or corrected, but suspending the building permit for this home accomplishes nothing. Isn't it one of the community's goals to ensure that hiSIOriC homes are lived in by the owners, and visually enjoyed by the community? It is inconceivable to me and the many residents I have personally spoken to that the HPC would furthet delay this project because of a serious breakdown in communication. I feel the HPC is sending a negative message to future individuals interested in renovating and restoring hiSIOriC buildings by making an ;'example" of the Mullins. 0 Rather than making it so difficult and painful for the homeowners, why not set upla comprehensive process where the various parties involved (e.g. contractors, archN ects, owners, HPC monitors, staff) know exactly what their responsibilities are. and are educated in the technical areas ofhistoric renovation. The HPC should take a leadership role in developing a useful, educational and practical process, instead of everyone searching for "someone to blame." While most of u# appreciate the final product, we do not always understand the nuances of historic preservation, and the specific techniques needed to successfully complete a projeet The focus should be on educating those individuals directly involved in the renovation of historic buildings, and setting up better communication channels. One of the goals should be a better process that works for all parties involved, and the elimination o f the finger pointing and hurtful accusations that impact everyone. We do not have a perfect world, and it is my view that the HPC may be overreacting. The consensus of opinion is that the benefits of completing this project far out-way the revocation of the building permit. The benefits of completing this project include an improved attractive site, increased tax revenues, and the preservation ofAspen's history. What possible benefit could be gained by not allowing this project to be completÂ¢d? I strongly urge you to carefully weigh the interests of the homeowner and the community before you make a decision. You have the opportunity to work with the homeowners to 0 2 complete this historic project in a way that works for everyone. I hope that you will move forward in a open-minded way, with a balanced view of the project. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Joel Sax CC: Historic Preservation Committee members Stephen Kanipe, Chief Building Official Amy Gutherie, HPC Officer Amy Margerum, City Manager Julie Ann Woods, City Development Managemenr Director 3 212,# Ut#1'392 1,Â·': b / 3 489281129 7,1 AL,ibU-1 -AGE UJ 02 08:99 19.16 21 31,3 623 130,9 i'THP - 'Â·!PR,1 1 011(11 MOTINTAINS/PLAINS OFFICE 6-.7*mISUL# NATIONAL TRUST 4 Hu-roliC PNESEKVKrION February 3.1999 The Honorable John Bennert Mayor, City of Aspen 130 South Galen 1 Street Aspen, Colorado 31611 Dear Mayor Bennett I am wnting to express my extreme dlsappointment that Ole origical porch, trim, and 51ding ct the historic Waite House have been lost as a result of a poorly executed rehabilitation project it W my understancling that the Waite House iS nt)t only an important element of the West gne Historic District, but that it is 1130 individuall) significant as The home of a former Gove:nor and prominent Aspei newspaper publisher and attlirney When we met last August to review Aspens historic preservation program, the group spent a considerable amount of time debating the value of saving real, authentic buildings from Aspen's past as oppo:ed to recrearing them. Most people have no didicultly understanding that 0 an antique chair as greater value than a reproduction chair. The same is true with architecture. An authentic house with criginal matenals han historic value as a unique. one-of-a kind stucture. Prservation is about saving real places. Probably the most un:versally acc.pted guidc..inrs for historic preservation in this count~y are the Secretary ofthe [nterior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Two of these standards address this issue. Standud Five states that. "disfinefrve mazerial.r. features, jinishâ‚¬s and Conytruction techniques or e.cumples ofd era#smanship thot characterIEâ‚¬ a properly Witi be preserved Standard 6 SayE, "deferiorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced" UnfOrtunately. work at tkic Waite House ignored both of (hese standards. While it may be roo late to save original mate:rials ar the Waite House. it is not too late to malc lhâ‚¬ public statcment that Aspen treasures its tutoric buildings and will enforce existini# preservation ta'*s to protect them. Towards that end, I would like to congratulate the City Planning Office and the Aspen Historic Presâ‚¬ rvation Commission for upholding the city preservation ordinance and stoppinE work on the Waite house while you scarch for a remedy to this unfortunate 5ituation. If ihc National Tnist can provide any assistance to you as you work through the prrÂ·cess. do tiot hesitate to call me. Sincerely. tdz*z<GL. f&. U Barbara H. Pahl, Director Proted. the Irriphiceable Mountains/Plains Office Â¥ 9,0 1671â€¢ STA*Er Â· SVIT; 1100 -Deâ€¢ve.. CO 50249 3 0 3.5 9 3 1 9 04 â€¢ 2.iX. 3 0 1.62 3.1 0 0 5 Â· WWÂ¥, .NATIONA LTRUBT O R G 3.9 iâ€¢EÂ· CO 105. ur. NE. U. 32 & try fit **2~ r.l 1 A I LL;-4-,Â·.il U.5./ CO/' 1 J=.3 1 ' . 3 4 J.' C '2;201.1 -~__------ _ 02.-08,99 MON 18:27 f.tl 202 673 4082 N THP PRESIDENT-S OFFICE 0 0 0 2 NATIONAL TRUST 4, HISTO#RIC PRESE,VATION iliCHARD MOE PRESIDENT February 8.1999 Ms. Mary H. Hirsch Aspen HistoriÂ© Preservation Commiuioner 1590 Silver King Drive Aspen. CO 3:611 Dear Ms. Hirsch: Thanks so much for your letter and articles regarding the urgent preservation issue& that are emerging in Aspen. ICs distressing to seÂ¢ that a town w.th:he historic character and tradition of Aspen is los Ilg SOme Of its most significar.t buildings. rve heard of the development preSNUres and I can betieve that they are mounting. We are eager to be of whatevE: help we can and I'm asking Barb Fait the director of our Mountain/Ptains Of$ce in Denven to contact you (01 see how we can be most effeclive. You wil] be hearing from her very shortly and as soon as the t*o of you acree on a NUategy. I will sign on. We're eager to help, Thanks for all that you are doing to preserve that wonderful town. Wannest regards. SinAmrely, ! L k 1/.-0. 01.Â·Ge/' Richard Moc RM:bb Protecting the lr,fplaetable L 74 9 M,USACM C ZIE.TU AVE,tu.. NWÂ· WASHINCTON. DC 90035 2Â¢:2.688Â·6105 â€¢ FANÂ· 202.508 *082 Â· WWW NATZOAALTRUST.ORS 7,Â£'t ' *' -1'.,t Â£ I Ii. .- ...11 4 0 1 â‚¬12; d'j, 1 33. i i. =4 :'.1 4-1-, .-r. . ~ r.,AGE 82 2/0320_ 1-3 FROM : UNIVERS I TY OF GEORGIA PHCIHEE NO. : 706 542 4885 Fe.5. 09 1999 01:06PM PS I . I f . 7-Â· I l ' 1 L __1 NATIONAL ALLIANCE of PRESERVATION COMMISSIONS P.O. BOX 1605 ATHENS. GEORGIA 30603 1 February 8.1999 To Whom It May Concern: T â€¢â€¢-râ€¢ .-.4.6 'b.iâ€¢ le *ter c- behal-f Â·=4 11- }4. L.vi u.1 44111.u :.u 1,1- Pre:,enÂ·,Lrion Commissions (NAPC>-a nationwide ion-profit organization that assists local preservation commissions in their community efforts-concerning the Davis Waite house debade. A u,nurrned citiven brought this Issue to our actention and 1 wanted to let the Aspen commurtity know that we, as an organization, strongly endorse the position of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission and the preservation laws that they enforce. It is absolutely essential for any thriving community to respect and cheash their historic resources and to make sure that others. especially part-time residents, understand this and are fully cognizartt of the regulatory laws that are in place for preservation purposes. You must not stand for the continuation of property owners rlpiming lotal ignorance aboul the sensitivity and stgndards of rehabilitation work on Aspen's priceless historic resources. As an organization we strongly recommend theretention of at least one full-time staffperson for historic preservation commissions; if this was the case in Aspen the difficult monitoring issues that the commission are having could be ameliorated. The fact that the contrador for the Waite house project was able to get that far along in his insensitive rehabilitation work is an indication that full- Lii,te , l.ff b i 6.rerle,1 lu muvyle,4.elll lt,e J w licm vf 11% volutilicet u-Ditut lioraul %13. We advise the city to use this unforturate event as a platform from which to re- evaluate the efficacy of Aspen's historc preservation policies. Don't let this happen again, because it could start a trend if it hasn't already. Good luck. Sincerely. 1 AW~\ l/.. Pratt Cassity 150%..Mmil 1/125%141' 1 .~1Â£'a/~:'.--:2'pti= 5.-''-i,ffi le>?6?190Â¥-43Â·21ffii e R.34 -77.2., . .7 FEB 0 3 /999 Melanie Roschko *0:*:.1,/.41,-3. ~,1.* i. f.,,.7 0257 Eastwood Road i Aspen, CO 81611 February 1, 1999 Aspen City Council Aspen City Attorney Historic Preservation Commission 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 To All Concerned; I was extremely upset to hear about the damage to the Waite house. Upset, but not surprised. The outcome was destined from the start of this project. At that time, I was a member of the ~ Historic Preservation Commission. Mr. And Mrs. Mullins, Scott Lindenau and Gary *heeler had little knowledge or understanding ofhistoric preservation, not did they appear to care.I That is now blatantly obvious. Unfortunately this type ofproblem has occurred before. HPC has urged the City Council and City Attorney to put in place legislation to deal with such abuses; preservation education for owners, prospective buyers, real estate sales persons, contractors and architects; and special lidensing for contractors dealing with historic properties. Stiffpenalties will not replace this historic resource, but they must be made extremely damaging to the pocket books of all involved. There have to be economic deterrents to prevent future problems on new projects. Perhaps public service, jail time and public embarrassment MIl work. Replication ofdamaged resources is not preservation.! I urge you to inflict the strongest penalties available on all parties involved. They knew what they were doing! Sincerely, *LL) Melanie Roschko i,696Â·92Â»Â«44, â€¢M,9*7*.ir:.Â«ij.-.~414Â·~:-â€¢ FEB 109 ' 99 05: 07PM TOWN OF TELLURIDE P.1/2 -9, dliglifixi;ililiq7 Box 397 Telluride, CO 81435 <9703 728 -307 I 10- *I l d~" ~1 FAX (970) 728 -3078 BY FAX TO (970) 920-5439 F:bruary 9, 1999 The Honorable Jcko Benner Mayor, City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspent Colorado 8161 I Dear Mayor Bennet: I was extremely disappointed to learn that most ofthe historic marerials and features of the historic Waite TIouse have becn lost, despite the best efforts of the Aspen Misti:ric Fieservation Commission to ensure the preservation of the National Register-listed property, As the IÂ·listoric Preservation Planner for Telluride, I understand all too rell ibe pressures your preservation commission faces, and why the work they do is critic* ie the conununity. From time to time here in Telluride, it has been suggested by some that Telluride shmild no longer be a National Historic I.andmark District, becaure itis not "convenient- 0 However, preservation is not a matter of convenience for individuals. IIistoric ~ preservation is a stewardship. a promise that we will protect those places from the post whicli arc important, for the benefit of future generaiions. Preservation of our historU resources is what creates community identity and ensures livability. In the Fasl, we have had surprisingly few cases ofblatant disregard for our preservation regulations. perhaps because in all cases we have prosecued fie property owners to the fullest extent possible, as well as sought remedies whenever feasible. However, bur Commission is constantly asked to allow theremoval of historic materials trom buildings, and to even demolish the building and build a replica. Because consistency of action is crucial for continued effectiveness, our Commission has stood firm, rcfusi ug to gram. any such lequests, even though the applicant for each proposal believes that tiÂ·.2 conditions oftheir properly is unique, with no possible comparison to other historic buildings, rn fact, what is usually described as rotten or beyond repair is simplyl in reed of a lillie care, repair, and maintmance. Unfortunately. some owners and builders cre reluctant to spend some extratime and energy to restore the existing material, and insteati tulce the most convenient approach, resulting in the impatiment of historic integrity. At the recent Colorado Preservation, Inc. conference in Denver, Li.eutenant GovÂ¢rnor Toe Rogers telated how his parents instilled inhim a respect for the past: saying, 19*Â·cr forget where you came from to get where you're going." In rapidly changing p]*us such 0 5 FEB 09 '99 85: 103PM i OWM Ct 1 LLUM1Lt , 1--0 C'' C as Aspen, an understanding ofthe past is critical to preserve community. 'rhis was 0 reafErmed this past August ai your Historic Preservation Sympodum. For your preservation commission to remain credible in the eyes ofthe community, it is essential to enforce ail regulations and conditions of approval. Additionally, tbe ful 1 political support ofthc City (Jouncil is needed. Otherwise. the Commission wil! heci>mc powerless. If you give up even one historic building, your ability to protect aft oth~r imilldings will be compromised. I urge you to support the Histoic Preservation Commission though enforcement ofyour Land Use Code and preservmion laws, as ,Â·vel ! as seek a remedy to this unfortunate loss of a historic building that is importunt not ally to Aspen, but the citizens of Colorado. Sincerely, Kaye Simonson Historic Preservation Planner 0 0 Waite / Mullins House 234 West Francis St. Site survey of historic materials, 1/29/1999 West Side 1. All historic window trim and sills have been replaced with new, new details added, no original materials exist. 2. Three vent penetrations were made through the historic walls. 3. Historic porch materials, posts and roof structure, have been removed. Posts are in storage, otherwise materials have been destroyed. West historic door is in storage. 4. New copper guides in historic double hung windows. 5. Large pane of historic glass was broken, at large double hung. 6. All historic siding, corner boards and fascia trim on the one story section have been destroyed. 7. Areas of historic siding, on the main house, were relocated to this area from original locations, corner boards have been replaced. 8. Pre existing porch "floor" materials were demolished, materials which have been represented to be installed were never approved. North Side 9. All historic siding and comer boards have been removed. 10. All new window trim, new details added, none of the historic materials exist. 11. New copper guides in historic double hung windows. East Side 12. All historic siding has been removed and replaced with new siding and corner boards. 13. All new window trim, new details added, no original materials remain. 14. An existing historic window, just north of the doorway, has been replaced with a new one, the historic window still exists and is in storage. 15. Two vent penetrations have been made through the historic wall, with large trim details. 16. New copper guides in historic double hung windows. South Side 17. Historic siding has been relocated from other areas to this fagade. Siding in the area above the entry roof has been removed. New window trim in this area. 18. All new window sills and trim, with additional details, have been installed, none of the historic materials exist. 19. Entry porch fascia, soffit, and expressed structure have all been reconstructed, new materials do not match the historic materials in size or profile. New materials continue along one story element at entry. One piece of historic crown molding still exists, in storage. Historic roof framing is apparently intact below the new construction. 20. Entry columns have been altered at the base and at the top with materials which do not replicate the original posts. While portions of the posts remain, the historic integrity has been destroyed. New boards behind the "pilasters" adjacent to the door are new. Scroll work from entry still exists and is in storage. 21. New door trim, with more elaborate detail, has been added, historic trim materials were destroyed. Historic door and transom are in storage. 22. All historic siding in the area above the entry porch roof has been removed and partially replaced with new. 23. Pre existing porch "floor" materials were demolished, materials which have been represented to be installed were never approved. 24. Areas of comer boards are new. S'49ER: ate Items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. I also wish to receive the ete items 3,44 and 4b. following services (for an â€¢Fâ€žâ€ži your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this extra fee): card to you. â€¢Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space does not 1. Â¤ Addressee's Address permit. â€¢Write'Return Receipt Requested' on the mailpiece below the article number. 2. Â¤ RestActed Delivery â€¢The Return Receipt will show to whom the artide was delivered and the date delivered. Consult postmaster for fee. 3. Article Addressed to: 4a. Article Number 084 L-duwoÂ» 2- 30 1 Â£9(0 6l7 4b. Service Type 00 , 606 O Registered 32<bertified O Express Mail O Insured *88\*' CO 8(024 7. Date of Delivery 24 -le- O Return Receipt for Merchandise Â¤ COD 5. Received By: (Print Name) 8. Addressee's Address (On/y# requested A -8 - A and fee Is paid) ~rar.zi~d~*19*ny n LA A U - PS Form-38ffihec6mber 1994 102595-97-B-0179 Domestic Return Receipt Is your RETURN ADDRESS completed on the reverse side? First-Class ' UNrrED STATES POSTAL SERVICE Postage & 1 aid USPS Permit No. G-10 â€¢ Print your name, address, and ZIP Code in this box â€¢ A F c DD 13 0 500 tin (4(Xle-r,(61 A-5 pen< co 51 6 \1 -1 91 9 Sr._ -7ER: ete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. I also wish to receive the 6 .,ete items 3,44 and 4b. following services (for an â€¢Print yournameandaddress on the reverse of this form so that we canretumthis extra fee): card to you. â€¢Attach this formtothe front of the mallpiece, oronthe back if space does not 1.0 Addressee's Address permit. â€¢Write'Return Rece/pt Requested'on the mailplece below the article number. 2. O Restricted Delivery â€¢The Return Receipt will show to whom the arlide was delivered and the date delivered. Consult postmaster for fee. 3. Article Addressed to: 4. Article Number Dow *awew Hol\IMs 1 301 lew ello 4b. Service Type Ex,ayÂ·16 JOS u*APS, El Registered *Cerued EDÂ¥ (12- Â¤ Express Mall Â¤ Insured Â¤ Return Receipt for Merchandise O COD tlÂ«,ve ft->C -7Â®0=17 7. Date of Delivery - 6- L cY ~ 5. Received By: (Print Name) 8.2Dessee's Addres& (On/y if requestedo, ~ and fee is paid) B .6 R 2 PS Form 3811, December 1994 N h 102595-97-8-0179 Domestic Return Receipt RN ADDRESS completed on the reverse side? Â·80!Ates idleoell lun Jew Bulen Joi noA First-Class ' UNrrED STATES POSTAL SERVICE Postage & 1 aid . USPS Permif No. G-10 ..- â€¢ Print your name, address, and ZIP Code in this box â€¢ HE=Gtiv cu - 6-u\Uvue) 1 FEB 1 2 1999 Â»69-2Â»l AbrtN / eli KIN i.'40 ~Â»lâ‚¬A/la/9rrYÂ°EVELOPMEVT +91 03 91 62 L L External Media Located Here M-000019 M-000020 M-000021 M-000022 M-000023 M-000024 M-000025 M-000026 RMMI A STIPULATED FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER REGARDING BUILDING PERMIT NO. 8-49 / ISSUED FOR 234 WEST FRANCIS STREET, a.k.a. THE WAITE HOUSE COME NOW Don and Gwen Mullins, by and through their attorney of record Charles Brandt, and the City of Aspen, by and through their attorney of record, David Hoefer, to stipulate to the following Findings ofFact and Order. BACKGROUND INFORMATION On February 1, 1999, Stephen Kanipe, the Chief Building Official for the Aspen Community Development Department issued an Order to Show Cause to Don and Gwen Mullins, the owners of 234 West Francis, Aspen, Colorado, and to Gary Wheeler, the contractor on the project at 234 West Francis, as to why building permit No. 8-49 for 234 West Francis Street should not be suspended or revoked. (Please note that the title for 234 West Francis is in the name of Don Mullins only). The hearing was scheduled for and held on the 104 day of February, 1999, with Stephen Kanipe presiding. At issue were alleged violations of the resolution of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission approving the project located at 234 West Francis Street, Aspen, Colorado. The alleged violations were detailed in a summary, which is ' attached hereto as "Exhibit A." / The matter was heard pursuant to Section 106.4.5 of the 1994 Un(fonn Building Code, which reads as follows: Suspension or revocation. The building official may, in writing, suspend or revoke a permit issued under the provisions of this code whenever the permit is issued in error or on the basis of incorrect infonnation supplied, or in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any Of the provisions of this code. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Owners, Don and Gwen Mullins, were represented by attorney Charles Brandt. Assistant City Attorney David Hoefer represented the City of Aspen. 2. Witnesses were called, including Historic Preservation Officer Amy Guthrie, ' Historic Preservation Commission members Suzannah Reid, Gilbert Sanchez, Susan Dodington, and Jeffrey Halferty, contractor Gary Wheeler, professional engineer Bob Pattillo, and home owner Don Mullins. I / 3. Twenty-eight exhibits were offered including a copy of the Order to Show Cause, the City Clerk's file for the HPC application at 234 West Francis, the Building Department permit file for 234 West Francis, the minutes from each of the HPC meetings pertaining to the project at 234 West Francis, HPC Resolution No. 2 and No. 17, Series of 1-998, letters from interested parties (both pe and con), window trim, posts, and siding from the project at 234 West Francis, a summary of the alleged violations of HPC approvals for 234 West Francis, a video tape of the house as it currently exists, and photos,-including those mounted on a poster board, of the house (both before and after the commencement of the project). 4. The house located at 234 West Francis, commonly referred to as the "Waite House," . is on the National Register of Historic Places and is a locally designated landmark. Consequently, the house was subject to development review by the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission. 5. The property at 234 West Francis is owned of record by Don Mullins. The Mullins hired an architect, Scott Lindeau, and a contractor, Gary Wheeler, to take the proposed development at 234 West Francis through the review process. 6. The first HPC meeting concerning the proposed project at 234 West Francis occurred on October 8, 1997. Six more meetings were held: November 24, 1997; December 10, 1997; January 28, 1998; May 13, 1998; May 27, 1998, and June 10, 1998. A final hearing concerning alleged violations of the Historic Preservation Commission approvals and conditions occurred on January 27, 1999. All eight meetings were attended by Lindeau and Wheeler. In addition, the Mullins attended "two or three meetings." 7. The meetings resulted in two HPâ‚¬ resolutions permitting development: Resolution No. 2, Series of 1998 (January 28, 1998) and Resolution No. 17, Series of 1998 (June 10, 1998). 8. The evidence presentedat the Order to Show Cause Hearing established by a preponderance of the evidence that certain of the violations alleged in "Exhibit A" did in fact occur. 9. Consequently, violations of Building Permit No. 8-49 did in fact occur providing the hearing officer with a basis to revoke or suspend the building permit pending remediation of the alleged violations; however, no evidence was presented with respect to any violations relating to the interior work on the historic portion of the house as well as the exterior work on thebreezeway, kitchen, and garage. 2 . , 10. However, the Mullins and the City of Aspen mutually agree that the "red tag" may be lifted and that the building permit not be revoked pursuant to the Mullins' compliance with the conditions set forth herein in the Order. Stephen Kanipe or his designee shall retain jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding until compliance with all conditions has been accomplished. ORDER Don and Gwen Mullins and the City of Aspen, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby agree to the following Order: The "red tag" on the building permit for 234 West Francis, Aspen, Colorado, is hereby lifted and the building permit is not revoked or suspended subject to the following conditions being complied with: 1. A plan for remediation of the violations set forth in "Exhibit A" shall be submitted to the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission for their review and approval. Until approval of the remediation plan, no construction, demolition, or othdr alteration of the historic exterior of 234 West Francis shall occur; construction of the breezeway, kitchen, and garage exteriors may continue. The plan shall address the twenty-four violations set Â· forth in "Exhibit A," including but not limited to the following: a. Where acceptable replication has not already occurred, a plan to replace the destroyed historic window trim, sills, and detailing with new materials that replicate the original as depicted in photographs and as represented by any existing original materials. b. The interior location of the gas fireplace appliances as shown on the approved plans for the property need not be altered. However, there shall be a proposed redesign of the exterior venting through the roof of the historic portion of the structure to provide alternative venting solutions to those in the west and east walls. c. A plan to refurbish existing historic materials for the west entry porch and to replicate materials that were destroyed. The porch posts, if used in the restoration, shall be m*ade structurally sound as recommended by the Mullins' structural engineer in conjunction with the Historic Preservation Commission. d. A plan for the use of replacement glass in the large double hung on the west side. e. A plan regarding the area above the front entry porch-which replaces the new siding with the remaining higtoric siding. . 3 f. The front entry porch fascia, soffit, and detailing shall be reconstructed to match , original materials. The entry columns shall retain as much original material as possible. g. The historic window on the east wall must be installed and the new double hung must match the original window. 2. Interior work at 234 West Francis may continue. However, if the subsequent approvals for the exterior made by the Historic Preservation Commission necessitates interior changes, the owners assume the risk of venting the gas appliance fireplaces through the roof and the new double hung window requirement of subparagraph 1.g. above. 3. All remedial historic exterior work approved by the Historic Preservation Commission shall be performed by subcontractors approved and supervised by the owner's architect Scott Lindenau. As remedial work f0r the exterior is approved by HPC (by a majority vote) that remedial work may begin, even as other issues are bang discussed. 4. From this point forward, all exterior work on the historic house shall be performed in consultation with the architect of record, Scott Lindenau, and a Weekly plan of action and a report of progress shall be submitted to the Historic Preservation Officer, Amy Guthrie. 5. The owners have already paid an estimated sixty thousand dollars in costs, fees, and interest in resolving this matter. In addition, the owners shall pay the costs and fees of the City of Aspen expended in resolving this matter. This amount is agreed upon in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00). 6. The owners shall, if necessary, increase the present letter of credit from thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) to an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost (prepared by the owner's architect Scott Lindenau) of the completion of the exterior work. The language shall be amended to clearly reflect the purpose of the letter of credit. The letter of credit will automatically terminate upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the house. 7. The owners shall write a letter of apology to the community concerning the damage to the historic resource, which shall be reviewed as to form by the City Attorney and which shall be submitted to the Aspen Times and the Aspen Daily News no later than ten (10) days after receipt of HPC approval of the remediation plan. t 8. This agreement does not prevent the Historic Preservation Commission from addressing violations regarding the historic (main) house not previously discovered or that may be discovered in the future. 4 9. Stephen Kanipe will continue to have jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case and shall be called upon to assist in the resolution of disputes that may arise between the owners and the Historic Preservation Commission. Assistant City Attorney David Hoefer and Historic Preservation Officer Amy Guthrie shall utilize their best efforts to expedite the consideration by the Historic Preservation Commission of the plan forremediation submitted by the owners in order to obtain a reasonable resolution of the matters addressed in the remediation plan. The matter shall be placed on the agenda of each HPC meeting until the matter is resolved. A Dated this14 Ray of February, 1999. Charles Brandt for Don and Gwen Mullins Â»U David Hoefer for the Citfbf Aspen The "Stipulated Findings of Fact and Order Regarding Building Permit No. 8-49 Issued for 234 West Francis Street, a.k.a. the Waite House" is hereby approved as to form and ordered on the date cited above. <4- fL.4~- 4114 Kanipe 3 / Chief Building Official Aspen/Pitkin Community Development 5 . â€ž Waite/Mullins House 234 West Francis Sl. Site survey of historic materials, 1/29/1999 West Side - â€¢ All historic window trim and sills have been replaced with new, new details added, no Original materials exist. â€¢ Three vent penetrations were made through the historic walls. â€¢ Historic porch materials, posts and roof structure. have been removed Posts are in storage, otherwise materials have been destroyed. West historic door is in storage. . New copper guides in historic dcuble hung windows. ' Large pane of historic glass was broken, at large dcuble hung. â€¢ All historic siding, comer boards and fascia trim on the one story section have been destroyed. â€¢ Areas of historic siding on the main house, were relocated to this area &cm original locations, corner boards have been replaced. â€¢ Pre existing porch "floor' materials were demolished, materials which have been represented to be installed were never approved. North Side e Allhistoric siding and corner boards have been removed. . , All new window trim, new details added. none oi tile historic materials exit â€¢ New copper guides in historic double hung windows. East Side ' All historic siding has been removed and replaced.with new siding and comer boards. â€¢ All new window trim, new details added. no originhl materials remain. â€¢ An existing historic window, iust north oi the docrway, has been replaced with a new one, the historic window still exists and is in storage. â€¢ Two vent penetrations have been made through the historic.wall, with large trim details. â€¢ New copper guides in historic double hung windows. South Side e Historic siding has been relocated frcm other areas tc this fagade. Siding in the area above the entry rooi has been removed. New window trim in this area: a All new window sills and trim, with additional details. have been installed, none of the historic materials exist â€¢ Entry porch fascia, soffit, and expressed structure have all been reconstructed, new materials do not match the historic materials in size or profile. New materials continue along one story element at entry. One piece or historic c:'own molding still exists, in storage. Historic root framing is apparently intact below the new const:uction. â€¢ Entry columns have been altered at the base and at the top with materials which do not replicate the original posts. While porticns of the posts remain, the historic integrity has been destroyed. New boards behind the 'pilasters" adjacent to the door are new. Scroll work from entry still exists and is in storage. â€¢ New door trim, with more elaborate detail, has been added, historic trim materials were destroyed. Historic door and transom are in stcrage. . All historic 5iding in the area above the entry porch roof has been removed and partially replaced with new. â€¢ Pre existing porch floor' materials were demolished, materials which have been represented to be installed were never approved. â€¢ Areas of comer boards are new. . . I a-$*Fod AAÂ«&12$2â‚¬.4.Â·zÂ·â‚¬:?3.<66 1 -<'2~ 2>/lo] 8 4 40- 9421Â£/6 964* yz..6~ L772Â«/ti-Le) Og,~~~ 920