HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20070509
AS-
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 9, 2007
5:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISIT: Please site visit all the properties on your own.
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes - March 28th, 2007
III. Public Comments
IV. Commission member comments
V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
VI. Project Monitoring
VII. Staff comments: Certificate of NoN egative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #18)
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. 300 W. Main...,. Show Caus~Hearing - Cont'd from April
25,2007 (30 min.) flcP5cJ '(bIg'
B. 308 E. Hopkins Ave. - Major Development - Final- Cont'd
from April 25, 2007 - (20 min.) ;(<R.fC! 11/ I (( j~J
C. 434 E. Cooper Ave. - Major Development - Conceptual,
Mountain View Plane Review and Commercial Design
Review - Cont'd from Feb. 14,2007 - (30 min.) ;(n 0 ;')
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. 332 W. Main Street - Major Development - Final- (Open
and continue the public hearing to May 23, 2007 due to
noticing error.
X. WORKSESSIONS
A. NONE
IX. ADJOURN 6:30 p.m.
Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
Staff presentation
Applicant presentation
Board questions and clarifications
Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing)
Board comments
Applicant rebuttal (comments)
Motion
No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting
of at leastfour (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a
quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue
the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring
vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes
of the members of the commission then present and voting.
PROJECT MONITORING
Jeffrey Halferty
555/557 Walnut
701 W. Main
640 N. Third
314 E. Hyman, Motherlode
930 Matchless
205 S. Galena- Brand deck
134 W. Hopkins
212 W. Hopkins
920 W. Hallam
114 Neale Ave. .
Mike Hoffman
308/310 Park
640 N. Third
Jewish Community Center
202 N. Monarch
320 W. Hallam Ave.
426 E. Main (Main and Galena)
Sarah Broughton
811/819 E. Hopkins
110 E. Bleeker
530,532,534 E. Hopkins (Connor Cabins)
100 East Bleeker
Doerr Hosier Center @ Meadows
406 E. Hopkins (Isis)
304 E. Hopkins (Elevation Restaurant)
Brian McNellis
629 Smuggler
Hotel Jerome
Jewish Community Center
Doerr Hosier Center @ Meadows
233 W. Main (Innsbruck)
Alison Agley
529 W. Francis
214 East Bleeker Street
205 S. Mill Street (Bruno's Deck)
710 N. Third
Boomerang
501 W. Main Street (Christiana)
520 E. Durant (Ajax Bldg)
CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS THAT HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL REVIEW:
Firestation- (February 8, 2006)
332 W. Main- (May 10, 2006)
508 E. Cooper (Cooper St. Pier Redevelopment)- (July 12, 2006)
308 E. Hopkins (LaCo Redevelopment) - Guly 12, 2006)
135 W. Hopkins- (August 9, 2006)
Lift 1/ Willoughby Park- (August 8, 2006)
202 N. Monarch Street- (October 25, 2006)
507 Gillespie- (March 28, 2007)
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
300 W. Main Street- Public Hearing
DATE:
May 9, 2007
This matter was continued to May 9th for a determination by the commission of an
appropriate penalty pursuant to Section 26.415.140 of the Aspen Municipal Code.
Exhibits presented at the previous hearing are attached for HPC's reference.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
cc:
John Worcester, City Attorney, Representation for HPC
Jim True, Consulting Attorney, Representation for Staff
Jennifer Hall, Representation for the Property Owner
FROM:
Sara Adams, Preservation Planner
RE:
300 West Main Street
DATE:
April 11, 2007
Section 26.415.140 of the Aspen Municipal Code authorizes the HPC to enforce a penalty of a
building moratorium for up to 10 years for violating Section 26.415 "Development Involving the
Aspen Inventory for Historic Landmark Sites and Structures or Development in an H, Historic
Overlay District." On April 9, 2007, Staff and Jim True met with the property owner and her
attorney to discuss the facts of the violations, and the penalty that Staff is recommending to HPC.
The property owner, Corinne McGovern, does not dispute the violations identified by Staff in the
letter dated March 9, 2007, included in the HPC packet. Staff and Ms. McGovern agree that a
public apology and/or mailing to historic property owners and contractors is an appropriate
measure to inform the community of the historic preservation process and possible penalties for
violations. We also agree that the damaged sections of the historic property will be restored, in
accordance with the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, HPC and Building Permit
approvals, as close to the original appearance as possible. A minor development application
shall be heard by HPC on April 25, 2007 for the proposed restoration.
Unfortunately we were unable to reach a consensus on a recommendation to HPC regarding an
appropriate number of years for the building permit moratorium. The property owner and her
representation feel that 2 - 3 years is appropriate for the violations, and Staff fmds that nothing
less than 5 years is appropriate for the irreversible damage to the historic landmark.
The HPC is asked to make a determination regarding the appropriate number of years for
a moratorium on obtaining a building permit.
300 West Main is a rustic style cabin and a designated local landmark, owned by Corene
McGovern.
July 2006- received a call from Corene McGovern about "filling in" exterior wood
members on the property located at 300 West Main Street
July 28, 2006- perform a site visit with Building Department to discuss the state of the
deterioration and whether the structural members are sound.
Sent multiple emails from July 28 - September 18 to follow-up with progress.
September 27, 2006- issue a red tag requiring engineer assessment submittal in 30 days.
October 24, 2006- Receive assessment from Barry Maggert and Associates. I send an
email questioning some of his recommendations and reiterating to Corene that work is
not approved and cannot be completed without a permit. Corene mentions that Craig
Barnes of Aspen Constructors will be the licensed contractor supervising the project.
October 30, 2006- Craig Barnes submits building permit and informs me that he will be
supervising the project- and Paul Diamato ( a "wood expert" that is not licensed by HP)
will be on the site. The permit is not issued: the problems that I raised in the email to
Barry Maggart are not addressed in the submittal. I give Craig a copy ofthe letter I sent
to Barry Maggart explaining the areas of concern.
October 31, 2006- I receive a phone call from Craig Barnes informing me that work
commenced at 300 West Main Street without his knowledge. Stephen Kanipe and 1 go to
the site to meet Craig and Corene. A column on the front porch has been replaced and
wood tailings have been cut back in the east corner of the building (not sure when the
tailings were cut, probably before July according to photographs). Work is stopped (no
permit was issued), and Stephen and I relay that we need to issue a permit. Our main
concern is getting the cabin through the winter with snow load- we need confirmation
that the structural problems can last throughout the winter. I inform Corene that she needs
submit an application to HPC that proposes a long term solution mitigating the water
damage to the historic logs, and she must receive HPC approval for this work.
November 13,2006- I receive an email from Barry Maggart confirming that the cabin
will survive the winter snow load.
November 14,2006- Stephen and I discuss the letter from Barry and decide that periodic
visual inspection must occur during the course of the winter- especially after large snow
storms. Amy and I decided that we will provide a deadline for an HP application for
minor development and a deadline for work to be complete in the spring.
December 12, 2006- The tailings were cut above the front porch and a gutter was
installed without approval by HPC or a building permit.
~ ASPEN4PlTKIN
COMMUNl7Y CEVEl..OPMEN7 OEPARTMENT
"...'~
-----
,
\
o CORRECTION NOTICE
o STOP WORK ORDER
Job Located at -300 if1 }l1 fr I i--J s.7-
I have this day inspected this structure and these premises
and have found the following violations of City, County and/or
Colorado State laws governing same:
pe{)~t:cr-' Iii L) foLMfof/ {)F
JispeJ..l nl u l:Ji LOlJ t: - ^-/ ()
. I . -:.
~ ((f?7J('E {dN7J-I4TtJf-- 0 r:: f?6cokJ)
.
Correct By -, (30 days from the date of notice.)
Photos Taken: Yes, unless othelWise noted.
You are hereby notIfied that no more work may be done upon
the premises until above violations are corrected. Failure to correct
the violations within thirty (30) days may subject you to a civil suit for
an injunction, or a fine, or both; or to a misdemeanor criminal
prosecution, which upon conviction may carry a sentence, or fine, or
imprisonment, or both. Please contact the Department immediately
tp ssure fmely correction, . l
(0 ').Cl laP . "
Os e Ins~ for eve!opment Department
Community Development Department Phone: 920-5090
DO NOT REM0VE THIS TAG
,
.;(
,:'
ASPEN .PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
1 30 South Galena Street . Aspen. Colorado 81611
City of Aspen . 970/920-5090
Pitkin County . 970/920-5526
Ispection V
::J STEEL (Rebar)
::::J Footings
::::J Caissons
::::J Wall
::::J Wall Cores
::::J Struc. Slabs
::J Pads
::J Piers
::J Bond Beam
::J '"Radon- "
Reinspection
o ELECTRIC,
o Constr. Service
o Underground
o Rough
o Perm. Service
o Bonding
o Special
o Rnal
BUILDING INSPECTION CHECK LIST
b\g,bb~
Permit No.
Partial
Complete
o PLUMBING o MECHANICAL o APECC o BUILDING
o Underground o Rough o Foundation Insulation DR-Frame
o Waste & Vent o Flue(s) o Slab Edge Insulation o Roof Ventilation
o Water Pipe o Gas Log o Insulation o Drywall
o Gas Pipe o Combust. Air o Glazing o Special
o Gas Tag o Ventilation o Pool o Mobile Home
o Fire penetrations o Kitch. Hood o Spa o Fire Resistive
o Final Din-Floor o Snowmelt Roof Coverings
o Final o Final o Zoning
o Final
;cepted 0 Accepted as Noted \( Rejected 0 Reinspection Fee $
I You are required to make the following corrections on the construction' which is now in progress:
:;ontact Fire Marshal for sprinkler inspection.
lebar of footing to be made available for grounding.
10 occupancy or use allowed before certificate of occupancy is issued. UBe '97 Sec 109.1
II
-&0 J)!Je;t)d,j,p )IJ.Ia.....~ /(lh
, t . I () .
(fflA../,.f>r" i l.1-"l ~ 4J4/"odr~
;tructions to Inspector:
1zr;1~v...e - j a dO"/) i C/l
f/
Carport
:SCRIPTION: # Stories Garage: Attached Detached:
drooms Full Bath '4 Baths y, Baths Kitchen
;CESSORY UNIT: Living _ Kitchen _ Bath _ Bedroom_
ler.
eplace: Make:
~
Gas Appliance: Make:
Gas Log:
dress: :)00 vJ fYVi\N\ ~t
~trr~~-\I{f,
n~____ ...__n .__
Contact Phone tj;f1'( I tt~" I b1.4-
Request Received
Request fo; 1!::1_T rfJ@F Bpm T, 1ME7'/t',,-
Date Insp~spector ~_/_1?_
1=-.
July 28, 2006
Dear Corinne,
To recap our conversation this afternoon with Erik Peltonen there appear to be some structural
and material problems with the exterior log rafters of the porch and house, log purlins (horizontal
members) of the porch and house, and the large log columns of the porch. We were responding
to your initial question about filling in the logs as a repair measure, and find that the next
appropriate step is to get the structure evaluated by a licensed structural engineer to determine
the severity of the deterioration and status of the safety of the building. One engineer that comes
to mind, who is both an architect and engineer, is Ted Guy out of Basalt (927-3167). If he is too
busy, he can probably offer some good recommendations. It is best if the structure is evaluated
as soon as possible.
You mentioned the possibility of a temporary solution to last through the winter. We will visit
possible solutions should the structural engineer deem it a safe possibility considering the current
state of the building.
Any repairs or exterior alterations will require approval by HPC, which requires that you file an
application. I am happy to assist you with the application process once we get to this step. I have
attached a list of the licensed historic preservation contractors. Philip O'Connor can schedule a
time to take the test and qualify to work on your house. There are reading materials available at
the reception desk on the third floor of City Hall to help him prepare and online at
www.apenpitkin.com under the subheading of community development/historic preservation
program. He can also call me if he has any questions.
I attached information about the benefits available to historic property owners. The City offers a
one time, up to $25,000, no interest loan (which must be paid back by the end of 10 years) for
qualified historic property owners that demonstrate a financial hardship. A 20% state income tax
credit may be available for your rehabilitation efforts.
To be clear, the City is not implementing any enforcement at this time. We are interested in
working with you to help come to a solution. The sections of the code that you requested today
explain the standards for reasonable care and upkeep of a historic property (26.415.1 OO.A) and
enforcement procedures (26.415.100.B) which explain the enforcement process to ensure the
preservation of the community's significant historic resources. The City is not pursuing
enforcement process at this time.
Please call me if you have any questions. I know that these procedures can be overwhelming
and I am more than happy to help you along the process. Please keep me informed as to the
progress that you are making, and I will do my best to help.
Sincerely,
Sara
Sara Adams
Preservation Planner
City 01 Aspen
130 S. Galena Sl.
Aspen, CO
t: (970) 429,2778
I: (970) 920.5439
Page 1 of I
Sara Adams
From: Sara Adams
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 1 :35 PM
To: 'mitteleuro@aol.com'
Subject: follow-up
Hi Corrine,
I am just checking in to see if you have made any progress scheduling a structural engineer to assess the exterior
of the cabin. Please keep in touch about the progress of the project to ensure that we come to a safe solution
before winter.
Thanks,
Sara
Sara Adams
Preservation Planner
City 01 Aspen
130 S. Galena SI.
Aspen, CO
t: (970) 429.2778
I: (970) 920,5439
11/14/2006
Page I of 1
Sara Adams
,.--..----.----..------------.-.,.--------------.---.'--'--'-
From: Sara Adams
Sent: Monday, August 07,20062:10 PM
To: 'MitteIEuro@aol.com'
Subject: RE: follow-up
Great! Thanks, and sorry for misspelling your name. Best, Sara
----,-_.,.._,--.__._-,-----,--~._.~.,---"._..__..._-'-
From: MittelEuro@aol.com [mailto:MitteIEuro@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 2:04 PM
To: Sara Adams
Subject: Re: follow-up
Hi Sara:.
I got an appointment with a structural engineer for August 18th. I called every single one in the telephone
book! The contractor John Silich that did my inspection to buy the property suggested that 1 use Bob Oddo but
the earliest that I could get an appointment with him was six weeks from now and that was the norm with the
other engineers, I will forward you a copy of his assessment as soon as I get it. I told them that we were in a
big hurry. Thanks, Corene
11 /14/2006
Page I of I
Sara Adams
-"-~'---"----'------'-'-"-_._-----'---'- -"-"-~-----
From: Sara Adams
Sent: Monday. August 28, 2006 8:57 AM
To: 'MitteIEuro@aol.com'
Subject: historic preservation exam
Here is the link to the required readings for the HP contractor exam, there is also a hard copy on the 3rd floor of
City Hall. He can call 920-5090 to set up a time to take the exam.
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/depts/41/plan historictrain i no. cfm
Thanks, Sara
Sara Adams
Preservation Planner
City 01 Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO
t: (970) 429.2778
I: (970) 920.5439
11/14/2006
Page 1 of I
Sara Adams
___"__.,_____._.,__.________".__'____~ _..~_.__".._,.._.__..,_.___"...~_.~___.._..,______._.__n'__
From: Sara Adams
Sent: Tuesday, September 05,200611 :31 AM
To: 'MitteIEuro@ao1.com'
Subject: engineer's assessment
Hi Corene,
Any word from the engineer yet? We really need to get that assessment and get the ball rolling. Thanks, Sara
Sara Adams
Preservation Planner
City 01 Aspen
130 S. Galena SI.
Aspen, CO
t: (970) 429.2778
I: (970) 920.5439
11/14/2006
Sara Adams
Page I of I
From: Sara Adams
Sent: Monday, September 18. 2006 12:12 PM
To: 'MitleIEuro@aol.com'
Subject: engineer assessment
Hi Corene, Just checking in about the assessment. We really need to get that ASAP. Thanks, Sara
Sara Adams
Preservation Planner
City 01 Aspen
130 S. Galena Sl.
Aspen, CO
t: (970) 429.2778
I: (970) 920.5439
11/14/2006
~'"
\
~~
. CITY OF ASPEN.
COMMUNITY OEVEL.OF'MENT Oel"AI=lTMENT
~ CORRECTION NOTICE
D STOP WORK ORDER
Job Located at 7Gb ~7T M~lN t1rR~r
I have this day inspected this structure and these premises and
have found the following vioiations of City and/or Colorado State
laws governing same:
.
,
I
~~~'u':~~l. '2lJ.41!7 ./Do.A of &
Correct By ~ (30 days from the date of notice.)
Photos Taken: Yes 0 unless otherwise noted.
You are hereby notified that no more work may be ,done upon
the premises until above violations are corrected. Failure to correct
the violations within thirty (30) days may subject you to a civil suit for
an injunction, or a fine, or both; or to a misdemeanor criminal
prosecution, which upon conviction may carry a sentence, or fine, or
imprisonment. or both. Please contact the Department immediately
to ssure imely correction.
01;
Date
epartment
Community Development Department Phone: 920-5090
DO NOT REMOVE THIS TAG
~
THE CITY OF ASPEN
Mittel Europa
Corene McGovern
300 W. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
970.920.3200
September 27,2006
Re: 300 West Main Street, assessment of exterior deterioration
Dear Corene;
After performing a site visit with the Building Department on July 28, 2006, the City of
Aspen determined that an engineer assessment was necessary to demonstrate the stability
of exterior wood members on 300 West Main Street. We decided in July to not pursue
enforcement and allow the remainder of the summer to get an engineer assessment, so
proper measures can be taken to stabilize the building before winter. It has been two
months since we first addressed the issue and the assessment has yet to be submitted to
the Building Department. It is imperative that we receive this information as soon as
possible to ensure the safety of the building. You have 30 days from the date of this
letter to submit the engineer assessment, or enforcement will be pursued.
Please call me to set up an appointment to review the engineer assessment and determine
the appropriate measures needed to secure the property for the winter.
Sincerely,
Sara
970.429.2778
saraa@ci.aspen.co.us
~:~T 23 2001 1:06PM HP LASERJET 3200
~..
:~
p.1
Mittel Europa Company
300 West Main Street
Post Office Box 3678
Aspen, CO 81612
(970)920-3200 office
(970)925-7082 fax
Fax # !Uf)- $'13'9
Number of pages L including this page.
D"e ~~~~.
Reference . I'/IlIQ cS/rt:cr
Comments ~".~ :
f!r.Pj/'>>rnr.<; Or ifF ~/rt;~ /yJ,f SfIJP*I
'. ~. . ,.~,w/~
~ df'13tJ~. ~ tiS
If'len ft/ Jrd p (lh,AeC/ u;f U P> P" /:r:-
/Jt1f.mort: ItJ/Orm,Jiol ~ &w"~
To
From
mitteleuro@ aol.co
~ MaggerL&: ASS9CiE:!~~>Jll~'____,.
580 Main Street. Suite 300
Carbondale, Colorado. 81623-2065
___~.!!.ES!_I!LaJ_,g_!1..g1n e_"L~
(970) 963-9643- Fn (970) 963.0135
wwwMaggertEngineers.com
October 23, 2006
Corene McGovern
Mittel Europa Company
300 West Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: 300 West Main, Old Log Home/Restaurant
Dear Corene:
On August 17, Barry Maggert and Matthew Monger of Maggert & Associates, Inc. made
an observation visit to the above stated log building. We understand that you are
concerned with the water damage that is present in various exterior conditions.
The structure in question is an older log cabin that is more than likely constructed of
locally harvested timbers in the earlier stages of Aspen's development. Additional
. square footage was latter added both above and below grade on the North & West end
of the building. This section of the building was wood framed using conventional
construction practices and was not an area of concern.
The older log structure shows obvious signs of rot and has not been properly
maintained. The decay found on the structure is a result of two conditions where water
is being trapped. One is to be found on the roof, please see photo #1, here the log roof
rafters and horizontal logs that extend beyond the roof line are exposed to moisture
when it rains or snow melts. Second the log columns rest directly on concrete or stone,
wicking water from rain, snow and from watering the yard, please see photo #2. If these
moisture conditions are not addressed the fungi responsible for the decay will continue
to grow and expand.
To prevent further decay and structural damaging strength loss the following items are
suggested: The roof should be flashed to discharge water away from the wood. The
protruding wood that is is getting wet should be capped with a sloped sheet-metal
surface. And the columns should be separated from there current bearing seats using a
appropriate water stand off base plate.
Of greater structural concern is the top horizontal log at the North East corner of the
structure. Please see Photo #3, here the decay is reaching further than the first roof rafter
and will require the member to be replaced with another log, matching size and species.
The replacement of the log may be done by temporarily shoring the roof that bears on
the log. In addition to theses suggestions it is also recommended that the wood be
treated with a topical chemical preservative on a regular basis.
It should be noted that the above report is based on visual observations as stated. No
physical testing, or calculations were performed by Maggert & Associates, Inc. There is
no claim, either stated or implied, that all conditions were observed. If there are any
questions or comments concerning this letter or latter concerns or issues regarding this
log structure please call are e-mail.
Reviewed By:
~~M~.~
Matthew Monger
matt@mag-g-ertengineers.com
Barry Maggert, P.E.
barry@mag-g-erteng-ineers.com
..". ~,"':;'~f~"}'\ ',0 -' '.';:"
-"",
.
'.
,
.., .
'.J
oYlo ~\ ~~l:JiJV worl.
o~rA~'
lc~Lbt~7
w.-,.'1'r -'
. .' ,.
. '
CoreIleMcGovern. ' "..
Mittel EuropilCompahy "
. 3QQ>V\'\!st Map;, :;treet, , '
.Aspen, COIOJ,'iicio81611
. . '. . '" -' " .
. . '. . '" .
. ' ", .' . ".
Re:300West Maiii:, Old Log Homel Restaru::ant
Dear Corene:.,
OtlAugust17, BarrY Maggert and Matthew Mongerof Maggert &Ass~ciates,Inc. made'
"anobserVation visit to ,the above stated log .building. We. understand that you are
,'.. con:cem,edwiththeW'a:tetdarnag~ thatispre~entinvarious exterior conditions.
, . ", . . '.
. ," The strlltturein question is aJ}' older log cabin that is more than likely constructed of
, IOGally harv-estedtiillbers in the earlier stages of Aspen's development: Additional
square foota~e was. latter acidedboth aboveandbelow grade on the North & West end
of the building. This "section of the 'building. was wood framed using conventional
'" cOtlstructiop- pnictlces andwas not ~ ateii of concern: " ,
. The ,~lder' 10gstruCfure shows obvi()l.l.ssign~ ()f r~t and has not been proper! y
rriaintairl,ed, The decay found qnthestructure i~,aI'esu1t of two condihons where water
is 1:>eingtra'pped. One is to 1:>e found on the roof; please see photo #1, here the log roof
. rafters anq horizontal logs that extend bejondthe\'oof line are exposed to moisture
when it rains Or snowmelts;'Secc,IlPthe log col1.ll11ns rest directly on concrete or stone,
wioong water rrorn rain,. Snow and from watering the yard,please see photo #2. If these'
, IIloistun~, conditions are not addressed tb.€ fungi responsible for the decay will continue
'. to grow arid expand. ' "
", ,To prevent further d~cayand structural damaging' strength lossth,e following items are
suggested: The roof should be flashed to discharge water away rromthe w.ood.The
" protruding wood that is is getting wet should be ca1Jpf'cl' with' aslo1Jed sheet-metal, ' .
" sm,face:'fm, d, the cOlumn,' ',' S,S,'hOUld b, esepar, ated'from,-there currentbearin,'g se, atE> u,sin"g a I. .~" ......
appropnatewaterstand off base plate. ",' ,.' , " ,.'. .. , ' ".' .' ~Yl)'VV t; :
.~h~~.~~l)v.JnV4ljKD;/ RECEIVED ~.
" ~' ([0 ~ 1ruh1l1lJ~'1k ~. '13UILD~~~~RTh\H!T
I
I
I
I)
, I
. '
I'
, ,
,
. >
, ,
II
. ,
1'1 !
.",".
i;
I
,II
I
I
I
1,
I
'I
I'
Of greater SITucturalCQncern is the t6phbri~ontallogattheNorth,East~orn.eroi the .,,' '
" stnictl;ire- Please seePhoton here the decay is reachingJurther-thanthe'fu'st tciofrilfte.r
andwillrequire the member to be replaced with another log, inatchIDg size and species,,'
Therepiacemerit of the log may be done by temporarilyshQfingthe TOof,that bears on,
the log. Inadciition to theses suggestions it is also recoffimended thatthe wood be
. '. treated with~!opicaldieITlicalpreserva~~. on a regular basis. __J1biJ1lJu? . '... . '
'It should be noted that the above report is based ,on visual observations as stated. No
. physical,testingQr calculatlonswereperformed by Maggert& Associiltes,Inc; There is
:1;10 cHum, either .sta.tedor 'irnplied, that all conditions were obseryed. If there are any
questionsorc6mmentS concerning this letter or latter concerru, or issues regarding this
',log structure please call aree"maiL.,' '
'.' .
, Sincerely,
.,' .
, .
.R~viewed By:, " '
,T::>~~~
,tlh MOhg~ ... "<>try "'"eeL .E. .. > .. .
. " - ',,' .
ITlatt@i:naggerten~neers.com' baITv@i:naggertengineers.com
.'
. .. .
. . '
, ,
'RECEIVeO'
: '..:~ '0
" A~WtN.
, BUll.OINQ DEPARTMENT
'~:JZ:~
'-' ' " - "
~.o..o,.._,
.' , ,- ~ .' -. - "
-. ,-', -..,".--.-'-,
>-0:'
, 'Photo #1
Photo #2
.~1. ~"
, ,~t'ti,.o,
BUIlDING DEPARTMP,!"
" e-""
Photo #3
RECEIVED'
ASt'tN
. BUILDING DEPARTMENT .,
Page I of2
Sara Adams
--------".,.-. ._---_._."'---_..,".-...__.__._~..-.. -,. ,--------
From: Mati Monger [matl@maggertengineers.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 10:57 AM
To: Sara Adams; mitleleuro@aol.com
Subject: Re: building permit and questions
Sara,
Of course other wood treatments would suffice, we were just offering our suggestions per the agreed
structural observation. As far as chemical treatments, I do not know of any that are used on decomposed
wood and it would take some homework to find one that is used for more than treating healthy wood.
We believe that the columns in there current state have enough area to support the fully loaded deck, but
they do need to be addressed. If the continue to rot they will fail. The base plate used would most likely
be an aesthetic choice. Simpson makes a PBVPC standoff base or you could have a steel knife plate base
fabricated at any of the local steel shops.
We also feel that the log at the north east section of the structure is beyond salvaging. A good
contractor could preserve the look and match the log with some persistence.
Please fill free to contact us for the next step or if there are any more question.
Matt Monger
Maggert & Associates, Inc.
580 Main Street, Suite 300
Carbondale, CO 81623
(970) 963-9643
matt@maggertengineers.com
On Oct 26, 2006, at 9:37 AM, Sara Adams wrote:
Hi Corene, Mati, and Barry,
I have a few questions about the recommendations stemming from the visual assessment of 300
West Main Street, prior to applying for a building permit to complete the repairs:
1. Capping the protruding wood with sheet-metal will prevent the wood from "breathing" and
promote biological growth/decay, and infestation? Have you explored chemical treatments or a
subtle drip edge/ other drainage elements that will not detract from the historic resource, but will
pull water away from the exterior logs?
2. What type of base do you propose for the wood columns to be placed on?
3. I noticed that you recommend replacing the log in Photo #3, is there any way to salvage the
undamaged portion of the wood and not compromise the structural stability of that corner? It is
10/26/2006
Page 2of2
HPC's policy to always retain as much historic material as possible. Also, do you feel that the
damage at the base of the log columns in photo #1 are sound enough to withstand the weight of the
porch with snow?
Corene, you will need to submit a building permit before you begin the repair work, which must be
completed by a historic preservation contractor. A building permit checklist is attached to this em ail
explaining the information needed for a complete submittal. Please call Building at 920-5090 if you
have any questions regarding what you are required to submit.
Please get your application (available online at www.asDenDitkin.com or in our office 3rd floor of city
hall) submitted in the next two weeks.
Thanks!
Sara
Sara Adams
Preservation Planner
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO
t: (970) 429.2778
f: (970) 920.5439
<Aspen_checklist I. pdt'>
10/26/2006
.~.. M'.lgg~n~AsS9CiaJe?LInc.
580 Main Street, Suite 300
Carbondale, Colorado. 8162),,2065
.S.uuc J U .r..i1 L !O..I1_ g.Ln.l".l".I.S
('FlO) 963-9643. Fax (970) 963~Ol35
wwwMaggertEngineers.com
November 13, 2006
Stephen Kanipe
Chief Building Inspector
City of Aspen
-~~140tAVd- ~r1
+-V~IMJ dJH~.
Re: 300 West Main, Old Log Home / Restaurant
Dear Stephen:
On October 31, 2006 Matthew Monger of Maggert & Associates, Inc. received an e-mail
from Mittel Europa Company requesting that a follow up response be made to you
regarding the current condition of the entry deck and its serviceability through the
winter. We understand that Mittel Europa will be submitting plans to the building
department and would like to commence with the full project this spring.
Maggert & Associates has previously conducted a due-diligence assessment to 300 West
Main Street in Aspen Colorado, See attached letter to Corene McGovern dated
9/23/2006. In this letter we state that the log columns at the entry deck are decayed and
mitigation should take place. We also feel that the logs are oversized, and there is still
plenty of structurally stable material to sufficiently carry the loads anticipated for an
Aspen winter.
If there are any questions or comments please call or e-mail.
Reviewed By:
~~p\ "'OO.~
Matthew Monger
matt@maggertengineers.com
Barry Maggert, P.E.
barry@maggertengineers.com
.
THE On' OF ASPEN
Mittel Europa
Corene McGovern
300 W. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
970.920.3200
November 15, 2006
Re: 300 West Main Street, Work Without a Permit
Dear Corene;
On October 31, 2006 I received a message that work commenced on the exterior log
members of the designated log cabin at 300 West Main Street. This work was performed
without the required Building Permit or a Certificate of No Negative Effect from the
Historic Preservation Commission. Stephen Kanipe, Chief Building Officer, and I
performed a site visit on October 31, 2006 with you and Craig Barnes, the historic
preservation licensed contractor hired for the project to assess the situation. We observed
that one of the historic wood columns on the front porch was removed and replaced with
a new member, and the historic wood tailings on the front fayade (south side) had been
cut back behind the roof eave. The Building Department is looking into possibly
revoking Craig Barnes' historic preservation contractor license due to this significant
violation.
The deteriorated state of exterior wood members on 300 West Main Street was first
brought to my attention in July 2006 when you called me asking about repairing the
wood beams. The City has tried to work with you over three months to come to a
solution regarding structural stability and deteriorated historic material. In an effort to
ensure the safety of the structure, a red tag was issued on September 27, 2006 requiring a
structural assessment of the deteriorated wood. At this time, it was brought to my
attention that a correction notice was issued on June 22, 2006 by Stephen Kanipe for
failure to comply with the Municipal Code.
The City is concerned that a pattern violating the Municipal Code is developing on this
property. The letter dated July 26, 2006 included specific sections of the Municipal Code
regarding standards for care and upkeep of historic properties (26.415.100.A) and
enforcement procedures (26.415.1 OO.B). The City attempted through documented letters
(dated 7/28/06; 8/07/06; 8/28/06; 9/05/06; 9/18/06; 9/27/06; 10/26/06), site visits with the
Building Department (dated 7/28/06 and 10/31/06), and phone conversations to
communicate the regulations and requirements to perform work on a structure and has
been flexible with your time constraints. We have reached a point where the historic
resource is in jeopardy and it is our responsibility to ensure its survival. A stop work
order and correction notice is being issued, requiring that work on the exterior be stopped
until a Building Permit and HPC approval is granted. Furthermore, you are required to
submit a complete application to HPC for Minor Development in 30 days (December 15,
2006). The City is authorized to issue a court citation and/or fine should you violate the
stop work order/ correction notice. Enclosed with this letter are Sections 26.415.100.B
and 26.415.140 of the Municipal Code citing significant penalties for working on a
historic resource without a building permit and HPC approval.
/:,'2"""
Sara Adams
Preservation Planner
~
Cc: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney
Stephen Kanipe, Chief Building Officer
Encl: Sections 26.415.100.A - Band 26.415.140
Copies of Red Tags
Letters of Correspondence
C. Call up. The City Coun il may order call up of any action taken by t
in section 26.415.070 within 'rty (30) days of the decision, ac. n or determination.
Consequently no associated permit can be issued during the thirty (30) ay call up period.
(
\-
HPC shall promptly noti the City Council of its action to allow the City Council a
to avail itself of the Call U rocedure set forth in section 26.415.120(C) and (D).
, D. City Council action 011 appeal all consider the application
on the record established before the HP The City Council sha affirm the decision of the HPC
unless there is a finding that'there was a enial of due pro ss, or the HPC has exceeded its
jurisdiction or abused its discretion. The ity Council s 11 take such action as is deemed
necessary to remedy said situation, including, t not limi d to:
1. Reversing the decision.
(
r :.
2. Altering the conditions of approv
3.
(Ord. No. 1-2002 S 7 (part), 2002; Ord
26.415.130 Variances by ot er city by review bodies.
If an application for a v . ce involving a designated prope y is before the Board of
Adjustment or the Plannin and Zoning Commission, the HPC will e given the opportunity to '
make a written recomme Clation as to its approval. The Board of Adjus ent or the Planning and
Zoning Commission w.' not take action on said development application or a variance pursuant
to Chapter 26.314, Ithout receiving the written recommendation from t HPC. (Ord. No. 1-
2002' S 7 (part), 20 2)
26.415.1'40 Penalties.
Any person violating the provisions of sections 26.415.070 through 26.415.100 will be subject to
the general penalty provisions of this title.
A. Additional penalties. Additional penalties for the violation of sections 26.415.070
through 26.415.100 include:
1. Any person who constructs, alters, relocates, changes the appearance or demolishes a
designated property in violation of any section may be required to restore the building,
structure or setting to its appearance prior to the violation.
2. Following notice and public hearing, the HPC shall prohibit the owner, successor, or
assigns from obtaining a building permit for the subject property for a period of up to ten
(10) years from the date of the violation. The city shall initiate proceedings to place a
deed restriction on the property to ensure enforcement of this penalty. The property
City of Aspen Land Use Code. J)1ne, 2005.
"
n_~ Ann n~__ en
~ ~y~Lj[~
owner shall' be required to maintain the property during that period of time in
conformance with the Standards for Reasonable Care and Upkeep set forth in section
26.41 5. 100(A). '
3. Any variances or historic preservation benefits previously granted to the property may be
subject to revocation. (Ord. No. 1-2002 S 7 (part), 2002)
.
",
.,
:f
City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005.,
Part 400, 'Page 51
resolution, at a public hearing, with a showing of good cauSe. (Ord. No. 1-2002 !l7 (part),
2002)
26.415.100 Demolition by neglect.
It is the intent of this chapter to address the range of circumstances that affect the preservation of '
the co=unity's significant historic and architectural resources. It is further recognized that
many historic buildings and structures are lost because of deterioration from lack of
maintenance. Whether this occurs unintentionally or through deliberate decisions, the result is
the same: the loss of co=unity assets. Consequently, it is declared that the exterior features of
any designated building or structure shall be preserved against decay and deterioration and kept
free from structural defects. The designated structures shall receive reasonable care, maintenance
and upkeep appropriate for their preservation, protection, perpetUation and use.
Standards for reasollable care alld upkeep. . /
1. The owner, or such other person who may have legal possession, custody; and control
thereof of a designated property shall, upon written request by the city, repair the .
following exterior features if they are found to be deteriorating, or if their condition is
contributing to deterioration such that it is likely to compromise the building's structural
integrity or as to create or pertuit the creation of any hazardous or unsafe condition to
. life, health or other property. These features include, but are not limited to:
A.
a. Deterioration of exterior walls, foundatjons, or other vertical supports that causes
leaning, sagging, splitting, listing, or buckling.
b. Deterioration of flooring or floor supports, or other horizontal members that causes
leaning, sagging, splitting, listing or buckling.
c. Deterioration of external chimneys that cause leaning, sagging, splitting, listing or
buckling.
d. Deterioration or crumbling of exterior plasters or mortars.
e. Ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roofs and foundations, including broken
windows or doors.
f. Defective protection or lack of weather protection for exterior wall and roof
coverings, including lack of paint or weathering due to lack of paint or other
protective covering.
g. Rotting, holes and other forms of decay.
h. Deterioration of exterior stairs, porches, handrails, window and door frames, cornices,
entablatures, wall facings, ornaillental trim and other architectural details that cause
delamination, instability, loss of shape and form or crumbling.
City of Aspen Land Use' Code. June, 2005.
Part 400, Page 45
B. Enforcement procedures.
1. The HPC rnay file a petition listing specific defects, in accordance with section
26.415.11O(A), with the Chief Building Official, requesting that the official act under the
following procedures to require the correction of the defects or repairs to designated
properties.
2. Whenever a petition is filed, the, Chief Building Official shall atternpt to make direct
personal contact with the owner or other such persons having legal possession, or custody
and/or his representative. If personal contact cannot reasonably be accomplished, then
written notification of the specific defects purported by the HPC and a request to inspect
the property within ten (10) days will be mailed to the owner and other such persons
having legal possession, custody and control and will be posted at a conspicuous location
appropriate to the identified defects. In the written notification the Chief Building
Official shall document the nature of the specific defects and the corrective action
ordered.
3. After receiving agreement from the owner, his representatives or other such persons
having legal possession, custody and control of the property for an inspection, the Chief
Building Official and the HP Officer shall within ten (10) working days conduct an
investigation and prepare a written report determining whether the property requires work
to address conditions set, forth in section 26.415.100(A)(I).
f"",, -
\,;;", .
,
4. If the property is found to contain conditions needing correction, the owner, his
representative or other such persons having legal possession, custody and control of the
property will be served within fourteen (14) days with a complaint identifying the
property deficienCies and providing notice that a hearing will be held before a Hearing
Officer of the city within forty-five (45) days. The purpose of the hearing is to:
a. Receive evidence concerning the charge of deterioration, and
b. Develop a plan and schedule for making the needed repairs in a timely fashion, such
that the building is stabilized and the deterioration is arrested, and
c. Ascertain whether the owner or other parties intend to make application for financial
assistance from the city to correct the building defects.
5. Following such notice ahd hearing, the Hearing Officer will make a determination ifthere
are any corrections required pursuant to section 26.415.110(A)(I) and shall state in
writing the findings of fact in support of that determination. If it is determined that the
building or structure is undergoing deterioration or if its condition is contributing to.
deterioration, the owner or other parties of interest will be served an order to repair those
defective elements of the structure within a reasonable specified time frame.
City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005.
Part 400, Pa!!e 46
.;:.
'"
6. If the owner fails to make the necessary repairs within the identified time frame, the city
may undertake the work to correct the deficiencies that create any hazardous and unsafe
conditions to life, health and property. The expense of this work will be recorded as a lien
on the property.
C. AppeaL Within thirty (30) days, the owner may' appeal the decision of the Hearing
Officer to the Board of Appeals and Examiners pursuant to the process established in Chapter
8.08 of the Aspen Municipal Code. (Ord. No. 1-200297 (part), 2002)
26.415 10 . Benefits.
The Ci of Aspen is committed to providing support to property owners to assist the' efforts to
maintain, reserve and enhance their historic properties. Recognizing that these roperties are
valuable co unity assets is the basic premise under!ying the provision of s ecial procedures
and programs r designated historic properties and districts. A complete list fbenefits available
to propei:ties lis d on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites d Structures may be
found in Chapter .420., '
,
A. Historic land ark lot split. This provision provides an exe ption from the Subdivision
and Growth Managem t Quota System, pursuant to section 26.480.030 and 26.470.070,
allowing owners of desi ated historic properties to create second unit in addition to the
historic building on their lot ough the subdivision of the pr erty.
5. The City Council
application.
and the City Council. Notice for these
and posting pursuant to section
1. An application for a lot lit of a designated histo c property may be filed by the owner
by providing the standard 1 ormation required' Chapter 26.304.
2.
including a public hearing be e
hearings includes publication,
26.304.060(E)(3)(a)(b) and (c).
3. Staff will review the submittal
and a recommendation to conti
reason for the recommendati
4. The HPC may approve resolution, recommen
with conditions or disa rove the application.
g that City Council approve, approve
,
ith conditions or disapprove the
B. variations are allowed for proj ts involving designated
properties to cr te development that is more consistent with the aracter of the historic
property or than what would be required by the underlying oning's dimensional
standards.
City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005.
Part 400, Page 47
ASPEN .J:lJTKiN
COMMUNlTY CEVEI..OPMENT OEPA!=lTMENT
o .CORRECTiON NOTICE
[a-STOP WORK ORDER
,
,-}
Job Located at
!;.-.,)....
f.(?i-;~
'i'1 /
I :: _~_ _L,,' __.....~[~~~~-
~I +-~: "-'. !.._._. -- \
I have this day inspected this structure and these premises
and have found the following violations of City, County and/or
Colorado State laws governing same:
\'rrL~~(' :i,' .~,f
1\1' ,
"""'1,-1'\,
..
:1'1-"
! ",i:ll '
: ..!.;"~"'~ .
.-,
. \tJ,i/l{
L, (.;i;>'
.
,t,,1 +.
f; n/)/--!}-,!. t
-'\'"'-
.
,
\ ,,_.\."
i,/.'I" .,~<,/.:..,'r '~-,I:"I, ,.J.. ; ,3r;'::" .:.) ',),"'j ,'::"I:l/ i ~ _.ij/!.1 ,<,-.;)---
.. f .' "" !Vi.l"'__<"~.i"J;"(f"_ /'./' .:f!~I...~\
,! ~\}t:"V~~ (?),
/~. ;'
;\ r~,
I i~
~, ii \ ":1.;.71;
'--. ..
, ,~ :
"" fA .'-1 .'--.
}:t ;. i ~ _:~;: '~\~:--
"';)'J.L';f~ '.,)_"r
'{i,1/.'
'.:~-
Correct BY~4/1 :/:1 >Y;l~ -~~i.2j (;}O days from the date of notice.)
Photos Tak~~:' Yes 0 unless'otherwise hoted.
You are hereby notified that no more work may be done upon
the premises until.above violations are corrected. Failure to correct
the viqlations within thirty (30) days may subject you to a civil suit for
an injunction, or a fine, or both; or to a misdemeanor criminal
prosecution, which upon ,conviction may carry a sentence, or fine, or
imprisonment. or both, Please contact the Department immediately
to assure timely.correction.
: ~ ~::-'" ..
- .~. ;:
'1',:,
.~~ ~ . _;.l-?_'
,n;..._'
..
'Date,'
Inspector for Community Developl'!"ent Department
Community Development Department Phone: 920-5090
DO NOT REMOVE THIS TAG
MITIEL EUROPA COMPANY
April 10, 2007
Historic Preservation Commission
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Mister Chairperson and Members of the Commission:
I am writing to express my deepest regret over the alterations that were made to my home at 300
West Main Street. These alterations were the result of a failure to communicate with individuals
helping me maintain my home and a failure to fully understand the permitting process for my
property. Through this process, I have learned how delicate the historic properties are and how
incredibly diligent an owner has to be in monitoring all activity on their property.
Please know that when I purchased my home in 2005, the historic designation of the property
was one of the central factors that led to my purchase. The historic quality made me feel at home
and integrated into the history of my town and it complemented my antiques and furnishings
business, which 1 intended to run out of the property. I realize that my home is a public asset and
J value being allowed to be a caretaker of that asset during my life. I am committed to correcting
any damage to the historic qualities of the home that I have caused, I regret any irreversible
damage I have caused, and I promise to dedicate more time to preserving the home as long as I
own it.
S~/~
Corene A. McGovern
300 West Main Street Aspen. CO 81611 910.920.3200 910.925.1082 Fax mitteleuro@aol.com
300 WEST MAIN STREET TIMELINE
. EXHI~
I~_(/- 07
..
November 7,2005
Mittel Europa purchases 300 W. Main Street
December 2005
Former owner meets with Dennis Larson and advises of ice build up and wood
rotting issues on property. Dennis asks Corene McGovern if he wants her to
correct the ice and wood rot issues in addition to other work he will pelform.
Spring 2006
Dennis Larson cuts beam on porch to confirm with beams on back of home.
June 21, 2006
Mittel Europa fires Insight Construction, Steve Weaver. Steve Weaver reports
to Building Department that he has withdrawn from project and work is being
performed without approvals.
June 22, 2006
Stephen Kanipe inspects property. Weaver admits no work has occurred.
Stephen Kanipe issues Correction Notice because no licensed contractor of
record.
Julv 2006
Received a call from Corene McGovern about "filling in" exterior wood
members on the propertv located at 300 West Main Street
Julv 28. 2006
(Sara Adams) perform a site visit with Building Department (Erik Peltonen)JQ
discuss the state of the deterioration and whether the structural members are
sound. Adams issues letter to Corene advising on existence of structural
problems with exterior log rafters, log purlins, and large log columns on porch.
Advises to locate structural engineer and file an exterior alteration application
and hire a licensed historic preservation contractor.
August 4, 2006
Mittel makes calls to Oliginal inspector for property John Silich and
Steeplechase Construction, Aspen Constructors, Doug Throm, BaiT
Construction
August 6, 2006
Mittel calls nine structural engineers, leaves messages
August 7, 2006
Mittel makes follow up calls to all structural engineers; schedules appointment
with Maggert & Associates, Inc. for August 17, 2006. Adams sends e-mail to
Corene inquiring about status of engineering analysis. Corene advises lIP of
August 17 appointment with Maggert and that engineers reported 6 week
minimum before appointments available. Corene meets at the site with Barr
Construction who decides he is too busy to take on the work. Corene meets
with Doug Throm to visit building. Throm does not show. Corene leaves
messages over next two weeks asking for meeting. Throm does not respond.
August 13 through August 16
Mittel traveling for business.
August 17, 2006
Barry Maggert visits site at 3:30 and examines structure issues. Mittel sends
call and e-mail to Maggert regarding need for a report.
August 25,2006 through September 23,2006
Matt Monger on extend leave from office
August 28, 2006
Corene calls Matt Monger at Maggert about getting a report. Adams e-mails
Corene with information about HPC contractor exam.
September 5, 2006
Adams e-mails Corene about status of engineering report.
September 10, 2006
Corene calls and e-mails Matt at Maggert for status report.
September 13 through October 3
Mittel traveling for business.
September 18, 2006
Adams e-mails Corene about status of engineering report.
September 27. 2006
issue a red tag requiring engineer assessment submittal in 30 davs. This was a
Con-ection Notice requiring an assessment within 30 days of the notice.
October 9, 2006
Corene meets with and hires Aspen Constructors, Craig Barnes
October 12, 2006 through October 22, 2006
Mittel traveling on business.
October 23, 2006 - Maggert submits report to Corene
2
October 24. 2006
Receive assessment from BalTV Maggert and Associates. I send an email
questioning some of his recommendations and reiterating to Corene that work is
not approved and cannot be completed without a permit. Corene mentions that
Craig Barnes of Aspen Constructors will be the licensed contractor supervising
the proiect. Corene faxes Adams and Stephen Kanipe and advises Craig Bames
is overseeing project and using log expert Pal Diamato who will put them on the
schedule for October 26th or 30th.
October 26, 2007
Adams exchanges e-mails with Corene and Maggert regarding questions about
recommendations for remediation.
October 30, 2006
Craig Barnes submits building permit and informs me that he will be
supervising the proiect- and Paul Diamato ( a "wood expert" that is not licensed
by HP) will be on the site. The pelmit is not issued: the problems that I raised
in the email to Barry Maggart are not addressed in the submittal. I (Adams)
give Craig a cop v of the letter I sent to Barry Maggart explaining the areas of
concern.
October 31, 2006
I receive a phone call from Craig Barnes informing me that work commenced at
300 West Main Street without his knowledge. Stephen Kanipe and I gO to the
site to meet Craig and Corene. A column on the front porch has been replaced
and wood tailings have been cut back in the east comer of the building (not sure
when the tailings were cut, probably before July according to photographs).
Work is stopped (no permit was issued), and Stephen and I relay that we need to
issue a permit. Our main concern is getting the cabin through the winter with
snow load- we need confirmation that the structural problems can last
throughout the winter. I inform Corene that she needs submit an application to
HPC that proposes a long term solution mitigating the water damage to the
historic logs, and she must receive HPC approval for this work. Diamato
damages chinking while replacing logs.
November 13, 2006
I receive an email from Barry Maggart confirming that the cabin will survive
the winter snow load.
November 14,2006
Stephen and I discuss the letter from BaiTY and decide that periodic visual
inspection must occur during the course of the winter- especiall y after large
snow storms. Amy and I decided that we will provide a deadline for an HP
application for minor development and a deadline for work to be complete in
the sPiing.
3
November 20, 2006 through December 3,2006
Mittel travel internationally for business sin rural areas. Dennis Larson adds
temporary gutter to home.
December 12. 2006
The tailings were cut above the front porch and a gutter was installed without
approval bv HPC or a building permit.
December 20, 2006
Aspen Constructors submits application for Minor Development
March 9, 2006
Adams issues notice of Show Cause healing.
3695465_1.DOC
4
""
<>.
'"
N
~ .... co"""" 0'> N
_NN "-
'"
......~...."" '"
N
_NN ~
~
>- \0,.,0..... ~
~ _NN .,.
0
~ " LnN"''''
~ __N
~
>- ~...a:>'"
__N
" <"'>0............
.......NM
'"
~ ""<;7""""0 M
_N~
>-;
V'>I""~!;:;~ '"
-0
'c
LI... NOl\OMO U.
_N~
>- ....""lI'lNOl
~ _NN
0
0 ""........co
N "
~ _NN
- >- \0<'"101'- '"
_NN ~ '" 0
:1 " 4-l
"'NO'\\O co
=>
__N ~ '-' "
..... U 4-l
........00..... Ul ..... 0
_~N ..... '-'
;> 0 '"
Z 0
aJ '-'
'-' '" U
..... 0 "
Ul ..... '"
'-' '-'
aJ U '" '1:l
" aJ 0 '"
..... '" U 0
'" '" U
" 0 0 aJ
U '" '" N
4-l
0
Ul
aJ
.....
4-l
..... I
'-'
0 ....
Z "
'-' ~
.c '"
bll'1:l
..... .c
Ul '-'
" .....
H ~
>-
'"
-0
~
"
~
\C en '"
0 N
0
N >-
'"
-0
CI) co
0
""
C "
::s "-
0
I
.., E
'"
<>.
.!::
~
~
-
N
o
o
"
N
~
-"
"
:;::
w
..' C
-
1 '<
..':;::
0
"
0- N
~ 0>
("l .. -<
" 0
>-' .,.
>-' 0
H> I.
w M N ~ ~ en
~ 0 -" " 0 w
" 1
~
... " Ii
c;)
0
.. <:
(1) -l
'i "
." " I rn
I 0-
M 0>
(1) -<
,'.' ..
H>
J-'o
,',' t:: N ~ ~
'" '" ~ -"
t".
. " I
DO
1 t".
"= :;:
cr ~
(1) "
I ~ '"
~
0-
I, '" 0>
~ -<
i>
N ~ ~ ..
'" '" N '"
.. >.,.
.,...
',,'
..
I'
I ~t::::;:\O", ~
w""'........ ~
1 .... ""...... ow
N N ~ ~--
" .0 w '" U'II;D.....". -<
n rtl Pl <: ~ 1 .
gg ~~.~ I I ~-- :E~
C"DNI.11
l"'t )-1'1-4 )-I. S 0
I 0
.'.. Ii ';:I to rt tn ~
~~- -<
~ (tl 1-'" ......o.....,cn
" (1) "
X, rttiOQ:;t> IJII ~~- ~
g..~! co............
.. " t"- 01 ~~-
l.O""'U'lCl:I....1.11
I., p..KCIlrt
t". 0
I. ::0" >-'"
IV OQ CD (D
I) rt "
>-' rt
1 1-" ro tr.l ~~-
(") 11 I-'N N ~ ......owcn ~
'" ~ -" "
1 (1) ~~- ~
Cl:I_.l>o......
I. 1 ~~-
..0 NU'I co- -< >
..
~tjo;ltlN ",ia
~
'" -<~
0> ....."-'--
"'" _-"'......0'""'
'"
" ~--
'.'.. " VI"".........."
~--
0'1\0""1.11 Ul
,
~
.. ;0: N N ~
I~ I~ lin ~
"
0>
3
::I:
o
'0
'"
~
w >- ......;!;;:;:~
0
0
N
.!l ;: \0,....,0.....
~ _NN
~>- VlNO\o.o
__N
'" 'l"....OOLf>
__N
~ ,....,0.......,.
__N
I- MO......,.....
8 ........N,..,
N
]; 3: N"'~~g
~
~ I- _COU"lNO'l
_NN
U)
o
o
N
.w
U)
~
en
~
<C
~IN"'\D""O
_N~
u.. _oo""NO'I
_NN
Vl """'0'1\0
__N
u.. "'_CCl'"
__N
'"
......,._c:o
_NN
~
\0,....,0......
_NN
:E
C>-
...
'" " ~
" :< " N
..... 0 :< ....
0
" ., 0 0
., N
'" "-' -
~
.... 0 "-' ~
.... 0 ;;0-
<<l '" .,
u ... ;:l .,
'" 0 ;:l
.... '" 0
'" " ~
., ..... ~
., 00
..... "
"'
... ;:l
0 0
.,
u ~
<<l ~
...
., ~
"
0 ...
u '"
00
0.. "
0:: 0 "
:>:: :<
... 0
'" ;:l ., .,
., 0 .,
., "-' <<l "-'
.... :>:: 0
>-
rn
"0
c:
o
:E
....
<<l
...
;:l
.,
u
;:l
...
., "
'" 0
.....
., .,
... u
'" '"
00.,.
00'"
<<l "
:>:: .....
N
~
0
.,
"-'
0
.,
;:l
0
....
'"
.,
.,
.....
:>::
"
:<
0
.,
"-'
0
.,
;:l
0
....
'"
'" .,
'" .,
'" .....
'" ..... :>::
.... >--
<<l '" <<l :< '"
u '" " 0 " '" .,
... .., ,d :< ... .,
.,...... .... '" " 0 .....
;:l,d .... '" ., ~ :>:: ""
--= 0 '"
:< .co " "-' " " '"
0 '" 0 '" ;:l .... "
.... ... ... = .... ., ..... '" '"
.... '" 0 ., 0 ., .... <<l <<l U ...
0 '" "-' .,.... ;:l <<l ., = ..... 0
"-' " .,.,d 0 u '" 1 .... .,
......, <<lH '" U
.... 00 ... .... .... ., 0.. <<l "
'" " "'''-' <1l <1l ... '" 0:: ... c.
., <1l 000 ... ., ., 0 = ., 0
., 00 ... ., ., .,.<<l " J:
..... 0 <<lo.. <<l ..... ..... "''''' <1l 0 E
:>:: ., :<:0:: '" :<: :<: ...< ... u f1.
-c
'"
3
:r:
o
"0
'"
N
:;:
,...
rt
rt
'"
f-'
o
'"
rt
o
H>
rt
o
<:
"
>Z>:;:
00 0 p... 1-"
00 it ~ rt
(I) 1-1' S rt
00 () 00 ro
~ ro 1-" ~
ro I-tl 00 0
:;j 0 CIl C
rt ti C rt
C1l
'" en 0
" H>
"" n
1-" 0 rt
" rt 0
C1l rt <:
C1l C1l "
rt "
"'0 :;:
o ,....
" rt
rt
C1l
f-'
o
'"
rt
o
H>
rt
o
<:
"
^'
'"
~
~
~
~
N
o
o
'oJ
~
~
en
-c
3:
,
:;:
,...
rt
rt
C1l
f-'
o
'"
rt
o
H>
rt
o
<:
"
:;:
"'0
rt
rt
C1l
f-'
o
'"
rt
o
H>
rt
o
~
:;:
,...
rt
rt
C1l
f-'
o
'"
rt
o
H>
rt
o
<:
"
N
en
N
'"
N
'oJ
N
ex>
N
'"
I\;!
~~25:
rt '1:1"
rtooS
ro C I"i 00
f-'rtrt
C1l
o 0 C .1
C 1-h"'C ;:::I
rt """
rt A:l 1-"
~~~I-'
" rt
rt C1l
o '"
<: '"
" C1l
en 0;
~ ~~.
rt ""
rt 0
C1l '"
f-'rt
o 0
'" H>
rt
rt
o 0
H>~
rt
o
<:
"
~~
rt
rt 0
C1l '"
f-'rt
o 0
'" H>
rt
rt
o 0
H><:
"
rt
o
<:
"
~~
rt
rt 0
C1l '"
f-'rt
o 0
'" H>
rt
rt
o 0
H><:
"
rt
o
<:
"
:;:
,...
rt
rt
C1l
f-'
o
'"
rt
o
H>
rt
o
<:
"
~~
rt
o rt
'" C1l
rtf-'
o 0
H>'"
rt
rt
o 0
~ H>
rt
o
<:
"
~~
rt
rt 0
C1l '"
f-'rt
o 0
'" H>
rt
rt
o 0
H>~
rt
o
~
I'"
~
'"
N
o
N
~
N
N
I~
~~
rt
rt 0
C1l '"
f-'rt
o 0
'" H>
rt
rt
o 0
H><:
"
rt
o
<:
"
~~
rt
rt 0
C1l '"
f-'rt
o 0
'" H>
rt
rt
o 0
H>~
rt
o
<:
"
:;:~
,...
rt 0
rt '"
C1l rt
f-'
o
o H>
'"
rtrt
o
:;.~
~~
rt
rt 0
C1l '"
f-'rt
o 0
'" H>
rt
rt
o 0
H><:
"
rt
o
<:
"
:;:
~~
rt
C1l 0
f-''''
rt
o
'" 0
rtH>
o rt
H>O
rt ~
o
~ ~
rt
o
<:
"
~
o
'"
rt
o
H>
rt
o
~
~
o
'"
rt
o
H>
rt
o
<:
"
~
~
~
~
w
~
'"
~
en
rt :;:
C1l I-'-
'1:1 rt
o rt
rt C1l
rtf-'
'" "
'1:1 "
""f-'
" f-'
rt en
C1l
~
I~
~ I~
-"
~
o
'"
rt
o
H>
rt
o
<:
"
~
o
'"
rt
o
H>
rt
o
<:
"
~
o
'"
rt
o
H>
rt
o
<:
"
~
o
'"
rt
o
H>
rt
o
<:
"
~
o
'"
rt
o
H>
rt
~
"
~
o
'"
rt
o
H>
rt
o
~
'"
en
'"
'oJ
ex>
.-
~
o
'"
rt
o
H>
rt
o
<:
"
I
I
3:
o
=>
5}
:;:
'"
c.
=>
'"
~
~
I
I.
I
I
I
I
1 .
I
1
I
i
~
o
'"
rt
o
H>
."
~
c:
'"
-<
'"
~
'"
3
0'
'"
~
~
rt
o
<:
"
~
o
'"
rt
o
H>
rt
o
~
-<
"
'"
~
c.
'"
en
tD
"C
,...
tD
3
a-
tD
-r
N
C)
C)
en
N~~
~......o.....
~
N~~
VlO"...':O'
3:
N~~
0'l\D.....'"
-<~
"I
N
o
-<g
NN~
.....0....0'1
NN~
c:o................
NN~
o..o",V1<"'" ...,
WN~
0....0'1\0..... Ul
rc:~t;;CI>....IUI
:;:t:::~<D"'" J:
:q
""
'"
"
=>
~::::I: ~
~:gNVl,-l ~
NN~
.....c"....o;r. .."
NN~
OO...........,U'I
" " " " :;:
"-
:> :> " :> :> "'
0 0 :> 0 0 ~
.... .... 0 .... .... N
VI ....:::~~ .... r-.
4-< 4-< 4-< 4-< '"
IJ... ,.,0,...'" 0 0 0 0 '"
C N
__N => -
V> .... .... ~
:g I- .....1;1'I\0;::)0 '" ;:l ;:l ~
-
~ ....,.., '" 0 0 .,.
V>
E 3: ...4lz)LnN<7> .-I .-I
~ ....NN '" '"
.... ....
01- "...._0;0 .... ....
Z ....N.....
'M oM
" ID....Ol' :<: :<:
_NN
~ Lt'lNQ'l\O "
__N :>
0
....
4-< 4-<
0 0
>-
VI "~;::::re '" .... ....
u
.C ;:l ;:l
IJ... ",,.,0,.... u.. 0 0
_NN
.-I .-I
\0 I- UI""OHO '" '"
o ............. .... ....
:<: .... .... '"
!j3: ....~~;!J OM 'M .-I 00"d
0 :<: ~ .,; " 0
B I- ,.,;::~~;:; " .... ....
:> " I U '"
::E: Na"Dr"IO 0 :> '" '" a
_N~ .... 0 o~
.... '" '" ...
III ....COLrlNO'l 4-< '" ... .,;
_NN 0 4-< 00 '"
0 " .... "-
'" .... '" ... '"
u
~ ;:l .... ..c: '" ...
=> 0 ;:l u 00
F 0 >: 00"d
.-I OJ '" '"
OJ .-I ~ '"
.... OJ '" 0
.... .... a ..c: "-
OM .... '" .... 0
~ OM "d OM ...
:<: <0 :> "-
N
~
0
....
>- 4-<
'" 0
u
~
.. ....
c ;:l
u
~ 0
.-I
.. '"
.... 0 OJ
.... .... U
OM '" '" 00"" ""
~ :>,13 .-I "
.,; ~ ..-'" .. 'M
" ~ P-<P ... " > a
:> p::-- ...-1 or-! ...
0 0 u ...c: ... '"
.... .... '" <0 OJ u ... "-
.... OJ .... '"
4-< 4-< ... 'M 00 'M OJ 0
>- 0 0 04-< " '" a u "
'" '" "-'M OM 0 <0
1) .... .... .. '" .... ... " '" 4-<
;:l ;:l > 0:: O'M 0 4-< 0
=> 0 0 OM "..c: "d 0
\D .... OJ .... 0 " '"
.-I .-I U ... .-I 4-< .... '" '" ..
0 OJ OJ OJ OJ '" 0 '" OJ '"
.... .... H 00.... @ @ " 'M
.... .... 00.... >: H >
0 OM OM P-< '" 'M '" .,; OJ "'"d
~ :<: p:: ~:<: 4-< P .0 '" '"
N "
~ OJ " '-'
"- :> H "-
I- 0 '" 0 0 "-
.... <0 '-' '" "- '-' '"
CU '-' OJ H ....
4-< '" '" 4-< 'M 0:: 0 a '"
.c >- 0 OJ H 0 a 4-< ... '-'
'" H 0 .0 00 OJ U
u .... 'M '-' '-' ;:l " '" "- OJ
c
0 0 ;:l ..c: u ;:l '" OM .... .~
:;: 0 ;:l 0 ... 'M 00 OJ
...., .-I H '-' OJ a " ...
.-I OJ '-' .-I ... OJ .0 'M ..
U OJ .... '" OJ OJ " ;:l "d '" "-
.... .... " '-' 00 'M '" .-I @ 0
0 '-' 'M 0 '-' 0000 OM :I:
OM ~ U OM '" " u ;:l "d E
~ ~ ~ ~<>1 <0 .0 <0 m
"-
.ot.
~
~
-
"
o
o
""
!'!
~
'"
"0
3:
:s: :s: " 00 :s: 1<" Z
,.... ""0 C rt " i;"
rt rt " """ 0
rt rt <: C""
'" '" ,.... " '" """
>-' >-' <: rt " <
'" C rt lill
0 0 " t'D
c c 0:: '" "
rt rt ,.... 0 3
" 0:: "
0 0 rt ..... ,."
,." ,." '" >-' ,....
" >-'" C"
rt rt S
0 0 00
0:: 0:: < t'D
" " " " ~
"" 0 w '" ~
:s: :s: " ;>- I",,',
,.... , ..... 0 p.. N
rt I rt " ~ I
rt rt " 0
'" I '" C 00 1<
>-' >-' "
" 1< ~ 0
~ 0 0 0:: "
t"" C C ..... p.. ~
" rt rt rt I~ en
" ::r?'
00 0 0 :s:~ I>
0 '" ,."
" " ,....
rt rt ",,'d 1<
" 0 0 "" '"
c 0:: 0:: '"
rt " " " " " ~
tJl co ~ ~ ""
'd :s:
0 ,.... :s:
" rt ""0
" rt rt
::r '" rt
>-' '" :;:
0" >-' '"
'" 0 C-
"
~ C 0 '"
rt C ~
C-
oo rt zf!l'
0
" '" 0 ~
" ,." '"
p.. rt 3
0 rt 0-
,.... 0:: ~ "l
" " " " ~
"' N '" co ~
rt
" :s:
>-' ,.... :s:
>-' rt ,....
00 rt rt
'" rt
"" >-' '" -<
C >-' or
rt 0 !;i
rt C 0 ~
'" rt C C-
'"
" rt -<
00 0
~ ,." 0 N~~ ~
anD""U"I
'"
rt NN~
0 rt "-.lOWO"l ~
0:: .~ 0 ~
" 0:: " ~t:::~...... -l ~
W '" "' "
< NN~ ' ~
:s: ..0...........""....:::= ~
IX ..... N
WN~ 0
rt OWO''IlDN ~g
rt I
"; '" N~~
>-' ." .........0..... ...
=>"
0 C- N~~
C ~ U"lCI"'.......<.n
rt
0
,."
rt
0 WN...... I:
0:: " ~ ~ ........-..10".,
~ "" 0 w
,',,'i :s: i N~_
"'0<..........
, ,....
1> rt :s: N~~ ~~
rt ,.... C7'l"""V'l
> '" rt I ~
>-' rt I NN~ ~ if
'" -..10""(71
1 0 >-' '" N
I '" NN~ 0
..""'.. C "'" 0:>............. ~g
'. rt 0 , '"
c I c: NN~
,.,','. 0 rt I" \QNU"lOO.... ~
,." I
0 WN~
0...."''''1'-' <.n
rt ,." I
1< 0 I
~ rt
I " 0 " Ie;: ~ ~ ~
0:: ~
"0
'"
3
:J:
o
"0
'"
~
OJ
...
-M
"
OJ
\0 >- '"
ro -M
"0
~ <=:
Q .. <1l
"
I- ~
Q --
" ...
~ .....
N "
." .....
<ll l>
I.
CU
.Q
E >-
ro
"0
cu C
0
:E
U "
0.
cu 0
:I:
Q E
ro
Q.
(,I) lD...O......
_NN
u.. U"l~e:~
......1-.,.....00'"
o ........N
o
N
~ 3: "'S:~~;:;
,
<
t!: I- NO\~:::::~
:E ....CCllnNO\
_NN
~
"'.,.....:0
_NN
(,I} NO\>Dr"lO
_NM
u.. ....CIO~~~
i'l>- ..............""
i< _NN
11 ,. "'...,0......
E _NN
~ >- "'Na>'"
__N
~ ....:::;!l~
l/') ""'e;::;~;:;
>-
ro
~
"
.<:
I-
>-
ro
"0
~
..
C
"0
"
s:
N
\Naite,l Mullins House
234 West Francis St.
Site survey of historic materials, 1/29/1999
EXHIBIT
I [I-, '.' ( J-. " ----
I ' 07
..#""'
West Side
. All hi>toric window trim and sills have been replace<:! with new, new details aclde<:!, no
original materials e.",isL
. Three vent penetrations were made through the historic walls.
. Historic porch materials, post; and roof structure, have be€n removed Posts are in storage,
otherwise materials have been destroye<:!. West. historic door is in storage.
. New copper guides in historic double hung windows.
. Llrge ~ne of historic ~olSS W:lS broken, :It larj1;e doUble hung.
. All historic siding, comer boords md rascia trim on the one story section have been
destroyed. .
. Areas of historic siding, on the main house, were relocated to this area from original
1000.atiom, '-Ornei' board. nave been replaced. .
. Pre existing porch "floor" materials were demolished, materials which have been represented
to be installed were never approved.
North Side
.A1rhistoric siding and comer boards have ~ removed. ,
. All new window trim, new details added. none of the historic materials exist
. New copper guides in historic double hung window;.
East Side .
.. All historic siding has been removed and replaced with new siding and comer boards.
. All new window trim, new details added. no origin'al materials remain. ,
. An existing historic: winnow, just north or thp. docr.vay, has b~ replaced with a ne'N on~r
the h,istoric window still exists and is in sterage.
. Two vent penetr:ltions have been made through the historic.wall, with large trim details.
. New copper guides in historic double hung windows.
South Side
. Historic siding has been relocated iTem other areas to this fal;aae. Siding in the area above
the entrv 1'001 has been removed. New window trim'in this area: ' ".
. All new wi~dow sills and trim, with additional detJils, have been installed, none of the
historic materials e.",isL
. Entry porch fascia, sofrit, ,md expressed structure have all been reconstructed, new materials
do not match the historic materials in size or profile. New materials continue alon!; one
story element at entry. One piece or historic crown molding >till exists, in storage.
Historic rool framing is apparently intaC below the new construction.
. Entry columns have been altered at the base and at the top with materials which do not
replicate the original posts. While portiens of the posts remain, the historic integrity has
been destroyed. New boards behind the 'pilasters" adjacent to the door are new. Scroll
work irom, entry still exists and is in ;torage. '
. New dOOl'trim, with more elabor:lte detail, has been added, historic trim materials were
destroyed. Historic door and transom are in storage. '
. All historic siping in the area above the entr; porch roof has been removed and partially
, replaced with new.
. Pre existing porch "iloor" materials were demolished, materials which have been represented
to be installed were neve( approlied.
. Areas or comer boards are new.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
308 E. Hopkins Avenue, Major Development (Final)- Public Hearing
DATE:
May 9, 2007
HPC continued review of 308 E. Hopkins Avenue for restudy of exterior materials and
fenestration.
Attached are revised elevations illustrating the proposed changes. Color renderings and
material samples will be brought to the HPC meeting. The architects intend to use a gray
palette for the clad windows and elements related to the one story portion of the building
instead of white, as previously proposed.
Z' Z'
! OW ~ 00:::
-0::: - W
1-0 . 1-1-
~ <(LL a <(LL
g >w ><(
Wrn w,
" -.J, -.J
W " W
~ ~
~ I- ~ I-
(f) (f)
" <( " <(
W W
.. '13'-' I-
i;
I"' ,
'I _.0
-....-...
....____rntr
~ I~i .l ~oi ~ II~i .w i~ ~
I~ z -f z
w. . w. .
>- h
. " o~ ~i ~ 0( ~ ~8 i" ~
6 - ~ h I b
~ 1 ~ ~z .~
3: ~ .' u
z . .
~ ~
~ :
. . i i i . . i i i
ill aOll ~ ~ 8. ~
~ i~l~ c ~ .1J j m ~d~ . ~ J;; ~ ~
. ~ il ~ a
"~O~ ~ . 2 ~ ~ !
" "
~ :E
fTl fTl
U1 U1
-j -j
fTl fTl
, "- :,
:fTl IJJfTl
)>< fTl<
'I)> 'I)>
-j-j O-j
fTl - ;0-
;00 fTlO
:z :z
. U s ~~ ~~ p
~ i "'& "'8 ~
~ I~ , ~~ ~. I
,
~ ... ,.~
0
~ ~ ~
~
i
~
i
j
o
~
~
d
~~
~
CD
. a ~ ill'll ~.., a
~ . ,~,~
i ",,:;I to'ta
. ~ ~ ~~ ~~ i
"
~. . 2
" ~ ~
j
.
i
i
j
o
~
~
~
~
~
~
; ~
"3 "
". .
~~ 1=
~~ a
a~
~~r
si~
.5.
=
"
"
.
"
.
.
.
.
~
~
~
"
.
" g
~ ~ ~
~d
.. .
a
ffi ~
. 5
z:
00:::
-W
f-f-
<l:LL
><1:
W:
---1
W
I
/ f-
0:::
o
Z
w
"
g
"
.
"
z:
OW
-0:::
f-o
<l:LL
>w
WaJ
---1:
W
I
f-
0:::
o
Z
rTJ
:r
CDrrJ
rTJ<
'Tl}>
0-1
;:u-
rTJO
:z
(j]
o
C
-1
I
rrJ
r
: rTJ
}><
'Tl}>
-1-1
rTJ-
;:u0
:z
.
.
'~ .
~ .
0
"e ~ ~ .
i~ ~ ~ ~
a :" ~ ~
.01 ~
i~! ~~ .
~ ~ ~
" " "
(j]
o
C
-1
I
~" ~ ~i !~ on 0 ~~ 0 0 ~
o~ ~H ~ ~
"~ ~ zS . II '0 ~ ~~ . n ~
.... :It on ~~ ~ ~
~ . ~~ Ii ;;!
~ " . ~ ~
z ....
0
~
.
~
2
~
.
~
o
i
rJ
~
~
~
2
~
.
~
.
"
'"
'"
~ ~ ~~ ~;
:;; r~ ~ i: ~~
. cis p .
~ ..il i
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
THRU:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
FROM:
Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
RE:
434 East Cooper Avenue, Major Development Review (Conceptual), Viewplane
and Commercial Design Review- Public Hearing
DATE:
May 9, 2007
SUMMARY: The applicant requests Conceptual Major Development approval, Viewplane
exemption and Commercial Design approval to redevelop the site located on the corner of
Galena and Cooper Streets. HPC granted demolition approval for the extant two story Bidwell
Building on May 24, 2006 by a vote of 3 -2.
On February 14, 2007, HPC directed the applicant to restudy the comer element, inflect to the
historic Red Onion and Aspen Grove Building, and restudy the verticality of architectural
elements. The applicant requests that HPC grant approval for the structure to exist within the
Wheeler Opera House and Hotel Jerome Mountain View Planes.
Staff finds that the proposal meets the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, criteria for View
Plane review and the Commercial Design Standards, and recommends that HPC grant Major
Development Conceptual approval.
APPLICANT: Bidwell Investment Corporation, represented by Mitch Haas of Haas Land
Planning, LLC; Klein, Cote & Edwards, P.C.; and Rowland + Broughton Architecture and Urban
Design.
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-16-001.
ADDRESS: 434 East Cooper Avenue, Lots Q, R, and S, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado.
ZONING: CC, Commercial Core.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
C:\Documents and Settings\amyg.ASPENPITKIN\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\OLK2B\434ecooperConceptualMay92007 (3).doc
Page I
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant.
Staff Response:
Context: The property is part of the Commercial Core Historic District and sits on a prominent
corner location downtown. It is in close proximity to important landmarks: Aspen Block
Building is directly across the alleyway to the north; the Independence Square building is located
diagonally across the street; and the Red Onion is located to the west. Directly across Cooper
Street is the old Guido's building, which exhibits a chalet style form. 434 East Cooper borders
the Cooper Pedestrian mall and the Galena Street thoroughfare and the east fa~ade faces the
popular open space in front of Paradise Bakery.
DESIGN GUIDELINE REVIEW
Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list
of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as "Exhibit A." On1y those
guidelines which staff finds the project may be in conflict with, or where discussion is needed,
are included in the memo.
Staff Response: Staff finds that the applicant thoughtfully considered HPC's comments from
the February 14, 2007 Conceptual Review hearing, and the new proposal meets the Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines in terms of scale, mass, and height. ,
The applicant reduced the height of the building to two stories, with a 15 feet setback leading to
three stories at the middle and rear, adjacent to the Red Onion(southwest corner) and the Aspen
Block Building (northeast corner). The two story inflection at both corner ends of the building is
sensitive to the historic landmarks and breaks up the mass of the building. Staff finds that the
proportions and modules comply with Guidelines 13.9, 13.10 and 13.11 below, and are
appropriate for the large 9,000 square foot site. The applicant changed the floor heights- the
C:\Documents and Settings\amyg.ASPENPITKINlLocal Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\OLK2B\434ecooperConceptualMay92007 (3).doc
Page 2
ground floor is 14 feet, and the second and third floors are each 11 feet. The total height of the
building, including the proposed cornice, is below the 42 foot height limit in the Commercial
Core.
13.9 Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at the sidewalk.
D The design of a 3-story building should in some way acknowledge the 2-story character of the
downtown.
D Floor-to-floor heights should appear to be similar to those seen historically. In particular, the
windows in new construction should appear similar in height to those seen traditionally.
13.10 True three-story buildings will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
D In general, a proposed three-story building must demonstrate that it has no negative impact
on smaller, historic structures nearby.
D The height and proportions of all facade components must appear to be in scale with nearby
historic buildings.
13.11 Consider dividing larger buildings into "modules" that are similar in width to
buildings seen historically.
D Where buildings are planned to exceed one lot width, use a change in design features to
suggest the traditional building widths. Changes in facade material, window design, facade
height or decorative details are examples of techniques that may be considered. These
variations should be expressed throughout the depth of the structure such that the
composition appears to be a collection of smaller buildings.
HPC voiced concern over the vertical emphasis that some of the columns created, specifically
around the corner element. The applicant resolved this issue by changing the articulation of the
wall surface. Details and fenestration are discussed during Final Review; however Staff
recommends that the applicant use materials and architectural details to distinguish new from old
construction and create architectural interest. Staff is concerned about the oversimplified
proposal for the alley elevation, and recommends a restudy for Final Review to better comply
with Guideline 13.4 below:
13.4 Develop alley facades to create visual interest.
D Use varied building setbacks and changes in materials to create interest and reduce perceived
scale.
D Balconies, court yards and decks are also encouraged.
D Providing secondary public entrances is strongly encouraged along alleys. These should be
covered or protected and clearly intended for public use, but subordinate in detail to the
primary street-side entrance.
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND PEDESTRIAN AMENITY SPACE
An application for Commercial Design Review may be approved, approved with conditions, or
denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
C:\Documents and Settings\amyg.ASPENPITKIN\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\OLK2B\434ecooperConceptualMay92007 (3).doc
Page 3
.
1. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial
Design Standards or any deviation from the Standards provides a more-appealing pattern
of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the
purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from
the Standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested Design Elements, is not
required but may be used to justify a deviation from the Standards.
2. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the
proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial
Design Standards, to the greatest extent practical. Amendments to the fayade of the
building may be required to comply with this section.
3. For properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures or located within a
Historic District, the proposed development has received Conceptual Development Plan
approval from the Historic Preservation Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.415. This
criterion shall not apply if the development activity does not require review by the
Historic Preservation Commission.
Staff Response: The Commercial Design Standards are attached to this memo as "Exhibit B."
They are in many ways similar to HPC's own guidelines. Staff find that the Commercial Design
Standards are met.
For redevelopment of parcels on which less than the required 25% open space currently exists,
the existing percentage (prior to development) shall be the effective requirement, provided no
less than 10% of the overall site is either designed to meet the open space definition or mitigated
through cash in lieu. The applicant is going to pay cash-in-lieu for pedestrian amenity space, a
decision which does not require HPC approval.
VIEW PLANE
The application requires approval from the Wheeler Opera House and Jerome View Planes
because the parcel is located within view planes as set forth in Land Use Code Section
26.435.050, Mountain View Plane Review.
The Planning and Zoning Commission typically handles View Plane reviews, however the
Community Development Director has the right to consolidate reviews when deemed to be the
most efficient and effective process. HPC shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the
requested view plane approval. If HPC does not believe that the proposal satisfies the criteria
for construction within a view plane, HPC may require the application to go through the PUD
process as is described in Land Use Code Section 26.435.050(C), Mountain view plane review
standards.
HPC is to apply the following criteria to this issue:
1. No mountain view plane can be infringed upon except as follows:
C:\Documents and Settings\amyg.ASPENPITKIN\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\OLK2B\434ecooperConceptualMay92007 (3 ).doc
Page 4
When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable
building height otherwise provided for in this title, development shall proceed according to the
provisions of Chapter 26.455 as a planned unit development, so as to provide for' maximum
flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and
pedestrian space, and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building height
requirements, view plane height limitations.
The Planning and Zoning Commission may exempt any developer from the above enumerated
requirements whenever it is determined that the view plane does not so effect the parcel as to
require application of PUD or that the effects of the view plane may be otherwise accommodated.
When anv proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane. but is located in front
of another development which already blocks the same view plane. the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon
the view plane. and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adiacent structure will occur to re-
open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the
view plane. and re-development to re-open the view plane cannot be anticipated. the Planning
and Zoning Commission shall approve the development.
Staff Response: The angle of the Hotel Jerome View Plane significantly exceeds the height of
the proposed building, so no review is needed. Only the southwest corner of the proposed
building falls within the Wheeler Opera House View Plane. The height of the View Plane at the
Mountain Plaza Building is about 14 feet, and the proposed height for the development in the
southwest corner is about 28 feet (two story element) and, setback 15 feet from the front fayade,
it is about 36 feet (three story element) tall.
The one story T-shirt shop and four story Morris and Frywald building (see last page of drawings
for View Plane map and photographs) already block the Wheeler Opera House View Plane;
therefore, the Mountain Plaza proposal does not directly impact the View Plane in the current
downtown configuration.
The Morris and Frywald Building is under HPC's purview, as it is located in the Commercial
Core Historic District. Future redevelopment of the Morris and Frywald Building would appear
to potentially open some of the View Plane; however the landmark Independence Square
building, located across the intersection of Cooper and Galena, infringes upon the Wheeler View
Plane. Due to landmark status, it is unlikely that Independence Square will be redeveloped in the
future.
Staff recommends that HPC grant View Plane approval due to extant buildings, with minimal
likelihood of redevelopment that will open the view plane, blocking the view between the
Wheeler Opera House and Aspen Mountain.
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
C:\Documents and Settings\amyg.ASPENPlTKIN\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\OLK2B\434ecooperConceptualMay92007 (3 ).doc
Page 5
The HPC may:
. approve the application,
. approve the application with conditions,
. disapprove the application, or
. continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant Major Development (Conceptual),
Commercial Design Standard approval, and Wheeler Opera House View Plane Exemption for
the property located at 434 East Cooper Avenue, Lots Q, R, and S, Block 89, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado.
Resolution #_ of2007.
Exhibits:
A. Design Guidelines
B. Commercial Design Standards
C. Minutes from HPC meeting, February 14, 2007
D. Application
"Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 434 East Cooper Street, Conceptual Review"
13.1 Respect the established town grid in all projects.
D Maintain the alignment of streets and alleys whenever feasible.
13.2 Orient a new building parallel to its lot lines, similar to that of traditional building
orientations.
D The front of a primary structure shall be oriented to the street.
13.3 Orient a primary entrance toward the street.
D Buildings should have a clearly defined primary entrance. For most commercial
buildings, this should be a recessed entry way.
D Do not orient a primary entrance to an interior court.
D Providing secondary public entrances to commercial spaces is also encouraged on larger
buildings.
13.4 Develop alley facades to create visual interest.
D Use varied building setbacks and changes in materials to create interest and reduce
perceived scale.
D Balconies, court yards and decks are also encouraged.
D Providing secondary public entrances is strongly encouraged along alleys. These should be
covered or protected and clear!y intended for public use, but subordinate in detail to the
primary street-side entrance.
13.5 Retain the character of the alley as a part of the original town grid.
D Maintain an alley as an open space.
D Alleys also may be used as pedestrian ways.
13.8 Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk's edge.
C:\Documents and Settings\amyg.ASPENPITKIN\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\OLK2B\434ecooperConceptualMay92007 (3 ).doc
Page 6
D Place as much of the facade of the building at the property line as possible.
D Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate.
D Where a portion of a building must be set back from the sidewalk, use landscape elements
to define the sidewalk edge.
13.9 Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at the sidewalk.
D The design of a 3-story building should in some way acknowledge the 2-story character of
the downtown.
D Floor-to-floor heights should appear to be similar to those seen historically. In particular,
the windows in new construction should appear similar in height to those seen
traditionally.
13.10 True three-story buildings will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
D In general, a proposed three-story building must demonstrate that it has no negative impact
on smaller, historic structures nearby.
D The height and proportions of all facade components must appear to be in scale with nearby
historic buildings.
13.11 Consider dividing larger buildings into "modules" that are similar in width to
buildings seen historically.
D Where buildings are planned to exceed one lot width, use a change in design features to
suggest the traditional building widths. Changes in facade material, window design, facade
height or decorative details are examples of techniques that may be considered. These
variations should be expressed throughout the depth of the structure such that the
composition appears to be a collection of smaller buildings.
13.12 Rectangular forms should be dominant on Commercial Core facades.
D Rectangular forms should be vertically oriented.
D The facade should appear as predominantly flat, with any decorative -elements and
projecting or setback "articulations" appearing to be subordinate to the dominant form.
13.13 Use flat roof lines as the dominant roof form.
D A flat roof, or one that gently slopes to the rear of a site, should be the dominant roof form.
D Parapets on side facades should step down towards the rear of the building.
D False fronts and parapets with horizontal emphasis also may be considered.
13.14 Along a rear facade, using building forms that step down in scale toward the alley is
encouraged.
D Consider using additive forms, such as sheds, stairs and decks to reduce the perceived
scale. These forms should however, remain subordinate to the primary structure.
D Use projecting roofs at the ground floor over entrances, decks and for separate utility
structures in order to establish a human scale that invites pedestrian activity.
13.15 Contemporary interpretations of traditional building styles are encouraged.
D A contemporary design that draws upon the fundamental similarities among historic
buildings without copying them is preferred. This will allow them to be seen as products of
their own time and yet be compatible with their historic neighbors.
D The literal imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
D In essence, infill should be a balance of new and old in design.
13.16 Develop the ground floor level of all projects to encourage pedestrian activity.
D Consider using storefronts to provide pedestrian interest along the street. Storefronts
should maintain the historic scale and key elements such as large display windows and
transoms.
C:\Documents arid Settings\amyg.ASPENPITKIN\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\OLK2B\434ecooperConceptualMay92007 (3 ).doc
Page 7
o Large storefront display windows, located at the street level, where goods or services are
visible from the street, are particularly encouraged.
o The primary building entrance should be at street level. "Garden level" entrances are
inappropriate.
13.17 Maintain the distinction between the street level and the upper floor.
o The first floor of the primary facade should be predominantly transparent glass.
o Upper floors should be perceived as being more opaque than the street level. Upper story
windows should have a vertical emphasis.
o Highly reflective or darkly tinted glass is inappropriate.
o Express the traditional distinction in floor heights between street levels and upper levels
through detailing, materials and fenestration. The presence of a belt course is an important
feature in this relationship.
13.18 Maintain the repetition of similar shapes and details along the block.
o Upper story windows should have a vertical emphasis. In general, they should be twice as
tall as they are wide.
o Headers and sills of windows on new buildings should maintain the traditional placement
relative to cornices and belt courses.
13.19 Maintain the pattern created by recessed entry ways that are repeated along a block.
o Set the door back from the front facade approximately 4 feet. This is an adequate amount to
establish a distinct threshold for pedestrians.
o Where entries are recessed, the building line at the sidewalk edge should be maintained by
the upper floor(s).
o Use transoms over doorways to maintain the full vertical height of the storefront.
13.20 The general alignment of horizontal features on building fronts should be
maintained.
o Typical elements that align include window moldings, tops of display windows, cornices,
copings and parapets at the tops of buildings.
o When large buildings are designed to appear as several buildings, there should be some
slight variation in alignments between the facade elements.
13.21 Special features that highlight buildings on comer lots may be considered.
o Develop both street elevations to provide visual interest to pedestrians.
o Comer entrances, bay windows and towers are examples of elements that may be
considered to emphasize comer locations.
o Storefront windows, display cases and other elements that provide visual interest to facades
along side streets are also appropriate.
Exhibit B: Commercial Design Standards.
The following design standards shall apply to commercial, lodging, and mixed-use development:
A. Building Relationship to Primary Street.
A street wall is comprised of buildings facing principal streets and public pedestrian spaces.
Consistent street walls provide a sense of a coherent district and frame an outdoor room.
Interruptions in this enclosure can lessen the quality of a commercial street. Corner buildings are
especially important, in that they are more visible and their scale and proportion affects the street
walls of two streets. Well-designed and located pedestrian open spaces can positively affect the
C:\Documents and Settings\amyg.ASPENPITKIN\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\OLK2B\434ecooperConceptualMay92007 (3 ).doc
Page 8
quality of the district, while remnant or leftover spaces can detract from the downtown. A
building's relationship to the street is entirely important to the quality of the downtown
pedestrian environment. Split-level retail and large vertical separations from the sidewalk can
disrupt the coherence of a retail district. The following standards shall apply:
1. Building facades shall be parallel to the adjoining primary streets. Minor elements of the
building fayade may be developed at irregular angles.
2. Building facades along primary streets shall be setback no more than the average setback
of the adjoining buildings and no less than the minimum requirement of the particular
zone district. Exempt from this provision are building setbacks accommodating On-Site
Pedestrian Amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030.
3. Building facades along primary streets shall maintain a consistent setback on the first and
second story.
4. Commercial buildings shall be developed with the first floor at, or within two (2) feet
above, the level of the adjoining sidewalk, or right-of-way if no sidewalk exists. "Split-
level" retail frontage is prohibited.
5. Commercial buildings incorporating a setback from a primary street shall not incorporate
a substantial grade change between the building fayade and the public right-of-way.
"Moats" surrounding buildings are prohibited.
B. Pedestrian Amenity Space.
Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting, and vital
downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere.
Pedestrian amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-
of-way or private property within commercial areas.
On parcels required to provide pedestrian amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030 - Pedestrian
Amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the
method or combination of methods of providing the Pedestrian Amenity shall be at the option of
the Planning and Zoning Commission, or the Historic Preservation Commission as applicable,
according to the procedures herein and according to the following standards:
I. The dimensions of any proposed on-site pedestrian amenity sufficiently allow for a
variety of uses and activities to occur considering any expected tenant and future potential
tenants and uses.
2. The pedestrian amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this
characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade
trees, solar access, view orientation, and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent
rights-of-way are encouraged.
3. The pedestrian amenity, and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent
structures, rights-of-way, and uses, contributes to an inviting pedestrian environment.
C:\Documents and Settings\amyg.ASPENPITKIN\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\OLK2B\434ecooperConceptualMay92007 (3).doc
Page 9
4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls,
sidewalks, or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian
environment.
5. Any variation to the Design and Operational Standards for Pedestrian Amenity, Section
26.575.030(F) promote the purpose of the pedestrian amenity requirements.
6. The Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, as
applicable, may reduce the pedestrian amenity requirement by any amount, such that no
more than half the requirement is waived, as an incentive for well-designed projects
having a positive contribution to the pedestrian environment. The resulting requirement
may not be less than 10%. On-site provision shall not be required for a reduction in the
requirement. A mix of uses within the proposed building that enliven the surrounding
pedestrian environment may be considered.
C. Street-Level Building Elements.
The "storefront," or street-level portion of a commercial building is perhaps the single most
important element of a commercial district building. Effective storefront design can make an
entire district inviting and pedestrian friendly. Unappealing storefront design can become a
detriment to the vitality of a commercial district. In order to be an effective facility for the sale
of goods and services, the storefront has traditionally been used as a tool to present those goods
and services to the passing pedestrian (potential customer). Because of this function, the
storefront has traditionally been as transparent as possible to allow maximum visibility to the
interior. The following standards shall apply:
I. Unarticulated, blank walls are prohibited. Fenestration, or an alternate means of fayade
articulation, is required on all exterior walls.
2. Retail buildings shall incorporate, at a minimum, a 60% fenestration ratio on exterior
street-level walls facing primary streets. (For example: each street-level wall of a retail
building that faces a primary street must be comprised of at least 60% fenestration
penetrations and no more than 40% solid materials.) This provision may be reduced or
waived for lodging properties with no, or limited, street-level retail, office buildings with
no retail component, and for ServicelCommerciallIndustrial buildings.
3. Building entrances shall be well-defined and apparent.
4. Building entrances shall be designed to accommodate an internal air!ock such that
temporary seasonal air!ocks on the exterior of the building are unnecessary.
5. Non-traditional storefronts, such as along an alleyway, are encouraged.
D. Parking.
Parking is a necessary component of a successful commercial district. The manner in which
parking is physically accommodated has a larger impact upon the quality of the district that the
amount of parking. Surface parking separating storefronts from the street creates a cluttered,
inhospitable pedestrian environment. A downtown retail district shaped by buildings, well-
C :\Documents and Settingslamyg.ASPENPITKIN\LocalSettings\ Temporary Internet
FilesIOLK2BI434ecooperConceptualMay92007 (3).doc
Page 10
designed storefronts, and a continuous street wall is highly preferred over a district shaped by
parking lots. Well-placed and well-designed access points to parking garages can allow
convenient parking without disrupting the retail district. The following standards shall apply:
I. Parking shall only be accessed from alleyways, unless such access is unavailable or an
unreasonable design solution in which case access from a primary street shall be designed
in a manner that minimizes disruption of the pedestrian environment.
2. Surface parking shall not be located between the Street right-of-way and the building
fa<;ade.
3. Above grade parking garages in commercial districts shall incorporate ground-floor
commercial uses and be designed in a manner compatible with surrounding buildings and
uses.
4. Above grade parking garages shall not reveal internal ramping on the exterior fa<;ade of
the building.
E. Utility, Delivery, and Trash Service Provision.
When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building
can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one building can
detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are
important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply:
I. A utility, trash, and recycle service area shall be accommodated along the alley meeting
the minimum standards established by Section 26.575.060 UtilitylTrashlRecycle Service
Areas, unless otherwise established according to said section.
2. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property and along the alley.
Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall
be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site
conditions, such as a historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments
shall be properly licensed.
3. Delivery service areas shall be incorporated along the alley. Any truck loading facility
shall be an integral component ofthe building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged.
4. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the
roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the Street as practical.
5. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within
the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed
behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a
public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for
future ventilation and ducting needs.
Suggested Design Elements. The following guidelines are building practices suggested by the
City, but are not mandatory. In many circumstances, compliance with these practices may not
produce the most-desired development and project designers should use their best judgment.
C:\Documents and Settings\amyg.ASPENPlTKlN\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\OLK2B\434ecooperConceptualMay92007 (3).doc
Page II
A. Sifma!!e:
Signage should be integrated with the building to the extent possible. Integrated signage
areas already meeting the City's requirements for size, etc. may minimize new tenant
signage compliance issues. Common tenant listing areas also serves a public wayfinding
function, especially for office uses. Signs should not block design details of the building
on which they are placed. Compliance with the City's sign code is mandatory.
B. Disvlav windows:
Display windows provide pedestrian interest and can contribute to the success of the retail
space. Providing windows that reveal inside activity of the store can provide this pedestrian
interest.
C. Li!!htin!!:
Well-lit (meaning quality, not quantity) display windows along the first floor create
pedestrian interest after business hours. Dynamic lighting methods designed to catch
attention can cheapen the quality of the downtown retail environment. Illuminating certain
important building elements can provide an interesting effect. Significant light trespass
should be avoided. Illuminating the entire building should be avoided. Compliance with the
City's Outdoor Lighting code, Section 26.575.050, is mandatory.
D. Ori!!inal Townsite Articulation:
Buildings spanning more than one Original Townsite Lot should incorporate fal(ade
expressions coincidental with these original parcel boundaries to reinforce historic scale.
This may be inappropriate in some circumstances, such as on large corner lots.
E. Architectural Features:
Parapet walls should be used to shield mechanical equipment from pedestrian views. Aligning
cornices and other architectural features with adjacent buildings can relate new buildings to
their historical surroundings. Awnings and canopies can be used to provide architectural
interest and shield windows and entryways from the elements.
C:\Documents and Settings\amyg.ASPENPITKlN\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\OLK2B\434ecooperConceptuaIMay92007 (3 ).doc
Page 12
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL),
VIEWPLANE REVIEW, AND COMMERICAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 434 EAST COOPER STREET, LOTS Q, R AND S, BLOCK
89, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2007
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-16-001
WHEREAS, the applicant, Bidwell Investment Corporation, represented by Mitch Haas of Haas
Land Planning, LLC; Klein, Cote & Edwards, P.C., and Rowland + Broughton Architecture and
Urban Design have requested Major Development (Conceptual), View Plane Review and
Commercial Design Review for the property located at 434 East Cooper Avenue, Lots Q, Rand
S, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application,
a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section
26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC
may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain
additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, for View Plane Review the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report
and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with Municipal
Code Section 26.435.050, Mountain View Plane Review. The HPC may approve, disapprove,
approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, for approval of Commercial Design Review, HPC must review the application, a
staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.412 of
the Municipal Code, that the project conforms to the following criteria:
1. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial
Design Standards or any deviation from the Standards provides a more-appealing pattern
of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the
purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from
the Standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested Design Elements, is not
required but may be used to justify a deviation from the Standards.
2. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the
proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial
Design Standards, to the greatest extent practical. Amendments to the fayade of the
building may be required to comply with this section.
3. For properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures or located within a
Historic District, the proposed development has received Conceptual Development Plan
approval from the Historic Preservation Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.415. This
criterion shall not apply if the development activity does not require review by the
Historic Preservation Commission; and
WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report dated May 9, 2007, performed an analysis of the
application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met, and recommended approval; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby recommends approval for Major Development (Conceptual), View Plane
Review, and Commercial Design Review for the property located at 434 East Cooper Avenue,
Lot Q, R & S, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, as proposed with the following
conditions;
1. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
(1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an
application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the
Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole
discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for
a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written
request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 9th day of May 2007.
Approved as to Form:
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Jeffrey Halferty, Chair
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14. 2007
Sarah also agreed with staff's memo with the exception of the roof pitch.
She feels a 12xl2 pitch is a better fit. The 12xl2 on elevation 3.3 relates
more with the pitch of the front porch.
Stan pointed out from a design perspective the 18x 12 emulates the other
gables that are on the historic structure.
Michael also agreed with staffs comments and Sarah's suggestion on the
roof pitch.
Brian said he is torn because it somewhat makes it disconnected with the
existing pitches of the gables.
Tim pointed out that his preference is the 18x 12 that emulates the historic
house. Sarah said there are pros and cons on either pitch.
MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #7 for 202 N. Monarch;
second by Brian. Motion carried 3-0. Roll call vote: Brian, yes; Sarah,
yes; Michael, yes.
434 E. Cooper - Bidwell Bldg. - Mountain Plaza - Conceptual-
Commercial Design Standards - Public Hearing
Sarah recused herself.
Jeffrey was seated.
Affidavit of publication - Exhibit I
Letter from Bruce Carlson 415 E. Hyman indicating structure is too massive
and tall.
Sara informed the HPC that the building occupies 3 city lots. The applicant
will be presenting changes that were not in the packet. Generally the
guidelines for a three story proposal are dealt with case by case. The main
idea for infill is to strike a balance in design variables. The sunken
courtyard will be gone and the space filled in. Staff is not opposed to filling
in buildings to the lot lines as the guidelines suggest in the commercial core
but we want to bring to everyone' s attention the idea of filling in that entire
space and having a very subtle cut on the corner might bring on impacts
from people sitting in the Paradise Bakery space and the pedestrian mall. In
terms of the height the majority of the building is below the 42 foot height
limit. Some ofthe cornices and the elevator shaft are 46 feet. In general we
8
ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERV AnON COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14. 2007
are in favor of the height but some undulation in the cornice line might be
necessary to break up the massive feeling or some change in materials might
help the design fit in better as a piece of contemporary architecture but also
relate to the historic buildings around. In terms of plate heights the store
front is 13 feet and the second story is 10 feet and the third floor is proposed
at 13 feet. Staff feels that is a bit awkward and possibly the floor heights
should relate to the historic resources. 8taffrecommends that the floor
, heights be changed to have the store front larger than the two upper floors.
8tafffeels what is proposed is very complex in terms of recess and
projection of different planes of the two facades that face Galena and the
pedestrian mall. We basically recommended an overall simplification of the
design. We appreciate the effort to break the mass into modules but we feel
what occurred was a vertical emphasis rather than a horizontal emphasis that
we generally see in the historic resourCeS. In general we request that the
applicant restudy mass, scale and height and the relationship to the historic
context. This site has a lot of potential to represent architecture of our time
although fit into the historic resource.
Mitch Haas, planning consultant relayed that it is their intent to get feedback
from tonight's meeting. The belief is that this is not a place to have a timid,
bland building. This location should make a statement. We do not want
anything that recedes and it would be an injustice to the City of Aspen.
John Rowland, architect relayed that their design principles are very simple '
and straight forward and respect the historic patterns of Aspen. This
building looks like other buildings on corners of Aspen. Another important
principle is modern interpretation of architecture and we took cues from
other substantial buildings in town. Another important aspect is that we
have historic resources on either side. One of the successful buildings is the
Kandycom building with the regard to the use of metal accents. There were
concerns about the open space and removing the courtyard. What is the
pedestrian experience and what are the open spaces. This neighborhood has
substantial area for pedestrian experience. One other important piece is the
signature piece on the corner ofthe building.
Mitch said there are benches up and down the mall and putting more seating
by the building is essentially creating second row seating behind the benches
that are already on the mall.
9
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14. 2007
Clarifications:
Michael commented that at the last HPC meeting it was indicated that the
infill structure of the building was failing and that you might reuse part of
that building. Mitch said as they got further along there was less and less
worth using. This will be a new building.
Michael also asked if the applicant has had any charettes with the neighbors.
Mitch said they have not.
John said they plan on using some of the rail elements that were on the
building and will incorporate some of the columns. We will use some of the
materials but not the structure itself.
Jeffrey asked if they looked at other options with some inflection regarding
the continuous cornice line. John said their first gut instinct was a two story
building with a step back 15 feet. The team determined that it didn't feel
substantial enough to hold the entire comer.
Amy suggested varying the comers and perhaps the height could be dropped
in some locations, perhaps on the alley side or the Red Onion side.
Sara said on the alley possibly taking off the cornice line. John said they can
massage the cornice line on the alley.
Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no
public comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Comments:
Michael asked if the project impacted any of our protective view plans. Sara
said part of the building is in the Wheeler view plane but that is not being
asked to be reviewed tonight.
Mitch said we are asking the view plane to be reviewed by Planning &
Zoning.
Michael said he didn't know how we could make a judgment of mass and
scale without reviewing the view plane. Michael said he like the building
and it is a good start. Staffs comments are consistent with improving the
proposal. He hopes we have enough commissioners who can participate in
the application to make a meaningful contribution to improving the project.
10
ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14. 2007
Brian also said he likes the building at first review. Staff suggested
simplification ofthe building. Depending on what that simplification is, it
might take away from the architectural character of the building. The
building needs to stay interesting and keeping the strong lines of the building
is necessary. The issue he is struggling with is the orientation of the
building and giving away to pedestrian activities. The ground floor should
'be developed to encourage pedestrian activity. Currently we have the theme
on the comers with the Ruth Chris building set back and the Paradise Bakery
is set back. Bringing the building up to the comer the way it is designed
might take away something in that area that is very positive. That issues
needs weighed. Brian said he is not so concerned with the higher 3rd floor.
In terms of the verticality there could be subtle things done to make it more
horizontal. The switching ofthe columns and the four bases rather than
'having them recessed might add more horizontality. He also agrees with
staff that the west end of the building on Cooper and it relationship with the
Red Onion might be a relative issue. The pedestrian space can be successful
by pulling back that comer.
Jeffrey said he agrees with a lot of staff s comments. He voted against the
designation because this building is not one of the best examples of Fritz
Benedict's work. The applicants have made very strong strides. Staffs
comments on the retail scale are ,good. The plate height of the commercial
could be re-visited and the second and third floor could perhaps have a
recession. Staffs comments about the cornice line genuflecting down to the
lower massing of the historic resource is a positive comment. The massing
model is excellent. The mass and scale competes somewhat with the historic
resources that it joins. Possibly some plane changes could occur. Some of
the vertical elements although they are dominant and excellent do
overemphasize the height. Using the modules ofthe historic building is very
successful. The decks in the fa((ade are a good concept. Staffs comment
that the pediment to the west side does compete in size and scale to the Red
Onion building. Continuation with massaging such as the cornice line is
recommended. Possibly we could see some drawings of two story elements
that pop up to three stories.
Michael agreed with Jeffrey regarding the cornice line along Galena Street.
MOTION: Michael moved to continue 435 E. Cooper until May 9, 2007;
second by Brian. All infavor, motion carried 3-0.
11
ASPEN mSTORlC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14. 2007
Amy requested that at the next meet it needs to be clear what the view plane
is; if you intend to go to P&Z or this board. You need to accurately reflect
to this board what the impact is.
MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Michael. All in favor,
motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.rn.
12