Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.HP.234 W Francis St.1999-HP1 ), r", .~ ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO: DON and GWEN MULLINS, Owners GARY WHEELER, Contractor RE: REVOCATION HEARING ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR 234 WEST FRANCIS, ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ISSUED BY THE ASPENIPITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLEASE BE ADVISED that a revocation hearing concerning the building permit issued for 234 West Francis, Aspen, Colorado 81611 will be held at the regularly scheduled hearing of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission on Wednesday, the 10th day of February, 1999, at5:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard. The matter shall be heard and judged by Stephen Kanipe, the Chief Building Official for the City of Aspen, or his designee. Pursuant to Section 106.4.5 of the 1994 Uniform Building Code: Suspension or revocation. The building official may, in writing, suspend or revoke a permit issued under the provisions of this code whenever the permit is issued in error or on the basis of incorrect information supplied, or in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of this code. At issue are alleged violations of the resolutions of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission approving the project located at 234 West Francis Street, Aspen, Colorado. The alleged violations are detailed in the attached summary, which is attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. 1]he building permit was issued subject to the resolutions, which are on fIle rith the Aspen City Clerk. ~. rm: 2735-124-17003 V-4- ~ 234 W. Francis Remediatio raw.lq?q-64 PI 2-%<- 4: 1191- lip L Alut® 7*23*/ \ -0 //4-k .. 1 b ill /6 lilli 4 1 11 11 .1 4 A l ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO: DON and GWEN MULLINS, Owners GARY WHEELER, Contractor RE: REVOCATION HEARING ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR 234 WEST FRANCIS, ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ISSUED BY THE ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLEASE BE ADVISED that a revocation hearing concerning the building permit issued for 234 West Francis, Aspen, Colorado 81611 will be held at the regularly scheduled hearing of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission on Wednesday, the 10th day of February, 1999, at 5:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard. The matter shall be heard and judged by Stephen Kanipe, the Chief Building Official for the City of Aspen, or his designee. Pursuant to Section 106.4.5 of the 1994 Uniform Building Code: Suspension or revocation. The building official may, in writing, suspend or revoke a permit issued under the provisions of this code whenever the permit is issued in error or on the basis Of incorrect information supplied, or in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of this code. At issue are alleged violations of the resolutions of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission approving the project located at 234 West Francis Street, Aspen, Colorado. The alleged violations are detailed in the attached summary, which is attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. The building permit was issued subject to the resolutions, which are on file with the Aspen City Clerk. The owners and the contractor are invited to attend in person or through counsel and participate in the Order to Show Cause Hearing. Information concerning any proposed plan to restore, replace, or remedy the alleged damage to the historic structure may also be presented. Dated this 1St day of February, 1999. ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT By: Waite / Mullins House 234 West Francis Sl. Site survey of historic materials, 1/29/1999 West Si de • All historic window trim and sills have been replaced with new, new details added, no original materials exist. • Three vent penetrations were made through the historic walls. • Historic porch materials, posts and roof structure, have been removed. Posts are in storage, otherwise materials have been destroyed. West historic door is in storage. • New copper guides in historic double hung window'5. Large pane of historic glass was broken, at large double hung. • All historic siding, corner boards and fascia trim on the one story section have been destroyed. • Areas of historic siding on the main house, were relocated to this area from original locationq; corner boards have been replaced. • Pre existing porch "floor" materials were demolished, materials which have been represented to be installed were never approved. North Side • All historic siding and corner boards have been removed. • All new window trim, new details added. none of the historic materials exist. • New copper guides in historic double hung windows. East Side • All historic siding has been removed and replaced with new siding and corner boards. • All new window trini, new details added, no original materials remain. • An exifting historic window, iubt north of the doorway, has been replaced with a new one, the historic window still exists and is in storage. • Two vent penetrations have been made through the historic wall. with large trim detai Is. • New copper guides in historic doub(e hung windows. South Side • Historic siding has been relocated frorn other areas to this fafade. Siding in the area above the entry roof has been removed. New window trim in this area. • All new window sills and trim, with additional details, have been installed, none of the historic materials exist • Entry porch fascia, soffit, and expressed structure have all been reconstructed, new materials do not match the historic materials in size or profile. New materials continue along one story element at entry. One piece or historic crown molding still exists, in storage. Historic root framing is apparently intact 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 portions of the posts remain, the historic integrity has been destroyed. New boards behind the 'pilasters" adjacent to the door are new. Scroll work from entry still exists and is in storage. • New door trim, with more elaborate detail, has been added, historic trim materials were destroyed. Historic door and transom are in storage. • All historic siding ill the area above the entry porch roof has been removed and partially replaced with new. • Pre existing porch " floor ' materials were demolished, materials which have been represented to be installed were never approved. • Areas of corner boards are new. ExwlBI-T A STIPULATED FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER REGARDING BUILDING PERMIT NO. 8-49 ISSUED FOR 234 WEST FRANCIS STREET, a.k.a. THE WAITE HOUSE COME NOW Don and Gwen Mullins, by and through their attorney of record Charles Brandt, and the City of Aspen, by and through their attorney of record, David Hoefer, to stipulate to the following Findings of Fact and Order. BACKGROUND INFORMATION On February 1,1999, Stephen Kanipe, the Chief Building Official for the Aspen Community Development Department issued an Order to Show Cause to Don and Gwen Mullins, the owners of 234 West Francis, Aspen, Colorado, and to Gary Wheeler, the contractor on the project at 234 West Francis, as to why building permit No. 8-49 for 234 West Francis Street should not be suspended or revoked. (Please note that the title for 234 West Francis is in the name of Don Mullins only). The hearing was scheduled for and held on the 10th day of February, 1999, with Stephen Kanipe presiding. At issue were alleged violations of the resolution of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission approving the project located at 234 West Francis Street, Aspen, Colorado. The alleged violations were detailed in a summary, which is attached hereto as "Exhibit A." The matter was heard pursuantto Section 106.4.5 ofthe 1994 Uniform Building Code, which reads as follows: Suspension or revocation. The building official may, in writing, suspend or revoke a permit issued under the provisions of this code whenever the permit is issued in error or on the basis of incorrect information supplied, or in violation of an-y ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of this code. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Owners, Don and Gwen Mullins, were represented by attorney Charles Brandt. Assistant City Attorney David Hoefer represented the City of Aspen. . 14 2. Witnesses were called, including Historic Preservation Officer Amy Guthrie, ' Historic Preservation Commission members Suzannah Reid, Gilbert Sanchez, Susan Dodington, and Jeffrey Halferty, contractor Gary Wheeler, professional engineer Bob Pattillo, and home owner Don Mullins. 3. Twenty-eight exhibits were offered including a copy of the Order to Show Cause, the City Clerk's file for the HPC application at 234 West Francis, the Building Department permit file for 234 West Francis, the minutes from each of the HPC meetings pertaining to the project at 234 West Francis, HPC Resolution No. 2 and No. 17, Series of 1998, letters from interested parties (both pro and con), window trim, posts, and siding from the project at 234 West Francis, a summary of the alleged violations of HPC approvals for 234 West Francis, a video tape of the house as it currently exists, and photos, including those mounted on a poster board, of the house (both before and after the commencement of the project). 4. The house located at 234 West Francis, commonly referred to as the "Waite House," is on the National Register of Historic Places and is a locally designated landmark. Consequently, the house was subject to development review by the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission. 5. The property at 234 West Francis is owned of record by Don Mullins. The Mullins hired an architect, Scott Lindeau, and a contractor, Gary Wheeler, to take the proposed development at 234 West Francis through the review process. 6. The first HPC meeting concerning the proposed project at 234 West Francis occurred on October 8, 1997. Six more meetings were held: November 24,1997; December 10, 1997; January 28, 1998; May 13,1998; May 27, 1998, and June 10, 1998. A final hearing concerning alleged violations of the Historic Preservation Commission approvals and conditions occurred on January 27, 1999. All eight meetings were attended by Lindeau and Wheeler. In addition, the Mullins attended "two or three meetings." 7. The meetings resulted in two HPC resolutions permitting development: Resolution No. 2, Series of 1998 (January 28, 1998) and Resolution No. 17, Series of 1998 (June 10, 1998). 8. The evidence presented at the Order to Show Cause Hearing established by a preponderance of the evidence that certain of the violations alleged in "Exhibit A" did in fact occur. 9. Consequently, violations of Building Permit No. 8-49 did in fact occur providing the hearing officer with a basis to revoke or suspend the building permit pending remediation of the alleged violations; however, no evidence was presented with respect to any violations relating to the interior work on the historic portion of the house as well as the exterior work on the breezeway, kitchen, and garage. 2 10. However, the Mullins and the City of Aspen mutually agree that the "red tag" may be lifted and that the building permit not be revoked pursuant to the Mullins' compliance with the conditions set forth herein in the Order. Stephen Kanipe or his designee shall retain jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding until compliance with all conditions has been accomplished. ORDER Don and Gwen Mullins and the City of Aspen, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby agree to the following Order: The "red tag" on the building permit for 234 West Francis, Aspen, Colorado, is hereby - lifted and the building permit is not revoked or suspended subject to the following conditions being complied with: 1. A plan for remediation of the violations set forth in "Exhibit A" shall be submitted to the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission for their review and approval. Until approval of the remediation plan, no construction, demolition, or other alteration of the historic exterior of 234 West Francis shall occur; construction of the breezeway, kitchen, - and garage exteriors may continue. The plan shall address the twenty-four violations set forth in "Exhibit A," including but not limited to the following: a. Where acceptable replication has not already occurred, a plan to replace the destroyed historic window trim, sills, and detailing with new materials that replicate the original as depicted in photographs and as represented by any existing original materials. b. The interior location of the gas fireplace appliances as shown on the approved plans for the property need not be altered. However, there shall be a proposed redesign of the exterior venting through the roof of the historic portion of the structure to provide alternative venting solutions to those in the west and east walls. c. A plan to refurbish existing historic materials for the west entry porch and to replicate materials that were destroyed. The porch posts, if used in the restoration, shall be made structurally sound as recommended by the Mullins' structural engineer in conjunction with the Historic Preservation Commission. d. A plan for the use of replacement glass in the large double hung on the west side. e. A plan regarding the area above the front entry porch which replaces the new siding with the remaining historic siding. 3 f. The front entry porch fascia, soffit, and detailing shall be reconstructed to match original materials. The entry columns shall retain as much original material as possible. g. The historic window on the east wall must be installed and the new double hung must match the original window. 2. Interior work at 234 West Francis may continue. However, if the subsequent approvals for the exterior made by the Historic Preservation Commission necessitates interior changes, the owners assume the risk of venting the gas appliance fireplaces through the roof and the new double hung window requirement of subparagraph 1.g. above. 3. All remedial historic exterior work approved by the Historic Preservation Commission shall be performed by subcontractors approved and supervised by the owner's architect Scott Lindenau. As remedial work for the exterior is approved by HPC (by a majority vote) that remedial work may begin, even as other issues are being discussed. 4. From this point forward, all exterior work on the historic house shall be performed in consultation with the architect of record, Scott Lindenau, and a Weekly plan of action and a report of progress shall be submitted to the Historic Preservation Officer, Amy Guthrie. 5. The owners have already paid an estimated sixty thousand dollars in costs, fees, and interest in resolving this matter. In addition, the owners shall pay the costs and fees of ~ the City of Aspen expended in resolving this matter. This amount is agreed upon in the , amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00). 6. The owners shall, if necessary, increase the present letter of credit from thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) to an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost (prepared by the owner's architect Scott Lindenau) of the completion of the exterior work. The language shall be amended to clearly reflect the purpose of the letter of credit. The letter of credit will automatically terminate upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the house. 7. The owners shall write a letter of apology to the community concerning the damage to the historic resource, which shall be reviewed as to form by the City Attorney and which shall be submitted to the Aspen Times and the Aspen Daily News no later than ten (10) days after receipt of HPC approval of the remediation plan. 8. This agreement does not prevent the Historic Preservation Commission from addressing violations regarding the historic (main) house not previously discovered or that may be discovered in the future. 4 9. Stephen Kanipe will continue to have jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case _ and shall be called upon to assist in the resolution of disputes that may arise between the owners and the Historic Preservation Commission. Assistant City Attorney David Hoefer and Historic Preservation Officer Amy Guthrie shall utilize their best efforts to expedite the consideration by the Historic Preservation Commission of the plan for remediation submitted by the owners in order to obtain a reasonable resolution of the matters addressed in the remediation plan. The matter shall be placed on the agenda of each HPC meeting until the matter is resolved. 1 4 - Dated thislt day of February, 1999. Charles Brandt for Don and Gwen Mullins 61 David Hoefer for the Cit;if Aspen The "Stipulated Findings of Fact and Order Regarding Building Permit No. 8-49 Issued for 234 West Francis Street, a.k.a. the Waite House" is hereby approved as to form and ordered on the date cited above. \ 14_ «i StepheA Kanipe ) / Chief Building Official Aspen/Pitkin Community Development \ 5 , Waite /Mullins House 234 West Francis St. 1, S Site survey of historic materials, 1/29/1999 West Side e Ail historic window trim and 5illS have been replaced with new, new details added, no original materials exist a Threevent penetrations were made through the historic walls. . Historic porch materials, posts and roof structure, have been removed. Posts are in storage, other,vise materials have been destroyed. West historic door is in storage. • New copper guides in historic dcuble hung windows. • Large pane of historic glass was broken, at large double hung. ' All historic siding, comer boards and fascia trim on the one story section have been destroyed. • Areas of historic :iding, on the main house, were relocated to this area from original locations, corner boards have been replaced. • Pre existing porch "floor' materials were demolished, materials which have been represented to be installed were never approved. North Side • All historic 5iding and corner boards have been removed. • All new window trim, new details added. none oi the historic materials exist. • New copper guides in historic double hung windows. East Side • All historic siding has been removed and replaced with new siding and comer boards. • Allnew window trim, new details added. no orig nal materials remain. • An exifting historic window. iust north or the docrway, has been replaced with a new one, the historic window still exists and is in storage. = Two vent penetrations have been made through the historic wall, with large trim details. . New copper guides in historic dcubk hung windows. South Side • Historic siding has been relocated from other areas to this facade. Siding in the area above the entry roof has been removed. New window trim in this area. I All new window sills and trim, with additional details, have been installed, none of the historic materials exisl • Entry porch fascia, soffit, and expressed structure have all been reconstructed, new materials do not match the historic materials in size or profile New materials continue along one story element at entry. One piece of historic crown molding still exists, in storage. Historic rooi framing is apparently intact below the new construction. • Entry columns have been altered at the base and at the top with materials which do not replicate the original posS. While portions of the posts remain, the historic integrity has been destroyed. New boards behind the 'pilafters" adjacent to the door are new. Scroll work from entry still exists and is in storage. • New door trim, with more elaborate detail, has been added, historic trim materials were destroyed. Historic door and transom are in storage. • All historic siding in the area above the entrv porch roof has been removed and partially replaced with new. ' Pre existing porch "floor' materials were dernolished, materials which have been represented - to be installed were never approved. • Areas of carrier boards are new. 1 44*gxHIBIT@YE¢ E I k 4.1*04%*Q·AR"ques;%.t, < 4*-i«A %·2.4'*t'©k-*5 19 G ..0 k /%2 }....1.4£*pt-,94*,1 J.t©.~4 '~11, € 12:42*gro©%....94¥ Sent By: STUDIO 8 ARCHITECTS; 970 920 7822; May-19-99 8:38AM; Page 4/6 t <f 4/ 4I ' i 24 0 * t. r-- #1.,9'.,1 1...1.11-1 ..1.14%~'.1. I C - ·11'-ri~.5 1 11..7 . 1 . ~1.13... ~ MI.ir'.f'.1. ''% - J..1 I 11. 2.: ill,4 i *'£4 l·-,· r. 4,·.'···,•·. r<,•, .%, 1 .... . . 4 I > I I I .-,ty ' ''' . "1!'~ ...1. ..1 .-4.14 L h - - I ¢j . ..· 1 . . uj r . 194.41'2,; . ,--; , , ·h 1. . rr , -1, Ar~-~-4--4 ..4 11 l 11 - 1 . L-+ --- .4.- 1- -U- J ----*.* .--".,- --- / ------- --------- --*-..-. - 1 VA TION i . -»0=4,4.-ew -t» 4-0,4/l -694" 59'·;* c 1[ --- 11~ 2.] 11 11- 1 flij// Sent By: STUDIO 8 ARCHITECTS; 970 920 7822; May-1@-99 8:35AM; Page 2 -t , I 9 . 11. ,1 i \ . 1 f. i . r 4 1_1 - ¥0 \ :43· r i * f ' .----i.lilli..# I- r- - / 1.4 . i L - X . \ .. - I."flam 1 1 I , .$.444 >*1: . , 1-V' · · 11/' '1. . 2 7 ' '•02· €7 ~ > t . 1* la' ' -4 . . ' . 4 i k. 't e L --- ---- 1- L i -07' . -1 \ 1 1 101 2-u *--4 - --al v.O 1 Aa - --I gl =7 + 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1/ 1 1 1 11 1 1 td-t 1- 1 1 91"/6/4--f-m PIt 1 1 .\\ A Sent By: STUDIO 8 ARCHITECTS; 970 920 7822; May-1@-90 8:39AM; Page 5/6 - ¥3-1 UL--1. *» 1 1 1 T 30 *10416. 1„4 € 74143 . AN k..5 1 .1 . . . / I . l. I I - i. 10 --9 .·-- 7 -- 4 1, T. . .3- * I 1: 1 . d '1 ' r ,*'L 0 . 1 r' 1- ...1 . ~. 8¢ 19 ' : 0 -99'*44 1= 1 1.. ' I j <*:S 1;1... $ i .. 2. . · 1 - I . 4 ,. 1/ I r. 1, 1/': ·-: 2 #t- : %· ...adE '...:t' L, '47€.- 'P". : 4 ¥4 . > 1 " .~Cl.; 1 % L I -:4-4 1 ... 1 . . t 6,/-1, ./ *: ... <J;14.0.#£: I ..fle..9 p-- . <. 4£2/:1//IR//9.-I - - ~ ..t.1 12 '014 fl.1 1 4 6, 1 I J.- ..i . . I ......6 4, '«t 'F v· *. '' '... - .wi i .4, r. p .. 4 .....' '' .11=' ..4,1 k I :lili' u '7 - ti F.. 6 . "4 2 N ·T ' 192 - V-51.....11... ?'...1 - a.-, 1- 3! : - \4\ / , 1 22»44-3 L-2b .: 4 · ..W' 1,&/1 -g r . :. A~142**IM/~1 -~ .: ~ :t ----- ~.p ' %:8.4, L. 1,0. . ..t-= 4- ~, ·.I · ' I , It'.-1 +MI,1-. .. S ..; 09*.:40 .:' I ./ %,31 4 >,€ 1.'.= . . . ./ .,2 ,~·1* ..Wr 4 ..1 '4 1 ~~'...1'. tu=:,3/iwill/6/~.1 ..: ..al# I I I,'la 11-,bm: 3, - ~ i . 4 , 1 1 \ j , 1 11 . - 1@ 2,14# e. V T. . r \-1 -Ill- *-*-*B - I--- -L-b - -- h...t 1 61> 814. '1 .11.. E 414> - 6,-¢ 1,7 7 . d G. U'/' 111 AL:/th £ Ar L., M (1'44 , 1 T 1 / \ 1, I.-A I ./ MI Mif 411· . : i.. ./.: I . I ..1 . I ..: . 1 . r ./1 6'FAL...4 ' · c ~ f 4 *1 tr·n - ' : -.ir .· · ·· 2'6 , I 49 - . >A- i. 1 1 ./ % - ...i...7..H</ 11 1 'hI ---- I 1 .0,2929'/Ijilif 16 k...4,-'"· T= ' 2':r' 0'. 41 ~ WV A#. e I : ...I , i ' 12. 1 ./ -*r - - 4 95 ·24. fE 2 41.-J --- -,-Ual p - 1 1,0 1 - T. r i -st,0,41 1:4' - -- -- *r 6 6. -fir * - 9,0 . 04 >59 i # . .. ~ r E A4 4,·· 'IV (v,n , b . 1%1 0 77 1+ 4 1 .. d / 49.0~ u -7 L k * J e ~\Ct==1 : r... m L #EIG.#... : I f 17 $ 1 - 1 -t i . 0 -f lit 1 5 . 1 01,4 0 i 1 1 $ f 1 - 4 X: . ~ CO - I /*MAIN FLOOR: PROpdsED PLAN 71~ Sent By: STUDIO 8 ARCHITECTS; .19."" 8:41AM; Sent By: STUDIO 8 ARCHITECTS; 970 920 7822; May-19-98 8:36AM; Page 3/6 Ir 1.. 1 - . 1. 1 . 33* AO- I....2,7 -1 , ..6 411. · 4.- ' I . 4, ' i. 4,X A . - .AA' ... f .'IC':'. .:<, 1 246 2 • I· . I ·2 *loill - . , -dri '. .. ,1, 4 4%,1 6,34' " WI... 1.8 f '. ..1 ...... 4•274 - 2- 1·'A'··· 1 r p. 9- 7·-2, t. . . : . Me · ' 1-i&· *·· - 7.14"i ·et jt .11 . 9. ..1 1. It.r.1-6 4- 'r - P. .1 .' k ./ 1-. h -4% , 4 -1. - I 2 * 32#t- Iff *2:LD J.14 ..1- 9.~1~z:~~:i==~- 1---1 11 1 li 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 - --* -r·L_ 1 -Il- -147 & r L. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 - 1 111 1 - 14 4-01-1999 11:40AM FROM ~ ' NCHO DOS V I DAS 830 3343475 P. 3 #<51* C;h#, /0, L .3.35 1/»7 , UNT - 1 4 REMOVC *,57744 .. W . - $,6 WR&*.ta'+57£.9„ 2164 »e .02- .424-4 7 I:-I.---.I-I-. * 2 t . I. , 84,14,¢*6 9€1116.Og -= ...4 1 1 I./.-. - 1 . . ·9*g·.67- , 1 1 .M.-Il- U.- -. . i . - ... I 6 1,1 I -*-I.-i . 1 ... ...- 1 .&..u. *./* I-..-, ..< , A /7\ 12 - -01 -21/9/ - -- , I - .... - N¢44 1 ttict»u - 1-'-I 70 0*vq' 0*46'26· -tx- -_rtr . r. 9 : n I p 0 1 1 ici fqi.. '4,0.,44 , Lk--a' » 1 .1 , A- 1-FC g i 1 - - '' P: , . . . 1 . I . .. 4. . I. I .- i. 1-,616 4 1 . - 11 , 1 % 1 N 1 t M 1 , , ;, 4 / :1- 4 '_.lil t 1 , 1 4 , 4 . . ! 1 tot,1 LING .---95 ct . '.l -~ 95'1' P.~Pt¥/ ~ . f' 1. 1, "..Ai.,r" r r.. ~ f---,-~'f~,C'-3 -15:4 1.-79-frr '-;241:-r:-7~ y >r r ... "·1··· ~ -· r - . 4. r i , I 1. 1 , ' 1€> 1 3 :/6, 'I .m.... i ! I 8 1. 5 ~© :~* f''~~7414 i 1 1 1 1 ' ----- r.f 1, 1 t' ' l &64.--~/tWT.ulf. ~ ·1.. . , Cle##7#€Lu . 1. i . . . 1 .. VA T ION ~ r-.7 Ind, 1-hn 1 .....1 1 34\141*1411 -1999 11:41 AM FROM rbi NCHO DOS VIDAS 830 3343475 P. <1230 -0/j 4, cu_ 2/tu~ AL O & /3 luumi'il Eprf.1£·· 7 f# 3 1/1 . ' J 4 - l 0,-) bs W -.1-11,1/n--¥*11~4911!MMN.I. I 9.1~ 1, 114:4 1 1 1 1 / 424 L. - -/ m-I - - *..-Il/ .6.6 .„1 - 1,- t'B lei *ft : FA AT/API PIA . Litn>14 / *alut *fu 04 6,54 , 19,1 -1 -,1.- - .. . 1 %0. - 4, •. 4 .4~3;,·44,43P4 71. . '..1 - .,//.....*.* %22...2»-f't=* fr3#2419-iged#/C#,thr¥>4· ~ ....4 22 -*./4#.• I... *F'~0%/. 14 ir~ -1.:4.... 1 ......6<...L.. 2. ·· '2744352 0..... 1.- 1 - Fii- ./ · ly•-e 99*iF..6.:p : :. P.. v .. .'·2£ ,». f.1 i - - Le- '· " ' · , I · 1 , i L. ' 6 4/ -17 .4..; _ ··T··7,4- ~.~'-i.lrirl-1...u·---1.1 A r /<\ ~el¥ 1 -L ; ' · , /X\ ' 4 '1 *>7241 '.. 9 m ,.1.. f L. 1 , I. \ 1 i k.. 1\ ~. #*¥t# ./ - #- p. - ~ 1 7 ti21#:~ ~*2: ·, ·' i. - ./ '. + 1 .1.1 . . - & 1 1,1.Amit· : -J A - 41 ..i: 1 -16-&.24'D... 1 '4*994*t: ./ ./ ~4'.-:©f~('f.'' .~ \ .... L il ..\\ N.\ .... if, -- 1/ R 5, I ..:-'r' . I -~ ---- ----- -- 4,/ 1 1 i - - ......... -----„- I • 1 1 1 1 "f' ··2.q¢*f i ..l 9- * fey:R--,.3> . · · V ..~ _- 1 ---1 1 . 0 -9.'F - 42446.6-lic?21 1 '. 'Al·Wt·7... 2'f©%4,., -•·tf/:23.7. 1 , -- i ~ .. - -- t. / 1 ~t.Z. - 0 4'7'1.7- ... --- ' 9 >'.AN ·- --%~ - i iA ./ ~~ · ·- .Zt - --- ... I *11:Rfs,-. . . , - 1 , 1 1 __ ' '. _~ ~ ~~_ _ _ ~~ 11 4.·.4#4 - di + ..... .'-' I 1 --- , - - ~; 7,4 4 2 1 I & --1 . 1/ J 1 1 - ' -6 :z#91· 4 €- ' 1 f, . - - .. 5 -- -- «124'· ·· ---- ·· 1 - - 1. 1 X ' I. --- t#:. -- 4.- .4-#4' r.· 12 1.-*,k ...4,03 1 -- ,1 Vil ~((, 1 1 1 1 1 t , 1 1 1 /9*.42 -1 1 , r , 1 1 1 1 ~C 0 - !30.0, i LO / , ./- -- I , it- / f. 1 .: 43.1.-21't...2....'i f . · O U S.€~ £aa;af. '·: .:. __ - _ _ 1-9.-%4.-3... '· e 12*ili-: ·. . 44,94¥MY,-,0„,91,1„,„, ep-,„9„t¥¢¢#e#*M#UZ'mi<544%WTHe#/9,#Ve##pfe*/Wimm"MY"le#IM#RA I 1 1 1[ 7- f T f f [7 F r n-4 . k r-7 lili -2.1 -- v/- Mja< 6*41#41*f . 731(1'.1.1 t-3-3-U.47'1 0 . 4 ,- i -&_L!- O- ~··.'TL --1-f LFET-- S i . 1 +1' I r- --- i '~1 lilli MiVAL. 4*,MAJEL -3- „ WOOD 9,41#14.UES 1 f CHA --44 1.-: 111% ii'_1 A.L;-f ' I---1- 1 11! i':!iiI /51% t 4~ .H'~'~ '' G ,(py--, £:-Ii·'~41~i.,9.-I. 1* 1-*24.~'-,i R. + i- l A (,4 1! , 3 / . , 1 1 - 4..T :i' 1 ¢ft,5 10 _ _ 11- - _- _ ft.'iJIL-11-1,IL.-1-i-,-4 11.. {-41,&'' 1 'ti i ~1 171- 1- 2--2 -1- 1 11. C.ETJ-1 : 1 -1-IT- :-·~ r -:- ,3-!it.1- L T 71 , Me:22 62560**:E' ' 11 ~ 1 ,!1 , I i il,I:,·Il;, Li.t ._1.2.,1,-·.1-'., ' ' tin -1 -2 7-»-· 4,01/4, (TfA 1·i_,f-It illii-1-3 11..: :-: [11131_i-bo -7 0-~ ~-'--r----7-- 1---Ti- ·frf- -r-"T-" I-, E 7- 1 1 i .~ -~716.fili:i-91 -fl LI tr.,-7-1 1'.-3;.1-, drki- . I *21--=171 1 11 J 77 1 0.- i 110: 1 :1 ' - , 1 -I: 10**5) th.*E-/ty/QG , -t 0.1 1 : - - 41:h' 00+49 *'4 7/-3 --7 I .i. i ,? . 111 f k.- 7 ~- 1 130 u100 6 Ot\21 44, t l j l ipovoli 7 7-68* 00 U' 60/(/-€0415/ Accv ~~t uvg/ 4-00. 4-0 8 ··r h - 1 i 1 '1 - I PAX ' I - .4,9 ./A I 4. , A.£ ,} Aw , 1 -/ t. , 4 - ./ I . 44 . .... .1 - r, ' ; t ' . 'f ....1 t z> r :48 .iii 34% .4 9.1 /4. - 24 01 ~ ~ L - ... . : 1 19 I i'% 1 4t 5 1, ' I ../ 4, t., £ 1 '44 1, 7- . 4 K : . 1 1 I # b ...9 . .. 0 -1 -1 A- 3 ... I. M , 1% 1 ¥ %. 4 - ~ ... ./ ....4.46 · P , . 4 .- 4 11 . t Ct>Ucxf QJCO Ve>ve\A floo v Dul fbOwl-- 4 6100£.62 1 5 -'r.-~ri-i..) 1/ . A HPC Work Session 234 West Francis Street Revised Elevations Depicting Fireplace Vents at the Roof Surface 23 February 1999 Studio B Architects 555 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado i I 1 1 -_T-1--11 1 I i 1 '1 . -T 1 / -r .1.- - ~I-liT-r il~, 1--- lilli .-14_ b «__ I 4 , - -1- ---Ulmi~ - --{-- - 4 --_-ff.-~In---ELOPTZ======ZE~-- 1 --Ill -#4- 1 ~ 1 - .........,- -- - - - --« J -11 11 121'-7 $ L- - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9Ee *A-7 -1- th NE>N PDANAQ- ,=7 #*G *>p 1 + 7, AVivATv ,4,9 /5 5 I li 1 I Il lili .1 , 1/1 1 il - 0 ! 11 - 2 01 . 14 -- I 11 1 - - 7--a» -- 9 992 Neu *,INDA,/ 1 722/,4*2*, jal':98 1 ¢ I ?GOF #Wa - - 1 4 017%2 2 01 - It U 1 44 06 09 1 1©1~~[-©1 1 T - 1- 11 , OPLIQU E~ ~ -2- , 1 i i - ~0040•216,*€0¢2* L 1112=271 1 +- AU- £*22:77MS ~ 41 0/hle 1781*+ 11(711 1 i 1 L_ 3L__1 . --4 4--1 I--7€9-2 _. 94=400*7921- il fV-411 I i 1 1 1 -----IKAILING 964 4,1,44 6EE 2~A-11 1 , _22 lfICEL]rumr- Vt,ry N 1 ! 90 0 MolL -- . LAP 9 . ..... I it. 1 11 11 1 -- 1 - e '.. 1 1 1 . 1 .1 1 1 ' It . 1 . E] El -- i t'_32 1 , I fl 1 1 '' 1 4 I I 1 1 · 72</02~17;tw 1 1 1 AUMP.11, 1 ~--- LIWH-TiIAEL-L'# 1 *+Nt }4 kr 440$4,Ae ,92$1:06 2 · 1 1 5 6% ~ *1 -4 1 . . 1 .11 1 1 . b 1 1 1 1 2/,Avbteu. 5 2.5,*p,•z£. #- Z _1 -- ' 1 ' 1 1 1--1 1 . ,.. . -1 - - .-1 1 di~-AST_OP ROP_9~E_D-ELE V AT I-Q_N-,i ly) 1/4" =1' A W 1 1 -1, A 1 Al I 117~ 9*44,2 1 245,2 744, r r i ./C / 9 - '73 4 74 1 , 1 k . ] \14 ~». 1% i. i -- i \ \\ \\ \ 4 \ /\ 1 / -24 /11 / \ \~ / \ \ le '-- RM!57 vZW77447740' \ 1 f-- 1,«NAE ---. 1 -1 I U 4 3 't - - - , --- --r=ZIKI 1 - . 11 1 1 It -- \ 1 I.---, , h : 11 PEE.FOR*14+1 *<146 *04-1- + 4- ?OR.4 h.to WCORPe,EN'-Et - .'i RMON 6 -- -- t.t>~ (© /4 \ 11 32\ 1 tul Ne*N dERLk::FUA]Ei t - LId#1 1 ! C- 8"14AED *ADE 4*le- tief) - /-- flatte. 1,>De OX f /--i = --- CONS, Sl-4* 4 - - -- f - - 1 - - - 91 '-M- - v 3--5 - 9 .Ar :-.-3 P.L f , 611 -- ----- 1., 2 2 m FOOYING 44•e >6 1 *-7»44 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 47---£$4,«5460 /1*,e W PEQNFO#6950 CONC· 1 1 E..420 491/ &44*30 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 11 £ It Ill' 111 - - 1 ' 1 1 1 1 11, 1 Ii 4440 \ ---t-- 4lp#i€ PAARK# 4MP ?PAd _*1 - M1180 5,<ler#M,·- 44143 - *•%6, ? Mur 6*WA Mi-- - -------- 9,41,1. ... 2.1 -1 1- 13/ Ir--- - - --- ____i 1 1 E-3 11 00.1 E--11 - 1 1- f ill*ill - - 96*th O kgal - Al, Ith 2 6ARMS€ ~------ ----t- - ---- -----\ ·ILL. I ti 1 - '7 5 -t--~ ZE=-7 -==2 ~ -- - i- - -=0- 2-0-0-fl ft *1 **4**Ed) 13~A *<146 *DQUCW AE- m O w{ cavoRMfo W *GEW ~:P76:0~7Z·¢*5 1 / 1 \- 1-__4 L . . .L.. .+. . .. 1. ~7>W EST: PROPOSED ELEVATION 2 '. -1 '1/4" =1' --- -- PATTILLO ASSOCIATES STAt_ICTUR. :ONSULTANTS PR T Muu,;NE, ef:*,1 (>@C€ 53,6 Od. Feff: 7 • 5 GAANC] AVENUE • P.O. SCX 751 -CATE '17 (\ 1 4 0\ GLENWOCO SPFINGS. CCLCRACC el€C2 (3CX3] S•SS-€3865 . SHEET : =F I GUE€7 facti COLUMN REF/hee .,1,fifim,371/jazy;4', /3.4·:62:491 ¢0.E€% /ber 1%10* polfuou:Mf Se: . 6 : D.T - , 3*:35 10/94 02*E tv> m:¥ . 7 V„., 4.W S -- 'b-,2.4/CNAL 9~rf~ Xe gpo:32.09 - 7 -- .- t .7- 0 1 . .. 1 22.- - 1 -12 . - 42--71/10/Vic»rEY ./Wy,ed ht-(1,711 + 6.7, 4- --7 E - T i. 10 -* : *€2CFOK, 2,/4-0 + - - 1 . I fl{21~FIKE'] bi 97 r=] „ - f - - - - -- -. Gfi 10- - + - - - - . M.-- -. -7 W F..AH 1 1 4 3 7 c ( wr{ 9 d , fVDA \ 0413.- ... - 03 Building JSK 1 . Jhit: f,4-,- 70 961 1 11 5 02 0-€ J $ ./ . -- -47 --1 1 1/ 3/ .-,-;22.5> 11.22 Ch ' - - >*1-442-L 163~,V : ~ ~ 3 ¢Lr22:0 = 5, 6-J::- 1 a M 1 I dr f r\..et,ft *-·3..*4 I. 00 f .-. 1,5 I 1 - Cecila Fjoool) : /6 3 1 -- 7-1-14 "F~-109 2*1 11.0. I -- f -' -' FCM.19-1*55.3 ! A .£20(36@9[Bo.-. fieal Fe¥:b~*--WEST COW Ally- RE -966.3 _. - . -:. .1 Teroous.ov·d r€figc.2 42.43.12" t·5*j.fo of- derciyd 2.AS) 8.1/ 'rfat#·ed 9.-44 -__ t . : yedword .fewd.. Mortric.1 - {21011.130.91"1-'CPy .1~~~*.hi;.Rret'91/1 C"*./ (3#9 .42. 20.-%45 ~'f.€21"d..21*4)..........6-U.€, Ujdh .i~:ah? poit.91.fast-ve- - ... - 0. , ... -_. -. ....(fece roGAce 4 ¢6(.~u·.¥4*06,y~e.,) ...At .91rl*'.e. JOD,45 --- /5., i>(ACK 'm.a:,t 0-t_52*4'74 hye _01*h €tfopt...fict€....rfo.k>,41..., sicuj C -+Gy,9 12*L ... vt,... Iks€irt. 3¢-© ree~(3/y..+ 65/.---1?-4f C.21~fAFf@A.. fly(:396)0· CLAM/-of.. CAL,10'je>.... r_€+07:C'/¢:. .. 1.la'66 -ly..8014 -I i. I ·-- I % 4 ....212'Ect«E Ft)flt. .115, 2 53, Phacve : rl/'tie¥f~ *22 to//. first, 5005£2 lost*A ord.j» ?325+65_¢.tfr.-1 ...... 2~Y 00*LE 1 -1.-9 An.dulft.--_916. ·fole UlkoG+j f fpec>j .Pubd 4©rn -*2~, .v I'»te to c«Lia- rlo Y(?i.6,) 1 t..... de.am. *0.4...rr*r„..54*H¢ 3-10€04 -'1,32 501*79> €(<fo€.219·-944-9.d P.*rt »hagul oa-4.- 123 0 1-2 Sent By: STUDIO 8 ARCHITECTS; 970 920 7822; Mar-17-99 4:59PM; Page 2/2 1 • f: 1 11 1 8 1.1.-8- architects 17 Mard, 1999 Progress Report #3 for 234 West Francis Street, The Davis Waite House: (Submitted by Scott Lindenau of Studio B Archilects.) There was no exterior workperformed during the period of 10 March -17 March. 555 n. •11!1 91. aspen go. 81 61 1 9 /U- 920·9428 fax 970·12 0 /012 2 ~-t·UL«-1 6 .. .. f : ' 41.2. 4.. 44927,· %74 1 . I,\ 1 : i,WR..·'I ~ . . 4. . 1 1 I . ' '· ' <Am.VAA/ , N'F. 95 ' 4, ....' . '/4/ .-.. · · 4 · t·,·. .c·-,ae.151*id¢f. .F...i**+1 2,4 i'. 1 i ' ~.%40>'*€ k ' *~~ r,Zi. 5 71. piM.1.i.-,w :&~49543, 1 '41:reaw:'M . 61¥ W. P~ 1 :bili ...31' 00.-1.90 . i =LE-*2 -a«-~~~.ae~, Miv : · 24 /0:Imililli 942 $6'11*- - 01•*1. .,~ .. 1. 4 .4 1% , . 1 1+36%94¥:>.; 0~1·:21. 4 . .. b / . i, ilig- .......1 .., & %04«* t. 51 6 45 · 4* 4,429.... '35.'>t"ll'vi~ 'i~:6:.,4(.· :·.i k. 1. 4. . ...,1,... 1.11: ....<41,3 4 F..4 1 - ,----- f. h - . ; '..at'a,3, 1:0:; i#jit:,9:,9 ...f. .AE· .: ' 1 -/. I=. .i ' . , , ... I ...1''t'~'...'. . '4.) . 49,.·1 , 1'93€2;:,~f f?i~<- b 049' ~ 7.' 11 r , Si-;2.14*t;t:.·'Zjri~;/,· ~~·· .. «464*»til:*d~:P...~~-- -, - P== I f &A...SE , '4 .j« 'f .'. ..r. "5rf.»4· r"-4 4<.- 3''~ '' ,¤ .Ah .a L4 · . ,- 1.12 94!1,. r-:. ==·~~~-ij# -6'44 ~,,.~~~'~,4*24%39~.',~~~:~4~41&~~.~"~ ' g.=U... . fIE/442/LA 4944/46:4~***1·2&., . i{/401 *241!jil ~~~mif/6//~~A~mat&1+ - 'i-?:"7 - ¢31 ~ i·.~ 2 j~~~ .·1; .::>. 6..)~-%*5243,11*3**t >ii,ft"*~42,4%3:} 41.., 0/ iji/*41 ir' 4.~~~522~ ;A Irgd;,qi; i~. i·14~.;ta,~0~ 1 ' 9.1-1, - 8 ,:0 ,~~,<36~,~,: i*,~~742, ref.*·'i :4·3(-,·,~ ' .p<.~·' ~'&31; ... .1, 11.,r . ./ ./ "' "-BE, r.... I. ' :*' ':- . ' 4 12 1 41. 11 , f -4 -I : . .1 - (40/r "____ 0»S74 C#'/4 4 1- -9~6 1/A-7 - 2 :,:~F- ~va.~9:it. . 4: * · . 1 1 1 4 - m=Am 0.4 . NE>N PDAM/EA- f 1 \\ 1 - \\ . I \\ 72:> Re~4*IN &, 16 » \\ 1 \\ 1 J \4 -- ' 1 1 1 4 1. 1 · 11 1 '0?!i., P.U..4 ~ **40.1/.. 1 1 i! *ii i ....I--I-- 1, 1 1 2- 488- NOTE Ar '/A-6 -h\\ - 11 1 I i It i 1 1 1 A.-:1 - /14€W K//5/ '/ --- --- -======EEES.t 1 11 1 i / 1 1 -,t. - 1 1 HM /4 . i ---- - =:4$ '2 1 . . 1. AVE€ %414 ~-71 1 / , , 4 4__-_ ,dza•r #f;0,22' , - 7 ! (-1 1%49*mA~47~hiew*~4 -r, I ..1-1 - rp-- .-'' r.-r ! 1 A-, / Capecp Ve 1 i -0.,fle,VAE 25 . ' 1 /6212225&1522 ..,40 1 6 i ,4ewove 2/57* x- 7==J 4 9£99 4 CO+5Tflogr ; A------ . i 1 1 - 1,0u ~24644 1\ 1 -_ - · 2 I 1 -R#J . I I J 1 . . T :1 41)0 4.2 F -1, 4 ·4 ~€31 L ... == - - 2-4..r»-/ Gib - 10~« 192. 'Oac.,5-~372¥1 - 2-- 1 : L-J 42 1 1 , ~ - · I--74 ', 0 . 1 9 1 ' 111 1 1 1 y. b .J ': - , t .LE< L.-/ I 1 -1111 <43 !1 ~ /©. -1 1. 1 1 I <7 + 1 2.- i .4·16· · Mpt: 1 4 1; , .1 -1 1 1 . -1 1, I, 1 -3 . 1 . 11 11 r 1 . . I j..9 4. .4. . 34 ..27,0 7 L 4 1 ,4 44*thys.a uou,e 1 - . .,..2..9..1·.'·RtiM.-2#4~1- 11 - - -- ' V B- . /1 + .. - ./1 - . · ' '- £}-5 ~-' -f~'~:ilri-%.:A#f; 353p-*· :tF 1 - · I. '. -i' t . 1 ..17 1 - . 1 / i . 1 .... -f«XE A sT :-: PRGPO S £~16~~,j,E Liu ¥*14'r I{;O*)4~t~:1~>·~*~ ~ ;~A~~~ . P M . , - ' :;26: ·.·:'>™rkat)£,tezi ,- p . '10414 1 · 4 -4 b, 1-, ... " 1- . . 22·~3 4,5251. . 90:...v. ··: 1¥34/1/1+0:..~~fjifi·»r»f. ~p:1.-.-v#a:· t:42#0,~2.~.4-4;- ~ a .L:k .714:6..112.27=it .c - -- -- 7- 1.-, ..4 -14 9 ''\ V -Air I r ':-·f~,jl,.,t ' I '. ./ I. '/72' I .·tjAUd,· A. '. . 1 t ·,7.'·4*·5?.79,~i·;/ , , .13: " 4/ i V.€1.9 '' · - 1 ! 3 4 1 X -} t f + i \--------- -- 4 4Fc-234 / 0 It -l*--. I. 1 . 4 l Pl,1,60/ Pa¥?716 41~1 9 7'Py'PI ¢D ~ -----~ ~~ ~ -- - - - - . Nd.ImM C<14'Ettts *401 - \ 1 Mavs&, 24?,tf c•kaf Mb f- ~f«// ©1 © - '. I--. il -02- -* -. 7 \ , Z I 00 . / \ 1 -- i Ch,64(4 -- / - .9 742/ -\ 1, 1 1 11 1 1 - .... ..~ il /.1 1 - - - 1.---=1 ---- -- .- - _ -- err- - -- » 1- I - I --*- - 1_--3 L-- 1-3 . 1 LIt- - 9 [ 1 1 -1 ' ' * -i. 112.1 (E> 0 i ' a.-It - 46, At) 2 54*36 i , , 1 1 = 1 --1 -- .-- , \ / \ / 1 _1 -n C. - + 1 ' 1 1 It y 1 1 1 1 1 i &0'Up 4 »*:10.0 :72> 00 -- -- -- 1 ··*A/Aee•O F>€041 BKIST» 1 -t -t " 97,€UU-z/,22- AtiO ttlcoRfoRATED £ IN NEW 4762tkTU,ES i t : 1 1 1- _/9~ hW E S T:--PROPO-SE_D ELE VA TIO -- t< 21 .b 10 99 04:51p COLORADO PRESERVATION 303-893-4333 P-2 :OLORADO PRESERVATION, INC. 910 16TH STREET, SUIT[ 1100 DENVER, COLORADO 80202 February 10,1999 The Honorable John Bennett Mayoi, City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspel,q CO 81611 Dear Mayor Bennett: Colorado PY©servation, 1ne. (CP]1 is a nonprofit, private organization dedicated to advancing and suppolting historic preservation tllrougbout the statc. Through our Colorado's Mast Endangered Places Pwgium we provide assistance to communities that have sites that ar© threatened and could be lod forever. The Waite House is now such a site as a result ofthe removal and demolition of historic features occurred during a recent restoration project. The loss of original building materials has resulted in the loss ofthehistoric chameter of the Waite House. The unauthorized work has forever ohanged the quality of this building. CPI supports actions that the A>ipen Historic Preservation Commission deems necessaly to insure that a similar disaster does not happen to another historic structure in the future. We applaud the actions of both the Aspen Planoing Office and Historic Preservation Commission for suspending construction on the Waite House and encouruge you to continue to take a strong stanve in favor of sensitive historic preseivition in your <:ammunity. By supporting the efibits ofthe Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, you can insure that the best of Aspen history is preserved fer future generations to enjoy. If CPI um provide you with furfher assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our offices. Sincerely. r t f f i / U A»=4 /11».,6 \ Olue.--j Nanon Adair Anderson -AL President /khe Protecting the Irreplaceable™ in Colorado CPI'S MISSION IS TO PROMOTE & ADVANCE HISTORIC PRESERVATION IHROUGHOUTTHE STATE OF COLORADO. Phone: (303) 893-4260 . Fax: (303) 893-4333 • Email: copresinc@aol.corn -- N* 7-9 R Eer,1,,_ f FEB U 3 1999 Ad/EN / 6 i KiN Melanie Roschko COMMUNin' DBJELOPMENT 0257 Eastwood Road Aspen, CO 81611 February 1, 1999 Aspen City Council Aspen City Attorney Historic Preservation Commission 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 To All Concerned; I was extremely upset to hear about the damage to the Waite house. Upset, but not surprised. The outcome was destined from the start ofthis project. At that time, I was a member of the Historic Preservation Commission. Mr. And Mrs. Mullins, Scott Lindenau and Gary Wheeler had little knowledge or understanding ofhistoric preservation, not did they appear to care. That is now blatantly obvious. Unfortunately this type ofproblem has occurred before. HPC has urged the City Council and City Attorney to put in place legislation to deal with such abuses; preservation education for owners, prospective buyers, real estate sales persons, contractors and architects; and special licensing for contractors dealing with historic properties. Stiff penalties will not replace this historic resource, but they must be made extremely damaging to the pocket books of all involved. There have to be economic deterrents to prevent future problems on new projects. Perhaps public service, jail time and public embarrassment will work. Replication of damaged resources is not preservation. ! I urge you to inflict the strongest penalties available on all parties involved. They knew what they were doing ! Sincerely, Melanie Roschko 02/09/1999 11:54 3709201129 M HIRSCH PAGE 02 FROM : UVLUERS! TY OF GEC]RGI A PHONE f IO· 72€6 542 4885 Feb. 09 1999 01 : 06FN F , 3 - ~ . -'-==-19-= --LI~ -~ =-~2_2-€ · -1/...)-//Im/liall'll'Imillililill'll[ NATIONAL ALLIANCE of PRESERVATION COMMISSIONS P.O. BOX 1605 ATHENS, GEORGIA 30603 February 8,1999 To Whom It M ay Concern: T Arn -hu.& *hik• le•€45,7 on behal.f ed kl.* 24-tiv, ~.1 Jokllk., Mu i,f Prt.·t,cri·,~ton Commissions {NAPC>-a nationwide non proftt organization that assists local preservatioa commissions in thei corr mlinit•t efforts-oncerning the Davi,u Waite house debacle. A witierned citi,Len brought this issue 0 our attention and 1 wanted to let the Aspen commumty know that we, as an organization, 5trongly endorse the position of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission and the preservation laws that they enforce. 11 is absolutely essential for any thriving community to respect and cherish their historic resources and to make sure that others. especially part-time residents, understand this and are fullv cognizar + of the regulatory laws that are in place for preservation purposes. You must not gtand for the continuation of property owners claiming hotal ignorance about the sensitivity and stondards of rehabilitation work on Aspen's priceless historic resources. As an orgaruzation we strongly recoinmend the retention of at lea,t one full-time staffperson for historic preervation or,mmissi,ins; if this was Ihecase in Ampen the difficult monitoring issues that the commission are having could be ameliorated. The fact that the contractor for the Waite house project was able to get that far along in his insensitive rehabilitation work is an indication that full- U,in: bl.ff 4 i Le-ed©,1 6., e.ul 'Fltr• uent lt•t J L, liez, vf tl L. vul.luileet 41.•11 111 unt,tonele We advise the city to use this unfortunate event as a platform from which to re- evaluate the efficacy of Agpen's histor_c preservation policies. Don't let this happen again, because it could *Atert a trend if it hasn't already. Good luck. Sincerely, d f 6.1.4 4-1 Pratt lassity 02/07/1999 17:07 5152569111 IOWA SECURITY' ACADMY PAGE 01 Historical Preservation Commission February 5, 1999 ANpett Colorado 1 Frank S. Waite would like to submit the following comments and proposal for wur consideration in the matter of the Mull.*11* project at 234 W, Fnmas St. Firgl [ have to thank the H!?C for their de*cation w,tb m~w, goal of Presening theong,nal architectural character of A:imm ln addition ] would like to sav thank you to Mr. Don Mullins for saving the home from further decay. and the contractor, Mr. Gary Wheeler for his hard work and attention to detall in Preserving and Restoring the estate 11 appears [hai some qnestions have alisen regarding the disposal and replacement oforiginal malerials to the emer,or of the hom©. The mut,!em Des in the definittons of Preftnetion y. Restor"at,on . k 01*r to Preserve, it is often necessary to Restore, the original character and design of the original ] did have a chance to make an apprai.al ©f the estate white on the market in 1997. and on in*pection of the PRservalion/Restoration process in 1998 it was my perNonal ohs©rvation then and now that certain items would tme te kn© t©placed because ofdecay and neglect, lu tk historic Sl",©rnlan H, I~s Dist~i©t in my cornmunin. this game problem ins ornued from time m time, and is due in part to interpretation of the rules feflaining to Preservation and Resto•ation Loat issues may artie from anD,her standpoint of conipligince of jec,W building codes that perta,n to safet-v For example, do we pres€rve, 41 irotten porch with epoxy and hope that some©,c does not fall mto it. or do we r¢place it with like materials nnd onginal architech,ral design ? ha the matter of the siding matenial, during projects such as this, one can discover more decav as more removal is performed H 2,0 we i,motempt to Preserve siding material that 15 rotten and warped „ md hqm that it lasts for a couple of yeaa or replace part of il with repticated material 7 These are the type of Tests a,ld Standards that need to be incomorated into this project and future plojects in Aspen. As a member of the Aspra Hialodcal Society. 1 wonkl like to see more projects of this nature take place in the oommunity. I believe in order for that to happen we Ileed to encourage. not d,scourage potential itivestors in the nuitter et Preservation/ Restoration. Mr. Mullins has nlade a great investment in the infrastructure of Aspens future, and hope that more people like him will come forth and save Aspens history, 1 suPPor[ the wor:k and efforts of' Ark. Mullins and Mr. Wheeler for their dedication to history and Pre;Nervation After reviewing the Standards for Rehabiliiation for Histon, Building i.e. The Secretary of the lateriof's Gwdelines. believetheownerand contractor have followed therules The rules do allow fer replacement of decayed matenal if necessary, with the intent to replace nul improve the overall appearance. 1 believe the contractor acted in Good Faith with his intentiohs in the Rest©ration Process. and errors dite in part to interpre~ation of mmeN awl n-Os-coinmunication *prith HPC officials I resextfully pra>p that thi< matter wilt be resohed in a manner thaa will not disrill* the restoration project at 234 W, Francts Street I am confident that that the HPC will a®udlcate this matter wittl fairness and inderstanding. A compromise that will ensure the orginal character and design of these magnificent homes, gill not be altered Re,qr~*fully. #i*. 1 -4*0 ot Frank S. Waite 800 S.E.Hackley Ave Des Moines. la 50.315 - 1-p FEB 2 3 1999 Ellen B. Randall ASPEN/Pii A. . 1 -'' 25'1 1/I '-9,/ r r.,7/ Er; 1- p-, i r f ,- 300 Lake Avenue Aspen Colorado 81611 (970) 925-2548 February 16, 1999 Ms. Suzanne Reid Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Suzanne: As a homeowner in the West End, I have watched the neighborhood change over the years, unfortunately not for the better. The historic home at 234 West Francis, located next door to good friends of ours, has been ofconcern to many ofus, and we hoped it would eventually be purchased by people who would appreciate and care for both it and the beautiful land around it. 1 was so pleased when I learned that the home had been purchased by Gwen and Don Mullins because I knew that they would make every possible reasonable effort to preserve the original character ofthis house. Indeed they have made every reasonable effort, unlike many people who have built unsightly houses or remodeled and drastically changed the houses in this area. I hope the Historic Preservation Commission will do all it can do to see that the ban on the Mullins's building/ restoration project is lifted immediately. 1 understand that one of the complaints has to do with the Mullinses not using some ofthe original exterior wood, which was rotten-not at all unusual for lumber over one hundred years old. When the project first began and I walked by it daily, I was very impressed by the work being done. I am still impressed and complimentary of how the Mullins are maintaining the original character of234 West Francis. All of our neighbors with whom I have talked believe that the Mullinses should be supported and encouraged in continuing the remodeling of their home. As you know, this house has been on the market for quite some time. We all feel very fortunate that it now belongs to two outstanding people who are a welcome addition to any neighborhood Sincerely yours, /AA j ~, Pal«£(.f€ C-£--C-2«1.-, Ellen B. Randall 02/08/1999 17:57 9709201129 M HIRSCH PAGE 02 emQU~U~*0@.~*~mh~~~i,~,1= - - -- . 02·08/99 MON 18:27 FAX 202 673 4082 NrHP PRESIDEAT S OFFICE 0 011 2 NATIONAL TRUST tr, HISTOKIC PRESE*vATION RICHARO MOE PRESIDENT February 8. 1999 Ms Ma,y H. 1-[irs<th Aspen Historic Preservation C'ommi.ioner 1590 Silver King Drive Aspen, CO 8.611 Dear Ms. Hirs h Thanks so much for your letter and articles regarding the urgent preservation issue$ that are emerging in Aspen. ICs distressing to spe' that a town with the historic character and tradition of A spenislos ng some ofits most significar.t buildings ive heard of the d©velopment pres5urcs and I can believe that they are mounting- We are eater to be of whatever help we can and I'm aski]¥ Barb Pard, the director of our Mountain/Plains Office in Denver. to contact you to see how we can be most effective. You wil] be hearing from her very shortl> and as soon as the two of you agree on a :;trategy. I will s,gn on, We' re eager to belp. 1 hanks for ail that you are doing to preserve that wonderful town Warmest regards. Since~rely, ' / 1 /13 flichard Moc RM:bb Protecting the Irreploreable 1./. LT•s MASSACHUJET-U Al'ENIE, NW · WASHINCPON. DC 120035 2 LI 2.68 0 6 1 •) 6· ,•~A· 2 02.50 8 4 0 8 2· WWW NATJO A ALTR V ST· C' N ]1'11 10 99 08:466 COLORADO PRESERVATION 303-893-4333 P.2 MOUNTAINS/PIAINS OFFICE £ 2 4 --1. ,.il:HEF -. NATIONALL THUST » HISTORIC PRESERVATION February 8,1999 The Honorable John Bennett Mayor, City ofAspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mayor .Bennett: I am writing to express my extreme disappointment that the original porch, trim, and siding o f the histo,ic Waite House have been lost as a result of a poorly executed rehabilitation project. It is my understanding that the Waite House is not only an important element of the West End Historic District, but that it is also individually significant as the home of a former Governor and prominent Aspen newspaper publisher and attorney. When we met last August to review Aspen's historic preservation program, the group spent a considerable amount of time debating the value ofsaving real, authentic buildings from Aspen's past as opposed to recreating them. Most people have no difficultly understanding that an antique chair as greater value than a reproduction chair. The same is true with architecture. An authentic house with original materials has historic value as a unique, one-of-a kind structure. Prservation is about saving real places. Probably the most universally accepted guidelines for historic preservation in this country arc the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Two of these standards address this issue Standaulfive states that, r.distinctive materials, features, fnishes and construction techniques or examples old craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved," Standard 6 says, "deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced" Unfortunately, work at the Waite House ignored both of these standards. While it may be too late to save original materials at the Waite House, it is not too late to make the public statement that Aspen treasures its historic buildings and will enforce existing preservation laws to protect them. Towards that end, I would like to congratulate the City Planning Onice and the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission for upholding the city preservation oidinance ami stopping work on the Waite house while you search fOr a remedy to this unfortunate situation. If the National Trust can provide any assistance to you as you work through the process, do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, ~9~UU<fl-« Barbara H. Pahl, Director Protecting the Irreplaceable Mountains/Plains Office 910 IGTH STREET - SUITE 7 loo - DENVER, CO 60202 303.623.1504 •FAX: 303.623.1508 * W"WW.NATIONALTRUST.ORG Serving: CO, 2.8, MT, rfE, ND, SE & WY Mil FEB 09 '95 05: 07PM TOWN OF- TELLURIDE P. 1/2 Box 397 Telluride, CO 81435 <970> 728-1407[ Wipwl.~ - - FAX (970) 728 -3078 0,-*411 BY FAX TO (970) 920-5439 February 9,1999 The Honorable John Bennet Mayor. City of Aspen 130 South Gatena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Deai Mayor Bennet, I was extremely disappointed to learn that most ofthe historic materials and featureS of the historic Waite House have been lost, despite the best efforts ofthe Aspen Historic Preservation Commission to ensure the preservation of the National Register-listed property. As the Histeric Preservation Planner for Telluride, I understand al.u too well the pressules your preservation commission faces, and why the work they do is critic.2. ie the community Frem time to time here in Telluride, it has been suggested by some that Telluride siould no longer be a National Historic Landmark District, because it is not "convenient However, preservation is not a matter of convenience for individuals. Historie preservation is a stewardship, a promise that we will protect those places from Inc itast whicti airc: iinportemt, for the benefit of fUture generations. Preservation ©four .lii.st,24:c resources is what creates community identity and ensures livability In the past, we have had surprisingly few cases of blatant disregard for our preservatio.n regulations perhaps because in all eases we have prosecuted the properly owners to the fullest extent possible, as well as sought remedies whenever feasible. However, 01 r Commission is constantly asked to allow the removal of historic materialls from buildings, and to even demolish the building and build a reptica. Because consistency of paction is crucial for continued effectiveness, our Commission has stood firm. refusjug to grant any such requests, even though the applicant for each proposal be{ieves that ti=.c conditions oftheirproperly is unique, with no possible comparison to other historic buildings, In fact, what is usually described as rotten or beyond repair is simply in need of a little care, repair, and maintenance. Unfortunately. some owners and builders cru luctant to spend some extra time and energy to restore the existing material, and :nstew-' take the most convenient approach, resulting in the impairment of historic integrity At the recent Colorado Preservation, Inc. conference in Denver, 1,ieutenant Governor Toe Rogers related how his parents instilled in him a respect for the past, Haying, "Neve.· forget where you came from to get where you're going." In rapidly changing places SUCIT. TOWN OF~ FEB 09 '99 05:O3PM TOWN oF TEL-LURII:E P. 2/2 as Aspen, an undeistanding ofthe past is critical to preserve community. 'Chis w.as reaffirmed this past August ai your Historic Preservation Symposium. For your preservation commission to remain credible in the eyes of the community. i 1 is essential to enforce all regulations and condition.s of approval. Additionally~ *c full political support ofthe City Council is needed. Otherwise, the Commission wil! become powerless. If'you give up even one historic building, your ability to protect £11 other bulldings will be compromised. I urge you to support the Histo.ric Preservation Commission though enforcement of your Land Use Code and preservation laws, as well as seek a re.niedy to tb.is unfortunate loss ofa historic building that is important not <>ily to Aspen, but the citizens of Colorado. Sincerely, r' / >»fsk- Kaye Simonson Historic Preservation Planner , li., o February 23, 1999 THE CITY oF AsPEN - OFFICE OF THE CITY ArroRNEY Don Mullins 234 West Francis Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Red Tag at 234 West Francis Dear Don, Please be advised that the red tag issued for 234 West Francis on the 24th of January, 1999, has been lifted. . Pursuant to the agreement reached between the City of Aspen and you, work on the project at 234 West Francis may once again proceed. If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me at (970) 920-5108. Thanks. SincereJL__ %--0 < <3 -2 -4- David Hoefer Assistant City Attorney OLL .19 1. O ce. Stephen Kanipe, Chief Building Official FFfr 9 ,.. 1999 - Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Chuck Brandt, Attorney for Mullins · *32'Li / 1311 KI hi COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 130 SOUTH G.ALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 PHONE 970.920.5055 FAx 970.920.5119 Printed on Recycled Paper , ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO: DON and GWEN MULLINS, Owners GARY WHEELER, Contractor RE: REVOCATION HEARING ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR 234 WEST FRANCIS, ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ISSUED BY THE ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLEASE BE ADVISED that a revocation hearing concerning the building permit issued for 234 West Francis, Aspen, Colorado 81611 will be held at the regularly scheduled hearing of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission on Wednesday, the 10th day of February, 1999, at 5:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard. The matter shall be heard and judged by Stephen Kanipe, the Chief Building Official for the City of Aspen, or his designee. Pursuant to Section 106.4.5 of the 1994 Uniform Building Code: Suspension or revocation. The building official may, in writing, suspend or revoke a permit issued under the provisions of this code whenever the permit is issued in error or on the basis of incorrect information supplied, or in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of this code. At issue are alleged violations of the resolutions of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission approving the project located at 234 West Francis Street, Aspen, Colorado. The alleged violations are detailed in the attached summary, which is attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. The building permit was issued subject to the resolutions, which are on file with the Aspen City Clerk. The owners and the contractor are invited to attend in person or through counsel and participate in the Order to Show Cause Hearing. Information concerning any proposed plan to restore, replace, or remedy the alleged damage to the historic structure may also be presented. Dated this 1St day of February, 1999. ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT By: 1/L 02» A ., 4 0-*JJ11·.k * 6 L. 4/2 60 PED 25 1999 AL) r - C.~4 / t- 1 , rES 11 ~f~A~zvom/9 nmAR~17 February 25, 1999 THE CITY OF AspEN Tabitha Miller OFFICE OF THE CrrY ATTORNEY Finance Guru City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: $15,000 Settlement 7 Mullins (Waite) House 234 West Francis Dear Tabitha, Please find attached hereto a settlement agreement regarding the Mullins House at 234 West Francis. As part of the settlement, the Mullins were required to pay the City of Aspen $15,000.00. The check is enclosed. The money needs to go into a special account: the funds will be divided three ways. The Clerk's Office will be compensated for the cost of preparing the transcripts. The remainder will be divided between two separate programs, one being set up by Stephen Kanipe and the other being set up my Amy Guthrie. As'soon as I have the break-down, I will so advise you. ~Ll _1* David Hoefer Assistant City Attorney cc. Kathryn Koch Amy Guthrie Stephen Kanipe John Worcester 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET · ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 PHONE 970.920.5055 FAx 970.920.5119 Printed on Recycled Paper J - - I 4 ~1 DON R. MULLINS 479 ~ 1 SEPARATE PROPERTY , SNOWMASS PROCEEDS D 4545 POST OAK PLACE DR., STE. 144 HOUSTON, TX 77027-3105 35-1125/1130 ~ 1 DATE Fphriiary 24, 1999 ' PAY 41 AORDEREOF City of ·~==ten 01.,ez '~~~ 1 $15,000.00 0 Fifteen thousand and 00/00---------------------------------DOLLARS 'flaE. SOUTHWEST BANK OF TE~AS, N.A. PO BOX 27489 HOUSTON, TE)(&& 77227 74// FOR permit # 8-49 ~~ fr .222~_ .1 *0004 79 Il' 1: 1 1 30 1 1 2 58C *802 5 2 3 1 Il' 'ME3~.../1- m•Im•?-72-E-/..//-7....././.*/#m.7/-r/%/"/I-k·°'......2"'l~~·.'-~1-"/rP--7,9=Imm,**9·--i.q,~tal'/.lge,/9/**/22.nrli#*...r-/....m--irr«~1•41*~~C~-Zi I=--mm/=... -_..gmMI - . DE 6 /-2---37./i,i.. - - i,/ni\-u•I' . - u.,·i,·,In' ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE EXHIBITS 234 WEST FRANCIS, ASPEN, COLORADO 1. "Order to Show Cause" On File with City Clerk 2. Minutes of HPC Meeting - October 8, 1997 3. Minutes of HPC Meeting - November 24, 1997 4. Minutes of HPC Meeting - December 10, 1997 5. Minutes of HPC Meeting - January 28, 1998 6. Minutes of HPC Meeting - May 13, 1998 7. Minutes of HPC Meeting - May 27, 1998 8. Minutes of HPC Meeting - June 10, 1998 9. Minutes of HPC Meeting - January 27, 1999 10. HPC Resolution No. 2, Series of 1998 - January 28, 1998 11. HPC Resolution No. 17, Series of 1998 - June 10, 1998 12. City Clerk's File for HPC Application at 234 West Francis Judicial Notice 13. Building Department Permit File(s) for 234 West Francis Judicial Notice 14. Summary of Alleged Violations of HPC Approvals at 234 West Francis Historic Preservation Commission October 8 1997 234 W. FRANCIS - PUBLIC HEARING Amy Guthrie, historic preservation officer, stated that this building is on the national register of historic places plus being a local landmark. This is a wonderful red and black house on a corner. Numerous important people in Aspen's history have lived in the house. This is a minor application with several items involved. On the alley in back of the house is a carriage house that is not historic. At one time it was a garage and now it is a living unit and the applicant desires to change it back to a garage, add some dormers and change some windows. Staff has no concern with those changes as it was not historic construction. There is a wing that runs between the garage toward the back of the house that is partly old construction and partly not. The part that is not old construction, the applicants plan to open up into breezeway,. They are going to demolish. It is not historic construction, so that use is appropriate. On the historic house the proposal is to add an octagonal kitchen on the northeast corner of the house. This will not be particularly visible to the public. It is one story and does not do any damage the architectural integrity o f the building. Ms. Guthrie said this is somewhat of a more ornate element than the rest of the house. There is also a proposal to extend a dormer on the back of the house out about 5 feet to accommodate a stair tower. Ms. Guthrie stated she is not in support of this change as the dormer is original feature of the building and will be visible from the street. It is too much of an alteration. The small lean-to at the back of the house has been modified. Originally it was a shed roof addition. The applicant plans to returned to its original state, a shed roof. Scott Lindeau, architect for the project, told the Commission the existing garage contains a rental unit when was never deed restricted or approved. The applicants would like to return it to a garage with access to the alley and add a dormer to the rear to alleviate snow shedding concerns so the snow is not falling on the garage doors. A small dormer to the south is also proposed to get light into the upper level. Lindeau said adding the octagonal kitchen is disguised from the street elevations on Second and /1¢*zED<HISM47-~ 1 ·45'¥.--=-**449 £,6 1 4-40.- y.~ 444-602*11%*12* Historic Preservation Commission October 8 1997 Francis. This will give more light and more square footage to the kitchen. The existing dormer, which staff feels is not totally appropriate, is currently up in the attic space and will add about 5 feet to a stair going to the upper level. This is on the north elevation, the least visible elevation. The applicants want to add one window to the east elevation. Lindeau noted drawing #15 is the new window to be added. Lindeau said the window trim easing in the additions will be the same as in the existing house to keep those consistent. The breezeway separates the garage from the main house and there is access through there to the streets. Lindeau said they want to add a dormer to a detached guest cottage on the property, to the north elevation, which faces the interior courtyard. Ms. Friedland asked why an octagon. Lindeau said the way the house is situation, the was the landscape works and the courtyard, the octagon gives a lot more view into the interior. If it was squared off you would loose the views too much. Ms. Reid asked why this is a minor review. Ms. Guthrie said this is pushing the definition of minor; minor is defined as less than 250 square feet, which this is. There is a description o f cumulative dormer window changes; this is pushing it; however that is the way staff allowed the application to come in. Moyer said page 13, the west elevation of the carriage house which will be transformed into a garage, there is a square window in the middle of the wall, wouldn't it be more appropriate a slender double hung. Ms. Guthrie said she brought this up to the applicant; it is new and that is a way to distinguish it as new construction. Moyer asked if staff had a problem with the dormers on the carriage house, which will become a garage. Ms. Guthrie said she does not; it is not historic construction and is a fine way to use the space. Moyer said there were some concerns about the tower which becomes a kitchen. Ms. Guthrie said the house is extremely simple architecturally and the form would not be consistent with the simplicity; however, it is one-story. Moyer asked why the shape is designed as an octagon. Lindeau said the main level is also dark and the ceilings are low so the proposal to do the octagonal adds more light to the eating space. Ms. Reid said the dormer on the historic house seems to go out farther than it is shown. Lindeau said it could be pulled back a couple of feet for the 2 Historic Preservation Commission October 8 1997 pitch on the stair. Ms. Guthrie said the dormer that can be seen from the street is an interesting detail but is not so compatible with such a historic buildings. Gilbert Sanchez said he has no problems with most of the proposal; the octagon is a little strange but is a fun new element and because it is in the back it can work. Sanchez said he does have reservations about the stair tower; the proportions seem strange. It is even more of a problem from the side just because it's a tall blank wall that pops out from the rest of the building. Sanchez said the stair could be moved back so the vaulted ceiling area would be the landing.. Sanchez said it is a good proposal but he would like the stair tower reviewed. Moyer said he would like to see the tower deleted and would make the window in the west side of the garage to be more in keeping with the historic character. Moyer asked what the shed roof is trying to relate to. Ms. Guthrie said the current lean-to addition has a gable roof, a shallow pitch gable roof, which is being changed back to a shed. Ms. Guthrie said she would like to reserve sometime to look at the lean-to to see another picture or the framing. Lindeau said the windows are low on the upper level, 8 inches above finished floor, and they may have to be reglazed to meet energy standards. Ms. Guthrie noted UBC has exemptions for historic buildings. Ms. Guthrie said she would like to reserve final solution until she has more information on the shed. Ms. Reid agreed the tower is a problem. Ms. Reid said she would like to see the tower moved back so that the eave runs through it. Moyer asked if there is a skylight on the carriage house. Lindeau said no. MOTION: Gilbert Sanchez moved to approve the proposal for the minor development, partial demolition of 234 W. Francis St. with the condition that the applicant look at revising the rear stair dormer so that the wall aligns with the building wall below and that more research be done on the slope of the original roof on the rear addition of the house to be approved by staff and monitor, second by Roger Moyer. Sanchez recommended that the extension beyond the building wall be eliminated. Sanchez said he has no problem with a dormer that aligns with r4 Historic Preservation Commission October 8 1997 a building wall. Ms. Guthrie noted that is a change to an original historic building and it depends on how strictly HPC wants to look at their procedures. Sanchez said it is the north elevation and is not that obvious. The proportion of the proposal is way out of balance. VOTE: Passed 4-3. Yes vote: Gilbert, Roger, Mark, Suzannah. No vote: Mary, Melanie, Heidi. Ms. Guthrie asked why those members who voted no were opposed. Ms. Roschko said it is an important house for the changes that are being made. Ms. Guthrie noted part of this is a restoration. 4 Historic Preservation Commission November 24. 1991 234 West Francis - Lightwell Amendment Amy Guthrie, historic preservation officer, reminded the Commission alteration to the house were reviewed in October. The applicants find they need a lightwell. Arthur told the Commission the owners would like to put a full basement under the house. They would like to put a lightwell on the Second street side, flush with grade. There is an ordinance stating one cannot have a lightwell beyond the front facade of a house. Arthur said the proposed location is the logical place for this lightwell. Arthur said city code requires two lightwells if the proposed basement is larger than 1,000 square feet. The proposed basement is 1100 to 1200. A second lightwell is planned for the private yard side o f the house. Arthur said it is difficult to place this lightwell as there has to be a distance between the windows equal to greater than half the diagonal distance of the basement. The proposed lightwell is about the minimal size proposed by code. Besides egress, they also have to have the light requirement which is 10 percent of the floor area of the room being served. Moyer asked if this lightwell would require a setback variance. Ms. Guthrie said one is allowed to have a lightwell project into a setback as: long as it is at the minimum size UBC requires. Arthur said the zoning ordinance prohibits a lightwell from being put in the yard between the building and the street. Ms. Guthrie said a lightwell does not need a setback variance if it is the minimum size required by UBC. This proposed lightwell is drawn in the setback and a variance is not needed. The HPC needs to look at this as a historic building and that this request violates the design standards. Ms. Hirsch said requesting a full basement is a much larger discussion than the lightwell discussion. Arthur said the basement does not change the exterior of the house at all. Ms. Guthrie asked if the house is being picked up and if so, how will it be protected. This was not outlined in the original plans and the applicant did not request approval to pick the house up to dig a basement. Mark said they need to resubmit this request. Arthur said he was not present at the earlier meeting and thought the basement was the i HIBI¥3 2, Et ,--* _i-,-t --- 'M-'-Air»'C,--4* v Historic Preservation Commission November 24, 1997 intent all along. Ms. Hirsch said she has never heard o f picking up this house. Moyer asked if the house is being returned to exactly where it was. Arthur said yes. Arthur said they have to put in new foundation walls because old floor are warped. There is a 3 inch step between two parts of the house. The owners would like to put a radiant slab in the main floor of the house. There will have to be a new exterior foundation wall, and if they do that, why not put in a full basement. Arthur said this will not affect the appearance of the house at all. Ms. Hirsch said it is the responsibility of the HPC to protect the house. If the house is going to be moved, they need to know how it is going to be moved. Arthur said that has all been discussed. The current thinking is to life the house vertically 5 or 6 feet with two large steel beams, which will extend beyond the house. A bulldozer will come and excavate underneath the house. The basement foundation wall will be put in and then set the house back exactly where it is currently positioned. Right now there is not a permanent foundation; it looks like there is metal flashing between the siding and grade. The applicants will insulate on the insider of the foundation walls as opposed to the outside. Ms. Reid said these plans should be brought back to HPC so they can be reviewed and the lightwell can be reviewed at the same time. Ms. Guthrie said for moving a building, the City requires a structural report, information on where it will be moved, a bond for relocation of the building. Ms. Guthrie said this plan was not given to staff for review. The Board would also like to see elevations showing how much foundation is exposed, what material it will be. Ms. Reid said she would also like a detail of how the house is going to sit on the new foundation. Moyer said he would like to see a design showing the actual size of the lightwell, if there is a railing around it; how it is landscaped. Arthur said with regard to railing, it is his understanding from the building department that a railing around the lightwell is not needed and it is a judgment call by the building inspector if the lightwell is near a walking surface, they will require a railing. If there is a grate on the lightwell, a railing is not needed. Arthur asked if the structural report can be done by the house mover; they have an engineer to do the structure on the house as keeping the outside shell while doing all the work on the inside will be quite an exercise. Ms. Guthrie said she will pass on the submission requirements. Historic Preservation Commission November 24. 1997 Moyer said with a new foundation, the structural integrity of the housing will be maintained, which is a positive point. Ms. Reid said getting there is the problem. Mary Hirsch said this move is a surprise to the HPC. Arthur said he did not know the HPC was unaware of the plan. Arthur asked about the non-conforming structure in the back. The applicants have discussed rotating it in order to put the gable end on the alley side so that it does not convert snow into the alley. Arthur said this move is okay with the zoning enforcement officer and asked if it is all right in terms of historic preservation. This is the apartment carriage house. Arthur said according to zoning, the can demolish that structure and rebuild it as long as they maintain the present configuration. Ms. Guthrie said rotating the building will means there is shed dormer space in the street. Arthur said they may not rotate the building. The problem is they got into looking at the existing structure, which has 2 by 6's for the rafters, which is total minimum. To meet the energy code, they have to companion new rafters onto the existing and in terms of costs, it makes sense to perhaps demolish the building and build it back again. Mark pointed out if the building is changed, it has to be reviewed by HPC to review its compatibility to the historic structure. Arthur said they will resubmit with drawings of the basement, dr iwings of the little well and the report can be by the house movers. Ms. Guthrie said the report should be by a structural engineer. There is a requirement to tell staff how the building will be braced, which can be done by the house mover. Arthur said he will be back at the December 10th meeting. Arthur asked if the HPC had known about the basement, does it seem feasible they could do the lightwells. Sanchez said there are positions around the house that would satisfy the city ordinances and get a variance. Arthur said the issue is that they have to have a certain distance between egress windows which has to exceed the diagonal of the basement. Arthur said if they put the lightwells on the east side of the house. they cannot get the dimension. Ms. Dodington asked for a floor plan of the basement. Arthur showed the basement floor plan with a recreation room. Arthur pointed out the only place a stair will fit. If the rec room is placed, there will be a tiny lightwell, and showed the lightwell on Second street. Arthur r9 Historic Preservation Commission November 24. 1997 said if they have to put a lightwell, it would be a storage room rather than a rec room. HPC suggested two lightwells on the east side. Arthur said lightwells cost money. Arthur said they cannot move the lightwell because the door above cannot be moved. HPC suggested a smaller lightwell just for light. Arthur said "just for light" has to be 10 percent of the floor area and 10 percent is teeny for a room this big. HPC and Arthur discussed designing the basement and lightwells. Arthur asked what would the objection to a lightwell on the west side would be. Ms. Reid said that would be an Ordinance 30 variance. Arthur said it is down low on the ground and no one will see it; flowers go around it and it does not affect the appearance of the building. Moyer said several years ago HPC had a lengthy tour of lightwells and developed a philosophy about lightwells. This has not be done recently. Moyer suggested doing this again and developing a general philosophy on lightwells. Moyer said the city is getting a lot of applications for pits and HPC tried to figure out ways to make the pits work into the landscape. Arthur said he could see reasons to do that so as not to have huge excavations from the sidewalk down in. Moyer said the point is to maintain historic structures the way they were, not adding bay windows or doors, particularly landmarks. 4 Historic Preservation Commission December 10. 1997 234 W. FRANCIS - LIGHTWELL AND TEMPORARY RELOCATION Amy Guthrie, historic preservation officer, reminded the HPC this temporary relocation and lightwells was discussed at the last meeting, and the project was reviewed for minor development in October. This is a request is to raise the house and to excavate a basement below. HPC is looking at a temporary relocation and as well as a request to put light wells in to service the space. Ms. Guthrie recommended approval of the application. The conditions of approval lay out HOC requirements, including a letter of credits. Ms. Guthrie recommended the letter o f credit be in the amount of $30,000, which is a standard amount. The applicants need to provide HPC with some information about the current appearance of the foundation. Ms. Guthrie said she supports the alternative which places the light wells away from the street. Ms. Guthrie pointed out she has added condition to clarify HPC's position on removing any materials from the property without HPC approval, historic exterior materials. Scott Lindeau, Studio B represented the owners Don and Gwen Mullins, presented photographs depicting the current foundations details. It was originally built with robowall and is predominantly covered with tin just because of the leaking problem. The applicants are proposing to re-use and make a new stone foundation similar to what is there. There is a drawing showing how that would work. That would be a stone facing on the on the exposed parts. Ms. Guthrie asked if the current material would be salvaged. Lindeau said new sandstone will be used otherwise it will crumble everywhere. The house has settled. Lindeau said the existing house will be raised up 6 feet. They are not moving it off the site. Ms. Guthrie said the temporary relocation means it is moving from where it is now. In this case, they are just moving the house straight up 6 feet. Art Younger, Studio B, indicated that they might have to move the house horizontally depending on the condition of the existing garage structure on the alley. That structure might be demolished and reconstructed and staff had no concerns about the reconstruction of the garage. Younger said it may make excavating easier. In order to bring the existing garage structure up to code, it is probably cheaper to demolish it and rebuild /63 t EXHIBITTE i Z R W Fi- 2 -i W t 1.01 :26-3=h. 1 Historic Preservation Commission December 10. 1997 rather than to attach new members to all the existing members to bring it up to code. If that structure is removed, they will not have to lift the house vertically but just slide it back. Moyer asked if a $30,000 letter of credit is enough. Ms. Guthrie said that is the traditional amount and the city has never, to date, drawn on any of these bonds. The garage demolition has not been approved but it is not a historic structure. Ms. Guthrie said staff was under the impression earlier that this was a remodel. If HPC has a concern with this structure being replicated, they should mention it. Ms. Guthrie said she does not have a concern. Applicant said the wall are currently 2 by 4 walls and in order to structure, they would have to tear a lot out to insert a ridge beam. The floor currently is 18 inches off grade and in order to use it as a garage, it will have to be brought down to grade. It will be easier to tear it down. Art Younger asked if it is possible to put the lightwells on the west rather than the east. Younger said they will have a 6 inch concrete curb with a steel grate over it. The lightwells are needed for light and egress. Scott Lindeau stated that an extensive landscape plan is proposed for the court yard and the 2 lightwells on the east side would detract from that, the west side would be 20 feet from the street, put a grate over it and it is essentially invisible. That is what the applicants would prefer. Staff's recommendation was for the east. Ms. Guthrie stated Ordinance #30, design standards, states that lightwells are not to face the street; therefore, they should be on the east side. Sanchez asked the concerns about the plan with the lightwells away from the street. Younger noted there is a walkway going from the main house to the carriage house and this has been designed to have the residual space be landscaping. HPC member said she is concerned about the moving and the windows; if they are historic glass not being broken as the house is moved. The big window that faces the west is old glass, at least the top pane is. It is important to save those windows. The applicant should be careful not to destroy the old glass when the house is moved. Lindeau noted that single glaze windows do not meet current standards of the energy code. They may be able to get around that because the house is historic but they may contemplate replacing all if it and making the sashes and sills look identical. 2 Historic Preservation Commission December 10. 1997 Ms. Dodington asked if this is allowed in old buildings. Ms. Guthrie said this is a difficult question. In some cases HPC has required windows visible to the street to remain and allowed other windows to be replaced or changed. It is case by case; what is the condition of the windows, how significant is the building. Ms. Guthrie said she did discuss this with the applicant on site, but HPC has not discussed this. Ms. Dodington said she is concerned about the windows that look historic, the big window that faces west is obviously old glass. It is important to keep the prominent windows. Younger said the two larger ones might be able to stay with them the way they are. The window on the west catches the light and one can see the undulations in it; it is important in an old historic building. Roger noted in some instances in the past, the contractor deliberately threw the windows away and suggested that as a condition that as much as possible be done to insure the protection of the existing historic windows to include even plywooding them over for vandalism and so that the applicant is fully aware just because they are lifting the house, moving it on the site or a different lot, that HPC would look very unfavorably upon windows being broken. Ms. Guthrie pointed out there is a condition that the applicants cannot remove anything without prior approval. HPC could add some about extra caution to prevent accidental damage, that would be a good idea. Moyer said it is important that whoever the contractor is, that person is well versed in what HPC expects because most contractors are not. If they do not care, they just rip the siding off assuming it can't be saved, where it could be or throw a window away when it could be fixed, just because it might be a little more difficult. Ms. Reid suggested part of the condition that if anything happens to the windows and they need to be replaced that HPC needs to review it again. Younger said his clients would like to put screens on windows; how does HPC feel about that. this would be only the operable windows, not the larger ones. Moyer explained what was historically used on windows to keep the bugs out rather than the aluminum framed ones. These are a full panel on the outside. HPC said if there is a viable option for the lightwells without having to grant a variance, that would be preferable. A variance should be granted r. Historic Preservation Commission December 10. 1997 only when there is no other option. Ms. Dodington said she said the lightwells should be on the east side. Ms. Reid said if something is to happen with the windows and screens, this needs to come back to HPC and not be decided by the monitor. MOTION: Moyer moved to approve the temporary on-site relocation o f 234 W. Francis Street and lightwells with the following conditions: 1) A letter of credit, escrow agreement, or bond in the amount of $30,000 is to be provided prior to building permit to ensure the safe relocation of the building back onto the new foundation. 2) The required lightwells are to be on the east side of the house as presented by the applicant. 3) The applicant will salvage if possible all the foundation stone or re- create as existing. 4) No exterior materials on any part of the historic structure may be removed without the prior approval of HPC, excepting those areas that were approved for remodeling on October 8, 1997. 5) All windows be covered for protection during construction. 6) Any changes or additions to the windows to come before Staff and monitor. 7) All conditions of October 8, 1997 minor development approval must be met. seconded by Ms. Dodington. Ms. Guthrie said the HPC wants to make sure the building is protected, whether the building is moved horizontally or vertically, the contractors make sure that people do not have access to the building when it is in a precarious state. Ms. Reid stated as a standard condition a detailed description of the temporary move of the house should be provided and that the city knows what the new relationship to grade will be, and what the existing relationship to grade was. This is important for the records. The Board had concerns with the relationship of the grade and that the base of the siding stays the same and that the house is put back on the original site. Amended motion: Moyer moved to amend his motion to include that a detailed description of how the house will be moved and determining the final location be submitted as condition #8, second by Susan. 4 Historic Preservation Commission December 10, 1921 All in favor of motion and amended motion. Ms. Friedland asked if it is sufficient to have staff and monitor review on the windows. Ms. Reid said if staff and monitors do not want to sign off on any changes, it will be brought back to HPC. Ms. Guthrie said if HPC is concerned, they can assign an additional monitor. Susan Dodington was assigned along with Jeffrey Halverty. Suzannah relayed that if an issue comes up with the windows it is to be reviewed by Staff and monitor. All in favor, motion carried. 5 Historic Preservation January 28. 1998 234 W. FRANCIS ST. AMENDMENTS Scott Lindenau, architect, was sworn in at an earlier meeting. Arthur Yuenger, architect, was sworn in. Amy Guthrie, historic preservation officer, told the Board she has broken the proposal into 3 aspects and what has already been approved and what is being proposed now. Of this proposal, half is alternations to things that HPC has already approved and hal f of the proposals are new ideas. On the carriage house, which will be used an accessory dwelling unit, there is a flat roofed porch which was not original and was added several years ago, the proposal is to remove the roof and replace it with a gabled roof porch. Ms. Guthrie recommended this change not take place. The original building had nothing on the front of it. This is adding a character and a detail into the building that it did not have. If the applicants do not like the element, they ought to remove it, which will be a restoration to the front of the building. The court yard facing elevation faces the historic house and the proposal is to remove the flat roof trellis that is not historic and replacing it with a, gabled roo f and staff is opposed to that change. On the back of the carriage house, HPC has already approved the addition of the shed roof dormer; instead they want a closet addition and move over a set of windows. The windows currently exist and will be pushed over. The windows are not original and staff recommends approval of the change. It is more compatible than the shed roof dormer. On the historic house a kitchen already has been approved and they are asking to make the windows more vertical. Ms. Guthrie said that change is fine. On the courtyard elevation of the house, they Want to take the porch off and put on a gabled porch that matches what the applicants are showing on the carriage house. Staff has concerns with the removal of the transom window in order to accomplish that so staff recommends against that change. The applicants are asking to put a skylight in one of the bathrooms; it is not visible from the street. 4*mooliarril¥4 1 ./ Historic Preservation January 28, 1998 Another skylight is proposed on the street side and staff recommends against it because it is visible to the street and adds too modern an element to the particularly important historic house. On the street side there is an enclosed area that links the house to the garage and they are asking to open it up into a breezeway again to add light. Ms. Guthrie said this change is fine as it is not historic material. Ms. Guthrie said she needs more information about plans to alter an existing porch. Ms. Guthrie presented what HPC has approved on the garage, a new dormer. The applicant is asking to change the orientation of the windows from double hung to horizontal on the front and back of the garage. The garage is not a historic building. Ms. Guthrie said it is more compatible to stay with the vertical 'double hung window. The courtyard facing elevation of the garage has a single gable; the applicant request to do a popped out little element. Ms. Guthrie said that change is fine. Ms. Guthrie said the way the carriage house is now is existing construction with a portico over the front and side doors. This is recent, not historic construction. This was not addressed in the original approval. Lindenau indicated that the proposed gabled porticos, which the architects feel is more compatible with the projects, were designed to shed snow away from the doors. On the main house, they would like to take off a little addition which probably housed wood. Lindenau showed that it is probably newer construction. Lindenau agreed to go back to the more - vertical elements in the dormers on the garage. Lindenau said in the upper level of the house, the windows go down to 8 inches above the floor. To make the floor plans work in the upper level, the windows compromise what can be done with the bathroom and closets. Lindenau said they are putting closets behind the windows and the only way to get light is with a skylight. Lindenau said a skylight is constructed that only sticks up 3.5 inches so it does not detract as a modern element. Ms. Reid brought up the large dormer on the north side which is only revised in one drawing. Ms. Guthrie noted a condition o f approval at the December 10, 1997, meeting that the applicants are to revise that dormer. This is the staircase dormer on the backside. This has not been discussed with the applicant. Lindenau said he understood that was approved as long as the face was the same plane as the existing house. Ms. Guthrie said it is 2 Historic Preservation January 28. 1998 not drawn that way. Lindenau said the porticos are fairly flat and retain the snow and get heavy. If it is more a gable, it will shed the snow better. Ms. Guthrie said the lean-to adjacent to the porch on the west elevation is proposed to be pulled off. The issue is they want to pull the wood shed off. There is an outstanding condition of approval that the slope of the roof on the lean-to, right now it is a flat pitched gable that slopes towards the street. The applicants propose to take that off and slope it toward the alley. There is a photograph the applicants have that suggest their amendment is the right thing to do. Ms. Guthrie noted there is a conditional of approval that the applicants are to revise the back dormer. The drawings do not show that revision yet. Ms. Dodington asked if it is going to be as tall as shown. Lindenau said it is currently that tall. Ms. Reid said drawing #9 reflects the breezeway completely removed. Moyer said the existing house, south side, is a flat roof. A gabled portico is distinctly breaking the pattern of the historic house. Ms. Guthrie pointed out on the peaked roof of the octagonal kitchen, the applicants are proposing a skylight. Ms. Guthrie said she does not have a problem with that skylight. Carriage House - Jeffrey Halverty said the resolution of the closet is more sensitive than the suggested dormer initially proposed. Halverty said the two street elevations are the most important. He favors the portico on the courtyard side but not on the street side. Ms. Friedland said she would like to see the portico restudied. It does not go with the rest of the house and there must be some other solution. This is a beautiful, simple, elegant house that there must be a better way than to put porch structure with a gabled roof on. Ms. Roschko agreed leaving the way the portico the way it is; a gabled roof is too formal for this structure. Ms. Dodington agreed with either leaving the portico on the carriage house flat roof to match the flat roof of the porch on the main house or to take it off. Ms. Dodington said she is not so concerned with the gable on the west part of the carriage house. Yuenger noted this is not a portico but is a trellis. Ms. Dodington agreed with removing the trellis. 3 Historic Preservation January 28. 1998 Ms. Hirsch said she feels sandbagged on this project. It started out October 8th, as a minor development to a very wonderful historic house that is landmarked. Ms. Hirsch said she did not feel this was a minor development. The application passed 4 to 3 and the 3 dissenting votes said at that time felt it was a simple house and the applicants would do a good job. Ms. Hirsch said those in opposition did not speak up about their feelings; they were opposed to changing the historic house. Then the applicants came back and HPC learned the house would be raised and lightwells installed. Now the applicants have 14 more changes; Ms. Hirsch said these do not feel minor to her. Ms. Hirsch said if the applicants had brought the entire project in at once, it would have been a major project and would have been looked at more carefully. This is an important corner lot with an important house on it. Ms. Hirsch said this will not look like a historic house when this project is done. Ms. Hirsch said she does not think the applicants have been fair. Ms. Hirsch said she has no problem with the carriage house closets. If the applicants do not like the gable, then remove it. Ms. Hirsch said she has no problem removing the trellis. Ms. Hirsch said there is no reason to build a new portico at the west elevation of the carriage house. Sanchez said he finds all proposals for the carriage house satisfactory. Sanchez said he does not have a problem with the porticos. The proposal does not effect the essence of the historic building. This is a small add on. Sanchez said he feels a gabled roof portico goes with a gable roof structure. One needs a porch over a door on a south elevation. Sanchez said there is a tradition of very simple fundamental buildings that have a porch that becomes the important element. Moyer concurred he had no problem with the closet and would allow the trellis be removed. It makes sense to have something over the doors. Moyer said there is nothing wrong with a gable on a gable. The front entry of the main house has a flat roof and this is a deviation. Moyer said he would prefer the gable. Ms. Reid said most changes to the carriage house are fine. The gabled portico takes the building into a different realm. The flat pitches seem to be more in character with these houses. Ms. Reid said she would not support adding a gable on the courtyard side. Ms. Reid said the flat roof is more in keeping with the character of the building. 4 Historic Preservation January 28. 1998 The gable should not mimic what is on the historic house. Halverty said the simplicity of the elevation of the south side of the carriage house is one of the better elevations of the entire site. A majority of HPC wants to see a study of a flat porticos on both the south and the west. Garage: Ms. Guthrie said the garage windows were changed from double hung to horizontal. The courtyard side has a popout staircase. The building is not historic. Moyer said the applicant did not have a problem with the change from horizontal to a more vertical window. The garage is not historic so the popout is not a problem. Sanchez agreed. House: Halverty said the skylight bothers him as the roof has such a presence on the western elevation from the streetscape. Halverty said it is fine on the courtyard side. Halverty said he does not have a problem with opening up the breezeway connection piece; it will help break the buildings up. The proportions on the windows are better long and tall as opposed to fat and squatty. Ms. Guthrie asked i f the transom window has to be removed to do a gabled porch. The applicant said they would not have to remove the transom window but they are proposing to. Halverty said he would like to see the transom window remain. Ms. Friedland said she is okay with windows in the kitchen, skylight in the kitchen and the breezeway, the skylight facing the courtyard. Ms. Friedland said she would like to see the two portico issues restudied along with the carriage house portico issue. Ms. Dodington agreed about retaining the transom window. Ms. Dodington suggested the flat roof portico where the transom window is. Ms. Dodington said she does not want a west side skylight; east side skylight is OK; breezeway fine. Ms. Hirsch said she likes the feeling of the breezeway. The skylight in the kitchen is fine because the modern element of the kitchen addition has been introduced. Ms. Hirsch said she opposes introducing skylights to the historic structure whether it is street side or not. Generally preservation is that the historic house is not changed any more than one has to. Ms. Hirsch agreed with the portico restudied and retaining the transom window. 5 Historic Preservation January 28. 1998 Sanchez said the portico on the east elevation is important to maintain the transom that is there, which would eliminate the gabled portico. Sanchez said in another location it is appropriate to have a portico that relates to the entry of the house. Sanchez objected to the skylight proposed for the wet side but not on the other side hidden from view. Moyer concurred. Ms. Hirsch asked about a lightwell detail. Lindenau said they talked about having a stone apron on the foundation wall and showed HPC the detail of that. The existing house where the foundation is has cheap metal tin covering the existing foundation. The applicants propose to put a stone veneer to bring is back historically. It makes sense to let the stone continue into the lightwell. Ms. Reid said regarding the breezeway, she likes how it ties into the porch on the west side in terms of the roof slope. Scott said this is a complex project involving a historic house, a so-called historic carriage house which has been covered inside and out, and a garage, which was never a garage. Scott said in doing light demolition to see what the structure was, they started seeing the foundation and that is how those changes came about. What is limiting this project is the upper level of the main house, the windows, which there are many of, limit what can and cannot be done with the plan. Because the windows are so limiting, they are historic and cannot be changed, the only option is to try and square in a sink between two windows or cover the windows with closet and clothes. That is why the skylights came into being; it is a natural design process on a complex project. Yuenger said he would like to keep the porticos flat throughout the project and rebuild the ones currently there as they are about the fall apart. There should be a slight cant so the snow will slide off. Yuenger said he does not mind eliminating the western skylight; everything else is all right with them. Moyer asked how the Board feels about the windows being blocked off; this is contrary to everything the HPC is trying to do and is disruptive to a landmark house. Ms. Hirsch asked why the owners want to live in a historic house. Lindenau said they are not going to cover the windows. On the upper level there are windows everywhere. Ms. Hirsch said that is what one gets in buying a historic house. Ms. Dodington said the light 6 Historic Preservation January 28.1998 from the existing windows should be used. Lindenau said in order to make the upstairs work, it limits what can be done. Lindenau said in order to put a batht:ub in, the bathtub skin would go to the middle of the window. HPC has not seen the floor plan. Yuenger said in one bathroom, a skylight is not needed because there are two windows. In another bathroom, there are no windows and is a logical place to put a skylight.. Moyer noted the HPC tried not to grant variances and while he has been on HPC they have not approved skylights in historic structures, particularly landmarks. Moyer said he would prefer not to approve skylights. HPC agreed no skylights. Ms. Friedland moved to approve the amendments to 234 W. Francis St. with the following conditions: 2,3,4,7,9,10,13 and 14 of the Jan. 21, 1998 menlo. Rejected 8, 11 and 12 of the Jan. 28th memo and to restudy 1,5 and 6 of the January 28th, 1998 memo. The porticos are to be restudied to have more of a flat roof and the transom window is to retained on the east side of the historic house; including all conditions of the October 8, 1997 and the December 10, 1997 minor development approvals must be met; seconded by Moyer. Ms. Hirsch said the changes approved at this meeting are only to the carriage house and the breezeway not to the historic house. Moyer asked about the wall on the stairway tower. Ms. Guthrie said this is an outstanding condition of approval. Moyer asked if there will be a list of all conditions so that none of them get lost. It is fairer to the applicant and easier for the monitors to keep track of. Hoefer said these will be restated in a resolution. Ms. Dodington said she has a concern about the historic windows and moving the house and suggested that the windows be removed before the house is lifted in order to protect the windows. Gary Wheeler, general contractor, told the Commission they are planning to remove, store and replace all windows. Ms. Dodington said the glass on the west window is old and it could crack even if plywood is put against it. Wheeler said the whole windows will come out, same window and glass will go back in. Ms. Dodington asked if this is written somewhere. Wheeler said this was 7 Historic Preservation January 28. 1998 in the previous approval. Ms. Guthrie said the condition about lifting the building had a condition about covering the windows for protection, but this is better. The contractor is going the extra mile. Lindenau said there is $30,000 is escrow on this project. Ms. Hirsch said they do not want the windows to have to be replaced. Lindenau asked what restudy of the porticos means, staff review, monitor review, return to HPC. Halverty suggested it be staff and monitor. 8 Historic Preservation Commission May 13. 1998 234 West Francis Conceptual and Final Approval David Hoefer, assistant city attorney, said an affidavit of notice is needed in order to proceed. Affidavit of notice was provided for by the applicant. Hoefer noted the applicants have not provided proof of the parties the notice was mailed to. Hoefer recommended the hearing proceed on the condition that this list be provided to the city clerk's office by 5 p.m. May 14th or the approval will be withdrawn. This should be restated in any motion for approval. Julie Ann Woods, community development department, reminded the HPC this project has been before them several times seeking various approvals. The applicants have received approval for renovation of the structure, changes to the carriage house, new kitchen addition, and a new basement. Ms. Woods said the applicants want to demolish the garage and have a new connecting element, and the HPC requested this be reviewed in total. The applicants are proposing to remove the existing non-historic garage, located at the rear alley side part of the property; reconstructing a new garage in the same location but being set back onto the property. Right now this structure is in the alley right of way. The applicants are asking for 3 variances; allow for a 2 foot setback on the rear, where 10 foot is required; a zero foot setback on the side property line along Second street, which is approximately where it is located now; combined side yard where both sideyards combined have to be 15 feet and the applicants are asking for a variance of 12'4" to give them a 2'8" margin of error. Ms. Woods said the applicants have provided drawings focusing on the garage element, seeking partial demolition in order to remove and reconstruct the garage. The applicants have included a connecting element. When the applicants looked at moving this 2 feet back in the property in order to have a turning movement into the garage from the alley, they found they were too close to the main house and could not meet a building code requirement of distance between the structures. The applicants are proposing a connecting element of an enclosed breezeway between the back of the main house and the garage. This would connect not directly to the historic resource but to the mud room area, which was previously approved by HPC. trEXHIBIT** 1 tu 2...A-+146** Historic Preservation Commission May 13. 1998 Ms. Woods attached a letter from Ramona Markalunas regarding concerns of demolition of the historic garage; she thinks it is eligible for historic landmarking. Ms. Markalunas included the 1904 Sanborn map showing the property on the corner of Second and Francis which shows no garage at that time. Ms. Woods said there are also letters from the neighbors, Mr. Carl Zessler, who indicated he does not have a concern but did want to know what is going on. Also a letter from Joel Sax who is in support of the variance as proposed. Ms. Woods said staff reviewed this application against the criteria in the historifc zone district for a non-contributing structures and against partial demolition. Ms. Woods said staff feels this is exempt because it does not contribute the historic significance of the inventoried parcel. Staff recommends approval with conditions related to conceptual/final review. One, it be built in the same proportions, height and materials and the existing garage. there is modification on the back with a new stairwell, the east elevation, will be slightly different. That the garage be granted the variances as noted and all previous conditions of approval from October 8, December 10, January 28 still must be met. Arthur Yueng~r, Marty. Piqkett, Jonathan Lewis, Phillip Hodgson were sworn in. ~ ~729'~--1 Arthur Yuenger, architect, said from the materials, it appears the garage was built in the '70's and was built in a substandard manner. It does not meet the building code requirements existing today. Yuenger said the rafters and floor joists are inadequate. The foundation is inadequate. It appears that reinforcing rods were not placed in the concrete foundation because there are substantial cracks in it. Yuenger said this structure needs to be rebuilt to make it livable. It would be costly to add on to the existing structure; they would have to companion new studs in the stud walls. these are 2 by 4 stud walls and the building department would like 2 by 6 stud walls with full batt insulations. The roof rafters are 2 by 6 and they would have to companion on 2 by 12's and bring up to code. Yuenger said this would be very expensive and it makes sense to demolish it since its not a historical structure and rebuild it. 2 Historic Preservation Commission May 13. 1998 Yuenger said if they can demolish the garage, it would be good to move it back so that cars can negotiate the turn into the garage from the alley. Yuenger said it makes sense to rebuild it the way it is with the stair projection on one side and two dormers, one on each side of the roof. The applicants think this will be a fine structure when done and will blend in with what is there. Yuenger read the letter from Joel Sax. Yuenger said before the Mullins purchased the property, they met with representatives of HPC. The Mullins fell in love with the property and loved the charm o f the house. They met with members of the HPC to see what they could and could not do. They were told at that time the only historical part of the property was the main house and they could make renovations to the rest of the structures. The Mullins want to cooperate with the city. They want to keep the charm of the building. Yuenger said they do not know what has been holding the main house up all these years. Yuenger said the contractor told him some of the floor joists are starting to rot out in the main house. Yuenger said it is timely the Mullins purchased the property and are willing to put the money and effort into renovating the house. The Mullins want to do the best job as possible and maker it an asset to the community. Moyer opened the public hearing. Phillip Hodgson told the HPC Davis Waite, governor of Colorado, built the house. Hodgson said Ms. Markalunas thinks the garage may have been built in the '40's or '50's and since it is over 50 years old, it should be historically designated. Hodgson said at the historical society he found a picture of the house dated 1930's. Ms. Woods said there is nothing on record on the age of the garage; it is clearly a later addition and does not seem to be contributing the historic resource. Ms. Dodington asked about the fence. Yuenger said part of the fence had to be removed. Ms. Dodington asked if this fence is stored somewhere. Gary Wheeler was sworn in. Wheeler, general contractor for the Mullins project, said the fence is being stored per the HPC recommendation to be replaced after the project is C9 I-. / Historic Preservation Commission May 13. 1998 complete. The windows and doors have been boxed up and are in storage in Basalt and will be replaced at the appropriate time, to save the glass. The red siding is being stored as well. The posts removed from the porch are also being stored, even though they are considerably rotten. Wheeler said they will do their best to patch and replace the wood. Wheeler said he wants this project to be what the HPC and what the Mullins want it to be, a project everyone is proud of. The applicants are going to extraordinary lengths to preserve and to replace what the HPC has asked. Wheeler said he went to the county offices and there are no dates on when the various buildings were built or added to. Wheeler said based on his construction experience, the building type and structure it appears the garage was built late '60's, early '70's. Md. Dodington asked if the house will be dug under. Wheeler told HPC Bailey movers of Grand Junction will lift the house vertically where it stands. There are survey points from a registered surveyor exactly where it is now; it will be raised vertically 6 feet, dug underneath, do a foundation, and place it at those survey points. The are not moving to another part of the property because of the vegetation. Sanchez said staff's recommendation is that the new garage will be built be to the same proportions, heights, details, etc. Sanchez said the drawings has two shed dormers and the photographs do not have these. Applicants stated this was in the previous approval. Moyer said it would be helpful to have a review of the previous approval, went over it with the monitor, and if there is something that is not written, the HPC can deal with it. Yuenger said they have to link the two buildings because the structure is closer than 5 feet for the octagonal part of the plan. This is a zoning consideration. If the buildings are independent of each other, there has to be a minimum of 5 feet between structures. By connecting them, they are not independent structures; this is the reason for the connection. Moyer asked how far back is it to the connector from the street face of the garage, what is the depth. Yuenger said about 12 feet. Moyer asked the height o f the door and lights in the new connecting. Yuenger said it is a 6'8" door; the transoms are a foot high although they may have to be eliminated. Moyer asked the height of the existing doors 4 Historic Preservation Commission May 13. 1998 on the historic structure. Wheeler said they are 6' 8". Over the years they built up 3 different floor systems in the historic structure and have had to cut off the doors every time a new floor is added. Moyer asked what the doors may have been originally. Wheeler guessed over 7 feet. Sanchez said he doesn't have problems with the proposal but does have questions about some details. Sanchez said moving the structure and granting a variance would be all right. Sanchez said the letter about the historic character of the elements on site, he does not agree with the idea that any building that may have any historical quality whatsoever shall not be cut. That seems unreasonable. Sanchez noted in previous discussions, the HPC determined the garage did not contribute significantly to the historic character, or the architectural character or the cultural character of Aspen. Sanchez said he is concerned about the link and the treatment of the glazed connection. Sanchez said he is concerned that the treatment of the mullions and the trim around it relates to the historic building. Sanchez said glass makes sense as it makes the connection "go away". The detailing has to relate to the historic building somehow. Ms. Hirsch said she is opposed to the project as too much, too broken up. Ms. Hirsch said if the whole project has been put be fore HPC at once, she may have a different feeling. Ms. Dodington said she is concerned and cautious about demolishing anything that could be historic. Ms. Dodington said she would prefer not to vote on this until she knows the exact history of the garage. Ms. Dodington said other than that concern, the design is fine. This is a significant property. Ms. Dodington said she appreciates that the applicants are doing all they can to keep it exactly the way it was and saving the windows, fences and posts. Ms. Friedland said she, too, would like information on how old the garage is. Ms. Friedland said she preferred the original idea of turning the garage and using it. Ms. Friedland said moving the structure closer to the house and the breezeway link is fine. 5 Historic Preservation Commission May 13. 1998 Halverty said he feels the garage does not have the degree of important that the other 2 structures have. Halverty said he does not have a problem with the design solution or the setback requests. Halverty said the shed design is appropriate and shelters some of the octagon shape in the back. Halverty said it is worth commending the contractor and/or architect when they do a refurbish approach as opposed to replacing. They should be commended for the integrity about the windows and fence, making sure it is all well kept. Halverty said he agrees with the conditions. Ms. Friedland said if this is to come before HPC again, since the project has been so confusing, has so many components, it would be helpful if a set of the most recent approvals and drawings could be given to the Board members. Moyer concurred with Sanchez; however, he would like to know what the materials are. That is part of the requirement for final approval. If the applicant does not have the material list, this should be tabled or conditioned upon the materials being brought in and reviewed by staff and monitors. Moyer said he does not feel the age of the garage should be an issue. Moyer said it is unfortunate this project has gone through such a segmented process. Moyer asked the applicant to address in his presentation the setback issue, the statement about notice, the fact the fence is being saved. an implicit statement about the replacement of the historic objects that have been removed and their integrity, how these are repaired, etc. Moyer said Commission members and staff have hints on repairs. Moyer said the Commission needs a clarification on the dormers and a review of all that has previously been approved. Moyer said any motion made should be clear that the dimensions of the opening breezeway be equal to other openings in the house. Ms. Woods said the previously indicated plans did indicate the dormers; these were not approved in January but were looked at by the Commission. Ms. Friedland said the original proposal was to pick up and turn the building. Sanchez pointed out there is only one elevation of the garage. Hoefer said based on these concerns and what the prior approvals actually were and the question on historic nature of the garage, this should be tabled to the next meeting. 6 Historic Preservation Commission May 13, 1998 Marty Pickett, attorney for the Mullins, noted the draft resolution from previous approvals has #12, garage, the non-historic structure, located on the alley may be converted into a garage including new doors on the alleys, new dormers with double hung windows on the north and south sides of the building, removal of doors and replacement of windows on the west and south and an addition for a staircase of the east side o f the garage. This resolution lists all of the previous conditions. Moyer agreed it would be good for the Commission members to have this draft resolution when considering this project. Ms. Friedland asked the age of the garage be verified. Ms. Pickett said the applicants did not have a copy of Ramona Markalunas' letter and were not prepared to address it. Ms. Pickett said they have been told since the beginning the garage was not historic. Ms. Pickett asked what evidence of the age of the garage would work for HPC. Ms. Dodington suggested previous owner, Julie Smith, be contacted. Ms. Friedland motion to continue to May 27, 1998, before which the I Commissioners will receive information on previous approvals and drawings to compare with this presentation, to verify the age of the garage I that has been questioned by members of the community, the materials of I the proposed new garage, the list of people notified; seconded by Bill Greenwood, adjacent neighbor, said none of the previous owners have proposed to renovate this house and give it the care it should have. Greenwood said he has talked to the owners about trying to preserve the exterior and keep it looking like a Victorian. The owners looked for a long time in the west end to find a house that appealed to them. Greenwood said he hopes they are doing what they said, which is preserving the house. Greenwood said in speaking with Gary, that is what he is talking about. Greenwood said accessing the garage is a major advantage to people living in the house and is an advantage to the neighborhood and the city, because the snow plows have a harder time to plow with cars out on the street. Greenwood asked if the fence is considered historic; it is not very attractive. Ms. Dodington said the monitors, staff and owners had a meeting about the fence. Staff discovered the fence was possibly designed by Herbert Bayer because there is another one down the street just like it. It is a unique style of fence. Greenwood said the owner might want to put up something that looks better, is more permanent, and fit into a Victorian era - like a wrought iron fence. Bayer dates from the '60's. Moyer 7 Historic Preservation Commission May 13. 1998 suggested the owner discuss this with HPC. Ms. Dodington said the owner decided to save it after discussing this with staff. Yuenger said the owner would rather have a wrought iron fence. Wheeler said there is a portion of the carriage house roof to be repaired, where the closet was added and instead of patching 3 different roofs, the applicants are requesting to replace the roof with wood shingles. Ms. Friedland said this was not part of the packet. Hoefer suggested the applicants meet with staff before the next meeting to determine whether this is an issue or added to the continued meeting. All in favor, motion carried. 8 Historic Preservation Commission May 27. 1998 234 W. FRANCIS - CONCEPTUAL & FINAL - PH - (table Julie Ann Woods, community development director, stated that her research indicated that the age of the garage is 1956. The HPC also requested more information on the materials being used for the garage and breezeway addition. The applicant has provided that information. Ms. Wood said the actual request before HPC is conceptual final review, partial demolition of the non-historic structure which is the garage and the variances from the rear yard, side yard and combined side-yard setbacks. Ms. Woods said she has attached all previous staff reports and minutes. Staff recommends approval of this project. Scott Lindeau, Studio B representing the owner, said the garage is built less than 50 years ago. There are building permits from 1956, 1959 and 1970 showing that the garage is an assemblage of 3 different added on structures. What is there now was built in 1970. The original garage showed in the first permit was only 12 feet by 15 feet. The second one shows an addition of 15 feet by 13.5 and the permit dated 1970 shows the upper story was added with a bathroom so what is there now is essentially from 1970. The proposal is to re-build the garage in its exact configuration and moving it two feet closer to the main house in order to get the vehicle in the garage. The garage will be built as the same materials as existing house and the connective breezeway will be similar materials. Lindeau has photographs in 1952 and shows it without the garage. Ms. Woods stated there are two letters of support from Tobin' s as well as Mrs. Allen, homeowner at 420 North Third. Gilbert Sanchez said HPC has not granted any approvals regarding the garage. Ms. Woods said HPC approved the eastern portion where the enclosure of the stairwell is; however, this is not attached to anything. Lindeau said the original set of drawings showed the garage as a detached structure and originally there was a connector piece. The building code requires there is a minimum of 5 feet separation to the main house and garage. Because the garage is moved closer to the house, the separation is 4 foot 8 so the building code states there has to be a connector. Sanchez 1 *~*EZ:-i-*P'.~. Historic Preservation Commission May 27. 1998 said HPC is being asked to approve a garage and there are no elevations except the west elevation and at the last meeting, all the HPC members had concerns about what the elevations looked like. Lindeau said the garage was approved at the first meeting and the elevations have not changed other than the breezeway, which does not affect fenestration or the stair case. Sanchez said there are no approvals for the garage at this point. There are dormers and new windows. Lindeau said those have been there since day one. The only thing that has changed is the connector from the December 10th meeting. Ms. Woods said the garage was different through the process but now since they are demolishing it and building a new one, HPC does have authority to look at the garage from scratch. Amy previous approvals related to a different building. Lindeau showed some elevations. Susan Dodington asked the condition of the existing garage. Originally the applicant the garage just turned and moved closer to the house. Lindeau said the applicants considered turning it because the ridge sheds snow over the house. Ms. Dodington asked about using the structure as a garage. Lindeau said there is no floor. Susan asked about lifting the existing garage up and pouring a new floor. Lindeau said it wouldn't support a second floor or the slab for concrete. Right now it is a wooden floor with a small crawl space. Ms. Reid asked if these drawings accurately represent what HPC is being asked to approve. Ms. Woods said the Commission needs to see the east and north side elevations. Heidi Friedland said HPC approved a west elevation different from this one. Ms. Wood said this is a different structure than the one looked at in December. Ms. Reid said if the HPC is going to treat this as a new building and approve it as a...., they need to have something to approve that represents what they are approving. Ms. Reid asked HPC if they want to see all 4 elevations as accurately as possible before proceeding. Ms. Friedland said it is upsetting how many times this project has come back with changes. However, is there a way to approve this request based on accurate drawings being given to staff and monitors to try and keep the 2 Historic Preservation Commission May 27. 1998 process moving. Ms. Reid said the HPC is trying to be very clear about what they are approving every step of the process. It is hard to assemble this approval from a bunch of previous applications. Halverty said one issue is demolition of the existing garage. The HPC could give approval for that and review plans for the other request at a fut:ure meeting. The applicant said this would work and allow them to continue while HPC is making a final decision. Lindeau said the only thing that has changed in 7 months is moving the garage 2 feet close to the house and changing the outside stairwell. Moyer said HPC can approve the demolition and variances because the footprint is not changing if the Board is comfortable with that. Ms. Reid said one thing the HPC is trying to avoid is piecemeal approvals. Sanchez said he is not comfortable with proceeding without knowing what will be in the place of the demolished building. Sanchez said he would prefer to table and not continue the discussion until there is a complete package of information. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened the public hearing. Sworn in were Joan Lane, who worked for Herbert Bayer. Scott Lindeau, architect Romania Markalunas, public, previously sworn in. Joan Lane stated she worked for the Bayer' s from 1951 to 1954. She worked in the breezeway, which was an office and attached to the garage. There was a garage in 1951. Ms. Lane said the garage was not new in 1951. Ramona Markalunas stated that the 1904 Sanborn map shows the breezeway but not the garage. The Bayer' s bought the property in 1946 and built a garage on it and the Anderson' s bought the property in 1953 from the Bayers and they remodeled the garage into the caretaker unit that it is today. The 1946 date is well within the 50 years that it would take to make the building historic. The historic garage is now an historic caretaker unit that was converted by R.O. Anderson. Julie Anderson the daughter of R.O. is married to Morgan Smith who is Jim Hopkins Smith' s son. R. O. Anderson was very instrumental in funding and getting the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies started. Governor Davis Waite 3 2 1, Historic Preservation Commission IMay 27. 1998 lived in the house and the title to the property was carried in his wife' s name. He also ran one of the six newspapers that were published in Aspen in the 1880's and 1890's the Union Era. He was oriented in having women vote and was Colorado's only Populist Governor. This building became a landmark, one of the first, in 1982 and it met the qualifications. not only for architectural but key figures have lived there; Herbert Bayer, Governor Waite and R.O. Anderson. To demolish a very historic part of a building without a complete plan is not doing what the preservation commission is established to do. The Commission has a very important position in Aspen, and it is difficult. Ms. Markalunas said it is very important that HPC protects the "Aspen treasures" because they are not being made any more. It will take 100 years for the houses currently being built to become historic. It is totally changing the character of Aspen to allow these buildings to be reconfigured, destroyed, demolished. Chairperson Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. Moyer relayed that there may have been something where the garage is but it has been changed so much over the years that it is a similar parallel to the Paepcke house. The real historic portion of the structure is the original house. Moyer said he is comfortable allowing demolition on a structure that was build in the 1970's. Moyer stated that he went through his records he found he painted the house in the 1970' s when the remodel was done. He stated that he is comfortable allowing the demolition because an error was made by the City in that there was not a complete set of drawings submitted. Moyer said he would prefer to hold up on the setbacks and variances. Sanchez relayed his gratitude to Ramona in identifying individuals who have lived in the historic structure. He also asked what other elements of the garage/guest quarters she felt provided contribution to Aspen. Ms. Markalunas stated that the garage was turned into the caretaker unit and the caretaker still lives in Aspen. Most of the larger homes in Aspen had caretaker units. Sanchez said he wants to have all the information be fore making a decision to insure HPC is maintaining the character. 4 Historic Preservation Commission May 27. 1998 Ms. Dodington agrees she does not want to approve demolition o f the garage. Ms. Dodington opposes tearing down things that can still be used. Ms. Dodington said a neighbor commented the old garage was an eyesore. She does not consider any old buildings an eyesore. Ms. Dodington said this is an attractive addition to the property and she would rather see it be used as a garage as originally proposed. Jeffrey Halverty told the Commission he visited the site with the contractor, Gary Wheeler. Halferty said Gary is doing his very best to keep all the historic conditions such as the windows and siding; he has properly stored them in a dry, safe place. Halferty said he did an analysis of the foundation of the main house as well as the garage; walked into the crawl spaces and looked at the rafters and existing framing in the two structures. You could see the break to the attached breezeways etc, where the foundation becomes apparent it is less historic. The garage has 30 year old construction techniques. The framing, nail patterns, hangers are all of the 70' s and 60' s. There may have been something there but it has been significantly altered. Halverty commended Wheeler for his site organization in keeping with HPC concerns. Halverty stated that he could vote for demolition. Halverty said he would like to see the elevations presented all at one time. Ms. Reid said she has concern about approving demolition without having something back in its place. Ms. Reid said in this case there is a close representation of what will be built. Lindeau stated the garage is not historic and they are virtually building it back in the same proportions with the same details. The two dormers will be added which shed snow from the garage doors. MOTION: Moyer moved to approve the demolition of the non-historic garage at 234 W. Francis with the following conditions: 1) A full set of drawings be submitted for the June 10th meeting which reflect the drawings that were submitted today. Plans to include a landscape plan. 2) Variances will be considered at the June 10th meeting; also final material selections will be reviewed. 5 Historic Preservation Commission May 27, 1998 MOTION: Roger also moved to continue conceptual and final and the public hearing until the June 10, 1998 meeting. Motion second by jeffrey. All in favor, with the exception of... motion carried. Motion carried 5-2. Moyer said the applicants have to present to HPC a set of plans for the garage and breezeway in order to get approval to build the garage. Melanie Roscko stated that HPC approved an addition to the house; she has not favored the garage design and the connection. Ms. Roscko said if the garage is not historic, she would like to look at another design that would work better with the historic house. Ms. Reid said she opposes approving demolition when the Board does not have a reasonable expectation of what will be there. Lindeau said after they found out the original plan for the garage would not work, they like the proportion and materials and are rebuilding it to the same proportion and materials. The original drawings approved by the building department are the drawings at this meeting but they did not have a connector. The connector is added because of the building and fire codes. Moyer reminded the applicant when they come in for final approval, they need a landscaping plan, the fence needs to be discussed, as well as final materials. 6 Historic Preservation Commission June 10, 1998 234 W. Francis Julie Ann Woods, community development department, reminded the Commission they reviewed this at their last meeting and felt there was not adequate information on the elevations to take action. The Commission did recommend approval of demolition of the garage structure itself finding it was not historic. Ms. Woods noted City Council has 14 days in which to call up an HPC decision related to demolition. Council considered this Monday night and decided they were in agreement with the commission that the garage structure was not historic and did not call it up so the demolition of the garage can proceed. Ms. Woods said tonight's consideration has floor plans, elevations, information from staff. The applicant is requesting 3 variances; rear yard setback 2 feet from the existing alley. With the demolition of the structure, the new structure will be placed back and the extra space is needed for turning radius. The sideyard setback will be 0 from Second street, the same position the structure is now. The combined sideyard setback is requested at 2'8". Ms. Woods said the applicant has a photo board of the neighborhood, a sample board of materials. Staff recommends approval of the proposed garage subject to conditions. Scott Lindeau, Marty Pickett, Gary Wheeler were all sworn in. Lindeau reiterated Council confirmed approval of the demolition June 8th. Lindeau presented material, elevations, details of windows. Ms. Roschko asked why the city requires a closed connection between the garage and building. Lindeau said if buildings are closer than 5 feet, the concern is for fire safety. The reason for moving the building closer to the house is to allow enough room in the alley for turning radius. This structure is not a garage; it has been living quarters. Wheeler noted the 1970 building permit application states this is being remodeled from living quarters into a garage. Moyer asked how the fence is being taken care of. Lindeau said they are constructing the fence back to what is there now. 4.¥EKH,BrfiP~~ Historic Preservation Commission June 10, 1998 Ms. Reid opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Ms. Reid closed the public hearing. Heidi Friedland said the applicants have clarified her questions from the last meeting. Susan Dodington said she does not favor demolition and is concerned about the connection. Ms. Dodington asked if the glazing has been discussed. Lindeau said this is a 5 foot connector with a door and 2 sidelights; the door is all glass. Ms. Roschko said this project has gotten more and more massive; moving the garage closer, adding a solid element makes it seem there is nothing left on the lot. Ms. Roschko said she understands they are reconstructing what was there but she has a problem with the connector. Gilbert Sanchez said he finds the proposal acceptable and supports staff recommendation. Moyer agreed and asked if HPC is allowing the applicant to do anything they want with the fence or to reconstruct it as it. Ms. Friedland said she thought it was to be left as is. Ms. Woods said a person can request a fence permit at any time. Hal ferty agreed with the proposal. Halferty said he contractor has saved the original fence and is stored property as are the existing windows that HPC requested be saved. Halferty said he supports this. Moyer said he would like that all elements removed shall be restored and replaced from the same area from which. they were removed. Moyer moved to approve conceptual and final plans for garage and breezeway connection, and setback variances for 234 West Frances subject to the following conditions: 1 2 3 2 Historic Preservation Commission January 27. 1999 Amy Guthrie, historic preservation officer, told the Commission a problem has arisen with 234 West Francis Street, the Mullen project, which HPC reviewed last fall and spring. Ms. Guthrie noted this house is on the corner of Second and Francis and is on the National Register of Historic Places. The original owner was Davis Waite, who was the Governor of Colorado. Herbert Bayer and R. O. Anderson also lived in the house. Until this time the house was basically unaltered. The applicants got approval to make minor modifications to the old house plus an addition to the rear. Ms. Guthrie told the Commission all the siding has been removed and replaced on the east side of the building; all the window trim has been removed and replaced; the porch has been rebuilt; the porch posts have been reconstructed; detailing does not match what existed originally; the original materials are not present. Ms. Guthrie presented Resolution #2, Series of 1998, with condition that no exterior materials on any part of the historic structure may be removed without the prior approval of HPC, excepting those areas approved for remodeling on October 8, 1998 (sic). Resolution #17, 1998, says all material representations made by the applicant shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval; all elements removed shall be restored and replaced from the same area from which they were removed from. Minutes of May 13, 1998, sworn in Gary Wheeler who is the contractor and is present at this meeting. The minutes state that Gary informed the Commission that the fence, doors, etc. are being stored and will be replaced after the project is completed. The windows are boxed up and covered with plywood and are being stored in Basalt. The red siding and posts are also being stored. The building permit application is labeled on the historic structure, existing structure repair and refurbish all defective siding trim and structure as needed. Neither repair nor refurbish means replace. Ms. Guthrie said this fall Susan Dodington, monitor for the project, informed her the siding had been removed from the house, which was not approved. Ms. Guthrie told HPC she went to the site and spoke to Gary, who informed her they needed to wrap the building with Tyvek to improve its insulation qualities and that all the siding was being replaced. Ms. Guthrie said they discussed this on site. Ms. Guthrie said she was shown an area where the siding had been replaced; she told the contractor it was being done well and left with 1 ®$62$~29,53:.2/ ™ Historic Preservation Commission January 27. 1999 the understanding that the rest of it was going back on. Ms. Guthrie said there has been tremendous damage to the integrity of the building. Ms. Guthrie told Council work has been stopped on this building as of Monday morning. David Hoefer (assistant city attorney) and Ms. Guthrie met with Scott and Gary on Monday. They were given some assignment to complete; one is they were to inventory exactly what was removed and tell the city where it is and to provide the city with before and after photographs. Scott (?) said he was asked to make an inventory and a list of the things that have changed on the property. The wood siding, and there are before and after photographs. David Hoefer told the Commission he asked... to address the reasons this was done. It should have been done with approval. The city also wants to know what can be done to correct the situation. X told the commission on the siding what transpired was at the removal of the sheet rock on the interior of the building, the workers saw water stains coming from the siding side into the inside of the building and staining the inside of the wood as well as the flooring areas. In order to raise the building to put a foundation under it, they removed the lower 3 or 4 feet of the siding so they would not have to cut through it. At chat point, they discovered the structural planking underneath not only was water stained, it also had gaps anywhere from 1/2 inch to 3/4 inch between the boards. It was evident that water was getting on that and going through the cracks into the interior of the building. The back of the siding was also water stained. At that point, it was decided to Tyvek or house wrap to weather proof the building. They started on the lower section and replaced the siding as they could. X said most of the damaged siding is on the lower portion around the building from the snow depth or the more water at the base of the building. X said he has samples of the siding for HPC to look at. X said as they started Tyveking the home, they found the siding was deteriorating to the point where it wasn't a cosmetic deterioration. It was rotting, splitting the wood. X said he also brought samples of this deterioration. The samples are the better of what was there. X told the HPC for the house to be weatherproof, being the moisture kept on the siding and to the outside of the home, is the reason he took the siding off. M Historic Preservation Commission January 27. 1999 Roger Moyer asked if Ms. Guthrie was consulted before the siding was removed. Ms. Guthrie said she was not. Moyer asked if there was an understanding between Ms. Guthrie and the contractor that before anything like this was done, he would talk to Ms. Guthrie or the monitor; was there anything written. Ms. Guthrie said the drawings for the building permit set are clearly labeled that there will just be repair of existing siding. Ms. Guthrie said the contractor is not normally present at meetings, but in the case Gary was present at several meetings, heard every conversation about how important all o f this is, was sworn in and gave testimony that he understood it. Susan Dodington said she had a personal conversation with Gary who stood up and said he understood how important this was and that he would do everything he could do and promised the HPC he would bring the structure right back to where it was. Person asked where is the siding that has been taken off. X said what is left, less 150 square feet, is on the building at this time. Person said on the east side of the building the siding is all removed; where is it. X said that siding is gone; it is not stored. HPC members asked if he did not understand this was not to be thrown away. Susan said people do not throw parts of historic buildings away. Moyer asked to see the siding. Ms. Guthrie told HPC once the siding was removed from the building and what Gary felt could be salvaged was put on the west and south sides, not in its original location but was used to side was the contractor felt were the public side of the building. Gary showed examples of the better siding; the rest is on the structure. Christie Kienast asked where the siding originally taken off by Bailey's is. Gary said it was stored under the plastic and is not back on the house. Moyer said the siding that was determined solely by Gary to be unfit, without talking to a monitor or to city staff, is no longer around. Gilbert Sanchez asked if Gary determined a post of be usable or not. Wheeler said structurally he determined it not to be usable. This post was from the little porch on the west side. Moyer said some o f the samples are funky. There is a product called Albatron, a liquid and a paste. One pours the liquid into the post, it solidifies the wood. Then one can put the past in 3 Historic Preservation Commission January 27. 1999 and sand it. Moyer said none of the samples are really rotted. Moyer said the same thing can be done with siding. Moyer said the siding dries out and dissolves but it is easy to bring it back. Where the siding is cracked, one uses screws rather than nails, apply Albatron or caulking. Mary Hirsch said the contractor has been through all the HPC meetings, heard the members comments, Wheeler was sworn in, Scott was sworn in. The Commission members were upset how the project came through, a little bit here, a little bit there. HPC members discussed the importance of the house, it is on the National Registry. Ms. Hirsch asked what was the thinking that made the contractor feel he could make the decision to destroy something is irreplaceable. This house will never be the same again. Wheeler said in his opinion the post needs more than filling with epoxy. Ms. Hirsch asked if Wheeler talked to Scott about this. Wheeler said he did not. Ms. Hirsch asked if Wheeler talked to the Mullins about this. Wheeler said he did and it was fine with them. Mr. Mullins said he did not want the old rotten siding put back on his house. Ms. Hirsch said this is a corner lot that had a historic house on it. Ms. Dodington asked if Wheeler was aware he has to ask Amy and the HPC's permission to do these things. Wheeler said he was told that there would be two monitors but he was never given any telephone number or names and that was it. Ms. Dodington said Amy is available all the time; this is her job. Wheeler said he does not feel he was properly informed what a monitor's job is to do. Suzannah Reid said regardless of a monitor, the resolution clearly states he has to consult staff and monitor. Ms. Guthrie said this argument has been used before that it's the monitor's fault because they didn't see it happening. Ms. Guthrie said monitors cannot be on the site all the time. Susan Dodington said she has been ill and has not been by the site since early January. Ms. Guthrie said it is the applicant's responsibility; HPC cannot be on the site every moment. It is not their fault because they did not see this why it was in progress. Ms. Reid said HPC has to figure out what to do. Heidi Friedland said people are buying sites as real estate and not because they love the historic 4 Historic Preservation Commission January 27. 1999 building on it. Ms. Friedland said what is telling in this meeting is the owner's statement that he did not want the rotten, old siding back on his house. Ms. Friedland said this should not be seen as rotten, old siding. These owners are making a beautiful home; they are not renovating a historic house. The owners first course does not seem to be to preserve the house. Ms. Friedland said this is a horrible situation and she is not sure what the HPC can do about this. Ms. Reid said it was very clear in all the discussions; the HPC has no control over why people buy properties. Ms. Guthrie said the HPC cannot go any further than was put into this project. The HPC has never had such explicit discussions; the contractor is not usually present; the owners were present. Ms. Guthrie said there happens to be an interesting piece of sworn testimony in the record from a long time family friend of the owners, "There were a lot of places the owner could have bought but they chose this house." Ms. Guthrie said their representation to HPC was they appreciated it and understood it and the HPC cannot go any further than that with anybody. Ms. Hirsch said HPC followed their procedures, the applicants were sworn in. Ms. Hirsch said she had a long discussion with Scott after the second meeting, and they worked hard to try and get a relationship on an even plane. Moyer asked if Scott was hired to supervise the project. Scott said he has a limited service agreement with the Mullins. He is not really doing CA; their daughter is doing all the interior. Scott said if Gary calls him, he goes to the site. Scott said in the last few weeks he has not been at the site very much. Scott said on the monitor issue, is it during construction anytime there is a question are they to be calling Amy or the monitor. Ms. Reid said Amy should always be called. Scott said if the contractor come into a situation, which could be on a daily basis, Ms. Reid said Amy is to be called. Scott asked what the role of the monitor is. Ms. Reid said Amy calls the monitors and gets together with them. Ms. Guthrie said monitors try to keep an eye on what is going on at construction sites; however, monitors are not there to enforce, they are to observe the project. Ms. Dodington said she drives by this project and her big concern was when she saw the siding come off and she told Ms. Guthrie right away and it was discussed right away. The monitor goes by a project as much as 5 Historic Preservation Commission January 27. 1999 they can and notices if they think something is wrong and then calls Ms. Guthrie. Roger Moyer asked when the siding coming off was discussing at an HPC meeting, did not the contractor state the siding was being saved. Ms. Dodington answered yes. Moyer said the Commission expressed that the siding was being saved; it was not to be disposed of along with the windows, etc., and it was disposed of. Ms. Guthrie said the siding was removed, it was pointed out to her by the monitor, Ms. Dodington, Ms. Guthrie went to the site and discussed it, Mrs. Mullen was present and she was told it was all going back on. Moyer said the two issues are how to correct as much as possible the damage that has been done and what are the penalties. Moyer said the penalties should be pretty severe. Moyer said he drove by the house; the main view plane of the house is the corner, which is the west wall and the front. The siding is on the lower west wall, there is a little alcove with some new siding. The first question is there any existing siding that can replace the new siding in the upper second story alcove. Wheeler said yes. Moyer said that new can come off and existing siding can go back up. Wheeler said that is the 150 square feet. Moyer said the trim boards around the windows and corner boards have been replaced; are the originals available so they can go back on. Wheeler said no they are not. Moyer said on the front of the house all siding seems to be intact. The trim boards and corner boards are missing and there is nothing to replace those. Moyer said it appears that the type o f trim that is put up is not the exact replica of what was there. Moyer said that has to be reproduced exactly to what was existing. Moyer asked if this can happen. Wheeler answered yes., Moyer said the east side of the house is not terribly visible, so do they have to put on old siding or live with what is there. Moyer said he can live with that, it is acceptable to him. Ms. Dodington asked how much siding is left that can be used. Wheeler said the amount above the front door is all that is left. Moyer asked if the post has been replaced and other like it. Wheeler said he has two posts, one which has a metal bracket holding it together. These two posts could be put on the porch. Ms. Guthrie said the front porch posts have been 6 Historic Preservation Commission January 27, 1999 hacked off in two places with two pieces replaced. Ms. Guthrie asked if the contractor has the sections that were removed. Wheeler said he does not. Ms. Reid said it makes sense for the commission to go to the site and go through piece by piece. Hoefer agreed that is what has to be done. An inventory has to be done. Moyer said the person who will reconstruct this material has to show the HPC that they have the skills to do this work. Ms. Dodington asked if the contractor still had the windows. Ms. Guthrie said the windows sash are the only thing that is present the way it was supposed to be. Ms. Dodington asked about the west bay window. Wheeler said the upper window was broken. Ms. Dodington said Wheeler told the monitors (Dodington and Jeffrey Halverty) he would save that window personally; that it was protected. Wheeler said he has the front window, which is the south window, and is the old wavy glass on top and bottom. The west one is broken but he was a circa 1900 wavy glass on order; it has the small seeds and the dimples. Ms. Guthrie asked about the fence. wheeler said the fence is stored on site and is protect. Ms. Guthrie said the problem is that no one has the items that are to be replicated. All of the window trim is gone. The porch has been rebuilt; it does not match the photographs. Ms. Guthrie asked if the contractors have any components of the porch. Wheeler said he had one at this meeting. Ms. Guthrie said HPC can scheduled a site visit but the contractor needs to prepare a plan to replicate exactly what was existing, whether they have photographs to generate measurements from or not. Ms. Friedland asked if the concept o f having an architect stay on site until the project is finished would have helped. Ms. Guthrie said Wheeler was present at the meetings, and this was his responsibility. Sanchez said the contractor is responsible for what happens on the site, they have overview of the site. Ms. Hirsch said she has spoken to former HPC members and to P & Z members and all think this is serious, that this very important house which was on the registry has been compromised. It is time for HPC to really take a stand. The HPC did their job and the applicants did not. Moyer said the HPC members all volunteer; the members have lived in Aspen a 7 Historic Preservation Commission January 27, 1999 long time and love the community, they love the historic Victorians and have provided the most information. Moyer said he is disappointed with what happened. Scott said he is not doing CA on this project. Wheeler asked how adhering to energy codes relate to a historic structure. Ms. Guthrie said historic buildings are exempt from the energy code. Wheeler said there is old material in a project like this that should be tossed and who decides that. The answer is HPC does. Moyer said literally no material has to be tossed. Moyer said it can all be saved; it isn't easy or cheap. It is difficult to take old siding off a house. The end result is when the old siding is put back on, there is a historic resource with the patina of the ages that everybody loves. Ms. Dodington continued this hearing to noon on January 29, 1999 at 234 West Francis; seconded by Ms. Friedland. All in favor, motion carried. Moyer said he would like to see contractor education, historic preservation license that is part of the building license, more information to the builder from HPC, and enforcement. 8 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, TEMPORARY RELOCATION, AND APPEAL OF "RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS" FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED AT 234 WEST FRANCIS STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 6, SERIES OF 1998 WHEREAS, the applicants, Don and Gwen Mullins. represented by Studio B Architects, have requested minor development. partial demolition, temporary relocation. and appeal of"Residential Design Standards" approval for the property located at 234 W. Francis Street. The property is a designated historic landmark; and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. namely: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design. massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a '-H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and WHEREAS, all applications for partial demolition of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay district, must meet all of the Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.020(C) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1.Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel; and :j*~0*. 2.Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possibie: a. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition o f original or significant features and additions. b.Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure; and WHEREAS, all applications for temporary relocation of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen. or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay district. must meet all of the following Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.020(D),(3), and (4) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 3.Standard: The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation; and 4.Standard: A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation. preservation and repair (if required) o f the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation; and WHEREAS, all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.58.040 must meet one of the following statements in order for the Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception. namely the proposal must: a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) be clearly necessary for reasons o f fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff reports dated October 8,1997, December 10, 1997, and January 28, 1998, recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meetings of October 8, 1997. December 10. 1997, and January 28,1998, the Historic Preservation Commission considered and approved the applications with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That minor development. partial demolition, temporary relocation. and appeal of "Residential Design Standards' for the property at 234 W. Francis Street. Aspen, Colorado, as represented to the HPC on October 8. 1997, December 10, 1997, and January 28, 1998, be approved as follows, and with the following conditions: Historic house: 1. A new double hung window which matches the existing windows may be added on the east wall of the historic house. 2. Two lightwells are approved on the east side of the historic house: none on the west side. 3. A skylight may be installed on the east side of the roof o f the historic house. 4. An octagonal addition for a kitchen may be made on the northeast corner o f the historic house. The windows in the new kitchen addition will be as presented to HPC on January 28,1998. A skylight may be set into the peak of the kitchen roof. The roofing and siding are to match the historic house. 5. The existing dormer on the north side of the house may be altered, however the applicant must revise the proposal for the dormer so that the north wall of the dormer aligns with the building wall below. for approval by staff and monitor. New siding and roofing materials are to match existing. 6. The existing roof on the one story lean-to addition at the back of the historic house may be altered, provided that the applicant produces more research into the original slope o f the roo f, for approval by staff and monitor. Any alterations to the entry porch on the west side of the addition that are needed must be submitted for approval by staff and monitor. 7.. The breezeway connector between the historic house and garage may be removed. 8. The applicant will salvage the original stone from the foundation of the house and reuse it or, if this is not possible, use matching stone to recreate the foundation to match the original condition. 9. No exterior materials on any part of the historic structures (house and "carriage house") may be removed without the prior approval of HPC, excepting those areas that were approved for remodeling on October 8,1998. 10. No changes are approved for any windows on the historic house. If the applicant wishes to add exterior screens or storm windows in the future, they must be reviewed and approved by HPC. 11. The wood shingled roof may be replaced to match the existing roof. Garage: 12. The non-historic structure located on the alley may be converted into a garage, including new doors on the alley, new dormers with double hung windows on the north and south sides o f the building, removal o f doors and replacement o f windows on the west and south, and an addition for a staircase on the east side of the garage. Carriage house: 13. The applicant is to restudy the proposal to modify entry porches on the south and west of the carriage house and east side o f the historic house. so that the porches have a flat or slightly pitched roof, for approval by staff and monitor. 14. A closet addition is approved for the north side of the carriage house. The pair of double hung windows in this location may be shifted to the west. A vent may be added on the west side of the closet addition. 15. The trellis on the west side of the carriage house may be removed. Temporary relocation: 16. A letter of credit, escrow agreement, or bond in the amount of $30.000 is to be provided prior to building permit to ensure the safe relocation of the building back onto the new foundation. 17. The applicant must provide a site plan showing how and where the building will be stored during the temporary relocation. Construction fencing or other barricades must be placed around the historic house to protect it during the temporary relocation. 18. A report from a licensed engineer or housemover must be submitted prior to relocation showing how the structure will be braced and protected to withstand moving. 19. All window sash in the historic house will be removed and stored safely during construction, so that there is no damage to them. All window and door openings into the house will be covered with plywood until the house is set onto the new foundation and the original window sash re-installed. a APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the .2 Pilay of 14.-. 1998. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Chairman j V ATTEST: 90,4.4/ i «44 Chief Dep44 Clerk RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT RELATING TO A GARAGE AND BREEZEWAY, AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED AT 234 WEST FRANCIS STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. /, SERIES OF 1998 WHEREAS, the applicants. Don and Gwen Mullins, represented by Studio B Architects. have requested significant development approval to demolish and reconstruct an existing garage, to add a breezeway. and receive variances for the property located at 234 W. Francis Street. The property is a designated historic landmark; and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. namely: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design. massing and volume. scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H." Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance o f designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof: and WHEREAS, Julie Ann Woods. in her staff reports dated May 13, May 25. and June 10, 1998, recommended approval with conditions: and WHEREAS, at their regular meetings of May 13, May 25, and June 10, 1998, the Historic Preservation Commission considered and approved the application by a vote of 5-2 with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1,1 OD R £ ME*. That significant development approval to demolish and reconstruct an existing garage. to add a breezeway, and receive variances for the property located at 234 W. Francis Street as represented to the HPC on May 13. May 25. and June 10,1998, be approved with the following conditions: 1. The garage will be constructed with the materials indicated and location set forth on the drawings submitted, dated Received. May 29,1998 in the Community Development Department. 2. The proposed garage shall be granted the following variances: The rear yard setback shall be established at 2', thereby granting an 8 variance: the sideyard setback along 2nd Ave. shall be 0'. thereby granting a 12' 4" variance. 3. All conditions of the Oct. 8, 1997, December 10,1997, and January 28,1998 approvals must be met. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions o approval, unless otherwise amended by a decision-making body having the authority to do so. 5. All elements removed shall be restored and replaced from the same area from which they were moved. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the /5 day of.~:14, 1998. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 941 1 Chairman J V l/ ATTEST: Chief Deput)/tlerk Waite / Mullins House 234 West Francis St. Site survey of historic materials, 1/29/1999 West Side 1. All historic window trim and sills have been replaced with new, new details added, no original materials exist. 2. Three vent penetrations were made through the historic walls. 3. Historic porch materials, posts and roof structure, have been removed. Posts are in storage, otherwise materials have been destroyed. West historic door is in storage. 4. New copper guides in historic double hung windows. 5. Large pane of historic glass was broken, at large double hung. 6. All historic siding, corner boards and fascia trim on the one story section have been destroyed. 7. Areas of historic siding, on the main house, were relocated to this area from original locations, corner boards have been replaced. 8. Pre existing porch "floor" materials were demolished, materials which have been represented to be installed were never approved. North Side 9. All historic siding and corner boards have been removed. 10. All new window trim, new details added, none of the historic materials exist. 11. New copper guides in historic double hung windows. East Side 12. All historic siding has been removed and replaced with new siding and corner boards. 13. All new window trim, new details added, no original materials remain. 14. An existing historic window, just north of the doorway, has been replaced with a new one, the historic window still exists and is in storage. 15. Two vent penetrations have been made through the historic wall, with large trim details. 16. New copper guides in historic double hung windows. South Side 17. Historic siding has been relocated from other areas to this fagade. Siding in the area above the entry roof has been removed. New window trim in this area. 18. All new window sills and trim, with additional details, have been installed, none of the historic materials exist. 19. Entry porch fascia, soffit, and expressed structure have all been reconstructed, new materials do not match the historic materials in size or profile. New materials continue along one story element at entry. One piece of historic crown molding still exists, in storage. Historic roof framing is apparently intact below the new construction. 20. Entry columns have been altered at the base and at the top with materials which do not replicate the original posts. While portions of the posts remain, the historic integrity has been destroyed. New boards behind the "pilasters" adjacent to the door are new. Scroll work from entry still exists and is in storage. 21. New door trim, with more elaborate detail, has been added, historic trim materials were destroyed. Historic door and transom are in storage. 22. All historic siding in the area above the entry porch roof has been removed and partially replaced with new. 23. Pre existing porch "floor" materials were demolished, materials which have been represented to be installed were never approved. 24. Areas of corner boards are new. Exti; bip W ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE EXHIBITS 234 WEST FRANCIS, ASPEN, COLORADO 1. "Order to Show Cause" On File with City Clerk 2. Minutes of HPC Meeting - October 8, 1997 3. Minutes of HPC Meeting - November 24, 1997 4. Minutes of HPC Meeting - December 10, 1997 5. Minutes of HPC Meeting - January 28, 1998 6. Minutes of HPC Meeting - May 13, 1998 7. Minutes of HPC Meeting - May 27, 1998 8. Minutes of HPC Meeting - June 10, 1998 9. Minutes of HPC Meeting - January 27, 1999 10. HPC Resolution No. 2, Series of 1998 - January 28, 1998 11. HPC Resolution No. 17, Series of 1998 - June 10, 1998 12. City Clerk's File for HPC Application at 234 West Francis Judicial Notice 13. Building Department Permit File(s) for 234 West Francis Judicial Notice 14. Summary of Alleged Violations of HPC Approvals at 234 West Francis 15· V LDED 1(,0- 2)OARD De Ptto-IDS 92.Om H p (L NAEw-riNG, S A- ll)~ndo w -ln m 18 + 70575 (-N)014+12EcteD) 1 4. 12,gMAlA] /44 5/DiAJET 20. LE-r-1-EFL Tl?00\ 8 80 c,€ A€Un 1 ·~ue> COOTEATOR. 2-11 CRax>Al Fle 41>t N (q- 1-4971>EFEL 33 . 500-rE LI d BEEK| A-q LErrE¥U 43, .F€p'Al K. 6. WArl 1-2 £2rreA /1. 4 ©14 3 LE1Twl. ga:-r614.9£ ag. Moll#FA;Al Pl-A\46 LETTEK .a-69 A M,O E Le/FER_ a 1, CAS rIN a.x. 12 0Sc«*O Joel S ax 303 W. Francis St. Aspen. CO 81611 February 10, 1999 Ms. Suzanne Reid Chairman Aspen Hisroric Preservation Commission 130 S. Galena StreeI Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Gwen & Don Muilins Home - 234 West Francis St. Dear Suzanne: I would like ro address several items with the members of Aspen' s Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) regarding the home of Gwen and Don Mullins. My interest in writing this letter is two-fold. I live across the street at 303 West Francis, and have had the opportunity to develop a friendship with the Mullins, and learn more about their historic home. More importantly, I am supportive of the historic preservation efforts in Aspen, and am very concerned that the Mullins have been singled out by the HPC and press as -uncaring part-time residents." This could not be further from the truth. My fear is that they will not be granted the opportunity to resolve their simation in a fair and reasonable manner. For le record, the Mullins are not uncaring part-time residenrs from Texas. The Mullins were part of the original investors who developed Snowmass in the 1960's. They have also had a home in Pitkin County for many years. Over the years, I have observed a variety o f restoration and preservation e fforts throughout the Aspen area. One o f the distinguishing factors that sets Aspen apart from other mountain resort communities are our historic buildings. Most of us are proud of the historic building that dot the landscape, and would like to see these buildings maintained and occupied into the next century, and beyond. I appreciate the efforts o f the HPC volunteers to oversee the HPC program. As appointed representatives, you dedicate countless hours of your time to the city's historic preservation program. I personally felt that the HPC was treated unfairly by the press and the community in regards to the Paepcke home. There were many unwarranted accusations made by uninformed people, with emotions running high. It was frustrating that people did not take the time to read the relevant ordinances and meeting minutes, or view the model o f the new home. Several HPC members were criticized in a negative and hurtful manner. As a result, I thought that the HPC members would be more [t?itter~b~-:~.94*1 sensitive towards individuals (the Mullins) when they discussed current projects with the press. While these residential projects are different in many aspects, there are similarities in terms ofthe "character" artacks leveled at the owners. I am troubled that several HPC members made negalive public comments regarding rhe Mullin's project c and their integrity), when they should have reserved judgement unril the appropriate information was made available to them. Shouidnt appointed committee members, representative of the city, set a higher standard? Isnt ir time that people in this community set aside their destructive verbal volley's. and withhold comments until they have had the opportunity to review ail ofthe project's factual information. Renovating an historic home is a time consuming and very expensive venture, one that is not taken lightly by the Mullins. I have watched the historic renovation of this home over the past year. and believe that the historic integrity ofthe home has been preserved. There may be some specific items that need replaced or corrected, but suspending the building permit for this home accomplishes nothing. Isn't iI one of the community's goals to ensure thar historic homes are lived in by the owners. and visually enjoyed by the community? It is inconceivable to me and the many residents I have personally spoken to that the HPC would further delay this project because of a serious breakdown in communication. I feel the HPC is sending a negative message to future individuais interested in renovating and restoring historic buildings by makinsi an -example" of the Mullins. Rather than making it so difficult and painful for the homeowners. why not set up a comprehensive process where the various parties involved (e.g. contractors. architects, owners, HPC monitors, staff) know exactly what their responsibilities are. and are educated in the technical areas ofhistoic renovation. The HPC should take a leadership role in developing a useful, educational and practical process, instead of everyone searching for "someone to blame." While most of us appreciate the final product, we do not always understand the nuances of historic preservation, and the specific techniques needed to successfully complete a project. The focus should be on educating those individuals directly involved in the renovation of historic buildings, and setting up better communication channels. One o f the goals should be a better process that works for all parties involved, and the elimination of the finger pointing and hurtful accusations that impact everyone. We do not have a perfect world, and it is my view that the HPC may be overreacting. The consensus of opinion is that the benefits of completing this project far out-way the revocation of the building pennit. The benefits of completing this project include an improved attractive site, increased tax revenues, and the preservation of Aspen's history. What possible benefit could be gained by not allowing this project to be completed? I strongly urge you to carefully weigh the interests of the homeowner and the community before you make a decision. You have the opportunity to work with the homeowners to [..1 complete this historic project in a way that works for everyone. I hope that you will move forward in a open-minded way, with a balanced view of the project. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, - Joel Sax CC: Historic Preservation Committee members Stephen Kanipe, Chief Building O fficial Amy Gutherie, HPC Officer Amy Margerum, City Manager Julie Ann Woods, City Development Managemenr Director 3 0 2,' 36/13 jt 1 .' : 3 , 3/8928112 2,1 :12,€bL.-4 -AUE CO 02/08 99 19:16 '21 303 623 1:'9 ; TH P - •.1PRI I 12 11€11 MOIPNTAINS/PLA:NS OFFICE NATIONAL TRUST b HUTORJC PRESEr/.CION February 8, 1999 Tbe Honorable John Bennert Mayor, City of Aspen , 30 South Lial¢111 Street Aspen, Colorado 316[1 Dear Mayor Bennett I am wnting to express my extreme dlsappointment thal the original porch, trim. and stding cr the historic Waite Housc have beer. lost as a result of a poorly executed rehabilitation project it i, my understanding thal th: Waite House is not only ar. important element of the West End Historic District but that it ts also individuall) Significant as the home of a former Governcr and prominent Aspe·1 newspaper pubusher avid attl:rney When we met last August to review Aspen-3 1-istoric preservation program. the group spent a cor.siderable amount oftime debating thc value of saving real, authentic buildings from Aspen'S pa.51 as opposed to recrearing thern. C[ost people have no dillicultly understanding that an antique chair as greater value than a reproduction chair. The same i.5 true ulth architecture An authentic house with original materalls ha:; historic value as a untqu¢, one-of-a kind structure. Prservation is about saving real places Probably the mOst uruversally accepted guidc. ir..5 for historic preservation in this country are die Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Two of these standards address this issue. Standard Five states that, "distinctive materials. features jinishes and construction te:hmques or examples oid eraftsmanship thct char=cterize a properry will be preserved StandaId 6 san deleriorated historic fealures witl be repaired rather than replaced Unfortunately, work at the Waite House igno-Jed both of these standards. While it may be too late tO save original materials at the Waite House. it is riot too late to make the public statement that Aspen treasures its 16toric buildings and will enforce existing preservation la•Ns to protect them. Towards that end, I would like to Congratulate the City Planning Office and the Aspen Historic Pres€ rvation Commission for upholding the city preservation ordinance and stopping work on [hc Waite house while you search for a remedy to thls unfortunate jituation. I f thc National Tnist can provide any assistance to you as you work through the process. do not hesitate to call m:. Sincerely. €«@a<G. A LE_ Barbara H. Pahl, Director Protech,~ the Irreplaceable Mountains/Plains Office r 9 10 :Gir]1 5-rx.ET · SVITK 1100 - Dixvix, CO 502,90 3 0 3.6 7 3 1 9 0 4 • FAX. 3 0 1 62 3, 1 1 08 · WW ¥r .NAT ION.4 LTRUST O RG 3, . t ng c 0 03, 7 r. 11'3. i n. , 2 & tr, U 2- U-i ·- 0/ 1 J 2 2 1 ·' . 3 . 02·-08 99 EON 18,27 Eli 202 673 4052 >CHP PRESIDENT $ AFFICE Ft <111 2 . a Tic•Tl..=el/-1 NATIONAL TRUST » HUTO RtC PRBSEIVATTCN 5l,(~HARD :[02 hui DENT Feorcary 8.1999 Ms. Mary H. Hirsch Aspen Historic. Preservation Commiisioner I f 90 Silver King Dri ; e Aspen. CO 8..611 Dear Ms. Hirsch: Thanks so much for your le:ter and articles regarding the urgent preservation issues that are emerging irl Aspen. [ts distres5Ing to see· that a town with the historic character and tradition of Aspen is los lig some ofitS most significar.t buildings. i ve heard of:be development pre~ures and I can believe that they are mounting. We are eager to be of whatever help we can and I'm askilig Barb Paill, the director of cur Mountain/Plains Office in Der.ver, to contact you to see how we can be most cffective. You will be hearing from her very short]) and as soon as the two of you agree on a strategy. I will sign on. We're eager zo belp Thailks for all that you are doing to preserve that wonderful town. Warmest regards. Richard Moc KM:bb Protecting the Irrej}tareable 1- t:53 M.'SSACM:92-7-1 AVENCE·, NW - WASH!01(ZON DC 20085 2(,2 688 $ 195 · FAA, 202.5d5 (:082 · WWW NAT;ONALT*1337.CRS .13,12€74,1 2304444. U':I,· 1 '3'21 - 1 : 2 4 2/0328_--2 , 1 -AGE UNIWEREi TY CF GECEGIA PHCrIE %13. : 726 532 4:385 Fe,0. 09 1999 01: 86PM NATIONAL ALLIANCE 4- PRESERVAnON COMMISSIONS P.O. BOX 1605 ATHENS. GEORGIA 30603 Februarv 3,1999 To Whom I: May Concern: T Arr·, .v.•Ans t-ki• le *ter on behalf <,C , 1.- >4. L.v.,al Alli.ir,Le *pi. P:-ticri .Ltion Commissions (NAFC>--a teiftionwide non-pre:it organization that assists local preservation commissions in their corr.munity efforts-«onceming the Davis Waite houx debacte. A i.uncerned citizen brought this 1551-ze to Our attention and 1 wanted to let the Aspen cornmurut¥ know that we, as an organizotion, strongly endorse the position of the Aspen Historic Preservation Com=mission and the preser: ation laws that they enforce. It is absolutely essential for any thriving commurtity to respect and cherish their historic resources and to make sure that others, especially part-time residents, understand this and are fully cognizant of the resulatory laws that arein place for preservaion purposes. You must not gtand for the continuation of property Awnerf elpliming total ignorance about the sensitivity and stindards of rehabilitation work on Aspen's priceles historic reS©Urce•- As an organization we strongly recommend the retention of at lea,st one full-time staffperson for historic preervation commissions; if this was thecase in Aspen the difficult monitoring issues that the commission are having could be ameliorated. The fact that the contractor for the Waite house project was able to get that far along in his inoensitive rehabilitation work is an indication that full- Lii. H J l.ff b litriled lu m u pyle,Kien L lt,e J u Lieb vf li it: volul <le=t 4.011 ti iu,Miulle, 8. We advise :he city to use this unfortur.ate event as a platform from which to re- evaluate the efficacy of Aspen's histor.c pre.5ervation policies. Don't let this happen again. because it could start a trend if it harn 't already. Good luck. Sincerely. Pratt Cassity EX!11,8.9 R 3 r. - , 1 / -- . , FEB J -: 1.A A 4 1 7 1-9 Meianie Roschko 0257 Eastwood Road Aspen. CO 81611 February 1.1999 Aspen City Council Aspen City Attorney Historic Preservation Commission 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 To All Concerned; I was extremely upset to hear about the damage to the Waite house. Upset, but not surprised. The outcome was destined from the start of this project. At that time, I was a member ofthe Historic Preservation Commission. Mr. And Mrs. Mullins, Scott Lindenau and Gary Wheeler had little knowledge or understanding ofhistoric preservation, not did they appear to care. That is now blatantly obvious. Unfortunately this type of problem has occurred before. HPC has urged the City Council and City Attorney to put in place legislation to deal with such abuses; preservation education for owners, prospective buyers, real estate sales persons, contractors and architects; and special licensing for contractors dealing with historic properties. Stiff penalties will not replace this historic resource, but they must be made extremely damaging to the pocket books of all involved. There have to be economic deterrents to prevent future problems on new projects. Perhaps public service, jail time and public embarrassment will work. Replication of damaged resources is not preservation. ! I urge you to inflict the strongest penalties available on all parties involved. They knew what they were doing! Sincerely, Melanie Roschko 4*8 7*7036rrA·:41*1 - FE3 09 '99 :35: 217PM TOWN OF TELLURIZ E M. 1.,-E Box 397 Telluride, CO 81435 ~9703 728 -307[ FAX (970) 728 -3072 BY FAX TO (970) 920-5439 F:bruary 9,1999 The Honorable John Bennet Mayor. City of Aspen 130 South Gatena Strect Aspen, Colorado 8161 2 Dear Mayor Bennet I was extremely disappointed tc learn that most of the historic macerials and feat·ute; o: the histor:c Waite Ilouse have been lost, despite the best efforts of the Aspen H.imch· Preservation Commission to ensure the preservation of the National Register-listed propel.-ty, As the I·listeric Preservation Planner for Telluride: I understand all tor, wel! Lbe pressures your preservation commission faces, and why Thc work they do is cririca. ic: -:.hz: commitnity From time to time nere in Telluride, it has been suggested by some thai Telluridc sk el lid no longer be a National Historic Landmark District. because itis not "convenient- I·iowever, preservation is not a matter of convenience for individuals. Historic preservation is a stewardship. a promise that we will protect those places from 16 :h..1.,l which arc important, for the benefit ofluiure generations. Preservation of our lusm:f,4 resources is what creaces communiry identicy and ensures livability. In the pasl., we have had surpriEingly fe'w cases of blatant disregard for mir preservation regulations. perhaps because in all cases we have prosecuted tile property owners x: the fullest extent possible. a:i '.veil as sought remedies whenever feasible. However, our Commission is consrantty asked to allow the removal of historic inaterials from buildings, and to even demolish the building and build a replica. Because consiste:cy of action is crucial for continued effectiveness, our Commission has stood firm, refusj ug te granT any such requests, even though the applicant for each proposal -believes that th:: conditions oftheir properly is unique, with no possible comparison to other historic, buildings. In fuel, what is usually described as rotten or beyond repair is simply :n zeed 01: a liule care, repair, and main=]ance. Unfortunately, some owners and builders :irc reluctant to spend sorne extratime and energy to restore the existing material, and nsleaC take the most convenicnt approach, resulting in the impairment of historic integrill. At the recent Colorado Preservation, Inc. conference in Denver, Lieutenant Governor Tee Rogers related how his parents instilled in him a respect for the past, saying, ~CNever forget where you came from to get where you're going." In rapidly changing places such •80"EXHIBIT·**A• OWN O~ i- ES 89.1 - '29 OD. kkiMI'l 1 L,WIN L.t i ELLUM lit- C. 2/ d as Aspen, an understanding of the past is critical to preserve community. rhis was reaffirmed this past August at your Historic Preservation Symposium. For your preservation commission to remain credible in the eyes oflhe community. it is =ential ro enforce all regulations and conditions of approval. Additionally. tbe full political support of Ihc City (Council is needed. Otherwise, the Co.mmission wu! necome powerless. If you give up even one historic building, your ability to protect eLI c.the' buildings will be compromised. I urge you to support the Historic Presen-ation Commission tholigh enforcerrlent ofyour Land Use Code and preservation laws, 25 wei ! =s .seek a remedy To this unfortunate loss of a historic building that is important nor <,·lly to Aspen. but the citizens of Colorado. Sincerely, C- 2.r=2 -~- -3~Z··-- - ~~~*. Kaye Simonson Historic Preservation. P]anner STIPULATED FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER REGARDING BUILDING PERMIT NO. 8-49 ISSUED FOR 234 WEST FRANCIS STREET, a.k.a. THE WAITE HOUSE , COME NOW Don and Gwen Mullins, by and through their attorney of record Charles Brandt, and the City of Aspen, by and through their attorney of record, David Hoefer, to stipulate to the following Findings of Fact and Order. BACKGROUND INFORMATION On February 1, 1999, Stephen Kanipe, the Chief Building Official for the Aspen Community Development Department issued an Order to Show Cause to Don and Gwen Mullins, the owners of 234 West Francis, Aspen, Colorado, and to Gary Wheeler, the contractor on the project at 234 West Francis, as to why building permit No. 8-49 for 234 West Francis Street should not be suspended or revoked. (Please note that the title for 234 West Francis is in the name of Don Mullins only). The hearing was scheduled for and held on the 10th day of February, 1999, with Stephen Kanipe presiding. At issue were alleged violations of the resolution of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission approving the project located at 234 West Francis Street, Aspen, Colorado. The alleged violations were detailed in a summary, which ·is attached hereto as "Exhibit A." The matter was heard pursuant to Section 106.4.5 of the 1994 Uniform Building Code, which reads as follows: Suspension or revocation. The building official may, in writing, suspend or revoke a permit issued under the provisions of this code whenever the permit is issued in error or on the basis of incorrect information supplied, or in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of this code. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Owners, Don and Gwen Mullins, were represented by attorney Charles Brandt. Assistant City Attorney David Hoefer represented the City of Aspen. 2. Witnesses were called, including Historic Preservation Officer Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Commission members Suzannah Reid, Gilbert Sanchez, Susan Dodington, and Jeffrey Halferty, contractor Gary Wheeler, professional engineer Bob Pattillo, and home owner Don Mullins. 3. Twenty-eight exhibits were offered including a copy of the Order to Show Cause, the City Clerk's file for the HPC application at 234 West Francis, the Building Department permit file for 234 West Francis, the minutes from each of the HPC meetings pertaining to the project at 234 West Francis, HPC Resolution No. 2 and No. 17, Series of 1998, letters from interested parties (both pro and con), window trim, posts, and siding from the project at 234 West Francis, a summary of the alleged violations of HPC approvals for 234 West Francis, a video tape of the house as it currently exists, and photos, including those mounted on a poster board, of the house (both before and after the commencement of the project). 4. The house located at 234 West Francis, commonly referred to as the "Waite House," is on the National Register of Historic Places and is a locally designated landmark. Consequently, the house was subject to development review by the Aspen Historic - Preservation Commission. 5. The property at 234 West Francis is owned of record by Don Mullins. The Mullins hired an architect, Scott Lindeau, and a contractor, Gary Wheeler, to take the proposed development at 234 West Francis through the review process. 6. The first HPC meeting concerning the proposed project at 234 West Francis occurred on October 8, 1997. Six more meetings were held: November 24, 1997; December 10, 1997; January 28, 1998; May 13, 1998; May 27, 1998, and June 10, 1998. A final hearing concerning alleged violations of the Historic Preservation Commission approvals and conditions occurred on January 27,1999. All eight meetings were attended by Lindeau and Wheeler. In addition, the Mullins attended "two or three meetings." 7. The meetings resulted in two HPC resolutions permitting development: Resolution No. 2, Series of 1998 (January 28, 1998) and Resolution No. 17, Series of 1998 (June 10, 1998). 8. The evidence presentedat the Order to Show Cause Hearing established by a preponderance of the evidence that certain of the violations alleged in "Exhibit A" did in fact occur. 9. Consequently, violations of Building Permit No. 8-49 did in fact occur providing the hearing officer with a basis to revoke or suspend the building permit pending remediation of the alleged violations; however, no evidence was presented with respect to any violations relating to the interior work on the historic portion of the house as well as the exterior work on the breezeway, kitchen, and garage. 2 10. However, the Mullins and the City of Aspen mutually agree that the "red tag" may be lifted and that the building permit not be revoked pursuant to the Mullins' compliance with the conditions set forth herein in the Order. Stephen Kanipe or his designee shall retain jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding until compliance with all conditions has been accomplished. ORDER Don and Gwen Mullins and the City of Aspen, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby agree to the following Order: The "red tag" on the building permit for 234 West Francis, Aspen, Colorado, is hereby lifted and the building permit is not revoked or suspended subject to the following conditions being complied with: 1. A plan for remediation of the violations set forth in "Exhibit A" shall be submitted to the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission for their review and approval. Until approval of the remediation plan, no construction, demolition, or other alteration of the historic exterior of 234 West Francis shall occur; construction of the breezeway, kitchen, and garage exteriors may continue. The plan shall address the twenty-four violations set forth in "Exhibit A," including but not limited to the following: a. Where acceptable replication has not already occurred, a plan to replace the destroyed historic window trim, sills, and detailing with new materials that - replicate the original as depicted in photographs and as represented by any existing original materials. b. The interior location of the gas fireplace appliances as shown on the approved plans for the property need not be altered. However, there shall be a proposed redesign of the exterior venting through the roof of the historic portion of the structure to provide alternative venting solutions to those in the west and east walls. c. A plan to refurbish existing historic materials for the west entry porch and to replicate materials that were destroyed. The porch posts, if used in the restoration, shall be made structurally sound as recommended by the Mullins' structural engineer in conjunction with the Historic Preservation Commission. d. A plan for the use of replacement glass in the large double hung on the west side. e. A plan regarding the area above the front entry porch which replaces the new siding with the remaining historic siding. 3 f. The front entry porch fascia, soffit, and detailing shall be reconstructed to match original materials. The entry columns shall retain as much original material as possible. g. The historic window on the east wall must be installed and the new double hung must match the original window. 2. Interior work at 234 West Francis may continue. However, if the subsequent approvals for the exterior made by the Historic Preservation Commission necessitates interior changes, the owners assume the risk of venting the gas appliance fireplaces through the roof and the new double hung window requirement of subparagraph 1.g. above. 3. All remedial historic exterior work approved by the Historic Preservation Commission shall be performed by subcontractors approved and supervised by the owner's architect Scott Lindenau. As remedial work for the exterior is approved by HPC (by a majority vote) that remedial work may begin, even as other issues are being discussed. 4. From this point forward, all exterior work on the historic house shall be performed in consultation with the architect of record, Scott Lindenau, and a weekly plan of action and a report of progress shall be submitted to the Historic Preservation Officer, Amy Guthrie. 5. The owners have already paid an estimated sixty thousand dollars in costs, fees, and interest in resolving this matter. In addition, the owners shall pay the costs and fees of the City of Aspen expended in resolving this matter. This amount is agreed upon in the i amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00). 6. The owners shall, if necessary, increase the present letter of credit from thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) to an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost (prepared by the owner's architect Scott Lindenau) of the completion of the exterior work. The language shall be amended to clearly reflect the purpose of the letter of credit. The letter of credit will automatically terminate upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the house. 7. The owners shall write a letter of apology to the community concerning the damage to the historic resource, which shall be reviewed as to form by the City Attorney and which shall be submitted to the Aspen Times and the Aspen Daily News no later than ten (10) days after receipt of HPC approval of the remediation plan. 8. This agreement does not prevent the Historic Preservation Commission from addressing violations regarding the historic (main) house not previously discovered or that may be discovered in the future. 4 9. Stephen Kanipe will continue to have jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case _ and shall be called upon to assist in the resolution of disputes that may arise between the owners and the Historic Preservation Commission. Assistant City Attorney David Hoefer and Historic Preservation Officer Amy Guthrie shall utilize their best efforts to expedite the consideration by the Historic Preservation Commission of the plan forremediation submitted by the owners in order to obtain a reasonable resolution of the matters addressed in the remediation plan. The matter shall be placed on the agenda of each HPC meeting until the matter is resolved. ' 4 Dated thisl# day of February, 1999. Charles Brandt for Don and Gwen Mullins 66 David Hoefer for the Cityjf Aspen The "Stipulated Findings of Fact and Order Regarding Building Permit No. 8-49 Issued for 234 West Francis Street, a.k.a. the Waite House" is hereby approved as to form and ordered on the date cited above. t 0-42.- StepheA Kanipe ~ / Chief Building Official Aspen/Pitkin Community Development 5 OFFER OF PROOF REGARDING SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF CONTRACTOR LICENSE HELD BY GARY WHEELER COMES NOW Gary Wheeler. by and through his attorney Charles T. Brandt. to offer the following proof· BACKGROUND INFORMATION On February 25. 1999. Stephen Kanipe, Chief Building Official for the City of Aspen Community Development Department issued as Order to Show Cause to Gary Wheeler. the contractor on the project at 234 West Francis Street. Aspen, Colorado, as to why his contractor license should not be suspended or revoked. The hearing is scheduled for 10:00 A.M.. March 11,1999. At issue are alleged violations of the Builder's Licensing Regulations, City of Aspen Municipal Code Section 8.12.380 (b) (2) and (b)(10), and Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.72, violation of HPC resolutions. OFFER OF PROOF Gary W-heeler, though his legal counsel offers the following proof, which will be offered. if necessary, at the show cause hearing through testimony by Mr. Wheeler and exhibits. with respect to the alleged violations, namely 'disregard and willful violation of the code relating to building or construction or contractor licensing " (Section 8.12.380 (b) (2)), "disregard or deviation from the plans and specifications approved by the building official for which the permit was issued without the approval of the building official" (Section 8.12.380 (b) (10), and violation of the Historic Preservation Commission Resolution No.2, Series of 1998 with respect to the removal o f historic materials on any part o f the historic structures (house and "carriage house") without prior HPC approval. 1. The building permits for the house and carriage house did not reference Resolution No. 2, Series of 1998 adopted by the HPC, nor did Mr. Wheeler have a copy of the Resolution containing the provision relating to the need for HPC prior approval to remove historic materials. 2. Mr. Wheeler did attend the several HPC meetings relating to the various approvals o f the house and carriage house located at 234 West Francis Street. However, the only discussions o f the requirement to obtain HPC approval to remove historical materi als took place during the December 10, 1997, meeting of the HPC. No additional discussion of this condition or requirement appears in minutes o f the HPC meeting held subsequently to December 10,1997. 3. In February, 1998, Mr. Wheeler commenced renovation of the carriage house removing historical siding on the west elevation where the trellis had previous existed as well as rotten siding over the south porch, all in accordance with the HPC approval and the permitted building plans. A certificate of occupancy was issued for the carriage house on August 19.1998. 4. In May, 1998, five months after the December 10, 1997, HPC meeting, Mr. Wheeler removed the bottom four feet of siding on the house in order to lift the house without destroying the siding. The historical siding was stored on the property for reinstallation. Mr. Wheeler did not remember the discussion which had taken place at the December 10th meeting ( some five months earlier) with respect to the need for HPC approval to remove or historic materials. 5. In July, 1998. the house was placed on the HPC approved basement foundation walls. Thereafter work was commenced with respect to the installation o f new window trim. window sills, corner boards, etc. replacing rotted materials. 6. On December 2, 1998. Wheeler commenced reinstallation of the historical siding on the west side o f the house. 7. On December 7, 1998, Historic Preservation Officer Amy Guthrie visit the property, viewed the house and told Mr. Wheeler that she did not expect him to reuse "cupped or split" siding . 8. On January 24, 1999, the City of Aspen Building Department issued a "red tag" and all work on the house ceased. 9. During the period between May, 1998 and December 7,1998, no concern was raised with Mr. Wheeler by the architect for the project. any HPC monitor, building official or the Historic Preservation Officer with respect to the removal and replacement of historical siding and other rotted materials. 10. Although the permitted plans contain the statement "repair and refurbish all defective siding, trim and structure as needed", Mr. Wheeler assumed that he was following applicable uniform building code requirements with respect to the replacement of rotted materials as had been approved by the HPC with respect to the restoration of the carriage house. 11.To suspend or revoke Mr. Wheeler's contractor's license would impose the following hardships: a. Deprive him ofhis livelihood; b. Cause the owner o f 234 West Francis to replace Mr. Wheeler with another contractor causing further delay to the renovation and restoration proj ect currently taking place and hardship to the owner; and --- c. Add to the damages already incurred by Mr. Wheeler as a result o f the five week suspension of construction on the Mullin's project during the period of the existence of the "red tag" which includes the loss of salary of approximately S7.000.00 and the anticipated loss ofthe $10.000.00 bonus under his construction agreement for completing the project on or before May 15, 1999. PROPOSED ORDER - Mr. Wheeler suggests for consideration that Mr. Kanipe consider the following order: that Mr. Wheeler agree that for a period not to exceed two years or until Mr. Kanipe consents, whichever occurs earlier, not to undertake any historical restoration or remediation work within the City of Aspen, other than the completion of the Mullin's project, until he has taken no fewer than 16 hours of continuing education, 8 hours ofwhich shall relate to general contracting and the balance on historical renovation and Mr. Wheeler passes the historical renovation test offered by , the National Park Service for general contractors. Dated this 10th day ofMarch, 1999. Charles T. Brandt for Gary Wheeler FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER REGARDING CONTRACTOR LICENSE # 3573 ISSUED TO MR. GARY WHEELER d.b.a. GARY W-HEELER CONSTRUCTION. INC. AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT SHOW CAUSE HEARING This hearing is based on the authority granted by Aspen Municipal Code Section 8.12.380 specific to section 8.12.380 (a) which reads as follows: Revocation and suspension. The chief building ojficial shall have the authority to issue an order to show cause why the license issued hereunder to any licensee should not be suspended or revoked. Any such order shall grant the licensee ten days in which to show cause and shall inform the licensee of the basis for issuance Of the order. BASIS FOR THE ORDER The basis for the Order is found in the Aspen Municipal Code Section 8.12.380 (b) (10) which reads as follows: (b) The following acts or omissions of any person or firm holding a license under this chapter or any applicant for a license under this chapter shall constitute grounds for which the chief building official may suspend, revoke. or refuse renewal of any license or deny an application for said license: (10) Disregard or deviationfrom the plans and specifications approved by the building ojficial for which the permit was issued without the approval of the building official. FINDINGS OF FACT The Findings of Fact are based on evidence and testimony presented during the Show Cause Hearing held February 10,1999 regarding building Permit # 8-49 and the Offer o f Proof presented March 10,1999 by Mr. Wheeler and his attorney of record Charles Brandt. 1. Building Permit # 8-49 was issued to Gary Wheeler. the contractor of record. for construction work at 234 West Francis St., Aspen, CO. The approved plans included the following specific notes: Sheet A-5. Window 'D" on the east elevation to match the existing (historic) window. This is confirmed on Sheet D-1 in the window schedule. The windows installed do not match. Sheet A-7. Existing structure. Repair and refurbish all defective siding, trim and structure as needed. Some siding was destroyed rather than repaired or refurbished. 2. No exterior vents are indicated on the west elevation (Sheet A-7) o f the historic portion of the structure, yet exterior vents were installed. 3. The Resolution No. 2, Series of 1998 and Resolution No. 17. Series of 1998, regarding the specific handling of materials, were not attached to the approved plans as required. ORDER The license suspension for Mr. Gary Wheeler shall be in effect for two years unless the following conditions are agreed to and completed to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official: 1. The work continuing under permit # 8-49 is completed satisfactorily under the agreement of February 24, 1999 as long as Mr. Wheeler is the contractor of record. The agreement provides that Mr. Wheeler will not work on or supervise work on the historic portion of the house. 2. Mr. Wheeler will not undertake any additional historical restoration or remediation work in Aspen or Pitkin County until he completes a course of study, directed by the Chief Building Official and the Historic Preservation Officer, specific to builder and contractor responsibilities regarding construction work on historic structures. This may include travel to at least one in-state seminar, such as, the Colorado Statewide Preservation Seminar. 2 3. Mr. Wheeler shall complete forty hours of service to the Aspen Historical Society, a local nonprofit charged with the care o f the Wheeler-Stallard House Museum, the Holden-Marolt Barn and the ghost towns of Independence and Asheroft. This work description must be submitted to and approved by the Historic Preservation Officer. If the work includes any historic portions of any buildings Mr. Wheeler shall complete training specific to and adequate for the tasks to be performed. 4. The Chief Building Official will continue to have jurisdiction over matters in the Order pertaining to building related issues. The Historic Preservation Officer will continue to have jurisdiction over matters in the Order pertaining to historic related issues. Dated this / / day of March 1999. 940 Step en Kanipe LOVPM Chief Building Office Aspen/Pitkin Community Development 4 43«L t Read and~~cknowledged by Gary '~64eler for Gary Wheeler Construction, Inc. 3 ,0 S. Galena ASPEN * KIN COMMUNITY DEVELOP VT DEPARTMENT General .spen, CO 81611 PERMIT APPLICATIO _ Permit 370/920-5090 PITKIN COUNTY E CITY OF ASPEN le] 04 920-5448 Inspection line 5.49 Applicant to complete numbered spaces only. No. JOB ADDRESS 1. 234 \,4, Filut,4 Aspe,c 6.3' 6/61 1 BD LEGAL LOT NO. BLOCK I $/ TRACT OR SUBDIVISION ( Q SEE ATTACHED SHEET) CO 2. DEsc. k ,6, Pl '4 6 - OWNER MAILADDRESS ZIP 770'2.7 PHONE 70~*92-2.160~E 3. 1 + tive,4 AOL-c-,Al') 449€ TS·,T (1 A EA. e DE. tu··de 1 2/ 9 Act,reN - / )(~ FD CONTRACTOR MAIL ADDRESS PHONE UCENSE NO FN 4 EArf l£4=Euse. 2*9* 1%28 f)*bAA-i ,CO 8/67/ 972)-977-7,95/ ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER OF RECORD MAIL ADDRESS PHONE LICENSE NO MH 5. ·SA,Dic 13 k~9.6 0 1 riger, 61&16 N. M, u. C.T'- 8160 1-920-9923 MS DESIGNER MAIL ADDRESS PHONE LICENSE NO 6. 1, RF 11 CLASS OF *RK ENERGY CODE FEE / USE TAX /ENSUS CODE ~. / · T NEW y>*DITION>€ ALTERATION O REPAIR U 4 (0/- l IL 4939/h , LIGEOF BUILDING PLAN CHECK FEE PERMIT FEE ZONING F#& C 8. EfES, PE,L' 1-/AL 96/ 1, ) 9 -39 -b-:54.- VALUATION OF WORK SQUARE FOOTAGE - Type of Construction Occupancy Group Lot Area 9. % 200.000 10. VIN) KS 11. Is there food service in this building m YES q NO Size of Buildino No. of Stories Occ. Load frASquare A.) 12. Is LPG used? U YES 0~0 .3 12\:L 30 C 64 4- a l Ck NO. OUEDROOMS Use Zone Fire Sprinklers Required? C] Yes [¥2 13. Remarks AQQSQ SING 44) R-4 Alarm System Required? Cl Yes £1~ 0 Re{UAILI 4- aft J 10 1,14, /th.·1 litte. Ar-ZILD :r- No. of Dwellin OFFSTREET PARKING SPACES i ¥~liFfteJered CL - Uncovered U J SPECIAL APPROVALS RE~8(REp AUTHORIZED BY DATE; '3AA= 94.~ APP, re,nou 0- i l-28 rp - KLE, , - A A \ 2 1- J ZONING 4/4 d 4_34 6,4 /4« c Rl-PU-4/ L>i-rr_ 54/4.« U H.PC./0- A- 51 h A t. A {IA. A A W, A A)1 PARK DEDICATION Bi A \1 f ENVIRO. HEALTH ~PRESUBMITTAL APP~lpA~ON~EPTED'~~ P~IS~KED API;50~D,1~* ISSUANCE ENGINEERING *- C 1 %< 3/4,Subbl~3) 531%1 lt:,21*1£ 1.0.4.00¥ic~ Tb By l~Z-- to», PARKS 74 21 C· f-: / AL\- ' NOTICE ASPEN CONSOL SAN. DIST. / ~ l< 4, 2 1 957 SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. OTHER \£?.*er o L c r€ct·-1 61¢4 4 3 -9 R THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION PAYMENT OF PITKIN COUNTY USE TAX OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. m MONTHLY OR QUARTERLY RETURNS WILL BE SUBMITTED. i HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS m DEPOSIT METHOD 3.5 % OF 25% OF THE PERMIT VALUATION PAID AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED AT ISSUANCE. A FINAL REPORT ON TOTAL ACTUAL COST MUST - WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT BE FILED WITH IN 90 DAYS OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION OF ~F. DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PRO- WORK AND / OR ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. VISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PUMFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO O EXEMPT: EXEMPT ORGANIZATION REVIEW*fE APPROVED PhANS.AND AMy COMMENTS THAT ARE CONTAINED THERB*kAND SEE TAT F.~ 3-1-8671-UR¥ AND/OR PROJECT IS BUILT IN m RESALE: STATE & PITKIN COUNTRY RESALE NO. A«%9*TZ¢2t*12~ 4·323 - 73> ANYONE WHO USES AND / OR CONSUMES BUILDING MATERIALS AND FiXTURES IN ~dNATURE OF CONTRAPFR (DATE) PITKIN COUNTY IS SUBJECT TO THE 3.5% USE TAX. PROPERTY LIENS MAY BE PLACED ON THE OWNER'S AND /OR THE CON- SIGNATURE OF ~ OWNER BUILDER) (DATE) TRACTOR'S PROPERTY WHEN USE TAX IS NOT PAID THIS FORM IS A PERMIT ONLY WHEN VALIDATED WORK STARTED WITH OUT PERMIT WILL BE DOUBLE FEE Energy Code VaA#7157577 Permit Validalton ,-0,3.5 %•Tf09#w Deposit Validation ~~~lianChec~lidatin~ Zoning Validation rm--e,rw-ID) 3 5-3.3.25 O/93 9-30 -'75 94(4 1_FL-'=r--r-~1.,-0/ 94 //, / s '~ WHITE-FILE COPY CANARY-APPLICANT PINK-BUILDING DEPARTMENT GOLD-ASSESSOR 9-1 silk*:90-4-22© 4-21.0 « Yet· 130 S. Galena ASPEN* PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT General Aspen, CO 81611 Permit 1 PERMIT APPLICATIOI~ 970/920-5090 920-5448 Inspection line PITKIN COUNTY U CITY OF ASPEN 2- 9-41 4 Applicant to complete numbered spaces only. No. JOB ADDRESS ~. ..01 it W /94*/ 019 ~ M faN 6-0 %14,11 BD LEGAL LOT NO. BLOCK ./7 TRACT OR SUBDIVISION 9 ¤ SEE A-ITACHED SHEET) CO 2. ofsc k L M 4110 OWNER MAIL ADDRESS ZIP 1709-7 PHONE'llt AZZ 14-61'- 3. DCAA £2- 4.*llaN MUL.LINE, 46+5 MT CAK PLACiE DA, 40,ins 144, 140011-EN TA FD CONTRACTOA MAIL ADDRESS LICENSE NO FN 4. 0,Afti *21469:6:EA 1*K )3* PM'/4-7--6-0 gl 6·11 ( 410401 6t- e1- // ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER OF RECORD MAIL ADDRESS 'RE,9- UCENSE NO MH 5- ',-TOOK> tb >flif,Al-7EcE-9 *il 'bl MILL 'i,- k'lp.A) 0 Sl Dll 6110 91% MS DESIGNER MAIL ADDRESS PHONE LICENSE NO RF CLASS OF WORK ENERGY CODE FEE 4,4. USETAX CENSUS CODE (2 *l- 7. m NEW FLADDITION ELTERATION m REPAIR m . , W t in_FX ; USE OF BUILDING r PLAN CHECK FEE J A PERMIT FEE _z£4~q ZO,7536 /01 /47 4% 5 8. /04*2<3656/7.7+Z_ , 001 4 €9284 14, I j P - X VALUATION OF WOAK SQUARE FOOTAGE Lot Area Type of Construction Occupancy Group 9. $ '5355) CZ25~-7 -CL 10. NN th Size of Buildina No. of Stories Occ. Load 11. Is there food service in this building m YES £ NO (Total Square r.) 12. Is LPG used? U YES 40- 1 242 1- 1,0 1 b**2(41*it NO, OF BEDROOMS Use Zone Fire Sprinklers F~~~~~C]Yes O No ~ 13< Remarks EX'98'G ADOMD 12--0 ) Alarm System Required? ElYes ~ No 10 4/ 4 - 1.J, ·3525 Flo--- 1 k J C.l {213<3- CA-GUArrg- No. of Dwelling Units OFFSTREET PARKING SPACES , - Covered Uncovered Hoomrs- AFT- F (ao:2_ c.p- 254723- SPECIAL APPROVALS REQUIRED AUTHORIZED BY DATE ZONING ~ -CO- 4 414.12 C H.PC. / Lf , 14 I qf p PARK DEDICATION 4 ENVIRO. HEALTH ~ f<66 f.2-fqI-1 PRESUBMITTAL APPLICATION ACCEPTED PLANS CHECKED APPROVED FOR ISSUANCE ENGINEERING BYq~ 091 2 4:1'9}7 DATE A f t-\ BY 7*~~ WATER TAP / 4 PARKS r FIRE MARSHAL DATE , DATE be.,e 0,*9 46 4 - 74 -'1€ , ~~EPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING, NOTICE ASPEN CONSOL. SAN. DIST, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. OTHER r THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION ' . AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION PAYMENT OF PITKIN COUNTY USE TAX OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. C MONTHLY OR QUARTERLY RETURNS WILL BE SUBMITTED. 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND - KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS U DEPOSIT METHOD 3.5 % OF 25% OF THE PERMIT VALUATION PAID AT ISSUANCE. A FINAL REPORT ON TOTAL ACTUAL COST MUST AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT BE FILED WITH IN 90 DAYS OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION OF DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PRO- WORK AND / OR ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. VISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF A-. 1 --- -7----. . . --- ---. ---~ . 1 . IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO m EXEMPT: EXEMPT ORGANIZATION REVIEWJKE APPROVED PLAI AMENTS THAT ARE CONTAINED THERE61\1 AND SEE TUAT D AND/OR PROJECT IS BUILT IN O RESALE: STATE & PITKIN COUNTRY RESALE NO. * \ CEMEIANCE WITH 92)71 4 -36 -98 ANYONE WHO USES AND / OR CONSUMES BUILDING MATERIALS AND FIXTURES IN PITKIN COUNTY IS SUBJECT TO THE 3.5% USE TAX. *12Wf OF Cseho COATS PROPERTY LIENS MAY BE PLACED ON THE OWNER'S AND/OR THECON- SIGNATURE OF OWNER (IF OWNER BUILDER) (DATE) TRACTOR'S PROPERTY WHEN USE TAX IS NOT PAID THIS FORM IS A PERMIT ONLY WHEN VALIDATED WORK STARTED WITH OUT PER&1IT WILL BE DOUBLE FEE Energy Code Validation Pir,chefk Validation Zoning Validation Permit Validation 3.5 % Use Tax Deposit Validation I D 1--C_.71 h -74-2219- P/- 1 1 1 - L WHITE-FILE COPY CANARY-APPLICANT PINK-BUILDING DEPARTMENT GOLD-ASSESSOR 0. 1. 4 7 e Y, 47 , 40" 1./. 1-393-91]ena ASPEN* KIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPIWIiAIT DEPARTMENT General Aspen, CO 81611 PERMIT APPLICATIO~ 970/920-5090 € -Ll Cf Permit 1 PITKIN COUNTY E CITY OF ASPEN ~ U la 920-5448 Inspection line -~kr~U-1 1 Applicant to complete numbered spaces only. NO. i-/ JOB ADDRESS ' Cl Aspao, Co B i 6 1 1 BD 1. 234 1/uggr TU cis 20, LEGAL LOT NO. < BLOCK TRACT OR SUBDIVISION ( ¤ SEE ArrACHED SHEET) CO 2. DEsc. 48 02.-IC-,UAL -6~cy€AE X- Fkpe,0 EL OWNER MAIL ADDRESS~~ zip 73029- PHONC 444 - 496,1 ' -- 111) FD 3 - --iD o ka -1 C-=Et PONUALS 45 49 #AsT OAK PAG. <Quer€ /49 Aa.Smn 1. CONTRACTOR MAIL ADDRESS PHONE LICENSE NO FN 4(34242 63,~U- Gdoui Zk. 0« 588 55*#6 9/4.71 92·4286 4 035- MH ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER OF RECORD MAIL ADDRESS ~PAONE -- LICENSE NO 5·14 % Apt A 11€Cs 555 Almiu. S.t Aspgu b 2/4// 920 -9096 MS DESIGNER MAIL ADDRESS PH@DG....~.156%4 LICENSE NO RF 6. 7. 0 NEW 0 ADDITION ~R~141 0 REPAIit<, (b-VA-0 l ~~C-A-- - ~z~ *9>- &41 1 , L CLASS OF WORK ENERGY CODE F USE TAX CENSUS CODE c vu /fr,b~0 PERM;~~41 ZONING FEA. Nt~·thr VALU#ICC-R WOMf< - ~~~< 1 SQUARE FOOTAGE Type of Construction Occupancy G(cup Lot Are a 9. $ Cille likt.-il I K__A~'10. 11. Is there food service in this building k YES m NO (Total Square A.) Size of Building No. of Stories Occ. Load 12. Is LPG used? m YEs¥'No ¢ ilf .- F 1 ' NO. OF BEDROOMS Use Zone TTER 19231)~(er Z'elc~. Fire Sprinklers Required? E Yes ~ No 13. R,fiCAs AL.=MA EXISTING ADDED 1 to j:-2%-s-===--:ull)-00 Alarm System Required? Q Yes 6 No No. of Dwelling Units OFFSTREET PARKING SPACES 1 U J-0 0.114 - Covered Uncovered 39-¤791 ng 4,(*279ENDSh/41/ 70--iz- SPECIAL APPROVALS REQUIRED AUTHORIZED BY DATE ~ / 9*4 WW Q,IA#g -De»\-O 0 4,6 0-4 1¥9•--4~N 6,¢ 2- 9 1 j 9 / >' ir -~/ -2> 4.-,/fl ·03 ~ V%-ft-.>-.r.¥==&=3*3*~ 0 1- ( A (- J 04-1/46 PARK DEDICATION PRESUBMITTAL ; APPLic*,ebeGE/=- 4-lihitu,41 APPROVED FOR ISSUANCE i-&&6544£#CA 2-f»» (k 0 Al ENGINEERING ~0,0.0 O\<- 8.-g ¥L BY BY BY 7~'i- PARK s Sl/A jN 6./1 i /08 IA 02'Al OATE 4 I J (94 DATE 1/ 1 A FIRE MARSHAL lj~2 £1/9 £ w...# ).,*s<4. ,# 6 l/g~« 1 NOTICE ASPEN CpHS~L. SAN. DIST. ' ~EPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING, 9;hER C (7·'~( * L--~c i L . x., 'n-A- VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION , ~~ C-' /6.47.9./ , 9 9 64 0 CL-' Fil,1.L AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION PAYMENT OF PITKIN COUNTY USE TAX OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. ,~ MONTHLY OR QUARTERLY RETURNS WILL BE SUBMITTED. 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS E DEPOSIT METHOD 3.5 % OF 25% OF THE PERMIT VALUATION PAID AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED AT ISSUANCE. A FINAL REPORT ON TOTAL ACTUAL COST IVIUST WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOI THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT BE FILED WITH IN 90 DAYS OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION OF DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PRO- WORK AND / OR ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. VISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PEBFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO m EXEMPT: EXEMPT ORGANIZATION REVIEWAP[E APPROVED PLANS ANDSNY COMMENTS THAT ARE CONTAINED THEMEN AND SEE 134TyA-E SXRUtl-UprE AND/OR PROJECT IS BUILT IN £ RESALE: STATE & PITKIN COUNTRY RESALE NO. Cgld[BLIANCE Wp#LLMPLI¢]*13Ueto[*0 6 ·02,09 ANYONE WHO USES AND / OR CONSUMES BUILDING MATERIALS AND FIXTURES IN ; SIG)GORE OF gmt*ACTOR (DATE) PITKIN COUNTY IS SUBJECT TO THE 3.5% USE TAX. U PROPERTY LIENS MAY BE PLACED ON THE OWNER'SAND /OR THE CON- SIGNATURE OF OWNER (IF OWNER BUILDER) (DATE) TRACTOR'S PROPERTY WHEN USE TAX IS NOT PAID THIS FORM IS A PERMIT ONLY WHEN VALIDATED WORK STARTED WITH OUT PERMIT WILL BE DOUBLE FEE Energy Code Validation Plan Check Validation Zoning Validation Permit Validation 3.5 % Use Tax Deposit Validation *14*1- 3 07. 4-0 91.2-«(9»1 . . ..1 ·k..M £247. '...0 ~NHI~ft·*-MCOPY CANARY-APPLICANT PINK-BUILDING DEPARTMENT GOLD-ASSESSOR W 1 + 7/ 70 7 u S. Galena ASPEN* PIT-'7 CO~IMI~NITY DEVELOPMEN-r DEPARTMENT General J pen, CO 81611 #~RN~T APPLICATION permit/ 0\ 1 0/920-5090 0-5448 Inspection line PITKIN CA\UN-At U CITY OF ASPEN ~ 5-49 \,1 \1 NO. olicant to complete numbered spaces only, 1 J08 ADDRESS BD 1. ·24 4' tv 6*1-- fialthr e<* R 1 LEGAL LOT NO BLOCK ~'~1'OR SUBDIVISION £ O SEE ATTACHED SHEET ) (-CO 2. oEsc K 4-0 O©016-twit* 129*ru €/1 15- oe- AF Pch/ -6-1 OWNER MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE 3. 987¥4 + AvCN At L.'l,~U NS FD CONTRACTOR MAIL ADDRESS PHONE LICENSE NO FN 4. 6-42« l'utt-@teil- Er?< 9%9 F',-19. t,T ~O. 4 '20£242 €0€7 ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER OF RECORD 50071 L j /'04.,0*15'ADDRESS ,•-PRONE UCENSE NO MH 5. 9'Fvpte 87 ,113€ft{ 152.''r5 5-f-y- N. /tific, 5-7-- Clze 944.7 29) 621,9- MS DESIGNER ~'MGAL...._~ NO RF MAIL ADDRESS CLAS>OF WORK /~ EN~RGY CODE F50''K / USE TAX CENSUS CODE 15 7. WRIEW U ADDITION O ALTERATION O REPAIR O r USE OF BUILDING i i PLAN CHECK FEE ~ PERMIT FEE ZONING FEE /f 8. 62/M-6.6 / 6:i,2.1-- 6,4/lA i / 0.~ 333' 52 41 VALUATION OF WORK / SQUARE FOOTAGE Type of Construction Occupancy Group Lot Area 9. $ 1 2., en 10. q Oo SF. -1- - j. 8.-3. u.1 4 1, Is there food service in this building m YES [06 (Total Square Ht.1 Size of Buildirg No. of Stone Occ, Load / \86 No ROP,TIO.Jau muclet' 2. Is LPG used? m YES P'No j - '/#,ro. PADY{ O CO , 4=04€ 1 4 NO. OF BEDROOMS Use Zone 37-Rell'rar|<3 \Oflt #41'8 c 13'll Alarm System Required? ~ Yes ~ No -_13-4.!MLMITEM#1 45 Fire Sprinklers Required? O Yes O No EXISTING ADDED. ~31)u_211_fluRN,imie + No. of Dwelling Units OFFSTREET PARKING SPACES ~ 7 ~ (~~015,~ covered Uncovered 'y~ AP ECU .GACG.,4 rba se,EFIAL APPROVALS REQUIRED AUTHORIZED BY DATE -/ ''· ~ZONII~~ of gir - T lib /(17 21 enwiul e,L,LA_-2 - .IT;*0--1 o K . 4-4/ 407 /th PARK DEDICATION A , p.44 J 01 0-r- A-JU 86.f 1 446 .4·txxul -bo I<U,of tr .7,1 i-*rhe., lV h,Ii~JJ- AP#49NI ACCEPTED PLANS,0EC*GO APPROVED FAB ISSUANCE ENGINEERIA&~1 CLCE.8- 6(1-3 -10 3.t.~110.--- 4-,4 7;.-•87* k ' 99 J BY *-' v v BY ~-Y<-~ PARKS -14 Ift DATE cfulq¢ »mg v DATE '/ -Z.2-98 FIRE#ARSHAL WATERI?zq 7 4 65££:r fe, 6 AN- G- 4 'SFig \ NOTICE ASPEN CONSOL SAN DIST. ~ 1 SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING ' OTHER i VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION PAYMENT OF PITKIN COUNTY USE TAX OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ~ ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. C MONTHLY OR QUARTERLY RETURNS WILL 8E SUBMITTED. 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND m DEPOSIT METHOD 3.5 % OF 25% OF THE PERMIT VALUATION PAID ' KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCE GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED AT ISSUANCE. A FINAL REPORT ON TOTAL ACTUAL COST MUST WITH WHETHEB SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT BE FILED WITH IN 90 DAYS OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION OF DOES NOT PI*SUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PRO- WORK AND /OR ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. VISIONS OF,TNY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE 10MFORMAIICE OF CONSTRUCM)N. IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO m EXEMPT: EXEMPT ORGANIZATION REVIE\N,@rHE APPROVEO€16NS,AND AN)f ¢OMMENTS THAT ARE CONTAINED · THEB291+AND SEE TWATRH,fS-FRU@1-PRE 41®/OR PROJECT IS BUILT IN O RESALE: STATE & PITKIN COUNTRY RESALE NO. 1 Fc>541 -(_/JA.rp»-EL- (EG' It ,(28 ANYONE WHO USES AND / OR CONSUMES BUILDING MATERIALS AND FIXTURES IN ~ PITKIN COUNTY IS SUBJECT TO THE 3.5% USE TAX. ~SIGNATURE OF CONTRA~i,GR (DATE) PROPERTY LIENS MAY BE PLACED ON THE OWNER'S AND /OR THE CON- r . SIGNATURE OF 4~14(R (IF OWNER BUILDER) (DATE) TRACTOR'S PROPERTY WHEN USE TAX IS NOT PAID THIS FORM IS A PERMIT ONLY WHEN VALIDATED WORK STARTEDMLIIH OUT PERMIT WILL BE DOUBLE FEE Energy Code Validation Plan Check Validation r---mening V~'35'1~on 3.5 % Use Tax Deposit Validation 1 D r jido--¤~Itillbyl\1- ~Q- \10. WHITE-FILE COPY CANARY-APPLICANT PINK-BUILDING DEPARTMENT GOLD-ASSESSOR 414 » S. Galena Aspn*1* PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT General ~ ,pen, CO 81611 / ~ PERMIT APPLICATION Permit t' ~ 6101920-5090 f / PITKIN COUNTY U CITY OF ASPEN~ - 920-5448 Inspettiot?¢'f[ne Applicant to complethwakered spaces only. No. 8 - 49 aR JOB ADDRESS <£ 1. a 34 606 ST 0-£471ch BD LEGAL LOT NO. BLOCK TRACT OR SUBDIVISION /7 c U SEE ATTACHED SHEET) 2. DESC 48 04-16/4/6-1-Ourr€dk d k Apa,4 DE k OWNER MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE h . Do,a + G»-301 PA U 114& FD ~*-·-CONTRACTOR MAIL ADDRESS ·~ PHONE LICENSE NO FN 44"42 WhiLIUL 68»588 blaA 21-:06 2/621 920-4280 4/235-~ ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER OF RECORD 0 MAIL ADDRESS PHONE LCENSE NO MH b. ST«.1)6% 8 11*:wrrect Ss-5- U, Mi~u> 9|- 925.992% 143.914 MS DESIGNER MAILADDRESS PHONE LICENSE NO 6 RF CLASS OF WpgK ENERGY CODE FEE USE TAX CENSUS CODE 7. m NEW <ADDITION O ALTERATION U REPAIR U loA USE OF_BUIL[)ING,, PLAN CHECK FEE PERMIT FEE ZONING FEE 8. SL,,14 ZE 1-HA 55 - 41- SQUARE FOOTAGE VALUATION OF-WORK Lot Area 9. $ Type of Construction Occupancy Group 10. 1¥1 25 11. Is there food service in this building %YES m NO (Total Square Fi.) Size of Bulldina No. of Stories Occ. Load 12. Is LPG used? m YEs ~No NO. OF BEDROOMS Use Zone Fire Sprinkiers Required? 3 Yes ~ No 13. Remarks EXISTING ADDED 2.-6 + 2- Alarm System Required? ~ Yes ~ No Md AUD CKen,A b*104 * s 40 No. of Dwelling Units OFFSTREET PARKING SPACES 6,45 64,64,7- '7£j/),€- 1'- 2 sgt>ex:>Ms Covered Uncovered SPECIAL APPROVALS REQpRED AUTHORIZED BY DAyE ~ (bleo,029 7- /fed,tatne 5 ZONING 6/, 6¥(t- 91*2 H.RC. PARK DEDICATION (61) 4 - 9.e.Mt b; f-uy/w-wil ENVIRO. HEALTH PRESUBMITTAL APPLICATION ACCEPTED PLANS CHECKED APPROV* FOR ISSUANCE SY IF - ENGINEERING 2 BY BY 1 V v BY A.-AJ PARKS DATE ql~19 DATE _ _ DATE DATE 9-:ll*> FIRE MARSHAL 9 42·95 WATER TAP ' 4UASEm To rb,/84 441,6- 9 141 hz NOTICE ASPENCONSOLSAN.D\ST. 9 174- (~31% LE 4 277/9 /48 SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING, .1 1 VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. OTHER THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION PAYMENT OF PITKIN COUNTY USE TAX OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. -A. MONTHLY OR QUARTERLY RETURNS WILL BE SUBMITTED. 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND '- KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS U DEPOSIT METHOD 3.5 % OF 25% OF THE PERMIT VALUATION PAID AT ISSUANCE. A FINAL REPORT ON TOTAL ACTUAL COST MUST AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT BE FILED WITH IN 90 DAYS OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION OF DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PRO- WORK AND / OR ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. VISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PEMFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO D EXEMPT: EXEMPT ORGANIZATION REVIEWJME APPROVED PLANSANDAICY)COMMENTS THAT ARE CONTAINED THEREIN AND SEE T+01 T}le£T90(16134 AND/OR PROJECT IS BUILT IN E RESALE: STATE & PITKIN COUNTRY RESALE NO. CpMg~t\ICE WITH AM[ ,- LA**Yettift 09'63.9% ANYONE WHO USES AND / OR CONSUMES BUILDING MATERIALS AND FIXTURES IN ' PITKIN COUNTY IS SUBJECT TO THE 3.5% USE TAD<. SIGNATUR50961~TRACTOR (DATE) PROPERTY LIENS MAY BE PLACED ON THE OWNER'S AND /OR THE CON- SIGNATURE OF OWNER (IF OWNER BUILDER) (DATE) TRACTOR'S PROPERTY WHEN USE TAX IS NOT PAID THIS FORM IS A PERMIT ONLY WHEN VALIDATED WORK STARTED WITH OUT PERMIT WILL BE DOUBLE FEE Energy Code Validation Plan Check Validation Zoning Validation Permit Validation 3.5 % Use Tax Deposit Validation WHITE-FILE COPY CANARY-APPLICANT PINK-BUILDING DEPARTMENT GOLD-ASSESSOR 130 S. Galena ASPEN* PIT'(liU COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT General Aspen, CO 81611 PERMIT APPLICATION ~~ 30/1 970/920-5090 920-5448 Inspection line ~ - PITKIN COUNTY E CITY OF ASPENA-1 Applicant to complete numbered spaces only. ' No. JOB ADDRESS , 1. C:259- W. 4~06 98 BD 2 - 2EL LOT NO. ~ 8LOCK 98 TRACT OR~UBDIVISION -' ,-2. ( E SEE ATTACHED SHEET ) CO 4*El D »lonsil€ DE OWNER MAIL ADDRESS --I /6 1 1-pOR ¥ Eploe£) fAULUL->3 45-45 1*mr- i /AU * 14,1 FD CONIRACTOR MAIL ADOBESS 4. (g~9*2 ~~g»- ~i€» ap/L me »fH(4«*3.-4=1 ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER OF REC~~D MAIL ADDRESS PHONE UCQSE NO - 5.O/ 4 12 /, Crto-,5 C AL> 49 92£2.-+. rr 4.6£=G 665 h. miLL €30 -679523 MS DESIGNER MAILADDRESS PHONE LICENSE NO «***93 6. CLASS OF WORK ENERGY CODE FEE USE TAX CENSUS CODE 7. m NEW O ADDITION ~ ALTERATION m REPAIR m Ajl A l3R-Qr BUILDING PLAN CHECK FEE -REEMLIZEKEE kth' l-*- 7ONINGfEE / 8. €-22>i-Da-,r,k~ Cbop_6*1-NA2/525- VALUATION OF WORK SQUAMIE FOOTAGE 14 1 A r 4--7 -clo 9, $ 8 C290 10. Type 21(sauction , Occu~ Gro~~ Lot Area -32(-/V A.) l L A.J.-2> 11. Is there food service in this building m YES O NO (Total Sguire A.) Size of Building No. of Stories Occ. Load Ul c/ l Bite„,0 4 L o 12. Is LPG used? m YEs m No 13. Remarks ~ ~re Spnnklers Requ,red? []Yes C]No NO. OF BEDROOMS Use Zone EXISTING ADDED At/ Alarm System Required? ~Yes UNo 9-rAT <1 Lupe«~E>(,cra FS. ( 13)--fl , ,bE-Lo No./11#.6874-Units OFFSTREET PARKING SPACES A t Covered Uncovered € /3(r:P f.re{ 0.*£4~ urt..) .1tond .ck Lrik*L> ~0 /F) A-* -~ .E>yk-76·u, 4'-et l SPESIAL APPROVALS REQUIRED AUTHORIZED BY ~p*TE ~ - ZON!12'•··i ./.* Ds, tvc<10 /'7 6, S€F 11 (fe*wil 201*94*__ 96-7 8 AW- PARK DEDICATION ENVIRO. HEALTH PRESU8MITrAL APPLICATION ACCEPTED PLANS CHECKED ' APPROVED FOR ISSUANFE - ENGINEERING Bly<.* U/ CrJU)t \ 4-004,6.- U n PARKS /1 1 »ig DATE _ - DATE ' . DApE ~ -·~ FIRE MARSHAL. ~/C~ -y--ft~ Lu , 64 l 5. WATERTAP / ~ 1 61 4 (-'c Ab (1/ 1 NOTICE ASPEN CONSOL. SAN. DIST. *-stkhATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. OTHER THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION PAYMENT OF PITKIN COUNTY USE TAX OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. 6 MONTHLY OR QUARTERLY RETURNS WILL BE SUBMITTED. 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND E)U\MINED THIS APPLICATION AND - KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS u DEPOSIT METHOD 3.5 % OF 25% OF THE PERMIT VALUATION PAID AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED AT ISSUANCE. A FINAL REPORT ON TOTAL ACTUAL COST MUST WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT BE FILED WITH IN 90 DAYS OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION OF DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PRO- WORK AND / OR ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. VISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCI[ON. IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO m EXEMPT. EXEMPT ORGANIZATION REVIEW DIC APPROVED PLANS AND AM¥*OMMENTS THAT ARE CONTAINED THER01 AND SEE TH*TAHE &7RUCTUAO AND/OR PROJECT IS BUILT IN El RESALE: STATE & PITKIN COUNTRY RESALE NO. gpMP*ANCE WITH Ag,Kpr[-1(2<6te'(96/7 / t'---* CAI d JI:LA-*t OR .:2/-9@> ANYONE WHO USES AND / OR CONSUMES BUILDING MATERIALS AND FIXTURES IN ~ SIGNATURE OF CONTeACTOR (DATE) PITKIN COUNTY IS SUBJECT TO THE 3.5% USE TAX. PROPERTY LIENS MAYBE PLACED ON THE OWNER'S AND /OR THE CON- SIGNATURE OF OWNER (IF OWNER BUILDER} (DATE) TRACTORS PROPERTY WHEN USE TAX IS NOT PAID THIS FORM IS A PERMIT ONLY WHEN VALIDATED WORK STARTED WITH OUT PERMIT WILL BE DOUBLE FEE Energy Code Validation Plan Check Validation Zoning Validation Permit Validation 3.5 % Use Tax Deposit Validation d-X,'Lval . -I) Fl n l <1-»' 1 7Qo 010 iuc-<d°ilkl P 911_ f-1 G // /95 u ~ L.ru ~~ ~~~WHITE-FILE COPY CANARY-APPLICANT PINK-BUILDING DEPARTMENT GOLD-ASSESSOR -E- 1?ad«·-2- MECHANICAL PERMIT A~PLICATION 130 S. Galena 4 Aspen, CO 81611 ASPEN * PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPA~MENT 970/920-5090 920-5448 Inspection Line PITKIN COUNTY U CITY OF ASPEN INC 7198 JOB ADDRESS 234 West Francis Aspen, CO + OWNER MAIL ADDRESS ZIP J?HONE Huston,TX 713.622.2464 Don & Gwen Mullins 4545 Post Oak Pl. Dr. #144 LZ&27 LICENSE NO. CONTRACTOR MAIL ADDRESS CR Plumbinq LTD P.O. Box 198 New Castle. CO 984-3679 #178848 ARCHITECTOR ENGINEER MAIL ADDRESS PHONE LICENSE NO. Studio B Architects Aspen 920-9428 USE OF BUILDING BUILDING PERMIT NO. * Carriage House Ct -8 2 -99 CLASS OF WORK: 13 NEW O ADDITION CALTERATION O REPAIR Is there a restaurant in this,tuilding? Yes O No 3 X WILL PENETRATIONS BE MADE IN FIRE RESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION?: ZI YES X® NO If yes, a plan review is required. DESCRIBE WORK: Type of Fuel: Oil O Natural Gas Ek LPG O current heating system: PERMIT FEES No. Type of Equipment Fee hot water radiant to main floor & Forced Air Systems-(Gravity Systems-B.T.U. Wall, Suspended or Unit Heaters hot water baseboard to basement level Dryer Vent ~ Appliance Vent all flue & combustion air piping Htg., Refrig., Cooling, Absorption Unit Repair, Alteration or Addition to Existing System deemed un-safe will be corrected )4 1 Boilers (includes vent) B.T.U. 125,000 RTUH C+.p ' 12*,t/*e€ehaawakee Air Handling Unit- C.F.M. all heating elements moved to accom- Evaporative Coolers Ventilation Fan modate new walls & layouts. Range Hood APPLICATION ACCEPTED: PLANS CHECKED: APPROVED FOR ISSUANCE: Gas "piping" tj Gas Log or Appliance By ey By bl~*~ Other Date 3\(o\(fo Date Dat,3/ Ft Pt Plan Review $ \ Fixture Fee $ .96,-- NOTICE THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AU- Perrnit $ 9(-(. - THORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR SUBTOTAL $ ~ WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY . TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. Use Tax $ ~-1 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE TOTAL FEE $ 3 0, vt SAMETOBETRUEANDCORRECT.ALLPROVISIONSOFLAWSANDORDINANCESGOVERN- ING THIS TYPEOF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. PAYMENT OF PITKIN COUNTY USE TAX THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR g)< MONTHLY OR QUARTERLY RETURNS WILL 8E SUBMITTED. CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CON- STRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. C] DEPOSIT METHOD: 3.5% OF 25% OF THE PERMIT VALUATION PAID AT ISSUANCE. A FINAL REPORT ON TOTAL ACTUAL COST MUST BE FILED WITHIN 90 DAYS OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION OF WORK AND/OR ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF c u-1-1~ 3/06/98 OCCUPANCY. 1 ~REOFTOR OR AUTHORIZED AGENT (DATE) E EXEMPT: STATE & PITKIN COUNTY RESALE NO. EXEMPT ORGANIZATION ANYONE WHO USES AND/OR CONSUMES BUILDING MATERIALS AND FIXTURES IN PITKIN COUNTY IS SUBJECT TO THE 3.5% USE TAX. PROPERTY LIENS MAY BE PLACED ON THE SIGNATURE OF OWNER {IF OWNER BUILDER) (DATE) OWNER'S AND/OR THE CONTRACTOR'S PROPERTY WHEN USE TAX IS NOT PAID. Permit Validation 372% Use Tax Deposit Validation 97~~4- 44 1--' 33·19· 1 03 3 Ljn» U _27 COPIES: WHITE-FILE C£~XECLOW-APPLICANT PINK-FILE GOLD-ASSESSOR Ok 9 2 10' MECHAA.JAL PERMIT A~PLICATION 130 S. Galena 4 Aspen, CO 81611 ASPEN * PITKIN COMMLINITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTIVIENT 970/920-5090 745 7 920-5448 Inspection Line PITKIN COUNTY U CITY OF ASPEN ~'0' JOB ADDRESS 134 W. F P.Auc#-1 AsfisM CO r-fclt OWNER MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE POW * e •Vit u ¢1 u i f,+, c 45 435- Fo:sT oat< rs... DA. Svm-re- ,·49 #tok.=Tol·, *rx CONTRACTOR MAIL ADDRESS PHONE LICENSE NO. Steve e -€ p k (4 H 1 4 C C f 7 P k- Ad E efr K Q t. 7 -9© 2 -7 *-1-7967/ ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER MAIL ADDRESS PHONE LICENSENO. STVJ,O 6 ARC U IT EcTS 5-33 4. /4 1/1 :57- f/6 (C Vic- 9-<,/2 p USE OF BUILDING BUILDING PERMIT NO. R eS,PEMT-#AL G--9 9 CLASS OF WORK: ~11EW [3 ADDITION [3 ALTERATION 3 REPAIR Is there a restaurant in this building? Yes O No LB---' WILL PENETRATIONS BE MADE IN FIRE RESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION?: El YES a'Rib If yes, a plan review is required. DESCRIBE WORK: Type of Fuel: Oil El Natural Gas 9' LPG J 915-4 Z AS Pn-o EP AA P/A UT H %47 /0 1 PERMIT FEES 1 No. Type of Equipment Fee SYST E M Forced Air Systems-Gravity Systems-B.T.U. Wall, Suspended or Unit Heaters ~ Dryer Vent Appliance Vent S (Fcf if, *-2/,4-w-e--j.- >-4 611« Et/ Htg., Refrig., Cooling, Absorption Unit Repair, Alteration or Addition to Exjsting System Boilers (includes vent) B.T.U. 4 2 -7,©00 dr U 010 - SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Air Handling Unit- C.F.M. Evaporative Coolers Ventilation Fan L ) © 1-KY-.FR1 5 L¢ AFECL Range Hood APPLICATION ACCEPTE[~ PLANS CHECKED~ APPROVED FOR ISSUANCJ-w A e.r~- 94-3 1, d Gas "piping" ~4 €2_e , ~d).-0 · 42-Q tv'CI»~ AJ £1, . Gas Log or Appliance (3) \1 y 30' 2*0 By By q / 1 /9 q - Other c> 1 P- 69 07 ~ Date .12_cll f O__ Date 04,1 3 -- plan Review $ F5 C O- NOTICE Fixture Fee $ THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID ]F WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AU- Perm it $ 04/ THORIZED IS NOTCOMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR SUBTOTAL $ WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. .7 Use Tax $ A --- I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE TOTAL FEE S 219 SAMETO BETRUEANDCORRECT. ALLPROVISIONSOFLAWSANDORDINANCESGOVERN- ING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEPEIN OR NOT. PAYMENT OF PITKIN COUNTY USE TAX THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR [~/GONTHLY OR QUARTERLY RETURNS WILL BE SUBMITTED. CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CON- STRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. [] DEPOSIT METHOD: 3.5% OF 25% OF THE PERMIT VALUATION PAID AT ISSUANCE. A FINAL REPORT ON TOTAL ACTUAL COST MUST BE FILED WITHIN 90 DAYS OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION OF WORK AND/OR ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF .-A a«,4 1/22/9 y OCCUPANCY. SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTOR OR AUTHORIZED AGENT (DATE) CJ EXEMPT: STATE & PITKIN COUNTY RESALE NO. EXEMPT ORGANIZATION ANYONE WHO USES AND/OR CONSUMES BUILDING MATERIALS AND FIXTURES IN PITKIN COUNTY IS SUBJECT TO THE 3.5% USE TAX. PROPERTY LIENS MAY BE PLACED ON THE SIGNATURE OF OWNER (IF OWNER BUILDER) (DATE) OWNER'S AND/OR THE CONTRACTOR'S PROPERTY WHEN USE TAX 19'INOT PAID. Permit Validation 31/2% Use Ta* Denosit Validltidn- / r-3 En f\ -1 --00 7 <31:30 FJF".1 1 1 3,1 L AR,All?41\ 1 _3 LI11 LJ _24 COPIES: WHITE-FILE COPY YELLOW-APPLICANT PINK-FILE GOLD-ASSESSOR MEGHAN*AL PERMIT A®LICATION 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 ASPEN / PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 4 920-5090 920-5448 Inspection Line PITKIN COUNTY U CITY OF ASPEN 54 5820 l 3 JOB ADDRESS ~ 134 (000 -f-,64 (0\ LOT NO, BLK TRACT (-7 SEE ATTACHED SHEET) 3 DS LEGAL k lav\, 4 9 6% P 4--10 4.-~ 9 51 ri-€- / 9 DESC. OWNER MAL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE N\0\X Evi, CONTRACTOR MAILADDRESS € 1 eA Y °62- PHONE LICENSE NO /*£112*1-EL IA·e-i Lik~ 1,3 .91 069 84- 216 L S 03 8 160 1 9.4 Ji- 15# G 3/53' ARCHITECTOR ENGINEER MAIL ADDRESS PHONE LICENSE NO. -USEOFBUILDING-BUILDINGPERMITNO. ? e.%/621 4-<4 2- 4 9 CLASS OF WORK: J NEW J ADDITION ~ ALTERATION O REPAIR Is there a res taurant in this building? Yes J No 5~ DESCRIBE WORK: T.06 02 4 1-0/vou bTO - 6011.A- .1 4627,-·,067" Inbk\\ |- ~41-- 4 Co».8.£it'r tA-Arc-« 1 J«T- 5 (54-4 42,5 / /- *l,4. 4-1 Type of Fuel: Oil [J Natural Gas ~ LPG O Look . t< Firce, 4., (oe- rv·(-v-(aclcel PERMIT FEES No. Type of Equipment Fee 6 04-4 4.-An (21(*e_ 8/ dec=G (cl< 1 Forced Air Systems-Gravity Systems-B.T.U. Wall, Suspended or Unit Heaters (3 cf A j f ,, u~k-C ,C---(Lj >0301 7-6 Lft- Appliance Vent 7,of if I Htg., Refrig., Cooling, Absorption Unit --<-2--C j c¢ . Cif~- i. r f.i~ Repair, Alteration or Addition to Existing System b SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Boilers (includes vent) B.T.U. Air Handling Unit- C.F.M. 0 /O-»10-Qth u Evaporative Coolers 4 -A P g c_,c , :V j- Ventilatjon Fan 735an * APPLICATION ~CEPTEC* ~ PLANS CHECKED: APPROVED FOR ISSUANCE: ~ ~ Range Hood ')0 lort By U h 1- · 9 86 By Gas Log or Appliance 3 *774*3 Gas 'piping' Date 17'-7 \ Date , Other NOTICE / Plan Review $,liI77£7 THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION Permit $44 20 AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYSI OR IF CONSTRUC- TION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 SUBTOTAL $7 6 6£3 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. Use Tax $ 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW TOTAL FEE $ 7 42(7 THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED PAYMENT OF PITKiN COUNTY USE TAX HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHOR- M. MONTHLY OR QUARTERLY RETURNS WILL BE SUBMITTED. ITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW O DEPOSIT METHOD: 3.5% OF 25% OF THE PERMIT VALUATION PAID REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR TH~ERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. h alt ulk ix-\/(0-ca* AT ISSUANCE. A FINAL REPORT ON TOTAL ACTUAL COST MUST BE FILED WITHIN 90 DAYS OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION OF WORK AND/OR ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. SIGNATbRE OF CONTRACTOR OA AUTHORIZED AGENT (DATE) - O EXEMPT: STATE & PITKIN COUNTY RESALE NO. EXEMPT ORGANIZATION - ANYONE WHO USES AND/OR CONSUMES BUILDING MATERIALS AND FIXTURES IN PITKIN COUNTY IS SUBJECT TO THE 3.5% USE TAX. SIGNATURE OF OWNER (IF OWNER BUILDER) (DATE) PROPERTY LIENS MAY BE PLACED ON THE OWNER'S AND/OR THE CONTRACTOR'S PROPERTY WHEN USE TAX IS NOT PAID. Permit Validation 31/256 Use Tax Deposit Validation -c 1 7--h / E.E . EE-1---TVN-2.. -0--* P \ />6(2. 449 11!1 1 1 Lrn.2.. La COPIES: WHITE-INSPECTOR YELLOW-APPLICANT PINK-FILE GOLD-FINANCE /41\ --U-1 4 ~f RECEIVED -MRUSTca ¥/ V MAY 0 1 1998 IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT ASPEN, Dll Kirq COMMUNITY DEVEL'CEMENT Date of Issue: April 9, 1998 Expiration Date: March 9, 1999 Beneficiary: City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Irrevocable Letter of Credit No. 1290 On Account of: Don R. Mullins Address: 4545 Post Oak Place Drive, Suite #144 Houston, TX 77027 In the Amount of: $30,000.00 Subject Property: Street Address: Legal Address: 234 West Francis Street 234 West Francis Street .All Aspen, co 81611 Aspen, co 81611 To Whom It May Concern: We hereby issue our Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit in your favor available by draft or drafts at sight drawn on this bank at the address shown above for any sum or sums not exceeding the total sum stated in U. S. Dollars for the account of the account of the entity stated above. This letter of credit is issued for the purpose of guaranteeing the relocation and/or restoration of the above-described Subject Property, more specifically, to perform the preservation and restoration obligations for the Subject Property contained in the approval of the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Committee, dated April 9, 1998 . A copy of the approval is appended hereto as Exhibit "A" and by this reference incorporated herein. MIDVALLEY BRANCH MAIN OFFICE SAN MIGUEL COUNTY BRANCH ORCHARD PLAZA 534 E. IIYMAN AVENUE 127 W. COLORADO AVENUE RO. BOX 28428 RO. BOX 3677 RO. BOX 38 EL JEBEL, CO 81628 ASPEN, CO 81612 TELLURIDE, CO 81435 970/963-3600 970/925-6700 970/728-5475 FAX 970/963-3956 FAX 970/920-1675 FAX 970/728-5644 Drafts must be accompanied by the following: A written notification from the Planning Director of the City of Aspen stating that the owner ofthe Subject Property has failed to perform the required maintenance, protection, preservation or restoration obligations for the Subject Property as contained in the approval ofthe City of Aspen Historic Preservation Committee dated 4/9/98 , which notice must be accompanied by evidence that written notice of such failure to perform was provided to the owner by certified mail, providing seven (7) business days for cure by the owner or provision of a plan to cure to the City, acceptable to the Planning Director. Partial draws are permitted, Each draft must bear on its face the clause "Drawn under Letter of Credit Number 1290 , dated April 9, 1998 , of the Pitkin County Bank & Trust Co. , Except so far as otherwise expressly stated herein, this Letter of Credit is subject to the "Uniform ,Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits 1983 Revision, International Chamber of Commprce Brochure Number 400" and the provision of 4-5-101-C.R.S. et seq. This bank represents and warrants to the City of Aspen that it has the full authorityand power to issue this Letter of Credit to the City of Aspen, in the total amount and for the period of time stated herein; said authority being pursuant to the laws of the United States, or the State or Territory which governs the establishment and regulation of this bank, this bark' s charter, by-laws and other applicable rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto. Should it be necessary for the City of Aspen to file suit in an effort to enforce this Irrevocable Letter of Credit, this bank hereby waives all venue rights and submits to the jurisdiction of the District Court in and for the County ofPitkin, State of Colorado. We hereby agree that drafts drawn under and in compliance with the terms of the Letter of Credit will be honored if presented to our office located at 534 Easy Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 on or before the close of business on the expiration date set forth herein. Sincerely, Pitkin County Bank & Trust Co. . 1 -ch (*3 1 ,/ 0/ -- .f j ©CL'Ov C to« l_,1;-L-----»1 , NarrE J. Todd Emerson Title: Vice President Mullins/Letter of Credit - *1 E) MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer /72€5- RE: 234 W. Francis Street- Remediation Plan DATE: March 10,1999 SUMMARY: At the last regular HPC meeting on February 24th, and at a site visit on March 1St, the Commission resolved several issues with regard to violations ofpermits at 234 W. Francis Street. Attached are HPC resolutions which cover the approved items. A revised remedial plan has been submitted, which identifies the remaining decisions for IlPC to make. The remediation plan will be scheduled on regular HPC meetings until every item is resolved. As decisions are made, they will be formalized iii a resolution and removed from the list. Following are staff recommendations on the items identified by the Mullins' as priorities. STAFF REVIEW: 1. South fagade: --. a-c.The proposal to reconstruct the front porch is acceptable, however more specific information is needed for the board to confirm that an exact replication is occurring. - d. Replacing the glass in the broken transom window is acceptable, however with all of the glass replacement that is proposed it must be confirmed that the new glass will reflect the character of the original glass. It seeins likely that the restoration glass is available in a variety of degrees of distortion and inclusions like the "seeds." In regard to the hardware, the original hardware should be retained, with a simple deadbolt or similar mechanism added. ,*' e. The original scrollwork must be installed to match the original condition. 1 f. Acceptable. ~0 g. Acceptable. 11. More information is needed on the origin of the concrete pad that was the floor of the front and west porches. There is the possibility that the scored concrete was something added during the time Herbert Bayer lived in the house, which would mean that it had some significance. The architect should contact Joan Lane for information on the porch floor. ~ i. Acceptable. j, j. Acceptable with photographs to confirm the original appearance of the windows. k. IIow was the dimension of the original materials confirmed if they have been discarded? 1. Acceptable with confirmation that the replacement glass will match the original, as stated in "d, " above. - m. Acceptable. 1 n. Acceptable. , o. Acceptable. It has been discussed that the drip caps may be better for the long term condition of the building. 2. East Fagade -. a. Acceptable with confirmation that the replacement glass will match the original. ... b. Acceptable with confirmation that the original appearance of the porch and entry 1-- v*904& 1 is being replicated. -13{,1 4- -pvt f<L + 121,-4 -tval,160 *1 629'0¥641 3. West Fagade - a. Acceptable, with confirmation that the replacement glass will match the original. b. The porch must be detailed exactly as it was originally. No alterations may be made to the original columns without further HPC approval. The porch floor will not be approved until item "lh," above, is resolved. More information is needed as to why a 2"x4" roof construction will not meet code, for instance under exemptions for historic structures. If no other method is available, the architect must provide information on how the additional roof thickness will be addressed. 4. North FaQade a. No historic materials remain on the north fa~ade other than the window sash. The window guides and drip caps will be darkened as on the other facades. New clapboards must match the original clapboard exposure. 4 March 1999 FAX TRANSMITTAL: To: Amy Guthrie/HI'C Director FrE,rn: Scott Linderiau/Studio B Ardritcds RE: Progress Report 1 and Final Remedial Plan Fax #' 9205439 Pases: 6 Dear Amy, Here is the first Progress Report and the Final Remedial Plan with 'Priority Issues' and 'Miscellaneous le,5ues: I would rually like to address and come to a final resolution <,n all of these issues on the March 10 meeting. Please review thesc and see if you have any comments or changes. Ihave sent these to Gary Wheeler and the Mullins. Regardb, / Scott Lindenau, Principal 555 n. mill St aapen cO. 81611 97 0 820 94 28 fax 970 U20 7822 c. r ~ · architects 4 March 1999 Progress Report #1 for 234 West Francis Street, The Davis Waite Houu: (Submitted by Scott Lindenau, Studio B Architects,) 1. Naa a. The architect, owners, and contractor have copies of the Resolution regarding the approvals front the HPC staff site visit from March 1, 1999. b. Wofk continues on the interiors of the house regarding interior millwork, doors. and other carpentry issues c. There is no work being perfonned on the exterior other than the mock-ups for the fireplace rents for the 1 March meeting. d. A detailed final Remedial Plan wilh 'Priolity Issues' and 'Miscellaneous Issues' was submitted to the owners and HPC staff for insertion into the HPC package for the regular HPC meeting on th€ 10 of March. It is a comprehensive plan that we are hoping will be addressed and approved in its entirety that evening. 555 n. mill st. aspen ce. 81011 970-920 9120 Fax 970 920 7822 r r :a .; 1.nt n d I architects 4 March 1999 Remedial Plan for 234 West Francis Street, The Davis Waite House: Priority Issues: 1. South Parade: Front Porch: The front polrh shall be brought back to its original charactei via the folk,wing; a. The existing secondary cornice fascia trim is larger than the original and shall be replaced with a new trim Ulat matches exactly that of the original. An existing piece of that trim was salvaged and new trim will be made from that by ADW Design Works. A sample was reviewed at last meeting's work Resmon and ADW was approved as a qualified Bubcontractor. This trim shall wrap the front porch and return back to the house itself as per the original porch. b. The 2 free-standing columns and the 2 pilaster columns have been salvaged and are currently installed with new top and bottom portions that are identical in proportion to the pmvious colunwis. A small wood detail relief need M to be added to the top and bottom to match the historic columns and that sample detail was reviewed at last meeting. lhe new piece of vertical war,d behind the pilaster has been added which matches the historic. This is consistent and serves as blocking for the siding to butt into. c. The detailed use and comer blocking around the frarit door shall be removed and replaced with the came flat case that measur€d 5 1/4 inches. Thib will be replicated from the photographs. d. The front door and transom are in storage and will be re-installed. The transom window at the front door was broken when the house was purchased. The tranyoln window shall be replaced with the 'seedy glass'. The proposed stained glas, window transoms will not be used. The original door hardware is not operable or lockable and the owners wish to replace it with a proper locking hardware. The architect shall select an entry hardware that is compatible with historic standard, and review the selection with staff for approval. e. The detailed 8crollwork that supports the entry roof canopy has been saved and will be installed per the same detailing. f. The underside of the porch shall have the same 2 1/4 inch beadboard ceiling installed per the historic porch- g. The roof of the po,ch shall have a copper roof installed at the same 1/12 pitch as the previous porch. T[he copper shall be patined to a dark brown and will not be visible from the street because of the low roof pitch. The former porch had a metal roof with marty leaks repatred by tar. The evidence of leaking is visible in the photographm from the rotted wood behind the piketers. Heat melt shall be used as in the previous porch. 555 q mill $1. aspen Co. 81611 970 920 9428 fax 970 920·7822 Smith Facade continued: h. The porch floor material was removed. This was a patterned concrete to represent 12" x 12" tiles. The clients would like to replace this with either recycled biick or Colorado flagstone, both are historic applications. L The new si€ling above the front porch shall be removed and rrplar.ed with the remaining salvaged historic siding. Some of this siding will require patching, epoxy' 9, and sanding. The installation of this shall begin under the cave and work its way down as this Is the most visible section from Francis Str€et. The amount of historic siding remaining is very close to this amount needed. j. The small trim detail around the easing of the large picture windows shall be rent,ved. k. The new window trim, sills, and corner boards are new but Are of the sarn r dimensions and profile as the removed historic material. These were measured by Studio B Aal,itects at tlze site on 17 February, 1999 to verify, Thcae dimensions are; 4 1/2" window trim, 5 1/4" door caaing, 1 1/4- window sills, and 4 5/16" for the corner boards. 1his is typical throughout the project and address many of the same points on otlrr etevations. 1. The Rmall fixed window al the upper portion of the facade ib a single pane window that has been cracked prior to the owners purchasing the house. The own©irs would like to replace this with the 'seedy glass'. m. The new siding that ha5 xeplaced the remcived siding Ls of the exact sarne dimensions und profile as the lusturic, This is typical throughout the project. The Gamples were again Irviewed at last meeting. 'The owners would like verification that the siding that is currently installed may Imnain. n. The copper roof flashing shall all be patined to a clark brown. o. The copper window head drip caps shall remain above all windows on the historic main house. The historic window detail had a tin cap. We will patina the copper to the dark brown again. 2. East Facade: a. The two smaller window panes that were accidentally broken, are to be replaced with the same historic glass supplied by the Bendheim Glas, Company. b. The saved historic door and transom at the small porch shall be ire-installed with the same trim and easing. 3. Wegt Facade: a. The large broken window pane is to be replaced with a new 'seedy gla»iC pane that replicates historic glass and is being made by Bendheim Glass Company of New Jersey that specializes in hii,toric renovations, a'U UL-W , ULC- ' 1,1.3 1 1 .....1 1.1 J , age 4,·+ b. The small historic porch shall be re-built per the drawings and incorporate the saved columns and door. The same door trim as the front door shall be u,ed. The same detailing will be used per the photographs. Like the front porch, the floor material will be replaced by either the used brick or the Colorado flagstone. The porch that is currently built, has the roof structure built of Zx6 material and not the 2x4 framing as in the original porch. The. 2x 4 does not meet current code or the structural engineers approval. The roof material on the porch shall match the roof shingles per the main house. See the enclosed structural engineers details. 4. North Facade: a. Similar procedures previously mentioned. ... S ,r¥ 0 [ 1 :] 0 archite¢16 4 March 1999 Remedial Plan for 234 West Francis Street, The Davis Waite House: Miscellaneous Issues: 1. Notes: a. The historic fence has been saved and is under approved protection on site. This shail be installed upon completion. It should be noted that some portions of the fence may he re-built because some areas of the fence were weathered beyond re~air, but will be built to the saine dimensions. 1hts remedial work *hall be perfornied by Aspen Design Works. b. The approved set of drawings show a smaI] 6-8" stone veneei at the Lmbe uf the house. 'lhe ociginal house had a metal flashing at this area because the rubble stone foundation had Gettled and may areas were replaced by concrete block. The current detail is a copper flashing that Mhall be patined and once backfilled and landscaped will reveal approximately +6 inches of the dark patined coppegr. To use an applied R tone veneer is not really practical and the patined copper flashing better replicates the condition of the historic house. c. The clients wish to use ex terior screet-15 as pei the original house. The screens that were saved shall be reused and any new screens shall be buitt ti, exact dimensions of those. 'Ihese wood.framed scre€ns shall be installed within the window Jambs per standard rumovable screen details. d. All gutter# and downspouts shall be painted per the historic house. e. Scott Lindenau personally visited the site on February 17th and reviewed those directives with the owners and cor,tractor, Scott also measured all of the siding, trim, conte Ibuards, sills, gutiers, and other details of concern to vehfy dimensions, f. The new non-historic north elevation stairway dot:mer was approved with a 10 foot 4 -pane fixed window, Once that window opening was framed, it Inade the scale of the stairway uncomfortable with a height of 16 feet. That window was then installed as an 8 foot 4-pane window and lowered two feet. g. The window wells an the east side of the house show a railing by owner. The owners would instead like to address this code iSalle with a metal grating flush with the 6" cont.rete curb and slone cap. This would be considerably less visible, 6" versus 36". The interior of the window wells shall be a painted @tuCCO that matches the window well at the carriage house. 565 n, 01#11 51 aspen co 81611 970,920·9428 laK 970·920·7822 . MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 234 W. Francis Street- Remediation Plan DATE: March 24, 1999 SUMMARY: On February 24th, March 1St, and March 1 08 the Commission resolved several issues with regard to violations of permits at 234 W. Francis Street. Attached is the resolution which covers HPC's March 1 0th approval. Following are staff recommendations on the remaining items o f the remediation plan. STAFF REVIEW: 1. South fa~ade: j~ d. The replacement glass for the transom over the front door must be approved, with an acceptable sample to be provided by the owner. h. The Historic Preservation Officer is attempting to contact John Gatos, who did repair work on the house in the past and who may have information on the origin of the concrete porch floor. If Mr. Gatos built the concrete floor, it will not be required to be recreated and HPC will approve a new floor. Staff recommends a wood porch floor because that is the historically correct material for buildings of this period. Furthermore, Joan Lane has been contacted and has stated that at the time of Herbert Bayer' s occupancy, the porch floor was wooden. Mr. Gatos may / also be able to provide some information about the earlier porch floor. v 1. The replacement glass for the small window on the south facade must be approved, with an acceptable sample to be provided by the owner. 2. East FaQade ~ a. The replacement glass for two broken window panes on the east facade must be / approved, with an acceptable sample to be provided by the owner. 4 b. The replacement glass for the transom over the east door must be approved, with an acceptable sample to be provided by the owner. 3. West Fa~ade a. The replacement glass must be approved for the bay window on the west must be approved, with an acceptable sample to be provided by the owner. b. Staff will contact John Gatos in regard to the origin of the concrete porch floor and a construction date for the porch itself. The applicant will be required to return the porch to its previous appearance, however Mr. Gatos' input may influence whether the original materials will be used. If the porch is historic, tile applicant' s will have to work with Stephen Kanipe to determine whether the porch roof can remain a 2"x4" structure as it was before, rather than 2"x6" as the 14-u- 40 609 g°£40.Li Ula to\fof\ ---i i \,IDA €440/ . 45941,1~ 'Ee~4 -~27 9/.ga t.glk.1 *=- 1 042%7 ' ¢ UBC requires. In regard to the porch posts, a report from the structural engineer is attached, which proposes to remove and replace the top and bottom portions of the columns and add a steel rod down the center of the column for structural reinforcement. This is similar to what was done on the front porch posts. If the porch posts are historic, staff recommends that it be determined whether the existing top and bottom portions of the columns call be retained and strengthened with an epoxy injection before insertion of the steel rod. Otherwise the structural engineer's proposal is acceptable to staff and to Stephen Kanipe. As for the porch floor, the same comments from "lh" apply. Miscellaneous Items ~ A. The HPC will inspect the fence to evaluate what repairs are needed. ~ B. Acceptable with a dark brown patina applied to the copper. C. Wood frame screens (painted to match the windows) which attach to the window with the kind of clamps that were traditionally used are acceptable, with drawings for the screens to be submitted for HPC approval. ~ ~. Acceptable. Uf~.21 /0 1 0, Acceptable. t- CbNE c.yA, ~ F. Acceptable. G. Acceptable. Attachments: A. Remediation plan for 234 W. Francis. B. Resolution No. , Series of 1999, including all decisions made on March 10, 1999. C. Progress report for the week of March 10-176 D. Structural engineer's proposed repair for the columns on the west porch. -ske, L/\AUS+Wll 9 *er 019* t»« »Ne / -7- 27~7 - 9/- »A\ C .9393>\ I /0«74-/r-0 n e-e-tkeLA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSiuN MINUTES OF. March 10,1999 She recommended that they be placed in a consistent pattern. More windows is acceptable but the break in the rhythm pattern needs addressed. Other members had the same concern and the applicant submitted Exhibit II which modified the windows for the records. Two of the head heights o f the windows were raised and two windows were dropped in order to be consistent. The placement of the windows is based on the room configeration. The Board had consensus with the additional skylights and lights. Two proposed motions failed and the following motion was adopted. MOTION: Heidi moved to allow the applicant to submit Exhibit II and to approve the windows, lights and skylights with the windows shown on Exhibit II. (Clarification) From the front of the building right to left the two middle windows will drop down so that the sills and head heights match. All the head heights of the west fagade would be the same height. All the sill heights would be the same. Motion second by Roger. Motion passed 4-2. NO: Susan, and Suzannah YES: Heidi, Roger, Lisa, Jeffrey 706 W. MAIN (GOLDRICH) - WORKSESSION - no minutes 234 W. FRANCIS STREET - Remediation Plan Jeffrey was seated at 6:30 p.m. Amy Guthrie, planner relayed to the applicant that as decisions are made they should be removed from the list in order for the Board to clearly know what the remaining issues are. 4 ASPEN HISTOR 'RESERVATION COMMISS f MINUTES OF. March 10.1999 . Don Mullins, Scott Lindeneau and Gwen Mullin were sworn in. The south facade was discussed first. Issues that were not controversial were discussed and agreed upon from the March 4th remedial plan from Studio B. 1. (f) The underside o f the porch shall have the same 2 1/4 inch beadboard ceiling which is what existed on the historic porch. 2. (g) The roof of the porch to be copper to match the flashing and it will be patined a dark brown. It is a low roof pitch and you really cannot see the roof at all. The former roof was tin and it has been removed and was leaking severely. 3. (i) Above the front porch is new siding that has been installed and they have enough old siding remaining to replace that and repairs need made to the historic siding. 4. (m) Confirms that all the siding that has been placed on the house replicates the exposure of the historic siding. 5. (n) The roof flashing is all to be patined to be a dark brown. Discussion on i. Amy relayed in the past certain repairs were to be made to the clapboard and that was not the approach that was taken in the past and how do we know that the repairs will be made to the expectations ofthe Board and Staf£ Suzannah relayed that a meeting needs to be set up with whomever is going to be doing the work to explain what the Board expects etc. Heidi asked if Rob at Aspen Design would be looking at the siding as it is taken off. Suzannah stated that there are two different issues, restoration input from Rob to make sure the person installing the old siding is clear on what has to be done and the proper technique in putting it back up. Roger recommended that the siding boards be cleaned while they are down and a coating of oil be placed on the back to preserve it before it is nailed back up. Then whoever does the finishing of the house would do the 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSIv~4 MINUTES OF. March 10,1999 preparation ofthe siding, filling the siding with a soft filler. Roger also suggested that screws be used for installing the old siding. Roger and any board member interested in the process will do a site visit with the owner. Amy stated that all parties involved need to be aware of all the issues involving restoration etc. Conditions that were acceptable were f,g, i with conditions, m,n. The next discussion was acceptables with conditions: 1.0) The trim detail around the easing ofthe large picture window will be removed as it is not accurate. It will be replicated with what was original. Staff feels that is acceptable with photographs to confirm what the original appearance of the windows was. The board was in agreement with 1 0). 1.(L) There is a small window on the upper part ofthe front of the house in which the glass is cracked and they applicant would like to replace it. It was cracked before the house was bought. When restoration glass is purchased it can have characteristics of different time periods. Staff recommends confirmation of the "seedy" replacement glass at the site to make sure it matches the period o f the original glass that is in the house. Members suggested a piece o f the broken glass be sent away for exact replication. The applicant brought a sample but the Board was not in agreement with the selection. More research on the proper replacement glass needs done. The Board did not approve 1. (L). 1. (0) The copper drip caps remain on top of all the windows and that is acceptable because it has been discussed that it may actually be better for the building in the long term. The Board was in agreement with 1. (0). EAST FACADE 2 (A) More broken windows and Staff recommends that the replacement glass needs carefully looked at. The Board did not approve 2 (a). 2 (B) Historically there was a door and a transom window on the east side and they were allowed to replace the porch that was over it. They will 6 ASPEN HISTO] PRESERVATION COMMIS N MINUTES OF, March 10,1999 reinstall the door and the transom. Everything about the door and transom needs restored, how the trim looked etc. The porch and posts are all new construction and they were permitted to be new construction. The transom window will also be replaced with the appropriate glass as it is broken. The Board was in agreement with 2 (B). WEST FACADE 3 (A) The replacement glass issue is brought up again in this condition for the large broken window panes on the west fa~ade. Glass to be determined at the site by Staff and monitors etc. The Board was in agreement with 3 (Aj. Staff reiterated the conditions that could be approved at this meeting. 1 f, lg, lI, lj, lm, ln, 10,2b. The rest ofthe items refer to replacement of broken glass and further confirmation is needed to determine that they are matching the original character o f the glass. MOTION: Heidi moved to approve the above items stated and discussed by Amy in the March 4th remediation plan having resulted in the satisfaction of the HPC; second by Jeffrey. All infavor, motion carried 7-0. Clarification: Amy is approving the concept of replacing the glass but further information is needed and a sample. SOUTH FACADE 1(A) On the front porch there is a trim on the cornice that when it was reconstructed it was not replaced accurately to what was there historically. They propose to replace the trim board to match the original. They have a piece of the original trim and they will use that as their pattern to make the replacement. The trim will wrap around the front porch just as it did originally. The Board was in agreement with 1 (A). The type of species of wood was not addressed. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. March 10. 1999 1(B) The tops and bottoms of the historic porch columns were removed and new pieces were installed. There is a small piece of trim that needs added to the columns to make them match the original. The applicant presented the Board with a sample of the historic piece and a replicated piece. Scott Lindeneau stated that he can veri fy the size o f the easing for the trim and window sills with existing historic materials. The Board was in agreement with 1 (B). 1 (C) Currently there is a decorative trim that has recently been put around the front door and the applicant proposes to replace that with a flat trim board which historically existed. The corner blocking around the front door will also be replaced to match what existed historically. The Board was in agreement with 1 ©. 1 (D) The front door and transom are in storage and Staff inspected them. Transom glass is broken and that needs replaced. The original type of glass will be installed in the transom window. Staff inspected the door hardware as the Mullins had a concern in terms of safety and they would like to replace it. The handle on the door is somewhat loose and could be repaired and Staff has resources for historic hardware. The plate for the doorknob is very decorative and beautiful and there is also a little door bell. The door has a lot of character. Staff does not feel any replacement of the hardware is appropriate. A dead bolt is installed and it could be replaced with one that locks from the outside and the inside. The door jam for the historic door is retained and needs to be installed. The Board was in agreement with 1 (D). 1(E) This condition is in regard to the front porch and the original scroll work pieces need to be installed exactly where they were. The Board was in agreement with 1 (ID). Amy stated that 1 a through e address the front porch. MOTION: Roger moved to approve 104) through 1 (E) as discussed with D being modified; second by Christie. All infavor, motion carried 6-0. Heidi did not vote. VOTE: Suzannah, Roger, Susan, Lisa, Christie, Jeffrey. 1(H) The floor of both the front porch and the west porch for this construction proj ect was a concrete pad that was scored. That is not what 8 ASPEN HISTO PRESERVATION COMMIS IN MINUTES OF, March 10. 1999 would have been there historically. The plans never identified any change for that porch floor. The applicant would like to do it in a flagstone which matches the path that will lead to the house. Staff is not in support of that because it would not have been an original material, probably wood was used. Roger said his recollection is that John Gatos did that part of the remodel and he lives in town and can be contacted. Suzannah stated that this item needs more clarification in terms of when the concrete was done and to determine what existed. Don Mullin stated that they would like to use Aspen sandstone not flagstone which is a common material used in Aspen. The Board did not approve 1(H). 1(K) The window trim, sills, and corner boards are new but are of the same dimensions. We are being asked to approve the window trim, window sills, and corners boards as they have been installed. The dimension of the corner board was determined by an old piece of corner board. When the windows were taken out there was evidence showing where the trim was and that verified the 4 M inch dimension. The Board approved 1 (K). Amy stated on the south everything was resolved except the floor of the porch. MOTION: Roger moved to approve 1(K); second by Heidi. All in favor, motion carried 7-0. Sample was provided at the meeting. Yes: Roger, Susan, Heidi, Christie, Lisa, Suzannah and Jeffrey. WEST FACADE 3(B) Roger suggested the Board hold on this item until the research is done on the porch. Stajf stated that they will contact John Gatos. The Board did not approve 3 (B). NORTH FACADE 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, March 10,1999 4(A) The only thing historic on this fagade is the window sash. Drip caps will be darkened, new clapboards installed have to match the original clapboard exposure. MOTION: Roger moved to approve 4(A); secondby Heidi. All infavor, motion carried 7-0. YES: Roger, Suzannah, Susan, Heidi, Christie, Lisa and Jeffrey. MOTION: jeffrey moved to approve as to form Resolutions 7 & 1; second by Heidi. All infavor, motion carried. MOTION: Roger moved to adjourn; second by Heidi. All in favor, motion carried 7-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk 10 Sent By: STUDIO 8 ARCHITECTS; 970 920 7822; Mar-10-99 12:13PM; Page 2/2 - -Ull ~'2231... arch,recls 10 March 1999 Progress Report #2 for 234 West Francis Street, The Davis Waite House: (Submitted by Scott Lindenau, Studio D Arthit ects.) The following work was performed during the period 4 March-10 March, 1999. 1. Notes: a. The two fireplace flues at the east elevation have been vented through the roof at tile approved locations by the HPC. The former wall flues have been removed and the siding still requires patching and infill. b. The fireplace vent hai been moved and vented through the roof of the mudroom at the approved location at the north side. The former metal wall flue has been removed and the siding requires replacement. 555 n, m 11 st a:pen co. 61611 970·920·9428 {a, 970 UPO 7872 Sent By: STUDIO 8 ARCHITECTS; 970 920 7822; Mar -24- 90 11:55AM; Page 2/2 1 --' '11' 11 -111?J R·.·, 118 ' , I , L ./ archite<pts 24 March 1999 Progress Report #4 for 234 West Francis Sheet, The Davis Waite House: (Submitted by Scott Lindenau, Studio B Archite:tw 4 T'he following workwasperformed diaing the petind 171%lan:h-24 March, 1999. 1, Notes: a. Therc has been no additional work performed to the exterior of the histmic portion of the project. The crew is concentrating im the interior work to remam ahead of the painting crew. 555 n mi,1 81. aspan co. 81411 970 920·9428 tax 970·920·7822 Sent By: STUDIO 8 ARCHITECTS; 970 920 7822; Apr-3-09 11:40AM; Page archi tects 3 April 19)9 Progress Report #5 for 234 West Francis Street, The Davis Waite House: (Submitted by Scott Lindenau, Studio B Ar€hitecta) Wmmrk pew bnned during the periodi 25 March-2 April, 199* 1. Notes: a. There has been no additional work performed to the exterior of the histork portion of the project, The crew is concentrating on the intelior work to remain ahead of the pointing crew and the cabinetry installation. b. Once the weather improves, the exterior work can be performed 555 n. Mkl ,#l aipen to 81611 970 820·9428 laK 970-920 7822 1. lf. 0 r-L -1 architecls 14 April 1999 Progress Report #6 for 234 West Francis Street, The Davis Waite House: (Submitted by Scott Lindenau. Studio B Architects.) Work perf~rmed during Ihe period: 2 April-10 April, 1999. 1. Notee The following exterior work on the historic portion of the house was completed; 1. South Side; the historic south entry door has been installed. 2. West Side; fhe historic wegt entry door has been installed. 3. East Side; the historic east entry door has been installed. 555 n mill I. aipen co. 81611 910'920·9420 fax 9,0 920-7822 ,/ L 80 ed :01dgt:25 80-VI- adv f zzez oze oze .'91031IHOH¥ 8 DIOnlS : AEI Wes 1=td - 0 -1--- --0--- 8 architects April 21,1999 Amy Guthrie Historic Prese:vation O{Brer City of Aspen 00 Studio B Architects RE. Weekly progress report for 234 West Francis Street for the pdbod ending April 21, 1999. The following work on the exterior of the historic structure was started but not completed during this period South side: a) Removal of new fascia boards and crown detail that did not match original trim detail al the South porch sofit North side: t) remove bath vent from don:ner north wall reinstall on east wall of delmer. 1 555 n flill st. ampen 00. 81611 970 020·9428 fix 970·920-7822 L/B 05ed :MdZS: 1 66-22-Jdv :ZE82 026 016 5 91031IHOW¥ 8 0IarllS :AEI liles fiL 1.1 1 11 " b I b. u I L -77 architects April 28,1999 Amy Guthrie Historic Preservation Olticer Cily of Aspen RE: Weekly report for 234 West Francis Street, for the period ending April 28,1999. There has been no other work on Ihe exterior ofthe historic home done iii Ihis time period. d"»7*7 4 5 5 n milt *1 agpen co. 81611 970·920·9428 fax 970 920·7822 20 'd ST:£0 6I/In Am. L / L ebed :IN¥90:6 66-0-ABIN :2282 086 026 !91031IHOW¥ 8 0IonlS :58 3-ues STUUI U HI archjl ects May 05, 1999 Amy Guthrie - Hiate,Me Pomrvation Officer City of Aspen Re: Weekly progres, report for 234 West Francis Street, for period ending May 05, 1999 The following work has bcon started but not completed as of this date. North Side. a) Siding has been installed on the upper north wall of the hist,„ical home and will bo completed as Noon as the we,ither allows, West Side a) Corner boards and iding was started but not completed due to weather f /,tt /, ,4 'V /,47/7 e % a U..v~.<~60· .... / UV t f' 11 11,111 1; 1 ask)$" '-0 81611 9/0 920 0428 fal£ 970 0 20 7822 70 9-1 L / I @Sed EVIdZE:£ 66-9-Xell [8882 026 026 :91031IHOBV 8 DIOn19 :/[8 lues m Sent By: STUDIO B ARCHITECTS; 970 920 7822; May-12-99 3:13PM; Page architects 12 May 1999 Progress Report #10 for 234 West Francis Street, The Davis Waite House: (Submitted by Scott Lindenau of Studio B Architects.) West Side: The siding installation continues on the West Facade. The West Porch is being eon*trlitted to match the original 2x4 roof structwe per the direction of Steven Kanipe for structural soundness. The upper level bathroom vent has been removed. East Wall: The original historic window sash 15 being installed and the new custom window that matches it in the approved location. Solith Wall: Work continues to duplicate the original entry porch per the HFC directives. 555 n. mill St aspen co. 01611 9 7 0 920·94 2 8 lux 970·920·7822 Sent By: STUDIO 8 ARCHITECTS; 970 920 7822; May-19-99 8:2€PM; Page 2/2 21&12+Di·.. -/ - 1.11 10 architects 19 May 1999 Progress Report #11 for 234 West Francis Street The Davis Waite House: (Submitted by Scott Lindenau of Studio B Architects..) We,t Side: Installing the 1" x 3" wood floor at the west porch per the PWC approval. South Wall: Insteling the historic biding above the front entry poich Installing the detailed scrollwork at the front entry porch per the original photographs. Reconstructing the south porch per the original photographs. Removing the small trim detail around the bouth large picture window. Installi:ng the 1" x 3" wood flooring at the entry porch. West porch on the carriage house: The twoporches on the cottage are also having the r x v wood fli,oring installed. 555 n. mill al. aspen co. 81611 970 920 9428 fax 970-920-7822 ASPEN / PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~ MEMO FROM STEPHEN KANIPE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL /-7 , h l A 1 1 1 214% i I / t 2- ' (// »1 44 n , , r .ft Ul, r 76 4-. I £/ l 9, - --II 1, j ' / ./ 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 .r . f. •t 414 j , 41/ lilli 4 * e . AL 8 ·· > -· 7/ : 4'yw//Trlil J · .... 7 b 1 9.- 1 4. . 442 /1 v 9 r 16 ·· 1 4 4¢3*ZU 11 D -. l 16•ne 544- Boot FAL 544* 2 l/< ibl91 GWENDOLYN MULLINS 4545 POST OAK PLACE DRIVE, SUITE 144 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77027 RE: ©4 vt FRA•,cis 541 k ed -. ~7717 ~ I -/An# k c 514 A V be- 4 6 le- 1,~ 5116- J sm> E l/- 6 P o 44 41£ 4 VOW / .A~,e Conte,le,vs: i. Whekku- oe nor the M.a /1/4 J Yheol- wr/} a. /18.00 -~ 6 T]z./fyirr, t SAeMOT-Wee- 6 Le e„, s 1-7eq oki OUT Or- - 40. 41(45 i. *7-6-4 0. , f "& 5 cre,€ e..1eb awk) s / & lou.R Ermmen-7-5 04 f'AJA /30 &41:0 //b/" 14 /04/7/ /,57-35. (4»(02;02-/ (WR€ S Arn 1 45 Au 4+ p . eth f °st 3. > 10« have- AA o p ; 0 in) O 4 11 6 '91 L 0~ 11( .y.~0KT- B R d m a 11[ 21 «,l_ - c.ed<-RETE. l! / p.rr-Bc #454 =ULALIZZ-I »- --El 10* e.,u )j Id- mt ANC| A7 kwo.,r i./ .n,47 , tyrroit, Welnes 4.I- 5 11/A Liall. -TA Al,IN- 1 ava f G.1 hU£2 Fax To: Ea,4/1~ (ARU-.60 From: 8* Ritilic Fax: 1030 - 417€ Date: Phone: Pages: '2/ Re: R U WAE> (265 CC: C Urgent 2 For Review E Please Comment C Please Reply El Please Recycle •Comments: apD'.. 0-tt-acud ts my sh:?06 of fae lurst yogicc](£wruts, d.b~ W+- fecart j'»98*k ,@y Sfrt{(fu·,-Be F-€p*. I he#,2 -this h accef b AL fc ftfo tek ne [ale (A) i f 961~ Ned a,3 may€ 4. 111 Su,W : flle 404 Werato,re 2% soon ar D @,010< Cf . ------------I-------------------I-l----------I--Il----1- --I----i---I---I------------------1---- i. -4. ·96 AU,t' V · 0 RECEIVED MAR 2 3 1999 /PITKIN ASPEN CRAAU! INITY DFVFI OPMFN-7 - /t March 18, 1999 · 1 John ¢91*00 6 A Ye°* ASPEN · PITKIN P.O. Box 6363 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Battlement Mesa, CO 81636 Dear John; The City of Aspen' s Historic Preservation Commission has been reviewing changes to the house at 234 W. Francis Street, where R.O. Anderson once lived. We are trying to determine the construction date of a couple of elements of the building and two members of the HPC, Roger Moyer and Christie Kienast, believe that you did some work on this house in the past and might be able to help us. Both the front porch and a side porch have a concrete floor, with a square pattern. Did Ve. you build this? If so; do you remember what was there before? ,9 0 ,~ Did you build the porch on the side of the house? If so, were you replacing a porch that was already there or was this a totally new addition? It seems to match the front porch very closely. Christie Kienast tracked down your address, but I couldn't get a phone number to call you. I would appreciate it very much if you could call me as soon as possible at 920- 5096. Thank you for your help. ,··Sinterely,1 A /\ . C. m uthrie Historic Preservation Officer , -33 UJAA~ C AR U- r Al LE«_ F· tuu- S wpr. 19-1 1 Lq, 70 C€T. „9 1 1 13- D-1-LMET n WiLD A 7 r rl= 1 ;36,)266-(lit L ntt.~ 4--0 1.-1,1.£(£"B r-- 1= L-,1.< /LL 44•+0;, li©C£57-6-D --I Ce: Scott Lindenau, Studio B Architects 7 /1,591»0,4- 7...¢62;7 6,/,1,4 4.- 6,£/, 41- '42- 7-6 e.wi·*- 7 /34 t € J T-- . 1 C 041 %CAL'Crl Ck - FALACX- Pbrbvk -- P ,Wy'+Ail/ L +6- 1 mo 3 *t 130 Sowl-H GALENA STREET ASPEN, COI,ORADO 81611-1975 PHONE 970.920.5090 FAx 970.920.5439 11 - 5-' 6,0.- pc,vu,61· pA-€0,44424'1'dI le€0 9 - /450 5 . MEMORANDUM TO: Gwen Mullins Scott Lindenau FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 234 W. Francis Street- modifications DATE: April 8,1999 In response to Gwen's fax on March 31St: 1. I have given Studio B three suggested sources for replacement glass on the new window. As I understand it some contacts have been made and a sample is on its way here. 2. Last night at HPC I showed them two modifications that Gwen requested. They approved the addition of 4 !4" of length to the door on the west side of the house. 3. They did not approve fishscale shingles on the east and west sides of the new dormer and they had previously disallowed the shingles on the new kitchen. In both cases these are new additions to the structure and they do not want to see Victorian detailing added to them. Sent By: STUDIO 8 ARCHITECTS; 970 920 7822; May-19-99 8:35AM; Page 1 architects 19 May 1999 FAX TRANSMITTAL: To: Ainy Guthrie 1;rom: Scott LindenaWStudio B Architects RE: Mullins Re@idence Pagem: 6 Fax #: 920 5439 Dear Amy, Per our discussion, Gary Wheeler called me and said that the 1 1/2 pitch roof at the rear or north side of the main house will oot meet the cedar shingle manufacturer' s minimum warranty specifications of a 2/12 pitch. This condition was brought le our attention by Steven Kanipe. Ihe manufacturer's will not warranty any potential problems due to leaking and the same case is with the waterproof membrane under-rooting if thelayer above it ks a wood product A metal roof will meet these conditions and the Muilins are requesting that we be allowed to change this to a copper roofing that would be acid wa&hed to match the othegr approved areas of copper around the house Because it is at the rear and it is a very shallow pitch, it rarely will be seen. Thix area faces north and snow will be Nhedding onto it from the upper roof does pose a stiong potential for future moisture problems- Please see the enclosed hatched drawings which detail this area. The Mullins have also asked that all of the porch stoops at the main house and the cottage be the sanle approved wood floors Again see the attached drawing,5. Call me with any comments and after meeting with the monitors, please conixl me with your directive. Thank you. Best Regards, * -i V,· ec: Don and Gwen Mullins, Gary Wheeler 555 n. relll M. atpan co. 81611 970·920·9428 la, 970 920·7822 UPS Form 10·900 2 OMB No. 1024 -0018 156 Expires 10-31-87 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service For NPS use only National Register of Historic Places received Inventory-Nomination Form date entered See instructions in How to Comp/ete National Register Forms Type all entries-complete applicable sections 1. Name 11 istoric Davis Waite House (Historic Resources of Aspen - NRA) andror common The Davis Waite House J 2. Ldcation street & number 234 West Francis Street n,/a not for publication city, town Aspen i n /a - vicinity of state co code 08 county Pitkin code 097 ' 3. Classification Category Ownership Status Present Use _11£Alistrict n/apublic _=1 occupied Il/a agriculture n/1.._ museum Xbuilding(s) X private Illa- unoccupied n/a commercial 022: park ~ 132* structure Illk both n/a work in progress nla educational ._X_ private residence Illa. site Public Acquisition Accessible Il/a entertainment n/a religious lAla object n;'ain process 1-1/a yes: restricted n,Za government ]021 scientific IlLa- being considered 11/A yes: unrestricted n/a industrial Il,<a transportation | X multiple resource _Eno ULA military 02 other: 4. Owner of Property name R. 0. Anderson street & number p. 0. Box 1000 city, town Roswell - vicinity of n/a state NM 88201 5. Location of Legal Description courthouse, registry of deeds, etc. Pitkin County Court House ~ street & number 506 East Main Street '' city, town Aspen CO It state 6. Representation in Existing Surveys ~i Colorado Inventory of n /a t title Historic Sites :1 has this property been determined eligible? yes _X_ no 1 2.*e_Qng.oin n /a- federal _ X. state n-fa_ county nziE:%-ME!9 Il depository for survey records Colorado Historical Society - OAHP city, town Denver state Colorado ~ 7. Description 157 ~| Condition Check one Check one n/aexcellent Bla deteriorated Illa unaltered 25_ original site X good n/a ruins X altered DZ@ moved date 3 Illd unexposed Describe the present and original (if known) physical appearance 3 The 1888 Davis Waite House is a large two story dwelling with a rectangular plan, hipped roof and a front gable ell. Sited on a corner, the house is constructed of wood frame faced in clapboard. 1 There are several mature cottonwoods along the side street and in 3 front. There is a low wooden picket fence around the street sides of the four lots. To the east of the house is a small, one story build- ing with a gable roof and faced with clapboard which is said to be one of the early log cabins under the clapboard exterior, which was probably put on in the 1890s. (photo #8, 8a, Bb).The building is contributing. The Waite House is a vernacular Queen Anne design with little 3 ornament except in the gable, which it faced with fish scale shingles and has bargeboards. The front porch, on the west side of the ell, is small and projects out from the front of the house. There is a one 1 story enclosed vestibule with a flat roof behind the porch, which may be a later addition with the porch rebuilt in the front. The porch roof is also flat supported by heavy turned posts with decorative brackets at the top. The windows are one-over-one, double hung wood sash and for the most part, are tall and narrow single windows or in pairs. The first floor window in the front and the one on the west side are double the width of the single windows. At the rear of the house on the alley is a two story, wood frame and clapboard house with a broad gable roof constructed in 1956.* In 1959, a one story gable roof-addition was-put onto the rear of the , house connecting it with the 1956 building. (photo #8a) All of the buildings are painted a dark red color with white trim and black F'- accents. p The Waite House is a designated local landmark. * This building is non-contributing. Y JU:t f - B. 8. Significance 158 Period Areas of Significance-heck and justify below ~ - ruk prehistoric 1101. archeology-prehistoric DXEbommunity planning DZ@ landscape architecture fll5 religion nia 1400-1499 Illa archeology-historic Illa conservation Illa law n/ascience n,Za 1500-1599 r€EL agriculture n/a economics n,La literature niS sculpture n/a 1600-1699 _a_- architecture n/a education Illa military 2/2 social/ nla 1700-1799 n/3_ art Ill.a engineering DZ@ music n/a theater humanitarian 1_ 1800-1899 rl,~a commerce n./a exploration settlement Dth philosophy i npla 1900- IkEL communications nta industry _R- politics/government ~transportation 02* invention 1 23 other (specify) Specific dates 1888 Builder,Architect Not known -- Statement of Significance (in one paragraph) The Waite House is significant for its association with Davis H. Waite, an. Aspen attorney and newspaper publisher who was elected governor of Colorado in 1893. Waite lived here before and after his stormy two year term as governor, i until his death in 1900. It is the residence rrost associated with Waite in the state. The small building just east of the Waite House is important in Aspen' s architectural development. Originally a pioneer log cabin, it was later covered with clapboards as the town developed beyond a mere mining camp. The Waite House itself is an example of the large, plain vernacular dwellings typical of the late 1880s and early 1890s that were build of local materials. It is one of the best preserved houses of this type in Aspen. BACEGEDUND Davis Hanson Waite, born in Janestown, New York on April 9, 1825, came to Leadville, Colorado in 1879 where he practiced law before moving to Aspen in 1881. Waite was elected Justice of the Peace in 1881 and was also appointed the first superintendent of schools in Aspen.1 In 1882, Waite and his son started the Asheroft Journal in the mining cane of Ashcroft. Waite bought the Aspen Tirres in 1883, but sold it to B. Clark- Wheeler, who later became Waite's son-in-law. Waite and Wheeler also established a law practice together.2 In 1885, Waite ] married Mrs. Celia O. Malty of Sanquoit, New York, a second marriage for both. Waite, a labor sympathizer and Populist, advocated free silver and other radical reforrns. He founded the .Aspen Union Era in 1891, a weekly newspaper. In 189 2, the Populist Party nominated Davis Waite for Governor o f Colorado and he was inaugurated on January 10, 1893. tihen Waite took office, the price of silver was declining and the business climate was economically unsound. By July, the situation was bleak as the economy crashed in Colorado with the dernnitorization Of silver. Waite spoke to a large cra·id asserbled to discuss the deteriorating conditions. In his speech Waite earned the nickname, "Bloody Bridles Waite" from a phrase taken out of context: "It is infinitely better that blood should flow to our horses' bridles rather than our national liberties should be destroyed. " It was during Governor Waite's term that the bill for women's sufferage in Colorado was enacted into law, making Colorado the second state in the union to do so. For the most part, however, Governor Waite's term was stormy, marked by labor and political unrest, unenployment and economic depression. The miners strike at Cripple Creek which was settled in 189 4, gave a victory to the new union, the Western Federation of Miners, and proved a political set back to Waite and the - Populist Party. The "City Hall War" in March 1894, added further miseries to Waite's term. When he .tried to dismiss two members of the Denver Fire and Police Board, they barricaded themselves in the Denver City Hall and refused to leave. ~ :. Waite called out the armed militia and Federal troops to surround City Hall. 3.., Thousands of Denver citizens turned out to watch the action--which never materialized ~ 9.'v- as Waite decided to let the courts decide the matter. 3 ..,9 :,*Avit.·-*11:6.-x NPS Form 1 C·900-a O M 3 v o . -324-001>9 (182) Expires 10-31-97 United States Department of the Interior - I.i= ----™ . --- Z:$/ ~ National Park Service Ttor NPS U.,44,44 - -1.-4--3-15 National Register of Historic Places receitted ] Inventory-Nomination Form date an{ered . f 1 Continuation sheet Significance-Waite House Item number 8 Page 2 Davis Waite's bid for re-election was unsuccessful and he returned to .Aspen where he died of a heart attack in November 1900 while helping his wife prepare Thanksgiving dinner. Mrs. Waite died in 1937 and both are buried at Redl But.te Cemetery in Aspen. 4 In the late 1940s the house was the home of Gerbert Bayer, noted artist and industrial designer, who care to .Aspen in 1946 to work with Walter Paepcke. In 1953, the house was owned by R. 0. Anderson, who is still the owner. Anderson served as the chairman of the board of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies. 1 Footnotes 1. Robert F. Bartlett, "Aspen: T'he Mining Community", 1950 Brand Book (Denver: The Westemers, Vol. VI, 1950), p. 144-145. Aspen Times, April 8, 1882, p. 2. 2. Andrew P. Buesch and Mannel Hahnn, "Aspen over the Divide-Its Past and Present", The Westerners Brand Book. (Chicago: Vol. VIII, May 1951), p. 19. Aspen Times, May 19, 1883, n.p.; January 12, 1884, p. 1. Len Shoemaker, Pioneers of the Roaring Fork (Denver: Sage Books , 19 75) p. 77. 3. IeRoy R. Hafen, editor, Colorado and Its People (New Your: Lewis Historical Publishing Co., 1948), Vol. I, p. 465. i Carl Ubbelohde, Maxine Benson, Duane A. Smith, A Colorado History (Boulder: Pruett Publishing Co., 19721, pp. 224-225; 228-232. 3 4. Aspen Times, January 14, 1937, n.p. i Shoemaker, p. 77. ,44#fit>4*r.t·M*-5. Thursde-, ./. TIM. Vol. 12 • No. 40 • Februan 25, 1999 ' FREE (One copy per customer) Deal struck on 0. - JFmF-: I - ' Cr ' * ·-':·i·tes.,4 ' Waite House I * Sh/ I Work on home lukewarm reception from the His- ¥f 52* torie Preservation Commission can resume Wednesday, however, as several members worried that Mullins was By Allyn Harvey getting off too easily. "I'm con- Aspen Times Staff Writer cerned that a precedent is being set i . - Work on the historic Waite where people ask for forgiveness House could resume as early as instead of asking for permission." today under an agreement reached said HPC member Maureen between the city and the century- McDonald. old home's owner. McDonald and her fellow HPC Aspen's top building official, members have been struggling ' Stephen Kanipe, approved the with the condition of the Waite I. agreement yesterday, just two House ever since Historic Preser- f : *» 4.- weeks after he put off his decision vation Officer Amy Guthrie on whether Don Mullins should slapped a stop-work order. or -red it ,14: r 6 · 40·.:9 lose his building permit. The deal tag," on the project last month. , 8£@k allows Mullins to continue the Guthrie found that more than a remodeling work at the West End third of the home's original siding property that has been under way and much of its trim had been dnesday is cause for celebration for Wayne Ritari, Lisa for most of the last year, as long as thrown away in violation of city ents. A huge crane was trucked in to put the bridge in several conditions are met and he code and the conditions of the m of a new community park. Devon Meyers photo. pays $15,000 to the the city. building permit. , The agreement received a m See Waite House on page 16-A 1 444 Skico not ready to back .f j ie the Aspen High- out of Burlingame - yet : effort last night. By John Colson The Skico joined ill the project as a way to provide - min Rescue Aspen 1 Aspen Times Staff Writer wintertime housing for ski area workers. Observers pting to rescue the r .1 The city of Aspen is being formally courted as a have surmised that negotiations with the MAA have not Lity at'ea,- according potential partner in the proposed $9 million Burlingame yielded a partnership agreement that was attractive seasonal housing project. enough to keep the Skico at the table. - iers into the area if ' But the Music Associates of Aspen's original part- Tile plan, to date, has been to rent the apartment- ner, the Aspen Skiing Co., has not backed away from style units to music students in the summer, and to a 1 elle - we have. a T the project, claimed spokesman Dave Bellack. It has mixture of Skico, Roaring Fork Transit Agency and /1*it we're going to ··., simply told the MAA to try to find another partner. general workers in the winter. I.} "We are still involved," Bellack said. But he MAA President Robert Harth sent a letter to the city, 1 th the'man,-Iepod- - explained that the Skico's likely involvement if the dated Feb. 17, that outlines a proposal to form a non- :ek Road. 24 ···f ~ c MAA alid the city become partners would be to buy profit organization to build and manage the 200-bed Maroon Bowl and 3 · some of the beds for wintertime ski area workers, if that project. 1 " 4.·66?¢ ..c,--9,·' u were an option. According to rinclimente nrnvirl,rl k... n,-·.-M.. t ' .' '........ ...'...'./. .....'lili /1 /1 16-A The Aspen Times • Thuism ,nuary 25,1999 ~ ' Waite House Alpine Bank Aspen - - 1 n continued from page 1-A Wheeler can continue work on Cordially invites you to attend a The HI€ subsequently compiled both the interior and exterior of the a list of 24 violations of the historic Waite House. Mullins said Wheel- Benefit Reception for the -7. preservation code at the building er would remain on the job as long Aspen Valley Ski/Snowboard Club featuring site. Kanipe then convened a hear- as he was licensed. ing. requiring Mullins to either Kanipe also challenged the explain the situation to Kanipe's notion that the agreement set a bad Mike Marolt, Photographer satisfaction or lose his building per- precedent. One outcome of the mit, Kanipe delayed his decision Waite House fiasco. he said. is a and a showing of his Exhibit while the city and Mullins attorney new policy that requires the attempted to reach a settlement. owner. the architect. the contrac- High Places: Asia, North America, South Americ The agreement calls for Mullins ton the HPC and the historic to repair as much of the damage as preservation otticer to all sign a possible and submit to more rigor- statement indicating a mutual Alpine Bank Aspen ous oversight. understanding of the conditions of -From this point forward." a building permit. Thursday, February 25,1999 reads the agreement, "all exterior work on the historic 6 PM until 8 PM house shall be performed in consultation with the archi- "Red tags come and 600 East Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado tect of record, Scott Linde- nau. and a weekly plan of g~, but this one action and report of progress Exhibit Runs Through April 30,1999 shall be submitted to the changed the way - Historic Preservation Dtli- cer. Amy Guthrie." things will be done in 1.1.ADDY Lindenau will assume oversight of the project from the future." contractor Gary Wheeler. who will be allowed to con- - Stephen Kanipe, tinue work as long as he budding inspector *' ou·rf- retains his license. Wheeler, .. who has been in the con- .: struction business here for more than three decades, IAMS was targeted for most of the - blame for the situation. $26 In response to concerns about the precedent that was being set by not penalizing Mullins During the Feb. 10 hearing, more harshly, City Attorney David Mullins said he had not read the IAMS¥: Hoefer pointed out that Mullins resolutions and permits that came DOGFOODS had already lost $75,000 because with the project's approval, relying of the delay. "In this case," Hoefer instead on his architect, contractor Good For Life. . Chunks o I said," I'm not sure the owner is the and lawyer to make sure things • Less Activ primary party to blame." . went the way they were supposed Kanipe said Wheeler's license to. would be the subject of a show- The $15,000 Mullins will pay • 1 - i • cause hearing sometime in the next will fund a special licensing pro- few weeks. If he cannot satisfacto- gram for contractors working on - .. rily explain his decision to discard historic projects. original materials and his failure to "Red tags come and go," .. RJ Pad & follow the conditions in the build- Kanipe said, "but this one changed 1.0 ing permit, he will lose his license. the way things will be done in the -4 For all yoL In the meantime, Kanipe said, future." 'AMS Co.-V Orchard Plaza • Near City P Burtingame i continued from page 1-A different times, the $7.2 million m MAA. the first 30 years of the project s life. Curtis said Tuesday that he will The second bond issuance A formally present the proposal to the known as the "Series B bonds, ' Aspen/Pitkin County Housing would be purchased by the city and Authority on March 3. and to the the MAA in what Assistant City ray-= 1 1 ASSIUS CLAY BECOMES EAVYWEIGHT CHAMP: AN Printed on Recycled Paper "If you don't want it printed, don't let it happen." Thursday, February 25, 1999 517 E. HOPKINS • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • VOL. 21 #240 - Waite House is a lesson - *- %41*-f **t:**29% learned for city, HPC 0#icials don't want the same regulations over the past few years, there are still concerns about enforcing those rules. mistake to happen twice When work is proposed on a historic proper- ty, all changes must be approved by the HPC. In 0 2 By Chad King many cases, the approvals include specific Aspen Daly Nens Staff Writef requirements which the contractor performing the work must agree to in order to receive a In the wake of controversy surrounding vio- building perrnit frorn the city. lations which occurred during the remodeling of In the case of the Waite House, one of the the 111-year-old Waite House, Aspen historic requirements was that the HPC approve the preservation officials are developing stricter reg- removal of any historic materials. According to ulations for builders. Guthrie, those requirements were not met, and as Although the Historic Preservation a result important pieces of the West End house Commission and Aspen Historic Preservation ..2-~:ga j.: t Officer Amy Guthrie have instigated protective See HPC on page 8 Red 1 Yher Waite owners ordered to pay up .3 44. f 1 Remodeling work about $75,000 in combined complied with. The legal fees, construction delay agreement was approved by ..49.. ':'¢¢ on historic home costs. city fines and staff fees. the Historic Preservation - will continue The couple is required to Commission Wednesday. publicly apologize to the After a couple of weeks of By Chad King community via Aspen's two i,egoriations between T . 4 . . m .- r',46,~='il-4.- '-/'.- t.45 .. a.·: Aspen Daily News Staff Writer daily newspapers for historic assistant city attorney David .- . ./. 1 49.' · preservation violations Hoefer and the Mullins' i Don and Gwen Mullins, discovered in January. lawyer, Chuck Brandt, a owners of tile historic Waite City officials decided remediation agreement has The Red Bull U.S. Speed Ski. House, will be able to finish Tuesday not to revoke the been reached. Thursday to narrow the field i remodeling their U'est End couple's building permit if Friday. The fastest clocked s home but only after paying certain conditions are See WAITE on page 5 mph, followed by Aspen's Je _ > speed snowboarder Darren F Basalt pt free fron . 1 1 0 4 4 , 2.6. By Kathleen Carlson Aspen Dailv News Staff Writer Midvalley residents political representation t ~ pp . ... 4 '...,48 LOCAL 1- ,rray I IlistoriC preservation to focus nd was seriously injured in ~ on enforcement, education dent that could happen to 7-- 3~ HPC from page 1 Dale Heckendorn. coordinator for Colorado's Denver-based National Historic massive spinal trauma. Register, said the people who buy the prop- zi were thrown awav. -r: But Gary Wheeler. the general contrac- erties are often ignorant of their historic ~ tor for the Waite House. said the require- value or significance. The only way to com- ery will be challenging. He ments associated with the building permit . t bat that ignorance is through clear commu- mcatlon between the historic commission. - 1 were unclear. the realtor, and the purchaser. Heckendom and positive thoughts. 4 That perceived lack of claritv is one of sment may be sent to: 't the major issues the HPC's new plan will sai~!- b attempt to address. according to Guthrie. More and more communities are rec- "We adopt resolutions for all ofourdeci- ognizing the historic values of their com- rray - r sions, which is a final document that details munities and taking StepS to ensure preser- '. Hopkins Ave. all of the conditions of the approval. ,· vation," Heckendom explained. ''This (the Guthrie explained. "Added would be a Stilrl- Waite House) ts pretty E[1]1Ch the exception 0 81611 , dard condition that a contractor has to pro- and not the rule." ¢ vide a letter that states an understanding of HPC member Mary Hirsch said another 4 the approval conditions and they have to problem with enforcing historic regulations ~ financial help. Financial ~ f print those conditions onall blueprints asso- is the exorbitant amount of money many - ciated with the project to avoid misunder- people pay for property in Aspen. ent to: "When people buy a historic property -- ; standings." j Officials also would like to design a they of course want it to accommodate their 4 Murray Fund 1 proactive education process for contractors, needs and sometimes these miner's cottages ,- historic homeowners and architects about simply do not," she said. "So they have a lot ink - the procedures for handling historic proper- of time-consuming restoration to make it fit + ties, said Suzannah Reid, chairperson of the the bill for them and the HPC. opkine Ave. -* / HPC. "Also many people coming into the 0 81611 *-. Reid and Gumde discussed the possibil- cornmunity don't have any insight into our 1: Colleen Gibbons T -, ity of having contractors take abuilding per- heritage orany williligness ordesire to pre- mit test geared specifically toward histonc ' serve it." she continued. "I think because of : c. sites. 'Ib city building department already those Mo things, and a lack of historical r administers a similar test for developers background, it is now on the shoulders of f - who make proposals to the city. the commission to provide a better educa- ,, The test would be a combination of tion process for the community. SPONSORED BY information from the National Historic For Hirsch, education is the key becaus. Trust and specific iocal issues. more rules and guidelines do not seem to be tAY AND ASPEN DAILY NEWS Incidentally, the $15.000 fine levied doing the job. against the Mullinses will help to finance "I have found that some people that are the pursuit of the test which would address very, very wealthy feel they are above the all of the pertinent issues. rules and when you pay millions for a prop- Kanipe also said that on future historic erty you kind of have the feeling you can do restorations, contractors will be required to what you wish ....but that is not the case with ed the obtatn a special pennit historical properties." North Forty one meeting away m Lectu re? T& Pitkin Board of County Specifically, a more complete pollution Commissioners on Wednesday putthe North study is needed before the final vote. FoIty private affordable housing develop- The commissioners were able to hammer e Aspen Center ment one vote away from fruition. out many issues with McBride and The commissioners passed the final plat Knowlton, with others to be resolved before ture will be shown for the resident occupied project by a 44) the March 10 vote. vote. The plans need to be approved on a sec- The North Forty will include 12 town- ts TV Channel 12 ond reading, set for March 10. homes and 60 single-family home sites that North Forty developer John MeBride and individual lot owners will develop. project manager Jamie Knowlton still have some house cleaning to do before the homes :b. 24 8pm will built, though. -Kevin'Tripp . I. & t eb. 25 6pm r -r LITTLEBEXie -¥T11A ASPEN DAILY NEWS, Thursday, February 25, 1999, Page 5 LOCAL/STATE Waite House remediation under construction WAITE from page 1 compliance with an extensive list of requirements. $30,000 letter of credit, according to Hoefer. I'he conditions include installation of replicated "If the exterior is not completed as approved in the On Feb. 1(), the Mullinses appeared before Aspen's historic materials, a plan to replace historic window trim, remediation proceedings the letter of credit may be drawn Chief Building Official Stephen Kanipe to answer and the refurbishment of salvageable historic materials. against to complete the work," Hoefer explained. "It is allegations of violations to their building permit approval. A document entitled "Findings of Fact," which details basically a line of credit (money) that may be drawn Among the violations were the removal of about one_ the final agreement includes a stipulation that reads: against if violations occur." tlii -' -f the home's exterior histotic materials including "Frnin this point forward all exterior work on the historic Don Mullins told the Daily News he was pleased that si window frames and portions of an entry porch house shall be performed in consultation with the ar„., which were discovered niissing by Historic architect of record. Scott Lindenau, anda weekly plan of an agreement could be reached. He added that he appreciated the understanding and cooperation of the city Preservation Officer Amy Guthrie and commission action and a report of progress shall be submitted to the and the HPC. members. When Guthrie discovered poitions of the historic preservation officer Amy Guthrie." h istc„ ie house were removed, she ordered ai I work to be The Mullins have spent an estimated $60,000 on "Our goal is to get this finalized with the HPC as stopped on the home. cc)tistruction delays and legal costs associated with the quickly and properly as it can be done," Mullins said. "So According to the agieeinent. the continued remodeling resolution. They also will pay an additional $15,()00 to my family, and the community, can enjoy with us the of the house, once owned by former Populist Colorado the city for it's time spent resolving the issue. commitment and investment we have made to the Governor Davis B. Waite, is contingent on the Mullins' The Mullinses will be subject to an increase of their Governor Waite Home." Attorney for former Vail worker challenges need for court review From The Aseciated-Prpss __ _ -.------ and his ski flew and hit Mr. Cobb." finds the county court erred in throwing Municipal Judge Buck Allen wa s one Engle County Judge Terri Diem ruled outthecharges, thecasewouldbe turned of the witnesses to the accident. He said VAIL - An attorney 1-1,1- a former Vail earlier that the case did not merit charges back over to the district court for jury after he saw how fast Hall was skiing on worker whose criminal ca.se ftillowing a of either criminally negligent homicide trial. his right, "I turned to the left to make Ilital April 1997 skierdo-skier accident or reckless manslaughter against Hall, Witnesses 'mid Hall was skiing out of sure I was out of the way in case he had ismissed says he will challenge the who was 18 at the time of the accident, control and too fast for conditions and friends coming down." for a state Supreme Court review. and a district court affirmed that June deputy district attorney Rob Wheeler The case is being watched closely attorney Brett Heckman argued iii a 1997 decision. said that was the key to the case. throughout the skiing world. Colorado court filing this week thnt his client, Hal! hall just gotten off shift as a lift Though witness testimony could only ski areas attract more visitors than any Natlian Hall. "was otily seen for two or operator at Vail when the accident with pinpoint Hall out of control for two to other state, and court decisions here can three seconds prior to the accident," and Cobb, 33, occurred. Cobb, who had been three seconds. then Chief Deputy carry weight elsewhere. tlmt there was no evidence of a collision. skiing with his fiancee, died at the scene District Attorney Chris Hefty said the Eagle County Sheriff A.J. Johnson, in "It is undisputed iii the record that of massive head injuries. extent of Cobb's head injuries and the a comment before Goodbee announced there was no collision" between HAN District Attorney Mike Goodbee filed fact that Hall ended up 83 feet downhill the appeal, said the ruling would make it ami Alan Cobb, who wils killed, a petition Feb, 10 asking Colorado's from the victim indicated the defendant much more difficult to prosecute 1 leckinan wrote. "The evidence is that highest court to review the case, If that had been traveling fast for more than a reckless skiers because "intent is (Halts) ski came loose after (Hal]) fell review is granted and the Supreme Court few seconds. difficult to prove." 91 .-6- ...\ !,-.:,; WEEKLY SPECIAL ,1 - ¥41;Jie,# I., '.. 1- .1 '.' ".' ':.....' *"in•\ 1 1,4%0 viA'•¢ F -Fg#*.B·*St-:21* ,**A'Wr~~Z/*U:'.'E33,1 1 ..a .\ Pa8e 8, A5PfN DAILY NEWS, Tuesday, February 2,1999 LOCAL Most caucus members can't vote in May 1 COUNCIL from page 3 agreement on the 12 principles, city attorney John the $16 million bond issue to finance the Iselin plan. or 1 Worcester warned council members about deed- a 15-20 year deed-restriction guarantee. may prove , concerns to Aspen Parks Director Jeff Woods. The list restrictions. Worcester said he would be reluctant to complicated. was designed to address issues that Castle/Maroon advise council to deed-restrict any property the city Most caucus members live just outside the city, and i~, Creek residents felt strongly about, such as no loud owns. therefore can't vote on the issue. ~i•. speakers, street-side parking, alcohol or additional Assistant cily manager Steve Barwick said he too Bennett said it was best at this point to leave the ~ facilities beyond those currently proposed. would have trouble encouraging council members to incorporation of the 12 principles somewhat open. and Woodward said the main concern the caucus has is "tie the hands of future councils." allow council and city staff to determine how to best making sure that their requests are documented But Bennett said he is not concerned about future satisfy the needs of the caucus members. somehow, either by a deed-restriction or some other city councils - only about the future of the Caucus members will wait and see what kind of an arrangement. Woodward said the documentation community. arrangement can be reached before they commit their would provide Castle/Maroon Creek residents with "It would seem to me that there ought to be a way support to the bond issue, but Slater said lie was some guarantee that a future city council could not to make this work, Bennett said. encouraged by council's response. come in and disregard the concerns. But incorporating these concerns into some form of "It looks td me like they will work with us," Slater Although Mayor John Bennett said there is general documentation, either in the May ballot language for said after the meeting. Judge doesn't accept Idus Mark Wright's story RAPIST from page 1 Wright began to follow her and her assailant from behind. But during an interview with Bauer, , eventually grabbed her from behind by Wright was arrested on Oct. 20 in Wright admitted to committing the the chin and tried to kiss her. She Garfield County for a sexual assault crime. Wright also told Bauer that 1, L she was heading down Castle Creek ~ toward the MaroIt Housing pushed him away but he tried to kiss that occurred on Oct. 4. needed "some help" because he "lov~ ' her again. From behind, Wright then Pitkin County Sheriff's Deputy having sex and making love so mi " ~ . ) Nevwe~~tpemrm ~hhena= WIW VMsses:An reached his hand between her legs and Joseph Bauer went to the Garfield Jai' that it causes him to becorp' F direction. When she rounded the grabbed her crotch, according to the on Oct. 21 to interview Wright about different person, according J arrest warrant. the Pitkin County attack because of the arrest warrant. corner she spotted the car parked on The victim was able to push Wright similarities in the two separate the side of the road with a man Wright accurately, der away and escape without further harm. incidents. standing next to it. She reported the incident to Pitkin At the jail Bauer met with Garfield Castle Creek incidep' As she approached the man asked County Sheriff's office immediately. County Undersheriff Jim Sears. Sears added th.t -' her if "this community" was part of € 11'Z.:LiI.....~ 4.-Ai„-._ A r-.rk che_ told him it wagn't an,1 ............wil--- ./%& -I/."..........................................................= 3---Illillillillillillillill-Ilillillillillillill£.$ -491F'tr- - ASPEN DAILY NEWS Tuesday, February 2,1999, Page 7 O M MENTARY f S £,1,5-I F *MI~0,0...: 1 46&*04 P - 4 - . C Er -1 '' A 3.-6 X 2 21 S¥ tt - f . \ 00 8/\CA . - 1 Jud-,40,B# . - , *44% A 1 -- 0>4443~ ,./4« 67» , 1.42* - 7-'i-tr-17 1 - ' 1- - 4¥1.tri.: --,28»2052.-2-- - #445 -7» =.»=0.---44&~ 1%100- ,€-+E~~19~SIC» ./ IN -1, 009- <SPGKS'. 1 r. h- -%>2 -€-3~ - I 1.-„- ht the news_couldn't et an more depressing j~ STUDIO B architects 28 January 1999 Amy Guthrie 130 South Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Amy, The HPC is instrumental in the preservation of this city regarding not only its history, but its context, scale, and texture. However, the process may need to be made clearer to all parties involved. Needless to say, last night was not a pleasurable experience nor a situation that I feel I am accountable for. As mentioned, I am not contracted with the Mullins for construction administration, nor do I feel that 'policing' the contractors work is within my domain as the architect. The contractor attended every meeting, often spoke up, and received the same resolutions and meeting notes that I did. He used his judgment in regards to the removal of siding, trim, and other exterior materials whether he realized the consequences or not. Perhaps he was instructed by the client to do so, or perhaps it was not made clear that every piece of siding was required to be saved according to last nights meeting. Gary Wheeler has been in Aspen/Basalt for thirty years and chairs on the Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission. I can assure you that he by no means intended to defy the HPC directives nor do the Mullins have the attitude to 'do as they please' because they happen to have money. I feel there is a fine line that needs to be discussed rationally as to what historically and economically makes sense within these historic projects. There is going to be increasing pressure in the West End because of the diminishing amount of available properties and sites. As you know, virtually all historic houses in the West End do not meet any of the current plumbing, structural, electrical, insulation, or energy standards. In order to bring them up to current building codes, great lengths have to be made that can effect the exterior and imply great costs. That is a risk that all owners and buyers assume but I feel the 'risks' need to be made more apparent to them. I believe Gary Wheeler was under the impression that the character of this house needed to be saved and restored, but not that every board required salvaging and repair especially when some were rotted and completely broken. I understand that every piece of wood could be repaired, but to what length do you go? Gary went to great lengths to restore every window, make them operable again, kept the old glazing, saved the old details, fencing, and columns and what he thought was the salvageable siding. This project should be used as an example for future projects as to what is required of the contractor. I also feel that it should be made very clear as to what the role of the monitor is, how often they visit the site, to whom they should bring up their observations, and how often and when you should be consulted during the process. I know that the HPC staff are all volunteers and that more involvement takes more of their time. I discussed with Stan Clausen long ago that HPC members should be compensated for their time because of the pressure, time, and the amount of work that will be coming their way in the future. 555 n. mill st. aspen co. 81611 970·920·9428 fax 970+920·7822 There were many personal attacks last night that I felt were very inappropriate amongst professionals. These were directed towards the Mullins, Gary Wheeler, and myself. The matter at hand was to determine the extent of deviation and to remedy the situation. I know that Gary is willing to do whatever it takes to put things right. If it means reconstructing certain areas or issued fines, he will do so and accept the responsibility. A suggestion to avoid future problems and uncertainties with the HPC process, would be to make a mandatory seminar required of contractors, architects, and realtors. In order to go through the approval process, the architects and contractor would have to show that they had attended this seminar. But the realtors need this education because they are often the ones that potentially mislead a buyer as to what they can and cannot do when buying a property. The process must be made clear to all property owners and future buyers in the historic areas. I have begun making the HPC approval process an additional service in my contracts because of the experiences I have had. Every project sheds new light and seems to take longer to get approved. Granted, the Mullins project did change in scope after we began but the Paepke House did not assist our efforts. Regarding the Coulter Project, the tree situation arose the day before our final approval. I would have thought that the 15 sets delivered months ago would have been passed by all reviewing agencies and the problem should have surfaced much earlier. Again, we have resolved this matter but with great expense in both time and money. I plan on presenting in front of the HPC in the future and feel my firm strives for excellence in both its design methodologies and professionalism. I do not want to lose the confidence of its members nor of you, whom I feel is a colleague and a friend. Obviously, I can put this experience to use and insure that Briston Peterson does not make the same mistakes on the Coulter Project. I am contracted for full service on that project. Please call me should you have any other comments or suggestions. Best Regards, ~4.Ar- Scott A. Lindenau, Architect. jeffrey halferty design 215 S Monarch St. suite 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-4535 (970) 925-4990 Fax Memo DATE: 2/3/99 TO: Historic Preservation Commission Attn. Amy Guthrie REutivto FROM: Commission Member Jeffrey FEB 4 1999 RE: Mullin Residence Renovation ASPEN / PITKIN 234 W. Francis COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Aspen Project Correspondence Outline COMMENTS Project Monitoring history 1 First Site Visit (Spring/Summer 1998) a. Project Introduction Site Visit b. Contractor Introduction to Gary Wheeler. c. Site Visit (To identify age of existing Garage) 1 Looked at existing materials (windows, existing wd. siding, trim and casing wd. Beyer fence) etc) 2. Most of the historic materials that were removed for construction (windows, existing wd. siding, trim and casing wd. Beyer fence including windows and doors were properly racked on sleepers and tarped properly on the North East corner of the property adjacent to the alley. 2. Second Site meeting (Summer 1998) a. Issue bracing up the main structure for temporary on site relocation. b. Met with Bailey house movers to discuss the proper bracing for the lift. c. Also looked at the newly framed elements of the guest house (gable, overhang) 3. Continued Site Visits (Fall / Winter 1998) a. Looked at new kitchen addition on the north east of the main house. b Also looked at the breezeway connection proximity between NW corner of the Main House and garage. CC: H.P.C, Susan Dodington, David Hoefler Assistant City Attorney 442-ht, 34)- d.,-r 3-c 1 1.411 b)-9( ter- t)(D U 1)3710-4~112}:-0113-3/.. »-r\).14 p»0 -Y\ )h ~~ ~16~3 / DO-~ 1 47 -7.-2 7/7-9;,-0 -p.zff> 17 it 4f Y > j }- 700 -(p 2692 OUP' -€F *7 +-113>tol~ F¥-h u._9) 1,-j C'~ J »32431 341 + u,0 +L l Jr 7-M . o q :1)~~OFT/, 1-nntn/y, tn,/,ev /1-y y-o y- 7 h PA 0 ,£-42 n,«ip.-71 -4/£ t) -21,7-2 7 f)U -2/,A~ 27-V f 4 ( fl 1/7 2-¥'.-9-417-t/ jid di ,-4 £ - ya 79 -4~_-(2 )3 1,7 142 ) 31- 1 4~41 3 -g<L-o lt' 3-9 -h? b 710 \-1 ' A-- 1 t.-7 7222 17'1rk' ~79-7~ ~~1£/U xf)_ppY 374 17 /123/1100/,0~.2 n 7 74 , ..371 z_olj y; A % 12:* 1 -p q >24 101(7773 <7)1~ 9~ F-+~31 03'3£42 -4 66+ 99= NO19NICOO NVSMS (It (u~qi/9 4- nze<b &4<*hw i99 € (Ik- 0 / 70 f'(f-r'E_ . 82.-~ 6 23(, /,0(/~£9 >3<1,€.,~~i' _,61.2 2 2 ptl!- jo A d. 0--91 9 €·Lk 3 0-2 4-31 .6-1 c Q _ r A 1 ty;44 ./. RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING ELEMENTS OF THE REMEDIATION PLAN FOR 234 WEST FRANCIS STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 1999 WHEREAS, the owners of 234 W. Francis Street, Don and Gwen Mullins, represented by Studio B Architects, are required by the "Stipulated Findings of Fact and Order" to receive HPC approval for a remediation plan addressing violations of Building Permit No. 8-49; and WHEREAS, a remediation plan was submitted for review by the Historic Preservation Commission at their regularly scheduled meeting of February 24,1999; and WHEREAS, Don and Gwen Mullins identified five elements of the list of violations which required resolution in order for interior remodeling to continue; and WHEREAS, these five elements were the focus of the HPC discussion on February 24, 1999. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the following issues have been resolved to the satisfaction of the Historic Preservation Commission. 1. The vents required for the three gas fireplaces that have been installed in the house are approved as represented in the architectural drawings presented to the HPC by Scott Lindenau at the HPC meeting and dated February 23,1999, conditioned on a site inspection in regard to the vent on the one story reconstructed portion of the house. Stephen Kanipe, Chief Building Official, will verify that the vents are the minimum size and height required to meet the Uniform Building Code. 2. The copper window guides which have been installed in all of the historic windows may be retained and must be treated to be dark in color. 3. On the east side o f the old house, the historic window directly to the north of the entry door will be put back in place and the adjacent new window will be made to match that historic window in all dimensions. 4. The scalloped shingles which were placed on the new kitchen addition will be removed and the exterior o f the kitchen shall be as approved on Building Permit No.8-49. 5. The owner shall place the historic fence, which is currently being stored on the property, on stickers to raise it off of the ground by the end of the day on February 25% 1999. In the alternative, the owner is permitted to transport the fence to the Aspen Design Works shop for future refurbishment. 6. Aspen Design Works is approved as the firm who will replicate millwork on the house. 7. The Historic Preservation Commission will conduct a site visit on Monday, March 1 at 4:30 p.m. to inspect that bathroom vents on the west side of the historic house to determine if they can be approved in the existing locations or must be relocated. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved at to Content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chairman ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING ELEMENTS OF THE REMEDIATION PLAN FOR 234 WEST FRANCIS STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 1999 WHEREAS, the owners of 234 W. Francis Street, Don and Gwen Mullins, represented by Studio B Architects, are required by the "Stipulated Findings of Fact and Order" to receive HPC approval for a remediation plan addressing violations of Building Permit No. 8-49; and WHEREAS, a remediation plan was submitted for review by the Historic Preservation Commission at their regularly scheduled meeting of February 24, 1999; and WHEREAS, the HPC approved elements of that remediation plan as defined in Resolution No. _ and Resolution No. , Series of 1999; and WHEREAS, the architect submitted a revised remediation plan, Exhibit A, for the March 10, 1999 HPC meeting; and WHEREAS, at the regularly scheduled HPC meeting of March 10, 1999, elements of the revised remediation plan were approved, as described below. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That from their regular meeting of March 10, 1999, the following issues have been resolved to the satisfaction of the Historic Preservation Commission, as related to Exhibit A. 1. South faGade: a. Approved with the condition that the replacement trim be identical to the original trim. b. Approved with the condition that the missing trim detail be added, matched identically to the original trim. c. Approved with the condition that the trim and corner blocking are identical to what existed historically. d. The broken transom glass can be replaced, with the exact glass to be approved at a future date. The door hardware may not be replaced, other than the deadbolt. The historic doorjamb must be reinstalled along with the door and transom. e. The original scrollwork must be installed to match the original condition. f. Acceptable. g. Acceptable. h. Not approved. The Historic Preservation Officer will contact John Gatos, who may have information on the origin of the concrete porch floor. i. Acceptable with the condition that the contractor meet with HPC for technical advice. j. Acceptable if made to match the original. k. Approved. 1. Not approved. Further information is needed on the character of the replacement glass. m. Acceptable. n. Acceptable. o. Acceptable. 2. East Faqade a. Not approved. Further information is needed on the character of the replacement glass. b. The historic door, transom, and jamb must be reinstalled. The trim around the door must match what was there historically. The glass in the transom may be replaced, once the glass sample is reviewed and approved. 3. West FaGade a. Acceptable, with confirmation that the replacement glass will match the original. b. Not approved. Staff will contact John Gatos in regard to the porch floor and a construction date for the porch itself. 4. North FaGade a. Approved. Drip caps will be darkened and new clapboards will be installed to match the original exposure. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved at to Content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chairman ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING ELEMENTS OF THE REMEDIATION PLAN FOR 234 WEST FRANCIS STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 14, SERIES OF 1999 WHEREAS, the owners of 234 W. Francis Street, Don and Gwen Mullins, represented by Studio B Architects, are required by the "Stipulated Findings of Fact and Order" to receive HPC approval for a remediation plan addressing violations of Building Permit No. 8-49; and WHEREAS, a remediation plan was submitted for review by the Historic Preservation Commission at their regularly scheduled meeting of February 24, 1999; and WHEREAS, the architect submitted a revised remediation plan, Exhibit A, for the March 10,1999 HPC meeting; and WHEREAS, the HPC approved elements of the remediation plan as defined in Resolution No. 7, Resolution No.11, and Resolution No. 12, Series of 1999; and WHEREAS, at the regularly scheduled HPC meeting of March 24, 1999, and at a site visit on the same date, elements of the revised remediation plan were approved, as described below. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That from their regular meeting of March 24, 1999, and at a site visit on the same date, the following issues have been resolved to the satisfaction of the Historic Preservation Commission, as related to Exhibit A. 1. South fagade: d. The broken transom glass must be replaced with Bendheim "Full Restoration" glass. h. The front porch floor must be wood, 1"x3" boards. 1. The broken window glass must be replaced with Bendheim "Full Restoration" glass. 2. East FaGade a. The broken window glass must be replaced with Bendheim "Full Restoration" glass. b. The broken transom glass must be replaced with Bendheim "Full Restoration" glass. 3. West Fagade a. Not approved. The HPC requests another sample of restoration glass, which has the qualities of the Bendheim "Full Restoration" glass, be located for use in the bay windows. (Bendheim's "Full Restoration" glass is not available in sheets large enough to be used on the bay windows. b. The porch floor must be wood, 1"x3" boards. The porch roof and trim must be rebuilt to look exactly as it did before the Mullin's remodel. The porch roof structure will be of 2"x4" lumber, in a manner that is acceptable to the Building Department. The existing columns must be repaired and reused. A steel rod may be inserted in the broken column for structural stability. The architect shall consult with Roger Moyer in regard to the technique used. Miscellaneous Items A. The HPC inspected the fence along with Rob Ashcraft, who will do the woodwork, to evaluate what repairs are needed. The existing materials are to be retained. Replicated pieces may be added where elements are missing. To improve the stability of the fence, additional posts may be added where needed, with the condition that they match exactly the original posts. The owner may paint the fence but is discouraged from doing so. B. Acceptable with a dark brown patina applied to the copper. C. Wood frame screens (painted to match the windows) which attach to the window with the kind of clamps that were traditionally used are approved, as shown in the exhibit presented on March 24,1999. D. Acceptable. E. Acceptable. F. Acceptable. G. Acceptable. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved at to Content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chairman ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING ELEMENTS OF THE REMEDIATION PLAN FOR 234 WEST FRANCIS STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 1999 WHEREAS, the owners of 234 W. Francis Street, Don and Gwen Mullins, represented by Studio B Architects, are required by the "Stipulated Findings of Fact and Order" to receive HPC approval for a remediation plan addressing violations o f Building Permit No. 8-49; and WHEREAS, a remediation plan was submitted for review by the Historic Preservation Commission at their regularly scheduled meeting o f February 24, 1999; and WHEREAS, the architect submitted a revised remediation plan. Exhibit A, for the March 10, 1999 HPC meeting; and WHEREAS, the HPC has approved elements of the remediation plan as defined in Resolution No. 7, Resolution No. 11, Resolution No. 12, and Resolution No. 14, Series of 1999; and WHEREAS, at the regularly scheduled HPC meeting of May 12, 1999, staff made a recommendation to resolve the final outstanding issue on the remediation plan; replacement glass for the large bay window on the west fagade; and WHEREAS, the HPC reviewed and considered the staff recommendation and accepted it by a vote of -7 to 0. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: On the large bay window on the west fai:a(le of the house, one pane of glass was broken during construction ofthe Mullins' remodel, and one pane of glass was replaced sometime previous to the Mullins' remodel. The owner and HPC staff searched for replacement glass that replicated the historic glass, but none was available in the size needed. The HPC will therefore allow standard glass to be installed in the window. Appro~vorm: 12.-.K =.--L.-4- David Hoefer, Assistant City 9torney Approved at to Content: HIS~ORIC PRESERVAAION COMMISSION ] 14 3 Suzkna~*eid, Chairt~Aan ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING ELEMENTS OF THE REMEDIATION PLAN FOR 234 WEST FRANCIS STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 1999 WHEREAS, the owners of 234 W. Francis Street, Don and Gwen Mullins, represented by Studio B Architects, are required by the "Stipulated Findings of Fact and Order" to receive HPC approval for a remediation plan addressing violations of Building Permit No. 8-49; and WHEREAS, a remediation plan was submitted for review by the Historic Preservation Commission at their regularly scheduled meeting of February 24,1999; and , WHEREAS, the architect submitted a revised remediation plan, for the March 10, 1999 HPC meeting; and WHEREAS, the HPC has approved elements of the remediation plan as defined in Resolution No. 7, Resolution No. 11, Resolution No. 12, Resolution No. 14, and Resolution No. , Series of 1999, and WHEREAS, at the regularly scheduled HPC meeting of May 26, 1999, staff presented a request from the owner to use a standing seam copper roof on the north sloping roof plane of the one story addition on the back of the historic house; and WHEREAS, the HPC reviewed and considered the staff recommendation and accepted it by a vote of 7 to 0. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That a standing seam copper roof may be installed on the north sloping roo f plane o f the one story addition on the back of the historic house. The copper must be treated to hasten the darkening process. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved at to Content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chairman ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk