AGENDA

ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

September 25, 2019

4:30 PM, City Council Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen

I. SITE VISIT - PLEASE VISIT THE SITES ON YOUR OWN

II. ROLL CALL

III. MINUTES

III.A. Draft Minutes of September 11th coa.hpc.091119.docx

IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS

V. COMMISSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS

VI. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

VII. PROJECT MONITORING

VIII. STAFF COMMENTS

IX. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT ISSUED

X. CALL UP REPORTS

XI. SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS

XII. OLD BUSINESS

XIII. NEW BUSINESS

XIII.A. 4:45 P.M. - 303 S. Galena, Minor Development, PUBLIC HEARING 303SGalena_Memo_09.25.19.pdf 303SGalena_Resolution_09.25.19.pdf ExhibitA_DesignGuidelinesCriteria.pdf ExhibitB_Application.pdf 1

1 XIII.B. 6:00 P.M. - 301 Lake Avenue– Minor Development Review, PUBLIC HEARING HPC memo.pdf HPC resolution.pdf ExhibitA_HPGuidelines.pdf ExhibitB_Application.pdf

XIV. 7:00 P.M. : ADJOURN

XV. NEXT RESOLUTION NUMBER

Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings

1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clarifications of applicant 7) Public comments 8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal/clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 11) Applicant rebuttal/clarification

End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public

12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion*

*Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met or not met.

Revised April 2, 2014

2 2 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 2019

Chairperson Greenwood opened the meeting at 4:30 p.m.

Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Richard Lai, Scott Kendrick, Nora Berko, Gretchen Greenwood. Absent were Sheri Sanzone, Jeffrey Halferty, Bob Blaich and Kara Thompson.

Staff present: Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Planning Director Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Mike Kraemer, Senior Planner

MINUTES: Ms. Berko moved to approve the minutes of August 28th, Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion carried.

PUBLIC COMMENT: None.

COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Berko apologized; she did not realize there was a site visit today. She also asked about the reflective glass going away on the little Victorian. Ms. Simon said they have done enforcement on that and it is supposed to be removed.

DISCLOSURES: None.

PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon said she has one to follow up on with Ms. Greenwood regarding 420 E Hyman where Zocalito used to be. They want to demo and replace, and Mr. Pember was the project monitor previously.

STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon said to plan on a November 20th meeting instead of November 27th and we will have a quorum so please put it on your calendar.

CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None.

CALL UPS: Ms. Simon said on Monday night, they went to council for the Red Onion Jas Aspen project and council upheld the decision.

PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan said she is currently reviewing them.

OLD BUSINESS: 201 E. Main Mike Kraemer Mr. Kraemer said this is a continuance from August 14th. This is a historic landmark property and former Main Street Bakery. There was a 2017 HPC approval for a connecting element between the two historic structures. He showed a picture from 1965 with the historic structures. In 2018, there was an additional minor expansion of commercial net leasable space and was granted an exemption. Tonight, the applicant is requesting approval to construct the connecting element, a previous excavation of basement and foundation stabilization. A permit was submitted and during the course of the permit and the work that was happening, there was some minor demolition happening along with foundation stabilization and underpinning. The existing basement was also excavated during this time. They are asking for an after the fact approval from HPC for this excavation. In the packet, there is a 920 square 3 1 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 2019

foot accessory structure, a trash enclosure and restroom. There are setback variations for yard and building setbacks. There is a request for development of a fire place and water feature in the front yard. The application was submitted prior to the most recent code amendment changes. He explained details on the setback variations. The proposed water feature would be on the north façade of the accessory structure. The fire place would be a gas appliance. He showed the floor plan and talked through the trash enclosure, bathroom, etc. Sarah Yoon is going to speak to the design elements. A consideration here for staff review is growth management, which generates 8.59 full time equivalent employees. This is whittled down to a mitigation requirement of 1.58. Parking is in the rear and is part of the property. Given the development, there is a 5.33 parking space requirement by code. Three spaces are in back and one of those is ADA accessible. The remaining spaces are going to be mitigated through cash in lieu. The applicant has shown satisfactory compliance with TIA by providing an onsite bike repair station and a bike rack on the southeast corner of the property. The applicant is also satisfying the TIA requirement by providing cash for the new bus station going in the future. The project has many high points, but there are some concerns in the staff memo. They are concerned about the setback variations, but not with the basement setback requests and we don’t have an issue for the front or side yard variations. The accessory structure, we do have issue with. There is a five-foot requirement with zero being proposed. Staff has concerns about the construction, going into the alley and building maintenance. The applicant will have to go into the alley to do this maintenance. There is garbage placement concerns and a concern about distance from adjacent properties to the south. There is a five-foot setback requirement and the request moves that building closer to the neighboring property. Staff is recommending code compliance at five feet. Ten feet is required for the building setback requirement from the accessory structure to the historic resource, so staff has concerns about compromising the historic resource due to proximity since they are proposing only five feet. There are a couple of design characteristics regarding the mass on the north façade and we suggest they rethink and restudy what the north façade looks like and break it up more. Second, there is no fenestration on the north façade, which we would like to be restudied.

Ms. Greenwood asked what is being planned and what assurances they can give regarding zoning on this property. Mr. Kraemer said it is in the mixed-use zone district. Today, we are seeing from the applicant that it will be a future restaurant. There are finishes that show booths and tables to hold a dining experience. The applicant can provide more detail on the future use of the property. Ms. Simon said that even if the applicant opened a restaurant the next day, they could always change their mind and do something different.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Sara Adams of Bendon Adams, Mark Hunt, ownership, Dave Rybak of Rybak Architecture & Development. Mike Alpert and Ashley Allis of Design Workshop. Ms. Adams said they are proposing a commercial use and they are unsure if it will be a restaurant or not. She said the plans are for illustrative purposes only. This property is on the corner of Main and Aspen streets. The project scope includes window restoration, basement space, a small back of house building, enclosed bear resistant trash, outdoor dining area, onsite parking and growth management, per the book. The restoration is pretty clear. We will be taking out the existing door and putting in a window. This is a great piece of preservation to provide to the community. They are supposed to request relocation approval because the space beneath the landmark was excavated and staff seems to be on board with this, which is just a formality. There is no basement under the addition being proposed. Ms. Adams walked through some design considerations regarding the small alley building. We have a 4 2 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 humungous spruce tree with a big drip line and is a site constraint. We have required onsite parking including three spaces and one ADA space. There are significant grade changes along the alley and please notice how steep it is, which also adds another challenge to the property. We wanted to enclose the trash area and bear proof it and is smaller than what is required, but environmental health has accepted it anyway. One of the most important things to HPC is the reveal of the historic corner. They also have an issue with the drip line and tree roots, so they are unable to build a basement. They also didn’t think that two stories were appropriate, so they want a “background” building. If they don’t get a rear variance, they will take the roof off of the trash enclosure, in which case they would do an electric fence but that is not good for the neighbors or wildlife. She showed an aerial view. Comparing this property to the commercial core, there are no setback requirements of this kind, so we feel this fits into the historic precedence. She showed the Sandborn map with buildings much closer together. It’s important to point out the utilitarian simple form because we don’t want to compete with the resource. She showed the landscape plan and are proposing a lot of open space. The building blocks the view of the parking from Main street, which we think is important. We are saving the historic lilacs and large spruce, rebuilding the fence and restoring the window. The water feature and fireplace are not in the setback and provides vitality and is still considered in the front yard. We are needing an exception for these. We have permeable pavers and samples here for reinvigorating the space and seeing the landmark. Ms. Adams passed around samples of materials on the building. The community benefits will be the commercial use, using less than half allowable floor area, detached new construction, maintain open space at Main street, the outdoor area adds vitality, it is fully accessible, we will preserve and protect the spruce tree, lilacs, fence, upgrade all sidewalks and bike racks, enclosed trash area and onsite parking. We are requesting a five-foot variation for the trash area, a five-foot variation between buildings, basement level, 920 square foot accessory building and the outdoor space, water feature and fireplace.

Mr. Moyer asked if someone wants a restaurant there and they remove the door on the east side, how would the traffic flow and Ms. Adams said access would be through the connecting element. Mr. Moyer asked what the status of the basement is at the moment and Mr. Rybak said the foundation has gone down to a basement depth but no floor and currently an open shell. Mr. Moyer asked about the historic brick and Mr. Rybak said they dry packed the brick wall between the foundation and the structure above, so a majority is stable.

Ms. Berko asked if the water feature uses recycled water and Mr. Hunt said yes. Ms. Berko asked why the trash has to be so big and Ms. Adams said this is the size environmental health is comfortable with. Ms. Berko said she would like to count on coffee in this location and Ms. Adams said unfortunately not, they can’t commit to that in this hearing. Ms. Berko asked where the city is on the fireplace and Mr. Kraemer said he can’t speak to this since it’s on private property. Given the engagement of the outdoor area, staff got comfortable with the look and feel of this being a part of a restaurant landscape.

Ms. Greenwood said we can’t regulate tables and chairs, so we need to consider this space without these things.

Mr. Lai asked about the wood picket fence on Main street and if it’s waist level and Ms. Adams said yes. Mr. Lai asked what criteria they are looking at for the restudy of the façade and Ms. Yoon said they are

5 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 looking at chapter 11. This chapter addresses new construction and it doesn’t cover all, but some of those guidelines apply for reviewing the design criteria for this.

Ms. Greenwood asked if they have a picture of the fireplace and the water feature. Mr. Alpert said the fountain will be at ground level with irises growing up in it. Mr. Kendrick asked how high it is and Mr. Alpert said the spigots are 30 inches high and the wall is 9 feet tall. Mr. Rybak said the material is siding. The trough is flush with the ground with the water sitting six inches below that. The pipes would carry the water down creating white noise to buffer the traffic on Main street. It would have a splash zone of about 30 inches, and he is unsure of the velocity of the water, which determines the splash.

Mr. Lai asked why they chose siding instead of masonry because it seems a little strange to him. It reminds him of Tivoli, and he imagines water coming out of stone instead of siding, which he equates to wood. Mr. Rybak said they are trying to keep a uniform material and want to keep everything simple and not too interesting. We want to keep the historic resource as the focus.

PUBLIC COMMENT: Bob Langley Mr. Langley said he worked with Leslie Rudd, David Roth and Dave Rybak before Mr. Rudd passed away. The biggest issue for him, is the basement. The basement was presumed to get excavated the way it is with approval after the fact. Given the situation that was inherited, it merits granting the basement. It can be a significant asset and it’s already there. What are you gonna do? Fill it back up? He thinks preserving the tree is a great idea. They’ve done a good job on managing the property and the basement should be recognized.

Mr. Kraemer read a letter from Ruth Carver, the neighbor to the south.

Public comment closed.

Ms. Greenwood summarized what the board needs to discuss.

Ms. Greenwood said from a standpoint of setbacks and site design, she isn’t in favor of the 0 setback. There is enough room on the property to have the 5 feet. She thinks the 5 feet in between building is a mistake. She’s seen what happens and it gets loaded up with junk. We need to think about maintaining the integrity of the historic building and respect the history. Regarding the building design, she’s trying to visualize the building, and to her, it looks like it belongs in Glenwood or Grand Junction. It’s a confusing visual experience to her. She doesn’t feel like the architecture will live there for a long time. She feels the water feature is in the wrong place and is very modern. She’s not opposed to it, but it should be in a better location. It’s visually odd. She doesn’t agree that the accessory building is an alley structure, as those are normally petite and small. This is not charming. The colors and materials seem out of scale. Everything staff issued in the memo, she agrees with. The fireplace is kitschy with an Aztec design. There doesn’t seem to be a unified thought on designing this space. We don’t know what this will become, so how can you say it won’t work with a basement? She wants to remind HPC to ignore the activities going on outside, that’s not something we vote on. For her, it falls short. She is in favor of going back to the drawing board and starting over. It looks better now with a vacant space instead of with a bunch of parts and pieces that don’t belong.

Mr. Moyer said that regarding the existing historic structure and basement, he is good with those. He concurs with staff and chapter 11 on the auxiliary building. He understands the concept, but this is a 6 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 2019

pretty important part of Aspen, so he concurs that you should go back to the drawing board. There should be a 10-foot space and that is terribly important. The alley is huge. It might be advantageous for all of us to go and look at the alley. He likes the concept of the water feature and the fireplace. It’s important to have some messy vitality in the alleys, so you should have some fenestration or door or some activity, so that it lends to the community.

Mr. Kendrick said he is in favor of the basement and said it’s important. He said it helps to offset some of what can’t be done on the site. He really thinks they need to adhere to 10-foot setback and doesn’t think 0 setback is appropriate. Regarding the water feature and the fire place, if it there to drown out street noise, he doesn’t think it will be effective that far back. He also thinks they should break up the façade of that building. As it stands, it doesn’t work. Understands the city’s desire not to have the fireplace, but he thinks it’s nice and adds some vitality, so he doesn’t have a problem with that.

Ms. Greenwood said this project doesn’t fit with Aspen. For her, the design is all wrong and it belongs on a golf course. Visually it doesn’t fit on Main street for her.

Ms. Berko is eager to see this project happen. The basement should be legal. She doesn’t feel like the addition highlight the resource. She thinks it sort of crushes it, so she feels that chapter 11 is correct and to her, it’s monolithic and wall like. She supports staff’s recommendation on the 10-foot setback. The setbacks are there for a reason and they need to be there. The water feature would be be great somewhere else and she can’t support an outdoor fireplace.

Mr. Lai said he likes the idea of the outdoor garden and restaurant. When he first came to Aspen, there used to be a restaurant called the Epicure caddy corner from the Jerome and it was his favorite place to be. They had an outdoor garden and the waitresses were all cute. It was wonderful in the summertime. He used to have a French professor who insisted on a night lighting diagram. He said they should consider light in the garden and be used when illumination isn’t possible. He questions again the water feature. He likes the idea like of Tivoli gardens, but it should have a concrete masonry. You could replicate this from the original building. It’s better to be on the street side instead of opposite wall. He’s concerned with the use and said we can’t control that, but he wants that it to stay a restaurant. He thinks the east façade needs restudy. To him, the façade and connector, seem industrial and it doesn’t quite fit. This could be more elegant. Mostly, he agrees with staff’s comments.

Gretchen said as a board, they are in favor of keeping the basement in use.

MOTION: Mr. Lai moved to continue to November 20th, Mr. Kendrick seconded. All in favor, motion carried.

Ms. Simon said there is bad news regarding the second item. They failed to post the public notice, so they sent the applicant home and continued to October 9th.

MOTION: Mr. Kendrick motioned to adjourn, Ms. Berko seconded. All in favor at 6:07 p.m.

______

Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk

7 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 2019

8 6

Memorandum

TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission

FROM: Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner

THROUGH: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer

MEETING DATE: September 25, 2019

RE: 303 South Galena – Minor Development Review, PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICANT /OWNER: SUMMARY: Anthony E. Cox Living Trust The applicant has requested a Minor Development Review for repainting the exterior masonry of the historic landmark. REPRESENTATIVE: BendonAdams LLC STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request to repaint the exterior LOCATION: masonry finding relevant criteria are not met. Staff recommends Street Address: the applicant undertake additional research and action to remove 303 South Galena Street the paint from the brick and stone.

Legal Description: The East 6 feet of Lot G and all of Lots H and I, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.

Parcel Identification Number: PID# 2737-182-16-007

CURRENT ZONING & USE CC – Commercial Core, 303 Commercial & Residential

PROPOSED USE: No change

Site Locator Map – 303 South Galena 9 Page 1 of 5

130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com

BACKGROUND: 303 South Galena, also known as the Aspen Block Building, is a historically designated landmark from 1886. This masonry commercial building from the Victorian era is in the Commercial Core zone district on a highly visible corner lot that faces the Aspen Pedestrian Mall. The building has a pressed metal cornice that wraps around the east and north façades. This is a brick building is perhaps the only one in Aspen that used sandstone quarried from along Maroon Creek as decorative trim and detailing on the façade. The ground level façade consists of wood frame storefronts between cast iron columns. The original masonry surfaces were painted over and now have accumulated layers of various types of paint. Figure 1 – Aspen Block, 1925 Courtesy of: Aspen Historical Society

REQUEST OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals: • Minor Development (Section 26.415.070.C) for repainting the exterior masonry of the historic building.

*The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is the final review authority, and this project is not subject to Call- up Notice to City Council.

PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to repaint the historic masonry. This surface is currently painted.

In the past four to five years, Historic Preservation staff and the Community Development Director have taken the position that painting masonry is not exempt from historic preservation review. This finding has been applied to requests to paint historic and non-historic buildings downtown and is based on concerns with the change in aesthetics and loss of scale and detail that results from painting brick, along with significant deterioration that can result from applying a coating to masonry, reducing the natural evaporation of moisture through the surface.

An owner’s representative for this property was informed of the concern and undertook some studies and test patches in 2016. No conclusions were reached between the building representative and staff.

10 Page 2 of 5

130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com

A stop order was issued in April 2019 when staff found work underway to repaint the exterior masonry without proper approvals. This application has been filed to seek an HPC determination of the appropriateness of painting.

STAFF COMMENTS: Staff finds the request to repaint the historic masonry does not meet the Design Guidelines pertaining to the preservation of historic building materials. Historically, masonry buildings in the commercial core were not painted. In the case of the Aspen Block building, the quarried stones were shaped and finished by stone masons and utilized as decorative trim and detail on the façade. The layers of paint applied to the masonry surface cover up these subtle details and are now causing the historic building material to deteriorate in certain areas due to low water vapor transmission. For the longevity of the historic building material, staff recommends the layers of paint be removed according to the appropriate conservation methods.

The following points go into more detail regarding the proposal for HPC discussion:

1. Historic Building Material: Preserving material integrity and providing proper maintenance to ensure the longevity of the historic resource is the primary goal of Aspen’s historic preservation program. Chapter 2 of the Historic Design Guidelines address topics of rehabilitation, and Guideline 2.2 speaks to surfaces treatments and finishes of original material. The masonry material at 303 S. Galena was not painted historically. Since paint was applied, this Guideline calls for its removal by using appropriate methodologies. Paint is a synthetic material that covers the historic finish of the masonry and, in the process, has muted the various surfaces and textures into a solid uniform surface.

A number of historical records and photographs suggest some masonry buildings in Aspen have been painted for decades, and the earliest layers are likely to contain lead paint. The successive layers of paint throughout the years have created a fairly impermeable coating that prevents moisture from evaporating. The continuous application of paint without assessing the fundamental issues may lead to “demolition by neglect.” Since the condition of the substrate will vary from project to project, it is important to conduct a study of existing conditions. These results will inform recommendations for conservation and maintenance. Staff’s main concern is related to the detrimental impacts caused by the impermeable surface (Design Guideline 2.5).

In 2016 the owner conducted an evaluation of the painted exterior masonry and the physical impacts of the paint layers. Testing included absorption tests for freeze/thaw conditions and water vapor transmission properties of the existing paint layers. The final recommendation as a result from this study was to remove the paint from the façade because “the existing multiple layers of paint don’t allow moisture to readily exist the stone matrix.” Although the substrate stone is considered a durable sandstone, when moisture is trapped and the stone is in a saturated

Page 3 of 5 11

130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com

state, freeze thaw conditions will cause fractures and spalling in the stone. The full report is included in the submitted application, Exhibit B.

The following images are examples of three historic masonry buildings that have successfully removed layers of paint and restored the facades to their original design. All three Victorian era landmarks have been restored to their original appearance by removing the impermeable layers of paint. Ultimately, this restoration work promotes the longevity of the historic resource.

Staff does not find that the paint that has been applied to several masonry buildings downtown has gained historic significance and should be maintained. The practice is destructive, and not an alteration which should be perpetuated.

Figure 2 – Hotel Jerome, 1966 Figure 3 – Hotel Jerome, 2019 Courtesy of: Aspen Historical Society

Figure 4 – 312 S. Galena Figure 5 – 312 S. Galena Figure 6 – 110 E. Bleeker, 2000 Figure 7 – 110 E. Bleeker, 2018 ,1991 ,2019

The Planning Department has identified repainting historic masonry to be inappropriate because of the damage it causes to the historic building material. Staff finds the request to repaint the historic masonry at 303 S. Galena does not comply with Design Guidelines 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, and 2.6 and recommends the applicant pursue the recommendations provided by the architectural conservator to remove the paint because the existing layer traps moisture. Contractors with broad experience

Page 4 of 5 12

130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com removing paint from historic buildings can be identified and can conduct additional test patches to determine appropriate techniques. While staff is sympathetic to the costs and inconvenience of the project, continued paint application will not support the long-term preservation of the building.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) deny the request to repaint the historic masonry. Staff recommends additional research and testing which would lead to the removal of the existing paint as recommended in the study, in a timely manner that does not lead to “demolition by neglect”.

ATTACHMENTS: Resolution #____, Series of 2019

Exhibit A – Design Guidelines Criteria /Staff Findings Exhibit B – Application

13 Page 5 of 5

130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2019

A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) DENYING MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 303 SOUTH GALENA STREET, THE EAST 6 FEET OF LOT G AND ALL OF LOTS H AND I, BLOCK 89, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO

PARCEL ID: 2737-182-16-007

WHEREAS, the applicant, Anthony E. Cox Living Trust, represented by BendonAdams LLC, has requested HPC approval for Minor Development for the property located at 303 South Galena Street, the East 6 feet of Lot G, and all of Lots H and I, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado;

WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;” and

WHEREAS, for approval of Minor Development Review, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.070.C, Minor Development involving a designated historic property or property within a historic district; and

WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable review standards and recommended denial of Minor Development; and

WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on September 25, 2019. HPC considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal inconsistent with the review standards and denied approval by a vote of __ to __.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby denies Minor Development for 303 South Galena Street, the East 6 feet of Lot G and all of Lots H and I, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado:

Section 1: Minor Development Review HPC hereby denies Minor Development Review for repainting the exterior masonry of the historic landmark.

Section 2: Material Representations All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Historic 14 HPC Resolution #___, Series of 2019 Page 1 of 2 Preservation Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority.

Section 3: Existing Litigation This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.

Section 4: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.

APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the _____ day of ______, 2019.

Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:

______Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Gretchen Greenwood, Chair

ATTEST:

______Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk

15 HPC Resolution #___, Series of 2019 Page 2 of 2

Exhibit A Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria Staff Findings

NOTE: Staff responses begin on page 3 of this exhibit, following the list of applicable guidelines.

26.415.070.C – Certificate of Appropriateness for a Minor Development 1. The review and decision on the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness for minor development shall begin with a determination by the Community Development Director that the proposed project constitutes a minor development. Minor development work includes:

a) Expansion or erection of a structure wherein the increase of the floor area of the structure is two hundred and fifty (250) square feet or less or

b) Alterations to a building façade, windows, doors, roof planes or material, exterior wall materials, dormer porch, exterior staircase, balcony or ornamental trim when three (3) or fewer elements are affected and the work does not qualify for a certificate of no negative effect or

c) Erection or installation of a combination or multiples of awning, canopies, mechanical equipment, fencing, signs, accessory features and other attachments to designated properties such that the cumulative impact does not allow for the issuance of a certificate of no negative effect or

d) Alterations that are made to non-historic portions of a designated historic property that do not qualify for a certificate of no negative effect or

e) The erection of street furniture, signs, public art and other visible improvements within designated historic districts of a magnitude or in numbers such that the cumulative impact does not allow for the issuance of a certificate of no negative effect. The Community Development Director may determine that an application for work on a designated historic property involving multiple categories of minor development may result in the cumulative impact such that it is considered a major development. In such cases, the applicant shall apply for a major development review in accordance with Subsection 26.415.07.D.

16 Page 1 of 3

Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Review Criteria for 303 S. Galena The applicant is requesting a Minor Development Review to repaint the historic masonry of the exterior facade. As a historically designated landmark, the proposed scope of work must meet applicable Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.

DOES NOT MET NOT MET Chapter 2: Rehabilitation - Building Materials APPLY

2.1 Preserve original building materials. NOT MET

2.2 The finish of materials should be as it would have existed historically. NOT MET

2.5 Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate. NOT MET

2.6 Remove layers that cover the original material. NOT MET

Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines: 2.1 Preserve original building materials. • Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place. • Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved. • Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired in place. Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity. • Original AspenModern materials may be replaced in kind if it has been determined that the weathering detracts from the original design intent or philosophy.

2.2 The finish of materials should be as it would have existed historically. • Masonry naturally has a water-protective layer to protect it from the elements. Brick or stone that was not historically painted shall not be painted. • If masonry that was not painted historically was given a coat of paint at some more recent time, consider removing it, using appropriate methods. • Wood should be painted, stained or natural, as appropriate to the style and history of the building.

2.5 Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate. • Regardless of their character, new materials obscure the original, historically significant material. • Any material that covers historic materials may also trap moisture between the two layers. This will cause accelerated deterioration to the historic material which may go unnoticed.

2.6 Remove layers that cover the original material. • Once the non-historic siding is removed, repair the original, underlying material.

17 Page 2 of 3

Staff Findings: The applicable section of the design guidelines for this proposal is Building Materials.

Staff finds Design Guideline 2.1 the preservation of original material is not met. This guideline highlights the importance of masonry details and calls for its preservation. The added layers of paint have changed the character of the original material. In addition, staff has concerns with the condition of the historic masonry underneath the layers of paint. For the benefit and preservation of the historic masonry, staff does not support the request to repaint the historic masonry.

Staff finds Design Guideline 2.2 regarding historic finishes of materials is not met. The historic masonry has been covered by decades worth of paint. The evaluation of the existing condition verifies the successive layers of paint to be impermeable and recommends its removal. Historically, this building was not painted, and these layers of paint can be detrimental to the historic resource by trapping moisture between the layers by saturating the masonry underneath. Staff recommends the exterior finish be returned back to its original condition by removing the layers of paint with conservation appropriate methods.

Staff finds Design Guideline 2.5 regarding new materials covering historic materials is not met. The original building material is currently covered with a non-historic finish that is causing damage to the historic resource. The conducted study verifies the impermeable nature of the applied paint coating. Not only does the paint cover and mute the original details of the masonry, it is accelerating the deterioration of the historic building material.

Staff finds Design Guideline 2.6 is not met because the applicant proposes to add another layer of paint rather than remove layers of non-historic finishes or materials. With the removal of the non-historic impermeable layer of paint, the applicant will be able to address any issues with the underlying historic material. Staff finds that additional layers of paint will only worsen the existing condition of the masonry that may lead to a case of “demolition by neglect.”

In summary, staff finds the request to repaint does not meet any of the relevant Design Guidelines.

18 Page 3 of 3

June 17, 2019

Aspen Historic Preservation Commission c/o Amy Simon

Re: Minor Development application for 303 South Galena – Aspen Block

Dear Commission members and Planning Staff;

Please accept this application for Minor Development review to repaint the existing masonry building at 303 South Galena Street. 303 South Galena Street, aka Aspen Block, is a historic landmark located in the Commercial Core Historic District. Constructed in 1886 with cut stone masonry, brick, and cast iron columns, the two story building contains ground level retail storefronts along Galena Street and the Hyman Pedestrian Mall, and the second floor is occupied by a small lodge run by Terri Butler. The sandstone was locally quarried in Maroon Creek according to Larry Frederick with the Aspen Historical Society. Typical Aspen downtown buildings of this era have peach blow sandstone quarried from above Basalt – this example of buff colored sandstone is rare in Aspen.

Figure 1 & 2: 1925 Aspen Block building, courtesy the Aspen Historical Society, and current photograph.

300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM 19

Based on photographs in the Aspen Historical Society archives and an article in the Aspen Daily Times, the building has been painted since at least 1940.

Figure 3: 1960 Aspen Block building, courtesy Aspen Historical Society.

Figure 4: April 4, 1940, Aspen Daily Times,.

Figure 5: April 11, 1940, Aspen Daily Times.

Page 2 | 5 20

According to a 1946 article in the Aspen Daily Times1, Herbert Bayer was in charge of the color scheme at the Aspen Block which explains the similarities between the photo above and Herbert Bayer’s paint selection for the Hotel Jerome. Herbert Bayer also worked on a remodel in 1947 that restored some of Aspen Block storefronts as shown in the hand drawn sketch.

Figure 6: Herbert Bayer sketch of 1947 remodel, courtesy Aspen Historical Society, Bayer Collection. The building has been painted for almost 80 years and the owner would like to repaint the building. Best historic preservation practice discourages painting masonry due to the irreparable damage it causes to the historic material; however once a building is painted it can be more damaging to remove the paint than to leave it in place. In my experience, a building was often painted for a reason: to cover missing material or incompatible patches, or to cover deteriorated masonry. There are numerous examples of painted masonry buildings in town (images below) – most of which have been repainted in the past 5 years.

Figures 7 – 9: Painted masonry buildings.

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation clearly discourage painting masonry that is not or was not historically painted. However, when considering rehabilitation, the recently updated Standards recognize the negative aspects of removing existing paint and therefore do not recommend “removing paint that is firmly adhering to, thus protecting, masonry surfaces.”

1 Aspen Daily Times, page 4, May 2, 1946. Page 3 | 5 21

The local Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines recommend removing paint that is not the historic condition.

2.2 The finish of materials should be as it would have existed historically. • Masonry naturally has a water-protective layer to protect it from the elements. Brick or stone that was not historically painted shall not be painted. • If masonry that was not painted historically was given a coat of paint at some more recent time, consider removing it, using appropriate methods. • Wood should be painted, stained or natural, as appropriate to the style and history of the building.

To further research the ability to remove paint from the Aspen Block building, the owner commissioned a report in 2016 with consulting firm Atkinson-Noland Associates (Exhibit A). The study looked at the weathering characteristics of the sandstone if it was no longer painted, and the permeability of the multiple layers of paint to determine if the paint was “breathable” and thus allowing moisture to pass through and not be held against the stone causing further deterioration. The conclusion of the report was that sandstone can withstand Aspen’s harsh climate (as evidenced throughout town), and that the paint layers were not “breathable.” The report recommends removal of the paint using a mix of methods including a poultice and dry ice blasting.

As suggested in the report, a peel-away poultice was applied to the column by the alley as a test to determine the effectiveness of the method, time, cost, and final appearance. We were unable to locate an expert to conduct the recommended dry ice blasting. It took 6 days to ‘remove’ the paint from the column and the final appearance was unsightly. The column was ultimately repainted.

Figures 10 – 12: Photographs of spot test of paint removal from alley column.

Page 4 | 5 22

Two key factors for this discussion are impacts on tenants and cost. Cost estimates are over $500,000 to complete the paint removal. Even more important than cost is the impact on tenants. There is lead paint which requires complete containment during removal and effectively blocks off access to ground floor and upper level tenants. Phasing the paint removal may alleviate some impact on ground level tenants, but it does nothing for the Residences Hotel that occupies the entire second floor. Phasing also significantly lengthens the time to complete the project and increases cost. Timing and weather is also a factor because the peel-away product and paint are most effective above 50 degrees, which limits the ability to complete the work during off-seasons.

Even if a solution is reached for the tenants, and a rehabilitation grant is awarded for the paint removal to help with cost, the final appearance may be undesired. The 80 year history of paint on the exterior of the building needs to be considered when deciding on the most appropriate final outcome. National Park Service Historic Preservation Brief 1: Assessing Cleaning and Water- Repellent Treatments for Historic Masonry Buildings is attached and an excerpt is provided below:

“And, if the building appears to have been painted for a long time, it is also important to think about whether the paint is part of the character of the historic building and if it has acquired significance over time…

CONSIDER THE PRACTICALITIES OF CLEANING OR PAINT REMOVAL

Some gypsum or sulfate crusts may have become integral with the stone and, if cleaning could result in removing some of the stone surface, it may be preferable not to clean. Even where unpainted masonry is appropriate, the retention of the paint may be more practical than removal in terms of long range preservation of the masonry. In some cases, however, removal of the paint may be desirable. For example, the old paint layers may have built up to such an extent that removal is necessary to ensure a sound surface to which the new paint will adhere.”

This is a challenging preservation discussion - thank you for your consideration of this application. We look forward to discussing it with you and with the Historic Preservation Commission. Please contact me with any questions or concerns: 925-2855 or [email protected]

Kind Regards,

Sara Adams, AICP

Attachments: A – Historic assessment from Atkinson-Noland Associates B –NPS Preservation Brief 1: Assessing Cleaning and Water-Repellent Treatments for Historic Masonry Buildings. Note: only relevant portions are included. C - Pre-Application conference summary D - Land Use Application. E – Vicinity Map F – Authorization to represent G – Disclosure of ownership H – Agreement to pay form I – HOA compliance form Page 5 | 5 23

exhibit A

March 28, 2016

Mr. Erik Barbic Sphere Management, LLC 1260 41st Ave, Suite O Capitola, CA 95010 (970) 236-6407

Dear Mr. Barbic:

Background At the request of Sphere Management, Atkinson-Noland & Associates (ANA) was retained to provide an evaluation and conservation recommendations for maintenance of the painted exterior stone masonry on the ground floor of the Aspen Block Building in Aspen, Colorado (Figure 1). I conducted a half day site visit on January 22, 2016 to visually evaluate the stone and obtain four stone samples and several paint samples for testing.

Figure 1. View of the Aspen Block Building’s east and north elevations.

The Aspen Block Building dates from 1886 and is constructed with cut stone masonry and cast iron columns along the S. Galena St. and E. Hyman Ave. storefronts on the ground floor. The remaining ground floor elevations and upper floor exterior walls are constructed of clay masonry. Currently the stone masonry is painted and the numerous paint layers indicate that the stone has likely been painted for some time. The objective of the current evaluation is to determine if the paint could be removed from the

24 Atkinson-Noland & Associates 2619 Spruce Street 32 Old Slip, 10th Floor Consulting Engineers Boulder, CO 80302 New York, NY 10005 www.ana-usa.com 303.444.3620 917.647.9530 Aspen Block Building Stone Evaluation Page 2 of 7 sandstone columns without damaging the stone and if the cleaned sandstone could be left exposed without unacceptable weathering occurring in the future.

The stone used in the Aspen Block Building is a buff-colored moderately dense sandstone (Figure 2). At the time of this report, we are not aware of any other building in Aspen that incorporates the same sandstone that was used in the Aspen Block Building, although it seems unlikely that this sandstone was quarried for a single building. Where visible, the sandstone is laid with the visible bedding planes horizontal.

The more typical building stone used in Aspen is the reddish Peachblow Sandstone quarried near Basalt which generally has performed well on building exteriors in Aspen’s climate.

Figure 2. Exposed sandstone and peeling paint. Note previous orange, pink and additional greenish layers of paint.

Testing Stone cores were obtained from a stone curb along the north elevation of the Aspen Block Building (Figure 3) and small paint samples were obtained at locations where paint was peeling from stone piers along the north and east elevations.

Stone samples were tested for specific gravity and 48-hour cold water absorption as outlined in ASTM C97, Standard Test Methods for Absorption and Bulk Specific Gravity of Dimension Stone. The tests indicate a moderately dense sandstone with a specific

25 Atkinson-Noland & Associates 2619 Spruce Street 32 Old Slip, 10th Floor Consulting Engineers Boulder, CO 80302 New York, NY 10005 www.ana-usa.com 303.444.3620 917.647.9530

Aspen Block Building Stone Evaluation Page 3 of 7 gravity of 2.3 (144 pounds per cubic foot) and relatively low absorption of 3.7% by weight. A more detailed test report is contained in Appendix A attached to this report. Higher density and lower water absorption are indicators of a stone’s durability as moisture-induced damage is common in lower density and more absorptive stone – especially in freeze/thaw conditions.

An additional absorption test based on capillary action was conducted using a European test standard, EN 1925, Natural Stone Test Methods - Determination of Water Absorption Coefficient by Capillarity. This test is an indication of the pore structure within the stone and how easily moisture “wicks” into the material by placing one end of a core in contact with a basin of water and periodically measuring the weight gain due to water absorption.

In generally, stones with lower capillary absorption are more durable. The calculated uptake or “w-value” for this test, conducted on four core samples, was 2.3 kilograms per square meter per hour. This value puts the sandstone in the category of a medium absorbing stone (w between 0.5 and 3.0 kg/m2•h). Note that the test was conducted with the bedding planes parallel to the direction of moisture uptake. The same test performed perpendicular to the bedding planes in the sandstone would most likely produce lower w- values. A graph of the moisture uptake versus time is included in Appendix A.

Figure 3. Location of cores below storefront windows on the E. Hyman Ave. pedestrian mall.

Paint samples obtained from the building were used to evaluate the water vapor transmission properties of the existing paint layers on the stone. In general, coatings on masonry should allow moisture, as a vapor, to pass through the coating. This allows any moisture that may enter the wall cross section to exit the wall and not accumulate behind

26 Atkinson-Noland & Associates 2619 Spruce Street 32 Old Slip, 10th Floor Consulting Engineers Boulder, CO 80302 New York, NY 10005 www.ana-usa.com 303.444.3620 917.647.9530

Aspen Block Building Stone Evaluation Page 4 of 7 a vapor impermeable coating. Trapped water can cause damage when the saturated stone behind the coating freezes, causing fractures and spalling in the stone.

Water vapor transmission (WVT) of building materials is typically tested using the methods outlined in ASTM E96, Standard Test Methods for Water Vapor Transmission of Materials. We used the wet cup method described in ASTM E96 to evaluate the WVT of the paint samples by capping a small liquid-filled container with a paint sample that was sealed to the top of the container with silicone. The fabricated samples were placed in a chamber where the temperature and relative humidity (RH) were controlled at 90º F and 50% RH. The samples were weighed daily to measure the loss in moisture, through the paint layers, over time. The average water transmission rate through the paint sample was 1.4 grams per square meter per hour, a relatively low value. The permeance of the multiple paint layers is 2.9 perms. A test report is included in Appendix A attached to this report.

Figure 4. Water vapor transmission test chamber with samples visible on top shelf.

Summary There are no definitive tests, other than time itself, that can absolutely predict the long- term durability of dimension stone to weather exposure. However, the tests reported herein, on sandstone samples from the Aspen Block Building, indicate that the sandstone is likely to be durable in Aspen’s climate. The tested values are comparable with those from other sandstones proven, over time, to be durable in Colorado’s and Wyoming’s mountainous climates.

27 Atkinson-Noland & Associates 2619 Spruce Street 32 Old Slip, 10th Floor Consulting Engineers Boulder, CO 80302 New York, NY 10005 www.ana-usa.com 303.444.3620 917.647.9530

Aspen Block Building Stone Evaluation Page 5 of 7

Paint Removal Recommendations Paint removal is recommended as the existing multiple layers of paint don’t allow moisture to readily exit the stone matrix. Paint removal from the stone columns would best be accomplished by a combination of several methods including dry ice media blasting and mechanical and chemical stripping. The assumption is that at least some of the paint layers contain lead, so proper containment and disposal procedures will need to be followed.

Dry ice blasting requires an experienced and attentive operator to prevent damage to the stone surface. However, when operated correctly, the equipment removes paint layers quickly with no damage to the substrate. We would recommend a mockup of one column be done before a specialty contractor is given notice to proceed with the remaining columns on the ground floor. The dry ice blasting should be done in concert with mechanical removal using nonmetallic scrapers to remove the bulk of the peeling paint. In addition, safe paint strippers (e.g. Dumond Chemical’s peel-away or equivalent) may be used in areas that may not be accessible for media blasting.

Once the paint has been removed from the stone masonry columns, it would be beneficial to apply a breathable masonry sealer to the stone per the manufacturer’s recommendations. One suitable product is Prosoco’s Sure Klean Siloxane WB, diluted as recommended. Any sealer should first be tried on a small inconspicuous area to ensure the stone color or surface gloss does not change significantly.

We thank you for the opportunity to be of service in this matter. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information.

Sincerely,

David B. Woodham, P.E.

28 Atkinson-Noland & Associates 2619 Spruce Street 32 Old Slip, 10th Floor Consulting Engineers Boulder, CO 80302 New York, NY 10005 www.ana-usa.com 303.444.3620 917.647.9530

Appendix A

Test Results

29 Atkinson-Noland & Associates 2619 Spruce Street 32 Old Slip, 10th Floor Consulting Engineers Boulder, CO 80302 New York, NY 10005 www.ana-usa.com 303.444.3620 917.647.9530

Atkinson-Noland & Associates, Inc. 2619 Spruce Street Boulder, CO 80302 Phone: (303) 444-3620 Fax: (303) 444-3239 www.ana-usa.com

TEST REPORT ABSORPTION AND BULK SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF DIMENSION STONE

To: Sphere Management, LLC Job Name: Aspen Block Building 1260 41st Ave, Suite O ANA Job No.: 15-208 Capitola, CA 95010 Date: 2/8/2016 (970) 236-6407

Test Date: 2/8/2016 Sample ID:Aspen Block 1" cores Tested By: MJP/DBW Date Sample Received: 1/22/2016 Tested in Accordance With: ASTM C 97

Absorption Specimen Soaked and Surface- Water Absorption by ID Dried Weight (g) Dried Weight (g) Weight (%) 1 88.68 92.68 4.5 2 89.04 92.27 3.6 3 70.72 72.71 2.8 4 64.90 67.44 3.9

Mean Water Absorption 3.7 %

Bulk Specific Gravity Soaked and Specimen Soaked and Surface- Suspended in Water ID Dried Weight (g) Dried Weight (g) Weight (g) Bulk Specific Gravity 1 88.68 92.68 52.86 2.23 2 89.04 92.27 53.93 2.32 3 70.72 72.71 42.59 2.35 4 64.90 67.44 39.05 2.29

Mean Bulk Specific Gravity 2.30

Notes:

MJP DBW Test Report By Reviewed By 30 5 Capillary Water Absorption 4.5 EN 1925 ) 2 4

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

1 Capillarity Water Absorption (kg / m

0.5 2b w-value 2.3 kg/m2 h 1b w-value 3.2 kg.m2 h 3 w-value 1.3 kg/m2 h 4 w-value 2.5 kg/m2 h 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Time (s -1) y = 0.039x y = 0.0537x y = 0.021x y = 0.0416x R² = 0.9718 R² = 0.9954 R² = 0.9643 R² = 0.9936 2b 1b 3 4 Linear (2b) Linear (1b) Linear (3) Linear (4)

31 Atkinson-Noland & Associates, Inc. 2619 Spruce Street Boulder, CO 80302 Phone: (303) 444-3620 Fax: (303) 444-3239 www.ana-usa.com

REPORT OF WATER VAPOR PERMEABILITY

TO: Sphere Management, LLC JOB NO.: 15-208 1260 41st Ave, Suite O TEST PERFORMED BY: MJP Capitola, CA 95010 REPORT DATE: 3/16/2016 (970) 236-6407

PROJECT: Aspen Block Building MATERIAL TESTED: Paint

WVT Permeance Thickness Permeability Sample (g/h∙m2) (Perm) (in.) (Perm∙inch) 1 1.7 3.4 0.040 0.14 2 1.1 2.1 0.035 0.07 3 1.6 3.1 0.035 0.11

2.88 Average: 0.11 Perm∙inch Std. Dev.: n/a CoV: n/a %

NOTES: Specimens were tested in accordance with ASTM E96 at 90°F and 50% relative humidity.

MJP DBW LAB TECHNICIAN REVIEWED BY

32 Preservation Brief 1: Assessing Cleaning and Water-Repellent Treatment... https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/1-cleaning-water-repelle... exhibit B

Home > How to Preserve > Preservation Briefs > 1 Cleaning and Water-Repellent Treatments

Some of the web versions of the Preservation Briefs differ somewhat from the printed versions. Many illustrations are new and in color; Captions are simplified and some complex charts are omitted. To order hard copies of the Briefs, see Printed Publications .

PRESERVATION BRIEFS

Robert C. Mack, FAIA, and Anne E. Grimmer

Preparing for a Cleaning Project

Understanding the Building Materials

Cleaning Methods and Materials

Planning a Cleaning Project Appropriate cleaning of Water-Repellent Coatings and Waterproof Coatings historic masonry. Photo: NPS files. Summary and References

Reading List

Download the PDF

Inappropriate cleaning and coating treatments are a major cause of damage to historic masonry buildings. While either or both treatments may be appropriate in some cases, they can be very destructive to historic masonry if they are not selected carefully. Historic masonry, as considered here, includes stone, brick, architectural terra cotta, cast stone, concrete and concrete block. It is frequently cleaned because cleaning is equated with improvement. Cleaning may sometimes be followed by the application of a water-repellent coating. However, unless these procedures are carried out under the guidance and supervision of an architectural conservator, they may result in irrevocable damage to the historic resource.

The purpose of this Brief is to provide information on the variety of cleaning methods and materials that are available for use on the exterior of historic masonry buildings, and to provide guidance in selecting the most appropriate method or combination of methods. The difference between water-repellent coatings and waterproof coatings is explained, and the purpose of each, the suitability of their application to historic masonry buildings, and the possible consequences of their inappropriate use are discussed.

The Brief is intended to help develop sensitivity to the qualities of historic masonry that makes it so special, and to assist historic building owners and property managers in working cooperatively with architects, architectural conservators, and contractors. Although specifically intended for historic buildings, the information is applicable to all masonry buildings. This publication updates and expands Preservation Briefs 1: The Cleaning and Waterproof Coating of

Ninety years of accumulated dirt Masonry Buildings. The Brief is not meant to be a cleaning manual or a guide for preparing specifications. Rather, it provides general information to raise awareness of the many factors 33 involved in selecting cleaning and water-repellent treatments for historic masonry buildings.

1 of 12 6/14/2019, 10:46 AM Preservation Brief 1: Assessing Cleaning and Water-Repellent Treatment... https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/1-cleaning-water-repelle...

and pollutants are being removed from this historic Preparing for a Cleaning Project theater using an appropriate chemical cleaner, applied in Reasons for Cleaning stages. Photo: Richard Wagner, AIA. First, it is important to determine whether it is appropriate to clean the masonry. The objective of cleaning a historic masonry building must be considered carefully before arriving at a decision to clean. There are several major reasons for cleaning a historic masonry building: improve the appearance of the building by removing unattractive dirt or soiling materials, or non-historic paint from the masonry; retard deterioration by removing soiling materials that may be damaging the masonry; or provide a clean surface to accurately match repointing mortars or patching compounds, or to conduct a condition survey of the masonry.

Identify What is to be Removed The general nature and source of dirt or soiling material on a building must be identified to remove it in the gentlest means possible--that is, in the most effective, yet least harmful, manner. Soot and smoke, for example, require a different cleaning agent to remove than oil stains or metallic stains. Other common cleaning problems include biological growth such as mold or mildew, and organic matter such as the tendrils left on masonry after removal of ivy. Consider the Historic Appearance of the Building If the proposed cleaning is to remove paint, it is important in each case to learn whether or not unpainted masonry is historically appropriate. And, it is necessary to consider why the building was painted. Was it to cover bad repointing or unmatched repairs? Was the building painted to protect soft brick or to conceal deteriorating stone? Or, was painted masonry simply a fashionable treatment in a particular historic period? Many buildings were painted at the time of construction or shortly thereafter; retention of the paint, therefore, may be more appropriate historically than removing it. And, if the building appears to have been painted for a long time, it is also important to think about whether the paint is part of the character of the historic building and if it has acquired significance over time.

Consider the Practicalities of Cleaning or Paint Removal Some gypsum or sulfate crusts may have become integral with the stone and, if cleaning could result in removing some of the stone surface, it may be preferable not to clean. Even where unpainted masonry is appropriate, the retention of the paint may be more practical than removal in terms of long range preservation of the masonry. In some cases, however, removal of the paint may be desirable. For example, the old paint layers may have built up to such an extent that removal is necessary to ensure a sound surface to which the new paint will adhere.

Study the Masonry Although not always necessary, in some instances it can be beneficial to have the coating or paint type, color, and layering on the masonry researched before attempting its removal. Analysis of the nature of the soiling or of the paint to be removed from the masonry, as well as guidance on the appropriate cleaning method, may be provided by professional consultants, including architectural conservators, conservation scientists, and preservation architects. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), local historic district commissions, architectural review boards, and preservation-oriented websites may also be able to supply useful information on masonry cleaning techniques. Understanding the Building Materials The construction of the building must be considered when developing a cleaning program because inappropriate cleaning can have a deleterious effect on the masonry as well as on other building materials. The masonry material or materials must be correctly identified. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish one type of stone from another; for example, certain sandstones can be easily confused with limestones. Or, what appears to be natural stone may not be stone at all, but cast stone or concrete. Historically, cast stone and architectural terra cotta were frequently used in combination with natural stone, especially for trim elements or on upper stories of a building where, from a distance, these substitute materials looked like real stone. Other features on historic buildings that appear to be stone, such as decorative cornices, entablatures and window hoods, may not even be masonry, but metal.

Identify Prior Treatments The decorative trim on this brick builing is architectural Previous treatments of the building and its surroundings should be researched and building terra-cotta intended to maintenance records should be obtained, if available. Sometimes if streaked or spotty areas do simulate the limestone foundation. Photo: NPS not seem to get cleaner following an initial cleaning, closer inspection and analysis may be files. 34 warranted. The discoloration may turn out not to be dirt but the remnant of a water-repellent coating applied long ago which has darkened the surface of the masonry over time. Successful removal may require testing

2 of 12 6/14/2019, 10:46 AM Preservation Brief 1: Assessing Cleaning and Water-Repellent Treatment... https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/1-cleaning-water-repelle...

several cleaning agents to find something that will dissolve and remove the coating. Complete removal may not always be possible. Repairs may have been stained to match a dirty building, and cleaning may make these differences apparent. De- icing salts used near the building that have dissolved can migrate into the masonry. Cleaning may draw the salts to the surface, where they will appear as efflorescence (a powdery, white substance), which may require a second treatment to be removed. Allowances for dealing with such unknown factors, any of which can be a potential problem, should be included when investigating cleaning methods and materials. Just as more than one kind of masonry on a historic building may necessitate multiple cleaning approaches, unknown conditions that are encountered may also require additional cleaning treatments. Choose the Appropriate Cleaner The importance of testing cleaning methods and materials cannot be over emphasized. Applying the wrong cleaning agents to historic masonry can have disastrous results. Acidic cleaners can be extremely damaging to acid-sensitive stones, such as marble and limestone, resulting in etching and dissolution of these stones. Other kinds of masonry can also be damaged by incompatible cleaning agents, or even by cleaning agents that are usually compatible. There are also numerous kinds of sandstone, each with a considerably different geological composition. While an acid-based cleaner may be safely used on some sandstones, others are acid-sensitive and can be severely etched or dissolved by an acid

Any cleaning method should be cleaner. Some sandstones contain water-soluble minerals and can be eroded by water tested before using it on historic cleaning. And, even if the stone type is correctly identified, stones, as well as some bricks, masonry. Photo: NPS files. may contain unexpected impurities, such as iron particles, that may react negatively with a particular cleaning agent and result in staining. Thorough understanding of the physical and chemical properties of the masonry will help avoid the inadvertent selection of damaging cleaning agents.

Other building materials also may be affected by the cleaning process. Some chemicals, for example, may have a corrosive effect on paint or glass. The portions of building elements most vulnerable to deterioration may not be visible, such as embedded ends of iron window bars. Other totally unseen items, such as iron cramps or ties which hold the masonry to the structural frame, also may be subject to corrosion from the use of chemicals or even from plain water. The only way to prevent problems in these cases is to study the building construction in detail and evaluate proposed cleaning methods with this information in mind. However, due to the very likely possibility of encountering unknown factors, any cleaning project involving historic masonry should be viewed as unique to that particular building. Cleaning Methods and Materials Masonry cleaning methods generally are divided into three major groups: water, chemical, and abrasive. Water methods soften the dirt or soiling material and rinse the deposits from the masonry surface. Chemical cleaners react with dirt, soiling material or paint to effect their removal, after which the cleaning effluent is rinsed off the masonry surface with water. Abrasive methods include blasting with grit, and the use of grinders and sanding discs, all of which mechanically remove the dirt, soiling material or paint (and, usually, some of the masonry surface). Abrasive cleaning is also often followed with a water rinse. Laser cleaning, although not discussed here in detail, is another technique that is used sometimes by conservators to clean small areas of historic masonry. It can be quite effective for cleaning limited areas, but it is expensive and generally not practical for most historic masonry cleaning projects.

Although it may seem contrary to common sense, masonry cleaning projects should be carried out starting at the bottom and proceeding to the top of the building always keeping all surfaces wet below the area being cleaned. The rationale for this approach is based on the principle that dirty water or cleaning effluent dripping from cleaning in progress above will leave streaks on a dirty surface but will not streak a clean surface as long as it is kept wet and rinsed frequently.

Water Cleaning Water cleaning methods are generally the gentlest means possible, and they can be used safely to remove dirt from all types of historic masonry.* There are essentially four kinds of water-based methods: soaking; pressure water washing; water washing supplemented with non-ionic detergent; and steam, or hot-pressurized water cleaning. Once water cleaning has been completed, it is often necessary to follow up with a water rinse to wash off the loosened soiling material from the masonry.

*Water cleaning methods may not be appropriate to use on some badly deteriorated masonry because water may exacerbate the deterioration, or on gypsum or alabaster, which are very soluble in water.

Soaking 35 Prolonged spraying or misting with water is particularly effective for cleaning limestone and marble. It is also a good

3 of 12 6/14/2019, 10:46 AM exhibit C

PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PLANNER: Amy Simon, [email protected] DATE: April 30, 2019 PROJECT LOCATION: 303 S. Galena Street REQUEST: Minor Development REPRESENTATIVE: Erik Barbic, SBA Commercial, on behalf of Anthony E Cox Living Trust, [email protected]

DESCRIPTION: 303 S. Galena is a historic landmark located in the Commercial Core Historic District. Built in 1886, the building was one of the earliest masonry structures built in Aspen and constructed of local red brick and a buff or white sandstone. The masonry has been painted since at least the 1960s and the property owner proposes to apply new paint.

Painting historic masonry is a practice that is considered to be very detrimental. Not only does it negatively change the character of the building by covering the natural coloring and pattern of the brick and mortar, it also has the potential to destroy the masonry by affecting the ability for moisture to evaporate through the surface of the brick.

There are a number of painted masonry buildings in downtown Aspen. In recent years, the Planning Department has not allowed repainting to continue, out of a concern that this is undermining the purpose of the preservation program by allowing inappropriate and damaging maintenance work to proceed. The number of paint layers that have built up over the years and the various types of paint that may have been used have reached a point at which the water vapor transmission rate is likely very low, and moisture may become trapped behind the paint.

Planning staff is not willing to allow repainting the masonry on this building to proceed Administratively. Approval is required from the Historic Preservation Commission. The applicant may repaint any exterior wood or metal surfaces in the color of their choice.

In order to allow a new coat of paint, HPC must find that the relevant review criteria in Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code and the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines are met. In particular, review Chapter 2 of the guidelines; Building Materials.

Staff is not requiring the applicant to remove the paint, though we are happy to provide expertise and resources in that regard and appreciate the research that has been done on this building to date. There are a number of successful examples of paint removal that have occurred on Victorian era residential and commercial buildings in Aspen.

36

RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS: Section Number Section Title 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.415.070.C Historic Preservation – Minor Development

For your convenience – links to the Design Guidelines. Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below:

Historic Preservation Design Guidelines

Historic Preservation Land Use Application Packet

Land Use Code

Review by: Staff for completeness and recommendation HPC for decision Public Hearing: Yes, posting of public notice 15 days before the hearing Neighborhood Outreach: No Referrals: No Planning Fees: $1,950 for 6 billable hours of staff time. (Additional/ lesser hours will be billed/ refunded at a rate of $325 per hour.) Referral Agencies Fee: $0. Total Deposit: $1,950.

APPLICATION CHECKLIST: Below is a list of submittal requirements for HPC review.

 Completed Land Use Application and signed Fee Agreement.

 Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).

 Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application.

 Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.

 HOA Compliance form (Attached).

 An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.

 A written description of the proposal (scope of work) and written explanation of how the proposed development complies with the review standards and design guidelines relevant to the application.

37

Once the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted:

 1 digital PDF copy of the complete application packet.

 Total deposit for review of the application.

Disclaimer:The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right.

38 City of Aspen Community Development Department exhibit D Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet

ATTACHMENT 2 - Historic Preservation Land Use Application PROJECT:

Name:

Location: Block 89, Lots H and I, east 6 feet of Lot G, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO

(Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property)

Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)______2737-182-16-007

Applicant:

Name: Anthony E Cox Living Trust

Address: 1260 41st Avenue #O, Capitola, CA 95010

Phone #: ______Fax#:______E-mail:______

REPRESENTATIVE:

Name: Sara Adams of BendonAdams

Address: 300 S. Spring Street, #202 Aspen CO 81611 Phone #: ______Fax#:______E925-2855 -mail:[email protected]______

TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):

Historic Designation Relocation (temporary, on

Certificate of No Negative Effect or off-site)

Certificate of Appropriateness Demolition (total demolition)

-Minor Historic Development

-Major Historic Development Historic Landmark Lot Split

-Conceptual Historic Development

-Final Historic Development

-Substantial Amendment

EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)

______

PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)

______39

City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016 City of Aspen Community Development Department Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet

General Information Please check the appropriate boxes below and submit this page along with your application. This information will help us review your plans and, if necessary, coordinate with other agencies that may be involved.

YES NO

  Does the work you are planning include exterior work; including additions, demolitions, new construction, remodeling, rehabilitation or restoration?

  Does the work you are planning include interior work, including remodeling, rehabilitation, or restoration?

  Do you plan other future changes or improvements that could be reviewed at this time?

  In addition to City of Aspen approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness or No Negative Effect and a building permit, are you seeking to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation or restoration of a National Register of Historic Places Property in order to qualify for state or federal tax credits?

  If yes, are you seeking federal rehabilitation investment tax credits in Conjunction with this project? (Only income producing properties listed on the National Register are eligible. Owner-occupied residential properties are not.)

  If yes, are you seeking the Colorado State Income Tax Credit for Historical Preservation?

Please check all City of Aspen Historic Preservation Benefits which you plan to use:

 Rehabilitation Loan Fund  Conservation Easement Program  Dimensional Variances

 Increased Density  Historic Landmark Lot Split  Waiver of Park Dedication Fees

 Conditional Uses  Tax Credits

 Exemption from Growth Management Quota System

40

City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016

exhibit E Aspen Block Vicinity Map

212 403 218 441 431 445 530 205 461 220 465 532 407 228 449 534

411 201 457 230 203 453 205

209 213 204 515 400 211

320 400 517 221 533

406 410 414 217 416 420 426 219 428

430 432 510 315

514 305 401 516 520 407 534 409411 413 415 307 419 431 433 308 303 602

305 501

505 307 302 312 304 517 314 309 521 535

316 308

325 320 601 400 315 408 416418 312 420 422 430 434 424 314 308

316318

320

401 500 520 405 508 312 419 534

429 6/14/2019, 11:25:07 AM 1:1,128 0 0.01 0.02 0.04mi Parcel Boundary 0 0.01 0.03 0.06km

41

CityofAspenGIS; City of Aspen Community Development | The CityofAspen GIS Department presents the information on this website as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information is accurate. The CityofAspen GIS Department makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the exhibit42 F DocuSign Envelope ID: C9F862BB-E92D-45E5-AF54-7709FD7CC9F8

February 9, 2016

To Whom It May Concern:

As Trustee for the Anthony E. Cox Living Trust, I hereby authorize Erik Barbic the ability to execute and enter into agreements on behalf of the Trust relating to properties it owns. This agreement shall continue until rescinded.

Sincerely,

Brian Woods, Trustee

43 1260 41st Avenue, Suite O, Capitola, CA 95010 p 970.236.6407 f 831.462.1618 [email protected]

exhibit G

John H. Case Attorney at Law

104 W. 70th St., Unit 7G, New York, NY 10023 Telephone (970) 379-3251

1265 Mountain View Drive, Aspen, CO 81611 [email protected]

May 15, 2019

City of Aspen Community Development Department 201 N. Mill Street Aspen, CO 81611

Re: Painting to be done on the Aspen Block Building

Dear Community Development:

I am an attorney licensed to practice in Colorado, Attorney Registration No. 15443, and I have represented the Aspen Block Building and its owners for many years.

For the painting to be done at Aspen Block Building, 427 E. Hyman Ave., Parcel ID #273718216007, please be advised that the owner of the property is the Anthony E. Cox Living Trust, 1260 41st Ave, Suite O, Capitola, CA 95010. The legal description of the property is City and Townsite of Aspen, Block 89: Lot G, east 6 feet, and all of Lots H and I. There is a mortgage on the property held by Voya Financial. There are no judgments, liens, easements, contracts or agreements (other than commercial leases) affecting the property.

Please contact me by email of telephone if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

/s/ John H. Case

John H. Case

JHC: ss Cc: Erik Barbic

44 exhibit H 45 exhibit I 46

MEMORANDUM

TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission

FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer

MEETING DATE: September 25, 2019

RE: 301 Lake Avenue– Minor Development Review, PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICANT /OWNER: SUMMARY: Pictured below is the 1972 Lundy house (photo taken 301 Lake Avenue, LLC in fall 2018), which was recently restored and expanded as part of a voluntary AspenModern historic designation. In May 2019, REPRESENTATIVE: Community Development issued a Correction Notice to the B. Joseph Krabacher, Sherman property owner due to the installation of a row of shrubs in and Howard, LLC planters set on the edge of the retaining wall surrounding the basement level courtyard. The work is found to violate LOCATION: allowances for fences and hedges and is an unapproved Street Address: amendment to the landscape plan approved for this site by HPC. 301 Lake Avenue The applicant requests HPC approval for the hedge and also requests approval for a maintenance issue that has arisen Legal Description: regarding a section of damaged glass railing around the The east ½ of Lot 5 and all of Lots courtyard. 6 and 7, Block 40, Hallam’s Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado

Parcel Identification Number: PID# 2735-124-16-003

CURRENT ZONING & USE: R-6, single family home

PROPOSED ZONING & USE: No change

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the application finding that the applicable code requirements and design guidelines are not met.

Page 1 of 4 47

130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com

REQUEST OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals:

• Minor Development (Section 26.415.070.C) - design review for alterations to a landmarked property.

The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is the final review authority on this application. The small scope of work makes the project exempt from Call-Up notice to City Council.

There are two corrections to be made to the information provided in the application. First, the application addresses the Residential Design Standards. Historic properties are exempt from these standards, so compliance is not necessary. Second, the application states that the planters to be discussed below are not in a required setback. The retaining wall where the planters sit is entirely within the setback along Lake Avenue, sitting as little as 1.38’ away from the lot line, as shown on page 7 of the application. The lot line is not at the edge of the Lake Avenue pavement. HPC granted a setback variation for the courtyard as part of the AspenModern designation process. The variation was for the wall and does not allow for additional development, such as the planters.

STAFF COMMENTS: The recently completed project at 301 Lake Avenue involved careful preservation of this home, designed by noted architect Victor Lundy, with a new addition running along the south edge of the property. A sunken central courtyard was key to the project, increasing the livability of the substantial basement space and creating a private outdoor living area. The ability to look straight across the sunken courtyard towards the historic resource was key to the design concept and was a key representation made by the applicant. The project received substantial development bonuses in exchange for preservation.

During the final inspections of the project, the applicant was required to remove extra trees that were planted in the right-of-way, beyond what was included in the approvals. Staff was concerned with the visibility of the resource being reduced from the public right-of-way. After the Certificate of Occupancy was issued, staff noted a row of approximately 30 shrubs had been installed along the ledge created by the courtyard retaining wall, as pictured to the right. A Correction Notice was issued to the property owner in May, with a deadline to remove the shrubs or apply to HPC for 48 Page 2 of 4

130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com

approval. The applicant seeks approval. There is an additional request that requires HPC discussion, which is proposed replacement of a section of glass railing surrounding the courtyard. This material is located near an outdoor fireplace and has been ruined by damage from heat. The applicant would like to replace this area of railing with a steel cable rail with a dark finish.

The applicable design guidelines for this review are detailed in Exhibit A. Staff recommends denial, finding that four guidelines are not met.

Regarding the landscape, staff finds that the group of planters constitute a hedgerow, as defined below. Please not that the code does not state that vegetation must be planted in the ground to meet this definition.

Aspen Municipal Code, Definition of a hedgerow – Section 26.104.100 A row of closely spaced bushes, trees, or shrubs that create or have the potential through growth maturity to create a largely opaque visual barrier.

Hedgerows are treated as fences and are limited in height and placement as follows.

Aspen Municipal Code, Allowed Projections into Setbacks- Section 26.575.020.E.5.p Fences and hedges less than forty-two (42) inches in height, as measured from finished grade are permitted in all required yard setbacks. Fences and hedges up to six (6) feet in height, as measured from finished grade, are permitted only in areas behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building façade which is closest to the street. This restriction applies to all street facing facades of a parcel.

The planters are forward of the building façade closest to Lake Avenue and are therefore limited to 42” in height, measured from finished grade. The projection in front of the east façade of the house is minimal, but the planters do overhang the wall they are placed on and are therefore forward of the east façade. Staff approximates the hedgerow to be 6’ above grade. HPC can approve a hedge within the proposed location so long as it doesn’t exceed the 42” limit, but anything taller would require Council approval as a height variation.

Aside from the height of the hedge, HPC must consider its appropriateness under the historic preservation guidelines. Planters were not part of the approved development and staff finds that the hedge conflicts with the HPC guidelines for landscape. The hedge undermines the concept of clear view across the courtyard towards the historic resource and diminishes what was gained by exchanging designation incentives in order to preserve the building for the benefit of the public. The primary view of the historic resource is significantly blocked.

Regarding the request to replace the damaged railing, as stated, minimizing the visual impact of the courtyard and maintaining the public view of the resource were important aspects of the design. Staff 49 Page 3 of 4

130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com

finds that the cable rail will not have this same transparent quality as the glass and will create an obstruction in front of the east facing atrium window of the historic house. This two story window is a character defining feature of the home. Staff recommends the applicant identify a more heat resistant clear glass for review by HPC staff and monitor, or take other actions, such as relocating the fireplace to eliminate the potential for heat damage.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC deny the application and require removal of the hedgerow within 14 days.

EXHIBITS: Resolution #____, Series of 2019 Exhibit A- Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Exhibit B- Application

50 Page 4 of 4

130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2019

A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DENYING MINOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 301 LAKE AVENUE, THE EAST ½ OF LOT 5 AND ALL OF LOTS 6 AND 7, BLOCK 40, HALLAM’S ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO

PARCEL ID: 2735-124-16-003

WHEREAS, the applicant, 301 Lake Avenue LLC, represented by Sherman and Howard LLC, has requested HPC approval for Minor Development for the property located at 301 Lake Avenue. The proposal involves creation of a hedgerow and replacement of a railing; and

WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;” and

WHEREAS, for Minor Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.C.3.b of the Municipal Code, and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and

WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on September 25, 2019. HPC considered the application, the staff memo and public comments and found the proposal inconsistent with the review standards and design guidelines and denied the application by a vote of _ to _.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

Section 1: Minor Development Review HPC hereby denies Minor Development as proposed for the property at 301 Lake Avenue.

Section 2: Material Representations All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority.

51 HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2019 Page 1 of 2 Section 3: Existing Litigation This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.

Section 4: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.

APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the _____ day of ______, 2019.

Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:

______Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Gretchen Greenwood, Chair

ATTEST:

______Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk

52 HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2019 Page 2 of 2

Exhibit A Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Staff Findings

Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines:

1.9 Landscape development on AspenModern landmarks shall be addressed on a case by case basis.

1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram. • Simplicity and restraint are required. Do not overplant a site, or install a landscape which is overtextured or overly complex in relationship to the historic resource, particularly in Zone A. In Zone A, new planting shall be species that were used historically or species of similar attributes. • In areas immediately adjacent to the landmark, Zone A and Zone B, plants up 42” in height, sod, and low shrubs are often appropriate. • Contemporary planting, walls and other features are not appropriate in Zone A. A more contemporary landscape may surround new development or be located in the rear of the property, in Zone C. • Do not cover areas which were historically unpaved with hard surfaces, except for a limited patio where appropriate. • Where residential structures are being adapted to commercial use, proposals to alter the landscape will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The residential nature of the building must be honored. 53 Page 1 of 5

• In the case of a historic landmark lot split, careful consideration should be given so as not to over plant either property, or remove all evidence of the landscape characteristics from before the property was divided. • Contemporary landscapes that highlight an AspenModern architectural style are encouraged.

54 Page 2 of 5

55 Page 3 of 5

1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. • Low plantings and ground covers are preferred. • Do not place trees, shrubs, or hedgerows in locations that will obscure, damage, or block significant architectural features or views to the building. Hedgerows are not allowed as fences. • Consider mature canopy size when planting new trees adjacent to historic resources. Planting trees too close to a landmark may result in building deteriorate or blocked views and is inappropriate. • Climbing vines can damage historic structures and are not allowed.

1.20 Any fence taller than 42” should be designed so that it avoids blocking public views of important features of a designated building. • A privacy fence should incorporate transparent elements to minimize the possible visual impacts.Consider staggering the fence boards on either side of the fence rail. This will give the appearance of a solid plank fence when seen head on. Also consider using lattice, or other transparent detailing on the upper portions of the fence. • A privacy fence should allow the building corners and any important architectural features that are visible from the street to continue to be viewed. • All hedgerows (trees, shrub bushes, etc.) are prohibited in Zones A and B.

5.6 Avoid adding handrails or guardrails where they did not exist historically, particularly where visible from the street. • If handrails or guardrails are needed according to building code, keep their design simple in character and different from the historic detailing on the porch or balcony.

Staff Findings: The applicable section of the design guidelines for this proposal are Site Planning & Landscape Design and Rehabilitation of Porches and Balconies.

Staff finds that Design Guideline 1.9 is met as HPC has the ability to consider a unique landscape solution for an AspenModern property.

Staff finds Design Guideline 1.12 regarding appropriate site context for the historic resource is not met. The Lake Avenue edge of the property is considered to be Zone A, meaning it is an area where landscape must be low and sympathetic to the visibility and character of the historic resource.

Staff finds Design Guideline 1.13 regarding appropriate planting material that does not obstruct views of the historic resource is not met. The hedgerow is interfering with the public visibility of the historic home.

56 Page 4 of 5

Staff finds Design Guideline 1.20 that prohibits hedgerows in Zone A, in the foreground of the resource, is not met.

Staff finds Design Guideline 5.6 regarding the avoidance of visually impactful handrails and guardrails in front of a resource is not met. In staff’s opinion, the cable rail will have a more significant visual impact on the resource than the glass rail.

In summary, staff finds the proposed planters and redesigned handrail do not met the relevant Design Guidelines and recommends denial.

57 Page 5 of 5

______CITY OF ASPEN 130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen CO 81611 ______

APPLICATION FOR HPC MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 301 Lake Avenue, Aspen CO 81611 (Minor Development Review Approval for Planters and Railing)

Date: July 18, 2019

Location/Address: 301 Lake Avenue, Aspen CO 81611

A part of the NE 1/4 SE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M. described as follows:

Beginning at a point from which the East one-quarter corner of said Section 12 bears North 65°49'50" East, 802.99 feet, and from which the Northwesterly corner of Smuggler and North 2nd Street in the City of Aspen bears South 12° 18'15" West, 120.13 feet which Point Of Beginning is on the Westerly right of way line of Lake Avenue in said City; thence North 75°09'11" West, 159.67 feet; thence North 14°50'49" East, 100 feet to a point on the Southerly line of North Street in said City; thence South 75°09'11" East, along the Southerly line of North Street, 36.89 feet to a point on the Westerly line of Lake Avenue; thence along the Westerly line of Lake Avenue, on a curve to the left with a radius of 558.05 feet and a chord which bears South 35°59'30" East 158.35 feet, an arc distance of 158.88 feet To The Point Of Beginning.

Also described as: the East 1/2 of Lot 5, All of Lots 6 and 7, Block 40, HALLAM'S ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO.

Parcel ID No.: 273512416003

Owner: 301 Lake Avenue LLC, a Colorado limited liability company

Address: 2385 NW Executive Center Suite 370 Boca Raton FL 33431 Attn: David Willens, Manager

Telephone: (561) 866 2757 Email: [email protected]

Representatives: William E. Boehringer B. Joseph Krabacher

Address: PO Box 1048 730 E. Durant Avenue Aspen CO 81611 Suite 200 Aspen CO 81611 Telephone: (917) 977-0541 (970) 300-0123 58 1

50406238.1 Email:[email protected] Email: [email protected]

SUBMITTALS:

√ Application Deposit: $1,950.00 √ Completed Land Use Application With Description of Proposal and Compliance with Standards √ Pre-Application Conference Summary √ Homeowners Association Compliance Policy √ Authorization to Represent √ Certificate of Ownership √ Signed Fee Agreement

Representative Signature: ______Name:

59

2

APPLICATION FOR HPC MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 301 Lake Avenue, Aspen CO 81611 (Minor Development Review Approval for Planters and Railing)

1. Introduction. The Applicant is proposing two changes to the AspenModern designated landmark property located at 301 Lake Avenue, Aspen CO (“Property”).

On May 21, 2019, the City of Aspen issued a Correction Notice for 2 alleged violations: (i) violation of Municipal Code Section 26.415.070 development involving a designated historic property; and (ii) violation of Municipal Code Section 26.575.020.E.Sp involving projections into setbacks, fences and hedges limited to 42 inches in height. Both of these violations arise from planter boxes located on exterior patio, planted with Spartan Junipers.

The Applicant carefully designed the location of the planters so as not to encroach into the setbacks, and has provided an improvement survey establishing that the planters are not in the setbacks, but this is an issue that is not the subject of the current Application, but the Applicant continues to maintain that there is no encroachment and hence the 42 inch maximum height of an improvement in a setback is not applicable under Municipal Code Section 26.575.020.E.Sp.

As to the alleged violation of Municipal Code Section 26.415.070, regarding “development” involving a designated historic property, the Applicant has contended that movable planter boxes do not constitute 60

3 development, which is discussed in more detail below. The Community Development Department staff contends that the planters constitute a “hedgerow” and are therefore subject to regulation by the Historic Preservation Commission.

Due to the requirement of the Correction Notice that matters need to be corrected no later than July 27, 2019, the Applicant has already requested a Certificate of No Negative Effect, and staff determined that the planters would not be perceived to qualify for a staff approval, which is generally issued from minimal work that is found to be in compliance with prior approvals and design guidelines. Accordingly, the Applicant is submitting this Application with a reservation of rights as to whether or not movable planters constitute “development” or a “hedgerow”.

In addition, this Application seeks HPC minor development approval to remove a portion of the transparent glass railing around the subgrade courtyard due to damage created by the nearby fire pit with a stainless steel cable and support posts.

2. Pre-Application Conference. The Applicant held a pre-application conference and a pre- application conference summary was issued on July 1, 2019, a copy of which is submitted with this Application.

3. Summary of Application. The Applicant seeks approval of the existing planter boxes in the current location, and seeks approval to replace a portion of the transparent glass railing with blackened stainless steel cable and support posts.

4. Submission Standards. The applicable review standards of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.415.070.C2 as follows:

26.415.070. Development involving designated historic property or property within a historic district.

2. An application for minor development shall include the following:

a) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030.

RESPONSE: This Application includes a letter from the Applicant with the required information and authorizing its representatives to represent the Applicant, street address, legal description and parcel identification number are set forth on the cover page of this Application, and the exhibits also include a disclosure of ownership, a vicinity map and improvement survey, which includes the existing improvements and layout of the project.

b) Scaled elevations and/or drawings of the proposed work and its relationship to the designated historic buildings, structures, sites and features within its vicinity.

RESPONSE: This Application includes an improvement survey, which includes the existing improvements and layout of the project. Scaled elevations and drawings are not necessary as the project has been completed.

c) An accurate representation of all building materials and finishes to be used in the development.

61

4

RESPONSE: The only item that requires an accurate representation of building materials and finishes is the proposed removal of a portion of the transparent glass railing around the subgrade courtyard. The proposed design is detailed in Exhibit A and would have a blackened finish for the cables and support columns, creating a minimal visual barrier.

d) Photographs and other exhibits, as needed, to accurately depict location, extent and design of proposed work.

RESPONSE: Photographs of the planters and the existing approved landscaping on the Property and within the City of Aspen right-of-way are included with this Application as Exhibit B.

e) Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, Residential design standards or a written request for a variance from any standard that is not being met.

RESPONSE: See below for a detailed discussion of Chapter 26.410.

5. Review Standards. The applicable review standards of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.415.070.C.1 as follows:

26.415.070. Development involving designated historic property or property within a historic district.

No building, structure or landscape shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or a property located within a Historic District until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a development order.

A. Exempt development. (Omitted as inapplicable).

B. Certificate of no negative effect. (Omitted as inapplicable).

C. Certificate of appropriateness for a minor development.

1. The review and decision on the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness for minor development shall begin with a determination by the Community Development Director that the proposed project constitutes a minor development. Minor development work includes:

a) Expansion or erection of a structure wherein the increase of the floor area of the structure is two hundred and fifty (250) square feet or less or

b) Alterations to a building façade, windows, doors, roof planes or material, exterior wall materials, dormer porch, exterior staircase, balcony or ornamental trim when three (3) or fewer elements are affected and the work does not qualify for a certificate of no negative effect or

c) Erection or installation of a combination or multiples of awning, canopies, mechanical equipment, fencing, signs, accessory features and other attachments to designated 62

5

properties such that the cumulative impact does not allow for the issuance of a certificate of no negative effect or

d) Alterations that are made to nonhistoric portions of a designated historic property that do not qualify for a certificate of no negative effect or

e) The erection of street furniture, signs, public art and other visible improvements within designated historic districts of a magnitude or in numbers such that the cumulative impact does not allow for the issuance of a certificate of no negative effect.

RESPONSE: This Application proposes approval of a change a portion of the in the existing transparent glass railing near the fire pit which is been damaged by the heat from the fire pit, and would fall within subsection b) above. A section of the glass railing would be replaced with a stainless steel cable and support columns. See Exhibit A.

The planters are not permanent improvements, and the only subsection above that conceivably could trigger regulation by the Historic Preservation Commission would be subsection e). Subsection b) and subsection d) are inapplicable as the planters are not alterations to the structure or the site. Likewise, subsection c) would be inapplicable as it relates to items that are attached to a designated historic property.

The Community Development Director may determine that an application for work on a designated historic property involving multiple categories of minor development may result in the cumulative impact such that it is considered a major development. In such cases, the applicant shall apply for a major development review in accordance with Subsection 26.415.07.D.

RESPONSE: Staff as determined that this Application qualifies for a minor development application as shown by the Pre-Application Conference Summary submitted herewith.

26.410. Residential Design Standards.

RESPONSE: Insofar as not every standard applies to this Application, the following are the most relevant.

6.410.010. General

A. Intent. The City’s Residential Design Standards are intended to ensure a strong connection between residences and streets; ensure buildings provide articulation to break up bulk and mass; and preserve historic neighborhood scale and character. The standards do not prescribe architectural style, but do require that each home, while serving the needs of its owner, contribute positively to the streetscape. The Residential Design Standards are intended to achieve the following objectives:

1. Connect to the Street. Establish a visual and/or physical connection between residences and streets and other public areas. The area between the street and the front of a residential building is a transition between the public realm of the neighborhood and the private realm of a dwelling. This transition can strongly impact the human experience of the street. Improve the street experience for pedestrians and vehicles by establishing physical and visual relationships between streets, and residential buildings located along streets. Porches, walkways from front entries to the street, and prominent windows that face the street are examples of elements that connect to the street.

63

6

RESPONSE: The project is located in the West End, and has landscaping which has been approved by the HPC. The elevation where the planters are most apparent is on the side yard of the property where the project faces to the northeast (southwest elevation). The addition of the planters preserves the street experience of pedestrians and vehicles, while providing a minimal amount of landscaping and individual planters. The confined size of the planters will limit the growth height of the trees, and does not block of the view of the main portion of the southwest elevation. This portion of the project is a modern façade, with large fenestration and a metal exterior.

The view of original portion of the Lundy house is not blocked by any of the planters, as they are located on the exterior patio on the opposite side of the original portion of the house. The area that may be perceived to be blocked by the planters resulting in the Correction Notice is a non-original exterior patio area and contemporary master bedroom addition extending for a distance of approximately 52 feet from the edge of the raised firepit to Point C on the following survey excerpt:

It is useful to note that this is a side yard and the lot line is located approximately 35 feet from the edge of Lake Avenue. The front yard is located to the north as shown on the above survey excerpt. The

64

7 planters do not impact the view from the public road whatsoever, except for a short section when a pedestrian or vehicle is directly adjacent to the newly constructed patio and contemporary master bedroom addition.

26.410. Residential Design Standards.

D. Entry Features.

a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade.

b) Intent. This standard seeks to promote visual and physical connections between buildings and the street. Buildings should use architectural and site planning features to establish a connection between these two elements. Buildings shall not use features that create barriers or hide the entry features of the house such as fences, hedgerows or walls. Buildings and site planning features should establish a sense that one can directly enter a building from the street through the use of pathways, front porches, front doors that face the street and other similar methods. This standard is critical in all areas of the city.

RESPONSE: The entry to the project is located on the northern boundary of the property (south elevation) on North Street, and the prohibition on the use of hedgerows prohibits the use of a hedgerow to hide the entry features of the house. As shown on the survey excerpt above, and illustrated below, the planters, to the extent they constitute a hedgerow, do not create barriers or hide the entry features of the house any more than the existing trees (including two large pines directly in front of the original Lundy house as viewed from the corner of North Street and Lake Avenue, that were required to be retained).

c) Standard. A building shall provide a visual and/or physical connection between a primary entry and the street. On a corner lot, an entry connection shall be provided to at least one (1) of the two intersecting streets. Duplexes in a side-by-side configuration shall have one (1) entry connection per dwelling unit.

RESPONSE: The project is located on a corner lot, on the corner of North Street and Lake Avenue. The entry connection is located on North Street. The area in general has substantial mature landscaping. As illustrated in the photographs at the end of this Application, the original Lundy house, which is the historic portion of this Aspen Modern project is accessed directly by walkways to the front door. The photographs showing the view from North Street and then moving along to the east on Lake Avenue illustrate that the planters do not impact the view of the historic portion of the project, as the planters are located adjacent to the contemporary addition of the project.

d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Street Oriented Entrance. At least one (1) entry door shall be provided on the front façade of the principal building. The entry door shall face the street and shall not be set back more than ten (10) feet from the front-most wall of the front façade of the principal building. Fencing, hedgerows, walls or other permitted structures shall not obstruct visibility to the door. See Figure 19.

RESPONSE: The project complies with this standard as previously approved. The planters, to the extent they constitute fencing, hedgerows or walls do not obstruct visibility to the door.

26.410. Residential Design Standards. 65

8

RESPONSE: This portion of the application addresses the Residential Design Standards as applicable to the proposed change in the transparent glass railing.

5. Materials (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard applies to all residential development in the city that is subject to the Residential Design Standards. b) Intent. This standard seeks to reinforce historic architectural character by preventing the use of materials on single-family and duplex buildings that is in sharp contrast with use of materials seen in historic Aspen residential buildings. Buildings should use materials consistently on all sides of a building instead of simply applying a material on one façade of a building. Buildings should seek to use heavier materials, such as brick or stone, as a base for lighter materials, such as wood or stucco. Buildings should use materials that are similar in profile, texture and durability to those seen in historic residential buildings in the city. This standard is important in all areas of the city. c) Standards. The quality of the exterior materials and their application shall be consistent on all sides of the single-family or duplex building. See Figure 28. Materials shall be used in ways that are true to their characteristics. For instance, stucco, which is a light or nonbearing material, shall not be used below a heavy material, such as stone. See Figure 29. RESPONSE: The proposed stainless steel cable and support posts are of nominal thickness and will be blackened to be compatible in appearance with other materials on the property.

Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.

RESPONSE: Insofar as not every standard applies to this Application, the following are the most relevant.

Softscape Features and Plants – Section 1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram.

• Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram. • Simplicity and restraint are required. Do not overplant a site, or install a landscape which is overtextured or overly complex in relationship to the historic resource, particularly in Zone A. In Zone A, new planting shall be species that were used historically or species of similar attributes. • In areas immediately adjacent to the landmark, Zone A and Zone B, plants up 42” in height, sod, and low shrubs are often appropriate. • Contemporary planting, walls and other features are not appropriate in Zone A. A more contemporary landscape may surround new development or be located in the rear of the property, in Zone C. • Do not cover areas which were historically unpaved with hard surfaces, except for a limited patio where appropriate. • Where residential structures are being adapted to commercial use, proposals to alter the landscape will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The residential nature of the building must be honored.

66

9

• In the case of a historic landmark lot split, careful consideration should be given so as not to over plant either property, or remove all evidence of the landscape characteristics from before the property was divided. • Contemporary landscapes that highlight an AspenModern architectural style are encouraged.

RESPONSE: The property is an irregularly shaped parcel, and when analyzed based upon the zones of significance, the planters and the railing would appear to be located in located in Zone B adjacent to the non-historic addition. 67

10

The above standards provide limitations of 42 inches in height in areas “immediately adjacent to the landmark” within Zone A and Zone B. The planters are located approximately 20 feet to the east of the historic Lundy house and then taper closer to the modern portion of the project essentially along the edge of the exterior patio. This is a substantial setback from the historic portion of the project and do not effectively result in a wall or fence. When viewed head-on there are still gaps between the planters, and the impact is minimal given the other existing landscaping and vegetation on the site. The standards contemplate that a more contemporary landscape may surround new development within Zone B.

In addition, contemporary landscapes that highlight an Aspen Modern architectural style are encouraged. The removable, nonpermanent planters reflect a more contemporary landscape design, and since they are not planted in the ground, will not result in a tall tree or large canopy.

Softscape Features and Plants – Section 1.13 Editions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate.

• Low plantings and groundcovers are preferred. • Do not place trees, shrubs, or hedgerows in locations that will obscure, damage, or block significant architectural features or views to the building. Hedgerows are not allowed as fences. • Consider mature canopy size when planting new trees adjacent to historic resources. Planting trees too close to a landmark may result in building deteriorate or blocked views and is inappropriate. • Climbing vines can damage historic structures and are not allowed.

RESPONSE: Staff has provided a definition of a hedgerow (which is not set forth in the Municipal Code available online) as follows: “A role of closely spaced bushes, trees or shrubs that create or have the potential through growth maturity to create a largely opaque visual barrier.”

The Applicant contends that freestanding planters do not constitute a hedgerow, are not planted in the ground, and do not constitute development. Nevertheless, based upon the standards of Section 1.13 above, the planters do not create offense, and by limiting the plantings with 2 plantings per confined sized planter of only 12” interior width and 14” depth, there is not a potential through growth maturity to create a largely opaque visual barrier.

Softscape Features and Plants – Section 1.20 Any fence taller than 42” should be designed so that it avoids blocking public views of important features of a designated building.

• A privacy fence should incorporate transparent elements to minimize possible visual impacts. Consider staggering the fence boards on either side of the fence rail. This will give the appearance of a solid plank fence when seen head on. Also consider using lattice, or other transparent detailing on the other on the upper portions of the fence. • A privacy fence should allow the building corners and any important architectural features that are viewed that are visible from the street to continue to be viewed. • All hedgerows (trees, shrubs, bushes, etc.) are prohibited in Zones A and B.

RESPONSE: This standard relates to fences. Movable planter boxes do not constitute fences. In addition, the planter boxes do not create a visual obstruction that obscures the important architectural features of the project. The historic Lundy house can be viewed all along North Street and onto Lake Avenue, 68

11 and the planters, while obscuring the lower portion of the somewhat monolithic contemporary addition, the features that are not visible on the lower one third of the building are the same features as the rest of the building, as the metal cladding and fenestration can be easily seen.

69

12

70

13

Exhibit B Photographs

View from intersection of Lake Avenue and Second Street

71

14

View from Triangle Park

72

15

View from corner of North Street and Lake Avenue

73

16

View walking east at corner of front yard and side yard along Lake Avenue

74

17

75

18

Entry

View walking east along Lake Avenue

76

19

View from Lake Avenue of connection of modern addition to historic Lundy house

77

20

View directly adjacent to patio and firepit from Lake Avenue

78

21

View from Lake Avenue with patio and firepit in background

79

22

From Lake Avenue

80

23

From Lake Avenue

81

24

View of transparent glass railings at firepit

82

25

CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY

83

26

HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION COMPLIANCE POLICY

All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to include a Homeowner Association Compliance Form (this form) certifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed by the property owner or Attorney representing the property owner.

1. 301 Lake Avenue LLC, a Colorado limited liability company Property Owner: Phone No.: (561) 866-2757

Address of East 1/2 of Lot 5, All of Lots 6 and 7, Block 40, HALLAM'S Property: (subject of ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, application) COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO

I certify as follows: (pick one) √ This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant. This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements□ proposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements□ proposed in this land use application have been approved by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary.

2. I understand this policy and I understand the City of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the applicability, meaning or effect of private covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. I understand that this document is a public document. Owner signature: ______Date:______07-18-2019

Owner printed name: David Willens, as Manager of 301 Lake Avenue, Aspen CO 81611.

84

85 28

86 City of Aspen Community Development Department Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet

Agreement to Pay Application Fees 2385

An agreement between the City of Aspen (“City”) and Property 301 Lake Avenue LLC Phone No.: (917) 977-0541 Owner (“I”): Email: [email protected] Address of Billing 2385 NW Executive Property: 301 Lake Avenue Address: Center Drive, Suite 370 (Subject of HPC Minor Development (send bills here) application) Application Boca Raton, FL 33431

I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No., Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application.

For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are non-refundable.

$______flat fee for ______$______flat fee for ______

$______flat fee for ______$______flat fee for______

For Deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full.

The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services.

I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render and application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated.

$______$1950.00 deposit for______6 hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour.

$______deposit for ______hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour.

City of Aspen: Property Owner: ______301 Lake Avenue LLC Jessica Garrow, AICP Community Development Director Name: David______Willens City Use: Title: Fees Due: $____Received $______Manager

87

City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016

88 89 90

PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PLANNER: Amy Simon, [email protected] DATE: July 1, 2019 PROJECT LOCATION: 301 Lake Avenue REQUEST: Minor Development PROPERTY OWNER: Bill Boehringer, [email protected]

DESCRIPTION: 301 Lake Avenue is an AspenModern designated landmark that was recently granted a Certificate of Occupancy following a significant restoration and redevelopment of the property. The owner is considering a request for HPC approval for two changes to the completed project; placement of a row of planters forming a hedgerow along the west property line and replacement of a portion of glass railing around the subgrade courtyard, due to damage created by a nearby firepit, with a different material.

Neither proposal will be considered eligible for a Certificate of No Negative Effect due to the potential adverse effect on the physical appearance of the landmark and its character defining features as described at Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code. Following is guidance on the submittal of an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, Minor Development.

RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS: Section Number Section Title 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.415.070.C Historic Preservation – Minor Development

For your convenience – links to the Design Guidelines. Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below:

Historic Preservation Design Guidelines

Historic Preservation Land Use Application Packet

Land Use Code

Review by: Staff for completeness and recommendation HPC for decision Public Hearing: Yes, posting of public notice 15 days before the hearing Neighborhood Outreach: No Referrals: No Planning Fees: $1,950 for 6 billable hours of staff time. (Additional/ lesser hours will be billed/ refunded at a rate of $325 per hour.) Referral Agencies Fee: $0. 91

Total Deposit: $1,950.

APPLICATION CHECKLIST: Below is a list of submittal requirements for HPC review.

 Completed Land Use Application and signed Fee Agreement.

 Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).

 Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application.

 Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.

 HOA Compliance form (Attached).

 An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.

 A written description of the proposal (scope of work) and written explanation of how the proposed development complies with the review standards and design guidelines relevant to the application.

Once the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted:

 1 digital PDF copy of the complete application packet.

 Total deposit for review of the application.

Disclaimer:The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right.

92

93 feet 2000 met ers 600 94 feet 200 met ers 70 95