HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20120222 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 22, 2012 — 5:00 P.M.
CITY COUNICL MEETING ROOM
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISIT- NONE
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes — January 25 and Feb. 8th
2012
III. Public Comments
IV. Commission member comments
V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
VI. Project Monitoring:
VII. Staff comments — (15 min.)
VIII. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #5 )
IX. Submit public notice for agenda items
I. PROJECT MONITORING
A. 610 W. Hallam St. — outdoor lighting (15 min.)
II. OLD BUSINESS
A. 217 E. Bleeker — Conceptual, Major Deyelopment, On -Site
Relocation, Demolition and Variances, continued Public
Hearing (45 min.)
III. NEW BUSINESS
A. NONE
IV. WORK SESSIONS
A. 325 Park (30 min.)
B. 204 S. Galena (30 min.)
V. Adjourn 7:15 p.m.
Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
Staff presentation
Applicant presentation
Board questions and clarifications
Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing)
Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed
Applicant rebuttal (comments)
Motion
*Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met.
No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting
of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a
quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue
the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring
vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes
of the members of the commission then present and voting.
PROJECT MONITORING- Projects in bold are currently under construction.
Ann Mullins Boomerang
604 W. Main
Lift One
316 E. Hopkins
Brian McNellis 332 W. Main
Fox Crossing
205 S. Spring
Jamie Brewster McLeod 630 E. Hyman
518 W. Main
Jay Maytin 920 W. Hallam
518 W. Main
28 Smuggler Grove
Red Butte Cemetery
Lift One
205 S. Spring
Nora Berko 28 Smuggler Grove
Willis Pember 508 E. Cooper
M: \city \planning\hpc project monitoring\PROJECT MONITORIN 2/16/2012 .doc
P1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
610 W. Hallam Street, Entry Lighting
DATE: February 25, 2102
SUMMARY: 610 W. Hallam is a landmark designated Victorian era miner's cottage. The
house was significantly remodeled in 1995, with an expansion on the west and rear, and the
addition of a walk out basement. Another remodel was recently completed by new owner,
Charley Moss, represented by McAlpine Tankersley Architecture and John Olson Builders. The
work was primarily interior, however HPC granted approval for a front deck expansion as part of
the project.
in the time of stalled on the f ron tit of t of e he house by a previoussownermwithout approval. Staff requ' ed the
in the fronf t huse by a p
current owner to remove the lights. This initiated a discussion n about u alt ed oa lights in the front .
Staff and Ann Mullins, acting as project monitor, approved
porch soffit, and had some discussions about low level site lighting which was never fully
resolved. The applicant requested a post mounted path light that staff and monitor denied,
finding that it was not in character with the house.
The property owner requests HPC approval for this fixture, illustrated on the attached pages.
.
y� a �..�t4 R r s v1. xd1r.�,'K
dY w4 S 91 tnT z a .
= f 4
a _ �
JI 1 ,
•
}
Pre - remodel photograph, showing light fixtures that
were required to be removed
P2
•
} •
__ R r=.
t- --.`� TLN .,....
_ r
1 •
I I
, i 6) 4.1 1
It 1
I
. 4 "'
"a wa�
_° GIST
I
I
l ✓r:rF
t
te a .... .. - -.. ...- . ="-1•_
rgaiT 4--- t- • — 3cL4N n.4 3 f; Qr. „ rp14 WP Jef
CE:J
L .
?dm*. c 1
x
3
p y ,
M c A L P f N E PROJECT ' ;:
14
o - � , � , � T A N K E R S L E Y 1 - MP 54.1.
'� ARCHITECTURE DATE
� �� to 1
, i• 33 ��• 11
a � i, Q. z 6 s 8 3 1 5 SHEET
m calpin et ank ersley. c o m I 0>- 1
P3
• s
z
.11 .- 4, :
ti
J
I
P4
General Guidelines
Lighting
14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in
character and similar in color and intensity to �!
• The design of a fixture should be simple in *� �• ��� '�- :��� t l� ' � J 1 ' ; L'AO •
that used traditionally. l •
form and detail. Exterior lighting must be
approved by the HPC.
• All exterior light sources should have a low The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail.
level of luminescence.
•
14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and
architectural lighting. '' ftitr.m iEe611 ••
• ; ;;;; i l u ,.,.., go; d:• Il:a I ::EI i L::.1 FA'•il, I.t...l..:• tt° i I',
i tli�minn uu::•ti:::Ls: a: =.Cts ``` II
Unshielded, high intensity light sources and i. ; 9���IllI�III�I�������� I ' � 0111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1111II , ' "1
ht upward will not be i ",..�........, 111 I
those which direct li
g P I Illul�i� I►III �Ilpl nli � 11111 'am "
_ 1111 i `.nil �liu nlll � t I lgl�!. i
permitted.
i I i :• I {II ( I I la•. I
IIIIIIIIII I iiiIliiiIIIII mm� ml tt,ugml_ . 'innm,
• munui momma U I` t �'•
mm C_ lllllllllll 1/11111111
Shield lighting associated with service areas, 1111!;1;!:11 Ifil�i:iP!IlSirYG ^:;i:�;li?��;
11HlIIIIIIIIIIIJI6 ! IIIlfiauuiluiliitllu!.III
parking lots and parking structures. I!IIIIIIIIGwo P.11IIIIII,IIIIIU • YIIII: I ! 'k '!Iill�UM ' YDIIII ! IIIIII_pl!!1 I!YIIIIIII
• Timers or activity switches may be required !1I , a ' i I. i to prevent unnecessary sources of light by c'?II! � ,_ , auto � j i ii
controlling the length of time that exterior is
lights are in use late at night. Prevent glare onto adjacent properties by using shielded and
• Do not wash an entire building facade in focused light sources that direct light onto the ground. The use of
downlights, with the bulb fully enclosed within the shade, or step
light. lights which direct light only on to walkways, is strongly encouraged.
• Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in
highly visible locations, such as on the upper
walls of buildings.
• Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do
not use two fixtures that light the same area.
14.8 Minimize the visual impact of light spill
from a building.
• Prevent glare onto adjacent properties by
using shielded and focused light sources
that direct light onto the ground. The use of
downlights, with the bulb fully enclosed
within the shade, or step lights which direct
light only on to walkways, is strongly
encouraged.
• _ Lighting shall be carefully located so as not •
to shine into residential living space, on or
off the property or into public rights -of-
way.
City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines r.-
;; page 119..
milbrows•-•
• -.-iwor,, „ ' /I , . y/i, , ,'
- '7 -' • '1, - ' ' ,- k
-"' , . • :
- '-r- il milo .w., EXHIBUIT
...,/ -.1p
.. . O. .,..,
• %%.' , -4,74+ i : , 4 ./ . 01:1
--______
, • • • • • '-• ./- ,t •
/ -' . fit -II*, '2 -..)— / )--
1.' . ,-:. „ . .-. \ / P.. I .• - Af k ,,,,;: ,i.
.. , ..0.40 , , • .
.c. . %, .. . / ,-
119;',,„ \ -/ •• .,,- , .
,..., .
- , „-4 ••,',. • - - .., •,. , *),,.
, .
i .'" ' ':17 ,1110414 ., ',,, 1 fAkt i
. . .
„„„2\
• .
• . , ••• . , . '' , . ...i.'‘. 44. ..
. . .. , ..-.
. .., - I/ • ' 1 L.- ..,..,,,'.. . .-.- ...
., ,..4,0-1.• .
-..- ...4 . . • , , ,
,-- '.' ',. ••,. ',..'. •. :y ,- •
• ,-•t•: ' ...• * ''-'--
. . , ., ,: , .,-,: . •, -.,, , Le , .,
,.. .,
• • r . . ‘ ' .
• .1
-- ', . •- :- ',4 •,,
/'
, . .
_,
...,
- 1 .. -
-L... - '1. • . •••' * - le-•••*':
•.:v4,4' - - -•-•
. ..
, *, .. •
•:.
,, .1 - . . •• „.
' --, ' -- Vi'4' • -, AP
1 , '
.. . , • r'” -
"••,A,'' 12,-- •• - .•
......*_, 1,-
-. l.
- -
i f
. . , ,!, . . - • , ,-
..„.
‘ ` 2 : 6 ''''' -„.•-aaa,.---'. •-z....ii ' '. , —
' ' .....%,1•4,-„:--t,lar...ar
.
irer
.... .! ...._"--.''''-- 41...
..,41 4...„ ) -age' . _ . • :. - . ...
•••••■ .. ., - - -
• :.."--4 4 f.;4ir . • .....-......,........... , . ,:t*. • • _
• ,., % .. 11
^ 0
. '14..'. %. ---,--,-
_.... .
. .„. . 4
„.• - .
........ .,...... Iv
.. .. , . _ _„,.,,.... ....,..
,k,S,..!"...:74,:: EL.d. r . .
3 , 1 z . ---,.-0 - -..71x .4,....
III ,.. .:'..,..y • . ' .-
.. ■ •.....: / r
....,..---, ir
•
,' .,- ...,- , •
,,.
. -- . . , • th
.......... , ...
._.
,
• ,
light well
q 1„,
5' tall light post
.....
#,:::: .'.'.-::....,::,:
'' '' ,.,;...-;.,,,.. ,
.,: . . , .,
• , r:- „. i :-_. ::,':: : :- '•: eik•-.:•= ••-i-„,!:.:-,•:.:.i...,',--.'-:,-,:,..-N '•••• . '
...
,. . .-......... _...
. .
-,,,'• 'L :---.:.•;"• "i:• :•:•.-$.:-.,
., . , : .. ,,,,,.: • - -.
:: . -.-. ,,. , ... , ..d::: • -,-::
4,,,,,,,i ',', Ai,' *-46, ,-..%- L.-- --•...
. ...,, . - ..: Nik • • .. • •-• -
., .
• . : -----:•:-.: • ..__ ,,....,. - •-
. . •..
...... ...., .: :..,:::- .~.... • - . - : -, I.i , ' 4 ?7 - -. ,,,, ;::::OX:::':•••-;-,::::•. :::::'..,i-.0-0:'•' •
• : • : : _ • • • •• • :, v:.: :,.-,........ -- — : •
. ... .. , , . . ..
:: : •.-- .-
.:-:;.....::•. •
_. . ..
. .
. . . ... . . . •.:: . _ ::
, . . ..
P5
A.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 217 E. Bleeker Street- Conceptual Major Development, On -site relocation,
Demolition, FAR Bonus, Variances, Continued Public Hearing
DATE: February 22, 2012
SUMMARY: HPC held a public hearing on the proposed project at 217 E. Bleeker on February
8 and continued the item to tonight's meeting. The continuation was for the purpose of restudying
the placement of a historic outbuilding that is to be set in the southeast corner of the site.
The proposed Location and necessary setback variances appeared to have board support at a Nov.
16 review, however new public comment from the neighboring property owner at the last meeting
caused the HPC to ask for a restudy to ensure that the proposal is mitigating impacts to neighbors.
The applicant has created a brief memo and two alternative designs for review. This information is
attached, along with the complete packet from February 8
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supported the project on February 8 We also support either
of the attached adjustments to the site plan. Preservation of outbuildings is a difficult challenge due to
the fact that HPC prefers to see them remain as detached structures. It can be hard to adapt them to
new uses without altering their character too substantially, and they often conflict with other uses that
zoning encourages along the alley, particularly on -site parking. Staff finds that the applicant has found
a reasonable balance.
P 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 217 E. Bleeker Street Conceptual Major Development, On -site relocation,
Demolition, FAR Bonus, Variances, Continued Public Hearing
DATE: February 8, 2012
SUMMARY: 217 E. Bleeker is a 4,513 square foot lot that was created through a Historic
Landmark Lot Split. It is vacant except for two accessory buildings and a significant tree at the
front of the site. A maximum FAR of 2,280 was established during the lot split process. The
property is eligible for setback variances and a 250 square foot FAR bonus if found appropriate by
HPC.
The applicant requests approval to demolish a very small shed structure towards the center of the
site, to remove a lean-to addition on the large alley building, and to relocate that building on the lot
in order to create a building envelope for a new home. Conceptual design approval is requested
along with setback variances, a Residential Design Standards Variance and the FAR bonus.
HPC has held several worksessions and public hearings on the project, which has some challenges
due to the size and location of the historic structure, and a large tree on the site. The applicant has
provided restudied drawings to address HPC's concerns.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the amended project complies with the design
guidelines and meets the criteria for requested setback variances, Residential Design Standards
variances, and a 250 square foot FAR bonus.
APPLICANT: Karen Kribs, owner. The project architect has changed to BHH Partners,
Breckenridge.
PARCEL ID: 2737 - 073 -20 -013.
ADDRESS: 217 E. Bleeker Street, Lot 1, East Bleeker Historic Landmark Lot Split, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: R -6, Medium Density Residential, Historic Landmark
1
P7
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
Major Development is a two -step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by the HPC as
part of their review of the Final a ' � ;tr
Development Plan unless agreed to by the x �a "`, ` ;
�� . ' ,,.
a ';` '` y vittla ^r.
Staff Response: Much of the conversation at a n
the previous HPC discussions has been s= a.
focused on the structure along the alley, and
the best way to preserve it given the plan to i. 4 : r
build a new house on the site.
HPC has been informed that the alley - t"3/4
structure appears to have been a small house s •. :c. rr,,' .n:44 . s "-' ��, .,- "`
that was located close along the west side of the Victorian at 227 E. Bleeker (seen above).
This is the opinion of long -time neighbors, and it is supported Demolished
by the Sanbome map, which shows a building of comparable (date own) Moved to alley
size alongside 227 E. Bleeker as of 1904. Furthermore, the
building along the alley has original doors and windows that y;, 2n 2/9 2285/) 823 2 .t7
suggest it was once a home rather than just a barn. 227 E. Bleeker
D' in 7 • •/
The applicant wishes to remove a lean -to addition on the historic IN
structure and to rotate it to create access for a two car garage. l
There has been concern that its presence on the alley will be
diminished, and that the alley structure would be surrounded by
fences and new construction. Because of this concern, the site
plan was changed at the Last meeting to show the alley building in
the southeast, instead of the southwest corner of the lot. The 1 "
result is that the building is moved in almost a direct line back AI
73
2
P8
from where it was located in the Victorian era. It will continue to have some visibility from the
street, and has significant visibility along the alley. Future development of the miner's cottage at
227 E. Bleeker is somewhat unlikely to change that circumstance because of the small amount of
square footage allocated to that lot. From a site plan perspective, staff believes the positioning of
the alley building is appropriate.
With regard to the design of the new house, there has been criticism from staff and HPC that the
forms were too complex and out of character with the adjacent buildings. Staff finds that the
attached design meets the design guidelines. There are proportions and forms that relate to the
Victorian and the new structure does not overwhelm the adjacent buildings in scale. The
footprint of the new house is designed to avoid any setback variances other than for the alley
building and basement area, which responds to HPC concerns at the worksessions.
Fenestration and materials are discussed at Final review.
•
ON -SITE RELOCATION
The intent of this Chapter is to preserve designated historic properties in their original locations
as much of their significance is embodied in their setting and physical relationship to their
surroundings as well as their association with events and people with ties to particular site.
However, it is recognized that occasionally the relocation of a property may be appropriate as it
provides an alternative to demolition or because it only has a limited impact on the attributes that
make it significant.
The following standards apply for relocating a historic property as per Section 26.415.090.0 of
the Municipal Code:
•
C. Standards for the Relocation of Designated Properties
Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any
one of the following standards:
1. It is considered a non - contributing element of 'a historic district and its relocation will
not affect the character of the historic district; or
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which
it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or
property; or
3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given
the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not
adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or
diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated
properties; and
Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding
the physical impacts of relocation; and
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3
P9
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and
preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary
financial security.
Staff Response: Based on the history of the accessory building as discussed above, staff does
find that the proposed relocation is an acceptable preservation method. It has been stated that the
building has been in its current location for as much as the last 90 years. Some board members
may take the position that it should be preserved as is. This would make it difficult or impossible
for the applicant to achieve the on -site parking they desire. Staff does find the relocation
acceptable in that the building remains small and free - standing, highly visible, and similar to its
Victorian era orientation.
If relocation is approved, the applicant will be required to demonstrate that it can be done safely
to preserve the structure.
DEMOLITION
It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have
demonstrated significance to the community. Consequently no demolition of properties
designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures will be allowed
unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section.
The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the
property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the
standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is
demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria:
a. The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public
safety and the owner /applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely
manner,
b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to
properly maintain the structure,
c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen
or
d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in
which it is located and
b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of
the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent
designated properties and
c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs
of the area.
4
P10
Staff Response: The applicant plans to totally demolish a small shed that is clearly non - historic
based on appearance and comments from the owner of 227 E. Bleeker Avenue. Staff finds that
the review criteria are met.
FAR BONUS
In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of
allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for
the bonus, it must be demonstrated that:
a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines;
b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is
incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building;
c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance;
d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic
building's form, materials or openings;
e. The construction materials are of the highest quality;
f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building;
g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or
h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained.
Staff Response: Restoration of the accessory structure will be a substantial undertaking. There
are relatively few alley buildings left in town, especially of this size. This 350 square foot
building does count completely in FAR. The justification for granting a bonus would seem to
hang entirely on the success of the preservation strategy for this building. The elevations indicate
some window changes which may not be appropriate and should be discussed in more detail at
Final, however staff finds that all of the criteria above are met and deserving of a 250 square foot
FAR bonus as requested.
SETBACK VARIANCES
In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district;
and/or
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic
district.
Staff Response: The applicant proposes to set the accessory building and basement 1' from the
east property line, where 5' is required. The applicant proposes to set the accessory building and
basement 4' from the alley where 10' is required. (Though the building is accessory in character,
because is attached to the house below grade, staff has been informed by Zoning that it must
meet the setback requirements of a primary structure.)
5
P11
Staff finds that the variance criteria are met. The structure has always been placed at the very
rear of the property, albeit on the opposite side. The variances facilitate the historic structure's
preservation as a free - standing building with very good visibility to the public. The project
otherwise conforms to setback requirements. The structure that is benefitting from the variances
is relatively small, which should mitigate impacts on the adjacent Victorian property.
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
The project does not comply with Residential Design Standards related to the setback of the
house from the street.
Build -to lines. On parcels or lots of less than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, at
least sixty percent (60 %) of the front facade shall be within five (5) feet of the minimum
front yard setback line. On corner sites, this standard shall be met on the frontage with
the longest block length. Porches may be used to meet the sixty percent (60 %)
standard.
All Residential Design Standard Variances, Pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.410.020(D)(2) must:
a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which
the development is proposed and purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the
context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of
the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting,
or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is
warranted; or,
b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site - specific constraints.
Staff Response: Staff finds that the property has a hardship related to this standard due to the
location of the tree at the front of the lot. A variance is recommended.
The HPC may:
• approve the application,
• approve the application with conditions,
• disapprove the application, or
• continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant Conceptual Major Development, On-
site relocation, Demolition, FAR Bonus, Setback Variances and a Residential Design Standard
Variance for the Build -to -Line standard as outlined in the attached resolution.
6
P12
Exhibits:
Resolution #_, Series of 2012
A. Relevant HPC Guidelines
B. Application
Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines, Conceptual Review
8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved.
❑ When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character- defining features. These
include its primary and roof materials, roof form, windows, doors and architectural details.
❑ If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional.
8.2 If an existing secondary structure is beyond repair, then replacing it is encouraged.
❑ An exact reconstruction of the secondary structure may not be necessary in these cases.
❑ The replacement should be compatible with the overall character of the historic primary
structure, while accommodating new uses.
8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure.
❑ Traditionally, a garage was sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern
should be maintained. Any proposal to attach an accessory structure is reviewed on a case -
by -case basis.
8.5 Avoid moving a historic secondary structure from its original location.
❑ A secondary structure may only be repositioned on its original site to preserve its historic
integrity.
See Chapter 9: Building Relocation and Foundations.
9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case -by -case basis.
❑ In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a
historic district.
❑ It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative.
❑ Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements.
❑ A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and
materials.
❑ Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new
foundation, utilities, and to restore the house.
❑ The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new
construction.
❑ In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved.
9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the
boundaries of its historic parcel:
❑ If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the lots.
Both lots shall remain landmarked properties.
7
P13
9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
a It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback.
❑ It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in
front of it.
9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic
foundation.
❑ On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on
a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character.
❑ Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should
be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints.
9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic
elevation above grade.
a Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it
substantially above the ground level is inappropriate.
a Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances
the resource.
11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street.
❑ The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid
pattern of the site.
11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by
using a front porch.
a The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry.
o A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally.
o In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street;
nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to
the street.
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the
parcel.
a Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
o The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure.
o The front should include a one -story element, such as a porch.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
o They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
❑ Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms.
o Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context.
8
P14
❑ On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the
context.
❑ Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are
discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A- frames.
11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic
property.
❑ These include windows, doors and porches.
❑ Overall, details should be modest in character.
11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
❑ This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
❑ Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are
especially discouraged on historic sites.
9
P15
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
GRANTING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), RELOCATION,
DEMOLITION AND VARIANCES APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
217 E. BLEEKER STREET, LOT 1, EAST BLEEKER HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT
SPLIT, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF
COLORADO
RESOLUTION #_, SERIES OF 2012
PARCEL ID: 2737 - 073 -20 -013
WHEREAS, the applicant, Karen 'Cribs, represented by BHH Partners, has requested HPC
Major Development (Conceptual), Relocation, Demolition and Variance approval for the
property located at 217 E. Bleeker Street, Lot 1, East Bleeker Historic Landmark Lot Split, City
and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of
Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application,
a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section
26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC
may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain
additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, in order to approve Relocation, according to Section 26.415.090.C, Relocation of a
Designated Property, it must be determined that:
I . It is considered a non- contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will
not affect the character of the historic district; or
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which
it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or
property; or
3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given
the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not
adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or
diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated
properties; and
217 E. Bleeker Street
HPC Resolution #_, Series of 2012
Page 1 of 4
P16
Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding
the physical impacts of relocation; and
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and
preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary
financial security; and
WHEREAS, in order to approve Demolition, according to Section 26.415.080.A.4, Demolition
of Designated Historic Properties, it must be determined that:
a. The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public
safety and the owner /applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely
manner,
b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to
properly maintain the structure,
c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen
or
d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in
which it is located and
b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of
the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent
designated properties and
c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs
of the area; and
WHEREAS, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (250) additional square feet of allowable
floor area for projects involving designated historic properties according to Section 26.415.110.F,
Floor Area Bonus and the specific Historic Landmark Lot Split Ordinance granted for this parcel.
To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that:
a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines;
b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is
incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building;
c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance;
d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic
building's form, materials or openings;
e. The construction materials are of the highest quality;
f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building;
g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or
h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained; and
217 E. Bleeker Street
HPC Resolution # , Series of 2012
Page 2 of 4
P1 7
WHEREAS, the HPC may approve setback variances according to Section 26.415.110.C.1 .a,
Variances. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district;
and/or
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic
district; and
WHEREAS, the HPC may approve variances to the Residential Design Standard Variances
according to Section 26.410.020(D)(2). HPC must make a finding that a variance:
a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which
the development is proposed and purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the
context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of
the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting,
or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is
warranted; or,
b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site - specific constraints;
and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report to HPC dated February 8, 2012, performed an
analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards had been met,
and recommended approval with conditions; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on February 8, 2012, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal
consistent with the review standards and recommended approval with conditions by a vote of _ to
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby grants HPC Major Development (Conceptual), Relocation, Demolition and
Variances for the property located at 217 E. Bleeker Street with the following conditions:
1. A 250 square foot FAR bonus is approved.
2. The historic structure and basement below it may be 1' from the east property line. The
historic structure and basement below it may be 1' from the rear property line.
3. Wavier of the Residential Design Standards for "Build -to- Lines" is approved.
4. Materials and fenestration will be discussed more fully at Final Review.
5. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
(1) year of February 8, 2012, the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan.
Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the
approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission
may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one -time extension of the
217 E. Bleeker Street
HPC Resolution # , Series of 2012
Page 3 of 4
P18
expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months
provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to
the expiration date.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 8th day of February,
2012.
Ann Mullins, Chair
Approved as to Form:
Jim True, Special Counsel
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
217 E. Bleeker Street
HPC Resolution # , Series of 2012
Page 4 of 4
To: City of Aspen /Community Development Department
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Re: Development of vacant lot and renovation of historic
accessory building at 217 East Bleeker
For: HPC Conceptual Hearing on February 22, 2012
In addition to the site plan submitted at the HPC Conceptual Hearing on February 8,
2012, two alternative site plans are hereby submitted. These plans are attached and
marked Exhibit 5, pg. 2 and Exhibit 5, pg. 3.
Alternate #1 moves the accessory building one (1) foot to the west of the prior
submission. This places the accessory building two (2) feet from the property line
and requires a three (3) foot variance for the east set back, where a four (4) foot
variance had been requested prior. The separation between the accessory building
and the garage is maintained at three (3) feet and the garage is narrowed. The
garage is entirely within the five (5) foot setback on the west side, so that no
variance is required on the west side.
Alternate #2 moves the accessory building two (2) feet to the west of the prior
submission. This places the accessory building three (3) feet from the property line
and requires a two (2) foot variance for the east set back, where a four (4) foot
variance had been requested prior. The separation between the accessory building
and the garage is maintained at three (3) feet and the garage is narrowed. The
garage and supporting structure below would require a one (1) foot variance on the
west side.
Applicant strongly prefers Alternate #1, as no additional variance will be required.
In the event that the HPC prefers Alternate #2, applicant will request that
Conceptual Approval be granted with the condition that posting and notice be done
prior to the Final Hearing.
The placement of the building will be discussed in detail at the Hearing on February
22, 2012, as well as plans for restoration of the building.
'Z' y. r "'''''.
-", -'" ti.�. -
yS ' 2 .. ' r te _.. W as. _
iI i � r _ 73
..., V
1,....41
;....,_
,,,,
i ....
;-1- I- I li 1 .. I : 1 -----, tr_ ‘,111r,-l
f is 1
vAililik r
I Ti '
1
1 } i
1
1
•
Will 1111Pif' �1
II I/►
. 1 Allik - I
iliF- `
. 1
II *r7! 1 1 ' 1 '
,. f --1
4
I
•
, ,,, , •
, ,........
1
_..
1 1'
•
bhh Port/Arrs ,
3t 6- Iii 1 , F_
1 I 217EASTBLEEKERSTIEET 1 1 1 1
4 {it - U
r
p
•
1 11 �-� a � ,� O •
's!i 3
4 1 J ! '
. RI 4 , 1 _ ,;,
II Nu II
:...:.E..:: :: :
L \. iir 1 gr ,
::: 1 . _ . ,
[A . N \ -,: _____, .1.4 eir . } iii
I ri
I .; - 1 1: LI IF r '',
,N, _.
NI
1 !.! ‘ 10 , .4.
: " - .
1
. 1 h il■i3 .- 0 -. -
1
R t „ , 1 r
i NI)
, , It
bhh Panwers
/ \-- -- _' P C0f8ta{ fam+ssseeo - i �' ' $ o
217 EAST SLEEKER STREET °
21' ES T MEET, ASpg,, CO ,
__ — — 2 I l i 12_ '
If
064L- SZ6-0G6 xed ' � , n0 - 5 = .,8/T B /T
ZOS4SZ6 -0L6 -.AB wnre0 rnws
119 IR 0 Pe- 0 1 , 0 'uadsV til . A 1T918 opeiolo0'uadstl
Iaa.gg InuleM OZS I ui ita TTOZ 'ZZ E1390,13030 Dui "w s: v a . - 0u.mroee awn laanls aamaa18 lse3 LTZ
ooMuaaJ ` 1 •lA aouaplsaa sqpH aLl
p Ual�O]a I� � / N2itl8 JNIlSIX3
03
4
N
co
Z
CZ to L LJ
Q o
K
110 0 9
0
0
S � z
Q x
O [o I. J
c _ ) 0
uu
E cz
�:: O
I IIIIIIIII z ~
O
M
cn
�� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII z
0
I■■I i z w Q
IIIIII11111- � = II n >_
w§ -- U W _ '
4 11
co
x � �
z
uz
re
w
0
;93 §
azi
I∎ 2
z
Q z
m Q
;z< U on
ez U
0 E 1
1 10 H-
1 1O (n u uIIIIIIIIIuIll H
=
4 111 P ® O
CD LLI w 111111
` f O = cz 11 �
w z_ CO >( —
I
�9 a 2 ii
03 N3aStl'133a1s a3a33le l.stl3 114 l ; ti i � 133?!1S i]N33� L I
(--- n acn56SOLW K SIPoav�8d tC8 %0d II Wis N
Z Z
re
1t r ` 1 �I l 4V 11, ry ' Q
N Io t a f Q I VYl 1 19
Lt
Yd r � � ll f �� 1 M °ul II ib
Zt
119191m1i . il ll®I I I _____
i is
I���s1;� I
" ® �:. °I1f b °
IT 1 cC
''' I1i91ii J II 0
rll F I
4
Z co >
W
ix
0
J
W
Z
OC
Q
CO
0
t lu 1 4t !! °l xx 141 u
1.1.1
CC
4 4 1 ', l $lr P 4 d7 rr-
�y� "�I Z ^ "sJl 4 �.
Ce
9 � Z
� � I j o
► Q .
m
m
�� ®ui�uiiu� Z � f I z w
1�. 1, — 11; i -
� 1 Q I Q
I w >
W
J J
Ili
_I. I l l II, ' ��.I
j N — ._.._I IIII®Illldll�■II to
W Q
; 1411
fll _ v ¢ip k nl l,(I 4 r