HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20120509 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 9, 2012 — 4:30 P.M.
SISTER CITIES MEETING ROOM
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISITS- None
INTRODUCTION
A. Roll call
B. Approval of minutes
C. Public Comments
D. Commission member comments
E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
F. Project Monitoring
G. Staff comments
H. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
I. Submit public notice for agenda items
OLD BUSINESS (Next Resolution will be #10)
A. 302 E. Hopkins Avenue- Final Major Development and Final
Commercial Design, PUBLIC HEARING, Continued from
April 25th(20 minutes)
B. 217 E. Bleeker Street- Final Major Development, PUBLIC
HEARING, Continued from April 25th (20 minutes)
NEW BUSINESS
A. 720 E. Hyman Avenue- AspenModern Negotation for
Voluntary Landmark Designation and Minor Development,
Continue to May 23`d
B. 610 E. Hyman- AspenModern Negotiation for Voluntary
Landmark Designation, Conceptual Major Development,
Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Special Review For
Utility/Trash/Recycling Area, Continue to May 23"
WORKSESSIONS
A. HPC retreat (2 hours)
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
610 W. Hallam-light
Fox Crossing
AspenCore
Jamie Brewster McLeod 630 E. Hyman
518 W. Main
1102 Waters
205 S. Spring
Jay Maytin 920 W. Hallam
518 W. Main
28 Smuggler Grove
Red Butte Cemetery
Lift One
205 S. Spring
Nora Berko 28 Smuggler Grove
1102 Waters
332 W. Main
Willis Pember 508 E. Cooper
202/208 E. Main
AspenCore
M:\city\planning\hpc project monitoring\PROJECT MONITORING.doc
5/4/2012
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 302 E. Hopkins Avenue— Final Major Development and Final
Commercial Design Review, CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: May 9, 2012
SUMMARY: HPC considered Final review of the proposed project at 302 E. Hopkins
on April 25th and continued the hearing after requesting restudy of the following topics:
Landscape
• Remove the proposed serviceberry shrub on the west side.
• Choose a different shrub for the base of the Victorian (something smaller than the
globe spruce).
• Remove the shrubs at the base of the new addition and let the building "meet the
ground."
• Maintain grass on the south side of the lot, in front of the gable end.
• Accurately reflect the appearance of the proposed grading alongside the front
walkway ramp.
• Ensure that someone trying to walk from the outdoor seating to the front door can
do so easily.
• Show tables and chairs of the approximate proposed size/location. HPC does not
review the specific selection of outdoor furniture.
• Provide a sample of the proposed decomposed granite surface for the seating area.
Utility cabinets
• Move the cabinets and meters inside the trash/utility structure or into the slot
between the south side of the shed and the new addition.
Door swing on shed:
• Provide determination by Building/Engineering Departments.
Brick
• Choose a brick that is not tumbled/aged/re-used. Provide samples and
photographs. Address mortar color/joints.
Lights
• Consider keeping the existing sconces on the house and shed. Provide a revised
lighting plan.
HPC Review 5.9.2012
302 E.Hopkins Avenue
Page 1 of 3
The memo from the last meeting is attached for HPC's reference. The applicant has
provided new information which staff finds meets the applicable design guidelines.
Regarding brick selection, samples of alternatives to the original concept will be provided
at the meeting. The applicant still has a preference for a material that has some rustic or
textured quality.
Staff recommends that an additional effort be made to limit the number of light fixtures
being used in the project. There are still four different fixtures proposed. The existing
lights on the historic structures are not original, however the sconce at the front door is to
be retained.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant Final Major
Development and Final Commercial Design Review with the following conditions:
1. A sample of the proposed brick and mortar must be provided for HPC approval
and an on-site mock up must be approved by staff and monitor.
2. The applicant must confirm that the existing wood decking on the historic porch
will remain in place even with the addition of the concrete accessibility ramp.
3. Restudy the lighting plan to reduce the variety of fixtures, for approval by staff
and monitor.
4. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific
development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a
development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and
conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested
property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record
all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180
days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the
forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order
void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not
part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation
of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews
necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk
shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the
jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public
of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property
right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of
three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24,
Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described
HPC Review 5.9.2012
302 E. Hopkins Avenue
Page 2 of 3
property: 302 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lot K, Block 80, City and Townsite of
Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent
reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations
and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are
not inconsistent with this approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and
judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights
shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final
development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of
referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the
Aspen Home Rule Charter.
EXHIBITS:
Resolution#_, Series of 2012
Exhibit A: April 25, 2012 staff memo
Exhibit B: Application
HPC Review 5.9.2012
302 E. Hopkins Avenue
Page 3 of 3
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APPROVING FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN
REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 302 E. HOPKINS AVENUE,LOT K,
BLOCK 80, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
RESOLUTION # , SERIES OF 2012
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-29-005
WHEREAS, the applicant, Hillstone Restaurant Group, represented by Rowland + Broughton
Architects and Vann Associates, submitted an application for Final Major Development and
Commercial Design Review for the property located at 302 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lot K, Block
80, City and Townsite of Aspen. The application is authorized by the current property owner,
MJS Properties, LLC and Brooke Peterson; and
WHEREAS, the property is located within the designated boundaries of the Commercial Core
Historic District as described in City Council Ordinance number 49, Series of 1974; 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 Final 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.4 of
the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove,
approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, for Final Commercial Design 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 Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Objectives and Guidelines per Section
26.412.040 of the Municipal Code. 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, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report to HPC dated May 9, 2012, performed an analysis
of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards had been met, and
recommended approval of the project with conditions; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on May 9, 2012, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing, the staff memo and
recommendation, and public comments, and found the building to be consistent with the criteria
and approved the proposal, with conditions, by a vote of_to_.
302 E. Hopkins Avenue
HPC Resolution 14 , Series of 2012
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby approves Final Major Development and Final Commercial Design Review for
302 E. Hopkins with the following conditions:
1. A sample of the proposed brick and mortar must be provided for HPC approval and an
on-site mock up must be approved by staff and monitor.
2. The applicant must confirm that the existing wood decking on the historic porch will
remain in place even with the addition of the concrete accessibility ramp.
3. Restudy the lighting plan to reduce the variety of fixtures, for approval by staff and
monitor.
4. A report from a licensed engineer or architect demonstrating that the shed can be moved
must be submitted with the building permit application in addition to a bond, letter of
credit or cashier's check in the amount of$15,000 to ensure the safe relocation.
5. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan
vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order.
However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise
exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be
recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development
order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the
development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits).
Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in
the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary
to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the
City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice
shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years,
pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado
Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 302 E. Hopkins Avenue,
Lot K, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews
and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances
or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with
this approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial
review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin
to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required
302 E. Hopkins Avenue
HPC Resolution# , Series of 2012
under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the
Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 9th day of May, 2012.
Ann Mullins, Chair
Approved as to Form:
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
302 E. Hopkins Avenue
HPC Resolution# , Series of 2012
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 302 E. Hopkins Avenue— Final Major Development and Final
Commercial Design Review, PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: April 25, 2012
SUMMARY: 302 E. Hopkins is a ; = `
3,000 square foot lot located in the p,„ .
Commercial Core Historic District. ' .
The miner's cottage was constructed [; 4-`'� �,
in 1883, which makes it one of the '
oldest remaining structures in town. n � ,
Throughout its history the building tit - -
has been used for both commercial "-
and residential purposes. It is the
example of the "Carpenter
Gothic” style in Aspen, defined by
the steeply pitched roof and
decorative trim on the front of the '
building. The building appears to be
unaltered, except for a -
small non-historic addition at the
rear.
Currently 302 E. Hopkins is used for offices. A new purchaser would like to convert the
property to a restaurant, with seating and an open kitchen in the front of the building,
back of house operations in a new one story addition, and the historic shed put into use as
a staircase to the basement level which will contain storage and an existing apartment.
The project involves demolition of a non-historic addition at the back of the house. The
shed along the alley will slide westward, towards Aspen Street. Alterations planned for
the historic structure are the addition of rooftop venting for the kitchen, addition of a
ramp at the front entry, and landscape changes to allow for outdoor seating.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant the requested approvals, with
conditions.
HPC Review 4.25.2012
302 E.Hopkins Avenue
Page 1 of 10
APPLICANT: Hillstone Restaurant Group, represented by Vann Associates and
Rowland + Broughton Architects. The application is authorized by the current property
owner.
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-29-005.
ADDRESS: 302 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lot K, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen.
ZONING: CC, Commercial Core. Historic District Overlay.
FINN. NI tJOR DEN EropNIEN r/ FIN,U. CbVLnIF:RCLV. DESIGN Sr Vs.D:kith REVIEW
Major Development and Commercial Design review is a two-step process requiring
approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development
Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards
to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted
in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions.
No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part
of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant.
The procedure for Final Major Development Review and Commercial Design Review 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 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.
For new development in the Commercial Core Historic District, the guidelines found in
the 2007 Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines
along with relevant preservation guidelines within the City of Aspen Historic
Preservation Guidelines are applied.
Commercial design review must address the following criteria:
A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060,
Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more
appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development
is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can
justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070,
HPC Review 4.25.2012
302 E. Hopkins Avenue
Page 2 of 10
Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation
from the standards.
B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the
proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial
design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the façade of the
building may be required to comply with this Section.
C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging
and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the
appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards
and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The
City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and
guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively
comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the
intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must
determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means.
STAFF RESPONSE: A list of the relevant Commercial design guidelines is included in
the application. Historic Preservation Guidelines to consider are listed at "Exhibit A."
The application packet is very clear and staff finds that the proposed addition is
sensitively and thoughtfully designed to meet the guidelines. Though the architecture of
the addition is in some ways a great contrast to the historic structure, the very simple
form and limited detailing of the new addition will be a quiet and subservient statement
next to the decorative Victorian. The historic structure itself is essentially flat roofed at
the back (the roof has a slight pitch, screened by a "false front" that faces the street.) The
proposed project is less than half of the allowed height on this downtown property, and
one quarter of the allowed FAR.
HPC granted Conceptual approval with the following conditions:
1. HPC approves the accessible ramp as represented at the meeting.
2. The HPC approves the size of the utility/trash area as designed.
3. For Final review, redesign the utility trash area so that the west side is not
enclosed, in order to provide access to the back of the historic shed. Restudy
the two foot area between the south side of the historic shed and the new
addition.
4. The applicant is not required to provide 1.7 on-site parking spaces generated by
the project, or the cash-in-lieu fee.
Staff finds that the guidelines and review criteria are met, and supports Final approval for
the project, with amendments to the following elements; lighting, landscape plan, utility
meters and building materials.
HPC Review 4.25.2012
302 E. Hopkins Avenue
Page 3 of 10
Lighting
The guidelines state:
14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity
' to that used traditionally.
❑ The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be
approved by the HPC.
❑ All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence.
The applicant proposes relatively simple light fixtures, but there are four styles of lights
for what is a small scale project. The light proposed for the front porch has an angled
shade and staff is unsure what the light is directed to illuminate. The location is
somewhat awkward, although there is little room to install a sconce closer to the front
door. Staff recommends a recessed light be installed in the porch soffit. This eliminates
the introduction of a wall fixture that may or may not be historically accurate. Staff
recommends that the "El Capitan" fixture be used along the alley if possible, eliminating
one additional fixture style. HPC should discuss whether this sconce is acceptable on
the historic shed,where one installation is proposed.
Landscape plan
The guidelines state:
1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for
historic structures.
❑ The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material
and sod, and not covered with paving, for example.
1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic
context of the site.
❑ Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term
impact of mature growth.
❑ Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent.
❑ Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials.
1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are
inappropriate.
❑ Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no
closer than the mature canopy size.
❑ Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant architectural
features or block views to the building.
❑ It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard.
HPC Review 4.25.2012
302 E. Hopkins Avenue
Page 4 of 10
Staff is concerned with the number of globe spruces proposed surrounding the base of the
Victorian. The linear planting does not seem to reinforce the historic nature of the
building, plus the shrubs may hold too much moisture against the building, especially
when covered with snow. The plan does not include any sod in front of the house and
may not fully represent the grading that is required alongside the accessibility ramp. A
tapered grade is needed in order to avoid installation of a handrail. Staff recommends
that the area in front of the Hopkins Avenue gable end be sod, with a defined pathway
towards outdoor seating on the west side of the building only. The globe spruces should
be reconsidered. An amended landscape plan should be reviewed and approved by staff
and monitor.
Utilities
The guidelines state:
14.15 Minimize the visual impacts of mechanical equipment as seen from the public
way.
❑ Mechanical equipment may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does
not create a negative visual impact.
❑ Mechanical equipment or vents on a roof must be grouped together to minimize their
visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, provide screening with materials that
are compatible with those of the building itself.
❑ Screen ground-mounted units with fences, stone walls or hedges.
❑ A window air conditioning unit may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if
it does not create a negative visual impact.
❑ Use low-profile mechanical units on rooftops so they will not be visible from the
street or alley. Also minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service
boxes. Use smaller satellite dishes and mount them low to the ground and away from
front yards, significant building facades or highly visible roof planes.
❑ Paint telecommunications and mechanical equipment in muted colors that will
minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds.
14.16 Locate standpipes, meters and other service equipment such that they will
not damage historic facade materials.
❑ Cutting channels into historic facade materials damages the historic building fabric
and is inappropriate. Do not locate equipment on the front facade.
❑ If a channel must be cut, either locate it on a secondary facade, or place it low on the
wall.
At the Conceptual review, HPC granted approval for the project to have approximately
50 square feet less area dedicated to utility/trash/recycling than is required. The project is
significantly less than the maximum development; therefore it was perceived that the area
is adequate. The size and location of the historic shed also limits the use of the alley
frontage.
HPC Review 4.25.2012
302 E. Hopkins Avenue
Page 5 of 10
As the project has been further developed, the architects have determined that utility
meters and cabinets cannot be located inside the enclosed trash structure to the extent
expected. A proposed elevation showing three cabinets installed on the north side of the
historic structure is pictured below. Staff recommends that no more than two cabinets are
appropriate, located as far towards the east as possible. All cabinets must be painted to
match the shed.
,
I , 1 ' r t [ 1 �7 I ! 1 TeoROC
EL,11Y-
•wIL
ow•a��■a�� L'la��n�=I'�I I'ar1�11 T 0.KICKS CEIIIN
Fair
--n11/:1a�������1 1i,1413 1
�I•—Witi������� .a
J21AL i.�l��������1 ■�W■ ■, •• I �� p MONARCH STR£
�I�1 ��I���r�rifl�l'�I� � 1�1■
ma■g.. ��
:ER !p Ii M$I =�a'C�1�El—ii
_ __ 1 0 FINIS
•E EL.100'�
■ i nn munew M a
a a BOLLARD
--METAL ROIL-UP• IR-FINISH TO MATCH -RElOCATEO SHED
ALLEY EXISTING SHUTTER
AUTOMATED OPEC R AND KEY LOCK ON
,_ DasRIOS
Materials
The guidelines state:
5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details on a porch.
❑ Removing an original balustrade, for example, is inappropriate.
10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the
historic materials of the primary building.
❑ The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials.
A sample of the proposed brick must be provided for on-site review and approval by staff
and monitor. In addition, the applicant must confirm that the existing wood decking on
the historic porch will remain in place even with the addition of the concrete accessibility
ramp.
HPC Review 4.25.2012
302 E. Hopkins Avenue
Page 6 of 10
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant Final Major
Development and Final Commercial Design Review with the following conditions:
1. Install a recessed light in the porch soffit instead of the proposed surface mount
fixture. Use the "El Capitan"fixture along the alley.
2. Provide an amended landscape plan with sod in front of the house and outdoor
seating only along the west. Address the grading alongside the ramp. Reduce the
globe spruce shrubs at the base of the house.
3. No more than two utility cabinets may be installed on the historic shed, as far
towards the east as possible. All cabinets must be painted to match the shed.
4. A sample of the proposed brick must be provided for on-site review and approval
by staff and monitor. In addition, the applicant must confirm that the existing
wood decking on the historic porch will remain in place even with the addition of
the concrete accessibility ramp.
5. The Conceptual review approval inadvertently did not include standard conditions
related to on-site relocation of the shed. A report from a licensed engineer or
architect demonstrating that the shed can be moved must be submitted with the
building permit application in addition to a bond, letter of credit or cashier's
check in the amount of$15,000 to ensure the safe relocation.
6. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific
development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a
development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and
conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested
property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record
all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180
days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the
forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order
void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not
part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation
of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews
necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk
shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the
jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public
of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property
right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of
three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24,
Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described
property: 302 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lot K, Block 80, City and Townsite of
Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
HPC Review 4.25.2012
302 E. Hopkins Avenue
Page 7 of 10
•
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent
reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations
and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are
not inconsistent with this approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and
judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights
shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final
development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of
referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the
Aspen Home Rule Charter.
EXHIBITS:
Resolution# , Series of 2012
Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Guidelines
Exhibit B: Application
Exhibit A:
1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when
considering a rehabilitation project.
❑ This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk,
proceeding along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature
and ending in the "private" spaces beyond.
❑ Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry.
Meandering walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree.
❑ Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style.
Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles.
1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for
historic structures.
❑ The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material
and sod, and not covered with paving, for example.
1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic
context of the site.
❑ Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term
impact of mature growth.
❑ Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent.
❑ Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials.
1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are
inappropriate.
❑ Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no
closer than the mature canopy size.
❑ Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant architectural
features or block views to the building.
❑ It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard.
HPC Review 4.25.2012
302 E. Hopkins Avenue
Page 8 of 10
5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details on a porch.
❑ Removing an original balustrade, for example, is inappropriate.
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.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character
of the primary building is maintained.
❑ A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of
the primary building is inappropriate.
❑ An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also
is inappropriate.
❑ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's
historic style should be avoided.
❑ An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
❑ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
❑ A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in
material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all
techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new
construction.
10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the
historic materials of the primary building.
❑ The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials.
14.1 These standards should not prevent or inhibit compliance with accessibility
laws.
❑ All new construction should comply completely with the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA). Owners of historic properties should comply to the fullest extent
possible, while also preserving the integrity of the character-defining features of their
buildings. Special provisions for historic buildings exist in the law that allow some
alternatives in meeting the ADA standards.
14.2 Generally, a solution that is independent from the historic building and does
not alter its historic characteristics is encouraged.
14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity
to that used traditionally.
❑ The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be
approved by the HPC.
❑ All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence.
14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting.
❑ Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not
be permitted.
❑ Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures.
HPC Review 4.25.2012
302 E. Hopkins Avenue
Page 9 of 10
❑ Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light
by controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night.
❑ Do not wash an entire building facade in light.
❑ 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.
14.14 Minimize the visual impacts of service areas as seen from the street.
❑ When it is feasible, screen service areas from view, especially those associated with
commercial and multifamily developments.
❑ This includes locations for trash containers and loading docks.
❑ Service areas should be accessed off of the alley, if one exists.
14.15 Minimize the visual impacts of mechanical equipment as seen from the public
way.
o Mechanical equipment may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does
not create a negative visual impact.
❑ Mechanical equipment or vents on a roof must be grouped together to minimize their
visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, provide screening with materials that
are compatible with those of the building itself.
❑ Screen ground-mounted units with fences, stone walls or hedges.
o A window air conditioning unit may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if
it does not create a negative visual impact.
❑ Use low-profile mechanical units on rooftops so they will not be visible from the
street or alley. Also minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service
boxes. Use smaller satellite dishes and mount them low to the ground and away from
front yards, significant building facades or highly visible roof planes.
❑ Paint telecommunications and mechanical equipment in muted colors that will
minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds.
14.16 Locate standpipes, meters and other service equipment such that they will not
damage historic facade materials.
❑ Cutting channels into historic facade materials damages the historic building fabric
and is inappropriate. Do not locate equipment on the front facade.
❑ If a channel must be cut, either locate it on a secondary facade, or place it low on the
wall.
HPC Review 4.25.2012
302 E. Hopkins Avenue
Page 10 of 10
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 217 E. Bleeker Street- Final Major Development, CONTINUED PUBLIC
HEARING
DATE: May 9, 2012
SUMMARY: HPC considered Final review of the proposed project at 217 E. Bleeker Street on
April 25th and continued the hearing after requesting restudy of the following topics:
Materials
• Provide elevations of all four sides of the building showing the clapboards with a 6"
exposure, and vertical wood siding instead of stucco. Trim should be 6" wide at headers
and sills, with 4"verticals.
• Provide elevations indicating the final window proposal, which may include casement or
double hung and some divided lights.
• Elevations are to represent everything including light fixtures, skylights, solar panels, etc.
Setback
• Revise the plans so that nothing except actual garage area extends into the east sideyard
setback.
Lighting
• Restudy the lighting plan to 1) eliminate the light over the sliding door on the barn and
the lights mounted on the posts on the deck, 2) use no more than 2 pairs of path lights in
the front and 3) consider single fixtures (asymmetry) instead of pairs of fixtures.
Landscape
• Provide a landscape plan that represents treatment of the grade change between the
driveway and the veggie garden.
• Design the front walkway to be flat, with steps only occurring right at the base of the
porch.
• Provide information info about tree protection during construction.
• Restudy the material for the front walkway; perhaps flagstone.
Barn Restoration
• Review the barn in more detail with staff to discuss restoration plans and condition of
materials.
The memo from the last meeting is attached for HPC's reference. The applicant has provided
new information which staff finds meets the applicable design guidelines.
1
Staff and the applicant did another site visit and walk through of the barn on April 30`h. At least
one of the existing doors does appear to be beyond salvage. Another door appears to have been
moved to the non-historic lean-to addition, where it has been chopped down in height and made
unusable, other than as a pattern for restoration in the original location. At least one existing
window in the barn appears to have been salvaged from elsewhere due to its poor fit in the
opening. Staff and monitor should work with the applicant throughout construction to review cut
sheets for all door and window replacements. Parts of the structure are currently difficult to see,
but will become less so once the approved demolition and relocation take place.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant Final Major Development
approval with the following conditions:
1. Staff and monitor must review and approve cut sheets for all door and window
replacements in the historic barn, and must review and approve which historic materials
must be preserved and which must be replicated.
2. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan
vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order.
However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise
exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be
recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development
order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the
development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits).
Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in
the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary
to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the
City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice
shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years,
pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado
Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 217 E. Bleeker Street,
Lot 1, East Sleeker Historic Landmark Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado.
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews
and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances
or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with
this approval.
2
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial
review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin
to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required
under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the
Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
EXHIBITS:
Resolution# , Series of 2012
Exhibit A: April 25, 2012 staff memo
Exhibit B: Application
3
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
GRANTING FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT 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 Kribs, represented by BHH Partners, has requested HPC Final
Major Development 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 Final 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.4 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, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report to HPC dated May 9. 2012, performed an analysis
of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards had been met, and
recommended approval of the project with conditions; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on May 9, 2012, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing, the staff memo and
recommendation, and public comments, and found the building to be consistent with the criteria
and approved the proposal, with conditions, by a vote of_to_.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby grants Final Major Development approval for the property located at 217 E.
Bleeker Street, Lot 1, East Bleeker Historic Landmark Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado with the following conditions:
1. Staff and monitor must review and approve cut sheets for all door and window
replacements in the historic barn, and must review and approve which historic materials
must be preserved and which must be replicated.
217 E. Bleeker Street
HPC Resolution # , Series of 2012
Page 1 of 3
2. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan
vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order.
However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise
exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be
recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development
order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the
development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits).
Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in
the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary
to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the
City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice
shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years,
pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado
Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 217 E. Bleeker Street,
Lot 1, East Bleeker Historic Landmark Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado.
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews
and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or
the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this
approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial
review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin
to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required
under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the
Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
217 E. Bleeker Street
HPC Resolution # , Series of 2012
Page 2 of 3
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 9th day of May, 2012.
Ann Mullins, Chair
Approved as to Form:
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
217 E. Bleeker Street
HPC Resolution # , Series of 2012
Page 3 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 217 E. Bleeker Street- Final Major Development, Public Hearing
DATE: April 25, 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. HPC
granted Conceptual approval for on-site relocation of the large historic structure, and construction of
a new house in March. The approval included setback variances, a 250 square foot floor area bonus
and Residential Design Standards variances. The applicant requests Final approval.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant Final approval with conditions.
APPLICANT: Karen Kribs, owner. The project architect is 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
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL)
Major Development review is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development
Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the
structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height,
scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed
development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to
by the applicant.
The procedure for Final Major Development 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 design guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
1
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a
decision to approve or deny.
Staff Response: Final review focuses on landscape plan, lighting, fenestration and selection
of new materials. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A."
The only revision HPC required for the Final review application was that no new openings will
be allowed on the historic structure, as a result of the floor area bonus. Plans for the barn are
included in the packet and indicate only historic openings. Some original openings that are
currently enclosed will be re-opened.
Staff finds that the project has been resolved well given the challenges involved with preserving
a large tree and a significant outbuilding. Neighbor concerns were given weight and setback
issues appear to have been resolved in a manner that is fair to all parties.
Staff finds that the guidelines and review criteria are met, and supports Final approval for the
project, with amendments to building materials. Samples of the proposed materials will be
provided to HPC at the hearing. ��
) t4� t' A �rt
The new house has a somewhat Rustic style due " ;
the wide siding exposure (approximately twice )4:7,4%,:',;1:",':'' °
what is found on a local Victorian), multi-paned = ,aF '
windows, stone foundation, and hammered metal m>
light fixtures. The applicant has previously
shown HPC the new house image to the right as -
an representation of the architectural intent. ;
While the rustic style is common in some
neighborhoods in Aspen, it is not particularly w
characteristic of the West End. The application
provides two options for siding materials; one ' ,r 3' " -'
which is horizontal clapboards and stucco and ;,.4
the other which is vertical wood siding and
horizontal clapboards. Staff recommends the )'
latter (all wood), because stucco is particularly
uncharacteristic as a primary material in the
neighborhood. The unbroken surface will likely
do little to relate the scale of the new house to
the old house. Because the wood siding is to be
stained, not painted, a reduced exposure might be
more appropriate.
ji
The packet also indicates options for double _
hung or casement windows, with or without -r..
divided lights. Generally speaking, Aspen's
Victorian era homes, which surround this site,
(227 E. Bleeker is pictured to the right) have ! olTai,ih 1 n x C trl u, ifitl „ farms'
2
double hung windows without multi-panes. The multi-paned windows on the adjacent Victorian
are likely not original. Staff recommends that the project be allowed to have either casement or
double hung windows, or a combination, but each window or window sash should be an
undivided pane of glass.
The final material consideration which staff finds is important to the relationship to surrounding
context is the foundation stone. The gold hued ledge stone is not native to this area nor typical of
the Victorians. Staff recommends that the foundation stone should at least have a more uniform,
rectangular dimension that relates to either the brick or ashlar coursed sandstone of the nearby
buildings.
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 Final Major Development approval
with the following conditions:
1. Use only wood siding on the new house as seen in the rendering with a combination of
vertical wood and wood clapboard. Reduce the exposure of the horizontal clapboards.
Staff and monitor must review all four elevations.
2. Use casement, double hung, or a combination of window units, with no divided lights.
Staff and monitor must review the final plan.
3. Restudy the stone base to more closely replicate the dimension and coursing of stone
used in the Victorian era. Staff and monitor must review the final plan.
4. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan
vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order.
However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise
exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be
recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development
order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the
development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits).
Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in
the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary
to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the
City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific
3
development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice
shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years,
pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado
Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 217 E. Bleeker Street,
Lot 1, East Bleeker Historic Landmark Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado.
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews
and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances
or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with
this approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial
review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin
to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required
under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the
Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant HPC Guidelines
B. Application
Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines
1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a
rehabilitation project.
❑ This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding
along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature and ending in the
"private" spaces beyond.
❑ Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering
walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree.
❑ Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style.
Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles.
1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic
structures.
❑ The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod,
and not covered with paving, for example.
1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and
shrubs.
❑ Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of
damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department.
4
❑ If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species of a
large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project.
1.12 Preserve and maintain historically significant planting designs.
❑ Retaining historic planting beds, landscape features and walkways is encouraged.
1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context
of the site.
❑ Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact
of mature growth.
❑ Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent.
❑ Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials.
1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are
inappropriate.
❑ Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer than
the mature canopy size.
❑ Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant architectural features or
block views to the building.
❑ It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard.
1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting.
❑ Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glare onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting on
walks and entries, rather than up into trees and onto facade planes.
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.
11.7 Roof materials should appear similar in scale and texture to those used traditionally.
❑ Roof materials should have a matte, non-reflective finish.
11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale.
❑ Materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site are
encouraged.
❑ Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged.
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.
14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that
used traditionally.
❑ The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be
approved by the HPC.
❑ All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence.
14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting.
5
❑ Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not be
permitted.
❑ Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures.
❑ Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by
controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night.
❑ Do not wash an entire building facade in light.
❑ 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.
6