Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20061213 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 2006 408 E. COOPER (ASPEN SPORTS) MINOR DEVELOPMENT - VIEW PLANE, COMMERCIAL DESIGN - PH......................................................................................... 1 205 S. MILL (BRUNELLESCHI'S) MINOR DEVELOPMENT - COMMERCIAL DESIGN - CONT'D PUBLIC HEARING......................................................................... 1 134 W. HOPKINS - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - VARIANCES - DEMOLITION - FAR BONUS ...................................................................................................................... 4 334 W. HALLAM............................................................................................................... 6 330 E. MAIN - HOTEL JEROME FINAL - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ........................6 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS - WORK SESSION - NO MINUTES.......... 15 16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 2006 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.rn. Commissioners in attendance: Alison Agley, Brian McNellis and Sarah Broughton. Michael Hoffman was excused. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Jeffrey will be stepping down for 205 S. Mill Street. Sara said staff is pursuing demo by neglect on 125 W. Main St. 408 E. COOPER (ASPEN SPORTS) MINOR DEVELOPMENT - VIEW PLANE, COMMERCIAL DESIGN - PH MOTION: Sarah moved to continue the public hearing and minor development on 408 E. Cooper until Feb. 28, 2007; second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried. 205 S. MILL (BRUNELLESCHI'S) MINOR DEVELOPMENT - COMMERCIAL DESIGN - CONT'D PUBLIC HEARING Jeffrey recused himself. Sarah chaired. Sara stated the review is for a deck outside Brunelleschi's and also Commercial Design Review. In June the applicant proposed a 170 square foot deck. At that time staff brought up concerns that the Building Department had; a bathroom load and all of those issues have been resolved. Overall, staff finds that the design guidelines are not met and the commercial review design standards are not met and recommend denial of the project. Staff requested that the proximity of the deck to Grape and Grain storefront be pulled away from that side. Staff interpreted HPC's comments to mean pulling the whole deck away from that side of Grape and Grain. What is proposed does not comply with the International Building Code (IBC) which requires at least two feet of distance from the property line to a deck. There are two proposals. One proposal cuts off part of the stair and the deck has been increased in size and spans across the entire front of the fayade. The other proposal maintains the existing stair configuration and the deck 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 2006 slides behind it and it also spans the whole width of the fayade. There is also a two tiered brick landscape box in front of the deck to soften the fayade. Staff is also questioning the functioning of the wooden posts that are placed around the perimeter of the deck. In the drawing they have strings of lights that are strung along. Guideline 13.16 is not met which is really about encourage pedestrian activity down in the commercial core. Commercial Design Standards: The goal is to encourage pedestrian activity and the deck enhances the awkward half story fayade of the building and doesn't encourage pedestrian activity. Pedestrian amenity - The applicant will have to pay cash and lieu and HPC can waive some of the cash in lieu. The cash in lieu is to be used for street side improvements and staff finds it appropriate for the applicant to pay. We have tried to work with the applicant to find a solution but it is a very challenging store front and having a deck emphasizes the half story. Staff recommends denial. John Olson Travis Terry, represented Jeffrey Halferty Designs John thanked the HPC for the job that they do. He inherited the restaurant and he and Gill Vanderaa are trying to find ways to improve the spot. At the last meeting John thought everyone was coming to an agreement for an approved plan. John presented different drawings of decks to the HPC. If HPC has a design that will work tell us and we will be happy to do it. If you want us to pull further away from the Grape and Grain we can do that. Our preference is the one that takes up part of the staircase which will give wheel chair access to the deck. In terms of the pedestrian activity I disagree with Sara. What we would like to see happen here is to have the deck be something that has a lot of energy when people walk by. There is a 14 foot wide window/door and the energy from inside would flow through the doors to the outside. With the current seating on the street level there is no ability to do that. The upper floor does not connect to the street level. Deliveries come out of the same door that people are trying to enter. Gill has brought a family place to the restaurant. Ifit was brought outside via the deck on the north racing wall it would be great. Gill said he has been running the restaurant for a year and moving food upstairs and down is a nightmare. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 2006 Alison asked about the pedestrian amenity. Sara said anything over four feet tall does not qualify as a pedestrian amenity. The deck is about five feet or so. Gill said the height is related to wheel chair access. Sarah Broughton opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Alison said this is an existing condition that is not great. The stepped planting could work but it needs a little refinement. What is there now is not much of a pedestrian amenity. The deck would enhance the sidewalk. In looking at the options coming in two feet from the Grape & Grain is good. Plan 2 would be preferable. Brian said he walks by this establishment all the time and he notices it as a dead space. The applicant has strange circumstances to work with. Possibly a stepped down deck would work. Vitality is needed on the south side of the street and anything that can be done will be better than what is existing. Brian said he is concerned with the materials and doesn't want it to look like a foreign object stuck on the wall of the building. It should look like a permanent structure and compliment the existing fayade. Planters could soften the streetscape. Brian said he would be interested in what type of plantings is recommended because in the winter planting beds can be nothing more than sinks. Plan 1 is more open and has a flow to the interior. Sarah concurred with many of the comments. The space is dead and the seating is awkward. This is an improvement over what is currently there. Plan 1 and the fanning out are successful. The terrace beds are a nice compromise to the five foot height difference which will also become seat walls, thus enhancing the pedestrian amenity. The applicant is making the most of an awkward situation. Possibly the posts should come back and tie back into the building to help the setback to the Grape & Grain building. This will be a welcomed addition to the street. Gill Vanderaa, owner of the business said with the way the space is situation there is a lot of wasted space. Gill requested that.HPC consider some kind of relief regarding the cash-in-lieu. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 2006 Sara said HPC is allowed to waive no more than half for well designed projects that have a positive contribution to the pedestrian environment. Sarah said she would like more information on the west facing screened door. The second issue is the materials and we need to see some kind of resolution on the posts. Alison and Brian also agreed. John Olson requested a site visit. Outstanding issues to be addressed at the next meeting. Plan 1 OK Address the west screen door Material selection Waive up to 50% OK Planter plan - plants Posts Tie back to the building. MOTION: Alison moved to continue 205 S. Mill until Feb. 28th; second by Brian. . All in favor, motion carried 3-0. 134 W. HOPKINS - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - VARIANCES- DEMOLITION - FAR BONUS Jeffrey Halferty was seated. Sara stated that the main issues really hinged on HPC granting the FAR bonus. The applicant has been working with staff on a rehabilitation aspect to grant the bonus which is required to build the rear addition which is 138 square feet. There are two options proposed. There is a 1980's addition to the rear of the residence that doesn't exactly comply to the guidelines because you cannot really determine where the historic resource ends and where the 80's addition begins. The applicant is proposing replacing the horizontal siding on the 1980's addition with vertical siding that will get tied into the proposed new rear addition. In option #2 they are proposing a wainscoting element that is like a horizontal siding on the bottom and vertical on top to distinguish new from old. Staff is in favor of the vertical siding option because it is a simpler approach for distinguishing between new and old construction. The roof height has been dropped on the storage shed from 14 feet to 10 1/12 feet and changed the form from a shed roofto a flat roof. Staff finds that appropriate for a functional storage shed. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 2006 In terms of demolition the proposal is to demolish a 60 square foot storage shed. No documentation has been found that it is historic. It was built in the 1980's and staff is in favor of demolition. FAR bonus. In terms of the rehabilitation aspect staff found some drawings indicating that there were dormers on the front fayade and around other portions of the historic house. All of the dormers should return to shed which creates a cohesive project. The applicant is on board with that change. Ultimately we find that changing the dormers, changing the siding on the 1980's addition are definitely worthy of the 138 square foot FAR bonus. An east side yard variance of 3 feet is being requested on the addition and a 1 foot west side yard variance on the existing house is being requested. Overall staff recommends approval. Mike Bucchin represented George Winne. They have done the best they can to meet the concerns of staff and are looking for guidance and approval. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Brian agreed with staffs recommendations and supports the resolution. Alison said the project's proportion and materiality have improved by leaps and bounds and the applicant will be happier with this addition. Clarifying the shed dormers throughout the house makes a big improvement. Staffs resolution is fine and the bonus should be granted. Sarah also agreed that this project has come into its own and is appropriate. The proportions are meeting our guidelines and the project can move forward with an approval. Jeffrey said this project has made excellent progress and conform to our guidelines. The FAR bonus is acceptable based on the restoration efforts that are going to go forward. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #36 for 134 W Hopkins as stated in staff's updated memo handed out this evening; second by Alison. All infavor, motion carried 4-0. Roll call vote: Brian, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Jeffrey, yes. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 2006 Sarah project monitor. 334 W. HALLAM Amy said the issue is the columns on the deck. In the resolution the approval was to have columns. Bill Poss said the client has asked that the columns be removed because they block his view ofthe gardens from the roorn. We structured it to be cantilevered and it is on the new addition. Sarah said it does draw more attention and is it critical to this project. Alison said she can understand it since it is an addition on a contemporary piece. There is a slenderness ration problem. Brian said just looking at this there is a desire to define the contemporary addition from the resource. The post help define that particular aspect of the residence. Jeffrey said painted white they stick out. Numerous incentives were given to this project. Jeffrey said he could accept eliminating the columns. MOTION: Sarah moved to strike the condition requiring posts on the new deckfacing the addition for 334 W Hallam; second by Brian. All infavor, motion carried. 330 E. MAIN - HOTEL JEROME FINAL - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT Bill Poss, architect Steve Barlin, general manager in charge of the project. Tag Gallion, overview designer of the project. Steve gave an overview of the Broadmore Hotel gardens, masonry and windows. He explained how the team sustained historic businesses and became successful. Amy said at conceptual HPC looked at the pent house addition on the new construction and that has been removed. You looked at alterations to the 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 2006 19th Century addition that is between the largest mass and the annex. Materials, replacement of windows are to be reviewed tonight. Tag Gallion said there are 7 items to be covered: Garden, masonry, windows, sidewalk on Main Street, character additions to the fayade including awnings, railings and light. Garden: Requirements are needed for egress and handicap access. The pool is at a level lower than the hotel. The egress requires more stairs from out of the property. The egress is a straight path to the street. With the handicapped access we loose 100 square feet of grass. There is a water feature that runs right up to the fence on the sidewalk. Masonry refurbishment: All work will be in accordance with historic standards and will be in excess of a half million dollars to repair the brick. There is water damage and brick and mortar damage. A mortar will be used that is softer. The parapet was added and does not match up on Mill in terms of detailing. The panel was not continued. We would like to take out the brick and rebuild it to match the parapet on the balance of the building. Windows: Clad windows are proposed with a light green glaze. In Amy's memo the windows should be wood. This is a wood window with aluminum cladding. The windows are custom made and are of a product that will hold up in the weather of Aspen. We have used this window in the Broadmore and other historic properties. The windows that are there now were replaced in the mid 80's and are metal clad. Sidewalk: We had proposed black slate in a rectangular piece and would run the extent of the fayade on Main Street. We also have another approach which is a flame finish granite and Danish hand molded pavers to break the sidewalk up. The different entries on Main Street would have granite in front of them and the balance would be the hand molded pavers which are all over Aspen. This would integrate with Aspen. Awnings, railings, lighting: These come from the desire to really make the Jerome and make this part of Main Street a part of the city core. We intend to bring back the street character of Main Street and the energy on Main Street. The Jerome in its present form is pretty dead in that regard. This jewel of a town provides energy, life and fun. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 2006 Originally there were awnings in front of the library; J bar and they were hand cranked. We are also proposing to add awnings to the fayade. They would be fixed and would attach underneath the window frame. No damage would be done to the brick. The arched detailing above the brick would be exposed. Railings: Railings are sometimes called Juliette balconies. The large windows go to within 14 to 16 inches to the floor. They are double hung and we can't open the windows more than four inches or we will be in violation of the code. The replacements would also be double hung. The design of the railings can be changed. Bill Poss pointed out that the idea of the awnings and railings are reminiscent ofthe photographs. There is beautiful brick work in the curves around the windows and the awnings will help accentuate the brick work. Lighting: The lighting on Mill Street and Main Street will accentuate like it is now. We have contemporary fixtures that can be baffled. The parapet is strongly lit and will be around the building. The additional lighting will light the awnings at night. The portico hanging fixture should be replaced and it is not original. Should it be a piece of its own time or something that looks like it has been hanging there for 150 years? As a suggestion we could have a design competition. Amy pointed out that HPC has the ability to allow the applicant to make certain changes to the building and add new elements if the board thinks it appropriate. Amy went through the list of alterations recommended. 1. Replace all the non-historic windows. Staff recommends that the materials be wood. We don't usually deal with buildings ofthis scale but it has been a standard policy on residential buildings that any windows going into an historic portion of the building have to be wood. There is a visual different between clad and wood. 2. Staff is also concerned about the use of tinted glass. 3. Restoring window opening on Mill Street is a good idea. 4. Awnings- Staff is in agreement that awnings are appropriate over the J-Bar and the Library. We need to make sure everyone is comfortable that they are replicating some of the proportions of the graceful length of the awning shape that was there historically. Having heard the applicant's presentation maybe there is some openness to the concept of the accentuation of the arches. Overall the building has a sense of 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 2006 simplicity right now and adding features for a decorative purpose are not recommended in the guidelines. 5. A few awnings were proposed to the non-historic addition and staff recommends to not have those either. There is concern about snow shedding offthose awnings to the sidewalk. 6. The addition of metal railings is proposed. Making the windows operable is an excellent idea. Staff feels there are other ways that that can be accomplished. Possibly through an interior solution. Metal railings are a significant change in character of the building. Staff does not support the railings. 7. Entry portico columns being wrapped with some kind of polished silver base. Staff is concerned about adding any new materials. 8. Staff is in favor of the masonry repairs. We just need to make sure everyone is aware of what techniques will be used. We need documented evidence of the reconstruction of the parapet wall. 9. Landscape plan. It appears that the grass area might not be as actively used as it is now. 1O.Elimination of the granite and expressing more of the pathway to the entry is preferred. Simple concrete exists now and the proposal is a big departure. II.Lighting. Staff feels the fixtures themselves on the historic building need to be more period fixtures. The design contest for the entry light is something that can be discussed. Tag clarified that all the large glass at street level would be clear. The tinted windows would be in the guest rooms. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Haley Golden said she is here to support what the applicant is doing to the Hotel Jerome. The historic intent of the Hotel Jerome was to have all the windows open so people could look out onto Main Street. It wasn't a sea of asphalt like it is now. There was a lot oflife. The historic intent is to be able to open up the windows. I came here in the 50's and hung out the windows. Because the code doesn't allow it there must be some way to come into an agreement and bring that part of the use of the hotel back. Tye Monique Satachatorian said she see owners coming in and preserving Aspen. The hotel is probably the only vital part of Main Street that attracts 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 2006 people to gather at. Everything else has been pushed up against the mountain. Quibbling over railings seems strange to me. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing. Board comments: Sarah said this is a very important building to our community and its function as a hotel as an icon. Regarding the fenestration, it is vital that people can get out of the windows. She is torn between the metal clad vs. wood. She understands the climate and to ask someone to take windows that were already replaced once and put them back to wood would require a lot of maintenance. She is opposed to any more awnings on the building with the exception of the J bar and Library. If there is an interior way to open the windows, that would be best. There might be a way for the metal railings to work well with the side of the building as with the windows themselves. Repairing the entry portico is commendable. The polished silver base should be kept as it was historically. Referencing the lighting a period piece would be preferable. The owners have a great team to restore the masonry. The top parapet piece coming around to the west should be completed. The landscaping is way too complicated. It seems that it should be kept as a passive lawn use. She is also struggling with the great outdoor amenity up against the building in the shade. That needs to be looked at. The sidewalk is also an issue with the block flamed granite. Maybe there is a way to intergrade with the area further up Mill Street in terms of place markers that were significant in time etc. The lighting plan looks good. Alison said technically it makes sense to do the metal clad windows. The metal clad windows are not a detriment to the building since you would be replacing metal clad windows that already exist. Having a wood window on the interior would affect the guest experience. Regarding the awnings, the building is south facing. The awnings would help with the climate of the interior rooms and the arched topped windows. With our guidelines, putting awnings on the fayade is a big jump. Our guidelines are normally to follow what was. The windows should definitely be open. If there is an interior solution that would be best but if we had to explore the metal railings attached to the exterior, if they were attached to the windows that wouldn't be as big a jump as adding awnings. It is important to keep the wood columns on the portico. The idea of a design competition would be a great way to draw attention to this historic structure. With the landscape plan you want to walk up the center where the water is. It is great to access all the levels but it seems like there is a lot going on. The frontal dining and grass 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 2006 needs restudied. The lighting plan is fine and the parapet on the west side should be finished. The sidewalk design seems too busy and it should coordinate throughout the town. Brian said the Hotel Jerome is the center piece to town. In terms ofthe parapet he supports the reconstruction. Regarding the garden the entrance needs to be in the center where the water feature is proposed. There is not a whole lot of open space associated wit this hotel and we need to maximize the open space. The entrance off to the side is not the solution and that needs worked out. Regarding the windows we need to be mindful of the efficiency of this hotel. Brian would be inclined to go with a more efficiency window. Maybe a lighter gray window should be used rather than black. In terms of the sidewalk along Main Street I appreciate the explanation as to how the red brick ties into the City. I am not sold on the solution and possibly the sidewalk should be a little more playful. The awnings on the front do accentuate and adds verticality to the fayade. With the lighting the building is more attractive at night. If awnings were added we need to be careful that the color etc. doesn't take away from the detailing of the brick work. Adding the awnings to the window frames is the only way they could be attached. Railings could be entertained because they bring vitality to the street but we would also need to M very careful about the design. A competition for the entrance lighting is a great suggestion. Jeffrey commended the board for their excellent comments. Staff presented an excellent analysis as well. The proposal presented is very thorough. On the fenestration the window mockup is good and the clad windows could be acceptable. The tint glazing would be distracting and that should be revisited with staff and monitor. Opening up the historic openings on Mill Street is an excellent part of the rehab work. Regarding the awnings, they work well on the fayade on the lower level. There is no support for the awnings on the guest suites. The Sheridan in Telluride and the hotel in Durango have awnings at the base but not on the upper levels. On the other hand the Brown Palace does have some awnings. The awnings on the commercial are functional. The metal railings are a challenge. If the railings could be detailed on the interior that would be the first preference. Possibly a mockup showing the railing not tacked on could happen. Jeffrey said he is in favor of the entry portico and keeping the silver base and columns. The masonry and pointing work are well supported. The landscape plan seems to be very manicured and it needs a little more softness. The community and the board appreciate the openness and the 11 ----.-'""..--- ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 2006 simplicity of the existing lawn setting. There needs to be additional restudy of that entrance area. Regarding the sidewalk, some accents and detailing are consistent with Chapter 1. A cohesive look of the entire Main Street corridor is important instead of piece meal. The illumination ofthe fayade is great but the lighting plan is a little aggressive. Some of the sconces look a little bit too modern and may not meet our guidelines 14.7 and 14.8. The restoration of the parapet on the western fayade is commendable. Regarding the garden treatment on Mill Street it has a simple architecture about it and is acceptable. Jeffrey thanked the applicant for making the concessions to council and the HPC. Tag Gallion explained that the street level windows will be wood painted as they have always been. The columns at the portico are steel painted. We desire to clad a small portion of the base with silver and keep it polished. We feel this is reminiscent of the silver mining era. The access of the green space is determined by the egress. You never did walk down the middle of the lawn. We moved it seven feet. The water edge is an attraction and a playful part of the landscape design. The Building Dept. is requiring a continuous straight egress. On the proposed grading plan we are saving existing spruce trees. The number of outdoor dining seats is the same as it is now. I am stunned about the universal negative reaction to the awnings because they are all over town. When I think about Aspen, I think about awnings and they are on all the old buildings. Awnings would have been on the south fayade of this building. We need to bring life to this sterile fayade. Steve Barlin said we are willing to make the investment in this hotel but we need HPC's help in order to make it warm and inviting. Our competition is not only the Little Nell and St. Regis, it is the Four Seasons. The weakest part of the Hotel is its exterior. The walkway is poor aggregate pavers. Alison asked about the climate of the rooms that face Main Street. Tony Diluca, manager said those rooms facing Main Street are extremely hot and the wood is dried out and the caulking is also coming out. The wood needs protected. They are under direct heat all the time. Having the railings would be an incredible feature for us to have people able to lean out on a clear day. The HPC addressed the conditions individually. Ground floor store front windows to be all wood. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 2006 No window tinted glass. Awnings - OK on lower level- Alison suggested pursuing a mockup of a window with an awning and railing. Alison said she is torn on the awning and railing. We need to take into account energy conservation. Sarah pointed out that this is a Western Hotel and awnings and railings are a very fancy detail proposed for this hotel. You go to a hotel for the immaculate service not for an awning blocking views. Brian felt that the awnings would add a decorative element at night and we need to be careful about the color so that there are no stripes on it. Jeffrey said he is opposed to the upper awnings and railings. Alison said it is important that the windows open and people can see inside/outside. The railing could add visual interest without sticking out from the building. Sarah said she is open to the railings if they are detailed correctly. Brian also said he is open to the railings. Lighting - staff and monitor. Design competition in which HPC would have some kind of role on the entry fixture. Landscape plan - Alison said she feels it doesn't have to fall in what is there right now. Sarah said the landscape plan is too busy. Bill Poss said they will follow what is existing and will tone it down. Alison said she would prefer the water feature off to the side. Consensus - restudy landscaping to tone it down and to be approved by staff and monitor. Amy said she needs clarification on the awnings and railing. The awnings and railing are not approved at this time but HPC would like to see a mockup of the upper floor awning. Restudy sidewalk - staff and monitor. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #37for 330 E. Main, Hotel Jerome with the following changes to staff's memo. I. Allow metal clad windows with no tinting. 2. Awnings are approved for the J BAR and Library. Upper awnings will be approved after review of the mockup. Staff and monitor to look at the specific sign on the awnings. 3. Metal balcony railings will be reviewed and either approved or denied after mockup. 4. No new features or materials that are inconsistent with the design of the original columns can be added. 5. Lighting plan will be reviewed by staff and monitor. Design competition for the pendant lamp in which HPC will have some kind of role in. Different design for the sconces that is not as contemporary. 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 200~ 6. Any historic materials should be repaired in place, and to the extent that portions of the parapet require reconstruction, this should be based on documented evidence and photographs of the original appearance. 7. All other masonry repairs, including cleaning, re-pointing, application of a sealer, etc. will require further information and be approved by staff and monitor. 8. Landscape plan requires changes as discussed and will be reviewed by staff and monitor along with #9. 9. A granite sidewalk treatment to be reviewed by staff and monitor. 10. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board. II. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 12. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applyingfor the building permit. 13. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. 14. 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. I5.No later than fourteen (I4) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 2006 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 followingform: I6.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: 330 E. Main Street, Aspen, Colo. 1 7. 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. 18. 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 offinal development approval as required under Section 26.302.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Motion second by Alison. Roll call vote: Sarah, yes; Alison, yes; Brian, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried 4-0. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS - WORK SESSION - NO MINUTES MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn the meeting; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 .p.m. 15