The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20070314 P1 ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Wednesday - March 14,2007 5:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO SITE VISIT: Please site visit all the properties on your own. I. Roll call II. Approval of minutes - Jan. 24th, Feb. 14th and 28t\ 2007 minutes III. Public Comments IV. Commission member comments V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) VI. Project Monitoring VII. Staff comments: Certificate of NoN egative Effect issued (Next resolution will be #9 ) VIII. OLD BUSINESS A. 214 E. Bleeker Street - Major Development Conceptual Review, Demolition, Relocation, Variances, Cont'd public hearing from January 10, 2007 (30 min.) 4-~ - '5-0 IX. NEW BUSINESS A. HoldenlMarolt Museum - Minor Development Review, Public Hearing (30 min.) X. WORKSESSIONS A. HoldenlMarolt future development (20 min.) B. Hotel Jerome Landscape (40 min.) IX. ADJOURN 7:15 p.m. I' . <; , P2 Provide proof oflegal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) Staff presentation Applicant presentation Board questions and clarifications Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) Board comments Applicant rebuttal (comments) Motion No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at leastfour (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. ., \ \ \ ()\, P37 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner RE: 214 East Bleeker Street, Major Development Review (Conceptual), Demolition, Relocation, Variances- Continued Public Hearing DATE: March 14,2007 SUMMARY: The subject property, built circa 1893, is a single story Victorian style residence in its original location. Minor alterations and additions undertaken in the past include: an extension of the northeast gable with a bay and the addition of a bay window on the existing living room (date unknown, pre-1990); two exterior chimneys were added; and a small rear addition and an addition to the rear west elevation both in 1999. A gable outbuilding with vertical siding, built sometime between 1904 and Inl, encroaches on the rear alley. A lot split was granted to the property in 2005. The applicant proposes to construct a one story rear addition, demolish the rear outbuilding, and relocate the Victorian residence toward Bleeker Street. Setback variances and one parking waiver are requested for the new development. Two work sessions were held with HPC in the fall of 2006 to discuss the current condition of the shed and its demolition, and the proposed redevelopment of the site. At the January 10th HPC meeting, the commission requested that the applicant restudy the "push and pull" between the rear and front yard setbacks by possibly shortening the connector piece. HPC also recommended that the rear elevation be broken up into modules to provide interest along the alley, and expressed a willingness to approve demolition of the shed. Staff finds that the proposed development is sensitive to the single story historic residence and recommends approval of Conceptual Development, Demolition, Relocation, and Variances with conditions. APPLICANT: 214 East Bleeker, LLC represented by Dave Rybak of Rybak Architecture and Development, P.C. PARCEL ID: 2737-073-48-002. ADDRESS: 214 East Bleeker Street, Lots B of the Brumder Lot Split, Block 72, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6, Residential I P38 MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Recently, the HPC has been contemplating new tools to analyze the appropriateness of proposals to alter historic structures. The following questions are likely to be the center of future discussions, and may be helpful for HPC to at least reference for this project (note that the questions do not .serve as formal decision making criteria at this time): 1. Why is the property significant? The property represents a late Victorian era residence. 2. What are the key features of the property? The high Victorian style- with an octagonal turret and finial to the west of the porch, a hipped roof, and turned posts- is represented in a single story residence. This style is typically found throughout town as a one and a half or two story residence. 3. What is the character of the context? How sensitive. is the context to changes? The residence is located on East Bleeker Street adjacent to the designated Community Church and a designated Victorian residence. All of the buildings in this block are in their original locations and illustrate the generous front yard typical of the Victorian period. 4. How would the proposed work affect the property's integrity assessment score? The proposed work will decrease the property's integrity assessment score- the residence is in good condition and does not require much maintenance; which makes it difficult to increase the score. The proposed addition is sensitive in scale and massing to the historic resource, but relocating the building from its original location and interrupting the front yard pattern in the block would negatively impact its integrity. The applicant proposes to replace a double hung window in the historic portion of the residence with French doors, which will negatively impact the integrity score by altering the window ratio on the historic fayade. 2 P39 5. What is the potential for cumulative alterations that may affect the integrity of the property? As per Ordinance 54 of 2005 (lot split), the subject property is not permitted to utilize a 500 square foot FAR bonus. If the proposed development is approved as presented- which increases the FAR from 2,020 square feet to 3,066 square feet- a remainder of 174 square feet of FAR will be available for development on this lot, which will be utilized for the proposed lightwells. DESIGN GUIDELINE REVIEW Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as "Exhibit A." Only those guidelines which staff finds the project may be in conflict with, or where discussion is needed, are included in the memo. Staff Response: Overall, Staff finds that the proposed addition is sensitive in height and massing to the historic resource. The applicant is able to maintain a one-story addition at the rear of the structure and has shortened the flat roof connector link to about 9' in an effort to minimize the impact of the rear and front yard setback on the neighborhood context. Staff finds that the shorter connection between new and old construction is a necessary compromise for the neighborhood, which meets the intent of the Design Guidelines. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. . A I story connector is preferred. . The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. . The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain promineut. . Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate . Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. . Set back an addition from primary fayade in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. The applicant broke up the rear elevation mass by adding a bay window between the hipped roof and gable roof forms, which successfully reduces the mass along the alley and creates interest. Furthermore, the roof forms and massing are appropriate for the site and accurately represent new construction, pursuant to Guidelines 10.3 and 10.4 below: 3 P40 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character ofthe 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 in 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 in 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. Staff finds that the height, massing, scale and proportions- which are the focus of Conceptual Design Review- are compliant with the guidelines. However, staff is concerned with the lightwell proposed somewhat prominently along the east elevation of the historic house and the proposed site planning along the east elevation, which includes two raised patios and three light wells that essentially create a poor relationship to grade along the historic resource. Other issues likely to be raised by Staff at Final Review include the proposal to replace a historic double hung window with a French door on the east elevation. Staff has concerns with the retention of a fireplace that appears to have been applied to the exterior of the historic house and a large bay window that is out of character and confuses that historic structure with an existing addition. Staff recommends additional photographs and discussion regarding the restoration of this area of the house. DEMOLITION Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets anyone of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: 4 P41 a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Staff Response: The applicant proposes to demolish an existing outbuilding (built between 1904 and 1921) and the 1999 addition. Outbuilding: A work session was held in the fall of 2006 to specifically discuss the possibility of demolishing the shed. HPC seemed open to the idea and requested more information. An engineer's assessment is included in the application and indicates a level of deterioration that eliminates the majority of the outbuilding's historic integrity. The level of structural framing and material replacement required, in Staffs opinion, would compromise almost all of the shed's integrity and constitute a complete reconstruction. Staff finds that maintaining the height of the addition at one story is more important than rebuilding the shed with all new material. The gable form is reflected in the proposed garage, which is in the same location as the old shed but reoriented toward the alley. Staff finds that, of the first set, criterion b, the structure is not structurally sound due to material decay, and criterion c, the structure cannot be moved to another location, are fulfilled. Additionally, the later criteria a, b, and c are met- the lack of integrity of the shed minimizes its importance to the historic residence and the historic preservation needs of the area. 1999 Rear Addition: The rear addition proposed for demolition is not historic and does not contribute to the integrity of the historic resource. Staff finds that the demolition of the outbuilding and the non-historic addition meet the required criteria, and recommends approval. RELOCATION The following standards apply for relocating a historic property as per Section 26.415.090.C of the Municipal Code: C. Standards for the Relocation of Designated Properties Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets anyone of the following standards: 1. It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel ou which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property; Q!: 5 P42 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionallv. for approval to relocate all of the followinl! criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. Staff Response: The applicant proposes to lift the historic resource, relocate it forward 3 feet (originally it was moving 5 feet toward Bleeker Street), and reconstruct the rubble foundation using the historic material as a veneer. The height of the historic resource will remain unchanged. Staff recognizes the effort on behalf of the applicant to juggle the challenges of neighborhood context. All three structures on this block face are designated landmarks, sit in their original locations and represent the generous front yards indicative of the Victorian era This historic pattern is rarely found in the West End today. Stafffmds that moving the historic house forward to mitigate the impact of the addition at the rear fulfills criterion 4 is an acceptable preservation method. Staff finds that the 3 foot shift is a reasonable compromise that retains the connector piece and the rear yard setback. SETBACK VARIANCES Staff will need to re-notice the sideyard setback variances for Final Review and HPC will review and approve the variances at that time. The criteria for granting setback variances, per Section 26.415.110.B of the Municipal Code are as follows: In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, featUl:es and character of the historic property or district; and/or . b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. 6 P43 Staff Response: The applicant requests a 7' rear yard variance for the primary dwelling where a 10' rear yard setback is required. The garage complies with the dimensional requirements. Staff finds that criteria be is met. A west side yard and an east side yard setback variance for the proposed light wells will be addressed at Final Review: these new intrusions into the setback result from pulling the addition back from the alley. ON-SITE PARKING The applicant is requesting one on-site parking waiver. In order to grant a parking waiver, HPC must find that the review standards of Section 26.415.110.C of the Municipal Code are met. They require that: 1. The parking reduction and waiver of payment-in-lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district. Staff Response: The applicant proposes one onsite parking space where two are required. Staff finds that the parking waiver permits a one story rear addition, which mitigates an adverse impact on the historic resource. DECISION MAKING OPTIONS: 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 approve Major Development (Conceptual), Relocation, Demolition, and Variances for the property located at 214 East Bleeker Street, Lot B of the Brumder Lot Split, Block 72, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions; I. A rear yard setback variance of 7 feet is granted for the primary residence. 2. The sideyard setback variances will be addressed at Final Review. 3. Relocation of the historic resource is granted. 4. Demolition of the outbuilding and the 1999 addition is granted. 5. A waiver of one parking space is granted. 6. A structural report demonstrating that the building can be moved and/or information about how the house will be stabilized from the house mover must be submitted with the building permit application. The applicant must provide information as to whether or not 7 P44 the existing floor structure will be maintained and the pro's and con's of the decision for review and approval by staff and monitor. 7. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the structure must be submitted with the building permit application. 8. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. 9. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (I) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided Ii written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to ihe expiration date. Exhibits: Resolution #_, Series of2007. A.) Relevant Design Guidelines B.) Application 8 P45 "Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 214 East Bleeker Street, Conceptual Review" 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. . In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures, than those in a historic district. . It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative . Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. . A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. 9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the boundaries of its historic parcel. 9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. . It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. . It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. 9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. . On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. . Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of mortar joints. 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. . Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the grade level is inappropriate. 9.7 A IightweIl may be used to permit light into below-grade living space. . In general a lightwell is prohibited on awall that faces a street. . The size of the lightwell should be minimized. 10.2 A more recent addition that is uot historically significant may be removed. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret .the historic character ofthe 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 in 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 in 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. 9 P46 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. . An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building IS preferred. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. . A I story connector is preferred. . The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. . The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. . Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate . Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. . Set back an addition from primary fayade in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. . Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate . Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important features. . For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eave lines should be avoided. 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. . They should not overwhelm the original in scale. 11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally on the block. . On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context. 10 P65 214 East Bleeker St. Renovation HPC Major Development Conceptual Review Application March 1, 2007 of S'-S" and 9' separate the secondary masses from the primary on the east and west facades respectively. BUILDING RELOCATION & FOUNDATIONS To facilitate the below grade expansion of the residence the proposed renovation will temporarily relocate the resource to the neighboring lot to construct a new foundation. The existing stone foundation has a water leak in the south west corner and requires waterproofing via excavation. The proposal will construct a new concrete foundation for the entire residence. The existing stone will be veneered onto the new foundation where the stone was originally. The proposed addition and existing areas with no stone foundation will have a Colorado Red Sandstone veneer placed onto the concrete foundation. However this stone veneer will differ from the original snapped-block stones. The veneer will be uniform in size and texture to differentiate the new foundation from the original. The existing resource will be located forward (south) 3' from its original location to create room for a functional addition on the north end of the property. The proposed relocation will align the Resource with that of the Resource at 232 East Bleeker. The resource will maintain the existing east-west setbacks from the property lines when relocated. BUILDING ADDITIONS The proposed addition strives to be subordinate to the historic resource. In position, scale and detailing the addition tries to conceal itself behind the resource. The massing is broken into two secondary structures to minimize roof mass. The linking connection provides a S'-S"' gap on the east falfade, and a 9' gap with a 3' set back on the west falfade to clearly provide separation of the structures. The proposed detailing will utilize wood materials similar to the original structure, but utilizes different patterns to avoid replication. 6 = = = =========== ==""'f,f'~O ======== =~. ~""'~MW==~=======~-;;[~=== P66 @ @I (2/9) ell#. \I /35 20/ 203 205 207 209 2// 2/3 2/5 ::/7 223 22/ 223 225 235 II l~' II \I II 11 \I \I II \I \I II II II \I II II II II \I '1 :;; II /" < '" \I -.... If; 0 II LL,..._~ "j;r ~ . II 200 202 20'1 206 208 210 12 Y'1 2/5 2/8 220 222 $!!/f?!!%. (ZzJBt30f32 i:jJ!. II . "'.'1' II . hD tj "hf .' Ii ====== ,==JW~I/li==========e=c-~. ~L.E~ K= E:~J ==~=======\\@ @ . \I J (22/) (22:51 (m) II ;:0/ 203 205 207 289 21./ 2/3 2/f 2/7 2/9 225 223 227 22723/ 23/ ;;33 235' II \I II II II II II II JI ~ ~ z ! II" i \I II II II II \I II ~ '" t::: '" 'Q '" / ~!:::? . '" , -... i\i ---'-- ('! '-' x~ ,'-~ 1 "- ~ ,~ 'l j ~ '" ;; '''' ~ 'm 3 /35 ~ I~ J ~ ~ I ISQ I~ l~ '" ~ s ) ~ ~"'" '~L \~ " IS' "- ~ z w [L c.J) <( . Z S2. '" F '" -... '" . /]) 0 "'- 0:; ~ '" o "" -... '" / ,~ ;;:; / x G /I E D c ~ '" II g "'" '" "? '" / K ~ '" ~ ./'1 o ," a R s 111 /0 [I '. ~ '" ~ :::: ,-%' ~ -... U" 'J) / 0 p;-\fr1 t.1 ~ 10 JJ 'LJ]) [7 I]) 'x . '" "'" / {; ~ fl c f) E f H G 8 I' '" 'II ~x 73 I ~ "" JJ ~ '" ~ Ii' Lr~ M ~ ~o.1 \ b /: i B I /.x I o p 5 f.i R 10 10:JJ]~ t'~~1 ~ I x ~o L. /i..--,[ I __I< rJ,~ ~%t ~ :\ , , , , "- '" , , , tJ ".J c, "" \::; '" s:! ~ " T -J I ~ i ~ ,j> '" r' ra ,- t -l ..... t :it '-~""'- ,. "-". ,~' P67 c / '''.- 1\' f; t "": .<). . -~; > P63 214 East Bleeker St. Renovation HPC Major Development Conceptual Review Application March 1, 2007 HISTORIC BUILDING MATERIALS The existing resource has been well maintained. The wood siding and trim show little deterioration for its age. Some maintenance and repair may be required for cracked siding boards or trim elements, however this will be minimal and all materials should remain as they exist. WINDOWS The existing windows within the resource are double hung units, with a primarily vertical proportion. The windows which appear to be original have no divided lites within the sash frames. Two bay additions on the east ends of the cross gables, appear to have been added to the resource at some time. The windows within these bays are double paned, and have divided lites. The existing windows are in relatively good condition, but will require some maintenance to improve the operation and closure of the units. The proposed addition will have vertically proportioned double hung windows with no divided lites. The windows will have a head height consistent with the windows within the existing residence. In the Master Bedroom, the windows will have transom windows ganged above the double-hungs to increase the glazing area. DOORS The existing front door is a wood paneled door with a divided half lite of colored glass. This door will be maintained, however some maintenance will be required to improve the function. Two doors proposed to be added into the existing resource are designed to be full glass French doors. The doors proposed within the addition are also designed to be full glass French doors, however they will have transom windows ganged above each door to increase the glazing area. PORCHES The existing Porch of the resource will be maintained and repaired. The existing pipe handrail will be removed from the porch. The wood Siding skirt below the porch deck is likely rotten and will need to be replaced. The railing and fret work between porch columns are likely not original and may need to be replaced due to decay. ARCHITECTRUAL DETAILS The detailing on the existing resource is very simple; 4 1/2" lap siding with 1x6 corner boards, 1x4 window trim with a small crown added to the head trim, and a 1x6 with small crown fascia are the primary elements of detail. The Turret in the south-west corner has a flared shingle course above the window heads, yet is consistent with the house detailing. The proposed addition will utilize the window and fascia detailing of the main residence, however the corner boards will not be added to the siding detailing. A metal flashing placed behind the coursed and paneled wood Siding will maintain the exterior skin and allow for distinguishing the addition from the resource. 4 P64 214 East Bleeker St. Renovation HPC Major Development Conceptual Review Application March 1, 2007 ROOFS The existing resource has been added onto over its lifetime. The east-north gable appears to have been an addition to the original hipped/mansard roof square planned structure. The 1999 Addition in the North West corner enclosed a back porch and added a low sloped hip roof to wrap the corner and smaller gables on the north fa(:ade. The proposed addition utilizes both hipped and gable forms to relate to the resource. Isolated as separate masses a hipped roof form covers the proposed Master Bedroom. A gable roofed Garage addresses the alley as did a previous outbuilding. The two roof forms are linked by a flat roof structure to minimize the massing of the addition. The existing resource has three brick chimneys. A small chimney located on the flat roof of the original hipped mansard structure was the original boiler flue. The chimney structure is currently intact to the basement; however the proposal will eliminate the chimney concealed within the structure. The exposed structure will be dismantled and reconstructed in its location on the renovated residence, complete with metal flue and cap. A one story brick chimney was constructed on the north side of the east-south gable for a fireplace within the residence. The proposed renovation will maintain the fireplace. however the chimney will need to be dismantled and reconstructed during the construction process. The third chimney is located on the south fa(:ade of the east-north gable. This appears to have been added when this area was added to the primary structure, but is now non-functioning. The chimney is a small square structure. devoid of the detail the other chimneys have. The revised proposal requests demolition of this Non-Historic chimney. A Chimney will be required within the proposed addition to vent the fireplace in the Master Bedroom. This fireplace will be a sealed gas appliance, requiring an 8" diameter metal flue. Due to the relative small nature of the flue requirements. the proposed chimney will be a metal shroud prOjecting the minimal required height above the adjacent roof. Its location on the west side of the Master Bedroom hipped roof will conceal the chimney from most views of the residence. SECONDARY STRUCTURES The existing outbuilding at the back of the property was considered for reuse as the garage component ofthe proposal. For the structural/practical reasons stated above, the physical condition of the structure makes reusing the building impossible. Could the structural concerns be addressed the resultant design would not provide a structure of the proper scale. The decay of the siding and framing requires the removal of lower 24" of the walls. The existing height of the side walls are two feet lower than required to function as a garage. A 4' tall "base" would need to be added to the existing structure of to compensate for these issues, creating a mass which will appear tall wasted and disproportioned. At best the reuse would result in a bad facsimile of the former outbuilding. The proposed design implements the concepts of the Secondary Structures as the addition to the primary resource. The proposed garage is a gable form located on the alley and provides the Secondary structure element as viewed from the west side of the property. The Master Bedroom is a hipped roof structure visibly detached from the primary structure as viewed from the East side of the structure. These two secondary masses are linked to the primary structure via flat roofed areas which are stepped back from the primary facades of the resource and secondary structures. A gap 5 P61 214 East Bleeker St. Renovation HPC Major Development Conceptual Review Application March 1, 2007 The revised proposal will require the following approvals from the Historic Preservation Committee: 1. Relocation of the resource 3' to the south of the current position. This alignment will place the Resource at approximately the same setback as the Resource to the East at 232 East Bleeker Street. 2. A rear yard setback variance on the North Property Line, of up to 7' for Living Spaces. Portions of the Master Bedroom suite will be setback 3 to 5 feet south of the North Property Line, in lieu of the 10' required setback per the Land Use Code. 3. A side yard setback variance to reduce the combined total from the required 15' to a proposed 10'. The proposed addition will place the Garage area 5' from the West Property Line and the Master Suite 5' from the East Property Line. While neither of these locations exceeds the. required side yard setback for an individual side, the combined total does not meet the required 15 feet. 4. Approval to demolish the existing outbuilding. 5. A Parking Variance of one parking space. The proposal includes a one car garage; the parking requirement is two cars. Bleeker Street Associates renovation concept for the resource is: 1. Temporarily relocate the structure to Lot A to allow the construction of below grade space under the footprint of the eXisting residence. The new foundation will be veneered with the existing foundation stones to maintain the appearance of the existing stone foundation. 2. The new foundation will be constructed to bring the resource forward to the 3' from the existing location. Review of the a Map obtained from the City G.I.S. department shows this placement to align with that of the Historic Resource at 232 East Bleeker Street on the East corner of the block. 3. Approval to demolish the existing outbuilding along the alley to create room for a one story addition. Further review of the existing outbuilding has shown it is not usable within the proposed renovation. a. Research of the Heritage Aspen archives found maps and photographs which place the date of construction of the existing outbuilding between 1904 and 1924 i. The Sandborne map shows a larger outbuilding on this site. ii. A Map, dated 1904, shows an outbuilding located along the east property line, not the current location iii. A photograph taken in 1921 shows the eXisting outbuilding. b. The existing structure has no foundation, and is wood construction sitting into grade. c. The exterior walls are constructed in a .crib-wall" manner. Studs spaced 24" or further apart with horizontal bracing at 24" or greater, exterior vertical siding fastened directly to the cribbing. d. The lack of foundation has created extensive rot within the wall structures. If the structure was to be retained, a minimum of 24" would be required to be removed from the lower portion of the walls and siding due to rot. e. The existing wood board and batten siding is severely degraded. i. Two of the buildings faces are covered by rusted tin sheets. We have not determined the substrate. ii. The remaining wood siding is dry, rotting, and has many holes and gaps. 2 P62 214 East Bleeker St Renovation HPC Major Development Conceptual Review Application March 1, 2007 f. One half of the floor is a concrete slab poured on grade, within the interior perimeter ofthe walls. g. The other half of the floor is a wood floor on wood joists sitting directly on grade. The floor is significantly warped and the method of construction has enhanced the penetration of moisture directly into the structure, enhancing the decay of the wood materials. 4. Construct a one story addition at the back (North) end of the property, connected to the resource via a one story connection. a. The steeply pitched roofs of the resource create large roof volumes giving the residence the mass of a two story structure. These roofs will screen the proposed addition from the street. b. The proposed addition is composed as two pitched roof pavilions connected to each other and the resource with a one story flat roofed element i. The Master Bedroom pavilion is proposed to have a hipped roof to minimize the exposed wall surface, while giving reference to the hipped roof of the resource. ii. The Garage pavilion is composed as a simple gable structure with proportions which maintain the character of Secondary Structures found on Alleys. iii. The one-story connector will create a "gap" within the massing of 8'.8" on the East facade, and g'.O" on the West The revised proposal reduces the connector length to reduce the requested relocation of the Resource to the South, and is the minimum length required to maintain a comfortable visual separation between the Resource and the proposed massing of the addition. 5. Remodel the interior of the resource, with minimal modifications to the East, South and West facades of the residence. The only exterior modification currently being discussed for these building faces are: a. Modify one window opening on a recessed East Wall to create a French Door opening. Due to the building plan, this area is not visible from the street. b. Modify one window opening on a South Facade on the back East Gable Bay of the structure to create a French Door opening. This modification will occur in a portion of the building which appears to have been an addition to the original structure. At this time we have not been able to date this area. While the detailing matches other portions of the resource, the foundation is a poured concrete foundation with no stone veneer. Again, due to the building plan, an opening modification in this area is difficult to be seen from the street 6. The proposed addition contains a garage sized to create a one car parking area and supplemental storage. The location of the project, one block from Mill and Main Streets prOVides easy pedestrian access to the core of Aspen. The property supports a one car lifestyle. HPC DESIGN GUIDELINES STREET SCAPE AND LOT FEATURES An existing iron fence frames the front yard of the existing residence. The fence will be maintained, altered only to maintain the alignment with the North corner of the turret on the West side of the existing residence. The existing wood fence at the rear of the property will be removed. 3 PSg Dimensional Requirements Form (Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.) Project: 1}..14- I!A'>I" B ~u"'"- Applic~~~ kL1I.II.....J... , t..t..G PrOject Location: '1. ,4- i-Jltof B I."'U-I.,-. Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: '" TUE; T M oJN l-1I,oJ 6]'J.U r IHi f, , lAD ~'f. (., &,D S,~ (For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: /l/ll Proposed: Nwnber of residential units: Existing: " Proposed: Nwnber of bedrooms: Existing: ~ Proposed: 5 Proposed % of demolition: laD'}, #f DIIT.U"p,ol/o Cu.". ,. f.) II. 4 'I. I~ ",,,""tAl. - Ir~~ &f 1'I1'i Il'U m'" DIMENSIONS: (write n/a where no requirement exists in the zone district) Floor Area: ,.f>. f, Existing: '1.6 &3 Allowable: -; 2;'10 Proposed: '7.1.'10 Heillht E" ?\' 1" I 'lo3: 1" (~IP" ) Principal Bldg.: x/sting: . . Allowable: oz,S Proposed: Accessory Bldg.: Existing: 31'4 Allowable: Proposed: () On-Site parking: Existing: \ Required: ~ Proposed: I % Site coverage: Existing: ? 51}. Required: 'SIJ 'I. Proposed: If" If, % Open Space: Existing: /oJ/. Required: ~IJI. Proposed: ,JIll- Front Setback: ? Existing: /5 ' Required: I" ' Proposed: 11,' Rear Setback: H Existing: -I Required: 5 U/) Proposed: oS ,~" ~ IoN,.JJ Combined FrontlRear: Indicate N. S. E. W Existing: Required: Proposed: Side Setback: E. Existing: II Required: ~ Proposed: '; Side Setback: IV Existing: ",S Required: S Proposed: ~ Combined Sides: Existing: IA.S Required: IS Proposed: Ib Distance between Existing: I~ Required: 6 Proposed: t? buildings: Existing non-confunnities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: 1ty,'':>TlOJ, IIT&U'''' ,.It It"'''''''........, loin hl......., JJ, /,JkoJ/t.~ b..""wO(, H'ul)" ,qiw&(" "~"lJ~HUN Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed): J.' ,.If}l. Y HI-fJ ,,,ref'/C.,.,:,,~ 614'''' '~.H1 . . I 1. l>DI'IIS''''\.6 ~''''l~ "t.,.OoI<, 1') If'i 3. WlrNU. If ,tit '.......11 ~ ,P.tU P60 DYOn~",1.l' I ,.~..."C:U ,., TO: Sara Adams, Preservation Planner CC: FROM: Dave Rybak DATE: March 1, 2007 RE: 214 East Bleeker Street Renovation The subject property was granted a Subdivision Exemption Lot Split via Ordinance No. 54-2005 by the City of Aspen. Lot A currently contains a sWimming pool, while Lot B contains the "Wilbur Wilson Residence" built in 1893, and an outbuilding of uncertain date. The property has changed ownership from the Brumder Family to 214 E. Bleeker, LLC. 214 E. Bleeker, requests a Major Development Conceptual Review for the proposed renovation of the Historic Resource. During the January 10, 2007 Conceptual Review Hearing, the applicant was requested to review several planning and design issues to reduce the variances being requested 'along the North Property boundary, and reduce the proposed relocation of the Existing Resource. With this directive we have revised the proposal to: 1. Minimize the requested relocation of the Existing Resource. 2. Diminished the requested variances along the North Property boundary 3. Relocated the Garage Addition to be on the required 5 foot setback, and increased the Overhead door width to 12' to accommodate the turning radius of larger vehicles into the Garage. 4. Decrease the length of the one-story connection between the Existing Resource and the bulk ofthe proposed addition. 5. Redesigned the massing along the North Property Boundary to a. Create massing breaks within the faGade. b. Modify the roof designs of the addition to compliment the Existing Resource. While generating the revised design, the applicant met with neighboring property owners to discuss their concerns this project may have upon the neighborhood and their properties. We met with the neighbor's to the North, the Mallory Family, to discuss their concerns, and then again to review the proposed design, which was developed to alleviate those issues discussed. While we do not wish to speak for the Mallory's; they received our revised proposal with appreciation of the changes made to improve the turning of vehicles into the Garage, breaking the massing along the North FaGade, and reducing the requested Rear Setback Variance. A copy of the revised proposal was subsequently delivered to the Mallory's for their use. The applicant also met with the Pastor Chuck Cram, of the Aspen Community Church to the west of the property. The applicant reviewed the revised proposal with the Pastor, including the request to reduce the required Combined Setback distance. Pastor Cram did not indicate concern or support of the proposal at our meeting, and a copy of the proposal was delivered to the Pastor for review with the Church Council. ;,' ',":' P57 g:\support\for.ms\agrpayas.doc 02/01/06 Land Use Application . THE CITY OF ASPEN PROJECT: e, JI.\J~~ /J) I (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bowds description of property) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) '1..11110 7 3 +6~1.. ,.., Name: Location: 1\.\ '" Eo 1l,J ~ APPLICANT: Name: '., Z,Jof t. U/(..U- I.IA... Address: ":11 vi. MotllJ qr. Phone#: - ~0lt5 ~ Vl U> t>1~1\ Fax#: "I'ZS- 804-<f-'L. E-mail: IrJilAl""'b 9 ILl":>. rJltT REl'RFSENTATIVE: Address: Phone #: Name: Cojjl.t.t.4 Fax#: I E-mail: PIW r... @. D......M~. tlM TYPEOF APPLICATION: lease check all that a 1 : o Historic DesigDation o Certificate of No Negative Effect o Certificate of Appropriateness o -Minor Historic Development ~ -Major Historic Development rszI -Conceptual Historic Development o -Final Historic Development o -Substantial Amendment 8 Relucation {temparary;-on oroff-site) - ,g Demolition (total demolition)-"..,.t~1 \.9/ ~ o Historic Landmarl<: Lot Split 1.101. "#II') ~~",... 0"0 .'" $lJ"- S'\ . 1Cll SO b~" ~ OIlnVllAl.,.t6, t1I.omM'" PRoPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) P58 FEEs DUE: $ General Information Please check the appropriate boxes below and submit this page along with your application. This information will help us review your plans and, if necessary, coordinate with other agencies that may be involved. YES NO }Ii o Does the work you are planning include exterior work; including additions, demolitions, new construction, remodeling, rehabilitation or restoration? ~ o Does 1he wOIk you are planning include interior work; including remodeling, rehabilitation, or restoration? o ~ Do you plan other future changes or improvements that could be reviewed at this time? o ~ In addition to City of Aspen approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness or No Negative Effuct and a building permit, are you seeking to meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation or restoration of a National Register of Historic Places property in order to qualifY for state or federal tax credits? o o If yes, are you seeking federal rehabilitation investment tax credits in conjunction with this project? (Only income producing properties listed on the National Register are eligible. Owner-occupied residential properties are not) o o If yes, are you seeking the Colorado Stale Income Tax Credit for Historical Preservation? Please check all City of Aspen Historic Preservation Benefits which you plan to use: o Rehabilitation Loan Fund 0 Conservation Easement Program 0 Dimen>ional Variances o Historic Landmark Lot Split 0 Waiver of Park Dedication Fees 0 Conditional Uses from Growth Management Quota System 0 Tax Credits o Increased Density o Exemption \ l i j I \ \ '. \ \ .1 ':1 " !; ';1 ,., ~ 't' I. ,I, .:~ I. <",'i' Ii, . .. -~ " ,,' . ;:_< ,"i,,:,,-"}.t'; .;.:p ....._ _!'.?: "-.1 , ,-.- ~-..:-~'r ',.:~~~?: ! . , . , ~." >" :/;ylJ1~} , :; .. f ,r w..'}'" -~ -, /' / :tP~. I,'r, " lC- ' .,~,,' '" ~" f "1" ....,~.. ~ _ ,- .tiS'"' .,~.."~' -'" (. '~;;f:.~:F '. ",<' ( I ... _, _, I '.' &. ? ,"\ .' /.~' ",r;-' " .1 , \. ,-,*" , V ,-. ,,:::::~~"__..;;._~~,~- -"",,, -..,..." ,_""'C- -;~--..~; " '-~-'~ -:,r:~:-:--.~k _".., <-~,j,,:,,~ - ~ -~~ , -\ -:-1- \ -\ 4 ",1H: . :..-.~:~~"'t_~ .'. "~- ~ \ \ .." \ \ \ . \\ .,. , :(,~ ~ ",,'" , ,.,' - ,,~:;;__~~~~~~_~,~B&i~~ ~..."----~ , .........-: (:.;?.. t', -.:jr"" i.~. '... ;(... -,S'); ""-~"""-",,.~..,, .,~~;. , ~'-' ":'~i\'~~',:'" ---,- ~Ii_i~~, ",~/... ~ , "". . loll ,~ ;1-: '~J '...),' '0 ,~. Il(", .:.......~, "- '1~~ "-. .'- ".~ ._~ ;"'~i-'~ ;1~_'t~ '..~./';';j,.w\O\;".., ~:,,'" .--,:.,',';" .. '^""C'-:: .._.....;;..~ ~_:.--'f""lIiP'"' <{t-l":~:" ..,~.!.. ...<,~ .'> :'\. .,,'-' -:Q-t-! -,"'" .~. ---!.-;P:.~" ~~~ ~..- - :-t~~_,~,~~~~~;-~~"~ '.~.~ .--!""",,~......:J'.."~ ~'._/' . ..T, -..,.,,<-'- ,j!~. .~t,} - t.~, _,~;~;!lV""'~"i;o,,"''';A,",~'.i'~;\' ..- -'"O'....,...::;~~._,.___ -.... ,V' -1~' :;i . ,.-~. ,."..",~'.'- ''''';I'o-~{. ..,.~....r"i"'''' -);,"--'~ "/ ',.- , J.<:I~,;'.~{.":..''"'' ~ ,.....'-..~.~, " .~.'i- \.'. , ~l 't ., " ,~ ~/:~~:~ .;>~__.~ .~' .,.;t.~ ,.:;0','\ If>;" ~~~~~?1;f~-I~~:7~ii<; '~~~f:.;- ~-~~!.. xi \,1\ ~.t ~'y_ I [J ~,> ~,'"':""c-" ,. ;."'-~. -, ~-'. -'-....-' ~7 " ) fr<' i~";( '_>" . ~f)f;::;;f,~~;';~" ~,:::n:~'? ,... '"-,,, ~---. - <r<__." ~".". " ," ,:" (..~i;;;jL;;~{t~~~: - ; ~. ;. ;~,::,,, ,;-'- 'l~' ,.:-"' ~~\~'i -~-:1 ",~- ~y- :"~:;~:::~:::,..:-"~",,.,,, '~~;~ftf~~~~':;;~"~'7' ,'.' --,', -... '. .< ,;,.,., .~ Z::~ . , - - ~} .' . '.r:f~/' !.':~ V 1,., .,r-. :.1 :';ti,'I't::\~''';';!''':F'~'''-' -",' --....;s.... J,!: 'f -' .....'- -.- ..-., i."'; i;~-':'P!ffA:~{'?TTI;Y:~~l);:t ",. :ii5L~;,-; ".- ..)ti:::;~,::::;.:""'" :i_;~~''''<ff: .- "'._',4'.>4>;.";'> ..._o,;",-;~",:,~,;;!:,~,:;.";~ t<:'- ~.... ';; f" _.-:'~A:~i;~i~-~~"L4:", ''- ; ~,"~_.. .."" '>, cio'" ~, . ~h~::~ i' ..,~'.\. \ } ) , i .\, ., i' ~ 1 .' , , 1'. I. \,. , I ~( " '\ i , , "- , , " , I!, , ,~ ~l~> , _.i \ i. "l' . ,I iii.-., , ~, .J'l' \' .1" ' , . ..". I ..'. \ ~. \ " .:' Ir&,V 29 06 05:00p 'Ii ;: I. I Kaup Engineering, Ino. 9709459633 p.1 P75 KAUP ENGINEERING INC. 1129 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970)945-9613. fax (970)945-9633 November 11, 2006 Rybak Architecture & Development 310 Sopris Circle Basalt, CO 81621 RE: 214 East Bleeker Street, Aspen. CO Dear Dave: I have reviewed your Conceptual Design Plans dated October 26, 2006 for the 214 East Bleeker Street Project. I also visited the site with you on Friday, November 3, 2006 to observe the existing conditions. Following are my preliminary comments. The existing historic single family structure is generally in good condition. The interior and exterior finishes appear to have been well maintained in recent years. Most structural components in the structure were collered by finish materials that prevented observation of actual conditions. The framing members were observable in the attic and the crawlspace near the access points and generally were in good condition. Both the crawlspace and attic appeared to be dry with no apparent signs of leakage from exterior water. The crawlspace revealed 2x8 joist framing that was supported on buill up wood beams on wood posts. The exterior foundation wall is rubble stone construction. The roof framing appeared to be 2x6 rafters with collar ties which was typical for that era of construction. Due to the generally good condition of the existing structure, it appears feasible to move the building on to a new concrete foundation. Specifics and requirementS of the move shall be outlined by and coordinated with the Building Moving Subcontractor. It is likely that the Mover wiD choose to lift and transport the structure by directly supporting the framing walls in lieu of supporting below the existing crawlspace and basement joists. The rubble foundation has no structural value and will need to be replaced with a concrete foundation wall and footing system. The existing storage shed located on the alley side of the project was found to be in poor condition. The lower one to two feet of the wall framing and siding material has been compromised by long term exposure to moisture and inadequate distance from finished grade. The lower portion of the structural framing and the wall siding will need replacement. The floor is supported by wood framing in some areas which also appears to have decayed due to long term exposure to the elements. The overall stability of the structure is marginal and will likely require re-structuring of the entire building. The building appears to have reached the end of its useful life expectancy and will require re-structuring to survive a move from the present location. No foundation is evident below the existing building and therefore a new concrete foundation wall and footing system shall be installed. Nov 29 DC 05:00p P76 Kaup Enginearing, Inc. 9709459633 p.2 Please call with any questions or if I may be of additional assis1ance. These comments are preliminary in nature and should be finalized after removal of existing fmishes to allow observation of actual conditions. '::;1' , >f?a. . 1Y C\. P77 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Holden Marolt Museum, Minor Development- PUBLIC HEARING DATE: March 14,2007 SUMMARY: The Holden Marolt Ranching and Mining Museum is owned by the City and leased to the Aspen Historical Society (AHS) for the long-term. The site is a local landmark and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Historical Society has invested a good deal of time in discussing their mission related to the several properties they oversee. It is staffs understanding that Holden Marolt is envisioned to be a "living history" site, with hands on opportunities. To this end AHS has acquired equipment that they wish to display and make operable. Two items in particular are the topic of this meeting; a sawmill and a steam engine. They have been installed outdoors because running them inside the existing structures would present numerous issues related to building code, venting, etc., however AHS built open air sheds to provide some protection to the artifacts, and neglected to seek HPC approval in advance. Drawings and photographs depicting the work are attached. HPC's role in this discussion is not related to how the Historical Society chooses to interpret the property, but rather the positioning and design of permanent improvements that are made to the site. Staff can support approval of the shed covering the saw mill, but finds that the structure over the steam engine is too close to the historic salt shed building. APPLICANT: Aspen Historical Society. PARCEL ID: 2735-123-63-853. ADDRESS: 40180 Highway 82, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. ZONING: Public. MINOR DEVELOPMENT The procedure for a Minor Development 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 City of Aspen Historic Preservation I P78 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. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC decision shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures setforth in Chapter 26.316. Staff Response: The design guidelines offer limited direction for a project of this nature. The sheds are new buildings on a landmarked property, however the chapter of the design guidelines that deals with that issue is really directed at residential infill projects. Staff has included the relevant guidelines as "Exhibit A." Within the text of Chapter 14, it is expressed repeatedly that new buildings must be compatible with adjacent historic structures so that their historical integrity is maintained. A new building in close proximity to a landmark structure should not impede one's ability to interpret the character of the historic property. These policy statements are part ofHPC's review criteria. The Holden Marolt property contains remnants of a very large 19th century ore processing complex. It used a unique process called lixiviation. All but a few of the original buildings are gone, although there are substantial archaeological remains downhill from the museum site. This photo depicts the property as it remained in circa 1940. 2 P79 Staff finds that the sheds are clearly distinguishable as new and meet the design guidelines in terms of their form and materials. The shelter for the saw mill is sufficiently distanced from the other structures on the site, however the steam engine shelter is too close to the Salt Shed. It blocks the view of the west fayade of the building and diverts snow and water directly at the building. We cannot support this location. DECISION MAKING OPTIONS: 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. RECOMMEND A TION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the saw mill shelter, but not the steam engine shelter. Alternatives should be discussed with the applicant Exhibits: Resolution #_, Series of2007 A. Application Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. D Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those ofthe historic property. D They should not overwhelm the ori~inal in scale. 11.7 Roof materials should appear similar in scale and texture to those used traditionally. D Roof materials should have a matte, non-reflective finish. 11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale. D Materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site are encouraged. D 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. D These include windows, doors and porches. D Overall, details should be modest in character. 11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. D This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. D Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are especially discouraged on historic sites. 3 P8D A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING MINOR DEVELOPMENT FOR THE HOLDEN MAROLT RANCHING AND MINING MUSEUM, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. _' SERIES OF 2007 PARCEL ID: 2735-123-63-853 WHEREAS, the applicant, the Aspen Historical Society, has requested approval for Minor Development for two open air sheds at the Holden Marolt Ranching and Mining Museum, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, 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 Minor Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.C 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 dated March 14, 2007, performed an analysis of the application based on the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and recommended approval for only one of the two sheds (sawmill shed); and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on March 14,2007, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found that the sawmill shed was consistent with the review standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and granted approval with conditions by a vote of _ to _' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC approves Minor Development allowing for the construction of an open air shed over the sawmill display at the Holden Marolt Ranching and Mining Museum, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION on the 14th day of March, 2007. Approved as to Form: ATTEST: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P81 Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Jeffrey Halferty, Chair P82 November 13,2006 City of Aspen Community Development Department Office of Historic Preservation Dear Sir or Madam, Weare writing for application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for two shelter structures constructed to protect an outdoor exhibit of a historic saw mill on the HoldenlMarolt Mining Museum property. In accordance with the application requirements we are submitting the following information. Applicants name: The Aspen Historical Society Georgia Hanson, Executive Director 620 West Bleeker Street Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925-3721 ext. 101 Authorized representative: The Aspen Historical Society Tim McElroy, Curator 620 West Bleeker Street Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925-3721 ext 110 Address, legal description and parcel identification number of the property: Legal Description Lease agreement City of Aspen to Aspen Historical Society (Marolt Property) A tract ofland being a 1.9 acre more or less portion of the Marolt Ranch as platted in Plat Book 12 at page I of the Pitkin County records situated in section 12 Township 10 South. Range 85 west of the 6th principal meridian. City of Aspen Pitkin County, Colorado described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner (a number 5 rebar with cap 16129) Whence the west Y. corner of section 12 bears N 60 48' 08" W 1,939.53 Feet and the BLM Monument "Azimuth" bears N 67 38' 50" 1,704.45 FT. 1 P83 Thence S 00 47' 05"W 337.72 FT. to a number 5 rebar with cap 16129: Thence S 78 41' 46"W 162.68 FT. to a number 5 rebar with cap 16129: Thence N 1521' 05"W 168.19 FT. to a number 5 rebar with cap 16129: Thence Nil 45' 31"W 185.26 FT. to a number 5 rebar with cap 16129: Thence N 20 OO'E 103.52 FT. to a number 5 rebar with cap 16129: Thence S 7120' 25" E 222.73 FT. to the point of beginning containing 1.90 acres more or less. Disclosure of Ownership: City of Aspen City Manager 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 A vicinity map and a site plan are attached. Written description of the proposal: The shelters built on the property are minimal in nature and just large enough to provide some structural protection for the historical equipment on display, a steam engine and a saw mill. These artifacts have been rescued from sites in the Roaring Fork Valley and carefully restored. The engine and saw mill are integral in interpreting the industry of the 1880s Western Slope and the dominant commercial endeavor of the day, mining. The shelters have no walls, electrical service or plumbing. The construction and design are sympathetic to that of the existing barn and salt shed. The materials are also in keeping with the remains of the old lixiviation works. Though the construction, design and materials are in harmony with the historic structures simple non-obtrusive elements distinguish the newer structures as contemporary in the form of modern concrete footings for the four structural columns of each shelter and the obvious function as a simple element of protection for the artifacts. The Land Use Application Form, Signed Fee Agreement and Dimensional Requirement Form are attached. 2 P84 Photographs Holden/Marolt property from the north, the shelters are on the right to the back. Saw Mill shelter viewed from the west. 3 P85 Steam Engine shelter from the west. (note the aged patina the older timber structure has developed) Structural detail illustrating building materials. Scaled elevation and drawings are attached. Lighting Plan, there is no lighting systems for the shelters. 4 P86 City of Aspen Zone Districts Page 1 of 1 P87 City of Aspen Zone Districts lirnl!l!l <\€l ~4t ~1 ." @ Cities & Towns o UGB o Addresses o Airport Runway o Roads o Edge of Pavement o Eagle & Garfield CO Roads o Drives o Rivers & Streams o Parcels o Structures o Lakes & Ponds City of Aspen o Zone Districts Pan http://205.170.51.230/website/aspenzone/viewer.htrn 11/6/2006 P88 PROJECT: Name: Location: P89 Land Use Application . THE CITY OF ASPEN ~~\ (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property) Parcel ill # (REQUIRED)~ ~0 . tt 1-; . ~, . ~~l? REPRESENTATIVE: Name: ApPLICANT: Name: Address: Phone #: Address: Phone #: Fax#: E-mail: ~ - '0\ \\ ~t::: l Fax#: E-mail: TYPE OF APPLICATION: (olease check all that aooly): o Historic Designation o Certificate of No Negative Effect o Certificate of Appropriateness ~ -Minor Historic Development o -Major Historic Development o -Conceptual Historic Development o -Final Historic Development o -Substantial Amendment o Relocation (temporary, on or off-site) o Demolition (total demolition) o Historic Landmark Lot Split rovals, etc. EXISTING CONDITIONS: (descri tion of existing buildings, uses, GM ~ RETAItl FOR p~ RfCQITID P9D FEES DUE: $ General Information Please check the appropriate boxes below and submit this page along with your application. This information will help us review your plans and, if necessary, coordinate with other agencies that may be involved. YES NO H' . . o Does the work you are planning include exterior work; including additions, demolitions, new construction, remodeling, rehabilitation or restoration? o W' Does the work you are planning include interior work; including remodeling, rehabilitation, or restoration? o lii""" Do you plan other future changes or improvements that could be reviewed at this time? o ~ In addition to City of Aspen approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness or No Negative Effect and a building permit, are you seeking to meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation or restoration of a National Register of Historic Places property in order to qualify for state or federal tax credits? o o If yes, are you seeking federal rehabilitation investment tax credits in conjunction with this project? (Only income producing properties listed on the National Register are eligible. Owner-occupied residential properties are not.) o o If yes, are you seeking the Colorado State Income Tax Credit for Historical Preservation? Please check all City of Aspen Historic Preservation Benefits which you plan to use: o Rehabilitation Loan Fund 0 Conservation Easement Program 0 Dimensional Variances 0 Increased Density 0 Historic Landmark Lot Split 0 Waiver of Park Dedication Fees 0 Conditional Uses o Exemption from Growth Management Quota System 0 Tax Credits P91 Dimensional Requirements Form (Item #10 on the suhmittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.) Project: Applicant: Project Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: r~~~\~g~:~ ~?~1:1~';;;!'~ \-\r~~\c.D~e\o~.\- --:.~e\\e~. \~cAh-p", ~".b\.\- ~M.M~ ~L.elJ'Nl 40l ~O \l..~,^WA6 ~2, A"1e~~O flAb \)J/i!W Nwl~ (For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: Commercial net leasable: Number of residential units: Number of bedrooms: Existing: Existing: Existing: Proposed % of demolition: Floor Area: Existing: Allowable: ?"W MII{ ~t(!eV'- Proposed: I ~/)<' 12' DIMENSIONS: (write nla where no requirement exists in the zone district) Height Principal Bldg.: Existing: Accessory Bldg.: Existing: On-S ite parking: Existing: % Site coverage: Existing: . % Open Space: Existing: Front Setback: Existing: Rear Setback: Existing: Combined Front/Rear: Indicate N. S. E. W Existing: Side Setback: Existing: Side Setback: Existing: Combined Sides: Existing: Distance between Existing: buildings: Allowable: Allowable: Required: Required: Required: Required: Required: ,..,' 0" Proposed: <- Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: Required: Required: Required: Required: Required: Proposed: Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed): '" ..... = QJ 8 QJ ;... ...... = 0" QJ p::. = o ...... ..... c<: u ...... - J:l.. J:l.. ~ QJ '" o ~ = c<: ~ = o ...... ..... c<: .. ;... QJ '" QJ ;... p.. u ...... ;... o ..... '" ...... ~ P92 '" fr~ - "" ~ .S c..QJ .- " '" s "-", E u ",,'" .S ~ ,; tE s"" .0 " ~ '3 c cr'''''': " " '" ~ ~ E tiI", v Vol 4-l U .~ t:::. ii1 P.o . c 8 a :.a VI "'C~ ~ ~ ~ .!a~ rJ ~ ~.g i: () . ~ ~ .+_r ~'&~ P.o ~ '" .~ "8.5 .8 So 'E ~ ~ "' ii ti ';:I ~ t..> g ~ ~ I-< o H .~ utBU) tll)"'d 'E. 5 " " :g '3 ~ ..... 0'" a ;:::l cu g o:l~"" " " - & ~ ~ ~ " - <t: .Sl ~'CIi~ >-.~ 0 .~. p.. c U ~.~ " " ~ ~.s~ <o-.<o-.u o ~ '2 ~.~ g ". P.o u ~ 8~' 1l ~ ii1 [i ~ 1tt ~..;.s \\)3 Q) I-; i-o. '0 ~~f~~ .g 8 U) Q C ~ ~ .9 p.. t5 ~ 0....... Q) '" S .;: ~.g~ ~ ~ ~ ~~.s il3 .~ 0 3]. -g ~ u - e g P.oo "'"" <E ~' ~ .~ 'S: "c;j ~ .~ do. f-<~ = QJ J:l.. '" ~ ...... o .... ..... ...... U QJ ..= E-- ...... o ~ ...... ;... ..... c<: ~ ~ ::: '" i: '" .... '- :::: t:< '" ~ '" u '- .... ~ '" "'~ '" ~ ~ ~. ::: .- '" .... i: t:l '" .::1 .... - .- 9.~ ~~ ~ ~ g;;::: ._ u g g en 0 oU -'0 ~ :a "u ~!i: 0.._ on'" C ~ :.::: Ii .,,~ ~e '0 ~ :a~ on~ .5 !:3 ti~ 0_ 0..0 '", Co o . '.=.q- "'0 .~ r<'"l --ri .gN 0.. - '0; c eo ~ i '" .- ;>. '" ~ 'e;. '" ~ h " C o ;z; o "" o "" N - " o ~ .~ ~ i: 0;;; ~P.. ~ E 0.. " u ~ :~ s ;r: " ,s 8 .~ B - ~ "3 8 ~~ 80 0;;' - l::i o .~ ..... " l::i .~ ell .. ~ " C o ;z; ..... l::i .. ~ o ;; .. '" ~ ~ S '" ><i r"I "" 04 N "" '0 - ",,' - --r - '" , - ..... " '" l:::: r"I .. .. .~ ..... ~ .. Z o Z .... o .. ..... " " -= .~ ..... .... .. u e: ~ ~ ~ C .g " " en B ~'U ,,~ ~ ~ ~,o ,,- o..~ on~ c~ :'=(""l "'~ ;;;'" '0;;- :a", o on. ,,'" ._ 0 -", ~ . 0'0 0..04 C ." ;a .~ :D " 0.. @ o '" o .,: o '" -ri 04 ~ C .g " " en B ~ " ~ ~ " 0.. on '3 ~ o 0.. "" " '0 "" 00 "" 0 "''' -~ M~ """" lH"'4i en vi 00 00 0..0.. - - ~ ~ " " "" > ~ ~ - " " " 11 g, P.oO ..so " > > " "0 o.~ " '" '" - ...: - '0' - 0' , - ..... l::i '" ~ o ;; .. '" ~ .... o l::i ~ ~ C ." U " en B - c~ '" " ,,~ ~e o..~ on~ C ~ :=an "'~ :;;:'" '0;;- :a", o on. c.,. ._ 0 tif<! 0", 0..04 c' o .~ .~ :D " 0.. - 04 o N '" - '" --r o - " ::l ;; '" " ~ o U - ..... ~ .. ~ o - .. .. .. ~ .... .~ " :;; ~ C o .., " " en B ,,~ ~~ 1- ~e ~~ c~ :..:::('<") "'~ ;;;'" '0;;- la~ .si '@~ 0..04 C o .~ .~ :D " 0.. " a P.o " u 8 u <0-. o " .8 - ;;; "" 'OJ 0.. " '" '" N N 04 ...: 0' , - - " ~ .~ "" - ..... l::i .. ~ o ;; .. .. ~ .... .g " :;; ~ C .g U ". en B ~ t). ,,- ~ ~ ".0 ,,- o..~ on~ c~ :'::l"i '@- ;;;Gi' '0;;- :a", o "". c.,. ._ 0 -", 8..0 o..N C ." ;a .~ :D " 0.. "" " '0 "" " '" ",' 04 "" 04 --r 04 ,,' - 0' - , ..... ~ .. S ~ l::i .. 8 <t - " .~ ..... l::i " ..... en ..Q ::l rJ1 ~ C o .., u " en B ~U' ,,- ~~ ".0 ,,- o..~ ""~ C ~ :':::l""'l" ',,- :;;:Gi' '0;;- :a", ",,0 c". ._ 0 'in'" ~~ C o .~ .~ :D " 0.. o o " N "" " 04 0;;' - l::i .::l .t: - o S .. ~ ~ C o 'u "13 r::: " " en 0 oU ::-ci :a :a o;U "0.. ~:r: ",,;a CA ~.~ "'~ :;;:~ '0 ~ 1a:=: ""'" c- 't;Gi' 0_ 0..0 c"~ o . .~ ;; ,,'" :'::::..0 .gN 0.. o o " N "" "" '" , 00 04 0;;' . ~ o <:: " " o ;; i:l: ~ C 0:::: tl g o " en 0 oU -'0 ~ :a "u ~fi: 0.. ""." c~ :..::: u "'~ :;;:~ 'O';;j' @:=: ""'" c- .t;w 0_ 0..0 .", Co o . .- ". ;ao u'" :..:::-.0 .gN 0.. o "" "', - "" o V) "', - "" o -;' - '<> '" '" , ..... ;g rJ1 ..... o ..:l ...: .... " S ~ l::i " ..:l " .~ ' ..... en ::B ~ o .~ ..... " .~ .~ .. ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ '" en .. i:l: P93 Dimensional Requirements Form (Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.) Project: Applicant: Project Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: ('~A\t:tg~:~ ~~1::r~~!~ \-\IA':.~\~ D~e\o~~ -~~e\~~ \-\-C>\~"'" }ko..tb\~ ~M.M~ M.u~llWl 1.\0\ 910 \\~~W'd- ~2, A."iet.J~D fV\ PJ I)J Lw lVu11y (For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: Commercial net leasable: Number of residential units: Number of bedrooms: Existing: Existing: Existing: Proposed % of demolition: Floor Area: Existing: Allowable: Height Principal Bldg.: Existing: Allowable: Accessory Bldg.: Existing: Allowable: On-Site parking: Existing: Required: % Site coverage: Existing: Required: % Open Space: Existing: Required: Front Setback: Existing: Required: Rear Setback: Existing: Required: Combined FrontlRear: Indicate N. S. E. W Existing: Required: S ide Setback: Existing: Required: Side Setback: Existing: Required: Combined Sides: Existing: Required: Distance between Existing: Required: buildings: $~ r:;V't/'^ ~ "5k (~ P d 1"""'"v/II'fI2,," ropose: ... I/,,, G/ DIMENSIONS: (write nla where no requirement exists in the zone district) /.., 1_ tl Proposed: _..- Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed): '" ..... = ~ 8 ~ ... ..... :: c< ~ ~ = o ..... ..... ~ u ..... - c.. c.. < ~ '" ;::J "C = ~ ...:l = o ..... ..... ~ ;;. ... ~ '" ~ ... ~ u ..... ... o ..... '" ..... ~ = ~ c.. '" < ..... o .... ..... ..... U ~ -= Eo- ..... o i><\ ..... ... ..... C': .~ P94 '" fr~ ~ 0lJ ~ .5 -a '0 .- " '" 8 8"5 0lJ13 .5 ~ ,;: tE 8-0 .0 " " ." ~ " ~ c:r.....; " " '" ~ ~ g aoS ~ ~ 4-0 o .~ t:: c"," . ttt g S .8 "E II') ""O~ 0:, ~ C " .~ ~.g~ i: <:> . ~ ~ i e "& . 0.. " '" .~ '5.5 S (.:= ""0 _.~ (1) .~"t::: .~ ~ " " ~ U ff .g ~ 1-0 o S .::2 u<.=.~ bll '0 C ~ ,g ~ -" :J "3 g' u CJ:I1o-o..g C " ~ ~ ta ~ ~ C ~ -< .S:: ~ 1;~4.. ~~ 0 .... 0.. s::: U ~.~ ~~[) f-< ~ ,. ..........u 00'0 on ~ 0 ...... .~ .b .". "'" u . 0 " ~ u Cj' " 0 C u ~ '" a3 f:-< ~ ~ vi -5 QJ "a I1l I-.'C '0 v)" ILl s::: s::: ~ 0 .S S <I) cos::::;;:: u 0 ~.~ ~ 0...... 11) '" 8'- .0 ,. C;; ::I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~B] '" - ~ .~ 0 ~ - " "'" 'E e g '0 ~ C "'"0 ;:::-0 <i'! '" ~ .~ ';; ~ ~ .~ 00. f-< [if ~ ~ !E "" ... .~ ::: ~ "" l:l:: "" .<..l .:;: ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !i; '':;: € t:l "" .~ ;... - .~ 9.,::: ~~ l:l:: ;: .~ ... "" l:l:: ~ . "" ~ """ ~ s:::: ._ u ~ S '" 0 oU -" ~ a ou \';0.. 0:1: 0.. _ ",,,, c ~ :::: U .~ -- :E;e " ~ ~~ "'~ .5 C t;~ oi:!. 0..0 .'" Co o . ':=00:1" "'0 u~ :'::\1:5 .gN 0.. - .;; '" & <::l " c o :z: o <A o <A N - C .9 VJ ~ ~ i: ~ ~P.. ~ 8 0.. " u ~ '0; ~~ :E C -5 8 .~ .9 '" ~ " 8 as 80 - - '" , I .. = " ~ o "il ... " ~ ~ s " >< r.:i " c o :z: on N N <A '" - on - ."." q-' .. " ~ ..... r.:i " ... .~ .. ~ " z o Z ..... o " .... '" " l;:: .~ .... .... " u e ~ ~ @ o '" o ..;: o ~ -c N ~ C .8 U " <Il .9 ~ o ~ ~ o 0.. '" '3 ~ o 0.. ~ c .8 U " '" B ~ c - '" u o~ ~ ~ ~.o o ~ o..~ "'~ c~ :'::r<; "'~ ::E'" ,,:;- ~~ ~~ ._ 0 "iiiC""'! 0", o..N c' o .~ .~ :0 o 0.. 00 ".,0 '" t- ........N.. <A <A t+-fl+-< vi <Ii 00 00 0,,0.. - - "., t- '" <A ~ ~ " " -0 ,. ~ ~ C " S 8- ","0 ,.9Qi " ,. ,. " "0 o.~ t- '" 00 r-" - ",' "" - -' .... = " ~ o "il ;>- " ~ .... o = ~ ~ c .g u " <Il B ~2: o ~~ se o..~ "'~ c~ :'::M "'- ::E'" ,,:;- ~~ gf..t ._ 0 tiro: ~~ c' .8 '" .~ :0 g', N "" N '" - 00 '" "" - , - '" = ~ " " = o U - .... = " ~ o - " ;>- " ~ .... .g '" ~ ~ c .8 U u '" B ~'U' o~ ~ - ~.o o~ 0..-;;;- "'- c_ :":::M '@- ::EGi' ,,:;- ~~ gpooi .~~ ~~ d' o .~ .~ :0 o 0.. -;a .a "'" " u C o u ..... o " .~ 1ij '0 '" 0.. t- '" ~ N <",' N r-" - o' - '" = fi: - .... = " ~ o "il t ~ .... "~ '" ~ ~ C .g u u, <Il B c:'U' ~~ ~ ~ ~.o o~ o..~ "'~ c~ :'=r<i "'~ :E "'. ,,:;- a~ ",. .5 ~ tiro: 0", o..N c. o ".g .~ :0 o 0.. "., t- '" <A t- ~ -.0 N ".,' N .".' N t-' - "" '7 - .. = " S "0 = " S <: 3 .... = '" .... '" J:; = rJ) ~ c .g u u <Il B ~'O' o~ ~- ~.o o ~ 0..-;;;- "'~ c_ :":::r<"l' .- ~ "'- ::E'" ,,:;- ~'" o ",. c.". ._ 0 -~ BI.O o..N d' o .~ .~ :0 o 0.. o o t- N' <A t- N ~ - = o .~ .t: - o S " ~ ~ c 0:::: .- u U C u 0 <Il 0 oU -", ~ ~ Ou \';0.. g',:I: "''" c~ :-=~ "'- ::Ee ,,-;;;- ~~ "'~ c~ 't;~ 0_ 0..0 ,'" Co o . .~ ~ U~ :':::,,0 .gN 0.. o o t- N <A "., '" , "" N ~ = o .~ .... .. " o - " ~ ~ C 0:::: '<3 g u 0 <Il 0 oU -" ~ a Ou ~~ 0.. "''" c_ :-=~ "'~ ::Ee " ~ c ~ ~~ "';:;- c - .~~ 0_ 0..0 .", Co o . .- " ,"0 u ~ :"=:..0 .gN 0.. o "., "', <A o "., "', - <A o '7 - '" '" '" , - .. ~ rJ) = .~ .. .. .~ '" " ~ = .~ "0 = "(; '" " ~ .... o """ ~ '" S "0 = '" """ " .;: o .... '" :2 HOLDEN-MAfVLT f:trNCH/Nf7~M/NINe MU ~~ " A~eN HI.5T~CAL ~C/c7Y ~ ~eerr\TloN If'l/V/'f5 -- I~} \ My' 62- 4USWt'o1t:.Aii-- "'\ r ~ " ~~-'\ ( ..i,!.( J ' " ./ i ( " '1\ "\i ..".\\,..<, ,',7., ,'" ,\ . ( ,"" \, \" ~ \ '" \ .. \ \ ( I :.t~' ,,\' ,~\ " "\ ., \' \ \ , \. J?" ''', .,' " '," \ ,," , -~, ...:..'\/,~, l.. 'if\ \\\ ')\ ' \ ,,,,~.. \ .'~\ \\, \', ,:' . \.' '>.,: ,>' '\,' ~ f \\ ',,, .. \ '..\. , ,oioO:;:"\.~\,,.. ~'~f' -.'-\ " '.'''' . "_ ,',' ~~/\~_,.,. .-_,/ ~"""'::" ....' .' \.,f " \^lJ' .---.--.-- ........ .-' v.=-~ -f. ~~<' " - ;-~-<'.--rs:~, '~~" """'"",>.",~ "".,,: t fII#J.) ,-"...,...-~;-:-7' .~/. .~. "I, , ,'\"~ \ '1 \' l~' . , ~ " ..r' 1 ~ .~, , JI,.N.I'M<: '\~:'-',- .<' \\ ".' --'-"',,-' \ .' . " """'-' ti.... , ""'''' '/. .......' \\ \.,~ ) ,~:., }, /<,,' II"','.' . \:~"(, wvmfl~f, ~~~ .' "J. /i",,'! \ ','I" "j' ,. . 'I. .\~.. .', Vi;~J~-';.. ' . . I" '---" ,i ' ~ ,,,,\~............ ~ ' II // 'X~'!l' J. "~.,, l'\.>' ." \., r~, 7 . I .,,' . .!l.." \' .1\ '" ./~ i'):,~ \:~ , ',t"""\:~-~ "P ff ii, ,'C^1\, ~ ~\ 'OlrCH./ ~ ~tl,. . I I \ ... . T"""'" . \ \, \ \ .- '" '., ' .' \' I \ \ ~., 5.;c.>e:"" (1;1' )-~~/\~~\<' \' . \ ......--~ '~\--T'-"-..'-"""'~\/'~' ..,,,":'"",,._m_ . \ ""', \ \/11........ .. /;f~I:j['i]'Z ~~:_=:~~~~;;:?~ ~\ " '-- . "." ........... . %-- , .> ' \. .>'" .\ \ "~,>~; ,', ',' \.' ". i t/ND ro . ()l .J~ ",'" '" v' v<!eA,S - =.;,- ., C)<.. c f.kIl' ILir', r~ L4I'<. ,........z ...........(D ~~ II r:JJ. ,........ ~ ::T (D >--' .-+ (D I-i r:JJ. 2 o ~ (D r:JJ. ------------------------------~ r./'l ~ s: ..... - - r./'l ~ (l> ::+ (l> >-1 ------------------------------J[j ~ p e ..... ~ (t ..... t::::: < i- ~ ..... e ..... .... < i- ..... ..... ..... .... ..... .... (fC ~ i- ~ 'J (I ~ ..... .... .... "0 >--' ~ ~ 0... (D >--' (D -< ~ .-+ ...... o i:i r:JJ. c:r----------------------------------------~ tnr./'1 ~~ ~. ~ o ...... ~ ::::: r./'1 ::T (U ::+ (U "'1 ~~ flOLDEN- M4fVLT f:ltNCH/N6 e,M/N/N8 MU5e0 - ,,- ..~-1 ( I( ~~~ / ,:/; \\,... I \ \; \"\ ;~~~ \\'~: ::, -..LEI . : ('.. ~'i\ ,,\\<:,,'\'\','...'::,."'\ ..'~r', -, .', ~' I ( I' '. \ .. ~ \ " \ \ \ \' \, ,\ I <'~.. . ,\ ," .\. '. I' pUTVt<e , \ J Jii"" ''', \. , .,'" \ eXli/B!T ------ -~...........:.-''-'::'l .. ~ :1"")'. ,'".\'..\'\' \ ,'-'. .,' '".<:, \. .~ '." .,,\ J '. \. __ \~ <-~ ,\ ..\ ~ ".,,--,\ \ l . _ ','y~' "'---"'-"-"~..'\, .~\" ',.' \, .., ., ". /" - ',...../ f --....:..- '- I" \ "-" -. .........,.."- ---- - . ~::., -'. "If --~ ,,< 1'_ ,- - C-c."-~;~"'k':-\~- . l'~-"" \ ''',''''~ ~~~ _______-- . __..,.:;~, \ .\' . X'", ;:"'. . ~ \'... ' _ ' '.' . \' ~,/. l-""~ , \. \ .' , ':t"l;~" . \ ~ . ..,c._:"",;.' . ,\'.y/ .."'/11.'" II ...... .\,.'\'\.'I,'!If.........\,\.'.,::'~;.~i"':i)~ '\\\,\.~.r 8 /=__ =/?WD-~\~ -1'). .. ',' '1' ,( ...... - "'1 ~"':I'~~. "":'..' \.,\....r, L.-X Or l7. r{/I . ~','. ."..' ..,/, ". ' 't" ,- ,il.' ! /i' .'~.' ,,',. ',' ..:; , / :,1. ." . ~\'.\'\~ .,' v.ifJ~.. ~,: I' , ~ ;'A~............ t . "''''..' {I.' Iv<' .~ r;..""", 0) VI. / , V, . l...'l. \~ E'XHII::5IT N<eA,S - .~ \!';;J ,__L.' ". .....71 \. \\', .1 ~{\ f h,.' ,\........"l.\; . . '\1' . ' Ii \" r~).... IfY<-I6ATlON OITCH .,/ r. . , I , r..... \ \" \",\ ' . "_ "\' \' I \ \ \\ /'IA77v& Gf</I~:;ES (r;t-~)-~U;;I\~~;\ '\?\, . \ eNT!<Y t.:.eCl<----- ... ---~ .~\- -- ",_2..:.- --N ,Y.: -, ;:=:'::':. :c --~:: .JIf.^"Z?":r.:;LF'....8U'(!L~""., , \ C'I -----..-- ;"":'-,' , "/ J-VY, ~-n. c..... f..... , \ (' -~ .~ ~ t'tlr,A,ro ceu~~ --7) J-. \' ::;j___~lI . {/ ,)l[I]:::" .:~~ ~-:.~ ,../ . ,.' ,( \\ / 'J..... '" Ii. .....-...-----.. eXtfl81T At'<E.A'3 .--.- - -;-f~....n(>--::c::C---:"" / \'I~i (! .. . " (O/-770NAL- PICNIC) ..~\",<" L ._,......,.., k . '.' ,:~ _' 'e ........... I l' ~'i .. ';;;}'\'......\:iO""" I ", 'I., ,\ l:-~::L.+!: t?Ff: k I ,-- \" 'm ....."-..- . e,U5T6:.ye&eT '9 ' .. :; .... \ :""--'''- , " \,'\~< 'j ,:~:::':':,~:: . (7Z'~/N 1'0/5) ?o.I.' '. \ _.--.---'\ .....--.-...... :::..:':.. '.... \ ",,'" - l I \.. ---- '. . '!<AN,C/iING 9 MININ& '- ____~f / ' / A, . ~ r"~: :' 'i,{'" ;; . NI(Pf'JU/l1 ""/ \,,\,",',:', ~ ..........u)-:i-. ~J:':... '"t.\~\ " .'": ". ' , ".' ,. . I>'WII: AccesS Ft.r~. '( -f ' z /~?' I II.AotJi..;I,(/l'-', l- :2iu.t\ "r --;,;; )J:(~,'..' ... \}/ ~r' vi>/VWOi }'llf~'" . n{' ; h~~~ /'1 \ \ .. ) .T'- 1__:__ ". .(:>?.!/ .// \ \'" D ''Saw:iYIih Shelter . : ~I..).... / I ' 'I \'~, .-----. . .!< )<. .t- >< "-.. .)'-'" .'~ e;(.ISro. FeNC5 --- .--- -- L "--/ I ,. ,. . .MLT~D M>>Mt", )tx\-(I,~--lfL- . ., ,. < . j l' ~:;,,,,A~fp-i1m Enl~SI1~~t~1: .0 (j Salt Shed ) DY..?{.JF-oFr/c&<,vlcc ,~_:;X;;;'K":"'~I.. [', ,-",/x.)I . ,>"" . ,/(,--x:"J / /olt,Jn/ c(.., II. \ 1 \ I 5 Ht-4I'4Ii.W ... ...____._. __ __~--- ,17-<< ~ 162" 68 ....___. --- co / ~ " A9CIJ HI5T~CAL q:)Clery APe.AI; ~ EX/ST6, ve6CTrI nON 7f. LANOP~ (!V/~tN N31r.;;) < FUrUf<.e tiwy 62- (4-.L.NVE),AL-./6NMeNl-- ..... / FUTUr<-.e eXft/b!r ... , ' \ ~.' .\ :~;~r: ~'~." f . "~. '-:"'\." ... . . ., "'1- ----- - . , \ IlL --"-/.:::.XHJ6JT () \ . , \ ~;'ll" ',:: .~~'"~~:.. ,,:i~:'" r'-- <NIl'" Tf<,Ce. ~. . 1. . . ~L L' / ..~.... ,...: . M ...-------., "2------cea<./ex. // 'v (6'(?rrloe/'WJ/~) ,.' , " LA/'JODCA, - /iir/tJ lA'" lit foW-lI-' , , I.. i' i.. ! 'j 1/ . I ,.'.j. .. ~:.;;-;ecJer<c . - """---"/j ----~;"-"-- CUTV?.(-'y-< "-- .../ ,/ ! C...x:.!'I!OIT. / / f3#<./....Je;(/ ",,,,- eX/.c5iT At' Wc:JKI< I :5er' 0/ ,J1V("AC7t .Fa')T T/"<A, /-cD. /~/L PINAL- PtJD DEVELOPMENT PLAN IoJIlR:l"U JIJNt3./0 /qq ~z ---(1) ~~ II r.n ~ ~ ~ (1) .......... ~ (1) ""1 r.n a- n ~ (1) r.n ~ r:r--------------------------------------~ CIJ ~ s: ....... - - CIJ ::r' (t) - .-+ (t) "1 "'0 .......... ~ ~ p.. (1) .......... (1) -< ~ _. o ~ r.n tJL______________________________________J[j r:r----------------------------------------lCl , , , , , , , , , b CIJ .-+ (t) S tr1 ::l (JQ ....... ::l (t) CIJ ::r' (t) - .-+ (t) ..... q , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , tJL________________________________________J[j ::r:> o r.n .........."'0 p..(1) (1) ~ ~g; e; 0- o ""1 .......... _. ~ n ~e _. C/J ~ _. 0 ~ 8. (Jq (1) ~~ ~ r.n (1) ~ 8 "'\J co t:r:Ir./). ~~ ~. ~ o ....... i:l ::::: r./). ::r' (D ::+ (D "1 t:r:Ir./). ........ .-+ (D (D -< PJ ~ S ....... o t:r:I i:l i:l (fq ....... i:l (D r./). ::r' (D ........ .-+ (D "1 -c CD CD 'Z.8 ~ P101 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 330 E. Main Street, Hotel Jerome- Landscape DATE: March 14,2007 SUMMARY: HPC granted Final Major Development approval for the Hotel Jerome project on December 13, 2006. The HPC minutes, landscape plan as shown at the time, and the Resolution are attached, as are the HPC guidelines related to landscape. Conditions of approval for this project included the following. · The landscape plan requires changes as discussed at the hearing and will be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. As part of the filing of PUD plats, the applicant will provide a Conceptual landscape plan indicating that a Final Landscape Plan must be approved by HPC staff and monitor. · . .. The sidewalk treatment will be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. The project monitor is Brian McNellis. Following HPC approval of the project, Brian and I met two or three times with the landscape design team, attempting to represent the concerns of the board. In January, the board was shown the plan in progress as an informational item. Most of the discussion in the project monitor meetings focused on the west courtyard and the goal of achieving some symmetry in the design (in particular by centering the public entry into the space.) Time was also spent on the paving patterns (although the contrasting paving bands were deleted at one point during the monitor process, the applicant appears to want to revisit), the treatment of the staircase that leads from the courtyard to the basement, the design of the water feature running through the site, the palette for raised features such as the summer bar, hearth, and spa, and the design of the railings along Main Street and in front of the pool. In general, staff and monitor have promoted the use of materials that in some manner reflect those used on the Hotel. For instance, although the Jerome features red sandstone, buff sandstone, or a very similar material, might be considered appropriate for the courtyard. Brick would be an obvious choice for an appropriate material, or paving materials that were coursed like brick could help to balance the issue of "new vs. old." We have promoted the idea of aligning courtyard features with the architectural features and have recommended that the grass area along Main Street be as usable as possible. Although the courtyard that is accessed from Mill Street is less open to public view, there has been concern that the two spaces maintain some design relationship. There has been P102 on-going discussion about the proposed installation of granite in the sidewalk around the Jerome, and discussion about the use of granite and slate in the courtyards. Following our last meeting on February 6th, staff and monitor let the design team know that we felt the project required the review of the full board, a decision that was within our discretion to make. While the applicants have made a good effort to respond to the direction we have given, neither Brian nor I feel comfortable that the outcome of these discussions really does represent the philosophy of the HPC and the guidelines, which repeatedly emphasize the fact that the character of historic structures is greatly influenced by the manner in which their sites are landscaped and that additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context. This is a very prominent building and green space within the downtown district. HPC is asked to provide direction that can lead towards a design supported by the majority ofthe board. P103 ASPEN mSTORIC 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 of the gardens from the room. 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 ofthe 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 requiringposts on the new deck facing the addition for 334 W. Hallam; second by Brian. A II in favor, 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 Plfl4 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 fa9ade 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 fa9ade 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 ------ --_.-._--._---~. . P105 ASPEN mSTORIC 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 f~e. 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 l6 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 of the 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 ISO 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 reconunended. I. Replace all the non-historic windows. Staff reconunends 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 f'HJ6 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 off those 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. IO.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. I 1. 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 intentofthe 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 P107 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION M!mJTEs OF DECEMBER 13. 200~ 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 tom 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 ofthe 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 corning 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 teons 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 fa~ade is a big jump. Our guidelines are nonnally 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 P I 08~-- - - ---- ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13. 2006 needs restudied. The lighting plan is tine 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 fal(ade. 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 be 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 fal(ade 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 P109 ASPEN mSTORIC 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 of the fa~ade 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 fa~ade is'commendable. Regarding the garden treatment on Mi11 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 Gal1ion explained that the street level windows wi11 be wood painted as they have always been. The columns at the portico are steel painted. We desire to clad a smal1 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 detennined 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 al1 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 fa~ade of this building. We need to bring life to this sterile fa~ade. Steve Barlin said we are wil1ing to make the investment in this hotel but we need HPC's help in order to make it wann and inviting. Our competition is not only the Little Nel1 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 aIso 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 individual1y. Ground floor store front windows to be al1 wood. 12 I'll U -. ASPEN mSTORlC 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 tom 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. 1. 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 P 111 ASPEN mSTORIC 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 infonnation 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./itll board. 11. 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 applyingjOr the building penn it. 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 /rom 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 foifeiture 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 foifeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void pennits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. . 15.No later than fourteen (14) days followingfinal approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth 14 ~112 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ~NUTES 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 following form: 16.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. 17.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. 1S IIII~IIII~ 1111111I111I~1111~11~11111111111111111~ :~~;~~::1 ~ I ,451 JRNICE K VOS CFlLOILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 16.00 0 '.00 P113 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 330 E. MAIN STREET, LOTS A-I, & O-S AND THE EASTERLY 20' OF LOT N, AND THE EASTERLY 170' OF THE VACATED ALLEY, BLOCK 79, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 37, SERIES OF 2006 PARCEL ID: 2737-073-21-001 WHEREAS, the applicant, Hotel Jerome, Inc., represented by Poss Architecture and Planning, . requested Major Development (Final) approval for the property located at 330 E. Main Street, Lots A-I, & O-S, and the easterly 20' of Lot N, and the easterly 170' of the vacated alley, Block 79, . City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is listed on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures;" 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 detennine 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 dated December 13, 2006 performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, and recommended that some aspects of the project be approved with conditions, but recommended against other elements of the application; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on December 13, 2006, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found that some aspects of the application were consistent with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and other applicable sections of the Municipal Code, while others were not, and approved the appropriate portions of the application with conditions by a vote of 4 to O. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants approval for Major Development (Final) with the following conditions: I. All replacement windows on the ground floor are to be wood. Upper floor windows are permitted to be clad. Cut sheets must be submitted for review and approval. Ifthere are any historic windows left on the building, they need to be repaired and preserved. Tinted t" I 1'. I ~II~ IIII~\ 1111 \I~ 11111\ 1M ~UII :~~~~::1 ~ 1: 450 JANICE K vas CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 16.00 D0.D11 glass is not approved for any of the window units. Detailed drawings of the windows openings proposed to be restored at the sidewalk level on the east fayade must be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. 2. Awnings are only approved for the J-Bar and "Jerome Shop" spaces. They must be redesigned for review and approval by staff and monitor, to more closely match the historic awnings. The awnings for the J -Bar and" Jerome Shop" will be retractable and removable. Upper awnings are to be mocked-up for review and approval or denial by the board. Staff and monitor will review signage. 3. Metal balcony railings on the exterior of the building are to be mocked-up for review and approval or denial by the board. 4. No new features or materials that are inconsistent with the design of the original columns can be added. 5. The lighting plan will be reviewed by staff and monitor. The proposed decorative exterior light fixtures, in particular sconces, are to be restudied to be less contemporary. The board supports a design competition for the pendant lamp at the entry with the understanding that HPC must still grant approval. 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, repointing, application of a sealer, etc. will require further information and approval by staff and monitor. 8. The landscape plan requires changes as discussed at the hearing and will be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. As part of the filing of PUD plats, the applicant will provide a Conceptual landscape plan indicating that a Final Landscape Plan must be approved by HPC staff and monitor. 9. The sidewalk treatment will be reviewed and approved 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. 11. 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 applying for 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). P115 11111111I\111~111I1111~ 11I1111I1111111I11I11~ 111\ :~~~~:;1 ~ I : 45, JANICE K YOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 16.00 D 11.00 Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. 15. 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: 16. 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. 17. 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 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. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 13th day of December 2006. Approved as to Form: ~~~~orney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION .W\~ t" I 10 !'tEASE IlETURN TO CITY CLERK 130 S. GALeNA ASPEN, CO 81611 P117 Streetscape and Lot Features Chapter 1 Streetscape and Lot Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ote: : ~ A Right-of-Way permit from the . : Engineering Department is required for : . modifications within the public right-of- . . : way, including planting strips, sidewalks . . and irrigation ditches. No tree over 4 inches : : in caliper may be removed without a tree . : removal permit from the Parks Department. : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Background The character of historic structures is greatly influenced by the manner in which their sites are landscaped and streets are designed. At a block level, street pavings, trees, lights and other furnishings combine in streets capes that are important considerations in the historic districts. On individual sites, the arrangement of trees and shrubbery and the use of fences are important -- On individual sites, the,arrangeTiieiiFoltrees-arid shrubbery and the use of fences are important design elements. (Historic photo co.urlesy of A~en 1!ist?rical Society, ~t~ unknown.) design elements. In some cases, these features have historic significance; in others, their designs are still important because they can affect one's ability to interpret the historic structures. The planting strips with shaqe, trees and irrigation ditches were created in 1882 by the city; and private property owner.s were.encouraged to plant their own shade trees. Key Features of Lots Planting strips Planting strips are generally the band of grass between the curb and the sidewalk, or between the street and front property line. Be aware that this is City property, not private property, and work in this area must be approved. A strip may contain an irrigation ditch and a row of street trees if it is wide enough to support the root system. This coupling of planting strips and street trees Historic landscape features, including trees, lawns and shrubbery contribute to the character of historic properties in Aspen and should be preserved. P118 Chapter 1 Mature trees aTe important elements of the historic streetscape. provides a rhythm along the block, as well as shade for pedestrians. This tradition should be continued. Placing paving materials in the planting strip should be avoided. Sidewalks Generally; sidewalks exist only along Main Street and in the Commercial Core. These sidewalks, which were originally boardwalks, are historically significant elements that contribute to the area's inviting atmosphere and provide spaces for walking and personal interaction. Fences Originally, wood picket fences enclosed many front yards. The vertical slats were set apart, with spaces between, and the o,;erall height of the fence was generally less than three feet. Wrought iron and wire fences also 'were used in early domestic landscapes. Wliere any. of these early fences survive, they should be preserved. In a situation where the original fence is missing, a new fence may be used if it is similar in character to one seen traditionally. Retaining walls Retaining wallS were sometimes uSed on steep slopes: Some of these walls survive and are important character-defining features. Whenever feasible, they should be preserved. Private yard While most historic plant materials have been replaced over time, some specimens do survive. Common historic plants in Aspen from the Victorian era include lilacs, sweetpeas and yellow rose bushes. In some situations, the traditional planting pattern has been retained even if new plants have been planted. Mature trees on private property must be retained unless approved by the Parks Department for removal. Site lighting 'fraditionally, lighting within a site was minimal. An occasional garden light was,seen, but porch lights were usually the only exterior illumination. (For additional information, see the City's lighting Standards.) . ~,,~ ~ ~ , . - , 4: , , , f f f ~ tl f . f fii f,i f ~ fi p fl ~ Ii P p P ~ @ .ti ~ ~ ~ ,~ ....~ .:~ ...:_i~ .:,~;1i ..._-.-".~ -, ;:_~~-~?b~;~~d P119 Streetscape and Lot Features Fences 1.1 Preserve original fences. . Replace only those portions that are deteriorated beyond repair. Replacement elements should match the existing fence. 1.2 A new replacement fence should use materials that appear similar to that of the original. . Any fence which is visible from a public , right-of-way must be built of wood or wrought iron. Wire fences also may be considered. . A wood picket fence is an appropriate replacement in most locations. A simple wire or metal fence, similar to traditional "wrought iron," also may be considered. . Chainlinkisprohibited and solid "stockade" fences are only allowed in side and rear yards. 1.3 A new replacement fence should have a "tninsparent" quality alloWing views into the yard from the street. . A fence that defines a front yard is usually low to the ground and "transparent" in nature. On residential properties, a fence which is located forward of the front building facade may not be taller than 42" from natural grade. (For additional information, see the City of Aspen's "Residential Design Standards".) A privacy fence may be used in back yards and along alleys, 'but not forward of the . front facade of a building. .. ',,::Note that using no fencing at all is often the ',.bestapproach. Contemporary interpretations of traditional fences should be compatible with the historic context. . . . \ Original fences, such as this one, should be preserved. Privacy fences TrUly be used in back yards and along alleys. . . >... '."' . . - .- ......,...... ..... $ . . - P120 Chapter 1 /" A side yard fence which extends between two homes should be set back from the sITeet faau1e. Replacement {]T' new fencing between side yards and along the alley should be compatible with the historic context. 1.4 New fence components should be similar in scale with those seen traditionally. . Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment. 1.5 A side yard fence which extends between two homes should be set back from the street- facing facade. . This setback should be significant enough to provide a sense of open space between homes. 1.6 Replacement or new fencing between side yards and along the alley should be compatible with the historic context. . A side yard fence is usually taller than its front yard counterpart. It also is less transparent. A side yarp fence may re?ch heights taller fuan.front yard fences (up to six feet), but should incorporate transparent elements to minimize the possible visual impacts. . Consider staggering the fence boards on either side of the fence rail. This will give the appearance of a solid plank fence when seen head on. . Also consider using lattice, or other transparent detailing, on the upper portions of the fence. Retaining Walls 1.7 Preserve original retaining walls. Replace only those portions that are deteriorated beyond .repair. Any replacement materials should match the original in color, texture, size and finish. Painting a historic masonry retaining wall, or covering it with stucco or other . cementitious coatings, is not allowed. . . ~ ----..----.-.- P121 Streetscape and Lot Features Historically significant planting designs, such as along this alley, should be prese:roed_ ~1W;~~~~~-~ 1.8 Maintain the historic height of a retaining wall. o Increasing the height of a wall to create a privacy screen is inappropriate. If a fence is needed for security, consider using wrought iron, similar to those seen histoncally, that is mounted on top of the retaining wall. Walkways , 1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces. when considering a rehabilitation project. o 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. o Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the streetto the front entry. Meande..-h""lg walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree. o 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. Private Yard 1.10 Preserve histQric elements of the yard to provide an appropriate conte'xt for historic structures. o 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. o Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department. o ' Ifa tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace itwithspecies of a large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the projed. Provide a walkway running perpendicular frrnn the street to the . front entry. lll:i s~ "0"" Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a rehabilitation project. P122 Chapter 1 Do. not locate plants or trees in areas tfu.zt will obscure significant architectural features DT block views to. the building. shielded entry lamp5 low, walkway lamp.:; ~ ~ < -', ~ yo " . ~'>-""":-""-""-",..r/Y Use shielded lights which direct light onto. walking suifaces to. minimize the visual impacts of site lighting. I.U Preserve and maintain historically significant planting designs. o 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. o Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact of mature growth. o Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent. o Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials. 1.14 Additions to the Jandscape that could interfere with histoI'i'i:. structures are inappropriate. _ o Do not plant climbing ivy' or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer than the mature canopy size. o Donotlocate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant architectural features or block views to the building. o It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard. Site Lighting 1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting. o Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glare onto adjacentproperties. Focus lighting On walks and entries, rather than up into trees and onto facade planes. . @ .. . ~ ,.'''..,.-..-........ P123 Streetscape and Lot Features Stl'eetscape 1.16 Preserve historically significant landscape designs and features. . This includes the arrangement of trees, shrubs, plant beds, irrigation ditches and sidewalks in the public right-of-way. 1.17 Maintain historic irrigation ditches as an integral component of the streetscape. . The character of an irrigation ditch sh~lUld be maintained. . It is inappropriate to use an irrigation ditch as a planting bed, or to fill it with another material. . Ditches cannot by culverted except where crossed by a walkway or driveway, and a culvert must be approved by the Parks Department. . . Maintain historic irrigation ditches as an i!!tegral component of the streetscape. . , ~ Front Yara J~5idewJ< Planting ~ Strip Preserve historically significant landscape designs and features such as the arrangement of trees, shrubs, plant beds, irrigation ditches and sidewalks in the public right-of-way. ~~~~A~"_~ P124