HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20070822
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
August 22, 2007
5:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISIT: NOON-
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes - April 25, 2007, July 11, 2007 and
August 8th 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 No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #34 )
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. None
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. 214 E. Bleeker (Vacant Lot) Major Development (Final),
Public Hearing (30min.) 0 (L A.3 Lf
B. 507 Gillespie Ave. (Vacant Lot) - Major Development
(Final), Public Hearng, 30 min. # 3,-
X. WORKSESSIONS
A. None
IX. ADJOURN 6:15 p.m.
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.
-"~~"------""~~"'"^.'-'''
PROJECT MONITORING
Jeffrey Halferty
555/557 Walnut
701 W. Main
640 N. Third
314 E. Hyman, Motherlode
930 Matchless
205 S. Galena- Brand deck
134 W. Hopkins
212 W. Hopkins
920 W. Hallam
114 Neale Ave.
Aspen Arcade, 501 East Hyman
300 West Main Street
Smuggler Cabin, 1000 Matchless
Mike Hoffman
308/310 Park
640 N. Third
Jewish Community Center
202 N. Monarch
320 W. Hallam Ave.
426 E. Main (Main and Galena)
Sarah Broughton
811/819 E. Hopkins
110 E. Bleeker
530, 532, 534 E. Hopkins (Connor Cabins)
100 East Bleeker
Doerr Hosier Center @ Meadows
406 E. Hopkins (Isis)
304 E. Hopkins (Elevation Restaurant)
Jewish Community Center
Smuggler Cabin, 1000 Matchless
Brian McNellis
629 Smuggler
Hotel Jerome
Jewish Community Center
Doerr Hosier Center @ Meadows
233 W. Main (Innsbruck)
332 West Main Street
Alison Agley
529 W. Francis
214 East Bleeker Street
205 S. Mill Street (Bruno's Deck)
710 N. Third
Boomerang
501 W. Main Street (Christiana)
520 E. Durant (Ajax Bldg)
CONCEPTUAL APPROV ALS THAT HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL REVIEW:
508 E. Cooper (Cooper St. Pier Redevelopment)- Ouly 12, 2006)
135 W. Hopkins- (August 9,2006)
Lift 1/ Willoughby Park- (August 8, 2006) 2 years approved before final submittal
507 Gillespie- (March 28, 2007)
IX A.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
214 E. Bleeker Street (New House)- Major Development (Final)- Public Hearing
DATE:
August 22, 2007
SUMMARY: The subject property is a 6,000 square foot vacant lot which was created through
a subdivision of the landmark designated parcel at 214 E. Bleeker. There are no historic
resources on the site. HPC has full purview over the project.
The project received Conceptual approval on June 27th (minutes attached.) The architect was
asked to restudy the design of the gable roof on the front porch for Final review.
Staff finds that the architect has successfully addressed the design guidelines, although the
front porch design needs more resolution. We recommend Final approval with conditions.
APPLICANT: 214 E. Bleeker LLC (Kristeen Church), represented by Rybak Architecture and
Development, P.C.
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-48-001.
ADDRESS: 214 E. Bleeker, Lot A, Brumder Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: R-6, Medium Density Residential.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Final level, is asfollows. 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.
This project is located on a block that is mostly comprised of Victorian era buildings. The
subject house will be the only non-Victorian structure on this block-face and it sits between two
one story miner's cottages, each of which are on 6,000 square foots lot with allowable FARs of
3,240 square feet, just like the new building. The project must comply with the HPC Design
Guidelines and the City's Residential Design Standards.
At Conceptual, the architect provided a block plan and streetscape elevations which were very
helpful in reviewing the project's appropriateness in terms of mass and scale. He has clearly
worked to reflect some of the proportions of adjacent structures and the pattern of small
secondary buildings along the alley.
The material palette, fenestration, lighting, and landscaping are the focus of Final Review.
Relevant Design Guidelines are identified in "Exhibit A."
There is some information that must be provided at the meeting in order for HPC to make an
evaluation. First, the landscape plan represents a fence (iron across the front yard, and wood
along the sides and rear.) No elevation showing the proposed design has been provided. There
has been past concern about metal fences and their appropriateness in relation to many of the
simple character of many of the remaining Victorian buildings in town. HPC mayor may not
find that issue is mitigated in this instance.
The second area where more information is required has to do with the gable roof on the front
porch. HPC asked for a restudy during Conceptual review. The architect has reconsidered, but
feels that the open gable is appropriate. Studies of other options were inadvertently omitted from
the drawing set. That information will be supplied in the HPC packet, but was not available
when the memo was prepared.
Two other details of the design require further discussion in staff's opinion. First, we find that
the four over four windows and French doors are not in character with the adjacent Victorians.
This is a very sensitive context and the character of the adjacent buildings should be strongly
reflected in the new design. The relevant guideline is:
11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic
property.
o These include windows, doors and porches.
o Overall, details should be modest in character.
Similarly, we find that the stone used on this house should related to the native sandstone used on
the adjacent historic buildings in terms of color, size of stone units, coursing, etc. A mock-up
panel must be reviewed and approved in the field.
2
Overall this house will fit well into the block-face and staff recommends approval with
conditions.
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: Staffrecommends HPC grant Final approval for 214 E. Bleeker, Lot
A, Brumder Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, with the following conditions of
approval:
I. Provide a design for the proposed fence.
2. Provide studies of other options for the gable roof on the front porch.
3. SimplifY the window design to be one over one, or at most two over two in terms of the
divided lights.
4. A mock-up panel of the proposed stone must be reviewed and approved in the field.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Application
3
Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines
1.2 A new replacement fence should use materials that appear similar to that of the
original.
D 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.
D 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.
D Chain link is prohibited and solid "stockade" fences are only allowed in side and rear yards.
1.3 A new replacement fence should have a "transparent" quality allowing views into the
yard from the street.
D A fence that defines a front yard is usually low to the ground and "transparent" in nature.
D 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".)
D A privacy fence may be used in back yards and along alleys, but not forward of the front
facade of a building.
D Note that using no fencing at all is often the best approach.
D Contemporary interpretations of traditional fences should be compatible with the historic
context.
1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a
rehabilitation project.
D 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.
D Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering
walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree.
D Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style.
Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles.
1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context
of the site.
D Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term
impact of mature growth.
D Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent.
D Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials.
11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by
using a front porch.
D The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry.
D A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally.
D In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street;
nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that
orients to the street.
11.7 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.
4
o Materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site are
encouraged.
o 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.
o These include windows, doors and porches.
o Overall, details should be modest in character.
11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
o This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
o Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history
are especially discouraged on historic sites.
14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that
used traditionally.
o The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be
approved by the HPC.
o All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence.
14.7 Minimize the visual impacts ofsite and architectural lighting.
o Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not be
permitted.
o Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures.
o Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by
controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night.
o Do not wash an entire building facade in light.
o A void placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls
of buildings.
o A void duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area.
14.8 Minimize the visual impact oflight spill from a building.
o Prevent glare onto adjacent properties by using shielded and focused light sources that
direct light onto the ground. The use of downlights, with the bulb fully enclosed within
the shade, or step lights which direct light only on to walkways, is strongly encouraged.
o Lighting shall be carefully located so as not to shine into residential living space, on or off
the property or into public rights-of-way.
5
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL), FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 214 EAST BLEEKER STREET, LOT A, BRUMDER LOT
SPLIT, BLOCK 72, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2007
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-48-001
WHEREAS, the applicant, 214 East Bleeker, LLC represented by Dave Rybak of Rybak
Architecture and Development, P.C. requests Major Development (Final) for the property located
at 214 East Bleeker Street, Lot A, Brumder Lot Split, Block 72, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Final Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance
with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.4l5.070.D.3.b.2
and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve,
disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information
necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated August 22, 2007, performed an analysis of
the application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines were been met, and recommended approval with
conditions; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on August 22, 2007, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and
"City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application with
conditions by a vote of _ to _'
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby grants approval for Major Development (Final) for the property located at 214
East Bleeker Street, Lot A of the Brumder Lot Split, Block 72, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado with the following conditions:
1. Provide a design for the proposed fence.
2. Provide studies of other options for the gable roof on the front porch.
3. SimplifY the window design to be one over one, or at most two over two in terms ofthe
divided lights.
4. A mock-up panel of the proposed stone must be reviewed and approved in the field.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 22nd day of August,
2007.
Approved as to Form:
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Jeffrey Halferty, Chair
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERV A nON COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 27. 2007
Jerry Cavilere clarified that the canopy is translucent not transparent. The
exact pitch will need to be engineered.
Jeffrey inquired about the drainage etc. Jerry said the skylight will have
internal drains and the shedding ofthe snow will go onto the adjacent flat
roofs.
Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no
public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed.
Sarah said a 3xl2 roof is an improvement and she is willing to go forward.
MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #26 for 411 E. Hopkins as
stated in staff's memo; second by Michael.
Discussion: Jeffrey said the cash-in-lieu seem onerous because they have
been there awhile. It is very open to the public. Just because we are closing
it doesn't mean it is not a public space.
Michael said his concern with the reduction in the amount of cash-in-lieu is
that this has been an issue from the past. We should not unilaterally be in
the business of reducing fees.
Sara pointed out that no more than half of the fee can be waived.
Brian said he is willing to waive a portion. The issue is what would be the
appropriate arnOunt.
Billy said his intention is to get this going and approved. It is not a big
Issue.
Michael commended the applicant for being gracious about the cash-in-lieu.
Roll call vote: Brian, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes; Jeffrey, no.
Motion carried 4-1.
214 E. Bleeker - Conceptual
Dave Rybak, architect; Kristeen Church, owner.
3
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV AnON COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 27. 2007
Amy informed the HPC that this is conceptual for the new house on the
Brumder Lot Split. This is a 6,000 square foot parcel with a swimming pool
on it and it is designated a landmark. There are no variances required and at
the previous meeting there were a number of suggestions made about how to
deal with inflection and how the massing related to the Victorian. On this
entire block this will be the first new house, everything else is a Victorian
era landmark. At the last meeting the item got continued to look at some
issues: How fare should the building be set back on the lot and the front
porch alignment with surrounding buildings. The applicant has done what
HPC asked and the inflection is all directed to the west. Dave has made
adjustment to the front porch and it is wider on the site and creates a nice
relationship to the porches on the Victorians nearby. The building has been
pulled back and staffrecommends approval of the project.
Dave Rybak informed the board that the front porch will align with the
porch on the 214 E. Bleeker property and close to the property at 232
Bleeker. The primary gable is set back behind the front porch and the
second mass which is the inflection aligns with the front fayade of the home
at 214 E. Bleeker. The massing is generally the same.
Michael commented that the roof over the front door doesn't feel to be
consistent with the neighborhood. It seems somewhat "suburban". Amy
clarified that Michael's concern isn't the roof, it is that it is open. Sarah also
agreed that closing the gable on the front should be looked at. Dave has
addressed our concerns and it cornplies with our guidelines. The alley view
is sympathetic to the historic resource and breaking up the mass works well.
Sarah thanked the applicant for supplying the street elevations.
Brian said breaking up the mass addresses our guidelines. The streetscape
was his concern. In terms of the gable on the front he can go either way.
Alison said all our concerns have been addressed. The open gable that
Michael mentioned does stand out. Maybe a study could occur as to what
should happen. A solid gable might be too much.
Jeffrey said he feels that the applicants design process has flushed out our
concems and he can approve the project as is. The design complies with
Chapter 11 of our guidelines.
4
ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 27.2007
Dave Rybak addressed the porch. The gable was added not just to signify
the entry but a solution to help with the massing of the building. To have the
porch come all the way across uninterrupted would make it look like it was
tacked on. By adding a cross gable to the porch it ties the two porches
together. The house at 232 E. Bleeker has a similar gable and it appears
tacked on because it is not in the same plane. The gable is the solution and
whether it is closed or open we can restudy for final.
MOTION: Michael moved to approve Resolution #27 for 214 E. Bleeker
with an additional condition that at final the fenestration or finished
treatment of the gable will be evaluated; second by Sarah. Roll call vote:
Brian, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes; Jeffrey, yes.
980 Gibson - Conceptual
Alison stepped down.
Sara said at the last meeting 980 Gibson was continued to get clarification
on the setback variances that are required for this property and to address the
request to restudy the light well that is abutting against the historic resource.
The light well has been reduced in size and has been pulled away from the
fa9ade of the historic cabin. Regarding the setback variances HPC needs to
grant a ten foot west side yard setback and a nine foot north rear yard
setback. Overall staffrecommends approval of this project.
Scott Bartleet said the only other change would be the upper level link in
which we will provide some more glazing to give it a more transparent
feeling.
Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no
public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed.
Sarah pointed out that the project has greatly improved. Regarding the
porch rnaybe a restudy could occur because it is highly detailed and the
historic resource is very simple.
Michael said the improvements in the light well make it easier to interpret
what is going on at the site. The setbacks on this site are very unique and
there are no negative impacts.
5
~
. ..L.A- e.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM:
Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
RE:
507 Gillespie Street, Major Development Review (Final) - Public Hearing
DATE:
August 22, 2007
SUMMARY: The subject property (Lot B) is a 4,572 square foot vacant lot that was created by
a Historic Landmark Lot Split in 2001. The 500 square foot FAR bonus was granted to the
fathering parcel: the historic lot, 515 Gillespie or "Lot A" is allowed 1,753 square feet of floor
area and the vacant lot 507 Gillespie or "Lot B" is allowed 2,840 square feet of floor area.
On March 28, 200/, HPC granted Conceptual approval, a variance from the Accessory Dwelling
Unit (ADU) Design Standards for a subgrade space, and approved a condition that the lightwells
proposed for the setbacks be reduced to the minimum required by the International Residential
Code for egress from the subgrade bedrooms. The applicant reduced the lightwells to the
minimum nine (9) square feet, and proposes some amendments to the Conceptual approval.
The applicant requests the following design changes from the Conceptual approval granted in
March:
1. the primary building height is about ten inches (10") taller and the accessory building at
the rear of the structure is seven inches (7") taller
2. two window wells that are thirty inches (30") below grade, which pursuant to Section
26.575.040.A.5 do not require a setback variance, have been added to the east and west
sideyards of the primary residence.
3. a lightwell has been added to the western portion of the yard area between the primary
and secondary buildings to accommodate an enlarged sub grade space
4. The floor area of the proposed development increased 20 square feet from the approved
2,740 square feet of floor area at Conceptual review to 2,760 square feet of floor area
proposed at Final review. The maximum floor area allowed on this parcel is 2,840 square
feet of floor area.
Staff addresses these changes in the staff response portion of the memo.
Recommendation: Some ofthe revisions made since Conceptual, in particular the height
increase, are problematic. Staff recommends approval ofthe project, with conditions that include
a return to the building dimensions represented previously.
APPLICANT: Randall and Alison Bone, represented by Rich Carr and Karen Woods of
CCY Architects
PARCEL ID: 2735-121-11-007.
507 Gillespie Street, HPC Final Review
Page 1 of6
ADDRESS: 507 Gillespie Street, Lot B of the Beck Historic Lot Split, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: R-6
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Final 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
Desil!D Guideline review
Final review deals with details such as the landscape plan, lighting, fenestration, and selection
of new materials. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A." Only those
which staff finds warrant discussion are included in the memo.
Staff ResDonse
Changes from Conceptual Review approval:
Height- Staff finds that the proposed increase of about ten inches (10") to the ridge height of the
primary building is inappropriate. (See Exhibit B for illustration) The historic horne located at
515 Gillespie Street is a substantial two story Victorian that can support a two story development
on the adjacent property. The second story of the Victorian is short in proportion to the rest of
the home and Staff did not find it appropriate to restrict the new development to the historic
proportions during Conceptual Review; however, staff finds that increasing the height ten more
inches starts to overwhelm the historic home when it is not entirely necessary for the function of
the new residence.
The height of the garagel ADU structure has increased seven inches (7") from the approved
Conceptual height of thirteen feet, two inches (13' 2") to thirteen feet, nine inches (13' 93/8").
507 Gillespie Street, HPC Final Review
Page 2 of6
Staff finds that the height increase is unnecessary for the above grade garage space and
recommends that HPC deny the request to increase the height of both primary and accessory
structures on the property.
Floor Area- Staff finds that the increase of twenty square feet (20') of floor area on the property
is negligible.
Window wells- One of the thirty inches (30") below grade window well is located in the west
sideyard setback adjacent to the historic home. In order to be exempt from a sideyard variance,
the window well is not permitted to have a foundation or be attached to the new home, which
would required frost protection and footers that extend below thirty inches (30"). Staff looks to
the applicant regarding whether the window well is feasible, considering drainage, etc., without a
foundation. The window well on the east elevation extends slightly into the setback. Staff
recommends that the applicant locate the cutout entirely within the building envelope.
Light wells- The applicant reduced the size of the lightwells to the minimum nine square feet
(9') for egress. The lightwelllocated in the northwest corner of the property has been relocated to
the southwestern section of the primary residence. Staff is in support of the new location, as it is
further away from the historic resource.
Final Review
LandscaDe Dlan: An irrigation ditch and existing trees are preserved in the proposed landscape
plan. Staff is concerned with the eighteen inch (18") parking barrier/seats proposed for the front
yard, and also used as a retaining wall for a planning strip in front of the house. Staff
recommends that the applicant omit these landscape features, which are not on private property
and will not be likely to be approved by the Engineering Department, and simplity the proposal
for review by staff and monitor. Staff is concerned with the fence proposed for the west
elevation, and finds that the lack of transparency and the combination of wood and stone as
materials, as well as the metal partition wall proposed for the east elevation, do not meet the
following guidelines:
1.3 A new replacement fence should have a "transparent" quality allowing views into
the yard from the street.
[J A fence that defines a front yard is usually low to the ground and "transparent" in nature.
[J 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".)
[J A privacy fence may be used in back yards and along alleys, but not forward of the front
facade of a building.
[J Note that using no fencing at all is often the best approach.
[J Contemporary interpretations of traditional fences should be compatible with the historic
context.
1.4 New fence components should be similar in scale with those seen traditionally.
[J Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment.
507 Gillespie Street, HPC Final Review
Page 3 of6
Staff recommends that the applicant simplify the landscape features for review by Staff and
monitor.
Lighting: Staff finds the proposed light fixtures to be acceptable.
Fenestration: Staff finds that the conternporary windows proposed for the new residence relate to
the historic resource in an abstract interpretation and are appropriate for the site and context.
Materials: Staff is in favor of the horizontal wood siding proposed for the majority of the house
and its reference to the adjacent historic home. Staff recommends that the applicant simplify the
front elevation materials slightly and reduce the size of the stone veneer foundation. The
applicant proposes a wide palette of materials that break up the mass; however, Staff finds that
the number of materials could be reduced and still achieve the same effect. A sample of the
stone material will be required, along with a mock-up to ensure that the proposal is appropriate to
the character of the adjacent Victorian.
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.
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 that HPC grant Major Development Review
(Final) for the property located at 507 Gillespie Street, Lot B, Beck Historic Lot Split, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions;
507 Gillespie Street, HPC Final Review
Page 4 of6
I. The heights of the primary and accessory buildings approved at Conceptual Review
remain in place.
2. The window well on the east elevation will be located within the building envelope and
shall not encroach into the setback.
3. The window wells on the east and west elevation are not permitted to have foundations or
tie back into the primary building. ~
4. The . . restudy the combination 0 prop . . 'Y tw s1.a iu).d /
r. Stone samples/mock-ups will be required. )t ~ "'f S~r/- ~~
5. The appliC<lpt' y. . thseatlParkin~ b~for
review by staff and monitor. tic.7 ~ /'. DL .s.;.r--'
6. The applicant will restudy the fence and ake it more trans arent for review by staff and
m0nitor.
7. 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.
8. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved
drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the
information is available.
9. 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.
10. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan
vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order.
However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise
exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be
recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development
order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the
development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits).
Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in
the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary
to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the
City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice
shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years,
pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado
Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 507 Gillespie Street.
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
507 Gillespie Street, HPC Final Review
Page 5 of6
the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this
approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial
review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin
to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required
under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the
Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Height comparison- conceptual vs. final in the context of the adjacent Historic Home
C. Application
"Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 507 Gillespie Street, Final Review"
11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street.
D The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid
pattern of the site.
11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by
using a front porch.
D The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry.
D A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally.
D In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street;
nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to
the street.
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the
parcel.
D Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
D The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure.
D The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
D They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roofforms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
D Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms.
D Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context.
D On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the
context.
D Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are
discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
11.10 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.
507 Gillespie Street, HPC Final Review
Page 6 of6
1 mm -< -<
ro rr 0 0
.' 'm
~~ ,< ~ ~
~;i ~~ ~ ~
.~ ~o ~ ~
r Z 5 5
0
0 0 0
;0 ;0 ;0
c-
o
o
z
o
m
"U
-I
C
:l>
r
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 507 GILLESPIE STREET, LOT B OF THE BECK
HISTORIC LOT SPLIT, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2007
PARCEL ID: 2735-121-11-007.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Randall and Alison Bone, represented by Karen Wood and Rich Carr
of CCY Architects, request Major Development (Conceptual) and Variances for the property
located at 507 Gillespie Street, Lot B of the Beck Historic Landmark Lot Split, City and Townsite
of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Final Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance
with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.4l5.070.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, Sara Adams, in her staff report dated August 22nd, 2007, performed an analysis of
the application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met for Final Review, and recommended
approval with conditions; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on August 22, 2007, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and
the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a
vote of to
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby recommends approval for Major Development (Final) for the property located
at 507 Gillespie Street, Lot B of the Beck Historic Landmark Lot Split, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado, as proposed with the following conditions;
I. The heights of the primary and accessory buildings approved at Conceptual Review
remain in place.
2. The window well on the east elevation will be located within the building envelope and
shall not encroach into the setback.
3. The window wells on the east and west elevation are not permitted to have foundations or
tie back into the primary building.
4. The applicant will restudy the combination of proposed materials for review by staff and
monitor. Stone samples/mock-ups will be required.
5. The applicant will restudy the landscape plan and omit the seat/parking blockers for
review by staff and monitor.
6. The applicant will restudy the fence and make it more transparent for review by staff and
monitor.
7. 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.
8. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved
drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the
information is available.
9. 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.
10. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan
vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order.
However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise
exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be
recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development
order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the
development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits).
Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in
the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary
to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the
City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice
shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years,
pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado
Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 507 Gillespie Street.
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews
and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or
the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this
approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial
review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin
to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required
under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the
Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 22nd day of August
2007.
Approved as to Form:
Jim True, City Attorney
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERV A nON COMMISSION
Jeffrey Halferty, Chairman
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk