Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20080109ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGUALR MEETING January 9, 2008 5:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 130 S. GALENA ASPEN. COLORADO SITE VISIT: NOON - I. Roll call II. Approval of minutes -November 28tH and Dec. 12, 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 No Negative Effect issued (Next resolution will be #1) VIII. OLD BUSINESS A. 980 Gibson -Final, Public Hearing cont'd from Dec. 12tH (30 min.) IX. NEW BUSINESS A. Red Butte Cemetery -Conceptual and On-site relocation, Public Hearing (1 %z hr.) X. WORKSESSIONS A. Historic Interiors discussion - (30 min.) P1 IX. ADJOURN 7:30 p.m. P2 Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) Staff presentation Applicant presentation Board questions and clarifications Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed Applicant rebuttal (comments) Motion No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes of the members of the commission then present and voting. ~~,,, ~_ .. _~ P3 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. Mike Hoffman 308/310 Park 640 N. Third Jewish Community Center 202 N. Monarch 320 W. Hallam Ave. 426 E. Main (Main and Galena) 507 Gillespie 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) Brian McNellis 629 Smuggler Hotel Jerome Jewish Community Center Doerr Hosier Center @ Meadows 233 W. Main (Innsbruck) Alison Agley 529 W. Francis 214 East Bleeker Street (historic house) 205 S. Mill Street (Bruno's Deck) 710 N. Third Boomerang 501 W. Main Street (Christiana) 214 East Bleeker (new house) 520 E. Durant (Ajax Bldg) 28 Smuggler P4 Nora Berko Jay Maytin Arm Mullins 28 Smuggler 28 Smuggler CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS THAT HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL REVIEW: 508 E. Cooper (Cooper St. Pier Redevelopment)- (July 12, 2006) extended 6 months Q • P5 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner RE: 980 Gibson Avenue, Major Development Review (Final) DATE: January 9, 2008 SUMMARY: The subject property is located at 980 Gibson Avenue, near the base of Smuggler Mountain. The approximately 13,000 square foot lot is part of the Alpine Acres Subdivision and contains two historic resources. The ]ot is condominiumized: Lot 1B recently completed a reaz addition to the historic resource. The application before HPC is for Lot lA, which contains a historic 1880s miner's cabin that was moved to its current location from an unknown lot. The front facade of the cabin is oriented east, away from Gibson Street. As it currently sits, the rectangular form is difficult to distinguish due to a number of alterations and a car port. During Conceptual Review HPC approved the relocation of the cabin, demolition of the non- historic addition and carport, setback variances and the Residential Design Standards for the new addition. A 221 squaze foot FAR Bonus was granted for the new addition. HPC continued the application on December 12, 2007 due to a public noticing error and for the applicant to restudy the scale of the fenestration, landscape plan, and simplify the two story porch. Staff finds that the Design Guidelines are met and recommends HPC approve the application with conditions. APPLICANT: MDI, LLC, 109 ABC, Aspen, CO 91612, represented by Scott Bartleet of Flux Design Studio, P.O. Box 2611, Basalt, CO 81621. PARCEL ID: 2737-074-10-001. ADDRESS: 980 Gibson Avenue, Unit #1, Alpine Acres Subdivision, Lot #1, City of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6 is the underlying zone, and there are zoning restriction in the Alpine Acres Subdivision Agreement. 1 P6 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 tl:e 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 wiU 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: 1. Why is the property significant? The property represents a late Victorian era residence. 2. What are the key features of the property? The structure has the characteristics of typical mining era structures- size, simple plan, front gable/ porch relationship. 3. What is the character of the context? How sensitive is the context to changes? A historic cabin is located to the west. The neighborhood has changed dramatically with new residential development. Historic miner's cabins aze randomly scattered throughout the Smuggler neighborhood, the majority of which have additions and alterations. 4. How would the proposed work affect the property's integrity assessment score? The proposed work will remove existing additions that do not conform with the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and proposes to add a front porch and an addition that will meet the Guidelines. This work will positively affect the integrity assessment score. The house is not in its original location, so moving it on the site will not have an adverse impact. 5. What is the potential for cumulative alterations that may affect the integrity of the property? The proposal before HPC will not leave any unbuilt development rights for 980 Gibson. The Alpine Acres Subdivision has a maximum FAR cap per dwelling unit of 2,486 square feet, which is the amount of development before HPC. ..w .~~,~. 2 P7 Desitin 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. Chanties from Conceptual The applicant proposes a different roof form for the gaaage structure than that approved during Conceptual Review. The roof form proposed in this application breaks up the side shed roof (southwest corner of the project) and adds a second floor balcony. Staff finds that the changes to the gaaage form push the mass away from the historic resource, which improves the overall project. The footprint of the garage does not change from that approved at Conceptual Review. Staff is in support of the roof form alteration. There have not been any changes to the mass and scale since the December 12`h meeting. Final Review Landscape Plan: The applicant proposes a few new trees for the property. The species is not identified in the packet and will require HPC monitor and Parks Department approval before planting. The applicant proposes a lazge paved courtyard to the east of the historic home and a simple walkway to the front door. The material for the patio and walkway is not identified and can be approved by Staff and monitor. Overall, the landscape seems simple and consistent with the Ilec;on ('.sidelines indicated below: 1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a rehabilitation project. ^ This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature and ending in the "private" spaces beyond. ^ Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree. ^ Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the buIlding style. Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles. 1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic' structures. ^ The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod, and not covered with paving, for example. During the December 12~h meeting, HPC suggested stepping the retaining wall located in the eastern portion of the property to soften its appearance. The applicant incorporated this idea into the landscape design and proposes two retaining walls, each 18" tall and 18" apart, with plantings to soften the steep grade change. Staff finds that the terrace-style of the two walls with plantings is appropriate. 3 P8 The applicant proposes off-street parking for the front of the site accessed off of Gibson Avenue. The project requires two pazking spaces, which are provided in the two caz garage accessed off of Matchless Drive. Engineering Department policy allows only one curb cut per property; therefore, Staff recommends that the off-street pazking be removed. Li htin :Staff finds that the lighting fixtures proposed for the historic residence and new addlrion are simple and meet 14.6 Exterior lights should used traditionally. t4.o oeiow: in character and similar in ^ The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. approved by the HPC. ^ All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence intensity to that Exterior lighting must be Fenestration: Addition: The applicant proposes a variety of window shapes and glazing for the new addition, and successfully reduced the scale of the fenestration since the December 12`h meeting to create a stronger relationship between new and old construction. The applicant proposes a few lightwells. Staff added a condition of approval that the lightwells be covered with a grate to minimize visual impacts. Staff finds that these changes aze consistent with the Design Guidelines below: 3.3 Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a facade. ^ Significantly increasing the amount of glass on acharacter-defining facade will negatively affect the integrity of a structure. 11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. ^ These include windows, doors and porches. ^ Overall, details should be modest in character. Historic Home: The historic windows in the historic home shall be restored where possible. The applicant removed the windows located in the gable ends of the historic home and proposes to maintain the existing double doors on the east elevation of the historic home, which open onto the proposed patio. Maintaining the existing doors in the historic home does not contribute to the rehabilitation of the historic home; however it does make the overall project function more efficiently and the applicant does not propose to enlazge the existing opening. The possibility of discovering evidence pertaining to the original location and size of the window in the framing is probably futile, since the doors already cut away a lazge portion of the wall. Staff finds that leaving the doors in place is a better solution than guessing at the size and style of the original windows. Materials: Addition: The applicant proposes primarily wood siding for the addition with a stone chimney. The flat roof connector piece behind the historic home is proposed to have colored stucco. A 4 P9 corrugated metal roof (rusted) is proposed for the new addition and wood shingles are proposed for historic home. The roof material of the new addition is clearly visible behind the historic home. Staff is concerned that the style of the corrugated metal is not appropriate in relation to the wood shingle dimensions and the Guidelines below are not entirely met: 11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale. ^ Materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site are encouraged. ^ Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. ^ The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. Historic Home: The historic homes shall be restored using wood shingles on the roof and wood siding on the exterior. Architectural Details: Addition: The applicant has simplified the two story porch element to create a relationship with the simple Victorian porch on the historic home, which is consistent with the Design Guidelines. 11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. ^ These include windows, doors and porches. ^ Overall, details should be modest in character. Historic Home: The applicant proposes a flue style chimney for the historic home. Staff has been unable to locate historic photographs of this residence, and based on the assumption that the house had some form of heating, finds that the flue is minimally intrusive and appropriate. DECISION MAHING 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. 5 P10 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the HPC approve Major Development (Final) for the property located at 980 Gibson Avenue, Unit #1, Alpine Acres Subdivision, Lot #1, City of Aspen, Colorado, with the following conditions: 1. The off-street pazking shall be removed from Gibson Avenue. 2. The paving material proposed for the walkway and patios shall receive Staff and monitor approval before purchase and installation. 3. Plant species shall receive approval from Staff and monitor prior to installation. 4. The proposed lightwells shall be covered with a grate to minimize visual impacts. 5. The property owner shall amend and rerecord the condominium plat (Plat Book 6 Page 11) to reflect the setbacks granted by HPC Resolution # 28 Series of 2007 prior to the issuance of building permit. 6. 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. 7. The applicant shall document, using photographs and drawings, all historic elements prior to restoration and relocation of the building. 8. The applicant shall immediately contact Staff if evidence of historic window size, placement or other historic elements aze discovered during construction. 9. A construction plan with detailed phases for the development of this lot shall be submitted with the building permit application for approval by HPC Staff. The historic home shall be secured, stabilized and protected during construction, and rehabilitation of the historic home shall be in the primary phase of development. ,.~ 10. A structural report demonstrating that the building can be moved and/or information .~,„rr 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 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. 11. 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. 12. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. 13. 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. 14. The conditions of approval, both Conceptual and Final HPC Resolutions, are required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 15. 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. 16. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. 4.m/ 6 P11 17. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute asite-specific development plan '~ - vested for a period of three (3) yeazs 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 boundazies 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: 980 Gibson Avenue. 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 aze 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.) Minutes from December 12, 2007 HPC meeting C.) Application 7 P12 "Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for 980 Gibson Avenue, Final Review' 3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. ^ Enclosing a historic window opening in a key character-defining facade is inappropriate, as is adding a new window opening. This is especially important on primary facades where the historic ratio of solid-to-void is acharacter-defining feature. ^ Greater flexibility in installing new windows maybe considered on rear walls. ^ Do not reduce an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or door or increase it to receive a larger window on primary facades. 5.4 The use of a porch on a residential building in asingle-family context is strongly encouraged. ^ This also applies to large, multifamily structures. There should be at least one primary entrance and should be identified with a porch or entry element. 5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form and detail. ^ Use materials that appear similar to the original. ^ While matching original materials is preferred, when detailed correctly and painted appropriately, alternative materials maybe considered. ^ Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be considered that is similar in chazacter to those found on comparable buildings. Keep the style and Form simple. Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are not known to have been used on the house or others like it. ^ When constructing a new porch, its depth should be in scale with the building. ^ The scale of porch columns also should be similar to that of the trimwork. ^ The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appear similar to those used historically as well. 8.4 A garage door should be compatible with the character of the historic structure. ^ A wood-clad hinged door is preferred on a historic structure. ^ If an overhead door is used, the materials should match that of the secondary structure. ^ If the existing doors are hinged, they can be adapted with an automatic opener. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. ^ The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. 11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale. ^ Materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site are encouraged. ^ Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged. 11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. ^ These include windows, doors and porches. ^ Overall, details should be modest in character. 11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. ^ This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. ^ Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are especially discouraged on historic sites. 14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting. ^ Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not be ir-, permitted. `~++""` P13 ^ Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures. ..Nr ^ Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night. ^ Do not wash an entire building facade in light. ^ Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls of buildings. ^ Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area. 14.8 Minimize the visual impact of light spill from a building. ^ Prevent glare onto adjacent properties by using shielded and focused light sources that direct light onto the ground. The use of downlights, with the bulb fully enclosed within the shade, or step lights which direct light only on to walkways, is strongly encouraged. ^ Lighting shall be carefully located so as not to shine into residential living space, on or off the property or into public rights-of-way. P14 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) ,,,.,,~ APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) FOR THE , ,, PROPERTY LOCATED AT 980 GIBBON AVENUE, UNIT 1, LOT 1, ALPINE ACRES SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2008 PARCEL ID: 2737-074-10-001.. WHEREAS, the applicant, MDI, LLC, 109 ABC, Aspen CO 81612, represented by Scott Bartleet of Flux Design Studio, P.O. Box 2611, Basalt, CO 81621 has requested Major Development (Final) for the property located at 980 Gibson Avenue, Unit #1, Alpine Acres Subdivision, Lot #1, City of Aspen, Colorado and, WHEREAS, 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, enlazged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Final Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.4.of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, Saza Adams, in her staff report dated January 9, 2008 performed an analysis of the application based on the standazds, and recommended that the project be approved with conditions; and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 9, 2008, the Historic Preservation Commission approved Resolution No. ,Series of 2008, a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition to the historic home, Dimensional Variances, a 22l squaze foot FAR Bonus, Relocation and Demolition located on the property at 980 Gibson Avenue, Unit #1, Alpine Acres Subdivision, Lot #1, City of Aspen, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on January 9, 2008 the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and other applicable sections of the Municipal Code 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) with the following conditions: 1. The off-street parking shall be removed from Gibson Avenue. 2. The paving material proposed for the walkway and patios shall receive Staff and monitor approval before purchase and installation. 3. Plant species shall receive approval from Staff and monitor prior to installation. 4. The proposed lightwells shall be covered with a grate to minimize visual impacts. 5. The property owner shall amend and rerecord the condominium plat (Plat Book 6 Page 11) to reflect the setbacks granted by HPC Resolution # 28 Series of 2007 prior to the issuance of building permit. 6. 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. 7. The applicant shall document, using photographs and drawings, all historic elements prior to restoration and relocation of the building. 8. The applicant shall immediately contact Staff if evidence of historic window size, placement or other historic elements are discovered during construction. 9. A construction plan with detailed phases for the development of this lot shall be submitted with the building permit. application for approval by HPC Staff. The historic home shall be secured, stabilized and protected during construction, and rehabilitation of the historic home shall be in the primary phase of development. 10. 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 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. 11. 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. 12. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. 13. 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. 14. The conditions of approval, both Conceptual and Final HPC Resolutions, aze required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 15. 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. 16. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. 17. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute asite-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) yeazs from the date of issuance of a development order. P15 P16 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 genera] 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: 980 Gibson Avenue. 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 9th day of January 2008. [signatures on following page] .~+„ P17 Approved as to Form: James R. True, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Michael Hoffman, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P 18 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ~ ~ MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2007 Jay said t~patina is good on the copper banding. Jay pointed out that you .~ would see t e bulb and that is a concern on the lighting. Sarah said the arrel over the door is minimal. The lig mg should be used as a way to de-e phasize the blank walls and right n the way that it is designed it empha 'zes the wall. Brian also agreed tha he copper barrel roof a s to the design because it is a different element. It cedes more than a le and is minimized. Kelly said it would be a stabling seam-6pper that would turn reddish. Kelly also said that the lights ould ng from the wood trim board. Kelly Vance said there are light so lower down on the fagade and it would be good if the board clarified at ey felt about those lights. They are replacing the tube looking li is an e design is a can light that lights up and down. Alison suggested that e stone be lighte ut don't up-light the entire wall. The center section c ld have the up and d n lights. Jay suggested t the entire lighting be restudi d. MOTION: ichael made the motion that the cop band and copper barrel roo over the door and acceptable. The prop ed lighting needs to be restudie Michael made the motion to continue 311 Main until January 9`"' mot n second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. 980 Gibson -Final -Public Hearing Alison and Jay stepped down. Sara indicated that HPC granted the relocation of the historic cabin, demolition of anon-historic addition and car port, setback variances and residential design standards for the new addition and a 221 square foot FAR bonus for the new design and the rehabilitation. This properly is maxed out on their FAR. There were a few changes from conceptual to final. Basically there is a different roof form over the garage structure. Overall staff is in support of the change because it moves the mass away from the historic ~, cabin and breaks up the secondary piece. To point out, the footprint has not 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION . P19 MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2007 changed from conceptual so it is just the massing on the second floor, roof form. Landscape plan: Sara said there is no landscape plan proposed at this time. There is a stone retaining wall on the east of the property that is required due to grading issues. Staff recommends that the overall site plan be natural and soft. Staff is also recommending continuation of the project. Fenestration: Sara said the applicant is proposing a variety of window shapes and gazing for the new addition. We think they are very contemporary in nature and maybe there could be more of a relationship with the historic resource. Materials: Sara pointed out that the applicant is rehabilitating the historic cabin which is commendable. They are proposing wood siding for both the cabin and the new addition which is appropriate. For the new addition they are proposing a corrugated metal roof, rusted and for the historic resource they are proposing wood shingles. Staff is a little concerned about reading the two dimensions of the small wood shingles and the corrugated rusty metal roof and we are not sure that is the best choice for a roof material. We feel the roof material is in conflict with guideline 11.8. and 10.11. Architectural details. On the historic home the applicant is proposing a chimney in the middle of the historic home. Staff finds that inappropriate as they were awarded a bonus for rehabilitation. Unless there was a chimney in that location they should not be placing one there. We are also concerned with the proposed double doors on the east elevation of the home. Basically they are cutting into a wall which confuses what the historic building looked like. Addition: Staff is somewhat concerned about the complexity of the double porch element. The historic home's porch is very simple and the double porch is a little distracting. Jim True, Special Counsel pointed out that there is a flaw in the public noticing. The list from conceptual is different than the list obtained from the GIS department for final. If the agenda item is going to be continued we can 10 P20 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2007 fix it with a new notice for the continued hearing. Jim suggested that Alison and Jay step down at this point. Scott Bartleet said he got the list from the GIS department. Jim said there was an error in the list when it was given to Scott. Michael said it is likely that the agenda item will be continued and at that time we can have the applicant re-notice. Scott Bartleet of Flux Design Studio, Basalt. Scott said there is a grade change about four feet where the landscape wall exists. The fenestration i.e. windows have been designed for function not style. We would be reluctant to change the windows for the sake of decorations and loose their function. They are a utilitarian design. The roof materials -the corrugated metal is of a human scale as opposed to a standing seam and the texture is a lot smaller. We are open to discuss a more appropriate material. We would be reluctant to use a wood shingle because of maintenance issues. Architectural details: Scott said the historic structure obviously was heated somehow but we have no evidence of what it was. We are suggesting that we revise the chimney element so that we only have a small flue that pops out at the ridge instead of the chimney. Double doors on the cottage exist so we would like to keep -them. We have no evidence that they were not there originally. The window above the doors we feel was added and it will be removed. Michael pointed out that the list provided was not correct so this meeting will be a work session. Scott said he feels the porch on the addition is as simple as it gets. We feel the roofing material is appropriate for Aspen. We would be glad to revise the chimney so that there is a minimal impact on the roof line. Ann suggested that in the future landscape plans be submitted at conceptual. .W.r Michael pointed out that it is clear that this new HPC board has a real interest in seeing the landscape as part of the submittal. ,,~, 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION P21 MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2007 Chairperson, Michael Hoffinan identified the issues. Roof form over the garage Retaining wall Landscape plan New architecture fenestration on the windows and porch Roof materials on the new structure Chimney Double doors on the historic structure Double porch on the addition Roof form over the garage. Sara said staff is in support of the change presented. Retaining wall. Brian suggested that the retaining wall that is four feet tall and 12 feet long be stepped down and used for plantings. Brian also suggested that the height of the wall be minimized. Scott said that would be better from a planting perspective. Sarah asked that the architect show the walkway to the house in the site plan for the next meeting. New architecture on the windows and also the two story porch deck element. Sarah said the fenestration is appropriate because it off-sets the cabin. Sarah also agreed that she is troubled about the craftsman style of the porch with all the exposed members. Scott said they would be glad to look at the front porch to see what could be changed. Brian said he is not concerned with the style of the porch addition but the scale is an issue. The windows are very large compared to the historic resource. Maybe Scott can restudy the windows to bring down the scale somewhat. Scott said the reason for the large windows is to get light into the living space below. Scott said it might be a matter of looking at window mullions to break down the scale. Michael recused himself. 12 P22 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2007 Sarah said the other issues are the chimney, double doors on the historic ,,,., structure and the roof materials. ,.- Brian said the changes the architect is presenting for the chimney are appropriate. The double doors since they are existing should be kept especially for a functionality point. With the roof Brian has no problem with the choice of material. Sarah agreed with Brian. MOTION: Sarah moved to continue the final development and public hearing for 980 Gibson until January 9`"; second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk ~,.~ .., 13 P23 ,„.- Project Address +~ Applicants Info Parcel ID # 980 Gibson Avenue, Unit 1 MR1 LLC 109 ABC Aspen, CO, 8161 1 ph: 948 0007 2737-074-10-001 SUBMISSION FOR FINAL APPROVAL: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE 2~d November 2007 1.0 Existing Building + History The Architectural Inventory Forms (Colorado Historical Society: Resource # 5PT.219) indicate that the original structure was built in the 1880's and is representative of Aspen's silver mining era character. These documents further indicate that significant alterations have adversely impacted the historic character of the original structure. The original cottage was a side gable house with a porch that ran the full width of the building. We understand the building was relocated to the current site and is currently oriented with its ridgeline.perpendicular to the street. Obviously, this is not the ideal orientation as traditionally. the porch and the ridgeline of this type of building would have run parallel to the street. Additions have significantly confused the historic character of the existing building to such an extent that it is difficult to visually identify what is original vs. what has been added. A garage added to the west side of the building has effectively demolished the porch and joins two historic structures. The streetscape is not traditional in the sense of maintaining a rectilinear row of workers cottages -this particular location in East Aspen consists of curved streets and properties that lack consistent setbacks and consistent building spacing/relationships. 2.0 Context The streetscape is not traditional in the sense of maintaining a rectilinear row of residential structures -this particular location in East Aspen consists of curved streets and properties that lack consistent setbacks and consistent building spacing/relationships. The adjacent building (990 Gibson Ave.) consists of a historic Miners cottage with an L- type plan. This building is heavily obscured from the street by evergreen trees. A ~_ r,~.. ~. ^.9~-.. .9.i~ ~~ ~~~ E~ ~ . ., v~~~~'''~~~ yy'. P24 2.0 Proposed Restoration It is our intention to reinstate and restore the original workers cottage by addressing the ``~' following in accordance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Guidelines: 1. Removing all additions to reveal the original workers cottage structure; 2. Rotating the resultant historic structure so that the building both addresses Gibson Avenue and becomes the primary entrance identifable from the street. 3. Re-siting the cottage so that it maintains a more traditional spacing from the other existing historic building (Unit 2 990 Gibson Avenue) 4. Reinstate the porch as the primary character defining entry feature of the front fagade. 5. Reinstate the original historic external building materials, 6. Reinstate and closely match the original window and door arrangements, treatments and detail. 7. Reinstate any significant period architectural features 8. Reinstate the historical roof form, overhangs and roof materials. 3.0 Proposed Redevelopment Plan The Owners of the property are currently pursuing a quiet deed title of the adjacent ROW (Matchless Way) concurrently with dissolving the existing condominium. As previously stated; it is the owner's intention to restore the workers cottage as the primdry structure ori'the site (closest to the street) and'add a new secondary structure behind this primary form, linked via a single story 'connector'. Overall the design of the additions will be in keeping with the design character of the original cottage, but at the same time will be clearly distinguishable as a product of its time so that the passer-by will be able to clearly read the evolution of the development of the site: The forms of the additions will be simple rectilinear forms with gable ended roof forms The original exterior materials will be reinstated on the historic cottage and will consist of horizontal pained wood siding, and wood shakes for the roof. The new additions will be clad in horizontal stained wood siding, with corrugated rusty metal roofs. We have illustrated materials on the attached external material palette sheet. '^'1 ~a. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 808 Cemetery Lane, Red Butte Cemetery- Major Development (Conceptual) and On-Site Relocation, Public Hearing DATE: January 9, 2008 SUMMARY: Red Butte Cemetery is one of three cemeteries established in the 19`h century and located within the City of Aspen. Both Red Butte and Aspen Grove are in active use and privately owned and maintained. Ute Cemetery, Aspen's first, is owned by the City and has not had burials since approximately the ] 930's. HPC is asked to consider the Red Butte Cemetery Association's proposal to construct a new maintenance shop, cazetaker's unit and other improvements for grounds-keeping purposes, to rehab an existing historic cabin for visitor information, and to relocate and repair a historic outhouse structure. Staff is sympathetic to the high level of maintenance required to care for the collection of gravemazkers, historic structures and landscape features on this site. It appeazs that the Association has very inadequate operational facilities at this time. Aside from the infrastructure needs, the costs to properly preserve this site aze likely very high. As a compazison, to repair and reset approximately 75 mazkers at Ute Cemetery in 2005 was $100,000 and those markers are, for the most part, smaller and less decorative than what exists at Red Butte. The application submitted for this project indicates that there aze currently 2,800 graves and over two hundred large cottonwoods trees to be Gazed for. The cemetery serves a critical community need and appeazs to be large enough to continue to be active long into the future thanks to the efforts of the non-profit association and the many volunteers who've served on it's boazd over the yeazs. They deserve community support for their mission and stewardship responsibilities. Staff does have concerns with the impacts of the project currently proposed. We can see real advantages to the concept of an on-site caretaker, however the siting and contemporary design of the unit, and the effects of providing adequate vehiculaz circulation may be detrimental to the character of this historic site. At a previous worksession, HPC had encouraged breaking the new building functions apart into smaller, separate buildings. Staff recommends HPC discuss the project and continue review with recommendations for better compliance with the guidelines. P25 1 P26 APPLICANT: Red Butte Cemetery Association, represented by Alan Richman Planning Services and Graeme Means, Architect. PARCEL ID: 2735-122-00-851. ADDRESS: 808 Cemetery Lane, a parcel of land located in Sections 1 and 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: P, Park. 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 tl:e 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. sue, 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: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A." The proposed project is unique in the sense that the primary significance of the site is as a historic landscape. Only minor accessory buildings of the period are present. The historic preservation guidelines give somewhat limited direction in terms of how the proposed new structure should relate to the context. As described in the application, this site was ranch lands, assembled to form a cemetery at the end of the 19`h century. The property is lazge (almost 17 acres). Annexed into the City of Aspen in 1968, it is now bordered by the subdivisions of the Cemetery Lane neighborhood. The existing infrastructure for the cemetery is limited to some visitor information available at the southern end of the site, and a temporary structure and maintenance yard towazds the north. ~+*. ,,. 2 P27 There aze not proper utilities available to support maintenance needs, and neighbors have indicated that the result is unsightly. The Association is attempting to improve this situation. The property is zoned "Park," which does allow for accessory/maintenance structures. At a later date, the applicant will pursue a rezoning to "Conservation," which specifically lists cemetery as an allowed use (the Park district does not) and also permits a residential dwelling. Staff sees benefit in the possibility of the applicant selling the vast majority of their development rights in the form of historic landmazk Transferable Development Rights to build an endowment for future restoration needs. The rezoning/land use issues do not fall within HPC's purview, so the board should focus on how well the site planning and architectural design complies with the historic preservation guidelines. HPC held a worksession with the Cemetery Association some months ago. At the time, the location of the new structure was discussed. It was acknowledged that the building envelope is fairly isolated from the historic features of the property, and also from the neighbors. While this is advantageous in some ways, staff believes that the new building will be prominent on the site and may seem rather out of context in terms of its size, contemporary design, and exposure (limited surrounding vegetation.) To some extent, the building would be less visually intrusive if placed towazds the northwest end of the site, amongst a backdrop of similaz structures. In lieu of this, HPC had made suggestions that the building be broken up into more than one piece. Staff finds that it should draw more references, in terms of roof forms and materials, from the Victorian/turn of the century period of significance that characterizes this site. Generally, HPC encourages new structures to be very simple in design and not replications of historic styles. It might be noted that in many historic cemeteries, any structures that exist aze sometimes highly ornate, architectural "folly's." On this site though, the only reference point is the modest, clapboazd sided frame cabin. Staff recommends that a different location be considered for the new structure. Otherwise, the living unit and garage structures should be detached from each other. Ideally, perhaps the office functions could all be accommodated within the historic cabin, reducing the size of the new construction. The parking azeas should be screened as much as possible. The guidelines in question are: 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings ou the parcel. ^ Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that aze similaz in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 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 in the block. ^ Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms. ^ Flat roofs should be used only in azeas where it is appropriate to the context. ^ On a residential structure, eave depths should be similaz to those seen traditionally in the context. ^ Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames. P28 14.23Parking areas should not be visually obtrusive. ^Lazge parking azeas should be screened from view from the street. ^ Divide lazge parking lots with planting areas. (Lazge pazking azeas are those with more than five cars.) ^ Consider using a fence, hedge or other appropriate landscape feature. ^ Automobile headlight illumination from parking azeas should be screened from adjacent lots and the street. The applicant proposes restoration work on the historic cabin and shed. A metal "lean-to," which does not appear to be particularly tied into the cabin is to be pulled away to expose the original south elevation. Staff supports this aspect of the application. RELOCATION The following standards apply for relocating a historic property as per Section 26.415.090.0 of the Municipal Code: C. Standards for the Relocation of Designated Properties Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: /~ 1. It is considered anon-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will wr+ not affect the chazacter of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall chazacter of the historic district or pazcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hazdship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally for approval to relocate all of the followine 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 4 P29 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 proposal is to move a historic outhouse only about a foot northwazd from it's current location, and to rotate the building. Staff does support the plan to install a sound foundation under the building ,and to undertake minor repair. However, moving'and rotating the building aze not cleazly necessary and aze not supported by staff or in compliance with the following guidelines. We recommend that the historic location be maintained: 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 landmazk 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 azchitectural details and materials. ^ Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. ^ The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. ^ In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. ^ It should face the same direction and have a relatively similaz setback. ^ It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. 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 the application be continued for restudy of the siting and design of the proposed new structure. Exhibits: A. Relevant HPC Design Guidelines B. Application 5 P30 "Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for Red Butte Cemetery, Conceptual Review" ~ ~~ 1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. ^ Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department. o If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species of a lazge enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project. 1.12 Preserve and maintain historically significant planting designs. ^ Retaining historic planting beds, landscape features and walkways is encouraged. 1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the site. ^ Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact of mature growth. ^ Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent. ^ Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials. 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 landmazk 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 azchitectural details and materials. .~-, ^ Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a ~,..,,, new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. ^ The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. o In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the boundaries of its historic parcel. ^ If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the lots. Both lots shall remain landmarked properties. 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 reaz of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. 9.5 Anew foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. o On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. ^ Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. 6 P31 ^ Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate. ^ Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. 10.2 Amore recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. 11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street. ^ The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the site. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. ^ The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry. ^ A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. ^ In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendiculaz 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. ^ Subdivide lazger 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. ^ The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure. ^ The front should include aone-story element, such as a porch. 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 in the block. ^ Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms. o Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. ^ On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context. ^ Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames. 11.lOThe imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. ^ This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. ^ Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are especially discouraged on historic sites. 14.23Parking areas should not be visually obtrusive. ^ Lazge parking areas should be screened from view from the street. o Divide large parking lots with planting azeas. (Large pazking areas are those with more than five cazs.) ^ Consider using a fence, hedge or other appropriate landscape feature. ^Automobile headlight illumination from pazking azeas should be screened from adjacent lots and the street. 7 P32 .~..