Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20150804 AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING August 04, 2015 4:30 PM Sister Cities Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISIT II. ROLL CALL III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public IV. MINUTES A. July 21, 2015 Draft Minutes V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 308 S. Hunter St - Final Commercial Design Review VII. OTHER BUSINESS VIII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 16 Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legaJ notice (affi d avit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clari fications of ap plicant 7) Public comments 8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met. Revised April 2, 2014 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 21, 2015 1 Ryan Walterscheid, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Jasmine Tygre, Keith Goode, Jason Elliot, Spencer McNight and Brian McNellis. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan and Justin Barker. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan announced the commission’s newest appointed member, Spencer McNight, who will serve as the second alternate. Clerk’s note: As of July 13 th , Jason Elliott has assumed a regular position on the commission and Jessie Morris has assumed the first alternate position on the commission. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES Ms. Tygre moved to approve the minutes for July 7th , seconded by Mr. Goode. All in favor, motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no conflicts expressed. 710 & 720 E Durant Ave (Durant Mall) – Commercial Design Review – Continued Public Hearing from July 7th Mr. Walterscheid opened the continued public hearing from July 7 th . Ms. Quinn stated notice had been provided at the earlier hearing. Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to the Staff. Mr. Barker, Community Development Planner Technician, opened with a review of the application. He noted the initial hearing was on June 16 th and was continued to July 7 th and again to today’s meeting. The applicant presented two design options at the June 16 th meeting. The commissioners were somewhat divided on their opinions of the two options. Some expressed concern regarding the proposed additional parapets for option one and how they increase the perceived height and massing of the building. Other commissioners were comfortable with the design as proposed with option one. The applicant requested a continuance to work with Staff to come up with an option that was a blend of the two options. P1 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 21, 2015 2 The applicant submitted a revised design on June 30th which was most similar to the previous option one with a few minor changes. 1. The west building no longer has the proposed additional parapets. 2. A portion of the parapet on the east building is set back further from street as originally proposed. Mr. Barker also pointed out the proposal in the agenda packet included a tower element on the east building originally had a parapet on it which would have required a variance if approved. The applicant has since modified the proposed design to eliminate the parapet. Mr. Barker provided new drawings demonstrating this as provided by the applicant. The new drawings are exhibit G. Staff is supportive of the design as presented and recommends approval as stated in the draft resolution included in the agenda packet on p. 14 with one modification eliminating condition two under section one. He stated condition two it is no longer necessary. Mr. Barker also noted the drawings provided as an exhibit in the resolution will also be replaced to eliminate the parapets around the tower. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions of Staff. Mr. Barker identified the drawings to be replaced as requested by Ms. Tygre. Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Rob Sinclair, RGS Architecture, represents the applicant, the Durant Mall Condominium Association. Mr. Sinclair provided summarized the completed project on the foundation of the building, the building’s type of construction and their actions since the previous hearing to provide an updated option. The skin of the building deteriorated over the past 40 years. They are looking at using a steel superstructure and a combination of metal and composite siding. He provided images of the current design showing the existing parapets on the east building. The height will be reduced from 32 ft 4 in to 32 ft and closed in on the east-west direction. The height of the parapet on the west building will be limited to the existing spring point of the pitched roof. As part of this application, they have also agreed to enhance all the public space including new restaurant and public seating, new bike racks, new planters and public art to provide a more inviting environment. They will also clean up along the alley as part of this project as well. He showed slides showing the building before and after the project. He brought examples of the siding material for the commission to view if they wish. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions of the applicant. There were none. P2 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 21, 2015 3 Mr. Walterscheid asked for public comment. There were none so the public comment portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Walterscheid opened for discussion with the commissioners. Mr. McNight asked Staff about their concerns regarding the materials mentioned in the initial meeting. Mr. Barker stated Staff wanted to ensure the commission had an opportunity to evaluate samples of the materials themselves. Ms. Tygre thanked the applicant for bringing in the samples, but she stated she has no comment on the durability or color of the materials. Mr. McNellis appreciates the applicant’s efforts to improve the public area next the City Market parking lot, but he is not sure it will make it more inviting. He feels the environment should be shielded more from the parking lot. Ms. Tygre moved to approve Resolution 14, Series 2015 with a modification to Section One to remove condition number two and renumbering condition number three to number two. The motion was seconded by Mr. Goode. Mr. Walterscheid asked for a roll call: Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Mr. Elliot, yes; Mr. McNight, yes, Mr. Walterscheid, yes. The motion passed with a six to zero (6-0) vote. Mr. Walterscheid then closed the public hearing. 1310 Red Butte Drive – Residential Design Standards Variance –Public Hearing Mr. Walterscheid asked if public notice had been provided. Ms. Quinn replied she has reviewed both affidavits of public notice and found it has been adequately provided. Mr. Walterscheid then opened the public hearing. Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to the Staff. Ms. Phelan, Deputy Planning Director, reviewed the application. The property is being developed with a new single family home. The applicants are requesting a residential design standard variance from what is referred to as the ‘no window zone’. The structure on the property is a new single family home. The applicant is requesting a portion of the home which is single story be allowed to have glass windows in the nine to twelve ft above the finished floor on the street facing façade. She then displayed a slide (p 63 of the agenda packet) depicting the area under review. She added the adopted residential design standards (RDS) require certain building elements to be part of the new structure to ensure homes contribute to the street scape and provide a residential scale and character P3 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 21, 2015 4 for a neighborhood. Examples include front doors facing the street, minimizing the presence of garages on the street facing facades. On street facing facades, windows are not supposed to span thru an area where a second story typically exists. This is typically at a height between nine and twelve ft above the first floor. The applicant is requesting to have windows up to 13 ft in height on the taller end of the roof that is between 14 and 15.5 ft. The windows are located on a single story wing of the new home. The windows go into the nine and twelve ft area previously mentioned. A variance may be granted on one of two criteria as described on p 60 of the agenda packet. Staff does not feel the lot has unusual constraints and is recommending a “soft” denial. She noted other administrative variances have been granted for similar types of requests, but typically there is a lower floor to ceiling plate height. Staff did not feel Staff did not feel they should approve the application administratively because of the higher roof height so that is why they suggested it be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. She stated they are in the process of updating the RDS to quantify some of the standards a bit better. She added if the commission feels this is an appropriate design with acceptable glass heights and it is not a two story structure, then she suggested they find it meets the intent of the standard and is appropriate for the neighborhood. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions of Staff. There were no questions. Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Dylan Johns and Mr. Tim Andrulaitis, Zone 4 Architects, are representing the applicant. Mr. Johns feels there are two parts to their request. One being the intent of the code and the other being the practicalities of designing a structure. He displayed an elevation of the building and described it clearly having elements of a two story building that does not exceed 25 ft in height and has no gable. His understanding of the intent of the code is to restrict having a double volume of glass on the front façade of a residence. He stated the element of the building where the glass would be located is not two story and the presentation of the element facing the street is one story. He then showed a plat of the property (p 92 of the agenda packet) and described the location of the building elements in relation to the street. Mr. Johns added this will be a full time residence for the applicant. Mr. Johns stated in regards to creating in expression on the corner of the home they have designed a sloping roof with a 1/12 pitch. The peak of the window is approximately 13 ft. Mr. Johns stated bringing the glass down does not really help the architecture and does not create a better intent of the standard. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions of the applicant. P4 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 21, 2015 5 Mr. Goode asked for them to confirm how far the structure is from the road. Mr. Johns stated is approximately 100 ft from the street. Mr. Andrulaitis added there is six ft fence in front of the structure which reduces the amount of glass on the façade visible from the street. Mr. Walterscheid noted there were not members from the public to comment. Mr. Walterscheid opened for discussion with the commissioners. Ms. Tygre does not feel it is appropriate for the commission to discuss the intent behind the RDS. People will have different memories on why they were written and the way they were written. She does not see a clear way to look at either criteria and find either one to be appropriate. She feels very strongly about excess glass and may lead to light problems. She does not feel it is a design solution that she would like to see and cannot support the request for a variance. Mr. Goode stated he would be fine with the variance. Mr. McNellis stated he would also support the variance and feels the design is appropriate considering the context of the neighborhood. Mr. McNight does not see an issue with the variance but understands Ms. Tygre’s position. Mr. Walterscheid stated his understanding of the RDS is to enforce the pedestrian scale of structures. Because this is clearly a single story element and the context of the architecture he is in favor of granting the variance. He feels there are problems when applying contemporary architecture to the RDS. Mr. Goode motioned to approve Resolution 15, Series 2015 as provided in the meeting agenda packet granting a residential design variance. The motion was seconded by Mr. McNellis. Mr. Walterscheid asked for a roll call: Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Mr. Elliot, yes; Mr. McNight, yes; Ms. Tygre, no; Mr. Walterscheid, yes. The motion passed with a five to one (5-1) vote. Mr. Walterscheid then closed the public hearing. Mr. Walterscheid then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager P5 IV.A. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planning Technician THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director MEETING DATE: August 4, 2015 RE: 308 S. Hunter St. – Final Commercial Design Review APPLICANT /OWNER: RJJ Aspen – 2769 S. Lakeridge Dr. Boulder, CO 80302 REPRESENTATIVE: Carolyn Cipperly, Kim Raymond Architects - 802 E. Cooper Ave., Suite 4, Aspen CO 81611 LOCATION: 308 S. Hunter St., Aspen CO 81611 CURRENT ZONING & USE This property is located in the Commercial (C-1) zone district. The lot is used commercially. PROPOSED LAND USE: The lot will continue to be used for commercial businesses. SUMMARY: The Applicant is proposing changes to the materials found on the exterior street-facing façade of the building which includes replacing the existing wood siding and trim with large-format dark-colored ceramic tile and steel C-channel trim. The The Applicant is also proposing to paint the recessed areas of the building a warm white to provide contrast and depth to the façade. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning & Zoning Commission approve this request, finding the proposed materials to be durable and of high quality, to maintain a human scale, to be similar to materials found throughout the surrounding area, and to provide interest and an updated look for the building. Figure A: Image of subject building P6 VI.A. 2 LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission:  Final Commercial Design Review for development involving commercial uses, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412.050, Commercial Review, and pursuant to the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority.) LOCATION AND BACKGROUND: The subject site is a two-story commercial building located in the Commercial (C-1) zone district. Existing businesses on the property include Zane’s Tavern and Little Ollie’s Restaurant at the lower level, and Native Roots at the upper level. The building was constructed in 1977, and was then referred to as Centennial Square. Over the years a number of interior renovations have been made to the units, but the building has always been used for commercial businesses. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant has proposed to remove the existing vertical wood siding and trim found on the street-facing façade of the building and to replace it with large-format dark- colored ceramic tile with steel C-channel trim. The Applicant further proposes to paint the recessed areas of the façade a warm white color, as shown in attached Exhibit A. The proposed ceramic tile and trim materials are similar to those approved in 2014 by the Planning and Zoning Commission at 620 E. Hyman Ave. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff has examined the Applicant’s request against the review criteria for Commercial Design Review approval and the Commercial Character Area of the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines, and notes the following. There is no change to use or designation of interior space associated with this project; the changes concern materials on the external street-facing façade of the building. While more modern, the ceramic tile is most closely related to traditional masonry, which is durable and able to weather Aspen’s climate. The façade update will offer a more contemporary look and will complement the colors and materials found in the immediate neighborhood, as well as throughout the Commercial Character Area. The Applicant plans to contrast the dark ceramic tiles by painting the recessed areas of the building a warm white color. Combined with the new Figure C: Material change approved by P&Z at 620 E. Hyman Ave – current proposed materials are similar Figure B: Location of subject site P7 VI.A. 3 materials, this will provide for greater variation in color than building’s current monochromatic wood paneling. The proposed change to the external building materials does not impact the amount of public amenity space found on-site, nor does it change existing utility, delivery and trash service provisions. The building will continue as to be used for commercial businesses. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the request for Final Commercial Design Review at this location, finding all relevant criteria to be met. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution No. ___, Series 2015, approving Final Commercial Design Review for the project located at 308 S. Hunter St.” ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Materials Plan Exhibit B – Commercial Design Review Criteria Exhibit C – Commercial Design Standards Exhibit D – Commercial Character Area Review Criteria Exhibit E – Application P8 VI.A. 1 RESOLUTION NO. __ (SERIES OF 2015) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING FINAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT BLOCK 100, LOTS A-C, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 308 S. HUNTER ST, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel ID: 273718225002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from RJJ Aspen (Applicant), represented by Carolyn Cipperly of Kim Raymond Architects, Inc., requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission approve Final Commercial Design Review at 308 S. Hunter St; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.412.040 of the Land Use Code, commercial design review approval may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Director recommended approval of the application; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the request for Final Commercial Design Review, as illustrated in Exhibit A, attached. Specifically, the approved design changes include replacing the building’s existing wood siding and wood trim with large-format dark-colored ceramic tile and steel C-channel trim, and painting the building’s upper level recessed areas a warm white color. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. P9 VI.A. 2 Section 3: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 4h day of August, 2015. ______________________________ Ryan Walterscheid, Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________ James R. True, City Attorney ATTEST: _______________________________ Cindy Klob, Records Manager Exhibit A: Materials Plan P10 VI.A. Exhibit A Materials Plan P 1 1 V I . A . P 1 2 V I . A . 1 Exhibit B Commercial Design Review Criteria Commercial Design Review 26.412.050. Review Criteria. An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards. Staff Response: Staff has found the proposed changes in materials to the exterior façade of the 308 S. Hunter St. commercial building to meet the requirements of the Code’s Commercial Design Standards. The proposed material changes have no impact to the on-site public- amenity space associated with this parcel, nor does it affect the existing utility, delivery and trash service provision. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the façade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. Staff Response: This proposal does not involve the conversion of the existing structure to commercial use. The building is currently used commercially. Staff finds this criterion to be not-applicable. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. Staff Response: This property is located within the Commercial Character Area. There are few criteria from the Commercial chapter of the Design Objectives and Guidelines document that apply to this proposed project. Staff has reviewed this application against the relevant criteria, as in Exhibit D, following, and has found this application to be in compliance with these guidelines. Staff finds this criterion to be met P13 VI.A. 2 Exhibit C Commercial Design Standards 26.412.060. Commercial Design Standards. The following design standards, in addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district design objectives and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed -use development: A. Public Amenity Space. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-of-way or private property within commercial areas. On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method or combination of methods of providing the public amenity shall be at the option of the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, according to the procedures herein and according to the following standards: 1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. Staff Response: The proposed change to the building’s exterior materials has no impact on the existing public amenity space, nor has the Applicant proposed any additional public amenity space for the site. Staff finds this criterion to be not-applicable. 2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent rights-of-way are encouraged. Staff Response: The proposed change to the building’s exterior materials has no impact on the existing public amenity space, nor has the Applicant proposed any additions or changes to the public amenity space on the site. Staff finds this criterion to be not- applicable. 3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of-way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. Staff Response: The proposed change to the building’s exterior materials has no impact on the existing public amenity space, nor has the Applicant proposed any additional public amenity space for the site. Staff finds this criterion to be not-applicable. 4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls, sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian environment. P14 VI.A. 3 Staff Response: The proposed change to the building’s exterior materials has no impact on the existing public amenity space, nor has the Applicant proposed any additional public amenity space for the site. Staff finds this criterion to be not-applicable. 5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection 26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements. Staff Response: The proposed change to the building’s exterior materials has no impact on the existing public amenity space, nor has the Applicant proposed any additional public amenity space for the site. Staff finds this criterion to be not-applicable. B. Utility, delivery and trash service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply: 1. A trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum size and location standards established by Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, unless otherwise established according to said Chapter. Staff Response: The proposed change to the building’s exterior materials have no impact on the trash and recycle service already provided. Staff finds this criterion to be not - applicable. 2. A utility area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum standards established by Title 25, Utilities, of the Municipal Code, the City’s Electric Distribution Standards, and the National Electric Code, unless otherwise established according to said Codes. Staff Response: The proposed change to the building’s exterior materials have no impact on the building’s existing utility area. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 3. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be co -located and combined to the greatest extent practical. Staff Response: The proposed change to the building’s exterior materials have no impact on the trash and recycle service already provided. Staff finds this criterion to be not - applicable. 4. If the property adjoins an alleyway, the utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be along and accessed from the alleyway, unless otherwise approved through Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. Staff Response: The proposed change to the building’s exterior materials have no im pact on the trash and recycle service already provided. Staff finds this criterion to be not - applicable. P15 VI.A. 4 5. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be fenced so as not to be visible from the street, unless they are entirely located on an alleyway or otherwise approved though Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. All fences shall be six (6) feet high from grade, shall be of sound construction, and shall be no less than ninety percent (90%) opaque, unless otherwise varied through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. Staff Response: No changes to the utility, trash and recycle services or fences are proposed as part of this application. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. Whenever utility, trash, and recycle service areas are required to be provided abutting an alley, other portions of a building may extend to the rear property line if otherwise allowed by this Title, provided that the utility, trash and recycle area is located at grade and accessible to the alley. Staff Response: The proposed change to the building’s exterior materials have no impact on the trash and recycle service already provided. Staff finds this criterion to be not - applicable. 7. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. Staff Response: The proposed change to the building’s exterior materials has no impact on the utility service pedestal currently on-site. Staff finds this criterion to be not-applicable. 8. All commercial and lodging buildings shall provide a delivery area. The delivery area shall be located along the alley if an alley adjoins the property. The delivery area shall be accessible to all tenant spaces of the building in a manner that meets the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. All non-ground floor commercial spaces shall have access to an elevator or dumbwaiter for delivery access. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be utilized as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International Building Code. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. Staff Response: Staff Response: The proposed change to the building’s exterior materials has no impact on the building’s existing delivery area. Deliveries to the building will continue to be made along the adjacent alley. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 9. All commercial tenant spaces located on the ground floor in excess of 1,500 square feet shall contain a vestibule (double set of doors) developed internal to the structure to meet the requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen, or an air curtain. Staff Response: The proposed change to the building’s exterior materials does not change the building’s structure, footprint, mass, or arrangement of existing commercial spaces in any way. Staff finds this criterion to be not-applicable. P16 VI.A. 5 10. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. Staff Response: This application involves the replacement of exterior materials and does not involve new or remodeled structure such that would cause any new requirements to exhaust venting. Staff finds this criterion to be not-applicable. 11. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. Staff Response: This application involves the replacement of exterior materials and does not involve new or remodeled structure such that would cause any new requirements to exhaust venting. Staff finds this criterion to be not-applicable. 12. The trash and recycling service area requirements may be varied pursuant to Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code. All other requirements of this subsection may be varied by special review (see Chapter 26.430.040.E, Utility and delivery service area provisions). Staff Response: There are no variances been sought for the trash and recycling service area with this application. Staff finds this criterion to be not-applicable. P17 VI.A. 6 Exhibit D Commercial Character Area Review Criteria A. Design Objectives Standard #1: Strengthen the sense of relatedness with the Commercial Core Historic District. Strengthening the definition of the street edge in a manner similar to the Commercial Core is desired. At the same time, the Commercial Area is a place where more variety in design is encouraged. Imitating historic styles is not an objective, but re- establishing a sense of stronger fundamental framework will enhance the urban qualities of this area and is a priority. Staff Response: There are no changes proposed with the placement of the building itself, rather material changes are proposed to update the look of the building. The new materials complement those used within the immediate area, and lend to a variety in design for the Commercial Core Historic District. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Standard #3: Promote creative, contemporary design. Designs should seek creative new solutions that convey the community’s continuing interest in exploring innovations. At the same time, the fundamental principles of traditional design must be respected. This means that each project should strike a balance in the design variables that are presented in the following pages. Staff Response: The materials proposed for the building include dark-colored ceramic tile and steel C-channel trim. These materials contribute to a more contemporary look than the current medium-colored wood siding. These materials will also complement the color palette of materials found along the block, such as those used on the nearby Crandall building, Muse building, Aspen Core and Tamarawood Condominium building. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Final Review Design Guidelines 1.30. The detailed design of the building façade should reflect the traditional scale and rhythm of the block. This should be achieved using all of the following:  The fenestration grouping  The modeling of the façade  The design framework for the first floor storefront  Variation in architectural detail and/or the palette of façade materials Staff Response: The proposed changes in material to the building’s front façade will have no impact on the current fenestration grouping, modeling of the façade, or the first floor design framework. The final sub-criterion is relevant, in that the proposed materials will provide greater variation in the building’s materials palette. The darker color of the ceramic tile and steel trim will provide interest and a more modern finish to the front P18 VI.A. 7 façade, and variation will be promoted by the white painted interior columns . Staff finds the criterion to be met. 1.46. High quality, durable materials should be employed  The palette of materials should be specified, including samples of materials as required. Staff Response: Staff has previously reviewed a sample of ceramic tile material from the same representative for a Commercial Design Review for the Tamarawood Condominiums. The material appeared to be high quality and durable. The same material is proposed with this current application. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 1.47. Building materials should have these features:  Convey the quality and range of materials seen traditionally  Reduce the perceived scale of the building and enhance visual interest of the facade  Convey a human scale  Have proven durability and weather characteristics within Aspen’s climate Staff Response: The proposed materials reflect the quality and range of those traditionally seen in Aspen. The proposed darker-colored ceramic tile will serve to update and enhance the building visually. The current wood paneling is medium to dark in color, and so the ceramic tile will not increase the perceived scale from what is there currently. Ceramic tiles are similar to masonry, material commonly used throughout Aspen, which has proven durable and able to weather Aspen’s climate. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 1.48. A building or additions should reflect the quality and variation in materials seen traditionally Staff Response: The proposed materials are representative of the high quality and variation of materials seen traditionally throughout Aspen. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 1.49. Where contemporary materials are used they shall be:  High quality in durability and finish  Detailed to convey a human scale  Compatible with a traditional masonry palette Staff Response: The proposed ceramic and steel C-channel materials are high in quality and compatible with the traditional masonry palette. The use of these materials on the building’s front façade will contribute to a more interesting façade front façade, and will maintain a human scale for this two-story commercial building. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P19 VI.A. P20 VI.A. P21 VI.A. P22 VI.A. P23 VI.A. P 2 4 V I . A . P 2 5 V I . A . P 2 6 V I . A . P 2 7 V I . A . P28 VI.A. P29 VI.A. P30 VI.A. P31 VI.A. P32 VI.A. P33 VI.A. P34 VI.A. P35 VI.A. P36 VI.A.