Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.residential design standards.0068.2015.ASLU0068.2015 ASLU � L CODE AMENDMENT: RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS �ca.f�cc� �/1 � -f,Ak{fd 0 0 PATH: G/DRIVE / MASTER FILES/ADMINISTRATIVE/ADMIN/LAND USE CASE DOCUMENTS 7Lj I--- - THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER PARCEL ID NUMBERS PROJECT ADDRESS I»_1►1►1:1:J CASE DESCRIPTION REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION 0068.2015.ASLU 2737 073 31 851 130 S GALENA ST JUSTIN BARKER CODE AMENDMENT 12.14.15 CLOSED BY DEB PATTISON 06.15.16 00(, s Lv 46 File Edit Record Navigate Form Reports Format Tab Help _ Jump 1 I vJ Main Custom Fields Flouting Status Actions Routing History Fee Summary Permit type aslu Aspen Lard Use Permit # 0068.2015.ASLU ' Address 130 S GALENA Apt/Suite CITY HALL City ASPEN State CO Zip 81611 Permit Information Master permit Routing queue aslul 5 Applied 07/24/2015 - Project Status pending Approved Description CODE AMENDMENT: RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Issued - Submitted JUSTIN 8 Submitted via Owner Last name CITY HALL First name Phone Applicant Closed/Final Clock Running Days 0 Expires 07/18/2016 801 CASTLE CRK ASPEN CO 81611 Address E] Owner is applicant? Contractor is applicant? Last name CITY HALL _J First name 801 CASTLE CRK ASPEN CO 81611 Phone (1 Cust# 12727 Address Email Lender loft 0 0 ORDINANCE NO.48 (Series of 2015) . AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 26.410 — RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS, AND ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE. WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the Community Development Department to prepare amendments to the Residential Design Standards Chapter of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26. of the Municipal Code shall begin with Public Outreach, a Policy Resolution reviewed and acted on by City Council, and then final action by City Council after reviewing and considering the recommendation from the Community Development; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development Department conducted. Public Outreach regarding the code amendment; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing on December 1, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No. 136, Series of 2015, requesting code amendments to the Residential Design Standards Chapter of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Chapters 26.410 — Residential Design Standards; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendments and finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310.050; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Code Amendment Obiective The goals and objectives of the code amendment are to improve the administrative review process, better organize the standards, and clean up confusing language and loopholes within the Residential Design Standards Chapter of the Land Use Code. Section 2• Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.410 in its entirety shall read as follows: Chapter 26.410 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 1 of 23 Sections: 26.410.010 General 26.410.020 Procedures for review 26.410.030 Single-family & duplex standards 26.410.040 Multi -family standards 26.410.050 Appeals 26.410.010. General A. Intent. The City's Residential Design Standards are intended to ensure a strong connection between residences and streets; ensure buildings provide articulation to break up bulk and mass; and preserve historic neighborhood scale and character. The standards do not prescribe architectural style, but do require that each home, while serving the needs of its owner, contribute positively to the streetscape. The Residential Design Standards are intended to achieve the following objectives: 1. Connect to the Street. Establish a visual and/or physical connection between residences and streets and other public areas. The area between the street and the front of a residential building is a transition between the public realm of the neighborhood and the private realm of a dwelling. This transition can strongly impact the human experience of the street. Improve the street experience for pedestrians and vehicles by establishing physical and visual relationships between streets, and residential buildings located along streets. Porches, walkways from front entries to the street, and prominent windows that face the street are examples of elements that connect to the street. 2. Respond to Neighboring� Properties. Reduce perceived mass and bulk of residential buildings from all sides. Encourage a relationship to adjacent development through similar massing and scale. Create a sense of continuity through building form and setback along the streetscape. Providing offsets or changes of plane in the building facades or reducing the height near side lot lines are examples of responding to neighboring properties. 3. Reflect Traditional Buildin Scale. cale. Retain scale and proportions in building design that are in keeping with Aspen's historic architectural tradition, while also encouraging design flexibility. Reinforce the unique character of Aspen by drawing upon the City's vernacular architecture and neighborhood characteristics in the design of structures. Encourage creative and contemporary architecture, but at a scale that respects historic design traditions. Ensure that residential structures respond to "human -scale" in their design. Ensure that residential structures do not visually overwhelm or overshadow streets. Windows that are similar in size to those seen in historic Aspen architecture or limiting the height of a porch to be in line with the first story of a building are examples of reflecting traditional building scale. B. Applicability. Except as outlined in Section 26.410.010.C, Exemptions, this Chapter applies to all residential development in the City, except for residential development within the R-15B zone district. Specific applicability for each standard is identified within each standard. C. Exemptions. No residential development shall be exempt from the provisions of this Chapter unless the Community Development Director determines that the proposed development: 1. Is an addition or remodel to an existing structure that does not change the exterior of the building; or Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 2 of 23 2. Is a remodel of a structure where the alterations proposed change the exterior of the building, but are not addressed by any of the residential design standards; or 3. Is a residential unit within a mixed -use building; or 4. Is a designated historic resource listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. New, buildings on a historic landmark lot are not exempt. D. Remodels. Where work is proposed on any element of an existing building that is addressed by the Residential Design Standards and that is not in compliance with the Standards, the property owner shall make a reasonable. effort to bring that element into compliance. The Community Development Director may grant exceptions for remodels that would require significant additional work above and beyond the scope of the remodel in order to ensure that all features are brought into compliance. For example, consider a remodel involving modifications to a porch structure that is currently smaller than the minimum square footage required by the Residential Design Standards. If the porch is being replaced with a new porch, the new porch will be required to meet the minimum size requirements in the Residential Design Standards. If only the porch posts, are being replaced, the existing porch may remain without needing a variation even though it does not meet the minimum size requirements in the Residential Design' Standards. As a second example, consider a remodel involving modifications to a non -orthogonal window where the maximum number of non -orthogonal windows allowed by the Residential Design Standards is exceeded. If the window is being moved to a new location or the size or shape of the window is being changed, the new window will be required to meet the non -orthogonal window limit in the Residential Design Standards. If the modifications to the window are being made in place and do not expand or change the size or shape, the existing nonconforming non -orthogonal window may remain without needing a variation even though it exceeds the maximum number of non -orthogonal windows allowed by the Residential Design Standards. E. Definitions. Unless otherwise indicated, the definitions of words used in these regulations shall be the same as the definitions used in Chapter 26.104 of the Land Use Code. In addition, the following definitions shall apply: Curvilinear Lot. A lot in which a curve comprises 50% or more of the total length of the front lot line. Fagade. An exterior face of a building. It can be applied to any side. Projections, such as open porches, are not considered a fagade. Front Fagade. The street -facing exterior face of a building that contains the primary building entry. The front facade may include multiple wall planes that make up the front face of the building. See Figure 1. Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 3 of 23 Figure I Street -Facing Fagade. Any side of a building that faces a street. A .street -facing fagade may refer to multiple wall planes on a building face that face the street or right-of-way. See Figure 2. i now Figure 2 Front -Most Wall. The wall of the front fagade of a building that is closest to the street or right-of-way. See Ficure 3. it Figure 3 Front -Most Element. The front most building feature associated with a primary building or garage. In many cases, this element may be located forward of the front facade, such as an open front porch or projecting garage overhang. See Figure 4. I Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 4 of 23 Figure 4 Non -orthogonal Window. A window with an opening that is not rectangular in nature and does not - possess right angles at each of its four corners and vertical or horizontal orientation of all edges. One Story. A portion of a building between the surface of the finished floor and the ceiling immediately above; or the wall plate height where no additional stories are located above. One story shall not exceed 10 feet for purposes of the Residential Design Standards. Open Front Porch. A porch on the front fagade of a building that is open on at least two (2) sides, one of which faces the street. Open shall mean no element of enclosure, except screens. Street. A way or thoroughfare, other than an alley, containing a public access easement and used or intended for vehicular traffic. The term street shall include the entire area within a right-of-way. For the purpose of Chapter 26.410, street shall also include private streets and vehicular access easements. serving more than one (1) parcel. Streets shall not include public or private trails. 26.410.020. Procedures for Review A. Determination of Applicability. The applicant may request a preliminary Residential Design Standards pre -application conference with Community Development Department staff to determine the applicability of the requirements of this chapter for the proposed development. B. Administrative Review. Consistency with the Residential Design Standards shall be determined administratively, unless a variation is requested. The Administrative Review process will result in a determination of approval or denial for compliance with the Residential Design Standards. All projects will be reviewed for compliance with the Flexible and Non -flexible Standards contained within the Residential Design Standards. Flexible and Non -flexible Standards are defined as follows: J. Flexible Standards. Flexible Standards are standards for which additional flexibility around the specific requirements of a standard may be granted administratively. If an application is found to be inconsistent with any of the Flexible Standards, but meets the overall intent of the standard as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3; Alternative Compliance may be granted. The Community Development Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny Alternative Compliance. If an application does not meet the overall intent of a Flexible Standard, the applicant may either amend their proposal or seek a variation, pursuant to Section 26.410.020.C, Variations. 2. Non -flexible Standards. Non -flexible Standards are those standards that shall be met by all projects subject to the Residential Design Standards, with no Alternative Compliance permitted, unless otherwise stated in this chapter. If an application is found to be inconsistent with any of the Non - flexible Standards as written, the applicant may either amend their proposal or seek a variation, pursuant to Section 26.410.020.C, Variations. C. Variations. Any application that does not receive Administrative Review approval described above may apply for a variation, pursuant to Section 26.304.030, Common Development Procedures. An applicant may also choose to apply directly for a variation if desired. The Planning & Zoning Commission Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 5 of 23 • or Historic Preservation Commission, during a duly noticed public hearing, shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for variation, based on the standards of review in Section 26.410.020.13, Variation Review Standards. A variation from the Residential Design Standards does not grant an approval to vary other standards of this Chapter that may be provided by another decision -making body. The review process is as follows: Step One — Public.Hearing before Planning & Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission. 1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the review standards for Residential Design Standard variation. 2. Process: The Community Development Director shall provide the Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation .Commission, as applicable, with a recommendation to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application, based on the standards of review. The Planning and Zoning Commission, or Historic Preservation Commission if the property is designated or is located within a historic district, shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application after considering the recommendation of the Community Development Director and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing. 3. Standards of review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section 26.410.020.13, Variation Review Standards. 4. Form of decision: The decision shall be by resolution. 5. Notice requirements: Posting,. Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3.a), b) and c). D. Variation Review Standards. An application requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variation, if granted would: 1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3; or 2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site -specific constraints. 26.410.030. Single-family & duplex standards A. Applicability. Unless stated otherwise below, the design standards in this section shall apply to all. single-family and duplex development. B. Location and Massing. 1. Articulation of Building Mass (Non -flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots outside of the Aspen Infill Area. Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 6 of 23 • b) Intent. This standard seeks to reduce the overall perceived mass and bulk of buildings on a property as viewed from all sides. Designs should promote light and air access between adjacent properties. Designs should articulate building walls by utilizing multiple forms to break up large expansive wall planes. Buildings should include massing and articulation that convey forms that are similar in massing to historic Aspen residential buildings. This standard is critical in the Infill Area where small lots, small side and front setbacks, alleys and historic Aspen building forms are prevalent. Designs should change the plane of a building's sidewall, step a primary building's height down to one-story in the rear portion or limit the overall depth of the structure. c) Standard. A principal building shall articulate building mass to reduce bulk and mass and create building forms that are similar in scale to those seen in historic Aspen residential buildings. d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Maximum Sidewall Depth. A principal building shall be no greater than fifty (50) feet in depth, as measured from the front -most wall of the front faeade to the rear wall. An accessory building that is completely separated from the main building is permitted. Garages, sheds and accessory dwelling units are examples of appropriate uses for an accessory building. See Figure 5. Mw Figure 5 (2) Off -set with One -Story Ground Level Connector. A principal building shall provide a portion of its mass as a subordinate one-story, ground floor connecting element. The connecting element shall be at least ten (10) feet in length and shall be setback at least an additional five (5) feet from the sidewall on both sides of the building. The connecting element shall occur at a maximum of forty-five (45) feet in depth, as measured from the front -most wall of the front faeade to the rear wall. Accessible outdoor space over the connecting element (e.g. a deck) is permitted but may not be covered or enclosed. Any railing for an accessible outdoor space over a connecting element must be the minimum reasonably necessary to provide adequate safety and building code compliance and the railing must be 50% or more transparent. See Figure 6. l r� Figure 6 i1Q mh. � I boA rld�11 I _1 _ .ay mac �a Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 7 of 23 U (3) Increased Side Setbacks at Rear and Step Down. A principal building shall provide increased side setbacks at the rear of the building. If the principal building is two stories, it shall step. down to one story in the rear. The increased side setbacks and one story step down shall occur at a maximum of forty-five (45) feet, as measured from the front -most wall toward the rear wall. The increased side setbacks shall be at least five (5) feet greater than the side setbacks at'the front of the building. See Figure 7. \,1Ad Figure 7 2. Building Orientation (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: 0) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to establish a relationship between buildings and streets to create an engaging streetscape and discourage the isolation of homes from the surrounding neighborhood. The placement of buildings should seek to frame street edges physically or visually. Buildings should be oriented in a manner such that they are a component of the streetscape, which consists of the street itself and the buildings that surround it. Building orientation should provide a'sense of interest and promote interaction between buildings and passersby. Building orientation is important in all areas of the city, but is particularly important in the Infill-Area where there is a strong pattern of buildings that are parallel to the street. Designs should prioritize the visibility of the front fagade from the street by designing the majority of the front fagade to be parallel to the street or prominently visible from the street. Front facades, porches, driveways, windows, and doors can all be designed to have a strong and direct relationship to the street. c) Standard. The front fagade of a building shall be oriented to face the street on which it is located. d) Options. Fulfilling one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Strong Orientation Requirement. The front facade of a building shall be parallel to the street. On a corner lot, both street -facing facades of a building shall be parallel to each street. See Figure 8. (2) Moderate Orientation Requirement. The front fagade of a building shall face the street. On a corner lot, one street -facing facade shall face each intersecting street. See Figure 8. strong Moderate. Figure 8 \ Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 8 of 23 The availability of these options shall be determined according to the following lot characteristics: required front setback 25 feet or greater? 3. Build -to Requirement (Flexible). 4 lot curvilinear? lot outside the Infill Area? Option 1 Option 1: Strong orientation requirement Option 2: Moderate orientation requirement a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of 25 feet or greater. (2) Lots that are curvilinear. (3) Lots with a requiredfront yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to establish a consistent physical pattern of front fagades close. to and parallel to streets in order to frame the street. The placement of buildings should respond to the street by framing street edges physically. Buildings should be located to provide a strong physical presence and integration within the streetscape, which consists of the street itself and the buildings that surround it. This standard is most important in the Infill Area where a strong pattern of smaller front setbacks and consistent building orientation exists. Designs should maximize the amount of the front fagade that is close to the street while still providing articulation and expressing a human scale. Porches, front fagade walls, rooflines and other elements can all contribute to framing the street. c) Standard. At least sixty percent (60%) of the front j facade of a principal building shall be within five a (5) feet of the minimum front yard setback line. On a corner lot, this standard shall be met on at least one (1) of the two intersecting streets. A front porch may be used to meet this requirement. See Figure 9. --r.s No -_- - Yn One-story Element (Flexible). Figure 9 J a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots -with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to establish human scale building features as perceived from the street and express lower and upper floors on front fagades to reduce perceived mass. Designs should utilize street -facing architectural elements, such as porches, that imitate those of historic Aspen residential buildings. Buildings should provide visual evidence or demarcation of the stories of a building to relate to pedestrians. This standard is important in all areas of the city. Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment ,Page 9 of 23 Front porches or portions of the front -most wall of the front facade should clearly express a one-story scale as perceived from the street. Changes in material or color can also be incorporated into these elements to help to strengthen the establishment of a one-story scale. c) Standard. A principal building shall incorporate a one-story element on the front facade. Duplexes in a side -by -side configuration are required to have a one-story element per dwelling unit. d) Options. (1) Projecting One -Story Element. The front facade of the principal building shall have a one-story street -facing element that projects at least six (6) feet from the front facade and has a width equivalent to at least twenty percent (20%) of the building's (or unit's) overall width. This one story element may be enclosed living space or a front porch that is open on three sides. This one story element shall be a minimum of 50 square feet in area. Accessible space (whether it is a deck, . r figure i v, porch or enclosed area) shall not be allowed over the first story element; however, accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front facade shall not be precluded. See Figure 10. (2) Loggia. The front facade of the principal building shall have an open loggia that is recessed at least six (6) feet but no more than ten (10) feet from the front facade, and has a width equivalent to at least twenty percent (20%) of the building's (or unit's) overall width. The loggia shall be open on at least two (2) sides and face the street. This one story element shall be a minimum of 50 square feet in area. See Figure 11. (3) One -Story Stepdowri. The principal building shall include a one-story component on one side of the building that remains one story from the front facade to the rear wal I. The width of the one-story portion shall be a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the building's (or unit's) overall width. The one-story portion may be fully enclosed and used as living area. Accessible space (whether it is a deck,. porch or enclosed area) shall not be allowed over the first story element; however, accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front facade shall not be precluded. See Figure 12. 20% over, Wig S' min. t0 Max. Figure 11 20%of overaq wldih min. Figure 12 Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 10 of 23 0 • The availability of these options shall be determined according to the following lot characteristics: required front lot outside the Option 1: setback 25 feet N Infill Arga? no Option 1 Projecting or greater? OR one story Es Es Option 2 element Option 1 Option 1 Option 2: Recessed OR R open front Option 2 Option 2 porch OR OR Option I One-story Option 3 Option 3 stepdown C. Garages. 1. Garage Access (Non -flexible). a) Applicability. This standard is required for all lots that have vehicular access from an alley or private street. b) Intent. This standard seeks to minimize potential conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles by concentrating parking along alleys and away from the street where pedestrian activity is highest. This standard also seeks to minimize the visibility of opaque and unarticulated garage doors from streets by placing them in alleys wherever possible. Properties with alleys shall utilize the alley as an opportunity to place the garage in a location that is subordinate to the principal building, further highlighting the primary building from the street. This standard is important for any property where an alley' is Alley Available, which is most common in the Infill Area. c) Standard. A lot that has access from an alley or private street shall be required to access parking, garages and carports from the alley or private street. Where alley access is available, no parking or vehicular access shall be allowed forward of the front fagade. See Figure 13. 2. Garage Placement (Non -flexible). st" Figure 13 a) Applicability. This standard is required for all lots that do not have vehicular access from an alley or private street.. b) Intent. This standard seeks to prevent large expanses of unarticulated facades close to the street and ensure garages are subordinate to the principal building for properties that feature driveway and garage access directly from the street. Buildings should seek to locate garages behind principal buildings so that the front facade of the principal building is highlighted. Where locating the garage behind the front fagade of the principal building is not feasible or required, designs should minimize the presence of garage doors as viewed from the street. This standard is important in all areas of the city where alley access is not an option. Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page I 1 of 23 • 0 c) Standard. A garage or carport shall be placed in a way drat reduces its prominence as viewed from the street. On a corner lot, this standard shall apply to both street -facing fagades. d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Set Back Garne. The front -most element of the garage or carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front - most wall of any street -facing fagade of the principal building. See Figure 14. (2) Side -Loaded Garage Forward of Street -Facing Facade. A garage or carport located forward of a street -facing fagade shall be side -loaded. The garage or carport entry shall be perpendicular to the street. For lots on curved streets, the garage door shall not be placed on any street -facing fagade of the garage. See Figure 15. Figure 155 The availability of these options shall be determined according to the following lot characteristics: required front lot outside the Option 1: setback 25 feet N Infill Area? NO OPtion 1 Set back or greater? garage ES E Option 2: Option 1 Option 1 Garage forward of OR OR. the front Option 2 Option 2 facade 3. Garaye Dimensions (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard applies to all residential development in the city that is subject to the Residential Design Standards. b) Intent. This standard seeks to minimize the presence of wide garages as perceived from streets and ensure that garages are subordinate to the principal building. Designs should promote an active streetscape that is not dominated by wide expanses of garage doors. Garage doors should either be hidden from public view or their width minimized. This standard is important in all areas of the city. See Figure 16. El FM El —� �- x• xs' Figure 16 Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 12 of 23 c) Standards. The width of the living area on the first floor of a street - facing fagade on which a garage is located shall be at least five (5) feet greater than the width of the garage or carport. The total width of all vehicular entrance(s) to garage(s) or carport(s) that are visible from the street, whether on the same plane or offset from one another, shall not exceed twenty-four (24) feet. See Figure 17. 4. Garage Door Design (Flexible). I 24' max. Figure 17 a) Applicability. This standard applies to all residential development in the city that is subject to the Residential Design Standards. b) Intent. This standard seeks to promote a streetscape that maximizes visual interest by minimizing unarticulated expanses of garage doors. Garage doors that utilize increased articulation, changes in fagade depth and profile of materials, windows and other features to break up the garage door should be prioritized. This standard is critical for any property where garage doors are visible from the street. c) Standard. A garage door that is visible from a street shall utilize an articulation technique to break up its fagade. d) Options. Fulfilling one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Two Separate Doors. A two -car garage door shall be constructed as two separate doors. See Figure 18. (2) Appearance of Two Separate Doors. A two -car garage door shall be constructed with one door that is designed to appear as two separate doors by incorporating a vertical separating element that is at least one (1) foot in width. Figure 18 D. Entry Features. 1. Entry Connection (Non -flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to promote visual and physical connections between buildings and the street. Buildings should use architectural and site planning features to establish a connection between these two elements. Buildings shall not use features that create barriers or hide the entry features of the house such as fences, hedgerows or walls. Buildings and site planning features should establish a sense that one can directly enter a building from the street through the use of pathways, front porches, front doors that face the street and other similar methods. This standard is critical in all areas of the city. c) Standard. A building shall provide a visual and/or physical connection between a primary entry and the street. On a corner lot, an entry connection shall be provided to at least one (1) of the Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 13 of 23 • two intersecting streets. Duplexes in a side -by -side configuration shall have one (1) entry connection per dwelling unit. d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Street Oriented Entrance. At least one (1) entry door shall be provided on the front fagade of the principal building. The entry door shall face the street and shall not be set back more than ten (10) feet from the front - most wall of the front fagade of the principal building. Fencing, hedgerows, walls or other permitted structures shall not obstruct visibility to the door. See Figure 19. (2) Open Front Porch. The front fagade of the principal building shall have a front porch that is open on at least two (2) sides, a minimum of 50 square feet, face the street, and have a demarcated pathway that connects the street to the front porch. The front porch shall contain the primary entrance to the building. Fencing, hedgerows, walls or other permitted structures shall not obstruct visibility to the porch or the demarcated pathway. See Figure 20. Figure 19 Figure 20 For lots located in the Smuggler Park and Smuggler Run Subdivisions: the front porch is not required on the front fagade, but the front -most element of the porch shall be within twenty-five (25) feet of the front -most wall of the building. The porch shall meet all other requirements of this standard. The availability of these options shall be determined according. to the following lot characteristics: t rejba25 lot outside the Option l . setet r: Areal No Option 1oInfill Option 1 Option 2: Open front OR OR porch Option 2 Option 2 2. Door Height (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 14 of 23 b) Intent. This standard seeks to retain historic architectural character by ensuring modestly scaled doors that are not out of scale when compared to historic Aspen residential buildings. Large, oversized doors should be avoided so as not to overwhelm front facades and distort the sense of human scale as perceived from the street. This standard is----r—� j important in all areas of the city. c) Standard. All doors facing a street shall not be taller than eight (8) feet. A small transom window above a door shall not be considered a part of the door for the purpose of this standard. See Figure 21. 3. Entry Porch Height (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: Figure 21 (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard promotes porches ' that are built at a one-story human -scale that are compatible with historic Aspen residential buildings. This standard prevents porches that are out of scale with the street and traditional porches seen in the surrounding neighborhood. Porch designs should reinforce the one-story scale and help reduce perceived mass as viewed from the street. This standard is critical for buildings in the Infill Area. c) Standard. An entry porch or canopy on the front facade of a principal building shall not be more than one-story in height as T_f �- defined by this chapter. See Figure 22. % I'`'- ;✓ E. Fenestration and Materials. 1. Principal Window (Flexible). Figure 22 a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to prevent large expanses of blank walls on the front facades of principal buildings. A building should incorporate a significant sense of transparency on the front facade. Designs should include prominent windows or groups of windows on the front facade to help promote connection between the residence and street. This standard is important in all areas of the city. c) Standard. A principal building shall have at least one (1) street -facing principal window or grouping of smaller windows acting as a principal window on the front facade. Duplexes in a side -by -side configuration shall have one (1) principal window per dwelling unit. d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy. this standard: Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 15 of 23 • 0 2 (1) Street-FacingPrincipal rincipal Window. The front fagade shall have at least one (1) window with dimensions of four (4) 4 � —i-3 ❑ � feet by four (4) feet or greater. See Figure 23. Figure 23 (2) Window Group. The front facade shall have at least one (1) group of windows that when measured as a group has n% T� maw-. dimensions of four (4) feet by four (4) feet or greater. See Figure 24. Figure -24 Window Placement (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to preserve the historic architectural character of Aspen by preventing large expanses of vertical glass windows that dominate street -facing fagades. Overly tall expanses of glass on a street -facing fagade do not relate well to human scale. Designs should utilize windows that provide a sense of demarcation between stories and pedestrian scale. Where an upper story window is located directly above a lower story window, a gap with no window should be provided between them that is easily recognizable - from the street and clearly differentiates lower and upper ; T stories. This standard is important in all areas of the city. p'--- . c) Standard. A street -facing window on a building shall not vertically span more than one story as defined by this chapter. See Figure 25. Figure 25 3. Non -orthogonal Window Limit (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots outside of the Aspen Infill Area. (2) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to encourage rectilinear window shapes seen in Aspen's historic residential architecture and discourages the proliferation or overuse of round or diagonal - oriented windows. Designs should minimize the use of non -orthogonal windows that face the street in order to help preserve the historic character of Aspen. This standard is critical in the Infill Area where many of Aspen's historic residential buildings are located. Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 16 of 23 c) Standard. A building shall have no more than one (1) non - orthogonal window on each faVade of the building that faces the street. A single non -orthogonal window in a gable end may be divided with mullions and still be considered one (1) non - orthogonal window. See Figure 26. NM•onhftftd 4. Light well/Stairwell Location (Flexible). Figure 26 a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) 'Intent. This standard seeks to minimize negative visual impacts to the street and discourage visual and physical disconnection between buildings and streets. Building designs should avoid placing light wells, areaways, skylights, and stairwells between primary buildings and streets. These features should be located away from the front of buildings. Designs should locate these elements at the sides or rear of a principal building. This standard is most important in all areas of the city with smaller setbacks. J '" c) Standard. A light well, areaway, skylight or stairwell shall not be located between the front -most wall of a street -facing fagade and NO any street. See Figure 27. Figure 27 5. Materials Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard applies to all residential development in the city that is subject to the Residential Design Standards. b) Intent. This standard seeks to reinforce historic architectural character by preventing the use of materials on single-family and duplex buildings that is in sharp contrast with use of materials seen in historic Aspen residential buildings. Buildings should use materials consistently on all sides of a building instead of simply applying a material on one fagade of a building. Buildings should seek to use heavier materials, such as brick or stone, as abase for lighter materials, such as wood or stucco. Buildings should use materials that are similar in profile, texture and durability to those seen in historic residential buildings in the city. This standard is important in all areas of the city. c) Standards. The quality of the exterior materials and their application shall be consistent on all sides of the single-family or duplex building. See Figure 28. Materials shall be used in ways that are true to their characteristics. For instance stucco, which is a light or nonbearing material, shall not be used below a heavy material, such as stone. See Figure 29. Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 17 of 23 r _z Yes No Yes No Figure 28 Figure 29 26.410.040. Multi -family standards A. Applicability. Unless stated otherwise below, the design standards in this section shall apply to all multi -family development. B. Design standards. 1. Building Orientation (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to establish a relationship between buildings and streets to create an engaging streetscape and discourage the isolation of homes from the surrounding neighborhood. The placement of buildings should seek to frame street edges physically or visually. Buildings should be oriented in a manner such that they are a component of the streetscape, which consists of the street itself and the buildings that surround it. Building orientation should provide a sense of interest and promote interaction between buildings and passersby. Building orientation is important in all areas of the city, but is particularly important in the Infill Area where there is a strong pattern of buildings that are parallel to the street. Designs should prioritize the visibility of the front fagade from the street by designing the majority of the front fagade to be parallel to the street or prominently visible from the street. Front facades, porches, driveways, windows, and doors can all be designed to have a strong and direct relationship to the street. c) Standard. The front fagade of a building shall be oriented to face the street on which it is located. d) Options. Fulfilling one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Strong Orientation Requirement. The front fagade of a building shall be parallel to the street. On a corner lot, both street -facing facades of a building shall be parallel to each street. See Figure 30. (2) Moderate Orientation Requirement. The front fagade of a building shall face the street. On a corner lot, one - shoo street -facing fagade shall face each intersecting street. Mod*r`\ Figure 30 Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 18 of 23 2 The availability of these options shall be determined according to the following lot characteristics: required front Option 1: setback 25 feet No lot curvilineor? Do outside the NO Option 1 Strong Infill Area? g or greater? orientation E E requirement 1 Option 1 ption O1 Option 2: Opton Moderate OR OR O R orientation Option 2 Option 2 Option 2 requirement Garage Access (Non -flexible). a) Applicability. This standard is -required for all lots that have vehicular access from an alley or private street. b) Intent. This standard seeks to minimize potential conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles by concentrating parking along alleys and away from the street where pedestrian activity is highest. This standard also seeks to minimize the visibility of plain, opaque and unarticulated garage doors from streets by placing them in alleys wherever possible. Properties with alleys shall utilize the alley as an opportunity to place the garage in a location that is subordinate to the principal building, further highlighting the Auer primary building from the street. This standard is important for any property where an alley is available, which is most common in the Infill Area. c) Standard. A multi -family building that has access from an alley or private street shall be required to access parking, garages and carports from the alley or private street. See Figure 31. 3. Garage Placement (Non -flexible). Yes St" Figure 31 a) Applicability. This standard is required for all lots that do not have vehicular access from an alley_ or private street. b) Intent. This standard seeks to prevent large expanses of unarticulated facades close to the street and ensure garages are subordinate to the principal building for properties that feature driveway and garage access directly from the street. Buildings should seek to locate garages behind principal buildings so that the front facade of the principal building is highlighted. Where locating the garage behind the front fagade of the principal building is not feasible or required, designs should minimize the presence of garage doors as viewed from the street. This standard is important in all areas of the city where alley access is not an option. 4 c) Standard. The front of a garage or the front -most supporting 'column of a carport shall be set back at � / least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front facade of the principal building. See Figure 32. Figure 32 Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 19 of 23 4. Entry Connection (Non -flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to promote visual and physical connections between buildings and the street. Buildings should use architectural and site planning features to establish a connection between these two elements. Buildings shall not use features that create barriers or hide the entry features of the house such as fences, hedgerows or walls. Buildings and site planning features should establish a sense that one can directly enter a building from the street through the use of pathways, front porches, front doors that face the street and other similar methods. This standard is critical in all areas of the city. c) Standard. A building shall provide a visual and/or physical connection between a primary entry and the street. On a comer lot, an entry connection shall be provided to at least one (1) of the two intersecting streets. d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Street Oriented Entrance. There shall be at least one (1) entry door that faces the street for every four (4) street -facing, ground -level units in a row. Fencing, hedgerows, walls or other permitted structures shall not obstruct visibility to the entire door. See Figure 33. (2) Oven Front Porch. There shall be at least one (1) porch or ground -level balcony that faces the street for every street -facing, ground -level unit. Fencing, hedgerows,. walls or other permitted structures shall not obstruct visibility to the porch or the demarcated pathway. See Figure 34. 5. Principal Window (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: Figure 33 Figure 34 (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to prevent large expanses of blank walls on the front facades of principal buildings. A building should incorporate significant transparency on the front fagade. Designs should include prominent windows or groups of windows on the front fagade to help Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 20 of 23 0 0 promote connection between the residence and street. This standard is important in all areas of the city. c) Standard. At least one (1) street -facing principal window or grouping of smaller windows acting as a principal window shall be provided for each unit facing the street. On a corner unit with street frontage on two streets, this standard shall apply to both street -facing fagades. d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Street -Facing Principal Window. The front facade shall have at least one 1 window with dimensions of three () (3) feet by four (4) feet or greater for each dwelling unit. See Figure 35. Figure (2) Window Grouy. The front fagade shall have at least one (1) group of windows that when measured as a group has -t r_J ' '"I�4' dimensions of three (3) feet by four (4) feet or greater for each dwelling unit. See Figure 36. i Figure 36 26.410.050. Appeals A. An applicant aggrieved by a decision made by the Community Development Director regarding administration of this Chapter may appeal the decision to the Administrative Hearing Officer, pursuant to Chapter 26.316. B. An applicant aggrieved by a decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission as applicable, may appeal the decision to the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 26.316. In such circumstances, the Commission's decision shall be considered a recommendation to City Council. Section 3: The following definitions in Section 26.104.100, Definitions, shall be added as follows: Berm. A human -made raised strip of land or ridge made of earthen materials. Hedgerow. A row of closely spaced bushes, trees, or shrubs that create, or have the potential through growth maturity to create a largely opaque visual barrier. Section 4• Chapter 26.210.0203 — Community Development Director, which section described the power and duties of the Community Development Director, shall be amended as follows: [No Changes to Subsections 1— 24] Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 21 of 23 25. To approve Alternative Compliance, pursuant to Chapter 26.410. Section 5• Chapter 26.212.010 — Planning and Zoning Commission, which section describes the power and duties of the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall be amended as follows: [No Changes to Subsections A — N] O. To hear, review and approve variations to the Residential Design Standards, pursuant to Chapter 26.410; [No Changes to Subsection P — Q] Section 6• Chapter 26.220.010 — Historic Preservation Commission, which section describes the power and duties of the Historic Preservation Commission, shall be amended as follows: [No Changes to Subsections A — H] I. To hear, review and approve variations to the Residential Design Standards, pursuant to Chapter 26.410; [No Changes to Subsection J — K] Section 7: Update of Review Fees Section 26.104.070, Land Use Application Fees shall be amended to reflect the changes to the Residential Design Standards, as follows: "Flat Fee 4, $650, Residential Design Variance, admin." shall be amended to state "Flat Fee 4, $650, Residential Design Standard Administrative Compliance, admin." "Planning Review — One -Step, Hourly Fee, Residential Design Variance — P&Z" shall be amended to state "Planning Review — One -Step, Hourly Fee, Residential Design Variation — P&Z" [All other fees shall remain unchanged.] Section 8• Any scrivener's errors contained in the code amendments herein, including but not limited to mislabeled subsections or titles, may be corrected administratively following adoption of the Ordinance. Section 9: Effect Upon Existing Litigation. This ordinance 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 10: Severability. Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 22 of 23 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance 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. Section 11: Effective Date. In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final passage. Section 12• A public hearing on this ordinance was held on the 11 cn day of January, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general .circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law. by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 14t' day of December, 2015. Il r, Linda Manning, City Cie FINALLY, adopted, Manning, City Approved as to form: l' Steven Skad on, Mayor and approved this _ day of Ja es R. True, City Attorney Steven Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 23 of 23 • 0 Resular Meetine Aspen City Council January 11, 2016 At the next meeting Council will be seeing updates to the historic preservation guidelines but more on the residential side. Councilman Myrin said it helps in being consistent. Councilwoman Mullins moved to call up 517 E Hopkins; seconded by Councilman Myrin. All in favor, except Councilmembers Frisch and Daily. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #2, SERIES OF 2016 — Carry Forward Growth Management Allotments Sara Nadolny, community development, stated at the first Council meeting of each year Council determines how many allotments, if any are to be carried forward for potential use. An allotment is a measurement, if granted, that allows development to take place. The purpose of growth management is to limit allotments to ensure stable growth occurs while maintaining community character and ensuring adequate public facilities. There are a set number of allotments that start anew each year. Commercial allotments are measured and capped in square feet while single family and lodge are measured in units. Commercial allotments start off at 33,300 square feet, free market with 18, and 112 lodging allotments. These represent between .5 and two percent yearly growth. There are no limits on affordable housing and public facilities. In 2015 allotments were utilized leaving a balance of seven free market, 4,600 square feet of commercial and 80 lodging allotments. These are available to be rolled over into the 2016 allotments if Council choses. The growth rate has remained fairly consistent over the past few years and Staff does expect some applications for 2016 but believes there are enough allotments to accommodate these developments. Staff is recommending no portion of the available allotments be rolled over to 2016 at this time. Councilwoman Mullins asked how you can predict that so early in the year. Ms. Nadolny replied they have some knowledge of the projects that have gone through conceptual and what are in the works. Councilwoman Mullins stated she would support not rolling over the allotments. Councilman Frisch said there are a tremendous amount of applications in the process. He has no interest in furthering that until we have dived into broader conversations. Councilman Myrin asked when was the last time they were rolled over. Ms. Nadolny said 2013 and that was only lodge. Councilman Myrin asked how did that turn out with the two year average. Ms. Garrow said in 2014 we used two year's worth of growth there. Councilman Myrin asked what time of year did we run out. Ms. Garrow said it typically takes a full year. In the most recent past there have been allotments to roll over. Councilman Myrin said he support Staff. Councilman Daily stated he also support staff. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron close the public comment. Councilwoman Mullins move to adopt Resolution #2, Series of 2016; seconded by Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Myrin, yes; Daily, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #48, SERIES OF 2015 — Residential Design Standards Code Amendment Mr. Barker told the Council these changes will improve the existing process and better organize the standards as well as clean up the confusing language within the standards. It is not a complete rewrite of VA 0 • Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 11, 2016 the chapter. Staff has presented to Council, had multiple check -ins with the community, met with and advisory committee and P&Z. The purpose of the standards is to ensure a strong connection between private residences and the public street, ensure buildings provide articulation to breakup bulk and mass and preserve traditional neighborhood scale and character. The two major challenges with the current standards are a lack of clarity in the administrative review process and a lack of flexibility. The first change is to clarify the review process prior to submitting for an application. It will simplify and streamline the process by requiring a planning review prior to review submission. The second change is flexibility amongst the standards. The current standards dictate style and don't respond to context. Solutions include adjusting the applicability of the standards and allowing for alternative compliance. You would be required to meet the letter of the standard as written or provide alternative compliance or the overall intent. It does not eliminate any of the standards. Staff believes some of the standards should not allow for administrative flexibility and would require a P&Z review for variation from the language. Staff feels these are important and provide the greatest impact on the public realm. Some of the other updates include a reorganization of the RDS chapter and making it easier to understand to read and improving the graphics. Changes since first reading include language refinement of the intent statement. The entry connection standard statement has been changed with regard to Smuggler. Staff is recommending adoption. Councilman Daily said the staff memo is sound and they have reviewed this before. Councilman Myrin stated Smuggler has been on his list for years. They saw this come through P&Z. He is very happy to see this solution acknowledge the entry doors. One option is to be exempt. Another is for the 25 feet and the third is the one proposed by Smuggler. Mr. Barker said it is the R3 zone. Councilman Myrin said rather than a site specific amendment could it be zone specific. Mr. Barker said we don't know what else could be in that zone in the future. Councilman Myrin asked for the difference in the 25 feet and what the HOA has requested. Mr. Barker said the only difference is a variation in the size of the porch requirement. It is feasible for the majority of the properties then a potential alternative compliance option. Staff felt it was more appropriate for a site specific amendment that an overhaul of the residential design standards. Councilman Frisch outside of Smuggler it is consistently good. He thinks the residential suggestions are strong. He appreciates the struggles Smuggler has gone through but does not think this is the right place to address it. Mayor Skadron asked for a comment on the public outreach and what was proposed and the reaction to it for the review process. Mr. Barker said they had overwhelming positive feedback. It is making it clearer to understand. It is a cleaner process. It will be a simple one step process. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. 1. Sam Barney and Troy Miller. Mr. Miller said he has lived in Smuggler for 20 years and is representing the Smuggler HOA board. The board appreciates the standards and want to keep Aspen nice. The lots are small, under 3,000 square feet with no alleys. Staff has been very helpful. They have three requests; smaller front porch size, smaller front window element and where the light wells can be located. Currently each home owner has to deal with this on their own. The lots are virtually identical. It would be silly to have to ask with each one. Mayor Skadron said his reservation is this is zoning specific. Is there an opportunity for us to support these requests without it becoming a corn dev nightmare or being inappropriate? Mr. P Resular Meetine Aspen City Council January 11, 2016 True replied you do have to be very careful about carving out specific areas in the residential design guidelines. This is for the entire city and carving out an exemption for one area would be very difficult. Ms. Garrow said our recommendation is this is a unique area and it should be dealt with on a site specific basis through a PD or through amendments to the R3 zone district. Staff recommends moving forward with the RDS as drafted and then an amendment related to Smuggler. Councilman Frisch said a lot of the standards are written off of a grid on the west end. I would hate for us to get involved in individual lots. Mayor Skadron said you deserve a benefit because of the unique site constraints but we need to be fair to the rest of the community. 2. Bill Stirling, 118 Maple Ln, said this is a really interesting problem here. There are 86 lots on 10 acres. It is absolutely unique. It is the only affordable housing subdivision in Aspen. It is preserving one of the most valid local communities. All the lots are tiny. These are special because they are small. The window well is fundamental. It is another creative Aspen first. It is an incredible, functioning, interesting neighborhood. Don't tie our hands but give us the tools to create. If we can't fit these in we need to go forward with the other amendments. 3. Leslie Kurly, 108 Maple Ln, said she is planning on building in the spring. She has been working with planning since August and is hung up on the window wells. All these process things are costly. 4. Ms. Warming said the fees are hard including architect fees. 5. Steev Wilson said he is part of the volunteer committee working on the RDS. He commended staff on a wonderful process. He thinks it meets the original intent but finds a good middle ground. It was a very successful process and was a privilege to be a part of it. Mr. Miller read the HOA's proposed language for front porch size for lots located in Smuggler park and Smuggler Run Subdivision is not required on the front fagade but the front most element shall be within 25 or 10 of the front most wall of the building, a minimum depth of five feet is required and a minimum of 25 square feet is required unless specified the porch shall meet all other requirements of the standard. Mayor Skadron read the lightwell location does not allow light wells in front of a street facing wall of a home. Mr. Miller said being allowed to put the light well in the front frees up space in the side yard if someone were to have a garden or dog if they wanted to have a dog on a small lot. Councilman Myrin said if there is a way to do it as a zone district amendment he would support that approach. There might be a way to get there relatively quickly. Ms. Garrow said she is not sure if they would support some of their requests particularly the lightwell and it might be more effective on a site specific basis. Councilman Frisch said he is not sure he can help you on the timing but he's happy to help you with the fees. I think it is a community trade off that is worth wile. Councilman Myrin said he is supportive of either path. Mayor Skadron said we could address the smaller front porch tonight but not light wells. Ms. Garrow said they would recommend a four by four window as the code is written now makes sense even on these smaller lots. They are less concerned with that then the light well. The standard is to help with the pedestrian interplay. Mr. Barker said it is included as a flexible standard for the home owner to plead their case. Mayor Skadron said they are concluding that perhaps two of the requests could be included in the ordinance. Ms. Garrow said they could incorporate the change into the ordinance and call out the R3 or Smuggler Park and Smuggler Run or take a step back and process this under a planned development. 2 0 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 11, 2016 Councilman Daily said he thinks the more comprehensive solution is the long term solution but he wants to expedite this amendment. He support the comprehensive solution. Councilman Frisch said he is happy to support the comprehensive solution with the ability to waive some fees. Councilman Myrin said he would approve as staff has written and lean towards changing the zone rather than a PD amendment. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #48, Series of 2015 with the intention to process a PD amendment and correction to the numbering; seconded by Councilman Daily. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Daily, yes; Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Myrin, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ACTION ITEMS — Call -Up of P&Z Approval — 200 S Aspen (Hotel Lenado) Jennifer Phelan, community development, told the Council this call up is for conceptual commercial design review on the redevelopment of the Hotel Lenado. Council can accept the decision, remand it back to P&Z with direction for reconsideration or continue the meeting for additional information. On November 17, 2016 P&Z approved conceptual commercial design review and growth management review with a new mixed use building that will contain two free market units, two affordable housing units, four lodge units with nine keys and nine parking spaces. The existing has 17 lodge units with 19 keys and two affordable housing units. The project had been discussed at four meetings with P&Z. Design changes occurred each time. Staff recommended continued revisions each time including reduction in height and mass and further refinement with grade and public amenity space and more compatibility with the neighborhood. The commercial design standards the project is subject to are the small lodge character area. The design objectives include how the lodge relates to the neighborhood. The conceptual commercial review deals with placement, size and location of the building. At the final meeting staff recommended denial and felt two standards needed more work, 5.5 — reflecting lot width by varying the heights, modulation and fagade heights. Staff also felt 5.7 needed more work where the building should respect the traditional lot width and scale of the context in form and variation of the roof scape with lots greater than 60 feet wide. Overall staff felt the underlying zoning was met but there was still too much mass and it needed more articulation. Although P&Z voted to approve, Staff feels it needs more work. It could be smaller and could fit better with the neighborhood character. She still does not think it is there. She recommends it is remanded back to P&Z to look at the mass and scale particularly on the Hopkins side. Steev Wilson, representing the applicant, showed images of the Aspen Street fagade. The property is located in the mixed use zone district between the commercial core, R6, residential multi -family and lodge zones. It is a transitional neighborhood. They looked at the uses that could go in the mixed use district. There are a number of single family residences across the street. They looked at retail and office and it was not what they wanted. It could be purely affordable housing or free market. They were encouraged to do a mixed use building. They wanted to take advantage of the small lodge incentive program with the first design. It did not go over well at P&Z. They pulled 4,500 square feet out of the building and reduced the mass quite a bit. P&Z felt it was still too much a commercial building and felt it did not engage the street very well and wanted more variation along Hopkins. The third design engaged 10 E 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Aspen City Council FROM: Justin Barker, Senior Planner THRU: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner RE: Residential Design Standards Code Amendments Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015, Public Hearing MEETING DATE: January 11, 2016 SUMMARY: The attached Ordinance includes proposed language to amend the Residential Design Standards of the Land Use Code. The objective of the code amendment is to improve the review process, better organize the standards, and clean up confusing language and loopholes within the current standards. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance on Second Reading. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: This is the 2nd reading of proposed code amendments to the Residential Design Standards of the Land Use Code. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310, City Council is the final review authorily for all code amendments. All code amendments are subject to a three -step process. This is the third step in the process: 1. Public Outreach 2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should the pursued 3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments. BACKGROUND: The City of Aspen Residential Design Standards were first adopted in 1995 as a way to maintain design quality and compatibility with historic features of the community. Since then, minor amendments have been processed to add additional standards and create a variation process. Earlier this year, Council asked staff to update and clarify the existing standards. Working with a consultant (Winter & Co.) and an advisory committee, staff has worked to update the standards in an effort to better serve the community and provide attractive, compatible development. This is not a complete re -write. Staff Memo Residential Design Standards 1.11.16 - Second Reading Page 1 of 7 0 • Staff presented the general changes to City Council at the Policy Resolution hearing on December 1 st. There have also been multiple check -ins with the community through open houses, advisory committee meetings, and a P&Z meeting. DISCUSSION• The Residential Design Standards are intended to ensure a strong connection between private residences and public streets; ensure buildings provide articulation to break up bulk and mass; and preserve traditional neighborhood scale and character. The standards do not prescribe architectural style, but do require that each home, while serving the needs of its owner, contribute positively to the streetscape. The Residential Design Standards are at their core intended to achieve the following objectives: connect to the street, respond to neighboring properties, and reflect traditional building scale. Staff and Winter & Co. have been working with an advisory committee comprised of six local architects from various firms around town. The role of the committee is to represent the design community by providing input on current issues, reviewing draft updates, and participating in focused group discussions with staff and the consultant. Work on the update began with an inventory of the major issues in the current RDS review process. The most common issues identified by the advisory committee were: • Lack of clarity in the administrative review process • Lack of flexibility in the existing standards for different design styles These are also the issues most often identified by property owners and community members who go through the residential design review process. A summary of the proposed changes, including how the current code language or process presents challenges as well as proposed solutions, is described in more detail below. The RDS update is rooted in two main changes: 1. Clarify the existing review process to make it easier for property owners to know if their home meets the required Residential Design standards before they submit for building permit. 2. Ensure the design standards dictate good building form, not architectural style through some additional flexibility. Review Process: Challenges: The current review process has proven to be challenging for both staff and property owners for its unpredictability and length. Currently, a project is only required to submit an application if a variation from the Residential Design Standards is required. This is typically determined when a potential applicant asks the planner of the day for direction on their proposed design. Staff, typically through the planner of the day, will provide direction to designers and property owners, based on what is shown as this preliminary stage. This process can often lead to a substantial amount of time spent discussing a required variation, or some needed variations being missed Staff Memo Residential Design Standards 1.11.16 - Second Reading Page 2 of 7 0 • because they are not discussed. This can lead to projects that do not meet the RD$ getting delayed in the building permit review while they submit an application for a variation. This can place a building permit on hold for several months. Proposed Solution: Under the proposed changes, all residential development would require a planning review prior to building permit submission. During review, staff would review each project for standard applicability and the project's compliance with the flexible and non -flexible standards (see description of this proposed change below). The application would either be granted approval or denial for compliance with the RDS. This essentially serves as a "gate keeper" to the building permit process. A project could not be submitted for a building permit until it has received a review for compliance with the standards. This will help reduce the number of projects in building permit review that do not comply with the RDS and will provide an applicant with more assurance when submitting a permit. If the project does not comply with the standards, the applicant may amend the application to comply, or they would have the opportunity to request a variation from P&Z. Any decision made by P&Z is final unless appealed under the regular city appeal procedures. Below are diagrams comparing the existing process to the proposed process: DESIGN DESIGN APPLY FOR PLANNER PERMIT OF [HE APPLIG%TION DAY SURt.1 APPLICA: ZONING STAFF MODIFY ADMINISTRATNE REVIEW REVIEW M REVIEW STAFF 0 O REVIEW I F DESIGN Y DENIED APPROVED DESIGN DESIGN APPRCVFD DENIED APPROVED Flexibility for Standards: Existing Proposed Staff Memo Residential Design Standards 1.11.16 - Second Reading Page 3 of 7 Currently, a residential project must meet all of the standards as written (with some exceptions depending on the location or specific site constraints). Each of the standards is intended to address different aspects of design, such as relationship to the public realm, massing, and scale of design features. Challenge: Current Standards dictate sty The current standards state that they do not prescribe architectural style, though strict application of the standards has proven to be incompatible with the evolution of architectural styles over the years. For example, a secondary mass may not be appropriate for a more modern design that is intended to be modest and simplistic in form. Challenge: Current Standards sometimes force inappropriate design. While each of the standards serve an important purpose, many of them often lead to a forced design feature on a project in order to meet the letter of the standard. For example, a design may include a main entry door that does not face the street. Rather than redesign the home, a designer may add an "entry door" on a street -facing facade in order to meet the letter of the standard. However, that "entry door" opens to a narrow hallway leading into a back room and is never actually used as the main entry to the home. This example is contrary to the intentions of the standards, but is still permitted under the Code. The proposed changes would close these kinds of loopholes. Challenge: Current Standards do not always respond appropriately to context. Some of the standards can be difficult to meet or do not serve their intended purpose, even if they apply to a project. For example, building orientation on a curvy street is more difficult to achieve than building orientation on a traditional townsite block. Similarly, prohibiting a light well on the front of a building for a building that is 100 feet from the street does not achieve the same purpose as prohibiting one that is 10 feet from the street. Proposed Solution: Adjust applicability and introduce standard options. In an effort to better respond to varying contexts in town, the proposed RDS update clarifies applicability and in some cases adds options based on lot characteristics, required setbacks and other features. Proposed Solution: Allow for alternative compliance on most standards. In an effort to better align the standards with their intents, the proposed code amendments allows for most standards to be evaluated for compliance on a case -by -case basis by staff. Projects would be required to meet the letter of the standard, or provide "alternative compliance" meaning the project meets the overall intent of the standard. For example, a design may include an entry door that is 11 feet back from the front -most wall of the building, but is highly visible from the street and opens onto a large front porch. The door does not technically meet the standard (max. 10 feet from the front -most wall), but it meets the intent by providing street -facing architectural details, enhancing the walking experience and reinforcing Staff Memo Residential Design Standards 1.11.16 - Second Reading Page 4 of 7 local building traditions. This design feature would most likely be permitted under alternative compliance. Another example would be a one-story element that is 19% of the building's overall width, but is 10 feet deep and a prominent element on the front fagade. This feature does not technically meet the standard (min. 20% of the building's overall width.), but it meets the intent by providing a strong human scale feature that expresses a strong first floor. Alternative compliance would be granted through staff review, similar to the current process. Although the approval method is similar, the process and criteria to obtain the approval are different. Alternative compliance requires a more thorough evaluation of the entire project and context, using improved intent statements that better ensure the purpose of each standard is being met through the design. This proposed process does not eliminate any standards, but allows for some added flexibility that has been requested throughout the public outreach sessions. The proposed alternative compliance process would allow architects and homeowners the ability to more directly work with staff to create a design that promotes pedestrian scale and connection to the public realm without requiring constant variation applications. This also would provide a benefit to the community by focusing on implementation of design features that enhance a residence's contribution and relationship to the public realm instead of forcing building elements that may not be compatible with the architectural design or style. Proposed Solution: Require compliance on certain standards. Although most standards would allow for alternative compliance, staff believes that flexibility on some standards should require a P&Z review. The following standards provide the greatest impact on the public realm: 1. A visible and accessible front entrance. This standard would require either a front porch with a pedestrian path leading to the feature, or a front door facing and clearly visible from the street. 2. Reducing the appearance of garages from the street. This standard would require garages to be accessed off the alley where one exists. Where an alley does not exist, garages would be required to be set back from the front fagade of the building. 3. Articulation of massing to reduce perceived scale. This standard would require a secondary mass or other building articulation. Under the proposed RDS update, all applicable residential development would be required to meet the letter of these standards. If an applicant requests a variation from any of these standards a P&Z review would automatically be required. No staff level variation review would be permitted. Other updates: Staff Memo Residential Design Standards 1.11.16 - Second Reading Page 5 of 7 • 0 Staff has also been working with Winter & Co. and the advisory committee on other updates. These include reorganization of the RDS chapter to make it easier to read and understand, adding definitions for often used terms, and updating and improving graphics. QUESTIONS RAISED DURING POLICY RESOLUTION: At the Policy Resolution public hearing, some Council members expressed concern over the proposed alternative compliance approval process as they felt that it would result in staff being able to grant an unlimited number of variations. Currently, up to three residential design standard variations may be granted administratively for a project. An applicant may request a variation from any of the standards. This has the effect of placing all of the Residential Design Standards on equal footing. While all of the design standards are important for ensuring a quality built environment, the proposed update makes a significant change by removing the ability to grant administrative variations from certain standards. Instead of limiting the number of variations that can be granted, the proposed update limits which standards can be granted flexibility. There is not a specific number of limitations but rather specific standards that ensure a residence's positive contribution to the public realm. The intent of the update is to strike an appropriate balance between standards that cannot be varied without a public hearing with P&Z, with those standards that can be achieved through alternative compliance and reviewed at an administrative level. The proposed change allows design flexibility and creativity while eliminating the ability to request an administrative variation from the standards that have the most impact on the public realm. Council suggested a check -in to evaluate the effectiveness of the alternative compliance process, if it is approved. Staff suggests a check -in could occur as a work session in Summer/Fall of 2016. CHANGES SINCE r+IRST READING: Some of the language in the ordinance has been modified since first reading. The intent statements and variation review standards have been further refined to ensure they are as detailed as possible. Some of the standards' language has also been further refined, including entry connection. The Entry Connection standard has been identified as a difficult standard for properties in Smuggler Park to meet. This is mainly due to the design of modular homes, which typically locates the entrance on the side of the building. Staff suggests two options to address this. One option is to exempt these areas from the standard entirely. The other option, included in the proposed language, requires a front porch to be within 25 feet of the front of the house. This allows a residence to locate a porch on the side of the building, which is more realistic for a modular home, but still requires a high level of visibility and connection to the street. Staff believes it is important to maintain a visible entrance from the street, even if it is not on the front of the house. Staff Memo Residential Design Standards 1.11.16 - Second Reading Page 6 of 7 0 • The Smuggler Park HOA submitted a letter on January 2, 2016 (Exhibit D) requesting additional changes to specific standards for Smuggler Park. Staff does not recommend in favor of the proposed changes. Tailoring the standards to individual neighborhoods is beyond the scope of this update and would be more appropriately addressed through a site -specific amendment. PUBLIC OUTREACH: The advisory committee has been involved in the process since the beginning and has provided valuable feedback that helped craft the current proposed changes. Information on the update has been provided through the Community Development newsletter, which reaches almost 600 professionals including contractors, architects, attorneys, and planners. Two public open houses were held in September and December to obtain feedback from the broader community of the proposed updates. All of the public feedback received to date has been overwhelmingly positive. Both architects and property owners have stated they like the simplified process and the added flexibility of the standards. Staff has also met individually with property owners and HOAs to address specific questions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the attached Ordinance to amend the Residential Design Standards of the Land Use Code and associated sections. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015, approving amendments to the Residential Design Standards of the Land Use Code." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Staff Findings Exhibit B — Draft 11/17/15 P&Z minutes Exhibit C — Approved Policy Resolution #136, Series of 2015 Exhibit D — Smuggler Park HOA letter dated January 2, 2016 Staff Memo Residential Design Standards 1.11.16 - Second Reading Page 7 of 7 0 • ORDINANCE NO.48 (Series of 2015) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 26.410 — RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS, AND ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE. WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the Community Development Department to prepare amendments to the Residential Design Standards Chapter of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall begin with Public Outreach, a Policy Resolution reviewed and acted on by City Council, and then final action by City Council after reviewing and considering the recommendation from the Community Development; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development Department conducted Public Outreach regarding the code amendment; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing on December 1, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No. 136, Series of 2015, requesting code amendments to the Residential Design Standards Chapter of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Chapters 26.410 — Residential Design Standards; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendments and finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310.050; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Code Amendment Objective The goals and objectives of the code amendment are to improve the administrative review process, better organize the standards, and clean up confusing language and loopholes within the Residential Design Standards Chapter of the Land Use Code. Section 2• Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.410 in its entirety shall read as follows: Chapter 26.410 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 1 of 23 • 0 Sections: 26.410.010 General 26.410.020 Procedures for review 26.410.030 Single-family & duplex standards 26.410.040 Multi -family standards 26.410.050 Appeals 26.410.010. General A. Intent. The City's Residential Design Standards are intended to ensure a strong connection between residences and streets; ensure buildings provide articulation to break up bulk and mass; and preserve historic neighborhood scale and character. The standards do not prescribe architectural style, but do require that each home, while serving the needs of its owner, contribute positively to the streetscape. The Residential Design Standards are intended to achieve the following objectives: Connect to the Street. Establish a visual and/or physical connection between residences and streets and other public areas. The area between the street and the front of a residential building is a transition between the public realm of the neighborhood and the private realm of a dwelling. This transition can strongly impact the human experience of the street. Improve the street experience for pedestrians and vehicles by establishing physical and visual relationships between streets, and residential buildings located along streets. Porches, walkways from front entries to the street, and prominent windows that face the street are examples of elements that connect to the street. 2. Respond to Neighboring Properties. Reduce perceived mass and bulk of residential buildings from all sides. Encourage a relationship to adjacent development through similar massing and scale. Create a sense of continuity through building form and setback along the streetscape. Providing offsets or changes of plane in the building facades or reducing the height near side lot lines are examples of responding to neighboring properties. 3. Reflect Traditional Buildin Scale. cale. Retain scale and proportions in building design that are in keeping with Aspen's historic architectural tradition, while also encouraging design flexibility. Reinforce the unique character of Aspen by drawing upon the City's vernacular architecture and neighborhood characteristics in the design of structures. Encourage creative and contemporary architecture, but at a scale that respects historic design traditions. Ensure that residential structures respond to "human -scale" in their design. Ensure that residential structures do not visually overwhelm or overshadow streets. Windows that are similar in size to those seen in historic Aspen architecture or limiting the height of a porch to be in line with the first story of a building are examples of reflecting traditional building scale. B. Applicability. Except as outlined in Section 26.410.010.C, Exemptions, this Chapter applies to all residential development in the City, except for residential development within the R-15B zone district. Specific applicability for each standard is identified within each standard. C. Exemptions. No residential development shall be exempt from the provisions of this Chapter unless the Community Development Director determines that the proposed development: 1. Is an addition or remodel to an existing structure that does not change the exterior of the building; or Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 2 of 23 0 U 2. Is a remodel of a structure where the alterations proposed change the exterior of the building, but are not addressed by any of the residential design standards; or 3. Is a residential unit within a mixed -use building; or 4. Is a designated historic resource listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. New buildings on a historic landmark lot are not exempt. D. Remodels. Where work is proposed on any element of an existing building that is addressed by the Residential Design Standards and that is not in compliance with the Standards, the property owner shall make a reasonable effort to bring that element into compliance. The Community Development Director may grant exceptions for remodels that would require significant additional work above and beyond the scope of the remodel in order to ensure that all features are brought into compliance. For example, consider a remodel involving modifications to a porch structure that is currently smaller than the minimum square footage required by the Residential Design Standards. If the porch is being replaced with a new porch, the new porch will be required to meet the minimum size requirements in the Residential Design Standards. If only the porch posts are being replaced, the existing porch may remain without needing a variation even though it does not meet the minimum size requirements in the Residential Design Standards. As a second example, consider a remodel involving modifications to a non -orthogonal window where the maximum number of non -orthogonal windows allowed by the Residential Design Standards is exceeded. If the window is being moved to a new location or the size or shape of the window is being changed, the new window will be required to meet the non -orthogonal window limit in the Residential Design Standards. If the modifications to the window are being made in place and do not expand or change the size or shape, the existing nonconforming non -orthogonal window may remain without needing a variation even though it exceeds the maximum number of non -orthogonal windows allowed by the Residential Design Standards. E. Definitions. Unless otherwise indicated, the definitions of words used in these regulations shall be the same as the definitions used in Chapter 26.104 of the Land Use Code. In addition, the following definitions shall apply: Curvilinear Lot. A lot in which a curve comprises 50% or more of the total length of the front lot line. FaVade. An exterior face of a building. It can be applied to any side. Projections, such as open porches, are not considered a facade. Front FaVade. The street -facing exterior face of a building that contains the primary building entry. The front fagade may include multiple wall planes that make up the front face of the building. See Figure 1. Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 3 of 23 U 0 Figure I Li Street -Facing Fagade. Any side of a building that faces a street. A street -facing fagade may refer to multiple wall planes on a building face that face the street or right-of-way. See Figure 2. i E i i X ) mew Figure 2 Front -Most Wall. The wall of the front fagade of a building that is closest to the street or right-of-way. See Figure 3. Figure 3 Front -Most Element. The front most building feature associated with a primary building or garage. In many cases, this element may be located forward of the front fagade, such as an open front porch or projecting garage overhang. See Figure 4. Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 4 of 23 n Figure 4 Non -orthogonal Window. A window with an opening that is not rectangular in nature and does not possess right angles at each of its four corners and vertical or horizontal orientation of all edges. One Story. A portion of a building between the surface of the finished floor and the ceiling immediately above; or the wall plate height where no additional stories are located above. One story shall not exceed 10 feet for purposes of the Residential Design Standards. Open Front Porch. A porch on the front fagade of a building that is open on at least two (2) sides, one of which faces the street. Open shall mean no element of enclosure, except screens. Street. A way or thoroughfare, other than an alley, containing a public access easement and used or intended for vehicular traffic. The term street shall include the entire area within a right-of-way. For the purpose of Chapter 26.410, street shall also include private streets and vehicular access easements serving more than one (1) parcel. Streets shall not include public or private trails. 26.410.020. Procedures for Review A. Determination of Applicability. The applicant may request a preliminary Residential Design Standards pre -application conference with Community Development Department staff to determine the applicability of the requirements of this chapter for the proposed development. B. Administrative Review. Consistency with the Residential Design Standards shall be determined administratively, unless a variation is requested. The Administrative Review process will result in a determination of approval or denial for compliance with the Residential Design Standards. All projects will be reviewed for compliance with the Flexible and Non -flexible Standards contained within the Residential Design Standards. Flexible and Non -flexible Standards are defined as follows: 1. Flexible Standards. Flexible Standards are standards for which additional flexibility around the specific requirements of a standard may be granted administratively. If an application is found to be inconsistent with any of the Flexible Standards, but meets the overall intent of the standard as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3, Alternative Compliance may be granted. The Community Development Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny Alternative Compliance. If an application does not meet the overall intent of a Flexible Standard, the applicant may either amend their proposal or seek a variation, pursuant to Section 26.410.020.C, Variations. 2. Non -flexible Standards. Non -flexible Standards are those standards that shall be met by all projects subject to the Residential Design Standards, with no Alternative Compliance permitted, unless otherwise stated in this chapter. If an application is found to be inconsistent with any of the Non - flexible Standards as written, the applicant may either amend their proposal or seek a variation, pursuant to Section 26.410.020.C, Variations. C. Variations. Any application that does not receive Administrative Review approval described above may apply for a variation, pursuant to Section 26.304.030, Common Development Procedures. An applicant may also choose to apply directly for a variation if desired. The Planning & Zoning Commission Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 5 of 23 • 0 or Historic Preservation Commission, during a duly noticed public hearing, shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for variation, based on the standards of review in Section 26.410.020.D, Variation Review Standards. A variation from the Residential Design Standards does not grant an approval to vary other standards of this Chapter that may be provided by another decision -making body. The review process is as follows: Step One — Public Hearing before Planning & Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission. 1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the review standards for Residential Design Standard variation. 2. Process: The Community Development Director shall provide the Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, with a recommendation to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application, based on the standards of review. The Planning and Zoning Commission, or Historic Preservation Commission if the property is designated or is located within a historic district, shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application after considering the recommendation of the Community Development Director and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing. 3. Standards of review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section 26.410.020.1), Variation Review Standards. 4. Form of decision: The decision shall be by resolution. 5. Notice requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3.a), b) and c). D. Variation Review Standards. An application requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variation, if granted would: 1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3; or 2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site -specific constraints. 26.410.030. Single-family & duplex standards A. Applicability. Unless stated otherwise below, the design standards in this section shall apply to all single-family and duplex development. B. Location and Massing. 1. Articulation of Building Mass (Non -flexible] a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots outside of the Aspen Infill Area. Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 6 of 23 b) Intent. This standard seeks to reduce the overall perceived mass and bulk of buildings on a property as viewed from all sides. Designs should promote light and air access between adjacent properties. Designs should articulate building walls by utilizing multiple forms to break up large expansive wall planes. Buildings should include massing and articulation that convey forms that are similar in massing to historic Aspen residential buildings. This standard is critical in the Infill Area where small lots, small side and front setbacks, alleys and historic Aspen building forms are prevalent. Designs should change the plane of a building's sidewall, step a primary building's height down to one-story in the rear portion or limit the overall depth of the structure. c) Standard. A principal building shall articulate building mass to reduce bulk and mass and create building forms that are similar in scale to those seen in historic Aspen residential buildings. d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Maximum Sidewall Depth. A principal building shall be no greater than fifty (50) feet in depth, as measured from the front -most wall of the front fagade to the rear wall. An accessory building that is completely separated from the main building is permitted. Garages, sheds and accessory dwelling units are examples of appropriate uses for an accessory building. See Figure 5. Aftr I I I I I� Figure S (2) Off -set with One -Story Ground Level Connector. A principal building shall provide a portion of its mass as a subordinate one-story, ground floor connecting element. The connecting element shall be at least ten (10) feet in length and shall be setback at least an additional five (5) feet from the sidewall on both sides of the building. The connecting element shall occur at a maximum of forty-five (45) feet in depth, as measured from the front -most wall of the front facade to the rear wall. Accessible outdoor space over the connecting element (e.g. a deck) is permitted but may not be covered or enclosed. Any railing for an accessible outdoor space over a connecting element must be the minimum reasonably necessary to provide adequate safety and building code compliance and the railing must be 50% or more transparent. See Figure 6. II s mry I 10' mM. (App4s b both tidal I I y I Figure 6 Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 7 of 23 • (3) Increased Side Setbacks at Rear and Step Down. A principal building shall provide increased side setbacks at the rear of the building. If the principal building is two stories, it shall step down to one story in the rear. The increased side setbacks and one story step down shall occur at a maximum of forty-five (45) feet, as measured from the front -most wall toward the rear wall. The increased side setbacks shall be at least five (5) feet greater than the side setbacks at the front of the building. See Figure 7. rotdlaY pd, Figure 7 2. Building Orientation (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to establish a relationship between buildings and streets to create an engaging streetscape and discourage the isolation of homes from the surrounding neighborhood. The placement of buildings should seek to frame street edges physically or visually. Buildings should be oriented in a manner such that they are a component of the streetscape, which consists of the street itself and the buildings that surround it. Building orientation should provide a sense of interest and promote interaction between buildings and passersby. Building orientation is important in all areas of the city, but is particularly important in the Infill Area where there is a strong pattern of buildings that are parallel to the street. Designs should prioritize the visibility of the front fagade from the street by designing the majority of the front fagade to be parallel to the street or prominently visible from the street. Front facades, porches, driveways, windows, and doors can all be designed to have a strong and direct relationship to the street. c) Standard. The front fagade of a building shall be oriented to face the street on which it is located. d) Options. Fulfilling one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Strong Orientation Requirement. The front fagade of a building shall be parallel to the street. On a corner lot, both street -facing facades of a building shall be parallel to each street. See Figure 8. (2) Moderate Orientation Requirement. The front fagade of a building shall face the street. On a corner lot, one street -facing fagade shall face each intersecting street. See Figure 8. 0 Shone Modorati ,,, Figure 8 \' Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 8 of 23 • • The availability of these options shall be determined according to the following lot characteristics: required front lot outside the Option 1: setback 25 feet ho lot curvilinear? Infill Area? No Option 1 Strong or greater? orientation AD Es n 1 Es requirement OptioOption 1 Option 2: Moderate OR OR O R orientation Option 2 Option 2 Option 2 requirement 3. Build -to Requirement (Flexible a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of 25 feet or greater. (2) Lots that are curvilinear. (3) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to establish a consistent physical pattern of front fayades close to and parallel to streets in order to frame the street. The placement of buildings should respond to the street by framing street edges physically. Buildings should be located to provide a strong physical presence and integration within the streetscape, which consists of the street itself and the buildings that surround it. This standard is most important in the Infill Area where a strong pattern of smaller front setbacks and consistent building orientation exists. Designs should maximize the amount of the front fagade that is close to the street while still providing articulation and expressing a human scale. Porches, front fagade walls, rooflines and other elements can all contribute to framing the street. c) Standard. At least sixty percent (60%) of the front fagade of a principal building shall be within five (5) feet of the minimum front yard setback line. a On a corner lot, this standard shall be met on at least one (1) of the two intersecting streets. A front porch may be used to meet this requirement. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - See Figure 9. US No US 4. One-story Element (Flexible). Figure 9 a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to establish human scale building features as perceived from the street and express lower and upper floors on front fagades to reduce perceived mass. Designs should utilize street -facing architectural elements, such as porches, that imitate those of historic Aspen residential buildings. Buildings should provide visual evidence or demarcation of the stories of a building to relate to pedestrians. This standard is important in all areas of the city. Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 9 of 23 Front porches or portions of the front -most wall of the front facade should clearly express a one-story scale as perceived from the street. Changes in material or color can also be incorporated into these elements to help to strengthen the establishment of a one-story scale. c) Standard. A principal building shall incorporate a one-story element on the front facade. Duplexes in a side -by -side configuration are required to have a one-story element per dwelling unit. d) Options. (1) Projecting One -Story Element. The front facade of the principal building shall have a one-story street -facing element that projects at least six (6) feet from the front facade and has a width equivalent to at least twenty percent (20%) of the building's (or unit's) overall width. This one story element may be enclosed living space or a front porch that is open on three sides. This one story element shall be a minimum of 50 square feet in area. Accessible space (whether it is a deck, 20% of overall width min. ` 6' min. Figure 10 porch or enclosed area) shall not be allowed over the first story element; however, accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front facade shall not be precluded. See Figure 10. (2) Loggia. The front facade of the principal building shall have an open loggia that is recessed at least six (6) feet but no more than ten (10) feet from the front facade, and has a width equivalent to at least twenty percent (20%) of the building's (or unit's) overall width. The loggia shall be open on at least two (2) sides and face the street. This one story element shall be a minimum of 50 square feet in area. See Figure 11. (3) One -Story Stepdown. The principal building shall include a one-story component on one side of the building that remains one story from the front facade to the rear wall. The width of the one-story portion shall be a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the building's (or unit's) overall width. The one-story portion may be fully enclosed and used as living area. Accessible space (whether it is a deck, porch or enclosed area) shall not be allowed over the first story element; however, accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front facade shall not be precluded. See Figure 12. Figure 11 20%of ovoral width min. Figure 12 Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 10 of 23 The availability of these options shall be determined according to the following lot characteristics: required front Option 1: setback 25 feet N lot outside the Infill Area? Option t Projecting or greater? one story Es Es element Option t Option 1 Option 2 Option 2: Recessed OR Option 2 OR Option 2 open front porch CR OR Option 3: Option 3 One-story Option 3 stepdown C. Garages. 1. Garage Access (Non -flexible a) Applicability. This standard is required for all lots that have vehicular access from an alley or private street. b) Intent. This standard seeks to minimize potential conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles by concentrating parking along alleys and away from the street where pedestrian activity is highest. This standard also seeks to minimize the visibility of opaque and unarticulated garage doors from streets by placing them in alleys wherever possible. Properties with alleys shall utilize the alley as an opportunity to place the garage in a location that is subordinate to the principal building, further highlighting the primary building from the street. This standard is important for any property where an alley is Mley available, which is most common in the Infill Area. --t c) Standard. A lot that has access from an alley or private street shall be required to access parking, garages and carports from the alley or private street. Where alley access is available, no parking or vehicular access shall be allowed forward of the front fagade. See Figure 13. 2. Garage Placement (Non -flexible). street Figure 13 a) Applicability. This standard is required for all lots that do not have vehicular access from an alley or private street. b) Intent. This standard seeks to prevent large expanses of unarticulated facades close to the street and ensure garages are subordinate to the principal building for properties that feature driveway and garage access directly from the street. Buildings should seek to locate garages behind principal buildings so that the front fagade of the principal building is highlighted. Where locating the garage behind the front fagade of the principal building is not feasible or required, designs should minimize the presence of garage doors as viewed from the street. This standard is important in all areas of the city where alley access is not an option. Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 11 of 23 • c) Standard. A garage or carport shall be placed in a way that reduces its prominence as viewed from the street. On a corner lot, this standard shall apply to both street -facing fagades. d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Set Back Garage. The front -most element of the garage or carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front - most wall of any street -facing facade of the principal building. See Figure 14. (2) Side -Loaded Garage Forward of Street -Facing Fagade. A garage or carport located forward of a street -facing facade shall be side -loaded. The garage or carport entry shall be perpendicular to the street. For lots on curved streets, the garage door shall not be placed on any street -facing facade of the garage. See Figure 15. Figure 14 Figure 15� The availability of these options shall be determined according to the following lot characteristics: required front lot outside the Option 1: setback 25 feet No Infill Area? No Option 1 Set back or greater? garage E ES Option 2: Option 1 Option 1 Garage forward of OR p the front Option 2 Option 2 facade 3. Garage Dimensions (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard applies to all residential development in the city that is subject to the Residential Design Standards. b) Intent. This standard seeks to minimize the presence of wide garages as perceived from streets and ensure that garages are subordinate to the principal building. Designs should promote an active streetscape that is not dominated by wide expanses of garage doors. Garage doors should either be hidden from public view or their width minimized. This standard is important in all areas of the city. See Figure 16. E FHV x z«5' Figure 16 Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 12 of 23 • • c) Standards. The width of the living area on the first floor of a street - facing facade on which a garage is located shall be at least five (5) feet greater than the width of the garage or carport. The total width of all vehicular entrance(s) to garage(s) or carport(s) that are visible from the street, whether on the same plane or offset from one another, shall not exceed twenty-four (24) feet. See Figure 17. 4. Garage Door Design (Flexible). 24' max. Figure 17 a) Applicability. This standard applies to all residential development in the city that is subject to the Residential Design Standards. b) Intent. This standard seeks to promote a streetscape that maximizes visual interest by minimizing unarticulated expanses of garage doors. Garage doors that utilize increased articulation, changes in fagade depth and profile of materials, windows and other features to break up the garage door should be prioritized. This standard is critical for any property where garage doors are visible from the street. c) Standard. A garage door that is visible from a street shall utilize an articulation technique to break up its fagade. d) Options. Fulfilling one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Two Separate Doors. A two -car garage door shall be constructed as two separate doors. See Figure 18. (2) Appearance of Two Separate Doors. A two -car garage door shall be constructed with one door that is designed to appear as two separate doors by incorporating a vertical separating element that is at least one (1) foot in width. D. Entry Features. 1. Entry Connection (Non -flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: Figure 18 (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to promote visual and physical connections between buildings and the street. Buildings should use architectural and site planning features to establish a connection between these two elements. Buildings shall not use features that create barriers or hide the entry features of the house such as fences, hedgerows or walls. Buildings and site planning features should establish a sense that one can directly enter a building from the street through the use of pathways, front porches, front doors that face the street and other similar methods. This standard is critical in all areas of the city. c) Standard. A building shall provide a visual and/or physical connection between a primary entry and the street. On a corner lot, an entry connection shall be provided to at least one (1) of the Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 13 of 23 0 0 two intersecting streets. Duplexes in a side -by -side configuration shall have one (1) entry connection per dwelling unit. d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Street Oriented Entrance. At least one (1) entry door shall be provided on the front fagade of the principal building. The entry door shall face the street and shall not be set back more than ten (10) feet from the front - most wall of the front fagade of the principal building. Fencing, hedgerows, walls or other permitted structures shall not obstruct visibility to the door. See Figure 19. (2) Open Front Porch. The front fagade of the principal building shall have a front porch that is open on at least two (2) sides, a minimum of 50 square feet, face the street, and have a demarcated pathway that connects the street to the front porch. The front porch shall contain the primary entrance to the building. Fencing, hedgerows, walls or other permitted structures shall not obstruct visibility to the porch or the demarcated pathway. See Figure 20. Figure 19 Figure 20 For lots located in the Smuggler Park and Smuggler Run Subdivisions: the front porch is not required on the front fagade, but the front -most element of the porch shall be within twenty-five (25) feet of the front -most wall of the building. The porch shall meet all other requirements of this standard. The availability of these options shall be determined according to the following lot characteristics: required front lot outside the Option t: • setback 25 feet No Infill Area? NO Option 1 Street or greater? oriented E ES entrance Option 1 Option 1 Option 2: Open front OR OR porch Option 2 Option 2 2. Door Height (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 14 of 23 • b) Intent. This standard seeks to retain historic architectural character by ensuring modestly scaled doors that are not out of scale when compared to historic Aspen residential buildings. Large, oversized doors should be avoided so as not to overwhelm front faVades and distort the sense of human scale as perceived from the street. This standard is j important in all areas of the city. c) Standard. All doors facing a street shall not be taller than eight (8) feet. A small transom window above a door shall not be considered a part of the door for the purpose of this standard. See Figure 21. 3. Entry Porch Height (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: Figure 21 (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard promotes porches that are built at a one-story human -scale that are compatible with historic Aspen residential buildings. This standard prevents porches that are out of scale with the street and traditional porches seen in the surrounding neighborhood. Porch designs should reinforce the one-story scale and help reduce perceived mass as viewed from the street. This standard is critical for buildings in the Infill Area. c) Standard. An entry porch or canopy on the front facade of a principal building shall not be more than one-story in height as �! defined by this chapter. See Figure 22. 1 story max. E. Fenestration and Materials. 1. Principal Window (Flexible Figure 22 a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to prevent large expanses of blank walls on the front fagades of principal buildings. A building should incorporate a significant sense of transparency on the front facade. Designs should include prominent windows or groups of windows on the front facade to help promote connection between the residence and street. This standard is important in all areas of the city. c) Standard. A principal building shall have at least one (1) street -facing principal window or grouping of smaller windows acting as a principal window on the front facade. Duplexes in a side -by -side configuration shall have one (1) principal window per dwelling unit. d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 15 of 23 (1) Street -Facing Principal Window. The front facade shall have at least one (1) window with dimensions of four (4) feet by four (4) feet or greater. See Figure 23. �--+I C]' Figure 23` (2) Window Grouo. The front facade shall have at least one= (1) group of windows that when measured as a group has "'Min4- min , dimensions of four (4) feet by four (4) feet or greater. See''_'p Figure 24. I__3_ Figure 24 2. Window Placement (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to preserve the historic architectural character of Aspen by preventing large expanses of vertical glass windows that dominate street -facing facades. Overly tall expanses of glass on a street -facing facade do not relate well to human scale. Designs should utilize windows that provide a sense of demarcation between stories and pedestrian scale. Where an upper story window is located directly above a lower story window, a gap with no window should be provided between them that is easily recognizable from the street and clearly differentiates lower and upper stories. This standard is important in all areas of the city. 1 c) Standard. Astreet-facing window on a building shall not._J vertically span more than one story as defined by this chapter. YES See Figure 25. Figure 25 3. Non -orthogonal Window Limit (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots outside of the Aspen Infill Area. (2) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to encourage rectilinear window shapes seen in Aspen's historic residential architecture and discourages the proliferation or overuse of round or diagonal - oriented windows. Designs should minimize the use of non -orthogonal windows that face the street in order to help preserve the historic character of Aspen. This standard is critical in the Infill Area where many of Aspen's historic residential buildings are located. Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 16 of 23 • i c) Standard. A building shall have no more than one (1) non - orthogonal window on each fagade of the building that faces o the street. A single non -orthogonal window in a gable end may be divided with mullions and still be considered one (1) non- O orthogonal window. See Figure 26. 4. Light well/Stairwell Location (Flexible). Figure 26 a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to minimize negative visual impacts to the street and discourage visual and physical disconnection between buildings and streets. Building designs should avoid placing light wells, areaways, skylights, and stairwells between primary buildings and streets. These features should be located away from the front of buildings. Designs should locate these elements at the sides or rear of a principal building. This standard is most important in all areas of the city with smaller setbacks. r°`' c) Standard. A light well, areaway, skylight or stairwell shall not be —� located between the front -most wall of a street -facing facade and No any street. See Figure 27. Figure 27 5. Materials (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard applies to all residential development in the city that is subject to the Residential Design Standards. b) Intent. This standard seeks to reinforce historic architectural character by preventing the use of materials on single-family and duplex buildings that is in sharp contrast with use of materials seen in historic Aspen residential buildings. Buildings should use materials consistently on all sides of a building instead of simply applying a material on one fagade of a building. Buildings should seek to use heavier materials, such as brick or stone, as a base for lighter materials, such as wood or stucco. Buildings should use materials .that are similar in profile, texture and durability to those seen in historic residential buildings in the city. This standard is important in all areas of the city. c) Standards. The quality of the exterior materials and their application shall be consistent on all sides of the single-family or duplex building. See Figure 28. Materials shall be used in ways that are true to their characteristics. For instance stucco, which is a light or nonbearing material, shall not be used below a heavy material, such as stone. See Figure 29. Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 17 of 23 r.. No Yes No Figure 28 Figure 29 26.410.040. Multi -family standards A. Applicability. Unless stated otherwise below, the design standards in this section shall apply to all multi -family development. B. Design standards. 1. Building Orientation (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to establish a relationship between buildings and streets to create an engaging streetscape and discourage the isolation of homes from the surrounding neighborhood. The placement of buildings should seek to frame street edges physically or visually. Buildings should be oriented in a manner such that they are a component of the streetscape, which consists of the street itself and the buildings that surround it. Building orientation should provide a sense of interest and promote interaction between buildings and passersby. Building orientation is important in all areas of the city, but is particularly important in the Infill Area where there is a strong pattern of buildings that are parallel to the street. Designs should prioritize the visibility of the front fagade from the street by designing the majority of the front fagade to be parallel to the street or prominently visible from the street. Front facades, porches, driveways, windows, and doors can all be designed to have a strong and direct relationship to the street. c) Standard. The front fagade of a building shall be oriented to face the street on which it is located. d) Options. Fulfilling one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Strong Orientation Requirement. The front facade of a building shall be parallel to the street. On a corner lot, both street -facing facades of a building shall be parallel to each street. See Figure 30. (2) Moderate Orientation Requirement. The front fagade of a building shall face the street. On a corner lot, one --L Strong street -facing fagade shall face each intersecting street. ModwaW, Figure 30 Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 18 of 23 0 • The availability of these options shall be determined according to the following lot characteristics: required front lot outside the Option 1: setback 25 feet no lot curvilinear? h0 Infill Area? No Option 1 Strong or greater? orientation ES Es ES requirement Option 1 Option 1 7 Option 1 Option 2: Moderate `DR OR orientation Option 2 Option 2 Option 2 requirement 2. Garage Access (Non -flexible). a) Applicability. This standard is required for all lots that have vehicular access from an alley or private street. b) Intent. This standard seeks to minimize potential conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles by concentrating parking along alleys and away from the street where pedestrian activity is highest. This standard also seeks to minimize the visibility of plain, opaque and unarticulated garage doors from streets by placing them in alleys wherever possible. Properties with alleys shall utilize the alley as an opportunity to place the garage in a location that is subordinate to the principal building, further highlighting the _ Auer primary building from the street. This standard is important for any property where an alley is No yes available, which is most common in the Infill Area. Yes c) Standard. A multi -family building that has access from an alley or private street shall be required to access parking, garages and carports from the alley or private street. See Figure 31. Street 3. Garage Placement (Non -flexible). Figure 31 a) Applicability. This standard is required for all lots that do not have vehicular access from an alley or private street. b) Intent. This standard seeks to prevent large expanses of unarticulated facades close to the street and ensure garages are subordinate to the principal building for properties that feature driveway and garage access directly from the street. Buildings should seek to locate garages behind principal buildings so that the front fagade of the principal building is highlighted. Where locating the garage behind the front fagade of the principal building is not feasible or required, designs should minimize the presence of garage doors as viewed from the street. This standard is important in all areas of the city where alley access is not an option. 1 c) Standard. The front of a garage or the front -most supporting column of a carport shall be set back at / least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front to m %,/ fagade of the principal building. See Figure 32. Figure 32 Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 19 of 23 • 0 4. Entry Connection (Non -flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to promote visual and physical connections between buildings and the street. Buildings should use architectural and site planning features to establish a connection between these two elements. Buildings shall not use features that create barriers or hide the entry features of the house such as fences, hedgerows or walls. Buildings and site planning features should establish a sense that one can directly enter a building from the street through the use of pathways, front porches, front doors that face the street and other similar methods. This standard is critical in all areas of the city. c) Standard. A building shall provide a visual and/or physical connection between a primary entry and the street. On a corner lot, an entry connection shall be provided to at least one (1) of the two intersecting streets. d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Street Oriented Entrance. There shall be at least one (1) entry door that faces the street for every four (4) street -facing, ground -level units in a row. Fencing, hedgerows, walls or other permitted structures shall not obstruct visibility to the entire door. See Figure 33. (2) Oven Front Porch. There shall be at least one (1) porch or ground -level balcony that faces the street for every street -facing, ground -level unit. Fencing, hedgerows, walls or other permitted structures shall not obstruct visibility to the porch or the demarcated pathway. See Figure 34. 5. Principal Window (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: Figure 33 Figure 34 (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to prevent large expanses of blank walls on the front fagades of principal buildings. A building should incorporate significant transparency on the front facade. Designs should include prominent windows or groups of windows on the front facade to help Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 20 of 23 0 • promote connection between the residence and street. This standard is important in all areas of the city. c) Standard. At least one (1) street -facing principal window or grouping of smaller windows acting as a principal window shall be provided for each unit facing the street. On a corner unit with street frontage on two streets, this standard shall apply to both street -facing fagades. d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Street -Facing Principal Window. The front facade shall have at least one 1 window with dimensions of three 4' � I. () 1-�. -- (3) feet by four (4) feet or greater for each dwelling unit. n4" See Figure 35. j Figure 35 (2) Window Group. The front facade shall have at least one (1) group of windows that when measured as a group has 4 min dimensions of three 3 feet b four 4 feet or greater for 3' min () Y () g i each dwelling unit. See Figure 36. _-=- Figure 36 26.410.050. Appeals A. An applicant aggrieved by a decision made by the Community Development Director regarding administration of this Chapter may appeal the decision to the Administrative Hearing Officer, pursuant to Chapter 26.316. B. An applicant aggrieved by a decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission as applicable, may appeal the decision to the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 26.316. In such circumstances, the Commission's decision shall be considered a recommendation to City Council. Section 3: The following definitions in Section 26.104.100, Definitions, shall be added as follows: Berm. A human -made raised strip of land or ridge made of earthen materials. Hedgerow. A row of closely spaced bushes, trees, or shrubs that create, or have the potential through growth maturity to create a largely opaque visual barrier. Section 4• Chapter 26.210.020.13 — Community Development Director, which section described the power and duties of the Community Development Director, shall be amended as follows: [No Changes to Subsections 1— 24] Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 21 of 23 25. To approve Alternative Compliance, pursuant to Chapter 26.410. Section 5• Chapter 26.212.010 — Planning and Zoning Commission, which section describes the power and duties of the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall be amended as follows: [No Changes to Subsections A — N] O. To hear, review and approve variations to the Residential Design Standards, pursuant to Chapter 26.410; [No Changes to Subsection P — Q] Section 6• Chapter 26.220.010 — Historic Preservation Commission, which section describes the power and duties of the Historic Preservation Commission, shall be amended as follows: [No Changes to Subsections A — H] I. To hear, review and approve variations to the Residential Design Standards, pursuant to Chapter 26.410; [No Changes to Subsection J— K] Section 7: Update of Review Fees Section 26.104.070, Land Use Application Fees shall be amended to reflect the changes to the Residential Design Standards, as follows: "Flat Fee 4, $650, Residential Design Variance, admin." shall be amended to state "Flat Fee 4, $650, Residential Design Standard Administrative Compliance, admin." "Planning Review — One -Step, Hourly Fee, Residential Design Variance — P&Z" shall be amended to state "Planning Review — One -Step, Hourly Fee, Residential Design Variation — P&Z" [All other fees shall remain unchanged.] Section 8• Any scrivener's errors contained in the code amendments herein, including but not limited to mislabeled subsections or titles, may be corrected administratively following adoption of the Ordinance. Section 9: Effect Upon Existing Litigation. This ordinance 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 10: Severability. Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 22 of 23 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance 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. Section 11: Effective Date. In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final passage. Section 12: A public hearing on this ordinance was held on the 11 a, day of January, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 14t' day of December, 2015. Attest: Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2015. Attest: Linda Manning, City Clerk Approved as to form: James R. True, City Attorney Steven Skadron, Mayor Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 23 of 23 • EXHIBIT A STAFF FINDINGS 26.310.050 Amendments to the Land Use Code Standards of review - Adoption. In reviewing an application to amend the text of this Title, per Section 26.310.020(B)(3), Step Three — Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. Staff Findings: There are no known conflicts with any other portions of this Title. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Whether the proposed amendment achieves the policy, community goal, or objective cited as reasons for the code amendment or achieves other public policy objectives. Staff Findings: The main purposes of the proposed amendment are to improve the administrative review process to provide more clarity and reliability, provide flexibility to promote a variety of design styles, and cleanup the language to read easier for the community. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with the community character of the City and is in harmony with the public interest and the purpose and intent of this Title. Staff Findings: The proposed amendment provides more transparency and reliability for the review process while providing flexibility to promote different design styles and creativity in a community that has a strong history of this variety. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Exhibit A Staff Findings RDS Code Amendment Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT B Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 201S but he also feels the developer needs to have trust in the process too. He thinks it will be a positive outcome and hopes in the future they are dealing with a different set of criteria. Mr. Goode agreed. Mr. Elliott motioned to approve resolution #20, series 2015 adding the following conditions identified by Ms. Phelan as a third paragraph of Section 1. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mesirow. Meet the growth management requirements for above graded net livable space for the affordable housing units. Verify dimensional requirements are met, specifically Floor Area Calculations. • The applicant is encouraged to further review the Hopkins facade. Mr. Goode requested a roll call. Roll call vote: Mr. Morris, yes; Mr. Mesirow, yes; Mr. Elliott, yes; Ms. McNicholas Kury, yes; and Mr. Goode, yes. The motion passed with a total five (5) yes — zero (0) no. Ms. Phelan requested Mr. Wilson to provide an electronic copy of the presentation. Mr. Goode then closed the public hearing. OTHER BUSINESS Residential Design Standards. Code Amendment Check -In Mr. Justin Barker, Community Development Senior Planner, stated he wanted to check in with P&Z regarding proposed code amendments pertaining to the City's Residential Design Standards (RDS). Mr. Barker provided background on the RDS and stated Council directed Staff earlier this year to look into updating the RDS to make it more appropriate for the current designs and timeframe. Staff has been working with a consultant as well as an advisory committee to identify possible updates. After multiple discussions and meetings, two issues were identified with the current version of the chapter. • Lack of clarity in the administrative review process • Lack of flexibility in the existing standards Mr. Barker then reviewed the administrative review process. The process is confusing as is the standard for the reviews that occur during the process. He referred to Exhibit A which diagrams the existing and proposed review processes. With the new review process, they are proposing all projects come in for an administrative review for all standards. Administratively, they would receive an approval or denial to be included in their building permit providing them assurance they have a signed off approval. This would also removes the three design request limitation. Staff will look at all the standards combined and whether they are met collectively or not. If the proposal is denied, the applicant has the opportunity to request a variation from P&Z or mend their requirements to meet the RDS. When an application comes in, there are set standards based on the location and topography of the site that must be met to the letter. The application may also go through an administrative or a P&Z variance review. Staff recognizes not all the standards have equal importance and he provided an example of the location of the structure on the lot may not be as important as the overall mass of the building. The proposed changes prioritize the standards and identifies three standards as the nonflexible standards as Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 listed on p. 75 of the agenda packet. These must be met as per stated in the code and any variance must be taken to P&Z for review. All the other standards are reviewed with flexibility in mind and Staff will determine the intent of the standard is being is met. He discussed the two examples on pp 79 and 80 of the packet. There are a few more updates Staff has been working on including the following. • Reorganizing the entire chapter to make it more readable • Define some terms not previously defined or are unclear • Updating and improving the graphics to be more understandable • Adding new graphics to further assist with explaining topics For public outreach, there was an open house at the end of September that approximately 20 people attended. There was an overwhelming positive response to the idea of the proposed changes. The proposed changes were also included in the Community Development Newsletter which goes out to almost 600 professionals in the valley to which there has been mostly positive responses as well. The next steps include the proposed changes going to Council for policy resolution in early December. There will also be one more public open house on the same date to obtain additional feedback prior to the meeting with Council. If the policy resolution is approved, they will proceed with an ordinance reading for the specific language to amend the code. Mr. Barker asked if P&Z supports the proposed amendment or has any concerns. Mr. Mesirow asked who made up the audience at the open house. Mr. Barker answered it was a lot of local architects and designers. Mr. Mesirow stated it seems very counter to the general feeling of the community to hold to very specific guidelines with no flexibility in granting anything to anybody. Mr. Morris asked if the audience receiving the newsletter was also primarily architects and designers at which Mr. Barker stated the newsletter is viewed by architects, designers, real estate agents, attorneys and others involved with land use code review and enforcement. Mr. Morris wondered how we could get some from the other side to show up and participate in the review. Ms. Phelan stated there needs to be guidelines in place and the values of the town are so high that if there were no requirements, you would see 10 ft walls around houses turning them into compounds and the public streetscape would be negatively impacted. What Staff heard is that some of the requirements are not flexible. Staff is trying to identify those standards that are sacred and there can't be an administrative variation unless you go to a board for review. Mr. Barker added they want to focus on the design and the overall intent of the applicants instead of looking at the extreme details such as your window is 9 ft tall instead of 9 ft 3 in tall. Staff does not feel it is necessary for an applicant to come to P&Z to ask for a window that is 3 in taller than allowed per the code. Mr. Goode remarked P&Z has seen plenty of such examples. Mr. Goode other commissioners stated they feel the changes will be good for the process. Mr. Mesirow appreciates the direction and finding more competence in the process for everyone is important. He also feels the intent to focus on use is really healthy oppose to it looking as though the standards are being relaxed. Mr. Morris also feels it will be important to articulate the reasons behind amending the code. Mr. Mesirow does see a red flag when it comes to the prioritization. He understands why it is being done, but is concerned they may be drawing a roadmap for architects and designers to figure out which things they need to abide by. Ms. Phelan added the proposed process may be able to dial in the intent • 0 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 to match the location more appropriately to match the development pattern of the area. She added there are certain design principles that will be upheld. She gave the example that Staff feels very strongly about the placement of a garage at a site. For instance, on Cemetery Lane they may allow side loading where they typically do not allow for it. Mr. Mesirow asked for the process to revisit this based on changing community priorities. Mr. Barker stated it would be easier to change the priorities in the future should the need arise. Mr. Barker stated a lot of designers have figured out a loophole process to meeting the standards which creates a worse design in the end. These amendments will help Staff focus on the overall design and allow the applicant to focus on a holistic design rather than just meet the standard. Mr. Mesirow reiterated having check -in mechanisms would ultimately make the process better. It would also encourage trust with the community. Mr. Goode felt opening it up to look at the entire design from the beginning would be helpful. Mr. Barker reiterated currently an applicant may present up to three items for administrative variances from three different standards. If they request more than three, it currently goes to P&Z for review. With the amendments, there will no longer be a limitation on the number requested for administrative review. If the administrative review is not granted, the applicant would have the option of taking their request to P&Z. Mr. Mesirow asked if it was a requirement or opportunity for the applicant to currently ask for administrative review. Mr. Barker replied currently it is reviewed for RIDS when someone submits for a building permit. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked how Staff makes their decisions defensible in regards to intent. Ms. Phelan stated there are some standards that are a bit loose and it is harder to define the intent but she feels the more something can be explained, the more you can define where it meets or doesn't meet the standard. Mr. Barker stated there will always be subjectivity in design, but it important to gather as much information as possible. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated some statements raise red flags for her. She cited a statement Section 26.410.010.A.3, which states to encourage creative and contemporary architecture in keeping with Aspen's history. She stated statements like this are extremely difficult to interpret and noted the application approved earlier and how it will change the character of the neighborhood impacting any future review under that criteria is different. She feels there is a tension between what Aspen was and what it is becoming. She is concerned the direction in which it is heading is very unclear and doesn't feel in terms of design, it is something that's been articulated. Mr. Goode brought up that the aspect of messy vitality that has driven change in Aspen. Mr. Mesirow feels Ms. McNicholas Kury wants better confines to direct the change that will occur. He added change includes not only what it will look like, but also what it act and feel like. Ms. McNicholas Kury feels the change should be tied to an intent whether it be messy vitality or something else. Mr. Barker understands Ms. McNicholas Kury's concerns, but unfortunately it is not in the scope of the update being discussed. He does feel the proposed amendments will help support the intent going forward to the specific standards. He suggested perhaps the standards could be reviewed for their relevance sometime in the future. 10 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 Elevator Overrun Code Amendment Check -In Mr. Barker reviewed the current code allows for elevator overruns for anything but single family homes and duplexes has the capability to be five and in some cases up to 10 ft taller than what code allows based on the setback from the street to reduce visibility. Staff has heard complaints it is difficult to achieve a workable design based on the requirements and Council has directed Staff to look into it. Mr. Barker stated they asked through their newsletter for realistic numbers. From their responses, it seems most standard elevator designs range from 14.5 to 20 ft in height for the entire assembly. This is measured from where you exit the elevator to the very top of the roof of the enclosure. A typical height is 16 ft for a structure available for purchase from vendors serving the valley. Staff is asking if P&Z is interested in increasing the height for an elevator enclosure. He added one of the difficulties identified in regards to the design is currently they end up with awkward elevator ramping systems to get to the actual top and stay under the height limit. For an example, with a 16 ft enclosure the floor would have to be dropped approximately 6 ft below the roof line or have a custom, expensive structure built to achieve the five ft or 10 ft height limit. Mr. Goode doesn't see the cost as an issue for those who typically build in Aspen. Mr. Morris asked for the typical costs to comply with the existing code requirements. Mr. Barker stated he has not received any specific input regarding how much it costs for a closure requiring ramping for the 19 ft enclosure Ms. Phelan reminded P&Z this is only to access the roof and this wouldn't be an issue if they don't need roof access. Mr. Barker added rooftop views are a hot item lately. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the elevators are used to transport people or a commercial elevator. Mr. Barker answered it is for people. Mr. Barker stated the elevator overrun example provided in the packet is for commercial use and not residential use. Mr. Mesirow asked if this code amendment was applicable to commercial core or other zone districts. Mr. Barker stated the amendment discussion it is not tied specifically to zone district but he would welcome any input from P&Z. Mr. Mesirow looking objectively at the recently approved projects and noted they all had elevators on top conforming to the 10 ft requirement. He feels it is clearly doable and while he doesn't feel it makes sense to impose superfluous costs on developers, he doesn't feel 20 ft elevators would be popular with the community. He felt additional height may be possibly allowed if the structure was not visible from the closest structure at street level in each direction. Mr. Elliott supports having roof access but feels the current standard is working. He feels taller structures would impede the views of the mountains. Although the cost to make it possible currently may be higher, he feels there is also a visual impact cost to the community with higher towers. Mr. Mesirow remarked the Sky Hotel will have a roof top access. He stated if the roof takes up 200 sf for ramps to make the 10 ft tower design work. If allowing a higher tower would improve the public amenity space and not a visual impact from the street, he would not have a problem with it. Mr. Elliott feels it is necessary to look for impacts other than from the street. He feels the developers have been able to work out solutions to make it work. Mr. Goode asked how long the rule has been in place. Ms. Phelan believes it has changed somewhat in the last 10 years. Mr. Goode feels technology may provide for opportunities going forward. 11 0 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 Ms. McNicholas Kury doesn't feel roof access is a pressing public need at this time. In summary, P&Z does not support an increase in height. Mr. Goode then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk's Office, Records Manager 12 EXHIBIT C RESOLUTION NO. 136, (SERIES OF 2015) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING AMENDMENTS TO THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS, CHAPTER 26.410 OF THE LAND USE CODE. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), the Community Development Department received direction from City Council to explore amendments to the Residential Design Standards Chapter, Chapter 26.410 of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development Department conducted Public Outreach to local architects, contractors, and planners; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended changes to the Residential Design Standards in the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendment policy direction, and finds it meets the criteria outlined in Section 26.310.040; and, . WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing on December 1, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No. 136, Series of 2015, by a five to zero (5 — 0) vote, requesting code amendments to the Residential Design Standards in the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, this Resolution does not amend the Land Use Code, but provides direction to staff for amending the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the,promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AS -FOLLOWS: Section 1: Code Amendment Obiective and Direction Council directs the Community Development Department to return with code amendments to update the Residential Design Standards in the Land Use Code. The code amendments are intended to improve the administrative review process, better organize the standards, and clean up confusing language and loopholes within the current standards. Section 2: 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 resolutions or ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior resolutions or ordinances. Resolution No. 136, Series 2015 Page 1 of 2 Section 3: 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 affdct the validity of the remaining portions thereof. FINALLY, adopted this 1" day of December 2015. NCO o- v�, Steven Skadron, Mayor J ATTEST: Linda Manning, City APPROVED AS TO FORM: James R True, City Attorney Resolution No. 136, Series 2015 Page 2 of 2 • EXHIBIT D Smuggler Park Homeowners Association 301 Oak Lane Aspen, CO 81611 January 2, 2016 City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Smuggler neighborhood and Residential Design Standards Dear Mayor, City Council and City Staff, The Smuggler Mobile Home Park, consisting of Smuggler Run and Smuggler Park, was created in 1982 before the Residential Design Standards were in place. We understand that the intent of the Standards is to create a pedestrian friendly neighborhood with a related pattern of development. Appreciating the purpose of the Standards and applying the actual Code requirements unfortunately do not always work for projects within Smuggler Park and Smuggler Run. Most building permits for a remodel involve a recurring conversation with the Planning Staff about whether the project meets specific Standards, whether a variance is needed and how to comply. Most of these conversations stem from our small lots (a minimum of 2,400 — 3,000 sf) that situated on a diagonal and are not very deep. While we recognize the importance and our ability to meet many of the Standards proposed with the Code amendment, we ask for you to consider three specific areas for relief. We have worked closely with Planning Staff to understand the proposed Code changes, to voice our concerns, and to discuss the following potential changes with Planning Staff. The following points focus on recurring problem areas that where homeowners either have to request a variance or not pursue their remodel due to inability to meet these requirements. 1) Front Porch size: Staff proposes language that a front porch within the Smuggler Park and Smuggler Run is allowed to be on the side of the home and not required to be on the front. We appreciate this adjustment and request that the minimum size (50 square feet) for a front porch be slightly reduced to accommodate the small size of the homes and the lots. We propose the following language (underlined) that still creates a visible front porch located within 10 feet of the front facade of the house, and takes into account that our homes are much smaller than the average Aspen residence. Underlined language is proposed. "For lots located in the Smuggler Park and Smuggler Run Subdivision: the front porch is not required on the front fa4ade, but the front -most element of the porch shall be within ten (10) feet of the front -most wall of the building. A minimum depth of five (5) is required and a minimum of 25 square feet is uired. Unless specified, the porch shall meet all other requirements of this standard." 2) Principal window size: Staff proposes language requiring a 4 x 4 window or group of windows on the front of the home. We agree that blank walls facing a street do not create friendly • 0 Smuggler Park Homeowners Association 301 Oak Lane Aspen, CO 81611 neighborhoods. Considering a typical layout of homes in our neighborhood, with a bedroom in the front and the short width of our homes (our lots are a minimum of 40 sf in width), we are concerned that a 4 x 4 sized window or group of windows may create an uncomfortable living space and are out of proportion considering our small wall size (we are also restricted to one story buildings). We propose either a reduced minimum size principal window/group of windows or a minimum cumulative glass area calculation that includes all of the windows on the front facade rather than a group of windows. Underlined language is proposed. "For lots located in the Smuggler Park and Smuggler Run Subdivision: the front facade shall have at least one (1) window with dimensions of two (2) feet by four (4) feet or greater; or shall have at least one (1) group of windows that when measured as a group has dimensions of two (2) feet by two (2) feet or rg eater." Or, "For lots located in the Smuggler Park and Smuggler Run Subdivision: the front facade shall have a cumulative glass area of at least three (3) feet by three (3) feet or greater." 3) Lightwell location: The proposed language does not allow lightwells in front of a street facing wall of a home. We understand that the intent is to avoid large moats around buildings. We propose language that would, in our opinion, still meet the intent of avoiding moats and provide us with a little more flexibility to place lightwells in the front yard, which frees up some yard space for a garden or patio. We propose that lightwells that are incorporated into another element, such as a porch, are allowed forward of street facing facades. Underlined language is proposed. "For lots located in the Smuggler Park and Smuggler Run Subdivision: the minimum size lightwell required for egress and for Building Code compliance is permitted forward of street facing facades only when the lightwell is covered with a grate and is incorporated as part of a deck or front porch element. We appreciate the willingness of Staff to discuss these issues with us. We understand the one size fits all approach works for most of town, but we feel that the three proposed changes meet the intent of the Standards and also address recurring problem areas that should save time and money for the City and for the homeowners. Please let us know if we can explain these requests further or show past examples of projects in our neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Smuggler Park Homeowners Association • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PRO pen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: ,20 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin } I, &in 141th'Sm (name, please print) being or rtpresenting an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby .personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: V/ Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the _ day of 120 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign).is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Piddn County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted -prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAs or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and. new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. 4 Signature The egoing "Affidavit of Notice" was a o before me this � day of p , 20 , by �4 60 PUBLIC NO7N:t RE:AMENDMENT TO THE CRY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE WITNESS W HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday,January i 1, 2016, at a 5:00 before the Aspen meeting to begin at p.m. City Council, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. St., Aspen, to consider an amendment to My commission expires : Mlp� ID Galena the text of the Land Use Code (Title 26) to update Residential Design Standards, Chapter us i410, and associated sections. For further information, contact Justin Barker at the Ciry of Aspen Commu- nity Development Department, 130 S. Galena St.,,AiAI Aspen, CO. (970) 429-2797, justin.barkerGciryo- 11 faspeo.com Notary Public teven Skadron Mavw Aspen Ciry Published in the Aspen Times on December 24. KAREN REED PATTERSON 2o15.(11T71736) NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO ATTACIUVIENTS AS APPLICABLE: N07ARY ID #19964002767 • COPYOFTHEPUBLICATION I My Commission Expires Febma y 15, 2016 • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYAWL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 -JL1S-n N (3 • 0 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: -M TRC� 6 (r`-( De Aspen, CO "T) use CODS SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: \TW Lkkyq i 1 T W tl�okq 201 tO 5 Pk A STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: 1/ Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the day of , 20, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A ` copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted - prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) 0 • Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAS or PUDs that create more than onelot, new Planned Unit Developments, and. new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or te-xt amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey_ map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Sign#urd 1 .- - fh The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged befo e me this day PUBLIC NOTICE RE:AMENDMENr TO THE CITY OF ASPEN WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL LAND USE CODE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday. January 11, 2016, at a meeting to begin at 5.00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, Council Chambers, City Hall, , 30 S.----- ' My commission expires: f Galena St.. Aspen, to consider amendment to the text of the Land Use Code (Title 26) to update Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards, and associated sections. For further information, contact Justin Barker at the City of Aspen Commu- nity Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429-2797. justin.barker@cityo- 7� 7., 7 Notary r uVlic faspen.com a-teven Skadron Mavor pREN Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on December 24,REED PATTERSON 2015.(11771736) NOTARY PUBLIC ATTACBMENTS AS APPLICABLE: ;i '37ATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID #19964002767 • COPYOFTHEPUBLICATION My CDmmission Expires Februa 1s, 2016 • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAH, • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 • 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Aspen City Council FROM: Justin Barker, Senior Planner THRU: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner RE: Residential Design Standards Code Amendments Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015, First Reading MEETING DATE: December 14, 2015 SUMMARY: The attached Ordinance includes proposed language to amend the Residential Design Standards of the Land Use Code. The objective of the code amendment is to improve the review process, better organize the standards, and clean up confusing language and loopholes within the current standards. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance on First Reading. Second Reading is scheduled for January 11. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: This is the I" reading of proposed code amendments to the Residential Design Standards of the Land Use Code. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310, City Council is the final review authorily for all code amendments. All code amendments are subject to a three -step process. This is the third step in the process: 1. Public Outreach 2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should the pursued 3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments. BACKGROUND: The City of Aspen Residential Design Standards were first adopted in 1995 as a way to maintain design quality and compatibility with historic features of the community. Since then, minor amendments have been processed to add additional standards and create a variance process. Earlier this year, Council asked staff to update and clarify the existing standards. Working with a consultant (Winter & Co.) and an advisory committee, staff has worked to update the standards in an effort to better serve the community and provide attractive, compatible development. This is not a complete re -write. Staff Memo Residential Design Standards 12.14.15 - First Reading Page 1 of 7 0 • Staff presented the general changes to City Council at the Policy Resolution hearing on December Is'. There have also been multiple check -ins with the community through open houses, advisory committee meetings, and a P&Z meeting. DISCUSSION• The Residential Design Standards are intended to ensure a strong connection between private residences and public streets; ensure buildings provide articulation to break up bulk and mass; and preserve traditional neighborhood scale and character. The standards do not prescribe architectural style, but do require that each home, while serving the needs of its owner, contribute positively to the streetscape. The Residential Design Standards are at their core intended to achieve the following objectives: connect to the street, respond to neighboring properties, and reflect traditional building scale. Staff and Winter & Co. have been working with an advisory committee comprised of six local architects from various firms around town. The role of the committee is to represent the design community by providing input on current issues, reviewing draft updates, and participating in focused group discussions with staff and the consultant. Work on the update began with an inventory of the major issues in the current RDS review process. The most common issues identified by the advisory committee were: • Lack of clarity in the administrative review process • Lack of flexibility in the existing standards for different design styles These are also the issues most often identified by property owners and community members who go through the residential design review process. A summary of the proposed changes, including how the current code language or process presents challenges as well as proposed solutions, is described in more detail below. The RDS update is rooted in two main changes: 1. Clarify the existing review process to make it easier for property owners to know if their home meets the required Residential Design standards before they submit for building permit. 2. Ensure the design standards dictate good building form, not architectural style through some additional flexibility. Review Process: Challenges: The current review process has proven to be challenging for both staff and property owners for its unpredictability and length. Currently, a project is only required to submit an application if a variation from the Residential Design Standards is required. This is typically determined when a potential applicant asks the planner of the day for direction on their proposed design. Staff, typically through the planner of the day, will provide direction to designers and property owners, based on what is shown as this preliminary stage. This process can often lead to a substantial amount of time spent discussing a required variation, or some needed variations being missed Staff Memo Residential Design Standards 12.14.15 - First Reading Page 2 of 7 0 • because they are not discussed. This can lead to projects that do not meet the RDS getting delayed in the building permit review while they submit an application for a variation. This can place a building permit on hold for several months. Proposed Solution: Under the proposed changes, all residential development would require a planning review prior to building permit submission. During review, staff would review each project for standard applicability and the project's compliance with the flexible and non -flexible standards (see below). The application would either be granted approval or denial for compliance with the RDS. This essentially serves as a "gate keeper" to the building permit process. A project would not be submitted for a building permit until it has received a review for compliance with the standards. This will help reduce the number of projects in building permit review that do not comply with the RDS and will provide an applicant with more assurance when submitting a permit. If the project does not comply with the standards, the applicant may amend the application to comply. or they would have the opportunity to request a variation from P&Z. Any decision made by P&Z is final unless appealed under the regular city appeal procedures. Below are diagrams comparing the existing process to the proposed process: {)1 SIi�N St7f;r�)T -ps ICATION STAFF IILVICW ^:TAFF APPROVED [�ESIcsN DENIED Existing DESIGN DESIGN '4 FF. APPROVED Proposed Standard Flexibility: Currently, a residential project must meet all of the standards as written (with some exceptions depending on the location or specific site constraints). Each of the standards is intended to address Staff Memo Residential Design Standards 12.14.15 - First Reading Page 3 of 7 different aspects of design, such as relationship to the public realm, massing, and scale of design features. Challenge: Current Standards dictate style. The current standards state that they do not prescribe architectural style, though strict application of the standards has proven to be incompatible with the evolution of architectural styles over the years. For example, a secondary mass may not be appropriate for a more modern design that is intended to be modest and simplistic in form. Challenge: Current Standards sometimes force inappropriate design. While each of the standards serve an important purpose, many of them often lead to a forced design feature on a project in order to meet the letter of the standard. For example, a design may include a main entry door that does not face the street. Rather than redesign the home, a designer may add an "entry door" on a street -facing facade in order to meet the letter of the standard. However, that "entry door" opens to a narrow hallway leading into a back room and is never actually used as the main entry to the home. This example is contrary to the intentions of the standards, but is still permitted under the Code. The proposed changes would close these kinds of loopholes. Challenge: Current Standards do not always respond appropriately to context. Some of the standards can be difficult to meet or do not serve their intended purpose, even if they apply to a project. For example, building orientation on a curvy street is more difficult to achieve than building orientation on a traditional townsite block. Similarly, prohibiting a light well on the front of a building for a building that is 100 feet from the street does not achieve the same purpose as prohibiting one that is 10 feet from the street. Proposed Solution: Adjust j1pplicabili1y and introduce standard options. In an effort to better respond to varying contexts in town, the proposed RDS update clarifies applicability and in some cases adds in options based on lot characteristics, required setbacks and other features. Proposed Solution: Allow for alternative compliance on most standards. In an effort to better align the standards with their intents, the proposed code amendments allows for most standards to be evaluated for compliance on a case -by -case basis by staff. Projects would be required to meet the letter of the standard, or provide "alternative compliance" meaning the project meets the overall intent of the standard. For example, a design may include an entry door that is 11 feet back from the front -most wall of the building, but is highly visible from the street and opens onto a large front porch. The door does not technically meet the standard (max. 10 feet from the front -most wall), but it meets the intent by providing street -facing architectural details, enhancing the walking experience and reinforcing local building traditions. This design feature would most likely be permitted under alternative compliance. Staff Memo Residential Design Standards 12.14.15 - First Reading Page 4 of 7 Another example would be a one-story element that is 19% of the building's overall width, but is 10 feet deep and a prominent element on the front fagade. This feature does not technically meet the standard (min. 20% of the building's overall width.), but it meets the intent by providing a strong human scale feature that expresses a strong first floor. Alternative compliance would be granted through staff review, similar to the current process. Although the approval method is similar, the process and criteria to obtain the approval are different. Alternative compliance requires a more thorough evaluation of the entire project and context, using improved intent statements that better ensure the purpose of each standard is being met through the design. This proposed process does not eliminate any standards, but allows for some added flexibility that has been requested throughout the public outreach sessions. The proposed alternative compliance process would allow architects and homeowners the ability to more directly work with staff to create a design that promotes pedestrian scale and connection to the public realm without requiring constant variation applications. This also would provide a benefit to the community by focusing on implementation of design features that enhance a residence's contribution and relationship to the public realm instead of forcing building elements that may not be compatible with the architectural design or style. Proposed Solution: Require compliance on certain standards. Although most standards would allow for alternative compliance, staff believes that flexibility on some standards should require a P&Z review. The following standards provide the greatest impact on the public realm: 1. A visible and accessible front entrance. This standard would require either a front porch with a pedestrian path leading to the feature, or a front door facing and clearly visible from the street. 2. Reducing the appearance of garages from the street. This standard would require garages to be accessed off the alley where one exists. Where an alley does not exist, garages would be required to be set back from the front fagade of the building. 3. Articulation of massing to reduce perceived scale. This standard would require a secondary mass or other building articulation. Under the proposed RDS update, all applicable residential development would be required to meet the letter of these standards. If an applicant requests a variation from any of these standards a P&Z review would automatically be required. Other updates: Staff has also been working with Winter & Co. and the advisory committee on other updates. These include reorganization of the RDS chapter to make it easier to read and understand, adding definitions for often used terms, and updating and improving graphics. Staff Memo Residential Design Standards 12.14.15 - First Reading Page 5 of 7 0 0 Staff is still working with Winter & Company on refining some of the language and finalizing the graphics. Any changes will be highlighted in the staff memo at second reading. QUESTIONS RAISED DURING POLICY RESOLUTION: At Policy Resolution, some Council members expressed concern over the proposed alternative compliance approval process and that it would result in staff being able to grant an unlimited number of variances. Currently, up to three residential design standard variances may be granted administratively for a project. An applicant may request a variance from any of the standards. This has the effect of placing all of the Residential Design Standards on equal footing. While all of the design standards are important for ensuring a quality built environment, the proposed update makes a significant change by removing the ability to grant administrative variances from certain standards. Instead of limiting the number of variances that can be granted, the proposed update limits which standards can be granted flexibility. There is not a specific number of limitations but rather specific standards that ensure a residence's positive contribution to the public realm. The intent of the update is to strike an appropriate balance between standards that cannot be varied without a public hearing with P&Z, with those standards that can be achieved through alternative compliance and reviewed at an administrative level. The proposed change allows design flexibility and creativity while eliminating the ability to request an administrative variation from the standards that have the most impact on the public realm. Council suggested a check -in to evaluate the effectiveness of the alternative compliance process, if it is approved. Staff suggests a check -in could occur as a work session in Summer/Fall of 2016. PUBLIC OUTREACH: The advisory committee has been involved in the process since the beginning and has provided valuable feedback that helped dictate the current proposed changes. Information on the update has been provided through the Community Development newsletter, which reaches almost 600 professionals including contractors, architects, attorneys, and planners. Two public open houses were held in September and December to obtain feedback from the broader community of the proposed updates. All of the public feedback received to date has been overwhelmingly positive. Both architects and property owners have stated they like the simplified process and the added flexibility of the standards. Staff has also met individually with property owners and HOAs to address specific questions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the attached Ordinance to amend the Residential Design Standards of the Land Use Code. Staff Memo Residential Design Standards 12.14.15 - First Reading Page 6 of 7 • 0 RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015, approving amendments to the Residential Design Standards of the Land Use Code, on First Reading. Second Reading is scheduled for January 11, 2015." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Staff Findings Exhibit B — Draft I I/17/15 P&Z minutes Staff Memo Residential Design Standards 12.14.15 - First Reading Page 7 of 7 0 • ORDINANCE NO.48 (Series of 2015) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 26.410 — RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS, AND ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE. WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the Community Development Department to prepare amendments to the Residential Design Standards Chapter of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall begin with Public Outreach, a Policy Resolution reviewed and acted on by City Council, and then final action by City Council after reviewing and considering the recommendation from the Community Development; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development Department conducted Public Outreach regarding the code amendment; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing on December 1, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No. 136, Series of 2015, requesting code amendments to the Residential Design Standards Chapter of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Chapters 26.410 — Residential Design Standards; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendments and finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310.050; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Code Amendment Objective The goals and objectives of the code amendment are to improve the administrative review process, better organize the standards, and clean up confusing language and loopholes within the Residential Design Standards Chapter of the Land Use Code. Section 2• Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.410 in its entirety shall read as follows: Chapter 26.410 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 1 of 22 0 0 Sections: 26.410.010 General 26.410.020 Procedures for review 26.410.030 Single-family & duplex standards 26.410.040 Multi -family standards 26.410.050 Appeals 26.410.010. General A. Intent. The City's Residential Design Standards are intended to ensure a strong connection between residences and streets; ensure buildings provide articulation to break up bulk and mass; and preserve traditional neighborhood scale and character. The standards do not prescribe architectural style, but do require that each home, while serving the needs of its owner, contribute positively to the streetscape. The Residential Design Standards are intended to achieve the following objectives: Connect to the Street. Establish a visual and/or physical connection between residences and streets and other public areas. The area between the street and the front of a residential building is a transition between the public realm of the neighborhood and the private realm of a dwelling. This transition can strongly impact the human experience of the street. Improve the street experience for pedestrians and vehicles by establishing physical and visual relationships between streets and residential buildings located along streets. 2. Respond to Neighboring Properties. Reduce perceived mass and bulk of residential buildings, including at the front, sides and rear. Encourage a relationship to adjacent development through similar massing and scale. Create a sense of continuity through building form and setback along the streetscape. 3. Reflect Traditional Building Scale. Retain scale and proportions in building design that are in keeping with Aspen's historic architectural tradition, while also encouraging design flexibility. Reinforce the unique character of Aspen by drawing upon the City's vernacular architecture and neighborhood characteristics in the design of structures. Encourage creative and contemporary architecture in keeping with Aspen's history, but at a scale that respects modest design traditions. Ensure that residential structures respond to "human -scale" in their design. Ensure that residential structures do not visually overwhelm or overshadow streets. B. Applicability. Except as outlined in Section 26.410.010.C, Exemptions, this Chapter applies to all residential development in the City, except for residential development within the R-15B zone district. Specific applicability for each standard is identified within each standard. C. Exemptions. No residential development shall be exempt from the provisions of this Chapter unless the Community Development Director determines that the proposed development: 1. Is an addition or remodel to an existing structure that does not change the exterior of the building; or 2. Is a remodel of a structure where the alterations proposed change the exterior of the building, but are not addressed by any of the residential design standards; or 3. Is a residential unit within a mixed -use building; or Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 2 of 22 4. Is a designated historic resource listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. New buildings on a historic landmark lot are not exempt. D. Remodels. Where work is proposed on any element of an existing building that is addressed by the Residential Design Standards and that is not in compliance with the Standards, the property owner shall make a reasonable effort to bring that element into compliance. The Community Development Director may grant exceptions for remodels that would require significant additional work above and beyond the scope of the remodel in order to ensure that all features are brought into compliance. For example, consider a remodel involving modifications to a porch structure that is currently smaller than the minimum square footage required by the Residential Design Standards. If the porch is being replaced with a new porch, the new porch will be required to meet the minimum size requirements in the Residential Design Standards. If only the porch posts are being replaced, the existing porch may remain without needing a variation even though it does not meet the minimum size requirements in the Residential Design Standards. As a second example, consider a remodel involving modifications to a non -orthogonal window where the maximum number of non -orthogonal windows allowed by the Residential Design Standards is exceeded. If the window is being moved to a new location or the size or shape of the window is being changed, the new window will be required to meet the non -orthogonal window limits in the Residential Design Standards. If the modifications to the window are being made in place and do not expand or change the size or shape, the existing nonconforming non -orthogonal window may remain without needing a variation even though it exceeds the number of non -orthogonal windows allowed by the Residential Design Standards. E. Definitions. Unless otherwise indicated, the definitions of words used in these regulations shall be the same as the definitions used in Chapter 26.104 of the Land Use Code. In addition, the following definitions shall apply: Curvilinear Lot. A lot in which a curve comprises 50% or more of the total length of the front lot line. FaVade. An exterior face of a building. It can be applied to any side. Projections, such as open porches, are not considered a fagade. Front FaVade. The street -facing exterior face of a building that contains the primary building entry. The front fagade may include multiple wall planes that make up the front face of the building. Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 3 of 22 Street -Facing FaVade. Any side of a building that faces a street. A street -facing fagade may refer to multiple wall planes on a building face that face the street or right-of-way. `i . oow I r7 Front -Most Wall. The wall of the front fagade of a building that is closest to the street or right of way. ................ Front -Most Element. The front most building feature associated with a primary building or garage. In many cases, this element may be located forward of the front fagade, such as an open front porch or projecting garage overhang. A Non -orthogonal Window. A window with an opening that is not rectangular in nature and does not possess right angles at each of its four corners and vertical or horizontal orientation of all edges. One Story. A portion of a building between the surface of the finished floor and the ceiling immediately above; or the wall plate height where no additional stories are located above. One story shall not exceed 10 feet for purposes of the Residential Design Standards. Open Front Porch. A porch on the front facade of a building that is open on at least two (2) sides, one of which faces the street. Open shall mean no element of enclosure, except screens. Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 4 of 22 Street. A way or thoroughfare, other than an alley, containing a public access easement and used or intended for vehicular traffic. The term street shall include the entire area within a right-of-way. For the purpose of Chapter 26.410, street shall also include private streets and vehicular access easements serving more than one (1) parcel. Streets shall not include public or private trails. 26.410.020. Procedures for Review A. Determination of Applicability. The applicant may request a preliminary Residential Design Standards pre -application conference with Community Development Department staff to determine the applicability of the requirements of this chapter for the proposed development. B. Administrative Review. Consistency with the Residential Design Standards shall be determined administratively, unless a variation is requested. The Administrative Review process will result in a determination of approval or denial for compliance with the Residential Design Standards. All projects will be reviewed for compliance with the Flexible and Non -flexible Standards contained within the Residential Design Standards. Flexible and Non -flexible Standards are defined as follows: 1. Flexible Standards. Flexible Standards are standards for which additional flexibility around the specific requirements of a standard may be granted administratively. If an application is found to be inconsistent with any of the Flexible Standards, but meets the overall intent of the standard, staff may administratively approve the standard via Alternative Compliance. The Community Development Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny Alternative Compliance. If an application does not meet the overall intent of a Flexible Standard, the applicant may either amend their proposal or seek a variation, pursuant to Section 26.410.020.C, Variations. 2. Non -flexible Standards. Non -flexible Standards are those standards that shall be met by all projects subject to the Residential Design Standards, with no Alternative Compliance permitted, unless otherwise stated in this chapter. If an application is found to be inconsistent with any of the Non - flexible Standards as written, the applicant may either amend their proposal or seek a variation, pursuant to Section 26.410.020.C, Variations. C. Variations. Any application that does not receive Administrative Review approval described above may apply for a variation, pursuant to Section 26.304.030, Common Development Procedures. An applicant may also choose to apply directly for a variation if desired. The Planning & Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, during a duly noticed public hearing, shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for variation, based on the standards of review in Section 26.410.020.1), Variation Review Standards. The review process is as follows: Step One — Public Hearing before Planning & Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission. 1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the review standards for Residential Design Standard variation. 2. Process: The Community Development Director shall provide the Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, with a recommendation to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application, based on the standards of review. The Planning and Zoning Commission, or Historic Preservation Commission if the property is Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 5 of 22 designated or is located within a historic district, shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application after considering the recommendation of the Community Development Director and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing. 3. Standards of review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section 26.410.020.1), Review Standards. 4. Form of decision: The decision shall be by resolution. 5. Notice requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3.a), b) and c). D. Variation Review Standards. An application requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variation, if granted would: 1. Provide an alternative design approach to the standard that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for each section and the intent statement for each individual standard. The reviewing board shall consider the individual and collective design features and building elements associated with a project to determine that the exception is warranted; or 2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site -specific constraints. 26.410.030. Single-family & duplex standards A. Applicability. Unless stated otherwise below, the design standards in this section shall apply to all single-family and duplex development. B. Location and Massing. 1. Articulation of Building Mass (Non -flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots outside of the Aspen Infill Area. b) Intent. This standard seeks to reduce the overall perceived mass and bulk of buildings on a property as viewed from all sides. Designs should promote light and air access between adjacent properties. Designs should articulate building walls by utilizing multiple forms to break up large expansive wall planes. Buildings should include massing and articulation that convey forms that are similar in massing to traditional Aspen residential buildings. This standard is critical in the Infill Area where small lots, small side and front setbacks, alleys and traditional Aspen architecture are prevalent. c) Standard. A principal building shall articulate building mass to reduce bulk and mass and create building forms that are similar in scale to those seen in traditional Aspen residential architecture. d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Maximum Sidewall Depth. This option seeks to reduce building mass by limiting the depth of the primary building to a depth similar to traditional residential buildings in Aspen. This standard is also intended to create a physical separation between the primary building and Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 6 of 22 a potential accessory structure at the rear of the lot. A principal building shall be no greater than fifty (50) feet in depth, as measured from the front -most wall of the front facade to the rear wall. An accessory building that is completely separated from the main building is permitted. Garages, sheds and accessory dwelling units are examples of appropriate uses for the accessory building. w I I (2) Offset with One -Story Ground Level Connector. This option seeks to reduce building mass by limiting the depth of the front portion of a primary building to a depth similar to traditional residential buildings in Aspen, yet still allow for a direct connection to a potential secondary living area or accessory structure at the rear of the lot through a one- story ground floor connecting element. A principal building shall provide a portion of its mass as a subordinate one-story, ground floor connecting element. The connecting element shall be at least ten (10) feet in length and shall be setback at least an additional five (5) feet from the sidewall on both sides of the building. The connecting element shall occur at a maximum of forty-five (45) feet in depth, as measured from the front -most wall of the front fagade to the rear wall. The connecting element shall be a maximum of fifteen (15) feet wide. sM&L to is ^r, eon gdat lr mai.' I t gory mm[. tonrwctor (3) Increased Side Setbacks at Rear and Step Down. This option seeks to reduce building mass by limiting the depth of the front portion of a primary building to be similar in depth of traditional residential buildings in Aspen, while allowing for square footage beyond the traditional depth in a one story building component. A principal building shall provide increased side setbacks at the rear of the building. If the principal building is two stories, it shall step down to one story in the rear. The increased side setbacks and one story step down shall occur at a maximum of forty-five (45) feet, as measured from the front -most wall toward the rear wall. The increased side setbacks shall be at least five (5) feet greater than the side setbacks at the front of the building. Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 7 of 22 • • I I I �� I It I 2. Building Orientation (Flexible). .aOepdmn a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with no street frontage. (2) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to establish a relationship between buildings and streets to create an engaging streetscape and discourage the isolation of homes from the surrounding neighborhood. The placement of buildings should seek to frame street edges physically or visually. Buildings should be oriented in a manner such that they are a component of the streetscape, which consists of the street itself and the buildings that surround it. Building orientation should provide a sense of interest and promote interaction between buildings and passersby. Building orientation is important in all areas of the city, but is particularly important in the Infill Area where there is a strong pattern of buildings that are parallel to the street. c) Standard. The front fagade of a building shall be oriented to face the street on which it is located. d) Options. Fulfilling one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Strong Orientation Requirement. The front fagade of a building shall be parallel to the street. On a corner lot, both street -facing fagades of a building shall be j parallel to each street. (2) Moderate Orientation Requirement. The front fagade of a building shall face the street. On a corner lot, one street facing fagade shall face each Strong intersecting street. The availability of these options shall be determined according to the following lot characteristics: required front lot outside the Option 1: setback 25 feet No lot curvilinear? No Nc Infill Area Option 1 Strong or greater? orientation E rcS requirement Option 1 Option 1 Option 1 Option 2: Moderate orientation Option 2 Option 2 Option 2 requirement Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 8 of 22 0 • 3. Build -to Requirement (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with a required front yard setback of 25 feet or greater (2) Lots that are curvilinear (3) Lots with no street frontage (4) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade b) Intent. This standard seeks to establish a consistent physical pattern of front fagades close to and parallel to streets in order to frame the street. The placement of buildings should respond to the street by framing street edges physically. Buildings should be constructed to provide a strong physical presence and integration within the streetscape, which consists of the street itself and the buildings that surround it. This standard is most important in the infill area where a strong pattern of smaller front setbacks and consistent building orientation exists. c) Standard. At least sixty percent (60%) of the front fagade of a principal building shall be within five (5) feet of the minimum front yard setback line. On a a corner lot, this standard shall be met on at least one (1) of the two intersecting streets. A front porch may be used to meet this requirement. - - -- - - - 4. One-story Element (Flexible). Yes No Yes a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with no street frontage (2) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade b) Intent. This standard seeks to establish human scale building features as perceived from the street and express lower and upper floors on front fagades to reduce perceived mass. Designs should utilize street -facing architectural elements, such as porches, that respect those of traditional Aspen residential architecture. Buildings should provide visual evidence or demarcation of the stories of a building to relate to pedestrians. This standard is important in all areas of the city. c) Standard. A principal building shall incorporate a one-story element on the front fagade. Duplexes in a side -by -side configuration are required to have a one-story element per dwelling unit. d) Options. Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 9 of 22 • 0 (1) Projecting One -Story Element. The front facade of the principal building shall have a one-story street -facing element that projects at least six (6) feet from the front fagade and has a width equivalent to at least twenty percent (20%) of the building's overall width. This one story element may be enclosed living space or a front porch that is open on three sides. No usable space may be located above this element. This one story element shall be a minimum of 50 square feet in area. (2) Loggia. The front fagade of the principal building shall have an open loggia that is recessed at least six (6) feet but no more than ten (10) feet from the front fagade, and has a width equivalent to at least twenty percent (20%) of the building's overall width. The loggia shall be open on at least two (2) sides and face the street. This one story element shall be a minimum of 50 square feet in area. (3) One -Story Stepdown. The principal building shall include a one-story component on one side of the building that remains one story from the front fagade to the rear wall. The width of the one-story portion shall be a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the building's overall width. The one- story portion may be fully enclosed and used as living area. 20% over W idti B mh. 10' max. 20%or overall width min. The availability of these options shall be determined according to the following lot characteristics: required front lot outside the setback 25 feet o Infill Area? f`O Option 1 or greater? OR ES Option 2 Opflon 1 Option 1 OR OR Option 2 Option D2 OR OR OAption 3 Option 3 Option 1: Projecting one story element Option 2: Recessed open front porch Option 3: One-story stepdown Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 10 of 22 • 0 C. Garages. 1. Garage Access (Non -flexible). a) Applicability. This standard is required for all lots that have vehicular access from an alley or private street. b) Intent. This standard seeks to minimize potential conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles by concentrating parking along alleys and away from the street where pedestrian activity is highest. This standard also seeks to minimize the visibility of opaque and unarticulated garage doors from streets by placing them in alleys wherever possible. Properties with alleys shall utilize the alley as an opportunity to place the garage in a location that is subordinate to the principal building, further highlighting the primary building from the street. This standard is important for any property where an alley is available, which is most common in the Infill Area. Ailey c) Standard. A lot that has access from an alley or private street shall be required to access parking, ❑ garages and carports from the alley or private street. "° Y.' Yes Where alley access is available, no parking or vehicular access shall be allowed forward of the front facade. 2. Garage Placement (Non -flexible). Street a) Applicability. This standard is required for all lots that do not have vehicular access from an alley or private street. b) Intent. This standard seeks to prevent large expanses of unarticulated facades close to the street and ensure garages are subordinate to the principal building for properties that feature driveway and garage access directly from the street. Buildings should seek to locate garages behind principal buildings so that the front facade of the principal building is highlighted. Where locating the garage behind the front facade of the principal building is not feasible or required, designs should minimize the presence of garage doors as viewed from the street. This standard is important in all areas of the city where alley access is not an option. c) Standard. A garage or carport shall be placed in a way that reduces its prominence as viewed from the street. On a corner lot, this standard shall apply to both street -facing facades. d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Set Back Garage. The front -most element of the garage or carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front -most wall of any street -facing facade of the principal building. Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 11 of 22 • 0 (2) Side -Loaded Garage Forward of Street -Facing Facade. A garage or carport located forward of a street -facing facade shall be side -loaded. The garage or carport entry shall be perpendicular to the street. For lots on curved streets, the garage door shall not be placed on any street -facing facade of the garage. + The availability of these options shall be determined according to the following lot characteristics: required front lot outside the Option 1: setback 25 feet No Infill Areal No Option 1 Setback or greater? garage ES ES Option 2: Option 1 Option 1 Garage forward of CR OR the front Option 2 Option 2 facade 3. Garage Dimensions (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard applies to all residential development in the city that is subject to the Residential Design Standards. b) Intent. This standard seeks to minimize the presence of wide garages as perceived from streets and ensure that garages are subordinate to the principal building. Designs should promote an active streetscape that is not dominated by wide expanses of garage doors. Garage doors should either be hidden from public view or their width minimized. This standard is important in all areas of the city. c) Standards. The width of the living area on the first floor of a street facing facade on which a garage is located shall be at least five (5) feet greater than the width of the garage or carport. The total width of all vehicular entrance(s) to garage(s) or carport(s) that are visible from the street, whether on the same plane or offset from one another, shall not exceed twenty-four (24) feet. 4. Garage Door Design (Flexible). 24" max. a) Applicability. This standard applies to all residential development in the city that is subject to the Residential Design Standards. b) Intent. This standard seeks to promote a streetscape that maximizes visual interest by minimizing unarticulated expanses of garage doors. Garage doors that utilize increased articulation, changes in fagade depth and profile of materials, windows and other features to Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 12 of 22 0 • break up the garage door should be prioritized. This standard is critical for any property where garage doors are visible from the street. c) Standard. A garage door that is visible from a street shall utilize an articulation technique to break up its fagade. d) Options. Fulfilling one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Two Separate Doors. A two -car garage door shall be constructed as two separate doors. (2) Appearance of Two Separate Doors. A two -car garage door - --� shall be constructed with one door that is designed to appear 1 -. as two separate doors by incorporating a vertical separating element that is at least one (1) foot in width. 24• mcx. B. Entry Features. 1. Enta Connection (Non -flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with no street frontage. (2) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to promote visual and physical connections between buildings and the street. Buildings should use architectural and site planning features to establish a connection between these two elements. Buildings shall not use features that create barriers or hide the entry features of the house such as fences, hedgerows or walls. Buildings and site planning features should establish a sense that one can directly enter a building from the street through the use of pathways, front porches, front doors that face the street and other similar methods. This standard is critical in all areas of the city. c) Standard. A building shall provide a visual and/or physical connection between a primary entry and the street. On a corner lot, an entry connection shall be provided to at least one (1) of the two intersecting streets. Duplexes in a side -by -side configuration shall have one (1) entry connection per dwelling unit. d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Street Oriented Entrance. At least one (1) entry door shall be provided on the front fagade of the principal building. The entry door shall face the street and shall not be set back more than ten (10) feet from the front - most wall of the front fagade of the principal building. Fencing, hedgerows, walls or other permitted structures shall not obstruct visibility to the door. Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment, Page 13 of 22 r�L (2) Open Front Porch. The front facade of the principal building shall have a front porch that is open on at least two (2) sides, a minimum of 50 square feet, and face the street, and a demarcated pathway shall be provided that connects the street to the front porch. The front porch shall contain the primary entrance to the building. Fencing, hedgerows, walls or other permitted structures shall not obstruct visibility to the porch or the demarcated pathway. The availability of these options shall be determined according to the following lot characteristics: required front lot outside the setback 25 feet N Infiil Area? No�Optlon or greater? Option I Option 1 OR OR Option 2 Option 2 2. Door Height (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: b) Option 1: Street oriented entrance Option 2: Open front porch (1) Lots with no street frontage. (2) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. Intent. This standard seeks to retain traditional architectural character by ensuring modestly scaled doors that are not out of scale when compared to traditional residential architecture in Aspen. Large, oversized doors should be avoided so as not to overwhelm front fagades and distort the sense of human scale as perceived from the street. This standard is important in all areas of the city. c) Standard. All doors facing a street shall not be taller than eight (8) feet. A small transom window above a door shall not be considered a part of the door for the purpose of this standard. 3. Entry Porch Height (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with no street frontage. (2) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 14 of 22 0 • b) Intent. This standard promotes porches that are built at a one-story human -scale that are compatible with traditional development in Aspen. This standard prevents porches that are out of scale with the street and traditional porches seen in the surrounding neighborhood. Porch designs should - reinforce the one-story scale and help reduce j perceived mass as viewed from the street. This standard is critical for buildings in the Infill Area. c) Standard. An entry porch or canopy on the front facade of a principal building shall not be more than one-story in height as defined by this chapter. B. Fenestration and Materials. 1. Principal Window (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: 1 story r (1) Lots with no street frontage. (2) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to prevent large expanses of blank walls on the front fagades of principal buildings. A building should incorporate a significant sense of transparency on the front facade. Designs should include prominent windows or groups of windows on the front facade to help promote connection between the residence and street. This standard is important in all areas of the city. c) Standard. A principal building shall have at least one (1) street facing principal window or grouping of smaller windows acting as a principal window on the front facade. Duplexes in a side -by -side configuration shall have one (1) principal window per dwelling unit. d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Street Facing Principal Window. The front facade shall have at least one (1) window with dimensions of four (4) feet by four (4) feet or greater. (2) Window Group. The front facade shall have at least one (1) group of windows that when measured as a group has dimensions of four (4) feet by four (4) feet or greater. 2. Window Placement (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: 4' min —i— �y X min ❑�c�- 4' min W min (1) Lots with no street frontage. (2) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 15 of 22 0 0 b) Intent. This standard seeks to preserve the traditional architectural character of Aspen by preventing large expanses of vertical glass windows that dominate street -facing facades. Overly tall expanses of glass on a street -facing fagade do not relate well to human scale. Designs should utilize windows that provide a sense of demarcation between stories and pedestrian scale. Where an upper story window is located directly above a lower story window, a gap with no window - should be provided between them that is easily recognizable from the street and clearly differentiates lower and upper stories. This standard is important in all areas of the city. c) Standard. A street -facing window on a building shall not vertically span more than one story as defined by this chapter. YES NO 3. Non -orthogonal Window Limit (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots outside of the Aspen Infill Area. (2) Lots with no street frontage. (3) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to encourage traditional rectilinear window shapes seen in Aspen's traditional residential architecture and discourages the proliferation or overuse of round or diagonal -oriented windows. Designs should minimize the use of non -orthogonal windows that face the street in order to help preserve the traditional character of Aspen. This standard is critical in the Infill Area where many of Aspen's traditional residential buildings are located. c) Standard. A building shall have no more than one (1) non -orthogonal window on each fagade of the building that faces the street. A single non -orthogonal window in a gable end may be divided with mullions and still be considered one (1) non -orthogonal window. 4. Lightwell/Stairwell Location (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with no street frontage. Orthogonal Non-orthogon O (2) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 16 of 22 • 0 b) Intent. This standard seeks to minimize negative visual impacts to the street and discourage visual and physical disconnection between buildings and streets. Building designs should avoid placing light wells, areaways, skylights, and stairwells between primary buildings and streets. These features should be located away from the front of buildings. Designs should locate these elements at the sides or rear of a principal building. This standard is most important in all areas of the city with smaller setbacks. c) Standard. A light well, areaway, skylight or stairwell shall not be located between the front -most wall of a street - facing facade and any street. Yes No 5. Materials (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard applies to all residential development in the city that is subject to the Residential Design Standards. b) Intent. This standard seeks to reinforce traditional architectural character by preventing the use of materials on single-family and duplex buildings that is in sharp contrast with use of materials seen in traditional Aspen architecture. Buildings should use materials consistently on all sides of a building instead of simply applying a material on one facade of a building. Buildings should seek to use heavier materials, such as brick or stone, as a base for lighter materials, such as wood or stucco. Buildings should use materials that are similar in profile, texture and durability to those seen in traditional residential buildings in the city. This standard is important in all areas of the city. c) Standards. The quality of the exterior materials and their application shall be consistent on all sides of the single-family or duplex building. Materials shall be used in ways that are true to their characteristics. For instance stucco, which is a light or nonbearing material, shall not be used below a heavy material, such as stone. Yes No Yes No 26.410.040. Multi -family standards A. Applicability. The following design standards shall apply to all multi -family development in the City of Aspen. Applicability shall be determined prior to building permit submittal per Section I of this document. The applicant may request a pre -application conference to determine if the proposed project is exempt from the requirements of this chapter. B. Design standards. 1. Garage Access (Non -flexible). Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 17 of 22 a) Applicability. This standard is required for all lots that have vehicular access from an alley or private street. b) Intent. This standard seeks to minimize potential conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles by concentrating parking along alleys and away from the street where pedestrian activity is highest. This standard also seeks to minimize the visibility of plain, opaque and unarticulated garage doors from streets by placing them in alleys wherever possible. Properties with alleys shall utilize the alley as an opportunity to place the garage in a location that is subordinate to the principal building, further highlighting the primary building from the street. This standard is important for any property where an alley is available, which is most common in the Infill Area. c) Standard. A multi -family building that has access from an alley or private street shall be required to access parking, garages and carports from the alley or private street. 2. Garage Placement (Non -flexible). a) Applicability. This standard is required for all lots that do not have vehicular access from an alley or private street. a Intent. This standard seeks to prevent large expanses of unarticulated facades close to the street and ensure garages are subordinate to the principal building for properties that feature driveway and garage access directly from the street. Buildings should seek to locate garages behind principal buildings so that the front fagade of the principal building is highlighted. Where locating the garage behind the front fagade of the principal building is not feasible or required, designs should minimize the presence of garage doors as viewed from the street. This standard is important in all areas of the city where alley access is not an option. c) Standard. The front of a garage or the front -most supporting column of a carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front facade of the principal building. 3. Entry Connection (Non -flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with no street frontage. (2) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to promote visual and physical connections between buildings and the street. Buildings should use architectural and site planning features to establish a connection between these two elements. Buildings shall not use features that create barriers or hide the entry features of the house such as fences, hedgerows or walls. Buildings and site planning features should establish a sense that one can directly enter a building from the street through the use of pathways, front porches, front doors that face the street and other similar methods. This standard is critical in all areas of the city. Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 18 of 22 M c) Standard. A building shall provide a visual and/or physical connection between a primary entry and the street. On a corner lot, an entry connection shall be provided to at least one (1) of the two intersecting streets. d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Street Oriented Entrance. There shall be at least one (1) entry door that faces the street for every four (4) street - facing, ground -level units in a row. Fencing, hedgerows, walls or other permitted structures shall not obstruct visibility to the entire door. (2) Open Front Porch. There shall be at least one (1) porch or ground -level balcony that faces the street for every street -facing, ground -level unit. Fencing, hedgerows, walls or other permitted structures shall not obstruct visibility to the porch or the demarcated pathway. Principal Window (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots with no street frontage. (2) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to prevent large expanses of blank walls on the front fagades of principal buildings. A building should incorporate significant transparency on the front facade. Designs should include prominent windows or groups of windows on the front facade to help promote connection between the residence and street. This standard is important in all areas of the city. c) Standard. At least one (1) street facing principal window or grouping of smaller windows acting as a principal window shall be provided for each unit facing the street. On a corner unit with street frontage on two streets, this standard shall apply to both street -facing fagades. d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Street Facing Principal Window. The front facade shall have at least one (1) window with dimensions of three (3) feet by four (4) feet or greater for each dwelling unit. 4 min _L X mki Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 19 of 22 • 0 (2) Window Group. The front fagade shall have at least one ��-�- (1) group of windows that when measured as a group has Cmin� ! dimensions of three (3) feet by four (4) feet or greater for r min —�-J® each dwelling unit. s 26.410.050. Appeals A. An applicant aggrieved by a decision made by the Community Development Director regarding administration of this Chapter may appeal the decision to the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 26.316. B. An applicant aggrieved by a Detailed Review decision made a Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission as applicable, may appeal the decision to the City Council. In such circumstances, the Commission's decision shall be considered a recommendation to City Council. The City Council shall follow the review process outlined in Section 26.445.040.13.3 — Step Three, and the decision shall be by City Council resolution. Section 3: The following definitions in Section 26.104.100, Definitions, shall be added as follows: Berm. A human -made raised strip of land or ridge made of earthen materials. Hedgerow. A row of closely spaced bushes, trees, or shrubs that create, or have the potential through growth maturity to create a largely opaque visual barrier. Section 4• Chapter 26.210.020.13 — Community Development Director, which section described the power and duties of the Community Development Director, shall be amended as follows: [No Changes to Subsections 1-24] 25. To approve alternative compliance, pursuant to Chapter 26.410. Section 5• Chapter 26.212.010 — Planning and Zoning Commission, which section describes the power and duties of the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall be amended as follows: [No Changes to Subsections A — N] O. To hear, review and approve variations to the residential design standards, pursuant to Chapter 26.410; P. To hear and decide appeals from and review any order, requirement, decision or determination made by any administrative official charged with the enforcement of Chapter 26.410, including appeals of interpretation of the text of the residential design standards. The Commission may only grant relief from the residential design standards. A variation from the residential design standards does not grant an approval to vary other standards of this Chapter that may be provided by another decision -making administrative body; and Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 20 of 22 0 [No Changes to Subsection Q] Section 6: Chapter 26.220.010 — Historic Preservation Commission, which section describes the power and duties of the Historic Preservation Commission, shall be amended as follows: [No Changes to Subsections A — H] I. To hear, review and approve variations to the residential design standards, pursuant to Chapter 26.410; J. To hear and decide appeals from and review any order, requirement, decision or determination made by any administrative official charged with the enforcement of Chapter 26.410, including appeals of interpretation of the text of the residential design standards. The Commission may only grant relief from the residential design standards. A variation from the residential design standards does not grant an approval to vary other standards of this Chapter that may be provided by another decision -making administrative body; [No Changes to Subsection K] Section 7: Update of Review Fees Section 26.104.070, Land Use Application Fees shall be amended to reflect the changes to the Residential Design Standards, as follows: "Flat Fee 4, $650, Residential Design Variance, admin." shall be amended to state "Flat Fee 4, $650, Residential Design Standard Administrative Compliance, admin." [All other fees shall remain unchanged.] Section 8• Any scrivener's errors contained in the code amendments herein, including but not limited to mislabeled subsections or titles, may be corrected administratively following adoption of the Ordinance. Section 9: Effect Upon Existing Litigation. This ordinance 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 10: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance 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. Section 11: Effective Date. In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final passage. Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 21 of 22 n 0 Section 12: A public hearing on this ordinance was held on the day of , at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 14t' day of December, 2015. Attest: Linda Manning, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this Attest: Linda Manning, City Clerk Approved as to form: James R. True, City Attorney Steven Skadron, Mayor day of , 2015. Steven Skadron, Mayor Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2015 RDS Code Amendment Page 22 of 22 • 0 EXHIBIT A STAFF FINDINGS 26.310.050 Amendments to the Land Use Code Standards of review - Adoption. In reviewing an application to amend the text of this Title, per Section 26.310.020(B)(3), Step Three — Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. Staff Findings: There are no knoim conflicts with any other portions of this Title. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Whether the proposed amendment achieves the policy, community goal, or objective cited as reasons for the code amendment or achieves other public policy objectives. Staff Findings: The main purposes of the proposed amendment are to improve the administrative review process to provide more clarity and reliability, provide flexibility to promote a variety of design styles, and cleanup the language to read easier for the community. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with the community character of the City and is in harmony with the public interest and the purpose and intent of this Title. Staff Findings: The proposed amendment provides more transparency and reliability for the review process while providing flexibility to promote different design styles and creativity in a community that has a strong history of this variety. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Exhibit A Staff Findings Misc. Code Amendment Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT B Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 OTHER BUSINESS Residential Design Standards. Code Amendment Check -In Mr. Justin Barker, Community Development Senior Planner, stated he wanted to check in with P&Z regarding proposed code amendments pertaining to the City's Residential Design Standards (RDS). Mr. Barker provided background on the RIDS and stated Council directed Staff earlier this year to look into updating the RDS to make it more appropriate for the current designs and timeframe. Staff has been working with a consultant as well as an advisory committee to identify possible updates. After multiple discussions and meetings, two issues were identified with the current version of the chapter. • Lack of clarity in the administrative review process • Lack of flexibility in the existing standards Mr. Barker then reviewed the administrative review process. The process is confusing as is the standard for the reviews that occur during the process. He referred to Exhibit A which diagrams the existing and proposed review processes. With the new review process, they are proposing all projects come in for an administrative review for all standards. Administratively, they would receive an approval or denial to be included in their building permit providing them assurance they have a signed off approval. This would also removes the three design request limitation. Staff will look at all the standards combined and whether they are met collectively or not. If the proposal is denied, the applicant has the opportunity to request a variation from P&Z or mend their requirements to meet the RDS. When an application comes in, there are set standards based on the location and topography of the site that must be met to the letter. The application may also go through an administrative or a P&Z variance review. Staff recognizes not all the standards have equal importance and he provided an example of the location of the structure on the lot may not be as important as the overall mass of the building. The proposed changes prioritize the standards and identifies three standards as the nonflexible standards as listed on p. 75 of the agenda packet. These must be met as per stated in the code and any variance must be taken to P&Z for review. All the other standards are reviewed with flexibility in mind and Staff will determine the intent of the standard is being is met. He discussed the two examples on pp 79 and 80 of the packet. There are a few more updates Staff has been working on including the following. • Reorganizing the entire chapter to make it more readable • Define some terms not previously defined or are unclear • Updating and improving the graphics to be more understandable • Adding new graphics to further assist with explaining topics For public outreach, there was an open house at the end of September that approximately 20 people attended. There was an overwhelming positive response to the idea of the proposed changes. The proposed changes were also included in the Community Development Newsletter which goes out to almost 600 professionals in the valley to which there has been mostly positive responses as well. • • EXHIBIT B Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 The next steps include the proposed changes going to Council for policy resolution in early December. There will also be one more public open house on the same date to obtain additional feedback prior to the meeting with Council. If the policy resolution is approved, they will proceed with an ordinance reading for the specific language to amend the code. Mr. Barker asked if P&Z supports the proposed amendment or has any concerns. Mr. Mesirow asked who made up the audience at the open house. Mr. Barker answered it was a lot of local architects and designers. Mr. Mesirow stated it seems very counter to the general feeling of the community to hold to very specific guidelines with no flexibility in granting anything to anybody. Mr. Morris asked if the audience receiving the newsletter was also primarily architects and designers at which Mr. Barker stated the newsletter is viewed by architects, designers, real estate agents, attorneys and others involved with land use code review and enforcement. Mr. Morris wondered how we could get some from the other side to show up and participate in the review. Ms. Phelan stated there needs to be guidelines in place and the values of the town are so high that if there were no requirements, you would see 10 ft walls around houses turning them into compounds and the public streetscape would be negatively impacted. What Staff heard is that some of the requirements are not flexible. Staff is trying to identify those standards that are sacred and there can't be an administrative variation unless you go to a board for review. Mr. Barker added they want to focus on the design and the overall intent of the applicants instead of looking at the extreme details such as your window is 9 ft tall instead of 9 ft 3 in tall. Staff does not feel it is necessary for an applicant to come to P&Z to ask for a window that is 3 in taller than allowed per the code. Mr. Goode remarked P&Z has seen plenty of such examples. Mr. Goode other commissioners stated they feel the changes will be good for the process. Mr. Mesirow appreciates the direction and finding more competence in the process for everyone is important. He also feels the intent to focus on use is really healthy oppose to it looking as though the standards are being relaxed. Mr. Morris also feels it will be important to articulate the reasons behind amending the code. Mr. Mesirow does see a red flag when it comes to the prioritization. He understands why it is being done, but is concerned they may be drawing a roadmap for architects and designers to figure out which things they need to abide by. Ms. Phelan added the proposed process may be able to dial in the intent to match the location more appropriately to match the development pattern of the area. She added there are certain design principles that will be upheld. She gave the example that Staff feels very strongly about the placement of a garage at a site. For instance, on Cemetery Lane they may allow side loading where they typically do not allow for it. Mr. Mesirow asked for the process to revisit this based on changing community priorities. Mr. Barker stated it would be easier to change the priorities in the future should the need arise. Mr. Barker stated a lot of designers have figured out a loophole process to meeting the standards which creates a worse design in the end. These amendments will help Staff focus on the overall design and allow the applicant to focus on a holistic design rather than just meet the standard. Mr. Mesirow reiterated having check -in mechanisms would ultimately make the process better. It would also encourage trust with the community. 2 EXHIBIT B Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 Mr. Goode felt opening it up to look at the entire design from the beginning would be helpful. Mr. Barker reiterated currently an applicant may present up to three items for administrative variances from three different standards. If they request more than three, it currently goes to P&Z for review. With the amendments, there will no longer be a limitation on the number requested for administrative review. If the administrative review is not granted, the applicant would have the option of taking their request to P&Z. Mr. Mesirow asked if it was a requirement or opportunity for the applicant to currently ask for administrative review. Mr. Barker replied currently it is reviewed for RIDS when someone submits for a building permit. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked how Staff makes their decisions defensible in regards to intent. Ms. Phelan stated there are some standards that are a bit loose and it is harder to define the intent but she feels the more something can be explained, the more you can define where it meets or doesn't meet the standard. Mr. Barker stated there will always be subjectivity in design, but it important to gather as much information as possible. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated some statements raise red flags for her. She cited a statement Section 26.410.010.A.3, which states to encourage creative and contemporary architecture in keeping with Aspen's history. She stated statements like this are extremely difficult to interpret and noted the application approved earlier and how it will change the character of the neighborhood impacting any future review under that criteria is different. She feels there is a tension between what Aspen was and what it is becoming. She is concerned the direction in which it is heading is very unclear and doesn't feel in terms of design, it is something that's been articulated. Mr. Goode brought up that the aspect of messy vitality that has driven change in Aspen. Mr. Mesirow€eels Ms. McNicholas Kury wants better confines to direct the change that will occur. He added change includes not only what it will look like, but also what it act and feel like. Ms. McNicholas Kury feels the change should be tied to an intent whether it be messy vitality or something else. Mr. Barker understands Ms. McNicholas Kury's concerns, but unfortunately it is not in the scope of the update being discussed: He does feel the proposed amendments will help support the intent going forward to the specific standards. He suggested perhaps the standards could be reviewed for their relevanceSometime in the future. RESOLUTION NO. 136, (SERIES OF 2015) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING AMENDMENTS TO THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS, CHAPTER 26.410 OF THE LAND USE CODE. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), the Community Development Department received direction from City Council to explore amendments to the Residential Design Standards Chapter, Chapter 26.410 of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development Department conducted Public Outreach to local architects, contractors, and planners; and, WHEREAS,. the Community Development Director recommended changes to the Residential Design Standards in the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendment policy direction, and finds it meets the criteria outlined in Section 26.310.040; and, . WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing on December 1, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No. 136, Series of 2015, by a five to zero (5 — 0) vote, requesting code amendments to the Residential Design Standards in the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, this Resolution does not amend the Land Use Code, but provides direction to staff for amending the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the•promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Code Amendment Objective and Direction Council directs the Community Development Department to return with code amendments to update the Residential Design Standards in the Land Use Code. The code amendments are intended to improve the administrative review process, better organize the standards, and clean up confusing language and loopholes within the current standards. Section 2• 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 resolutions or ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior resolutions or ordinances. Resolution No. 136, Series 2015 Page 1 of 2 • m Section 3• 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. FINALLY, adopted this 1" day of December 2015. NCO -pfoqy" Steven Skadron, Mayor ATTEST: Linda Manning, City Jerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: zames R True, City Attorney Resolution No. 136, Series 2015 Page 2 of 2 Regular Meetina Aspen City Council December 1, 2015 assessed values today from the County. Those values reflect the annual change from 2014 to 2015 and was about 20 percent. Not all is appreciation of home values. The assessor uses a two year look back period. In terms of revenue to the city, the revenues cannot grow by the same 20 percent due to tabor. The revenue growth is limited to the combination of inflation plus new construction growth in the area for the year. We are estimating that at about 2.9 percent. The total growth in revenue can only be 2.9 but the assessed values are growing at roughly 20 percent which means what Council adopted in the past and likely continue to adopt is a mill levy credit. The state allows a temporary credit. What is being proposed is a 1 percent credit on the general fund mill levy or 5.41 mills. The stormwater credit is .093 on a normal mill levy of .65. For 2016 in the budget process we proposed the general fund all go to the AMP in 2016 to also to help pay for the construction of the police facility and things of that nature. Mayor Skadron asked him to define the tabor restriction. Mr. Strecker replied tabor is a revenue growth limitation of inflation plus new construction. Councilwoman Mullins asked what happens with the credit. Mr. Strecker said it has fluctuated over the years. When the housing collapse happened a few years back we utilized it. Councilwoman Mullins asked if the revenue goes into a separate fund. Mr. Strecker said no, the credit is forgoing essentially any revenue. We are not allowed to collect it under tabor. Councilwoman Mullins said we can't even collect it. Mr. Strecker replied correct. Councilman Frisch asked if we have a problem with the data coming in late. Jim True, city attorney, said no, we provided as much that we had available. Mr. Strecker said we could delay the decision until the next meeting but we have to certify the mills by December 15. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Resolution #119, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #136, SERIES OF 2015 — Policy Resolution Residential Design Standards Code Amendment Justin Barker, community development and Brad Johnson from Winter and Company told the Council the residential design standards were first adopted in 1995 as a way to maintain design quality and compatibility with historic features. They have been amended several times throughout the years. The two most current challenges are lack of clarity and flexibility. Winter and Company was hired in February to help with the updates. Staff is working with an advisory committee comprised of six local architects. There have been two open houses for the community to review the proposed changes and provide feedback. Staff also met with P&Z, individual homeowners and HOAs. The core objectives of the standards are to ensure a strong connection between the residences and the streets, ensure the buildings provide an articulation to break up the bulk and mass and respond to neighboring properties, and preserve the traditional neighborhood scale of the buildings. The standards were never intended to prescribe a particular architectural style but they are requiring each home to contribute positively to the street scape. • 0 Rettular Meeting Aspen City Council December 1, 2015 Mr. Johnson said there are two major changes being proposed including the administrative review process. With the current process issues with the residential design standards are not caught until late in the process and can at times delay a building permit for months. As a way to address that we are proposing to incorporate a formal step where an applicant would submit an application separate from the building permit application for compliance with the residential design standards. The other big change is the 17 current requirements must be met and the features are forced and do not make sense. The issues to be address include the requirements do not always respond to context. He gave the examples of building orientation and light wells. We want to provide a solution that would provide flexibility but keep intact the core objectives of the design standards. While a project may not meet the detail standard but meet the intent it could be approved administratively by alternative compliance. Councilwoman Mullins asked with everyone submitting an application will it overall shorten the time an application moves through the department or will it create a backlog. Mr. Barker stated overall it will be more efficient and more standardized. In some projects it may be longer but overall it will be more reliable and quicker. Councilwoman Mullins asked if they are anticipating additional staff. Mr. Barker replied no, they will just reallocate how it gets worked into the current function. Councilwoman Mullins said there is clearly a need for flexibility with all the different styles of architecture and the ways homes are sited on properties. Her concern is the intent is not clear enough the decisions become somewhat subjective. How are you going to address that? Mr. Johnson said the idea of alternative compliance will be a voluntary thing. You can follow the standards as they are now. We worked really hard on the intent statement. You will see an explanation for each standard. Mr. Barker said it is not all that different from the administrative review process now. It is currently a subjective system and this helps to clean it up and removes some of the subjectivity. It tightens that up a little more in terms of subjectivity. Councilwoman Mullins said it would be good to have a check in after a period of time to see that this is working. Councilman Myrin said it seems like two things going on as far as a process change and changes for the actual standards. His suggestion would be it is a two-step ordinance. He is not sure why they are combined in one. Ms. Garrow said any time there is a land use review there is a process that goes with that. When we update the standards we have to update the process. Councilman Myrin asked if there is no way to separate this. He has some concern with changing some of the standards. Ms. Garrow said they would be interested in hearing his concerns with the standards. Councilman Myrin asked if this changes the review ability from a P&Z or Council perspective. Mr. Barker said P&Z will still maintain the same roll. Staff does not approve administratively. Councilman Myrin asked if there will there be more administratively reviews and less that go to P&Z. Mr. Barker replied potentially. They are limited to three administrative variances. If it can't be reviewed it would go up to the P&Z level. Councilman Myrin said if it gets above three is there a limit. Mr. Barker said no, it is as many as alternative compliance would allow for. He would be hard pressed to see Staff approve alternative compliance for 10 different standards. Stopping the number at three became difficult for some neighborhoods like Smuggler Park where there are already one or two they would need a variance for just based off of site conditions. Councilman Myrin said he would like to see front doors on the street for Smuggler. On a process standpoint he is hesitant to go from three to potentially ten. If the number went from three to five it would clean up the process and achieve efficiency. Ms. Garrow said there is a fundamental difference between the current code and what is being proposed now. Right now you come in and apply for a variance where you are not going to meet the standard or the intent of the standard. With this proposal you are not getting a variance through the administrative review. We are not granting variances. Those 3 Resular Meetinu Aspen City Council December 1, 2015 continue to go to the Planning and Zoning Commission. This is, is there a different way based on more detail intent statements where the property could meet the intent of the standard. It is not a variance process in the way we have today but more truly what are the site constraints, what is the neighborhood context and are you still achieving the standard and the answer in many instances would be yes. Councilman Myrin said he is hesitant to go as far as it is going. There is some value in the standards we have and the process we have. The process is ok partially but he does not want to go from three to ten. Councilwoman Mullins said that is partially what she was getting at with subjectivity. it is hard to write regulations that apply to every case but more alternates for alternate compliance by building style. She would like to see more framework. Councilman Frisch said he is in Councilman Myrin's camp that we are talking about two different things. It is important to remember that streamlined has nothing to do with relaxation. He want to make sure this plays well with the outlying areas that are part of the city. He want to make sure we take a light touch with residential. He want to make sure we don't get mission creep and does not think we have a problem with the design standards. He wants to take a light touch and keep as streamlined as possible. Councilman Daily said he appreciate the memo. He like the proposals and simplified administrative review process. He likes the direction we are going. Alternative compliance provides better flexibility and will help expedite the process and make it easier to comply with and easier to move through the process. He supports what staff is proposing. Mayor Skadron concurs with the conversation. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Resolution #136, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #137, SERIES OF 2015 — 611 E Durant Ave Gondola Plaza Ski Storage Temporary Use Hilary Seminick, community development, told the Council this would allow for a temporary use permit for a ski enclosure at gondola plaza from December second 2015 to May first 2016. The proposed location is at gondola plaza which is part of the Little Nell planned development and part of the conservation zone. Aspen Skiing Company is requesting a temporary use to allow for an enclosure below the stairs that lead from the plaza level to the gondola. It is around 230 square feet and will allow for the overnight storage and inter mountain transfer of skis and snowboards to the four mountains. The bike racks will be relocated to either side of the enclosure. It is a ski facility use and consistent with the current uses at the plaza. The appearance of massing will be reduced since the location is under the stairs. Staffs greatest concern was the visual impacts. Staff supports option A of the steel frame enclosure with decorative panels. Ski CO would rather have a powder coated railing. Staff found the project meets the review criteria and recommends approval. David Corbin and Dana Dalla Betta, Aspen Ski CO, said the request is fairly simple. For several years they have transported skis from one area to another for the guests. This service has become well 6 lu 1040 to] 117_11►111115 TO: Mayor and Aspen City Council FROM: Justin Barker, Senior Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner RE: Policy Resolution: Residential Design Standards Code Amendments Resolution No. 136, Series of 2015 MEETING DATE: December 1, 2015 SUMMARY: The attached Resolution outlines Council policy direction for amendments to the Residential Design Standards of the City. The objective of the code amendment is to improve the administrative review process, better organize the standards, and clean up confusing language and loopholes within the current standards. If the Policy Resolution is approved, staff will bring an Ordinance to City Council that amends the Residential Design Standards for 1 St reading December 14 and 2nd reading January 11. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed resolution. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: This meeting is to review potential changes to the Residential Design Standards of the City. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310, City Council is the final review authority for all code amendments. All code amendments are subject to a three -step process. This is the second step in the process: 1. Public Outreach 2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should be pursued 3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments BACKGROUND: The City of Aspen Residential Design Standards were first adopted in 1995 as a way to maintain design quality and compatibility with historic features of the community. Since then, minor amendments have been processed to add additional standards and create a variance process. Residential Design Standards Policy Resolution Staff Memo 12.1.15 Page 1 of 5 0 • Earlier this year, staff selected a consultant (Winter & Co.) through an RFP process to assist with the updates. The updates are intended to better serve the community and provide attractive, compatible development. This is not a complete re -write. DISCUSSION' The Residential Design Standards in this chapter are intended to ensure a strong connection between private residences and public streets; ensure buildings provide articulation to break up bulk and mass; and preserve traditional neighborhood scale and character. The standards do not prescribe architectural style, but do require that each home, while serving the needs of its owner, contribute positively to the streetscape. The Residential Design Standards are at their core intended to achieve the following objectives: connect to the street, respond to neighboring properties, and reflect traditional building scale. Staff and Winter & Co. have been working with an advisory committee comprised of six local architects from various firms around town. The role of the committee is to represent the design community by providing input on current issues, reviewing draft updates, and participating in focused group discussions with staff and the consultant. Work on the update began with an inventory of the major issues in the current RDS review process. The most common issues identified by the advisory committee were: • Lack of clarity in the administrative review process • Lack of flexibility in the existing standards for different design styles These are discussed in more detail below. Administrative Review: Challenges: The current administrative review process has proven to be challenging for both staff and property owners. A project is only required to submit an application if a variation is required. This is typically determined by the planner of the day or staff collectively. This process can often lead to a substantial amount of time spent discussing a required variation, or some needed variations being missed because they are not discussed. This often leads to projects that do not meet the RDS getting delayed in the building permit review so they can submit an application for a variation. This can place a building permit on hold for several months. Proposed Solution: Under the proposed changes, all residential development would require an administrative review, unless otherwise exempted'. In administrative review, staff will review each project for standard applicability and the project's compliance with the flexible and non -flexible standards (see below). ' The code currently exempts certain properties based on location or site characteristics. These exemptions are not changed in this code amendment. Residential Design Standards Policy Resolution Staff Memo 12.1.15 Page 2 of 5 The application would either be granted approval or denial for compliance with the RDS. This will help reduce the number of projects in building permit review that do not comply with the RDS and will provide an applicant with more assurance when submitting a permit. If the applicant receives denial, they may amend the application to comply. If the applicant chooses not to amend the application, they would have the opportunity to have P&Z review the application. Any decision made by P&Z is final unless appealed under the regular city appeal procedures. Below are diagrams comparing the existing process to the proposed process: )FSIGN SUiMII Existing ., AFPLiCATiO� MOC FV COMPLIANCE REVI'cW APPLY FOR FLAVV�R PERMIT OF THE DESIGN DAY DENIED APPROVED SUBMIT AP?LIGATION ZONING STAFF REVIEW REVIEW M APPLY FOR STAFF 0 PERMIT D REVIEW I F Y APPROVED DESIGN DESIGN APPROVED APPROVED DENIED Proposed Standard Flexibility: Currently, a residential project must meet all of the standards as written (with some exceptions depending on the location or specific site constraints). Each of the standards is intended to address different aspects of design, such as relationship to the public realm, massing, and scale of design features. Challenge: Current Standards sometimes force inappropriate design. While each of the standards serve an important purpose, many of them can often lead to a forced design feature on a project in order to meet the letter of the standard. For example, a design may include an entry door that does not face the street. In order to meet the standard, an "entry door" Residential Design Standards Policy Resolution Staff Memo 12.1.15 Page 3 of 5 0 • is located on a street -facing fagade, but this "entry door" opens to a narrow hallway leading into a back room. This example is contrary to the intentions of the standards, but is still permitted under the Code. The proposed changes would close these kinds of loopholes. Challenge: Current Standards do not always respond appropriately to context. Additionally, some of the standards can be difficult to meet or do not serve their intended purpose, even if they apply to a project. For example, building orientation on a curvy street is more difficult to achieve than building orientation on a traditional townsite block. Similarly, prohibiting a light well on the front of a building for a building that is 100 feet from the street does not achieve the same purpose as prohibiting one that is 10 feet from the street. Proposed Solution: Allow for alternative compliance on most standards. In an effort to better align the standards with their intents, the proposed code amendments allows for most standards to be evaluated for compliance on a case -by -case basis through administrative review. Projects would be required to meet the letter of the standard, or provide "alternative compliance" meaning the project meets the overall intent of the standard. For example, a design may include an entry door that is 11 feet back from the front -most wall of the building, but is highly visible from the street and opens onto a large front porch. The door does not technically meet the standard (max. 10 feet from the front -most wall), but it meets the intent by providing street -facing architectural details, enhancing the walking experience and reinforcing local building traditions. This design feature would most likely be permitted under alternative compliance. This proposed process would allow architects and homeowners the ability to more directly work with staff to create a design that promotes pedestrian scale and connection to the public realm without requiring constant variation applications. This also would provide a benefit to the community by focusing on implementation of design features that enhance a residence's contribution and relationship to the public realm instead of forcing building elements that may not be compatible with the architectural design or style. Although most standards would allow for alternative compliance, staff believes that some of the standards should not allow for flexibility on an administrative level. The following standards provide the greatest impact on the public realm and are also the standards that staff least often grants administrative variations: 1. A visible and accessible front entrance. This standard would either require a front porch with a pedestrian path leading to the feature, or a front door facing and clearly visible from the street. 2. Reducing the appearance of garages from the street. This standard would require garages to be accessed off the alley where one exists. Where an alley does not exist, garages would be required to be set back from the front fagade of the building. Residential Design Standards Policy Resolution Staff Memo 12.1.15 Page 4 of 5 0 Articulation of massing to reduce perceived scale. This standard would require a secondary mass or other building articulation. Under the proposed RDS update, all applicable residential development would be required to meet the letter of these standards. If an applicant requests a variation from any of these standards no administrative variance could be granted and a P&Z review would automatically be required. Proposed Solution: Adjust applicability and introduce standard options. In an effort to better respond to context, the proposed RDS update clarifies applicability and in some cases adds in options based on lot characteristics, required setbacks and other features. Other updates: Staff has also been working with Winter & Co. and the advisory committee on other updates. These include reorganization of the RDS chapter to make it easier to read and understand, adding definitions for often used terms, and updating and improving graphics. PUBLIC OUTREACH: The advisory committee has been involved in the process since the beginning and has provided valuable feedback that helped dictate the current proposed changes. Information on the update has been provided through the Community Development newsletter, which reaches almost 600 professionals including contractors, architects, attorneys, and planners. A public open house was held September 29 to obtain feedback from the broader community of the proposed updates. Over 20 people attended the open house. All of the public feedback received to date has been overwhelmingly positive. Both architects and property owners have stated they like the simplified process and the added flexibility of the standards. Staff has also met individually with property owners and HOAs to address specific questions. An additional open house will be held on December 1. Feedback from this open house will be provided at the policy resolution hearing. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. 136, Series of 2015, approving a Policy Resolution regarding Residential Design Standards code amendments." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Staff Findings Exhibit B — Draft 11/17/15 P&Z minutes Residential Design Standards Policy Resolution Staff Memo 12.1.15 Page 5 of 5 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: ' �}i►l¢n��ytn,-��f �c, �� Cr- , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: - S,PY►^ 20 J S STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, '42:2 `7 P J se (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the day of , 20 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names 'and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAS or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledg d before me this 12 day of 1"46 y , 20t �� by RE:AMEN PUBLIC NOTICE DMENT TO THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE NOTICE held bon IVEN that'a public hearing meeting to be i Tuesday.December, 1, 2015, at City Council, Council Cha Pm' before the Aspen Galena St., Aspen, to determine,if City Hall, ,Pen the text of the Land Use mendments to The potential amendrnentswa S uid be Pursued. fiat design standards , Cha tar 2 address reside n- use code. For furth r 6.410 of the land Barker at the Ci er information, contact Justin meet Department �30 sppen Community Develop- (970) 429-2797, Justin.Earrlieal06 St., Aspen, CO, tyofaspen.com s/ Steven Skadron, Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on November 12, 2015 (11676658) WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: 61 17A76 Notary Public TARA L. NELSCFN NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID 20014030017 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 09125/2017 ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPY OF TILE PUBLICA TION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 Mr. Walterscheid was part of the design team for the applicant so he was not present. Mr. Goode served as the Acting Chair. Mr. Goode called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Jason Elliott, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Skippy Mesirow, Jesse Morris and Keith Goode. Spencer Morris, Jasmine Tygre, and Brian McNellis were not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan, and Justin Barker. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan stated Michele Holder would like to take about 10 minutes to introduce the Citizens Academy. Mr. Goode stated she would be provided time after public comments. Ms. Holder, Management Analyst for the City, introduced herself. She was hired on approximately six months ago to create a Citizens Academy for the City of Aspen. She is at the meeting this evening to let P&Z know what she is doing with the academy. She stated the academy will serve to teach the people in the community about how the city works. It will provide an overview of how government works including being a home rule municipality, the City Charter, how decisions are made by Council and how goals are determined at each annual Council retreat. It will also include structural information such as who is the City Manager and the employee hierarchy. Different service areas will be covered such as how the Police keep Aspen safe, how Parks and Recreation works. The idea is to inform people and it provides an opportunity for the City to tell their story. A hopeful outcome would be to have people more interested and involved in local government such as more applications for boards and commissions or have more people comfortable attending council meetings to express their thoughts. She stated they are at the end of their input gathering phase and are now determining when it may be appropriate to start the program. She finished stating she would provide additional information when they are ready to launch. Mr. Goode asked if it is to be a continual program and Ms. Holder replied they are planning a pilot program next year and then continue them annually. She stated they are still trying to identify the needs for Aspen and will be considering offering it in different formats in the future. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if this was inspired by some dissatisfaction expressed in community involvement. Ms. Holder replied not that she is aware of at this time. It is her understanding it was conceived about four years ago in a partnership with Pitkin County, Snowmass and Aspen. The partnership fizzled out and then the City decided to pursue it by hiring someone to work on it. She stated it was Mr. Barry Crook's idea originally with the intent to inform people. She asked P&Z to contact her with any ideas or concerns. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES October 20, 2015 Minutes - Mr. Mesirow moved to approve the minutes for October 201" and was seconded by Mr. Elliott. All in favor, motion passed. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. 200 S Aspen St (Hotel Lenado) - Commercial Design Review - Continued Public Hearing from October 20, 2015 Mr. Goode opened the continued public hearing and turned the floor over to staff. Ms. Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director, stated it is a continued public hearing for the Hotel Lenado. Since the last hearing on October 20', a number of design changes have occurred for the project. She reviewed the application proposes to demolish the existing lodge and replace it with a new mixed use building containing four lodge units that may be configured for a total of nine keys, two affordable housing units, two free market units as well as lodge amenity space and underground parking. At the last hearing, P&Z raised some concerns on a couple of issues. One concern was the Hopkins facade relating better with the residential character across the street. Another concern was the height of the building. Previously proposals asked for the height to be allowed up to 32 ft, which is permitted in the mixed use zone district. Ms. Phelan then stated she would cover some components of the application since there have been a number of hearings. In regards to the Hopkins fa4ade, there have been some changes since the last hearing. On the corner closest to the park, the second story balcony has been removed which reduces some of the mass of the building. The park level has been redesigned with a balcony along it and there has been a reduction in the glazing. All these changes help reduce the mass and improve the relationship of the fa4ade with the residential buildings across the street and also helps to create a couple of individual modules. Staff feels there has been good progress, but it still needs some to continued refinement. One area in particular is the center module encompassing the gable and the flat story next to it. With regard to height, the proposed structure has been reduced to 28 ft so it meets the underlying mixed use zoning. The only two elements exceeding the 28 ft are the top of the rooftop stairwell and elevator which both meet the height exemptions. Although it meets the 28 ft height, the floor to floor ceiling heights increase as you go up the floors of the building. Staff feels this creates a top heavy feel to the building. For a typical lodge commercial building, the first floor or entry floor should have the most prominence in floor to floor ceiling height. Staff feels there should be continued work on the floor to floor ceiling heights in the building. Regarding the overall design, Staff feels this is a transitional neighborhood fronn the commercial mercial core to a residential neighborhood. There is quite a bit of residential area in the neighborhood including designated historical landmarks across the street. There are also single family residences, multi -family across the alley, and a small lodge nearby. The building is getting bigger, but the actual lodge rooms are being reduced. Staff feels the overall design has improved, but does not believe the current proposed building design does not include enough to respect the neighborhood and its surroundings, particularly in regards to mass and scale which Staff feels should be reduced. Ms. Phelan then discussed growth management, which she stated is essentially the required affordable housing for the lodge and the free market component. She stated things keep moving with each iteration of the proposal and currently the two affordable housing units being proposed more than meet 0 • Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 the requirement for affordable housing mitigation but they do need to be amended a bit to meet the above grade requirements for the amount of sf required. Staff is still recommending one unit be designated as a for sale unit and the other be a for rent unit. She explained one of the affordable units mitigates for the lodge while the other unit mitigates for the free market. Staff recommends the unit mitigating for the free market component be a for sale unit. Ms. Phelan continued stating this is the fourth iteration of the project and there has been some progress. She does feel some of the goals for the small lodge character area are to have a lodge where the dimensions and character respect the surroundings. There are single family residences with historic character and development pattern that should be respected. Staff believes there could be changes made to better meet the guidelines by creating more modulation in the form of the building and by reducing the mass. By addressing these two things, the application would meet guidelines 5.5 and 5.7 of the small lodge character area. At this point, Staff recommends denial as they feel the guidelines are not met. If P&Z feels comfortable with the changes and move to approve, Staff suggests certain conditions to be considered: 1. Continue to work with the floor to floor heights to emphasize the entry level 2. Amend the mass, scale and design along Hopkins and the overall mass of the building 3. Meet the growth management requirements for the affordable housing and have one unit as a for sale unit. 4. Verify the dimensional requirements when the next application is submitted. Mr. Goode asked if there were any questions for Staff Ms. McNicholas Kury noted there is a combined 1,049 sf of affordable housing net livable area proposed above grade where 1,080 sf is required for the above grade requirement. In regards to the growth management review, she asked how this has changed from earlier proposals. Ms. Phelan stated with the changes in the floor plans, the amount required to be above grade has changed. She feels it something that can be handled if it goes to the final design because some things will move a little bit, but she wanted to outline the requirement to be met. Ms. McNicholas Kury then stated her understanding of the height differential between the lower story to the upper story has been consistent throughout the design and she wanted to confirm this was the case with Staff. Ms. Phelan stated the design has always had the top story taller than the other stories. There have been changes with a reduction over time, but Staff feels the entry level, particularly a hotel, should be the most prominent level. Having the height on upper floor creates a top heavy design. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the reduction was fully absorbed by lowering the height of the first floor height. Ms. Phelan replied it would be best if Mr. Wilson reviewed the heights. Mr. Mesirow stated there are conceptually plenty of things not to like about the project, but their job is not to figure out what is conceptually right and not design the building. He asked what specifically does not meet the guidelines. Ms. Phelan replied Staff feels the building is too large for the site and neighborhood and the sf should be reduced, but she could not point to a specific guideline that is not met in this regard. Mr. Morris asked if it is in the small lodge character area design objectives. Ms. Phelan replied the design objectives discusses projects should be sensitive to the neighborhood and to fit into the neighborhood. She added sometimes the maximum floor area allowed is not achievable because of the design guidelines. Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to the applicant. 0 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 Mr. Steev Wilson, Forum Phi, represented the applicant. He initiated his presentation with a picture of the Aspen Street fagade. Ms. Phelan observed the fagade does not represent what was submitted with the most recent application, noting there was an additional gable included one level above the entry level. Mr. Wilson remarked it was different. Mr. Wilson feels they are getting closer with the most recent proposal. He displayed a list of items he described as facts regarding the project. He stated the building hasn't changed materially, they are shuffling sf in an attempt to provide variegation on the building. He acknowledged the need to meet the additional 31 sf of above grade space and feels it can be achieved in the final design. He displayed a slide showing the FAR ratios and stated they are still considerably lower than the allowable FAR. Mr. Wilson displayed a slide depicting where the property is located and described the type of neighboring properties. He stated everyone would agree it is a transitional neighborhood. Mr. Wilson then described what would be included on each floor. On top is a roof deck including mechanical units. Directly below are the two free market units. On the next two levels down there are walk out levels to the park and on Aspen St there is a mix of lodge units and affordable housing. All the building services including parking, mechanical, employee lounge, and catering kitchen are located in the basement. He then referred to the Commercial Design Standards (Staff memo: Exhibit K) and noted he would discuss the deficiencies as identified in Staff's memo. A. Mixed use character area: Public amenity space. Mr. Wilson displayed pictures looking up Aspen St of the existing and proposed public amenity spaces and described what is included in the proposed space. B. Small Lodge Character: For guideline 5.5, he feels they have established it is a transitional context and the areas along Hopkins St are really what they are focusing on making it relate to the residences across the street. He displayed a west rendering of the building and described how the faSade is broken into three distinctly separate parts. The first part being 30 ft wide with a five ft setback, the middle portion being approximately 31 ft wide stepping down to the larger setback on Aspen St. They are also varying the heights of the building along the modulated fa4ade with a very much recessed deck portion. They feel they are modulating both from a material and height perspective and taking on more of the neighborhood character. C. Building height: For guideline 5.6, he provided slides demonstrating the height of the proposed building as it relates in height to neighboring buildings in each direction. For each�- slide the building s either at or below the height of neighboring buildings. He Snuc uic vui�un�g Ww _.o.._ _ noted the higher sections of the building are not on the Hopkins St side. The higher sections are in the back of the building along the alleyway where there is a taller context. He also provided slides demonstrating they meet the minimum nine ft floor to floor heights for each level showing the building from different perspectives. He noted the modulation matches the sloping topography. Near the park, one of the ADUs has a 10 ft 1 in ceiling and the lodge units on the walkout to the park have the same height. The Hopkins side of the building has 9 ft 9 in height respecting the lower height to that side of the building. Along the alley, the heights move up to the 11 ft S in heights. From the Hopkins St to the alley, the heights all meet the 9 ft minimum and then again taller near the alley side of the building. 4 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 D. For guideline 5.7, he noted it has a lot to do with the same standards in guideline 5.5 respecting the modulated fagade along Hopkins fagade. They feel the application meets this component. Mr. Wilson then referred to the points identified in the minutes from the previous hearing. A. He stated last time they heard from P&Z they need to stay at 28 ft in height. He added they have abandoned the request for 32 ft and meet the underlying code in regards to height. B. The next item identified was the Hopkins fagade. They have varied the materials and including angulation to help the fa4ade. The have been eroding the corners of the building to give the neighbors a better view and moving elements back from the edge and closer to the alley. He provided a slide comparing the existing, previous and current facades. They pulled the entire corner back and created a half story balcony with a cover to bring it back further. The amount of glass was reduced by about 25%. Mr. Wilson then wanted to address the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) commentary and suggestions included in the Staff memo. APCHA recommends both units be for rent and the applicant would like them to remain as rentals. The applicant feels passionately about having a good rental environment for the people who will be working at the hotel. In closing, he feels they have addressed the conditions and would prefer to address mass, scale, and neighborhood compatibility in the final review process. He stated they know they will have to meet the growth management net livable space considerations for affordable housing. He would prefer to keep APCHA's recommendation regarding the units. They've tried really hard to keep this from becoming a duplex or single family home with a bunch of empty, lights turned off, empty windows. It may not be the 19 keys, but the proposed keys are better than none. Mr. Goode asked if there were any questions for the applicant. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the building is required to remain a lodge. Mr. Wilson replied no. Ms. Phelan stated if approved, it would be approved as a lodge. She added they could demolish it and build a single family home and a duplex on the site. Mr. Morris asked if the key count has remained the same throughout the review process. Both Mr. Wilson and Ms. Phelan stated it the number of keys has remained the same. Mr. Morris asked if the decision regarding the for sale vs rental unit was subjective and not driven by policy. Ms. Phelan stated APCHA is a recommending body and P&Z is the decision making body. She continued stating the land use code requirements state affordable housing is to be for sale. However, if it is a commercial lodging project, they are encouraged to be rentals. Staff's position is that one unit mitigates the free market component and the other mitigates the lodging component. Mr. Mesirow asked if Staff is concerned if the units will not end up being used by a hotel employee. She reiterated one unit is mitigating the free market and should be a for sale unit. Mr. Wilson added although they appreciate Staff's position, he feels there not be a whole lot of employee housing need for the folks living in the free market units and both units would be better served for the lodging component. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the height variations could change through the final review. Ms. Phelan stated it could if identified as a condition. • 0 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 Mr. Goode then opened for public comment. Ms. Karen Day was the interior designer for the original Hotel Lenado in 1983. She feels there is huge contingent in the community emotionally attached to the existing lodge. She stated the logs on each side of fireplace were cut by the people who live in Lenado. There was a photograph in the hotel of the people cutting and carrying the logs. She asked the logs be saved. On a personal note, there are a lot of folks heartbroken that a piece of Harry Teague architecture will be demolished. She does feel the rendering is better than she thought it would be. Mr. Goode then closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Goode then opened for commissioner's discussion. Mr. Morris wanted to hear from fellow commissioners, assuming the affordable housing items could be dealt with, where they are at on community character and mass. Mr. Goode stated it is a lodge and will be big. He loves the improvements and noted the displays Mr. Wilson used during his discussion included a gable that was not included in the packet. Ms. Phelan stated the latest iteration of the proposal does not have the gable above the gabled entry level. Mr. Goode reiterated what they approve will not have this additional gable. He feels it is not the perfect small lodge P&Z wanted, but he would approve it as submitted. Mr. Mesirow stated they have asked a lot and a lot has been delivered. He feels there is not a lot outside of just mass and scale to not like about the project, but he felt they provided pretty specific directives to the applicant who has met those directives. While he feels it is not a perfect project, it is important for the process that not just the community, but the applicant have trust in P&Zs willingness to follow through on their word, so he will be supportive of the application. Ms. McNicholas also feels the project has come a long way but is sad to see photos comparing the proposed hotel with the existing hotel. She feels Aspen is losing a quaint piece of architecture that provided a lot more lodging for something is very modern looking and doesn't provide any of the same character. Mr. Mesirow stated it is also important to take into account that while there is the paragraph that gives P&Z some credence to adjust size, the FAR is significantly lower than what is allowed. As the applicant pointed out it could be single family homes. Mr. Elliott agrees with Mr. Mesirow in that the commission had previously outlined items to be addressed and it would not be fair for P&Z to change it now. From a factual standpoint, he is fine with it. The only remaining item he would be open to enforcing would be the affordable housing. Mr. Goode asked the commissioners where they stand on defining the one unit for sale. Mr. Morris stated Staff's logic makes sense for one rental and on for sale unit given the use of the building. Mr. Mesirow stated he is generally comfortable with APCHA's position and feels they have studied this situation. Although he also agrees Staff's position make sense given the use, he would tend to let APCHA take the lead on it. He feels language should be added to the resolution to confirm the required amount of above grade area is met for final review. Mr. Goode stated he would go with Staff's recommendation. 0 0 • Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 Ms. McNicholas Kury stated she would support APCHA's recommendation. Mr. Mesirow asked Mr. Goode why he defer to Staff. Mr. Goode stated he is concerned with having a for sale unit in the building because APCHA does not have a method in place to verify who is renting properties. He feels the guidelines are not very tight and there may not be anyone available to audit the compliance. Mr. Mesirow asked Staff is they have similar concerns. Ms. Phelan stated she would stick with the mitigation requirement, but she has seen compliance issues in the past on other properties. She stated the mitigation requirement generated for the free market is actually more than one two bedroom unit. The mitigation requirement for the lodge component is actually less than one two bedroom unit. Mr. Goode asked the commissioners where they stand regarding the floor to floor ceiling heights. Ms. McNicholas Kury would like to see it retained as proposed. Mr. Mesirow agreed. She added she would not want to see something at final that is drastically different than what has been agreed to today. Mr. Goode asked if the commission wanted to include conditions previously recommend by Ms. Phelan to add to the resolution including the entry level, the Hopkins area and growth management. Ms. Phelan wanted clarification if the commission wanted to see continued work on the Hopkins fagade or not. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated although she appreciates the varied materials used and the setbacks provide a sense of differing widths requested by P&Z, she would like to see additional work on the middle section. She is not sure she can persuade the applicant to change it however. Mr. Goode feels all the commissioners are on that same page. Mr. Elliott asked where the commissioners where they stand on APCHA's recommendation and added he is with APCHA and the applicant. Mr. Goode felt a majority of the board is behind APCHA. Mr. Morris added if there is a problem with compliance it should be dealt with using another mechanism. Ms. Phelan suggested adding a third paragraph with the following items under Section 1 of the draft resolution. She referred them to p. 17 of the Staff memo and stated the resolution already states the affordable housing units will be rental units. Prior to submission of Final Commercial Design Review the Applicant shall: • Meet the growth management requirements for above graded net livable space for the affordable housing units. • Verify dimensional requirements are met, specifically Floor Area Calculations. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the resolution could also encourage the applicant to come back with improvements to the Hopkins fagade. Mr. Mesirow asked if this would be required at which she responded no. Ms. Phelan stated they could add that further review of the fagade would be encouraged at which Mr. Goode agreed. Mr. Mesirow wanted to state the applicant has done a good job and it is not the job of P&Z to create policy, but to follow the code and he feels the building meets the code. He will vote in favor of the project, but he also feels it has to be recognized this is a poor project for this town. He feels it is unfortunate that it goes from 19 hotel rooms to four, with less use, and less vitality. In the bigger discussion in regards to if the code meet our values as a community, he hopes this project will be a catalyst for further discussion around the LP overlay. He feels if this project can go forward, clearly the code does not meet the community values. He wants to applaud the design team for their good work, • 0 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 but he also feels the developer needs to have trust in the process too. He thinks it will be a positive outcome and hopes in the future they are dealing with a different set of criteria. Mr. Goode agreed. Mr. Elliott motioned to approve resolution #20, series 2015 adding the following conditions identified by Ms. Phelan as a third paragraph of Section 1. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mesirow. Meet the growth management requirements for above graded net livable space for the affordable housing units. Verify dimensional requirements are met, specifically Floor Area Calculations. • The applicant is encouraged to further review the Hopkins facade. Mr. Goode requested a roll call. Roll call vote: Mr. Morris, yes; Mr. Mesirow, yes; Mr. Elliott, yes; Ms. McNicholas Kury, yes; and Mr. Goode, yes. The motion passed with a total five (5) yes — zero (0) no. Ms. Phelan requested Mr. Wilson to provide an electronic copy of the presentation. Mr. Goode then closed the public hearing. OTHER BUSINESS Residential Design Standards. Code Amendment Check -In Mr. Justin Barker, Community Development Senior Planner, stated he wanted to check in with P&Z regarding proposed code amendments pertaining to the City's Residential Design Standards (RDS). Mr. Barker provided background on the RDS and stated Council directed Staff earlier this year to look into updating the RDS to make it more appropriate for the current designs and timeframe. Staff has been working with a consultant as well as an advisory committee to identify possible updates. After multiple discussions and meetings, two issues were identified with the current version of the chapter. • Lack of clarity in the administrative review process • Lack of flexibility in the existing standards Mr. Barker then reviewed the administrative review process. The process is confusing as is the standard for the reviews that occur during the process. He referred to Exhibit A which diagrams the existing and proposed review processes. With the new review process, thhey are proposing all projects come in for an administrative review for all standards. Administratively, they would receive an approval or denial to be included in their building permit providing them assurance they have a signed off approval. This would also removes the three design request limitation. Staff will look at all the standards combined and whether they are met collectively or not. If the proposal is denied, the applicant has the opportunity to request a variation from P&Z or mend their requirements to meet the RDS. When an application comes in, there are set standards based on the location and topography of the site that must be met to the letter. The application may also go through an administrative or a P&Z variance review. Staff recognizes not all the standards have equal importance and he provided an example of the location of the structure on the lot may not be as important as the overall mass of the building. The proposed changes prioritize the standards and identifies three standards as the nonflexible standards as Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 listed on p. 75 of the agenda packet. These must be met as per stated in the code and any variance must be taken to P&Z for review. All the other standards are reviewed with flexibility in mind and Staff will determine the intent of the standard is being is met. He discussed the two examples on pp 79 and 80 of the packet. There are a few more updates Staff has been working on including the following. • Reorganizing the entire chapter to make it more readable • Define some terms not previously defined or are unclear • Updating and improving the graphics to be more understandable • Adding new graphics to further assist with explaining topics For public outreach, there was an open house at the end of September that approximately 20 people attended. There was an overwhelming positive response to the idea of the proposed changes. The proposed changes were also included in the Community Development Newsletter which goes out to almost 600 professionals in the valley to which there has been mostly positive responses as well. The next steps include the proposed changes going to Council for policy resolution in early December. There will also be one more public open house on the same date to obtain additional feedback prior to the meeting with Council. If the policy resolution is approved, they will proceed with an ordinance reading for the specific language to amend the code. Mr. Barker asked if P&Z supports the proposed amendment or has any concerns. Mr. Mesirow asked who made up the audience at the open house. Mr. Barker answered it was a lot of local architects and designers. Mr. Mesirow stated it seems very counter to the general feeling of the community to hold to very specific guidelines with no flexibility in granting anything to anybody. Mr. Morris asked if the audience receiving the newsletter was also primarily architects and designers at which Mr. Barker stated the newsletter is viewed by architects, designers, real estate agents, attorneys and others involved with land use code review and enforcement. Mr. Morris wondered how we could get some from the other side to show up and participate in the review. Ms. Phelan stated there needs to be guidelines in place and the values of the town are so high that if there were no requirements, you would see 10 ft walls around houses turning them into compounds and the public streetscape would be negatively impacted. What Staff heard is that some of the requirements are not flexible. Staff is trying to identify those standards that are sacred and there can't be an administrative variation unless you go to a board for review. Mr. Barker added they want to focus on the design and the overall intent of the applicants instead of looking at the extreme details such as your window is 9 ft tall instead of 9 ft 3 in tall. Staff does not feel it is necessary for an applicant to come to P&Z to ask for a window that is 3 in taller than allowed per the code. Mr. Goode remarked P&Z has seen plenty of such examples. Mr. Goode other commissioners stated they feel the changes will be good for the process. Mr. Mesirow appreciates the direction and finding more competence in the process for everyone is important. He also feels the intent to focus on use is really healthy oppose to it looking as though the standards are being relaxed. Mr. Morris also feels it will be important to articulate the reasons behind amending the code. Mr. Mesirow does see a red flag when it comes to the prioritization. He understands why it is being done, but is concerned they may be drawing a roadmap for architects and designers to figure out which things they need to abide by. Ms. Phelan added the proposed process may be able to dial in the intent • 0 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 to match the location more appropriately to match the development pattern of the area. She added there are certain design principles that will be upheld. She gave the example that Staff feels very strongly about the placement of a garage at a site. For instance, on Cemetery Lane they may allow side loading where they typically do not allow for it. Mr. Mesirow asked for the process to revisit this based on changing community priorities. Mr. Barker stated it would be easier to change the priorities in the future should the need arise. Mr. Barker stated a lot of designers have figured out a loophole process to meeting the standards which creates a worse design in the end. These amendments will help Staff focus on the overall design and allow the applicant to focus on a holistic design rather than just meet the standard. Mr. Mesirow reiterated having check -in mechanisms would ultimately make the process better. It would also encourage trust with the community. Mr. Goode felt opening it up to look at the entire design from the beginning would be helpful. Mr. Barker reiterated currently an applicant may present up to three items for administrative variances from three different standards. If they request more than three, it currently goes to P&Z for review. With the amendments, there will no longer be a limitation on the number requested for administrative review. If the administrative review is not granted, the applicant would have the option of taking their request to P&Z. Mr. Mesirow asked if it was a requirement or opportunity for the applicant to currently ask for administrative review. Mr. Barker replied currently it is reviewed for RIDS when someone submits for a building permit. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked how Staff makes their decisions defensible in regards to intent. Ms. Phelan stated there are some standards that are a bit loose and it is harder to define the intent but she feels the more something can be explained, the more you can define where it meets or doesn't meet the standard. Mr. Barker stated there will always be subjectivity in design, but it important to gather as much information as possible. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated some statements raise red flags for her. She cited a statement Section 26.410.010.A.3, which states to encourage creative and contemporary architecture in keeping with Aspen's history. She stated statements like this are extremely difficult to interpret and noted the application approved earlier and how it will change the character of the neighborhood impacting any future review under that criteria is different. She feels there is a tension between what Aspen was and what it is becoming. She is concerned the direction in which it is heading is very unclear and doesn't feel in terms of design, it is something that's been articulated. Mr. Goode brought up that the aspect of messy vitality that has driven change in Aspen. Mr. Mesirow feels Ms. McNicholas Kury wants better confines to direct the change that will occur. He added change includes not only what it will look like, but also what it act and feel like. Ms. McNicholas Kury feels the change should be tied to an intent whether it be messy vitality or something else. Mr. Barker understands Ms. McNicholas Kury's concerns, but unfortunately it is not in the scope of the update being discussed. He does feel the proposed amendments will help support the intent going forward to the specific standards. He suggested perhaps the standards could be reviewed for their relevance sometime in the future. IR Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoniniz Commission November 17, 2015 Elevator Overrun Code Amendment Check -In Mr. Barker reviewed the current code allows for elevator overruns for anything but single family homes and duplexes has the capability to be five and in some cases up to 10 ft taller than what code allows based on the setback from the street to reduce visibility. Staff has heard complaints it is difficult to achieve a workable design based on the requirements and Council has directed Staff to look into it. Mr. Barker stated they asked through their newsletter for realistic numbers. From their responses, it seems most standard elevator designs range from 14.5 to 20 ft in height for the entire assembly. This is measured from where you exit the elevator to the very top of the roof of the enclosure. A typical height is 16 ft for a structure available for purchase from vendors serving the valley. Staff is asking if P&Z is interested in increasing the height for an elevator enclosure. He added one of the difficulties identified in regards to the design is currently they end up with awkward elevator ramping systems to get to the actual top and stay under the height limit. For an example, with a 16 ft enclosure the floor would have to be dropped approximately 6 ft below the roof line or have a custom, expensive structure built to achieve the five ft or 10 ft height limit. Mr. Goode doesn't see the cost as an issue for those who typically build in Aspen. Mr. Morris asked for the typical costs to comply with the existing code requirements. Mr. Barker stated he has not received any specific input regarding how much it costs for a closure requiring ramping for the 19..ft enclosure. Ms. Phelan reminded P&Z this is only to access the roof and this wouldn't be an issue if they don't need roof access. Mr. Barker added rooftop views are a hot item lately. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the elevators are used to transport people or a commercial elevator. Mr. Barker answered it is for people. Mr. Barker stated the elevator overrun example provided in the packet is for commercial use and not residential use. Mr. Mesirow asked if this code amendment was applicable to commercial core or other zone districts. Mr. Barker stated the amendment discussion it is not tied specifically to zone district but he would welcome any input from P&Z. Mr. Mesirow looking objectively at the recently approved projects and noted they all had elevators on top conforming to the 10 ft requirement. He feels it is clearly doable and while he doesn't feel it makes sense to impose superfluous costs on developers, he doesn't feel 20 ft elevators would be popular with the community. He felt additional height may be possibly allowed if the structure was not visible from the closest structure at street level in each direction. Mr. Elliott supports having roof access but feels the current standard is working. He feels taller structures would impede the views of the mountains. Although the cost to make it possible currently may be higher, he feels there is also a visual impact cost to the community with higher towers. Mr. Mesirow remarked the Sky Hotel will have a roof top access. He stated if the roof takes up 200 sf for ramps to make the 10 ft tower design work. If allowing a higher tower would improve the public amenity space and not a visual impact from the street, he would not have a problem with it. Mr. Elliott feels it is necessary to look for impacts other than from the street. He feels the developers have been able to work out solutions to make it work. Mr. Goode asked how long the rule has been in place. Ms. Phelan believes it has changed somewhat in the last 10 years. Mr. Goode feels technology may provide for opportunities going forward. 11 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 Ms. McNicholas Kury doesn't feel roof access is a pressing public need at this time. In summary, P&Z does not support an increase in height. Mr. Goode then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk's Office, Records Manager 12 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Justin Barker, Senior Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner MEETING DATE: November 17, 2015 RE: Residential Design Standards Code Amendment SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to provide feedback on potential code amendments to the City's Residential Design Standards (RDS). BACKGROUND: The City of Aspen Residential Design Standards were first adopted in 1995 as a way to maintain design quality and compatibility with historic features of the community. Since then, minor amendments have been processed to add additional standards and create a variance process. Earlier this year, staff selected a consultant (Winter & Co.) through an RFP process to assist with the updates. The purpose of the updates are to improve the review process, better organize the standards, and general cleanup for loopholes and confusion for individual standards in order to better serve the community and provide attractive, compatible development. This is not a complete re -write. DISCUSSION: Staff and Winter & Co. have been working with an advisory committee comprised of six local architects from various firms around town. The role of the committee is to represent the design community by providing input on current issues, reviewing draft updates, and participating in focused group discussions with staff and the consultant. The most common issues with the current standards as identified by the committee were: • Lack of clarity in the administrative review process • Lack of flexibility in the existing standards These are discussed in more detail below. Administrative Review: The current administrative review process has proven to be challenging. A project is only required to submit an application if a variation is required. This is typically determined by the planner of the day or staff collectively. This process can often lead to a substantial amount of time spent discussing a required variation, or some needed variations being missed because they are not Page 1 of 3 0 • discussed. This often leads to projects that do not meet the RDS getting delayed in the building permit review so they can submit an application for a variation. This can place a building permit on hold for several months. Under the proposed changes, all residential development would be required an "administrative compliance review", unless otherwise exempted. In administrative compliance review, staff will review each project for standard applicability and the project's compliance with the flexible and non -flexible standards (see below). The application will either be granted approval or denial for compliance with the RDS. If the applicant receives denial, they may amend the application to comply. If the applicant chooses not to amend the application, they would have the opportunity to have P&Z review the application. Any decision made by P&Z is final unless appealed under the regular city appeal procedures. Standard Flexibility: Currently, a residential project must meet all of the standards as written (with some exceptions depending on the location or specific site constraints). Staff recognizes that some standards are not always of critical importance or are difficult to meet, even if they apply to a certain project. For example, building orientation on a curvy street is difficult to achieve and is not as important as building orientation on a traditional townsite block. Similarly, prohibiting a lightwell on the front of a building is less important for a building that is 100 feet from the street than one that is 10 feet from the street. In response to this, staff has identified three design features that are the most important to maintaining compatible design. These are: 1. A visible and accessible front entrance. This standard would require a front porch or other entry feature, include a front door, and a pedestrian path leading to the feature. 2. Reducing the appearance of garages from the street. This standard would require garages to be accessed off the alley where one exists. Where an alley does not exist, garages would be required to be set back from the front fagade of the building. 3. Articulation of massing to reduce perceived scale. This standard would require a secondary mass or other building articulation. These are also the standards that staff least often grants administrative variations. Under the proposed RDS update, all applicable residential development would be required to meet the letter of these standards. If an applicant requested a variation from any of these standards no administrative variance could be granted and a P&Z review would automatically be required. In an effort to provide some flexibility, the remaining standards would be evaluated on a case -by - case basis through the administrative compliance review. Projects would be required to meet the letter of the standard, or provide "alternative compliance" meaning the project meets the overall intent of the standard. This allows the architects and homeowners more flexibility for varied design styles and the ability to more directly work with staff to create an agreeable design without requiring constant variation applications. For example, a design may include an entry door that is 11 feet back from the front -most wall of the building, but is highly visible from the street and opens onto a front porch that meets the standard. The door does not technically meet the standard (max. 10 feet from the front -most wall), but it meets the intent by providing street -facing Page 2 of 3 architectural details, enhancing the walking experience and reinforcing local building traditions. This design feature would most likely be permitted under alternative compliance. Other updates: Staff has also been working with Winter & Co. and the advisory committee on other updates. These include reorganization of the RDS chapter to make it easier to read and understand, adding definitions for often used terms, and updating and improving graphics. FEEDBACK: The advisory committee has been involved in the process since the beginning and continues to provide valuable feedback that has helped dictate the current proposed changes. An open house was held September 29 to obtain feedback from the broader community of the proposed updates. Over 20 people attended the open house. Information on the update has also been provided through the Community Development newsletter, which reaches almost 600 professionals including contractors, architects, attorneys, and planners. All of the public feedback received to date has been overwhelmingly positive. Both architects and property owners have stated they like the simplified process and the added flexibility of the standards. Attached are copies of the boards from the Open House, which explain the main changes to the process and requirements. NEXT STEPS: Staff has scheduled policy resolution with City Council and an additional public open house on December 1st. If policy resolution is approved, ordinance readings would occur in mid- December/early January. REQUEST OF P&Z: The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to provide feedback on the proposed code amendment. All comments will be passed on to City Council as part of their review of the code amendment. Staff has included the proposed draft language in Exhibit B to provide P&Z with an understanding of how it may work in the Code. Staff is not looking for specific comment pertaining to the draft. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - September 29 Open House Boards Exhibit B - Proposed Draft Language Page 3 of 3 (Z (J W Q W n 0 0 _ r_ c Q o c> N o y 0 0 v� p ar'�v.� a > N L O N R C N Q 0,2 w w aJ c ro a, C c °c° E E ro. N ,lu (u O C N U N 0 Q N A N a'c y c N 00 °zHo vau'E a c aa, E c p a, ro a ro 02 O E m a E p N (U' ` ro c Q -O p Gj p •C O U > ao X' a' 3 as N a, E 3 _ 0� 00 > i 7 4v GJ N 3 E v o�c 'v Q) N a�i U N aci O tE '� > c c o o N t 3 c n ai � a1 _ L N ro C > c Y at.2 ro ap �R v - = No1c0t a-O pX Ev y.,aj s4 wN "� Np c c N E ro R>> ro a a ro 000 � i > N •� NE -.E �? a, o � a, c NvQ•o -p U aJ R p -C 7 C '-' N O Off• p N R OOU .a '° E y c a °° 'D � C a v C c L C o ° a O ro c N E L a - O'fl u L �O •� O N O c y O 0o v ro ,, cu a, a c ro C� o E ro a, w rp u C p- U -C 7 a U' c aJ q , y `n c ° W N v > E a a, � a, -0 _a>i u 'v -O w U N - +�.. QJ N 'H 7 N C •N al C E .0 O C O c c U o .a c o -u N a E 3 `o p cp E R u s cF- u E nu E� N.v U` aJ y c, ro N a p �.'� ro U a L N N -a ."' N ` E ro .O a U ro 0cu (U �.- C a, U �� -O O C. U 0.0"0 N Ca v= O o0 O p N C C d. R R N R N C E u c - 3 >*5 a N w > E c N O M N_ a, .a, pc c o �c cEo • a n >-a -L. n'Hw U +L•• aX, R U 'Dp o U O d > m '9 IJ 0 0 C) ry Q 0 Z Q c) 'Z V W n J Q F- Z LU n w RE mini 9 0 C!I a 1.5 ,pp. N H 61 U O a 3 3 a a, > (u aa, (u0 y E to � � C • le Qc a� J v=vo w m , omvw ". c n E' E 04win in (z W 0 Q LU C� W 0/ ::L 0 0 o Y a, � aj O c _ C:+- p 3 ,0 C: L �" v un cu O L o `� a tip u CL Q ro E E oo 3 N v a Z 'o cr, O pp 3 v Q a v L7 .p OTC s u cu-1 .2 C) � O 3 ao 3 n i-+ m R L z c } a s c c � _ O — C Q 00.O aj v � y vt O• E L N 3 +j s� 3 0 N C C pp +-+ v C7 L Q C C T p 010 �0 �� Cl. o�� Noo on Oa UoW o u, Q. c C-o N c on u m O a •- v v E (u H -0 o Q N_ Q L C O C! cu ` L A C N 3 L v CJ O O u E c a 3 v 'a v C)0 vvN aj E Q N E c a v C; 300^ N a aE, 0U•M 3 V -o c o Z C> N C L (U O Q a a. E C7 =O v cn 3 v - 3 0`0 -0 Vi co A L _ n o L c y C m U-0 U c o f oon O -- v U ` E•-v o GJ C L Q O d ]-, N L C i �— v a bap E v bA L Z �.... N N QU ~O T rO C y m` N •C Q .— .� •— .. -0C v vi U- m •N C: -p vi -0O v _ •I--j m C V W c Cnm mcn L1.Q mtivs a u� v U 4J of Z 0 LU 0 0 w C� LU rPoo 0 O .D a E �O y a c O V C � O N aj C c V — C � a! a N n v aj p C Y O ec c u E v N C U L C O n'- a a .� 2 ao cu o c N c a 3 a a! m -0 —c O C (U p O c c N o `^ u a v C T > >T O aJ al N E F- O U 6 N .1J (U 6 E u rp c o E C O c o U 4 -j N E° +� cu C7 LU o a O °' U O E N � i L u cu cu v C o m c cu t _ +-+ •= a' -C Ln O v oD O t :2 'D V c c v U- cu 0 N E T ro "O C O V aJ c a, E v v a Q C -o • • N • 00 cu a c �o c O .0 aJ _E `o 0 aj mo rO v E u 3 L E CLo n oo n -n .D E n — N L O oOp N O O 0 ` -0 O — 0 o 0 -a O c s aJ U T T aj O O O oq inCLujui LaZJ 4d 0 • EXHIBIT B Chapter 26.410 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Sections: 26.410.010 General 26.410.020 Procedures for review 26.410.030 Single-family & duplex standards 26.410.040 Multi -family standards 26.410.010. General A. Intent. The residential design standards in this chapter are intended to ensure a strong connection between private residences and public streets; ensure buildings provide articulation to break up bulk and mass; and preserve traditional neighborhood scale and character. The standards do not prescribe architectural style, but do require that each home, while serving the needs of its owner, contribute positively to the streetscape. The residential design standards are at their core intended to achieve the following objectives: 1. Connect to the Street. Establish a visual and/or physical connection between private residences and public streets and other public areas. The area between the street and the front of a residential building is a transition between the public realm of the neighborhood and the private life of a dwelling. This transition can strongly impact the human experience of the street. Improve the street experience for pedestrians and vehicles by establishing physical and visual relationships between public streets and private residential buildings located along public streets. 2. Respond to Neighboring Properties. Reduce perceived mass and bulk of residential buildings, including at the front, sides and rear. Encourage relationship to adjacent development through similar massing and scale. Create a sense of continuity through building form and setback along the streetscape. 3. Reflect Traditional Buildin Scale. cale. Retain scale and proportions in building design that are in keeping with Aspen's architectural tradition, while also encouraging contemporary design. Reinforce the unique character of Aspen by drawing upon the City's vernacular architecture and neighborhood characteristics in the design of structures. Encourage creative and contemporary architecture in keeping with Aspen's history, but at a scale that respects modest traditions. Ensure that residential structures respond to "human -scale," or the scale that a person relates to most easily, in their design. Ensure that residential structures do not visually overwhelm or overshadow public streets. B. Applicability. Except as outlined in Section 26.410.010.13, Exemptions, this chapter applies to all residential development in the City, except for residential development within the R-15B Zone District. Certain exceptions from specific standards are identified within each standard. City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400 — Residential Design Standards Page 1 0 • C. Exemptions. No residential development shall be exempt from the provisions of this Chapter unless the Community Development Director determines that the proposed development: 1. Is an addition or remodel for an existing structure that does not change the exterior of the building; or 2. Is a remodel of a structure where alterations proposed change the exterior of the building, but are not addressed by any of the residential design standards; or 3. Is a residential unit within a mixed -use building; or 4. Is a designated historic resource listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Non -historic additions and new buildings on a historic landmark lot are not exempt. D. Remodels. Where work is proposed on any element of an existing building that is addressed by the Residential Design Standards and that is not in compliance with the Standards, the property owner shall make a reasonable effort to bring that element into compliance. The Community Development Director may grant exceptions for remodels that would require significant additional work above and beyond the scope of the remodel in order to ensure that all features are brought into compliance. For example, consider a remodel involving modifications to a porch structure that is smaller than the minimum square footage required by the Residential Design Standards. If the porch is being replaced with a new porch, the new porch will be required to meet the minimum size requirements in the Residential Design Standards. If only the porch posts are being replaced, the existing porch may remain without needing a variation even though it does not meet the minimum size requirements in the Residential Design Standards. As a second example, consider a remodel involving modifications to a nonorthogonal window where the maximum number of nonorthogonal windows allowed by the Residential Design Standards is exceeded. If the window is being moved to a new location or the size or shape of the window is being changed, the new window will be required to meet the nonorthogonal window limits as stipulated in the Residential Design Standards. If the modifications to the window are being made in place and do not expand or change the size or shape, the existing nonconforming nonorthogonal window may remain without needing a variation even though it exceeds the number of nonorthogonal windows allowed by the Residential Design Standards. E. Application. An application for a variation shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.030, Common Development Procedures. F. Definitions. Unless otherwise indicated, the definitions of words used in these regulations shall be the same as the definitions used in Chapter 26.104 of the Land Use Code. In addition, the following definitions shall apply: Berm. A human -made raised strip of land or ridge made of earthen materials. Curvilinear Lot. A lot in which a curve comprises 25% or more of the total length of the front lot line. City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400 — Residential Design Standards Page 2 0 0 FaVade. An exterior face of a building. It can be applied to any side. The fagade does not include projections, such as open porches. Front Fagade. The street -facing exterior face of a building that contains the primary building entry. The front fagade may include multiple wall planes that make up the front face of the building. Street -Facing Fagade. Any side of a building that faces a public street. A street -facing fagade may refer to multiple wall planes on a building face that face the street. Front -Most Wall. The structural wall of the front fagade of a building that is closest to the street or right of way. Front -Most Element. The front most building feature associated with a primary building or garage. In many cases, this element may be located forward of the front fagade, such as an open front porch or projecting garage overhang. Hedgerow. A row of closely spaced bushes, trees, or shrubs that create, or have the potential through growth maturity to create, a largely opaque visual barrier. Nonorthogonal Window. A window with an opening that is not rectangular in nature and does not possess right angles at each of its four corners. One Story. A portion of a building between the surface of one floor and the ceiling immediately above; or the wall plate height where no additional stories are located above. One story shall not exceed 10 feet for purposes of the Residential Design Standards. Open Front Porch. A porch on the front fagade of a building that is open on at least two (2) sides. Street. A way or thoroughfare, other than an alley, containing a public access easement and used or intended for vehicular traffic. The term street shall include the entire area within a right- of-way. For the purpose of Chapter 26.410, street shall also include private roads and access easements serving more than one (1) parcel. 26.410.020. Procedures for Review A. Determination of Applicability. The applicant may request a preliminary Residential Design Standards pre -application conference with Community Development Department staff to determine the applicability of the requirements of this chapter for the proposed development. B. Administrative Review. Consistency with the Residential Design Standards shall be determined administratively, unless a variation is requested. The Administrative Review process will result in a determination of approval or denial for compliance with the Residential Design Standards. All projects will be reviewed for compliance with the Flexible and Non -flexible Standards contained within the Residential Design Standards. Flexible and Non -flexible Standards are defined as follows: 1. Flexible Standards. Flexible Standards are standards for which additional flexibility around the specific requirements of a standard may be granted administratively. If an application is found City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400 — Residential Design Standards Page 3 to be inconsistent with any of the Flexible Standards, but meets the overall intent of the standard, staff may administratively approve Alternative Compliance. If an application does not meet the overall intent of the standard, the applicant must either amend their proposal or seek a variation, as described in Section 26.410.020.C, Variations. 2. Non -flexible Standards. Non -flexible Standards are those standards that must be met by all projects subject to the Residential Design Standards, with no Alternative Compliance permitted, unless otherwise stated in this chapter. If an application is found to be inconsistent with any of the Non -flexible Standards as written, the applicant must either amend their proposal or seek a variation, as described in Section 26.410.020.C, Variations. C. Variations. Any application that does not receive Administrative Review approval described above may apply for a variation. An applicant may also choose to apply directly for a variation from one or more Non -flexible Standards if desired. The Planning & Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, during a duly noticed public hearing, shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for variation, based on the standards of review in Section 26.410.020.1), Variation Review Standards. The review process is as follows: Step One — Public Hearing before Planning & Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the review standards for Residential Design Standard variation. 2. Process: The Community Development Director shall provide the Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, with a recommendation to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application, based on the standards of review. The Planning and Zoning Commission, or Historic Preservation Commission if the property is designated or is located within a historic district, shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application after considering the recommendation of the Community Development Director and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing. 3. Standards of review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section 26.410.020.D. 4. Form of decision: The decision shall be by resolution. 5. Notice requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3.a), b) and c). D. Variation Review Standards. An application requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variation, if granted would: 1. Provide an alternative design approach to the standard that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for each section and the intent statement for each individual standard. The reviewing board shall consider the individual and collective design City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400 — Residential Design Standards Page 4 • 0 features and building elements associated with a project to determine that the exception is warranted; or 2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site -specific constraints. 26.410.030. Single-family & duplex standards A. Applicability. Unless stated otherwise below, the design standards in this section shall apply to all single-family and duplex development. B. Location and Massing. 1. Articulation of Building Mass (Non -flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall not be required for lots with the following characteristics: (1) Lots outside of the Aspen Infill Area. b) Intent. This standard seeks to reduce the overall perceived mass and bulk of buildings on a property as viewed from all sides. Designs should promote light and air access between adjacent properties. Designs should articulate building walls by utilizing multiple forms to break up large monotonous wall planes. Buildings should include massing and articulation that convey forms that are similar in massing to traditional Aspen residential buildings. This standard is critical in the Infill Area where small lots, small side and front setbacks, alleys and traditional Aspen architecture are prevalent. (Also see 26.410.010.A.2. Respond to Neighboring Properties, 26.410.010.A.3. Reflect Traditional Building Scale) c) Standard. A principal building shall articulate building mass to reduce bulk and mass and create building forms that are similar in scale to those seen in traditional Aspen residential architecture. d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Maximum Sidewall Depth. This option seeks to reduce building mass by limiting the depth of the primary building to a depth similar to traditional residential buildings in Aspen. This standard is also intended to create a physical separation between the primary building and a potential accessory structure at the rear of the lot. A principal building shall be no greater than fifty (50) feet in depth, as measured from the front - most wall of the front fagade to the rear wall. An accessory building that is completely separated from the main building is permitted. Garages, sheds and accessory dwelling units are examples of appropriate uses for the accessory building. (2) Offset with One -Story Ground Level Connector. This option seeks to reduce building mass by limiting the depth of the front portion of a primary building to a depth similar to traditional residential buildings in Aspen, yet still allow for a direct connection to a potential secondary living area or accessory structure at the rear of the lot through a one- story ground floor connecting element. A principal building shall provide a portion of its mass as a subordinate one-story, ground floor connecting element. The connecting element shall be at least ten (10) feet in length and shall be setback at least an additional five (5) feet from the sidewall on both sides of the building. The connecting element shall occur at a maximum of forty-five (45) feet in depth, as measured from the front - City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400 — Residential Design Standards Page 5 most wall of the front fagade to the rear wall. The connecting element shall be a maximum of fifteen (15) feet wide. (3) Increased Side Setbacks at Rear and Step Down. This option seeks to reduce building mass by limiting the depth of the front portion of a primary building to be similar in depth of traditional residential buildings in Aspen, yet still allow for additional square footage beyond the traditional depth in a one story building component. A principal building shall provide increased side setbacks at the rear of the building. If the principal building is two stories, it must step down to one story in the rear. The increased side setbacks and one story step down shall occur at a maximum of forty-five (45) feet, as measured from the front -most wall toward the rear wall. The increased side setbacks must be at least five (5) feet greater than the side setbacks at the front of the building. 2. Building Orientation (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall not be required for lots with the following characteristics: (1) No Street Frontage. (2) A front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to establish a relationship between buildings and public streets to create an engaging streetscape and discourage the isolation of homes from the surrounding neighborhood. The placement of buildings should seek to frame street edges physically or visually. Buildings should be oriented in a manner such that they are a component of the streetscape, which consists of the street itself and the buildings that surround it. Building orientation should provide a sense of interest and promote interaction between buildings and passersby. Building orientation is important in all areas of the city, but is particularly important in the Infill Area where there is a strong pattern of buildings that are parallel to the street. (See also 26.410.010.A.1. Connect to the Street, 26.4 10.01 O.A.2. Respond to Neighboring Properties) c) Standard. The front fagade of a principal building shall be oriented to face the public street on which it is located. d) Options. Fulfilling one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Strong Orientation Requirement. The front facade of the principal building shall be parallel to the street. On a corner lot, both street -facing fagades of the principal building shall be parallel to the street. (2) Moderate Orientation Requirement. The front fagade of a principal building shall both face the street. On a corner lot, one street facing fagade must face each intersecting street. The availability of these options shall be determined according to the following lot characteristics: City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400 — Residential Design Standards Page 6 0 0 OR OR OR Option 2 Option 2 Option 2 3. Build -to Requirement (Flexible). Option 1: Strong orientation requirement Option 2: Moderate orientation requirement a) Applicability. This standard shall not be required for lots with the following characteristics: (1) A required front yard setback of 25 feet or greater (2) Are curvilinear (3) No street frontage (4) A front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade b) Intent. This standard seeks to establish a consistent physical pattern of front fagades close to and parallel to public streets in order to tightly frame the street and provide a sense of enclosure for pedestrians and passersby. The placement of buildings should respond to the street by framing street edges physically. Buildings should be constructed to provide a strong physical presence and integration within the streetscape, which consists of the street itself and the buildings that surround it. Buildings should seek to establish a consistent pattern of vertical building forms close to the street edge to establish a "street wall". This standard is most important in the infill area where a strong pattern of smaller front setbacks and consistent building orientation exists. (See also 26.410.010.A.1. Connect to the Street, 26.410.010.A.2. Respond to Neighboring Properties) c) Standard. At least sixty percent (60%) of the front fagade of a principal building shall be within five (5) feet of the minimum front yard setback line. On a corner lot, this standard shall be met on at least one (1) of the two intersecting streets. A front porch may be used to meet this requirement. 4. One-story Element (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall not be required for lots with the following characteristics: (1) No street frontage (2) A front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade b) Intent. This standard seeks to establish human scale building features as perceived from the street and express lower and upper floors on front fagades to reduce perceived mass. Designs should utilize street -facing architectural elements that respect those of traditional Aspen residential architecture. Buildings should provide visual evidence or demarcation of the stories of a building to relate to pedestrians and other passersby. This standard is important in all areas of the city. (See also 26.410.010.A.2. Respond to Neighboring Properties, 26.410.010.A.3. Reflect Traditional Building Scale) City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400 — Residential Design Standards Page 7 0 c) Standard. A principal building shall incorporate a one-story element on the front fagade. Duplexes in a side -by -side configuration are required to have a one-story element per dwelling unit. d) Options. (1) Projecting One -Story Element. The front fagade of a building shall have a one-story street -facing element that projects at least six (6) feet from the front fagade and has a width equivalent to at least twenty percent (20%) of the building's overall width. This one story element may be enclosed living space or a front porch that is open on three sides. No features may be cantilevered above this element. This one story element must be a minimum of 50 square feet in area. (2) Recessed Open Front Porch. The front fagade of a building shall have an open one-story porch that is recessed at least six (6) feet but no more than ten (10) feet from the front fagade, and has a width equivalent to at least twenty percent (20%) of the building's overall width. The porch shall be open on at least two (2) sides and face the public street. This one story element must be a minimum of 50 square feet in area. (3) One -Story Stepdown. A building shall include a one-story component on one side of the building that remains one story from the front fagade to the rear wall. The width of the one-story portion shall be a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the building's overall width. The one-story portion may be fully enclosed and used as living area. C. Garages. 5. Garage Access (Non -flexible). a) Applicability. This standard is required for all properties that have vehicular access from an alley or private road. b) Intent. This standard seeks to minimize potential conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles by concentrating parking along alleys and away from the public street where pedestrian activity is highest. This standard also seeks to minimize the visibility of plain, opaque and unarticulated garage doors from public streets by placing them in rear alleys wherever possible. Properties with rear alleys shall utilize the alley as an opportunity to place the garage in a location that is subordinate to the principal building, further highlighting the primary building from the public street. This standard is important for any property where a rear alley is available, which is most common in the Infill Area. (See also 26.410.010.A.1. Connect to the Street) c) Standard. A property that has access from an alley or private road shall be required to access parking, garages and carports from the alley or private road. Where an alley is accessible, no parking or vehicular access shall be allowed forward of the front fagade. 6. Garage Placement (Non -flexible). a) Applicability. This standard is required for all properties that do not have vehicular access from an alley or private road. City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400 — Residential Design Standards Page 8 0 0 b) Intent. This standard seeks to prevent large expanses of unarticulated facades close to the street and ensure garages are subordinate to the principal building for properties that feature driveway and garage access directly from the public street. Buildings should seek to locate garages behind principal buildings so that the front facade of the principal building is highlighted. Where locating the garage behind the front facade of the principal building is not feasible or required, designs should minimize the presence of garage doors as viewed from the public street. This standard is important in all areas of the city where alley access is not an option. (See also 26.410.010.A.1. Connect to the Street) c) Standard. A garage or carport shall be placed in a way that reduces its prominence as viewed from the public street. On a corner lot, this standard shall apply to both street -facing facades. d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Set Back Garage. The front -most element of the garage or carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front -most wall of any street -facing facade of the principal building. (2) Side -Loaded Garage Forward of Street -Facing Fagade. A garage or carport located forward of a street -facing facade must be side -loaded. The garage or carport entry shall be perpendicular to the street. For lots on curved streets, the garage door shall not be placed on the street -facing facade of the garage. The availability of these options shall be determined according to the following lot characteristics: required front lot outside the Option 1: setback 25 feet N InfillArea? " Option 1 Set back or greater? garage E E Option 2: Option 1 Option 1 Garage forward of OR OR the front Option 2 Option 2 facade 7. Garage Dimensions (Flexible a) Applicability. This standard applies to all residential development in the city that is subject to the Residential Design Standards. b) Intent. This standard seeks to minimize the presence of wide garages as perceived from public street and ensure that garages are subordinate to the principal building. Designs should promote an active streetscape that is not dominated by wide expanses of garage doors. Garage doors should either be hidden from public view or their width minimized. This standard is important in all areas of the city. (See also 26.410.010.A.3. Reflect Traditional Building Scale) c) Standards. The width of the living area on the first floor of a street facing facade on which a garage is located shall be at least five (5) feet greater than the width of the garage or carport. City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400 — Residential Design Standards Page 9 The total width of all vehicular entrance(s) to garage(s) or carport(s) that are visible from the street, whether on the same plane or offset from one another, shall not exceed twenty- four (24) feet. 8. Garage Door Design (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard applies to all residential development in the city that is subject to the Residential Design Standards. b) Intent. This standard seeks to promote a streetscape that maximizes visual interest to pedestrians and other passersby by minimizing unarticulated expanses of garage doors. Garage doors that utilize increased articulation, changes in depth and profile of materials, windows and other features to break up the monotony of the garage door should be prioritized. This standard is critical for any property where garage doors are visible from the public street. (See also 26.410.010.A.3. Reflect Traditional Building Scale) c) Standard. A garage door that is visible from a public street shall utilize an articulation technique to break up its fagade. d) Options. Fulfilling one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Two Separate Doors. A two -car garage door shall be constructed as two separate doors. (2) Appearance of Two Separate Doors. A two -car garage door shall be constructed with one door that is designed to appear as two separate doors by incorporating a vertical separating element that is at least one (1) foot in width. D. Entry Features. 9. Entry Connection (Non -flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall not be required for lots with the following characteristics: (1) No street frontage. (2) A front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to promote visual and physical connections between private buildings and the public street. Buildings should use architectural and site planning features to establish a connection between these two elements. Buildings shall not use features that create barriers or hide the entry features of the house such as fences, hedgerows or walls. Buildings and site planning features should establish a sense that one can directly enter a building from the street through the use of pathways, front porches, front doors that face the street and other similar methods. This standard is critical in all areas of the city. (See also 26.410.010.A.1. Connect to the Street) c) Standard. A building shall provide a visual and/or physical connection between a primary home entry and the public street. On a corner lot, an entry connection shall be provided to at least one (1) of the two intersecting streets. Duplexes in a side -by -side configuration are required to have one (1) entry connection element per dwelling unit. d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400 — Residential Design Standards Page 10 • (1) Street Oriented Entrance. At least one (1) entry door shall be provided on the front fagade, shall face the street, and shall not be set back more than ten (10) feet from the front -most wall of the front fagade of the principal building. Fencing, hedgerows, walls or other permitted structures shall not obstruct visibility to the entire door. (2) Open Front Porch. The front fagade shall have a front porch that is open on at least two (2) sides, a minimum of 50 square feet, and face the public street, and a demarcated pathway shall be provided that connects the street to the front porch. The front porch shall contain the primary entrance to the building. Fencing, hedgerows, walls or other permitted structures shall not obstruct visibility to the porch or the demarcated pathway. The availability of these options shall be determined according to the following lot characteristics: OR OR Option 2 Option 2 10. Door Hei limit ((Flexible). Option 1: Street oriented entrance Option 2: Open front porch a) Applicability. This standard shall not be required for lots with the following characteristics: (1) No street frontage. (2) A front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to retain traditional architectural character by ensuring modestly scaled doors that are not out of scale when compared to traditional residential architecture in Aspen. Large, oversized doors should be avoided so as not to overwhelm front facades and adversely impact the sense of human scale as perceived from the public street. This standard is important in all areas of the city. (See also 26.410.010.A.3. Reflect Traditional Building Scale) c) Standard. All doors facing a street shall not be taller than eight (8) feet. A transom window above a door shall not be considered a part of the door for the purpose of this standard. 11. Entry Porch Height (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall not be required for lots with the following characteristics: (1) No street frontage. (2) A front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard promotes porches that are built at a one-story human -scale that are compatible with traditional development in Aspen. This standard prevents porches that are out of scale with the street and traditional porches seen in the surrounding neighborhood. Porch designs should reinforce the one-story scale and help reduce perceived mass as City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400 — Residential Design Standards Page 11 viewed from the public street. This standard is critical for buildings in the Infill Area. (See also 26.410.010.A.3. Reflect Traditional Building Scale) c) Standard. An entry porch or canopy on the front facade of a principal building shall not be more than one-story in height as defined by this chapter. E. Fenestration and Materials. 12. Principle Window (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall not be required for lots with the following characteristics: (1) No street frontage. (2) A front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to prevent large expanses of blank walls on the front fagades of principal buildings. A building should incorporate significant transparency on the front facade. Designs should include prominent windows or groups of windows on the front facade to help promote connection between the residence and street. This standard is important in all areas of the city. (See also 26.410.010.A.1. Connect to the Street) c) Standard. A principal building shall have at least one (1) street facing principal window or grouping of smaller windows acting as a principal window on the front facade. Duplexes in a side -by -side configuration are required to have one (1) principle window per dwelling unit. d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Street Facing Principal Window. The front facade shall have at least one (1) window with dimensions of four (4) feet by four (4) feet or greater. (2) Window Group. The front facade shall have at least one (1) group of windows that when measured as a group has dimensions of four (4) feet by four (4) feet or greater. 13. Window Placement (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall not be required for lots with the following characteristics: (1) No street frontage. (2) A front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to preserve the traditional architectural character of Aspen by preventing large expanses of vertical glass windows that dominate front fagades. Overly tall expanses of glass on a front facade do not relate well to human scale. Designs should utilize windows that do not span multiple stories and help to provide a sense of demarcation between stories to better relate to pedestrians and other passersby. Where an upper story window is located directly above a lower story window, a gap with no window should be provided between them that is easily recognizable from the public street and clearly differentiates lower and upper stories. This standard is important in all areas of the city. (26.410.010.A.3. Reflect Traditional Building Scale) City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400 — Residential Design Standards Page 12 • c) Standard. A street -facing window on a principal building shall not vertically span more than one story as defined by this chapter. 14. Nonorthogonal Window Limit (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall not be required for lots with the following characteristics: (1) Outside of the Aspen Infill Area. (2) No street frontage. (3) A front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to encourage traditional rectilinear window shapes seen in Aspen's traditional residential architecture and discourages the proliferation or overuse of round or diagonal -oriented windows. Designs should minimize the use of nonorthogonal windows that face the street in order to help preserve the traditional character of Aspen. This standard is critical in the Infill Area where many of Aspen's traditional residential buildings are located. (See also 26.410.010.A.3. Reflect Traditional Building Scale) c) Standard. A building shall have no more than one (1) nonorthogonal window on each fagade of the building that faces the street. A single nonorthogonal window in a gable end may be divided with mullions and still be considered one (1) nonorthogonal window. 15. Lightwell/Stairwell Location (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall not be required for lots with the following characteristics: (1) No street frontage. (2) A front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to minimize negative visual impacts to the public street and discourage visual disconnection between buildings and public streets. Building designs should avoid placing light wells, areaways, and stairwells between primary buildings and public streets. These features should be located away from the front of buildings. Designs should locate these elements at the sides or rear of a principal building. This standard is most important in all areas of the city with smaller setbacks. (See also 26.410.010.A.1. Connect to the Street) c) Standard. A below grade light well or stairwell shall not be located between the front -most wall of a street -facing fagade and any public street. 16. Materials (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard applies to all residential development in the city that is subject to the Residential Design Standards. b) Intent. This standard seeks to reinforce traditional architectural character by preventing the use of materials on single-family and duplex buildings that is in sharp contrast with use of materials seen in traditional Aspen architecture. Buildings should use materials consistently on all sides of a building instead of simply applying a material on one facade of a building. Buildings should seek to use heavier materials, such as brick or stone as a base for lighter City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400 — Residential Design Standards Page 13 materials, such as wood or stucco. Buildings should use materials that are similar in profile, texture and durability to those seen in traditional residential buildings in the city. This standard is important in all areas of the city. (See also 26.410.010.A.3. Reflect Traditional Building Scale) c) Standards. The quality of the exterior materials and their application shall be consistent on all sides of the single-family or duplex building. Materials shall be used in ways that are true to their characteristics. For instance stucco, which is a light or nonbearing material, shall not be used below a heavy material, such as stone. Highly reflective surfaces shall not be used as exterior materials. 26.410.040. Multi -family standards A. Applicability. The following design standards shall apply to all multi -family development in the City of Aspen. Applicability shall be determined prior to building permit submittal per Section I of this document. The applicant may request a pre -application conference to determine if the proposed project is exempt from the requirements of this chapter. B. Design standards. 1. Garage Access (Non -flexible). a) Applicability. This standard is required for all properties that have vehicular access from an alley or private road. b) Intent. This standard seeks to minimize potential conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles by concentrating parking along alleys and away from the public street where pedestrian activity is highest. This standard also seeks to minimize the visibility of plain, opaque and unarticulated garage doors from public streets by placing them in rear alleys wherever possible. Properties with rear alleys shall utilize the alley as an opportunity to place the garage in a location that is subordinate to the principal building, further highlighting the primary building from the public street. This standard is important for any property where a rear alley is available, which is most common in the Infill Area. (See also 26.410.010.A.1. Connect to the Street) c) Standard. A multi -family building that has access from an alley or private road shall be required to access parking, garages and carports from the alley or private road. 2. Garage Placement (Non -flexible). a) Applicability. This standard is required for all properties that do not have vehicular access from an alley or private road. b) Intent. This standard seeks to prevent large expanses of unarticulated facades close to the street and ensure garages are subordinate to the principal building for properties that feature driveway and garage access directly from the public street. Buildings should seek to locate garages behind principal buildings so that the front fagade of the principal building is highlighted. Where locating the garage behind the front fagade of the principal building is City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400 — Residential Design Standards Page 14 not feasible or required, designs should minimize the presence of garage doors as viewed from the public street. This standard is important in all areas of the city where alley access is not an option. (See also 26.410.010.A.1. Connect to the Street) c) Standard. The front of a garage or the front -most supporting column of a carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front fagade of the principal building. 3. Entry Connection (Non -flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall not be required for lots with the following characteristics: (1) No street frontage. (2) A front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to promote visual and physical connections between private buildings and the public street. Buildings should use architectural and site planning features to establish a connection between these two elements. Buildings shall not use features that create barriers or hide the entry features of the house such as fences, hedgerows or walls. Buildings and site planning features should establish a sense that one can directly enter a building from the street through the use of pathways, front porches, front doors that face the street and other similar methods. This standard is critical in all areas of the city. (See also 26.410.010.A.1. Connect to the Street) c) Standard. A building shall provide a visual and/or physical connection between a primary home entry and the public street. On a corner lot, an entry connection shall be provided to at least one (1) of the two intersecting streets. Duplexes in a side -by -side configuration are required to have one (1) entry connection element per dwelling unit. d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Street Oriented Entrance. There shall be at least one (1) entry door that both faces the public street and face the public street, for every four (4) street -facing, ground -level units in a row. Fencing, hedgerows, walls or other permitted structures shall not obstruct visibility to the entire door. (2) Open Front Porch. There shall be at least one (1) porch or ground -level balcony that faces the public street for every street -facing, ground -level unit. Fencing, hedgerows, walls or other permitted structures shall not obstruct visibility to the porch or the demarcated pathway. 4. Principle Window (Flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall not be required for lots with the following characteristics: (1) No street frontage. (2) A front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to prevent large expanses of blank walls on the front facades of principal buildings. A building should incorporate significant transparency on the front fagade. Designs should include prominent windows or groups of windows on the front City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400 — Residential Design Standards Page 15 0 • fagade to help promote connection between the residence and street. This standard is important in all areas of the city. (See also 26.410.010.A.1. Connect to the Street) c) Standard. At least one (1) street facing principal window or cluster of smaller windows acting as a principal window shall be provided for each unit facing the street. On a corner unit with street frontage on two streets, this standard shall apply to both street -facing fagades. d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Street Facing Principal Window. The first floor of the front fagade shall have at least one (1) window with dimensions of three (3) feet by four (4) feet or greater for each dwelling unit. (2) Window Group. The first floor of the front fagade shall have at least one (1) group of windows that when measured as a group has dimensions of three (3) feet by four (4) feet or greater for each dwelling unit. City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400 — Residential Design Standards Page 16 0 • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Justin Barker, Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner MEETING DATE: September 29, 2015 RE: Residential Design Standards Update REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The purpose of this work session is to provide City Council with an update of the Residential Design Standards (RDS) updates. Staff is also requesting feedback on the direction of the proposed RDS updates. BACKGROUND: As part of the 2015 budget, City Council approved $25,000 for updates to the City's RDS. The purpose of the updates are to organize, streamline, and provide minor modifications to the existing standards in order to better serve the community and provide attractive, compatible development. The City of Aspen Residential Design Standards were first adopted in 1995 as a way to maintain design quality and compatibility with historic features of the community. Since then, minor amendments have been processed to add additional standards and create a variance process. Earlier this year, staff selected a consultant (Winter & Co.) through an RFP process to assist with the updates. Under the approved scope and budget, this update provides a comprehensive clean- up and clarification of the current standards with a focus on standards that are often confusing to designers and property owners, but is not a complete re -write. During City Council's review of the RFP, City Council directed staff to pursue the updates with the proposed scope plus an additional $5,000 to update the graphics. DISCUSSION: The proposed updates focus on improving the review process, better organization of the standards, and general cleanup for loopholes and confusion for individual standards. Staff and Winter & Co. have been working with an advisory committee comprised of six local architects from various firms around town. The role of the committee is to represent the design community by providing input on current issues, reviewing draft updates, and participating in focused group discussions with staff and the consultant. The most common issues with the current standards as identified by the committee were: Page 1 of 3 • Lack of clarity in the administrative review process • Lack of flexibility in the existing standards These are discussed in more detail below. Administrative Review: The current administrative review process has proven to be challenging. A project is only required to submit an application if a variation is required. This is typically determined by the planner of the day or staff collectively. This process can often lead to a substantial amount of time spent discussing a required variation, or some needed variations being missed because they are not discussed. This often leads to projects that do not meet the RDS getting delayed in the building permit review so they can submit an application for a variation. This can place a building permit on hold for several months. Under the proposed changes, all residential development would be required to submit an application for either RDS exemption or "compliance review". An application would receive in exemption if no variations from the Residential Design Standards are required. In compliance review, staff will review each project for any applicable standards and the project's compliance with the intent of those standards. If compliance is achieved, the applicant will be given an approval to be submitted with the building permit application. If compliance is not achieved, the applicant would have an opportunity to discuss with staff how the project does not comply and make changes accordingly. If the applicant decided they do not want to make any changes, the applicant would have the opportunity to have P&Z review the application. Any decision made by P&Z is final unless appealed under the regular city appeal procedures. No building permit would be accepted without either an exemption or compliance approval (administrative or P&Z). This process would help reduce or eliminate the number of "missed" variations required and provide applicants with a level of assurance when submitting a permit that any RDS issues have been resolved. Standard Flexibility: Currently, a residential project must meet all of the standards as written (with some exceptions depending on the location or specific site constraints). Staff recognizes that some standards are not always of critical importance or are difficult to meet, even if they apply to a certain project. For example, building orientation on a curvy street is difficult to achieve and is not as important as building orientation on a traditional townsite block. Similarly, prohibiting a lightwell on the front of a building is less important for a building that is 100 feet from the street than one that is 10 feet from the street. In response to this, staff has identified three design features that are the most important and should be included in every residential project in town. These are: 1. A visible and accessible front entrance. This standard would require a front porch or other entry feature, include a front door, and a pedestrian path leading to the feature. 2. Reducing the appearance of garages from the street. This standard would require garages to be accessed off the alley where one exists. Where an alley does not exist, garages would be required to be set back from the front fagade of the building. Page 2 of 3 • • 3. Articulation of massing to reduce perceived scale. This standard would require a secondary mass or other building articulation. These are also the standards that staff least often grants administrative variations. Under the proposed RDS update, all residential buildings would be required to meet these standards. If an applicant requests a variation from these standards, a P&Z review will be automatically required. In an effort to provide some flexibility, the remaining standards would be evaluated on a case - by -case basis through the administrative compliance review. Projects would be required to meet the letter of the standard, or provide "alternative compliance" meaning the project meets the overall intent of the standard. This allows the architects more flexibility for varied design styles and the ability to more directly work with staff to create an agreeable design without requiring constant variation applications. For example, a design may include an entry door that is 11 feet back from the front -most wall of the building, but is highly visible from the street and opens onto a front porch that meets the standard. The door does not technically meet the standard (max. 10 feet from the front -most wall), but it meets the intent by providing street -facing architectural details, enhancing the walking experience and reinforcing local building traditions. This design feature would most likely be permitted under alternative compliance. Other updates: Staff has also been working with Winter & Co. and the advisory committee on other updates. These include reorganization of the RDS chapter to make it easier to read and understand, adding definitions for often used terms, and updating and improving graphics. FEEDBACK: The advisory committee has been involved in the process since the beginning and continues to provide valuable feedback that has helped dictate the current proposed changes. An open house will be held on September 29 from 2pm — 3pm in Sister Cities to obtain feedback from the broader community of the proposed updates. Invitation to the open house was provided through the Community Development newsletter, which reaches almost 600 professionals including contractors, architects, attorneys, and planners. Staff will provide a summary of the open house at the work session. Staff will also meet with P&Z to gain their input prior to the adoption process. This is expected to occur in early -to -mid -November. NEXT STEPS: Staff will continue to work with Winter & Co. and the advisory committee to finalize the proposed updates over the next month. Staff anticipates the updates will be ready for City Council review as a code amendment in late -November or early -December. Staff will be requesting supplemental monies to enable the consultant to participate in the Policy Resolution hearing. Question for Council: Does Council support the direction of the proposed RDS updates? CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Pag7e 3 of 3