Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20170111 AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING January 11, 2017 4:30 PM City Council Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISITS A. Please visit the sites on your own II. 4:30 INTRODUCTION A. Roll call B. Approval of minutes December 14, 2016 C. Public Comments D. Commissioner member comments E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) F. Project Monitoring G. Staff comments H. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued I. Submit public notice for agenda items J. Call-up reports K. HPC typical proceedings III. OLD BUSINESS A. None IV. 4:40 NEW BUSINESS A. 4:40 Resolution endorsing Council adoption of new Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines B. 5:40 403 S. Galena and 447 E. Cooper Avenue- Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design, Demolition and Viewplane Review, PUBLIC HEARING C. 6:50 Election of Chair and Vice-Chair V. 7:00 ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: Resolution 1, 2017 TYPICAL PROCEEDING- 1 HOUR, 10 MINUTES FOR MAJOR AGENDA ITEM, NEW BUSINESS Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) Staff presentation (5 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Applicant presentation (20 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) (5 minutes) Applicant Rebuttal Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed (5 minutes) HPC discussion (15 minutes) Motion (5 minutes) *Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met. No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes of the members of the commission then present and voting. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF ,DECEMBER 14, 2016 1 Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were John Whipple, Jeffrey Halferty, Nora Berko and Bob Blaich. Jim DeFrancia and Gretchen Greenwood were absent. Staff present: Andrea Bryan Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Justin Barker, Senior Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Bob moved to approve the minutes of Nov. 9th, second by Jeffrey. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Bob moved to approve the minutes of Nov. 30th, second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried. 529-535 E. Cooper - Final Major Development, Final Commercial Design Review, Growth Management, Special Review, Public Hearing Justin said the project was granted unanimous conceptual approval in January. The project is to pull off a small section of the building along the alley side and replace it with a new commercial addition, trash enclosure and a one story addition. There will be a removal of a free market unit currently on the alley. There are also a couple changes related to public amenity and parking. Overall staff’s concerns are the relationship of the new addition to the historic structure. There could be stronger elements. The concrete columns extend above and through the wood parapet which is not in line with the older portion of the building. The wood parapet is a much thicker banding than what you would see. The fenestration has large glass frontages for the storefronts where traditionally they are broken down into smaller elements. Staff is recommending that those be further divided and have a stronger relationship in terms of the scale and proportion of other storefront entrances. Regarding the public amenity on the alley side of the addition there used to be more glass facing the alley and staff suggested to the applicant to reduce the amount of glazing that was facing the alley side. The applicant has responded and replaced the center section with a solid wood wall. The public amenity has been reduced from 113 square feet to 89 square feet. A small portion of a planter box is being eliminated in the new proposal. Regarding the parking cash-in-lieu was proposed. On the P1 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF ,DECEMBER 14, 2016 2 Benedict addition there used to be a larger storefront that faced Hunter Street. Staff is suggesting the applicant look into a full storefront restoration that is indicated on an old photograph. In response the applicant has requested a parking waiver as an incentive to help with that restoration work and off-set some of the costs. HPC has the right to waive those parking fees and staff is supportive to help restore the storefront back to what was originally there. Regarding the Growth Management there are two pieces, first is the expansion of the net leasable space and the other is for the removal of the fee market unit. On the expansion it generates a total of 4.49 FTE’s. As an historic resource they have the opportunity to a one time to not mitigate the first four employees that are generated and then the next four employees would have a discounted rate of 50% rate of mitigation. After those reductions the total mitigation rate comes to .15 FTE’s. The applicant has a right to mitigate through the code a form of housing credits and that is there proposal for the commercial space. They are also requesting growth management allotments for the new commercial space and staff is in favor of that. For the removal of the free market there is a one bedroom 880 square foot free market unit that sits on the ground floor facing the alleyway. This requires 1.75 FTE’s of mitigation and they can do that at a 50% rate through the multi-family replacement requirements. This can be done through credits if HPC makes it a determination that the onsite replacement units would be in conflict with the parcel zoning or if it would be an inappropriate solution due to the sites physical constraints. The only area for onsite housing use would be on the second floor so in order for them to meet the zoning requirements with onsite replacements it would require a second floor addition. Staff does not feel that is an appropriate solution considering the historic resource and adding mass along the back alley. Staff is recommending HPC allow the use of the credits to offset the removal of the onsite unit. Staff recommends continuation pertaining to the design elements but as far as parking, growth management, public amenity staff is comfortable with all those aspects. Willis said the second floor window in the photograph looks trapezoidal which is very progressive of an architect. Justin said on the older version of the window it had the slant on the top. Mitch Haas, Haas Planning John Rowland, rowlandbroughton architects Dana Ellis, rowlandbroughton architects P2 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF ,DECEMBER 14, 2016 3 Mitch said we have been working cooperatively with staff and there are only two issues left. On the parking it is a fraction of a space that is required of this project. We had originally proposed to pay the cash-in-lieu but staff found an older photograph done by Fritz Benedict and asked if we could do the full restoration and that is why we are requesting the parking waiver and not make us pay that fee. On the affordable housing it did go to the APCHA board who also supported staff’s recommendation. Conceptual dealt with height etc. We are focusing on the material selection and fenestration. John Rowland, rowlandbroughton architects John said it is our intent to continue the retail experience as you turn toward the gondola. We wanted to bring a sense of lightness and openness and a sense of fluidity. Dana said the Benedict addition featured a trapezoidal window and also vertical siding that our proposal is representing. The first floor being restored has a commercial experience. With the gondola Hunter Street has become a commercial retail thoroughfare and the restoration brings that back. There is context along Hunter Street that we feel is appropriate and should be mentioned in our design. The idea is openness and the light fixtures are simple and planters would be in the public amenity space. The plantings are all native. The Benedict addiction of 1966 had the store front windows filled in. Justin found a 1952 photograph that showed what the building had looked like originally. We have tied the rhythm of the windows to the original photograph and then added the contemporary addition. There are 18 window types currently on the building. John said the façade continues and feathers out toward the alley and adds lightness and transparency at the corner. Dana said the single store element at the alley is appropriate. The architecture tells the relationship between very old historic, mid-century historic and today. We also feel the banded wood or a rather modern cornice is appropriate. The addition is set back. On the interior we are proposing a skylight that creates a canopy shadow on the interior. Green roofs on all of the additions for storm water are proposed. Mitch said the addition is somewhat of a transition concept. There is the historic building late 1800’s. Then the Benedict addition in the late 60’s and now a modern building at the alley. There is a transition in time as you P3 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF ,DECEMBER 14, 2016 4 come down Hunter Street. The design tells the evolution of the building. The different dimensions of the storefronts do work well with this design. Jeffrey asked about the green roofs. Dana said there are two types of green roofs, one has a shallower grow base and you can only do things like sedum and grasses and we are hoping to do one that has a six inch to 11 inch base of soil that will be engineered. The shallower bases don’t look good after a year and the deeper base would allow for hardier plants etc. Jeffrey also asked what plantings are proposed. Dana said (bitter brush) is being proposed for winter which is bushy then seasonal plantings will be added. Jeffrey also asked about the trash enclosure. Dana said it goes up to 18 feet due to the grade slope in the alley. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. Frank Hegar said he has lived here for 25 years and has a jewelry store. Frank asked what the square footage is on the addition. Dana said 638 square feet of commercial space is being proposed and the average construction cost is around $700. a square foot. John said there are also improvements to the property and the trash enclosure which are additional costs. Frank said the jewelry store in this space had to leave and this is just another nail in the coffin for little businesses. You will have to rent the space for $350 to $450 a square foot. There is no little business that can afford that. The traffic backs up out of town back to First Street. Telluride has one corporate store, ACE hardware. It is a charming place to visit. Big corporations are destroying the character of Aspen. Willis said franchise stores are a hot topic and I would encourage you to attend those hearings. Chairperson, Willis Pember closed the public hearing. P4 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF ,DECEMBER 14, 2016 5 Mitch said the existing spaces in the building will remain the way they are. Willis said staff and the applicant have addressed the growth management regarding parking, TIA etc. The tradeoff guarantees full restoration of the Benedict portion of this project. The other issues are the cornice, windows and pilasters going through the roof line. Bob said the presentation regarding the materials etc. have answered all the functional questions. This addition is a jewel box and stands on its own. It will be a nice addition to the environment and a fresh approach. The presentation on the history of the building was a good clarification. John said he totally agrees with Bob and having one more wall space instead of glazing gives you some flexibility with the space. Free market will take care of itself and as much as it pushes out one shop owner a project like this feeds a lot of people in this community and puts a lot of food on the table. There are positives to the refreshing and preservations of these buildings. When we have regular planning of affordable leases you can see what is happening with the Highlands which is failing. Some of the anchor stores are shifting and moving out due to the internet. I can support this project as presented. Jeffrey said he feels the applicant has adhered to the design guidelines. There proposed architecture is consistent with the way the relationship of the materials and the historic resource is well represented. It is clearly a product of its own time. The restorations to the original Stein building and the Benedict addition are well thought out restorations. The Hunter Street façade is definitely well thought out and complies with our guidelines. The cornice is consistent with our guidelines and I could support it and the window additions are well thought out. The green roofs and deck spaces suggested are also well thought out. Jeffrey echoed John’s comments when the City has come in and tried to do affordable leases on certain spaces such as Cooper Street restaurant that is sitting empty it is unsuccessful. As far as the big box design codes it is at a grassroots level. We are looking at this application as to how it pertains to our design guidelines. There are a lot of people being supplied by this design change and I could support this proposal. P5 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF ,DECEMBER 14, 2016 6 Nora said we are all sympathetic to the public comment made. The concrete columns were a concern but now that we understand it as part of the deck railing it can be supported. I can also support substituting the parking for restoration is a great solution. The alley solution is also for better safety and I continue to support the project. Willis commented that he supports the project as presented. This is clearly a contemporary addition to a 19th century building and there is nothing in the guidelines about widths of cornices. The scale of the project is small and diminutive and it is a jewel at midblock development. MOTION: Willis made the motion to approve resolution #36, second by Bob. Roll call vote: Jeffrey, yes; John, yes; Bob, yes; Nora, yes; Willis, yes. Motion carried 5-0. 447 E. Cooper Ave. – Final major development, Final commercial design, and Growth Management review, public hearing. Amy said we will be discussing the TIA assessment, pubic amenity and growth management. HPC granted demolition of the existing structure directly west of CasaTua and replacement with a new commercial structure. The only changes made are that a trellis over the central bay has been deleted. The windows were arched and now have a square shape to them. Those were not locked in at conceptual, they are final review issues. Staff has identified a few things that we feel need restudied. The first is the composition of the storefronts. This is an unusual project because it has exposure on the Ruby Park side and the Cooper mall. The applicant has always wanted some interest on the alley side. Staff feels the alley side is more successful in some ways than shown on Cooper. The idea that you have two bookends with a one-story piece in the middle isn’t really typical in downtown. We have suggested that the store fronts create a little more variety as you see on the alley façade where you have a mix of doorway locations and window dimensions. We would also like to see taller upper floor windows that is more typical of downtown. We also think there needs to be some visit of the multi-paned windows that are on the central bay on the ground floor level and upper floor level. In terms of window divisions, perhaps have a clear transom but not dividing the entire store front window into small panes. We have also suggested a restudy of the cornice which is very Victorian in character and perhaps is confusing in terms of the construction date of the building. Perhaps less light fixtures in the central P6 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF ,DECEMBER 14, 2016 7 bay. We also feel the application is missing some specificity about materials. The proposal is to use a tumbled brick and typically HPC has not been in favor of approving a material that has a faux age to it. The choice of the cornice material also needs identified. Getting down to the details of the building we would like to see a restudy and continuation. Amy said we did discuss the TIA assessment but it needs to be tightened up at this level. It is calculated by how many daily trips would be generated by the activity on the site. It is calculated at 48 trips a day. The applicant doesn’t have the opportunity to improve cross walks etc. because they are at a mid block location on the pedestrian mall. They are in a position to do cash-in-lieu payment for this part of their review. More works needs to be done with Engineering because they are proposing to eliminate some residential units. That payment is around $6,000 per trip. Construction management and storm water also need addressed. Amy said at conceptual public amenity was discussed. The applicant is required to provide the equivalent of 10% of the site either as physical open space or some other form of mitigation. At conceptual the applicant received approval for a cash-in-lieu fee. They have asked tonight to have that as off-site improvements. We have a significant pedestrian mall reconstruction coming up. The applicant has suggested to re-visit their form of mitigation and we are not supporting off-site improvements. Cash-in-lieu is appropriate and we need it for the pedestrian mall improvement project and they don’t have any place to do off-site or have they proposed anything specific tonight. Amy said there is also confusion about the size of the lot. The representation indicates a 9,000 square lot but we are not sure in fact if it has been separated from Casa Tua and that effects some of the calculations for mitigations. Amy said the last topic is Growth Management. This project creates more commercial net leasable space than we have today but they are also demolishing existing dwelling units on the site. On the new net leasable space they are generating a need to mitigate 29 full time employees. They are electing to do that by credits which would be affordable housing constructed elsewhere in town. The applicant themselves is creating affordable housing elsewhere and they would like to mitigate for new net leasable by credits and that is something that they have the right to choose to P7 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF ,DECEMBER 14, 2016 8 do and staff supports it and APCHA supports it. The bigger issue is the demolition of the existing housing on the site. There are three free market apartments and three affordable dorm style units in the basement. The land use code is very specific about these kinds of small units which may have been housing for locals over the years. Demolishing them is a big deal and we want to make sure that they don’t just disappear. There is a strong preference for those demolished units to be replaced on the site where they existed. You don’t have to replace them 100% but basically half. The applicant does not propose to do that, they propose to do credits. The APCHA board supported credits and possibly tie it to the project across the street. The Planning staff doesn’t support any of those proposals. We do not want to see any project tied to another one that creates complications for which one has to be done first etc. We also feel it is important to provide some mitigation onsite. Willis said at the beginning of the presentation Amy talked about the symmetry restudy and how that would be introduced. Amy said as a suggestion on the alley façade or south facing façade you don’t see centered recessed doorways flanked by two windows, there’s a little more variety and a little less symmetry. That is one approach and they have achieved that on the back side but not on the front. Jeffrey asked Amy to go over the growth management mitigation. Amy said the applicant gets credit for the existing commercial space that they are demolishing and replacing. They get to do that without mitigation. On top of that they are creating approximately 12,800 square feet of new net leasable. You figure out how many employees per thousand square feet and you have to mitigate 60% of that and it ends up just over 29 full time equivalent employees that they have to replace or find a home for. They are proposing to do that with affordable housing credits which they will present at building permit. Staff and APCHA support this. The bigger question is the demolition and replacement of the multi family housing, three free market units and three dorm style affordable units. The code prefers that they be developed on the same site as which demolition has occurred unless the owner demonstrates to HPC that the replacement of the units onsite would be in conflict with the parcels zoning or an inappropriate solution to the sites physical constraints. This is an important provision that we have upheld on many projects. We don’t expect all of housing to be replaced on site but at least some of it. P8 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF ,DECEMBER 14, 2016 9 Chris Bendon, bendonadams.com Mark Hunt, owner Dwayne Romero, owner representative Chris said they recognize the issues that need to be dealt with at some level. We also have threshold issues that we are dealing with. The existing building has commercial on the ground level and residential up above and it is 21 feet tall. There are two view plans that affect this property. One projecting from Wagner Park and one projecting from in front of the Wheeler. View planes were part of the moratorium discussion. View planes are more centered on restricting heights. The changes in view planes are to capture all the properties on the mall. There are no landmarks on this side of the block. The Red Onion is the only landmark on the mall. On this side of the mall is the Casa Tua building, 447 building and then the Gorsuch building and the Chocolate Factory. Those buildings will never be higher. The current discussion regarding view planes is a 15 foot building including mechanical. Chris said we are trying to relate in context to the Casa Tua building and the Gorsuch building. The existing building has commercial on the first floor and in the back there are dorm units. On the upper floor there are three units; two, two bedrooms and one 4 bedroom. They are free market units. The demolition of these units trigger a whole set of mitigations. Chris said the proposal is three floors of commercial. Basement, ground floor with three bays and a second floor. We are around 30 FTE’s for mitigation that is coming out of the commercial. The replacement of the dormitory units is 3.5 FTE’s. APCHA was comfortable with the housing not being on this parcel except the 3.5 FTE’s which is two one bedroom units at 1.75 per unit. One of the logistic of the project is introducing another use to the building, the two units. The decision was to push the floor toward residential and take the credits and push those credits back into the portfolio. APCHA said they liked the idea of producing credits here and using them at on another project. Chris said the remaining issues are the TIA and down the road materials. The major issues are the overall mitigation which is a burden on the project which is not HPC problem to fix. We also have an issue with the overall fit and feel of this building knowing that the Gorsuch building is never getting P9 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF ,DECEMBER 14, 2016 10 taller. We are at 28 feet and the Gorsuch would be at the same height or smaller than what is currently there. There is also confusion regarding the property. It is not clear whether it is one property or two. We are under contract for both sides. We aren’t doing anything with the Casa Tua building. There is an opportunity on this mall to invigorate the Cooper Ave. mall in connection with out properties across the street. We are struggling overall how this project works and makes sense physically and design wise. Mark said we are not here for a final vote but bringing up things with this project. Working on this and given direction I feel this is the wrong building for the site. My goal is to come up with the best building. Looking back we had to throw six buildings into the process due to referendum one and another three buildings in because of the moratorium. There are more changes coming down the road. I actually think this building is too big. On the vote HPC was split and City council was a split vote. We took the comments like to activate the mall and the fact that the height on the mall isn’t going higher. I have a building that fits a lot better but do not have anyone to show it to. Planning said if there are changes we need to start over. I’d like to show the HPC the ideas. I would like not to start over and waiting for a year. Chris said there has been a lot of exploration that could be incorporated here. We want to bring excitement to the mall and we have some exciting ideas. Amy addressed the process. HPC doesn’t do work session anymore and you have a clear policy that any new information comes to you 24 hours before the meeting. You also have a conceptual approval for this project that is binding. The idea of introducing another project is not OK even though we want the best product. This project was submitted before the moratorium and we cannot change a project and still be under those rules. If this application isn’t good it should be withdrawn and a new application should come in with new rules. There are a lot of changes to the mitigation and design guidelines. Procedurally this can’t go anywhere. Dwayne Romero with the Red Onion annex at the last meeting the comments were a direct response to ongoing community issues such as height, mass and scale, context and fit. This site does not respond well to all the community issues. We are hoping we can show the alternative image to you. We would just like feedback to see if this new plan is worth going forward. P10 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF ,DECEMBER 14, 2016 11 Bob said if we look at the proposals all we can say is interesting or not interesting. Amy said we do not do work sessions and what they may show is completely inconsistent with conceptual. The planning staff will recommend against a change under the old rules. Dwayne said this would be a valuable time together. Willis asked why the imagery wasn’t in the packet to follow the process which is 24 hours before. Dwayne said the changes are less is more. Chris said in the end it should be the product that we are monitoring and being proud of. The process can handcuff a project. Amy said there was a conceptual approval that approved the mass and scale and that subject is done. This is a kind of go around of the process and it is not appropriate when we have a moratorium in place. Mark said some people want to see a two story building but it is inappropriate. To build it, the shell is 5 ½ to six million dollars. The mitigation originally came back at 12 million and now 10 million. Lets get rid of the floor between one and two and how it would be a one story building. Maybe there should be an exception to the rule if you are literally listening to comments and listening to the community and actually making something smaller. How many other people come here and ask to make something smaller. If we have to go with this building and make something smaller can we at least blow the floor out and loose the second floor of square footage and shave 5 million dollars off something that we don’t want to build anyway. I want to be on the record that it is inappropriate and we can do better. At least let us get rid of the floor plates. Willis asked the attorney if it is within the HPC’s purview to review staff’s determination that it is not consistent with the previous application. Jim True said it’s the applicant’s obligation to present something to the HPC and that specific project has to be consistent with the conceptual approval. It P11 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF ,DECEMBER 14, 2016 12 sounds like the applicant is asking you to redesign the project. The way this process should work is that the applicant presents a plan. If the floor is to be blown out then the applicant should present a plan indicating that and it needs to be consistent with conceptual approval. It sounds like the applicant wants you to review something that is not in front of you. Chris said we have a building that has issue to get to the building permit and is under water and we are trying to rescue a project on this property and we would like to explore ideas and visions how the project can evolve. We aren’t asking HPC to design anything. We are asking for the ability to explore those alternative plans. Jim pointed out that submissions have to be consistent with what was already approved. If it is not consistent then HPC can’t approve that project and you would have to go back to a different conceptual approval. Amy said we are hearing this now and we have a policy for submitting things at least 24 hours in advanced and its being ignored. You need to propose something that is consistent with conceptual. You can’t hang onto the old rules and show a new project. John asked where it is coming from that you can’t break from procedure and there are times that we have broken from the procedure. Amy said it is coming from the land use code. Conceptual is meaningful in terms of mass and scale of the project and we expect final to be about details, lighting and materials and fenestration not that we are going to change the massing now and making it a different building. Jim said we don’t know right now if what they have to propose is minimally consistent with the conceptual approval. Willis said conceptual is mass and scale. Jim said the applicant is putting us in a position of not having staff the opportunity to review anything that is before the HPC. Dwayne said he feels the code that was point in place and governed mass and scale consistency was probably put in place to prevent an applicant from going big to super big. It is interesting that an applicant has approval for P12 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF ,DECEMBER 14, 2016 13 mass and scale and I’m interested in moving it to less mass and scale. What we want to present is a two story structure that is not perfectly matched with mass and scale and still has the bays. We just want feedback. Mark said we would literally blow off the second floor. Nora said this is very uncomfortable and she hears everyone’s concerns but as a volunteer this is something that I would like council to help us out with. John said we should always have the best interest in the community for producing a better design. The elimination of work sessions came from the lack of a public notice. I also feel work sessions were valuable and helpful for the community to get feedback. Jeffrey said he appreciates the applicant asking us to think outside of the box but on the other side of that I honor staff’s commitment and how we present projects and there is a consistency. There is a procedure that is precedent. Bob recused himself. Jim said you could listen to additional plans but what is difficult is committing a reaction to it when staff hasn’t had a chance to comment. We need to be concerned that staff has to have the chance to review it and comment before HPC puts themselves in a position of taking positions on a project. To react to a project without staff having an opportunity is not appropriate. Willis said he would be happy to look at it but uncomfortable commenting on the project. Chris said we want to move forward. Nora suggested they go through staff and be continued and come back to the HPC. The applicant needs to go through staff. John said we are working without some pieces of the puzzle. John said he is conflicted about his volunteering efforts right now. We could be doing more rather than being cut between the red tape and bureaucracy. P13 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF ,DECEMBER 14, 2016 14 Amy said we often see projects having a minor tweak but this was not the case. Mark said he can easily make an argument that the intent was there. Jim said there is a process and if staff believes it is not consistent with the conceptual approval there is an appeal process to go to city council. Chris said a lot of people don’t come forward and want to make a project smaller. Amy said the planning office is trying to be consistent as to how everyone is being treated. Dwayne said our intent is to get something in within the time frame we are sitting in. The administrative appeal is on the procedure of the review not due process. MOTION: Willis made the motion to continue 447 E. Cooper to January 11, 2017 second by John. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. Roll call vote: Nora, yes; Willis, yes; John, yes; Jeffrey, yes. MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn, second by John. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:17 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P14 II.B. Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Justin Barker, Senior Planner Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer MEETING DATE: January 11, 2017 RE: Commercial Design Update SUMMARY: Included in the packet is an updated draft of the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines (hereinafter “Standards and Guidelines”), which is intended to replace the existing document. The new document is essentially a complete rewrite of the existing document, although several of the concepts and guidelines have been retained. The proposed Code language for the Commercial Design chapter is also attached as Exhibit B. There are not many substantive changes to the Code language, mostly reorganization and further clarity on the review process and applicability of projects. HPC has reviewed drafts of the standards and guidelines document on October 19th, November 2nd, and November 16th. HPC supported having both standards and guidelines, but the direction was to go light on the number of Standards and address most information as Guidelines. HPC agreed that Pedestrian Amenity spaces need to be meaningful with careful design parameters. HPC supported the overall design concept to reinforce the historic character of the downtown core and Main Street while introducing additional flexibility for the Character Areas outside of the two historic districts. Council reviewed an initial draft of the Standards and Guidelines on December 12th. Staff also held a focus group meeting with several design and planning firms in Aspen on December 1st for additional input. Feedback from all meetings has been incorporated into the final draft presented to HPC at this meeting. Since the last HPC meeting, staff: • Adjusted the wording of several sections and captions. The content was largely retained, with the edits focused more on making the intent clearer. • Inserted the History of each Character Area before the Existing Conditions summary to provide a better flow of information. • Included additional guidelines for Parking (page 14). • Consolidated repetitive guidelines and eliminated guidelines that were Building Code related. • Renamed “Architecture” to “Building Mass, Height and Scale” in General Chapter (page 15). • Renamed “First Floor Commercial Space” to “Street Level Design” and added guidelines on pedestrian scaled elements (page 17). • Removed the guideline that discouraged any use of tiles as an exterior material (page 20). • Moved “Remodels” section to the end of the General Chapter. • Reduced qualifying street level amenity height from 30” above grade to 18” (page 33). • Added minimum transparency for second floor amenity railings (page 34). P15 IV.A. Page 2 of 2 • Prohibited rooftop amenity on the roof of a second floor (page 34). • Added minimum width for midblock walkways (page 36). • Included provision for street level or midblock amenity to be not open to the sky through HPC or P&Z approval (pages 32 & 36). • Added maximum depth for subgrade courtyards (page 37). • Decreased building façade required at property line to 50% for non-mall properties in Commercial Core Historic District (page 46). • Added form as a design element to relate to historic structures (page 48). • Included an allowance to drop floor-to-ceiling height after 25 ft. into the depth of the building (pages 52 & 71). • Included a guideline suggesting use of secondary structures to break up mass in Main Street Historic District (page 61). • Added guidelines for Details and Materials in Commercial Character Area (page 72). Staff is still working on finalizing document details including layout, fonts, grammar, and spelling. We have also requested high resolution images from the Aspen Historical Society which will be inserted prior to Council review. HPC is asked to pass a motion endorsing the final draft. The final guidelines will be presented to City Council for adoption on January 23rd & 24th. Additionally, staff has included a list of all proposed Standards in the current draft (Exhibit C). Staff is concerned that there are too many standards and that there needs to be clearer understanding of what qualifies as a Standard. Staff is requesting HPC input on this topic. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Draft Design Standards and Guidelines Exhibit B: Draft Code Language Exhibit C: Topics identified as Standards in current draft P16 IV.A. A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDING COUNCIL ADOPTION OF THE “COMMERCIAL, LODGING, AND HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES” RESOLUTION #1, SERIES OF 2017 WHEREAS, Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.060.B references the “City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines” and requires conformance with applicable guidelines for the approval of any proposed work requiring historic preservation review; and WHEREAS, the “Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines” were adopted by City Council in 2007 and have not been amended since that time; and WHEREAS, Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.220.010.E, Powers and Duties of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), allows the HPC to recommend Council adoption of new guidelines; and WHEREAS, at special meetings on October 19, November 2 and November 16, 2016, and their regular meeting on January 11, 2017, the HPC discussed proposed new standards and guidelines and provided direction to the Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, from May through November, 2016, the City and the Consultant team conducted 20 public outreach events, an online public outreach and survey page with over 1,230 visits, eleven (11) focus group meetings with stakeholders and City officials, five (5) meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission, and fourteen (14) public meetings with the City Council; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on January 11, 2017, the Historic Preservation Commission recommended Council adopt the final draft of the standards and guidelines by a - to - vote. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the HPC recommends Council adopt the “Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines,” attached as Exhibit A. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 11th day of January, 2017. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: ___________________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Willis Pember, Chair Attest: P17 IV.A. ___________________________ Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk P18 IV.A. Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines Updated 2017 City of Aspen, Colorado P19 IV.A. P20 IV.A. Glossary of Terms Character Area Map List of Standards and Guidelines per Character Area Table of Contents Main Street (MS) Historic District Commercial Area (CA) Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMU) Mountain Base (MB) River Approach (RA) Small Lodge (SL) Commercial Core (CC) Historic District Pedestrian Amenity Design Standards and Guidelines: General Introduction Appendix 106 110 111 98 Street Level Second Floor or Rooftop Cooper, Mill, and Hyman Mall Midblock Subgrade Courtyard Off-site Enclosed Interior Courtyard Site Planning and Streetscape Alleyways Parking Building Mass, Height and Scale Street Level Design Roofscape Materials and Details Lighting, Service, and Mechanical Areas Remodel Introduction Zone Districts and Character Areas Historic Preservation Update of Commercial Design Guidelines Design Review Process How to Start a Commercial Design Project How to Use This Document 90 81 74 65 54 40 31 34 35 36 37 38 39 11 13 14 15 17 19 20 21 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 P21 IV.A. P22 IV.A. Introduction The Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines focus on the fundamentals of urban design that promote a sense of neighborhood identity and will enhance the livability of the city for long term residents and visitors alike. This document and the Commercial Design Review process promote building that references Aspen’s history: Aspen’s architectural vernacular is generally small, human scaled, and thoughtful in design and detailing. Aspen is a unique community, rich with history, dramatic landscapes, a vibrant economy, and a vital cultural scene. Each of these elements contributes to the appeal of the City and enhances its livability. Acknowledgment of existing neighborhood context is integral to preserving and to highlighting Aspen’s local architectural vernacular. The Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines provide specific design parameters to achieve these goals. The Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Standards and Guidelines help preserve and to encourage walkable neighborhoods. Strengthening pedestrian relationships through attractive and useful pedestrian amenity space, interesting ground level storefront design, appropriate building mass, and responsive site design contributes to successful commercial and mixed use neighborhoods, and is a priority. The City does not intend to limit creativity in the built environment, but instead to promote architecture and site design that create cohesive neighborhoods that are walkable, interesting and vibrant. Strengthening walkable areas through design is promoted. Reference the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) to better understand the community’s vision and character. Introduction Page 1P23 IV.A. Reference the complete Character Area Map in the Appendix. 2012 AACP Policy: Development should “… reflect our architectural heritage in terms of site coverage, mass, scale, density and diversity of heights…” (Growth Management Policy V.3) Purpose of Character Areas Each Character Area defines a neighborhood with similar characteristics such as steep topography, minimal setbacks, or a large collection of historic buildings. The design standards and guidelines in each Character Area reinforce historic and existing development patterns in each neighborhood. Customized design parameters create a sense of cohesion that strengthens neighborhood context and a positive pedestrian experience. Each Character Area includes a section on the history of development in the area. Understanding the background of neighborhood development is crucial to understanding the existing character. Character Areas and Zone Districts There are two primary tools within the Land Use Code that dictate building location, size, height and form: Character Areas and Zone Districts. These two systems work in concert to ensure development meets design objectives and requirements as well as dimensional and land use requirements. Both Zone Districts and Character Areas serve distinct purposes: Zone Districts regulate the overall uses and dimensions of development, including setbacks, height and floor area. They establish the maximum size a building can be and the general location it can be placed on a property. Character Areas provide detailed requirements for the character of building, landscape, site layout, materials, etc. They work to preserve the character and history of existing development and foster consistency and cohesiveness between neighboring developments. As a general rule, all properties in a zone district have the same basic allowed development rights in terms of height and floor area. However, their context may necessitate different treatment in terms of material, roof form, window pattern, etc. Design contexts do not necessarily follow the strict boundaries of the zone districts, creating the need for Character Areas that specify design parameters for each neighborhood. Page 2 Commercial Design Guidelines and Standards P24 IV.A. 2012 AACP Philosophy: Preservation of historic structures and sites, the historic town layout, landscapes, and neighborhood ditches connect us to the people, patterns and events that are the fabric of our town. In preserving our history, we ensure our culture and legacy is imparted to future generations. Historic buildings are the backbone of Aspen’s character. Historic Preservation Design Guidelines The Historic Preservation Design Guidelines apply to all properties that are listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. A designated landmark that is subject to Commercial Design Review is required to apply both the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and the applicable Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines. A property located within the Main Street Historic District or the Commercial Core Historic District, but not a designated landmark, is subject to the applicable Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines but is not subject to the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The Character Areas provide tools to be contextual in architecture and site design. Introduction Page 3P25 IV.A. Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines Update The City has conducted design review in the historic districts since 1974 and on a case-by-case basis in other areas until 2007 when city-wide Commercial Design Review guidelines were adopted. The guidelines have been periodically updated to reflect current community values. An extensive public process is undertaken to update the guidelines, including small group meetings, presentations, pop-up booths, walking tours, and public open houses to gain feedback from elected officials, review Boards, and the community on their vision for Aspen’s commercial, historic district, and lodging neighborhoods. The feedback is instrumental in the development of this document. Community feedback is instrumental in developing this document. Several methods are used to obtain feedback including pop-up booths. Page 4 Commercial Design Guidelines and Standards P26 IV.A. Design Review Process Commercial Design Review is the process used to evaluate a proposed project’s compliance with the Standards and Guidelines and compliance with Pedestrian Amenity requirements. Commercial Design Review is generally broken up into two steps- Conceptual and Final Review. Projects of limited scope may be subject to one step review that consolidates Conceptual and Final. Conceptual design review focuses on site planning, mass, scale, proportion, parking, height and other elements that define the shape and placement of the proposed development. Final design review focuses on materials, architectural details, fenestration, landscaping, detailed roofscape, operational characteristics, and other elements that define the architecture and landscape of the proposed development. The progression from Conceptual to Final Reviews promotes discussion at the macro level before moving into the micro details of a project. photo by Brent Moss Photography. Detailed elements including fenestration and materials are considered during Final design review. Introduction Page 5P27 IV.A. How to Start a Commercial Design Project When beginning a Commercial Design project, an applicant should follow these steps: 1. Review the Zone District Map to determine the zone district. 2. Review the Character Area Map (pg. X in Appendix) to determine the Character Area. 3. Read the Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines (this document). 4. Analyze the existing neighborhood and block context to identify patterns that define architectural character, enhance pedestrian experience, and preserve sense of place. 5. Identify nearby historic landmarks or other key character defining features. 6. Determine if the property is within an Environmentally Sensitive Area. Reference the Land Use Code or call the Community Development Department for more information. 7. Remodel projects should address the following: •Determine the amount of demolition for the proposed remodel project. Reference the Land Use Code for how to calculate demolition. •Identify existing key character defining features of the building to be retained, if any. photo by Jason Dewey. If a commercial, lodge or mixed use property is not in a designated Character Area, consult the Planning Department to receive an assigned Character Area. The context of the pedestrian malls require unique design considerations. Page 6 Commercial Design Guidelines and Standards P28 IV.A. How to Use this Document The Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines (Standards and Guidelines) work in tandem with the Aspen Land Use Code Commercial Design Review Chapter. The Standards and Guidelines are broken into specific Character Area chapters for each neighborhood and a General chapter. Each project subject to Commercial Design Review must address the standards and guidelines within the General chapter and the applicable Character Area chapter. The Appendix of this document includes the Character Area Map, a glossary of terms, and quick reference lists of all standards and guidelines applicable to each Character Area. Standards and Guidelines How are Standards and Guidelines different? Standards appear like this: Bold, Italics and Color Standards are required. Standards are generally topics which have been adopted as requirements in the Land Use Code and are being relocated here for clarity. When a standard is not met an application for a Variation from the review Board is required. Guidelines appear like this: Bold and Italics Guidelines are recommendations; however, an effort to meet the guideline or the intent of the guideline is required for all projects. Guidelines are not applicable in all cases and need to be evaluated in context for the practicality of the measure and the scope of the project. The review Board must determine that the appropriate guidelines have been adequately met in order to approve a project. Unique site feature such as steep topography may be considered in evaluating the standards and guidelines. Each commercial project is subject to both the General chapter and a Character Area chapter. Not all of the standards and guidelines will apply for remodel projects. Introduction Page 7P29 IV.A. Pedestrian Amenity In addition to addressing all applicable standards and guidelines, a project may be subject to Pedestrian Amenity requirements. The applicability and required amount are listed in the Land Use Code, and the allowed methods to meet the requirement are listed within this document. Each Pedestrian Amenity method lists Character Areas where it may be used. If a Character Area is not listed, then that Pedestrian Amenity method is not an allowed option. For example: Midblock Pedestrian Amenity (CC, CA, NMU) is only allowable in the Commercial Character Area and the Neighborhood Mixed Use Character Area. A project that is located within the Main Street Historic District is not allowed to use this Pedestrian Amenity method to meet the requirement. Some types of pedestrian amenity may not be appropriate in all areas. Each pedestrian amenity type has certain requirements, such as defining the property line. Pedestrian amenity is an important element to the design of Aspen’s commercial areas. Page 8 Commercial Design Guidelines and Standards P30 IV.A. Introduction Page 9P31 IV.A. Page 10 Commercial Design Guidelines and Standards P32 IV.A. General The purpose of Commercial Design Review is to preserve and to encourage appropriate architecture that creates walkable neighborhoods and supports the heritage of Aspen. The Standards and Guidelines below apply to all projects subject to Commercial Design Review. Site Planning and Streetscape The original townsite was platted in 1880 based on an orthogonal pattern, regardless of topography. Orienting buildings parallel to the street reinforces the traditional network of streets and alleys and enhances the pedestrian experience. Today, where increased height and density are factors, site planning and the relationship to streets and to adjacent properties should enhance overall neighborhood character. Special care should be taken when placing a building within the River Approach and Mountain Base character areas. The majority of parcels in these areas are not located on the traditional townsite grid and topography of the site should be given additional consideration. Original Townsite of Aspen - recorded 1959 1.1 All projects shall provide a context study. •The study must include the relationship to adjacent structures and streets through photographs, streetscape elevations, historic maps, etc. 1.2 All projects shall respond to the traditional street grid. •A building shall be oriented parallel to the street unless uncharacteristic of the area. Refer to specific chapters for more information. •Buildings on corners shall be parallel to both streets. General Guidelines Page 11P33 IV.A. 1.3 Landscape elements (both hardscape and softscape elements) should complement surrounding context, support the street scene, and enhance the architecture of the building. •This applies to landscape located both onsite and in the public right of way. •High quality and durable materials should be used. •Early in the design process, consider storm water best management practices as an integral part of the landscape design process. 1.4 Where there is open space on a site, reinforce the traditional transition from public space, to semi-public space to private space. •This may be achieved through a fence, a defined walkway, a front porch element, covered walkway, or landscape. 1.5 Maintain alignment of building facades where appropriate. •Consider the entire block of a neighborhood to determine appropriate building placement. •Consider the appropriate location of street level pedestrian amenity when siting a new building and transitioning building alignments. •Consider all four corners of an intersection and architectural context to determine appropriate placement if located on a corner. 1.6 When a building facade is set back, define the street edge. Review the context of the block when selecting an appropriate technique to define street edge. Examples of appropriate techniques include: •A street facing fence should be low in height and mostly transparent to create openness along the street. •Landscaping should be considered so as to not block views of the architecture or pedestrian amenity space. Hedgerows over 42” are prohibited. •Benches or other pedestrian related elements may be an appropriate means to define the street edge. Landscape design can enhance relationships between pedestrian access and architecture. Iconic historic architecture like the Elks Building should be the primary facade on a street edge. Hardscape can enhance the street scene. Page 12 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P34 IV.A. Alleyways Alleys are an important feature of most of the Character Areas. Traditionally, Aspen alleyways were unpaved, supported a range of building materials, and often had small buildings located along them. They continue to function as a utilitarian location for back of house operations, deliveries, and required utilities and mechanical areas; however, alleyways in the commercial character areas are more intensely developed now. Staying true to traditional development, alleys are an appropriate area for simple building forms and materials. It is important to design an alley facade with special attention to reduce perceived building mass and to maintain a human scale. Wherever possible, pedestrian access and appeal to alleys should be incorporated into the design. Improved access to alleyways creates opportunities for small commercial space. The following guidelines only apply to properties that are adjacent to an alley. 1.7 Develop alley facades to create visual interest. •Use varied building setbacks and/or changes in material to reduce perceived scale. 1.8 Consider small alley commercial spaces, especially on corner lots or lots with midblock access from the street (See Pedestrian Amenity Section PA.4). •Maximize visibility and access to alley commercial spaces with large windows and setbacks. •Minimize adverse impacts of adjacent service and parking areas through materials, setbacks, and/or landscaping. Alleys are often used for utilities, back of house access and parking. Develop alley facades with special attention to material selection and building form. Alleys can be developed to help reduce perceived building mass and provide human scale. General Guidelines Page 13P35 IV.A. Parking The Aspen community values a positive pedestrian experience and encourages walking and biking to get around town. Conflicts between pedestrians and cars are to be minimized. The original Aspen townsite includes alleyways, which can be used to locate private parking away from the pedestrian way. Visibility of on-site parking should be reduced in all locations by using alleyways for at grade parking and for entrances to subgrade parking. The following standards and guidelines only apply to development that provides parking on site. 1.9 Minimize the visual impacts of parking •All parking shall be accessed off an alley where one is available. •If no alley access exists, access should be from the shortest block length. •When a property does not have access to an alley, screen the parking. •Design any street-facing entry to underground parking to reduce visibility. Use high quality materials for doors and ramps. •Screen surface parking and avoid locating it at the front of a building. Landscape and fences are recommended. •Integrate parking into architecture as a garage enclosure and/or into landscape through design and materials to disguise the parking area. •Break up the massing of the alley facade especially when garage doors are present. •Consider a surface material change to define parking area and to create visual interest. •Consider the potential for future retail use accessed from alleys and the desire to create a safe and attractive environment for cars and people. •Garage doors shall match adjacent materials in color. Integrate parking into the architecture as a garage enclosure by matching the color to adjacent materials. Architectural details break up the massing of an alley and the garage doors blend into the facade. Screen surface parking. Page 14 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P36 IV.A. Building Mass, Height and Scale Designing a new building to fit within the context of the neighborhood requires careful thought. Researching historic maps, identifying nearby historic landmarks, and defining key character features of a neighborhood are critical steps before designing a new building. Special care is required for development adjacent to a designated landmark. New development has the opportunity to positively impact the cohesion of a neighborhood. Specific context descriptions are provided in each Character Area Chapter to define these features. 1.10 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with buildings on the block. 1.11 A new building or addition shall reflect the range and variation of building height in the block. •Create a sensitive transition by stepping developments of different sizes. For example, a new building adjacent to a one-story building must include a building height transition. •A minimum of two foot building height variation from adjacent buildings is required. •This may be achieved through a cornice, parapet or other architectural articulation. •The height variation shall be a minimum of 15’-0” wide. 1.12 On lots larger than 6,000 square feet, break up building mass into smaller modules. •A street level front setback to accommodate Pedestrian Amenity in accordance with the Pedestrian Amenity Guidelines may be an appropriate method to break up building mass. •Building setbacks, height variation, changes of material, and architectural details may be appropriate techniques to vertically divide a building into modules. Aspen contains many historic landmarks including the Independence Square Building. Varied building heights are important for larger developments. New construction must appear similar in scale and proportion with buildings on its block. General Guidelines Page 15P37 IV.A. 1.13 Development adjacent to a historic landmark shall respond to the historic resource. •A new building should not obscure historic features of the landmark. •A new large building should avoid negative impacts on historic resources by stepping down in scale toward a smaller landmark. •Consider these three aspects of a new building adjacent to a landmark: form, materials and fenestration. •When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic resource. •When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site, and use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale. •When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic resource. Maps showing locations of historic landmarks are available online, at the Aspen Historical Society and at the Aspen Planning Office. Stepping down to historic resources is important for development adjacent to historic buildings. Small scale additions to small historic resources are most appropriate. Relating to a historic resource through a variety of methods is appropriate. Page 16 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P38 IV.A. Street Level Design Street level design directly contributes to vitality, walkability and overall success of a commercial, lodge or mixed use area. The relationship of an entrance to the street is a critical component in defining a pedestrian-friendly environment. Window size and shape can create dynamic first floor spaces that enhance the neighborhood. Carefully considered pedestrian-scaled elements that relate to the neighborhood context can reinforce the pedestrian experience and enhance the neighborhood character. 1.14 New buildings shall have a street level entry. •Commercial entrances shall be at the sidewalk level. •Finish floor and sidewalk level shall align for at least 1/2 the depth of the ground floor where possible. If significant grade changes exist on property, then the project will be reviewed on a case by case basis. 1.15 Orient entrances to the street. •All buildings shall have at least one clearly defined primary entrance facing the front lot line, as defined in the Land Use Code unless located within a chamfered corner (See CC Character Area). •If located on a corner lot, two entrances shall be provided: A primary entrance facing the longest block length and a secondary entrance facing the shortest block length. 1.16 Incorporate an internal airlock or air curtain into first floor commercial space. •An airlock or air curtain shall be integrated into the architecture. •Adding a temporary exterior airlock of any material to an existing building not allowed. Historic proportions of a 2-story commercial building in Aspen. Street level entries are important pedestrian features. Varied scaling and rhythm devices create an interesting and inviting streetscape. General Guidelines Page 17P39 IV.A. 1.17 Entries that are significantly taller or shorter than those seen historically or that conflict with the established scale are prohibited. •Transom windows above an entry are a traditional element that may be appropriate in neighborhoods with 19th century commercial buildings. •Entries should reflect the established range within the context of the block. Analyze surrounding buildings to determine appropriate height for entry doors. 1.18 Pedestrian scaled elements should be incorporated into street level design. 1.19 ATMs and vending machines visible from the street are prohibited. Refer to Chapter 11 of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for more information on appropriate new construction, remodels or additions adjacent to landmarks. Transom windows may be appropriate. Pedestrian scaled elements, materials and rhythms should be incorporated. Entries should reflect the established range and not be over- or undersized. OVERSIZED DOORS PREFERRED DOORS NOTE: BUILDING CODE REQUIRES THAT AT LEAST ONE THESE ENTRY DOORS BE AT LEAST 3’-0” IN WIDTH. UNDERSIZED DOORS Page 18 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P40 IV.A. Roofscape The roofscape of a building is considered the fifth facade given its visibility from nearby buildings and mountains. As such, careful attention should be paid to creating a thoughtful, organized and varied roofscape. Rooftop design can be a challenge considering the need to place mechanical equipment, venting and elevator shafts on the roof. A successful roofscape can minimize the visual impacts of these elements and also incorporate City goals such as storm water treatment through a green roof system or streetscape vibrancy with an activated roof deck. Consider a birds-eye view when creating a roof plan. 1.20 The roofscape should be designed with the same attention as the elevations of the building. •Consolidate mechanical equipment including solar panels and screen from view. •Locate mechanical equipment toward the alley, or rear of a building if there is no alley access. •Use varied roof forms or parapet heights to break up the roof plane mass and add visual interest. 1.21 Use materials that complement the design of the building facade. •Minimize the visual impact of elevator shafts and stairway corridors through material selection and placement of elements. 1.22 Incorporate green roofs and low landscape elements into rooftop design where feasible. 1.23 Minimize visibility of rooftops railings. •Mostly transparent railings are preferred. •Integrating the rooftop railing into the architecture as a parapet or other feature, may be appropriate considering the neighborhood context and proposed building style. •Setback the railing a distance that equals or exceeds the height of the railing. Screen rooftop features from view. Varied roof forms enhances the neighborhood character. General Guidelines Page 19P41 IV.A. Materials and Details In the 19th Century, Aspen had a limited range of architectural materials: red brick, painted wood, glass and stone - primarily locally sourced red sandstone. In the mid-century the palette expanded to include natural wood, stucco, river rock and moss rock, metal, concrete block, and bricks of other tones. It is important to maintain a relationship to the material palette evident in the general vicinity while allowing some new materials and material technology to be used. The color palette of natural materials throughout these commercial and lodging neighborhoods represents Aspen’s environment with browns and reds being the predominant colors. High quality materials that relate to the context of the neighborhood, the building type, and have proven performance in Aspen’s extreme climate, are important. Carefully consider existing color schemes and textures within a neighborhood before selecting materials. Introducing a new material may require other aspects of the architecture to show restraint. Paint color has historically been a variable and is not reviewed. 1.24 High quality materials are required. •Identify the palette of materials, specifications for the materials, and location on the proposed building as part of the application. •Physical material samples shall be presented to the review body. An onsite mock- up prior to installation may be required. 1.25 Building materials shall have these features: •Convey the quality and range of materials found in the current block context or seen historically in the Character Area. •Convey human scale. •Enhance visual interest through texture, application, and/or dimension. •Be non-reflective. Shiny or glossy materials are not appropriate as a primary material. •Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within Aspen’s climate. •A material with an integral color shall be a neutral color. Some variation is allowed for secondary materials. 1.26 Introducing a new material, material application, or material finish to the existing streetscape may be approved by HPC or P&Z if the following criteria are met: •Innovative building design. •Creative material application that positively contributes to the streetscape. •Environmentally sustainable building practice. 1.27 Architecture that reflects corporate branding is not permitted. •Architecture that reflects the brand of the tenant is not appropriate. High quality materials and details are required. Sustainable design is encouraged through materials, energy efficiency, fenestration, site planning and thoughtful open space. AACP Policy I.1 Achieve sustainable growth practices to ensure the long term viability and stability of our community and diverse visitor based economy. Page 20 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P42 IV.A. Lighting, Service and Mechanical Areas The character and intensity of outdoor lighting can greatly impact neighborhood character. The City of Aspen has comprehensive exterior lighting standards in the Land Use Code to reinforce the desire for dark skies at night with regard to building functionality. When the service and mechanical areas of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the neighborhood. Poor logistics of one building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. 1.28 The design of light fixtures should be appropriate to the form, materials, scale and style of the building. 1.29 Trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located on an alleyway where feasible and combined to the greatest extent practical. 1.30 Design trash and recycle areas thoughtfully and within the style of the building, with the goal to enhance pedestrian and commercial uses along alleys. 1.31 Screen trash and recycle areas from view with a fence or door. •All fences shall be 6 feet high from grade unless prohibited by the Land Use Code, shall be of sound construction, and shall be no less than 90% opaque, unless otherwise varied based on a recommendation from the Environmental Health Department. 1.32 Design a delivery area to be located along an alleyway where one exists. 1.33 Mechanical equipment, ducts and vents shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or carefully located on the roof to minimize visual impacts. •Co-locate mechanical equipment, ducting and venting. •Screen mechanical equipment or recess equipment and venting behind a parapet wall. Reference City Municipal Code for trash size and location requirements. 1.34 Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. •Group and discreetly locate these features. •Use screening and materials that compliment the architecture. 1.35 Transformer location and size are dictated by City and utility company Standards and codes. •Place a transformer on an alley where possible. •Provide screening for any non-alley location. Trash and recycle should be co-located. Screen equipment and trash/recycle from view. General Guidelines Page 21P43 IV.A. Remodel Upgrading an existing building through a remodel can improve energy efficiency, building function and appearance, and meet community goals to reduce construction waste. Altering specific features of a building, such as replacing exterior materials or constructing an addition to an existing building, is considered a remodel project. A project that reaches the demolition threshold as defined in the Land Use Code is not considered a remodel. It is important to carefully plan a remodel to meet the design guidelines and neighborhood character where feasible. Gradually bringing remodel projects into conformance with design guidelines reinforces neighborhood character. These guidelines apply to projects that are proposing changes to an existing building but do not reach the demolition threshold. 1.36 All remodel projects shall meet material design guidelines 1.24 and 1.25. 1.37 Consider updating windows, doors, and/or primary entrances to better relate to the Character Area and pedestrian experience. 1.38 Design alterations to relate to the existing building style and form that may remain. 1.39 Incorporate elements that define the street edge in a remodel project. Consider the context of the block when selecting an appropriate technique to define street edge. Examples of appropriate techniques include: •A cantilevered roof or retractable awning may be appropriate to define street edge. •A fence that defines a yard must be low in height and mostly transparent in nature, allowing views into the pedestrian amenity space. •Benches or other pedestrian related elements may be used on a case by case basis. 1.40 Creative solutions that incorporate ADA compliance into the architecture are encouraged. •Minimize the appearance of ramps by exploring other onsite options such as altering interior floor levels or exterior grade. Replacing features such as balconies is considered a remodel. Alterations should relate to the existing building style. Exterior grade altered for an accessible entrance. Page 22 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P44 IV.A. Examples of Architectural Lighting General Guidelines Page 23P45 IV.A. Examples of Entries Page 24 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P46 IV.A. Examples of Storefront Design General Guidelines Page 25P47 IV.A. Examples of Architectural Details Page 26 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P48 IV.A. General Guidelines Page 27P49 IV.A. Pedestrian Amenity Page 28 Commercial Design Guidelines and Standards P50 IV.A. Well-designed open spaces should enhance the streetscape, creatively reinforce the street edge, and support a variety of uses. The goal of pedestrian amenity is to create intentionally designed and meaningful open space that conveys human scale, provides relief from the built environment, and improves the experience in commercial, mixed use and lodging neighborhoods. Successful pedestrian amenity space allows for nature to blend into the built environment. Most pedestrian amenity spaces should be open to view from the street, open to the sky, and not permanently enclosed with walls. Visibility adds to vitality at the street level. These spaces should be versatile and easily adaptable for different uses depending on the tenant. Restaurant seating and outdoor food vending are particularly appropriate The Aspen community considers open space to be a pedestrian amenity and a top priority. Especially in commercial areas, maintaining the feel of a natural environment with frequent opportunities to dwell outdoors is of utmost importance. Pedestrian Amenity uses of pedestrian amenity space. Where on-site pedestrian amenity is required, it should be usable and accessible space. Pedestrian Amenity need not be available to the public at all times, but needs to contribute to an active streetscape and promote interaction and engagement. There are many different options to meet the required pedestrian amenity for a property: physical or operational improvements to private property or the public right of way, or cash in lieu payment. Each type of pedestrian amenity space and applicable Character Areas are described in the following standards and guidelines. Successful amenity space provides a varied pedestrian experience. Pedestrian Amenity Page 29P51 IV.A. Questions to Consider 1. Is there a successful Pedestrian Amenity Space on an adjacent or nearby property already? 2. Is there good solar access? 3. How have the historic development patterns been maintained or eroded? 4. Can the proposed Pedestrian Amenity utilize innovative design to connect to the proposed architecture? 5. How does the proposed Pedestrian Amenity enhance the intersection and overall context?Galena StreetHopkins Avenue Pedestrian amenity space provides relief from the built environment and an active streetscape. A figure-ground study is helpful in identifying pedestrian amenity space opportunities. Consult the Land Use Code for elements allowed within setbacks. Page 30 Commercial Design Guidelines and Standards P52 IV.A. Street Level Pedestrian Amenity PA1 - (All Character Areas) Historic maps of 19th century Aspen illustrate a densely developed downtown core with minimal building setbacks. This pattern generally remains in place today. Setbacks are varied as development moves out from the downtown core. The Design Standards and Guidelines recognize and encourage this historic pattern of development by providing more pedestrian amenity options for properties located outside of the Historic Districts. Properties within the Historic Districts need to maintain historic integrity and continuity: street level pedestrian amenity must be carefully planned to highlight, not erode, these important development patterns. PA1.1 Maximize solar access to pedestrian amenity space on the subject property. •At grade pedestrian amenity on the north side of the street is discouraged, except when providing a front yard along Main Street. PA1.2 Consider all four corners of an intersection when designing street level amenity space on a corner lot. •If one or more lots on the intersection already includes a large corner pedestrian amenity a new corner amenity space may not be appropriate. Seating can create areas to dwell. On property street level seating for restaurants can be considered pedestrian amenity. Setbacks for street level amenity vary as development moves out from the core. Pedestrian Amenity Page 31P53 IV.A. Planters can define a property line. Storefronts can line an amenity space. Successful amenity space allows for future retail and restaurant use. PA1.3 Design meaningful space that is useful, versatile, and accessible. •Consider providing space for future outdoor merchandising or restaurant seating opportunities when designing the space. •Providing good solar access, capturing mountain views, and providing seating is recommended. •Do not duplicate existing nearby open space. •Storage areas, delivery areas, parking areas, or trash areas are not allowed uses within pedestrian amenity space. •Street-level Pedestrian Amenity spaces shall be a minimum 1/3 of the requirement. For example, a requirement of 300 square feet of pedestrian amenity can be comprised of three 100 square feet spaces; but cannot be comprised of one 275 square feet space and one 25 square feet space. (A variation from this requirement may be approved with a finding that the proposed spaces meets the intent of Pedestrian Amenity). PA1.4 Design amenity space that enhances the pedestrian experience and faces the street. •On corner lots, pedestrian amenity space may be considered on side streets or adjacent to the alley rather than facing primary streets. PA1.5 Street level Pedestrian Amenity areas shall not be entirely enclosed. •Access to the pedestrian amenity space directly from the street is required. •A street level pedestrian amenity space may be covered subject to HPC or P&Z approval. If the space is covered, the street-facing portion must be entirely open Page 32 Commercial Design Guidelines and Standards P54 IV.A. PA1.6 Street level pedestrian amenity space shall reinforce the street edge. Consider the context of the block when selecting an appropriate technique to define street edge. Examples of appropriate techniques include: •Overhangs: A cantilevered roof or retractable awning that stretches to the property line. •Fences: A low fence, mostly transparent that allows views into the pedestrian amenity space. •Landscape: Low planter boxes. If including trees, the mature tree canopy size should not prohibit views into the amenity space. Hedgerows over 42” are prohibited. •Street Furniture: Permanent, fixed benches or other pedestrian related elements may be considered to establish property edges. •Surface Material: Change hardscape material to differientiate between pedestrian amenity and Right of Way. PA1.7 Street level pedestrian amenity shall be within 18 inches above or below the existing grade of the street or sidewalk which abuts the space. PA1.8 Street level pedestrian amenity may be appropriate on a case by case basis within the Commercial Core Historic District. •Consider the existing context of the block . •Clearly define street edge, see as defined in PA1.6. •In this District, street level pedestrian amenity must be subordinate to the line of building fronts. PA1.9 Street level pedestrian amenity may include public access to the mountain or river in the RA and MB Character Areas through a trail easement subject to Parks and Engineering approval. PA1.10 Within the Main Street Historic District, required building setbacks can be used toward a pedestrian amenity requirement. Hardscape material transitions reinforce the property edge. Low planters and softscape adds to a successful amenity space. Using a variety of techniques is appropriate. Pedestrian Amenity Page 33P55 IV.A. Second floor or rooftop amenity can bring vitality to upper floors, provide outstanding mountain views, create meaningful upper floor setbacks, and still allow a building to define the street edge at ground level which reinforces traditional commercial development patterns. PA2.1 Provide pedestrian amenity in the form of a deck on the second floor that is visible from and adjacent to the street. •Railing height may not be increased above the minimum IBC requirement. •Historic landmark parapets may be exempt, subject to HPC approval. •Railings must be a minimum of 50% transparent unless located in the CC District where transparent railings may not be appropriate, given the pattern of decorative cornices capping buildings. PA2.2 Second floor amenity shall be accessed directly from the street. Remodels and historic landmarks may be exempted from this requirement, subject to HPC approval. •A separate exterior entrance is preferred. •A public access easement may be requested by the City as part of an approval. PA2.3 Design meaningful space that is useful, versatile and accessible. •Consider providing space for future outdoor merchandising or restaurant seating opportunities. •Providing good solar access, mountain views and seating is recommended. •Storage area or trash area are not allowed uses within pedestrian amenity space. PA2.4 Second floor pedestrian amenity should be equal to a minimum of 50% of the pedestrian amenity requirement. PA2.5 To qualify as Pedestrian Amenity, commercial use(s) shall be accessible from the space. •Lodges must have a restaurant, lobby, or other public space adjacent and accessible from the pedestrian amenity space to meet this standard. •Where applicable, Integrate access to this space into the architecture through interior or exterior corridors. PA2.6 Design wayfinding to the second floor amenity into the architecture. PA2.7 All rooftop Pedestrian Amenity shall be open to the sky. •Small seasonal umbrellas or retractable canopies may be allowed, subject to Planning Staff, HPC or P&Z approval, as long as these features do not cover the entire space and do not obstruct views in from the street. PA2.8 Rooftop pedestrian amenity is not permitted on the roof of a second floor. Restaurants utilize second floor spaces successfully with outdoor seating. Second Floor Pedestrian Amenity PA2 - (CC, CA, NMU, MB, SL, RA) Page 34 Commercial Design Guidelines and Standards P56 IV.A. On the pedestrian malls, on-site amenity space may duplicate the experiences offered by the Pedestrian Malls and Wagner Park. Replicating open space can erode the street-scape and can dilute the success of onsite pedestrian amenity spaces. PA3.1 Off-site pedestrian amenity or cash-in-lieu payment for Mall improvements and maintenance is strongly recommended. See Off-Site Section or Chapter 26.412 Commercial Design Review of the Land Use Code for cash-in-lieu payment calculation. PA3.2 Special consideration for street level pedestrian amenity on the Malls may be approved based on the following: •Context of the block: The presence of street facing, street level, pedestrian amenity in the block means that additional street facing pedestrian amenity may be inappropriate. •Adjacent to historic landmarks: Street facing amenity may be designed to highlight the adjacent historic landmark. •Proposed technique to define street edge. See Standard PA1.6. •Other restrictions on the property such as designated viewplanes. •Context of the intersection for corner lots: an intersection that already contains street level amenity on the mall should not be replicated. Pedestrian Malls Pedestrian Amenity PA3 - (CC) The pedestrian malls boast existing successful pedestrian amenity spaces. Proposed development along the pedestrian malls should strongly consider the existing amenities. Cash in lieu payment for Mall properties is strongly recommended. Pedestrian Amenity Page 35P57 IV.A. Midblock pedestrian amenity PA4 - (CA, NMU, MB, and RA) Midblock walkways create open space between buildings, activate alleyways, and provide alternative locations for commercial space and outdoor dining. This type of pedestrian amenity should be used sparingly throughout town to preserve historic development patterns. PA4.1 Midblock pedestrian amenity shall provide access to additional commercial space. •The amount of pedestrian amenity of the feature counts as double. For example, a midblock walkway that is 500 square feet in size is equal to 1,000 square feet for the purposes of pedestrian amenity calculation. •Commercial space must be accessed from the walkway and must be at least 40’-0” back from the street edge. PA4.2 Design the space to be surrounded with high quality materials and architectural details. PA4.3 Incorporate wayfinding to the midblock amenity into the architecture. PA4.4 Design and proportion of midblock pedestrian amenity must include adjacent architecture, adequate width of walkway, lighting and landscape elements. •Minimum width is 10’-0”. PA4.5 Midblock pedestrian amenity shall extend the length of the lot to the alley. PA4.6 Midblock pedestrian amenity walkways should be open to the sky. •A mid block pedestrian amenity space may be covered subject to HPC or P&Z approval. If the space is covered, the street-facing portion must be entirely open. PA4.7 New midblock pedestrian amenity walkways shall not be located in a block face that already has a midblock walkway. Alternate space for commercial use is a benefit of a midblock pedestrian amenity. Midblock pedestrian amenity can integrate with street facing pedestrian amenity. A covered midblock pedestrian space is subject to HPC or P&Z approval. Page 36 Commercial Design Guidelines and Standards P58 IV.A. Subgrade Courtyard Pedestrian Amenity PA5 - (CA, NMU, RA) Lower level walk-out patios, also referred to as subgrade courtyards, may provide additional opportunities for commercial uses. When carefully designed, these spaces have the potential to provide natural light and open space for commercial tenants. The design, placement and neighborhood context of subgrade courtyards are critical to their success as a positive addition to the street-scape. PA5.1 Subgrade courtyard pedestrian amenity should be at least 30% the required pedestrian amenity. •Subgrade courtyards shall abut a lot line. •Access shall be provided from the street. •Access and circulation are included in the calculation of pedestrian amenity. PA5.2 Subgrade courtyards are not permitted on corner lots, unless located at the rear of the lot. PA5.3 Design of the subgrade courtyard at grade shall reinforce the street edge. •The measurement of a subgrade courtyard along the lot line shall not exceed 30% of the lot width adjacent to the features. •Consider the context of the block when selecting an appropriate technique to define street edge. •A low wall or fence that define the street edge shall allow views into the pedestrian amenity space and be a minimum of 50% transparent. PA5.4 Permanent fixed benches or other pedestrian related elements may be considered to define the street edge. PA5.5 Design meaningful space that is useful, versatile, and accessible. •Consider future outdoor merchandising or restaurant seating when designing the space. •Consult the Land Use Code for allowed elements within setbacks where applicable. PA5.6 Design the subgrade courtyard to maximize solar access. •North facing courtyards are prohibited. PA5.7 All subgrade courtyard spaces shall be open to the sky. •Small seasonal umbrellas or canopies that do not cover the entire space prohibiting views in from the street may be allowed, subject to Planning Staff, HPC or P&Z approval. PA5.8 A subgrade courtyard shall be accessible from the interior of commercial use(s) abutting the pedestrian amenity space. •Integrate clear access to this space into the architecture through interior or exterior corridors. •Limit ramps, stairs and elevators leading to the courtyard. PA5.9 Design wayfinding to the subgrade courtyard space into the architecture. PA5.10 A subgrade courtyard shall be no more than 10’ below the existing grade of the street or sidewalk which abuts the space.Views into a subgrade courtyard are important. Pedestrian Amenity Page 37P59 IV.A. Off-site Pedestrian Amenity PA6 - (All Character Areas) Off-site pedestrian amenity is an option when on-site amenity is not feasible or not appropriate as determined by HPC or P&Z. Off-site amenity must be constructed by the applicant and include improvements equal to or exceeding the cash-in- lieu amount calculated in Land Use Code. A permit is required for modifications within the publicly owned right of way, including planting strips, street trees and sidewalks. In general, the right of way within a given neighborhood should have a consistent design character. Covered walkways are found throughout Aspen’s commercial neighborhoods. Covered walkways introduce a one-story pedestrian scaled element to a building and may be appropriate in specific areas. Coordination with the Engineering Department and Parks Department is required. PA6.1 Off-site improvements shall be located within the block of the subject property. •The proposed design shall not detract from nearby historic resources. •The proposed design shall provide or enhance the streetscape or historic district. •A right of way may be altered to reflect the design of an adjacent building. •Only off-site improvements that are completed beyond minimum Engineering requirements shall qualify as pedestrian amenity. PA6.2 Covered walkways are prohibited in blocks that already have a similar feature. •The final design of these features shall be subject to Engineering Department and Parks Department approval. PA6.3 Additions to the streetscape should enhance the pedestrian experience. PA6.4 At least 50% of the block must meet standard City of Aspen right of way design. Off-site amenity such as benches and tables can enhance the pedestrian experience. Covered walkways can be appropriate in limited locations. Page 38 Commercial Design Guidelines and Standards P60 IV.A. Interior Courtyard Pedestrian Amenity PA7 - (CC, CA, NMU) Interior courtyards offer areas for the public to get out of the weather and enjoy a communal space. Well designed and successful interior courtyards are easy to find by the pedestrian, versatile, large and include communal seating. Interior pedestrian amenity activates and increases presence of smaller commercial spaces that front the courtyard. PA7.1 Design interior courtyards to be versatile. PA7.2 Interior courtyards shall provide access to commercial uses to count as pedestrian amenity. PA7.3 Commercial spaces adjacent to an interior courtyard shall have large storefront windows open to the interior courtyard. PA7.4 Interior courtyards should include communal seating and tables. PA7.5 Incorporate wayfinding into the architecture. PA7.6 Interior corridors or hallways leading to the interior courtyard do not count as pedestrian amenity space. Interior courtyards provide opportunity for additional commercial access. Communal seating can help activate an interior courtyard. Interior courtyards can provide a place to get out of the weather. Pedestrian Amenity Page 39P61 IV.A. Commercial Core Historic District Page 40 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P62 IV.A. History In 1880, based on promising evidence of silver mining potential, two men vied to be the first to officially plat the town and control its early development. Clark Wheeler succeeded by snow-shoeing over Independence Pass from Leadville in February 1880 and named the city Aspen. His Aspen Town and Land Company, with the backing of eastern investors, laid out a 2.5 acre area which is primarily today’s Commercial Core. Initially, growth was hampered by lack of infrastructure to make mining profitable, however this quickly changed within the first five years of development, when better roads into the valley were constructed and telegraph, telephone, water and electrical service were all established. A newcomer, Jerome B. Wheeler, added an all important smelter to process ore. Commercial Core Historic District Improvements must respect the 19th century historic context and development patterns and offer thorough compatible new design that highlights Aspen’s sense of place downtown and small town character. This house, at 302 E. Hopkins, built in 1883 appears to be the oldest frame structure in Aspen. There are seven Victorian era homes left in the Commercial Core.* The Aspen Block, at 303 S. Galena appears to be the oldest masonry building in Aspen, begun in 1886. It was constructed of red brick and featured white sandstone quarried at Maroon Creek. This is reported to be the first cut stone used in Aspen.* Construction boomed and the town had a brick yard, sawmills and lumberyards by the mid 1880’s. Even so, according to the 1886 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps, much of the core was occupied by dwellings, with a limited number of businesses. After several devastating fires affected the downtown, many new buildings were constructed of masonry. Commercial Core Page 41P63 IV.A. By 1887, Aspen was served by railroads and by 1892, the town’s population had increased to 12,000 people, making Aspen the third largest city in the state. Aspen’s most grand, iconic buildings of the period were the Wheeler Opera House built in 1889 at 320 E. Hyman, the Hotel Jerome, built in 1889 at 330 E. Main and the Elk’s Building constructed in 1891 at 210 S. Galena. The Hotel Jerome and the Elk’s Building are primarily red brick, with beautifully carved red sandstone details. The Wheeler Opera House was faced entirely with red sandstone. There were only two other Victorian era stone buildings in Aspen, the Hyman Brand Building at 203 S. Galena and the Cowenhoven block at 501 E. Hyman. While brick and masonry structures are the majority of the A view of the Commercial Core in the 1950s. After the silver crash a number of the original buildings were removed, leaving a sparse landscape downtown.* surviving Victorian commercial buildings in Aspen (25 of the 36 19th century buildings still standing) this is likely due to their substantial construction and may create a misconception that this type of building was the most common in the 1800s. Early Aspen was a very isolated place and its short development heyday before the silver crash prevented it from reaching the potential it might have otherwise seen. The Victorian era material palette was very much locally based and limited, the exception being cast iron storefronts and pressed tin accents that could be delivered by train. These limitations are important facts of Aspen history that should be considered in current choices for development. Most of the historic building fabric of Aspen was modest wood construction. Aspen seen from the Durant Street fire tower in 1908.* Page 42 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P64 IV.A. A view of Aspen in 1981, substantially built up in the ensuing three decades. Victorian era buildings have witnessed over 100 years of Aspen’s exciting history. Car race on Mill Street, 1952.* There is no documentation of any significant construction of new buildings in the Commercial Core from 1893 until the late 1940s, when businesses like the Prospector Lodge (since demolished and rebuilt at 301 E. Hyman) began to appear with the start of the ski resort. In 1974 the City of Aspen made the Commercial Core one of the earliest historic districts in the State. Design review has been undertaken since then to ensure that new construction reflects the history of the town. The premise is that Victorian era buildings guide new building design. This effort must acknowledge the fact that the Victorian landmarks do not comprise the majority of the buildings in the Core today. Many of the buildings in this neighborhood were built in the 1960s through 1980s. Some are significant examples of other eras of architecture, including three AspenModern landmarks which are distinctly different than their 19th century predecessors. They add to the richness of the neighborhood but are limited in number and each are unique. Commercial Core Page 43P65 IV.A. Guido’s Swiss Inn, seen in 1963, has been heavily remodeled but stands at 403 S. Galena, adding to the variety of architecture in the Commercial Core. * A mix of building heights is an important component to the historic character of downtown, and it should be recognized that the area has traditionally featured buildings of a relatively small footprint next to much larger commercial block structures. The most character shaping modern change to the Commercial Core Historic District was the Pedestrian Malls, built in 1976. The Malls claimed entire streets as sidewalks, brought nature into the City, and offered a dynamic contrast between new design philosophies and old 19th century buildings. In the same way, new development can enrich downtown and respect the unique character of Aspen through careful and historically informed design choices. Early additions to the Red Onion,420 E. Cooper, seen in 1958, reflect the modest scale of some periods of development in Aspen. * 119 S. Mill, built in 1956.* Hyman Pedestrian Mall.* Page 44 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P66 IV.A. Progressive urban development is a tradition here. Existing Character The Commercial Core Historic District has strong connection to its 19th century mining heritage, which creates a defined sense of place that resonates with the community and visitors. Almost half of the Commercial Core buildings are designated landmarks, including three AspenModern buildings that reference Aspen’s mid-century renaissance. Substantial Victorian era structures of local masonry and expert craftsmanship indicate a clear pattern of development and reflect that era’s feeling of pride and optimism for the future. The buildings were built to last. Modern architecture woven into the core reflects the post war success of Aspen as a ski resort with international stature. The design of buildings in the Commercial Core should celebrate the historic character. Commercial Core Page 45P67 IV.A. Building Placement A clearly delineated street edge is important within the Commercial Core Historic District because it supports commercial use, pedestrian experience, and aligns with traditional development patterns that set commercial buildings at the front property line. Historically small pockets of open space and setbacks have been throughout the District. Current policies encourage more significant downtown open space, which must be factored carefully into site planning. 2.1 Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk’s edge. •Place as much of a building at the property line as possible to reinforce historic development patterns. •A minimum of 50% of the first floor building façade shall be at the property line. This requirement may be varied by the Historic Preservation Commission based on historic context or in order to accommodate pedestrian amenity (See Pedestrian Amenity Chapter). •A minimum of 70% of the first floor building facade shall be at the property line for properties on a pedestrian mall. 2.2 Consider a 45-degree chamfer for corner lots where appropriate. •Analyze all four corners of the intersection for compatibility. •A primary entrance into the building should be through the chamfered corner.The chamfer corner of the Wheeler Opera House. In the Commercial Core the buildings typically define the lot line at the street and alley. Page 46 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P68 IV.A. The three story Hotel Jerome is an iconic 19th century building. The hierarchy of the first floor storefront design is a common and successful design element. Originally a residence, this historic cabin has an addition, which serves its commercial use. Architecture The buildings which define the desired characteristics of the Commercial Core Historic District were built within a 10-year period between 1883 – 1893. Usually between one to three stories in height, these late 19th century commercial buildings are divided into two distinct bands. The first floor is commonly transparent for the display of retail goods and to invite pedestrian in, while the upper stories have smaller windows and are usually reserved for more private spaces such as a residential or office space. With the introduction of cast-iron storefronts, the weight of second and third stories of these Victorian commercial structures was able to be carried over larger expanses of glass on the first floor. No new construction occurred for more than 50 years after 1893. This development gap is unique and important to local history. This distinction should not be blurred by the introduction of architectural references which are not part of Aspen’s heritage. Imitation faux- Victorian architecture and unrelated contemporary architecture are inappropriate in the Commercial Core Historic District. Appropriate new buildings or additions balance differentiation and compatibility with an emphasis on the later. Tipping the scale toward differentiation by introducing contrasting styles or statement buildings within the historic district leads to the gradual erosion of historic character and sense of place. More than relating to context with a flat roof or a tall commercial storefront, compatible buildings share common fundamental elements of architecture: spatial relationships, hierarchy, proportion, details, materials, texture, rhythm and character. The focus should be more on supporting a sense of place rather than creating a stylistic statement. The goal is not boring new architecture: development which is creative, responsible, simple, elegant communicative and familiar is desired. Commercial Core Page 47P69 IV.A. Development should be sensitive to single story historic structures. Punched openings on upper floors are common. 2.3 Development should be inspired by traditional late 19th century commercial buildings to reinforce continuity in architectural language within the Historic District. Consider the following design elements: form, materials, and fenestration. Pick two areas to relate strongly to the context. •When relating to materials, use traditional application of materials commonly found in the Historic District such as brick and stone and use similar texture and color to historic context. •When relating to fenestration, large vertical windows on the ground level and punched vertical openings on upper levels, with a similar solid to void ratio, are appropriate. •When relating to form, note that rectangular forms are predominant with limited projecting or setback elements. Most roofs are flat but gables are present. Pedestrian experiences are varied and should always be considered. Page 48 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P70 IV.A. Remodels can enhance pedestrian experience. Building Proportion, Scale, Height and Width A variety of building heights and widths in the Commercial Core Historic District is desirable. The original town site lots are 30 feet by 100 feet in size. Historically, building widths downtown were as small at 15 feet and as large as 90 feet. Today, where large properties are being developed, the design should break up a building into modules which reinforce the smaller scaled buildings of the 19th century. 2.4 Respect adjacent iconic historic structures. •Development near historic landmarks may use pedestrian amenity design as a transition or buffer to highlight the importance of adjacent historic structures. •Use simple architectural details, materials and massing that do not detract from nearby historic landmarks. 2.5 The massing and proportions of a new building or addition should respond to the historic context. •Two story buildings are encouraged. On larger buildings creating a one story element within the composition is appropriate and consistent with the historic pattern of the district. •Building modules or individual features should generally be tall and narrow in proportion. 2.6 One story buildings on lots of more than 6,000 square feet are discouraged. •This guideline includes buildings that read as “one story” from the street and have a significant second floor setback. •Evaluation of appropriateness shall be based on existing context and how the building fits into the streetscape. Impact on historic character of the Historic District, impact on adjacent landmarks, and other restrictions such as viewplanes will also be considered. The scale of additions should respond to the historic context. A traditional 19th century commercial building. Commercial Core Page 49P71 IV.A. 2.7 Buildings on lots larger than 6,000 square feet shall incorporate architectural features that break up the mass. 2.8 Composition of the façade, including choices related to symmetry and asymmetry, should reflect the close readings of patterns established by the 19th century structures. •The pattern of widths of the lots varies from 20’-30’. Varieties of building widths are preferred. •Provide historic precedent using historic maps and adjacent landmarks to determine appropriate building width, height and form. Photographs, dimensional drawings, figure ground diagrams, are all examples of tools used to illustrate precedent. •Align architectural details and features similar to the surrounding context. Articulation of building materials can break up mass. There are many historic references for material, symmetry and asymmetry in Aspen. Reference to historic lot width is preferred. Page 50 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P72 IV.A. Flat roof forms are characteristic of the area. A centered, recessed primary entrance has clear hierarchy. Some historic structures have pitched roof forms. First Floor A rhythm of recessed entryways and tall commercial storefronts is integral to the character of Aspen’s Commercial Core Historic District. The repetition of these features along the street contribute to a stimulating pedestrian experience, downtown vitality, and human scale. First floor storefronts that are taller than upper levels help to reinforce the traditional appearance. Entrances facing both the primary and secondary streets add vitality to the streetscape and create versatile commercial spaces with the potential to be divided into smaller spaces in the future. 2.9 Recessed entries are required. •Set a primary entrance back from the front façade a minimum of 4 feet. •Alternative options that define an entry and reinforce the rhythm of recessed entryways may be considered. •For corner lots, primary entries must face front lot line as determined by the Land Use Code and/or be located in the chamfered corner where applicable. 2.10 Secondary recessed entrances are required on the secondary street for corner lots and on buildings on lots larger than 6,000 square feet. Commercial Core Page 51P73 IV.A. Window design has an influence on architectural expression. Photo credit: Brent Moss Photography Storefront proportions are important for the pedestrian experience. Window rhythm is important for retail storefronts. 2.11 Maintain a floor to ceiling height of 12’-0” to 15’-0” feet for all commercial storefronts. •The ability to vary this requirement shall be based on demonstration of historic precedent amongst adjacent landmarks. Storefronts should be taller than the upper floors. •The floor to ceiling height may be dropped to 9’ after the first 25’ of building length from a street facing facade. 2.12 Maintain distinction between the street level and upper floors. •Maintain traditional hierarchy of floors, with the first floor, floor to ceiling height, being greater than upper floors. •Minimum floor to ceiling height shall be 9’ for the second floor. 2.13 Street level commercial storefronts should be predominately transparent glass. •Window design including the presence or absence of mullions has a significant influence on architectural expression. Avoid windows which suggest historic styles or building types which are not part of Aspen’s story. Page 52 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P74 IV.A. Details and Materials As 19th century commercial construction evolved, the amount of ornamentation and high style influences evolved as well. Cornice and mid-belt moldings became more prominent, more elaborate window and door openings were used and much of the facade was covered with varying degrees of applied ornamentation. Architectural details and material selection for new buildings or remodels are paramount to a successful and contextual building within the Commercial Core Historic District. While it is inappropriate to mimic historic details because it creates a false sense of history, subtle reference to 19th century commercial details may be appropriate. Materials should reflect those found within the Commercial Core Historic District: unpainted brick, textured large pieces of locally sourced sandstone, and painted wood. Painted metal details are found on some historic landmarks. 2.14 Architectural details should reinforce historic context and meet at least two of the following qualities: •Color or finish traditionally found downtown. •Texture to create visual interest, especially for larger buildings. •Traditional material: Primary materials are brick and stone, secondary materials are typically metal and wood. •Traditional application: for example, a running bond for masonry. •Use the cornice or parapet as the railing to block views into roof space. •Larger setbacks may be required. Unpainted brick is an appropriate building material. Cornice and mid-belt moldings were a prominent detail in 19th century design. Historic buildings create a unique context for visitors to Aspen. Commercial Core Page 53P75 IV.A. Main Street Historic District Page 54 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P76 IV.A. Main Street Historic District Preserve the residential scale of the neighborhood and the character of the landscaping including generous front yards, low fences, mature trees and irrigation ditches. A typical miner’s cottage at 208 E. Main. * A Victorian brick structure, at 201 E. Main, covered in stucco in the 1940s.* 128 E. Main, built in 1890 by Jack Atkinson, an early prospector who made his fortune after locating the Little Annie and Midnight Mines. The Atkinson family also owned the brickyard that supplied the material for this home.* History Initially, development in Aspen was located in close proximity to the core of town and the mines. Development along Main Street was sparse until the mid 1880s, when homes began to line the street. The creation of a horse drawn street-car line in 1889 contributed to the spread of construction along Main Street and into the West End. Some of the largest Victorian era homes in Aspen were built here between 1888 and 1893. These highly visible and ornate buildings housed some of the families who prospered the most from silver mining. Main Street Historic District Page 55P77 IV.A. The 300s block of Main Street in 1890.* Alleys feature small scale historic sheds.* Looking east on Main Street in 1925.* From its beginnings, Main Street from 7th Street to Monarch was almost entirely residential. The majority of the buildings were one story “miner’s cottages,” with only a handful of other uses, mixed in, such as churches and a grocery store. Buildings were primarily wood frame with gable roofs, though examples of false front buildings and flat roofed brick structures from the Victorian period appeared as well. One of the most beloved characteristics of Main Street is its design as a wide boulevard lined with cottonwoods. Ditch companies began to be formed in the City in the early 1880s to bring water into the townsite. Small trees were relocated from the banks of local streams, and planted in orderly rows. Though these trees did not reach maturity during the mining era, Main Street, for much of its history, has had a soft edge, grand trees and clearly residential character, with landscaped front yards and low fences surrounding many properties. Another reflection of Main Street’s early development can be seen in the alleys, some of which feature small scale historic sheds, carriage houses and garages. Many of the alleys in this area are unpaved. No roads in Aspen were paved until the early 1960s. Page 56 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P78 IV.A. Lodging at 435 W. Main Street, c. 1930s.* The original Aspen Public Library at 120 E. Main.* Winterskol parade, 1991.* More than 50% of the lots in this character area contain Victorian era structures, which was the justification for naming Main Street a historic district in 1976. There are other important structures in this neighborhood. For instance, starting in the 1930s, development of lodging occurred along Main Street, first as small scale cabins and then as larger motels. Most of those that remain are small lodges and reviewed as a separate character area. Modernism is also found on Main Street, for instance the original public library designed by Fritz Benedict and built at 120 E. Main in 1960. Though these buildings tell Aspen’s story, they are generally one of a kind and do not form a pattern for the neighborhood.. Main Street is Aspen’s front porch and the first impression as one enters town. It is the setting for races, parades, and banners announcing community events. Though the area is affected by vehicular traffic more so today than in the past, the historic scale and architectural character still reinforce that Aspen is a small city. Car racing on Main Street, 1953.* Main Street Historic District Page 57P79 IV.A. 320 W. Main Street 430 W. Main Street. Existing Character For many, Main Street is the first impression of Aspen. It is a snapshot of Aspen’s history. The rhythm of mature cottonwoods, ditches and sidewalks, and generous yards with one and two story Victorian buildings strongly convey Aspen’s mining heritage. Small lodges are mixed within the District along with modernist architecture. More than half of the buildings in the Main Street Historic District are designated landmarks. Preservation of the context of historic Main Street is vital to the designated landmarks and to Aspen’s small town character. The majority of Main Street is 19th century residential buildings with gable roof forms. Painted wood siding, simple picket fences, and perpendicular walkways to porches are character defining features among the Victorians. As Main Street approaches downtown, the residential feel gradually transitions into commercial character with smaller yards, and a greater intensity of uses. New buildings and remodels should reflect these characteristics. Because most properties in the district are landmarked or fall into the Small Lodge Character Area, there are few opportunities for new buildings in the Character Area. Main Street Historic District is defined by Victorian style architecture. The following Design Standards and Guideline apply to all properties subject to Commercial Design Review and located within the Main Street Historic District with the exception of small lodges. Small Lodges within the Main Street Historic District are subject to the Small Lodge Chapter. Historic Landmark properties are also subject to the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Page 58 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P80 IV.A. Building Placement Aspen’s Victorian era buildings are parallel to the lot lines, with the primary entrance facing the street. This helps establish the pedestrian friendly quality associated with the Main Street Historic District. For many blocks within the Main Street Historic District, front yards are similar in depth, resulting in a relatively uniform alignment of building fronts which contributes to the sense of visual continuity. Maintaining the established range of setbacks, including side yards, is important to maintaining that continuity. 3.1 Orient a new building or addition to the street. •All buildings should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern. •Generally, do not set a structure forward of any historic resources within the block. Alignment of front setbacks is preferred. An exception may be made on a corner lot. Building placement varies from one end of Main Street to another. Primary entrances should face the street. Main Street Historic District Page 59P81 IV.A. Architecture Imitation faux- Victorian architecture and unrelated contemporary architecture are inappropriate in the Main Street Historic District. Appropriate new buildings or remodels balance differentiation and compatibility with an emphasis on the later. Tipping the scale toward differentiation by introducing contrasting styles or statement buildings within a historic district leads to the gradual erosion of historic character and sense of place. More than relating to context with a gable roof form, compatible buildings should share common fundamental elements of architecture: spatial relationships, hierarchy, proportion, details, materials, texture, rhythm and character. Most historic buildings in Aspen are composed of simple forms – a simple rectangular solid with a gable is typical. In some cases, a building consists of a combination of simple forms. A new building within the Main Street Historic District should respect these traditions. 3.2 Design a new structure to be recognized as a product of its time. •Consider these three aspects of a new building; form, materials, and fenestration. A project must relate strongly to the historic district in at least two of these elements. Departing from one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. •When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic district. •When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically in the district and use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale •When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size and shape to those in the historic district. 3.3 The imitation of older historic styles blurs the distinction between old and new buildings and is discouraged. •Overall, details shall be modest in character. Front yards and gardens are prevalent along Main Street. Front porches are a traditional way to create a transition from public to private. Building materials are typically painted wood or brick. Page 60 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P82 IV.A. Building Proportion, Scale, Height and Width More than half of the properties within the Main Street Historic District are designated 19th Century landmarks that are one to two stories and 1,000 to 2,200 square feet in size. The maximum perceived mass of new buildings or remodels within the Main Street Historic District should reflect this character by creating detached buildings on a property or through one building that is clearly broken up into distinguishable modules using connecting elements, material changes, or roof forms, for example. 3.4 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with the historic buildings in the district. •Subdivide larger masses into smaller modules that are similar in size to the historic buildings in the district. •Reflect the heights and proportions that characterize the historic district. •Use secondary structures to break up mass of buildings. These are most appropriate along alleyways. Roof forms shall be in character with surrounding historic buildings. The perception of mass can change with the material used. Maintain relationships of scale and setbacks. Main Street Historic District Page 61P83 IV.A. 3.5 Roof forms should be in character with surrounding historic buildings. •Roof forms should be simple. •Roof forms should not compete with surrounding historic buildings and should not dominate the street. •If applicable, gable ends should be oriented toward the street. •Carefully consider roof eaves, orientation of ridgelines, roof pitch, dormer and other features as a way to either create compatibility or differentiate a new building or addition. 3.6 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to historic buildings in the district. •The primary plane of the front elevation shall not appear taller than historic structures. 3.7 Clearly define the primary entrance to a new building with a front porch or similar feature. •The front porch shall be functional, and used as the means of access to the front door. •A new porch must be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. 3.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. •An addition that is lower, or similar in height to the existing building, is preferred. 3.9 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments on the street. •Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings may align at approximately the same height. •An addition cannot be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured. •Detach building mass along alleyways, similar to traditional shed development. New buildings should appear similar in scale to historic buildings in the district. The Mesa Store building is an example of a false storefront. Front elevations are typically residential in form and articulation. Page 62 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P84 IV.A. Details and Materials Wood and brick are the primary building materials found on Victorian era buildings within the Main Street Historic District. It is important to maintain consistency in material palette throughout the Main Street Historic District. Carefully consider existing material colors, finishes and textures within the block before selecting materials. Study the typical placement and character of architectural details. 3.10 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the Victorian era residences seen traditionally on Main Street. •These include windows, doors and porches. •Overall, details should be modest in character. 3.11 Architectural details should reinforce the historic context of the block. •It is inappropriate to imitate historic details. Consider how detailing can be used to create relationships between new and old buildings while still allowing for current architectural expression. 3.12 Primary materials should be wood or brick. •Alternate primary materials may be considered on a case by case basis depending on the historic context of the block. 3.13 Secondary materials should relate to the historic context. •More variety is acceptable for secondary materials if a relationship to the historic palette can be demonstrated. •Stone is limited to the foundation. 3.14 Use roofing materials that are similar in appearance to those seen historically. New construction can be referential without copying historic details. Painted wood mixed with natural wood is appropriate. Main Street Historic District Page 63P85 IV.A. Page 64 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P86 IV.A. Commercial Area Commercial Area Page 65P87 IV.A. Patricia Moore’s art gallery and residence at 610 E. Hyman, designed by Ellie Brickham, as seen in 1966. Photo courtesy Denver Public Library. History The Commercial Character Area was primarily occupied by a mix of miner’s cottages and commercial spaces during the Victorian period. No Victorian era commercial buildings remain in this neighborhood today. Instead, the commercial architecture in these blocks is predominantly 1950s and 60s Modernist structures, many of which served as the informal headquarters for the artist community and counter culture of the day. Personalities central to this time and place like artist and architect Tom Benton, writer Hunter S. Thompson, architect Ellie Brickham, and gallery owner Patricia Moore created an environment of residential, commercial, and cultural spaces distinct from more traditional Aspen architectural forms. Commercial Area An extension of the Commercial Core Historic District with an emphasis on pedestrian walk- ability and a balanced mix of traditional and modern architecture. A composition of moss rock, exposed concrete beams and wood siding at the entrance to the Steak Pit restaurant, in the City Market building, 1965. Since remodeled.* Page 66 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P88 IV.A. Aspen Square, a mix of shops and lodge units.* The Spring building at Hopkins and Spring Street. Tom Benton’s Crandall building with redwood siding and unpainted concrete block, 1969. Photo courtesy X. A new Aspen Post Office, built in 1960 at Hyman and Spring, and City Market, Aspen’s first chain grocery store built at 711 E. Cooper in 1967 fulfilled the practical needs of residents while also contributing to the new neighborhood aesthetic and activity level. Benton’s 1969 Crandall Building at 630 E. Hyman reflects this dynamic era as well. On a larger scale, Fritz Benedict’s Aspen Square at 617 E. Cooper, built in 1969, introduced a commercial lodge with balconies and an arcade surrounding the buildings which occupy an entire city block. Many of these still existing commercial buildings, including Alpine Bank, built at 600 E. Hopkins in 1973, used moss rock, highly textured brick, heavy timbers, and other organic materials to merge modern architecture with a local material palette. Recent redevelopment projects like the Aspen Art Museum, at 637 E. Hyman in 2014 and the Spring Building at 119 S. Spring in 2013 are once again enlivening the Commercial Character Area in the introduction of new architectural expressions. Commercial Area Page 67P89 IV.A. Existing Character The Commercial Area is an extension of the Commercial Core Historic District: two and three story, flat roofed buildings with storefronts are prominent. Open space in the form of front yard setbacks and subgrade courtyards along with zero lot line development add variety to the neighborhood. This neighborhood is defined by AspenModern properties as well as 19th century historic landmarks. Flexibility in design compared to the adjacent Commercial Core Historic District design guidelines is evident in the range of architecture and site design. While some properties are completely residential, the overall character of the district is commercial. Pedestrian amenities of Aspen Art Museum. The area is characterized by a more urban design. Patricia Moore’s studio today. Page 68 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P90 IV.A. Building Placement There is a transition from the traditional commercial buildings found in the Commercial Core Historic District to the Commercial Character Area, where historic landmarks are not as prominent. New development should reinforce commercial character by reflecting some of the traditions of 19th century commercial buildings with an emphasis on pedestrian experience creative design solutions, architectural diversity, and well-planned open space. Building placement should respond to the existing context. 4.1 Properties adjacent to the Commercial Core Historic District require careful consideration when siting a new building. •A narrow range of setbacks, or no setback, may be appropriate for properties closest to the Commercial Core Historic District. Development should reinforce commercial character while reinforcing pedestrian experiences. Pedestrian experience can drive a relationship to the street. Commercial Area Page 69P91 IV.A. Architecture Architecture in this neighborhood should promote versatile commercial spaces and maintain a balanced mix of traditional and modern architecture that references the Commercial Core Historic District and encourages creative design solutions. This balance is especially important for properties that are adjacent to the Historic District where a sensitive transition from the historic context is desired. Two story flat roofed buildings are appropriate in this neighborhood as long as there is height variation between buildings to prevent a continuous cornice line that appears as one massive building. Similar roof forms and overall building shape will create cohesion within the neighborhood which is important to establish a sense of place within the Commercial Character Area. Flat roofs are prominent within this neighborhood relate to the adjacent Historic District and can encourage creative roofscape design - adding visual interest in town as viewed from Aspen Mountain, Smuggler Mountain, or Red Mountain. The area is home to some AspenModern designs. This design offers a flat roof broken up by a varied silhouette. Outdoor spaces can enhance the architecture. Page 70 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P92 IV.A. This entrance emphasizes verticality though the use of proportion This building uses its form to define the difference between street and upper levels. Flat roofs are a defining a characteristic of the area. 4.2 Variations on traditional 19th century commercial design are encouraged. •Design solutions should reference some traditional commercial characteristics: these include tall storefront windows, defined entries, and smaller windows on upper levels. •Creative interpretations of 19th century design is recommended. •Design should support but not imitate historic architecture. •Properties adjacent to an AspenModern landmark may relate to, but not mimic the AspenModern architecture rather than traditional 19th century commercial design. This may be considered on a case by case basis considering the context of the block. 4.3 Two story buildings are appropriate. •Vertical proportions should be emphasized through scale, as well as architectural details and features such as windows, materials, and floor to ceiling heights. 4.4 Maintain a minimum floor to ceiling height of 10’ for the first floor. •The floor to ceiling height may be dropped to 9’ after the first 25’ of building length from a street facing facade. 4.5 Maintain distinction between the street level and upper floors to reinforce 19th century commercial traditions. •The first floor should be the tallest floor in the building. •Minimum floor to ceiling height shall be 9’ for the second floor. •Express the traditional distinction between floor levels through architectural details. For example: detailing, materials, belt course, and/ or fenestration may be appropriate tools to differentiate between floors. 4.6 Flat roof forms are appropriate and reinforce the commercial nature of the neighborhood. •Other roof forms may be considered on a case by case basis depending on the context of the block, adjacent historic landmarks, and other restrictions such as viewplanes. Commercial Area Page 71P93 IV.A. The material selection here is more flexible than in the historic areas of the city Material articulation can take many forms in this neighborhood. Traditional materials help eclectic buildings have a relationship with historic structures. Details and Materials Ground floor elements should be related to commercial character through storefront design and street level open space, rather than through more residential based features such as front porches or small street level windows. Building materials in the Commercial Character Area consist of mostly brick, masonry, metal and wood. There are some examples of less familiar, trendy materials. While material selection in this character area is more flexible than the Commercial Core Historic District, materials should be subtle and applied using traditional techniques. 4.7 Large storefronts are recommended on the ground level. •If large storefronts are not used, ground level details should reinforce the commercial character. 4.8 If non-traditional materials are used, they should be subtle in appearance and location and applied using traditional techniques. Page 72 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P94 IV.A. Commercial Area Page 73P95 IV.A. Neighborhood Mixed Use Page 74 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P96 IV.A. Hannah Dustin building, 1969 Aspen Athletic Club, 1976 Neighborhood Mixed Use A distinct transition from commercial to residential character with an emphasis on pedestrian walkability, front yards, and smaller scale architecture. History of the neighborhood This character area bookends downtown along the east and west. The area to the east of Spring Street, with a few notable exceptions, has throughout its history been primarily defined by residential use, especially in the Victorian period, when the blocks were filled with small houses. A handful of business structures and a large planing mill needed to supply the fast paced development of town taking during that time did exist here, but none of the early structures remain today. Like the Commercial Character Area, modern architecture of the 1960s and 70s appeared in this neighborhood and remains influential today, particularly commercial buildings like the Aspen Athletic Club at 720 E. Hyman, designed by Frank Lloyd Wright student Robin Molny in 1976, and the 1969 Hannah Dustin building at 300 S. Spring, designed by Heneghan and Gale, architects of the iconic Prince of Peace church at the roundabout. In both cases, heavy timber framing, brick, and glass curtain walls were chosen for the buildings, which also feature tall atrium lobbies to let in plenty of natural light. Today, beyond these important exceptions, this segment is predominantly defined by multi-family (both affordable and free-market) residential development. Neighborhood Mixed Use Page 75P97 IV.A. The western segment of this character area, west of Monarch Street, was predominantly residential during the Victorian period. Three landmarked residences from the Victorian period continue to provide reflection of this history. As seen in the photo at right, taken circa early 1950s and with the character area highlighted, many buildings disappeared during the Quiet Years following the silver crash. This persisted until the development of several small lodges in the 1960s. Examples include the Edelweiss cabins, which were replaced in the 1980s with the notable Hotel Lenado, designed by Harry Teague and reflecting a balance of new architectural ideas and Aspen personality. Edelweiss Lodge.*405 South Monarch Street Lift 1 with the Neighborhood Mixed Use West highlighted.* Page 76 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P98 IV.A. This neighborhood was home for twenty five years to celebrated blacksmith Francis Whitaker, who worked out of the Mountain Forge at 230 E. Hopkins. Whitaker was so influential as an artist and teacher that the National Education Association named him a National Heritage Fellow. The large public park at Hopkins and Monarch is named in his honor. In recent years, some of the remaining small lodges in the area have been replaced. The original Limelight lodge, built in the early 50s was replaced with a new, much larger hotel in 2007. Similarly, Dancing Bear replaced the modest Aspen Court Lodge in 2008. Francis Whitaker’s studio seen in 1965.* Original Limelight lodge. New Limelight lodge.The Dancing Bear replaced the Aspen Court Lodge. Neighborhood Mixed Use Page 77P99 IV.A. Increased open space on the site is important as the scale transitions from commercial to residential. Front yard setbacks should be provided. Material selection in this character area is more flexible. Building Placement In order to reinforce the residential character of the neighborhood, front yard setbacks are appropriate and, often required by the assigned Zone District. Increased open space around a building is important to a successful transition from this neighborhood to the adjacent residential neighborhoods. It is equally important to create versatile open space, not just landscaping, that can be used by commercial businesses. 5.1 Incorporate open space into building placement and site design. •Consider a transparent fence to define the street edge. •Soft and informal landscape design is encouraged. •Useful open space that supports a variety of uses is recommended. 5.2 A front yard setback should be provided. 5.3 The building entry should be easily seen from the street. Existing Character The Neighborhood Mixed Use character area is largely residential with a mix of office and service uses interspersed. A variety of sloped roof forms and more open building placement is found in this neighborhood creating a predominate residential character that is clearly distinguished from the Commercial Area. This is the only Character Area that is divided into two locations. There are two separate Neighborhood Mixed Use Areas (NMU): NMU East is to the east of the Commercial Character Area and contains mostly two story residential buildings with fences defining front yards; NMU West is to the west of the Commercial Core Character Area and contains a more diverse range of heights, building sizes, and a mix of uses including large lodge buildings, residential, office and service uses. Page 78 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P100 IV.A. Architecture There are a variety of building types built during different eras for a variety of uses. The predominate use within both the east and west neighborhoods is large multi-family residential buildings. There are only a handful of mixed use buildings and lodge buildings that contribute some variety in architecture and intensity of use to the neighborhood. The only two mixed use buildings in the east neighborhood – 720 East Hyman Ave. and 300 South Spring Street - were designed by important mid-century architects, the former being a designated AspenModern landmark. Architecture in this neighborhood should support the existing residential character by introducing smaller scaled buildings with street level open space. Roof form and overall building shape can create cohesion within a neighborhood: look at neighborhood context for appropriate design. A variety of roof forms, with an emphasis on gable or pitched slopes, that are native to Aspen are appropriate in this neighborhood. 5.3 Gable or pitched roof forms are appropriate, historically found in Aspen, and reinforce the residential character of the neighborhood. •Other roof forms, such as flat roofs, may be considered on a case by case basis depending on the context of the block, adjacency to historic landmarks, and other restrictions such as viewplanes. Architecture should support the existing residential character. Variety of setbacks is encouraged. Neighborhood Mixed Use Page 79P101 IV.A. Page 80 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P102 IV.A. Mountain Base Page 81 P103 IV.A. Mountain Base History of the Neighborhood In the Victorian era, Aspen was the largest silver producer in the country, providing 1/16th of all the silver in the world. Most of the mining activity took place in this neighborhood, on Aspen Mountain. After the crash of the mining industry and a long period of halted development and economic growth, Aspen was a relic of its former self. In 1936, hope returned after Swiss mountaineer Andre Roch surveyed the area to study the potential for the new recreational sport of skiing. By 1938 Roch’s Run was cut and the Boat Tow, two wooden toboggans hoisted with old mining equipment and a Model A engine, pulled four people at a time 600 feet up the hill to ski. World War II brought the momentum of this endeavor to a stop, until 1945, when Walter Paepcke, a visionary businessman from Chicago visited Aspen and saw the possibilities for a utopian community nurturing the mind and body. In 1946 the Aspen Skiing Company was founded by Paepcke, and Lift 1, then the longest chairlift in the world opened in 1947, with it’s base on Aspen Street. Enhance connection between built environment and mountain topography, provide mountain access, maintain mountain vernacular character, and improve pedestrian experience. The neighborhood as seen in the 1893 Bird’s Eye View of Aspen. The north side of Durant was lined with commercial structures and public buildings such as City Hall and the fire tower. Mining structures and many small homes sat on the base of the hill. Only one residence remains from this era. Page 82 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P104 IV.A. Ski lodges began to be built in the vicinity, starting with Norway Lodge in 1949 and followed by a series of buildings modeled after the European Chalet style characterized by gabled roofs, decorative carvings and moldings, and balconies. Buildings like the Mountain Chalet at 333 E. Durant Avenue, begun in 1954, and the Skiers Chalet lodges at 710 S. Aspen Street and 233 Gilbert Street, begun in 1955, provided an appropriate imagery to the new resort. A number of residential developments, such as Alpenblick at 711 S. Galena Street, 1965, adopted this style as well. Shadow Mountain Condominiums at 809 S. Aspen, 1965, melded chalet and modern elements to create an architecturally striking complex at the upper edge of the neighborhood. Shadow Mountain Chalet.* The base of Aspen Mountain, picturing remaining mining structures and homes in 1923.* Mountain Chalet. * Skiers Chalet.* Mountain Base Page 83P105 IV.A. Fasching Haus in 1970.* The Tipple Inn, seen in 1966.* The Little Nell as of today.* The Little Nell ski run was accessed by a T-bar starting in the 1950s, which was soon replaced with a chairlift. A modest base lodge was in this location, and with the construction of the gondola and the current Little Nell hotel in the mid 80s, the energy of the ski era shifted significantly from the Lift 1/ Aspen Street side of the hill to Galena and Durant. Upcoming redevelopment along Aspen Street along with lift upgrades is expected to restore a balance between the two portals to the mountain. Other architectural influences on the built environment in this neighborhood have included the previous mining structures, as reflected in the Tipple Inn, built in 1956 and since demolished. Wrightian architecture also characterizes the area in examples like the Fasching Haus at 747 S. Galena, designed by Ted Mularz and built in 1966 and the North of Nell condominiums, 555 E. Durant, designed by Taliesen trained firm Erickson and Stevens in 1965. The original Little Nell lodge.* Page 84 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P106 IV.A. Ritz Carlton, now St. Regis, built in the 1980’s. Photo courtesy X. Perhaps more than anyone else, Fritz Benedict, who studied with Frank Lloyd Wright and became Aspen’s first resident architect in 1945, left a lasting influence on this neighborhood with the Aspen Alps, a complex of lodge condominiums set on 7 ½ acres at the base of the mountain, with ski in ski out access. Benedict was a pioneer in the design of ski areas and favored timber, bricks, and stone, all in neutral colors, setting his low slung buildings into the landscape. All of the forces described above contribute to the character of the Mountain Base neighborhood. Along Durant Avenue, this is a highly activated pedestrian environment. As one moves up the hill the sense of transitioning into an alpine area, separated from the town below increases. In this neighborhood, architectural context, nature, topography, and the visibility of buildings from far away vantage points are all important considerations. As illustration of the thoughtful design necessary here in particular, the late 1980s construction of the Ritz Carleton, now St. Regis, a 300 room hotel fronting Dean Street required several redesigns and was highly controversial, reflecting the community’s goal that large scale new construction be a good fit for the City. Aspen Alps, seen in 1980.* Mountain Base Page 85P107 IV.A. Building Placement This neighborhood has significant steep slopes that do not encourage pedestrian traffic and create challenging sites for new development. The pedestrian experience can be greatly improved by design that encourages walkability, accessibility and minimizes retaining walls when placing a building on the mountain. Site the building into the topography and carefully plan parking areas and loading zones to minimize visual impacts. The location of this neighborhood on the mountain means a certain level of visibility from downtown that should be carefully considered when siting a building. 6.1 On lots greater than 15,000 square feet, the massing of the building shall be broken into smaller volumes. 6.2 Place a building into the topography to minimize visual impacts from downtown and to reinforce a strong relationship to the mountain. •Consider mountain access when siting a building. •Emphasize horizontal elements to blend the building into the topography. •Consider a stepped building to minimize visual impacts and allow points of entry to be at natural grade. In the Mountain Base, streets give way to ski runs. Existing Character Originally the site of early mining operations, this neighborhood is primarily residential and lodge uses. The connection between properties and the townsite grid is eroded in this neighborhood due to the steep topography and the elimination of alleyways. Traditional block sizes, street pattern and traditional building orientation diminish as the streets approach Aspen Mountain. Open space is generally internalized within a development in the form of a pool area or in the form of a large surface parking area facing the street. A mix of mountain vernacular styles is characteristic of the area and an important feature to preserve. Page 86 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P108 IV.A. The Skiers Chalet, built in 1955. 6.3 Minimize retaining walls where possible by siting building into the topography. •When retaining walls are necessary, integrate into architecture. 6.4 Incorporate open space into building placement and site design. •Create views through the property to the mountain slopes to strengthen mountain connection to the neighborhood and pedestrian experience. 6.5 Eclectic and creative approaches to break up building mass and scale is encouraged. •Consider separate buildings on a property or linked exterior walkways instead of internal corridors. 6.6 Create interest along the street, for instance by providing places for the public to sit. Shadow Mountain Condominiums, built in 1965. Mountain Base Page 87P109 IV.A. Easily identifiable architectural details are encouraged. Architecture A mix of architectural styles that respond to the mountain topography define this neighborhood and allow visitors to locate their lodging. It is important that buildings within this neighborhood respond to the steep slopes, but equally important is a variety of building styles, types and eras. 6.7 Roof forms should be low pitched to reinforce the mountain character of the neighborhood. •Other roof forms may be considered on a case by case basis depending on the context of the block, adjacent historic landmarks, and other restrictions such as viewplanes. •Flat roofs are more appropriate for decks and locating mechanical equipment. Details and Materials: Similar to the range of architectural styles, there is a mix of materials and details. Many of the buildings within this neighborhood have been renovated in the past 10 years with new materials, windows and details. A wide range of materials and architectural details are appropriate in this eclectic neighborhood. 6.8 Easily identifiable architectural details are encouraged. •Character defining details, are recommended to engage the pedestrian, to promote variety of architecture, and to aid in wayfinding. A mix of architectural styles is found in Mountain Base. Stone as a base material is appropriate. Page 88 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P110 IV.A. Mountain Base Page 89P111 IV.A. River Approach Page 90 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P112 IV.A. History The River Approach Character Area has historically functioned as an industrial zone. In the 19th century this was the location of the Denver and Rio Grande railroad station, a hydro-electric plant, foundry, brewery and various mining functions. In 1963, freight hauling on this leg of the DR&G came to end and a number of small businesses began to operate in the area, forming an industrial park providing services from vacuum and car repair to construction materials to ski tuning to Sport Obermeyer’s manufacturing warehouse, all housed in very modest structures. The area was zoned as “Service, Commercial, Industrial” to protect some of the uses that could potentially be pushed out by higher rent occupants if they were permitted. The connection to the river and the natural environment in this area became increasingly appreciated in the late 60s. The railroad right of way was re-purposed as a trail. In 1968 the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies (ACES) was established and in 1977 a master plan was adopted for the City owned Rio Grande property, leading to the creation of playing fields, trails, open space, and the home of cultural organizations such as Theater in the Park and the former Aspen Art Museum location. Denver and Rio Grande Station, 1947.* Promote walkability, permeability in architecture, connections to the river and natural environment, and innovative new architectural design and technology. River Approach A walking platform created on top of an abandoned railroad bridge over Hunter Creek, 1972.* River Approach Page 91P113 IV.A. The construction of North Mill Station in the 1970s and the 1980s relocation of the Aspen Post Office from downtown to Puppy Smith Street increased activity in this part of town. An influx of arts oriented businesses starting in the 1980s led to some adaptations to existing buildings which reflected the creativity of the tenants and a “messy vitality” that became a catchword in the 1990s for describing the desired character of Aspen as a whole. Most recently, in 2006, the Obermeyer family undertook a substantial redevelopment which retained many of the long time businesses that had operated on their property, and added the largest pocket of residential development in the area. Service oriented businesses were accommodated in Obermeyer Place, 601 Rio Grande Place. Need photo permission. The entry to an architecture firm, added to this 60s era warehouse in the 90s, 412 N. Mill Street. Aspen Post Office, 235 Puppy Smith Street, built in 1980.* Page 92 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P114 IV.A. Obermeyer Place features a pedestrian friendly streetscape. The delineation of walkway and alley is successful at the new Pitkin County Library. Building Placement Because this neighborhood is located off of the traditional street grid, building placement is less structured and tends to respond to steep grades and the watercourse of the Roaring Fork River. Surface parking needs and restrictions on development close to the Roaring Fork River provide possibilities to provide a positive street presence and pedestrian amenities. When designing a new project, consider walkability, accessibility and minimizing retaining walls and curbcuts. Working with a landscape architect early in the design process is strongly recommended for this neighborhood to maximize connectivity and relationship between the street, the building and the river. Existing Character The River Approach Character Area parallels the Roaring Fork River along the edge of the Commercial Core Historic District and the Main Street Historic District. There is a range of building types in this neighborhood from industrial to traditional styles, and a range of uses including civic, service, industrial and restaurant uses. The existing street pattern is less rigid than the traditional grid: streets naturally follow the river curves and the topography. There are few alleys in this neighborhood so parking and access is often located directly off the street. Pathways and parks in the area have been greatly improved to incorporate wayfinding, storm water management techniques, and a strong connection to the river that is organic in character. River Approach Page 93P115 IV.A. 7.1 Place a building to respond to natural environment. •Consider grade changes and the river when siting a building. •Horizontal buildings that blend into the topography may be appropriate. 7.2 Minimize retaining walls where possible by siting building into the topography. •Where retaining walls are necessary, integrate into architecture. 7.3 Incorporate open space into building placement and site design. •Soft and informal landscape design that is curvilinear, similar to that found on a natural river bank, is encouraged. •Consider views through the property to the river to strengthen connection to the natural environment and to the neighborhood and pedestrian experience. The landscape of the river can be brought into the buildings. Consider the open space on the site and site retaining walls. Curvilinear design brings the landscape into contact with the architecture and references the river. Properties near the Roaring Fork River may be subject to Stream Margin Review. Refer to the Land Use Code for more information. Page 94 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P116 IV.A. Use materials that reference the surroundings. River Approach should continue to be eclectic. Architecture There are a mix of architectural styles in this neighborhood including traditional commercial buildings and industrial warehouse style buildings. This neighborhood is separated from the original Aspen townsite by a steep grade change. This significant change in topography draws a boundary that separates River Approach neighborhood from the street grid and more traditional development patterns and styles found in downtown Aspen. Architecture in this area should be an eclectic mix of styles. Traditional architecture is not recommended in this neighborhood, as traditional commercial styles start to blur the line between downtown neighborhoods and River Approach neighborhood. Industrial styles indicative of the types of allowed uses in the neighborhood are recommended. 1970s Aspen was funky, bohemian and experimental. This is the neighborhood to experiment with innovative building types and building techniques. While there is an open forum for architectural design, small scaled building that do not overwhelm the neighborhood are imperative to the pedestrian experience. 7.4 Preserve diverse and industrial character of the neighborhood and encourage connection to the river and natural environment. •Architecture should respond to the topography and natural environment through setbacks, stepped buildings, and sensitive landscape design. •Traditional 19th century commercial building is not recommended. 7.5 Eclectic and creative approaches to break up building mass and scale is encouraged. •Consider separate buildings on a property or linked exterior walkways instead of internal corridors. 7.6 Unique roof form and overall building shape are encouraged in this neighborhood. •Innovative building technology and design is encouraged. River Approach includes a variety of building types. River Approach Page 95P117 IV.A. Industrial detailing can recall the utilitarian aesthetic of sheds and trestles. Details and Materials Materials and details should reflect the architectural style of the building. There are a wide range of building materials in this neighborhood, which creates the context for innovative material types and applications. Promoting creativity and innovative solutions does not translate into low quality materials or overly simplistic manufactured buildings with no architectural interest or details. Low quality materials, such as stucco or vinyl windows, are not appropriate. Architectural details should relate to and highlight the overall design of the building. 7.7 Enhance the natural environment and funky character through materials and details. •Carefully consider material application, texture, and architectural details to not overwhelm the neighborhood. •Materials and architectural details should reflect the use of the building. For example, thick stone columns, and/or heavy timbers that are indicative of lodging are inappropriate. •Use of metal is appropriate. 7.8 Larger more industrial sized fenestration is appropriate here. In a natural setting architectural details are spartan. A variety of building forms are appropriate. Page 96 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P118 IV.A. River Approach Page 97P119 IV.A. Small Lodges Page 98 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P120 IV.A. History of the Neighborhood The opening of the ski resort in the late 1940s created a sudden need for new lodging in Aspen. Rather than construct large hotels like the Hotel Jerome, family run businesses with a limited number of rooms went up, scattered around town. These lodges provided an intimate visitor experience due not just to the size of the operation, but also because of their location in residential neighborhoods allowed guests to be a part of the community, if only for a weekend. Small Lodges Encourage Small Lodges to be compatible with neighborhood character and promote special lodging experiences through creative design solution. Mountain Chalet, 333 E. Durant Avenue, was constructed and is still owned by the Melville family, beginning with their first three rooms in 1954 and expanding multiple times as the ski resort thrived. * Chamber of Commerce lodging sign, 1953.* Small Lodges Page 99P121 IV.A. As property values increased in the 1980s and some original owners moved on, many small lodges were demolished and replaced by new hotels or condos, or converted into multi-family and affordable housing. The concept of identifying properties as small lodges that should be protected is a notion that began in the 80s as people began to appreciate that these were an asset to Aspen and were important affordably priced accommodations. The small lodges are an important part of Aspen’s skiing history fabric and a few are also historic landmarks, including The Snow Queen, a Victorian- era home converted to a lodge, as well as the Boomerang, and the Hearthstone House. Boomerang Lodge, 500 W. Hopkins Avenue, designed, built in phases beginning in 1956, and operated for almost 50 years by Frank Lloyd Wright trained architect Charlie Paterson. Photo courtesy x. Tyrolean Lodge, 200 E. Main Street, still owned and operated by the Wille family, artists and mountaineers, who owned Cortina Lodge on Main Street and built this lodge in 1970. The Snow Queen Lodge, 124 E. Cooper Avenue, built as a residence in 1885, converted to a lodge in 1972 and still operated by the same family, with 9 rooms available.* Many of the small lodges were Chalet style because they were either built by Europeans or were built to provide the imagery that a visitor to a mountain town wanted to see. Others, such as the Tyrolean Lodge have a rustic character. The Hearthstone House and Boomerang Lodge, are architect designed in the Wrightian style. The small lodges were typically much larger than the residential context within which they were set, and architecturally different. Page 100 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P122 IV.A. Annabelle Inn, 232 W. Main Street, originally built in 1948 as the Christmas Inn and since remodeled.* Small lodges appear in a range of sizes and styles. Existing Character Small Lodges are scattered throughout residential, commercial and mixed use neighborhoods. These lodges are a range of styles and sizes: existing character is defined by the context of each site. Some small lodges are also historic landmarks such as the Snow Queen Lodge and the Hearthstone House. Lodges in these areas provide a different type of visitor experience due not just to the size of the operation, but also because of the location in residential neighborhoods. Most of these building have simple character with primarily wood facades and some character defining features that highlight the lodge use. Many of the small lodges have primarily wood facades.Small lodges provide a different experience because of their locations. Small Lodges Page 101P123 IV.A. Shadow Mountain Lodge. A clearly defined entrance must be provided. Historical renovations are important for saving the Small Lodges of Aspen. Architecture Small lodges should fit within and enhance the existing character of the neighborhood. Many of these lodges are located in residential neighborhoods and are not included in a defined Character Area. Determine the existing character of the neighborhood before designing a new building or addition to ensure compatibility. Building placement of a small lodge can greatly enhance neighborhood character. This may be challenging considering the special high density needs of a small lodge. Most existing small lodges have parking in front of the building, usually on portions of the right of way. A redevelopment should relocate parking to the rear of the structure where feasible, and provide loading zone parking at the front only. Consider walkability, accessibility, parking, and neighborhood context when placing a small lodge building. 8.1 Carefully design parking areas and drop off locations that are located in front of a small lodge with landscape features that soften the parking area. •Provide access to parking areas from an alley if one is adjacent to the property. 8.2 Building scale should reflect character of neighborhood and enhance pedestrian experience. •Incorporate pedestrian scaled elements and creative landscape design that are compatible with neighborhood context and supports the lodging use. For example, a front porch introduces a one story element that relates to residential context and is human scaled. 8.3 Provide a clearly defined entrance to the lodge. •Entrances facing the street are preferred, but not required. 8.4 Landscaping should support and enhance the use for both the visitor and the pedestrian. •Entrances should have clearly defined walkways. Page 102 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P124 IV.A. Balance the detail and materials of the neighborhood context with that of a lodge function. Brick and painted wood are appropriate materials in all character areas. Details and Materials Depending on the neighborhood, window size and shape and lobby design can create dynamic lodge entrances that enhance the neighborhood and strengthen relationships between the building, the neighborhood, and the pedestrian. A prominent front porch or covered entry is one way to distinguish a lobby entrance, provide human scale, and relate to neighborhood character. Materials and details for small lodges should reflect the lodge use; however, they also must relate to neighborhood character. Architectural details that are unique to the lodge’s identity are encouraged. 8.5 Building materials and details should be thoughtful and compatible with neighborhood character. •Enhance neighborhood context through materials and details. •Balance lodge use and neighborhood character through thoughtful architectural details. •Simplicity in material application, texture, and architectural details is strongly recommended. Complex forms and materials are not appropriate. Color can help give visual hierarchy to a lodge. Small Lodges Page 103P125 IV.A. Buildings should appear similar in scale to others within the block. Primary materials should be brick or wood. Details can be referential to historic structures without copying. Additional Guidelines for Small Lodges on Main Street Wood and brick are the primary building materials found on Victorian era buildings within the Main Street Historic District. It is important to maintain consistency in material palette throughout the Main Street Historic District. Carefully consider existing color schemes and textures within the block before selecting materials 8.6 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with historic buildings within the block. •Subdivide larger masses into smaller modules that are similar in size to adjacent historic buildings. •Reflect the heights and proportions that characterize the historic resources within the block. 8.7 Imitation of older historic styles is inappropriate. 8.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. •An addition that is lower than, or similar to the height of the primary building, is preferred. 8.9 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to an adjacent historic building. •The primary plane of the front elevation shall not appear taller than the historic structure. 8.10 Roof forms should not compete with surrounding historic buildings and should not dominate the street. •If applicable, gable ends should be oriented toward the street and ridgelines should not run the length of the lot. 8.11 Primary materials should be wood or brick. •Alternate primary materials may be considered depending on the historic context of the block. 8.12 Secondary materials should relate to the historic context of the block. Page 104 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P126 IV.A. Small Lodges Page 105P127 IV.A. Appendix Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines Page 106 P128 IV.A. Glossary of Terms Alley A public or private way for vehicular traffic having less width than a street and used as a secondary access to abutting property, normally at the rear. Arcade A series of columns or other vertical elements supporting a roof structure. Aspen Area Community Plan A comprehensive community plan adopted and amended by the City Council and Board of County Commissioners which establishes the City’s and Aspen Metropolitan Area’s land use and development planning philosophy, goals and policies. Canopy Appendix Appendix Canopy A roof-like cover that projects more than five (5) feet from the wall of a building. Character A set of qualities or features that make a place or building notable or historically identifiable. This may include such elements as form, method of construction, building materials and details. Commercial use Land, structure, or portion of a structure intended to support offices, retail, warehousing, manufacturing, commercial recreation, restaurant/bar or service oriented businesses, not including lodge units or hotel units. AppendixPage 107P129 IV.A. Cornice A crowning projection at a roof line, often with molding or other classical detail. Dormer A small gable or shed roof projecting above the slope of the primary roof of a building. A dormer usually covers a vertical window. Façade The faces or elevations of a building. All wall planes of a building which are visible from one side or perspective. Fenestration The arrangement of windows and doors on the facades of a building. Gable Roof A roof with two slopes – front and rear– joining at a single ridge line parallel to the entrance façade. When the ridge line of a gable-roofed house is perpendicular to the street, the roof is said to be a “gable-end roof.” Landscape An area developed with softscape, the living animated materials, or hardscape, which is hardscape which is nonliving or manmade materials, which may be incorporated independently or together into the site design. 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. Human Scale The perceived size of a building which reflects a sympathetic proportional relationship to human dimensions and which contributes to the person’s perception and comprehension of the size, scale, height, and massing of buildings or other features of the built environment. Neighborhood The area adjacent to or surrounding existing or proposed development characterized by common use or uses, density, style and age of structures and environmental characteristics. Mass The combination of the three dimensions of length, height, and depth which give a building its overall shape; a building is often composed of many passes, hence the term massing, which is often used to describe the form or shape of structures. Modulation Variation in the plane of a building wall, often used to provide visual interest. Module A unit of a building structure which is based on a standard pattern of standard dimensions. OR a distinct component forming part of an ordered system. Parapet A low wall, located at the top of any sudden drop, such as at the top of the facade of a building. Park A publicly or privately owned area of land dedicated to active or passive recreational uses or as a refuge for wildlife. Pedestrian-oriented An environment design to make movement by pedestrians fast, attractive and comfortable for various ages and abilities. Public right-of way A dedicated strip or other area of land on or over which the City and/or public may travel or use for passage and within which public utilities and/or streets, alleys, trails, sidewalks and other ways may be installed. Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines Page 108 P130 IV.A. Remodel A construction project comprising revisions within or to elements of an existing structure, as distinct from additions to an existing structure. Roofscape The view of the rooftop of a building. Setback An area commencing and extending horizontally and vertically from a lot line, property line or other boundary which shall be unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground upward, excepting trees, vegetation and/or fences or other structures or projections as allowed. (See Supplementary Regulations — Section 26.575.040, Yards). Scale The sense of proportion or apparent size of a building or building element as created by the placement and size of the building in its setting: scale usually applies to how the sense is perceived in relation to the size of a human being and refers to the apparent size, not actual size, since it is always viewed in relationship to another building or element. Sidewalk That portion of a street or right-of-way which is paved and designed for use by pedestrians Story A space in a building between the surface of any floor and the surface of the floor or ceiling above, which is more than 50 percent above finished grade. Streetscape All of the elements that constitute the physical makeup of a street and that, as a group, define its character, including building frontage, landscaping, etc. Subgrade Courtyard An outdoor uncovered space developed below the grade of the surrounding ground which may provide exterior access from a lower level of a building directly to the public right of way. Transom A narrow window, sometimes hinged at the top, positioned over a doorway or larger window. Vernacular Architecture that makes use of common regional forms and materials at a particular place and time. Wayfinding The information available to people which they need to find their way around the city and can be verbal, graphic, architectural, and spatial. Yard The grounds surrounding a building on the same lot or parcel which are unoccupied and unobstructed above and below ground, except for trees and vegetation or as otherwise permitted in this Title. (See Supplementary Regulations — Section 26.575.040, Yards. See also Setbacks.) AppendixPage 109P131 IV.A. P132IV.A. Ordinance 33, Series 2016 Commercial Design Review Page 1 of 17 ORDINANCE No. 33 Series of 2016 AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING CODE AMENDMENTS RELATED TO LAND USE CODE CHAPTER 26.412-COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW. 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 craft code amendments to coordinate the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) and the Land Use Code related to parking and mobility, the mix of commercial uses, commercial design, and mountain view planes; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department and a Consultant Team consisting of White & Smith, LLC; Alan Richman Planning Services; Nelson Nygaard; Rowland + Broughton; BendonAdams; and Karen Setterfield conducted existing conditions research and outreach with respect to commercial use mix, parking, mobility, commercial design, and mountain view planes; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development Department conducted extensive Public Outreach with community members, the Planning & Zoning Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission, and City Council regarding the commercial district, commercial design, parking and view plane regulations; and, WHEREAS, from May through November, 2016, the City and the Consultant team conducted 20 public outreach events, an online public outreach and survey page with over 1,230 visits, eleven (11) focus group meetings with stakeholders and City officials, five (5) meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission, four (4) meetings with the Historic Preservation Commission, and fourteen (14) public meetings with the City Council; WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council met in work sessions on February 29, 2016, April 12, 2016, April 18, 2016, April 26, 2016, May 10, 2016, June 21, 2016, July 18, 2016, August 9, 2016, August 28, 2016, September 13, 2016, September 19, 2016, September 27, 2016, October 10, 2016, and November 2, 2016 and provided general direction on code amendments; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing on October 24, 2016, the City Council approved Resolution No. 147, Series of 2016, by a four to zero (4 – 0) vote, requesting code amendments to the Land Use Code to implement the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, amending the Land Use Code so it better reflects the goals of the AACP is a City Council Top Ten Goal; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Area Community Plan (“Growth Management, The Commercial Sector,” page 20) documents that businesses providing basic necessities are at risk of being P133 IV.A. Ordinance 33, Series 2016 Commercial Design Review Page 2 of 17 displaced by restaurants, retail spaces, and offices in high-profile locations with high rents, resulting in a continuing shift towards exclusivity; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Area Community Plan (“Growth Management, The Commercial Sector,” page 20) calls for a diverse commercial mix to strength the City’s character, with more aggressive measures to ensure the needs of the community are met; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Area Community Plan provides for regulatory tools, such as Growth Management, for the use of non-prime commercial space including basements, second floors and alleys (Growth Management Policy V.1.b); and WHEREAS, the Aspen Area Community Plan calls for the City to explore creating a program to encourage limited-use commercial spaces, which would be charged lower rents or rents based on a percentage of sales (Growth Management Policy V.1.d); and WHEREAS, the Aspen Area Community Plan calls for the City to explore adopting an Existing Use Zone District in specific areas in order to prohibit new uses from displacing existing ones, such as providing a limited list of commercial uses subject to a conditional use process (Growth Management Policy V.1.e); and WHEREAS, the Aspen Area Community Plan provides for the City to identify products and services that are considered basic community needs (Growth Management Policy V.2.a); and WHEREAS, the Aspen Area Community Plan provides for the City to incentivize the provision of on-site affordable housing. This could include prioritization in receiving a building permit, points in growth management, etc. (Growth Management Policy VII.2.d); and WHEREAS, the Consultant Team conducted a study to identify the aggregate retail demand of local residents and determine whether there are adequate local-serving businesses to meet that demand, and if there are types of business that are over-represented in the downtown, along with zoning tools to manage those imbalances (see Aspen Area Community Plan, Growth Management Policies V.1.a, V.1.c); and WHEREAS, the Consultant Team conducted a study that considered creating regulatory tools such as quotas, limited prohibitions, and zoning regulations to manage imbalances in the City’s commercial uses (see Aspen Area Community Plan, Growth Management Policy V.1.a); and WHEREAS, the Aspen Area Community Plan provides for the City to establish lower maximum building heights to maintain Aspen’s small town character (Growth Management Policy I.6.a); and WHEREAS, the Aspen Area Community Plan provides for the City to amend zoning, the Commercial Design Guidelines, Residential Design Guidelines and Historic Design Guidelines as needed to implement the policy to maintain Aspen’s small town character (Growth Management Policy I.6.a); and P134 IV.A. Ordinance 33, Series 2016 Commercial Design Review Page 3 of 17 WHEREAS, the Aspen Area Community Plan provides for the City to amend the Commercial Design Guidelines, Historic Design Guidelines and zoning as needed to ensure that the Code supports innovative development that respects our architectural heritage in terms of site coverage, mass, scale, form and a diversity of heights (Growth Management Policy V.3.b); and WHEREAS, the Vision (Residential Sector) provisions of the Aspen Area Community Plan provide for the City to limit mass and scale, and to preserve scenic mountain views; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310 and that the approval of the amendments is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; 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. Chapter 26.412 shall be rescinded and readopted as follows: Chapter 26.412 COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW Sections: Sec. 26.412.010 General Sec. 26.412.020 Applicability Sec. 26.412.030 Review Authority Sec. 26.412.040 Procedures for Review Sec. 26.412.050 Application Requirements Sec. 26.412.060 Review Criteria Sec. 26.412.070 Pedestrian Amenity Sec. 26.412.080 Second Tier Commercial Space Sec. 26.412.090 Amendments 26.412.010. General. A. Purpose. The purpose of Commercial Design Review (CDR) is to foster appropriate building design that creates walkable neighborhoods and supports Aspen’s unique heritage. The review standards do not prescribe architectural style, but do require that certain building elements contribute to the streetscape and neighborhood character. The character of the Aspen's commercial neighborhoods is largely established by the variety of uses and the relationship between buildings and the pedestrian. Strengthening this relationship P135 IV.A. Ordinance 33, Series 2016 Commercial Design Review Page 4 of 17 through thoughtful pedestrian amenity space, ground level storefront design, building mass, and responsive site design contributes to successful commercial neighborhoods. The City does not intend to limit creativity in the built environment, but to promote architecture and site design that creates cohesive neighborhoods that are walkable, interesting and vibrant. Acknowledgement of existing neighborhood context is integral to preserving and to highlighting Aspen’s local architectural vernacular. The adopted Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines provide specific design concepts and parameters to achieve these goals. B. Adoption of Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines. The City Council hereby adopts design standards and guidelines, hereinafter referred to as the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines, which are incorporated by reference and made a part of the Aspen Land Use Code. These Standards and Guidelines set forth the design parameters to ensure cohesive, creative and contextual architecture and site planning for commercial, lodging and mixed use developments. The Standards and Guidelines include a mix of requirements (standards) and recommendations (guidelines) that address exterior features of a building, site design, landscape and improvements within the right of way. The Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines may be amended, updated, and expanded from time to time by City Council Resolution. At least one (1) copy shall be available for public inspection at the Community Development Department. 26.412.020. Applicability. Except as outlined below, this Section applies to all commercial, lodging and mixed-used development within the City requiring a building permit. All development shall be reviewed pursuant to the Character Area in which it is located. The Community Development Director shall assign an appropriate Character Area to properties subject to Commercial Design Review that are not located within a defined Character Area. A. Essential public facilities. Essential public facilities within the Aspen Infill Area are subject to Commercial Design Review for all development requiring a building permit. An Essential Public Facility located outside the Aspen Infill Area is subject to Commercial Design Review unless the building has no public access. B. Exemptions. No application for a Commercial Design Review Development Order is exempt from this Chapter unless the Community Development Director determines that the proposed development: 1. Is an addition or remodel of an existing structure that does not change the exterior of the building; or 2. Is a remodel of a structure where proposed alterations change the exterior of the building, but are not addressed by the Commercial, Lodging or Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines or Section 26.412.070, Pedestrian Amenity. (See Section 26.412.020.C below.) P136 IV.A. Ordinance 33, Series 2016 Commercial Design Review Page 5 of 17 C. Remodels. Where work is proposed on any element of an existing building that is addressed by the Commercial Design Review and that is not in compliance with the Commercial, Lodging or Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines or Section 26.412.070, Pedestrian Amenity, the applicant 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 an existing commercial building that is entirely stucco. A project to replace the ground level stucco material with high quality stone is proposed. The new proposed material is required to comply with the Commercial, Lodging or Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines. The upper level material that is not proposed to be replaced, and is not part of the limited scope of work of the project, is not required to comply. If the upper level stucco is disturbed during the application of the new ground level material (through enlargement of existing windows for example) then it must be brought into compliance with the Commercial, Lodging or Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines. 26.412.030. Review authority. A. Review by Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission, in accordance with the procedures, standards and limitations of this Chapter and of Common Development Review Procedures in Chapter 26.304, shall approve, approve with conditions or disapprove a land use application for Commercial Design Review pursuant to Section 26.412.040 below, with the exception of development that is located within the Commercial Core Historic District, the Main Street Historic District or on a property that is listed on the Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. B. Review by Historic Preservation Commission. When any portion of a development is within the Commercial Core Historic District, the Main Street Historic District or on a property that is or is under consideration to be listed on the Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, Commercial Design Review shall be subject to review by the Historic Preservation Commission. The Historic Preservation Commission shall approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the land use application for Commercial Design Review, pursuant to Section 26.412.040 below. C. Referral. Both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Historic Preservation Commission may from time to time provide referral comments to each other on a specific application. The reviewing Commission shall take the comments into consideration but shall not be required to adhere to the comments in its review of an application. 26.412.040. Procedures for Review. A. General. Commercial Design Review is divided into a two-step process known as Conceptual Design and Final Design. Conceptual design review focuses on site planning, mass, scale, proportions, parking, height and other elements that define the shape and placement of the proposed development. Final design review focuses on materials, window size and placement, landscaping, architectural details, detailed roofscape, operational characteristics, and other P137 IV.A. Ordinance 33, Series 2016 Commercial Design Review Page 6 of 17 elements that finalize the architecture and landscape of the proposed development. Based on the specific proposal, the Community Development Director may amend which features are considered during the conceptual or final review. B. Conceptual Design 1. Conceptual design review. The procedures for the review of conceptual design are as follows: a. The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for Conceptual Design approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing, and a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Subparagraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a, b, and c. b. Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the applicable Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the reviewing Commission with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The Commission will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines. c. The Commission may approve, approve with conditions, deny, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. d. A resolution of the Commission action will be forwarded to the City Council in accordance with Subsection 26.412.040.E, (Appeals, notice to City Council and call- up), and no hearing for final design application will be conducted until the "call-up" period by City Council has expired. 2. Effect of conceptual design approval. The effect of approval of a conceptual design is as follows: a. Approval of a conceptual design shall not constitute final approval of commercial design review unless part of a combined conceptual/final review. Such authorization shall only constitute authorization to proceed with the preparation of an application for a final design. b. Approval of a conceptual design shall be binding in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structures and/or additions as depicted in the conceptual design application, including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No substantial changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development as part of final P138 IV.A. Ordinance 33, Series 2016 Commercial Design Review Page 7 of 17 design. If the applicant chooses to makes substantial amendments to the conceptual design after it has been approved, a new conceptual design hearing is required. c. Unless otherwise specified in the resolution granting conceptual design approval, a development application for a final design shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a conceptual design. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the conceptual development plan. The Community Development Director may, at his or her sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a conceptual design approval for up to twelve (12) months, provided that a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. C. Final Design 1. The procedures for the review of final design are as follows: a. The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for final development plan approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this, and a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to subparagraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a., b. and c. b. Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the applicable Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the Commission with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The Commission will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City's Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. c. The Commission may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. d. Before an application for a building permit can be submitted, and pursuant to Chapter 26.490, Development Documents, a final set of plans reflecting any or all required changes by the Commission must be on file with the City. Any conditions of approval or outstanding issues which must be addressed in the field or at a later time shall be noted on the plans. The following items, as applicable, shall be required as part of the Development Documents: i. Landscaping plan. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Community Development Director shall require site plans and drawings of any required P139 IV.A. Ordinance 33, Series 2016 Commercial Design Review Page 8 of 17 public amenity space, including an access, landscaping and programming plan, and a bond in a satisfactory form and amount to ensure compliance with any public amenity requirements under this Title. ii. Maintenance of landscaping. Whenever the landscaping required herein is not maintained, the Chief Building Official, after thirty (30) days' written notice to the owner or occupant of the property, may revoke the certificate of occupancy until said party complies with the landscaping requirements of this Section. D. Variations. An application requesting a variation from the Standards of Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines shall be reviewed during either Conceptual Design Review or Final Design Review, as determined by the Community Development Department. 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. The application 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. The reviewing board shall consider the appropriateness of the design features, building elements, and existing neighborhood context to determine that the exception is appropriate; or 2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. E. Consolidation of applications and combining of reviews. If a development project involves additional City land use approvals, the Community Development Director may consolidate or modify the review process accordingly, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B of this Title. If a proposed development, upon determination of the Community Development Director and in consultation with the applicant, is of limited scope, the Director may authorize the application to be subject to a one-step process that combines both conceptual and final design reviews. When the Historic Preservation Commission has purview over Commercial Design Review, an application for commercial design review shall be consolidated with the appropriate review process as required by Section 26.415.070, Development Involving Designated Property. When an application is considered consolidated and a conflict between this Chapter and Chapter 26.415, Development Involving the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures or Development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, arises, the regulations of Chapter 26.415 shall supersede. F. Appeals, Notice to City Council and Call-up. 1. Appeals. An applicant aggrieved by a determination made by the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, pursuant to this Chapter, may appeal the decision to the City Council, pursuant to the procedures and standards of Chapter 26.316, Appeals. P140 IV.A. Ordinance 33, Series 2016 Commercial Design Review Page 9 of 17 2. Notice to City Council. Following the adoption of a resolution approving or approving with conditions a development application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review or for Consolidated Commercial Design Review, the City Council shall be promptly notified of the action to allow the City Council an opportunity to avail itself of the call-up procedure set forth below. Notification shall consist of a description in written and graphic form of the project with a copy of the approving document. The notification shall be placed on the agenda of a regular City Council meeting within 30 days of the approval, or as soon thereafter as is practical under the circumstances. 3. Call-up. Following the adoption of a resolution approving or approving with conditions a development application for Commercial Design Review, the City Council may order call-up of the action within fifteen (15) days of notification, as outlined in subsection B, above. Consequently, applications for Final Design shall not be accepted by the City and no associated permits shall be issued during the notice and call-up period. If City Council exercises this call-up provision, no applications for Final Design shall be accepted by the City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council takes action as described in subsection D, below. If the City Council does not call up the action within the call-up period, the resolution shall be the final decision on the matter. 4. City Council action on call-up. The City Council shall, at a public meeting, consider the application de novo. The City Council may, at its discretion, consider evidence included in the record established by the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning and Zoning Commission, as applicable, or supplement the record with additional evidence or testimony as necessary. The City Council shall conduct its review of the application under the same criteria applicable to the reviewing body. The City Council’s action shall be limited to: a. Accepting the decision. b. Remanding the application to the applicable Commission with direction from City Council for rehearing and reconsideration. c. Continuing the meeting to request additional evidence, analysis, or testimony as necessary to conclude the call up review. 5. Additional Actions. The rehearing and reconsideration of the application by the applicable Commission shall be duly noticed pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E Public Notice and shall be limited to the topics listed in the direction from Council. The decision made by the applicable Commission is final and concludes the call up review. Substantive changes, as defined in Section 26.412.090, Amendments, made to the application during the call up review and outside the topics listed in the remand from Council shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.412.090 and may require a new call up notice to City Council. The call up review shall be limited only to the changes approved in the Amendment application. 26.412.050 Application Requirements. P141 IV.A. Ordinance 33, Series 2016 Commercial Design Review Page 10 of 17 1. Conceptual design application. An application for a conceptual design shall include the following: a. The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. b. A site plan and survey showing property boundaries, the location and orientation of existing and proposed improvements, proximity to any preserved view planes, and predominant site characteristics. c. Scaled drawings of all proposed structures or additions depicting their form, including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary features of all elevations. d. Preliminary selection of primary building materials to be used in construction represented by samples and/or photographs. e. Visual depiction of the proposed building in the context of the overall block. f. Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the property, including at least two (2) of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models or streetscape elevations. Staff may request specific additional materials, including 3-D computer modeling. g. Verification that the proposal complies with applicable sections of the Land Use Code and Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines. 3. Final design application. An application for a final development plan shall include: a. The general application information required in Section 26.304.030 of this Title. b. A site plan and survey showing property boundaries, the location and orientation of existing and proposed improvements, proximity to any preserved view planes, and predominant site characteristics. c. Final scaled and dimensioned drawings of all proposed structures and/or additions included as part of the development. d. An accurate representation of all major building materials to be used in the development, depicted through samples or photographs. e. Visual depiction of the proposed building in the context of the overall block. f. A statement, including narrative text or graphics, indicating how the final design conforms to representations made or stipulations placed as a condition of the approval of the conceptual design. Staff may request specific additional materials, including 3- D computer modeling. P142 IV.A. Ordinance 33, Series 2016 Commercial Design Review Page 11 of 17 g. Final landscape and lighting plans. 26.412.060. Review Criteria. An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. The Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines are met as determined by the appropriate Commission. The Standards and Guidelines set forth design review criteria that are to be used to make a determination of appropriateness. All standards shall be met unless granted a Variation pursuant to Section 26.412.040.D, Variations. Not every guideline will apply to each project, and some balancing of the guidelines must occur on a case- by-case basis. The Aspen Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) or Planning and Zoning Commission, as applicable, must determine that a sufficient number of the relevant guidelines have been adequately met in order to approve a project proposal. It must be emphasized that these are only guidelines. They are not applicable in all cases, and need to be weighed with the practicality of the measure. B. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.070, Pedestrian Amenity. 26.412.070. Pedestrian Amenity. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, vital, human-scale downtown commercial district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Pedestrian amenity space can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-of-way or private property within commercial areas. A. Applicability and Requirement. The requirements of this Section shall apply to the development of all commercial, lodging and mixed-use development within the CC, C-1, MU, NC, S/C/I, L, CL, LP and LO Zone Districts. This area represents the City's primary pedestrian- oriented downtown, as well as important mixed-use, service and lodging neighborhoods. Twenty-five percent (25%) of the Gross Lot Area of properties within the applicable area shall be provided as pedestrian amenity regardless of existing onsite pedestrian amenity amount. A project that does not change the existing building footprint or exterior dimensions is exempt from this pedestrian amenity requirement. Vacated rights of way do not count toward pedestrian amenity requirement. Exempt from these provisions shall be development consisting of entirely residential uses. B. Provision of pedestrian amenity. Unless specified, the Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission shall determine the appropriate method or combination of methods for providing this required amenity. One (1) or more of the following methods may be used such that the requirement is met. P143 IV.A. Ordinance 33, Series 2016 Commercial Design Review Page 12 of 17 1. On-site pedestrian amenity. On-site pedestrian amenity options are provided within the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines. 2. Off-site pedestrian amenity. These may be improvements to private property, public property or public rights-of-way. a. An easement providing public access over an existing public amenity space for which no easement exists may be accepted if the easement provides permanent public access and is acceptable to the City Attorney. b. Off-site improvements shall: i. equal or exceed the value of an otherwise required cash-in-lieu payment as determined by the City Engineer, and ii. be consistent with any public infrastructure or capital improvement plan for that area. 3. Cash-in-lieu provision. Cash-in-lieu for pedestrian amenity requirements may be provided, subject to the following requirements: a. For properties located on rights-of-way designated as pedestrian malls including Hyman and Cooper Streets between Galena and Mill Streets, and Mill Street between Hyman Street and Durant Street, cash-in-lieu of on-site public amenity space is required. Fees collected as cash-in-lieu for public amenity of designated pedestrian malls shall be held in reserve by the City for the maintenance and improvement of the pedestrian malls. b. For properties not located adjacent to the pedestrian malls, where on-site public amenity is not appropriate or may not be feasibly provided due to site or development constraints, cash-in-lieu may be accepted as an alternative. Such conditions shall be determined on a case-by-case basis at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission. c. A cash-in-lieu payment for 50% or more of the required pedestrian amenity for properties not located on a pedestrian mall or less than 100% for properties located on a pedestrian mall shall require approval by City Council. 4. Alternative method. The Commission may accept any method of providing a pedestrian amenity not otherwise described herein it finds that the alternative method meets the intent of pedestrian amenity, equals or exceeds the monetary value, or meets the purpose and intent of these regulations to an equivalent extent, of an otherwise required on-site amenity space or cash-in-lieu payment. P144 IV.A. Ordinance 33, Series 2016 Commercial Design Review Page 13 of 17 5. Pedestrian links. In the event that the City shall have adopted a trail plan incorporating mid-block pedestrian links, any required public amenity space must, if the City shall so elect, be applied and dedicated for such use. The development of mid-block walkways to access second tier commercial spaces located off the primary street frontage, which are not part of an adopted trail plan, may be counted towards public amenity space requirements for a property and must be designed in accordance with the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Standards and Guidelines. C. Reduction of requirement. A reduction in the required pedestrian amenity amount may be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission, pursuant to the procedures and criteria of Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Review, for historic landmark properties upon one (1) of the following circumstances: a. When the Historic Preservation Commission approves the on-site relocation of an historic landmark such that the amount of on-site public space is reduced below that required by this Chapter. b. When the manner in which an historic landmark building was originally developed reduces the amount of on-site public amenity required by this Chapter. c. When the redevelopment or expansion of an historic landmark constitutes an exemplary preservation effort deserving of an incentive or reward, as provided in the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. D. Cash-in-lieu payment. When the method of providing pedestrian amenity includes a cash- in-lieu payment, the following provisions and limitations shall apply: Formula for determining cash-in-lieu payment: Payment = [Land Value] x [ 25% of Gross Lot Area] Where: Land Value = Value of the unimproved land. Land value shall be the lesser of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per square foot multiplied by the number of square feet constituting the parcel, or the appraised value of the unimproved property determined by the submission of a current appraisal performed by a qualified professional real estate appraiser and verified by the Community Development Director. The payment-in-lieu of pedestrian amenity shall be due and payable at the time of issuance of a building permit. The City Manager, upon request, may allow the required payment-in-lieu to be amortized in equal payments over a period of up to five (5) years, with or without interest. All funds shall be collected by the Community Development Director and transferred to the Finance Director for deposit in a separate interest-bearing account. Monies in the account shall be used solely for the purchase, development, or capital improvement of land or public rights-of- way for open space, pedestrian or bicycle infrastructure, public amenity, or recreational purposes P145 IV.A. Ordinance 33, Series 2016 Commercial Design Review Page 14 of 17 within or adjacent to the applicable area in which this requirement applies. Funds may be used to acquire public use easements. Fees shall be spent on projects within the Aspen Infill Area and related to pedestrian improvements to rights-of-way or on public property, the acquisition of permanent pedestrian easements through private property where no prior public access easement is provided, or other improvements to pedestrian movement, access or amenity as approved by City Council. Fees collected pursuant to this Section may be returned to the then-present owner of property for which a fee was paid, including any interest earned, if the fees have not been spent within seven (7) years from the date fees were paid, unless the City Council shall have earmarked the funds for expenditure on a specific project, in which case the City Council may extend the time period by up to three (3) more years. For the purpose of this Section, payments shall be spent in the order in which they are received. To obtain a refund, the present owner must submit a petition to the Finance Director within one (1) year following the end of the seventh year from the date payment was received. All petitions shall be accompanied by a notarized, sworn statement that the petitioner is the current owner of the property and by a copy of the dated receipt issued for payment of the fee. 26.412.080. Second Tier Commercial Space The Aspen Area Community Plan establishes policies to encourage a balanced, diverse and vital commercial use mix that meets the needs of the year-round residents and visitors, and to facilitate the sustainability of essential businesses that provide basic community needs. These design standards ensure “second tier” space in commercial zones are maintained, allows for the redevelopment of commercial properties, maintains a meaningful ratio of commercial space that serves the day to day needs of residents and visitors, and allows for creative designs that add variety and interest to the City’s commercial areas. A. Applicability. 1. Development or redevelopment. This section applies to all new development and redevelopment in the CC, C-1, S/C/I, NC, and MU districts. Proposals that are 100% lodge projects shall be exempted from this requirement. 2. Second Tier Commercial Space. For purposes of this section, "second tier commercial space" means net leasable area that is reserved for and used for principal commercial uses (not for storage or for an office that would be accessory to another principal use) and that: • Is located in a basement, or • Is located above the ground floor (but not including rooftop pedestrian amenities), or • Has its principal point of access along an alleyway or a mid-block pedestrian amenity, or • Has its front façade and principal entryway on a subgrade courtyard or an enclosed interior courtyard or arcade. P146 IV.A. Ordinance 33, Series 2016 Commercial Design Review Page 15 of 17 When a building is split level, the area above the street level shall be included in the second tier calculation, while the area below shall not. In these circumstances, a full basement below lower level would count as second tier space. Measurement of the space shall be pursuant to Section 26.575.020.I, Measurement of Net Leasable Area and Net Livable Area. B. Requirement. 1. The following minimum and maximum net leasable area shall be designed as second tier commercial space: Table 26.412.100-1 Zoning District Second tier commercial space provided Minimum* Maximum* Commercial Core (CC) 20% 75% Commercial (C) 25% 75% Service Commercial Industrial (S/C/I) 35% -- Neighborhood Commercial (NC) 35% -- Mixed Use (MU) 25% 50% *as a percentage of the total net leasable area on the parcel 2. The redevelopment of any building that includes existing second tier commercial space shall provide a minimum of 30% of the total net leasable space as second tier 3. Pedestrian amenity is encouraged to provide access to second tier commercial spaces within a development. This access may be provided via a mid-block walkway accessing commercial space off the primary street frontage, a sub-grade courtyard, an internal enclosed courtyard, or access to upper level commercial areas. C. Reduction of requirement. The Planning and Zoning Commission may approve a reduction in the required second tier commercial space pursuant to the procedures and criteria of Chapter 26.304.060 and Section 26.412.040. One of the following criteria shall be met: 1. Requirement met on another property: a. Property owners or applicants for development approval of (at least one other lot or parcel within the same block or zone district) agree to provide second tier commercial space in an amount that offsets the shortfall in required second tier commercial space on the property subject to the application for development or redevelopment; and b. All of the property owners enter into an enforceable development agreement to the satisfaction of the City Attorney. The agreement shall provide assurances that the required second tier commercial space will be developed and ready for occupancy prior to the occupancy of the property that is authorized to have a shortfall and remedies if the space is not ready when the space on the subject property is ready for occupancy. P147 IV.A. Ordinance 33, Series 2016 Commercial Design Review Page 16 of 17 2. Hardship. If a sufficient site-specific hardship is present on the property preventing the provision of some portion of the total required. This shall require review as a variance, pursuant to section 26.314, variances. 26.412.090. Amendments. A. Insubstantial amendment. 1. Administrative review. An insubstantial amendment to a Commercial Design Review approval granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission may be authorized by the Community Development Director if: a. The change is in conformance with the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines, the change represents a minimal effect on the aesthetics of the proposed development, or the change is consistent with representations made during the original review concerning potential changes of the development proposal considered appropriate by the decision-making body; and b. The change requires no other land use action requiring review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 2. Historic Preservation Commission approval. An insubstantial amendment to a Commercial Design Review approval granted by the Historic Preservation Commission shall comply with the standards outlined in Paragraph 26.415.070.E.1., Insubstantial amendments. B. Substantial amendments. Any amendment to an existing approval which does not meet the thresholds for an insubstantial amendment shall be considered a substantial amendment. A substantial amendment to a Commercial Design Review approval shall be reviewed pursuant to the standards and procedures of this Section. Section 2: 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 3: 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 4: 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 5: 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. P148 IV.A. Ordinance 33, Series 2016 Commercial Design Review Page 17 of 17 Section 6: A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the ____ day of _____, 2016, 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 shall be 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 _____ day of _____, 2016. Attest: _____________________________ ____________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _____th day of _____, 2016. Attest: _____________________________ ____________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor Approved as to form: _____________________________ James R. True, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Draft Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines P149 IV.A. Page 1 of 7 EXHIBIT C List of all Proposed Standards General 1.1 All projects shall provide a context study. • The study must include the relationship to adjacent structures and streets through photographs, streetscape elevations, historic maps, etc. 1.2 All projects shall respond to the traditional street grid. • A building shall be oriented parallel to the street unless uncharacteristic of the area. Refer to specific chapters for more information. • Buildings on corners shall be parallel to both streets. 1.5 Maintain alignment of building facades where appropriate. • Consider the entire block of a neighborhood to determine appropriate building placement. • Consider the appropriate location of street level pedestrian amenity when siting a new building and transitioning building alignments. • Consider all four corners of an intersection and architectural context to determine appropriate placement if located on a corner. 1.9 Minimize the visual impacts of parking • All parking shall be accessed off an alley where one is available. • If no alley access exists, access should be from the shortest block length. • When a property does not have access to an alley, screen the parking. • Design any street-facing entry to underground parking to reduce visibility. Use high quality materials for doors and ramps. • Screen surface parking and avoid locating it at the front of a building. Landscape and fences are recommended. • Integrate parking into architecture as a garage enclosure and/or into landscape through design and materials to disguise the parking area. • Break up the massing of the alley facade especially when garage doors are present. • Consider a surface material change to define parking area and to create visual interest. • Consider the potential for future retail use accessed from alleys and the desire to create a safe and attractive environment for cars and people. • Garage doors shall match adjacent materials in color. 1.10 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with buildings on the block. 1.11 A new building or addition shall reflect the range and variation of building height in the block. • Create a sensitive transition by stepping developments of different sizes. For example, a new building adjacent to a one-story building must include a building height transition. • A minimum of two foot building height variation from adjacent buildings is required. • This may be achieved through a cornice, parapet or other architectural articulation. • The height variation shall be a minimum of 15’-0” wide. P150 IV.A. Page 2 of 7 1.14 New buildings shall have a street level entry. • Commercial entrances shall be at the sidewalk level. • Finish floor and sidewalk level shall align for at least 1/2 the depth of the ground floor where possible. If significant grade changes exist on property, then the project will be reviewed on a case by case basis. 1.15 Orient entrances to the street. • All buildings shall have at least one clearly defined primary entrance facing the front lot line, as defined in the Land Use Code unless located within a chamfered corner (See CC Character Area). • If located on a corner lot, two entrances shall be provided: A primary entrance facing the longest block length and a secondary entrance facing the shortest block length. 1.16 Incorporate an internal airlock or air curtain into first floor commercial space. • An airlock or air curtain shall be integrated into the architecture. • Adding a temporary exterior airlock of any material to an existing building not allowed. 1.17 Entries that are significantly taller or shorter than those seen historically or that conflict with the established scale are prohibited. • Transom windows above an entry are a traditional element that may be appropriate in neighborhoods with 19th century commercial buildings. • Entries should reflect the established range within the context of the block. Analyze surrounding buildings to determine appropriate height for entry doors. 1.19 ATMs and vending machines visible from the street are prohibited. 1.24 High quality materials are required. • Identify the palette of materials, specifications for the materials, and location on the proposed building as part of the application. • Physical material samples shall be presented to the review body. An onsite mock-up prior to installation may be required. 1.25 Building materials shall have these features: • Convey the quality and range of materials found in the current block context or seen historically in the Character Area. • Convey human scale. • Enhance visual interest through texture, application, and/or dimension. • Be non-reflective. Shiny or glossy materials are not appropriate as a primary material. • Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within Aspen’s climate. • A material with an integral color shall be a neutral color. Some variation is allowed for secondary materials. 1.27 Architecture that reflects corporate branding is not permitted. • Architecture that reflects the brand of the tenant is not appropriate. P151 IV.A. Page 3 of 7 1.29 Trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located on an alleyway where feasible and combined to the greatest extent practical. 1.31 Screen trash and recycle areas from view with a fence or door. • All fences shall be 6 feet high from grade unless prohibited by the Land Use Code, shall be of sound construction, and shall be no less than 90% opaque, unless otherwise varied based on a recommendation from the Environmental Health Department. 1.32 Design a delivery area to be located along an alleyway where one exists. 1.33 Mechanical equipment, ducts and vents shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or carefully located on the roof to minimize visual impacts. • Co-locate mechanical equipment, ducting and venting. • Screen mechanical equipment or recess equipment and venting behind a parapet wall. 1.35 Transformer location and size are dictated by City and utility company Standards and codes. • Place a transformer on an alley where possible. • Provide screening for any non-alley location. Street Level Public Amenity PA1.3 Design meaningful space that is useful, versatile, and accessible. • Consider providing space for future outdoor merchandising or restaurant seating opportunities when designing the space. • Providing good solar access, capturing mountain views, and providing seating is recommended. • Do not duplicate existing nearby open space. • Storage areas, delivery areas, parking areas, or trash areas are not allowed uses within pedestrian amenity space. • Street-level Pedestrian Amenity spaces shall be a minimum 1/3 of the requirement. For example, a requirement of 300 square feet of pedestrian amenity can be comprised of three 100 square feet spaces; but cannot be comprised of one 275 square feet space and one 25 square feet space. (A variation from this requirement may be approved with a finding that the proposed spaces meets the intent of Pedestrian Amenity). PA1.5 Street level Pedestrian Amenity areas shall not be entirely enclosed. • Access to the pedestrian amenity space directly from the street is required. • A street level pedestrian amenity space may be covered subject to HPC or P&Z approval. If the space is covered, the street-facing portion must be entirely open PA1.6 Street level pedestrian amenity space shall reinforce the street edge. Consider the context of the block when selecting an appropriate technique to define street edge. Examples of appropriate techniques include: • Overhangs: A cantilevered roof or retractable awning that stretches to the property line. • Fences: A low fence, mostly transparent that allows views into the pedestrian amenity space. P152 IV.A. Page 4 of 7 • Landscape: Low planter boxes. If including trees, the mature tree canopy size should not prohibit views into the amenity space. Hedgerows over 42” are prohibited. • Street Furniture: Permanent, fixed benches or other pedestrian related elements may be considered to establish property edges. • Surface Material: Change hardscape material to differientiate between pedestrian amenity and Right of Way. PA1.7 Street level pedestrian amenity shall be within 18 inches above or below the existing grade of the street or sidewalk which abuts the space. Second Floor Public Amenity PA2.1 Provide pedestrian amenity in the form of a deck on the second floor that is visible from and adjacent to the street. • Railing height may not be increased above the minimum IBC requirement. • Historic landmark parapets may be exempt, subject to HPC approval. • Railings must be a minimum of 50% transparent unless located in the CC District where transparent railings may not be appropriate, given the pattern of decorative cornices capping buildings. PA2.2 Second floor amenity shall be accessed directly from the street. Remodels and historic landmarks may be exempted from this requirement, subject to HPC approval. • A separate exterior entrance is preferred. • A public access easement may be requested by the City as part of an approval. PA2.3 Design meaningful space that is useful, versatile and accessible. • Consider providing space for future outdoor merchandising or restaurant seating opportunities. • Providing good solar access, mountain views and seating is recommended. • Storage area or trash area are not allowed uses within pedestrian amenity space. PA2.5 To qualify as Pedestrian Amenity, commercial use(s) shall be accessible from the space. • Lodges must have a restaurant, lobby, or other public space adjacent and accessible from the pedestrian amenity space to meet this standard. • Where applicable, Integrate access to this space into the architecture through interior or exterior corridors. PA2.7 All rooftop Pedestrian Amenity shall be open to the sky. • Small seasonal umbrellas or retractable canopies may be allowed, subject to Planning Staff, HPC or P&Z approval, as long as these features do not cover the entire space and do not obstruct views in from the street. PA2.8 Rooftop pedestrian amenity is not permitted on the roof of a second floor. Midblock Public Amenity PA4.1 Midblock pedestrian amenity shall provide access to additional commercial space. P153 IV.A. Page 5 of 7 • The amount of pedestrian amenity of the feature counts as double. For example, a midblock walkway that is 500 square feet in size is equal to 1,000 square feet for the purposes of pedestrian amenity calculation. • Commercial space must be accessed from the walkway and must be at least 40’-0” back from the street edge. PA4.5 Midblock pedestrian amenity shall extend the length of the lot to the alley. PA4.7 New midblock pedestrian amenity walkways shall not be located in a block face that already has a midblock walkway. Subgrade Courtyard Public Amenity PA5.2 Subgrade courtyards are not permitted on corner lots, unless located at the rear of the lot. PA5.3 Design of the subgrade courtyard at grade shall reinforce the street edge. • The measurement of a subgrade courtyard along the lot line shall not exceed 30% of the lot width adjacent to the features. • Consider the context of the block when selecting an appropriate technique to define street edge. • A low wall or fence that define the street edge shall allow views into the pedestrian amenity space and be a minimum of 50% transparent. PA5.5 Design meaningful space that is useful, versatile, and accessible. • Consider future outdoor merchandising or restaurant seating when designing the space. • Consult the Land Use Code for allowed elements within setbacks where applicable. PA5.8 A subgrade courtyard shall be accessible from the interior of commercial use(s) abutting the pedestrian amenity space. • Integrate clear access to this space into the architecture through interior or exterior corridors. • Limit ramps, stairs and elevators leading to the courtyard. PA5.10 A subgrade courtyard shall be no more than 10’ below the existing grade of the street or sidewalk which abuts the space. Off-site Public Amenity PA6.1 Off-site improvements shall be located within the block of the subject property. • The proposed design shall not detract from nearby historic resources. • The proposed design shall provide or enhance the streetscape or historic district. • A right of way may be altered to reflect the design of an adjacent building. • Only off-site improvements that are completed beyond minimum Engineering requirements shall qualify as pedestrian amenity. PA6.2 Covered walkways are prohibited in blocks that already have a similar feature. P154 IV.A. Page 6 of 7 • The final design of these features shall be subject to Engineering Department and Parks Department approval. PA6.4 At least 50% of the block must meet standard City of Aspen right of way design. Interior Courtyard Public Amenity PA7.2 Interior courtyards shall provide access to commercial uses to count as pedestrian amenity. PA7.3 Commercial spaces adjacent to an interior courtyard shall have large storefront windows open to the interior courtyard. PA7.6 Interior corridors or hallways leading to the interior courtyard do not count as pedestrian amenity space. Commercial Core 2.7 Buildings on lots larger than 6,000 square feet shall incorporate architectural features that break up the mass. 2.9 Recessed entries are required. • Set a primary entrance back from the front façade a minimum of 4 feet. • Alternative options that define an entry and reinforce the rhythm of recessed entryways may be considered. • For corner lots, primary entries must face front lot line as determined by the Land Use Code and/or be located in the chamfered corner where applicable. 2.10 Secondary recessed entrances are required on the secondary street for corner lots and on buildings on lots larger than 6,000 square feet. 2.11 Maintain a floor to ceiling height of 12’-0” to 15’-0” feet for all commercial storefronts. • The ability to vary this requirement shall be based on demonstration of historic precedent amongst adjacent landmarks. Storefronts should be taller than the upper floors. • The floor to ceiling height may be dropped to 9’ after the first 25’ of building length from a street facing facade. 2.12 Maintain distinction between the street level and upper floors. • Maintain traditional hierarchy of floors, with the first floor, floor to ceiling height, being greater than upper floors. • Minimum floor to ceiling height shall be 9’ for the second floor. Commercial Area 4.4 Maintain a minimum floor to ceiling height of 10’ for the first floor. • The floor to ceiling height may be dropped to 9’ after the first 25’ of building length from a street facing façade. P155 IV.A. Page 7 of 7 4.5 Maintain distinction between the street level and upper floors to reinforce 19th century commercial traditions. • The first floor should be the tallest floor in the building. • Minimum floor to ceiling height shall be 9’ for the second floor. • Express the traditional distinction between floor levels through architectural details. For example: detailing, materials, belt course, and/or fenestration may be appropriate tools to differentiate between floors. P156 IV.A. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 403 S. Galena and 447 E. Cooper Avenue – Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Demolition, Mountain View Plane, Public Hearing DATE: January 11, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: The subject property is located at 403 S. Galena and 447 E. Cooper Street. It is a 15,044 square foot lot which is currently occupied by Casa Tua, a number of retail tenants, 3 free market apartments and 3 deed restricted dorm units. The site is not historically designated, but is located within the Commercial Core Historic District. The existing development is pictured below, with 403 S. Galena on the left and 447 E. Cooper on the right. The Historic Preservation Commission is asked to review demolition and replacement of the building at 447 E. Cooper. The reviews include Conceptual design, Demolition, Public Amenity, Utility/Delivery/Trash, Transportation, Parking, and encroachment into the Wheeler View Plane and the Wagner Park View Plane. HPC is the decision making board for this proposal. City Council will receive notice of call up after Conceptual review approval. Please note that the applicant has received Conceptual approval for a larger project on this site, but wishes to substantially revise the design, which requires the Conceptual process to be repeated. APPLICANT: 403 S. Galena LLC, represented by Modif Architecture and BendonAdams. ADDRESS: 403 S. Galena and 447 E. Cooper St., Lots E, F, G, H and I, Block 90, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. P157 IV.B. 2 PARCEL ID: 2737-182-21-009 and 2737-182-21-010. ZONING: CC, Commercial Core. DEMOLITION The application proposes complete demolition of 447 E. Cooper. This structure was built as an addition to Guido’s Swiss Inn, which was constructed in 1950. 447 E. Cooper appears to have been built in the 1960s. The elevator and stair between the two structures was created in the 1990s and is not proposed to be removed. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a) The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b) The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c) The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or d) No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and Staff response: The structure to be demolished is architecturally undistinguished and has not been documented to be a significant example of Aspen’s midcentury architecture. The original P158 IV.B. 3 chalet style inn, on the east end of the property is more illustrative of influential architecture of that period and is not affected by the demolition proposal. The 447 E. Cooper structure did originally function as lodge rooms, retail and housing related to Guido’s Swiss Inn, but much of that association has been lost due to changes in use of the property. Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a) The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in which it is located and b) The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c) Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Staff response: As stated, the existing development at 447 E. Cooper is not considered to be historically significant. The property is not directly adjacent to any historic resources and in fact is surrounded by non-historic structures, except for the Red Onion and Independence Square buildings across the street. Demolition of this structure will not affect the historic preservation needs of the area. Staff finds the Demolition criteria are met. CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW & COMMERCIAL DESIGN The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project’s conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. The design guidelines for conceptual review of a new building in the Commercial P159 IV.B. 4 Core Historic District are all stated within the “Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives.” The applicable guidelines are listed in “Exhibit A.” The proposed building is a single story, with a full basement and a roof deck. The applicant proposes to reduce the size of the development, versus what has previously been seen by HPC, in part because of the substantial cost of mitigating for the amount of new net leasable space that was being envisioned. While this is a legitimate challenge that undermines the viability of redeveloping the site, staff has concerns with the architectural fit of the current proposal, as follows. The proposed new building at 447 E. Cooper is to be broken up into three modules with a 45’ wide center module, flanked by two 21’ modules that are recessed behind it by 3’. Staff finds this to be in conflict with the following guidelines. 6.18 Maintain the alignment of façades at the sidewalk’s edge. Place as much of the façade of the building at the property line as possible. Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate. A minimum of 70% of the front façade shall be at the property line. 6.22 Rectangular forms should be dominant on Commercial Core façades. Rectangular forms should be vertically oriented. The façade should appear as predominantly flat, with any decorative elements and projecting or setback “articulations” appearing to be subordinate to the dominant roof form. The proposed development places approximately 50%, not 70% of the front façade on the property line, as indicated by guideline 6.18. Regarding articulation of the façade, addressed by guideline 6.22, no historic commercial structure in Aspen sets individual bays in a noticeably different plane from each other. Even at the applicant’s similarly designed new building at 204 S. Galena no more than a 1’ offset in plane between each bay was permitted. Guideline 6.30 calls for the project to have a relationship to the original townsite lot widths. This is a simple way for new development to connect with traditional proportioning of historic buildings in Aspen. The central bay of this project, at 45’, is wider than typical of any historic storefront in Aspen and does not have any relationship to the location of the original townsite lot lines. 6.30 On sites comprising two or more traditional lots, a building shall be designed to reflect the individual parcels. These methods shall be used: Variation in height of building modules across the site. Variation in massing achieved through upper floor setbacks, the roofscape form and variation in upper floor heights. Variation in building façade heights or cornice line. P160 IV.B. 5 To address this issues cited above, staff recommends restudy to set the entire façade of the new structure at the front lot line. This expression of a strong streetwall is particularly important to give this one story building presence within the block. At Final, where materials, fenestration and details are reviewed, Staff will recommend that original townsite lots be better expressed in the composition of the façade and that the architect avoid creating bi-lateral symmetry, which is not typical of any Victorian era commercial structures on a lot over 6,000 square feet in Aspen, except for the more monumental Hotel Jerome and Pitkin County Courthouse structures. Regarding height, the maximum allowed in the Commercial Core Zone District is 28 ft., which is proposed to be reached only by the elevator lobby centered on the roof. Second floor development on this site has limitations due to two Viewplanes which cross the area, however those Viewplanes do not prohibit an upper floor, but instead require assessment of the impact. Staff recommends that the proposed second floor elevator lobby be relocated towards the northeast corner of the structure, coplanar with the north and east facades. Centering the lobby on the roof creates a building massing that is foreign to Aspen’s historic development pattern, where placing it at the northwest would allow it to create a two story element that addresses guideline 6.25, creates asymmetry that is consistent with the architecture of the Victorian structures in the district, and may help to integrate the somewhat awkward existing elevator and stair tower that will remain in place to serve both 403 S. Galena and 447 E. Cooper. The guidelines state: 6.25 Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at the sidewalk. Establish a two-story height at the sidewalk edge, or provide a horizontal design element at this level. A change in materials, or a molding at this level are examples. Staff recommends restudy of the parapet height for the one story areas of the development. The storefront glazing, drawn to be 12’ tall, only meets the minimum height desired for the Commercial Core, where windows as tall as 15’ are found. The storefronts are topped with 7’ of wall surface, which partially serves as a guardrail for the upper floor deck. This gives the P161 IV.B. 6 building a massive quality not seen in historic one story buildings downtown, for instance at the Aspen Arcades, seen on the previous page. The proposed building is neither one story nor two. The only comparable example of this height for a one story structure can be found in the handful of false front wooden structures in the district, like 413 E. Hyman, but the materiality of these buildings mitigates the appearance of being “top heavy.” Finally, staff has a concern that the proposed project is noticeably similar to the building at 204 S. Galena, seen in the photo below, and to an extent the recently approved design for 434 E. Cooper. The historic district is meant to ensure the new development is strongly inspired by this context and reinforces Aspen’s sense of place. Repetition of a building design more than once within the Galena Street corridor may not achieve that goal. P162 IV.B. 7 PUBLIC AMENITY Redevelopment of this site requires the provision of an on-site public amenity space, or a cash in lieu payment. The property currently has less than the 25% public amenity that is typically required on a Commercial Core site. The deficit can be maintained, but redevelopment must be equal to what does exist today, or no less than 10% of the lot area. The application does not provide a clearly dimensioned calculation of the existing or proposed public amenity. Some of the area marked as public amenity is beneath roof overhangs, which makes the space not countable. Other areas, such as the patio at the back of Casa Tua, counts as public amenity and has not been identified as such. As a condition of a Conceptual approval of this project, public amenity, along with floor area and net leasable calculations, which are also not fully illustrated in this application, must be accurately stated as part of a Final review submittal. The applicant appears to intend to preserve the open area on the north and south sides of the 403 S. Galena structure as public amenity. To the extent that there is no reduction, no additional mitigation is needed. If there is any reduction, HPC will need to review a plan for mitigation on site or cash in lieu payment of $90 per square feet. Excessive open area abutting the malls is redundant. The City is actively planning for a restoration of the pedestrian malls and staff recommends that any cash-in-lieu payment generated by this project be directed to that purpose. The design guidelines in Exhibit A describe desirable characteristics of on-site amenity space, which must also meet the following requirements: 1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. 2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent rights-of-way are encouraged. 3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of-way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. 4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls, sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian environment. 5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection 26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements. P163 IV.B. 8 UTILITY, DELIVERY AND TRASH SERVICE PROVISION When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The success of the project related to these topics is assessed by Environmental Health, Engineering and Utilities, using the following criteria: 1. A trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum size and location standards established by Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, unless otherwise established according to said Chapter. 2. A utility area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum standards established by Title 25, Utilities, of the Municipal Code, the City’s Electric Distribution Standards, and the National Electric Code, unless otherwise established according to said Codes. 3. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located and combined to the greatest extent practical. 5. If the property adjoins an alleyway, the utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be along and accessed from the alleyway, unless otherwise approved through Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. 6. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be fenced so as not to be visible from the street, unless they are entirely located on an alleyway or otherwise approved though Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. All fences shall be six (6) feet high from grade, shall be of sound construction, and shall be no less than ninety percent (90%) opaque, unless otherwise varied through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. 7. Whenever utility, trash, and recycle service areas are required to be provided abutting an alley, other portions of a building may extend to the rear property line if otherwise allowed by this Title, provided that the utility, trash and recycle area is located at grade and accessible to the alley. 8. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. 9. All commercial and lodging buildings shall provide a delivery area. The delivery area shall be located along the alley if an alley adjoins the property. The delivery area shall be accessible to all tenant spaces of the building in a manner that meets the requirements of P164 IV.B. 9 the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. All non-ground floor commercial spaces shall have access to an elevator or dumbwaiter for delivery access. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be utilized as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International Building Code. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. 10. All commercial tenant spaces located on the ground floor in excess of 1,500 square feet shall contain a vestibule (double set of doors) developed internal to the structure to meet the requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen, or an air curtain. 10. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. 11. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. 12. The trash and recycling service area requirements may be varied pursuant to Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code. All other requirements of this subsection may be varied by special review (see Chapter 26.430.040.E, Utility and delivery service area provisions). Staff response: The proposed trash area is slightly undersized, and the location does not have alley access, therefore the final design for this service area is subject to Special Review by the Environmental Health Department (Municipal Code 12.10.030.C). This building is subject to the space requirements of 20’w x15’d x10’h found in Municipal Code 12.10.030 (A)b, since it is a commercial building with the capacity to have a Retail Food Service License (Casa Tua). Although the current design of having the narrow side of the trash and recycling space face the street access is contrary to requirements for alley access, the unique location of this property facing the Rubey Park Transit area calls for an exemption to that requirement. However, the 8 foot opening is insufficient to allow for safe passage of the dumpsters into and out of the area and should be widened to 10 feet. The drawings indicate a total of 300 square feet, broken into two separate areas. The trash and recycling must be co-located, so this space needs to be a single area. As designed, there is no access for Casa Tua to bring trash and recycling into the area. The design must demonstrate the restaurant will have safe access to this space in all weather conditions. The submitted drawings are not clear on whether the space will be open to the sky. P165 IV.B. 10 If it is open to the sky, measures must be taken to ensure wildlife cannot access this area. These measures could include electric fencing or a metal grate covering. If it is enclosed, there needs to be 10’ of height clearance provided. Finally, there must be sufficient access to the trash and recycling area to meet ADA clearance standards. PARKING The expansion of the development on this site requires parking mitigation. The property is currently under parked by 5.6 spaces. The applicant does not have to make up for that deficit, but must address the new net leasable area being constructed. 21.2 spaces are needed for the total site. This will be reduced by the 5.6 space deficit that exists now, leaving 15.6 spaces to be mitigated by a cash in lieu payment of $30,000 per space. The applicant has the right to pay cash-in-lieu, so no special approval by HPC is needed for this part of the proposal. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSEMENT The creation of new net leasable space requires mitigation for transportation impacts. The applicant has provided a worksheet calculating the number of new daily trips estimated as a result of this project to be 22.5. There are few opportunities for the applicant to take actions that will be perceived by the Engineering Department as appropriate mitigation, primarily because the site is mid-block and located on the pedestrian mall. While the final calculations will need to be determined at building permit review, the Engineering Department recommends that all TIA mitigation for this project be in the form of a cash in lieu payment, which is currently set at $6,000 per trip. A finalized TIA trip generation and mitigation will be a condition of approval for the applicant and Engineering to resolve at building permit. Engineering has also noted that the application does not mention a plan for stormwater management. This, and a construction management plan, will also be required to be fully addressed at permit review. MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE The property is crossed by two Viewplanes, depiected below. P166 IV.B. 11 No mountain view plane may be infringed upon, except as provided below [emphasis added]. When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable building height otherwise provided for in this Title, development shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445 as a Planned Development so as to provide for maximum flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and pedestrian space and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building height requirements and view plane height limitations. HPC, after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Department, may exempt a development from being processed as a Planned Development when the board determines that the proposed development has a minimal effect on the view plane. When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to re-open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view plane and redevelopment to reopen the view plane cannot be anticipated, HPC shall exempt the development from the requirements of this Section. Staff response: The project site falls within two different viewplanes – the Wheeler Opera House viewplane which originates from the original theater entrance and is directed toward Aspen Mountain, and the Wagner Park viewplane which originates from one of the goal posts on Wagner field and is directed toward Independence Pass. The application includes plans and elevations indicating where the proposed building infringes on the viewplane. The Wheeler viewplane intersects the front of the property at between 20 and 21 feet above grade. The Wagner Park viewplane intersects the southwest of the building at approximately 22 feet above grade and increases to almost 32 feet above grade as it crosses the rear lot line. In reality, both of these viewplanes are already blocked by existing development (the landmark Paragon Building, the landmark Independence Square building, the Wagner Park bathrooms) that cannot be anticipated to be redeveloped. The subject property cannot be seen from the origination point of the two viewplanes. Staff is supportive of flexibility in the viewplane, but has suggested a restudy of the second floor of the building, which will require further review. ______________________________________________________________________________ Upon reviewing this application, the HPC may: • approve the application, • approve the application with conditions, • disapprove the application, or • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. ______________________________________________________________________________ P167 IV.B. 12 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC continue the hearing for restudy, however a draft resolution of approval is provided. Areas for restudy or conditions of approval are: • Restudy the design to set the entire façade of the new structure at the front lot line. • Relocate the proposed second floor elevator lobby towards the northeast corner of the structure, coplanar with the north and east facades. • Restudy the height of the parapet for the one story areas of the development. • Public amenity, floor area and net leasable calculations must be accurately stated as part of the Final review submittal. • Any reduction of on-site public amenity from what exists today must be mitigated through cash-in-lieu payment. • Final design for the service area is subject to Special Review by the Environmental Health Department. At the least, the opening into the trash area along the alley must be increased from 8 to 10 feet. The trash and recycling must be co-located into a single area. The design must demonstrate the restaurant will have safe access to this space in all weather conditions. If it is open to the sky, measures must be taken to ensure wildlife cannot access this area. These measures could include electric fencing or a metal grate covering. If it is enclosed, there needs to be 10’ of height clearance provided. There must be sufficient access to the trash and recycling area to meet ADA clearance standards. • Parking mitigation will be provided through a cash-in-lieu payment. • TIA mitigation shall be finalized with the Engineering and Parks Department at Building Permit. • The status of the property ownership, in terms of being divided into a Parcel A and B, must be resolved to the satisfaction of the City prior to application for Final Review. EXHIBITS: RESOLUTION #___, SERIES OF 2017 A. Relevant Design Guidelines B. Application P168 IV.B. 13 Exhibit A, Relevant Design Guidelines 6.3 Develop an alley façade to create visual interest. Use varied building setbacks and changes in materials to create interest and reduce perceived scale. Balconies, court yards and decks are also appropriate. Providing secondary public entrances is strongly encouraged along alleys. These should be clearly intended for public use, but subordinate in detail to the primary street-side entrance. 6.6 A street facing amenity space shall meet all of the following requirements: Abut the public sidewalk Be level with the sidewalk Be open to the sky Be directly accessible to the public Be paved or otherwise landscaped 6.7 A street-facing public amenity space shall remain subordinate to the line of building fronts in the Commercial Core. Any public amenity space positioned at the street edge shall respect the character of the streetscape and ensure that street corners are well defined, with buildings placed at the sidewalk edge. Sunken spaces, which are associated with some past developments, adversely affect the street character. Where feasible, these should be replaced with sidewalk level improvements. 6.8 Street facing amenity space shall contain features to promote and enhance its use. These may include one or more of the following: Street furniture Public art Historical/interpretive marker 6.18 Maintain the alignment of façades at the sidewalk’s edge. Place as much of the façade of the building at the property line as possible. Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate. A minimum of 70% of the front façade shall be at the property line. 6.20 Orient a new building to be parallel to its lot lines, similar to that of traditional building orientations. The front of a primary structure shall be oriented to the street. 6.21 Orient a primary entrance toward the street. Buildings should have a clearly defined primary entrance. For most commercial buildings, this should be a recessed entry way. Do not orient a primary entrance to an interior court. P169 IV.B. 14 Providingsecondary public entrances to commercial spaces is also encouraged on larger buildings. 6.22 Rectangular forms should be dominant on Commercial Core façades. Rectangular forms should be vertically oriented. The façade should appear as predominantly flat, with any decorative elements and projecting or setback “articulations” appearing to be subordinate to the dominant roof form. 6.23 Use flat roof lines as the dominant roof form. A flat roof, or one that gently slopes to the rear of a site, should be the dominant roof form. Parapets on side façades should step down towards the rear of the building. False fronts and parapets with horizontal emphasis also may be considered. 6.24 Along a rear façade, using building forms that step down in scale toward the alley is encouraged. Consider using additive forms, such as sheds, stairs and decks to reduce the perceived scale. These forms should however, remain subordinate to the primary structure. Use projecting roofs at the ground floor over entrances, decks and for separate utility structures in order to establish a human scale that invites pedestrian activity. 6.25 Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at the sidewalk. Establish a two-story height at the sidewalk edge, or provide a horizontal design element at this level. A change in materials, or a molding at this level are examples. 6.26 Building façade height shall be varied from the façade height of adjacent buildings of the same number of stories. If an adjacent structure is three stories and 38 ft. tall, new infill may be three stories, but must vary in façade height by a minimum of 2 ft. 6.27 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the Commercial Core. Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height limit on the subject property. A minimum 9 ft. floor to ceiling height is to be maintained on second stories and higher. Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added for one or more of the following reasons: - In order to achieve at least a two-foot variation in height with an adjacent building. - The primary function of the building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum, Civic Building, Performance Hall, Fire Station, etc.) - Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity to a historic resource, or location within a View Plane, therefore relief in another area may be appropriate. - To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units. - To make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Building Department) contribution to the building's overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved day- lighting. 6.28 Height variation should be achieved using one or more of the following: P170 IV.B. 15 Vary the building height for the full depth of the site in accordance with traditional lot width. Set back the upper floor to vary the building façade profile(s) and the roof forms across the width and the depth of the building. Vary the façade (or parapet) heights at the front. Step down the rear of the building towards the alley, in conjunction with other design standards and guidelines. 6.29 On sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths, the façade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. The façade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. Height should be varied every 60 ft. minimum and preferably every 30 ft. of linear frontage in keeping with traditional lot widths and development patterns. No more than two consecutive 30 ft. façade modules may be three stories tall, within an individual building. A rear portion of a third module may rise to three stories, if the front is set back a minimum of 40 feet from the street façade. (e.g. at a minimum, the front 40 feet may be no more than two stories in height.) 6.30 On sites comprising two or more traditional lots, a building shall be designed to reflect the individual parcels. These methods shall be used: Variation in height of building modules across the site. Variation in massing achieved through upper floor setbacks, the roofscape form and variation in upper floor heights. Variation in building façade heights or cornice line. 6.31 A new building should step down in scale to respect the height, form and scale of a historic building within its immediate setting. 14.14 Minimize the visual impacts of service areas as seen from the street. When it is feasible, screen service areas from view, especially those associated with commercial and multifamily developments. This includes locations for trash containers and loading docks. Service areas should be accessed off of the alley, if one exists. 14.15 Minimize the visual impacts of mechanical equipment as seen from the public way. Mechanical equipment may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does not create a negative visual impact. Mechanical equipment or vents on a roof must be grouped together to minimize their visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, provide screening with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. Screen ground-mounted units with fences, stone walls or hedges. A window air conditioning unit may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does not create a negative visual impact. Use low-profile mechanical units on rooftops so they will not be visible from the street or alley. Also minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Use smaller P171 IV.B. 16 satellite dishes and mount them low to the ground and away from front yards, significant building facades or highly visible roof planes. Paint telecommunications and mechanical equipment in muted colors that will minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds. P172 IV.B. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #__, Series of 2017 Page 1 of 4 RESOLUTION NO. __ (SERIES OF 2017) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL, CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN APPROVAL, DEMOLITION APPROVAL AND VIEWPLANE REVIEW FOR 403 S. GALENA AND 447 E COOPER, LOTS E, F, G, H AND I, BLOCK 90, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-182-21-009 and 2737-182-21-010 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from 403 S. Galena LLC, Mark Hunt Manager, with authorization by the property owner. The applicant was represented by BendonAdams and Modif Architecture and requested the following land use review approvals: • Major Development Final Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415; • Commercial Design Final Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412; • Growth Management Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.475; and, WHEREAS, the applicant elected to the revise the design that was submitted for Final Review. The Community Development Department determined the revisions to be substantial, requiring the project to return to the Conceptual review step pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415.070.D.3.c.2. The requested approvals were amended to be: • Conceptual Major Development, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415; • Conceptual Commercial Design, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412; • Demolition, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415; and • Viewplane, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.050; and, WHEREAS, all code citation references are to the City of Aspen Land Use Code in effect on the day of the initial Conceptual development application – May 4, 2015, as applicable to this Project; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, and Section 26.304.060.B.4, Modification of Review Procedures, all necessary land use reviews, as identified herein, have been combined to be considered by the Historic Preservation Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, such combination of review procedures was done to ensure clarity of review, was accomplished with all required public noticing provided as evidenced by an affidavit of public noticing submitted to the record, and the public was provided a thorough and full review of the proposed development; and, P173 IV.B. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #__, Series of 2017 Page 2 of 4 WHEREAS, in preparation for this Conceptual review, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Environmental Health Department and Engineering Department and said referral agencies recommended conditions to be incorporated into any approval; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed application and recommended continuation for restudy; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on January 11, 2017, during which the recommendations of the Community Development Director, referral agencies, and comments from the public were requested and heard by the Historic Preservation Commission; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 11, 2017 the Historic Preservation Commission approved Resolution #__, Series of 2017, by a __ to __ vote. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1:Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Historic Preservation Commission hereby grants – Conceptual Major Development approval, Conceptual Commercial Design approval, Demolition approval, and Viewplane Exemption, subject to the recommended conditions of approval as listed herein. • Public amenity, floor area and net leasable calculations must be accurately stated as part of the Final review submittal. • Any reduction of on-site public amenity from what exists today must be mitigated through cash-in-lieu payment. • Final design for the service area is subject to Special Review by the Environmental Health Department. At the least, the opening into the trash area along the alley must be increased from 8 to 10 feet. The trash and recycling must be co-located into a single area. The design must demonstrate the restaurant will have safe access to this space in all weather conditions. If it is open to the sky, measures must be taken to ensure wildlife cannot access this area. These measures could include electric fencing or a metal grate covering. If it is enclosed, there needs to be 10’ of height clearance provided. There must be sufficient access to the trash and recycling area to meet ADA clearance standards. • Parking mitigation will be provided through a cash-in-lieu payment. • TIA mitigation shall be finalized with the Engineering and Parks Department at Building Permit. • The status of the property ownership, in terms of being divided into a Parcel A and B, must be resolved to the satisfaction of the City prior to application for Final Review. P174 IV.B. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #__, Series of 2017 Page 3 of 4 Section 2: Subsequent Reviews Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Applicant is required to obtain Final Commercial Design Review, Final Major Development Review, Growth Management Review. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department and the Historic Preservation Commission are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 4: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: 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, passed and approved this 11th day of January, 2017. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: __________________________ ______________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Willis Pember, Chair Attest: _______________________________ P175 IV.B. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #__, Series of 2017 Page 4 of 4 Nicole Henning, Deputy Clerk P176 IV.B. December 28, 2016 Ms. Amy Simon Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 447 East Cooper Avenue Conceptual Substantial Amendment Ms. Simon: Please accept this application for Major Development (Conceptual) review, as well for Commercial Design Review, Demolition, and View Plane to remove the existing commercial building located at 447 East Cooper Avenue and to replace it with a new commercial building. This property is not on the City of Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures (the Inventory), but is located within the Commercial Core Historic Overlay District. The property is owned by 403 South Galena LLC; Mark Hunt, Manager. The property is comprised of two parcels. Parcel A is known as 447 East Cooper Avenue – Lots E, F and G, Block 90; Parcel ID 2737-182-21-009. Parcel B is known as 403 South Galena Street – Lots H and I, Block 90; Parcel ID 2737-182-21-010. The redevelopment focuses on the 447 property with minimal changes to the 403 property. The City has not yet determined whether the project should be treated as a 15,000 square foot lot (Parcel A + B) or as a 9,000 square foot lot (Parcel A only). Most recently, the feedback from the City is to treat this as a 15,000 square foot lot for now. Whether a 9,000 square foot lot or a 15,000 square foot lot is essentially inconsequential for the purposes of HPC’s review. The application only proposes to affect the 9,000 square foot portion of the property referred to as Parcel A. Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Demolition Review, and Viewplane Review approvals were granted to this property on September 9, 2015 via HPC P177 IV.B. Page 2 of 19 447 e. Cooper Conceptual Substantial Amendment Resolution 25, Series of 2015. The proposed building is smaller in scope and size than the previously approved project and requires approval of a substantial amendment to proceed. The proposed project is consistent with the Conceptual Design standards. The project continues to require demolition approval and view plane approval. There have been no changes to the property that would predict a different approach to the demolition criteria. The building is lower than the previous project which was granted view plane approval. The proposed revisions to the City view plane standards will result (if adopted) in no, or virtually no, future height increases to the buildings on this block face. Considering the redevelopment potential for this block (i.e. there are no designated buildings on the blockface), the proposed one-story building will fit within the existing and future context. The conceptually approved two story building would be significantly taller than the rest of the blockface considering future development potential and new height restrictions for the other aging buildings. This application is submitted pursuant to the following sections of the Aspen Land Use Code: • 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures • 26.304.060.B.1 Combined Reviews • 26.412 Commercial Design Review • 26.415.070 Development involving designated properties (Major) • 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements • 26.610 Impact fees • 26.630 Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines • 26.710.140 Commercial Core (CC) P178 IV.B. Page 3 of 19 447 e. Cooper Conceptual Substantial Amendment The application is divided into three sections: Section I describes the existing conditions of the project site and environs. Section II outlines the applicant’s proposed development and Section III addresses the proposed development’s compliance with the applicable review criteria of the Code. Exhibits are provided as follows: • Exhibit 1: Land Use Application & Dimensional Requirements Form • Exhibit 2: Vicinity Map • Exhibit 3: HOA Compliance Form • Exhibit 4: Authorization for BendonAdams, LLC to represent the applicant • Exhibit 5: Certificate of Ownership for 447 E. Cooper Street and 403 E. Cooper Street • Exhibit 6: Transportation Impact Analysis • Exhibit 7: HPC Resolution 25, Series of 2015 • Exhibit 8: Mailing addresses of record for all property owners located within 300 feet of the subject property • Exhibit 9: Survey & Drawings The applicant has attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Code and to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the application. Upon request, BendonAdams will gladly provide such additional information as may be required during the review. Sincerely, Chris Bendon, AICP BendonAdams LLC 300 So. Spring St. #202 Aspen, CO chris@bendonadams.com 970.925.2855 P179 IV.B. Page 4 of 19 447 e. Cooper Conceptual Substantial Amendment Section I: Existing Conditions The 15,044 square foot property is on the Cooper Street Pedestrian Mall. The existing development on the 447 e. Cooper property (Parcel A) includes a two-story commercial and residential building with a basement level area: free market residential units are located on the upper floor, commercial on the ground level, and rental dormitory units are in the basement level. Existing development on the 403 s. Galena property (Parcel B) includes a two-story commercial building. No changes are proposed for the 403 building. The property is currently under-parked. There are nine legal off-street parking spaces associated with the existing uses, including the uses within the adjacent Casa Tua building (403). Code Section 26.515.030 provides that the existing commercial use generates an off-street parking requirement of one (1) space for every 1,000 square feet of net leasable area. The existing development of Parcel A contains 8,154 sf of commercial net leasable area (NLA). Together with the approximately 6,411 sf of NLA in the Casa Tua building for a total of 14,565 sf of NLA, the effective requirement is 14.6 spaces. The current condition represents a deficit of 5.6 spaces. The property contains approximately 1,400 sf or just under 10% of onsite public amenity space consisting of the flagstone patio on the north east corner of the property and additional setback and landscape areas. Trash and recycling areas are accessed from the alley. U Parcel A Parcel B Figure 1: Aspen GIS map of the two parcels (A and B) that comprise 15,000 square feet. Parcel B is 6,000 and houses Casa Tua; Parcel A (the subject of this review) is 9,000 square feet and houses a few retails shops on the ground floor. P180 IV.B. Page 5 of 19 447 e. Cooper Conceptual Substantial Amendment Section II: Project Description/The Proposal The applicant is requesting that the HPC grant Conceptual approval of a Major Development as well as Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Demolition Review, and View Plane Review. All applications for approval of a Major Development must receive a determination of consistency with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Although not historically significant itself, since the subject property is located in the Commercial Core Historic District, approval of the proposed design requires a finding of consistency with the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines (the “Commercial Guidelines”). The current proposal envisions a primarily one-story building with commercial space on street level and lower level. A small second story is proposed with access to a roof-top deck. The proposal fully complies with the Commercial Core zone district and is lower than the regulated Wheeler and Wagner view plane heights. The proposal is fully depicted on the accompanying architectural plans and renderings prepared by Modif Architecture. The proposed development on Parcel A will contain 14,820 square feet of commercial net leasable area (NLA). There is an increase of 6,666 square feet NLA proposed for the property (21,231 total for both A + B minus 14,565 existing NLA). Affordable housing mitigation for the expanded commercial space is proposed, off-site, through the extinguishment of Affordable Housing Credits. The property currently has 3 free-market residences on the second floor and 3 deed restricted dormitory units in the basement level. These units are proposed to be replaced, off-site, through the extinguishment of Affordable Housing Credits. Provision of parking for the increased commercial space is proposed through a cash-in-lieu payment. The total 21,231 sf of NLA carries an off-street parking requirement of 21.2 spaces. After applying the deficit carryforward, the project is responsible for 6.6 off-street parking spaces, which will be completely satisfied through the payment of cash-in-lieu as allowed by right pursuant to Code Section 26.515.030. The payment-in-lieu of parking will be provided at the time of building permit issuance for the redevelopment. At the codified rate of $30,000, the payment due will be $198,000 ($30,000 x 6.6 spaces). The trash/utility area is accessed off the alley and is not proposed to change. The applicant looks forward to working with Environmental Health to determine an appropriate trash area size and configuration should the existing condition be deemed insufficient. The applicant requests that the trash area be a condition of approval for Final Design Review. The transformer is open to the sky. Please refer to the proposed site plan for a visual depiction. Section III: Review Requirements A. Common Development Review Procedures and Combined Reviews Section 26.304.060.B(1) of the Code discusses combined reviews and states that, The procedures for reviewing development plans and applications where more than one (1) development approval is being sought simultaneously may be combined or modified whenever the Community Development Director determines, in consultation with the applicant, that such combination or modification would eliminate or reduce duplication and ensure economy of time, expense and clarity; provided, however, that all public noticing normally associated with the subject development application(s) is maintained and that a P181 IV.B. Page 6 of 19 447 e. Cooper Conceptual Substantial Amendment thorough and full review of the application and proposed development as otherwise required by this Title is achieved. It is proposed that the associated Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Demolition review, View Plane review, and other requests made herein all be combined and made part of the Conceptual Major Development Review and approval by the HPC. B. Conceptual Approval of a Major Development Code Section 26.415.070 addresses development involving non-historic property located within a historic district, such as the subject site. Said Code section provides that, No building, structure or landscape shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or a property located within a Historic District until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a development order. The proposed redevelopment of 447 East Cooper is considered a major development because it involves demolition of non-historic structures and the development of a new structure in a historic district. The procedures for the review of major development projects include a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a conceptual development plan and then a final development plan. Major changes to the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines were adopted in early 2016 and are currently in place. This project is subject to the HP Guidelines in place at the time of initial Land Use application submittal in May 2015. Regardless, the application seeks to comply with the current HP Guidelines. The new HP Guidelines no longer have a Chapter on the Commercial Core Historic District; rather, the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines for the Commercial Core Historic District apply to development in the Core. The appropriate design objectives and guidelines are discussed below in the Commercial Design Review section of this application. 26.415.060.B.2 The City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, as amended, which are on file with the Community Development Department, will be used in the review of requests of certificates of no negative effect or certificates of appropriateness. Conformance with the applicable guidelines and the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304 will be necessary for the approval of any proposed work: Please find below (part A) an analysis of the Main Street Historic District Design Guidelines and Objectives. Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review uses the same design guidelines for the Main Street Historic District and the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. As described below, the project conforms with the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines/ Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Guidelines and Objectives. Relevant Design Guidelines found in Chapter 12, Architectural Lighting, Mechanical Equipment, Service Areas and Signage, are addressed below. 12.1 Address accessibility compliance requirements while preserving character defining features of historic buildings and districts. P182 IV.B. Page 7 of 19 447 e. Cooper Conceptual Substantial Amendment • All new construction must comply completely with the International Building Code (IBC) for accessibility. Special provisions for historic buildings exist in the law that allow some flexibility when designing solutions which meet accessibility standards. The proposed new building intends to meet all IBC requirements for accessibility. 12.2 Original light fixtures must be maintained. When there is evidence as to the appearance of original fixtures that are no longer present, a replication is appropriate. The existing building is not a designated landmark and is proposed to be demolished. 12.3 Exterior light fixtures should be simple in character. • The design of a new fixture should be appropriate in form, finish, and scale with the structure. • New fixtures should not reflect a different period of history than that of the affected building, or be associated with a different architectural style. • Lighting should be placed in a manner that is consistent with the period of the building, and should not provide a level of illumination that is out of character. • One light adjacent to each entry is appropriate on an Aspen Victorian residential structure. A recessed fixture, surface mounted light, pendant or sconce will be considered if suited to the building type or style. • On commercial structures and AspenModern properties, recessed lights and concealed lights are often most appropriate. Light fixtures, cut sheets and a more refined lighting plan will be included in the final design application for Final Review. 12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and trash storage. • Place mechanical equipment on the ground where it can be screened. • Mechanical equipment may only be mounted on a building on an alley façade. • Rooftop mechanical equipment or vents must be grouped together to minimize their visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, it may be appropriate to provide screening with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. Use the smallest, low profile units available for the purpose. • Window air conditioning units are not allowed. • Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Group them in a discrete location. Use pedestals when possible, rather than mounting on a historic building. • Paint mechanical equipment in a neutral color to minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds • In general, mechanical equipment should be vented through the roof, rather than a wall, in a manner that has the least visual impact possible. • Avoid surface mounted conduit on historic structures. Mechanical equipment is centrally located on the rooftop and is concealed from the street with a perforated metal mechanical screen. 12.5 Awnings must be functional. P183 IV.B. Page 8 of 19 447 e. Cooper Conceptual Substantial Amendment • An awning must project at least 3 feet, and not more than 5 feet from the building façade. • An awning may only be installed at a door or window and must fit within the limits of the door or window opening. • Awnings are inappropriate on AspenModern properties unless historic evidence shows otherwise. An awning is not proposed. 12.6 Signs should not obscure or damage historic building fabric. • Where possible, install a free standing sign that is appropriate in height and width. Consolidate signage for multiple businesses. • Mount signs so that the attachment point can be easily repaired when the sign is replaced. Do not mount signage directly into historic masonry. • Blade signs or hanging signs are generally preferred to wall mounted signs because the number of attachment points may be less. • Signs should be constructed of wood or metal. • Pictographic signs are encouraged because they add visual interest to the street. 12.7 Sign lighting must be subtle and concealed. • Pin mounted letters with halo lighting will not be approved on Aspen Victorian buildings. • The size of a fixture used to light a sign must be minimized. The light must be directed towards the sign. If possible, integrate the lights into the sign bracket. 12.8 Locate signs to be subordinate to the building design. • Signs should be located on the first floor of buildings, primarily. • Signs should not obscure historic building details. 12.9 Preserve historic signs. There is no historic building fabric on the proposed building. The applicant intends to meet the Guidelines and the City of Aspen Sign Code when a sign permit is submitted. C. Demolition of Properties within a Historic District Code Section 26.415.080 states that no properties located within a Historic District can be demolished without HPC approval. Subsection A(4) provides the criteria that HPC must use in determining whether or not to approve the demolition and states the following: Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or P184 IV.B. Page 9 of 19 447 e. Cooper Conceptual Substantial Amendment d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance. Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in which it is located, and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties, and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. The existing building was originally built around 1950. It cannot practically be moved to another location in Aspen, and it has no historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, thus meeting the first criteria (c) and (d), above. The structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the Commercial Core, and its loss would not adversely affect the integrity of the District. The previous Conceptual review (HPC Resolution No. 25, 2015) easily found the demolition criteria met. The 447 structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in which it is located and the loss of the building would not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties, and No changes to the building that would affect its contribution to the integrity of the District have occurred since the previous demolition approval. Demolition of the 447 East Cooper building will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. D. Conceptual Commercial Design Review Section 26.412.050 of the Code provides the review criteria for Commercial Design Review and states, in relevant part, that the proposed development must comply with the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial Design Standards, as well as the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. The proposed development is located in the Commercial Core Historic District. The design standards of Section 26.412.060, as well as the Commercial Core Historic District Design Review Guidelines are all enumerated below in italicized print, and each is followed by a description of the proposal’s compliance and/or consistency therewith, as applicable. 26.412.050. Review Criteria An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards. Addressed below. P185 IV.B. Page 10 of 19 447 e. Cooper Conceptual Substantial Amendment B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the façade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. Not applicable. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. 26.412.060. Commercial Design Standards The following design standards, in addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district design objectives and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed-use development: A. Public amenity space. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-of-way or private property within commercial areas. On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method or combination of methods of providing the public amenity shall be at the option of the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, according to the procedures herein and according to the following standards: 1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. 2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent rights-of-way are encouraged. 3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of-way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. 4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls, sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian environment. 5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection 26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements. According to Code Section 26.575.030(A), public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-of–way or private property. Subsection B states that the public amenity requirement is 10%. In its existing condition, the property contains just under 10% (1,400 square feet on the 15,044 square foot lot) public amenity. As such, the effective P186 IV.B. Page 11 of 19 447 e. Cooper Conceptual Substantial Amendment public amenity requirement upon redevelopment is 10%, which is met with the existing space in the amount about 1,400 square feet with the remaining 100 sf proposed to be mitigated through cash in lieu [15,000 sf * 100 = 1,500,000 land value * 0.6% = $9,000. B. Utility, delivery and trash service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply: 1. A trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum size and location standards established by Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, unless otherwise established according to said Chapter. 2. A utility area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum standards established by Title 25, Utilities, of the Municipal code, the City’s Electric Distribution Standards, and the National Electric Code, unless otherwise established according to said Codes. 3. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located and combined to the greatest extent practical. 4. If the property adjoins an alleyway, the utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be along and accessed from the alleyway, unless otherwise approved through Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. 5. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be fenced so as not to be visible from the street, unless they are entirely located on an alleyway or otherwise approved though Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. All fences shall be six (6) feet high from grade, shall be of sound construction, and shall be no less than ninety percent (90%) opaque, unless otherwise varied through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. 6. Whenever utility, trash, and recycle service areas are required to be provided abutting an alley, other portions of a building may extend to the rear property line if otherwise allowed by this Title, provided that the utility, trash and recycle area is located at grade and accessible to the alley. 7. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. 8. All commercial and lodging buildings shall provide a delivery area. The delivery area shall be located along the alley if an alley adjoins the property. The delivery area shall be accessible to all tenant spaces of the building in a manner that meets the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. All non-ground floor commercial spaces shall have access to an elevator or dumbwaiter for delivery access. Alleyways (vehicular rights- of-way) may not be utilized as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International Building Code. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. 9. All commercial tenant spaces located on the ground floor in excess of 1,500 square feet shall contain a vestibule (double set of doors) developed internal to the structure to meet the requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen, or an air curtain. 10. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. P187 IV.B. Page 12 of 19 447 e. Cooper Conceptual Substantial Amendment 11. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. 12. The trash and recycling service area requirements may be varied pursuant to Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code. All other requirements of this subsection may be varied by special review (see Chapter 26.430.040.E, Utility and delivery service area provisions). An approximately 300 sf trash/utility area, a remodel of the existing trash area, is proposed off of the alleyway in the form of two separate areas (9’2” x 14’11” ; and 9’10” x 16’11”). The applicant will work with the Environmental Health Department to discuss these areas and gain approval for the size, location and configuration. The applicant requests that this be a condition of approval for Final Design Review. Street Grid 6.1 Maintain the established town grid in all projects. • The network of streets and alleys should be retained as public circulation space and for maximum public access. • Streets and alleys should not be enclosed or closed to public access, and should remain open to the sky. The proposed development maintains the established town grid while improving upon the existing building. The property is on the pedestrian mall and backs up to the alley facing the Rubey Park bus station. There is surface parking between the rear of the existing building and the alley, and this area is plainly visible from around the surrounding area due to the bus station layout. The existing parking spaces at the back of the building will be removed and the new building will be oriented to the lot line. No streets or alleys will be enclosed or otherwise closed to public access and all will remain open to the sky. Internal Walkways 6.2 Public walkways and through courts, when appropriate, should be designed to create access No internal public walkways or through courts are proposed. Alleys 6.3 Develop an alley façade to create visual interest. • Use varied building setbacks and changes in materials to create interest and reduce perceived scale. • Balconies, courtyards and decks are also appropriate. P188 IV.B. Page 13 of 19 447 e. Cooper Conceptual Substantial Amendment • Providing secondary public entrances is strongly encouraged along alleys. These should be clearly intended for public use, but subordinate in detail to the primary street-side entrance. The redeveloped building will greatly improve the alley façade as it is proposed to have a second “front” on the alley side of the building, which faces the Rubey Park Bus Station. Parking 6.4 Structured parking should be placed within a 'wrap' of commercial and/or residential uses. The exposure of auto entry areas should be minimized. 6.5 Structured parking access should not have a negative impact on the character of the street. The access shall be: • Located on an alley or secondary street if necessary. • Designed with the same attention to detail and materials as the primary building façade. • Integrated into the building design. There is no structured or other type of parking proposed. Public Amenity Space 6.6 A street facing amenity space shall meet all of the following requirements: • Abut the public sidewalk • Be level with the sidewalk • Be open to the sky • Be directly accessible to the public • Be paved or otherwise landscaped 6.7 A street-facing public amenity space shall remain subordinate to the line of building fronts in the Commercial Core. • Any public amenity space positioned at the street edge shall respect the character of the streetscape and ensure that street corners are well defined, with buildings placed at the sidewalk edge. • Sunken spaces, which are associated with some past developments, adversely affect the street character. Where feasible, these should be replaced with sidewalk level improvements. 6.8 Street facing amenity space shall contain features to promote and enhance its use. These may include one or more of the following: • Street furniture • Public art • Historical/interpretive marker P189 IV.B. Page 14 of 19 447 e. Cooper Conceptual Substantial Amendment The detailed design of Public Amenity Space is provided onsite through the existing space in front of 403 Galena and through cash in lieu. Guideline 6.8, will be a matter for approval at the Final Review Stage at which time landscaping will be fully developed, although any feedback from HPC is welcomed during Conceptual Review. Please refer to the Public Amenity Space discussion above. Additional narrative with regard to Public Amenity is provided below, in reference to Guidelines 6.12 through 6.15. Guidelines 6.9 through 6.11 address mid-block walkway and alley-side public amenity spaces and are not applicable to the proposed development. Guidelines 6.16 and 6.17 address front yard amenity spaces and are, likewise, not applicable. Guidelines 6.12 through 6.15 are not applicable to the current proposal as said Guidelines address second level amenity spaces. Building Setbacks 6.18 Maintain the alignment of façades at the sidewalk’s edge. • Place as much of the façade of the building at the property line as possible. • Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate. • A minimum of 70% of the front façade shall be at the property line. 6.19 A building may be set back from its side lot lines in accordance with design guidelines identified in Street & Circulation Pattern and Public Amenity Space guidelines. The proposed building is sited lot line to lot line with the exception of the ground floor on the Rubey Park side of the building (facing the alley). The ground floor on the alley side is set 5’ to 6’-6” back so as to provide relief along the vehicular right-of-way and to allow on-site passage to the shared trash and recycling facilities. The alignment of facades at the sidewalk’s (mall’s) edge is maintained in a manner consistent not only with surrounding structures but also with the structure that has been on the subject property since around 1950. Building Orientation 6.20 Orient a new building to be parallel to its lot lines, similar to that of traditional building orientations. The front of a primary structure shall be oriented to the street. 6.21 Orient a primary entrance toward the street. • Buildings should have a clearly defined primary entrance. For most commercial buildings, this should be a recessed entry way. • Do not orient a primary entrance to an interior court. • Providing secondary public entrances to commercial spaces is also encouraged on larger buildings. The redeveloped building will be parallel to the lot lines and the primary entrances to the commercial spaces are oriented toward the mall and the alley, with clearly defined storefront windows and recessed entryways on both sides. P190 IV.B. Page 15 of 19 447 e. Cooper Conceptual Substantial Amendment Building Form 6.22 Rectangular forms should be dominant on Commercial Core façades. • Rectangular forms should be vertically oriented. • The façade should appear as predominantly flat, with any decorative elements and projecting or setback “articulations” appearing to be subordinate to the dominant form. 6.23 Use flat roof lines as the dominant roof form. • A flat roof, or one that gently slopes to the rear of a site, should be the dominant roof form. • Parapets on side façades should step down towards the rear of the building. • False fronts and parapets with horizontal emphasis also may be considered. The building uses rectangular forms and is vertically inclined for each of the three proposed modules to the extent possible provided regulated view plane heights. The roofline is flat with a simple parapet to create a horizontal emphasis. 6.24 Along a rear façade, using building forms that step down in scale toward the alley is encouraged. • Consider using additive forms, such as sheds, stairs and decks to reduce the perceived scale. These forms should however, remain subordinate to the primary structure. • Use projecting roofs at the ground floor over entrances, decks and for separate utility structures in order to establish a human scale that invites pedestrian activity. The subject property has the unusual characteristic of an alley frontage with open space on the other side (i.e., no buildings across the alley) due to the presence of the Rubey Park bus station. Given this unique character and the open visibility of the subject property’s alley façade from Galena Street and Durant Avenue, it is felt that the “rear” façade is most appropriately given the same attention to detail and design interest as the “front” façade. Accordingly, the alley façade has been provided with storefront windows and recessed entryways to establish a human scale that invites pedestrian activity. Building Height, Mass & Scale 6.25 Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at the sidewalk. • Establish a two-story height at the sidewalk edge, or provide a horizontal design element at this level. A change in materials, or a molding at this level are examples. 6.26 Building façade height shall be varied from the façade height of adjacent buildings of the same number of stories. • If an adjacent structure is three stories and 38 ft. tall, new infill may be three stories, but must vary in façade height by a minimum of 2 ft. The two view planes crossing the property limit the height to 21’-7”, effectively prohibiting a true two-story building. P191 IV.B. Page 16 of 19 447 e. Cooper Conceptual Substantial Amendment 6.27 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the Commercial Core. • Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height limit on the subject property. • A minimum 9 ft. floor to ceiling height is to be maintained on second stories and higher. • Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added for one or more of the following reasons: - In order to achieve at least a two-foot variation in height with an adjacent building. - The primary function of the building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum, Civic Building, Performance Hall, Fire Station, etc.) - Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity to a historic resource, or location within a View Plane, therefore relief in another area may be appropriate. - To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units. - To make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Building Department) contribution to the building's overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved daylighting. Please refer to the responses provided above relative to similar standards (i.e., 6.25 and 6.26). The proposed building complies with the maximum height and minimum floor-to-floor/floor-to- ceiling limitations of the Commercial Core Zone District. “Additional” height is not requested. 6.28 Height variation should be achieved using one or more of the following: • Vary the building height for the full depth of the site in accordance with traditional lot width. • Set back the upper floor to vary the building façade profile(s) and the roof forms across the width and the depth of the building. • Vary the façade (or parapet) heights at the front. • Step down the rear of the building towards the alley, in conjunction with other design standards and guidelines. 6.29 On sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths, the façade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. 6.30 On sites comprising two or more traditional lots, a building shall be designed to reflect the individual parcels. These methods shall be used: • Variation in height of building modules across the site. • Variation in massing achieved through upper floor setbacks, the roofscape form and variation in upper floor heights. • Variation in building façade heights or cornice line. The goal of true building height variations is difficult provided the effects of the view plane regulations. The adjacent buildings on both sides are two stories in height. In addition, the two- story Casa Tua building to the east has a pitched roof with a 28-foot tall, north-south ridgeline that provides open area between the two structures. The result is varied but compatible building P192 IV.B. Page 17 of 19 447 e. Cooper Conceptual Substantial Amendment façade heights along the entire block face. Please refer to the streetscape for a visual depiction of the blockface. 6.31 A new building should step down in scale to respect the height, form and scale of a historic building within its immediate setting. The only historic buildings in the immediate vicinity are the Red Onion, which is across the street/mall and has a height of approximately 36 feet, and the Independence Square Building, which is on the other side of the Galena Street mall and has a height of approximately 42 feet. Guidelines 6.32 and 6.33 address new buildings that are located adjacent to one- or two-story historic, residential buildings. Since there are no residential buildings adjacent to this property, these guidelines do not apply. 6.34 The setting of iconic historic structures should be preserved and enhanced when feasible. On sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths, the third floor of the adjacent lot width should be set back a minimum of 15 ft from the front facade. • Step a building down in height adjacent to an iconic structure. • Locate amenity space adjacent to an iconic structure. The only iconic structures in the immediate vicinity of the subject property are the Red Onion, across the Cooper Avenue mall, and the Independence Square Building, on the other side of the Galena Street mall. The building proposed on the subject lot will not negatively affect these iconic structures. E. Mountain View Plane Review Section 26.435.010(C) of the Code provides that development within designated mountain view planes is subject to heightened review so as to protect certain mountain views from obstruction, strengthen the environmental and aesthetic character of the City, maintain property values, and enhance the City’s tourist industry by maintaining the City’s heritage as a mountain community. There is an established and regulated view plane originating from approximately 5’-6” above the sidewalk along the north side of East Hyman Avenue in front of the Wheeler Opera House. There is also an established and regulated view plane originating in the north central part of Wagner Park (approximately at the north goalpost). No buildings or land uses are supposed to project above the established view plane unless the Historic Preservation Commission grants an exemption. The plan set (sheet A-010) illustrates the effect of the regulated view planes as they cross the subject property. The Wheeler view plane is the most impactful, limiting the property to less than 21 feet in height along the mall. The height limit of the Commercial Core Zone District is 28 feet. The existing Casa Tua building has a ridge height of 28 feet above grade. The existing the two- story, flat-roofed 447 building is 22 feet tall. The subject property is not at all visible from the Wheeler Opera House Viewplane vantage point due to existing buildings, including but not limited to the tee-shirt shop, NY Pizza, the Roaring Fork Building (Morris & Fyrwald), the Aspen Sports/Red Onion Office building, and the historic Red Onion building. P193 IV.B. Page 18 of 19 447 e. Cooper Conceptual Substantial Amendment Only a small portion at the rear of the subject property actually falls within the breadth of the Wagner Park Viewplane. When standing at the origination point in Wagner Park, neither the existing building nor the Casa Tua building can be seen, and the proposed redevelopment will not be visible either, due to the public restrooms and existing trees. Responses to the standards of Section 26.435.050(C) are provided below: When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable building height otherwise provided for in this title, development shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445 as a Planned Development, so as to provide for maximum flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and pedestrian space, and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building height requirements and view plane height limitations. The Planning and Zoning Commission [or Historic Preservation Commission], after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Department, may exempt a development from being processed as a Planned Development when the Planning and Zoning Commission [or HPC] determines that the proposed development has a minimal effect on the view plane When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning and Zoning Commission [or Historic Preservation Commission] shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane, and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to re-open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view plane, and redevelopment to re-open the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning and Zoning Commission [or Historic Preservation Commission] shall exempt the development from the requirements of this Section. The Code language provides that HPC approval of an exemption from the view plane height limitation shall be granted when another development already blocks the same view plane; in making such a determination, the HPC is to consider two things: 1) Whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane than does an existing development; and, 2) The likelihood of the already infringing structure(s) being, first, redeveloped and, second, redeveloped in a manner that would re-open the designated view plane. If the proposed development does not further infringe on the view plane, and redevelopment of the existing structure(s) infringing on the view plane cannot be anticipated, the proposed development is to be exempted from the view plane’s height limitation. Additionally, if it is determined that the proposed development will have a minimal impact on the view plane, the HPC can exempt the development from being processed as a PD. When the HPC approves an exemption from a designated view plane, the effective height limit, by default, is that of the underlying zone district. Further, when a proposed development warrants an exemption from the view plane but complies with the height limit of the underlying zone district, there remains no need for PD review. This is especially true of a development involving a property within a historic district, for such development is already subject to HPC review and approval, P194 IV.B. Page 19 of 19 447 e. Cooper Conceptual Substantial Amendment which entails a heightened level of scrutiny (i.e., “special consideration”) with regard to mass, scale, bulk, site planning and design, effects on streetscape and pedestrian experiences, and neighborhood compatibility. The proposed development will not require a variance from any applicable dimensional requirement should the HPC grant a view plane exemption. The proposed structure has a maximum measured building height of 28 feet, only for a small portion of the property, which falls within the codified limit of the CC zone district. Given the “Purpose” of the City’s Planned Development (PD) regulations, as stated in Section 26.445.010 of the Code, there would be nothing to gain by requiring the proposed development to proceed as a PD according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445. That is, the HPC review process is designed to encourage flexibility and innovation in the development of land while also requiring compatibility with historic resources. A Planned Development review seems very inappropriate for a small property, especially since the replacement structure will not be at all visible from any regulated Viewplane vantage point. The Viewplane impacts associated with the proposed redevelopment will be marginal to minimal, to the extent that any impacts at all will result. F. Parking The property is currently under-parked. There are nine legal off-street parking spaces associated with the existing uses, including the uses within the adjacent Casa Tua building (403). Code Section 26.515.030 provides that the existing commercial use generates an off-street parking requirement of one (1) space for every 1,000 square feet of net leasable area. The existing development of Parcel A contains 8,154 sf of commercial net leasable area (NLA). Together with the approximately 6,411 sf of NLA in the Casa Tua building for a total of 14,565 sf of NLA, the effective requirement is 14.6 spaces. The current condition represents a deficit of 5.6 spaces. Provision of parking for the increased commercial space is proposed through a cash-in-lieu payment. The total 21,231 sf of NLA carries an off-street parking requirement of 21.2 spaces. After applying the deficit carryforward, the project is responsible for 6.6 off-street parking spaces, which will be completely satisfied through the payment of cash-in-lieu as allowed by right pursuant to Code Section 26.515.030. The payment-in-lieu of parking will be provided at the time of building permit issuance for the redevelopment. At the codified rate of $30,000, the payment due will be $198,000 ($30,000 x 6.6 spaces). G. Transportation Impact Analysis Please see the conceptual Transportation Impact Analysis (Transportation Demand Management/ Multi-Modal Level of Service analysis, “TDM-MMLOS”) provided in Exhibit 6. The property is in a challenging location that inhibits the ability to provide physical improvements to meet the TIA requirements. The applicant proposes to mitigate through cash in lieu for any improvements that cannot be met physically onsite. P195 IV.B. ATTACHMENT 2 –LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): Name: Location: Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) APPLICANT: Name: Address: Phone #: REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Address: Phone #: GMQS Exemption Conceptual PUD GMQS Allotment Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) Special Review Subdivision ESA – 8040 Greenline, Stream Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, Mountain View Plane Subdivision Exemption (includes condominiumization) Commercial Design Review Lot Split Residential Design Variance Lot Line Adjustment Temporary Use Text/Map Amendment Conceptual SPA Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion Other: HPC Conceptual Major Development, Demolition Conditional Use EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $_________ Pre-Application Conference Summary Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards 3-D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8.5” X 11” must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model. 447 East Cooper Avenue – Parcel ID 2737-182-21-009 403 South Galena Street – Parcel ID 2737-182-21-010 Exhibit 1 403 - Minor changes to the common area circulation and Utility/Trash/Recycle Area P196 IV.B. ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: Applicant: Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing:__________Proposed:___________________ Number of residential units: Existing:__________Proposed:___________________ Number of bedrooms: Existing:__________Proposed:___________________ Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only):__________ DIMENSIONS: Parcel A Floor Area: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ Principal bldg. height: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ Access. bldg. height: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ On-Site parking: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ % Site coverage: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ % Open Space - Parcel A+B: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Front Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Rear Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Combined F/R: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Combined Sides: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Distance Between Buildings Existing ________Required:__________Proposed:_____ Existing non-conformities or encroachments:___________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ Variations requested: ______________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ P197 IV.B. 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM Exhibit 2 447 East Cooper Avenue Vicinity Map P198 IV.B. ·Homeowner Association Compliance Policy All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to include a Homeowner Association Compliance Form (this form) certifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed by the property owner or Attornev representing the property owner. Property Owner ("I"): Address of Property: (subject of application) Name: 403 South Galena, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; Mark Hunt, Manager Email: mhunt@mdevco.com Phone No.: 312-850-1680 403 South �ena Street a�d 447 East CoQpJ;lI.AY.e_r:iue;_A§.r,;>�n. C0 __ 8.1Q..1.1_ _______ ···--______ _, --------. ___ ...--- I certify as follows: (pick one) X This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant. D This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. D This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application have been approved by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. -I understand this policy and I underst City of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage_ the applicability, meaning or effect of 1v ovenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. I understand that this document is a u ument. Owner signature: Owner printed name: Mark Hunt, Manager; 403 South Galena, LLC or, Attorney signature: ------------date: ____ _ Attorney printed name: ------------ Exhibit 3 P199 IV.B. August26 ,2016 403 South Galena, LLC 2001 N. Halsted, Suite 304 Chicago, IL 60614 Ms. Jessica Garrow, AICP Community Development Director City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 403 S. Galena St. & 447 E. Cooper Ave. 447 East Cooper Avenue -Lots E, F and G, Block 90; Parcel ID 2737-182-21-009 403 South Galena Street-Lots Hand I, Block 90; Parcel ID 2737-182-21-010 Ms. Garrow: I am writing as Manager of 403 South Galena LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company. Please accept this letter �uthorizing BendonAdams LLC to represent our ownership interests in 403 South Galena Street and 447 East Cooper Avenue and to act on our behalf on matters reasonably associated in securing land use approvals for the properties. If there are any questions about the foregoing or if I can assist, please do not hesitate to call. Mark unt Manager 403 South Galena, LLC mhunt@mdevco.com Exhibit 4 P200 IV.B. Active/43578041.1 730 East Durant Avenue, Suite 200, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone: 970.925.6300 Fax: 970.925.1181 www.shermanhoward.com Curtis B. Sanders Sherman & Howard L.L.C. Direct Dial Number: 970.300.0114 E-mail: csanders@shermanhoward.com August 26, 2016 City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Guido’s Swiss Inn LLC; 403 South Galena, Aspen, Colorado 81611; Certificate of Ownership Dear Sir or Madam: I am an attorney licensed by the State of Colorado to practice law. This letter shall confirm and certify that Guido’s Swiss Inn LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, is the owner of certain improved real property located at 403 South Galena, Aspen, Colorado 81611, and legally described as Lots H and I, Block 90, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado (the "Subject Property"), subject only to the following matters of record: 1. Reservations and exceptions as set forth in the Deeds from the City of Aspen recorded in Book 59 at Pages 41, 226 and 441 providing as follows: "That no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws". 2. Multipurpose Easement Agreement Electric and Communication Utilities recorded May 26, 1982 in Book 426 at Page 974. 3. Encroachment Agreement recorded February 28, 1992 in Book 670 at Page 468. 4. Occupancy Deed Restriction recorded June 6, 1990 in Book 622 at Page 87. 5. Resolution of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recorded January 28, 1988 as Reception No. 412935 as Resolution No. 97-33. 6. Resolution of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission recorded December 14, 2000 as Reception No. 449674 as Resolution No. 51, Series of 2000. Exhibit 5a P201 IV.B. 2 Active/43578041.1 7. Notice of Lis Pendens in Civil Action No. 2011 CV 169, in the District Court of Pitkin County, Rocky Mountain Floor Systems, Inc. v. John Olson Builder, Inc., Casa Tua Aspen, LLC, Meyer Business Building, LLC, et al, defendant, dated June 30, 2011 and recorded July 1, 2011 as Reception No. 580937, Pitkin County, Colorado. 8. Notice of Commencement of Legal Action (Lis Pendens) in Civil Action No. 2011 CV 188, in the District Court of Pitkin County, John Olson Builder, Inc. v. Casa Tua Aspen, LLC and Guido’s Swiss Inn LLC dated August 2, 2011 and recorded August 3, 2011 as Reception No. 581636, Pitkin County, Colorado. 9. Memorandum of Contract between Meyer Business Building LLC, Guido’s Swiss Inn LLC, and 403 East Cooper Avenue, LLC dated December 10, 2014 and recorded December 10, 2014 as Reception No. 615942, Pitkin County, Colorado. This letter shall further confirm that as the owner of the Subject Property, Guido’s Swiss Inn LLC has authorized 403 South Galena, LLC, as the contract purchaser of the Subject Property, to file and pursue land use applications, variance requests, and other requests with the City of Aspen with respect to the Subject Property. Sincerely, Curtis B. Sanders P202 IV.B. Active/43578042.1 730 East Durant Avenue, Suite 200, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone: 970.925.6300 Fax: 970.925.1181 www.shermanhoward.com Curtis B. Sanders Sherman & Howard L.L.C. Direct Dial Number: 970.300.0114 E-mail: csanders@shermanhoward.com August 26, 2016 City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Meyer Business Building LLC; 447 East Cooper Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611; Certificate of Ownership Dear Sir or Madam: I am an attorney licensed by the State of Colorado to practice law. This letter shall confirm and certify that Meyer Business Building LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, is the owner of certain improved real property located at 447 East Cooper Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611, and legally described as Lots E, F and G, Block 90, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado (the "Subject Property"), subject only to the following matters of record: 1. Reservations and exceptions as set forth in the Deeds from the City of Aspen recorded in Book 59 at Pages 41, 226 and 441 providing as follows: "That no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws". 2. Multipurpose Easement Agreement Electric and Communication Utilities recorded May 26, 1982 in Book 426 at Page 974. 3. Encroachment Agreement recorded February 28, 1992 in Book 670 at Page 468. 4. Occupancy Deed Restriction recorded June 6, 1990 in Book 622 at Page 87. 5. Resolution of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recorded January 28, 1988 as Reception No. 412935 as Resolution No. 97-33. 6. Resolution of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission recorded December 14, 2000 as Reception No. 449674 as Resolution No. 51, Series of 2000. Exhibit 5b P203 IV.B. 2 Active/43578042.1 7. Memorandum of Contract between Meyer Business Building LLC, Guido’s Swiss Inn LLC, and 403 East Cooper Avenue, LLC dated December 10, 2014 and recorded December 10, 2014 as Reception No. 615942, Pitkin County, Colorado. 8. Deed of Trust given by Meyer Business Building LLC in favor of Timberline Bank dated January 28, 2015 and recorded January 28, 2015 as Reception No. 616998, Pitkin County, Colorado, and re-recorded February 3, 2015 as Reception No. 617104, Pitkin County, Colorado. 9. Assignment of Rents given by Meyer Business Building LLC in favor of Timberline Bank dated January 28, 2015 and recorded January 28, 2015 as Reception No. 616999, Pitkin County, Colorado, and re-recorded February 3, 2015 as Reception No. 617105, Pitkin County, Colorado. This letter shall further confirm that as the owner of the Subject Property, Meyer Business Building LLC has authorized 403 South Galena, LLC, as the contract purchaser of the Subject Property, to file and pursue land use applications, variance requests, and other requests with the City of Aspen with respect to the Subject Property. Sincerely, Curtis B. Sanders P204 IV.B. DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION: NAME, COMPANY, ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL Peak Hour Max Trips Generated MMLOS TDM Total Trips Mitigated PM 22.5 0 0.38 0.38 22.08 The net trips to be mitigated is greater than 0. The project shall propose additional mitigation measures. Click on the "Generate Narrative" Button to the right. Respond to each of the prompts in the space provided. Each response should cover the following: 1.Explain the selected measure. 2.Call out where the measure is located. 3.Demonstrate how the selected measure is appropriate to enhance the project site and reduce traffic impacts. 4.Explain the Enforcement and Financing Plan for the selected measure. 5.Explain the scheduling and implementation responsibility of the mitigation measure. 6.Attach any additional information and a site map to the narrative report. Chris Bendon BendonAdams 300 So. Spring St. 202 925.2855 chris@bendonadams.com Summary and Narrative: Narrative: 12/28/2016 447 e. Cooper 447 e. Cooper Trip Generation SUMMARY Trip Mitigation NET TRIPS TO BE MITIGATED Project Description In the space below provide a description of the proposed project. Demolition of the existing building and construction of a new commercial building. The project removes three free-market and three affordable residences with off-site mitigation. New building will be built to the lot line adjacent to the Cooper mall. MMLOS Include any additional information that pertains to the MMLOS plan in the space provided below. No specific items proposed, but the applicant would like to discuss potential capital improvements with the City to offset trips, including potential for additional bicycle parking. TDM Explain below how the project plans to participate in the Transportation Options Program (TOP). The successful project will work with City of Aspen staff to determine whether TOP membership is appropriate and, if so, to join the program. Notes: This program is not typically appropriate for employers of less than 20 employees. Grant funding from the TOP program may not be used to offset mitigation measures until the reporting period has been successfully completed The project will participate in the transportation options program. Lease agreement will require tenants to participate in the City's TOP. Exhibit 6 P205 IV.B. Explain the proposed trip reduction marketing/incentive program in the space provided. A trip reduction marketing programs should include a number of the following strategies: orientation to trip reduction programs and benefits; orientation to specific alternative transportation modes such as bus service information, bike/walk route maps, etc.; publishing of web or traditional informational materials; events and contests such as commuter fairs, new employee orientations, bike to work days, etc.; educational opportunities such bicycle commute/repair classes; web or traditional materials aimed at guests/customers such as bike/walk maps, free transit day passes, etc.; incentive programs such as prizes, rewards or discounts for alternative commuting. Introducing employees to all of the different modes of transportation will be part of employee orientation and a requirement of the lease agreement for tenants. Educational opportunities will be posted in the employee back of house areas. Include any additional information that pertains to the TDM plan in the space provided below. Requirements of the TIA will be included in the lease agreements with the individual tenants. MMLOS Site Plan Requirements Include the following on a site plan. Clearly call out and label each measure. Attach the site plan to the TIA submittal. Slopes Between Back of Curb and Sidewalk 2% Slope at Pedestrian Driveway Crossings Pedestrian Directness Factor (See callout number 9 on the MMLOS sheet for an example) Enforcement and Financing Provide an overview of the Enforcement and Financing plan for the proposed transportation mitigation measures. Provide a monitoring and reporting plan. Refer to page 17 in the Transportation Analysis Guidelines for a list of monitoring plan requirements. Components of a Monitoring and Reporting Plan should include (1) Assessment of compliance with guidelines, (2) Results and effectiveness of implemented measures, (3) Identification of additional strategies, and (4) Surveys and other supporting data. The MMLOS measures are a requirement of building permit certificate of occupancy. The TDM measures will be the responsibility of individual tenants of the building. The owner or tenant will make a good faith effort to assess compliance and effectiveness of the implemented measures, and submit the information to the City. Requirements of the TIA will be included in the lease agreements with the individual tenants. Scheduling and Implementation Responsibility of Mitigation Measures Provide an overview of the scheduling and implementation responsibility for the proposed transportation mitigation measures. The MMLOS measures are a requirement of building permit certificate of occupancy. The TDM measures will be the responsibility of individual tenants of the building. Monitoring and Reporting P206 IV.B. = input = calculation DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION: NAME, COMPANY, ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL Minor Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Total Commercial (sf)6666.0 sf 10.44 4.69 15.13 11.04 16.56 27.60 Free-Market Housing (Units)-3 Units -0.58 -1.43 -2.01 -1.38 -1.08 -2.46 Affordable Housing (Units)-3 Units -1.08 -1.17 -2.25 -1.47 -1.20 -2.67 Lodging (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Essential Public Facility (sf)0.0 sf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.78 2.09 10.87 8.19 14.27 22.47 Land Use Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Commercial 2.27 0.69 0.31 4.14 0.4 0.6 Free-Market Housing 0.67 0.29 0.71 0.82 0.56 0.44 Affordable Housing 0.75 0.48 0.52 0.89 0.55 0.45 Lodging 0.25 0.57 0.43 0.31 0.52 0.48 Essential Public Facility 0.86 0.62 0.38 1.66 0.4 0.6 Chris Bendon BendonAdams 300 So. Spring St. 202 925.2855 chris@bendonadams.com Trip Generation 12/28/2016 AM Peak Average PM Peak Average Trips Generated AM Peak-Hour PM Peak-Hour TOTAL NEW TRIPS ASSUMPTIONS ASPEN TRIP GENERATION Is this a major or minor project? 447 e. Cooper 447 e. Cooper Net New Units/Square Feet of the Proposed ProjectProposed Land Use *For mixed-use (at least two of the established land uses) sites, a 4% reduction for AM Peak-Hour and a 14% reduction for PM Peak-Hour is applied to the trip generation. Instructions: IMPORTANT: Turn on Macros: In order for code to run correctly the security settings need to be altered. Click "File" and then click "Excel Options." In the "Trust Center"category, click "Trust Center Settings", and then click the "Macro Settings"category. Beneath "Macro Settings" select "Enable all Macros." Sheet 1. Trip Generation: Enter the project's square footage and/or unit counts under Proposed Land Use. The numbers should reflect the net change in land use between existing and proposed conditions. If a landuse is to be reduced put a negative number of units or square feet. Sheet 2. MMLOS: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable under each of the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections.Points are only awarded for proposed (not existing) and confirmed aspects of the project. Sheet 3. TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Sheet 4. Summary and Narrative: Review the summary of the project's mitigated trips and provide a narrative which explains the measures selected for the project. Click on "Generate Narrative" and individually explain each measure that was chosen and how it enhances the site or mitigates vehicle traffic. Ensure each selected measure make sense Minor Development -Inside the Roundabout Major Development -Outside the Roundabout Helpful Hints: 1. Refer to the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for information on the use of this tool. 2. Refer to TIA Frequently Asked Questions for a quick overview. 2. Hover over red corner tags for additional information on individual measures. 3. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not receive credit for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context of project location and future use. Transportation Impact Analysis TIA Frequently Asked Questions P207 IV.B. = input = calculation 0 Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 1 Does the project propose a detached sidewalk where an attached sidewalk currently exists? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard minimum widths? No 0 2 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width greater than the standard minimum width?No 0 3 Does the project propose a landscape buffer greater than the standard minimum width?No 0 0 4 Does the project propose a detached sidewalk on an adjacent block? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard minimum widths? No 0 5 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width on an adjacent block greater than the standard minimum width?NA 0 6 Is the proposed landscape buffer on an adjacent block greater than the standard minimum width?NA 0 0 7 Are slopes between back of curb and sidewalk equal to or less than 5%?Yes 0 8 Are curbs equal to (or less than) 6 inches?Yes 0 9 Is new large-scale landscaping proposed that improves the pedestrian experience? Properties within the Core do not have ample area to provide the level of landscaping required to receive credit in this category. No 0 10 Does the project propose an improved crosswalk? This measure must get City approval before receiving credit. No 0 0 11 Are existing driveways removed from the street?No 0 12 Is pedestrian and/or vehicle visibility unchanged by new structure or column?Yes 0 13 Is the grade (where pedestrians cross) on cross-slope of driveway 2% or less?Yes 0 14 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian access points from the ROW? This includes improvements to ADA ramps or creating new access points which prevent pedestrians from crossing a street. No 0 15 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian or bicyclist interaction with vehicles at driveway areas?No 0 0 16 Is the project's pedestrian directness factor less than 1.5?Yes 0 17 Does the project propose new improvements which reduce the pedestrian directness factor to less than 1.2? A site which has an existing pedestrian directness factor less than 1.2 cannot receive credit in this category. No 0 18 Is the project proposing an off site improvement that results in a pedestrian directness factor below 1.2?* No 0 19 Are traffic calming features proposed that are part of an approved plan (speed humps, rapid flash)?*No 0 0 20 Are additional minor improvements proposed which benefit the pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff? No 0 21 Are additional major improvements proposed which benefit the pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff? No 0 0 0PedestriansSubtotalAdditional Proposed ImprovementsTOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS MITIGATED:Pedestrian RoutesTraffic Calming and Pedestrian NetworkDriveways, Parking, and Access ConsiderationsMMLOS Input Page Subtotal SubtotalSidewalk Condition on Adjacent BlocksSidewalk Condition on Project FrontageSubtotal Instructions: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable to each measure under the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections. Subtotal Subtotal Pedestrian Total* P208 IV.B. Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 22 Is a new bicycle path being implemented with City approved design?No 0 23 Do new bike paths allow access without crossing a street or driveway?NA 0 24 Is there proposed landscaping, striping, or signage improvements to an existing bicycle path?No 0 25 Does the project propose additional minor bicycle improvements which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0 26 Does the project propose additional major bicycle improvements which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0 0 Bicycle Parking27 Is the project providing bicycle parking?No 0 0 0 Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 28 Is seating/bench proposed?No 0 29 Is a trash receptacle proposed?No 0 30 Is transit system information (signage) proposed?No 0 31 Is shelter/shade proposed?No 0 32 Is enhanced pedestrian-scale lighting proposed?No 0 33 Is real-time transit information proposed?No 0 34 Is bicycle parking/storage proposed specifically for bus stop use?No 0 35 Are ADA improvements proposed?No 0 0 36 Is a bus pull-out proposed at an existing stop?No 0 37 Is relocation of a bus stop to improve transit accessibility or roadway operations proposed?No 0 38 Is a new bus stop proposed (with minimum of two basic amenities)?No 0 0 0TransitBasic AmenitiesSubtotal Subtotal Enhanced AmenitiesSubtotal Subtotal Bicycles Total* Transit Total*BicyclesModifications to Existing Bicycle PathsP209 IV.B. Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will an onsite ammenities strategy be implemented? Which onsite ammenities will be implemented? Will a shared shuttle service strategy be implemented? What is the degree of implementation? What is the company size? What percentage of customers are eligible? 3 Nonmotorized Zones Will a nonmotorized zones strategy be implemented?0.00% 0.00% Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will a network expansion stragtegy be implemented?No What is the percentage increase of transit network coverage? What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips? Will a service frequency/speed strategy be implemented?No What is the percentage reduction in headways (increase in frequency)? What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips? What is the level of implementation? Will a transit access improvement strategy be implemented?No What is the extent of access improvements? 7 Intercept Lot Will an intercept lot strategy be implemented?No 0.00% 0.00% Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will there be participation in TOP?Yes What percentage of employees are eligible?100% Is a transit fare subsidy strategy implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligible? What is the amount of transit subsidy per passenger (daily equivalent)? Is an employee parking cash-out strategy being implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a workplace parking pricing strategy implemented?No What is the daily parking charge? What percentage of employees are subject to priced parking? Is a compressed work weeks strategy implemented?No What percentage of employees are participating? What is the workweek schedule? Is an employer sponsered shuttle program implemented?No What is the employer size? What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a carpool matching strategy implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligble? Is carshare participation being implemented?No How many employee memberships have been purchased? What percentage of employees are eligble? Is participation in the bikeshare program WE-cycle being implemented?No How many memberships have been purchased? What percentage of employees/guests are eligble? Is an end of trip facilities strategy being implemented?No What is the degree of implementation? What is the employer size? Is a self-funded emergency ride home strategy being implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a carpool/vanpool priority parking strategy being implemented?No What is the employer size? What number of parking spots are available for the program? Is a private employer shuttle strategy being implemented?No What is the employer size? What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a trip reduction marketing/incentive program implemented?Yes What percentage of employees/guests are eligible?100% 1.71% 0.00% 1.71% 1. 22% work trips represents a mixed-used site (SF Bay Area Travel Survey). See Assumptions Tab for more detail. 21 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 Participation in TOP Transit Fare Subsidy Employee Parking Cash-Out Workplace Parking Pricing Compressed Work Weeks Employer Sponsored Vanpool Carpool Matching Carshare Program Self-funded Emergency Ride Home Carpool/Vanpool Priority Parking Private Employer Shuttle Trip Reduction Marketing/Incentive Program End of Trip Facilities Cross Category Maximum Reduction, Neighborhood and Transit Global Maximum VMT Reductions TDM Input Page 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Commute Trip Reduction Programs StrategiesOnsite Servicing Shared Shuttle Service Neighborhood/Site Enhancements Strategies0.00% 0.00% Network Expansion Service Frequency/Speed Transit Access Improvement Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Bikeshare Program 0.00% 4.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.00% Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category Maximum Reduction Allowed in CategoryTransit System Improvements Strategies1 2 4 5 6 8 9 10 Instructions TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not receive credit for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context of project location and future use. P210 IV.B. Exhibit 7 P211 IV.B. P212 IV.B. P213 IV.B. P214IV.B. P215IV.B. P216IV.B. P217IV.B. P218IV.B. Pitkin County Mailing List of 330 Feet Radius From Parcel: User Defined Area on 12/18/2016 j'fKIN (ouN1:� Instructions: This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the margins such that they no longer line up on the labels sheet. Print actual size. Disclaimer: Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com Exhibit 8 P219 IV.B. P220 IV.B. P221 IV.B. P222 IV.B. P223 IV.B. P224 IV.B. P225 IV.B. P226 IV.B. PROPOSED TWO STORYMIXED-USE BUILDINGScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY1.3.17RAHPC FINALmodif.modif.403 S. GALENA ST. & 1" = 60’−0"1/2/2017 10:30:55 PMCS−12016−00812.14.16COVER SHEET447 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO403 S. GALENA STREET &447 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, COVICINITY MAPLOCAL JURISDICTION:THE CITY OF ASPEN130 S. GALENA STREETASPEN, CO 81611TEL (970) 429-2761CONTACT: BY DEPARTMENTARCHITECT:MODIF. ARCHITECTURE, LLC.1200 WEST LAKE ST. SUITE 200CHICAGO, IL 60607TEL 312-884-9583CONTACT: ROB AVILA, RA, LEED AP ORSTEVE COUGHLIN, RALAND PLANNER:BENDONADAMS300 SOUTH SPRING ST. #202ASPEN, CO 81611TEL (970) 925-2855CONTACT: CHRIS BENDON, AICPLANDLORD:M DEVELOPMENT2001 N. HALSTED ST., SUITE 304CHICAGO, IL 60614CONTACT: JEFF RICHMANTEL (312) 850-1680ELEVATION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTDRAWING LISTPROJECT CONTACTSSHEET # TITLE1-COVER SHEETCS-1 COVER SHEETCS-2 HPC RESOLUTION2-SURVEY1 OF 1 IMPROVEMENT AND TOPO SURVEY3-ARCHITECTURALPA-1 EXISTING PUBLIC AMENITYEC-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLANSEC-2 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLANSA-010 PROPOSED SITE PLANA-110 PROPOSED FLOOR PLANSA-111 PROPOSED FLOOR PLANA-112 PROPOSED UPPER ROOF PLANFAR-1 FAR CALCULATIONSNL-1 NET LEASABLE PLANSA-210 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA-211 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA-212 BUILDING SECTION WITH VIEW PLANETIA TIA SITE PLANNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP227 IV.B. ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY1.3.17RAHPC FINALmodif.modif.403 S. GALENA ST. &1/2/2017 10:31:02 PMCS−22016−00812.14.16HPC RESOLUTION447 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CONO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP228 IV.B. ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY1.3.17RAHPC FINALmodif.modif.403 S. GALENA ST. & 1" = 10’−0"1/2/2017 10:30:49 PM1 OF 12016−00812.14.16IMPROVEMENT AND TOPO SURVEY447 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CONO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP229 IV.B. EXIST. PUBLIC AMENITY AREA = 1,400 SF (APPROX.)ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY1.3.17RAHPC FINALmodif.modif.403 S. GALENA ST. & 1" = 10’−0"1/2/2017 10:31:09 PMPA−12016−00812.14.16EXISTING PUBLIC AMENITY447 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CONO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP230 IV.B. COOPER MALLALLEYCOOPER MALLALLEYCOOPER MALLALLEY3EXISTING UPPER LEVEL LIVABLE3/32" = 1'-0"1EXISTING LOWER LEVEL LEASABLE3/32" = 1'-0"2EXISTING MAIN LEVEL LEASABLE3/32" = 1'-0"EXISTING NET LEASABLE AREA MAIN LEVEL :MAIN LEVEL TOTAL: 4,359.8 SFLIVABLE NET AREA : 666 SFEXISTING NON-LEASABLE COMMON AREA TOTAL: 857.2 SFEXISTING NET LEASABLE AREA LOWER LEVEL: 3793.8 SFEXISTING NON-LEASABLE COMMON AREA TOTAL: 1,962.4 SFEXISTING LIVABLE AREA UPPER LEVEL: 4,970 SFEXISTING NON-LIVABLE AREA COMMON AREA TOTAL: 501 SFCOMMON STAIRCOMMON STAIRCOMMON CORRIDORMECHANICAL SPACECOMMON RESTROOMSCOMMON ELEVATORCOMMON STAIRLIVABLELIVABLECOMMONCORRIDORLIVABLECOMMON STAIRCOMMONELEVATORCORRIDORCOMMONSTAIRScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY1.3.17RAHPC FINALmodif.modif.403 S. GALENA ST. & 3/32" = 1’−0"1/2/2017 10:31:02 PMEC−12016−00812.14.16EXISTING CONDITIONS PLANS447 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CONNNNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP231 IV.B. EXEMPT CIRCULATIONEXEMPT CIRCULATIONEXEMPT CIRCULATIONP232 IV.B. W AGNER PARK VIEW PLANEWHEELER OPERA HOUSEVIEWPLANE HEIGHT LIMIT = 20.68'WAGNER PARK VIEWPLANE LIMIT = 21.91'WAGNER PARK VIEWPLANE LIMIT = 31.91'WHEELER OPERA HOUSEVIEWPLANE HEIGHT LIMIT = 20.35'WHEELER OPERA HOUSEVIEWPLANE HEIGHTT/O PARAPET 18'-5"TEXISTING BUILDING TO REMAINPROPOSED TWOSTORY BUILDINGEXISTING STAIR AND ELEVATORCORE TO BEREMODELEDEXIST. CATVPEDESTALEXIST. TRASH AREATO BE REMODELEDROOF OVERHANGFINISHED GRADE = (+)3'-0"+/-PROPERTY LINE300 S.F. TOTAL SHAREDTRASH AREAEXIST. OUTDOOR PATIO(NO CHANGE) PROPERTY LINEPROPOSED TRASHENTRY DOORSRECYCLINGCONTAINER, TYP.9' - 10"16' - 10 1/2"14' - 11"9' - 2"163 SFINTERIOR(PROPOSED)137 SFINTERIOR(PROPOSED)8' - 0"WALKWAY5' - 0"EXIST. TRASH AREATO BE REMODELED4 YD.DUMPSTER4 YD.DUMPSTERT/O PARAPET 15'-10"EXISTINGENTRY DOORLOWER LEVELEGRESS STAIRSTAIR TO SECOND FLOOR23' - 5"RECESSED ENTRY DOORS2ND STORY SPACERETAINING WALLRAMPRAMPCLEAR TO SKY10' - 0"CLEAR TO SKY10' - 5"ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY1.3.17RAHPC FINALmodif.modif.403 S. GALENA ST. & 1/8" = 1’−0"1/2/2017 10:30:49 PMA−0102016−00812.14.16PROPOSED SITE PLAN447 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 1/8" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED SITE PLANNNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONMAINTAIN EXISTING PUBLIC AMENITY ONSITEP233 IV.B. UPDNUPUPUPPROPERTY LINETRASH AREA - SEE PROPOSEDSITE PLANTRANSFORMERADJACENT BUILDING (N.I.C.)ADJACENTBUILDING (N.I.C.)34' - 4"AIR CURTAINBY TENANT ABOVEAIR CURTAINBY TENANT ABOVEOPEN STAIRAIR CURTAINBY TENANT ABOVEELEV #1STAIR #2OPEN TO BELOWTENANT SPACE 'A'100TENANT SPACE 'B'101TENANT SPACE 'C'10221'-10"43'-5"22'-0"10' - 5"5' - 3"0' - 3"21' - 1"45' - 1"21' - 1"87' - 3"83' - 9"83' - 9"85' - 9"RAMP13' - 7"4' - 4"RAMP13' - 7"RAMP13' - 6"4' - 3"12' - 0"5' - 4"89' - 3"RESTROOMCONSTRUCTION BY TENANT (APPROX.)CLEAR TO SKY10' - 0"CLEAR TO SKY10' - 5"13' - 0"5' - 4"12' - 0"13' - 0"13' - 0"5' - 4"13' - 0"5' - 4"PROPERTYLINETENANT SPACE 'A'L101ELEV #1STAIR #2107OPEN STAIR23' - 5"34' - 4"31' - 10"9' - 4"6' - 7"MECH.L10291' - 5"85' - 2"83' - 3"20' - 11"43' - 1"21' - 1"3' - 2"5' - 0"21' - 0"42' - 9"21' - 5"17' - 1"ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY1.3.17RAHPC FINALmodif.modif.403 S. GALENA ST. & 1/8" = 1’−0"1/2/2017 10:30:50 PMA−1102016−00812.14.16PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS447 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 1/8" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED MAIN FLOOR PLANNN 1/8" = 1'-0"2PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL PLANEXAMPLE TENANT DEMISING PLAN. OWNER MAY COMBINE OR DEMISE COMMERCIAL SPACE FROM TIME TO TIME AS DESIRED.EXAMPLE TENANT DEMISING PLAN. OWNER MAY COMBINE OR DEMISE COMMERCIAL SPACE FROM TIME TO TIME AS DESIRED.NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP234 IV.B. DNDNPROPERTY LINEADJACENT BUILDING (N.I.C.)ADJACENT BUILDING (N.I.C.)3'-6" RAILING, TYP.OUTDOOR ROOFTERRACE200ELEV #1STAIR #2LOBBY201SLIDING DOORS20' - 0"20' - 6"43' - 11"20' - 6"32' - 0"36' - 3"SLIDING DOORSELEV #2205VEST.204W AGNER PARK VIEW PLANETRELLIS, TYP.ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY1.3.17RAHPC FINALmodif.modif.403 S. GALENA ST. & 1/8" = 1’−0"1/2/2017 10:30:50 PMA−1112016−00812.14.16PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN447 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CON 1/8" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLANNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP235 IV.B. ELEVATOROVERRUNEXIST. CIRCULATIONCORE TO BE REMODELEDPARAPET, TYP.ROOF TERRACE BELOWMECHANICALEQUIPMENT AREA5' - 4"10' - 8"ROOF TERRACE BELOW4' - 0"8' - 2"27' - 11"7' - 11"43' - 11"20' - 0"ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY1.3.17RAHPC FINALmodif.modif.403 S. GALENA ST. & 1/8" = 1’−0"1/2/2017 10:30:51 PMA−1122016−00812.14.16PROPOSED UPPER ROOF PLAN447 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 1/8" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED ROOF PLANNNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP236 IV.B. UPDNUPDNDNUPUPTRASH AREAELEV #1103STAIR #2107TENANT SPACE 'A'100TENANT SPACE 'B'101TENANT SPACE 'C'102ELEV.105VEST.106ELEV #1103STAIR #2107OUTDOOR ROOFTERRACE200LOBBY201ELEV #2205VEST.204PROPERTY LINETENANT SPACE 'A'L101ELEV #1STAIR #2447 E. COOPER AVE. FLOOR AREA SUMMARY:LOWER LEVEL: 8,187 SFCOMMERCIAL AREA: 8,187 SFDEDUCTIONS: 8,187 SF (SUBGRADE EXEMPT)AREA TOWARD FAR: 0 SFMAIN LEVEL: 9,245 SFCOMMERCIAL AREA: 8,206 SFDEDUCTIONS: 1,039 SF (PURPLE)AREA TOWARD FAR: 8,206 SFSECOND FLOOR: 8,229 SFCOMMERCIAL AREA: 617 SFDEDUCTIONS: 7,612 SF (PURPLE & BLUE)AREA TOWARD FAR: 617 SFCOMMERCIAL AREAOUTDOOR SPACE (EXEMPT)NON-UNIT COMMON AREA (EXEMPT)LEGENDScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY1.3.17RAHPC FINALmodif.modif.403 S. GALENA ST. &As indicated1/2/2017 10:31:05 PMFAR−12016−00812.14.16FAR CALCULATIONS447 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 3/32" = 1'-0"1MAIN FLOOR - FAR CALCULATIONS 3/32" = 1'-0"2SECOND FLOOR - FAR CALCULATIONSN 3/32" = 1'-0"5LOWER LEVEL - FAR CALCULATIONSNNNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP237 IV.B. UPDNUPDNDNUPUP61 SFELEV #1103144 SFSTAIR #21073564 SFTENANT SPACE 'A'1001723 SFTENANT SPACE 'B'1011734 SFTENANT SPACE 'C'102VEST.106ELEV.10561 SFELEV #1103144 SFSTAIR #21076584 SFOUTDOOR ROOFTERRACE200712 SFLOBBY20143 SFELEV #220569 SFVEST.2046957 SFTENANT SPACE 'A'L10161 SFELEV #1103144 SFSTAIR #2107362 SFMECH.L102NET LEASABLENON-ENCLOSED OUTDOOR AREA (EXEMPT)NON-UNIT COMMON AREA (EXEMPT)LEGENDNET LEASABLE CALCULATIONS:LOWER LEVEL:NET LEASABLE AREA: 6,957 SFMAIN LEVEL:SECOND FLOOR:NET LEASABLE AREA: 781 SFTOTAL NET LEASABLE: 14,820 SF + 6,411 SF UNCHANGED AT 403 S. GALENA ST.= 21,231 SF NET LEASABLENET LEASABLE AREA: 7,082 SFNON-UNIT COMMON AREA (EXEMPT): 506 SFNON-UNIT COMMON AREA (EXEMPT): 144 SFNON-UNIT COMMON AREA (EXEMPT): 248 SFNON ENCLOSED OUTDOOR AREA (EXEMPT): 6,204SFScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY1.3.17RAHPC FINALmodif.modif.403 S. GALENA ST. &As indicated1/2/2017 10:31:06 PMNL−12016−00812.14.16NET LEASABLE PLANS447 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 3/32" = 1'-0"1MAIN FLOOR PLAN - NET LEASABLE 3/32" = 1'-0"2SECOND FLOOR PLAN - NET LEASABLENN 3/32" = 1'-0"3LOWER LEVEL PLAN - NET LEASABLENNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP238 IV.B. SECOND LEVEL15'-8"T.O. PARAPET28'-0"FIRST LEVEL0"T.O. PARAPET28'-0"SECOND LEVEL15'-8"ADJACENTBUILDING(N.I.C.)ADJACENTBUILDING(N.I.C.)PRECAST STONE SURROUND, TYP.PRECAST STONE CORNICE, TYP.EXIST. CIRCULATION CORETO REMAIN. REFINISH TO MATCHNEW STRUCTURE.STEEL BI-FOLD DOORSZINC METAL SIDINGPERFORATED METALMECHANICAL SCREENTRELLIS: METAL TUBE FRAME WITH3X6 RESAWN CEDAR WOOD BEAMSLANDSCAPING AT PARAPET WALLZINC SHEET METAL PLANTERSPLIT FACE LIMESTONEGLASS AND METAL AWNINGARCHITECTURAL LIGHTING, TYP.ROOF TERRACE LANDSCAPING, TYP.WROUGHT IRON RAILING, TYP.12' - 0"STEEL STOREFRONT SYSTEMLOW PARAPET17' - 0"HIGH PARAPET18' - 5"12' - 0"5' - 4"13' - 0"5' - 4"12' - 0"ADJACENT BUILDING(N.I.C.)TRELLIS: METAL TUBE FRAME WITH3X6 RESAWN CEDAR WOOD BEAMSLANDSCAPING AT PARAPET WALLSPLIT FACE LIMESTONESTEEL STOREFRONT SYSTEMEXIST. CIRCULATION CORETO REMAIN. REFINISH TO MATCHNEW STRUCTURE.ZINC METAL SIDINGPERFORATED METALMECHANICAL SCREENSPLIT FACE LIMESTONEZINC SHEET METAL PLANTERLOW PARAPET17' - 0"HIGH PARAPET18' - 5"ALLEY PARAPET HIGH16' - 10"ALLEY PARAPET LOW15' - 10"ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY1.3.17RAHPC FINALmodif.modif.403 S. GALENA ST. & 3/16" = 1’−0"1/2/2017 10:30:52 PMA−2102016−00812.14.16PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS447 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 3/16" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"2PROPOSED EAST ELEVATIONNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP239 IV.B. FIRST LEVEL0"T.O. PARAPET28'-0"SECOND LEVEL15'-8"FIRST LEVEL0"T.O. PARAPET28'-0"SECOND LEVEL15'-8"ADJACENTBUILDING(N.I.C.)ADJACENTBUILDING(N.I.C.)ALLEY GRADEPRECAST STONE SURROUND, TYP.PRECAST STONE CORNICE, TYP.EXIST. CIRCULATION CORETO REMAIN. REFINISH TO MATCHNEW STRUCTURE.STEEL BI-FOLD DOORSZINC METAL SIDINGPERFORATED METALMECHANICAL SCREENTRELLIS: METAL TUBE FRAME WITH3X6 RESAWN CEDAR WOOD BEAMSLANDSCAPING AT PARAPETZINC SHEET METAL PLANTERSPLIT FACE LIMESTONEARCHITECTURAL LIGHTING, TYP.ROOF TERRACE LANDSCAPING, TYP.WROUGHT IRON RAILING, TYP.TRANSFORMERSTEEL STOREFRONT SYSTEMEXTERIOR RAMPSARCHITECTURAL LIGHTING, TYP.SPLIT FACE LIMESTONEALLEY PARAPET LOW15' - 10"ALLEY PARAPET LOW15' - 10"ALLEY PARAPET HIGH16' - 10"ADJACENT BUILDING (N.I.C.)HIGH PARAPET18' - 5"LOW PARAPET17' - 0"ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY1.3.17RAHPC FINALmodif.modif.403 S. GALENA ST. & 3/16" = 1’−0"1/2/2017 10:30:52 PMA−2112016−00812.14.16PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS447 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 3/16" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"2PROPOSED WEST ELEVATIONNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP240 IV.B. FIRST LEVEL0"T.O. PARAPET28'-0"SECOND LEVEL15'-8"BASEMENT LEVEL-14'-6"FIRST LEVEL0"T.O. PARAPET28'-0"SECOND LEVEL15'-8"BASEMENT LEVEL-14'-6"PROPOSED BUILDING SECTION LOOKING SOUTHPROPOSED BUILDING SECTION LOOKING EASTWAGNER PARK VIEW PLANEWHEELER OPERA HOUSE VIEW PLANEWHEELER OPERA HOUSE VIEW PLANEScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY1.3.17RAHPC FINALmodif.modif.403 S. GALENA ST. & 1/8" = 1’−0"1/2/2017 10:30:52 PMA−2122016−00812.14.16BUILDING SECTION WITH VIEW PLANE447 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CONO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP241 IV.B. UPDNUPNEW TWO STORY RETAIL BUILDINGNEW PEDESTRIANENTRY DOORPEDESTRIAN DISTANCE: 49'-0"PEDESTRIAN DISTANCE: 115'-0"33'-0" ROUTE BETWEEN DOORS.PAVED WALK73'-8"PEDESTRIAN MALLALLEYCOOPER AVE. PEDESTRIAN MALLADJACENT TWO STORY BUILDINGADJACENT TWO STORY BUILDINGTRASHAREATRASHAREAPEDESTRIAN DISTANCE: 149'-0"33'-0" ROUTE BETWEEN DOORS.48'-0" ROUTE BETWEEN DOORS.EXIST. PEDESTRIANENTRY DOORPEDESTRIAN DISTANCE: 83'-0"ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY1.3.17RAHPC FINALmodif.modif.403 S. GALENA ST. & 1" = 10’−0"1/2/2017 10:40:55 PMTIA2016−00812.14.16TIA SITE PLAN447 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 1" = 10'-0"1TIA SITE PLANNNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP242 IV.B. P243 IV.B. P244 IV.B. P245 IV.B.