The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19910814Mitlva- . V AGENDA 91 Q ' HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE August 14, 1991 WORKSESSION AND REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL - SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM 4:00 Worksession - Jed Caswall, City Attorney Quasi-Judicial board responsibilities Video presentation and discussion (Note: Times are approximate) 5:00 1. Roll Call Approval of June 26, 1991 Minutes /pn -- '-4-2 2 < 5:10 2. Committee member and Staff Comments Inventory Re-evaluation completion 5:20 3. Public Comment 5:25 4. Old Business Resolution 91-8: In-Town School Sites_U T Resolution 91-9: Aspen Area Community Plan, 73 14\ Character Committee 5 k 3 5:45 5. New Business 332 W. Main: Conceptual Development and Partial Demolition (Public Hearing) 6:45 6. Communications Project Monitoring HP Element of Community Plan State Preservation Conference (Sept.13-15) CLG Grant, FY '91-92 Landmark Plague Program HP Application Fees Armory Hall Centennial 7:30 Adjourn MEMORANDUM To: Aspen HPC From: Roxanne Re: Resolutions #8 and #9, Series of 1991 Committee Appointments: Red Brick School and Aspen Area Community Plan Date: August 14, 1991 These are attached for your review and approval at this meeting. These were prepared from the notes of previous discussions and meetings we have had. Please be prepared to offer any amendments you feel are necessary to convey the consensus of the HPC on both issues. The two committees addressed in Reso #8 and #9 are but a few of the many currently available for HPC member participation - all that is needed is your time and interest and serve on them. Please let me know. -- A.. RESOLUTION NO. 8 (Series of 1991) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RED BRICK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE AND APPOINTING MEMBERS TO REPRESENT THE HPC AT THE "IN-TOWN SCHOOL SITES COMMITTEE" AND PLANNING MEETINGS WHEREAS, the Aspen School District is currently considering use and development alternatives for the two elementary school sites on Hopkins Street in the West End, and WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee is concerned about the potential impact a redevelopment of the Red Brick School site may have on the traditional and historic character of the West End neighborhood, and WHEREAS, the Red Brick School, constructed in 1941, has frfi2223.--Â»,--".--a~-'~ historic significance, due to age, design, materials, open space. and-=1eeation. The HPC is in the process of determining the level of significance of this structure, and whether it should be recommended for Landmark Designation under Section 7-702 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations, and WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee desires to be actively involved in the planning of the future of the Red Brick School site, due to prominent location within Aspen' s historic West End. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: The following regular members are appointed to represent the HPC at the "In-Town School Sites Committee" meetings, and all planning Resolution No. 91- Page 2 meetings as they pertain to the school sites: Glenn Rappaport, Liaison Les Holst and Jake Vickery, Alternate Liaisons It shall be the responsibility of the liaisons to report to the HPC any up-coming school sites meetings and the results of meetings attended. APPROVED by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee at its regular meeting on August 14, 1991. By William J. Poss, Chairman Aspen Historic Preservation Committee ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Assistant City Clerk hpcreso.schools 2 J . RESOLUTION NO. 9 (Series of 1991) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE REGARDING THE APPOINTMENT OF HPC MEMBERS TO THE CHARACTER AND COMMUNITY CITIZENS COMMITTEES OF THE ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN WHEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Department is currently in the process of developing the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) , and WHEREAS, citizen input is a vital aspect to the development of this plan, and WHEREAS, Citizen Committees have been formed to address the five basic areas of the Plan: Character, Community and Growth, Transportation, Housing and Open Space. The HPC has appointed two members to serve on the Character and Community and Growth Committees, and WHEREAS, the HPC is in the process of revising the 1986 Historic Preservation Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan; the goals and objectives of this revised Element address character issues within the context of historic and community preservation, and WHEREAS, the integration of these goals and objectives into the overall Aspen Area Community Plan under development is found by the HPC to be central to the continuation and enhancement of Aspen's Historic Preservation Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Resolution No. 91- Page 2 The following regular members are appointed as HPC representatives to the Citizens Committee of the Aspen Area Community Plan, Bill Poss, Chairman, Character Committee Glenn Rappaport, Community and Growth Committee It shall be the responsibility of these members to solicit input from the HPC as a whole, and report the progress of each Committee. APPROVED by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee at its regular meeting on August 14, 1991. By William J. Poss, Chairman Aspen Historic Preservation Committee By Joe Krabacher, Vice Chairman Aspen Historic Preservation Committee ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Assistant City Clerk hpcreso.aacp.comm 2 HPC PROJECT MONITORING Update: August, 1991 PLEASE REVIEW AND INFORM STAFF OF CHANGES. THANK YOU. HPC Member Name Proiect/Committee Status Bill Poss 413 E. Hyman Approved County Courthouse Approved Highway Entrance Design Comm. In process Character Committee - AACP In process 601 W. Hallam (app. liaison) Approved HP Element - Community Plan In process Aspen Historic Trust - Board member 534 E. Hyman (P.C.Bank) Approved CCLC Liaison On going 214 W. Bleeker Approved Don Erdman 501 E. Cooper (Independence) Completed 210 S. Galena (Elks) Completed The Meadows (Chair-Sub Comm) Approved 442 W. Bleeker (Pioneer Park) Approved Collins Block/Alley Completed 620 W. Hallam Approved Wheeler-Stallard House On-going Glenn Rappaport 17 Queen St. In process Cottage Infill Program In process In-Town School Sites Comm. In process Community/Growth Comm.-AACP In process 409 E. Hopkins In process 309 E. Hopkins(L.Reid)(alt.) Approved Leslie Holst 215 W. Hallam U/C 212 Lake Ave. U/C 210 Lake Ave. Approved Holden/Marolt Museum (alt.) Approved In-Town School Sites Committee (alternate) Aspen Historic Trust - Chairman Joe Krabacher 801 E. Hyman Approved AHS Ski Museum In process HP Element - Community Plan In process Aspen Historic Trust - Vice Chairman 409 E. Hopkins In process 612 W. Main Approved 309 E. Hopkins (Lily Reid) Approved HPC Project Monitoring, Page 2 August, 1991 update HPC member name Proiect/Committee Status Jake Vickery The Meadows (alternate) Approved In-Town School Sites Committee (alternate) 824 E. Cooper U/C 716 W. Francis Approved 442 W. Bleeker (Pioneer-alt.) Approved 204 S. Galena (Sportstalker) Approved City Hall pre-process Roger Moyer Holden-Marolt (alternate) In process CCLC Liaison On going 334 W. Hallam Approved Karen Day 716 W. Francis (alternate) Approved 100 Park Ave. Approved Rubey Transit Center Approved 334 W. Hallam (alternate) Approved Martha Madsen 620 W. Hallam (alternate) Approved 100 Park Ave. (alternate) Approved 214 W. Bleeker (alternate) Approved hpc.monitoring . MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Conceptual Development and partial demolition: 332 W. Main, Showcase Properties (Public Hearing) Date: August 14, 1991 APPLICANT' S REQUEST: Conceptual development and partial demolition approval for renovation and expansion of 332 W. Main, Showcase Properties. LOCATION: 332 W. Main St., Lot K and half of Lot L, Block 44, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. APPLICANT: Thamor Company, Inc., represented by Gary Feldman, Showcase Properties and Charles Cunni ffe and Associates, Architects ZONING: " O" Office zone, "H" Historic District, Designated Landmark SITE, AREA AND BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Lot Size: 4,500 sq. ft. Allowable FAR: 3,375 sq. ft. Existing FAR: 3,261 sq. ft. Proposed Total FAR: 3,260 sq. ft. FAR proposed for demolition 1,000 sq. ft. (approx.) FAR of addition 1,600 sq. ft. (approx.) 'Proposed Basement 1,200 sq. ft. (approx.) Existing Net Leasable 1,771 sq. ft. Proposed Net Leasable 2,192 sq. ft. Max. allowable height 25' EXISTING CONDITIONS: The subject structure, a Queen Anne style built in 1888, is known historically as the F.M. Taylor residence. It currently is a mixed use (office/residential) structure, and contains a one bedroom (free market) apartment. The c.1965 rear addition is one story and includes a carport. PROJECT SUMMARY and REVIEW PROCESS: The applicable Guidelines are found in Section VI. Residential Buildings - Renovation and Restoration, beginning on page 47. The Development Review Standards are found in Section 7-601 (D) , and the Partial Demolition Standards are found in Section 7-602(A and C); , Development Review Standards 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay district or is adjacent to a Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Response: Adaptive uses (conversions from residential to office use) are a primary character defining feature of the Main Street Historic District. In order to meet the functional demands of the applicant' s business firm, an enlargement and addition is necessary to the landmark Taylor House. The Planning Office generally supports this proposal, and recommends the HPC study the plans carefully, to determine if Standards A-D have been met. The Guidelines address additions as follows: "Locate additions to original houses so that they do not alter the facade. Additions should not be designed so that they obscure the size or shape of the house. A possible option is setting back the addition so that it does not affect the building's front." The addition is taking place well to the rear of the structure, however, since this property occupies a corner location, the additional is more visible within the Main Street Historic District. Careful attention should be paid to mass, bulk, height, scale and siting. The design of the transition is critical in determining whether the addition is compatible or detracts from the integrity of the historic portion. Roof forms, fenestration, overall scale and use of materials must also be studied and approved in order for the HPC to find that this Standard has been met. Staff finds that the proposed fenestration and scale is compatible, however, we feel that a reduction in height is warranted in order to allow the historic portion to not be diminished in importance. We support the proposed roof forms and siting on the parcel. The second floor of the addition is cantilevered over the rear portion of the lot, utilizing brackets similar to those found supporting the west elevation bay window. A side entrance (west elevation) is also proposed; the general size and detailing of this entrance is important to keep simple, in order for the central entrance element (facade porch) to remain dominant. Streetscape and Landscape Material: It appears that no significant vegetation will be removed, however, we require that this be 2 clarified in the Final application on the site/landscape plan. Fences: The open picket fencing that currently exists meets the Guidelines. No changes in fencing are proposed. Alleys and Parking: The applicants are providing the additional parking spaces required by code for the new "net leasable" square footage that is created in this renovation, consisting of 421 sq. ft. = 2 spaces. A total of 5 off-street parking spaces will be provided, with alley access. No variations are necessary. Rooflines: The proposal generally meets the standards for roof pitch. The gables appear identical in pitch to the cottage. Doors: We recommend all original doors (if any) remain on the historic cottage, and be repaired as necessary. We are unable to determine the style of doors proposed on the new construction, and recommend this be clarified in the Final Development application. Windows: As with doors, we recommend all original windows remain on the structure, with storm windows installed on the interior as necessary. Should historic sills and frames require replacement due to excessive deterioration, restoration will be required. Staff recommends that the HPC require a preservation plan at Final review, detailing all maintenance and repairs proposed for historic windows, doors, materials, etc. The fenestration pattern proposed for the new addition is vertical and meets the Guidelines for compatibility. However, as the sketches are merely conceptual, precise scale shall be required in the Final plans. Rectangular awning windows are proposed within the shed dormers on the north and east elevations of the addition. The HPC should determine whether these are a compatible design for the structure. Staff finds them somewhat recessive and small, and they may help with the delineation between old and new. The facade of this handsome Queen Anne promotes the historic character of the Main Street Historic District and the entire Aspen community. The restoration of the upper gable end, and removal or remodel of the contemporary windows here will add greatly to the value and architectural integrity of this structure. Staff recommends that the HPC require the restoration of this gable end as one part of the overall renovation and expansion of this structure. We recommend the removal of the non-original "chalet-like" trim under the windows. Materials: The proposal calls for compatible materials, however, we are not able to discuss materials specifically as none have been called out. Basic materials should be clarified at this meeting. We recommend simple horizontal clapboard siding, wood trim and 3 windows, and shingle roof, in order to be compatible with the historic resource. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The Planning Office feels that the proposal is generally consistent with the character of the Main Street Historic District. Rear additions are not uncommon among those adaptive use residential structures. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structure located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: It is staff's opinion that a well designed addition to this landmark will not detract from its cultural value, or the value of the adjacent parcels. However, a large addition designed at the same height as the original landmark has the potential to compete with the historic form of the this corner Queen Anne and diminish the cultural value of the landmark itself, as well as its neighbors within the block. The 300 block of West Main is well noted for having the greatest High Style architectural integrity within the Main Street Historic District. We recommend that the HPC consider the cultural value question carefully in this case. The final treatment of the front porch will also determine whether the cultural value of the parcel and neighboring parcels is diminished as well. An original and carefully preserved (or restored) front porch may be the single most important "cultural value" feature to this district. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: We find that architecturally, the principal design elements of the addition generally meet this standard. Staff's concern lies with the height of addition (25'), which is the maximum allowed by code. The height of the historic portion is also at 25'. Staff is recommending the applicant restudy this issue, and reduce the height of the addition in order to fully meet this standard. To be consistent with the review principals the HPC has incorporated in recent years, the height of the addition should be reduced to not compete, and allow the historic portion to clearly read through. The prominent corner location of this landmark creates some challenges in designing an addition that meets the applicant's programmatic needs, and at the same time not diminish 4 or destroy the architectural integrity of this modest two + story Queen Anne. Staff recommends a height restudy for Final submission. Porches: The facade porch is an important and interesting character defining feature of this landmark. The excessive use of shingles to cover the columns and define this space has always been a curiosity to staff. It has been thought that the shingles were not original. However, we understand from the architect that they researched historic photos at the Historical Society archives, and even the earliest photos indicate the shingles were there. As that appears to be the case, and if no further documentation can be found to support an original porch design to the contrary, then the porch shall remain as it is. The proposal indicates the removal of the shingles, replaced with turned columns. Should the applicant wish to pursue a remodeled front porch, additional historic research will be required, and a compelling argument made to warrant the HPC approving the removal the original and construction of new. Partial Demolition Standards The Partial Demolition Standards are found in Section 7-602(C) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. The general provisions of Sec. 7- 602 allow the HPC to require a Performance Guarantee when deemed appropriate due to the significance of the project. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: 1. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure; and 2. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel. b. Impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure located on the parcel. Response: A significant amount of the existing structure is proposed for demolition, which the applicant states is not historic. The portion of the building slated for removal is small scale (one story), and relatively quiet and non-competing. The HPC may find, in response to #2b. that: o although the addition to be removed is not 50 years old or older, it does not impact the overall integrity of the 5 I , original form due to its small scale, and that o with the removal of this addition, the proposed new addition's height and massing may impact the architectural integrity of the landmark. The HPC should determine if the applicant has mitigated impacts to the landmark with the removal of this addition. We recommend that the HPC require a Performance Guarantee (bond or other form) to mitigate against potential loss or failure due to the partial demolition, excavation and foundation work proposed. This standard requirement will be made a part of the Final Development conditions. The Planning Office feels that the only architectural integrity the additions have to the structure is in terms of compatible scale. The removal of these makes way for the large new addition proposed, which we find does impact upon the small scale character of the historic miner's cottage. The extent of the partial demolition proposed should be carefully considered in terms of the overall character to this parcel. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives: 2) Approve the Conceptual Development application as proposed, finding that the Development Review and Partial Demolition Standards have been met. 2) Approve the Conceptual Development application, finding that the Development Review and Partial Demolition Standards have been met, with the exceptions noted below as conditions which shall be met in the Final Development application: a) Compliance with Partial Demolition Standards found in Sec. 7-602(A and C). Performance Guarantee (according to Section 7-602-A) shall be provided prior to the issuance of a building permit. b) Restudy of addition height c) Denial of facade porch remodel, pending historic documentation to support porch remodel as proposed c) Detailed preservation plan for the historic portion of the landmark. d) Detailed site and landscape plan, indicating fencing 6 . e) Massing model f) Specific material representation 3) Table action to a date certain, to allow the applicant time to restudy the additional height and front porch issues as discussed in this memo. Revised drawings shall be submitted to the Planning Office no less than two full weeks prior to the tabled public hearing date. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Standards (Development Review and/or Partial Demolition) have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC approve the Conceptual Development application, finding that the Development Review and Partial Demolition Standards have been met, with the exceptions and conditions as stated in Alternate #2 above. Additional comments: memo.hpc.332wm.cd 7 IAND USE APPI/amIDN FORM - ' 1) , * Project Name Showcase Victorian 2) Project location 332 W. Main, Aspen, Colorado, Bloak 44. Lot K $ 1/2 Lot L (indicate street addressi lot Â·& block xImber,* legal description Where apprrfriate) 3) Preserrt Zoning 0. 4) Lot Size 4500 so.ft. I . 5) Applicant's Name, Address a ptuÂ·e # Thamor Co. Inc., Showcase Properties. Bdtter Homes S Ga?dens, 332 W. Main St., Aspen, CO 920-1500 6) Representative's Name, Address & Ehone # Janet Leverson, Charles Cunniffe & Associates, 520 E. .Hyman, Suite 301, Aspen, CO 81611 925-5590 7)-Type of AL)Â£Qi.catirn (please chedc all that apply): Cooditicoal'UseÂ· Ococeptual SPA -3- 00?Oept'al Hist=ic Dev. Special Revis,r Final SPA Final,Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline .- Ox,ceptual POD . Minor Historic Dev. Stzeam Margin Final POD Histozic Demolition Mouritain View Plane Subc*vision - Iustoric Designation . Oondominiunization 'rexti/Map Amendmelit QUS Allotment Ict Split/Iat line - GMOS ]330=Iptiui Adjustment 8) Description of Existing Uses (amber and tome of editingÂ· structlges; approximate sq. ft. ; nuober of bedrooms;. any previOUS approvals gtanted '60 tbe p=perty) ' One residential building, used as office space since 1979. Approximatply 3261 sq.ft. of existing FAR which includes a one bedroom apartmpnt nf approximately 640 sq.ft. 9) Description of Development Application Addition & remodel of existing building to a build out of apprnximatply 3375 sq.ft. FAR to include a one or two bedroom apattment of approximately 750 sq.ft. with the remaining sq.ft. to be office space. 10) Have you attached the fklowindi Itesponse to Attadmart 2, Minimum Submission Contents Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Oontents Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application Â· Ill 1.1 -1 I I. IV APPLICATION FOR PARTIAL HISTORIC DEMOLITION 1. The Showcase Victorian located at 332 W. Main Street, Aspen, Colorado was built in 1888. A partial demolition occurred around 1965 and some additions were made. It is our proposal to remove that portion which was added in the 60's to allow for the proposed addition. 2. Economic Feasibility An appraisal of 332 W. Main is attached. Because of its location at a busy intersection and the commercial nature of the neighborhood, it is suggested that the building is most valuable as a commercial property. The building is now mostly occupied by Showcase Realty with additional space leased out. Because the building was originally a home, the space is not ideal for office use. A rental apartment and carport occupies a large portion of the ground floor which could be prime office area. This portion of the build-ing we propose to demolish is not part of the original histor-ic structure. It has been determined by the architect and contractor to be most economically feasible to demolish this section rather than to try to work within its framework. See attached ~ letter from contractor. 3. Compliance with relevant review standards The partial demolition requested is necessary in order for the project goals to be met. The portion to be demolished exceeds both rear and side setbacks. By demolishing, we are able to meet the rear setback requirement and are also able to provide additional off street parking. The east side yard can be increased to meet fire codes thereby avoiding the need for interior fire protection and protected openings. The new development provides an opportunity to move the apartment to an upper level leaving the valuable ground floor for commercial use. 4. Impacts on the Historic Importance and Architectural Integrity of Structure The historic structure is left intact. The portion we are proposing to demolish is not historical or architecturally pleasing as it does not relate to the original building. The proposed demolition allows for an addition more compatible with the historic structure providing a larger replacement apartment, more leasable office space and 3 additional off street parking spaces, all of which Will increase its value to the owner and the community. We hope the H.P.C. will acknowledge this by granting permission for partial demolition. I.GENERAL APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS A. A letter of consent by applicant is attached as Exhibit 'A'. B. The street address & legal description of the proposed project is: 332 W. Main St. Lot K & West 1/2 of Lot L, Block 44 Aspen, Colorado C. Disclosure of ownership is attached as Exhibit 'B'. D. A vicinity map locating the subject parcel is attached as Exhibit 'C'. E. Description of Proposal Approximately 1000 sq.ft. of existing building will be demolished to make way for an addition of approximately 1600 sq.ft. and 1200 sq.ft. of basement. The original structure is to remain intact except for the modification of the front entry porch which is designed to enhance the front facade. The addition to the original building is located SO as to not interfere with the historical element. F. Compliance with relevant review standards 1. Design compatibility with existing structure. The proposed development is designed to compliment while not overpowering the original structure. The addition is located towards the rear of the lot leaving the historical portion virtually untouched & completely visible from main street. The proposed addition utilizes architectural features found in the original structure such as double hung windows, similar roof pitches & similar exterior materials. Massing & material changes help provide a distinction between the historic structure and the new addition. 2. Consistency with neighborhood character The Showcase Victorian remains in scale and character with the surrounding Main Street victorians, many of which have once been single family homes converted to other uses. The addition/remodel allows the building to maintain it's usefulness for years to come, insuring the u retention of a valuable historical town element. . T 3. Enhancement of the cultural value of the structure - The limited changes to the original structure are in keeping with the historical character. The front entry porch is modified to correct a structural failing and to enhance the front facade. The addition is discreetly situated behind the original structure maintaining the main street historical corridor. 4. Enhancement of the architectural integrity of the - structure The architectural integrity or victorian character of the historical structure remains intact and is enhanced by the porch modification. II. EXISTING CONDITIONS PLANS , A survey prepared by Alpine Surveys, Inc. along with floor plans & elevations drawn from field measurements showing existing conditions is attached as Exhibit 'D'. III. STATEMENT OF EFFECT OF PROPOSED DESIGN ON HISTORICAL STRUCTURE & NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER The proposed addition and remodel of 332 W. Main, Aspen, Colorado is planned to increase it's value as an income producing office building and as a Historical Main Street Corridor Victorian. The historical structure remains intact along Main Street and is enhanced by the modification of the front entry porch. The addition creates a more leasable & usable office interior insuring the life of the building for years to come. The proposed design replaces a free market one bedroom apartment with a larger one bedroom apartment. A new full basement provides needed storage area and additional office area while providing a solid foundation for the build-ing. Net leasable space remains approximately the same. An additional three pArking spaces are added to an existing two spaces which reduces the impact of off street parking around the site. It is the intent of the applicant to maintain the historic character of the building and to enhance it wherever possible while providing a more equitable office building. The resulting modifications will enhance the historical structure and the neighborhood. The proposed development is illustrated as Exhibit 'E'. . IV APPLICATION FOR PARTIAL HISTORIC DEMOLITION 1. The Showcase Victorian located at 332 W. Main, Aspen, - Colorado was built in 1888. A partial demolition occurred around 1965 and some additions were made. It 104 6 is our proposal to remove that portion which was added . ' in the 60's to allow for the proposed addition. 0 16 /4 It ' 21, Economic Feasibility The demolition mentioned above allows for an addition more compatible with the historic structure, a larger replacement apartment, more leasable office space and three additional on site parking spaces, all of which will increase it's value. V APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE Current zoning dictates three park-ing spaces per 1000 sq. ft. of net leasable area which results in a requirement of six spaces. The requirement of one space per bedroom, a total of seven parking spaces are required for the proposal development. Currently the Showcase property accomodates two cars We have.. 3, f flla\\ providedikignal.three--parking-spaces- for a.<total of \'401~ j- -i five. ) A variance of two parking spaces is requested: j 9 jlil L 1 * The proposed development retains approximately the same amount â‚¬ i of net leasable area on above grade levels but adds 500 sq.ft. 4 of leasable area to the basement. Mitigation of the additional 500 sq.ft. would require an additional_1.5 parking _S paP.RLâ€¢. Considering-the-*PRIsting conditions Ef--a- - -rrolt*=" conforming site, we feel the proposed development has adequately addressed the provision of parking on site. VI / APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC GRANT f,The applicant is applying for the Historic Designation Grant )provided by City Ordinance. We believe this proposal tl> ia\< qualifies by virtue of it's contribution to the Main Street ~ Â· \ \Historical Corridor. The proposed development serves to 1- i Â¢ w./-' 1 ~t~enhance and maintain the Historic Character. 2- I , ZELLER Â·CONSTRUCTION, INC. 01 j:NERAL CONTRACTOR. July 16, 1991 Ms. Roxanne Eflin Aspen Planning Office 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 332 W. Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Roxanne, After some field investigation, we have concluded that the best approach to the project is to remove a portion of 332 W. Main. The portion to be removed has been determined to be a later addition to the house, not a part of the original victorian. It is our opinion that the propc#~redit:Lon will not adversely affect the structural inte#rtkyl of the historical house but will surely extend the lifo Uf the building. finp r y,f Ge>Â¥1 Zklkdr Zetierl Construction Offii' (.2 729 Wes{ 11.1]am . CO . 81Â·611 o Mailing Address: POBox 37 o Aspen, CO o 81612 {303) 920-4979 , FAX (303) 920-0907 EXHIBIT D- CHARLES CUNNIFFE &ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 520 EASTHYIVIAN SUITE 301 ASPEN CO 81611 303/925-5590 CHARLES L CUNNIFFE AIA July 17, 1991 Showcase Victorian Existing Conditions - Lot Area 4500 sq.ft. Existing FAR 3261 sq.ft. First Level 1709 sq.ft. Second Level 1016 sq.ft. Third Level 536 sq.ft. Total 3261 sq.ft. Existing Net Leasable Office Space First Level 764 sq. f 6571 7 -1 44 0 Second Level 519 sq.ft.~ l, I ='r , j Third Level 488 sq.ft._5 Total 1771 sq.ft. Building Height Maximum 25' - 0" Site Coverage 1881 sq.ft. Parking Provided 2 Spaces A-Â·*c.Â·..Â·~.Â· . ~~~~~ ~91'4Â·ise*9.t.~'2:;:wk'..34 <DÂ·72.hi'4.:. 3.*43 1 ALLEY ~ . SET: REBAR W/PLAS. CApl T.10-4 375'09'11~E 45.00 .3 â€¢SNO NUUBER FOUND: REBARW; ALU CAP LS.9184 FIEL~375'0![33"E 44.9~7 -*71- 937-37 .1 - 1 . A CAR PORT 'tj '11 / h, - , P 10 I . 1 / ' . -- -- /, ~f . 1 .It !,! NEW FO - |' aer /, /0 /1 '2'.1/:,/22.19%'.111 15 . ~ '~'//~////,m~~coNC. PAD~ 11%00 - o I â€ž'>TwojSTOR'f/,9-*1,4 ~Z|.M 2 &6#EM+-J /514CTORIAN/.4/ L IL.u.=:1 1 0 0 0 U i I'lll lilik. w --4.41- ' / 8 1 0 20 30 40 50 FI 5 to 8~!SOFBEARING: FOUND CITY MONUMENT SW CORNER BLK.44 11Â·z ! To FOUND RE8AR NOCAP AT THE SE COR. OF THE WI/2 LOT L BLK44 I / 1- t./6,5 /22:3;EEe,/,0-/ SUR\<EY.Qiâ‚¬S .CERTIFICALE â€ž i WOODEN PORCH A SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION ON JUNE 14 1979 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP ACCURATELY DEPICTS .: OF LOT K AND THE WEST 1/2 OF LOT L, BLOCK 44. CIÂ¥Y OAASPEN, Mr COLORADO. 95 -lil 1 6. f . 1 Â»2.G W tÂ¥ --0- - 2 JUNE 1, ,1979 C.S. 9184 â‚¬JOkkn.-0.. Â·2 Â· ALANE SURVEYS by: JAMES E RESER K WI/2 L 9 1 /9 L | . 1/ 6. B L K.. 44 FOUND: <, 1' Â¥13 CITY MONUMENT\,t 11 75'09'll"W 45.00 ~ FOUND: BLEÂ¥.â€¢ laÂ·7 L I REBAR W/O CAP ELEVÂ·â€¢17.2 r UÂ·T -- ve - 75 OURVEYOKS CERTIFICATE 1 HEKEM CERTIFN -TH.g- Cht JUN E 5,,1911 . A Â·AtUAL I INOPECTÂ»4 74â‚¬9 FI/g. UNDE.4 }11 tUrogyISION CF THE AUâ‚¬.grf SHOWN tâ‚¬P.EON Â¢ NO 04Â»625 WERE ~ FCONO OCEPT M 91OWN 4 NOTED HER:EON. MAIN ST RE,E ,T . ALru'ls Â·5UE:VEMS. INC. D.ft JUNE 4, 1191 1-0. . . . < FLD: S 14'4 CONC.Â· WA EXHIBIT D- -Ir---- -7 M IL-wpug.j-,-g~ rd.9 4Â·-L '--1 // 4-1 V 1 It . 10 -'4.Myttt"**(â‚¬74&2ht/FA#*84â€¢14*11, j. /1 i -IL - EFARTHeNT -ft[Ill i 1 3- m 4 1 *ImÂ»,4# )â€ž*MW#tthÂ¥,1,#4â€¢*.,tÂ·*ee,atift},lthk'#7169,4,01Ptu#0 -\ -' F. :m/FÂ¢lnulftâ€¢.1*46 R#_ f f Â£ *ER,8%5 office l -L- M.Bly W Mer iii 'lir '*4 -1-4 21Â£LÂ£1 F \4\) 50 (dirERM.166: .,in / - \ 7 9 3- 1 8141: r 0~_ r fr'ce 4 % 4 4<vit)â€¢t--UK,Â»64,4,01'** ' 44 FÂ«-Il \%107 1 1/ hÂ·,i 4 q#,1 k,Â»457 L 4.01 FIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN - VI hily 1/8-=1'-0- '' m..2......<//7./......t. 1\\\ r' EXHIBIT D-, B )%1*45*LAWFLAW*W~vagi*# 1 1 A 2 + # ATT' 6- i : it $. i & 7 t 84* 1 42=lip\. . 0171(e . 111 \ -8.11 -Â· 21 i~-*,1;97~.vT ~ 7 ' /4 du 1/BEEE'Zill ug'aÂ£.uia ? aryÂ·e offloe i 4.*A* Â·7 Â· 4,SM'e=14 rÂ·Â·Â·. N 1 i~Â¢ SECOND LEVEL FLOOFt PLAN 1/8-=1'-O" EXHIBIT D- i $ f ':et,*.4.W.- -W ik,#,r# 1, -*7*3;0~447,Fir.Vy f 7 aL=R-H,t i i OFFICE j i i 11 11 -HIRD LEVEL FLOOB PLAN 412-f -1/8-=1'-0- 9*Â»24â€¢4Â»â€¢IdÂ»-AR#c, 4 2,4/4/O*râ€¢~Â·.6 EXHIBIT D- 7 fo WO 4, 2, if f /9 4 1 0/t 4 z . 4- hi lo mr) --M'YAALE S.~-k-.-E:S -L~- [34 ---0/111 ' /EE _TEÂ»-~-2_- ly \P *r - 31 - lf,11,20 l-1- .*231-r.fu'.5. L 1 11 1 1.111- 1 1.1 - I.---- I d -19911-92 47- 443/-1-22 - i. 1-6INT=-71 2 -I- 1. 1 f~ 1.1000 f-HIH6'tlts -Ill--1 341.-i''l -r- 425 7 Â«...1 - - 1 7=:-1 I ... ~442-â€¢- r- . â‚¬850&10 1-evEL . - 'Â«-4-r'#122- UL--70 1 ~ *SE fl~ \\ i th--Iyl- "F ticâ€¢,le, u_i-J- I~-2-_+~ ....--il lit! .1.7.-Ti- I- ------2-Â·f -2-~~ FIR:>T LavEL SOUTH ELEVATION 1/8-=1'-0- 12:, BEE M - 1-6 *Movep C 2 le,HAIN A u- Al -31., - 444 / 2- ==It 9-:31 ,~Â«--11~~â‚¬*=2-Â«= -. / 11 1. 17 il- -- ..... - UN 1 \ Itt : 1 mil 90 1. 1 Lb.ar-1 - 1 -24~J - 3 87:==3111.~--i?9412 4 79Â«uitÂ»,f / 8 0 1 - 4 r ---4-- Â· =4:47 37 - - -FlJK =41 -*---E-LEE . -.. LIT=- * 2 --- U~~_11_2|~|p * -.1-- ir,Ix''I/,L | Â·i- L.3 7-4':,i,J':9.l, VVEST ELEVATION 1/8-=1'-0- 2 9 r//Ill EXHIBIT_P=1 r t-' 0,1 . 21:30-2- - .It' -- -1 IG--1-- -1- 22<.-u.-0.2.6,/-. 3- ---7--- -Lit-"z-r----dE= --*:UnT_ . - t----FFT-- . .3-1 L,11 13-; H.\ /. 4 , 1 1 1 1 NORTH ELEVATION 1/8-=1'-O- L LAI~# -u=i~I LV -Â¢0 1 1-0 BE - 1. IREHAIR < 4 %\-1 C:950 .,1 , Â· u./..Fl ti'.t ---1- -'-- 11==L. \ *in- Â· /0 6.ilt ,222~ N __~~ 11= = ~-r~--,--~~~~i~r~ ~ ~ ~' ~~~ ~~ 1! 21....7 ZT 4 ' i i *Â·LL_L.-_r:7~7,Â· 1-- a_. J 2~r-3.-- f -34*- Â« '--- *Â·- r.+177(- -Â¥Iffjz-1-7-i~lor:.33=fi....1 1.1 177 J..1,.1.. rl....f ., . .- - :---4 Â·Â·-Â·- .NJ - 12= ... -rÂ·-Ur-y ti- S-'-~1-f -n E.D.ul.f. ~-''c 1, --7.-I. 'Ii- - 7-0 -430 11 11: ------:-... - EAST ELEVAT]ON 1 /8-=10-0- I -1 0 1 (D 32 -29 EXHIBIT E- CHARLES CUNNIFFE &ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 520 EAST HYMAN SUITE301 ASPEN CO 81611 303/925-5590 CHARLES L CUNNIFFE AIA July 17, 1991 Showcase Victorian Proposed conditions Lot Area 4500 sq.ft. Allowable FAR 3375 sq.ft. Proposed FAR -9%:30 sq. f t. i , 34.Go t-\ n . ,101 lifoL First Level 1406 sq.ft. - 4 \:, I. f . -, 4 .. - - Second Level 1437 sq.ft. ' Third Level 417 sq.ft. Total 3260 sq.ft. Proposed Net Leasable Office Space First Level 910 sq. ftl 1 674 Second Level 766 sq.ft._3 Basement --51-6 -sq. f E Total 2192 sq.ft.' + 47< 4 7 ,-i -f , 0 Building Height Maximum 25' - 0" Allowable Site Coverage N/A Proposed Site Coverage 1479 sq.ft. Parking Provided 5 Spaces 1-- 1 ,. ALL el/ '1 2 3 1- 5 1---------1 0 1 1 i L------ --1 1 r--_l 1- 2+ flililll ' j 1. li i , 194/ ill// - New Â»poITIOU 1-,di -- 4 1. 9Â»/14-1 / / /9*Â·26*A / |~ GL~1; 1 f 40 0=A\ 4// lll 9 1 1/1 FORGH 1 1.' 1- - - ---A- 1 3 0 1.. V M SITE PLAN MAI hi 91-12Â·EET SHOUC+95 VID-~0111Â»1-1 CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS - 1 331 W H/\ 114 AspelÂ·-1, CÂ» PO. BOX 3534. ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 91 3 ip sTREE~[ EXHIBIT E-: 3 0 I '51Â¥166 ..1--L Â· 43 0 Â·Â· lf- 2.-8- 1-5 aL* I t 6--='LIAHTWell- 1 - 4 -- i .U. , I h 47' . 1. 1 9 , 0 1/4, f \54 3 \4 Ye"/77 , ,.1â€ž ,~'*i 'cr.â€ž,.,T- ,â€¢, *.0,â€ž..04 r I' 2 - Â£1;P' Ce 4~HTWELL . I .' .W-. rÂ¥k Nk 397 ' . 2;i rul /2,7 \SA y 7 1 ~~ BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN \L_37 1 /8-= 1 '-0- - et'01'36Â°4621 VIc-[oft,41 CHARLES CUNNIFFEE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 0332 |41, 11Â»113 P.O. BOX 3534. ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 f 1 11'llilli 1.1 0 1 142' r #-Reâ€¢.At-4 1 Trrd I EXHIBIT E-4 1 0 1 5 . 1 -IIi Fl jr . r 20*866.11 " 1 ka. 0~7 108 2 OFF ICE '372;M L 93 E. &n . 74 21 - 2 ~ Â°1Â¥148 - 7 1/4 9 i OFFIC,6 ~j _-4, 4 3#97 -/i < JL. , . 11 F-a ----- - 0 _3 25 2 I 11 7- A â€¢,su - Doh'FEP#144.8 2 1.. LILE'- HHI-gM.m#O 155}201+ 30 Rk 111 t?f --1- i 7 "21Pth FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1/8-=1'-O" ~ SHOWCASE. VIC[oR!61-1 CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHrrECTS 95% . W MA.114 Aspe\4, c-0 P.O. BOX 3534. ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 EXHIBIT E-t ; ..04- m 11,1,1.6,1.-r.7.44 1 .. ..1 i.gÂ© -i I /-/vtkb! ---01541#61 R - i . -i-=LIL_ 1 . . CFFIC.6 >0 Q -1 1 F 1 1- 862 LY~ 1<11&01485-1 %-1-94 1- t. 4 ,Â· t /Â»--n/0-11 0.1 , C N' 1 4 4 ''*'*tet... mâ€¢if*â€¢p,wâ€¢*W.â€¢e.*,UÂ¢AÂ·+4~ i. 1 441. f. t - 4 . L-- dr -1 4.4 . Al /2 -C- 4 i 34 v Â¥UT 0_3 U Â£4-1 1.Lf Ill 0 W. * . j $ 4 1, , Crrle-6 3 N. 4 i t.-4 4 P 5. , 046Â«'.,711 i i 'P. d y 1 /~th SECOND FLOOR PLAN â‚¬1101Â£16â€¢66 VIC:ToR1,Â« Id CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHrTECTS 332- W HAIk| AAIDeu) 60 PO. BOX 3534. ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEPIWONE 303/925-5590 EXHIBIT E-( 1..'1" 4 Â·0011' I ~74-744* MI/â€¢Â·t ' 1 1 of ~ ~ -__- sp<nA f - Â· .11 01 4--14 la I.,; . i r in r/EZIZ28ZZZ ~ - gel::'lecow I .0 1 t-4L/A-*m4--*H.* ? 0 Â¥* 7nW919!74 w'7794v&41 I 4%:-21 *3 583 1\1 0 4/*4 - I Â£ 1 THIRD FLOOR PLAN 491/ 1/8-=1'-0- SHO 1Â£10Â«98 V I CToal,kl-| CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 332 Id MA lid _ Ae ~E> 613, <50 P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 Mtbtf f EXHIBIT E- 0 . .--Ill--Ill 66 - 405: -.--- 3 I *--=-; E _ -2 T C 3 2 - 71;CO#/:r \ 7 =if- 1 XYL.2 - 1 . === 51 ... 't - 1 1 '. 1LUL 1 - . 1 SOUTH ELEVATION 1/8-=1'-O- . SHoweet Vic[ORIA'-1 CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHmECTS 35 1 W MAI hi As'Â°ek'/ co PO. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 111 11 Ill 1@til! EXHGBIT E-8 rfEEL- 10]f wl 137 t Â· ARE]21 --- 41 - -.- / 72-11 & f' 3.* 1- 0 99 1-2 r---Hil .1 U Per/ 1 1 0- - --- , - 1 ~ h __ IP====0= Ch-A f ./ '931/ IÂ« - Â» r--T \. .% D===*= 1 -- â‚¬pHOW cÂ»SE vicrloRIA~J CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHrTECTS 332- W MIA' 4 AspEA) CO P.O. BOX 3534. ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 NO liVAE]13 EXHIBIT E-9 4/Â« 1 UU NXÂ»---- 11 - r-11 0 10 d % 4.1 1.111=1 - , 0 11 -I---.i-I-. 1 ,-7 * -C-U O- 4 g L --1 7 -0 0 1 fli_ I NORTH ELEVATION 1/8"=1'-O- 61-101404*8 VIC;[DRIAbl CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHrTECTS ' -331 0 MAIU A.40814 00 P O. BOX 3534. ASPEN. COLORA[b 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 EXHIBIT E- 1 C j 9/ 1-/1 1 49/1 U % ilit imal '-13 -1 11==11 fl h.t- 899 - Â· 4 2 1 1 - -Â»./ 9/ lk. -* 13 1 =d, 1 , 69&4.fr, - ? /1 1 L__Ir =-2 - -- / 1 11 1 <% UJ ,- 0. 0 44 16 ~-3 - 25 .MO . - /'U-11-~. ,Â« ~ 2-312 NBX Nal . Nt . *Hol''CÂ»â‚¬E vICTORIA'-1 CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHrrECTS 332- W HAI A AlfeA , co PO. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 NOIIVA3131 .. 40 , .. t-- ....I.Y...1- â€¢ 4//7.-.1/.7/. Mt-;tty/~1Â·~1~5058~ .- Ar> *1*&21,~ 44 rgamaR.0,~76*51:flef,Etew) 'UIILI=R-=51=,I'ELY TD'r,Di,ill,Tzira._~91Â·Mpe#21Â·1-NENdl:41-NÂ·t2IMl,libttiMUtC.[*kby,;12-1 Ipi, r-t t: 7 1.-,~CRÂ· 1. <SÂ¢km#VE,7,< *2.8â‚¬ 2 .1 J~, 9~%/A i - 1 - 141311197* /-2110411"531 , & 3 r .1, . .c , I1 11 ~ ~. , 7 't f tabl iÂ·* ~ ALPINE APPRAISAL kily , /:el:,111 1,1 'i,48,7.7, 0 . 0,. ..~ .., rio i ;,j g[-4 *L- : i h J f'.31/~i R Ir : i Â¢ Et . i - 09 - 1 . I , CERTIFIED 11, RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT â€¢7 A , I Ky 4 1 Ke . 1 41 Â· .. 01 I Â· 43 f 1 . f - Elf 1 f./ 524' ~ 11 - i 4, , :. my'. . 1 1 F e. 1 5 . LD I { 7 .1 t' - Lot K and West 15' of Lot L, Block 44 Er '1 I .. ' I. 1. , ' f 14 HIGI-IEST AND BEST USE ANALYSIS , The subject property is located in the 0 district of the City of Aspen which allows multifamily or office uses by right and a variety of commercial and public conditional uses. Minimum lot size is 6,000 sf indicating that the subject is over currently allowed density. The subject neighborhood is currently experiencing a ' transitional period from older, more traditional residential uses to commercial and office uses. This trend is in response to increased commercial and office : rental rates experienced in the downtown Aspen district. As the market rate for office Space increases at a rate faster than the rate for residential space the income available from office rental exceeds residential rental income and highest and best use increases. Preliminary survey ofÂ· current rental rates in the subject area indicates that the current market income for residential and office space is in equilibrium. Much of the office space currently existing in these older Victorian structures is owner occupied where owner bene- fits are not solely limited to rental income analysis. The residential market in the Aspen area is currently at a shortage level in part due to the impact of the Pitkin County Growth Management Plan and in part due to increased demand for Colorado ski resort facilities. - Consequently, residential uses tend to experience greater stability of occupancy, and appeal to a broader market segment than office and commercial space. Considering these and other factors, it is our opinion that the current highest and best use of the subject - property is multifamily residential as currently uses. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen HPC From: Roxanne Re: Communications items, this agenda Date: August 14, 1991 There are a number of important items under "Communications" on this agenda. Please plan to stay through this portion of the meeting. Since we have not met for a month, we need this time to discuss these issues, and any others you may have. Project Monitoring: Please go by and check your assigned projects today. Be prepared to give the Board and staff an update on the progress of each one. Additional Comments: MEMORANDUM TO: Amy Margerum, Planning Director FROM: Alan Richman Planning Services Rt SUBJECT: Existing Community Character of the Aspen Area DATE: August 1, 1991 Attached hereto is a draft analysis of existing community character -in the Aspen Area. Accompanying the draft are two large scale maps, illustrating existing community character in geographic form and the original mylars, for you to make prints for your work. Following staff review of the maps, we can give them to Robin, to develop a professional looking product for use by the public. These materials are being delivered for staff review, as a take off point from which the staff can begin developing the community character analysis of the "community vision" alternative. Glenn and I suggest you spend some time reviewing and commenting on the existing conditions text and maps, as they help to diagnose areas where corrective strategies should be implemented. For example, the number of areas designated "Auto Intensive" stands out for us. We recognize that some of these designations may upset people and hope this will direct them towards more pedestrian style solutions. We would also point out the many vacant parcels adjacent to auto intensive areas in the County. We suggest these vacant parcels offer opportunities to address the auto intensive character of an area through appropriate site planning and trails connections. The vision will likely be expressed in terms of physical actions (new public facilities, roads or affordable housing projects) which can be illustrated on the map or by policy changes (zoning changes, FAR revisions) which should be written as text. It might be useful to list the policy changes along the border of the maps and identify the geographic locations to which they are aimed. When Glenn and I return on August 12, we can meet with you to review your ideas and formally write up and map the two alternatives. We have provided staff with some very basic ideas to get them started on the alternatives on the last page of the draft. It would be our intention to try to complete this work by August 16, which was our previous commitment to you. If you need to contact me next week, I can be reached at Telluride Town Hall, 728-3071. Please feel free to call, as the Town recognizes I have other projects which may need attention while I am there. COMMUNITY CHARACTER ANALYSIS FOR THE ASPEN AREA The Community Character Analysis Technique Previous phases of the Aspen Area Community Plan process have identified existing conditions in the Aspen Area, formulated a community vision, identified issues associated with implementation of the vision and analyzed the applicability of three tools - community balance, carrying capacity and community character - to achieve the vision. This paper builds upon the results of these earlier phases by applying the community character analysis technique to the Aspen Area. The reader should refer to the Phase I Report for existing conditions data and vision statements. /'c-ommunity character is a comprehensive and precise representatio~) ( of an area that includes the relationships between the natural and j \ built environment. It deals concurrently, rather than sequentially / )or functionally, with all aspects of the community - land use, 4 g public facilities, economy and aesthetics. Community character / ) analysis provides a model for describing a community' s character ( j and addressing the land use and economic development issues that~ <- affect it. ~he community character analysis technique can be used to predict j ( the impact of various land use alternatives on the future character / \ of the planning area. Before the desired future character can be< ~ determined, the present character must be precisely identified. <1 Inherent in the different types of community character are specific ~ \ relationships with the larger environment and open space in ( j general. This is a concept with which conventional land use 1 / planning cannot cope, yet it turns out to be a principal means of ~ ~ making distinctions between different types of community character.'~ Community Character Classes, Types and Forms To complete a community character analysis, it is first necessary to understand the elements that provide an area with a particular character. These elements, which are known as community class, community type and community form, allow an area's character to be categorized, in much the same manner that a zoning map categorizes land uses into districts. All areas of a community fit into one of three community classes, these being town, suburban and rural. Each class can be divided into distinct community types, defined by unique land use features, design characteristics and economic or social roles applicable to the particular community. Community types evolve into different community forms over time. Community form is categorized in a continuum, ranging from the smallest to the largest forms, based on whether the area being analyzed is a free standing community or a component (building block) of a larger community. 1 , Free Standing Communities Component Communities Hamlet Block or Subdivision Village Neighborhood Town Sector City Region Metropolis Valley The Aspen Area exhibits qualities most similar to the component community, ranging from individual blocks and subdivisions, to neighborhood areas, City and County sectors, the Aspen region and the Roaring Fork Valley. Community form, however, does not appear to offer much promise as an analytic tool for planning in the Aspen Area and will not be pursued further in this study. There is nothing inherently good or bad in any community character class, type or form; each has a role to play in our society. The relative merits of the different classes, types and forms of character for a particular area are dependent on the community's vision of itself, as described by community character goals. Application of the Community Character Approach Community character analysis begins with a description of the existing character of the planning area. Specific physical/social attributes are used to describe the various community character types present in the planning area. Eight such attributes have been identified to describe the community character of the Aspen Area. These attributes, as listed in Table 1, are: 1. Land Use Description: What are the predominant land use types and densities which are present in the planning area? 2. Resident/Visitor Housing Mix: Are the residences in the planning area primarily occupied by visitors, permanent residents or seasonal residents? Are the residences primarily free market or affordable housing units? 3. Resident/Visitor Commercial Mix: Do commercial operations in the planning area serve the needs of residents, visitors or both? 4. Design Features: What are the dominant design features in the planning area, considering the degree to which it is pedestrian or automobile oriented; the presence of historic, modern or rustic building styles; the presence of large parking lots, yards or gardens; the relative floor area ratio, typical height and scale of buildings; whether buildings, streets and alleys are arranged into traditional or modern development patterns; the way vegetation is used to buffer or screen homes; and the prevailing topography. 5. Road type, Transit Availability & Congestion: What size and type of roads are present? Does the area receive frequent, some or 2 Table 1 - Aspen Area Community Character Types and Descriptions Town/Resort Auto Intensive Townsite Suburban Country Agricultural Undeveloped Center Residential Residential Residential Land Use Commercial, Commercial Detached/duplex Detached/duplex Detached Ranch buildings Recreational Description accomodations & centers, residences, residences on residences on development above grade apartment interspersed lots of 15,000 lots of more only dwellings complexes with lodge & sq. ft. to 5 than 5 acres multi family acres Resident/Visitor Primarily Primarily Primarily 2nd Primarily 2nd homes and Primarily N/A Housing Mix visitor, but resident homes and resident some resident resident also AH units occupied, many lodges, some AH occupied free occupied free occupied free AH units units market units market units market units Resident/Visitor Primarily Serves both Serves both None None None Serves both Commercial Mix visitor visitor and visitor and resident and oriented, some resident needs resident needs visitor resident recreation serving uses needs Design Features Histor. bldgs, Modern bldgs, Histor. homes, Modern homes, Modern and Ranch homes, Recreation pedestrian Auto oriented, large FAR's, lower FAR's, rustic homes, agricultural buildings in a oriented parking lots, yards & valleys & large homes on buildings natural (sidewalks & sprawling and gardens, hillside dev., large lots, located in setting Mall), 40' massive bldgs, 28' height, 25/28' height, topog used to prominent part height 28' height ped. oriented auto oriented screen view of site Road Type, Urban streets, Urban streets, N'hood streets, City, County & County & Agricultural Primitive Transit freq. bus svc, freq. bus svc, near bus svc., private roads, private roads, roads, roads, Availability & congested periodically overflow near bus svc., no bus svc., no bus svc., some bus svc., Congestion congested parking/traffic no congestion no congestion no congestion no congestion Utilities Public water Public water Public water Public and Private water Private water As needed to and sewer, and sewer, and sewer, private water and sewer, and sewer, serve electric below electric below electric below and sewer, electric above electric above recreation ground & above ground ground electric above & below ground ground uses ground Community Government ctr, Post Ofc, park, In-town school None None None Parks, Facilities transit ctr, hosp. schools sites, historic cemeteries, malls & parks & parking gar. museum & parks water tanks Natural Features/ No No No Yes, to a Yes, since many Yes, since most Yes, where all Habitat Present? limited extent features are features are features are preserved, is preserved, is preserved, tolerant of suitable for will be highly wildlife hab. wildlife hab. suitable for - wildlife hab. Source: Alan Richman Planning Services, July, 1991, based on an approach developed by Lane Kendig, Inc. no bus service? To what degree is traffic congestion experienced? Are trails available for pedestrians, bicyclists and others? 6. Utilities: Is water and sewer service provided by centralized or individual systems? Is electric/telephone/cable service located above or below ground? 7. Communitv facilities: What public facilities, such as parks, government buildings, medical, schools and parking, are available? 8. Natural Features/Habitat Present?: To what degree have natural features been preserved? What is the area's suitability for wildlife habitat? Taking into consideration these attributes, seven community types have been defined to characterize the Aspen Area. The community types are described below, considering their land use features, design characteristics and their community role or function. The geographic locations of the seven community character types are illustrated on Maps lA and lB, depicting the existing community character of the Aspen Area. Town Class Types - gami. QU_- 1160 Colic_ 40-1 icj 1. Town/Resort Center: This community character type includes commercial core, visitor accommodations and government centers that have well defined architectural spaces that are in scale with pedestrians. The Town/Resort Center of Aspen includes both the central business district and the Aspen Mountain base area. Land uses in Aspen's Town/Resort Center include commercial uses primarily oriented to visitor needs, which may also serve local needs, hotels, lodges and condominiums for visitors, and a limited number of affordable housing units, primarily located above grade in commercial buildings. Aspen's Town/Resort Center is a place people come to in automobiles or transit vehicles, which are stored on the street or in below grade parking facilities, allowing visitors, residents and employees to get around mostly on foot or by bicycle. Virtually all of the streets in the area have sidewalks and malls are found on sections of Hyman and Cooper Avenues and at the base of Little Nell. Frequent bus service is available throughout the area. A high degree of traffic congestion occurs during periods of the day. This area is home to the community's most prominent historic structures, but also contains many modern buildings. Allowable floor area ratios range from up to 2.0:1 in the commercial core, to 1.5:1 on the periphery of the core to 1.0:1 at the base of Aspen Mountain. Most of the newer buildings in the Town/Resort Center have been built to their maximum allowable floor area, while some historic buildings exceed the maximum allowable floor area. 4 6 ~llowable heights in this area range from 40 feet, throughout the ~) \ commercial areas, to 28 feet in the accommodations district. Some / ) historic buildings exceed the allowable height, while most newer\, < buildings approach or equal the maximum allowed, unless limited/ j from doing so by viewplanes established to maintain views to Aspen< / Mountain from such prominent places as the Hotel Jerome, Wheeler~ (Opera House, Wagner Park, Glory Hole Park, and Court House. Due to its function, the Town/Resort Center is not a place with much evidence of natural features. Instead, landscaping is used to compliment building styles, through highly organized plantings of trees, shrubs and flowers. Many buildings in the Town/Resort Center are arranged to follow the historic pattern of having no setback from the street. Some newer buildings have abandoned this pattern and have shops which are set back from the street or are not at street level. Alleys are used principally for service delivery purposes in the commercial core. Centralized water and sewer service is provided throughout the area and utilities are located exclusively below ground. Several of the Aspen Area's important community facilities are found in this area, including the City and County government buildings, the transit center, the mall and Wagner and Bass parks. 2. Auto Intensive: This community character type is generally defined as areas where parking lots and automobiles take up a disproportionate share of the land area, causing a loss of well- defined spatial enclosure, pedestrian scale and sense of place. Auto intensive areas are found throughout the Aspen Area, including the Clark's Market and City Market shopping centers, the Airport Business Center, the Grand Champions Club, the apartment complexes of the Smuggler area, the development nodes of lower Castle and Maroon Creek Roads, such as the Hospital-Marolt-Castle Ridge complex and the School Campus-Iselin Park complex, and the Highlands and Buttermilk base areas. Much of Main Street represents a Townsite Residential land use character which has become dominated by the automobile. Land uses in Aspen's Auto Intensive areas cover a very wide spectrum, including commercial shopping centers serving both visitor and resident needs, of f ice and service commercial districts serving resident needs, apartment complexes consisting principally of affordable housing, key community facilities and ski base areas. Auto Intensive areas are, by definition, places people come to by automobile or transit vehicles, although some may instead arrive by bicycle or on foot. In fact, it is the very fact that they are auto oriented which makes them suitable for resident shopping and service needs. These environments are not, however, considered "pedestrian friendly" and may only be conducive to pedestrian activities within, not between, individual complexes. For example, 5 a pedestrian might feel relatively comfortable moving about within the Clark's Market center, but would be much less comfortable travelling between the complexes found along Maroon and Castle Creek Roads and those along State Highway 82. Frequent bus service is available to the in-town Auto Intensive areas and relatively frequent service is available to the outlying areas. Nonetheless, traffic congestion can occur at peak activity times in these areas, such as mid-day at the Clark's Market/Post Office area, early morning and late afternoon at the intersection of Maroon Creek Road with Highway 82, etc. In fact, traffic volumes along both Castle and Maroon Creek roads significantly exceed their design capacities. Aspen's Auto Intensive areas have developed in the last several decades and contain mostly modern style buildings. Many of these buildings are massively scaled and are not easily regulated through floor area ratios, due to the extensive land areas they cover. Allowable height is generally 28 feet, with the exception of the in-town commercial areas, which permit heights to rise to 32 feet. The Auto Intensive areas are also not places with much evidence of natural features. Landscaping is used to compliment buildings or to screen views of buildings from roads. Buildings in the Auto Intensive areas are generally set back a significant distance from the street, particularly when compared to neighboring Town/Resort Center or Townsite Residential areas. Much of the setback is used for parking and landscaping purposes. Alleys are generally not present and service delivery typically occurs in an off-street service yard. Centralized water and sewer service is provided throughout these areas and utilities are principally found above ground, although utilities have been placed below ground in some Auto Intensive areas. Many of the community's more space intensive public facilities are located in the Auto Intensive areas, including the post office, parking structure, school campus, hospital, airport and maintenance center. At least two of these facilities, the post office and schools, were previously located within the pedestrian areas of the community. 3. Townsite Residential: This community character type is defined as residential and tourist accommodation areas which generally correspond to the area known as the original Aspen Townsite, where historic residences or newer dwellings using historic design elements predominate and which are principally pedestrian in character. Aspen' s near-in neighborhoods, including the -West E~d. Shadow Mountain, ,Lake Avenue and East End and the lower density portions of the Smuggler neighborhood are characterized as Townsite Residential areas. 6 Land uses in the Townsite Residential area include detached residences and duplexes, interspersed with small lodges or multi- family residential buildings. Residences are generally found on lots of 3,000 to 9,000 square feet, while lodges and multi-family dwellings typically occupy lots of 6,000 to 27,000 square feet. C'Historically, the Townsite Residential area was characterized b~\~ \ owner-occupied residences. More recently, however, many of the j ~ older residences have been demolished and replaced with homes / ) occupied on a seasonal basis, leaving some of these neighborhoods / ~/ largely vacant during part of _ the year. A . limited number of < \ detached residences and multi-family dwellings in these areas are j ~occupied by residents and some affordable housing units also exist. / Commercial uses in the Townsite Residential area occur mainly in \ /buildings converted from old residences and include offices, small \ / restaurants and retail operations and serve both visitor and ~ < resident needs. Home occupations also occur in these areas. ~spen' s Townsite Residential areas are pedestrian oriented places, hj \ where people walk in the street or along sidewalks, when available. / \ Traffic volumes are generally light, although during both the f ~summer and winter season overflow parking from the Town/Resort \ / Center occurs in some of these areas. In addition, traffic from ~ \ Highway 82 may overflow onto the streets in certain areas, \ jparticularly Bleeker Street, heading west from downtown. Bus ~ # service generally occurs nearby, but not within these areas. ~ The Townsite Residential areas are the location of most of Aspen 'sl \ historic Victorian residential structures, but also contain a mix / jof other design styles. Floor areas are controlled by "sliding k j scale" floor area ratios, allowing a detached residence of 3,240 > < square feet on a 6,000 square foot lot and 3,660 square feet on a ~ ) 9,000 square foot lot. The actual floor area of some older homes \ / exceeds these limits, while that of most new homes virtually equals J l the maximum allowed. The maximum height allowed is 25 feet, a ) \ height which is exceeded by a number of prominent older residences. / ~A- characteristic of the older homes is the generous side yards \ ( which separate neighboring buildings from one another. Typically, j ~ homes were not placed in the center of the lot, such that one side / \ yard was larger than the other, permitting significant gardens to< )be created. Large cottonwood and evergreen trees also were used tol / buffer homes from one another and as screening from the street. b F Irrigation ditches flow through many of these areas to support ther j vegetation. Newer homes cover a much greater percentage of the lot \ )than do older homes and generally do not offer the generous side~ / yard buffer or the degree of screening of their predecessors. \ ( Recent changes to the City' s setback regulations and the new lot ) <coverage standard are intended to re-create the former pattern. / Alleys are used for secondary access throughout most of the Townsite Residential areas. Many lots in these areas contain 7 , secondary or "carriage" houses located off the alley. Recently, a "cottage in-fill" program was adopted by the City to encourage development of such units as resident housing. Centralized water and sewer service is provided throughout these areas and utilities have recently been placed exclusively below ground. Several community facilities commonly found in residential neighborhoods are located in these areas. These include the in- town school sites, the historic museum and several small parks. Suburban Class Tvpes 4. Suburban Residential: This community character type is generally defined as relatively higher density residential retreats, which are auto oriented, have developed over the past several decades and contain principally detached residences with yards on lots ranging from 15,000 sq. ft. to approximately five acres. Suburban Residential portions of the Aspen Area include subdivisions along Cemetery Lane and on Red Mountain, the Meadowood, Aspen Grove, Knollwood, Eastwood, Mountain Valley, Highlands, West Buttermilk and Tennis Club subdivisions and approved plans for the Preserve and Pfister properties. Land uses in Aspen's Suburban Residential areas include detached residences and duplexes which are mostly occupied by residents, although some are second homes. Some residences also contain caretaker units. No commercial uses, other than home occupations, are found in these areas. An emerging characteristic of the newly developing Suburban Residential areas is they contain large homes, designed principally for second home owners rather than residents. Unless some actions are taken to address this character change, a long range trend for the Suburban Residential areas may be the same kind of displacement which occurred in the Townsite Residential areas. Aspen's Suburban Residential areas are generally automobile oriented, with only limited accommodation of pedestrians. Traffic is generally free flowing on the City or County roads which lead to these subdivisions. Bus service generally occurs nearby, but not within these areas. Suburban Residential areas are found both on the relatively flat valley floors and on more steeply sloping topography of the surrounding hillsides. Some of the homes located in the valleys use topography or vegetation for screening, but many are quite visible from roadways. Those homes built on the hillsides have typically been built into the slopes, although some are on the ridgelines. Since many of the hillsides are dry land with little vegetation, these homes are highly visible from roads or from town. Floor areas allowed in the City portions of the Suburban Residential area are larger than those allowed in the County. A 8 â‚¬ detached residence on a 15,000 square foot lot in the City could contain a maximum of 4,500 square feet, while a 2,400 square foot home could be built on the same size lot in the County. Most homes in the City portion of the area approach the maximum allowable FAR, while some in the County actually exceed the applicable limit and are non-conforming uses. The maximum height allowed in the City is 25 feet, while in the County the maximum is 28 feet. Water and sewer service is generally provided to these areas through centralized systems, although some individual systems also exist. Utilities are generally found above ground, although some subdivisions have installed utilities under ground. Rural Class Types 5. Country Residential: This community character type is broadly defined as relatively lower intensity residential retreats, containing lots larger than approximately f ive acres, which contain either modern or rustic homes. Lots in these areas are large enough to provide their own feeling of openness and screening, putting less reliance on formal yards or gardens for this feeling. Examples in the planning area include individual homes along Castle Creek, Maroon Creek and Owl Creek roads, the lowest density areas of upper Red Mountain and approved plans for properties such as the Owl Creek Ranch. The only land use type in Aspen's Country Residential areas is detached residences, some of which contain caretaker units. The principal dwellings are mostly occupied as second homes, although some are occupied by residents. No commercial uses, other than home occupations, are found in these areas. Because of their relatively very low density, development in Country Residential areas tends to be a feature of, rather than a dominant part of the landscape. Development is characterized by large homes on large lots, with topography and vegetation typically used to screen views from adjacent roadways. These areas tend to be located on the relatively flat valley floors, although they can occasionally also occur on steeper hillsides. The generallyÂ· low densities involved and their preservation of most natural features make such areas relatively tolerant of wildlife habitat. In many communities, Country Residential areas are a transition land use form, between what were previously Agricultural lands and what will become Suburban Residential lands. When a single Country Residential development occurs, surrounded by Agricultural lands, it lends a feeling of isolated, "Countryside" character. As more such developments occur, a suburban character results. In the Aspen Area, however, development of second homes at densities which will remain below that allowed by zoning, is creating a "Country Estate" character, which is unlikely to evolve into a Suburban Residential pattern. 9 .. I Aspen's Country Residential areas are generally automobile oriented, with only limited accommodation of pedestrians. Traffic is generally free flowing on the County roads which lead to these areas. Bus service generally does not occur near these areas. Water and sewer service is generally provided to these areas through private systems. Utilities are generally above ground, although some subdivisions have installed utilities under ground. 6. Agricultural: This is the character common to ranch lands of - Pitkin County, where development is limited to fences, fields, barns and homes needed to operate a ranch. This class type can be found in the planning area on the remaining ranches of the Owl Creek Valley and on lands still used for agriculture in the State Highway 82 corridor. The only land use type in the Agricultural areas is ranch buildings, including the resident occupied, ranch home and various outbuildings, such as barns. Commercial uses are not found in these areas. The typical development pattern for ranch areas was to place the home relatively close to the road, in a prominent location where it would be easy for distant neighbors to socialize when they would pass by each other's property. Because of the low densities involved, screening of buildings generally does not occur. The very low densities involved and their preservation of most natural features make such areas suitable for wildlife habitat. In earlier eras, Aspen's Agricultural areas were located off unpaved County roads where traffic was very light and bus service did not occur. In recent years, Auto Intensive and Country Residential development have infringed upon these areas (such as along Owl Creek and Stage roads), leaving the remaining ranches as the rare exception. Given the incompatibility of such land use types, Agricultural areas may soon completely disappear as a community type in the Aspen Area. Water and sewer service to these areas is generally provided through private systems. Utilities in these areas are generally found above ground. 7. Undeveloped: This community type includes a number of sub- categories, including active park land, passive open space, alpine ski areas, natural land which will not be developed due to severe environmental constraints (slopes, geologic hazards, floodplains and wildlife habitat) and vacant lands which are likely to be developed at some point in the future. With the exception of parks, which are scattered throughout the planning area, such areas are typically found on the periphery of the planning area. Examples of such lands include Smuggler Mountain/Hunter Creek, above West Buttermilk and along Castle and Maroon Creek roads, on 10 .- parcels such as the Northstar Preserve, Marolt, Zoline and Golf Course and at the Aspen Mountain, Aspen Highlands and Buttermilk Ski Areas. Land uses in these areas consist of those recreational and commercial buildings and facilities typically found at ski areas and community facilities, such as parks, cemeteries, water tanks and dedicated open space. These buildings and facilities are intended to serve the needs of both residents and visitors. Recreational buildings in the Aspen Area are kept in a natural setting, meant to de-emphasize the commercial aspects of their use. - To an increasing extent, they are used in a multi-purpose fashion, for alpine and nordic skiing, snow shoeing, hiking, biking and jeeping in their respective seasons. Commercial uses are limited to an accessory status, only operating when the principal recreational activity takes place. Accommodations are limited to the Town/Resort Center or Auto Intensive areas which support these areas, with the exception of the back country hut system. Those areas which are kept in a natural state, such as the Northstar Preserve, are highly suitable for wildlife habitat. Roads in these areas are generally primitive, requiring four wheel drive, or do not exist at all. Bus service is available to reach many of these areas. Utilities are only available as needed for recreation uses, such as ski areas. Alternatives Analysis As noted above, the community character analysis technique can be used to predict the impact of various land use alternatives on the future character of the planning area. Alternatives suggested by the Planning Office for evaluation in this planning effort are: 1. Buildout under current zoning; and 2. Buildout pursuant to the community vision. The factors which will influence the future character of the planning area which will be identified for each alternative include: * Buildout potential on vacant and underbuilt parcels; * Likelihood of re-development occurring; * Expected major public investments (including community facilities, roads and affordable housing projects); and * Other influential public actions (such as zoning changes) or public policies (including environmental resource limits, such as water supply, wildlife habitat, etc.). 11