The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19971124AGENDA 2 04 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 314 November 24, 1997 t.1--4-Ceap SPECIAL MEETING SISTER CITIES ROOM 5:00 I. Roll call. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS III. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS A. We discussed Maxwell Aley's house by the entrance to William's Woods a month ago. Has everyone seen it and is there support for landmark designation? B. HPC holiday party on December 13. C. We need a second meeting in December after all. Can you meet on Wednesday, December 17th? IV. NEW BUSINESS 5:10 A. 130 S. Galena, City Hall-gutter 9 2'j 9-- i ) 4(k v ~-C 5:20 B. Survey - V. OLD BUSINESS 5:25 A. 420 W. Francis, garage -worksession. A-/0 6:05 B. 114 Neale Avenue, garage - final. Worksession on addition.,Uguti#p<- 6:30 C. 234 W. Francis, lightwell- amendment (to be presented at meeting) v 6:45 D. 425 E. Cooper, espresso cart- minor otc UkÂ¥Â·414: , 6:55 E. Downtown Enhancement and Pedestrian Plan- Resolution 411#79 r A-= 7:25 F. Ordinance #30- worksession 8:00 V. ADJOURN P.S. This is a long agenda. Please bring dinner if you would like. ~ROJECT MONITORING Roger Moyer 303 E. Main, Kuhn 420 E. Main (not active) ISIS (not active) 939 E. Cooper (not active) Susan Dodington 712 W. Francis (stalled) 918 E. Cooper, Davis 132 W. Main, McCloskey Meadows. Trustee and Tennis townhomes 525 W. Hallam (not active) Melanie Roschko 918 E. Cooper, Davis ISIS (not active) 706 W. Main (not active) 210 S. Galena, Elk's building plaza 414 E. Hyman, Aspen Cooking School |~uzannah Reid 303 E. Main, Kuhn 702 W. Main, Pearson 218 N. Monarch, Zucker Mark Onorofski 1008 E. Hopkins, Bellis Mary Hirsch Meadows, Trustee and Tennis townhomes 525 W. Hallam (not active) Gilbert Sanchez 420 E. Main Galena Plaza (not active) 820 E. Cooper (not active) 514 E. Hyman, Mason Morse bldg. 1008 E. Hopkins, Bellis Jeffrey Halferty 939 E. Cooper (not active) 132 W. Main, McCloskey 234 W. Francis, Mullin |~idi Friedland 130 S. Galena, City Hall CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: 214 E. Bleeker Street (Greenwood), expires February 12, 1998 ~20 Walnut (Greenwood), expires March 22, 1998 414 N. First Street (Ernemann), expires March 26, 1998 834 W. Hallam (Poppie's), expires April 26,1998 123 W. Francis, Lot B (Vickery), expires May 24, I 998 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission /0 THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Directp 42% Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning DirectQ~~> FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer \ RE: 130 S. Gaiena, City Hall- minor review DATE: November 24, 1997 SUMMARY: In September, HPC approved the addition of two skylights to the north side of City Hall. The skylights had to be carefully placed so that they would coincide with the two offices that will exist in that area of the building after the third floor is remodeled in approximately two years. As a result, one of the skylights is very close to a dormer and is receiving all the snow and rain runoff from that dormer, which could cause leaking problems in the future. The City now requests approval to run a small section of gutter along the dormer to carry the water off of the roof. APPLICANT: .The City of Aspen. LOCATION: 130 S. Galena Street. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an 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 by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: The applicant requests HPC approval to install a gutter along the east side of the dormer, as shown in the attached drawing. There will be a short downspout, to carry the water down the roof slope. The gutter will match the one that already exists on the north side of the building. This side of the building has had problems with water damage in the past (prior to the restoration of City Hall in 1995), so it is important to address the situation. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The proposed development has no effect on the character of the neighborhood. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The proposal will not affect the historic significance of the building. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The gutter is a utilitarian feature which did not exist on the building historically. It is located in area which is visible from the alley, but not from any street, and will be painted white to blend in with the dormer. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the Minor Development application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the Minor Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) â€¢ Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the installation of a gutter as represented in the attached drawing. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "1 move to approve the installation of a gutter on the north side of City Hall, as shown on the attached drawing." 1 1-*20#SGW i' 1 Parr- 4,1/41Â§416,- -1 fu!*=. . 1 1, 1 j . \ 1- i =01 P\\\ '24 lr:.Ill - --I'ti +HA HEa,J L 1 -,#902 -- durreT '51 , , - -EMS--TatI~~-ib.=.39~JP Uffâ‚¬;-4-*-75-r:..7-a.r- -:='t;?73:"ZEU~~0,-; r: Fb .9*2022210;1.-36.12Â£ITErF--..0Ktri.:r=-77.Jig-Z.-4-.- -- .. . Â· t- - ; Â·â€¢=.:=.Â·-,Ir# C.'.a Â£*litill--91~~6. --7Â·Â·- --. 'Ml-~tplfEP<imtill,1,4,~- i: . .. _ e.mAI11.1=e=-- Ullmigl- .---E;--.E-=-- --<i&44~.5532 2-i1 -24' Eâ‚¬Â·ELLâ€¢ j. 3. 2 1 - ==2 -- 2 Int.*. I,- P E-3~Â·. -- -.-....... - ---I.I.-- ar- - --I.... - --Â·-5 -teÂ·1-2.1- 7-el1 . Â·' 3 17-36%+2 631#2 -ENTI Lif:-Â·r,Flaitne Â£211/6-9â‚¬13; aurue-11.- 9â‚¬T ... :.1 -~.-::. ..: t.1=r.z.r ..,J.=1.3.,iloi. U..:mâ‚¬=21U:P ---- :**Et:22.-:Â·44- 0.262==2=332#.=31.~ig=/# =-==='Â» r-- 0, .--i=f=L-Tr=--FE--F-.1-Ec-~aÂ«fif.-- :PÂ·'f: â‚¬i:.piid-i .Â·.77.:..7 . JIÂ·'IIi-tiaSEE :13* -r-:- 0-Â£' F 4 2:â‚¬4 5'9-..Â· Â·. - - - c..:-*. Â· : : : :.47..Â·3 tr-yi idy-&:7_-- : .... :.. .Â·Â· ; ...ti#.2-Li : Ur-~.r~r:r:. I "r .: .. Â·Â·Â·F--*-2-Igfirmt?Â·47 -45.142- IÂ·E- U ~:42 7-'?:3 Â·:~ rjÂ·-_--iii:-: 77 .- . 110'w'~ / 0 14'rpli + tij~*Flitwilitz-/1.fli #fILI+-'.-trrijF-&.ighiEEEE*Jir--=f-igihiES*.61(ZAJJV*&-rp.&#rficillipir 11-~.*05~&i t - 1 . J 5 1 i 1 ' '' ;;r ' .........1 1 , 1 1 4 Â¢ . - . .. 1 .6 497 1 1 <493 ~V:TION 1 ju.40 JO US' 1 9.â€¢ Zls " 2 ASPEN CITY HALL 041 -1 -7 (*Ay - 1 Â· 'C L, 3 _~â‚¬Ili 1!EL PollÂ«19 +1970 -1 00 1---0 12] 1 Ed 1-11.23 '=adÂ¥,19 -------------Tr-,=*--.-1,--JF-CO~-~---'ri--Ir-Â£2-2---3,IE-Efil-.,Â£--55#Af F-==1 --=--r~2-fi--------63;,-=-I,LILE-Stiti ----- -*.--=========== 1 1 =========================== ----.-I.*-.---.-*-*----*.-*--#I-.--- - -- r- - 1 T==r= r --7 ---=c=-==2=----- 1 1 - - ----- I.-- -. ----- -1- = 1===UU , . . :-'1- ~7~-37-~mIT-7-7-2333-3-*EETF.~77737~EEZELEEEE.IE-EP~-~r-G~EEP~EEE*--~-- ' f53--81%2~-v~jftli-36-Eft?Â»9-2~~--r-- ============~ --- \NE.Â·32212.2.1-ZE:-ED.2-22?2=-=1612.- :7- EJEEEP=in=-ESEEEEIEEE===- . Nhe~ ---- --- ======4=:== t=-----==~-==;:,-,T ----------------1---Il-.---*I.-*-- - -.---- --Ii-----il-I---I.li.* -- *49 r-*1 ~.=====----*--------*--, ~7:-------EEPESEEE~- MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Survey DATE: November 24, 1997 The City has adopted a system to evaluate the effectiveness of many kinds of City services, and the performance of City staff, which in part involves surveys of the public. One measure of the Historic Preservation program is a requirement that each year a survey be mailed to all properties adjacent to two significant projects approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. The HPC is to choose which projects will be surveyed. Staff recommends that HPC choose two projects which have actually been completed this year, rather than two that have merely been approved this year, since the neighbors will be better able to evaluate the result once the project is built. Following is staff's recommendation of candidates for the survey (choose two): 616 W. Main Street (Aaronson), 123 W. Francis Street (Vickery), 935 E. Hyman Avenue (the Rock), 624 E. Hopkins (Rothblum), 426 E. Hyman (Curious George). The survey form which we be mailed to the adjacent property owners is attached. f Community Development Department Survey for Adjacent Property Owners Associated with a Historic Preservation Review As related to the project completed on , how would you rate the following aspects of the Historic Preservation Commission performance? Excellent Good Average Needs Unacceptable Improvement Do you feel that new construction on the site is compatible with the historic building(s) and neighborhood in terms of mass and scale, design, and location on the property? Do you feel that the project resulted in an improvement to the physical condition of the historic building(s)? Do you feel that the character of the historic building(s) has been retained while accommodating the owner's needs? How could we improve? What did you find to be the most effective part of the Historic Preservation review process? Did you attend a HI'C meeting, submit comments in writing, or contact City Planning Staff with questions regarding the project? g:\supportforms\surve),5.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 420 W. Francis Street- garage DATE: November 24, 1997 At the November 12th meeting, HPC tabled review of changes to an existing alley unit at 420 W. Francis Street. The applicant proposed to add a garage on the west side of the unit, which had the potential to adversely affect a large tree. The applicant has decided to convert the building into a two car garage and to reconstruct the unit as a second level on the building. This will require a new public hearing (scheduled for December 17th if possible), because the project moves beyond the limits of what is termed a minor review. Attached are floor plans and elevations for the building. It will be discussed as a worksession tonight in preparation for their formal review. 0 . I -, - 4 1. Ill\\ -4 - 1 ./ I.... -Il. \ \ \ ..1 \ 1 \ 4 9\ C 3 . i \ 1 . 0, I / I / 1 ./ - / - 1 1 / / -7 1 , - / 1 . / - , 1 1 . 1 . i 1 -.. I . Qu <1&- t 3 C - ink -a m 012 % O R t -. ICOLOMBO 4 HAI,PERIN RESTDENCE 3*4'ie 420 W FRANCIS STREET y. ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 *7-- - 1 &9 ri~ Â¥41400 k 1 0 0 0 i 1 1 . t./ 1 - --- -- L U --F,=5 -11 I jf \ ''1 4 -33\ - .3 - \L -2-72--2 >\- 1 , 1.- 7 -49 f. - - 14.1\N I , VA --7 1 \ 8 \ 1 -- 4 \ I 1 / ./7/0\ i i| -- 1 li . \1) ... EL 11-L- -rzrnT i ~ 11 11-- - i /tel , , A I I i. 30 2 g m o f rÂ·O m el O 2 r-2 - 14:80. , Clt" "1â€¢1:10~... I q HALPERIN RESIDENCE '6....01 - -,rÂ« 420 W FRANCIS STREET ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 /4 H(iVA 33 /8 \NVNOC . . ------ 1 1 -41 1 1 L. 11~\ - Il -- T~-JI-r\\4 1%\Ne 1 1 1 , -74PTFI-T--( 1 1 Y I:*=- 1\ <,3 0 - 1 1.Em 4 . 1 7 VT 4 1 I . 1 - ~.- \3%,-4. 9/7 . '-~ 1 1,6 P f / # A-0 Irl 1 ==========12 1 /1 9 4 *1 # P 1 U. r - 40- .---- ~ 0711. Â·HALPERIN RESIDENCE 420 W FRANCIS STREET ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 . if -21.1 - 1NBRCIPPFATOININO,3 Â£661 0 8 AON 03ABOBE 0 .. 1 l 1 1 . 1 ' ~t_ 1_114 ~ r,-111 ' 1- -1~212 i Â£'3 1 , -2,~F=*55 1 -1 - - 17==, . \22 - . Â·- m I 4:=4=El- 1 1 1 1> 4,/N 8y)~10 -- -'*â€¢1_ 1,1 1 . 4 - - / Ai- , -4- *-1-.1 -.-11,-2.1 - 1 .1 - . 97 . '71 ...: , t.: ,66 -3 . .1 6 ' 4. 0 -, . 14'- 1 1 . .1 . - -fl . <34:4 E 1 T 21 6 . 11 L. 1. I m y>- 12Â· 1/Â«1 1/ 1 1 11 1 E 11 J. - ...,I. - 3 -i--_- -1 11] Il F F--Â· ~~ L_ .+ Il 11 - 1 .-- 1 t 1-. 1 1 0 - I 1 / 1 Â·1 Â·HALPERIN RESIDENCE 420 W FRANCIS STREET ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 INEWidO-I A30 kLINGVNWOO Nr>6 12 1 NacÂ·16,1 Â£661 0 8 AON 03AI303ti 30'-9" ' 10'-41/2" 20'-4 1/2" , , \ ------------ . 1 â€¢ 2 .. 0 A E.:.j .. 2 Â¢ii, 4 .. /(-3 .. Er, - :5 . 1OVE WALLS ~5< .-_~ 2 is:i e * i.:.1 le- KITCHEN STUDY .. 2: 15:2 I B TOOL ..Ea V 15.3 1 M Â©Al S SHED ~.6 2 :100 1 00 0 ~':3 :}9 8 SKI Di %82:M::=::3:3:32:3......I.....:me:M:::3:3:3*.64, 9 - e ROOM {11 2 DARKROOM 2 0 , Â¢24 -I Â£44 1 M 02 t , - . ---------/ CV 7 55* CM ./. ~;,1 â‚¬:i REMOVE WALLS LIVINGROOM P--& DOOR CD C.:d Â£24 t.: \ 1. to - ..... / llc" 1 1 . 51~6" 5 '-0" 21-1 1/2" 2 1 Â£311 2'-11/2" 91-611 1 j, 1 / 1 5 A / REMOVE WINDOWS AND REPLACE W/ FRENCH PATIO DOORS TO MATCH EXISTING STYLE & COLOR --1%4734479+ 8 1,4"=- llc> 11 .......... ~2::222222:...22::22::22...:62::.22::.. 10'-2" 1 201.4,1 1 lilli 0719 . . PROPERTY LINE 11 v - - li- - - 7~_ _ ; 1- .y _14 r 1 4, 4-44/ 1--------Il---- ./e<'\M, Le .0.1 1 1 Â»tr 1 - 1 ..7307\ /5Â¥/Ii\X Â¥- EXISTING BUILDING vlj<13*Â« 4 -7- TO THIS LINE -\\\Â· ' 2622 EXISTING *r -5,07\Â©4 SHED 4 6 /, 1 11Â¢>;175 Va<\1- INA\/ 1 1 \31 77\- , 16>-r b < 49 1 FF 54 \ Z 1-30Â»t Al .r\N*,4=L:- X Ill -841â‚¬ix. 1 HR FIRE ' ' A<152/ 3. 3\ ~ RATED DOOR-~h~ ' ~ /1 3 ~ 363 / 7, 42<43~ p , | MECHANICAL 1 ' 91'hl , 14 \ t' 1 /7 1 G 1 ti 4 1 BENCH ~ .1 6 / 4 4 1/ 1 % 1 .t \ A >317 1 1, 6 % 0/ -*--XT A ~/J,0 /01~ EXISTING BUILDING w 3 - 4 \ / *1\99.0 THIS LINE - E %. 1 En UPÂ»- t --04-- -I-----Ill-- =-------I=-=-Il---Il--t---- 4 a- \ 3%0*****Â»C ek...~ 4,1 .vv . Z ' . - 1< X U *v i / f \\ yri< j 'r PANS PATIO- C COLUMN -1 1 1 1/ z YA 4-J. / . 4-1><r[A i 74*346' >Â©J i // I 31>ff\+0 -7. \ 1 dig<:\21 N HALPERIN ADU MAIN LEVEL(PROPOSED} ~.. 1 .::Ek:e 10'-GK 12'-6~' LI I . I - -0 - N 0 1 < L 1 1 1 I 1 8 1 2 2 CO I th 00 -Il-I- -Il- ... 1 00 ------T 1 A/ .Hic- 4 rn j 1 DN - t P C 0 - LE.J er . ep b 0 1 L C~ I I I 14'-8 r . 4 . D . 0 HALPERIN ADU UPPER LEVEL(PROPOSED) 0% 6'-6, MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 114 Neale Avenue- Final (garage only), worksession on proposed addition DATE: November 24, 1997 SUMMARY: HPC granted conceptual approval for a carport, including a sideyard setback variance on October 21, 1997. Attached are the drawings submitted for final approval. The carport is shown as a garage because the owner feels that a carport does not meet their needs. Staff recommends approval as submitted. The applicant is continuing to explore a solution for the proposed addition on the south side of the house. APPLICANr: Henry and Lana Trettin, represented by Jake Vickery Architects. LOCATION: 114 Neale Avenue. ZONING: R-15A. Significant Development PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development involving historic landmarks, or within an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an 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 by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, 1 . HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2); Response: When the historic cottage was moved from its original site (down the hill) to it's present location, the intention was that it would be a guest house. No real provision was made for parking since it would be accessory to the main house, which has to be built in the future. Now that the cottage will be owned separately, the owner has requested approval for a single car garage, including some storage. HPC granted conceptual approval for a carport, including a setback variance finding that this is the most appropriate location in order to avoid visual impacts to the historic cottage and to avoid a curb cut on Neale Street. Staff recommends the garage design be approved as submitted. While HPC indicated some preference for a carport, the owner wishes to construct an enclosed garage. Staff finds that this is a reasonable request and that the design for the garage is compatible with the existing building. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character ofthe neighborhood ofthe parcel proposed for development. Response: The project is located in a neighborhood where several Victorian houses have been remodeled for continued use. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The proposal does not detract from the historic significance of the designated structure. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereoÂ£ Response: HPC considers this one of the best preservation efforts and renovations in Aspen. The preservation of the historic cottage was a great success in itself, and the design of the new garage does not compromise the success of the project, and is very much in keeping with the character ofthe home. 0 2 Ordinance #30 The proposal is in conflict with one area of Ordinance #30; garages. 1. Standard: Garages: All portions ofa garage, carport or storage area parallel to the street shall be recessed behind the front facade a minimum often (10) feet. Response: Staffrecommends that HPC waive this standard finding that this is the best location for a garage given the location of the historic house and the desire to avoid a curb cut on Neale Avenue. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any ofthe following alternatives: 1) Approve the Development application as submitted. 2) Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (specific recornmendations should be offered) 4) Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. Recommendation: Staffrecommends HPC approve the application as submitted. Recommended Motion: "I move to approve the application for a garage at 114 Neale Avenue as submitted." 3 il W 1 -0 01Â· *MALL FkPt Gâ‚¬ elÂ»DiNC~ Â·6#aVI 15:=p,4 / . 1 .1,4 - 9- LF-1 1 OIl Edz:f 11 1 -4 11 IIIÂ· 45 1 . ' B>45'HP 2,)<1444,J'Plphmt 0000) i *L#r Ni /77'Ne 0/0-[1 - . 1 2 . F,&"IN.- laaop fÂ»ki - . Li - /1 ' A.*' - ./A At-1 --lydry.:13:-17-- , 1 OF,r ., . . 1 . , 1.-1 . , -2--.- . .4/6 BA**r #*EW, FEMMYFICP,L-----1 'VIAaeâ‚¬*1-5 7~/41 21 1 ,/4*kN Wl' 1,44184, 720*9*47 *F*415 . Â¢22222 --U =->. b Â·i .Â· d 1 . D - ~~ - E- ; 1 1 7-3 - - ~fl J.17- -2 - ' L- 91 .- - 1 H - L-1--L_ - I - diM-Â·lzÂ·%*Ha,e,r L 8-Â¢2 1318.Â· 8.LEA/,- -c(~FAMâ‚¬ *1_ * 111 " HYrill?,4" Feces@ FfprEâ€ž**13 â‚¬AF*-4% - 114- ' HSM-,2. Â«rl*4244 "- 1 to,1 . -- . --lb/A I I-~18Â·99- I . .. 1104., -SM,dele<, 113#?FJMR 7 *s-24*2 4 93,4,1 '-mr Â¥*M,4 1Â»rph\P . ~ 1 1 - ?. A. 1. I j \ 1 i! I --- - ---.----- --- 'Irli &4 ----Et r-33 .A. a t/6, - -fp/)\Al Ptl -4/ Â· I Â· . 4860414 . fir . - fuct.A.~di:Ap W/t>--3--- _- 412~12,-LUM? Â¥,IC!]+4 99114 92<24 1*, 144. 194 Miep - 4, Â¢01049Â£ -__- 19 -ft I--1-2.MA*f - *459*[1 Â£~4111-2#f-In_ W DRY Baq *l M . , 1Â¥~2Ia:PsÂ¢MP 4,*45*59 1* C wf>6 Fl NA# | 14 - R|*A'120Â·19__- feffIFf58<F' _ 66*Â¢015 425"*< 5"' . .. JVA It- 1 8.-9 9-Â·' . 1 ' . . 1 â€¢ t 4. i.. 0 0 0 *.. EF /1 , 1 - --JL \ v J==A . t----1 == 1 1 -lur C Â· Â· -5/.-Ill _ I . , 64:14-fl~ F~*0,*[10*4 -- --- . . -re,025130 *40Â¢Ae-- 11 + HE>M-IR ,Â£41512/~10' *AUgÂ·*91~. ? 3\64 Il- 15 -11- - 4- . . ! . 9 - ... +L - . e I .. . 1 \ Â¥--â€¢IEJUÂ· . - -4S@e==2525% Â· 912'Yrs ? t.1 5....., 4*o 1 hÂ» 416A, i .. . I. : . 3 ZE 3- 1 .. .. ~ .~...i~~ I . ....C - 1$1,100/ IEDPF-;*IN.12 FAIMES ,-7 i.: I I , I . I. .. - , 4 \\k -- E.xeÂ·rk --h fil e .. <2Â»-4 i =114?.-2.14Â£.ME: -er**er L /1 1 LAZAÂ£ 30Â«0-:*--AD42*6%1=44,5â€¢1*22 V t.. A Lopti 66 -W 4 -0"903#04 9.0 " 2 47 A bN/*Mt\Al govgN lili , I E Â· Al ~ m E - 0 5676 *911 i FL 16!JI Jo kr FROM : THE SCI/ART GROUP PHONE NO. : 303 945 5023 1 't,Welibi:.:41~I f 4.4 1 â‚¬ \0% % 2 S \ da k 2 --Â» 2 1 3 4- th Mi 6 / 4- i /1 1 \ 1 . 1 .. o A 4=*40 1. .. ..4 UL",6, , Â·Â·3 - 4 i. 1 ..4 , . . 11~1 .. 0 \.7 Â·- 1"~ 1117 .. . I . . 9 'vidly 171 1 .?1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director-3 Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Directo1~011 FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer i RE: 425 E. Cooper Avenue, Guido's- minor review DATE: November 24,1997 SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to place an "espresso cart" in the plaza in front of Guido's. The cart would be operated seasonally, mid-December to mid- April, and June-September. Only coffee drinks will be served. APPLICANT: David and Leslie Estes. LOCATION: 425 E. Cooper Avenue. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an 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 by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: The applicant requests HPC approval to place an espresso cart in front of Guido's, during the winter and summer seasons. The cart is mobile, approximately 4.5' long by 2.5' high, and is made of metal. Staff has no concerns with the proposed cart. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The proposed development will contribute to the liveliness of the neighborhood. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The proposal will not affect the historic significance of any building. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposed development does not affect the architectural character or integrity of any historic structure. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the Minor Development application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the Minor Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) â€¢ Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the espresso cart as shown in the attached drawings. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the espresso cart at 425 E. Cooper Avenue, as shown in the attached drawings." O DU Â¥ Le,CL E,t. 194 Deer Run â€¢ Carbondale, CO 81623 o (970) 963-4821/4820 * Fax (970) 963-4822 11/17/97 SUBMISSION FOR ESPRESSO CART Applicant: Guido's Swiss Inn Umited Partnership, a Colorado Umited Partnership 425 East Cooper Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81612 927- Representative David & Leslie Estes authorized to act 194 Deer Run on behalf of Carbondale, Colorado applicant: 963-4821 /4820 Address & 425 East Cooper Avenue .â€ž~ Legal Description Aspen, Colorado 81612 of parcel where Lots H&lin Block 90 in the Espresso Cart is City and Townsite of Aspen to be located: Also known by street and number as: 439 East Cooper Avenue and/or 403 South Galena Street â€¢ The existing conditions of the property for the proposed espresso cart location is currently zoned as Open Space. The cart would be located on the patio running along the front facing side of Guido's Swiss Inn. This is a very large patio space adjacent to the building. The proposed location of the cart is not situated in front of any doorways or emergency exit routes, and will not obstruct the line of foot traffic along the patio. The espresso cart dimensions are approximately 4.5' x 2.5' plus a 2' x 2' accessory unit. Please see attached drawing for approximate placement of cart on this space. â€¢ Certification from the Colorado Department of Health is not required for establishments serving only hot coffee beverages. This ruling was enacted due to the high volume of establishments such as quick stops, gas stations, etc., who serve only coffee and donuts. Thank you for your consideration, 1 ,.1 E David and Leslie Estes Location: Guido's Building, Corner of Cooper & Galena 194 Deer Run â€¢ Carbondale, 81623 963-4820 â€¢ Fax 963-4822 roximate Dimensions of Cart: 4.5' x 2.5' plus 2' x 2' Accessory Unit November 17, 1997 1 I firl El.'-1 * ..7,11'h 211 4.7!69h i# - 4Â¥ 5Â« 1 1/ 44/1 0 it 23 - $ 1.42 , 4, 41 - . ...1. 7,1 F ...1 0 \ 0 *lial" . I 1 4 7.1/4 F - 8-. .......*....J ;LeÂ·: .1.: ...U.I 4Â· 1 - 1 -My- - 4, 1 2 - k + , kE' A 7 - < 6 A: 13:31.WAL,r Itt- /*1 / 1 .r . # * 24. ./.I ' 4 > . .& t . . -6 h . h. Proposed Months of Operation: Mid-December-Mid-April & June-September Estes Espresso Cart Submitted by David & Leslie Estes Location: Guido's Building, Corner of Cooper & Galena 194 Deer Run â€¢ Carbondale, 81623 City view 963-4820 â€¢ Fax 963-4822 November 17, 1997 1 1 lili,1 1 111 1 1 1.Â·47&89."Ill/ . 1254 . , ., 11 li 1 ' '211 1 The RitzÂ· , t"i' :,914Â·'"i , 01 ~2.'Â· iffip',1;71'2 +-Â·Â·-Â·---i~(~i!4@I"'-*-v#jig ,id , 1, Callton 1 ...1:11:1, rl....,C,~ t,i, Hotel & 1 k.~~i' V I '11 1 lili 1 1 '' H A ,~~f' '~~4*61*4 4 1~1'lilli,12111,~.,0 '1*1 ~ ~,+,i Â·, 41.1 1 11'I,4 6, , 1 i' 1 1|| I DEAN SL i, i e kh' i, 11 lilli, 1 ~, 1 .1 In. Uttk, |::! :Tzell'â€ži ' 11 , 9 01 Nell M i,11 I..Â· â€ž. <:41 EMÂ©&.4 114 1 1 DURANT AVE. â€ž44.~ Ilj 11 1 1 /1~0111, 11>1 Â· 81*.ti ~4 11 11, 1. 1.1 1 1 City Market / I. , 11 4,1 1>,1 =1 +2111 1,1 .4 ; I COOPER AVE *4â‚¬1â€¢=5"/ M'Â·,;''07 AÂ·Â·4>/ 4/ ..Â·*441 F k t::Â· 1. , Â· i 1 1 Â·Â«.....>42 1 1 11 111 11 111 Wk#*?2.1,9, , i , 1 f.-4,07,51 f ESPRESSO CART I . /*41 te" K*jt~*4 ~ ' > - f. 4 4 i /Â·Â·6:,i..:Â·0Â·Â·: 1 1 1 1 l 1 1/ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 3 e.~I~.'~~'~$.Tr;~.{ r i . 1 . i:fl:..'.1.] 1 '1 4 ~1 r#* 14'1%4 hi /1 )11,1 11, t' 0.6, 111 1 0 6//49&, 4 11 1 + ~#lili.. 1 HOPKINS AVE. 01 1, ' 1 RYÂ£41 449,1 3,#41 u:'fA:W#1 & - ' 7,'I' %Â·Â· ff F.74'#/409 '''~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ''i 1 1 Op'ZA[:'4:LY tâ‚¬t:<f)*i&,4 'INA/1/" *CE,2,16& ' ' lilli 1 1 1 1 , ; f.20:Â· L., 4.9 1 4:Â·r.*.r:het n,ASÂ»3 1 . E. MAIN ST. MAIN ST. TO HWY 82 -* ~ 1 114 ..... *#k) 9 ' 1 1 .=â€¢ p.ome .74% i i ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 1 111 1 1 Â· vi ~Libi.4 d~~*MER mt ' ' ~ ~0 ~ ' 4/102F Youth Â·~ ~ Parkii,g . cettle, ~Â· 2 Â¤"Â°ge ~ ACRA 1 bâ€ž.._ E BLEEKER ST. ~ Ctarki Maiket i --11% Itt stat- 4 PUPPY SMITH ST. ACES A:. ASPEN ./ .Ill. li. I - . is TliM 1 -11(JitANDRijl- i iES![+ OUTSIDIll. I *4YWHERk YOU- ~L; *\NT'-rOSERvit 044%443 Proposal for the Estes Espresso Cart K i I- .1 1 Location: Guido's Bllilding, Corner of Cooper & Galena 0, Close-up Photo of Cart 1# _ k n, 17: Pr L' 1 -Â· 71 T . 4947:,ti Approximate Cart Size: 4.50 x 2.5' Ei- i Proposed Months of Operation: 612"49. Â«--dill' Mid-December-Mid-April & June--September Submitted by David & Leslie Estes 1% Â¥ p '-...,- 1~ ~.*:..T t.97.3k 194 Deer Run â€¢ Carbondale, 81623 r i. r- r â‚¬14 963-4820 â€¢ Fax 963-4822 1, 44 11 - . ill 1 , . November 17, 1997 41 t. .1. ..11.:. 4.14,2 1 1'0 ': d~/'to 5 IF 4 5 ' '' /6/4/fVWLV fE/ .1, . - i Â· MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Developmenr~irector Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director (~~~jj FROM: ,Bob Nevins, Long Range Planner i ' RE: Downtown Enhancement and Pedestrian Plan (DEPP) Resolution of Approval DATE: 24 November 1997 PURPOSE: Attached for your consideration is a Resolution endorsing the Aspen Downtown Enhancement and Pedestrian Plan (ADEPP) Task Force findings and recommendation of Conceptual Plan Alternative 2. BACKGROUND: The study area is a twenty-four block sector bounded on the north by East Main Street, to the south by East Durant Avenue, to the east by Original Street and by South Aspen Street on the west. The area contains approximately 56.5 acres and 0 includes 11 zone districts. The Citizen Task Force was appointed by City Council to investigate ways of enhancing the downtown and making it more pedestrian friendly. The 22-member Task Force has been working on this project since March 1996. DESIGN PROCESS: ADEPP is comprised of three phases. Phase 1, Inventory and Analysis of the Existing Conditions, is contained in the Working Paper (May 1997) and Addendum (September 1997). The report also includes a Winter/Summer User Survey, a current Summer Traffic Survey and Market Analysis. From this information, three Conceptual Alternatives were developed during Phase 2, Conceptual Design. The concepts ranged from proposing minor pedestrian improvements downtown (Alternative 1) to expanding the malls along Galena. Cooper and Hunter Streets (Alternative 3). The DEPP Task Force elected to endorse Concept Plan 2 (see attached plan). This Alternative reconfigures the on-street parking within the downtown core to parallel on both sides of the street, creates a street hierarchy, increases the width of the sidewalks and maintains the historic gridded street pattern and existing malls. The physical plan recommendations are summarized below: 1. Repair, replace and create sidewalks throughout the downtown core. 2. Thinning of dense vegetation on the malls to increase storefront visibility. 3. Provide neckdowns along Main Street to improve pedestrian crossing. 4. Create visual link between Cooper Avenue Mall and Wagner Park. 5. Enhancement of Mill and Galena Streets south of the existing pedestrian malls. 6. Create neckdowns at Durant and Galena, and at Spring and Durant. 7. Define core streets through physical improvements. 8. Replace parking lost to downtown improvements on a 1:1 basis. 9. Explore conversion of land at Rubey Park to commuter or locally oriented retail. 10. Rubey Park becomes a major transit hub, integrating LRT, Galena Street Trolley, RFTA bus service and commuter retail operations. 11. Enhance pedestrian walkway (alley) at north edge of Wagner Park. 12. Enhance pedestrian crossings at the ends of the existing malls. PUBLIC PROCESS: The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission adopted the Task Force' s recommendation of Alternative 2 on October 21, 1997 via Resolution 97-31. A public open house is scheduled for Tuesday, 25 November in the lobby of the Wheeler 0 Opera House from 4 to 6 p.m. It is an opportunity for the public to learn about the downtown plans and to provide their observations and recommendations. A meeting is scheduled with City Council on December 8 to consider adoption of the Preferred Alternative 2 plan and for the Task Force to proceed with Phase 3, Design Development. There is also a need for a representative from the Historic Preservation Commission to be appointed to the DEPP Task Force. It would be advantageous to have an HPC representative at the beginning of the design phase. Phase 3 is scheduled to start in mid- January. The Task Force meets every two weeks on Tuesdays from 12-2 p.m. at City Hall. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission approve the drafted Resolution adopting Conceptual Plan 2 as the "Preferred Alternative" for downtown. Staff also encourages HPC to appoint a representative for the DEPP Task Force. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Resolution adopting Conceptual Plan 2 as the Preferred Alternative" for downtown. I also move to approve the appointment of as the Historic Preservation Commission representative on DEPP." J! 6..1 . -- 1-j -- 1 4 - 1 I. - Hotel c r-1 /2 4/ li i , prepared for: : /1 1 Jerome = 1 M 1 - -~-~~ C Department of Community 14~ i CIJ o 1 1 ; L R LL.,0 4 1 The City of Aspen 1 1 . 4 4 4 i d J d / 4 2 3 n 01 1 {*rhb _* 2 1JjV . Development 1.-41=12.14.//3,2. . . ..:4. 4 . , . ...r:.-I ... . P : 4.1 1 1 .0. 4 .4 E. Main St Consultants: :Â·Â·*,. 4 ; e L---2\\ f " Â· I.9 :Â·. . 7 1 .2 1 .2 1 1 1 . la 1 1 -' / / /.'7'44,1Â»/,1. f./r 1111 .IMI/,al.=4- f ; 1 1 $ L.-1 J ../. - - ~77~ 4 : 4-gf)W\\ Urban Designers DESIGNWORKSHOP F r~ 1 k r ..1. Transportation Planners Charlier Associates Market Analysis BBC eli . 4 i fl ir- " M i i roD C]~-11 1, Â· 1 ULU , & 5--YI 414 1 Legend 12% t ~4046*9 11 '1 1 rn) U |~ ~ Additions *Walkway -- JI*J.1 1/ll .q J / 2 21 1 1 1/1/.4// '' -Il . 'll ... I : I 4 I ./. I 1. -1 .... 'll. f.1 41-4-11.- System Hf@KE r=n. Pedestrian Crossing 70 (B) (B) (B ) (Al E. Hopkins Ave. :3 Ill n Improvements ,ll4â€¢ ..132. . / 4- 4 Â·â€¢, 1 - .... .. ...... ./4'I,/.7 . 177 L . 1,-Ar-li 661!L ils 8, â‚¬31 'Ed] .1-1 = 3â€žÂ®ruslpdo %#Pral U 7 1 Wil _u * 2 , . 4 4 2, . r .= , =- 1 -: Special Pedestrian Crossing 1 F d Js P~1J'LI Â¤ A 1 IL il Street Parking -' CD. Designation -- ier Â·Il , IR; 1 16-1 .n E' 1 - ~E_IE - 1 -Lifid' i~ - .3 M L-1 1 5 tr 1 4 % i -7 # 9- : VJII-7/ZA lu ' CD ;. Core Commercial Streets iÂ°Â°i:>1 UU]-1 0 -* f 1: - - - c,;1*9 5 V ir flb=22= 9 r-T -/L .. I j ---w ~ s ' ~ ' ' ' Â· Pedestrian Mall th':w#[irrl.'U-Â·12-2.ir- lx-451.-42-.tz..144" El.61 C.BjE. Hyman Ave. ~.~ ~ Expansion 10 rn . ,/ Â·'. I . I . It 44'Â·'411 . - â€¢ --#. 1 ' p j~ it - - - .....3 Pedestrian Area/Improved 3 rA Em = 2.3 Iii r-110 1: 1 ~ltij 01 @* 1-0 214 ~L __-r*, i_ 3 . 9 . i I~l -4-ILA . 11 - , .. =1 lei Pedestrian Mall New Auto-Free Zone/ --r-,-r-Di - Â»- m 11 (al - -2 w, -L-=1 -1 . r 4 , i - Downtown Residential Skeet ' ~ -1 f (6) Designation 1 7- rl....1/.1....i S .., 1 -0---1, 1 ; r 1 ,.,0 ,9 7 it r.- i Secondary Commercial Core - '114...111 Street ...p ./:3$ 4. Wagner Park - k-' .-v, , ico~ Rsi-Ecooper A.. - - m d 44 1 I . ir--c Â·L Primary Commercial Core - Stmet - 1 -- r- Ai- ---. ' 6 ,3 .C :. =*285=121 rt...: - -ifity market 3 1 -C 1 rrA State Highway 82 1 U l L.3 11 4 Main Street i ~----~ :. -Â·- r "immul- PLI- Pedestrian/Transit Mall 4_. 1-1 i 7 - 1% I f L - - S>OURubay Park Transit Cente,Â«03 30 a4 1 L-Wli r-rc---r-r--t:, Â·Â· : Â·Â· , - -_.eâ‚¬Buses-' Â· 3 11 1 " tÂ· : /NUIA[IC-- 1 ...1 ~1 11, Â· Proposed Light Rail Transit 1 1, 2 4 ,< 44. ~ .. .*.U ~ with Station . .. 4 4 3 4 & 4 6.9 - ,*Al./.2/./.J2* ..a , r ' 4,4 .... . /: 2: . 181 r.-61&* - -01-L---17-. E.Durant Ave. (B J 3 - 0 2 IBM z .7-ir Â· - ... . .. 41 41 - ...m 0.-Â£1 Conceptual Plan 3 1- 1<-t . J ... . 1 6 -1 1,11.hÂ¢*,-gLRT. Gal-Skmt mm. lr-1, .mm Physical Plan Recommendations Draft - Preferred r? r--1 '11 , 2 Silver Circle Ice Rinkli 1: 1 .mil . mmm L Ret,2/. replace and //0 24/â€¢aks im==*,1--al-Sma 10. mib, Pad becomes al*-2 Alternatioe 111. fTE Tilly. FUTAbuss-eand 6--1 1-1 - 2.Th~,1,/an'.0/=an )ad=*.aldeater,1 - - Delf 2 - - - - =am .im=. cubbimas, stocamt -MO -S....0-& 11. Bâ€¢= Pedes<* de,â€¢ay ar=m Aspen 1 2 7 i (30!1(lola~-~< lp...........ma~*mt 7.001=591. m., Ry,4 *mic. - orwagte, Pak Il/"em- .. Â· 12.Er,=opedes,lanact:n, A- 4. Cm=â€¢69*Ed, bebleen Coopa, Ave. &Repticâ€¢0*410*tod=-0 h,-m-on.11/* 0 50 100 200 400 1 DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT A RE.loreoleco.,esionit=i.RLA Psitto commt#retatort=ly . AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN ~ 7-9 2 21 Sept 15,1997 -,04,-L , 0- 1 ....... A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ADOPTING THE ASPEN DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN (ADEPP) RESOLUTION NO. 97- WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission (hereinafter "Commission") has the responsibility and the authority to make recommendations to City Council regarding Historic District Development Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen and County of Pitkin in 1993 adopted the Aspen Area Community Plan, a character-based plan developed by the citizens of the community, which includes the Aspen downtown core area; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Area Community Plan includes Design Quality and Historic Preservation plan element with the adopted policies of studying areas in the downtown core that could be developed to attract social activity in specific places (i.e. people magnets at intersections or ends of corridors and corners); and studying the Hunter Street corridor for increased buildout with aesthetic quality as it relates to the historic district and the gondola; and WHEREAS, in response to citizen requests to make the downtown more pedestrian- friendly and to minimize the impact of automobile traffic the City Council appointed an Aspen Downtown Enhancement and Pedestrian Plan (ADEPP) Task Force, comprised of twenty-two (22) members representing sixteen (16) "stakeholder groups" and six (6) "citizens-at-large" to ensure all facets of the community were being represented; and WHEREAS, in March 1996, the ADEPP Task Force began meeting every two weeks from noon until 2 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall to discuss the enhancement of downtown. The Task Force defined the study area as being the twenty-four block sector bounded by East Main Street on the north, East Durant Avenue on the south, and to the east by Original Street and by South Aspen Street to the west. The area contains approximately 56.5 acres and includes 11 zone districts; and WHEREAS, after numerous meetings and discussions, the Task Force refined and expanded City Council's original ADEPP goals to reflect the following: 1. To preserve and enhance the downtown core as a physically attractive place. 1 2. To improve the downtown core as a place which inspires and accommodates a wide variety of activities and events year round including arts, music, performing arts, recreation and shopping. 3. To make the downtown core more pedestrian friendly and minimize the sense that automobiles dominate the downtown area. 4. To provide and preserve opportunities for multiple modes of transportation within the downtown core. 5. To strengthen the downtown core as the commercial heart of the community. 6. To provide the physical environment for establishments and activity centers that can serve as community gathering places (heart and soul of the community) in the downtown core. 7. To take greater advantage of opportunities for the utilization of alleys and pocket park spaces for pedestrian circulation, social interaction and commercial activity. 8. To work with other appropriate citizen committees and volunteer boards to take maximum advantage of the knowledge and experience of these groups and avoid duplication of purpose and work product; and WHEREAS, in December 1996, Design Workshop, a landscape architecture and planning firm based in Aspen, was selected from a nation-wide field of consultant teams to work with the Task Force and to provide professional services for Downtown Enhancement Plan. Design Workshop and their team of experts (Charlier & Associates of Boulder, traffic and BBC Research & Consulting of Denver, economic and market review) completed the Inventory and Analysis phase in May 1997. The planning and urban design process for the Downtown Core is comprised of three phases; and WHEREAS, during this first phase of planning, the consultants and Task Force members met several times, including two worksessions on April 18 and May 6, 1997. The Task Force and consultants derived from the analysis of transportation issues, economic conditions of the downtown retail market, physical state of Aspen's public domain, public policies which influence the town's built environment, and qualities which infuse Aspen with its "heart and soul," the following objectives: 1. To retain and enhance the traditional town form which characterizes Aspen and separates it from other resorts. 2 a. Encourage public policy which reinforces the traditional urban form of Aspen (open space and set-back requirements, viewplanes, etc.). b. Establish a civic presence to the streets of the commercial core. 2. To strengthen the existing street grid of downtown Aspen while developing a system of pedestrian enhanced streets. a. Prevent the car from being the dominate mode of transportation in the downtown-create streets that encourage walking. b. Construct infill sidewalks on the outlying streets of the commercial core. c. Enhance pedestrian circulation across Main Street into downtown. 3. To allow for a functional downtown. a. Anticipate in 2015, that 43% of people in the downtown will be arriving by automobile. Parking is an important factor to a functioning and vital downtown. Loss of parking shall be minimized; attempt to replace each space lost with another elsewhere in the downtown core area. b. Establish a pedestrian/transit linkage at Rubey Park and from Monarch Street to the proposed light rail (LRT) platform. c. Minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhood streets when making improvements to the streets in the commercial core. d. Create and retain curbside parking wherever possible. 4. To enhance existing public spaces which are not functioning to their potential. a. Create and enhance public spaces where special events and performances can occur. b. Address current urban forestry problems now and in future public improvements. 5. To maintain a balanced mix of successful commerce, lively public spaces and civic character which is uniquely Aspen. a. Seek alternative approaches to creating more opportunities for locally- serving and locally-owned commercial uses downtown. 0 3 b. Allow for a public domain which both local residents and resort visitors can enjoy; and WHEREAS, City Council reviewed and concurred with the ADEPP Goals and Objectives and the Existing Conditions Inventory and Analysis findings at two special public worksessions on May 19 and June 10, 1997; and WHEREAS, the Task Force and consultants then proceeded into Phase 2, Conceptual Plan Alternatives. Three plan alternatives were developed: Alternative One was a modest proposal that maintains the existing character and function of the downtown while making improvements to the pedestrian system (completion of sidewalks, pedestrian crossing improvements and special crossing treatments) and enhancements to the existing malls. Alternative Two maintained, enhanced and expanded the existing pedestrian malls while creating a street hierarchy and modifying on-street parking configurations. It also included completion and expansion of sidewalks, pedestrian crossing improvements and special treatments. Alternative Three included all of the elements contained in Alternatives 1 and 2. The plan also expanded the pedestrian malls. The new malls extended from East Hyman Avenue south on Galena Street, then east on Cooper to Hunter and south on Hunter to Durant; and WHEREAS, the Task Force reviewed the Inventory and Analysis Working Paper along with the three Conceptual Plan Alternatives in relationship to the committee's established goals and objectives. The DEPP committee reached a consensus at their regular meeting on July 8, 1997, even though a minority on the Task Force continued to support Alternative 3. The majority noted that Alternative 2 does not preclude the possibility of implementing Alternative 3 in the future. The ADEPP Task Force endorsed .Alternative Plan 2 based on the following findings: A. Conceptual Plan Alternatives 1. Alternative 1 does not "go far enough" in creating a downtown that committee members believe is necessary for Aspen's core to remain vital and vibrant in the future. 2. Alternative 3 has many attractive facets associated with it, especially the pedestrian-friendly "mall-type" spaces that create special areas of attraction and refuge, and which have become synonymous with Aspen. However, the addition of more malls, lossÂ·of on-street parking and the potential for attracting more tourist-oriented uses made this seem too drastic a recommendation for the Task Force. 4 3. Alternative 2 addresses all of the Council and Task Force goals and objectives in a comprehensive manner. It builds upon the successes of the existing pedestrian malls while retaining and reinforcing the traditional town form. The plan is flexible in that it can be phased to accommodate light rail, the Galena Street Trolley Independence Pass Plaza and if desired, future pedestrian mall expansions. B. Physical Improvements 1. Creates a hierarchy of public streets within the downtown core: Main Street/State Highway 82; Primary Commercial Core Streets; Secondary Commercial Core Streets; and Downtown Residential Streets. 2. Defines the streets of Mill, Galena and adjoining sections of Hyman, Cooper and Durant as "core streets" reinforcing the "vector of desire" in the downtown. Increases sidewalk dimensions to provide better pedestrian movement and creates a civic presence through consistency of materials, provision of street furnishings and more ordered treatment. Makes the "messy vitality" a little less messy. 3. Extends the ends of the Mill and Galena Street pedestrian malls to Durant Avenue. Designates these sections of the malls as "pedestrian streets" to allow continued use by vehicles and busses. 4. Creates a spatial and visual linkage between the Cooper Avenue/Mill Street malls and Wagner Park. Allows for the relocation and improvement of the public restrooms at Wagner Park. 5. Develops a street/landscape that brings both sides of the malls together to enhance the pedestrian and shopping experiences. Enhances architectural character and visibility of storefronts where appropriate. Currently, the malls are segmented by landscape elements. Proposes to reorient benches, realign water feature bridges, remove overgrown vegetation through judicious pruning and thinning and allows for the potential addition of information kiosks. C. Pedestrian and Public Safety Improvements 1. Creates a comprehensive and interconnected sidewalk system. Proposes sidewalks where none currently exist. Promotes wider walkways with narrower streets as being very desirable. Proposing all sidewalks to be ADA accessible. 5 2. Provides neckdowns/bulb-outs along Main Street at the intersections of Aspen, Monarch, Mill, Galena, Hunter and Spring Streets to improve pedestrian crossings to and from the downtown core. Creates "special treatments" for these critical pedestrian crossings; "striping" is alone not sufficient. Coordinates these improvements and funding allocations with the CDOT/City of Aspen Entrance-to Aspen project. 3. Creates neckdowns/bulb-outs along Durant Avenue at Mill, Galena, Hunter and Spring Streets to improve pedestrian circulation and safety from the downtown malls and Rubey Park to the I'IT Sheraton Hotel, Silver Circle Ice Rink, Little Nell Hotel and gondola. Creates "special treatments" for these critical pedestrian crossings; "striping" alone is not sufficient. 4. Removes obstructions to pedestrian movement along Durant Avenue as noted on the plan. 5. Creates "pedestrian arcs" at the corners of Hyman and Mill (Wheeler Opera House) and Cooper and Galena (Paradise Bakery) to alert drivers that these are significant pedestrian crossings. 6. Provides for the location of Emergency Medical Training (EMT), fire and police facilities to effectively serve the users of the downtown core area. D. Public Streets and Parking 1. Retains as much of the current on-street parking supply as possible. Concern by Task Force members that reduction of downtown parking will diminish public support and acceptance of any proposal. 2. Replaces on-street parking spaces eliminated due to pedestrian improvements and street reconfigurations at a 1:1 basis. Conversion of angled parking to parallel parking results in the "losf' spaces being relocated to other on-street parking areas within the downtown core. 3. Allows and encourages opportunities for seasonal street closures. Needs further evaluation on how the streets will be used and how the infrastructure can be designed to enhance the potential activities ( i.e.: shallow gutters with roll-over curbs; use of similar materials, colors, textures, etc.). E. Public Transit 1. Incorporates proposed light rail (LRT) alignment into the plan along the eastern side of Monarch Street and the north side of Durant Avenue to Rubey Park. LRT and Monarch transit station needs integration with streetscape enhancement and Wagner Park plans. 6 2. Delineates Gatena Street Trolley alignment in the Preferred Plan for future planning purposes. Ensures that the potential trolley is fully integrated into the Galena streetscape enhancement plans, meets ADA requirements and interfaces with the Rubey Park Transit Center. F. Independence Pass Plaza Concept Plan 1. Conceptually, agree that the proposed massing, scale and land use allocations "fit" within the context of downtown Aspen. 2. Concur that the location is appropriate for an east-end intercept parking garage. Design parking and circulation so that downtown streets are not impacted. Encourage vehicles to remain on Original Street and out of the "vector of desire." Use signage and entry/exit locations to direct traffic circulation. 3. Recommend that East Cooper Avenue remain a public street and that it not be developed into a pedestrian plaza or mall. 4. Agree that the site is an appropriate location for uses that are locally-owned and locally-serving. 5. Recommend strongly that affordable housing be developed on the site. Advise that additional upper story affordable housing on the south portion of the site adjacent to the Durant Mall may possible in terms of urban design and massing. 6. Agree that the free-market units should have excellent southern exposure and views to Aspen Mountain. G. Public Policy 1. Adoption of Preferred Alternative 2 reinforces and expands the vision established in the Aspen Area Community Plan. Implementation of DEPP's Preferred Alternative: revitalizes the permanent community; provides transportation alternatives; promotes environmentally and socially sustainable development; and maintains and improves design quality/ historic compatibility. 2. Adoption of DEPP's Preferred Alternative 2 does not preclude the approval and implementation of any of these projects: Entrance-to-Aspen and LRT; Galena Street Trolley; and Independence Pass Plaza. 3. Development of affordable housing is very appropriate and desirable in the 7 downtown core. Specific locations need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Existing zoning requirements (FAR and height limitations; mitigation measures; and viewplanes) may be modified at Council's discretion where appropriate. 4. Support revision to City's open space requirement in the commercial core as it encourages "bad" urban design solutions. DEPP strongly discourages the creation of sub- and Artially below grade open spaces that separate buildings from pedestrians, public sidewalks and streets. Encourages staff to investigate the "transfer" of open space to affordable housing FAR at Council's discretion; establishment of build-to lines; and designation of street corners as "special treatment" areas. 5. Maintain, to the extent possible, the current supply of on-street parking in the downtown core. Convert parallel parking to angle parking where appropriate to compensate for any loss of oIl-street spaces resulting from this plan. Modify loading zone areas to allow public parking during certain hours of the day. 6. Address the on-street parking impacts associated with the implementation of the LRT alignment on Monarch and Durant. 7. Initiate the master planning process for Wagner Park immediately. Strive to create an important civic park, a community focal point, that is more fully integrated with the pedestrian malls and functions year round for a wide variety of groups and activities. Incorporate the alley along the north edge of Wagner Park into the Wagner Park Master Plan. 8. Agree that the primary use of alleys is for service and delivery. Future planning efforts may address how the alleys may be enhanced. 9. Concur that snow removal practices are important, but they are not a primary limiting factor in the downtown enhancement plan. Recommend that snow removal practices be modified to accommodate creative urban design solutions. H. Recommendations: 1. To adopt the Task Force's recommendation of Alternative 2 as the Downtown Enhancement and Pedestrian Master Plan for guiding the future of downtown Aspen. 2. To recommend that the Task Force, consultant team and staff proceed with the Design Development phase of the Downtown Enhancement and Pedestrian Plan (DEPP) process; and 0 8 WHEREAS, a special joint public worksession with Aspen Planning Zoning Commission and Historic Preservation Commission was held on September 23, 1997 to review, discuss and make recommendations regarding the three Conceptual Plan Alternatives. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission that we do hereby endorse the Aspen Downtown Enhancement and Pedestrian Plan (ADEPP) Conceptual Plan 2 as the "Preferred" Alternative; and that all plans shall be submitted to Aspen Historic Preservation Commission for more detailed review and approval. APPROVED by the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission _ to _ata specially scheduled public meeting on November 24, 1997. ATTEST: ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION Jackie Lothian Suzannah Reid Deputy City Clerk Chairperson APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: John Worcester Stan Clauson City Attorney Community Development Director 9 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Ordinance #30, Residential Design Standards- worksession DATE: November 24, 1997 Ordinance #30, the City's Residential Design Standards were adopted in 1995. At the time of their creation, there was a sense of urgency to address the "monster home" issue, and it was expected that the standards would need some refinement over time. Attached is a draft of revisions to Ordinance 30, which the Planning Staff propose to take forward to City Council for adoption. The document has been almost entirely rewritten. Most of the old standards have been retained, with improved language, and new standards have been added. The materials standards in particular are new and still need some finessing. We have tried to add standards which get at some of the issues of neighborhood character and Aspen character which many people have felt were missing from Ordinance 30, however the format of the review, an objective checklist, has not changed. A copy of the existing Ordinance is also attached for your reference. 10 Chapter 26.58 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Sections: 26.58.010 General. 26.58.020 Procedure. 26.58.030 Administrative checklist. 26.58.040 Residential design standards. 26.58.010 General. A. Pwpose The purpose of the following design standards is to preserve established neighborhood scale and character, and to ensure that Aspen's streets and neighborhoods are public places conducive to walking. The standards do not prescribe architectural style, but do require that each home. while serving the needs of its owner, contribute to the making of a neighborhood. Neighborhood character is largely established by the relationship between front facades of buildings and the streets they face. The area between a home's front door and the street creates a transition between the private life of a dwelling and the public realm. Consistency in front setback patterns help to define the space of the street. Certain elements of the front facade are particularly important components of neighborhood character. Front porches provide outdoor living space and animation to the streetscape, and one story entryways provide an appropriate domestic scale for a private residence. Additionally, windows establish a hierarchy of spaces with larger, formal windows denoting public areas, smaller ones suggesting private space. To ensure that both the streets and alleys are pedestrian in nature, parking areas are to be concentrated to the rear or side of each residence, and secondary structures, located along the alleys and inspired by the tradition of outbuildings in Aspen, are encouraged. B. Applicabiliot This section applies to all residential development in the City of Aspen requiring a building permit, except for residential development within the R-15B zone district. C Application. An application for residential development shall consist of: an application for a Development Order as may be required by the Community Development Director, Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, or City Council, pursuant to Section 26.52.030, and an application for "Residential Design Standards" review, pursuant to Section 26.58.020. 1 D. Exentptions. No application for a residential development order shall be 0 exempt from the provisions of this section unless the Planning 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 an application for the erection of a fence or other similar accessory feature of a structure; or ' 3. Is a remodel of a structure where alterations proposed change the exterior of the building but are not addressed by any of the Residential Design Standards. 26.58.020 Procedures for Review. A. Determination of Applicabilitp. The Community Development Director at a pre-application conference shall make a determination if the proposed project is exempt from the requirements of this chapter. If a determination is made that the design review standards shall apply to the proposed project, the applicant shall receive an application form for Residential Design Standards review, which shall include a copy of the administrative check list referenced at Section 26.58.030. B. Determination of Consistency. Upon receipt of an application for Residential Design Standards review, the Community Development Director shall 0 determine if the development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Standards set forth at Section 26.58.040. C. Appeal of Adverse Determination. If an application is found to be inconsistent with any item of the Residential Design Standards, the applicant may either amend the application or seek a variance as set forth below. D. Fariances. Variances from the Residential Design Standards. Section 26.58.040, may be granted by the Design Review Appeal Committee as established in Chapter 26.22. An applicant who desires to consolidate other requisite land use reviews by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission may elect to have the variance application decided by the board or commission reviewing the other land use application. 26.58.030 Administrative checklist. The Director of Community Development shall create a checklist for use by applicants and community development staff in identifying the approvals and reviews necessary for issuance of a development order for an application that is consistent with the Residential Design Standards. e 2 e 26.58.040 Residential design standards A. SITE DESIGN. The intent of these design standards is to encourage residential buildings that address the street in a manner which creates a consistent "facade line" and defines the public and semi-public realms. In addition, where fences exist, or are proposed, it is intended that they define the property boundary without eliminating the visibility of the house and front yard from the street. 1. Building orientation. The front facades of all principle structures shall be parallel to the street. On corner lots, both street facing facades must be parallel to the intersecting streets. On curvilinear streets, the front facade of all structures shall be parallel to the tangent of the midpoint of the arc of the street. 2. Build-to lines. On parcels or lots of less than 15,000 square feet, at least 60% of the front facade of the principle building shall be within 5 feet of the minimum front yard setback line. On corner sites, at least 60% of both street facades of the principle building shall be within 5 feet of the minimum front yard setback lines. (We propose to eliminate the combined front and rear yard setback requirement, finding that a minimum front and rear yard is sufficient.) 3. Fences. Fences or berms shall not be more than forty-two inches (42'3 0 high, measured from natural grade, in all areas forward ofthe front facade of the house. B. BUILDING FORM. The intent of the following building form standards is to respect the scale of Aspen's historical homes by creating a transition between smaller and larger houses, by promoting the development of accessory units off of the City alleys, and by preserving solar access. 1. Secondao Mass. All new structures shalllocate at least 10% of their total square footage in a mass which is completely detached from the majority of the living space, or linked to it by a connecting element. Garages, sheds, and Accessory Dwelling Units are examples of appropriate uses for the secondary mass. 2. Innection. Ifa one (1) story building exists directly adjacent to the subject site, then the new construction must step down to one story in height along their common lot line. Ifthere are one story buildings on both sides ofthe subject site, the applicant may choose which side to inflect towards. For the purposes of this definition, a one story building shall be defined as follows: A one story building shall mean a structure, or portion of a structure, where there is only one floor of fully usable living space, at least 12 feet wide across the street frontage. This standard shall be met by providing a one story element which is also at least twelve (12) feet wide across the street frontage and as deep into the lot as the adjacent building is one story in height. 3 C. PARKING, GARAGES AND CARI'ORTS. The intent of the following 0 parking, garages, and carport standards is to minimize the potential for conflicts between pedestrian and automobile traffic by placing parking, garages, and carports on alleys or secondary access roads, and to eliminate or minimize the presence of garages and carports as a lifeless part of the streetscape. 1. For all residential uses, parking, garages, and carports shall be accessed from an alley or secondary road if one exists. 2. For all residential uses that do not have alley or secondary access, the following standards shall be met: a. On the street facing facade(s),the width of the living area on the first floor shall be at least five (5) feet greater than the width of the garage or carport. b. The frontmost wall of the garage or the frontmost supporting column of a carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the frontmost wall ofthe house. On lots of at least 15,000 square feet in size, the garage or carport may be forward of the frontmost wall of the house only if the garage doors or carport entry are perpendicular to the street (side-loaded). c. When the floor of a garage or carport is below the street level, the 0 driveway cut within the front yard setback shall not exceed two (2) feet in depth, measured from natural grade. d. The vehicular entrance width of a garage or carport shall not be greater than twenty-four feet (24'). D. BUILDING ELEMENTS. The intent of the following building elements standards is to ensure that each residential building has street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions. 1. Street oriented entrance and principal window. All single-family homes, townhouses, and duplexes shall have a street-oriented entrance and a street facing principal window. In the case of townhouses and accessory units facing courtyards or gardens, entries and principal windows should face those features. On corner lots, entries and principal windows should face whichever street has a greater block length. Multiple unit residential buildings shall have at least one street-oriented entrance for every four (4) units, and front units must have a street-facing principal window. This standard shall be satisfied if all of the following conditions are met: 4 a. The entry door shall be on the front facade, no more than ten feet (10') back from the portion of that facade which is closest to the street. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight feet (8'03. b. A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six feet (6'), shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one story in height. c. A street-facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of windows of a public room, such as a living room, dining room, or family room, face the street. Bedroom and bathroom windows which face the street shall not satisfy this standard. 2. One ston element. All residential buildings shall have a one-story street facing element the width ofwhich comprises at least twenty (20) percent of the building' s overall width. For example, a one story element may be a porch roof. architectural projection, or living space. 3. Windows. Street facing windows shall not span through the area where a second floor level would typically exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve feet (12) above the finished first floor. For interior staircases, this measurement will be made from the first landing if one exists. No more than one non-orthogonal window shall be allowed on each facade of the building. 4. Lightwells. All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the street facing side(s) of a building shall be entirely recessed behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building facade which is closest to the street. E. MATERIALS. The intent of the following materials standards is to reinforce the unique character of Aspen and the region by drawing upon Aspen's vernacular architecture in selecting appropriate exterior materials for new construction within the areas specified below. 1. For sites within the historic City and Townsite of Aspen, including the Aspen Townsite, East Aspen Addition, Riverside Addition, Conner's Addition, Dean's Addition, Eame's Addition, Hallam's Addition, Lake View, William's and Hugh's Addition, the following standards shall be met: a. The quality of the exterior materials and details and their application shall be consistent on all sides of the building. b. Materials shall be used in ways that are true to their characteristics. For instance stucco, which is a light or non-bearing material, shall not be used as below a heavy material, such as stone. c. Materials which have an obvious veneer quality, such as log elements which are not structural, shall not be permitted. 5 d. Adobe, terra cotta tile, aluminum or vinyl siding shall not be used as exterior materials. e. Stone that is not native to the Roaring Fork Valley shall not be used as a primary exterior material. 6 Chapter 26.58 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Sections: 26.58.010 General. 26.58.020 Procedure. 26.58.030 Administrative checklist 26.58.040 Residential design standards. 26.58.010 General. A. Purpose. The purpose of the following design standards are to preserve esmblished neighborhood scale and character. and to ensure thar Aspen's streets and neighborhoods are public places conducive to walking. Front facades and their relationship to the street establish the character of a neighborhood. The area surrounding a home's front door creates a Iransition between the private life of a dweiling and Ihe public realm. A one (1) story archirectural projection emphasizing the entry provides an appropriate domestic scale for a private residence. Street facing porches. loggias, and baiconies provide outdoor living space. further animaring the stree:scape. Windows estabiish a hierarchy of spaces within larger. formal windows denoting public areas. smaller ones suggesting private space. Consistent front serbacks define the space ofthe street. B. Appiicability. All residential development in the Ciry of Aspen requiring a building permit from the City of Aspen. except for residential deveiopment within the R-15B zone district. shall comply with the residenrial design standards as specified in by the Administrative Checklist unless otherwise granted a variance by the Design Review Appeal Board as esmblished in Chapter 26.22 or unless granted a variance through some other required review process by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission. C. Application. A development application for residential development shall COnSiSI of an application for a Development Order pursuant to Section 26.52.030 and Section 26.58.020. The Development Order application shall be submitted to the Community Development Department D. Exemptions. No application for a residential development order shall be exempt from the provisions of this section unless the Planning Director determines that the proposed development: 1. Adds floor area but does not alter the exterior of an existing stucture; or 2. Is an addition or remodel of an existing structure that does not change the exterior of the building; or , 3. Repair of existing architectural features, replacement of ~ architectural features when found necessary for the preservation of the structure, and similar remodeling activities which create no change to the exterior appearance of the structure and have no impact on its character. E. Minor Deveiopment. 1. Definition. Minor Development, as applicable to the Design Review Standards. shall be defined as follows: 1 Erection of an awning, canopy, sign. fence or other similar attachments to. or accessory features of a structure: or b. Remodeling of a structure where alterations are made to not more than one ( 1) element of the structure. including but not limited to a roof. window. door, skylight, ornamental trim. siding, kickplam. dormer, porch. swimase. and balcony; or c. Expansion or erection of a structure. wherein the increased floor area of the structure is two hundred fifty (250) square feet or less; or Erection or .emodeling of combinations of no more than three (3) d. of the following features: awnings. canopies. signs. fences. and other similar anachments: or windows. doors. skylights and dormers. Erec:ion of more than three (3) features may be defined as minor if rhere is a finding rhar the cumularive impact of such development is minor in irs effect on the character of the suuctures. F. Major Development. 1. Definition. Major Development. as applicabie to rhe Design Review Standards. shall be defined as follows: a. Erection or remodeling or combination of any single feature of a structure which has not been de:ermined To be minor: or - b. Expansion or creation of a strucrure wherein the increase in floor area of the structure is more than two hundred fifty (250) square feet: or c. Construction of a new residential srructure within the Ciry of Aspen. (Ord. No. 30-1995. Â§ 5(part); Ord. No. 50-1995. Â§Â§ 13-15) 26.58.020 Procedure. A. Pursuant to Section 26.52.020. Pre-application Conference. An applicant shall conduct a pre-application conference with staff of the planning division of the Community Development Department. At the conference the planner shall make a determination if the proposed project is exempt from Ordinance 30, or the project is a major or minor development, as defined in section 26.58.010. The planner shall provide the appropriate application packet which shall include the Submission Requirements of the Administradve Checklist and any other pertinent land use material. B. Pursuant to Sections 26.52.030,26.52.040 and 26.52.050. An applicant shall prepare an application for review and approval by staff. In order to proceed with additional land use reviews or obtain a Development Order, staff shall find the submitted development application consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines. e 1. If an applicadon is found to be inconsistent with any item of the Residential Design Guidelines the applicant may either amend the application or appeal staffs finding to the Design Review Appeal Board pursuant to Chapter 26.22, Design Review Appeal Board. 2. If any other review is required by other provisions of the code, and that review determines thaI certain items of the Residential Design Guidelines should be waived, then the applicant shall not be required to submit to further review by the Design Review Board of Appeal. (Ori No. 30-1995, Â§ 5(part); Ord. No. 50-1995, Â§ 16) 26.58.030 Administrative checklist The Director of Communiry Development shall promulgate a checklisr for use by applicants and community development staff in idenrifying the approvals and reviews necessary for issuance of a development order for an application that is consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines. (Ord. No. 30-1995.Â§ 5(part)) 26.58.040 Residential design standards. A. Building Orientarion. 1. The orientarion of the principal mass of all buildings must be parailei to the streets they face. On comer lots. both street-facing facades of rhe principal mass must be parailel to the road. On curvilinear streers. the principal mass of all buildings must be tangent to the midpoint of the arc. 1 All single-family homes. townhouses, and duplexes must have a street-oriented entrance and a street facing principal window, except townhouses and accessory units facing courgards or gardens. where entries and principal windows should face those features. On comer lois. entries and principal windows should face whichever street has a greater block depth. a. A street oriented entrance requires thar at least one of the following two conditions are met: (1) The front entry door is on the street facade: (2) A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet is part of the street facade. b. A street facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of windows of a living room, dining room or family room face the street. 1. For single-family homes and duplexes with attached garages or carports, the width of the house must be at least five (5) feet grearer than the width of the garage along its street facing frontage. The garage must be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the house. 4. Multiple unit residential buildings must have at least one street- oriented entrance for every four (4) units. Front units must have a street facing principal window. B. Building Elements. 1. All residential buildings must have a one-story street facing ~ element the width ofwhich comprises at least twenty (20) percent ofthe building's overall width C. Build-To Lines. 1. If seventy-five (75) percent or more of the residential buildings on the face of a block where a project is to be located are within two (2) feet of a common front setback line, a minimum of sixty (60) p6rcent of a proposed project's front facade must also be within two (2) feet ofthat front setback- 7. Corner sires are of particular impormnce in the definition of street frontages. Therefore. on corner sites where fewer than seventy-live (75) percent of the residential buildings on the face of a block are located Within two (2) feet of a common setback line, a minimum of sixty (60) percent ofar least one ofthe street frontages of a proposed project's front facade must be located within two (2) feer of the minimum setback. D. Primary Mass. A primary mass is a building volume for which two (2) ofthe foilowing characterisrics do nor vary: piare height. ridge height wail plane. The door area of a primary mass in excess of seventy c 70) percent of total allowable floor area shail be multiplied by 1.25. Incidental exterior features thar break a roof or wall plane such as dormers or bay windows are not considerbd as changing a plate height. ridge height or wall plane. E. Infiection. 1. If the Srreer frontage of an adjacent structure is one (1) story in height for a distance more:han nvelve (12) feet on the side facing a proposed building, then the adjacenr portion of the proposed building must also be one (1) story in height for a distance of twelve (12) feet. a. If the adjacenr siructures on both sides of a proposed building are one (1) story in height, rhe required one (1) story volume of the proposed building may be on one ( 1) side only. If a proposed building occupies a corner lot. and faces an adjacent b. one (1) story structure. the required one (1) story element may be reversed to face the corner. F. When calculating floor area ratio the following formulas and definitions shall be used: 1, Accessory dwelling unit or linked pavilion. For the purposes of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area for a lot whose principal use is residential, the following shall apply: The allowable Roor area of an attached accessory dwelling unit shall be excluded up to a maximum of two hundred fifty (250) square feet of allowable floor area or fifty (50) percent of the size of the accessory dwelling unit, whichever is less. An accessory dwelling unit separated from a principal structure by a distance of no less than ten (10) feet, with a maximum footmint of four hundred fifty (450) square feet, shall be calculated at fifty (50) percent of allowable floor area up to seven hundred (700) square feet of floor area. Any element linking the principal structure to the accessory unit may be no more than one (1) story tall, six (6) feet wide, and ten (10) feet long. E 2. Character means the density, height. coverage, setback, massing, fenestration, materials, and scale of materials. H, Historic Overlay District, historic landmark development guidelines, and Residential Design Standards shall be established to give further explanation ofthe qualities that compose character. 3. Decks, balconies, porches, loggias and stairways. The calculation of the floor area of a building or a portion thereof shall not include decks, balconies, smirways, terraces and similar features; unless the area of these features is greater than fifteen (15) percent of'the maximum allowable floor area ofthe building. Porches shall not be counted towards FAR. Loggias shall be calculated as .5 FAR. 4. Garages, carports and storage areas. i All districts except the R-15B zone district For the purpose of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area for a lot whose principal use is residential. garages. carports and storage areas shall be excluded up to a maximum area of two hundred fifty (250) square feet per dwelling unit: all garage. carport and storage areas between and two hundred fifty (250) and five hundred (500) square feet shail be calculated as .3 FAR: il garage carport and storage areas in excess of five hundred (500) square feet per dwelling unit shall be included as part of the residential door area caicularion. For any dweiling unit which can be accessed from an iley or private road entering at the rear or side of the dweiling unit. the garage shall only be excluded from iloor area calculations up ro two hundred fifty (250) square feet per dwelling unit if it is located on said alley or road: all garage. carport and storage areas between two hundred fifty (250) and five hundred ( 500) square feet shall be calculated as .5 FAR. For the purposes of determining the exclusion. if any. applicable to garages. carports. and storage areas. the area of all such structures on a parcel shall be aggregated. b. R- 158 zone district. Garages. carports. and storage area shall be exempt from floor area up to a maximum of five hundred (500) square feet. c. Other provisions applicable to all zoning districts. No portion of a driveway to a garage shall be below the natural grade within the required front setback. All portions of a garage. carport or storage area parallel to the street shall be recessed behind the front facade a minimum often (10) feet Garages below natural grade, garages with a vehicular entrance width greater than rwenty-four (24) feet, and garages with a vehicular enuance width greater than forty (40) percent of the front facade in total shall meet one of the following conditions: (1) All elements of the garage shall be located within fifty (50) feet of the rear lot line, or (2) All elements of the garage shall be located farther than one hundred fifty (150) feet from the front lot line, or (3) The vehicular entrance to the garage shall be perpendicular to the front lot line. An element linking a detached garage to the principal structure shall not be 0 included in the calculation of floor area provided that the linking structure is no more than one (1) story tail, six (6) feet wide, and ten (10) feet long. 5. Height means the maximum possible distance from the natural or finished grade, whichever is lower, at the exterior perimeter of a building zo the highest point ofa structure within a single vertical plane. a. Methods of measurement for varying types of roofs. (1) Flatroofs or roofs with a slope ofless than 3:12. The height of the building shall be Ihe maximum distance measured vertically from the natural or finished grade. whichever is lower, to the top or ridge of a flat. mansard. or other roof with a slope of less than 3: 12. (2) Roofs with aslope from 3:12 to 8:12. For roofs withaslope from 3:12 to 8:12. height shall be measured vertically from the natural or finished grade, whichever is lower. to the mean heighz berween the eaves and ridge of a gable, hip, gambrel or other similar pitched roof. The ridge of a gable. hip. gambrel, or other piIChed roof shall not extend over live (5) feet above the maximum height limit. (3) Roofs with a slope of 8:12 or greater. For roofs with a siope of 8: 12 or greater, height shall be measured vertically from the natural or finished grade. whichever is lower. to a point one-third (1/3) of the distance up from the eaves m the ridge. There shall be no limit On the height of the ridge. Chimneys and other appurrenances Inay exIend up tO a marimum of two ( 21 feet above the ridge. (4) Chimneys. antennas. and other appurtenances. Antennas. chimneys, ilues. venIs or similar structures shall nor extend over ten (10) feet above the specified maximum height limit. except for roots with a pitch of 8: 12 or greater,these elements may nor exIend more than nvo (2) feet above the ridge. Water rowers and mechanical equipment shall nor extend over five (5) feet above , the specific maximum height limit. Church spires. bell towers and like archirec'rural projections. as well as flag poles. may extend over the specified maximum height limit. b. Exceptions for buildings on slopes. The maximum height of a building's front (street facing) facade may extend for. the first thirty (30) feet ofthe building's depth. c. Exceptions for areaways, lightwells and basement stairwells. An areaway, lightwell or basement stairwell of less than one hundred (100) square feet, entirely recessed behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building facade which is closest to the street and enclosed on all four (4) sides to within eighteen (18) inches of the first floor level shall not be counted towards maximum permissible height 6. Loggias are defined as an unheated area under a roof, over a living space, and at least fifty (50) percent open to the outdoors on one side with or ~ without screens. 7. Lot area means the total horizontal area within the lot lines of a lot. Except in the R- 1513 zone district, when calculating floor area ratio, lot area , shall include only areas with a slope of less than twenty (20) percent In addition. half (.50) oflot areas withaslope oftwenty (20) to thirty (30) percent may be counted towards floor area ratio; areas with slopes of greater than thirty (30) percent shall be excluded. The total reduction in FAR for a given site shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent. Also excluded for the purpose of floor area calculations is that ama beneath the high water line of a body of water and that area within an existing or proposed dedicated right-of-way or surface easements. Lot area shall include any lands dedicated to Ihe City of Aspen or Pitkin County for the public trail system, any open irrigation ditch, or any lands subject to an above ground or below ground surface easement such as utilities that do not coincide with road easements. When calculating density. lot area shall have the same exclusions and inclusions as for calculating floor area ratio. except for exclusion of areas of greater than twenty (20) percent slope. 8. Parking. The following off-street parking requirement shall be provided for each use in all residential development. 1 - For single-family and duplex residential use: IWO (2) spaces/dwelling unit. Fewer spaces may be provided by speciai review pursuam To Chapter 26.64 for historic landmarks only. and fewer spaces may be provided by conditional use review pursuant to Chapter 26.60, for Accessory Dweiling Units only. One (1) space per dwelling unit is required if rhe unit is either a studio or i one (1) bedroom dwelling unit. 9, Porches are deiined as uninsulated. unheared areas under a roof. bounded on at least one (11 side by the exterior wall of a living space and open on at least two (2) sides to Ihe outdoors with or without screens. 10. Site coverage means the percentage of a Site covered by buildings. measured at the exterior wails of a building at ground level. Roof or balcony overhangs, cantilevered building elements and similar feamres extending directly over grade shall. be excluded from maximum allowable site coverage calculations. 11. Subgrade areas. The area of any story. whose rop of floor is a maximum of eighteen (18) inches above natural or finished grade. whichever is lower, at any point along the perimeter of the building shall be excluded from floor area calculations. For any story which is pmtly above and partly below natural or finished grade whichever is lower, a calculation of the total volume of the story which is above and which is below grade shall be made, for the purpose of establishing the percentage of the area of the story which shall be included in floor area calculations. This calculation shall be made by determining the total percentage of the perimeter wall area of the story which is above natural or finished grade, whichever is lower, which shall be multiplied by the total floor area of the subject story, and the resulting total shall be that area which is included in the floor area calculation. All areaways, lighnvells and/or stairwells on the street facing side(s) of a building must be entirely recessed behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building facade which is closest to the street 12. Volume. For the purpose of calculating floor area ratio and f allowable floor area for a building or portion thereof whose principal use is residenoal, a determination shall be made as to its interior plate heights. All areas with an exterior expression of a plate height greater thanten (10) feet shall be counted as two (2) square feet for each one (1) square foot offloor area. Exterior expression shall be defined as fhcade penetrations between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the level ofthe finished floor, and circular, semi-circular or non- orthogonal fenestration between nine (9) and fifteen (15) feet above the level of the finished floor. (Ord.No. 30-1995, Â§ 5(part); Ori No. 50-1995, Â§Â§ 17,18) C