The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19991013AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 13,1999 REGULAR MEETING, 5:00 p.m. SISTER CITIES MEETING ROOM 5:00 I. Roll call And approval of July 28~h, August 25m and Sept. 22nd 1999 minutes: " Election of officers II. Public Comments III. Commission member comments and project monitoring IV. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) V. OLD BUSINESS :10 A. 135 W. Hopkins Ave. - Landmark Designation, Conceptual, Partial Demolition, Temporary Relocation, Variances, Residential Design Review- Public Hearing continued to October 27, 1999 5:15 B. 7â„¢ & Main Street Affordable Housing - Conceptual Reviews Public . Hearing 0/( VI. NEW BUSINESS 5:55 A. 205 S. Mill Street - Minor Development diC 6:10 B. Main St]?Â©et. bus shelters - Minor Development 6:20 C. 100 E. Bleeker Street - roofing D-7 31-Le - /36.y- VII. WORKSESSIONS 6:35 A. 330 Lake Avenue 7:00 VIII. ADJOURN 9OTE: Please complete the survey and 'return to staff at mtg. Upcoming intgs. fglT Npv. 24~h and Dec. 22nd. Should we cancel Dec. 22nd and move Nov. 24$4+ to Nov. 1787 PROJECT MONITORING 6 oger Moyer 406 E. Hopkins - ISIS 920 E. Hyman - Veronika, Inc. 930 King Street- NPJ 706 W. Main- Goldrich Susan Dodington 234 W. Francis - Mullins 421 W. Hallam Street 240 Lake Avenue- Greenberg 930 King-No Problem Joe's 121 N. Fifth Suzannah Reid 406 E. Hopkins- ISIS 117 N. 6th St. - Coulter 414 N. First- POLE 240 Lake Ave. ffrey Halferty 234 W. Francis- Mullin 414 N. First- POLE 920 W. Hallam- Guthrie 101-105 E. Hallam (not active) 315 E. Hyman - Su CASA Heidi Friedland 420 W. Francis Street- Halperin 232 E. Hallam St.- Pace 117 N. 6~~ St. - Coulter Lisa Markalunas 520 Walnut Street - Greenwood 939 E. Cooper- Langley 240 Lake Avenue- Greenberg Christie Kienast 520 Walnut Street - Greenwood 735 W. Bleeker- Bone 920 W. Hallam Maureen Poschman 920 E. Hyman - Veronika Inc. 214 E. Bleeker Brumder CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: 4 W. Hallam (Poppie's), expires April 26,2000 23 W. Francis, Lot B (Vickery), expires May 12, 2000 214 E. Bleeker Street, new out building expires August 12, 1999 920 W. Hallam Street, expires February 12, 2000 735 W. Bleeker old house expires Oct. 14, 1999 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS 1999 1. 117 n. 6TH St. - Coulter 2. 920 E. Hyman Ave. Lot N Block 32 3. 435 W. Main St. Lot A-I Block 38 4. 930 King St. 5. 920 E. Hyman 6. 735 W. Bleeker 7. 234 W. Francis 8. 205 S. Mill 9. 210 S. Galena .ISIS 406 E. Hopkins .234 W. Francis 12.234 W. Francis 13.424 E. Cooper Ave. 14.234 W. Francis (Mullins) 15.DEPP 16.834 W. Hallam 17.2 Williams way 18.531 E. Cooper 19.134 W. Bleeker 20.450 S. Galena 21.710 N. Third St. 22.234 W. Francis St. 23.123 W. Francis 24.312 E. Hyman 25.930 King Street 26.117 N. Sixth 27.234 W. Francis 8.520 E. Durant St. ).308 N. First Street 30.533 E. Hopkins 31.330 E. Main St. 32.315 E. Hyman Ave. Su Casa '3.121 N. Fifth Street 240 Lake Avenue j .920 W. Hallam Street 36.332 W. Main Aug 11, 1999 Sara 37.400 W. Smuggler - July 14,1999 38. 500 W. Main St. July 28, 1999 39. 121 N. Fifth Street July 28, 1999 40. 121 N. Fifth Street August 25, 1999 41.7th & Main Conceptual AH September 8, 1999 42.426 N. 2nd St. Minor Review Sept. 8, 1999 43.406 E. Hopkins Ave. ISIS Theatre Sept. 8, 1999 83 MEMORANDUM 0 TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director odid# Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 7m and Main Affordable Housing- Conceptual review (continued from September 8, 1999) DATE: October 13, 1999 SIJMMARY: The applicants request HPC approval to construct an 11 unit multi-family housing development and small commercial space at the corner of 7~h and Main Streets. The property is vacant and is located in the Main Street Historic District, on its western edge. HPC held a public hearing on the project on September 8th and continued the review primarily with concerns about the character of the streetfacing elevations. (Other issues 0 such as parking and storage were discussed, but will be decided by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.) The applicant has submitted revised north and west elevations for HPC review. APPLICANT: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, represented by Studio B Architects. LOCATION: Lots A, B, and C, Block 19, City and Townsite ofAspen. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) No approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds that all ofthe following standards (Section 26.415.010.C.5) are met: a. The proposed development is compatible in general design, scale, site plan, massing and volume 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 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, exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, the 1 hz==1 Historic Preservation Commission may grant necessary 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 Section 26.520.040(B)(2), for detached accessory dwelling units. Response: Historically, Main Street was a mix of large and small single family homes, commercial structures, and churches. This character is maintained today, with several lodges adding to the diversity of uses and architecture in the neighborhood. The proposal before HPC is for an 11 unit multi-family structure, including a small neighborhood commercial store. The architecture of the project reflects both residential and commercial patterns that were typical of Aspen in the late 1800's. The project is broken down into what appears to be a group of buildings. Part of the structure has gabled roofs drawn from the miner's cottages in the area, and part of the structure reflects the character of false front buildings like the Mesa Store. The creation of a secondary structure along the alley is also consistent with the historic building patterns in the area. Staff finds the project to be a successful reinterpretation of the Aspen vernacular architecture, and a positive addition to the Main Street Historic District. Some of the materials selected for the building are traditional for local structures, such as wood siding and trim, wood porch posts, and corrugated metal roofs. Other materials, such as the standing seam metal roof and the cementitious panels, make the building of it's own time. (Please note that the panels are to be dyed to tie into the color scheme of the project and will not be gray.) The revised elevations show additional detailing on the north and west faGade, as requested by HPC. Staff finds the changes have improved the building's compatibility with the district. The courtyard elevations of the buildings are not included in the packet and have not been fully developed at this time. The architects have represented however that they will be consistent with the materials and detailing of the public facades. These elevations must be presented for final review. The project requires a lengthy review process, including reviews by the Planning and Zoning Commission, Growth Management Commission, and City Council. Many elements of the project, such as the number of units to be built, parking spaces to be provided, whether or not there should be commercial space, setbacks, and height, will be decided by these other boards. HPC is not asked to grant any variances for the project. The board should be aware however that the setbacks that are to be provided are less than what would typically be required in the office zone district, and the height of the flat roofed portion of the building is 30 feet rather than the required 25 feet. Note that a flat roofed building is normally 2 restricted to 25 feet, however a gable roofed building could have a roof peak well over 30 feet according to the way that height is measured. As noted above, the neighborhood commercial use is not within the HPC's purview, and the HPC is generally not concerned with the use of a building. However, the board should consider the roots of historic preservation in the basic concept of maintaining livable communities and offer support for the idea. The commercial space is proposed to be a place for social interaction. There are numerous people living full time in the surrounding area (and there are expected to be more with the redevelopment of the Bavarian, the Forest Service site, and proposed development on the Gramiger property) and the store will not only provide a service, but also be a gathering place. Staffs only concern with the proposed project, as discussed on September 8th, is with the landscape plan, which the applicant is restudying. There are no existing trees on the site. The proposed landscape plan, which is only schematic at this point, shows all of the open space being planted or otherwise treated with a grid pattern, which staff finds is not consistent with the character of adjacent historic sites. Similarly, staff is concerned with the treatment of the historic ditch, which is in the City owned right-of-way along the length of this block. The project will be required to provide some sidewalks, which will make the area pedestrian friendly and also allow for a proposed transit stop in the future. However, the sidewalk should be designed in a way that avoids a relocation of the historic ditch if possible, and meanders around the trees. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The project is located at the western entrance into the historic district, and there are numerous historic structures in the area. No resources are directly next to this site, making it an appropriate location for a structure of the size proposed. Across the street, the Christian Science building is substantial enough to balance the height ofthe three story building. c. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: The project will not affect the historic significance of any adjacent parcels. d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. 3 Response: The project does not affect the architectural character or integrity of any historic structure. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS All residential development in the City of Aspen requiring a building permit from the City of Aspen, except for residential development within the R-15B zone district, shall comply with the residential design standards as specified in by the Administrative Checklist unless otherwise granted a variance by the Design Review Appeal Board as established in Chapter 26.222 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. Response: The project is in compliance with all of the "Residential Design Standards." ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the application with conditions to be met prior to final review. â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) â€¢ Deny approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION AND RECOMMENDED MOTION: Staff recommends that HPC grant conceptual approval for 7~11 and Main Affordable Housing, as presented on October 13, 1999, with the following conditions: 1. Complete the courtyard elevations of the buildings for final review. 2. HPC should consider the roots of historic preservation in the basic concept of maintaining livable communities and offer support for the idea of the neighborhood commercial space. 3. While outdoor seating will be desired for the commercial space, and some screening for privacy is needed for the street facing units, staff recommends that trees and hardscape elements be minimized along the street facades in favor of more grass. 4. The sidewalk along Main Street should be designed in a way that avoids a relocation ofthe historic ditch if possible, and meanders around the trees. 5. All representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 4 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT FOR A NEW MULTI-FAMILY AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AT 7â„¢ AND MAIN STREETS, LOTS A, B, AND C, BLOCK 19, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 1999 WHEREAS, the applicant, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, represented by Studio B Architects, has requested conceptual design approval for the 7ul and Main Street Affordable Housing development, located at Lots A, B, and C, Block 19, City and Townsite of Aspen. The project involves building an 11 unit multi-family structure and neighborhood commercial element; and WIIEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of Section 26.415.010.C.5 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 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 coverage 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). 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character ofthe neighborhood ofthe parcel proposed for development. 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. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated October 13, 1999, performed an 0 analysis of the application based on the standards, found favorably for the application, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 13, 1999, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application to meet the standards, and approved the application with conditions by a vote of_ to _. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That conceptual design approval for the 7th and Main Affordable Housing development, located at Lots A, B, and C, Block 19, City and Townsite of Aspen, as presented at the October 13, 1999 meeting, be approved with the following conditions: 1. Complete the courtyard elevations of the buildings for final review. 2. HPC should consider the roots of historic preservation in the basic concept of maintaining livable communities and offer support for the idea of the neighborhood commercial space. 3. While outdoor seating will be desired for the commercial space, and some screening for privacy is needed for the street facing units, staff recommends that trees and hardscape elements be minimized along the street facades in favor of more grass. 4. The sidewalk along Main Street should be designed in a way that avoids a relocation ofthe historic ditch ifpossible, and meanders around the trees. 0 5. All representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 13th day of October, 1999. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney 0 Approved as to Content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chairman ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk \ EXHIBITJP 1 41- 01 4/>1,6- i. Â·t) cl)3, /199 171 ACTION: Significant Development (Conceptual) SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) Significant development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet alljour of the development review standards in order for HPC to grant approval: Standard 1: 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 an "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 coverage 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). Standard 2: the proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Standard 3: 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. Standard 4: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE L INTRODUCTION .................. ............................ 1 II. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN............................2 III. HPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW ................................... 4 IV. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS REVIEW .....................8 V. CONCLUSION ... .............................................9 EXHIBITS #1 Letter Authorizing Submission of Application #2 Warranty Deed #3 Title Insurance Commitment #4 Pre-Application Conference Summary MAPS AND DRAWINGS Vicinity Map Precedent Studies Improvements Survey Block Plan Site Plan Floor and Roof Plans Elevations I. APPLICATION REQUEST This is an application to develop a new affordable housing project, including a small convenience commercial establishment, at Seventh Street and Main Street in Aspen. The subject property is a 9,000 square foot parcel, whose legal description is Lots A, B, and C, Block 19, Aspen Townsite. It is currently zoned Office (O), and is located within the Main Street Historic Overlay District. The property is vacant, although during the holiday season, it has traditionally been used for the sale of Christmas trees. According to the May, 1904 Sanborne map, a single family house and two out-buildings were located on Lots A and B, and a single family residence with two out-buildings occupied Lot C. The application is being submitted by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (hereinafter, "the Applicant"). The City of Aspen owns the subject property, but has designated the Housing Authority as its representative for purposes of this application (see letter from the Executive Director of the Authority, attached hereto as Exhibit #1). A copy of the warranty deed and title insurance commitment, demonstrating the City's ownership of the property, are attached hereto as Exhibits #2 and #3. A pre-application conference was held with representatives of the City on January 25, 1999 (see Pre-Application Conference Summary, attached hereto as Exhibit #4). Based on that meeting, it was confirmed that the following land development approvals are required by the Aspen Land Use Code to accomplish this project: . Development in an "H", Historic Overlay District, pursuant to Chapter 26.415 of the Land Use Code. . Residential design standards review, pursuant to Section 26.410 of the Land Use Code. . Rezoning of the property from Office (O) to Specially Planned Area/Affordable Housing (SPA/AH/PUD), pursuant to Chapter 26.310 of the Land Use Code. . SPA review and PUD review, pursuant to Chapters 26.440 and 26.445 of the Land Use Code. . Commercial GMQS allocations pursuant to Section 26.470.100 and GMQS exemption for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.470.040 J. of the Land Use Code. . Subdivision review, pursuant to Chapter 26.480 of the Land Use Code. . Special review to establish the parking requirements for the API zone district, pursuant to Section 26.515.040 of the Land Use Code. Application for Seventh and Main Street Affordable Housing Project Page 1 Processing of this application will follow a multi-step process, including hearings before the ~ Historic Preservation Commission (RIPC), Growth Management Commission (GMC), Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z), and City Council (Council). Staff identified several possible sequences for these reviews. The most logical sequence is as follows: Step 1: HPC - Conceptual Review; Residential Design Standards Review Step 2: GMC - Commercial Scoring; Exemption for Affordable Housing Step 3: P&Z - Rezoning; Conceptual SPA/PUD; Special Review for Parking Step 4: Council - Rezoning; Conceptual SPA/PUD; GMQS Allocations and Exemption Step 5: P&Z - Final SPA/FIJI); Subdivision Step 6: Council - Final SPA/PUD; Subdivision Step 7: HI'C - Final Review The purpose of this application package is to provide the necessary materials to allow HPC to review the conceptual application and for HPC to make a determination of the project's compliance with the residential design standards. A companion application package for GMC/P&Z/Council conceptual review is also being prepared, and will be submitted in the near future. A follow-up application, addressing the final review procedures, will be submitted following completion of the conceptual review. The following sections of this application are organized to respond to the standards of the ~ Land Use Code for each of the applicable review procedures. First, however, a brief description of the proposed development is provided. II. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN As shown in the accompanying drawings, the proposed development will contain eleven (11) affordable housing units. Ten (10) of the units will be one (1) bedroom units; the other unit will be a two (2) bedroom unit, for a total of twelve (12) bedrooms proposed for the site. There is also a small convenience commercial establishment planned for the space on the ground floor right at the corner of Seventh Street and Main Street. Eight (8) parking spaces will be provided for the affordable housing units, located off the alley between Main Street and West Hopkins. Additional parking (3-4 spaces) is planned to be provided off-site, in the garage below Benedict Commons. No parking is proposed for the commercial space. The site plan illustrates the overall layout of the proposed development. It shows that the proposed development faces the two primary street fronts and the alley, allowing a central commons area to be created in the middle of the project for informal use by the residents. It also illustrates the conceptual locations for planned landscaping, and indicates that a sidewalk is planned along both street fronts. The ditches will be maintained as open features along both of these streets. Vehicle access to the project will be from the alley. Application for Seventh and Main Street Affordable Housing Project Page 2 In order to accomplish the proposed development program, it is necessary to rezone the property. The underlying Office (0) zoning designation will not allow the proposed density of housing, nor would it permit the proposed commercial use. Therefore, the applicant will be applying to rezone the property to Specially Planned Area (SPA), with an underlying zone district designation of AH/PUD (Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development). The following table identifies the dimensional requirements of the AH/PUD zone district and lists how the proposed conceptual development will comply with these requirements. TABLE 1 AH/PUD ZONE DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Requirement Code Standard Proposed Conditions Minimum Lot Size 3,000 s.f. 9,000 s.f. Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling 1 bedroom: 400 sq. ft. 10 units @ 400 sq. ft. Unit 2 bedroom: 800 sq. ft. + 1 unit @ 800 sq. ft. = 4,800 sq. ft.; 9,000 sq. ft. is available for density Minimum Lot Width To be set via PUD 90 feet Minimum Front Yard To be set via PUD 8 feet Minimum Side Yard To be set via PUD west side: 5 feet east side: 5 feet Minimum Rear Yard To be set via PUD 3 feet Maximum Height To be set via PUD 30 feet Minimum Distance Between To be set via PUD See note below Buildings on the Lot Minimum Percent of Open Space To be set via PUD 12.5 percent (1,150 sq. ft.) Maximum External Floor Area 9,900 sq. ft. (1.1:1) 8,640 sq. ft. (0.96:1) Minimum Number of Off-Street To be set by special 8 spaces on-site Parking Spaces review 3-4 spaces off-site Note: Since all of the buildings are linked, the distance between the buildings has not been identified. Application for Seventh and Main Street Affordable Housing Project Page 3 III. HPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW ~ As noted above, the subject property is located within the Main Street Historic Overlay District. Section 26.415.010 C.1.d. of the Aspen Land Use Code defines the construction of a new structure within an "H", Historic Overlay District, as significant development. Section 26.415.010 C.5. of the Land Use Code establishes the review standards for significant development. These standards, and the applicant's responses to them, are as follows: a. 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 an "H", Historic Overlay District, or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. Response: There are no designated historic structures located on the subject parcel or on adjacent parcels, but the property is located within the Main Street Historic Overlay District. Following is an analysis of how the design and site plan of the proposed development will be compatible with that of nearby properties located along Main Street. Design. Massing. Volume. and Scale The buildings within this project have been designed to break the scale of the development into a number of smaller forms. This is done by the inclusion of porches at the front of the buildings, the use of a cornice between floors, the provision of setbacks at the upper stories, and the introduction of variety in building forms, roof lines, and building materials. As a result, the project appears to be composed of several smaller elements that could have developed over time, rather than appearing to be a single building that was built all at once. In fact, this is the way that several of the older lodges along Main Street have developed, evolving over time as they were added on to in different periods of Aspen's history. The distinct forms also reflect the fact that this will be a mixed use building. Research that the design team has conducted (see attached photos) regarding historic structures in Aspen and other Victorian-era towns shows that the proposed building forms were a traditional component of mixed use blocks. The gable and flat roof forms can both still be found along Main Street. The flat roof form recalls the false front of the Mesa Store Building and is also the roof form used in many commercial buildings in the downtown core; the pitched roof forms are typical of structures along Main Street and in the City's residential neighborhoods. The project has been designed to step up from the east, with a two story element along its eastern edge and a three story building at the property's western edge. The two story mass is compatible with the Victorian office building located immediately to the east of the subject property, and allows for a gradual step-up from the one story residence located to the east of the office building. Application for Seventh and Main Street Affordable Housing Project Page 4 The more prominent building on the corner is meant to punctuate or anchor Main Street, since it is the last building along the town's grid. It has been purposefully designed to appear to be an important building, because this corner is anticipated to become a critical junction in the City's future transit system, regardless of whether it is a bus or a rail system. Some of the other design elements that are consistent with surrounding parcels include the verticality and proportions of the windows, which are traditionally victorian in character and establish an appropriate sense of scale, and the fact that the first floor plate is at a level consistent with the rest of Main Street (that is, a garden elevation has not been introduced). A final important design element is that the project has been separated into a primary and a secondary mass. By locating some of the units and all of the parking in the secondary mass, the perceived mass and scale of the buildings along Main Street has been reduced. Site Plan The site plan for the project is also consistent with that of adjacent parcels and other projects along Main Street. For many years, this neighborhood has contained a mix of both commercial and residential uses, and this proposal reflects that mix. The buildings have been placed close to the edge of the street along both Main Street and Seventh Street, in an effort to contribute to the streetscape, encourage pedestrian activity, and to be transit oriented. A small front yard has also been provided, similar to that found in many of the properties along Main Street. Because the unit space at the corner of Seventh and Main will experience the greatest impacts from Main Street (traffic, noise, lights, etc.), this space is proposed for commercial purposes, rather than as a residential unit. Sidewalks are an important component of most of Main Street, including the entire length of Main Street on the northern side of the street, and all of Main Street up to Fifth Street on the southern side of the street. By introducing a sidewalk along this portion of Main Street, the applicant would hope to initiate the process of creating a connection to the rest of the sidewalk system along the southern side of Main Street. This will require design creativity to relocate the ditch that currently flows through the front of these properties, but this type of solution is already in place in front of the properties east of Fifth Street. The proposed site plan has been designed to emulate the features of several surrounding projects. It includes parking along the alley, with dwelling units above the parking, in the same manner as the adjacent Seventh and Hopkins affordable housing project. The site coverage and overall density of this project is also similar to that of the Seventh and Hopkins project, and the project has an internal courtyard designed to function in a manner similar to that of the Seventh and Hopkins project. Finally, as illustrated by the model for this block, this project has been designed to have a similar type of solid-to-void relationship as does the neighboring office building. Application for Seventh and Main Street Affordable Housing Project Page 5 b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character Of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The building forms that comprise this project contain many of the same elements found in other structures in the surrounding neighborhood. These elements include porches, varying roof lines, simple rectilinear forms as the primary building shape, gable roof forms and cornices used as accents, windows that are victorian in character, and the use of traditional building materials. These materials, which include primarily wood siding, wood columns, and cementitious panels, are consistent in character with those found in many other buildings along Main Street. The site plan will also be quite consistent with the character of the neighborhood. By placing buildings close to the street, providing a small front yard, introducing a sidewalk, and preserving the ditch and keeping it open, this infill project will emulate many of the site features found along the rest of Main Street. It will also complete the existing sidewalk along Seventh Street that is currently built only along the southern half of the block. As noted above, the surrounding neighborhood has, for many years, contained a mix of both commercial and residential uses. This proposal will reflect both of these uses. This portion of Aspen, which has always been an area of resident housing (the Villas, 700, 710, and 720 West Hopkins, etc.), is in the process of becoming a new center for affordable housing. This began with the West Hopkins project, continued with the Hallam House conversion, and will extend into the future with the planned conversion of the Ullr Lodge to affordable housing, the proposed re-development of the Bavalian Inn property, and the proposed re-development of the Forest Service property to affordable housing. The proposed commercial use will provide a valuable service to all of these residents. The commercial use will also provide an alternative for employees working in the nearby offices and to persons staying in the remaining lodges, allowing them to make a purchase nearby instead of having to come downtown for all of their convenience needs. Introducing this type of business to the area, when combined with the addition of more residents in the neighborhood, will increase pedestrian activity in the area, and may attract other businesses to this portion of Main Street. This would help to revitalize the neighborhood and bring more life to a street that is now dominated by the automobile. c. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance m of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development, or adjacent parcels. Response: Since this is a vacant parcel, there are no designated historic structures located on the subject parcel. There are also no designated historic structures located on parcels immediately adjacent to the subject parcel. Application for Seventh and Main Street Affordable Housing Project Page 6 There are several historic structures located in the vicinity of the subject property. These ~ are the Christian Science Church, located directly across Main Street from the subject property, 706 Main Street, a small residence also located across Main Street, and 709 W. Main Street, a small residence located on the same side of the street, but on the opposite corner from the subject property. On the next block to the east, 633 West Main, 616 West Main, and 612 West Main are also designated landmarks. Main Street is approximately one hundred feet (100') in width in this location. From a design standpoint, we believe the proposed development will have no physical impact on the significance of the historic structures that are located across such a wide and busy street from the subject property. The proposed development will also not detract from the historic significance of the small residence located at 709 West Main Street, since the existing victorian office building already provides a separation between the two properties, nor should it have any impact on the historic structures located further to the east of the property. In fact, the building and roof forms along the eastern edge of the affordable housing project recall the features of these historic structures, and are quite consistent and compatible with these important historic buildings. From a social perspective, we believe that the proposed development will enhance the significance of these structures. This will be achieved by the increased level of pedestrian activity that will be drawn to this site, as a result of the inclusion of neighborhood ~~ commercial space on the ground floor and from the addition of more permanent residents to this area. This increased activity will allow more persons to appreciate the historic significance of these structures and the surrounding portion of Main Street, since more people will be walking through the area instead of just driving past it in a car or a bus. d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or pan thereof. Response: This application proposes to develop a vacant site, not to alter a designated historic structure. Therefore, it will in no way affect the architectural character or integrity of a designated structure or part thereoÂ£ Application for Seventh and Main Street Affordable Housing Project Page 7 IV. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS REVIEW ~ The City has recently revised the residential design standards found in Section 26.410 of the Land Use Code. These revisions were adopted pursuant to Ordinance 20, Series of 1999. Following is a summary of the conformance of this project with each of the City's residential design standards. The Applicant is not requesting any variances from these standards. A. Site Design Standards. 1. Building onenmtion. Since this is a corner lot, the building facades facing both Main and Seventh streets have been designed to be parallel to the street. 2. Build to lines. At least 60% of the building facade along both streets will be located within ten feet (10') of the front lot line of the property. 3. Fences. There will not be a fence along either street facade that is higher than 42". Berms are not planned. B. Building Form. 1. Secondafy Mass. The project has been designed into two basic masses. The primary mass is located along the front of the property, while the secondary mass is along the alley. The secondary mass contains the parking for the proposed dwellings, with dwelling units located above the parking areas. It is linked to the primary mass with a subordinate connecting element. C. Parking, Garages and Carports 1. Alley access. The proposed parking is located off the alley. D. Building Elements. 1. Street oriented entrance and principal window. The project has at least one (1) street-oriented entrance for every four (4) units. It also has street facing principal windows. The entry doors face the street and are no more than ten feet (10') from the front wall of the building. The doors are not taller than eight feet (8') in height. There are covered entry porches into several portions of the building, each of which has an area of more than fifty (50) sq. ft., and each of which has a depth of more than six feet (6'). Application for Seventh and Main Street Affordable Housing Project Page 8 2. One stoo element. The proposed development includes a porch that will face both Main Street and Seventh and will comprise more than twenty percent (20%) of the building's overall width. 3. Windows. No street-facing windows span the area between nine feet (9') and twelve feet (12') above the finished first floor. Non-orthagonal windows are not included in the design. 4. Lightwelb. Lightwells have been recessed behind the front wall of the building. E. Context. 1. Maren'al,. Although several different types of exterior materials are planned, the quality of these materials and details will be consistent around the building. Materials will be used in ways that are true to their characteristics. No highly reflective surfaces are planned. 2. Inflection. Immediately to the east of the property is a two story building. Therefore, the units on the eastern side of the property have been stepped down to a two story configuration, to reflect the neighboring building. There is not a building immediately adjacent to the subject site in the westerly direction. 7~ V. CONCLUSION In summary, the Applicant has submitted all of the materials requested during the pre- application conference. The Applicant has responded to the applicable standards of the Aspen Land Use Code and has demonstrated the project's compliance with said standards. Should any reviewing agency request additional information, or need clarifications of any of the statements made herein, the Applicant will respond in a timely manner. P Application for Seventh and Main Street Affordable Housing Project Page 9 0 EXHIBITS EXHIBIT #1 Housing Office City of Aspen/Pitkin County 530 East Main Street, Lower Level Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-5050 Fax: (970) 920-5580 August 17, 1999 Ms. Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 7th and Main Street Affordable Housing Project Dear Amy Guthrie: The City of Aspen is the owner of the 7th and Main Street site and has appointed the As~en/Pitkin County Housing Authority as its representative for this project. At its July 27 meeting, the Aspen City Council gave APCHA authority to proceed with a development application The Housing Authority hereby requests that the City waive the land use application fee for this project, since it is a 100 percent affordable housing project. Should you have any questions or need any additional information during the period of staff review of this application, please feel free to contact Lee Novak at 920-5137. Thank you for your department's assistance while this application was being prepared and for your continuing attention to this project. Very truly yours, ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY Â»51Â»1â‚¬ - Mary Roberts, Acting Executive Director 1.,1. 1111,1 Retit,liet h 412624 01/16/1998 rr-30P WD DAVIS SILVI EX1111$1 1 06 1 of 2 R 11.00 0 0.-, N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO WARRANTY DFED 111!S 1) ITED, Made thi, 16 tl, day tif January 19 98. bet-n SEVENTH & MAIN VENTURE, a Colorado general partnership i,f the . Counly of Pitkln and Stale of c.tora,lo, grantor. and THE CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation .Ilise legal addiess i. 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 of the O.'nly 'f Pitkin and State of Cii!,wai!.i. gi~ince: W11Â·Nt W E !11, Thal the grantor hir and in consideration â€žf ihe st,in iiI Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good :ind valitable consideration------------1**.hARS, 1!r ier rilit nnit â€ž11 Acieney 4 witict, li tteirt,y Kkninvicilped, lin; Rianted. harpainrit . 91,1,1 nitil mive,rd. mild liy Iliese prrient, ili,ci ptant. 1,1:, pulti. let! . ~wy ant] ctitifirni, unto tile gialitee, hishclis and assigns rorever. all the leal,irtipeity ti,getlier with impnweine,ils. 11 any. siltinle, lyin, and being iii the dh County of Pitkin and State of Com:ado described â€¢c ri,!laws: Lola A, B, and C, Block 19, CITY ANI) TOWNSITE OF ASPEN; 9 known hy slieet and number as: assess=': schedule 0, pairet numbe, Â·10(,EÂ·l It KR with all and singular ihe kiedilantent, â€¢:1,1 4,1â€¢11 eliances the,eli, belimihig. or iii anywise *preitoining. 8,1,1 the,eve: sitin ami reveist,ini. leinnintler and remainders, ients, listles and pmlits the,eof, and all the ritate. tiplit. litte, inlelest, clatin and demand whiltioever of Ihe glantrw, eittle, In law m equity, lir, In and to ilte Rbuve linignined prrinises, witti Ilte Iternilitainent, and appuiteninces. 1 0 11 AV E A N D T O 1 10 1.1 ) Ihe said ptemises al .ve haigained and de scl ibed , will, the appur tenances . unto the grantee. h is heils and aif igns fiweve, And tlie grantor, for himself, his beits, and personat irplesentatives. does covenant, grant. bargain. and#gier iii and witlittte grantee, lilibelis and aisipi,3, Ilin! at the tinte of the ensealing and delivery of these piesents. be is well seired of the piemises ablve conveyed,has gnod, fule, re, feet. atifillute ami indefear i ble estate of in hcl ila nce, in l aw, in fee sin ipte . and lint g ed right, fu 11 pout, and tawful autholity togrant, bargain, sell anti convry the same in manner and form as :foresaid, and that ttle same ate flee and clear fron, 011 former and .the, Riants, haiggins. sales, lieni. taxes, aies,ments. encouthiances and reslrictions of whatever kind or nature soever, except general real estate taxes for 1998 and subsequent years, and those matters set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. ~ ~ I he grantor shall and will WARRANr AND FURRVER Drit'ENDItte aboveÂ·baigalned r,emises in thequiet an,!peaceable posseâ€žton ortle giantee. lilsheirs ant! migns, againstall andevery peism,m peism tawfully elatiming Ihe whnteor any pail thereof. The *Ingularnumbershall include thepltital, EN,eplilial ilte Mingtitar, andilie use of any gender st,ntl he :pplicible to all genders. j ) IN WITNESS WHEMIEOF. the Rianto, has executed Illis deed im ilte rtate sel fr,nh above. FE ~SEVEM'Dll & MA),11 V~TURE, a Colorlk!5 general partnership 3 M ny: X/4.6/./7 4468 W.Wp,r /9&12?S z R W .=.#32 *,wÂ£,i*# By.,7. J Partner Ailf,67. 6â€¢k'Â¢Â¥,1/ 64Â£*, ; Li,1-uti, Â¥ t<â€¢â‚¬4~L. i. 4442 w RtOTT ROLLES OnÂ¥ his att6rney-in-fatt , Ptd'RICK J. GALLADHER (by hiA attorney- Charles G. Rolles), General Partner in-fact, Charles G. Rolles), General I STATE OF COLORADO Partner Â·- l" Cour,yof Pitkin 1 Ite rotegi,ing inst,ument wis acknowledged beRâ€¢c me Ihis / 6Â¢' day of January , 0 98 , by CHARLES G. ROLLES. as General partne of SEVENTH & MAIN VENTURE n Colorado 119,18&:ArKirl;:?I:1:11:'oin:lall. 01~YA~Zilli-~act for SCOTT ROLLES and PATRICK J. CALLACI ER, My commission expires ,Â£~ Lie . 7, Â· 19 91 Â· Wilnes; my hand and official seat. h. i raf CkÂ» Â£61-4' Lla-0'- 1 "11 -0- 1, Â·It in tknvet. inlert (i/~no'- fi/,-7,1~' , Name ind Addiu of Penon Cie.tins Ne.ti C-t/ Les,1 De-lption (1 38Â·33+106.5, Cr l ) No. 932A. Rei. 4-94. WARRANTY BEED O. rholmphtc Record) * Bradford Publishing, 1743 Wazte St., Denver, CO 80202 - (303) 292Â·2500 - 4Â·94 ACTUAL CONSIDERATION $660,000.00 t'ZSZID port .2 12 -TY CF ASPEN DATE 1 /1(.0#3 ~) CO OP ASPEN 966I/9i/I0 03AIDM N0I~1030 ELSWE EXHIBIT "A" Reservations and exceptions ag set forth in the Deed from the City of Aspen recorded in Book 59 at Page 215 and in Book 59 at Page 434 providing as follows: "That no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, clnnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws". Provisions of Ordinance No. 60, Series 1976, designating the property to be part of a historic district. 111'Ill lilli 111111 lilli 1111111111111111111 lilli 1111 lili 412624 01/16/1998 02:30P WD DAVIS SILVI 2 of 2 R 11.00 0 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO EXHIBIT #3 FNT COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A Effective Date: 10/28/97 at 08:30 A.M. Case No. PCT12428 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: (a)'ALTA Owner's Policy-Form 1992 Amount$ 660,000.00 Premium$ 1,664.00 Proposed Insured: Rate:STANDARD THE CITY OF ASPEN, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (b) ALTA Loan Policy-Form 1992 Amount$ Premium$ Proposed Insured: Rate: 3. Title to the FEE SIMPLE estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitmen= is at the effective date hereof vested in: SEVENTH & MAIN VENTURE, A COLORADO GENERAL PARTNERSHIP The land referred to in this Commitment is situated in the County of PITKIN, State of COLORADO and is described as follows: LOTS A, B, AND C, BLOCK 19, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. Schedule A-PG.1 601 E. HOPKINS This Commitment is invalid ASPEN, CO. 81611 unless the Insuring 970-925-1766 Provisions and Schedules 970-925-6527 FAX A and B are attached. AUTHORIZED AGENT FNT SCHEDULE 3 - SECTION 1 REQUIREMENTS The following are the requiremencs co be complied with: ITEM (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. ITEM (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record to-wit: 1. Release by the Public Trustee of the, Deed of Trust from : SEVENTH & MAIN VENTURE to the Public Trustee of the County of PITKIN for the use of : THE BANK OF ASPEN original amount : $148,500.00 dated : September 5, 1986 recorded : December 13, 1986 in Book 525 at Page 705 reception no. : 284306 The above Deed of Trust was extended by instrument recorded November 7, 1991 in Book 661 at Page 530. 2. Release by the Public Trustee cf the, Deed of Trust from : SEVENTH & MAZN VENTURE to the Public Trustee of the County of PITKIN for the use of : THE BANK OF ASPEN original amount : $205,000.00 dated : May 25, 1993 recorded : July -2, 1993 in Book 716 at Page 837 reception no. : 358457 3. Deed, executed by the Partners of : SEVENTH & MAIN VENTURE, A COLORADO GENERAL PARTNERSHIP TO : CITY OF ASPEN, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION NOTE: If this transaction constitutes the sole or major assets of the partnership, evidence satisfactory-to the Company must be submitted that the person(s) executing the above Deed have full and proper authority to bind the partnership pursuant to the sale contemplated herein. 4. Ordinance from The City of Aspen, authorizing the purchase of subject property. 5. Evidence satisfactory to the Company that the Real Estate Transfer Tax as established by Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979) and Ordinance No. 13 (Series of 1990) has been paid or exempted. 6. Certificate of nonforeign status executed by the transferor(s). (This instrument is not required to be recorded) . Completion of Form DR 1079 regarding the witholding of Colorado Tax on the sale by certain persons, corporations and firms selling Real Property in the State of Colorado. (This instrument is not required to be recorded) (Continued) FNT Evidence satisfactory to the Company that the Declaration of sale, Notice to County Assessor as required by H.B. 1288 has been complied with. (This instrument is not required to be recorded, but must be delivered to and retained by the Assessors Office in the County in which the property is situated) FNT SCHEDULE B SECTION 2 EXCEPTIONS The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are dispcsed of to the sacisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easemencs, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters. if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof* but prior co the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessment, charge or lien imposed for water cr sewer service or for any other special taxing district. 7. Reservations and exceptions as set forth in .the Deed from the City of Aspen recorded in Book 59 at Page 215 and in Book 59 at Page 434 providing as follows: "That no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws". 8. Provisions of Ordinance No. 60, Series 1976, designating the property to be part of a historic district. This commitment is invalid unless . Schedule B-Section 2 the Insuring Provisions and Schedules Commitment No. PCT12428 A and B are attached. JUL 19 '99 39:BEAM ASPEN HOUSING OFC 1 .- 0 0 EXHIBIT #4 0 CITY OF ASPEN PRE.APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY' ANNER: Mitch Haas. 920-5095 DATE: 1/25/99 )JECT: 7th and Main Affordable Housing Development Proposal --- WITH a Neighborhood Commerciai component RESENTATIVE: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, 920-5050: Bob Nevins and Lee Novak V'N~R: APCHA E OF APPLICATION: Specially Planned Area (SPA); Rezoning (for SPA designation); Subdivision; GMQS Exemption for AH units; GMQS Scoring and Competition for Commercial Development Allocations; ld, Significant Development in an "H," Historic Overlay District (moving of historic structures and ndmarking procedures to be covered under separate Summary from Amy Guthrie), ..RIPTION: Applicant seeks to develop between eight (8) and fourteen (14) affordable housing units, .-lostly of the one-bedroom variety, and a small neighborhood commercial component consisting of a -onvenience-type store. The site is 9,000 square feet, zoned Office (O), and is located on the southeast corner f the intersection of 7th Avenue and Main Street. Multi-family housing is a permitted use in the O zone aistrict, but neighborhood commercial uses of the type being contemplated are not. Therefore, the applicant /ould need to designate the site as an SPA in order to accommodate the neighborhood commercial use --- ~on ofthis site as an SPA would be highly consistent with the Purpose of SPAs as described in Section 10 and with the Standards for Designations as found at Section 26.80.030(A); therefore, staff would ipport the designation and associated rezoning (map amendment). With an SPA, all dimensional :quirements, including off-street parking standards. are set as part of the SPA review with the underlying zone listrict used only for guidance. ffordable housing deed restricted iII accordance with the Housing Guidelines may be exempt by City Council from the growth management competition and scoring procedures pursuant to a determination of .the city, s :ed for such housing, considering the proposed development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the -imber of dweiling units proposed and their location, the type of dwelling units proposed, specifically â€¢garding the number of bedrooms in each unit, the size of the dwelling unit. the rental/sale mix of the oposed development and the proposed ptice categories to which the dwelling units are to be deed restricted aection 26.102.040(C)(1)(b))Â·" These determinations will take into account the. recommendations of the 'rowth Management Commission regarding the project's consistency with the standards of Section i.102.090(4 -- but prior to the Growth Management Commission hearing, the GMC must get a formal 'ecommendation from the Housing Board. Nevertheless, the neighborhood commercial component of the velopment would represent unallocated commercial development rights and would, therefore, require receipt ' development allocations through the Commercial Growth Management Scoring and Competition tocedures. Commercial CIMQS Scoring and Competition applications must be submitted by September 15. so of concern, this site represents a critical piece of the Entrance to Aspen and. as such. site design and ir~tural considerations will be crucial. Also, note that all developments of multi-family housing are ~ to obtain Subdivision approval and all residential development must conform to the Residential I,esign Standards, unless a variance is granted. Lastly. since the site is in an Historic Overlay District: all levelopment must be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission pursuant to Section .72.010(D) and (F), as well as to the procedural requirements of Section 26.102.050(F), JUL 19 '99 09:41AM ASPEN HOUSING OFC P.E OR: 1) HPC Conceptual; 2) P&Z for (Subdivision), Rezoning, SPA Conceptual; 3) Council for (Subdivision), Rezoning, SPA Conceptual; 4) Housing Board for GMQS Exemption recommendation; 5) GMC for Exemption and Scoring recommendations; 6) P&Z for (Subdivision), SPA Final: D Council for GMQS Scoring/Allocation, GMQS Exemption, (Subdivision). SPA Final: and, 8) HPC Final. These sequences can be mixed and matched to suite your needs, provided the agreed upon procedure is approved by the Community Deveiopment Director. In the event that you should have any questions regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact Mitch Haas of the Community Development Department at 920Â·5095. * The foregoing summary is advisory only and is not binding on the City. The opinions contained herein are based on current zoning and regulations. which are subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not. in any way. create a legal or vested right. 0 MAPS AND DRAWINGS 7th &Main Affordable Housing Project Aspen, Colorado DIRECTORY m OWNER: Historical Preservation Commision city of aspen 130 s. galena Conceptual Review aspen, co 81611 8 September 1999 ARCHITECT: studio b architects 555 n. mill st. aspen, co 81611 1 ..4,0 - - INDEX A.ft i L , G.-r-+-. -.--- -r I. ./ - ----------- -- - 01~~'I VICINITY MAP *1Â¥5 '505Â£44 - -- - - ..1 i K - -'efrAw'/ILL , -1 '--- #--* f , - -- - -- - m.-Tor/.Mr- - 1 - A- - -- PRECEDENT STUDIES h - - --Â· -~452-01Â«7~1- ~ 6 :0 rbaÂ· . BLOCK PLAN I , .0 -- 1 . , tn.... LANDSCAPE PLAN ,<4 4.. . r.- :-_ - -- --.'pol:Xru: -- ---s - 1- 1,14-6/~' Â· ~ 4.*el#-t.i/&2/:/.I- ~ ---/7 - I BASEMENT PLAN GROUND FLOOR PLAN 1 I---ENMt#Z#% 9 ' Tr:- 1 - --1""I'll,limmm,AL*AQV '1,7.18:.'.fll T , I....6.T#/,Ilf-Â·/1 26---4-J. 0 f . , SECOND FLOOR PLAN , 1 - , ~Â« 9- ' - - 4 THIRD FLOOR PLAN 7---f-+ .<ii -*~ ~11' ~''7 7 1 -(1-2 1 .11 -;2 71' f .i .....: "94 ... ROOF PLAN , I M. I. ULÂ·r Â· r I r ELEVATIONS ELEVATIONS 4%% 4 fbo . 0 h AL ti. .. h " kt' t '465 1.:911,8 45:C , .-4 111' 11111M1 i 11 f '44 4 . 0 ' 5,,7 4 B . .f Itt"11 .... 111'ilee.*MA/1/1/-1. Ji / I. r,C ...t , .L-, . ~1RBiltÂ£#R 4, :,33 A .- - ', 4.3-3~114: 1 i .20... . . )..+F.41 -L - - - rizimilm" 1 A D.25&4..... 4, 1, : 11 "' Ill 1&'~Â¥,mmEBiÂ¥1 ri,41 - - 1161 2 3~ 81.1, / 4.fF I'. 4.Â·604,7.~ ~ '~ 2 4 lit mii 1 , , .. 1.7)4 *11;, /:I 1 N-: .:469 , 2 0 -14' . 1[1111 if. â€¢f 1 - . â‚¬.3.21... pip:.--:t - z1*Ull:~ i>-P . 0 44Â£.14' i ."2 - li ; 4-/. itt I i:. ./th , $ . Â¥62-v: Lu-=---Â·h'.U iT,ji...23- .. 1. .. . =~ - Immill" . 1 1. .. , t', Â· Ij" Li#'i ltÂ· Â·Â·4'4 : " FIFV,ltd/rl../. 4, r,' :-'' /3 1 4 0 . .r 71.1 17/Â·b::r..t,8 -1 ,1,r--â€žeâ€ž.1,// 12.- -- 224 -0 1.-I. 1Â·4 ..-1.,-I-.. N..~52 'fy. t a 1. 1 0,5 t. '::Â·Â· ~ 4* r lf, // 4 4 4. 1 Ni' 1 r A ..4 A / 49 a.4Â£ r ' . 1 Â·' ,â€¢ I + 4 *2~4 3,.Â· u.--&42 t- Sfi3TUAVI#. ?e/.4-/ L $ 1 , 4 i ~ t Ii/,1 '-2 --1--2 1- ./ 14 -1. f,1.,44,39 :-0 Â¢ , 4 9 1 , 11., ./ .â‚¬ ./-1-/' rvil # 44 :. ; il,7 1.4 4-milf , I . "14 '' 3 ..Â·, :fy,RlÂ¥*f": t . . iÂ·.2, It]JA....~..F~1. ' 441 fir'.4 141/ tll:iii it!?114'~14 / 6 .i;j 21?4ft'*f .Â· - f -27 aft:WW. ' . 4 1 --0- -7: I . . ..~ .J1 1/4 71 .Lick- /j .0 ...41 + f~.... 411, 1 . k.'.t4*:Ir} ...1~i#Er 4 :. I .61" 4. : & I Â£ ~~jitt tjjfi i. ' ~ ///'.I ' I ' f 34.Ve. -Ii- 1 N f. ~ fil., tiÂ· . ' 1,1 * ' 1~ 3 5 -9 ..11 ; ,.. /1 AA'g ' ..# I. -I . C 1 k,21.1.-2 . 0 /1~ -4 imill ir*, . .t. Â· , Â£.74*Â·pki-in#Warit TIP ' . r.=74 1 4. 4,1'.,7 4,4 ' , 9. 2 1,(....01 4.74 $ 0.4, LAb -'Â·' '' INXÂ·t"7 .1- r. . d .â‚¬ 7 I . . * :~Â£ jt i,. ~ ~~~ r. 7 9 r fÂ· . . 1. ; 1.41 41Â£ . ...Â·M , ,;7*44Â©0'3; 47'$; 4.. #ft' ~8Â®4944691it , tÂ·ti"LY#JAÂ¢ty,&:4,4.- U . M . ~" Â·#~ ,,~ L~j~~ ~ 4 .'414Â¢,; .Â·Â·-,a'.,1 ,, 7. -M'*e'6*L, '. 4 4 . 1 S 1 , 6.4.1 ' - /8'. ' <. Â·i:ki L z I 41 i i i . / 91 47.f .- 1 - I. 1 . *i 11 1 1 rwir - 1 : i (lib ~ 1 - . 1. . It' 1 6-5.:'Â·nt r .. 1 .. r. . 2 1,1 .1. 1.Ii i . 4 .1 1 , 1 . r.1. . 11 'il , 1- . 1. 2 .... ..C?:... 1 kt" .Und ' It. , *(44 Â£ L .... , â€¢,Â·:,0.'Â·..i 1 137;k ~Â·- A. : 1 4 9~7 , 'f 4 %Â· i.Lt.3- 0 Â·* I &17 Â¢ "19 J 0 D . . I , 4422??Di.N ~... 71 . - . I. 1 .. .. :/I. I----.I'"- . .:71<37:OtÂ«%12 7 , a + Â· 8299:>Al'fra , . ... 4.24/ 4.'Ag:..'3Â·.0 7*,7.12,4,1,~ 3.6'1 - 1%(44*144 **395*Â»4440 654*ff#ic.4.Â¥41N:40 ..â‚¬46, r, r - 0. . *' ~;r:kâ€¢â€¢% ... .. . I : ... . ... . i 1 CECD 1 CO 1 9 - --42â€¢211 1 F -0 ASPEN 1 -- 0... f , 4, I .6. V L.1.00' COLORADO 2# 1 ~= 9 4 & 8 01 St ~ 1 3,1=.*( 0 2 R.ls, . 3 N 4.4 SI 1 -- ' Maple Ln :J â€¢ C.'-,-OM L.C 4 * : ' Nu A. & ' 6 latin 0, 2 - 4 & 3 1 M.11.1 .Al 9 M..c.. Ln 0 . . 1.63 4 10 *MIN[ I 11 A,Â¢-n C 3 2 .... AM [reMP&<4 1 4 M.1- A- WK 4 8 15 May,~.uCI *061 e I ...S. k.4 2. )-14 Utlyby, 1 94 3 C+ 1 :1 -15 91*h . 0 4.t F '' 7 i 1 ' i 1 82 MOAD CLA'.ACAâ„¢.4 ~ f 1 1 --- f 1 1 I ' 0 1/2 OfE */. TÂ·42 KILOMETER r I 1 , r 1 2 1 4 ..1. 1 7.2 3 ~11 /1 9/ . 1 - *#fi -4 33_ 3-Â° M< - -- MI!,7 . - - 74 107. -- - - - -- ~ fi~ -C < 1 1 1 4 '417~, 97-7- - ,. - - - 2 . f Nt--_1_1212 ~ ~ ~ 10 4 . - ==J L. - - '22'47 ' I '.Er - 4 -. ' , 17 i . 1. . 11 - T .144- 0 0. 1 ..... - - ---- J . . 1, t44 ., t v. Â· NAÂ·, #j~U ' , , .1/ li?'t .... .. -- ; .1 ?277 - ----urr--i_122121==Â·=* .S e. verild, 666 L jsn5ne 9 k I u5isep oiteluellos I Utell] pue 41Z dew AnutoeA 1 4,8:97 1 - Â»~ . 34 '*914'~41 + . 9-:<+ . 1. Â· aunt. 4- 1 -i i 4 Hoâ€¢Z. c.n .-/ . T.... - 200 0 2-63.L.2 ...I-*. / g. 1 41 / 1 i l SCALE 1 0 e 1 1.0 W ..N. 1 1.0, . 10 FEET l - / JE -00 / //-45 / .21 l iii - -/ 1 1 0 5 10 13 20 Of i / 1 CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 1 FOOT l .._.._lf>'09'ill-W-LE.*.Malm ._..i!2-9?~ ' L lOT A 4 1 I i' 11 1 60 1 - -fl ti . Â»â€¢ Â· l'P 1 \ tor l N \ 45 0 8 / l c 1 t Iii I \ 1 - t LOT D l / 4 -uâ‚¬IT - / / LEGEND & NOTES 1 1 / O /0- SURVE. WOM"ENT RE.AE .m CAP AS NOTED I SPIKE OR P.Kull St=IEÂ¥ CONTROL. LOT 1$ VACANT 1 * 1 -8- â€¢000 FENCE 7.- -- 31/--- 1 - 1 ELEVATION DATII ,5 ARBITURY BASED ON SET T I.W AS SHOIN CONTOUR INTERVAL 4 1 FOOT 1 + -- TITLE 1.FORIATION FURMI.9 BY: / EFLACID V I. 4 ~ /!TKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. REBAR & CAP lata \ DATED 4/ i co-TIENT lo per- / j * 04-=hu--2 - / 19So OFFICIAL WAP OF nâ‚¬ CITY OF ASPEN WAS USED FOR RECORD 4 e SURVEr I.OR,UTION 1 h 0 2 42Â» RED CH nâ‚¬RE IS NO POSTED AOORES$ 2<t,3 An, ELECTRIC ~ COTTOWâ€¢000 TREE OÂ£ 1 Pâ‚¬R AS SHO- e Â¢21 01. BLOCK 19 / / FRUIT 'REE l , TOPOGRAPHIC & IMPROVEMENT SURVEY CERTIFICATION ASPEN / PITKIN COUNTY l DA415â€¢. M.-10â‚¬. A ~61$16RED U.10 SURNENOR = IME UATE I HOUSING AUTHORITY oF COLORADO. WEREÂ·Ir CERT IFY TIAT THIS PLAT us PREPARED FROM A Fl El.D SURVEY PERFOR,â‚¬0 LÂ»Câ‚¬Â« MY SUPERVISION nt Na, ' 92& Afl I $ TRUE 640 CORRECT TO THE IEAT Of KNOIECOE AH[) BELIEF.THIS CERTIFICATIONIS Â¥0,0 tal~~***ATA//ED ON AN DEPOSIT CERTIFICATE LOTS A, 8&C BLOCK 19, OR IGI MAL BLUEFR INT 07-0 -I..'"SW CITY & TOWNSI}E OF ASPEN, $ i *ED â„¢1 s f DANÂ· Of Aa/. ,/'r&*C"*c.~fix PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO DACUA.. I:2 71* 21 Dâ‚¬POS I TED â„¢ls DAY Of .190_IN ./. oF T. COUNTY S AREA - 9.000 30 FT -i LUO 'MVEÂ¥ PLATS AT ... AS Râ‚¬CE.TIOâ€¢4 NO ,â€žls UMTION 12 0,0 SURVEY FLAT Co"AIES â€¢ITH MCTION 34 5, 101 COLORADO â€¢â‚¬VI;ED STAIUE' Pâ€¢EPAâ€¢ED H CC-TY CLERK - A=x... ./.**B~ L- T- -T C-Il UL .... , 0-/SM iFIO SOUTH RANGE 85 -$16"PW ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS l NC. -la .-Â·-r ... 1~ â„¢ls ./T â€¢in,i~ 1,~- â€ž04; -I ./ 210 5 G/LENA STREET -- IrÂ¥ .... il ./. nAT I ...... .. n. r. ./. ASPEN, Col-0 81611 â€¢â€¢cy n. .TE . ......1./1- ....... PHO~â‚¬/FAX 1970] 925-36td J'h â€¢â€¢ 28301 NOV 04. 1991 ............... .. 1 N 6 T H STIEET -1 ---79- L n 4 EnÂ» C k e. 4 r 2 - 1 2 1 4 7 5/ C >U --t W'*TI 1 4 ir#t~ l' 4 1 1 - 1-1--- '1 1 hi 7 TM ST R.EET 1 0 r 1 0 4 k 7th and main AH I schematic design 1 27 july 1 999 block plan a NÂ¥ld MOO18 ..f - ~ Â· -- 4 , . 4. t tt %1 -4 i; 1 1 .. 3.r f .9 : . ~-,- f P /r-b ~ 1 55 A f'llil'11!ll'j'IN,14 1111 --7-9 f.1 ....7.; . U..r& 1 11 1 1 11 ~ - ~' 1 1 4,3 4 0.). 4 \ 1 L_,.....1 . 1 l elli ''i' 1 / 1-/r Vh 1 -1 - Â·36 d #!!i "i ''Â»1111'j 3!1';1'll!1111# allill C 1141\ 1 Â· A d< 111(li!1.11111" 1" 9"illillbd,Â·ill (lilli/;iwizat"|'|'lilimÂ·~'77.r'i,11!liliJ'!11111!'11 Ill .1/4 '1.- 1 1% Iffo ~1 1~ Vic-- - hr 1 111 011 - \'ll / 1 -- A"gulitilitilitill(111!111,1% 181'tillt i I H "0' ~ b (p 1 Â·Â· Â»mw~11Â®I Â®m@~mym14,A \ /97.-=77(4~FÂ·-3.4 0 1142-9Ij~1-I- 1 D Hit yillic Ndutt~'ill'i'~1~1~11'~*'i~78'â€¢'jifin Qu.:mii * fi '- concept' ,----0. '--1-=Arlw2911 v~ -rh~'Hhti,LiÂ®_.-%*~2Vlll#mT,Tr,nT4TrITâ€¢N;1~4-iri-TTTLI, ,: I'"'Q.H-lke-r>l /11 . scheme A draws from the ~ A . Ex >cn 1 european village model, via ~ a paved ground plane, to i~ --/ 3.-41 , 11 reflect the project's density 1--- --- i -- -- -- J 1 1 T.\ 4 .Â«19'i>~ 1 A and mixed use p r o g r a m . 2 lirrhlll,TrrM 14 i. 2 4 b 2/ . 11. %, f the paving uses open joints, 1 r planted with lawn or low j X . 4 ---in groundcover to minimize 1 impervious surface. a < Â· 10 0 A IIi;: . I ' 14'111 ' bosque of columnar aspens i. - ~11 1 / are set in th e commonsto . D, 1 1 scale the buildings to the i pedestrian, minimizing the f . ' ..7.1 _i, C ./ Â·2,y.. i . I.-- : 0- 1- *Â·,2211111 1 buildings 3 story height. , r / 311 -4 E '1- the central commons IS not -- envisioned as a programmed - - . space; instead allowing Â· 1, , . : /1'111 flexibility to adapt to the . ~ n j .4 r residents needs over time , - , . 3 i 1 ..4 4~Â·1 t, 1 1 t .-017=-053 /112-1=4Â£L Et W ma o El..~?Â· F '1 - 1... .1.1 ...13 -5-7. /n4(r- ~7,---Â« 1-- ~1-- I ' -. '- /99Â«11 c .Â· AG. -A --hj Â·Â· 1 6-.-1 \ r. -- L - i r . . U-74.-, . 1 1 1 ---1.11 0 - 0 / r 5/ W 290_ ic' 1 f T B + N 4 / r 1 &-9 e.reA' .. .4./ 9- Â¢ 24 A. 1. At 0 . I 0 25Â·*21 faee p # I < . 1 - \ /14 4 / 54 \ r T le. ~ B T . f / f / , 4-=7%17 74.1 1 - ---- ---7 T ----------7 1 1 11 1 1 C:CZ3 1 0 . 11 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1) 1 1 1 ' 06,15 - 239- ef>APS ge. 67.6 ~ | 6.0.6. 1 1 11 1 .C 1 1 1 0 1 1 11 1 1 CO 1 1 1 1 L- --- __ -2 1---------- I 1 1 4 1 Â·U 1 Irvi,-* =1 -â‚¬ Â·Â·U-,2% - 3'tÂ·Â·m:- Â·,--Â·j~â€¢4 Â· e...7 ed ~ .-c 1 31 0 4 ,Â·.-r,Â·W~%5:-3/9/ Y; ~// ... +4< .ri// l 1 1 1 al 1> h. 9 hecH,+1 1 (441- ~ El-EL:EBLCAL- i. 6.A'yojr. Th.0. D 1 1. - .lt.14 :V-2. .>t..-~â‚¬4 ' 4 4 + 1- f Â·+7 | - --1132. 11 1 1 ...9. -*...s'r,I -.-i.-12-469...21.'*-*-i-â€¢pAI.4* Â·, ~ b/ U i r!! f,tut-14 9 i!.1 1, 1 ~:1~ il 94 90 62, 0, ' d 4 1 - 1 4 - 1 1 - I UN /7 970Â«6E COMMEACHL 2 - -- 572*%36 -- L___ - --1 -1 1 1 * j BASEMENT PLAN 1 d 1 --,- 01 5 \0 1 -- 92 1. '4 11~ kÂ» 2-,.Ge;'15:$,1,2, 4.-,-,-4 6 6 6 L *Inf zz I u B !sep 0 11 e u.1 ell os I H V U I e Ul p U 2 4 12 < ueld lueulaseq ./ ./ ilialf ./ I. ./ PROPENY LINE--~ 100.01 -- 4 - UÂ·L-1 r rt 1 - Ul 1----f 4 -- rÂ» t Â¥ 1 Ptl-LJ -- 1 4 1 1 ELE----# 0 1 1, tz 211--2% I 9 1 1 W 1 E . .-- --1 1 1 1 t T[ .CL -eli 9 U O 10 1 1 11 4==P:=91. --Y 5 i 1 1 . 5 0 = 1 #p=-42-33 1 -- :42 1 I U /1 10 1,1 4 Al ... - 1.- e -17-3-C.-- ~ A lah T / u.~ 4 i --- ~ /~ I ---~+ i~i ~'~~iÂ«T-79Ft- -- -J~fl-LJI~ 1 11 1 1 i Ii; 4 4 tEl--, 0 2J 0 C Z U TI 0 73 -U f- Z 7th and main AH i schematic design I 27 july 1999 leÂ·4 -â‚¬rN ground floor plan 4 =q COMMON AKEA ridi 5138114019 ueidiooi,puooes g olon!$ 666 L kin[ ZE I u5!sep 0!leulallos I HV ute LU pUB Ulz tr'Â¢Â·LÂ· ~/ Â· >'e Z (1_ 0 0 -4 _J LL Z 4 0 U LU l/1 0 - 11*-- -- I EN' -2 4 Jl -==04 i f --- Ir 1===- Â£ - 1 4-mt --- al - 1 ~ f fy=R --: --7 11 t : 1 /i -7 --1 \\\\1 k - iT J 1 L t * A 1 -r-fr 1 14 i A \1 r i \ I 11 1.1 1 F,1 1 6 11Â£ ill(t ILL l' i I i ta t- -7 111 211 , t li .1 3 1 1 1 4 111 41 1 1 // --.Alc FITU L *In:\4 1 0, i - 4 %511 . [CZZI ==M r....1~...MA.- . L . ~=L _ ~ --4 L - 0 1 - 1/Ncxhae - 1 111!.1111'T i 1.11111 1 1 7 1 1 0 1 1 11 1 Il 11 1 11 1 1 1 1[-1------- -- ----- M ----- 10- 1 1 I 1143 1 6 r, - ------Ii r -10 --- / 1 - -1 . --71 I . j' 20 U Â· -Il 0 0 20 --0 f- Z 7th and main AH I schematic design I 27 july 1 999 SIUDIOB architects 1 1 third floor plan .........~......... ... me I ~~-~il--.*ii-'-I--.- 0 -Ill------Ill- 0 0-- -9. ----- -- -2 -- : ~ 2 0 4 -- - r-0 1 . - 14.11 1 ---- 11 1 -- 1r . 11 1 e 1 - -- - - - --- 11 ------- 1 5, - \41 ---- - ------ --------*-- - -- I 1 1% 9 VAA 4 998 4/9 1 Y g hl n a Z Z f 7th and main AH l schematic design I 27 july 1999 IIB roof plan architects 5j 1 10 --- - --t -- le' M 1 ~1*121~ 15@*EBEHEEBal M // I mi~ 0 \ a; ki 51 -2 WooD> S\Dit46 WI -C ILl - ALLM/Nu~1 - ci.,ts> % 1 WOOD /44/\(56Â©Pt/s 3 H 1,94:EPLP S/O/616 ~- *111 ~ *1 ./':B'Â£2 COLLZMAJS ---1 lf j:FifkbÂ£56*. HI.*1*f*#~BE#t. WI*41%IihiSM I +- ---i: irir-------1--rn-=~- ---,7- S -~ ---_1~_---<<-<(50-Fi-VA-m ' --u- - '-1#31 il immed; mimjem I t==11 l i li U lf.~ 4 111 Zillial ti - |~~4144'41/--4 11==31 11 11 SLAZ.l N<3 I P./P.'MB-I~ MIFI MIEEdl lili El E 'In , 1 1. - 111 1. - - . r-'*:~==1.i*~*:~~~=~ 81[Ell*REUIEEUEE-..I 1 MAIN STREET ELEVATION . 1 I 1 - 1 - 1 -t--)-r -0 1 ---- ---T 1 OW.ENT -uout r=7=th 1 plk.JI 2~- 1 1 â€¢ ----1 E- - 1 - T. 1 1 11' 11'' 7â„¢ STREET ELEVATION Ar :L~: 1 6 66 L *inl ZE I u5!sep 0!lewellos I HV L'!BUJ pUE U]z elevations ... - 1 1 -- W.--\ 1 1 F /11 - 11 1 j 44 4 4 â€ž- -.1 1 1 El 1 4.1 1 Y 11 1 - - ----4 1 ---4 ' 11 1 |I ......M /7/ / # 11 4. ,1\ '. f.# 11 1 -- 1Ull~ :.49â‚¬X 1 41\4\ :=: :111141 1 =UT, il::141 lili 1 "T- ' 4 lilli =-1 'j'81. - 1 Â£ 1,il i 2-111 1~111111 11 1 1 e â‚¬ ... '.9 K>,Atef<44- 11 1 11~44 11% 111 1 iii ~~ ~,~ ... 71itv,1**14., 1,Â· E*;~23.,9;A -'t #-9,44 4 11 1 ".... ..1 1 11 i,Â·11,11 -SP?f.,1 7 U \\\ 11 41- 1, :1 1 1 ! 11. 1 i f 1 11 1 W 1 11 'ill 1 lili 1 li 1,1 : 1 11 1 11 | 6 -+. ~ r 1 1. 11 1 1 A =#1 I 4 . f 1 --4 z 1 74,1 19,1 6 1 Iii 1,1,!lill"UL'i / t Ut ft flle 9 \Di Lf' 7 th and main A H Ischematic design I 27 july 19 9 9 STUDIO B elevations architects EAST ELEVATION NOI1VA313 H.LAOS snony 0 al .- -1.-1.- I. - --I f LF'//5/A 27 *-1L~~ 4.1.~0%1 -- c) - 9..**I CD - â€ž ....r A 0,1 =3 1 - - h 0 - 2-- - - Â·-244~-' v ' ---~ =-re"â‚¬79 W :/ -~"A:IM~ -76/=*.14-9~ . C~1. 9- Â·#.t - ....=.1-1 ->44.4--= - A.:f .1.44 - 4, f F 1 1-1---= tinmimmnif~ iM ' 11111111111111lmillÂ®TIT[Â®EEFT -~ .9 , i\N'* ~w ok Wvu 1 1 u 5!sep 0!ieule#os I HV ule LLI pue Ulz suo!*eAele ... r W M' . . .1 '46 41 ' AL"t, i E 12 ilikillf -1/ -1- - 4 A. 3 1 1 1 . 11111,111*1 1 32 1 ~.11 11 . - . Immo :.Â· 7-1 '11'*~ 4: 14 4 ..:,1 7th and main AH l schematic design I 27 july 1999 SIUDID B elevations architects r--Eimmr-1 Ici=1 01 "/777 . U â€¢11 -C 0 fe . 1122:.i~$*&#11&4*,ER Ill=.-58*twqg-0 1151.1/nm//M0&1E,U*';./.k/-/ /- I 0 iiI / 1. - r. , 1. Ly AFILâ„¢ 141 ... 3 1 1 - - $ T 3 11 * ,=41 7 it Ele - - I JI~521 : , i -~.~LA 4 b .*0**IAM,/ \ -1. I /- ~--4-- .. Al 666L Ainf Zg I u6!sep c!:eluel'los I H V U!*al.U puB 412 suoneAele .. -unrnmmrrmnmmmImmlmnmmmmwmmmTmmiTTrmim1-177 mmill-f-ilill-NUmmimmill f/IT/114 / 3 / / ./f,51. 1 , // / , t 1, 1 1 . /2 11 11 1 1 . , 1 1 1 1/111/ 11111111 ' --- Irnmnmmumm t 7 TITTmTillrl-rmmilrmTmlimrrITTmmTTrn-urtnTITTTrun . - . ~ 1 . lis EXHIBIT -- l 1 1 - 1 1 E 0% 0 M 2 13 0 EN Q ...... ED . 1- . 23.}...9~49...f;47 2.. 5: ~1~2.-i ~11:JI....2.'.1;0.-f. F f~Â·--J~ . Â·~'{ta .-4't'*1,22.1. 14.-99. t.â‚¬41:*Â·~%4;24*29%#jtiÂ·~fÂ·. , -,.. ~,~;u> .. i. 1;Â·,j ~ffr:-fÂ·~ ~i;'Â·rf,Â§4....It3.%~12.13*tifÂ¢itd-;iÂ· ~ i~ .. 1/MIER,# . - - IÂ® 90 41"FJ :31 -i- . . -0.-4, I. $ . 1 \ : Â· J itÂ·- 0.0 1 --:9. -1 .. i.*<. I m=a iimfigr .- i LEÂ®END: 1 . -' f 1% idit 434 ..2.- /1 14 - re.,9 , ./tlf...1 8 7~4'A . - 4 ~ 0~ 611 4 TI Ne TRE te- :y'le F~fA ' ~ 0 1 I ..r.. I .I - ....# :~â€ž ./ ........,r 2 - * '.. - ./ ' *40; ... f.... I ' 3 ' Â°ti + 75< 9 â€ž . 3 '80'â€¢reD Arpe,v - 2 ..... -.. . I ' 1 I., i tri: - 1 1 I 1 1 1 4%2 1, .Â·' i ' ~Â·J~ IN- Â·-01 4-Â·1' - .Â·41 1:.Ii I 1.Â·, . . ... 0,/ I ,-1 .: - U AN" 1-6 - #-4H 7-1.llÂ·iÂ·1..fj. - I gil- I =.... .1â‚¬ 450.L:: ' . 142*~ 0 11:! # . '61 PROPOSED SPBUCe 4 2 2- - . O UO [T1 .~ I ~ - - 1 .~.-1.: 4.:â€ž . ..:14. 1% 0 I I . . I I. .. . 4 lf . I . 1 ... - d...M k , , < tÂ·Â·Â·17Â·,ygi if- .g Eke/ Â·es . . L -1 '- '- . f-1 r---,6 - ' 1:.1 r '44 - --. L.-Ut .. . .9 .. . I L.G. SH R V *t (* i +) 4 . a J .... ' -: . 4 %'Ti./ 1 :.7 - . .. 4â€¢ f l. 3%*hÂ· I. 4 4 :C ... 111 SYA s.44 "*Bu e c 6 Â¥ ') ,3-W:,24:': . 4. Â· - l.8 â‚¬4% - ) :S, I k 1 =L.-9....CIJ' 1 (- i lk.182 7Â· :2 17.. . CONCMErt Mlt,Uk pRec.sr p.veâ€¢ - L. n foo h . 00 .rro N e PA VER .. 0 I I .. 'IT--3-77~7Â°f:--r:Z-77- 9.4.Uy. j .11Â· -, iL ' / -â€¢ C r. . 1 1 - 4.:55 Wâ€¢00 .OARD#* AN . .. el '21,1 - 02.1 --~-Â· 12. ,ff; 1:.fff..2.-. 4,6 I. .: .- Câ€¢NGRETE 5.PENAWA . A. 1-:.A-/ ... k ik â‚¬.1. 94 - Â· ..0 .-1 . /Â·.-7 '4 ---I .h n' I: / V...1 . . 1 I j...1 Culf... Et . 9,4 - . ty ... .. yo G IL - .1 k. Râ€¢oM .. 1-i--1--ff[TTIN,1111.111 F 111,11111 1 1.1 I~-11[: 191..1~. ..Il I>-1 /.1,-Â· 12~ .r-i. o,3-i,.Â·1Â· JÂ·~Â·0.~Â·i i li.1 ni! ~'ai qr .Â· ~ ~ I i J.' IÂ· I ] a i ~ I.~ 1.-6 .- ..f .--, i L.La - . STREar LIGH T - 1 . . 0 *~ , a. 12 L _r 4 ipÂ»Â·.2 . ..4 ./- I {**01*P//149/MIFY 0~j.Â·01, 'Â·Â·Â·-' -k:.*,Â·Â·:Il.-Â·- -1 . . -... ~ I ar 01 1 Â·,4 4' 1 . lie 1 NEÂ©':. Â· .:B Â·i:Â·:6:0 1 â€¢ *h 1 1- 0: -41-.- -s - 0 --.- 4 --7. I LA---t- 4 ... . Ur#*gm*kiwi/7. '-- /9/691 >. hZ:=Ir=3 -:Â·Â·7Â· - TEBic/Afw.J- I. *zzrP \,~tL..L-~~~~--Â·~~~ Ir=-LIL~* 7 1.0 1- . /. ' I.~31-2-;Pelt ..fÂ·..'[p~Â·. ~Â·.44. 1 1 9 #*Â·Â·, 4-4.:Â·Â· * 1 ''/ r : 5,( hy, /0 . - - +."C'. t#Er - ---- , , 1. -- 211: 1--4."S- -1 .... 1 . . + 4 /.,/ -- - 3--f. . e==15,2 ' ' \ .Â·-Â· 2Â·Â·-'I' trky... I I * . - I . # I Â·a Â·Â·Â· ' 1 /1 1 1 / \ C K . O ..1 iN ...2 U----1. e 1 e 1. - 1\\\ 7 r T a 5/3 r 1 / 1 - ...... MEMORANDUM 0 TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director v Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 205 S. Mill Street- Wireless Telecommunications DATE: October 13, 1999 SUMMARY: Airtouch Cellular currently has a cellular antenna facility on the roof of the building at 205 S. Mill Street, where Eddie Bauer is located. This application is to relocate one ofthe antennas and to add two new ones. The City has recently modified its regulations in regard to wireless communications. Because the antennas are in the Commercial Core Historic District, HPC reviews the application with standards specific to this kind of equipment. APPLICANT: Airtouch Cellular. 0 LOCATION: 205 S. Mill Street, City and Townsite ofAspen. Section 26.575.130.F, Review Standards. The following standards are designed to foster the City's safety and aesthetic interests without imposing unreasonable limitations on wireless telecommunication services facilities and equipment. 1. SetbackÂ£ At a minimum, all wireless telecommunication services facilities and equipment shall comply with the minimum setback requirements of the underlying zone district; if the following requirements are more restrictive than those of the underlying zone district, the more restrictive standard shall apply. a. All facilities shall be located at least fifty (50) feet from any property lines, except when roof-mounted (above the eave line of a building). Flat- roof mounted facilities visible from ground level within one-hundred (100) feet of said property shall be concealed to the extent possible within a compatible architectural element, such as a chimney or ventilation pipe, or behind architectural skirting of the type generally used to conceal HVAC equipment. Pitched-roof mounted facilities shall always be concealed within a compatible architectural element, such as chimneys or 0 1 b. Monopole towers shall be set back from any residentially zoned properties a distance of at least three (3) times the monopole's height (i.e., a sixty (60) foot setback would be required for a twenty (20) foot monopole), and the setback from any public road, as measured from the right-of-way line, shall be at least equal to the height of the monopole. c. No wireless communication facility may be established within one- hundred (100) feet of any existing, legally established wireless communication facility except when located on the same building or structure. d. No portion of any antenna array shall extend beyond the property lines or into any front yard area. Guy wires shall not be anchored within any front yard area, but may be attached to the building. Response: There are no setback requirements in the Commercial Core zone district. The antennas are on private property and do not interfere with any other communication facility. The HPC should discuss whether any screening of the antennas is necessary, as discussed further below. 0 2. Height. Wireless telecommunication services facilities and/or equipment shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height or the maximum permissible height of the given zone district, whichever is more restrictive. In addition: a. Whenever a wireless telecommunication services antenna is attached to a building roof, the antenna and support system for panel antennas shall not exceed five (5) feet above the highest portion of that roof, including parapet walls, and the antenna and support system for whip antennas shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet above the highest portion of that roof, including parapet walls. b. If the building itself exceeds the height limitations of the zone, and such excess height was legally established (i.e., granted a variance, approved by PUD, etc.), then the combined height of the building and antenna shall not exceed the maximum height allowed by such approval unless determined by the Community Development Director to be suitably camouflaged. c. Ifthe building is constructed at or above the zone district's height limit, or if combined height of the building and the antenna would exceed the applicable height limit, the additional height of the antenna must be reviewed pursuant to the process and standards (in addition to the standards of this Section) of conditional use review, Section 26.425.010, 0 2 unless determined by the Community Development Director to be suitably camouflaged (in which case an administrative approval may be granted). d. Support and/or switching equipment shall be located inside the building, unless it can be fully screened from view as provided in the "Screening" standards (26.475.130(F)(5)) below. Response: The antennas are 3.5' in height, for a total (building + antenna) height of 45', which is 5' over the maximum height limit in the Commercial Core. This is necessary for adequate reception and staff finds that the height is acceptable given the placement of the antennas at the most concealed corner of the structure. (Please note that the existing paging antenna shown on the plans is taller than the proposed antennas and does not belong to Airtouch Cellular.) 3. Architectural Compatibility. Whether manned or unmanned, wireless telecommunication services facilities shall be consistent with the architectural style of the surrounding architectural environment (planned or existing) considering exterior materials, roof form, scale, mass, color, texture and character. In addition: a. If such facility is accessory to an existing use, the facility shall be constructed out of materials that are equal to or of better quality than the materials of the principal use. b. Wireless telecommunication services equipment shall be of the same color as the building or structure to which or on which such equipment is mounted, or as required by the appropriate decision-making authority (Community Development Director, Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, or City Council, as applicable). c. Whenever wireless telecommunication services equipment is mounted to the wall of a building or structure, the equipment shall be mounted in a configuration designed to blend with and be architecturally integrated into a building or other concealing structure, be as flush to the wall as technically possible, and shall not project above the wall on which it is mounted. d. Monopole support buildings, which house cellular switching devices and/or other equipment related to the use, operation or maintenance of the subject monopole, must be designed to match the architecture of adjacent buildings. If no recent and/or reasonable architectural theme is present, the Community Development Director may require a particular design that is deemed to be suitable to the subject location. e. All utilities associated with wireless communication facilities or equipment shall be underground (also see "Screening" below). 3 0 Response: The existing antennas run along the west wall and blend into the adjacent building wall. The applicant has proposed to place the new antennas along the alley to meet emission requirements (by providing adequate separation between the antennas) and proposes to attach them to the parapet wall to avoid puncturing the roof membrane. It may be appropriate to consider some sort of screening along the alley, but that is likely to interfere with reception and will create a larger "object" on the roof. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to paint the antennas in an appropriate color to further reduce their visibility. 4. Compatibility With the Natural Environment. Wireless telecommunication services facilities and equipment shall be compatible with the surrounding natural environment considering land forms, topography, and other natural features, and shall not dominate the landscape or present a dominant silhouette on a ridge line. In addition: a. If a location at or near a mountain ridge line is selected, the applicant shall provide computerized, three dimensional, visual simulations of the facility or equipment and other appropriate graphics to demonstrate the visual impact on the view of the affected ridge(s) or ridge line(s); an 8040 Greenline Review, pursuant to the provisions of Section 26.435.030, may also be required. 0 b. Site disturbances shall be minimized, and existing vegetation shall be preserved or improved to the extent possible, unless it can be demonstrated that such disturbance to vegetation and topography results in less visual impact to the surrounding area. c. Surrounding view planes shall be preserved to the extent possible. d. All wireless telecommunication' services facilities and equipment shall comply with the Federal Communication Commission's regulations concerning maximum radio frequency and electromagnetic frequency emissions. Response: No vegetation or view planes are affected by the proposal. 5. Screening. Roof and ground mounted wireless telecommunication services facilities and equipment, including accessory equipment, shall be screened from adjacent and nearby public rights-of-way and public or private properties by paint color selection, parapet walls, screen walls, fencing, landscaping, and/or berming in a manner compatible with the building's and/or surrounding environment's design, color, materials, texture, land forms and/or topography, as appropriate or applicable. In addition: 0 4 a. Whenever possible, if monopoles are necessary for the support of antennas, they shall be located near existing utility poles, trees, or other similar objects; consist of colors and materials that best blend with their background; and, have no individual antennas or climbing spikes on the pole other than those approved by the appropriate decision-making authority (Community Development Director, Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, or City Council, as applicable). b. For ground mounted facilities, landscaping may be required to achieve a total screening effect at the base of such facilities or equipment in order to screen the mechanical characteristics; a heavy emphasis on coniferous plants for year-round screening may be required. Landscaping shall be of a type and variety capable of growing within one (1) year to a landscape screen which satisfactorily obscures the visibility of the facility. c. Unless otherwise expressly approved, all cables for a facility shall be fully concealed from view underground or inside of the screening or monopole structure supporting the antennas; any cables that cannot be buried or otherwise hidden from view shall be painted to match the color of the building or other existing structure. d. Chain link fencing shall be unacceptable to screen facilities, support structures, or accessory and related equipment (including HVAC or mechanical equipment present on support buildings); fencing material, if used, shall be six (6) feet in height or less and shall consist of wood, masonry, stucco, stone or other acceptable materials that are opaque. e. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the facility shall comply with all additional measures deemed necessary to mitigate the visual impact of the facility. Also, in lieu of these screening standards, the Community Development Director may allow use of an alternate detailed plan and specifications for landscape and screening, including plantings, fences, walls, sign and structural applications, manufactured devices and other features designed to screen, camouflage and buffer antennas, poles and accessory uses. For example, the antenna and supporting structure or monopole may be of such design and treated with an architectural material so that it is camouflaged to resemble a tree with a single trunk and branches on its upper part. The plan should accomplish the same degree of screening achieved by meeting the standards outlined above. Response: Staff recommends that the antennas be painted to recede from view. 6. Lighting and Signage. In addition to other applicable sections of the code regulating signage or outdoor lighting, the following standards shall apply to wireless telecommunication services facilities and equipment: 5 a. The light source for security lighting shall feature down-directional, sharp cut-off luminaries to direct, control, screen or shade in such a manner as to ensure that there is no spillage of illumination off-site. b. Light fixtures, whether free-standing or tower-mounted, shall not exceed twelve (12) feet in height as measured from finished grade. c. The display of any sign or advertising device other than public safety warnings, certifications or other required seals on any wireless communication device or structure is prohibited. d. The telephone number(s) to contact in an emergency shall be posted on each facility in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 26.510 of the Aspen Municipal Code. Response: There will not be any lighting related to the antennas. The telephone number(s) to contact in an emergency shall be posted on the facility as required in Chapter 26.510 of the Aspen Municipal Code. 7. Access Ways. In addition to ingress and egress requirements of the Building Code, access to and from wireless telecommunication services facilities and equipment shall be regulated as follows: a. No wireless communication device or facility shall be located in a required parking, maneuvering or vehicle/pedestrian circulation area such that it interferes with, or in any way impairs, the intent or functionality of the original design. b. The facility must be secured from access by the general public but access for emergency services must be ensured. Access roads must be capable of supporting all potential emergency response vehicles and equipment. c. The proposed easement(s) for ingress and egress and for electrical and telephone shall be recorded at the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of building permits. Response: Item "a" is met. Items "b" and "c" do not apply as the antennas are incorporated into an existing building and are not freestanding ground mounted antennas where special access would be necessary. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any ofthe following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the application as submitted. 6 â€¢ Approve the 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 approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION AND RECOMMENDED MOTION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the proposal for changes to the cellular facility at 205 S. Mill Street with the following conditions: 1. The applicant must paint the antennas in an appropriate color to further reduce their visibility, with the color to be approved by staff. 2. The telephone number(s) to contact in an emergency shall be posted on each facility in conformance withthe provisions of Chapter 26.510 ofthe Aspen Municipal Code. Exhibits: Resolution No. , Series of 1999 A. Staff memo dated October 13, 1999. B. Application. 7 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A MODIFICATION TO A WIRELESS TELECOMMUICATIONS FACILITY LOCATED AT 205 S. MILL STREET, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 1999 WHEREAS, the applicant, Airtouch Cellular, has requested HPC approval to modify their existing facility at 205 S. Mill Street, City and Townsite of Aspen. The project involves relocating one antenna and adding two new antennas; and WHEREAS, all applications for wireless telecommunications facilities within a historic district must be found by HPC to meet the standards set forth in Section 26.575.130.F of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated October 13, 1999, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found favorably for the application, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 13, 1999, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application to meet the standards, and approved the application with conditions by a vote of_to _. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That approval be granted for a modification to an existing wireless telecommunications facility at 205 S. Mill Street, City and Townsite of Aspen, as presented at the October 13, 1999 meeting, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant must paint the antennas in an appropriate color to further reduce their visibility, with the color to be approved by staff. 2. The telephone number(s) to contact in an emergency shall be posted on each facility in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 26.510 of the Aspen Municipal Code. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 13th day of October, 1999. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to Content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chairman ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk EXHIBIT-~- AD s s. Abil 1-71 1 4193 95 ACTION: Minor Review All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or development involving a historic landmark must meet allfour Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. Standard 1: 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 Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Standard 2: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Standard 3: 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. Standard 4: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. â„¢t>\ AIRTOUCH Cellular AirTouch Cellular 7028 S. Clinton Street Englewood, CO 80112 Telephone: 303 754 6200 September 22, 1999 Ms. Amy Guthry Historic Preservation Officer Aspen / Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Modification of existing cellular facility located at Mill Street Plaza 205 South Mill Street, our cellular site CO3ASPEN Dear Amy: 0 This letter is submitted in accordance with the City of Aspen Land Use Code requirement for an application to modify our existing cellular site at the above referenced address. Section 26.575.130 D is outlined below: 1. Attached are the site plan and photo simulations. The adjacent land uses are built out commercial use. The proposed antennas will be on a flat roof and will not be visible from the street at a distance of 100', as indicated by the photo simulations. 2. Not applicable-this is a modification to an existing building. 3. Not applicable-modification to existing building. 4. Attached are the site plan and photo simulations. 5. Not applicable-no proposed lighting. 6. Not applicable as this is a building mounted site. 7. a. Not applicable, building mounted facility away from airfield. b. This application complies with the Federal Communications Commission regulations regarding maximum radio frequency and electromagnetic frequency emissions. MAJAL ~3 8. This application is to modify by relocating one and adding two(2) antennas to an existing AirTouch Cellular facility. 9. Attached. 10. Discussed at pre-application meeting in August. Thank you for your review of our proposal to modify the existing AirTouch Cellular ip.stallation at 205 South Mill Streel. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to contact me at (303) 754-6245. Sincerely, 7/,0, 9 .s //'1 =1194 ~r. I.-./ L.fl' = Gary M. Jones Site Development Manager enclosures AFFIDAVIT OF GARY M. JONES STATE OF COLORADO ) )SS COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE ) Gary M. Jones, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes and states: 1. I am the Site Development Manager of AirTouch Communications, Inc. d/Wa AirTouch Cellular ("AirTouch"). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this Affidavit. 2. AirTouch entered into a Standard Retail Lease with Mill Street Plaza Associates dated June Ilth, 1991 ("Lease") for the lease of interior building space together with space on the roof for cellular and link antennas ofthe property which is located at 205 South Mill Street (the "Property"). 3. AirTouch has complied with the Site Selection provision of the City of Aspen Land Use Code by selecting an existing structure, the Property, for its cellular installation and current modification. 4. AirTouch has requested that the City's Historic Preservation Commission grant its request for approval of the modification to enable AirTouch to construct and operate a fully functional cellular telephone facility at the Property. AirTouch Communications, Inc. 1 1 1 , 1 .,2 , 1 1/ in , ~ - f.7 4-, 1 1 By: Gary M. Jones, Sidbevelopment Manager ' " .14 Subscribed and sworn before me this . , day of 4 0 4.1 0 2 1999 M PO, *#Re. -Â«tflÂ«f . Notary Public i , I , rt / 1 0 Residing at: 40?t' 'All< U f/th' f ; (84':â€¢:~013 11' 0- My Commission expires: Il,/ il-,:El op Coto My Commission E.ires _q-1* 1 ........ 4, I y 1 2 FOR-% i i , l - f P- . - f h. .1 1 Existing View Move one 3.5' Omni Antenna from West Parapet to South Parapet. dd two 3.5' Omni Antennas to South Parapet. r . r... X 11 r.rn: w 1 * I , ala A 4........... Â· 'i 4*:4~'. Proposed View CO3-ASPEN CELL SITE ADDITION AIRTOUCH Mill Street Mall Cellular South Elevation 449Â», ~ ~I//4/* *WNÂ«1 ler- JII %Â£,UU /I/// - - 24.-5141'&.90*#-*=i,&- ' --4 A. i~aEÂ»~aaa~ . 5,4.. vrÂ¢ 2Â»4' Â·el~ ./ g. . /#...7/Fl, ' I :/ *1, :ti,0 'll' , Â· t:Qbid ./* 4". 19*1g~rica&gi,-*14~ . t 4 + . '.'*/*-. J I.'4; 41*7~Wtr1-~t~W~&~6~~7~% .A - Â¥ r ... 1. I.,- . --1.W.-i=..&/P....,#**t-.-4 4 - - - - .-K 1-=- lIESE#25)**~6-**Tij SHAV Z -N. - Ill-/I'l'.U ./. lih'.# Existing View 1 -'. -/< 2,4/ir=.16*'Il/*&a~ Move one 8.5' Omni Antenna from -fdfi,Ve'J:..-- 5Zfl- r 40 West Parapet to South Parapet. --- -62~=rmic=:~9-- ~<-+ - Add two 3.5' Omni Antennas to South Parapet. . 1629=*in=~15 * *'- -<~---- .a'* L.'4"f.~4 *: :*= ... 15 - 21â€¢0'4' T â€¢- *#'ll J Â·Â· -- ./.* =,--eme/////4 --- -4 -P. 0 * ' ~ ..VE 4 *. * . r.. 4UU- -12-5*/5-~,-i:*-i'/"MWil 2/~ 44=.=t.====-2-14.101'y Â·1:Â· <93.I ..'-1 44, Al. L? H/4 - - ;,4 *40.4'N- - * -Â£* .--/Ij'/*I 4 PL -~A~~ _ ~ 64-4.~.: 4- N. --4-~I~~ SHAP Proposed View CO3-ASPEN CELL SITE ADDITION AIRTOUCH Mill Street Mall Cellular North Elevation REVISIONS PROPOSED (1) .GPS" DIRECT MOUNT ANTENNA REMOVED LORAN MAGNETIC DECUNATION -1 FAA MARKING |--~ MOUNTED TO EXISTING PIPE MOUNT ~ ANTENNA. MOVED GPS FOR THIS SITE IS NO NOnCE REQUIRED AS PER DÂ«SnNG TO EXISTING PIPE MOUNT 17 IN HOUSE DETERMINAnON Ra.OCATED EXISTING (2) Â»DECIBEL" DB586-XC SA 8-30-99 TR,E J ,-Enc DATED: 3/19/93 (1) =DECIBEL= DB586-XC 1\Â« 3.5' OMNI ANTENNAS INCLUDED EXISTING NORTH W NORTH 3.5' OMNI ANTENNA PAGING ANTENNA V SA 9-8-99 FROM TRUE NORTH RELOCATED EXISTING RF R.1, Txl ~ EXISTING PAGING ANTENNA PROPOSED NEW (1) 'ANTENNA SPECIAUSTS~ ANTENNA. AND (2) =DECIBEL" 08586-XC a ASPB-680 PROPOSED NEW f ANTENNAS 3.5' OMNI ANTENNAS SA 9-22-99 EXISTING r- (3) Â»DECIBEL= DB586-XC ~ 3.5' OMNI ANTENNAS PROPOSED EME J BARRIER PER REQUIREMENTS ,0 ~ F 7*1 EXISTING PAGING ANTENNA \6 4240% (1) =ANTENNA SPECIALISTS" 740'SOF *fr ASPB-680 -Â·< 0 0*0'+EESBEEET 0000000/ 5 2 0 1 ibb 71 .-lii I \Top .446* 04 Â»%O. rn Ott,!:â‚¬ -~ # A# 06 Z 44 / r PROPOSED BUILDING EIEVATION = ul 41 1 A. - /4471 CO 0 0 Lli (4 ENGINEER: KENNARD . DRAWN BY: AMMAN P;XISTING BUILDING ELEVATION DATE: 8-27-97 CONFIDENTIAL and PRIVATE FILE NAME: Not for disclosure outside Al,rouch ASPENPR2 Sm. 1 OF 1 Do not distribute or reproduce without permise ion from Air'rouch PROPOSAL DRAWING C NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ~1 DRAWING SCALE: 1~ = 25' AIRToucK NOII,VTIV,LSNI VNNS[,LNV ati[SOcIONd :31111 \/1 89 MEMORANDUM 0 TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director ~~J . Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director4*D FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Main Street bus shelter- minor review DATE: October 13, 1999 SUMMARY: The City Transportation Department requests HPC approval to install two bus shelters on the north side of E. Main Stredt, across from Paepcke Park (in front of the old library.) APPLICANT: City of Aspen. LOCATION: 100's block of E. Main Street, Main Street Historic District. MINOR DEVELOPMENT No approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds that all of the following standards (Section 26.415.010.B.4) are met: a. The proposed development is compatible in general design, scale, site plan, massing and volume 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 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, exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, the Historic Preservation Commission may grant necessary 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 Section 26.520.040(B)(2), for detached accessory dwelling units. 1 56,6 (-4 + Response: The bus shelters are made of painted metal and have been used in other locations in Aspen. A photo of a shelter being installed in another neighborhood is attached. Note that a pewter Aspen leaf is applied in the circle in the gable of the shelter. Staff has no concerns with the proposal. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The proposed bus shelter is located in the City right-of-way, and in this case is not in front of any historic structures. c. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: The proposal has no effect on the historic significance of any historic structures. d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereoÂ£ Response: The proposal has no affect on the architectural character and integrity of any designated historic structure. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any ofthe following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the 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 approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION AND RECOMMENDED MOTION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the proposal for two new bus shelters on Main Street with the following conditions: 1. The bus shelter installed shall match the photograph presented to HPC. 2. The applicant shall provide a site plan indicating the exact locations for the structures. 2 Exhibits: Resolution No. , Series of 1999 A. Staff memo dated October 13, 1999. B. Photograph ofproposed bus shelter. C: home/amyg/cases/minor/busstop 3 Â»ila,1 -.91.+--a-, kttll:, ~~~ ACTION: Minor Review All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or development involving a historic landmark must meet aU,/our Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. Standard 1: 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 Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Standard 2: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Standard 3: 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. Standard 4: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. . - .Vek?34;.0. , , 150*36*E'*01 ' 41Â·p:42/ Er\46', , t..f.*19*42 43' ~ 25 ' 4,1 K :1.;t , 1Â·34Â·*lit 7-=: p{Â¢il~ 4,41Â»%*la,4- 1#UNw" , *. 4*milli i 0 i)49 .*. r r L . "Tk /0 ; - Â£ *I Â·. / . C O - - -W .i . .9416.. .*~ - . 54664 E RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR TWO NEW BUS SHELTERS ON MAIN STREET, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 1999 WHEREAS, the applicant, the City of Aspen, requests HPC approval to install two new bus shelters in the 100's block of E. Main Street, Main Street Historic District; and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of Section 26.415.010.B.4 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 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 0 site coverage 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). 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 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. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated October 13, 1999, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found favorably for the application, and recommended approval with conditions; and 10 WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 13, 1999, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application to meet the standards, and b approved the application with conditions by a vote of_ to _. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: HPC hereby approves the proposal for two new bus shelters on Main Street, as presented at the October 13, 1999 meeting, with the following conditions: 1. The bus shelter installed shall match the photograph presented to HPC. 2. The applicant shall provide a site plan indicating the exact locations for the structures. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 13th day of October, 1999. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to Content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chairman ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk G: planning/aspen/resos.doc/hpc/busstop