The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.230 E Hopkins Ave.0098.2017.ASLU0098.2017.ASLU 230 E HOPKINS AVE COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FINAL 273707328008 1- e - -j 5 cc..1 a. 4 11,9 1 . V. PATH: G/DRIVE /ADMINISTRATIVE/ADMIN/LANDUSE CASE DOCS CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0098.2017.ASLU PROJECT ADDRESS 230 E HOPKINS AVE PARCELID 2737 073 28 008 PLANNER JUSTIN BARKER CASE DESCRIPTION APPLICATION FOR FINAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW REPRESENTATIVE 360 HEXAGON LLC DATE OF FINAL ACTION 03/05/2018 CLOSED BY BONNIE SHILES 8/13/18 Â¤ Permits -? (9 + 2:1570 L 2%00% 00:1% 4 7 ASUR - 0 X V/:'lill-- 1Eile Edit Record N~gate Fgrm Repoils Format Iab Help 'â€¢1~ *31~ ~ B xe UL#e*~ 4:*Â·.E:uL.- .1 a.=314 . -2*:B I ~>--.4Â»k U @ @ â€¢x Â» k., 93 Ke 8 ~f_1 49048~~iN 4 , M **9~Jurnp L:2*lll i*lel 9 6 ~ Ed Clgar 9 ~ /9-*- 3/6# L. faaill/mil/Vill-/. 9 21 0 9 8 0 1/3:.1 9% m *,g #/ r ~1 Custom Fields 1 Routing Status ~ Fee Summarje ~ Acbons ! Routing Mjsbory ~ -Al . -ili. 1 rermit type hsiu ~ - Aspen Land Use Permit # 0098.2017.ASLU i ~ Address 230 E HOPKINSAVE 1Â·Â· Apt/Suite =... 1 ..4.. t. 1 4'- SE, 0.. State Co v Zip |81611 '~'Permit Informabon~*i~i ~ 21Â©1-2 -16'g Â« - 1,1 1 Master permit Â·Â·Â· Routing queue aslul 5 Applied 12/07/2017 | Project 'Â·Â· Status pending Appl'oved 1- I ~ Description APPLICATION FOR FINAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW Issued | ~ .2 Closed/Final 1- lill Submit~ed FÂ¥<TRICK RAWLEY Clock Running Days ~-~--i| Expires 12/02/2018 , .~~ Submitted via ~ p Owner t?~ Last name 360 HEXAGON, LLC Â· Â· Â° First name SANDRA M. EDGERLEY 119 HYSLOP RD BROOKLINE MA C2445 Phone (817) 549-6675 Address Applicant ~ Owner is applicant? Il Contractor is applicant? Last name 360 HEXAGON, LLC , Â· Â· First name SANDRA M. EDGERLEY 119 HYSLOP RD BROOKLINE MA 02445 Phone (617) 549-6675 Cust # 30882 1Â·Â·Â· Address Email Lender #43 Last name bÂ·Â· First name V AspenGold5_[seiver)__]_ingelas I~e-w-~ 1 of 1 ..: Ut * 515% #*vwk $ 4%75, 05 @739 -013-89-008 92=f f * 449) 2- elostr~.0 r-- 1 7 lol,4vu.444550 - CD EFLLS-1 inEE>arker 63 925,6'Â© 315lle 1 seloN >10!no~ ~ xoqlooll ~ sano]9 qell DEVELOPMENT ORDER ofthe City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.080. ~'Development Orders", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site-specific development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a three-year vested property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building permit application submittal is accepted and deemed complete by the Chief Building Official, pursuant to Section 26.304.090 or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of vested property rights. this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date of this Order. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site-specific development plan as described below. 360 Hexagon LLC, 119 Hyslop Road, Brookline, MA 02445 Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address Parcel A. 220 E. Hopkins Avenue & 230 E. Hopkins Avenue/117 S. Monarch Street Minor Subdivision Boundary Adjustment Plat, recorded March 31. 2016 as Reception No. 628213, commonly known as 230 E. Hopkins Avenue. City of Aspen. Pitkin County, Colorado. Parcel ID 273707328008 Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property The applicant has received approval to remodel the existing building, replace the on-site affordable housing unit. and create one free-market residential unit. Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan Conceptual Commercial Design Review. Growth Management Reviews. Special Review. and Dimensional Variance approvals granted by P&Z Resolution No. 5. Series of 2016 on July 19. 2016; Final Commercial Design Review and Growth Management Amendment granted by P&Z Resolution No. 1. Series of 2018 on February 6.2018. Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) February 15, 2018 Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice ofapproval.) February 15.2021 Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 ofthe City of Aspen Municipal Code.j Issued this 8th day of February, 2018, by the City of Aspen Community Development Director. Â· /7 . 0/An# 1 2- 1--0'-Â¥ el 1,4 1 2 f i L Jessica Garrow, Cominunity Development Director J 0 fin AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.070 AND CHAPTER 26.306 ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 13 6 2 9* Wkwhi Aspen, CO STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, (name, please print) iopu 641 being or represtnting an Applicant tâ‚¬~the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) or Section 26.306.010 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: < Publication ofnotice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days after final approval of a site specific development plan. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Publication ofnotice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen no later than fifteen (15) days after an Interpretation has been rendered. A copy of th~ publication is attached hereto. 5 ?L - Sign~kire- The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this E day ofi-kbrue.-~ , 201)â‚¬L, by BO ph i n. ' kfar~ a- WITNESS MY- HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL PUBLIC NOTICE 0, 1 My commission expires: 1(4 30 ~ 2-02 J DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Notice is hereby given to the general public ot the L..314 123 approval of a site-specific development plan, and the creation of a vested propefty right pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining ~ Notary Public to the following described property: Parcel I D #273707328008, Legally described as Parcel A, 220 ' E. Hopkins Avenue & 230 E. Hopkins Avenue/117 C S. Monarch Street Minor Subdivision Boundary Ad- ~ justment Plat, recorded March 31,2016 as Recep- tion No. 628213: commonly known as 230 E. a BONNIE L SHILES Hopkins Avenue. The applicant has received appro- ' ATTACHMENTS: NOTARY PUBLIC val to remodel the existing building, replace the on- c STATE OF COLORADO marke#tores~~~n~~7~,~~tNrollghP~ninegand~Zling ~ NOTARY ID 20054038739 Commission Resolutions No. 5 Series of 2016 and No. 1, Series of 2018. The approval is depicted in COPY OF THE PUBLICATION ~ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCTOBER 30,2021 the land use application on file with the City of As- pen. For further information contact Justin Barker at the City of Aspen Community Development Dept., 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, Colorado. (970) 429- 2797. City of Aspen Published in The Aspen Times on February 15, 2018. (0000194809) [0] 1 1111111111 1 lilli 1111 lilli lE i .111111 RECEPTION#: 645635, R: $58.00, D: $0.00 Pg 1 of 10,03/05/2018 at 02:13:33 PM DOC CODE: RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO RESOLUTION NO. 1 (SERIES OF 2018) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION GRANTING FINAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL AND A GROWTH MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOTS R AND S, BLOCK 74, CITY AND TOWNS[TE OF ASPEN, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 230 E. HOPKINS AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 273707328008 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from 360 Hexagon LLC (Applicant) represented by Stan Clauson Associates. Inc., requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission approve Final Commercial Design Review and a Growth Management Amendment for 230 E. Hopkins Avenue; and, WHEREAS, all code citation references are to the City of Aspen Land Use Code in effect on the day of initial application - March 15. 2016. as applicable to this project: and. WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 26.412.030. the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve. disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue an application for Final Commercial Design Review at a duly noticed public hearing: and. WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.140.A, an insubstantial amendment to an approved growth management development order may be authorized by the Community Development Director: and. WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B. an application where more than one development approval is being sought simultaneously may be combined or modified whenever the Community Development Director determines, in consultation with the applicant. that such combination or modification would eliminate or reduce duplication and ensure economy of time. expense. and clarity; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code requirements. the Aspen Community Development Department recommended approval with conditionS: and. WHEREAS. all required public noticing was provided as evidenced by an affidavit of public noticing submitted to the record. and the public was provided full access to review the Application; and. WHEREAS. the Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on February 6. 2018. during which the recommendations of the 230 E. Hopkins Ave Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution No. 1. Series 20 18 Page I of 10 Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard by the Planning & Zoning Commission, and approved the project with conditions by a vote of four to zero (4 - 0). NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Final Commercial Design Review Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code. the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves Final Commercial Design Review for the proposed project. Elevations and floor plans representing the approved design are attached as Exhibits A & B. Section 2: Growth Management Amendment Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code. the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves amendments to the Growth Management approval that was granted on July 19, 2016 via P&Z Resolution No. 5. Series of 2016. The following Growth Management approvals shall replace those granted pursuant to Section 7 of Resolution No. 53 Series of 2016. 2.1 Growth Management Allotments. a) One free-market residential unit is approved from the 2016 Growth Management Allotments. 2.2 Affordable Housing Mitigation Requirements. a) The addition of one free-market unit measuring approximately 2,313 sq. ft. net livable area requires the applicant to provide 694 sq. ft. net livable area in affordable housing mitigation, or 1.73 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs), using the following calculation: Mitigation requirement == 2.313 sq. A offree-market net livable / 30% = 694 sq.ft. Conversion to FTEs = 694 sq. 8. / 400 sq. ft. = 1.73 FTEs The Applicant may provide Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation for the required 1.73 FTEs. Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit shall be extinguished per Chapter 26.540 of the Land Use Code prior to issuance ofa building permit. The Applicant shall be required to extinguish a Transferable Development Right (TDR) certificate on this site for the free-market residential unit. The TDR certificate shall be extinguished prior to issuance of a building permit. pursuant to Section 26.535.080. b) The existing development provides a net leasable reconstruction credit of 5.699 sq. ft.. or 23.16 FTEs as calculated below: Basement: 1,317 sq. ft, / 1,000 sq. ft. = 1.317 (4.7 FTEs x 0.75) =4,64 FTEs Ground Floor: 2.711 sq. ft. / 1,000 sq. ft. -2.711 (4.7 FTEs) = 12.74 FTEs Upper Floor: 1,641 sq. ft. / 1:000 sq. ft. = 1.641 (4.7 FTEs x 0.75) = 5.78 FTEs Total = 4.64 + 12.74 + 5.78 = 23.16 FTEs 230 E. Hopkins Ave Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution No. 1. Series 2018 Page 2 0 f 10 The proposed development includes 4,892 sq. ft. of net leasable area. or 19.94 FTEs as calculated below: Basement: 1:923 sq. ft. / 1,000 sq. ft. = 1.923 (4.7 FTEs x 0.75) = 6.78 FTEs Ground Floor: 2.292 sq. ft. / 1.000 sq. ft. = 2.292 (4.7 FTEs) = 10.77 FTEs Upper Floor: 677 sq. ft. / 1.000 sq. ft. = 0.677 (4.7 FTEs x 0.75) = 2.39 FTEs Total = 6.78 + 10.77 + 2.39 = 19.94 T-, r fEs Under this approval, affordable housing mitigation is not required for the commercial net leasable Aoor area associated with the site, provided the FTEs generated by the proposed net leasable do not exceed the reconstruction credit. Any reconstruction credit shall be valid for one (1) year following issuance of a demolition permit: pursuant to Chapter 26.470.130. Section 3: Public Amenit+ This Section shall replace Section 4 of P&Z Resolution No. 5. Series of 2016 in its entirety. The Applicant is required to provide no less than 10% of the lot size in public amenity. or 600 sq. ft. The Planning and Zoning Commission has approved 586 sq. ft. (9.8%) of public amenity on-site in the form of landscaped open space along the building's Monarch St. faÂ©ade. and as a paved walkway to the entrances along both E. Hopkins Ave and S. Monarch St. The Applicant is also approved to provide 557 sq. ft. (9.3%) of public amenity off-site, directly adjacent to the site along Hopkins Ave.. between the street and the sidewalk: in the form of landscape improvements. The on- and off-site public amenity combined equals 1143 sq. ft. (19.1%): and is represented in Exhibit C. Section 4: All approvals and conditions contained in P&Z Resolution No. 5, Series of 2016 not modified within this Resolution remain valid. Section 5: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded. whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department or the Planning and Zoning Commission are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth hercin: unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 6: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. 230 E. Hopkins Ave Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution No. 1. Series 2018 Page 3 0 f 10 Section 7: lf any section: subsection, sentence, clause. phrase 5 or portion ofthis Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction. such portion shall be deemed a separate. distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. FINALLY, adopted. passed and approved this 6th day of February: 2018. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: 8=ZE=- 2 -1,Â«-c>-J ,Â·:Gnes R True, City Attorney R~n Walterscheid, Acting Chair f Attest: 0Â«.4. Nicole Henning, Deputy dty Clerk Attachments Exhibil A - Elevations Exhibit B - Floor Plans Exhibit C - Public Amenity 230 E. Hopkins Ave Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution No. 1. Series 2018 Page 4 of 1 0 N <C 0 e 9 0 0 9 7 - T | 1 wr -0- le $ 1 '0-* i~ 2 8 !1 uj,2 2\1 -1 1 11 11 i ......'.Â»- 0 r= M - 2723-2--22-7 ------22-2-2--In.5325 I.Iiz .49] Will-11] ] [ ..[D U LIL. M 1Â©Â»- - - =Â®Eeee e 1/*-*-:.- t =Lpt=:9=- -----1 1 1. ime!21 %'ip~ill--0 .-I[~ 1 =11/ == "T--'-:- =:--\ 2 r ~ & 1//- LUL- -,9~**iq 3321I . Li - -: 1331-7-=ipilla /-*- k f-~1 -Tiii iT ~ 111.--/,-n.........., Kcly -1 .4 ... Z 1 11 - '13'm ,- -. I I 1 0 9 0 0 - T 1 1 .. ...f 1 -- ...r 1 1 19'\42 7' 11 1 '-Ir----------1-ing.-2--1---1 2~-L-1--.24 ,-I~ lid# R|.itlil.4 j hMÂ· t"t- ! Iv Al I liUILI 0. I . -. .... 1 6% i .,| i t.bati Â·'1- -17~-~-F --* _ =UN -' I Ii~ ' iii 1-1 .i ~ UbM. f :4 1 -U.L ..,Cl.*= 1.4"i,â€¢ f 21 aliti2 4rf :; Z 1 â€¢ 0%-2*%2--E- Elili-1 44@1 *liN.i 1.1-14 1 1 .1 - --I---t. wei = = 1- -....AM- - - --4:>...1 - I.-%- 11-T =FT- i'11111'8-0!Â·'i '' i -M 11 1 ~Â·[[[14 1--:ar------=1Â«t- - - =81 2 -Z -FiEN - 144 RolijjjÂ·il-- 1Â·i : :i, 4 1 1 H 11 - .3 .--Â·. o .in Â·' I t P = 11.-/1. ..1/ i 1 , , I Te- : Z4.75 i]-1 1 -.--- 1.t.1//22/<- - =J- - Â£74--.- 'Lia Af-:===14- \.......1 r I / r,w=Zi,~...,AS, 1 =.==-Ck - 1 EQF1191 ..1. ..... i . --1 1 UOISS!LU uoZ Â¥ Suallueld 810E s@!-lJS - I *oN uo!1nlos@M 01 Jo g Owed EXHIBIT A N EE < %8 0 0 0 0 (7) 9 0 0 2 - â‚¬ 3% il i~ 0 flilirxn rn 1 tr'11,4-,111 ---1-- ---4-,Pri 1-1.-11 fl- _11-I./9:~e=, - --,---- - -- --- --...1,0. 4 , - e . 1: -- R 1 1 1 E~ IZE--= 111 :It 1 1 ----n-=:2- 1=1 -1-- 2---= =.':=---; - i, , -LE - -.- - --,- I - f 1 - Il 1 1 I 1 1 f 1 ; f....,5..,MI-t/5.1. 11 I 1 1 11 1 !=Fri-1-1 ---TI.--* *-1 Eli == IN\Â· 1 1 It P- ...... 1 1 1 nTT 11 -I 1''tr r I == - - - - 1-& --- -- ov~.*54/i=.i~.1556 - 91*11'1' 2' I 91 Ng - rY= 2%12; 151 1? 4 4' 5 I'l~#V~T~%Ebl 1,9.1 III r, 'lix-Ii auf ~ 2 W *14â€¢ t': ir , 4,1,1~4' 1,14.,1, , d rREET, 1,1 r Ir 1 - 44;W 1.Lil .1.Fill#..Clll,14 - .--I- --46'. 444J I 1 ,51.MAIA=.m:SL 1 -'- 1 1 1 It 11 1 ----- -Ill -1- uoiss !UIUIO Suiuoz :F Suluueld 02 90!JOS 7 'ON uofln~OSOM EXHIBIT B f ?t? ?f - 9 L It- 1 1 1 -- 1 -2-4___ i --- 1 . -_1 11. 1 itz--1 ' 'i ~ I f J : 11 FEN 8,04 22=1~ , 1 319--3 r.... -1 , 1 1:il : lili : 3 1 li' ii! 111 El:13.1 f q t.fil --{3 /11 14 DIii! F M u. , u 4/3 /1 mb lit' - 4: 1 -7 Â· 44 &9 Hi HiÂ« 1 1. 4 i 1 - 1 [--Â©F OFF,09 1 1.5 r ----1- 11 1 --1 1 m ji m 1 1 1 i 1 - -I -- Â© ; r /6/ r--1- ED' :!-2Â£1 1 .- F ..... 1 ....1 1 121~64 1 1 6 6 230 E. Hopkins Ave Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution No. I. Series 2018 Page 7 0 f 10 - T T-7 J -IT--T T -WIT 9 0 , 009 e 00 / # '--'I.- U<-' --- - \ 1 1 1,/1 t \ /1 \ ,/ 1 1 .// 1 4 1 / .' i Y '/1 4 0 1 1 1 m ' 1 - I 1 11- 5 ' .X . / 0 / ZIL: :8~*Jk,;UE'/14 --5 :1 1 , 1 *ill '11 1 m 07 C 1 1 e 11.-1 -/TZ A7-;==6-- ____ // 1 1 411. iÂ· Z â‚¬>- -1 Â· - i :tat -4 - ---1-_ * 1 . e 1 1 1 1 C 1 11!C 1 1 -1-, \11 / 1 111:LT 1 *PA be il . T 2- - -3<. : 1: r 6 @1 0 1 I /1 . 7- 7 11 ~ 1 ~ 4-'*i- ,Ef ~1 ~ 4 -i ,\ li 110 1 , L mn f 1 - , 0 11 1 -- 1 -t-"Er-- 44 \ 11 21| = 4 E./1 . -3.< -6--,1 ., | Â· -C Tr "- Â· Ir- I. 4 Â· it 92 - I Â®-- 1\- 1--- T / 04=1=ml-,47 1 1 \ 1 . lib ~ ~ A-,1 1- E- 1:1 1 1 1 11. 1 11 ~ L.2- : L- ' ; : 1 11 I , :1 - 1-I 1 0- --- -- 1 1 1 1 \-/ -7 1 1 1-4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1," ra Bit 1 .... -2 ,.... -- 81 0 0 $ 000 04 e e 230 E. Hopkins Ave Planning & Zonine Commission Resolution No. 1. Series 2018 Page 8 of 10 cp 9-e 9> f 0 e 9 000 99 e e .. ..1-- ... . It- 1 .... .1 il liliu 1 i 1-- 1 1 Â«D 1 11 iii : 1 0 ;61-4 0 0 13 0 0 0,01 11 , .'.:.-10 Â® 1,0 1 8 .1 'C 5 -.-1- i - --- ------L- ---1- - --4 ' 9 1 li.'11 1 1,=1: ,-11 1 1 1 1 1% 1 1 ---- 1-1 =L- Fll,Hil 111 F 1 11 14-L .11 ,- ------ _ ~- 1 11 1 1 11 1 P 1 d lit il | 1-mT-i 4 1 -'.tÂ·I bllo " il /1 n I 1 , 4) /1 r. P i./ il 'f----15*ir--1 1 11 ' 1 - .-41 -Ii Â£ I - 1-- T l. Jar & 14 â€¢4 J 01 - I )116=41 F-i i i . - - -- -IF - Â«9-2 1 1 -3 It 2 41 ai 1*Â¥2 . 4 - U 'llilill:1 1 4 1 11 1 i jit * i 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 - â€¢ - r--L _f L_ 1 - - 2 .': 1 1 -- 1 1 C -il l b.~ 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ri--r'ti'21 CA---Â£6=1 .. 6 0 4 Â®+0 0e 230 E. Hopkins Ave Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution No. 1. Series 2018 Page 9 of 10 0 0 4, C OÂ© 0 >0-- GE 0 9//. /7/1.7/fill//lil )4 '~ 4 / 3 IL-]1 13*6~ 11 11 ~Um-12*1 -'......-- ZO F ts 1-4- Aft '41;111 Of.1 -- 0- _I _ --9 i~fl N 4/J y V M Z.5 CO 0'.0...W%. *.1.7.4.1 ---3-T- - --t----------------------_-i------1 - . p Â¢ U Ct //1// ....,r~â€¢.â€¢-1 ,â€¢v//,im, 1/3 1 E /- CD *sw â€¢~ree~, r.-0,"'.4 cerlyÂ«/Iall,Al e'Cl -* ~10- r-sno-* ~ \WY Â¥3 %2%252%252%2%2529 6.Â»'.L Ati 1 - -- . i f TO"*I,<2401â€ž441Â».b*Dâ€ž.,Â»? ilim),ED INIAÂ» 1,/17,0,0/0 11.-1.1 6>-n ir - 11 , - I 6------------------------Aff/4443;~ i i af 42-- 1 { 1)< C ) )\UÂ« - 0 0 0 &.r32~T - Â» - 1 0 0 \ V. r I 0 ...4.-02â€¢ql - .' . Series 2 EXHIBIT C ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 6, 2018 Vice Chairperson Walterscheid called the meeting to order at 4:34 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Spencer McNight, Rally Dupps, Ryan Walterscheid, Kelly McNicholas. Absent was Skippy Mesirow. Staff present: Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Justin Barker, Senior Planner - Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director Phillip Supino, Principal Long Range Planner COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. McNight mentioned Jasmine Tygre's retirement from P&Z and suggested recognizing her or having a party in her honor. I said that Linda and I will discuss and reach out to herto see when is a good time. I also let the board know that Mr. Goode resigned from P&Z today and that the City is looking for two regular members and two alternates and to please send people our way. STAFF COMMENTS: None. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ms. McNicholas motioned to approve the minutes of December 19th and January 16% Mr. McNight seconded. All in favor, motion carried. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None. PUBLIC HEARING: 230 E. Hopkins Avenue Justin Barker This is a final commercial design review and growth amendment for the Mountain Forge building. The property is a 6000-sq. ft. lot and zoned as mixed use. The existing property includes one affordable housing unit and the rest is commercial. This is at the corner of Hopkins and Monarch and just across , from White House Tavern. The proposed project includes a remodel of the existing building and relocating the affordable housing unit within the existing structure and adding one free market unit to the upper floor of the property. This project received conceptual approval in June or July of 2016 and is subject to the pre-moratorium code. The two reviews for tonight include final commercial design review. This will deal with materials, fenestration, landscaping, lighting and public amenity. The other review is the growth management amendment and the reason for this is that the conceptual approval included two free market units on the second floor and the applicant has revised the application since then and is now down to one free market unit. In terms of commercial design, Mr. Barker showed slides of materials, fenestration and landscaping. Regarding growth management, at conceptual, this was approved as two free market units with a combined area of 2249 sq. ft., which calculated out to a mitigation total of 1.69 FTE's through affordable housing credits. The revised design for final, sort of changes the layout down to one unit. The sq. footage is slightly higherthan what was for the two combined units so what was 313 square feet is now up to 1.73 FTE's. What is going to be addressed in 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 6, 2018 this review is the overall size of the unit and has been written into the resolution. The second item, is the .04 FTE's above what was originally approved and has been written into the resolution and accommodated in the increase in affordable housing credits. Since the unit is slightly larger, there is a slight reduction in the commercial area, so those numbers that have changed, are updated in the resolution. Staff is recommending approval and has added a condition for the FTE's. Ms. McNicholas asked if there is a mechanism to confirm that the employee housing unit is occupied by an actual employee. Mr. Barker said this all takes place through APCHA and he is sure they have some level of enforcement. He said he is not sure about how they receive documentation about that, but it is completely governed through APCHA. Ms. McNicholas asked if ComDev informs APCHA of the space and if it is added into their inventory to track and Mr. Barker said yes, APCHA reviews the application. Ms. Phelan said that APCHA also approves the deed restriction so they are made aware at that point. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Dana Ellis of Roland and Broughton and Brett Krudener of Stan Clauson Associates. Ms. Ellis mentioned for the record that John Roland is in attendance as well as the owners of the property. Ms. Ellis said they took consideration from City Council on the volume along Monarch so they have made some edits there and noted that the building itself has gone from a grey tone to much warmer. As far as existing conditions, they are trying to keep the building intact from a demolition standpoint, while trying to modernize it. They are still under the proposed allowable floor area and their objectives are to remodel and recognize common neighborhood forms while creating a better use of the site features. They are keeping the courtyard level important for commercial use and feel they are meeting and exceeding the goals of a mixed-use area. They have spent a lot of time thinking about the pedestrian experience and the compatibility of materials, etc. Mr. True entered the meeting. Mr. Krudener spoke about landscaping and said the footprint will remain the same and the fagade will remain as specified. Their focus was really on sidewalk improvements and off-site amenities. This is located at a prominent intersection and they want to accentuate the remodel and pedestrian space and corridor. At the front fagade, they are incorporating concrete or stone paving bookended on the south side with a steel wall and mountain graphic with a backlight. Within the plaza space, they have incorporated slab stone benches to offset from the wall and landscaping. There will be some monumentation dedicated to Francis Whitaker, which would be a small plague of some sort with minimal info to the historic component to the site. The paving, from his side of things, is to stop users from passingthrough and take a moment to browse the history and take in the site and take notice of the architecture and what is being done there. Around the other side of building, there will be some simple plantings and some light parking. Ms. Ellis pointed out that the joint pattern proposed for the sidewalk mimics what is around the crystal palace and has been done historically. It was a way for them to do a subtle nod to the Forge history of the site. The exterior materials they are looking at would be brick for the central volume, a core tin steel 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 6, 2018 siding done in a modern application, but not super rough. There would be a super warm wood finish exterior. Ms. Ellis passed around samples to the board. She feels they are sticking to a concept of the materials relating to the adjacent residential zones. She said they didn't want to do painted wood and they felt that high quality materials were appropriate. The central volume is broken up and relates to the White House Tavern across the way. The corner is mainly wood with metal being the railing material. The wood transitions highlight the residential forms. As far as fenestration, they are looking at doing dynamic windows, which would be metal clad aluminum. On the first-floor storefronts, they are assuming they have to replace fenestration. Those store fronts both on the main and lower level, they are looking at doing a black clad window. They are looking at Pella and their wood windows because they have a low profile. They will look the same as the ones above and work better with the dimensions that exist. A big change is taking what was two small windows and opening them up so it's all glazing for the commercial space inside. They are replacing the windows on the second floor and creating a more linear look. The opening to the commercial space stays as it is with an upgraded door system. They will add step lighting on the stairs and recessed canned lighting where they can. Any of the decorative lighting is an understated metal, but references the Forge look. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. McNicholas asked what the theme is behind the landscaping. Mr. Krudener said the intention around the monument would be seasonal colors that can be changed out. On the other side would be grasses with a minimal water requirement and similar plantings. Ms. Ellis said they will also need to upgrade the right of way grasses, which will also be low water use. Mr. Krudener said they are also proposing a green wall or living wall in the courtyard space. It's not zero scape, but close. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ruth Carver Ms. Carver asked questions about the plans regarding the white hanging pots and the sidewalk going past the monument. Mr. Krudener said the Forge was crafted with a ledger piece where planters can be used. It's an idea and they are flower pots, essentially. Ms. Ellis said the sidewalk does go right past the monument and is ADA accessible. Mr. Krudener said that on the monument, there is a core tin steel wall cut out and backlit from within and there is a bench inside of it. It will be 4 to 8 inches dependent upon materials. They will be depicting an anvil and a hammer with a date range for Francis Whitaker with a quote and the base thickness is 24 to 34 inches. Public comment closed. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. McNight said he likes it, thinks it's a good design and agrees with staff. He likes the paving and the flower pots, white or not. This project has his approval. Mr. Dupps said he agrees and doesn't have anything further to add. Ms. McNicholas said that everything shown in white might look better black, as the applicant has suggested. Even the flower pots, which she does like. Ms. McNicholas verified that staff added the TDR into the resolution, which Mr. Barker confirmed. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 6, 2018 MOTION: Ms. McNicholas motioned to approve resolution #1, Mr. McNight seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Walterscheid, yes; Ms. McNicholas, yes; Mr. Dupps, yes; Mr. McNight, yes. 4-0 motion carried. Mr. Supino gave the board an update on the miscellaneous code section of the land use code. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Walterscheid said this discussion probably has more effect for him and the way in which it is implemented has way more weight, than the actual numbers. This is completely about the way you go about doing it. He is interested in this because it is drastically important to his work. Mr. Supino said they are most concerned with the methodology and the focus of their discussions. Mr. Walterscheid noted that he is very interested in what they are changing the methodology to since he is not on the board of consultants for this project. Mr. Barker said that they do want to run a few test projects through because it will make a dramatic difference and they need to determine how to adjust, etc. Mr. Dupps exited the meeting. Ms. McNicholas asked about calculating grade and said she doesn't get it at all and how this will be done in the future without manifesting a very different result. Mr. Supino said that grade relative to height is a perfect example and there are many instances where grade is manipulated up or down on a site. Ms. McNicholas clarified that when these changes get adopted, they will compare the pre- and post-changed permits and Mr. Supino agreed. She asked if people are on to this and Mr. Supino said yes, very much. Ms. McNicholas said the thingthat raises a flag for her, is the fact that this board relies on the code. If something like vesting rights, comes down to the only reason to deny something is in policy, is that a defensible reason or defensible document for us to use simply based on the subsidy thatthey would be getting. Mr. Supino, said in general, the information provided to a board is sufficient grounds to base a decision and must line up with the standards provided in the code, but something like the granting of an extension, is a discretionary action. Mr. True agreed and said an extension of vested rights is absolutely discretionary and subject to referendum. Mr. Supino said this provides staff and decision makers with more flexibility to say we want to know x, y and z. Mr. McNight said he likes what they are doing and that his comments would come in these meetings where things are being discussed, but here on the surface level, he doesn't have anything. Mr. Supino said that he sensed some trepidation with the draft ordinance. Mr. Walterscheid said he would like to see it and knows there is a number of people who are working on it. He is not sure how much the rest of the board cares about it and he trusts the work being done, but this is just more for his personal interest. Mr. Barker said they can send him the draft ordinance individually and he is welcome to contact them with concerns. Mr. Supino said their intention and goal is to save some brain damage, frankly, but they want to be respectful and he feels that Mr. Walterscheid's input is important. Ms. McNicholas said she thinks the little food carts should be as funky as can be and as colorful as can be. That is the point offood carts. 4 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Justin Barker, Senior Planner THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: 230 E. Hopkins (Mountain Forge) - Final Commercial Design Review, Insubstantial Growth Management Amendment Resolution No. _, Series of 2018 - Public Hearing DATE: February 6,2018 . I. APPLICANT/OWNER: 360 Hexagon LLC 1244/N08Â¢ t-- REPRESENTATIVE: Â· 4 4* Nrvb/kab - 4 Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. : A .1/1/'lly.-I- C Yat LOCATION: 230 E. Hopkins Ave. *rif~!~ E.-1 11/64 5 -' Le"/14/407/~I.6/1 O MVE.mr ,#P'* CURRENT ZONING & USE: ~ 4.41 3 *3,4-Â»%5 - t . I v ., Mixed Use (MU), commercial and one affordable housing unit - ' , *SAVE *-24%~ ir I l. 46 y. . 42, PROPOSED ZONING & USE: ~ , 446,4*.4.M 1 0.. 1 H././.*i.*t Mixed Use (MU), commercial, one Locator Map affordable housing unit, one free-market residential unit SUMMARY: The applicant requests P&Z approval for ' Â·.S Final Commercial Design Review and , *9362#21.- 1.1 an amendment to the Growth ~ ~ Â· 4% Â·~~4-0~VÂ·~Â·~~*.i> ~ Management approval to combine the ' 2 ~164 A'UK Â·p' originally approved two free-market ..&*..ir. ./Mal residential units into one unit. 9*f-- I Â»PrE~~~~|gle.inlime 42 - ammitplgal STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends P&Z approve the L project with conditions. Current image of subject property 230 E. Hopkins - Staff Memo 2.6,18 Page 1 of 5 Â¥8VT' /27 LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning & Zoning Commission: â€¢ Commercial Design Review, Final - pursuant to Section 26.412, for final design approval of the project. â€¢ Growth Management Amendment - pursuant to Section 26.470, to combine the two previously approved free-market residential units into one unit. BACKGROUND: The subject property is located at the northwest corner of S. Monarch St. and E. Hopkins Ave. and is within the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district. The lot measures 6,000 sq. ft. and encompasses two traditional townsite lots. The building was formerly the studio of artistic blacksmith Francis Whitaker who lived in both Aspen and Carbondale from the 1 960's through the 1980's. The existing mixed-use building was constructed in 1963 and currently contains commercial uses and one affordable housing unit. PROJECT SUMMARY: The proposed project received Conceptual approval from P&Z in July 2016. The Conceptual approval is for a remodel of the existing building which includes changing the roof forms, demolition and on-site relocation of the existing affordable housing unit, adding two free-market residential units, and reducing commercial net leasable space. The Applicant was also approved for on-site and adjacent off-site public amenity space in the form of landscaped open space and a reduction in required off-street parking. The Applicant is now requesting Final design approval for the project, which focuses on building materials, fenestration, landscape, and lighting. The Applicant is also requesting a Growth Management amendment to combine the two free-market units approved at Conceptual Review into one unit. An image of the proposed project is provided below. --7..I-# il I 'r \~Â·41.-.ij~ -Â¥ - U 0 2 - 4.-â€žÂ»:- .be L - Th, a 17 27 -=2 0, 4 1 9 1 A A ; e.â‚¬,1 1 - - 1-'...:lifill'.Ill.-I-li.=il-~~I.'A. '41- Figure 1: View from intersection of Monarch and Hopkins 230 E. Hopkins - Staff Memo 2.6.18 Page 2 of 5 STAFF EVALUATION: Commercial Design (Exhibit A): Conceptual Commercial Design Review was granted by P&Z in July 2016. The Conceptual approval is related to the location and form of the envelope of the structure including height, scale, massing, and proportions. The Applicant is now requesting Final Commercial Design Review approval. Final Review focuses on building materials, fenestration, landscape, and lighting. The combination of a Conceptual and Final Review approval constitutes a complete Commercial Design Review approval. The design guidelines have been revised over the course of this project review, but the project remain subject to those guidelines that were in effect at the time the project was originally submitted. This property is located in the Central Mixed-Use Character Area under the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objective and Guidelines. The Central Mixed-Use area primarily consists o f multi-family residential buildings of two and three stories, although future development as commercial and lodge is likely as a Mixed-Use zone district. Building height is residential in scale. Shallow front and side yard setbacks are typical, and buildings tend to be freestanding. Buildings are articulated with varied massing and architectural details to convey a human scale. Roof forms vary while building materials are relatively urban with a predominance of brick. The design objectives for this character area are: 1. Reflect a transition in character between the Commercial Core and the outlying residential neighborhoods. 2. Maintain a sense of front yards with landscaping. 3. Provide a sense of human scale. 4. Maintain a visually interesting street edge. 5. Encourage outdoor use areas. 6. Minimize visual impacts of parking. Overall, stafffinds that the proposed design meets the design guidelines. The project generally retains the existing mass of the building, but modernizes the roof forms. fenestration, and materials. The massing is varied and predominately determined by the existing building mass. The roof profile is varied through proposed changes to the existing roof form to create a combination of gabled and flat roof forms. The first floor of the building is designed to concentrate interest at the street level through several windows and retail entrances on each street faqade. The proposed materials are intended to reflect the craftsmanship of hand worked materials including handmade bricks, metal panels, Corten siding, and cedar siding. The use of these materials conveys a sense of human scale and are often seen in other buildings throughout town and are consistent with the character area. The proposed landscaping and paving are intended to reflect the quality of the architectural materials and honor Francis Whitaker. The landscape areas also serve as public amenity space and enhance the public interaction with the building including seating and unique paving patterns. The Applicant has proposed some minor changes to the layout of the Public Amenity areaS, but there is no reduction in square footage of either on-or offsite Public Amenity from whatwas approved at Conceptual Review. In fact, there is an increase ofalmost 150 sq. ft. from the original calculation. Staff.finds the proposed changes to be minimal and supportive of the purpose of Public Amenity. 230 E. Hopkins - Staff Memo 2.6.18 Page 3 of 5 Growth Management (Exhibit B): As part of the Conceptual approval, the project received Growth Management approval for the development of two free-market residential units and the demolition and on-site relocation of the existing affordable housing unit. Since Conceptual, the Applicant has revised the project to combine the two approved free-market residential units into one unit. This revision requires an amendment to the Growth Management approval. Under the applicable Code, the maximum unit size for a multi-family residential unit is 2,000 sq. ft. of net livable area. This may be increased to 2,500 sq. ft. with the landing of a transferable development right (TDR) on the property. The proposed unit sizefor the new unit is 2,313 sq..ft. net livable area. A TDR must be purchased and extinguished on this property prior to issuance of a building permit to memorialize this allowance. This is included as a condition of approval in the proposed resolution. 7- L- 21 _ L F - - --17;72$3377/2,--.=i -Z=Z: '0:. 9 4 . - 1. I 1 1 5 >â‚¬00Â»r . 151{f .'riekf~2.327Â·Â£22=.,fj. ":~'':.''L':;'~~~~'~~ LLE,19211 7 1 '9979,33*9,12. ,4.-72.6-1-1Â·Â· 1--- 2 { 1,73'. 4 -Vil.. 'fl/V#/1. ... L__________ _ -~ T Figure 2: Conceptual Floor Plan, Upper Level - two units /0/1- / 5,1 -.'. 34237 lili . // in-----==u=> -pq M 29" 1__-,294*rÂ·~<.16}Â»int 0 1-i Nci~10 . klil Z 'oym"EFâ€¢me=Slt .4%##A I 1 -,ECE ''-1-LTI .* IV: IX=L9'll I â‚¬Â», UNIT 1 ,< Cran-77.71,31 3/'. i -CE~lrE f =I - R#* 1 o. , Â· f=fl ./ m 1 20 1 c 1 1 . 7-1.- .91...tÂ»/+ - j :/62â‚¬ *;F - ./gimmimilimill... _3 Â· 1,00>54/0. 9.9..8.1-1 - Figure 3: Revised Floor Plan, Upper Level - one unit 230 E. Hopkins - Staff Memo 2.6.18 Page 4 of 5 16-3 000 0 0 The Conceptual approval granted the ability to provide Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation for thefree-market residential development. The original two units required a combined mitigation amount of 1.69 FTEs. This mitigation amount is based on the increase in free-market residential net livable area for the project. The revised design increases the overall free-market residential net livable area from what was approved at Conceptual by 64 square feet, which calculates into 1.73 total FTEs of mitigation required. This is an increase of 0.04 FTEs from what was originally approved. The Applicant intends to mitigate for this increase through Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, the method approved for the original 1.69 FTEs. Staff supports this as a permitted mitigation method by code and a way to retain consistency and simplicity in mitigation. The revised mitigation requirement for the free-market residential is reflected in the proposed resolution. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The proposed design is consistent with the applicable Commercial Design Guidelines and the revised free-market configuration meets the applicable review criteria. Staff recommends P&Z approve the project. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Final Commercial Design Review and an Insubstantial Growth Management Amendment for 230 E. Hopkins Avenue, with conditions." EXHIBITS: Review Criteria - Commercial Design Review Criteria - Growth Management Application . Updated Public Amenity Plan 230 E. Hopkins - Staff Memo 2.6.18 Page 5 of 5 RESOLUTION NO. (SERIES OF 2018) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION GRANTING FINAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL AND A GROWTH MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOTS R AND S, BLOCK 74, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 230 E. HOPKINS AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 273707328008 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from 360 Hexagon LLC (Applicant) represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission approve Final Commercial Design Review and a Growth Management Amendment for 230 E. Hopkins Avenue; and, WHEREAS, all code citation references are to the City of Aspen Land Use Code in effect on the day of initial application -March 15,2016, as applicableto this project; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 26.412.030, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue an application for Final Commercial Design Review at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.140.A, an insubstantial amendment to an approved growth management development order may be authorized by the Community Development Director; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B, an application where more than one development approval is being sought simultaneously may be combined or modified whenever the Community Development Director determines, in consultation with the applicant, that such combination or modification would eliminate or reduce duplication and ensure economy o f time, expense, and clarity; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code requirements, the Aspen Community Development Department recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, all required public noticing was provided as evidenced by an affidavit of public noticing submitted to the record, and the public was provided full access to review the Application; and, WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on February 6. 2018, during which the recommendations of the 23() E. Hopkins Ave Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution No._, Series 2018 Page 1 of 10 Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard by the Planning & Zoning Commission, and approved the project with conditions by a vote of___ to ___ L _). NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Final Commercial Design Review Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves Final Commercial Design Review for the proposed project. Elevations and floor plans representing the approved design are attached as Exhibits A & B. Section 2: Growth Management Amendment Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves amendments to the Growth Management approval that was granted on July 19, 2016 via P&Z Resolution No. 5, Series of 2016. The following Growth Management approvals shall replace those granted pursuant to Section 7 of Resolution No. 5, Series of 2016. 2.1 Growth Management Allotments. a) One free-market residential unit is approved from the 2016 Growth Management Allotments. 2.2 Affordable Housing Mitigation Requirements. a) The addition of one free-market unit measuring approximately 2,313 sq. ft. net livable area requires the applicant to provide 694 sq. ft. net livable area in affordable housing mitigation, or 1.73 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs), using the following calculation: Mitigation requirement = 2,3 13 sq. ft. offree-market net livable / 30% = 694 sq. ft. Conversion to FTEs = 694 sq..ft. / 400 sq.ft. = 1.73 FTEs The Applicant may provide Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation for the required 1.73 FTEs. Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit shall be extinguished per Chapter 26.540 of the Land Use Code prior to issuance of a building permit. The Applicant shall be required to extinguish a Transferable Development Right (TDR) certificate on this site for the free-market residential unit. The TDR certificate shall be extinguished prior to issuance of a building permit, pursuant to Section 26.535.080. b) The existing development provides a net leasable reconstruction credit of 5,699 sq. ft., or 23.16 FTEs as calculated below: Basement: 1,317 sq. ft. / 1,000 sq. ft. = 1.317 (4.7 FTEs x 0.75) =4.64 FTEs Ground Floor: 2,711 sq. ft. / 1,000 sq. ft. = 2.711 (4.7 FTEs) = 12.74 FTEs Upper Floor: 1,641 sq. ft. / 1,000 sq. ft. = 1.641 (4.7 FTEs x 0.75)= 5.78 FTEs Total = 4.64 + 12.74 + 5.78 = 23.1-6 FTEs 230 E. Hopkins Ave Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution No._, Series 2018 Page 2 0 f 10 The proposed developinent includes 4,892 sq. ft. of net leasable area, or 19.94 FTEs as calculated below: Basement: 1,923 sq. ft. / 1,000 sq. ft. = 1.923 (4.7 FTEs x 0.75) = 6.78 FTEs Ground Floor: 2,292 sq. ft. / 1,000 sq. ft. = 2.292 (4.7 FTEs) = 10.77 FTEs Upper Floor: 677 sq. ft. / 1,000 sq. ft. = 0.677 (4.7 FTEs x 0.75) = 2.39 FTEs Total = 6.78 + 10.77 + 2.39 = 19.94 FTEs Under this approval, affordable housing mitigation is not required for the commercial net leasable floor area associated with the site, provided the FTEs generated by the proposed net leasable do not exceed the reconstruction credit. Any reconstruction credit shall be valid for one (1) year following issuance of a demolition permit, pursuant to Chapter 26.470.130. Section 3: Public Amenitv This Section shall replace Section 4 of P&Z Resolution No. 5, Series of 2016 in its entirety. The Applicant is required to provide no less than 10% of the lot size in public amenity, or 600 sq. ft. The Planning and Zoning Commission has approved 586 sq. ft. (9.8%) of public amenity on-site in the form of landscaped open space along the building's Monarch St. faÂ¢ade, and as a paved walkway to the entrances along both E. Hopkins Ave and S. Monarch St. The Applicant is also approved to provide 557 sq. ft. (9.3%) of public amenity off-site, directly adjacent to the site along Hopkins Ave., between the street and the sidewalk, in the form of landscape improvements. The on- and off-site public amenity combined equals 1143 sq. ft. (19.1%), and is represented in Exhibit C. Section 4: All approvals and conditions contained in P&Z Resolution No. 5, Series of 2016 not modified within this Resolution remain valid. Section 5: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing.or documentation presented before the Community Development Department or the Planning and Zoning Commission are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 6: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. 230 E. Hopkins Ave Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution No._, Series 2018 Page 3 of 10 Section 7: I f any section, subsection, sentence. clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of ,2018. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: James R True, City Attorney Skippy Mesirow, Chair Attest: Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Attachments Exhibit A - Elevations Exhibit B - Floor Plans Exhibit C - Public Amenity 230 E. Hopkins Ave Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution No._, Series 2018 Page 4 of 10 EXHIBITA .Â»1411 4 -tÂ» A --4 1/ 4 { i > ,/ 0 e : 4 -I J -\,i J Sbr . 3 - 1 4 #*% sf~-~ - /7 7//// 1 5 ,-' 1 - V....0.V-â€ž.. I r--Â· .1 -4-â‚¬ i : a...... 11 1 1$ /2 1 2 ' -t R L i ../7 ,:. li t. / â€¢ * .#, 1 1 1 1 : 1 ... 1 1 - I U-Â· in Â· *2.31:Â·.~/ Â· Â· g r--Â· i 112 ..E. .hi, --<b . -40 . 2 - 4,4 I #. 4-fh Â· 11. L.-:Â· Â· ~. t ri,.1 ~- - 1 9 j 4 ( - I I . PT"-1 9$ f --- 4-4- -Â·- -11 1 N ye \ \-r I \|| 1.0. 1 . 1 1 - 1. .. /0 1 . \ 4. , 1 \1 * ./ /3 gr - h 3 : 1 1. 0 , 9 1' 1 3 itt i 79 4 f 8 I * 4% Y gm I 1. 230 E. Hopkins Ave Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution No._, Series 2018 Page 5 of 10 .lylA 9 9 Ar < 2, C 2,<>N '1 '4 *Â«jjÂ»Â» ., ' i- %'t 3.....s~w,8 f. ./"'*Se 1 1 4.*I . L..>a" . - ~Am*Nf â‚¬70, Â·.5.7. CPI v j 1/ 1 : 1 - I f Â»y*:. 1 1@ :. e I 1 11 1 1 ?F ; 0 /'' i / i !1 i4 '' 1 6 11, r 1: : 5 4 - 1,1471% - ... ..... - . - ----u 1 6Â·; ~Il! , / ' ..1 / / 9-â‚¬) 1 / il 1 ._1__ .. .. . . 1.... 3 . !1 : 1 : 1 11 : : . 1-1. 1 U:.2./.:tÂ·..." 1 2-7.1 V 4 /1 2 1 -4 Z 11 : i t 1 %3 51 i P .:# 1 1 \1/ 03 5 Â¢2 9 Â· IA .4 28 4 4 .9 10 \% 80 .0 2.2 4 3 P + 1 EXHIBIT B 230 E. Hopkins Ave Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution No._, Series 2018 Page 6 of 10 no,RNSÂ»* 'ALS W: c Z.9 pitr=1 0 ~*Se *iÂ© -â€ž-49 VE I , 2 01 41 i 111 :1 : Ettl If dll t : L -0 -. :Ji! h Â®# 2-4 1 e , 111 :1 1 LI : 4 1 : I 1 1 1 1 LP 7 1 : EDE : 1 Â·Â·:Â·.if Â¥i 1-tf ..4 .3 1. . 1 L./ ..:' I '1 1,11 1. filf -3. 1:3 ':%: / 4 4 s i-kiÂ·1-*4 4 ' 1 '~-1:;i hi 91% 4 I I *t H 4 11 1 1 4 11 1 1 L.UUÂ·Â·Â·: Â·Â·. r-- -- $41 3 1 " 4 14.0 1 Frr].1. 1 I I ~2..1.2..LE=- B --0) 6 , 1 : 1 1 . 1 191 - r 4- .,...~trgE*_LLL131 1 4 p-L 1 .'h 1_ _ Ch - - O â€¢ry 1<2Â·~ 230 E. Hopkins Ave Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution No._, Series 2018 Page 7 of 10 U#<445*44** *%4.. ~Â·0* ./.Â» /641 1 11 CD-- - U~ . Dal i ; 1 lili 3 : i' F&1 1. la= 1 L -4 1 % 14==9 nuf . ' 15 . ~ ,3 Â£ Piti 13 41 - 0 C r\ 4 - .r---= 9 6 10 1 1 1 ~1}4 0 I r.k * rnÂ¢ D I k 3 011 - leig 1 nizE '11 -.2 --78 1 riA ,Â· ; r Irt ---4 I T 1 - L-/ 0 ----7-1. i b'' \Â·~1 , 2 8 *4.*S..4- .7, 1 ' 1 ./33rd . - & 1 - 1 4,12 1 11 11 W 1 1 5 ' ' i 2 1 L. LU''Liwiltft-1_1---1 1 Ill \ 1.1 1 1 lilli . 0 -a 1.1 ' 8 ' % = m W; 1 1 , inm'F,-2-PUNA' 1 1=1 t~ 1 '1 + , =4 1 1 f '1 1 It -1$ E 1 1 i' 1 6- i.,rm -1-jiJ --c 1 1-4 1 5---77-ttit' I I I 1 1.i, 1 12 N.1 1- A * _ 0 --- m 0 11 1 11 230 E. Hopkins Ave Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution No._, Series 2018 Page 8 0 f 10 1 Â»8 7 22 1 1 1 1,1 - 1, 'â€¢11 1 1 i %, ..2 0,1,. .L-L , L a ===z==3 *=='Ii,i-Ill.~ - ' -- -=-4. 1: -- E . 0 1 1111.0 1 il d i 0 1 1.J - 1-Ir -1 5 0 - 1 111 A IIi(E 1--3 El irÂ¥*:" 1 23 i -f: il #/ / 2 -3 qu 1 Â£ .'I B - tib@r -1 1 vi lie>% t --------------W---4 1, 1 1 @fi + -=lei P /4 1 Ir A *.w *â€ž .. 1 3 12 1 -,0 *1, U : 21% .--=a Â«' '* I I 31, a 136 16-,1 2, LÂ« 1-41@S 't K & r'IN~ 4 1.'98 Pit Â·rTrTTTrtn i i V , 11 0 1 Z + 1 WN 3 Y K 1 i l\N? 1t 13 ./ : e 1. 2 .'. 91 ' 1 0 ---- 1 ,-h 1 1 .H ) 4 2, i 230 E. Hopkins Ave Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution No._, Series 2018 Page 9 of 10 ff 4,44**I EXHIBIT C -. -11 i 1 huD 4 k 1 ---0- ! - 2 1 1 /ri . \ Â¥ 14 1 *01 1 0 1 1 - 0 I i Â£ f ; 1 Cd: m e, IJAbix' -1/9./,1 54% ' Â¢lf / 33*44<01 5%6 1 4. I "1 / 5 Ni Â¥ 4 6 lim 414 -4 1 1 0 - Z,g .6 1 39 id ?0 73 1 I 2 .â‚¬ I In k 1 \ 1~ ~\ -13.4 r f N 1.- 31,3 El :i 1 hi : . 1- - , 0 9 7 (, A .. /~ 1 1 ri. i i 9 1 1.1 th \ -+I----+ '' E E ./ r E # 2 e CE i 1 No 4 30 3 C :Xyvu 3? 1 4 -f 0 -- .- 9/.- 1 X00<. 1408 ~ t 11 5 Ar'V \ IVVÂ» 1 /ve, / .A,N.,râ€¢- . 230 E. Hopkins Ave Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution No._, Series 2018 Page 10 of 10 'â€¢ : ./ 9Â£0....../*/Clt.. .27.3 Bf EXHIBIT A COMMERCIAL DESIGN 26.412.050. Review Criteria. An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards. Staff Findings: The proposed plans meet the requirements of the Commercial Design Standards. See responses in Section 26.412.060 below. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the fagade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. Staff Findings: This application does not involve the conversion of an existing structure to commercial use. The existing structure contains both commercial and residential uses, and these uses are proposed to continue. Staffjinds this criterion to be met. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. Staff Findings: This property is located within the Central Mixed-Use Character Area. The application complies with the applicable guidelines. 26.412.060. Commercial Design Standards. The following design standards, in addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district design objectives and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed-use development: A. Public Amenity Space. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and Exhibit A - Commercial Design Page 1 of 8 entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-of-way or private property within commercial areas. On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method or combination of methods of providing the public amenity shall be at the option o f the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, according to the procedures herein and according to the following standards: 1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. 2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent rights-of-way are encouraged. 3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of-way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. 4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls, sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian environment. 5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection 26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements. Staff Findings: The applicable Code requires provision of Public amenity equal to at least 25% of the lot; however, a deficit may be maintained so long as no less than 10% of the public amenity is provided. The subject site measures 6,000 sq. ft., and the current on-site public amenity measures 490 sq. ft., which is approximately 8% of the site. Given the existing deficit, the applicant is responsible jor providing 10%, or 600 sq. ft. of Public amenity. The applicant is proposing 586 sq. ft. ofpublic amenity space on-site in the form oflandscaped areas along the Monarch St. faÂ¢ade, and 557 sq. ft. Of public amenity off-site, as landscaped areas directly adjacent to the property, along Hopkins Ave., for a total of 1143 sq. ft. (19.1%) of public amenity space. This exceeds the 10% requirement for public amenity space a~sociated with the redevelopment. The proposed public amenity along Monarch St. serves as a visual relief from development and creates a buffer between the building and the sidewalk. The public amenity along Hopkins Ave. is proposed to be landscaped area between the street and the sidewalk with plans to include bench seating and an interpretive marker and a sculpture reflecting Francis Whitaker's work. Any improvements other than landscaping that are made to the public right- of-way will need to be approved by the City's Engineering Department. These areas do not duplicate existing pedestrian space. Both areas are proposed at sidewalk level, and will contribute to a positive pedestrian environment as the area transitions from residential to the west towards the commercial area Exhibit A - Commercial Design Page 2 of 8 to the east. No variations from design or operational standards are being sought by the applicant. Staifinds these criteria to be met. B. Utility, delivery and trash service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply: 1. A trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum size and location standards established by Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, unless otherwise established according to said Chapter. 2. A utility area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum standards established by Title 25, Utilities, of the Municipal Code, the City's Electric Distribution Standards, and the National Electric Code, unless otherwise established according to said Codes. 3. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located and combined to the greatest extent practical. 4. If the property adjoins an alleyway, the utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be along and accessed from the alleyway, unless otherwise approved through Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. 5. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be fenced so as not to be visible from the street, unless they are entirely located on an alleyway or otherwise approved though Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. All fences shall be six (6) feet high from grade, shall be of sound construction, and shall be no less than ninety percent (90%) opaque, unless otherwise varied through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. 6. Whenever utility, trash, and recycle service areas are required to be provided abutting an alley, other portions of a building may extend to the rear property line if otherwise allowed by this Title, provided that the utility, trash and recycle area is located at grade and accessible to the alley. 7. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. 8. All commercial and lodging buildings shall provide a delivery area. The delivery area shall be located along the alley if an alley adjoins the property. The delivery area shall be accessible to all tenant spaces of the building in a manner that meets the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. All non-ground floor commercial spaces shall have access to an elevator or dumbwaiter for delivery access. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be utilized Exhibit A - Commercial Design Page 3 of 8 as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International Building Code. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component o f the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. 9. All commercial tenant spaces located on the ground floor in excess of 1,500 square feet shall contain a vestibule (double set of doors) developed internal to the structure to meet the requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen, or an air curtain. 10. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. 11. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. 12. The trash and recycling service area requirements may be varied pursuant to Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code. All other requirements of this subsection may be varied by special review (see Chapter 26.430.040.E, Utility and delivery service area provisions). Sta# Findings: There are two trash and recycle areas that will be provided off the alley, which does not require fencing. Environmental Health has granted Special Review approval for a total of 150 sq. ft., which is 50 less than the 200 sq. ft. that would otherwise be required. The utility area is also located along the alleyway. The existing transjormer at the end of the block has been determined sufficient for the remodel. There are no proposed encroachments. The delivery area is proposed along the alley, with an access path along the west property line to a door on the side and access to an elevator for the upper and lower floors. All commercial areas are less than 1,500 sq. ft. and therefore do not require vestibules. AN mechanical equipment will be rented through the roof and ducting accommodated internally or on the roof. Staff jinds these criteria to be met. 26.412.070. Suggested design elements. The following guidelines are building practices suggested by the City, but are not mandatory. In many circumstances, compliance with these practices may not produce the most desired development, and project designers should use their best judgment. A. Signage. Signage should be integrated with the building to the extent possible. Integrated signage areas already meeting the City's requirements for size, etc., may minimize new tenant signage compliance issues. Common tenant listing areas also serves a public way- finding function, especially for office uses. Signs should not block design details of the building on which they are placed. Compliance with the City's sign code is mandatory. Staff Findings: The applicant plans to integrate signage into the building but has yet to jinalize these plans. A sign permit for all signs will be submitted by the applicant prior to any signage on the building, and wilt be reviewed to ensure compliance with the City's sign code at the time of application. Stafffinds this criterion to be not applicable at this time. Exhibit A - Commercial Design Page 4 of 8 B. Display windows. Display windows provide pedestrian interest and can contribute to the success of the retail space. Providing windows that reveal inside activity of the store can provide this pedestrian interest. Staff Findings: Large floor-to-ceiling, first-story windows are planned along the E. Hopkins St. faÂ¢ade, partially wrapping around the southeastern corner of the main jloor. The Monarch Street JUÂ¢ade includes a band of smaller windows that span almost the entire width of the commercial space. These windows are located around head height allowing for a better connection with the activity inside the building. Stafflinds this criterion to be met. C. Lighting. Well-lit (meaning quality, not quantity) display windows along the first floor create pedestrian interest after business hours. Dynamic lighting methods designed to catch attention can cheapen the quality of the downtown retail environment. Illuminating certain important building elements can provide an interesting effect. Significant light trespass should be avoided. Illuminating the entire building should be avoided. Compliance with the City's Outdoor lighting code, Section 26.575.150 of this Title, is mandatory. Staff Findings: The proposed design includes several different light jixtures. Lighting is primarily located near building entrances and along circulation and utilitarian areas. Final compliance with the lighting code shall be determined at building permit review. Staff jinds this criterion to be met with conditions. Exhibit A - Commercial Design Page 5 of 8 Central Mixed-Use Character Area Final Review Design Guidelines 2.17 To reduce the perceived mass of a building the design should respect the design character of the area and reflect the human scale and character of the city. This shall be achieved through all of the following: â€¢ The massing of building forms â€¢ The articulation of the fagade(s) through a varied roof profile â€¢ The use of a variation in architectural materials, and detailing Staff Findings: The first Jloor of the building is designed to concentrate interest at the street level through several windows and retail entrances on each street faÂ©ade. The massing is varied and predominately determined by the existing building mass. The roof profile is varied through proposed changes to the existing roof form to create a combination of gabled and flat rÂ°Â°f forms. The proposed materials are intended to rejlect the craftsmanship of hand worked materials including handmade bricks, metal panels, Corten siding, and cedar siding. The use of these materials conveys a sense of human scale and are often seen in other buildings throughout town. Staff jinds this guidetine to be met. 2.18 Any new buildings shall be designed to maintain a minimum of 9 feet from floor to ceiling on all floors. Stall Findings: The proposed project is a remodel of an existing building. Staff jinds this guideline to be not applicable. 2.19 The first tloor fagade should be designed to concentrate interest at the street level, using the highest quality of design, detailing and materials. Staff Findings: The proposed design includes several street level windows and clearly dejined entrances. The materials are Of high quality and varied throughout the design to create visual interest. Staffjinds this guideline to be met. 2.20 A new building should be designed to maintain the stature of traditional street level retail frontage. â€¢ This should be a minimum of 11 ft. in floor to floor height on the first floor. Staff Findings: The proposed project is a remode! of an existing building. Staff finds this guideline to be not applicable. 2.21 Minimize the appearance o f a third floor. â€¢ Where a third floor's floor to ceiling height is in excess of 10 ft., it should be set back a minimum of 15 ft. from the street faÂ©a(le to reduce the apparent height. â€¢ Increase the parapet height to screen the visual impact of a tall top floor. Exhibit A - Commercial Design Page 6 of 8 â€¢ The design of a set back third floor shall be simpler in form, more subdued in modeling, detail and color than the primary fagade. Staff Findings: The proposed design does not include a third floor. Staff jinds this guideline to be not applicable. 2.22 The retail entrance should be at the sidewalk level. â€¢ All entrances shall be ADA compliant. â€¢ On sloping sites the retail frontage should be as close to a level entrance as possible. Staff Findings: All entrances are at the sidewalk level and ADA compliant, except for the lower level entrance in the areaway. This is a pre-existing entrance and access to these spaces is still viable through a common elevator inside the building. Staff finds this guideline to be met. 2.23 Incorporate an airlock entry into the plan for all new structures. â€¢ An airlock entry that projects forward of the primary fa*ade at the sidewalk edge is inappropriate. â€¢ Adding teinporary entries during the winter season detracts from the character of the historic district. â€¢ Using a temporary vinyl or fabric "airlock" to provide protection from winter weather is not permitted. Staff Findings: The proposed project is a remodel of an existing building. Staff finds this guideline to be not applicable. 2.24 The roofscape should be designed with the same design attention as the secondary elevations of the building. â€¢ Group and screen mechanical units from view. â€¢ Locate mechanical equipment to the rear of the roof area. â€¢ Position, articulate and design rooftop enclosures or structures to reflect the modulation and character of the building. â€¢ Use materials which complement the design o f the building facades. â€¢ Design roof garden areas to be unobtrusive from the street. â€¢ Use 'green roof' design best practice, where feasible. Staff Findings: The proposed roofscape includes a large common deck that is well landscaped and includes water features. Mechanical units will be grouped and screened near the rear of the roof area. Most of the landscaping will occur in the northwest corner, along the alley. Other landscaping is simple planter boxes around the edges that are not easily perceived from the street level. The elevator overrun is located closer to the west lot line which is set back far from the street fafades. Stafffinds this guideline to be met. 2.25 High quality, durable materials should be employed. Exhibit A - Commercial Design Page 7 of 8 â€¢ The palette of materials proposed for all development should be specified and approved as part of the general and detailed development approvals process, including samples of materials as required. Staff Findings: The proposed materials are intended to rdect the craftsmanship of hand worked materials including handmade bricks, metal panels, Corten siding, and cedar siding. These are durable materials that complement the adjacent commercial areas and are consistent with the character area. Staff jinds this guideline to be met. 2.26 Building materials should have these features: â€¢ Convey the quality and range of materials seen historically. â€¢ Reduce the perceived scale of the building. â€¢ Convey a human scale. â€¢ Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within this climate. Sta# Findings: The proposed materiak meet all the above characteristics. Staff jin(Is this guideline to be met. 2.27 Landscaping and paving should have the following characteristics: â€¢ Enhance the street scene. â€¢ Integrate the development with its setting. â€¢ Reflect the quality of the architectural materials. Staff Findings: The proposed landscaping and paving are intended to reflect the quality of the architectural materials and honor Francis Whitaker. The landscape areas also serve as public amenity space and enhance the public interaction with the building including seating and unique paving patterns. Stajfjinds this guideline to be met. 2.28 Landscaping should be provided in all projects. Staff Findings: Extensive landscaping is provided in this project, primarily to satisfy the public amenity requirement. Stafffinds this guideline to be met. Exhibit A - Commercial Design Page 8 of 8 EXHIBIT B GROWTH MANAGEMENT 26.470.140. Amendment of a growth management development order. A. Insubstantial amendment. An insubstantial amendment to an approved growth management development order may be authorized by the Community Development Director if: 1. The change conforms to all other provisions of the Land Use Code and does not exceed approved variations to the residential design standards, require an amendment to the commercial design review approval or such variations or amendments have been approved. Staff Findings: Under the applicable Code, the Mixed-Use zone district allows a maximum multi-family unit size of 2,000 sq. jt. This may be increased to 2,500 sq. jt. with the landing of a transferable development right (TDR) on the property. The proposed unit size for the new unit is 2,313 sq. ft. net livable area. The Applicant must land a TDR on this site for the proposal to comply with the zone district requirements. A condition to land a TDR is included in the draft resolution. All other aspects of the change conform to the provisions of the Land Use Code applicable to this project. Staff jinds this criterion to be met with conditions. 2. The change does not alter the number, size, type or deed restriction of the proposed affordable housing units, or those changes have been accepted by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. Staff Findings: The proposed affordable housing unit does not change in size, type or deed restriction as a result of this change. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The change is limited to technical or engineering considerations discovered prior to or during actual development that could not reasonably be anticipated during the review process or any other minor change that the Community Development Director finds has no substantial effect on the conditions and representations made during the original project review. Sta# Findings: The proposed change is considered minor and has no substantial effect on the conditions and representations made during the Conceptual review. The overall residential area is slightly increased and commercial area slightly decreased. The affordable housing area remains the same. There are no changes to the exterior of the building as a result of this change. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. Exhibit B - Growth Management Page 1 ofl rlmm..1 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 230 E. Hopkins Ave., Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, Tawn Hillenbrand (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. -,4 copy of the publication is attached hereto. -X_ Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the 15th day of January, 2018, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. ..X_ Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, PDs that create more than one lot, and new Planned Developments are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. kignature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 16th day of January, 2018, by Patrick Rawley. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL L PATRICK S. RAWLEY NOTARY PUBLIC Mycommission expires: 7~426~2620 STAT OF COLORADO NOTARY ID #19994012259 Mv Commission Expires July 26,2020 -p-ec--4 0 Ckâ€¢-"-2â€¢gy Notary Public ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: â€¢ COPY OF THE PUBLICATION â€¢ PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) â€¢ LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL â€¢ APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. Â§24-65.5-103.3 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 23 0 2 -Hu f\'>A<S A+L , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 0Ee.6-u...0~ 4 e 4.. 30 f nn , 20_1~ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, -â‚¬-L 6 c--c-~ (name, please print) being or represedting an Applicant to the City of As/, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: V"00' Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City o f Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the day of , 20 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAs or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part o f a general revision o f this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signaturl The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this / G day _3-27Â¥-=In__ ' 201% by 61.<1- <6 c--22*~_ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: 230 E. Hopkins Ave. - Mountain Forge Building WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL Public Hearing: February 6, 2018,4:30 PM Meeting Location: City Hall, Sister Cities Room 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611 Project Location: 230 E. Hopkins Avenue My commission expires: .11\51 20 Legal Description: PID # 273707328008, Parcel A, 220 E. Hopkins Avenue & 230 E. Hopkins Avenue/117 S. Monarch Street Minor Subdivision-- Boundary Adjustment Plat, recorded March 31, 2016 as Reception No. 628213 Un D14 fcab 6-MÂ« Description: The applicant requests final approvals Notary Public to remodel the existing building, replace the on-Site affordable housing unit, and to create one free-mar- ket residential unit. ~ KAREN REED-PATTERSERi~ Land Use Reviews Req: Final Commercial De- sign, Growth Management Quota System Amend- 1 NOTARY PUBLIC ment Decision Making Body: Planning & Zoning Com- [ NOTARY ID #19964002767 1 mission ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLEI STATE OF COLORADO ~ Applicant: 360 Hexagon LLC, 119 Hyslop Road, dy fommissionExpires February 15,2020 | Brookline, MA 02445 PUBLICATION More Information: For further information related to the project, contact Justin Barker at the City of As- t OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) pen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2797, justin.bari<e r@cityofaspen.corn. )WNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED Published in the Aspen Times on January 18.2018 0000180827 â€¢-APPIEICA]N 1 CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. Â§24-65.5-103.3 ZÂ¥ THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 p. (970) 920.5000 f: (970) 920.5197 w: www.aspenpitkin.com NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: 230 E. Hopkins Ave. Public Hearing: February 6, 2018, 4:30 PM Meeting Location: City Hall, Sister Cities meeting room - 130 S. Galena St, Aspen CO 81611 Project Location: 230 E. Hopkins Avenue Description: The applicant requests final approvals to remodel the existing building, replace the on-site affordable housing unit, and to create one free-market residential unit. Land Use Reviews: Final Commercial Design, Growth Management Quota System Amendment Decision Making Body: Planning & Zoning Commission Applicant: 360 Hexagon LLC, 119 Hyslop Road, Brookline, MA 02445 More Information: For further information related to the project, contact Justin Barker at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2797, justin.barker@cityofaspen.com. 4 // , I. U. , Pitkin Maps & More ~~ Pitkin Maps & More Ga74/ iff Map Created on 11:57 AM 01/11/18 at http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com 14 j.- fitt Im '~ Legend er - -- - State Highway ./ 0 ~ -2 -6 ~f+ ~~ $ ./ -)+ ..-** gI~9-~~ 1~ Road Centerline 4K Â¥ . 2-1*klill---la 9 Primary Road - Secondary Road - - Service Road 11 Rivers and Creeks ~AVE :/ - Continuous _ Intermittent 4 04*41'IMME.--I- ' L River, Lake or Pond lillillillillrilllil . . .4-6;:r/T./.'4-0-- 1 : Town Boundary - - Federal Land Boundary ~ E HOPKINS E ~~ I~ Â¤ BLM Â¤ State of Colorado f e USFS / L :4 E HYMAN AVE 4 39* 0 Â» -0 t ~~~~~ l% + 1 29 3 .Ii,Efill.M:KIR Notes 752.2 0 376.08 752.2 Feet THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES. -! Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee 1:4,513 concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere of the content represented. Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius From Parcel: 273707328008 on 01/11/2018 4),TKIN ' Cou IN 7,1 Â©Otc\Ng) Instructions: This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the margins such that they no longer line up on the labels sheet. Print actual size. Disclaimer: Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. http:Uwww.pitkinmapsandmore.com CITY OF ASPEN HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP INC CARLS REAL ESTATE LLC 130 S GALENA ST 3539 NORTHSIDE PKWY PO BOX 1365 ASPEN, CO 81611 ATLANTA, GA 30327 ASPEN, CO 81612 MINERS REAL ESTATE LLC CARVER RUTH A REV TRUST 232 EAST MAIN STREET LLC PO BOX 1365 116 S ASPEN ST 2001 N HALSTED #304 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60614 201 E MAIN HOLDINGS LLC ASPEN CORNER OFFICE LLC ASPEN BRANCH HOLDINGS LLC 2416 E 37TH ST N 200 E MAIN ST 3033 E FIRST AVE WICHITA, KS 67219 ASPEN, CO 81611 DENVER, CO 80206 1543 LLC NUNN RONALD FAMILY LP AJAX JMG INVESTMENTS LLC 1543 WAZEE ST #400 10500 BRENTWOOD BLVD 9401 WILSH IRE BLVD 9TH FL DENVER,CO 80202 BRENTWOOD, CA 94513 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 902122974 JAFFE JONATHAN & KAREN DCBD2 LLC MONARCH BUILDING LLC 88 EMERALD BAY 2100 ROSS AVE #3300 PO BOX 126 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 DALLAS, TX 75201 WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 PEARCE FAMILY TRUST PEARCE MARGARET A SUNNY SNOW LTD 216 E MAIN ST 216 E MAIN ST 308 TORCIDO DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78209 303 EAST MAIN LLLP WELLS FARGO BANK MILL STREET PLAZA ASSOC LLC PO BOX 8016 PO BOX 2609 602 E COOPER #202 ASPEN, CO 81612 CARLSBAD, CA 92018 ASPEN, CO 81611 ICONIC PROPERTIES JEROME LLC FREDRICK LARRY D ROBERTS JANET A 1375 ENCLAVE PKWY 215 S MONARCH ST #G101 215 S MONARCH ST #G101 HOUSTON, TX 77077 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 MOJO ASPEN LLC CLARKS ASPEN LLC GRAND SLAM HOLDINGS LLC 215 S MONARCH #G102 818 SOUTH MAIN ST 215 S MONARCH ST #101 ASPEN, CO 81611 BLANDING, UT 84511 ASPEN, CO 81611 ORR ROBERT L CLARK FAMILY TRUST BRINING ROBERT D 2700 G ROAD #12A PO BOX 362 215 S MONARCH #203 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 PCU-5 LLC HART GEORGE DAVID & SARAH BERNSTEIN JEREMY M PROFIT SHARING PL PO BOX 2563 PO BOX 5491 610 NORTH ST ASPEN, CO 81612 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 ASPEN, CO 81611 KELLY GARY DAVIDSON DONALD W 1000 EAST HOPKINS LLC PO BOX 12356 864 CEMETERY LN 215 S MONARCH #104 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BRINING ROBERT DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED GOODING NANCY A 215 S MONARCH ST #203 215 S MONARCH #104 4800 S HOLLY ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111 TRUE JAMES R JOHNSON PETER C & SANDRA K PARK CENTRAL CONDO ASSOC PO BOX 2864 51 OVERLOOK DR 215 S MONARCH ST STE 203 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611-1008 ASPEN, CO 81611 DESOTO LINDA JANE LIVING TRUST GORDON BRIAN S MORRONGIELLO LYDIA LIVING TRUST 155 LONE PINE RD#9 26985 CRESTWOOD 8109 WILLOW BEND CT ASPEN, CO 81611 FRANKLIN, MI 48025 BOULDER, CO 80301 FEDER HAROLD L & ZETTA F DAVIDSON ARIAIL SCOTT COHEN FRANK R 985 CASCADE AVE PO BOX 5141 360 S MONROE ST #702 BOULDER, CO 80302-7550 ASPEN, CO 81612 DENVER, CO 80209 PLACE BRADLEY E JR REV TRUST PLACE PENNY L REV TRUST YOUNGS RICHARD B & JACQULINE L 5701 S COLORADO BLVD 5701 S COLORADO BLVD 3940 MARSH RD LITTLETON, CO 80121 LITTLETON, CO 80121 BROOKLYN, MI 49230 YOUNG BARBARA A WHITMAN WENDALIN WHITMAN WENDALIN 210 E HYMAN #9 PO BOX 472 210 E HYMAN AVE #101 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 IFTNFS LLC BUSH ALAN DAVID JMS LLC 0115 GLEN EAGLES DR 0046 HEATHER LN 0115 GLEN EAGLES DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611-3342 ASPEN, CO 81611 ELLIOTT ELYSE A TRUST KATIE REED BUILDING LLC RACZAK JOSEPH S & JANET L 610 NORTH ST 407 S HUNTER ST #3 0234 LIGHT HILL RD ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 SNOWMASS, CO 81654 HOFFMAN JOHN L & SHARON R TRUST KATIE REED PLAZA CONDO ASSOC SEGUIN BUILDING CONDO ASSOC 411 E 63RD ST 301 E HOPKINS AVE COMMON AREA KANSAS CITY, MO 64108 ASPEN, CO 81611 304 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 PARK CENTRAL WEST CONDO ASSOC JPS NEVADA TRUST SEDOYMICHAEL 210 E HYMAN AVE 1701 N GREEN VALLEY PKWY #90 35 SUTTON PL #19B ASPEN, CO 81611 HENDERSON, NV 89074 NEW YORK, NY 10022 SHVACHKO NATALIA 308 EAST HOPKINS CONDO ASSOC 314 HEXAGON LLC 35 SUTTON PL#19B COMMON AREA 25880 W 104 TERR NEWYORK, NY 10022 308 E HOPKINS AVE OLATHE, KS 66061 ASPEN, CO 81611 COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS MEDIA CO 314-200 HEXAGON LLC MOTHER LODE CONDO ASSOC INC 580 MALLORY WY 25880 W 104 TERR 25880 W 104 TER CARSON CITY, NV 89701 OLATHE, KS 66061 OLATHE, KS 66061 314-PH HEXAGON LLC MOTHER LODE CONDO ASSOC PEGOLOTTI DELLA 25880 W 104 TERR COMMON AREA 202 E MAIN ST OLATHE, KS 66061 314 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ROCKING LAZY J PROPS LLC 208 MAIN LLC 312 EAST HYMAN AVENUE LLC 202 E MAIN ST 623 E HOPKINS AVE 2001 N HALSTED # 304 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60614 .. 4 U . i /5 *.1 - . - 0/, 4 t, . I. -I 4.J~ Â© 4 -al 489 1 2 v/!! f 4 4411 1 lili - 4*Lt *.9 I . , 44"4 4 *4 - :'/ 'I 19 . ....../ . ' . -/4 19: 7.... .1 , 4 9&11,1~ .i : Yll.*A A - / 1. 4 - â€¢ 11 * ik I *1 - - 1 4. r ..... - Â·; ./. i *.. , 1 + C Â¥ , 47 * . . 4 .....;./.& --â€ž-1.-W--â€ž 1 / . 3 r .t I A ' 4 + C * G . 4 >10 ri ,, me . I . . 4 ..r,,+ 2. i/~ 91 -3. . 4/ M.. 'll *A*. 2â‚¬ 4...1*. PUBLIC NOTICE 4 .0,/./. ....E Date: February 6, 2018 . -7- 3. 1 . Time: 4:30 RM. #*. Place: City Hall. 130 S. Gatena n ... ./ St., Sister Cities Room i Â«~7 Purpose: , lot t I i Applicani (360 Hexagon LLC, 1 Hystop Rd.. Brookline. MA02445) â€¢ 4 is requesting Final Commercial Dosbgn appfoval and a Growth b Management arnondment from P&Z tor a remodel of the oxIshng . commefc,al buitaing with ano it .. onÂ«to *fofdot>to housÂ¢ng unit and ian .tile Ong If ecÂ·rnarket rot.idenbal und .X 7 -Â©,3 4, f ..t.U,. Fo, n,ole Infom,at,en contncÂ¢ tho Imil I ' i I. I;. Afpen PX,nmog Dep, 01 4 ~- . 970,429-2797 Â·p, /4#1*4/ 14 - ~I ~ ill--I... ../ .1,1. I - I -I- :U - 1 .12 - : > k . 5.-' t. ' 4 . -/./3-% i . - I . ..1///cit. e - ., * ?,4 - 1.. f. -&' I :4.... 1 . 7/I//69' a . I . -1 . .4 21 9. 4 . I;. . 4 . 4 .,IL, â€¢ Â·Â· '4 a . I Ib ~1* 1 , 4~~*-ipk * â€¢ :.1 /7Â©46_<12'*:#t~Â£1121:76%6:LL:#0*1"6423..1 .* 4, 61Jfk:''M 3...h'.2. 2 7 "44...4 *1,44. t. 6,4 97 r.. >V 32 , E I. I 6 . .. EXHIBIT F.71 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 230 E. Hopkins Ave., Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, Tawn LIillenbrand (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certi fy that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Lx_ Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the 15th day of January, 2018, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph Of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. -X_ Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, PDs that create more than one lot, and new Planned Developments are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. 0 J Signature The foregoing "Affidavit ofNotice" was acknowledged before me this 16th day of January, 2018, by Patrick Rawley. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL PATRICK S. RAWLEY NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO My commission expires: 7 ~ 2 6 ~ 20-2 0 NOTARY ID #19994012259 i My Commission Expires July 26,2020 - 7$.Ic. <52 IA-u-Q-Â·-Â·t,e Notary Public 0 ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: â€¢ COPY OF THE PUBLICATION â€¢ PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) â€¢ LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL â€¢ APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. Â§24-65.5-103.3 THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 p. (970) 920.5000 f: (970) 920.5197 w: www.aspenpitkin.com NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: 230 E. Hopkins Ave. Public Hearing: February 6, 2018, 4:30 PM Meeting Location: City Hall, Sister Cities meeting room - 130 S. Galena St, Aspen CO 81611 Project Location: 230 E. Hopkins Avenue Description: The applicant requests final approvals to remodel the existing building, replace the on-site affordable housing unit, and to create one free-market residential unit. Land Use Reviews: Final Commercial Design, Growth Management Quota System Amendment Decision Making Body: Planning & Zoning Commission Applicant: 360 Hexagon LLC, 119 Hyslop Road, Brookline, MA 02445 More Information: For further information related to the project, contact Justin Barker at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2797, justin.barker@cityofaspen.com. Pitkin Maps & More ... ~~ Pitkin Maps i More .n . 0 Map Created on 11:57 AM 01/11/18 at http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com 4 4t Imal ~ 7~ Legend 0~*.MAIN'Â§1~ 4 7.y - --Iqe --. State Highway * Road Centerline 4K I. e & lir * 4 - '. *6 f I 2 I .2, c:z, Primary Road 0 ,@4 e j cz:~, Secondary Road â‚¬ ~41'F Service Road 4 //Illi.idli.41.2/ Rivers and Creeks - Continuous *: - Intermittent 4: 3~~ST River, Lake or Pond 9 Town Boundary Federal Land Boundary E HOPKINS E Â¤ BLM 6,4?Ey-0- Â¤ State of Colorado USFS 2 4 ' '11'11112.~ 4 1 1. â‚¬8~* tociN?R~A~-~M~~.~ 77:I--Al,kimR. Notes ~RAN~ b 752.2 0 376.08 752.2 Feet THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES. ll Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee 1: 4,513 concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability WGS_1984_Web_Mercator--Auxiliary_Sphere of the content represented. Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius From Parcel: 273707328008 on 01/11/2018 ' Cou,irrit (Â«3*04) Instructions: This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the margins such that they no longer line up on the labels sheet. Print actual size. Disclaimer: Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.corn CITY OF ASPEN HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP INC CARLS REAL ESTATE LLC 130 S GALENA ST 3539 NORTHSIDE PKWY PO BOX 1365 ASPEN, CO 81611 ATLANTA, GA 30327 ASPEN, CO 81612 MINERS REAL ESTATE LLC CARVER RUTH A REV TRUST 232 EAST MAIN STREET LLC PO BOX 1365 116 S ASPEN ST 2001 N HALSTED #304 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60614 201 E MAIN HOLDINGS LLC ASPEN CORNER OFFICE LLC ASPEN BRANCH HOLDINGS LLC 2416 E 37TH ST N 200 E MAIN ST 3033 E FIRST AVE WICHITA, KS 67219 ASPEN, CO 81611 DENVER, CO 80206 1543 LLC NUNN RONALD FAMILY LP AJAX JMG INVESTMENTS LLC 1543 WAZEE ST #400 10500 BRENTWOOD BLVD 9401 WILSHIRE BLVD 9TH FL DENVER, CO 80202 BRENTWOOD, CA 94513 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 902122974 JAFFE JONATHAN & KAREN DCBD2 LLC MONARCH BUILDING LLC 88 EMERALD BAY 2100 ROSS AVE #3300 PO BOX 126 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 DALLAS, TX 75201 WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 PEARCE FAMILY TRUST PEARCE MARGARET A SUNNY SNOW LTD 216 E MAIN ST 216 E MAIN ST 308 TORCIDO DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78209 303 EAST MAIN LLLP WELLS FARGO BANK MILL STREET PLAZA ASSOC LLC PO BOX 8016 PO BOX 2609 602 E COOPER #202 ASPEN, CO 81612 CARLSBAD, CA 92018 ASPEN, CO 81611 ICONIC PROPERTIES JEROME LLC FREDRICK LARRY D ROBERTS JANET A 1375 ENCLAVE PKWY 215 S MONARCH ST #G101 215 S MONARCH ST #G101 HOUSTON, TX 77077 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 MOJO ASPEN LLC CLARKS ASPEN LLC GRAND SLAM HOLDINGS LLC 215 S MONARCH #G102 818 SOUTH MAIN ST 215 S MONARCH ST #101 ASPEN, CO 81611 BLANDING, UT 84511 ASPEN, CO 81611 ORR ROBERT L CLARK FAMILY TRUST BRINING ROBERT D 2700 G ROAD #12A PO BOX 362 215 S MONARCH #203 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 PCU-5 LLC HART GEORGE DAVID & SARAH BERNSTEIN JEREMY M PROFIT SHARING PL PO BOX 2563 PO BOX 5491 610 NORTH ST ASPEN, CO 81612 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 ASPEN, CO 81611 KELLY GARY DAVIDSON DONALD W 1000 EAST HOPKINS LLC PO BOX 12356 864 CEMETERY LN 215 S MONARCH #104 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BRINING ROBERT DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED GOODING NANCY A 215 S MONARCH ST #203 215 S MONARCH #104 4800 S HOLLY ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111 TRUE JAMES R JOHNSON PETER C & SANDRA K PARK CENTRAL CONDO ASSOC PO BOX 2864 51 OVERLOOK DR 215 S MONARCH ST STE 203 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611-1008 ASPEN, CO 81611 DESOTO LINDA JANE LIVING TRUST GORDON BRIAN S MORRONGIELLO LYDIA LIVING TRUST 155 LONE PINE RD #9 26985 CRESTWOOD 8109 WILLOW BEND CT ASPEN, CO 81611 FRANKLIN, MI 48025 BOULDER, CO 80301 FEDER HAROLD L & ZETTA F DAVIDSON ARIAIL SCOTT COHEN FRANK R 985 CASCADE AVE PO BOX 5141 360 S MONROE ST #702 BOULDER, CO 80302-7550 ASPEN, CO 81612 DENVER, CO 80209 PLACE BRADLEY E JR REV TRUST PLACE PENNY L REV TRUST YOUNGS RICHARD B & JACQULINE L 5701 S COLORADO BLVD 5701 S COLORADO BLVD 3940 MARSH RD LITTLETON, CO 80121 LITTLETON, CO 80121 BROOKLYN, MI 49230 YOUNG BARBARA A WHITMAN WENDALIN WHITMAN WENDALIN 210 E HYMAN #9 PO BOX 472 210 E HYMAN AVE #101 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 IFTNFS LLC BUSH ALAN DAVID JMS LLC 0115 GLEN EAGLES DR 0046 HEATHER LN 0115 GLEN EAGLES DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611-3342 ASPEN, CO 81611 ELLIOTT ELYSE A TRUST KATIE REED BUILDING LLC RACZAK JOSEPH S & JANET L 610 NORTH ST 407 S HUNTER ST #3 0234 LIGHT HILL RD ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 SNOWMASS, CO 81654 HOFFMAN JOHN L & SHARON R TRUST KATIE REED PLAZA CONDO ASSOC SEGUIN BUILDING CONDO ASSOC 411 E 63RD ST 301 E HOPKINS AVE COMMON AREA KANSAS CITY, MO 64108 ASPEN, CO 81611 304 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 PARK CENTRAL WEST CONDO ASSOC JPS NEVADA TRUST SEDOY MICHAEL 210 E HYMAN AVE 1701 N GREEN VALLEY PKWY #9C 35 SUTTON PL #19B ASPEN, CO 81611 HENDERSON, NV 89074 NEW YORK, NY 10022 SHVACHKO NATALIA 308 EAST HOPKINS CONDO ASSOC 314 HEXAGON LLC 35 SUTTON PL #19B COMMON AREA 25880 W 104 TERR N EW YORK, NY 10022 308 E HOPKINS AVE OLATHE, KS 66061 ASPEN, CO 81611 COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS MEDIA CO 314-200 HEXAGON LLC MOTHER LODE CONDO ASSOC INC 580 MALLORY WY 25880 W 104 TERR 25880 W 104 TER CARSON CITY, NV 89701 OLATHE, KS 66061 OLATHE, KS 66061 314-PH HEXAGON LLC MOTHER LODE CONDO ASSOC PEGOLOTTI DELLA 25880 W 104 TERR COMMON AREA 202 E MAIN ST OLATHE, KS 66061 314 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ROCKING LAZY J PROPS LLC 208 MAIN LLC 312 EAST HYMAN AVENUE LLC 202 E MAIN ST 623 E HOPKINS AVE 2001 N HALSTED # 304 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60614 ----ilirpTp/7.-1,- 1 - . , .4 . ./ 4,4 L.... 1. /1 It. 2-61.*z,-,1,-----,~**â€ž! e . I.- 1,1 1- 9 f . 4 * . 11 t.: . L Â· a t , 1 91% 9. I I ...1 R I 3,*A. F 5 1 2/# Ap + - 0 "21#t'.41 -r. 1 t. 4 ..4 Â¥ 4 1 ...2 1 1 1 .j I ./ 1 -. 1 1. 1 ... 1 1 I.' :fi.YE;2 - . 1 1 i 't 4, L# 4 /<* + 4 4 'If 1 4 4#1 -'' . - Mt I r ...t ..... 14 1 ; Ar - - 1 .i 'tr.;.Eit....... 31.t~. -& . .. 04 ' I I ./ / rill - 4* " * 4. 9 t./. .. I . 1 44 1 AtiÂ¢ D ' A ~ 1 Â· 11Â·Â· :1 & --t .1 ... , 2 ' 11 r r 1% 1 .1 .. 5. Â¥29 t; d': I f b ' Ir ,/I Y. . 1 4 & . t . Â§ ..Z . 1 1Â»3' -12*Re :Â· i t.i . 1 -1.- 1*1 1 1 . U -43Â»f 1.1 1%'ll 44 . I .4 .41 V 1 1% 14 . ./ 1. - Â¥. l ... , t..li' - ..7 - -m=- . 1% i '.,4 114 4\ f . , .,1 0 0 4,1 6, .il ~ . r'~ 1 0 . f I a.4 . 1 . b . . ltv. . MI$18:0 4 -' b.- -. 1.. i 3, 'Ill tn. .9 5 - -:f 11'F, I. I t 4 0 I . . 6 . . 4 r PUBLIC NOTICE ~ , '.A. 94 ---8 ./1 Date: February 6. 2018 1.L 1211 Time: 4:30 P.M Â·i .. . I ...4 Place: City Hall, 130 S. Galena Â£ 4 VL kzy . 1 Â·r Â·,2 , St.. Sister Cities Room 1 4 1., Purpose: 1 1% I 1 Applicant (360 Hoxagon LLC. , Hyslop Rd.. Brookline, MA 02445) U 4 . - is fequesting Final Commercial , 1 4 4.4 Design approval and i Growth I Management amendment from ,..Y-,1 ". 11 ..41 1 P&2 10Â¢ a femodel Of the ox#Sting +70- Â· 4 commorc,al building with one 1 on Â·-.,ti, affof dabto hot,sinf} un,1 an<# %% 4, ti J .... '. a22 / one liec.rna,ket foydent,<,1 4,Â¢,i: ' & ' Ill I I ' FOÂ¢ 1,10,4, information contna th<, , A j Aâ€¢.pon Planning Dept nt , 970Â·421) 2797 .<. &g 4, ./.6. 4, :xer â€¢Glf." ..4 4 . , b ... ,>4 ..4: + r /&45 4. " I: /â‚¬~A . . f . t:3. 002 . Â·4.5.. r / I . 0Â£ ' Â·1'1"'c*411 71'Â»?l 7.'.....:f'.11* :Wro , ' CK' * 1#ep, A 25*3121Â».. :*1419 4.1, t 14 0 -' 34 . '. -. .'.Â·.:k.ff.....ic*.â€¢.#Â· ../.1, %4 '. ' I .f u , .:C JE ..t'#4#... *kiÂ£ t. .| r#' '4'* . 73, Ili,4 :~ ~,5 8 f , 1~ ' A.Lith Â£9 1% ...S I %9 4.. ...>>9Â£ *0- 4:*4;124:*~-r~6~4{49~i,Â·1 * 4 :.~76:ez*>:.vififf.2,~.Ii.P~59-Uaitt/:R~I~:fÂ·f'~~~Â·1~6 ~Â·;':i:%.'.,4 -Â». 3,0,- I a 0 I . 2 . 1 ...4. -- r 6 4 1 Uff' . 94 .f , *1 7,TI 'Â· . 14 tf,: j. . ... I :W': A / 41â‚¬S Post STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, INC. , *Ba -#C -92~EE 412 NORTH MILL STREET 19~f,11*W< z =PITNEY BOWES. ASPEN, CO 81611 USA ~ ,<4Lf,Z#,* O 2 $ 000.460 29!61~13~1,2 000 3 JAN 11 2018 Â£:23Â£8.3~9 MAIL 'ZIPCODE 8161' 308 EAST HOPKINS CONDO ASSOC COMMON AREA 308 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 -, 7 C 8601/14/18 808 50 1 RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED - NOT KNOWN 1 UNABLE TO ECRWARD B Cr 81611167599 *146 8 -06690-14-83 j ANK i 21611>1675 Cilfililli|/!i{%!|fli|1||21#Ill/1/iliftijlfililill/#214//tII#<12; 1 r--EXHIBIT~ . . THE CITY OF ASPEN ~ City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 p: (970) 920.5000 f: (970) 920.5197 w: www.aspenpitkin.com NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: 230 E. Hopkins Ave. Public Hearing: February 6, 2018, 4:30 PM Meeting Location: City Hall, Sister Cities meeting room - 130 S. Galena St, Aspen CO 81611 Project Location: 230 E. Hopkins Avenue Description: The applicant requests final approvals to remodel the existing building, replace the on-site affordable housing unit, and to create one free-market residential unit Land Use Reviews: Final Commercial Design, Growth Management Quota System Amendment Decision Making Body: Planning & Zoning Commission Applicant: 360 Hexagon LLC, 119 Hyslop Road, Brookline, MA 02445 More Information: For further information related to the project, contact Justin Barker at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2797, justin.barker@cityofaspen.com. STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 412 NORTH MILL STREET 4,SES Pos44 ASPEN, CO 81611 USA ~ EF/A///* a ~ PITNEY BOWIES ~ Soc $ 000.460 243 JAN 11 2018 OMZIPCODE 81611 9â‚¬401 2 -60 ILD! U 4 Cok,DO '66/L C-Dkl HOU -KKâ‚¬k 804 15 +44 M 43 -AV E . ASPEd ID 81 toll NIXIE 808 56 1 8601/14/la RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED - NOT KNOWN UNAZLE TO FORWARD ANK 8 C: 81611167599 *3468-06691-14-01 81611>167S l!l'1,11111111111#lllllllllll,l!i!ll,l,l1j;1l'(lill;lijlllli,liil EXHIBIT 4 THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 p: (970) 920.5000 f: (970) 920.5197 w: www.aspen pitki n.com NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: 230 E. Hopkins Ave. Public Hearing: February 6, 2018, 4:30 PM Meeting Location: City Hall, Sister Cities meeting room - 130 S. Galena St, Aspen CO 81611 Project Location: 230 E. Hopkins Avenue Description: The applicant requests final approvals to remodel the existing building, replace the on-site affordable housing unit, and to create one free-market residential unit. L-/f Land Use Reviews: Final Commercial Design, Growth Management Quota System Amendment Decision Making Body: Planning & Zoning Commission Applicant: 360 Hexagon LLC, 119 Hyslop Road, Brookline, MA 02445 More Information: For further information related to the project, contact Justin Barker at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2797, justin.barker@cityofaspen.com. Trip Generation Instructions: IMPORTANT: Turn on Macros: In order for code to run correctly the security settings need to be altered. Click "File" and then click "Excel Options." In the "Trust Center" category, click "Trust Center Settings", and then click the "Macro RECEIVED Settings" categor'y. Beneath "Macro Settings" select "Enable all Macros." Sheet 1. Trip Generation: Enterthe project's square footage and/or unit counts under Proposed Land Use. The numbers should reflect the net change in land use between existing and proposed conditions. If a landuse is to be JAN 3 1 2018 reduced put a negative number of units orsquare feet. Sheet 2. MMLOS: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable under each of the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections. Points are only awarded for proposed (not existing) and confirmed aspects of the project. CITY OF ASPEN Sheet 3. TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Sheet 4. Summary and Narrative: Review the summary of the project's mitigated trips and provide a narrative which DOMMUN~Y DEVELOPMENT explains the measures selected for the project. Click on "Generate Narrative" and individually explain each measure that was chosen and how it enhances the site or mitigates vehicle traffic. Ensure each selected measure make sense for Helpful Hints: 1. Referto the T Trapsportation Impact An.alvsis ciplines for information on the use of this tool. 2. Refer to 1 TIA Frequently Asked Questions a quick overview. 2. Hover over red corner tags for additional information on individual measures. 3. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not receive credit for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context of project location and future use. = input = calculation DATE: 11/20/2017 PROJECT NAME: Mountain Forge PROJECT ADDRESS: 230 E Hopkins Avenue APPLICANT CONTACT Name: Stan Clauson, AICP, ASIA Company: Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. INFORMATION' ' Address: 412 N Mill Street, Aspen, CO 81611 NAME, COMPANY, Phone: 970925-2323 ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL Email: stan@scaplanning.com Minor Development - Inside the Roundabout Is this a major or minor project? |Minor Major Development - Outside the Roundabout Net New Trips GE nerated Units/Square Feet of AVI Peak-Hoi r PM Peak-Hot r the Proposed Project Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Total Proposed Land Use Commercial (sf) -777.0 sf -1.22 -0.55 -1.76 -1.29 -1.93 -3.22 Free-Market Housing (Units) 1 Units 0.19 0.48 0.67 0.46 0.36 0.82 Affordable Housing C Units) 0 Units 0.00 O.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lodging (Units) O Units O.00 O.00 O.00 0.00 O.00 0.00 Essential Public Facility (sf) 0.0 sf O.00 O.00 O.00 0.00 O.00 O.00 TOTAL NEW TRIPS -1.02 -0.07 -1.09 -0.83 -1.57 -2.40 *For mixed-use (at least two of the established land uses) sites, a 4% reduction for AM Peak-Hour and a 14% reduction for PM Peak-Hour is applied to the tripgeneration. ASSUMPTIONS ASPEN TRIP GENERATION AM Peak AveragE PM Peak Aver: ge Land Use Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Commercial 2.27 0.69 0.31 4.14 0.4 0.6 Free-Market Housing 0.67 0.29 0.71 0.82 0.56 0.44 Affordable Housing 0.75 0.48 0.52 0.89 0.55 0.45 Lodging 0.25 0.57 0.43 0.31 0.52 0.48 Essential Public Facility 0.86 0.62 0.38 1.66 0.4 0.6 ' ' Â· : '*%:râ‚¬T v' ~ 1:TE - MMLOS Input Page .,. Â· :>14 7 11- 3..M.1~ -614' ..,.1. 1,~titi ' T ?tl*Â§4:Â·t Instructions: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable to each measure under the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections. ~= input ~= calculation 2 TOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS MITIGATED: 7.~~ 31 < Category Sub. Measure Number Question Answer Points Does the project propose a detached sidewalk where an attached 1 sidewalk currently exists? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer No 0 meet standard minimum widths? Is the proposed effective sidewalk width greater than the standard 2 No 0 minimum width? Does the project propose a landscape buffer greater than the 3 No 0 standard minimum width? ' 7....I Subtotal *<il.4&3.'#dy Does the project propose a detached sidewalk on an adjacent block? 4 Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard minimum No 0 widths? Is the proposed effective sidewalk width on an adjacent block 5 No 0 greater than the standard minimum width? Is the proposed landscape buffer on an adjacent block greater than 6 No 0 g the standard minimum width? -.* -' -I'lle'rf~~m'- ............0 ru ':/:34 *AE Subtotal ~ 0 Are slopes between back of curb and sidewalk equal to or less than 7 Yes 0 5%? 8 Are cuts equal to (or less than) 6 inches? Yes 0 Is new large-scale landscaping proposed that improves the pedestrian experience? Properties within the Core do not have ample area to 9 Yes 5 provide the level of landscaping required to receive credit in this category. Does the project propose an improved crosswalk? This measure must 10 Yes 5 get City approval before receiving credit. -""1:1 4==I . -==INE .1 .1 , ~;74â‚¬~Y'.1 . >S 8 f *REÂ·** T'Â· . 1 1 ,-',:.1 11 Are existing driveways removed from the street? No 0 Is pedestrian and/or vehicle visibility unchanged by new structure or 12 Yes 0 column? Is the grade (where pedestrians cross) on cross-slope of driveway 2% 13 Yes 0 orless? Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian access points from 14 the ROW? This includes improvements to ADA ramps or creating new Yes 5 access points which prevent pedestrians from crossing a street. Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian or bicyclist interaction 15 No 0 with vehicles at driveway areas? 21?Ttfu ..,1 ~~~~~~~1~~~~ Subtotal .rgÂ£ . ,~ 5 1 16 Is the project's pedestrian directness factor less than 1.5? Yes 0 Does the project propose new improvements which reduce the pedestrian directness factor to less than 1.2? A site which has an 17 No 0 existing pedestrian directness factor less than 1.2 cannot receive credit in this category Is the project proposing an off site improvement that results in a 18 No 0 pedestrian directness factor below 1.2?* Are traffic caiming features proposed that are part of an approved 19 No 0 plan (speed humps, rapid flash)?* ifne r 8-- .O 7- 0-eâ€¢,F' Subtotal *~.211=22~ -222~ 98.2.... /211/ Are additional minor improvements proposed which benefit the 20 pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen Yes 3 staff? Are additional major improvements proposed which benefit the 21 pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen No 0 staff? Subtotal 3 . . 1 : .....ta-1||i' ill Driveways, Parking, and Access Sidewalk Condition 4 Sidewalk Condition Traffic Calmin~ ~ Considerations Adjacent Blocks i on Project Frontage Proposed . Pedestrian Ne Pedestrian Routes Pedestrians Additional ; Improvements 6 4 Category Sub. Measure Number Question Answer Points 22 Is a new bicycle path being implemented with City approved design? NA 0 23 Do new bike paths allow access without crossing a street or driveway? NA 0 Is there proposed landscaping, striping, or signage improvements to 24 NA 0 an existing bicycle path? Does the project propose additional minor bicycle improvements 25 No 0 which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff? Does the project propose additional major bicycle improvements 26 No 0 which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff? Subtotal 0 27 Is the project providing bicycle parking? Yes 5 Subtotal 5 -7 +T.4 Category Sub. Measure Number Question Answer Points 28 Is seating/bench proposed? Yes 3 29 Is a trash receptacle proposed? No 0 30 Is transit system information (signage) proposed? No 0 31 Is shelter/shade proposed? NO 0 32 Is enhanced pedestrian-scale lighting proposed? NO 0 MIE 340-,-AF * 33 Is real-time transit information proposed? No 0 34 Is bicycle parking/storage proposed specifically for bus stop use? No 0 35 Are ADA improvements proposed? Yes 5 8 I 1. Subtotal ~ ' 144.07 1 -rÂ» f 36 Is a bus pull-out proposed at an existing stop? NA 0 Is relocation of a bus stop to improve transit accessibility or roadway 37 NA 0 operations proposed? 38 Is a new bus stop proposed (with minimum of two basic amenities)? NA 0 Subtotal 0 Enhanced Bicycle Modifications to Existing Bicycle Parking ~ Paths Transit Bicycles Basic Amenities Amenities cles To TDM Input Page ~1151 -i --1 'z .,.: I Ar. 21 - F='-U~v 2 - ' I â€ž - I 13*'Ai -0,2 1 1Â» :IMULL... U - Instructions TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropnate for your project. Proposed TDM or MMLOS meaures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not receive credit for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense In the context of project location and future use. Measure Strategy VMT Category 0.0036 Sub. Question Answer Number Reductions Will an onsite arnmenities strategy be implemented? NA 1 Onsite Servicing Which onsite ammenities will be Implemented? Willa shared shuttle service strategy be implemented? NA What is the degreeof implementation? 0.00% 2 Shared Shuttle Service What is the company size? What percentage of Mtomers are eligible? 3 1 Nonmotorized Zones | Will a nonmotorized zones strategy be implemented? |NA O.JO)% Measure Strategy VMT Category Number Reductions Sub. Question Answer Will a network expansion stragtegy be implemented? No 4 Network Expansion What is the percentage Increase of transit network coverage? 0.0056 What is the existing lanst mode share as a % of total daily trips? Willa service frequency/speed strategY be implemented? NA 5 Service Frequency/Speed What M the percentage reduction in headways (increase in frequency)? 0.00% What is the existing tran$it mode share 85 a % of total daily trips? What is the level of implementation? 6 Transit Access Irnprovement Will a transit access improvement strategy be implemented? NA 0.00% What is the extent of access improvements? 7 | Intercept lot |Will an intercept lot strategy be implemented? 1 0.00% Measure Strategy VMT Category No Sub. Question Answer Number Reductions Will there be participation In TOP? 8 Participation in TOP 0.00% What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a transit fare subsidy strategy implemented? NO 9 Transit Fare Subsldy What percentage of employees are eligible? 0.00% What 15 the amount of transit subsidy per passenger (daily equivalent)? 10 Employee Parking Cash-Out 15 an employee parking cash-out strategy being Implemented? No 0.00% What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a workplace parking pricing strategy implemented? No 11 Workplace Parking Pricing What is the daily parking charge? 0.00% What percentage of emplovees are subject to priced parking? Isa compressed work weeks strategy implemented? No 12 Compressed Work Weeks What percentage of employees are participating? O.00% What is the workweek schedule? Is an employer sponsered shuttle program implemented? No 13 Emplover Sponsored Vanpool What is the employer size? O.00'% What percentage of employe- are eligible? Isa carpool matching strategy implemented? No 14 Carpool Matching 0.00% What percentage of employees are eligble? Is carshare participation being implemented? No 15 Carshare Program How many employee memberships have been purchased? O.00% What percentage of employees are eligble? 15 participation in the bikeshare program WE-cycle being implemented? No 16 Bikeshare Program How many memberships have been purchased? 0.00% What percentage of employees/guests are eligble? Is an end of trip facilities strategy bein6 implemented? No 17 End of Trip Facilities What is the degree of implementation? 0.0056 What is the employer size? 18 Selffunded Emergency Ride Home Is a self-funded emergency ride home strategy being implemented? No 0.00% What percentage of employees are eligible? 15 a carpool/vanpool priorit'Â¥ parking 'trategy being Implemented? No 19 Carpool/Vanpool Priorit'v Parking What is the employer size? 0.00% What number of parking spots are available for the program? Isa private employer shuttle strategy being implemented? NO 20 Private Employer Shuttle What :5 the employer size? 0 00% What percentage of employees are eligible? Trip Reduction Marketing/Incentive Is a trip reduction marketing/incentive program implemented? No 21 0,0084 Program What percentage of employees/guests are eligible? 1 22*work trips repmentio mixed-used site (SF Boy Area Travel Survey) See Assumptions Tabfor more detail Transit System Improvements Neighborhood/Site St..Fes Enhancements 5trategies Commute Trip Reduction Programs Strategies , 9 Summary and Narrative: DATE: 11/20/2017 PROJECT NAME: Mountain Forge PROJECT ADDRESS: 230 E Hopkins Avenue APPLICANT CONTACT Name: Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA Company: Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. INFORMATIONÂ· ' Address: 412 N Mill Street, Aspen, CO 81611 NAME, COMPANY, Phone: 970925-2323 ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL Email: ston@scoplanning.com SUMMARY Trip Generation Trip Mitigation NET TRIPS TO BE Peak Hour Max Trips Generated MMLOS TDM Total Trips Mitigated MITIGATED AM -1.1 31 0.00 31.00 O.00 A minimum of two TDM measures must be utilized for minor projects. Please return to Sheet "3. TDM" and select a minimum of two measures. Narrative: Click on the "Generate Narrative" Button to the right. Respond to each of the prompts in the space provided. Each response should cover the following: 1. Explain the selected measure. 2. Call out where the measure is located. 3. Demonstrate how the selected measure is appropriate to enhance the project site and reduce traffic impacts. 4. Explain the Enforcement and Financing Plan for the selected measure. 5. Explain the scheduling and implementation responsibility of the mitigation measure. 6. Attach any additional information and a site mapto the narrative report. Project Description In the space below provide a description of the proposed project. This project consists of a remodel of the existing Mountain Forge building. The existing building contains 5,669 SF of Commercial net leasable floor area. The remodeled building will contain 4,892 SF of Commercial net leasable floor area, for a net reduction of 777 SF. The remodeled building will contain one free-market unt and one affordable housing unit. The current building contains only one affordable housing unit. Therefore, there is a net gain of one free-market unit. MMLOS In the space provided desicribe what new landscaping is proposed and how the proposed landscaping plan enhances the pedestrian experience. This measure is only applicable to large scale projects and requires more extensive landscaping then a few plantings or lawn area. The project shall establish extensive landscaping which significantly benefits the site and improves the pedestrian comfort and experience. There will be a paved pedestrian amenity space that contains a sculpture honoring Francis Whitaker, the iron sculptor for whom the Mountain Forge building is named. There will also be a seating bench provided adjacent to the pedestrian right-of-way, along with bicycle parking. Explain the proposed improved crosswalk and how this improvement benefits the pedestian experience and the site as a whole. An improved crosswalk includes measures such as incorporating a corner bulb out or defining a crosswalk path with colored concrete. Simply re-striping a crosswalk will not recieve credit. This measure must be pre-approved by City staff. The original crosswalk and pedestrian ramp was not in correct alignment with the opposite ramp on Monarch Street owing to the earlier presence of a large tree that had long since been removed. New pedestrian ramps will resorte the correct alignment. Describe the enhanced pedestrian access point(s). This measure is to improve pedestrian access to the site from the ROW. It includes adding additional access points which prevent pedestrians and bicyclists from crossing a street, improvements to the project's ADA ramps in the ROW, and improvements to existing access points. Please see description above. Explain any additional minor improvements which benefit the pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff. Pedestrian improvements include a paved seating and sculpture area dedidicated to Francis Whitaker for whom the Moutain Forge building was named. Describe the proposed seating/bench and the bench location for which existing bus stop. There is no existing bus stop. Explain the proposed bus stop ADA improvements. There is no existing bus stop. Include any additional information that pertains to the MMLOS plan in the space provided below. The project is designed to enhance the pedestrian environment. TDM Include any additional information that pertains to the TDM plan in the space provided below. A TDM plan is not required for this project. MMLOS Site Plan Requirements Include the following on a site plan. Clearly call out and label each measure. Attach the site plan to the TIA submittal. Slopes Between Back of Curb and Sidewalk Landscape Plan Crosswalk Improvement(s) 2% Slope at Pedestrian Driveway Crossings Enhanced Pedestrian Access Point Pedestrian Directness Factor (See callout number 9 on the MMLOS sheet for an example) Additional Minor Pedestrian Improvement Bicycle Parking Bus Stop Seating/Bench Bus Stop ADA Improvements Enforcement and Financing Provide an overview of the Enforcement and Financing plan for the proposed transportation mitigation measures. The pedestrian improvements will be incorporated into a final Development Agreement and a required bond for these improvements will be posted. Scheduling and Implementation Responsibility of Mitigation Measures Provide an overview of the scheduling and implementation responsibility for the proposed transportation mitigation measures. The implementation ofthe pedestrian improvements will be completed following the building remodel and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy forthe building. Monitoring and Reporting Provide a monitoring and reporting plan. Refer to page 17 in the Transportation Analysis Guidelines for a list of monitoring plan requirements. Components of a Monitoring and Reporting Plan should include (1) Assessment of compliance with guidelines, (2) Results and effectiveness of implemented measures, (3) Identification of additional strategies, and (4) Surveys and other supporting data. A monitoring and reporting plan is not required for this project. / 0~) - 7 ENED m JANI 4 2018 PROPERTY LINE LtrAT-0-3PEN cowleef DEviLOMENT SETBACK LINE - PROPOSED LAWN AREA (447.4 SF) 1 11 ii -) PROPOSED ALTERNATE PAVING (109.3 SF) 3 ~ r,3- ml,m - PROPOSED ALTERNATE PAVING (99.5 SF) pr)-- ' #' ' 4, EXISTING MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN FORGE FÂ«- FORGE BUILDING ADDRESS: 230 E HOPKINS AVENUE NOTE: ASPEN, CO 81611 ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONAL SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED BUT HAVE BEEN PARCEL # OMITTED FROM PUBLIC AMENITY CALCULATIONS. 273707328008 MAN- 1 DATE: SITE TOTALS: 01-17-2018 ONSITE: 586.3 SF M OFFSITE: 556.7 SF J ISSUE: 1,143 SF < FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY -- - - - - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DRAWN BY: BAK CHECKED BY: PSR HISTORY: - PROPOSED SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT (87.9 SF) ./IE 12:LE ~---~ PROPOSED LANDSCAPE BED (239.2 SF) ff l PROPOSED SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT (159.7 SF) ~1 IU UJ Z Z - -1 0 4. 71 9-1 ~ ~..-~r~, 7 - 1 - O 0 0 0 PUBLIC SHEET TITLE AMENITY SPACE PLAN 0 2 4' 8 NORTH SCALE: 1/4 = 1 L-PUB MONARCH STREET X Â© STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES INC 2017 wi,n 0Â£6'004 i t (tr 'Clift,6 Â·1 1191% 01,â„¢40-1 'u'OW 100115 11â€¢N ONIS31VI00SSV NOSAÂ¥10 NV19 %216ntle~%'4U~. WO) RW+UUfld .//,ap Ima, biuu.,dÂ·â€¢inlia;14"I .ail'}'pâ€¢"I ~ HOPKINS AVENUE - NON-UNIT SPACE COMM.#3 <3> / 670 sp GROSS 709 SF r .- 83'-101/2 x 18% 1 - _ ~ ' 121 SF - - 1 7 ' 11 ~ b*-F-11 -1 44/'--1 1 1 r--------------' rowland+broughton 9 Â·tijBIEN,:..1Â»: +04.9Â¥ArC@1 , COMM. #2 architecture / urban design / inleni design i.5 ' 366 SE 12-rÂ·-....... 234 e hopkinsave 1830 blake st ste 200 COMM.#6 -- IJ-h==1* -7~ 1;~S~RAGE 970.544.9006 0 303.308.1373 0 945 SF GROSS t~~ * I-COMM. #7 .1 Pr--.--.......--I. 9705443473 f 303.308.1375 f x 18% .'C~ 1 - 1 . LL66.U 1 -500 SF (500 EXEMPT) I aspen, cO 81611 denver, co 80202 170 SF Â· ~ . =22:EE:~ . 584 SF , , 1 350 SF :====4 0 SF /0,1 J-h__ - x 18% i--1 NON-UNIT S.-Aa 105 SF COMM. 15 - 1 : SPACE , 1 140 SF GROSS -1 / CORRIDOR 670 SF . 'T u 100: 1 Issue: 11.16.2017 - - Ll -011]~ 3 jivlf Lijrl P+Z FINAL HEARING 1 4 1 1.14% - 11.21.2017 6. E- AHU COMM. #4 -~42 ./CM . -AHU '9A #CA...[I- ] 684 SF COORDiNATION Bm lit 2 - FURNITURE PLAN OPTIONS 12.06.2017 3-18% COMM. #1 820 SFGROS + C i 1,459 SF ~ ; 74 Mitad 398 SF x 18% = r-1 - I 123 SF 148 SF 10 1 . 1.,11.1,1....... . 41+ 2 ~ 1. 9.~ Â·.Â·Â·Â·Â· 87~ -M ruit~ 3 RECEIVED '13 -1 t 'r Â¥-r':r:1*~~~ ~ \ C... E--44,-- LU~- -0 ././.66:49,613- t t"1#lilli ' - -Jllir -7Â».4.11.ULL_ J JAN 10 2018 EXISTING WINDOWWELL TO BE REDUCED ~~--__---- ----- tii-lif -4_3*ac-_j, ------------- COURTYARD , 18'-3- 16 65'-9 CID OF ASPEN 6 6 " LEGEND -, PROPOSED :rnÂ» CO~RMTY DEVELOPMENT COMMERCIAL - PROPOSED < 1 j BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN ( 2 ~ LEVEL ONE FLOOR PLAN ( AO.2 j' SCALE: 3/32 =1'-O ( AO.2 7 SCALE: 3/32Â·Â· = 1Â·-O Emlill RESIDENTIAL SPACE NON-UNIT SPACE DECK AREA > 30" ABOVE GRADE Revision: AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT C~*0(24 NON-UNIT - COMM.#9 WALL O WALL O WALL 0 .All (D SPACE , --1- 222 SF 390 SF WALL WALL AREA , 11 'P AREA Â°? WALL AREA 9 697 SF -11.- DECK b \\~- -- - STAI 0 1! 198 SF 490 SF (EXEMPT) (EXEMPT) ~ ..Â·. Â· Â· Â· Â·.7-2- â‚¬9 145 SE , 65-3 3/4 *4 18'-7Â· L L 46'-7 3/4Â» 295 SF -1 2 f m/%// r it_ j tr- 4 -1. 1 1 1 1 1 --+6-I WALL AREA 9 1 -1 11 1 -COMM. #8 24 SF /f 526 SF WALL e WALL â‚¬ 0 , EXPOSED M. 0 .All W 60 SF / .,40#050557.- ,- -1--1-1-IIi WALL - = - WALLARE- 4 9 WALL AREA AREA 29 7 7 199 SF 9 9 16 SF 616 SF 1 WALL AREA i WALL AREA j##/#t,21/mtÂ»i~ 74 SF -A- h - I.. 18-11 3/4- , 58-7 3/4 4 43+ ~5'-41/2., mm 994 1 - I - i r| | MTN FORGE - * SUB-GRADE WALL SUMMARY: ~EXPOSED r EXPOSED EXPOSED EXPOSED RESIDENCE -- 00 lilll'lk WALL 0/ 75 SF WA. 0 140 SF WALL or 142 SF 51 SF RENOVATION lili X X - - AND ADDITION WALL# WALL AREA EXPOSED AREA 0 2,458 SF WALL 1 697 SF o SF f' WALL 2 24 SF 0 SF ~ ~. -LAREA 4 1 WALL AREA , | WALL AREA ~ il WALL 3 198 SF o SF 157 SF 159 SF 76 SF - WALL 4 490 SF o SF 230-234 E. HOPKINS AVENUE DECK 1 WALLAREA WALL 5 199 SF o SF 51 SF WALL 6 16 SF o SF ASPEN, CO 81611 (EXEMPT) WALL 7 616 SF 60 SF 116 SF ,1,6'-61/9 ~ 13'-10 314- ~ ,1, 14.4 ,1 t'-53/4t WALLS 0 SF 26 SF 00000 WALL 9 74 SF 0 SF WALL 10 76 SF 76 SF r- EXPOSED WALL 11 157 SF 140 SF WALL O / 66 SF WALL 12 159 SF 142 SF WALL 13 51 SF 51 SF WALL 14 +334 SF +66 SF - TOTALS 3117 SF 535 SF - PROPOSED WALL AREA ( 3 ~ LEVEL TWO FLOOR PLAN 83 SF 535 SF EXPOSED / 3,117 SF WALL AREA = 18% OF SUB GRADE ~AO.2 j SCALE: 3/32- = 1Â·-0- ' BASEMENT WILL COUNT TOWARD FLOOR AREEA 29'-5112 PROPOSED GROSS AREAS: PROJECT NO: CODE SUMMIARY CALCULATION SUMMARY: 4 2,458 SF LEVEL TWO - RESIDENCE PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCULATION: PERCENTAGE OF USAGE: OVERALL FLOOR AREA REMAINING: 21718 CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE SECTION 26.575.020 CALCULATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS. MEASURING FLOOR AREA ZONING DISTR]CT MIXED USE (MU) e 684 SF BASEMENT-AHU 11212 2 RESIDENTIAL _21 :-722 2 PROPOSED FLOOR AREA DWG FILE: u 398 SF LEVEL ONE - AHU 5.549 SF COMMERCIAL 61% 12,000 SF ALL-OWABLE FLOOR AREA 222 SF LEVEL TWO - COMM. #9 IN MEASURING FLOOR AREAS FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO AND ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA, THE FOLLOWING APPLIES CURRENT USES OFFICE/RESIDENTIAL 526 SF LEVEL TWO - COMM. #8 21718_AO-2z_update.dwg 9.089 SF TOTAL GROSS AREA 100% 4,631 SF FLOOR AREA REMAINING 1,459 SF LEVEL ONE - COMM. #1 GENERAL FLOOR AREA SHALL BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE LOT OR PARCEL UPON WHICH IT IS DEVELOPED. IN MEASURING NET LOT AREA (A) 6,000 SF 366 SF LEVEL ONE - COMM. #2 COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA REMAINING: 1 459 SF LEVEL ONE - COMM. #1 366 SF LEVEL ONE - COMM. #2 A BUILDING FOR THE PURPOSES OF CALCULATING FLOOR AREA RATIO AND ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA. THERE SHALL BE GROSS LOT AREA (A) 6,000 SF a 709 SF LEVEL ONE - COMM. #3 709 SF LEVEL ONE - COMM. #3 4,500 SF ALLOWABLE FLOORAREA SHEET TITLE INCLUDED ALL AREAS WITHIN THE SURROUNDING EXTERIOR WALLS OF THE BUILDING OR POTION THEREOF. THEN 148 SF BASEMENT - COMM. #4 :1822 SF PROPOSED FLOOR AREA MEASURING FROM THE EXTERIOR WALLS, THE MEASUREMENT SHALL BE TAKEN FROM THE EXTERIOR FACE oF ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA 12.000 SF (2:1) 25 SF BASEMENT. COMM. #5 NON-UNIT SPACE: 50 SF FLOOR AREA REMAINING PROPOSED 5 820 SF BASEMENT -COMM. #4 O 140 SF BASEMENT-COMM.#5 FRAMING. EXTERIOR FACE OF STRUCTURAL BLOCK. EXTERIOR FACE OF STRAW BALE, OR SIMILAR EXTER[OR SURFACE - COMMERCIALAREA 4,500 SF C.75:1) O 170 SF BASEMENT - COMM. #6 390 SF LEVEL TWO OF THE NOMINAL STRUCTURE EXCLUDING SHEATHING. VAPOR BARRIER, WEATHERPROOFING MEMBRANE, 945 SF BASEMENT - COMM. #6 - FREE MARKET HOUSING 3.000 SF {.5:1) 1102 2 BASEMENT -COMM #7 670 SF LEVEL ONE RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA REMAINING: FLOOR AREA 584 SF BASEMENT-COMM.#7 EXTERIOR-MOUNTED INSULATION SYSTEMS. AND EXCLUDING ALL EXTERIOR VENEER AND SURFACE TREATMENTS - AFFORDABLE HOUSING REMAINDER OF 12,000 SF ALLOWABLE 3.730 SF SUBTOTAL +121 SF BASEMENT 3,000 SF ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA SUCH AS STONE, STUCCO, BRICKS, SHINGLES, CLAPBOARDS OR OTHER SIMILAR EXTERIOR VENEER TREATMENTS. 526 SF LEVEL TWO - COMM. #8 - +720 SF COMM. - NON UNIT 1 181 SF TOTAL 2,212 2 PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 1222 SF LEVEL EYO - COMM 4 GEE $ COMM. -FLOOR AREA 81 SF FLOOR AREA REMAINING DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS: 9.1â‚¬04 SF TOTAL GROSS AREA PROPOSED 1181 SF NON.UNIT SPACE SCALE: 3/32'=1'-0 3,000 SF MIN. GROSS LOTAREA x 61% SF COMM. - % OF USAGE AHU FLOOR AREA REMAINING: 30 MIN.LOT WIDTH 2,458 SF LEVEL TVÂ¥0 - RESIDENCE 720 SF COMM. - NONI-UNIT SPACE 4,556 SF ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA TOTAL RESIDENTIAL: 3.540 SF +461 SF RES. - NON UNIT 1,181 SF NON-UNIT SPACE =.1,065 21 PROPOSED FLOOR AREA 10' MIN. FRONT YARD SETBACK TOTAL COMMERCIAL: 5,549 SF 2.919 EF RES.-FLOOR AREA Z.121 2 RES. - % OF USAGE 3,491 SF FLOOR AREA REMAINING AO.2z 5' MIN. SIDE YARD SETBACK 5' MIN. REAR YARD SETBACK PROPOSED DECK AREA (NON FLOOR AREA): 461 SF RES. - NON-UNIT SPACE 7.369 SF TOTAL - FLOOR AREA 28' MAX. HEIGHT 295 SF LEVEL TWO - FRONT DECK AREA 84 10 MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS 116 SF LEVEL TWO -ALLEY DECK I W-~-TA A'J [*SE' .1/ C....0 01 '*:/-1.'I Â·I 'OPEme.â„¢,t,â‚¬â€¢0~0,~1To,~0=Cfu~EAOuk- DE.. ..... 0 -I -ORMAâ„¢/ 1, . /.00 v~~1Â«' n./. SF LEVEL THREE - ROOF DECK +2079 P-TÂ¥/ mED-510~ CF....*./CN I.wITECTI. I..V, ........TOI,A~CW~.<i--/..1~LL 2.490 SF TOTAL DECK AREA *CUDÂ»,C<nR,01.-'r.â‚¬-7/ ii fililill \ 1 STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATESINC '. 1-â€¢~ landscape architecture.planning.resort design ~ %Châ€ž2<PI 412 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 t. 970/925-2323 f. 970/920-1628 ~110-4 info@scaplanning.com www.scaplanning.com f, r #04Â· rat,0- Pa Act,CIVOU 5 December 2017 DEC 0 6 2017 Ms. Jennifer Phelan, AICP Cl T Y OfÂ· ASPEN Deputy Planning Director COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Mountain Forge/ Application for Final Commercial Review Dear Jennifer: On behalf of our client, 360 Hexagon LLC (the "Applicant") and in conformance with the Determination of Completeness dated 28 November 2017, please find enclosed a check in the amount of $4,875.00 to cover any and all fees associated with the Final Commercial Design Review application. We also include one (1) additional hard copy of the application. A digital version of the Final Commercial Design Review application has been uploaded to the "City of Aspen" Dropbox previously shared with you. Please call with any questions. Very truly yours< Patrick S. Rawley, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachments RETAIN FOR PERMANENT RECORD CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT C 2 El Agreement to Pay Application Fees 2 -4 4 agreement between the City of Aspen ("City") and_ cj 77 001% -2017 461-4 -4 0 Property 0 00 Phone No. 617-549-6675 - 9> Owner ("1"): 360 Hexagon LLC Email: sedgerley@hexagon-properties.com 0 -0 -Sm Address of mz Billing Property: 230 E. Hopkins. Aspen, CO Address: 119 Hyslop Road (Subject of (send bills here) Brookline, MA 02445 ~ application} I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No., Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and payment of these fees isa condition precedent to determiningapplication completeness. l understand thatasthe property ownerthat lam responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referralfees: l agreeto pay the following fees for the servicesindicated. l understand that these flat fees are non-refundab'e. S. flat fee for . S flat fee for $. flat fee for . $ flat fee for For Depositcases only: The City and lunderstandthat because ofthe size, natureor scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. t understand and agree thatitis impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project con*eration, unless invoices are p:id in full. The City and I understand and agree thar invorces mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shell be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to ren'lit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. Ihave read, un:derstood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no-payment, l agree to pay thefollowing initial deposit amounts for the specified hours ofstaff time. 1 understand that paymentof a deposit does not renderand application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded Cobts exceed the initial deposit, 1 agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City forthe procesbing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $ 4,550 deposit for 14 hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the depocit amotint will be billed at $325.00 per hour. s .329 eposit for | hours of Engineering Department staff time, Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. City of Aspen: Property Owner: 19*44 4 0,6=.61 Jessica Garrow, AICP (23 0 %g Community Development Director Name: ,/ Sandra M. Edgerley 2 4 ; City Use: Title: =lo 1 Fees Due: $,_.Eketewed %Ek_BlS~~ Manager, 360 Hexagon LLC om 1- --9 14 0 0 0 -0 1 07 March, 2016 THE CITY OF ASPEN RF- Land Use Application Determination of Completeness .4. NOV 8 0 2017 Cif Date: November 28,2017 40,1006@*WEIV Dear City of Aspen Land Use Review Applicant, lao,ENT We have received your land use application for 230 E. Hopkins, Final Commercial Design Review and have reviewed it for completeness (and not compliance). ~Your Land Use Application is complete: F Please submit the following to begin the land use review process. 1) Digital pdf of the entire application (via thumb drive, emailed files, or file sharing) 2) Review deposit of $4,875*09~engineering deposit is at $325.00 and added) 3) One additional hard copy gfthe application. Other submission items may be requested throughout the review process as deemed necessary by the Community Development Department. Please contact me at 429-2759 if you have any questions. Cy,71 . 0 ~ermifeÂ¢Ph an, Deputy PlannitiEE>k~or City of kspdn. Community Development Department For Office Use Only: Qualifying Applications: Mineral Rights Notice Required New PD Yes- NolÂ£_ Subdivision, or PD (creating more than I additional lot) GMQS Allotments Residential Affordable Housing Yes ~ No_~_ Commercial E.P.F. Lodging C i STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATESINC ~,2112â€¢ landscape architecture.planning.resort design 412 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 t. 970/925-2323 f. 970/920-1628 info@scaplanning.com www.scaplanning.com /..../. 22 November 2017 RF' :D Ms. Jennifer Phelan, AICP NOV 2 2 2017 Deputy Planning Director CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Comrnunity Development Department 130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 COAM)Mly DEVELOPMENT RE: Mountain Forge/ Application for Final Commercial Review Dear Jennifer: On behalf of our client, 360 Hexagon LLC (the "Applicant"), please find attached for completeness review an application for Final Commercial Review for the Mountain Forge building. This application has been completed in conformance with the pre-application conference summary dated 19 October 2017. Please call with any questions. Very truly yours, 72:z222<4. Patrick S. Rawley, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachments Land Use Application RECEIV 2.,0 230 E. Hopkins-Mountain Forge Building 1.4 W NOV 2 2 2017 22 November 2017 CITY OF ASPFN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT An app/ication for Find Commercia/ Review. *7Â¥:144% . I ' â€¢* 0 W,~ ir.1, y, 0 I ltd f .., I *bld.2.9.miÂ¢ i . ..4*+,41,4 4 - 9 it~Â·.4..- *Â» *i ~ <: f:t:Â·43 *-2, . ..4.9 143 Â· . 2-/le J 6 D . 1 i... ty, 47 1**9 4 9\ â‚¬',' .. 6 *4% 4.Au -*. . 19 -. - - 1- t -,t â‚¬, Or F - -.-@.arr '41.1-r: .-4.21Â·1. ' 1.'-5 .2 ..Â« Represented By: STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES mc ~and,~dpe-.1-En Yth 'N~ 412 Noill, Mill Street Aspei. Colorado 8:611 t. 970,525Â·1323 f. 970/920Â·1628 rowlan<-]+brotighten 1,2 ecr-*â€¢Â·Â·Â·Â· /1':1'Â·Â·r ::e:. rn 'rite,<Ir drsÂ·=â€¢ ~~"â€¢202:~ infoÂ¢Â§</plaining.com w.,2.2.5(301/nni"Z.com '/9/'57.2.Z'. Tfr'- YF V TABLE OF CONTENTS m Project Overview, Code Response, and Design Guideline Response ~ Attachment 2 - Completed Land Use Application Form â€¢ Attachment 3 - Dimensional Requirements Form â€¢ Attachment 4- Vicinity Map and Property Description â€¢ Attachment 5 - Architectural Plans â€¢ Attachment 6- Letter of Authorization â€¢ Attachment 7 - Proof of Ownership â€¢ Attachment 8 - HOA Compliance Form â€¢ Attachment 9 - Transportation Impact Analysis Tool â€¢ Attachment 10 - Site Improvement Survey â€¢ Attachment 11 - Previous Approval â€¢ Attachment 12- Pre-Application Conference Summary Mountain Forge Building (PID# 273707328008) Final Comrnercial Design Review 22 Novernber 2017 1IPage PROJECT OVERVIEW 360 Hexagon LLC (the "Applicant") submits this application for Final Comrnercial Design Review for the remodel of the existing Mountain Forge Building. The subject site is a 6,000 SF parcel located at 230 East Hopkins (the "Property"). The Property lies within the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district and is located in what was forrnerly known as the western Central Mixed Use Character Area of the repealed and replaced Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. As the conceptual application was subrnitted prior to recent code changes, this application is vested under the code and design guidelines in place in March 2016. This application is submitted in conforrnance with the pre-application conference summary dated 19 October 2017. The existing Mountain Forge building contains 792 SF of net livable area and 5,699 SF of net leasable area. The project will remodel the existing Mountain Forge Building, provide one (1) 2,313 SF net livable free-market residential unit, one (1) 961 SF net livable affordable housing unit, and reorganize the commercial space. The building will contain 4,892 SF of net leasable space. Cumulative floor area will be 7,444 SF, well under the cumulative maxirnum floor area potentially available of 12,000 SF. Conceptual approval provided for two (2) free-market units. The Applicant is requesting an insubstantia] amendment to the Growth Management approval to merge the two units into a single unit. This will require the use of a Transferable Development Right for unit size and will require an increase in required affordable housing rnitigation of 0.05 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs). This slight increase will be mitigated using affordable housing credits or paid through cash-in-lieu. (Cash-in-lieu payments of less than .1 FTE do not require City Council approval.) Mitigation for the expansion of the residential space is calculated to now be 1.74 FTEs, a slight increase from what was approved at Conceptual of 1.69 FTEs. As the approved net leasable is less than existing conditions, no mitigation is required for the net leasable space. A portion of the Mountain Forge Building was once the studio of Francis Whitaker, an artistic blacksrnith and personality of mid-century Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley, who has been credited with helping to preserve the craft of ironworking. The carefully designed remodel has artfully incorporated building forms present on neighboring historic properties, particularly the Victorian diagonally opposite the Property, also known as the Katie Reed Building, and the Victorian housing a restaurant directly to the East at 302 E. Hopkins. The design intent for the proposed materials and fenestration for the Mountain Forge Building is intended to honor and reflect the craftsmanship of hand worked materials. Handmade bricks, metal panels, corten siding, and cedar siding stained to compliment the metal and brick will be detailed to convey a sense of cohesion and human scale. The proposed modern metal windows will be a combination of steel, aluminum and metal clad windows. Window trim will be black or dark bronze in color when used adjacent to the brick fagade and aluminum adjacent to areas of wood siding. Operable windows will be casernent. All first-floor windows to be storefront type to reinforce the commercial character of the building. The remodel has addressed all applicable Comrnercial Design Guidelines as well as the design guidelines of the Central Mixed Use Character Area. The details and materiality of the building will bridge the commercial and residential neighborhoods. The materials are high quality, and represent the range of materials seen historically. This special attention to context will ensure the remodeled building will be an asset to the irnmediate vicinity, add interest and vitality to the streetscape, and be a graceful transition to the residential neighborhoods to the West. Mountain Forge Building (PID# 273707328008) Final Commercial Design Review 22 November 2017 21Page The remodel of the existing building will retain 63% of the building's structural elements and therefore not be considered a demolition per the land use code. Remodeling will also rnaintain the exterior stair and the sunken areaway on the southeastern corner of the building. An existing window well along the eastern fagade of the building will be removed and appropriately landscaped though a small egress window well will be provided for the subgrade portion of the affordable housing unit. This area will serve as public arnenity space. Landscape treatrnents, honoring Francis Whitaker were approved at Conceptual approval. This submission has further developed these features, creating an iconic public amenity space that honors Aspen's history and colorful characters. Functional enhancements are also proposed to the alignment and condition of the sidewalk along Hopkins Avenue. Pedestrian amenities include pedestrian seating. The Applicant has worked diligently to design a project that meets the City's goals with respect to neighborhood compatibility and the creation of a transition from the Commercial Core to residential neighborhoods to the West. By placing an emphasis on context and human scale, the pedestrian experience will be improved and vitality added to the neighborhood. Mountain Forge Building (PIE)# 273707328008) Final Commercial Design Review 22 November 2017 31Page Land Use Code Response 26.412.050. Review Criteria. An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards. No deviation of the Commercial Design Standards is proposed. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the faÂ¢ade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. The Property currently contains commercial space and commercial uses will continue following the remodel. The proposed development meets all Commercial design standards. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a ease, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. The proposed rernodel meets the various Final Review Design Guidelines as contained in the repealed and replaced Commercial, Lodging, and Historic Design Objectives and Guidelines, which apply to this application. Specifically, the proposed design will respect the design character of the area and will reflect a human scale through careful detailing of the high-quality materials being proposed. The first-floor fagade has been designed to concentrate interest at the street level. Francis Whitaker will be memorialized in a small gathering space that will feature art that is representative of Francis' contribution to Aspen. A unique paving pattern will enhance the pedestrian experience, creating a unique yet compatible area of pedestrian interest. The windows on the first floor will be storefront type windows which will reinforce the traditional notion of street level retail frontage. Retail entrances will be provided immediately off of the sidewalk and clearly identified. The roofscape will be designed with the same attention as the other public spaces. Mechanical units will be grouped and screened from view and located to the rear of the roof area. Architectural materials will be of the highest quality, chosen as rnuch for their durability as their appearance. Handmade bricks, metal panels corten siding, and cedar siding stained to compliment the metal and brick will be detailed to convey a sense of cohesion and hurnan scale. Material samples will be provided at the public hearing. Mountain Forge Building (PID# 273707328008) Final Commercial Design Review 22 November 2017 41Page 26.412.060. Commercial Design Standards. The following design standards, in addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district design objectives and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed-use development: A. Public Amenity Space. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-of- way or private property within commercial areas. Through Conceptual Commercial Design Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission determined that the applicant is required to provide no less than 10% of the lot size in public amenity, or 600 SF The Planning and Zoning Commission has approved the request to provide 490 SF (8.2%) of pubic amenity on-site in the forrn of landscaped open space along the building's Monarch Street facade and wrapping around to the alleyway, and as a paved walkway to the entrances along both E. Hopkins Avenue and S. Monarch Street. The applicant is further approved to provide 505 SF (8.4%) of public an-~enity off-site, directly adjacent to the site along the Hopkins Avenue facade, between the street and the sidewalk. in the forrn of landscape improvements. The on- and offsite public arnenity combined equals 1,086 SF or 18.1% of the site. On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method or combination of methods of providing the public amenity shall be at the option of the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, according to the procedures herein and according to the following standards: 1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. The Planning and Zoning Commission through Conceptual Commercial Design Review determined that the applicant is required to provide no less than 600 SF of public amenity. This amount has been determined sufficient and will allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, considering expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. The Applicant exceeds this required amount of public amenity space by providing 1,086 SF both on and immediately offsite of the Property. 2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent rights-of-way are encouraged. The proposed public amenity will contribute to an active street vitality by providing pedestrian seating and incorporating pedestrian amenities such as public art and an interpretive marker which will provide information on Francis Whitaker's Forge. 3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of-way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. The proposed public arnenity will be compatible with and enhance the operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of-way, and uses and Mountain Forge Building (PID# 273707328008) Final Commercial Design Review 22 November 2017 51Page provide an inviting pedestrian environment. Operational enhancements to the alignment of the sidewalk will create greater continuity of pedestrian experience in the immediate vicinity. 4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by mails, sidewalks on adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian environment. The proposed public amenity space is unique and will not duplicate existing pedestrian features and the unique nature will enhance the pedestrian environment. 5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection 26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements. No variations to the design and the operational standards for public amenity space are requested. The public amenity requirement is proposed to be met through the provision of both on-site and off-site public amenities as approved at Conceptual. B. Utility, delivery and trash service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. E fficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply: 1. A trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum size and location standards established by Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, unless otherwise established according to said Chapter. Utility, trash, and recycle service areas will be provided off of the alley. The utility, trash, and recycle service meet the minimum standards and will irnprove the functionality of the neighborhood. Environmental Health granted Special Review approval to allow 75 additional square feet of trash/recycling area on the site for a total of 150 SF. The trash and recycling area meet the setback requirements of the zone district. 2. A utility area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum standards established by Title 25, Utilities, of the Municipal Code, the City's Electric Distribution Standards, and the National Electric Code, unless otherwise established according to said Codes. The proposed utility area will meet the mininnurn standards established by Title 25, Utilities, of the Municipal Code, the City's Electric Distribution Standards, and the National Electric Code. 3. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located and combined to the greatest extent practical. All utility, trash and recycle service will be co-located and combined to the greatest extent practical. 4. If the property adjoins an alleyway, the utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be along and accessed from the alleyway, unless otherwise approved through Title 12, Solid Waste, ofthe Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. Mountain Forge Building (PID# 273707328008) Final Comrnercial Design Review 22 Novernber 2017 61Page The utility, trash and recycle service areas will be located off of the alleyway. 5. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be feneed so as not to be visible from the street, unless they are entirely located on an alleyway or otherwise approved though Title 12, Solid Waste, ofthe Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. All fences shall be six (6) feet high from grade, shall be of sound construction, and shall be no less than ninety percent (90%) opaque, unless otherwise varied through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. The utility, trash and recycling service areas will be located off of the alleyway. Should the area around the trash/recycling become enclosed by fence or other structure in the future, the fencing will be six (6) feet high from grade, will be of sound construction, and will be no less than 90% opaque. 6. Whenever utility, trash, and recycle service areas are required to be provided abutting an alley, other portions of a building may extend to the rear property line if otherwise allowed by this Title, provided that the utility, trash and recycle area is located at grade and accessible to the alley. The utility, trash, and recycling area is located abutting the alley at grade and fully accessible from the alley. The building is not proposed to extend to the rear property line. 7. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. The existing single-phase transformer located at the end of the block has been determined by the City of Aspen to be sufficient for the rernodeled Mountain Forge building. A new transformer will not be required to be located on the Property. Easements will be provided for service provider access, as necessary. There are no proposed encroachments into the alley. Although no encroachments are contemplated, any required encroachments will be properly licensed. S. All commercial and lodging buildings shall provide a delivery area. The delivery area shall be located along the alley if an alley adjoins the property. The delivery area shall be accessible to all tenant spaces of the building in a manner that meets the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. All non-ground floor commercial spaces shall have access to an elevator or dumbwaiter for delivery access. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be utilized as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International Building Code. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. A delivery area will be provided for and accessible by all commercial uses. The delivery area will be located along the alley. Cornrnercial space located in the garden level and on the second story will have access to an elevator. The alleyway will not be utilized as a pathway. 9. Al! commercial tenant spaces located on the ground floor in excess of 1,500 square feet shall contain a vestibule (double set of doors) developed internal to the structure to meet the requirements of the Mountain Forge Building (PID# 273707328008) Final Commercial Design Review 22 November 2017 71Page International Energy Conservation Code as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen, or an air curtain. All commercial areas on the ground floor are less than 1,500 SF in size. 10. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. Mechanical exhaust will be vented through the roof. Exhaust equiprnent will be ' located as far away from the street as practical. There is no parking garage ventilation. 11. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting will be integrated internally within the building or located on the roof and shall not be visible from a public right-of- way at a pedestrian level when possible. 12. The trash and recycling service area requirements may be varied pursuant to Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code. All other requirements of this subsection may be varied by special review (see Chapter 16.430.040.E, Utility and delivery service area provisions). The residential units will require an upgrade to the existing trash/recycling area on the site. Environmental Health has granted Special Review approval to allow 75 additional square feet of trash/recycling area on the site for a total of 150 SF, as opposed to the 200 SF that would otherwise be required. The updated trash/recycling area will be located along the alleyway. Should the area become enclosed by fence or other structure in the future, the area will meet the setback requirements of the zone district. 26.412.070. Suggested design elements. The following guidelines are building practices suggested by the City, but are not mandatory. In many circumstances, compliance with these practices may not produce the most desired development, and project designers should use their best judgment. A. Signage. Signage should be integrated with the building to the extent possible. Integrated signage areas already meeting the City's requirements for size, etc., may minimize new tenant signage compliance issues. Common tenant listing areas also serves a public way-finding function, especially for office uses. Signs should not block design details of the building on which they are placed. Compliance with the City's sign code is mandatory Signage will be integrated with the building to the maximum extent possible. Signs will not block design details of the building on which they are placed. The proposed signage will be in compliance with the City sign code. B. Display windows. Display windows provide pedestrian interest and can contribute to the success of the retail space. Providing windows that reveal inside activity of the store can provide this pedestrian interest. , Mountain Forge Building (PID# 273707328008) Final Commercial Design Review 22 November 2017 81Page Large windows will be provided which reveal the inside activity of the commercial space. C. Lighting. Well-lit (meaning quality, not quantity) display windows along the first floor create pedestrian interest after business hours. Dynamic lighting methods designed to catch attention can cheapen the quality of the downtown retail environment. Illuminating certain important building elements can provide an interesting effect. Significant light trespass should be avoided. Illuminating the entire building should be avoided. Compliance with the City's Outdoor lighting code, Section 26.575.150 of this Title, is mandatory. The proposed development will not employ any dynamic lighting methods. Certain important building elernents may be illuminated to provide an interesting effect. Significant light trespass will be avoided, as well as illurninating the entire building. The proposed development will be fully compliant with the City's Outdoor lighting code. Cutsheets of the proposed lighting has been included with this application. 26.470.140. Amendment of a growth management development order. (insubstantial) A. Insubstantial amendment. An insubstantial amendment to an approved growth management development order maybe authorized by the Community Development Director if: 1. The change conforms to all other provisions of the Land Use Code and does not exceed approved variations to the residential design standards, require an amendment to the commercial design review approval or such variations or amendments have been approved. The applicant is requesting to combine the previously approved free-market units into one 2,313 SF free-market unit. The creation of the a free-market unit of up to 2,500 SF with the extinguishment of a Transferable Development Right (TDR) was permitted in the MU zone district in the code in place at the tirne of submission of the application in March 2016. The combination will not exceed approved variations to the residential design standards nor require an amendrnent to the comrnercial design review approval, 2. The change does not alter the number, size, type or deed restriction of the proposed affordable housing units, or those changes have been accepted by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The combination of the free-market units will not alter the number, size, type or deed restriction of the affordable housing unit to be replaced. 3. The change is limited to technical or engineering considerations discovered prior to or during actual development that could not reasonably be anticipated during the review process or any other minor change that the Community Development Director finds has no substantial effect on the conditions and representations made during the original project review. The Community Development Director has provided that the combination of the free-market units will not have a substantial effect on the conditions and representations made during the original project review. 26.710.180 Mixed-Use (MU). A. Purpose. The purpose of the Mixed-Use (MU) Zone District is to provide for a variety of lodging, short term vacation rentals, multi-family, single-family and mixed-use buildings with commercial uses serving the daily or frequent needs of the surrounding neighborhood, to provide a transition between the commercial core and surrounding residential neighborhoods and to provide a variety of building sizes compatible with the character of the Main Street Historic District. Mountain Forge Building (PID# 273707328008) Final Commercial Design Review 22 November 2017 91Page The proposed project will remodel the existing Mountain Forge Building, provide one (1) new free-rnarket residential unit, one (1) affordable housing unit, and reorganize and improve the commercial space. These uses are permitted in the MU zone district under the code in place at the time of submission of the Conceptual application in March 2016. The Property will generally meet the dimensional requirements of the zone district. Proposed floor area will be 7,444 SF, well under the cumulative maxirnurn floor area potentially available of 12,000 SF. A "technical" height variance was requested for maximurn height for the building adjacent to the existing sunken areaway. Through Conceptual Commercial Design Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request for height variance, specifically, the building rnany not exceed a height of 34 feet-51/2 inches at its highest point, as measured frorn the bottom of the improved areaway to the south side gable along the southeast corner of the building and the building may not exceed a height of 32 feet as measured from the bottorn of the improved areaway to the north side of the gable along the southeast corner of the building. All other areas of the building will not exceed a maximum height of 28 feet. Various features of the building, including an exterior stair, sunken areaway, building entrance, and massing will remain. These features are located within the required front setbacks of the MU zone district. These existing setback encroachments may be maintained if dernolition does not occur. As the remodel will not remove [nore than 40% of the existing building, demolition will not occur. Mountain Forge Building (PID# 273707328008) Final Commercial Design Review 22 November 2017 10IPage Final Review Design Guidelines - Central Mixed=Use Character Area Building Design & Articulation Buildings within this area have a varied individuality within a distinct sense of relatively cohesive scale. Set within a series of defined sites building form is articulated in a range of different ways, contributing to the sense of human scale and architectural variety comprising the street fagade. Maintaining this building scale within discreet sites, and dividing a building into "modules" is therefore encouraged. The distinction between the first floor and the upper floors of the building also plays a key role in creating a sense of human scale and is therefore an important consideration. 2.17 To reduce the perceived mass of a building, the design should respect the design character of the area and reflect the human scale and character of the city. This shall be achieved through all of the following: â€¢ The massing of building forms â€¢ The articulation of the fagade(s) through a varied roof profile â€¢ The use of a variation iii architectural materials, and detailing The proposed design respects the design character of the area through massing, articulation of the fagade, and through the use of architectural materials and details. The proposed design reflects the human scale and character of the City appropriately. The first-floor fagade has been designed to concentrate interest at the street level. The windows on the first floor will be storefront type windows which will reinforce the traditional notion of street level retail frontage. Retail entrances will be provided immediately off of the sidewalk and clearly identified. The massing is varied throughout, denoting distinct aspects of the building. The roof profile is varied, employing flat and gabled portions. The design intent for the proposed materials and fenestration for the Mountain Forge Building is intended to honor and reflect the craftsmanship of hand worked materials. Handmade bricks, rnetal panels, corten siding, and cedar siding stained to compliment the metal and brick will be detailed to convey a sense of cohesion and human scale. The proposed rnodern rnetal windows will be a combination of steel, aluminum and metal clad windows. Window trim will be black or dark bronze in color when used adjacent to the brick fagade and aluminum adjacent to areas of wood siding. Operable windows will be easement. All first-floor windows to be storefront type to reinforce the comrnercial character of the building. Street Level Character The Central Mixed Use Area comprises part of the periphery of the central commercial area of the city. New development within the Central Mixed Use Character Area should be designed to reflect the vibrant and attractive street character typical of Aspen. The quality of the design of the first floor is essential to the success of the street experience. The distinction between the first floor and the upper floors of the building also plays a key role in creating a sense of human scale and is therefore an important consideration. The design of a new building should respect the stature of the first floor, and its visual role as the tallest floor of the building. 2.19 The first floor fagade should be designed to concentrate interest at the street level, using the highest quality of design, detailing and materials. The proposed redesign of the existing structure reflects the vibrant and attractive street character typical of Aspen. The first floor of the proposed project creates a sense of hurnan scale and has been designed to concentrate interest at the street level. The windows on the first floor will be storefront type windows which will reinforce the Mountain Forge Building (PIE)# 273707328008) Final Comrnercial Design Review 22 November 2017 11IPage traditional notion of street level retail frontage. The highest quality of design, detailing, and materials is evident and provides a warm yet modern aesthetic. 2.22 The retail entrance should beat the sidewalk level e All entrances shall be ADA compliant. e On sloping sites the retail frontage should be as close to a level entrance as possible. All retail/commercial entrances are at the sidewalk level and are ADA compliant. The Property is not a sloping site. 2.23 Incorporate an airlock entry into the plan for all new structures â€¢ An airlock entry that projects forward of the primary fagade at the sidewalk edge is inappropriate. â€¢ Adding temporary entries during the winter season detracts from the character of the historic district. e Using a temporary vinyl or fabric "airlock" to provide protection from winter weather is not permitted. Airlock entries are not incorporated in the proposed rernodel of an existing building. Temporary airlock entries will not be utilized in the winter season. Roofscape A building's roofseape should be regarded as an architectural 'elevation', given its visibility from nearby buildings and mountain slopes. Specific attention should be paid to creating a varied and interesting roofseape. The form seen from above should reinforce the rhythm and scale of the street fagade. â€¢ Group and screen mechanical units from view. â€¢ Locate mechanical equipment to the rear of the roof area. â€¢ Position, articulate and design rooftop enclosures or structures to reflect the modulation and character of the building. â€¢ Use materials which complement the design of the building facades. â€¢ Design roof garden area to be unobtrusive from the street. â€¢ Use 'green roof' design best practice, where feasible. The proposed project creates a varied and interesting roofscape that reinforces the rhythm and scale of the street fagade below. The proposed rooftop spaces are appropriately setback from the street and utilize materials that complernent the design of the building facades. Mechanical units will be grouped together and screened as well as located to the rear of the roof area. Architectural Materials The existing palette of building materials is an integral part of the character of this area. The range directly complements the adjacent commercial areas. As further development occurs the use of brick, stone and wood should be central to the palette to ensure future quality and character consistent with the adjacent central area and historic Main Street. In addition, materials should convey a sense of human scale. 2.25 High quality, durable materials should be employed. â€¢ The palette of materials proposed for all development should be specified and approved as part of the general and detailed development approvals process, including sampled of materials as required. The proposed project utilizes high quality, durable materials that complement the adjacent commercial areas and are consistent with the character of the area. Mountain Forge Building (PID# 273707328008) Final Commercial Design Review 22 November 2017 12IPage Handrnade bricks, metal panels, corten siding, and cedar siding will convey a sense of cohesion and human scale. Material samples will be provided at the public hearing. 2.26 Building materials should have these features: Convey the quality and range of materials seen historically. e Reduce the perceived scale of the building and enhance visual interest of the fagade. â€¢ Convey a human scale. @ Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within this climate. The proposed rnaterials have proven durability and weathering characteristics within this climate and convey the quality and range of materials seen historically. The proposed materials enhance the visual interest of the fagade, reduce the perceived scale of the building, and convey a human scale. Paving & Landscaping Paving and landscaping is a significant element iii the present character of this area, and should be designed as an integral part of building and its immediate setting. 2.27 Landscaping and paving should have the following characteristics: â€¢ Enhance the street scene. â€¢ Integrate the development with its setting. â€¢ Reflect the quality of the architectural materials. The proposed landscape design and paving reflect the quality of the architectural materials and will integrate the project into its setting. Landscape treatments, honoring Francis Whitaker were approved at Conceptual approval. This subrnission has further developed these features, creating an iconic public amenity space that honors Aspen's history and colorful characters. Functional enhancements are also proposed to the alignrnent and condition of the sidewalk along Hopkins Avenue. Pedestrian amenities include pedestrian seating. A unique paving pattern will enhance the pedestrian experience, creating a unique yet compatible area of pedestrian interest. 2.28 Landscaping should be provided in all projects. Landscape enhancements will be provided that will complement existing street trees. Mountain Forge Building CPID# 273707328008) Final Commercial Design Review 22 November 2017 13IPage Al IMENT 2-LAND USE APPLICATI PROJECT: Name: Mountain Forge Location: 230 E. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 273707328008 APPLICANT: Name: 360 Hexagon LLC Address: 119 Hyslop Road, Brookline, MA02445 Phone #: 617-549-6675 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. Address: 412 N. Mill Street, Aspen, CO 81611 Phone #: 970-925-2323 TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): GMQS Exemption U Conceptual PUD U Temporary Use GMQS Allotment U Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) U Text/Map Amendment Special Review U Subdivision D Conceptual SPA ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream U Subdivision Exemption (includes U Final SPA (& SPA Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane Â® Commercial Design Review U Lot Split U Small Lodge Conversioni Expansion Amendment to Growth ~1 Residential Design Variance U Lot Line Adjustment Â® Other: Management U Conditional Use Development Order tinsulosinatial) EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) The Mountain Forge Building was once the studio of Francis Whitaker. The subject site is a 6,000 SF parcel located at 230 East Hopkins. The Property lies within the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district and is located in the western Central Mixed Use Character Area. PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, ete.) The proposed project will remodel the existing Mountain Forge Building, provide one new free-market residential units, one affordable housing unit, and reorganize the commercial space. Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ 4,550 ~ Pre-Application Conference Summary Â® Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement ~ Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form E Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards Â® 3-D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8.5" X 11" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy ofall written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model. 0000 TACHMENT 3 DIMENSIOk ZEQUIREMENTS FORM Project: Mountain Forge Applicant: 360 Hexagon LLC Location: 230 E. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado Zone District: Mixed-Use (MU) Lot Size: 6,000 SF Lot Area: 6,000 SF (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable Existing: 5,559 SE Proposed: 4,892 SF Number of residential units: Existing: Proposed: 1 Number of bedrooms: Existing: 1 Proposed: 3 Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: 5,9 17 SE Allowable: 12,GOO SE Proposed: 7,444 SE Principal bldg. height: Existing: 25-28' Allowable: 32 Proposed: 28' Access. bldg. height: Existing: Allowable Proposed: On-Site parking: Existing.Â· 0 Required: 2 Proposed: 2 % Site coverage: Existing: 66% Required: n/a Proposed: 75 % % Open Space: Existing: 34 No Required: 10% Proposed: 5% ** Front Setback: Existing: 0' Required: 10' Proposed: 9 Rear Setback: Existing: 51 Required: 5, Proposed: 5 Combined F/R: Existing.- Required: Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: 0' Required: 5' Proposed: E Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Combined Sides: Existing Required: Proposed: Distance Between Existing n/a Required: Proposed: Buildings Existing non-conformities or encroachments: Previously approved features of the building: exterior stair, sunken areaway, building entrance, and massing located within a setback. Variations requested: N/A ttachment 4 Vicinity Map -~2 1, rU .. T 2.2 E 2.E .../.11'll'll'll....Ilim. 1 IN s MA[Al ST Â· ~ p _ i... I~ 103 56 466 ../... ~~35'S N -H .L -/4. 1 MAI Sit ' ~ .107Â·S 4061*Ac 11 N ' 15 E ~|~~ IIN T 1 . 2&+PA . Ji.14....4.14. 11 2 wi,mi x. 1*4 I 4 :19 P E , A ,DE Â· i P INS 2 4,6 PKINS .7 .JaÂ»= AVE -4 9 AV E 117 S i r- - IN P,IONAR -H T ~ 1/~ /4 4 E HOPKINS AVE 2 34 E k , â€¢Lâ€¢ 1 7*Â·, O.PKT-' 20'E Â® 0 %1*1.3/1 I {0 11~ 14 . g 308 E ~ F . * i .., --* 9. HOP,OINSC â‚¬40~~~ 94 0 $44 v~**A~A AVE H Â· PKINi~ 24 05 7.-<,4,274"'p J S EN SET , J~ . 0 h f 4. 1.EANK.Ke#~Ma:~30~4%~...~ EIXVIP ~I07I~~AVE ~*,d~- 132?lt*f -<. HOPKINS AVE ~â€¢2-â€¢m Subject Property Mountain Forge Building (PID #273707328008) Final Commercial Design Review 22 November 2017 Parcel ID: 273707328008 Pitkin County Parcel Report Report Created: 11/7/2017 12:16:35 PM 1 . eA - I + f 1 M 1 5 h 90~ â€¢ 1 11 .. ~ 4Â· r 4 . , 44 1 i 1 . Property Information Address (Assessor's Records) 230 E HOPKINS AVE Address (GIS Points) 230 E HOPKINS AVE Address (GIS Points) 234 E HOPKINS AVE Address (GIS Points) 117 S MONARCH ST Account R001432 Owner 360 HEXAGON LLC Owner Address 119 HYSLOP RD BROOKLINE, MA 02445 GIS Parcel Size 5967.72 Sq. Feet Jurisdiction Aspen Township, Range, Section T: 10, R:84, S:7 Assessor's Information Â£ j ~ P. 4.k :* 4. Land Use Category 1112: Residential-Single Family Residence Legal Description Subdivision: 220 & 230 E HOPKINS AVE/117 S MONARCH ST MINOR SUB ADJ PARCEL A Improvements 6940 Sq. Feet Services Sewer System Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Water District City of Aspen Water Service Area Fire District Aspen Fire Protection District School District Aspen School District No. 1 (RE) Boundaries Caucus Not within a Caucus Area Master Plan Area AACP Zone District Check with your municipality. Historic District Not within a Historic District. ~ Watershed Drainage | Upper Roaring Fork River | Watershed Subbasin ~ Roaring Fork River above Aspen | .4/fFâ€ž*9*11 Â£Â¢Tax In formation (611!111/111 11*u~Ke!6 ; 14i.~E PITKIN COUNTY GENERAL FND 2.476 $3,415.36 COUNTY TV&FM TRANSLATORS 0.289 $398.64 COUNTY ROADS & BRIDGES 0.182 $251.05 COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES 0.065 $89.66 HEALTHY COMMUNITY FUND 0.802 $1,106.26 ASPEN AMBULANCE DISTRICT 0.4 $551.75 OPEN SPACE & TRAILS 3.75 $5,172.67 PITKIN COUNTY LIBRARY 1.49 $2,055.28 CITY OF ASPEN 5.817 $8,023.85 ASPEN FIRE PROTECTION $2,035.96 ASPEN SANITATION DISTRICT 0.13 $179.32 ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL 2.818 $3,887.09 ASPEN SCHOOL DISTRICT 9.297 $12,824.10 COLORADO MTN COLLEGE 3.997 $5,513.38 COLORADO RIVER WATER CONS 0.253 $348.98 ASPEN HISTORIC PARK & REC 0.3 $413.81 Total 32.066 $46,267.16 EVoting Information c rt i~ Voting Precinct 2 State House District 61 State Senate District 5 Board of County Commissioners District(s) 1 U.S. House of 3 Representatives District 'fl Public Amenities +9 4%*B -WA Parks Nearby (1/2 Mile) Wagner Park Pioneer Park Hillyard Park Triangle Park Koch Lumber Park Wheeler Park Conner Memorial Park Clapper Park Francis Whitaker Park Veterans Park Paepcke Park Yellow Brick School Park Willoughby ParK Library Plaza Lift One A Park Aspen Alps Park Glory Hole Park Rio Grande Skate Park Rio Grande Park John Denver Sanctuary Herron Park Newbury Park Cooper Park Hyman Park Fox Crossing Park Silver Circle Ice Rink Mary B Trails Nearby (1/2 Mile) Hunter Creek Extension W Hallam St Trueman Recycle Center Rio Grande Park Summit St Cutoff Post Office E Hallam St Courthouse Oklahoma Flats nnan Cnarac Alaarhâ€ž 11/9 Mita) No Problem Joe Ajax - Little Cloud connector John Denver Sanctuary Puppy Smith Red Mountain Rd E Hopkins Ave Little Cloud Clarendon Scotties Midland Trail Lower Hunter Creek W Hopkins Ave Ajax Aspen Mountain Rd Rio Grande Top of Mill Crossover Trueman Alps Ute Ave Red Brick Midland - 3rd St Lone Pine W Hopkins Path Open Spaces Nearby (1/2 Mile) Millionaire Millsite Hallam Lake Reeder Mill Street Parcel Little Cloud Rubey Lot 7 Prockter Little Cloud Park Millionaire Lode Jenny Adair Park Center Lode Mining Claim Barbee 2.2 Disclaimer 3~ ~ 44 - ..2 4440 14 .:*%95 3*99 7.79 '- + :rip Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this report as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data contained in the report is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. Data is presented in WGS 1984 Web Mercator. Size, shape, measurement and overlay of features may be distorted. In some cases, multiple results could be valid; for example, Zoning. In other cases, a parcel may cross over the boundary of more than one data area, for example, multiple Precincts. More information about Trails, Parks and Open Space can be found www.pitkinoutside.org. Visit the Pitkin County GIS Department at http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com Attai - iment 5 - NON-UNIT SPACE COMM. #3 670 SF GROSS 709 SF - GARAGE ACCESS: 83'-101/2 x 18% SINGLE FREE-MARKET ' 121 SF RESIDENCE WITH TDR - 1 1 1 1 11- d nl~ SECOND LEVEL I .- 1 - - -~ -- -- -r.---. i rowland+broughton 8 - 1-07, COMM.#2 -- If- 5.,R 111 11--1~ archited/re / urban design / interior design 1 'tjji * 13 :liril= ---7 7TM- Â¥ 366 SF RES. GARAGE 234 e hopkins ave 1830 blake st, ste 200 350 SF 970.544.9006 0 303.308.1373 0 945 SF GROSS - '1 6./.*JU - 44:MEEEF] -500 SF (250 EXEMPT) -COMM. #7 : 970.544.34731 303.308.13751 x 18% I aspen, co 81611 denver, co 80202 584 SF 0 in=411 =Â·, 111 35DSF 150 SF (@50%) = 75 SF . /Yl â€ž â€ž .' #-: G E= 105 SF NON-UNIT ' UJUÂ®.Jib-3 - 9-233 COMM.#5 - 1 r- ' Issue: , < SPACE 140 SF GROSS x 18% : f 670 SF .. ~ -4 --- -- 7 1.A 14 *in 1 . 25 SF i p. P+Z FINAL HEARING 11.16.2017 , ly-I COMM. #4 ----Ill ./.A AHU 684 SF 91, 1. 1 FIt wi n .M 148 SF , 1/15 -1 1 1111117- 1 L...Â«11 - :21088,F GROSS \ re/ x 18% COMM. #1 L 1%1 #*fc- 1 123 SF 1,459 SF 398 SF M p F L f -fl F*6Ray --- .D [f-2~~~ | ' 1,11, lilli . 1 EXIS11NG IL=EU] 1 , 1 ....62 - 02~NF - NOM/1229;7 - 17 i WINDO'WELLT/% Â·[4-1'1111111 ! 11111 WINDOWWELL REDUCED 1 1 lili'11!111 1,1111 TO BE REDUCED COURTYARD - 6 , 4*@%eK N ' ' 6 LEGEND - PROPOSED ~Ih CKEES~7FLOOR PLAN COMMERCIAL :A, . ....V1 MENT ( 2 j LEVEL ONE FLOOR PLAN ~ AO.2 j SCALE: 3/32=1-0 '41'DII ( AO.2 7 SCALE: 3/32 =1'-0 RESIDENTIAL SPACE 11 lill i f, NON-UNIT SPACE DECK AREA > 30" ABOVE GRADE Revision: '.1:2.Wfy AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT :7..LifleÂ· 935>99 NON-UNIT --COMM. #9 WALL O WALLO WALLO WAL. SPACE - Â· - 390 SF 222 SF WALL WALL AREA Al + AREA 9 WALLAREA 9 697 SF 9 'IS 198 SF 9 490 SF b -STAR DECK ' (EXEMPT) 65*-3 3/4 ,Â·-* 18'-r L 46'-7 3/4" (EXEMPT) 145 SF 1 1' 94 4 1 1 1 295 SF - - COMM. #8 24 SF WALL AREA 526 SF WA" O WALLâ‚¬ WALL 0 EXPOSED r?AU 0 WAU Â® 4/1 , ///7+11U1U1//ilk 60 SF WALL AREA 5 9 WALL AREA AREA 199 S) 9 9 16 SF 616 SF b X WALL AREA 5 WALL AREA 26 SF 74 SF *L 1 4- 18.1134 , 44 -~----~L 58-7 314" 6'-41/2 44_=vnr/7- 1* 31 1 1 1 MTN FORGE L, WALL.O 140 SF EXPOSED F BUPOSED EXPOSED EXPOSED SUB-GRA[DE WALL SUMMARY: RESIDENCE ouqu . . 1,1 ,},)7 73 SF A-Â· 1,04-SF 51 SF RENOVATION WALL# WALL AREA EXPOSEDAREA 2,458 SF -2/ WREET 697 SF 0 SF AND ADDITION 1~ 4 WALL AREA 2 Â£ i I ; w.116'NEA, Ilii=lij| v,~~59~~E.A ~ ~ *1 WALLAREA WALL 5 199 SF 0 SF WALL 2 24 SF 0 SF WALL 3 198 SF o SF |i~ i /IF 1* ' 1 WALL 4 490 SF 0 SF 230-234 E. HOPKINS AVENUE 0 â€¢41* 51 W WALL 6 16 SF 0 SF ASPEN, CO 81611 o i - (EXEMPT) 01. -A- -FL WALL 7 616 SF 60 SF 0 116 SF 6-61/4 2 13Â·-10 34Â· L L 14Â·-0Â· L A'-53/4[ WALL 8 26 SF 0 SF *-1 ~ Â·~ Â·. - WALL 9 74 SF 0 SF 0 00000 Â· Â·Â· Â·i - Â· WALL 10 76 SF 76 SF r EXPOSED WALL 11 157 SF 140 SF WALL O / 66 SF WALL 12 159 SF 142 SF WALL 13 51 SF 51 SF - - - WALL 14 228 2 IQ& 2 TOTALS 3117 SF 535 SF - PROPOSED VYALL AREA ( 3 j LEVEL TWO FLOOR PLAN 83 SF 535 SF EXPOSED / 3117 SF WALL AREA = 18% OF SUB GRADE BASEMENT WILL COUNT TOWARD FLOOR AREA. SCALE: 3/32 = 1'-0 29'-51/2- PROPOSED GROSS AREAS: PROJECT NO: CODE SUMMARY: CALCULATION SUMMARY: tj 24?: :; LEVEL ONE - RESIDENCE GARAGE 5,549 SF COMMERCIAL 60.656 12,000 SF ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA LEVEL TWO- RESIDENCE PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCULATION: PERCENTAGE OF USAGE: OVERALL FLOOR AREA REMAINING: 21525 CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE SECTION 26.575.020 CALCULATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS. MEASURING FLOOR AREA. ZONING DISTRICT MIXED USE (MU) 222 SF LEVEL TWO - COMM. #9 / 398 SF LEVEL ONE - AHU +3 615 SF RESIDENTIAL 39.4% - 7.444 SF PROPOSED FLOOR AREA DWG FILE: IN MEASURING FLOOR AREAS FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO AND ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA, THE FOLLOWING APPLIES: - - - - - CURRENT USES OFFICE/RESIDENTIAL 526 SF LEVEL TWO - COMM. 18 21525_AD.2z.dwg 684 SF BASEMENT-AHU 9,164 SF TOTAL GROSS AREA 100% 4.556 S F FLOOR AREA REMAINING 1.459 SF LEVEL ONE - COMM, #1 GENERAL. FLOOR AREA SHALL BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE LOT OR PARCEL UPON WHICH lT IS DEVELOPED. IN MEASURING NET LOT AREA (A) 6,000 SF 709 SF LEVEL ONE - COMM. #3 4,500 SF ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA SHEET TITLE 366 SF LEVEL ONE -COMM. #2 COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA REMAINING 1,459 SF LEVEL ONE - COMM. #1 ACBL21[2-swiTPHUTHEitfU~D~~NGGE~TOE~~CAR~~~L~~F~~DE~NG ORP~TIO~RT~ER[~T~L GROSS LOT AREA (A) 6,000 SF 22 366 SF LEVEL ONE - COMM. #2 148 SF BASEMENT-COMM.#4 4.446 g PROPOSED FLOORAREA 6 709 SF LEVEL ONE - COMM. #3 25 SF BASEMENT-COMM.#5 NON-UNITSPACE: 54 SF FLOOR AREA REMAINING PROPOSED MEASURING FROM THE EXTERIOR WALLS. THE MEASUREMENT SHALL BE TAKEN FROM THE EXTERBOR FACE OF ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA 12,000 SP 123) ~ it05 g BASEMENT - COMM. #7 670 SF LEVEL ONE RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA REMAINING: FLOOR AREA 820 SF BASEMENT - COMM. #4 170 SF BASEMENT-COMM.#6 390 SF LEVEL TWO FRAMING. EXTERIOR FACE OF STRUCTURAL BLOCK, EXTERIOR FACE OF STRAW BALE. OR SIMILAR EXTERIOR SURFACE - COMMERCIAL AREA 4,500 SF (.75:1) 140 SF BASEMENT - COMM. #5 OF THE NOMINAL STRUCTURE EXCLUDING SHEATHING, VAPOR BARRIER. WEATHERPROOFING MEMBRANE, - FREE MARKET HOUSING 3.000 SF (.5:1) 945 SF BASEMENT - COMM. #6 3.730 SF SUBTOTAL +121 SF BASEMENT 3,000 SF ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA EXTERIOR-MOUNTED INSULATION SYSTEMS. AND EXCLUDING ALL EXTERIOR VENEER AND SURFACE TREATMENTS - AFFORDABLE HOUSING REMAINDER OF 12,000 SF ALLOWABLE SUCH AS STONE, STUCCO, BRICKS, SHINGLES. CLAPBOARDS OR OTHER SIMILAR EXTERIOR VENEER TREATMENTS. 584 SF BASEMENT - COMM. #7 lili g COMM.-NON UNIT 1.181 SF TOTAL 2928 2 PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 526 SF LEVEL TWO -COMM. #8 4.446 SF COMM. - FLOOR AREA 1181 SF NON.UNIT SPACE 2 SF FLOOR AREA REMAINING 21222 2 LEVEL TWO - COMM. #t9 SCALE: 3/32"=1'-0" DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS: 9,164 SF TOTAL GROSS AREA PROPOSED 2,458 SF LEVEL TWO - RESIDENCE x 60 6% Â§Â£ COMM. - % OF USAGE AHU FLOOR AREA REMAINING: 3.000 SF MIN. GROSS LOT AREA 175 iE LEVEL ONE - RESIDENCE GARAGE 716 SF COMM. - NON-UNIT SPACE 30 MIN.LOT WIDTH TOTAL RESIDENTIAL: 3,615 SF 2.738 SF SUBTOTAL 1181 SF NON-UNIT- SPACE 1.065 SF PROPOSED FLOOR AREA 4,556 SF ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA 10' MIN. FRONT YARD SETBACK TOTAL COMMERCIAL: 5,549 SF SF RES. - 96 OF USAGE 5 MIN. SIDE YARD SETBACK ZEÂ£ 2 RES.-NON UNIT . 39.4% _ -3361 Â§iF FLOOR AREA REMAINING AO.2z 5Â· MIN. REAR YARD SETBACK PROPOSED DECK AREA (NON FLOOR AREA): 2.998 SF RES. - FLOOR AREA 465 SF RES. - NON-UNIT SPACE 28 MAX. HEIGHT 295 SF LEVEL TWO - FRONT DECK AREA 7.444 SP TOTAL-FLOORAREA ~Z,,C * 1 10 MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS 116 SF LEVEL TWO- ALLEY DECK nâ‚¬ Moll.~Te, hJ cl,40-1/! reÂ»1â„¢40 0,1 t~ *'I 11072 21 LEVEL THREE - ROOF DECK 01Cm' 2,490 SF TOTAL DECK AREA ~led.24- -- _ - . ~ Da -M*IÂ¢-T â„¢E9ET~ 21 Al -Ill .EÂ·>=Â·=e-,Â·Â·. ....... 1 f ------- -~- -- --7 1 rowland+broughton 817 SF NET ...'p- 1 COMM#s~-LI-==.r aratecture / urban deign / inteXi d"gn -emofÂ¥ 234 e hopkins ave 1830 blake st sle 200 1 - NON UNIT aspen. co 81611 denver. co 80202 a.=liwiloill afÂ¥.112 - 970.544.9006 0 303.308.1373 0 1 1 1 335 SF 970.544.3473 f 303.308.1375f COMM #5- 11 , COMA'I.#51~=~~~~~-~ ~~~MM ~ 1.317 SF NET --- 0 125 SFNET 507 SF Issue: ' ' JL.-~.~....-ukke ia....: ntlt:*~ r "~32 | com.#4- -1.~ -10. 1 %31 1-til. 22. 11.16.2017 AHU P+Z FINAL HEARING ~ 2%*c"_- --i 2 ,Â©a 1 Fai- 6 - 1 E------4:L_d~Elf. ___ 12211 - 1----1 lilli . 1 - 1[N,1,11!!1111,1 /'~\ EXISTING - PROPOSED f 1 ~ BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN ( 2 j BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN ~ AO.3 ~ SCALE: 1/16 =1'-0- \AO.3 7 SCALE 1/16-=1'-0 COMM. 03 - 942 SF NET COMM. #3 - 630 SF NET COMM #2- P 413 SFNET \&--242(-1144'la/Â£*Ml Ly/32*Z L rl Y 4, Â·Â·> I pltÂ©Â¤UflE]EII] Â·- i , 1 COMM.#2 1 1 -IT ..~ 1 ''~ar~-El"U-UNON-UNIT 310 SFNET -: 1 i L <,.1.-4-k~ 286 SF NET COMM.#4 - ezÂ»4-t*.~ Â¥ '62 52*1 LEGEND 125 SF NET \~:43460//Alm-r 1 L.71:-i -PE]11 Revision: COMMERCIAL I j RESIDENTIALSPACE 9111111, \\ ;; '~'1,5 ; = A-MU COMM.#1 - 13 'S I 22&22* i Â·K.% ... f- 365 SF NET 1.231 SF NET Â»\.....C-F!~ c=1 ---5.- i. 4 1352 SF NET * -Illil "4 1 r,1-4---1 -1 | NON-UNITSPACE .. COMM.#1 F F='}1 Â· B==1!1 ~~4~ ~<O, ~~-~*~- ~ ~ AFFORDABLEHOUSINGUNIT ~ ~ ~ ~~&4 A- . ~ r--2]--/-- .-2- __ MIM/L:-1~ Immilli![mimi -If 1111111=Â® -Ir - - - EXISTING - PROPOSED ( 3 ~ LEVEL ONE FLOOR PLAN ( 4 j LEVEL ONE FLOOR PLAN ~ AD.3 j SCALE: 1/16.= 1'-0' < AO.3 j SCALE: 1/16 -1'-4 , RES. #1 - 792 SF NET - , - --COMM. /9 r~. 1 197 SF MTN FORGE COMM.N2-| Â·~rÂ«n ~~ - -3 RENOVATION 1.641 SF NET Itr 1-- COMM.#8 AND ADDITION DECK 1 ~ ~~~~'~~= 1 + 480 SF -- 1 ~ ~ r7 4.1, E~, Tlill AP 230-234 E. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 1 10=4 7... LUT=...a DELI - I-- ~ 1 p~1~ ._-' -- ~.3~NroNIT RESIDENCE ~Â°TI:11 ..C#A 11,-I- | 2,313 SFNET m .. F:T,J<,7,~Wi~f~pn A-. 42 * 1*4]]ll[[11]flkliÂ»E[UIL - EXISTING -, PROPOSED < 5 j LEVEL TWO FLOOR PLAN ( 6 ~ LEVEL TWO FLOOR PLAN ~AO.3 7 SCALE: ll16" = 1'-0" (AD.3 7 SCALE: 1/16- = 1-0 PROJECT NO: 21525 DWG FILE: 21525_AO.3z.dig EXISTING NET LEASABLE AREAS: EXISTNG NET LIVABLE AREAS: PROPOSED NET LEASABLE AREAS: PROPOSED NET LIVABLE AREAS: PROPOSED NET AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS: SHEET TITLE 1.641 SF LEVEL TWO . COMM. #2 222 2 LEVEL TWO - RES. #1 197 SF LEVEL TVÂ¢0 - COMM. #9 2.313 SE LEVEL TWO . RESIDENCE 961 SF LEVEL ONE/BASEMENT AHU NET LEASABLE & 1,231 SF LEVEL ONE - COMM. #1 792 SF TOTAL EX!STING NET LIVABLE AREA 480 SF LEVEL TWO - COMM. #8 TOTAL PROPOSED NET LIVABLE AREA 413 SF LEVEL ONE - COMM. #2 310 SF LEVELONE - COMM. #2 1,352 SF LEVELONE - COMM.#1 NET LIVABLE 942 SF LEVEL ONE- COMM. #3 630 SF LEVELONE - COMM.#3 CALCULATIONS 125 SF LEVEL ONE, COMM. #4 474 SF BASEMENT - COMM. #4 + 1.317 SF BASEMENT - COMM. #5 125 SF BASEMENT - COMM. #15 SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0" 5.669 W TOTAL EXISTING NET LEASABLE AREA + 507 SF BASEMENT - COMM. #7 817 SF BASEMENT - COMM. #6 " ------Â·Â·Â· --- --- 4892 FF TOTAL PROPOSED NET LEASABLE AREA AO.3z co-=Mo~~O4,/OL--*1~~~-uâ€¢-MO.=10/ 7 22 :m:=&Â·25:%.i:".::~71:43%8:- ~41JOIi.GCCP~~IGM~T+EqE-Cl Â»P- P~*20,.i,?800.-*r---dAIL,00~~0-nun-1.~0.*~19.- 0 0 .64 Ae 0 8 Ny 100'-0 10Â·-51/4Â· 18'-8" 5'-81/8 26'-4 3/4 14'-8 1/2- 24'-1 3/8 rowland+broughton archdedure / urban design / intenor design EXISTING , ADDITION 234 e hopkhs ave 1830 blake Str sle 200 aspen, co 81611 denver. co 80202 970.544.9006 0 303.308.1373 0 970.544.3473 1 303.308.1375 f Issue: 11.16.2017 P+Z FINAL HEARING - - \1 0 PROPER- i SETBACKLINE _____ ~ Â©'0 1 '.' _11' . IJ' .../ 1 .. . I 0 . '' / I -~ ~. Â· 1 0 , D! !1 / ,. Ii-h Â·~-Â·-B !1 .! IL~ .Â·~ ! 1/0 r. .. / . , Revision: <=9 1 1/ J . . 1/.0 ' . , / 0 0 1 1 ' ..0 i - Â·. .~ .5 51Â«/ I " 1 1. I , 0 :r '.1 1 1 Â» R 20 /1 .0 109 , 1 Ul . . 14 . . . A L / ~ ./ ~:. 1 E<5â‚¬0 /' U ~1 Â£23 22 ~ Exk.-11 . I d V 0 ..' EX1 4 ' . ,-1 1 | O 2--4--16----I=H--22 3.-1 , MTN FORGE R '52 " , I 1--=1.-1-- RENOVATION AND ADDITION d-Ill!-+ 11:IiI L ;_ - - 95-1 --d I , , II ~ :I - -5 230-234 E. HOPKINS AVENUE - r.--~,=,_1 ~_ _ _ u_ _ _ - -FETac,ar k ASPEN, CO 81611 1 K'11,11'11111 Â· L-' - *-31 1 1| r b 9 1_-UN lilli 111 1 li - - ELI \4 ~ lit 11111 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 1 1 CD . u : -/0Â«.Ut; 3 11. f. ~_ 21525 PROJECT NO: U DWG FILE: EXISTING , ADDITION . 21525_A3.0_EXT.dwg MONARCH STREET EXISTING/PROPOSED KEY PLAN SHEETTITLE EXISTING , ADDITION PROPOSED ' BASEMENT EXTERIOR LIGHTING /~~'\ PROPOSED 10-5 W le'-8- . 5-81/8 26'-4 3/4 14'-81/2 24'-1 3/8' ( 1 j BASEMENT EXTERIOR LIGHTING SCALE: 3/16'01'4" 100Â·-0Â· , ~ A3.0 ~ SCALE: 3/16- =1'-0 PLAN TRUE NO=Â·ru NORTH 6) 43 8 0 + 4 8 0 8 EME A3.0_EXT COIR:GifT . ' ./.LA.~/â€¢0/ CXIGW=/ I ~=1*mgCTUm E Ma LI/~AM C~' I' M .0]RA:WU AOCE- /-9.- CWTA~ED M T}Â«5 XX=wl*~~L; 25=CUS-*YEÂ·2.3*itmmtillugul-1- SETBACK LINE Â» 0 + 8 CD 0 10'-5 lA' 18'-8 'll/lli.l/444i.l/11/1/11/11 1-44Â»= 111444111/1111111111Ii. 24'-13/8" M '11/1/1/jill~11/111/illilill, . jEE@4 i rowland+broughton architecture/ urban deign / uttedor de,1@n 234 e hopkins ave 1830 blake st. ste 200 ilililitilillifilillillillillillitlil EXISTING aspen, co 81611 denver, co 80202 970.544.9006 0 303.308.13730 - 970.54434731 303.308.1375 f { 0~ - Â»~ ~ 1111~ tI1lll Issue: 11.16.2017 P+Z FINAL HEARING 1 1 1 0 1 - TEWEE ..../.0 7 PROPERTYZINE _ _ a LEM 1 1,11 9 11----/ j /6 -97 / :-/: u , I b EX3 SETBACKUNE 0 -un--C -Â·1"-CII-N Im Â· Â· 1 : O ~-7--| 429 -6.4 Il- -0 ,~= 1-= i ./ . / ': 1 EX3 4 L. 71 - 0 7 ' / d-- 7_ 01 4 ::! ji h :VE----al,Â«-1-=er--a (311 j / i ./ ...:1.1 .lf.1- 111 ....1113..12.!i.-2 ff-42436'#ig.--~ ,-_11!/1 0 *EX, 1 1 1 Revision: ,--11 1" Li- -d--1 J. , 1 :ti . f 11 d l. 1. h .. r.. 1 i.< Â·, Â·: . ')1.- ~.s...:-_fkÂ·.ELLZE/lc-Â«1Â·.~ ~I J _- EX& . . . '/' : 1/7 : -- -.--4 L--rl .1 1 k.-/ 3 44*2 f. 1~ 1Â·Â· (1; :i 1 1 \ // 1 11â‚¬ 2 .i:,tt ~.1.-~- '. 1 . 9 9 1/ 5 ' 4 / 0 ' 4. i -*:1,3/ 1 . ul || 2 f ' 3-0 . ..f --- < v MI , '\..1% ... 1// \ 1 , f~Â· ~ I j' Â· ~il 7 1. . 4 711 ' / i Â· i t. .. 45, .I 4. 0 // 11- -- 1 =-1-- /\ ~.. ... , , - 1~3 ~~~ ~ , -a ,/9 I LL-1-1 ! . / . 7 11 J.1 -4-3 c.' 6211 8 , 3 ' Â· w ) ~ 111 - A 1 <5 11 01 CO 9 lie Ji Â¤ f__1__-_L--3 23[ , 9 . I t._ 'le 4 CL MTN FORGE -iÂ· E--r- -: d.- p- I ' RENOVATION EXe ~ Â· ' Â·Â· 9 , 1 11 ANDADDITION L- 1 -0 . 230-234 E. HOPKINS AVENUE EX1 E.'<1 E.'<1 EX1 E<1 E<1 I Lâ€ž.1 ~ ASPEN, CO 81611 C C C C Iohi ~ 0 1 1 - 0.... : / 1 1 // - L.D 4.-.:tÂ· 'J PROPER- CK)70 4 4 Â«LINE N 0 0 0 0 0 WF <tridÂ·~47 Fi.:.-di t..4:.fl;.6.1 / 4 01 // 1. L.4 T y- I.------ 21525 1 ,Â·:1 PROJECT NO: . DIG FILE: 21525_A3.1-EXT.dwg EXISTING , ADDITION MONARCH STREET SHEET TITLE EXISTING/PROPOSED KEY PLAN EXISTING , ADDITION PROPOSED ' LEVEL ONE EXTERIOR LIGHTING 10Â·-5 1/ . 16Â·I 5-81/8~ 26'-4 3/4 14'-81/r 24'-1 3/E - PROPOSED < 1 ~ LEVEL ONE EXTERIOR LIGHTING .SCALE: 3/16"=1'-0 ' 100'-0 ( A3.1 7 SCALE: 3/117 =1Â·-0 PLAN TRUE NORTH NORTH Â«77 . A3.1_EXT e 00 +A T,Â£ 'FCÂ»u~te; A., Ce,G~ r.+ENT CcNTAIN. CN TH~DOCU~mÂ·,TI % .VII. t}* PRo. ElrY Oy ~[1.Â¥1,=â€¢9Eouc#noNAActin ECTuqi A./&/ *&*#*&&&7#%=2=#&&.;'J::. 2 1 -1...CCANIGMT:"EAEr" â€¢WE 9,5 .WE D-IS b 0 Gte 00 w&IX3 c-x NO!110]OV '' DNLLSIXE HOPKINS AVENUE 1 00 0 0 e<ZIEL A 80 0 100'-0" 10'-5 1/4" , 18Â·-80 5'-81/8 26'4 3/4 14'-8 1/2" 24-1 3/E rowland+broughton architedure / urban deign / inrenor de/gn EXISTING , ADDIT]ON 234 e hoplns ave 1830 blake st. ste 200 aspen.co 81611 denver, co 80202 970.544.9006 0 303.308.1373 0 970.544.3473f 303.308.1375 f Issue: 11.16.2017 P+Z FINAL HEARING 1 .......TY LINE iN CO 1Exl 1 lexl EX5 0= 11 ' ft i / 1 DEX1 , Â· Â· / 1 ]EX1 1 1 1< 1-lid ,... r:723 i T L- 3 1 / M Â· I G Revision: , 1 /1 4 . I i /- i / / il / ' L- Â· 2 2 ..1 . . . .0 0 1 : d . . 0 ve . 0 UU :. 1-/ ..8 ---1 ..122222id 8 : lilli . . : . 9 - , 11. .1 . . Es/n N 1// ': 4 r Oil- N . 1 1 1 0 - - - 4,4, O" 1. - -7 01: 1 1 ' .... . I. : i~.. i --,. 11 - - ip ON ~- ' 1 Â· 1... , 111 il; E ra==t~ 2 u f 0 ri , lili r--m--===â‚¬ZE-3 : 1 , , p. i 0-p 1 MTN FORGE 1'. //4/J-J[= - r~ ~1~EX5~_~ Ch . ... +I I f RENOVATION -IC I ..' 1 I I HEEX1 Ort ill' 4 1 1 0 AND ADDITION .J 1 08-0 0 0,1 SETBACKLINE r 230-234 E. HOPKINS AVENUE S ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPERTY LINE p~cE[NE ..: G 00 41 i. -04 PROJECT NO: 21525 '1 I DWG FILE: . EXISTING , ADDITION 2152523.2-EXT.dwg SHEET TITLE MONARCH STREET EXISTING/PROPOSED KEY PLAN EXISTING , ADDITION PROPOSED LEVEL TWO EXTERIOR LIGHTING - PROPOSED 10Â·.51~4- 184- , 5-8 1/8 26'-4 3/4 14'-8 1/2 24'-1 3/81 / 1 ~ LEVEL TWO EXTERIOR LIGHTING SCALg: 3/16"=1'10 100'-0- ( A:3.2 J SCALE: 3/16-=1'-Or PLAN TRUE NORTH NORTH 0 43 0 0 0 80 0 ON A3.2_EXT ~72.:.54%':=27&4~217:~.:=of~~ n-Â£ PRopERTYCFR[Jit~A~>~louGITCÂ»,ARWEREAHOURR- .t/E 0-,9 ~ MOUNTAIN FORGE EXTERIOR LIGHTING LOCATION: Aspen, Colorado ARCHITECTURE: Rowland + Broughton Architecture / Urban Design / Interior Design INTERIOR DESIGN: Rowland + Broughton Architecture / Urban Design / Interior Design SIZE: 6,000 sf MOUNTAIN FORGE EXTERIOR LIGHT SPECIFICATIONS 2017.11.13 Note: All lights are Dark Sky Compliant or located under roof covering EX1 - STEP LIGHT EX2 - WALL LIGHT (BACK OF HOUSE) EX3 - RECESSED LIGHT WAC Lighting - WL-LED 100 Minka-Lavery - Skyline LED 1 WAC Lighting - Volta 4.5- LED Downlight Dark Bronze Dorian Bronze Black Trim EX4 - WALL LIGHT [COMMERCIAL] EX5 - WALL LIGHT [RESIDENTIAL) EX6 - SIGN LIGHT Hinkley Lighting - Aria 15.5 Outdoor Wall Light Hubbardon Forge - Quad LED Outdoor Wall Sconce TECH Lighting - Mode - Single LED Outdoor Wall/Ceiling Light Black and Steel Mesh Dark Smoke - 07 Bronze A'Bify'.9--7 - *~ f_-/tri' -]MI":Ii 5-0,1 1,~ 1 I rowland + broughton rF architecture / urban design / interior design / 1 /21 7 (6) 64 (5) G (3j te (27 <17 60'-0 5'-53/r 15-0 3/4 6-71/4 8'-13/8 17'-11 7/8" 6'-9 3/8 .. m, rowland+broughton Â§1 g h H arch,{eclure / u rtan design /inter,or design FP VENT, CODE &|INI~l~M ~ 234 e hopkins ave 1830 blake st, ste 200 1 ..7.: 7 11 . aspen, co 81611 denver,co 80202 970.544.9006 0 303308.1373 0 970544 3473 1 303.308.1375 1 METAL FASCIA ~ 28' HEIGHT LIMIT FROM SIDEWALK i i -1- 01 j ~ ; 1 2 1 ~ ~ -320=3 lp_BEIN-VEEM-5Â¥-5Iq_7~-GE---------------------_2 | | | 1 METAL ROOF T.0. TOP PLATE 4 4 4 L 11.16,2017 - 1 .'-0 5/16 Â¥ p P+Z FINAL HEARING $ TO ROOF DECK 1 - -- - -------.I--i- - 1 *0 0 0 Â®Â® 0 33'-13/167 Â¥ 4 ............. 0 0 0 METAL FASICA ANODIZED ALUM. WINDOWS '-00# M 16 If< 1 1 1 - N DECORATIVE STEEL | | ==~ 1 WOOD SIDING Â· '=1 PLANTER 1 ! STEEL SLATS I TO. PLY --- - MONARCH JON & KAREN JAFFE 3 1222..... 11. 1-71 K--71 0 --8 0 / * -- | | | ANODIZED ALUM. CLAD / STREET 220 E. HOPKINS AVENUE , ~ 1 / (19> 1 WINDOW/DOOR SYSTEM 1 - 1 EXISTING AND ===1 1 <533 PROPOSED GRADE EXISTING AND E =3 - I 1 = \ -------------------- \ - --------------------- ---- 3 1 PROPOSED GRADE T.O.FLY -- - 'I LEVEL ONE 1 ---FRT-/81- 11 1 --/1 ANODIZED ALUM. WINDOWS &~ 1 ZE=-777.- 1.-'."~~ " ~~-- SUNKEN GARDEN -\ PROPOSED WOOD SIDING - DOORS 0 0 41 1/ r U SCALE: 3/16-=1'-[r BELOW ( 1 ~ EXTERIOR ELEVATION -SOUTH Revision: EXISTING CONCRETE WALL-~ Â·Â·Â·Â·~ ~ EXISTING CONCRETE \'VALL 1 " 1 1 - 4 b /2 2 Â®1 1 BA:E:::T A - ---------- ~-- -9- --- -1- - -9- ~---- =~ A B ' CD 2 E F G A52 A52 100'q 10'-51/4' 18'-8- 5'-81/8 26'-4 3/4" 148 1/2 24'-13// ELEVATOR OVERRUN STANDING SEAM SIDING FINAL HEIGHT TED METAL FASCI BRICK VENEER, TYP. 1 1 =9Â»Â» 1 1 -1171 1. --- 11 METAL ROOF ----- INISET BRICK REVEAL, UP. ---- E# I 28Â· HEIGHT LIMIT FROM SIDEWALK |- i 2 , 1 I i I =F,E-*3= 1 1 -- 1 - METAL CAP METAL FASCIA - MTNFORGE -- ~15_ _---_--_-- ----- ---------_-_-12-PelNT-FROM EAVE TO RIDGE RENOVATION 1/2 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE 'ad 11 1 -2~ 11 :-----1 -Ilill-M--MM-M------M -- --0------------ +n --1- :._-1-- .-1=U=11=== l==aL==112-: 3-Inzr 1 1 0 N ~ ~ E-Fa~ I tz=l i_ _: - _-___ 113-POIBLF-52"te'ULTE E.IDGE To mp p-I J4 -4-4 AND ADDITION - 1 Â·----x â€ž05â€ž Ar r r 1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE 37:=3372= |~ : "7-71 -----, ..=.-.1 1 1--F-- --Â·:.Zih- ANODIZEDALUM. CLAD -1 4 Â¥1 - TO ROOF DECK * St i 230-234 E. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 - Â· t - --WINBOW/DOGR SY53*M~ - 33'-1 3/16' -r DECORATIVE STEEL 1 5 IL/=111.01 0 0 91 1 --- i WOOD SID1NG PLANTER 6 4 -STEEL RAILING R 9 0 WOOD SHDING | = |4~ Fil 1% b - - 41 a 1 1-1 1 11 rl- 1- ....... ... I ' ' --7-F=Â·-- Â·- -EpnEE - =-- 1---=6==A=41==i_....-4 ' '--- STEELSLATS - U)1 22Â·-2 3 STEELSLATS 1 T.O. FLY t- 1 . 1 -1 ----- - - _ - _ - LEVELTW* *l - 9 - - 1 .... - ....1 -- - - ------------ I|- 'i 'uÂ·L-t--u---4-4 - 1 Â·3 ~ ' ' Â· ;IL!21----- -I ~. .., .. Â·:i.. Et~4-., I - C -- - -1 0 0 kil<*%%-IIITIFIIIÂ· 0 -- - 0 HOPKINS 1 ----- ALLEY AVENUE WINDOWfDOOR SYSTEM A o 040001 1,1~-1 STEEL GUARDRAIL : 3 I M --- 1 __I L_-*1 ic;~~0-~i~31102 --- - - =-= ANODIZED ALUM. CLAD - . 1.- \ 0 STEEL SLATS CO LO PROJECT NO: 21525 EXISTINGAND _-~~, ,i ' 21525_M.1.dig ' EXISTING AND DWG FILE: PROPOSED GRADE ~~ ~ - - ---- - -- .- . ~ _" LEVEL ONE i PROPOSED GRADE ----- TO PLY Â£_- -21 __12__ _ Â·Eeg=99*YE':- M~- 7-rr- -7' - ,, --Ry SHEETTITLE --------- EXISTING CONCRETE .- . - -- -.-- - - ~ WOOD SIDING r=i=. _ = =--i--' PROPOSED WALL - 0 0 1 4 4 0 METAL CLAD WINDOWS --~ -0 --,----- EGRESS WINDOWS F{)R DOOR TO AHU SUNKEN GARDEN Â·- DWELLING UNITS - PROPOSED . EXTERIOR BELOW - BRING FINISH , j, , I 0 , / 1= \ / 2 ~ EXTERIOR ELEVATION -EAST * EL_EVATIOI\IS GRADE UP TO MINIMIZE q.~ -- I .1 1 EXISTING CONCRETE WALL V (ul U HEIGHT -- \ I **'5 ,*~ " SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" (NON-CONFORMING) ---- ' ~1 Â£~ 1 4- Â· - .-I EXIS~ING 6 1 1 WINDO, WELL- 0 1 FROM 2-BtDROOMS CC-.1,1,1 ~,7 1,0,vLAJ,oâ€¢-I.UG,i.o.#A~g, frecru. U~ .-DrsÂ£. ----- -4- --1 - - -4 ------ DE WC,P.-Â¤~ ANC CE=SM .4,EXT C<,CAAED * h.~00[1Â»~Te INCREASE DEPUiEQR - .1 _-_ . BASEMENE_,6- CODE COMPLIANT EGRESS ,/p A4.1 SILL AT 44Â· bu. FROM T.O.COUO *p#*.#*.0,~,).$.e**/.w, FINISH #LOOR "2'22&4-210'~AS#~:5,%~2"'&&*Ir:T,3.* I PROPERTY LINE i ~ SETBACK 4==24=imt-=-m 9,/9, OL-.CE â€¢91/9 0,92 34'-5 ..P- P.r.-/.M-M.*VI,/Jinli~,L~!Il-Dr.O.-â€¢it.i*.-9./1...ia O /21 4 0 0 0 614 0 0 j 60Â·-0 6'-9 3,8' 17Â·-117/8" I 8-1 31 6%71/4 I 15-0 34 1 5-5 3/8 L 5 2% rowland+broughton w FINAL HEIGHT TED ~ W ELEVATOR OVERRUN arch tecture / urban design /inferior design 0\ 1 234 e hopkins ave 1830 blake sl, ste 200 1 1 1 j \7 1 1: ~64 4 N b --- - aspen. co 81611 denver, co 80202 METAL ROOF - 970 544.9006 0 303.308.1373 0 970.544.3473 f 303.308.1375 r 28Â· HEIGHT LIMIT ---440Â«771=Â»ff- --- Issue: ~~~~~~~~~--~-~-----1----------~ - WOOD SIDING 11.16.2017 T.O. TOP PLATE 4 I J J -,---13212EE21-~ _ ...1====-1-==-===UU-==--,rle,C_Z_ P+Z FINAL HEARING T O ROOF DECK 4 irrr---Â·-r---11-Â·Â·--T--~ 3.6 ~~~ 33-13/16' Â¥ ANODIZED ALUM. CLAD WINDOW/DOOR SYSTEM- 1 1 11Â«1111 0 1 0 10 1*1~~; 1 0 Ill 0 lA EN' - - 14*1]1 Â»74.-7--+rj=14---K=Ifil=:=k4=rIAr+4=till 1 k T O. PLY LEVEL In'/ 1 3 y - CMU, EXISTING JON & KAREN JAFFE 220 E. HOPKINS AVENUE 222221 ANODIZED ALUM. CLAD - STEEL SLATS SREET WINDOW/DOOR SYSTEM- 0 =1=112=agg-4~1 - 122333-Â·1~ TRASH & RECYCLE STEEL SLATS EXISTING AND -EXISTING AND PROPOSED GRADE - -----..31*1 / PROPOSED GRADE LE'a KA -I.- TRASH&RECYC~E ~ ~ _-____- - PROPOSED ReyisJon: / 1 ) EXTERIOR ELEVATION -NORTH ~ -1 MANT 1 G F E 2 DC ' B A ALI AS 2 100 0 f=Â«=fÂ«=ff~Â»Â«ff=UffÂ»If : ELEVATOR OVERRUN FINALHEIGHTTED 1 1---3-1 11 1 -METALROOF RIDGE OF ROOF ~-~ '~ BEYOND- | | | O7~TRITTIT~TF-i I MTN FORGE 4,1EE- RENOVATION AND ADDITION T.0 TOP PLATE / E_,1 .1 -0.6 er r TO ROOF[= 4 4 1 230-234 E. HOPKINS AVENUE 1 33'.13/16Â·V 7 ASPEN, CO 81611 WOOD MDING I--- 1 ~ b Eli 1 11~3 Â® 1-3-~ 11 1 7 STEELSLAT GUARDRAIL E?5 T O. PLY LEVEL TWO A 2 STEELSLATS -'Im A ~Ii i .-I ':1.2.-CLI24-2.-1 'Ii.1-1 11'k! .~f|lm 1:~ .I~I~.~ 1 ~I~Ir-~ --' Il'.~%flÂ£~~~Ir~i.< ------ 1 1 AVENUE ALLEL CMU, EXISTING li -El 'i " EX]STINGAND ~ -- - - --- - - - -i~~ ~] _~ -- ~'~ ~~ ~-~-~-I~-E~_1 1- '7]- --~IrLf...1-.1. L_ ..1 1-il i m i ~i~i Â£ | i -L| ~ - F~| i -I_I_- - FIrlptf- ~- PROJECT NO: 21525 1 1 EXISTING AND DWG FILE: PROPOSED GRADE , 1 1 1 1 1 PROPOSED GRADE 21525-84.1.dwg / 1 --L/'Â£ 1 LI L 12 E 11 1 1 1 1 1 T.O. PLY LEVEL ONE 4 I SHEET TITLE TRASH & RECYCLE - PROPOSED . EXTERIOR PROPOSED / 2 1 EXTERIOR ELEVATION -WEST a ELEVATIONS - SCALE: 3/162 120&---_- 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 *ENNT A A4.2 0Â·.0- 'r tr='127:57/472:1.7:,7:2'%61= f RE=2 .we L-1. PROPERTY LINE i SETBACK 3Nll Alk!3dOEId I A t fulke 41.- X - P -#- I +6k-11'Â» Ir, Â·,ft... - 4. ...3.4512.7-415:.. , . 7-J':Â£4=~ 1- 4 -1 // 1 2% . 1%1Â· 11'6 - 95/7 15, eo:Â©*,4 ;, Ne,Ap,*,4 4 , 44*adM+A@am,b AgÂ· Â· -4 $ 2 '- I 6: Â·)'*~3~~45#..5 ''A~~4Â·<Â·'Â·'J-'AfÂ«Â«.62,-441- . L>. .. 4/,/0, m. 1 , 1<.173.:44:.-Â· :- 44'NyÂ« , . r1612/4.29%RU Ott ~ .# '- *,47. - .e -b 1. '*74<iÂ·*;di'~*fof:*fÂ·'~Â·7{7Â· - -4. .ha 4 I - $'...i ,- 2 wrill'Il"Ulit -)*lit. n -I- 1 11 L - t. 1 t. 1 , . 222.1 Â·Â·Â· 6-21%';a-,-,-, . . 1*f 80*9*- E E#=01'f#Zi-~ I L - U*J . - , ...1. -1 =-3 rl:. -wt'F76'1%- r trim-. _ 2% ;Â»428*1.=& 94 . , â‚¬M~mâ€¢â€¢Ef -; . 111 &1 - 1 24* ~ 44. I.:3~ 1* ./.. . 7 .â€¢ 5. I. 44' - 1. 2 61. . . 29 + ~ 1. imi ier * - - .. . - u'l~'ll;*91 '11~ ---- ~964**1.1~ ====A M Â» I I . . I ,-1 2 1 - 421~Â»f. i . U - 2 t. %+5 .â€¢ a: .4*U .~Arf ~ 2Â»1,-2.1/ . " 1 N fu -I ' d~**TE:Ift as *Ar -e .. . : Ir ~*.A # . I r. j. 1 ..f . : * '74 Acti:t ,-:t,L.. 42 >;kÂ·'â€¢41Â· clÂ·Â¥*,1.1 ---r.J .4- ..-;. t.f< . ...Â»..Â».,4... Â· 494,4.1 - #04 ,Â¤%%'. ;' sh. 4 ... 41'%~'.. 64 6;42<-14, Â· 4. 4 2, ..184 .,8.,Â¢44Â¥-Â·, f,kÂ·Â·,ai. -v :~,74' )4,9~'i::,~.,1 t&Râ€¢.'4 FY;'f>'f r . / . .4,, - Ple.. -+A# r' 54*'Â·>}c jj.. 4,Â·~11,'..:41'fi~.,>~ '41, . '~4~bi'*8,41~444r~~ *. =P#F.:43, -. $*ffiji~il~j~tr' jj;3â‚¬#14971Â·'(,2- 0%413. ..Â·, 0 +41Â·~'. 0 1 - - .1/2/49 '~' Â· . . 11..:.1 0........ 1 ''1Â»4 .. M. Â·4*42'1 . ~:14 ''Af N t * ./ 1- 4 . .. ... 0. 6 , l e. r .1, ;,24,& .7 - ar- I ./. t '. 1 :Â» . Â·. 11*fte ki . 0-* 'i t. I / 4, . A.9 AR Â¢862' 4 0 9,A .,/30' /2 r t ... . 413>111 Â· ~ Â· ' ~, 'iIi: :e{ .b * , Â¥.1 h k â€¢ 1 1 '.4.LY; h!&11 : .4 A. I '9. 3.VEWAL,4 - , . * C. Â·194*. . 12:.6*.~0: I.,Â· . .il *4 ..Â· IT.~.' b 4 ' 7 , y., . 40 -1 . 44 -1 01 9. 214* .U#.4, t/2 2 6 ' 4/ ~~~* A . $&*4' . ir. 44.-4 .wi lar#,1, t: .M - / i /#Â· . r- 1.MirliSEC ja ' ;â€¢4 â€¢ 3 2 -'.QJTJ~t~~l 11,111/7. 4 40 fÂ· < 41. 4 6, , 2... .. . *.bri -ir 41' 17 ,4 9 9 0. .M I t.. r I ...Â¥ .;:, .;~ip~4/// 4, 454 %~4 . 9*2. 4/ . I K. . I 4 1.Ar eu.%,t. 11-?t $4.. 4?94, .4 -- Ld,ttgfir, 3 1. .. :tP,~: 4 4 ~Wt- .,12.u up,%64 47Â¥gtbil %' ..4.-*2~ .1 Â·.0 ry-9 4.- f. 144. . yf. t. . A 9 ..1 I l.Â¥i.,r - X A J , 46. 7. $ I ....f *P .. p, 4. 42 K. 0 4 6 S.. I r 4 6<>a. 6(. 4,i~-"S~j~5~rfV~Ar#:44~~344Â·4,-1, + 0~ A J . 9... . 722Â· 16 Â·Â· f ....P At.: -i. f.-4 .0 >%.. 14- , 0â‚¬92 , . 8 ,&, A, 0 I *ds; ~n~lko #5 .4*34 . tw.,Â¢ .. A ,, , 4, Â¥j. r* ... Iii Â£ % 'r 0.9, .'/26,/ # : I , 0 4, .ALL. D. 1445 - , 44. er, g I I .4- ... 'At.U 4 1. 4 7 Â» -2' 48: 2 1 ,& 1 . -2 .h.Â¢ 41)>,9 â‚¬ 4Â·51, ..I . Â¥. . .V.. : Et ~1* : 1, *k ... br . . // .4 ... a.,1. C Â·Â· Â· 07Â·0.9 0, ,: .., 9,8' -- .rr.. â€¢,abit:Â·,W '41k ' .f'.* . / 1 -"-1 1.1 6 Â· ''AD ' 4,-Nf* 0.'. 1 . , c 1 .Â· â€¢7 -, .0-~u ':4 . 1 :.' 016:-,Â·.Â£, 0 . , 1 1.rÂ¢ / . %@IP. . ., 10 ....4 , Ake 11 , 14 . . f.~.,4;17.,tf?.. .-. -~~~:A'i.,-- 1.-' , f.1 .f 4Â¥44 t. 0 fir Nxvi,Â·plyâ‚¬4&95,:522 4&4; ~ A-: u . 4 --~3Â£0Â·1=Â·3(t,% 01*:~M.5.KiÂ·*f*hijtÂ·3)~ . *,+ -4 0 +, -81"'~'. j . -- k.04 --:TI*1*-Â·9 h A -- - ... .1-C 0-1 - . - 44â‚¬t,Â©i ~ : -,6 41,:,'6'â€žr 4:1&1':'* ..tf'46.Lign~> ::0~.~:-2,f <f~~40Â¥,f,ir<vif~~~~/1*1 .4 1,4.-2145Â·22' . 4 t 1 ., . - r 4 47.:'03'4727Ay~%44: 44 ty. 2 ..4 . 1 Â·*544>- 4,i, 0 ' . ; .A, 1 %.B- .2 . col I . 1 - - -I ~'>4515~1 . 2 ~0~11Â·14-;,Â¥jÂ·~;.<'i<i:~~ *~-v,~+~tit' ...?Â¢44.': . . D 4.0 4.4 b.,94' 41. 4 r-4,569794*6 gph- Ctr '141~/ ------ '16~.t rep~*Lum:41*,j -0- 22#3~:634%$- ~*,Â·=* ~~01*~44:44({f*:riw-43f39: 27,/t,41'Â·74 -1. 6 02 7.t d . - .~t'.**Ale?tri-,i;*45 t,64. igi~.~ f.*1334* - ..:,A>14,-",-, 64 -4*. TJPd.ki:35.14Â·1Â· a 4. ' 1 1 .-~'232,il*!i9Â·::.FE,tu Â·~i:fist,ji: ...64 24' i r F.'.4., 40Â¢,8 T~ ,W.Ir Â·71%*4 .ieÂ· 6, - . 9 4 4-1 Â· .-Â· fs.':s ,p,-LY,,<- <1:11Â· 24..iÂ·>F: 1',803%90Â·14*Â·'*Â·; ,.- : -,113;,44*~~1 17 - 1 :r.' 4 . .....9. trt; J,fll, Efi,:.J,4.'~.4.'47-,2â€ž~ ;1:Â·*99:,14?*i. :,Â£ , I. ' I .- a. ic:Â· Yi:,Ii ,-Â·,*410,4.,"CeÂ·**+0.>-'32*' 2-Â·Ir;44*,sla ..02.- :t'*'.t1 .~,Â·,~;pt,1~Â£~94*29 . I t ~ -1.32 4.- : ff:76 t.fl.;IÂ·24%%*Witti<~30 442*(446*, 1Â·.a-8.27+~Â»*Â»<- . 2 4 I,&.,,.m.,,,,; ~-1 0.4 1.. . ~.Â· Â·Â·Â·'>+ .Â·~...~. Â·. <,;~:..~,.- .,.: ...~4:- ....4,&-4<*4.Â·r. *tÂ©,3";=*42*7;*S~LIi '**Â»Â·i +A.Ae,St:v:,1.B - -YÂ·'. 6 *2414y~$~~Pt 20212 00 3 134,164444/*-jth:.,91% - 1 . m=LIC... 4 .. . I 9-~ :, 734**'27 -..4->243:3<Â·~g{*f~ 327 ~ 9,- .- .:|fri' :~ 2 ;-. i,!41*.33Â¢0-~ig:?1%*1*~ ~: ; .*.. - 4 ~~'t~F'-N;iL 14... AN: . r .. - 7 i /: I , -" 1,â€¢Â·27:h, 4.-,4=':1'll~~- .i . tf 'â€¢ 9..JtÂ« 5' AID#i==Eb- . 44' 2 '*' 6~.1 ., I . Â·-t 6 . I :.m..4 4 -1-,7 . I r- ... 1 . ' 14~303-%~ ./.il'jiA16 =U -- ---*,-0-/râ€¢LE 'A 11.. 5 m W ./lei , h g - t: ~ ~4!Mth*f 1 - -Ill- -.--f--.5 0 -t a - - ~FY IL~ ;' 1 &l-- 414.-ap- 4 . n i< ---- - C.. - 1 --- .:171-Er ..1 E == == = 04. /Ill.Â£'e..-p 1./9/-/*'Iry.4. 'M~.~ . - ..-4 J -1 7 l.' , 1/8/lill-/7 Jj ((.1/ 1liEilillillilli4in /- ~ e,Â». .. I ..... 4 #L-Â¥ 'cy 5/-- * - - '4, -t ---- - - . . J, 1 . - ""SIL ' - Â· 4 . 9, r ... . I E ': I. 2 - ./ ,. , 2 R . 19>'5772.1/ :- I - 4 0,/ 4 El~ ...... .. . ... 01 I . i . d 2 *LF-175#LifierAJakIT~.#'.iggiffi#VLL#4423 .,~f>'.t. 1 0 . 9.- e. Â¥r. * , I -4,2,0~53. ' 7 -22?' .....0 -~.*2429-I><liâ‚¬: -7412.*teitfffif{LIWgi-'~e= - '.. â€ž. . f.. . . I + . 24 -. ..~ f. ./ 9-IX.lt I - . 4 . . 2 142.0 , 2.1 2-:.4:78. - ..'39.,719%*3=79%~47*#944,16,9. 3$7 + .glat .'4> 1 - - + -I. I - 4 1- Â·-r 1 1 Â¢ O I==-aL) 1 - - â‚¬ ..7]Litia.'lull=-/1.'I-'-I-'.=F- ... Z 0 0 i ]ROPERTY LINE O UJ . 1 -7 E-222 -: 5..:4, s,-9828,1-ir@43*SAIall.,~ C-3 2 SETBACK UNE â‚¬ 1 - i**i,i*i44 ; 8 ~12.11'11"f. j /*91.; ia 1 ,\ . tt .1 # m -Z'.'.- .- 1% 116 1, 1,1 1. 1 ./>, 116..~ 00 2 G Â£ EN-/Ma ANNUALS/SEASONAL COLOR -' 74, 1.21 . 1 -11 2.7-,01. 1~**Al*4*1*~r,Â·47;*S~**WEAROW/glm MOUNTAIN FORGE Ilf// u. -k1Â· ReÂ· 'ity-'i ...7.1 r ....JV< 2 m* rh< *:iÂ¢j-;RT~9-*:21Â£I ' 230 E HOPKINS AVENUE ADDRESS: 1 ASPEN, CO 81611 EXISTING MOUNTAIN ! 3 'AP*'L32.127-..42.,: . FORGE BUtLCMNG , ./ .- - -1. 273707328008 <ALIBEA ~,~~1-94# .*4*.6,,- PARCEL# O //J---u ... 2 DATE: , 08-21-2017 6 1 Ul 494 J ISSUE: F a >0 4 C FOR PLANNING 845 - - - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES ONLY a .4 DRAWN BY: BAK CHECKED BY: PSR AE A V 'fl x I HISTORY: - TRUMPET VINE 4 ~ 921 1.Eg .fk 4/ /- - ADRIATIC BLUEBELLS CP,1 ./ A f~ COURTYARD P .1* li 1 / r-- BLUE OAT GRASS t/Â« J. 1 41 I. 'UJ 4 5 Â·44/ ;,1 . \%\\\ ,\\\\ \\ \, 0 ~6 '* r..- 1 \19.72,?CyÂ»Â«07--<3 ~1 2 2 1 - 92 ~ ~ 41 4 . Att 0 92 c imÂ·' w....i:Â· -42LWA+Lt. i .tiE La-...2[7*-4.- - f - t . I L./ Â· X7 ' Uy " Lf 'Â£1+\L/ 1 -f Â· \ 1 -â€¢.ellt~irÂ»~ , 1- -- Â·6 3 0 <7 3 /44 . .1 , h) 2 . 4 6 0, : .Â£/1 tal I \4 1 \ a A \4 1 . . I 4 ' '/\\4 â‚¬ ., C . i. 20: p 2. IC' 2z 4 A , '- 4 4 c 1 \ 4 \\ SHEET TITLE: I U- 4 (4 -. J. 0 -~C-- - - 0 + ,j ~ LANDSCAPE PLAN 6>r- Ly" . 81 MONARCH STREET ~L NORTH SCALE: 1/4Â·â€¢ 1 L-100 ~ STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES. INC 2017 2/95-9Â£â‚¬'oi6Â·1 1 EyeÂ·WNetly Â·i tl,6, 01)r,Ilill 'UROW 1,1â€¢419 11â€¢M 41#er, C :Nli@ 1,0~0; I. UP,0 â€¢ink>â€¢'I4~â€¢â€¢ le,â€¢t,41 IGO)Â·1.!1!8"ll.5'..... .0 i 11/â€¢wu'O..,it Il'S31VI OSSV NOSnÂ¥10 NVI SS~2191Â¥0 3078 HOPKINSAVENUE 3Nll Alklad i i 1 1 11 3 0 1 ---1.-.----~----- - - - -1--......--.-~979,1--......---- f. i. 'ARCTIC FIRE' DOGWOOD 1 u 4 1 1 1 - PROPERTY LINE 1 i : KARL FORESTER GRASS C ' MOPS' MUGO PINE - Â· ~ . i MULTI-STEM QUAKING ASPEN Â·-----~n. -..- - EVENING GLOW CONEFLOWER I ri--Â»-Â»7 SETBACK LINE PINK PARFAIT IRIS -n + 1 1:11111:jjilillil 11 1 11 1.111 . lilli - N 1; t [ ~ - %.1 C .Utift. ..8.fi4'>. ./1- ,.lillil SPA POOL 4 ! ~ . ~ ] 1 ~ DALMATIAN BELLFLOWER ' '' 3 pi,Rf.'-I -fÂ·' / , .~1 ~ l~ 05 YF<-~ if'i,:39 4. 1 ill- ' . B ~ ~Â· =- 1 i MULTI-STEM QUAKING ASPEN i: 1 ''-'Â·.4' 2 .2 MOUNTAIN FORGE - | ' EVENING GLOW CONEFLOWER 4\l - 1 : . W r Z..... ;-##I- -T .I- t , ICI ELEVATOR 0. ~~ %-.V,\,2\ \~-- ~ ' ''Ii' U 1 1-_.2/2-.-/~2-mir~.irrill I~liliti \4: pÂ«Â·-4-4 1,-Al 1 ADDRESS: 230 E HOPKINS AVENUE v#.i#%/*-.Il-I-. .-- -*-**# :e ~ I / lÂ· ~ W :' L 5 ASPEN, CO 81611 PARCEL # . ~ ~ . ~ ; : ' $ 11 JF-\\..1.,it\.t. 31 5. 273707328008 c . r .1,-4 V.il'.P - DATE: 08-21-2017 1 1 ~ ISSUE: \ 4 -At , 1 i. 4 1,1 ..Â· < FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY . _ NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1 1 ' ' - DRAWN BY: BAK CHECKED BY: PSR \A ft %4 \ \ 1. \4\_t \\\ Y\\r~\ 1 1 . ,A l 1-1-,0 Z -~1 j ' PAA FlA '. 22 Â·1,i ,. , I 4 Â¢1% 1 \ C.I.il.-/ 1 ti 2 93 1-f //1' \ Ca ~i , 1.- 1, \ \ V\A L ...I-=Uni,=uts-ttnt= nar.=.il=...=Mil-.- HISTORY: 1 -,-AUA4~=kIX=TIXU~*I~~~~~~=:n=== 1-: -.- , t. . .1 1 Â£ r.%- ..- ..01.' ' DATE ISSUE 41-1-' :illt#' + I ROOF -- 'Ly: . *4 . 2 \,4 \ ' 1 \ \ , ROOF DECK j-1 Y \ 1 ''01 41 , 1 t'.~ j Y':tr:1 4 I :' 8 -- --_~ . -1 -=-Â·Â·......::-tt:.t.- MOUNTAIN FORGE lu*, .5 V 1.4r.a .fIEZZIZE-21"=-,~ El tflrit, 3 fx-\ '' . Â· 4 ~ ~\4. :\\\ \7 -\11\, , i \,Vt\\\1\ u; .i~ -:-=:======0-- =--$ ~ 3 :5,(1-; ift f \\2\ 1\.i '13 \1 \-t..\,-,1 r '1% \ \2\Il-\\ f. :4- ttl.,t..fi COURTYARD | ! U====-======rn.".t---==--~ .. , 1 1 - , 1-112-=:.1,"'=t =.t.- --J.i.* _+VAr~/laer--I. ~ * ' - ,--- -- .-2,~~~~n-~â€žu,~:g:$~~.c--1/J4~ nÂ·~n:-.=_4 0 DALMATIAN BELLFLOWER - PINK PARFAIT IRIS BLUE OAT GRASS LJ SHEET TITLE: O 0 0 0 ROOF DECK LANDSCAPE PLAN r 2 4' 8 L-301 NORTH SCALE 1/4 â€¢ 1 MONARCH STREET Â©.SJAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, INC 2917 g:.1-QZ{81 f a Â· 6 INE Â·I &191% Pfrt,ili-) '4rqiÂ¥ 1,1,1lf Ili,1 hltion Â£;9 m 331Â¥130SSV NOSnÂ¥10 NÂ¥lS i,o,miÂ·luiuu*,4-rt ~ ILO~'311, Ul.1'1Ot'~t --A WO~ SuÂ·U~}Ilf}%00,41 HOPKINS AVENUE li' lit ~ 1 3Nll >10Â¥8-LaS / 3Nll Al.113dOhid tachment 6 360 Hexagon LLC 119 Hystop Road Brookline, MA 02445 617-549-6675 r~ November 2017 Ms. Jennifer Phelon, AICP Deputy Planning Director RECEIVED Cily of Aspen Comrnunity Development Department 130 S. Gotena Street CITY OF ASPEN NOV 2 2 2017 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Authorization to Submit Land Use Application Ak#/17 DEVELOPENT Dear Jennifer: This letter is to certify that I, Sandra M. Edgerley, Manager of 360 Hexagon LLC, owner of the property located at 230 E. Hopkins Avenue, give Stan Clauson Associates. Inc. and its staff permission to represent us in discussions with the City of Aspen regarding the development of the property. 360 Hexagon LLC has retained this firm to represent us in the application for this project. If you should have any questions regarding this matter please do not hesitate to contact me. Contact information for Stan Clauson Associates is as follows: Patrick. S. Rawley, AICP, ASLA Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. 412 N. Mill Street Aspen, CO 81611 Tel 970-925-2323 Fax 970-920-1628 Very Truly Yours, Sandra M. Edgerley Manager 360 Hexagon LLC A ttachment 7 . 3 stewart~ ifirlo View your transaction progress 24/7 via Stewart Online Ask us about your login today! Date: November 03, 2017 File Number: 01330-105435 Property: 230 E. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 SELLER: 360 Hexagon LLC Delivery Method: Emailed LISTING AGENT: Stan Clauson Associates Inc 412 N Mill St Aspen, CO 81611 Contact: Patrick S Rawley Phone: (970) 925-2323 Fax: (970) 920-1628 Email: Patrick@scaplanning.com Delivery Method: Emailed WIRED FUNDS ARE REQUIRED ON ALL CASH PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS. FEEL FREE TO CONTACT THE ESCROW OFFICE AS NOTED ON THIS PAGE TO OBTAIN WIRING INSTRUCTIONS. We Appreciate Your Business and Look Forward to Serving You in the Future. /Faw...4,Â» 11 281~ rt title ALTA COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE ISSUED BY STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, a Texas Corporation ('Company"), for a valuable consideration, commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the Proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges and compliance with the Requirements, all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions of this Commitment. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the Proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A by the Company, All liability and obligation under this Commitment shall cease and terminate six months after the Effective Date or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue the policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. The Company will provide a sample of the policy form upon request, This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by a validating officer or authorized signatory. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Stewart Title Guaranty Company has caused its corporate name and seal to be affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A. Countersigned by: /$:4=%\ 77237- P,Ar Â«at Ga~,Lwv 80%06 Matt Morris 11:4 1908 )3=11 President and CEO Authorized Countersignature *AÂ»* Stewart Title M A A 97 Main Street, Suite W201 Edwards, CO 81632 Denise C#rraux Secretary For purposes of this form the "Stewart Title" logo featured above is the represented logo for the underwriter, Stewart Title Guaranty Company. Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. AME-~ICAN The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. 1. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. A' /4. Alll,% File No. 01330-105435 tÂ¥420 004-UN ALTA Commitment 6-17-06 L~~~ 1 â€žÂ¥ Page 1 of 2 ru CONDITIONS 1, The term mortgage, when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. 2. If the proposed Insured has or acquired actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions. 3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions and Conditions and the Exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. 4. This Commitment is a contract to issue one or more title insurance policies and is not an abstract of title or a report of the condition of title. Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company arising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment must be based on and are subject to the provisions of this Commitment. 5. The policy to be issued contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of Insurance is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. You may review a copy of the arbitration rules at< httrx//www.alta.orcd>. All notices required to be given the Company and any statement in writing required to be furnished the Company shall be addressed to it at P.O. Box 2029, Houston, Texas 77252. Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. AMERIC N The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. 1, Â·Â·Â·. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. M .1 Â· *N 4 File No. 01330-105435 9-en 004-UN ALTA Commitment 6-17-06 Page 2 of 2 COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULEA File No.: 01330405435 1, Effective Date: October 20, 2017, at 8:00 A.M. 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: Amount of Insurance (a) ALTA Owner's Policy 2006 (Standard) Proposed Insured: (b) ALTA Loan Policy 2006 (Standard) Proposed Insured: 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: Fee Simple 4. Title to the said estate or interest in said land is at the effective date hereof vested in: 360 Hexagon LLC, a Massachusetts Limited Liability Company 5. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: Parcel A, 220 E. HOPKINS AVENUE & 230 E. HOPKINS AVENUE/117 S. MONARCH STREET MINOR SUBDIVISION- BOUNDARYADJUSTMENT PLAI recorded March 31, 2016 as Reception No. 628213. County of Pitkin, State of Colorado Purported Address: STATEMENT OF CHARGES 230 E. Hopkins Avenue These charges are due and payable Aspen, CO 81611 before a policy can be issued Title Report $300.00 Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. - The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use, AMill(AN All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. :/7,7,Â¥11 File No. 01330-105435 Page 1 of 1 STEWART TITLE CO STG ALTA Commitment Sch A STO GUARANTY COMPANY ekÂ· COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE B PARTI File No.: 01330-105435 The following are the requirements to be complied with: 1. Payment to or for the account of the grantor(s) or mortgagor(s) of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. 2. Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record. 3. None NOTE: The vesting deed is shown as follows: Warranty Deed recorded July 13, 2017 as Reception No. 639867. Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. - The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use, Ul 11/ AN Allother uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. File No. 01330-105435 Page 1 of 1 STEWART TITLE CO STG ALTA Commitment Sch B I GUARANTY COMPANY COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE B PARTII File No.: 01330-105435 Schedule B of the policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following matters unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession, not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and 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 but prior to the date the proposed Insured acquires for value of record the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) minerals of whatsoever kind, subsurface and surface substances, in, on, under and that may be produced from the Land, together with all rights, privileges, and immunities relating thereto, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b) or (c) are shown by the Public Records or listed in Schedule B. 7. Water rights, claims or title to water. 8. Any and all unpaid taxes and assessments and any unredeemed tax sales. 9. The effect of inclusions in any general or specific water conservancy, fire protection, soil conservation or other district or inclusion in any water service or street improvement area. 10. Reservations and exceptions contained in Deed from the City of Aspen recorded in Book 59 at Page 204 11. Covenants recorded May 31, 1983 in Book 445 at Page 970 and Clarification of Covenants recorded May 24, 2007 as Reception No. 538255. 12. Plat of 220 E. HOPKINS AVENUE & 230 E. HOPKINS AVENUE/117 S. MONARCH STREET MINOR SUBDIVISION-BOUNDARYADJUSTMENT PLAT, recorded March 31, 2016 as Reception No. 628211. 13. Resolution recorded August 4, 2016 as Reception No. 631177. 14. Deed and Assignment of Historic Transferable Development Rights recorded October 11, 2017 as Reception No. 642175. 15. Wooden Shed encroachment disclosed on Survey by Tuttle Surveying Services dated May 17, 2017 as shown as exception in Deed recorded July 13, 2017 as Reception No. 639867. Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. - The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use, 4 'l l l t 1 N All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. : ' ,/ lift, File No. 01330-105435 Page 1 of 1 STEWART TITLE CO STG ALTA Commitment Sch B 11 STO GUARANTY COMPANY DISCLOSURES File No.: 01330-105435 Pursuant to C.R.S. 10-11-122, notice is hereby given that: A. THE SUBJECT REAL PROPERTY MAY BE LOCATED IN A SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT; B. A CERTIFICATE OF TAXES DUE LISTING EACH TAXING JURISDICTION SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM THE COUNTY TREASURER OR THE COUNTY TREASURER'S AUTHORIZED AGENT; C. INFORMATION REGARDING SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND THE BOUNDARIES OF SUCH DISTRICTS MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE COUNTY CLERKAND RECORDER, OR THE COUNTY ASSESSOR Note: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-2-2, Section 5, Paragraph G requires that "Every title entity shall be responsible for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed." Provided that Stewart Title conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal documents from the transaction, exception number 5 will not appear on the Owner's Title Policy and the Lender's Title Policy when issued. Note: Affirmative Mechanic's Lien Protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception No. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment from the Owner's Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following conditions: A. The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single-family residence, which includes a condominium ortownhouse unit. B. No labor or materials have been furnished by mechanics or materialmen for purposes of construction on the land described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 6 months. C. The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against unfiled Mechanic's and Materialmen's Liens. D. The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium. E. If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased, within six months prior to the Date of the Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage for unrecorded liens will include: disclosure of certain construction information; financial information as to the seller, the builder and/or the contractor; payment of the appropriate premium; fully executed Indemnity agreements satisfactory to the company; and, any additional requirements as may be necessary after an examination of the aforesaid information by the Company. No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or agreed to pay. To comply with the provisions of C.R.S. 10-11-123, the Company makes the following disclosure: a. That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate and that there is a substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and b. That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner's permission. NOTE: THIS DISCLOSURE APPLIES ONLY IF SCHEDULE B, SECTION 2 OF THE TITLE COMMITMENT HEREIN INCLUDES AN EXCEPTION FOR SEVERED MINERALS. Notice of Availability of a Closing Protection Letter: Pursuant to Colorado Division of Insurance Regulation 8-1-3, Section 5, Paragraph C (11)(f), a closing protection letter is available to the consumer. NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED WILL BE DEEMED TO OBLIGATE THE COMPANY TO PROVIDE ANY OF THE COVERAGES REFERRED TO HEREIN, UNLESS THE ABOVE CONDITIONS ARE FULLY SATISFIED. File No.: 01330-105435 CO Commitment Disclosure Revised 1/1/17 STG Privacy Notice Stewart Title Companies WHAT DO THE STEWART TITLE COMPANIES DO WITH YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION? Federal and applicable state law and regulations give consumers the right to limit some but not all sharing. Federal and applicable state law regulations also require us to tell you how we collect, share, and protect your personal information. Please read this notice carefully to understand how we use your personal information. This privacy notice is distributed on behalf of the Stewart Title Guaranty Company and its title affiliates (the Stewart Title Companies), pursuant to Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA). The types of personal information we collect and share depend on the product or service that you have sought through us. This information can include social security numbers and driver's license number. All financial companies, such as the Stewart Title Companies, need to share customers' personal information to run their ever'yday business-to process transactions and maintain customer accounts. In the section below, we list the reasons that we can share customers' personal information; the reasons that we choose to share; and whether you can limit this sharing. Reasons we can share your personal information. Do we share Can you limitthis sharing? For our everyday business purposes- to process your transactions and maintain your account. This may include running the Yes No business and managing customer accounts, such as processing transactions, mailing, and auditing servjces, and responding to court orders and legal investigations. For our marketing purposes- to offer our products and services to Yes No you. For joint marketing with other financial companies NO We don't share For our affiliates' everyday business purposes- information about your transactions and experiences. Affiliates are companies related by common ownership or control. They can be financial and Yes No non-financial companies. Our affiliates may include companies with a Stewart name, financial companies, such as Stewart Title Company For our affiliates' everyday business purposes- information No We don't share about your creditworthiness. For our affiliates to market to you - For your convenience, Yes Yes, send your first and last name, the email Stewart has developed a means for you to opt out from Its affiliates address used in your transaction, your marketing even though such mechanism is not legally required. Stewart file number and the Stewart office location that is handling your transaction by email to optout@stewart.com or fax to 1-800-335-9591. For non-affiliates to market to you. Non-affiliates are companies No We don't share not related by common ownership or control. They can be financial and non-financial companies. We may disclose your personal information to our affiliates or to non-affiliates as permitted by law. If you request a transaction with a non-affiliate, such as a third party insurance company, we will disclose your personal information to that non-affiliate. [We do not control their subsequent use of information, and suggest you refer to their privacy notices.] SHARING PRACTICES How often do the Stewart Title Companies notify me We must notify you about our sharing practices when you request a about their practices? transaction. How do the Stewart Title Companies protect my To protect your personal information from unauthorized access and use, we personal information? use security measures that comply with federal law. These measures include computer, file, and building safeguards. How do the Stewart Title Companies collect my We collect your personal information, for example, when you personal information? â€¢ request insurance-related services â€¢ provide such information to us We also collect your personal information from others, such as the real estate agent or lender involved in your transaction, credit reporting agencies, affiliates or other companies. What sharing can I limit? Although federal and state law give you the right to limit sharing (e.g., opt out) in certain instances, we do not share your personal information in those instances. Contact us: If you have any questions about this privacy notice, please contact us at: Stewart Title Guaranty Company, 1980 Post Oak Blvd., Privacy Officer, Houston, Texas 77056 File No.: 01330-105435 Page 1 Revised 11-19-2013 4ttach ment 8 . 0 I ./' .19"FA 7*~ :93) L Â«tf; 973 , COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 979=.- Homeowner Association Compliance Policy All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to indude a Homeowner Association Compliance Form (this form) ceitifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies with all applicable covenants and homeowner association polides. The certification must be signed by the property owner or Attorney representing the properly owner. Name: 360 Hexagon LLC, Sandra M. Edgerley, Manager Property Owner 0): Email. sedgeriey@hexagon-properties.com Phone No.: 617-549-6675 Address of PropeÂ·ty: 230 E. Hopkins Avenue. Aspen, CO (subject ol application) I certify as follows: (pick one) This property is not subject to a homeowners association of other form of private covenant, U This property is subiect b a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use applicatiori do not require approval by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. C This property is subjed b a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use appfication have been approved by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. Evidence of approval is attached. I understand this policy and I understand the City of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the applicability, meaning or effect of private covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws, 1 understand that this document is a public document. Owner signature: .4.z.i+.4* 4 40&40â‚¬Â«giate: d /E ~ 13- O 8 Owner printed name: Sandra M. Edgerley, Manager 04 Attorney signature: date: Attorney printed name: / achment 9 Trip Generation Instructions: IMPORTANT: Turn on Macros: In order for code to run correctly the security settings need to be altered. Click "File" and then click "Excel Options." In the "Trust Center" category, click "Trust Center Settings", and then clickthe "Macro Settings" category. Beneath "Macro Settings" select "Enable all Macros." Sheet 1. Trip Generation: Enterthe project's square footage and/or unit counts under Proposed Land Use. The numbers should reflect the net change in land use between existingand proposed conditions. If a landuse isto be reduced put a negative numberof units or square feet. Sheet 2. MMLOS: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable under each of the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections. Points are only awarded for proposed (not existing) and confirmed aspects of the project. Sheet 3. TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Sheet 4. Summary and Narrative: Review the summary of the project's mitigated trips and provide a narrative which explainsthe measures selected forthe project. Click on "Generate Narrative"and individually explain each measure that was chosen and how it enhances the site or mitigates vehicle traffic. Ensure each selected measure make sense for Helpful Hints: 1. Refer to the T Ir@nsporta-tion Impact: AnAINskidelines for information on the use of this tool. 2. Referto 1 TIA Frequen.tly Asked Questions a quick overview. 2. Hoveroverred cornertags foradditional information on individual measures. 3. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should be new and/oran improvementof existing conditions. A project will not receive credit for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context of project location and future use. = input = calculation DATE: 20-11-17 PROJECT NAME: Mountain Forge PROJECT ADDRESS: 230E Hopkins Avenue APPLICANT CONTACT Name: Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA Company: Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. INFORMATION: Address: 412 N Mill Street, Aspen, CO 81611 NAME, COMPANY, Phone: 970 925-2323 ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL Email: stan@scaplanning.com Minor Development - Inside the Roundabout Is this a major or minor project? Minor Major Development - Outside the Roundabout Net New Trips Generated Units/Square Feet of AM Peak-Hoir PM Peak-Hour the Proposed Project Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Total Proposed Land Use Commercial (sf) -1471.0 sf -2.30 -1.04 -3.34 -2.44 -3.65 -6.09 Free-Market Housing [Units) 1 Units 0.19 0.48 0.67 0.46 0.36 0.82 Affordable Housing (Units) 0 Units 0.00 0.00 O.00 0.00 0.00 O.00 Lodging (Units) O Units O.00 O.00 O.00 O.00 O.00 O.00 Essential Public Facility (sf) 0.0 sf O.00 O.00 O.00 000 O.00 O.00 TOTAL NEW TRIPS -2.11 -0.56 -2.67 -1.98 -3.29 -5.27 *For mixed-use (at least two of the established land uses) sites, a 4% reduction for AM Peak-Hour and a 14% reduction for PM Peak-Hour is applied to the trip generation. ASSUMPTIONS ASPEN TRIP GENERATION AM Peak Averagâ‚¬: PM Peak Aver:ge Land Use Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Commercial 2.27 0.69 0.31 4.14 0.4 0.6 Free-Market Housing 0.67 0.29 0.71 0.82 0.56 0.44 Affordable Housing 0.75 0.48 0.52 0.89 0.55 0.45 Lodging 0.25 0.57 0.43 0.31 0.52 0.48 Essential Public Facility 0.86 0.62 0.38 1.66 0.4 0.6 MMLOS Input Page Instructions: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable to each measure under the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections. 1 = input 1= calculation Category Sub. Measure Number Question Answer Points Does the project propose a detached sidewalk where an attached .1 1, 1 sidewalk currently exists? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer NO 0 meet standard minimurn widths? U - V U Is the proposed effective sidewalk width greater than the standard 2 No 0 minimum width? Does the project propose a landscape buffer greater than the Â·- c 3 No 0 IA O standard minimum width? Subtotal 0 C I Does the project propose a detached sidewalk on an adjacent block? 4 Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard minimum No 0 -0 E c widths? 85 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width on an adjacent block 5 No 0 i# greater than the standard minimum width? 6 Is the proposed landscape buffer on an adjacent block greater than No 0 the standard minimum width? Subtotal 0 Are stopes between back of curb and sidewalk equal to or less than 7 Yes 0 5%? 8 Are curbs equal to (or less than) 6 inches? Yes 0 g Is new large-scale landscaping proposed that improves the pedestrian r experience? Properties within the Core do not have ample area to 9 Yes 5 provide the level of landscaping required to receive credit in this cateqorÂ¢. Does the project propose an improved crosswalk? This measure must Yes 5 10 get City approval before receiving credit. 2 Subtotal 10 Â¢0 'C ~ 11 Are existing driveways removed from the street? No 0 iA W 4 12 Is pedestrian and/or vehicle visibility unchanged by new structure or Yes 0 -0 colurnn? 2 it Is the grade (where pedestrians cross) on cross-slope of driveway 2% Yes O 13 orless? Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian access points from $8 14 the ROW? This includes improvements to ADA ramps or creating new Yes 5 access points which prevent pedestrians from crossing a street .E a Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian or bicyclist interaction No 0 15 with vehicles at driveway areas? Subtotal 5 16 Is the project's pedestrian directness factor less than 1.5? Yes 0 Does the project propose new improvements which reduce the pedestrian directness factor to less than 1.2? A site which has an 17 No 0 existing pedestrian directness factor less than 1.2 cannot receive a .2 credit in this category. Is the project proposing an off site improvement that results in a 18 No 0 pedestrian directness factor below 1.2?* Are traffic calming features proposed that are part of an approved 19 No 0 plan (speed humps, rapid flash)?* Subtotal 0 Are additional minor improvements proposed which benefit the 20 pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen Yes 3 225-Z staff? Are additional major improvements proposed which benefit the 21 pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen No 0 E staff? Subtotal 3 Category Sub. Measure Number Question Answer Points 22 Is a new bicycle path being implemented with City approved design? NA 0 23 Do new bike paths allow access without crossing a street or driveway? NA 0 Is there proposed landscaping, striping, or signage improvements to 24 NA 0 an existing bicycle path? Does the project propose additional minor bicycle improvements 25 No 0 i which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff? Does the project propose additional major bicycle improvements 26 No 0 which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff? Subtotal 0 tf 27 Is the project providing bicycle parking? Yes 5 13 2 Subtotal 5 Category Sub. Measure Number Question Answer Points 28 Is seating/bench proposed? Yes 3 29 Is a trash receptacle proposed? No 0 30 Is transit system information (signage) proposed? No 0 31 Is shelter/shade proposed? No 0 32 Is enhanced pedestrian-scale lighting proposed? NO 0 33 Is real-time transit information proposed? No 0 34 Is bicycle parking/storage proposed specifically for bus stop use? No 0 35 Are ADA improvements proposed? Yes 5 Subtotal 8 36 Is a bus pull-out proposed at an existing stop? NA 0 Is relocation of a bus stop to improve transit accessibility or roadway 37 NA 0 operations proposed? 38 Is a new bus stop proposed (with minimum of two basic amenities)? NA 0 Subtotal 0 : 'fitÂ· 4 Enhanced Modifications to Existing Bicycle Transit Bicycles Amenities Paths Basic Amenities d65 To TDM Input Page .7 â€ž 3..A ly.,- - - 7 21- *- , 31 r , InstructionsTDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Proposed mM or MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvementof existing conditions. A project will not receive credit for measuies already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make senm in the context of project locationand future use. Strategy VMT Measure Answer Category Question Sub. Reductions Number Will an onsite ammenities strategy be implemented? NA 0.00% 1 Onsite Servicing Which onsite ammenities will be implemented? Will a shared shuttle service strategy be implemented? NA What is the degree of implementation? 0.00% 2 Shared Shuttle Service What is the company size? What percentage of customers are eligible? 3 | Nonmotorized Zones | Will a nonmotorized zones strategy be implemented? | NA O.00'% Measure Strategy VMT Category Number Reductions Sub. Question Answer Will a network expansion stragtegY be implemented? No 4 Network Expansion What is the percentage increase of transit network coverage? 0.00% What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips? Willa service frequency/speed strategy be implemented? NA 5 Service Frequency/Speed What is the percentage reduction in headways (increase in frequency)? 0.00% What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips? What & the level of implementation? Will a transit access improvement strategy be Implemented? NA O.00% 6 Transit Access Improvement What is the extent of access,mprovements? 7 | Intercept Lot |Will an intercept lot strategy be implemented? 1 0-00% Strategy VMT Measure Answer Category Sub. Question Number Reductions Will there be participation in TCP? NO O.00% 8 Participation in TOP What percentage of employees are eligible? 15 a transit fare subsidy strategy implemented? No 9 Transit Fare Subsidy What percentage of employees are eligible? 0.00% What is the amount of tran5it subsidy per passenger (daily equivalent)? Is an employee parking cash-out 5trategy being implemented? NO O.00% 10 Employee Parking Cash-At What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a workplace parking pricing strategy implemented? NO 11 Workplace Parking Pricing What is the daily parking charge? 0.00% What percentage of emplovees are subject to priced parking? Is a compressed work weeks .trategy implemented? No 12 Compressed Work Weeks What percentage of employees are participating? 0.00% What is the workweek schedule? Is an employer sponsered shuttle program implemented? No 13 Employer Sponsored Vanpool What is the employer size? Of)0% What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a carpool matching strateg'v implemented? No O.00% 14 Carpool Matching What percentage of employees are eligble? Is carshare participation being implemented? No 15 Carshare Program How many employee memberships have been purchased? 0.00% What percentage of employees are eligble? Is participation in the bikeshare program WE-cycle being implemented? NO 16 Bikeshare Program How many memberships have been purchased? 0.00% What percentage of employees/guests are eligble? Is an end of trip facilities strategy being implemented? No 17 End of Trip Facilities What is the degree of implementation? 0.00% What is the employer size? Is a self-funded emergency ride home strategy being implemented? NO 18 Self-funded Emergency Ride Home 0.00% What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a carpool/vanpoll priority parking strategy being implemented? NO 19 Carpool/Vanpoo! Priority Parking What is the employer size? 0.00% What number of parking spots are available for the program? Is a private employer shuttle strategy being implemented? NO 0.00% 20 Private Employer Shuttle What is the employer size? What percentage of employees are eligible? Trip Reduction Marketing/Incentive Is a trip reduction marketing/incentive program implemented? NO O.00% 21 Program What percentage of employees/guests are eligible? ]4,1 1 1.1 1, Â·, iÂ· ,/.6 1Â·Â·Â·Â·â€¢11ip 9 #24*'11'IM1111/5,1'I/4,/j..<BAÂ·.4-4 . ,47 Enhancements Strategies Transit System Improvements Neighborhood/Site Commute Trip Reduction Programs strate:les Strategies Summary and Narrative: DATE: 20-11-17 PROJECT NAME: Mountain Forge PROJECT ADDRESS: 230 E Hopkins Avenue APPLICANT CONTACT Name: Ston Clouson, AICP, ASLA Company: Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. INFORMATIONÂ· ' Address: 412 N Mill Street, Aspen, CO 81611 NAME, COMPANY, Phone ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL Email SUMMARY Trip Generation Trip Mitigation NET TRIPS TO BE Peak Hour Max Trips Generated MMLOS TDM t Total Trips Mitigated MITIGATED AM -2.7 31 0.00 31.00 0.00 A minimum oftwo TOM mÂ·easures must beutilized for minor projects.. Please returnÂ·Â·to Sheet '3.. TOM" arid select a minimum of two, measwires. Narrative: Click on the "Generate Narrative" Button to the right. Respond to each of the prompts in the space provided. Each response should cover the following: 1. Explain the selected measure. 2. Call out where the measure is located. 3. Demonstrate how the selected measure is appropriate to enhance the project site and reduce traffic impacts. 4. Explain the Enforcement and Financing Plan for the selected measure. 5. Explain the scheduling and implementation responsibility of the mitigation measure. 6. Attach any additional information and a site map to the narrative report. Project Description In the space below provide a description of the proposed project. This project consists of a remodel of the existing Mountain Forge building. The existing building contains 5,917 SF of Commercial floor area. The remodeled building will contain 4,446 SF of Commercial floor are, for a net reduction of 1,471 SF. The remodeled building will contain one free- market unt and one affordable housing unit. The current building contains only one affordable housing unit. Therefore, there is a net gain of one free-market unit. MMLOS In the space provided desicribe what new landscaping is proposed and how the proposed landscaping plan enhances the pedestrian experience. This measure is only applicable to large scale projects and requires more extensive landscaping then a few plantings or lawn area. The project shall establish extensive landscaping which significantly benefits the site and improves the pedestrian comfort and experience. There will be a paved pedestrian amenity space that contains a sculpture honoring Francis Whitaker, the iron sculptor for whom the Mountain Forge building is named. There will also be a seating bench provided adjacent to the pedestrian right-of-way, along with bicycle parking. Explain the proposed improved crosswalk and how this improvement benefits the pedestian experience and the site as a whole. An improved crosswalk includes measures such as incorporating a corner bulb out or defining a crosswalk path with colored concrete. Simply re-striping a crosswalk will not recieve credit. This measure must be pre-approved by City staff. The original crosswalk and pedestrian ramp was not in correct alignment with the opposite ramp on Monarch Street owing to the earlier presence of a large tree that had long since been removed. New pedestrian ramps will resorte the correct alignment. Describe the enhanced pedestrian access point(s). This measure is to improva pedestrian access k.) the site wom the ROW. it includes adding additional access points which prevent pedestrians and bicyclists from,corssing a s:nat, improvemani:s :0 8:he project's ADA ramps in the ROW, and improvements to existing access points. Please see description above. Explain any additional minor improvements which benefit the pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff. Pedestrian improvements include a paved seating and sculpture area dedidicated to Francis Whitaker for whom the Moutain Forge building was named. Describe the proposed seating/bench and the bench location for which existing bus stop. There is no existing bus stop. Explain the proposed bus stop ADA improvements. There is no existing bus stop. Include any additional information that pertains to the MMLOS plan in the space provided below. The project is designed to enhance the pedestrian environment. TDM Include any additional information that pertains to the TDM plan in the space provided below. A TDM plan is not required for this project. MMLOS Site Plan Requirements Include the following on a site plan. Clearly call out and label each measure. Attach the site plan to the TIA submittal. Slopes Between Back of Curb and Sidewalk Landscape Plan Crosswalk Improvement(s) 2% Slope at Pedestrian Driveway Crossings Enhanced Pedestrian Access Point Pedestrian Directness Factor (See callout number 9 on the MMLOS sheet for an example) Additional Minor Pedestrian Improvement Bicycle Parking Bus Stop Seating/Bench Bus Stop ADA Improvements Enforcement and Financing Provide an overview of the Enforcement and Financing plan for the proposed transportation mitigation measures. The pedestrian improvements will be incorporated into a final Development Agreement end a required bond for these improvements will be posted. Scheduling and Implementation Responsibility of Mitigation Measures Provide an overview of the scheduling and implementation responsibility for the proposed transportation mitigation measures. The implementation of the pedestrian improvements will be completed following the building remodel and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy forthe building. Monitoring and Reporting Provide a monitoring and reporting plan. Refer to page 17 in the Transportation Analysis Guidelines for a list of monitoring plan requirements. Components of a Monitoring and Reporting Plan should include (1) Assessment of compliance with guidelines, (2) Results and effectiveness of implemented measures, (3) Identification of additional strategies, and (4) Surveys and other supporting data. A monitoring and reporting plan is not required for this project. B achment 10 i Improvement Surveli Plat Parcel 4 220 E. Hopkins Avenue & 230 E. Hopkins Avenue/1 lfEC Monamh Street Minor i ~1 f byi-~~ < GRAPHIC SCALE Subdivision-Boundaty Adjustment Plat, Recorded March 31, 2016 under Reception No. 628211, 10 8 10 20 40 City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. -0 - = 0.5' wide Wooden Fence - = Sign lf*:HOP}ONSUWE==- ( IN FEET) 1 inch = 10 n. Legend 4 ,~ 2 = Meter S = Telephone Pedesta! * = Street Lornp Â¥ = /007-ant VICINITY MAP- 2 = Electric Meter ~ = trrigation Control Box i n SCALE: 1'-100' m = Electric Tran former THE LAND REFERRED TO IN nliS SmWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY DATED OCTOBER 20, 2017 IS LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF Pin<IN, STAm OF COLORADO, AND IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: - 4 / ~-1.-- Parcel A l ~Op-li-422,2/6 ---\\#1/24)2. 220 E. HOPKINS AVENUE & 230 E HOPKINS AVENUE/117 S. MONARCH STREET MINOR SUBDPASION BOUNDARY ADJUSâ„¢ENT PLAT, RECORDED MARCH 31, 2016 AS RECEPIION NO. 628213. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO Mah p.man a.5, 1; 0<1- ~ 749 .s Â·1 1 " 01330-105435 ~ 5.59 80' - -THIS PROPERTY IS SUB.ECT TO THE FOLLONNG EXCEPTONS PER SAID n TLE COMMITMENT RLE NO. Easement 9 U 314 pg 466 5.0' Setback Hne 10. Reservotions and exceptions contained in Deed from the City of Aspen recorded in Book 59 at Page 204 5.07 Setback Une ~59 25 , 11. Covenants recorded May 31, 1983 in Book 445 at Page 970 and Clarification of Covenants recorded May 24, , / 'Gly'~.---- (Refer to notes) 2007 as Reception No. 538255. (Could affect subject property-Nothing to show) 12. Plat of 220 E HOPKINS AVENUE & 230 E HOPKINS AVENUE/117 S. MONARCH SmEET MINOR N:â€¢53=GE*:~4'/ GM A SUBDIVISION-BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT PLAT, recorded March 31, 2016 as Reception No. 628211. (As shown hereon) 1 . I -I ...Eg] 13. Resolution recorded August 4, 2016 as Reception No. 631177. (Could affect subject property-Nothing to show) Ballard 4-0 14. Deed ond Assignment of Historic Transferable Development Rights recorded October 11, 2017 as Reception No. ily Y /94iffO a 24, 1 18.93' 801!ard 642175. (Could affect subject propertrNothing to show) 1" 2' 4 15. Wooden Shed encroachment disclosed on Survey by Tuttle Surveyng Services dated May 17, 2017 as shown as 5.3' Coiumn Pay PaAdng exception in Deed recorded July 13. 2017 as Reception No. 639867. (Am shown hereon) i>-4 44117*.4-Â·.4,0. 011 ~ 0 Ing'Â· ~ Â£ \. ' ' Â· t~'~ Â·r ~ 230*-~Â£y' 4 . , , , 1 1 Box --O CO Shed Con - j _:- ~. liÂ·& 2 4*w L.-- a,Â·f~~911.4. t,Â·; .'1 5 5.0' Setback Libe ~ Story Deck Out Found P.K. 0.93' ; U . 04. Nail in Building Legend and Notes: -v:/ifi ii:%44{i.~~ -u:Â· ~2 ~-4 :: , N 03'30'58â„¢ 1.37' . ~ 4: 31,799 2 ~ . J~ Â·Iff -4}t?Rimt~}4jjP~ .~ es.' 19- Cttqid - k INDICATES FOUND P.K. NAIL IN BUILDING -from S.E. Corner .3, .3 . ..'. , .r =WG :B '~.- Shed out \l 4 ' .., l ..1.:342j.2...~f.G'~t .&4~9Â·.,2'..%19 ji;.~39Â·J?.11-'~- Â·Â· Â·Â· - S INDICATES SET r ALUMINUM DISK LS NO. 33638 :,. -'' **i -._:-L~, 1 4...1...t,0-.9~ 1 1<.0 G ~ 1 0.1' Ll ] Attached - BEARiNGS ARE BASED UPON A NO. 5 REBAR VMTH RED PLASTIC CAP (ILLEGIBLE) FOUND AT THE SOUTHMESTERLY - Â® INDICATES FOUND #5 REBAR WITH RED PLASTIC CAP LS. NO. 28643 WITNESS CORNER - DATE OF SURVEY: NOIEMBER 15, 2017 shed ,3. .,~~~- - j<16*1, i vl:i. ,,Â·,1:<fikakkett.-3Â¥***Wf /2 f; # / f Building OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL USING A BEARING OF OF N 75Â·09'11' W BETWEEN SAID MONUMENTS. on line ~ L.2 26.9, ... ~ ",~'4 4.-'TÂ·' ~~ ig'*~~~J~Â£~:Â·.6:0~0'*29~:-j,}fw*%.2Â·f:ectÂ©~ 1 , 26* Clti~~ BLOCK CORNER AND A NO. 5 REBAR WITH A YELLOW PLASnC CAP LS. #25303 FOUND AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER F.'RE,-~-29'I,cal :~Â·3197339iâ‚¬22'*fk: lg..felll 4 \ Parcel A - UNET OF MEASUREMENT: US SURVEY FOOT -- - ...Â·'-Â·4.i :810*and.en,neÂ·adg.Â·Â·:Â· b 4 THIS SURVEY DOES NOT REPRESENT A TITLE SEARCH BY THIS SURVEYOR TO DETERMINE OWNERSHIP OR TO DISCOVER - PROPERTY ADDRESS 230 E HOPK)!IS AVE. ASPEN. CO 81611 Odginal lot line 4 -- 2,-9,~,L,,'- 1~4 ~'2~~~~~~~BldB~4'~1~~~~,~,.~~~~~,~4.~~~.~ - ,9 ,'Sf 1230:'nÂ¢d~ 4~ EASEMENTS OR OTHER ENCUMBRANCES OF RECORD. ALL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO OWNERSHIP, EASEMENTS OR OTHER ENCUMBRANCES OF RECORD HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM A STEWART nTLE GUARANTY COMPANY IN COMMITMENT // 0 DATED OCTOBER 20, 2017 AS ALE NO: 01330-105435 - THM PROPERTY IS LOCATED tN ZONE X (AREAS DEIERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE 500 YEAR FLOODPLAIN) PER i ' i,/./.* - 0 FEMA MAP PANEL NO. 0809720203C DATED JUNE 04, 1987 TAKEN FROM THE FEMA MAP SERVICE CENTER f /Â¢3 ....,LE,:ill T. ..~...1 ...b fi~~Â·~1 I/f ??13.,Â·g/ *F '1 1. i,Â¢ pity ~f - - AND RE 0/Tr OF ASPEN ENGINEERING DEPARâ„¢ENT WEBSITE. THE PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN A MUDFLOW HAZARD ACCOR[NNG TO THE aTY OF ASPEN ENGINEERING DEPARâ„¢ENT ASPEN MOUNTAIN MUDFLOW HAZARD MAP. THE PROPERTY HAS DIRECT ACCESS TO EAST HOPKINS AV'ENUE A DEDICATED PUBUC STREET, AND THERE IS NO RECORDING INFORMAnON FOR A DEDICATED ALLEY ACCESS WAY PER PITKIN COUNTY nTLE, INC. ~ka Two Story - THERE IS NO OBSERVED EVIDENCE OF USE OF THE PROPERTY AS A SOUD, WAS DUMP, SUMP OR SANITARY LANDFILL. '4 Brick and Frame 8/dg f /Basement -74 ~ ~ (230 E Hopkins Ave.) /41. ..:.Fm.. 1 <@/ , . Â£ "aa' i/ 1 I w;de# j Â·' r, Second St.7 1 1 Â·/ t. Con'. i~ , Detail Scale 1- = 10' . 0.8... 4. 1 1 , SUakfilitS-LIb/Kick/// .-B[/labgÂ·. ~ . 6277Fy' TO SHART 777ZE- GUARANT)' COMPANY 77//17 77#S WP/?01Â·Ele/- SUR,Ey WAS PREPARED PROW AN N 039D'58*22*~t 4.-1.- ~ - % *sÂ·l: f.\1 1 0 ---- --- 1 , k 18. 'UttrAd' 1 WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE DETAIL- 4:Â·Â·7 C~ 4 ..Em?Er ALLEN 71177ZE 8Â£7NG A PROESS/ONAL LAND SURE-YOR IN RE Sl>17E- OF COLORADO DO HEREBY *-007 5:E Â°E~f~%5.4$-,~ . 1~ 4. /i UNE LENGTH BEARING iao' coil -O ACTUAL MONUMENTED LAND SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY CORNER MONUMENTS, BOTH FOUND AND SET UNDER Â»Ade Cone. WIN i Ll 0.52 S75'09'11"E MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND CHECKING; THAT IT IS CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY BEUEF AND KNOWLEDGE L2 0.75 576'03'09"E liliAÂ»tene ' ' ~744/4 â‚¬1 ' <1 4 . x 4' rf ,/ AND THAT ALL DIMENSIONS, BOTH UNEAR AND ANGULAR WERE DETERMINED BY AN ACCURATE CONTROL 4 SUR9EY IN THE AELE) WHICH BALANCED AND CLOSED WITHIN A UMIT OF 1 N 15,000 (WHICH COMPUES WITH 4 I " 1 c : 1. 42. 34'.,-4. . IL iiI COLORADO PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS FOR A LAND SUREY PLAT AND THE CURRENT ACCURACY STANDARDS ' 13 DESCR/BED PARCEL ON 7}#S DATE NOVEMBE? 15,2017, EXCEPT UnUTY CONNECNONS ARE ENURELY WR#N FOR ALT,1/ACSM LAND 7771Â£- SUR,DS).Â· / FURRER CE?77Fy 7?M 7 7HE IMPROPEA,ENE ON RE ABOVE 6.8' 4,25 4 OF ANY EASEMENT CROSSING OR BURDENING ANY PART OF SAID PARCEL, EXCEPT AS NOTED. ond Gutter THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PARCEL. EXCEPT AS SHOWN AND THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT EVIDENCE OR SIGN Building 4 / 1 1., 1 40*44 on line . 0 6 4 46~t 4444 -- 34'Of 524' + 8 Â»Â»Â©li~Â»-tÂ«Â«7Â»Â«an~- Side 738' 11/15/2017 Mgo< 3.5' lue IKE**r:hhnIT-Ri~MLS. 33638 DATE Building 722'e In 0.05' Building 0.09' PDF Version N.Uct TUTTLE SURVEYING SERVICES Parcel A-230 E. Hopkins Avenue U.by DMC .Accord# to} Cololado law, lou must commu~cl any 1,9=Z aciNon las,or t,pan any 2,/,ct . 923 Cooper Avenue 11/15/2017 1 ~ Uks survâ„¢ within th". V.on AM. p Ars, ass.wr such de,Ii /n na 'tin, nay Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Improvement Survey Plat 117 S. Monarch Street Z: \2017\230 E HOPKINS ~ a,19 U:ai actâ‚¬on &=ed upon any de~ct â‚¬n *e, . ~*17wnÂ®no,d mor, aan ,f,n B,ant (970) 928-9708 (FAX 947-9007) .dwg hom Â£4â€¢ da/â€¢ R,~ t.b "'10"2:". s:40- lof 1 Email- ie#Otss-us.com TUTTLE SURVEYING SERVICES Aspen, Colorado 81611 W 38.49 f 'tachment 11 R..v~PTION#: 631177, uu/ue/ZUID ar 03:16:19 PM, 1 OF 10, R $56.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO RESOLUTION NO. 5 (SERIES OF 2016) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM REVIEWS, AND A DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOTS R AND S, BLOCK 74, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 230 E. HOPKINS AVE., CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel ID: 273707328008 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from WEB Capital LLC (Applicant), represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission approve Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Growth Management Reviews at 230 E. Hopkins Ave; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 26.412.040 of the Land Use Code, Conceptual Commercial Design Review may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.070.6, Growth Management Allotments may be approved by the Plannihg and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.050, mitigation for the increase in net livable floor area associated with this proposal may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.314, a dimensional variance related to the size of the window well in the side yard setback may be combined with other reviews and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Director has recommended continuation of the application and the denial ofthe request for a dimensional variance; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City Zoning Officer, Engineering, Parks, Building, Environmental Health Departments, and has taken and considered public comment; and, WHEREAS, during a public hearing on June 7, 2016 the Planning and Zoning Commission voted five to zero (5-0) to continue the hearing to June 21,2016 with direction to , the applicant to maintain the affordable housing unit on-site; and, WHEREAS, during a public hearing on June 21, 2016 the Planning and Zoning Commission voted five to zero (5-0) to continue the hearing to July 19, 2016 with direction to the applicant to provide plans for the on-site affordable housing unit that provides better livability for the resident; and, 1 WHEREAS, during a public hearing on July 19, 2016, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 5, Series of 2016 by a six to one (6-1) vote, approving the applicant's requests for Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Growth Management, Dimensional Variance, and Special Review; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Conceptual Commercial Design Review. Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the request for Conceptual Commercial Design Review for the remodel subject site per the following conditions, and as indicated in Exhibit B - Elevations, attached. â€¢ The building may not exceed a height of 34'5 14" at its highest point, as measured from the bottom of the improved areaway to the south side gable along the southeast corner of the building; â€¢ The building may not exceed a height of 32' as measured from the bottom of the improved areaway to the north side of the gable along the southeast corner of the building; â€¢ All other areas of the building shall not exceed a maximum height of 28'; â€¢ Any roof top mechanical and amenities must meet the height allowed by the code at the time of the application submission. The proposed remodel will maintain the building in the same location on the site, such that the following non-conforming conditions are maintained, but not expanded. â€¢ The building extends to the property line on the southern, southeastern and western facades. â€¢ The building exceeds the height limitation of 28' - 32' for the Mixed Use Zone District at the southeastern corner of the site. As indicated above, the non-conforming condition is being reduced from 34'8" to 34'5 1/2" in this location. Section 2: Dimensional Variance. The applicant has received approval for a light well measuring 3'6" in width, 8' in length and approximately 7' 8" in depth to be maintained along the Monarch St. fagade, as indicated in Exhibit A - Site Plan, attached. The light well will serve as necessary egress for the two subgrade bedrooms of the affordable housing unit. The light well will extend approximately 1.5' beyond the site's side yard setback. Section 3: Special Review. The applicant has received approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission to vary the affordable housing unit standard that requires 50% of the unit to be at or above natural or 2 finished grade, whichever is higher. The Commission has approved a 908 sq. ft. unit that will maintain 366 sq. ft. of net livable floor area at the ground level, and 542 sq. ft. of net livable floor area at the subgrade level. Section 4: Public Amenitv. The applicant is required to provide no less than 10% of the lot size in public amenity, or 600 sq. ft. Planning and Zoning Commission has approved the request to provide 490 sq. ft. (8.2%) of pubic amenity on-site in the form of landscaped open space along the building's Monarch St. faQade and wrapping around to the alleyway, and as a paved walkway to the entrances along both E. Hopkins Ave and S. Monarch St. The applicant is further approved to provide 505 sq. ft. (8.4%) of public amenity off-site, directly adjacent to the site along the Hopkins Ave. fai:ade, between the street and the sidewalk, in the form of landscape improvements. The on- and off- site public amenity combined equals 1,086 sq. ft. (18.1%), and is represented in Exhibit C - Approved Public Amenity, attached. Section 5: Trash/Recycling Service. The addition of two residential units requires an upgrade to the existing trash/recycling area on the site. Environmental Health has granted Special Review approval to allow 75 additional square feet of trash/recycling area on the site for a total of 150 sq, ft., as opposed to the 200 total sq. ft. that would otherwise be required. The updated trash/recycling area will be located along the alleyway. Should the area become enclosed by fence or other structure in the future, the area will need to meet the setback requirements of the zone district. Section 6: Replacement of Affordable Housing. The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the replacement of an on-site, two- bedroom affordable housing unit. The unit is required to house no fewer than 2.25 Full Time Equivalents and will measure no less than 900 sq. ft. The applicant will provide this unit as a 366 sq. ft. of net livable floor area above grade and 542 sq. ft. of net livable floor area below grade for a total size of 908 sq. ft. of net livable floor area. A new deed-restriction designation at a Category 3 level shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder prior to receipt of certificate ofoccupancy. The unit shall be maintained as a rental property with APCHA and must be rented to a qualified working resident per APCHA requirements. The applicant will have the ability to place an APCHA-qualified tenant in the unit. If the unit is found to be out of compliance for a period of at least six months, APCHA will take full control of the tenant placement. Section 7: Growth Management Ouota System. 7.1 Growth Management Allotments. The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves. the following Growth Management Quota System reviews. a) Two free-market residential units have been approved for the site, measuring approximately 1,835 sq. ft. and 414 sq. ft., respectively. b) The applicant is approved for two free-market residential 2016 Growth Management Allotments. 7.2 Mitigation Requirements. 3 a) The addition of the two free-market units requires the applicant to mitigate for 674.70 sq. ft. of new net livable space, or 1..69 Full Time Equivalents. i. Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) Generated by Residential Net Livable Floor Area â€¢ 414 sq. ft. (Unit 1) + 1,835 sq. ft. (Unit 2) = 2,249 sq. ft. / 30% = 674.70 sq. ft. â€¢ Conversion to FTEs = 677.70 sq. ft. / 400 = 1.69 FTEs generated b) The applicant may provide Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation for the required 1.69 Full-Time Equivalents. Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit shall be extinguished per Chapter 26.540 of the Land Use Code prior to receipt of Certificate of Occupancy for the subject site. c) Affordable housing mitigation is not required for the commercial net leasable floor area associated with the site. The proposed commercial net leasable floor area is decreasing from 5,029 sq. ft. to 4,321 sq. ft., thereby generating less Full Time Equivalents (FTEs), as calculated below. i. Existing FTEs â€¢ Basement: 1,317 sq. ft./1,000= 1.317 0.52)=4.64 FTEs generated â€¢ First Floor: 2,711 sq. ft. /1,000= 2.711 (4.70).= 12.74 FTEs generated â€¢ Second Floor: 1,641 sq. ft. /1,000 = 1.641 (3.52) = 5.78 FTEs generated Total generated for existing commercial net leasable space = 23.16 FTEs ii. Proposed FTEs â€¢ Basement: 2,103 sq. ft. /1,000 = 2.103 (3.52) = 7.40 FTEs generated â€¢ First Floor: 2,046 sq. ft. /1,000 = 2.046 (4.70) = 9.62 FTEs generated â€¢ Second Floor: 673 sq. ft. /1,000 = .673 (3.52) = 2,37 FTEs generated Total generated for proposed commercial net leasable space = 19.39 FTEs iii. Amount ofFTE's requiring mitigations: Proposed FTEs - Existing FTEs (60%) 19.39 - 23.16 = -3.77 (.60) = -2.26 FTEs Less than 0 FTEs; requires no mitigation Section 8: Off-street Parking. Upon redevelopment the applicant is increasing net leasable floor area such that 4.82 parking spaces are required, and adding two free-market residential units, such that two additional parking spaces are required. An affordable housing unit is being maintained on-site that will require one parking space. The applicant is providing two on-site parking spaces for the free-market residential units in a garage that is accessed from the alleyway. 4 Exhibit B 0 0 9 9 T ,-,1.. T - 9.4. 9 t 1 'r.,17.. Elevations 1 1 i a /1-L_ -1=#10- e-421----~I-59â‚¬----_---------------- -----.---------- --4 - |- .: |lb'LÂ·--~LAij -.......- / ..1.- I- ,,lili vap 1 0 1 1- 1~ fi /-1.U ~ 9 n 2 ' . 14.411 - --------L S....Al 1/Th emEVAnCN. SOUTH h Â£ a.9 /R-4 A ft 99 * RF 7 Â¥ T 1 1,â€¢- I 1 â€ž 1. 1 -- : L 1 --- 1 1 1 1 1 1 trk-rum i murtu I 12---3--MNE'---__- ---- ----.--L----------~314 -111 1 j' 1-1-4 23 4-4{-rotp~ â€¢0*"=....- 1 .,11 .1 . , 11!- 1-211 + 11 . 31]3 -----1 1 --0 31 :j!'|'~i'14'/ Ii'j''r'll|' %34*.-RÂ£1=e ' : k h 1 1 | 1 121=3313353[ TJJ f' ---'1 1--132.EP~JI'-~ ~Â»fl-if -41~--~]- _u= 11-â€žuAL)I Ir = CÂ·T' Ill!-1- - - -- i rÂ·Â«=t =lul-i 3 ~Â·: 1. -7 , '-76--TI,-321-- -Ir'!ull--] 13,1 3'i 4, 11.-1- i 1.--L -1- ducr k 2 lili,1 1 Ill!1 11 1 1 1! 1\ 1 /-:=7- tr -- 4==n - 1 1 1 11' RETE T 11:1Â·1. 1 , Ir \1 1 / 11.-1 =*CEN=-1 Qi i 21 241,r-=s,~r~ LOO~To-J /'Th Q..DimmON. car k ./:. 11/â€¢ T. I 0*31Â£â„¢.01â€ž(C} .- 6/ - 1 - - -- - INE_1311 .-. 1 1 SLA"f W ~AK * , I. 81Â·. '11"D~ T .,t. 0 0, 0 0 ./ 1 0 lil 2 1 11 13 -'.X==== f =. e. 11.. .1/9,-I--7, .TE-SLATE 1 --1-]4 te-- -1- i .lualâ€ž- -i -i-Fr--! Fill'-=-. p .f - 1 .98# P . 1-- :, lEE - ~ *rÂ·En ./T. , 1 f' 1,612-4- 1 .3 1 OUâ€¢,fE)Ri" ) 1 1 Â¥/00 =ING 6:,1 I -- 1 11 ......... 7/f-le'/1/3/4 -- eaow W. TFW,SPAAE)~r -J-1 1 & -1 Â· #.or~ r UcCILL_/1 -0.- Ennn,Â¢3.0 - 1 - MasTDIC} Alic -G~ 1~12Â«CULL 11 11 11 ~~ ~~LEVATION. NORTH / Ct) SC,UE 3/1... â€žr ---- =930 -4 (01 0Â®e , 0 . Y I 24 1.17 -4- 1 9 1 11 ite,â‚¬,~,,> - 111 F...2/Irt.. f g 1 1 4--2.FFF~ 1 1 1 11 i -- .ar.-Â· 1 i; W, , ,>prf 11 j in=.1= t 4- ,Â¥900--10 - ;1-1--23*---i o:'cm#-9 I -0 .27-_-27-U--IL=I--1-7-7.-m-_-I---1.-2 1 7 -1-- _ _Â·__.Ith , W . I -Comizil-1 -*i.-*. - .#Ill--i- -- I---*I-- X- 1 1 1. 1 1, 1 1 10 1 1.11 1 1 1 1 .lilli 1 . 31 1 T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 :,110 'ril-1,-,-,Ill--r, 1-11-,1.-ir,1,1'i-1-t Xjilil' 1 1,1 511221'LAT - = - ai= 81/2 - =''L-, i J, -~ ~~ ||~ ~|~~ ~||~ ~|~ | 1 1 -_ - - 1 L.4- I /'Th ~li~LEVATioN-waIT k <M.2/ lic.LE ... r. . 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 #14 , ./LC,Â·/1 *1 .DU 01Â·. i L .: L u - .3 2 I (L Apprqv'ari 17>gtiFf,IAÂ£â€¢ Li & 4/1 .1 k U & 11 4- 11 7-- Amenity it 1: 1. . i I , i f./ 4 il: 'Â·b h .' f r i -- 2.' ' J P 1 4.' 1 f J, t U - ju;l - 1 0 6 1 - - :t Â·i f P (f Q . r 60 2. --7 R *+X- -f 1 11, 1 1,1,1,111/ 1 1.4 ON: .. 4-4.4 ici O - E , ---1... I ' ulu &.CIN~ ' i Ky<larto 2 --/-- 1 ' X.*0 '. 74 ./. F /6 t./. -011:.,4:LIC AMENETY- CE IC<â‚¬ 00 'AF East 'lof: 9- '' ~Â·*'445 . ttachment 12 CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Jennifer Phelan, 970.429.2759 UPDATE: October 19, 2017 PROJECT: 230 E. Hopkins - Mountain Forge building REPRESENTATIVE: Dana Ganssle-Ellis, Patrick Rawley %Q DESCRIPTION: The applicant has received Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval for a 2 2~ proposed project at 230 E. Hopkins, also known as the Mountain Forge building, and is now interested in :2 0 g 71 applying for Final Commercial Design Review. 1-3 Â» Conceptual approval was granted via P&Z Resolution No. 5, Series of 2016 on July 19, 2016. On September 26, 2016 City Council chose to call up the design and remanded the case back to P&Z for re- examination of the asymmetrical roof forms and the massing of the building along S. Monarch St. At their December 6, 2016 hearing P&Z chose to uphold Resolution No. 5, Series of 2016. The applicant has one year from the date of that approval to make an application for Final Commercial Design Review. As part of the application, Applicant is considering merging the two free-market residential units that were conceptually approved into one. This can be proposed as part of the application; however, there are unit size limitations to consider and potential for additional mitigation if the unit is increased in size. An amendment to the growth management approval is necessary. Final Commercial Design will be reviewed in a duly noticed public hearing before the P&Z. The Commission is the final review authority in this matter. The applicant will need to respond to the appropriate review criteria, as outlined in the Land Use Code Sections below. The project is also subject to the Final Review Design Guidelines of the Central Mixed Use Character Area, part of the City's Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. A link to this document has been attached below. Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.412 Commercial Design Review 26.470.150 Amendment of a growth management development order (insubstantial) 26.710.180 Mixed Use (MU) Zone District Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience: Land Use App: http://www. aspen pitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%20Fees/2013%20land%20 use%20app%20form.pdf Land Use Code: ASLU 230 E. Hopkins Ave Final Commercial Design Review 273707328008 1 RECEIVED NOV 2 2 2017 PEN OPMENT http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Title-26- Land-Use-Code/ Central Mixed Use Character Area: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/Comm%20Desqn%20Stnds/Commercial %20Desiqn%20Guidelines Central%20Mixed%20Use%20Character%20Area.pdf Review by: Staff for completeness Public Hearing: Planning & Zoning Commission Planning Fees: $4,550 Deposit for 14 hours of staff time (additional planning hours are billed at a rate of $325/hour) Total Deposit: $4,550 To apply, submit the following information: U Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement. 0 Pre-application Conference Summary (this document). m Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. U Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. m HOA Compliance form (Attached) m Documentation showing the proposal meets all Transportation Mitigation Requirements as outlined in the City's Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines and Mitigation Tool, available online at: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community- Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Recent-Code-Amendments/. A copy of the tool showing trips generated and the chosen mitigation measures should be included with the application. 0 A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application and relevant land use approvals associated with the property. 0 A site improvement survey (no older than a year from submittal) including topography and vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor by licensed in the State of Colorado. El An 81/2" by 11"vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. 2 0 1 Complete Copy of all application materials. If the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted: U 1 additional copy of the complete application packet and, if applicable, associated drawings. 1 Total deposit for review of the application. 0 A digital copy of the application provided in pdf file format. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. 3