Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20100720AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, July 20, 2010 4:30 p.m. regular meeting- Sister Cities Room CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL II. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public III. MINUTES IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. 632 E. Hopkins Ave -Conceptual Commercial Design Review VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. BOARD REPORTS VIII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 16 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Drew Alexander, Planner RE: 632 East Hopkins Avenue -Conceptual Commercial Design Review - Resolution No. _, Series 2010 -Public Hearin MEETING DATE: July 20`h, 2010 APPLICANT /OWNER: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Rudin West, LLC Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the project, with conditions. REPRESENTATIVE: David Johnston Architects, pc, 418 East Cooper Avenue, #206, Aspen, CO 81611 LOCATION: Subdivision: City and Townsite of Aspen, Block: 98, Lot: S and east half of Lot R, 533 E. Hopkins SUMMARY: The Applicant requests of the Planning and Zoning Commission approval of Conceptual Commercial Design Review for an expansion and renovation of the existing structure. CURRENT ZONING Bt USE Located in the Commercial (C-1) zone district. Current use is entirely commercial oriented. PROPOSED LAND USE: The proposal is for a mixed-used building with a new free-market unit and new affordable housing unit in addition to an expansion of commercial net leasable space. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting one (1) land use approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter P&Z): • Conceptual Commercial Design Review: pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412.030 (The P&Z is the final review authority, who shall by resolution approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a land use application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review). Commercial Design Review is a two part review, including a Conceptual and a Final review. The purpose of Commercial Design Review is to preserve and foster proper commercial district scale and character, and to ensure that Aspen's commercial areas and streetscapes are public places conducive to walking. In addition to satisfying the requirements for Commercial Design Review, the Applicant must meet those requirements found within the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. Under the design guidelines, the Property is located within the Commercial Character (CC) area. If an approval is granted for Conceptual Commercial Design, the Applicant plans to submit for Growth Management (GMQS) and Subdivision reviews. After the GMQS and Subdivision reviews, the Applicant will return to the Planning and Zoning Commission for Final Commercial Design Review. BACKGROUND: 632 East Hopkins Avenue (the "Property"} was originally constructed in 1976, and has undergone minimal changes since this date. The Property is located in the Commercial (C-1) zone district on the outer fringe of the City's Commercial Core (CC) zone district (see "Figure 1"). The C-1 zone district allows for a variety of uses, including residential, office, and service uses. The existing two-story, 26 foot tall building consists entirely of commercial uses. + n k.~. // ~~ V _~ ,~ w ~ a ~ NS r "'` ~ `, ~: ~ Site . ~ ~ _ _ ~ ... Commercial Core (CC) ~ Z' t ~; ~ Zone District Vii,; '~~ ~ t ~ ~ - .,gyp y.• , y ,~ ~ ~ ~~y ~ i •' ` Commercial (C-1) Zone District Mixed Use (MU) MYM A ~ ~., Zone District _:; N~4.V. °' ~ Figure 1: Zoning The Property is situated on a 4,500 square foot lot on the corner of Hopkins Avenue and Spring Street. The building has approximately 5,3b8 gross square feet, which is inclusive of a 780 square foot basement. The primary entrance is along Hopkins Avenue; however a secondary entrance can be found along Spring Street. The Property includes two areas of Public Amenity Space that account for eighteen (18%) percent of the total lot size (see "Figure 2"). The Property has four off-street parking stalls accessed from the alleyway. H ~ i i ~ a ~ .,~ P k ,-: -; QFFICEJRETAIL n ,.,E ~, s ~ -~,. ~ ~~tiF.1 T v !~ ~, - i I n , / ~~:~~ u, ( e ''~,~__- _ - 4+ TOTAL EXISITING PUBLIC AMENITY SPACE - EXISTING-PUBLIC AMENITY SPACE (82321 SQ LOT AREA=45(X3 SF 823.21 SF=1 ~ OF LOT AREA _-~- - Spring Street >~ ~a~„-p 2~ F.xistinu Site Plan and Public Amenity PROJECT SUMMARY As the Application states, the intention of this renovation and expansion is to: "...renovate the existing two-story building, and in doing so increase the amount of commercial area, modernize the existing building's interior and exterior architecture, enhance the public amenity space and pedestrian experience and add a new third level. " This project is not a complete demolition of the existing structure. To the extent possible, the existing structure will be retained, although from an architectural standpoint, the end project is drastically different. One of the most significant additions is a third floor which will be used almost exclusively for the free-market residential unit. This third-story will increase the height of the structure to a maximum of 36 feet, which is the height limit in the C-1 zone district'. ' The maximum height in the C-1 zone district may be increased to 40 feet through Commercial Design Review. The second-story is undergoing a major programming change. The proposed design for this level includes an affordable housing unit on the northwest corner of the building. The size of this unit has not been finalized, but it will be dependent upon the amount of new net leasable square footage, or the size of the free-market unit, whichever has the greater Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) mitigation requirement. The remainder of the second-story will remain commercial use. The first-story of the structure will continue to be based entirely upon commercial use, but with a proposed enclosed two-car garage along the alley. The proposed building has a conceptual floor area of 9,500. On the 4,500 square foot lot, this provides an approximate floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.1:1. The existing building has a floor area of 4,588 square feet, which is very close to a 1:1 FAR ratio. The maximum allowable FAR for a mixed use building within the C-1 zone district is 2.5:1. This is achieved by being in compliance with applicable design standards, view plane requirements, public amenity requirements, other dimensional standards, and having the appropriate mix of uses within the structure. The maximum FAR is not an entitlement and is not achievable in all situations. The exterior of the building and the site programming are undergoing extensive changes through this proposal. The existing public amenity spaces, located along Hopkins and Spring Street (see "Figure 3") are a mix of hard surfaces and lawn. These existing areas total 18% of the entire lot area. The proposal includes expanding the hardscape (into the right-of--way and up to the sidewalk along Spring Street), adding additional seating, and improved landscaping. There is a reduction of public amenity on-site, from 18% to 16% of the total lot area, but the applicant has calculated those improvements in the right-of--way to create a total of 25% of the area as public amenity. Figure 3: Existing Hopkins Amenity (Left), Existing Spring Amenity (Right) Additional changes to the exterior include a new configuration that intends to have the Spring Street entrance serve as the primary entrance to the building. Finally, slight changes are being proposed to the alley parking. Two of the existing four spaces (all uncovered) will be placed in a garage, and the remaining two spaces will be in a carport. 4 STAFF COMMENTS: CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW: The Property is required to obtain approval for Conceptual Commercial Design Review due to the scope of work being proposed. The project will be reviewed based upon how it satisfies requirements for: 1. Public Amenity Space 2. Utility, Delivery, and Trash Service Provision ~. Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. Public Amenity Space: The existing public amenity areas for the Property constitute 18% of the lot area. These two amenity areas (see Figure 3 above), are a mix of concrete and grass. The public qualities of these spaces are lacking, and do not exhibit an inviting style of design that influences public interaction. Clearly, the Property is on the fringe of the highly trafficked areas of Aspen's core, but certain improvements could be made to vitalize this feature of the site. The Applicant has proposed significant changes to the Public Amenity areas. First and foremost, the amount of on-site Public Amenity space has been reduced from the previous 18% of the total lot area to the proposed 16%. Applicants may request a reduction in the required Public Amenity area on-site as long as the reduction is not less than half of the required amount. The Planning and Zoning Commission, in reviewing reduction requests, must determine whether or not the proposed Public Amenity is well-designed and has a positive contribution to the pedestrian environment. Specifically, the Land Use Code states that the P&Z may reduce the requirement "as an incentive for well designed projects." 4 ~ s '; . CARPORT ' .... ~ ..a ¢ ~ ~~~. I ~ a ~ ' ~ ~ OFPICEIRETAIL t~~' I ~ ~ aus M: n.~p~,, ..~ ur~cvur ~ ENTRY( C °x ssEw~.c LOBBY ~ m , .~ - y--..._ _ GARAGE K SYMf. 1~1~• l~ ~ :Fw. ~ ;.Ti '~ * ,. i~ yes. ~ _ ..Y .f ~ b CA .) + ~ ~tl r ~V~ . ~l ~ ~~ S --~ - l rxar*o vavwu SOLRH SPRING STREET Figure 4: Proposed Public Amenity Space (bold dashed line represents the property line) This proposed design intends to eliminate the majority of the Public Amenity that is currently grass, and create a consistent hardscaped area. The Hopkins Public Amenity (which sits slightly below street-grade) includes seating, tables, planter boxes, and an ADA access ramp on the southeast corner. The Spring Street Public Amenity is witnessing the larger change of the two. In response to the new building footprint, the amenity space will take advantage of the recessed entry door and extend to the sidewalk (see ``Figure 4 above). A majority of this space is within the public right-of--way. Conceptually, this space includes adequate room for seating and a large landscaped planter. By calculating all of the public amenity area (on and off-site) the Applicant is providing 25% amenity area, when compared to the size of the lot. The most challenging struggle with Public Amenity spaces is to create a space that actually feels open and inviting to the public, not a secluded area with a very private feel. It should ideally be a place where a passerby would be comfortable reading the newspaper or eating lunch. Staff feels that the Applicant is very much moving in the right direction. The Hopkins Street Public Amenity area will always be a challenge, as long as it is below grade and has a retaining wall separating it from the right-of--way. However, the Spring Street amenity space presents a great opportunity for an attractive and functional area. Staff has recommended that the Applicant continue working with the Spring Street amenity space by increasing its openness to the general public. Staff specifically recommended that permanent benches be added to the area and that the size of the planter be reduced in order to minimize the degree of separation from the street and sidewalk. A further recommendation, and admittedly a larger investment from the Applicant would be to create a parkway along Spring Street and Hopkins Avenue, separating the sidewalk from the street. This is already the pattern along Hopkins, until the sidewalk meets the subject property where it then jogs out to the edge of street. Along Spring Street, specifically for this block, the parkway system is not in place. This site, if implemented, would be the only parcel with a parkway. Staff Comments: Staff finds that the recommendations mentioned above will assist in making the public amenity areas more inviting, functional, and attractive for the general public. The Engineering and Parks Departments have no preference on the parkway system, so that would be a specific recommendation from Community Development. The parkway along Hopkins Avenue is strongly recommended. Staff finds that these improvements would justify the Applicant's request,for a reduction of on-site Public Amenity Area from 18% to 16%. For a complete list of Staff's response to the review criteria found within the Land Use Code, see Exhibit A.1. Utility Delivery. and Trash Service Provision: All utilities for the proposed structure will be located on the roof, so this review criterion will only address delivery and trash services. The 6 Figure 5: Parkway along Hopkins reasoning for these requirements is to ensure that Aspen's commercial buildings have logistical service azeas and better serve the efficiency of the city as whole. The delivery and trash service area is proposed to be located along the alleyway in the carport (northeast corner of the Property). The area meets those provisions found within Section 26.412.060.B, Commercial Design Standards, however, it is not in compliance with the provisions found within Section 26.5'75.060, Miscellaneous Regulations -Utility/Trash Service Areas, specifically requirement number three. The Applicant has proposed a delivery and trash azeas with the dimensions of 22 feet by 6 feet (see Figure 6). The requirement states that these areas should have a linear length of 20 feet, with a minimum depth of 10 feet. An additional Staff concern is that the area is not pazallel with the alleyway, but perpendicular and running the length of the western carport wall. ~» I RELY LING ii TRASH ~ I ~ oFNCe 4 zroouMPSrtN PAPEA SP WMNOIE ~I -~ tO RECYCLING~TRASH AREA - - - - 13'-6" 7'-5 C« i a ~ ~ _.r, '~~~ CARPORT i ~~~ I ~ l ~~ -+-__~ ~ -=-1 ~~- J! ~ I i ~- ~ ~ ~ TRASH RECYCLINGPtAN Norro scA<P Figure 6: Proposed Utility/Trash/Delivery in Carport Staff Comments: The Applicant should adjust the proposed design so that the trash/delivery area does not interfere with the carport parking. At this conceptual level, the trash area is quite close to the parking stall with a lack of clearance or buffer between the two uses. Staff recommends that the trash/delivery area be clearly definable from the adjacent parking spot and that fencing or bollards be installed to ensure this separation. If adequate separation cannot be maintained, Staff would recommend the Applicant eliminate a parking space that would be mitigated later in the process via cash-in-lieu or through a Special Review request. Staff is comfortable allowing for a perpendicular program, being that the dumpster is located directly adjacent to the alleyway. Having recycling and other miscellaneous materials in the interior of the carport should be adequate. For the full list of Staff's response to these criteria, see Exhibit A.2. 7 Commercial, LodsinQ and Historic District Design Obiectives and Guidelines: The final azea for consideration for Conceptual Commercial Design is how the project satisfies those requirements in the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines (the "Design Guidelines). The Properly is located within the Commercial Chazacter (CC) azea which has its own unique list of criteria for Conceptual Commercial Design. Key objectives of the character azea include: • Strengthen the sense of relatedness with the Commercial Core Historic District, • Maintain a retail orientation, • Promote creative, contemporary design, • Encourage awell-defined street wall, • Reflect the variety in building heights seen traditionally, • Accommodate outdoor public spaces while establishing a cleaz definition to the street edge, and • Promote variety in the street level experience. These key objectives are conceptually implemented under guidelines that discuss • Street and Alley System, • Pazking, • Public Amenity Space, • Building Placement, and • Building Height, Mass and Scale Overall, Staff finds that the Applicant has sufficiently addressed those requirements in the Design Guidelines. The two suggestions that Staff made prior to the Planning and Zoning Public hearing were to emphasize the Hopkins Street entrance and de-emphasize the third level so that it does not overpower the first and second levels. The Applicant responded with changes that satisfied these requests. The proposed building, although only at a conceptual phase accomplishes several things, including but not limited to: awell-designed Public Amenity space, azchitecture that emphasizes the corner location, varying roof heights and forms, quality materials, an attractive alley fagade, and the retention of the street grid and a primary entrance. Staff recommends, given the broad nature of these criteria, that the Planning and Zoning Commission read Exhibit A.3 which provides the full Staff responses to each section. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: • Pazks Department -Prior to building permit submittal the landscape plan and tree species and spacing should be reviewed and approved by the Parks Department. Eneineerine Department - o The signage in the public right-of--way will need to obtain a Permanent Encroachment License. o This project will trigger the Stormwater System Development Fee and it shall be calculated and applied during the building permit review. • Building Department -Although still at a conceptual level, the programming of the project has certain deficiencies that need to be addressed more towazds Final Commercial Design Review. o Currently, the building is lacking a required secondary exit from each story per 2003 International Building Code Section 1018.1. Two exits are required from each story. o The building must have an interior accessible route to the trash and recycle azea, as required in International Building Code Section 1104. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the Applicant has made an apt attempt to meet those requirements necessary for the Conceptual Commercial Design Review. However, in reviewing the proposal, Staff does identify some areas that could be enhanced or modified so that the project better meets the AACP and the requirements in the Land Use Code. The proposed Public Amenity spaces represent a significant improvement when compazed to the existing conditions. The existing amenity space is not inviting, composed of inconsistent surfaces, and lacks any type of seating. Staff would like to see further investment in the Spring Street amenity in the azeas of additional permanent seating options, the inclusion of public art, and light landscaping. This would provide a greater pedestrian motivation to the site and influence interaction. Staff also recommends the parkway style of design for the Hopkins avenue streetscape. This would detach the sidewalk from the street and place it directly adjacent to the Hopkins amenity. A pazkway system along both amenities would be ideal, however requiring this along Spring Street represents a sizable investment from the Applicant and would likely reduce the amount of proposed Public Amenity area. These improvements would provide a justifiable reason for the on-site reduction of amenity space from 18% to 16% of the total lot azea. Staff also finds that improvements could be made to the Utility, Delivery, and Trash Service area. Being that the area is oriented perpendicularly to the alleyway, it is important that the area is able to function efficiently and without burdening other elements, including the parking system. The Applicant is asking for a slight reduction in the minimum size of utility, delivery, and trash areas required by the Land Use Code (20' x 10'). The proposed 22' x 6' azea does not include any mechanical. Staff finds that the reduction in size is appropriate given this scenario. However, Staff recommends that the Applicant make an effort to ensure that adequate walking widths are maintained so that tenants and trash service providers can access all bins in the azea without imposing a risk to the adjacent parked cars. This could be accomplished through a fence or bollazds that separate pazking from the trash and delivery azea. If adequate walking width cannot be accomplished, Staff recommends that a parking stall be removed and the applicant mitigate for the loss via cash-in-lieu or through Special Review. If the previously mentioned recommendations aze satisfied, Community Development recommends approval with conditions of the Applicant's request for Conceptual Commercial Design approval. 9 RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE: "I move to approve Resolution No._, Series of 2010, approving with conditions, Conceptual Commercial Design Review for the property located at 632 East Hopkins Avenue." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A.1 -Public Amenity Review Criteria Exhibit A.2 -Utility, Delivery, and Trash Review Criteria Exhibit A.3 -Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines Review Criteria Exhibit B -Applicant's memo regarding Utility, Trash, and Delivery Area Exhibit C -Revised Architecture Exhibit D -Landscape Plan Exhibit E -Development Review Committee (DRC) Comments Exhibit F -Letter and photos from Fern Hurst Exhibit G -Letter and photos from Philip Rothblum Exhibit H -Application 10 Resolution No. _ (SERIES OF 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR 632 EAST HOPHINS AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITHIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 273707332006 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Rudin West, LLC, represented by David Johnston Architects, pc, requesting approval for Conceptual Commercial Design Review; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's property, legally described as Subdivision: City and Townsite of Aspen, Block: 98, Lot: S and east half of Lot R, commonly known as 533 E. Hopkins, is located within the Commercial (C-1) Zone District; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable Code standazds, the Community Development Department recommended approval with conditions of the land use requests; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 20, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application upon recommendation from the Community Development Department and approved Resolution No. ~ Series of 2010, by a ( - )vote, approving "Conceptual Commercial Design Review,"; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets all applicable development standazds and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfaze. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1• Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves Conceptual Commercial Design Review, based on the following conditions. Resolution No _, Series 2010 Page 1 of 4 a) The trash, recycling and delivery area shall be designed so that adequate cleazance is maintained between the service azea and the pazking stalls in the carport. It is recommended that a sepazation fence or bollazds shall be installed to ensure that normal use of the service area does not impose a risk to the adjacent vehicles. b) The final design of the Spring Street Public Amenity Space shall include permanent seating options that encourage public interaction (such as benches), light landscaping, and a form of public art in the public right-of--way. c) The Hopkins Avenue streetscape shall be redesigned to include a pazkway in order to detach the sidewalk from the street edge. This would finalize the pazkway along the block-length. d) The improvements to the right-of--way provide a basis for reducing the open space on the private property from 18% to 16% of the total lot azea. Section 2: Buildine Permit Annlication The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the fmal recorded approvals. This will include approvals for Growth Management Quota System, Subdivision, Pazking, and Final Commercial Design Review. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. If required, a drainage plan, including an erosion control plan prepazed by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. d. As applicable, an excavation stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), top of bank and stability of hillside plan, tree protection plan and drainage and soils reports pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. e. As applicable, a fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department. f. As applicable, a detailed excavation plan that utilizes vertical soil stabilization techniques, or other techniques, if appropriate and acceptable, for review and approval by the City Engineer. g. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall be addressed to satisfactorily meet adopted building codes. Resolution No ,Series 2010 Page 2 of 4 Section 3: Eneineerine Building permit submission shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation published by the engineering department. Section 4: Fire Mitieation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire sprinkler and fue alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907). The latest Code in effect should be used for the building permit submittal. Section 5: Water Deaartment Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Section 6: Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which aze on file at the District office. Section 7• Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals aze not inconsistent with this approval. Section 8• The establishment of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regazd, as a condition of this development approval, the applicant shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing by the city. Section 9• All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awazded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 10: 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 Resolution No _, Series 2010 Page 3 of 4 amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 11: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 20a' day of July, 2010. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Jim True, Special Counsel Stan Gibbs, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Attachments: Exhibit A: Approved Conceptual Elevations Exhibit B: Approved Conceptual Site Plan Resolution No ,Series 2010 Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT A.1 632 East Hopkins, Public Amenity REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS 26.412.060.A, Public Amenity Space The following design standazds, in addition to the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging, and mixed-use development. t) The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity Buff ciently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur considering arty expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses; Staff Response: The sizes of the proposed amenity spaces are adequate for a variety of uses and activities. The azea of the two amenity spaces combined represents 25% of the lot area (although the entirety of the amenity is not located fully on the subject lot). The on-site Public Amenity has been reduced from 18% of the total lot azea to 16%. Including the proposed right-of--way amenity and improvements, this azea is adequate for potential public interaction and use by future tenants. Staff finds this criterion met. 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,' Staff Response: The amenity azeas represented in this proposal have a very high potential for increased street vitality on and around the site. At a conceptual level, certain amounts of detail aze lacking. Staff has recommended that the Applicant explore permanent seating options and the possible inclusion of public art in the Spring Street amenity space, particulazly in the right- ofway. The Hopkins Avenue amenity, which is a renovation of an existing space, sits slightly below grade and is shielded by a retaining wall. Staff is aware that this is not ideal, but investment in the Spring Street amenity would compensate for the deficiencies of the Hopkins amenity. Community Development has discussed at length the possibility of creating a pakway style of sidewalk/street design aoound the Property. This would represent a significant investment by the Applicant, but Staff feels that it would enhance the amenity azeas, streetscapes, and block. This also represents a very justifiable reason for approving a reduction of on-site amenity space. The Pazks and Engineering Departments have stated an indifference to the pakway design. If only one parkway can be created, Staff would favor it along Hopkins Avenue, as this would finish the parkway design for the distance of the block. The parkway design would detach the sidewalk from the street-edge and place it adjacent to the amenity space. This creates a buffer of landscaped lawn between the street and sidewalk. If neither streetscape can accomplish the pakway design, it is highly recommended that the Spring Street Public Amenity is altered for maximum public appeal. With the conditions mentioned above, Staff fords this criterion met. 3) The public amenity, and design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of- way, and uses, contributes to an inviting pedestrian environment; Staff Response: The Hopkins Avenue amenity space is located in a sunken patio that is separated from the sidewalk by a retaining wall. This is very similaz to the amenity space of the building directly to the west of the Property. The spaces along Hopkins Avenue on this block do not have great appeal to the pedestrian. Again, Staff would recommend that the sidewalk be pulled up against the retaining wall so that a pazkway system could be implemented in front of the site. This would bring pedestrians closer to the azea and potentially create more interaction. Staff does not see any conflicts with adjacent structures and uses. Along Spring Street, the amenity space will likely have a much different pereep6on. This azea has much more of an opportunity to appeal to the pedestrian. This space is also unique because it is located on the fringe of the Commercial (C-1) zone district, therefore it must represent a comfortable transition to the residential neighborhoods to the east. Staff finds that the proposed amenity space is inviting, but certain additions such as permanent seating and a reduction in screening (lazge planter box) could improve the site more. It may be difficult to analyze what creates a better transitional space: either a pazkway with both trees and a lawn along the street, or having the sidewalk that's adjacent to the street (existing condition) and have the lawn and trees against the building thus flanking the amenity space. Staff would recommend the pazkway solution along Spring Street. This would better shield the amenity space from residential neighbors to the east that may not want as much visibility to the public feature. If the pazkway cannot be accomplished along Spring, Staff recommends that the landscaping on the lawn be of high quality and that the amenity space itself incorporate light landscaping to assist in the zone district transition. 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; Staff Response: The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls, sidewalks, or adjacent property. The Hopkins amenity could be viewed as similaz to the adjacent property to the west, but the differences are strong enough to not warrant concern. Both amenities are unique to the block, and should benefit the pedestrian environment. Staff fords this criterion met. 5) Any variation to the Design and Operation Standards for Pedestrian Amenity, Section 26.575.030(F) promote the purpose of the pedestrian amenity reguirements; Staff Response: The proposed public amenity does not propose any variation to the Design and Operation Standards for Pedestrian Amenity, Section 26.575.030(F). Staff finds this criterion met. ExIIIeIT A.2 632 East Hopkins, Public Amenity REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS 26.412.060.B, Utility/Delivery/Trash Service Area 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. 1) A utility, trash, and recycle service area shall be accommodated along the alley meeting the minimum standards established by Section 26.575.060 Utiltty/Trash/Recycle Service Areas, unless otherwise established according to said section; Staff Response: The proposed utility, trash, and recycle service azea is in compliance with the majority of the standazds established by Section 26.575.060. One major deviation is the size of the azea. The Land Use Code recommends that (at a minimum) the azea should have a lineaz length of 20 feet and a depth of 10 feet. The Applicant has proposed an azea of 22 feet by 6 feet. This is a reduction of 68 squaze feet from the standazd. The Planning and Zoning Commission has the ability to reduce the required dimensions. The proposed azea does not include any utilities, all of which will be located on the buildings roof. This alone warrants a reduction in size. The proposed azea is also unique in that is oriented perpendicularly to the alley. Staff is concerned that the normal operation of the area may conflict with the adjacent pazking in the carport. Staff recommends that a screening system (either fencing or bollards) be installed to ensure that vehicles will not be damaged and that adequate walkways aze maintained. If this cannot occur, the Applicant may request a compact caz stall adjacent to the trash azea or abandoned a pazking stall and mitigate for the reduction via cash-in-lieu or through Special Review. The Building Department has requires that an ADA accessible route from the interior of the building be available for access to the trash/delivery azea. 2) All utlllly service pedestals shall be located on private property and along the alley. 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 a historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed, Staff' Response: The utilities are all located on the roof. At this stage of design, no easement should be necessary for service providers. However, upon Final Commercial Design Review, the Applicant should have a better understanding if a pedestal will be required on the ground level. Staff finds this criterion met. 3) Delivery service areas shall be incorporated along the alley. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged,' Staff Response: The delivery azea is consolidated in the trash/recycling azea along the alleyway. The project does not include a truck loading facility. Staff fmds this criterion met. 4) 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; Staff Response: The two-caz garage will be verited through the roof of the building. This will be tied in with other mechanical chase equipment throughout the building and fed to the roof. Staff finds this criterion met. 5) Mechanical equipment 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 devise such that it shall be visible from a public right- of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. Staff Response: The majority of the proposed building is serviced by equipment on the roof. The details of this location and screening shall be better defined during the Final Commercial Design Review process. Staff finds this criterion met. EXHIBIT A.3 632 East Hopkins, Design Objectives and Guidelines REVIEW CxITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS The following design guidelines shall apply at the conceptual review stage: Street and Alley System a) Street Grid: 1.1 - Orient a primary entrance toward the street. 1.2 -Maintain the established town grid in all projects. Staff Response: The proposal has two major entrances for the building. The primary entrance is going to be along Spring Street, and is oriented towazds the street. The Hopkins Avenue facade will retain and entrance, one of which Staff recommended that the Applicant emphasize more. The Applicant responded with azchitectural changes that satisfied the recommendation from Staff. Staff finds this criterion met. b) Alleys: 1.4 -Develop an alley faFade to create visual interest. Staff Response: The Applicant has designed an alley fagade that includes a variety of materials, setbacks, and functions. There is an entrance to the building along the alleyway, but may not be intended for the public. However, Staff feels that the alley facade provides interest to the block and is well designed. Staff finds this criterion met. Parking 1.5 -The visual impacts of structured parking should be minimalized. The access shall be located on an alley when feasible or a secondary street, designed with the same attention to detail and materials as the primary building facade, and integrated into the building design. 1.6 -Structured parking should be placed within a `wrap' of commercial and/or residential uses. Staff Response: The structured paking is located along the alleyway and essentially covers two of the existing four paking stalls. Adjacent to the structured garage is a two-caz carport that also includes the utility, trash, and delivery azea. The structured paking fits accordingly with the material variety on the alley fagade and consists of the same quality of design. Staff finds this criterion met. Public Amenity Space a) Street Facing Amenity Space 1.7 - A street facing amenity space shall meet all of the following requirements: 1) Abut the public sidewalk 2) be level with the sidewalk 3) Be open to the sky, 4) Be directly accessible to the public, and 5) Be paved or otherwise landscaped. 1.8 - A street facing public amenity space shall remain subordinate to the line of building fronts in the Commercial Area. 1.9 -Street facing amenity space shall contain features to promote and enhance its use. These may include one or more of the following: I) Street furniture, 2) Public Art, 3) Historical/interpretive marker. Staff Response: Both amenity spaces meet all of the requirements listed in 1.6 above, expect for the Hopkins amenity not being level with the sidewalk. This is an existing condition, and given the substantial improvements that the Applicant is making to the space, Staff fmds it an appropriate compromise. The Hopkins amenity is cleazly subordinate to the building front, and although much lazger and further projected from the building, the Spring Street amenity remains subordinate as well. The extended amenity along Spring takes advantage of the landscaped ]awns that flank the space on either side. Staff has recommended more improvements to be depicted in the plans for the Spring amenity space. These include permanent seating options, additional light landscaping, and the possible inclusion of public art. *Note: All other criteria in the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines for Public Amenity address amenity types that aze not proposed with this project, therefore they aze not applicable. Building Placement a) Setbacks 1.18 - Maintain the alignment offacades at the sidewalk's edge: 1.19 - A building may be set back from its side lot lines in accordance with design guidelines identified in Street and Alley System and Public Amenity Space guidelines. Staff Response: The proposed building does not extend to the sidewalk edge on either applicable side. This is primarily due to the public amenity that creates separation in itself. As mentioned in the requirement, having the public amenity serving as the reason for separation is acceptable. The project is not ascrape- and-replace, and the proposed structure uses (for the vast majority) the existing footprint. Staff fmds this criterion met. b) Buildine Orientation 1.20 -Building facades shall be parallel to the facing street(s) and primary entrances shall be oriented toward the street. 1.21 - Orient a new building to be parallel to its lot lines, similar to that of traditional building orientation. Staff Response: The building facades aze all parallel to the facing streets, save for the three elements that take advantage of angles not oriented at 90 degree angles to the streetscape. This includes the two angulaz corner pieces and the slightly angled entrance along Spring Street. Staff finds that these azchitectural features add interest and uniqueness to the building's exterior. The third-story includes a much longer exterior wall that is not parallel to the facing street. However, this exterior wall is set back from the first and second-story wall. The impact of this non-pazallel feature will be less impactful on the continuity of the street edge because of this. Even though all facades are not completely parallel to the facing street, Staff fords that the slight variation is appropriate. Staff fords this criterion met. c) Height Variation 1.22 -Building fafade height shall be varied from the facade height of adjacent buildings of the same number of stories by a minimum of 2 feet. 1.23 -Anew building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the Commercial Area. 1.24 -Height variation should be achieved using one or more of the following: 1) Vary the building height in accordance with traditional lot width, 2) set back the upper floor to vary the building fapade profile(s) and the roof forms across the width and the depth of the building, 3) vary the facade (or parapet) heights at the front, or 4) step down the rest of the building towards the alley in conjunction with other design standards and guidelines. Staff Response: The proposed building has a maximum height of 36 feet, which is more than two feet above the adjacent three-story stivcture. The building is located on the corner of the block and the height of the building serves to strengthen the corner and provide and appropriate beginning to the Commercial (C-1) zone district. Additionally, this project meets the minimum 9ft. floor to ceiling clearances on the second and third-stories, as the Design Objectives and Guidelines requires. The style of the third-story is not simple or standard throughout, but multifaceted and makes use of several architectural strategies. Varying roof heights, a set back from the lower two levels, cantilevers, and a variety of materials all add to a unique and diverse third-story. Staff recommended that that the Applicant address an issue of the third-level possibly being overemphasized and taking attention away from the base of the building. The Applicant responded appropriately by reducing the size of the cantilever, raising the parapet wall along Hopkins Avenue, and emphasizing the materials on the first and second- story. With these changes made, Staff finds this criterion met. ~~CN I T31 t v DAVID )OHNSTON ARCHITEt TS rt iFL / Yi-34:3 iAX iU ) V~]3&5 p F N0. 04 DATE July 9, 2010 BY Adam Ray TO Drew Alexander, City of Aspen Community Development CC Michael Rudin PROJECT 632 East Hopkins Renovation SUBJECT Conceptual Design Review -Utility Trash, Recycle Services Area UPDATE COMMENTS Dear Drew Per our discussion of staff comments regarding the trash and recycling layout proposed in Memorandum 01, we have further studied the design of the trash and recycling area that functions appropriately within the existing space allocated for this purpose. It is the intention of this memorandum to address the additional comments by staff and exhibit through a more detailed design, how the proposed layout for the trash and recycling area is adequate. Existing Utility Trash and Resyclina Area: As noted in the commercial design review application, the exiting area for utility, trash and recycling is six (6) feet by twenty-two (22) feet. In the conceptual design review application, it is stated that all mechanical equipment will be accommodated on the roof and~or in the basement of the building, requiring only trash and recycling to be accommodated in the existing area. Proposed Operation of Trash and Recycling Service Area: To summarize, a meeting with Waste Management was held to determine adequate sizing for trash and recycling equipment. It was concluded that based on the estimated per use square footage allotments, the required container dimensions would adequately be accommodated in the proposed area. The attached layout of this area exhibits a conservative estimate of container sizes to accommodate the building. The following points were made by Waste Management: 1. A two (2)-yard volume trash dumpster would be more than adequate for the resulting refuse generation of the proposed uses of the building; 2. The residential components of the proposed building would generate no more than one-third (1~3)- yard of refuse on a weekly basis; 3. The majority of refuse from the office component would be in the form of paper recycling, which is easily accommodated in the 96-gallon containers represented in the attached layout drawing; 4. If a retail component were to occupy the main-level space, the majority of refuse generated would be cardboard, which could be adequately accommodated by the exhibited containers. If more cardboard generation occurred, the 96-gallon container for cardboard recycling could be replaced by a two (2j-yard dumpster, a dimension that is common to most high volume retail stores in the commercial core.. 5. Pick-up and hauling of all containers would be accommodated through the screening gate to the rear of the proposed area, adjacent to the alley. Proposed Layout of Parkins and Trash and Recvclino Service Area: All four parking stalls are retained and adequate circulation and access to and from the building is accommodated through the proposed layout and in accordance with the Code. Because the proposed building renovation is the "highest and best use" for the site, it is not likely that any additional demand will be placed on the trash and recycling facility for the property. The following parking configurations are proposed for the purposes of retaining all four parking stalls while providing adequate access, circulation and operation of both the parking accommodations and the trash and recycling area: 1. Two full size parking stalls are proposed within the garage structure; 2. Two compact stalls (per the standards of Architectural Graphic Standards) are proposed in the carport, allowing maximum circulation from the rear door of the building to the trash and recycling area; 3. The walkway between the carport parking stalls and the trash and recycling area is maximized through the inclusion of the compact parking stalls, providing less inhibited circulation as well as additional space for box storage and~or additional container storage if necessary. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any clarifications. W c N u -_--~ w w Z o = Vl ~ °m ~ Z °~ ~ J ¢ ~ __ w Z d ~ w ~, U M ~ w ~ w ~w LL Q 0 ~ „0-,9 -- 1/A-_ 1..~ O V Q V „9-,ti L _ 100 5t~ 2 O o HN ~ ~ ~ Sw v °~ o= ~~ as 0 8gmg~ __ ~~ ~4~~ 3 V I zo CD -~ ~z w z Y O 2 ui N M ~ Faso - ~~=~ z a. c~ ;30 z a ~~~~ e J t°°~ ~us~ (J o °008 U DC ~ 3 s 3 U N s m ~ F Wi Q O s 8 ~ Z _ V ~_ d x s W 0 0 W 0 0 0 w F Q a ,s~ ~ ~ s ~ ~_ _~ ~B^~s ~osi °seE~€oak OJ'N3dSV ~ SNI)IdOH'3ZE9 ~~ 3 v °_ `~~bP £~°~ €~~~$~~)~p SNI~IdOH '3 Z~9 ~ ~o~ s ~o '~"~ ¢a a ~ C 84 3 ~F$~ gz 3 1 0 ~g¥:~%$F'b od~°u of ~Q 1M y`.~ i X W W Z 3f1N3At/ SNI~dOH 15H3 ~XHIC3IT t~ DRC Summary: 632 E. Hopkins Avenue Conceptual Commercial Design Engineering Department: Encroachment License Due to the location of the signage in the City Right of Way the applicant will need to apply for a Permanent Encroachment License with the City Engineering Department. Approval of the Permanent Encroachment License is required prior to installation. Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter Condition of Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter shall evaluated prior to construction. Any of this infrastructures will need to follow the following City code requirements: 21.12.370 Excavation under existing curb and gutter and sidewalk "If any excavation occurs under existing curb, gutter or sidewalk, that curb gutter and sidewalk shall be removed and replaced. The replacement shall be from the nearest concrete joint " o The applicant will need to replace any concrete sidewalk'stones' adjacent to the property that are disturbed by construction of these improvements. From the nature of the improvements sidewalk replacement would occur across the entire front of the applicants building. 21.16.080 Responsibility to repair sidewalks, driveways, and gutters "When notified that any sidewalk, driveway, curb, gutter or and combination thereof, in front of or abutting upon or servicing any premises shall be in need of repair the city engineer shall cause notice to be served upon the owner or other person in charge of or having the control and supervision of the premises, to repair such sidewalk, driveway, curb or gutter within thirty (30) days. It shall be unlawful for any person to fail or refuse to comply with such notice to repair." o Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter adjacent to this applicants building is deficient due to a vertical displacement of greater than ~" and spalling and crumbling concrete. The applicant is required to replace the deficient Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk. 21.16.90 Definition of sidewalk in need of repair "For the purpose of this chapter, a 'sidewalk in need of repair' shall mean a sidewalk in any of the following conditions: a) concrete that is spalling or crumbling b) vertical displacement of the adjoining sidewalk section is in excess ofthree-quarters (3/4)inch, or c) Lateral Displacement of adjoining sidewalk sections is in excess of one (1) inch, or d) The sidewalk has a transverse slope in excess of one (1) inch per foot or the combination of transverse or longitudinal grade is insufficient for adequate drainage of the sidewalk causing accumulation of water and ice. Stormwater System Development Fee Due to increase of impervious area on site the Stormwater System Development fee will be triggered during plan review. The Stormwater system development fee is applied to projects that create or disturb more than 500 square feet of impervious area. The fee is $2.88 per square foot of total impervious area on the site and is calculated and applied during building permit review. A comprehensive drainage plan is required upon submittal of Building permit. Stormwater from impervious surfaces shall be detained on site. Construction Management Plan A construction management plan must be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. The plan must include a planned sequence of construction that minimizes construction impacts to the public. The plan shall describe mitigation for: parking, staging/encroachments, truck traffic, noise, dust, and erosion/sediment pollution. *Detailed plans are required prior to council -please see engineering department for specific details. Parks Department: 1) All landscaping within the ROW shall be irrigated as required in the City Code 2) Prior to building permit submittal the landscape plan and tree species and spacing should be reviewed and approved by the parks department. 3) The public private spacing should be redesigned to lessen the private feel as currently proposed. Sanitation District: 1) Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. 2) ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. 3) On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. 4) If the applicant desires a new sanitary sewer tap connection, the old service line connection shall be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to ACSD requirements. Anew tap will be made by district personnel, and the new sanitary service line must be installed according to ACSD standards. S) The district would highly recommend that the applicant replace the existing sanitary sewer service line since the existing sewer service line is an older cast iron pipe and only a couple feet deep under the existing parking area into the alley. 6) Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. 7) One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements will be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. 8) Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. 9) All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. 10) Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW or in easements above ASCD main sewer lines. 11) Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. 12) The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. 13) Once the proposed utility plans and improvement survey have been submitted to the district for approval, the district will be able to comment in greater detail. Building Department: We have done a preliminary review for compliance on this project to the policies and codes as currently adopted and amended per Title 8 of the Aspen Municipal Code. http~//www aspenpitkin com/Departments/Community-Development/Building/ http•//www aspenpitkin com/Portals/0/dots/City/clerk/municode/coaspent08.pdf The comments are intended to provide the applicant with corrections or concerns that may require further development or be re drawn to show compliance. We are available to schedule a meeting to discuss these items at your earliest convenience. Please either email me at denism@ci.aspen.co.us or call at 970-429-2761. 1) According to our records the building type of construction is type III A. This will allow the addition of a residential unit on the third level. a. We will require stamped architectural and MEP's. 2) The current plans do not provide the required number of exits from each story per 2003 IBC section 1018.1. Two exits are required from each story. Rooms or spaces may have a single exit if the occupant load meets the table 1014.1. a. An additional vertical exit enclosure will be required. b. The vertical exit enclosures are required to provide access directly to the outside or to a exit passageway. Elevators may not open into an exit passageway. Fifty percent may exit through an exit discharge lobby. c. The building design does not appear to meet a single exit building from 1018.2. 3) An interior accessible route to the trash and recycle will be required per 2003 IBC section 1104. 4) Will there be a common toilet facility and drinking fountain or will each tenant be installing them with their tenant finish permits. Please include the proposed locations in the MEP's. 5) The building will need to show compliance with the 2009 IECC. The residential portions may use Res check and the rest of the structure may chose either between Com check 2009 IECC or 2007 90.1 ARHRAE. ~x~113~T ~ Drew Alexander From: hurst fern [fernkh@gmail.comj Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 8:13 AM To: Drew Alexander Subject: my comments on 632 East Hopkins Attachments: DSCN0502.jpg; DSCN0503.jpg; DSCN0504.jpg; DSCN0505.jpg; DSCN0506.jpg; DSCN0507.jpg; ATT2780432.txt To Whom It May Concern: I am Fern Hurst and I own and live at 120 South Spring Street, directly across Spring Street from the building under consideration, 632 East Hopkins Street. I realize that Spring Street is the dividing line between the commercial core and the residential area, and my concern is to preserve a nice transition between the two and not to depreciate the quality of my residential unit. My condominium development is well known around town for its beautiful wild flowers, and it would be nice it 632 East Hopkins could echo the feeling in two ways: a "parkway" design of the sidewalk sandwiched between grass and plantings and plantings similar to those at 120 South Spring Street along the Spring Street side of the building. I ask that the proposed paving to the Spring Street side of the building be largely eliminated and that a grassy area be installed in keeping with my property across the street. Photos 1 and 2 are are the view of my house from the entrance to 632 E Hopkins. Of greater concern is the building of a three story addition consisting of a garage and two stories above, to be built on what is now a simple and open paved driveway. From my front entry I have a not-so-nice view of the alley between Spring Street and Hunter Street and a very nice view of St Mary's steeple and trees. My view will be completely obscured by the garage and two stories above. I ask that the corner of the addition be beveled or recessed on the second and third floors so that my view is less obscured. I ask that the roof deck with its required screening be eliminated to give the northeast corner a lower profile. I ask that the roof line of the addition above the garage be level with the roof line or height of the proposed third story of the rest of the building. As proposed, it is higher just where my view is most obscured. Photo 3 is of the northeast corner of 632 E Hopkins. I also ask that the third story which is being added above the building have its slanted roof eliminated or lowered to achieve a lower height profile. Just as the northeast corner of the building addition will obscure my view, the southeast corner (Hopkins and Spring) with its proposed corner overhang will obscure my view from my entrance, living room, and two decks. I ask that that corner overhang be recessed to preserve view lines from the properties to the east. Photo 4 is the southeast corner of 632 E Hopkins. Photos 5 and 6 and the views of 632 E Hopkins from my living room. Thank you for your consideration. Fern Hurst 120 South Spring Street 970 920 3787 fernkh(damail.com i Photo 1 Photo 2 Photo 3 Photo 4 Photo 5 Photo 6 07!14/2010 11:33 12129881395 .RECEIVED JUL 14 2010 CITY OF ASPEN CCI~IUNfIy DEVELOPMENT PHILROTHBLUM PH1LII' ROTHBI.UM 624 EA.S3' IiOPIQNS AVE ASPEN, CO 81 G] 1 TEL :(212) 988-1395 ,~ ~~ FAx :~7D ~- R z o-Sxi~ 9 Q:~ , S ~~. ~a ,z•e,, ce,a.:. PAGE 01/01 ~xttlBiT CT FAX (212) 759-2525 xi; :63z.~;1~. _.~ PAGES (INCL COVER)_ Inl zegattl bo the public heating on July 20, 2010, as the adjacent hatneovner, 7 suppozt the conceptual snbnadssion of Rodin West LLC. The architect David Tohnston's office, has assured toe, in several conversations, that they intend to have the building blend in with the neighboring properties, will have a minimial impact on the sheet scape in retaining the existing set backs, be aesthetically pleasing, be tniadful of our existing view place, and, of couzse, confozltn tviUl ail aspects of the zoaiag and. bmlding code. Moreover, they suggested and agreed to continue cozctultmdcatxon daring theiz development pzocess. PIiILIP IZOTi3BLUM