Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
coa.lu.gm.632 E Hopkins.2010
THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0043.2010.ASLU PARCEL ID NUMBER 2737 07 3 32 006 PROJECTS ADDRESS 632 E HOPKINS AVE PLANNER DREW ALEXANDER CASE DESCRIPTION GMQS ALLOTMAN BUILDING RENOVATION REPRESENTATIVE ADAM ROY DATE OF FINAL ACTION 11.10.10 CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON: 12.23.10 QUA 2737— rn - 3 3 z -00 0043.27 kr,,' 'f 4--. ,f'..ry 3 - ..y' Ki < ,' ' Y Fm tt'a.� .,�.' ''!; a" ,ari — INS lint Elba Edit Hord NavigaIe Farm Repots Fortner Iab I1ePP 04 ►X ►A► t4"igli ®JAS -1 }1 1 v + 1 CAt Plc .41: 0101 €h s i jcivil Ra IFML IFsesumrr IMain ice Ietad..bIRaagtistkrr IYawa IArdiEna I Custom Feeds ISub bras IP«c* I 1 2010s.SLU f( VW E HOPKINS AVE ` , x I tre esirds:gr9f '. ° wtt A - k,44' Ile ' a .v fi": ., 4'r '4'-ti 1 ` t': t"" w 'T . , ' s* rt 4 s , la X „ti, f' s t N - & Gfr v il ``I *" ..iup7 •712070 PSI I .. ", I I -� D .44,, OMQS ALLOTMAN BUILDING RENOVATION Issued I ° Find I _I I submitted IADAM ROY 925 3444 I Clock =I Days 1 01 Excess 18/1212011 '. • I Sukrittcd via °II I Owe I Last nom I "" °"' ST VENTURE ... I Fist twos I BOX 1328 SHLAND OR 97520 Pha'e (414) 824 -8331 Addre% 1 APPIcent ,II ❑ 0wnu is applicant/ ❑ Contractor is applicant? I Last name HNSTON ARCHITECTS, PC I Fist name I 418E COOPER I 206 phone (970) 925 -3444 Cost $ 27063 - I Address ASPEN CO 81611 Lender -. I Last name - I First name Phone ( ) - Address Deply+yy pant Medea addles: - .. ..... ArpenG?Id _ argelac , l,_. 1 ofl Ck- LI R 9 a d kvz_ a.., Avvkamitc \ \cog -2..00 ay. p_ %,....c), Sy t ai Lc of 4vv DEVELOPMENT ORDER of the City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order ", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "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 is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, 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. Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and Telephone Number Rudin West LLC, 345 Park Avenue, 33` Floor, New York, NY 10154, (212) 407 -2511 Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property • Subdivision: City and Townsite of Aspen, Block: 98, Lot: S and east half of Lot R, commonly known as 632 East Hopkins Avenue. Parcel ID# 2737- 07 -3 -32 -006 Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan Expansion and remodel of existing structure in order to add a third floor, 1,999 square feet of net livable area, public amenity improvements, and 434 additional square feet of net leasable area. Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) Approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission through Resolution No. 16, Series of 2010 for Conceptual Commercial Design Review. Approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission through Resolution No. 20, Series of 2010 for Final Commercial Design Review, Growth Management, and Special Review for Parking. Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) December 26 2010 Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) December 26 2013 Issu his 16 y of cember, 2010, by the City of Aspen Community Development Director. Chris Bendo , ommunity Development Director r 1 THE CITY OF ASPEN Land Use Application Determination of Completeness Date: August 19, 2010 Dear City of Aspen Land Use Review Applicant, We have received your land use application and reviewed it for completeness. The case number and name assigned to this property is 0043.2010.ASLU —632 E. Hopkins The planner assigned to this case is Sara Adams. ❑ Your Land Use Application is incomplete: We found that the application needs additional items to be submitted for it to be deemed complete and for us to begin reviewing it. We need the following additional submission contents for you application: Please submit the aforementioned missing submission items so that we may begin reviewing your application. No review hearings will be scheduled until all of the submission contents listed above have been submitted and are to the satisfaction of the City of Aspen Planner reviewing the land use application. X Your Land Use Application is complete: If there are not missing items listed above, then your application has been deemed complete to begin the land use review process. 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. T..r You, ' L d Je 1 fer Phe Deputy Director City of Aspen, Community Development Department For Office Use Only: Qualifying Applications: Mineral Rights N9tice Required SPA PUD COWOP Yes No Subdivision (creating more than 1 additional lot) GMQS Allotments Residential Affordable Housing YesA No Commercial E.P.F. Parcel Detail http: / /www.pitldnasseFCpr.org/ assessor /parcel.asp ?AccountNumber... Pitkin County Assessor /Treasurer Parcel Detail Information Assessor /Treasurer Property Search 1 Assessor Subset Query 1 Assessor Sales Search Clerk & Recorder Reception Search Basic Building Characteristics 1 Tax Information Parcel Detail 1 Value Detail 1 Sales Detail 1 Residential/Commercial Improvement Detail Land Detail 1 Photographs Tax Area Account Number Parcel Number 2009 Mill Levy 001 I R000942 1 273707332006 1 25.253 Owner Name and Address RUDIN WEST LLC 345 PARK AVE 33RD FLR NEW YORK, NY 10154 Legal Description Subdivision: CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Block: 98 Lot: S AND EAST HALF OF LOT R Location Physical Address: 632 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN CITY AND TOWNSITE OF Subdivision: ASPEN Land Acres: 0 Land Sq Ft: 4,500 2010 Property Tax Valuation Information Actual Value Assessed Value Land: I 3,375,0001 978,750 1 of3 8/18/2010 2:58 PM Parcel Detail � http: / /www.pitkinasses=,r.org/ assessor /parcel.asp ?AccountNumber... Improvements: 1,125,000 326,250 Total: 4,500,0001 1,305,000 Sale Date: 5/17/2010 Sale Price: 13,100,000 Basic Building Characteristics Number of Residential 0 Buildings: Number of Comm/Ind 1 Buildings: Commercial /Industrial Building Occurrence 0 Characteristics OFFICE SECOND FLOOR: 2,294 OFFICE FIRST FLOOR: 2,294 OFFICE BASEMENT 760 WAREHOUS: Total Area: 5,348 Property Class: OFFICES - IMPROVEMENTS Actual Year Built: 1976 Effective Year Built: 1985 Quality of Construction: GOOD -BASE Exterior Wall: GOOD BASE Interior Wall: GOOD -BASE Neighborhood: COA COMMERCIAL "C" Tax Information Balance Due as of 8/13/2010 $0.00 Current Year Balance Due $0.00 Delinquent Years' Balance Due $0.00 Total Balance Due Tax Year Due In Tax + Special Assessment Amount 2009 2010 $32,955.16 2008 2009 $31,613.28 2007 2008 $30,536.28 2006 I 2007 1 $17,244.88 2 of 8/18/2010 2:58 PM ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 632 East Hopkins Avenue , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 1 6 , 200 10 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County otPitkin ) I, Adam Roy of David Johnston Architects (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: X 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. 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 and was continuously visible from the 1st day of November , 20010 , 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. (continued on next page) 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) d.- prior to the public hearing on such amen mentt s ,// t Signature /t& The for goin ffidavit of Notice" was acknow ged be ore me this day of MO t ed ,240, by A act . , �,Oj , ` I ,' WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL 1 a t My com ission expires: C 14-512- 0 D 1 •t '1 • , 03 v '' Notary Public \ ‘ ,"R031.91- - M�iOIp1 ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 632 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE; GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM, PARKING, AND FINAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 16 2010 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, Colorado to consider an application requesting Growth Management Quota System, Parking, and Final Commercial Design approval for an expansion and remodel of the existing structure located at 632 East Hopkins Avenue. The application was submitted by David Johnston Architects, pc, 418 East Cooper Avenue, #206, Aspen, CO 81611, on behalf of Rudin West LLC. The subject property under review is legally described as Subdivision: City and Townsite of Aspen, Block: 98, Lot: S and east half of Lot R. The parcel number for the subject property is 2737- 07 -3 -32 -006. For further information, contact Drew Alexander at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen CO 81611, (970) 429 -2739, drew.alexander@cLaspen.co.us s /Stan Gibbs Planning and Zoning Chair Published in the Aspen Times on October 10 2010 City of Aspen Account 632 East Hopkins Avenue - Photographs of Posted Notice a o c Qo E s U 0., '',,t,- , . c m a 2 ;.^. , m.. 2 a ed ° s L � `^ Z c �¢M *04' O r A D O- '- O � 9 'q. a .r O® a � G `++ o 0 0 -. o o a S.' K cu > a yp. C z E o..q� _,, a. o� 00 o ° m 2 c .. # wz Ev °Tw 'g ..% v' H a P ¢ H 1-7- ` ? 4 1 O d L.5 3 t V a L G V, F l7 C - z 6 fi .. !y v , i6 5,' A o+ c i a W v a - a a c n c .N C' aw > 7 ,yY c a$ w C a 2 L L E V `�' C C O..< Ti O,C�.^ . o V" 'O YZ 6 O. x X . g di. , ti , mei N : y d t k�& 9f Easy Peel® Labels i V • Bend along line to 1 AVERY® 5160® Use Avery® Template 5160® j Peed Paper I expose Pop -Up Edge". I 4 J i 610 EAST HYMAN LLC 530 HOPKINS LLC C/0 CHARLES CUNNIFFE 630 EAST HYMAN LLC 5301/2 E HOPKINS 610 E HYMAN AVE 532 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 719 EAST HOPKINS AVE LLC AARON ROGER S & VIRGINIA A ALEXANDER JUDY PO BOX 11600 45 BIRCHALL DR 1894 HWY 50 EAST #4 PMB 207 ASPEN, CO 81612 SCARSDALE, NY 10583 -0000 CARSON CITY, NV 89701 ALLEN RONALD W REV TRUST ALPINE BANK ASPEN ARCHDIOCESE OF DENVER 50 SW 137TH AV ATTN ERIN WIENCEK SAINT MARYS BEAVERTON, OR 97006 PO BOX 10000 1300 S STEELE ST GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 DENVER, CO 80210 ASHTON JONATHAN G ASPEN LEGACY LLC ASPEN MAIN STREET PROPERTIES LP PO BOX 26 17740 E HINSDALE AVE 14881 QUORUM DR #200 JAMES TOWN, CO 80455 FOXFIELD, CO 80016 DALLAS, TX 75254 AUSTIN LAWRENCE CONNER LLC BASS CAHN 601 LLC BAUM ROBERT E ASPEN RES TRST 532 E HOPKINS AVE PO BOX 4060 PO BOX 1518 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 STOCKBRIDGE, MA 01262 BAYLESS GRANT J BENNETT ROBERT R & DEBORAH J BERLIN JAMES TRUST 6864 PEPPERTREE CT 10900 HILLTOP RD 1795 BROOKWOOD DR LONGMONT, CO 80503 PARKER, CO 80134 AKRON, OH 44313 -5070 BOOHER ANDREA LYNN BORCHERTS HOLDE H TRUSTEE BROUGH STEVE B & DEBORAH A 709 E MAIN STREET #303 1555 WASHTENAW 599 TROUT LK DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ANN ARBOR, MI 48104 SANGER, CA 93657 BRYANT CAROLINA H BULKELEY RICHARD C & JULIE J BULKELEY RICHARD C & JULIE J PO BOX 5217 801 JOY ST PO BOX 450 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 RED OAK, IA 51566 RED OAK, IA 51566 BURSTEN GABRIELLA CALCOTT JOHN R CALDWELL CHARLES & DEBRA PO BOX 2061 1015 COTTONWOOD DR NW 514 E BRYAN ST ASPEN, CO 81612 LOS RANCHOS, NM 871076751 SAVANAH, GA 31401 CHOOKASZIAN KAREN M CICUREL CARY CIPOLLINO NICHOLAS 1100 MICHIGAN 2615 N LAKEWOOD 300 QUAIL RD WILMETTE, IL 60091 CHICAGO, IL 60614 MERRITT, NC 28556 -9641 ttiquettes faciles a peter 1 Replies 5 la. hachure din de I www.avery.com ; Sns Utilisez le gabarit AVERY 5160® 1 cha reveler le rebord POPUPTM 1 1 -B00-GO -AVERY 1 Easy Peel® Labels i A MM. Bend along fine to 1 C\ AVERY® 5160® Use Avery® Template 5160® Feed Paper expose Pop -Up Edge j • COLORADO MTN NEWS MEDIA CONCEPT 600 LLC COPPOCK RICHARD P PO 8OX 1927 PO BOX 2914 PO BOX 44 CARSON CITY, NV 89702 BASALT, CO 81621 DEXTER, MI 48130 CROSS JUDITH DORAN RALPH DRESNER MILTON H REV LVG TRST PO BOX 3388 2600 WOODWARD WAY 28777 NORTHWESTERN HWY ASPEN, CO 81612 ATLANTA, GA 30305 SOUTHFIELD, MI 48034 EDGE OF AJAX INC EDGETTE JAMES J & PATRICIA EDWARDS CHARLES N C/O ANDRE ULRYCH 19900 BEACH RD STE 801 189 BEVENUE ST 201B E SILVER ST JUPITER ISLAND, FL 33469 WELLSLEY, MA 02482 MARBLE, CO 81623 EISENSTAT ALBERT & CONSTANCE EMPHASYS SERVICE COMPANY FARRELL SCOTT W 358 WALSH RD 1925 BRICKELL AVE BLDG D PO BOX 9656 ATHERTON, CA 94027 PENTHOUSE 11D ASPEN, CO 81612 MIAMI, FL 33129 FICKE CLARK FURNGULF LTD GARRITY PATRICK & PAULA 15 W ARRELLAGA ST #3 A COLD JOINT VENTURE 6126 CHES CT SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101 616 E HYMAN AVE ORLANDO, FL 32819 ASPEN, CO 81611 GERSHMAN JOEL & ELAINE GILKERSON LINDA REV TRUST 50% GLAUSER STEVEN JERRY & BARBARA 120 N SPRING ST 1449E 56TH ST 460 ST PAUL ST ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60637 DENVER, CO 80206 GOODING SEAN A 80% & RICHARD L GORGE MICHAEL D & WENDY S GREENBERG DEAN 20% 25300 FRANKLIN PARK DR PO BOX 129 C/O PARAGON RANCH INC FRANKLIN, MI 48025 NEWPORT, MN 55055 620 E HYMAN AVE #1E ASPEN, CO 81611 GROSFELD ASPEN PROPERTIES GURHOLT CHARLES J & VERNE HESSELSCHWERDT BILL & TRISH PARTNERS LLC N5999 GURHOLT RD PO BOX 1266 10880 WILSHIRE BLVD #2222 SCANDINAVIA, WI 54977 BASALT, CO 81621 LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 HEXNER MICHAEL T TRUSTEE HEYS MARIE L TRUSTEE HICKS GILBERT W & PATSY K JUSTIS KAREN L TRUSTEE 2495 ADARE 3674 WOODLAWN TERRACE PL 2555 UNION ST ANN ARBOR, MI 48104 HONOLULU, HI 96822 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94123 -3832 HOLLAND AND HART HOLTZ ABEL & FANA HONEA KATHARINE M ATTN: CONTROLLER 420 LINCOLN RD STE 220 PO BOX 288 PO BOX 8749 MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139 BASALT, CO 81621 DENVER, CO 80201 Etiquettes facfles a peter I Repliez a la hachure afin de i www.avery.com Utilisez le gabarit AVERY 5160® chargement de r eveler le rebord Po P - P U r" ' 1 - 800 - GO - AVERY ) 1 Easy Peel® Labels ♦ Bend along line to 1 ® 1 Use Avery® Template 5160® j Feed Paper expose Pop - U p Ed ❑ AVERY ® 5 1 HORSEFINS LLC HOVERSTEN PHILIP E & LOUISE B HUNDERT DANIEL G 010 PITKIN COUNTY TITLE 2990 BOOTH CREEK DR 417 -A MAIN ST 601 E HOPKINS AVE VAIL, CO 81657 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 ASPEN, CO 81611 HUNTER SQUARE LLC 90% HURST FERN K JARDEN CORPORATION PO BOX 2 1060 5TH AVE 2381 EXECUTIVE CENTER DR SONOMA, CA 95476 NEW YORK CITY, NY 10128 BOCA RATON, FL 33431 JENKINS ASIA JURINE LLC 10% KESSLER SEPP H & ANNA TRUST 734 E HOPKINS AVE PO BOX 2 275 CASTLE CREEK RD #204 ASPEN, CO 81611 SONOMA, CA 95476 ASPEN, CO 81611 LAMB DON REV TRUST 50% CARSON KARL G & MARIA M LAZY J RANCH LLC 1449 E 56TH ST PO BOX 8207 0/0 W R WALTON CHICAGO, IL 60637 ASPEN, CO 81612 3809 SE 2ND PL CAPE CORAL, FL 33904 LEE GREGORY K & DEBBIE L LEITCH B BRYAN III LINK LYNN B 9777 W CORNELL PL 2606 STATE ST PO BOX 7942 LAKEWOOD, CO 80227 DALLAS, TX 75204 ASPEN, CO 81612 LUCKYSTAR LLC LUNDGREN WIEDINMYER DONNA TRST MAESTRANZI BART PO BOX 7755 PO BOX 6700 1736 PARK RIDGE POINTE ASPEN, CO 81612 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 PARK RIDGE, IL 60068 MAHONEY SHARON A MALLARD ENTERPRISES LP MANN KATHLEEN A 99% PO BOX 11694 317 SIDNEY BAKER S #400 PO BOX 2057 ASPEN, CO 81612 KERRVILLE, TX 78028 ASPEN, CO 81612 MANNING FREDERICK J & GAIL P MARASCO BERNARD R 11.0446% MARASCO EMILY A AK MEYER EMILYA 233 S WACKER DR #700 320 DAKOTA DR 117446% CHICAGO, IL 60606 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 21701 FLAMENCO MISSION VIEJO, CA 92692 MARASCO RAE 0 TRUST 33.4331% MARCHETTI FAMILY LLC MARTELL BARBARA 653 26 1/2 RD 1526 FOREST DR 702 E HYMAN AVE GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 GLENVIEW, IL 60025 ASPEN, CO 81611 MCCUTCHIN GENE P MCDONALD FRANCIS B MCGAFFEY FAMILY & CO NO C LLC 14833 MIDWAY RD PO BOX 4671 12852 NW SHORELAND DR ADDISON, TX 75001 ASPEN, CO 81612 MEQUON, WI 53097 • Etiquettes faciles a peler ; Repliez 8 lahachure afin de; www.avery.com Utilisez le gabarit AVERY 5160® Sens d e reveler l e rebord Po -U nn 1 1. 800 -GO -AVERY 9 j chargement p p l A ■ Easy Peel® Labels i • SM. Bend along Tine to 1 CA AVERY® 5160® Use Avery® Template 5160® ; Feed Paper expose Pop-Up EdgeTM j • MHT LLC MONTANARO JOHN & SUSAN FAMILY MYSKO BOHDAN D TRUST PO BOX 25318 615E HOPKINS ST CROIX VIRGIN ISLANDS 00824, PO BOX 457 ASPEN, CO 81611 MALIBU, CA 90265 ORIGINAL CURVE CONDO #310 LLC P & L PROPERTIES LLC PATTERSON VICKI CIO LAURA PIETRZAK 101 SOUTH 3RD ST #360 PO BOX 8523 1796 E SOPRIS CREEK RD GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501 ASPEN, CO 81612 BASALT, CO 81621 PINKOS DANNY & ANNA PITKIN COUNTY RAINER EWALD PO BOX 6581 530 E MAIN ST #302 409 E COOPER AVE #4 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 REDSTONE SUSAN B REINGOLD ROBERT B INC RIVER PARK IN ASPEN CONDO ASSOC 120 E 90TH ST #1113 1187 COAST VILLAGE RD STE 1 -116 730 E DURANT NEW YORK, NY 10128 MONTECITO, CA 93108 ASPEN, CO 81611 RKJR PROPERTIES LTD ROSENFIELD LYNNE CARYN ROSS NEIL 5934 ROYAL LN #250 709 E MAIN ST #203 100 S SPRING ST DALLAS, TX 75230 ASPEN, CO 81611 -2059 ASPEN, CO 81611 ROTHBERG MARJORIE ROTHBLUM PHILIP & MARCIA RUST TRUST 2006 N BANCROFT PKWY 40 EAST 80 ST #26A 9401 WILSHIRE BLVD #760 WILMINGTON, DE 19806 NEW YORK, NY 10075 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 SALET PHILIPS REV TRUST SCI ASPEN LLC SEGREST DAVID H PO BOX 4897 3200 OHIO WY 2606 STATE ST ASPEN, CO 81612 DENVER, CO 80209 DALLAS, TX 75204 SEID MEL SELBY TROY E & MAY EYNON SELDIN CHRISTOPHER G 1104 DALE AVE PO BOX 8234 22 MOUNTAIN CT ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 BASALT, CO 81621 SHERMAN CAPITAL COMPANY SHOAF JEFFREY S SMITH JAMES F & N LINDSAY 5840 E JOSHUA TREE LN PO BOX 3123 600 E MAIN ST #302 PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 SPRING STREET LLC STARMER MARY JOSEPHINE 11.0446% STEWART TITLE CO C/0 BAXTER 12738 W 84TH DR C/O JENNIFER SCHUMACHER PO BOX 1112 ARVADA, CO 80001 PO BOX 936 CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 TAYLORSVILLE, NC 28681 Etiquettes faciles h peter I Repliez a la hachure afin de I www.avery.com Sens de Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5160® i chargement reveler le rebord Pop -UpTmj 1- 800•GO -AVERY 1 Easy Peel® Labels • Bend along line to Use Avery® Template 5160® I Feed Paper expose Pop -Up EdgeTM ; A VERY® 5160® 1 STRIBLING DOROTHY TAYLOR FAMILY INVESTMENTS CO TEL 1999 GST EXEMPTTRST FBO WACHOVIA BANK NA FL0135 602 E HYMAN #201 C/O BURKE AND NICKEL PO BOX 40062 ASPEN, CO 81611 3336 E 32ND ST #217 JACKSONVILLE, FL 32203 -0062 TULSA, OK 74135 TRAVIS SHELBY J TROUSDALE JEAN VICK VAN WALRAVEN EDWARD C 1% 208 E 28TH ST - APT 2G 611 E HOPKINS AVE PO BOX 4913 NEW YORK, NY 10016 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 VANWOERKOM LAURIE VRANA MALEKA WACHMEISTER EDWARD C A REV PO BOX 341 PO BOX 4535 TRUST WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 ASPEN, CO 81612 6223 WHITEHALL FARM LN WARRENTON, VA 20187 WAGAR RICH WASKOW SUSAN A WEEKS ROBIN C/0 RICH WAGAR ASSOC LLC PO BOX 4975 526 RIDGEWAY DR 100 S SPRING ST #3 ASPEN, CO 81612 METAIRIE, LA 70001 ASPEN, CO 81611 WHITEHILL STEPHEN LANE WILSON STAGE S WOODS FRANK J III 5320 W HARBOR VILLAGE DR #201 PO BOX 5217 205 S MILL ST #301A VERO BEACH, FL 32967 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 ASPEN, CO 81611 �tiquettes faciles a peler i • Repliez a la. hachure afln de I www.averycom Utilises le gabarit AVERY 5160 ` chargement reveler le rebord Pop -UpT" l 1- 800 -GO -AVERY • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 47J. E f{p7IKifS , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Nov. 1& - , 201 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, @ohni G Ma .higinua (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. 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 of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty -two (22) es wide and twenty -six \ (26) inches high, and which was composed'of tette/s nd less than one inch in 1 height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) da Prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of , 200_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing: A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. T' • f Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obt ned riQQLn�n the Community Development Department, which contains the infofM tt!d' 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 t 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. • (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 that create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas, and COWAPs 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. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this I "I day of 0 v ,21 0, by �7t' lute i'Vlut,�t �,�,yn/il : .t••NE \ \s SS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL Jy Public Noce 23 ;'s?:• obIAfty. i PUBLIC NOTICE j # 01 I L.- 17-01 3 RE: 632 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE; GROWTH / • FINAL My eto f fission expires: MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM PARKING, ( • AND COMMERCIAL ha SYSTEM, : 18 t r / V REVIEW. IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing t 'I • will be held on Tuesday, November 16th, 2010 at a 1 a • / meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Plannin g i • and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities, City Hall, 9 • •• AV 61r .i • ublic 130 5. Galena St., Aspen, Colorado to consider an 1 �` • application requesting Growth MenagemeM Quota 1 l` n \ O P O System for Major Development, Parking, and Final \ F CO k- Commercial Design approval for an expansion and \ (• i . \.`.. .. remodel of the existing structure located at 632 East Hopkins Avenue. The application was sub- IV COON hi$$JOf Expires 09/25/2013 mined by David Johnston Architects, pc, 418 East Cooper Avenue, *206. Aspen, CO 81611, on be- half of Rudin West LLC. The subject property un- der review is legally described as Subdivision: City and Townsite of Aspen, Block: 98, Lot: 5 and east half of Lot of R. The parcel number for the subject property 2737 -07- 3-32 -006. ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: For further information, contact Drew Alexander at !HE PUBLICATION e City of Aspen Community Develo ment De- (970) 429 - partment, 1308 2739, d Galen rew.elexen de , rdci.a A spen Co soencuus 81611, LAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) d San Glbna P lanning and Zo ning Chair Published In the pan Times Weekly on October 17th. 2010. j66 na) HE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED VT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24 -65.5 -103.3 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 632 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE; GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM, PARKING, AND FINAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 16 2010 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, Colorado to consider an application requesting Growth Management Quota System, Parking, and Final Commercial Design approval for an expansion and remodel of the existing structure located at 632 East Hopkins Avenue. The application was submitted by David Johnston Architects, pc, 418 East Cooper Avenue, #206, Aspen, CO 81611, on behalf of Rudin West LLC. The subject property under review is legally described as Subdivision: City and Townsite of Aspen, Block: 98, Lot: S and east half of Lot R. The parcel number for the subject property is 2737- 07 -3 -32 -006. For further information, contact Drew Alexander at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen CO 81611, (970) 429 -2739, drew.alexander @ci.aspen.co.us s /Stan Gibbs Planning and Zoning Chair Published in the Aspen Times on October 10 2010 City of Aspen Account • RECEPTION #: 575569, 12/02/2010 at 09:08:15 AM, 1 OF 11, R $61.00 Doc Code Resolution No. 20 RESOLUTION (SERIES OF 2010) Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEWS, SPECIAL REVIEW FOR PARKING, AND FINAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR BLOCK 98, LOT S AND EAST HALF OF LOT R, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, THE PROPERTY COMMENLY KNOWN AS 632 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2737 - 073 -32 -006 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 is located within the Commercial (C -1) Zone District, and legally described as: City and Townsite of Aspen, Block 98, Lot S and east half of Lot R, commonly known as 632 East Hopkins; 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. 16, Series of 2010, by a (4 - 0) vote, approving "Conceptual Commercial Design Review, "; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant is now requesting approval for Growth Management Quota System, Special Review for Parking, and Final Commercial Design review; and WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable Code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval with conditions of the land use requests; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 16 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application upon recommendation from the Community Development Department and approved Resolution No. 20, Series of 2010, by a (5 - 0) 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 standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, Resolution No. 20, Series 2010 Page 1 of 5 WHEREAS, the Aspen 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 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 Growth Management Quota System (GMQS), Special Review for Parking, and Final Commercial Design Review for the renovation and expansion of the building located at 632 East Hopkins Avenue. The Growth Management reviews include: a. Growth Management Review for Expansion or New Commercial Development: For the addition of 434 square feet of Net Leasable area. b. Growth Management Review for Free - Market Residential Units within a Mixed - Use Project: For the addition of a newly created free- market residential unit of 1,999 square feet of Net Livable area. c. Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing: For the mitigation of the newly generated 2.26 employees. Section 2: Building Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final recorded approvals. This will include a Resolution from the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as any recorded plats 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 prepared 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. Resolution No. 20, Series 2010 Page 2 of 5 r g. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall be addressed to satisfactorily meet adopted building codes. Section 3: Zoning Fees Before Building Permit issuance, the Applicant shall pay the applicable zoning impact fees for the newly created free - market unit and newly generated Net Leasable space. These fees include: 1. Parks Development Fee 2. TDM/Air Quality Fee 3. School Lands Dedication Fee Section 4: Public Amenity The Applicant has been granted the authority to reduce the amount of on -site public amenity space from 18% of the lot area to 16 %, or from 810 sq. ft. to 720 sq. ft. respectively. The approved plan includes improvements to the public right -of -way that establish a basis for this reduction and are reflected in Exhibit B. Section 5: Off - street Parking: The project has been approved with an off - street parking plan pursuant to a Special Review. This plan includes two standard stalls in the enclosed garage, and a carport consisting of two compact car stalls that are 7'6" x 16'2" each. This parking plan shall satisfy 4 of the required 4.325 parking stalls. The remaining requirement of .325 parking stalls shall be paid via a cash -in -lieu payment of $9,750. Section 6: Growth Management Ouota System The Project has been granted allotments for 434 square feet of Net Leasable area and the creation of a free -market residential unit of 1,999 square feet of Net Livable Area. These additions constitute an employee mitigation amount of 2.26 employees. The employee mitigation shall be handled in the following manner: 1. The purchase and subsequent sale of a buy -down free -market residential unit in Building 6 of the Hunter Creek Condominiums located at 613 Vine Street. This unit is a two bedroom unit and shall satisfy 2.25 employees of the required 2.26. The unit is sub - standard in size; however the Applicant shall reduce the sale price to $245,000, and sell to a qualified buyer, as referenced in Exhibit D. The unit shall be deed - restricted as "for sale" prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building located at 632 East Hopkins Avenue. 2. The remaining .01 employees shall be mitigated through a payment fee based on the Category 4 rate established by the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines at the time of building permit submittal. Section 7: Utility, Trash, and Recycle Service Area The Project was granted a dimensional variance for the size of the utility, trash, and recycle service area. The area is permitted to have a depth of 6 feet, as opposed to the required depth of 10 feet. Resolution No. 20, Series 2010 Page 3 of 5 l J ✓ Section 8: Engineering 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 9: Fire Mitigation 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 fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907). The latest Code in effect shall be used for the building permit submittal. Section 10: Water Department 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 11: Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. Section 12: Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. Sectionl3: 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 regard, 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 14: 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 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 an authorized entity. Section 15: 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. Resolution No. 20, Series 2010 Page 4 of 5 i✓ .i APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 16 day of November, 2010. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: / Jim True, Special Counsel Stan Gibbs, Chair ATTEST: r ckieian, Deputy City Clerk Attachments: Exhibit A: Approved Final Architectural Elevations Exhibit B: Approved Final Site and Landscape Plan Exhibit C: Approved Carport Parking and Trash/Recycle Area Exhibit D: Letter of Recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Resolution No. 20, Series 2010 Page 5 of 5 ,. .x Nt7 e iT n C N O j 1 m ., gg c g D: , p i € I g g i IOW i_{ t ' @c �' G .6 g, o i Mr l 6111 g4 ' _ P' oF an � ad7''v i 1- � � y ie f. " ,r r y T U f Q tvi .^.m I O F, t d a. a- h i e a � y. •I t 1 1 • m , . • St� ' PS � � a H r "U ® of ro f T� 9 4� _: � HF 61 11 Z ` ty P :, n I o f -r I °� � ° < I VA I m W 111 11V m ;ill 1 id II I� � j y y l 1 �I _ , z A ipNl I ! 1 t I lift ®; i qq +�� ', o �,� I °� t 1 � I pp I I ii ! f : � I111 I 1 ia f I i � U r l'" - H ta r•it4 I, !fi n, 1 Is I II z l ` r � ry �i ht Nil .. ' s. I'. I �. .. I @� Y `� C I A _ � r qp 4' - 't& „ - A is (' � ” l il c Il w�m 1 1 , I �IH i I i i1 P4 I ` ,� I p , o I� ��4,33.,, C 6A W IHj g pa 1 1 r 0. 4 6 I ' i 9 9 � %� h �� f o� b 1 [ .: 1 :hi N I � I i MINI 4� 1.111 I _ I1 D a I 1I , ; f lu IN P 1 I 1 X € �� ssE 9m 6 6ri m ;g c g m a € it s" e"9: 9 £l l a= EI---> Ym � g u 8 a 4 3 I" I I`id$' m g ?,; 632 E HOPKINS !� !t 8 �[I�{ � 3 �! sy s ag � � N � - 11 _ 632 E. HOPKIN ASPEN 00 E ®` a m i# ^ 55548 itt' . ap o0 il En 4 r I 0 F* Z Gi 23 0 13 I M I H g I ; 1 s $ m o nq 1 -E E` Og ff " $ rst O '. I I r g g g 1 "' .r 1 OO4• n% O y y w I [ $ "o E� ,,>, m sE- Z. 86 op k is ox� C 36i I ° 5 4 m 1 El " ot ® ®t Z L I I I X 0 il � f F 1171 I � ( 1� m o FI j . 3 Ill ; 1111 'iI., loin. - rtat ,' a�s '" Itl i � I x.cv�t� I I I — I I ` 1� 1 r � Is � I `fit „: 1 P ne cY.nxP w r w irTA- 6 f n 9 fa' t 1 i i 1 t. I 1 tilt kio AI I,. 1 0 0 4 o cE R; � g 1 l O i ! I II n13 I ... O 3 1 � i6 3 alF imp. I I I iE I Ig o 'I g St :4,F, Em E P I —A IT I g m I s '5 $ 8 I I I 3 m IF gi 632 E. HOPKINS 1 ASPEN, CO ; £ 6 32 E. HOPKINS /K111111 `1 1 € sisr -_ n 33 SS a 1 ,1 555/ tU i , 1 r^ ,,. txl4 (13 1 T C� E z t o y i 0 N £ •_ W v I A _ 1=11 J-Na a a _ 100'517 3„ i N.,7„,, 8 $ i ij Ya 5, I 1ffit m E 1 E a § WZi� 0� CL _ ^` C Cl k ' � o I I I 1 ili,tlili1, N e \ , I ft:11i1 1�W.i • �_ p vJ Li w 1 '- 1 i1 / 1 n Z o 1 1� ° r r airy rn \ pi! in O Q ° ; U _ 1 � ..Z/ 6 5 �L�� 1���I ` ry' 1 1 ",t w w r . i 1 \ U U r *='P a o a U rig' I t It0 dw`da (- I-- 1 I t W � C C 1 ! r ii I 1 A !, , ' ' 1 7\4 i on 2 \ I III � YO¢ dil .1 c � r o ' { \ \ i 1 J s " a 0 o ' \\ �������������������������������� I F , ' \ -, F- W W ^ 8 Exhibit D MEMORANDUM TO: Drew Alexander FROM: Cindy Christensen THRU: Tom McCabe DATE: September 21, 2010 RE: MITIGATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 632 EAST HOPKINS ISSUE: Rudin West LLC's renovation of 632 East Hopkins will require mitigation of 2.26 FTE's. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting approval for the renovation of an existing two -story structure. It includes adding an additional level to the building, reworking the exterior, and adding an adding a free- market residential unit to the top floor. Drew Alexander, the Community Development Department planner, has provided information regarding the additional square footage and what the required mitigation would be. According to the Land Use Code, the mitigation required for the redevelopment of 632 East Hopkins is 2.26 FTE's — 1.5 FTE's from the free- market and .76 F 1'E's from the net leasable commercial area at 60 %. If 100% mitigation were required on the net - leasable commercial area, a total of 2.82 FTE's would be required. The applicant would like the ability to buy down the last free - market unit in Building 6 at Hunter Creek. Unit 613 is the only free - market unit in a deed - restricted building. The two - bedroom unit would mitigate at 2.25 FTE's. The unit is a fully remodeled unit and is in excellent shape. The unit is a two- bedroom, one bath, 736 square foot unit. The current maximum sales price for a Category 4, two - bedroom unit is $287,000. Although this is a newly remodeled unit, the applicant has recommended that the sales price be $245,000, $42,000 less than the maximum sales price. At the 2.26 FTE's, the developer would be .01 short. Fractional FTE's can be satisfied by the payment -in- lieu fee; therefore, an additional $1,340.79 could be requested to be paid at building permit approval. RECOMMENDATION: The Board reviewed the application at their regular meeting held September 15, 2010 and due to the newly remodeled condition of 613 Vine Street, recommends approval with the following conditions: 1 1. 613 Vine Street, Hunter Creek, shall fully satisfy the mitigation requirement for the redevelopment of 632 East Hopkins. 2. The unit shall be deed restricted at Category 4. 3. The unit will be marketed through the lottery through APCHA with the maximum sales price of $245,000. 4. An approval letter shall be provided by Hunter Creek Properties approving the deed restriction on this specific unit. 2 1 T w4 eiro -7rr» PHILIP ROTHBLUM 624 EAST HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 November 15, 2010 Planning & Zoning Commission Re: November 16 Public Hearing City of Aspen 632 East Hopkins Ave I(n reference to my approval communication of November 11, be advised that it was based on the drawings of David Johnston, Architects, more specifically Sheet 17 South and East elevations, which present a flat roof over the Free Market unit. There is no indication of a roof parapet over that roof. However, since Sheet 18 indicates a stairway to this roof, it would seem that a parapet will be required by the Building Department. In the event that this parapet includes a glass railing system above a short limestone base, as indicated elsewhere \ on these drawings, , 1 can live with this on all four elevations. However, in the event that a solid parapet is mandated by the Building Department, resulting in an apparent overall building height in excess of the 34' -2" stated to me by the architect, I would call for a reduction of the 11 ft ceiling height proposed for the Free Market unit closest to E Hopkins Ave to compensate for such solid parapet. Regardless of the roof height itself, the visual building height will include any solid parapet and impact unfavorably on the street scene. I suggest a sketch be submitted for any and all proposed parapet walls Respec i ly submitted, PHILIP ROTHLUM ✓ • s Drew Alexander From: hurst fern [fernkh @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 1:28 PM To: Drew Alexander Subject: Fwd: Hopkins Ave Final Design Drew -- Please see my one last comment relating to the proposal for 632 East Hopkins Street which is being reviewed tomorrow. I would appreciate your giving the parkway -style landscaping along Spring Street more consideration per my comment to Adam Roy below. Thank you, fern Hurst Begin forwarded message: From: hurst fern <fernkh(a�gmail.com> Date: November 15, 2010 3:18:32 PM EST To: Adam Roy <adam(cidlarchitects.com> Subject: Re: Hopkins Ave Final Design Looks fine but I still would love to have parkway -type planting on the Spring Street side (facing my house). I assume the reason you did not do this is to keep the sidewalk consistent with the sidewalk configuration to the north. However, if you consider that that building is "soft" and likely to be torn down sometime in the not -too- distant future, you should try to convince the planning board to let you do the parkway style landscaping to improve the whole block and prepare for the future. I would appreciate a response. Many thanks, Fern On Nov 9, 2010, at 6:26 PM, Adam Roy wrote: Hello Fern: I have attached the latest design material for the proposed building at the corner of Hopkins and Spring. We believe that we have made great strides since we last discussed the project. I hope you find that many of the changes made satisfy some of the primary concerns you represented to us and at the public hearing. Please review the material and let me know if you have any additional questions or need me to make any clarifications. Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you. Adam Adam C. Roy Land Use Planner 1 1 a M a M 11� 11/2 17:4E 12120002.; PHTLROTHEL1111 PAGE 01/1 ® ■ m • I • ■ I n PHILIP R 624 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 November 11, 2010 Planning & Zoning Commission, Re: November 16 Public Hearing City of Aspen Fax 970 — 9 20 — 5439 In regard to the application for expansion and remodel of 632 E Hopkins Ave, the changes made by the developer since the Conceptual hearing are significant. Proposing the third floor, free market unit, to have a set back from E Hopkins Ave in accord with the existing Stewart Title and our 624 buildings enhances the streetscape of this block and meets with my suggestion and approval. I have requested the developer to increase this set back to the full 25 ft. PHILIP ROTHBLUM MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Drew Alexander, Planner RE: 632 East Hopkins Avenue - GMQS Major Development, Special Review for Parking, Final Commercial Design Review Resolution No. _, Series 2010 - Public Hearing MEETING DATE: November 16, 2010 APPLICANT /OWNER: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Rudin West, LLC Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the project. REPRESENTATIVE: David Johnston Architects, pc, 418 East SUMMARY: Cooper Avenue, #206, Aspen, CO 81611 The Applicant requests of the Planning and Zoning Commission approval of Growth Management LOCATION: Quota System reviews, Special Review for Subdivision: City and Townsite of Parking, and Final Commercial Design Review for Aspen, Block: 98, Lot: S and east half of an expansion and renovation of the existing Lot R, 533 E. Hopkins structure. CURRENT ZONING & USE Photo of the sub'ect location 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 newly created free- MUM market unit. A off -site buy -down unit is - proposed or the affordable housing mitigation. - — __ - d LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter P &Z). The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal): • Growth Management Review for Expansion or New Commercial Development pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.080.1 for the development of additional commercial net leasable area increase by 434 square feet). • Growth Management Review for Free - Market Residential Units within a Mixed -Use Proiect for the development of a new free - market residential unit within a mixed -use project pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040 C.6. • Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing in the development of affordable housing pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040 C.7. • Special Review for Parking: pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.515 to establish a parking plan for the project. • Final Commercial Design Review: pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412.030 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. PROJECT SUMMARY: 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. The Property is situated on a 4,500 square foot lot on the corner of Hopkins Avenue and Spring Street. The building has approximately 5,368 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 spaces which are accessed from the alleyway. 2 �r �I ♦ 'i ,-- %Ai* . - , if, 02 to Site O� w J Commercial Core (CC) Z Zone District CF Ho fi s "NS,q E'`Q x< �' Commercial (C -1) / i .-- �- .`'r Zone District Mixed Use (MU) ----M---------_______ Zone District A F HYM4 N�AV . 1 � ...: Figure 1: Zoning H P a �� k $'' OFFICE/RETAIL n .; - mmos / /, , / V G • ,,, M -. : fL % - Y'L 'gyp ip' n `fNE iF .n U l e j XIS TOTAL EITING PUBLIC AMENITY SPACE EXISTING- PUBLIC AMENITY SPACE (82321 SF) LOT AREA =4sou SF 823.21 SF =1 Ent OF LOT AREA — Spring Street Figure 2: Existing Site Plan and Public Amenity 3 The applicant is requesting to redevelop the site by remodeling and expanding the existing building. The Applicant intends to develop a 3 floor containing a free -market residential dwelling unit and reconfigure and expand the commercial net leasable on the ground and second floors. Below is a table comparing the project to the underlying zone district dimensional standards. Table 1: Com arison of Pro , osed vs. Re • uired Dimensional Re u uirements i ... .vgeSa;_. ^' a Minimum Lot Size 4,500 sq. ft. No Requirement Minimum Lot Area per 1 per 4,500 sq. ft. of lot area No Requirement dwelling Unit Minimum Lot Width No Requirement No Requirement Minimum Front Yard Setback 0 Ft. No Requirement Minimum Side Yard Setback West Side Yard: 0 Ft. No Requirement East Side Yard: 1' 6" Minimum Rear Yard Setback 0 Ft. No Requirement 36 feet, while providing 36 feet (for three story Maximum Height allowed overruns for structures and may be mechanical equipment and increased to 40 feet through appurtenances commercial design review) 2:5:1 or Floor Area ratio 8,995 square feet, or 1.99:1 Commercial uses 1.5:1 or Free -Market uses .5:1 or 4,500 Maximum Net Livable Area of a multi - family residential 1,999 square feet 2,000 sq. ft * dwelling unit: Commercial /residential Ratio 3.38:1 Notes: *The unit may be increased to 2,500 sq. ft. with a Transferable Development Right 4 STAFF COMMENTS: 1) GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEWS: The Applicant is requesting three (3) separate growth management approvals to obtain sufficient development allotments to construct the proposed project. The requests and the project's compliance with the applicable review standards are discussed below: A) Growth Management Review for Expansion or New Commercial Development: This project includes an increase to leasable area. The existing building contains 3,891 sq. ft. of net leasable area and proposes to increase that number to 434 sq. ft. for a new total of 4,325 sq. ft. For the 2010 growth management allotment year, sufficient allotments are available for this increase. Additionally, the Applicant is required to mitigate for the increase of net leasable created which results in a requirement of 0.76 employees (INSERT FOOTNOTE). B) Growth Management Review for Free -Market Residential Units within a Mixed -Use Project: The applicant is requesting to develop a new free -market residential unit on the third floor. This unit includes 1,999 sq. ft. of net livable area, just shy of the zone district's unit size cap of 2,000 sq. ft. According to Section 26.470.050, General Requirements, affordable housing shall be provided at 30% of the newly generated net livable area. This would constitute an affordable housing requirement of 600 sq. ft. for this project. C) Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing: To meet the mitigation requirements for both the new commercial net leasable and free -market unit proposed, the Applicant is proposing to buy -down an existing two- bedroom affordable housing unit that is 736 sq. ft. of net livable area at Building 6 of the Hunter Creek Condominiums. This two - bedroom unit is the only remaining free - market unit in what is otherwise a multi - family complex completely comprised of affordable housing. The unit is more than a 20% reduction in minimum unit size, however this strategy has been reviewed by APCHA, and their recommendation can be viewed in Exhibit C. Since the unit being proposed is an off -site unit, the land use code requires that both the mitigation requirements for increased net leasable and the creation of new free - market residential be met. Being that the residential and commercial calculations do not correspond (i.e. square footage vs. number -of- employees); the Applicant has the ability to use a conversion ratio found in Section 26.470.100, Calculations. This conversion methodology states that "whenever an affordable housing mitigation requirement is required to be converted between a number -of- employees requirement and a square - footage requirement, regardless of direction, the following conversion factor shall be used: 1 employee = 400 square feet of net livable area." Using the methodology described above, the Applicant converted the 600 sq. ft. requirement from the residential component to a number -of- employees requirement. This would result in a requirement to house a total of 2.26 employees (see Table 2 below). In Section 26.470.050 A.2., Employees Housed, of the land use code, a two - bedroom unit houses 2.25 employees leaving a balance of .01 employees to be mitigated. 5 0 Staff Comment: This project is the only project that submitted for GMQS allotments for the August 15`", 2010 deadline and therefore there was no competition for available allotments with regard to the commercial net leasable and the free market unit. The buy -down unit is a 736 square foot two- bedroom one bath unit located in Hunter Creek Building 6, Unit 613. The Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) guidelines state that a two- bedroom unit used for the purposes on GMQS mitigation shall be no less than 950 square feet of net livable space in size. However, this size can be varied depending on sale price and improvements to the unit. The APCHA board discussed this application on September 15` ", 2010 where a recommendation of approval was provided. The Applicant agreed to lower the sale price of the unit and being that the space was recently remodeled with high quality finishes APCHA determined that the reduced net livable area was acceptable, especially when considering that it would make the building entirely affordable housing. APCHA recommended the full mitigation amount of 2.25 employees for a two- bedroom unit being granted to this buy -down unit, leaving only .01 employees remaining to mitigate, or $1,340.79 (by 2010 standards). Staff has reviewed these suggestions and finds them acceptable. 2) Final Commercial Design Review: Final Commercial Design review considers the following elements: • Public Amenity Space • Utility, Delivery, and Trash Service Provision • Suggested Design Elements • Additionally, projects must satisfy those requirements found in the Commercial, Lodging and Historic Design Objectives and Guidelines (Design Guidelines). During the P &Z review for Conceptual Commercial Design, several suggestions were made towards enhancing the project. The suggestions dealt mostly with the Project's public amenity area, the third floor massing, and neighborhood compatibility. The Applicant has returned with a revised project that attempts to address these considerations. The key changes to the project include: 1) A revised public amenity area and site plan (see Figure 3 below) 2) Revised architecture 3) Reduced scale of the third floor mass $245,000 which is$42,000 Tess than the maximum sales price. 6 7 -- +r- « -_ - - - - __- ; - :. F ' :z C i Y F pY.K' i ' a : .:... { Y . •ENTRY/ LOBBY GAR.A ^ >C ' —_,, , R.oRT : Mx ■• •n Re -. .1fi1f/14YpW.yl - - ' IM SC>JTN SPR r4G STREET Figure 3: Proposed Site Plan Staff Comment: 1) Public Amenity Area: The public amenity area has seen a great deal of improvement since the conceptual review. The site better respects the residential character to the east, and feels more interactive and useful overall. Being on the fringe of Aspen's commercial area, the site did not lend itself well to the previous design which included more hardscape and an overall "plaza" feel. Now, the area reads as a much more personal space, suitable for its location. Staff recommends that a bench near the Spring Street entranced be exchanged for a bike rack Additionally, Staff still recommends the placement of the parkway design along the 1 Spring Street frontage. This has been included in the proposal for Hopkins, but completing it along Spring would increase the streetscape design and provide a better system for screening the building from the neighbors to the east. This would also provide a benefit to the public right -of -way in regards to justifying the reduction in on -site public amenity area. 2) Utility /Trash/Delivery Service Area: The trash area of this project is hindered by the same issue that burdens the off-street parking plan. Being that trash area is included in the carport, Staff feels that the area is too confined and does not lend itself to efficient operation. The dimensional variation being requested in the depth of trash area is not an issue, but the interaction between the parked cars is a concern. The Applicant has committed to fencing and the placement of bollards to assist in the separation of both uses, but Staff continues to believe there is not adequate enough space. 3) Design Guidelines: The final area for consideration for Final Commercial Design Review is how the project satisfies those requirements in the Commercial, Lodging and 7 Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines (the "Design Guidelines). The Property is located within the Commercial Character (CC) area which has its own unique list of criteria for Conceptual Commercial Design. Key objectives of the character area include: • Building design that expresses the traditional lot widths in Aspen, • Articulation in facades and the retention of hierarchy in design, • Street level character, • Creation of adequate floor to ceiling heights, • First floor character, especially in regard to retail storefronts, • The design of the roofscape and side and rear facades, • The implementation of high quality architectural materials, and • A high quality landscape plan When compared to the Conceptual Review Criteria, the Final Commercial Design Criteria in the Design Guidelines are much more focused on dimensional and material aspects. There are no areas of the Design Guidelines that were not being satisfied through this proposal. Staff's only issue was the degree of screening that would be provided to the rooftop mechanical area. The Applicant has confirmed that the mechanical equipment placed on the roof shall be screened 3) SPECIAL REVIEW FOR PARKING: As proposed, this development requires the provision of 4.325 on -site parking spaces. The entire requirement is permitted under the land use code to be provided through a payment in lieu; however the applicant is proposing, through special review Net leasable Parking Total standards Existing Comm. 3891 1 per 1,000 sq. ft. 3.81 Development of net leasable* Proposed Comm. 434 1 per 1,000 sq. ft. .434 Development of net leasable* Proposed Res 1 unit No requirement 0 Development in C -1 4.325 Notes: * 100% of the commercial parking may be provided as a payment in lieu Staff Comment: The Applicant has provided a parking plan which requires deviations from the Land Use Code 's minimum parking requirements. In reviewing the proposal, Staff has concerns that the plan fails to adequately serve the development. The major concern is with the programming of the carport space. With the trash area, two stacked smartcar© stalls, and a compact car stall, the space becomes increasingly constrained. Staff finds that the space would operate most efficiently with a more open area to reduce conflict with parking and the normal operation of the trash and storage area (see Figure 4 below). Staff 2 If a geo- thermal system is deemed viable for the site, much of the mechanical equipment on the roof will be reduced or eliminated. 8 C I would favor a plan that eliminates the smartcar© and compact car stall and provides one standard sized parking stall. This provides ample room for the trash area to operate, and even opens the possibility of adding a bike rack to the space. The smartcar© technology is something that is not guaranteed, and Staff would rather see a plan implemented with more of a guarantee of longevity. ® REC't XING TRASH 11 .aced."" ZYD W O OSTER 111 COMM.! 1I 1 — RECYCLING/TRASH AREAL I �� 1 13 ' -6 " °`-- - -_ t T -5vr 2 ., - BOLLARDS , r == 1 - 1 ' �� 1 I Ihk i 83 I r LARPOli 1 ii [ II 11 -- / IN 1 — ��l 1.... I I - W Figure 4: Proposed carport parking plan with smartcar© stalls Staff is aware that using the existing structure restricts some aspects of the project, especially in regards to the parking plan. However, in the best interest of the building and its users, Staff is recommending that the applicant reduce the amount of provided parking to three stalls, while paying the cash -in -lieu amount of $39,750 for the deficit of 1.325 stalls REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: • Housing — The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority provided a recommendation of approval for the proposed employee mitigation plan. To view these comments see Exhibit C. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the Applicant meets the requirements associated with the Growth Management Reviews and Final Commercial design Review by providing appropriate affordable housing mitigation and generally meeting the commercial design standards; however, staff recommends the following with regard to parking, the public amenity, and the rooftop mechanical: 3 The Applicant has committed all of the off -street parking to the Commercial Use. The area of the parking stalls were assigned to the Commercial Area during the allocation of Non -Unit Space. 9 / d • Staff finds that the proposed parking plan is not ideal. Instead of providing a compact car spot and two smartcar© stalls, Staff finds that the project would be better served with a total of three parking spaces. This allows for more operation space for the trash, utility, and storage area. Staff recommends that the Application pay the cash -in -lieu fee for 1.325 parking stalls. • Include a bike rack in place of a bench towards the primary entrance along Spring Street; • Staff supports the implementation of the parkway along the length of the lot on Spring Street. • Staff recommends that all mechanical equipment placed on the roof be adequately screened so as to have minimal impact on the surrounding neighborhood. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No., Series of 2010, approving with conditions, Growth Management Quota System, Final Commercial Design Review, and Special Review for Parking for the property located at 632 East Hopkins Avenue." ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. , Series of 2010 Exhibit A.1 — Growth Management and Affordable Housing Criteria Exhibit A.2 — Commercial Design Review Criteria Exhibit A.3 — Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines Review Criteria Exhibit A.4 — Parking Special Review Criteria Exhibit B — P &Z Resolution No. 16, Series of 2010 Exhibit C — Recommendation letter from APCHA Exhibit D — Revised Architecture Exhibit E — Revised Landscape/Public Amenity Plan Exhibit F — Memo from the Applicant addressing Staff's concerns Exhibit G.1 — Application: Growth Management Quota System and Affordable Housing Exhibit G.2 — Application: Final Commercial Design Review and Parking 10 ExII[BIT A.1 632 East Hopkins, Growth Management Quota System REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS 26.470.050.B, General Requirements: All development applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for growth management review based on the following generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type of development: 1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi year development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet this standard. Staff Response: The City of Aspen currently has available allotments to satisfy the proposed growth of this project. These allotments include one free- market residential unit and 434 square feet of net leasable space. This was the only Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) application submitted before the August 15th, 2010 deadline. Staff finds this criterion met. 2. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Response: Staff finds that the proposed development, in consideration of Staff's recommendations, is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Below are highlights from sections of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) have strong association with this project (some areas of the AACP are not applicable to this project): • In response to Managing Growth statement: "Contain development with the creation of the Aspen Community Growth Boundary...to ensure development is contained and sprawl is minimized." (Goal D, pg 18) o Response: This project fits the pattern of Aspen's commercial core and encourages the style of urban development that is favored. • In response to Transportation statement: "Maintain and improve the appeal of bicycling and walking...by adding sidewalk connections, replacing sidewalks, and requiring sidewalks as part of development approvals, where appropriate..." (Goal C, pg 22) o Response: This project seeks to improve the appeal of the streetscape and pedestrian walkways, especially along Hopkins Avenue where a parkway is proposed. Staff's recommendation to add a bike rack and parkway are intended to further this impact on the community. • In response to Housing statement: "Create an affordable housing environment that is appropriately scaled and distributed throughout existing and new neighborhoods..." (Intent, pg 25) o Response: The proposed affordable housing is within an existing structure within the City limits. This unit also makes the structure entirely affordable housing. • In response to Housing statement: "Housing should be compatible with the scale and character of the community and should emphasize quality construction and design even though that emphasis necessarily increases costs and lessens production." (Philosophy, pg 25) o Response: The proposed affordable housing unit, a buy -down unit, is within an existing structure and does not burden the scale or character of the neighborhood. The unit is recently remodeled with high quality finishes and appliances. • In response to Economic Sustainability statement: "Encourage resource efficiency, environmental responsibility, and cultural and community sensitivity in local organizations and in construction." (Policies, pg 32) o Response: The proposed development incorporates multiple strategies for environmental responsibility. The roof will have a photovoltaic array and green roofs, the windows on the building are constructed with highly rated materials, and the ability to install a geo- thermal heating system is being examined. • In response to Design Quality statement: "We wish to encourage creativity that results in design solutions that are fresh and innovative, yet are net additions to the built environment by being contextually appropriate and harmonious without being copies of that which already exists." (Philosophy, pg 43) o Response: The proposed structure contextually appropriate, while also being interesting and new. Certain style elements, such as non - orthogonal comer pieces have been removed to better respect the intended use of the building and the surrounding residential character. • In response to Arts, Culture and Education statement: "...arts, culture, and education are acknowledged as essential to Aspen's thriving year -round economy, its vibrant international profile, and its future as a unique place to live, work, and learn." (Philosophy. Pg 45) o Response: The Applicant has stated an interest to display art in the public amenity area of in the right -of -way improvements. This would be an improvement to the site and the community. 3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district. Staff Response: The proposed development conforms with the requirements and limitations of the zone district, Commercial (C -1). The Applicant has request no dimensional or use variances of any sort. Height may be increased to 40 ft. for this structure through Commercial Design Review. Staff finds this criterion met. 4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval, as applicable. Staff Response: The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and conditions established therein. The Applicant has made an effort to address those considerations that the Planning and Zoning Commission and Community Development Staff made during this review. Staff finds this criterion met. 5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60 %) of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection 26.4700.100A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate. Staff Response The proposed development has created an employee mitigation plan that satisfies this requirement. Being a mixed -use project, with no on -site affordable housing, the Applicant must mitigate for both the free - market residential unit (1,999 square feet of net livable) and the newly created net leasable space (434 square feet). The applicant use the conversion rate found in Section 26.470.100.4, Employee /square footage conversion, to equate the residential requirement to a "number of employees to be mitigated" amount, not a square foot requirement. This equated the residential requirement with the commercial requirement so that the Applicant could consolidate both. The resulting calculation requires an employee mitigation of 2.26 employees. The mitigation plan includes the purchase of a two- bedroom free - market unit in the Building 6 of the Hunter Creek Condominiums, located at 613 Vine Street. This buy -down unit satisfies 2.25 employees of the required 2.26. The Applicant shall pay the remaining .01 employees via a cash -in -lieu payment of $1,340.79. Staff finds this criterion met. 6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30 %) of the additional free- market residential net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended An applicant may chose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ( "voluntary units") may be deed - restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certif cafe of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall C be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.090 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100, Employee /Square Footage Conversion. Staff Response: See staff response for Criterion 5 above. Staff finds this criterion met. 7. The project represents minimal additional demand on the public infrastructure, or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services. Staff Response: The proposed development represents minimal additional demand on the public infrastructure. Being a renovation, the only additional impact would be derived from the expanded commercial space and third level free - market unit. The roof plan incorporates a photovoltaic array and green roofs, both of which would reduce the impact on energy and drainage. Staff finds this criterion met. 26.470.070.4, Affordable Housing: The development of affordable housing deed - restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: 1. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. Staff Response: The proposed buy -down unit complies with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) in their entirety, except for the minimum size of the unit. The two- bedroom buy -down unit is slightly undersized (736 available vs. 950 being required). Given the Category 4 designation, this size is more than the 20% reduction permitted through the APCHA Guidelines for unit size. However, the Applicant has met with the APCHA Board of Directors and was provided a recommendation of approval given an agreement of a lower sale price and the physical condition of the unit, being that it is newly remodeled with high quality fmishes. Staff finds this criterion met. 2. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy -down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a cash -in -lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash -in -lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation requirements by approval of the Community Development Department Director, pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of the Certificate. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. (Ord. No. 6 — 2010, §4) Staff Response: The buy -down unit being acquired for this proposal is within the City limits. The unit shall mitigate for 2.25 of the 2.26 required employees and the Applicant shall pay the remaining .01 requirement via a cash -in -lieu payment. Staff finds this criterion met. 3. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50 %) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Staff Response: The buy -down unit is not an on -site provision, therefore this criterion is not applicable. 4. The proposed units shall be deed - restricted as 'for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long -term viability of the lodge. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County or other similar governmental or quasi- municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory 'for sale" provision. Staff Response: The buy -down unit shall be deed restricted as "for sale" prior to the project receiving a Certificate of Occupancy. The Applicant has stated no interest in renting the unit and plans to sell the unit to a qualified purchaser at a reduced rate to reflect the sub- standard size. Staff finds this criterion met. 5. Non - Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not required for mitigation, but meet the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a -d). The owner of such non - mitigation affordable housing is eligible to receive a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540. (Ord. No. 6 — 2010, §4) Staff Response: Not applicable. The Applicant is not proposing the creation of any non- mitigation affordable housing. • r va EXHIBIT A.2 632 East Hopkins, Commercial Design Review REVIEW CRITERIA, STANDARDS, AND STAFF FINDINGS 26.412.050, Commercial Design Review Criteria — An application for Commercial Design Review may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. 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 Response: See Staff response to 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, below. 2. 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 facade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. Staff Response: The existing building is already used for commercial purposes. Staff finds this criterion met. 3. 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. (Ord. No. 13, 2007, §1) Staff Response: The Applicant has addressed the guidelines in the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. The full Staff report for these criteria can be found in Exhibit A.3 of this packet. 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. 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. Staff Response: The proposed public amenity space works well with the subject building and the surrounding neighborhood. While in the C -1 zone district, the site is also directly adj acent to Aspen' s eastern residential neighborhoods. The proposed amenity space functions well as a transitional space that does not attempt to be urban in feel and operation. Numerous seating options are available, along with permeable landscaping. The size of the amenity area allows for a variety of uses, ranging from small meetings, to a more private setting for lunch or relaxation. 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 proposed amenity area will contribute vitality to the Hopkins and Spring Street streetscapes. The plan parkway along the Hopkins side will continue this style of design for the length of the block. The seating options are inviting and creativity. The proposed public art will likely draw attention and interest to the site. Staff does recommend the exchange of a bench at that the Spring Street entrance for a bike rack, and to also implement a parkway along the Spring Street streetscape. 3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights -of -way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. Staff Response: Although on the outer fringe of the Commercial (C -1) zone district, the design of the amenity space, right -of -way, and building create an interesting environment that encourages active use. Staff finds this criterion met. 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 space is reasonably unique in its design. Along Hopkins Street, the Applicant has proposed seating both for the sidewalk and for the sunken patio space. This is achieved through the "zipper" style of benching. Spring street uses benches with a loose style of paving that reduce the overall amount of hardscape. The Spring Street amenity is particularly sensitive to the residences across the street. Staff finds this criterion met. 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 Response: The proposed amenity requests no variations from the design and operational standards established in 26.575.030.F. The only variation being requested is a reduction of the on -site public amenity (18% of the lot area to 16 %). Staff finds the proposed plan and improvements justify this reduction and find this criterion met. 13. 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 utility, trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated along the alley meeting the minimum standards established by Section 26.575.060, Utility/trash/recycle service areas, unless otherwise established according to said Section. Staff Response: The Applicant is requesting a reduction in the required dimensional size of the Utility, deliver and trash service area. See Section C below for Staffs response to this separate set of criteria. 2. All utility 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 an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. Staff Response: 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 service area is located along the alley. This delivery area is to be shared by the tenants of the building and is an integral component of the building, located in the carport. Staff finds 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: Any mechanical exhaust is properly ventilated. The utility area for this project is in the northwest corner of the building, removed from the two principal streets. Staff fmds this criterion met. 5. 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. Staff Response: The mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting is to be installed internally and the mechanical equipment shall be on the building's roof. Staff has requested adequate screening for this mechanical area. The amount of mechanical equipment on the roof shall be determined by the undecided geo- thermal system. If deemed viable, this will greatly reduce the amount of mechanical equipment on the structure. Staff finds this criterion met. C. Review Standards for reduction of dimensions: The Planning and Zoning Commission may reduce the dimensions of a utility /trash/service area by following special review procedures set forth at Chapter 26.430 if; 1. There is a demonstration that given the nature of the potential uses of the building and its total square footage, the utility /trash/service area proposed to be provided will be adequate. Staff Response: The area for the utility /trash/service area should be adequate for the intended uses of the building and the size of the building. Staff finds this criterion met. 2. Access to the utility /trash/recycle service area is adequate. Staff Response: Staff finds that the carport area which includes the utility /trash/service area is too confined for proper operation. Staff recommends that only one standard -size parking stall be included in the carport, thus leaving enough room for proper operation and access of the utility /trash/service area. 3. Measures are provided for enclosing trash bins and making them easily movable by trash personnel. Staff Response: The bins are enclosed and the primary dumpster is accessed via the alleyway. Staff finds this criterion met. 4. When appropriate, provisions for trash compaction are provided by the proposed development and measures are taken to encourage trash compaction by other development in the block. T) Staff Response: Not applicable. 5. The area for public utility placement and maintenance is adequate and safe for the placement of utilities. Staff Response: To the degree this applies to this project is minimal. The site plan provides ample space for the maintenance of public utilities. Staff finds this criterion met. 6. Adequate provisions are incorporated to ensure the construction of the access area. Staff Response: This project will be required to submit a construction mitigation plan (CMP) as part of the building permit submittal. This document shall ensure that construction is staged and completed in compliance with the Municipal Code. Staff finds this criterion met. EXHIBIT A.3 632 East Hopkins, Design Objectives and Guidelines REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS The following design guidelines (referenced hereafter as "Guidelines ") shall apply at the conceptual review stage: Building Design and Articulation a) Expression of Lot Widths: 1.29 — A new building shall reflect the traditional lot width (30 ft) as expressed by two or more of the following: (1) Variation in height at internal lots, (2) Variation in the plane of the front facade, (3) Street facade composition, or (4) Variation to emphasize the building module. 1.30 — The detailed design of the building facade should reflect the traditional scale and rhythm of the block. This should be achieved using all the following.: (1) The fenestration grouping, (2) the modeling of the facade, (3) the design framework for the first floor storefront, and (4) variation in architectural detail and/or the palette of facade materials. Staff Response: This proposal does not include a completely new building, and works mostly with the existing footprint and structure of the existing building. The proposed design has been created in a manor that respects the traditional 30 ft. building design. The facade of the proposed building uses all of the recommendations found in the guidelines. Additionally, along Spring Street, the building has been broken up visually with the primary entrance. This pays homage to the traditional design of the Aspen core and creates a more interesting project on a visual scale. Staff finds these criteria met. b) Facade Articulation: 1.31— A building should reflect the architectural hierarchy and articulation inherent in the composition of the street facade. The following should be addressed: (1) The design and definition of the traditionally tall first floor, and (2) the vertical proportions of the upper level fenestration pattern and ratio of solid wall to window area. 1.32 — A building should reflect the three - dimensional characteristics of the street facade in the strength and depth of modeling, fenestration and architectural detail. Staff Response: The first floor of the structure is taller than both the second and third floors in floor to ceiling height. The detailing on the upper level uses a proper mix of horizontal and vertical elements that establish a suitable pattern for this building and block. Also, the style of the building uses variations in depth and fenestration, such as varying brick installations and a broad material palette �✓ that create interest and three- dimensionality to the structure. Staff finds these criteria met. c) Floor Stature: 1.33 — Any new building shall be designed to maintain a minimum of 9 feet from floor to ceiling on all floors. 1.34 — Maintain the distinction between the street level and upper floors. 1.35 — A new building should be designed to maintain the stature of traditional street level retail frontage. 1.36 — Minimize the appearance of a tall third floor Staff Response: The structure maintains a minimum of 9 feet from floor to ceiling on all floors. The existing structure does not satisfy the floor to ceiling heights requirement, but the structure will be adjusted during construction to provide this. There is an apparent difference between the street -level and upper levels given by window size and other architectural details. Although not intended for restaurant or retail, the street -level space is designed for and could easily accommodate this type of use. After the P &Z review for Conceptual Commercial Design, the third floor has received several modifications, both horizontally and vertically. Primarily, the south- facing eave has lost its angular rise and some of the third floor walls have been pulled back further from the building edge. Staff feels these changes satisfy the recommendations by the P &Z and the criteria in the Guidelines. Staff finds these criteria met. d) First Floor Character: 1.37— The first floor facade should be designed to concentrate interest at the street level, using the highest quality of design, detailing and materials. Staff Response: The first floor facade uses a wide range of materials and architectural strategies such as shadow lines, alternating brick installations, and different window designs to create interest. Also, the facade at this level is not a consistent distance from the right -of -way along the length of the lot. The facade along Spring Street has an entrance that is set back from the outer edge of the building. Staff finds this criterion met. 1.38— Retail Entrance — The retail entrance should be at the sidewalk level. 1.39— Retail Entrance — Incorporate an airlock entry into the plan for all new structures. Staff Response: The commercial uses on the ground floor have sidewalk level entrances. One slight variation is along Hopkins Street where the entrance uses an existing sunken patio space that is approximately 16" below sidewakc level. Staff finds this appropriate given this is not a new structure and 16" is not a critical issue for gaining access. The floorplans, as proposed, do not display an airlock off of the Hopkins Street. However the primary entrance to the building, which is along Spring Street, does function as an airlock. Staff finds these criteria met. 1.40— Transparency — Window area along the first floor shall be a minimum of 60% of exterior street facade area when facing a principal street(s). 1.41— Transparency — Where appropriate a building shall be designed to maintain the character and transparency of the traditional street level retail frontage. 1.42— Storefront Design — Design of the first floor storefront should include particular attention to the following: (1) The basic elements and proportions of storefront design, (2) depth and strength of modeling, (3) the palette of materials and finishes used in both the structural framework and the storefront window, (4) the concentration of architectural detail to ensure a rich visual experience, (5) the complementary use of signage and lettering to enhance the retail and downtown character, and (6) the use of lighting to accentuate visual presence. Staff Response: The first floor incorporates glazed windows that are at least 60% of the exterior street facade area, along both Hopkins and Spring streets. Although not intended for retail usage, the building does cater to this style of frontage design, especially along Hopkins. If a retailer were to use the Hopkin's facing storefront, the windows would be adequate for retail displays. As mentioned previously in the preceding criteria, the proposed design incorporates all the details in criteria 1.42, Storefront Design. The Applicant has also stated that a new sign plan will be created for the site and that the existing corner signage will be removed. A lighting plan will be reviewed during the building permit process, to ensure the Outdoor Lighting Standards in Land Use Code Section 26.575.150 have been met. Staff fmds these criteria met. e) Side and Rear Facades: 1.43 — Retail frontage facing onto side courts or rear alleys should follow similar design principles to the street frontage, adjusted for the scale of the space: Staff Response: Not applicable, given this a corner lot facing two primary streets. 0 Roofscape: 1.44 — A larger building should reflect the traditional lot width in the form and variation of its roof its roof. This should be achieved through the following.: (I) A set back of the top floor from the front facade, and (2) reflect the traditional lot width in the roof plane. 1.45 — The roofscape should be designed with the same design attention as the secondary elevations of the building. Staff Response: The third floor facades that face the two principal streets have been set back from the building's outer edge (13'6" from Hopkins Street and 9'5" along the southeast portion of Spring Street and 4'5" on the northeast portion of Spring Street). Not every element on the roof reflects the traditional lot width, but the Applicant has stated that all elements, including the mechanical area shall be screened. The mechanical area, as proposed, is positioned on the northwest portion of the roof which is furthest from the principal streets. In regards to the mechanical area, if a geo- thermal deemed viable for the site, this will significantly reduce the amount of equipment located on the roof. Staff finds these criteria met. Architectural Materials 1.46 — High quality, durable materials should be employed. 1.47 — Building materials should have these features: (1) Convey the quality and range of materials seen traditionally, (2) reduce the perceived scale of the building and enhance visual interest of the facade, (3) convey a human scale, and (4) have proven durability and weathering characteristics within Aspen's climate. 1.48 — A building or additions should reflect the quality and variation in materials seen traditionally. 1.49 — Where contemporary materials are used they shall be: (1) High quality in durability and finish, (2) detailed to convey a human scale, (3) compatible with a traditional masonry palette. 1.50 — Materials used for third floor accommodation set back from the street facade(s) should be more subdued than the primary facades. Staff Response: The proposed structure uses a large variety of materials. These range from standard brick, limestone masonry, wood, glass, and steel. These materials are durable and should have no issue with Aspen's harsh climate. Criterion 1.47 is satisfied by this range of material. No one feature obscures the human scale of the project, and the materials are used responsibly given the varied mix of anticipated uses for the building. The third story uses more wood and glass than the lower levels that are composed mostly of brick and stone. This continues the hierarchy established by other details and forms used on the building. Staff finds these criteria met.. Paving and Landscaping 1.51 — Paving and landscaping should be designed to complement and enhance the immediate setting of the building and area. Staff Response: The P &Z recommended several changes to the landscaping and public amenity plan after the review for Conceptual Commercial Design. The Applicant has returned with a greatly modified landscape plan and public amenity area. In response to concerns from the neighbors to the east of the property, the Spring Street amenity area is much less of a plaza and now and instead reads as a private transitional space. Benches have been added and hardscape has been reduced overall. The Hopkins Street amenity space has also seen the addition of more seating options, including a "zippered" style of seating along the sidewalk that provides benches immediately adjacent to the right -of- way. Also included is an ADA compliant ramp that provides access to the Hopkins Street amenity space that sits below grade. Staff finds that these improvements have made a large stride towards a better product that is more compatible and usable by the surrounding neighborhood. However, it is still Staff's recommendation that the Applicant institute a parkway along Spring Street. This design better separates the project from the residential neighborhood to the east and creates a more preferred style of streetscape design. Staff is aware that pulling the sidewalk away from the street would either limit or eliminate the Applicant's proposed public amenity design along Spring Street. A final recommendation includes the exchange of a bench near the Spring Street entrance for a bike rack that would allow the project to better accommodate bikers. t EXHIBIT A.4 632 East Hopkins, Special Review for Parking REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS 26.515.040.A, Special Review Standards: A Special Review for establishing, varying, or waiving off - street parking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on the on -street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. Staff Response: The proposed structure requires 4.325 parking stalls. This is solely based on the amount of Net Leasable space (1 space per 1,000 sq. ft.). There is no requirement for free - market residential units in the C -1 zone district. Currently the building has adequate parking for the size of the building. By enclosing two spaces in a garage and adding a carport structure (which includes the utility, trash, and storage area) for the remaining parking, the new design constrains the usable area. Staff recommends that the Applicant eliminate the smartcar© stalls in the carport and provide one adequately sized stall (8'6" x 18') in the carport and two in the enclosed garage. This will provide a reasonable space in the carport for the trash area to operate without conflict to the cars, and may also provide the opportunity for the placement of a bike rack in the carport. If implemented, Staff's recommendation would satisfy 3 of the required 4.325 spaces, with the remaining spaces paid via cash -in -lieu in the amount of $39,750. 2. An on -site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. Staff Response: Being that the Applicant is committed to using the majority of the existing building's footprint, there is a difficulty for the site to provide the required parking. However, this is primarily due to the redesigned alley program. The four spaces provided on the site work now, but with the addition of the enclosed garage, carport, and trash area the space becomes restricted. Staff finds that the best solution is the one detailed in the response to Criterion 1: provide three spaces and mitigate for the remaining 1.325 spaces. 3. Existing or planned on -site or off -site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. Staff Response: As mentioned in Criterion 2, the existing off - street parking will not adequately serve the needs of the building. There is a possibility of procuring street parking permits for tenants and residents. RECEPTION #: 572357, 08104/2010 at F,c 41131 11:31:14 AM, 1 OF 7. R $41.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO Resolution No. 16 (SERIES OF 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR 632 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN 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 Conunercial Design Review; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's property is located within the Commercial (C -1) Zone District, and legally described as: City and Townsite of Aspen, Block 98, Lot S and east half of Lot R, commonly known as 533 E. Hopkins; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable Code standards, 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. 16, Series of 2010, by a (4 - 0) 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 standards 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 welfare. 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 16, Series 2010 Page 1 of 4 a) The trash, recycling and delivery area shall be designed so that adequate clearance is maintained between the service area and the parking stalls in the carport. It is recommended that a separation fence or bollards shall be installed to ensure that normal use of the service area does not impose a risk to the adjacent vehicles. If adequate separation cannot be maintained, a reduction of one parking space shall be considered. b) The final design of the Spring Street Public Amenity Space shall consider 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) A detached sidewalk along Hopkins shall be considered and evaluated for Final Commercial Design Review. 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 area. e) The Applicant shall consider redesigning the Hopkins amenity space to make it more inviting to the public. f) The Applicant shall continue to work with Staff to better shield the Spring Street amenity space from the residents to the east of the Property. g) The Applicant shall continue working on redesigning the top floor facade so that it is less imposing. Section 2: Buildine Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final recorded approvals. This will include approvals for Growth Management Quota System, Subdivision, Parking, 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 prepared 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. Resolution No 16, Series 2010 Page 2 of 4 C 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. Section 3: Engineering 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 Mitigation 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 fire 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 Department 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 are 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 are 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 regard, 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 awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are Resolution No 16, Series 2010 Page 3of4 c 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 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 20 day of July, 2010. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: J� rue, Special Counsel Stan Gibbs G ATTEST: ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Attachments: Exhibit A: Approved Conceptual Elevations Exhibit 13: Approved Conceptual Site Plan Resolution No 16, Series 2010 Page 4 of 4 4 Fr €a� F .1 I l. 4 t p OON3dSV I SNINdON 3ZC9 Q a !lie` 31 1jt {� 2 € SNIJIdOH "3 Z£9 , : a ; -r-- t v a �; } � „ 3 !II#t!tf? F!f.4 a. ti 1 i .:"..9 t--- l t " a n ?a r u r x � m t h fa %3 0 .a w ((0 O I ., Yf1rY Z rc F.{ sY'd �v'Cgi r ; z. 1 i w r , I S ,'. _ s,. 1 ' F � Oki 8 1 . -. - z o J ? r -r 1 , ES1:it p e � ° 523 1 { �� � CO ti g N3dSV I SNINdOH'3 ZE9 , v ! il►I0� CO " v 1 11;11 , 5 � SNIxdOH ' 3 ZE9 € � °' i tll �� x 1if- �w al I I _..g; 1 { I I I I { I { I { I I I p{6 nt i �YI F. Z�a 0 i4 lf f` 3is liIs } * w } s I111 fl i 0 j �a �` i :q x o i I I I wa ' z d 0 E.. .,.._ .._ 0 a w ' , w e w ? e J ........::.v:. ui :.. ve.x .. .:mmmm_:: _ ...wrsi— :::i. . »....v�v .... ..:e • .... „e:iiv. ..,. v'::vv-.>', i. w. w 4 ea p - , i l! fl's SNINdO Z£9 i la P a t b 6 w m t \` ®, B6 NOOIB A3l1V 1.11. __ __ b.S.401g.t.---- __ — ___ 1 ` t I Y i3 t' 1 �I t � 1 Y � f —1-5 .I i ( K ) it 1111116 N O e 52 I .1 re l`` i. ;i ( 1 i 1 � X1 i :ffi 4 T sk : 1 0 1 ( 1i3 >^ / f1 I O I t. i,ii �/ f �� // 1 d l 1 ce 1 it 1111 i i i , J • 11 i � 1 ------J 1 � ' I� �1 w ' ii X 1. y g vJ /i,T � Ls 1 1 . " $ F 0 1 i7 1 R � Z -, a a m i • r f J" 7 O I� ! O w If u_ I 1 IL o x pi' I g 1 1 1 s..�r Ty y / L I ti B L ss n ` 3f1N3AV SNINdOH J SV3 C ■ .04 Exhibit C MEMORANDUM TO: Drew Alexander FROM: Cindy Christensen TIIRU: Tom McCabe DATE: September 21, 2010 RE: MITIGATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 632 EAST HOPKINS ISSUE: Rudin West LLC's renovation of 632 East Hopkins will require mitigation of 2.26 FTE's. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting approval for the renovation of an existing two -story structure. It includes adding an additional level to the building, reworking the exterior, and adding an adding a free -market residential unit to the top floor. Drew Alexander, the Community Development Department planner, has provided information regarding the additional square footage and what the required mitigation would be. According to the Land Use Code, the mitigation required for the redevelopment of 632 East Hopkins is 2.26 FTE's — 1.5 FTE's from the free -market and .76 FTE's from the net leasable commercial area at 60 %. If 100% mitigation were required on the net - leasable commercial area, a total of 2.82 FTE's would be required. The applicant would like the ability to buy down the last free -market unit in Building 6 at Hunter Creek. Unit 613 is the only free -market unit in a deed - restricted building. The two - bedroom unit would mitigate at 2.25 FTE's. The unit is a fully remodeled unit and is in excellent shape. The unit is a two- bedroom, one bath, 736 square foot unit. The current maximum sales price for a Category 4, two - bedroom unit is $287,000. Although this is a newly remodeled unit, the applicant has recommended that the sales price be $245,000, $42,000 less than the maximum sales price. At the 2.26 FTE's, the developer would be .01 short. Fractional FTE's can be satisfied by the payment -in- lieu fee; therefore, an additional $1,340.79 could be requested to be paid at building permit approval. RECOMMENDATION: The Board reviewed the application at their regular meeting held September 15, 2010 and due to the newly remodeled condition of 613 Vine Street, recommends approval with the following conditions: P.% J 1. 613 Vine Street, Hunter Creek, shall fully satisfy the mitigation requirement for the redevelopment of 632 East Hopkins. 2. The unit shall be deed restricted at Category 4. 3. The unit will be marketed through the lottery process through APCHA with the maximum sales price of $245,000. 4. An approval letter shall be provided by Hunter Creek Properties approving the deed restriction on this specific unit. 2 c 3 m _ N 1 = @P g 9m , 1Ile z a °o m 3 a,rv ' g " o Y ° m r i 1 1 o° { I I ® - ® .' ' I l i v. ; I ■1®® 11 -S J1I 11' 11 f jr fc, I I f , � i S^ y s P g Thi Nil PAL II 1 e m " , 'F r :+~ a `i m N M I , M I 13 4 11 , 1 z '' ° " 1' 1 11 73 1 1 1 �° o 1 1:- ^ate. s ��� L i , 8 II 1 1 m LL-LL I II IOW" .. v i s 1 't s i g I � , I ; 1 11I �1 �" all A, F, I I 1 11x 1 limi Ili 11 1 ' '4 M 1 1 1111111 m i l i _ I at" 1 iinat,, q ' ��i®!i R Y . 1144 I I - 11 °s®® iry cII II E I 'I 11 1 i ll r: gluons • � 11I .1 1 ,q 1 e 1 II 1 I't III IN ,.�.* 1 � i 1 IJ Nif A , 11 ® ��� I ._ 1 IN Pa 1h ®` 1 N om o - m o Po 9 m P 11 i� a o $ P g ma a oA 1 ® C ® 1 Li • -RI m $ o xs 5 (M- f ®I 1 , 1® 1. g warm :.: � Am ® 1 \ is i iiiirtI 11 I , ° -I 1 1 1 I , 1 , E r1W\ (, ` I I 1 X m i'fl ^I m €o ,% om -- -3 -m ;m _ 3 ox f_ _ 8 m _ o - a€ - m !: €a N. ig — E =m o= 0 is off" I`[fIiPY 2 ^v eo - N 6 Y n� 632 E. HOPKINS !`11 r 9$§ 0 �g p g x m ®$ R A ff I(: Tegc 612° �I 632 E. HOPKINS ASPEN, CO F e a } s o io11/ m 4;1 11 y' J m o _- aD I I I n • 0 7 o T o m I o I O I ! S -, 1 r" o n Iga T a -9N 1 m yo ! ga; m sm A fim I I 1 1 I 1 1 Z ' ® ®/I III 1 in p I NI 1 ` r -- : ,wI ; 0I 1 ri � I 11 1 °o ° m m i v z 1 I II, r., A ° o o s rn € A !I� .r® i i II I;' °n I I ng i ° £ I om goF' ym s 2 2 ®' 2 o -® c o m ! :: �yi l 5,:39, m N, °. . 1 a s ° a 1 z I i I / m ; ` o g u u ! 632 E. HOPKINS ► � qq gg =`f g i 4 �s,� !f Jg s D W '01 I i " 31 - 632 E. HOPKINS ASPEN, CO I'° `°i - , s • `.. ..- - 71 ifila EAST HOPKINS AVENUE y S t x a � S I a { U d ' ` .4asC9 f 1x rn • 7 °e e �+ n i 9 1 i rip F■ rmd `^ W Q 7 °�d� s` Wn & g ° y EB A rcti r 'mow i a 7,1 , 1 I� d I near v 'LSJ tie - -P .� te . 5 - I II III sitipd ni tryst if .1 mill it, ���1ils.nn r , . I I !Al? 1r 'u*r+l W E Ps V/ . A r a. co Z �� � .- c 0 s .�� - MW,AI s F , H Z a7 O m i m 'LIMA 6 .`� i t 1121a21.1FEI MA 1 . 111 G) lb y _ rE I!! 5 , ,,en., • z3 z _v ` s 0 IR�. h r 0 F r 11 - -- ra a � Y. fi 0 ni 's 0 d � .„ ,., : .n w _ � � ' i > t lI _ I 1 �,3 1'1 I Z > dJ [ / RI • { W ' Kr, , h1 '' � _ � 1 - �� ' 4,3 � + ,° � o t t- ! °#`awlL 1L 14 IIGr�®m® m J ■ 1 r ALLEY BLOCK 98 PI S o F£ I $ I'inffiil x E p . CO _ , ;h! a 632 E.HOPKINS 't p �ff ; a � U $ -a i - 632 E. HOPKINS ASPEN, CO „ I yyy [ ''' �[ p # a $ s ? ' "8 _, P. gar w i .9Wi 4 -% F-7/H.r>tr F P45 DAVID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTS nc 419 East Conper Arc nut Suilc 208 Aspen. CO 85811 TEL 970-925-3444 rna 970- 920 -21S6 MEWORANDU NO. 01 DATE November 10, 2010 BY Adam Roy TO Drew Alexander, City of Aspen Community Development CC Michael Rudin PROJECT 632 East Hopkins Renovation SUBJECT Final Commercial Design Review - Response to Staff comments on 10.28.2010 Dear Drew: The intention of this memorandum is to address staff comments from 10.28.2010 regarding the Final Commercial Design review for the renovation project at 632 East Hopkins Avenue. The memo specifically addresses comments related to the parking, trash and recycling area plan, the public amenity plan and rooftop mechanical equipment screening. As noted in both the conceptual and final commercial design review applications, the subject application is being reviewed as a renovation rather than a complete razing of the existing building. As a result, a variety of existing conditions associated with the site create constraints within which the new design must be accommodated. Parking Trash and Rew'rling Area: Because the project is a renovation of the existing building, there is no feasible opportunity to change the location and configuration of the current parking stalls and the area currently designated for trash and recycling. As an alternative, these areas are being improved to a more functional and efficient level as provided in Community Developments recommendation to Planning and Zoning Commission and required in the Resolution approving the Conceptual Commercial Design review of the project. Based on the information in this memo and the material represented in the Final Commercial Design application, it is requested that no recommendation is made for the reduction of on -site parking stalls from four (4) to three (3), and that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve and retain the existing four (4) parking stalls. Furthermore, pursuant to Section 26.575.060.8 of the Code, it is requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the minor reduction of the dimensions of the trash and recycling area by virtue of the representations made with regard to the function and adequacy of the proposed design and use of this area. In the proposed final design, all four (4) of the existing parking stalls are retained and adequate circulation and access to and from the building is accommodated in the proposed layout. Two of the stalls are proposed as standard size stalls and two are proposed as compact stalls, a mix that is both typical and appropriate for the'urbarf location of the property (see attached drawing). The layout is in accordance with provisions in the Page 1 1 P46 • p DAVID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTS"c 478 East Cooper Avcnue Suit. 204.. 4spcn, CO 8IGII rtt 910 - 925.2444 FAX 910- 920 -2166 MEMORANDUM Land Use Code, the International Building Code and/or industry reference guides for dimensional standards that are not provided in either of the two prior resources. The parking area has been separated from the trash and recycling area by structural columns; fencing and/or bollards, providing a physical delineation between the two areas as required by condition "iof the resolution approving Conceptual Commercial Design Review. This proposed trash and recycling area (which matches the existing) is six (6) feet by twenty -two (22) feet, oriented perpendicular to the alley and designed to allow for easy access from both the building and the alley. The function of this area provides building users with adequate access for depositing refuse and recycling material from the building -side (south) of the enclosed area. All receptacles will remain within the defined area and be wheeled into the alley for hauling by trash/recycling service providers via the alley -side (south) of the enclosure. This layout and prescribed function of the area provides for adequate access and easy use, while eliminating any and all potential conflicts with cars parked in the designated parking area. 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 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 (NOTE: on -site recycling is not a requirement, rather a chosen provision by the applicant); 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 (2) -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. In addition to the recommendation to eliminate a parking stall for the sake of providing a more adequate trash and recycling area, it was communicated that staff recommends that the applicant shall pay the cash- Page I 2 • P47 El i DAVID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTS.c 438 East Cooper Avenue Suite 2t* Aspen, CO 8IG31 tic 970- 925 -3444 FAX 970 - 920 -2186 MEMORANDUM in -lieu for the resulting deficiency in off- street parking. Contrary to these recommendations, the Land Use Code states that'No development shall reduce the number of existing off - street parking spaces below the minimum number of existing spaces."(Section 26.515.10.B). It is our conclusion that under the constraints of the site, the recommendation to eliminate one (1) of the existing stalls is excessive for a design scenario that is in functional compliance with parking design standards, improves the existing conditions of the building to be eliminated and meets the conditions of the Conceptual Commercial Design Review Resolution. If the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that one (1) parking stall is to be eliminated, it is strongly requested that no additional cash -in -lieu payment be required for the resulting deficiency in off - street parking and that only the deficit resulting from the additional net leasable area as calculated and presented in the Final Commercial Design and Parking Review application be required for payment Public Amenity Area: The public amenity area proposed in the final design satisfies condition "C of the resolution approving the subject projects Conceptual Commercial Design Review by providing a detached sidewalk along Hopkins Avenue. At no point within the approving resolution is it required that a detached sidewalk be'Eonsidered and evaluated for Final Commercial Design Review" Furthermore, the Parks and Engineering Departments made no recommendation that a detached sidewalk should be considered during the Design Review Committee meeting as indicated in the meeting notes from said meeting. In accordance with the recommendation by staff to provide bike racks, the area of the Spring Street entry court to the left (south) of the lobby door will be designed to accommodate and outfitted with bike racks, while still being adequately screened from the neighbors of the residential zone district to the east across Spring Street It is requested that no recommendation is made for the inclusion of a parkway planting strip and a detached sidewalk along Spring Street, and that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the public amenity plan as proposed with the inclusion of bike racks at the described location. Roof -top Mechanical Screening: Per staff comments dated 10.28.2010, all roof -top mechanical equipment will be screened in order to provide a visual barrier from surrounding and far -off view planes. Screening, in the form of wood and /or masonry walls, will meet the standards provided for in Section 26.575.020.B.1.d of the Code. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any clarifications. Sincerely, Ad� Adam C. Roy Page 13 P48 k ,- , i i o 1 .a C7 ' DO . 917 3,. t =4 -1—ga r k—Imp r -- IN �� k li W O n.. !I \ R i i 11 CI an A ----- : I 0 ' ::::. II I RI I Z Q �.. 1 111 Q i H I Pj z N I I I a 1. � V a l r ULel W y € 0 , W fD lY r N ! 1 \ ; — CO M • IA i w cc CO U W k III 1 � 1 ,;1 a im ;; „ — ;9 9-10 d IJV8 6 Vat 14 ((�± li Y 110 17 u 300 g Ii1 t.i \ \ \\ - \ \\ \� a=g' ,p,„ I 1 ir , , i r joie z ____\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ O\\\\ O\\\\\\\\\ O \ \O \\\ \ \\\\ \ \ \ \ \O\ \ \ \ \ \O \ \ \ \ \\ m \ `g - "c ' F ~ 1 gc(-t l r RECEIV AUG .1 6 2010 BUY Oo P OEV REC "D Gtr u 3 2 010 COSPEN ANT 632 EAST HOPKINS BUILDING RENOVATION Application for Growth Management Quota System and Affordable Housing Review DAVID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTS PC 47.' nv. .�.,. ', reu . !U4• th ^o,CO :I(l is TEL 9»: 9 9 its pax c' ;x0 215. 1 Major Planning and Zoning Commission Application for Growth Management Quota System and Affordable Housing Review for the Property at 632 East Hopkins Avenue in Aspen, Colorado Submitted by: Rudin West LLC. 345 Park Avenue - 33rd Floor New York, NY 10154 (212) 407 -2511 08.16.2010 Prepared by: David Johnston Architects, pc 418 East Cooper Avenue, #206 Aspen, CO 81611 970.925.3444 C9; dr TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. PROPERTY BACKGROUND 2 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 A. Expansion and Layout 4 1. Site Plan 5 2. Main Level 5 3. Second Level 6 4. Third Level 6 B. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 6 C. Net Leasable and Net Livable Floor Areas 9 D. Growth Management Allotments 10 E. Employee Generation 11 F. Affordable Housing 13 IV. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 16 A. Growth Management (Section 26.470.050.B) 16 B. Affordable Housing (Section 26.470.070.4) 18 Appendix A — APPLICATION DOCUMENTS A Appendix B — SITE & DESIGN DOCUMENTS B I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this application is to request approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission for Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) review and allocation of growth management allotments and the mitigation of employee generation for a new free - market residential unit and additional net leasable commercial area associated with the proposed renovation to the property at 632 East Hopkins Avenue and 119 South Spring Street (the "Property") in the City of Aspen, Colorado (Legal Description - CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Block: 98 Lot: S AND EAST HALF OF LOT R). This application is submitted pursuant to Title 26, Land Use Regulations, of the Aspen Municipal Code (the "Code ") by the ownership of the property, Rudin West, LLC (the "Applicant "). In accordance with the Code and as outlined in the initial Pre - Application Conference Summary (Exhibit 1, Appendix A), this application was proceeded by Conceptual Design Review and approved through Resolution No. 16 (Exhibit 2, Appendix A) and will be followed by applications for Subdivision and Final Design Review. A Commitment of Title Insurance disclosing the ownership of the property as Rudin West LLC is included as Exhibit 3 in Appendix A. Permission for David Johnston Architects, pc to represent the Applicant is attached as Exhibit 4 in Appendix A. The Land Use Application Form, the Dimensional Requirement Form, the Agreement for Payment Fee Form and a List of Adjacent Property Owners are included in Appendix A as Exhibits 5 -8 respectively. This application packet is organized in sections to provide the reviewer(s) with easy reference to the requested material included in the following sections: • Background on the existing property and any previous approvals as well as the documentation of any correspondence that has occurred between the Applicant and the Community Development Department and other City Departments; • Project Description outlining the scope of the proposed renovation, the resulting number and type of growth management allotments being requested and the methodology for mitigating employee generation through affordable housing; • Regulatory Requirements identifying how the application is compliant with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System, of the 1 l_ at e Code, which are specific to a Major Planning and Zoning Commission review of this project. All related application, site and design documents for the Growth Management Quota System review are included in appendices at the back of this application packet. 11. PROPERTY BACKGROUND Located at the northwest corner of the intersection of East Hopkins Avenue and South Spring Street, the Property is situated on the eastern edge of the City of Aspen's C -1 zone district. The existing two -story building on the Property (the "Building ") was initially constructed in 1976 and only minor interior renovations have occurred since this date, none of which required additional Land Use approvals or Certificates of Occupancy to be issued. A title commitment (Exhibit 3, Appendix A) and a records search at the City of Aspen's Community Development Department revealed no additional amendments or approval documents to the originally approved development. A license agreement dated June 6 1996 (Exhibit 9, Appendix A) allowed the neighboring property owner to encroach on the Property in order to enclose a cavity between the two buildings. The lot area of the Property is 4,500 sq. ft. The existing minimum front setback from the property line along Hopkins Avenue is approximately eleven (11) feet, while the minimum setbacks from the property lines along Spring Street and the rear alley are approximately twenty (20) inches and twenty -one (21) feet respectively (Exhibits 2 and 3, Appendix B). The setback from the property line to the west is approximately eight (8) inches, the space of which was enclosed by the neighboring property owner pursuant to the above referenced license agreement (Exhibit 9, Appendix A). The front yard of the property along Hopkins Avenue contains a slightly sunken courtyard enclosed by a low wall and comprised of a mix of concrete sidewalk and grass. The east yard of the property along Spring Street contains a concrete sidewalk and grass (Exhibits 2 and 3, Appendix B). The use of the building has been exclusively office, located on both levels of the two - story above -grade structure. A basement comprised of mechanical and storage area exists below the rear (north) portion of the building. The property contains four (4) parking 2 stalls perpendicular to and accessed from the rear alley. To the west of the parking stalls is an existing concrete area designated for trash and recycling services and runs lengthwise north to south (Exhibit 3, Appendix B). Pursuant to Section 26.104.100 of the Code, the gross floor areas of the main and second levels are 2,409 sq. ft. and 2,407 sq. ft. respectively, or 4,816 sq. ft. total. An additional 780 sq. ft. of floor area is located below grade in the basement (Exhibit 4, Appendix B). Pursuant to Section 26.575.020.A of the Code, the floor areas for the purposes of measuring floor area ratio (FAR) of the main and second levels are 2,409 sq. ft. and 2,239 respectively or a total FAR of 4,647 sq. ft. (Exhibit 5, Appendix B). Pursuant to Section 26.104.100 of the Code, the net leasable commercial and office areas of the main and second floors are 1,909 sq. ft. and 1,982 sq. ft. respectively or 3,891 sq. ft. total (Exhibit 6, Appendix B). The floor area calculations for the existing building are summarized in Table 1, below. TABLE 1 - Existing Building Floor Area Calculations Existing Floor Area Calculations Area (s.f.} Existing Main Level Floor Area 2,409 Existing Second Level Floor Area 2,239 Existing Floor Area for the purpose of measuring FAR 4,647 Existing Net Leasable Commercial /Office Area Calculations Area (at l Existing Main Level Gross Commercial Floor Area 2,211 Existing Non - Leasable Storage, Stair, Mechanical and Bathroom Area (302) Existing Main Level Net Leasable Commercial Area 1,909 Existing Second Level Gross Commercial Floor Area 2,210 Existing Non - Leasable Storage, Stair, Mechanical and Bathroom Area ( Existing Second Level Net Leasable Commercial Area 1,982 Existing Net Leasable Area 3,8911 3 ‘1/4 . III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The intention of the proposed renovation at 632 East Hopkins and 119 South Spring Street 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. In addition to more commercial area, one (1) new free market residential unit is proposed. With the purpose of utilizing the existing structure to the greatest extent possible and minimize new material use and additional infrastructure, the project is being proposed as a renovation rather than a complete razing of the existing building. The Applicant is committed to creating a sustainable project both in terms of social /cultural factors as well as environmental considerations, and is therefore proposing to attain an undetermined level of LEED certification for the completed renovation. Further, the Applicant is sensitive to the impacts that a fully excavated and newly built site has on surrounding property owners and the public in general. As a result, a primary focus is to reduce the associated impacts to the greatest degree possible, while seeing through an exceptional project that enhances the neighborhood, strengthens an important corner of the downtown commercial area and improves the overall public experience. The C -1 zone district is intended to provide a mix of commercial /office and residential uses. The surrounding properties are a variety of single -use and multi -use commercial /office and residential buildings. As the property is located on the fringe of the current "downtown core ", the expected immediate use of the non - residential floor area is office. However, as the "core" is and will continue to expand, the main level may accommodate future commercial demand. A. Expansion and Layout The following subsections describe the layout and programming of the proposed renovation. The descriptions in each subsection correspond to architectural drawings in Appendix B that serve as floor plans and floor area studies in order to convey the proposed use and function of the renovated building. 4 1.Si to Plan The Site Plan reflects the proposed expansion of the building and indicates the resulting enhanced public amenity space layout (Exhibit 7, Appendix B). At a conceptual level, the existing courtyard to the south of the building along Hopkins Avenue is to remain in its general location and remain approximately sixteen (16) inches below the level of the sidewalk. The courtyard will be accessed at east and west points by an ADA accessible ramp and a set of stairs respectively. The existing open space to the east of the building along Spring Street will be altered as a result of the proposed footprint expansion. In doing so, the public amenity space will be improved and extend from the building facade beyond the property line to engage the sidewalk. The location of off - street parking is proposed to remain in its original configuration - four stalls perpendicular to and accessed from the alley. Two parking stalls will be enclosed in a garage, while the remaining two will be enclosed in a carport in order to provide access to the utility /trash /recycling services area. This area is proposed to remain in its existing location, the dimensions of which are adequate for the requirements of the proposed building renovation. The utility/trash/recycling services area will be improved as required and will be enclosed pursuant to Section 26.575.060.A.1 of the Code. 2.Main Le vel The proposed footprint of the building retains the majority of the exterior building walls at the main level in their existing locations (Exhibit 8, Appendix B). The exterior walls along Spring Street to the east are reconfigured and relocated closer to the property line in order to increase gross square footage and allow for a more formalized lobby entrance to this facade of the building. The parking is located within a garage and carport system along the alley to the north, maintaining the existing parking and the existing trash, utility and recycling area configurations. The entry lobby along Spring Street is set back from the primary grid line of the east facing facade and all vertical circulation is located adjacent to the lobby in a central core of the building. The recessed entry/lobby area divides the commercial area to the 5 south from the parking and service accommodations to the north into two primary building masses along Spring Street. A secondary entrance along Spring Street is proposed in order to allow for maximum versatility for the commercial /office area configurations, as well as access to the residential unit. Two points of ingress and egress are proposed for the ground level commercial /office area. The primary entrance to the building is located along Spring Street through the lobby and a secondary entrance is located along Hopkins Avenue to the south. 3.Second Le vel The second level layout reflects the proposed footprint of the building with new floor area added along Spring Street as well as above the parking accommodations along the north alley (Exhibit 8, Appendix B). Vertical circulation for the second level is provided via the interior stair and the elevator, both of which are accessed through the Spring Street entrances. A second level circulation lobby will allow access to a variety of suite configurations. 4.Third Level The proposed new third level is comprised of a new free - market residential unit (Exhibit 8, Appendix B). Access to the third level will be exclusively provided via the elevator. The exterior walls of the third level are set back from the facade wall lines of the levels below in order to minimize the verticality of the three -story structure from the street/pedestrian perspective. The resulting roof deck will serve as private outdoor space for the free - market unit. B. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) In the C -1 zone district, the maximum cumulative square footage allowed for a mixed -use building is restricted to an FAR of 2.5:1.0, or 11,250 sq. ft. for this property. Gross square footage for free - market residential uses is restricted to a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.5:1.0, or 2,250 square feet for this property. Commercial square footage is restricted to an FAR of 1.5:1.0, or 6,750 sq. ft. for this property. 6 fi The maximum floor areas allowed in the C -1 zone district that are applicable to the proposed mixed -use building are summarized in Table 2, below. TABLE 2 - C -1 Zone District Maximum Floor Areas C -1 Zone District Standards Area (s.f.) Existing Lot Size 4,500 Maximum Cumulative FAR (2.5:1) 11,250 Residential FAR (0.5:1) 2,250 Commercial FAR (1.5:1) 6,750 Maximum Net Livable Area per Free - Market Residential Unit 2,000 The floor area for the proposed renovation to the building increases the existing commercial floor area and adds new free - market residential floor area. The resulting gross floor area of the proposed renovation is 10,985 sq. ft. Of this floor area, 780 sq. ft. of uninhabitable basement area and 1,210 sq. ft. of deck area are not applicable to the calculations of floor area for the purposes of calculating FAR (Note: Deck area is not applicable to FAR calculations unless the area exceeds fifteen percent (15 %) of the total allowable floor area of the building, which in this case is 1,688 sq. ft.) As a result, the total floor area for the purposes of calculating FAR is 8,995 sq. ft (Exhibit 9, Appendix B). Pursuant to Section 26.575.020.A and through conference with and input from Community Development staff, the floor area exclusive to the commercial use of the property is 6,510 sq. ft. This area includes unit area, garage and carport area, and circulation area that is exclusively intended for the commercial use of the building. The new floor area exclusive to the free - market residential unit is 2,169 sq. ft. and includes all unit area and the elevator area exclusively intended for the free - market residential use of the building. An additional 316 sq. ft. of non -unit area is shared on a pro rata basis between the two uses of the building. Seventy -five percent (75 %) or 237 sq. ft. is applied to the floor area of the commercial use, while twenty -five percent (25 %) or seventy -nine (79) sq. ft. is applied to the floor area of the free - market residential use of the building. The resulting total floor area per use 7 L . 3 for the purposes of calculating FAR is 6,747 sq. ft. for the commercial use and 2,248 sq. ft. for the free- market residential use, totaling 8,995 sq. ft. of total floor area that is applicable to FAR calculations. The proposed floor areas of the building for the purposes of calculating FAR are summarized in Table 3, below. TABLE 3 - Free - Market Residential and Commercial FAR Calculations Building Levels Use Sq. Feet Basement Level: Storage 418 Circulation/Mech 362 Basement Area 780 Main Level: Commercial Area 2,133 Commercial Circulation Area 335 Comm /FM Entry & /Elevator 139 Mechanical 31 Comm Parking Stalls 755 1st Leal Floor Area 3,394 Second Level: Commercial Area 2,933 Commercial Circulation Area 353 Elevator 51 Mechanical 33 Comm. Deck Area 120 2nd Leal Floor Area 3,371 Third Level: FM Unit Area 2,112 Elevator 57 Mechanical 61 FM Deck Area 1,090 3rd Level Floor Area 2,231 Total Floor Area: Gross Area 10,985 Below Grade Floor Area (780) Deck Area below 15% of Total FAR (1,210) Total Floor Area Applicable to FAR 8,995 Floor Area per Percentage Pro Rata of Shared Total Floor Use Use of Total Non -Unit Area Area per Use Free Market Residential 2,169 25% 79 2,248 Commercial /Office 6,509 75% 237 6,747 Floor Area for FAR Calculations 8,679 100% 316 8,995 8 C. Net Leasable and Net Livable Floor Areas Pursuant to Section 26.470.100.A, for a redevelopment or renovation of an existing building, the net leasable floor area for determining the growth management allotments being requested as well as for determining the employee generation to be mitigated, the existing net leasable must be analyzed and compared to the proposed net leasable floor area in order to quantify the incremental increase. The existing building is comprised of 2,211 sq. ft. and 2,210 sq. ft. of gross leasable floor area on the main and second level respectively, resulting in a total gross leasable floor area of 4,421 sq. ft. Pursuant to the definition of net leasable door area in Section 26.104.100, 302 square feet of the gross office floor area on the main level is not considered leasable, resulting in a net leasable floor area of 1,909 sq. ft. Similarly, 227 sq. ft. of gross office floor area on the second level is not considered leasable, resulting in a net leasable floor area of 1,982 sq. ft. The resulting total net leasable floor area for the existing building is 3,891 sq. ft. No free - market residential floor area currently exists in the building. A diagram of the existing net leasable area analysis is provided as Exhibit 6, Appendix B. A summary of the existing net leasable floor area calculations are summarized in Table 3, below. TABLE 4 - Existing Net Leasable Floor Area Existing Net Leasable Commercial /Office Area Calculations Area (s.f.} Existing Main Level Gross Commercial Floor Area 2,21 Existing Non - Leasable Storage, Stair, Mechanical and Bathroom Area (302) Existing Main Level Net Leasable Commercial Area 1,909 Existing Second Level Gross Commercial Floor Area 2,210 Existing Non - Leasable Storage, Stair, Mechanical and Bathroom Area (227) Existing Second Level Net Leasable Commercial Area 1,982 Existing Net Leasable Area 3,8911 As a result of the propose renovation, additional net leasable area beyond the amount that currently exists will be added to the building as well as the new net livable floor area of the free - market residential unit. The proposed renovated 9 building would be comprised of 2,023 sq. ft. and 2,748 sq. ft. of gross in -suite floor area on the main and second level respectively, resulting in a total in -suite floor area of 4,771 sq. ft. (Exhibit 10, Appendix B). Pursuant to the definition of net leasable door area in Section 26.104.100, 182 square feet of the gross office floor area on the main level is not considered leasable, resulting in a net leasable floor area of 1,841 sq. ft. Similarly, 264 sq. ft. of gross office floor area on the second level is not considered leasable, resulting in a net leasable floor area of 2,485 sq. ft. The resulting total net leasable floor area for the existing building is 4,325 sq. ft. The new free - market residential unit is proposed to be 1,999 sq. ft. of net livable area as defined in Section 26.104.100. A diagram of the proposed net leasable and net livable areas analysis is provided as Exhibit 10, Appendix B. A summary of the proposed net leasable and livable floor area calculations are summarized in Table 4, below. TABLE 5 - Proposed Net Leasable /Livable Floor Areas Proposed Net Leasable Commercial Area Calculations Area (s.f.) Proposed Ground Level Gross In -Unit Floor Area 2,023 Proposed Ground Level Non - Leasable Floor Area (182) Proposed Ground Level Net Leasable Area 1,841 Proposed Second Level Gross In -Unit Floor Area 2,748 Proposed Second Level Non - Leasable Floor Area ( Proposed Second Level Net Leasable Area 2,485 Proposed Net Leasable Commercial Area 4,325 Proposed Free - Market Residential Net Livable Floor Area Area (s.f.) Total Net Livalbe Free - Market Floor Area 1,999 D. Growth Management Allotments The growth management allotments requested in this application are the net increase in net leasable area for the commercial component of the property and the new free - market residential unit being added through the renovation. The resulting additional net leasable area is 434 sq. ft. and therefore this amount of commercial floor area is being requested as an allotment to be to be added to the City of 10 Aspen's inventory of existing commercial development. As no residential unit exists in the current building, one (1) new 1,999 sq. ft. residential unit is being requested as an allotment to be added to the City of Aspen's inventory of existing residential development. A summary of the increase in net leasable commercial floor area and the new free - market residential unit and the resulting allotment request for each is summarized in Table 6, below. TABLE 6 - Net Leasable Commercial Area and Free - Market Residential Allotments Additional Net Leasable Commercial Area Calculations Area (s.f.) Proposed Ground Level Net Leasable Commercial Area 1,841 Existing Main Level Net Leasable Commercial Area (1,909) Change in Ground Level Net Leasable Commercial Area (68) Proposed Second Level Net Leasable Commercial Area 2,485 Existing Second Level Net Leasable Commercial Area (1,982) Additional Second Level Net Leasable Commercial Area 503 Additional Upper Level Net Leasable Area 0 Requested Net Leasable Commercial Area Allotment 434 Proposed Free - Market Residential Net Livable Floor Area Area (s.f.) Existing Free Market Residential Unit Net Livable Area 0 Proposed Single Free Market Residential Net Livable Area 1,999 Requested Single Free - Market Unit Allotment 1,999 E. Employee Generation The calculations for determining the generation of new employees as a result of the increase in net leasable commercial area and the new free - market residential unit are based on the same area allotments represented in Table 6, above. Pursuant to Section 26.470.050.B.6, thirty percent (30 %) of the net livable floor area of any new or additional free market floor area. As 1,999 sq. ft. of new free - market floor area is proposed to be added through the renovation, 600 sq. ft. of affordable housing net livable floor area or the equivalent number of employees must be mitigated. Pursuant to Section 26.470.100.A.4, the equivalent number of employees generated and required to be mitigated for as a result of the new free - market 11 residential unit is 1.50 employees. Table 7, below, summarizes the employee generation calculations. TABLE 7 - Free - Market Residential and Commercial Employee Generation Free - Market Residential Employee Generation Total Net Livable Free - Market Floor Area 1,999 Required Floor Area Mitigation @ 30% of Free Market Residential (sq. ft.) 600 Employees Generated by Free - Market Residential @ 1 per 400 sf 1.50 Commercial Net - Leasable Employee Generation Main Level Additional Net Leasable Commercial Area (sq. ft.) (68) 100% of Employees Generated on Main Level @ 4.1 / 1000 sq. ft. (0.28) Second Level Additional Net Leasable Commercial Area (sq. ft.) 503 75% of Employees generated on Second Level @ 4.1 / 1000 sq. ft. 1.55 Total Employees Generated by Additional Net Leasable Commercial Area 1.27 60% of Employees Generated by Net Leasable Commercial Area 0.76 Consecutive Residential and Commercial Employee Generation 2.26 In the Commercial (C -1) zone district, the employee generation rate, pursuant to Section 26.470.100.A.1 is 4.1 employees per 1,000 square feet of net leasable area. On the main level, the proposed renovation decreases the net leasable commercial area by sixty -eight ( -68) sq. ft. In accordance with the employee generation rate, the resulting number of employees generated is a net reduction of - 0.28 employees. In accordance with the Code's definitions of upper floors (Section 26.104.100), the employees generated by any additional net leasable area on the second and third levels of the building shall be reduced by 25 %, pursuant to Section 26.470.100.A.1, resulting in the generation of 3.08 employees per 1,000 square feet of net leasable area. On the second level, the proposed renovation increases the net leasable commercial area by 503 sq. ft. The resulting number of employees generated in accordance with the reduced employee generation rate is a net increase of 1.55 employees. The resulting total number of employees generated as a result of additional net leasable commercial area is 1.27. Pursuant to Subsection 26.470.050.B.5, sixty percent (60 %) of the employees generated by the additional 12 net leasable commercial area must be mitigated, ultimately resulting in the generation of 0.76 employees from the net increase of 434 sq. ft. of net leasable commercial area. A summary of the employee generation associated with net leasable commercial floor area is summarized in Table 7, above. Pursuant to Section 26.470.100.A.6, the employee generation for the free - market unit and the commercial net leasable area can be mitigated either concurrently or consecutively, depending on whether housing unit(s) are provided on -site or through alternative means respectively. Specific to this renovation, if the employee generation is mitigated through on -site affordable housing, the concurrent requirement will be for 1.50 employees or 600 sq. ft. of net livable floor area. If the employee generation is mitigated off -site or through an alternative means, the consecutive requirement will be for 2.26 employees. F. Affordable Housing The intended plan for the development of affordable housing for the purposes of employee mitigation is through the buy -down of an existing free - market unit to a deed - restricted unit that will be introduced into the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority ( "APCHA ") housing inventory as allowed for in Section 26.470.070.4 of the Code. Pursuant to Section 26.470.100.A.6, if affordable housing is to be provided by any means other than on -site the employees generated must be mitigated consecutively — in the case of this renovation, the required mitigation is for 2.26 employees. It is proposed that the required 2.26 employees will be mitigated through the buy -down unit and recommendation for this means is being sought from APCHA and a subsequent recommendation and approval from Community Development and the Planning and Zoning Commission respectively. Pursuant to Section 26.470.070.4 of the Code and prescribed in Part VII, Section 14 of the APCHA Guidelines, "an applicant for development, under certain conditions and subject to certain requirements, may satisfy the affordable housing requirement by deed restricting existing unrestricted housing to comply with the Guidelines." The purpose for pursuing employee mitigation through the buy -down 13 Cr s of an existing free - market unit is threefold: 1) partly due to the fact that the project is a renovation, unresolved potential layout and design constraints related to building code will be alleviated by locating affordable housing off -site; 2) the ability to respond to design concerns raised by immediate neighbors and the Planning and Zoning Commission at Conceptual Design Review for the project will be greatly enhanced; and 3) the subject buy -down unit is an ideal candidate in proximity to downtown Aspen and meets all of the requirements set forth in the APCHA Guidelines. Furthermore, the relatively small size and location of this proposed renovation as a downtown infill project establishes it as a perfect candidate for participation in the buy -down scenario as an alternative to providing affordable housing onsite. Through input from Community Development and conference with APCHA administration, the proposed buy -down scenario meets all of the criteria and requirements allowing for the conversion of an existing free - market unit to a deed- restricted affordable housing unit as a means of employee mitigation. The subject unit is located at 613 Vine Street in Aspen, CO., in the Hunter Creek condominium complex. The subject unit is the last remaining free - market unit in an otherwise deed - restricted building, the units of which are all in the APCHA housing inventory. For these reasons, APCHA has indicated a favorable recommendation for this buy -down scenario, which would result in the creation of a new unit of affordable housing while also securing control of a fully deed - restricted building. The unit consists of two (2)- bedrooms and a net livable area of 736 sq. ft. and has been recently renovated with approximately $25,000.00 of capital improvements. Pursuant to Section 26.470.100.A.2 of the Code and prescribed in Part VII, Section 12.5 of the APCHA Guidelines, a two (2)- bedroom unit accommodates 2.25 employees. Pursuant to Section 26.470.100.A.4 of the Code, the required net livable area of affordable housing for the purpose of mitigating employees generated from the proposed renovation at 632 East Hopkins Ave. is 904 sq. ft. The conversion 14 between number of employees generated and square feet of net livable area and the resulting calculations for required net livable area are as follow: 1 employee = 400 sq. ft. 2.26 employees X 400 sq. ft. = 904 sq. ft. of net livable area Part VII, Section 8 of APCHA Guidelines, provides for a reduction of up to twenty (20) percent of the required net livable area as long as a variety of conditions prescribed therein are met. It has been concluded through conference with APCHA administration that each of the required conditions are achieved through the proposed buy -down unit, and that a reduction of nineteen (19) percent would attain a favorable recommendation. The calculations for the requested reduction, allowing the net livable area of the subject buy -down unit to satisfy the requirement of net livable area for employee mitigation purposes are as follow: 904 sq. ft. (required mitigation) - 736 sq. ft. (buy -down unit) = 168 sq. ft. 168 sq. ft. / 904 sq. ft. = 19 % reduction Pursuant to Section 26.470.050.B.5, the employee mitigation plan shall be approved at Category 4 rate as defined in the APCHA Guidelines. The maximum sales price for a newly deed restricted Category 4 unit is $287,000.00. Through conference with APCHA, it has been indicated that a favorable recommendation for the mitigation of the 2.26 employees would be granted if the pricing for the buy - down unit, in conjunction with meeting the required conditions allowing for the twenty (20) percent reduction in unit size, is reduced below the allowed maximum sales price. It is therefore, proposed that, in order for the 2.26 employees generated from the renovation project to be mitigated through the deed - restriction of the subject buy -down unit, the newly created affordable housing unit will be sold to a qualified Category 4 employee(s) for the sales price of $245,000.00. 15 0 3 IV. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS Pursuant to Section 26.470.050, all development applications for growth management review shall comply with the standards of said section as well as provide mitigation from the impacts of the related development. This section of this application discusses the project's compliance with each of the criteria for growth management review, as well as the criteria for satisfying affordable housing requirements for employee generation mitigation, as provided in Section 26.470.070.4. A. Growth Management (Section 26.470.050.B) Pursuant to Section 26.470.050 of the Code, the following criteria are required to be met for growth management review and approval. 1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi year development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet this standard. As described in the above Section III.D of this application, the requested growth management allotments for both additional commercial net leasable area and a free - market unit are available in conjunction with the August 15 submission date. 2. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. The proposed development as an infill project is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan and was discussed in greater detail for the purposes of obtaining the Conceptual Commercial Design approval for the Planning and Zoning Commission. 3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district. As described in Section III of this application and presented in the application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review, the proposed development is in compliance with each of the standards of the C -1 zone district. 16 4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval, as applicable. Of the referenced approvals, only Conceptual Commercial Design Review is applicable to this proposed project and approval has already been obtained for said review. 5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60 %) of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection 26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate. (Ord. No. 6 — 2010, §2) As described in the above Section III.F of this application, sixty (60) percent of the employees generated by the additional commercial net leasable area added to the property will be mitigated through an off -site method allowed for in Section 26.470.100.A.2 of the Code and prescribed in Part VII, Section 14 of the APCHA Guidelines. The off -site method is proposed to be through a buy -down of an existing free - market residential unit and deed - restriction and sale as a Category 4 affordable housing unit. 6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30 %) of the additional free - market residential net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ( "voluntary units ") may be deed - restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such 17 Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100 Employee/Square Footage Conversion. (Ord. No. 6 — 2010, §2) As described in the above Section III.F of this application, thirty (3) percent of the employees generated by the additional net livable free - market floor area added to the property will be mitigated through an off -site method allowed for in Section 26.470.100.A.2 of the Code and prescribed in Part VII, Section 14 of the APCHA Guidelines. The off -site method is proposed to be through a buy -down of an existing free - market residential unit and deed - restriction and sale as a Category 4 affordable housing unit. 7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services. (Ord. No. 14, 2007, §1) As the project is a renovation, the resulting additional demand on public infrastructure. The net increase in any additional demand will be mitigated through impact fees or other means as noted in the Resolution approving Conceptual Commercial Design. B. Affordable Housing (Section 26.470.070.4) Pursuant to Section 26.470.070.4 of the Code, the following criteria are required to be met for affordable housing review and approval. 1. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. As described in the above Section III.F of this application, employee mitigation is proposed to be satisfied through an off -site method allowed for in Section 26.470.100.A.2 of the Code and prescribed in Part VII, Section 14 of the APCHA Guidelines. The approval for the proposed buy -down scenario 18 for satisfying the required employee mitigation will require approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. 2. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy -down units. Off -site units shall be provided within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a cash -in -lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash -in -lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation requirements by approval of the Community Development Department Director, pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of the Certificate. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. (Ord. No. 6 — 2010, §4) As described in the above Section III.F of this application, employee mitigation is proposed to be satisfied through an off -site method allowed for in Section 26.470.100.A.2 of the Code and prescribed in Part VII, Section 14 of the APCHA Guidelines. Recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority approving the proposed buy -down scenario for satisfying the required employee mitigation is required, along with a subsequent approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission. 3. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50 %) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. As no on -site units are proposed to be provided, this Code standard does not apply to this project. 4. The proposed units shall be deed - restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. 19 4,J The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long -term viability of the lodge. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County or other similar governmental or quasi- municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory ' for sale" provision. As no on -site units are proposed to be provided, this Code standard does not apply to this project. 5. Non- Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not required for mitigation, but meet the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a -d). The owner of such non - mitigation affordable housing is eligible to receive a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540. (Ord. No. 6 — 2010, §4) As no on -site units are proposed to be provided, this Code standard does not apply to this project. 20 APPENDIX A — APPLICATION DOCUMENTS Exhibit 1. Pre - Application Conference Summary from 01.26.2010 Exhibit 2. P & Z Resolution 16, Commercial Design Review Approval Exhibit 3. Disclosure of Ownership (Title Commitment) Exhibit 4. Applicant Representation Letter Exhibit 5. Land Use Application Exhibit 6. Dimensional Requirements Form Exhibit 7. Application Fee Payment Agreement Form Exhibit 8. Properties Owners to be Noticed within 300' Exhibit 9. License Agreement to Seal Space between Buildings A I EXHIBIT 1 CITY OF ASPEN PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Jennifer Phelan, 970.429.2759 DATE: 01/26/10 PROJECT: 632 E Hyman Ave REPRESENTATIVE: Adam Roy, 970.925.3444 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision and related reviews DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at the comer of Spring and Hopkins and is solely used as commercial office space. The property is located within the C -1 zone district and is not a landmark property. The owner is interested in expanding /redeveloping the site with additional commercial net leasable space and a free - market residence. According to the authorized representative, it is anticipated that on -site affordable housing mitigation will be provided. Both the expansion of commercial development (?250 sq. ft.) and the addition of new free - market units are considered major growth management reviews. As such, a growth management allocation (net leasable and a free- market unit) is required and the application for the allotments can only be submitted either February 15 or August 15 ( §26.470.110 C). Prior to submission on either of these dates, Conceptual Commercial Design Review shall be granted. Below is a link to the Land Use application Form for your convenience. http: / /www.aspenpitkin.com /Portals /0 /dots /City /Comdev/ Apps %20and %20Fees /landuseappform. pdf Land Use Code Section(sl 26.304 Common development review procedures 26.412 Commercial design review Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines 26.470 Growth Management Quota System 26.470.080 (1) Expansion or new commercial development (greater than 250 sq. ft.) 26.470.080 (2) New free- market residential units within a multi - family or mixed use project 26.470.050 General requirements 26.470.070 (4) Affordable housing 26.470.100 Calculations 26.470.110 Growth management review procedures 26.480 Subdivision (for the development of multiple dwelling units) 26.515 Off - street parking 26.575.030 Public amenity 26.575.060 Utility/trash service areas 26.575.150 Outdoor lighting 26.610 Impact fees 26.620 School Lands Dedication 26.710.150 Commercial (C -1) Follow link below to view the City of Aspen Land Use Code http: / /www. aspen pitki n. tom / Departments / Community - Development /Pla n ninq- and -Zon i no/Title -26- Land- Use -Code/ Follow link below to view the APCHA Guidelines (size requirements) http://www.aspenhousinaoffice.com/sitepages/pid4.php Review by: Community Development Staff for complete application Public Hearing: Required for both P &Z (Commercial Design Review and GMQS) and City Council (subdivision). Planning Fees: $2,940 for Major Development Application review by Planning and Zoning and City Council. This includes twelve (12) hours of staff review time. Additional time over twelve (12) hours will be billed at $245 per hour. Housing, Parks and Engineering Referral: $410 each or$1,230 Total Deposit: $4,170.00 Total Number of Application Copies: • Planning and Zoning Application for Conceptual Commercial Design: 14 Copies (Additional applications will be required for the growth management allotment application) To apply, submit the following information: Change in Use Application: n Total Deposit for review of application. D Pre - application Conference Summary. Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. fl Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, 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. I A site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the State of Colorado. CI A site plan depicting the proposed layout and the project's physical relationship to the land and its surroundings. I Completed Land Use application and signed fee agreement. fl An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcels within the City of Aspen. 14 copies of the complete application packet and maps. [ written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how a proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. 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. !EXHIBIT 2 I Resolution No. 16 (SERIES OF 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR 632 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN 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 is located within the Commercial (C -1) Zone District, and legally described as: City and Townsite of Aspen, Block 98, Lot S and east half of Lot R, commonly known as 533 E. Hopkins; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable Code standards, 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. 16, Series of 2010, by a (4 - 0) 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 standards 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 welfare. 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 16, Series 2010 Page 1 of 4 a) The trash, recycling and delivery area shall be designed so that adequate clearance is maintained between the service area and the parking stalls in the carport. It is recommended that a separation fence or bollards shall be installed to ensure that normal use of the service area does not impose a risk to the adjacent vehicles. If adequate separation cannot be maintained, a reduction of one parking space shall be considered. b) The final design of the Spring Street Public Amenity Space shall consider 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) A detached sidewalk along Hopkins shall be considered and evaluated for Final Commercial Design Review. 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 area. e) The Applicant shall consider redesigning the Hopkins amenity space to make it more inviting to the public. f) The Applicant shall continue to work with Staff to better shield the Spring Street amenity space from the residents to the east of the Property. g) The Applicant shall continue working on redesigning the top floor facade so that it is less imposing. Section 2: Building Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final recorded approvals. This will include approvals for Growth Management Quota System, Subdivision, Parking, 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 prepared 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. Resolution No 16, Series 2010 Page 2 of 4 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. Section 3: Engineering 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 Mitigation 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 fire 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 Department 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 are 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 are 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 regard, 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 awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are Resolution No 16, Series 2010 Page 3 of 4 i r 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 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 20 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 16, Series 2010 Page 4 of 4 !EXHIBIT 3 1 COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A 1. Effective Date: May 5, 2010, at 7:30 A.M. Order Number: 926441 - -C3 2. Policy or Policies To Be Issued: Amount of Insurance (a) A.L.T.A. Owner's (Extended) $3,100,000.00 Proposed Insured: Rudin West LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company (b) A.L.T.A. Loan 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 referenced estate or interest in said land is at the effective date hereof vested in: The Hopkins Street Venture 5. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: The East one -half (1/2) of Lot R And all of Lot S Block 98 CITY AND TOWNSIfh OF ASPEN COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO Purported Address: Statement of Charges: 632 East Hopkins Avenue These charges are due and payable before a Policy can Aspen, Colorado 81611 be issued: Basic Rate 2006 Owner's Policy: $5582.00 Owner's Extended $150.00 Coverage: Tax Certificate: Included STG Tax Parcel $50.00 Order Number: 92644I--C3 stew-art - rt ALTA Commitment (6/17/0/17/0 6) — Schedule A �� Title Officer: Linda Williams title guaranty company Page 1 of 1 COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE B — Section 1 REQUIREMENTS Order Number: 926441 - -C3 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. Evidence satisfactory to Stewart Title Guaranty Company of payment of all outstanding taxes and assessments as certified by the County Treasurer. 4. Execution of affidavit as to Debts and Liens and its return to Stewart Title Guaranty Company. 5. Evidence satisfactory to Stewart Title of Colorado, Inc. furnished by the Office of the Director of Finance, City of Aspen, that the following taxes have been paid, or that conveyance is exempt from said taxes: (1) The "Wheeler Real Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant to Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979) and (2) The "Housing Real Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant to Ordinance No. 13 (Series of 1990). 6. Execution of Statement of Authority pursuant to the provisions of Section 38 -30 -172 C.R.S., for The Hopkins Street Venture.. 7. Execution of an acceptable survey affidavit certifying that there have been no new improvements constructed or major structural changes made on the subject property. NOTE: Please provide us with surveys which may obtained.. 8. Deed from vested owner(s) vesting fee simple title in the purchaser(s). Note: notation of the legal address of the grantee must appear on the deed as per 1976 amendment to statute on recording of deeds CRS 38 -35 -109 (2). Order Number: 926441 - -C3 rs ewart ALTA Commitment (6/17/06) — Schedule B 1 Page 1 of 1 title guaranty company 4 COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE B — Section 2 EXCEPTIONS Order Number: 926441 - -C3 The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following 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 the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof, but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this commitment. 6. Unpatented mining claims, reservations or exceptions in patents, or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof. 7. Water rights, claims or title to water. 8. Any and all unpaid taxes and assessments and unredeemed tax sales. 9. License Agreement between The Hopkins Street Venture and Philip Rothblum and Marcia Rothblum recorded June 13, 1996 as Reception No. 393676. 10. Lease with Stryker /Brown Architects, PC dated April 1, 2005. 11. All matters shown on the Improvement Survey by Rocky Mountain Surveying, dated 9/2008 No. 08545. NOTE: EXCEPTIONS 1 AND 4 ABOVE WILL BE DELETED ON THE FINAL OWNERS POLICY, PROVIDED BOTH SELLER(S) AND PURCHASER(S) EXECUTE THE HEREIN REQUIRED AFFIDAVITS AND SAID AFFIDAVITS ARE APPROVED BY THE COMPANY. EXCEPTIONS 2 AND 3 WILL BE DELETED ON THE FINAL OWNERS POLICY PROVIDED Order Number: 926441 - -C3 ALTA Commitment (6/17/06) - Schedule B 2 stew art ���... Page 1 of 2 title guaranty company THAT THE PRESENT OWNERS EXECUTE THE SURVEY AFFIDAVIT. EXCEPTION 5 WILL NOT APPEAR ON THE OWNERS POLICY, AND GAP PROTECTION WILL BE GRANTED PROVIDED THAT STEWART TITLE OF COLORADO PERFORMS CLOSING DISBURSEMENTS AND RECORDING OF ALL DOCUMENTS. SEE "DISCLOSURES" INCLUDED HEREWITH. FURTHER NOTE: EXCEPTION 6 ON THE FINAL OWNERS POLICY WILL BE DELETED. EXCEPTION 8 ON THE FINAL OWNERS POLICY WILL BE AMENDED TO READ: All taxes and assessments for year 2010 and subsequent years, which are a lien not yet payable. EXCEPTION 9 WILL BE AMENDED AS TO THE SPECIFIC TAX DISTRICTS AS DISCLOSED BY THE COUNTY TREASURER'S TAX CERTIFICATE. NOTE: Exceptions 1 and 4 may be deleted from the policies, provided the seller and buyer execute the Company's affidavits, as required herein, and the Company approves such deletions. If work has been performed on, or in connection with, the subject property (architectural drawings, soils testing, foundation work, installation of materials), and the Company has not reviewed and approved lien waivers and indemnitor financials, Standard Exception 4 (mechanic lien exception) will not be deleted and no mechanic lien coverage will be furnished. Exceptions 2 and 3 may be deleted from the policies, provided the Company receives and approves the survey or survey affidavit if required herein. Exception 5 will not appear on the policies, provided the Company, or its authorized agent, conducts the closing of the proposed transaction and is responsible for the recordation of the documents. Order Number: 926441-- C3 A/ar T ALTA Commitment (6/17/06) — Schedule B 2 V 4V r �.Y Page 2 of 2 title guaranty company r •✓ STG Privacy Notice 1 (Rev 01/26/09) Stewart Title Companies i . WHAT DO THE STEWART TITLE COMPANIES DO WITH YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION? 1 Federal and applicable state law and regulations give consumers the right to limit some but not all sharing. Federal and applicable state law 1 regulations also require us to tell you how we collect, share, and protect your personal information. Please read this notice carefully to I understand how we use your personal information. This privacy notice is distributed on behalf of the Stewart Title Guaranty Company and 1 its 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. 9 All financial companies, such as the Stewart Title Companies, need to share customers' personal information to run their everyday t business —to process transactions and maintain customer accounts. In the section below, we list the reasons that we can share t 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 limit this sharing? For our everyday business purposes— to process your transactions and maintain your account. This may include running the business and managing customer Yes i No accounts, such as processing transactions, mailing, and auditing services, and responding to court orders and legal investigations. For our marketing purposes— to offer our products and services to you. Yes j No For joint marketing with other financial companies No We don't share I For our affiliates' everyday business purposes— information about your 1 transactions and experiences. Affiliates are companies related by common j • • j ownership or control. They can be financial and nonfinancial companies. Our Yes No I affiliates may include companies with a Stewart name; financial companies, such ' as Stewart Title Company • • I For our affiliates' everyday business purposes— information about your No We don't share • • creditworthiness. • I For our affiliates to market to you Yes No I For non - affiliates to market to you. Non - affiliates are companies not related by No We don't share 1 common ownership or control. They can be financial and nonfinancial 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 We must notify you about our sharing practices when you request a transaction. notify me about their practices? How do the Stewart Title Companies To protect your personal information from unauthorized access and use, we use security protect my personal information? measures that comply with federal and state law. These measures include computer, file, and building safeguards. How do the Stewart Title Companies ` We collect your personal information, for example, when you collect my personal information? • request insurance - related services • 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 taw 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 Order Number: 926441 �3 DISCLOSURES Order Number: 926441 - -C3 Note: 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 clerk and recorder, or the county assessor. Note: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 3 -5 -1, Subparagraph (7) (E) 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 or townhouse 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 unified 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. Note: Pursuant to C.R.S. 10 -11 -123, notice is hereby given: 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. This notice applies to owner's policy commitments containing a mineral severance instrument exception, or exceptions, in Schedule B, Section 2. 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. Order Number: 926441—C3 Disclosures Stewart Title DISCLOSURE The title company, Stewart Title - Aspen Division in its capacity as escrow agent, has been authorized to receive funds and disburse them when all funds received are either: (a) available for immediate withdrawal as a matter of right from the financial institution in which the funds are deposited, or (b) are available for immediate withdrawal as a consequence of an agreement of a financial institution in which the funds are to be deposited or a financial institution upon which the funds are to be drawn. The title company is disclosing to you that the financial institution may provide the title company with computer accounting or auditing services, or other bank services, either directly or through a separate entity which may or may not be affiliated with the title company. This separate entity may charge the financial institution reasonable and proper compensation for these services and retain any profits there from. The title company may also receive benefits from the financial institution in the form of advantageous interest rates on loans, sometimes referred to as preferred rate loan programs, relating to loans the title company has with the financial institution. The title company shall not be liable for any interest or other charges on the eamest money and shall be under no duty to invest or reinvest funds held by it at any time. In the event that the parties to this transaction have agreed to have interest on earnest money deposit transferred to a fund established for the purpose of providing affordable housing to Colorado residents, then the earnest money shall remain in an account designated for such purpose, and the interest money shall be delivered to the title company at closing. C .J � n CONDITIONS I. 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 and Stipulations. 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 Stipulations 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 http://www.alta.org. - Stewart =title guaranty company 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. �• Li 1 al Aug 16 10 12:28p RUDIN 6315379370 p2 ;EXHIBIT 4 I 08.13.2010 Chris Bendon Director of Community Development City of Aspen 130 5. Galena Street, 3' Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 632 East Hopkins Lziid Use Application Representation Dear Mr. Bendon: This letter is to serve as authorization for David Johnston Architects, pc to represent Rudin West, LLC with the proceedings for the application for Land Use Reviews for the renovation of the building located on the property at 632 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611. Representatives from David Johnston Architects are authorized to act on the behalf of the ownership of the property for all matters pertaining to the applications. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions regarding this authorizing letter. Sincerely yours, j Michael Rudin Rudin West, LLC 345 Park Avenue, 33rd Floor New York, New York 10154 (212) 407 -2511 ' ' EXHIBIT 5 I ATTACHMENT 2 —LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: 632 East Hopkins Renovation Location: 632 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, CO. 81611 (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 273707332006 APPLICANT: Name; Rudin West, LLC Address: 345 Park Avenue, 33rd Floor, New York, New York 10154 Phone #: (212) 407 -2511 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Adam Roy - David Johnston Architects, pc Address: 418 East Cooper Street, #206, Aspen, CO. 81611 Phone #: (970) 925 -3444 TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Temporary Use • GMQS Allotment ❑ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Text/Map Amendment ❑ Special Review ❑ Subdivision ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ ESA — 8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes ❑ Final SPA (& SPA Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane ❑ Commercial Design Review ❑ Lot Split ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion ❑ Residential Design Variance ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Other: ❑ Conditional Use EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) 1976 -BUILT CONCRETE BLOCK COMMERCIAL BUILDING W/ 2- STORIES ABOVE GRADE AND BASEMENT BELOW GRADE; CONTAINS ONLY OFFICE USES; NO ADDITIONAL APPROVALS BEYOND ORIGINAL C.O. PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) EXPANSION AND RENOVATION OF EXISTING TWO -STORY COMMERICAL; ADDITION OF NEW THRID LEVEL; ADDITION OF ONE (I) NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT AND ONE (1) FREE - MARKET RESIDENTIAL UNIT. Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: sSI,682.00 ® Pre - Application Conference Summary • Attachment #I, Signed Fee Agreement Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form ® Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards ❑ 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 of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3 -1) model. Your pre - application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3 -D model. (EXHIBIT 6 1 ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: 632 EAST HOPKINS RENOVATION Applicant: RUDIN WEST, LLC Location: 632 EAST HOPKINS AND 119 SOUTH SPRING STREET Zone District: C -1 Lot Size: 4,500 SQUARE FEET Lot Area: 4,500 SQUARE FEET (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: 3,891 sq. ft- Proposed: 4,325 sq. ft. Number of residential units: Existing.: 0 Proposed: 1 Number of bedrooms: Existing:0 Proposed: 2 or 3 Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): N/A DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: 4,747 Allowable: 11,250 Proposed: 8,995 Principal bldg. height: Existing: 26' Allowable: 36'- 40' Proposed: 36' (max) Access. bldg. height: Existing: N/A Allowable: N/A Proposed: N/A On -Site parking: Existing: 4 Required: 4 Proposed: 4 % Site coverage: Existing: 61% Required: N/A Proposed: 81% 16% on -site % Open Space: Existing: 18% Required: 10% Proposed: 25% total Front Setback: Existing: 11' Required: 0' Proposed: 11' Rear Setback: Existing: 21 S Required: 0' Proposed: 8" Combined F /R: Existing: 32.5' Required: 0' Proposed: 11`..8" Side Setback: Existing: 20" Required 0' Proposed: '0" Side Setback: Existing: 8" Required: 0' Proposed: g" Combined Sides: Existing: 78" Required: o' Proposed: Distance Between Existing N/A Required: N/A Proposed: N/A Buildings Existing non - conformities or encroachments: N/A Variations requested: N/A 4 4k.,/ Aug 16 10 12:28p RUDIN 631 53 793 70 p.1 • (EXHIBIT 7 I CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and Rodin West, LLC (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: I. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for 632 East Hopkins Renovation (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that the City of Aspen has an adopted fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agrcc that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thererftcr permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agrcc that it is impracticable for CITY staf to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of S $1, which is for 6 hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit. APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of 5245.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT funhcr agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been CITY OF ASPF,N APPLICANT f A B By: alltAtallt Chris Bendon Community Development Director Date: _ 0 at 0 Billing Address and Telephone Number: 345 Park Avenue, 33rd Floor, New York. New York 10154 -. Easy Peel® Labels I • MEM Bend along line to I ® I Use Avery® Template 5160® A Feed Paperer expose Pop-Up Edges 0 AvE TEXHIBIT 8 I 610 EAST HYMAN LLC 630 EAST HYMAN LLC AARON ROGER S & VIRGINIA A C/O CHARLES CUNNIFFE 532 E HOPKINS AVE 45 BIRCHALL DR 610 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 SCARSDALE, NY 10583 -0000 ASPEN, CO 81611 ALEXANDER JUDY ALLEN RONALD W REV TRUST ALPINE BANK ASPEN 1894 HWY 50 EAST #4 PMB 207 50 SW 137TH AV AT TN ERIC GARDEY CARSON CITY, NV 89701 BEAVERTON, OR 97006 PO BOX 10000 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 61602 ASHTON JONATHAN G ASPEN LEGACY LLC ASPEN MAIN STREET PROPERTIES LP PO BOX 26 17740 E HINSDALE AVE 14881 QUORUM DR #200 JAMES TOWN, CO 80455 FOXFIELD, CO 80016 DALLAS, TX 75254 BASS CAHN 601 LLC BAUM ROBERT E ASPEN RES TRST BAYLESS GRANT J PO BOX 4060 PO BOX 1518 6864 PEPPERTREE CT ASPEN, CO 81612 STOCKBRIDGE, MA 01262 LONGMONT, CO 80503 BENNETT ROBERT R & DEBORAH J BERLIN JAMES & MADELINE L BOOHER ANDREA LYNN 10900 HILLTOP RD 1795 BROOKWOOD DR 709 E MAIN STREET #303 PARKER, CO 80134 AKRON, OH 44313 -5070 ASPEN, CO 81611 BORCHERTS HOLDE H TRUSTEE BROUGH STEVE B & DEBORAH A BRYANT CAROLINA H 1555 WASHTENAW 599 TROUT LK DR PO BOX 5217 ANN ARBOR, MI 48104 SANGER, CA 93657 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 BULKELEY RICHARD C & JULIE J BULKELEY RICHARD C & JULIE J BURSTEN GABRIELLA 801 JOY ST PO BOX 450 PO BOX 2061 RED OAK, IA 51566 RED OAK, IA 51566 ASPEN, CO 81612 CALCOTT JOHN R CALDW ELL CHARLES & DEBRA CAMERON LAURA L FBO 1/4 INT 600 E MAIN ST #301 514 E BRYAN ST C/0 LOVES TRAVEL STOPS & CTRY ASPEN, CO 81611 SAVANAH, GA 31401 STORES CHOOKASZIAN KAREN M CIPOLLINO NICHOLAS COLORADO MTN NEWS MEDIA 1100 MICHIGAN 300 QUAIL RD PO BOX 1927 WILMETTE, IL 60091 MERRITT, NC 28556 -9641 CARSON CITY, NV 89702 CONCEPT 600 LLC COPPOCK RICHARD P CROSS JUDITH PO BOX 2914 PO BOX 44 PO BOX 3388 BASALT, CO 81621 DEXTER, MI 48130 ASPEN, CO 81612 ttlquettes faclles a paler I • Paella b la hachure aNn de I www.avery.com I Utilisez le gabarit AVERY 5160® % charrgement reveler le rebord Pop -Upm J 1 -80040 -AVERY 1 Easy Peal ®Labels • MOM Bend along line to 1 n AVERY ®5160® 1 Use Avery® Template 5160® Feed Paper expose Pop -Up Edge V I DORAN RALPH DRESNER MILTON H REV LVG TRST EDGE OF AJAX INC C/O ANDRE ULRYCH 2600 WOODWARD WAY 28777 NORTHWESTERN HWY ATLANTA, GA 30305 SOUTHFIELD, MI 48034 2018 E SILVER ST MARBLE, CO 81623 EDGETTE JAMES J & PATRICIA EDWARDS CHARLES N EISENSTAT ALBERT & CONSTANCE 19900 BEACH RD STE 801 189 BEVENUE ST 358 WALSH RD JUPITER ISLAND, FL 33469 WELLSLEY, MA 02482 ATHERTON, CA 94027 EMPHASYS SERVICE COMPANY FARRELL SCOTT W FICKE CLARK 1925 BRICKELL AVE BLDG D PO BOX 9656 15 W ARRELLAGA ST #3 PENTHOUSE 110 ASPEN, CO 81612 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101 MIAMI, FL 33129 FURNGULF LTD GARRITY PATRICK & PAULA GERSHMAN JOEL & ELAINE A COLO JOINT VENTURE 6126 CHES CT 120 N SPRING ST 616E HYMAN AVE ORLANDO, FL 32819 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GILKERSON LINDA REV TRUST 50% GLAUSER STEVEN JERRY &BARBARA GOODING SEAN A 80% & RICHARD L 1449 E 56TH ST 20 460 ST PAUL ST DENVER, CO 80206 C/O PARAGON RANCH INC CHICAGO, IL 60637 620 E HYMAN AVE #1 E ASPEN, CO 81611 GORGE MICHAEL 0 & WENDY S GREENBERG DEAN ARTN E S ASPEN PROPERTIES P 25300 FRANKLIN PARK DR PO BOX 129 PARTNERS LLC 10880 WILSHIRE BLVD #2222 FRANKLIN, MI 48025 NEWPORT, MN 55055 LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 GURHOLT CHARLES J & VERNE HESSELSCHWERDT BILL & TRISH HEXNER MICHAEL T TRUSTEE N5999 GURHOLT RD PO BOX 1266 JUSTIS KAREN L TRUSTEE 2555 UNION ST SCANDINAVIA, WI 54977 BASALT, CO 81621 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94123 -3832 HEYS MARIE L TRUSTEE HICKS GILBERT W & PATSY K HOLLAND AND HART 2495 ADARE 3674 WOODLAWN TERRACE PL ATTN: CONTROLLER PO BOX 8749 ANN ARBOR, MI 48104 HONOLULU, HI 96822 DENVER, CO 80201 HOLTZ ABEL & FANA HONEA KATHARINE M TE S ST VENTURE C/O 420 LINCOLN RD STE 220 PO BOX 288 C/O TED MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139 BASALT, CO 81621 PO BOX 13328 28 ASHLAND, OR 97520 HORSEFINS LLC HUNTER SQUARE LLC 90% HURST FERN K C/O PITKIN COUNTY TITLE PO BOX 2 1060 5TH AVE 601 E HOPKINS AVE SONOMA, CA 95476 NEW YORK CITY, NY 10128 ASPEN, CO 81611 ttiquettes bones a peler � Repliez a la hachure afm de I www.avery.colit UtIlisez le gabarit AVERY 5160® 1 ch reveler le rebord Pop -Up'M j 1- 800-GO -AVERY j Easy Peel® Labels i ♦ Bend along line to AVE ®5160® i Use Avery® Template 5160® I Feed Paper expose Pop-Up Edge'" j • JENKINS ASIA JURINE LLC 10% KESSLER SEPP H & ANNA TRUST 734 E HOPKINS AVE PO BOX 2 275 CASTLE CREEK RD #204 ASPEN, CO 81611 SONOMA, CA 95476 ASPEN, CO 81611 LAMB DON REV TRUST 50% LARSON KARL G & MARIA M LAZY J RANCH LLC PO BOX 8207 C/O W R WALTON 1449 E 56TH ST PO BOX 665 CHICAGO, IL 60637 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 LEE GREGORY K & DEBBIE L LEITCH B BRYAN III LINK LYNN B 9777 W CORNELL PL 2606 STATE ST PO BOX 7942 LAKEWOOD, CO 80227 DALLAS, TX 75204 ASPEN, CO 81612 LOVE FRANK C IV FBO 1/4 INT LUNDGREN WIEDINMYER DONNA TRST MAESTRANZI BART C/O LOVES TRAVEL STOPS & CTRY PO BOX 6700 1736 PARK RIDGE POINTE STORES SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 PARK RIDGE, IL 60068 MAHONEY SHARON A MALLARD ENTERPRISES LP MANN KATHLEEN A 99% PO BOX 11694 317 SIDNEY BAKER S #400 PO BOX 2057 ASPEN, CO 81612 KERRVILLE, TX 78028 ASPEN, CO 81612 MANNING FREDERICK J & GAIL P MARASCO BERNARD R 11.0446 °h MARASCO EMILY A AK MEYER EMILYA 233 S WACKER DR #700 320 DAKOTA DR 11.0446% 21701 21701 FLAMENCO CHICAGO, IL 60606 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 MISSION VIEJO, CA 92692 • MARASCO FAMILY TRUST 33.4331% MARCHETTI FAMILY LLC MARTELL BARBARA 653 26 1/2 RD 1526 FOREST DR 702 E HYMAN AVE GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 GLENVIEW, IL 60025 ASPEN, CO 81611 MCCUTCHIN GENE P MCDONALD FRANCIS B MCGAFFEY FAMILY & CO NO C LLC 14833 MIDWAY RD PO BOX 4671 12852 NW SHORELAND DR ADDISON, TX 75001 ASPEN, CO 81612 MEQUON, WI 53097 MCGUIRE JOSEPH B MEYER JENNIFER LOVE FBO 1/4 INT MHT LLC PO BOX 120 C/O LOVES TRAVEL STOPS & CTRY PO BOX 25318 ASPEN, CO 81612 -0120 STORES ST CROIX VIRGIN ISLANDS, 00824 MONTANARO JOHN & SUSAN FAMILY MYSKO BOHDAN D ORIGINAL CURVE CONDO #310 LLC TRUST 615 E HOPKINS C/O LAURA PIETRZAK PO BOX 457 ASPEN, CO 81611 1796 E SOPRIS CREEK RD MALIBU, CA 90265 BASALT, CO 81621 Etiquettes faciles A peler I • Repliez h la hachure afln de 1 www.averycom I Sens Utillsez le gabarit AVERY 5160® j chargement r6veler le rebord Pop -Up'" 1 1- 800-GO -AVERY 1 Easy Peel® Labels 1 • Bend along line to 1 o AVERY® 5160 ; Use Avery® Template 5160® I Feed Paper iiivolmm expose Pop-Up EdgeTM 1 A P & L PROPERTIES LLC PATTERSON VICKI PINKOS DANNY & ANNA 101 SOUTH 3RD ST #360 PO BOX 8523 PO BOX 6581 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501 ASPEN, CO 81612 SNOW MASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 PITKIN COUNTY RAINER EWALD REDSTONE SUSAN B 530 E MAIN ST #302 409 E COOPER AVE #4 120 E 90TH ST #118 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10128 REINGOLD ROBERT B INC RIVER PARKIN ASPEN CONDO ASSOC RKJR PROPERTIES LTD 1187 COAST VILLAGE RD STE 1 -116 730 E DURANT 5934 ROYAL LN #250 MONTECITO, CA 93108 ASPEN, CO 81611 DALLAS, TX 75230 ROSENFIELD LYNNE CARYN ROSS NEIL ROTHBERG MARJORIE 709 E MAIN ST #203 100 S SPRING ST 2006 N BANCROFT PKWY ASPEN, CO 81611 -2059 ASPEN, CO 81611 WILMINGTON, DE 19806 ROTHBLUM PHILIP & MARCIA RUST TRUST SALET PHILIPS REV TRUST 40 EAST 80 ST #26A 9401 WILSHIRE BLVD #760 PO BOX 4897 NEW YORK, NY 10075 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 ASPEN, CO 81612 SCI ASPEN LLC SEGREST DAVID H SEID MEL 3200 OHIO WY 2606 STATE ST 1104 DALE AVE DENVER, CO 80209 DALLAS, TX 75204 ASPEN, CO 81611 SELBY TROY E & MAY EYNON SELDIN CHRISTOPHER G SHERMAN CAPITAL COMPANY PO BOX 8234 22 MOUNTAIN CT 5840 E JOSHUA TREE LN ASPEN, CO 81612 BASALT, CO 81621 PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253 SHOAF JEFFREY S SMITH JAMES F & N LINDSAY SPRING STREET LLC PO BOX 3123 600 E MAIN ST #302 C/O BAXTER PO BOX 1112 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 STARMER MARY JOSEPHINE 11.0446% STEWART TITLE CO STEWART TITLE OF CALIFORNIA 12738 W 84TH DR C/O JENNIFER SCHUMACHER PO BOX 2000 ARVADA, CO 80001 PO BOX 936 VAIL, CO 81658 TAYLORSVILLE, NC 28681 STRIBLING DOROTHY TAYLOR FAMILY INVESTMENTS CO TEL 1999 CST EXEMPT TRST FBO WACHOVIA BANK NA FL0135 602 E HYMAN #201 C/0 BURKE AND NICKEL PO BOX 40062 ASPEN, CO 81611 3336E 32ND ST #217 JACKSONVILLE, FL 32203 -0062 TULSA, OK 74135 Etiquettes faciles a peter 1 • Rep0 w, ez a la hachure a0n de 1 wwavesycom 1 ens d Utilisez le gabarit AVERY 5160® j charrgement reveler le rebord Pop -Up^^ i 1- 800-GO -AVERY i Easy Peel® Labels 1 ♦ Bend along line to 1 CI AVERY® 5160® l Use Avery® Template 5160® J Feed Paper �� expose Pop Edge"' 1 TRAVIS SHELBY J TROUSDALE JEAN VICK VAN WALRAVEN EDWARD C 1% 208 E 28TH ST - APT 2G 611 E HOPKINS AVE PO BOX 4913 NEW YORK, NY 10016 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 VANWOERKOM LAURIE VRANA MALEKA WACHMEISTER EDWARD C A REV TRUST PO BOX 341 PO BOX 4535 6223 WHITEHALL FARM IN WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 ASPEN, CO 81612 WARRENTON, VA 20187 WAGAR RICH WASKOW SUSAN A WEEKS ROBIN C/O RICH WAGAR ASSOC LLC PO BOX 4975 526 RIDGEWAY DR 100 S SPRING ST #3 ASPEN, CO 81612 METAIRIE, LA 70001 ASPEN, CO 81611 WHITEHILL STEPHEN LANE WHITNEY FAMILY TRUST WILSON STALE S 5320 W HARBOR VILLAGE DR #201 6448 E CRABTREE PL PO BOX 5217 VERO BEACH, FL 32967 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 WOODS FRANK J III 205 S MILL ST #301A ASPEN, CO 81611 Etiquettes fadles # paler I Repliez h la hachure atin de; www,avery com I Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5160® 1 chargement reveler le rebord Pop -Up" J 1.B00-G0 -AVERY 1 'EXHIBIT 9 I • 393676 06/13/96 03.48P P6 1 OF 6 SEC DOC UGC SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CLERK 6 RECORDER 31.22 LICENSE R R MENT Jude THE LICENSE AGREEMENT is made this 47". day oEMay, 1996, bctweo THE HOncros STREET VENTURE, a Colorado joint venture (hereinafter referred to a5 The Hopkins Street Ventura") whose addressis do Theodore Minot, P.O. Box 5328, Ashland, Oregon, 97520, and PHILIP ROTHBLIUM and MARCIA ROTHBLOM (hereinafter referred to as 'Rothblum"), whose address is 624 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 11611. WITNES SETH: WHEREAS, TlwBopkim Street Ventre, is the owner of real property located in the City of Aspen, P'eldn County, Colorado, which real property is more partialuly described as Lot S and the Easteify % ofLot R. Bfaelr 98, Catyasd Towauite of Aspen, County ofPitkiu, State of Colorado, • which property Is hereinafter referred to as "The Hopkins Street Venture Property'; and WHEREAS, Rothblurn is the owner of real property located in the Cty of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, which real property is more pmtatty desenhed as LotQ and the West One-Half (yo,) of Lot R, Block 98, City and Termite of Aspen, County ofNilidn, State of Colorado, which property is hereinafter referred to as the "Rnthbhan Property"; and WHEREAS, Rotbblom has caused a building to be erected on the Hotbbho Property (the 'RatMkun Building"), the facade of which extends over the lot line separating The Hopkins Street Venture Property and the Rotblum Property; and - WIDItEAS, the Rodnbhmn Building physically abuts the building located on The Hopkins Street Venture Property, and WHEREAS, the.partlet hereto agree that it is tbcir intent to seal the space between their respective buildings; and WHEREAS, The Hopkins Sweet Venture and Rothhkum are desirous of entering into an agreente rat for the use of a portion of The Hopkins Street Ventura Property for a license for the facade of the Rtebblum Building and for maintenance of the portico and roof of the Rothblum Building. NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the rarer and conditions hereinafter provided, the parties agree as follows 1. 9RANT OF LICENSE. As it is the putts hereto intent to seal the space between Use ROdbbhmBuilding and the building onTh0Ho0OOS Street VerdueProperty, The Hopkins Street Venture haeby gantsto Rodtbms, their beirs, successors and assigns, an exclusive &cense over the westerly approximately twelve (12) inches of The Hopkins Street Venture Property on the East H of Lot R, and running the lengtb oftbe line dividing the East and West % of Lot R, as shown on 393676 06113/96 03:43P PB 2 OF E. Exhibit A atuehed hereto and incorporated herein by this refaenee, which shall herdonne be referred to as the "Rotbblum Building License. The Rothblme Building License shall be used exclusively by Rothbhum, their successors and assigns, for the concoction, maimmence, repair, inspection end replacement of the brick facade of the Rothblum Bugling to the edge of tbe feasting bu8dag onTheHopkina Street Vonore Properly. All ousts of design, constructiW maintenance and boron ofthe Rdhblum Building the Rothblum facade and the Rothbhaa Budding license, shall be home by the owns of the Rotbblum Property. 2 glIBORD1HATTAN. Ills license is and shell be subject to and subordinate to all present end future mortgages, deeds of trust or other encumbrances affecting The Hopidus Sired Venture Property_ 3. 17i,RMINATIUN. This license may be terminated by either Party ninety (9C) days' written node to the other party. In the event ofsurlsteSnation Rotbblmn shoe. at their expense, remove that portion of the facade of the Rothbhan Building which encroaches upon The Hopkins • Street Venture Property within said ninety (90) day period, and shall restore The Hopkins Street Venture Property to its original condnion. 4, CONSTRiUCT/OT(. The side of strict consducton does not apply to this liaasa This license an be given a reasonable: construction so the intention ofthe parties to corder a usable right of cejoymml is carried out. All uses of the license necessity or appurtenant to the full use, enjoyment, developauat and operation of du: RntffilamPropety are expressly authorized hereby including, without Solomon, itsoseby the owners, their successors and assigns, and their respective enployas, agents, 'mites and Gcaaeez 5. sown. Al notion, demands and mmmuniations required hereunder draft be saved or given to the respective parties at their respective addresses set forth below. Any notice, demand or communication shall be given by pasonel service or certified real, return receipt requested with first daze postage prepaid thereon and unless sooner received shall be deemed to have been received three (3) days after the date of certification. The addresses of the parties hereto are as follows: TheMostdns Street Venture clo Theodore Molars PO Box 1328 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Philip acrd Marcia Rothbtum 624 Bad Hopldns Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 • -a- 393676 06/13/95 03:48P PG 3 OF 6 6. ATTORNEYS' EMS. Should any party hereunder be required to resat to legal or equkabaeprocess fior theufacaoai dally ofthe provisions ofbis Agreement, the p M+g pa' shall be emitlod to collect erg othcreasonableattorney& fees, expense and costa. 7n the event any party shag fail to perform under any pmvisien hereunder which that party is required to per form maim any provision of this Agreement with ressomNe&patch after pia in writing Rom any other party, the non- defaulting party may, but without any obligation on its part to do so, performs its obligation et the sole expense of the defaulting party, who shag reimburse the eon - defaulting party therefor npon demand 7. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in counter -parts and, as executed, shall mustmae one agreement binding on all of the parks hereto notwithstanding that all said panics arc not signatory to the original or same camtapart, g. BINDINGAGREEMENT. This Agreement shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of the tick to the Rothblum Property and The Hopkins Street Venture Property. IN WUNtSS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto sin their hands end seeds the day and year fast above written. THE HOPKINS STREET VENTURE, *Colorado venture Theodore Mulaz ... %•Rothbinn By: ea., aiva✓ 1Z Esther DcVos - Marcia Rothb&rm STATE OF Co 4kAOZ+ ) ) ss. COUNTY OF Frjk,.l instrument x e foregoing instrument was bmwledged before me this ;nil day of M May, 1996 by as a venturer in The Hopkins Strea Venture, a Colorado joint venture. my baud and official seal. ,..:on expires: - 0 ells! to • .� . • • Notary Public (Notary Acknowledgment to Follow on Next Page) • • _3_ -� S T A T E O F CoL .1r h 0 ) s COUNTY OF g, j'k • ) 7wnr, imuument was acknowledged before :tae th la_#'h day of libel-, 1996 by ro • • • a venturer in ThcHopkins Street Venture, a Colowdo job venture. o my bead end officiel seal. scion expires _ P3 ss Notary Public STATE OF NEW YORK jets. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) 4, Tice fg M a anMnr was acknowledged before me tins G day of May, 1996 by 7?68'ip RotbdumuO and Hestia RotbNum. WITNESS my band and official sad. My commission expires. +' •4 i7 '� yes ��—$ Notary Public ase.dteuam ya.Poblic.Suft at New yet yf eau -sbGet I S,MOh h,mY .� C 393676 06/13/96 03:48P PG 4 OF 6 —4— ___ _ . ; i. g r / III ! § ! 44 ! \ , ; ; 1 (K ■ • ; k ; \ ! \ l ¥, ; \ )q °� - ' § § q �b$ ; r , # § / § ; O 1 \ ƒ «% % i • k 1 )it\ mge / ih .e. \ (( • ,...0, c, ■ � / \f ! & \ ; iJ Z 1 ' \ /! /~ } b .r I r / AX71/11T d page 1 of 2 ' PC1 Bgzkc -% , ... `.'fcrcr t •OL.. 1I !I'i e � . I ma- - 1 i K r I XTth"O i p 1 ,,,,, 'To F4091% 1 n ■■u■■ mf I i , i C i 1 1 - x � . VI rA .E A,1 !!"• . ; -M — =1t ® INS. in :as ifl 393676 06/13/96 03:48P PO 5 OF 6 Sil t6 140 �ckCet y..94:7. • iffi ,� .Nba,..4747,,, r :in9+e,,. + - 1�3 tltKIN WARM DE3.L %tARIYCifNV pggol.odbDM rqe a +e f t • • if Page 2 of 2 OO .XTB�G p6lGlc—' �_�T,r �( @Xts'C' Sw� I i . 1Ii it I p 1 o VA -ELK- �Eic�rl�g «, ht nor 1 I ii rrrr s 1-=---.=:1--,-2- ! =� I i riot raft ( � rror C7 3 s i H a a � . 1-- r: _ 1 ear 1 5a, 9 o i rar _ = - - -1 rarr , irar X ® .I --e 7 _ - ± : CXIS,:RG LSM° 6 tXISTIIIS MEDICAL 6161.01116 . — _ — \ 1 1 • 11t $c1J Ossil4 r CC 0 / t f(V-0 h X10 Scida= i' � � do WNat1nR4iit.ro ® S� — , � ', `{1'{� tlp ; WA"" "II" PAttnaTh y i6tan a „o qse Jllt El P 393676 06/13/96 03:48P P8 6 OF 6 • APPENDIX B — SITE & DESIGN DOCUMENTS Exhibit 1. Vicinity Map Exhibit 2. Improvement Survey Exhibit 3. Existing Site Plan Exhibit 4. Existing Floor Plans Exhibit 5. Existing FAR Plans Exhibit 6. Existing Net Leasable Area Plans Exhibit 7. Proposed Site Plan Exhibit 8. Proposed Floor Plans Exhibit 9. Proposed FAR Plans Exhibit 10. Proposed Net Leasable/Livable Area Plans B 6 EXHIBIT 1 k • < 4 n 4 "•^+s.. 1 Oro �.. At J ¢ t ■ , '^ "' 4 . € 4 err Y -1, 4piprion v4 A ,_ i co Q jy. ot ` � ' . i.,R 4 4H V,E't t r mom � � ,..r i R* w PRA J I ( - k.. Sri ax nuRgNTq s�._ _ oy� I s GI •ie { � � r i is r . y, t " 5 Ll • f Y '` e 'b ° " ".' Hopkins Ave 632 East " Vic init y - Map ;ae3tbio +€ esrc€s dae.nttuTs, ..- (not tO scale) r • ® u lp • / o m / K Z M 4 A :" 1111 1:3 ° P s o °s : " �y r X a ....1 - 11 Y m m Mil WON [ T $ 632 E HOPKINS EI`, =: g° fV II I Iii Imp Et: f x �. z 5 S fi32 E. HOPKINS ASPEN, CO �CEg i MI In ._ 4. i 0 )47/M3019 ONO. Si r \\41- 7 ,„ yz.W n A4'90 M.1660.SLN 3NI1 Ala3dOU tn p�tl3� 1 "° a- 1 1 1 ,x 1 1 Im 1 j 1 . it _ 0 1 t e - 1 - 1 0 u 1 ' xi ZI in P o 9 . o m L NI D , $1 9N\a 90, 0 0,0 1. 0 g 1 I I 1 ■ 1 0 1 I m - -- „„ , I II , .m 4x Z L -- -.- see 0) m m l� //// <e. w. ,, 13 Z 1 ,nam is m10°' No CONIC ......'1 Sal M1VSLS ]nI IAidj Ma - -- O m al E3 a Ca) m 1 m s 632 E. HOPKINS = ° oiia - e ic z _ 632E. HOPKINS AVE. 1 ASPEN, CO , 1 1 c' i ° • 0 r..-- - - - - 711 0 4 Q D I T _ __.1_____. _._._.. _ -j . o 1 i Z p In �.- p i t p -. 0 m § m ®I l ° r m v x r I I i Z I o m 1 Z I 0 X 1 m m m 1 T 1111111® I 1 p .. o X K N 1 m A z I ° z I I I F. I I 1 ! - .r. • I , I 1 . I 1 I; • I 1 1 __ 1 L) I ' _ ;l!1 632 E. HOPKINS t Fii1 4 $ OII ° &s - I ° � !Ma E. HO AVE. 1 ASPEN, CO � I �'F e tl s ^ j . n. 6 S "' - 11 i q jf aeE'_ m ]dill 4.. m m m m a _ G. a y b Er A u O Y g ° > 3 R ? O L. S oT 5. o ,, F • d Y E 1 ia n A a O P. e : O D a0 5 Z r § m r r M A Pa x y M a in _ x x Z CD Z 0 0 v K 4 ■I 0 D r T 11 x 1 [ _ s c 632 E HOPKINS f 1 l '` f f'l# !Ai' ° t, - in m z ! F ej31 � gg �p g _• i 111 " , fi ! 632 E. HOPKINS AVE. I ASPEN, CO b : re; ; s& m iiuOP 7 : ! !! /( / ! _u%.,7, • \ / \1i's \ ; ;; §[ e : { . ' \ > > r/ ////./ N � \ 2 i :�/ y 2 ` / \ . i /> y / z » _» f G 2 A w?,, : z : » : �� %© d r- i / d > \ y �� « 2 § (/) / /// > @ x M \i » o § 2 « ' K .... § 2 . / cc ( 1:6 : e S mR ¢ \ y \ , e/ /9 • \° 632 E. H OP K |N S \ . O � � �§ k $ crime [ / \§j _. %2 . ,� 1 ,( ¥ , ` \ w EAST HOPKINS AVENUE o r N a z 'n S s� 3�Op^� �. — ,,,,430;‘,00> ,� 0 $ IONEwnu y ae3. �4 •air t �� 1 1 1 ft MIN Ir 1 r I 1 m II $; 1 r D z 1 a - m v z O - m w 1 (r) C XI _ I I C I y "� 7 1 — m I r GJ w a e, cn G. RI m F ai m a � ' , i x 4. T " i / y \ �rm 11111111 e ,, I III I � , , Ail [i 0 m 0 0 . 1 Ir1 0 1 M r z Z m 1 0 � I, p > 0, I , � 1 IE f, - -L _ A-0' i - -- .1.1.11/ { ' L —__ —__ s is$vn'e as oo __�__ h i "' ALLEY BLOCK 98 @ \ r cu , It , 1 3o3 y m ` 632 E. HOPKINS l bi l ik 9° Td -- _1 € it l lf il l l s g i O — 632 E. HOPKINS I ASPEN, CO d , 1 c x p „ i $i: r m -e� m I 17 r 0 P Q ° cl m ,, m r i e __ � , � t at 3, 'ic / cr nP` }rI', At... o 40 '+� Y 4°'' "1 R "i+(i'' i q l ° 1 ° ° o b 0 � ��� . � N q 4 q Q 4 i D O ° � i ����. +�I N 4Z Qi 1 — 1 � , m e r e O m o =-i o 8 EII r r + S m `I . L r f ID ° I I _ 11 4 0 ry . I " 11 IL ' 1 I Y F 1 4 " 1 Ti 1 • �I I�I�I _II�I�II� I I' , ! 111 111 1 1 _ � I II_ k i I V III 0 , p , I L • _ ALLEY BLOCK 90 . �� ` ^ ^' ^' "' b — 6 3 b b b b 1 II b n � 1 i W -i ae S iii ° .2v! {Ipy OD m � s gc 632 E. HOPKIN B i` [ ' i. 11 #` e tpr si z 632E HOPKINS I ASPEN CO N SRr h . ,� � ee gi o $o s'i s ^. " " „ . a5 m ¢$gia .. o ,^ e ! / .\ \N N \ \ ® a m L Ei 1 ai IA r C r m � I ; O O I r O n L_ z z m v O T. , 4 D C C O -,, I z Z D x, T 3� n o N I D m D m D m m z F - I 8 e j, —; - C o o m m m � o : {ff; m z z H -I 9 n 4 , 1 tut I F — : : t L i D D e 11 , ou - , F J if t a v e a N u t w 1 C 1 0 O z dirk7 1 r r ce% 4 . ti I r I Z Z m 0 0 A �� rli m Z Z m c c 2 iI - z z 0 A z z m o O O O 0 ij♦ D 0 =i �� � z z 0 o Z Z o m D m R R n v L l m m m > p s 93 A SS A ik \ _ _4 •61 , 4 , 416 , m w m Altlealtelli ^ m � I 1 v Z I X 4!! D D xi 01/4. 1 . J :*.0 Ilii‘ / I 1 X ai , / m t cg 632 E. HOPKINS ' ( a;,; i1 o g -= e 'Nap rS } s' s g ggg ~ " S e - ta 6326 HOPKINS ASPEN, CO !' °1 h; 1 ¢ C " "3 = 9. Hii,111 <, 0 E A r _....... ,T, e r �l ., —, , , ,__ ,,_, rn D m t' i x � m N � il z - 9 L V L- V V a a a' v r m yg °° 8 8 d o o a ; I -1 0 •'° i Y n u n n n i n A _ r r Z C C C N 41 N 4_7 ., Q ` R Z n .m. ryry ry z c c Z ^ } ':c 3. 2 m 4 i l m m% Z r D P - 0 2� m 2 41 - c - -- m 3 _ 2 3 c £ slit": s c = n r� ∎J n v � m m = i m ° ' m — d m £r3P T I1 m o o m a o b 0 — rp r. I O O r ppp aryg dm O . n a � . � � r 0 r..1 . m m I � k 1 i RP. j.\ 4 s I A . c' Z I I ` / ` sr: 07 D **44 8 : m \ D r—H W r m N _1 � 1 :ntil iii Pli ijin iti S� m `_ _ ° F '' 632 E. HOPKINS y[ ItIll ( i j � y aK .pe _ CI 0 g m e i 632 E. HOPKINS CO ; I ° i i 1 i i °Zi5i - MI s m J #11 Exi4t(3(T &.a 632 EAST HOPKINS BUILDING RENOVATION Final Commercial Design and Parking Review Application RECEIVED (1CT 2 7 2010 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT D A V I D J O H N S T O N A R C H I T E C T S cc Application for Final Commercial Design and Parking Review for the Property at 632 East Hopkins Avenue and 119 Spring Street in Aspen, Colorado Submitted by: Rudin West LLC. 345 Park Avenue - 33rd Floor New York, NY 10154 (212) 407 -2511 10.26.2010 Prepared by: David Johnston Architects, pc 418 East Cooper Avenue, #206 Aspen, CO 81611 970.925.3444 ge TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. PROPERTY BACKGROUND 2 III. RENOVATION PROPOSAL 3 A. Expansion and Layout 4 1. Site Plan and Public Amenity Area 4 2. Main Level 8 3. Second Level 9 4. Third Level 9 5. Roof Plan 10 6. Parking and Utility/Trash/Recycling Services Area 11 B. Exterior Design and Massing 11 IV. FINAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 15 A. Conceptual Commercial Design Conditions 15 B. Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives 17 1. Design Objectives 17 2. Building Design & Articulation 19 3. Architectural Materials 23 4. Paving & Landscaping 24 V. OFF - STREET PARKING REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 25 A. Characteristics of Off - Street Parking Spaces (Section 26.515.020) 25 B. Number of Off - Street Parking Spaces (Section 26.515.030) 25 C. Special Review for Parking (Section 26.515.040) 26 D. Cash -In -Lieu for Mobility Enhancements (Section 26.515.050) 27 Appendix A — APPLICATION DOCUMENTS A Appendix B — SITE & DESIGN DOCUMENTS B I. INTRODUCTION The intention of this application is to request approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission for Final Commercial Design and Parking Review for the proposed renovation to the property at 632 East Hopkins Avenue and 119 South Spring Street (the "Property ") in the City of Aspen, Colorado (Legal Description - CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Block: 98 Lot: S AND EAST HALF OF LOT R). This application is submitted pursuant to Title 26, Land Use Regulations, of the Aspen Municipal Code (the "Code ") by the ownership of the property, Rudin West, LLC (the "Applicant "). In accordance with the Code and as outlined in the initial Pre - Application Conference Summary (Exhibit 1, Appendix A), this application is the last of a three -part submittal for development approval and has been proceeded by Conceptual Design Review and is being reviewed simultaneously with GMQS and Affordable Housing. The Land Use Application Form, the Dimensional Requirement Form, and a List of Adjacent Property Owners are included in Appendix A as Exhibits 2 -4 respectively. All other application material required by Section 26.304.030 is provided as part of the application for "GMQS and Affordable Housing Review ". This application packet is organized in sections to provide the reviewer(s) with easy reference to the requested material included in the following sections: • Background on the existing property and any previous approvals as well as the documentation of any correspondence that has occurred between the Applicant and the Community Development Department and other City Departments; • Renovation Proposal outlining the scope of the improvements and corresponding architectural drawings and representations of the proposed changes that are associated with the final design of this project; • Regulatory Requirements identifying how the application is compliant with the requirements and guidelines of the Code and the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines (the "Design Guidelines ") specific to the Planning and Zoning Commission's review of this project. All related application, site and design documents for the Commission's review of this Final Design are included in appendices at the back of this application packet. 1 11. PROPERTY BACKGROUND Located at the northwest corner of the intersection of East Hopkins Avenue and South Spring Street, the Property is situated on the eastern edge of both the City of Aspen's C -1 zone district and the Commercial Character Area of the City's Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objective and Guidelines (Exhibit 1, Appendix B). The existing two -story building (the "Building ") on the Property was initially constructed in 1976 and only minor interior renovations have occurred since this date, none of which required additional Land Use approvals or Certificates of Occupancy to be issued (Exhibit 2, Appendix B). The lot area of the Property is 4,500 sq. ft. The existing minimum front setback from the property line along Hopkins Avenue is approximately eleven (11) feet, while the minimum setbacks from the property lines along Spring Street and the rear alley are approximately twenty (20) inches and twenty -one (21) feet respectively (Exhibits 3 and 4, Appendix B). The setback from the property line to the west is approximately eight (8) inches, the space of which was enclosed by the neighboring property owner pursuant to a license agreement made June 6 1996 (Exhibit 5, Appendix A). The maximum exterior height of the building is approximately twenty -six (26) feet. The use of the building has been exclusively office, located on both levels of the two -story above -grade structure. Pursuant to Section 26.104.100 of the Code, the gross floor areas of the main and second levels are 2,409 sq. ft. and 2,407 sq. ft. respectively, or 4,816 sq. ft. total. The property contains four (4) parking stalls perpendicular to and accessed from the rear alley. To the west of the parking stalls is an existing concrete area designated for trash, utility and recycling services and is approximately twenty -two (22) feet by six (6) feet (132 sq. ft.), running lengthwise north to south (Exhibits 3 and 4, Appendix B). An application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review was reviewed and approved in a 4 -0 unanimous vote during a public hearing before Planning and Zoning Commission on July 20, 2010. The resolution for said approval is provided as Exhibit 6, Appendix A, and the conditions therein addressed in this application. 2 III. RENOVATION PROPOSAL The intention of the proposed renovation at 632 East Hopkins 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. In addition to more commercial area, one (1) new free - market residential unit is proposed. The affordable housing unit proposed as part of the Conceptual Commercial Design review has been relocated off -site in the form of a buy -down unit as identified in the accompanying GMQS and Affordable Housing application and recommended by the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority ( "APCHA ") board. With the purpose of utilizing the existing structure to the greatest extent possible and minimize new material use and additional infrastructure, the project is being proposed as a renovation rather than a complete razing of the existing building. The Applicant is committed to creating a sustainable project both in terms of social /cultural factors as well as environmental considerations, and is therefore proposing to attain an undetermined level of LEED certification for the completed renovation. Further, the Applicant is sensitive to the impacts that a fully excavated and newly built site has on surrounding property owners and the public in general. As a result, a primary focus is to reduce the associated impacts to the greatest degree possible, while seeing through an exceptional project that enhances the neighborhood, strengthens an important corner of the downtown commercial area and improves the overall public experience. As a follow -up to the initial public outreach effort, a final outreach has been undertaken to discuss changes made to the design with the surrounding property owners that voiced concerns with the proposed design at the conceptual level (Exhibit 7, Appendix A). The final layout and vertical design is guided by the property's location in the C -1 zone district as well as the standards associated with the City of Aspen's Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. The C -1 zone district is intended to provide a mix of commercial /office and residential uses. The surrounding properties are a variety of single -use and multi -use commercial /office and residential 3 buildings. As the property is located on the fringe of the current "downtown core ", the expected immediate use of the non - residential floor area is office. However, as the "core" is and will continue to expand, the main level may accommodate future commercial demand. In the C -1 zone district, gross square footage for free - market residential uses is restricted to a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.5:1.0, or 2,250 square feet for this property. Commercial square footage is restricted to an FAR of 1.5:1.0, or 6,750 sq. ft. for this property. The overall maximum square footage allowed for a mixed -use building in the C -1 zone district is restricted to an FAR of 2.5:1.0, or 11,250 sq. ft. for this property. There are no setback requirements for properties of this use in the C -1 zone district and the maximum height allowed is twenty -eight (28) feet for two -story elements and thirty - six (36) feet for three -story elements, which may be increased to forty (40) feet through commercial design review. A. Expansion and Layout The following subsections describe the final design of the proposed renovation and identify changes that have been implemented since the Conceptual Commercial Design review and approval. The descriptions in each subsection correspond to architectural drawings in Appendix B that are intended to serve as layout, programming and massing studies in order to convey the final design in context with the surrounding neighborhood and site conditions. As represented in the accompanying GMQS application, all FAR and Net Leasable Area restrictions have been met for each of the different uses with regard to the proposed layout and design. At a final level of design it has been determined that the total FAR is approximately 8,995 square feet, well below the maximum allowable area of 11,250 square feet. 1. Site Plan and Public Amenity Area The Site Plan and Public Amenity /Landscape Plan reflect the proposed expansion of the building and indicate the resulting enhanced public amenity space design and streetscape planting plan (Exhibits 7 -10, Appendix B). The new design responds to the conditions provided within the Conceptual Commercial Design approval, while also addressing concerns raised by 4 1 neighboring property owners. In the final design, the combined amount of proposed public amenity space (both on and off -site as allowed for in Section 26.575.030.C.2 of the Code) has been increased to 2,031 square feet or forty - five (45) percent of the parcel's 4,500 square feet (Exhibit 11, Appendix B), an increase of 907 square feet or twenty (20) percent above the amount proposed and approved at Conceptual Commercial Design Review. To the south of the building along Hopkins Avenue, the final design proposes the extension of the existing curbside planting strip to the west of the property to a termination point at the corner of Hopkins Avenue and Spring Street. Characteristics such as tree species, dimensions, spacing, etc. will match those of the existing planting strip to the west and verified through consultation with the City's Parks, Tails and Open Space department and Engineering department. On the building -side of the detached sidewalk, the existing low wall at the edge of the courtyard will be reconstructed to achieve a "zippered" public seating system (Exhibits 8 and 9, Appendix B). This system will provide informal bench seating along the sidewalk that will altemate with seating within the courtyard in an effort to create a more porous relationship between the users of the courtyard and the users at the sidewalk's edge. Between the low wall/bench seating and the sidewalk, the existing lawn strip on the property and a portion of the right -of -way will be improved to include a mix of ground cover and limestone pavers. This zone is intended to further blur the lines between the public and private realms. As opposed to a lawn strip or manicured landscape area that discourage activity, the usability and function of this zone as a walkable surface adjacent to the sidewalk will serve as an invitation for passersby to penetrate into the property and engage the public spaces within. The existing courtyard is to remain in the same general location and approximately sixteen (16) inches below the level of the sidewalk. As a renovation project and the need to use of the existing main level floor at its current elevation, it is not feasible to eliminate the existing grade change 5 r between the Hopkins Avenue sidewalk and the courtyard. As a result, the final design of the courtyard area sets out to achieve greater transparency between the public and private realm in an effort to make the courtyard more inviting to the public. The courtyard is now proposed to be accessed at three points, ultimately reducing the perceived division created by the elevation change. To the west, a stairway will remain in the same location as proposed at the conceptual level; however the dimension of the stairway will be increased and detailing of the area associated with the stair will more effectively announce the entry point. At primary corner of the property and the eastern portion of the courtyard, a new corner "plaza" stair system is proposed, further opening up the courtyard to passersby. The emphasis placed on this stair system —as a result of its prominent location, dimensional width and ingress /egress function--will physically, visually and psychologically connect the sidewalk above with the courtyard below. In addition to the new plaza stair, the courtyard is now proposed to wrap the primary corner of the building and extend down the eastern facade to the north, reaching an elevation that is equal to that of the Spring Street sidewalk. The expanded courtyard not only creates additional programmable amenity space, but also provides an ADA access point with effectively no grade change between the sidewalk and the courtyard as opposed to the corner ramp- system proposed at Conceptual Commercial Design review. This improvement will further reduce any perceived separation of public and private space between the courtyard and the adjacent sidewalks. The courtyard is proposed to be hardscaped with a pervious paver system and programmed with general pedestrian amenities such as built -in benches, sitting areas and planters (Exhibit 10, Appendix B). These elements will be designed to provide the courtyard with optimum versatility, allowing for a range of uses regardless of the time of day, the season or the use -type of the tenant occupying the associated commercial space. To provide a subtle visual screen of the public courtyard from the residential district across Spring Street, a sculptural piece of public art or a system of art panels is proposed 6 along the sidewalk to the north of the corner plaza stairway. If a sculpture is determined to be the most appropriate installation, the piece would be commissioned by a local artist. If a system of art panels is the desired option, the system would function to display local artist installations on a rotating basis and be potentially administered through a local arts -based institution such as Anderson Ranch. The details of each of the two options for the art installation have not been fully defined and upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the concepts will be further explored. In addition to minimizing the impact of the enhanced pubic activity on residences across the street, the art installation will enhance the pedestrian experience along the Spring Street sidewalk and offer further intrigue and invitation into the public amenity spaces. The existing open space to the east of the building along Spring Street will be altered as a result of the proposed footprint expansion. In doing so, the public amenity space will be improved; however, rather than formalizing the open space as a plaza as represented at Conceptual Commercial Design Review, a softer approach to the design of the public amenity space is now proposed. To the north of the courtyard's ADA access point, the existing lawn between the Spring Street facade and the sidewalk that was to remain unimproved is now proposed to be enhanced as a public amenity space that responds to the character of the residential district and the residences across Spring Street. The first of two existing crabapple trees (Malus spp) – being mature, large and attractive landscape element in this area —will be utilized in its current location as part of this amenity space design. As depicted in the Landscape /Public Amenity Plan (Exhibit 8, Appendix B), a system of understated benches and contemplation spots will organize the space, providing for informal public utilization of the area in a quiet manner. A composition of groundcover and limestone pavers will further encourage the passersby to engage this area, while providing an aesthetically pleasing "garden" quality to this residential- facing public space. A layering of 7 shrubbery and native grasses is proposed to further soften the facade wall, while adding interest and invitation to the space. At the Spring Street entry of the building, the previously proposed plaza has been significantly downplayed to a hardscaped entry court, providing ingress and egress between the sidewalk and the doors. Where the improvements to the south engage the courtyard, a transition between the softer landscaping and the entry court occur and is further defined by the placement of permanent benches that frame the entry court. Within the entry court, additional plantings are proposed to further minimize the visual impact of the entry court on the residential district to the east, especially these residences immediately across Spring Street. The existing open space between the entry court and the northern property boundary that was to previously remain as an unimproved lawn strip is now proposed to be improved with an architecturally planted ground cover that is more native and less water consumptive than lawn. Also proposed in this area is the transplantation of the second of the two existing crabapple trees (Mallus spp) along with newly planted shrubbery and native grasses that reflects the design across the entry court, resulting in a more informal composition as the amenity space abuts the alley, yet still offering visual intrigue to passersby and the residences across the street. 2. Main Level The proposed footprint of the building retains the majority of the exterior building walls at the main level in their existing locations (Exhibit 12, Appendix B). The exterior walls along Spring Street to the east are reconfigured and relocated closer to the property line in order to increase gross square footage and allow for a more formalized lobby entrance to this facade of the building. The parking is located within a garage and carport system along the alley to the north, maintaining the existing parking and the existing trash, utility and recycling area configurations. The entry lobby along Spring Street is set back from the primary grid line of the east facing facade 8 and all vertical circulation is located adjacent to the lobby in a central core of the building. The recessed entry /lobby area divides the commercial area to the south from the parking and service accommodations to the north resulting in two primary building masses along Spring Street. A secondary entrance along Spring Street is proposed in order to allow for maximum versatility for the commercial /office area configurations, as well as access to the residential unit. Two points of ingress and egress are proposed for the ground level commercial /office area — the primary entrance through the lobby along Spring Street and a secondary entrance at the southwest corner of the building along Hopkins Avenue. 3. Second Level The second level layout reflects the proposed footprint of the building with new floor area added along Spring Street as well as above the parking accommodations along the north alley (Exhibit 13, Appendix B). Vertical circulation for the second level is provided via the interior stair and the elevator, both of which are accessed through the Spring Street entrances. A second level circulation lobby will allow access to a variety of suite configurations. The final design also includes new decks for the commercial spaces at the southwest and northeast corners of the building. The off -axis portions of the second level originally proposed at Conceptual Commercial Design Review have been realigned with orthogonal layout of the lot and the traditional street grid. This design change formalizes the building similar to the traditional layout of the Aspen's downtown lots as recognized the Commercial Design Guidelines. The new orientation of these elements also respond to concerns raised by adjacent neighbors during public outreach efforts as well as public comments at the Conceptual Commercial Design Review public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. 4. Third Level The proposed new third level is comprised of a new free - market residential unit (Exhibit 14, Appendix B). Primary access to the third level 9 will be provided via the elevator. In response to conditions provided in the approving Conceptual Commercial Design resolution, the exterior walls of the third level have been set back further from the facade lines of the levels below in order to further minimize the verticality of the three -story structure, making it less "imposing" from the street /pedestrian perspective. The resulting roof deck will serve as private outdoor space for the free - market unit. For the same reasons as the design change made on the second level, the off -axis portions of the third level proposed at Conceptual Commercial Design Review have been realigned with orthogonal layout of the lot and the traditional street grid. 5. Roof Plan The roof plan is comprised of three (3) primary areas of use and function (Exhibit 15, Appendix B). As required by the Commercial Design Guidelines, any mechanical equipment and venting that will service the entire building and its uses will be located on the flat northwest portion of the roof, minimizing its visibility from the primary street perspectives to the greatest degree possible. A proposed photovoltaic array will also be located in this portion of the roof, again with the intent of minimizing the visibility of said equipment from the primary street perspectives. A non - usable green roof system is proposed along the east and west portions of the roof for the purposes of minimizing impervious surface and stormwater runoff and reducing heat island effect. Between the green roof areas, a two hundred fifty (250) square feet of usable deck area is proposed. The exterior spiral stair providing rooftop access has been relocated to the alley (north) side of the building and recessed within the third level form in order to screen the stair from the street perspective as well as the residences across Spring Street. This design change is partly in response to concerns raised during public outreach efforts as well as public comments at the Conceptual Commercial Design Review public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. A secondary roof access hatch will be located at the top of the interior stair system for the purpose of servicing photovoltaic /mechanical equipment. At no point on the roof will any venting, mechanical, photovoltaic or other 10 appurtenances extend over five (5) feet above the maximum building height limit as provided in Section 26.575.020.B of the Code. 6. Parking and Utility/Trash/Recycling Services Area The location of off - street parking is proposed to remain in its original configuration - four stalls perpendicular to and accessed from the alley (Exhibit 16, Appendix B). Two parking stalls will be enclosed in a garage. The two remaining stalls will be enclosed in a carport, one of which is proposed to function as a tandem stall for parking electric smart® cars. The tandem stall will be outfitted with the required charging station(s) for the two vehicles, each of which will be available for use to tenants occupying the commercial spaces of the building. If the effort to locate the smart® cars on site in the tandem configuration is determined to be unviable, a single compact car will occupy the stall and the resulting parking reduction will be mitigated through a cash -in -lieu payment pursuant to Section 26.515.050 of the Code. The trash and recycling services area is proposed to remain in the location where it currently exists on the property. As noted in and approved during Conceptual Commercial Design Review, the slightly reduced dimensions of the trash and recycling are have been determined to be adequate for servicing the proposed building renovation. This area will be separated from the parking area by columns that support the structure above, fencing and /or bollards, providing a physical delineation between the parking area and the trash and recycling area as required by condition "a" of the resolution approving Conceptual Commercial Design Review. The trash and recycling area will be screened from street view and treated pursuant to Section 26.575.060.A.1 of the Code. B. Exterior Design and Massing The proposed renovation is intended to modernize both the exterior and interior architecture of the existing building in terms of use, function, aesthetic and 11 �s s public experience. Analysis of the property concludes that its location as a corner property as well as being located on the fringe of the Commercial Character Area and the Central Mixed Use Character Area create a variety of influences upon the site that have informed the layout as well as the exterior architecture and massing of the proposed building. The East Hopkins facade has greater influence from the predominantly commercial character of the block and the commercial core to the west, while the South Spring Street facade faces multi - family uses and a residential character to the east in the CMU character area. The proposed final architecture and massing of each of these primary facades are designed to cohesively reference these location considerations, while also responding to conditions made in the resolution approving Conceptual Commercial Design review, concerns raised by adjacent neighbors during public outreach efforts, and public comment at the hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The proposed exterior architecture makes reference to the historic precedent of the downtown core with the use of traditional brick to establish a solid base to the building. To further express the building's transitional location, limestone as a secondary masonry material has been generously introduced throughout each of the primary facades to complement the brick and soften the overall character of the building. The East Hopkins facade incorporates a greater degree of fenestration, referencing the typical storefront glazing and patterning found in the commercial core (Exhibits 17 and 20, 21 and 22 Appendix B). This south - facing street wall will remain at its current location and elevation with all ingress and egress through the courtyard. The second level will remain on the same vertical plane as the main level with a downplayed fenestration pattern consisting of typical punched openings, distinguishing the main level from the upper levels. At the primary southeast corner of the building, the off -axis wood - surround window element represented at the conceptual level has been eliminated and replaced with an on -axis limestone base that architecturally supports a large corner window above. Similarly, the Hopkins Avenue entry to the commercial space is also veneered in limestone, functioning to express the corner of the building and announcing the entrance, while providing a base for a newly proposed deck for the office space above. 12 As indicated in the previous description of the proposed building expansion and layout, the footprint of the building to the east along Spring Street creates an elongated street wall. In order to break the linearity of the east street wall, a portion of the elevation is recessed, creating a void in the building footprint plan as well as the facade, separating the mass into two pedestrian- scaled two -story brick forms rather than a single unbroken wall plane facade (Exhibits 17, 20, 23 & 24, Appendix B). The off -axis entry to the building has been realigned with orthogonal layout of the lot and the traditional street grid in response to concerns raised by adjacent neighbors during public outreach efforts as well as public comments at the Conceptual Commercial Design Review public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The use of the limestone to complement and soften the two primary brick masses, along with the steel, wood and glass at the recessed areas provide design interest, while also referencing the non -brick materials of the residential properties to the east. These non -brick materials are then carried up to the third level of this elevation, which is exclusively residential in use. The theme of the traditional brick base is carried around the northeast corner to the alley (Exhibits 18 and 23, Appendix B). A composition of the various materials used throughout the building are cohesively organized throughout the northern facade, creating interest to the alley -side of the building and views of the building from the street and sidewalk approach from the north along South Spring Street. In accordance with condition "g" of the resolution approving the Conceptual Commercial Design and in response to concerns raised by adjacent neighbors during public outreach efforts as well as public comments at the Conceptual Commercial Design Review public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission, the new third level has been set back further from the wall line of the main and second levels in an effort to make it less "imposing ". The total floor area of the third level has been decreased by approximately 600 square feet in order to reduce its mass and allow for additional set back at the Hopkins Avenue, Spring Street and alley facades. As noted above, the off -axis elements of the third level have been realigned with the orthogonal lot lines and street grid, resulting in a less impactful composition of the third level. To further deemphasize the third level, the 13 a:✓ .. ,s pitched roof elements previously proposed in the conceptual design have been flattened, creating a more understated eave line from the Hopkins Avenue Spring Street pedestrian perspective. Strong elements such as sunscreens and lattice work have been reduced or removed to further downplay the third level of the building in relationship to the two -story brick mass below. In general terms and as represented in Exhibits 20 -24, Appendix B, the design changes implemented have reduced the verticality, the composition and the overall presence of the third level from each of the street level perspectives. The maximum allowable building height in the C -1 zone district is thirty -six (36) feet above grade, which may be increased to forty (40) feet via Commercial Design Review. Through the effort to increase the floor -to- ceiling heights on the main and second levels and provide adequate height on the new third level, the maximum height of the building structure will be approximately thirty-six (36) feet; however, the majority of the structure is below thirty -six (36) feet (Exhibits 17 and 18, Appendix B). The street elevation architectural drawing (Exhibit 19, Appendix B) along East Hopkins Avenue and South Spring Street identifies the height of the proposed building in relationship to the surrounding properties. In the context of the surrounding buildings on the block and neighboring blocks, it is apparent that the proposed height is appropriately scaled as a corner building and creates building - height variation along both streetscapes. 14 tl IV. FINAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS Pursuant to Section 26.412.020, all commercial, lodging and mixed -use development with a commercial component is subject to a commercial design review and approval. This section discusses the project's compliance with each of the criteria for final design review outlined in Section 26.412 and the City's Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Objective and Guidelines. All design material pertinent to final design review as indicated in Section 26.412.040.A.4 are provided in Appendix B of this application. A. Conceptual Commercial Design Conditions Pursuant to Section 26.412.040 the Code, each of the representations made or stipulations placed as a condition of the approval of the conceptual design are addressed below: 1. The trash, recycling and delivery area shall be designed so that adequate clearance is maintained between the service area and the parking stalls in the carport. It is recommended that a separation fence or bollards shall be installed to ensure that normal use of the service area does not impose a risk to the adjacent vehicles. If adequate separation cannot be maintained, a reduction of one parking space shall be considered. As discussed above and represented in Exhibit 16, Appendix B, the trash, recycling and delivery area has been adequately separated from the parking stalls with structural column(s) and a row of bollards in order to physically separate the two spaces and eliminate potential risk to parked vehicles. It has been determined and represented that the elimination of one parking stall for the purpose of reducing conflict between the parked cars and the activity within the provided trash and recycling area is not necessary. 2. The final design of the Spring Street Public Amenity Space shall consider permanent seating options that encourage public interaction (such as benches), light landscaping, and a form of public art in the public right - of -way. As discussed above and represented in Exhibits 8 -10, Appendix B, the final design of the Spring Street public amenity space provides a cohesive mix of permanent bench seating, pubic art and landscaping. Further, the proposed 15 , / public amenity space design reflects the residential character of the properties across Spring Street, while effectively providing opportunities for the general public and passersby to engage and enjoy the spaces and amenities within. 3. A detached sidewalk along Hopkins shall be considered and evaluated for Final Commercial Design Review. As discussed above and represented in Exhibits 7 and 8, Appendix B, the final design proposes a detached sidewalk along Hopkins Avenue, matching the conditions of the sidewalk and planting strip to the west of the property. 4. 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 area. The substantial on and off -site improvements proposed in the form of public amenity space illustrated in Exhibit 8 and diagrammed in Exhibit 11, both in Appendix B, achieve a percentage of public amenity space that is forty -five (45) percent of the 4,500 square foot lot area. These improvements adequately provide the basis for reducing the open space on the private property from 18% to 16 %. 5. The Applicant shall consider redesigning the Hopkins amenity space to make it more inviting to the public. As discussed in the above section and represented in Exhibits 8 -10 in Appendix B, the final design of the Hopkins Avenue amenity space is more inviting to the public than in the conceptual design. 6. The Applicant shall continue to work with Staff to better shield the Spring Street amenity space from the residents to the east of the Property. As discussed above and represented in Exhibits 8 -10, Appendix B, the final design of the Spring Street public amenity space design reflects the residential character of the properties across Spring Street, offering a "garden - like" aesthetic for buffering the building and minimizing the visual impact of the Spring Street entrance. 7. The Applicant shall continue working on redesigning the top floor facade so that it is less imposing. 16 As discussed above and represented in Exhibits 17 -24 in Appendix B, the design changes proposed in the final design have successfully deemphasized the mass, scale and architectural character of the third level. Ultimately, the changes to the third level architecture described above have made it less imposing from the street perspective below. B. Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives Pursuant to subsection 26.412.050.C, the proposed renovation must comply with the standards for the Commercial Character Area within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. Included in Appendix B of this application package are the required design documents for representing the design, articulation, character, materials, detailing, paving and landscaping of the proposed renovation. The documents include site, architectural and landscape plans, building elevations, photographs and renderings, and material and detail studies. Each of the criteria required for final design approval are summarized below. 1. Design Objectives a. Strengthen the sense of relatedness with the Commercial Core Historic District. The massing and use of materials of the proposed project reference the characteristics of buildings of the commercial core without replicating them. The proposed building also adds elements of design that reference the property's proximity to the predominantly residential CMU character area. The site design provides public gathering space that is intended to "pull" the activity of the commercial core to the property's location at the edge of the Commercial Character Area. b. Maintain a retail orientation. As the proposed project is a renovation, the East Hopkins Avenue facade will not be located any closer to the sidewalk than it currently exists. However, the street wall fenestration and the redesign and function of the existing courtyard will enhance the retail orientation and function of 17 this facade. The facade of the South Spring Street elevation will be brought closer to the sidewalk and will enhance its connection with the pedestrian environment, while maintaining a residential aesthetic that references the character of the CMU character area across the street. c. Promote creative, contemporary design. The strategy for material use and the juxtaposition of contemporary and more traditional design and massing as described in the above sections effectively reference the historical character of downtown Aspen, while offering a contemporary interpretation of design appropriate for the location and context of the property. d. Encourage a well - defined street wall As a renovation, the location of the street wall along East Hopkins Avenue is not relocated; however, the scale and character of the improved facade reinforces the street wall with appropriate variation along the streetscape. The street wall along South Spring Street is enhanced, yet provides a break in the longer elevation, bringing the street wall down to a scale appropriate to the pedestrian. e. Reflect the variety in building heights seen traditionally The height and scale of the proposed building increases the variety in heights along the East Hopkins Avenue and South Spring Street streetscapes. As a corner building anchoring the southeast corner of the block, the increased height enhances the streetscape experience and the variety of heights as seen traditionally in the commercial areas of downtown Aspen. f. Accommodate outdoor public spaces while establishing a clear definition to the street edge. The improvement of the existing courtyard and creation of the new plaza to the south and east create active public spaces while the addition and improvement of planting strips and street trees along each streetscape further defines the street /sidewalk edge of the property. 18 g. Promote variety in the street level experience. The experience at the street level along East Hopkins Avenue and South Spring Street are unique and varied between each other as well as with other street level conditions at adjacent properties and throughout the block. As described in the above section, the character of the building facades and public spaces along each streetscape are slightly different from each other and reflect the context of the surrounding properties and character areas. 2. Building Design & Articulation a. A new building shall reflect the traditional lot width (30 f .) as expressed by two or more of the following. Both the Hopkins Avenue and Spring Street facades emphasize a traditional lot width pattern through the use of varying heights on the upper level as well as material and massing patterns at the lower levels. The Hopkins Avenue facade is very traditional in proportion, material and fenestration patterning. The Spring Street facade, as the longer lot line of the corner lot, is intentionally broken near the center of building at the entry in order to create the appearance of two independent forms, rather than one long, proportionally inappropriate form. b. The detailed design of the building facade should re the traditional scale and rhythm of the block. This should be achieved using all of the following. The Hopkins Avenue building facade reflects the scale and rhythm of the block to the west through the use of materials, fenestration grouping and the relationship of the street front first level fenestration patterning to that of the second level. The Spring Street facade similarly creates a scale that is appropriate to the residential character across the street, deemphasizing the street level as a commercial storefront and using fenestration patterning and materials that express the facade in accordance with its location and orientation at the edge of a transitional character zone. 19 c. A building should reflect the architectural hierarchy and articulation inherent in the composition of the street facade. The following should be addressed. Both the Hopkins Avenue and Spring Street facades are composed of a more prominent first floor with greater emphasis placed on the fenestration of the street level, while the second level has a higher ratio of solid wall to window area. The third level is deemphasized by both being generously set back from the lower facade lines as well as its composition of alternative and softer materials. d. A building should reflect the three - dimensional characteristics of the street facade in the strength and depth of modeling, fenestration and architectural detail. The street facades at Hopkins Avenue and Spring Street are designed with traditional architectural detailing and fenestration patterning while being accented with contemporary elements and materials. The use of the detailing such as shadow lines, variation in materials, fenestration patterning and traditional elements such as varied brick patterning and frieze and cornice detailing adds strength and depth to the street facades. e. New development within the Commercial Character Area should be designed to reflect the characteristics of visually vibrant and attractive street character. The street character is enhanced by the detailing of the street level architectural detailing as well as the public amenity space design and character at both the Hopkins Avenue and Spring Street facades. f. Any new building shall be designed to maintain a minimum of 9 feet from floor to ceiling on all floors. As the project is a renovation, with the existing floor to ceiling heights less than 9 feet, the second and third level floors will be relocated to allow for a floor to ceiling height greater than 9 feet for both the first and second levels. g. Maintain the distinction between the street level and upper floors. 20 As noted above, the street level will be emphasized and distinguishable from the second and third levels as the tallest level in terms of architectural reference, transparency of the level through the use of glazing and fenestration patterns and general architectural detailing. h. A new building should be designed to maintain the stature of traditional street level retail frontage. As noted above, the street level will be further emphasized and distinguishable from the above levels by maximizing the floor to floor height within the constraints associated with the renovation. The maximized floor to floor height will be consistent throughout the depth of the building. i. Minimize the appearance of a tall third floor. At no point on the third level does the floor to ceiling height reach 12 feet. Additionally, the third floor is set back from the below facade lines along both Hopkins Avenue and Spring Street. The materials, roof and shadow lines are composed in a manner to deemphasize the third level and distinguish it from the more pronounced and architecturally expressed street and second levels of the building. j. The first floor facade should be designed to concentrate interest at the street level, using the highest quality of design, detailing and materials. The design and detailing of the street level facade sets it apart from that occurring on the second level, emphasizing the first floor of the building at both the Hopkins Avenue and Spring Street facades. k. The retail entrance should be at the sidewalk level. The primary entrance to the building along Spring Street is at the sidewalk level. As a result of the existing site constraints associated with the renovation, the entrance along Hopkins Avenue is slightly below the sidewalk. With three entrances to the courtyard, one of which is on -grade for ADA accessibility, a strong effort was made architecturally to 21 announce the southwest entrance and compensate for its positioning sixteen (16) inches below the sidewalk elevation. 1. Incorporate an airlock entry into the plan for all new structures. The entry lobby at the primary entrance of the building off of Spring Street is designed to function as an airlock. All commercial /office spaces within the building will be separated from the lobbies by interior walls and doors, therefore achieving the same effect as an airlock. The entrance from Hopkins Avenue will function as a secondary entry to the commercial space within and be operable primarily during warm seasons of the year to accommodate uses such as outdoor seating for a potential cafe/bistro tenant. m. Window area along the first floor shall be a minimum of 60% of exterior street facade area when facing principal street(s). Glazed surface area on the first floor will be at least 60% of the exterior street facade area of the commercial spaces along Hopkins Avenue and Spring Street. n. Where appropriate a building shall be designed to maintain the character and transparency of the traditional street level retail frontage. As the location of the subject building is in a transitional zone and on the edge of a residential district, traditional street level retail frontage is primarily located along Hopkins Avenue, allowing for the potential for retail displays, although it is not expected that a current demand for retail space exists at the location of the subject property. o. Design of the first floor storefront should include particular attention to the following. The first floor storefront design incorporates each of the criteria for this design guideline. p. Retail frontage facing onto side courts or rear alleys should follow similar design principles to the street frontage, adjusted for the scale of the space. 22 As the building is located on a corner and faces two primary streets, no side yard or alley frontages occur. q. A larger building should reflect the traditional lot width in the form and variation of its roof This should be achieved through the following. All roof top elements will be setback from the fagade lines of the upper level. r. The roofscape should be designed with the same design attention as the secondary elevations of the building. All roofscape elements will be set back from the building line and screened from the street below. All mechanical equipment, venting and photovoltaic panels will be located at the rear of the building. The rooftop deck area will be surrounded by a `green roof' system to further screen the deck area and mechanical equipment from the street perspective, while also minimizing impervious surface and stormwater runoff and reducing heat island effect of a typical roof system. From an above -view plane (Aspen Mtn.), the composition of the roofscape will be thoughtful and dynamic and serve as an extension of the architecture below. 3. Architectural Materials a. High quality, durable materials should be employed. The architectural materials of the building will be predominantly a mix of high quality brick and limestone masonry on the first and second levels and a mix of wood and limestone on the upper residential level. Elements of steel will also be employed in the design. b. Building materials should have these features. The proposed building materials will have each of the features outlined in this design guideline. c. A building or additions should reflect the quality and variation in materials seen traditionally. The proposed materials reflect the quality and variation seen traditionally. 23 d. Where contemporary materials are used they shall be: The contemporary materials used on the building are of high quality and compatible with the traditional materials proposed. e. Materials used for third floor accommodation set back from the street facade(s) should be more subdued than the primary facades. The architectural materials proposed for the third floor are primarily wood and glass and are more subdued and understated than the strong masonry materials used for the primary facades. 4. Paving & Landscaping a. Paving and landscaping should be designed to complement and enhance the immediate setting of the building and area. The paving and landscaping described within this application are designed to complement the surrounding contexts associated with the transitional zone, acknowledging the more commercial character along the Hopkins Avenue frontage and the residential character across the street from the Spring Street frontage. All improvements within the right -of -way are consistent and have received support from the relevant City departments and will ultimately enhance the public realm of this important corner in downtown Aspen. 24 V. OFF - STREET PARKING REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS All development shall be provided with off - street parking as provided in Chapter 26.515 of the Code and pursuant to Section 26.515.010.B, the expansion of existing development requires additional off - street parking spaces for that increment of the expansion as if it is a separate development. This section discusses the project's off - street parking plan compliance with each of the relevant criteria for off - street parking approval. A. Characteristics of Off - Street Parking Spaces (Section 26.515.020) As Illustrated in the proposed parking area plan (Exhibit 16, Appendix B), and discussed in the above section III.A.6 of this application, the location of off - street parking is proposed to remain in the configuration that currently exists on the property — four stalls perpendicular to and accessed from the alley. The four stalls will be exclusively used for parking vehicles associated with the property. Two parking stalls will be enclosed in a garage and meeting the dimensional requirements of a standard parking stall or eight and one half (81/4) feet wide by eighteen (18) feet long. The two remaining stalls will be enclosed in a carport and meet the dimensional requirements of a compact stall and are seven and one half (71/4) feet wide by sixteen (16) feet long. All four parking stalls will allow for a clearance greater than seven (7) feet and be constructed out of concrete at a slope of less than twelve (12) percent. All lighting associated with the parking area will be in accordance with the standards of this Section and any other pertinent lighting regulations in the Code. B. Number of Off - Street Parking Spaces (Section 26.515.030) As the property is located in the C -1 zone district within the Aspen Infill Area, the required number of off - street parking spaces will be calculated according to the standards outlined in Section 26.515.030 of the Code. For Commercial uses within the Aspen Infill Area, one parking space is required per 1,000 square feet of net leasable square feet of commercial space. As determined in the accompanying GMQS application, the proposed net leasable floor area for this project is 4,325 sq. 25 ft., and therefore the following calculation applies to determining the number of required parking spaces for the commercial use of the building: 4,325 sq. ft. / 1,000 sq. ft. = 4.325 required parking spaces As the project is a renovation with no feasible option existing for creating more parking area on the property, the existing four (4) parking spaces will be used for satisfying the required 4.325 spaces. As a result, a 0.325 parking space deficiency will exist on the property and be accounted for through an alternative means. For residential uses in the form of multi - family units within a mixed -use building, there is no requirement for providing off - street parking spaces in the C -1 zone district. As a result, no parking spaces are proposed for the residential use of the proposed building. C. Special Review for Parking (Section 26.515.040) In an effort to create an effective solution to the fractional parking space deficit of 0.325, an on -site car sharing program is currently being explored. It is therefore being proposed under special review for the following plan to be approved for satisfying the slight parking deficit and serve as a smart, sustainable and tangible alternative to a straight cash -in -lieu payment. As a backup option to the proposed plan, the following section calculates the required cash -in -lieu payment for mobility enhancement. As represented in Exhibit 16, Appendix B, one of the two carport stalls is proposed to function as a tandem stall for parking electric smart® cars. The tandem stall is proposed to be outfitted with the required charging station(s) for the two vehicles, each of which will be available for use by the uses occupying the building. If the effort to locate the smart® cars on site in the tandem configuration is determined to be unviable, the compact stall will be available for the uses occupying the building and the 0.325 parking space deficit will be mitigated through a cash -in -lieu payment pursuant to Section 26.515.050 of the Code. 26 D. Cash -In -Lieu for Mobility Enhancements (Section 26.515.050) Pursuant to Section 26.515.10.D of this chapter and allowed at 100% in the C- 1 zone district pursuant to Section 26.515.030, the off - street parking deficit of 0.325 fractional spaces for the commercial use of the building is proposed to be provided through a cash -in -lieu payment if the above described on -site car share program is either not approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission or determined by the applicant to be unviable. If a cash -in -lieu payment is the resulting method for providing the fractional parking space deficit, the follow calculation identifies the payment amount: $30,000.00 per space X 0.325 parking spaces = $9,750.00 In addition to the cash -in -lieu amount of $9,750.00 being paid to the City at the time of building permit issuance, all other standards regarding a cash -in -lieu payment for the provision off - street parking will be met. 27 APPENDIX A - APPLICATION DOCUMENTS Exhibit 1. Pre - Application Conference Summary from 01.26.2010 Exhibit 2. Land Use Application Exhibit 3. Dimensional Requirements Form Exhibit 4. Properties Owners to be Noticed within 300' Exhibit 5. License Agreement to Seal Space between Buildings Exhibit 6. Resolution approving Conceptual Commercial Design Exhibit 7. Outreach letter to neighboring property owners A EXHIE4IT 1 CITY OF ASPEN PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Jennifer Phelan, 970.429.2759 DATE: 01/26/10 PROJECT: 632 E Hyman Ave REPRESENTATIVE: Adam Roy, 970.925.3444 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision and related reviews DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at the corner of Spring and Hopkins and is solely used as commercial office space. The property is located within the C -1 zone district and is not a landmark property. The owner is interested in expanding /redeveloping the site with additional commercial net leasable space and a free - market residence. According to the authorized representative, it is anticipated that on -site affordable housing mitigation will be provided. Both the expansion of commercial development (2250 sq. ft.) and the addition of new free - market units are considered major growth management reviews. As such, a growth management allocation (net leasable and a free - market unit) is required and the application for the allotments can only be submitted either February 15 or August 15 ( §26.470.110 C). Prior to submission on either of these dates, Conceptual Commercial Design Review shall be granted. Below is a link to the Land Use application Form for your convenience. http: //www.aspenpitkin. com /Portals /0 /docs /City /Comdev/ Apps %20and %20Fees /landuseappform. pdf Land Use Code Sections) 26.304 Common development review procedures 26.412 Commercial design review Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines 26.470 Growth Management Quota System 26.470.080 (1) Expansion or new commercial development (greater than 250 sq. ft.) 26.470.080 (2) New free - market residential units within a multi - family or mixed use project 26.470.050 General requirements 26.470.070 (4) Affordable housing 26.470.100 Calculations 26.470.110 Growth management review procedures 26.480 Subdivision (for the development of multiple dwelling units) 26.515 Off - street parking 26.575.030 Public amenity 26.575.060 Utility/trash service areas 26.575.150 Outdoor lighting 26.610 Impact fees 26.620 School Lands Dedication 26.710.150 Commercial (C -1) Follow link below to view the City of Aspen Land Use Code http://www.aspenpitkin.com / Departments/ Community - Development /Planning and Zoninq/Title -26- Land- Use -Code/ Follow link below to view the APCHA Guidelines (size requirements) http://www.aspenhousingoffice.com/sitepages/pid4.php Review by: Community Development Staff for complete application Public Hearing: Required for both P &Z (Commercial Design Review and GMQS) and City Council (subdivision). Planning Fees: $2,940 for Major Development Application review by Planning and Zoning and City Council. This includes twelve (12) hours of staff review time. Additional time over twelve (12) hours will be billed at $245 per hour. Housing, Parks and Engineering Referral: $410 each or$1,230 Total Deposit: $4,170.00 Total Number of Application Copies: • Planning and Zoning Application for Conceptual Commercial Design: 14 Copies (Additional applications will be required for the growth management allotment application) To apply, submit the following information: Change in Use Application: El Total Deposit for review of application. 0 Pre - application Conference Summary. Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, 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. = A site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the State of Colorado. O A site plan depicting the proposed layout and the project's physical relationship to the land and its surroundings. C Completed Land Use application and signed fee agreement. I= An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcels within the City of Aspen. Ifl 14 copies of the complete application packet and maps. El A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how a proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. 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. • EXHIDIT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 —LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: 632 East Hopkins Renovation Location: 632 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, CO. 81611 (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 273707332006 APPLICANT: Name: Rudin West, LLC Address: 345 Park Avenue, 33rd Floor, New York, New York 10154 Phone #: (212) 407 -2511 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Adam Roy - David Johnston Architects, pc Address: 418 East Cooper Street, #206, Aspen, CO. 81611 Phone #: (970) 925 -3444 TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Temporary Use • GMQS Allotment ❑ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Text/Map Amendment ❑ Special Review ❑ Subdivision ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ ESA — 8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes ❑ Final SPA (& SPA Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane ® Commercial Design Review ❑ Lot Split ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Final Expansion ❑ Residential Design Variance ❑ Lot Line Adjustment [Si Other: Parking ❑ Conditional Use EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) 1976 -BUILT CONCRETE BLOCK COMMERCIAL BUILDING W/ 2- STORIES ABOVE GRADE AND BASEMENT BELOW GRADE; CONTAINS ONLY OFFICE USES; NO ADDITIONAL APPROVALS BEYOND ORIGINAL C.O. PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) EXPANSION AND RENOVATION OF EXISTING TWO -STORY COMMERICAL; ADDITION OF NEW THRID LEVEL; AND ONE (I) FREE- MARKET RESIDENTIAL UNIT. Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: *1,682.00 ® Pre- Application Conference Summary IN Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement ® Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form ® Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards ❑ 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 of all 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. - r °" EXHIEIFil ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: 632 EAST HOPKINS RENOVATION Applicant: RUDIN WEST, LLC Location: 632 EAST HOPKINS AND 119 SOUTH SPRING STREET Zone District: C -1 _ Lot Size: 4,500 SQUARE FEET Lot Area: 4,500 SQUARE FEET (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: Existing3,8 sq. ft.Proposed: 4,325 sq. ft. Number of residential units: Existing: 0 Proposed 1 Number of bedrooms: Existing: 0 Proposed: 2 or 3 Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): N/A DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: 4,747 Allowable: 11,250 Proposed 8,995 Principal bldg. height: Existing: 26' Allowable: 36' 40' Proposed: 36' (max) Access. bldg. height: Existing: N/A Allowable: N/A Proposed: N/A On -Site parking: Existing: 4 Required: 4 Proposed: 4 % Site coverage: Existing: 61% Required: N/A Proposed: 81% 16% on-site % Open Space: Existing: 18% Required: 10% Proposed: 45% total Front Setback: Existing: 11' Required: 0' Proposed: 11' Rear Setback: Existing: 21 5' Required: 0' Proposed: 8" Combined F /R: Existing: 32 5' Required: 0' Proposed: 11 ' - 8" Side Setback: Existing: 70" Required: 0' Proposed: 70" Side Setback: Existing: R" Required: 0' Proposed: g" Combined Sides: Existing: 78" Required: 0' Proposed: Distance Between Existing N/A Required: N/A Proposed: NIA Buildings Existing non - conformities or encroachments: N/A Variations requested: NIA 0 Easy Peel Labels i • Bend along line to i I//� I p�/ERY Use Avery® Template 5160® j Feed Paper expose Pop-Up Edge L� E ci c ®�T 4 530 HOPKINS LLC 610 EAST HYMAN LLC 630 EAST HYMAN LLC 5301 /2 E HOPKINS C/O CHARLES CUNNIFFE 532 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 610 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 719 EAST HOPKINS AVE LLC AARON ROGER S & VIRGINIA A ALEXANDER JUDY PO BOX 11600 45 BIRCHALL DR 1894 HWY 50 EAST #4 PMB 207 ASPEN, CO 81612 SCARSDALE, NY 10583 -0000 CARSON CITY, NV 89701 ALLEN RONALD W REV TRUST ALPINE BANK ASPEN ARCHDIOCESE OF DENVER 50 SW 137TH AV ATTN ERIN WIENCEK SAINT MARYS BEAVERTON, OR 97006 PO BOX 10000 1300 S STEELE ST GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 DENVER, CO 80210 ASHTON JONATHAN G ASPEN LEGACY LLC ASPEN MAIN STREET PROPERTIES LP PO BOX 26 17740 E HINSDALE AVE 14881 QUORUM DR #200 JAMES TOWN, CO 80455 FOXFIELD, CO 80016 DALLAS, TX 75254 AUSTIN LAWRENCE CONNER LLC BASS CAHN 601 LLC BAUM ROBERT E ASPEN RES TRST 532 E HOPKINS AVE PO BOX 4060 PO BOX 1518 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 STOCKBRIDGE, MA 01262 BAYLESS GRANT J BENNETT ROBERT R & DEBORAH J BERLIN JAMES TRUST 6864 PEPPERTREE CT 10900 HILLTOP RD 1795 BROOKWOOD DR LONGMONT, CO 80503 PARKER, CO 80134 AKRON, OH 44313 -5070 BOOHER ANDREA LYNN BORCHERTS HOLDE H TRUSTEE BROUGH STEVE B & DEBORAH A 709 E MAIN STREET #303 1555 WASHTENAW 599 TROUT LK OR ASPEN, CO 81611 ANN ARBOR, MI 48104 SANGER, CA 93657 BRYANT CAROLINA H BULKELEY RICHARD C & JULIE J BULKELEY RICHARD C & JULIE J PO BOX 5217 801 JOY ST PO BOX 450 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 RED OAK, IA 51566 RED OAK, IA 51566 BURSTEN GABRIELLA CALCOTT JOHN R CALDWELL CHARLES & DEBRA PO BOX 2061 1015 COTTONWOOD DR NW 514 E BRYAN ST ASPEN, CO 81612 LOS RANCHOS, NM 871076751 SAVANAH, GA 31401 CHOOKASZIAN KAREN M CICUREL CARY CIPOLLINO NICHOLAS 1100 MICHIGAN 2615 N LAKEWOOD 300 QUAIL RD WILMETTE, IL 60091 CHICAGO, IL 60614 MERRITT, NC 28556 -9641 Etiquettes faciles a peler • Repliez a la hachure afin de 1 www.avery.com Utilisez le gabarit AVERY 5160® 1 chargement reveler le rebord Pop -Up'" 1 1- 800 -GO -AVERY Sns de rte` 1 , Easy Peel® Labels 1 • 11 Bend along line to 1 CA AVERY® 5160® Use Avery® Template 5160® j Feed Paper expose Pop -Up EdgeT°' j 1 COLORADO MTN NEWS MEDIA CONCEPT 600 LLC COPPOCK RICHARD P PO BOX 1927 PO BOX 2914 PO BOX 44 CARSON CITY, NV 89702 BASALT, CO 81621 DEXTER, MI 48130 CROSS JUDITH DORAN RALPH DRESNER MILTON H REV LVG TRST PO BOX 3388 2600 WOODWARD WAY 28777 NORTHWESTERN HWY ASPEN, CO 81612 ATLANTA, GA 30305 SOUTHFIELD, MI 48034 EDGE OF AJAX INC EDGETTE JAMES J & PATRICIA EDWARDS CHARLES N C/0 ANDRE ULRYCH 19900 BEACH RD STE 801 189 BEVENUE ST 201B E SILVER ST JUPITER ISLAND, FL 33469 WELLSLEY, MA 02482 MARBLE, CO 81623 EISENSTAT ALBERT & CONSTANCE EMPHASYS SERVICE COMPANY FARRELL SCOTT W 358 WALSH RD 1925 BRICKELL AVE BLDG D PO BOX 9856 ATHERTON, CA 94027 PENTHOUSE 11D ASPEN, CO 81612 MIAMI, FL 33129 FICKE CLARK FURNGULF LTD GARRITY PATRICK & PAULA 15 W ARRELLAGA ST #3 A COLD JOINT VENTURE 6126 CHES CT SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101 616 E HYMAN AVE ORLANDO, FL 32819 ASPEN, CO 81611 GERSHMAN JOEL & ELAINE GILKERSON LINDA REV TRUST 50% GLAUSER STEVEN JERRY & BARBARA 120 N SPRING ST 1449E 56TH ST 460 ST PAUL ST ASPEN, CO 81611 DENVER, CO 80206 CHICAGO, IL 60637 GOODING SEAN A 80% & RICHARD L GORGE MICHAEL D & WENDY S GREENBERG DEAN 20% 25300 FRANKLIN PARK DR PO BOX 129 C/O PARAGON RANCH INC FRANKLIN, MI 48025 NEWPORT, MN 55055 620 E HYMAN AVE #1 E ASPEN, CO 81611 GROSFELD ASPEN PROPERTIES GURHOLT CHARLES J & VERNE HESSELSCHWERDT BILL & TRISH PARTNERS LLC N5999 GURHOLT RD PO BOX 1266 10880 WILSHIRE BLVD #2222 SCANDINAVIA, WI 54977 BASALT, CO 81621 LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 HEXNER MICHAEL T TRUSTEE HEYS MARIE L TRUSTEE HICKS GILBERT W & PATSY K JUSTIS KAREN L TRUSTEE 2495 ADARE 3674 WOODLAWN TERRACE PL 2555 UNION ST ANN ARBOR, MI 48104 HONOLULU, HI 96822 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94123 -3832 HOLLAND AND HART HOLTZ ABEL & FANA HONEA KATHARINE M ATTN: CONTROLLER 420 LINCOLN RD STE 220 PO BOX 288 PO BOX 8749 MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139 BASALT, CO 81621 DENVER, CO 80201 Etiquettes fades a peler ; • Repliez a la hachure afin de: www- avery -com Utilisez le abarit AVERY 51600 Sens de reveler le rebord Pa U *m 1- 800 -GO -AVERY _.9. ) chargement P P j 1 r. Easy Peel® Labels • Bend along line to 1 0 AVERY® 516o® Use Avery® Template 5160® 1 Feed Paper expose Pop -Up Edge**, 1 • HORSEFINS LLC HOVERSTEN PHILIP E & LOUISE B HUNDERT DANIEL G CIO PITKIN COUNTY TITLE 2990 BOOTH CREEK DR 417 -A MAIN ST 601 E HOPKINS AVE VAIL, CO 81657 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 ASPEN, CO 81611 HUNTER SQUARE LLC 90% HURST FERN K JARDEN CORPORATION PO BOX 2 1060 5TH AVE 2381 EXECUTIVE CENTER DR SONOMA, CA 95476 NEW YORK CITY, NY 10128 BOCA RATON, FL 33431 JENKINS ASIA JURINE LLC 10% KESSLER SEPP H & ANNA TRUST 734 E HOPKINS AVE PO BOX 2 275 CASTLE CREEK RD #204 ASPEN, CO 81611 SONOMA, CA 95476 ASPEN, CO 81611 LAMB DON REV TRUST 50% LARSON KARL G & MARIA M LAZY J RANCH LLC 1449 E 56TH ST PO BOX 8207 C/0 W R WALTON CHICAGO, IL 60637 ASPEN, CO 81612 3809 SE 2ND PL CAPE CORAL, FL 33904 LEE GREGORY K & DEBBIE L LEITCH B BRYAN III LINK LYNN B 9777 W CORNELL PL 2606 STATE ST PO BOX 7942 LAKEWOOD, CO 80227 DALLAS, TX 75204 ASPEN, CO 81612 LUCKYSTAR LLC LUNDGREN WIEDINMYER DONNA TRST MAESTRANZI BART PO BOX 7755 PO BOX 6700 1736 PARK RIDGE POINTE ASPEN, CO 81612 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 PARK RIDGE, IL 60068 MAHONEY SHARON A MALLARD ENTERPRISES LP MANN KATHLEEN A 99% PO BOX 11694 317 SIDNEY BAKER S #400 PO BOX 2057 ASPEN, CO 81612 KERRVILLE, TX 78028 ASPEN, CO 81612 MANNING FREDERICK J & GAIL P MARASCO BERNARD R 11.0446% MARASCO EMILY A AK MEYER EMIL`(A 233 S WACKER DR #700 320 DAKOTA DR 11.0446% CHICAGO, IL 60606 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 21701 FLAMENCO MISSION VIEJO, CA 92692 MARASCO RAE 0 TRUST 33.4331% MARCHETTI FAMILY LLC MARTELL BARBARA 653 26 1/2 RD 1526 FOREST DR 702 E HYMAN AVE GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 GLENVIEW, IL 60025 ASPEN, CO 81611 MCCUTCHIN GENE P MCDONALD FRANCIS B MCGAFFEY FAMILY & CO NO C LLC 14833 MIDWAY RD PO BOX 4671 12852 NW SHORELAND DR ADDISON, TX 75001 ASPEN, CO 81612 MEQUON, WI 53097 Etiquettes faciles a peler ; • Repliez a lahachure afin de I www.avery.com Sens de Utilisez le gabarit AVERY 5160 1 chargement reveler le rebord Pop -Up^^ ; 1-800-GO-AVERY 1 r. -. Easy Peel® Labels • IIIIMMI Bend along Ilne to I o AVERY® 5160® Use Avery® Template 5160® I Feed Paper expose Pop -Up EdgeTM j • MHT LLC MONTANARO JOHN & SUSAN FAMILY MYSKO BOHDAN D PO BOX 25318 TRUST 615E HOPKINS ST CROIX VIRGIN ISLANDS 00824, PO BOX 457 ASPEN, CO 81611 MALIBU, CA 90265 ORIGINAL CURVE CONDO #310 LLC P & L PROPERTIES LLC PATTERSON VICKI C/O LAURA PIETRZAK 101 SOUTH 3RD ST #360 PO BOX 8523 1796 E SOPRIS CREEK RD GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501 ASPEN, CO 81612 BASALT, CO 81621 PINKOS DANNY & ANNA PITKIN COUNTY RAINER EWALD PO BOX 6581 530 E MAIN ST #302 409 E COOPER AVE #4 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 REDSTONE SUSAN B REINGOLD ROBERT B INC RIVER PARK IN ASPEN CONDO ASSOC 120 E 90TH ST #1113 1187 COAST VILLAGE RD STE 1 -116 730 E DURANT NEW YORK, NY 10128 MONTECITO, CA 93108 ASPEN, CO 81611 RKJR PROPERTIES LTD ROSENFIELD LYNNE CARYN ROSS NEIL 5934 ROYAL LN #250 709 E MAIN ST #203 100 S SPRING ST DALLAS, TX 75230 ASPEN, CO 81611 -2059 ASPEN, CO 81611 ROTHBERG MARJORIE ROTHBLUM PHILIP & MARCIA RUST TRUST 2006 N BANCROFT PKWY 40 EAST 80 ST #26A 9401 WILSHIRE BLVD #760 WILMINGTON, DE 19806 NEW YORK, NY 10075 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 SALET PHILIP S REV TRUST SCI ASPEN LLC SEGREST DAVID H PO BOX 4897 3200 OHIO WY 2606 STATE ST ASPEN, CO 81612 DENVER, CO 80209 DALLAS, TX 75204 SEID MEL SELBY TROY E & MAY EYNON SELDIN CHRISTOPHER G 1104 DALE AVE PO BOX 8234 22 MOUNTAIN CT ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 BASALT, CO 81621 SHERMAN CAPITAL COMPANY SHOAF JEFFREY S SMITH JAMES F & N LINDSAY 5840 E JOSHUA TREE LN PO BOX 3123 600 E MAIN ST #302 PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 SPRING STREET LLC STEWART TITLE CO STARMER MARY JOSEPHINE 11.0446% C/O BAXTER 12738 W 84TH DR C/O JENNIFER SCHUMACHER PO BOX 1112 ARVADA, CO 80001 PO BOX 936 CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 TAYLORSVILLE, NC 28681 Etiquettes ladles a peter I • Replies a la hachure afin del www.averycom Sens de Utilises le gabarit AVERY® 5160® J chargement reveler le rebord Pop - UpTM J 1- 800 -GO -AVERY 1 E. Easy Peel® Labels 1 • IIII Bend along line to 1 Q AVERY® 5160® Use Avery® Template 5160® j Feed Paper Edge expose Pop-Up Edg STRIBLING DOROTHY TAYLOR FAMILY INVESTMENTS CO TEL 1999 GST EXEMPTTRST FB0 WACHOVIA BANK NA FL0135 602 E HYMAN #201 C/O BURKE AND NICKEL PO BOX 40062 ASPEN, CO 81611 3336 E 32ND ST #217 JACKSONVILLE, FL 32203 -0062 TULSA, OK 74135 TRAVIS SHELBY J TROUSDALE JEAN VICK VAN WALRAVEN EDWARD C 1% 208 E 28TH ST - APT 2G 611 E HOPKINS AVE PO BOX 4913 NEW YORK, NY 10016 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 VANWOERKOM LAURIE VRANA MALEKA WACHMEISTER EDWARD C A REV TRUST PO BOX 341 PO BOX 4535 WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 ASPEN, CO 81612 6223 WHITEHALL FARM LN WARRENTON, VA 20187 WAGAR RICH WASKOW SUSAN A WEEKS ROBIN C/O RICH WAGAR ASSOC LLC PO BOX 4975 526 RIDGEWAY DR 100 S SPRING ST #3 ASPEN, CO 81612 METAIRIE, LA 70001 ASPEN, CO 81611 WHITEHILL STEPHEN LANE WILSON STACE S WOODS FRANK J 111 5320 W HARBOR VILLAGE DR #201 PO BOX 5217 205 S MILL ST #301A VERO BEACH, FL 32967 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 ASPEN, CO 81611 Etiquettes faciles a peter ; Repliez a la hachure afln de I www.avery.com Sens de Utilisez le gabarit AVERY 5160 I chargement reveler le rebord Pop -UpTM 1 1- 800 -GO -AVERY • EXHIBIT 5 393676 06/12/96 03;48P PS 1 OF 6 REC DOC UCC SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CLERK 6 RECORDER 31.P2 J•If'ENSE AGREEMENT awe THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT is made this 6741 day o£A4ay, 1995. between THE HOPIONS STREET VENTURE, it Colorado joint venture (hereinafter referred to as "The Hopkins Street Venture whose address is do Theodore Molar; P.O. Box 1323, Ashland, Oregon, 97520, and PHILIP ROTHBLUM and MARCIA ROTHBLUM (hereinafter referred to as 'Rot Blum "), whose address is 624 Bast Hopkins Averme, Aspen, Colorado 8I611. - W ITN B S SETB: WHEREAS, The Hopkins Street Venture, is the owner of real properly located in the City of Aspen, P'xldn County, Cdoredo, which real property is more eartkulely desenbed as Lot S and the Easterly Yr of Lot R. Block 98, City and Towndte of Aspen, County ofPltkin, Stare of Colorado which properly Is hereinafter referred to as "The Hopkins Street Venture Property"; and WHEREAS, Rothblum is the owner of real property located in the City of Aspen, Pitkio County, Colorado, which real property is mote pastiglerly described as Lot and the West One -Half (1) of Lot R, Block 98, City and Towusite of Aspen, County ofPidkio, State of Colorado, which property is hereinafter referred to as the "Rothblum Property ; and WHEREAS, Rotbblum has caused a building to be erected on the Rothblum Property (the "Rothblum Building), the facade of which extends over the lot IS separating The Hopkins Street Venture Property and the Rothblum Property; and WHEREAS, the Rothblum Building physically abuts the building located on The Hopkins Street Van= Property, and WHEREAS, the parties hereto agree that it is their intent to seal the space between their respective buildings; and WHEREAS, The Hopkins Street Venture and Rothbhum are desirous of entering into an agreement fn the use of a portion of The Hopkins Street Ventura Property for a license for the facade of the Rothblum Building and for maintenance of the portico and roof of the Rothblum Bulx$ng NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the terms and conditions hereinafter provided, the parties agree as follows: 1. GRANT OF LICENSE. As it is the parties hereto intent to seal the space between the Rothblum Belding and INctnild'ing on The Hopkins Shed Ventre Property, The Hopkins Street Venture heresy grants to Rothbkrm, their heirs, successors and assigns, an exclusive license over the westerly approximately twelve (12) inches of The Hopkins Street Venture Property on the East K of Lot R, and running the length of the line dividing the East and West V, of Lot R, as shown on 393676 06/13/96 O3:48P PG 2 OF 6 Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated heroin by this reference, With shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Roth blum Building I.imnse . the Rothb lum Building license shall be used exclusively by Rmhblum, their successors and assigns, for the cornttuctiaq maintenance, repair, inspection end replacement oldie brick facade of the Rothblum Buiding to the edge of tile existing building onTbeHopkins Street Venture Property. All oasts of design, cmmaructioa, maintenance and insurance ofthe Rothblum Building the Rothblum facade and the Rothblum Bonding License, dull be borne by the owner of the Rotbblum Property. 2. S,U$1 ORDINATION. This license is and shall be subject to and subordinate to all present and future mortgages, deeds of trust or other encumbrances affecting The Hopkins Street Venture Property. 3. TERMINATION. Ilia license may be terminated by either patty ninety (9C) days' wtittm notice to the other patty. In the evert ofsuthtermination, Rothbhnn shall, at their expense, remove that portion of the facade of the Rothblum Building which encroaches upon The Hopkins Street Venture Property within said ninety (90) day period, and shall restore The Hopkins Strom Ventura Property to its original condition 4, CONSTRIIrTrOP(. The rule of strict construction does not apply to this license. TTdslicense shall be given a reasonable consb sction so the intention of the parties to confer a usable right of enjoyment is carried out. AR uses of the license necessary or appurtenant to the ftdl use, enjoyment, devdapnient and operation of the Rothblum Property are expressly authorized hereby indudm , without imitation, itsusely the owners, their successors and assigns, and their respective employes, agents. invitees and licensees. 5. VOTICES. All notices, demands and communications required hereunder shall be served or given to the respective parties at their respective addresses set font below. Any notice, demand orcommmicdhon shall be given by personal service or certified mad, reran receipt requested with first class postage prepaid thane, and Sets sooner received shall be deemed to have been received three (1) days after the date of certification. The addresses of the parties hereto are as follows: The Hopkins Street Venture Ho Theodore Mularz PO Boa 1328 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Philip and Marcia Rothblum 624 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 • , 96 or 393676 06/13/96 03:40P PG 3 OF 6 6. ATTORNEYS YES. Should my party hereunder be required to resort to legal or equitable process for theadbecemea of any of the povisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party stub be entitled to collect all other reasonableattonwys' fees, expenses and costs In the event any party shall fail to perform wrier any provision bander which that party is required to perform under soy provision of this Agreaneawith reasonable &path eller notice im writing from any other party, the non—defaulting party may, but without any obligation on its part to do so, performs its obligation et the sole expense of the defatlting party, whd shag reimburse the non - defaulting party therefor aeon dinman& 7. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and, as executed, shag mmtimmone agreement binding on all of the panics hereto notwithstanding that all said parties arc not signatory to the original or same counterpart. 8. BINDING AGREEMENT. This Agreement shag be binding upon the successors and assigns of the title to the Rothblum Property and The Hopkins Street Venture Property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have heramto set their hands and seals the day and year &st above written. TRH HOPKINS STREET VENTURE, a Colorado venture ` Theodore ldularz -- - • kgp'P Rethblum BY loaffrr 41a/ U.e 1 C4 1. ,Lb Esther DMVos - Mara Rothbkum S T A T E OF C U OP, p ) ss. COUNTY OF Frjk,•1 ) T+ne e foregoing inswment was acknowledged before me this ksiih day of May, 1946 by Th as a venturer in eHopkins Street Ventura, a Colorado joint wine. ti. mry hand and official seal. g —. --'on expires: -1It4i'1to- (n� ('� o0 rA [Aug') tilt hrt 7Y) Notary Public (Notary Acknowledgment to Follow on Next Page) • • . ,. . STATE OF Col- s -RAAC' ) ) ss. COUNTY OF t', }k • in ) twit, r , "1.. re going instrument was acknowledged before me this b_!M day of Mrs; 1996 by c j :,, a venturer InThc Hopkins Street Venture, a Colorado jomt venture. • ' j M' hand end official seal. salon expires:: ntiI9lo Notary Public STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) The foregoing instalment was acknowledged before me this 6 = day of May, 1996 by Philip Rothblum and Maria Rotbblum. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: •.-4•f if 7 d.--P / Notary Public 0 Itirenedublak. i7aea27 Oeaaieam 6, Comityf 1 remr+•• - - 393676 06/13/96 03:4RP PO 4 OF 6 -4- i k, al ' § j% � � ƒ 1 1 § 0 » II �` 1;1/1 ' !� < & 1 ; )# __ . , \\ /E k . ' - ; ƒ , ;@ , (- _ , ! . I , / / ./\ ! / ~ ( • k ` * § A i ! a / ƒ� / / \ \ \ i ` k J ? ® • w�� / !CA §§ . « m i, F. ^ \ AC ,. \ \0 IL :� —% / \ \ Z . k \ / / / / I 1 . ...... �. r =MIT A Page 1 of 2 , I E i i I II VI , � ® - I 7 ' • X4 I it I (� LL I sc jfn1G -� 5 � i � ?o pg. it- ■ "l� ®®a®� ■air•_ r { — � = I 1111± -7._ 1 Y 4 Q9� A S S I II l .t= � ME 1 1:1111:71-111-1-Ter 1 i i• 1 1181 393676 06/13/96 03:48P Pfd 5 OF 6 ''`� 115"510/ -w1 ce Yak Ti e,..TI 0 d 32416 µ0 y„JrL 9• .`I P 1 r� ew)WY f,...1—dVla K. f :ie9ss ` .r l • tlRIN mat< f DFtica enaYN[i51Pn gprgcthode46n yfa e 3110 w�. • %.- Page 2 of 2 • Y r- I to �i Xts-3 g1.o G< I . g ime...14- a t i _ -na1 Rll � R iY ----- eo VIII Rs IA 11aM (� ■11r _ I u: _ G %@TnG 6NG C [%ISTIND uLDIGL WM1DIND =� lit ' Ct{ $WM Qsw en. cc !o(L 4Fj P% -hots nit 10° iCAtte :wveuwh„v.wSdrz im "ins 1,.. S� — 1] N vent.aIt°enc. fAtT.YtRSMIe ,y0.,_ ib1�6n �Yje 9ve ]Elt 5 393676 06/13/46 03:49P PG 6 OF 5 RECEPTION #: 572357, 08/04/2010 at E��1B13 6 { 8 1 11:31:14 AM, 1 OF 7, R $41.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO Resolution No. 16 (SERIES OF 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR 632 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN 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 is located within the Commercial (C -1) Zone District, and legally described as: City and Townsite of Aspen, Block 98, Lot S and east half of Lot R, commonly known as 533 E. Hopkins; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable Code standards, 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. 16, Series of 2010, by a (4 - 0) 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 standards 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 welfare. 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 16, Series 2010 Page 1 of 4 a) The trash, recycling and delivery area shall be designed so that adequate clearance is maintained between the service area and the parking stalls in the carport. It is recommended that a separation fence or bollards shall be installed to ensure that normal use of the service area does not impose a risk to the adjacent vehicles. If adequate separation cannot be maintained, a reduction of one parking space shall be considered. b) The final design of the Spring Street Public Amenity Space shall consider 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) A detached sidewalk along Hopkins shall be considered and evaluated for Final Commercial Design Review. 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 area e) The Applicant shall consider redesigning the Hopkins amenity space to make it more inviting to the public. f) The Applicant shall continue to work with Staff to better shield the Spring Street amenity space from the residents to the east of the Property. g) The Applicant shall continue working on redesigning the top floor facade so that it is less imposing. Section 2: Buildine Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final recorded approvals. This will include approvals for Growth Management Quota System, Subdivision, Parking, 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 prepared 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. Resolution No 16, Series 2010 Page 2 of 4 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. Section 3: Engineering 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 Mitigation 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 fire 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 Department 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 are 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 are 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 regard, 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 awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are Resolution No 16, Series 2010 Page 3 of 4 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 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 20 day of July, 2010. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: J im T Special Counsel Sta Gibb ATTEST: c kie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Attachments: Exhibit A: Approved Conceptual Elevations Exhibit B: Approved Conceptual Site Plan Resolution No 16, Series 2010 Page 4 of 4 . - ----- - , ............ . ,.. -..f• r..... 7 R I ■ d011 3 er9 7 , 3 r 47 - c i r.; U11.1117 0 N'-l'iV I''''1)1 79.9 .--=;:i iiiittliA SNINd°1-4 .3 ‘-'‘- tH341 n re .•- &.. , 1 1,11 • , _ . . 7,7 .ii ,7. .. m - . — 1: 1 c' '71,47,447t.1.■ 1%1 . . ,.. , ' — V: ... . I • 1. , ,.......,---, ,... '< I: li.', 1 :1'. - .1 . &iri: '.' ' :" i .7 -ff , •-% ,,..: rag -,1ristt,!:.!,,,-!„ , ...7:51: ., ' - . ' .*.• ... *; 14., • - - - . ......... „. :re ' arr.r,t • .1, 4. ;,. , ... ,!,.., , .,,,;;K-0;.7: ' si..'.wit] .i-, .,..2. e , ,,,. • . It !;:., 1..km-st, -- ti; L p, ... . . ,., : q • : ;r1 ;" .Natilit • ti • ' ': -,' ;."1:! . ' ..1::';5ilt 1 3". Et ft^ . ' ' I :I `It- 1 -- 7711.1.- ..zr l `i ik ' "C. . 4.1.: .:.i. i frgartlp • ...„. . . • ,,,:- : ., ..., !I'd:. i . 1-. at a ± ,±.1. ii 1111 . ; i It t. " - ro tti . - A re L., ... ,... .. 4 •4, .0 1 = . . ?.!o .:-. ,•.i '... ar‘ :—` !! ., .:".j' i,!,,'•C 03 N=RIS I SNI" Zeg ' ` - , k u g -. ... '''"1:."" .:. 10 SNINdOH . 3 ZE9 ;,. ?:, i- r " I . 1-- I in ntiiiiii earl i — kirM 1 ! I 7.1 Liiii.:11 I. 1 I i 1 ' ' 14 itt I i I .., .... ...., .......,..............................,...,...- - . ,...„,,, I Ill ...--,--- . - .. ...........,... I I ' Ili Oi @ !,,,,if. ,..',... I i .3/4..7. . . . . . , . ,.. .. . ... ... ... ' • . ii I '.. . - .. ' I tc,t ,,,,,itr.,-,.., ,,,„ , :t; I 42.1<.*% ? , ,,,,,,,,,-, 3,- ,nt 2. " .- "::R ‘-■ ------ , “t191;+1 pi ill 3 7 ; ;1 ,.iirc.71 Al ill 1.1 . . 1 ,,,, h i ii ; ■ ••,, .....:1!-•? .i •••,•••:.:‘ ! N.} 9 I 1 • , ; . Hit i ! • • •-111 • ., 1 [ •iibigh 11 I 1 tr ., : fl 1 ,1N hill .1 I 1 ' 'q i 'l 1 bf 11 I !!!: I ! , I/I] • • I " “ I Ps ,. Mir I Pi 01 CA ' 1 ., I I hi hi Il 1 ° I „ i , 11 Ii i ,„, I .....: , ir • III4 II 1 I • III I " li.,., ! gj •: Ill F'F II .X ii! a [ ; LE. 2,1 ' • Pi I I I y I CI; III0 W , 0 0 ct : ' Fairclq — < - > Li w ron' '1 J 'H °tJ �� i � e' a .. fx ' I ` 00'N3dsv BNINdOH 3 ZC9 ;„ x L9 s 'W III! §3 p 3t z " ��;,�3E SNI>idOH ' 3 Z£9 i : ;ef 3 1 z �� 96 >10019 A311V x m - r ry a ry u U L fI In 1 ' a i� Q , , . It r if Ly- r n � 4 •: r 5 0 �, y , � � , o 1 I - 1 1 :. a 1 11 I I 1 I i } y ,} a. I 1 1.4..!,..! ' 1 ! i CC M , . C W ( Ph 01 1 - - � 2 W O I s ` _ W 0 R Z t— x o 4. 1 1 L q + O g Q { I z j 3 n I n oc 1 I ■ t 6 1 P i Z Q n . x 3f N AV SNINdOH ISV3 EXHIBIT DAVID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTS Pc October 23, 2010 Property Owner Address City, State Zip Code Re: Final Design Review for the renovation at 632 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen CO. Dear Property Owner's Name: I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to inform you of the upcoming Final Design Review and public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission for the renovation project at 632 East Hopkins Avenue, across the street from your residence. We have made many positive changes to the design and believe you will be pleased with the direction in which the project has gone. Since you last reviewed the design of the building, the primary changes include a substantial reduction to the mass and scale of the new third level, a refinement in the cohesiveness of the architectural character of the lower levels, and greater definition of the landscape and public spaces that surround the building with increased specificity in addressing the neighboring contexts and character. Specifically, the final design achieves the following improvements to the proposed building design since the approval for Conceptual Commercial Design: • The affordable housing unit has been relocated off -site, allowing for a total floor area reduction of approximately 600 sq. ft., all of which has been removed from the third level of the building. This floor area reduction allows for the Hopkins Avenue, Spring Street and alley facades of the third level to be set back further from the two -story structure below. • The architecture of the first and second levels has been simplified and emphasis placed on expressing the building as an elegant brick and limestone form. The off -axis wood corner elements have been eliminated and replaced by limestone features that express the building's corners, openings and entries. The architecture of the third level remains as a mix of wood and glass, while the pitched roof -lines have been replaced by more understated flat roofs, all of which has deemphasized the new third level relative to the building below. • The landscaping and public space around the building have been further defined with a focus on making the space along Hopkins Avenue more inviting to the public, and the spaces along Spring Street less pronounced than their initial design as large public gathering spaces. The sidewalk along Hopkins Avenue has been detached from the curb, providing a tree planting strip that matches the sidewalk condition to the west of the property. The landscaping along Spring Street is now more residential in character, offering a "garden - like" aesthetic for buffering the building and minimizing the visual impact of the Spring Street entrance. We invite you to contact us if you would like further information regarding the proposed final design of the project. Please feel free to call or email me to set up a meeting at our office, at the project site or via teleconference. Michael Rudin is also available to meet and discuss the project with you in New York. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, AL— Adam C. Roy Land Use Planner adam�2o djarchitects.com cc: Michael Rudin APPENDIX B - SITE & DESIGN DOCUMENTS Exhibit 1. Vicinity Map Exhibit 2. Existing Building Photographs Exhibit 3. Improvement Survey Exhibit 4. Existing Site Plan Exhibit 5. Existing Main Level Floor Plan Exhibit 6. Existing Second Level Floor Plan Exhibit 7. Proposed Site Plan Exhibit 8. Proposed Landscape and Public Amenity Plan Exhibit 9. Proposed Landscape Sections and Details Exhibit 10. Proposed Landscape Material Boards (slip sheet) Exhibit 11. Proposed Public Amenity Space Diagram Exhibit 12. Proposed Main Level Floor Plan Exhibit 13. Proposed Second Level Floor Plan Exhibit 14. Proposed Third Level Floor Plan Exhibit 15. Proposed Roof Plan Exhibit 16. Proposed Parking and Trash Area Plan Exhibit 17. Proposed Building Elevations (South and East) Exhibit 18. Proposed Building Elevations (North and West) Exhibit 19. Proposed Streetscape Elevations Exhibit 20. Proposed Southeast Context Perspective Exhibit 21. Proposed South Context Perspective Exhibit 22. Proposed Southwest Context Perspective Exhibit 23. Proposed East Context Perspective Exhibit 24. Proposed Northeast Context Perspective B I I EXHIBIT 144. l .. • r: t . t p ' ' t 1• b * !,``ter -jk% s * f. '� 4' ` � I % (¢ N r i _ ° •2 • .a :, i s� . i .4 r • ''""� . * s', tit . • ...„,,Lr.,0 , ,„ i_ 04, :' , , iii- , ii 4 11,41 r , .1 / i r „ .41110‘ i • • F • • ' . ,,, - .1 ,... j.: :... , ..,.„ ,iro:, -:" .. ' pror ''' .. r .1.4.t 1:.r.t... :::16-jtr.,,,T- 0 . 21...:.91 4 4.: 1 , ' 7. ' I-I: ' '4. '' 1:11:'"ir:fil' : tll:sll'Pg::7.41' 1;1. ...' s d+ Y A4 . y R 1 1 ,,,/ ,ems. 4 74 4 * .. ...... ,� i IMF r II s : `�•� , .4r..- - , J11, fit . .,.. .... • M4.4f iff ' '..: e•-•'' .... f t t'�' r �Z it T + R _ ' -4 -.4.... rill/ . : 1111 : '''' ..- ' I , . T • ;dr , e- a ` f = `+1 . 'I ./ � , • I _ 6 J T � ` ' • • 632 East Hopkins Aveuiie CIO Vicinity Map DAVID IO14645TON ARCIIItt(tS.. (not to scale) v e. . I .y4, . ;' fin r * % 1 FA • a 1 r - `ti ? , v t a J `}`+3 F -.k. _ _r p ' y r I r � q M ¢ ` ° 4 ,1 s , — I Aj pp� • K. �sTt ai i __ — Y -- 1 ...e ,Ji '" F Y• S E, 4 ,. ,. r. 1 4 Y' rf , y l lY § • * I i . .„ , lir e � - � � }i ±ham b.. t : k k ,<, k �,', t c'k1 e S . h j ` al 5 '. Y3 "F -� ' al" �N^ F a ks'. 0 : st ,� ,t I A 4 ,, .. . x _ 0 0 m � X W T N E l§ ,.t ° 632 E. HOPKINS 11 e r a 632 E. HOPKINS I ASPEN CO i�� pC ;[ l till ;1- , ., 'x� 0 l O u 13 °o m K M C M L i 3 <;50 - / < z Fs , GS �; 65 , ' , / 54 (1 i $ti f rg _ Eft pi0 8 p ` J , m ppn fn fi .'. Rn 4 4....; d SOa sWr�� s i 7 F u- a ig � a g " ° "s f� Li 4 ' '' 632 E. HOPKINS /111 o ill if � es; hi 0 r'i W g ` i — 632 E. HOPKINS ASPEN, CO Ai E i i e; E m z 9 �f 13 5 q PAP a m h ; J . ',mans DN. Tortai^ _-- e e�� tl q wN I / / Aa3tl 099 M.4�.6 3NIl A�tl3dON \ G ,�m„� 1`1 �..m, 3 = ,gym -� /'� - - -- 1 4 1 J I ' e. o — O T ` e -n =1 I m s .., A ' -1 lJ ni Ho D wl ,. »tea r lie s r t. o� ,o „ w 1 r -- i ,tljaoiWi��W 1 m _ / I 0 z I 1 , , ,1 , _ m = I 1 i :m 992 I I Nwm "au (n —I m ��� WALL D z - ,.. vs„,-.54 e PAO COM O .= 1 h _J Y is a+ = T� f � i k i -prl � �I G � $m 632 E. HOP KINS3r =;� : o :g 3 1 oss,a - o m I ° y- 6 32 E. HOPKINS AVE. ASPEN, CO �eit } P _ a 0 0 T ------ - - - - -- 17 ' — O O I 1 -n D II 'I 1 ! I ti 1 I I 6'' I ' I 1 I O e II 1 ! I e m v I z i X 0 I I .y .ea Lft ',.. O O 0 I Cry 10 ;gig 111;1111, m _ m� 48 632 E. HOPKINS .4 . 034 ° - n 4 i 3 H 4 632 E HOPKINS AVE. I ASPEN, CO Pi i g 4±41i a .:x m j c a a" i c € � € � ° a ee;S m ;i?gst 0 0 0 0 O 0 - 1 ___ 0 1 0 m m 1 m 1 (/) - 1 © m 1 1 1 I e 1 1 . 0 - 1 0 9 0 m z I 111 I I o o 0 11 m I sN 3 irCO ° 632 E. HO PKINS I1I Hj ° ° Y= =P` ri m _ , 1 �r o I.I (yy z o — 632E. HOPKINS AVE ASPEN CO , D p ? ) f t . 6 4 n m j L. 3 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE � � "m ox nz me II m 1, z z ! w �) _ELL — s 1 �� h III > A I l z _ _ �® C mm 1 I m ■ T z F . n O n° c m m 71 rt H ) _ 711 p u) ? III D -u r A m 2 x 0 y z (n o al m O m M > 1 r �I 1 A 1 `n c I m S Z • F -- I i m ■ 1 m cn m < x - a r n Z m 0 ! I '' 5 ]5 I Ill Pi Ill C lim m m ,: —_ III •ft n gg ,. zp ) ___--C )----- YY 1 1 \ { r. ALLEY BLOCK 98 Q9 1 E i o Qg=.A i I`'IliU m 4 i o , ° F`I c 632 E. HOPKIN �? }# Ym! kps,� o `I ;Ii",; 5, 7 P 7 632 E. HOPKINS I ASPEN CO g ,+ I p i - `t �3111 E ' s s es °" ig a EAST HOPKINS AVENUE p 4 fp r ya \,�'� �� ,' J Is O NO IF m - il r em eel F_e c is : - p i i i w. . - s e Wa sail ii.� Eiirril�I6e...Elie ills – ...eC�'Yi r e:a.i�5l' 1 i -m 1 19! i19 x■ - rm ®+ ea I ffF __ 1 _ROW' rc w' _�I+ r r I w i I Ida ' T a 9l r° ark m . 1 r 1 a m- m r. . � 3ea ieGee� a eee, a m rs 1 �a�ti S _ I 1 e 1 , urn i IT a °e- It , ��Me q � musall - - :aene m nxatltl. Plinahr /111W41 saw III 111111 11 I n e nor INIP.Moi it 2 f m _ i ar sow I 0 a 1 13 01 ■�0 1 r A 61 co 2 ley C o 1M F 1 ' 0 11 xi 1 ,a _ Z 1 .Z1 m m ■ ... ! ■■�I.. i I x r. ■a f ' 9 �� Z If ri i - , 1 _ r , r,. + ' 1 • [ ITT Spa 1 F F Z A v rte= f r � - O 'tI r k I II r L.... <n 6,7 ,' I I 03 ,eI - � I / m , flgaYr'�r ! dg a II �. ya,gy, .I f ' 0 d z R i ,f }' 1 ! 0 cn •T1 r 1 r k , , j J) v , p II Z l ite r I _ D I - -- - - , -. 1 L1 oc /I fN .a .4],,i' +J 9 m - o r � �) ) I � e m �� ti � • — mi a w ALLEY BLOCK 98 7 1 OD o P TIM IIt - - $ F IAg 9 l .3 00 °$ 4 �� 632 E. HOPKINS y 7 I $g g : ; _- e _ i � g "� s s 632E. HOPKINS ASPEN, CO � q�Y g .. r _ • c! bliP11 F/ pz a ° o " Y 8 8 3 ,1 c 5-3'3': - A 3 = n ' »_ iie + fin S " " � w . X � a " 1'111 1 1 il l m , '� • al. i < al i :..Y r i rc ti 'ff , A?:,_, " ca d a [5 c a } n /PPPP 5 e f p .. • r. ) 88 r. 1 i tr -- 1. KZ • a _ M1V P r� v � il j . � Yf l I- Y ed. . `I 6 ' I 1 ,. e � +k lt" _ .. Siff ' § i , <{T . '' . % � i y W , f4 a :. I k ' �y Me <t• $ i t ' e , - lam. "' - • J ■ nil W 0 s E m z m 0 7 1 O 0 Z Z • • O 0 O 0 c - c 1 D D — m 0 0 = m =i co ams° I 9 I � 632 E. HO PKINS IVIIII' YY =Psge = - 632 E. HOPKINS ASPEN CO 0 f r., s ^ " _ a w 66616 5 m 1intik c s z B a 1 .: d °'.1 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE - -_ _ lyM ® 1 �a, a II �rry� \\ ten � ' Iki O en an�,; m I co:lois jac Pa P h ` C C7 _ �¢¢tl/ IP O Z I N �A 4 4 h N C D O Z > ItallaWORMIENNN O O O , \-\ z e u., -, >> , 2, r- c" D , .6„.„, ,,,,,, h.. , ng„ am rTm [PL C m 1 o m W � alik 0 o D - a 1611 'I • M v m _ _ --- - - -' -- - -- s L - sis oen eas.oa -- -- -- — - hI N. ALLEY BLOCK 98 D LC }t g �t -1 mo .'gts itpIii e X If a ➢SF 632 E. HOPKINS th,t M °P z° I ;F m O WA z 1 �' m 632 E. HOPKINS 1 ASPEN CO x I ei r 1 i ' - sse6 m 3 ¢1! 1 1 O I© O O O 9 m I ill' < O r L y Z c o A A O ( m N M © v L i � 1 1 u t t O y 1 n mr '' t 1 4111 T al r 1 O L . - 1 W I © - ,- 1 -L-LIJ _ - — 0 1 1 7 g I D ti m v C 1 A I I I _ ALLEY BLOCK 98 E --r11 T 1 IL i I _ g i' . x °� f 6 E. HOPKINS g li i s kr €i Gm _ n Iplli' ( I - g N z 11 i 0' - 632 E. HOPKINS 1 ASPEN, CO lr fikf E i $ e '^ 1 1 51 i gii•901 0 0 O m m © O O 14 Ili' Z 4 O r 1 I I 1 __. I O r D �I Z © m Q — RI — O H N_ I ©° —� — — .© sien _` 1 r` 1 1 ii r O m { Ilk I I Ill ® 1 r 1111 _ 0 ; ._ , IL — 0 _ E b b � � RI II II il � —_1 42 8 }} - 4 O © O O O O r Crl i i ',4 1 . i lx" `1 ?�C 632 E HOPKINS i f , =i ` � g - £� 9 6 5 1 &F Po^fi iii P.4 W o r d 632 E. HOPKINS ASPEN, CO I }�1 o6 g aeg ` 43i?111 C) © O O© O O O 4$ . = 4.5" 50. y 4 . 0 . �.4m 14'tivr 5.4• ;� 1 1 1T 1 1 T 1 1° m v D 2 C o A O v O [n m 'K } & � y - 'x{5 y ¢ s ' MMEM1 Y x C yp{^yI� t I'ry.- ' { ,(,.�'p +e� � .T h i { $w p - .,�X«°' * H4 1 d x{ Xi a }.'.4'^ rl t4 p @s rz l k � iF a t W y ''.. M2 9 433 , 'i'1 dM 3. tf..'s w : ,,, , , , ,,,a S , 5 el' ,,. ftic se 1 m K N z # , r "' A N m M Y m o > i ' llt,::::tt: llt:4;)0,t14:±illl : Er ;ita: ;*it,"14ctIttlittl"' ' 190 in 11- b xS €# 1. , } 4t?,e p ,: i x . I ra L r" 1 ' , z } ... a m . L" 0 QM1 ,.i - 4 I. —. O II , r. .,x „,,,..:Ab .,„,„4‘,44. P kk § $kH a % $'au I� abY �. }x �. ' .:: �'wi F s ” z.4 a ix§ - l t A.._�A , # fx +z "*x s"� ' "r — 1 0 m T r I � I I k 4 i _ 42 8" 1 U O O © O 0 ri °tip jig _ ' e so y 632 E H OPKINS I` # { ; q r� 3 R` 03= � � o . p _ 632 E. HOPKINS ASPEN, CO III' 4�`*� e � i e " m � ■ • z s °g e z o s"°aii a. q ja eye bill, ! 0 c O n z —0 A CD —0 �� I T a s 0 — 0 m rOn F 0 0 m O no p _ =– - oe T Z A G., om o m m z 0 1 H N _ _ 0 Z w 2 y o m n n m O S y Z P 0 _ Imo O I I I I I I 1 JIB � Jh 1 LJ ° (� V 4 0 _ N. ,fl S Mi j ii e 3 51 J k /� m g 1 m 'g _° § NOD 632 E. HOPKINS I �gi # F ol & =o oz e r: e ( „ 632 E. HOPKINS ASPEN, CO g ` x E $ e m g _, e e5e� � � 9 Sf:3 J 3 _ L .. 111,7 — L L H 1 II 11 r rr u II 11 o li 7 uuulil I1 Lk/ A iI 1O' -5 ■1 14' -11" RAMP ay 6' -0" l i 23 m 1 II n >O n m j' yc� 0 _ f ` r 73 �� g � 7T_512 7'_51/2 m n h I ^ 1 11 D o r i' I ` J N o Z D "' = n n 1� m = � il � e "E 45.00' a g.y "a' < N9 632 E. HOPK i ¢ ' ;g ° ° 1 % ai3 Ig = -- T i 632 E. HOPK ASPEN, C O 3 5 es V� z goo 'F� O 1 N [ a a sP _ £ T, 1 MN ii m 8'1F ° 6 li m t 1 °m'I 1 0 -- __. ii o / Z 11' •- ■ -'I [ ®^ iiir o x 1 1 1 i ® a c a I ®1 I 1 ®I s nr 1i , D 1 1 u a Z I r °. xa ,� 1 1 z t 1 1 s. . I I ,. off 1 O 1 S F L' Y NIVir4 Fa 1 11 III ° m Nil I I C I ... 1 I 1 z • 0 2rn: 1 �1 ∎ p„ II 1 I , 1e • 1 1 gii ..e,� gg y [' g , V III` , :.,. .$ In � E MIN I ' 1 6 1 11 E' I e : Iii IC __ r ` 1011 1 Il 1 � � I s iJ ®�. I I I 1 law I all oil fr a1r� 11 ? I e m II N p ` ma o ag A g m m o m <m� " It f $ 3 ,. 11111 I�� t� t 11 � � , 1 111 i1.1 �� g�! 1 m 3 gs FE1 gm N p E21 =m xw Si gQ EP Fgs"sa ij • ] m om 1b =e,s 632 E. HOPKINS � ' { ”J" _� ce A O m 2 z E - i 632 E. HOPKINS 1 ASPEN, CO x i i ^ 191 ; } }Fg a T. ,sa ` ii :k c 3 0 m IT gm I m l I .,: gy I O Z -D -- _ A O 1 o 1 1 O 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 o I g 1 1 1 1 f i . -1P �l 1 c op g m 1 °m o I 1 l I F,o P^ g N Is II I 1 1 Z I S r^ ip g,i €s la; DP mp! • i I I li 11 lam'' 1 rit 1 < R.1 o l_� % f H rI 111 gli 0 I 11 Fr. W 1110 ' 0 ri ri I I E ) 121111 - ' .. 1/2 ' I IF�aI n 1 31 1 1 1' ' i III . 11 ® 1 g 1 11 y 1 I 1 I 1 {1 1 1 I AI 6 c A m g I a I I 1 ° % 1 m. z,- r r.x tll 1 1 1 Iiizi 1a E, 1 1 1 i low itim 1 f i 1 wHi • I ! ' 21 ”, ES =m • o A6P -N 70 1 m m 1 JS z 1 I. 1 a G 2 I El g mi A I —' 1 a c r" 0 1 Nsl o ;m � I ' I I � i � ^� I a I _ I I _ 1 I V F m p Mil i gII II °yn c 632 E. HOPKINS 1 1 . t li Or y ; = j F = P XA co I z ¢ 7 — 632 E. HOPKINS ASPEN, CO I pap 9 l °i$ a g _, 1.1,1g5 P 3a° eg 0.., r r m €_ m H < m < N i ,i 7 0 '° S . t -1 m O r D � < s e s. i w 1 1, ..., 6i m ar d Y € Ni ;&+i N3 bil • I 1 ow s ; ■l x ?. 1 1 O v...... i 3 ' X I 1 g. at ■l, et. T 1 a' e. ■1' Z a ■l < l i S a , m L. j � l� r ai I I ®1 Iii 1 102 1 o m <; TAM ,I m = . i� a I ui �ni -i ' j I� :': l I I■' a al i rl x Z Z j I I I I - , e, - M O p ! 1 m C tr. l■ I � • aa. i�� . l I sle! : --- ji ■l Nur • •u M � l j I I W N R m n 1 in 1 . s y „D fO O . 0 II ca v x F A O Z z co 73 co D c m O m x Z m z m M III rn m m -Di H --1 W O O O 1 Z Z Z m - e ltlf a r b E_ �Ie rl } l{ !� Z d �� ' s � = 4 = M ii 632 E. HOPKINS I €t p g � { = fr i g i d $ 11 0 CO — $ i 1 e Mr — 632E HOPKINS ASPEN, CO ' 99 }i i E i . _ • YeS� �i6q�yi Ni �' m Mill 3 9, ; � z r 6v tx» i i : ry I 1 . . G J A nf y = —J &t 4�p t �F i t Sy ''p 4 of �++ s,R l�C i G a r + i. ?; ; 4 tmio fi , yvr • y tV[iI �'' , , ]]}} R r. 9L ' of -43 “ qt.,,,.., 4' , , , / m w ry. fi.. m C i 5ie r V /'ty L•��C ' ! u er / 1 ^ ( s� I - a"t c G a � e { �p i= t m x 1 w N O N fi @ ° $ 1 c 632 E. HOPKINS `i =j €I'd - e 0 g $ 632E. HOPKINS 1 ASPEN CO /HI l gil `t.! a €^ ^ _, { d r f „ ' Y w A A i F - I axe" � I 1k l��M. r p . f 1 1 l 1H 1 .. ' f r,-.E. e.. e 4 °+1" 4 • u 1 .17yy F A $vEJ AIW ' YS Yi 1' } - l! 1 I y 9 i 1{ r *Y r U) - IIa•- t d ' 2 � n N I z .•. 4f. � kyc < g n { 1 'A 4y - I .r (A:. it m X M Fa 1 N N = _ 632 E. HOPKINS : # t #9 - o m fi32 E. HOPKINS ASPEN, CO r 1 v F e f @ s ¥ = a' m •s } a o, it r.✓ T , � 1 y rg-i !, + A e a 3- 9 ! } 4 p i t `�. t � <Y,,,;,, Y ' r f: • k , f I 2-, .i ^fru •;-,(11,a1 � f t �1 l i �'? LYn� F : S ", 1" Y 4' ) 9) ' O I e t, I *k. . Y a C.J a , � { d .. � ' , r T ' p i 4� 1 v S)- Y e , 0 O � � 4r''4 .'•!".41+,'L' t° , T ' �" 4k a! ',0 .� .e - P+ ' i* Y'� t ' s st r r 'II :: 1 i s ,4; a lip h Y r7 m $ r '„ ' — 1 m r — I . ilk i£ ..;/; r i� � t J VI , �� •, , e ! riy , , I , m x x W ri N N N.) - ' f " ° ^ milli 632 E. HOPKINS i f; P i = o Y e 5 N 632 E. HOPKINS ASPEN, CO A } " s' " 6 - I ..'. .i..-‘...+1 is M J a : >Y. e ii p 1 E I ■ ' ' '. O rvi ii .• O " • O n m nn r a i ��za`a', ' 4. N,•,, 4•p •, ^ J m x t W tri N S W q I a KP 's 11111111 a s - N m P l 632 E. HOPKINS thi:�Ii : = a W e @ i ;5 632 E. HOPKINS 1 ASPEN, CO !1 till z ° a_^ AF H icy' -e--$ m gi, al A , Mf.1 6N , _e Il F . � 2• t li e l l ) a t Y h '44 , I d A � � � ` ' � I 1 ) I 1 t,. A A , • , s m �, 15.i �, z ■ ' q 1 , Is t ,ii I m' • O i e a. k3' n e '' f `?s 4 . } fjl p YCI lam`- y e 3, - 111 =•' k ,, P R te , SF • m X 1 CT) 1 P. g g p y g7g }{p N N %.) - 6 32 E H OPKINS �� 16:61 .4• a 632 E HOPKINS ASPEN CO c ., It -1 ®yam• N � MRS . , R0 1` g = a ; ..--, .... ‘... / c- o a ,.( 1. ':"..` . • to it, 7.g...' ;,,/ e 9 2 •■.' n ; g':<• . . • .... : t ' \ , ■ . Ng : , , , .. 11 1 .„0 , , -IS ;4 1 f ' I% ■ : , : - % • - w' ', 1 r.,, . ' ,fr ■...t .{ * ' , k •P1.1::±:':'1,1'c.'11::,:14; 7 : ' 4. 4 14, : . ‘ . ,4 1' : . '''' .1-1:' ' 1 „1,,, c , if , '.•••••• 4 • el. Ilit ni' , V',1-; :Cc! ,- ,.:-. -;;;; - '..,,. '- 4 */".''. ' : .n./ • . 4... • • , ' , 'g :` : , 4 ......";,.......: T.: ,.. ....n. . r - . , - - • ; • . - , V r,.... • , ,.',.:;.:,,: - ., 14, .,,;; .::::,4 t.4 ,,..:. v . - mi , it \ \ \ ., \ ,•!% - 4 1 , - ••••;• ), ,f ie f 1/4 . 4 . ry,;- ,i.k. -.',. r ' .....,/ . : .. ''''': fl7f,‘ , :iie:ci"..:- •• .' .•--:,= • mj • . . : .,, , :,c).,r'%,: , ,' • .5„ it, , 7 - :•... :it , " )101 . , k ,, ' -- . -- • co • l 714 111Sais ar Et , et, sir ----- - 0.. 0 . ............ • ,. .., ..., .. .•".... . . .-, - .i co L'S,A1* , . -111: • . 0 ' • " z 1 • -o .9. . ' - ' 0 .- Ittz..-: , 44t ' it 0 ' cn . - 17-,r, -‘,!,. . i" L it.." 4 •,... f ., m ..( o . , ‘,.... ifr , s , 1 ,1,;;:i .' r . . :), 1 r- ) ' ' 4 1 4' 4c \ It '...' ..- AS 0 G') o 0 .., -.111 Mi m p ,, , 2'1 ' ,,c t ii eTh ) ..4,," ty 4 ...-. 40 ., I „la; . •,+ ... > *, A . • lr• :.) 1 . Nit :. ' ajb ; ••.‘,1 • : H co z ik : • . l 't , . it -, 4 , 73 › 4.... ,, .at 1 ; .. 2 % y, - • l e, 71 , • . ;Nye, - --7-74 . \ f, •iii.,,, 1 , 1-- ...v ' •-• IV (4. v'tk„ .: • ,- • . ' • ri. !, t 1, — ..: „... ........../.;„ car_.- co L, .. :., , „ op ,,,, , .. • , __, _ _ -.-„, _ _ _ ..:_ ..--- • It , A . . _ , CPI; › > W.R nig! i li v i l X 0 1 ; .1 632 E. HOPKINS —1 :FfEg 1.g Mind itlii1 -r Im. CD 632 E. HOPKINS 1 ASPEN, CO 11.11€11i . Vim Mii cil,