Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
#landuse case.HP.602 E Hyman Ave.0034.2012.AHPC
Aw THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0034.2012.AHPC PARCEL ID NUMBERS 2737 182 12 003 PROJECTS ADDRESS 602 HYMAN AVE PLANNER AMY SIMON CASE DESCRIPTION HPC DESIGNATION REVIEW - ASPEN MODERN REPRESENTATIVE SUNNY VANN 925 6958 DATE OF FINAL ACTION 01/30/2013 CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON: 03/22/13 em File Edit Record Navigate Form Reports Format Tab Help _ .... .._......... Ong Status Fees Fee Summary hlafn;ins Attachments RoutirGg Histtrraluaf�n Artl�rEnq Cum Fields Sub Permit Parcels Pent tp ;ah Aspen Historic Land Use Permit=10034 2012.AHPC c , Address'1902 HYPJAR AYE � Apt'Su�e a City '!kSPEP! Stater Zip 01011 ff Perri Information Masterpermi: Routing queue a31u01 Applied 112Ti2012 yC '' ' Project, —� Status pending Approved ' Iae ription:APPLICATION FOR HPC OESIOPIATNON RE)JEA!-ASPEN MODERN lssued I I �Ocsedi"Fnal 3 Submitted ISU1t1P�?Y VkhdPd 02 698 Clod Running ➢a,5 �4 Expires11?1ft01C Owner Last name EO BUILDING ASPEN LLC First name(DANIEL L.HUNT 11301 ELM,ST � 'SUITE 4000 one X214;41E 99s9 Address IDALL, Tx X3201 a Applicant t Owner is applicant? QConlractorisapplicant Last name HUPiT First name DANIEL 1601 ELM ST-UNITY HUNT INC 1101 ELM ST STE 4000 Phone 1 } Cust 292'1ddre4s (tAl i AS Tx?57b1 r Lender Last name �_ I First name' P Phone ! Address r �Z ��d�P� EXHIBIT EE D NOV ' 6 2012 LAND USE APPLICATION APPLICANT*CIT,Y. OF ASPEN Name: COMMUNITY DEVE �A�JT113JIZ1-j/A/e7 Location: G�2 ST' /-�-�l,/ �.CJ7i5 G 9� (Indicate street address, lot&block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID#(RE Q[ RED) a7 Zi/ 4=4�3 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: —�J�N ���� y�7l��Y c mss✓ Address: ! • l ?� 'Z 7' �' !G 2/ Phone#: PROJECT: Name: Address: t , Phone#: TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ❑ cnditional Use E] Conceptual PUD Conceptual Historic Devt. Special Review ❑ Final PUD(& PUD Amendment) ❑ Final Historic Development ❑ Design Review Appeal ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ Minor Historic Devt. ❑ GMQS Allotment ❑ Final SPA(& SPA Amendment) ❑ Historic Demolition ❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Subdivision Historic Designation ❑ ESA—8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption(includes ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condom iniumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane ❑ Lot Split ❑ Temporary Use ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Text/Map Amendment '/E7'4/ fir EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses,previous approvals,etc.) PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings,uses, modifications,etc.) r reyon attached the following? FEES DUE:9 -Application Conference Summary Attachment#1,Signed Fee Agreement [Response to Attachment#3, Dimensional Requirements Form sponse to Attachment#4, Submittal Requirements-Including Written Responses to Review Standards EXHIBIT ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: �✓6F a�► �iy��y�/ Applicant: Location: Zone District: Lot Size: CcY3 Z Lot Area: GbZ (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. Proposed.- Number of residential units: Existing: Proposed.• Number of bedrooms: Existing: Proposed.• Proposed%of demolition(Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing. Allowable: Proposed.• Principal bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: Access. bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: On-Site parking: Existing. Required.• Proposed. % Site coverage: Existing.• Required.• Proposed. %Open Space: Existing: Required.• Proposed.• Front Setback: Existing. Required.• Proposed. Rear Setback: Existing. Required. Proposed.• Combined F/R: Existing. Required: Proposed: Side Setback: Existing. Required. Proposed.• Side Setback: Existing. Required. Proposed.• Combined Sides: Existing. Required. Proposed.• Distance Between Existing Required.• Proposed. Buildings Existing non-conformities or encroachments: Variations requested: RE " i EXHIBIT Agreement to Pay Application Fees Anagreement between the City of Aspen("CM.and Property Phone No.: Owner("I"): Email: Address of Billing Property: Address: (subject of (send bills here) application) I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. , Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and the payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. $945 flat fee for Parks 945 flat fee for APCHA (Housing) $_ $ 945 flat fee for Environmental Healtt $ g flat fee for Select Review For deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review, and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for non-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render an application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $ 1 ,890 deposit for 6 hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at$315 per hour. $265 deposit for 1 hours of Engineering Department staff time.Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at$265 per hour. City of Aspen: Prop! y Own r: Chris Bendon Community Development Director Name:_ U U l t I y� City use: 4990 Title: Fees Due:$ Received:$ January.2W2 City of 1 EXHIBIT Easy Peel®Labels ♦ Bend along line to Use Avery®Template 51600 j Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTm 308 HUNTER LLC 4 SKIERS LP 517 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC 490 WILLIAMS ST 1108 NORFLEET DR 517 E HOPKINS AVE DENVER, CO 80218 NASHVILLE,TN 372201412 ASPEN,CO 81611 520 EAST COOPER PTNRS LLC 530 HOPKINS LLC 610 EAST HYMAN LLC 402 MIDLAND PARK 5301/2 E HOPKINS C/O CHARLES CUNNIFFE ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 610 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN,CO 81611 630 EAST HYMAN LLC 633 SPRING II LLC 635 E HOPKINS LLC 532 E HOPKINS AVE 418 E COOPER AVE#207 532 E HOPKINS ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ALPINE BANK ASPEN ARCADES ASSOCIATES LTD LLC ASPEN ART MUSEUM ATTN ERIN WIENCEK C/O KRUGER&CO 590 N MILL ST PO BOX 10000 400 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN,CO 81611 GLENWOOD SPRINGS,CO 81602 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN BLOCK 99 LLC ASPEN CORE VENTURES LLC ASPEN PLAZA LLC 532 E HOPKINS AVE 418 E COOPER AVE#207 PO BOX 1709 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 C/O STEVE MARCUS ASPEN,CO 81612 AUSTIN LAWRENCE CONNER LLC AVP PROPERTIES LLC BASS CAHN 601 LLC 532 E HOPKINS AVE 630 E HYMAN AVE#25 PO BOX 4060 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 BATTLE GERALD LIVING TRUST BAUM ROBERT E BERN FAMILY ASPEN PROPERTY LLC HIXON BURT LIVING TRUST PO BOX 1518 65 FIRST NECK LN PO BOX 2847 STOCKBRIDGE, MA 01262 SOUTHAMPTON, NY 11968 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92659 BG SPRING LLC - - - - BISCHOFF JOHN C- BOOGIES BUILDING OF ASPEN LLC 300 S SPRING ST#202 502 S VIA GOLONDRINA C/O LEONARD WEINGLASS ASPEN,CO 81611 TUCSON,AZ 85716-5843 534 E COOPER AVE ASPEN,CO 81611 BORGIOTTI CLAUDIO BPOE ASPEN LODGE#224 CHATEAU ASPEN CONDO ASSOC 9610 SYMPHONY MEADOW LN 210 S GALENA ST#21 630 E COOPER AVE VIENNA,VA 22192 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 CHATEAU ASPEN UNIT 21-A LLC CITY OF ASPEN 421 ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS CTR 2615 N L LAKEWOOD ATTN FINANCE DEPT STE G 2615 N O, IL 60 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN,CO 816113551 CHICAGO, IL 60614 ASPEN,CO 81611 Easy Peel°e Labels ♦ Bend along line to 1 AVERY® 5160® 1 Use Avery®Template 5160® Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTM lJ CJAR LLC COLORADO CABLE COOPER STREET DEVELOPMENT LLC 2514 LAKE MEAD DR 500 PRESIDENT CLINTON AVE#310 C/O PYRAMID PROPERTY ADVISORS LAFAYETTE,CO 80026 LITTLE ROCK,AR 72201 418 E COOPER AVE#207 ASPEN,CO 81611 DUNN JUDITH A REV LIV TRUST EDGETTE JAMES J&PATRICIA ELKS LODGE 224 8051 LOCKLIN LN 19900 BEACH RD STE 801 210 S GALENA ST STE 21 COMMERCE TOWNSHIP, MI 48382 JUPITER ISLAND,FL 33469 ASPEN,CO 81611 ERGAS VENESSA BLAIR&CLAUDE EXELCEDAR INC 20% FERRY JAMES H III PO BOX 4316 534 E HYMAN AVE BOX 167 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 GLENCOE, IL 60022-0167 FITZGERALD FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LTD FURNGULF LTD GELD LLC C/O PITKIN COUNTY DRY GOODS LLC A COLO JOINT VENTURE C/O LOWELL MEYER 520 E COOPER 616 E HYMAN AVE PO BOX 1247 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612-1247 GOFEN ETHEL CARO TRUSTEE GONE WEST LLC GOODING SEAN A 80%&RICHARD L 455 CITY FRONT PLAZA 401 W CENTER 20% CHICAGO, IL 60611 SEARCY,AR 721451406 C/O PARAGON RANCH INC 620 E HYMAN AVE#1 E ASPEN, CO 81611 GREENWAY COMPANY INC GROSFELD ASPEN PROP PART LLC HIMAN LLC 666 TRAVIS ST#100 10880 WILSHIRE BLVD#2222 PO BOX 6159 SHREVEPORT, LA 71101 LOS ANGELES,CA 90024 SWANBOURNE WA 6010 AUSTRALIA, HOPKINS DEV LLC HORSEFINS LLC HUNTER PLAZA ASSOCIATES LLP 345 PARK AVE 33RD FLR 601 E HOPKINS AVE 205 S MILL ST#301A NEW YORK, NY 10154 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 JARDEN CORPORATION JENNE LLP JOSHUA&CO REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS 2381 EXECUTIVE CENTER DR 1510 WINDSOR RD LLC BOCA RATON, FL 33431 AUSTIN,TX 77402 300 S HUNTER ST ASPEN,CO 81611 JOYCE EDWARD LCT LP TENNESSEE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP O BOXT 5 LLC P 1310 RITCHIE CT PO BOX 101444 PO BOX 7755 CHICAGO, IL 60610 NASHVILLE,TN 37224-1444 ASPEN,CO 81612 MALLARD ENTERPRISES LP MARTELL BARBARA MASON&MORSE INC 317 SIDNEY BAKER S#400 702 E HYMAN AVE 514 E HYMAN AVE KERRVILLE,TX 78028 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 I:tiquettes faciles h peter ; A Repliez h la hachure afin de ; www.avery.com Utilisez le aabarit AVERY®5160® I Sens de reveler le rebnrd Pnn-unuc ! 1-Rmr.n-OVFRV Easy Peel®Labels ♦ Bend along line to i (� AIRY® 5160® Use Avery®Template 51600 j Peed Paper �� expose Pop-up EdgeTTM 1 J 1 MATTHEWS ZACHARY MCMURRAY WILLIAM&HELEN MIAO SANDRA PO BOX 10582 29 MIDDLE HEAD RD 9610 SYMPHONY MEADOW LN ASPEN,CO 81612 MOSMAN NSW 2088 VIENNA,VA 22182 AUSTRALIA, MORRIS ROBERT P MYSKO BOHDAN D NATTERER HELEN 600 E HOPKINS AVE STE 304 615 E HOPKINS 67 BAYPOINT CRIES ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 OTTAWA ONTARIO CANADA K2G6R1, NIELSON COL STEVE&CAROL D NONNIE LLC OBERHOLTZER JORDAN 501 S FAIRFAX PO BOX 565 PO BOX 10582 ALEXANDRIA,VA 22314 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81612 ' OLITSKY TAMAR&STEPHEN P&L PROPERTIES LLC PITKIN CENTER CONDO OWNERS PO BOX 514 101 S 3RD ST#360 ASSOC GWYNEDD VALLEY, PA 19437 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501 517 W NORTH ST ASPEN,CO 81611 PITKIN COUNTY BANK 80% REUSS/LIGHT LLC REVOLUTION PARTNERS LLC 534 E HYMAN AVE PO BOX 5000 PO BOX 1247 ASPEN,CO 81611 SNOWMASS VILLAGE,CO 81615 ASPEN,CO 81612 ROTHBLUM PHILIP& MARCIA RUST TRUST RUTLEDGE REYNIE 40 EAST 80 ST#26A 9401 WILSHIRE BLVD#760 51 COUNTRY CLUB CIR NEW YORK,NY 10075 BEVERLY HILLS,CA 90212 SEARCY,AR 72143 SCHNITZER KENNETH L&LISA L SHUMATE MARK SILVER DIP EQUITY VENTURE LLC 2100 MCKINNEY AVE#1760 BLDG 421 G ABC 2100 MCKINNEY STE 1760 DALLAS,TX 75201 ASPEN,CO 81611 DALLAS,TX 75201 SJA ASSOCIATES LLC SNOWMASS CORPORATION STERLING TRUST COMP 418 E COOPER AVE#207 174 CALLAWASSIE DR 2091 MANDEVILLE CYN RD ASPEN,CO 81611 OKATIE,SC 29909 LOS ANGELES,CA 90049 STEWART TITLE CO SUITE 300 OFFICE LLC SWEARINGEN WILLIAM F C/O JENNIFER SCHUMACHER 567 SAN NICOLAS DR PENTHOUSE 450 CONWAY MANOR DR NW PO BOX 936 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ATLANTA,GA 303273518 TAYLORSVILLE, NC 28681 TENNESSEE THREE TENNESSEE THREE RENTALS THOMPSON ROSS&LYNETTE PO BOX 101444 C/O J H COBLE 1502 GREYSTONE DR NASHVILLE,TN 37224-1444 5033 OLD HICKORY BLVD CARBONDALE,CO 81623 NASHVILLE,TN 37218-4020 k1cluettes faciles h peter ; A Repliez A la hachure afin de ; www.avery.com Utilisez le aabarit AVERY®51600 ! Sens de-- rAvp'pr la mhnrd Dnn-tin- Easy Peel®Labels ♦ Bend along line to It (� A�/ERY® 5160® 1 Use Avery®Template 51600 Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTw ' ►� TOMKINS FAMILY TRUST TREUER CHRISTIN L TROUSDALE JEAN VICK 520 E COOPER AVE#209 981 E BRIARWOOD CIR N 611 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN,CO 81611 LITTLETON,CO 80122 ASPEN,CO 81611 VICTORIAN SQUARE LLC WAVO PROPERTIES LP WEIDEL LAWRENCE W 418 E COOPER AVE#207 512 1/2 E GRAND AVE#200 PO BOX 1007 ASPEN,CO 81611 DES MOINES, IA 50309-1942 MONROE, GA 30655 WISE JOSEPH WOLF LAWRENCE G TRUSTEE WOODS FRANK J III 1320 HODGES ST 22750 WOODWARD AVE#204 51027 HWY 6&24 STE 100 RALEIGH, NC 27604-1414 FERNDALE, MI 48220 GLENWOOD SPRINGS,CO 81601 WRIGHT CHRISTOPHER N YERAMIAN CHARLES REV TRUST 13 BRAMLEY RD PO BOX 12347 LONDON W10 6SP UK, ASPEN,CO 81612 I=tiquettes faciles A peler ; A Repliez A la hachure afln de ; www.averycom Utiliser Ie aaharir nvFRV®SiFn® Sens de rA.Al—In rol,—A D—.—MC I 1_4AA_P_A_A\/CDV 1 EXHIBIT RESOLUTION N0. 12, (SERIES OF 2012) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL REVIEW FOR THE TRASH / UTILITY / RECYCLE AREA, FOR A REMODEL AND ADDITION CONSISTING OF COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL SPACE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 602 E HYMAN AVE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS K & L, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,PITKIN COUNTY,COLORADO. Parcel lD.2737-182-12-003 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Daniel L Hunt, represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, LLC requesting of the Planning and Zoning Commission approval of Conceptual Commercial Design Review, and Special Review for the Trash/Utility/Recycle Area, to remodel the existing building and add third floor addition for a project that will include a mix of commercial space, affordable housing, and free-market residential; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended the Applicant amend the proposal to better comply with the Commercial Design Standards and the Special Review Standards for the Trash/Utdity/Recycle Area; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant amended the application on June 13, 2012 for the June 19,2012 Planning and Zoning hearing,which staff recommended in favor of;and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 19, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 12,-Series of 2012, by a five to zero(5 — 0) vote, approving Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Special Review for the Trash/Utility/Recycle Area; 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 Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director,the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the Resolution No 12,Series 2012 Pagel of 3 development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,COLORADO THAT: Section 1 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, and Special Review for the Trash/Utility/Recycling Area, with the following conditions: A. The applicant shall work with the Engineering, Building, Parks, and Planning Departments to address the ability to create an accessible sidewalk along this property between Conceptual and Final Design Review. A final solution shall be presented with the Subdivision and Final Commercial Design Review. B. The Final Commercial Design Application shall address the specific improvements proposed in the Public Amenity spaces located on the site. These will be reviewed and must be approved by the City Parks Department. C. Remove the wall between the recycling bins and alley to ensure adequate access to the bins. D. The Final Commercial Design Application shall address the height of the third story addition, and explore ways to minimize the perception that the third story appears out of proportion with the existing building. Drawings illustrating the Conceptual Commercial Design Review are attached as Exhibit A to the Resolution. Section 2: Engineering The applicant shall address compliance with the City's Urban Runoff Management Plan as part of the Subdivision and Final Commercial Design Review. Section 3: Parks There shall be no plantings within the City ROW which are not approved by the City Parks Department and the Engineering Department. Parks is concerned with any improvements to the sidewalk area. The applicant has expressed interest, . and is supported by Parks, in saving the larger spruce trees planted within the Hunter Street courtyards. Changes in elevation on Hunter and Hyman will have impacts to the success of these trees. These shall be addressed in the Subdivision and Final Commercial Design Review The applicant must work closely with the City Forester in order to reduce conflicts between the development of the third floor and the existing trees. Resolution No 12, Series 2012 Page 2 of 3 The Applicant shall include information on the Parks Department requirements related to tree replacement as part of the Final Commercial Design Application. The applicant should also consider lifecycle planning for the large on-site trees. Section 4: General The applicant shall comply with all applicable City of Aspen Codes. Nothing in this conceptual approval negates the Applicant's requirements to meet other sections and requirements of the Municipal Code. Section 5• All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the 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 6• This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 7• 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 19th day of June, 2012. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNI AND ZONING �k COr N: Deb Quinn,Assistant City Attorney LJ Erspamer, Chair ATTEST: ITL ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Resolution No 12, Series 2012 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT November 19, 2012 Ms. Jessica Garrow Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Vacation of 602 East Hyman Avenue GMQS/Subdivision Application Dear Ms. Garrow: Please consider this letter a request to formally vacate my application for GMQS/sub- division approval for my property located at 602 East Hyman Avenue in the City of Aspen. Please refund the application's planning fee of $7,560.00 and the referral fees of $2,785.00 less any expenditures to date incurred by the Community Develop- ment Department in connection with the processing of the application. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Yours truly, EB BUILDING ASPEN, LLC Daniel L. Hunt c/o Cristin D. Adam, Esq. Unity Hunt, Inc. 1601 Elm Street, Suite 4000 Dallas, TX 75201 (214) 415-9979 d:\oldc\bus\city.Itr\Itr58912.jg6 EXHIBIT AFFIDAVIT OF RAY TAYLOR I, Ray Taylor, being first duly sworn,hereby depose and say: 1. I am a general partner in Taylor Family Investments, RLLP, which entity is the record owner of that certain commercial property known and described as Lots K and L, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, aka the Taylor Building (the "Property"). My family has owned the Property for over 40 years. 2. The Property is under contract of sale to Daniel L. Hunt and/or his assigns ("Buyer"), with a closing scheduled to take place in the next several weeks. 3. Buyer, through the offices of Sunny Vann of Vann Associates LLC, has submitted an application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval to the City of Aspen Community Development Department in connection with the existing building on the Property (the "Application"). 4. The Application contains several factual representations regarding the Property, which are based on discussions I had with Sunny Vann. I submit this Affidavit in support of those representations. 5. The building on the Property contains an approximately 1,500 square foot two bedroom, free market residential unit and an approximately 400 square foot office which contains a kitchenette and bathroom. 6. The free market unit was constructed with the original building in the 1960's, and has historically been occupied by various working residents of the community. 7. The kitchenette and bathroom in the small office were installed at a later date, without the benefit of City approvals, and the space has been used from time to time as both an office and as a so-called,"bandit" residential unit. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. Dated this?2-day of May, 2012. Ray Ta for STATE OF COLORADO ) [Acknowledgment on Following Page] ss. COUNTY OF L--GT/4- ) The foregoing Affidavit was subscribed and sworn to before me this-�2 day of May, 2012, by Ray Taylor. VONNIE M.KENT Witness my hand and official seal. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO 1. My commission expires: Expires:No tuber 16,2013 / Notary Public 5608119_1 I November 21,2012 Sunny Vann EXHIBIT Vann Associates, LLC 2 P.O. Box 4827 Basalt, CO 81621 Subject: Conceptual Engineering Analysis-602 E. Hyman Avenue Subdivision Application i SE Project No. 12153 i Dear Mr. Vann, Sopris Engineering=gas prepared this letter to summarize our conceptual-engineering findings-in regards to the proposed remodel of the existing building located at 602 E. Hyman within the City of Aspen. This report focuses on utility services to the building, compliance with the City of Aspen's Urban Runoff Management Plan (COA URMP), and site grading challenges for ambulatory access. The information outlined within this letter was based on site plans prepared by Jeff Halferty Design and an existing survey performed by Peak Survey, Inc. Project Description: The proposed remodel of the existing building at 602 E. Hyman will include interior renovations, stairwell addition, expanding the basement and adding an elevator along the north side of the existing building. The final product will consist of commercial space at the ground level, and a residential unit at the second level. Drainage: The City of Aspen requires that any development that disturbs more than 1,000 square feet and disturbance that exceeds 25% of the entire lot must treat for water quality and detention (or pay a fee-in-lieu) for the entire property. This section describes the stormwater mitigation measures that will be required in order to be in compliance with the COA URMP. Exhibit A has also been provided for illustrational support. Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCVj is the amount of runoff generated from the 80th percentile storm event and is a function of impervious area. The proposed site plan provided by Jeff Halferty Design was used to estimate the total amount of impervious area and associated water quality capture volume. The results indicate that 107+/- c.f. of water quality volume will be required. The approach to providing this treatment volume would be to incorporate rain gardens within several of the proposed landscaping areas. Roof runoff, which consists of the majority of the impervious area, would be routed to the southeast landscape area via roof drains. This landscaping area would be treated as a rain garden. The southwest paver patio and surrounding access walks would be treated with rain gardens proposed within landscaping pockets along the west side of the site. Site constraints along the north end of the property may require sub- surface filtering treatment for the exposed parking area. This option and feasible alternatives will be explored in greater detail as the site plan develops. 1502 Main Street - Suite A3 - Carbondale, CO 81623 - (970) 704-0311 - Fax (970) 704-0313 SOPRIS ENGINEERING 9 LLC civil consultants f November 21,2012 SE Job#12153 Page 2 of 3 j Fes-In-Lieu of Detention is an option for this project since the site is located within the downtown core and the proposed impervious area will be less than what exists today. Last year the City of Aspen approved Ordinance 15 which implemented a voluntary fee-in-lieu of providing detention; i therefore qualifying projects have the option of paying a fee rather than providing the required detention on-site. The fee is based on the amount of impervious area and the total cost of constructing the detention facility on-site (fee structure: 0.062 cf of detention for every square foot of impervious area and $70/cf of detention). Based on the limited available space for i providing a traditional detention facility it has been assumed that this project will likely move I forward with the FIL option. Based on the impervious area outlined on the current site plan the FIL for this project has been estimated at $24,000+/-. Utilities: Discussions have commenced with various utility providers. This section describes the status of this coordination. Exhibit B has also been provided for illustrational support. • Gas: Source Gas is the provider of natural gas in this area. They have agreed that the service to the building can be split to provide two separate meters. They have also agreed that the existing meter can be abandoned and new meters and service lines can be relocated to avoid potential damage to the root system of the existing conifer tree located at the northwest comer of the property. New service lines will be routed from the gas main which is located within the alley north of the subject property. • Electric: An existing transformer, owned by the City of Aspen Electric Department, has been located at the northwest corner of the property. This transformer serves the subject property as well as the property to the east. The City of Aspen Electric Department has indicated that it will not be a problem to provide two meters to the renovated building. • Tel Shone. Century Link is the provider of telephone service in this area. They have informed us that existing telephone pedestal #601 which is located at the northwest corner of the property has ample pairs to provide multiple services to the building. It is suggested that new conduit be routed from this pedestal to the new IT location within the building. • Sanitary Sewer: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District(ACSD) is the provider of sanitary sewer service for the Aspen area. ACSD stated in an email that the subject property is currently being served via a 4" CIP or VCP that is tied to the main sewer line approximately 3-ft east of the manhole located within the alley north of the subject property. The integrity, location and material type shall be verified prior to construction. The depth of the main line within the sewer manhole was found to be approximately 6'-10" deep. Since an elevator is proposed it is likely that the associated sump pit will be pumped up to the gravity sewer service. 502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 (970) 704-0311 Fax (970) 704-0313 SOPHIS ENGINEERING • LLC civil consultants i November 21,2012 SE Job# 12153 Page 3 of 3 • Water service Is currently being provided to the subject property via a 1" service line off the main line along Hyman Avenue. This service line will need to be upsized to a 4" line to provide fire suppressant flows to the building. Given the multiple users within the building two meters are proposed within the mechanical room; one to meter the commercial and affordable housing component and one to serve the residential unit at the upper level. Ambulatory Access: An ADA parking stall will be required along the north side of the building. Cuts of up to 2' will be required within this area to make the existing parking stall comply with ADA standards of a maximum slope of 2%. Care must be taken to minimize the damage to the root system of the existing spruce tree immediately west of the proposed ADA stall. An ADA route from this parking stall to the building has been identified and it is illustrated on Exhibit B. The existing southwest corner of the Hyman Avenue/Hunter Street intersection currently has several steps to gain access to existing sidewalk elevation and ground floor of the building along the north side of Hyman Avenue and east side of Hunter Street. The City's Engineering and Building Department have requested ADA compliant corridors of travel in both the north/south and east/west directions. The City's Forestry Department and Planning Department have requested that construction activities be sensitive to the health of the spruce tree located in the SW corner of the site, and thus that disturbances to the root structure be limited to a minimum amount possible. Given the elevation change from the street to the finished sidewalk, if ramping were to occur within the existing street curb constraints, grade cuts would be necessary that would affect a large portion of the tree root system to a degree that would seem to place the health of the tree at risk and destabilize the mass of the tree. SE's proposal is to create a bulb- out at this corner of the intersection that would shift the grade change away from the root system, and allowing ADA compliant ramps to be installed while minimizing adverse effects to the root system. These improvements are illustrated on Exhibit B. Sin , LLC 28377 y Nichol, End: Exhibit A Exhibit B 502 Main Street Suite A3 Carbondale, CO 81623 (970) 704-0311 Fax (970) 704-0313 SOPRIS ENGINEERING • LLC civil consultants f / / LEGEND sz COf:2 GNSITE DRMIAGE GUMMY. .•4�Y4 g WATER QUALITY GARDEN DETAIL _ m M, V_A ml ,�.s., s jAna v� O f5 ... _ Lu z _ COBBLESTONE PAVERS TYPICAL DETAIL 2 a ? _ W s ``` •� < > U LL1 Z GRAPHIC SCALE o CALL BEFORE YOU DIG „dam Ate. t-8Q0�922�>,987 /=C ADA gCCES9 BLDYNP DETALL SCALE 7'=5 V PROPOSEDLEGEND 02 E Hm- E%ISM1G lEGEFO -, GRAPHIC SCALE \`� �T�•r' `\ \ N N �mneu°w�„ •\• S Z E z j > LLo y �a W U r- Z m CALL BEFORE YOU DIG � ° w ®I X8`00-922 1987 'PRt.'�6a6"fi.8'XG ,roe„n EXHIBIT Tree Resource Evaluation E.B. Building Aspen LLC Provided for: Zone 4 Architects September 20, 2012 PROVIDED BY: Jason Jones Consulting Arborist#RM-07346 Aspen Tree Service Inc. Carbondale, CO 81623 (970)963-3070 mtnjones @gmail.com Summary I have been asked by the design team at Zone 4 Architects to analyze and comment on the tree resource located at 602 East Hyman in Aspen. The site is proposed for re-development, and there are 3 significant trees located in close proximity to the building that could be effected by construction impacts. I have visually observed the trees from the ground and reviewed the preliminary site plans provided. I have had discussions with Dylan Johns and been given information regarding the proposed design and construction methodology. If it is determined that the trees should be retained on the site, further analysis, discussion and site analysis will need to be completed so that a tree protection plan can be created and implemented. Assignment I have been contracted with EB Building Aspen to document the current condition of the 3 major trees on site and to evaluate the trees' ability to tolerate proposed construction impacts. Limits of the Assignment My investigation is based solely upon the information I noted on my two visits to the site,once on September 7th and once on September 201h 2012. 1 have not performed any laboratory examinations, studied soil composition or employed any other diagnostic techniques beyond visual examination of the trees and the site. I have developed general conclusions of tree health and provided recommendations based upon these observations. I have also not provided a tree protection plan as it relates to any of the construction activity. Observations Site Description The property, owned by E.B. Building Aspen LLC, is being reviewed for re-development. The plans that I have reviewed indicate that the building will utilize the existing footprint and will not require significant new underground excavation. There are currently 3 large Colorado spruce, (Picea pungens),trees located very close to the building that are growing out of a very limited and compacted root zone area. I have attached an excerpt of the topographic survey,which labels the trees as 1-3 from the north to the south. 1 have been informed that the City of Aspen may require a change to the sidewalk and entry of the building in an area that could conflict with tree number 3 on the map. The site plans also indicate other potential conflicts with other trees pertaining to root-zone areas as well as with tree canopies. General Site Observations The trees are currently growing in a very stressful environment and are in poor to fair condition overall. The limitations in potential rooting area and significant compaction of these areas have combined to make a very difficult growing condition for large trees. The trees have had low branches removed in the past to allow for access and are overall exhibiting decline and interior die back. The limbed-up condition often can predispose these types of trees to blow over in winds as much of the stability of the tree as whole is compromised when lower limbs are removed. The two trees in the back, numbers 1 and 2, are growing out of an asphalt parking area. Tree number one is growing out of a sidewalk and paver area. Both areas are impervious and irrigation appears to be acquired from drainage and storm water runoff below walks and driveways. Specific Tree Observations All three of the trees are displaying low vigor and appear to be nearing the end of their useful life in the existing location. New growth is very minimal, interior loss of needles is heavy,and leaf area is minimal. It is difficult to determine the exact potential longevity of the trees in this location, as levels of stored energy are difficult to ascertain. Trees in this condition and age generally will be very sensitive to any site disturbances and damage to roots including cut or fill in any location within the critical root zone area could cause a rapid decline to mortality. I would determine the critical root zone area in this instance to be 1.5 to 2 times the drip line area considering the age,vigor and irrigation patterns of the trees and the site. Tree#1-This tree,the northernmost of the group, has a diameter of 30". This tree is very stressed and is showing a pattern of dieback high within the crown. This tree also has an old mechanical injury and a bend in the upper main stem that is visible from the ground. This tree could have decay in this area and if it is to be considered for protection, it should be evaluated aerially and possibly have some advanced invasive decay analysis performed. It is very possible that this tree has internal decay beyond an acceptable parameter and should be removed for safety issues. Tree#2-This is a smaller diameter, 24",tree that is also in overall weak but slightly healthier condition than tree 1. 1 feel that this tree could likely remain if tree number 1 stays, but may be hazardous if this tree is removed. Exposing this tree to new wind loading factors,the potential damage to roots from removal of the neighboring stump,combined with the fact that the tree has been limbed up so high, could make the chance of wind throw failure a significant concern. Tree#3-This tree is a 30" DBH tree located at the front of the building that is in fair condition. Pavers have been placed over the root zone and a raised planter bed has been built around the trees base. This additional fill against the tree stem could be harmful over time and should be removed if it is to be retained. This tree has a very limited area for root growth and the majority of tree roots are likely to be growing at the elevation of the existing walk. Low limbs have been removed from this tree as well and this could increase chances of a blow over especially if any root damage was to occur. This tree also has significant canopy growth over the building,which could conflict with building design. Potential Impacts of Proposed Construction As mentioned previously,the trees are in generally poor health and will not tolerate root zone impacts very well over the longterm. Spruce trees have a very shallow and fibrous root system that can often spread very far beyond the dripline. I would not recommend that any reduction in grade,trenching or root cutting be performed within 1.5-2 times the dripline for any activity. Fill could likely be tolerated if it was not excessive in some instances even within the dripline. Site plans show a gas line entering the building directly below trees number 1 and 2. 1 have not determined weather or not this line will need to be upgraded or replaced, or if any other new utilities would need to enter the building from this area. It is possible that directional boring could be utilized to avert this conflict, as trenching in this area would likely render the trees unstable and unsafe to retain. Tree number 2 would also be compromised in the same manner if utility trenching were to occur. Trees number 2 and 3 could have conflicts with branches above the building to allow for the new construction. I feel that these trees may withstand removal of these limbs without significant impact; however,the city ordinance may not allow this and could prohibit this activity. Due to the very limited root zone area that exists around tree number 3, any activity within that zone could be very detrimental. It may be possible to make some grade changes, but this could not be determined without significant exploratory work. This work would consist of lifting the pavers and walkways and excavating the soil with a high-pressure air tool called an air spade. This tool would allow the root patterns to be determined and potential for any access or root cuts evident. This would be a difficult task in that the corner would need to be closed and access to the building diverted until the project was completed. This activity would also require approval from the city forestry department,as it would consist of work activity within the dripline. General Recommendations and Discussion I feel that further exploration and inspections would be valuable to determine the suitability of retaining the trees on the site. I also feel that it would be important to determine the city's position on the retention of the trees. These trees are so marginal in condition that it may be a better decision to remove the trees if possible and pay the mitigation values that the city would require. It is possible that the city may not allow for removal of the trees even if mitigation payments are offered. In this instance, it may be best to retain the trees and work within the city requirements of no activity within the dripline. This would likely result in the eventual loss of the trees or have the effect of rendering them unsafe in which case removal and mitigation payments would be required. Specific recommendations I feel the appropriate path for dealing with the trees is as such: 1. Perform a thorough aerial inspection of tree number 1 to determine if it is structurally sound. 2. Determine weather or not the owner of the building would truly like to protect and retain the trees on the site and if it is possible to perform all of the proposed construction activities while maintaining the large tree protection zones necessary to make retention efforts sucessful. 3. Request that the city engineering department work with the city forestry department to determine the feasibility of the performing the requested requirements. If they do not agree to this strategy, perform root zone explorations independently with city forestry approval. 4. Determine weather or not the city will allow for removal and mitigation or if they will require that the trees remain on site. This would require a permit application be submitted to city forestry. S. If it is determined that the trees must be retained on site, begin working on a tree protection plan and identify all potential conflicts with the proposed building so that creative solutions can be developed. Conclusions The trees are overall in poor health, and in my estimation, are not likely to be viable on the site for more than 5-10 more years with or without development impacts. It may be that the City of Aspen will require retention, or they could allow for removal and mitigation payments. I would not advise creating elaborate design changes or incurring significant extra expense around retention methods if possible, as I feel the trees are not long-term assets to the site. If it is determined that it is desirable or required to retain the trees,further exploratory work should be performed to detail root patterns and define specific construction activities that will present conflicts. • • • • • Photos • • P F, '7s I I • �f�n s ���fs�%ski' � �''�S f�.: f • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ...� . !. ......a.+:....-.."'. -'" Tf' • Photo 1-Showing trees 1 through 3 from left to right • • • ';�1��•i� ��, ' s�r� t�fi� sxd',�ygV' �� 'A�*Z {�'' s ��¢' � 4.�Y}3"�� �fi � t€,, • lip 4, Ik f y ' • 0 0 o • � w • • fi • • • • • I 0 0 0 o Photo 3-Showing trees 1 and 2 and the compacted root zone areas. • • • C. Photo 4—Showing the need to remove limbs to allow for proposed • . • dieback ¢ w i r If 11 9 • ; .1 11A, tok T+ n q Nd d 10000 . 00000000000 * 00000000000000000000000 . 04 l O(IV21O`IU.) IO IIV.I.S'tii?LLId.iO a.L�.IU.)'V:1dSV AO .U.I.) N]dSV .-1O LLtSV,11OI (IVV AJAX66?I.XY141 'I(INV )l S.1.01 r ^T A ♦Trnc• TV\Tnl1 rn T 'n 1 161"IAT'T A /lNl TTATT EXHIBIT November 20, 2012 Ms. Amy Guthrie Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Ninety-Day Negotiation Period Dear Ms. Guthrie: As required pursuant to Section 26.415.025.C.1. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations, please consider this letter confirmation of my understanding of the ninety-day negotiation period pertaining to the historic designation of AspenModern properties. Given the Historic Preservation Commission's current agendas, it is my understand- ing that more than ninety days may be required to process my application for historic designation of my 602 East Hyman Avenue property, and that the City Council and I may mutually agree to an extension of the negotiation period. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Yours truly, EB BUILDING ASPEN, LLC AIA - j I Daniel L. Hut L c/o Cristin D. Adam, Esq. Unity Hunt, Inc. 1601 Elm Street, Suite 4000 Dallas, TX 75201 (214) 415-9979 d:\ofdc\busleity.itr\ltr58912.jg7 I RECEIVED NOV 2 b 2012 Z z z CI p�ASPEN 0 0 MWW NT � aa z � >= �_ U) (L W a F- cl) Q °C W F- N W O = W AN APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR 602 EAST HYMAN AVENUE Submitted by: EB Building Aspen, LLC c/o Cristin D. Adam, Esq. Unity Hunt, Inc. 1601 Elm Street, Suite 4000 Dallas, TX 75201 (214) 415-9979 November 26, 2012 Prepared by: VANN ASSOCIATES, LLC Planning Consultants P.O. Box 4827 Basalt, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-6958 PROJECT CONSULTANTS PLANNER SURVEYOR Sunny Vann Jason R. Neil, L.S. 37935 Vann Associates, LLC Peak Surveying, Inc. P.O. Box 4827 P.O. Box 1746 Basalt, CO 81621 Rifle, CO 81650 (970) 925-6958 (970) 625-1954 ARCHITECT CIVIL ENGINEER Jeffrey Halferty Yancy Nichol, P.E. Jeffrey Halferty Design Sopris Engineering, LLC 80 Riverdown Drive 502 Main Street, Suite A3 Aspen, CO 81611 Carbondale, CO 81623 (970) 920-4535 (970) 704-0311 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. PROJECT SITE 2 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 12 IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS 37 A. Historic Designation 37 B. Major Development Conceptual Approval 41 C. Commercial Design Review 45 D. Special Review 55 E. Growth Management 56 APPENDIX A. Exhibit 1 , Pre-Application Conference Summary Exhibit 2, Title Insurance Policy Exhibit 3, Permission to Represent Exhibit 4, Land Use Application Form Exhibit 5, Dimensional Requirements Form Exhibit 6, Application Fee Agreement Exhibit 7, List of Adjacent Property Owners ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page APPENDIX Exhibit 8, P&Z Resolution No. 12, Series of 2012 Exhibit 9, Prior Application Vacation/ Refund Letter B. Exhibit 1 , Ray Taylor Affidavit Exhibit 2, Sopris Engineering Report Exhibit 3, Tree Resource Evaluation C. Exhibit 1 , Consent to AspenModern Negotiation Period iii I. INTRODUCTION The following application requests historic designation of the existing commer- cial/residential building located at 602 East Hyman Avenue pursuant to the City's AspenModern regulations (see Pre-Application Conference Summary, Exhibit 1, Appendix A, attached hereto). Historic Preservation Commission ("HPC") conceptual major development and commercial design review approval are requested to permit a modest expansion of the building's existing free market residential unit, and to construct a new stairway, elevator and enclosed garage at the rear of the building. Special review approval for the building's proposed trash/utility/recycle area, and two administrative growth management quota system ("GMQS") approvals are also requested. The application is submitted pursuant to Sections 26.415.025.C., 26.415.030.C., 26.415.070.D., 26.412.020, 26.575.060, and 26.470.060.3. and 4. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations (the "Regulations") by EB Building Aspen, LLC (hereinafter "Applicant"), the owner of the property (see Title Insurance Policy, Exhibit 2, Appendix A). Permission for Vann Associates, LLC, Planning Consultants, to represent the Applicant is attached as Exhibit 3, Appendix A. A land use application form, dimensional requirements form, application fee agreement, and a list of property owners located within three hundred feet of the project site are attached as Exhibits 4, 5, 6 and 7, respectively. Please note that conceptual commercial design review approval, and special review approval for the building's trash/utility/recycle area, were previously granted to the Applicant by the Planning and Zoning Commission ("P&Z") for the construction of a third floor, residential addition to the existing building (see Resolution No. 12, Exhibit 8, Appendix A). An application for GMQS and subdivision approval for the proposed addition was submitted to the Community Development Department ("COMDEV") on 1 October 15, 2012, and is presently scheduled for review by the P&Z on January 8, 2013. As Section 26.304.030.F. of the Regulations prohibits COMDEV from accepting and reviewing more than one development application for a given property, the Applicant hereby vacates the pending GMQS/subdivision application concurrent with the submission of this application (see Exhibit 9, Appendix A). The application is divided into four sections. Section I provides a brief introduction to the application, while Section II describes the project site. Section III of the application outlines the Applicant's proposed development, while Section IV addresses the proposed development's compliance with the applicable review require- ments of the Regulations. For the reviewer's convenience, all pertinent supporting documents relating to the project (e.g., prior approvals, engineering report, etc.) are provided in the various appendices to the application. While we have attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Regulations, and to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the application, questions may arise that require further information and/or clarification. We will provide such additional information or clarification as may be required in the course of the application's review. II. PROJECT SITE The project site is legally described as Lots K and L, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen, and is located at the northeast corner of East Hyman Avenue and South Hunter Street. As the Improvement Survey on the following page illustrates, Lots K and L contain 6,002 square feet of "Lot Area" and are zoned C-1, Commercial. Improvements to the property consist of a two-story, concrete block building with a second floor deck and a partial basement; two landscaped courtyards fronting on Hyman 2 9 IMPROVEMENT & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY I LOTS K AND L,BLOCK 99, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO I ! I SEWFJ(MAN RIM EL'A316C t 13 BRBAa+l4Or � ``O\\ •nEEWER �0•S/IgN.trW � _"��_1 I ' rXIa UTRUTW 57{RVICE MARK -"aL` �mLT -1` ; /j (TYr) EASBMFJIT \ S. RKau PG 711 oy=_` PROPE0.TY DESCRIPTION I RANK T SP.CITY A.YD TOWNSi1T10F ASPEN,CITY OF A3PFN,COUNTY OF`MM } LINE Ol _� 7P31. STAtE OF F COIOKADO r"n.r �1$ 1fl 1'lI FA1 TELE, Yw �rw •PTE � �� 41H.6p.Or T ME BR /.. AL �a iR3 J LL N • / L!o_+;d' ^ � NAR9NFA NI �d ♦ l- � a tt, E—M-4.nM k -. PIT F^ EO N ED 1 oN' ; ..P ' a/ 0.B[.RED- AAKLNGJ N h / na / F!O 0 M _ i aS RISEA - 1 Lf 1 .Y 2 ❑ � J11' B:LLIARU I � c t v e Y i q NOTES: '"'"6 �`Z J '�� n" f'�' M/ ly A ♦i - i n 1, OPERTY IS SUB1ECi TO RESERVATIONS,RPSnKTONR COVENANTS AND W zM a Pp �i' FASENEM9 of RECORD.DR w PLACE AND LxmmoNs TO TITLE$NO"N THE TD'IE AI{KK•SASNT NO.!` j;l W ��I ' _ %l \ CO M TW P PREPARED BY PtTION COUNTY TILE,INC..CASE NO,PC UISWT DINO MAY U, 3 pALYNA• 1 ji I . S I GICAP 21TXE DATE�THISSURVEY WAS AUGUST S.M12. RRARS CAP TgIT.TTY,-. +i O xKFR1N'OODD 2p IM NORNF STEBL RXR iORTHIBS L. Hi.a BEARINOOFSis°W,YPi RETWEENOUN - % J d I Z BLOCK FRAME.BUWDOSD PLACE AND TWEI CORNER of LOT L.R KE$IIC F A L NAIL R S1ID/PA RE AR A FOU.L N AOl EAST HYMAN',S'E PLACE AND THE SOU11iF sTYALY CORNER OF LOT L.BLOCK S•.A/3 REBAR l CAP L.L„23M1 FdIND N PLACE ..fib-- r 1 .(�• i 240 ISO OUNI TS OF MEASU RE FOR ALL DOD.NSIONS SHOWN HEREON Is U.A SWIRY FEET. IBD SITH13SURNF\IS BASEDONTHEC NYANOT(1WNSITEOPASMNMAP.TNEWARRANPY DEED 1 /J IAI PECORDEDRM2M'a13 A9 PE(EP11pNNO.yPVPSI NTHEgnNCOVNT'CLFAK AND ...; i♦ G / S REGORGE.RI CIFFICEANDCORNERSFOUNDNPLACE �1i ��yi 6)E(FVATIONS ARE BASED ON A OPS OBSERVATION UTILIZING THE MESA COUNTY RTYTN GRAPHIC SCALE N-T'ORKANOC.O,A,G ODNTRoLPOWM(I'MIBDAMKYIEUNO ANON-SREE AnM rP OF A22.W ON THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OP LOT L BLOCK W AS SHOWN CONTOI:R ey y j ♦ W'TSQ/A'� INTERVAL EOUM9I FOOT. µy I N i)EVEY FBI WAS U UT ABL TD M ES WERE NARKED ERR O SOME POINT PRHER EF THIS SURVEY PSI N'A3NOT ABLETOMEET a'MAIHEIS UFAORERIND LOCATOR THEREFORE ♦ � ) �1 • ��IN AWITB)NAL L:YUFAORWND UTWTIES NAY EV3T. Y a EIcrY.AHtl.or• a (D(PQt) 4 1 I / a 'w Dr . 9P0'I'ILL ITYr• 1 Im6�IO !3. M 1tE COURTHOUSE\TEW PI.ANE9 NO.1 l NO.3 ARE BASED ON Txs MOUNTAN VEM'PLATE d lB^'%l.I ft 3 MAP PREPARED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN 013 DEPARTMENT.DATED FEBRUARY 11,2W, d �'1� • RA'' .Cgi(CRETE •PArjp (IVRIsw J` Id15 A(A TrP♦d h P . d r CD y tP�:r KAN ER y4 �_' 'W31V N),TD n-,^"t8 y w•y n.l! ~ •II ,� Or_l1"R, V tt��(-''�# IlAlld TR-1 6 \ a` Atkvr "ntFar� TREE CHART n �°,'�♦� BT lR �� 7RI TYPE TRUNK DIA. DROP D(A. BASE E'LEV. IMPROVEMENT SURVEY STATEMENT aQ' t4 Rlswt v I n-( I CORNER M' :Sa A+�6 I HEREBY STA M THAT THIS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY WAS PREPARED BY PERK SURVEYNO.OW'- tie RST. 'Ot-S CORNR M' W 7PM,!' FOR FR BUILDNO ASPW,M-C. WALL TM) T14 DECII �' Ntyt• I R RTNER STATE TH AT THE IMPROVEMENTB(N THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL UN THIS DAIS, n-0 DECIDUOUS I' 4i FWaS AUGUST 1.2012,CYL7lT UMLOY CONNECTIONS,ARE EYfON0.YM(IN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PARCEL F-XCEIT AS SHOWN.THAT HERE ARE MU ENLROAt7NIFNT3 VPITN TIE❑FSCRIBEB A,1 n-0 DECIDUOUS 1' r FmJF P..qS. �P21�'� TR r MF.MISPS W IM NIOVEAIENT3 ON ANY AMHNNG PRESOMS.EXCEPT AS ININCAIVD,AND NAT •`�` 74.80 'k'tN- n. BFL7DUUOa s• 9 7+213 THERE IS NO APPARENT EVIDENCE OR SIGN OF ANY EASEMENT CROSSNO OR BURDENNO ANY r�y tP27d' PART OF SAID PAALEL,LYL'EPTAS NOTEB.IM&NER STATE THAT I HART?FXMGNFD NE TITT.E ROw.'j YgYL.g TR-A EECD W3 ♦' A216 [IMIMITMETT PREPARED BY PTII(NCOUNTY TOLE,INC.,a'ASE NO PCTI1l 5W7 DATED MAY 2S, yy 2012 AND MD ALL EXL'EPTIONS TO TITLE THAT AFFECT THE SLTWECT PROPERTY TIRE SHOWN n-11 DECIDUOUS 1. �' MA.]' HEREON TO ME BEST OF MY KNCHNUDOE AND BELIEF. n-II DECm0001 R' X MI.T ,.a .D.• OA MFNT NO x.3 GA L'A LW s' r 792♦1 S ``• n-11 DECIDUOUS E P.RANT-BRASS('AP TMIa CONIFER 1 11' BY •�� 793. 9A ❑avP By. \I.1. [lai, Nevin H. ,RN EB BUILDING ASPEN,LLC. Project NO. PEAK CITY OF ASPEN,COLORADO 12046 JRN IMPROVEMENT&TOPO SURVEY tlnRAWUY.Y0.'NLmawwnP.R AHr LBG.LL„TOI ' Surveying,Inc. AucusT Is.wl. LOTS K&L.BLOCK 99 +u�"P`uLa1°Twnnarwr•T„mv,wPee -us.,namFUr P.O.BOR 1746-Rift CO 81650 ol�w�inAw retxT wronn+I NAr.nv alxw P.en.Ta+.nr°eeuTm pR°(rc(97016?5-1054- .°"P°N':e F.(97a)6 5 z9sa 602 E.HYMAN AVENUE l OF I wwN.pcaksurveyinBiN. D4A.DW0 Avenue; and a paved parking area located adjacent to the alley at the rear of the property. The parking area contains six conforming spaces. A decorative metal fence encloses the southwest courtyard. A wooden fence extends from the rear of the building to the alley along the project site's western property line. An electric transformer is located adjacent to the alley at the northwest corner of the property. Two small roofs located above the building's Hyman Avenue and Hunter Street entrances encroach into the adjacent street right-of-ways. Existing vegetation consists primarily of three large spruce trees which are located within the southwest courtyard and at the rear of the building behind the wooden fence. A small aspen tree and various ornamental trees and shrubs are located in the two courtyard areas. A site plan, floor plans, elevations and photographs of the existing building are provided on the following pages. As the existing floor plans illustrate, the building's basement and ground floor are presently devoted to office use, and contain approximately 1,653 and 2,175 square feet of net leasable area, respectively. A two-bedroom, free market dwelling unit containing approximately 1,531 square feet of net livable area and approximately 720 square feet of additional net leasable commercial area, which is presently used for office purposes, are located on the building's second floor. In total, the building contains approximately 4,548 square feet of commercial net leasable area. The building's existing floor area totals approximately 5,351 square feet. Approximately 401 square feet of the second floor office area contains a kitchen- ette which was apparently added without the benefit of required approvals, and which has been used from time to time as a so-called "Bandit" residential unit (see Affidavit, Exhibit 1, Appendix B). The two-bedroom, free market residential unit has existed since the building was constructed, and has historically been occupied by both non-residents and working residents of the community. As a result, the expansion of the unit is subject 4 2 O N E �..,r FENCED IN-, AROMITtCTi ELECTRICAL LLC. P.O. BO% Y60• AlPBN CO B/B1B NIW W.=ONNMOMRWTS,.C04 CONCRETE PAD FOR TRASH CANISTER FENCE-- ALLEY PROPERTY BOUNDARY >✓ UTILITY METERS _-'- ---_-- - - yI RECYCLABLE- BINS RETAIN INO- WALL _ W UNPAVED-- AREA 1( 2 3 4 5 8 SIDEWALK LANDSCAPE- - AREAS W _ CC • r- --------------- _ OUTLINE OF yi T. .F. TH ENTRANCE i BUILDING ABOVE �'UP .A Q ■ I I L'yl o 'J s I I sroRAGE I � i I ° CONCRETE STOOP --- - - II BUILDING I I (COMMERCIAL.) � 9 STORAGE_. _ ■ BELOW ° BTORAOE i. ----- --------"- Q s• BELOW I I) � LLI is BR AK I ROOM ---II yGt T,Qf 1'tr I MENT LEVEL _ LUNCH + - •'f-i/2€ BRICK PAVERS EC - ` II II ROW AI I 11 i F.-0MW L O 11 I r {{ 2'•6"HIGH- -'� _- --_ I OUTLINE OF DECORATIVE FENCE it ---- NEIGHBORING BUILDING STORAGE OFFICE • I -OUTLINE OF (.) PLANTERS NCIGHSORING -----�.--.�- COURTYARD I SUILOINO '- ---i' T ILI N' L 01 LANDSCAPE A204 AREA I e f' —————————— L---- LIGHT POST- AND SIGN YYY T-7 01 06131012 . 0 02 1012.20128UBDIVIAMENDED SION APP APP. �C EAST HYMAN AVE. i L. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 01 NAY, 2012 Onwl M NORTH NORTH EXISTING SITE EXISTING BASEMENT LEVEL PLAN EXISTING SITE PLAN 01 us„=� 0 02 ue =,'-0, BASEMENT LEVEL PLAN N� n� A200 1�0 Z O N E r A R O N I T<O T! LLC. P.O. a0X 2504 AGPfN 00 •101! W W W.iOMMP*Ifnl0 III.OOM q� e W 0 UTILITY METERS- `A204), STORAGE SHED - P1 CONCTRETE PV ROOM �i.0.F�F� ON I UP_ T STOOP ANCE ON �1 y I T. .F.F. 'EL.•9ff4' , �p �$ BEDROOM ca u PWDR --------- - ---1 ----- pgpgpg -_-- ROOF BELOW a FO SOfflT ABOVE Z (, I -- C.� CLOSET BATH ' L--I-SKYLIGHTABOVE --- --- Q LAUNDRY OUTLINE OF CONFERENCE MASTER ---- -- I -------- I BATH I ROOF ABOVE t� $TO'. ROOM ----------RAGE: FO FICE I MA TE P BATH BATH CONCRETE STOOP ' (COMMERCAL) DN CLO T KITCHEN03\ BEAMS ANO / R� �,F�SE�Qf{D LEVEL A2(M/ 90FFIT3 ABOVE �4BEDROOM O o -*f0-SY!OPEN ' KITCHEN OFFICE 01.1L- ! BELOW BEAMS ABOVE r �� BUILT4NS- ra• Q w i FrEC i _ DECORATIVE FENCE _ - �' --------- .._. - :S --------- ' r FIXED SCREEN ----r------ - OUTLINE OF BEAMS AND ' L i SKI STORAGE- - .p DECK ABOVE SOFFITS ABOVE 01 I OUTLINE OF OFFICE �'�' -OUTLINE OF ' DECD SOFFIT ABOVE -"GUARDRAIL OUTLINE OF t-4 $� i r (COMMERCIAL) 1 NEIGHBORING ..HALF WALL -BEAMS r C 'I I OUTLINE OF- !�, NEIGHBORING BRICK_ _--- --COURTYARD y ----- COURTYARD BVI-0 ABOVE I r PAVERS ----------- ROOF ABOVE - _ r BELOW 0 - la T.O.F.F.MAIN LEVEL I6 r-r---- BUILDING T �.....,.___... __ H PLANTER.. -.PLANTER I \ I < 01 I rwnnws+or uue,wM1no ` j SKYLIGHT ABOVE ABOVE yay _---- ----- ------------ --OUTLINE OF C LIVING ROOM BUILDING BELOW W i t •T Q,F,F=F BE D D LEVEL UP __._ _..-. -- -GUARDRAIL _ .._ROOF BELOW D La , 9§$� / 02 l Ala Ala' Ot 06132012 AMENDED APP. 02 P01220i2SUBDIVISIONAPP 6 6� 0 a� �a e� NORTH NORTH 01 EXISTING FIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN EXISTING SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN CONCEPTUAL DESIGN s= va°•r o 02 va°=r o• N 9 01 MAY, 2012 �3 EXISTING FIRST/SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN s 3� n� E A201 a i Z O N E r A R O N I T S OT i LLC. P.0. BOX 2,0• ASP[N CO t/ 112 WWW.20�1[alu1C12120Tt.OOM �J W 00 � A20-4 IF O OUTLINE Of ROOF BELOW W y DC $ Z S � at 3 --OUTLINE Of SKYLIGHT OUTLINE OF ROOF BELOW �.- EASTING ROOF (DRAINS TO INTERNAL GUTTERS) hk 8 P204 f� g r q � I OUTLINE OF PARAPET OUTLINE OF 6 DECK BELOW ^I [ -COURTYARD -• -,— BELOW \Q -0 -'OUTLINE OF ! -{ 0- NEIGHBORING BUILDING nBUILDING a OUTLINE OF SKYLIGHT OUTLINE OF— W ROOF II OUTLINE OF'- ROOFSELOW ` [ [ �2 A204 ap 01 _A,13 2012 AMENDED APP 02 1012.2012 SUBDIVISION APP 6 ac 9E e� CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 21 NORTH p� y I EXISTING ROOF PLAN 01 MAY, 2012 EXISTING ROOF PLAN a a- ss� A202 e F " I - - - - - - ARCHITECTS LLG. - I1 eox z!o! AG P!N G G 8261! zONlMI1oHRtcrB.CON - - 9 LLLLL LLLLLLLLLLF LLLLLLLLLLrL LLLLLLLLLLLLL L.LJ LLLI DFCN LLLL'LLL LLLL LLLLLLL Q LLLLLLLLLLIf LLL LLLLLLLLLLLLL _ _ iAl LLLLLLLLLLf LLL - - - _ ___ COURTYARD O LLLLLLL _ W LL LL LL TOTAL FLOOR AREA 2480,7 S.F. TOTAL FLOOR AREA: 2551.4 S.F. LL w ce LL �o«4nor HCwoa o.,<M 1 NET LEASABLE AREA: 400.8 S.F. (OFFICE 01/COMMERCIAL) - - NET LEASABLE AREA: 2175.2 S.F. Z u (COMMERCIAL) s NET LEASABLE AREA 319.8 S.F, --__---- (OFFICE N2/COMMERCIAL) NONUNIT COMMERCIAL) 181.8 S.F. NET LIVABLE AREA 1530.8 S.F. OVERHANG AREA 318.4 S.F. 1RESIOENTIPII .0 NONUNIT AREA 88.3 S.F. t Si DECK AREA 118.7 S.F, NORTH NORTH $ SECOND LEVEL AREA PLAN FIRST LEVEL AREA PLA_N_ � v+ 0303 1re-- .1..0. �02�u6^•1—�.0• � Q a W LEGEND O � NET LEASABLE AREA �O I � MECH • I NET LIVABLE AREA ---------- N��.^.•.�.I NONUNIT AREA p LLLL LLLL S LLLL LFLLLLL, DECK AREA MECH s 01 0113.2012 WENDED APP. OVERHANG AREA 02 10.12.2012 SUBDMISN)N APP. ;pp! SE a TOTAL EXISTING AREA: F TOTAL FLOOR AREA: 5032.1 S.F. (DOES NOT INCLUDE OVERHANGS) R e es TOTAL FLOOR AREA: 5350.5 S.F. $7 (INCLUDING OVERHANGS) CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OVERHANGS: 318.4 S.F. I TOTAL NONUNIT AREA: 257.9 S.F. 01 MAY, 2012 s TOTAL NET LEASABLE AREA: 4548.1 S.F. FLOOR AREA 1970.2 S.F. EXISTING FLOOR PLAN is (COMMERCIAL) 0.0 F-SED�L IS 0%.THEREFORE FLOOR AA aEXIWI AREA TOTAL NET LIVABLE AREA: 1530.6 S.F. NET TOT.LEASABLE AREA 1552.5 S.F. .H�» (RESIDENTIAL) (COMMERCIAL) I DECK AREA: 216.7 S.F. A203 R DECK UNDER 1594 OF LIVABLE AREA) NORTH BASEMENT LEVEL AREA PLAN © 01 ve^,r a• -- Z O N E r A R C H I ELC. P.O. OOX z!0• ASP lN CO •/!1! 20F0[A,nowsm-COY _.._. -...RNNrEDbYIOD VapD IE y - - - _LlU W i 0 1 _ IT—6KD O --- T7 a _ .__.-_ _._.___...Ewenra cR.DE -.s1DR..ce eNeo ...Fence um rMpx.Frw --RNNrFO wu ...DecoR.lTnE FENa -enenNOOR,.ne Nor u.orw FDR a,wiry '. wrsnovm FOR auaTV WWRB71 FO Tb 9 BEIOW Z y nE1 OW - __._. _ ._ - _. --_ -__--.-___- •. Q O EXISTING EAST ELEVATION EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION —_ ()4 3/16"=1'-0' (]3 3/18•=1'-0" h� S W e PV �p .._ •.... --.__._. Mip�NORINO BUIl0110 s r OFFICE 01 Egyg�p I S -_.... __ 01 08.Q.12.WEDAPP, � COMMERCIAL e' V2 10/2.20124UBdV�S10N APP. &PT 1e173 s: L DEC—FENCE AO_IWI. .v�WrED WDOD BICkp NOr srvpWN FOR CLNBry - --._.--__.._.E%IBTMfi OR•DE --EAIBnNO ORN£ --HID— - COMMERCIAL � � �ZS ----- ------------ CONCRETE FOIR. T— [ORCRf rI FOUND.rNJN 4, oa - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN a� 3� 01 MAY, 2012 = ter• �S EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION EXISTING EAST ELEVATION EXISTING O2 -0" 3/16"=1'-0• ELEVATIONS wR r a A204 �a 41PA :f,, 5.. lot It IL N11 r'�i-� ..: i „ �4''� '�t^'N' ��, � �� 1h - _-. � ••i� .., 4 0� -""Fri,. �L� y lo all ' �.,.,. —' -- -rte '-. rrm'.odtw.wrr:. ..«.- ...._..._.�... -•, -. - - r.' "''a'��.".,...'w�'+n`--.T..+r.i. .w .1Cr!w .. ..... ....... ... .. '�MR.ww..�...�_..�.-,r.•.-. �. .:.: .; 1 � � .�.�!` _ ► ,�''Sra IoYM':'� ' i` .y'� Pax t., + � ' ,y `•, '``lid, /`"tic { Ss.L�t- �• 1 0. v � - ik 1 t, 1 - 1• to the requirements of Section 26.470.070.5 of the Regulations, "Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing". Existing development in the immediate site area includes the Victorian Square office building, which is located on the south side of Hyman Avenue across from the project site; a recently approved mixed-use building, which is to be developed on the vacant parking lot at the southwest corner of Hyman Avenue and Hunter Street; the Vectra Bank building, which is located at the northwest corner of Hyman and Hunter; and an existing mixed-use building located across the alley at the rear of the property. An additional mixed-use building is located adjacent to and immediately east of the project site. The character of the immediate site area can be described as a mixed-use neighborhood containing a variety of commercial, office and residential land uses. As the attached Engineering Report prepared by Sopris Engineering, LLC indicates (see Exhibit 2, Appendix B), the existing building is served by all required utilities. Domestic water is currently provided via a one inch service line that connects to a main line located in Hyman Avenue. Sanitary sewer service is provided via a four inch line that connects to an existing main located in the alley at the rear of the property. Natural gas service to the building is also provided from an existing line in the alley, the meter for which is located in the vicinity of the northernmost spruce tree and the adjacent fence. Electric service is provided from the existing transformer located at the northwest corner of the property. Telephone service is provided from an existing pedestal located adjacent to the electric transformer. Stormwater runoff from the property's impervious surfaces currently discharges to the existing landscaped areas and the alley. The project site lies within the City's "Court House View Plane No. 1", a designated Environmentally Sensitive Area. As the Improvement Survey illustrates, however, the view plane intersects the northeast corner of project site's rear property line 11 at an elevation that does not impact or otherwise limit the height of the Applicant's proposed development. III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The Applicant proposes to expand the building's existing two-bedroom, free market residential unit to include the adjacent commercial area and an existing stairway that provides access to the second floor from the property's central courtyard. A modest, two-story addition to the rear of the building containing a one-car, enclosed garage and a common elevator and stairway assembly that will provide convenient access to all building levels is also proposed. In connection therewith, the Applicant proposes to historically designate the building consistent with the Regulations' AspenModern guidelines (see Consent to Negotiation Period, Exhibit 1, Appendix Q. The proposed expansion has been designed in compliance with the applicable requirements of the C-1 zone district, and is exempt from affordable housing mitigation requirements pursuant to Sections 26.710.150.D.12.e. and 26.470.060.3. and 4. of the Regulations. The expanded residential unit will contain approximately 2,395 square feet of net livable area. As the unit exceeds the C-1 zone district's 2,000 square foot net livable area limitation, the Applicant will provide one "Transferrable Development Right Certificate" at building permit to accommodate the unit's additional net livable area. The kitchen in the existing "Bandit" residential unit will be removed and the space incorporated in the expanded residential unit. The removal of the Bandit unit is exempt from the Regulations' multi-family replacement requirements pursuant to Section 26.470.070.5.8.d). As the following proposed site plan, floor plans and elevations illustrate, the ground level of the proposed addition will also contain a new entry vestibule and a 12 ® , JEFFREY HALFERTY DE51 GN ♦ /ao-m�9�QLGOAI611 9'10-420-4M lam - �'�' Au� MwwIM 11-20-12 PROGRESS izz- , Tk \ i w V `ate" ! 1�111— J ,�f a•w +ram g HYMAN-RENOV PROJWl 602-E-HYMAN PROPOSED-SITE-FLAN PROPOSED SITE PLM uwt SIW SI00 meow J HA FERN DE51GN eo-1av Mulct-ae ASMW-0,6*11 410-1410-4M -------------I — I I — I 1 I I I 11-20-12 PROGRESS I I I1-20-12 PROGRESS I I -------- L----------- n II I II I II I II I II I II I II II I II I T T T T T I I I I I I I I I 0 O HYMAN-RENOV m s 1 r--------------------- --------� i 602-E-HYMAN xsrnncn PROPOSED BASEMENT sa[ I I sat A.100 ®M JEFFREY HALFERTY DE51GN b0-MV0F47R A'SPEtWO1EII TIO-q2O-4 89 wn� I 11 720 712 PROGRESS 11-20-12 PROGRESS LILI t-LL I ! I d . . . . . . . . . . . r I� J I I I i i J� L.L1 HYMAN—RENOV PrMw I r� t 602—E—H i MAN Ii oESaer�aN Y PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR v $ oc" sFarr IDI SCALE 1/8'-1'--0* A. MnN .JEFFREY HALFERTY DE51 GN "OADo-M b- v-2D-12 PROGRESS 11-20-12 PROGRESS O, O mll v , co) 1 rn� n' z v' HYMAN-RENOV 602-HYMAN oeao�ia� SCALE - 1/8'-1'-0' PROPOSED BASEMENT ■arw secr A.I O ------------------------------ ---------------------------------- L------------------------------------ L---------------- L-------------------------------------------------- PH7 Er- I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I ' I I I I ' I I I I I I I I _ I � I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I JEFFREY HALFERTY DE516N EO-RNE"V!-DR ASP04.G0.61611 A'10-420-49x6 rw�n 11-20-12 PROGRESS 11-26-12 APP Fl- ' 'o 'o 't if t f 1 �rAmooe HYMAN-RENOV fTj&,..fFj.ALLJ<Y I wnoa� eMn�ws ULM ---------- PROPOSED-NORTH-ELEVATION oroxet b02-E-HYMAN ocsamnom PROPOSED ELEVATIONS WA LC smw II ,x.400 o� JEFFREY HALFERTY DESIGN Oo-RIVeocaVe-p"t Asr°eN,coeleu mom, 11-20-12 PROGRESS 11-26-12 APP — AAm/A!T 0 / — — — ---I�r +12 ssrrsespo �� ssw� / / j !1 o 1 1 �...nwausw pf n�as�oD�ueonaA pf jo j 4 ! �� 1 HYMAN-RENOV ♦ ftcG ' iiv°ut I I I osoosAn.��s I rwnoar I snnwssws I 'wr«o.r'aRaMm I I I I I I I I I I � aow�e rouossn� I I I � snau --------- OSEQS 0Tr4-- CEr/,% 101a-----5 -------------------- Pia�ocr 602-E-HYMAN DESCMP"A PROPOSED ELEVATIONS sc" A.402 JEFFREY HALFERTY DESIGN DO-RNEIIDRII2-DR A'�RI�LGOAbII X70-X70-45� 11-20-12 PROGRESS 11-26-12 APP aawnatr aa��r 1 / / 0 �lo 11 0 ! 1 / t i 4 a monia= ov.a�w wi.ra 7 7 1-11 / J INMAO� JO T l t-- --=H--Il I I I 41F HYMAN-RENOV OIL I I I rwa.nw�s I I I as _ ror raW°a� .«moor I !- ararrranimm n PROPOSED-EAST-ELEVATION ------------------------------------� Anaioc+ 602-E-HYMAN oamaonoM PROPOSED ELEVATIONS 94lT . , A.405 I JEFFREY HALFERTY DESIGN Do-mve wmve-c1e ASMWW"ll 9'10-420-4596 twin 11-20-12 PROGRESS 11-26-12 APP fammomm a t ti i -- -- --------- ——— it jo COM�CNL HYMAN-RENOV t E6♦ ft�cfr '�d"b'i'�uv°uc I I �ws Mr�oar C S PROPOSED-WEST-ELEVATION-SECTION PNOJW 602-E-HYMAN DUMP" PROPOSED ELEVATIONS mac SK[► A.401 JEFFREY HALFERTY DE51GN b"NoRomrve-om glOA20+m _ ... � 11-20-12 PROGRESS It,—'" I 11-20-12 PROGRESS ]t_J i - ------- L----------- r 9 � n Qp � ii r r T r T T T 7 T i O O O O e R o HYMAN-RENOV m Mot\ Fm 1 ------------- PROAXT 602-E-HYMAN xm.ricr PROPOSED BASEMENT W" si+ar A.100 i 31d7S won Jas d3Md MOOD MOOI! 1SMId Q3 UGU eouear�sso � N`dWJ.W-3-Z09 NON3N-NYWM I xxx x ° \\ \\\\\ \\ \\ \ SS3MOOMd SS321 O ZT-OZ-TT J My fdGGO-OLIr-OUr no�ao7�d NO-aniWaW2ni&-Ov N9153a ,112l���'dH JEFFREY HALFERTY DESIGN e� e-oR 11-20-12 PROGRESS u-20-12 PROGRESS I X C77t�� O I S ml co)' OM' W! ENE pmkWT y D I 602-E-HYMAN SCALE = 1/8'-1-0' PROPOSED SECOND FL sNEet A.102 i 1 JEFFREY ..�. HALFERTY DESIGN 60-"Ptp ewe-m ASPEN.G0.61611 X70-X40-495 ------------- I 1 I I 1 I 1 I1-20-12 PROGRESS 11-20-12 PROGRESS I -- - - L----------- rn rn 1 II � II r _ rn II D II N 1 II II O I, 1 y r r r r r T T T T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • O HYMAN-RENOV �c6��4vcNt m i r------ -------------- roo,ccr 602-E-HYMAN anarrow PROPOSED BASEMENT NET LEASABLE W--" sxn A.100 i JEFFREY HALFERTY DESIGN _ I1 720 712 PROGRESS / 11-20 712 PROGRESS ® ® � it (T111 X � '• — A I- �I LLI L1�1 HYMAN-riENOv 602-E-HYMAN oESCwv�a" t i i PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR ! 9 NET LEASABLE SULK *W A. 101 SCALE - 1/8'-1'-0' wnM I JEFFREY HALFERTY DESIGN �Ae-oR rro-,�o-yeas U-20-12 PROGRESS I1-20-12 PROGRESS ol O m mi' < v z � v pj ILU u b i �1 602-F-HYMAN SCALE : 1/8'-1'-0' PROPOSED SECOND FL ew�M NET LIVABLE/LEASABLE rte• ,w A.102 G r partially enclosed trash area which will permit the relocation of the building's existing dumpster to a more accessible location adjacent to the alley. The building's recycling bins will be relocated behind a new fence to be installed along Hunter Street which will screen the bins and parking area from the neighboring sidewalk. The fence will also enclose the existing electric transformer located adjacent to the alley. The second floor addition is devoted primarily to common access/circula- tion elements. Approximately 115 square feet of the building's existing net leasable commercial area, however, will be relocated to the new second floor addition. The existing deck which protrudes over the courtyard at the southwest corner of the property will be retained. The exterior stair that provides access thereto, however, will be removed to enhance the courtyard's appearance and functionality. The existing stair will be replaced with a new exterior stair to be constructed in the central courtyard. The replacement stair is required to meet International Building Code requirements and will provide secondary access to the building's basement commercial space and the second floor, free market residential unit. The Applicant proposes to raise the height of a portion of the existing second floor roof approximately three feet to enhance the livability of the residential unit and to allow more abundant natural light to enter therein. The floor to ceiling height within the existing residential unit is presently approximately eight feet. As the proposed roof plan illustrates, however, the raised portion of the roof has been setback from the building's perimeter walls to minimize its visibility from the surrounding streetscape. The maximum height of the expanded building will be limited to approximately twenty-four feet, measured to the top of the raised roof. The expanded building will contain a total floor area of approximately 5,685 square feet of which approximately 2,827 and 2,858 square feet will be contained within 28 the free market unit and the above grade commercial areas, respectively. The building's net leasable commercial area will total approximately 4,072 square feet. As presently envisioned, no modification to its existing fenestration is proposed. An existing exterior door connecting the central courtyard to the ground floor commercial space, however, will be relocated. The existing building's ground floor painted concrete block and second floor stucco finishes will be retained. Building materials for the proposed addition will consist of concrete block and cement panels. More detailed information with respect to building materials and proposed finishes will be provided in the Applicant's final HPC/commercial design review application. The building's commercial net leasable area will require the provision of four off- street parking spaces (i.e., 4,072 Sq. Ft. _ 1,000 = 4.07 Spaces). While no on-site parking is required for residential uses in a mixed-use building in the C-1 zone district, the proposed one-car garage will be reserved for the free market unit. As the proposed site plan illustrates, one additional space, which has been designed to meet ADA accessibility requirements, will be provided adjacent to the garage. Only one additional space can be provided given existing grade conditions and ADA access requirements. To address this issue, the Applicant requests that the HPC reduce the proposed development's commercial parking requirement to one space and that the payment-in-lieu fee for the parking reduction be waived as provided for in Section 26.415.110.D. of the Regulations. Should HPC fail to reduce the on-site parking requirement and/or waive the required payment-in-lieu thereof, the Applicant will pay the applicable fee. A payment-in-lieu of providing on-site parking is expressly permitted in the C-1 zone district pursuant to Section 26.515.030. Pursuant to Section 26.575.030.B. of the Regulations, mixed-use developments within the C-1 zone district are required to provide public amenity space in an amount 29 equal to 25 percent of the project site. In lieu thereof, off-site public amenity space can be provided or a payment-in-lieu can be made to the City subject to HPC approval. For redevelopment of parcels on which less than 25 percent public amenity space currently exists, the Regulations provide that the existing percentage is the effective requirement provided no less than 10 percent is required. Based on the above, approximately 1,500 square feet of public amenity space would normally be required unless the amount were reduced by the HPC as provided for in Section 26.575.030.D.1. As the existing public amenity space plan on the following page illustrates, approximately 1,040 square feet, or 17 percent of the project site, presently complies with the applicable design standards for public amenity space. This amount, therefore, constitutes the effective public amenity space requirement for the project site as it is less than 25 percent and greater than 10 percent. The two existing courtyards will comprise the majority of the project's public amenity space, both of which abut the adjacent sidewalks. An additional area of public amenity space will be created at the rear of the site and adjacent to the Hunter Street sidewalk as a result of the relocation of the fence that presently blocks the view of this area, and the relocation of the existing dumpster/trash bins to more screened locations. The proposed public amenity areas will be open to the sky; accessible to the public; and, with the exception of the existing courtyard at the southeast corner of the property, level with the sidewalk. The existing landscaping within the courtyards will be improved and the additional Hunter Street public amenity area will be landscaped, plans for which will be submitted with the Applicant's final HPC/commercial design review application. The project site's public amenity space will increase as a result of the removal of the stair which currently abuts the existing second floor residential unit, and the relocation of the existing fence which abuts the sidewalk at the rear of the property. As 30 2 O N E ZL A R O H I LLC. P.O. BOX Y60• AYPYN CO •t•t! VYV�W.YONUARCMliOt1.ooM i 3 ■ y¢�I i1 it W 1 C I R W +� 1 3 liv Z 9 Q I� I oleo BUILDING j II I W I I II e ----IT---7r----- ' II II I I PV II II i I y II II 0 LEGEND a C R P D r _ I PUBLIC AMENITY AREA ----------- 1 I' �6 -- � !F4—LIC AMENITY AREA: 1410.9 S.F. 07 08.13.2012 AMENDED APP. { - 02 10.12. 12 SU80MSION PPP w �S SITE PLAN CONCEPTUAL DESIGN a Na 01 MAY,2012 NORTH EXISTING PUBLIC 01 EXISTING PUBLIC AMENITY SPACE AMENITY SPACE 1/8" V-0' 6 e� PAS Ia the proposed public amenity space plan illustrates, the removal of the stair and relocation of the fence will increase the project site's public amenity space to approximately 1,180 square feet, or 20 percent. No variance from the applicable public amenity space requirement, therefore, will be required. The Applicant's prior conceptual commercial design review application was approved subject to several conditions. Two of the conditions pertained to the building's public amenity space and the height of its third floor addition, and were to be addressed at final commercial design review. Conditions to be addressed in connection with the GMQS/subdivision application required: 1)the removal of a wall separating the recycling bins from the alley, 2) the provision of accessible sidewalks adjacent to the property, 3) compliance with the City's Urban Runoff Management Plan, and 4) lifecycle planning for the property's existing spruce trees. While the P&Z's conceptual conditions pertained to the Applicant's three-story development proposal, the three conditions that were to be addressed as part of GMQS/subdivision application are relevant to this application. As the proposed site plan illustrates, the wall which previously separated the recycling bins from the alley has been removed. With respect to the sidewalks, Sopris Engineering has designed a "bulb-out" within the Hyman Avenue/Hunter Street rights-of-way that will allow the installation of ADA compliant ramps. The proposed bulb-out, which is depicted on the site plan and addressed in detail in the attached Engineering Report, eliminates the need to regrade the existing sidewalks, and will not adversely impact the adjacent spruce trees. The impact of lowering the sidewalks on the trees was a specific concern identified by the Parks Department during conceptual commercial design review and is addressed in detail in the attached Tree Resource Evaluation prepared by Aspen Tree Service, Inc. (see Exhibit 3, Appendix B). 32 ® JEFFREY HALFERTY DE51GN eo-ieive+�ve-oie ASPEK40 1611 4MO 420-flees 4L_ Af- �..,• - •RM•MM� 1WNM�� — 11-20-12 PROGRESS ELI \ I .j • i *tAM1�111Y H 1 MAN-lPZN0 Y PADJWT 'b i 602—E—WMAN PROPOSED-SITE-PLAN . PROPOSED-PURL I G-AMEN I T1'-SPACE PROPOSED SITE PLAN PUBLIC AMENITY SPACE SCAU SHEET ® -e►�caUeocosorr G I O O J i �wt The Tree Resource Evaluation essentially concludes that the three existing spruce trees "...are in overall poor health, and ... are not likely to be viable on the site for more than 5-10 more years with or without development impacts. " The poor condition of the trees notwithstanding, the Applicant would like to retain the trees for as long as reasonably possible. The proposed accessible sidewalk solution and the elimination of the previously proposed third floor addition will eliminate the most significant adverse impact to the trees, and implementation of the recommendations contained in the Tree Resource Evaluation will hopefully contribute to their lifespan. The Applicant will provide a Tree Protection Plan at building permit submission as recommended in the evaluation. Should removal of one or more of the trees be required in the future based on the arborist's recommendation, the Applicant will apply for a tree removal permit and comply with the City's applicable mitigation requirements. The Engineering Report also addresses compliance with the City's Urban Runoff Management Plan, a detailed plan for which will be submitted with the Applicant's building permit application. The proposed development complies with all of the dimensional requirements of the C-1, Commercial, zone district. The height of the proposed rooftop addition is less than the maximum allowed, while the project's pedestrian amenity space exceeds the minimum required. The project's total cumulative floor area is also less than the maximum allowed as is the project's net leasable commercial area. The proposed free market residence's floor area and net livable area are within the maximum allowed, and the residence's net livable area is less than the building's above grade commercial floor area. The applicable parking requirement will be met via a combination of on-site spaces and, in the event required, a cash-in-lieu payment. The project's development data, and its compliance with the C-1 zone district's dimensional requirements, is summarized in Table 1, on the following page. 34 Table 1 Development Data Lots K and L, Block 99, Aspen Townsite 1. Existing Zoning C-1, Commercial 2. Existing Lot Size (Sq. Ft.)' 6,002 3. Existing Lot Area for Density/Floor Area 6,002 Purposes (Sq. Ft.y 4. Existing Development Office/Residential Floor Area (Sq. Ft.)' 5,351 Basement Ground Floor 2,870 Second Floor 2,481 Net Leasable Area (Sq. Ft.)' 4,548 Basement 1,653 Ground Floor 2,175 Second Floor Net Livable Area (Sq. Ft.)5 1,531 Second Floor 5. Minimum Required Lot Size (Sq. Ft.) No Requirement 6. Minimum Required Lot Area/Dwelling No Requirement Unit (Sq. Ft.) 7. Minimum Required Lot Width (Feet) No Requirement 8. Minimum Required Setbacks (Feet) Front Yard No Requirement Side Yards No Requirement Rear Yard No Requirement 9. Maximum Allowable Height (Feet) 28 10. Maximum Proposed Height (Feet)' 20 11. Minimum Required Pedestrian Amenity Space 35 Percent 17 Area (Sq. Ft.) 1,040 12. Proposed Pedestrian Amenity Space Percent 20 Area (Sq. Ft.) 1,180 13. Maximum Allowable Cumulative Floor 15,005 Area @ 2.5:1 (Sq. Ft.) Commercial Uses @ 1.5:1 9,003 Free Market Residential @ 0.5:1 3,001 14. Proposed Cumulative Floor Area (Sq. Ft.) 5,685 Commercial Uses 2,858 Free Market Residential 2,827 15. Proposed Floor Area Ratio 0.95:1 16. Maximum Allowable Free Market Residential 2,000 Net Livable Area (Sq. Ft.y 17. Proposed Net Livable Area (Sq. Ft.)' 2,395 18. Proposed Net Leasable Commercial4 4,072 Area (Sq. Ft.) 19. Minimum Required Parking Spaces 4 Commercial Uses @ 1 Space/1,0008 4 Sq. Ft. Net Leasable Area Free Market Residential No Requirement 20. Proposed Parking Commercial Uses 1 Free Market Residential 1 ' Per the Improvement Survey Plat prepared by Peak Surveying, Inc. dated August 15, 2012. 36 Z No reduction in Lot Area required due to steep slopes, rights-of-way or surface easements. 3 Calculated pursuant to Section 26.575.020.D. 4 Calculated pursuant to Section 26.575.020.I. 5 Calculated pursuant to Section 26.575.020.J. 6 Measured to the top of the raised roof. Pursuant to Section 26.710.150.D.12., may be increased to 2,500 square feet subject to the surrender of one Transferrable Development Right Certificate at building permit. 8 Pursuant to Section 26.515.030, may be met via a payment-in-lieu. HPC may reduce the applicable parking requirement and waive all or part of the permitted payment-in-lieu thereof. As discussed previously, all required utilities are available in the immediate site area and are either adequate or may be easily upgraded to serve the proposed develop- ment. All utility extensions will be located underground, and appropriate easements will be dedicated to the various public utilities in the event required. IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS The proposed development requires City Council approval to historically designate the 602 East Hyman property, and HPC conceptual major development/commercial design review and special review approval for the proposed addition to the existing building located thereon. Two administrative GMQS approvals are also required. Each of the these review and approval requirements is addressed below. A. Historic Designation The existing building is currently included on the City's AspenModern Map. As a result, it is eligible for consideration for inclusion in the Aspen Inventory of 37 Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. The designation of AspenModern properties to the inventory is subject to compliance with Section 26.415.030.0. In order to be designated as an example of AspenModern architecture, this section of the Regulations states in part that "... an individual building, site structure or object ... must have a demonstrated quality of significance". The specific review criteria to be used in determining "quality of significance" are as follows. At least two of the criteria 1. through 4., and criteria 5. must be met. - - - - 1. The property is related to an event, pattern or trend that has made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific event, pattern or trend is identified and documented in an adopted context paper; 2. The property is related to people who have made a contribu- tion to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific people are identified and documented in an adopted context paper; 3. The property represents a physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman, or design philosophy that is deemed important and the specific physical design, designer, or philosophy is documented in an adopted context paper; 4. The property possesses such singular significance to the City, as documented by the opinions of persons educated or experienced in the fields of history, architecture, landscape architecture, archaeology or a related field, that the property's potential demolition or major alteration would substantially diminish the character and sense of place in the City as perceived by members of the community; and 5. The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association given its age. According to the City's Historic Preservation Officer, the City's building permit records suggest that a one-story, concrete block building was constructed on the southwest corner of the site in 1950 and occupied by a furniture store. The building 38 contained approximately 1,128 square feet, was possibly owner/contractor designed, and was most likely somewhat nondescript in its appearance. A ground floor addition is believed to have been added in approximately 1964, and a plate glass window installed on the building's south facade. In 1966, noted local architect Eleanor "Ellie" Brickham designed a two- story addition for the western portion of the property, and her architectural "aesthetic" appears to have been carried over to the adjacent one-story portion of the building. In 1968, a second floor was added above the original structure which emulated the 1966 two-story addition. Ms. Brickham's name however does not appear on the 1968 addition's building permit. Pictures of the 1966 and 1969 additions are included in the Pre-Application Conference Summary (see Exhibit 1, Appendix A). The City's historic preservation program includes official context papers about the Post WWII architectural styles that have influenced the City, including Modernism. The AspenModern context paper describes Modernism as a style of architecture that began in the 20th century as a result of a clear philosophical shift in design, practices and attitudes. Ellie Brickham is listed therein as an "Architect of Note who completed significant works in Aspen and is considered to have left an imprint of the philosophies of the Modernist period on the town. The following information regarding Ellie Brickham is found in the City's AspenModern context paper. "Ellie Brickham (1923-2008) moved to Aspen in 1951 after attending the University of Colorado's School of Architect from 1941-1944. Construc- tion was a family business, and her motivation to become a designer began as a child. She was attracted by the skiing, but found herself the only female architect in until Ellen Harland arrived in 1958. Early in her career, Brickham worked in Fritz Benedict's office and collaborated on projects with both Benedict and Bayer, participating in work going on at the Aspen Institute. Like Benedict, she had a strong interest in passive solar techniques. During her time in that office and, 39 later, in her own practice out of her home, she designed a number of residences and commercial buildings in town, including houses for several Music Festival artists in Aspen Grove, the elegantly simple brick Strandberg Residence (1973, 422 Bleeker Street-demolished) and the Patricia Moore Building (1963, 610 E. Hyman Avenue). In Pitkin County, she designed numerous homes in pitkin Green and Starwood, on Red mountain, including her own house (1955), with south and west walls made completely of glass. Her works, which total at least sixty in the Aspen area, are generally characterized by spare, simple forms and minimal detailing, Brickham's projects focus on an "impeccable sense of proportion and feeling of lightness" according to a 1977 Aspen Times article. " While Ellie Brickham apparently did not design the entire 602 East Hyman building, its architectural character is heavily tied to her. Again, according to the City's Historic Preservation Officer, "It is a very good representation of 1960's architecture in the downtown, and is in the heart of the collection of modernist buildings in the 500 through 700 blocks of East Hyman Avenue, including the Mason and Morse, Benton Studio, the Patricia Moore gallery, the Crandall building, and the Aspen Athletic Club". As discussed in the AspenModern context paper, Ellie Brickham was a significant practitioner of Aspen's Modernist architectural movement, having contributed numerous examples of Modernist architecture to the City's built environment. Portions of the existing 602 East Hyman building are attributable to her and its architecture is indicative of the Modernist aesthetic that contributed to Aspen's history. Her contributions were further recognized in 2001 by the HPC who presented her with a "Preservation Honor Award". In addition, the existing building represents a physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of the Modernist design philosophy, and possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting, design, materials, and association given its age. As presently envisioned, the building's exterior will be retained in essentially its current configuration. The Applicant's proposed changes to the building 40 are limited primarily to a modest addition adjacent to the alley which is required for accessibility purposes, and an increase in a portion of the building's second floor ceiling height. Based on the above, we believe that the proposed historic designation complies with review criteria 1., 3. and 5. B. Major Development Conceptual Approval The proposed addition to the 602 East Hyman building will require HPC major development approval pursuant to Section 26.415.070.D. of the Regulations. To obtain approval, the HPC must find that the addition complies with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The City's Historic Preservation Officer has indicated that the following guidelines apply to conceptual major development approval. The applicable guidelines, and the proposed development's compliance therewith, are summarized below. 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. • Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Instead, maintain the perceived line and orientation of the roof as seen from the street. • Retain and repair roof detailing. While the Applicant proposes to raise a portion of the building's roof to increase the ceiling height in the second floor residential unit, the height of the raised roof element will be limited to approximately three feet. As the proposed roof plan illustrates, the raised roof element has been set back from the existing roof perimeter so as to minimize its visibility from the surrounding streetscape. The existing perimeter roof detailing will be retained and repaired in the event required. 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. • Flat skylights that are flush with the roof plane may be considered only in an obscure location on a historic structure. Locating a skylight or a solar panel on a front roof plane is not allowed. 41 • A skylight or solar panel should not interrupt the plane of a historic roof. It should be positioned below the ridgeline. As presently envisioned, no traditional skylights are proposed. The raised portion of the roof, however, will contain additional glazing to enhance the livability of the residential unit. 7.6 When planning a rooftop addition, preserve the overall appearance of the original roof. • An addition should not interrupt the original ridgeline. No interruption of an original ridgeline is proposed. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. • A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. • An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building is also inappropriate. • An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. 0 An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. As the proposed elevations illustrate, the addition is limited in scope, is located adjacent to the alley, and is required to meet applicable accessibility require- ments. The addition does not significantly obscure the building's historic features, is consistent in appearance therewith, and will not impede the ability to interpret the historic character of the existing building. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. • An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. 42 • A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. While the proposed addition essentially emulates the massing and architectural character of the existing building, subtle variations in building materials and/or their appearance will be utilized to address this criteria. Detailed information with respect to building materials will be provided with the Applicant's final HPC/Com- mercial Design Review application. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. • An addition that is lower than or similar in height of the primary building is preferred. The proposed addition is compatible in size and scale with the existing building. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the primary building. • A 1-story connector is preferred. • The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. • The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. No connector element is proposed as the height of the addition is consistent with that of the existing building. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of the building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. • Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. 43 • Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. • Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. The proposed addition has been located at the rear of the property and adjacent to the alley. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. • Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. • Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. The proposed addition will have flat roofs consistent with the existing building. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. • For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. The proposed addition will not result in the loss or alteration of the existing building's architectural details. 10.1 1 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. • The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. The proposed addition's building materials will be either similar or subordinate to those of the existing building. Detailed information with respect to building materials will be provided with the Applicant's final HPC/Commercial Design Review application. 44 C. Commercial Design Review Pursuant to Section 26.412.020 of the Regulations, all mixed-use development within the City with a commercial component requiring a building permit is subject to commercial design review. The HPC is the applicable review authority for historically designated properties. Pursuant to Section 26.412.050, an application for commercial design review approval must comply with the requirements of the City's Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Objectives and Guidelines (the "Guidelines") and the Commercial Design Standards contained in Section 26.412.060. 1. Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. The project site is located in the guidelines' Commercial Character Area. The applicable design guidelines to be address at conceptual review, and the proposed development's compliance therewith, are summarized below. a) Street Grid 1.1 Orient a primary entrance toward the street. The existing building's primary entrances are oriented to East Hyman Avenue. Secondary entrances are provided from South Hunter Street and at the rear of the building. 1.2 Maintain the established town grid in all projects. The proposed development maintains the City's established street and alley grid pattern. No changes to the established town grid are proposed. b) Internal Walkways 45 1.3 Public walkways and through courts should be designed to create access to additional commercial space. No public walkways or through courts are proposed with the property. C) Alleys 1.5 The visual impacts of structured parking should be minimized. A one-story, one-car garage is proposed adjacent to the alley at the rear of the property, the visual impact of which will be minimal. d) Parking 1.6 Structured parking should be placed within a "wrap" of commercial and/or residential uses. As noted above, only a one-car garage is proposed, the visibility of which will be minimal when viewed from Hunter Street. No additional commercial or residential uses are proposed. e) Street Facing Amenity Space 1.8 A street facing amenity space shall i) abut the public sidewalk, ii) be level with the sidewalk, iii) be open to the sky, iv) be directly accessible to the public, and v) be paved or otherwise landscaped. The two existing courtyards will comprise the majority of the proposed development's public amenity space, both of which abut the adjacent sidewalks. An additional area of public amenity space will be created at the rear of the site and adjacent to the Hunter Street sidewalk as a result of the relocation of the fence which presently blocks the view of this area, and the relocation of the existing dumptster and 46 recycling bins to more screened locations. The proposed public amenity areas will be open to the sky; accessible to the public; and, with the exception of the existing courtyard at the southeast corner of the site, level with the sidewalk. The existing landscaping within the two courtyards will be improved and the additional Hunter Street public amenity area landscaped, a plan for which will be submitted with the Applicant's final HPC/commercial design review application. 1.9 Street facing amenity space shall contain features to promote and enhance its use. The two street facing courtyards will contain street furniture and other features to enhance their use. A landscaping plan depicting such features will be submitted with the Applicant's final HPC/commercial design review application. f) Mid-Block Walkway Amenity Space 1.10 Mid-block walkways shall remain subordinate in scale to traditional lot widths. 1.11 A mid-block walkway should provide public access to i) additional commercial space, and ii) to uses located at the rear of the property that are commercial in nature. No mid-block walkways are proposed. The existing building, which is to be retained, abuts the adjacent building to the east. g) Alley Side Amenity Space 1.12 An alley side amenity space shall be designed to i) provide direct public access to commercial space at ground or through second floors, ii) maximize solar access to the alley side amenity space, iii) enhance the attractiveness and use of the rear alley, and iv) minimize the adverse impacts of adjacent service and parking areas. No alley side amenity space is proposed. 47 h) Second Level Amenity Space 1.13 A second floor amenity space should i) ensure consis- tent public access, ii) be dedicated for public use, iii) provide a public overlook and/or an interpretive marker, and iv) be identified by a marker at street level. 1.14 Second level space should be oriented to maximize solar access and views to the mountains or other landmarks. 1.15 Second level space should provide public access by way of a visible and attractive public stair or elevator from a public street, alley or street level amenity space. 1.16 Second level dining may be considered. No second level amenity space is proposed. i) Front Yard Amenity Space 1.17 Front and side yard amenity space should be provided in the context of a historic one-story residential type building. The building's existing street facing courtyard's are to be retained. The proposed new side yard public amenity space abutting the Hunter Street sidewalk is consistent with that typically provided with a historic one-story residential type building. The landscaping plan to be submitted with the Applicant's final HPC/commercial design review application will also address the additional public amenity area to be provided adjacent to Hunter Street. P Setbacks 1.18 Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk's edge. 1.19 A building may be set back from its side lot lines in accordance with design guidelines identified in Street and Alley System and Public Amenity Space guidelines. 48 No changes are proposed to the portions of the building's footprint which face Hyman Avenue and Hunter Street, sections of which presently abut the adjacent sidewalks. k) Building Orientation 1.20 Building facades shall be parallel to the facing street(s) and primary entrances shall be oriented toward the street. The existing building's street facing facades parallel Hyman Avenue and Hunter Street. The building's primary entrances are oriented toward the street. 1.21 Orient a new building to be parallel to its lot lines, similar to that of traditional building orientations. The front of a primary structure shall be oriented to the street. Both the existing building and the proposed addition adjacent to the alley parallel the property's lot lines. 1) Height Variation 1.22 Building facade height shall be varied from the facade height of adjacent buildings of the same number of stories by a minimum of two feet. 1.23 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the Commercial Area. 1.24 Height variation should be achieved using one or more of the following: i) vary the building height in accordance with traditional lot width, ii) set back upper floors to vary building facade profile(s) and roof forms across the width and depth of the building, iii) vary the facade (or parapet) heights at the front, iv) step down the rear of the building towards the alley, in conjunction with other design standards and guidelines. The proposed addition will be limited to two stories and is consistent in height with other commercial structures in the CC and C-1 zone districts. 49 The height of the proposed addition and raised second floor roof is substantially lower than the adjacent building to the east. m) Height Variation for Larger Sites 1.25 On sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths, the facade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. 1.26 Buildings on sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths shall achieve a minimum of two of the following: i) variation in height of building modules across the site, ii) variation in massing achieved through upper floor setbacks,the roofscape form and variation in upper floor heights, iii) variation in building facade heights or cornice line. These two design guidelines do not apply as the project site consists of only two townsite lots. n) Height Adjacent to Historic Structures 1.27 Anew building should step down in scale to respect the height, form and scale of a historic building within its immediate setting. The existing mixed-use building located adjacent to and immediate- ly east of the 602 East Hyman building is presently being considered for historic designation. A substantial addition is also proposed in connection therewith. The 602 East Hyman building and the Applicant's proposed addition thereto are significantly lower than the adjacent building. 1.28 New development adjacent to a single story historic building that was originally constructed for residential use shall not exceed 28 feet in height within 30 feet of the side property line adjacent to the historic structure within the same block face. This design guideline does not apply. The existing building is not located adjacent to a single-story historic building. 50 2. Commercial Design Standards a) Public Amenity Space As discussed previously, the project site's public amenity space will increase as a result of the removal of the exterior stair which currently provides access to the deck abutting the existing second floor residential unit, and the relocation of the existing fence which abuts the sidewalk at the rear of the property. The removal of the stair and relocation of the fence will increase the project site's public amenity space to approximately 1,180 square feet, or 20 percent. No variance from the applicable public amenity space requirement, therefore, will be required. The applicable commercial design standards for the provision of public amenity space, and the proposed development's compliance therewith, are summarized below. 0 The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity allow for a variety uses and activities to occur considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. As the existing building is to be retained, little opportunity exist to reconfigure the two street-facing courtyards. Their dimensions, however, will accommodate a variety of uses and activities to occur therein. ii) The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. The two courtyards will contribute to an active street vitality. The street-facing courtyards enjoy exception views of Aspen Mountain, will contain public seating, and can accommodate a variety of activities associated with the potential uses of the adjacent commercial spaces. 51 iii) The public amenity, and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of-way, and uses contributes to an inviting pedestrian environment. The existing courtyards will be improved to enhance their attractiveness to pedestrians. A landscape plan depicting the proposed improvements will be submitted with the Applicant's final HPC/commercial design review application. iv) 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. The existing courtyards do not duplicate existing pedestrian space in the immediate site area. V) Any variation to the Design and Operational Standards for Pedestrian Amenity, Section 26.575.030.F., promote the purpose of the pedestrian amenity requirements. No variations from the pedestrian amenity standards of Section 26.575.030.F. are requested. b) Utility, Delivery and Trash Service Provision The applicable commercial design standards for the provision of utility, delivery and trash service areas, and the proposed development's compliance therewith, are summarized below. i) 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 estab- lished according to said section. As the existing site plan illustrates, the building's utility meters are located on an exterior wall at the northwest corner of the building. The building's 52 trash/recycle receptacles are located behind the wooden fence and adjacent to the existing parking area. Pursuant to Section 26.412.060.B., a utility/trash/recycle service area meeting the requirements of Section 26.575.060.A. must be provided along and accessible from the alley at the rear of the project site. A minimum of 20 linear feet with a minimum vertical clearance of 10 feet and minimum depth of 10 feet at ground level is required. Given the constraints imposed by the existing building and the fact that it does not abut the alley, a variation from these standards is requested. The proposed utility/trash/recycle service areas, however, represents a substantial improvement over the existing situation, and complies with the functional intent of the above standard. Special review approval to vary the applicable dimensional requirements is requested and is addressed in the following section of this application. The utility service area will remain in its current location adjacent to the west side of the building. As the proposed floor plans illustrate, an enclosed trash area to be incorporated in the addition will contain the building's dumptster and provide protection from the elements. A new screen wall which will be set back from the Hunter Street sidewalk will connect to a new screened enclosure for the existing electrical transformer located adjacent to the alley. The building's recycling bins will be located adjacent the new wall and transformer enclosure. The screen wall will shield the recycling bins and surface parking area, and permit the provision of additional public amenity space adjacent to Hunter Street. The proposed utility/trash/recycle service areas will be adequate to accommodate the building's needs, and constitute a significant improvement over the current facilities both from a functional and visual perspective. The proposed utility/ trash/recycle areas will be directly accessible from the alley for service purposes. 53 ii) All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property and along the alley. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the allleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as a historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be property licensed. All utility service pedestals will be located within the project site. No pedestals will be located within the alley right-of-way. iii) 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. Delivery access will be available directly from the alley via the proposed entry vestibule at the rear of the building. The adjacent elevator will provide convenient access to all building levels. No truck loading facility is required or pro- posed. iv) Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventila- tion, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the Street as practical. In the event required, mechanical exhaust equipment will be located on the building's roof and screened from public view. V) Mechanical ventilation equipment shall be accommodat- ed 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 pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. In the event required, mechanical ventilation equipment will be located on the building's roof and screened from public view. 54 D. Special Review As discussed in the previous section, a utility/trash/recycle service area meeting the requirements of Section 26.575.060.A. of the Regulations cannot realistically be provided. The requirements, however, may be reduced by the HPC. The applicable review criteria, and the proposed development's compliance therewith, are summarized below. 1. There is a demonstration that given the nature of the potential uses of the building and its total square footage, the utility/trash/recycle service area proposed to be provided will be adequate. The existing building is presently served by an unenclosed two cubic yard dumpster and several small recycling containers located behind the wooden fence and adjacent to the parking area at the rear of the property. The proposed trash/recycle areas will accommodate the building's existing dumpster and the recycling bins. The building's existing utility meters will be retained in their current location. Space need not be provided within the service area for an electric transformer as a transformer presently exists at the northwest corner of the property. No new commercial area is proposed and the existing proposed utility/trash/recycle service areas will be adequate to accommodate the expanded free market residential unit. 2. Access to the utility/trash/recycle service area is adequate. - - - - Access to the proposed service areas is provided directly from the alley. 3. Measures are provided for enclosing trash bins and making them easily movable by trash personnel. The trash area is enclosed on three sides. The dumpster to be located therein will be readily accessible at grade from the alley. 55 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. Trash compaction is neither feasible nor warranted given the limited nature of the proposed development. 5. The area for public utility placement and maintenance is adequate and safe for the placement of utilities. The building's existing utility meters and services are located at the rear of-the building on an unenclosed exterior wall. Relocation of this utility area is neither warranted or required. 6. Adequate provisions are incorporated to ensure the construc- tion of the access area. The proposed trash area is an integral part of the proposed addition. E. Growth Management The proposed development will require two administrative GMQS approvals. Section 26.470.070.5., "Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing", does not apply as no "demolition" as defined in the Regulations is proposed. The required approvals, and the proposed development's compliance therewith, are addressed below. 1. Change in Use of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures Pursuant to Section 26.470.060.3. of the Regulations, the change in use between the development categories identified in Section 26.470.020 of a property, structure or a portion of a structure designated as an historic landmark shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Community Development Director if no more 56 than one (1) free market residence is created. As the Applicant proposes to convert the building's existing second floor commercial space to residential use, approval pursuant to this provision of the Regulations is required. Assuming the property is historically designated, the proposed conversion complies with the applicable approval criteria as the space is to be incorporated in the existing residential unit and no more than one free market residence is proposed. 2. Minor Enlargement of a Historic Landmark for Commercial, Lodge or Mixed-Use Development Pursuant to Section 26.470.060.4.,the enlargement of a property, structure or portion of a structure designated as an historic landmark for commercial, lodge or mixed-use development shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Community Development Director. The applicable criteria, and the proposed development's compliance therewith, are summarized below. a) If the development increases either floor area or net leasable space/lodge units, but not both, then no employee mitigation shall be required. The existing building's total floor area will increase from approximately 5,351 to 5,685 square feet. No increase in the building's net leasable commercial area is proposed. b) If the development increases both floor area and net leasable space/lodge units, up to four (4) employees generated by the additional commercial/lodge shall not require the provisions of affordable housing. An expansion generating more than four (4) employees shall not qualify for this administrative approval and shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.470.070.1. The proposed development does not increase both floor area and net leasable space. 57 C) No more than one (1) free market residence is created. This shall be cumulative and shall include administrative GMQS approvals granted prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2007. The expanding building will contain only one free market residence. 58 I EIV � EXHIBIT i\±OV 2 6 201 CITY OF ASPEN ;u,0-Y OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLAN &ONITI' DEVELOPMENT Amy Guthrie, 970.429.2758 DATE: 11.16.12 PROJECT: 602 E. Hyman Avenue, Lots K and L, Block 99 REPRESENTATIVE: Vann Associates, Jeffrey Halferty Design DESCRIPTION: 602 E. Hyman is a mixed use building, constructed beginning in 1960. The owners are interested in an interior remodel to expand an existing free market apartment. The property currently includes commercial space in the basement, first, and second floors, a bandit unit on the second floor, and a free-market unit on the second floor. An addition may occur along the alley to improve circulation for the building and to add an elevator. Some covered parking may be proposed. The applicant is proposing to convert the entire second floor to one free-market residential unit, removing the small commercial space and the bandit unit that currently exist on the second floor. The basement and first floors are proposed to remain commercial The owner is considering pursuing the necessary land use approvals through the AspenModern process, which is voluntary landmark designation with the opportunity to receive historic preservation benefits. The primary benefit that is applicable to this project is the allowed floor area allowance of .5:1 FAR for Free-Market Residential uses (non-historic properties are permitted .5:1 Free-Market Residential FAR only if equal amounts of affordable housing is developed on site). Relief from floor area restrictions, residential unit size caps, parking waivers and numerous other development regulations can be discussed in the negotiation process, although it appears that the project will not entail a significant build out of the site. The first step is conceptual design review and landmark consideration by the Historic Preservation Commission. The board would conduct the design review according to the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines and the Historic Preservation guidelines. HPC is the deciding body on the design issues, but makes a recommendation to Council on designation and AspenModern incentives. The applicant will approach City Council for adoption of an AspenModern ordinance, then return to HPC for final design review. Administrative growth management reviews for Change in Use and Minor Enlargement of a historic Structure are also required. The AspenModern process requires the Council ordinance to be adopted within 90 days of land use application submittal. Council can extend that timeframe, and would need to in this case given the likelihood of delays in getting onto board agendas. Staff would approach Council with an extension request even before the HPC meeting occurs. An important aspect of the proposal will be demonstrating the historic significance of the building. Research of the building permit files suggests that a one story concrete block building was constructed on the southwest corner of this site in 1960, as a furniture shop. It was approximately 1,128 square feet in size, was possibly owner/contractor designed, and was probably somewhat non- descript. A ground floor expansion appears to have been built in 1964, and a plate glass window was installed on the south fagade. In 1966, noted local architect Ellie Brickham designed the two story portion of the building that sits in the middle of the lot. It appears that her aesthetic was carried somewhat onto the one story portion of the building, based on the next page of photos from the Assesor's office; October 1967. Note that Ellie Brickham designed the building pictured to the east, Patricia Moore's gallery, in 1963. t -; ,� ! • • • • • • • • ! � • i � li • � i '� • � • � • • • rel �► • � • � i • • • • 1 . 1 t y_ti A � • J s • • • r In 1968, a second floor was added directly on top of the original structure. Ms. Brickham is not identified on the permit. The second floor built at that time is shown in this 1975 photo. lie • ~ S • • • The architectural character of this building is heavily tied to Ellie Brickham, but she did not design the structure in its entirety. It is a very good representation of 1960s architecture in the downtown, and is in the heart of the collection of modernist buildings in the 500s through 700s blocks of E. Hyman Avenue, including the Mason and Morse, Benton Studio, the Patricia Moore gallery, the Crandall Building, and the Aspen Athletic Club. Staff suggests that, in designing the proposed new stair and elevator addition, the architect should attempt to do so without concealing any more of the Ellie Brickham addition than necessary, even along the alley. Guidance on specific application contents follows. Relevant Land Use Code Section(s): 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.412 Commercial Design Review 26.415 Historic Preservation, Major Development, AspenModern, Benefits 26.415.060.3 Administrative Growth Management, Change in Use in an Historic Landmark 26.470.060.4 Administrative Growth Management, Minor Enlargement of an Historic Landmark for Commercial, Lodge or Mixed Use Development 26.515 Off-street parking 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements 26.575.060 Utility/trash/recycle service area 26.610 Impact fees 26.710.150 C-1 Zone District Review by: Staff for completeness, HPC, Council Public Hearing: Yes, at HPC and Council Referral Agencies: Engineering, Housing, Parks, and Environmental Health Planning Fees: $1,890 for 6 billable hours (additional hours are billed at $315 per hour) Referral Agency Fees: $265 for 1 hour of Engineering (time over 1 hour is charged at $265 an hour) $945 each for Housing, Parks, and Environmental Health referrals Total Deposit: $4,990 ❑ Proof of ownership. ❑ Signed fee agreement with payment. ❑ Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states 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. ❑ 10 Copies of the complete application packet and maps. ❑ An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. ❑ Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, including all easements and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado. (This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived by the Community Development Department if the project is determined not to warrant a survey document.) ❑ A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing conditions as well as proposed. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing ❑ Copies of prior approvals. ❑ Applicants are advised that building plans will be required to meet the International Building Code as adopted by the City of Aspen, the Federal Fair Housing Act, and CRS 9.5.112. Please make sure that your application submittal addresses these building-related and accessibility regulations. You may contact the Building Department at 920-5090 for additional information. 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 Owner's Policy of Title Insurance — Schedule A Issued by Name and Address of Title Insurance Company:Westcor Land Title Insurance Company, 201 N. New York Avenue, Suite 200,Winter Park,Florida,32789 State:CO County: PITKTN Address Reference:602 E.HYMAN AVE,ASPEN,CO 81611 File No.: PCT23415W7 Policy No.:OP-6-CO1045-2752804 Amount of Insurance:$6,700,000.00 Premium:$ 11,060.00 Date of Policy:June 20.2012 @ 11:57 AM Simultaneous#:LP-13-001045-2752805 Reinsurance*k 12-202 1.Name of Insured:EB BUILDING ASPEN LLC,a Texas limited liability company 2.The estate or interest in the Land that is insured by this policy is: IN FEE SIMPLE 3.Title is vested in:EB BUILDING ASPEN LLC,a Texas limited liability company 4.The Land referred to in this policy is described as follows: LOTS K AND L, BLOCK 99, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN STATE OF COLORADO Issued By Authorized Signatory SCHEDULE B-OWNERS CASE NUMBER DATE OF POLICY POLICY NUMBER PCT23415W7 June 20, 2012 @ 11:57 AM OP-6-CO1045-2752804 THIS POLICY DOES NOT INSURE AGAINST LOSS OR DAMAGE BY REASON OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. Any facts, rights, interests,or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or which may be asserted by persons in possession,or claiming to be in possession,thereof. 2. Easements,liens,encumbrances,or claims thereof,which are 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 that is not shown by the public records. - - - - 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, imposed by law for services, labor,or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, which lien,or right to a lien,is not shown by the public records. 5. (a)Unpatented mining claims; (b)reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof;(c) Indian treaty or aboriginal rights, including but not limited to, easements or equitable servitudes;or, (d)water rights, claims or title to water(see additional information page regarding water rights),whether or not the matters excepted under(a), (b), (c)or(d)are shown for the public records. 6. Taxes or assessments which are not now payable or which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records; proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments,or notices of such proceedings,whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records 7. Any service, installation,connection,maintenance or construction charges for sewer, water, electricity,or garbage collection or disposal or other utilities unless shown as an existing lien by the public records. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: 8. Taxes and assessments(not including condominium or homeowners association assessments or dues) for the year 2012 and subsequent years only,a lien not yet due and payable. 9. Reservations and exceptions as set forth in the Deed from the City of Aspen recorded in Book 59 at Page 113 and Book 79 at Page 11, providing as follows:'That no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver,cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws". 10. Mineral reservations as contained in Deeds recorded in Book 105 at Page 228 and Book 115 at Page 407. 11. Easement granted to the City of Aspen for Electric and Communication Utilities, recorded June 16, 1976 in Book 313 at Page 281 as shown on the Improvement Survey prepared by Aspen Survey Engineers dated March 12, as Job Number 21092. 12. Deck,overhang, building encroachments as shown on Improvement Survey prepared by Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. dated March 12 as Job No. 21092. 13. Deed of Trust from : EB BUILDING ASPEN LLC, a Texas limited liability company To the Public Trustee of the County of PITKIN For the use of :TOLLESON PRIVATE BANK, a Texas banking corporation Original Amount :$5,360,000.00 Dated : June 18,2012 Recorded :June 20, 2012 Reception No. : 589982 Assignment of Leases and Rents given in connection with the above Deed of Trust recorded June 20, 2012 as Reception No. 589983. EXCEPTIONS NUMBERED 1 THRU 7 ARE HEREBY DELETED, EXCEPT FOR SUBSECTION (d) UNDER PARAGRAPH NUMBER 5(WATER RIGHTS). EXHIBIT NOV 2 6 2012 CITY OF ASPEN November 19, 2012 COMMLINITY DEVELOPMENT Ms. Jessica Garrow Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Permission to Represent Dear Ms. Garrow: Please consider this letter authorization for Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, LLC, Planning Consultants, to represent me in the processing of my application for Historic Designation of the existing commercial/residential building located at 602 East Hyman Avenue and such other land use approvals as may be required for the development of Lots K and L, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen. Mr. Vann is hereby authorized to act on our behalf with respect to all matters reasonably pertain- ing to the aforementioned application. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Yours truly, EB BUILDING ASPEN, LLC Daniel L. Hunt c/o Cristin D. Adam, Esq. Unity Hunt, Inc. 1601 Elm Street, Suite 4000 Dallas, TX 75201 (214) 415-9979 d:\oldc\bus\city.ltr\Itr58912.95