Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.apz.20150721
AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING July 21, 2015 4:30 PM Sister Cities Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISIT II. ROLL CALL III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public IV. MINUTES A. July 7, 2015 Draft Meeting Minutes V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 710 & 720 E Durant Ave (Durant Mall) - Commercial Design Review - Continued Public Hearing from July 7 B. 1310 Red Butte Drive - Residential Design Review - Public Hearing VII. OTHER BUSINESS VIII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 14 Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legaJ notice (affi d avit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clari fications of ap plicant 7) Public comments 8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met. Revised April 2, 2014 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2015 1 Ryan Walterscheid, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Kelly McNicholas, Jasmine Tygre, Brian McNellis and Ryan Walterscheid. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan and Sarah Rosenberg. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES Ms. Tygre moved to approve the minutes for June 30 th , seconded by Ms. McNicholas. All in favor, motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no conflicts expressed. 710 & 720 E Durant Ave (Durant Mall) – Commercial Design Review – Continued Public Hearing from June 16th Mr. Walterscheid opened the continued public hearing from June 16 th . Ms. Phelan stated the applicant requested a continuance for July 21 st . Ms. Tygre motioned to continue the public hearing to July 21, 2015, seconded by Ms. McNicholas. All in favor, motion passed. Mr. Walterscheid closed the continued public hearing. 1475 Sierra Vista Drive – Residential Design Standards Variance –Public Hearing Mr. Walterscheid asked if public notice had been provided. Ms. Quinn replied she has reviewed two affidavits showing notice was published and mailed. Mr. Walterscheid then opened the public hearing. Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to the Staff. P1 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2015 2 Ms. Sarah Rosenberg, Community Development Special Project Planner, reviewed the application. The applicant is requesting a residential design variance. The house was built in 1968 on a 16,001 sf lot at the end of a cul-de-sac. The current owners purchased the property in 2013 anticipating remodeling the structure. An initial residential design variance was submitted to increase the nonconforming nature of the garage but it was withdrawn when it was determined it would need to go before a board instead of being administratively approved. Since then the applicant has applied for a building permit which would exceed the demolition allowances of more than 40% of the exterior walls and roof structure. Because of this event, the existing nonconformity must be brought into compliance. The applicant initially requested three variances but two have been resolved leaving the variance for the existing footprint and location of the garage. Ms. Phelan stated regarding the street facing garage and access from a public street, the standard requires the front façade to be ten feet back from the face of the house. The current front façade of the garage is forward of the front house façade. Ms. Rosenberg reviewed the neighborhood context. Most of the structures in the neighborhood were developed prior to the existing design standards making most of them nonconforming. The applicant studied 25 of the structures and 14 do not meet the design standards related to the façade of the street facing garage including the subject property. She then showed a slide (p 78) identifying the houses in the neighborhood with nonconforming garage orientations. Ms. Rosenberg then showed a slide depicting the existing and proposed site plans. There are two design standards the applicant needs to meet. One is a side loading garage or the front façade and the other is to set back the front façade of the garage at least 10 ft behind the front most wall of the house. The existing garage orientation does not meet either of these standards. Ms. Rosenberg stated there are two criteria for granting a variance of the residential design standards and only one of them needs to be met for a variance to be granted. 1. Does the request provide an appropriate pattern of design based on the context of the surrounding neighborhood and the purpose of the particular standard? 2. Is the request clearly necessary for the reason of fairness due to unusual site-specific constraints? The applicant has proposed to maintain the garage to be street facing to limit the construction costs by maintaining the existing foundation and some of the walls. They also stated the cone shaped lot produces hardship making it difficult for a side loading garage. Staff does not feel the shape of the lot is not a significant detriment to redevelopment. Staff finds the request does not meet the variance review standards and recommend the application be denied. P2 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2015 3 Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions of Staff. Ms. McNicholas asked how many of the nonconforming houses were a result of approved variances. Ms. Phelan stated they did not conduct research to make that determination. She added there are older houses in the neighborhood and there is other redevelopment occurring including some with similar situations. Ms. McNicholas asked if Staff worked with the applicant to provide an alternate approach. Ms. Phelan stated the biggest issue is the location of the foundation and the cost savings to the applicant to keep the foundation in place to prevent a redesign of the house. Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Dylan Johns, Zone 4 Architects, represents the applicant along with Mr. Bill Pollock. Mr. Johns stated they submitted an administrative variance request last year to move the front of the garage forward to accommodate a larger car. The applicant decided not to pursue this and instead move forward with maintaining the existing facades. Regarding the two criteria to be used for the variance request, he feels they fit into both criteria. Their research indicated a majority of the houses in the neighborhood have this style of development. The garage placement of the houses follow a traditional ranch style house with an attached garage. It is also his understanding this neighborhood is the reason for introducing administrative variances were included in the residential design standards in 2005 because there were numerous requests. This residence is about 90 ft away from the edge of the pavement and is heavily screened by trees. The house itself is roughly 2,760 sf. He pointed out on a slide the close proximity of the house to the setback lines. The pie shaped lot with the narrow edge approaching the street makes a big difference when trying to maneuver cars on the property. He feels the streetscape follows the intention of the code rather than the literal definition of the code. He feels the owner is attempting to fix the design around the existing foundation with a small addition utilizing available floor area ration (FAR) for the property. He feels there is no easy way to get cars into the lot. He showed pictures of the house from three positions of the front of the house. He also showed pictures taken by Staff and pointed out their pictures were taken while off the street and theirs was not. He noted while the form of the proposed house is different, the existing house and proposed house are the same mass. He feels strict compliance with the code will change the streetscape. He noted there is a provision within the International Building Code which applies to existing buildings which allows the building officials to exempt certain code standards if there is a financial hardship to the property owner. He doesn’t feel the residential design standards were meant to be a punitive measure for an owner. He feels there are site constraints to be considered. He then showed a site plan with a side loading option depicted. This option is not possible without removing many mature trees and would put the project up against other design variances. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions of the applicant. P3 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2015 4 Mr. McNellis asked if the garage was included in the 40% demolition figure at which Mr. Johns stated it was not along with the wall including the front door. He reiterated the applicant is not trying to introduce more nonconformities and maintain the existing structure. Ms. McNicholas asked Staff if financial hardship may be considered. Ms. Phelan does not believe financial hardship should be considered and reiterated the two criteria previously discussed to allow for a variance. She also stated P&Z only needs to identify one of the criteria as applicable to grant a variance. She suggested focusing on the neighborhood context because there are examples of nonconformity. Ms. McNicholas asked how Staff would argue this is an unusual site constraint. Ms. Phelan stated compared to the other lots, this one is more constrained due to its shape. She stated the 40% demolition rate is more technical. If this was really a scrape to ground demolition, the new structure could be reoriented on the lot. Mr. Walterscheid asked for public comment. No member of the public was present. Ms. Phelan stated there was one letter from the owner of 1465 Sierra Vista Drive which is next door the applicant’s property. The owner stated in the letter he has no objections to the applicant’s proposal. Mr. Walterscheid then closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Walterscheid opened for discussion with the commissioners. Ms. Tygre stated she toured neighborhood and noted the area does not get a lot of pedestrian traffic and there is a lot of mature vegetation. She didn’t see much of the home from the street. She does not feel the pedestrian experience is relevant and noted a variety of garage orientations. She agrees with Staff’s position when a certain amount of demolition triggers a review and doesn’t believe a financial hardship should be considered. She likes the idea of a modest remodel of the existing structure not exceeding the FAR and wants to approve the request. She feels there are other properties in the area that will be redeveloped and if the variance is granted on the grounds of neighborhood context, she is concerned the decision will be used as basis for other decisions. She wants to approve the variance based on site constraint of the cone shaped lot. Mr. McNellis is inclined to approve based on neighborhood context. He agrees with Ms. Tygre regarding the mature vegetation and agrees you cannot see the garage element from the street. He adds some weight that they are maintaining the original structure. He also feels there is a site constraint. He counted at least five other houses where the garage if oriented forward but probably 10 ft forward of the front façade of the house. Mr. Walterscheid stated he is in support of the applicant as well because the proposed redevelopment will remain in the same form on the pad. He would approve based on both the neighborhood context criteria and the site constraint criteria. He noted other remodeled homes with the same front facing garages. P4 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2015 5 Ms. McNicholas stated she preferred to approve a variance based on site constraint given the orientation of the house. She shares Ms. Tygre’s concerns regarding approving the variance based on neighborhood context. Ms. Phelan suggested changing the last paragraph of Section 1 in the draft resolution to reflect the site constraint of the cone shaped lot instead of the neighborhood context as the reason for granting the variance. Mr. McNellis asked if the resolution should include both criteria or just one. Ms. Tygre stated she only wants to grant it based the site constraint. Ms. McNicholas feels the site constraint criteria honors the code. Ms. Tygre motioned to approve Resolution 13, Series 2015 with a modification to the last paragraph under Section 1 to state the design considers the site constraint of the cone shaped lot instead of the context of the neighborhood. The motion was seconded by Ms. McNicholas. Mr. Walterscheid asked for a roll call: Mr. McNellis, yes; Ms. McNicholas, yes, Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. Walterscheid, yes. The motion passed with a four to zero (4-0) vote. Mr. Walterscheid then closed the public hearing. Mr. Walterscheid then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager P5 IV.A. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU : Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director FROM : Justin Barker, Planner RE: 710 & 720 E. Durant Avenue (Durant Mall) Consolidated Commercial Design Review Resolution No. __, Series of 2015 - Public Hearing MEETING DATE: July 21, 2015 (Continued from July 7, 2015) APPLICANT /O WNER : Durant Mall Condominium Association REPRESENTATIVE : RGS Architecture LOCATION : 710 & 720 E. Durant Avenue CURRENT ZONING Neighborhood Commercial (NC) w/ Planned Development (PD) overlay SUMMARY : The Applicant requests of the Planning and Zoning Commission approval for consolidated Commercial Design Review to remodel the exterior of the two structures. STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommends approval with conditions. Photo of Durant Mall, as seen from E. Durant Avenue LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES : The following land use approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission is being requested: • Commercial Design Review – for remodel of the existing structure, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.412 (P&Z is the final review authority ). P6 VI.A. Durant Mall - Staff Memo Page 2 of 7 CHANGES FROM 6/16/15 PUBLIC HEARING : At the hearing on June 16, the applicant presented two design options. Staff did not support the applicant’s preferred design option, which included additional parapets. P&Z was somewhat split on the additional parapets. Some commissioners agreed with staff, mentioning the parapets added additional perceived mass and height to the structures. Others were comfortable with the additions. P&Z suggested that there might be an appropriate design option somewhere between the two proposed. The applicant requested continuation to provide an opportunity to continue working with staff. The applicant submitted a revised design on June 30 (Exhibit F). The revised design still includes the steel superstructure and concrete masonry unit (CMU) base. The revised design also includes a combination of metal and composite siding, similar to Design Option 1. The applicant is proposing to complete the parapet on the east building at a height of 32 feet. There is no parapet addition on the west building. Overall, staff is supportive of the proposed design. Staff’s main concern from the last meeting was the inclusion of many new parapets that would increase the perceived mass of the structures. This concern has mostly been remedied with the revised design. The east building still adds additional parapet walls, however they will conform to the zone district requirements and is slightly modified on the Durant Street side to break up the massing. The east building proposal also includes new parapet walls on a small tower-like element. These walls are over 32 feet. P&Z has the ability to grant an allowable height up to 32 feet in the Neighborhood Commercial zone district, but any new development above that must still require a variance from City Council. Staff recommends removal of these parapet walls from the design to conform with the zone district. If P&Z decides to approve the project as-is, the applicant will be required to receive a variance approval from City Council for this design. At the June 16 meeting, the applicant provided photos of the proposed metal siding and a sample of the proposed composite siding. Staff has requested the applicant bring physical samples of both materials to the July 7 meeting to allow P&Z the chance to better evaluate the materials. Staff recommendation is for approval with the condition of removing the proposed parapet above 32 feet on the tower-like element. EXHIBITS : A. Review Criteria – Commercial Design Review (provided 6/16, 7/7 and 7/21) B. Application (provided 6/16) C. Design Option 1 – Updated 6.11.15 (provided 6/16, 7/7 and 7/21) D. Design Option 2 – Updated 6.11.15 (provided 6/16, 7/7 and 7/21) E. Public Comment (provided 6/16) F. Revised Design 6.30.15 (provided 7/7 and 7/21) THE MEMO ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES IS FROM THE 6/16/15 PACKET : P7 VI.A. Durant Mall - Staff Memo Page 3 of 7 BACKGROUND : The subject property is located on the north side of East Durant Avenue, between Spring Street and Original Street (Figure A). The lot is approximately 16,500 square feet and is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (NC) with a Planned Development (PD) Overlay. There are two existing structures on site (Figures B & C on next page) that were built at the same time in the 1970s. The buildings are each three stories tall above grade on a raised plaza, and contain a combination of commercial and residential uses. There is a parking garage located below grade that is accessed from the alley side. The buildings are heavy timber construction with wood siding and a combination of standing seam metal and flat roofs. The existing buildings vary in height but are approximately 41 ft. tall in some areas, which exceeds the height limit in the NC zone district (28 ft., increasable to 32 ft. with Commercial Design Review). This existing nonconforming height may be maintained, but not increased, as long as demolition is not triggered on the existing structure. Any new construction must conform to the zone district limitations. Figure A – Locator Map CITY MARKET P8 VI.A. Durant Mall - Staff Memo Page 4 of 7 Figure B – Existing Durant View Figure C – Existing Alley View P9 VI.A. Durant Mall - Staff Memo Page 5 of 7 PROJECT SUMMARY : The applicant is proposing to replace the existing exterior timber frame and exterior materials. The overall massing of the buildings and fenestrations will remain the same. The applicant is proposing two different designs. In both designs, the timber frame will be replaced with structural steel and the existing stone covering the base will be replaced with a combination of polished and split face concrete masonry units (CMUs). In Design Option 1 (Figures D & E) the wood siding will be replaced with a combination of vertical aluminum siding and horizontal composite siding. Figure D – Design Option 1 Durant View Figure E – Design Option 1 Alley View P10 VI.A. Durant Mall - Staff Memo Page 6 of 7 Design Option 1 (Figures D & E on previous page) also adds additional parapet walls on the top floor, adding height. The proposed walls would reach 32’ 4”, which exceed the height limit. This is the preferred design by the applicant. If approved by P&Z, Design Option 1 would still require a height variance from City Council. In Design Option 2 (Figures F & G) the wood siding will be replaced only with horizontal composite siding. Design Option 2 (Figures D & E on next page) also does not include additional parapet walls, therefore not requiring a height variance. Figure F – Design Option 2 Durant View Figure G – Design Option 2 Alley View P11 VI.A. Durant Mall - Staff Memo Page 7 of 7 STAFF EVALUATION : Commercial Design Review (Exhibit A): The property is located in the Commercial Character Area. The primary design objectives of this character area are: 1. Strengthen the sense of relatedness with the Commercial Core Historic District. 2. Maintain a retail orientation. 3. Promote creative, contemporary design. 4. Encourage a well-defined street wall. 5. Reflect the variety in building heights seen traditionally. 6. Accommodate outdoor public spaces while establishing a clear definition to the street edge. 7. Promote variety in the street level experience. Staff Response: Staff recognizes that the preferred proposed design is intended to modernize the appearance of the building, and the parapets are an integral part of the design. This also reinforces the appearance of a flat roof, which is the dominate roof form in the city center. However, the proposed parapets do not inherently help achieve any of the Guidelines and increase the perceived mass of the building. The existing buildings create variation of height and building mass through varied roof forms and parapet edges. This variation is particularly important for a building that is already over the allowable height. Design Option 1 eliminates much of this variation by hiding the variation behind new parapets and further creating the perception of tall flat walls. There are no unique site features or constraints that would warrant a variance for this design. Staff does not support Design Option 1. The proposed exterior materials are durable modern materials, but do not convey the range and quality of materials seen traditionally which includes brick, natural stone and wood. Composite and CMU are intended to mimic wood and granite, which are natural materials that are more consistent within the Commercial Area and other nearby development. Predominate materials in the Commercial Area include high quality brick with occasional natural stone accent. Wood is often used for earlier residential buildings. The Guidelines call for continuing the combination, quality and variation that is traditionally found in these materials. Staff recommends the use of natural materials to be more consistent with the Guidelines. Additionally, the use of large amounts of metal siding in Design Option 1 – although somewhat detailed at a human scale – increases the overall perceived scale of the building, particularly with the additional parapets. The Guidelines call for building materials which reduce the perceived scale of the building. STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Overall, Staff is supportive of Design Option 2. Staff is concerned about the durability and quality of the proposed composite siding, but would be supportive of a composite material that has long durability and high quality. The applicant will be providing samples of the proposed materials at the meeting. PROPOSED MOTION : “I move to approve Resolution No. __, Series of 2015, approving consolidated Commercial Design review for 710 & 720 E. Durant Avenue, with conditions.” P12 VI.A. Resolution No. __, Series of 2015 710 & 720 E. Durant Street Page 1 of 5 RESOLUTION NO. __ (SERIES OF 2015) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING CONSOLIDATED COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 710 & 720 E. DURANT AVENUE (COMMONLY KNOWN AS DURANT MALL), LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A. Parcel IDs: 273718242006, 273718242008 –273718242016, 273718242018 – 273718242024, 273718242028 – 273718242034, 273718242038, 273718242041 –273718242060, 273718242062, 273718242070 – 273718242072, 273718242078, 273718242079, 273718242116 – 273718242130, 273718242802 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Durant Mall Condominium Association, c/o RGS Architecture, represented by RGS Architecture, requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission approve consolidated Commercial Design Review for the property located at 710 & 720 E. Durant Mall; and, WHEREAS, the property is zoned (NC) Neighborhood Commercial with a (PD) Planned Development overlay, and located within the Commercial Character Area; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the application; 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 at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 16, 2015, continued to July 7, 2015, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. __, Series of 2015, by a ____ to ____ (_ – _) vote, approving consolidated Commercial Design Review, with conditions; 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 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 P13 VI.A. Resolution No. __, Series of 2015 710 & 720 E. Durant Street Page 2 of 5 Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves consolidated Commercial Design Review as represented in Exhibit B, with the following conditions: 1. The additional parapet walls shall not exceed 32 feet in height, as measured by the Land Use Code in effect at time of building permit submittal. 2. The proposed parapet for the tower-like element on the east building is not approved. 3. The signage represented on the drawings in Exhibit B is not approved. All signage shall comply with the requirements of the City’s Land Use Code. Section 2: 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 3: 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 4: 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 21 th day of July, 2015. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: ______________________________ ______________________________ Debbie Quinn, Asst. City Attorney Ryan Walterscheid, Chair ATTEST: ______________________________ Cindy Klob, Records Manager Exhibits: A. Legal Description B. Approved Design P14 VI.A. Resolution No. __, Series of 2015 710 & 720 E. Durant Street Page 3 of 5 Exhibit A Durant Mall, (A Condominium), according to the Condominium Map thereof recorded February 6, 1976, in Plat Book 4, Page 565, as amended by Amended Condominium Map recorded October 21, 1983, in Plat Book 15, Page 48 and by Second Supplemental Condominium Map recorded June 14, 1984 in Plat Book 16, Page 10 and plat recorded March 20, 1990 in Plat Book 24 at Page 6, and the Fourth Supplemental Condominium Map recorded October 17, 2013 at reception no. 604796 and as defined and described in the Condominium Declaration for the Durant Mall, (A Condominium), recorded February 6, 1976 in Book 308, Page 518, as amended by First Amendment to Condominium Declaration recorded October 21, 1983 in Book 453, Page 848 and by Second Amendment to Condominium Declaration recorded June 14, 1984 in Book 467, Page 876 and Third Amendment Recorded December 26, 1995 in Book 803 Page 52 as reception no. 388538 and Fourth Amendment recorded October 17, 2013 at reception no. 604797, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. P15 VI.A. Resolution No. __, Series of 2015 710 & 720 E. Durant Street Page 4 of 5 Exhibit B P16 VI.A. Resolution No. __, Series of 2015 710 & 720 E. Durant Street Page 5 of 5 P17 VI.A. EXHIBIT A COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW DURANT MALL 26.412.050. Review Criteria. An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards. Staff Findings: Responses to Sections 26.412.060-070 are outlined below. Staff finds this criterion is met. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the façade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. Staff Findings: The existing structure is already commercial. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. Staff Findings: Responses to the Design Guidelines are outlined below. This property is located in the Commercial Character Area. Overall, Staff finds this criterion is not met in Design Option 1, but is met in Design Option 2. 26.412.060. Commercial Design Standards. The following design standards, in addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district design objectives and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed-use development: A. Public Amenity Space. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and Exhibit A – Commercial Design Review Page 1 of 14 P18 VI.A. entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-of-way or private property within commercial areas. On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method or combination of methods of providing the public amenity shall be at the option of the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, according to the procedures herein and according to the following standards: 1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. 2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent rights-of-way are encouraged. 3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of-way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. 4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls, sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian environment. 5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection 26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements. Staff Findings: The proposed development does not change the footprint of the building and therefore is exempt from the requirements of this section. Staff finds that these criteria to be not applicable. B. Utility, delivery and trash service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply: 1. A trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum size and location standards established by Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, unless otherwise established according to said Chapter. 2. A utility area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum standards established by Title 25, Utilities, of the Municipal Code, the City’s Electric Distribution Standards, and the National Electric Code, unless otherwise established according to said Codes. 3. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located and combined to the greatest extent practical. Exhibit A – Commercial Design Review Page 2 of 14 P19 VI.A. 4. If the property adjoins an alleyway, the utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be along and accessed from the alleyway, unless otherwise approved through Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. 5. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be fenced so as not to be visible from the street, unless they are entirely located on an alleyway or otherwise approved though Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. All fences shall be six (6) feet high from grade, shall be of sound construction, and shall be no less than ninety percent (90%) opaque, unless otherwise varied through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. 6. Whenever utility, trash, and recycle service areas are required to be provided abutting an alley, other portions of a building may extend to the rear property line if otherwise allowed by this Title, provided that the utility, trash and recycle area is located at grade and accessible to the alley. 7. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. 8. All commercial and lodging buildings shall provide a delivery area. The delivery area shall be located along the alley if an alley adjoins the property. The delivery area shall be accessible to all tenant spaces of the building in a manner that meets the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. All non-ground floor commercial spaces shall have access to an elevator or dumbwaiter for delivery access. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be utilized as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International Building Code. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. 9. All commercial tenant spaces located on the ground floor in excess of 1,500 square feet shall contain a vestibule (double set of doors) developed internal to the structure to meet the requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen, or an air curtain. 10. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. 11. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. 12. The trash and recycling service area requirements may be varied pursuant to Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code. All other requirements of this subsection may be Exhibit A – Commercial Design Review Page 3 of 14 P20 VI.A. varied by special review (see Chapter 26.430.040.E, Utility and delivery service area provisions). Staff Findings: The proposed development contains existing trash/recycle/utility areas. There is no change to the size or use of the existing operations, and therefore may maintain the existing operations for this proposal. Staff finds these criteria to be not applicable. 26.412.070. Suggested design elements. The following guidelines are building practices suggested by the City, but are not mandatory. In many circumstances, compliance with these practices may not produce the most desired development, and project designers should use their best judgment. A. Signage. Signage should be integrated with the building to the extent possible. Integrated signage areas already meeting the City's requirements for size, etc., may minimize new tenant signage compliance issues. Common tenant listing areas also serves a public way- finding function, especially for office uses. Signs should not block design details of the building on which they are placed. Compliance with the City's sign code is mandatory. Staff Findings: The project will comply with all signage requirements. Staff finds this criterion is met. B. Display windows. Display windows provide pedestrian interest and can contribute to the success of the retail space. Providing windows that reveal inside activity of the store can provide this pedestrian interest. Staff Findings: The existing windows are proposed to remain the same. Many of the spaces already contain large display windows on the first floor. Staff finds this criterion is met. C. Lighting. Well-lit (meaning quality, not quantity) display windows along the first floor create pedestrian interest after business hours. Dynamic lighting methods designed to catch attention can cheapen the quality of the downtown retail environment. Illuminating certain important building elements can provide an interesting effect. Significant light trespass should be avoided. Illuminating the entire building should be avoided. Compliance with the City's Outdoor lighting code, Section 26.575.150 of this Title, is mandatory. Staff Findings: The project will comply with all lighting requirements. Staff finds this criterion is met. Commercial Design Guidelines – Commercial Area, Conceptual & Final Review Design Guidelines This parcel is designated as the Commercial Area in the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Objectives and Guidelines. The Commercial Area is located immediately adjacent to the Commercial Core and often influenced by large lodge development in direct contrast to the smaller, predominant scale within other adjacent areas. It contains a strong grid network of streets and alleys with building height varying from one to four stories. Buildings define the street edge on the south and height and scale reduces to the north. Materials vary but are Exhibit A – Commercial Design Review Page 4 of 14 P21 VI.A. predominantly masonry. The existing street edge is less defined that the Commercial Core with varied setbacks and more open space. The design objectives for this character area are: 1. Strengthen the sense of relatedness with the Commercial Core Historic District. 2. Maintain a retail orientation. 3. Promote creative, contemporary design. 4. Encourage a well-defined street wall. 5. Reflect the variety in building heights seen traditionally. 6. Accommodate outdoor public spaces while establishing a clear definition to the street edge. 7. Promote variety in the street level experience. Conceptual Review includes the following guidelines: Street & Alley System Staff Findings: The existing development contains multiple entrances, both facing Durant Avenue and the alley. The primary entrance faces the alley and is clearly defined with a large staircase leading directly toward the doorway. The existing network of streets and alleys will remain and are open to the sky. The existing development also contains a public through court that connects Durant Avenue to the alley. The alley façade contains as much detail as the Durant façade, if not more, using varied setbacks, balconies and building entrances. Staff finds this portion of the Guidelines met. Staff finds the following Guidelines are met: 1.1 Orient a primary entrance toward the street. • A building should have a clearly defined primary entrance. • Providing secondary public entrances to commercial spaces is also encouraged on larger buildings. 1.2 Maintain the established town grid in all projects. • The network of streets and alleys should be retained as public circulation space and for maximum public access. • Streets and alleys should not be enclosed or closed to public access, and should remain open to the sky. 1.3 Public walkways and through courts should be designed to create access to additional commercial space. • These may be shops that face onto walkways or courtyards. • See also: Public Amenity Space design guidelines 1.4 Develop an alley façade to create visual interest. • Use varied building setbacks and changes in materials to create interest and reduce perceived scale. • Balconies, court yards and decks are also appropriate. Exhibit A – Commercial Design Review Page 5 of 14 P22 VI.A. • Providing secondary public entrances is strongly encouraged along alleys. These should be clearly intended for public use, but subordinate in detail to the primary street-side entrance. Parking Staff Findings: The existing development already contains underground parking. The entrance is located off the alley. The entrances are recessed and secondary in nature to the rest of the building. The details and materials will be improved as part of the proposal. Staff finds this portion of the Guidelines met. Staff finds the following Guidelines are met: 1.5 The visual impacts of structured parking should be minimized. The access shall be: • Located on an alley when feasible or a secondary street, designed with the same attention to detail and materials as the primary building façade, and integrated into the building design. 1.6 Structured parking should be placed within a ‘wrap’ of commercial and/or residential uses. Public Amenity Space Staff Findings: The existing development already contains a significant amount of public amenity space. It has recently been renovated to improve drainage as well as overall design. The amenity space is located above grade, but is directly accessible from the sidewalk and alley. There are few features such as street furniture and public art currently in the amenity space, however these are in the current proposal. The mid-block walkway is much wider than 10 ft. However, it is an existing feature that is not proposed for change, and currently provides additional commercial space frontage and excellent pedestrian access. Staff finds this portion of the Guidelines met. Staff finds the following Guidelines are met: 1.7 A street facing amenity space shall meet all of the following requirements: • Abut the public sidewalk • Be level with the sidewalk • Be open to the sky • Be directly accessible to the public • Be paved or otherwise landscaped 1.8 A street-facing public amenity space shall remain subordinate to the line of building fronts in the Commercial Area. • Any public amenity space positioned at the street edge shall respect the character of the streetscape and ensure that street corners are well defined, with buildings placed at the sidewalk edge. • Sunken spaces, which are associated with some past developments, adversely affect the street character. Where feasible, these should be replaced with sidewalk level improvements. Exhibit A – Commercial Design Review Page 6 of 14 P23 VI.A. 1.9 Street facing amenity space shall contain features to promote and enhance its use. These may include one or more of the following: • Street furniture • Public art • Historical/interpretive marker 1.10 Mid-block walkways shall remain subordinate in scale to traditional lot widths. • Mid-block public walkways shall be between 8 ft. and 10 ft. in width. 1.11 A mid-block walkway should provide public access to the following: • Additional commercial space and frontage within the walkway • Uses located at the rear of the property that are commercial in nature. Staff finds the following Guidelines are not applicable: 1.12 An alley side amenity space shall be designed to have these characteristics. • Direct public access to commercial space at ground or second floor levels • Maximize solar access to the alley side amenity space • Enhance the attractiveness and use of the rear alley • Minimize the adverse impacts of adjacent service and parking area 1.13 A second floor amenity space should meet all of the following criteria: • A second floor amenity space should meet all of the following criteria: • Be dedicated for public use • Provide a public overlook and/or an interpretive marker • 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 public street, alley, or street level amenity space. 1.16 Second level dining may be considered. • If the use changes, the space must remain accessible to the public so long as it is to be considered meeting the Public Amenity Space requirement. 1.17 Front and side yard amenity space should be provided in the context of a historic one story residential type building. Building Placement Staff Findings: The proposed development does not affect the existing building placement. The building alignment varies for both structures, however they retain a strong street presence from both the alley and Durant Avenue with upper floors cantilevering to the property lines. The Exhibit A – Commercial Design Review Page 7 of 14 P24 VI.A. building facades are parallel to the street network with entrances facing the streets. Staff finds this portion of the Guidelines met. Staff finds the following Guidelines are met: 1.18 Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk’s edge. • Place as much of the façade of the building at the property line as possible. • A minimum of 60% of the front façade. • Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate. 1.19 A building may be set back from its side lot lines in accordance with design guidelines identified in Street & Alley System and Public Amenity Space guidelines. 1.20 Building facades shall be parallel to the facing street(s) and primary entrances shall be oriented toward the street. Staff finds the following Guideline to be not applicable: 1.21 Orient a new building to be parallel to its lot lines, similar to that of traditional building orientations. Building Height, Mass & Scale Staff Findings: Most of the existing development’s height and mass are proposed to remain the same, which already contains a high level of height and massing variation with balconies and varied setbacks. The applicant is proposing two different designs for this development. The applicant’s preferred design (Design Option 1) proposes the addition of parapet walls that face the alley and Durant Avenue on the top floor. The top of these will measure at 32’ 4”. This is considered additional development above the allowable height in this zone district (28’, increasable to 32’ with Commercial Design Review). Approval of this design would require a height variance from City Council to allow the proposed parapet walls. The other design (Design Option 2) does not include the parapets and would not require a height variance. Staff recognizes that Design Option 1 is intended to modernize the appearance of the building, and the parapets are an integral part of the design. This also reinforces the appearance of a flat roof, which is the dominate roof form in the city center. However, the proposed parapets do not inherently help achieve any of the Guidelines and increase the perceived mass of the building. There are no unique site features or constraints that would warrant a variance for this design. The existing buildings create variation of height and building mass through varied roof forms and parapet edges. Design Option 1 eliminates much of this variation by hiding the variation behind new parapets and further creating the perception of tall flat walls. Staff finds this portion of the Guidelines not met for Design Option 1. Design Option 2 does not alter the form or height of the existing building and would be unreasonable to meet this portion of the Guidelines. Exhibit A – Commercial Design Review Page 8 of 14 P25 VI.A. Staff finds the following Guidelines are not met in Design Option 1: 1.22 Height variation should be achieved using one of more of the following: • Vary the building height in accordance with traditional lot width. • Set back the upper floor to vary the building façade profile(s) and the roof forms across the width and the depth of the building. • Vary the façade (or parapet) heights at the front. • Step down the rear of the building towards the alley, in conjunction with other design standards and guidelines. 1.23 On sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths, the façade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. • The façade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. • Height should be varied every 60 ft. minimum and preferably every 30 ft. of linear frontage in keeping with traditional lot widths and development patterns. • No more than two consecutive 30 ft. façade modules may be three stories tall, within an individual building. • A rear portion of a third module may rise to three stories, if the front is set back a minimum of 40 feet from the street façade. (e.g. at a minimum, the front 40 feet may be no more than two stories in height.) 1.24 Building on sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths shall achieve a minimum of two of the following: • Variation in height of building modules across the site • Variation in massing achieved through upper floor setbacks, the roofscape form and variation in upper floor heights • Variation in building façade heights or cornice line Staff finds the following Guidelines to be not applicable: 1.25 Building façade height shall be varied from the façade height of adjacent buildings of the same number of stories by a minimum of 2 feet. • If an existing structure is three stories and 38 ft. tall for example, then adjacent new infill may be three stories, by must vary in façade height by a minimum of 2 ft. 1.26 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the Commercial Area. • Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height on the subject property. • A minimum 9 ft. floor to ceiling height is to be maintained on second stories and higher. • Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added for one or more of the following reasons: o In order to achieve at least a two-foot variation in height with an adjacent building. Exhibit A – Commercial Design Review Page 9 of 14 P26 VI.A. o The primary function of the building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum, Civic Building, Performance Hall, Fire station, etc.) o Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity to a historic resource, or location within a View Plane, therefore relief in another area may be appropriate. o To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units. o To make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Building Department) contributed to the building’s overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved daylighting. 1.27 A new building should step down in scale to respect the height, form and scale of a historic building within its immediate setting. 1.28 New development adjacent to a single story historic building that was originally constructed for residential use shall not exceed 28 ft. in height within 30 ft. of the side property line adjacent to the historic structure within the same block face. Final Review includes the following guidelines: Building Design & Articulation Staff Findings: Most of the existing development is remaining largely the same, including fenestration, storefronts and floor-to-floor heights. The proposed development is mostly just updating the materials. The existing development provides a good amount of articulation through clear distinction between floors, varied façade setbacks, and generous first floor storefronts. The proportions of openings and detailing are appropriate and will remain in the proposed development. The first floor is not visibly taller than the upper floors, however this is an existing condition. There are highly transparent storefronts located on the first floor that reinforce the commercial aspect of the development. The third floor is currently set back and has low sloping or flat roofs that reduce the visual impacts. Design Option 1 increases the appearance of the third floor with additional height from the proposed parapets. Staff finds this portion of the Guidelines generally met, with the exception of Guideline 1.36 for Design Option 1. Staff finds the following Guidelines are met: 1.30 The detailed design of the building façade should reflect the traditional scale and rhythm of the block. This should be achieved using all of the following: • The fenestration grouping • The modeling of the façade • The design framework for the first floor storefront • Variation in architectural detail/or the palette of façade materials Exhibit A – Commercial Design Review Page 10 of 14 P27 VI.A. 1.31 A building should reflect the architectural hierarchy and articulation inherent in the composition of the street façade. The following should be addressed: • The design and definition of the traditionally tall first floor • The vertical proportions of the upper level fenestration pattern and ratio of solid wall to window area. 1.32 A building should reflect the three-dimensional characteristics of the street façade in the strength and depth of modeling, fenestration and architectural detail. 1.34 Maintain the distinction between the street level and upper floors. • The first floor should be the tallest floor to floor height in the building • The first floor of the primary façade should be predominantly transparent glass • Upper floors should be perceived as being more opaque than the street level. Upper story windows should have a vertical emphasis. • Highly reflective or darkly tinted glass is inappropriate • Express the traditional distinction in floor heights between the street levels and upper levels through detailing, materials and fenestration. The presence of a belt course is an important feature in this relationship. 1.37 The first floor façade should be designed to concentrate interest on the first level, using the highest quality of design, detailing and materials. • A strong and distinctively designed retail framework for the first floor of the building • An entryway designed to use the full height of the storefront • A distinct change in the palette of materials used for the first floor design framework • The depth and strength of the modeling of elements and details 1.38 The retail entrance should be at sidewalk level. • All entrances shall be ADA compliant • On sloping sites the retail frontage should be as close to a level entrance as possible 1.40 Window area along the first floor shall be a minimum of 60% of exterior street façade area when facing a principal street(s). 1.41 Where appropriate a building shall be designed to maintain the character and transparency of the traditional street level retail frontage. 1.42 Design of the first floor storefront should include particular attention to the following: • The basic elements and proportions of storefront design • Depth and strength of modeling • The palette of materials and finishes used in both the structural framework and the storefront window • The concentration of architectural detail to ensure a rich visual experience Exhibit A – Commercial Design Review Page 11 of 14 P28 VI.A. • The complimentary use of signage and lettering to enhance the retail and downtown character • The use of lighting to accentuate visual presence 1.43 Retail frontage facing onto side courts or rear alleys should follow similar design principles to the street frontage, adjusted for the scale of the space. • It should be designed with a similar attention to architectural articulation, detail and materials. • These should have a richness of detail that is inviting to users. 1.44 A large building should reflect the traditional lot width in form and variation of its roof. This should be achieved through the following: • A set back of the top floor from the front façade • Reflect the traditional lot width in the roof plane 1.45 The roofscape should be designed with the same design attention as the secondary elevations of the building • Group and screen mechanical units from view • Locate mechanical equipment to the rear of the roof area • Position, articulate and design rooftop enclosures or structures to reflect the modulation and character of the building • Use materials which complement the design of the building facades • Design roof garden areas to be unobtrusive from the street • Use ‘green roof’ design best practice, where feasible Staff finds the following Guideline is not met in Design Option 1 (met in Design Option 2): 1.36 Minimize the appearance of a tall third floor. • Where a third floor’s floor to ceiling height is in excess of 12 ft., it should be set back a minimum of 15 ft. from the street façade to reduce the apparent height. • Increase the parapet height to screen the visual impact of a tall top floor. • The design of a setback third floor shall be simpler in form, more subdued in modeling, detail and color than the primary façade. Staff finds the following Guidelines are not applicable: 1.29 A new building shall reflect the traditional lot width (30 ft) as expressed by two or more of the following: • Variation in height at internal lot lines • Variation in the plane of the front façade • Street façade composition • Variation in architectural detailing and materials to emphasize the building module 1.33 Any new building shall be designed to maintain a minimum of 9 feet from floor to ceiling on all floors. Exhibit A – Commercial Design Review Page 12 of 14 P29 VI.A. 1.35 A new building should be designed to maintain the stature of traditional street level frontage. • This should be 13-15 ft. in floor to floor height on the first floor • The minimum required first floor height must be maintained for at least the first 50 foot depth of the lot, and may only be dropped to a lower height beyond that point for areas that are devoted to storage, circulation, offices, restaurant kitchens, alley commercial spaces, or similar secondary uses. 1.39 Incorporate an airlock entry into the plan for all new structures. • An airlock entry that projects forward of the primary façade at the sidewalk is inappropriate • Adding temporary entries during the winter season detracts from the character of the historic district • Using a temporary vinyl or fabric “airlock” to provide protection from winter weather is not permitted Architectural Materials Staff Findings: The proposed new materials include structural steel columns and beams, variegated aluminum siding, composite siding and polished CMU with split face CMU accent course. These are durable modern materials, but do not convey the range and quality of materials seen traditionally which includes brick, natural stone and wood. Composite and CMU are intended to mimic wood and granite, which are natural materials that are more consistent within the Commercial Area and other nearby development. Predominate materials in the Commercial Area include high quality brick with occasional natural stone accent. Wood is often used for earlier residential buildings. The Guidelines call for continuing the combination, quality and variation that is traditionally found in these materials. Staff has concern about the durability and quality of composite siding, but would be supportive of a composite material that has long durability and high quality. As such a large building, the use of large amounts of metal siding in Design Option 1 – although somewhat detailed at a human scale – increases the overall perceived scale of the building, particularly with the additional parapets. Materials on the third floor in Design Option 1 are the same as those on the first two floors, however they will be horizontal in design and are already set back from the street facades, making them more subdued. Design Option 2 eliminates the metal siding, using composite siding only. Staff finds this portion of the Guidelines to be met. Staff finds the following Guidelines are met: 1.46 High quality, durable materials should be employed • The palette of materials should be specified, including samples of materials as required 1.47 Building materials should have these features: • Convey the quality and range of materials seen traditionally • Reduce the perceived scale of the building and enhance visual interest of the façade • Convey a human scale Exhibit A – Commercial Design Review Page 13 of 14 P30 VI.A. 1.48 A building or addition should reflect the quality and variation in material seen traditionally. 1.49 Where contemporary materials are use they shall be: • High quality in durability and finish • Detailed to convey a human scale • Compatible with a traditional masonry palette 1.50 Materials used for the third floor accommodation set back from the street facades should be more subdued than primary facades Paving & Landscape Staff Findings: The paved public amenity area was recently updated to improve drainage and overall design quality. The update already enhances the existing development, as well as the proposed development. Staff finds this portion of the Guidelines to be met. Staff finds the following Guidelines are met: 1.51 Paving and landscaping should be designed to complement and enhance the immediate setting of the building area. Exhibit A – Commercial Design Review Page 14 of 14 P31 VI.A. 9 j u n e 2 0 1 5 Post of fi ce box 8114 Aspen , Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2014 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc.ROBERT G. SINCLAIR ARCHITECTURE, INC. DM A pe r s p e c t i v e f r o m C i t y M a r k e t ~ P a r a p e t a d d i t i o n AS P E N , C o l o r a d o EXHIBIT C P32 VI.A. 9 j u n e 2 0 1 5 Post of fi ce box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2014 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc.ROBERT G. SINCLAIR ARCHITECTURE, INC. DM A pe r s p e c t i v e f r o m D u r a n t a v e n u e ~ P a r a p e t a d d i t i o n AS P E N , C o l o r a d o P33 VI.A. 9 j u n e 2 0 1 5 Post of fi ce box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2014 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc.ROBERT G. SINCLAIR ARCHITECTURE, INC. DM A co n c e p t u a l p e r s p e c t i v e o f p l a z a a t d u r a n t a v e n u e ~ P a r a p e t a d d i t i o n AS P E N , C o l o r a d o P34 VI.A. 9 j u n e 2 0 1 5 Post of fi ce box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2014 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc.ROBERT G. SINCLAIR ARCHITECTURE, INC. DM A co n c e p t u a l p e r s p e c t i v e o f p l a z a a t d u r a n t a v e n u e ~ P a r a p e t a d d i t i o n AS P E N , C o l o r a d o P35 VI.A. 9 j u n e 2 0 1 5 Post of fi ce box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2014 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc.ROBERT G. SINCLAIR ARCHITECTURE, INC. DM A co n c e p t u a l p e r s p e c t i v e o f p l a z a a t a l l e y ~ P a r a p e t a d d i t i o n AS P E N , C o l o r a d o P36 VI.A. 9 j u n e 2 0 1 5 Post of fi ce box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2014 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc.ROBERT G. SINCLAIR ARCHITECTURE, INC. DM A co n c e p t u a l p e r s p e c t i v e o f p l a z a a t a l l e y ~ P a r a p e t a d d i t i o n AS P E N , C o l o r a d o P37 VI.A. 9 j u n e 2 0 1 5 Post of fi ce box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2014 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc.ROBERT G. SINCLAIR ARCHITECTURE, INC. DM A co n c e p t u a l b u i l d i n g e l e v a t i o n s ~ P a r a p e t a d d i t i o n AS P E N , C o l o r a d o P38 VI.A. 9 j u n e 2 0 1 5 Post of fi ce box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2014 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc.ROBERT G. SINCLAIR ARCHITECTURE, INC. DM A co n c e p t u a l b u i l d i n g e l e v a t i o n s ~ P a r a p e t a d d i t i o n AS P E N , C o l o r a d o P39 VI.A. 09 June 2015 Post office box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2015 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc. RO B E RT G . S I N C L A I R ARCHITECTURE, INC. DMA perspective from City Market ~ No parapet change ASPEN, Colorado EXHIBIT D P 4 0 V I . A . 09 June 2015 Post office box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2015 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc. RO B E RT G . S I N C L A I R ARCHITECTURE, INC. DMA perspective from Durant avenue ~ No parapet change ASPEN, Colorado EXHIBIT D P 4 1 V I . A . 09 June 2015 Post office box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2015 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc. RO B E RT G . S I N C L A I R ARCHITECTURE, INC. DMA conceptual perspective of plaza at durant avenue ~ No parapet change ASPEN, Colorado P 4 2 V I . A . 09 June 2015 Post office box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2015 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc. RO B E RT G . S I N C L A I R ARCHITECTURE, INC. DMA conceptual perspective of plaza at durant avenue ~ No parapet change ASPEN, Colorado P 4 3 V I . A . 09 June 2015 Post office box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2015 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc. RO B E RT G . S I N C L A I R ARCHITECTURE, INC. DMA conceptual perspective of plaza at alley ~ No parapet change ASPEN, Colorado P 4 4 V I . A . 09 June 2015 Post office box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2015 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc. RO B E RT G . S I N C L A I R ARCHITECTURE, INC. DMA conceptual perspective of plaza at alley ~ No parapet change ASPEN, Colorado P 4 5 V I . A . 09 June 2015 Post office box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2015 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc. RO B E RT G . S I N C L A I R ARCHITECTURE, INC. DMA conceptual building elevations ~ No parapet change ASPEN, Colorado P 4 6 V I . A . 09 June 2015 Post office box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2015 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc. RO B E RT G . S I N C L A I R ARCHITECTURE, INC. DMA conceptual building elevations ~ No parapet change ASPEN, Colorado P 4 7 V I . A . 29 j u n e 2 0 1 5 Post of fi ce box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2014 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc.ROBERT G. SINCLAIR ARCHITECTURE, INC. DM A pe r s p e c t i v e f r o m C i t y M a r k e t ~ P a r a p e t a d d i t i o n AS P E N , C o l o r a d o EXHIBIT F P48 VI.A. 29 j u n e 2 0 1 5 Post of fi ce box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2014 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc.ROBERT G. SINCLAIR ARCHITECTURE, INC. DM A pe r s p e c t i v e f r o m D u r a n t a v e n u e ~ P a r a p e t a d d i t i o n AS P E N , C o l o r a d o P49 VI.A. 29 j u n e 2 0 1 5 Post of fi ce box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2014 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc.ROBERT G. SINCLAIR ARCHITECTURE, INC. DM A co n c e p t u a l p e r s p e c t i v e o f p l a z a a t d u r a n t a v e n u e ~ P a r a p e t a d d i t i o n AS P E N , C o l o r a d o P50 VI.A. 29 j u n e 2 0 1 5 Post of fi ce box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2014 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc.ROBERT G. SINCLAIR ARCHITECTURE, INC. DM A co n c e p t u a l p e r s p e c t i v e o f p l a z a a t d u r a n t a v e n u e ~ P a r a p e t a d d i t i o n AS P E N , C o l o r a d o P51 VI.A. 29 j u n e 2 0 1 5 Post of fi ce box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2014 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc.ROBERT G. SINCLAIR ARCHITECTURE, INC. DM A co n c e p t u a l p e r s p e c t i v e o f p l a z a a t a l l e y ~ P a r a p e t a d d i t i o n AS P E N , C o l o r a d o P52 VI.A. 29 j u n e 2 0 1 5 Post of fi ce box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2014 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc.ROBERT G. SINCLAIR ARCHITECTURE, INC. DM A co n c e p t u a l p e r s p e c t i v e o f p l a z a a t a l l e y ~ P a r a p e t a d d i t i o n AS P E N , C o l o r a d o P53 VI.A. 29 j u n e 2 0 1 5 Post of fi ce box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2014 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc.ROBERT G. SINCLAIR ARCHITECTURE, INC. DM A co n c e p t u a l b u i l d i n g e l e v a t i o n s ~ P a r a p e t a d d i t i o n AS P E N , C o l o r a d o P54 VI.A. 29 j u n e 2 0 1 5 Post of fi ce box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2014 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc.ROBERT G. SINCLAIR ARCHITECTURE, INC. DM A co n c e p t u a l b u i l d i n g e l e v a t i o n s ~ P a r a p e t a d d i t i o n AS P E N , C o l o r a d o P55 VI.A. 29 j u n e 2 0 1 5 Post of fi ce box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2014 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc.ROBERT G. SINCLAIR ARCHITECTURE, INC. DM A pe r s p e c t i v e f r o m C i t y M a r k e t ~ e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n AS P E N , C o l o r a d o P56 VI.A. 29 j u n e 2 0 1 5 Post of fi ce box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2014 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc.ROBERT G. SINCLAIR ARCHITECTURE, INC. DM A pe r s p e c t i v e f r o m D u r a n t a v e n u e ~ c u r r e n t c o n d i t i o n P57 VI.A. Page 1 of 3 MEMORANDUM TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planner Technician THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director RE: 1310 Red Butte Drive – RDS Variance Request MEETING DATE: July 21, 2015 APPLICANT/OWNERS: Jeff Grinspoon and Jon Foley, 1259 West Wrightwood Ave, Chicago, IL 61612-1223 REPRESENTATIVE: Tim Andrulaitis, Zone 4 Architects LOCATION: 1310 Red Butte Drive, Aspen CO 81612 CURRENT ZONING & USE: Low-Density Residential (R-30) zone district, used as a single-family residence PROPOSED LAND USE: The parcel will continue to be used for a single-family residence. SUMMARY: The applicants are requesting a Residential Design Standard variance that will permit a set of windows on a street-facing front feature of a newly proposed residence to span beyond the 9’ that is allowed by the Land Use Code. These windows are proposed on a feature that measures approximately 15.5’ at its highest point, with the windows reaching 13’. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The windows are proposed on a feature of the building that reaches a height of 15.5’ from grade at its highest point, with the proposed windows extending to 13’, into the area where one could typically expect to find a second floor. Staff does not find the proposed design to meet the intent of the Residential Design Standard, which is to create buildings that reflect the human scale, reduce window massing and provide relief between perceived floors of a building. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the applicants’ request for a residential design standard to permit windows to span between the 9’-12’ zone in the proposed location. Figure A: Image of subject property 1310 Red Butte Dr. Roaring Fork River P58 VI.B. Page 2 of 3 LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval: • Variance from the Residential Design Standards pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410.020.D.2. Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority for this request. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND: The subject site is located in the R-30 zone district, and is Lot 2 of the Red Butte Subdivision. This property is located outside of the Aspen Infill Area and backs up to the Roaring Fork River. In 2008 the former property owners were granted Stream Margin approval via P&Z Resolution No. 13 to allow the construction of a new single family residence on the site. The vesting period ended prior to the site’s redevelopment; however, Engineering has reviewed the top of slope that was approved in 2008 in conjunction with the current application and finds it to remain valid. Therefore, the proposed development is subject to the same setback lines as previously approved, and does not require a full Stream Margin review. In late 2014 a single family home was demolished to make way for the current proposed single family home. Recently the applicants received administrative approval allowing windows to span the area beyond 9’ on a one-story, street-facing feature of the front of the proposed residence. This feature measures just over 11 feet, and the proposed windows will reach a height of 9’7”. Staff approved this variance administratively as it was found to meet the intent of the standard. The windows are proposed on a one-story element with a plate height of approximately 10’, which minimizes the massing of this feature. The roof is flat on this feature of the building, and it is clearly a one-story element that does not appear as a two-story structure. PROJECT SUMMARY: As part of the building design a group of windows have been proposed on the street-facing front façade that span into the 9’-12’ area, as measured from grade. Per Section 26.410.040.D.3.a, “Street-facing windows shall not span through the area where a second floor level would typically exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve feet (12) above the finished first floor.” The windows at this location are on a street-facing building element which is farthest to the right of the structure’s front facade. The roof of this element Figure B: Location of subject property. Figure C: Proposed windows P59 VI.B. Page 3 of 3 is slightly pitched, and the windows reach approximately 13’ at their highest point. This one-story building feature connects to the two-story building at its rear. STAFF COMMENTS: The purpose of this Residential Design Standard is to break up a building’s massing and provide relief between stories, and to prevent large expanses of vertical glass windows from dominating front facades without separation or differentiation in materials. With the intent of this standard in mind, Staff has reviewed the request against the RDS variance review criteria. The Code states that the request for an RDS variance must meet one of the following criteria. 1) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the director may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, or broader vicinity as the director feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or 2) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site -specific constraints. This group of windows is proposed for a one-story feature of the building that reaches a height of 15.5’ from grade at its highest point. Building Code requires a floor to ceiling height minimum of 7’ for a residential structure. The windows extend to 13’, into the area where one could typically expect to find a second floor. The windows at this location do not meet standard’s purpose of maintaining a human scale, reducing window massing and preventing large expanses of vertical glass from dominating the front façade. Staff does not find these windows to meet the purpose of the standard, nor has any neighborhood context been found to support the variance request in this location. Staff finds no site-specific constraints associated with this parcel that warrants the granting of this variance for the proposed windows. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the applicants’ request for a Residential Design Standard. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): If the Planning and Zoning Commission chooses to approve the applicant’s request, th e following motion may be used: “I move to approve the request for a variance from the Residential Design Standard as noted in Resolution ___, Series of 2015.” If the request is not approved, the resolution will need to be modified. Attachments: Exhibit A – Location of Variance Request Exhibit B – Review Standards Exhibit C – Application P60 VI.B. 1 RESOLUTION NO. __ (SERIES OF 2015) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1310 RED BUTTE DRIVE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 2, BLOCK 2 OF THE RED BUTTE SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel ID: 273501203012 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Jeff Grinspoon and Jon Foley (Applicants), represented by Tim Andrulaitis of Zone 4 Architects, requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission approve Final Commercial Design Review at 620 E. Hyman Ave; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.410.020.D of the Land Use Code approval for a Residential Design Standard Variance may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Director recommended denial of the application; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable review standards; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the request for a Residential Design Standard Variance that will permit a group of windows on the street-facing front façade of the proposed residence, located on the furthest eastern element of the structure to span past 9’, as measured from the finished first floor, and as depicted in Exhibit A. Planning and Zoning Commission have found the proposed design to meet the requirements of the review criteria for a Residential Design Standard variance. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded are hereby incorporated in such plan P61 VI.B. 2 development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: 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 4: 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 21st day of August, 2015. __________________________________ Ryan Walterscheid, Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________________ Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: _________________________________ Cindy Klob, Records Manager Exhibit A: Approved location of variance P62 VI.B. Exhibit A Location of Variance Request P 6 3 V I . B . 1 Exhibit B Review Criteria 26.410.020.D. Variances. 2. Variances from the Residential Design Standards, Section 26.410.040, which do not meet this Section may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Historic Preservation Commission, if the project is subject to the requirements of Chapter 26.415. An applicant who desires to consolidate other requisite land use review by the Historic preservation Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission may elect to have the variance application decided by the board or commission reviewing the other land use application. An applicant who desires a variance from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that variance, if granted, would: a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the director may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the director feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or Staff Response: The windows are proposed on the far right element of the structure (as indicated in Exhibit A) which is a one-story element; however the roof of the feature reaches a height of 15.5’ from grade at its highest point. The windows extend to 13’, into the area where one could typically expect to find a second floor. The windows at this location do not meet standard’s purpose of maintaining a human scale with architectural design and preventing large expanses of vertical glass from dominating the front façade. Staff does not find these windows to meet the purpose of the standard, and does not find the criterion to be met. b). Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Staff Response: There are no site-specific constraints associated with this parcel that warrant the granting of this variance for either window grouping. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. P64 VI.B. P65 VI.B. P66 VI.B. P67 VI.B. P68 VI.B. P69 VI.B. P70 VI.B. P71 VI.B. P72 VI.B. P73 VI.B. P74 VI.B. P75 VI.B. P76 VI.B. P77 VI.B. P78 VI.B. P79 VI.B. P80 VI.B. P81 VI.B. P82 VI.B. P83 VI.B. P84 VI.B. Customer Distribution Our Order Number: QPR62006763 Date: 06-09-2015 Property Address: 1310 RED BUTTE DRIVE, ASPEN, CO 81611 For Title Assistance KIM SHULTZ 533 E HOPKINS #102 ASPEN, CO 81611 970-927-0405 (phone) 970-925-6243 (fax) kshultz@ltgc.com CITY OF ASPEN Lender - New Loan Attention: JEFF FOLEY CITY OF ASPEN foley@gomaven.net, tim@zone4architects.com, jeff@gomaven.net Attention: JON FOLEY Delivered via: Electronic Mail foley@gomaven.net,tim@zone4architects.com,jeff@gomanven.net Delivered via: Electronic Mail CITY OF ASPEN P85 VI.B. Land Title Guarantee Company Property Report Order Number: 62006763 This Report is based on a limited search of the county real property records and provides the name(s) of the vested owner(s), the legal description, tax information (taken from information provided by the county treasurer on its website) and encumbrances, which, for the purposes of this report, means deed of trust and mortgages, and liens recorded against the property and the owner(s) in the records of the clerk and recorder for the county in which the subject is located. This Report does not constitute any form of warranty or guarantee of title or title insurance. The liability of Land Title Guarantee Company is strictly limited to (1) the recipient of the Report, and no other person, and (2) the amount paid for the report. Prepared For: CITY OF ASPEN This Report is dated: 06-05-2015 at 5:00 P.M. Address: 1310 RED BUTTE DRIVE, ASPEN, CO 81611 Legal Description: PARCEL A: LOT 2, BLOCK 2, RED BUTTE SUBDIVISION, AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN DITCH BOOK 2A AT PAGE 288 AND FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 27 AT PAGE 25 AND SECOND AMENDED PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 27 AT PAGE 83. PARCEL B: A UTILITY EASEMENT ACROSS LOT 1, BLOCK 2, RED BUTTE SUBDIVISION, AS DESCRIBED IN THE INSTRUMENT RECORDED JUNE 19, 1995 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 382278. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. Record Owner: GRINSPOON JEFFREY REV TRUST We find the following documents of record affecting subject property: 1. WARRANTY DEED RECORDED APRIL 25, 2014 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 609782. 2. DEED OF TRUST DATED APRIL 24, 2014, FROM GRINSPOON JEFFREY REV TRUST TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF PITKIN COUNTY FOR THE USE OF ANB BANK TO SECURE THE SUM OF $3,255,000.00 RECORDED APRIL 25, 2014, UNDER RECEPTION NO. 609783. 3. DEED OF TRUST DATED MAY 22, 2015, FROM GRINSPOON JEFFREY REV TRUST TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF PITKIN COUNTY FOR THE USE OF BANK OF AMERICAN, N.A. TO SECURE THE SUM OF $10,000,000.00 RECORDED MAY 29, 2015, UNDER RECEPTION NO. 620297. 4. FINANCING STATEMENT WITH, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. THE SECURED PARTY, RECORDED MAY 29, 2015 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 620298. ***************** PROPERTY TAX INFORMATION ********************** PARCEL NO.: 273501303012 P86 VI.B. Land Title Guarantee Company Property Report Order Number: 62006763 2015 LAND ASSESSED VALUE $258,700.00 2015 IMPROVEMENTS ASSESSED VALUE $10,950.00 2014 REAL PROPERTY TAXES PAID IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,044.60. **************************************************************** P87 VI.B. P88 VI.B. P89 VI.B. P 9 0 V I . B . P 9 1 V I . B . P92 VI.B.