The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20150909 AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING September 09, 2015 5:00 PM City Council Meeting Room 130 S. Galena St. 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISITS A. Please meet at 434 E. Cooper at 4:45 p.m. II. INTRODUCTION (15 MIN.) A. Roll call B. Approval of minutes C. Public Comments D. Commissioner member comments E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) F. Project Monitoring G. Staff comments H. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued I. Submit public notice for agenda items J. Call-up reports K. HPC typical proceedings III. NEW BUSINESS A. 434 E. Cooper- Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Demolition and Viewplane Review, PUBLIC HEARING (5:10) IV. OLD BUSINESS A. 447 E. Cooper- Conceptual Major Development Review, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Viewplane Review, Demolition, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 12TH (6:20) V. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: Resolution #25, 2015 TYPICAL PROCEEDING- 1 HOUR, 10 MINUTES FOR MAJOR AGENDA ITEM, NEW BUSINESS Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) Staff presentation (5 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Applicant presentation (20 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) (5 minutes) Applicant Rebuttal Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed (5 minutes) HPC discussion (15 minutes) Motion (5 minutes) *Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met. No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes of the members of the commission then present and voting. C:\Program Files (x86)\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\7463.doc 9/3/2015 HPC PROJECT MONITORS- projects in bold are under construction Nora Berko 332 W. Main 1102 Waters 1006 E. Cooper 100 E. Main 417/421 W. Hallam 602 E. Hyman 61 Meadows Road ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Bob Blaich Lot 2, 202 Monarch Subdivision 232 E. Bleeker 609 W. Smuggler ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Jim DeFrancia 435 W. Main, AJCC 420 E. Cooper 420 E. Hyman 407 E. Hyman Rubey Park Sallie Golden 206 Lake 114 Neale 212 Lake 400 E. Hyman 517 E. Hyman (Little Annie’s) Hotel Aspen Gretchen Greenwood 28 Smuggler Grove 135 E. Cooper 1280 Ute ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Willis Pember 204 S. Galena Aspen Core 120 Red Mountain 233 W. Hallam 101 E. Hallam 229 W. Smuggler 407 E. Hyman Patrick Segal 204 S. Galena 701 N. Third 612 W. Main 212 Lake Holden Marolt derrick 333 W. Bleeker John Whipple Aspen Core 201 E. Hyman 549 Race 208 E. Main 420 E. Cooper 602 E. Hyman Hotel Aspen 610 E. Hyman 301 Lake Michael Brown 223 E. Hallam Need: 530 W. Hallam P1 II.F. TYPICAL PROCEEDING Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) Staff presentation (5 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Applicant presentation (20 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) (5 minutes) Applicant rebuttal (5 minutes) Chairperson identifies the issues to be discussed (5 minutes) HPC discussion (15 minutes) Motion (5 minutes) *Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met. No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes of the members of the commission then present and voting. Procedure for amending motions: A “friendly amendment” to a Motion is a request by a commissioner to the commissioner who made the Motion and to the commissioner who seconded it, to amend their Motion. If either of these two do not accept the “friendly” amendment request, the requesting commissioner may make a formal motion to amend the Motion along the lines he/she previously requested. If there is no second to the motion to amend the Motion, there is no further discussion on the motion to amend, it dies for a lack of a second; discussion and voting on the Motion may then proceed. If there is a second to the motion to amend the Motion, it can be discussed and must be voted upon before any further discussion and voting on the Motion for which the amendment was requested. If the vote is in favor of amending the Motion, discussion and voting then proceeds on the Amended Motion. If the vote on the motion to amend fails, discussion and voting on the Motion as originally proposed may then proceed. P2 II.K. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Nadolny, Planner Technician RE: 434 E. Cooper Avenue– Demolition, Conceptual Major Development, Commercial Design Review, Viewplane Review, PUBLIC HEARING DATE: September 9, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: The applicant requests approval to demolish and replace the existing building. The property is in the Commercial Core Historic District and therefore development requires HPC approval. Topics to be addressed by HPC include demolition, architectural design, utility/delivery/trash, parking, transportation impact, and view plane. Between Conceptual and Final hearings, Council will have the authority to call up any aspect of HPC’s determination and require the board to reconsider the project based on any Council concerns. APPLICANT: 434 E. Cooper Avenue, represented by Haas Land Planning and Camburas & Theodore, Ltd. ADDRESS: 434 E. Cooper Avenue, Lots Q, R, and S, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. PARCEL ID: 2737-182-16-011. ZONING: CC, Commercial Core. DEMOLITION It is the intent of the historic preservation ordinance to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have demonstrated significance to the community. Consequently no demolition of properties designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures will be allowed unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, P3 III.A. 2 b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Staff Response: 434 E. Cooper Avenue was built in 1965, designed by Fritz Benedict for the Bidwell family. The building replaced a Victorian structure that experienced a roof collapse after a heavy snowstorm. 434 E. Cooper was identified as potentially significant as part of a comprehensive evaluation of postwar era properties undertaken during the City’s review of historic properties in 2000. At the time, the City did not need owner consent to designate a building at least 40 years old; however, the 2000 inventory study resulted in community debate about the appropriateness of preserving recent past architecture. The Bidwell family was not in favor of designation and initiated a demolition application in 2006. HPC conducted two worksessions (December 2005 and January 2006) regarding 434 E. Cooper’s historic significance. The board held a public hearing for demolition of the structure in May, 2006. Staff recommended denial of the demolition application, finding that the criteria were not met. The City commissioned a historical assessment of the property, attached as Exhibit B. HPC found that the building lacked significance within the Victorian dominated Commercial Core Historic District and was not an excellent example of architecture of the period or the work of local architect Fritz Benedict. The HPC voted 3 to 2 to approve demolition of 434 E. Cooper. Council called up HPC’s decision in July of 2006. Under the criteria at the time, Council could only review the record and determine if HPC had violated due process, abused their discretion, or acted arbitrarily. After lengthy discussion, the vote was 3-2 to uphold HPC’s demolition approval. HPC’s May 2006 demolition approval was validated and established a vested rights period of three years, however the applicant would not be able to move forward and demolish the building until design approval for a replacement structure was issued by HPC. In September 2006, Council used their authority to initiate a landmark designation application over the owner’s objection. An HPC recommendation was needed. Staff recommended P4 III.A. 3 approval, but the board recommended denial. Council held a public hearing in February 2007 and decided, by a 3-2 vote, not to designate. In May 2007 the Bidwell family submitted a proposal for a new building on the site. HPC granted Conceptual approval. The project proceeded to Council for a required Subdivision review. City Council raised concerns regarding height, scale, mass and a lack of public amenity space. On May 27, 2008, City Council denied the subdivision request. In an effort to respond to Council’s and the public’s concerns, the applicant made significant changes to the design and requested that Council reconsider. City Council approved the application and remanded review of the new design back to HPC for Major Development Conceptual, Viewplane Exemption and Commercial Design Standard Review, as the exterior of the building dramatically changed. HPC granted Conceptual again in August of 2009. The project did not proceed to HPC Final review and the approval lapsed. The Bidwell family put the property under contract and the buyer (the current applicant) submitted a new design for Conceptual approval, which HPC granted in December 2012. By that time, code changes had made landmarking voluntary for AspenModern properties. Vested rights for the 2006 demolition approval had lapsed, nonetheless, the staff memo to HPC specifically referenced the May 2006 demolition approval as still valid. HPC Conceptual approvals are good for one year. The applicant was not prepared for Final review at the end of that timeframe and asked for a 6 month extension of Conceptual, which was granted until June 2014. The applicant did not submit for Final that June and chose to let the approval lapse. The project became subject to new code amendments, such as reduced heights and no free market residential uses allowed in the Commercial Core. In Spring 2015 the applicant requested a pre- application summary in order to apply again for Conceptual. The pre-application summary was clear that demolition criteria would be considered, and the applicant was required to provide a written response in the application that is now before HPC. The Planning Office received this land use application in May. Planning has discussed the sequence of approvals leading to the latest application and questions the status of the 2006 demolition approval. Land Use approvals are typically valid for at least three years, and then become subject to any regulations that are subsequently adopted. The 2006 demolition approval occurred over 9 years ago. It certainly remained in effect during the Bidwell family’s pursuit of a design approval. Now that additional time has passed, with two Conceptual level applications abandoned, demolition criteria must be addressed. Since 2006, Planning has consistently recommended against demolition of this property and we maintain that position. Nothing has occurred to change our analysis of the significance of the structure. In response to the criteria for demolition, the property has to meet just one of the following. P5 III.A. 4 a. The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance. The building has not been determined to be an imminent hazard or structurally unsound. There is documentation to demonstrate the property has historic and architectural significance. Only one criteria must be met though and staff agrees that the structure cannot practically be moved. Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met. a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Staff does not find that any of these criteria are met. Benedict was one of Aspen’s most prolific postwar architects and trained numerous others who are also recognized for their contributions within the AspenModern period. 434 E. Cooper represents important architectural concepts of the time that were embraced in the transformation of Aspen from a Victorian city into a ski resort. Benedict valued the idea of tying a building into its natural environment, even downtown. He responded to the setting of this building by using traditional local materials, such as brick and heavy timber, but reinterpreting them in a unique way. The walk out basement at 434 E. Cooper and the canopies that extend past the property line and over the public walkway (also seen at Benedict’s Aspen Square and Wells Fargo bank buildings) show his interest in blurring the distinction between inside and outside. 434 E. Cooper, along with chalets, Pan Abodes and pedestrian malls erected in the heart of Aspen in the 40’s-70’s, changed the character of town and are now integral to the historic district. Staff recognizes that the discussion of redeveloping the property has been pursued for several years. In preparation for this review, the applicant was informed that demolition would be discussed. Staff has also suggested the possibility of a voluntary AspenModern designation, but this has not been undertaken. If the board makes a finding that demolition criteria are not met, this will not result in involuntary designation. The applicant would have to revise their approach significantly so that, at a minimum, at least 40% of the existing structure remains intact. P6 III.A. 5 HPC needs to consider the demolition criteria, the staff recommendation and the history of decisions regarding this property. CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW & COMMERCIAL DESIGN The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project’s conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. The design guidelines for conceptual review of a new building in the Commercial Core Historic District are all stated within the “Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives.” The applicable guidelines are listed in “Exhibit A.” The property is zoned Commercial Core and is therefore theoretically permitted a building up to 28 feet in height and a floor area of 18,000 square feet. The site is within the path of a viewplane which originates from the Wheeler Opera House and projects towards Aspen Mountain as seen in the illustration on the next page. P7 III.A. 6 Regarding design, staff finds that the project is generally compliant with the guidelines, which encourage a block-like form that sits on the street-facing property lines, with engaging storefronts directly adjacent to the sidewalk. The design guidelines applicable to the project were written at a time when three story buildings were permitted downtown. (Now only a lodge can exceed 28’ in this zone district.) The guidelines are insistent regarding the need to modulate height, however the proposed building is a consistent 28’ tall structure across three lots. Staff finds this to be quite typical of the Victorian development patterns and adjacent buildings such as the Aspen Block, and does not recommend restudy on this topic. The building should however respond to the following standard, which requires modulation of the façade in a way that expresses the traditional 30’ lot widths. 6.30 On sites comprising two or more traditional lots, a building shall be designed to reﬂect the individual parcels. These methods shall be used: 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 P8 III.A. 7 Staff also recommends restudy of the rounded corner feature, citing this guideline. 6.22 Rectangular forms should be dominant on Commercial Core façades. Rectangular forms should be vertically oriented. The façade should appear as predominantly ﬂat, with any decorative elements and projecting or setback “articulations” appearing to be subordinate to the dominant roof form. Staff has concerns with the lack of hierarchy shown in the proposed fenestration. Typically windows in the downtown are larger on the ground floor and smaller above. This level of detail, along with proposed materials, will be discussed at Final. The project will require mitigation of development impacts, such as parking and affordable housing. The applicant wishes to address affordable housing at Final design review, which is permissible. Regarding parking, the proposed new net leasable space generates a requirement for approximately 6.67 parking spaces. The site has no on-site parking now. The applicant does not have to compensate for the existing deficit and has the right to mitigate the new parking requirement with a cash in lieu payment of $30,000 per space. Redevelopment of the site requires the applicant to incorporate improvements to pedestrian and transit amenities, such as safety improvements, public bike racks, etc. The application addresses the requirements, called “Transportation Impact Analysis.” Any actions related to this provision are likely to involve work in the area surrounding the site. HPC review will not be needed. The applicant must continue to work with the Engineering and Transportation Departments for an approved plan prior to Final review. Public Amenity Space. Redevelopment of this site requires the provision of an on-site public amenity space or a cash-in-lieu payment. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-of-way or private property within commercial areas. The design guidelines in Exhibit A describe desirable characteristics of on-site amenity space, as do the following requirements: 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. P9 III.A. 8 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 response: Section 26.575.030 of the code states that 25% of a parcel should be dedicated to public amenity space, however an existing deficit can be maintained, so that no less than 10% of the site is devoted to a qualifying amenity space, or mitigated by a cash in lieu fee. The current on-site public amenity is 243 sq. ft., less than the required 10%. Upon redevelopment the new project should provide for a minimum of 10% or 900 sq. ft. of public amenity space. The applicant is proposing a 2,700 sq. ft. terrace on the roof of the building to meet the public amenity requirement for the new proposed development. Rooftop decks have been accepted as public amenity spaces in some instances; however in this case staff is not supportive of the deck counting towards the requirement because there is no commercial space directly adjacent to the deck. The associated tenant spaces within the basement, ground and second floor levels may be used for retail or offices, limiting the activity level on the deck. The plans do not indicate any built-in improvements, such as a bar. If these features are intended, they must be represented as part of this review. The area for potential development of the site is limited by the view plane. Furthermore the applicant is required to dedicate a 100 square foot area to installation of a transformer that will benefit other properties. Staff does not recommend any public amenity be provided on the ground level. It is reasonable to maximize development at the ground level which also meets the design guideline of extending commercial buildings to the lot lines. The property is surrounded by a pedestrian mall and generous sidewalk on the Galena St. façade, so any ground level public amenity space runs the risk of replicating these existing amenities. Staff recommends that the public amenity requirement be addressed through a cash-in-lieu payment. 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 building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The success of the project related to these topics is assessed by Environmental Health, Engineering and Utilities, using the following criteria: 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. P10 III.A. 9 3. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located and combined to the greatest extent practical. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. P11 III.A. 10 11. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. 12. The trash and recycling service area requirements may be varied pursuant to Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code. All other requirements of this subsection may be varied by special review (see Chapter 26.430.040.E, Utility and delivery service area provisions). Staff response: The trash/recycling area is proposed as a 300 sq. ft. covered area along the alley facade. The Environmental Health Dept. requires the height to be 10’ as measured from grade to the roof above, and otherwise approves the trash/recycling area. An adjacent, uncovered space is proposed for the transformer. The trash/recycling and utility areas may be accessed by the interior corridor. Delivery services will remain along the alley, with an entry located to the right of the trash/recycling area that will provide access to the corridor for all tenant spaces. The Building Dept. is requiring the north egress stair corridor to lead to a fire-rated exit which may not open directly to the trash/utility area. An exit passageway is required between the stairway corridor and the trash/utility room. The applicant will need to redesign this egress corridor to meet Building Code requirements. MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided below. When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable building height otherwise provided for in this Title, development shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445 as a Planned Development so as to provide for maximum flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and pedestrian space and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building height requirements and view plane height limitations. HPC, after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Department, may exempt a development from being processed as a Planned Development when the board determines that the proposed development has a minimal effect on the view plane. When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to re- open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view plane and redevelopment to reopen the view plane cannot be anticipated, HPC shall exempt the development from the requirements of this Section. P12 III.A. 11 Staff response: The portion of the proposed building that falls within the Wheeler Opera House View Plane includes the south-facing second level corner. This view plane appears to intersect the west property line at a height of approximately 10’ above grade and exits the south lot line at about 16’6”. The proposed development cannot be seen from the origination point of the view plane because of numerous intervening buildings. The adjacent buildings are located in the Commercial Core Historic District and are therefore under HPC’s purview. The Paragon building at 419 E. Hyman Avenue is a landmark and unlikely to be redeveloped at any time in the near future. Furthermore, the landmark Independence Square building, located across the intersection of Cooper and Galena, infringes upon the Wheeler View Plane. Due to its landmark status, it is unlikely that Independence Square will be redeveloped in the future. Staff recommends that HPC grant View Plane approval due to extant buildings, with minimal likelihood of redevelopment that will open the view plane, blocking the view between the Wheeler Opera House and Aspen Mountain. ______________________________________________________________________________ The HPC may: • approve the application, • approve the application with conditions, • disapprove the application, or • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC make a finding regarding demolition. If building replacement is accepted, then the hearing should be continued in order to address modulation of the façade to reflect the historic lot widths, eliminate the rounded building corner, and correct the issue raised by Building Dept. requiring an exist passageway between the northern corridor and the trash/utility area. Exhibits: A. Design Guidelines B. Bidwell Buidling, Historic Building Analysis Report C. Aspenmod.com; Fritz Benedict D. Referral comments E. Public comment P13 III.A. 12 Exhibit A- Relevant Design Guidelines 6.3 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. 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. 6.12 Second level amenity space should be compatible with the character of the historic district. It shall remain visually subordinate to any historic resource on the property. If located on a historic property, it may not alter the appearance of the resource as seen from the street. 6.13 A second ﬂoor amenity space should meet all of the following criteria: Ensure consistent public access Be dedicated for public use Provide a public overlook and /or an interpretive marker Be identiﬁed by a marker at street level 6.14 Second level space should be oriented to maximize solar access and mountain views, or views of historic landmarks. 6.15 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. 6.16 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. 6.17 Front and side yard amenity space should be considered in the context of a historic one story residential type building. 6.18 Maintain the alignment of façades at the sidewalk’s edge. Place as much of the façade of the building at the property line as possible. Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate. A minimum of 70% of the front façade shall be at the property line. 6.19 A building may be set back from its side lot lines in accordance with design guidelines identiﬁed in Street & Circulation Pattern and Public Amenity Space guidelines. P14 III.A. 13 6.20 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. 6.21 Orient a primary entrance toward the street. Buildings should have a clearly deﬁned primary entrance. For most commercial buildings, this should be a recessed entry way. Do not orient a primary entrance to an interior court. Providing secondary public entrances to commercial spaces is also encouraged on larger buildings. 6.22 Rectangular forms should be dominant on Commercial Core façades. Rectangular forms should be vertically oriented. The façade should appear as predominantly ﬂat, with any decorative elements and projecting or setback “articulations” appearing to be subordinate to the dominant roof form. 6.23 Use ﬂat roof lines as the dominant roof form. A ﬂat roof, or one that gently slopes to the rear of a site, should be the dominant roof form. Parapets on side façades should step down towards the rear of the building. False fronts and parapets with horizontal emphasis also may be considered. 6.24 Along a rear façade, using building forms that step down in scale toward the alley is encouraged. Consider using additive forms, such as sheds, stairs and decks to reduce the perceived scale. These forms should however, remain subordinate to the primary structure. Use projecting roofs at the ground ﬂoor over entrances, decks and for separate utility structures in order to establish a human scale that invites pedestrian activity. 6.25 Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at the sidewalk. Establish a two-story height at the sidewalk edge, or provide a horizontal design element at this level. A change in materials, or a molding at this level are examples. 6.26 Building façade height shall be varied from the façade height of adjacent buildings of the same number of stories. If an adjacent structure is three stories and 38 ft. tall, new inﬁll may be three stories, but must vary in façade height by a minimum of 2 ft. 6.27 A new building or addition should reﬂect the range and variation in building height of the Commercial Core. Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height limit on the subject property. P15 III.A. 14 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: - In order to achieve at least a two-foot variation in height with an adjacent building. - The primary function of the building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum, Civic Building, Performance Hall, Fire Station, etc.) - 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. - To beneﬁt the livability of Affordable Housing units. - To make a demonstrable (to be veriﬁed by the Building Department) contribution to the building's overall energy efﬁciency, for instance by providing improved day- lighting. 6.28 Height variation should be achieved using one or more of the following: Vary the building height for the full depth of the site 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. 6.29 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.) 6.30 On sites comprising two or more traditional lots, a building shall be designed to reﬂect the individual parcels. These methods shall be used: Variation in height of building modules across the site Variation in massing achieved through upper ﬂoor setbacks, the oofscape form and variation in upper ﬂoor heights Variation in building façade heights or cornice line P16 III.A. 15 6.31 A new building should step down in scale to respect the height, form and scale of a historic building within its immediate setting. 6.32 When adjacent to a one or two story historic building that was originally constructed for commercial use, a new building within the same block face should not exceed 28 in height within 30 ft. of the front façade. In general, a proposed multi-story building must demonstrate that it has no negative impact on smaller, historic structures nearby. The height and proportions of all façade components must appear to be in scale with nearby historic buildings. 6.34 The setting of iconic historic structures shou ld be preserved and enhanced when feasible. On sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths, the third ﬂoor of the adjacent lot width should be set back a minimum of 15 ft from the front facade. Step a building down in height adjacent to an iconic structure. Locate amenity space adjacent to an iconic structure. 14.14 Minimize the visual impacts of service areas as seen from the street. When it is feasible, screen service areas from view, especially those associated with commercial and multifamily developments. This includes locations for trash containers and loading docks. Service areas should be accessed off of the alley, if one exists. 14.15 Minimize the visual impacts of mechanical equipment as seen from the public way. Mechanical equipment may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does not create a negative visual impact. Mechanical equipment or vents on a roof must be grouped together to minimize their visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, provide screening with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. Screen ground-mounted units with fences, stone walls or hedges. A window air conditioning unit may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does not create a negative visual impact. Use low-profile mechanical units on rooftops so they will not be visible from the street or alley. Also minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Use smaller satellite dishes and mount them low to the ground and away from front yards, significant building facades or highly visible roof planes. P17 III.A. 16 Paint telecommunications and mechanical equipment in muted colors that will minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds. P18 III.A. Historic Building Contextual Analysis BIDWELL – MOUNTAIN PLAZA BUILDING 434 E. Cooper Ave. Aspen, Colorado Completed for Amy Guthrie City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 by Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. 612 S. College Ave., Suite 21 P.O. Box 1909 Fort Collins, CO 80522 tatanka@verinet.com 970.221.1095 20 January 2006 P19 III.A. Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. 612 S. College Ave., Suite 21 P.O. Box 1909 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 tatanka@verinet.com 970.221.1095 20 January 2006 Amy Guthrie City of Aspen Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Subject: Bidwell–Mountain Plaza Building 434 E. Cooper Ave., Aspen Dear Amy, Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. has completed the research and fieldwork necessary to provide the city with contextual analysis of the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building in Aspen. The enclosed report presents the results of this work, which was completed during the month of January 2006. Please let me know if you have any questions about the material presented in this document. Thank you for the opportunity to assist the City of Aspen with this project. Sincerely, Ron Sladek President P20 III.A. 1 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Project Background In mid-December 2005, Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. was engaged by the City of Aspen to complete a contextual study of the Bidwell–Mountain Plaza Building at 434 E. Cooper Ave. in downtown Aspen. This effort was undertaken to provide the city with a better understanding of the building’s architectural and historic context, which relates directly to its potential for historic significance. Driving the need for such understanding is the fact that the building’s owners wish to complete a remodeling project that will permanently and substantially alter its original design, changing the overall shape of the building and adding two floors to its height. Analysis of architecture from the decades following World War II is particularly challenging due to widespread public ambivalence about modern architectural styles and to a lack of historical perspective that is gained only by the passage of time. It is difficult today for many to view post-war buildings objectively, and the tendency is to react to them with subjective responses (often negative ones) rather than studied analysis. The idea that these buildings merit serious historical analysis and that some might even be worthy of preservation is often anathema to both modern property owners desiring to maximize property values and profits, and to citizens who are not involved in historic preservation and are largely uninformed about the variety of architectural styles that surround them. The Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building was constructed in 1965, designed by one of Aspen’s most important post-war architects, and certainly exhibits elements of a particular style. For these reasons alone, it is important to seriously consider the background and context of this building before it is forever altered. As Amy Guthrie wisely cautioned in her 14 December 2005 memo to the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, “what must be avoided is a discussion of whether or not we ‘like’ the building, but instead whether or not it is an important example of Fritz Benedict’s work in Aspen and would therefore be worth preserving.” Subjective feelings and impressions about modern architecture are important to consider, but an adequate degree of rational analysis is critical to understanding the place of such buildings in the larger picture of the development of architecture in Aspen and throughout the United States. This project was therefore designed to consist of a brief objective look at the work of Fritz Benedict, including a comparative analysis of his buildings in Aspen. In the end, the purpose of the study is to provide the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission with background information necessary to make reasonable, justifiable decisions regarding planned alterations to the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building. The following report presents the results of the research and field analysis completed by Ron Sladek of Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. during the month of January 2006. The scope of work was limited to the following activities: P21 III.A. 2 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. • Field reconnaissance and photography of the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building and other buildings in Aspen that are known to be attributed to Fritz Benedict. • Research in local archives to collect materials that would provide an understanding of this building and others designed by Benedict. • Analysis of the combined fieldwork and research to determine how the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building fits into the context of modern architecture, how it relates to other Benedict buildings in the area, and an assessment of its possible historic significance. About the Building The Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building was constructed in 1965, replacing a late 1800s two-story commercial building that had previously been located on this site. Fronting onto Cooper Ave. with a fully exposed side elevation along Galena St., the L-shaped masonry building is two stories in height with the larger portion of its mass located in the northern 2/3 of the site. Extending toward the south from the main body of the building into the southwest quadrant of the property is a slightly lower two-story wing of the same design. Occupying the open southeast quadrant of the property is a square sunken courtyard that exposes the full height of the basement level of the building. Providing additional commercial space, the courtyard is accessed by way of a stairway in its southwest corner. Surrounding the sunken courtyard at street level is a low masonry wall on the east and south, and a wrought-iron balustrade ornamented with a floral motif on the north and west. The floor and sidewalls of the courtyard are completely finished with brickwork. Ornamenting the building are several features of note. Perhaps most obvious are the open arcades that project outward from the primary walls of the building along its east and south elevations. These cover not only walkways within the property, but also provide shelter to the adjacent sidewalks and storefronts from both sun and snow. Constructed of simple squared posts and beams supporting flat roofs, they provide the building with a uniquely “western” look that harkens back to styles often associated with forts and other pioneer buildings of the 19th century frontier. An excellent example of this effect, with clear similarity to its use on the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza building, is the barracks building at Fort Laramie in Wyoming. In this case, the Modernist building employs the same pattern of posts and beams on the arcade, although the balustrades along the second floor walkways are constructed of wrought iron work with a floral motif that matches that found along the street-level edge of the sunken courtyard. (see the photographs in Appendices A and B) Whether the architect intentionally used the frontier precedent for the design of the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building is unknown. However this was the resulting effect and association of this feature. P22 III.A. 3 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Also of design interest on the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building is its employment of variegated earth-toned brickwork combined with stacked 2/3- to 3/4-height storefront windows. The use of non-synthetic materials such as wood, brick and glass was characteristic of the Modernist movement. Capping the building is a flat roof with deep overhanging eaves supported by a pattern of exposed projecting squared roof beams. Together with the arcades described above, these features provide the building with a touch of Wrightian influence and appearance. In general, the building is horizontal in its massing and scale and employs a creative “western” approach to commercial architecture. While it is not as purely Wrightian as Benedict’s Pitkin County Library (Design Workshop) and Waterfall House, the Modernist building effectively fits into the surrounding natural landscape and commercial environment, reflecting good Wright- influenced design choices related to both the alpine setting of Aspen and the property’s location in the heart of the downtown business district. Contextual Analysis In order to guide the process of assessing the significance of post-war architecture, the City of Aspen has prepared a context paper on the subject. According to this document, which dedicates an entire section to the work of Fritz Benedict, “the most important of Benedict’s works may best be defined by the examples that clearly represent Wrightian ideas, or where innovation was key.” Unfortunately, no comprehensive list of the buildings designed by Benedict is available. (It would be helpful for future analysis of his buildings if some effort were expended to assemble such a list.) However a number of Benedict’s works are known and these were visited or researched if no longer standing to assess the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building in relation to his other Aspen projects. The following properties were reviewed and compared with the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building for the purposes of this report: • Pitkin County Library / Design Workshop, 120 E. Main St. (1960) • Benedict Building, 1280 Ute Ave. (1976) • Bank of Aspen / Norwest Bank / Wells Fargo Bank, 119 S. Mill St. (1956) • Fritz and Fabi Benedict Houses (1958 and c1980) • Usonian Houses (demolished), 615 and 625 Gillespie St. (1957) • Waterfall House (demolished), 202 Midnight Mine Rd. (1961) • Cabin, 835 W. Main St. (1947) • Copper Kettle, 845 Meadows Rd. (1954) P23 III.A. 4 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. • Aspen Alps, 777 Ute Ave. (1963) • Aspen Square, 617 E. Cooper Ave. (1969) • The Gant, 610 S. West End St. (1972) • Aspen Club Townhouses, Crystal Lake Rd. (1976) • Pitkin County Bank, 534 E. Hyman Ave. (1978) Of these buildings, certainly the best known examples of Benedict’s training in the style and concepts developed by Frank Lloyd Wright are the Pitkin County Library and the Waterfall House, which was demolished in the early 1990s. The library, with its various Wrightian design elements, is intact and exhibits an excellent degree of historic integrity. Other surviving Benedict buildings from this list that appear to be of architectural and historic significance include Aspen Alps as well as the Benedict Building, Copper Kettle, and Aspen Club Townhouses. The remaining buildings have either been demolished or significantly altered. Although this is nowhere near a complete list of Benedict’s buildings in and around Aspen, they do represent the body of his work. Many others are known to have been destroyed or have lost their integrity over the past several decades. In relation to these Benedict-designed buildings in Aspen, the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building is his only known intact commercial building. The Pitkin County Library is now used commercially as a landscape architecture studio, but was originally designed to serve as a public building. In addition, the bank buildings designed by Benedict have been significantly and negatively altered. With many of Benedict’s buildings demolished or altered in recent decades, and with just a few commercial buildings attributed to him overall, the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building takes on even greater significance. Different categories of possible eligibility are available for a building to achieve historic designation. For example, for a property to be eligible for the National Register it ideally needs to be at least fifty years old and through rigorous research and writing must be shown to meet one of several possible significance criteria. The State of Colorado and City of Aspen both require that a building be at least forty years old to be designated. Constructed in 1965, just over forty years ago, the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building is, at least according to age, eligible for historic designation on both the local and state levels. In addition to age a property must also retain a good degree of integrity in relation to its original design. This is determined by looking at several categories such as whether the building is in its original location and exhibits a substantial amount of its original workmanship, materials and appearance. Questions of integrity are addressed not only in relation to the survival of a building’s original construction features, but also in light of alterations that might have taken place over the succeeding years. The Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building appears to P24 III.A. 5 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. exhibit a high level of historic integrity, having suffered from few significant changes over the years since it was constructed. It therefore meets the requirement that a building exhibit integrity and, at least according to this category, is eligible for historic designation. Finally, according to City of Aspen guidelines (and similar guidelines established for State Register consideration), for a building to be eligible for designation it must also be substantially related to one or more of the following historic criteria: A – An event, pattern or trend that has made a significant contribution to local, state, regional or national history; B – People whose specific contribution to local, state, regional or national history is deemed important and can be identified and documented; C – 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. Designed by one of Aspen’s most important architects of the post-war era, and exhibiting Modernist design elements related to Wrightian principles of architecture, the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building appears to meet the standards of Criteria C and would therefore be eligible for historic designation on the local level and possibly also on the state level. Aspen architect Suzannah Reid, in her 2000 analysis of the building completed for a survey of historic sites, wrote that “this structure is significant for its position in the development of Aspen after WWII, the period signifying the rebirth of the community into a recreational and intellectual resort,” adding that it “displays the clarity of design concept, simplicity of decoration, and a modern approach to solid/void relationships characteristic of Benedict’s work.” As Amy Guthrie stated in her December 2005 memo to the preservation commission, “the Bidwell building is an interesting interpretation of modern commercial design with local influence.” While in essence she correctly went on to say that the building “bore little relationship to the surrounding context,” it must be remembered that downtown Aspen in the mid-1960s consisted of a combination of building styles, just as it does today. Surrounding the Bidwell- Mountain Plaza Building when it was constructed were late 1800s mining-era buildings, post-war imported Germanic chalet-style buildings, and an emerging crop of Modernist buildings that were being developed to occupy vacant lots and the sites of decaying Victorian-era buildings. Mitch Haas and John Rowland, in their 14 December 2005 memo to the Aspen historic preservation commission, argue that the property owner “feels that the Mountain Plaza Building does not provide a strong example of innovation or the way Benedict employed Wrightian ideas. Indeed, it is not felt that the Mountain Plaza Building is a strong example of Benedict’s work as an architect, in P25 III.A. 6 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. general.” While the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building is not Benedict’s most purely Wrightian influenced work (surely his Pitkin County Library and Waterfall House are better examples), it can be argued that it certainly incorporates a Modernist approach to Wrightian concepts and represents the best remaining example of his commercial projects in Aspen. Downtown districts throughout the United States are typically made up of buildings of varying styles. Today we recognize that at least some Modernist buildings, even if they lack the nostalgic charm of pre-1900 buildings, are significant in their own right as representatives of post-war architecture. On the surface, the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building may not be viewed as an iconic example of Aspen architecture, yet the town’s historic mining-era commercial buildings, Victorian houses, and post-war chalet style buildings did not originate here either even though they give Aspen much of its character. These were all styles imported to Aspen from other locales. The Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building, on the other hand, was designed by a local architect, utilizing what he and his staff clearly viewed as a “western” or “mountain” style of architecture appropriate to its setting. Within the budgetary and spatial constraints imposed by this particular project and its need to fit onto an urban lot in downtown Aspen, Benedict created a building that has in fact stood the test of time, survived to the present day without significant alteration, and is perhaps more iconic of Aspen in the post-war era than many of the town’s other commercial buildings of similar age. Plans for future changes to the building should therefore be reviewed in light of their potential impact to its integrity and place in the history of the development of architecture in Aspen. P26 III.A. 7 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Appendix A Photos of the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building P27 III.A. 8 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Appendix A Photos of the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building P28 III.A. 9 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Appendix A Photos of the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building P29 III.A. 10 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Appendix A Photos of the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building P30 III.A. 11 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Appendix A Photos of the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building P31 III.A. 12 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Appendix B Photograph of the Fort Laramie Barracks This photograph of the Fort Laramie Barracks shows the type of frontier precedent for a post and beam projecting arcade that might have served as a precedent for the design of the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building in Aspen. P32 III.A. 13 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Appendix C Other Benedict Buildings in Aspen – Aspen Alps P33 III.A. 14 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Appendix C Other Benedict Buildings in Aspen – Benedict Bldg. P34 III.A. 15 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Appendix C Other Benedict Buildings in Aspen – Aspen Square P35 III.A. 16 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Appendix C Other Benedict Buildings in Aspen – Pitkin County Library P36 III.A. 17 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Appendix C Other Benedict Buildings in Aspen – Aspen Club Townhouse P37 III.A. P38 III.A. 1 DRC Comments: 1) Building Dept. – a. All units are required to have access to the trash/recycling/utility area from within the property. The north exit stair is required to lead to a fire rated exit enclosure leading to the property line and may not be open to the trash/recycling/utility area. b. Revise the floor plan to match the elevation. Galena Street slopes as do the unit entries. Show how this works internally. c. The north elevation appears to exceed the maximum permitted by 2015 IBC Sec. 705.8 d. Toilet rooms and drinking fountain are required. e. Oil and sand interceptor and grease interceptor will be required. 2) Fire Dept.- a. Fully fire sprinkled; b. Fully fire alarmed; c. Completely addressed as 434 E. Cooper with various suite numbers; d. If there is any planned use of the roof terrace that may utilize a tent (which I’m fairly certain there will be) will require the tent to be secured to the building structure via an engineered solution, ie, floor anchors to structure. The use of water barrels with any tent will NOT be allowed. Any questions on this should be directed to the Fire Marshal’s office for clarification. 3) ACSD - a. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. b. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. c. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. d. Oil and Grease interceptors (NOT traps) are required for all food processing establishment. Locations of food processing shall be identified prior to building permit. Even though the commercial space is tenet finish, interceptors will be required at this time if food processing establishments are anticipated for this project. ACSD will not approve service to food processing establishments retrofitted for this use by small under counter TRAPS at a later date. e. Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance establishments. f. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. Elevator shaft drains must flow thru o/s interceptor g. Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. P39 III.A. 2 h. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. i. A new sanitary sewer service will be required to serve this application. One tap is allowed for each building. j. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. k. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. l. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. m. Glycol heating and snow melt systems must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. n. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines and within 3 feet vertically below an ACSD main sewer line. o. We can comment on this application in greater detail once detailed plans have been submitted to the District. 4) Zoning – a. Sheet PA-1: Public amenity • please indicate the location of existing public amenity space and provide square footage associated with the space. b. Sheet PA-2 Proposed Public Amenity Roof Plan: • Provide public access easement agreement for public amenity located on the roof. • The setback to stair tower and other dimensions are not consistent with other sheets in the set. For example the setback to the Stir tower #2 is 18’ on sheet PA-2, FAR-2, NL-2 and 20’ on Sheet A-112. • Please explain “Future Outdoor Area”. What is the intended use? It is called out as Public Amenity space, in the future it will be a commercial use? c. Sheet A-111 Floor Plans: • Lower level illustrates decommissioned space. Please note, Future Expansion Areas (aka decommissioned space) was an Administrative Policy which has been rescinded. Please provide detailed plans for the lower level. P40 III.A. 3 • Main floor plan, please explain the use of the spaces to the North and South of the elevator. What is the use of the space? The space is on the main level, the 2nd floor and the roof top. • 2nd floor plan, • Roof terrace, as previously noted the setback from Cooper for Stir #2 is not consistent on all plans. The exemption for the height of the stair tower is section 26.575.020(F)(4)Allowed Exception to Height Limitations. d. In General: • Address: the address for the building will be limited to one address. • Illustrating the property lines on all plans helps the viewer know if there are projections proposed for beyond the property • Outdoor lighting: please provide information and meet section 26.575.150 Outdoor Lighting P41 III.A. From: bob jacobson <jacobsonbob@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:25 AM To: Amy Simon Subject: ref; 434 E. Cooper GOOD MORNING AMY REF; 434 E. COOPER AND OTHER DEMOLISHING BUILDING PROPOSALS IN THE CORE, THE CHARACTER OF THIS HISTORIC TOWN WITH IT'S UNIQUE BEAUTY IS BEING ENGULFED BY AGGRESSIVE MOTIVES THAT TAKE AWAY THE SINGLE MOST PRIZED POSSESSION; IT'S CHARM. WHAT DOES THIS CONTINUING RESHAPING OF THE VISUAL QUALITIES BEING TO ASPEN????? YOUR CONSIDERATION IN THE STOPPING AND OR SLOWING DOWN THESE PHYSICAL CHANGES TO A CULTURAL ICON (HISTORIC BUILDINGS) WOULD BE GREATLY HELPFUL. ROBERT JACOBSON SAGESTONE PROPERTIES, LLC. jacobsonbob@gmail.com P42 III.A. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner RE: 447 E. Cooper Avenue – Demolition, Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Mountain View Plane, Public Hearing DATE: August 12, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: The subject property is located at 447 E. Cooper Street. It is a 9,026 square foot lot which is currently occupied by retail tenants on the ground floor and 3 - 4 free market residential units on the upper floor. A shared common circulation corridor is located between this property and the adjacent building that houses Casa Tua (formerly Guido’s). The Historic Preservation Commission is asked to review demolition and replacement of the existing building. The structure on the site is not historically designated, but the property is in the Commercial Core Historic District. The reviews include conceptual design, encroachment into the Wheeler View Plane and the Wagner Park View Plane, Public Amenity, Utility/Delivery/Trash, and Parking. Affordable housing mitigation and Transportation Impacts will be assessed and reviewed concurrent with Final design reviews. HPC is expected to be the only decision making board for this proposal. City Council will receive notice of call up after conceptual review approval. P43 IV.A. 2 APPLICANT: 403 S. Galena LLC, represented by Camburas and Theodore, Ltd. and Haas Land Planning. ADDRESS: 447 E. Cooper St., Lots E, F, and G, Block 90, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. PARCEL ID: 2737-182-21-009. ZONING: CC, Commercial Core. DEMOLITION Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a) The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b) The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c) The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or d) No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and Staff response: The structure on the property is sound and is not an imminent hazard. The building cannot practically be moved to another location. It was built in 1950 and is a two story stucco frame structure. Staff finds that Criterion D is met. There is no documentation that supports a finding that any development on this property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance. Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a) The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in which it is located and b) The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c) Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Staff response: As stated, the existing development is not considered historically significant. The property is not directly adjacent to any historic resources and in fact is generally surrounded by non-historic structures, except for the Red Onion and Independence Square buildings across P44 IV.A. 3 the street. Demolition of this structure will not affect the historic preservation needs of the area. Staff finds these criteria are met. CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW & COMMERCIAL DESIGN The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project’s conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. The design guidelines for conceptual review of a new building in the Commercial Core Historic District are all stated within the “Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives.” The applicable guidelines are listed in “Exhibit A.” The subject property is located on a block that contains no historic resources. Within the vicinity are the Red Onion and Independence Square buildings. P45 IV.A. 4 Street & Alley Systems: The proposed project maintains the established town grid (6.1) and develops the alley façade facing Rubey Park to provide visual interest (6.3) All parking will be mitigated through cash in lieu payment which allows the rear of the building to be expressed as a street facing façade. It also avoids vehicular conflicts with RFTA buses; however on the other hand, there are concerns about trash/utility locations onsite that are discussed later in the memo. Cash in lieu is a by-right option for commercial parking mitigation in this location. Public Amenity: Redevelopment of this site requires the provision of an on-site public amenity space, or a cash in lieu payment. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-of-way or private property within commercial areas. The project is required to provide or mitigate 10% of the lot or about 900 sf. for public amenity space. The design guidelines in Exhibit A describe desirable characteristics of on-site amenity space, as meeting the following requirements: 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. There is currently no public amenity onsite. The proposed building has some minor setbacks on the ground level that meet the basic definition of public amenity but do not amount to usable public amenity space in line with the design guidelines. The two upper level decks are proposed as an alternative option for public amenity mitigation. Staff does not support allowing the upper level decks, which do not have exterior access, to serve as public amenity space. Staff finds that the Design Guidelines for second level amenity space are not met, specifically 6.13: P46 IV.A. 5 6.13 A second floor amenity space should meet all of the following criteria: • Ensure consistent public access • Be dedicated for public use • Provide a public overlook and/or an interpretive marker • Be identified by a marker at street level. The property is adjacent to the pedestrian malls and Council has included the restoration of the pedestrian malls as a top ten goal. Staff recommends that the HPC approve off-site improvements to the pedestrian malls as the mitigation technique for public amenity. Building Placement: The building is proposed parallel to lot lines similar to traditional building orientations (6.20). The primary entrances face the Cooper mall (6.21). The building is broken up into three modules with the larger module being about 53 ft. located in the middle of the building. Guidelines 6.18 (listed below) states that a minimum of 70% of the front façade shall be at the property line in order to maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk’s edge. About 52% of the building’s façade at ground level along Cooper Street is setback from the property line by about 3 ft. The purpose of this guideline is to create a consistent street wall. Staff recommends that the applicant push the building up to the property line and consolidate the 2 decks into 1 deck either facing north or south rather than propose two small decks that create non-traditional, visible second floor setbacks. 6.18 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. • Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate. • A minimum of 70% of the front façade shall be at the property line. Building Form/ Height/Mass/Scale: The overall mass and scale of the building is appropriate for the downtown, with the consolidation of the decks as noted above. The maximum height in the Commercial Core Zone District is 28 ft., which is proposed. A flat roof is proposed (6.22 and 6.23) as noted in the Design Guidelines. The project is two stories and a floor to floor height of 15 ft. is proposed for the two modules on the sides. The middle module has a floor to parapet height of 19 ft. Staff recommends that the plate height of the middle module be reduced and the side modules be increased to better meet the Guidelines (6.45). Staff also requested some building sections to better understand the floor to ceiling relationships proposed. Staff understands that there are challenges associated with a 28 ft. building and the required floor to ceiling heights in the Design Guidelines. Floor to ceiling dimensions are reviewed as part of Final Review, however it seems appropriate to bring up these concerns during Conceptual as a it relates to the overall feeling of mass and scale for the building. The Guidelines (6.26 - 6.30) recommend height variation when the site is larger than 6,000 sf. These guidelines were created primarily to address three story downtown buildings before the Code was changed to limit height to two stories. The applicant proposes height variations at the middle of the site with decks on the front and rear of the building. As noted, Staff suggests that P47 IV.A. 6 the decks be consolidated either on the north or south façade to be more consistent with Historic District development patterns. Staff recommends a restudy to consolidate the decks. 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 building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The success of the project related to these topics is assessed by Environmental Health, Engineering and Utilities, using the following criteria: 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. P48 IV.A. 7 9. 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. 10. All commercial tenant spaces located on the ground floor in excess of 1,500 square feet shall contain a vestibule (double set of doors) developed internal to the structure to meet the requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen, or an air curtain. 10. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. 11. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. 12. The trash and recycling service area requirements may be varied pursuant to Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code. All other requirements of this subsection may be varied by special review (see Chapter 26.430.040.E, Utility and delivery service area provisions). Staff response: The proposed trash area is inadequate for the development. The Environmental Health Department’s comments are attached as an Exhibit. Staff recommends a restudy to meet size, accessibility and location requirements. MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided below [emphasis added]. When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable building height otherwise provided for in this Title, development shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445 as a Planned Development so as to provide for maximum flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and pedestrian space and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building height requirements and view plane height limitations. HPC, after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Department, may exempt a development from being processed as a Planned Development when the board determines that the proposed development has a minimal effect on the view plane. P49 IV.A. 8 When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to re-open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view plane and redevelopment to reopen the view plane cannot be anticipated, HPC shall exempt the development from the requirements of this Section. Staff response: The project site falls within 2 viewplanes – the Wheeler Opera House viewplane which originates from the original theatre entrance and is directed toward Aspen Mountain, and the Wagner Park viewplane which originates from one of the goal posts and is directed toward Independence Pass. Image 2: Viewplane image highlighting the subject property. The application includes a viewplane analysis highlighting where the proposed building infringes on the viewplane. The Wheeler viewplane intersects the front of the building at between 20 and 21 feet. The Wagner Park viewplane intersects the southwest rear of the building at almost 22 feet and steps up to almost 32 feet at the southeast rear of the building. The applicant represents that the (current this was an error in the Aug. 12th memo) adjacent development that currently houses Casa Tua is 28.5 ft tall to the apex. The proposed development, with the exception of the elevator shaft, is 28 ft to the top of the parapet and 30 ft to the top of the elevator overrun. The review criteria above state: “In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view plane and redevelopment to reopen the view plane cannot be anticipated, HPC shall exempt the development from the requirements of this Section.” Staff finds that proposed P50 IV.A. 9 development is slightly taller than the existing building and that the viewplanes are already blocked by existing development (the landmark Paragon Building, the landmark Independence Square building, the Wagner Park bathrooms) that cannot be anticipated to be redeveloped. In Staff’s opinion, the new elevator shaft and mechanical equipment have a minimal impact on the viewplanes. The size and height of these features are minimal, and as noted in the application, the proposed building is already blocked by existing buildings as shown in image 2 above. Staff is supportive of the viewplane exemption. ______________________________________________________________________________ The HPC may: • approve the application, • approve the application with conditions, • disapprove the application, or • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC continue the hearing for restudy in order to: • Commit to off-site public amenity. • Consolidate the decks to meet the Guidelines. • Bring the entire ground level storefront up to the property line. EXHIBITS: A. Relevant Design Guidelines B. Development Review Committee comments C. Application P51 IV.A. 10 Exhibit A, Relevant Design Guidelines 6.1 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. 6.3 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. 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. 6.6 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 6.7 A street-facing public amenity space shall remain subordinate to the line of building fronts in the Commercial Core. 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. 6.8 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 6.12 Second level amenity space should be compatible with the character of the historic district. It shall remain visually subordinate to any historic resource on the property. If located on a historic property, it may not alter the appearance of the resource as seen from the street. 6.13 A second ﬂoor amenity space should meet all of the following criteria: P52 IV.A. 11 Ensure consistent public access Be dedicated for public use Provide a public overlook and /or an interpretive marker Be identiﬁed by a marker at street level 6.14 Second level space should be oriented to maximize solar access and mountain views, or views of historic landmarks. 6.15 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. 6.16 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. 6.18 Maintain the alignment of façades at the sidewalk’s edge. Place as much of the façade of the building at the property line as possible. Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate. A minimum of 70% of the front façade shall be at the property line. 6.20 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. 6.21 Orient a primary entrance toward the street. Buildings should have a clearly deﬁned primary entrance. For most commercial buildings, this should be a recessed entry way. Do not orient a primary entrance to an interior court. Providingsecondary public entrances to commercial spaces is also encouraged on larger buildings. 6.22 Rectangular forms should be dominant on Commercial Core façades. Rectangular forms should be vertically oriented. The façade should appear as predominantly ﬂat, with any decorative elements and projecting or setback “articulations” appearing to be subordinate to the dominant roof form. 6.23 Use ﬂat roof lines as the dominant roof form. A ﬂat roof, or one that gently slopes to the rear of a site, should be the dominant roof form. Parapets on side façades should step down towards the rear of the building. False fronts and parapets with horizontal emphasis also may be considered. 6.24 Along a rear façade, using building forms that step down in scale toward the alley is encouraged. Consider using additive forms, such as sheds, stairs and decks to reduce the perceived scale. These forms should however, remain subordinate to the primary structure. P53 IV.A. 12 Use projecting roofs at the ground ﬂoor over entrances, decks and for separate utility structures in order to establish a human scale that invites pedestrian activity. 6.25 Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at the sidewalk. Establish a two-story height at the sidewalk edge, or provide a horizontal design element at this level. A change in materials, or a molding at this level are examples. 6.26 Building façade height shall be varied from the façade height of adjacent buildings of the same number of stories. If an adjacent structure is three stories and 38 ft. tall, new inﬁll may be three stories, but must vary in façade height by a minimum of 2 ft. 6.27 A new building or addition should reﬂect the range and variation in building height of the Commercial Core. Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height limit 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: - In order to achieve at least a two-foot variation in height with an adjacent building. - The primary function of the building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum, Civic Building, Performance Hall, Fire Station, etc.) - 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. - To beneﬁt the livability of Affordable Housing units. - To make a demonstrable (to be veriﬁed by the Building Department) contribution to the building's overall energy efﬁciency, for instance by providing improved day- lighting. 6.28 Height variation should be achieved using one or more of the following: Vary the building height for the full depth of the site 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. 14.14 Minimize the visual impacts of service areas as seen from the street. When it is feasible, screen service areas from view, especially those associated with commercial and multifamily developments. This includes locations for trash containers and loading docks. Service areas should be accessed off of the alley, if one exists. P54 IV.A. September 2, 2015 Ms. Sara Adams, Senior Planner 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 447 East Cooper Proposal Update Dear Sara: The applicant has two very similar design options on the table for HPC consideration. First, the originally submitted plans set (“Option 1,” for clarity purposes) proposed that the required trash/recycling storage area be shared with the Casa Tua property to the east, as is the current situation. With this Option 1 plan, there was also the need to accommodate a 10’W x 10’D easement area for an electric transformer and said easement would have to be open to the sky (i.e., no roof or any improvements above). In an effort to accommodate all of these needs while also providing a design where the facades on the Cooper Avenue Mall and the alley/Rubey Park side would read as building “fronts,” the transformer and trash/recycling areas were not being fully accommodated on-site or to the minimum specifications required by Code. As often happens in the normal course of the review process, the applicant was not receiving quite as much flexibility as had been hoped for with regard to the Option 1 design and size of the areas required to address these utilitarian but admittedly necessary functions. Consequently, the desire for two building “fronts” became less possible and the applicant was forced to provide another design (“Option 2”) that meets all trash/recycling storage and utility area requirements on-site. The Option 2 plans set shows how the building design gets revised to comply with the transformer pad area as well as the trash/recycling storage area requirements. Otherwise the building design is largely the same as Option 1 except that the Option 2 Rubey Park facade appears less like a “front” and more like an alley side. Prior to the originally scheduled review by the HPC, the applicant had merely devised a potential layout for the transformer pad and trash/recycling storage area. However, that layout was in isolation had not been fully developed to determine or show what it would mean for the floor plans or the second floor of the building. In other words, the affect on the building elevations and floor plans had not yet been determined. As such, the applicant requested a continuance so as not to present to the HPC a “half baked” plan and ask for a decision based on such. The Option 2 plans have since been further developed and are ready for presentation and consideration. Also, during the period between the continuance and now, the applicant has preliminarily designed and considered a single- story building option, which we would be willing to share with the HPC for their consideration should such be desired/requested. HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC • 420 E. MAIN STREET, SUITE 10-B • ASPEN, COLORADO • 81611 • • PHONE: (970) 925-7819 • MITCH@HLPASPEN.COM • P55 IV.A. September 2, 2015 Page 2 If I can be of further assistance in any way, or if you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, Haas Land Planning, LLC Mitch Haas Owner/Manager P56 IV.A. PR O P O S E D TW O S T O R Y RE T A I L B U I L D I N G DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 9/02/15 TT19-02-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER CS-1COVER SHEET--447 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO AS P E N , C O VI C I N I T Y M A P LO C A L J U R I S D I C T I O N : TH E C I T Y O F A S P E N 13 0 S . G A L E N A S T R E E T AS P E N , C O 8 1 6 1 1 TE L ( 9 7 0 ) 4 2 9 - 2 7 6 1 CO N T A C T : B Y D E P A R T M E N T AR C H I T E C T : CA M B U R A S & T H E O D O R E , L T D . 24 5 4 E . D E M P S T E R S T R E E T , S U I T E 2 0 2 DE S P L A I N E S , I L 6 0 0 1 6 TE L ( 8 4 7 ) 2 9 8 - 1 5 2 5 CO N T A C T : T E D J . T H E O D O R E , N C A R B , L E E D A P OR R O B A V I L A , L E E D A P LA N D P L A N N E R : HA A S L A N D P L A N N I N G , L L C 42 0 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , S T E . 1 0 - B AS P E N , C O 8 1 6 1 1 TE L ( 9 7 0 ) 9 2 5 - 7 8 1 9 CO N T A C T : M I T C H H A A S OW N E R ' S R E P R E S E N T A T I V E : M D E V E L O P M E N T 20 0 1 N . H A L S T E D S T . , S U I T E 3 0 4 CH I C A G O , I L 6 0 6 1 4 CO N T A C T : M A R K H U N T SH E E T # T I T L E 1- C O V E R S H E E T CS - 1 C O V E R S H E E T 2- S U R V E Y 1 o f 1 I M P R O V E M E N T A N D T O P O S U R V E Y 3- A R C H I T E C T U R A L A0 . 5 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S P L A N S ( P R E V I O U S L Y S U B M I T T E D ) A0 . 6 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S P L A N ( P R E V I O U S L Y S U B M I T T E D ) A4 . 1 V I E W P L A N E S T U D Y ( P R E V I O U S L Y S U B M I T T E D ) VP - 1 V I E W P L A N E D I A G R A M VP - 2 V I E W P L A N E D I A G R A M VP - 3 V I E W P L A N E M A P A- 0 1 0 P R O P O S E D S I T E P L A N A- 1 1 0 P R O P O S E D F L O O R P L A N S A- 1 1 1 P R O P O S E D F L O O R P L A N A- 1 2 0 P R O P O S E D R O O F P L A N FA R - 1 F A R C A L C U L A T I O N S NL - 1 N E T L E A S A B L E P L A N S NL - 2 N E T L E A S A B L E P L A N A- 2 1 0 E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S A- 2 1 1 E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S A- 2 2 0 B U I L D I N G S E C T I O N S TIA T I A S I T E P L A N DR A W I N G L I S T REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P57 IV.A. DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 9/02/15 TT19-02-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER 1 of 1IMPROVEMENT AND TOPO SURVEY --447 E. COOPER ASPEN, COREVISIONSNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P58 IV.A. P59 IV.A. P 6 0 I V . A . DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 9/02/15 TT19-02-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER VP-3VIEWPLANE MAP--447 E. COOPER ASPEN, COREVISIONSNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P61 IV.A. 1 0 0 ' - 0 " 90 ' - 3 " 23 ' - 3 " 6' - 0 " 21 ' - 9 " 10 ' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 23 ' - 3 " 22 ' - 6 " 45 ' - 3 " 22 ' - 6 " 0 ' - 0 " W A G N E R P A R K V I E W P L A N E WH E E L E R O P E R A H O U S E VI E W P L A N E H E I G H T L I M I T = 2 0 . 6 8 ' WA G N E R P A R K VI E W P L A N E L I M I T = 2 1 . 9 1 ' WA G N E R P A R K VI E W P L A N E L I M I T = 3 1 . 9 1 ' WH E E L E R O P E R A H O U S E VI E W P L A N E H E I G H T L I M I T = 2 0 . 3 5 ' WH E E L E R O P E R A H O U S E VI E W P L A N E H E I G H T T/ O P A R A P E T 2 8 ' - 0 " T/ O P A R A P E T 3 0 ' - 0 " T EX I S T I N G B U I L D I N G TO R E M A I N WA L K W A Y 10 ' - 3 " 3' - 3 " PR O P O S E D T W O ST O R Y B U I L D I N G EX I S T I N G S T A I R AN D E L E V A T O R CO R E T O R E M A I N EX I S T . C A T V PE D E S T A L PR O P E R T Y L I N E EX I S T . T R A S H A R E A (N O C H A N G E ) 1 7 ' - 4 " 8' - 5 " RO O F O V E R H A N G EX I S T I N G T R A S H EN T R Y D O O R S EX I S T . T R A S H A R E A (N O C H A N G E ) FI N I S H E D G R A D E = ( + ) 3 ' - 0 " + / - LA N D I N G 1 : 1 2 R A M P D N PR O P E R T Y L I N E 1: 1 2 R A M P SL I D I N G GA T E S 23 9 S . F . TR A S H AR E A RE M O V A B L E SC R E E N W A L L EG R E S S DO O R EG R E S S DO O R EG R E S S DO O R EX T E R I O R S T A I R EX T E R I O R R A M P 5 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 1 " EX I S T . O U T D O O R P A T I O (N O C H A N G E ) FI N I S H E D G R A D E = ( + ) 3 ' - 0 " + / - LA N D I N G 1 : 1 2 R A M P D N PR O P E R T Y L I N E 1: 1 2 R A M P 30 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 0 " 1 5 ' - 0 " T 5 ' - 0 " SL I D I N G GA T E S 6' - 0 " TR A S H A R E A 21 ' - 9 " TR A N S F O R M E R A R E A - O P E N T O S K Y 10 ' - 0 " 6' - 0 " T R A N S F O R M E R A R E A - O P E N T O S K Y 1 1 ' - 0 " 6' - 9 " 7' - 0 " 23 9 S . F . TR A S H AR E A RE M O V A B L E SC R E E N W A L L CO N V E N I E N C E DO O R EG R E S S DO O R EG R E S S DO O R EX T E R I O R S T A I R EX T E R I O R R A M P CA S A T U A E X I S T . TR A S H A R E A (N O C H A N G E ) DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 9/02/15 TT19-02-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER A-010PROPOSED SITE PLAN--447 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 PR O P O S E D S I T E P L A N N REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 EN L A R G E D T R A S H A R E A P L A N N P62 IV.A. UP DN DN DN A- 2 1 1 2 A- 2 1 1 A- 2 1 0 A- 2 1 0 1 2 1 TE N A N T ' C ' 10 2 ST A I R # 1 10 4 TE N A N T ' B ' 10 1 EL E V . 10 3 TE N A N T ' A ' 10 0 1 0 0 ' - 0 " 90 ' - 3 " 23 ' - 3 " 43 ' - 9 " 23 ' - 3 " 22 ' - 6 " 45 ' - 3 " 22 ' - 6 " 8' - 5 " 6' - 5 " 8' - 5 " 4' - 6 " 8' - 7 " 4' - 6 " 8' - 7 " 4' - 6 " 8' - 7 " 4' - 6 " 8' - 5 " 6' - 5 " 8' - 5 " PR O P E R T Y L I N E DN RE S T R O O M CO N S T R U C T I O N BY T E N A N T (A P P R O X . ) RE S T R O O M CO N S T R U C T I O N BY T E N A N T (A P P R O X . ) RE S T R O O M CO N S T R U C T I O N BY T E N A N T (A P P R O X . ) DN UP FI R E R A T E D WI N D O W AS S E M B L I E S AI R C U R T A I N BY T E N A N T A B O V E AI R C U R T A I N BY T E N A N T A B O V E AIR C U R T A I N BY T E N A N T A B O V E TR A S H A R E A TR A N S F O R M E R CO R R I D O R 10 5 R A M P D N . 8 . 3 % RA M P D N . 8. 3 % 6 ' - 0 " 30 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 1 1 ' - 0 " 21 ' - 9 " 5 ' - 0 " CO R R I D O R 10 6 3 ' - 1 " OU T D O O R TE R R A C E 20 1 EL E V . 20 2 STAIR #1 203 OU T D O O R TE R R A C E 20 4 1 0 0 ' - 0 " 90 ' - 3 " 23 ' - 3 " 43 ' - 9 " 23' - 3" 2' - 0 " 4' - 8 " 2' - 8 " 4' - 8 " 2' - 8 " 4' - 8 " 2' - 0 " 43 ' - 9 " 2' - 0 " 4' - 8"2' - 8"4' - 8"2' - 8"4' - 8"2' - 0" 1 7 ' - 0 " 1 2 ' - 0 " 4 ' - 0 " 2 0 ' - 0 " 21 ' - 3 " 12' - 9"8' - 6" 21 ' - 3 " 21' - 3" 3 ' - 6 " 3'- 6 " H I G H GL A S S R A I L I N G 3'- 6 " H I G H GL A S S R A I L I N G FO L D I N G G L A S S WA L L FO L D I N G G L A S S WA L L DN PR O P E R T Y L I N E ROOF ACCESSFIRE RATED WINDOW ASSEMBLIES TE N A N T ' B ' 2 N D FL O O R 20 0 DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 9/02/15 TT19-02-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER A-110PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS--447 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 PR O P O S E D M A I N F L O O R P L A N 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 PR O P O S E D S E C O N D F L O O R P L A N N NREVISIONSNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P63 IV.A. UP EL E V . 02 0 90 ' - 3 " TE N A N T ' B ' 01 0 1 0 0 ' - 0 " UP ST A I R # 1 03 0 PR O P E R T Y LI N E 4 ' - 9 " ST A I R # 2 04 0 1 5 ' - 0 " 21 ' - 3 " 45 ' - 9 " 12 ' - 9 " 8' - 6 " 1 8 ' - 4 " DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 9/02/15 TT19-02-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER A-111PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN--447 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 LO W E R L E V E L N REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P64 IV.A. ME C H A N I C A L E Q U I P M E N T A R E A ME C H A N I C A L E Q U I P M E N T A R E A EL E V A T O R OV E R R U N TE R R A C E B E L O W TE R R A C E B E L O W BU I L D I N G P A R A P E T , T Y P . PR O P E R T Y L I N E 11 ' - 4 " 29 ' - 8 " 9' - 0 " 29 ' - 8 " 11 ' - 0 " 4 4 ' - 3 " 1 2 ' - 5 " 4 3 ' - 8 " 1 8 ' - 1 1 " 1 3 ' - 8 " RO O F A C C E S S DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 9/02/15 TT19-02-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER A-120PROPOSED ROOF PLAN--447 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 PR O P O S E D R O O F P L A N N REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P65 IV.A. UP DN DN CO M M E R C I A L A R E A : 8, 8 7 3 . 5 9 20 . 0 1 S F (E X E M P T ) 11 1 . 2 2 S F (E X E M P T ) 20 . 1 8 S F (E X E M P T ) TE N A N T ' A ' 10 0 TE N A N T ' B ' 10 1 TE N A N T ' C ' 10 2 EL E V . 10 3 ST A I R # 1 10 4 DN UP TR A S H A R E A TR A N S F O R M E R R A M P D N . 8 . 3 % RA M P D N . 8. 3 % CO R R I D O R 10 6 CO R R I D O R 10 5 79 3 . 8 8 S F (E X E M P T ) 50 9 . 5 1 S F (E X E M P T ) ST A I R A R E A : 18 4 . 0 3 S F (E X E M P T ) CO M M E R C I A L A R E A : 6, 5 5 1 . 3 9 S F DN OU T D O O R TE R R A C E 20 1 OU T D O O R TE R R A C E 20 4 ST A I R # 1 20 3 FL O O R A R E A S U M M A R Y : LO W E R L E V E L : 8 , 3 6 8 . 7 5 S F CO M M E R C I A L A R E A : 8 , 3 6 8 . 7 5 S F DE D U C T I O N S : 8 , 3 6 8 . 7 5 S F ( S U B G R A D E E X E M P T ) AR E A T O W A R D F A R : 0 S F MA I N L E V E L : 9 , 0 2 5 S F CO M M E R C I A L A R E A : 8 , 8 7 3 . 5 9 S F DE D U C T I O N S : 1 5 1 . 4 1 S F ( P U R P L E ) AR E A T O W A R D F A R : 8 , 8 7 3 . 5 9 SE C O N D F L O O R : 8 , 0 3 8 . 8 1 S F CO M M E R C I A L A R E A : 6 , 5 5 1 . 3 9 S F DE D U C T I O N S : 1 , 4 8 7 . 4 2 ( P U R P L E & B L U E ) AR E A T O W A R D F A R : 6 , 5 5 1 . 3 9 S F TO T A L F A R : 1 5 , 4 2 4 . 9 8 S F ( 1 . 7 1 : 1 F A R ) ZO N I N G I N F O R M A T I O N A N D C A L C U L A T I O N S : ZO N I N G : ( C C ) C O M M E R C I A L C O R E NE T L O T A R E A : 9 , 0 2 5 S F ( 1 0 0 ' - 0 " X 9 0 ' - 6 " ) ZO N I N G A L L O W A N C E ( 2 : 1 ) 1 8 , 0 5 0 S F (9 , 0 2 5 X 2 ) CA L C U L A T I O N S : GR O S S F L O O R A R E A : CO M M E R C I A L S P A C E : 2 3 , 7 9 3 . 7 3 S F ( R E D ) NO N - U N I T S P A C E : 1 , 6 3 8 . 8 3 S F ( P U R P L E & B L U E ) EX E M P T S P A C E : 1 0 , 0 0 7 . 5 8 S F ( L L & P U R P L E ) EX P O S E D W A L L B E L O W G R A D E : NO R T H : 0 S F SO U T H : 0 S F EA S T : 0 S F WE S T : 0 S F BE L O W G R A D E W A L L A R E A : NO R T H : 9 0 ' - 6 " SO U T H : 9 0 ' - 6 " EA S T : 1 0 0 " - 0 " WE S T : 1 0 0 ' - 0 " TO T A L : 3 8 1 ' - 0 " L E N G T H X 1 4 ' - 0 " H E I G H T 5, 3 3 4 ' - 0 " S F T O T A L W A L L A R E A 0 S F T O T A L E X P O S E D W A L L A R E A 0/ 5 , 3 3 4 ' - 0 " = 0% A P P L I E D FI N A L F L O O R A R E A : LO W E R L E V E L = 0 S F ( 8 , 3 6 8 . 7 5 S F E X E M P T ) MA I N L E V E L = 8 , 8 7 3 . 5 9 S F ( 1 5 1 . 4 1 S F E X E M P T ) SE C O N D F L O O R = 6 , 5 5 1 . 3 9 S F ( 1 , 4 8 7 . 4 2 E X E M P T ) CU M U L A T I V E = 1 5 , 4 2 4 . 9 8 S F ( 1 . 7 1 : 1 F A R ) EL E V . 02 0 TE N A N T ' B ' 01 0 ST A I R # 1 03 0 CO M M E R C I A L A R E A : 8, 3 6 8 . 7 5 S F (E X E M P T ) PR O P E R T Y L I N E DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 9/02/15 TT19-02-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER FAR-1FAR CALCULATIONS--447 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO 3 / 3 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 MA I N F L O O R - F A R C A L C U L A T I O N S 3 / 3 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 SE C O N D F L O O R - F A R C A L C U L A T I O N S N 3 / 3 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " 5 LO W E R L E V E L - F A R C A L C U L A T I O N S N N REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P66 IV.A. UP DN DN NO N - U N I T C O M M O N AR E A : 1 , 1 3 8 . 4 0 S F TE N A N T ' C ' 10 2 ST A I R # 1 10 4 TE N A N T ' B ' 10 1 EL E V . 10 3 TE N A N T ' A ' 10 0 TE N A N T ' A ' N E T LE A S A B L E : 2 , 0 6 5 . 9 4 S F TE N A N T ' B ' N E T LE A S A B L E : 3 , 3 1 7 . 2 4 S F TE N A N T ' C ' N E T LE A S A B L E : 1 , 8 2 7 . 7 4 S F DN UP NE T L E A S A B L E A R E A : 6, 0 6 7 . 5 8 S F NO N - U N I T C O M M O N AR E A : 1 3 4 . 4 9 S F OU T D O O R TE R R A C E 20 1 EL E V . 20 2 STAIR #1 203 OU T D O O R TE R R A C E 20 4 DN DN OU T D O O R T E R R A C E : 52 4 . 0 9 S F OU T D O O R T E R R A C E : 80 8 . 4 6 S F DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 9/02/15 TT19-02-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER NL-1NET LEASABLE PLANS--447 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 MA I N F L O O R P L A N - N E T L E A S A B L E 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 SE C O N D F L O O R P L A N - N E T L E A S A B L E NET LEASABLE CALCULATIONS:LOWER LEVEL:SUB-TOTAL LOWER LEVEL: 7,806.08 SF N NTENANT 'B' NET LEASABLE AREA: 7,806.08 SF MAIN LEVEL:TENANT 'C' NET LEASABLE AREA: 1,827.74 SF SUB-TOTAL MAIN LEVEL: 7,210.92 SF SECOND FLOOR:NET LEASABLE AREA: 6,067.58 SF SUB-TOTAL SECOND FLOOR: 6,067.58 SF TOTAL NET LEASABLE: 21,084.58 SFTENANT 'B' NET LEASABLE AREA: 3,317.24 SFTENANT 'A' NET LEASABLE AREA: 2,065.94 SF REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P67 IV.A. TE N A N T ' B ' 01 0 EL E V . 02 0 ST A I R # 1 03 0 NO N - U N I T CO M M O N A R E A : 13 4 . 4 9 S F NE T L E A S A B L E A R E A : 7, 8 0 6 . 0 8 S F UP DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 9/02/15 TT19-02-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER NL-2NET LEASABLE PLAN--447 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 LO W E R L E V E L P L A N - N E T L E A S A B L E N REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONNET LEASABLE CALCULATIONS:LOWER LEVEL:SUB-TOTAL LOWER LEVEL: 7,806.08 SFTENANT 'B' NET LEASABLE AREA: 7,806.08 SF MAIN LEVEL:TENANT 'C' NET LEASABLE AREA: 1,827.74 SF SUB-TOTAL MAIN LEVEL: 7,210.92 SF SECOND FLOOR:NET LEASABLE AREA: 6,067.58 SF SUB-TOTAL SECOND FLOOR: 6,067.58 SF TOTAL NET LEASABLE: 21,084.58 SFTENANT 'B' NET LEASABLE AREA: 3,317.24 SFTENANT 'A' NET LEASABLE AREA: 2,065.94 SF P68 IV.A. MAIN FLOOR 0' - 0"SECOND FLOOR 15' - 0"PARAPET 28' - 0"T/O GLAZING 12' - 0"T/O UPPER GLAZING 23' - 0"LOW PARAPET 19' - 0"ROOF 27' - 0"T/O ELEVATOR 30' - 0"ADJACENT RETAIL BUILDING SM O O T H N A T U R A L ST O N E B U L K H E A D TU M B L E D M O D U L A R BR I C K I N 1 / 2 RU N N I N G B O N D , T Y P . PA I N T E D E X P O S E D ST E E L LI G H T F I X T U R E , T Y P . SM O O T H N A T U R A L ST O N E , T Y P . ST O R E F R O N T SY S T E M , T Y P . DE C O R A T I V E CO R N I C E , T Y P . RE C E S S E D ST O N E D E T A I L , T Y P . EL E V A T O R OV E R R U N EX P O S E D S T E E L TR E L L I S S U P P O R T WO O D T R E L L I S BE A M , T Y P . CO R B E L L E D BR I C K P A R A P E T DE T A I L , T Y P . LI G H T F I X T U R E , T Y P . BR I C K A R C H , T Y P . BR I C K D E T A I L I N G , T Y P . HE R R I N G B O N E BR I C K P A T T E R N EX T R U D E D BR I C K D E T A I L I N G , T Y P . EX I S T I N G S T A I R A N D EL E V A T O R C O R E TO R E M A I N MAIN FLOOR 0' - 0"SECOND FLOOR 15' - 0"PARAPET 28' - 0"SOUTH FIN.GRADE 3' - 0"ROOF 27' - 0"T/O ELEVATOR 30' - 0" AD J A C E N T B U I L D I N G EL E V A T O R OV E R R U N TU M B L E D M O D U L A R BR I C K I N 1 / 2 RU N N I N G B O N D , T Y P . LI G H T F I X T U R E BE Y O N D , T Y P . SM O O T H N A T U R A L ST O N E , T Y P . DE C O R A T I V E CO R N I C E , T Y P . 30 ' - 0 " + / - DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 9/02/15 TT19-02-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER A-210EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS--447 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 NO R T H E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 WE S T E L E V A T I O N REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P69 IV.A. SECOND FLOOR 15' - 0"PARAPET 28' - 0"SOUTH FIN.GRADE 3' - 0"T/O GLAZING 12' - 0"T/O UPPER GLAZING 23' - 0"LOW PARAPET 19' - 0"ROOF 27' - 0"T/O ELEVATOR 30' - 0" SM O O T H N A T U R A L ST O N E B U L K H E A D , T Y P . TU M B L E D M O D U L A R BR I C K I N 1 / 2 RU N N I N G B O N D , T Y P . PA I N T E D E X P O S E D ST E E L SM O O T H N A T U R A L ST O N E , T Y P . ST O R E F R O N T SY S T E M , T Y P . DE C O R A T I V E CO R N I C E , T Y P . EL E V A T O R OV E R R U N EX P O S E D S T E E L TR E L L I S S U P P O R T WO O D T R E L L I S BE A M , T Y P . CO R B E L L E D BR I C K P A R A P E T DE T A I L , T Y P . HE R R I N G B O N E BR I C K P A T T E R N RE M O V A B L E DE C O R A T I V E ME T A L S C R E E N W A L L DE C O R A T I V E M E T A L S L I D I N G TR A S H E N C L O S U R E G A T E S MA S O N R Y T R A S H EN C L O S U R E W A L L S MAIN FLOOR 0' - 0"SECOND FLOOR 15' - 0"PARAPET 28' - 0"SOUTH FIN.GRADE 3' - 0"T/O GLAZING 12' - 0"T/O UPPER GLAZING 23' - 0"ROOF 27' - 0"T/O ELEVATOR 30' - 0" EL E V A T O R OV E R R U N SMOOTH NATURAL STONE BULKHEAD, TYP.TUMBLED MODULAR BRICK IN 1/2 RUNNING BOND, TYP.PAINTED EXPOSED STEELSMOOTH NATURAL STONE, TYP.STOREFRONT SYSTEM, TYP.DECORATIVE CORNICE, TYP. EX I S T I N G S T A I R A N D EL E V A T O R CO R E T O R E M A I N FIRE RATED WINDOW ASSEBLIES DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 9/02/15 TT19-02-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER A-211EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS--447 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 SO U T H E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 EA S T E L E V A T I O N REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P70 IV.A. MAIN FLOOR 0' - 0"SECOND FLOOR 15' - 0"PARAPET 28' - 0"LOWER LEVEL -14' - 0"SOUTH FIN.GRADE 3' - 0"LOW PARAPET 19' - 0"ROOF 27' - 0"T/O ELEVATOR 30' - 0" TE N A N T ' B ' 01 0 TE N A N T ' B ' 01 0 TE N A N T ' B ' 10 1 TE N A N T ' B ' 10 1 OU T D O O R TE R R A C E 20 4 OU T D O O R TE R R A C E 20 1 EL E V . 10 3 REAR ELEVATION DATUM: 7927.82'WHEELER HOUSE VIEWPLANE HT.LIMIT: 7946.18' WA G N E R P A R K VI E W P L A N E H T . LI M I T : 7 9 4 9 . 7 3 ' WA G N E R P A R K VI E W P L A N E H T . LI M I T : 7 9 5 9 . 7 3 ' MA I N F L O O R 0' - 0 " SE C O N D F L O O R 15 ' - 0 " PA R A P E T 28 ' - 0 " LO W E R L E V E L -1 4 ' - 0 " SO U T H F I N . GR A D E 3' - 0 " RO O F 27 ' - 0 " T/ O E L E V A T O R 30 ' - 0 " TE N A N T ' B ' 01 0 TE N A N T ' B ' 01 0 TE N A N T ' C ' 10 2 TE N A N T ' B ' 10 1 TE N A N T ' A ' 10 0 OU T D O O R TE R R A C E 20 1 RE A R E L E V A T I O N DA T U M : 7 9 2 7 . 8 2 ' WH E E L E R H O U S E VI E W P L A N E H T . LI M I T : 7 9 4 6 . 1 8 ' WA G N E R P A R K VI E W P L A N E H T . LI M I T : 7 9 4 9 . 7 3 ' WA G N E R P A R K VI E W P L A N E H T . LI M I T : 7 9 5 9 . 7 3 ' TE N A N T ' B ' 2 N D FL O O R 20 0 TE N A N T ' B ' 2 N D FL O O R 20 0 DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 9/02/15 TT19-02-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER A-220BUILDING SECTIONS--447 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 VI E W P L A N E S E C T I O N 1 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 VI E W P L A N E S E C T I O N 2 REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P71 IV.A. UP DN DN UP DN DN NE W T W O ST O R Y R E T A I L BU I L D I N G NE W P E D E S T R I A N EN T R Y D O O R PE D E S T R I A N DI S T A N C E : 2 0 ' - 6 " PE D E S T R I A N DI S T A N C E : 5 6 ' - 6 " PE D E S T R I A N DI S T A N C E : 8 7 ' - 6 " 79 ' - 4 " R O U T E BE T W E E N D O O R S . 46 ' - 1 0 " R O U T E BE T W E E N D O O R S . PE D E S T R I A N DI S T A N C E : 1 4 ' - 7 " PA V E D W A L K 7 3 ' - 8 " P E D E S T R I A N M A L L AL L E Y CO O P E R A V E . P E D E S T R I A N M A L L AD J A C E N T TW O S T O R Y BU I L D I N G AD J A C E N T TW O S T O R Y BU I L D I N G TR A S H AR E A T DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 9/02/15 TT19-02-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER TIATIA SITE PLAN--447 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO 1 " = 1 0 ' - 0 " 1 TI A S I T E P L A N REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION N P72 IV.A. PR O P O S E D TW O S T O R Y RE T A I L B U I L D I N G DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 7/30/15 TT18-5-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER CS-1COVER SHEET--447 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO AS P E N , C O VI C I N I T Y M A P LO C A L J U R I S D I C T I O N : TH E C I T Y O F A S P E N 13 0 S . G A L E N A S T R E E T AS P E N , C O 8 1 6 1 1 TE L ( 9 7 0 ) 4 2 9 - 2 7 6 1 CO N T A C T : B Y D E P A R T M E N T AR C H I T E C T : CA M B U R A S & T H E O D O R E , L T D . 24 5 4 E . D E M P S T E R S T R E E T , S U I T E 2 0 2 DE S P L A I N E S , I L 6 0 0 1 6 TE L ( 8 4 7 ) 2 9 8 - 1 5 2 5 CO N T A C T : T E D J . T H E O D O R E , N C A R B , L E E D A P OR R O B A V I L A , L E E D A P LA N D P L A N N E R : HA A S L A N D P L A N N I N G , L L C 42 0 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , S T E . 1 0 - B AS P E N , C O 8 1 6 1 1 TE L ( 9 7 0 ) 9 2 5 - 7 8 1 9 CO N T A C T : M I T C H H A A S OW N E R ' S R E P R E S E N T A T I V E : M D E V E L O P M E N T 20 0 1 N . H A L S T E D S T . , S U I T E 3 0 4 CH I C A G O , I L 6 0 6 1 4 CO N T A C T : M A R K H U N T SH E E T # T I T L E 1- C O V E R S H E E T CS - 1 C O V E R S H E E T 2- S U R V E Y 1 o f 1 I M P R O V E M E N T A N D T O P O S U R V E Y 3- A R C H I T E C T U R A L A0 . 5 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S P L A N S ( P R E V I O U S L Y S U B M I T T E D ) A0 . 6 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S P L A N ( P R E V I O U S L Y S U B M I T T E D ) A4 . 1 V I E W P L A N E S T U D Y ( P R E V I O U S L Y S U B M I T T E D ) VP - 1 V I E W P L A N E D I A G R A M VP - 2 V I E W P L A N E D I A G R A M A- 0 1 0 P R O P O S E D S I T E P L A N A- 1 1 0 P R O P O S E D F L O O R P L A N S A- 1 1 1 P R O P O S E D F L O O R P L A N A- 1 2 0 P R O P O S E D R O O F P L A N FA R - 1 F A R C A L C U L A T I O N S NL - 1 N E T L E A S A B L E P L A N S NL - 2 N E T L E A S A B L E P L A N A- 2 1 0 E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S A- 2 1 1 E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S TIA T I A S I T E P L A N DR A W I N G L I S T REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P73 IV.A. DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 7/30/15 TT18-5-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER 1 of 1IMPROVEMENT AND TOPO SURVEY --447 E. COOPER ASPEN, COREVISIONSNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P74 IV.A. P75 IV.A. P76 IV.A. 9 5 ' - 0 " 90 ' - 6 " 23 ' - 6 " 44 ' - 0 " 23 ' - 6 " 22 ' - 6 " 45 ' - 6 " 22 ' - 6 " 8' - 6 " 6' - 6 " 8' - 6 " 4' - 6 " 8' - 6 " 4' - 6 " 8' - 6 " 4' - 6 " 8' - 6 " 4' - 6 " 8' - 6 " 6' - 6 " 8' - 6 " 5 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 6 " PR O P E R T Y L I N E W A G N E R P A R K V I E W P L A N E WH E E L E R O P E R A H O U S E VI E W P L A N E H E I G H T L I M I T = 2 0 . 6 8 ' WA G N E R P A R K VI E W P L A N E L I M I T = 2 1 . 9 1 ' WA G N E R P A R K VI E W P L A N E L I M I T = 3 1 . 9 1 ' WH E E L E R O P E R A H O U S E VI E W P L A N E H E I G H T L I M I T = 2 0 . 3 5 ' WHEELER OPERA HOUSE VIEWPLANE HEIGHT T/ O P A R A P E T 2 8 ' - 0 " T/ O P A R A P E T 3 0 ' - 0 " T EX I S T I N G B U I L D I N G TO R E M A I N TR A N S F O R M E R 3' - 6 " TR A S H A R E A 10 ' - 0 " T R A S H A R E A 1 6 ' - 6 " SH A R E D T R A S H A R E A ( 1 6 5 S F ) PR O P O S E D T W O ST O R Y B U I L D I N G EX I S T I N G S T A I R AN D E L E V A T O R CO R E T O R E M A I N EX I S T . C A T V PE D E S T A L PR O P E R T Y L I N E DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 7/30/15 TT18-5-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER A-010PROPOSED SITE PLAN--447 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 PR O P O S E D S I T E P L A N N REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P77 IV.A. UP DN DN DN DN A- 2 1 1 2 A- 2 1 1 A- 2 1 0 A- 2 1 0 1 2 1 TE N A N T ' C ' 10 2 ST A I R # 1 10 4 TE N A N T ' B ' 10 1 EL E V . 10 3 TE N A N T ' A ' 10 0 9 5 ' - 0 " 90 ' - 6 " 23 ' - 6 " 44 ' - 0 " 23 ' - 6 " 22 ' - 6 " 45 ' - 6 " 22 ' - 6 " 8' - 6 " 6' - 6 " 8' - 6 " 4' - 6 " 8' - 6 " 4' - 6 " 8' - 6 " 4' - 6 " 8' - 6 " 4' - 6 " 8' - 6 " 6' - 6 " 8' - 6 " 5 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 6 " PR O P E R T Y L I N E DN RE S T R O O M CO N S T R U C T I O N BY T E N A N T PL A T F O R M L I F T WI T H B A C K U P P O W E R PL A T F O R M L I F T WIT H B A C K U P P O W E R PL A T F O R M L I F T WIT H B A C K U P P O W E R RE S T R O O M CO N S T R U C T I O N BY T E N A N T RE S T R O O M CO N S T R U C T I O N BY T E N A N T DN UP AI R C U R T A I N BY T E N A N T A B O V E AI R C U R T A I N BY T E N A N T A B O V E AIR C U R T A I N BY T E N A N T A B O V E FI R E R A T E D WI N D O W AS S E M B L I E S AI R C U R T A I N BY T E N A N T A B O V E AI R C U R T A I N BY T E N A N T A B O V E AIR C U R T A I N BY T E N A N T A B O V E OU T D O O R TE R R A C E 20 1 EL E V . 20 2 STAIR #1 203 OU T D O O R TE R R A C E 20 4 TE N A N T ' B ' 2 N D FL O O R 20 0 9 5 ' - 0 " 90 ' - 6 " 23 ' - 6 " 44 ' - 0 " 23' - 6" 2' - 0 " 4' - 6 " 2' - 6 " 4' - 6 " 2' - 6 " 4' - 6 " 2' - 0 " 44 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 4' - 6"2' - 6"4' - 6"2' - 6"4' - 6"2' - 0" 3 ' - 0 " 2 1 ' - 0 " 4 ' - 0 " 2 0 ' - 0 " 21 ' - 6 " 12' - 6"8' - 6" 21 ' - 6 " 21' - 6" 3 ' - 6 " 3 ' - 6 " 3'- 6 " H I G H GL A S S R A I L I N G 3'- 6 " H I G H GL A S S R A I L I N G FO L D I N G G L A S S WA L L FO L D I N G G L A S S WA L L DN PR O P E R T Y L I N E ROOF ACCESSFIRE RATED WINDOW ASSEMBLIES DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 7/30/15 TT18-5-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER A-110PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS--447 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 PR O P O S E D M A I N F L O O R P L A N 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 PR O P O S E D S E C O N D F L O O R P L A N N NREVISIONSNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P78 IV.A. UP EL E V . 02 0 90 ' - 6 " TE N A N T ' B ' 01 0 1 0 0 ' - 0 " UP ST A I R # 1 03 0 PR O P E R T Y LI N E 5 ' - 0 " ST A I R # 2 04 0 DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 7/30/15 TT18-5-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER A-111PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN--447 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 LO W E R L E V E L N REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P79 IV.A. ME C H A N I C A L E Q U I P M E N T A R E A ME C H A N I C A L E Q U I P M E N T A R E A EL E V A T O R OV E R R U N TE R R A C E B E L O W TE R R A C E B E L O W BU I L D I N G P A R A P E T , T Y P . PR O P E R T Y L I N E 11 ' - 6 " 29 ' - 6 " 9' - 0 " 29 ' - 6 " 11 ' - 0 " 4 4 ' - 6 " 1 2 ' - 6 " 3 8 ' - 6 " 1 9 ' - 0 " 1 3 ' - 6 " RO O F A C C E S S DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 7/30/15 TT18-5-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER A-120PROPOSED ROOF PLAN--447 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 PR O P O S E D R O O F P L A N N REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P80 IV.A. UP DN CO M M E R C I A L A R E A : 8, 3 2 1 . 5 5 20 . 0 1 S F (E X E M P T ) 11 1 . 2 2 S F (E X E M P T ) 20 . 1 8 S F (E X E M P T ) 55 2 . 0 4 S F (E X E M P T ) UP DN DN TE N A N T ' A ' 10 0 TE N A N T ' B ' 10 1 TE N A N T ' C ' 10 2 EL E V . 10 3 ST A I R # 1 10 4 97 0 . 6 3 S F (E X E M P T ) 97 0 . 6 3 S F (E X E M P T ) ST A I R A R E A : 18 4 . 0 3 S F (E X E M P T ) CO M M E R C I A L A R E A : 6, 3 1 8 . 8 9 S F DNTE N A N T ' B ' 2 N D FL O O R 20 0 OU T D O O R TE R R A C E 20 1 OU T D O O R TE R R A C E 20 4 ST A I R # 1 20 3 FL O O R A R E A S U M M A R Y : LO W E R L E V E L : 9 , 0 2 5 S F CO M M E R C I A L A R E A : 9 , 0 2 5 S F DE D U C T I O N S : 9 , 0 2 5 S F ( S U B G R A D E E X E M P T ) AR E A T O W A R D F A R : 0 S F MA I N L E V E L : 9 , 0 2 5 S F CO M M E R C I A L A R E A : 8 , 3 2 1 . 5 5 S F DE D U C T I O N S : 7 0 3 . 4 5 S F ( P U R P L E ) AR E A T O W A R D F A R : 8 , 3 2 1 . 5 5 SE C O N D F L O O R : 8 , 4 4 4 . 1 8 S F CO M M E R C I A L A R E A : 6 , 3 1 8 . 8 9 S F DE D U C T I O N S : 2 , 1 2 5 . 2 9 ( P U R P L E & B L U E ) AR E A T O W A R D F A R : 6 , 3 1 8 . 8 9 S F TO T A L F A R : 1 4 , 6 4 0 . 4 4 S F ( 1 . 6 2 : 1 F A R ) ZO N I N G I N F O R M A T I O N A N D C A L C U L A T I O N S : ZO N I N G : ( C C ) C O M M E R C I A L C O R E NE T L O T A R E A : 9 , 0 2 5 S F ( 1 0 0 ' - 0 " X 9 0 ' - 6 " ) ZO N I N G A L L O W A N C E ( 2 : 1 ) 1 8 , 0 5 0 S F (9 , 0 2 5 X 2 ) CA L C U L A T I O N S : GR O S S F L O O R A R E A : CO M M E R C I A L S P A C E : 2 3 , 6 6 5 . 4 4 S F ( R E D ) NO N - U N I T S P A C E : 2 , 8 2 8 . 7 4 S F ( P U R P L E & B L U E ) EX E M P T S P A C E : 1 1 , 8 5 3 . 7 4 S F ( L L & P U R P L E ) EX P O S E D W A L L B E L O W G R A D E : NO R T H : 0 S F SO U T H : 0 S F EA S T : 0 S F WE S T : 0 S F BE L O W G R A D E W A L L A R E A : NO R T H : 9 0 ' - 6 " SO U T H : 9 0 ' - 6 " EA S T : 1 0 0 " - 0 " WE S T : 1 0 0 ' - 0 " TO T A L : 3 8 1 ' - 0 " L E N G T H X 1 4 ' - 0 " H E I G H T 5, 3 3 4 ' - 0 " S F T O T A L W A L L A R E A 0 S F T O T A L E X P O S E D W A L L A R E A 0/ 5 , 3 3 4 ' - 0 " = 0% A P P L I E D FI N A L F L O O R A R E A : LO W E R L E V E L = 0 S F ( 9 , 0 2 5 S F E X E M P T ) MA I N L E V E L = 8 , 3 2 1 . 5 5 S F ( 7 0 3 . 4 5 S F E X E M P T ) SE C O N D F L O O R = 6 , 3 1 8 . 8 9 S F ( 2 , 1 2 5 . 2 9 E X E M P T ) CU M U L A T I V E = 1 4 , 6 4 0 . 4 4 S F ( 1 . 6 2 : 1 F A R ) EL E V . 02 0 TE N A N T ' B ' 01 0 ST A I R # 1 03 0 CO M M E R C I A L A R E A : 9, 0 2 5 . 0 0 S F (E X E M P T ) DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 7/30/15 TT18-5-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER FAR-1FAR CALCULATIONS--447 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO 3 / 3 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 MA I N F L O O R - F A R C A L C U L A T I O N S 3 / 3 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 SE C O N D F L O O R - F A R C A L C U L A T I O N S N 3 / 3 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " 5 LO W E R L E V E L - F A R C A L C U L A T I O N S N N REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P81 IV.A. UP NO N - U N I T C O M M O N AR E A : 1 3 5 . 5 1 S F UP TE N A N T ' C ' 10 2 ST A I R # 1 10 4 TE N A N T ' B ' 10 1 EL E V . 10 3 TE N A N T ' A ' 10 0 TE N A N T ' A ' N E T LE A S A B L E : 1 , 9 5 9 . 6 9 S F TE N A N T ' B ' N E T LE A S A B L E : 3 , 9 2 8 . 9 4 S F TE N A N T ' C ' N E T LE A S A B L E : 1 , 8 0 3 . 5 1 S F NE T L E A S A B L E A R E A : 5, 8 5 5 . 0 8 S F NO N - U N I T C O M M O N AR E A : 1 3 4 . 4 9 S F OU T D O O R TE R R A C E 20 1 EL E V . 20 2 STAIR #1 203 OU T D O O R TE R R A C E 20 4 TE N A N T ' B ' 2 N D FL O O R 20 0 DN DN DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 7/30/15 TT18-5-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER NL-1NET LEASABLE PLANS--447 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 MA I N F L O O R P L A N - N E T L E A S A B L E 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 SE C O N D F L O O R P L A N - N E T L E A S A B L E NET LEASABLE CALCULATIONS:LOWER LEVEL:SUB-TOTAL LOWER LEVEL: 8,449.73 SF N NTENANT 'B' NET LEASABLE AREA: 8,449.73.94 SF MAIN LEVEL:TENANT 'C' NET LEASABLE AREA: 1,803.51 SF SUB-TOTAL MAIN LEVEL: 7,692.14 SF SECOND FLOOR:NET LEASABLE AREA: 5,855.08 SF SUB-TOTAL SECOND FLOOR: 5,855.08 SF TOTAL NET LEASABLE: 21,996.95 SFTENANT 'B' NET LEASABLE AREA: 3,928.94 SFTENANT 'A' NET LEASABLE AREA: 1,959.69 SF REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P82 IV.A. TE N A N T ' B ' 01 0 EL E V . 02 0 ST A I R # 1 03 0 NO N - U N I T CO M M O N A R E A : 19 8 . 7 7 S F NE T L E A S A B L E A R E A : 8, 4 4 9 . 7 3 S F UP DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 7/30/15 TT18-5-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER NL-2NET LEASABLE PLAN--447 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 LO W E R L E V E L P L A N - N E T L E A S A B L E N NET LEASABLE CALCULATIONS:LOWER LEVEL:SUB-TOTAL LOWER LEVEL: 8,449.73 SFTENANT 'B' NET LEASABLE AREA: 8,449.73.94 SF MAIN LEVEL:TENANT 'C' NET LEASABLE AREA: 1,803.51 SF SUB-TOTAL MAIN LEVEL: 7,692.14 SF SECOND FLOOR:NET LEASABLE AREA: 5,855.08 SF SUB-TOTAL SECOND FLOOR: 5,855.08 SF TOTAL NET LEASABLE: 21,996.95 SFTENANT 'B' NET LEASABLE AREA: 3,928.94 SFTENANT 'A' NET LEASABLE AREA: 1,959.69 SF REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P83 IV.A. MAIN FLOOR 0' - 0"SECOND FLOOR 15' - 0"PARAPET 28' - 0"T/O GLAZING 12' - 0"T/O UPPER GLAZING 23' - 0"LOW PARAPET 19' - 0"ROOF 27' - 0"T/O ELEVATOR 30' - 0"ADJACENT RETAIL BUILDING SM O O T H N A T U R A L ST O N E B U L K H E A D TU M B L E D M O D U L A R BR I C K I N 1 / 2 RU N N I N G B O N D , T Y P . PA I N T E D E X P O S E D ST E E L LI G H T F I X T U R E , T Y P . SM O O T H N A T U R A L ST O N E , T Y P . ST O R E F R O N T SY S T E M , T Y P . DE C O R A T I V E CO R N I C E , T Y P . RE C E S S E D ST O N E D E T A I L , T Y P . EL E V A T O R OV E R R U N EX P O S E D S T E E L TR E L L I S S U P P O R T WO O D T R E L L I S BE A M , T Y P . CO R B E L L E D BR I C K P A R A P E T DE T A I L , T Y P . LI G H T F I X T U R E , T Y P . BR I C K A R C H , T Y P . BR I C K D E T A I L I N G , T Y P . HE R R I N G B O N E BR I C K P A T T E R N EX T R U D E D BR I C K D E T A I L I N G , T Y P . EX I S T I N G S T A I R A N D EL E V A T O R C O R E TO R E M A I N MAIN FLOOR 0' - 0"SECOND FLOOR 15' - 0"PARAPET 28' - 0"SOUTH FIN.GRADE 3' - 0"ROOF 27' - 0"T/O ELEVATOR 30' - 0" AD J A C E N T B U I L D I N G EL E V A T O R OV E R R U N TU M B L E D M O D U L A R BR I C K I N 1 / 2 RU N N I N G B O N D , T Y P . LI G H T F I X T U R E BE Y O N D , T Y P . SM O O T H N A T U R A L ST O N E , T Y P . DE C O R A T I V E CO R N I C E , T Y P . 30 ' - 0 " DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 7/30/15 TT18-5-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER A-210EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS--447 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 NO R T H E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 WE S T E L E V A T I O N REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P84 IV.A. SECOND FLOOR 15' - 0"PARAPET 28' - 0"SOUTH FIN.GRADE 3' - 0"T/O GLAZING 12' - 0"T/O UPPER GLAZING 23' - 0"LOW PARAPET 19' - 0"ROOF 27' - 0"T/O ELEVATOR 30' - 0" SM O O T H N A T U R A L ST O N E B U L K H E A D , T Y P . TU M B L E D M O D U L A R BR I C K I N 1 / 2 RU N N I N G B O N D , T Y P . PA I N T E D E X P O S E D ST E E L SM O O T H N A T U R A L ST O N E , T Y P . ST O R E F R O N T SY S T E M , T Y P . DE C O R A T I V E CO R N I C E , T Y P . EL E V A T O R OV E R R U N EX P O S E D S T E E L TR E L L I S S U P P O R T WO O D T R E L L I S BE A M , T Y P . CO R B E L L E D BR I C K P A R A P E T DE T A I L , T Y P . LI G H T F I X T U R E , T Y P . BR I C K D E T A I L I N G , T Y P . HE R R I N G B O N E BR I C K P A T T E R N EX T R U D E D BR I C K D E T A I L I N G , T Y P . MAIN FLOOR 0' - 0"SECOND FLOOR 15' - 0"PARAPET 28' - 0"SOUTH FIN.GRADE 3' - 0"T/O GLAZING 12' - 0"T/O UPPER GLAZING 23' - 0"ROOF 27' - 0"T/O ELEVATOR 30' - 0" EL E V A T O R OV E R R U N SMOOTH NATURAL STONE BULKHEAD, TYP.TUMBLED MODULAR BRICK IN 1/2 RUNNING BOND, TYP.PAINTED EXPOSED STEELSMOOTH NATURAL STONE, TYP.STOREFRONT SYSTEM, TYP.DECORATIVE CORNICE, TYP. EX I S T I N G S T A I R A N D EL E V A T O R CO R E T O R E M A I N FIRE RATED WINDOW ASSEBLIES DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 7/30/15 TT18-5-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER A-211EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS--447 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 SO U T H E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 EA S T E L E V A T I O N REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P85 IV.A. UP DN DN UP NE W T W O ST O R Y R E T A I L BU I L D I N G NE W P E D E S T R I A N EN T R Y D O O R NE W P E D E S T R I A N EN T R Y D O O R PE D E S T R I A N DI S T A N C E : 2 0 ' - 6 " PE D E S T R I A N DI S T A N C E : 5 6 ' - 6 " PE D E S T R I A N DI S T A N C E : 8 7 ' - 6 " 79 ' - 4 " R O U T E BE T W E E N D O O R S . 46 ' - 1 0 " R O U T E BE T W E E N D O O R S . PE D E S T R I A N DI S T A N C E : 1 4 ' - 7 " PE D E S T R I A N DI S T A N C E : 1 0 ' - 6 " PE D E S T R I A N DI S T A N C E : 5 2 ' - 0 " PE D E S T R I A N DI S T A N C E : 9 0 ' - 0 " 45 ' - 7 " R O U T E BE T W E E N D O O R S . 85 ' - 1 " R O U T E BE T W E E N D O O R S . PE D E S T R I A N DI S T A N C E : 7 ' - 5 " PA V E D W A L K 7 3 ' - 8 " P E D E S T R I A N M A L L AL L E Y CO O P E R A V E . P E D E S T R I A N M A L L AD J A C E N T TW O S T O R Y BU I L D I N G AD J A C E N T TW O S T O R Y BU I L D I N G PE D E S T R I A N DI S T A N C E : 7 7 ' - 0 " 72 ' - 0 " R O U T E BE T W E E N D O O R S . DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 7/30/15 TT18-5-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER TIATIA SITE PLAN--447 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO 1 " = 1 0 ' - 0 " 1 TI A S I T E P L A N REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P86 IV.A. P 8 7 I V . A . P 8 8 I V . A . P 8 9 I V . A . P 9 0 I V . A . P 9 1 I V . A . P 9 2 I V . A . P 9 3 I V . A . P 9 4 I V . A . P 9 5 I V . A . P 9 6 I V . A . P 9 7 I V . A . P 9 8 I V . A . P 9 9 I V . A . P 1 0 0 I V . A . P 1 0 1 I V . A . P 1 0 2 I V . A . P 1 0 3 I V . A . P 1 0 4 I V . A . P 1 0 5 I V . A . P 1 0 6 I V . A . P 1 0 7 I V . A . P 1 0 8 I V . A . P 1 0 9 I V . A . P 1 1 0 I V . A . P 1 1 1 I V . A . P 1 1 2 I V . A . P 1 1 3 I V . A . P 1 1 4 I V . A . P 1 1 5 I V . A . P 1 1 6 I V . A . P 1 1 7 I V . A . P 1 1 8 I V . A . P 1 1 9 I V . A . P 1 2 0 I V . A . P 1 2 1 I V . A . P 1 2 2 I V . A . P 1 2 3 I V . A . P 1 2 4 I V . A . P 1 2 5 I V . A . P 1 2 6 I V . A . P 1 2 7 I V . A . P 1 2 8 I V . A . P 1 2 9 I V . A . P 1 3 0 I V . A . P 1 3 1 I V . A . P132 I V . A .