The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20150930 AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING September 30, 2015 5:00 PM City Council Meeting Room 130 S. Galena St. 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISITS A. None. 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. OLD BUSINESS A. 434 E. Cooper- Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Viewplane Review, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 9TH (5:10) B. 305- 307 S. Mill Street- Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Viewplane Review, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JULY 22ND (6:00) IV. NEW BUSINESS A. None. V. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: Resolution #26, 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\7647.doc 9/24/2015 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– Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review and View plane Review, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 9TH DATE: September 30, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to construct a new building on this site. The property is in the Commercial Core Historic District and therefore development requires HPC review. The board discussed the project on September 9th and continued it, primarily for further direction from the City Attorney regarding the status of a 2006 HPC approval to demolish the existing structure. According to the historic preservation ordinance, a demolition permit cannot be issued until a replacement building is approved. Since 2006, Conceptual approval has been granted three times for this property (for three different designs), but final review has not been requested. After further evaluation, given the history of this particular property, the City acknowledges that it may be difficult to conclude that the demolition approval has lapsed or that the applicant has failed to pursue an approval in a timely fashion, especially since demolition authorization was considered valid during hearings held in 2012. However, the property owner has been advised that the current application is subject to Municipal code Section 26.340.070.F, requiring timely pursuit of a site-specific development plan. Demolition approval could be rendered void if there is an abandonment of this application. Topics to be addressed by HPC are architectural design, parking, transportation impact, public amenity, utility/delivery/trash, and view plane. As with all Conceptual reviews, Council will have the authority to call up any aspect of HPC’s determination and require the board to reconsider the project. APPLICANT: 434 E. Cooper Avenue, LLC, 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. P3 III.A. 2 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 below. P4 III.A. 3 There have been no changes to the design for this meeting. 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 require modulation of 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 guidelines also require modulation of the façade in a way that expresses the traditional 30’ lot widths. At the previous hearing, staff questioned whether the project met this guideline: The board indicated that the stone pilasters across the façade adequately divide the building into 30’ modules. For clarification, the 30’ modules would have historically been along the Cooper Avenue façade, not the Galena façade. Lots are 30’ wide on the north and south lot lines and 100’ long on the east and west lot lines. At Final review, staff will encourage revision of the storefront design to include a significant entry point on the Cooper Avenue façade as another means of creating modulation along the front, rather than side lot line. Staff also recommended restudy of the rounded corner feature, citing this guideline. 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 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. P5 III.A. 4 HPC members did question the corner treatment, which is a 45 degree chamfer on the ground floor and a rounded corner on the upper floor. Among the concerns were the fact that the proposed fenestration at the corner creates a two story entry, which is not consistent with the Victorian era development downtown. In addition, there are no other rounded corners amongst the historic buildings downtown except for the Elks Building, which is a building of greater stature, topped with a dome. Proposed project Tomkins Hardware, the original Victorian era structure at 434 E. Cooper P6 III.A. 5 Staff recommends that, in order to receive Conceptual approval, the project must be revised to a 45 degree chamfer at the corner on both floors. On September 9th, staff and board members suggested that the proposed materials and fenestration may require additional consideration in the final review application. It is an HPC policy to distinguish new from old and not directly copy Aspen’s historic architecture. However, in an infill project like this one, strong references should be made to the forms, materials and fenestration in the downtown context. Board members indicated that the proposal may speak more to architecture of other places than it does of Aspen. The historic district only includes two distinct styles; Victorian and Modern, with no development occurring in between. This circumstance helps to tell the story of Aspen’s boom and bust development. Inserting pre- Victorian or turn of the century design ideas into the downtown is inappropriate and misrepresents local history. In addition to design considerations, 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 for 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. P7 III.A. 6 3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of-way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. 4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls, sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian environment. 5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection 26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements. Staff 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. P8 III.A. 7 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. 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. P9 III.A. 8 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 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 has designed the interior of the main floor in a way that appears to meet Building Code requirements. MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE No mountain view plane may be 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 P10 III.A. 9 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 portion of the proposed building that falls within the Wheeler Opera House View Plane is the south-facing second level corner. The 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 grant Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Viewplane Review with the following conditions: 1. Revise the project for Final review so that the corner of the building is a 45 degree chamfer on both floors. 2. Submit a more detailed Transportation Impact Analysis for Final HPC review. 3. Mitigate for parking generated by new net leasable space with a cash-in-lieu payment. 4. Mitigate for public amenity equivalent to 10% of the lot size with a cash-in-lieu payment. 5. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an P11 III.A. 10 application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. Exhibits: Resolution #__, Series of 2015 A. Design Guidelines B. September 9th HPC minutes C. Application 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. P12 III.A. 11 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. 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. P13 III.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. 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. P14 III.A. 13 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 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. P15 III.A. 14 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. Paint telecommunications and mechanical equipment in muted colors that will minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds. P16 III.A. Historic Preservation Commission Reso No. __, Series 2015 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. ___ (SERIES OF 2015) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN AND VIEW PLANE APPROVAL FOR 434 E. COOPER AVENUE, LOTS Q, R, AND S, BLOCK 89, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2737-182-16-011 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from 434 E. Cooper Avenue, LLC (Applicant), represented by Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning for the following land use review approvals: • Major Development Conceptual Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415; • Commercial Design Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412; and • Viewplane Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.050; and, WHEREAS, all code citation references are to the City of Aspen Land Use Code in effect on the day of initial application – May 4, 2015, as applicable to this Project; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Environmental Health Department, Parks Department, Parking Department, Public Works Department, and the Transportation Department as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Application and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, and Section 26.304.060.B.4, Modification of Review Procedures, all other necessary land use reviews, as identified herein, have been combined to be considered by the Historic Preservation Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, such combination of review procedures was done to ensure clarity of review, was accomplished with all required public noticing provided as evidenced by an affidavit of public noticing submitted to the record, and the public was provided a thorough and full review of the proposed development; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on September 30, 2015, continued from September 9, 2015, during which time the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were requested and heard by the Historic Preservation Commission; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on September 30, 2015, the Historic Preservation Commission approved Resolution #__, Series of 2015, by a __ to __vote, granting P17 III.A. Historic Preservation Commission Reso No. __, Series 2015 Page 2 of 3 conceptual approvals and view plane exemption, with the recommended conditions of approval listed hereinafter. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1:Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Historic Preservation Commission hereby grants – Conceptual Major Developmen approval, Conceptual Commercial Design approval and Viewplane Exemption, subject to the applicant redesigning the project for Final review so that the corner of the building is a 45 degree chamfer on both floors. The applicant must also submit a more detailed Transportation Impact Analysis for Final review. Section 2: Viewplane Exemption Viewplane Exemption is granted pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.050.C.1. Section 3: Subsequent Reviews Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Applicant is required to obtain Final Major Development Review, Final Commercial Design Review and Growth Management Review. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. Section 4: Parking Cash in lieu is required for parking mitigation as calculated in accordance with the Land Use Code. Section 5: Public Amenity Cash in lieu is required for public amenity mitigation equivalent to 10% of the size of the lot, calculated in accordance with the Land Use Code. Section 6: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department and the Historic Preservation Commission are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. P18 III.A. Historic Preservation Commission Reso No. __, Series 2015 Page 3 of 3 Section 7: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 8: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 30th day of September, 2015. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: __________________________ ______________________________ Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Willis Pember, Chair Attest: _______________________________ Kathy Strickland, Deputy Clerk Attachments: Exhibit A: Conceptually approved elevations and floor plans P19 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 1 Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Bob Blaich, Patrick Sagal and Michael Brown. Jim DeFrancis, Sallie Golden, John Whipple, Nora Berko and Gretchen Greenwood were absent. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Sara Adams, Senior Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Sara Nadolny, Planner MINUTES: Willis moved to approve the minutes of August 26th 2015 as amended by Bob, Michael and Willis. Motion second by Bob. All in favor, motion carried. Disclosure: Michael said he has known the applicant for 434 E. Cooper and 447 E. Cooper, Mark Hunt for 20 years. Debbie asked whatever personal feelings you may have about Mr. Hunt can you set those aside and make an impartial decision based on the facts and record. Michael said without question. 434 E. Cooper – Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Demolition and View plane Review, Public Hearing Debbie said the affidavit of posting is in order: Exhibit I Amy said we would like the board to not discuss demolition tonight. We are going to discuss the design issues. The property is in the historic district. Conceptual is about height, scale, massing and proportions. The height limit is 28 feet and the floor area is 2/1 so the applicant could be proposing a building of 18,000 square feet which is where they are at. The property is in the path of a view plane projecting from the Wheeler Opera house which is on the southwest upper floor of the site and HPC has to consider whether there is an impact on the view plane. We do find that the design guidelines P20 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 2 have been met. With the commercial design guidelines they were written when the heights were higher than they are today. The applicant is proposing 28 feet across the site and we find that meets many of the design guidelines which ask for downtown development to be a two story form. There are two guidelines that we think need restudy. The guidelines talk about the façade having some kind of modulation reflecting that the historic town site lots are 30 feet wide by 100 feet deep. We would like to see the 90 foot street frontage have some kind of division whether it is through a column or some other architecture feature to break down the scale of the building into 30 foot wide modules. We don’t see that in the proposed design. Maybe there could be some kind of modulation of the cornice. We have also recommended a restudy of the corner and we support some kind of chamfered or some relief on the corner. A flat face chamfered is more typical than the rounded corner that is shown. We have some concern about fenestration but that is for final. The ground floor is usually glassy and the storefronts are emphasized and the upper floors are more punched minimum openings and there is a distinction between ground floor and second floor. We don’t see that in this application. Affordable housing mitigation will be handled at final. The applicant is also generating the need for around 7 new parking spaces on the site and they are proposing to mitigate with a cash-in- lieu payment. The applicant has provided an initial study as to how they would improve the area (transportation impact analysis). Sara Nadolny said the redevelopment requires the provision of on-site public amenity space or cash-in-lieu payment. Ideally 25% is dedicated to public amenity. The code does allow a deficit to be maintained. The applicant is proposing a roof top terrace as their public amenity space which exceeds the 10% requirement. Staff is not supportive of this kind of mitigation. There is no commercial space that is directly adjacent to the proposed deck. Staff fears limited activity on the roof top level and there are no plans that this will be an activated space. We aren’t suggesting the public amenity be taken care of at the ground level because this is located on a pedestrian mall. Staff is recommending cash-in-lieu payment for the public amenity. With the utility trash delivery area it is located off the alley and the transformer is open to the sky. Environmental Health has reviewed the trash area and find it to meet the size requirements and with an overhang to the building. The trash area is accessed by all tenants through the interior corridor. The Building Dept. has raised an issue that the exit must be a fire rated door and cannot open directly to the trash area. There needs to be a P21 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 3 hallway between the corridor and trash area that meets code for fire safety. That will be restudied for final. The mountain view plane - Sara said the wheeler view plane hits at approximately ten feet in height and exits at about 16.6 at the south and it is impacting a small corner of the south facing second level. Numerous buildings intervene with the view plan already: Paragon bldg. and Independence Bldg. Staff is recommending view plane approval due to the existing buildings encroaching well into this view plane. Amy said staff is recommending continuation to study modulation of the façade to reflect historic lot widths and eliminate the rounded corner and deal with the building code issue. Amy pointed out that windows on the first floor should not be equal with the windows on the second floor in size. Mitch Haas, Mark Hunt, Dwayne Romero Mark Hunt said they have looked at a lot of different options. We wanted something to hold the corner. We have tried to respect the architecture and elements of the buildings in and around town and make a gesture on the openings of architecture of today. We are limited to 28 feet and there is a three foot slope on the site on the mall side of 25 feet. I have always liked the Elks Building and the curve in front. We are proposing steel with older forms of masonry. The details on the building are reminiscent of the mining era to roughen the building up a little. The corner breaks the façade up with a steel element. The 30 foot bays going down Galena are broken with columns. Each column is indigenous stone from here and each column is different and it is hand cut stone with a random stacking. One of our goals was to respect the 30 foot grid. The building reads as one building but the individual tenants would have some sense of their own presence. Mitch said we are OK with the cash-in-lieu which would amount to around $90,000. We can fix the trash situation. On the Wheeler view plan it is one corner of the building. All the intervening buildings interfere and you can’t possibly see the property from the Wheeler advantage point. The Red Onion annex bldg. maintains a vested approval for a 38 foot tall addition plus a ten foot elevator override on top. The Independence Square building is over 40 feet tall. On the corner element the idea was to provide a more modern interpretation of a chamfered. In the past upper floors were for residential uses or office use. In our current economy we are finding second floor retail spaces in Aspen struggle. It would be nice to have those second floor retail P22 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 4 spaces to be in a more modern building that provides a modern interpretation of what the old purposes were but signify commercial use. Dwayne Romero said this building as proposed and the other buildings are to create better spaces and better buildings and creating smarter buildings. We are recognizing our iconic treasures which create vitality. This application for the Bidwell bldg.is smaller as proposed than the existing envelope. That is rare and there are no penthouses. This building will create foot traffic that will bring people into the Cooper mall. Michael asked if studies were done on the chamfered edge. It was stated that the columns are 30 feet wide. Mark said the columns are 30 feet on Galena and on Cooper we have 90 feet so they are a little smaller on the Cooper mall. Willis inquired how the three foot drop from the corner northward is being handled. Mark said on the ground floor there will be varying heights. Each of the store fronts have different floor heights. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public comment portion of the agenda item. Phyllis Bronson – I saw the drawings for Base I and II and I like them. For me 434 E. Cooper is a visionary building and reflects architecture in town. The red brick/stone is a contemporary use of materials that are congruent with Aspen. The design of the front has grown on me. That building has been ‘dead’ for years. Andrew Sandler – Marks vision is revolutionary and evolving for the community. Base I, II and the Gap building and this building are forward thinking that we need to attract more people to town. The building is gorgeous. Jay Maytin – I applaud the applicant for creating a good design and it compliments Terry Butler’s hotel very well. The chamfered corner opens up to the mall and public. This is a small building with no residential component. I hope HPC approves this project when it’s time to do so. P23 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 5 Ernie Frywald - I have seen the evolution of businesses come and go. Mr. Hunt purchased my family’s building, the Gap building. Changing the building the way he did on the Gap has made that a dynamic part of our town. This project needs to be done. I like the two-story massing and the Cooper mall needs a boost. Tom Yoder, Kemo Sabe – The building is awful as is. It was stated that everyone would have 30 foot spaces. I am making a public appeal to Mark to stay in this corner. You need to think about Aspen. We can’t please everyone. It is all about determination and it concerns me that we might end up with a cookie cutter environment. We would like to be involved and make a dynamic impressive store in Aspen. Kemo Sabe is one of the must see destinations in this town. It is not the building that will make this successful. Frank Heger - My business is the Aspen Goldsmith and I have been in business for 20 years. I plead with you to keep some kind of character in Aspen intact. There is no small business that can pay $150. dollars a square foot. If you keep destroying the old buildings you will wipe out any kind of local character in this town. Jim Farre – The building is a challenged structure from a merchandising standpoint. The applicant is highly mindful of the aesthetics. The red stone is great and this building is a home run. The building is actually getting smaller. Phyllis Bronson – I don’t want to see Aspen homogenized and Mark isn’t doing that. If you get to see what Mark is doing most of it is not radical, it is transformative. Amy entered two letters into the record. One from Bob Jackobsen who is concerned with the evolution of the downtown was in the packet. A letter from Mari Rainer who’s concerned with impacts on the view plane. Exhibit II. A letter from Sherrie Cutler in support of the design, Exhibit III. Chairperson, Willis Pember closed the public comments. Applicant rebuttal: P24 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 6 Mark said the 30 foot module is a guideline and it is not to try and make everyone happy. It is about what fits in and what we can be proud of on the corner. We really focused on the design and we want to make it work for a retail experience. Willis thanked the applicant and those individuals who came to the meeting. Willis identified the issues: View plane Utility and trash Mass and scale Standards Public amenity cash-in-lieu A 30 foot module is encouraged by the guidelines The corner treatment Willis said the building is not creating any major issues with the view plane. The likelihood of buildings being redeveloped that would expose this building to be worse is virtually impossible. The trash and utility can be rectified for the Building Dept. Cash-in-lieu for the public amenity is appropriate. I agree with Amy that the height, two story block is the right gesture at this corner. The 30 foot modulation is generally satisfied with the vertical pilasters that are down the mall and Galena Street. Maybe for final you could map out in town examples where brick and metal are used. Michael said there are no impacts being created by this building regarding the view plane. The trash utility area sounds reasonable if the Building Dept. approves it. I have no issue with the cash-in-lieu for the public amenity. There is a lot to be sorted out with the fenestration on the second floor. The materials are very successful. With respect to the modulation of the bays I’m still thinking about that and the corner. Bob said he appreciated Mark’s comments regarding the design. The project overall fits in both with form and materials in Aspen. There were some historic references to the chamfered corner and it is appropriate. Rather than having a hard corner it softens the building. I would support the application and maybe some tweaking. Willis said staff is recommending a squared corner. You can have a chamfered entrance but a square second floor is typical of an Aspen block. P25 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 7 Patrick said the utility trash is fine. The steel and brick usage is great. The chamfered is also great. I feel the curve on the second floor is fine and steel is a unique usage. The building is a reference to the Elks building the way you designed it. The 30 foot modules are great and the mass and scale should enhance the modules so that it looks like there are 6 commercial spaces that would draw retail to it. On the second floor windows maybe they could be smaller and have a little more historic character to them. The first floor is chamfered and the second floor is rounded. The second floor can have different treatments. Willis said the corner reads like a two story entrance whether it is curved or flat. Historically guidelines never supported two story grand entrances whether it is a residence or commercial structure. Do we want to support a two story entrance or a once story scale entrance. A one story entrance is more in the spirit of the guidelines and commercial development downtown. Michael said this building has to dialogue with the building across the plaza. Bob said if you take away the curved element then you are going to come back with a flat corner. Mark said he has a chambered corner on the first and second level which give it a softer corner. The steel is a design element to soften the corner instead of looking at one big stone building. It breaks it in half at the corner. It is a small building compared to the other corners. MOTION: Willis moved to continue 434 E. Cooper to September 30th; second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. P26 III.A. May 4, 2015 Ms. Sara Adams, Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Conceptual Major Development Review, Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Mountain Viewplane Exemption Application for 434 East Cooper Avenue (Parcel Identification Number 2737-182-16-011) Dear Sara: Please consider this letter and the attached plans set from Charles Cunniffe Architects (CCA) to constitute a formal request for Conceptual Major Development Review, Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Wheeler View Plane Review approvals for a proposed redevelopment of the property located at 434 East Cooper Avenue. The 434 Property is legally described as Lots Q, R and S, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen. The applicant (434 East Cooper Avenue, LLC) intends to demolish and replace the existing building. In 2006, the previous owner of the property (Bert Bidwell Investment Corp) submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) a formal application for demolition. On May 24, 2006, a public hearing was held, and a decision was made by the HPC to allow demolition. The decision to allow demolition was called-up to the City Council where the demolition approval was upheld. Since it has been resolved that the existing building is not historically significant (the property was also left off of the Aspen Modern list of potentially historic properties) but still resides within the Commercial Core Historic District, this conceptual review focuses solely on the project’s consistency with the Commercial Core Historic District and the HPC Design Guidelines relative thereto. The previous owner of the property received Conceptual Design Review approval from the HPC for redevelopment of the Mountain Plaza Building pursuant to Resolution No. 20, Series of 2007. During that review, the Community Development Director determined that the Conceptual Design HAAS LAND PLANNING, HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLCLLC • 420 E . MAIN STREET, SUITE 10-B • ASPEN, COLORADO • 81611 • • PHONE: (970) 925-7819 • EMAIL: MITCH@HLPASPEN.COM • P27 III.A. 434 E Cooper Redevelopment Application Page 2 Review could be combined with the Mountain View Plane Review pursuant to then Code Section 26.304.060(B)(1). If the HPC had considered the site plan, height, scale, massing and proportions of the proposed development without simultaneously deciding the View Plane Exemption it would have been counterproductive and could have resulted in a duplicative and possibly contradictory review process. Allowing for the combined review before the HPC avoided these pitfalls without any circumvention of the review process. As part of Resolution No. 20, Series 2007, the HPC found the impact on the Wheeler Opera House Viewplane to be minimal and granted the requested exemption for development of a three-story structure. Conceptual Design Review and the Mountain Viewplane Review were combined during the second review as well. The maximum height of the redevelopment currently proposed in this application is significantly lower (only two stories and 28 feet), and thus will have even less, if any, impact on any view plane. Another proposal for the property was approved in 2012 and featured a two-story building with only commercial retail space and a maximum height of 28 feet, similar to what is currently proposed. That proposal also received a Wheeler Opera House Viewplane exemption approval. Through all of these reviews, the Viewplane regulations and the standards for an exemption were the same and, today, they remain exactly as they were. 434 East Cooper Avenue, LLC, is the owner of the property, and respectfully submits this application. Proof of the applicant’s ownership is provided in Exhibit 1. Authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC, to represent the applicant is provided in Exhibit 2. Consistent with the Pre-Application Conference Summary prepared by Sara Adams and attached hereto as Exhibit 3, this application is submitted pursuant to the following sections of the City of Aspen Land Use Code (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”): 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, including 26.304.060(B)(1), Combined Reviews; 26.412, Commercial Design Review; 26.415.070, Historic Preservation; 26.415.080, Demolition of Properties within a Historic District; 26.435.050, Mountain Viewplane Review; 26.515, Parking; 26.575.030, Public Amenity; 26.610, Impact Fees; 26.630, Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines; and 26.710.140, Commercial Core (CC) Zone District. A Vicinity Map showing the approximate location of the property within the City of Aspen is attached as Exhibit 4. An Improvement Survey Map showing the existing condition of the property as well as the breath and heights of the Wheeler Opera House Viewplane relative to ground elevation is provided as Exhibit 5. The Land Use Application, Dimensional Requirements, and HOA Compliance Forms are attached as Exhibit 6, and a Transportation Impact Analysis (TDM-MMLOS Interactive Tool) and TIA Site Plans are attached as P28 III.A. 434 E Cooper Redevelopment Application Page 3 Exhibit 7. Finally, an executed City of Aspen Fee Agreement and a list of mailing addresses of record for all owners of property within a 300-foot radius of the subject site are provided as Exhibits 8 and 9, respectively. The applicant has attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Code and to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the application. Nevertheless, questions may arise which require additional information and/or clarification. Upon request, Haas Land Planning, LLC, will gladly and timely provide such additional information as may be required in the course of the review. Background and Existing Conditions The building at 434 E. Cooper Avenue, known as the Mountain Plaza Building or the Bidwell Building, was built in 1965. It is a two-story office/retail building with a footprint of approximately 6,300 square feet on a 9,026 square foot lot, at the northwest corner of East Cooper Avenue and South Galena Street. It is a heavy timber structure with a flat roof, deep overhangs and a wood post- supported first-story arcade overhanging the sidewalk and public right-of-way along South Galena Street and parts of the Cooper Avenue mall. At the corner of the site is a sunken courtyard, with access to basement level commercial space. As mentioned above, this building is not historic and has had several redevelopment proposals approved over the past 8-plus years, all of which received Mountain Viewplane Exemptions. Code Section 26.515.030 provides that the existing commercial use generates an off-street parking requirement of one (1) space for every 1,000 square feet of net leasable area. The existing net leasable area is 15,132 square feet and would, under current Codes, require a total of 15.1 off-street spaces. Due to the transformer pad, stairs, loading dock, light well grate, and dumpster that all sit behind the building, there is only room for one legitimate off-street parking space on the property. With only one legal parking space existing on-site, the property maintains an off-street parking deficit of 14.1 spaces. The Proposal The applicant is requesting approvals for Major Development (Conceptual), as well as Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Mountain Viewplane Exemption. The proposed development involves demolition of the existing building and replacement with a new, two-story commercial building. All applications for conceptual approval of a major development project must receive a determination of consistency with the City of Aspen Historic P29 III.A. 434 E Cooper Redevelopment Application Page 4 Preservation Design Guidelines (hereinafter “the Guidelines”) to be approved. Given that the property is located in the Commercial Core Historical District and that the applicant is seeking conceptual commercial design review approval, the application must demonstrate consistency with the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines (the “Commercial Guidelines”). Two previous redevelopment proposals for the property entailed three-story, mixed-use buildings (commercial, office, free-market residential and affordable housing) with heights exceeding 40 feet. Another proposal that was approved in 2012 and remains valid today features a two-story building with only commercial retail space and a maximum height of 28 feet, similar to what is currently proposed. The still valid approval includes demolition of the existing structure as well as a Wheeler Opera House Mountain Viewplane exemption. The current proposal has no residential development component, and fully complies with the Commercial Core zoning. Although Mountain Viewplane Exemption is needed for this proposal, all of the prior approvals for the property have been granted this exemption due to a lack of visibility from the designated vantage points along the Hyman Avenue sidewalk in front of the Wheeler Opera House. All of the prior approvals involved buildings that were either taller than or the same height as that currently proposed. Through all of the prior reviews, the Viewplane regulations and the standards for an exemption remained exactly as they exist today. This modest and neighborhood compatible redevelopment proposal is fully depicted on the accompanying CCA Plans Set. The subject property is located on one of, if not the most, prominent corners in the Commercial Core. The proposed building has been designed to serve as an anchor to this corner, but at the same time not overwhelm it, as was desired by the public and the City Council during the previous redevelopment reviews for the property. The proposed building provides a current yet historically compatible design that will return this property to the proper alignment of the streets and alleys by being sited mostly parallel to the lot lines, except for a small chamfer angle to open the corner of Cooper and Galena. The chamfered corner is respectful of the similar design features bordering the entire intersection, including the chamfered corner on the Independence Square Building, the angle of the Volk Building (Paradise Bakery) and the setback of the Guido’s/Casa Tua building. Consistent with all prior approvals for the subject property and its location on the Cooper Avenue pedestrian mall, no street-level public amenity space is proposed. Instead, two equally sized second-level decks with a combined total of 1,022.6 square feet (one on the Galena Street side and one on the Cooper Avenue mall side) are proposed to satisfy the 903 square foot amenity space requirement. P30 III.A. 434 E Cooper Redevelopment Application Page 5 The Galena Street frontage is 100 feet long and the proposed design provides for three distinct “modules,” with the outer modules each having a width of approximately 30 feet. These “modules” integrate both old and new materials and elements that create balance between the structure and all of the surrounding architecture. There are no interior courts or sunken courtyards proposed, and all entrances are on the sidewalk/street level, providing for pedestrian friendliness and accessibility for physically challenged persons. The new building will compliment the historic Aspen Block building located across the alley, as well as the historic Red Onion Building and the Paradise Bakery Plaza across the street, and will greatly increase pedestrian interest and activity. The design of this building is sympathetic to these structures, and none will be overwhelmed by this development. In fact, this entire building is lower in height than, subservient to and compatible with all of these buildings. The Utility/Trash/Recycle area is located at the far northwest corner of the alley frontage (behind Commercial Space C), creating little to no visual impact on/from Galena Street. All commercial spaces have interior, ADA-compliant access to the trash and recycling storage area, which measures 10 feet wide by just over 21 feet deep. A ten-foot by ten-foot, open to the sky, transformer pad and utility area is provided adjacent to the trash and recycling storage area. Also on the alley, a delivery and receiving door is located immediately to the east of the trash and recycling area, providing interior access to every tenant space. The proposed development will contain approximately 20,005 square feet of net leasable commercial area. Since there is a deficit of 14.1 spaces, the off-street parking requirement is 5.9 spaces (20.0-14.1), which will be completely satisfied through the payment of cash-in-lieu as allowed by right pursuant to Code Section 26.515.030. The payment-in-lieu of parking will be due and payable at the time of building permit issuance for the redevelopment. At the currently codified rate of $30,000, which may be amended, the payment due would be $177,000 ($30,000 x 5.9). Payment of the in-lieu fee does not require any review or approval and does not represent a variance or variation in any way whatsoever. Please refer to the submitted plans set for clear details with respect to the design and program of the proposed development. Review Requirements Given the above-described proposal and accompanying plans set, approvals are needed for Conceptual Major Development, Commercial Design Review and Mountain Viewplane Review. P31 III.A. 434 E Cooper Redevelopment Application Page 6 A. Conceptual Approval of a Major Development All applications for Conceptual approval of a Major Development project must receive a determination of consistency with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (“the Guidelines”) to be approved. Chapter 1 of the Guidelines is not applicable as it concerns streetscapes and lot features on residential buildings. Chapters 2 through 10 are likewise inapplicable as they refer to the rehabilitation of Historic Structures; the current project involves redevelopment properties that have been deemed non-historic. Chapter 11 is also inapplicable as it provides guidelines for new buildings and additions on residential Landmark Properties. Chapter 12 is concerned only with design in the Main Street Historic District and, therefore, does not apply to this proposal. The project has been designed to be generally consistent with the guidelines of Chapter 14, but specific consistency with those guidelines will be demonstrated as part of the HPC Final review. Since the proposed development is located on a non-historic lot in the Commercial Core, its design must comply with Chapter 13 of the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Guidelines. However, this Chapter’s guidelines have been replaced by the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines, Commercial Core Historic District, which are discussed below in the Commercial Design Review section of this application. B. Demolition of Properties within a Historic District Code Section 26.415.080 states that no properties located within a Historic District can be demolished without HPC approval. Subsection A(4) provides the criteria that HPC must use in determining whether or not to approve the demolition and states the following: 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 P32 III.A. 434 E Cooper Redevelopment Application Page 7 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. The existing building was built around 1965, cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, and has no historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, thus meeting the first criteria (c) and (d), above. Furthermore, the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the Commercial Core, and its loss would not adversely affect the integrity of the District. Although the Red Onion is near the property, the loss of the existing building will not adversely affect its aesthetic relationship to the Red Onion. Demolition of this building will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Therefore, the second set of criteria (a) through (c) is met. It should also be noted that the existing building has been approved for demolition numerous times over the past 8 years, with one such approval remaining valid today. C. Conceptual Commercial Design Review Approval by the HPC Section 26.412.050 of the Code provides the review criteria for Commercial Design Review and states, in relevant part, that the proposed development must comply with the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial Design Standards, as well as the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. The proposed development is located in the Commercial Core Historic District. The design standards of Section 26.412.060, as well as the Commercial Core Historic District Design Review Guidelines are all enumerated below in italicized print, and each is followed by a description of the proposal’s compliance and/or consistency therewith, as applicable. The following design standards, in addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district design objectives and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed-use development: A. Public amenity space. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-of-way or private property within commercial areas. P33 III.A. 434 E Cooper Redevelopment Application Page 8 On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method or combination of methods of providing the public amenity shall be at the option of the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, according to the procedures herein and according to the following standards: 1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. 2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent rights-of-way are encouraged. 3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of-way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. 4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls, sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian environment. 5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection 26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements. According to Code Section 26.575.030(A), public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-of–way or private property. Subsection B states that the public amenity requirement is 25%. However, for redevelopment of parcels where less than 25% currently exists, the existing percentage is the effective requirement provided that in no case shall the requirement be less than 10%. The existing public amenity space on the property is substantially less than 903 square feet, as has been demonstrated and accepted in all previous applications for the subject property. As such, the effective public amenity space requirement upon redevelopment is 10%, or 903 square feet on the subject 9,026 square foot lot. The design of the existing building has eroded this important corner of the Commercial Core for decades. Since this property is already situated alongside/fronting on the Cooper Avenue pedestrian mall (a major public amenity space), the proposed design sites the building lot line to lot line (with the exception of the chamfered corner), as is desired throughout the applicable Guidelines. However, the new building has been designed to read as only one- story along its central modules on both Galena Street and the Cooper Avenue Mall in order to enhance the pedestrian experience and create vitality. P34 III.A. 434 E Cooper Redevelopment Application Page 9 Code Section 26.575.030.C provides the four methods that may be used to satisfy the provision of public amenity, including the following: on-site provision of public amenity; off-site provision of public amenity; cash-in-lieu provision; and alternative method. The provision of on-site, street-level public amenity space meeting the codified design and operation standards is unbefitting of the property location on a pedestrian mall; on-site space would be inefficient and redundant, especially since the City can be expected to allow seasonal privatization of mall space for outdoor dining areas. The applicant believes that the approximately 1,023 square feet of second-floor deck space qualifies and should be approved as public amenity space consistent with many previous City of Aspen approvals as well as Code Sections 26.575.030.C.4, F.5 and F.10. This deck area equates to a public amenity space of 11.4% (1,022.6sf divided by 9,026sf of lot area), or 120 square feet more space than required. Consistent with the codified design and operational standards for public amenity, the proposed decks will be: 1) open to view from the street at pedestrian level; 2) open to the sky; 3) unenclosed; 4) free of storage areas, utility/trash service areas, delivery areas or parking areas (as an aside, all such areas must also be accommodated on ground level of this 9,026 square foot lot and leave little remaining room for redundant public amenity space); 5) within stipulated grade limitations given that the Commission is specifically authorized to approve second level public amenity space; 6) easily maintained; 7) will have adequate pedestrian and emergency vehicle access; and 8) meets the parameters of the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. As such, the decks satisfy all applicable Section 26.575.030.F design and operational standards for public amenity. For this reason, similar second floor, outdoor deck areas, such as but not limited to the space on the redeveloped “Gap Building” site, the space on the approved but not yet built Sky Hotel, the upper floor courtyard at 409 East Hopkins, and the rooftop of the Base 1 Lodge, to name just a few, have all been accepted and approved by the City in satisfaction of the public amenity requirements. Additional discussion of the proposed amenity space is provided on pages 16-18, below, in response to the standards specific to second level public amenity from the Commercial Design Standards and Objectives for the Commercial Core. Please also refer to and consider these on-point guidelines and responsive narratives. B. Utility, delivery and trash service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and P35 III.A. 434 E Cooper Redevelopment Application Page 10 trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply: 1. A trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum size and location standards established by Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, unless otherwise established according to said Chapter. 2. A utility area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum standards established by Title 25, Utilities, of the Municipal code, the City’s Electric Distribution Standards, and the National Electric Code, unless otherwise established according to said Codes. 3. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located and combined to the greatest extent practical. 4. If the property adjoins an alleyway, the utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be along and accessed from the alleyway, unless otherwise approved through Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. 5. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be fenced so as not to be visible from the street, unless they are entirely located on an alleyway or otherwise approved though Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. All fences shall be six (6) feet high from grade, shall be of sound construction, and shall be no less than ninety percent (90%) opaque, unless otherwise varied through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. 6. Whenever utility, trash, and recycle service areas are required to be provided abutting an alley, other portions of a building may extend to the rear property line if otherwise allowed by this Title, provided that the utility, trash and recycle area is located at grade and accessible to the alley. 7. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. 8. All commercial and lodging buildings shall provide a delivery area. The delivery area shall be located along the alley if an alley adjoins the property. The delivery area shall be accessible to all tenant spaces of the building in a manner that meets the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. All non- ground floor commercial spaces shall have access to an elevator or dumbwaiter for delivery access. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be utilized as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International Building Code. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. P36 III.A. 434 E Cooper Redevelopment Application Page 11 9. All commercial tenant spaces located on the ground floor in excess of 1,500 square feet shall contain a vestibule (double set of doors) developed internal to the structure to meet the requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen, or an air curtain. 10. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. 11. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. 12. The trash and recycling service area requirements may be varied pursuant to Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code. All other requirements of this subsection may be varied by special review (see Chapter 26.430.040.E, Utility and delivery service area provisions). Pursuant to Code Section 12.10.030(A)b., a 20’W x 15’D x 10’H area for trash and recycling storage must be provided for Commercial Buildings that will contain or that will have the capacity to contain an establishment with a Retail Food Service License. While no retail food service businesses are currently contemplated in the proposed development, it is being designed with the capacity to contain such a business. Also, the reserved trash and recycling storage space must be adjacent to the alleyway. The proposed Utility/Trash/Recycle area is located at the far northwest corner of the alley frontage (behind Commercial Space C), creating little to no visual impact on/from Galena Street. All commercial spaces have interior, ADA- compliant access to the trash and recycling storage area, which measures 10’W by 21’-1”D and with a vertical clearance of 12’ along and accessed from the alley. A ten-foot by ten-foot, open to the sky, transformer pad and utility area is provided adjacent to the trash and recycling storage area. Also on the alley, a delivery and receiving door is located immediately to the east of the trash and recycling area, providing interior access to every tenant space. The dimensions of the trash and recycling storage area are subject to variation through special review by the Environmental Health Department under Code Section 12.10.080. Such approval is hereby requested and resolution of the final required trash and storage area design/layout will occur prior to Final HPC and Commercial Design Review. P37 III.A. 434 E Cooper Redevelopment Application Page 12 Utility connections and meters can be accommodated on the north side of the proposed structure either alongside the transformer pad, alongside the trash and recycling storage area, or a combination of both. In addition, mechanical spaces are provided within the structure. The transformer will remain open to the sky and building egress will not be through the trash/recycling area. The proposed utility, trash and recycling areas are sited at grade, along and accessed via the adjoining public alleyway at the rear of the properties. These will not be visible from Galena Street. The proposed commercial spaces have inset doors that can easily accommodate an airlock or air curtain during winter months so as to enable compliance with the International Energy Conservation Code, as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. The Utility/Trash/Recycle service area and its dimensions are depicted on the proposed main level floor plan included in the architectural plans prepared by CCA and provided herewith. The Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines (the “Commercial Guidelines”) set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The Commercial Guidelines are organized to address the different design contexts that exist in the City. These distinct settings, or contexts, are defined as "Character Areas," within which variations exist among the physical features that define each area. The proposed development is located in the “Commercial Core” character area. These Guidelines replaced Chapter 13 of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Per the Commercial Guidelines, all development projects should achieve the following design objectives: • Promote an interconnected circulation system that invites pedestrian use, including a continuous street and alley system and a respect for the natural topography; • Promote a system of public places that support activities, including public amenity spaces, compatible landscaping and paving, and unobtrusive off-street parking; and • Assure that buildings fit together to create a vibrant street edge that reinforces a sense of appropriate scale. The proposed development achieves the above-cited design objectives and does so in a manner that far exceeds the existing building’s consistency. The proposed design creates a more vibrant and visually interesting street edge by being sited at the lot lines, which will reinforce a sense of appropriate scale that has long be absent on this important corner in the Commercial Core. Additionally, this P38 III.A. 434 E Cooper Redevelopment Application Page 13 building will not overwhelm but instead compliment this important pedestrian- friendly area. The chamfered corner element coupled with the removal of the arcade roof forms over the sidewalks will lend an “open” feel to the corner. The site’s location on the Cooper Avenue pedestrian mall guarantees an interconnected circulation system that promotes pedestrian use and a system of public places that support activities, amenity spaces, and compatible landscaping and paving. The existing character of the Commercial Core is explained as follows: The heart of Aspen centers around the Commercial Core Historic District. It is the first area that developed in the early mining days of the town and its character reflects this rich mining heritage, which is the image that many carry with them of this historic Colorado mountain town. Each historic building contributes to the integrity of the district and preservation of all of these resources is, therefore, crucial. This is especially important as new development continues. The purpose of the Commercial Core (CC) zone district is stated in Section 26.710.140(A) of the Code as follows: “to allow the use of land for retail, service commercial, recreation, and institutional purposes within mixed-use buildings to support and enhance the business and service character in the historical central business core of the City...The district permits a mix of…uses oriented to both local and tourist populations to encourage a high level of vitality. Retail and restaurant uses are appropriate for ground floors of buildings…” (This Purpose statement is somewhat outdated, as the District no longer allows free-market residential uses, largely precluding development of mixed-use buildings.) The proposed development will retain the existing commercial use of the building while enhancing and improving this important corner of the Commercial Core. The redevelopment will support and enhance the business and service character in the historical central core of the City. The key design objectives in the Commercial Core are as follows: 1. Maintain a retail orientation. Traditionally the hub of Aspen and the center of commercial and cultural activity, the Commercial Core should remain so. Designs for new construction should reinforce the retail-oriented function of the street and enhance the pedestrian character. 2. Promote creative, contemporary design that respects the historic context. While new construction should be compatible with the historic character of the district, designs should not copy early styles but instead should seek creative new solutions that convey the community’s continuing interest in exploring innovations. At the same time, the fundamental principles of traditional design must be respected. P39 III.A. 434 E Cooper Redevelopment Application Page 14 This means that each project should strike a balance in the design variables that are presented in the following pages. 3. Maintain the traditional scale of building. The Commercial Core of the City is likely to experience continuing market pressure for hotel, commercial and residential development and the parallel needs of affordable commercial and residential accommodation. It is important that future growth acknowledges, complements and enhances the existing scale and character of the area. 4. Reflect the variety in building heights seen traditionally. New development should stay within the range of building heights, and be designed to reflect the variation in height across original lot widths. The scale of form of a new building should be designed to safeguard the setting of a historic building, whether single story or the large ‘iconic’ three plus stories. 5. Accommodate outdoor public spaces where they respect the historic context. The street vitality associated with the center of the city should be retained and enhanced through a combination of the form and design of the walkable street network and associated areas of public gathering space at street level and above. The design of any public space within the core should be a central consideration in the design and configuration of the building, to ensure that it contributes to a positive experience in the street scene, whether or not used for street dining. 6. Promote variety in the street level experience. Architectural form should recognize existing scale and diversity and build upon established design traditions, creativity and innovation in a manner which strengthens the architectural richness and identity of the city core. The contextual contribution of building and storefront design will depend on detailed consideration of the street façade and associated landscaping and paving. 7. Preserve the integrity of historic resources within the district. The original form, character, materials and details of historic resources should be maintained. This applies to individual structures of landmark quality as well as more modest “contributing” structures. The proposed redevelopment meets the key design objectives listed above as follows: • The proposed design reinforces the retail-oriented function of the streets and greatly enhances the pedestrian character; • The proposed development is a contemporary interpretation of traditional design that will be seen as a product of its own time, yet will be entirely P40 III.A. 434 E Cooper Redevelopment Application Page 15 compatible with the district as a whole as well as the nearby and historic Aspen Block and Red Onion buildings; • The design acknowledges, is consistent with, complements and enhances the existing scale and character of the area; • The building height is only 28 feet and significant portions of the second level are set some fifteen (15) feet back from the street-fronting façades. All historic buildings in the area have been taken into consideration; • The design of the building, as well as the recessed entries, the window treatments and numerous storefront windows all combine to promote variety in the street level experience; and, • The integrity of reverence for all historic resources within the district is preserved by the proposed compatible, complimentary and subservient design. Outlined below is each of the Commercial Core’s Conceptual Review Design Guidelines in italicized print, followed by a description of the proposal’s compliance and/or consistency therewith, as applicable. Street Grid 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. The proposed development will return this property to a pattern that aligns with the streets and alleys by being sited parallel to the lot lines. The existing building is L-shaped, with a sunken courtyard at the corner of Galena and the Cooper Avenue Mall, and, as such, detracts from and erodes the established town grid. The proposed development will reestablish consistency with the town grid by providing storefronts at the street edge on both Galena Street and the Cooper Avenue Mall. Finally, the existing arcades that encroach into the rights-of-way and obscure the retails spaces and storefront windows will be removed. Internal Walkways 6.2 Public walkways and through courts, when appropriate, should be designed to create access to additional commercial space and frontage, within the walkway and/or to the rear of the site. • See also: Public Amenity Space design guidelines. P41 III.A. 434 E Cooper Redevelopment Application Page 16 No internal public walkways or through courts are proposed. Alleys 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. The alley façade will feature quality materials. The utility/trash/recycle area is appropriately located along the alley and at the furthest possible location from the street. The alley treatment is consistent with that of all newer buildings in the downtown area. Parking 6.4 Structured parking should be placed within a 'wrap' of commercial and/or residential uses. • The exposure of auto entry areas should be minimized. 6.5 Structured parking access should not have a negative impact on the character of the street. The access shall be: • Located on an alley or secondary street if necessary. • Designed with the same attention to detail and materials as the primary building façade. • Integrated into the building design. There is no structured parking proposed. Public Amenity Space 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. P42 III.A. 434 E Cooper Redevelopment Application Page 17 • 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 The detailed design of Public Amenity Space, with regard to guidelines 6.8, will be a matter for approval at the Final Review Stage, although it may be discussed at the Conceptual Stage. The design of the existing building has eroded this important corner of the Commercial Core for decades. Since this property is already situated alongside/fronting on the Cooper Avenue pedestrian mall (a major public amenity space), the proposed design sites the building lot line to lot line (with the exception of the chamfered corner), as is desired throughout the applicable Guidelines. However, the new building has been designed to read as only one- story along its central modules on both Galena Street and the Cooper Avenue Mall in order to enhance the pedestrian experience and create vitality. According to Code Section 26.575.030(A), public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-of–way or private property. Subsection B states that the public amenity requirement is 25%. However, for redevelopment of parcels where less than 25% currently exists, the existing percentage is the effective requirement provided that in no case shall the requirement be less than 10%. The existing public amenity space on the property is substantially less than 903 square feet. As such, the effective public amenity space requirement upon redevelopment is 10%, or 903 square feet on the subject 9,026 square foot lot. Please refer to the Public Amenity Space discussion on pages 8-9, above. Additional narrative with regard to Public Amenity is provided below, in reference to Guidelines 6.12 through 6.15. Guidelines 6.9 through 6.11 discuss mid-block walkway and alley-side public amenity spaces and are not applicable to the proposed development. Guidelines 6.16 and 6.17 address front yard amenity spaces and are, likewise, not applicable. Guidelines 6.12 through 6.15 are directly applicable to the current proposal as said Guidelines address second level amenity spaces. Per the Commercial Design Standards, P43 III.A. 434 E Cooper Redevelopment Application Page 18 An outdoor patio space on the second floor, which is directly accessible to the general public, will be considered as a form of public amenity space when it is compatible with the historic context and is clearly inviting for public use. This will be most successful in association with outdoor dining space. In this respect it may be favorably considered within sites affected by mountain view planes. As discussed above, and for the various reasons explained in the foregoing, the applicant is proposing 1,022.6 combined square feet of equally sized decks as public amenity. These decks are located adjacent to the adjoining Galena Street sidewalk and Cooper Street mall. The proposed amenity space has been demonstrated to provide compatibility with the historic context and will be clearly inviting for public use. The proposed second level amenity will be used for commercial deck space and will reside on a site that it within the Wheeler Opera House Mountain Viewplane. 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 s seen from the street. Compatibility of the proposed second level amenity space with the character of the commercial core historic district has been demonstrated at length throughout the foregoing narratives. There are no historic resources on the subject property itself. 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. As was required with other second level public amenity spaces approved by the City, consistent public access will be ensured. As is customary and consistent with prior City approvals, and public safety and liability concerns and practices, and given that the space will be associated with commercial use, public access will be extended only during hours of business operation. The proposed second floor amenity spaces provide a public overlook, with open views to the pedestrian mall, the street scene and Aspen Mountain. A sign identifying the second level amenity and its access will be provided on the building and at the Cooper Avenue mall street level. P44 III.A. 434 E Cooper Redevelopment Application Page 19 6.14 Second level space should be oriented to maximize solar access and mountain views, or views of historic landmarks. The proposed second floor public amenity spaces will benefit ample sunshine, as the property is located on the south side of the street/mall. Mountain views and views of the historic Independence Square building will abound. 6.15 Second level space should provide public access by way of a visible and attractive public stair or elevator from the public street, alley, or street level amenity space. The proposed 1,022.6 square feet of second level amenity space provides public access by way of a visible and attractive public stair and elevator, both of which are easily reached from the Cooper Avenue pedestrian mall. Building Setbacks 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. The existing building is not in compliance with this standard and erodes the historic integrity of the Commercial Core. Most of the existing façade is setback significantly from the property line, including the sunken courtyard. The Guidelines state that, “[a] uniform wall of building fronts is vitally important to the historic integrity of the district and should be preserved.” If the existing building were proposed today, it would be inconsistent with both these and the Commercial Guidelines. The proposal places the entire façade of the building at the property lines, with no setbacks (other than appropriately recessed entries and the chamfered corner), creating a uniform wall of building fronts and a strong edge to the street. This development will be built out to the full width and depth of the parcel, reestablishing the historic integrity of the Commercial Core at this prominent corner location. Building Orientation 6.20 Orient a new building to be parallel to its lot lines, similar to that of traditional building orientations. P45 III.A. 434 E Cooper Redevelopment Application Page 20 • 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 entryway. • Do not orient a primary entrance to an interior court. • Providing secondary public entrances to commercial spaces is also encouraged on larger buildings. The proposed building is oriented parallel to the lot lines, similar to that of traditional buildings. The proposed building has two “fronts” since it is on a corner lot, and the design orients a “front” on both Galena Street and the Cooper Avenue mall. The existing building has one entrance that can only be accessed by taking a stairway down to a sunken courtyard. Some of the other existing entrances have stairs leading up to them, making this building unfriendly to pedestrians and largely inaccessible to people with disabilities. The other entrances are set back from the street frontage and tucked under arcades or other forms of overhanging balconies, diminishing what little street-orientation they might otherwise have. The new building, by contrast, will have clearly defined and recessed primary entrances that are oriented toward the respective streets. The commercial space at the corner of Galena and Cooper provides primary and secondary entrances, as encouraged by this guideline. There are no interior courts or sunken courtyards proposed, and all entrances are on the sidewalk/street level, providing for pedestrian friendliness and accessibility for people with physical disabilities. Building Form 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 form. The proposed building is rectangular in form and the fenestration is vertically oriented. The façade is predominantly flat while decorative elements and setback “articulations” all complement, but remain subordinate to the dominant rectangular form. True rectangular, vertically oriented forms are difficult to achieve where thirty-foot widths are the dominant traditional form in a Zone District that precludes heights of greater then twenty-eight feet, but vertically oriented fenestration patterns create the desired perception. P46 III.A. 434 E Cooper Redevelopment Application Page 21 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. The proposed building’s rooflines are flat and accentuated by appropriately scaled cornice lines. The building height, while measuring a consistent 28-feet at the top of the second floor area, steps down in scale along the Galena Street frontage as it follows the dropping grade from the Cooper Avenue mall to the alley. (See South Galena Street Elevation rendering.) 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. The alley’s effective width is already narrowed by the encroachment of the adjacent Aspen Block building into the alley. No projections are includes as such might further confine the space and make it more difficult for the alley to serve its needed functions. The proposed building is only two stories at the alley. Breaks in this height/mass will occur at ground level, where utilities, egress and trash/recycle areas must be accommodated. Building Height, Mass & Scale 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. This application proposes a two-story building with substantial portions of the second level set 15-feet back from the street edge at the center modules. The Galena frontage is 100 feet long and the proposed design provides for three distinct “modules,” with the flanking modules each being approximately 30 feet wide. The building height, while measuring a consistent 28-feet at the top of the second floor area, steps down in scale along the Galena Street frontage as it follows the dropping grade from the Cooper Avenue mall to the alley. (See South Galena Street Elevation rendering.) The floor-to-floor heights from ground level to the second floor are similar to those seen historically (15’, providing for an approximate 13’ retail space ceiling P47 III.A. 434 E Cooper Redevelopment Application Page 22 height), and consistent with the dimensional requirements of the Commercial Core Zone District. Traditional scale is maintained: the storefront windows are at a traditionally scaled height, compatible with the scale of the adjacent two- story buildings (the historic Aspen Block building across the alley on Galena, and the Red Onion to the west), as demonstrated on the provided Cooper Avenue Mall and South Galena Street elevation renderings. The design of the proposed building is sympathetic to these historic nearby structures, and neither the Red Onion nor the Aspen Block will be overwhelmed by this development. In fact, this entire building is lower in height than both of these important historic resources. The proposed development, on a prominent corner of the Commercial Core, will help to establish/reinforce an overall sense of unity of scale. 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. The only adjacent structure on the Galena Street side is the two-story Aspen Block building that is taller than the proposed structure. The portion of the proposed structure closest to the Aspen Block is similar but lower in height and includes a cornice line that complements, but is varied from, that of the Aspen Block’s architectural band/cornicing. The two-story portion of the proposed structure that is set some fifteen (15) feet back from the street-facing facades is lower in height than the Aspen Block and Red Onion buildings but sufficiently scaled to maintain variation and subservient compatibility. The proposed development is also subservient in mass, height and scale to the historic Red Onion building, which has a height of approximately 36-feet. Please refer to the accompanying plan set for graphic illustrations of the proposed building height in the context of surrounding development. 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. P48 III.A. 434 E Cooper Redevelopment Application Page 23 - 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 daylighting. The proposed structure reflects the range and variation in building height of the Commercial Core. Please also refer to the responses provided above relative to similar standards (i.e., 6.25 and 6.26). 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. 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. This application proposes a two-story building, much of which reads as a one- story structure because substantial portions of the second level are set some fifteen feet back from the façades on the Cooper and Galena sides of the building. The Galena frontage is 100-feet long and the proposed design provides for three distinct “modules,” with the flanking modules each being approximately 30 feet wide. Compatible massing, scale and height variation is provided relative to surrounding historic structures by virtue of horizontal design elements such as cornicing, transom windows and fenestration differentiations. Please also refer to the responses provided above relative to similar standards (i.e., 6.25 and 6.26). 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. P49 III.A. 434 E Cooper Redevelopment Application Page 24 The historic Aspen Block building is across the alley on Galena, and the historic Red Onion is one intervening building away on the Cooper Avenue mall. The design of this building is sympathetic to these historic structures, and neither will be overwhelmed by this development. In fact, this entire building is lower in height than, subservient to and compatible with both of these historic resources. 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 feet in height within 30 feet of the front façade. The proposed two-story building has a maximum height of 28 feet. Guideline 6.33 addresses new buildings that are adjacent to one-story historic residential buildings and, therefore, does not apply to this proposal. 6.34 The setting of iconic historic structures should 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. The iconic Aspen Block and Red Onion structures are located near the subject property (although the Aspen Block is across the alley). Also, the Independence Square Building is located diagonally across the street/mall. The building proposed on this lot will in no way negatively influence any of these structures as the proposed design and its 28-foot maximum height ensure subservient compatibility. D. Mountain View Plane Section 26.435.010(C) of the Code provides that development within designated mountain view planes is subject to heightened review so as to protect certain mountain views from obstruction, strengthen the environmental and aesthetic character of the City, maintain property values, and enhance the City’s tourist industry by maintaining the City’s heritage as a mountain community. In relevant part, there are two established and regulated view planes originating from 1) the Wheeler Opera House westerly of Mill Street, and 2) Main Street at the Hotel Jerome. No buildings or land uses are allowed to project above the established view planes without Planning and Zoning Commission or HPC approval. P50 III.A. 434 E Cooper Redevelopment Application Page 25 The accompanying Improvement Survey illustrates the breadth and elevation relative to ground level of the regulated view planes as they cross the subject property. The Improvement Survey also shows the affects of the view planes’ ascending height limitation as they project southward across the subject site. The Main Street view plane intersects the subject property line at a height of approximately 93 feet, making this view plane inapplicable since the zoned height limit is only 28 feet. The Wheeler View Plane height limit, on the other hand, intersects the westerly side of the subject property at approximately 14.5 feet above grade and rises to just 16.73 feet above ground where it leaves the property. Responses to the standards of Section 26.435.050(C) are provided below, as applicable to the proposed development. Said section of the Code states that, “No development shall be permitted within a mountain view plane unless the Planning and Zoning Commission [or Historic Preservation Commission] makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all of the requirements set forth below.” 1. 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, view plane height limitations. The Planning and Zoning Commission [or Historic Preservation Commission] after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Department, may exempt a development from being processed as a PD when the Planning and Zoning Commission [or HPC} 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 [or Historic Preservation 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 re-open the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning and Zoning Commission [or Historic Preservation Commission] shall P51 III.A. 434 E Cooper Redevelopment Application Page 26 exempt the development from the requirements of this Section. (Ord. No. 12, 2007, §22) With Community Development Director approval to combine reviews pursuant to Section 26.304.060(B)(1), all references to “the Planning and Zoning Commission” can be replaced with “the Historic Preservation Commission.” Thus, based on the foregoing Code language, the view planes only have the effect of reducing the height limit of the underlying zone district if the HPC will not approve the proposed encroachment into the Wheeler Opera House view plane (in such cases, a height limit variance is necessary and only attainable through the PD review process). The Code language provides that HPC approval of an exemption from the view plane height limitation shall be granted when another development already blocks the same view plane or when the proposed development is found to have only a “minimal effect on the view plane”; in making such a determination, the HPC is to consider two things: 1) whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane than does an existing development; and, 2) the likelihood of the already infringing structure(s) being, first, redeveloped and, second, redeveloped in a manner that would re-open the designated view plane. If the proposed development does not further infringe on the view plane, and redevelopment of the existing structure(s) infringing on the view plane cannot be anticipated, the proposed development is to be exempted from the view plane’s height limitation. Regardless, the HPC may exempt the development from being processed as a PD when it is determined that the proposed development has a minimal effect on the view plane. When the HPC approves an exemption from a designated view plane, the effective height limit, by default, is that of the underlying zone district. Further, when a proposed development warrants an exemption from the view plane but complies with the height limit of the underlying zone district (and, for that matter, all other applicable dimensional requirements), there remains no need for PD review. This is especially true of a development involving a property within a historic district, for such a development is already subject to HPC review and approval, which entails a heightened level of scrutiny (i.e., “special consideration”) with regard to mass, scale, bulk, site planning and design, affects on streetscape and pedestrian experiences, and neighborhood compatibility. The proposed development will not require a variance from any applicable dimensional requirement should the HPC grant a view plane exemption. The proposed structure has a maximum measured building height of just 28 feet, which is in compliance with the applicable limits of the CC zone district. P52 III.A. 434 E Cooper Redevelopment Application Page 27 Given the “Purpose” of the City’s Planned Development (PD) regulations, as stated in Section 26.445.010 of the Code, there would be nothing to gain by requiring the proposed development to proceed as a PD according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445. That is, the HPC review process is designed to encourage flexibility and innovation in the development of land while also requiring compatibility with historic resources. Views of Aspen Mountain from the Wheeler Opera House will not be compromised or further infringed upon as a result of the proposed development. Only a small portion of the subject property falls within the breadth of the mapped Wheeler View Plane, namely the southwest corner. Moreover, this portion of the proposed building will have no effect on the actual view plane as it exists today. Additionally, three existing buildings (two of which are designated historic landmarks) between the view plane origination point and the subject property already infringe upon the view plane as follows: the view plane intersects the T-shirt shop building at a height of only 8.5 feet above ground and this building has a height of approximately 11.5 feet; the view plane intersects the Morris and Fyrwald/Roaring Fork Building at a height of approximately 11 feet above ground and the existing building has a height of approximately 40 feet; and the view plane intersects the historic Red Onion Building at a height of approximately 12.5 feet while the landmark designated structure has a height of approximately 36 feet at the front. In addition, the historically designated Paragon Building has a height of more than 42 feet and also serves to completely block views of the subject property from the Wheeler Opera House origination points. Finally, the City has recently granted approvals that still remain vested for redevelopment of the Red Onion Annex Property, which is immediately west of and adjacent to the subject property. Said approvals allow a building height of 38 feet in the view plane corridor (plus an additional ten foot elevator overrun). If this were built as approved, it would further obliterate any view of the proposed building on this property. Moreover, the Red Onion Annex approvals included a Viewplane Exemption based on findings that the structure would not be visible from the designated vantage points, or would have minimal impact. Similarly, there are valid HPC approvals, including Mountain Viewplane exemption approval, for redevelopment of the subject property with a 28-foot tall structure. The currently applicable view plane review regulations are identical to those that were in place when the other approvals were granted. As such, it follows that the proposed 28-foot tall structure also satisfies the exemption criteria. The heights of the aforementioned buildings are such that the proposed development will not further infringe upon views of Aspen Mountain from the designated vantage point (see photo simulations provided herewith). In fact, it is P53 III.A. 434 E Cooper Redevelopment Application Page 28 believed that the proposed development will not be at all visible from the designated Wheeler Opera House Mountain Viewplane vantage points. As if the foregoing does not already fully satisfy the exemption standards, it is also noted that the proposed development is located immediately in front of the historically designated Independence Square Building with regard to the angled breath of the Wheeler Viewplane area. The view plane intersects the Independence Square Building at a height of approximately 24.5 feet above ground but the building has a height of approximately 42 feet, infringing almost 18 feet into the view plane. Given the cost of the existing and infringing buildings, the mitigation costs associated with redevelopment in the Commercial Core, and the likely results of Referendum #1 being put into affect, it is extremely unlikely that the infringing buildings will be redeveloped, let alone in a manner that will re-open the view plane. Of the listed structures infringing upon the view plane, the only one that could be anticipated for redevelopment is the T-shirt Shop; however, redevelopment to re-open the view plane would require a total building height of only 8.5 feet and this cannot be anticipated as it would not allow for compliance with building code requirements. The view plane infringing Independence Square Building and Red Onion Building are designated historic landmarks and are precluded from demolition, as is the Paragon Building. Since the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view planes and redevelopment of existing structures that already infringe upon the view plane cannot reasonably be expected to re-open the view plane, the Commission should approve the proposed exemption. Moreover, the HPC found that two previously proposed buildings on the property (which were both three stories) and adjacent property had only a minimal impact on the Wheeler Opera House view plane and approved those exemption requests. This newly designed building will have far less of an impact on the view plane as it is only a two-story building with a maximum height of 28 feet. The Code explains that the purpose of Mountain View Plane Review is to protect certain mountain views from obstruction, strengthen the environmental and aesthetic character of the City, maintain property values, and enhance the City’s tourist industry by maintaining the City’s heritage as a mountain community. The foregoing has amply demonstrated that the proposed development will not compromise the purpose of the mountain view planes but will, instead, further these purposes by strengthening the aesthetic character of the City, enhancing surrounding property values, promoting economic vitality and sustainability, and maintaining the City’s heritage as a mountain community. The view plane impacts of the proposal will be nonexistent and existing structures infringing P54 III.A. 434 E Cooper Redevelopment Application Page 29 upon the view plane will not be redeveloped in a manner that would re-open the view plane. E. Parking Section 26.515.030 of the Code provides the required number of off-street parking spaces for development in the City of Aspen. In the Aspen Infill Area, where this property is located, the required number of spaces for commercial use is one space per 1,000sf of Net Leasable Area (NLA). One-hundred percent (100%) of the required parking may be provided through cash-in-lieu. When a property is redeveloped an existing deficit of parking may be maintained. Due to the transformer easement, stairs, loading dock, light well grate, and dumpster that all sit behind the building, there is only one legitimate parking space off of the alley. The existing commercial building on the property has 15,132 square feet of NLA. This represents an existing parking deficit of 14.1 spaces. The proposed development includes a total of approximately 20,005 square feet of NLA, generating a requirement for 20 off-street parking spaces. After accounting for the existing 14.1 space deficit, the resulting off-street parking requirement is 5.9 spaces. As allowed by right pursuant to Code Section 26.515.030, this requirement will be fully satisfied through the payment of cash- in-lieu at the time of building permit issuance. At the currently codified rate of $30,000, which may be amended, the payment due would be $177,000 ($30,000 x 5.9). Payment of the in-lieu fee does not require any review or approval and does not represent a variance or variation in any way whatsoever. F. Impact fees Section 26.610.090 of the Code provides the established impact fees for development within the City of Aspen. The Parks Development fee is $4.10 per square foot of net leasable commercial space. The Transportation Demand Management/Air Quality impact fee is $0.46 per square foot of net leasable commercial space. Non-unit space does not count towards these fees. The additional net leasable commercial space from that existing amounts to 4,872.6 square feet. This would generate a Parks Development fee of $19,978, and a TDM/Air Quality fee of $2,241. These fees will be paid at the time of building permit issuance. G. Transportation Impact Analysis Please see the Transportation Impact Analysis (Transportation Demand Management/ Multi-Modal Level Of Service analysis, “TDM-MMLOS”) P55 III.A. 434 E Cooper Redevelopment Application Page 30 provided in Exhibit 7. While the “Example Minor TIA” provided on the City of Aspen Community Development Department webpage indicates the presence of an “Enforcement and Financing” section as part of the Tool, after a multitude of attempts, no such section can be found or otherwise exists when the Interactive Tool is opened on a Mac computer, which is the only type of system available to Haas Land Planning, LLC. Consequently, that section cannot be completed. Furthermore, the “Narratives” area on the Tool cannot be used on a Mac either as every time its use is attempted, several error messages and script debuggers open but no ability to input any of the required narratives is provided. Thus, the following provides the “Narrative” that accompanies the analysis contained in Exhibit 7; the applicant reserves the right to modify any of the following commitments prior to final project approvals. This is an application for conceptual design review and related issues only. Completion of the TDM-MMLOS, while required, is very much premature. Should the current application be approved, the subsequent application(s) will include final design details and all growth management related reviews. During that application review process is the appropriate time to fully consider the Transportation Demand Management and Multi-Modal Levels of Service impacts. Along these lines, the applicant cannot reasonably be expected at this time to fully understand what types of on- or off-site improvements or trip mitigation measures will eventually make sense. Similarly, the applicant cannot yet be expected to know what types of programs (i.e, amenities packages, shuttle services, TOP Participation, transit fare subsidies, employee parking cash-outs, workplace parking pricing, compressed work weeks, sponsored vanpools, etc.) each of the eventual tenants might be willing to implement with regard to transportation demand management. As such, it is requested that the TDM- MMLOS mitigation review be temporarily delayed and be required as part of the subsequent application for all growth management related approvals. Given the foregoing, to the extent that explanation is needed for those items the applicant has proposed credit for in the attached TDM-MMLOS Tool, the following narratives are provided. MMLOS Input Page, Item 2: The project adjoins the sidewalk of the west side of South Galena Street (9 foot width) at Townsite Block 89 and the East Cooper Avenue pedestrian mall (25-foot effective width). Both of these provide effective sidewalk widths that are greater than the standard minimum. See TIA Site Plan accompanying Exhibit 7. MMLOS Input Page, Item 7: As part of the project development, the applicant proposes to install an appropriate, improved and, if permitted, raised crosswalk running east-west across South Galena Street and linking the Cooper Avenue P56 III.A. 434 E Cooper Redevelopment Application Page 31 mall with the Paradise Bakery/Volk Plaza public amenity space. This improved crosswalk will serve the dual purpose of improved pedestrian safety and traffic calming. See TIA Site Plan accompanying Exhibit 7. MMLOS Input Page, Item 8: Several of the existing commercial spaces on the subject property can only be accessed by pedestrians through internal walkways that require traversing of stairs and that are set behind a sunken courtyard area. In addition, there is no direct pedestrian access to either of he existing restaurants from Hyman Avenue. The proposed redevelopment provides pedestrian access to entries serving each tenant space directly from the adjoining sidewalk or pedestrian mall, as applicable. See TIA Site Plan accompanying Exhibit 7. MMLOS Input Page, Item 9: The four provided pedestrian entries achieve directness factors ranging from 1.0 to 1.11, with an average directness factor of 1.06. Moreover, the proposed design and resulting pedestrian directness factor will be markedly improved over the condition of the property for the past 50- plus years. See TIA Site Plan accompanying Exhibit 7. MMLOS Input Page, Bicycle Parking: The existing bicycle racks adjacent to the subject property, on the Galena Street side and in the mall, are inadequate and in varying degrees of disrepair. The applicant proposes to replace these bicycle racks during construction of the project. The replacement bike racks will be of a size and design deemed appropriate by the City of Aspen Parks Department. See TIA Site Plan accompanying Exhibit 7. Rather than being given trips mitigation credit for being located within one block of the Rubey Park bus station, the applicant is effectively penalized for the lack of ability to improve transit facilities while a project located adjacent to subpar transit facility/bus stop benefits by having the ability to easily improve it. As such, based on the lack of availability, no other credit is proposed at this time under the “Transit” section of the MMLOS Input Page. TDM Input Page, Participation in TOP: The applicant will participate in the City’s Transportation Options Program and all employees will be eligible. All reporting requirements will be met. TDM Input page, Self-Funded Emergency Ride Home: Emergency ride home programs reduce barriers associated with alternative commute modes, thus reducing single-occupancy vehicle trips. The project will develop and fund a program to provide commuters who carpool, bike, walk or take transit to work with a reliable and free ride home should an emergency arise. In the case of an P57 III.A. 434 E Cooper Redevelopment Application Page 32 emergency and the need for an employee to unexpectedly leave work, either the employer will provide a ride himself/herself, or they will pay for the taxi fare. No additional TDM Input page credits are proposed. Enforcement and Financing: The MMLOS measures described above do not require any financing or enforcement. If approved, the applicant will be held to the proposed development, which guarantees the measures. The applicant will finance the development privately and, once built, will require no enforcement. Participation in the TOP will be provided and paid for the first five years of ownership to each tenant and move in. The tenant is responsible for enrolling in the program and payment for usage outside of the membership fees. Tenants will also be required to agree to the emergency ride home funding program. The TDM measures will be included in lease agreements and reviewed by the tenants, who will accept the terms by means of executing/agreeing to their lease. Scheduling and Implementation Measures: All MMLOS items will be completed during the construction phase of the project. They will be part of the plan set submitted to the City of Aspen Building Department for Engineering review. The applicant understands the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy is contingent upon satisfactory installation of the MMLOS improvements, as reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department and Parks Department, as applicable. These items will be the responsibility of the applicant. TDM measures will be implemented when tenants sign their lease agreements. Monitoring and Reporting: All MMLOS items will be completed during the construction phase of the project. The applicant understands the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy is contingent upon satisfactory installation of the MMLOS improvements, as reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Parks Departments, as applicable. Once installed and after a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, the improvements will require no additional monitoring or reporting as they will simply exist and function. With regard to the TDM measures, the property manager or other representative of the owner will issue a survey to the commercial tenants on an annual basis. This simple survey will determine what level of use the tenants engage in for the TDM measures and if they have effectively reduced trips. The survey results will be issued as an annual report to the City of Aspen Transportation Department. P58 III.A. 434 E Cooper Redevelopment Application Page 33 It is hoped that the provided information and responses prove helpful in the review of this application. Should there be any questions or should any additional information be desired, please do not hesitate to contact me. Truly yours, Haas Land Planning, LLC Mitch Haas Owner/Manager Exhibits Exhibit 1: Proof of Ownership Exhibit 2: Authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC to Represent the Applicant Exhibit 3: Pre-Application Conference Summary Exhibit 4: Vicinity Map Exhibit 5: Improvement Survey Map (Existing Conditions) Exhibit 6: Land Use Application, Dimensional Requirements, and HOA Compliance Forms Exhibit 7: Transportation Impact Analysis and TIA Site Plans Exhibit 8: Executed City of Aspen Fee Agreement Exhibit 9: Mailing addresses of record for all property owners within a 300- foot radius of the subject property P59 III.A. P 6 0 I I I . A . P 6 1 I I I . A . P 6 2 I I I . A . P 6 3 I I I . A . P 6 4 I I I . A . P 6 5 I I I . A . P 6 6 I I I . A . P 6 7 I I I . A . P68 I I I . A . P 6 9 I I I . A . P 7 0 I I I . A . P 7 1 I I I . A . P 7 2 I I I . A . P 7 3 I I I . A . P 7 4 I I I . A . P 7 5 I I I . A . P 7 6 I I I . A . P77 I I I . A . P78 I I I . A . P 7 9 I I I . A . P 8 0 I I I . 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 9/01/15 TT19-15-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER CS-1COVER SHEET13-4400513-44005 434 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO AS P E N , C O 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 S : T E D J . T H E O D O R E J R . , A R C H I T E C T , L E E D A P R O B A V I L A , L E E D A P OW N E R ' S R E P R E S E N T A T I V E & G E N E R A L C O N T R A C T O R : 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 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 VI C I N I T Y M A P DR A W I N G L I S T : SH E E T N U M B E R SHEET NAME CS - 1 CO V E R S H E E T PA - 1 EX I S T I N G P U B L I C A M E N I T Y PA - 2 PR O P O S E D P U B L I C A M E N I T Y P L A N S A- 0 1 0 PR O P O S E D S I T E P L A N FA R - 1 FL O O R P L A N - F A R C A L C U L A T I O N S FA R - 2 FL O O R P L A N - F A R C A L C U L A T I O N S NL - 1 FL O O R P L A N - N E T L E A S A B L E NL - 2 FL O O R P L A N - N E T L E A S A B L E A- 2 0 0 EX T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S A- 2 1 0 EX T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S AL T A EX I S T I N G L A N D S U R V E Y A- 1 1 1 PR O P O S E D F L O O R P L A N A- 1 1 2 PR O P O S E D F L O O R P L A N HC - 1 ST R E E T V I E W H E I G H T C O M P A R I S O N - - EX I S T I N G S I T E P L A N ( I S S U E D A S PART OF ORIGINAL SUBMISSION) - - EX I S T I N G N E T L E A S A B L E P L A N ( I S S U E D AS PART OF ORIGINAL SUBMISSION) - - EX I S T I N G N E T L E A S A B L E P L A N ( I S S U E D AS PART OF ORIGINAL SUBMISSION) - - EX I S T I N G F A R P L A N S ( I S S U E D A S PART OF ORIGINAL SUBMISSION) TI A TI A S I T E P L A N REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P81 III.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 9/01/15 TT19-15-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER ALTAALTA SURVEY13-4400513-44005 434 E. COOPER ASPEN, COREVISIONSNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P82 III.A. EX I S T I N G P U B L I C AM E N I T Y S P A C E I S LE S S T H A N 1 0 % O F LO T A R E A EX I S T I N G P U B L I C AM E N I T Y S P A C E : 24 3 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 9/01/15 TT19-15-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER PA-1EXISTING PUBLIC AMENITY13-4400513-44005 434 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO 3 / 3 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 EX I S T I N G P U B L I C A M E N I T Y REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P83 III.A. DN FU T U R E OU T D O O R A R E A 30 0 EL E V . 30 2 1 0 0 ' - 0 " 1 0 0 ' - 0 " ME C H . R M 30 4 ME C H . R M 30 5 ST A I R # 2 30 6 ST A I R # 1 30 3 1 9 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 1 3 ' - 6 " 9' - 6 " 9' - 6 " 1 3 ' - 6 " 1 8 ' - 0 " 22 ' - 3 " ME C H A N I C A L RO O F A R E A 20 5 SC R E E N W A L L 42 " H I G H GL A S S R A I L I N G , T Y P , PU B L I C A M E N I T Y A R E A : 2 , 7 0 0 S F GR E E N R O O F A R E A GR E E N R O O F A R E A G R E E N R O O F A R E A 1 8 ' - 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 9/01/15 TT19-15-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER PA-2PROPOSED PUBLIC AMENITY13-4400513-44005 434 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO N 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 RO O F P L A N - P R O P O S E D P U B L I C AM E N I T Y REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P84 III.A. NE W T W O S T O R Y RE T A I L B U I L D I N G W/ R O O F T E R R A C E TR A S H A R E A 30 0 S . F . IN F O R M A T I O N KI O S K EX I S T I N G L A N D S C A P I N G 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 S O U T H G A L E N A S T R E E T P U B L I C P A R K I N G P U B L I C P A R K I N G AD J A C E N T TW O S T O R Y BU I L D I N G PR O P E R T Y L I N E 1 0 0 ' - 0 " AD J A C E N T ON E S T O R Y BU I L D I N G 34 ' - 2 " 2 0 ' - 2 " WH E E L E R O P E R A H O U S E V I E W P L A N E HA T C H E D A R E A I N DI C A T E S P O R T I O N OF B U I L D I N G I N V I E W P L A N E OP E N T O S K Y 10 ' - 0 " 5' - 5 " 16 ' - 3 " O P E N T O S K Y 1 0 ' - 0 " T 90 ' - 3 " 1 8 ' - 6 " 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 9/01/15 TT19-15-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER A-010SITE PLAN13-4400513-44005 434 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO 1 " = 1 0 ' - 0 " 1 SI T E P L A N N REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P85 III.A. UPUP DN UP DN UP UPUP LO W E R L E V E L TE N A N T S P A C E L1 0 0 E L E V . L 1 0 2 ST A I R # 2 L1 0 3 M E C H R O O M # 1 L 1 0 4 9' - 6 " 77 ' - 8 " 9 7 ' - 0 " 4 3 ' - 8 " 9 ' - 8 " 4 3 ' - 8 " 6' - 3 1 / 2 " 90 ' - 2 " 1 0 0 ' - 0 " M E C H R O O M # 2 L 1 0 5 ST A I R # 1 L1 0 1 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 . ) EL E V A T O R PI T EL E V A T O R PI T 3 0 ' - 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 ST A I R # 1 10 5 E L E V . 1 0 6 ST A I R # 2 10 7 82 ' - 0 " 6' - 11"98' - 8"16' - 4"29' - 0" 22 ' - 0 " 3' - 8 " 22 ' - 0 " 3' - 8" 2 8 ' - 0 " 3 0 ' - 0 " 3 8 ' - 0 " 17 ' - 3 " 7' - 3 " TR A S H A R E A 30 0 S . F . C O R R I D O R 1 0 4 E L E V 1 0 8 90 ' - 2 " 3' - 1 0 " 3' - 8"25' - 4"3' - 8"25' - 4"3' - 8"25' - 4"3' - 8"9' - 4" 14 ' - 5 " 7' - 7 " 3' - 8 " 2 6 ' - 8 " 9 ' - 8 " 2 4 ' - 1 0 " 1 5 ' - 1 1 " 4 ' - 5 " LO B B Y 10 3 OP E N T O S K Y 10 ' - 0 " 1' - 0 " EG R E S S 4' - 5 " 16 ' - 3 " T 8 ' - 6 " BU I L D I N G OV E R H A N G AIR CURTAIN BY TENANT AIR CURTAIN BY TENANT AIR CURTAIN BY TENANT 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 . ) R A M P D O W N 8 . 3 % 1 7 ' - 0 " FI N . F L R . = 0 ' - 0 " FI N . F L R . = 0 ' - 0 " FI N . F L R . = ( - ) 1 ' - 5 " FI N . F L R . = ( - ) 1 ' - 5 " FI N . F L R . = ( - ) 2 ' - 4 " FI N . F L R . = ( - ) 1 ' - 5 " FIN. FLR. = (-)3'-0" FI N . F L R . = 0 ' - 0 " FIN. FLR. = 0'-0" 1 8 ' - 6 " RA M P UP 8 . 3 % CO L . , T Y P . 11 ' - 0 " 4' - 0 " E L E V 1 0 9 O P E N T O S K Y 1 0 ' - 0 " 4' - 4 " 4' - 5 " 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 9/01/15 TT19-15-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER A-111FLOOR PLANS13-4400513-44005 434 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 LO W E R L E V E L P L A N N 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 MA I N F L O O R P L A N NREVISIONSNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P86 III.A. DN UPUP DN DNDN DNDN ST A I R # 1 20 1 EL E V . 20 2 ST A I R # 2 20 3 1 0 0 ' - 0 " 6' - 9 1 / 2 " 3' - 2 1 / 2 " E L E V . 2 0 4 3' - 1 0 " 22 ' - 0 " 3' - 8 " 22 ' - 0 " 3' - 8 " 22 ' - 0 " 3' - 8 " 3 ' - 8 " 2 5 ' - 4 " 3 ' - 8 " 2 5 ' - 4 " 3 ' - 8 " 2 5 ' - 4 " 2 1 ' - 7 " 5 ' - 1 " 9 ' - 8 " 5 ' - 1 " 1 9 ' - 9 " 1 8 ' - 4 " 3 8 ' - 0 " 3 0 ' - 0 " 3 0 ' - 0 " 18 ' - 0 " 69 ' - 2 " 8 ' - 6 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 9' - 1 1 " 9' - 1 " E L E V . 2 0 5 TE N A N T ' B ' SE C O N D F L O O R 20 0 TE N A N T ' C ' SE C O N D F L O O R 20 6 ME C H . 20 8 CO R R I D O R 20 7 OP E N T O BE L O W 69 ' - 2 " FU T U R E OU T D O O R A R E A 30 0 EL E V . 30 2 100' - 0" ME C H . R M 30 4 ME C H . R M 30 5 ST A I R # 2 30 6 ST A I R # 1 30 3 1 3 ' - 6 " 9' - 6 " 9' - 6 " 1 3 ' - 6 " 2 0 ' - 0 " 24' - 3" 42 " H I G H GL A S S R A I L I N G , T Y P , ME C H A N I C A L RO O F A R E A 20 5 SC R E E N W A L L 2 0 ' - 0 " GR E E N R O O F A R E A GR E E N R O O F A R E A GREEN ROOF AREA 90 ' - 2 " 44 ' - 5 " 5 9 ' - 1 1 " 9' - 4 " 9' - 4 " 4 ' - 3 " 4 ' - 3 " 1 9 ' - 1 1 " 1 9 ' - 1 0 " 1 8 ' - 5 " 8 ' - 6 " 11 ' - 1 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 9' - 1 1 " 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 9/01/15 TT19-15-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER A-112FLOOR PLANS13-4400513-44005 434 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 2N D F L O O R P L A N N 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 RO O F T E R R A C E NREVISIONSNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P87 III.A. UPUP DN UP DN UP UP FL O O R A R E A S U M M A R Y : MA I N L E V E L : 8 , 6 9 4 . 2 8 S F LO W E R L E V E L : 9 , 0 1 6 . 6 7 S F SE C O N D L E V E L : 5 , 9 6 9 . 1 1 S F CO M M E R C I A L A R E A : 6 , 6 6 8 . 5 6 S F ( R E D ) CO M M O N A R E A : 2 , 0 2 5 . 7 2 S F ( B L U E ) DE D U C T I O N S : 0 S F AR E A T O W A R D S F A R : 8 , 6 9 4 . 2 8 S F CO M M E R C I A L A R E A : 8 , 0 5 9 . 9 5 S F ( R E D ) DE D U C T I O N S : 9 , 0 1 6 . 6 7 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 S F A R : 0 S F CO M M E R C I A L A R E A : 5 , 3 5 9 . 8 2 S F ( R E D ) DE D U C T I O N S : 0 S F AR E A T O W A R D S F A R : 5 , 9 6 9 . 1 1 S F ZONING INFORMATION AND CALCULATIONS:ZONING: (CC) COMMERCIAL CORE NET LOT AREA: 9,000 SF (90'-0" X 100'-0")ZONING ALLOWANCE (2:1) 18,000 SF (2 X 9,000 SF)CALCULATIONS:GROSS FLOOR AREA:COMMERCIAL SPACE: 20,088.33 SF COMMON SPACE: 7,319.27 SF EXEMPT SPACE: 12,744.21 SF DECK AREA ALLOWABLE AREA OF DECKS OVER 30" ABOVE GRADE: 15% (2,700 SF)UPPER ROOF TERRACE AREA: 2,700 SF DECK AREA 2,700 SF - 2,700 SF (ALLOWANCE) = 0 SF EXPOSED WALL BELOW GRADE NORTH: 0 SF EXPOSED SOUTH: 0 SF EXPOSED EAST: 0 SF EXPOSED WEST: 0 SF EXPOSED BELOW GRADE WALL AREA:NORTH: 90'-2"SOUTH: 90'-2"EAST: 100'-0"WEST: 100'-0"TOTAL: 380'-4" LENGTH X____29'-0" HEIGHT 11,029'-8" SF TOTAL WALL AREA 0 SF TOTAL EXPOSED WALL AREA 0 / 11,029'-8" = 0% APPLIED FINAL FLOOR AREA:MAIN LEVEL = 8,694.28 SF (0 SF EXEMPT)SECOND LEVEL = 5,969.29 SF (0 SF EXEMPT)ROOF LEVEL = 0 SF (3,727.54 SF EXEMPT)LOWER LEVEL = 0 SF (9,016.67 SF EXEMPT)CUMULATIVE = 14,663.39 SF (1.63:1 FAR) CO M M O N A R E A : 9 5 6 . 7 2 S F ( B L U E ) CO M M O N A R E A : 6 0 9 . 2 9 S F ( B L U E ) RO O F L E V E L : 3 , 7 2 7 . 5 4 S F CO M M E R C I A L A R E A : 0 S F DE D U C T I O N S : 3 , 7 2 7 . 5 4 S F ( B L U E & P U R P L E , E X E M P T ) AR E A T O W A R D S F A R : 0 S F TO T A L F A R : 1 4 , 6 6 3 . 3 9 S F ( 1 . 6 3 : 1 F A R ) CO M M O N A R E A : 1 , 0 2 7 . 5 4 S F ( B L U E ) LO W E R L E V E L TE N A N T S P A C E L1 0 0 E L E V . L 1 0 2 ST A I R # 2 L1 0 3 M E C H R O O M # 1 L 1 0 4 9' - 6 " 77 ' - 8 " 9 7 ' - 0 " 4 3 ' - 8 " 9 ' - 8 " 4 3 ' - 8 " 6' - 3 1 / 2 " 90 ' - 2 " 1 0 0 ' - 0 " CO M M O N A R E A : 44 0 . 7 0 S F ( E X E M P T ) CO M M E R C I A L A R E A : 8, 0 5 9 . 9 5 S F ( E X E M P T ) CO M M O N A R E A : 75 . 3 2 S F ( E X E M P T ) CO M M O N A R E A : 44 0 . 7 0 S F ( E X E M P T ) TE N A N T ' C ' 10 2 TE N A N T ' B ' 10 1 TE N A N T ' A ' 10 0 ST A I R # 1 10 5 E L E V . 1 0 6 ST A I R # 2 10 7 31 ' - 7 " 82 ' - 0 " 6' - 11"98' - 8"16' - 4"29' - 0" 22 ' - 0 " 3' - 8 " 22 ' - 0 " 3' - 8" 2 8 ' - 0 " 3 0 ' - 0 " 3 8 ' - 0 " 17 ' - 3 " 7' - 3 " TR A S H A N D UT I L I T Y A R E A C O R R I D O R 1 0 4 EL E V 10 8 90 ' - 2 " 3' - 1 0 " 3' - 8"25' - 4"3' - 8"25' - 4"3' - 8"25' - 4"3' - 8"9' - 4" 14 ' - 5 " 7' - 7 " 3' - 8 " 2 6 ' - 8 " 9 ' - 8 " 4 0 ' - 9 " 4 ' - 5 " CO M M E R C I A L AR E A : 6 , 6 6 8 . 5 6 S F CO M M O N A R E A : 1, 4 4 1 . 8 1 S F CO M M O N A R E A : 58 3 . 9 1 S F LO B B Y 10 3 RA M P UP 8 . 3 % 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 9/01/15 TT19-15-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER FAR-1FAR CALCULATIONS13-4400513-44005 434 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO N N 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 LO W E R L E V E L - F A R C A L C U L A T I O N S 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 MA I N F L O O R - F A R C A L C U L A T I O N S REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P88 III.A. DN UPUP DN DN DN FL O O R A R E A S U M M A R Y : MA I N L E V E L : 8 , 6 9 4 . 2 8 S F LO W E R L E V E L : 9 , 0 1 6 . 6 7 S F SE C O N D L E V E L : 5 , 9 6 9 . 1 1 S F CO M M E R C I A L A R E A : 6 , 6 6 8 . 5 6 S F ( R E D ) CO M M O N A R E A : 2 , 0 2 5 . 7 2 S F ( B L U E ) DE D U C T I O N S : 0 S F AR E A T O W A R D S F A R : 8 , 6 9 4 . 2 8 S F CO M M E R C I A L A R E A : 8 , 0 5 9 . 9 5 S F ( R E D ) DE D U C T I O N S : 9 , 0 1 6 . 6 7 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 S F A R : 0 S F CO M M E R C I A L A R E A : 5 , 3 5 9 . 8 2 S F ( R E D ) DE D U C T I O N S : 0 S F AR E A T O W A R D S F A R : 5 , 9 6 9 . 1 1 S F ZONING INFORMATION AND CALCULATIONS:ZONING: (CC) COMMERCIAL CORE NET LOT AREA: 9,000 SF (90'-0" X 100'-0")ZONING ALLOWANCE (2:1) 18,000 SF (2 X 9,000 SF)CALCULATIONS:GROSS FLOOR AREA:COMMERCIAL SPACE: 20,088.33 SF COMMON SPACE: 7,319.27 SF EXEMPT SPACE: 12,744.21 SF DECK AREA ALLOWABLE AREA OF DECKS OVER 30" ABOVE GRADE: 15% (2,700 SF)UPPER ROOF TERRACE AREA: 2,700 SF DECK AREA 2,700 SF - 2,700 SF (ALLOWANCE) = 0 SF EXPOSED WALL BELOW GRADE NORTH: 0 SF EXPOSED SOUTH: 0 SF EXPOSED EAST: 0 SF EXPOSED WEST: 0 SF EXPOSED BELOW GRADE WALL AREA:NORTH: 90'-2"SOUTH: 90'-2"EAST: 100'-0"WEST: 100'-0"TOTAL: 380'-4" LENGTH X____29'-0" HEIGHT 11,029'-8" SF TOTAL WALL AREA 0 SF TOTAL EXPOSED WALL AREA 0 / 11,029'-8" = 0% APPLIED FINAL FLOOR AREA:MAIN LEVEL = 8,694.28 SF (0 SF EXEMPT)SECOND LEVEL = 5,969.29 SF (0 SF EXEMPT)ROOF LEVEL = 0 SF (3,727.54 SF EXEMPT)LOWER LEVEL = 0 SF (9,016.67 SF EXEMPT)CUMULATIVE = 14,663.39 SF (1.63:1 FAR) CO M M O N A R E A : 9 5 6 . 7 2 S F ( B L U E ) CO M M O N A R E A : 6 0 9 . 2 9 S F ( B L U E ) RO O F L E V E L : 3 , 7 2 7 . 5 4 S F CO M M E R C I A L A R E A : 0 S F DE D U C T I O N S : 3 , 7 2 7 . 5 4 S F ( B L U E & P U R P L E , E X E M P T ) AR E A T O W A R D S F A R : 0 S F TO T A L F A R : 1 4 , 6 6 3 . 3 9 S F ( 1 . 6 3 : 1 F A R ) CO M M O N A R E A : 1 , 0 2 7 . 5 4 S F ( B L U E ) ST A I R # 1 20 1 EL E V . 20 2 ST A I R # 2 20 3 1 0 0 ' - 0 " 6' - 9 1 / 2 " 3' - 2 1 / 2 " 7' - 5 1 / 2 " EL E V . 20 4 3' - 1 0 " 22 ' - 0 " 3' - 8 " 22 ' - 0 " 3' - 8 " 22 ' - 0 " 3' - 8 " 3 ' - 8 " 2 5 ' - 4 " 3 ' - 8 " 2 5 ' - 4 " 3 ' - 8 " 2 5 ' - 4 " 7 9 ' - 6 " 9 6 ' - 0 " 87 ' - 2 " CO M M E R C I A L A R E A : 5, 3 5 9 . 8 2 S F CO M M O N A R E A : 60 9 . 2 9 S F OP E N T O BE L O W TE N A N T ' C ' SE C O N D F L O O R 20 6 TE N A N T ' B ' SE C O N D F L O O R 20 0 CO R R I D O R 20 7 ME C H . 20 8 EL E V . 20 5 FU T U R E OU T D O O R A R E A 30 0 EL E V . 30 2 100' - 0" 1 0 0 ' - 0 " ME C H . R M 30 4 ME C H . R M 30 5 ST A I R # 2 30 6 ST A I R # 1 30 3 1 9 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 1 3 ' - 6 " 9' - 6 " 9' - 6 " 1 3 ' - 6 " 1 8 ' - 0 " 22' - 3" ME C H A N I C A L RO O F A R E A 20 5 SC R E E N W A L L OU T D O O R T E R R A C E AR E A : 2 , 7 0 0 . 0 0 S F CO M M O N A R E A : 1, 0 2 7 . 5 4 S F E X E M P T ) 42 " H I G H GL A S S R A I L I N G , T Y P , GR E E N R O O F A R E A GR E E N R O O F A R E A GREEN ROOF AREA 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 9/01/15 TT19-15-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER FAR-2FAR CALCULATIONS13-4400513-44005 434 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO N N 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 2N D F L O O R - F A R C A L C U L A T I O N S 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 RO O F P L A N - F A R C A L C U L A T I O N S REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P89 III.A. DN UP DN UP UPUP UPUP NE T L E A S A B L E C A L C U L A T I O N S : MA I N L E V E L : LO W E R L E V E L : SE C O N D L E V E L : NE T L E A S A B L E A R E A : 6 , 4 1 2 . 1 2 S F ( R E D ) NO N - U N I T C O M M O N A R E A : 1 , 7 6 7 . 2 1 S F ( B L U E ) SU B - T O T A L M A I N L E V E L : 6 , 4 1 2 . 1 2 S F NE T L E A S A B L E A R E A : 7 , 6 6 1 . 6 4 S F ( R E D ) SU B - T O T A L L O W E R L E V E L : 7 , 6 6 1 . 6 4 S F NE T L E A S A B L E A R E A : 4 , 0 0 6 . 1 5 S F ( R E D ) SU B - T O T A L 2 N D L E V E L : 4 , 0 0 6 . 1 5 S F NO N - U N I T C O M M O N A R EA: 793.52 SF (BLUE) NO N - U N I T C O M M O N A R E A : 1 , 5 8 6 . 9 7 S F ( B L U E ) RO O F L E V E L : NE T L E A S A B L E A R E A : 0 S F SU B - T O T A L R O O F : 0 S F NO N - U N I T C O M M O N A R E A : 8 8 4 . 5 6 S F ( B L U E ) ) OU T D O O R T E R R A C E A R E A : 2 , 7 0 0 S F ( P U R P L E ) ) TO T A L N E T L E A S A B L E : 1 8 , 0 7 9 . 9 1 S F TE N A N T ' C ' 10 2 TE N A N T ' B ' 10 1 TE N A N T ' A ' 10 0 ST A I R # 1 10 5 E L E V . 1 0 6 ST A I R # 2 10 7 31 ' - 7 " 82 ' - 0 " 6' - 11"98' - 8"16' - 4"29' - 0" 22 ' - 0 " 3' - 8 " 22 ' - 0 " 3' - 8" 2 8 ' - 0 " 3 0 ' - 0 " 3 8 ' - 0 " 17 ' - 3 " 7' - 3 " UT I L I T Y A R E A - OP E N T O S K Y C O R R I D O R 1 0 4 EL E V 10 8 90 ' - 2 " 3' - 1 0 " 3' - 8"25' - 4"3' - 8"25' - 4"3' - 8"25' - 4"3' - 8"9' - 4" 14 ' - 5 " 7' - 7 " 3' - 8 " 2 6 ' - 8 " 9 ' - 8 " 4 0 ' - 9 " 4 ' - 5 " NE T L E A S A B L E AR E A : 6 , 4 1 2 . 1 2 S F NO N - U N I T C O M M O N AR E A : 1 , 4 7 8 . 9 2 S F NO N - U N I T C O M M O N AR E A : 2 8 8 . 2 9 S F LO B B Y 10 3 R A M P D O W N 8 . 3 % RA M P UP 8 . 3 % TR A S H A R E A LO W E R L E V E L TE N A N T S P A C E L1 0 0 E L E V . L 1 0 2 ST A I R # 2 L1 0 3 M E C H R O O M # 1 L 1 0 4 9' - 6 " 77 ' - 8 " 9 7 ' - 0 " 4 3 ' - 8 " 9 ' - 8 " 4 3 ' - 8 " 6' - 3 1 / 2 " 90 ' - 2 " 1 0 0 ' - 0 " NO N - U N I T C O M M O N A R E A : 36 6 . 3 5 S F ( E X E M P T ) NE T L E A S A B L E A R E A : 7, 6 6 1 . 6 4 S F ( E X E M P T ) NO N - U N I T C O M M O N AR E A : 6 0 . 8 2 S F ( E X E M P T ) NO N - U N I T C O M M O N A R E A : 36 6 . 3 5 S F ( E X E M P T ) ST A I R # 1 L1 0 1 M E C H R O O M # 2 L 1 0 5 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 9/01/15 TT19-15-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER NL-1NET LEASABLE CALCULATIONS13-4400513-44005 434 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO N N 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 MA I N F L O O R - N E T L E A S A B L E 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 LO W E R L E V E L - N E T L E A S A B L E REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P90 III.A. DNDN DN UPUP DN DN NET LEASABLE CALCULATIONS: MA I N L E V E L : LO W E R L E V E L : SE C O N D L E V E L : NE T L E A S A B L E A R E A : 6 , 4 1 2 . 1 2 S F ( R E D ) NO N - U N I T C O M M O N A R E A : 1 , 7 6 7 . 2 1 S F ( B L U E ) SU B - T O T A L M A I N L E V E L : 6 , 4 1 2 . 1 2 S F NE T L E A S A B L E A R E A : 7 , 6 6 1 . 6 4 S F ( R E D ) SU B - T O T A L L O W E R L E V E L : 7 , 6 6 1 . 6 4 S F NE T L E A S A B L E A R E A : 4 , 0 0 6 . 1 5 S F ( R E D ) SU B - T O T A L 2 N D L E V E L : 4 , 0 0 6 . 1 5 S F NO N - U N I T C O M M O N A R E A : 7 9 3 . 5 2 S F ( B L U E ) NO N - U N I T C O M M O N A R E A : 1 , 5 8 6 . 9 7 S F ( B L U E ) RO O F L E V E L : NE T L E A S A B L E A R E A : 0 S F SU B - T O T A L R O O F : 0 S F NO N - U N I T C O M M O N A R E A : 8 8 4 . 5 6 S F ( B L U E ) ) OU T D O O R T E R R A C E A R E A : 2 , 7 0 0 S F ( P U R P L E ) ) TO T A L N E T L E A S A B L E : 1 8 , 0 7 9 . 9 1 S F FU T U R E OU T D O O R A R E A 30 0 EL E V . 30 2 100' - 0"100' - 0" ME C H . R M 30 4 ME C H . R M 30 5 ST A I R # 2 30 6 ST A I R # 1 30 3 1 9 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 1 3 ' - 6 " 9' - 6 " 9' - 6 " 1 3 ' - 6 " 1 8 ' - 0 " 22' - 3" ME C H A N I C A L RO O F A R E A 20 5 SC R E E N W A L L 42 " H I G H GL A S S R A I L I N G , T Y P , OU T D O O R T E R R A C E AR E A : 2 , 7 0 0 S F NO N - U N I T C O M M O N A R E A : 88 4 . 5 6 S F ( E X E M P T ) GR E E N R O O F A R E A GR E E N R O O F A R E A GREEN ROOF AREA ST A I R # 1 20 1 EL E V . 20 2 ST A I R # 2 20 3 1 0 0 ' - 0 " 6' - 9 1 / 2 " 3' - 2 1 / 2 " EL E V . 20 4 3' - 1 0 " 22 ' - 0 " 3' - 8 " 22 ' - 0 " 3' - 8 " 22 ' - 0 " 3' - 8 " 3 ' - 8 " 2 5 ' - 4 " 3 ' - 8 " 2 5 ' - 4 " 3 ' - 8 " 2 5 ' - 4 " 7 9 ' - 6 " 9 6 ' - 0 " 87 ' - 2 " NE T L E A S A B L E A R E A : 4, 0 0 6 . 1 5 S F NO N - U N I T C O M M O N AR E A : 1 , 5 8 6 . 9 7 S F TE N A N T ' C ' SE C O N D F L O O R 20 6 TE N A N T ' B ' SE C O N D F L O O R 20 0 EL E V . 20 5 ME C H . 20 8 EL E V . 20 2 CO R R I D O R 20 7 OP E N T O BE L O W 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 9/01/15 TT19-15-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER NL-2NET LEASABLE CALCULATIONS13-4400513-44005 434 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO N N 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 RO O F P L A N - N E T L E A S A B L E 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 2N D F L O O R - N E T L E A S A B L E REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P91 III.A. SO U T H G R A D E 0' - 0"2ND FLOOR 13' - 0"PARAPET 25' - 0"T/O WINDOW 10' - 6"T/O UPPER WINDOW 21' - 6" RO O F T E R R A C E 23' - 0" UP P E R P A R A P E T 32' - 0" AD J A C E N T BU I L D I N G RA I S E D S T A M P E D CA S T I R O N P A N E L , T Y P . HE A V Y C A S T I R O N WIT H D E C O R A T I V E CO P P E R R I V E T D E T A I L , T Y P . ME T A L S T O R E F R O N T EN T R Y D O O R S CH I S E L E D N A T U R A L S T O N E WIT H M A C H I N E D R A K E D R E T U R N FA C E S DE C O R A T I V E M E T A L RA I L I N G , T Y P . ME T A L P L A N T E R , T Y P . HE A V Y C A S T I R O N D E C O R A T I V E WI N D O W F R A M E S , T Y P . CL E A R I N S U L A T E D GL A S S , T Y P . NA T U R A L S T O N E B A S E , T Y P . EL E V A T O R S H A F T B E Y O N D GL A S S R A I L I N G BE Y O N D B E Y O N D RO O F A C C E S S B E Y O N D 2 5 ' - 0 " 2ND FLOOR 13' - 0"PARAPET 25' - 0"T/O WINDOW 10' - 6"T/O UPPER WINDOW 21' - 6" RO O F T E R R A C E 23' - 0" UP P E R P A R A P E T 32' - 0" NO R T H G R A D E -3' - 0" RA I S E D S T A M P E D CA S T I R O N P A N E L , T Y P . HE A V Y C A S T I R O N WI T H D E C O R A T I V E CO P P E R R I V E T D E T A I L , T Y P . ME T A L S T O R E F R O N T EN T R Y D O O R S , T Y P . CH I S E L E D N A T U R A L S T O N E WI T H M A C H I N E D R A K E D R E T U R N F A C E S DE C O R A T I V E M E T A I L RA I L I N G , T Y P . ME T A L P L A N T E R , T Y P . HE A V Y C A S T I R O N D E C O R A T I V E WI N D O W F R A M E S , T Y P . EL E V A T O R S H A F T B E Y O N D CL E A R I N S U L A T E D GL A S S , T Y P . NA T U R A L S T O N E BA S E , T Y P . RO O F T E R R A C E A C C E S S B E Y O N D GL A S S R A I L I N G B E Y O N D 2 8 ' - 0 " AL L E Y 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 9/01/15 TT19-15-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER A-200EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS13-4400513-44005 434 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 SO U T H E L E V A T I O N 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 EA S T E L E V A T I O N REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P92 III.A. SOUTH GRADE 0' - 0"2ND FLOOR 13' - 0"PARAPET 25' - 0"ROOF TERRACE 23' - 0"UPPER PARAPET 32' - 0" AD J A C E N T B U I L D I N G CH I S E L E D N A T U R A L S T O N E WIT H M A C H I N E D R A K E D R E T U R N F A C E S DE C O R A T I V E M E T A I L RA I L I N G , T Y P . ME T A L P L A N T E R , T Y P . HE A V Y C A S T I R O N D E C O R A T I V E WI N D O W F R A M E S , T Y P . CL E A R I N S U L A T E D GL A S S , T Y P . PA I N T E D U N I T M A S O N R Y NA T U R A L S T O N E BA S E , T Y P . RA I S E D S T A M P E D CA S T I R O N P A N E L , T Y P . EL E V A T O R S H A F T B E Y O N D 2 8 ' - 0 " TR A N S F O R M E R SOUTH GRADE 0' - 0"2ND FLOOR 13' - 0"PARAPET 25' - 0"ROOF TERRACE 23' - 0"UPPER PARAPET 32' - 0" AD J A C E N T B U I L D I N G PA I N T E D U N I T M A S O N R Y PA I N T E D U N I T M A S O N R Y NA T U R A L S T O N E R E T U R N 20 ' - 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 9/01/15 TT19-15-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER A-210EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS13-4400513-44005 434 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 NO R T H E L E V A T I O N 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 WE S T E L E V A T I O N REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P93 III.A. PO R T I O N O F BU I L D I N G I N VI E W P L A N E P94 III.A. NE W T W O S T O R Y RE T A I L B U I L D I N G W/ R O O F T E R R A C E TR A S H A R E A IN F O R M A T I O N KI O S K EX I S T I N G L A N D S C A P I N G 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 S O U T H G A L E N A S T R E E T P U B L I C P A R K I N G P U B L I C P A R K I N G AD J A C E N T TW O S T O R Y BU I L D I N G PR O P E R T Y L I N E 1 0 0 ' - 0 " AD J A C E N T ON E 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 : 6 5 ' - 0 " PE D E S T R I A N DI S T A N C E : 9 4 ' - 0 " PE D E S T R I A N DI S T A N C E : 8 8 ' - 1 1 " 87 ' - 0 " R O U T E BE T W E E N D O O R S 58 ' - 3 " R O U T E BE T W E E N D O O R S 82 ' - 5 " 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 0 ' - 8 " 34 ' - 2 " 2 0 ' - 2 " 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 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 8' - 4 " 55 ' - 5 " 7 3 ' - 8 " P E D E S T R I A N M A L L PA V E D W A L K 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 9/01/15 TT19-15-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER TIATIA SITE PLAN13-4400513-44005 434 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO 1 " = 1 0 ' - 0 " 1 TI A S I T E P L A N NREVISIONSNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P95 III.A. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 305-307 S. Mill Street – Demolition, Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design and Mountain View Plane Review, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JULY 22ND DATE: September 30, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: 305-307 S. Mill Street is a 6,000 square foot lot which is currently occupied by the popcorn wagon, Grey Lady and Jimmy’s Bodega. The property is located within the Commercial Core Historic District. On July 22nd, the Historic Preservation Commission was asked to review demolition and replacement of all the existing development. The proposal was a new three tenant building which covered most of the lot, plus a full basement and a rooftop deck. Issues HPC needed to evaluate included design, parking, transportation impact, public amenity, utility/delivery/trash area, and encroachment into the Wheeler View Plane. The board was concerned with impacts on the view plane, and many members indicated that the extent of the new development should be reduced in footprint and height at the northern end of the site, along Hyman Avenue. The applicant has submitted a redesign which retains the existing structure, with new cladding and fenestration. A notch in the building at the center of the site will be filled in with an addition, and the building will be expanded on the north, in the area of the existing trellis. The additions are lower in height than the existing building. The previous proposal added approximately 5,000 square feet of new net leasable to the site, whereas the new proposal adds approximately 950 square feet of new net leasable. No basement expansion or roof deck are requested. There is a more significant amount of open space (public amenity) preserved at the northeast corner of the site than shown in the July design. Re-use of the existing building eliminates a number of project impacts and retains the current small scale of the building, which appears to be appropriate at this particular location. Staff supports Conceptual approval, however the project requires a more adequate trash/recycling area, along with a plan for the location of rooftop mechanical equipment. Staff recommends continuation of the project, but encourages the applicant to provide an appropriate response to the trash/recycling area and mechanical equipment requirements by noon on Tuesday, September 29th, so that it may be distributed to HPC prior to the hearing. The board would be able to approve the project on September 30th if these concerns are resolved. P96 III.B. 2 As with all Conceptual reviews, Council will have the authority to call up any aspect of HPC’s determination and require the board to reconsider the project. APPLICANT: 305-7 Mill Street LLC, represented by Camburas and Theodore, Ltd. and Haas Land Planning. ADDRESS: 305-307 S. Mill Street, Units A, B, and C, Aspen Commercial Condominiums, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. PARCEL ID: 2737-182-17-802 and 2737-182-17-003 through -005. 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 applicant proposes to retain the existing structures on the site and expand them. According to the Municipal Code, a structure shall be deemed demolished if more than 40% of the exterior surface or building structure is removed. In the event that the project would be deemed to demolish the existing building, the applicant has requested demolition approval. The structures on the property are sound and are not an imminent hazard. The buildings cannot practically be moved to another location. The structure currently occupied by Grey Lady was of interest during early AspenModern surveys, however staff has been unable to identify the architect or document the history of the structure, other than a construction date of 1960, therefore we cannot justify a finding of significance. The popcorn wagon is a vintage vehicle that has been used as a food cart in Aspen since the 1960s. It appears to have been originally located in the area where it sits now, then moved to Galena and Cooper for a time, and returned to its setting across from the Wheeler Opera House in 1986. The current plans indicate the wagon remaining on the site, however it may be displaced by a new trash area. The property owner is interested in offering the popcorn wagon to the City to use for outdoor food vending elsewhere in town. The City has expressed interest in this possibility. P97 III.B. 3 The Aspen Historic Preservation Commission has never designated the popcorn wagon as a historic resource, and the wagon was significantly remodeled by a previous restaurant operator and has limited original materials. 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 buildings across the street. (See vicinity map at right. Historically designated structures are shown in green.) 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. P98 III.B. 4 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. Directly across the street is a row of Victorian era buildings including the Wheeler, the Motherlode and the Crystal Palace. The property is zoned Commercial Core and is therefore theoretically permitted a building up to 28 feet in height and a floor area of just over 12,000 square feet. However, the site is directly within the path of a viewplane which originates from the Wheeler Opera House and projects towards Aspen Mountain as seen in the illustration below. P99 III.B. 5 Regarding the design guidelines, staff finds that the revised project is successful as proposed. The primarily one story height of the building provides variety within the downtown context. The drawings indicate multiple tenants and entry points from the street, which relates well to Aspen’s historic commercial buildings. The building features engaging storefronts. Part of the retained building is to be clad with wood siding, a typical downtown material. The applicant also proposes to create green walls. The new additions are glass and metal, reminiscent of surrounding historic storefronts. 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 0.91 parking spaces. The site has no on-site parking now and there is no way to provide parking that meets code requirements without alley access. The applicant has the right to mitigate parking 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. There are additional design related standards that HPC must find are met in order to approve the project. These standards are listed below. Any deviation must be found to provide a more appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards. The suggested design elements relate to signage, display windows and lighting, all of which are deferred until 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. The outdoor seating area on this property currently qualifies as public amenity and the applicant must replace it with something comparable. 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. P100 III.B. 6 2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent rights-of-way are encouraged. 3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of-way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. 4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls, sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian environment. 5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection 26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements. Staff response: Currently, approximately 22% of the site, or 1,330 square feet, qualifies as on- site public amenity space. The redevelopment must equal that value, either on-site, through a cash-in-lieu-payment, or a combination of the two. The proposal provides 16%, or 971.9 square feet, of open area on the ground. The applicant proposes to make up the shortfall with cash-in-lieu. Staff supports this approach. Staff does not recommend that any additional public amenity be provided on the ground level of this development. The area for potential redevelopment is limited by the view plane. It is sensible to maximize the ground level, and this meets the design guidelines, which call for commercial buildings to extend to the lot lines. The property is also surrounded by pedestrian mall and generous sidewalk areas. A recalculation of the public amenity will be needed. The applicant must revise their proposal to include an improved utility/trash/recycling area, which will likely occupy some of the northwest corner of the site. 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. P101 III.B. 7 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. P102 III.B. 8 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 property currently has a very poor arrangement for trash services. As stated, there is no alley access. Trash must be stored in an enclosed space which is directly next to Hyman Avenue. The previous proposal addressed this issue by creating an enclosed trash area in the northwest corner of the site, directly along the sidewalk. The design was supported by the Environmental Health Department. The revised proposal retains the trash arrangement in an open corridor along the west property line. This is not acceptable to Environmental Health. Redesign is required and should be provided to staff prior to the HPC meeting so that the proposed enclosure is accommodated within the HPC’s Conceptual approval. The trash area may or may not be able to accommodate some of the utility meters or the project. The applicant must indicate how these elements will be addressed. The Utilities Department has suggested that an on-site transformer may be needed. They are unable to assess the current or future load needs for the building without further information from the applicant. They have indicated that the applicant should plan for a transformer location of 10’x10’, open to the sky on the south side of the building. This could require demolition of existing enclosed space. It may be difficult to assess this situation prior to building permit. An amendment to accommodate a transformer could be reviewed by staff and monitor if necessary. MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE No mountain view plane may be 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 P103 III.B. 9 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 view plane has a significant impact as it intersects the site at a height 7’3” above grade along Hyman Avenue and 10’6” at the pedestrian walkway on the south end of the site. Both the existing and proposed development exceed the height of this plane. Because of view plane limitations, the existing structure has unsightly mechanical equipment on the roof that is not well screened. New development is not prohibited from intruding into the view plane, but in order for this to be permitted, HPC must find that it has a minimal effect on the view plane. As a reminder to the board, the July 9th proposal for this project is shown below right. The current proposal is below, left. P104 III.B. 10 The zone district does require that the minimum height between the first floor and second floor (in this case roof) is 13,’ to ensure that downtown buildings have a storefront proportion that is compatible with Victorian era structures. This is a dimensional requirement, not a guideline. The proposed height for the additions to the existing building is 11’. The applicant could increase that dimension to 13’ and still not exceed the height of the existing structure. HPC should determine whether this is an appropriate revision to make. There is no roof plan or indication of location for mechanical equipment. This must be addressed in preparation for the HPC hearing. ______________________________________________________________________________ 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: • Properly calculate the proposed on-site public amenity and commit to cash-in-lieu payment for the balance. • Provide a design for a utility/trash/recycling area that will be approved by Environmental Health. • Consider increasing the height of the new additions in order to address the minimum first floor height of 13.’ EXHIBITS: A. Relevant Design Guidelines B. HPC minutes, July 22, 2015 C. Application 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. P105 III.B. 11 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 6.18 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. P106 III.B. 12 False fronts and parapets with horizontal emphasis also may be considered. 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. P107 III.B. P108 III.B. P109 III.B. P110 III.B. P111 III.B. P112 III.B. P113 III.B. 305-7 S Mill Project Update 1 305-307 South Mill Street Project Description Update, 9 September 2015 The applicant is requesting that the HPC grant Conceptual Approval of a Major Development as well as Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and Mountain View Plane approval. All applications for Conceptual Approval of a Major Development must receive a determination of consistency with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (hereinafter “the Guidelines”). Although not historically significant itself, since the subject property is located in the Commercial Core Historic District, conceptual approval of the proposed design requires a finding of consistency with Chapter 13 of Guidelines, in terms of height, scale, mass, bulk, and site plan. Additionally, the applicant must show consistency with the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines (the “Commercial Guidelines”). After the first HPC hearing on the then-proposed redevelopment of the property, the applicant has decided to alter the direction of the proposal to instead focus on a pair of modest additions and a remodeling of the existing structures. These changes are in response to the comments made by both the HPC members and the public. The existing buildings are now being retained and open, light, transparent infill additions are proposed. The overall height, mass and scale of the project has been greatly reduced and minimized, more public amenity space has been introduced, the “Popcorn wagon” is being retained, and impacts to the Wheeler Opera House Mountain Viewplane have been eliminated. The current/revised proposal envisions a pair of modest, one-story additions to the existing commercial structures. The existing structures will be retained and remodeled, including retention of the “popcorn wagon” on-site as well as improvement of ample public amenity space at the ground/sidewalk level. No residential units are included in this proposal, the roof deck area has been eliminated altogether, and the proposal fully complies with the Commercial Core zoning. The proposed additions are smaller in height than the existing structures and encroach less into the Wheeler Opera House Mountain Viewplane than does the existing, permanent wood trellis (which, in the winter months is sheathed and covered). The proposal is fully depicted on the accompanying architectural plans set and renderings prepared by Camburas & Theodore (C+T). The proposed development will contain approximately 4,478 square feet of commercial net leasable area NLA) on the ground floor and nearly 1,479 square feet of NLA on the lower level. This total/combined NLA of approximately 5,956 square feet carries an off-street parking requirement of 0.91 spaces (5.96 spaces at one space per every 1,000 square feet of net leasable area, minus the existing off-street parking deficit of 5.05 spaces), which will be completely satisfied through the payment of cash-in-lieu as allowed by right pursuant to Code Section 26.515.030. The payment-in-lieu of parking will be due and payable at the time of building permit issuance for the redevelopment. At the currently codified rate of $30,000, which may be amended, the payment due P114 III.B. 305-7 S Mill Project Update 2 would be $27,300.00 ($30,000 x 0.91 spaces). The Code clearly provides the right to satisfy the off-street parking requirement through a payment in-lieu without any review or approval and doing so does not in any way whatsoever represent any kind of variance or variation. As explained above, the property is within the designated Wheeler Opera House Viewplane, which ascends across the site from north to south. While the Commercial Core Zone District’s height limit for the property is twenty-eight (28) feet, the view plane would effectively reduce this limit to slightly less than 7’-3” at the Hyman Avenue frontage, ascending to approximately 10’-6” at the southerly boundary of the property. It is noted that a structure cannot be built to compliance with Building Codes, zoning requirements, and the Commercial Design Standards while remaining below the artificial 7’-3” view plane limitation. For instance, no above-grade structure that complies with commercial Building Codes can simultaneously comply with the codified Viewplane given that a typical door height, not even including the framing for the door, is seven (7) feet tall. Further, the Commercial Design Standards require that structures and entryways be built at sidewalk grade. In addition, the Commercial Core Zone District’s minimum first floor to second floor floor-to-floor height is 13 feet, effectively precluding compliance with even the high-end 10’-6” Viewplane height limitation at the south side of the property. These factors combine to clearly prove that, without approval to infringe upon the codified view plane, it is simply too low to allow any above-grade commercial development at all. Furthermore, the existing trellis structure (which received Viewplane Review approval from the HPC) located at and spanning to the very northeast corner of the subject property where the Viewplane height limit is just under 7’-3” has a height of 10’-6”, thereby already encroaching more than 3’-3” into the view plane. The north end of the Grey Lady building has a height of 13.9’ where the Viewplane height limit is merely 7.7’ (a 6.2-foot encroachment, meaning the existing building’s height at its closest and most impactful distance from the regulated vantage point is equivalent to 181% of the Viewplane height limit). In addition, the Grey Lady and Jimmy’s Bodega structures both have an abundance of rooftop mechanical equipment, ductwork, flues and venting apparatuses projecting above these measured heights and even further into the Viewplane. Beyond the subject property, the Wagner Park bathrooms and clock tower already impede on the designated Wheeler Opera House Viewplane as well. The Wagner Park restrooms reach a height of 17’-6” where the mapped Viewplane height restriction is no more than 12-13 feet. The clock tower is 30 feet tall. Incidentally, and for whatever reason, the City’s public restrooms were reviewed and approved by the HPC and then built without ever considering the Wheeler Opera House Viewplane. P115 III.B. 305-7 S Mill Project Update 3 In the proposed development, the additions will have less impact on the Viewplane than do the existing structures. The height of the proposed addition, where closest to the Wheeler Opera House, is just eleven feet (11’) tall, but given its setbacks from the northerly and easterly property lines, it will have less impact on the Viewplane than does the existing trellis structure it will replace. Furthermore, the other proposed addition will have no affect on the Viewplane at all since it will sit between two existing, taller portions of the buildings on the property. In light of the points made above, not only is it clear that the Viewplane restriction is set too low, but it is also evident that the new/additional Viewplane impacts associated with the proposed development will not only be minimal but will actually provide an effective decrease over the current condition. The Dimensional Requirements of the underlying CC Zone District in comparison with the proposed redevelopment, given the description of the project provided above as well as the accompanying plans, is detailed below to show the project’s conformity with all applicable requirements. Dimensional Requirements Comparison Table CC Zoning & The Proposed Redevelopment DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT COMMERCIAL CORE ZONE DISTRICT PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT Minimum Gross Lot Area No requirement 6,000 square feet Minimum Net Lot Area per Dwelling Unit No requirement N/A Minimum Lot Width No Requirement 60 feet Minimum Front Yard Setback No requirement No requirement (None) Minimum Side Yard Setback No requirement No requirement (None) Minimum Rear Yard Setback No requirement No requirement (None) Minimum Trash/Recycle Area1 20’W x 15’D x 10’H (300sq.ft. total)1 Maintain & Improve Existing (330.86sq.ft. total) 1 Maximum Height 2 For properties on the south side of a street, twenty-eight (28) feet for two-story elements 2 13’-5” (at existing), 11’ (at addition) 2 Minimum floor to floor heights Minimum first floor to Second floor: thirteen (13) feet. Minimum upper floor-ceiling height: Nine (9) feet N/A (No second floor) P116 III.B. 305-7 S Mill Project Update 4 Minimum Distance between Buildings on the Lot No requirement N/A Public Amenity Space3 22% (1,330 square feet) 3 16% (972sq.ft.), plus cash-in-lieu 3 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 2:1 for Commercial Uses 0.86:1 (5,124sf, plus a margin of error since allowable is 2:1) DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS NOTES: 1 : Pursuant to Code Section 12.10.030(A)b., for Commercial Buildings that will contain or that will have the capacity to contain an establishment with a Retail Food Service License and the reserved trash and recycling storage space must be adjacent to the alleyway. However, there is no functioning alley associated with this property. The proposal does not meet the Code threshold for “demolition,” thus bringing the trash/recycling area into conformance with current requirements is not necessary. Instead, the existing trash/recycling area will be maintained but proper screening will be added. The existing area has proven adequate and functional for many years. 2 : The height limit on the subject property is effected by the Wheeler Opera House Mountain Viewplane, as described and discussed elsewhere in this application. Pursuant to Code Section 26.575.020.F.4., specific exceptions to height limitations are allowed, as may be applicable. 3 : Pursuant to Code Section 26.575.030.B., 25% of the area of the 6,031 square foot parcel shall be provided as public amenity; however, for redevelopment of parcels on which less than 25% currently exists (the current public amenity space on the parcel is 22%), the existing (prior to redevelopment) percentage shall be the effective requirement. The applicant proposes to maintain approximately 972 square feet of at-grade public amenity space on the property and adjoining the adjacent sidewalks/pedestrian malls. If necessary, the balance of the requirement, or 358 square feet (1,330sf existing minus 972sf to remain) will be satisfied through the payment of cash-in-lieu. Also, see the paragraphs immediately below. The proposed development on the 305/307 South Mill Street property is consistent and compatible with existing development on-site as well as surrounding development patterns in terms of uses, densities, building heights and intensities. The property, which is located on the Mill Street pedestrian mall, is surrounded largely by commercial uses and Wagner Park. The majority of the sites are built out to their front lot line or close to it and with strong street/mall presence. Although public amenity space exists in the area next to the popcorn wagon and beneath the trellis structure, it is odd that this area should count as “public amenity” since it is fully enclosed for half of the year and privatized (by virtue of being restaurant seating beneath the wood trellis) on a P117 III.B. 305-7 S Mill Project Update 5 year-round basis. As such, it is really a stretch to say that 22% of the existing site area qualifies as public amenity space. The proposed public amenity space is truly a qualitative improvement over the existing spaces. There is nothing “public” feeling about the existing spaces as one area is beneath the private restaurant trellis space (that is fully enclosed for half of the year) and the other is deep between two parts of the restaurant building, behind a demarcated restaurant seating area where it is largely inaccessible to the general public. Instead, the applicant is proposing a continuous area that is at-grade, open to the sky and adjoining the perpetual public amenity spaces that are the Hyman Avenue sidewalk and the Mill Street pedestrian mall. As such, the applicant feels that the proposed 972 square feet area (16% of the lot area) should be approved as satisfying the entire public amenity space requirement. If necessary, the balance of the requirement, or 358 square feet (1,330sf existing minus 972sf to remain) will be satisfied through the payment of cash-in-lieu at the codified rate of $100 per square foot, as may be amended, or a total residual payment of $35,800.00. P118 III.B. 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 7/29/15 TT19-4-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER CS-1COVER SHEET__305-307 SOUTH MILL ST.ASPEN, CO 30 5 - 3 0 7 S O U T H M I L L S T R E E T AS P E N , C O 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 VI C I N I T Y M A P DR A W I N G L I S T : SH E E T N U M B E R SHEET NAME CS - 1 CO V E R S H E E T PA - 1 EX I S T I N G P U B L I C A M E N I T Y PA - 2 PR O P O S E D P U B L I C A M E N I T Y A- 0 1 0 PR O P O S E D S I T E P L A N FA R - 1 FL O O R P L A N - F A R C A L C U L A T I O N S NL - 1 FL O O R P L A N - N E T L E A S A B L E A- 2 1 0 EX T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S A- 2 1 1 EX T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S AL T A EX I S T I N G L A N D S U R V E Y EC - 1 EX I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N F L O O R P L A N A- 1 0 0 PR O P O S E D F L O O R P L A N 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 EC - 2 EX I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N F L O O R P L A N A- 2 2 0 BU I L D I N G S E C T I O N S TI A TI A S I T E P L A N - PR O P O S E D R E N D E R I N G W I T H V I E W P L A N E - NO R T H V I E W C O M P A R I S O N - SO U T H W E S T V I E W C O M P A R I S O N REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION - PR O P O S E D R E N D E R I N G A N D EXIST. TRELLIS DIAGRAM P119 III.B. 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 7/29/15 TT19-4-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER ALTAALTA SURVEY__305-307 SOUTH MILL ST.ASPEN, COREVISIONSNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P120 III.B. 86 6 . 5 S . F . PU B L I C A M E N I T Y 46 4 S . F . PU B L I C A M E N I T Y 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 7/29/15 TT19-4-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER PA-1EXISTING PUBLIC AMENITY PLAN __305-307 SOUTH MILL ST.ASPEN, COREVISIONSNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P121 III.B. EA S T H Y M A N A V E N U E S O U T H M I L L S T R E E T WA G N E R P A R K A D J A C E N T B U I L D I N G PA V E D WA L K PA V E D WA L K B R I C K P A V E D P E D E S T R I A N M A L L LI N E O F EX I S T I N G WA L L BU I L D I N G AD D I T I O N P L A N T E R 30 5 M I L L S T . 30 7 M I L L S T . BU I L D I N G AD D I T I O N TR E E GR A T E TR E E GR A T E TR E E GR A T E TR E E GR A T E NE W T R E E B Y T H E CI T Y O F A S P E N PU B L I C A M E N I T Y 97 1 . 9 1 S . F . PO P C O R N WA G O N E X I S T I N G T R A S H A N D U T I L I T Y A R E 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 7/29/15 TT19-4-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER PA-2PROPOSED PUBLIC AMENITY__305-307 SOUTH MILL ST.ASPEN, CO 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 PR O P O S E D P U B L I C A M E N I T Y REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P122 III.B. NE T L E A S A B L E AR E A - 1 , 7 7 1 S . F . NE T L E A S A B L E AR E A - 1 , 6 3 3 S . F . NE T L E A S A B L E AR E A - 1 1 4 S . F . NE T L E A S A B L E AR E A - 7 0 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 7/29/15 TT19-4-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER EC-1EXISTING CONDTION PLAN__305-307 SOUTH MILL ST.ASPEN, CO NE T L E A S A B L E : 1 , 7 7 1 + 1 , 6 0 2 + 1 1 4 + 7 0 = 3 , 5 5 7 S . F . CO M M O N A R E A : 0 S . F . REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P123 III.B. NE T L E A S A B L E AR E A - 1 , 4 1 3 S . F . CO M M O N A R E A - 5 3 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 7/29/15 TT19-4-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER EC-2EXISTING CONDITION PLAN__305-307 SOUTH MILL ST.ASPEN, CO NE T L E A S A B L E : 1 , 4 1 3 S . F . CO M M O N A R E A : 5 3 S . F . REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P124 III.B. EA S T H Y M A N A V E N U E S O U T H M I L L S T R E E T WA G N E R P A R K A D J A C E N T B U I L D I N G PA V E D WA L K PA V E D WA L K B R I C K P A V E D P E D E S T R I A N M A L L LI N E O F EX I S T I N G WA L L BU I L D I N G AD D I T I O N 30 5 M I L L S T . 30 7 M I L L S T . BU I L D I N G AD D I T I O N TR E E GR A T E TR E E GR A T E TR E E GR A T E TR E E GR A T E AW N I N G NE W T R E E B Y T H E CI T Y O F A S P E N AW N I N G A W N I N G AW N I N G E X I S T I N G T R A S H A N D U T I L I T Y A R E A T O R E M A I N PO P C O R N WA G O N 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 7/29/15 TT19-4-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER A-010SITE PLAN__305-307 SOUTH MILL ST.ASPEN, CO 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 SI T E P L A N REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P125 III.B. DN UP TE N A N T ' C ' 10 2 TE N A N T ' B ' 10 1 TO I L E T 10 4 2 A- 2 2 0 TE N A N T ' A ' 10 0 1 A- 2 2 0 3 A- 2 2 0 4' - 1 1 " 3 0 ' - 8 " 6' - 6 " 53 ' - 1 1 / 2 " 30 ' - 1 1 5 / 8 " 1 6 ' - 1 1 " 8 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 5' - 8 1 / 4 " 43 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 4' - 4 3 / 4 " 4 1 ' - 0 " 60 ' - 3 1 / 2 " 6 7 ' - 4 " 3 2 ' - 8 " 1 0 0 ' - 0 " E X I S T I N G T R A S H A N D U T I L I T Y A R E A SH A R E D CO R R I D O R 10 3 TO I L E T 10 5 PO P C O R N WA G O N TE N A N T ' C ' LO W E R L E V E L L1 0 0 60 ' - 3 1 / 2 " 1 0 0 ' - 0 " 2 3 ' - 6 " 53 ' - 3 3 / 8 " 7 ' - 2 " 31 ' - 7 " 5' - 0 1 / 8 " 67' - 4" 7 4 ' - 6 " 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 7/29/15 TT19-4-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER A-100PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN__305-307 SOUTH MILL ST.ASPEN, CO 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 FL O O R P L A N - M A I N F L O O R 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 FL O O R P L A N - L O W E R L E V E L REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P126 III.B. UP DN FLOOR AREA SUMMARY:MAIN LEVEL: 6,057.05 SF LOWER LEVEL: 1,650.42 SFCOMMERCIAL AREA: 5,123.90 SF (RED & BLUE)DEDUCTIONS: 933.15 SF (PURPLE)AREA TOWARDS FAR: 5,123.90 SF COMMERCIAL AREA: 1,650.42 SF (RED)DEDUCTIONS: 1,650.42 SF (SUBGRADE EXEMPT)AREA TOWARDS FAR: 0 SF TOTAL FAR: 5,123.90 SF (0.85:1 FAR)ZONING INFORMATION AND CALCULATIONS:ZONING: (CC) COMMERCIAL CORE NET LOT AREA: 6,029 SF (60'-3 1/2" X 100')ZONING ALLOWANCE (2:1) 12,058 SF (2 X 6,029 SF)CALCULATIONS:GROSS FLOOR AREA:COMMERCIAL SPACE: 6,774.32 SF (RED & BLUE)LANDSCAPE SPACE: 933.15 SF (PURPLE)EXEMPT SPACE: 2,583.57 SF (LL & PURPLE)EXPOSED WALL BELOW GRADE NORTH: 0 SF EXPOSED SOUTH: 0 SF EXPOSED EAST: 0 SF EXPOSED WEST: 0 SF EXPOSED BELOW GRADE WALL AREA:NORTH: 60'-3 1/2"SOUTH: 60'-3 1/2"EAST: 100'-0"WEST: 100'-0"TOTAL: 320'-7" LENGTH X____20'-0" HEIGHT 6,411'-8" SF TOTAL WALL AREA 0 SF TOTAL EXPOSED WALL AREA 0 / 6,411'-8" = 0% APPLIED FINAL FLOOR AREA:MAIN LEVEL = 5,123.90 SF (933.15 SF EXEMPT)LOWER LEVEL = 0 SF (1,650.42 SF EXEMPT)CUMULATIVE = 5,123.90 SF (0.85:1 FAR) TE N A N T ' C ' LO W E R L E V E L L1 0 0 CO M M E R C I A L A R E A : 1, 6 5 0 . 4 2 S F TE N A N T ' C ' 10 2 52 7 S F TE N A N T ' B ' 10 1 TO I L E T 10 4 4' - 1 1 " TE N A N T ' A ' 10 0 CO M M E R C I A L A R E A : 4, 7 8 6 . 5 3 S F LA N D S C A P I N G AR E A 9 3 3 . 1 5 S F (E X E M P T ) TR A S H U T I L I T Y AR E A 3 3 7 . 3 7 S F SH A R E D CO R R I D O R 10 3 TO I L E T 10 5 PO P C O R N WA G O N E X I S T I N G T R A S H A N D U T I L I T Y A R E 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 7/29/15 TT19-4-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER FAR-1FAR CALCULATIONS__305-307 SOUTH MILL ST.ASPEN, CO 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 FA R C A L C U L A T I O N S - L O W E R L E V E L 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 3 FA R C A L C U L A T I O N S - M A I N F L O O R REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P127 III.B. UP DN TE N A N T ' C ' LO W E R L E V E L L1 0 0 NE T L E A S A L B E A R E A : 1, 4 7 8 . 5 2 S F TE N A N T ' C ' 10 2 52 7 S F TE N A N T ' B ' 10 1 TO I L E T 10 4 4' - 1 1 " TE N A N T ' A ' 10 0 NE T L E A S A B L E A R E A : 4, 4 7 7 . 5 3 S F NO N - U N I T C O M M O N AR E A 3 3 0 . 8 6 S F PO P C O R N WA G O N TO I L E T 10 5 SH A R E D CO R R I D O R 10 3 E X I S T I N G T R A S H A N D U T I L I T Y A R E A NET LEASABLE CALCULATIONS:MAIN LEVEL:LOWER LEVEL:NET LEASABLE AREA: 4,477.53 SF SUB-TOTAL MAIN LEVEL: 4,477.53 SF NET LEASABLE AREA: 1,478.52 SF SUB-TOTAL LOWER LEVEL: 1,478.52 SF TOTAL NET LEASABLE: 5,956.05 SF 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 7/29/15 TT19-4-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER NL-1NET LEASABLE__305-307 SOUTH MILL ST.ASPEN, CO 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 NE T L E A S A B L E - L O W E R L E V E L 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 NE T L E A S A B L E - M A I N F L O O R REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P128 III.B. NE W P A R A P E T 11 ' - 0 " EX I S T . P A R A P E T 13 ' - 5 " NE W R O O F L E V E L 10 ' - 9 " NO R T H E A S T GR A D E -1 ' - 8 1 / 2 " NO R T H W E S T GR A D E -2 ' - 6 1 / 2 " AD J A C E N T BU I L D I N G OP E N AC C O R D I A N ST O R E F R O N T DO O R S EX I S T I N G TR A S H AN D U T I L I T Y AR E A VI E W P L A N E VI E W P L A N E EX I S T I N G B U I L D I N G PR O P O S E D B U I L D I N G EX I S T I N G B U I L D I N G PR O P O S E D B U I L D I N G ST E E L P L A T E C A N O P Y NE W T R A S H A R E A ME T A L S C R E E N A N D G A T E WO O D S I D I N G BE Y O N D EX I S T I N G B U I L D I N G RE C L A D W I T H W O O D S I D I N G NE W C O N C R E T E BA S E NE W C O R N E R AN G L E I R O N D E T A I L ME T A L S H I N G L E S PA R A P E T B E A M , T Y P . DE C O R A T I V E M E T A L ME D A L L I O N , T Y P . AN G L E I R O N D E T A I L LI G H T F I X T U R E BE Y O N D NE W D E C O R A T I V E ST O R E F R O N T S Y S T E M , T Y P . RA I S E D M E T A L P A N E L I N N E W ST O R E F R O N T S Y S T E M , T Y P . MO D U L A R G R E E N WA L L S Y S T E M , T Y P . EX I S T I N G S T U C C O W A L L NE W S T U C C O W A L L ME T A L C L A D D I N G , T Y P . PO P C O R N W A G O N SOUTH GRADE 0' - 0"NEW PARAPET 11' - 0"EXIST. PARAPET 13' - 5"NEW ROOF LEVEL 10' - 9"NORTHEAST GRADE -1' - 8 1/2" OP E N AC C O R D I A N ST O R E F R O N T DO O R S VIEW PLANE VI E W P L A N E EX I S T I N G S T U C C O W A L L MO D U L A R G R E E N WA L L S Y S T E M , T Y P . EX I S T I N G B R I C K A R C H , PA I N T R E M O V E D EX I S T I N G B U I L D I N G RE C L A D W I T H W O O D S I D I N G NE W L I G H T F I X T U R E , T Y P . CANOPY BEYOND NE W C O N C R E T E BA S E NE W C O R N E R AN G L E I R O N D E T A I L NE W B I F O L D I N G DO O R B E Y O N D NE W D E C O R A T I V E ST O R E F R O N T S Y S T E M , T Y P . RA I S E D M E T A L P A N E L I N N E W ST O R E F R O N T S Y S T E M , T Y P . PA R A P E T B E A M , T Y P . DE C O R A T I V E M E T A L ME D A L L I O N , T Y P . EX I S T I N G B U I L D I N G EX I S T I N G B U I L D I N G PR O P O S E D B U I L D I N G PR O P O S E D B U I L D I N G ME T A L C L A D D I N G , T Y P . LO W P R O F I L E ME T A L C O P I N G , T Y P . POPCORN WAGON BEYOND 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 7/29/15 TT19-4-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER A-210EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS__305-307 SOUTH MILL ST.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 EA S T E L E V A T I O N REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P129 III.B. SO U T H G R A D E 0' - 0 " EX I S T . P A R A P E T 13 ' - 5 " OP E N OP E N OP E N BI - F O L D I N G DO O R , T Y P . VI E W P L A N E VI E W P L A N E EX I S T I N G B U I L D I N G EX I S T I N G B U I L D I N G RE C L A D W I T H W O O D S I D I N G NE W L I G H T F I X T U R E , T Y P . NE W C O N C R E T E BA S E NE W C O R N E R AN G L E I R O N D E T A I L NE W D E C O R A T I V E ST O R E F R O N T S Y S T E M , T Y P . RA I S E D M E T A L P A N E L I N N E W ST O R E F R O N T S Y S T E M , T Y P . LO W P R O F I L E S H E E T ME T A L C O P I N G , T Y P . SOUTH GRADE 0' - 0"NEW PARAPET 11' - 0"EXIST. PARAPET 13' - 5"NEW ROOF LEVEL 10' - 9" EX I S T . T R A S H A N D U T I L I T Y AR E A T O R E M A I N AD J A C E N T B U I L D I N G NORTHWEST GRADE -2' - 6 1/2" VI E W P L A N E VI E W P L A N E EX I S T I N G B U I L D I N G PR O P O S E D B U I L D I N G EX I S T I N G B U I L D I N G EX I S T I N G B U I L D I N G RE C L A D W I T H W O O D S I D I N G CA N O P Y B E Y O N D LO W P R O F I L E S H E E T ME T A L C O P I N G , T Y P . ST U C C O F I N I S H , T Y P . LIGHT FIXTURE AND CANOPY BEYOND NE W T R A S H A R E A ME T A L S C R E E N A N D G A T 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 7/29/15 TT19-4-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER A-211EXTEROIR ELEVATIONS__305-307 SOUTH MILL ST.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 WE S T E L E V A T I O N REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P130 III.B. SOUTH GRADE 0' - 0"NEW PARAPET 11' - 0"LOWER LEVEL -9' - 0"EXIST. PARAPET 13' - 5"NEW ROOF LEVEL 10' - 9" TE N A N T ' C ' 10 2 TE N A N T ' B ' 10 1 TE N A N T ' C ' LO W E R L E V E L L1 0 0 TE N A N T ' A ' 10 0 VIEW PLANE VI E W P L A N E EX I S T I N G B U I L D I N G PR O P O S E D B U I L D I N G EX I S T I N G B U I L D I N G PR O P O S E D B U I L D I N G NE W P A R A P E T 11 ' - 0 " LO W E R L E V E L -9 ' - 0 " EX I S T . P A R A P E T 13 ' - 5 " NE W R O O F L E V E L 10 ' - 9 " TE N A N T ' B ' 10 1 SH A R E D CO R R I D O R 10 3 VI E W P L A N E VI E W P L A N E EX I S T I N G B U I L D I N G PR O P O S E D B U I L D I N G NE W P A R A P E T 11 ' - 0 " EX I S T . P A R A P E T 13 ' - 5 " NE W R O O F L E V E L 10 ' - 9 " TE N A N T ' A ' 10 0 VI E W P L A N E VI E W P L A N E PR O P O S E D 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 7/29/15 TT19-4-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER A-220BUILDING SECTIONS__305-307 SOUTH MILL ST.ASPEN, CO 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 BU I L D I N G S E C T I O N - V I E W P L A N E 1 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 BU I L D I N G S E C T I O N - V I E W P L A N E 2 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 3 BU I L D I N G S E C T I O N - V I E W P L A N E 3 REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P131 III.B. EA S T H Y M A N A V E N U E S O U T H M I L L S T R E E T WA G N E R P A R K A D J A C E N T B U I L D I N G PA V E D WA L K PA V E D WA L K B R I C K P A V E D P E D E S T R I A N M A L L LI N E O F EX I S T I N G WA L L BU I L D I N G AD D I T I O N P L A N T E R 30 5 M I L L S T . 30 7 M I L L S T . BU I L D I N G AD D I T I O N TR E E GR A T E TR E E GR A T E TR E E GR A T E TR E E GR A T E NE W C R O S S WA L K A N D CU R B C U T 82 ' - 1 " R O U T E BE T W E E N DO O R S NE W PE D E S T R I A N EN T R A N C E NE W P E D E S T R I A N EN T R A N C E . 14 3 ' - 1 0 " R O U T E BE T W E E N D O O R S NE W P E D E S T R I A N EN T R A N C E . 90 ' - 4 " R O U T E BE T W E E N D O O R S . 45 ' - 7 " R O U T E BE T W E E N D O O R S NE W P E D E S T R I A N EN T R A N C E . 11 8 ' - 0 " R O U T E BE T W E E N D O O R S NE W T R E E B Y T H E CI T Y O F A S P E N PE D E S T R I A N M A L L 73 ' - 8 3 / 8 " 1 8 ' - 8 " 55 ' - 8 " R O U T E BE T W E E N D O O R S E X I S T I N G T R A S H A N D U T I L I T Y A R E A PO P C O R N WA G O N 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 7/29/15 TT19-4-15RAISSUE TO LAND PLANNER TIATIA SITE PLAN__305-307 SOUTH MILL ST.ASPEN, CO 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 TI A S I T E P L A N REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P132 III.B. P 1 3 3 I I I . B . P 1 3 4 I I I . B . P 1 3 5 I I I . B . P 1 3 6 I I I . B . P 1 3 7 I I I . B . P 1 3 8 I I I . B . P 1 3 9 I I I . B . P 1 4 0 I I I . B . P 1 4 1 I I I . B . P 1 4 2 I I I . B . P 1 4 3 I I I . B .