Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20170208 AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING February 08, 2017 4:30 PM City Council Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISITS A. Please visit the sites on your own. II. 4:30 INTRODUCTION A. Roll call B. Approval of minutes Draft of minutes from 1/25/17 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. 533 W. Hallam Street, Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Relocation, and Variations, CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO NOV. 8TH IV. 4:40 NEW BUSINESS A. 4:40 232 E. Main Street- Final Major Development, Final Commercial Design, and Growth Management Review, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JAN. 25TH B. 5:50 300-312 E. Hyman Avenue- Final Major Development and Final Commercial Design Review, PUBLIC HEARING V. 7:00 ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 3, 2017 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. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 25, 2017 Chairperson Halferty called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Willis Pember, Nora Berko, Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer and Richard Lai. Staff present: Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Linda Manning, City Clerk Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Mr. Blaich moved to approve the minutes from January 11, 2017. Mr. Lai pointed out that his name was incorrectly listed as Robert instead of Richard. Second by Mr. Moyer. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: Mr. Halferty asked for public comment regarding items not listed on the agenda and there were none. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Halferty asked for Commission Member commentary. He commented on the excellent teamwork and volunteerism as well as the staff’s hard work. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Mr. Halferty asked if there were any disclosures of conflicts of interest and there were none. PROJECT MONITORING: Mr. Halferty asked for any project monitoring items and Ms. Simon responded that there were none. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon stated that they are making progress on closing out the moratorium and mentioned that on Monday night the Commercial Design Standards were adopted at Council and thanked everyone for their feedback during the last meeting on Jan 11, 2017. Other code amendments were discussed that related to what uses are allowed in what zone districts, parking and affordable housing mitigation and have been continued until Jan 30, 2017. All in all, she hopes to have completely wrapped everything up by February. Ms. Simon also mentioned that Planning and Zoning have been receiving complaints regarding a food cart, which is positioned by the dancing fountain, and said the City has a program in place where people can do temporary food vending if they are on private property to perch. CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Mr. Halferty asked if any have been issued and Ms. Simon answered no. P1 II.B. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 25, 2017 OLD BUSINESS: Mr. Halferty moved along to old business item A: 403 & 407 E Cooper Avenue – Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design, Demolition and Viewplane Review. MOTION: to continue public hearing to April 12, 2017. Mr. Blaich motioned to approve and Mr. Pember seconded. Roll call vote: Nora- yes, Bob-yes, Jeffrey-yes, Roger-yes, Richard-yes, Willis-yes – 6-0, motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: Item A: 232 E Main – Final Major Development, Final Commercial Design and Growth Management Review. MOTION: to continue public hearing to February 8, 2017. Ms. Berko motioned to approve, Mr. Blaich seconded. Roll call vote: Willis-yes, Nora-yes, Bob-yes, Jeffrey-yes, Roger-yes, Richard-yes – 6-0, motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: Item B: 517 E Hyman – Substantial Amendment to an HPC Approval of Resolution 2, Public Hearing: Ms. Simon summarized the project stating that it is a 12,000 sq ft lot, that for many years had a parking lot on the corner, the Tom Benton studio and Little Annie’s restaurant. The property was purchased around 2012 and at one point the new owner had proposed demolition and redevelopment, but we were able to renegotiate to where the developers mind was changed and the two existing structures were preserved and a new building was constructed on the corner. At that time, Council wanted to see the studio and Little Annie’s Landmark Designated as Aspen Modern Historic resources and they also wanted to ensure that Little Annie’s would continue to serve the community as a lower priced restaurant. A number of agreements were adopted by City Council at that time. A year or so later, the owner came forth with a plan to gut the interior, address accessibility issues, operation issues and the condition of the restaurant. HPC reviewed a proposal to add a rooftop deck and it was approved in 2013. The applicant has vested rights for three years, but have rethought the scope and have submitted a building permit application. Tonight you are being asked to approve less. It was decided that the rooftop deck will not be a part of the plan going forward. They will frame a new roof over the existing roof and will build CMU walls on the sides of the building to accommodate the new roof as well as adding new aluminum coping and gutters to improve roof drainage and a new, more modest lighting plan. Mr. Halferty asked about the location of the air exhaust shaft or air intake and Ms. Simon said the plan for mechanical equipment has not been decided yet. Mr. Halferty welcomed the applicants and asked them to state their name for the record – Patrick Rawley with Stan Clauson & Associates was present with Dave Rybak of Rybak Architecture and Development. Mr. Rawley referenced Ordinance #5 and most importantly, amending HPC Resolution #25 for the rooftop development. This is based on tenant feedback for a preference over interior seating rather than rooftop seating, which would require an elevator and seating room to be taken away on the ground floor. They would plan to develop the CMU walls located off the alley for service aspects of the building, which was part of the original resolution. ADA compliant access, which was part of Ordinance #5, will still be part of the project, new light fixtures that are rather modest, fire resistant P2 II.B. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 25, 2017 wood shakes and repainting. Mr. Rawley hands it over to Mr. Rybak to discuss the façade, which he says is to basically just repair what is already there regarding trim and flashings. They will remove a skylight and shed roof and replace with shakes. The major change to the façade would be a new front door with increased height. They will also replace the existing gutter and will have a connection to the water treatment system. Referring to the plans, light fixture A will replace the now exposed flood lamps, light fixture B will replace over scaled sconces adjacent to the front door and light fixture C will be an assembly utility light that will be near the exit in the alley. The interior floor will be removed as well as the columns that support the roof and in order to do that, they will need to replace it with a roof that spans the 30ft across the building. They have a proposed roof structure that will sit above the existing timber roof structure and will remain exposed in the building. This will also accommodate reaching the new snow loads that are required for 2015. The east and west facades of this building are concealed by the neighboring buildings so what exists today are CMU walls that run north and south from the wood façade of the front to the back of the building. We are proposing to add four courses to the height of those walls so we can enclose the new roof structure and at the alley side of the building we are removing the existing construction and creating a permanent structure. Mr. Moyer asked what the height is of the new door and Mr. Rybak answered 6’8” right now and will be adding 1’4” to it so it would be about an 8 ft door. Mr. Lai asked about what type of signage they will be using and Mr. Rybak answered that they do not have a tenant signed on at this point and Mr. Lai clarified that he was wondering about location specifically, in which Mr. Rybak responded that he can’t get that far into it at this point, but when it is time, they will submit an appropriate sign permit to the Planning & Zoning department which will meet all codes. Mr. Pember asked if the building has been structurally engineered and Mr. Rybak answered that the two stories have been, which are in for a permit. Regarding the one story proposal, Mr. Rybak has had conversations with a structural engineer about what kind of depths they need to make that span and what types of systems are available to them so on a rudimentary level, yes, but down to the actual calculations, no. They are waiting for approval before the next steps. Mr. Pember asked about the ceiling height and Mr. Rybak responded that it is 7’8” to the underside of the timber. The timbers will remain and will be increased in height. Mr. Pember asks if they previously addressed skylights and lettering and Ms. Simon answered that the name “Little Annie’s” is copyrighted so we do not have the sign preserved and she would have to look back regarding the skylights, but she doesn’t recall a previous conversation about removing the skylights. Mr. Rawley says that he can see in the 2013 approval, that it shows the skylights being removed. Mr. Pember asks for clarification regarding the copyrighting issue in which Lex Tarumianz spoke up from the public seating and said the current owner has a trademark on the name “Little Annie’s” and that the owner is willing to fight for it. The board continues to discuss the project and ask questions. P3 II.B. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 25, 2017 Mr. Pember mentions that Little Annie’s is part of the Aspen Modern Program and asks which category it is designated to. Ms. Simon explains to the group that Little Annie’s was designated to the “rustic” category as it has the old downtown frontier vibe and is a deed restricted restaurant. Mr. Halferty opened the floor to the public: Ruth Kruger stated that the rooftop amenity is a public amenity so she asked for this to be considered and that she feels the City has given up a lot already for this property. Bob Morris stated that he owns a unit that faces directly over the rooftop of Little Annie’s and is concerned about what his view will look like going forward. He asked the architects to consider building a wall or something to block the view of the rooftop as to curtain off some of the new mechanical work. Mr. Rybak responded that the view of the rooftop will be improved from what it is now and will actually look nicer and more cleaned up. Mr. Morris agreed with not having a rooftop deck going forward and said he feels the City is retaining the Aspen flavor with restoring Little Annie’s the way it is. Lex Tarumianz mentioned that this proposal would benefit everyone in the long run. Mr. Halferty closed public comment. Mr. Halferty closed applicant rebuttal. Mr. Halferty opens discussion for a motion on Resolution #2. Mr. Lai is supportive of the proposal and points out that by having parties on a rooftop, it is not historically cogent and would like to persuade Ms. Kruger that this is a public amenity. Mr. Moyer states that he was enchanted with the rooftop garden upon first discussion and wouldn’t be against the idea of doing it in a historic building, but that he is looking forward to going back to the new Little Annie’s and believes it will be an amenity to the community. Ms. Berko states that she is sympathetic to both public comments, but she supports the revision to the project and its vision. Mr. Halferty is sympathetic as a public amenity and understands both sides of public comment, but appreciates how much effort the applicant has put in on this building. Mr. Pember makes the point that anywhere we have an affordable eatery, we should support that use, but is sad that we will never be able to see the Little Annie’s sign again due to the trademark. Mr. Halferty closes HPC discussion. MOTION: Mr. Blaich motioned for approval of Resolution #2, Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Richard-yes, Willis-yes, Jeffrey-yes, Nora-yes, Bob-yes, Roger-yes– 6-0, motion carried ITEM C: Ms. Simon reminded everyone that we are having a two-hour retreat on February 22nd. We will be having a facilitator come to help everyone learn how to better deal with split votes and hard to come P4 II.B. 5 by motions to help everyone work better together. Ms. Simon took suggestions from the board regarding some issues that should be addressed with the facilitator. MOTION: Mr. Blaich made the motion to adjourn, Ms. Berko seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m. P5 II.B. 1 FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 232 E. Main Street–Final Major Development and Final Commercial Design Review, Growth Management, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 25, 2017 DATE: February 8, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to demolish the existing gas station on this site and replace it with a retail building. The property is within the Main Street Historic District. In 2016, HPC granted Demolition and Conceptual design approval. HPC also granted Special Review so that the applicant could allocate some area that would have been permitted for residential use on the property to be for commercial purposes instead. HPC granted reductions to the required setbacks on the front and west sides of the building. Notice of HPC’s decision was provided to Council and Council declined to Call-Up the decision for further review. Now HPC is asked to consider Final Major Development, Final Commercial Design Review and Growth Management for the construction of new net leasable space. APPLICANT: 232 East Main Street LLC, represented by BendonAdams and Modif Architecture. ADDRESS: 232 E. Main Street, Lots R and S, Block 73, City and Townsite of Aspen. PARCEL ID: 2737-073-20-008. ZONING: MU, Mixed Use. Redevelopment of this site is subject to Major Development and Commercial Design Review, a two-step process requiring approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. HPC’s 2016 Conceptual approval is binding in regards to the location and form of the structure 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. P6 IV.A. 2 Staff Response: Final review focuses on landscape plan, lighting, fenestration, and selection of new materials. In addition, there were two conditions of Conceptual approval to be resolved; fenestration on the south elevation was to be restudied to better express the entry door and the proposed awning on the east façade was to be restudied so that no setback variance is needed. The applicable design guidelines are attached as Exhibit A and are found in the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines; Main Street Historic District chapter. This project is also subject to Chapter 12 of the new City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, which deals with accessibility, architectural lighting, mechanical equipment, services areas and signage. At Conceptual, staff and HPC agreed that the project is appropriate in terms of site plan, massing, roof form, height and scale. The design particularly acknowledges the Cortina Lodge, a landmarked AspenModern structure directly next door. HPC also accepted the applicant’s proposal to mitigate the parking requirement with a cash in lieu payment, to provide a code compliant utility, trash and recycling area along the alley, and to provide public amenity in the form of open space on the lot. HPC reviewed the applicant’s draft Transportation Impact Analysis which proposed primarily to mitigate for impacts of new trip generation by eliminating the driveways that provide access to the existing gas station, and constructing new sidewalks and streetscape improvements on the south and east sides of the property. A final Transportation Impact Analysis is provided in this packet. Note that, although the applicant was initially proposing a We-cycle station on the east side of the property it has been removed from the project due to lack of adequate space on the street to accommodate it. The We-cycle proposal was totally voluntary and does not cause the project to have a shortfall on any requirement. Similarly, the applicant has offered to create a bulb out at the Main and Monarch intersection to provide a better street crossing for pedestrians. The details of this bulb out need further review by Engineering to determine if the improvement should occur or not. The Final design is very consistent with the Conceptual approval. Staff has no concerns with the details or materials, except for the identification of the main entry into the building. For Final, the applicant was to restudy the south elevation to better express the entry door. This has been done, however the Monarch Street entry point is being emphasized through the use of an awning. The application mentions that signage for the business will be focused on the Monarch entry. Staff finds that this does not meet the following guideline from the Conceptual review: 7.9 Orient a new building in a manner that is similar to the orientation of buildings during the mining era, with the primary entrance facing the street. The building should be oriented parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the block. A structure, or each street-facing unit in the case of a multifamily structure, should have a primary entrance that faces the street. The entrance to the structure should be at an appropriate residential scale and visible from the street. Staff recommends a condition of approval that additional actions be taken to clearly identify that the primary entrance to the building is on Main Street, like all of the adjacent structures on the blockface. P7 IV.A. 3 GROWTH MANAGEMENT REFERRAL COMMENTS As part of the preparation of this project for HPC review, staff and the applicant met with other City Departments to discuss any conditions for the redevelopment. Although many of the concerns of other departments will be resolved as part of the building permit review process, HPC may wish to be aware of the topics. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District – ACSD has numerous standards that will need to be addressed at building permit. There are no unique challenges identified in their comments. Building- Building indicted the need to install a grease interceptor for food prep and sprinklers throughout the building. Building also noted that the entry doors cannot be bi-fold style, as shown on Main Street. Engineering Dept – Engineering commented on the TIA and provided input about Stormwater mitigation, snow storage, and utilities. Engineering noted that proper remediation of the underground gas storage tanks will be required. Environmental Health Dept – Environmental Health has preliminarily reviewed the plans for a 302 square foot trash and utility area and found them to be compliant. They may require the interior access to the trash area to be by ramp, rather than stairs or a lift. Parks Dept – Parks has a number of requirements for the installation of trees in the new right-of- way design. Zoning Dept – Zoning requested topographical information (provided in the application) and will review the height of the building relative to natural grade. There is more than a 2’ drop from front to back. Zoning mentioned the need to provide adequate information regarding exterior lighting and mechanical equipment at permit review. The demolished structure on the site generates a credit of 1,500 square feet of net leasable area, which is deducted from the mitigation requirements of the new project. The project creates approximately 4,141 square feet of new net leasable area, which calculates to be 13 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE’s) employees generated. 60% of the 13 FTE’s, or 7.8 employees, require mitigation according to the provisions below. P8 IV.A. 4 26.470.050.B General requirements. All development applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for growth management review based on the following generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type of development: 1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi-year development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet this standard. 2. The proposed development is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, as well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan. 3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district. 4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Planned Development – Project Review approval, as applicable. 5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection 26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate. 6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate P9 IV.A. 5 shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100 Employee/Square Footage Conversion. 7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services. Staff response: There is sufficient commercial square footage available in the 2017 Growth Management program to be allocated to this project, and development of new commercial space in the downtown is consistent with the surrounding land uses and zone district allowances. The applicant has proposed mitigation of 7.8 FTEs in the form of Affordable Housing Credits. Credits represent housing that has been built and deed restricted in other areas of town. This form of mitigation is allowable by right, but the calculation of the mitigation will be finalized at building permit. ______________________________________________________________________________ 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 approve the application with the following conditions: 1. Provide a restudy to demonstrate that the Main Street entrance is the primary entry into the building, for review and approval by staff and monitor. 2. All dimensional calculations, including the calculation for mitigation, will be verified during building permit review. Exhibits: Resolution #__, Series of 2017 A. Design Guidelines B. Application P10 IV.A. 6 Exhibit A- Relevant Design Guidelines 7.9 Orient a new building in a manner that is similar to the orientation of buildings during the mining era, with the primary entrance facing the street. The building should be oriented parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the block. A structure, or each street-facing unit in the case of a multifamily structure, should have a primary entrance that faces the street. The entrance to the structure should be at an appropriate residential scale and visible from the street. 7.16 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the Victorian era residences seen traditionally on Main Street. T h e s e i n c l u d e w i n d o w s , d o o r s a n d porches. Overall, details should be modest in character. 7.17 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen’s history are especially discouraged. 7.18 The retail entrance should be at the sidewalk level. All entrances shall be ADA compliant. On sloping sites the retail frontage should be as close to a level entrance as possible. 7.19 Incorporate an airlock entry into the plan for all new structures. An airlock entry that projects forward of the primary façade at the sidewalk edge is inappropriate. Adding temporary entries during the winter season detracts from the character of the historic district. Using a temporary vinyl or fabric "airlock" to provide protection from winter weather is not permitted. 7.20 Use building materials that are similar to those used historically. When selecting materials, reflect the simple and modest character of historic materials and their placement. 7.21 Use roofing materials that are similar in appearance to those seen historically. 7.22 Landscaping and paving should have the following characteristics: Enhance the street scene Integrate the development with its setting Reflect the quality of the architectural materials 7.23 Landscaping should create a buffer between the street and sidewalk. 12.3 Exterior light fixtures should be simple in character. • The design of a new fixture should be appropriate in form, finish, and scale with the structure. • New fixtures should not reflect a different period of history than that of the affected building, or be associated with a different architectural style. P11 IV.A. 7 • Lighting should be placed in a manner that is consistent with the period of the building, and should not provide a level of illumination that is out of character. • One light adjacent to each entry is appropriate on an Aspen Victorian residential structure. A recessed fixture, surface mounted light, pendant or sconce will be considered if suited to the building type or style. • On commercial structures and AspenModern properties, recessed lights and concealed lights are often most appropriate. 12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and trash storage. • Place mechanical equipment on the ground where it can be screened. • Mechanical equipment may only be mounted on a building on an alley façade. • Rooftop mechanical equipment or vents must be grouped together to minimize their visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, it may be appropriate to provide screening with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. Use the smallest, low profile units available for the purpose. • Window air conditioning units are not allowed. • Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Group them in a discrete location. Use pedestals when possible, rather than mounting on a historic building. • Paint mechanical equipment in a neutral color to minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds • In general, mechanical equipment should be vented through the roof, rather than a wall, in a manner that has the least visual impact possible. • Avoid surface mounted conduit on historic structures. 12.5 Awnings must be functional. • An awning must project at least 3 feet, and not more than 5 feet from the building façade. • An awning may only be installed at a door or window and must fit within the limits of the door or window opening. • Awnings are inappropriate on AspenModern properties unless historic evidence shows otherwise. P12 IV.A. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #__, Series 2017 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION #__ (SERIES OF 2017) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, FINAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPROVAL FOR 232 E. MAIN STREET, LOTS R AND S, BLOCK 73, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2737-073-20-008 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from 232 East Main Street, LLC, represented by Bendon Adams, LLC, for the following land use review approvals: • Commercial Design Review, Final pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412, • Major Development, Final pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415, • Growth Management pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470, WHEREAS, all code citation references are to the City of Aspen Land Use Code in effect on the day of initial application, March 15, 2016, as applicable to this Project; and, WHEREAS, as a result of a Development Review Committee meeting held on June 8, 2016, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Parks Department and Zoning; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Application for Final Review and GMQS and recommended approval; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on February 8, 2017, 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 the Historic Preservation Commission approved Resolution #__, Series of 2017, by a __ to __ vote, granting approval with the conditions listed hereinafter. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Final Major Development and Final Commercial Design approval are granted for the project, with the following condition: 1. Provide a restudy to demonstrate that the Main Street entrance is the primary entry into the building, for review and approval by staff and monitor. P13 IV.A. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #__, Series 2017 Page 2 of 2 2. All dimensional calculations, and the calculation for any form of mitigation, will be verified during building permit review. Section 2: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Growth Management approval is granted for the construction of approximately 4,141 square feet of new net leasable space, with the condition that 60% of the FTEs generated by the new net leasable area shall be in the form of Category 4 credits. Section 3: 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. Section 4: 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 5: 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 8th day of February, 2017. Approved as to content: ______________________________ Jeffrey Halferty, Chair Approved as to form: __________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Attest: _______________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk P14 IV.A. 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM November 23, 2016 Ms. Amy Simon Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 232 East Main Street Final Application Ms. Simon: Please accept this request to redevelop the property located at 232 East Main Street, also known as the Conoco gas station. The site is just under 6,000 sf in size and is located in the Mixed Use Zone District/Main Street Historic District. A 100% commercial building that is well below the height limit, incorporates lively outdoor space to energize Main Street, and redefines the street corner is proposed. The projects intends to redevelop the current gas station with a new two story commercial building. No basement is proposed at this time. The front portion of the property is one story and a small two story space is located toward the alley. The proposed building is a fresh approach to new construction in the Historic District that blends Victorian and Modern by drawing inspiration from the gable forms of the historic Victorians and the deep overhang of the chalet style represented by the Cortina Lodge. Being in the Historic District this project is reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission for demolition approval, and for compatibility with surrounding landmarks and consistency with the purpose and intent of the Historic Preservation program. Public amenity is located onsite around the perimeter of the building in the required setbacks. Conceptual Commercial Design, Conceptual Major Development, and Demolition were granted July 27, 2016 via HPC Resolution No. 22, Series of 2016. HPC approved a 1:1 floor area ratio for commercial use through Special Review. A front yard setback variation of 5 feet and a west sideyard setback variation of 0 feet were granted by HPC. City Council received notice of call up on August 22, 2016 and did not call up the project. The following conditions of approval were adopted as part of HPC Resolution No. 22: 1) Cash in lieu mitigation is required for the generation of 3.8 new parking spaces. 1 parking space per 1,000 sf of net leasable is required to be mitigated. Existing deficit on property is 1.5 spaces (1,500 sf/1,000). The property is currently developed as a gas station with a 1,500 sf nla commercial building. There is currently no legal parking and the entire site is hardscape and curb cuts P15 IV.A. 232 East Main Street Final HPC Reviews and GMQS 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM (a survey showing a lack of legal parking spaces is provided in the application). A deficit is allowed to be maintained when a property is redeveloped. Total net leasable proposed is 5,641 sf = 5.6 spaces (5,641/1,000). 5.6 spaces – 1.5 spaces = 4.1 spaces. We request the ability to calculate the generation of new parking spaces at the time of building permit in case the net leasable amount changes slightly the through building permit review process. 2) For Final Review, fenestration on the south elevation shall be restudied to better express the entry door. The front façade has been redesigned to include a prominent entry door that is clearly expressed through architectural details. Sheet A-211 illustrates the south elevation, also shown below. Figure 1 (top): proposed south elevation with defined entry Figure 2 (bottom): south elevation presented during Conceptual Review. P16 IV.A. 232 East Main Street Final HPC Reviews and GMQS 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM 3) For Final Review, the proposed awning on the east façade shall be restudied so that no setback variance is needed. The awning along Monarch Street is retractable and does not require a setback variance. A detail of the awning is provided on Sheet A-500. This application requests the following reviews of the Historic Preservation Commission: • Final Major Development Review (Exhibit A) • Final Commercial Design Review (Exhibit A) • Growth Management (Exhibit B) We look forward to discussing this project with you and with the Historic Preservation Commission as we feel that it is a great addition to the Main Street Historic District and serves as an appropriate transition to the Commercial Core Historic District. Please contact me with any questions or concerns: 925-2855 or sara@bendonadams.com Kind Regards , Sara Adams, AICP Principal BendonAdams LLC Attachments: A – Final Commercial Design Review and Final Major Development Review B – Growth Management Review C – Pre-Application Conference Summary D – Land Use Application and Dimensional Requirements Form E – Vicinity Map F – Authorization to represent G – Disclosure of ownership H – Agreement to Pay I – HOA compliance J – TIA K – HPC Resolution No. 22, Series of 2016 L – HPC meeting minutes from July 26, 2016 M – City Council meeting minutes from notice of call up on August 22, 2016 N - list of owners within 300 ft. will be furnished closer to the public hearing to ensure compliance with the 6 month requirement for the list. O – Context photographs P – Materials Q - Drawings, survey, streetscape P17 IV.A. Exhibit A- Final Design Reviews Page 1 of 8 Exhibit A - Commercial Design Standards and HPC Major Development Final for 232 East Main Street 26.415.060.B.2 The City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines are used to review exterior changes to historic landmarks and to properties within a historic district. Conformance with the applicable guidelines and the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304 will be necessary for the approval of any proposed work. Please find below an analysis of the Main Street Historic District Design Guidelines and Objectives. Final Commercial Design Standard Review applies the same design guidelines for the Main Street Historic District and the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. As described below, the project conforms with the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines/ Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Guidelines and Objectives. Relevant Design Guidelines found in Chapter 12, Architectural Lighting, Mechanical Equipment, Service Areas and Signage, are addressed below. 12.1 Address accessibility compliance requirements while preserving character defining features of historic buildings and districts. • All new construction must comply completely with the International Building Code (IBC) for accessibility. Special provisions for historic buildings exist in the law that allow some flexibility when designing solutions which meet accessibility standards. The proposed new building intends to meet all IBC requirements for accessibility. 12.2 Original light fixtures must be maintained. When there is evidence as to the appearance of original fixtures that are no longer present, a replication is appropriate. The existing building is not a designated landmark and is proposed to be demolished. 12.3 Exterior light fixtures should be simple in character. • The design of a new fixture should be appropriate in form, finish, and scale with the structure. • New fixtures should not reflect a different period of history than that of the affected building, or be associated with a different architectural style. • Lighting should be placed in a manner that is consistent with the period of the building, and should not provide a level of illumination that is out of character. • One light adjacent to each entry is appropriate on an Aspen Victorian residential structure. A recessed fixture, surface mounted light, pendant or sconce will be considered if suited to the building type or style. • On commercial structures and AspenModern properties, recessed lights and concealed lights are often most appropriate. Exterior gooseneck light fixtures that meet lighting Code and that highlight the proposed architectural style are included in the application. A simple sconce is proposed adjacent to the entry facing Main Street. Light fixtures, cut sheets and a lighting plan are included in the final design application on Sheet A-240. 12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and trash storage. • Place mechanical equipment on the ground where it can be screened. • Mechanical equipment may only be mounted on a building on an alley façade. P18 IV.A. Exhibit A- Final Design Reviews Page 2 of 8 • Rooftop mechanical equipment or vents must be grouped together to minimize their visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, it may be appropriate to provide screening with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. Use the smallest, low profile units available for the purpose. • Window air conditioning units are not allowed. • Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Group them in a discrete location. Use pedestals when possible, rather than mounting on a historic building. • Paint mechanical equipment in a neutral color to minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds • In general, mechanical equipment should be vented through the roof, rather than a wall, in a manner that has the least visual impact possible. • Avoid surface mounted conduit on historic structures. Mechanical equipment is centrally located on the rooftop and is concealed from the street behind the gable roof forms. 12.5 Awnings must be functional. • An awning must project at least 3 feet, and not more than 5 feet from the building façade. • An awning may only be installed at a door or window and must fit within the limits of the door or window opening. • Awnings are inappropriate on AspenModern properties unless historic evidence shows otherwise. A 5’ deep metal awning is proposed at the primary entrance facing Monarch Street. The awning is operable, defines the Monarch Street entrance, and protects customers from weather. 12.6 Signs should not obscure or damage historic building fabric. • Where possible, install a free standing sign that is appropriate in height and width. Consolidate signage for multiple businesses. • Mount signs so that the attachment point can be easily repaired when the sign is replaced. Do not mount signage directly into historic masonry. • Blade signs or hanging signs are generally preferred to wall mounted signs because the number of attachment points may be less. • Signs should be constructed of wood or metal. • Pictographic signs are encouraged because they add visual interest to the street. 12.7 Sign lighting must be subtle and concealed. • Pin mounted letters with halo lighting will not be approved on Aspen Victorian buildings. • The size of a fixture used to light a sign must be minimized. The light must be directed towards the sign. If possible, integrate the lights into the sign bracket. 12.8 Locate signs to be subordinate to the building design. • Signs should be located on the first floor of buildings, primarily. • Signs should not obscure historic building details. 12.9 Preserve historic signs. P19 IV.A. Exhibit A- Final Design Reviews Page 3 of 8 There is no historic building fabric on the proposed building. The applicant intends to meet the Guidelines and the City of Aspen Sign Code when a sign permit is submitted. Signage is proposed to be located on the wall adjacent to the Monarch Street entry. 26.412.050. Review Criteria. An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards. Building Design & Articulation Entries are clearly defined on most structures in the neighborhood. Porches, porticos and stoops are elements that typically define entries. These features add a one-story element to the fronts of buildings, helping to establish a uniform sense of human scale along the block. They are essential elements of the neighborhood that should be maintained. Other architectural details also contribute to the character of the street, adding visual interest for pedestrians. Their continued use is strongly encouraged. Architectural features • The Main Street District has developed into a mixture of commercial and residential forms. • The Main Street District is composed of varying architectural styles reflecting the development phases of Aspen. • The historic mining era is responsible for the majority of small miner’s cottage and larger high- style homes, although considerable infill has occurred due to the ski industry. • Infill buildings include samples of Chalet style and Rustic style buildings. • Residential buildings are primarily vernacular designs, with highlights of Queen Anne buildings. 7.16 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the Victorian era residences seen traditionally on Main Street. • These include windows, doors and porches. • Overall, details should be modest in character. The gable roof forms and deep eaves reference the adjacent Cortina Lodge. Proposed details are simple and modest in character. 7.17 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. • This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. • Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen’s history are especially discouraged. The proposed building does not imitate historic 19th century styles or propose a highly complex style. The proposed style is indicative of its own time while paying homage to the adjacent Cortina Lodge. P20 IV.A. Exhibit A- Final Design Reviews Page 4 of 8 Windows and Doors The similarity of window and door size and location contributes to a sense of visual continuity along the street. In order to maintain this sense of visual continuity, a new building should maintain the basic window and door proportions and placement patterns seen traditionally in the district. 7.18 The retail entrance should be at the sidewalk level. • All entrances shall be ADA compliant • On sloping sites the retail frontage should be as close to a level entrance as possible. 7.19 Incorporate an airlock entry into the plan for all new structures. • An airlock entry that projects forward of the primary façade at the sidewalk edge is inappropriate. • Adding temporary entries during the winter season detracts from the character of the historic district. • Using a temporary vinyl or fabric “airlock” to provide protection from winter weather is not permitted. Due to the existing 2 feet grade change on the site, retail entrances are as close to sidewalk level as possible. An air curtain is proposed for the primary entrance facing Monarch Street. Architectural Materials The existing palette of building materials within the Main Street Historic District is an essential part of the sense of evolution of the area and its current character. Primarily wood and masonry define the majority of the area and express both human scale, structure, detail and a sense of historical continuity. These materials have been used in recent lodge development within the area. The predominant use of wood siding is another important feature in the district. Building materials of new structures and additions to existing structures should contribute to this visual continuity of the neighborhood by reflecting the scale and texture of traditional materials. While new materials may be considered, they should appear similar to those seen traditionally to establish a sense of visual continuity. Materials • Historically, masonry and wood buildings characterized the district. • Stucco and manufactured logs are seen among the infill buildings form the early ski-era. 7.20 Use building materials that are similar to those used historically. • When selecting materials, reflect the simple and modest character of historic materials, and their placement. A dark metal rain screen is proposed to wrap the building closest to Main Street. Horizontal wood siding with a cedar shake roof is proposed for the section of building behind the Main Street module. A large amount of glazing is proposed along Main and Monarch Streets. All of the materials are simple and modest in character, and relate to the surrounding context of the neighborhood. P21 IV.A. Exhibit A- Final Design Reviews Page 5 of 8 Roofing Materials 7.21 Use roofing materials that are similar in appearance to those seen historically. Metal and wood shingles are proposed materials for the sloped roofs. Both materials are traditional to the Main Street Historic District. Paving and Landscaping Certain settings and buildings within the city are associated with the quality of design and materials in paving and/or landscaping. It is important that this be recognized and retained where it exists, is of historic relevance, or otherwise successful. The site and setting of all development shall be enhanced by design of both paving and landscaping with any proposal. Proposed enhancements within the public right of way shall form part of a comprehensive improvement proposal for the street or area, and approval will be required. Landscape design features • Some historic houses still retain their front yard original fence patterns that create a distinct residential character. These fences are low and transparent in nature. • Landscaping is dominated by shade trees along the right of way, although lilacs are common plantings adjacent to houses. 7.22 Landscaping and paving should have the following characteristics: • Enhance the street scene. • Integrate the development with its setting. • Reflect the quality of the architectural materials. The property has over a 2 feet grade change from Main Street toward the alley. Simple landscaping that enhances the street scene and reflects the style of the architecture with small rock accents is proposed. The 5 feet setback has planting beds and a 6 inch landscape curb to recognize the grade change between the sidewalk and the property. The walkway from the sidewalk to the Main Street entrance has a gentle slope to recognize the grade change. 7.23 Landscaping should create a buffer between the street and sidewalk. The proposed landscape on both street facing facades greatly improves the existing conditions and adds Parks Department approved tree plantings and accent rocks, annuals and perennials. These features soften the landscape and create a buffer between the street and the sidewalk while still providing visibility to the building. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the façade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. n/a. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of P22 IV.A. Exhibit A- Final Design Reviews Page 6 of 8 appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. Please see discussion above. The final design guidelines for the Main Street Historic District are met. 26.412.060. Commercial Design Standards. The following design standards, in addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district design objectives and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed-use development: A. Public Amenity Space. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-of-way or private property within commercial areas. On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method or combination of methods of providing the public amenity shall be at the option of the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, according to the procedures herein and according to the following standards: 1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. There is currently no public amenity on-site as the entire site is used for a gas station. The required public amenity is 10% or 598 sf. At grade areas adjacent to the building along the east elevation and the garden area along Main Street meet the public amenity design standards and encompass 899 sf. Extensive upgrades to the right of way including street trees, and sidewalks are proposed (subject to Parks and Engineering Department approval). The total public amenity including the off-site improvements to the right of way equals 2,979 sf. 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. Outdoor restaurant seating and landscaping are proposed along Main Street to vitalize the corner. New street trees are proposed to provide shade. The outdoor seating is underneath the eave overhang and as such does not count toward the public amenity calculation. 3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of- way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. The public amenity area is open to view and open to the sky. There are no walls or enclosures and the grade changes are less than 2’. Landscaping both on and off property is proposed to enhance the pedestrian experience. All of these features contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment on a busy corner. P23 IV.A. Exhibit A- Final Design Reviews Page 7 of 8 4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls, sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian environment. The proposed amenity space does not duplicate existing spaces. The proposed space defines the corner while providing a simple and energized area for pedestrians and customers to dwell. 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. No variations are requested to the design and operational standards for public amenity. B. Utility, delivery and trash service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply: 1. A trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum size and location standards established by Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, unless otherwise established according to said Chapter. The required size for this type of development is 20’w x 15’d x 10’h and 300 sf. The proposed area is located off of the alley and is 22’5.75”w x 19’2.75”d x 10’ h and 313 sf in size (interior measurement). 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. A 10’ x 13’ area is proposed on the alley that is open to the sky, which meets the Utilities Department Section 5 requirement. 3. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located and combined to the greatest extent practical. The utility and trash areas are co-located along the alley in the northwest corner away from Monarch St. 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. These areas are located off of the alley. 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. The utility trash area is located on an alley inside the building. Double pocket doors to prevent wildlife from entering and to visibly shield the area from the alley are proposed. 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. P24 IV.A. Exhibit A- Final Design Reviews Page 8 of 8 The trash and recycle area is located at grade along the alley that is accessible from inside the building. The grade changes on the property necessitate a chairlift to provide accessibility to the trash/utility area. 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. The utility areas are proposed to be located on private property. The applicant understands that an easement may be necessary to provide access. 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. Deliveries are proposed along the alleyway. The building is setback from the property line by 5’ providing a pathway that is on the property. 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. An internal air curtain is proposed at the main entrance along Monarch Street as noted on the plans. 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. Mechanical equipment and venting is proposed on the one story flat roof in a location that is fully shielded by the gable roof forms. 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. The rooftop mechanical is clustered on the one story flat roof element toward the rear of the property. 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). A variance from the trash area requirements is not requested. P25 IV.A. Exhibit B - Growth Management Page 1 of 4 Exhibit B – Growth Management 26.470.050. General requirements. A. Purpose: The intent of growth management is to provide for orderly development and redevelopment of the City while providing mitigation from the impacts said development and redevelopment creates. Different types of development are categorized below, as well as the necessary review process and review standards for the proposed development. A proposal may fall into multiple categories and therefore have multiple processes and standards to adhere to and meet. B. General requirements: All development applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for growth management review based on the following generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type of development: 1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi-year development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet this standard. The project proposes a total of 5,641 sf of net leasable area. The current building has 1,500 sf of net leasable area; therefore, 4,141 sf of new net leasable area is requested from the 33,300 sf of net leasable area annual allotment. 2. The proposed development is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, as well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan. There are no applicable regulatory master plans. The proposed commercial building is consistent with the surrounding area and is compatible with the Main Street Historic District as discussed in Exhibit A, Commercial Design Standard and Major Development Conceptual Reviews. 3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district. The development is consistent with the allowances of the Main Street Historic District regulations. 4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Planned Development – Project Review approval, as applicable. Conceptual Design Reviews were granted via HPC Resolution #22, Series of 2016. The proposal is consistent with these approvals. 5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection 26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate. P26 IV.A. Exhibit B - Growth Management Page 2 of 4 The project proposes to increase the net leasable area by 4,141 sf and proposes to mitigate the required 7.8 FTEs through Category 4 Affordable Housing Credits. The required number of FTEs is calculated as follows (NOTE: employee generation rate for MU on ground level = 3.6 FTEs/1,000 sf nla for ground level; employee generate rate for MU on upper floors = 2.7 FTEs/ 1,000 sf nla)): Existing one story building is 1,500 sf nla = 5.40 FTEs credit for existing (1,500/1,000 *3.6) Proposed ground level is 3,988 sf nla = 14.36 FTEs Proposed second level is 1,495 sf nla = 4.04 FTEs New building FTEs = 18.4 FTEs Existing Credit = 5.40 FTEs Total additional FTEs = 13 FTEs Mitigate at 60% = 7.8 FTEs Housing Credits at Category 4 6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100 Employee/Square Footage Conversion. n/a 7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services. The site currently has an existing commercial building. Any additional impacts resulting from the new building will be mitigated. 26.470.070 Planning and Zoning Commission applications. The following types of development shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.470.110, Procedures for review, and the criteria for each type of development described below. Except as noted, all growth management applications shall comply with the general requirements of Section 26.470.050. Except as noted, the following types of growth management approvals shall be deducted from the respective development ceiling levels but shall not be deducted from the annual development allotments. Approvals apply cumulatively. Growth P27 IV.A. Exhibit B - Growth Management Page 3 of 4 Management approvals for Subsections 26.470.080(6-10) shall be deducted from the respective annual development allotments. 26.470.70.4 Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. Affordable housing credits at Category 4 are proposed to meet this requirement. b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a cash-in-lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash-in-lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation requirements by approval of the Community Development Department Director, pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of the Certificate. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. Affordable housing credits at Category 4 are proposed. c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430. Staff Finding: n/a. d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory "for sale" provision. P28 IV.A. Exhibit B - Growth Management Page 4 of 4 Staff Finding: n/a. e. Non-Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not required for mitigation, but meet the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d). The owner of such non-mitigation affordable housing is eligible to receive a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540. Staff Finding: n/a. P29 IV.A. CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Amy Simon, 970.429.2758 DATE: November 21, 2016 PROJECT: 232 E Main St REPRESENTATIVE: Sara Adams REQUEST: Final Major Development and Commercial Design Review for property within a Historic District, GMQS review for new net leasable space DESCRIPTION: The applicant has received Conceptual Design, Demolition and Special Review approval to replace the existing gas station use at this site with a new commercial bui lding. This 6,000 sf property is zoned Mixed Use (MU) and is located within the Main Street Historic District. The property is not a historic landmark. Final Major Development and Commercial Design Review, along with Growth Management review are required before building permit. In terms of design, the Applicant shall address the requirements in Chapters 1 & 12 of the recently adopted Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Additionally, the Applicant will address the Main Street Historic District guidelines for Final Review as defined in the Commercial Design Guidelines. HPC’s Conceptual approval, Resolution #22, Series of 2016, specifically required the Final application to restudy of the south façade to better express the entry, and required restudy of the east facing awning. Growth Management review is required at this Final hearing in order to address mitigation for any new net leasable space generated by the project. The applicant must also provide a finalized plan meeting the City’s guidelines for Traffic Impact mitigation. Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience: Land Use Code: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Business-Navigator/Get-Approval-to-Develop/Refer-to-Land-Use-Code/ Land Use Application: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/HPC/Land%20Use%20HPC%20Packet%20 March%202016.pdf Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Current- Planning/ Transportation Impact Analysis Requirements: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Current- Planning/ Relevant Land Use Code Section(s): 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.304.060.B.1 Combined Reviews 26.412 Commercial Design Review 26.415.070 Development involving designated properties Exhibit C P30 IV.A. 2 26.470.050 GMQS – General requirements 26.470.070.4 Affordable Housing 26.470.070.6 Expansion or new commercial development 26.540 Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit 26.630 Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines 26.710.180 Mixed Use Zone District Review by: Staff for completeness and recommendation Review agencies for recommendation HPC for decisions Public Hearing: Yes, at HPC Planning Fees: $4,550 for 14 hours of staff time. Referrals: Engineering ($325 one hour deposit) Total Deposit: $4,875 Additional Engineering and Planning Staff hours, if needed, will be billed at $325 per hour. Any unbilled portion of this deposit will be refunded at the conclusion of the case. To apply, submit 1 complete copy of the following information: Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement. Pre-application Conference Summary (this document). Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application. Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. HOA Compliance form (Attached) An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. List of adjacent property owners within 300’ for public hearing. A site improvement survey (no older than a year from submittal) including topography and vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor by licensed in the State of Colorado. P31 IV.A. 3 Documentation showing the proposal meets all Transportation Mitigation Requirements as outlined in the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines and Mitigation Tool, available online at: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and- Zoning/Recent-Code-Amendments/. A copy of the tool showing trips generated and the chosen mitigation measures should be included with the application. Scaled drawings of the proposal including site plan, floor plans, roof plan and all elevations. Final selection of all exterior materials, and samples or clearly illustrated photographs. Samples are preferred for the presentation to HPC. Existing and proposed floor area and net leasable calculations. Lighting plan and landscape plan. Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated historic property or historic district including at least one (1) of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models or streetscape elevations. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with conditions of Conceptual approval, as well as the review standards relevant to the Final development application. Once the application is deemed complete, the following items will then need to be submitted: Fee for review of application. A complete copy of the application, including all items listed above, provided by email to the assigned planner in .pdf format. 12 Copies of the application drawings. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. P32 IV.A. CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT January, 2016 City of Apen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5050 ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: ______________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: ______________________________________________________________________________ Location: ______________________________________________________________________________ Zone District: ______________________________________________________________________________ Lot Size: __________________________________________________________________________ Lot Area: _____________________________________________________________________________ (For the purpose of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high-water mark, easement, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _________________________________ Number of residential units: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _________________________________ Number of bedrooms: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _________________________________ Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): ______________ DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: _____________ Allowable: ___________Proposed ____________ Principal bldg. height: Existing: _____________ Allowable: ___________Proposed____________ Access. Bldg. height: Existing: _____________ Allowable: __________ Proposed_____________ On-Site parking: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed_____________ % Site coverage: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed_____________ % Open Space: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed_____________ Front Setback: Existing: _____________ Required ____________Proposed _____________ Rear Setback: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed _____________ Combined F/F: Existing: _____________ Required ___________ Proposed _____________ Side Setback: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed _____________ Side Setback: Existing: _____________ Required ___________ Proposed _____________ Combined Sides: Existing: _____________ Required ___________ Proposed _____________ Distance between Bldgs. Existing: _____________ Required: ___________ Proposed _____________ Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed: _____________ Existing non-conformities or encroachments: __________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ Variations requested: _____________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 232 East Main Street 232 East Main Street, LLC 232 East Main Street, Lots R and S, Block 73 City and Townsite of Aspen, CO Mixed Use Historic District 59.8' x 100' 5,981 sf 1,500 sf 5,641 sf: 4,146 ground and 1,495 sf upper floor 0 0 0 0 1,500 sf 5,981 sf total 5,976 sf total approx. 21' to apex varied heights, max. of 20' 3.25" measured to 1/3 point 28' - 32' 0 3.8 spaces cash in lieu by right 0% public amenity 10%10% to be met onsite and offsite n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a about 55.8'5' - 10'5' through Special Review 16'5'5' 3"to building and n/a n/a n/a EAST - Monarch 22'5'5' to building WEST 0.2'5'0' n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a West setback is nonconforming. Front yard setback of 5' through Special Review; West sideyard setback of 0'; Rear yard setback of 1'3" for exterior stair; commercial FAR of 1:1 through Special Review Exhibit D P33 IV.A. City of Aspen Community Development Department Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016 ATTACHMENT 2 - Historic Preservation Land Use Application PROJECT: Name: Location: (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)___________________________________________________________ Applicant: Name: Address: Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:_______________________________________________ REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Address: Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:________________________________________________ TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): Historic Designation Certificate of No Negative Effect Certificate of Appropriateness -Minor Historic Development -Major Historic Development -Conceptual Historic Development -Final Historic Development -Substantial Amendment Relocation (temporary, on or off-site) Demolition (total demolition) Historic Landmark Lot Split EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 232 East Main Street 232 East Main Street, Lots R and S, Block 73, City and Townsite of CO 2737-073-20-008 232 East Main Street LLC 2001 North Halsted St., Suite 304 Chicago IL 60614 312-850-1680 mhunt@mdevco.com Sara Adams, BendonAdams 300 S. Spring Street, Suite 202, Aspen 970-925-2855 sara@bendonadams.com Growth Management Conoco Gas Station New 100% commercial one and two story building. Setback variations and special review for 1:1 commercial FAR granted via HPC Resolution 22 of 2016. P34 IV.A. 232 E. Main Street Vicinity Map Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Emissions Inventory Boundary (EIB) Historic Sites Historic Districts Parcel Boundary March 10, 2016 0 0.035 0.070.0175 mi 0 0.06 0.120.03 km 1:2,257 Exhibit E P35IV.A. Exhibit FP36IV.A. BUS_RE/5962049.1 730 East Durant Avenue, Second Floor, Aspen, Colorado 81611-1557 Telephone: 970.925.6300 Fax: 970.925.1181 www.shermanhoward.com Curtis B. Sanders Sherman & Howard L.L.C. Direct Dial Number: 970.300.0114 E-mail: csanders@shermanhoward.com March 14, 2016 City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 232 East Main Street LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; Certificate of Ownership Dear Sir or Madam: I am an attorney licensed by the State of Colorado to practice law. This letter shall confirm and certify that 232 East Main Street LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, is the owner of certain improved real property located at 232 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, and legally described as follows (the "Subject Property"): Lots R and S, Block 73, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. The Subject Property is subject to the following matters of record: 1. Restrictions as set forth in Deed recorded November 30, 1888 in Book 59 at Page 521. 2.Ordinance No. 60, Series of 1976, designating the Subject Property as within an Historic District, recorded December 9, 1976 in Book 321 at Page 51. 3. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in the Deed of Trust, Assignment of Leases and Rents and Security Agreement dated as of June 10, 2014 and given by 232 East Main Street LLC in favor of Jefferies LoanCore LLC recorded June 18, 2014 as Reception No. 611183, Pitkin County, Colorado. 4. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in the Assignment of Leases and Rents dated as of June 10, 2014 and given by 232 East Main Street LLC in favor of Jefferies LoanCore LLC recorded June 18 2014 as Reception No. 611184, Pitkin County, Colorado. Exhibit G P37 IV.A. 2 BUS_RE/5962049.1 5. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in the UCC Financing Statement given by 232 East Main Street LLC in favor of Jefferies LoanCore LLC recorded June 18, 2014 as Reception No. 611185, Pitkin County, Colorado. 6. Assignment of Deed of Trust, Assignment of Leases and Rents and Security Agreement dated as of August 28, 2014 between Jefferies Loancore LLC as Assignor and JLC Warehouse V LLC as Assignee recorded August 24, 2015 as Reception No. 622650. 7. Assignment of Leases and Rents dated as of August 28, 2014 between Jefferies Loancore LLC as Assignor and JLC Warehouse V LLC as Assignee recorded August 24, 2015 as Reception No. 622651. 8. Assignment of UCC Financing Statement between Jefferies Loancore LLC as Assignor and JLC Warehouse V LLC as Assignee recorded August 24, 2015 as Reception No. 622652. 9. Assignment of Deed of Trust, Assignment of Leases and Rents and Security Agreement dated as of July 22, 2015 between JLC Warehouse V LLC as Assignor and DIVCORE CLO 2013-LTD. as Assignee recorded August 24, 2015 as Reception No. 622710. 10. Assignment of Assignment of Leases and Rents dated as of July 22, 2015 between JLC Warehouse V LLC as Assignor and DIVCORE CLO 2013-LTD. as Assignee recorded August 24, 2015 as Reception No. 622711. 11. Assignment of UCC Financing Statement between JLC Warehouse V LLC as Assignor and DIVCORE CLO 2013-LTD. as Assignee recorded August 24, 2015 as Reception No. 622711. Sincerely, Curtis B. Sanders P38 IV.A. Exhibit HP39IV.A. Exhibit IP40IV.A. DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION: NAME, COMPANY, ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL Peak Hour Max Trips Generated MMLOS TDM Total Trips Mitigated PM 17.1 20 0.29 20.29 0.00 Click on the "Generate Narrative" Button to the right. Respond to each of the prompts in the space provided. Each response should cover the following: 1. Explain the selected measure. 2. Call out where the measure is located. 3. Demonstrate how the selected measure is appropriate to enhance the project site and reduce traffic impacts. 4. Explain the Enforcement and Financing Plan for the selected measure. 5. Explain the scheduling and implementation responsibility of the mitigation measure. 6. Attach any additional information and a site map to the narrative report. Sara Adams of BendonAdams 300 S. Spring St., #202, Aspen, CO 81611 925-2855 sara@bendonadams.com Summary and Narrative: Narrative: 11/22/2016 232 E. Main Street 232 E. Main Street Trip Generation SUMMARY Trip Mitigation NET TRIPS TO BE MITIGATED Project Description In the space below provide a description of the proposed project. A two story commercial building that replaces an existing gas station is proposed on the corner of Monarch and Main Streets. Outdoor setaing on the property is proposed facing Main Street. Landscape areas on and off property are proposed as part of an overall plan to upgrade sidewalks and remove curb cuts to comply with City Standards. MMLOS In the space provided call out the effective sidewalk width and the percentage of the site which meets or exceeds the minimum standard width. Explain the site constraints for areas which do not meet the minimum width. This property is located on the corner of Main and Monarch Streets. 8 feet sidewalks are proposed for both Main and Monarch Street which meets the minimum requirement for a commercial building. Explain what driveways are removed and how this benefits the pedestrian experience. The entire site is a curbcute due to its current use as a gas station. Removing all curbcuts and reconstructing sidewalks benefits the pedestrian experience by offering a more organized, safe and clearly delineated area for walking. Explain any additional minor bicycle improvements which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff. A city approved bike rack is proposed near the intersection at a location to be determined by Parks and Engineering. P41 IV.A. Include any additional information that pertains to the MMLOS plan in the space provided below. A TIA site plan is included in the application on sheet TIA-1. TDM Explain below how the project plans to participate in the Transportation Options Program (TOP). The successful project will work with City of Aspen staff to determine whether TOP membership is appropriate and, if so, to join the program. Notes: This program is not typically appropriate for employers of less than 20 employees. Grant funding from the TOP program may not be used to offset mitigation measures until the reporting period has been successfully completed The project will participate in the Transportation Options Program with the City. A requirement to participate in the TOP will be included in the lease agreements with each tenant space. Explain the proposed trip reduction marketing/incentive program in the space provided. A trip reduction marketing programs should include a number of the following strategies: orientation to trip reduction programs and benefits; orientation to specific alternative transportation modes such as bus service information, bike/walk route maps, etc.; publishing of web or traditional informational materials; events and contests such as commuter fairs, new employee orientations, bike to work days, etc.; educational opportunities such bicycle commute/repair classes; web or traditional materials aimed at guests/customers such as bike/walk maps, free transit day passes, etc.; incentive programs such as prizes, rewards or discounts for alternative commuting. Introducing employees to all of the different modes of transportation will be part of employee orientation and a requirement of the lease agreement for tenants. Educatino opportunities will be posted in the employee back of house area. Include any additional information that pertains to the TDM plan in the space provided below. Enter Text Here MMLOS Site Plan Requirements Pedestrian Directness Factor (See callout number 9 on the MMLOS sheet for an example) Enforcement and Financing Provide an overview of the Enforcement and Financing plan for the proposed transportation mitigation measures. Requirements of the TIA will be included in the lease agreements with the individual tenants. Include the following on a site plan. Clearly call out and label each measure. Attach the site plan to the TIA submittal. Sidewalk Width and Buffer Width Slopes Between Back of Curb and Sidewalk Removed Driveway(s) 2% Slope at Pedestrian Driveway Crossings Scheduling and Implementation Responsibility of Mitigation Measures Provide an overview of the scheduling and implementation responsibility for the proposed transportation mitigation measures. The MMLOS measures are a requirement of building permit certificate of occupancy. The TDM measures will be the responsibility of individual tenants of the building. P42 IV.A. The MMLOS measures are a requirement of building permit certificate of occupancy. The TDM measure will be the responsibility of individual tenants of the building. The owner or tenant will make a good faith effort to assess compliance and effectiveness of the implemented measures, and submit the information to the City. Monitoring and Reporting Provide a monitoring and reporting plan. Refer to page 17 in the Transportation Analysis Guidelines for a list of monitoring plan requirements. Components of a Monitoring and Reporting Plan should include (1) Assessment of compliance with guidelines, (2) Results and effectiveness of implemented measures, (3) Identification of additional strategies, and (4) Surveys and other supporting data. P43 IV.A. = input = calculation DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION: NAME, COMPANY, ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL minor Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Total Commercial (sf)4141.0 sf 6.49 2.91 9.40 6.86 10.29 17.14 Free-Market Housing (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Affordable Housing (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lodging (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Essential Public Facility (sf)0.0 sf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.49 2.91 9.40 6.86 10.29 17.14 Land Use Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Commercial 2.27 0.69 0.31 4.14 0.4 0.6 Free-Market Housing 0.67 0.29 0.71 0.82 0.56 0.44 Affordable Housing 0.75 0.48 0.52 0.89 0.55 0.45 Lodging 0.25 0.57 0.43 0.31 0.52 0.48 Essential Public Facility 0.86 0.62 0.38 1.66 0.4 0.6 AM Peak Average PM Peak Average Trips Generated AM Peak-Hour PM Peak-Hour TOTAL NEW TRIPS ASSUMPTIONS ASPEN TRIP GENERATION Is this a major or minor project? 232 E. Main Street 232 E. Main Street Net New Units/Square Feet of the Proposed ProjectProposed Land Use *For mixed-use (at least two of the established land uses) sites, a 4% reduction for AM Peak-Hour and a 14% reduction for PM Peak-Hour is applied to the trip generation. Sara Adams of BendonAdams 300 S. Spring St., #202, Aspen, CO 81611 925-2855 sara@bendonadams.com Trip Generation 11/22/2016 Instructions: IMPORTANT: Turn on Macros: In order for code to run correctly the security settings need to be altered. Click "File" and then click "Excel Options." In the "Trust Center"category, click "Trust Center Settings", and then click the "Macro Settings"category. Beneath "Macro Settings" select "Enable all Macros." Sheet 1. Trip Generation: Enter the project's square footage and/or unit counts under Proposed Land Use. The numbers should reflect the net change in land use between existing and proposed conditions. If a landuse is to be reduced put a negative number of units or square feet. Sheet 2. MMLOS: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable under each of the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections.Points are only awarded for proposed (not existing) and confirmed aspects of the project. Sheet 3. TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Sheet 4. Summary and Narrative: Review the summary of the project's mitigated trips and provide a narrative which explains the measures selected for the project. Click on "Generate Narrative" and individually explain each measure that was chosen and how it enhances the site or mitigates vehicle traffic. Ensure each selected measure make sense Minor Development -Inside the Roundabout Major Development -Outside the Roundabout Helpful Hints: 1. Refer to the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for information on the use of this tool. 2. Refer to TIA Frequently Asked Questions for a quick overview. 2. Hover over red corner tags for additional information on individual measures. 3. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not receive credit for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context of project location and future use. Transportation Impact Analysis TIA Frequently Asked Questions P44 IV.A. = input = calculation 20 Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 1 Does the project propose a detached sidewalk where an attached sidewalk currently exists? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard minimum widths? Yes 5 2 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width greater than the standard minimum width?No 0 3 Does the project propose a landscape buffer greater than the standard minimum width?Yes 5 10 4 Does the project propose a detached sidewalk on an adjacent block? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard minimum widths? No 0 5 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width on an adjacent block greater than the standard minimum width?No 0 6 Is the proposed landscape buffer on an adjacent block greater than the standard minimum width?No 0 0 7 Are slopes between back of curb and sidewalk equal to or less than 5%?Yes 0 8 Are curbs equal to (or less than) 6 inches?Yes 0 9 Is new large-scale landscaping proposed that improves the pedestrian experience? Properties within the Core do not have ample area to provide the level of landscaping required to receive credit in this category. No 0 10 Does the project propose an improved crosswalk? This measure must get City approval before receiving credit. No 0 0 11 Are existing driveways removed from the street?Yes 5 12 Is pedestrian and/or vehicle visibility unchanged by new structure or column?Yes 0 13 Is the grade (where pedestrians cross) on cross-slope of driveway 2% or less?Yes 0 14 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian access points from the ROW? This includes improvements to ADA ramps or creating new access points which prevent pedestrians from crossing a street. No 0 15 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian or bicyclist interaction with vehicles at driveway areas?No 0 5 16 Is the project's pedestrian directness factor less than 1.5?Yes 0 17 Does the project propose new improvements which reduce the pedestrian directness factor to less than 1.2? A site which has an existing pedestrian directness factor less than 1.2 cannot receive credit in this category. No 0 18 Is the project proposing an off site improvement that results in a pedestrian directness factor below 1.2?* No 0 19 Are traffic calming features proposed that are part of an approved plan (speed humps, rapid flash)?*No 0 0 20 Are additional minor improvements proposed which benefit the pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff? No 0 21 Are additional major improvements proposed which benefit the pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff? No 0 0 15PedestriansSubtotalAdditional Proposed ImprovementsTOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS MITIGATED:Pedestrian RoutesTraffic Calming and Pedestrian NetworkDriveways, Parking, and Access ConsiderationsMMLOS Input Page Subtotal SubtotalSidewalk Condition on Adjacent BlocksSidewalk Condition on Project FrontageSubtotal Instructions: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable to each measure under the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections. Subtotal Subtotal Pedestrian Total* P45 IV.A. Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 22 Is a new bicycle path being implemented with City approved design?No 0 23 Do new bike paths allow access without crossing a street or driveway?No 0 24 Is there proposed landscaping, striping, or signage improvements to an existing bicycle path?No 0 25 Does the project propose additional minor bicycle improvements which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?Yes 5 26 Does the project propose additional major bicycle improvements which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0 5 Bicycle Parking27 Is the project providing bicycle parking?No 0 0 5 Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 28 Is seating/bench proposed?No 0 29 Is a trash receptacle proposed?No 0 30 Is transit system information (signage) proposed?No 0 31 Is shelter/shade proposed?No 0 32 Is enhanced pedestrian-scale lighting proposed?No 0 33 Is real-time transit information proposed?No 0 34 Is bicycle parking/storage proposed specifically for bus stop use?No 0 35 Are ADA improvements proposed?No 0 0 36 Is a bus pull-out proposed at an existing stop?No 0 37 Is relocation of a bus stop to improve transit accessibility or roadway operations proposed?No 0 38 Is a new bus stop proposed (with minimum of two basic amenities)?No 0 0 0TransitBasic AmenitiesSubtotal Subtotal Enhanced AmenitiesSubtotal Subtotal Bicycles Total* Transit Total*BicyclesModifications to Existing Bicycle PathsP46 IV.A. Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will an onsite ammenities strategy be implemented?No Which onsite ammenities will be implemented?Retail Servicing Will a shared shuttle service strategy be implemented?No What is the degree of implementation?Low What is the company size?Small What percentage of customers are eligible? 3 Nonmotorized Zones Will a nonmotorized zones strategy be implemented?No 0.00% 0.00% Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will a network expansion stragtegy be implemented?NA What is the percentage increase of transit network coverage? What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips? Will a service frequency/speed strategy be implemented?NA What is the percentage reduction in headways (increase in frequency)? What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips? What is the level of implementation? Will a transit access improvement strategy be implemented?No What is the extent of access improvements? 7 Intercept Lot Will an intercept lot strategy be implemented?No 0.00% 0.00% Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will there be participation in TOP?Yes What percentage of employees are eligible?100% Is a transit fare subsidy strategy implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligible? What is the amount of transit subsidy per passenger (daily equivalent)? Is an employee parking cash-out strategy being implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a workplace parking pricing strategy implemented?No What is the daily parking charge? What percentage of employees are subject to priced parking? Is a compressed work weeks strategy implemented?No What percentage of employees are participating? What is the workweek schedule? Is an employer sponsered shuttle program implemented?No What is the employer size? What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a carpool matching strategy implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligble? Is carshare participation being implemented?No How many employee memberships have been purchased? What percentage of employees are eligble? Is participation in the bikeshare program WE-cycle being implemented? How many memberships have been purchased? What percentage of employees/guests are eligble? Is an end of trip facilities strategy being implemented?No What is the degree of implementation? What is the employer size? Is a self-funded emergency ride home strategy being implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a carpool/vanpool priority parking strategy being implemented?No What is the employer size? What number of parking spots are available for the program? Is a private employer shuttle strategy being implemented?No What is the employer size? What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a trip reduction marketing/incentive program implemented?Yes What percentage of employees/guests are eligible?100% 1.71% 0.00% 1.71% 1. 22% work trips represents a mixed-used site (SF Bay Area Travel Survey). See Assumptions Tab for more detail. 21 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 Participation in TOP Transit Fare Subsidy Employee Parking Cash-Out Workplace Parking Pricing Compressed Work Weeks Employer Sponsored Vanpool Carpool Matching Carshare Program Self-funded Emergency Ride Home Carpool/Vanpool Priority Parking Private Employer Shuttle Trip Reduction Marketing/Incentive Program End of Trip Facilities Cross Category Maximum Reduction, Neighborhood and Transit Global Maximum VMT Reductions TDM Input Page 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Commute Trip Reduction Programs StrategiesOnsite Servicing Shared Shuttle Service Neighborhood/Site Enhancements Strategies0.00% 0.00% Network Expansion Service Frequency/Speed Transit Access Improvement Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Bikeshare Program 0.00% 4.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.00% Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category Maximum Reduction Allowed in CategoryTransit System Improvements Strategies1 2 4 5 6 8 9 10 Instructions TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not receive credit for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context of project location and future use. P47 IV.A. ALLEYPROPOSED2 STORYRETAIL BUILDINGMONARCH ST.MAIN ST. HISTORIC CORTINA LODGENEW STREET PARKINGNEW STREET PARKINGNEW STREET PARKINGTRANSFORMERPROPERTY LINECORTINALODGE BALCONYBENCHBENCHDETECTABLEWARNING DETECTABLEWARNING DETECTABLEWARNING ROUTE - DISTANCE: 43'-0"NEW PEDESTRIAN ENTRY DOOR:DISTANCE 58'-0"LANDSCAPE AREA427 SFLANDSCAPE AREA136.49 SFLANDSCAPE AREA105.14 SFLANDSCAPE AREA103.62 SFLANDSCAPE AREA93.61 SFTRASH AND UTILITYAREA10322'-4 3/4"3'-0"17'-3"3'-0"17'-0"3'-0"15'-4 1/4"15'-0"6'-1 1/4"45'-9"9'-4 1/2"8'-0"5'-0"10'-0"13'-0"LANDSCAPE AREA175 SFLANDSCAPE AREA70 SFROUTE - DISTANCE: 45'-0"NEW PEDESTRIAN ENTRY DOOR:DISTANCE 62'-0"NEW STREET PARKINGCITY OF ASPEN APPROVED BIKE RACKScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY 1" = 10’−0"12/23/2016 10:16:08 AMTIA−12016−00512−23−16AuthorCheckerTIA PROPOSED SITE PLAN232 E. MAIN STREETASPEN, CO. 1" = 10'-0"1PROPOSED TIA SITE PLANNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION112.23.16SCHPC FINAL REVIEWP48 IV.A. Exhibit K P49 IV.A. P50 IV.A. P51 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2016 1 Jim DeFrancia called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Bob Blaich, Nora Berko, John Whipple and Jeffrey Halferty. Gretchen Greenwood, Micahel Brown and Willis Pember were absent. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Jeffrey moved to approve the minutes of July 13th second by Bob. All in favor, motion carried. Disclosure John will recuse himself on 627 W. Main 232 E. Main Street – Demolition, Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design, Special Review and Variation Review, Public Hearing Affidavit of posting – Exhibit I Photo - Exhibit II Amy said there was a site visit to indicate where the property lines were and lot lines. HPC will be discussing demolition, special review and variation review. HPC is being asked whether the demolition criteria are met to remove the existing gas station which has been there over 60 years. The structure was never identified as a contributing building. Staff supports demolition finding that the criteria are met. Conceptual – height, scale, massing and proportion. Amy said the proposed building is 1 ½ stories tall and a good fit for the neighborhood. The two gabled roof modules are related to the width of other elements on the street. Most of the buildings on the block are of a Victorian era and the Cortina Lodge is next door. Everything on this block is landmarked except this site. The gabled roof that is closest to the Cortina is about 3 feet taller at the ridge. On the corner closer to Carl’s it is 7 feet taller than the Cortina but equal in height with Carl’s. There are a few dimensional variances that need to be considered. Floor area – On this Exhibit L P52 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2016 2 property one is able to build up to 1to1 floor area as it is just less than a 6,000 square foot lot but you can only achieve that if you have a mix of uses. In this case it is all commercial and commercial is only allowed .75 to 1. That would be 4,482 square feet. The applicant is proposing to go to the 1 to 1, an extra 1,494 square feet devoted to commercial use. That is something you can allow through special review. Staff supports that because the overall volume of the building is not changing. Most of that square footage is accommodated in a loft level. If it was denied and they removed it, you would still see the same project. Overall the building is a good fit for the neighborhood in terms of scale and there is no impact from the extra 1,500 square feet devoted to commercial. It also maximizes the use of the lot and staff supports that. Setbacks - The next dimension issue is setbacks. The Main Street zone district requires a 10 foot front yard and 5 feet on the sides and rear. The project is right on the joint between mixed use and commercial core. As soon as you cross the street on both sides there are no setback requirements but we are in the mixed use zone district. As you look down the block there is a lot of Victorian development and a number of the buildings have a nice deep front yard at least 15 feet. On the front yard the requirement is ten feet and HPC can through special review allow that to be reduced to five feet and that is the request. Special review allows you to make decisions based on what you think is the best fit for the neighborhood. This is not a hardship discussion, it is a discussion as to what is appropriate. The five feet proposed feels very close to the sidewalk in my opinion and that is where a deck is proposed with a deep overhanging eave. The wall itself would be ten feet back. Staff recommends to not allow the variance because we feel it is too close to the street and doesn’t provide the graceful setback that is found on other buildings on the block. The entry seems to be emphasized on the side street so we think that contributes to the feeling that there is not enough of a front expressed here. There is no real front door and that all leads to the concern of the appropriateness of the reduction in the front yard variance. On the sides the applicant would like to go to the property line on the west to touch Cortina. There would be a potential issue of snow dumping of this new structure towards that building and that isn’t allowed by Engineering or the Building Dept. The applicant said they have some techniques to stop that happening. On the east side facing Carl’s the building does meet the setback and in some areas more than meets it. The fixed awning over the doorway is a setback violation. They have it coming to the property line and P53 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2016 3 that isn’t allowed. You are only allowed an 18 inch overhang. The rear yard meets the setbacks. On the two side yards those variances can be granted based on finding a hardship. It is not based on what is the best fit for the neighborhood. You have to make findings that the variance is needed due to an unnecessary hardship that something is being denied that other people have. Staff is unable to make that recommendation. The applicant is required to address parking. There is currently no legal parking spaces on the site and they will be required to provide 3.8 spaces and they would pay cash-in-lieu. They also have to provide for adequate trash and recycling which are all accommodated in the back of the building along the alley. They are appropriately sized and supported by Environmental Health. The applicant needs to provide a certain amount of public amenity either onsite or cash-in-lieu payment. They are providing it onsite and this project will provide a dramatic transformation of this intersection. They will rebuild the sidewalk and add a green strip and add a We-cycle station and provide on street parking. They are improving beyond their property as well. In conclusion we support the project and it is a terrific addition to town. The only issue is the setback variances and that is significant enough to recommend continuance. Jeffrey said the We-cycle is an excellent addition especially on the corner and it will go away in the winter and become a parking space. Jim clarified that staff is recommending that there not be a variance for the front setback. On the east, the setback is OK but the awning overhang is not. Amy clarified if the awning was retractable they wouldn’t need a variance. Jim clarified on the west side they want to go to the property line but there is a potential snow accumulation in which they might be able resolve. Amy said on the west side that variance can only be granted through a finding of hardship. Applicant Mark Hunt, owner said they are excited about the project. We listened to what the community said and they liked the chalet style that respects Aspen and the West End. It is an architecture of today. We are looking at natural materials, metal, wood and glass. We are greatly improving the streetscape. P54 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2016 4 The We-cycle will be in the planting area not on the street. Regarding the setbacks on Main Street there is nothing but the awning. I would prefer not to put a canvas awning but there are other ways we can address that. In order for the architecture to be successful, the shadow line and overhang make it successful. Lopping that off will make it a very different building. It would be too glassy at that point. On the west side by the Cortina the space is funky. This is the first intersection where all the corners hold the street and we feel it is appropriate to butt the building and it fits in. Sara Adams from BendonAdams represented the applicant. Sara said the property is on the cusp of the commercial core and there are a lot of landmarks in this block. The gable form from the landmarks influenced our design. At this intersection there is a range of setbacks and building types and there are uses of commercial, affordable housing and residential but primarily commercial. A walkway was added at the front and we do understand the importance of having an entry on Main Street in addition to the entrance on Monarch Street. We have onsite public amenity and the first five feet of the front yard is green space. On Monarch Street all the curb and gutter and improvements to the sidewalk will be worked out with the Parks Dept. and the Engineering Dept. Our public amenity exceeds what is required by 300 square feet and our public amenity is mostly usable space. The project is well below the height limit and the deep overhang that is proposed is reminiscent of what you see at the Cortina Lodge and we think it creates a nice rhythm with the Cortina next door. The building face is set back 11 feet and the porch overhang is about five feet back on Monarch Street. The windows and deep overhangs interact with the street and allow the building to open up for the pedestrian and create vitality on this corner. On the Monarch Street side the building face is set back 5 feet closest to the intersection and then it steps back to seven feet. The intent is to create a very open building. We are requesting an increase of the commercial floor area. The mixed use zone district says it should be .75 to 1 but you are allowed to increase it up to 1 to 1 if you go through special review and find that it meets the character of the neighborhood. Changing the inside uses isn’t going to change the massing. We feel a 100% commercial project is more in line with feedback that council has been giving in their work sessions. Some of the reasons for the moratorium is the impact of residential in the mixed use zone district. We have a trash and a transformer along the alley. A flat roof is tucked close to the Cortina Lodge that will hide mechanical equipment. Parking is mitigated through cash -in- lieu. Regarding the setbacks adjacent to the Cortina it is 5 feet and the front P55 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2016 5 yard is five feet. The code allows for a five to ten foot setback on Main Street with special review. There are a range of different setbacks on Main Street especially as you get closer to the commercial core. We feel this project changes this corner for the better. Regarding snow melt we are looking into a system with gutters on the Cortina side. The code doesn’t allow snow to shed onto another property so we will be working with engineers to develop a snow shedding system that will not affect the Cortina and that will meet all the city codes. Dwayne Romero, represented the applicant Having the five foot setback and creating a five foot void narrow alley could perhaps become more of an operations and maintenance safety consideration. Snow loading and debris would fall into the center piece. More importantly are the safety issues. A five foot void would become an attractive nuisance. It would not be a public pathway. Jeffrey asked the applicant to address the entry on Main Street. Sara said the architects are studying an entry and adding the walkway was the first step. There is a significant grade change from the front to the back of the site. They have been working on how to do a smooth transition into the building that would meet ADA etc. We will come back at final with a design. John inquired about the potential use of the space. Mark said they had talked to a group to do a Tony Town but they have picked another town so we are unsure what will go into the space as the process takes a long time. It’s not a bowling alley or a lodge. Nora said if the front yard setback were to be pulled back five feet how would the upper floor be impacted. What can be done to the front? What can be mitigated so that there is less of a setback in the front? Mark said the only thing in the setback is the overhang. The easy solution is to cut the overhang off. If we were to do that we would explore a different building. We were trying to engage the guests to come out and we wanted an area where they could sit outside the store with a covering. The glass wall is 11 feet off the lot line. We are only dealing with the roof line that P56 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2016 6 hangs over. The overhang would be shortened to one foot and then architecturally the building becomes a glass building vs a chalet building. Nora asked if it is possible to do a retractable awning on the east side so you don’t need that variance. Mark said that could be accomplished. Bob clarified that the sidewalk will be added on the Monarch Street side which is a good public amenity. The concern I have which is not part of the project is that the sidewalk goes nowhere and maybe there is a way that the City could extend that sidewalk. There is public parallel parking on Monarch. Many people have had close calls backing out of Carl’s. It would be interesting if there was a way not to have parking on your side. Mark agreed that it is a dangerous area but the no parking would be a city issue. Jim DeFrancia said possibly the parking could be corrected on the Carl’s pharmacy side. Jim DeFrancia opened the public hearing. Joe Charel asked if there was a height variance on the proposal. Joe said two couples own the condo behind the proposal. Sara said they project is well below the height limit. Joe said if it is commercial is there going to be any city ordinance prohibiting 2:00 a.m. deliveries. We are subject to the trash etc. already. Right now it is a quiet neighborhood. Jim said the character of those kinds of uses would be a function of the occupant of the building and there are city codes that govern your concerns which they would be obligated to comply with. John Feza, condo owner. We appreciate the applicant trying to make Aspen great. We would like to protect our home and our investment. What is the height? P57 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2016 7 Sara said the maximum height is 28 to 32 feet. At the rear the proposal is 23 1/2 feet and at the front due to the grade change it is a little over 20 feet. Amy said the tallest part of the building is about the same height as Carl’s pharmacy which is about 26 ½ feet. John Feza said they were worried about the view and light coming in. Sara said there is a flat portion in the back that is at 14.3 and you a re directly across from that. John Feza asked about the amount of square feet that the building would occupy. John Whipple explained that the only setback variances sought after are maintaining the zero setback along the western façade, Cortina Lodge and to the front the encroachment is the eave of the roof. Sara said the footprint is about 4,200 square feet. Mark clarified that the square footage is putting a loft in the peak inside but the building would remain as is. Amy said HPC can make a finding to allow the commercial building to go up to 6,000 square feet which is 1,500 square feet bigger than normally allowed by finding that it is basically compatible with the surrounding land uses and consistent with the purposes of the zone district. Jim DeFrancia closed the public comments. Commissioner comments Jeff commented that staff’s memo was clear as was the presentation. The project does conform to our guidelines especially in this district. Architecturally the chalet forms work with the Cortina Lodge and comply with some of the roof forms on Main Street. Having the entrance as staff suggested would help conform to the guidelines. The shadow of the roof eave does enhance the building and it breaks down the glazing. The steel overhang that faces Monarch which is the east can be worked out. I support the request for the variance as buildings are built against each other all the time. The snow concern is valid but they will have an architectural solution to that. The water runoff and drainage would need to be maintained. P58 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2016 8 Regarding the parking that area is a tough back out corner. The butterfly roof on the east has challenging drainage issues which will need to be addressed. Nora thanks the applicant for the presentation and the public input. I can support this application along with staff’s setback requests. My concern is the precedent question. The fact that the Cortina doesn’t have a setback is because it is an historic building. I like a little breathing space between buildings. My hesitation has always been creep. It is the lot line on the west side that I am struggling with because I don’t see a hardship. John said he can support the 1 to 1 ratio because it doesn’t change the size of the building. In terms of the setbacks I don’t like the vacant voids in between buildings in town. They are a dark void and end up with clutter, trash and ice maintenance. I am in favor of the zero lot line setback on the west. On the front façade we are a community that prides itself on the green technology and we want to preserve our views. The overhang is really smart building” and I am in favor of the variance because it also makes usable space outside on the front and on the east side. No one wants to come out and have snow drop on their head and having the overhang protects that. John said he appreciates the fact that the applicant has come back and this project will suit the community well. Bob said he would support the variances and this is a commendable project and I would like to see it proceed. At some point the city should address parking in this area. On Carl’s side that sidewalk can be dangerous. The entire area should be looked at as it is also a public safety issue. Jim said he feels this is a great project and the applicant has done a fine job. I also support the west side variance with the snow melt solution. The way the front is designed you need some over hang to protect the glass and it creates a sense of openness on the corner. I appreciate the concerns addressed about the traffic which should be looked at by the City. Transportation and Engineering should look at the entire area with the sloping street. MOTION: Bob moved to approve resolution #22 as proposed; second by John. P59 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2016 9 Nora amended the motion to add that the east side have a retractable overhang. Jeff amended the motion to add a second entry on Main Street. John said at final they would need to come back with fenestration on the front door. John said for the south facing façade there is an energy efficiency hardship that would be placed on the applicant and the community for not giving any shoulder protection. On the west façade it would be a hardship having another trash collection void. We have tried to close down those for years and the core has closed down a lot of those. The core doesn’t need vacant gaps between buildings. Bob accepted the amendments and John second them. Amy reiterated the motion. An entry on the south elevation should be better expressed perhaps through fenestration. On the east no variance and to restudy the canopy element. On the south HPC finds that the variance is appropriate for energy efficiency under special review and on the west the proximity of the Cortina makes the five foot setback on this site problematic and undesirable. There is also a public safety consideration on that side. Roll call vote: Jeffrey, yes; John, yes; Bob, yes; Nora, yes; Jim, yes. Motion carried 5-0. Nora commented that she is philosophically opposed to setbacks but she listened to the comments from the commission and voted yes for the motion and project. 627 W. Main – Substantial Amendment to Major Development Approval, Public hearing continued from June 22nd. John recused himself. Amy stated that this is an addition to a Victorian in the Main Street historic district. This is an older project that has not been completely constructed. The upper floor of the addition is not built and the applicant would like to do P60 IV.A. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 22, 2016 1 CITIZEN COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 3 COUNCILMEMBERS COMMENTS .......................................................................................................... 3 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ................................................................................................................ 3 BOARD REPORTS ...................................................................................................................................... 3 CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 4 Resolution #111, Series of 2016- Wheeler Ticketing System Upgrade ................................................ 6 Resolution #125, Series of 2016 – CORE REMP Funding Request ..................................................... 6 Resolution #116, Series of 2016 – Approval of Wheeler Concessionaire Contract ............................. 6 Resolution #117, Series of 2016 – Rio Grande Trail Asphalt Partnership Payment............................. 6 Resolution #106, Series of 2016 – Burlingame PH ii Pump Memo ..................................................... 6 Resolution #127, Series of 2016 – Change Order to Contract Approval of City of Aspen Plats and Historic Images Project ................................................................................................................................. 6 Resolution #121, Series of 2016 – Aspen Country Inn – Guaranteed Maxium Price Contract for PNCI Construction, INC ............................................................................................................................... 6 Resolution #122, Series of 2016 – Aspen Country Inn – Contract amendment to Phil Vaughan Construction Management INC for Construction Manager as Advisor services for construction administration ............................................................................................................................................... 6 Resolution #123, Series of 2016 – Aspen Country Inn – Contract amendment to BG Design LLC for architect construction administration ............................................................................................................ 6 Resolution #124, Series of 2016 – Aspen Country INN – Contract for the moving company Olde Town moving & Storage INC ....................................................................................................................... 6 Resolution #120, Series of 2016 – Cozy Point Historic Barn – Construction Contract – TC@ INC ... 6 Resolution #125, Series of 2016 – CORE REMP Funding Request ..................................................... 6 Resolution #110, Series of 2016 – Rio Grande Trail Concrete Replacement ....................................... 6 Resolution #114, Series of 2016 – Contract for on-demand electric car service .................................. 6 Resolution #118, Series of 2016 – Parks Fleet Toolcat Utility Vehicle Replacement .......................... 6 Resolution #119, Series of 2016 – Approval of a Construction Agreement for Efficiency Upgrades to Affordable Housing Properties ..................................................................................................................... 6 Resolution #128, Series of 2016 – Additional Office Space and Parking for the Mill ......................... 6 Minutes – August 8, 2016 ..................................................................................................................... 6 NOTICE OF CALL-UP – Notice of HPC approval of Demolition, Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Special Review and Variations for 232 E. Main Street, HPC Resolution #22, Series of 2016 ..................................................................................................................... 6 ORDINANCE #23, SERIES OF 2016 – Ranger Station Subdivision Minor Amendment and associated reviews .......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Exhibit M P61 IV.A. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 22, 2016 6 Resolution #111, Series of 2016- Wheeler Ticketing System Upgrade Resolution #125, Series of 2016 – CORE REMP Funding Request Resolution #116, Series of 2016 – Approval of Wheeler Concessionaire Contract Resolution #117, Series of 2016 – Rio Grande Trail Asphalt Partnership Payment Resolution #106, Series of 2016 – Burlingame PH ii Pump Memo Resolution #127, Series of 2016 – Change Order to Contract Approval of City of Aspen Plats and Historic Images Project Resolution #121, Series of 2016 – Aspen Country Inn – Guaranteed Maximum Price Contract for PNCI Construction, INC Resolution #122, Series of 2016 – Aspen Country Inn – Contract amendment to Phil Vaughan Construction Management INC for Construction Manager as Advisor services for construction administration Resolution #123, Series of 2016 – Aspen Country Inn – Contract amendment to BG Design LLC for architect construction administration Resolution #124, Series of 2016 – Aspen Country INN – Contract for the moving company Olde Town moving & Storage INC Resolution #120, Series of 2016 – Cozy Point Historic Barn – Construction Contract – TC2 INC Resolution #125, Series of 2016 – CORE REMP Funding Request Resolution #110, Series of 2016 – Rio Grande Trail Concrete Replacement Resolution #114, Series of 2016 – Contract for on-demand electric car service Resolution #118, Series of 2016 – Parks Fleet Toolcat Utility Vehicle Replacement Resolution #119, Series of 2016 – Approval of a Construction Agreement for Efficiency Upgrades to Affordable Housing Properties Resolution #128, Series of 2016 – Additional Office Space and Parking for the Mill Minutes – August 8, 2016 Councilman Frisch moved to adopt the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried. NOTICE OF CALL-UP – Notice of HPC approval of Demolition, Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Special Review and Variations for 232 E. Main Street, HPC Resolution #22, Series of 2016 Amy Simon, community development, told the Council on July 27, HPC reviewed this property which is located in the Main Street historic district. It involves the demolition of the existing gas station with the replacement of a one story retail building. They reviewed height, form and site planning. It was approve with a few variations. It is a special review due to the large amount of purely commercial. It did not increase the floor area, just allow more purely commercial. The 5,976 sq ft would have to combine with the residential. HPC looked at two set back variations. One on the west side. They allowed the zero lot line because the Cortina is not providing its own side yard set back. HPC allowed the front to be within five feet of the lot line where 10 is normally required. A deep eave is provided. HPC did find it an architecturally good fit with the neighborhood. The building meets the height limitations and there will be significant street scape improvements. It was approved 5 to 0 by HPC. Councilman Frisch said he appreciates why it is allowed next to the Cortina but is that a deviation than what has been approved in the past. Ms. Simon replied buildings are not allowed to shed snow or water onto adjacent property. The five foot dead space is more difficult to maintain. Councilman Frisch sai d currently we use eaves as a measurement and this has environmental benefits. Are we looking at that under the moratorium. Ms. Garrow replied not under the moratorium. We do have some allowances for eaves. P62 IV.A. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 22, 2016 7 Councilman Myrin said he does not want to call this up. The request to change from residential to commercial is considered in the moratorium and should be reinforced. We should modify the code to reflect that. The deletion of the second floor retail doesn’t change the overall size of the building and there may be a conversation around that. The conversation about public amenity is often about the offsite requirements. It seems like it should be a standard not a benefit. His concerns is with the bulb out and the We-cycle stations. It is a busy corner. They should continue with caution. Page 913, the picture of the fuel pumps and net leasable credits and page 928, picture of the stop light and it is gone in 921, he wants to make sure it remains on Main Street. The HPC minutes have a conversation about We-cycle. Is it a perpetual funding by the applicant. Sara Adams, representing the applicant, said they are working on the TIA. Councilman Myrin said the impact needs to last for the life of the building. Councilwoman Mullins said she would like the landscape to be toned down a bit in more keeping with Main Street. Mayor Skadron asked what is the thinking on the bulb out. Ms. Simon said it creates an island for pedestrians. It is easier for them to get across the street. Mayor Skadron said when he was on P&Z Jasmine said she hates bulb outs. Councilwoman Mullins said the biggest problem is if they are inconsistent. Ms. Simon said it is still being ironed out. Mayor Skadron asked for the height of the building what is it and what is the height of the summit. Ms. Simon said it is 28 feet to the peak, about the same as Carl’s. Mayor Skadron said there will be no call up. ORDINANCE #23, SERIES OF 2016 – Ranger Station Subdivision Minor Amendment and associated reviews Jennifer Phelan, community development, stated this will memorialize the 2015 cash in lieu rate as well as memorialize the existing plat of the subdivision by recording an amended plat with city approvals. This was created in 2013 by the federal government, more specifically the US forest service. The plat was recorded creating five lots. The forest service created the lots without city review and approval. The city recognized the lots but said you will have to meet city approvals including mitigation. Council previously granted development allotments with the condition of affordable housing mitigation in the form of credits or fee in lieu. Since those approvals for growth management allotments the rate has increased and the applicants are requesting to be vested under the 2015 lower rate. They are also asking to approve an amended plat to recognize the development. The property has a PD overlay as a result of the forest service being on the property. Staff recommends second reading for September 12. Councilman Frisch said there are three issues with the affordable housing as the main one. Ms. Phelan said the subdivision amendment and memorializing the new plat will allow the new owners down the line to know what they are buying. Councilman Frisch said we had an affordable housing study done and it was 50 percent less per FTE now we are seeing an increase. It will be helpful to walk through the math. Ms. Phelan said she will have that at second reading. Councilman Myrin said he wished we would have been able to make an alley and standard lots for garages. Ms. Phelan replied the forest service did make an alley. Four of the lots would be expected to access their property from the alley, lots one through four. P63 IV.A. Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the margins such that they no longer line up on the labels sheet. Print actual size. From Parcel: 273512440007 on 11/21/2016 Instructions: Disclaimer: http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com Exhibit N P64 IV.A. 212 WEST HOPKINS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 212 W HOPKINS AVE GILDENHORN MICHAEL S BETHESDA, MD 20816 5008 BALTON RD WINER CAROL G BETHESDA , MD 20817 6740 SELKIRK DR LORENTZEN AMY L HERMOSA BEACH , CA 90254 125 22ND ST ROSENTHAL DIANNE ASPEN, CO 81612-7311 PO BOX 10043 MARTIN SCOTT M ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 51 SAND KATHERINE M ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 51 GUNN ROBERT W FAMILY TRST MARBLEHEAD, MA 01945 409 OCEAN AVE BLEVINS J RONALD & PHYLLIS ASPEN, CO 81611 310 W BLEEKER ST 320 W BLEEKER LLC AUSTIN, TX 78703 1717 W 6TH ST # 470 GUNNING RALPH ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 11912 ASPEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ASPEN, CO 81611 311 W MAIN ST GUNNING JANINE L ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 11705 PRICE DOUGLAS CABIN JOHN, MD 20818 PO BOX 220 MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 605 W MAIN ST # 2 CRETE ASSOCIATES LP BRYN MAWR, PA 19010 1062 E LANCASTER AVE #30B HEINEMAN S MARLENE DALLAS, TX 753810323 PO BOX 810323 BROWDE DAVID A CHAPPAQUA, NY 10514 604 QUAKER RD TEMPKINS HARRY & VIVIAN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139 605 LINCOLN RD #301 CHAMBERS PETE CABIN JOHN, MD 20818 PO BOX 220 SILVERSTEIN PHILIP & ROSALYN BRONX, NY 10463 25 KNOLLS CRESCENT APT 81 JACOBY FAMILY LP VERO BEACH, FL 32960 700 20TH ST KARP MICHAEL PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 1630 LOCUST ST #200 SHEEHAN WILLIAM J & NANCY E FRANKFORT, IL 60423 10 GOLF VIEW LN RICKEL DAVID LANDSDALE, PA 19446 275 GOLDENROD DR SNYDER GARY ELKINS PARK, PA 19027 8324 BROODSIDE RD BOOKBINDER FISHDANCE & DELANEY LLC GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81503 164 LITTLE PARK RD 2401 BLAKE LLC DENVER, CO 80202 1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707 132 W MAIN LLC DENVER, CO 80202 1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707 333 WEST BLEEKER LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 2408 P65 IV.A. 331 W BLEEKER LLC HOUSTON, TX 77019 2727 ALLEN PKY #1400 TOLER MELANIE S TRUST ASPEN , CO 81612 PO BOX 11512 DH ASE LLC WILMINGTON, DE 19808 2711 CENTERVILLE RD # 400 320 WEST MAIN LLC NAPERVILLE, IL 60563 2020 CALAMOS CT LEVY ROBERT I STUART, FL 34994 2099 NW PINE TREE WY INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 233 W MAIN ST BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC BOCA RATON, FL 33431 4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100 HERRON APARTMENTS CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 333 W MAIN ST SHADOWVIEW CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 320 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN A CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 308 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN MEDICAL CENTER CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA W MAIN ST LAMBERT HENRY M NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 320 JULIA ST BOND RICHARD CAREY NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 320 JULIA ST 118 NORTH FIRST STREET ASPEN LLC CHICAGO, IL 60602 77 W WASHINGTON ST #1119 CHISHOLM EDITH S ASPEN, CO 81611 205 W MAIN ST STEVENSON KAREN H ASPEN, CO 81611 205 W MAIN ST CHISHOLM HEATHER M ASPEN, CO 81611 205 W MAIN ST 212 N SECOND ST LLC TAMPA, FL 33613 509 GUISANDO DE AVILA #201 ELKINS LESLIE KEITH TRUST HOUSTON, TX 77002 1001 FANNIN #700 RISCOR INC DALLAS, TX 75219 3838 OAK LAWN AVE #1000 CROWLEY SUE MITCHELL REV TRUST DUBLIN, OH 43017 6000 RIVERSIDE DR #A366 DEWOLF MARGARET LEE TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 223 W BLEEKER ST DEWOLF FAMILY TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 223 W BLEEKER ST CHOOKASZIAN DENNIS WILMETTE, IL 60091 1100 MICHIGAN AVE GUERRA DONNA DALLAS, TX 75205 3622 SPRINGBROOK ST MAYER KEVIN ASPEN, CO 81611 222 W HOPKINS AVE #2 GROSVENOR DENIS TAOS, NM 875716922 209 CAMINO DE LA MERCED UNTI C FCB LLC SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615-6622 PO BOX 6622 GASTON JOHN & KATHERINE GREENWICH, CT 06831 16 BRYNWOOD LN GREENASPEN LLC KEY BISCAYNE, FL 33149 475 HARBOR DR P66 IV.A. TAD PROPERTIES LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9978 ASPEN HOUSE LLC CHICAGO, IL 60601 225 N COLUMBUS DR #100 TWIN COASTS LTD BOCA RATON, FL 33432 433 PLAZA REAL #275 MDW ENTERPRISES INC ASPEN, CO 81611 233 W BLEEKER ST JES 2002 GRANTOR TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 221 N STARWOOD DR SHIELD JULIET E ASPEN, CO 81611 221 N STARWOOD DR NEWTON BARBARA ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9410 STEVENS BRUCE ASPEN, CO 81611 214 W BLEEKER ST STEVENS LESLEY ASPEN, CO 81611 214 W BLEEKER ST KETTELKAMP GRETTA M PUEBLO, CO 81008 3408 MORRIS AVE LADA COMMUNITY PROPERTY TRUST LAS VEGAS, NV 89109 2860 AUGUSTA DR MELTON DAVID ASPEN, CO 81611 135 W MAIN ST GLICKMAN ADAM ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 1207 RILEY AMY CLARK ASPEN, CO 81611 129 W BLEEKER ST NEWKAM PATRICK C ASPEN, CO 81611 211 W MAIN ST EDGEWATER PROPERTIES LLC OMAHA, NE 68022 18081 BURT ST ALLAN ANDREW S DENVER, CO 80218 154 MARION ST PESIKOFF DAVID HOUSTON, TX 77098 1811 NORTH BLVD ROMANUS RAYMOND CALUMET CITY, IL 60409 19 RIVER OAKS DR TACO 2 LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 220 W MAIN ST #202 SPERAW ENDEAVORS LLC SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 PO BOX 6575 WEST MAIN VENTURES ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 11977 KING LOUISE LLC BASALT, CO 81621 PO BOX 1467 CLICK JANE ASPEN, CO 81611 333 W MAIN ST #2A PENSCO TRUST COMPANY WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33417 5114 OKEECHOBEE BLVD #203 WEESE KATE TRUST KENSINGTON, CA 94707 37 KINGSTON RD TYROL APARTMENTS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 200 W MAIN ST TYROLEAN LODGE LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 200 W MAIN ST SKILOFT LLC HOUSTON, TX 77046 11 GREENWAY PLAZA #2000 ASPEN MAIN OFFICE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 220 W MAIN ST P67 IV.A. CRUISERS BLUFF INVESTMENTS LLC CROCKETT, CA 94525 696 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD #511 AJAX VIEW COMMERCIAL/NORTH STAR OFFICE ASPEN, CO 81611 132 W MAIN ST ASPEN CONDOS ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 311 W MAIN ST WEST SIDE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 234 W HOPKINS AVE GARET CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 400 E MAIN ST #2 P68 IV.A. Exhibit Osubject propertyP69 IV.A. Monarch and Main: southwest cornerP70 IV.A. Main Street within Commercial CoreP71 IV.A. Main Street within Commercial CoreP72 IV.A. Main Street adjacent to subject property P73 IV.A. Looking down Main Street toward Hotel JeromeSUBJECT PROPERTYP74 IV.A. Buildings within block face along Main StreetP75 IV.A. Building across Main Street from subject propertyP76 IV.A. Buildings across Main Street from subject propertyP77 IV.A. Looking down Main Street toward Commercial CoreP78 IV.A. P79 IV.A. P80 IV.A. P81 IV.A. 1 2 3 4 5 6 6A 7 7A 8 8A 9 10 11 12 13 1415 NOTE: THIS IS A "RAINSCREEN" SYSTEM. THE BUILDING MUST BE WEATHERTIGHT PRIOR TO THE INSTALLATION OF THE PANEL SYSTEM. PARAPET CONDITION HORIZONTAL JOINT ACCENT REVEAL BASE CONDITION WALL/SOFFIT TRANSITION STANDARD WINDOW HEAD OPTIONAL WINDOW HEAD STANDARD WINDOW SILL OPTIONAL WINDOW SILL STANDARD WINDOW JAMB OPTIONAL WINDOW JAMB OUTSIDE CORNER VERTICAL JOINT INSIDE CORNER RADIUS OUTSIDE CORNER ENDWALL CONDITION SQUARE COLUMN COVER RADIUS COLUMN COVER 1- 2- 3- 4- 5- 6- 6A- 7- 7A- 8- 8A- 9- 10- 11- 12- 13- 14- 15- DETAIL LEGEND RAINSCREEN SYSTEM II DETAIL LAYOUT 4/26/14 T RAINSCREEN SYSTEM II DISCLAIMER NOTE: THIS ALUCOBOND DETAIL IS PROVIDED FOR CONCEPTUAL PURPOSES ONLY. THE ACTUAL DESIGN, PANEL SYSTEM, FABRICATION, AND INSTALLATION ARE PROVIDED BY A NETWORK OF QUALIFIED FABRICATORS AND INSTALLERS. 3A COMPOSITES USA, INC. DOES NOT MAKE ANY WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR PURPOSE. P82 IV.A. 1 PARAPET CONDITION DETAIL VARIES INSULATION BY OTHERS4"PREFERRED MIN.THERMALLY BROKEN CLIP ASSEMBLY BY OTHERS TYPICAL WALL ASSEMBLY BY OTHERS EXTERIOR SHEATHING BY OTHERS WEEP & BAFFLE 4/26/14 T RAINSCREEN SYSTEM II ACM REVEAL ALUCOBOND ALUMINUM COMPOSITE MATERIAL WEATHER BARRIER BY OTHERS ROOF MEMBRANE BY OTHERS ROOFING MEMBRANE BY OTHERS ACM SYSTEM EXTRUSIONS AND CLIPS BY OTHERS DISCLAIMER NOTE: THIS ALUCOBOND DETAIL IS PROVIDED FOR CONCEPTUAL PURPOSES ONLY. THE ACTUAL DESIGN, PANEL SYSTEM, FABRICATION, AND INSTALLATION ARE PROVIDED BY A NETWORK OF QUALIFIED FABRICATORS AND INSTALLERS. 3A COMPOSITES USA, INC. DOES NOT MAKE ANY WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR PURPOSE. P83 IV.A. 2 HORIZONTAL JOINT DETAIL THERMALLY BROKEN CLIP ASSEMBLY BY OTHERS INSULATION BY OTHERS VARIES TYPICAL WALL ASSEMBLY BY OTHERS EXTERIOR SHEATHING BY OTHERS WEEP & BAFFLE 4/26/14 T RAINSCREEN SYSTEM II ALUCOBOND ALUMINUM COMPOSITE MATERIAL WEATHER BARRIER BY OTHERS ACM REVEAL ACM SYSTEM EXTRUSIONS AND CLIPS BY OTHERS DISCLAIMER NOTE: THIS ALUCOBOND DETAIL IS PROVIDED FOR CONCEPTUAL PURPOSES ONLY. THE ACTUAL DESIGN, PANEL SYSTEM, FABRICATION, AND INSTALLATION ARE PROVIDED BY A NETWORK OF QUALIFIED FABRICATORS AND INSTALLERS. 3A COMPOSITES USA, INC. DOES NOT MAKE ANY WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR PURPOSE. P84 IV.A. 3 ACCENT REVEAL DETAIL THERMALLY BROKEN CLIP ASSEMBLY BY OTHERS INSULATION BY OTHERS VARIES ACM REVEAL 1" MIN.- 12" MAX.TYPICAL WALL ASSEMBLY BY OTHERS EXTERIOR SHEATHING BY OTHERS WEEP & BAFFLE 4/26/14 T RAINSCREEN SYSTEM II ALUCOBOND ALUMINUM COMPOSITE MATERIAL WEATHER BARRIER BY OTHERS ACM SYSTEM EXTRUSIONS AND CLIPS BY OTHERS DISCLAIMER NOTE: THIS ALUCOBOND DETAIL IS PROVIDED FOR CONCEPTUAL PURPOSES ONLY. THE ACTUAL DESIGN, PANEL SYSTEM, FABRICATION, AND INSTALLATION ARE PROVIDED BY A NETWORK OF QUALIFIED FABRICATORS AND INSTALLERS. 3A COMPOSITES USA, INC. DOES NOT MAKE ANY WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR PURPOSE. P85 IV.A. 4 BASE CONDITION DETAIL THERMALLY BROKEN CLIP ASSEMBLY BY OTHERS INSULATION BY OTHERS VARIES TYPICAL WALL ASSEMBLY BY OTHERS EXTERIOR SHEATHING BY OTHERS WEEP & BAFFLE 4/26/14 T RAINSCREEN SYSTEM II WEATHER BARRIER BY OTHERS ALUCOBOND ALUMINUM COMPOSITE MATERIAL ACM SYSTEM EXTRUSIONS AND CLIPS BY OTHERS DISCLAIMER NOTE: THIS ALUCOBOND DETAIL IS PROVIDED FOR CONCEPTUAL PURPOSES ONLY. THE ACTUAL DESIGN, PANEL SYSTEM, FABRICATION, AND INSTALLATION ARE PROVIDED BY A NETWORK OF QUALIFIED FABRICATORS AND INSTALLERS. 3A COMPOSITES USA, INC. DOES NOT MAKE ANY WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR PURPOSE. P86 IV.A. 5 WALL/SOFFIT TRANSITION DETAIL THERMALLY BROKEN CLIP ASSEMBLY BY OTHERS INSULATION BY OTHERS VARIES 4" MIN.ACM REVEAL TYPICAL WALL ASSEMBLY BY OTHERS EXTERIOR SHEATHING BY OTHERS WEEP & BAFFLE 4/26/14 T RAINSCREEN SYSTEM II ALUCOBOND ALUMINUM COMPOSITE MATERIAL WEATHER BARRIER BY OTHERS ACM SYSTEM EXTRUSIONS AND CLIPS BY OTHERS DISCLAIMER NOTE: THIS ALUCOBOND DETAIL IS PROVIDED FOR CONCEPTUAL PURPOSES ONLY. THE ACTUAL DESIGN, PANEL SYSTEM, FABRICATION, AND INSTALLATION ARE PROVIDED BY A NETWORK OF QUALIFIED FABRICATORS AND INSTALLERS. 3A COMPOSITES USA, INC. DOES NOT MAKE ANY WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR PURPOSE. P87 IV.A. 6 WINDOW HEAD DETAIL - Standard THERMALLY BROKEN CLIP ASSEMBLY BY OTHERS INSULATION BY OTHERS VARIES WEEP WEATHER BARRIER SEAL ACM REVEAL TYPICAL WALL ASSEMBLY BY OTHERS EXTERIOR SHEATHING BY OTHERS WEEP & BAFFLE 4/26/14 T RAINSCREEN SYSTEM II WEATHER BARRIER BY OTHERS ALUCOBOND ALUMINUM COMPOSITE MATERIAL ACM SYSTEM EXTRUSIONS AND CLIPS BY OTHERS DISCLAIMER NOTE: THIS ALUCOBOND DETAIL IS PROVIDED FOR CONCEPTUAL PURPOSES ONLY. THE ACTUAL DESIGN, PANEL SYSTEM, FABRICATION, AND INSTALLATION ARE PROVIDED BY A NETWORK OF QUALIFIED FABRICATORS AND INSTALLERS. 3A COMPOSITES USA, INC. DOES NOT MAKE ANY WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR PURPOSE. P88 IV.A. 6A WINDOW HEAD DETAIL - Optional VARIES TYPICAL WALL ASSEMBLY BY OTHERS WEEP & BAFFLE 4/26/14 T RAINSCREEN SYSTEM II THERMALLY BROKEN CLIP ASSEMBLY BY OTHERS INSULATION BY OTHERS EXTERIOR SHEATHING BY OTHERS WEATHER BARRIER BY OTHERS ALUCOBOND ALUMINUM COMPOSITE MATERIAL ACM SYSTEM EXTRUSIONS AND CLIPS BY OTHERS DISCLAIMER NOTE: THIS ALUCOBOND DETAIL IS PROVIDED FOR CONCEPTUAL PURPOSES ONLY. THE ACTUAL DESIGN, PANEL SYSTEM, FABRICATION, AND INSTALLATION ARE PROVIDED BY A NETWORK OF QUALIFIED FABRICATORS AND INSTALLERS. 3A COMPOSITES USA, INC. DOES NOT MAKE ANY WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR PURPOSE. P89 IV.A. 7 WINDOW SILL DETAIL - Standard INSULATION BY OTHERS VARIES ACM REVEAL THERMALLY BROKEN CLIP ASSEMBLY BY OTHERS TYPICAL WALL ASSEMBLY BY OTHERS EXTERIOR SHEATHING BY OTHERS 4/26/14 T RAINSCREEN SYSTEM II ALUCOBOND ALUMINUM COMPOSITE MATERIAL WEATHER BARRIER BY OTHERS ACM SYSTEM EXTRUSIONS AND CLIPS BY OTHERS DISCLAIMER NOTE: THIS ALUCOBOND DETAIL IS PROVIDED FOR CONCEPTUAL PURPOSES ONLY. THE ACTUAL DESIGN, PANEL SYSTEM, FABRICATION, AND INSTALLATION ARE PROVIDED BY A NETWORK OF QUALIFIED FABRICATORS AND INSTALLERS. 3A COMPOSITES USA, INC. DOES NOT MAKE ANY WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR PURPOSE. P90 IV.A. P91 IV.A. P92 IV.A. Pre-finished Weathered Wood with an Eco Story P93 IV.A. About Windswept P94 IV.A. Function and Design We value your interest and appreciate you taking the time to discover the hidden world of Windswept aged wood products. The vast array of product applications truly represent the ideal compliment for design and ecologically minded projects with increased momentum toward contemporary- cosmopolitan appeal. Windswept adds style, sophistication and practicality to what designers have long called for ~ a reclaimed appearance with the stability and structural integrity of new wood, backed by industry associations at nearly half the investment. Our resilient finishes replicate reclaimed materials for both interior and exterior applications. All wood fiber is derived from “standing dead” trees out of Rocky Mountain region, thus lending an idyllic environmental compliment and eco-story to boot. This parlays into an effortless presentation process that will enhance any scope project with product performance and cost effectiveness. Crafting distinctive exterior and interior solution that balances form with function is more challenging than ever. Ensuring relevance across the commercial and residential platforms demands outside-the-box thinking, and a product to back it up. Windswept Weathered Wood is a new-generation manufacturing process that will placate any project scope while yielding success with premium product and service capabilities, ultimately leading to customer satisfaction and a project rewarded with the integrity it deserves. Our innovative style and continued focus to customer satisfaction continues to scale upward congruent to the inimitable culture of specialty wood providers as well as the A&D, Hospitality and Retail Design communities. Glen  Ehrhardt,  President   Harvest  Timber  Speciality  Products   PO  Box  59   Lakebay,  WA  98349   p. (253) 884-6255 f. (253) 884-6256 e.  windswept.rep@gmail.com      w..  www.windsweptproducts.com P95 IV.A. Architectural P96 IV.A. Windswept  represents  the  ideal   architectural     &  design  choice  for  weathered  wood   reclaimed  appearance  adding  consistency,   integrity  and  affordability  to  any  project. TOUR ISSUU PUBLICATION P97 IV.A. Windswept  maintain  an   essen<al  Eco  story,  boas<ng   that  a  majority  of  fiber  is   derived  from  “standing  dead”   trees  that  would  otherwise  be   burned,  thus  releasing  harmful   carbon  emissions  into  the   atmosphere. TOUR ISSUU PUBLICATION P98 IV.A. P99 IV.A. Restaurant ~Hospitality P100 IV.A. The  Hospitality  industry  has   discovered  the  abundant   opportuni<es  for  both  interior   and  exterior  applica<ons  that   compliment  the  uniqueness  of   any  project  scope  with   premium  product  and  service   capabili<es. TOUR ISSUU PUBLICATION P101 IV.A. Interior - Exterior Design CraGing  dis<nc<ve  exterior  and   interior  solu<ons  that  balance   form  with  func<on  is  more   challenging  than  ever.    Ensuring   relevance  across  commercial   and  residen<al  plaHorms   demands  imagina<on. P102 IV.A. TOUR ISSUU PUBLICATION P103 IV.A. Wine  craGers  have  a  story  of  life  to   share  as  they  embrace  the  warm  and   welcoming  tenet  that  embodies  the   sprit  and  ethos  of  this  prodigious   culture.    It  is  place  where  peace  and   serenity  are  shared.    Windswept   products  compliment  this  warm  and   invi<ng  place  with  class,  style  and   affordability. Winery Estates TOUR ISSUU PUBLICATIONP104 IV.A. MUST SEE VIDEO P105 IV.A. Homestead Barn Gray Prairie Wagon Red Finish Colors   P106 IV.A. Prairie, Homestead, Barn Gray Cowboy, Homestead, Prairie Prairie, Cowboy, Barn Gray, Wagon Red Color  blending  imparts   unique  varia<ons  to   sa<sfy  virtually  any   scope  project,  custom   colors  may  be  available   for  larger  projects.   P107 IV.A. Teton West Lumber and Northern Priming and Pre-Stain (NPPS) have combined their 68 years of experience in sawmilling, lumber manufacturing and factory finishing bringing a new look to wood siding, paneling and trim products. Windswept is a new factory-milled and finished product range designed to replicate the natural texture and patina of aged and weathered barn wood. All products are machine-factory finished using Olympic, the originator and leader in machine-applied coating technology since 1908. Specifications Glen Ehrhardt, Business Development PO Box 59 - Lakebay, WA 98349 Ph. 253.884.6255 Fx. (253) 884.6256 windswept.rep@gmail.com www.windsweptproducts.com 1.Manufactured from new lumber 2.Low V.O.C.* environmental friendly and no lead paint residue commonly found in old barn wood 3.Excellent color retention for long-lasting rich colors 4.SunBlock™ UV protection that protects against harmful sun damage 5.Up to a 5-year warranty 6.Utilizes factory-finish technology in a controlled environment promoting better air quality and consistent coverage 7.Six colors capturing the grays, browns, and even the barn red found in old buildings throughout the west 8.Five species including: ES-LPP, SPF, Cedar, Aspen and Fir 9.Includes most standard paneling and siding patterns in 1 x 2 thru 1 x 12 commons, 2 x 2 thru 2 x 12 dimension and squares from 3 x 4 thru 12 x 12 10.All products are also available factory-primed *PPG also offers a wide variety of low and zero VOC premium residential products that meet or exceed LEED and NAHB requirements. P108 IV.A. When trees decay or burn, they release all the carbon stored in their fiber; this process is considered ‘carbon-neutral’, for they release the equivalent of what carbon is stored. The carbon can be contained, or sequestered, when the tree is used as a wood product, or utilized to create electricity, heat and fuels. This could be considered ‘carbon-negative’, utilization of trees for lumber and biomass can result in removing carbon from the environment. Some studies suggest that our North American forests are at a ‘tipping point’ of off-putting more carbon than they absorb. Unfortunately, lack of management and an ill-fated practice of fire suppression for many years has resulted in weak, over-crowded, and unhealthy forests. We do not need to raze our forests lands, for the amount of timber that needs to come out (amidst re-planting efforts), just to protect our water, power lines, urban and recreation areas and other infrastructure is enormous. The question remains: “What do we do with all these dead trees?” Simply put, we need to utilize a significant amount of these dead trees; this can prevent carbon release through sequestration and can allow more living trees to cleanse our air. Healthy forests, maintained through the natural process of fire, when combined with sustainable forestry and timber utilization both for lumber and biomass applications can create a ‘carbon-negative’ effect. These and many other benefits, such as water cleansing and a healthy wildlife bio-diversity, leads many to believe that a ‘use more wood, grow more trees’ approach is key to reducing and sequestering carbon, and thereby creating a more sustainable world. The fantastic technologies of wind, water and solar energies do not absorb or reduce carbon, nor do they produce carbon, so once you discount the carbon footprint to manufacture the components, ship, install, and maintain the system, they are considered ‘carbon neutral’. Environmental Benefits P109 IV.A. Promotional Hand Held Sample Panels (limited) 25” ORDER SAMPLE KIT & LITERATURE PACKETS P110 IV.A. Windswept  finishes  are  designed  to  replicate  the  natural  texture  and  pa<na  of  weathered  wood  without   hiding  the  natural  grain  of  the  wood  substrate.   The  Windswept  finish  is  a  mul<-­‐  layer  factory  machine  applied  coa<ng  system  using  high  quality  acrylic   resins  designed  for  excellent  exterior  durability  and  UV  protec<on.   *The  Windswept  coa<ng  will  con<nue  protec<ng  your  siding  All  against  UV  rays  and  excessive  moisture   penetra<on  for  five  years.   *Exposure  condi<ons  will  vary  by  geographical  loca<ons  and  natural  color  changes  will  occur  depending  on   loca<on.   5  year  Limited  warranty:   Crack,  Peel  and  Flake  Resistant:  Finish  coat  will  not  crack,  peel  or  flake.   Washable:  Dirt  can  be  removed  without  damaging  the  finish.   Resistant  to  Chalk  wash  down:  Windswept  coa<ngs  will  not  cause  chalk  stains  on  brick  or  other  surfaces   below  the  coa<ng.   Resistant  to  significant  water  penetra<on:  The  protec<ve  coa<ng  of  Windswept  finish  is  resistant  to  water   penetra<on.   Windswept  Limited  Warranty  Condi<ons   In  the  event  the  coa<ng  fails  to  conform  to  this  warranty  Windswept,  as  its  sole  liability  and  in  lieu  of  any   direct  or  indirect,  incidental,  special  or  consequen<al  damages,  will   at  the  op<on  of  Windswept  furnish  sufficient  replacement  coa<ng  to  repair  the  siding  involved  or  replace   the  product  determined  by  Windswept  to  be  defec<ve.  LABOR  OR  COSTS  OF  LABOR  FOR  THE  APPLICATION   OF  ANY  PRODUCT  AND  OTHER  EXPENSES  SUCH  AS  ACCESSORIES  (fasteners,  caulk,  building  paper  and  the   wood  substrate)  SPECIFICALLY  ARE  EXCLUDED.     Windswept  obliga<ons  under  this  Warranty  shall  in  no  event  exceed  the  purchase  price  of  the  original   products.  Any  replacement  product  provided  in  response  to  a  warranty  claim  shall  be  warranted  only  for   the  balance  of  the  applicable  period  under  this  warranty.   This  warranty  does  not  apply  to  damage  or  failure  caused  by  excessive  warping,  cupping,  spliang,  cracking,   and  shrinkage  of  the  siding  material,  breakdown  of  the  underlying  substrate;  falling  objects;  faulty  or   improper  storage  or  installa<on;  accidental  damage;  structural  defects;  fire;  lightning;  or  other  acts  of  God;   harmful  chemicals  or  cleaning  compounds;  surface  deteriora<on  due  to  air  pollu<on;  misuse;  abuse;   vandalism;  mildew  accumula<on;  scratching;  abrading  or  misuse/abuse  aGer  installa<on.  Extrac<ve   bleeding,  and  color  appearance  are  not  considered  defects  are  not  covered  under  this  warranty.   Windswept  makes  no  other  express  nor  implied  warran<es  and  specifically  disclaims  the  implied  warran<es   of  merchantability  and  fitness  for  a  par<cular  purpose.   Warranty P111 IV.A. Siding Installation Information Selection, Installation, Finishing Moisture Content As wood loses or gains moisture, it will shrink or swell until it reaches equilibrium with the level of moisture in the air of its immediate surroundings. Because of its cell structure, wood shrinks primarily in thickness and width and very little in length. Wood siding is no exception. It will shrink and swell regardless of pattern or material quality. Problems can occur after installation if the siding shrinks or swells unevenly or very rapidly, particularly if it has been improperly nailed and its natural movement has been restricted. However, problems such as twist, cup, warp, splits and checks can be minimized. To avoid potential problems and to minimize dimensional change after installation, the moisture content of the siding should match the local climate as closely as possible at the time of installation. For instance, if the climate in a particular region causes wood to maintain 9% to 14% moisture content, then the moisture content of the siding should be within that range when installed. Siding Storage All siding may pick up or lose moisture in transit or storage so it is important to allow it to acclimate with the surrounding air of its final site prior to installation. Stack the siding on evenly spaced, vertically aligned stickers (spacers between the layers) in an area where there will be good air flow through the stack. This should be done in an open garage or other area that is protected from the elements. If stacked over concrete, use 2x4s or 2x6s on edge to elevate the first course of siding at least 3.5 inches above the surface of the concrete. If the stack is over wet ground or wet concrete, lay down a vapor barrier so the wood doesn’t pick up moisture from beneath the stack. Printable P112 IV.A. Nail Penetration and Spacing Recommended penetration into studs or blocking, or into a combination of wood sheathing and these members, is 1.5”. Penetration is 1.25” with ring shank nails. Vertical Siding, when applied over wood-based sheathing, should be nailed to horizontal blocking or other wood framing members not exceeding 36” on center when face-nailed, or 32” on center when blind-nailed. Vertical Siding, when installed without sheathing, should be nailed to wood framing or blocking members at 24” on center. Some building codes require 24” on center with or without sheathing; check your local code to verify requirements. Cut bevel (scarf) joints for vertical installations. Horizontal and diagonal siding should be nailed to studs at 24” on center maximum when applied over wood-based, solid sheathing and 16” on center maximum when applied without move, that is to shrink and swell, as well as to adequately hold the siding in place. As a general rule, each piece of siding is nailed independently of its neighboring pieces. Do not nail through two overlapping pieces of siding with the same nail as this practice will restrict the natural movement of the siding and may cause unnecessary problems. Nail joints into the studs or blocking members. Drive nails carefully. Hand nailing is preferred over pneumatic nailing because there is less control of placement and driving force with pneumatic nailers. Nails should be snug, but not over driven. Nails that are over driven can distort the wood and may cause excessive splitting. Over driven nails also provide an avenue for moisture to collect and move through the piece. Pre drilling near the ends will help reduce any splitting that can occur with thinner patterns. For additional information regarding pneumatic nailing, contact the International Staple, Nail and Tool Association at www.isanta.org . Colored nails and screws that complement windswept colors (Nailing and fastening siding to wood based sheathing is not recommended) Brand: Simpson Strong-Tie Printable Windswept Colors Nail / Screw Colors Barn Gray --------------------------------------- Azek Homestead -------------------------------------- Brown Cowboy ------------------------------------------ Acorn Wagon Red ------------------------------------- Jatoba Prairie -------------------------------------------- Brown Buckboard -------------------------------------- Sahara P113 IV.A. Popular Patterns Unique  paeerns  &   technical  guidelines   equate  to  successful   projects.       Here  are  several   links  you  may  find   useful:   Standard PatternsTechnical Guide The  paeerns  illustrated  below  represent   the  vast  majority  of  customer  request,   special  paeerns  may  be  available   depending  on  project  scope.   P114 IV.A. Tour ISSUU digital publication Portfolio Visit: http://harvest-timber.com/portfolio/ Tour more publications... P115 IV.A. Glen  Ehrhardt,  President   Harvest  Timber  Speciality  Products   PO  Box  59   Lakebay,  WA  98349   p. (253) 884-6255 f. (253) 884-6256 e.  windswept.rep@gmail.com      w..  www.windsweptproducts.com http://harvest-timber.com P116 IV.A. P117 IV.A. P118 IV.A. R CE RTI-L AB E LTM Manufactured with pride by CSSB Members Cedar Shake and Shingle PRODUCT CATALOG P119 IV.A. 1930s: Going Hollywood, one of the country's first commercial movies 1920s: CSSB auditor inspecting product CEDAR SHAKE & SHI NGLE B UREAU H ISTORY On June 9, 1915, at a meeting of the Trustees of the West Coast Lumber Manufacturers Association, it was agreed to establish a branch of the association to serve those members who manufactured shingles. Our influence grew, and as we survived both the Great Depression and World War II, manufacturers continued their quality commitment. In 1963 the organization merged with the Handsplit Shake Bureau to become the Red Cedar Shingle & Handsplit Shake Bureau. Manufacturers’ product lines continued to broaden and, in 1988, the members changed the organization’s name to the Cedar Shake & Shingle Bureau . In the late 1980s, mill quality control inspections were subcontracted to independent, third party quality control agencies. Today, the Cedar Shake & Shingle Bureau represents (“CSSB”) over 200 member manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, brokers, retailers, installers and other industry associates. It is known as ‘the recognized authority since 1915.’  ALWAYS check with the treatment company for correct installation procedures and accessory products (fasteners, flashings etc.) for treated products. Note that some accessory products are not compatible with treated material.  Starter / finish course product is typically 15-inches in length, and used only for underlying starter course at eave areas and final course at ridges where trimming would otherwise be necessary. It is not a field product.  A handy industry glossary is located at the end of this product catalog.  Material for this manual has been compiled from various authoritative sources, and much of the information shown herein has been developed by the shake and shingle specialists in both the United States and Canada. Regardless of your project, ensure that you check with your local building code official for project approval. This TMcatalog is provided as a general overview of Certi-label product information. For a more detailed description of TMCerti-label products please review the CSSB grading rules at: www.cedarbureau.org/green-products/supporting-documents/grading-rules.asp. Note: The information in this manual is not intended to supercede local building codes. Front cover courtesy: Top: C & H Roofing Inc.; John Spalding RW Mulligan Co., Inc.; Huber & Associates; C & H Roofing Inc. Bottom: Design & photo, Wolf Wenzel Graphics; I M PORTANT NOTES: P120 IV.A. There are 3 main product types: ®Certi-Split Handsplit and Resawn Shake: Split face exposed with a naturally rustic appearance, sawn on back Most common are 18" & 24" lengths Butt thickness ranges from 3/8" to 1" plus ®Certigrade Shingle: Sawn on both sides for a tailored appearance Available in 16" Fivex, 18" Perfection or 24" Royal lengths Butt thickness is gauged using a stack of shingles to meet the proper measurement ®Certi-Sawn Tapersawn Shake: Sawn on both sides for a semi-textured look with a stronger shadowline than a shingle Most common are 18" and 24" lengths Butt thickness ranges from 5/8" to 7/8" • • • • • • • • • This is a common question... but there is No Such Thing as a ‘shake shingle’. Cedar shakes and shingles manufactured by members of the Cedar Shake & Shingle Bureau (”CSSB”) are the only products labeled with the ”Certi” brand name. Certi-label™ cedar shakes and shingles are made by experienced craftsmen who take pride in their trade and the quality of their product. Despite their varying sizes and sometimes remote locations, member mills are bound together by a rigid quality code. Unannounced independent inspections conducted by accredited third party agencies ensure that product quality is maintained The CSSB also has its own Cedar Quality Auditor on staff, providing an additional layer of quality control. Products are inspected to conform with various local, national and international codes and standards (contact the CSSB for specific details). Each year the Cedar Shake & Shingle Bureau’s staff answer thousands of technical questions and product selection queries. ontact us at: info@cedarbureau.com or telephone: 604-820-7700. Technical assistance is just a mouse click or phone call away. C – Page 1 of 20 – WHAT IS A ‘SHAKE SH I NGLE’? I NTRODUCTION This product catalog contains information about Western Red Cedar and Alaskan Yellow Cedar shake and shingle products. Consult respective trade associations for other species. A variety of g rades, each with nominal grading tolerance levels, is found within main product categories. Ensure you select the product grade that is approved for your project by the local building official. Keep in mind that the highest grade will provide the best quality, appearance and longevity. This catalog provides a basic overview of key grading concepts. For complete grading rules refer to the CSSB website: www.cedarbureau.org. only SHAK E SHINGLE P121 IV.A. Each bundle of product has the mill's distinctive Certi-label™ tucked under the bundle strap. Asking for “the blue label” or “number one blue label” is not specific enough: CSSB members’ products are the only ones with the “Certi” brand name on the label. HOW TO R EAD A CERTI-L AB ELTM – Page 2 of 20 – 9. Label NumberCedar Bureau 10. Building Code Compliance Numbers 11. Product Performance Tests Passed 12. Label Identification Number 13. UPC Code 14. Coverage Chart a nd Recommended Exposure 15. Application Instructions on Reverse Side 1.The Certi Brand Name - Your Quality Assurance”” 2.Product Grade 3.Product Type rd 4.Independent, 3 5.This Number Shows Compliance with Total Quality Manufacturing System 6.Mill Name, Location and Phone Number 7.Industry Product Description 8.Product Dimensions Party, Quality Control Agency 1Handsplit Red Cedar Shakes 004 PACKING NUMBER GRADE1 Litho in Canada BUNDLES EXPOSURE www.cedarbureau.org Country of Manufacture HEAVY RESAWS 24" x 3/4" (610.0 mm X 19.0 mm) CEDAR SHAKE & SHINGLE BUREAU THE RECOGNIZED AUTHORITY SINCE 1915 SUMAS, WASHINGTON (604) 820-7700 ©1963,1998, 2002 Mill Name Mill Location Mill Phone Number Quality Control Agency Logo Mill Quality Certification Number Building Code Standards Product Testing Numbers Label ID Number 7 6 4 5 1 2 3 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 9 100 sq. ft. (9.3 m ) 5 10" (250 mm) 2 COVERAGE CHART LIFETIME LIMITED WARRANTY AVAILABLE FROM CSSB MEMBER MANUFACTURER BELOW WHEN APPLIED BY A CSSB MEMBER APPROVED INSTALLER R P122 IV.A. J U ST B EC AU S E IT HAS A B LU E-COLOR E D L AB E L, DOE S NOT M EAN IT I S AUTOMATIC ALLY TMA CE RTI-L AB E L Don’t be fooled by the “B LU E-COLOR E D label” sales pitch TMDEMAND TH E CE RTI-L AB E L – Page 3 of 20 –P123 IV.A. P ITCH: “All my stock has a blue label, therefore all of it is good.” The term “Blue ®Label ” is actually a registered trademark of the Cedar Shake and Shingle Bureau trade association which has over 200 member companies. Just because a company puts a label in a blue color on its bundles does not mean that it’s on grade or third party inspected. This confusion may lead to rejection of the load at the job site. Buyer’s Tip: To specify a Cedar Shake and Shing le Bureau member’s product and grade, you must write “Certi-label™” brand on the purchase order and roofing contract. Follow this wording with species, g rade, product t ype, length, width and perhaps even the common name of the product such as “heavies”, “mediums”, “R&R” etc. Being specific on your purchase order and roofing contract g ives your supplier no excuse to ship you an undesired product, grade or brand. Specify that i P ITCH: “These products are just as good as Certi-label™ brand products, but they are cheaper/more readily available/what your roofing contractor prefers to work with.” Don't believe these types of misleading statements. You get what you pay for. Certi-label™ brand products are readily available, and good roofing contractors prefer to work with quality, on grade materials that yield less culls and c all backs. Buyer’s Tip: Call your supplier’s bluff when you hear this. If you need help sourcing material or debunking my ths then ask one of our District Manag ers for free assistance. f Certi-label™ brand is ordered, and the product delivered does not bear the Certi-label™, then the load will be rejected and sent back. The wrong brand also results in warranty reg istration denials, thus upsetting your customers. conform to building code plus Quality Certi-label™ brand products. Manufactured only by Cedar Shake & Shingle Bureau members. B EWAR E OF TH E S E SALE S P ITCH E S – Page 4 of 20 –P124 IV.A. SP ECI F ICATION BASICS It takes attention to detail to correctly specify a shake or shingle product. Just because the color of the label is blue does not mean it’s top quality or that it’s made by a CSSB member. If you are seeking a CSSB member product, insist upon the Certi-label™ brand name as part of the details on your specifications: How to specify a bundled product (4 different examples): How to specify a cartoned product (sidewall shingles) TMCerti-label Mill Name Address Telephone Brand Grade & Species Product Type Length and Thickness Common Name Brand Grade & Species Product Type Length and Thickness Common Name Brand Grade & Species Product Type Length and Thickness Common Name Brand Grade & Species Product Type Length and Thickness Common Name Brand Grade & Species Product Type Length Common Name – Page 5 of 20 – ®Certigrade ®Certigrade Number 1 Grade Western Red Cedar (Highest Shingle Grade) Number 1 Grade Western Red Cedar Shingles 18" x 5/2 "¼Perfections (Perfs) ®Certi-Split ®Certi-Split Number 1 Grade Western Red Cedar Premium Grade Western Red Cedar Handsplit & Resawn Shakes Handsplit & Resawn Shakes 24" x 3/4"Heavies 18" x 1/2" Mediums ®Certi-Sawn Premium Grade Alaskan Yellow Cedar Tapersawn Shakes 18" x 3/4"Tapersawns Sanded, Rebutted & Rejointed Shingles 18"R&R P125 IV.A. Wall Exposure Tables Max. Weather Exposure Shingle Length Single Course Double Course 16" 7"12" # 18" 8"14" ## 24"10½"16" ### # Maximum exposure for Number 2 Grade is 9" ## Maximum exposure for Number 2 Grade is 10" ### Maximum exposure for Number 2 Grade is 14" ®®Certigrade Rebutted/Rejointed Shingles and Certigrade (Number 1 Grade) Shingles Always check with your local building official to confirm if specified grade is acceptable in your jurisdiction. EXPOSU R E CHARTS Maximum exposure recommended for roofs LENGTH PITCH 16" 18" 24" 3 " 4 " 5 " 5" 5 " 7 " ¾¼¾ ½½ 16" 18" 24" 3 " 4" 5 " 4" 4 " 6 " ½½ ½½ 16" 18" 24" 3" 3½" 5" 3 " 5 "½” 4 ½ 3:12 to 4:12 4:12 and steeper ®Certigrade (Number 1 Grade) Shingles Shingle Exposure Sidewall Exposure Roof Exposure Tables ®® Certi-Split & Certi-Sawn Shake Exposure Table LENGTH PITCH 4:12 and steeper 18" 24" Shake Exposure Number 2 Red LabelNumber 1 Blue Label Number 3 Black Label Maximum exposure recommended for walls – Page 6 of 20 – 7½" (b)10" (a) (b) (a) 24 x 3/8 handsplit shakes limited to 7½ maximum weather exposure per IRC and IBC. (b) Number 2 Grade tapersawn shake application requires a reduced weather exposure of 5½for 18 and 7½ for 24 shakes per IRC and IBC. "" " " """ P126 IV.A. EDGE GR AI N versus F L AT GR AI N COVER AGE COVERAGE Some manufacturers cheat by not putting the correct amount of ON GRADE coverage (i.e. lineal inches) in bundles and/or cartons. Others make cartons that look full but are actually smaller than standard size. Read the official grading rules and compare them with how much the bundle or carton holds: http://www.cedarbureau.org/green products/supporting-documents/grading-rules.asp. Much like serving quantities of food, the calorie count doesn’t always match the full contents of the container. Flat Grain (Butt End) Flat Grain Surface Low Coverage Edge Grain (Butt End) Here are some diagrams to help explain what to look for: Coverage is the amount of roof or wall area the on grade product in a bundle or carton will cover. FLAT GRAIN Flat grain is restricted by grade. No flat grain is permitted in Premium Grade shake or Number 1 Grade shingle products. Up to 20% per bundle is allowable in Number 1 Grade shake products. Good Coverage Low Coverage (look out for substandard sized cartons too) Low CoverageGood Coverage – Page 7 of 20 –P127 IV.A. WESTERN R ED CEDAR Premium Grade (highest grade) Clear heartwood, 100% edge grain, no defects. Lengths: 18-inch, 24-inch. Thicknesses: " (medium), " (heavy), 1" plus (jumbo). or roofs of 4:12 slope and steeper and walls where a top quality product is desired. 1/2 3/4 Recommended Use: F WESTERN R ED CEDAR Number 1 Grade Clear heartwood, 20% maximum flat grain allowed per bundle. Lengths: 18-inch, 24-inch. Thicknesses: 3/8", 1/2" (medium), " (heavy), 1" plus (jumbo). or roofs of 4:12 slope and steeper and walls where a high quality appearance and performance are desired. 3/4 Recommended Use: F ®CERTI-SPLIT®CERTI-SPLIT Handsplit Red Cedar Shakes 001 PACKING Litho in Canada BUNDLES EXPOSURE COVERAGE CHART www.cedarbureau.org CEDAR SHAKE & SHINGLE BUREAU THE RECOGNIZED AUTHORITY SINCE 1915 SUMAS, WASHINGTON (604) 820-7700 ©1963,1998, 2002 24" x 1/2" (610.0 mm X 13.0 mm) MEDIUM RESAWS 2100 sq. ft. (9.30 m ) 10" (254 mm)5 Country of Manufacture 020260 Mill Name Mill Location Mill Phone Number 030640 Quality Control Agency Logo Mill Quality Certification Number Building Code Standards Product Testing Numbers LIFETIME LIMITED WARRANTY AVAILABLE FROM CSSB MEMBER MANUFACTURER BELOW WHEN APPLIED BY A CSSB MEMBER APPROVED INSTALLER ® CERTI-SP LIT Handsplit and Resawn Shakes (also referred to as “Handsplits” or “Resaws”) These high quality shakes feature a rough split face exposed with a sawn back. Their rustic appearance is popular on traditional ranch and vacation homes. Species / / /Grade Description Recommended Use Consult CSSB grading rules and installation manuals for detailed specifications. Courtesy: Goat Lake Forest Products Ltd., Photo: Kristy McKamey – Page 8 of 20 – TMPhoto below shows Certi-label Western Red Cedar installation: (457 mm x 13.0 mm) 030640 MEDIUM RESAWS 18" X 1/2" 7 1/2" (190.0 mm)EXPOSURE COVERAGE CHART BDLES COVERAGE 5 2100 sq. ft. (9.30 m ) 7 1/2" (190.0 mm)EXPOSURE COVERAGE CHART PACK BDLES COVERAGE 9/9 5 12/12 5 275 sq. ft. (7.0 m ) 2100 sq. ft. (9.30 m ) 006 Handsplit Red Cedar Shakes CEDAR SHAKE & SHINGLE BUREAU THE RECOGNIZED AUTHORITY SINCE 1915 SUMAS, WASHINGTON (604) 820-7700 LIFETIME LIMITED WARRANTY AVAILABLE FROM CSSB MEMBER MANUFACTURER BELOW WHEN APPLIED BY A CSSB MEMBER APPROVED INSTALLER NUMBER GRADE ®CERTI-SPLIT®CERTI-SPLIT P128 IV.A. ®CERTI-SPLIT Handsplit Shakes 301W PACKINGPACKING Litho in Canada Litho in Canada www.cedarbureau.orgwww.cedarbureau.org CEDAR SHAKE & SHINGLE BUREAU THE RECOGNIZED AUTHORITY SINCE 1915 SUMAS, WASHINGTON (604) 820-7700 ©1963,1998, 2002 18" x 1/2" (457 mm X 13.0 mm) 18" x 1/2" (457 mm X 13.0 mm) MEDIUM RESAWSMEDIUM RESAWS Country of ManufactureCountry of Manufacture 020260020260 Mill Name Mill Location Mill Phone Number Mill Name Mill Location Mill Phone Number 030640 Quality Control Agency Logo Mill Quality Certification Number Building Code Standards Product Testing Numbers030640 Quality Control Agency Logo Mill Quality Certification Number Building Code Standards Product Testing Numbers LIFETIME LIMITED WARRANTY AVAILABLE FROM CSSB MEMBER MANUFACTURER BELOW WHEN APPLIED BY A CSSB MEMBER APPROVED INSTALLER YELLOW CEDAR 7 1/2" (190.0 mm)EXPOSURE COVERAGE CHART BDLES COVERAGE 5 2100 sq. ft. (9.30 m ) 7 1/2" (190.0 mm)EXPOSURE COVERAGE CHART BDLES COVERAGE 5 2100 sq. ft. (9.30 m ) TMYellow Cedar Certi-labels are distinguished by the brown color stripe underneath the top half of the label. YELLOW CEDAR Only Available in Premium Grade (highest grade) Clear heartwood, 100% edge grain, no defects. Lengths: 18-inch, 24-inch. Thicknesses: 1/2" (medium), 3/4" (heavy), 1" plus (jumbo). or roofs of 4:12 slope and steeper and walls where a top quality product is desired. Recommended Use: F Courtesy: Mission Regional Chamber of Commerce, Traditions West Designs Ltd., Photo: Kelly Vaille ® CERTI-SP LIT Handsplit and Resawn Shakes (also referred to as “Handsplits” or “Resaws”) Continued... Species / / /Grade Description Recommended Use Consult CSSB grading rules and installation manuals for detailed specifications. TMPhoto below shows Certi-label Western Red Cedar installation: TMPhoto shows Certi-label Yellow Cedar installation: – Page 9 of 20 – possible yellow cedar photo P129 IV.A. WESTERN R ED CEDAR Premium Grade (highest grade) Clear heartwood, 100% edge grain, no flat grain, no defects. Lengths: 18-inch, 24-inch. Thicknesses: 5/8", 3/4", 7/8". For roofs of 4:12 slope and steeper and walls where Recommended Use: a top quality product is desired. ® CERTI-SAWN Tapersawn Shakes These shakes are sawn on both sides for a semi-textured look with a stronger shadowline than a shingle. (Note grading and installation are different from Certig rade shingles)® Courtesy: Serpentine Cedar Ltd.; Rowena’s Inn on the River TAPERSAWN PACKING Litho in Canada www.cedarbureau.org 18" x 5/8" (457 mm X 13.0 mm) Country of Manufacture 020260 Mill Name Mill Location Mill Phone Number 030640 Quality Control Agency Logo Mill Quality Certification Number Building Code Standards Product Testing Numbers 7 1/2" (190.0 mm)EXPOSURE COVERAGE CHART BDLES COVERAGE 5 2100 sq. ft. (9.30 m ) CEDAR SHAKE & SHINGLE BUREAU THE RECOGNIZED AUTHORITY SINCE 1915 SUMAS, WASHINGTON (604) 820-7700 Tapersawn Yellow Cedar Shakes 301©1963,1998, 2002 LIFETIME LIMITED WARRANTY AVAILABLE FROM CSSB MEMBER MANUFACTURER BELOW WHEN APPLIED BY A CSSB MEMBER APPROVED INSTALLER YELLOW CEDAR Premium Grade (highest grade) Clear heartwood, 100% edge grain, no flat grain, no defects. Lengths: 18-inch, 24-inch. Thicknesses: 5/8", 3/4", 7/8". Recommended Use: For roofs of 4:12 slope and steeper and walls where a top quality product is desired. TMYellow Cedar Certi-labels are distinguished by the brown color stripe underneath the top half of the label. Species / / /Grade Description Recommended Use Consult CSSB grading rules and installation manuals for detailed specifications. TM Photo below shows Certi-label Western Red Cedar installation: – Page 10 of 20 – PACKING Litho in Canada www.cedarbureau.org ©1963,1998, 2002 Country of Manufacture 020260 Mill Name Mill Location Mill Phone Number Quality Control Agency Logo Mill Quality Certification Number Building Code Standards Product Testing Numbers Tapersawn Red Cedar Shakes CEDAR SHAKE & SHINGLE BUREAU THE RECOGNIZED AUTHORITY SINCE 1915 SUMAS, WASHINGTON (604) 820-7700 PREMIUM GRADE 100% Edge Grain 275 LIFETIME LIMITED WARRANTY AVAILABLE FROM CSSB MEMBER MANUFACTURER BELOW WHEN APPLIED BY A CSSB MEMBER APPROVED INSTALLER 24" x 3/4" (610.0 mm X 19.0 mm) TAPERSAWN COVERAGE CHART BUNDLES EXPOSURE 100 sq. ft. (9.30 m )2 5 10" (254mm) P130 IV.A. WESTERN RED CEDAR Number 2 Grade Unlimited flat grain, limited defects. Lengths: 18-inch, 24-inch. Thicknesses: 5/8", 3/4", 7/8". For roofs of 4:12 slope and steeper or walls where a fair quality appearance is desired. Recommended Use: ® CERTI-SAWN Tapersawn Cedar Shakes WESTERN R ED CEDAR Number 1 Grade 100% clear, maximum 20% flat grain per bundle, no defects. Lengths: 18-inch, 24-inch. Thicknesses: 5/8", 3/4". For roofs of 4:12 slope and steeper and walls where a high quality, durable and uniform appearance is desired. Recommended Use: Continued... Courtesy: R W Mulligan Co. Inc. Species / / Grade Description / Recommended Use Consult CSSB grading rules and installation manuals for detailed specifications. – Page 11 of 20 – TMPhoto below shows Certi-label Western Red Cedar installation: 24" x 5/8" (610.0 mm X 19.0 mm) TAPERSAWN COVERAGE CHART BUNDLES EXPOSURE 75 sq. ft. (9.30 m )2 5 7.5" (190mm) Tapersawn Red Cedar Shakes NUMBER GRADE PACKING CEDAR SHAKE & SHINGLE BUREAU THE RECOGNIZED AUTHORITY SINCE 1915 SUMAS, WASHINGTON (604) 820-7700 402©1963,1998, 2002 Litho in Canada www.cedarbureau.org Country of Manufacture Mill Name Mill Location Mill Phone Number Quality Control Agency Logo Mill Quality Certification Number Building Code Standards Product Testing Numbers PACKING Litho in Canada www.cedarbureau.org ©1963,1998, 2002 18" x 5/8" (457 mm X 16.0 mm) TAPERSAWN 7 1/2" (190.0 mm) PACK EXPOSURE COVERAGE CHART BDLES COVERAGE 12/12 5 2100 sq. ft. (9.30 m ) Country of Manufacture 020260 Mill Name Mill Location Mill Phone Number Quality Control Agency Logo Mill Quality Certification Number Building Code Standards Product Testing Numbers Tapersawn Red Cedar Shakes CEDAR SHAKE & SHINGLE BUREAU THE RECOGNIZED AUTHORITY SINCE 1915 SUMAS, WASHINGTON (604) 820-7700 204 LIFETIME LIMITED WARRANTY AVAILABLE FROM CSSB MEMBER MANUFACTURER BELOW WHEN APPLIED BY A CSSB MEMBER APPROVED INSTALLER NUMBER GRADE P131 IV.A. WESTERN RED CEDAR Number 1 Grade (highest grade) Clear Recommended Use: heartwood, 100% edge grain, no defects. Lengths: Thicknesses: 16-inch is 5/2" (5 butts together measure 2" thick), 18-inch is 5/2 ", 24-inch is 4/2". For roofs of 4:12 slope and steeper and walls where a top quality product is desired. 16-inch (Fivex), 18-inch (Perfection), 24-inch (Royal). ¼ Litho in Canada www.cedarbureau.org 404©1963,1998, 2002 Country of Manufacture 030640 Mill Name Mill Location Mill Phone Number PERFECTION Quality Control Agency Logo Mill Quality Certification Number Building Code Standards Product Testing Numbers Red Cedar Shingles LIFETIME LIMITED WARRANTY AVAILABLE FROM CSSB MEMBER MANUFACTURER BELOW WHEN APPLIED BY A CSSB MEMBER APPROVED INSTALLER YELLOW CEDAR Number 1 Grade Clear heartwood, 100% edge grain, no defects. Lengths: 18-inch (Perfection). Thicknesses: 5/2 " (5 butts together measure 2 " thick). For roofs of 4:12 slope and steeper and walls where a top quality product is desired. (highest grade) ¼¼ Recommended Use: PACKING Litho in Canada www.cedarbureau.org Country of Manufacture 020260 Mill Name Mill Location Mill Phone Number 020260 Quality Control Agency Logo Mill Quality Certification Number Building Code Standards Product Testing Numbers ©1963,1998, 2002 LIFETIME LIMITED WARRANTY AVAILABLE FROM CSSB MEMBER MANUFACTURER BELOW WHEN APPLIED BY A CSSB MEMBER APPROVED INSTALLER 326 Smooth sawn, architecturally uniform cedar shingles offer a natural and tailored appearance. Shingles are used on traditional and modern roof and wall applications (sidewall projects requiring additional machining on all four shingle edges should be specified as R&R sidewall shingles – see the sidewall section of this catalog.) Note that Number 1 Grade is the highest grade of shingle available – there is no such thing as a Premium Grade shingle. ® CERTIGR ADE Shingles TMYellow Cedar Certi-labels are distinguished by the brown color stripe underneath the top half of the label. Species / / Grade Description / Recommended Use Consult CSSB grading rules and installation manuals for detailed specifications. Courtesy: Telemark Inc., Builder: Mario Novak, Architect: Bob Ortmann, Zwirko & Ortmann Architects, P.C. TMPhoto below shows Certi-label Western Red Cedar installation: – Page 12 of 20 –P132 IV.A. WESTERN RED CEDAR Undercoursing Grade Unlimited flat grain, sapwood and defects. Lengths: 16-inch, 18-inch. Thicknesses: Recommended Use: 16-inch is 5/2" (5 butts together measure 2" thick), 18-inch is 5/2 ". A utility grade for undercoursing of double coursed sidewalls only. ¼ Not a roofing material and not to be used as a starter course for roofs. WESTERN RED CEDAR Special Undercoursing Same grade requirements as undercoursing grade, except each bundle also contains some Number 3 grade shingles. A utility grade for undercoursing of double coursed sidewalls only. Recommended Use: Not a roofing material and not to be used on roofs. WESTERN RED CEDAR Number 3 Grade Limited defects. Lengths: 16-inch, 18-inch, 24-inch. Thicknesses: 16-inch is 5/2" (5 butts together measure 2" thick), 18-inch is 5/2 ", 24-inch is 4/2". For roofs of 3:12 slope and steeper and walls where an economy product is acceptable. ¼ Recommended Use: WESTERN RED CEDAR Number 2 Grade Limited flat grain, sapwood and defects. Lengths: 16-inch, 18-inch, 24-inch. Thicknesses: 16-inch is 5/2" (5 butts together measure 2" thick), 18-inch is 5/2 ", 24-inch is 4/2". For roofs of 3:12 slope and steeper where a fair product is acceptable. ¼ Recommended Use: Continued... Species / / Grade Description / Recommended Use Consult CSSB grading rules and installation manuals for detailed specifications. NUMBER GRADE PACKING Litho in Canada www.cedarbureau.org CEDAR SHAKE & SHINGLE BUREAU THE RECOGNIZED AUTHORITY SINCE 1915 SUMAS, WASHINGTON (604) 820-7700 402 Red Cedar Shingles COMPLIES WITH ALL GRADING RULESFOR NUMBER TWO SHINGLES 16" x 5 / 2" (406 mm X 5 / 51.0 mm) F I VE X BUNDLES EXPOSURE COVERAGE CHART280 sq. ft. (7.4 m ) 4" (102.0 mm)4 ©1963,1998, 2002 Building Code Standards Product Testing Numbers Quality Control Agency Logo Mill Quality Certification Number – Page 13 of 20 – 403 PACKING Litho in Canada www.cedarbureau.org CEDAR SHAKE & SHINGLE BUREAU THE RECOGNIZED AUTHORITY SINCE 1915 SUMAS, WASHINGTON (604) 820-7700 ©1963,1998, 2002 - Third Grade - ®CERTIGRADE®CERTIGRADE NO.3 GRADE ®LABELBLACK FIVE X 16" x 5 / 2" (406 mm x 5 / 51.0 mm) Red Cedar Shingles BUNDLES EXPOSURE COVERAGE CHART 2100 sq. ft. (9.30 m ) 3 1/2" (89.0 mm)4 R Building Code Standards Product Testing Numbers Quality Control Agency Logo Mill Quality Certification Number Country of Manufacture R R ® CERTIGR ADE Shingles P133 IV.A. Long term protection from fungal decay is provided with factory pressure-impregnation treatment of preservatives that will extend the life of cedar shake and shingle roofs. CERTI-LAST PRESERVATIVE TREATED CEDAR SHAKES & SHINGLES CEDAR SHAKE & SHINGLE BUREAU R ®®Material: Certi-Last shakes and shingles are manufactured from Certi-Split , ®®®Certi-Sawn and Certigrade products. These are sold under the Certi-Last trademark when treated to the minimum established standards. Only ®Certi-label™ products can achieve a Certi-Last label. Recommended Use: On roofs in areas where humidity, dampness and/or shade is a concern. Contact the treatment company for treatment warranty information, accessory product requirements and application details for treated cedar material. The CSSB requires Type 316 Stainless Steel fasteners to be used ®with Certi-Last member treated material. ®CERTI-L AST Pressure-Impregnated Preservative Treated Shakes and Shingles Courtesy: Ed Watkins Material / Recommended Use / Fastener Note Consult CSSB grading rules and installation manuals for detailed specifications. – Page 14 of 20 – TMPhoto below shows Certi-label Western Red Cedar installation: P134 IV.A. How is the treatment tested? CSSB member pressure-impregnated fire-retardant treated cedar shakes and shingles provide fire protection locked into the roofing material, proven over and over in eight rigorous Underwriters Laboratories (Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. and Underwriters’ Laboratories of Canada) designed tests: The Intermittent Flame, Burning Brand and Flying Brand Tests are redone after the natural weathering of 1, 2, 3, 5 and 10 years. Gas Tube Flying Brand Test Spread of Flame Test Class B TestBurning Brand 12” from ridge 6” from side Gas Tube Ember Wind force Wind force Wind force Spread of Flame Test: requires test decks to be subjected to a gas-fed flame for an extended, uninterrupted period using temperatures of approximately 1350 degrees Fahrenheit and an air speed of 12 mph. Conditions for acceptance: flaming shall not have spread beyond six feet for Class A, eight feet for Class B and thirteen feet for Class C. There shall have been no significant lateral spread of flame from the path directly exposed to the test flame. Flying Brand Test: requires that wind and flame be applied to a deck and the test requires that no flying, flaming or glowing embers or brands be blown or fall off the test deck. Burning Brand Test: requires that flaming blocks of wood (called brands) be placed directly on the test deck at locations considered to be the most vulnerable and are allowed to continue to burn until they are completely consumed. Conditions for acceptance: there may be no burn through or sustained flaming on the underside of the deck. (extinguished) CERTI-GUARD PRESSURE- FIRE-RETARDANT CEDAR SHAKE & SHINGLE BUREAU TREATED SHAKES & SHINGLES R CERTI-GUARD PRESSURE- FIRE-RETARDANT CEDAR SHAKE & SHINGLE BUREAU TREATED SHAKES & SHINGLES R Certi-label™ shake and shingle roofs are available in Class A, B and C roofing systems. Class A systems are achieved by using Class B treated products with a specific assembly method. Class B and Class C are differentiated by the amount of fire-retardant treatment locked into the cells of the product. Contact the treatment company for treatment warranty information, accessory product requirements and application details for treated material. The CSSB requires Type 316 Stainless ®Steel fasteners to be used with Certi-Guard member treated material. Only Certi-label™ ®products can achieve a Certi-Guard label. Treated products include Premium and Number 1 Grade Certi-label™ roofing materials. ® CERTI-GUAR D Pressure-Impregnated, Fire-Retardant Treated Shakes and Shingles Class C label Class B label – Page 15 of 20 –P135 IV.A. WESTERN R ED CEDAR Premium &Number 1 Grade Handsplit Units Lengths: 18-inch, 24-inch. Thicknesses: 1/2”, 3/4”. WESTERN R ED CEDAR Premium & Number 1 Grade Tapersawn Units Lengths: 18-inch, 24-inch. Thickness: 5/8", 3/4". Shake or shingle product used to cap the peak of a roof. The appropriate hip and ridge unit should be selected to match the adjacent shakes or shingles. However, in many areas, a tapersawn hip and ridge unit is used on both shake and shingle applications. Hip and ridge product type selection should be performed in accordance with the aesthetic look desired. The hip & ridge exposure should be equal to or less than the exposure in the field of the roof, and should not exceed the maximum exposure for the specified length and grade. ®CERTI-R I DGE Hip and Ridge Units Note: Number 2 Grade shingle ridge product is available in 16-inch and 18-inch lengths; Number 2 Grade tapersawn ridge product does not conform to the common North American building codes. check with your local building official regarding usage in your area. Species / / /Grade Description Recommended Use Consult CSSB grading rules and installation manuals for detailed specifications. WESTERN R ED CEDAR Number 1 Grade Shingle Units Lengths: 16-inch, 18-inch. Thicknesses: 16-inch is 5/2" (5 butts together measure 2" thick), 18-inch is 5/2 ".¼ – Page 16 of 20 – R 030640 Quality Control Agency Logo Mill Quality Certification Number Building Code Standards Product Testing Numbers 234 (610.0 mm X 16.0 mm)24" x 5/8" TAPERSAWN HIP & RIDGE UNITS ©1963,1998, 2002 EXPOSURE COVERAGE CHART 16.5 LINEAL FT. (5.03 m) 20 10" (254 mm) UNITS PACKING Litho in Canada www.cedarbureau.org Country of Manufacture 010540 Mill Name Mill Location Mill Phone Number Quality Control Agency Logo Mill Quality Certification Number Building Code Standards Product Testing Numbers Tapersawn Red Cedar Shakes CEDAR SHAKE & SHINGLE BUREAU THE RECOGNIZED AUTHORITY SINCE 1915 SUMAS, WASHINGTON (604) 820-7700 PREMIUM GRADE 100% Edge Grain LIFETIME LIMITED WARRANTY AVAILABLE FROM CSSB MEMBER MANUFACTURER BELOW WHEN APPLIED BY A CSSB MEMBER APPROVED INSTALLER TM Litho in Canada www.cedarbureau.org 424©1963,1998, 2002 Country of Manufacture 030640 Mill Name Mill Location Mill Phone Number Quality Control Agency Logo Mill Quality Certification Number Building Code Standards Product Testing Numbers Red Cedar Shingles LIFETIME LIMITED WARRANTY AVAILABLE FROM CSSB MEMBER MANUFACTURER BELOW WHEN APPLIED BY A CSSB MEMBER APPROVED INSTALLER (475 mm X 5 / 57.0 mm)18" x 5/2 1/4" PERFECTION HIP & RIDGE UNITS EXPOSURE COVERAGE CHART 16.5 LINEAL FT. (5.03 m) 36 5 1/2" 140 mm) UNITS TM P136 IV.A. Two Frequently Asked Questions: Can I use a bundled roofing product on a sidewall carton product job? Yes, but it will not be as even on all four edges as an R&R product. Discuss this option with the decision makers involved in the project. Can I use a sidewall R&R product on a roof? This is not a common application. Most building code officials will not allow it as the R & R product is not manufactured to roofing product grading guidelines. WESTERN RED CEDAR Number 1 Grade (highest grade) Clear heartwood, 100% edge grain, no defects. Lengths: 16-inch, 18-inch, 24-inch. Recommended Use: For exterior and interior walls. A variety of finish and face texture options are available. YELLOW CEDAR Number 1 Grade (highest g rade) Clear heartwood, 100% edge grain, no defects. Lengths: 16-inch, 18-inch, 24-inch. Recommended Use: For exterior and interior walls. A variety of finish and face texture options are available. Certi-label Mill Name Address Telephone TM Certi-label Mill Name Address Telephone TM Packed in cartons Packed in cartons section) with one face striated a length greater than the maximum exposure. Machine grooved shingles are manufactured as rebutted & rejointed shingles (see above ®CERTIGROOVE Machine Grooved Shingles TMCerti-label Mill Name Address Telephone Packed in cartons WESTERN RED CEDAR Number 1 Grade Recommended Use: (highest grade) Clear heartwood, 100% edge grain, no defects. Lengths: 16-inch, 18-inch, 24-inch. For exterior and interior walls. A variety of finish options are available. ®CERTIGR ADE Rebutted/Rejointed Shingles R & R shingles are trimmed for parallel edges with butts sawn at right angles and are available in both sawn and sanded face textures. A variety of finish options are available and include primed white, primed gray or special order colors. Species / / Grade Description / Recommended Use Consult CSSB grading rules and installation manuals for detailed specifications. Species / / Grade Description / Recommended Use Consult CSSB grading rules and installation manuals for detailed specifications. – Page 17 of 20 –P137 IV.A. Diagonal Fish-scale Square ArrowDiamond Half Cove RoundOctagonalHexagonal WESTERN RED CEDAR Number 1 Grade (highest grade) ® Clear heartwood, 100% edge grain, no defects. Lengths: 16 inch, 18 inch. Nine of the most popular designs are shown below. They can be combined to make an unlimited number of patterns. Certi-Cut shingles can also be custom produced to meet individual design specifications. Recommended Use: For interior and exterior walls, wherever a decorative elegance is desired. ®CERTI-CUT Fancy-Butt Red Cedar Shingles TMCerti-label Mill Name Address Telephone Packed in cartons Courtesy: Huber & Associates Courtesy: Wolf Wenzel Graphics Species / / Grade Description / Recommended Use Consult CSSB grading rules and installation manuals for detailed specifications. – Page 18 of 20 – Used to provide a variety of designs that add charm and an immediate visual impact to exterior and interior wall surfaces. These products undergo a similar remanufacturing process to rebutted and rejointed shingles. They can also be custom-produced to meet individual design specifications. P138 IV.A. Historical Applications Accuracy CSSB member manufacturers offer specialty products to meet the needs of historic project managers. Custom dimensions that exceed “stock” sizes can be sourced through the CSSB’s extensive member network. The CSSB also recommends contacting the local building official for historical project approval, guidelines and variances for specific historical restorations/renovations (such as felt interlay on shake applications). WESTERN RED CEDAR Number 1 Grade Straight Split 100% edge grain. Manufactured with rough surface on both sides. No tapering of ends. Lengths: 18-inch, 24-inch or specialty cut longer lengths. Thicknesses: 3/8", 1/2", 3/4". Recommended Use: For roofs of 4:12 slope or steeper. WESTERN RED CEDAR Number 1 Grade (True-Edge )Straight Split Lengths: 18-inch, 24-inch or specialty cut longer lengths. Thicknesses: 3/8", 1/2", 3/4". Recommended Use: For sidewall applications. Otherwise known as a “Barn Shake”. 100% edge grain. Manufactured with rough surface on both sides. Edge trimmed and no tapering of ends. WESTERN RED CEDAR Premium Grade Tapersplit Shakes 100% edge grain. by reversing the block after each shake is split from the block. Manufactured with rough surface on both sides. Tapered end is achieved Lengths: 18-inch and 24-inch and specialty cut longer lengths. Thicknesses: 3/8", 1/2", 3/4". Recommended Use: For roofs of 4:12 slope or steeper. Historically accurate products are primarily used on restoration projects where the restoration or replication of the original building is of paramount importance. CERTI-L AB EL TM Historical Products Key historical products that are available include:  Tapersplit shakes, in various lengths, up to 36” and beyond.  Straight Split shakes, in various lengths up to 40” and beyond. – Page 19 of 20 – ®CERTI-SPLIT®CERTI-SPLIT Handsplit Red Cedar Shakes 001 PACKING BUNDLES EXPOSURE COVERAGE CHART CEDAR SHAKE & SHINGLE BUREAU THE RECOGNIZED AUTHORITY SINCE 1915 SUMAS, WASHINGTON (604) 820-7700 ©1963,1998, 2002 24" x 1/2" (610.0 mm X 13.0 mm) TAPERSPLIT 2100 sq. ft. (9.30 m ) 10" (254 mm)5 Mill Name Mill Location Mill Phone Number Quality Control Agency Logo CONFORMS WITH CSSB-97 CSA0118.1 & UBC 15-3 T.D.I. Wind PE RC-27 Litho in Canada www.cedarbureau.org Country of Manufacture Mill Quality Certification Number 040740 030640 CONFORMS WITH CSSB-97 CSA0118.1 & UBC 15-3 040911 P139 IV.A. GLOSSARY OF TER MS Building Code Official: Also known as ‘Building Official’. The person hired by a given jurisdiction to ensure that building code regulations are followed and enforced. Is involved with reviewing variances requested in the building permit process. Usually an active contributor to city council decisions regarding commercial and residential buildings/developments. The first person to contact in a jurisdiction when a question about applicable building codes exists. Building Inspector: Person who visits job sites to review structural soundness and integrity. A written and detailed report is usually provided to the client. Butt: End of the shake or shingle exposed to the weather. Canadian Standards Association (CSA): CSSB-97: Current Western Red Cedar shake and shingle grading rules as accepted by and published in international building codes. TMCerti-label : The brand name used on cedar shake and shingle products manufactured by Cedar Shake and Shingle Bureau members. Recognized as quality products. Cool Roof Rating Council (CRRC): Develops accurate and credible methods for evaluating and labeling the solar reflectance and thermal emittance (radiative properties) of roofing products and disseminates the information to all interested parties. Dade County: County in Florida famous for mandating the strictest wind resistance requirements in the nation. Flat Grain: Annual growth rings form less than 45 degree angle with the product surface. Up to 20% flat grain is permitted in each Number 1 Grade shake bundle. No flat grain is allowed in Premium Grade shakes or Number One Grade shingles. Field of roof: Refers to largest area of a roof which covers most of deck area. Hip and Ridge: Peaked or adjacent areas where roof sections meet requiring ridge product at the junction. International Building Code (IBC): The set of building code regulations for commercial structures written by the International Code Council. An accredited organization that produces some of the standards in Canada. Products that meet Dade County requirements are better choices for hurricane prone areas. International Code Council (ICC): Organization created by merger of Building Officials and Code Administrators International, International Conference of Building Officials and Southern Building Code Congress International. Responsible for publishing the IRC and IBC. International Residential Code (IRC): The set of building code regulations for residential structures written by the International Code Council. Pressure-Impregnation Treatment Process: Process that uses pressure to force either fire retardant OR preservative treatments into the cells of the wood, locking it inside. This is not a spray on treatment that will leach out after a rain storm. Red Tagged Building: Stop work order put on building (usually under construction) if code requirements are not being met. Roofing Industry Committee on Weather Issues, Inc. (RICOWI): Identifies and addresses important technical issues related to the cause of weather damage to a wide variety of roofing systems. Square: Enough material to cover 100 square feet of installed area. Reduced exposure applications will increase quantity needed. Starter course: First course at the eave that is installed underneath the field course. The shorter starter course material can also be used at the ridge or where sections butt at the top into a wall where trimmed full sized field product would be necessary. Texas Department of Insurance (TDI): The Texas Department of Insurance regulates the Texas insurance industry and its work includes public education about insurance and building products (www.tdi.state.tx.us). UL-1897: Test standard for measuring uplift resistance of roofing products. Ratings are in psi and can be converted to miles per hour using engineering calculations. UL-2218: Test standard for measuring the impact resistance of products. Ratings are Class 1 (lowest) to Class 4 (highest) and are the same for all roofing materials, regardless of product type. Product test results have been used to provide insurance discounts for homeowner policies. Vertical Grain: Also known as Edge Grain. Annual growth rings form 45-90 degree angle with the product surface. – Page 20 of 20 –P140 IV.A. ® ®®®The CSSB logo , Blue Label , Certigrade , Certigroove , ®®®®®®Certi-Cut , Certi-Guard , Certi-Last , Certi-Ridge , Certi-Sawn , Certi-Split , and ® Envirosmart are registered trademarks of the Cedar Shake & Shingle Bureau. TMCerti-label and other marks appearing in this manual are trademarks of the Cedar Shake & Shingle Bureau. (”C” with shingles/shakes) US Address PO Box 1178 Sumas, WA 98295-1178 Canadian Address #2 – 7101 Horne St. Mission, BC V2V 7A2 TEL: 604-820-7700 FAX: 604-820-0266 www.cedarbureau.org info@cedarbureau.com Need more help with your project? Contact one of our knowledgeable District Managers for technical assistance. Each year CSSB District Managers educate thousands of people, lecture at seminars and provide valuable job site photo/case study promotions. T H E C S S B I S T H E R E C O G N I Z E D A U T H O R I T Y S I N C E 1 9 1 5 Printed June 2014 P141 IV.A. P142 IV.A. P143 IV.A. Copyright 2014 AIA MasterSpec Premium 06/14 ARCHITECTURALLY EXPOSED STRUCTURAL STEEL FRAMING 051213 - 1 SECTION 051213 - ARCHITECTURALLY EXPOSED STRUCTURAL STEEL FRAMING PART 1 - GENERAL 1.1 RELATED DOCUMENTS A. Drawings and general provisions of the Contract, including General and Supplementary Conditions and Division 01 Specification Sections, apply to this Section. 1.2 SUMMARY A. Section includes architecturally exposed structural-steel (AESS). 1. Requirements in Section 051200 "Structural Steel Framing" also apply to AESS. B. Related Requirements: 1. Section 051200 "Structural Steel Framing" for additional requirements applicable to AESS. 2. Section 055000 "Metal Fabrications" for [steel lintels and shelf angles not attached to structural-steel frame] [miscellaneous steel fabrications] [and] [other metal items] not defined as structural steel. 3. [Section 099113 "Exterior Painting" and Section 099123 "Interior Painting"] [and] [Section 099600 "High-Performance Coatings"] for surface preparation and priming requirements. 1.3 DEFINITIONS A. AESS: Structural steel designated as "architecturally exposed structural steel" or "AESS" in the Contract Documents. B. Category 1 AESS: AESS that is within 96 inches (2400 mm) vertically and 36 inches (900 mm) horizontally of a walking surface and that is visible to a person standing on that walking surface or is designated as "Category 1 architecturally exposed structural steel" or "AESS-1" in the Contract Documents. P144 IV.A. Copyright 2014 AIA MasterSpec Premium 06/14 ARCHITECTURALLY EXPOSED STRUCTURAL STEEL FRAMING 051213 - 2 C. Category 2 AESS: AESS that is within 20 feet (6 m) vertically and horizontally of a walking surface and that is visible to a person standing on that walking surface or is designated as "Category 2 architecturally exposed structural steel" or "AESS-2" in the Contract Documents. D. Category 3 AESS: AESS that is not defined as Category 1 or Category 2 or that is designated as "Category 3 architecturally exposed structural steel" or "AESS-3" in the Contract Documents[ or that is indicated to receive intumescent mastic fireproofing]. 1.4 COORDINATION A. Coordinate selection of shop primers with topcoats to be applied over them. Comply with paint and coating manufacturers' written recommendations to ensure that shop primers and topcoats are compatible with one another. 1.5 PREINSTALLATION MEETINGS A. Preinstallation Conference: Conduct conference at [Project site] <Insert location>. 1.6 ACTION SUBMITTALS A. Shop Drawings: Show fabrication of AESS components.[ Shop Drawings for structural steel may be used for AESS provided items of AESS are specifically identified and requirements below are met for AESS.] 1. Include details of cuts, connections, splices, camber, holes, and other pertinent data. 2. Include embedment Drawings. 3. Indicate welds by standard AWS symbols, distinguishing between shop and field welds, and show size, length, and type of each weld. Show backing bars that are to be removed and supplemental fillet welds where backing bars are to remain.[ Indicate grinding, finish, and profile of welds.] 4. Indicate type, size, and length of bolts, distinguishing between shop and field bolts. Identify pretensioned and slip-critical, high-strength bolted connections.[ Indicate orientation of bolt heads.] 5. Indicate exposed surfaces and edges and surface preparation being used. 6. Indicate special tolerances and erection requirements. B. Samples: Submit Samples of AESS to set quality standards for exposed welds[ for Category 1 AESS]. 1. Two steel plates,3/8 by 8 by 4 inches (9.5 by 200 by 100 mm), with long edges joined by a groove weld[ and with weld ground smooth]. 2. Steel plate, 3/8 by 8 by 8 inches (9.5 by 200 by 200 mm), with one end of a short length of rectangular steel tube, 4 by 6 by 3/8 inches (100 by 150 by 9.5 mm), welded to plate with a continuous fillet weld[ and with weld ground smooth and blended]. 3. Round steel tube or pipe, minimum 8 inches (200 mm) in diameter, with end of another round steel tube or pipe, approximately 4 inches (100 mm) in diameter, welded to its side at a 45-degree angle with a continuous fillet weld[ and with weld ground smooth and blended]. P145 IV.A. Copyright 2014 AIA MasterSpec Premium 06/14 ARCHITECTURALLY EXPOSED STRUCTURAL STEEL FRAMING 051213 - 3 1.7 INFORMATIONAL SUBMITTALS A. Qualification Data: For [Installer] [fabricator]. B. Paint Compatibility Certificates: From manufacturers of topcoats applied over shop primers, certifying that shop primers are compatible with topcoats. 1.8 QUALITY ASSURANCE A. Fabricator Qualifications: A qualified fabricator that participates in the AISC Quality Certification Program and is designated an AISC-Certified Plant, Category STD, or is accredited by the IAS Fabricator Inspection Program for Structural Steel (AC 172). B. Installer Qualifications: A qualified installer who participates in the AISC Quality Certification Program and is designated an AISC-Certified Erector, [Category ACSE] [Category CSE]. C. Shop-Painting Applicators: Qualified according to AISC's Sophisticated Paint [Endorsement P1] [Endorsement P2] [Endorsement P3] or SSPC-QP 3, "Standard Procedure for Evaluating Qualifications of Shop Painting Applicators." D. Mockups: Build mockups of AESS to set quality standards for fabrication and installation. 1. Build mockup of typical portion of AESS as shown on Drawings. 2. Coordinate painting requirements with Section 099113 "Exterior Painting" and Section 099123 "Interior Painting." 3. Coordinate high-performance coatings requirements with Section 099600 "High- Performance Coatings." 4. Coordinate intumescent mastic fireproofing requirements with Section 078123 "Intumescent Mastic Fireproofing." 5. Approved mockups may become part of the completed Work if undisturbed at time of Substantial Completion. 1.9 DELIVERY, STORAGE, AND HANDLING A. Use special care in handling to prevent twisting, warping, nicking, and other damage. Store materials to permit easy access for inspection and identification. Keep steel members off ground and spaced by using pallets, dunnage, or other supports and spacers. Protect steel members and packaged materials from corrosion and deterioration. 1. Do not store materials on structure in a manner that might cause distortion, damage, or overload to members or supporting structures. Repair or replace damaged materials or structures as directed. 1.10 FIELD CONDITIONS A. Field Measurements: Where AESS is indicated to fit against other construction, verify actual dimensions by field measurements before fabrication. P146 IV.A. Copyright 2014 AIA MasterSpec Premium 06/14 ARCHITECTURALLY EXPOSED STRUCTURAL STEEL FRAMING 051213 - 4 PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2.1 BOLTS, CONNECTORS, AND ANCHORS A. Tension-Control, High-Strength Bolt-Nut-Washer Assemblies: ASTM F 1852, Type 1, round- head assemblies, consisting of steel structural bolts with splined ends, heavy-hex carbon-steel nuts, and hardened carbon-steel washers. 1. Finish: [Plain] [Mechanically deposited zinc coating]. B. Corrosion-Resisting (Weathering Steel), Tension-Control, High-Strength Bolt-Nut-Washer Assemblies: ASTM F 1852, Type 3, round-head assemblies, consisting of steel structural bolts with splined ends, heavy-hex carbon-steel nuts, and hardened carbon-steel washers. 2.2 FILLER A. Filler: Polyester filler intended for use in repairing dents in automobile bodies. 2.3 PRIMER A. Primer: Comply with [Section 099113 "Exterior Painting" and Section 099123 "Interior Painting."] [Section 099600 "High-Performance Coatings."] [Section 099113 "Exterior Painting," Section 099123 "Interior Painting," and Section 099600 "High-Performance Coatings."] B. Primer: SSPC-Paint 25, [Type I] [Type II], zinc oxide, alkyd, linseed oil primer. C. Primer: SSPC-Paint 25 BCS, [Type I] [Type II], zinc oxide, alkyd, linseed oil primer. D. Primer: SSPC-Paint 23, latex primer. E. Primer: Fabricator's standard lead- and chromate-free, nonasphaltic, rust-inhibiting primer complying with MPI#79 and compatible with topcoat. F. Etching Cleaner for Galvanized Metal: MPI#25. G. Galvanizing Repair Paint: [MPI#18, MPI#19, or SSPC-Paint 20] [ASTM A 780/A 780M]. H. Shop Primer for Galvanized Steel: [MPI#26, cementitious galvanized metal primer] [MPI#80, vinyl wash primer] [MPI#134, water-based galvanized metal primer]. 2.4 FABRICATION A. Shop fabricate and assemble AESS to the maximum extent possible. Locate field joints at concealed locations if possible. Detail assemblies to minimize handling and to expedite erection. B.In addition to special care used to handle and fabricate AESS, comply with the following: P147 IV.A. Copyright 2014 AIA MasterSpec Premium 06/14 ARCHITECTURALLY EXPOSED STRUCTURAL STEEL FRAMING 051213 - 5 1. Fabricate with exposed surfaces smooth, square, and free of surface blemishes including pitting, rust, scale, and roughness. 2. Grind sheared, punched, and flame-cut edges of [Category 1] <Insert category> AESS to remove burrs and provide smooth surfaces and edges. 3. Fabricate [Category 1] <Insert category> AESS with exposed surfaces free of mill marks, including rolled trade names and stamped or raised identification. 4. Fabricate [Category 1 and Category 2] <Insert categories> AESS with exposed surfaces free of seams to maximum extent possible. 5. Remove blemishes by filling or grinding or by welding and grinding, before cleaning, treating, and shop priming. 6. Fabricate with piece marks fully hidden in the completed structure or made with media that permits full removal after erection. 7. Fabricate [Category 1] <Insert category> AESS to the tolerances specified in AISC 303 for steel that is designated AESS. 8. Fabricate [Category 2 and Category 3] <Insert categories> AESS to the tolerances specified in AISC 303 for steel that is not designated AESS. 9. Seal-weld open ends of hollow structural sections with 3/8-inch (9.5-mm) closure plates for [Category 1] <Insert category> AESS. C. Curved Members: Fabricate indicated members to curved shape by rolling to final shape in fabrication shop. 1. Distortion of webs, stems, outstanding flanges, and legs of angles shall not be visible from a distance of 20 feet (6 m) under any lighting conditions. 2. Tolerances for walls of hollow steel sections after rolling shall be approximately 1/2 inch (13 mm). D. Coping, Blocking, and Joint Gaps: Maintain uniform gaps of 1/8 inch (3.2 mm) with a tolerance of 1/32 inch (0.8 mm) for [Category 1] <Insert category> AESS. E. Bolt Holes: Cut, drill, [mechanically thermal cut, ]or punch standard bolt holes perpendicular to metal surfaces. F. Cleaning Corrosion-Resisting Structural Steel: Clean and prepare steel surfaces that are to remain unpainted according to SSPC-SP 6/NACE No. 3, "Commercial Blast Cleaning." G. Holes: Provide holes required for securing other work to structural steel and for other work to pass through steel members. 1. Cut, drill, or punch holes perpendicular to steel surfaces.[Do not thermally cut bolt holes or enlarge holes by burning.] 2. Baseplate Holes: Cut, drill, mechanically thermal cut, or punch holes perpendicular to steel surfaces. 3. Weld threaded nuts to framing and other specialty items indicated to receive other work. 2.5 SHOP CONNECTIONS A. High-Strength Bolts: Shop install high-strength bolts according to RCSC's "Specification for Structural Joints Using ASTM A 325 or A 490 Bolts" for type of bolt and type of joint specified. P148 IV.A. Copyright 2014 AIA MasterSpec Premium 06/14 ARCHITECTURALLY EXPOSED STRUCTURAL STEEL FRAMING 051213 - 6 1. Joint Type: [Snug tightened] [Pretensioned] [Slip critical]. B. Weld Connections: Comply with AWS D1.1/D1.1M[ and AWS D1.8/D1.8M] for tolerances, appearances, welding procedure specifications, weld quality, and methods used in correcting welding work, and comply with the following: 1. Assemble and weld built-up sections by methods that will maintain true alignment of axes without exceeding specified tolerances. 2. Use weld sizes, fabrication sequence, and equipment for AESS that limit distortions to allowable tolerances. 3. Provide continuous, sealed welds at angle to gusset-plate connections and similar locations where [Category 1] <Insert category> AESS is exposed to weather. 4. Provide continuous welds of uniform size and profile where [Category 1] <Insert category> AESS is welded. 5. Grind butt and groove welds flush to adjacent surfaces within tolerance of plus 1/16 inch, minus zero inch (plus 1.5 mm, minus zero mm) for [Category 1 and Category 2] <Insert categories> AESS. 6. Make butt and groove welds flush to adjacent surfaces within tolerance of plus 1/16 inch, minus zero inch (plus 1.5 mm, minus zero mm) for [Category 1 and Category 2] <Insert categories> AESS. Do not grind unless required for clearances or for fitting other components, or unless directed to correct unacceptable work. 7. Remove backing bars or runoff tabs; back-gouge and grind steel smooth for [Category 1 and Category 2] <Insert categories> AESS. 8. At locations where welding on the far side of an exposed connection of [Category 1 and Category 2] <Insert categories> AESS occurs, grind distortions and marking of the steel to a smooth profile aligned with adjacent material. 9. Make fillet welds for [Category 1 and Category 2] <Insert categories> AESS oversize and grind to uniform profile with smooth face and transition. 10. Make fillet welds for [Category 1 and Category 2] <Insert categories> AESS of uniform size and profile with exposed face smooth and slightly concave. Do not grind unless directed to correct unacceptable work. 2.6 GALVANIZING A. Hot-Dip Galvanized Finish: Apply zinc coating by the hot-dip process to structural steel according to ASTM A 123/A 123M. 1. Do not quench or apply post-galvanizing treatments that might interfere with paint adhesion. 2. Fill vent and drain holes that are exposed in the finished Work, unless indicated to remain as weep holes, by plugging with zinc solder and filing off smooth. 3. Galvanize [lintels] <Insert description> attached to structural-steel frame and located in exterior walls. 2.7 SHOP PRIMING A. Shop prime steel surfaces except the following: P149 IV.A. Copyright 2014 AIA MasterSpec Premium 06/14 ARCHITECTURALLY EXPOSED STRUCTURAL STEEL FRAMING 051213 - 7 1. Surfaces embedded in concrete or mortar. Extend priming of partially embedded members to a depth of 2 inches (50 mm). 2. Surfaces to be field welded. 3. Surfaces to be high-strength bolted with slip-critical connections. 4. Surfaces to receive sprayed fire-resistive materials. 5. Galvanized surfaces. B. Surface Preparation[ for Nongalvanized Steel]: Clean surfaces to be painted. Remove loose rust and mill scale and spatter, slag, or flux deposits. Prepare surfaces according to the following specifications and standards: 1. SSPC-SP 2, "Hand Tool Cleaning." 2. SSPC-SP 3, "Power Tool Cleaning." 3. SSPC-SP 7/NACE No. 4, "Brush-off Blast Cleaning." 4. SSPC-SP 14/NACE No. 8, "Industrial Blast Cleaning." 5. SSPC-SP 11, "Power Tool Cleaning to Bare Metal." 6. SSPC-SP 6/NACE No. 3, "Commercial Blast Cleaning." 7. SSPC-SP 10/NACE No. 2, "Near-White Blast Cleaning." 8. SSPC-SP 5/NACE No. 1, "White Metal Blast Cleaning." 9. SSPC-SP 8, "Pickling." C. Preparing Galvanized Steel for Shop Priming: After galvanizing, thoroughly clean steel of grease, dirt, oil, flux, and other foreign matter, and treat with etching cleaner. D. Priming: Immediately after surface preparation, apply primer according to manufacturer's written instructions and at rate recommended by SSPC to provide a minimum dry film thickness of 1.5 mils (0.038 mm). Use priming methods that result in full coverage of joints, corners, edges, and exposed surfaces. 1. Stripe paint corners, crevices, bolts, welds, and sharp edges. 2. Apply two coats of shop paint to surfaces that are inaccessible after assembly or erection. Change color of second coat to distinguish it from first. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3.1 EXAMINATION A. Verify, with steel erector present, elevations of concrete- and masonry-bearing surfaces and locations of anchor rods, bearing plates, and other embedments for compliance with requirements. 1. Prepare a certified survey of bearing surfaces, anchor rods, bearing plates, and other embedments showing dimensions, locations, angles, and elevations. B. Examine AESS for twists, kinks, warping, gouges, and other imperfections before erecting. C.Proceed with installation only after unsatisfactory conditions have been corrected. P150 IV.A. Copyright 2014 AIA MasterSpec Premium 06/14 ARCHITECTURALLY EXPOSED STRUCTURAL STEEL FRAMING 051213 - 8 3.2 PREPARATION A. Provide temporary shores, guys, braces, and other supports during erection to keep AESS secure, plumb, and in alignment against temporary construction loads and loads equal in intensity to design loads. Remove temporary supports when permanent structural steel, connections, and bracing are in place unless otherwise indicated. 1. If possible, locate welded tabs for attaching temporary bracing and safety cabling where they will be concealed from view in the completed Work. 2. Do not remove temporary shoring supporting composite deck construction until cast-in- place concrete has attained its design compressive strength. 3.3 ERECTION A. Set AESS accurately in locations and to elevations indicated and according to AISC 303 and AISC 360. 1. Erect [Category 1] <Insert category> AESS to the tolerances specified in AISC 303 for steel that is designated AESS. 2. Erect [Category 2 and Category 3] <Insert categories> AESS to the tolerances specified in AISC 303 for steel that is not designated AESS. B. Do not use thermal cutting during erection[ unless approved by Architect. Finish thermally cut sections within smoothness limits in AWS D1.1/D1.1M]. 3.4 FIELD CONNECTIONS A. High-Strength Bolts: Install high-strength bolts according to RCSC's "Specification for Structural Joints Using ASTM A 325 or A 490 Bolts" for type of bolt and type of joint specified. 1. Joint Type: [Snug tightened] [Pretensioned] [Slip critical]. 2. Orient bolt heads [as indicated on Drawings] [in same direction for each connection and to maximum extent possible in same direction for similar connections]. B. Weld Connections: Comply with requirements in "Weld Connections" Paragraph in "Shop Connections" Article. 1. Remove backing bars or runoff tabs; back-gouge and grind steel smooth for [Category 1 and Category 2] <Insert categories> AESS. 2. Remove erection bolts in [Category 1 and Category 2] <Insert categories> AESS, fill holes, and grind smooth. 3. Fill weld access holes in [Category 1 and Category 2] <Insert categories> AESS and grind smooth. P151 IV.A. Copyright 2014 AIA MasterSpec Premium 06/14 ARCHITECTURALLY EXPOSED STRUCTURAL STEEL FRAMING 051213 - 9 3.5 FIELD QUALITY CONTROL A. Testing Agency: Owner will engage a qualified independent testing and inspecting agency to inspect AESS as specified in Section 051200 "Structural Steel Framing." The testing agency is not responsible for enforcing requirements relating to aesthetic effect. B. Architect will observe AESS in place to determine acceptability relating to aesthetic effect. 3.6 REPAIRS AND PROTECTION A. Remove welded tabs that were used for attaching temporary bracing and safety cabling and that are exposed to view in the completed Work. Grind steel smooth. B. Galvanized Surfaces: Clean field welds, bolted connections, and abraded areas and repair galvanizing to comply with ASTM A 780/A 780M. C. Touchup Painting: Immediately after erection, clean field welds, bolted connections, and abraded areas of shop paint, and paint exposed areas with the same material as used for shop painting to comply with SSPC-PA 1 for touching up shop-painted surfaces. 1. Clean and prepare surfaces by SSPC-SP 2 hand-tool cleaning or SSPC-SP 3 power-tool cleaning. D. Touchup Painting: Cleaning and touchup painting are specified in Section 099113 "Exterior Painting" and Section 099123 "Interior Painting." E. Touchup Priming: Cleaning and touchup priming are specified in Section 099600 "High- Performance Coatings." END OF SECTION 051213 P152 IV.A. P153 IV.A. P154 IV.A. Bendheim Corporate 122 Hudson Street, New York, NY 10013 Phone: 800.221.7379 info@bendheim.com VintageWire™ Gothic Laminated Architectural Glass Composition: Low-iron glass Applications: Interior Approximate Dimensions: Cut-to-size; max. size = 48² x 84² (1.2 m x 2.1 m); thickness = 1/2² (12 mm). Available in thicknesses up to 3/4² (19 mm) by special request. Approximate Weight: 6.5 lb/ft² (32 kg/m²) Safety Options: Laminated, Tempered_laminated Maintenance: Bendheim glass is easy to maintain. We suggest cleaning with warm water and a lint free cloth (terry cloth). Conventional non-abrasive glass cleaners may also be used. Testing: Bendheim safety glass meets the requirements for ANSI Z97.1 & the Consumer Product Safety Commission CPSC 16FR, Part 1201 – Safety Standard for Architectural Glazing Materials. P155 IV.A. Bendheim Corporate 122 Hudson Street, New York, NY 10013 Phone: 800.221.7379 info@bendheim.com VintageWire™ Gothic Laminated Architectural Glass Options & Customizations: Have a project requiring further customization? Please contact your local Bendheim representative to discuss your unique project and vision. P156 IV.A. P157 IV.A. P158 IV.A. Laws and building and safety codes governing the design and use of glazed entrance, window, and curtain wall products vary widely. Kawneer does not control the selection of product configurations, operating hardware, or glazing materials, and assumes no responsibility therefor.Kawneer reserves the right to change configuration without prior notice when deemednecessary for product improvement.© Kawneer Company, Inc., 2012kawneer.com EC 97911-37 TRIFAB® 451UTFEBRUARY, 2012 1 Features • TRIFAB ® 451UT is 4-1/2" deep with a 2" sightline • Center Plane glass applications • Flush glazed from either the inside or outside • Screw Spline fabrication • Dual Isolock® lanced and debridged thermal break • Infill options up to 1-1/8" thickness • Permanodic ® anodized finishes in 7 choices • Painted finishes in standard and custom choices Optional Features • High performance sill flashing • Acoustical rating per AAMA 1801 and ASTM E 1425 • Project specific U-factors (See Thermal Charts) Product Applications • Storefront, Ribbon Window or Punched Openings • Single-span • Integrated entrance framing allowing Kawneer standard entrances or other specialty entrances to be incorporated • Kawneer windows or GLASSvent ® are easily incorporated For specific product applications, Consult your Kawneer representative. P159 IV.A. Laws and building and safety codes governing the design and use of glazed entrance, window, and curtain wall products vary widely. Kawneer does not control the selection of product configurations, operating hardware, or glazing materials, and assumes no responsibility therefor.Kawneer reserves the right to change configuration without prior notice when deemednecessary for product improvement.© Kawneer Company, Inc., 2012kawneer.com EC 97911-37 TRIFAB® 451UT FEBRUARY, 20122 BLANK PAGE P160 IV.A. Laws and building and safety codes governing the design and use of glazed entrance, window, and curtain wall products vary widely. Kawneer does not control the selection of product configurations, operating hardware, or glazing materials, and assumes no responsibility therefor.Kawneer reserves the right to change configuration without prior notice when deemednecessary for product improvement.© Kawneer Company, Inc., 2012kawneer.com EC 97911-37 TRIFAB® 451UTFEBRUARY, 2012 3 BASIC FRAMING DETAILS (CENTER - Outside Glazed) ................4 BASIC FRAMING DETAILS (CENTER - Inside Glazed) ...................5 MISCELLANEOUS FRAMING (CENTER) .........................................6 CURVING & TRIM DETAILS ...............................................................7 260 INSULCLAD ENTRANCE DETAILS ...........................................8 STOREFRONT GLASSvent ® DETAILS .............................................9 STOREFRONT GLASSvent ® HARDWARE .....................................10 8225TL VENT ...................................................................................11 WINDLOAD / DEADLOAD CHARTS ..........................................12-15 THERMAL CHARTS ...................................................................16-22 INDEX (CENTER) P161 IV.A. Laws and building and safety codes governing the design and use of glazed entrance, window, and curtain wall products vary widely. Kawneer does not control the selection of product configurations, operating hardware, or glazing materials, and assumes no responsibility therefor.Kawneer reserves the right to change configuration without prior notice when deemednecessary for product improvement.© Kawneer Company, Inc., 2012kawneer.com EC 97911-37 1 4 2 3 5 452T-CG-001 452T-CG-126 (50.8)2"(114.3) 4-1/2" 452T-CG-014451-CG-004 452T-CG-037 (114.3) 4-1/2"1/2"2"(12.7)(50.8)452T-CG-021451-CG-004 (50.8)2"(114.3)4-1/2"(50.8) 2" 452T-CG-126 452T-CG-001 451T-CG-002 452T-CG-001 (50.8) 2" TRIFAB® 451UT FEBRUARY, 20124 ELEVATION IS NUMBER KEYED TO DETAILS DUAL ISOLOCK THERMAL BREAK SCREW SPLINE 4 JAMB 5 VERTICAL 1 HEAD 2 HORIZONTAL 3 SILL SCALE 3" = 1'-0" BASIC FRAMING DETAILS (CENTER - Outside Glazed) P162 IV.A. Laws and building and safety codes governing the design and use of glazed entrance, window, and curtain wall products vary widely. Kawneer does not control the selection of product configurations, operating hardware, or glazing materials, and assumes no responsibility therefor.Kawneer reserves the right to change configuration without prior notice when deemednecessary for product improvement.© Kawneer Company, Inc., 2012kawneer.com EC 97911-37 1 4 2 3 5 452T-CG-014451-CG-004 452T-CG-037 (114.3) 4-1/2"1/2"2"(12.7)(50.8)(114.3)4-1/2"(50.8) 2" 452T-CG-126 452T-CG-001 451T-CG-002 452T-CG-001 (50.8) 2" 451-CG-004452T-CG-003 452T-CG-126 (50.8)2"(114.3) 4-1/2" 451-CG-004452T-CG-0112"(50.8)TRIFAB® 451UTFEBRUARY, 2012 5 ELEVATION IS NUMBER KEYED TO DETAILS SCREW SPLINE SCALE 3" = 1'-0" BASIC FRAMING DETAILS (CENTER - Inside Glazed) DUAL ISOLOCK THERMAL BREAK 4 JAMB 5 VERTICAL 1 HEAD 2 HORIZONTAL 3 SILL P163 IV.A. Laws and building and safety codes governing the design and use of glazed entrance, window, and curtain wall products vary widely. Kawneer does not control the selection of product configurations, operating hardware, or glazing materials, and assumes no responsibility therefor.Kawneer reserves the right to change configuration without prior notice when deemednecessary for product improvement.© Kawneer Company, Inc., 2012kawneer.com EC 97911-37 452T-CG-540452T-CG-010 400-110 2-1/2" (63.5) 452T-CG-540452T-CG-010 2-1/2" (63.5) 451T-CG-002 452T-CG-012 (50.8) 2" 451T-CG-002 452T-CG-013 2" (50.8) 451T-CG-002 452T-CG-112 450-110 2-1/4" (57.2) TRIFAB® 451UT FEBRUARY, 20126 SCALE 3" = 1'-0" HEAVY WEIGHT MULLION 2-1/4" MULLION W/ STEEL TUBULAR EXPANSION MULLION TUBULAR EXPANSION MULLION WITH OPTIONAL STEEL MEDIUM WEIGHT MULLION STEEL REINFORCING STEEL REINFORCING MISCELLANEOUS FRAMING (CENTER) P164 IV.A. Laws and building and safety codes governing the design and use of glazed entrance, window, and curtain wall products vary widely. Kawneer does not control the selection of product configurations, operating hardware, or glazing materials, and assumes no responsibility therefor.Kawneer reserves the right to change configuration without prior notice when deemednecessary for product improvement.© Kawneer Company, Inc., 2012kawneer.com EC 97911-37 175-186 175-188 175-190 175-191 175-190 175-187 175-186 4-1/2" (114.3)2"(50.8)069-271 1 2 3 1 2 3 451T-VG-150 451T-VG-150 451T-VG-150451T-VG-150 TRIFAB® 451UTFEBRUARY, 2012 7 SCALE 3" = 1'-0" STOOL TRIM CLIP WITH HIGH PERFORMANCE FLASHING CURVING DETAILS (Center Plane Only) BRAKE METAL ADAPTOR AT VERTICAL BRAKE METAL ADAPTOR AT HORIZONTAL STOOL TRIM BRAKE METAL FILLERS BRAKE METAL FILLERS CAD Details - SCREW SPLINE (TF451) = TF_VG_451-SS-Center--CAD.zip (TF451T) = TF_VG_451T-SS-Center--CAD.zip TYPICALTYPICAL CURVING & TRIM DETAILS Seal over Stool Trim fasteners to prevent water infiltration. P165 IV.A. Laws and building and safety codes governing the design and use of glazed entrance, window, and curtain wall products vary widely. Kawneer does not control the selection of product configurations, operating hardware, or glazing materials, and assumes no responsibility therefor.Kawneer reserves the right to change configuration without prior notice when deemednecessary for product improvement.© Kawneer Company, Inc., 2012kawneer.com EC 97911-37 1 2 3 4 5 452T-CG-001 452T-CG-126 (50.8)2"(114.3) 4-1/2"2"(50.8)2-1/4"(57.2)1/8"(3.2)3-7/8"(98.4)11/16"(17.5)2" (50.8) 2-1/8" (54.0) 3/32" (2.4) 9/16" (14.3)TYP . 2-3/16" (55.6) 2-1/8" (54.0) 1/8" (3.2) TRIFAB® 451UT FEBRUARY, 20128 260 INSULCLAD ENTRANCE DETAILS SCALE 3" = 1'-0" ELEVATION IS NUMBER KEYED TO DETAILS. TRIFAB® VG 451T CENTER FRAMING SHOWN. OTHER FRAMING OPTIONS AVAILABLE. CONSULT YOUR KAWNEER REPRESENTATIVE. NOTE: Butt Hung or Offset Pivot Doors Only. 260 INSULCLAD® DOOR 4 DOOR JAMB 5 MEETING STILES 1 HEAD 2 TRANSOM BAR 3 BOTTOM RAIL Door Opening Door OpeningDoor OpeningP166 IV.A. Laws and building and safety codes governing the design and use of glazed entrance, window, and curtain wall products vary widely. Kawneer does not control the selection of product configurations, operating hardware, or glazing materials, and assumes no responsibility therefor.Kawneer reserves the right to change configuration without prior notice when deemednecessary for product improvement.© Kawneer Company, Inc., 2012kawneer.com EC 97911-37 1 2 3 5 7 6 4 8 452T-CG-001 452T-CG-126 469-407 452T-CG-021 451-CG-004 469-407 452T-CG-126 452T-CG-001 469-407 451T-CG-002 452T-CG-001 469-407 451T-CG-002 452T-CG-001 469-407 452T-CG-001 451T-CG-002469-407 469-407 452T-CG-014 451-CG-004 452T-CG-037 452T-CG-001 452T-CG-1261 2 3 4 5 76 8 TRIFAB® 451UTFEBRUARY, 2012 9 ELEVATION IS NUMBER KEYED TO DETAILS OUTSWING CASEMENT VERTICAL SECTION OUTSWING CASEMENT HORIZONTAL SECTION PROJECT-OUT HORIZONTAL SECTION PROJECT-OUT VERTICAL SECTION MAXIMUM / MINIMUM SIZES (1" INFILL) PROJECT-OUT MAXIMUM 60" x 36" MINIMUM 14" x 14" OUTSWING CASEMENT MAXIMUM 36" x 60" MINIMUM 14" x 14" NOTE: Bronze spacer is recommended when 1" insulating glass is used. STOREFRONT GLASSvent ® DETAILS SCALE 3" = 1'-0" TRIFAB® 451UT FRAMING SHOWN. OTHER FRAMING OPTIONS AVAILABLE. CONSULT YOUR KAWNEER REPRESENTATIVE. P167 IV.A. Laws and building and safety codes governing the design and use of glazed entrance, window, and curtain wall products vary widely. Kawneer does not control the selection of product configurations, operating hardware, or glazing materials, and assumes no responsibility therefor.Kawneer reserves the right to change configuration without prior notice when deemednecessary for product improvement.© Kawneer Company, Inc., 2012kawneer.com EC 97911-37 TRIFAB® 451UT FEBRUARY, 201210 CAM LOCK CUSTODIAL LOCK CAM LOCK WITH POLE RING PULL RING REMOVABLE HANDLE STAINLESS STEEL 4 BAR HINGES CONCEALED LOCK PIVOT SHOE ROTO-OPERATOR INSECT SCREEN WITH STANDARD WICKET INSECT SCREEN WITH FULL WICKET DESCRIPTION PROJECT - OUT OUTSWING CASEMENT Stainless steel 4-bar hinge Cast white bronze cam lock Cast white bronze cam lock with pole ring Cast white bronze custodial lock with removable handle Cast white bronze concealed lock with removable hex key Cast white bronze pole/pull ring Pivot-shoe roto-operator Multi-point lock with cast white bronze locking handle Insect screen STANDARD STANDARD OPTIONAL OPTIONAL OPTIONAL OPTIONAL OPTIONAL OPTIONAL STANDARD OPTIONAL OPTIONAL OPTIONAL OPTIONAL OPTIONAL STANDARD STOREFRONT GLASSvent ® HARDWARE SELECTION GUIDE STOREFRONT GLASSvent ® HARDWARE P168 IV.A. Laws and building and safety codes governing the design and use of glazed entrance, window, and curtain wall products vary widely. Kawneer does not control the selection of product configurations, operating hardware, or glazing materials, and assumes no responsibility therefor.Kawneer reserves the right to change configuration without prior notice when deemednecessary for product improvement.© Kawneer Company, Inc., 2012kawneer.com EC 97911-37 1 3 2 4 452T-CG-021 451-CG-004 469-407 452T-CG-021 451-CG-004 469-407 451T-CG-002 452T-CG-001 469-407 452T-CG-001 451T-CG-002469-407 1 2 3 4 TRIFAB® 451UTFEBRUARY, 2012 11 SCALE 3" = 1'-0" ELEVATION IS NUMBER KEYED TO DETAILS PROJECT-OUT VERTICAL SECTION PROJECT-OUT HORIZONTAL SECTION 8225T•L VENTS SHOWN NOTE: OTHER VENT TYPES CAN BE ACCOMMODATED, CONSULT YOUR KAWNEER REPRESENTATIVE FOR OTHER OPTIONS 8225TL VENT P169 IV.A. Laws and building and safety codes governing the design and use of glazed entrance, window, and curtain wall products vary widely. Kawneer does not control the selection of product configurations, operating hardware, or glazing materials, and assumes no responsibility therefor.Kawneer reserves the right to change configuration without prior notice when deemednecessary for product improvement.© Kawneer Company, Inc., 2012kawneer.com EC 97911-37 TRIFAB® 451UT FEBRUARY, 201212 WIND LOAD CHARTS Mullions are designed for deflection limitations in accordance with AAMA TIR-A11 of L/175 up to 13'-6" and L/240 +1/4" above 13'-6". These curves are for mullions WITH and WITHOUT HORIZONTALS and are based on engineering calculations for stress and deflection. Allowable wind load stress for ALUMINUM 15,152 p.s.i. (104MPa), STEEL 30,000 p.s.i. (207MPa.). Charted curves, in all cases are for the limiting value. A 4/3 increase in allowable stress has not been used to develop these curves. For special situations not covered by these curves, contact your Kawneer representative for additional information. DEADLOAD CHARTS Horizontal or deadload limitations are based upon 1/8" (3.2), maximum allowable deflection at the center of an intermediate horizontal member. The accompanying charts are calculated for 1" (25.4) thick insulating glass or 1/4" (6.35) thick glass supported on two setting blocks placed at the loading points shown. WIND LOAD / DEADLOAD CHARTS P170 IV.A. Laws and building and safety codes governing the design and use of glazed entrance, window, and curtain wall products vary widely. Kawneer does not control the selection of product configurations, operating hardware, or glazing materials, and assumes no responsibility therefor.Kawneer reserves the right to change configuration without prior notice when deemednecessary for product improvement.© Kawneer Company, Inc., 2012kawneer.com EC 97911-37 452T-CG-010 / 452T-CG-009 WINDLOAD CHARTS ARE BASED ON COMPOSITE PROPERTIES WHICH ARE CALCULATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AAMA TIR-8 AND AAMA 505 452T-CG-001 87654321 A 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 B C D E 1.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 123 4 5 6 7 8 2.01.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 A BCD E 87654321 A 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 B C D E 1.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 123 4 5 6 7 8 2.01.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 A B CD E 87654321 A 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 B C D E 1.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 123 4 5 6 7 8 2.01.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 A B CD E 452T-CG-012 WINDLOAD CHARTS ARE BASED ON COMPOSITE PROPERTIES WHICH ARE CALCULATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AAMA TIR-8 AND AAMA 505 WINDLOAD CHARTS ARE BASED ON COMPOSITE PROPERTIES WHICH ARE CALCULATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AAMA TIR-8 AND AAMA 505 TRIFAB® 451UTFEBRUARY, 2012 13 WITH HORIZONTALS WITHOUT HORIZONTALS WIDTH IN METERS WIDTH IN FEETHEIGHT IN FEETHEIGHT IN METERSWIDTH IN METERS WIDTH IN FEETHEIGHT IN FEETHEIGHT IN METERSWITH HORIZONTALS WITHOUT HORIZONTALS WIDTH IN METERS WIDTH IN FEETHEIGHT IN FEETHEIGHT IN METERSWIDTH IN METERS WIDTH IN FEETHEIGHT IN FEETHEIGHT IN METERSWITH HORIZONTALS WITHOUT HORIZONTALS WIDTH IN METERS WIDTH IN FEETHEIGHT IN FEETHEIGHT IN METERSWIDTH IN METERS WIDTH IN FEETHEIGHT IN FEETHEIGHT IN METERSWINDLOAD CHARTS A = 15 PSF (720 Pa) B = 20 PSF (960 Pa) C = 25 PSF (1200 Pa) D = 30 PSF (1440 Pa) E = 40 PSF (1920 Pa) P171 IV.A. Laws and building and safety codes governing the design and use of glazed entrance, window, and curtain wall products vary widely. Kawneer does not control the selection of product configurations, operating hardware, or glazing materials, and assumes no responsibility therefor.Kawneer reserves the right to change configuration without prior notice when deemednecessary for product improvement.© Kawneer Company, Inc., 2012kawneer.com EC 97911-37 452T-CG-112 452T-CG-013 87654321 A 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 B C D E 1.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 123 4 5 6 7 8 2.01.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 A B C D E 87654321 A 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 B C D E 1.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 4 123 4 5 6 7 5 8 2.01.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 A B CD E 2.0 3.0 4.0 2.01.0 E D C B 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 A 123 4 5 6 7 8 E D C B A 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 87654321 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 WINDLOAD CHARTS ARE BASED ON COMPOSITE PROPERTIES WHICH ARE CALCULATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AAMA TIR-8 AND AAMA 505 WINDLOAD CHARTS ARE BASED ON COMPOSITE PROPERTIES WHICH ARE CALCULATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AAMA TIR-8 AND AAMA 505 WINDLOAD CHARTS ARE BASED ON COMPOSITE PROPERTIES WHICH ARE CALCULATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AAMA TIR-8 AND AAMA 505 TRIFAB® 451UT FEBRUARY, 201214 452T-CG-112 with 450-110 STEEL WITH HORIZONTALS WITHOUT HORIZONTALS WIDTH IN METERS WIDTH IN FEETHEIGHT IN FEETHEIGHT IN METERSWIDTH IN METERS WIDTH IN FEETHEIGHT IN FEETHEIGHT IN METERSWITH HORIZONTALS WITHOUT HORIZONTALS WIDTH IN METERS WIDTH IN FEETHEIGHT IN FEETHEIGHT IN METERSWIDTH IN METERS WIDTH IN FEETHEIGHT IN FEETHEIGHT IN METERSWITH HORIZONTALS WITHOUT HORIZONTALS WIDTH IN METERS WIDTH IN FEETHEIGHT IN FEETHEIGHT IN METERSWIDTH IN METERS WIDTH IN FEETHEIGHT IN FEETHEIGHT IN METERSWINDLOAD CHARTS A = 15 PSF (720 Pa) B = 20 PSF (960 Pa) C = 25 PSF (1200 Pa) D = 30 PSF (1440 Pa) E = 40 PSF (1920 Pa) P172 IV.A. Laws and building and safety codes governing the design and use of glazed entrance, window, and curtain wall products vary widely. Kawneer does not control the selection of product configurations, operating hardware, or glazing materials, and assumes no responsibility therefor.Kawneer reserves the right to change configuration without prior notice when deemednecessary for product improvement.© Kawneer Company, Inc., 2012kawneer.com EC 97911-37 87654321 A0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 B C 87654321 A0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 B C 452T-CG-021 452T-CG-011 TRIFAB® 451UTFEBRUARY, 2012 15 A = (1/4 POINT LOADING) B = (1/6 POINT LOADING) C = (1/8 POINT LOADING) WIDTH IN METERS WIDTH IN FEETHEIGHT IN FEETHEIGHT IN METERSWIDTH IN METERS WIDTH IN FEETHEIGHT IN FEETHEIGHT IN METERSDEADLOAD CHARTS WITH HORIZONTALS WITH HORIZONTALS P173 IV.A. Laws and building and safety codes governing the design and use of glazed entrance, window, and curtain wall products vary widely. Kawneer does not control the selection of product configurations, operating hardware, or glazing materials, and assumes no responsibility therefor.Kawneer reserves the right to change configuration without prior notice when deemednecessary for product improvement.© Kawneer Company, Inc., 2012kawneer.com EC 97911-37 7'-0"9'-6"15'-8" 5'-0"2'-0"0.49 91%0.48 0.46 0.44 0.42 0.40 0.38 0.36 0.340.320.30 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.220.20 7570858095900.80 0.75 0.70 0.65 0.60 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 TRIFAB® 451UT FEBRUARY, 201216 Project Specific U-factor Example Calculation Example Glass U-factor = 0.42 Btu/hr·ft2·oF Total Daylight Opening = 3(5' x 7') + 3(5' x 2') = 135ft2 Total Projected Area = (Total Daylight Opening + Total Area of Framing System) = 15'-8" x 9'-6" = 148.83ft2 Percent of Glass = (Total Daylight Opening ÷ Total Projected Area) = (135 ÷ 148.83)100 = 91% System U-factor vs Percent of Glass AreaEXAMPLE Percent of Glass Based on 91% glass and center of glass (COG) U-factor of 0.42 System U-factor is equal to 0.49 Btu/hr x ft2 x oF COG U-factor THERMAL CHARTS P174 IV.A. Laws and building and safety codes governing the design and use of glazed entrance, window, and curtain wall products vary widely. Kawneer does not control the selection of product configurations, operating hardware, or glazing materials, and assumes no responsibility therefor.Kawneer reserves the right to change configuration without prior notice when deemednecessary for product improvement.© Kawneer Company, Inc., 2012kawneer.com EC 97911-37 0.48 (2.73) 0.46 (2.61) 0.44 (2.50) 0.42 (2.39) 0.40 (2.27) 0.38 (2.16) 0.36 (2.05) 0.34 (1.93) 0.32 (1.82) 0.30 (1.71) 0.28 (1.59) 0.26 (1.48) 0.24 (1.37) 0.22 (1.25) 0.20 (1.14) TRIFAB® 451UTFEBRUARY, 2012 17 THERMAL CHARTS Note: Values in parentheses are metric. COG=Center of Glass. Charts are generated per AAMA 507. System U-Factor for Vision Glass COG U-factor Vision Area / Total Area (%)System U-Factor (Btu/h·ft2·°F)P175 IV.A. Laws and building and safety codes governing the design and use of glazed entrance, window, and curtain wall products vary widely. Kawneer does not control the selection of product configurations, operating hardware, or glazing materials, and assumes no responsibility therefor.Kawneer reserves the right to change configuration without prior notice when deemednecessary for product improvement.© Kawneer Company, Inc., 2012kawneer.com EC 97911-37 TRIFAB® 451UT FEBRUARY, 201218 THERMAL CHARTS System Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) vs Percent of Vision AreaCOG SHGC COG VT System Visible Transmittance (VT) vs Percent of Vision Area Vision Area / Total Area (%) Vision Ares / Total Area (%)System SHGCCharts are generated per AAMA 507. Charts are generated per AAMA 507.System VTP176 IV.A. Laws and building and safety codes governing the design and use of glazed entrance, window, and curtain wall products vary widely. Kawneer does not control the selection of product configurations, operating hardware, or glazing materials, and assumes no responsibility therefor.Kawneer reserves the right to change configuration without prior notice when deemednecessary for product improvement.© Kawneer Company, Inc., 2012kawneer.com EC 97911-37 0.48 0.46 0.44 0.42 0.40 0.38 0.36 0.34 0.32 0.30 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.52 0.51 0.49 0.48 0.46 0.44 0.43 0.41 0.39 0.38 0.36 0.35 0.33 0.31 0.30 0.75 0.70 0.65 0.60 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.66 0.61 0.57 0.53 0.48 0.44 0.39 0.35 0.31 0.26 0.22 0.18 0.13 0.09 0.04 0.75 0.70 0.65 0.60 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.66 0.62 0.58 0.53 0.49 0.45 0.40 0.36 0.31 0.27 0.23 0.18 0.14 0.09 0.05 TRIFAB® 451UTFEBRUARY, 2012 19 NOTE: For glass values that are not listed, linear interpolation is permitted. 1. U-Factors are determined in accordance with NFRC 100. 2. SHGC and VT values are determined in accordance with NFRC 200. 3. Glass properties are based on center of glass values and are obtained from your glass supplier. 4. Overall U-Factor, SHGC, and VT Matricies are based on the standard NFRC specimen size of 2000mm wide by 2000mm high (78-3/4" by 78-3/4"). Thermal Transmittance 1 (BTU/hr • ft 2 • °F) SHGC Matrix 2 Visible Transmittance 2 Glass U-Factor 3 Overall U-Factor 4 Glass VT 3 Overall VT 4Glass SHGC 3 Overall SHGC 4 THERMAL PERFORMANCE MATRIX (NFRC SIZE) P177 IV.A. Laws and building and safety codes governing the design and use of glazed entrance, window, and curtain wall products vary widely. Kawneer does not control the selection of product configurations, operating hardware, or glazing materials, and assumes no responsibility therefor.Kawneer reserves the right to change configuration without prior notice when deemednecessary for product improvement.© Kawneer Company, Inc., 2012kawneer.com EC 97911-37 0.48 (2.73) 0.46 (2.61) 0.44 (2.50) 0.42 (2.39) 0.40 (2.27) 0.38 (2.16) 0.36 (2.05) 0.34 (1.93) 0.32 (1.82) 0.30 (1.71) 0.28 (1.59) 0.26 (1.48) 0.24 (1.37) 0.22 (1.25) 0.20 (1.14) TRIFAB® 451UT FEBRUARY, 201220 THERMAL CHARTS - WITH STEEL Note: Values in parentheses are metric. COG=Center of Glass. Charts are generated per AAMA 507. System U-Factor for Vision Glass COG U-factor Vision Area / Total Area (%)System U-Factor (Btu/h·ft2·°F)P178 IV.A. Laws and building and safety codes governing the design and use of glazed entrance, window, and curtain wall products vary widely. Kawneer does not control the selection of product configurations, operating hardware, or glazing materials, and assumes no responsibility therefor.Kawneer reserves the right to change configuration without prior notice when deemednecessary for product improvement.© Kawneer Company, Inc., 2012kawneer.com EC 97911-37 TRIFAB® 451UTFEBRUARY, 2012 21 THERMAL CHARTS - WITH STEEL System Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) vs Percent of Vision AreaCOG SHGC COG VT System Visible Transmittance (VT) vs Percent of Vision Area Vision Area / Total Area (%) Vision Ares / Total Area (%)System SHGCCharts are generated per AAMA 507. Charts are generated per AAMA 507.System VTP179 IV.A. Laws and building and safety codes governing the design and use of glazed entrance, window, and curtain wall products vary widely. Kawneer does not control the selection of product configurations, operating hardware, or glazing materials, and assumes no responsibility therefor.Kawneer reserves the right to change configuration without prior notice when deemednecessary for product improvement.© Kawneer Company, Inc., 2012kawneer.com EC 97911-37 0.48 0.46 0.44 0.42 0.40 0.38 0.36 0.34 0.32 0.30 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.57 0.56 0.54 0.53 0.51 0.49 0.48 0.46 0.45 0.43 0.41 0.40 0.38 0.36 0.35 0.75 0.70 0.65 0.60 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.65 0.61 0.57 0.52 0.48 0.44 0.39 0.35 0.30 0.26 0.22 0.17 0.13 0.09 0.04 0.75 0.70 0.65 0.60 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.66 0.62 0.58 0.53 0.49 0.45 0.40 0.36 0.32 0.27 0.23 0.19 0.14 0.10 0.05 TRIFAB® 451UT FEBRUARY, 201222 NOTE: For glass values that are not listed, linear interpolation is permitted. 1. U-Factors are determined in accordance with NFRC 100. 2. SHGC and VT values are determined in accordance with NFRC 200. 3. Glass properties are based on center of glass values and are obtained from your glass supplier. 4. Overall U-Factor, SHGC, and VT Matricies are based on the standard NFRC specimen size of 2000mm wide by 2000mm high (78-3/4" by 78-3/4"). Thermal Transmittance 1 (BTU/hr • ft 2 • °F) SHGC Matrix 2 Visible Transmittance 2 Glass U-Factor 3 Overall U-Factor 4 Glass VT 3 Overall VT 4Glass SHGC 3 Overall SHGC 4 THERMAL PERFORMANCE MATRIX (NFRC SIZE) - WITH STEEL P180 IV.A. P181 IV.A. P182 IV.A. NOTES: 1. Snow fence brackets and accessories are to be installed to manufacturer ’s specifications.2. Contact Rocky Mountain Snow Guards for recommended layout.3. For custom materials contact manufacturer. L82.4 Snow Fence Bracket for Bolt Down Attachment Material: Mill Finish Aluminum .5” Diameter 7” 8” 2” 8” 3.5” .25” Address:2055 S. RaritanDenver, CO 80223 Toll Free:Fax:www.rockymountainsnowguards.com (877)414-7606(720)387-8361 P183 IV.A. NOTES: 1. Snow fence brackets and accessories are to be installed to manufacturer 2. Contact Rocky Mountain Snow Guards for recommended layout. 3. For custom materials contact manufacturer. SNOW FENCE ACCESSORIES (Not to Scale) 4” .75” Materials: Aluminum Rubber Nylon Stainless Steel 1.66”1.1” Materials: Stainless Steel COUPLER COLLAR .75” 1” 96” Material: Aluminum TUBING 1” CAP Materials: Aluminum Stainless Steel Brass 2055 S. Raritan Street, B Denver, CO 80223 www.Rock yMountainSnowGuards.com Toll free: (877) 414-7606 Fax: (720) 387-8361 P184 IV.A. PROJECT LOCATIONScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY 12" = 1’−0"12/23/2016 10:15:40 AMCS−12016−00512−23−16AuthorCheckerCOVER SHEET232 E. MAIN STREETASPEN, CO.ASPEN, COLOCAL JURISDICTION:THE CITY OF ASPEN130 S. GALENA STREETASPEN, CO 81611TEL (970) 429-2761CONTACT: BY DEPARTMENTARCHITECT:MODIF ARCHITECTURE1200 WEST LAKE STREETCHICAGO, IL 60607CONTACTS: ROB AVILA, RA OR STEVE COUGHLIN, RAOWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE & GENERAL CONTRACTOR:M DEVELOPMENT2001 N. HALSTED ST., SUITE 304CHICAGO, IL 60614CONTACT: MARK HUNTLAND PLANNER:BENDON ADAMS 300 S. SPRING ST., #202ASPEN, CO 81611SARA ADAMS, AICPVICINITY MAPSHEET NUMBER SHEET NAME1 - TITLECS-1 COVER SHEET3 - ARCHITECTURALPA-1 EXISTING PUBLIC AMENITYPA-2 PROPOSED PUBLIC AMENITYTIA-1 TIA PROPOSED SITE PLANEC-1 EXISTING FLOOR PLANSEC-2 EXISTING CONDITIONS SITE PLANA-010 SITE PLANA-020 PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLANA-110 PROPOSED FLOOR PLANSFAR-1 FAR CALCULATIONSNL-1 NET LEASABLEA-131 ROOF PLANA-211 PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONSA-212 PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONSA-240 PROPOSED OUTDOOR LIGHTINGA-500 DETAILS/SECTIONSBUILDING CODE: INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE 2015MECHANICAL: INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE 2015PLUMBING: INTERNATIONAL PLUMBING CODE 2015ELECTRICAL: NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE 2014ACCESSIBILITY: ICC/ANSI A117.1 2003ENERGY: INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE 2015FIRE CODE: INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE 2015FUEL GAS: INTERNATIONAL FUEL GAS CODE 2015APPLICABLE CODESNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION112.23.16SCHPC FINAL REVIEWP185 IV.A. P186IV.A. ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY12/23/2016 10:16:03 AMPA−12016−00512−23−16AuthorCheckerEXISTING PUBLIC AMENITY232 E. MAIN STREETASPEN, CO.THIS LOT DOES NOTHAVE ANY EXISTINGPUBLIC AMENITY SPACENO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION112.23.16SCHPC FINAL REVIEWP187 IV.A. PROPOSED2 STORYRETAIL BUILDING HISTORIC CORTINA LODGETRANSFORMERPROPERTY LINECORTINALODGE BALCONYPUBLIC AMENITY AREA898.80 SF15'-0"6'-1 1/4"9'-4 1/2"8'-0"5'-0"R.O.W. PUBLIC AMENITY AREA2978.92 SFScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY 1" = 10’−0"12/23/2016 10:16:06 AMPA−22016−00512−23−16AuthorCheckerPROPOSED PUBLIC AMENITY232 E. MAIN STREETASPEN, CO. 1" = 10'-0"1PROPOSED PUBLIC AMMENITY PLANNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION112.23.16SCHPC FINAL REVIEWP188 IV.A. ALLEYPROPOSED2 STORYRETAIL BUILDINGMONARCH ST.MAIN ST. HISTORIC CORTINA LODGENEW STREET PARKINGNEW STREET PARKINGNEW STREET PARKINGTRANSFORMERPROPERTY LINECORTINALODGE BALCONYBENCHBENCHDETECTABLEWARNING DETECTABLEWARNING DETECTABLEWARNING ROUTE - DISTANCE: 43'-0"NEW PEDESTRIAN ENTRY DOOR:DISTANCE 58'-0"LANDSCAPE AREA427 SFLANDSCAPE AREA136.49 SFLANDSCAPE AREA105.14 SFLANDSCAPE AREA103.62 SFLANDSCAPE AREA93.61 SFTRASH AND UTILITYAREA10322'-4 3/4"3'-0"17'-3"3'-0"17'-0"3'-0"15'-4 1/4"15'-0"6'-1 1/4"45'-9"9'-4 1/2"8'-0"5'-0"10'-0"13'-0"LANDSCAPE AREA175 SFLANDSCAPE AREA70 SFROUTE - DISTANCE: 45'-0"NEW PEDESTRIAN ENTRY DOOR:DISTANCE 62'-0"NEW STREET PARKINGCITY OF ASPEN APPROVED BIKE RACKScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY 1" = 10’−0"12/23/2016 10:16:08 AMTIA−12016−00512−23−16AuthorCheckerTIA PROPOSED SITE PLAN232 E. MAIN STREETASPEN, CO. 1" = 10'-0"1PROPOSED TIA SITE PLANNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION112.23.16SCHPC FINAL REVIEWP189 IV.A. NET LEASABLE AREA = 1500SFFUEL PUMPS (NIC IN EXISTING NET LEASABLE AREA)ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY 1/4" = 1’−0"12/23/2016 10:15:43 AMEC−12016−00512−23−16AuthorCheckerEXISTING FLOOR PLANS232 E. MAIN STREETASPEN, CO. 1/4" = 1'-0"1EXISTING FLOOR PLANNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION112.23.16SCHPC FINAL REVIEWP190 IV.A. NO EXISTING ON SITE DELINEATED PARKINGEXISTING CURBOVERHANGS INTO DRIVE AISLE18'-0" PARKING STALL16'-0 1/2"OVERHEAD GARAGE DOORSGARAGE MAN DOORSALES ENTRY DOORNO ACCESSIBLE ROUTE FROM ADA PARKING AREA CROSSSLOPE IS >2%CANOPYNO EXISTING DELINEATED STREET PARKINGEXISTING DEPRESSED CURB FOR AUTO ACCESSNO EXISTING DELINEATED STREET PARKINGEXISTING DEPRESSED CURB FOR AUTO ACCESS19'-4"R 13'-0"R 23'-0"PARKING ENCROACHES ON TURNING RADIUSPROPERTY LINEPARKING STALLS OVERHANG INTO ALLEY18'-0" (TYP)9'-0" (TYP)22' MIN. FOR 2 WAY AISLE WITH 90 PARKING(NON-COMPLIANT)4.10%CROSS SLOPE(NON-COMPLIANT)ONE STORYBUILDINGCONCEPTUALPARKING LAYOUTCONCEPTUALACCESSIBLE PARKING LAYOUT1'-11 1/2"ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY 1" = 10’−0"12/23/2016 10:15:46 AMEC−22016−00512−23−16AuthorCheckerEXISTING CONDITIONS SITE PLAN232 E. MAIN STREETASPEN, CO. 1" = 10'-0"1EXISTING CONDITIONS SITE PLANNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP191 IV.A. A-2112A-211A-212A-212211ALLEYPROPOSED2 STORYRETAIL BUILDINGLANDSCAPE AREA427 SFMONARCH ST.MAIN ST.LANDSCAPE AREA136.49 SF HISTORIC CORTINA LODGENEW STREET PARKINGNEW STREET PARKINGNEW STREET PARKINGTRANSFORMERAWNING , TYP.PROPERTY LINECORTINALODGE BALCONYBENCHBENCHEXIST. TRAFFICSIGNALEXIST. CROSSING BUTTONSLANDSCAPE AREA105.14 SFLANDSCAPE AREA103.62 SFLANDSCAPE AREA93.61 SFDETECTABLEWARNING DETECTABLEWARNING 14'-1 1/4"7'-0"8'-0"302 SFTRASH AND UTILITYAREA10310'-0"SETBACK5'-0"8'-0"9'-4 1/2"45'-9"LANDSCAPE AREA175 SF54'-9"13'-0"HISTORIC CORTINA LODGE STONE CHIMNEY19'-2 3/4"SIDEWALKLANDSCAPE AREA70 SFDRAIN ANY WATER THAT ACCUMULATES VIA NATURAL GRADE TO ALLEYNEW STREET PARKINGCITY OF ASPEN APPROVEDBIKE RACKScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY 1" = 10’−0"12/23/2016 10:15:06 AMA−0102016−00512−23−16modif.modif.SITE PLAN232 E. MAIN STREETASPEN, CO. 1" = 10'-0"1PROPOSED SITE PLANNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION112.23.16SCHPC FINAL REVIEWP192 IV.A. ALLEYMONARCH ST.MAIN ST. HISTORIC CORTINA LODGENEW STREET PARKINGTRANSFORMERAWNING , TYP.PROPERTY LINEBENCHBENCHEXIST. TRAFFICSIGNALEXIST. CROSSING BUTTONSDETECTABLEWARNING DETECTABLEWARNING HISTORIC CORTINA LODGE STONE CHIMNEYSIDEWALKINTEGRAL COLORED CONC.PLANTING BED (BASIS OF DESIGN), TYP-4" CALIPER AMERICAN LINDEN-TURKISH SPEEDWELL-WHITE STAR COLUMBINE-WHITE OBEDIENTPLANTING BED (BASIS OF DESIGN), TYP-TURKISH SPEEDWELL-WHITE STAR COLUMBINE-WHITE OBEDIENTPLANTING BED (BASIS OF DESIGN), TYP-TURKISH SPEEDWELL-WHITE STAR COLUMBINE-WHITE OBEDIENTPLANTING BED (BASIS OF DESIGN), TYP-4" CALIPER AMERICAN LINDEN-TURKISH SPEEDWELL-WHITE STAR COLUMBINE-WHITE OBEDIENTCITY OF ASPEN APPROVEDBIKE RACKScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY 1" = 10’−0"12/23/2016 10:15:22 AMA−0202016−00512−23−16AuthorCheckerPROPOSED CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN232 E. MAIN STREETASPEN, CO. 1" = 10'-0"1PROPOSED SITE PLANAMERICAN LINDENTURKISH SPEEDWELLWHITE STAR COLUMBINEWHITE OBEDIENTNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP193 IV.A. 59'-9"5'-3"89'-9"5'-0"TRANSFORMER100'-0"AIR CURTAIN BY TENANTAIR CURTAIN BY TENANT22'-5 3/4"30'-3 1/2"5'-0"85'-0"10'-0"52'-9"7'-0"54'-9"5'-0"32'-10 1/4"56'-10 3/4"MAIN FLOOR RETAILSPACE100302 SFTRASH AND UTILITYAREA1032'-4 1/2"11'-0 3/4"1'-11 1/2"11'-0 3/4"1'-11 1/2"11'-0 3/4"1'-11 1/2"11'-0 3/4"2'-4 1/2"2'-9"6'-0"ELEV.109UPUTILITY METERS13'-0"8'-0" x 8'-0" DOUBLE POCKET DOORSOUTDOOR DECK65' EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE FROM LEVEL 21A-5003A-5004A-500OPEN TO BELOWROOF1547 SF2ND LEVELRETAIL SPACE107ELEV.10922'-5 3/4"30'-3 1/2"52'-9"56'-10 3/4"32'-10 1/4"89'-9"54'-9"85'-0"DNLOW HEAD CLEARANCELOW HEAD CLEARANCE1547/60 = 25 OCCUPANTS2A-5001A-5003A-5004A-500ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY 3/16" = 1’−0"12/23/2016 10:15:23 AMA−1102016−00512−23−16AuthorCheckerPROPOSED FLOOR PLANS232 E. MAIN STREETASPEN, CO. 3/16" = 1'-0"1MAIN FLOOR PROPOSED PLAN 3/16" = 1'-0"22ND LEVEL - PROPOSED PLANNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION112.23.16SCHPC FINAL REVIEWP194 IV.A. ZONING: (MU) MIXED USENET LOT AREA: 5,976 SF (59'-9" X 100'-0")ZONING ALLOWANCE(0.75:1) 4482 SF (0.75 X 5,976 SF) (1:1) 5,976 BY SPECIAL REVIEW (1 X 5,976 SF) PROPOSED F.A.R. 5976SF / 5976SF = (1:1)ZONING INFO AND CALCS:51 SFELEV.5'-3"89'-9"5'-0"22'-5 3/4"37'-3 1/2"59'-9"5'-0"85'-0"10'-0"54'-9"5'-0"57'-7 3/4"32'-1 1/4"3719 SFMAIN FLOORRETAIL SPACE107 SFSTAIRUP6'-0"329 SFDECK351 SFTRASH ANDUTILITY AREA136 SFSTAIR92 SFSTAIR52 SFELEV.1612 SF2ND LEVELRETAIL SPACE52'-9"52'-9"7'-0"56'-10 3/4"32'-10 1/4"5'-3"89'-9"5'-0"54'-9"5'-0"85'-0"10'-0"85'-0"5'-0"ROOFDNFLOOR AREA RATIO (F.A.R.) LEGENDAREATOWARDF.A.R.EXEMPTFROMF.A.R.4'-0"OPEN TO BELOWScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BYAs indicated12/23/2016 10:15:47 AMFAR−12016−00512−23−16AuthorCheckerFAR CALCULATIONS232 E. MAIN STREETASPEN, CO. 3/16" = 1'-0"1MAIN FLOOR - PROPOSED PLAN 3/16" = 1'-0"22ND LEVEL - PROPOSED PLANFLOOR AREA SUMMARY - AREA TOWARD F.A.R.NAME AREA LEVELMAIN FLOOR RETAIL SPACE 3719SFMAIN FLOORTRASH AND UTILITY AREA 351 SF MAIN FLOORSTAIR 136 SF MAIN FLOORSTAIR 107 SF MAIN FLOORELEV. 51 SF MAIN FLOOR2ND LEVEL RETAIL SPACE 1612SF2ND LEVEL5976SFFLOOR AREA SUMMARY - EXEMPT FROM F.A.R.NAME AREA LEVELDECK 329 SF MAIN FLOORSTAIR 92 SF 2ND LEVELELEV. 52 SF 2ND LEVEL473 SFNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION112.23.16SCHPC FINAL REVIEWP195 IV.A. 3675 SFMAIN FLOORRETAIL SPACE57'-7 3/4"32'-1 1/4"52'-9"89'-9"54'-9"85'-0"51 SFELEV.107 SFSTAIRUP313 SFTRASH ANDUTILITY AREANET LEASABLE AREA LEGENDTOWARD NET LEASABLEEXEMPT FROM NETLEASABLE327 SFDECK1495 SF2ND FLOORRETAIL SPACE51 SFELEV.84 SFSTAIR52'-9"52'-9"7'-0"56'-10 3/4"32'-10 1/4"5'-3"89'-9"5'-0"54'-9"5'-0"0"85'-0"10'-0"85'-0"5'-0"ROOFDNOPEN TO BELOWScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY 3/16" = 1’−0"12/23/2016 10:15:48 AMNL−12016−00512−23−16AuthorCheckerNET LEASABLE232 E. MAIN STREETASPEN, CO.TOWARD NET LEASABLENAMEAREA LEVELMAIN FLOOR RETAILSPACE3675 SF MAIN FLOORTRASH AND UTILITYAREA313 SF MAIN FLOORSTAIR107 SF MAIN FLOORELEV.51 SF MAIN FLOOR2ND FLOOR RETAILSPACE1495 SF 2ND LEVELTOTAL AREA5641 SF 3/16" = 1'-0"1MAIN FLOOR - NET LEASABLE AREA 3/16" = 1'-0"22ND LEVEL - NET LEASABLE AREAEXEMPT FROM NET LEASABLENAMEAREA LEVELDECK327 SF MAIN FLOORSTAIR84 SF 2ND LEVELELEV.51 SF 2ND LEVELTOTAL AREA463 SFNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION112.23.16SCHPC FINAL REVIEWP196 IV.A. MECHANICAL UNIT AREA870 SFACM RAIN SCREEN PANELING W/ 1/2" REVEAL OVER ROOF AT (9/12) SLOPE.1798 SFROOF HATCHRETRACTABLE AWNINGSLOPED GLASS ROOF90 SFCEDAR SHAKE SHINGLES OVER GABLED ROOF, ROOF AT (9/12) SLOPE2,287 SFSNOW MELT PROPOSED SNOW MELT SYSTEM TO ALLEVIATE SNOW SHEDDING BOTH IN THE ROW AND ON ANY ADJACENT LOTS SNOW CLEAT12' - 4"2A-5001A-5003A-5004A-500ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY 3/16" = 1’−0"12/23/2016 10:15:24 AMA−1312016−00512−23−16AuthorCheckerROOF PLAN232 E. MAIN STREETASPEN, CO. 3/16" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED ROOF PLANNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION112.23.16SCHPC FINAL REVIEWP197 IV.A. MAIN FLOOR0"MAIN FLOOR0"T/GABLE 0328'-6 3/4"T/ LOWER GLAZING10'-5"RETRACTABLE AWNINGGOOSENECK LIGHT FIXTURE WITH FROSTED LENS, TYP.INSULATED STOREFRONT WITH ALUM. MULLIONSCONCRETE CURB T/GABLE 0124'-4"ACM RAIN SCREEN PANELING W/ 1/2" REVEAL OVER ROOF AT (9/12) SLOPETAPERED STEEL PLATE SURROUNDACM RAIN SCREEN PANELING W/ 1/2" REVEALINSULATED STOREFRONT WITH ALUM. MULLIONSINSULATED ARTISIAN WIRED GLASS912912B/GABLE16'-1 1/2"2ND LEVEL11'-0"T/ ELEVATOR PARAPET25'-9 1/2"ELEVATOR BEYOND1/3 GABLE 0320'-3 1/4"1/3 GABLE 0118'-10 1/4"SOUTHEAST GRADE-6"SOUTHWEST GRADE-1'-4 3/4"NORTHEAST GRADE-2'-3"NORTHEAST GRADE-2'-3"SETBACK5'-0"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE3/4"AWNING4'-11 1/4"FROM NORTHEAST GRADE (MOST RESTRICTIVE)22'-6 1/4"PROPOSED SNOW MELT SYSTEM TO ALLEVIATE SNOW SHEDDING BOTH IN THE ROW AND ON ANY ADJACENT LOTSPROPOSED SNOW MELT SYSTEM TO ALLEVIATE SNOW SHEDDING BOTH IN THE ROW AND ON ANY ADJACENT LOTSPROPOSED SNOW MELT SYSTEM TO ALLEVIATE SNOW SHEDDING BOTH IN THE ROW AND ON ANY ADJACENT LOTS1A-500RAMP UP TO DECK, SEE PLAN4A-500INSULATED STOREFRONT WITH ALUM. MULLIONSMAIN FLOOR0"MAIN FLOOR0"T/GABLE 0328'-6 3/4"T/ LOWER GLAZING10'-5"B/FACIA13'-0"CEDAR SHAKE SHINGLES OVER GABLED ROOF, ROOF AT (9/12) SLOPEINSULATED TAPERED GLASS ROOF W/ ALUM. MULLIONSRETRACTABLE AWNINGCONCRETE WALL BASE, TYP.GOOSENECK LIGHT FIXTURE WITH FROSTED LENS, TYP.INSULATED FOLDING GLASS WALL WITH ALUM. MULLIONST/GABLE 0226'-6 3/4"ACM RAIN SCREEN PANELING W/ 1/2" REVEAL OVER ROOF AT (9/12) SLOPE.INSULATED STOREFRONT WITH ALUM. MULLIONSPROPOSED FUTURE BLD'G SIGNAGE LOCATION GOOSENECK LIGHT FIXTURE WITH FROSTED LENS, TYP.GLASS ENTRY DOORS W/ CUSTOM C-CHANNEL PUSH/PULL HANDLESINSULATED STORERONT WITH ALUM. MULLIONSACM RAIN SCREEN PANELING W/ 1/2" REVEALPROPOSED FUTURE BLD'G SIGNAGE LOCATIONRECLAIMED WOOD SIDINGANGLE IRON REVEALRECLAIMED WOOD FACIATAPERED STEEL PLATE SURROUNDB/GABLE16'-1 1/2"2ND LEVEL11'-0"T/ ELEVATOR PARAPET25'-9 1/2"1/3 GABLE 0320'-3 1/4"1/3 GABLE 0118'-10 1/4"1/3 T/GABLE 0218'-4 1/4"SOUTHEAST GRADE-6"SOUTHEAST GRADE-6"NORTHEAST GRADE-2'-3"NORTHEAST GRADE-2'-3"SETBACK5'-3"PROPERTY LINEPROPOSED SNOW MELT SYSTEM TO ALLEVIATE SNOW SHEDDING BOTH IN THE ROW AND ON ANY ADJACENT LOTS2A-500ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY 1/4" = 1’−0"12/23/2016 10:15:25 AMA−2112016−00512−23−16AuthorCheckerPROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS232 E. MAIN STREETASPEN, CO. 1/4" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"2PROPOSED EAST ELEVATIONNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION112.23.16SCHPC FINAL REVIEWP198 IV.A. MAIN FLOOR0"MAIN FLOOR0"T/GABLE 0328'-6 3/4"PORTION OF WALL HIDDEN/ABUTING CORTINA LODGE TO BE CONSTRUCTED OF CONCRETE MASONRY UNITSTRANSFORMER THIS WALL ABUTS HISTORIC CORTINA LODGECEDAR SHAKE SHINGLES OVER GABLED ROOF, ROOF AT (9/12) SLOPET/GABLE 0226'-6 3/4"T/GABLE 0124'-4"T/PARAPET14'-3"B/GABLE16'-1 1/2"RECLAIMED WOOD SIDING INSULATED TAPERED GLASS ROOF W/ ALUM. MULLIONSACM PLATE RAIN SCREEN W/ 1/2" REVEAL OVER ROOF AT (9/12) SLOPERECLAIMED WOOD FACIAELEVATOR SHAFT CLAD IN RECLAIMED WOOD SIDING 1/3 GABLE 0320'-3 1/4"1/3 GABLE 0118'-10 1/4"1/3 T/GABLE 0218'-4 1/4"SOUTHWEST GRADE-1'-4 3/4"NORTHEAST GRADE-2'-3"NORTHEAST GRADE-2'-3"NORTHWEST GRADE-3'-3"PROPERTY LINESETBACK5'-0"PROPERTY LINESETBACK5'-3"STAIR BEYONDFROM NORTHEAST GRADE (MOST RESTRICTIVE)22'-6 1/4"FROM NORTHEAST GRADE (MOST RESTRICTIVE)28'-0 1/2"3A-500DRAINAGE VIA NATURAL GRADE TO ALLEYMAIN FLOOR0"MAIN FLOOR0"T/GABLE 0328'-6 3/4"TRANSFORMERT/ LOWER GLAZING10'-5"GOOSENECK LIGHT FIXTURE WITH FROSTED LENS, TYP.RECLAIMED WOOD SIDING ANGLE IRON REVEALB/FACIA13'-0"T/GABLE 0226'-6 3/4"T/GABLE 0124'-4"ACM RAIN SCREEN PANELING W/ 1/2" REVEALRECLAIMED WOOD FACIAT/PARAPET14'-3"B/GABLE16'-1 1/2"RECLAIMED WOOD SOFFIT VENTACM RAIN SCREEN W/ 1/2" REVEAL OVER ROOF AT (9/12) SLOPE912BREAK METAL COPING912CEDAR SHAKE SHINGLES OVER GABLED ROOF, ROOF AT (9/12) SLOPESLIDING STEEL POCKETED DOORS2ND LEVEL11'-0"B/ELEVATOR ROOF23'-5"T/ ELEVATOR PARAPET25'-9 1/2"ELEVATOR BEYOND1/3 GABLE 0320'-3 1/4"1/3 GABLE 0118'-10 1/4"1/3 T/GABLE 0218'-4 1/4"STEEL LOADING/MAN DOORNORTHEAST GRADE-2'-3"NORTHEAST GRADE-2'-3"NORTHWEST GRADE-3'-3"NORTHWEST GRADE-3'-3"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK5'-0"CONCRETE WALL BASE, TYP.23'-6 1/4"29'-0 1/2"22'-1 1/4"ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY 1/4" = 1’−0"12/23/2016 10:15:26 AMA−2122016−00512−23−16AuthorCheckerPROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS232 E. MAIN STREETASPEN, CO. 1/4" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"2PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATIONNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION112.23.16SCHPC FINAL REVIEWP199 IV.A. PROPOSED 14" FRENCH FARMHOUSE SCONCE - TYPE 'A'PROPOSED 18" FRENCH FARMHOUSE SCONCE - TYPE 'A'SOFFIT/GUTTERWALL SCONCE - TYPE 'B'PROPOSED 18" FRENCH FARMHOUSE SCONCE - TYPE 'A'PROPOSED 18" FRENCH FARMHOUSE SCONCE - TYPE 'A'ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY 3/16" = 1’−0"12/23/2016 10:15:27 AMA−2402016−00512−23−16AuthorCheckerPROPOSED OUTDOOR LIGHTING232 E. MAIN STREETASPEN, CO. 3/16" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED LIGHTING PLANBLACKTYPE 'B'TYPE 'A'NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP200 IV.A. MAIN FLOOR0"T/GABLE 0328'-6 3/4"T/ LOWER GLAZING10'-5"LANDSCAPE BED1:12 MAX SLOPED SIDEWALK METAL RAINSCREEN PANELSACM PANEL SURROUNDAT MAIN ST. ENTRYFOLDING DOORSRECLAIDED WOOD SIDING5".6'-0"5'-0"ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WITH DARK BRONZE FINISHWALL SCONCET/ LOWER GLAZING10'-5"T/BLOCK WALL/LINE OF CORTINA EAVE15'-0"B/GABLE16'-1 1/2"HINGE LOCATIONHINGE LOCATIONCABLE SUPPORT4'-11 3/4"3'-0 1/4"1'-11 1/4"1'-1 1/4"MAIN FLOOR0"T/GABLE 0124'-4"B/GABLE16'-1 1/2"1/3 GABLE 0118'-10 1/4"INTERNAL GUTTER, DRAINS TO LOW ROOF BEYONDACM RAINSCREEN PANELSCMU WALLDRAINAGE VIA NATURAL GRADE TO ALLEY HISTORIC CORTINA LODGEMAIN FLOOR0"T/GABLE 0328'-6 3/4"T/ LOWER GLAZING10'-5"T/GABLE 0124'-4"SOUTHEAST GRADE-6"SOUTHWEST GRADE-1'-4 3/4"LANDSCAPE BEDMETAL RAINSCREEN PANELSACM PANEL SURROUNDAT MAIN ST. ENTRYWALL SCONCERECLAIDED WOOD SIDINGALUMINUM STOREFRONT WITH DARK BRONZE FINISHSIDEWALK GRADE, SLOPINGCONC. LANDSCAPING CURBScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BYAs indicated12/23/2016 10:15:29 AMA−5002016−00512−23−16AuthorCheckerDETAILS/SECTIONS232 E. MAIN STREETASPEN, CO. 1/4" = 1'-0"1SECTION THROUGH MAIN ST. ENTRY 1/2" = 1'-0"2PROPOSED AWNING SCHEMATIC 1/4" = 1'-0"3SECTION - WEST AT GABLE 1/4" = 1'-0"4SECTION THROUGH MAIN ST. PLANTERNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP201 IV.A. P202 IV.A. P203 IV.A. 1 FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 300-312 E. Hyman– Final Major Development and Final Commercial Design Review, PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 8, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to renovate the existing building commonly known as The Crystal Palace in order to develop a lodge and restaurant. The property is in the Commercial Core Historic District and is landmark designated. As a 100% lodge project, located on the north side of the street, this development is permitted to be three stories. HPC granted Conceptual design approval and demolition approval in March 2016. Other topics that were covered at that time were public amenity, utility/delivery/trash, and parking. HPC is now asked to consider Final Major Development and Final Commercial Design Review. Subsequent to this review, in March, HPC will see the project one more time to provide Growth Management allotments for the development of new lodge rooms. There is a limit to the number of allocations available per year and the applicant has had to delay their request until the 2017 supply became available. As a result, Final and GMQS reviews are occurring on different agenda dates. In March, HPC will also discuss final approval of the Transportation Impact plan (a current copy of which is included in this packet). APPLICANT: 312 E. Hyman Avenue, LLC, represented by BendonAdams and Modif Architecture. ADDRESS: 300-312 E. Hyman Ave, Lots K, L & M, Block 81, aka Crystal Palace Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. PARCEL ID: 2737-073-38-009. ZONING: CC, Commercial Core. Redevelopment of this site is subject to Major Development and Commercial Design Review, a two-step process requiring approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. HPC’s 2016 Conceptual approval is binding in regards to the location and form of the structure including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be P204 IV.B. 2 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: Final review focuses on landscape plan, lighting, fenestration, and selection of new materials. The applicable design guidelines are attached as Exhibit A and are found in the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines; Commercial Core Historic District chapter. At Conceptual, information about the history of the original building, and alterations that have occurred in the last 40 years were presented to HPC. That information is provided again, in even more detail, in Exhibit 15 of the application; the proposed preservation plan. The 1891 era historic fabric that remains on this property sits on Lots K and is limited to the ground floor walls facing Hyman Avenue and Monarch Street. All other construction on the site occurred in the 1970s. The building was originally used primarily for the distribution of wholesale produce. The 1910 photo below shows the 300s block of E. Hyman Avenue. By the 1930s the property became the headquarters for the Midnight Mine Company, the biggest employer in the City at that time and one of the only mining operations struggling to continue after the Silver Crash. P205 IV.B. 3 Sometime during the Midnight Mine’s ownership, the east half of the roof must have become so deteriorated that it collapsed and the decision was made to construct a pitched roof, as seen in the 1957 photo at right. In 1960, Mead Metcalf began to operate the Crystal Palace dinner theater in the building. For the first ten years or so, it appears that limited changes were made. The 1962 photo below shows new storefronts facing Hyman Avenue. In this 1966 photo of the front of the building, the architecture was still relatively intact, but stained glass windows had been installed in the upper floor openings. P206 IV.B. 4 By the late 1960s, according to a Board of Adjustment case regarding a proposed remodel of 300 E. Hyman, Mead Metcalf had commissioned the architecture firm Walls and Stirling to prepare plans for an expansion on the east, and a second floor devoted to office space. Plans on file with the City indicate that the lower 13’8” of the south and west sides of the historic structure were to be preserved and above that was new construction. It appears that, concurrent with this work, which was constructed around 1977, the historic owl cigar sign was repainted and may have been slightly reduced in overall height so that it terminated at the cut line between the new and old. At Conceptual, HPC reviewed and approved a request to demolish non-historic construction. It was understood that more than 40% of the existing building would be removed, thus defining the proposal as “demolition.’ It was suggested that the c. 1977 upper floor walls on the historic structure would be maintained. For Final review, the applicant was required to provide a plan proposing specific actions for the preserving the historic resource in the project. This has led the applicant, with staff’s support, to propose that the upper floor be reconstructed again, this time more carefully recreating the original features based on photographs. HPC is asked to accept this approach. In the alternative the applicant will have to work with the existing upper floor and attempt to improve the appearance of the mismatched brick on the two floors and ideally at least enlarge the upper floor windows to their more historic height, plus the installation of double hung, rather than casement windows. If HPC does accept the applicant’s preservation plan, then staff and monitor will need to inspect the structure during the demolition process and provide direction for any adjustments needed based on new information. As a condition of approval, prior to building permit submittal, the applicant must provide their best documentation of the number of courses of brick that can be determined from historic photos in order to establish the accurate historic height of the building and adjust the plans accordingly. The existing height of the corner element is 29’5”, which is P207 IV.B. 5 slightly over the 28’ height limit for new construction. The reconstructed upper floor will not be allowed to exceed 29’5”. If HPC does not accept the plan to reconstruct the upper floor then the applicant will need to submit any proposed exterior alterations to that floor, such as window or cornice changes, for staff and monitor review and approval. On the historic ground floor of the building, the applicant is proposing to restore original door and window openings facing Monarch Street, based on photos and physical evidence. Staff supports this, although the Building Department has indicated that if the Monarch Street doors are operable (as they are shown in the plans), landings and handrails will be needed. There does not appear to be enough room to accommodate this on private property, so the doors will need to be fixed in place. Regarding the storefronts on Hyman Avenue, the applicant will retain the rough openings that are still defined by masonry columns. The applicant is proposing a different storefront design than is suggested by some of the historic images, including the two black and white photos shown earlier in this memo, which seem to indicate that at least the west bay was occupied by two pairs of double doors, separated by a column. Additional examination of high resolution photos from the Historical Society might clarify this issue. Staff believes that the fenestration in at least the west bay might have looked like the ganged together doors on the Red Onion. One set of doors led into the ground floor space and one led to the upstairs. Staff suggests a condition of approval to continue to study this issue. Furthermore, the proposal must be restudied so that the storefront cornice sits right at the top of the windows, concealing any lintel element. The proposed elevations show the cornice too high on the façade and also wrapping down the west façade of the building, which is inaccurate. Corrected drawings will be required for review and approval by staff and monitor prior to permit submittal. P208 IV.B. 6 Staff recommends that all ground floor windows and doors on the historic part of the building be wood. Upper floor windows may be clad given their separation from pedestrian view. Cut sheets for all of the new fenestration must be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor prior to building permit submittal. Moving on to the proposed new construction, HPC accepted the general form and placement of the addition at Conceptual review. The one condition of approval was to better delineate the old vs. new portions of the building. This is proposed to be accomplished by setting most of the south façade slightly behind the historic structure, defining the original southeast corner of the historic structure. The applicant has also restudied the materials and fenestration of the new construction. The main entrance into the hotel has been moved into the addition. The applicant has provided two options for the materials of the new addition in the area of the hotel entrance. On the whole, the addition will be clad in metal. In proposed Option A, the lobby entrance will be faced with metal; in Option B it is faced with a tumbled brick which is different than the brick used on the historic structure. Staff finds Option B to be preferred because masonry is more consistent with a number of guidelines which require the use of traditional materials and the creation of texture and detailing that is consistent with the historic district. The brick used at the hotel entry should not be tumbled to look old, as proposed. Materials for the new construction should be clearly new. HPC should discuss the use of dark metal cladding for the remainder of the south and west façades of the addition. This does succeed in diminishing the presence of the new addition in comparison to the historic structure, but a metal clad building is not typical of downtown Aspen and should likely be restudied because, to the extent that it is applied on three stories of the building, it may not emphasize the two story scale that is generally desired downtown. Perhaps the material of the third floor should be adjusted. There are a number of design guidelines, such as 6.60 and 6.61, that conflict with the extensive use of metal cladding. HPC should also discuss the fenestration on the south façade. Windows on the upper and lower floors are the same size, which does not create the architectural distinction between floors which is typically seen on historic buildings in the district. The streetscape illustration below, and the text of the application explain that there has been an effort to align window sills and headers with adjacent conditions. The Wheeler Opera house does feature large windows on the upper levels. P209 IV.B. 7 In general, staff supports the project and finds that most of the design guidelines are met. There are some details that need to be confirmed during construction and some that must be worked out before permit review and can be addressed by staff and monitor if the board is comfortable with that approach. If the HPC feels that the materials or fenestration of the addition requires restudy, a continuation is likely appropriate. REFERRAL COMMENTS As part of the preparation of this project for HPC review, staff and the applicant met with other City Departments to discuss any conditions for the redevelopment. Although many of the concerns of other departments will be resolved as part of the building permit review process, HPC and the applicant should be aware of the following topics. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District – ACSD has numerous standards that will need to be addressed at building permit. There are no unique challenges in their comments. Among other items, the District will need to review and approve the drainage plans, on-site utility plans, and an oil and grease interceptor for the restaurant. Old service line connections must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. Below-grade development may require installation of a pumping system. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right-of-ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where impacting public ROW. Soil nails are not allowed in the pubic ROW above or below sewer lines. Building Dept – The Building Department has indicated that proposed doors along the west side of the historic structure are likely to require landings and/or handrails if they were to be operable, which is how they are drawn on the plans. Guardrails proposed around the third floor deck and pool may have to be taller in certain locations, or the deck amenities may need to be repositioned. Bathrooms may need to be added to the rooftop development. Engineering Dept – The existing on-site transformer will likely need to be increased in size with a vault underneath. The applicant will need to abandon the well easement located in the northwest corner of the lot. There are drainage issues on the site, including the requirement to P210 IV.B. 8 connect to the storm system utilizing the Hyman Ave. connection, need to treat the Water Quality Capture Volume. A green roof is recommended to help with on-site water control. Environmental Health Dept – The applicant has requested a variation to allow for a non- conforming trash/recycling space configuration, just less than the required 20’ in length along the alley. The space does not need to have 20’ along the alley, but it does need to be at least 300 square feet overall and configured in a way that does not hinder the use of the recycling containers. The applicant was advised the current layout hinders the use of recycling and needs to be adjusted. There was also discussion about the convoluted path currently proposed to give access to the trash area. It was suggested there might be a path that is more straightforward and does not require staff to transport trash and recycling past the guest spaces. Once the concerns about access and placement of the recycling area have been addressed, Environmental Health will approve the variation to the width of the space along the alley. Fire Dept – No comments received. Parking Dept – No comments received. Parks Dept – New street trees will be required along Monarch Street, the variety to be determined by the City Forester, and may require silva cell technology. All trees along Hyman Ave. are to remain and must be protected throughout the building remodel utilizing a method as determined by the City Forester. Zoning Dept – A roof plan will be required to show all mechanical and other items are within the height limit. All lighting must meet the lighting code. Some elements appear to project past the property line and could be problematic at building permit review. (Note: staff has contacted Engineering regarding the canopies and lights shown to project into the Hyman right-of-way. Engineering is open to the issuance of encroachment licenses for these features. ______________________________________________________________________________ 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 approve the application with the following conditions. In the alternative HPC may continue the application so that the resolution of these items is reviewed by the full board. 1. Resolution of all of the conditions of approval will be via submittal of drawings for review and approval by staff and monitor prior to building submittal. Some of the final details will need to be resolved in the field once more information is revealed as part of the demolition process. P211 IV.B. 9 2. HPC allows for the reconstruction of the upper floor of the historic resource, using the proposed preservation plan, historic photos and physical evidence as a guide. All details are to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. 3. The applicant must provide their best documentation of the number of courses of brick that can be determined from historic photos in order to establish the accurate historic height of the historic resource and adjust the plans accordingly. 4. Restudy the south and west facades of the historic resource so that the storefront cornice is only on the south façade and sits right at the top of the windows, concealing any lintel element. 5. Restudy the storefronts on the Hyman Avenue façade of the historic resource. Consider the creation of two pairs of double doors in at least the western bay. 6. All fenestration on the ground floor of the historic resource must be wood. Upper floor windows may be metal clad. 7. Cut sheets of all doors and windows on the historic resource must be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor. 8. The hotel entrance shall be clad in brick. 9. Samples of all materials must be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor. 10. All dimensional calculations will be verified for compliance with the land use code at the time of building permit review. Exhibits: A. Design Guidelines B. Application Exhibit A- Relevant Design Guidelines 2.7 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. If the original material is wood clapboard, for example, then the replacement material must be wood as well. It should match the original in size, the amount of exposed lap and finish. Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those should be replaced, not the entire wall. 3.4 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window should also be double-hung, or at a minimum, appear to be so. Match the replacement also in the number and position of glass panes. Matching the original design is particularly important on key character-defining facades. 3.5 In a replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original. Using the same material as the original is preferred, especially on character-defining facades. However, a substitute material may be considered if the appearance of the window components will match those of the original in dimension, profile and finish. P212 IV.B. 10 3.6 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. Reducing an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or increasing it to receive a larger window is inappropriate. Consider reopening and restoring an original window opening where altered. 3.7 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original window. A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window's casing, the sash steps back to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which individually only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They distinguish the actual window from the surrounding plane of the wall. 4.5 When replacing a door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the house. A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement. A historic door from a similar building also may be considered. Simple paneled doors were typical. Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic evidence can support their use. 6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features should be based on original designs. The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a misrepresentation of the building’s heritage. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. 10.12 When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to that of a historic building. P213 IV.B. 11 An addition should not overhang the lower floors of a historic building in the front or on the side. Dormers should be subordinate to the overall roof mass and should be in scale with historic ones on similar historic structures. Dormers should be located below the primary structure's ridgeline, usually by at least one foot. 10.13 Set a rooftop addition back from the front of the building. This will help preserve the original profile of the historically significant building as seen from the street. 6.35 A new building shall reflect the traditional lot width (30 ft.) as expressed by two or more of the following: Variation in height at internal lot lines Variation in the plane of the front façade Street façade composition Variation in architectural detailing and materials to emphasize the building module 6.36 The detailed design of the building façade should reflect the traditional scale and rhythm of the block. This should be achieved using all of the following: The fenestration grouping The modeling of the façade The design framework for the first floor storefront Variation in architectural detail and/or the palette of façade materials 6.37 Divide a larger building into “modules” that are similar in width to buildings seen historically. Where a building is planned to exceed one lot width, use a change in design features to suggest the traditional building widths. Changes in façade material, window design, façade height or decorative details are examples of techniques that should be used. These variations should be expressed throughout the depth of the structure, including its roof, such that the composition appears to be a collection of smaller buildings. 6.38 Buildings should be designed to reflect the architectural hierarchy and articulation inherent in the composition of the street façade. All of the following should be addressed: The design and definition of the traditionally tall first floor T h e proportions of the upper level fenestration pattern The completion of the sheer street façade(s) with capping cornice or other horizontal modeling 6.39 A building should reflect the three dimensiona l characteristics of the street façade in the strength and depth of modeling, fenestration and architectural detail. 6.40 Maintain the repetition of similar shapes and details along the block. Upper story windows should have a vertical emphasis. In general, they should be twice as tall as they are wide. Headers and sills of windows on new buildings should maintain the traditional placement relative to cornices and belt courses. 6.41 Maintain the pattern created by recessed entry ways that are repeated along a block. Set the door back from the front façade approximately 4 feet. This is an adequate amount to establish a distinct threshold for pedestrians. Where entries are recessed, the building line at the sidewalk edge should be maintained by the upper floor(s). P214 IV.B. 12 Use transoms over doorways to maintain the full vertical height of the storefront. 6.42 The general alignment of horizontal f e a t u r e s o n building fronts should b e maintained. Typical elements that align include window moldings , tops of display windows, cornices, copings and parapets at the tops of buildings. When large buildings are designed to appear as several buildings, there should be some slight variation in alignments between the façade elements. 6.43 Any new building shall be designed to maintain a minimum of 9 feet from floor to ceiling on all floors. 6.44 Maintain the distinction between the street level and upper floors. No upper floor shall be taller than the first floor. Floor-to-floor heights should appear to be similar to those seen historically. In particular, the windows in new construction should appear similar in height to those seen traditionally. The first floor of the primary façade should be predominantly transparent glass. Upper floors should be perceived as being more opaque than the street level. Upper story windows should have a vertical emphasis. Highly reflective or darkly tinted glass is inappropriate. Express the traditional distinction in floor heights between street levels and upper levels through detailing, materials and fenestration. The presence of a belt course is an important feature in this relationship. 6.45 A new building should be designed to maintain the stature of traditional street level retail frontage. This should be 13-15 ft. in floor to floor height on the first floor. The minimum required first floor height must be maintained for at least the first 50 foot depth of the lot, and may only be dropped to a lower height beyond that point for areas that are devoted to storage, circulation, offices, restaurant kitchens, alley commercial spaces, or similar secondary uses. 6.46 Minimize the appearance of a tall third floor. Where a third floor height is in excess of 12 ft., it should be set back a minimum of 15 ft. from the street façade to reduce the apparent height. Increase the parapet height to screen the visual impact of a tall top floor. The design of a set back third floor shall be simpler in form, more subdued in modeling, detail and color than the primary façade. 6.47 The first floor façade and retail frontage should be designed to concentrate interest at the street level, using the highest quality of design, detailing and materials. The framework for the first floor of the façade, as identified in architectural tradition as characteristic first floor design. An entryway, door and transom light designed to use the full storefront height. A distinct change in the palette of materials used for the first floor design framework. The depth and strength of the modeling of elements and details. 6.48 The retail entrance should be at the sidewalk level. All entrances shall be ADA compliant. On sloping sites the retail frontage should be designed to maintain as close to a level entrance as possible. 6.49 Incorporate an airlock entry into the plan for all new structures. P215 IV.B. 13 An airlock entry that projects forward of the primary façade at the sidewalk edge is inappropriate. Adding temporary entries during the winter season detracts from the character of the historic district. Using a temporary vinyl or fabric "airlock" to provide protection from winter weather is not permitted. 6.50 Window area along the first floor shall be a minimum of 60% of exterior street façade area when facing principal street(s). 6.51 A building shall be designed to maintain or create the character and transparency of the traditional street level retail frontage. This shall be achieved using more than one of the following: A traditional recessed retail entrance Retail display cases Appropriately designed signage and lighting 6.52 Design of the first floor storefront should include particular attention to the following: The basic elements and proportions of storefront design Depth and strength of modeling The palette of materials and finishes used in both the structural framework and the storefront window The concentration of architectural detail to ensure a rich visual experience The careful and complementary use of signage and lettering to enhance the retail and downtown character The careful use of lighting to accentuate visual presence. 6.53 Side and rear building façades should be designed and articulated to reduce the apparent scale of the building and create visual interest. 6.57 A larger building should reflect the traditional lot width in the form and variation of its roof in order to maintain the scale of the area. This should be achieved through the following: A set back of the top floor from the front façade Reflect the traditional lot width in the roof plane 6.58 The roofscape should be designed with the same design attention as the secondary elevations of the building. Group and screen mechanical units from view. Locate mechanical equipment to the rear of the roof area. Position, articulate and design rooftop enclosures or structures to reflect the modulation and character of the building. Use materials which complement the design of the building façades Design roof garden areas to be unobtrusive from the street. Use 'green roof' design best practice, where feasible. 6.59 High quality, durable materials should be employed. The palette of materials proposed for all developme nt should be specified and approved as part of the general and detailed development approvals process, including samples of materials as required. 6.60 Building materials should have these features: Convey the quality and range of materials seen historically Reduce the scale and enhance visual interest Convey human scale P216 IV.B. 14 Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within this climate 6.61 The palette of materials used for new buildings within the core should reflect the predominantly masonry (brickwork and natural stonework) palette of this area. 6.62 A building or additions to a building should reflect the quality and the variation traditionally found in these materials within the central commercial core. 6.63 Where contemporary materials are used they shall be: High quality in durability and finish Detailed to convey a human scale Compatible with a traditional masonry palette 6.64 Materials used for third floor accommodation set back from the street façades(s) should be more subdued than the primary façades. 6.65 Paving and landscaping should be designed to complement and enhance the immediate setting of the building and area. 14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that used traditionally. The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be approved by the HPC. All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence. 14.14 Minimize the visual impacts of service areas as seen from the street. When it is feasible, screen service areas from view, especially those associated with commercial and multifamily developments. This includes locations for trash containers and loading docks. Service areas should be accessed off of the alley, if one exists. 14.15 Minimize the visual impacts of mechanical equipment as seen from the public way. Mechanical equipment may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does not create a negative visual impact. Mechanical equipment or vents on a roof must be grouped together to minimize their visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, provide screening with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. Screen ground-mounted units with fences, stone walls or hedges. A window air conditioning unit may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does not create a negative visual impact. Use low-profile mechanical units on rooftops so they will not be visible from the street or alley. Also minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Use smaller satellite dishes and mount them low to the ground and away from front yards, significant building facades or highly visible roof planes. Paint telecommunications and mechanical equipment in muted colors that will minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds. P217 IV.B. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #__, Series 2017 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION #__ (SERIES OF 2017) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND FINAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR 300-312 E. HYMAN AVENUE, LOTS K, L, AND M, BLOCK 81, AKA CRYSTAL PALACE SUBDIVISION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2737-073-38-009 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from 312 E. Hyman Avenue, LLC, represented by represented by BendonAdams and Modif Architecture, for the following land use review approvals: Final Major Development and Final Commercial Design Review; 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, and Utilities as a result of a Development Review Committee meeting held on February 3, 2016; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Application and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on February 8, 2017, 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 February 8, 2017, the Historic Preservation Commission approved Resolution #__, Series of 2017, by a __ to __ vote, granting approval with the conditions listed hereinafter. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Historic Preservation Commission hereby grants Final Major Development and Final Commercial Design approval with the following conditions: 1. Resolution of all of the conditions of approval will be via submittal of drawings for review and approval by staff and monitor prior to building submittal. Some of the final details will need to be resolved in the field once more information is revealed as part of the demolition process. 2. HPC allows for the reconstruction of the upper floor of the historic resource, using the proposed preservation plan, historic photos and physical evidence as a guide. All details are to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. P218 IV.B. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #__, Series 2017 Page 2 of 3 3. The applicant must provide their best documentation of the number of courses of brick that can be determined from historic photos in order to establish the accurate historic height of the historic resource and adjust the plans accordingly. 4. Restudy the south and west facades of the historic resource so that the storefront cornice is only on the south façade and sits right at the top of the windows, concealing any lintel element. 5. Restudy the storefronts on the Hyman Avenue façade of the historic resource. Consider the creation of two pairs of double doors in at least the western bay. 6. All fenestration on the ground floor of the historic resource must be wood. Upper floor windows may be metal clad. 7. Cut sheets of all doors and windows on the historic resource must be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor. 8. The hotel entrance shall be clad in brick. 9. Samples of all materials must be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor. 10. All dimensional calculations will be verified for compliance with the land use code at the time of building permit review. Section 2: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Applicant is required to obtain Growth Management approval. Section 3: 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. Section 4: 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 5: 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. P219 IV.B. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #__, Series 2017 Page 3 of 3 FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 8th day of February, 2017. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: __________________________ ______________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Jeffrey Halferty, Chair Attest: _______________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk P220 IV.B. October 14, 2016 Revised January 26, 2017 Ms. Amy Simon Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 300-312 East Hyman Avenue, Crystal Palace, Final Review Ms. Simon: Please accept this application for Major Development (Final) review and Final Commercial Design Review to remove non-historic portions of the existing commercial building located at 300-312 East Hyman Avenue and to construct a three-story above grade lodge with ground level commercial space, and lodging use on all levels. This parcel is on the City of Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures (the Inventory), and is located within the Commercial Core Historic Overlay District. The property is owned by 312 East Hyman Avenue LLC; Mark Hunt, Manager. This application includes the building known as the Crystal Palace, currently occupied by Bootsy Bellows and the adjacent one-story commercial building, currently occupied by Testosterone. The 9,047square foot property is legally described as the Crystal Palace Subdivision, per the Plat thereof recorded September 7, 2016 in Plat Book 115 at Page 58, and as Reception No. 631971, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. The 9,047square foot parcel is comprised of Lots K, L, and M, Block 81, City & Townsite of Aspen (Parcel ID 2737-073-38-007). Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, and Demolition approvals were granted on March 9, 2016 via HPC Resolution 9, Series of 2016. The review focused on the extent of the current building to be maintained (much of the building was rebuilt in the 1980s) and differentiating old and new portions of the building through setbacks and/or materials. The following conditions were applied to the conceptual approval: 1. Provision of public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030.C.2, is approved to be off-site, in the right-of-way adjacent to the subject property. The off-site improvements shall be equal or exceed the value of the otherwise required cash-in-lieu payment for 900 square feet of required mitigation (10% of the parcel size) and be consistent with any public infrastructure or capital improvement plan for the area. The improvements are subject to further review and approval by the Engineering Department and Parks Department. 2. Cash-in-lieu mitigation is required for the removal of the four existing on-site parking spaces. P221 IV.B. Page 2 of 19 300-312 e. Hyman Final Reviews 3. At Final review, the applicant must provide a "Transportation Impact Analysis" to assure that the minimum requirements are addressed for this project, which is categorized as Minor. Response: Off-site public amenity is proposed as shown on Sheet A-010. The applicant commits to mitigating the removal of the existing parking spaces. A complete TIA is submitted in the application, and according to the Land Use Code, is required to be adopted at the final step in the review process which is Growth Management review for this project. 4. At Final review, the design shall better delineate the old vs. new portions of the building. Response: A vertical setback is proposed to delineate old vs. new construction. The cornice atop the historic building returns around the corner and is visible on the east elevation, further distinguishing the historic portion of the building as a separate entity. The lodge entrance has shifted from the east side to the center, which further breaks up the historic portion from the new construction. Two material options are proposed for the lodge entry: metal (option 1) and brick (option 2 which is consistent with Conceptual approvals) as shown on page 3. Notice of Call up was provided to City Council on April 11, 2016 at which time the project was called up. The call up discussion was held on April 25, 2016. Council decided to uphold HPC’s decision to grant conceptual approval, demolition approval, and commercial design approval of the project. The Council discussion centered on delineating the 30-foot modules, delineating the old and new portions of the building, and commentary on the fenestration along Hyman Avenue and changes along the alley. Minutes from the call-up hearing are attached. P222 IV.B. Page 3 of 19 300-312 e. Hyman Final Reviews Figure 1 (top): Conceptual approval Figures 2 & 3 (middle and bottom): Proposed final elevation Option 1 (metal) and Option 2 (brick) P223 IV.B. Page 4 of 19 300-312 e. Hyman Final Reviews The proposed project is generally consistent with the Conceptual Design approvals as described below and responds to the conditions of approval listed above. The conceptual approval allowed the applicant to provide site public amenity rather than cash-in-lieu payment. The proposed off- site amenity will be in the form of right of way improvements, primarily focused along Monarch Street. The off-site amenity improvements will meet or exceed the cash in lieu amount previously approved by HPC during Conceptual review. This application is submitted pursuant to the following sections of the Aspen Land Use Code: • 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures • 26.412 Commercial Design Review • 26.415.070 Historic Preservation • 26.515 Parking • 26.575.030 Public Amenity • 26.610 Impact Fees • 26.630 Transportation Impact Analysis • 26.710.140 Commercial Core (CC) Zone District. The application is divided into three sections: Section I describes the existing conditions of the project site and environs. Section II outlines the applicant’s proposed development and Section III addresses the proposed development’s compliance with the applicable review criteria of the Code. Exhibits are provided as follows: • Exhibit 1: Land Use Application, Dimensional Requirements Form • Exhibit 2: Homeowners Association Compliance Form • Exhibit 3: Vicinity Map • Exhibit 4: Pre-Application Conference Summary • Exhibit 5: Fee Agreement • Exhibit 6: Proof of the Applicant’s Ownership and Authority • Exhibit 7: Authorization for BendonAdams, LLC to represent the applicant • Exhibit 8: Transportation Impact Analysis • Exhibit 9: HPC Resolution 9, Series of 2016 – Conceptual • Exhibit 10: HPC Meeting Minutes, March 9, 2016 – Conceptual • Exhibit 11: City Council Meeting Minutes from April 25, 2016 – Call-Up • Exhibit 12: Mailing addresses of owners within 300 feet of the subject property; • Exhibit 13: Streetscape • Exhibit 14: Drawings, material sheets, renderings showing context, survey. • Exhibit 15: Preservation Plan 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. Upon request, BendonAdams will gladly provide such additional information as may be required in the course of the review. Sincerely, Sara Adams, AICP BendonAdams LLC 300 So. Spring St. #202 | Aspen, CO sara@bendonadams.com | 970.925.2855 P224 IV.B. Page 5 of 19 300-312 e. Hyman Final Reviews Section I: Existing Conditions 300 West Hyman, commonly known as the Crystal Palace, is currently occupied by Bootsy Bellows and the adjacent one-story commercial building, currently occupied by Testosterone. The entire 9,047 square feet lot is designated historic and is located within the Commercial Core Historic District. The southwest corner of the lot contains a historic building. There have been many significant changes to the historic building over time. Exhibit 15 is a complete preservation plan outlining alterations over time and proposed preservation/restoration. The commercial building has onsite parking accessed off the alley. USection II: Project Description/The Proposal The applicant is requesting that the HPC grant Final approval of a Major Development as well as Final Commercial Design Review approval. Due to insufficient allotments in 2016, the applicant plans to submit Growth Management Review in February 2017. All applications for Final approval of a Major Development must receive a determination of consistency with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. The applicant proposes to demolish non-historic additions and buildings on the property to construct a three story lodge that incorporates the historic landmark. An additional subgrade level is proposed to house only mechanical equipment for the building. A total of 20 lodge units are proposed for the project. As the project has been further developed from Conceptual to Final Review, the proposed lodge net livable area has increased by about 1,800 sf of net livable area. An additional basement level only to accommodate the necessary space for mechanical that services the building is proposed for the project. This change does not affect the Conceptual Design Reviews, as massing, height and floor area are not impacted. The only impact is to the overall net livable area for the lodge units and 4 additional lodge units, which are addressed during Growth Management Review. The ground level is proposed to have a restaurant, a café, back of house, 3 lodge rooms, and lobby area for lodge guests. The two upper levels are proposed to contain 14 lodge rooms at this time, basement level is proposed to have 3 lodge rooms, and the ground level is proposed to have 3 lodge rooms. A total of 20 lodge rooms are proposed. The 20 lodge rooms are an average of 499.8 square feet in size [9,995 sf nla/20 units]. The proposed lodge use is about 1.82:1 [16,454 sf], where 2.5:1 [22,618 sf]is the maximum allowed. The entire project proposed about 21,160 sf or a FAR of 2.34:1. The maximum allowable is 2.75:1 or 24,879 sf. The third floor is setback a maximum of 42 feet from the Hyman façade to reduce the visual impact of the third story and to provide space for an outdoor area for lodge guests. The third story is just over 37 feet and the third floor footprint comprises less than 50% of the of the gross parcel square footage. Consistent with the Conceptual approval, the second floor is 28 feet tall to the top of the parapet of the new construction. The existing building contains a total of 12, 905 square feet of net leasable area, which calculates to 54.19 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs). Affordable Housing mitigation is not anticipated to be required for this project. Full calculations will be provided as part of Growth Management review, after Final HPC Design reviews. Existing parking is proposed to be removed as part of the project. The mitigation for the removal of existing parking is proposed to be mitigated through cash in lieu payment, as allowed by the P225 IV.B. Page 6 of 19 300-312 e. Hyman Final Reviews Land Use Code for development in the Commercial Core Zone District and included as a condition of approval during Conceptual Review. Lodge units in the Commercial Core do not require parking and there is a decrease in the amount of net leasable commercial space from existing. The trash/utility area is accessed off the alley and has interior access from the individual tenants. The transformer is open to the sky. Section III: Review Requirements A. Common Development Review Procedures and Combined Reviews Section 26.304.060.B(1) of the Code discusses combined reviews and states that, The procedures for reviewing development plans and applications where more than one (1) development approval is being sought simultaneously may be combined or modified whenever the Community Development Director determines, in consultation with the applicant, that such combination or modification would eliminate or reduce duplication and ensure economy of time, expense and clarity; provided, however, that all public noticing normally associated with the subject development application(s) is maintained and that a thorough and full review of the application and proposed development as otherwise required by this Title is achieved. It is proposed that Final Commercial Design Review be combined with Final Major Development Review and approval by the HPC. B. Final Approval of a Major Development Code Section 26.415.070 addresses development property located within a historic district, such as the subject site. Said Code section provides that, No building, structure or landscape shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or a property located within a Historic District until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a development order. A conceptual development plan has been approved by HPC via Resolution 9, Series of 2016 and was upheld by City Council during the call up process on April 25, 2016. The appropriate design objectives and guidelines are discussed below in the Commercial Design Review section of this application. Compliance with Chapter 12, Architectural Lighting, Mechanical Equipment, Service Areas and Signage, is provided below: 21T12.1 Address accessibility compliance requirements while preserving character defining features of historic buildings and districts. • 2TAll new construction must comply completely with the International Building Code (IBC) for accessibility. Special provisions for historic buildings exist in the law that allow some flexibility when designing solutions which meet accessibility standards. P226 IV.B. Page 7 of 19 300-312 e. Hyman Final Reviews 21TThe proposed new building intends to meet all IBC requirements for accessibility. 21T12.2 Original light fixtures must be maintained. When there is evidence as to the appearance of original fixtures that are no longer present, a replication is appropriate. 21T12.3 Exterior light fixtures should be simple in character. • 2TThe design of a new fixture should be appropriate in form, finish, and scale with the structure. • 2TNew fixtures should not reflect a different period of history than that of the affected building, or be associated with a different architectural style. • 2TLighting should be placed in a manner that is consistent with the period of the building, and should not provide a level of illumination that is out of character. • 2TOne light adjacent to each entry is appropriate on an Aspen Victorian residential structure. A recessed fixture, surface mounted light, pendant or sconce will be considered if suited to the building type or style. • 2TOn commercial structures and AspenModern properties, recessed lights and concealed lights are often most appropriate. Original light fixtures are not evident on the building or in the historic photographs. Proposed light fixtures and a lighting plan are included in the application packet for review by HPC. The light fixtures, shown on Sheet A-270, are a traditional goose neck in weathered zinc outside the restaurant doors and hanging pendants at the entrances to the lodge lobby (subject to Engineering approval). The entry canopy is 10 ft. 5 in. tall. 21T12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and trash storage. • 2TPlace mechanical equipment on the ground where it can be screened. • 2TMechanical equipment may only be mounted on a building on an alley façade. • 2TRooftop mechanical equipment or vents must be grouped together to minimize their visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, it may be appropriate to provide screening with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. Use the smallest, low profile units available for the purpose. • 2TWindow air conditioning units are not allowed. • 2TMinimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Group them in a discrete location. Use pedestals when possible, rather than mounting on a historic building. • 2TPaint mechanical equipment in a neutral color to minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds • 2TIn general, mechanical equipment should be vented through the roof, rather than a wall, in a manner that has the least visual impact possible. • 2TAvoid surface mounted conduit on historic structures. A mechanical room is proposed in the basement (Sheet A-111) and a mechanical area is proposed on the rooftop (Sheet A-113). Mechanical units on the roof are grouped together to minimize visual impacts. A metal mechanical screen is proposed to shield the equipment on the roof. Mechanical equipment is setback 42 ft. from the front façade, 15 ft. from the alley, and 31 ft. 6 in. from Monarch Street façade to meet the Land Use Code required 15 feet. 21T12.5 Awnings must be functional. P227 IV.B. Page 8 of 19 300-312 e. Hyman Final Reviews • 2TAn awning must project at least 3 feet, and not more than 5 feet from the building façade. • 2TAn awning may only be installed at a door or window and must fit within the limits of the door or window opening. • 2TAwnings are inappropriate on AspenModern properties unless historic evidence shows otherwise. A cantilevered canopy is proposed to define the lodge entrance. It is not operable and is not intended to function as a typical awning found on historic properties downtown. The canopy extends about 3 ft. 4 in. and is a flat piece of metal that is proposed on the non-historic portion of the building. 21T12.6 Signs should not obscure or damage historic building fabric. • 2TWhere possible, install a free standing sign that is appropriate in height and width. Consolidate signage for multiple businesses. • 2TMount signs so that the attachment point can be easily repaired when the sign is replaced. Do not mount signage directly into historic masonry. • 2TBlade signs or hanging signs are generally preferred to wall mounted signs because the number of attachment points may be less. • 2TSigns should be constructed of wood or metal. • 2TPictographic signs are encouraged because they add visual interest to the street. 21T12.7 Sign lighting must be subtle and concealed. • 2TPin mounted letters with halo lighting will not be approved on Aspen Victorian buildings. • 2TThe size of a fixture used to light a sign must be minimized. The light must be directed towards the sign. If possible, integrate the lights into the sign bracket. 21T12.8 Locate signs to be subordinate to the building design. • 2TSigns should be located on the first floor of buildings, primarily. • 21TSigns should not obscure historic building details. 21T12.9 Preserve historic signs. The applicant will be sensitive to the requirements of the Historic District when applying for a sign permit. The applicant intends to meet the Guidelines and the City of Aspen Sign Code when a sign permit is submitted. The historic Owl Cigar mural will be preserved as part of the project and protected during construction. C. Final Commercial Design Review 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 and contains a historic resource. 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. 26.412.050. Review Criteria An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: P228 IV.B. Page 9 of 19 300-312 e. Hyman Final Reviews A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards. Addressed below. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the façade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. Not applicable. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal complies with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. 6.35 A new building shall reflect the traditional lot width (30 ft.) as expressed by two or more of the following:  Variation in height at internal lot lines  Variation in the plane of the front façade  Street façade composition  Variation in architectural detailing and materials t o emphasize the building module The width of the historic building is about 30 ft.as shown in the detail above. With 90 feet lot width, the new additions to the landmark are about 30 ft. in width to honor historic lot width. The modules are expressed between the historic landmark and the new addition through a vertical setback and the historic cornice. The modules in the new section of building are expressed through difference in materials and fenestration. Figure 3: Detail of proposed modules P229 IV.B. Page 10 of 19 300-312 e. Hyman Final Reviews Figure 4: vertical delineation for Option 1 (metal) Figure 5: Streetscape with proposed building (showing brick lodge entry as opposed to metal). 6.36 The detailed design of the building façade should reflect the traditional scale and rhythm of the block. This should be achieved using all of the following:  The fenestration grouping  The modeling of the façade  The design framework for the first floor storefront  Variation in architectural detail and/or the palette of façade materials The block has a range of building scale from the false-front Motherlode Building to the iconic Wheeler Opera House. Fenestration is organized in groups of three in the new addition. The first floor storefront is similar to a traditional storefront in the historic building. The new ground level addition reflects the ground level of the adjacent Aspen Times building. The proposed window sill in the new addition closely aligns with the windows of the Aspen Times building. Architectural details such as the traditional cornice and belt course are evident on the historic building. The design philosophy for the new addition is to simplify the ornate traditional materials found on the historic building. P230 IV.B. Page 11 of 19 300-312 e. Hyman Final Reviews 6.37 Divide a larger building into “modules” that are similar in width to buildings seen historically.  Where a building is planned to exceed one lot width, use a change in design features to suggest the traditional building widths.  Changes i n façade material, window design, façade height or decorative details are examples of techniques that should be used.  These variations should be expressed throughout the depth of the structure, including its roof, such that the composition appears t o b e a collection of smaller buildings. There was a lot of discussion during Conceptual review about the proposed modules for this project. The concept that was presented at both HPC and City Council (during call-up) was to merge the brick with the proposed metal of the addition. There is a vertical delineation between the historic building and the new addition. The original proposal was to respect the history of the building by preserving the existing appearance of the expanded ground level brick (shown below) and incorporating it into the proposed design. Based on comments from City Staff during conceptual review and call-up, two material options are proposed: Option 1 - the entire addition is one material (dark metal) rather than a mix of brick and metal; Option 2 – there is mix of brick on the first floor and metal on the upper floors. Option 1 simplifies the façade and creates a simple, clean backdrop for the restored historic building; while Option 2 respects the evolution of the building on the first floor. 6.38 Buildings should be designed to reflect the architectural hierarchy and articulation inherent in the composition of the street façade. All of the following should be addressed:  The design and definition of the traditionally tall first floor Figure 6: Existing façade prior to Bootsy Bellows’ tenancy. P231 IV.B. Page 12 of 19 300-312 e. Hyman Final Reviews  T h e proportions of the upper level fenestration pattern  The completion of the sheer street façade(s) with capping cornice or other horizontal modeling The historic building reflects the architectural hierarchy of the street façade. Small punched openings on the upper level of the historic building and large traditionally tall storefront on the ground level are maintained in the proposal. The upper floors of the addition are similar to the ground level to create a simple background for the historic building. The simplicity of the addition highlights the traditional details of the historic building. The addition maintains the first floor height. The parapet of the new addition is at 28 feet which is about one and a half feet shorter than the historic parapet. The second floor of the addition is slightly shorter than the first floor height. This is deliberate and differentiates new from old with a subtle, simple and clean approach. The historic cornice is preserved and is juxtaposed with the absence of a cornice on the new addition: adding a cornice to the new addition would distract from the decorative elements of the historic building. The proposal serves as a backdrop that highlights the historic building. 6.39 A building should reflect the three dimensional characteristics o f the street façade in the strength and depth of modeling, fenestration and architectural detail. The Option 1 proposal aims to highlight the historic resource at the corner by proposing flat dark metal panels with exposed steel details to provide some interest. The simple, clean lines of the metal compliment the warm brick and softer details of the historic resource. Option 2 proposes dark metal for the majority of the addition, and a modular brick façade for the one story new addition at the lodge entrance. Material examples are provided in the application. Samples of all materials will be presented at the HPC meeting. 6.40 Maintain the repetition of similar shapes and details along the block.  Upper story windows should have a vertical emphasis. In general, they should be twice as tall as they are wide.  Headers and sills of windows on new buildings should maintain the traditional placement relative to cornices and belt courses. Upper story windows have a vertical emphasis and are much taller than they are wide. Headers of the ground floor level windows are aligned with the storefronts. The upper floor windows do not align with the historic punched openings to highlight the historic resource by using glass and dark metal to recede the new addition into the background. 6.41 Maintain the pattern created by recessed entry ways that are repeated along a block.  Set the door back from the front façade approximately 4 feet. This is an adequate amount to establish a distinct threshold for pedestrians.  Where entries are recessed, the building line at the sidewalk edge should be maintained by the upper floor(s).  Use transoms over doorways to maintain the full vertical height of the storefront. Recessed entries are proposed for the lodge entrance. The entrance to the restaurant is not proposed to be recessed, which is consistent with the historic photographs in Exhibit 15. P232 IV.B. Page 13 of 19 300-312 e. Hyman Final Reviews Transoms are proposed for all entrances. Cantilevered canopies are proposed above the entrances to the lodge lobby (10 ft. 5 in. tall) and above the ground level windows in the new addition. The flat plate awnings define the entry and lodge portion of the building with a contemporary interpretation of a traditional fabric awning. 6.42 The general alignment of horizontal f e a t u r e s o n building fronts should be maintained.  Typical elements that align include window m oldings, tops o f dis play windows, cornices, copings and parapets at the tops of buildings.  When large buildings are designed to appear as several buildings, there should be some slight variation in alignments between the façade elements. Horizontal features on the ground level are maintained on both the Hyman and Monarch facades. The horizontal features on the second level are more subtle, especially on the Hyman Avenue façade. The historic cornice stands out as a singular feature, as height limits do not permit alignment with the new addition, and the objective of the project is to highlight the historic resource not replicate and compete with the traditional elements of the historic façade. 6.43 Any new building shall be designed to maintain a minimum of 9 feet from floor to ceiling on all floors. Floor to ceiling heights exceed 9 feet on all floors. 6.44 Maintain the distinction between the street level and upper floors.  No upper floor shall be taller than the first floor.  Floor-to-floor heights should appear to be similar to those seen historically. In particular, the windows in new construction should appear similar in height to those seen traditionally.  The first floor of the primary façade should be predominantly transparent glass.  Upper floors should be perceived as being more opaque than the street level. Upper story windows should have a vertical emphasis.  Highly reflective or darkly tinted glass is inappropriate.  Express the traditional distinction in floor heights between street levels and upper levels through detailing, materials and fenestration. The presence of a belt course is an important feature in this relationship. There is a slight distinction between street level and upper floors in the new addition. (about 2 inches). The traditional distinction between street and upper floor is evident in the historic resource. The design approach for the new addition is to create a simple backdrop that highlights the historic resource rather than replicate or mimic the distinction between street level and upper floors. 6.45 A new building should be designed to maintain the stature of traditional street level retail frontage.  This should be 13-15 ft. in floor to floor height on the first floor.  The minimum required first floor height must be maintained for at least the first 50 foot depth of the lot, and may only be dropped to a lower height beyond that point for areas that are devoted to storage, circulation, offices, restaurant kitchens, alley commercial spaces, or similar secondary uses. Floor to floor heights on the first floor are about 13 ft. 4 ½ in., across the entire ground level. P233 IV.B. Page 14 of 19 300-312 e. Hyman Final Reviews 6.46 Minimize the appearance of a tall third floor.  Where a third floor height is in excess of 12 ft., it should be set back a minimum of 15 ft. from the street façade to reduce the apparent height.  Increase the parapet height to screen the visual impact of a tall top floor.  The design of a set back third floor shall be simpler in form, more subdued in modeling, detail and color than the primary façade. As approved at Conceptual Review, the third floor is significantly setback from Hyman Avenue and is mostly glazing to recede into the background. The third floor, as viewed from Monarch Street, appears similar to the first and second floors and is setback 2 ft. 4 in. for the main wall and 26 ft. 7 in. to the third floor corridor. The floor to ceiling height of the third floor is about 8 ft. 6 in. Again, the design philosophy is to provide a simple backdrop that highlights the historic resource rather than a patchwork of different materials and styles that appear contrived. 6.47 The first floor façade and retail frontage should be designed to concentrate interest at the street level, using the highest quality of design, detailing and materials.  The framework for the first floor of the façade, as identified in architectural tradition as characteristic first floor design.  A n entryway, door and transom light designed to use the full storefront height.  A distinct change in the palette of materials used for the first floor design framework.  The depth and strength of the modeling of elements and details. The first floor façade is designed to maximize interest with large traditional storefront in the historic resource, and large windows similar to the adjacent Aspen Times building in the new addition. The center of the first floor façade features large wooden doors, similar to the solid wood doors found on the Wheeler Opera House at the other corner of the block. The detailing of the windows in the new addition are similar to the two over two design found in the adjacent photograph, which also illustrates the solid doors at the Wheeler. 6.48 The ret ail entrance should be at the sidewalk level.  All entrances shall be ADA compliant.  On sloping sites the retail frontage should be designed to maintain as close to a level entrance as possible. All entrances are ADA compliant in accordance with Building Code requirements. 6.49 Incorporate an airlock entry into the plan for all new structures.  An airlock entry that projects forward of the primary façade at the sidewalk edge is inappropriate. Figure 7: Historic context of block. Photograph courtesy Aspen Historical Society. P234 IV.B. Page 15 of 19 300-312 e. Hyman Final Reviews  Adding temporary entries during the winter season detracts from the character of the historic district.  Using a temporary vinyl or fabric "airlock" to provide protection from winter weather is not permitted. Internal air curtains are proposed for each tenant space as shown on the floor plans. 6.50 Window area along the first floor shall be a minimum of 60% of exterior street façade area when facing principal street(s). More than 60% of the street facing facades are glazing, the exception is the Monarch Street façade which is historic and would be inappropriate to have 60% window area. 6.51 A building shall be designed to maintain or create the character and transparency of the traditional street level retail frontage. This shall be achieved using more than one of the following:  A traditional recessed retail entrance  Retail display cases  Appr opriat ely desig ned sig nag e and lighting 6.52 Design of the first floor storefront should include particular attention to the following:  The basic elements and proportions of storefront design  Depth and strength of modeling  The palette of materials and finishes used in both the structural framework and the storefront window  The concentration of architectural detail to ensure a rich visual experience  The careful and complementary use of signage and lettering to enhance the retail and downtown character  The careful use of lighting to accentuate visual presence. Recessed entry is proposed for the lodge entry and large storefront windows are proposed across the front façade to provide transparency at the street level. The traditional storefront is designed to fit within the existing openings of the historic resource. 6.53 Side and rear building façades should be designed and articulated to reduce the apparent scale of the building and create visual interest. 6.54 Side and rear façades providing retail frontage shall include a distinct definition of the first floor, fenestration, design articulation, and/or display cases. 6.55 Retail frontage facing onto side courts o r rear alleys should follow similar design principles to street frontage, adjusted for the scale of the space. The Monarch Street and alley facades are designed to respect the historic west wall of the landmark and to provide visual interest through the simple grid design of the addition. Retail frontage is not proposed along Monarch Street; however, two doors are proposed that are similar to a door shown on the 1893 birds eye view map. 6.56 Special features that highlight buildings on corner lots may be considered.  Develop both street elevations to provide visual interest to pedestrians. P235 IV.B. Page 16 of 19 300-312 e. Hyman Final Reviews  Corner entrances, bay windows and towers are examples of elements that may be considered to emphasize corner locations.  Storefront windows, display cases and other elements that provide visual interest t o façades along side st reet s ar e also appropriate. The Owl Cigar mural, which is a unique feature on this property, is to be preserved. There are no other special features that highlight the corner building since the corner contains a historic landmark. 6.57 A larger building should reflect the traditional lot width in the form and variation of its roof in order to maintain the scale of the area. This should be achieved through the following:  A set back of the top floor from the front façade  Reflect the traditional lot width in the roof plane Traditional lot widths are expressed through the difference in height between the landmark and the new addition, and between the proposed modules at street level. 6.58 The roofscape should be designed with the same design attention as the secondary elevations of the building.  Group and screen mechanical units from view.  Locate mechanical equipment to the rear of the roof area.  Position, articulate and design rooftop enclosures or str uctures to reflect the modulation and character of the building.  Use materials which complement the design of the building façades  Design roof garden areas to be unobtrusive from the street.  Use 'green roof' design best practice, where feasible. Mechanical equipment is grouped and screened to minimize visual impacts as shown on the roof plan. 6.59 High quality, durable materials should be employed.  The palette of materials proposed for all development should be specified and approved as part of the general and detailed development approvals process, including samples of materials as required. 6.60 Building materials should have these features:  Convey the quality and range of materials seen historically  Reduce the scale and enhance visual interest  Convey human scale  Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within this climate 6.61 The palette of materials used for new buildings within the core should reflect the predominantly masonry (brickwork and natural stonework) palette of this area. 6.62 A building or additions to a building should reflect the quality and the variation traditionally found in these materials within the central commercial core. 6.63 Where contemporary materials are used they shall be:  High quality in durability and finish  Detailed to convey a human scale P236 IV.B. Page 17 of 19 300-312 e. Hyman Final Reviews  Compatible with a traditional masonry palette Metal and glass are proposed for Option 1, and metal/glass/brick are proposed for Option 2, as shown on the accompanying materials sheets. These are traditional materials found on downtown landmarks, but are proposed in a contemporary application. The materials provide interest. The dark metal provides a cool background to the warmer brick found on the landmark and in a portion of the addition. Material samples will be presented at the February 8th meeting. 6.64 Materials used for third floor accommodation set back from the street façades(s) should be more subdued than the primary façades. The third floor is significantly setback from the Hyman façade. Glass and dark metal are proposed to recede the third floor into the background. 6.65 Paving and landscaping should be designed to complement and enhance the immediate setting of the building and area. The project is built to the property line. Landscaping in the right of way is subject to Parks approval. 26.412.060. Commercial Design Standards The following design standards, in addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district design objectives and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed-use development: A. Public amenity space. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-of-way or private property within commercial areas. On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method or combination of methods of providing the public amenity shall be at the option of the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, according to the procedures herein and according to the following standards: 1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. 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. P237 IV.B. Page 18 of 19 300-312 e. Hyman Final Reviews 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 10% or 905 square feet. Off-site public amenity in the form of right of way improvements was approved at conceptual review. B. Utility, delivery and trash service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply: 1. A trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum size and location standards established by Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, unless otherwise established according to said Chapter. 2. A utility area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum standards established by Title 25, Utilities, of the Municipal code, the City’s Electric Distribution Standards, and the National Electric Code, unless otherwise established according to said Codes. 3. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located and combined to the greatest extent practical. 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 P238 IV.B. Page 19 of 19 300-312 e. Hyman Final Reviews Code. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. 9. All commercial tenant spaces located on the ground floor in excess of 1,500 square feet shall contain a vestibule (double set of doors) developed internal to the structure to meet the requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen, or an air curtain. 10. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. 11. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. 12. The trash and recycling service area requirements may be varied pursuant to Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code. All other requirements of this subsection may be varied by special review (see Chapter 26.430.040.E, Utility and delivery service area provisions). An approximately 300 sf trash/utility area is proposed off the alleyway with an interior measurement of 19’ w x 15’10” d x 10’ h. The trash/utility area is located within the building and is fully screened from view. A delivery door, providing interior access to all tenants is proposed off the alley. Mechanical is incorporated within the building and on the rooftop. D. Parking 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. Parking requirements were included as a condition of approval during Conceptual Review. The lodge units do not generate any parking spaces according to the Land Use Code. E. Transportation Impact Analysis Transportation Impact Analysis is required for this project due to the additional lodge rooms proposed, even though there is a reduction in employees and net leasable area for the property. A complete TIA is included in the application. TIA is finalized at Growth Management Review, the final step in the review process. P239 IV.B. CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT March, 2016 City of Apen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5050 ATTACHMENT 2 – LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Location:_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) APPLICANT: Name: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Address: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone #: REPRESENTIVATIVE: Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Address:________________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone#: TYPE OF APPLICATION: (Please check all that apply): EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) PROPOSAL: (Description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Have you attached the following? Pre-Application Conference Summary Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements – including Written Responses to Review Standards 3-D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8.5” X 11” must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model. GMQS Exemption Conceptual PUD Temporary Use GMQS Allotment Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) Special Review Subdivision Conceptual SPA ESA – 8040 Greenline, Stream Subdivision Exemption (includes Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, Condominiumization) Mountain View Plane Final SPA (&SPA Commercial Design Review Lot Split Amendment) Residential Design Variance Lot Line Adjustment Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion Conditional Use Other: 300 East Hyman Avenue 300 - 312 East Hyman Avenue, Crystal Palace Subdivision 2737-073-38-005 and -007 312 East Hyman Avenue LLC 2001 North Halsted #304, Chicago, IL 60614 312- 850-1680 Mark Hunt - 312-749-2050 mhunt@mdevco.com Sara Adams, BendonAdams , sara@bendonadams.com 970-925-2855 300 S. Spring St. #202, Aspen see above x Final -HPC Major Review one and two story commercial buildings construction of three story lodge. FEES DUE: $ ____4,875._________ Exhibit 1 P240 IV.B. CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT March, 2016 City of Apen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5050 ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: ______________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: ______________________________________________________________________________ Location: ______________________________________________________________________________ Zone District: ______________________________________________________________________________ Lot Size: _______________________________________________________________________________ Lot Area: _______________________________________________________________________________ (For the purpose of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high-water mark, easement, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _________________________________ Number of residential units: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _________________________________ Number of bedrooms: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _________________________________ Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): ______________ DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: _____________ Allowable: ___________Proposed ____________ Principal bldg. height: Existing: _____________ Allowable: ___________Proposed____________ Access. Bldg. height: Existing: _____________ Allowable: __________ Proposed_____________ On-Site parking: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed_____________ % Site coverage: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed_____________ % Open Space: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed_____________ Front Setback: Existing: _____________ Required ____________Proposed _____________ Rear Setback: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed _____________ Combined F/F: Existing: _____________ Required ___________ Proposed _____________ Side Setback: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed _____________ Side Setback: Existing: _____________ Required ___________ Proposed _____________ Combined Sides: Existing: _____________ Required ___________ Proposed _____________ Distance between Bldgs. Existing: _____________ Required: ___________ Proposed _____________ Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed: _____________ Existing non-conformities or encroachments: __________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ Variations requested: _____________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 300-312 East Hyman Avenue 312 East Hyman Ave LLC, Mark Hunt Manager corner of Hyman Avenue and Monarch Street Commercial Core Historic District 9,047 sf same as above 12,905 sf 3,511 sf 0 0 0 0 over 40% 2.75:1 24,879 sf 2.34:1 or 21,160 sfabout 13,135 sf 29' 5" historic 40'37' 3" top of parapet n/a 4 spaces 4 spaces cash in lieu for 4 spaces n/a0 sf 10%off site improvements 0' 0' 0' 0'NO CHANGE NONE P241 IV.B. Exhibit 2P242IV.B. Exhibit 300 & 312 East Hyman Avenue – Vicinity Map Exhibit 3 P243 IV.B. CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Amy Simon, 970.429.2758 DATE: 10/26/16 PROJECT: 300/312 E. Hyman REPRESENTATIVE: BendonAdams REQUEST: Final Major Development and Final Commercial Design Review DESCRIPTION: On March 9, 2016, HPC granted Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Demolition approval for redevelopment of this 9,000 square foot lot. The applicant proposes to create a new lodge by renovating the existing building commonly known as The Crystal Palace, and demolishing and replacing an adjacent commercial space. The property is in the Commercial Core Historic District and is landmark designated. Final design approval is needed, including discussion of exterior materials, fenestration, landscape and lighting. As a condition of Conceptual approval, HPC required that the Final application better delineate the old vs. new portions of the building. Final review will require a detailed explanation of original vs. non-original materials and the effects of the current project. The history of alterations that have been made to the building is complex and the commission must have good information to evaluate what areas of the building are in an original condition that is being preserved, what areas are in an altered condition that is being retained, and where any restoration or additional changes to historic fabric are being considered. The applicant must also provide a “Transportation Impact Analysis” to assure that the minimum requirements are addressed for this project, which is categorized as Minor. Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience: Land Use Code: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Business-Navigator/Get-Approval-to-Develop/Refer-to-Land-Use-Code/ Land Use Application: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/HPC/Land%20Use%20HPC%20Packet%20 March%202016.pdf Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Current- Planning/ Transportation Impact Analysis Requirements: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Current- Planning/ Relevant Land Use Code Section(s): 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.412 Commercial Design Review 26.415.070.D Historic Preservation Major Review 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements 26.630 Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines Exhibit 4 P244 IV.B. 2 26.710.140 Commercial Core Zone District Review by: Staff for completeness and recommendation Review agencies for recommendation HPC for decision Public Hearing: Yes Planning Fees: $1,950 for 14 hours of staff time. Any unbilled portion of this deposit will be refunded at the conclusion of the case. Additional staff hours, if needed, will be billed at $325 per hour. Referrals: Engineering ($265/hour) Total Deposit: $2,215 To apply, submit 1 complete copy of the following information: Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement. Pre-application Conference Summary (this document). Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application. Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. HOA Compliance form (Attached) An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. List of adjacent property owners within 300’ for public hearing. A site improvement survey (no older than a year from submittal) including topography and vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor by licensed in the State of Colorado. Documentation showing the proposal meets all Transportation Mitigation Requirements as outlined in the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines and Mitigation Tool, available online at: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and- Zoning/Recent-Code-Amendments/. A copy of the tool showing trips generated and the chosen mitigation measures should be included with the application. P245 IV.B. 3 Scaled drawings of the proposal including site plan, floor plans, roof plan and all elevations. Drawings are to be labeled to clearly explain areas being preserved or altered as described above. Final selection of all exterior materials, and samples or clearly illustrated photographs. Samples are preferred for the presentation to HPC. Lighting plan and landscape plan. Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated historic property or historic district including at least one (1) of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models or streetscape elevations. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with conditions of Conceptual approval, as well as the review standards relevant to the Final development application. Once the application is deemed complete, the following items will then need to be submitted: Fee for review of application. A complete copy of the application, including all items listed above, provided by email to the assigned planner in .pdf format. 12 Copies of the application drawings. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. P246 IV.B. City of Aspen Community Development Department Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen ("City") and Property Owner ("I"): Address of Property: (Subject of application) Phone No.: Email: Billing Address: (send bills here) I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No., Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. $ _____ flat fee for _______ _ $ _____ flat fee for ______________ _ $ _____ flat fee for _______ _ $ ______ flat fee for ______________ _ For Deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render and application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $ _______ deposit for ______ hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. $ _______ deposit for ______ hours of Engineering Departme t.-s�al time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. City of Aspen: Jessica Garrow, AICP Community Development Director Name: City Use: Title: Fees Due: $ __ Received $ __ _ City of Aspen I 130 S. Galena Street. I (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016 312 East Hyman LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; Mark Hunt, Manager 312-850-1680 mhunt@mdev.com 300 - 312 East Hyman Avenue; Aspen MDev 2001 N. Halsted St. Suite 304 Chicago, IL 60614 4550 14 325 1 Exhibit 5 P247 IV.B. Active/43775075.1 730 East Durant Avenue, Suite 200, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone: 970.925.6300 Fax: 970.925.1181 www.shermanhoward.com Curtis B. Sanders Sherman & Howard L.L.C. Direct Dial Number: 970.300.0114 E-mail: csanders@shermanhoward.com September 27, 2016 City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 312 East Hyman Avenue, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; Certificate of Ownership Dear Sir or Madam: I am an attorney licensed by the State of Colorado to practice law. This letter shall confirm and certify that 312 East Hyman Avenue, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, is the owner of certain improved real property located at 300 and 312 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611, and legally described as follows (the "Subject Property"): Crystal Palace Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof recorded September 7, 2016 in Plat Book 115 at Page 58, and as Reception No. 631971, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. 312 East Hyman Avenue, LLC’s ownership of the Subject Property is subject to the following matters of record: 1. Exceptions and mineral reservations as contained in Patent to Aspen Townsite recorded March 1, 1897 in Book 139 at Page 216 as Reception No. 60156. 2. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Notice of Historic Designation by City of Aspen recorded January 13, 1975 in Book 295 at Page 515 as Reception No. 172512. 3. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in City of Aspen, Historic Designation recorded in Book 307 at Page 909. Exhibit 6 P248 IV.B. 2 Active/43775075.1 4. Deed of Trust, Assignment of Leases and Rents and Security Agreement dated as of April 24, 2014 between Jefferies Loancore LLC and 312 East Hyman Avenue, LLC recorded April 25, 2014 as Reception No. 609760, as amended by First Amendment to Deed of Trust, Assignment of Leases and Rents and Security Agreement dated as of June 10, 2014 between Jefferies Loancore LLC and 312 East Hyman Avenue, LLC recorded June 17, 2014 as Reception No. 611161. 5. Assignment of Leases and Rents dated April 24, 2014 between Jefferies Loancore LLC and 312 East Hyman Avenue, LLC recorded April 25, 2014 as Reception No. 609761, as amended by First Amendment to Assignment of Leases and Rents and Security Agreement dated as of June 10, 2014 between Jefferies Loancore LLC and 312 East Hyman Avenue, LLC recorded June 17, 2014 as Reception No. 611162. 6. UCC-1 Financing Statement of Jefferies Loancore LLC recorded April 25, 2014 as Reception No. 609761, as amended by UCC Financing Statement Amendment recorded June 17, 2014 as Reception No. 611163. 7. Assignment of Deed of Trust, Assignment of Leases and Rents and Security Agreement dated as of August 28, 2014 between Jefferies Loancore LLC as Assignor and JLC Warehouse V LLC as Assignee recorded August 24, 2015 as Reception No. 622635. 8. Assignment of Leases and Rents dated as of August 28, 2014 between Jefferies Loancore LLC as Assignor and JLC Warehouse V LLC as Assignee recorded August 24, 2015 as Reception No. 622636. 9. Assignment of Deed of Trust, Assignment of Leases and Rents and Security Agreement dated as of July 22, 2015 between JLC Warehouse V LLC as Assignor and DIVCORE CLO 2013-LTD. as Assignee recorded August 24, 2015 as Reception No. 622680. 10. Assignment of Leases and Rents dated as of July 22, 2015 between JLC Warehouse V LLC as Assignor and DIVCORE CLO 2013-LTD. as Assignee recorded August 24, 2015 as Reception No. 622681. 11. Easement reserved by Modern Method Corporation as grantor in the Deed to Virginia M. Metcalf recorded May 12, 1960 in Book 190 at Page 487 as Reception No. 109667. 12. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Multipurpose Easement Agreement Electric and Communication Utilities between William R. Shaw Estate and Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company and Micro Cable Communications Inc. recorded June 15, 1976 in Book 313 at Page 277 as Reception No. 184652. 13. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Resolution of The Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Approving an application for Minor Development Located at 312 E. Hyman Avenue recorded June 3, 1999 as Reception No. 431812. 14. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Agreement for Easement and Access recorded July 25, 2001 as Reception No. 456846 P249 IV.B. 3 Active/43775075.1 15. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in the Crystal Palace Subdivision Plat recorded September 7, 2016 in Plat Book 115 at Page 58, and as Reception No. 631971. Sincerely, Curtis B. Sanders P250 IV.B. Exhibit 7P251IV.B. DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION: NAME, COMPANY, ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL Peak Hour Max Trips Generated MMLOS TDM Total Trips Mitigated AM -16.3 5 -1.76 3.24 0.00 Sara Adams BendonAdams 300 So. Spring St., #202 970-925-2855 sara@bendonadams.com Summary and Narrative: Narrative: 1/26/2017 300 East Hyman Avenue 300 East Hyman Avenue Trip Generation SUMMARY Trip Mitigation NET TRIPS TO BE MITIGATED Click on the "Generate Narrative" Button to the right. Respond to each of the prompts in the space provided. Each response should cover the following: 1.Explain the selected measure. 2.Call out where the measure is located. 3.Demonstrate how the selected measure is appropriate to enhance the project site and reduce traffic impacts. 4.Explain the Enforcement and Financing Plan for the selected measure. 5.Explain the scheduling and implementation responsibility of the mitigation measure. 6. Attach any additional information and a site map to the narrative report. Project Description In the space below provide a description of the proposed project. A 20 room hotel with restaurant and café on the ground level is proposed. The project incorporates a historic landmark (aka Crystal Palace) into the overall hotel proposal. MMLOS Include any additional information that pertains to the MMLOS plan in the space provided below. Sidewalks will be upgraded to meet Engineering Standards. TDM The project proposes onsite amenities. Describe the combination of amenities below. Providing a combination of creative onsite amenities reduces the need for SOV trips throughout the day. Services within the development that will reduce the need for auto trips include grocery, restaurant, recreation rental, dry cleaning, child care, bicycle repair stations, etc. A combination of amenities is required. A restaurant and café are part of the proposed project. Dry cleaning services will be available through the hotel. Exhibit 8 P252 IV.B. Explain the proposed trip reduction marketing/incentive program in the space provided. A trip reduction marketing programs should include a number of the following strategies: orientation to trip reduction programs and benefits; orientation to specific alternative transportation modes such as bus service information, bike/walk route maps, etc.; publishing of web or traditional informational materials; events and contests such as commuter fairs, new employee orientations, bike to work days, etc.; educational opportunities such bicycle commute/repair classes; web or traditional materials aimed at guests/customers such as bike/walk maps, free transit day passes, etc.; incentive programs such as prizes, rewards or discounts for alternative commuting. The operator of the hotel will provide transportation information in the employee orientation and in employee break rooms. Include any additional information that pertains to the TDM plan in the space provided below. Enter Text Here MMLOS Site Plan Requirements Include the following on a site plan. Clearly call out and label each measure. Attach the site plan to the TIA submittal. Slopes Between Back of Curb and Sidewalk 2% Slope at Pedestrian Driveway Crossings Pedestrian Directness Factor (See callout number 9 on the MMLOS sheet for an example) Enforcement and Financing Provide an overview of the Enforcement and Financing plan for the proposed transportation mitigation measures. Provide a monitoring and reporting plan. Refer to page 17 in the Transportation Analysis Guidelines for a list of monitoring plan requirements. Components of a Monitoring and Reporting Plan should include (1) Assessment of compliance with guidelines, (2) Results and effectiveness of implemented measures, (3) Identification of additional strategies, and (4) Surveys and other supporting data. The MMLOS measures are a requirement of building permit certificate of occupancy. The TDM measures will be the responsibility of individual tenants of the building. The owner or tenant will make a good faith effort to assess compliance and effectiveness of the implemented mesures and submit information to the City. Requirements of the TIA will be included in the lease agreements with the tenant(s). Scheduling and Implementation Responsibility of Mitigation Measures Provide an overview of the scheduling and implementation responsibility for the proposed transportation mitigation measures. The MMLOS measures are a requirement of building permit certificate of occupancy. The TDM measures will be the responsibility of individual tenants of the building. Monitoring and Reporting P253 IV.B. = input = calculation DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION: NAME, COMPANY, ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL Minor Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Total Commercial (sf)-9394.0 sf -14.71 -6.61 -21.32 -15.56 -23.33 -38.89 Free-Market Housing (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Affordable Housing (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lodging (Units)20 Units 2.85 2.15 5.00 3.22 2.98 6.20 Essential Public Facility (sf)0.0 sf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -11.86 -4.46 -16.32 -12.33 -20.36 -32.69 Land Use Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Commercial 2.27 0.69 0.31 4.14 0.4 0.6 Free-Market Housing 0.67 0.29 0.71 0.82 0.56 0.44 Affordable Housing 0.75 0.48 0.52 0.89 0.55 0.45 Lodging 0.25 0.57 0.43 0.31 0.52 0.48 Essential Public Facility 0.86 0.62 0.38 1.66 0.4 0.6 Net New Units/Square Feet of the Proposed ProjectProposed Land Use *For mixed-use (at least two of the established land uses) sites, a 4% reduction for AM Peak-Hour and a 14% reduction for PM Peak-Hour is applied to the trip generation. Sara Adams BendonAdams 300 So. Spring St., #202 970-925-2855 sara@bendonadams.com Trip Generation 1/26/2017 AM Peak Average PM Peak Average Trips Generated AM Peak-Hour PM Peak-Hour TOTAL NEW TRIPS ASSUMPTIONS ASPEN TRIP GENERATION Is this a major or minor project? 300 East Hyman Avenue 300 East Hyman Avenue Instructions: IMPORTANT: Turn on Macros: In order for code to run correctly the security settings need to be altered. Click "File" and then click "Excel Options." In the "Trust Center"category, click "Trust Center Settings", and then click the "Macro Settings"category. Beneath "Macro Settings" select "Enable all Macros." Sheet 1. Trip Generation: Enter the project's square footage and/or unit counts under Proposed Land Use. The numbers should reflect the net change in land use between existing and proposed conditions. If a landuse is to be reduced put a negative number of units or square feet. Sheet 2. MMLOS: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable under each of the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections.Points are only awarded for proposed (not existing) and confirmed aspects of the project. Sheet 3. TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Sheet 4. Summary and Narrative: Review the summary of the project's mitigated trips and provide a narrative which explains the measures selected for the project. Click on "Generate Narrative" and individually explain each measure that was chosen and how it enhances the site or mitigates vehicle traffic. Ensure each selected measure make sense Minor Development -Inside the Roundabout Major Development -Outside the Roundabout Helpful Hints: 1.Refer to the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for information on the use of this tool. 2.Refer to TIA Frequently Asked Questions for a quick overview. 2.Hover over red corner tags for additional information on individual measures. 3.Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not receive credit for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context of project location and future use. Transportation Impact Analysis TIA Frequently Asked Questions P254 IV.B. = input = calculation 5 Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 1 Does the project propose a detached sidewalk where an attached sidewalk currently exists? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard minimum widths? No 0 2 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width greater than the standard minimum width?No 0 3 Does the project propose a landscape buffer greater than the standard minimum width?Yes 5 5 4 Does the project propose a detached sidewalk on an adjacent block? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard minimum widths? No 0 5 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width on an adjacent block greater than the standard minimum width?No 0 6 Is the proposed landscape buffer on an adjacent block greater than the standard minimum width?No 0 0 7 Are slopes between back of curb and sidewalk equal to or less than 5%?Yes 0 8 Are curbs equal to (or less than) 6 inches?Yes 0 9 Is new large-scale landscaping proposed that improves the pedestrian experience? Properties within the Core do not have ample area to provide the level of landscaping required to receive credit in this category. No 0 10 Does the project propose an improved crosswalk? This measure must get City approval before receiving credit. No 0 0 11 Are existing driveways removed from the street?No 0 12 Is pedestrian and/or vehicle visibility unchanged by new structure or column?Yes 0 13 Is the grade (where pedestrians cross) on cross-slope of driveway 2% or less?Yes 0 14 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian access points from the ROW? This includes improvements to ADA ramps or creating new access points which prevent pedestrians from crossing a street. No 0 15 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian or bicyclist interaction with vehicles at driveway areas?No 0 0 16 Is the project's pedestrian directness factor less than 1.5?Yes 0 17 Does the project propose new improvements which reduce the pedestrian directness factor to less than 1.2? A site which has an existing pedestrian directness factor less than 1.2 cannot receive credit in this category. No 0 18 Is the project proposing an off site improvement that results in a pedestrian directness factor below 1.2?* No 0 19 Are traffic calming features proposed that are part of an approved plan (speed humps, rapid flash)?*No 0 0 20 Are additional minor improvements proposed which benefit the pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff? No 0 21 Are additional major improvements proposed which benefit the pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff? No 0 0 5Pedestrian Total* MMLOS Input Page Subtotal SubtotalSidewalk Condition on Adjacent BlocksSidewalk Condition on Project FrontageSubtotal Instructions: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable to each measure under the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections. Subtotal Subtotal PedestriansSubtotalAdditional Proposed ImprovementsTOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS MITIGATED:Pedestrian RoutesTraffic Calming and Pedestrian NetworkDriveways, Parking, and Access ConsiderationsP255 IV.B. Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 22 Is a new bicycle path being implemented with City approved design?No 0 23 Do new bike paths allow access without crossing a street or driveway?No 0 24 Is there proposed landscaping, striping, or signage improvements to an existing bicycle path?No 0 25 Does the project propose additional minor bicycle improvements which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0 26 Does the project propose additional major bicycle improvements which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0 0 Bicycle Parking27 Is the project providing bicycle parking?No 0 0 0 Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 28 Is seating/bench proposed?No 0 29 Is a trash receptacle proposed?No 0 30 Is transit system information (signage) proposed?No 0 31 Is shelter/shade proposed?No 0 32 Is enhanced pedestrian-scale lighting proposed?No 0 33 Is real-time transit information proposed?No 0 34 Is bicycle parking/storage proposed specifically for bus stop use?No 0 35 Are ADA improvements proposed?No 0 0 36 Is a bus pull-out proposed at an existing stop?No 0 37 Is relocation of a bus stop to improve transit accessibility or roadway operations proposed?No 0 38 Is a new bus stop proposed (with minimum of two basic amenities)?No 0 0 0 Bicycles Total* Transit Total*BicyclesModifications to Existing Bicycle PathsTransitBasic AmenitiesSubtotal Subtotal Enhanced AmenitiesSubtotal Subtotal P256 IV.B. Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will an onsite ammenities strategy be implemented?Yes Which onsite ammenities will be implemented?Hotel with Retail Servicing Will a shared shuttle service strategy be implemented?No What is the degree of implementation? What is the company size? What percentage of customers are eligible? 3 Nonmotorized Zones Will a nonmotorized zones strategy be implemented?No 0.00% 10.00% Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will a network expansion stragtegy be implemented?No What is the percentage increase of transit network coverage? What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips? Will a service frequency/speed strategy be implemented?No What is the percentage reduction in headways (increase in frequency)? What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips? What is the level of implementation? Will a transit access improvement strategy be implemented?No What is the extent of access improvements? 7 Intercept Lot Will an intercept lot strategy be implemented?No 0.00% 0.00% Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will there be participation in TOP?No What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a transit fare subsidy strategy implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligible? What is the amount of transit subsidy per passenger (daily equivalent)? Is an employee parking cash-out strategy being implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a workplace parking pricing strategy implemented?No What is the daily parking charge? What percentage of employees are subject to priced parking? Is a compressed work weeks strategy implemented?No What percentage of employees are participating? What is the workweek schedule? Is an employer sponsered shuttle program implemented?No What is the employer size? What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a carpool matching strategy implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligble? Is carshare participation being implemented?No How many employee memberships have been purchased? What percentage of employees are eligble? Is participation in the bikeshare program WE-cycle being implemented?No How many memberships have been purchased? What percentage of employees/guests are eligble? Is an end of trip facilities strategy being implemented?No What is the degree of implementation? What is the employer size? Is a self-funded emergency ride home strategy being implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a carpool/vanpool priority parking strategy being implemented?No What is the employer size? What number of parking spots are available for the program? Is a private employer shuttle strategy being implemented?No What is the employer size? What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a trip reduction marketing/incentive program implemented?Yes What percentage of employees/guests are eligible?100% 0.87% 10.00% 10.78% 1.22% work trips represents a mixed-used site (SF Bay Area Travel Survey). See Assumptions Tab for more detail. Maximum Reduction Allowed in CategoryTransit System Improvements Strategies1 2 4 5 6 8 9 10 4.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Bikeshare Program 0.00% TDM Input Page 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Commute Trip Reduction Programs StrategiesOnsite Servicing Shared Shuttle Service Neighborhood/Site Enhancements Strategies10.00% 0.00% Network Expansion Service Frequency/Speed Transit Access Improvement Participation in TOP Transit Fare Subsidy Employee Parking Cash-Out Workplace Parking Pricing Compressed Work Weeks Employer Sponsored Vanpool Carpool Matching Carshare Program Self-funded Emergency Ride Home Carpool/Vanpool Priority Parking Private Employer Shuttle Trip Reduction Marketing/Incentive Program End of Trip Facilities Cross Category Maximum Reduction, Neighborhood and Transit Global Maximum VMT Reductions 11 12 13 14 15 21 16 17 18 19 20 Instructions TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not receive credit for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context of project location and future use. P257 IV.B. Exhibit 9 P258 IV.B. P259 IV.B. P260 IV.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 17 recommended by staff. Motion second by Bob. Clarifications of the conditions. 1. HPC is in support of having the connector at grade. 2. No exit stair should be approved at this time. 3,4, ok 5. The two year audit is recommended. 6,7,8, ok 9. There is a minimal impact on the view plane in Option B. John said after the site visit he found that the buildings behind the story polls are encroaching on the view plane far greater than what is being proposed. Bob said the story polls which we asked for and got really made it clear that any obstructions to the traditional view plane are from other buildings not from this potential building. Jim said that should be inherent in the motion. Roll call vote: Nora , Option A with no connector, no; Bob, yes; Jim, yes; Jon, yes; Gretchen, no; Patrick, no, Willis, yes. Motion carried 4-3 300-312 E. Hyman Ave. – Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Demolition, Public Hearing Jim recused himself Nora recused herself John recused himself, conflicted within 300 feet Debbie said the affidavit of posting has been provided. – Exhibit I Amy said the property is a 9,000 square foot lot which is composed of the Crystal Palace building and a small one story commercial space next to it. The applicant proposes to demolish 2/3rds of the exiting construction peeling back to the original footprint of the Crystal Palace bldg. The property was landmarked in the 1980’s; however, it has gone through numerous changes through its history. The Sanborn map shows the 3,000 square foot lot in the 1800’s. There some photographs from that time period showing the building we are preserving and an adjacent building very similar in size and design that used to sit next to it that was demolished many years ago. Around the 1930’s the building started to deteriorate and Exhibit 10 P261 IV.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 18 the roof collapsed and the owners at the time the Midnight Mine Co. decided to try and put a pitched type roof on it and continued to use the structu re. In the 1960’s Mead Metcalf acquired the building and began to operate the Crystal Palace dinner theatre. About a decade after that he began a more dramatic renovation of the building to what we see today. It appears that the ground floor was preserved facing Hyman and Monarch Street and altered everything from there up. The cigar mural is a 19th century mural that has been preserved and repainted by Gard Moses. The top of the mural comes up to the bottom of the stone ceils of the upper floor windows. The window ceil then jumps up a couple feet and there are new details that are added which are a few rows of corbeled brick. This seems to indicate the transition point and above that the building was reconstructed. Window locations and proportions all changed. Really the 19th century resource is just the ground floor on Hyman and Monarch. From the eastern edge of the historic resource toward the Wheeler Opera House they plan on taking down everything. On the corner they plan to keep the building essentially as it is even though it was altered at some point in time. Amy said the building is being turned into a small lodge and that is something the City encourages. Because they are doing that there are exceptions an allowances. The building is allowed to be three stories tall where other uses can only be two stories tall. The applicant is intending to peel back to the historic structure which has been altered and add on from there. One of the staff’s recommendation is that there be a more clear dillenation where the structure ends. On the ground floor with the masonry store fronts bleeding across onto the new construction is confusing. We don’t want to see any confusion about what is old and what is new. That demarcation is important. One option would be to do an offset in the wall plane between the new and old. There are height limits with each story. The two story elements of the new construction cannot be any taller than 28 feet. The design in the packet the applicant aligned their two story element with the existing parapet height of the Crystal Palace and that is over the height limit of 29 feet. That needs to be reduced and the applicant sent a revised drawing as an exhibit. On the Monarch Street side you see a three story expressing of the addition that is being proposed. The staff recommendation is to create a break line so that the third floor sets back from the second floor, an off set. The third issue is the roof deck. The proposal is to have commercial space on the ground floor which would be a restaurant and lobby etc. The second floor is all lodge rooms and part of the third floor is lodge rooms. There is also a large outdoor deck with south facing exposure. P262 IV.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 19 The applicant is proposing a railing which is required to protect the pool area all the way around the perimeter. In the renderings it appears that the railing is very visible from the street. We feel that on top of the resourc e it should be pulled back a little bit not only because it has a visual impact but having the continuous railing wrapping around the building doesn’t provide the break separating the new from the old, defining the historic resource. Sara said the first issue deals with parking. There are currently 4 on-site parking space that are accessed from the alleyway. The applicant is proposing to remove these spaces with the redevelopment of the site and they aren’t replacing them. The amount net leasable commercial space that is being added to the site is decreasing so there is no new onsite parking required. The code does not require onsite parking for lodge uses in the commercial core zone district. The applicant will be required to mitigate for the removal of the four existing spaces and this can be done through a payment-in-lieu. The trash utility area is being re-worked and the concerns have been alleviated. There is a transformer along the alley and the applicant is working with the Engineering Dept. and the size might need to be increased which will be settle before final. Amy addressed the public amenity. The requirement is 10% of the size of the lot which is 900 square feet for open space or an equilivant cash-in-lieu solution. Staff recommends the cash-in-lieu solution. The applicant will be making improvements to the streetscape. Gretchen asked for clarification about the height limit. Amy said they are allowed because the use of the building is entirely lodge and directly related amenities. That allows them the possibility of a third floor and they are on the north side of the street. This is in the commercial core zone district. Not long ago the downtown height limit was 40 feet and it was reduced to 28 feet. Specific relief was left in place for lodges because we need them. Amy pointed out that the drawings in the packet do show alterations to the historic piece of the building and we have some initial objections that will be addressed at final. There are some new window openings on the second floor facing Monarch that need to be discussed. P263 IV.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 20 Gretchen asked if the direction is to restore the building to the closest accuracy. Amy said that would be ideal but that is not being proposed. We can’t ask someone to expand their scope of work beyond what they had in mind. You can encourage restoration. We don’t want to see more confusing changes made. Applicant: Mark Hunt, owner; Dwayne Romero, Mitch Haas Mitch said the building is 9,000 square feet all designated historic. The building on the eastern side is 3,000 square feet and was added and it is not historic. Mitch gave an overview of the streetscape on Monarch and Hyman. Mitch said on the Hyman side we are not proposing to change the streetscape but we will focus on Monarch Street. It is a “mess” for pedestrian environment given the existing conditions. The sidewalk is cracked etc. and that is where we will improve the public right-of-way. The street trees are also crowding. The public amenity of the code talks about on-site improvements or improvements to the adjacent public-right-of-way. Our proposal is to not pay cash in-lieu and to improve the public right-of- way. Our requirement is 900 square feet and we are showing about 1300 square feet of improvements in the public right-of-way. We would straighten out the sidewalk and put in street trees with walkways that get you out to the parking. We would also fix the drainage going into the alley. Mitch said on the historic portion the top floor had openings and the ground floor had a large opening and other openings. At some point the roof collapsed and a shed pitched roof was put on. In the 60’s store fronts were added and the upper floor changed. Mead Metcalf did changes to the top floor and added punched openings and a brick banding. The non-historic addition in the back will be removed. Mark Hunt explained the design intent. There are inherent challenges adding to an existing historic building. The palace has gone through several remodels over time. Our design goals are to respect the existing structure as people know it today. We want to design the addition with minimal impact. We are interlocking the two masses without diluting the architecture of the palace to unite the old and new. Our major material selection is steel and P264 IV.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 21 glass and clean understated detailing to not distract from the palace. We feel the height, scale and massing proposed are consistent and compatible with the resource and with the applicable design guidelines. Mitch said we have reduced the height to 28 feet. Om the Monarch side we have widened the horizontal beam to differentiate the ground and second floor from the third floor. Mark said the glass guardrail is set back on the historic resource on Hyman and Monarch and will be completely invisible. The rail is set back 42 inches from the façade of the building. Amy brought up delineating the eastern edge of the historic resource through a modest change in the wall plane. With that we would like HPC to reconsider that recommendation. We want to maintain the brick extension as rendered in order to be true to the design. We would rather not create a visual break between the same materials just for the sake of doing so. It would be detrimental to the design. We have reduced the height to the required 28 feet. Regarding the break line we have increased the depth of the steel beam which provides a visual break and is consistent with the steel and glass throughout. Staff said they would like to see a deeper offset of the addition on the Monarch alley corner. We are currently proposing 2’4” back which hopefully satisfied the concern. By reducing the length of the existing masonry wall and creating the proposed offset we are restoring the ability to read the original building dimension on Monarch. The last was pull the roof deck railing further back from the edge. The setback as proposed is 42 inches which is what the code requires. We also plan to use in addition to this low iron ultra clear glass panels which will be virtually invisible from any perspective. We are proposing a different preservation philosophy to the Crystal Palace because it is a special building that has evolved over time to the point that the community would be surprised to learn of its original appearance. The Crystal Palace has had an array of front façade appearances. In this situation we feel it important to honor the evolution of the building rather than erase the building’s history but adapting to its use. The proposal clearly delineates new from old while preserving the original scale of the landmark and retains the extended first floor that the community has come to so appreciate with the Crystal Palace. Dwayne Romero said they believe the application is a creative repurposing of a valuable historic asset for the community. The building has been sitting vacant for 5 years. The lodge purpose itself is a creative use of an historic asset to bring it back to a public use. We look for fun uses that bring visitors P265 IV.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 22 and guests to our lovely town of Aspen. We are trying to make sure that the historic asset is honored and any and all additions are trying to celebrate it. The design intent, massing, scale, proportions and the overall movements of the planes make this a creative and thoughtful application. Two new elevations – Exhibit II, III Bob said as this project moves ahead we need to communicate this to the public. A lot of the public view the existing building having been there forever. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Jim Curtis said he has been a tenant on the Crystal Palace building on and off for over 20 years. I do not know Mr. Hunt and he doesn’t know me. No one on Mr. Hunts development team asked me to be here tonight to speak. I am hear as a private citizen that thinks the Crystal Palace is a wonderful great building. I am here to compliment Mr. Hunt and the development team. The plan is extremely creative concept for the building. This is a good application. As a person who has been associated with the building for over 20 years I can sincerely say it needs a lot of TLC. In the last 7 years the building has deteriorated physically and socially and it has been sad to see. This is an opportunity in a creative way which is good for the community to bring new life into a building that needs new life. Applicant rebuttal Mitch said on Hyman will be the lobby and entrance to the hotel. Monarch and Hyman corner will be a restaurant space on the ground floor and hopefully outside seating. Willis outline the issues: Public amenity: 1300 square feet of public amenity is being proposed on the Monarch Street side. Lowering the height to 28 feet: Willis said they have revised the drawings to reflect the 28 feet. Guardrail: The guardrail is now submerged behind the cornice line and you don’t see it. P266 IV.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 23 Articulation of the third floor toward the Rustique side on Monarch was a question. Willis said the applicant addressed that with a revised elevation drawing. Break line on the east side of the historic resource suggested by staff. Amy suggested a break either a step back or a change in materials something that says historic building/new construction. Gretchen said her concern is the bleeding of the façade over. The openings are not the same size to the non-historic part that you are claiming to be historic and its not. The historic openings are really the corner piece. The new addition needs to have a serious relief to allow that beautiful cornice that sits out four feet to return back to some kind of ending. The relationship of the new building to the old building seems messy. The cornice turns on the east side but ends on the east side. The building needs a little more articulation and should be restored to its original façade. On the east side there is not enough articulation between what is old and what is new. The building looks good but in terms of preservation it hasn’t been taken far enough. The detailing of the cornice will get lost. Maye the corner shouldn’t die into a window. The two windows on the right mimic the historic windows but are smaller. The lowering of the railing is good and it will not be visible. Hopefully the outdoor seating on the Monarch side will work out. Amy said Gretchen is wanting a meaningful return on the east side so that you feel like there is a three dimensional historic building. Bob clarified that Gretchen would like to see a line of demarcation between old and new. There will be a new brick façade. The suggestion is doing some differential with materials, setback or whatever to show that this is not the original, the two window bays. Mark pointed out that the bleeding is what is there. So the fear is if you take that down you are ruining the façade. Willis commented that it will be great to get some life back to this part of town and the use is welcomed and needed by the community. There is a hodge/podge of iterations over time and what is historically true is one story of brick. They have taken the right approach to what the community thinks is the best interest in preserving Aspen’s character. It is delightful that they P267 IV.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 24 are still going to call it the Crystal Palace. Their approach and the bleed is appropriate. Maybe see the layered approach on the building of the history, i.e the three corbels at the band that are painted black now. In terms of mass and scale it is well composed. Bob said he can see something happening and that is up to the design team to differentiate what is old and what is new but you have the contiguous materials etc. Most people think what the Crystal Palace was is historic. Patrick said the revitalization of the west side is needed and that side doesn’t get any sun. Regarding the context everyone knows that the four bays are the Crystal Palace. The new part should be pushed back so you can see a distinct cornice of the southeast corner on the second floor. Take everything that is black, the second floor bays and the two first floor bays and push them all back about four feet. That would radically separate the new from old. Dwayne commented that the doors are 6’8” back. Bob said he likes the entire concept of the project and these are small details that can be worked out. Willis said what we don’t see are the adjacent buildings. MOTION: Patrick made the motion to approve resolution #9, 2016 granting conceptual design approval for the project as amended. Amy went over the conditions: Demolition approval; public amenity to be mitigated by right-of-way improvements to be further reviewed by Engineering and Parks. A transportation impact be completed for final review. The applicant feels they are exempt from their requirements but our department feels they need to go through the exercise because there are small components of the transportation impact analysis that they may be subject to. Mitigate for the removal of four on-site existing parking spaces and submit for final review within one year of the state. Patrick said moving off the street of the two bays on the east and the four bays above it on the east. Gretchen said we don’t want to spell out what they need to do. P268 IV.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 25 Willis said we don’t want to design for them. Patrick clarified for final that more delineation of old from new be addressed. Willis said he heard the separation of a plane between the new glass and steel façade from the historic brick fabric. We aren’t concerned about the delineation of the east. Amy clarified that you are asking for some restudy of the setback of the new metal façade from the masonry. Amy said our recommendation is to create the break point at the edge of the historic building. It isn’t to push back the metal façade because you will end up with something different. Gretchen said she is saying restudy a stronger delineation from old and new. Debbie Quinn said add at final better delineation old from new. Patrick added at final better delineation old verses new. Willis clarified that the old is all the brick and the new is the black. Bob clarified that having some statement with the “less” old to differentiate but maintain the character including the brick. The two bays of brick is what people see. We are going to open up pandora’s box if we start messing with that. Amy said Bob is saying there should be some vertical distinction but not so dramatic. Gretchen said visually it looks like an old façade on a new building. If it could be richer with history and having some depth. Bob said the reference books have changed numerous times on this building. Amy said if we do the break line as suggested by staff we are actually making that up also. P269 IV.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 26 Bob said the city wants this kind of building to be a real draw. This building is unique and lets get something here that we can respect and use and is up to date functionally. Bob said making some definition there is appropriate. Amy said we have a condition at final to better delineate old from new. Patrick accepted Amy’s statement for the motion. Motion second by Bob. Roll call vote: Bob, yes; Gretchen, yes; Patrick, yes; Willis, yes. Motion carried 4-0. MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by Gretchen. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P270 IV.B. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 25, 2016 10 Councilman Frisch moved to remand back to HPC for rehearing and reconsider of option A and restudy a non-connector option; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor except Councilman Daily. Motion carried. CALL UP – HPCs Approval of Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Demolition for 300-312 E. Hyman Avenue, Crystal Palace, HPC Resolution #9, Series of 2016 Ms. Simon, told the Council, on March 9th HPC granted conceptual design approval, conceptual commercial design review and demolition approval for a project located on the property we know as the Crystal Palace. This includes the dinner theater building and the one story structure to the east. At the call up notice we talked about how the building has changed over the years. On the corner of the site there is a Victorian era structure that has been heavily remodeled when Mead Metcalf created the Crystal Palace. He reconstructed the upper floor of the historic building and added on to it in a Victorian style. In terms of 19th century construction really it is just the ground floors facing Monarch and Hyman. HPC talked about what should we preserve and landed on the middle ground. There is a certain respect for this building. The applicant is removing enough of the existing redevelopment to go back to the footprint of the Victorian but keeping everything about the corner structure. They are making an addition to convert the property to a lodge. Because it is a 100 percent lodge on the north side of the street it is permitted to be three stories tall. The ground floor has a restaurant and common space. The second floor has 14 lodge rooms and the upper floor has two lodge rooms and an outdoor bar and pool. The applicant described how they would address other code requirements including trash, public amenity, utility and parking. The property right now has no onsite public amenity or open space. The applicant is required to meet the minimum of 10 percent or 900 square feet of amenity space. HPC talked about options of providing some amount on site and agreed with the applicant that the best thing to do would be street scape improvements. This will be provided by upgraded sidewalks particularly on the Monarch side. They are also upgrading the trash and public amenity in a way supported by environmental health. They are providing an onside transformer. There will be no parking on site. Currently there are four onsite spaces that they can pay cash in lieu to remove. The existing Crystal Palace is under parked for what is required today. The new project will not make that any worse. The project reduces the net leasable on the site so the applicant does not owe any more parking. Other things that came up during the notice were the transition between the more historic and the new construction. The brick façade bleeds over to the metal façade. HPC talked about a more distinct vertical separation. Council asked about what can go on the roof deck in terms of structure. HPC will look at that at final and can control the placement of built in planters and features. The HPC vote was unanimous 4 to 0. One member had a conflict and two members were ill and had to leave the meeting. They were all very supportive of the project with the one condition. Mitch Haas, representing the applicant, gave a history of the building. It has been changed many times over the years. He showed images of the original building. The roof collapse in the 1950’s and it had a barn door in the front. The barn door was changed to a store front window between 1950 and 1957. In 1962 there were more openings on the second floor and the mural is still there. In 1966 there were two store front windows and regular spacing of windows on the second floor. In 1980 the Mead Metcalf remodel with five punched openings on the second floor. Another remodel in 1991. While maybe today it is not historic, people relate the second floor to the Crystal Palace with a 60 foot brick bay. He showed images of the proposed design. Exhibit 11 P271 IV.B. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 25, 2016 11 Mark Hunt, owner, said he has a different type of preservation philosophy for this site. It is important to honor the evolution of the building rather than adapting to its use. This delineates the new from the old while preserving the scale of the landmark. There are inherent challenges when adding on to this building. As it stands today it is in a very different condition but he wants to blend the new with the old with minimal impact to the Palace. The new structure gently cradles the Palace on both sides without diminishing its proud structure. It is clean and understated and not meant to distract from the Palace. The addition is not just adding a steel building with no real purpose. For a large part of its history it was a mining supply company. The steel is a play on a mining structure. It is lower and set back from the original asset. The façade on Hyman is the main façade. They looked at the 30 foot grid and want to interlock the two structures. The corner of Hyman and Monarch is the first 30 foot grid. The middle 30 feet is the transition and the last 30 feet is set back and the 30 feet of new. HPC bought in to that philosophy. We took it as we would preserve the building as is. We thought adding a different material would be a mistake but we are looking at it. Another comment was the alley treatment. We want the building to hold together. Down Monarch where it originally ended it is setback two and a half feet. As you wrap the alley we struggled with what do you put on the face of the alley. We felt the panels would be successful. I think it needs to be contemporary. Lastly is parking. We don’t need it per code but it is tricky. It doesn’t matter what the code say with how many spots you need it is the guest experience. We will find parking for it. It is a 60 percent occupied town, 10 rooms at any given time. 30 percent will be drivers or three cars. It is a great building that has been sitting dormant for 10 years. It is an opportunity to bring life to this building, engaging the street and the building. We are very excited and proud of this application and honored to continue the evolution of the Crystal Palace. Councilman Frisch said the applicant is right. Rarely do I look at a bunch of pictures and say the 1980’s version is the best. Just because it is historic doesn’t mean it is right. Most people, if you ask will say that second part of the building is part of the Palace and trying to honor that part of the building is important. His biggest personal bummer is the loss of the red awnings. He is glad we are having the chance to have a discussion about it. He would like to see the top right corner be a little softer. The biggest thing is the middle section has relevance to the community. He is glad the sidewalk is going to be cleaned up. There is the ability to make it a better pedestrian experience. Is any of the parking going to be changed as far as a loading zone. Ms. Simon replied they have not got there yet. Councilman Frisch said it is just not great to see a 4 to 0 decision. Unanimous is great but 4 to 0 is not. He is having trouble coming up with a reason to remand this. Councilman Daily stated he likes this project. It does some really nice things to this building. It revives it. It has nice historic context to it. It is a continuation of the older and newer look. The third floor is set back and not impactful. It is a very appealing building. It is revitalizing this section of town and a nice revival. He is not concerned with the parking result. The code doesn’t require it. There is not going to be a large demand from the users. He is not supportive of sending it back on a remand. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. 1. Junee Kirk said she is concerned the fenestration to the steel windows has changed. She thought the entire outside had to stay as they are now. She suggested the entire façade be kept as is. Everyone is sick and tired of seeing boxes. If they are going to be boxes then lower the second one. She is more concerned with maintaining the integrity of the Crystal Palace itself and the use of steel. 2. Jim Curtis said he thinks it is a great project. The interplay of the different materials is delightful. The old and new is what you envision when you think about the Crystal Palace. The building is in terrible P272 IV.B. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 25, 2016 12 shape and needs some TLC. That side of town is absolutely dead and needs some social interaction. It is a great plan. It will be a wonderful amenity for the whole town. Mayor Skasron closed public comment. Ms. Simon said this is conceptual review, mass for shape and the box. HPC has not reviewed fenestration. We clearly want new construction to read as new. We want to show how the town has changed over time. HPC is looking for certain proportions. Metal is certainly a historic element over town. Councilman Frisch said the bottom left section is most historic. If that is most historic the windows are changed a bunch. Ms. Simon stated none of those windows or doors are historic. Except for those sections of masonry, none of the windows and doors are historic. They cannot change the size of the openings. The building on the corner is a reconstruction of what was there at the time. It is pretty unique. Councilwoman Mullins said the way Mark explained the 30 feet makes sense. Having the return exposed makes a big difference. Referencing the windows, if we can give a few suggestions to study the fenestration that people have been use to for 40 years. For parking, she is happy to see less parking than more. She would rather see the lodge provide alternative transportation. For public amenity, the alley is pathetic and this is a great trade off. The alley is an active part of the city too. There is no relationship with what is in the back to with what is in the front. It doesn’t work to restore just two sides. It is a great project. She is very excited to see this project. Mayor Skadron said it is a lower height and setback for the new. Mr. Haas said it is 1.4 foot lower than the historic. Mayor Skadron said they have done a good job honoring the buildings history. He is not bothered with retaining the historic first floor towards the new. He does have a slight concern when trying to speak to our mining history. The sidewalk, are you proposing pavers. Mr. Hunt said he would love to see brick to the alley. Mayor Skadron asked what is the public amenity. Mr. Haas replied the Monarch sidewalk. Mayor Skadron asked is the size of the openings the same as the original. Mr. Haas replied yes. Mayor Skadron said regarding the fenestrations it would be my preference to not tend towards the suburban mall high end. Councilman Frisch moved to uphold the HPC decision with a condition to consider comments on fenestrations and the alley; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Daily moved to adjourn at 9:20 p.m.; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning, City Clerk P273 IV.B. Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the margins such that they no longer line up on the labels sheet. Print actual size. From Parcel: 273707338009 on 01/24/2017 Instructions: Disclaimer: http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com Exhibit 12 P274 IV.B. 305-7 MILL STREET LLC CHICAGO, IL 60614 2001 NORTH HALSTED #304 CITY OF ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81611 130 S GALENA ST HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP INC PHOENIX, AZ 85016 2710 E CAMELBACK RD STE 200 FREDRICK LARRY D ASPEN, CO 81611 215 S MONARCH ST #G101 ROBERTS JANET A ASPEN, CO 81611 215 S MONARCH ST #G101 MOJO ASPEN LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 215 S MONARCH #G102 CLARKS ASPEN LLC BLANDING , UT 84511 818 SOUTH MAIN ST GRAND SLAM HOLDINGS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 215 S MONARCH ST #101 ORR ROBERT L GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 2700 G ROAD #12A CLARK FAMILY TRUST ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 362 BRINING ROBERT D ASPEN, CO 81611 215 S MONARCH #203 PCU-5 LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 418 E COOPER AVE #201 HART GEORGE DAVID & SARAH SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 PO BOX 5491 BERNSTEIN JEREMY M PROFIT SHARING PLAN ASPEN, CO 81611 610 NORTH ST KELLY GARY ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 12356 DAVIDSON DONALD W ASPEN, CO 81611 864 CEMETERY LN 1000 EAST HOPKINS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 215 S MONARCH #104 BRINING ROBERT ASPEN, CO 81611 215 S MONARCH ST #203 DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED ASPEN, CO 81611 215 S MONARCH #104 GOODING NANCY A ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111 4800 S HOLLY ST TRUE JAMES R ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 2864 JOHNSON PETER C & SANDRA K ASPEN, CO 81611-1008 51 OVERLOOK DR PARK CENTRAL CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 215 S MONARCH ST STE 203 WENDELIN ASSOC PITTSFORD , NY 14534 1173 PITTSFORD VICTOR RD #250 FOOTLOOSE MOCCASIN MAKERS INC CANON CITY , CO 812129484 44 SILVERADO CT 400 EAST HYMAN LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 400 E HYMAN AVE # A202 MTN ENTERPRISES 80B EAGLE, CO 816315739 PO BOX 5739 DOLE MARGARET M ASPEN, CO 816111989 400 E HYMAN AVE #302 KANTZER TAYLOR FAM TRST #1 MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266 216 SEVENTEENTH ST 400 HYMAN LLC BOCA RATON, FL 33496 6829 QUEENFERRY CIR P275 IV.B. 400 HYMAN LLC RIFLE, CO 816500351 PO BOX 351 304 E HOPKINS HOLDINGS LLC CHICAGO, IL 60614 2001 N HOLSTED #304 PROSPECTOR FRACTIONAL OWNERS ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 301 E HYMAN AVE #108 ELLIOTT ELYSE A TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 610 NORTH ST COLLINS BLOCK LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 205 S GALENA ST GUNION JOHN F DAVIS, CA 95616 1004 MARINA CIR MOUNTAIN FORGE LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 3807 WELLS FARGO BANK CARLSBAD, CA 92018 PO BOX 2609 MILL STREET PLAZA ASSOC LLC ASPEN , CO 81611 602 E COOPER #202 WHEELER SQUARE - CASPER FAMILY LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 315 E HYMAN KAUFMAN GIDEON I ASPEN, CO 81611 315 E HYMAN AVE #305 VANOVER STEFANIE ASPEN, CO 81611 533 E HOPKINS AVE 407 HYMAN LLC GLENWOOD SPRINGS , CO 81601 51027 HWY 6 & 24 STE 100 RIVOLI INVESTMENTS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 533 E HOPKINS AVE 3RD FLR LARRABEE DONALD C JR COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80909 1417 POTTER DR STE 105 SHAW ROBERT FORT WORTH, TX 76107 5408 BIRCHMAN AVE DESOTO LINDA JANE LIVING TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 155 LONE PINE RD #9 GORDON BRIAN S FRANKLIN, MI 48025 26985 CRESTWOOD MORRONGIELLO LYDIA LIVING TRUST BOULDER , CO 80301 8109 WILLOW BEND CT FEDER HAROLD L & ZETTA F BOULDER, CO 80302-7550 985 CASCADE AVE DAVIDSON ARIAIL SCOTT ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 5141 BOND ANN SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85255 8602 E VISTA DEL LAGO PLACE PENNY L REV TRUST LITTLETON, CO 80121 5701 S COLORADO BLVD PLACE BRADLEY E JR REV TRUST LITTLETON, CO 80121 5701 S COLORADO BLVD BROWN SHANE & KRISTINE MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266 222 N DIANTHUS ST YOUNG BARBARA A ASPEN, CO 81611 210 E HYMAN #9 WHITMAN WENDALIN ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 472 WHITMAN WENDALIN ASPEN, CO 81611 210 E HYMAN AVE #101 IFTNFS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 0115 GLEN EAGLES DR BUSH ALAN DAVID ASPEN, CO 81611-3342 0046 HEATHER LN P276 IV.B. JMS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 0115 GLEN EAGLES DR GUTNER KENNETH H REV TRUST HIGHLAND PARK, IL 60035 260 N DEERE PARK DRIVE 201 EH INVESTMENTS LLC LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 10880 WILSHIRE BLVD #2222 COLLINS BLOCK CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 204 S MILL ST KATIE REED PLAZA CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 301 E HOPKINS AVE SEGUIN BUILDING CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 304 E HYMAN AVE PARK CENTRAL WEST CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 210 E HYMAN AVE JPS NEVADA TRUST HENDERSON, NV 89074 1701 N GREEN VALLEY PKWY #9C SHVACHKO NATALIA NEW YORK, NY 10022 35 SUTTON PL #19B SEDOY MICHAEL NEW YORK, NY 10022 35 SUTTON PL #19B 308 EAST HOPKINS CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 308 E HOPKINS AVE FIERCELY LOCAL ASPEN, CO 81611 328 E HYMAN AVE 314 HEXAGON LLC OLATHE, KS 66061 25880 W 104 TERR COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS MEDIA CO CARSON CITY, NV 89701 580 MALLORY WY 314-200 HEXAGON LLC OLATHE, KS 66061 25880 W 104 TERR MOTHER LODE CONDO ASSOC INC OLATHE, KS 66061 25880 W 104 TER 314-PH HEXAGON LLC OLATHE, KS 66061 25880 W 104 TERR MOTHER LODE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 314 E HYMAN AVE CLAUSEN FAMILY TRUST #1 MORRIS, IL 60450 900 W US ROUTE 6 JACOBSON FAMILY TRUST FALLBROOK, CA 92028 2168 SANTA MARGARITA DR AJAX JMG INVESTMENTS LLC BEVERLY HILLS, CA 902122974 9401 WILSHIRE BLVD 9TH FL LORING PETER & ELIZABETH S BOSTON, MA 02110 230 CONGRESS ST FYRWALD JON ERIK & GUDRUN HINSDALE , IL 60521 126 EAST HICKORY ST JAFFE JONATHAN & KAREN LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 88 EMERALD BAY DCBD2 LLC DALLAS, TX 75201 1601 ELM ST 8TH FL NEWMAN KERRY J & RICKI R NEWBURGH, IN 47630 617 PRINCE DR BOGIN ROBERT M EVERGREEN, CO 80439 4280 S MEADOW BROOK LN PRODINGER IRMA ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 1245 HOSKIN REEDE BASALT, CO 81621-2478 PO BOX 2478 KAUFMAN GIDEON I ASPEN, CO 81611 315 E HYMAN AVE STE 305 P277 IV.B. KEBER VINCENT M III DENVER, CO 80204 1301 WAZEE #2E KATIE REED BUILDING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 407 S HUNTER ST #3 RACZAK JOSEPH S & JANET L SNOWMASS, CO 81654 0234 LIGHT HILL RD CARRIGAN RICHARD A JR WARRENVILLE, IL 60555 2S526 WILLIAMS RD G & K LAND CO LLC CARBONDALE, CO 81623 0167 WILLOW LN LEATHERMAN ROBERT D ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 11930 PITNER N KATHRYN ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 11930 HOFFMAN JOHN L & SHARON R TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 214 E HOPKINS AVE 210 COOPER CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 210 E COOPER AVE THOR 228 S MILL ST LLC NEW YORK, NY 10018 25 W 39TH ST SHENNAN MELISSA A CHICAGO, IL 60610 1242 N LAKE SHORE DR #4S SCULL JAMES E ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 2051 LINDNER PROPERTIES LLC BELLEVUE, WA 98008 17017 SE 26TH ST STETSON WILLIS JR & SALLY NEWTOWN SQUARE, PA 19073 23 SLEEPY HOLLOW DR LEE FRANCIS A MOORESVILLE, NC 28117 706 NORMANDY WHEELER SQUARE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 315 E HYMAN AVE #305 ASPEN COMMERCIAL CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 307 S MILL ST ASPEN SKIING COMPANY LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 1248 LIMELIGHT SUB/PUD ASPEN, CO 81611 E HYMAN AVE TOM THUMB BUILDING CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 400 E HYMAN AVE P278 IV.B. Exhibit 13P279 IV.B. ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY01.23.17RAHPC FINAL REVIEWmodif.modif.1/23/2017 4:54:01 PMCS−113−440041.23.17COVER SHEET300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, COASPEN, COLOCAL JURISDICTION:THE CITY OF ASPEN130 S. GALENA STREETASPEN, CO 81611TEL (970) 429-2761CONTACT: BY DEPARTMENTARCHITECT:MODIF. ARCHITECTURE, LLC.1200 W. LAKE ST. SUITE 200CHICAGO, IL 60607TEL (312) 884-9583CONTACTS: STEPHEN COUGHLIN, RA OR ROB AVILA, RA, LEED APLANDLORD:300-312 EAST HYMAN ASPEN, LLC.2001 N. HALSTED ST., SUITE 304CHICAGO, IL 60614TEL (312) 850-1680CONTACT: JEFF RICHMANLAND PLANNER:BENDONADAMS, LLC300 S. SPRING ST. #202ASPEN, CO 81611TEL 970-925-2855CONTACT: SARA ADAMS, AICPVICINITY MAPNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONDRAWING LISTSHEET NUMBER SHEET NAMECS-1 COVER SHEET- IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLATEC-1 EXISTING CONDITION FLOOR PLANSEC-2 EXISTING CONDITION FLOOR PLANSEC-3 EXISTING CONDITION FLOOR PLANSPA-1 EXISTING PUBLIC AMENITYPA-2 PROPOSED PUBLIC AMENITYA-010 SITE PLANA-110 FLOOR PLANA-111 FLOOR PLANSA-112 FLOOR PLANSA-113 PROPOSED ROOF PLANFAR-1 FAR CALCULATIONSFAR-2 FAR CALCUALTIONSFAR-3 FAR CALCULATIONSNL-1 NET LEASABLE PLANSNL-2 NET LEASABLE PLANSNL-3 NET LEASABLE PLANSA-200 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA-210 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA-270 PROPOSED EXTERIOR LIGHTINGTIA TIA SITE PLANExhibit 14P280 IV.B. P281IV.B. P282IV.B. NET LEASABLE AREA: 1794 SFTOTAL COMMON AREA: 678 SFNET LEASABLE AREA 1794 SFCOMMON - 678 SFScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY01.23.17RAHPC FINAL REVIEWmodif.modif. 1/8" = 1’−0"1/21/2017 8:48:07 PMEC−113−440041.23.17EXISTING CONDITION FLOOR PLANS300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CONO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP283 IV.B. NET LEASABLE AREA: 7382 SFNET LEASABLE AREA - 7382 SFScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY01.23.17RAHPC FINAL REVIEWmodif.modif. 1/8" = 1’−0"1/21/2017 8:48:13 PMEC−213−440041.23.17EXISTING CONDITION FLOOR PLANS300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CONO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP284 IV.B. NET LEASABLE AREA: 3729 SFPATIO AREA: 540SFTOTAL NET LEASABLE: 3729 SFCOMMON AREA: 744 SFNET LEASABLE -2530 SFNET LEASABLE -1199 SFCOMMON - 755 SFScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY01.23.17RAHPC FINAL REVIEWmodif.modif. 1/8" = 1’−0"1/21/2017 8:48:16 PMEC−313−440041.23.17EXISTING CONDITION FLOOR PLANS300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CONO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP285 IV.B. 16.33 S.F. TREE GRATE16.33 S.F. TREE GRATE16.33 S.F. TREE GRATE16.33 S.F. TREE GRATE16.33 S.F. TREE GRATE16.33 S.F. TREE GRATE16.33 S.F. TREE GRATE19.95 S.F. TREE GRATE257.62 S.F. LANDSCAPING183.48 S.F. LANDSCAPING156.73 S.F. LANDSCAPINGEXISTING PUBLIC AMENITY SPACE = 0 SFScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY01.23.17RAHPC FINAL REVIEWmodif.modif. 3/32" = 1’−0"1/21/2017 8:48:27 PMPA−113−440041.23.17EXISTING PUBLIC AMENITY300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 3/32" = 1'-0"1EXISTING PUBLIC AMENITYCALCULATIONNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP286 IV.B. ADJACENT BUILDINGHYMAN AVENUEMONARCH STREETONE-WAY ALLEYEXIST. STREET PARKING300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.THREE STORYLODGEEXIST. STREET PARKINGOPEN TO SKY16' - 2"OPEN TO SKY10' - 0"TCOVERED TRASHAREA20' - 6"53' - 4"15' - 6"90' - 0"100' - 0"12' - 2"16' - 2"0' - 8"ALLEY DRAINAGE ISSUESWILL BE ADDRESSEDIN ENGINEERING PLANS BENCH WILL BEPROVIDED AT HUNTERCREEK BUS STOP -15' - 0"PROPOSED PUBLICAMENITY2,832 S.F.(RIGHT OF WAYIMPROVEMENTS)PROPOSED PLANTER, TYP.EXIST. TREETO REMAIN, TYP.OF 7 ALONGGALENA AVE.PROPOSED DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE, TYP.BENCH WILL BEPROVIDED AT HUNTERCREEK BUS STOP -PROPOSED TREE, TYP. OF 3(SILVACELL NOT REQ'D.)PROPOSED PAVERS INLANDSCAPE AREA, TYP.PROPOSED TREE GRATEPROPOSED LANDSCAPEPLANTER, TYP.EXIST. BRICKPAVERSPROPOSED CONC.WALKPROPOSED LANDSCAPEPLANTER, TYP.ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY01.23.17RAHPC FINAL REVIEWmodif.modif. 1/8" = 1’−0"1/21/2017 8:48:27 PMPA−213−440041.23.17PROPOSED PUBLIC AMENITY300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CON 1/8" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED PUBLIC AMENITY PLANNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP287 IV.B. ADJACENT BUILDINGHYMAN AVENUEMONARCH STREETONE-WAY ALLEYEXIST. STREET PARKINGPROPOSED PLANTER, TYP.EXIST. TREETO REMAIN, TYP.OF 7 ALONGGALENA AVE.300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.THREE STORYLODGEEXIST. STREET PARKINGPROPOSED DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE, TYP.OPEN TO SKY16' - 2"OPEN TO SKY10' - 0"T300 SFCOVERED TRASHAREA73' - 10"15' - 6"90' - 0"100' - 0"12' - 2"16' - 2"ALLEY DRAINAGE ISSUESWILL BE ADDRESSEDIN ENGINEERING PLANS BENCH WILL BEPROVIDED AT HUNTERCREEK BUS STOP -8' - 0"PROPOSED TREE, TYP. OF 3(SILVACELL NOT REQ'D.)3' - 9"PROPOSED PAVERS INLANDSCAPE AREA, TYP.8' - 2"8' - 0"PROPOSED TREE GRATEPROPOSED LANDSCAPEPLANTER, TYP.EXIST. BRICKPAVERSPROPOSED CONC.WALKPROPOSED LANDSCAPEPLANTER, TYP.8"4"O"2' - 10 1/2"3' - 4 1/2"ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY01.23.17RAHPC FINAL REVIEWmodif.modif. 1/8" = 1’−0"1/21/2017 8:47:59 PMA−01013−440041.23.17SITE PLAN300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 1/8" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED SITE PLANNNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONAWNING ABOVE, TYP.P288 IV.B. UPUPSTAIR #1L201STAIR #2L202ELEV.L203FRT. ELEV.L20490' - 0"100' - 0"783 SFMECHANICAL RM.L205776 SFMECHANICAL RM.L2066' - 0"4' - 0"6' - 0"16' - 6"533 SFPOOLMECHANICALL20786 SFEGRESSCORRIDORL20714' - 11"14' - 9 1/2"11' - 0"11' - 0"16' - 6"52' - 6 1/2"27' - 11 1/2"CORRIDORL200UNEXCAVATED AREAUNEXCAVATED AREAUNEXCAVATED AREAUNEXCAVATED AREAScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY01.25.17RAHPC FINAL REVIEWmodif.modif. 1/8" = 1’−0"1/26/2017 10:40:05 AMA−11013−440041.23.17FLOOR PLAN300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CON 1/8" = 1'-0"1LOWER LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLANNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP289 IV.B. UPUPUPDNUPDNDNUP90' - 0"100' - 0"23' - 5"FITNESSL100191 SFGUEST ROOM 18L101SPAL102WOMEN'SLOCKERL103RECEPTIONL104SHOWERL105SHOWERL106POOLL107SHOWERL108SHOWERL109RECEPTIONL110MEN'S LOCKERL111192 SFGUEST ROOM 20L112CORRIDORL114STAIR #1L117STAIR #2L118FRT. ELEV.L119ELEV.L12027' - 9 1/2"19' - 4"5' - 0"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"15' - 9 1/2"15' - 9 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"5' - 0"19' - 4"27' - 9 1/2"10' - 2"5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"10' - 10 1/2"14' - 11"10' - 10 1/2"5' - 0"9' - 3"23' - 4"14' - 11"17' - 3"21' - 6 1/2"43' - 11 1/2"21' - 6 1/2"14' - 11"5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"14' - 11"10' - 6"10' - 2"8' - 0"5' - 6"4' - 6"5' - 6"5' - 0"10' - 6"9' - 3"23' - 4"EGRESSCORRIDORL116JACUZZITUB10' - 1 1/2"8' - 0"18' - 11"34' - 2 1/2"192 SFGUEST ROOM 19121RESTAURANT110ELEV.119ELEV.118300 SFTRASH ANDUTILITY AREA103KITCHEN101STAIR #2113VESTIBLE108LOUNGE109ELEVATORLOBBY117DISPLAYKITCHEN100SHAREDWOMEN'SRESTROOM106SHARED MEN'SRESTROOM116CAFE107JAN.120EGRESSCORRIDOR111STAIR #1112OPEN TO BELOW100' - 0"90' - 0"26' - 5 1/2"17' - 7"5' - 0"19' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"16' - 2 1/2"10' - 0"5' - 0"30' - 0"28' - 9"11' - 4"16' - 1"13' - 0"21' - 8 1/2"9' - 7"5' - 0"19' - 0"15' - 10"15' - 8 1/2"11' - 0"11' - 3"9' - 6 1/2"8' - 1"8' - 1 1/2"24' - 0 1/2"4' - 6"RAMP DN.8"4"1' - 10"12' - 3"1' - 10"12' - 3"1' - 10"30' - 0"30' - 0"23' - 2"7' - 0"31' - 10 1/2"85' - 6"14' - 11"8' - 10 1/2"6' - 6"8' - 10 1/2"8' - 10 1/2"RAMP DN.208 SFGUEST ROOM 15105208 SFGUEST ROOM 16114208 SFGUEST ROOM 17115CORRIDOR10223' - 6 1/2"STORAGE104ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY01.25.17RAHPC FINAL REVIEWmodif.modif. 1/8" = 1’−0"1/26/2017 10:33:59 AMA−11113−440041.23.17FLOOR PLANS300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CONN 1/8" = 1'-0"1LOWER LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0"2GROUND FLOORAWNING ABOVE, TYP.NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP290 IV.B. DNUPDNUPPOOL67' - 5"FOLDINGDOORS12' - 7"23' - 7"BUILT IN LOUNGE SEATINGRAILING SETBACK3' - 6"ROOF ACCESSRAILINGPLANTING AREA , TYP.RAILINGRAILING623 SFSUITE 11300708 SFSUITE 14306878 SFSUITE 12303691 SFSUITE 13304CORRIDOR305ELEV.313ELEV.31479 SFEGRESSCORRIDOR310STAIR #1311STAIR #231214' - 11 1/2"19' - 8"26' - 5 1/2"26' - 4"35' - 0"30' - 5 1/2"6' - 4"5' - 10"38' - 0"FOLDINGDOORSOUTDOORCABANAOUTDOORCABANA14' - 7 1/2"30' - 1"7' - 11"28' - 1"26' - 7"2' - 4"24' - 11 1/2"31' - 3 1/2"791 SFSUITE 10213352 SFSUITE 52065' - 9"4' - 6"9' - 0"5' - 0"30' - 0"19' - 11"18' - 4"18' - 3"29' - 9"26' - 11"1001 SFSUITE 9212609 SFSUITE 8211562 SFSUITE 7210593 SFSUITE 6209424 SFSUITE 2203787 SFSUITE 1214CORRIDOR215EGRESSCORRIDOR216STAIR #2218STAIR #1217ELEV.219ELEV.2204' - 11 1/2"5' - 0"ROOF AREAGREEN ROOF AREA(664 S.F.)5' - 0"28' - 1"27' - 7"5' - 0"29' - 7"15' - 4 1/2"15' - 5"13' - 0"30' - 10 1/2"31' - 7"425 SFSUITE 3L212352 SFSUITE 4L21713' - 0"ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY01.25.17RAHPC FINAL REVIEWmodif.modif. 1/8" = 1’−0"1/26/2017 10:34:00 AMA−11213−440041.23.17FLOOR PLANS300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CONN 1/8" = 1'-0"33RD FLOOR 1/8" = 1'-0"12ND FLOORNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP291 IV.B. GREEN ROOF AREAMECHANICAL SCREENINGMECHANICAL SCREENINGMECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AREAGREEN ROOF AREA(2,378 S.F.)3RD FLOORPOOL AND DECK BELOWROOFACCESSEXIST.CORNICECABANA BELOWCABANA BELOW26' - 10 1/2"31' - 6"42' - 0 1/2"15' - 0 1/2"TOP OF ELEVATORSHAFTSGREEN ROOF AREA(94 S.F.)SCUPPER,TYP.ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY01.25.17RAHPC FINAL REVIEWmodif.modif. 1/8" = 1’−0"1/26/2017 10:34:00 AMA−11313−440041.23.17PROPOSED ROOF PLAN300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 1/8" = 1'-0"1ROOF PLANN 1/8" = 1'-0"2UPPER ROOF PLANNNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP292 IV.B. UPUPSTAIR #1L201STAIR #2L202ELEV.L203FRT. ELEV.L204MECHANICAL RM.L205MECHANICAL RM.L206POOLMECHANICALL207EGRESSCORRIDORL207NON- UNIT COMMON AREA LODGE 3,332 SF NON-UNIT COMMON AREA447 SF(EXEMPT)CORRIDORL200ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY01.25.17RAHPC FINAL REVIEWmodif.modif. 1/8" = 1’−0"1/26/2017 10:34:00 AMFAR−113−440041.23.17FAR CALCULATIONS300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CON 1/8" = 1'-0"1LOWER LEVEL 2 - FAR CALCULATIONSNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP293 IV.B. UPDNUPCOMMERCIAL AREA4,185 SFTRASH ANDUTILITY AREA103RESTAURANT110ELEV.118ELEV.119NON-UNIT COMMONAREA 2,544 SFNON-UNIT COMMONAREA LODGE 1,589 SFSTAIR #2113KITCHEN101VESTIBLE108LOUNGE109ELEVATORLOBBY117DISPLAYKITCHEN100CORRIDOR102SHAREDWOMEN'SRESTROOM106SHARED MEN'SRESTROOM116CAFE107JAN.120EGRESSCORRIDOR111STAIR #1112GUEST ROOM 15105GUEST ROOM 16114GUEST ROOM 17115STORAGE104LODGE AREA682 SFNON-UNIT COMMONAREA LODGE6,559 SF(EXEMPT)NON-UNIT COMMON AREA1,779 SF(EXEMPT)FITNESSL100GUEST ROOM 18L101SPAL102WOMEN'SLOCKERL103RECEPTIONL104SHOWERL105SHOWERL106POOLL107SHOWERL108SHOWERL109RECEPTIONL110MEN'S LOCKERL111GUEST ROOM 20L112CORRIDORL114STAIR #1L117STAIR #2L118FRT. ELEV.L119ELEV.L120EGRESSCORRIDORL116203 SFMEN'SRESTROOML122WOMEN'SRESTROOML123GUEST ROOM 19121LODGE AREA640 SFGROUND FLOOR0' - 0"2ND FLOOR13' - 4 1/2"LOWER LEVEL-14' - 8"14' - 8"73 SF OF EXPOSED WALLBELOW GRADENORTH GRADE-2' - 9"B/O POOL22' - 7"ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY01.25.17RAHPC FINAL REVIEWmodif.modif. 1/8" = 1’−0"1/26/2017 10:34:03 AMFAR−213−440041.23.17FAR CALCUALTIONS300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 1/8" = 1'-0"2MAIN FLOOR - FAR CALCULATIONS 1/8" = 1'-0"1LOWER LEVEL - FAR CALCULATIONS 1/8" = 1'-0"3WEST ELEVATION - FAR WALL AREANNNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP294 IV.B. DNDNNON-UNIT COMMONAREA 546 SFLODGE AREA6,556 SF ELEV.219ELEV.220SUITE 5206SUITE 10213ROOF AREANON- UNIT COMMON AREA LODGE 943 SF ROOF AREA664 SF(EXEMPT)STAIR #1217SUITE 9212SUITE 8211SUITE 7210SUITE 6209SUITE 1214SUITE 2203CORRIDOR215EGRESSCORRIDOR216STAIR #2218SUITE 3L212SUITE 4L217NON- UNIT COMMON AREA LODGE 727 SF LODGE AREA3,217 SF OUTDOORTERRACE2,998 SFPOOLSUITE 11300SUITE 14306SUITE 12303SUITE 13304CORRIDOR305ELEV.313ELEV.314EGRESSCORRIDOR310STAIR #1311STAIR #2312NON-UNIT COMMONAREA 546 SFScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY01.25.17RAHPC FINAL REVIEWmodif.modif. 1/8" = 1’−0"1/26/2017 10:34:04 AMFAR−313−440041.23.17FAR CALCULATIONS300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 1/8" = 1'-0"1SECOND FLOOR - FAR CALCULATIONS 1/8" = 1'-0"2THIRD FLOOR - FAR CALCULATIONSNNNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP295 IV.B. UPUPSTAIR #1L201STAIR #2L202ELEV.L203FRT. ELEV.L204783 SFMECHANICAL RM.L205776 SFMECHANICAL RM.L206533 SFPOOLMECHANICALL207617 SFCORRIDORL200ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY01.25.17RAHPC FINAL REVIEWmodif.modif. 1/8" = 1’−0"1/26/2017 10:34:04 AMNL−113−440041.23.17NET LEASABLE PLANS300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 1/8" = 1'-0"1LOWER LEVEL 2 - NET LEASABLENNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP296 IV.B. UPDNDNUPUPUPUPADJACENT BUILDING3,511 SFNET LEASABLE SPACETRASH ANDUTILITY AREA103RESTAURANT110ELEV.119ELEV.118STAIR #2113KITCHEN101VESTIBLE108LOUNGE109ELEVATORLOBBY117DISPLAYKITCHEN100CORRIDOR102SHAREDWOMEN'SRESTROOM106SHARED MEN'SRESTROOM116CAFE107JAN.120EGRESSCORRIDOR111STAIR #1112GUEST ROOM 15105GUEST ROOM 16114GUEST ROOM 17115STORAGE104LODGE AREA624 SFFITNESSL100GUEST ROOM 18L101SPAL102WOMEN'SLOCKERL103RECEPTIONL104SHOWERL105SHOWERL106POOLL107SHOWERL108SHOWERL109RECEPTIONL110MEN'S LOCKERL111GUEST ROOM 20L112CORRIDORL114STAIR #1L117STAIR #2L118FRT. ELEV.L119ELEV.L120EGRESSCORRIDORL116MEN'SRESTROOML122WOMEN'SRESTROOML123GUEST ROOM 19121LODGE AREA575 SFScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY01.25.17RAHPC FINAL REVIEWmodif.modif. 1/8" = 1’−0"1/26/2017 11:30:21 AMNL−213−440041.23.17NET LEASABLE PLANS300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 1/8" = 1'-0"2MAIN FLOOR - NET LEASABLEN 1/8" = 1'-0"1LOWER LEVEL - NET LEASABLENNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP297 IV.B. DNUPDNLODGE AREA5,896 SFELEV.219SUITE 10213SUITE 5206ELEV.220GREEN ROOFAREASTAIR #1217SUITE 9212SUITE 8211SUITE 7210SUITE 6209SUITE 1214SUITE 2203CORRIDOR215EGRESSCORRIDOR216STAIR #2218SUITE 3L212SUITE 4L217LODGE AREA2,900 SFOUTDOOR TERRACESUITE 11300SUITE 14306SUITE 12303SUITE 13304CORRIDOR305ELEV.313ELEV.314EGRESSCORRIDOR310STAIR #1311STAIR #2312ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY01.25.17RAHPC FINAL REVIEWmodif.modif. 1/8" = 1’−0"1/26/2017 11:30:21 AMNL−313−440041.23.17NET LEASABLE PLANS300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 1/8" = 1'-0"1SECOND FLOOR - NET LEASABLEN 1/8" = 1'-0"2THIRD FLOOR - NET LEASABLENNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP298 IV.B. GROUND FLOOR0' - 0"2ND FLOOR13' - 4 1/2"T/O EXIST.PARAPET29' - 5"3RD FLOOR26' - 7"PARAPET37' - 3"ELEVATOROVERRUN41' - 4"GLASS RAILING, TYP.EXPOSED STEEL DETAILING, TYP.METAL PANELFACADE, TYP.FLAT PLATE AWNING, TYP.INSULATED STOREFRONTSYSTEM, TYP.T/O GLASSRAILING30' - 1"METAL PANELFACADE, TYP.MECHANICAL SCREENINGFLOOR PLATE13' - 2 1/2"FLOOR PLATE13' - 4 1/2"HIGHEST GRADEELEVATIONELEVATOROVERRUNT/O PROPOSEDPARAPET28' - 0"FUTURE SIGNAGE AREA, TYP.WINDOW MULLION, TYP.ENTRY DOOR 'A'METAL AND GLASS ENTRY DOORSMETAL PANEL FACADEGROUND FLOOR0' - 0"2ND FLOOR13' - 4 1/2"T/O EXIST.PARAPET29' - 5"3RD FLOOR26' - 7"PARAPET37' - 3"ELEVATOROVERRUN41' - 4"NORTH GRADE-2' - 9"WINDOW HEAD24' - 9"INSULATED WINDOW SYSTEM, TYP.FLAT PLATE AWNING, TYP.EXPOSED STEEL DETAILING, TYP.METAL PANEL FACADE, TYP.GLASS RAILING, TYP.38' HEIGHT LIMIT, INCREASED TO 40' THROUGH COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW39' - 11 1/2"T/O GLASSRAILING30' - 1"MECHANICAL SCREENINGFLOOR PLATE13' - 2 1/2"HIGHEST GRADEELEVATIONLOWEST GRADEELEVATIONELEVATOROVERRUNT/O PROPOSEDPARAPET28' - 0"RAILING3' - 6"WINDOW MULLION, TYP.ENTRY DOOR 'A'ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY01.23.17RAHPC FINAL REVIEWmodif.modif.As indicated1/21/2017 8:50:24 PMA−20013−440046.29.16EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 3/16" = 1'-0"1SOUTH ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"2WEST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"3ENTRY DOOR INSPIRATION IMAGEREFERENCE THE PRESERVATIONPLAN FOR DETAILS ON PRESERVATION/RESTORATION OF THE BUILDINGREFERENCE THE PRESERVATIONPLAN FOR DETAILS ON PRESERVATION/RESTORATION OF THE BUILDINGNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP299 IV.B. GROUND FLOOR0' - 0"2ND FLOOR13' - 4 1/2"T/O EXIST.PARAPET29' - 5"3RD FLOOR26' - 7"PARAPET37' - 3"ELEVATOROVERRUN41' - 4"GLASS RAILING, TYP.EXPOSED STEEL DETAILING, TYP.METAL PANELFACADE, TYP.FLAT PLATE AWNING, TYP.INSULATED STOREFRONTSYSTEM, TYP.T/O GLASSRAILING30' - 1"METAL PANELFACADE, TYP.MECHANICAL SCREENINGFLOOR PLATE13' - 2 1/2"FLOOR PLATE13' - 4 1/2"HIGHEST GRADEELEVATIONELEVATOROVERRUNT/O PROPOSEDPARAPET28' - 0"FUTURE SIGNAGE AREA, TYP.WINDOW MULLION, TYP.ENTRY DOOR 'A'METAL AND GLASS ENTRY DOORSMODULAR BRICK FACADEGROUND FLOOR0' - 0"2ND FLOOR13' - 4 1/2"T/O EXIST.PARAPET29' - 5"3RD FLOOR26' - 7"PARAPET37' - 3"ELEVATOROVERRUN41' - 4"NORTH GRADE-2' - 9"WINDOW HEAD24' - 9"INSULATED WINDOW SYSTEM, TYP.FLAT PLATE AWNING, TYP.EXPOSED STEEL DETAILING, TYP.METAL PANEL FACADE, TYP.GLASS RAILING, TYP.38' HEIGHT LIMIT, INCREASED TO 40' THROUGH COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW39' - 11 1/2"T/O GLASSRAILING30' - 1"MECHANICAL SCREENINGFLOOR PLATE13' - 2 1/2"HIGHEST GRADEELEVATIONLOWEST GRADEELEVATIONELEVATOROVERRUNT/O PROPOSEDPARAPET28' - 0"RAILING3' - 6"WINDOW MULLION, TYP.ENTRY DOOR 'A'ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY01.23.17RAHPC FINAL REVIEWmodif.modif.As indicated1/22/2017 10:06:24 PMA−20013−440046.29.16EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 3/16" = 1'-0"1SOUTH ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"2WEST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"3ENTRY DOOR INSPIRATION IMAGEREFERENCE THE PRESERVATIONPLAN FOR DETAILS ON PRESERVATION/RESTORATION OF THE BUILDINGREFERENCE THE PRESERVATIONPLAN FOR DETAILS ON PRESERVATION/RESTORATION OF THE BUILDINGNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONALTERNATEP300 IV.B. GROUND FLOOR0' - 0"2ND FLOOR13' - 4 1/2"T/O EXIST.PARAPET29' - 5"3RD FLOOR26' - 7"PARAPET37' - 3"ELEVATOROVERRUN41' - 4"NORTH GRADE-2' - 9"INSULATED WINDOW SYSTEM, TYP.INSULATED METAL DOORPAINTED UNIT MASONRYTRANSFORMERMETAL PANELFACADE, TYP.SECTIONAL OVERHEAD DOORS FOR TRASH ACCESSMECHANICAL SCREENINGCLEAR INSULATED GLAZING, TYP.FLOOR PLATE13' - 4 1/2"FLOOR PLATE13' - 2 1/2"EAST GRADE-1' - 6"PAINTED UNIT MASONRYHIGHEST GRADEELEVATIONLOWEST GRADE ELEVATIONMETAL PANELJOINT, TYP.10' - 0"GROUND FLOOR0' - 0"2ND FLOOR13' - 4 1/2"3RD FLOOR26' - 7"PARAPET37' - 3"METAL PANEL FACADE, TYP.ADJACENT BUILDING (N.I.C.)FLAT PLATE AWNING BEYONDFLAT PLATE AWNING BEYONDHISTORIC FACADE BEYONDMECHANICAL SCREENINGEXPOSED STEEL DETAILING, TYP.GLASS RAILINGT/O GLASSRAILING30' - 1"RAILING3' - 6"FLOOR PLATE13' - 2 1/2"FLOOR PLATE13' - 4 1/2"EAST GRADE-1' - 6"PAINTED UNIT MASONRY, TYP.T/O PROPOSEDPARAPET28' - 0"DECORATIVE LIGHTFIXTURES BEYONDScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY01.23.17RAHPC FINAL REVIEWmodif.modif. 3/16" = 1’−0"1/21/2017 8:50:33 PMA−21013−440046.29.16EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 3/16" = 1'-0"1NORTH ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"2EAST ELEVATIONEXPOSED STEEL DETAILING, TYP.REFERENCE THE PRESERVATIONPLAN FOR DETAILS ON PRESERVATION/RESTORATION OF THE BUILDINGNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP301 IV.B. LIGHT FIXTURE 'A',TYP.LIGHT FIXTURE 'B',TYP.ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY01.23.17RAHPC FINAL REVIEWmodif.modif. 3/16" = 1’−0"1/21/2017 8:50:35 PMA−27013−440046.29.16PROPOSED EXTERIOR LIGHTING300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 3/16" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLANNLIGHT FIXTURE 'A'LIGHT FIXTURE 'B'NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP302 IV.B. ADJACENT BUILDINGHYMAN AVENUEMONARCH STREETONE-WAY ALLEYEXIST. STREET PARKINGPLANTER, TYP.EXIST. TREEGRATE, TYP.300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.THREE STORYLODGEEXIST. STREET PARKINGDETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE, TYP.OPEN TO SKY16' - 2"OPEN TO SKY10' - 0"T90' - 0"100' - 0"12' - 2"16' - 2"PROPERTYLINEALLEY DRAINAGE ISSUESWILL BE ADDRESSEDIN ENGINEERING PLANS BENCH WILL BEPROVIDED AT HUNTERCREEK BUS STOP NEW PEDESTRIANENTRY DOOR:DISTANCE 53'-2"NEW PEDESTRIANENTRY DOOR:DISTANCE 16'-7"ROUTEDISTANCE: 15'-0"ROUTEDISTANCE: 49'- 8"ROUTEDISTANCE: 36'-5"ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY01.23.17RAHPC FINAL REVIEWmodif.modif. 1/8" = 1’−0"1/21/2017 8:48:28 PMTIA13−440041.23.17TIA SITE PLAN300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 1/8" = 1'-0"1TIA SITE PLANNNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP303 IV.B. 300   E   Hyman   Ave.  Aspen,   Colorado  Proposed   Exterior   Materials  10.10.16  modif.   architecture 1200   west   lake   street   suite   200        chicago,   il        60607  P304 IV.B. Exterior   Material   1  Basis   of   Design:   Modular   face   brick   to   match   existing  Glen­Gery   Olde   England   Tumbled   Existing   Building   Image  Glen­Gery   Brick   Image  modif.   architecture 1200   west   lake   street   suite   200        chicago,   il        60607  Brick for Option 2 new addition Note: historic brick to match original on West elevation is proposed for staff and monitor review. Refer to preservation plan for more information. P305 IV.B.   Glen­Gery   Supporting  Documentation                            modif.   architecture 1200   west   lake   street   suite   200                chicago,   il             60607  P306 IV.B. Glen-Gery Extruded Brick General Glen-Gery manufactures many sizes of extruded bricks in a multitude of shades and textures to accommodate the visual requirements of most projects. The more popular extruded bricks have a nominal four inch bed depth. These extruded units are often referred to as cored, stiff mud, or wirecut bricks. To differentiate between wirecut bricks and wirecut finishes, Glen-Gery refers to the wirecut finish as a velour texture. Unit Specifications Glen-Gery extruded bricks are typically manufactured to conform to the requirements of American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Specification C 216, Grade SW, Type FBS and all grades of ASTM C 62. In some instances brick are manufactured to conform to ASTM C652 which includes increased core volume. These products also conform to the requirements of ASTM C 216, Grade MW. Certain products meet the requirements of ASTM C 216, Type FBX, ASTM C 902, ASTM C 652, or ASTM C 32. Inquiries should be made for specific applications or conformance to standards other than ASTM C 216 or C 62. When specifying this product, the specifications should cite: 1) The product name and state “as manufactured by Glen-Gery Corporation.” 2) Conformance to the requirements of the appropriate standard, (typically, ASTM C 216 or C652). 3) The actual unit dimensions listed as thickness x height x length. Example: Glenrose Battlefield as manu- factured by Glen-Gery Corporation to conform to the requirements of ASTM C 216, Grade SW, Type FBS. The units shall have dimensions of 3-5/8" X 2-1/4" X 7-5/8". 1 Revised 7/2015 Brick Positions in a Wall Stretcher Soldier Sailor Rowlock Header Rowlock Stretcher P R O D U C T P R O F I L E P307 IV.B. Standard 3-5/8 x 2-1/4 x 8 6.55 units/sq. ft. Engineer Standard 3-5/8 x 2-3/4 x 8 5.39 units/sq. ft. Modular 3-5/8 x 2-1/4 x 7-5/8 6.75 units/sq. ft. Engineer Modular 3-5/8 x 2-3/4 x 7-5/8 5.63 units/sq. ft. Handmade Oversized 4 x 2-3/4 x 8-1/2 5.00 units/sq. ft. Utility 3-5/8 x 3-5/8 x 11-5/8 3.00 units/sq. ft. King Narrow-Bed 3-1/8 x 2-3/4 x 9-5/8 4.55 units/sq. ft. Engineer King 2-13/16 x 2-13/16 x 9-5/8 4.55 units/sq. ft. Kingston 3-5/8 x 2-3/4 x 11-5/8 3.75 units/sq. ft. Engineer Modular 3-5/8 x 2-3/4 x 7-5/8 5.63 units/sq. ft. Queen 3 x 2-3/4 x 7-5/8 5.63 units/sq. ft. Standard 3-5/8 x 2-1/4 x 8 6.55 units/sq. ft. Modular 3-5/8 x 2-1/4 x 7-5/8 6.75 units/sq. ft. Engineer Standard 3-5/8 x 2-3/4 x 8 5.39 units/sq. ft. Econo 3-5/8 x 3-5/8 x 7-5/8 4.50 units/sq. ft. Roman 3-5/8 x 1-5/8 x 11-5/8 6.00 units/sq. ft. Norman 3-5/8 x 2-1/4 x 11-5/8 4.50 units/sq. ft. Saxon 3-5/8 x 2-1/4 x 15-5/8 3.38 units/sq. ft. Double Utility 3-5/8 x 7-5/8 x 11-5/8 1.50 units/sq. ft. Double Titan 3-5/8 x 7-5/8 x 15-5/8 2.25 units/sq. ft. Titan 3-5/8 x 3-5/8 x 15-5/8 2.25 units/sq. ft. Regent 7-5/8 x 3-5/8 x 11-5/8 3.00 units/sq. ft. 8-Square 3-5/8 x 7-5/8 x 7-5/8 2.25 units/sq. ft. Glen-Gery Brick Sizes www.glengery.com • 610-374-4011 Coring and frogs are at the manufacturer’s option. Actual coring patterns may not match the illustrations. Titan Plus 7-5/8 x 3-5/8 x 15-5/8 2.25 units/sq. ft. Double Titan Plus 7-5/8 x 7-5/8 x 15-5/8 1.13 units/sq. ft. King 3-5/8 x 2-3/4 x 9-5/8 4.55 units/sq. ft. Lightweight Modular 3-1/2 x 2-1/4 x 7-5/8 6.75 units/sq. ft. Lightweight Engineer Modular 3-1/2 x 2-3/4 x 7-5/8 5.63 units/sq. ft. Viking 3-1/2 x 1-5/8 x 15-5/8 4.50 units/sq. ft. 2 Contact plant for specific information on sizing and coring. P308 IV.B. Glen-Gery Extruded Brick Revised 7/2015 3 Design Criteria Size: Table 1 provides the many sizes in which Glen-Gery manufacturers extruded brick. Dimensional Tolerances: Glen-Gery extruded bricks are manufactured to provide specific dimensional tolerances. The dimensional tolerances of the product are intended to be within the requirements of ASTM C 216, Type FBS for general use. Some products (including but not limited to those manufactured at the Hanley Plant) are manufactured to meet Type FBX. The product ordered will generally contain a number of units which are over or under the specified dimensions. The dimensional variations are related to the raw materials, forming, drying and firing processes, and the desired finish and color. Thus, for some products, all the units may be slightly over or slightly under the specified dimensions. Inquiries should be made regarding the dimensional variations which might be expected if project detailing requires precise coursing. Specialty products or gauged products may be desirable for such applications. Configurations: These units are manufactured to conform to the requirements of applicable ASTM standards. The solid units (meeting ASTM C216 or C62) may have cores which create an aggregate void space of up to 25% of the gross cross-sectional area in every plane parallel to the bearing surface. Hollow Units, meeting ASTM C652 H40V, may be cored up to 40% of the gross cross sectional area parallel to the bearing surface. Core size, shape and location are determined by the manufacturing facility. The units may also be available as 100% solid units. If 100% solid units are desired, availability must be confirmed when ordering. In addition to 100% solid units, variations in core size and configu- ration may be available on special order. Weight: The weight of the brick units varies with the raw material, size, manufacturing processes, and the amount and configuration of the coring. While actual weight of specific brick should be confirmed, average weight of each size extruded brick manufactured by Glen-Gery is included in Table 1. *Manufactured to meet ASTM C652 H40V Brick Size Thickness Height Length Brick Average Weight (inches) (mm) (inches) (mm) (inches) (mm) per square foot Queen Lightweight Modular Lightweight Engineer Modular Modular Engineer Modular Econo 8-Square Standard Engineer Standard King Narrow-Bed Engineer King King Roman Norman Utility Double Utility Kingston Viking Saxon Titan Double Titan Regent* Titan Plus* Double Titan Plus* 3 3-1/2 3-1/2 3-5/8 3-5/8 3-5/8 3-5/8 3-5/8 3-5/8 3-1/8 2-13/16 3-5/8 3-5/8 3-5/8 3-5/8 3-5/8 3-5/8 3-1/2 3-5/8 3-5/8 3-5/8 7-5/8 7-5/8 7-5/8 76 89 89 92 92 92 92 92 92 79 71 92 92 92 92 92 92 89 92 92 92 194 194 194 70 57 70 57 70 92 194 57 70 70 71 70 41 57 92 194 70 41 57 92 194 92 92 184 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 203 203 244 244 244 295 295 295 295 295 397 397 397 397 295 397 397 2-3/4 2-1/4 2-3/4 2-1/4 2-3/4 3-5/8 7-5/8 2-1/4 2-3/4 2-3/4 2-13/16 2-3/4 1-5/8 2-1/4 3-5/8 7-5/8 2-3/4 1-5/8 2-1/4 3-5/8 7-5/8 3-5/8 3-5/8 7-5/8 7-5/8 7-5/8 7-5/8 7-5/8 7-5/8 7-5/8 7-5/8 8 8 9-5/8 9-5/8 9-5/8 11-5/8 11-5/8 11-5/8 11-5/8 11-5/8 15-5/8 15-5/8 15-5/8 15-5/8 11-5/8 15-5/8 15-5/8 5.63 6.75 5.63 6.75 5.63 4.50 2.25 6.55 5.39 4.55 4.55 4.55 6.00 4.50 3.00 1.50 3.75 4.50 3.38 2.25 1.13 3.00 2.25 1.13 4.0 3.4 4.0 4.0 4.8 6.2 14.1 4.2 5.0 4.8 5.0 7.5 3.0 6.0 9.6 19.2 7.0 5.9 7.7 14.1 27.0 15.5 20.0 40.0 1.8 1.5 1.8 1.8 2.2 2.8 6.4 1.9 2.3 2.2 2.3 3.4 1.4 2.7 4.4 8.7 3.2 2.7 3.5 6.4 12.2 7.0 9.1 18.1 Specified Dimension TABLE 1 Brick Size, Coverage and Weight per unit (kg) P309 IV.B. Glen-Gery Extruded Brick Revised 7/2015 4 Finishes: Glen-Gery extruded bricks are available in a variety of textures. The textures include smooth, velour, bar, rug, matt, paper cut, scored, rockface, slurry and sand finishes. The availability of a particular finish is usually dependent on the specific product. Certain finishes (i.e. bark) are not available on shapes. Color: Glen-Gery extruded brick are available in a multitude of color blends. The colors available include various shades of red, brown, gray, buff, and white. Some colors are the natural colors of the fired raw materials, while others are produced by fusing a surface treatment onto the surface of the brick during firing or adding minerals to the bodies of the brick. If through body colors are desired, inquiries should be made regarding the availability of the desired colors. The color selection may also be limited by the product selected and the desired finish. Shapes: Standard brick shapes are dimensioned to course properly with nominal 4" thick brick sizes. While the ‘standard’ brick shapes are described in the Glen-Gery Standard Shapes Catalog, “Brick Shapes”, they are not stock items. Typical extruded brick shapes, as described in the catalogue, include various configura- tions of bullnose, watertable, corner, radial, shelf angle, sill, and coping units. Shapes dimensioned for coursing with other brick sizes, and shapes having configurations to fit specific project requirements are also available. These nonstandard shapes require detailed dimension drawings which must be submitted to and approved by Glen-Gery. In order to achieve the effects desired by the designer, some shape designs may require coring which does not meet the requirements of ASTM C 216. All shapes should be identified early in the project design because certain shape configurations may require special forming, drying, or firing processes. These processes may require more time or different scheduling than the non-shape brick. Physical Properties of Units Compressive Strength: Average gross compressive strength exceeds 3,000 psi when tested with the loads applied normal to the bedding surface. Typically, the average compressive strength exceeds 7,000 psi and may be as high as 30,000 psi for brick manufactured to meet ASTM C216. The actual compressive strength depends upon the specific product, and size selected. Water Absorption: The average maximum hot-water absorption by submersion in boiling water for five hours is less than 17% and will typically be less than 9%. The average saturation coefficient is generally less than 0.78. In instances where the saturation coefficient exceeds 0.78, the cold water absorption for Glen-Gery brick is less than 8% and the units meet the requirements of ASTM C216, Grade SW. Initial Rate of Absorption (IRA): The initial rate of absorption (suction) normally does not exceed 30 grams per 30 square inches per minute under laboratory conditions. However, brick can be checked on the site to determine if wetting is necessary prior to laying unless familiarity with the product has demonstrated that wetting is not required. The procedure for determining wetting requirements is the field test procedure described in ASTM C 67. If this test is not practical, the need for wetting may be estimated by the following field test: 1) Place a $.25 piece on a bearing surface of a typical unit. 2) Draw a ring around the quarter with a wax pencil. 3) Place twenty drops of water within the ring. 4) If unabsorbed water remains after 1-1/2 minutes, the units likely do not require wetting. If all the water is absorbed into the unit, the units should be wetted prior to laying. Properties of Walls Compressive Strength: The minimum assumed compressive strength for a brick wall, using good workmanship and ASTM C270 Type N mortar, is 1,000 psi. Assemblies constructed with most Glen-Gery extruded bricks manufactured to meet ASTM C216 will provide a minimum assumed compressive strength of 2,000 psi, when used with good workmanship and Type N mortar. Specific products may provide assumed wall compressive strengths as high as 3,000 psi when used with good workmanship and Type N mor- tar. For grouted clay masonry, use grout that conforms to ASTM C476 with a mini- mum compressive strength of 2,000 psi. Reference: Specification for Masonry Structures (TMS 602/ACI 530.1/ASCE 6). Thermal Performances: The thermal resistivity of Glen-Gery extruded brick is approximately 0.11 (hr • sq. ft.• deg f)/(Btu• in.). A nominal four-inch wythe, excluding air films, will provide a thermal resistance of approximately 0.40 (hr • sq. ft.• deg f)/ (Btu). The thermal resistivity is used to predict the thermal performance of wall elements under steady-state conditions. The mass and specific heat of this product provide additional benefit when subjected to the dynamic conditions of the natural environment. As described in the American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90.1, the effects of mass, specific heat, and the color of the brick should be considered. Reference: BIA Technical Notes on Brick Construction 4 Revised, “Heat Transmission Coefficients of Brick Masonry Walls”, 4B Revised, “Energy Code Compliance of Brick Masonry Walls” and 43D, “Brick Passive Solar Heating Systems, Part IV –Material Properties.” Sound Transmission: A nominal four-inch wythe of brick masonry has a sound transmission classification (STC) of approximately 45. Reference: BIA Technical Notes on Brick Construction 5A, “Sound Insulation – Clay Masonry Walls.” P310 IV.B. Glen-Gery Extruded Brick Revised 7/2015 5 Fire Resistance: Fire resistance ratings are directly related to wall assembly including the equivalent thickness of masonry. For example: A nominal 4-inch wythe of clay masonry alone provides a one hour fire rating while a fully grouted regent size unit (7-5/8" thick) can provide a 4-hour fire rating. Fire ratings can be determined through Testing (per ASTM E119) or calculated in accordance with the International Building Code (IBC) or Code Requirements for Determining Fire Resistance of Concrete Masonry Construction Assemblies ACI 216.1/TMS 0216. Reference: BIA Techni- cal Notes on Brick Construction 16 Revised, “Fire Resistance of Brick Masonry.” Coefficient of Thermal Expansion: Brick walls constructed of Glen-Gery extruded brick have a coefficient of thermal expansion of approximately 0.000004 in. (in.•°F) as listed in The Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures (TMS 402/ACI 530/ASCE 5) . A one hundred foot length (or height) of wall constructed of Glen-Gery extruded brick, and exposed to an annual extreme temperature difference of 100 °F, is expected to experience a total thermal movement of approximately one-half inch. Coefficient of Moisture Expansion: The coefficient of moisture expansion of Glen-Gery extruded brick veneer is less than 0.0005 in./in. Although most of the moisture expansion of Glen-Gery extruded brick occurs immediately after the brick are fired, before the brick arrive at the job site, the maximum design moisture expansion of one-hundred foot long (or high) wall constructed of these products is less than five-eighths of an inch. Construction Storage and Protection: Store brick off ground to avoid contamination by water, mud, dust or materials likely to cause staining or other defects. Do not use cubes of brick as supports or work surfaces. Cover units with a weather resistant membrane held securely in place or otherwise protect units from the elements. 1 These values are actual quantities and must be increased for waste and any possible construction requirements which may necessitate additional quantities. Queen Lightweight Modular Lightweight Engineer Modular Modular Engineer Modular Econo 8-Square Standard Engineer Standard King Narrow-Bed Engineer King King Roman Norman Utility Double Utility Kingston Viking Saxon Titan Double Titan Regent* Titan Plus* Double Titan Plus* 7.05 7.82 8.22 8.10 8.52 9.15 12.29 6.29 8.81 8.70 5.87 10.09 10.72 11.24 12.29 15.44 11.66 11.24 14.39 15.44 18.59 23.27 29.23 23.27 3.97 5.28 4.63 5.46 4.79 4.12 2.77 4.12 4.75 3.96 2.67 4.59 6.43 5.06 3.69 2.32 4.37 5.06 4.86 3.47 2.10 6.98 6.58 2.63 5.63 6.75 5.63 6.75 5.63 4.50 2.25 6.55 5.39 4.55 4.55 4.55 6.00 4.50 3.00 1.50 3.75 4.50 3.38 2.25 1.13 3.00 2.25 1.13 5 Courses per 16" 3 Courses per 8" 5 Courses per 16" 3 Courses per 8" 5 Courses per 16" 1 Course per 4" 1 Course per 8" 3 Courses per 8" 5 Courses per 16" 5 Courses per 16" 5 Courses per 16" 5 Courses per 16" 4 Courses per 8" 3 Courses per 8" 1 Course per 4" 1 Course per 8" 5 Courses per 16" 4 Courses per 8" 3 Courses per 8" 1 Course per 4" 1 Course per 8" 1 Course per 4" 1 Course per 4" 2 Courses per 16" Brick Size Vertical Coursing in courses per inch Units per square foot Cubic Foot per 100 square foot Quantity of Mortar per 1000 units TABLE 2 Brick and Mortar Quantities1 Nominal 3/8 Inch Mortar Joints *Manufactured to meet ASTM C652 H40V P311 IV.B. Glen-Gery Extruded Brick Revised 7/2015 6 Wetting: As deemed necessary(see IRA), wet units prior to laying. Wetting typically consists of saturating the units three to twenty four hours before laying the units. Units should be saturated but surface dry when laid. Weather Extremes: Follow the procedures required by developed by The International Building Code (IBC) references cold and hot weather construction provisions for masonry that are based on those found in Specification for Masonry Structures (TMS 602/ACI 530.1/ASCE 6) and required by Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures (TMS 402/ACI 530/ASCE 5). While specific cold and hot weather provisions are not included within the International Residential Code (IRC) the IRC states that mortar for use in masonry construction shall comply with ASTM C 270, which requires mortar for other than masonry veneer to be prepared in accordance with the Masonry Industry Council’s “Hot and Cold Weather Masonry Construction Manual.” Further information is also available in the BIA Technical Notes on Brick Construction 1, “Cold and Hot Weather Construction.” Installation: Place units in full mortar joints, taking special care to assure that the head joints are full. Use a Portland cement lime mortar conforming to ASTM C 270. A prepackaged mortar mix conforming to these specifications is Glen-Gery Color Mortar Blend. Reference: Glen-Gery Product Profile “Glen-Gery Color Mortar Blend.” Tooling: When thumbprint hard, tool all joints to produce a concave, grapevine, or vee joint finish. Protection of Work: At the end of each day or shut down period, cover all work with a strong weather resistant membrane which is held in place securely. Scaffold boards closest to the wall should be tilted up at days end to prevent splatter during rain. Care should also be taken to protect brickwork located near the ground from mud and dirt. Cleaning: At the end of each shift, remove excess mortar with a stiff bristle brush. Clean with wooden paddles and stiff fiber brushes using clean water. If a cleaning agent is necessary, presoak the wall with clean water prior to applying the cleaning agent and thoroughly rinse the wall with clean water after cleaning. Prior to determining a final cleaning solution, test the procedure and cleaning agent on a small sample area to observe the effectiveness of the overall cleaning solution and, most importantly, to detect any possible deleterious effects or changes in appearance of the brick. Additional information is available in the Glen-Gery Technical Profile “Cleaning New Brickwork.”Check with your Glen-Gery Distributor or District Sales Manager prior to making a final selection of a cleaning procedure and solution. When using Type N mortars, clean down should never occur prior to 7 days after work is completed to assure appropriate curing of the mortar. Reference:BIA Technical Notes on Brick Construction 20, “Cleaning Brickwork.” Queen Lightweight Modular Lightweight Engineer Modular Modular Engineer Modular Econo 8-Square Standard Engineer Standard King Narrow-Bed Engineer King King Roman Norman Utility Double Utility Kingston Viking Saxon Titan Double Titan Regent Titan Plus Double Titan Plus 3.55 3.09 3.09 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.42 4.26 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 3.75 4.50 3.75 4.50 3.75 3.00 1.50 4.50 3.75 3.75 4.26 3.75 6.00 4.50 3.00 1.50 3.75 6.00 4.50 3.00 1.50 3.00 3.00 1.65 3.75 4.50 3.75 4.50 3.75 3.00 1.50 4.50 3.75 3.75 4.26 3.75 6.00 4.50 3.00 1.50 3.75 6.00 4.50 3.00 1.50 3.00 3.00 1.65 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.43 1.43 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 Brick Size Stretcher Rowlock Soldier Header TABLE 3 Units Per Linear Foot in Various Positions Nominal 3/8 Inch Mortar Joints P312 IV.B. Glen-Gery Extruded Brick Revised 7/2015 Estimating: The quantities of brick and mortar required for a project vary with the size of the brick unit, the wall construction, the number of field cuts necessary, the coring configuration of the units, and the workmanship. Table 2 provides the quantities of brick and mortar quantities per 1,000 brick units. The figures are based on the units being placed in the wall as stretchers in stack or running bond. The quantities are provided for a single wythe of brickwork. Additional information regarding mortar or grout for collar joint or grouted applications can be found in the referenced BIA Technical Notes. The values provided are estimates of the quantities in the finished wall and do not account for waste. The values provided in Table 3 may be useful in approximating the number of units for caps, sills, bands, etc. These values represent the actual number of units per linear foot for the various brick sizes placed on the four most frequently used positions in the wall. The values are based on a nominal three-eight inch mortar joint. Reference: BIA Technical Notes on Brick Construction 10,“Dimensioning and Estimating Brick Masonry.” For further information contact: Glen-Gery Technical Services 433 South Pottsville Pike Shoemakersville, PA 19555 (610) 562-3076 This document is furnished for informational purposes only and is NOT intended as an EXPRESSED WARRANTY. Glen-Gery accepts no liability for the use of this material. All information should be independently evaluated by a qualified design professional in the context of the specific circumstances in which it is to be applied. Seller warrants title to said goods and that the goods supplied shall meet applicable specifications where such are designated in the Buyer’s order. Should the said goods fail to conform to the foregoing warranty, Seller will, at its option replace the same, F.O.B. job site or refund the portion of purchase price paid for such non-conforming goods. SELLER SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES FOR ANY BREACH OF THESE WARRANTIES. THE FOREGOING WARRANTIES ARE IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER WARRANTIES WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WRITTEN OR ORAL, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 7/15 LSD ©2015 Glen-Gery 610.374.4011 info@ glengery.com www.glengery.com 7P313 IV.B.   Exterior   Material   2  Basis   of   D esign:   Painted   Exposed   Structural   Steel,  Color   to   match   window   frames    Example   of   application        Example   of   application          modif.   architecture 1200   west   lake   street   suite   200                chicago,   il             60607  P314 IV.B.   Exterior   Material   3  Basis   of   D esign:   Alucobond   PE   Natural   Finish  Color:   Black   Anodized    Example   Photo   1      Example   Photo   2    modif.   architecture 1200   west   lake   street   suite   200                chicago,   il             60607  P315 IV.B.   Alucobond   Supporting  Documentation                                                                        modif.   architecture 1200   west   lake   street   suite   200                chicago,   il             60607  P316 IV.B. P317 IV.B. P318 IV.B. P319 IV.B. P320 IV.B. P321 IV.B. P322 IV.B. P323 IV.B. P324 IV.B. P325 IV.B. P326 IV.B. P327 IV.B. P328 IV.B. P329 IV.B. P330 IV.B. P331 IV.B. P332 IV.B. P333 IV.B. P334 IV.B. P335 IV.B. P336 IV.B. P337 IV.B. P338 IV.B. P339 IV.B. P340 IV.B. P341 IV.B. P342 IV.B. P343 IV.B.   Exterior   Window   System  Basis   of   D esign:   Kaw neer   Trifab   VersaGlaze   451T   Framing   System  Example   Photo   1        Example   Photo   2    modif.   architecture 1200   west   lake   street   suite   200                chicago,   il             60607  P344 IV.B.       Kawneer   Supporting  Documentation              modif.   architecture 1200   west   lake   street   suite   200                chicago,   il             60607  P345 IV.B. Tr i f a b®V G (Ve r s a G l a z e ®) Tr ifa b VG 450,4 5 1 &451T (Th e r m al)Fra m ing Systems Design Versatility with Unmatched Fabrication Flexibility Aesthetics Tr i f a b®V G (Ve r s a G l a z e ®) Tr ifa b VG 450,4 5 1 &451T (Th e r m al)Fra m ing Systems Design Versatility with Unmatched Fabrication Flexibility Preston Pointe,Louisville,KY Architect:Potter &Associates Architects PLLC,Louisville,KY Glazing Contractor:Kentucky Mirror &Plate Glass Company,Louisville,KY Trifab®VG (VersaGlaze)is built on the proven and successful Trifab platform –with all the versatility its name implies.Trifab set the standard and Trifab®VG improves upon it.There are enough fabrication,design and performance choices to please the most discerning building owner,architect and installer.Plus the confidence a tried and true framing system instills.Select from four glazing applications,four fabrication methods and multiple infill choices.Consider thermal options and performance,SSG and Weatherseal alternatives and your project takes an almost custom shape whether your architecture is traditional or modern and the building is new or retrofitted. Aesthetics Trifab®450 has 1-3/4"sight lines and both Trifab®451 and Trifab®451T have 2"sight lines,while all three have a 4-1/2"frame depth. Designers can not only choose front,center or back glass planes,they can now add the versatility of multi-plane glass applications,thus allowing a greater range of design possibilities for specific project requirements and architectural styles.Structural Silicone Glazing (SSG) and Weatherseal options further expand the designer's choices. P346 IV.B. kawneer.com Performance Kawneer's IsoLock™Thermal Break option is available on Trifab®VG 451T. This process creates a composite section and prevents dry shrinkage. U-factor,CRF values and STC ratings for Trifab®VG vary depending upon the glass plane application.Project specific U-factors can now be determined for each individual project.(See Kawneer Architectural Manual or Website for additional information) Performance Test Standards Air Performance ASTM E 283 Water AAMA 501 and ASTM E 331 Structural ASTM E 330 Thermal AAMA 1503 Thermal Break AAMA 505 and AAMA TIR-A8 Acoustical AAMA 1801 and ASTM E 1425 Finishes Permadonic Anodized finishes are available in Class I and Class II in seven different colors. Painted Finishes,including fluoropolymer that meet or exceed AAMA 2605,are offered in many standard choices and an unlimited number of specially-designed colors. Solvent-free powder coatings add the “green”element with high performance,durability and scratch resistance that meet the standards of AAMA 2604. Trifab®VG can be used on almost any project due to virtually seamless incorporation of Kawneer entrances,Sealair®windows or GLASSvent™for visually frameless ventilators.These framing systems can also be packaged with Kawneer curtain walls and overhead glazing,thereby providing owner,architect and installer with proven, tested and quality products from a single source supplier. Economy Trifab®VG offers four fabrication choices to suit your project: •Screw Spline –for economical continuous runs utilizing two piece vertical members.Provides the option to pre-assemble units with controlled shop labor costs and smaller field crews for handling and installation. •Shear Block –for punched openings or continuous runs using tubular moldings.Provides the option to pre-assemble multi-lite units using shear block clips under controlled shop labor conditions.Clips provide tight joints for transporting large units. Less field time is necessary to fill large openings. •Stick –for fast,easy field fabrication.Field measurements and material cuts can be done when metal is on the job. •Type B –for multi-lite punched openings.Provide option for pre-assembled units for installation into single openings and controlled shop labor costs.Head and sill running through provide fewer joints and require less time to fill large openings. Trifab®VG 450,451 and 451T can be flush glazed from either the inside or outside. The Weatherseal option provides an alternative to the structural silicone glazed vertical mullions.This ABS/ASA rigid polymer extrusion allows complete inside glazing and creates a flush glass appearance on the building exterior, without the added labor of scaffolding or swing stages. Optional patented HP Flashing™and HP Interlock clip are engineered to eliminate the perimeter sill fasteners and their associated blind seals and are compatible with all glass planes. Performance Kawneer's IsoLock™Thermal Break option is available on Trifab®VG 451T. This process creates a composite section and prevents dry shrinkage. U-factor,CRF values and STC ratings for Trifab®VG vary depending upon the glass plane application.Project specific U-factors can now be determined for each individual project.(See Kawneer Architectural Manual or Website for additional information) Performance Test Standards Air Performance ASTM E 283 Water AAMA 501 and ASTM E 331 Structural ASTM E 330 Thermal AAMA 1503 Thermal Break AAMA 505 and AAMA TIR-A8 Acoustical AAMA 1801 and ASTM E 1425 Finishes Permadonic Anodized finishes are available in Class I and Class II in seven different colors. Painted Finishes,including fluoropolymer that meet or exceed AAMA 2605,are offered in many standard choices and an unlimited number of specially-designed colors. Solvent-free powder coatings add the “green”element with high performance,durability and scratch resistance that meet the standards of AAMA 2604. ©Kawneer Company,Inc.2010 LITHO IN U.S.A Form No.07-2007.03.10 Kawneer Company,Inc. Technology Park /Atlanta 555 Guthridge Court Norcross,GA 30092 kawneer.com 770 .449 .5555 Trifab®VG can be used on almost any project due to virtually seamless incorporation of Kawneer entrances,Sealair®windows or GLASSvent™for visually frameless ventilators.These framing systems can also be packaged with Kawneer curtain walls and overhead glazing,thereby providing owner,architect and installer with proven, tested and quality products from a single source supplier. Economy Trifab®VG offers four fabrication choices to suit your project: •Screw Spline –for economical continuous runs utilizing two piece vertical members.Provides the option to pre-assemble units with controlled shop labor costs and smaller field crews for handling and installation. •Shear Block –for punched openings or continuous runs using tubular moldings.Provides the option to pre-assemble multi-lite units using shear block clips under controlled shop labor conditions.Clips provide tight joints for transporting large units. Less field time is necessary to fill large openings. •Stick –for fast,easy field fabrication.Field measurements and material cuts can be done when metal is on the job. •Type B –for multi-lite punched openings.Provide option for pre-assembled units for installation into single openings and controlled shop labor costs.Head and sill running through provide fewer joints and require less time to fill large openings. Trifab®VG 450,451 and 451T can be flush glazed from either the inside or outside. The Weatherseal option provides an alternative to the structural silicone glazed vertical mullions.This ABS/ASA rigid polymer extrusion allows complete inside glazing and creates a flush glass appearance on the building exterior, without the added labor of scaffolding or swing stages. Optional patented HP Flashing™and HP Interlock clip are engineered to eliminate the perimeter sill fasteners and their associated blind seals and are compatible with all glass planes. Brighton Landing,Cambridge,MA Architects:ADD Inc.,Cambridge,MA Glazing Contractors:Ipswich Bay Glass Company,Inc.,Rowley,MA Front Center Back SSG Weatherseal Multi-Plane Trifab VG 450 Front Center Back SSG Weatherseal Multi-Plane Trifab VG 451/451T P347 IV.B. 300 East Hyman PreservaƟ on PlanThe building located at 300 East Hyman Avenue, aka the Crystal Palace, has been heavily altered over Ɵ me. The applicant is commiƩ ed to restoring the building based on historic photographs. A preliminary preservaƟ on plan is proposed to outline the methodology and documentaƟ on available and to idenƟ fy areas that need further study in the fi eld aŌ er removal and demoliƟ on of non-historic elements. Methodology: Historic photographs, visual site inspecƟ on and onsite discussion with the Aspen Historic PreservaƟ on Offi cer were used to produce this plan.History:This structure is a typical brick commercial building constructed as the town’s prosperity grew. Brick provided greater fi re protecƟ on than wood, and indicated a sense of “permanence.” The oldest part of the building (the western part) was built by S.B. Clark in 1891. Named the Clark Commission Company, it was uƟ lized as a wholesale produce house. In the early 1900s, E. M. Cooper bought the business and changed the name to Aspen Com-mission Company. The building was later vacant for a period of years, unƟ l bought by Mead Metcalf, who operated a dinner theater, “The Crystal Palace,” there from 1959 unƟ l 2008. The building has had numerous alteraƟ ons, including addiƟ ons to the east and rear which obscure the original character. All windows have been replaced and new storefronts have been constructed across the enƟ re south facade. www.aspenvictorian.com Summary:The building is proposed to be accurately restored using available historic photographs. QuesƟ ons about the original confi guraƟ on of the storefront are unanswered. Comparing historic photographs to the current condiƟ on raise uncertainty about the original height of the Owl Cigar mural and the original height of upper fl oor window openings. Onsite mock-ups of brick details, as noted, are proposed for review by Staff and monitor during the construcƟ on process. Other items for Staff and monitor include verifi caƟ on of historic elements during demoliƟ on. Exhibit 15P348 IV.B. South ElevaƟ on/ Front FaçadeBrick: The upper fl oor of the front façade has been enƟ rely reconstructed. In addiƟ on at ground level, the eastern most column of the historic building has been reconstruct-ed. The eastern most column was originally 3 and a half bricks wide. It was extended to probably accomodate the shed roof form. The corner column and the center col-umn match original dimensions in the photographs, and appear to have original brick; however, past repoinƟ ng used a grey mortar color typical of repairs over the past de-cades that did not match original mortar color common to Aspen in the 19th century. Proposal: Remove the second fl oor (including the brick corbel) and the unoriginal col-umn during demoliƟ on. Preserve and protect the corner and middle column on the south elevaƟ on. Reconstruct brick column to match historic photograph dimension of three and a half bricks wide. Determine in the fi eld the authenƟ city of the brick di-rectly above the storefront aŌ er the non-historic wood cornice above the storefront is removed. Reconstruct upper fl oor with bricks to match fi rst fl oor west elevaƟ on, sub-ject to Staff and monitor approval prior to installaƟ on. Color, dimension, mortar style and color to match typical historic commercial buildings in Aspen, subject to Staff and monitor approval prior to installaƟ on. A mock up onsite is recommended to confi rm appropriate technique and applicaƟ on. Brick corbel: The brick corbel detail above the storefront was added to the front façade and is carried around to the west façade. Proposal: Remove the brick corbel and replace with a fl at conƟ nuous wall plane to match historic photographs. B&W photograph at top: Close up view of building pre- 1930s.Color photographs (leŌ to right): Current condiƟ on of columns; current detail of brick corbel, current building.Next page: Collage of photographs used to verify dimensions, dated 1971 and 1966.1900scurrentcurrentcurrentP349 IV.B. 1971197119661966P350 IV.B. Cornice: A decoraƟ ve cornice caps the enƟ re building. The end brackets and corner pendant of the upper cornice matches the original photographs. As the build-ing was expanded, the cornice was replicated to extend the length of the building on the west and south elevaƟ ons. The authenƟ city of the denƟ l molding needs fi eld verifi caƟ on. The storefront also has a decoraƟ ve cornice that completes the storefront. The end bracket of the cornice atop the storefront matches historic photographs; how-ever, the profi le of the cornice molding appears to have been replaced or parƟ ally replaced when the cornice was extended to accomodate the addiƟ on to the building. Comparing the 1950s and 1966 photographs to the 1971 photographs shows that a fl at back was added to the end bracket. The 1950s photograph shows only one end bracket. It is assumed that the other bracket was lost, possibly when the roof collapsed. Proposal: Work with Staff and Monitor to replicate the original cornice for the top of the building and the original cornice above the storefront (which appears to be fairly simple molding) using historic photographs and informaƟ on gathered during demoliƟ on. Examine the decoraƟ ve corner brackets of the cornice above the storefront to determine authenƟ city as they may have been part of the original cornice that was salvaged and reused during a previous remodel. Work with Staff and Monitor to determine an appropriate molding for the cornice atop the storefront. Retain all material determined to be original. 1971currentLeŌ to Right: 1971 photograph with altered storefront cornice - note the backing behind the end bracket. The upper cornice is most likely original; Current photograph of upper cornice.Next page (clockwise): 1950s photograph showing one end bracket for storefront cornice and more depth to cornice molding above storefront; 1966 photograph aŌ er Crystal Palace improvements are made; Current photograph of end bracket and upper cornice; 1971 photograph of storefront cornice. P351 IV.B. 19711950s1966currentP352 IV.B. Upper fl oor windows: During the 1960/70s remodel, an addiƟ onal window was added to the upper fl oor for a total of 5 windows instead of the original 4 windows. The height of the window openings was reduced at some point - verifi ed by counƟ ng bricks in the historic pre-remodel photographs. The upper fl oor double hung windows were replaced with casement style. The delicate brick detailing above the windows was replaced with a faux-Romanesque brick design. The window sills, originally pink sandstone, were replaced with what appears to be cast stone or machine cut sandstone. Proposal: Restore 4 double hung windows, centered across the front façade and above storefront openings, to match historic photographs. All upper fl oor windows proposed to be wood and rectangular with wood fi lling in the curved opening to match historic condiƟ on. The 1971 photographs show the window openings to be about 31 bricks tall (current condiƟ on is about 23 bricks to the boƩ om of the exaggerated arch). Height of the windows in relaƟ onship to the storefront is unclear based on the angles and resoluƟ on of historic photographs. We propose to work with Staff and Monitor to conƟ nue to research and refi ne window height and relaƟ onship to storefront. Replace cast stone window sills with sandstone window sills - color to match typical sandstone of the era, subject to Staff and monitor approval. Replicate the delicate brick detailing around the upper fl oor windows to match historic photographs. An on-site mock-up is proposed to verify brick detailing with Staff and Monitor.Storefront: The storefront has evolved over Ɵ me as tenants changed hands. The original confi guraƟ on and height is hard to idenƟ fy in historic photographs; however close-up views of high resoluƟ on aerial photographs seem to show the two openings between brick columns are divided into two entrances/windows. On the other hand, the 1893 aerial shows a centered entrance with windows on either side and no verƟ cal division of the bay. When the Midnight Mine occupied the building from the mid-1930s to 1951, the far right bay was a garage to house and service trucks and store equipment. The current height of the storefront may be shorter than the original condiƟ on (the blurry historic photographs make it hard to count bricks and verify height). Field verifi caƟ on aŌ er removal of the cornice atop the storefront will hopefully provide some answers. The intent is to restore the storefront to the original height and proporƟ on. Proposal: A wooden storefront is proposed. The entrance is proposed to the far leŌ similar to the current condiƟ on. The right bay is proposed to be a large storefront window. Considering the uncertainty around the original appearane of the storefront, the proposed storefront is similar to the current confi guraƟ on. LeŌ : 1893 Bird-eye view detail of building. Next page (clockwise): Right bay is converted to a garage door as part of the Midnight Mine operaƟ on; current storefront; garage bay is removed; store-front confi guraƟ on prior to sliding barn door.1893P353 IV.B. 1950scurrent1900s1962P354 IV.B. West ElevaƟ on/Monarch FacadeBrick: Similar to the front elevaƟ on, the upper fl oor brick has been enƟ rely reconstructed, and the building has been extended to the rear, as evidenced by the change in foun-daƟ on material from sandstone to concrete.Proposal: Remove the second fl oor (including the brick corbel) during demoliƟ on. Preserve and protect the historic porƟ on of the ground fl oor including the Owl Cigar Mural during construcƟ on. Reconstruct upper fl oor with bricks to match fi rst fl oor west elevaƟ on including the American/common brick bond course evident on the ground level of the west elevaƟ on, subject to Staff and monitor approval prior to installaƟ on. Color, dimension, mortar style and color to match typical historic commercial buildings in Aspen, subject to Staff and monitor approval prior to installaƟ on. A mock up onsite is recommended to confi rm appropriate technique and applicaƟ on. Owl Cigar Mural: The historic mural harkens back to the original tenant of the building – the Clark Commission Company – a wholesale produce house. The historic mural was repainted in 1977 by RP Evans according to the signature at the base of the mural. The height of the Owl mural may have been changed as evidenced by its relaƟ onship to the storefront height in historic photographs vs. current condiƟ on. Around 66 verƟ cal bricks are counted on the historic photograph and about 61 verƟ cal bricks are counted onsite today. The unoriginal brick corbel may have resulted in a shortened historic mural. As noted above, the storefront height may have been changed as well. Proposal: Protect the mural during construcƟ on. No change proposed. Cornice: see discussion above. Remove brick corbel from west elevaƟ on. LeŌ : Current relaƟ on-sip of mural to store-front cornice. Right: 1966 relaƟ on-ship of mural to store-front cornice. 1966currentP355 IV.B. Photographs clockwise: 1971 photograph showing mural hiƫ ng the upper fl oor window sills; current photograph showing gap between win-dow sills and mural; 1962 photograph showing mural hiƫ ng the upper fl oor window sills. current19711962P356 IV.B. Upper fl oor windows: During the 1960/70s remodel, the grouping and number of upper fl oor windows was signifi cantly altered from the original 6 equally spaced double hung windows. The height of the upper fl oor windows, verifi ed by counƟ ng bricks, was also reduced. The 1971 photographs show the window openings to be about 31 bricks tall (current condiƟ on is about 23 bricks to the boƩ om of the exaggerated arch). The upper fl oor double hung windows were replaced with casement style. The delicate brick detailing above the windows was replaced with a faux-Romanesque brick design. The window sills, originally pink sandstone, were replaced with what appears to be cast stone or machine cut sandstone. Proposal: Restore 6 double hung windows. All upper fl oor windows proposed to be wood and rectangular with wood fi lling in the curved opening to match historic condiƟ on. Window openings to match historic dimensions. Spacing of the windows is slightly diff erent than historic photographs to accommodate the proposed use of the building. A slightly diff erent spacing is a subtle way to show that this elevaƟ on was reconstructed and is not original. Replicate original window height based on historic photographs. Re-place cast stone window sills with rough cut sandstone window sills - color to match typical sandstone of the era, subject to Staff and monitor approval. Replicate the delicate brick detailing around the upper fl oor windows to match historic photographs. Ground level openings: SomeƟ me aŌ er 1962, ground level doors and window openings were bricked in. Luckily there are clear ghost shadows indicaƟ ng the locaƟ on and dimension of these openings. Proposal: Restore openings with wood windows or doors to match historic photographs and exisƟ ng shadow lines. Work with Staff and Monitor to detail these elements prior to construcƟ on and installaƟ on. The openings are not proposed to be operable. Steps and coal shoot: The remnants of a possible coal shoot and three concrete steps exist toward the rear (alley) of the west elevaƟ on, and sit within the right of way. The steps do not align with the ghost images of bricked in entrances and were probably shiŌ ed over Ɵ me. Proposal: Store concrete steps off -site during construcƟ on and replace in front of restored entrances at rear of west wall pending approval from Engineering via an encroachment license. The “coal shoot” is not proposed to be replaced. Photographs (leŌ to right): Current photograph to show ghost image of original door locaƟ on; current photograph to show concrete steps and “coal shoot”.Next page (clockwise): 1971 photograph detail of original window openings, sandstone sill, and delicate brick detail; current photograph of cast stone window sill; current photograph of upper fl oor windows; 1893 drawings of west elevaƟ on showing openings; 1966 photograph of west elevaƟ on showing openings.currentcurrentP357 IV.B. 197119661893currentcurrentP358 IV.B.