HomeMy WebLinkAbout*landuse case.HP.531 E Cooper Ave.0036.2015.AHPCHPC CONCEPTUAL DESIGN APPLICATIONBOWMAN / STEIN BUILDINGA0.0aSCALE: N.T.SCOVERSHEETFile Path: P:\Proj-2014\21436.00_Bowman\06_Documentation\01_Drawings\21436_A0-0.dwgPlot Date/Time: September 16, 2015 - 4:24 pm
COPYRIGHT 2015 ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT ISTHE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIORWRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALLRETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS,INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.ConsultantsIssue:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:DWG FILE:3377 blake st, 106denver, co 80205303.308.1373 v303.308.1375 f234 e. hopkins ave.aspen, co 81611970.544.9006 v970.544.3473 frowland + broughtonarchitecture and urban designSCALE:21436_A0-0.dwg529 - 535 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, CO 8161121436.0003.26.2015CLIENT REVIEW04.01.2015SCHEMATIC DESIGN07.28.2015HPC APPLICATION
SHEET INDEXPROJECT IMAGESNOTE: THESE IMAGES AND IMAGES CONTAINED HEREIN ARE AN ARTIST'S REPRESENTATION INTENDED FOR VISUALIZATION ONLY AND MAY NOT DEPICT ALL CONDITIONS ACCURATELY. REFER TO DRAWINGS FOR ACCURATE DESIGN.PROJECT DIRECTORYEXISTING PEDESTRIAN VIEW AT COOPER/HUNTER STREET LOOKING SOUTHWESTEXISTING PEDESTRIAN VIEW AT COOPER STREET LOOKING SOUTHARCHITECT: ROWLAND+BROUGHTONARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN234 E. HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611(970) 544-9006 OFFICECONTACTS: SARA UPTON, PROJECT MANAGER (970) 948-9667 CELLSARA UPTON@ROWLANDBROUGHTON.COMTODD BIEKKOLA, PROJECT ARCHITECT (970) 390-6407 CELLTODD@ROWLANDBROUGHTON.COMJOHN ROWLAND, PRINCIPAL (970) 379-9910 CELLJOHN@ROWLANDBROUGHTON.COMSARAH BROUGHTON, PRINCIPAL (970) 379-0111 CELLSARAH@ROWLANDBROUGHTON.COMOWNER'S REP.: PYRAMID PROPERTY ADVISORS418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 207ASPEN, CO 81611(970) 920-0101 OFFICECONTACTS: LEX TARUMIANZ (970) 618-5648 CELLLEX@PYRAMIDADVISORS.NETCONTRACTOR: HANSEN CONSTRUCTIONP.O. BOX 10493ASPEN, CO 81612(970) 920-1558 OFFICECONTACTS: JERRY CAVALERI (970) 379-6704 CELLJCAVALERI@HANSENCONST.COMSTRUCTURAL KL&A STRUCTURAL ENGINEERSENGINEER: 805 14TH STREETGOLDEN, CO 80401(303) 384-9910 OFFICECONTACT: BRETT MCELVAIN (303) 523-6890 CELLBMCELVAIN@KLAA.COMMEP ENGINEER: AEC - ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS40801 US 6 & 24, SUITE 214AVON, CO 81620(970) 748-8520 OFFICECONTACT: TAYLOR CRITCHLOW (970) 376-0038 CELLTAYLOR@AEC-VAIL.COMCODECOLORADO CODE CONSULTANTSCONSULTANT: 811 FOURTH STREETBERTHOUD, CO 80513(303) 591-9258 OFFICECONTACT: GARY PRINGEYCODECONSULTANT@EARTHLINK.NETLAND PLANNER: HAAS LAND PLANNING420 E MAIN STREET, SUITE 10-BASPEN, CO 81611(970) 925-7819 OFFICECONTACT: MITCH HAASMITCH@HLPASPEN.COMCOVERA0.0 PROJECT INFORMATIONA0.1 GENERAL INFORMATIONVICINITY MAPSURVEYEXISTING DRAWINGSA1.0e EXISTING SITE PLANA2.0e EXISTING BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR PLANA2.1e EXISTING MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLANA2.1me EXISTING MEZZANINE LEVEL FLOOR PLANA2.2e EXISTING UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLANA2.3e EXISTING ROOF PLANA0.2e EXISTING FLOOR AREA, NET LEASABLE AND PUBLIC AMENITY PLANS & CALCULATIONSA4.0e EXISTING BUILDING ELEVATIONSA4.1e EXISTING BUILDING ELEVATIONSEXISTING IMAGESPROPOSED DRAWINGSA1.1 SITE PLANAREA OF ADDITION PLANA2.0 BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR PLANA2.1 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLANA2.2 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLANA2.3 ROOF PLANA0.2EXISTING FLOOR AREA AND NET LEASABLE PLANS & CALCULATIONSA4.1 BUILDING ELEVATIONSA4.2 BUILDING ELEVATIONSMODEL VIEWSSCOPE OF WORKVIEW PLANEPUBLIC AMENITY CALCULATIONSDEMOLITION DRAWINGSD2.0 DEMOLITION BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR PLAND2.1 DEMOLITION MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAND2.1m DEMOLITION MEZZANINE LEVEL FLOOR PLAND2.2 DEMOLITION UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAND2.3 DEMOLITION ROOF PLANPROPOSED ARTIST RENDERING FROM HUNTER STREET LOOKING WESTA0.0bSCALE: N.T.SGENERALINFORMATIONFile Path: P:\Proj-2014\21436.00_Bowman\06_Documentation\01_Drawings\21436_A0-0.dwgPlot Date/Time: September 16, 2015 - 4:24 pm
COPYRIGHT 2015 ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT ISTHE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIORWRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALLRETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS,INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.ConsultantsIssue:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:DWG FILE:3377 blake st, 106denver, co 80205303.308.1373 v303.308.1375 f234 e. hopkins ave.aspen, co 81611970.544.9006 v970.544.3473 frowland + broughtonarchitecture and urban designSCALE:21436_A0-0.dwg529 - 535 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, CO 8161121436.0003.26.2015CLIENT REVIEW04.01.2015SCHEMATIC DESIGN07.28.2015HPC APPLICATION
BOWMAN BUILDING529-535 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611ASPEN, CO GENERAL VICINITYA0.1aSCALE: N.T.SVICINITY MAPFile Path: P:\Proj-2014\21436.00_Bowman\06_Documentation\01_Drawings\21436_A0-1.dwgPlot Date/Time: September 16, 2015 - 4:25 pm
COPYRIGHT 2015 ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT ISTHE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIORWRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALLRETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS,INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.ConsultantsIssue:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:DWG FILE:3377 blake st, 106denver, co 80205303.308.1373 v303.308.1375 f234 e. hopkins ave.aspen, co 81611970.544.9006 v970.544.3473 frowland + broughtonarchitecture and urban designSCALE:21436_A0-1.dwg529 - 535 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, CO 8161121436.0003.26.2015CLIENT REVIEW04.01.2015SCHEMATIC DESIGN07.28.2015HPC APPLICATION
A0.2SCALE: N.T.SSITE SURVEYFile Path: P:\Proj-2014\21436.00_Bowman\06_Documentation\01_Drawings\21436_A0-1.dwgPlot Date/Time: September 16, 2015 - 4:25 pm
COPYRIGHT 2015 ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT ISTHE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIORWRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALLRETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS,INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.ConsultantsIssue:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:DWG FILE:3377 blake st, 106denver, co 80205303.308.1373 v303.308.1375 f234 e. hopkins ave.aspen, co 81611970.544.9006 v970.544.3473 frowland + broughtonarchitecture and urban designSCALE:21436_A0-1.dwg529 - 535 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, CO 8161121436.0003.26.2015CLIENT REVIEW04.01.2015SCHEMATIC DESIGN07.28.2015HPC APPLICATION
DNUPUPUPDNUPUPUPDNDNDNUPEXTERIORSTAIRDECK ABOVE UNIT #1(COMM.)UNIT #2(COMM.)UNIT #3(COMM.)UNIT #4(COMM.)UNIT #5(COMM.)UNIT #5(RES.)UNIT #6(RES.)UNIT #6(COMM.)UNIT #4(RES.)UNIT #3(RES.)UNIT #2(RES.)UNIT #1(RES.)SITE PLANSFSF%SFLOT AREAFARFLOOR AREA ALLOWEDPERCENT ALLOWEDALLOWABLE DECK AREA6,500x2.7517,875x152,681DECK AREA ALLOWED:NET LEASABLE FLOOR AREANET LIVABLE FLOOR AREADECK AREAOPEN TO BELOWSTAIR EXEMPTIONCRAWL SPACEPUBLIC AMENITYLEGENDUPPER LEVEL PLANSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFUNIT #1 - RES.UNIT #2 - RES.UNIT #3 - RES.UNIT #4 - RES.UNIT #6 - RES.RES. SUBTOTALUNIT #6 - COMM.STAIR EXEMPTION*NON-UNITFOOTPRINT582765453654+1,4533,90751974+3834,883FLOOR AREA:SFSFSFSFSFSFUNIT #1 - RES.UNIT #2 - RES.UNIT #3 - RES.UNIT #4 - RES.UNIT #6 - RES.AREA493667423580+1,3023,465NET LIVABLE:SFSFUNIT #6 - COMM.AREA463463NET LEASABLE:STAIR27 SFSTAIR47 SFSFSFSFSFSFDECK #2STAIRDECK #3DECK #6DECK AREA10184102+179466DECK AREA:MAIN LEVEL PLANSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFUNIT #1 - COMM.UNIT #2 - COMM.UNIT #3 - COMM.UNIT #4 - COMM.UNIT #5 - COMM.COMM. SUBTOTALUNIT #5 - RES.*NON-UNITFOOTPRINT9664146241,462+8094,275583+1805,038FLOOR AREA:SFSFUNIT #5 - RES.AREA491491NET LIVABLE:SFSFSFSFSFSFUNIT #1 - COMM.UNIT #2 - COMM.UNIT #3 - COMM.UNIT #4 - COMM.UNIT #5 - COMM.AREA8633485451,294+7083,758NET LEASABLE:BASEMENT PLANNOTE: BASEMENT LEVEL IS NOTEXPOSED TO THE EXTERIOR SO THEEXPOSED TO EXTERIOR FACTOR IS 0%.SFSFSFx 0% =x 0% =x 0% =737+4,3395,076FLOOR AREA:BASEMENT - COMM. STORAGECRAWL SPACEFOOTPRINTSFSFSF0+00SFSFBASEMENT - COMM.AREA737737NET LEASABLE:SFSF7156,500% OF PUBLIC AMENITY SPACE:TOTAL OPEN SPACEPROPERTY SIZE11% =MEZZANINE LEVEL PLANSFSFSFSFSFSFUNIT #4 - COMM.UNIT #5 - RES.STAIR EXEMPTIONOPEN TO BELOW*NON-UNITFOOTPRINT14245244246+41,172FLOOR AREA:SFSFUNIT #5 - RES.AREA390390NET LIVABLE:SFSFUNIT #4 - COMM.AREA142142NET LEASABLE:UNIT #5(RES.)OPEN TOLIVING ROOMBELOW(246 SF)STAIR(44 SF)UNIT #4(COMM.)EXISTING
FENCE ROOF PLANCRAWLSPACECRAWLSPACEUNIT #4STORAGE737 SFALLEY
HUNTER STREETCOOPER AVENUETOTAL AREA OFPROPERTY6,500 +/- SF(65' X 100')OPEN SPACE715 SFPROPERTY
LINE
PROP. LINEPROP. LINEPROP. LINEDECK ABOVEPARKINGBLDG.MECH.299 SF5'-11"STAIR(21 SF)OPEN TOLIVING ROOMBELOW(263 SF)DECK #3102 SFDECK #2101 SFDECK #6179 SFSTAIR84 SF12'-1"13'-2"A0.2e1/16"=1'-0"EXISTING FLOOR AREA,NET LEASABLE ANDPUBLIC AMENITY File Path: P:\Proj-2014\21436.00_Bowman\06_Documentation\01_Drawings\01_Existing\2818_A0-2e.dwgPlot Date/Time: September 16, 2015 - 4:25 pm
COPYRIGHT 2015 ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT ISTHE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIORWRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALLRETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS,INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.ConsultantsIssue:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:DWG FILE:3377 blake st, 106denver, co 80205303.308.1373 v303.308.1375 f234 e. hopkins ave.aspen, co 81611970.544.9006 v970.544.3473 frowland + broughtonarchitecture and urban designSCALE:2818_A0-2e.dwg529 - 535 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, CO 8161121436.0003.26.2015CLIENT REVIEW04.01.2015SCHEMATIC DESIGN07.28.2015HPC APPLICATION
DNDNDNUPUPUPUPUPRAMPUPUPUPUPRAMPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPPER LEVEL PLANSFSFSFSFSFDECK #2STAIRDECK #3DECK #6DECK AREA9697110+8691,172DECK AREA:737 SF COMMERCIAL x 0% EXPOSED WALL AREA = 0 SFBELOW GRADE SPACE TOWARD FARCITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE 26.575.020.D.8FLOOR AREA:NET LEASABLE:SFSF%SFLOT AREAFARFLOOR AREA ALLOWEDPERCENT ALLOWEDALLOWABLE DECK AREA6,500x2.7517,875x152,681DECK AREA ALLOWED:UNIT #1(COMM.)UNIT #3(COMM.)UNIT #4(COMM.)UNIT #5(COMM.)MAIN LEVEL PLANSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFUNIT #1 - COMM.UNIT #2 - REMOVEDUNIT #3 - COMM.UNIT #4 - COMM.UNIT #5 - COMM.SUBTOTALRESIDENTIAL NON-UNITCOMMERCIAL NON-UNITFOOTPRINT1,38001,3851,468+1,3815,614213+3746201FLOOR AREA:SFSFSFSFSFSFUNIT #1 - COMM.UNIT #2 - REMOVEDUNIT #3 - COMM.UNIT #4 - COMM.UNIT #5 - COMM.AREA1,25801,2431,294+1,2215016NET LEASABLE:ALLEY
HUNTER STREETCOOPER AVENUE SITE PLANTOTAL AREA OFPROPERTY6,500 +/- SF(65' X 100')PROPERTY
LINE
PROP. LINEPROP. LINEPROP. LINEROOF PLANNET LEASABLE FLOOR AREANET LIVABLE FLOOR AREADECK AREAOPEN TO BELOWSTAIR EXEMPTIONCRAWL SPACEPUBLIC AMENITYLEGENDNEWBLDG.NON UNITSTAIRUNIT#6(RES.)UNIT #6(COMM.)UNIT #4(RES.)UNIT #3(RES.)UNIT #2(RES.)UNIT #1(RES.)STAIR27 SFSTAIR47 SFSFSFSFSFSFSFUNIT #1 - RES.UNIT #2 - RES.UNIT #3 - RES.UNIT #4 - RES.UNIT #6 - RES.AREA493667423580+1,3023,465NET LIVABLE:SFSFUNIT #6 - COMM.AREA463463NET LEASABLE:THE ADDITION OF GREEN ROOFELEMENTS WILL BE CONSIDERED.UNIT #2(REMOVED)DECK #3110 SFDECK #296 SFNON-UNITSTAIRCRAWLSPACECRAWLSPACEUNIT #4STORAGE737 SFBLDG.MECH.299 SFSLAB-ON-GRADEABOVEBASEMENT LEVEL PLANSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFUNIT #1 - RES.UNIT #2 - RES.UNIT #3 - RES.UNIT #4 - RES.UNIT #6 - RES.RES. SUBTOTALUNIT #6 - COMM.STAIR EXEMPTIONRESIDENTIAL NON-UNITCOMMERICAL NON-UNITFOOTPRINT582765453654+1,4533,90751974139+2444,883FLOOR AREA:DECK #6869 SFSTAIR97 SFNON-UNIT SPACECOMMONTOTAL AREA OF PROPERTY6,500 +/- SF(65' X 100')2:1 COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA ALLOWABLE13,000 SF ALLOWABLE6,751 SF PROPOSED737 SF COMMERCIALGROSS FLOOR AREA TOTALS (PER USE)6133 SF COMMERCIAL (64%)3907 SF RESIDENTIAL (36%)NON-UNIT SPACE ALLOCATION970 SF TOTAL NON-UNIT SPACE (0% OF BELOW GRADE SPACE COUNTS TOWARD FAR)_x64% COMMERCIAL = 618 SF + 6133 SF = 6751 SF COMMERCIAL F.A._x36% RESIDENTIAL = 352 SF + 3907 SF = 4259 SF RESIDENTIAL F.A.A0.21/16"=1'-0"File Path: P:\Proj-2014\21436.00_Bowman\06_Documentation\01_Drawings\21436_A0-2.dwgPlot Date/Time: September 16, 2015 - 4:26 pm
COPYRIGHT 2015 ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT ISTHE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIORWRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALLRETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS,INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.ConsultantsIssue:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:DWG FILE:3377 blake st, 106denver, co 80205303.308.1373 v303.308.1375 f234 e. hopkins ave.aspen, co 81611970.544.9006 v970.544.3473 frowland + broughtonarchitecture and urban designSCALE:21436_A0-2.dwg529 - 535 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, CO 8161121436.0003.26.2015CLIENT REVIEW04.01.2015SCHEMATIC DESIGN07.28.2015HPC APPLICATION
EXISTING SITE IMAGESNOTE: THESE IMAGES AND IMAGES CONTAINED HEREIN ARE AN ARTIST'S REPRESENTATION INTENDED FOR VISUALIZATION ONLY AND MAY NOT DEPICT ALL CONDITIONS ACCURATELY. REFER TO DRAWINGS FOR ACCURATE DESIGN.EASTEASTNORTHEAST CORNERNORTHA0.3SCALE: N.T.SEXISTING IMAGESFile Path: P:\Proj-2014\21436.00_Bowman\06_Documentation\01_Drawings\21436_A0-3.dwgPlot Date/Time: September 16, 2015 - 4:25 pm
COPYRIGHT 2015 ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT ISTHE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIORWRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALLRETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS,INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.ConsultantsIssue:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:DWG FILE:3377 blake st, 106denver, co 80205303.308.1373 v303.308.1375 f234 e. hopkins ave.aspen, co 81611970.544.9006 v970.544.3473 frowland + broughtonarchitecture and urban designSCALE:21436_A0-3.dwg529 - 535 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, CO 8161121436.0003.26.2015CLIENT REVIEW04.01.2015SCHEMATIC DESIGN07.28.2015HPC APPLICATION
A0.4SCALE: N.T.SAREA OFADDITIONFile Path: P:\Proj-2014\21436.00_Bowman\06_Documentation\01_Drawings\21436_A0-3.dwgPlot Date/Time: September 16, 2015 - 4:26 pm
COPYRIGHT 2015 ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT ISTHE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIORWRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALLRETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS,INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.ConsultantsIssue:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:DWG FILE:3377 blake st, 106denver, co 80205303.308.1373 v303.308.1375 f234 e. hopkins ave.aspen, co 81611970.544.9006 v970.544.3473 frowland + broughtonarchitecture and urban designSCALE:21436_A0-3.dwg529 - 535 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, CO 8161121436.0003.26.2015CLIENT REVIEW04.01.2015SCHEMATIC DESIGN07.28.2015HPC APPLICATION
BIRDSEYE VIEWHUNTER STREET VIEWCORNER VIEWINTERIOR VIEW TOWARDS HUNTER STREETA0.5SCALE: N.T.SADDITIONMODEL VIEWSFile Path: P:\Proj-2014\21436.00_Bowman\06_Documentation\01_Drawings\21436_A0-3.dwgPlot Date/Time: September 16, 2015 - 4:26 pm
COPYRIGHT 2015 ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT ISTHE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIORWRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALLRETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS,INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.ConsultantsIssue:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:DWG FILE:3377 blake st, 106denver, co 80205303.308.1373 v303.308.1375 f234 e. hopkins ave.aspen, co 81611970.544.9006 v970.544.3473 frowland + broughtonarchitecture and urban designSCALE:21436_A0-3.dwg529 - 535 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, CO 8161121436.0003.26.2015CLIENT REVIEW04.01.2015SCHEMATIC DESIGN07.28.2015HPC APPLICATION
CONCEPTCHARRETTEDETAILMATERIALWOODMATERIALMETALMATERIALCONCRETEA0.6SCALE: N.T.SADDITIONMATERIALITYFile Path: P:\Proj-2014\21436.00_Bowman\06_Documentation\01_Drawings\21436_A0-3.dwgPlot Date/Time: September 16, 2015 - 4:26 pm
COPYRIGHT 2015 ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT ISTHE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIORWRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALLRETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS,INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.ConsultantsIssue:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:DWG FILE:3377 blake st, 106denver, co 80205303.308.1373 v303.308.1375 f234 e. hopkins ave.aspen, co 81611970.544.9006 v970.544.3473 frowland + broughtonarchitecture and urban designSCALE:21436_A0-3.dwg529 - 535 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, CO 8161121436.0003.26.2015CLIENT REVIEW04.01.2015SCHEMATIC DESIGN07.28.2015HPC APPLICATION
HUNTER STREET(75' R.O.W.)COOPER AVENUE
(75' R.O.W.)ALLEY(20' R.O.W.)LOT ILOT HWESTERLY 25' OF LOT GLOT FLIGHTPOLEPARKSIGNPARKSIGNCONCRETESIDEWALKEN
TR
Y
CONCRETE
WALK ELECT.METERWOODDECK64.67
.
3
6
20.77
ENTRY
2.9
3.03.027.05 2.754.35
5.3 80.5EASTERLY 5' OF LOT G17.25.618.1
17.0
BOWMANBUILDINGTELE.PED.TELE.BOXCATV PED.ASPEN GROVEBUILDINGAIR COOLERWITH DUCTBUILDINGSHEDCOOLERELECTRICAL METERS ANDSHUTOFF PANELCOOLERELEC.TRAN.AND PADGASMETERMECH.UNITABOVEAIR COOLERWITH DUCTFENCE
FENCE TRASH AND RECYCLING BIN ALONGFENCE AND OFF PROPERTY
DECK ABOVE
DECK ABOVE
BRICKPAVERSCONCRETE
SIDEWALK
BRICK
PAVERSCONCRETESLOPEENTRY ENTRY
ENTRY
ENTRY
8'-4 7/16"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE LAWNRAMP UPGATE GATEGATEPLANTERUPDNLANDSCAPING
LANDSCAPINGA1.0e1/8"=1'-0"EXISTINGSITE PLANFile Path: P:\Proj-2014\21436.00_Bowman\06_Documentation\01_Drawings\01_Existing\2818_A1-0e.dwgPlot Date/Time: September 16, 2015 - 4:25 pm
COPYRIGHT 2015 ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT ISTHE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIORWRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALLRETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS,INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.ConsultantsIssue:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:DWG FILE:3377 blake st, 106denver, co 80205303.308.1373 v303.308.1375 f234 e. hopkins ave.aspen, co 81611970.544.9006 v970.544.3473 frowland + broughtonarchitecture and urban designSCALE:2818_A1-0e.dwg529 - 535 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, CO 8161121436.0003.26.2015CLIENT REVIEW04.01.2015SCHEMATIC DESIGN07.28.2015HPC APPLICATION
UPSCALE:EXISTINGBASEMENT FLOOR PLAN3/16" = 1'-0" 1A2.0e65'-6"30'-10"18'-8"16'-0"2A4.2eDA5.2eAA5.1eBA5.1eABCD30'-10"16'-0"18'-8"
65'-6"2341A4.2eCA5.2e2A4.1eDA5.2eAA5.1eABCDBA5.1e1A4.1eCA5.2e23411'-8 7/8"21'-4"11'-8 7/8"21'-4"EA5.3eEA5.3e1180'-6"47'-5 1/4"80'-6"47'-5 1/4"EXISTINGBOILERSSTEP1'-3"HIGHWOOD COLUMNSBRICK CHIMNEY/FLUEEXISTINGWATERHEATERSEXPOSED FLOOR ABOVE3"X12" JOISTS AT 10" O.C.8" CONCRETE WALLWOOD PLANK FLOOROVER DIRTDIRT FLOORCRAWL SPACE(ACCESS RESTRICTED)BRICK FOUNDATIONBRICK FOUNDATIONCRAWL SPACE(ACCESS RESTRICTED)ASPENGROVEBUILDINGWOOD CRIB WALL SUPPORTEDWITH RANDOM WOOD COLUMNSWOOD CRIB WALL SUPPORTEDWITH RANDOM WOOD COLUMNSA2.0e3/16"=1'-0"EXISTINGBASEMENT FLOOR PLANFile Path: P:\Proj-2014\21436.00_Bowman\06_Documentation\01_Drawings\01_Existing\2818_A2-0e.dwgPlot Date/Time: September 16, 2015 - 4:25 pm
COPYRIGHT 2015 ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT ISTHE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIORWRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALLRETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS,INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.ConsultantsIssue:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:DWG FILE:3377 blake st, 106denver, co 80205303.308.1373 v303.308.1375 f234 e. hopkins ave.aspen, co 81611970.544.9006 v970.544.3473 frowland + broughtonarchitecture and urban designSCALE:2818_A2-0e.dwg529 - 535 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, CO 8161121436.0003.26.2015CLIENT REVIEW04.01.2015SCHEMATIC DESIGN07.28.2015HPC APPLICATION
DNUPUPUPDNUPUPUPCOOPER AVENUE
ALLEY
HUNTER STREETWOOD DECKAT GRADEBATHROOMPLANT BEDPLANT BEDPLANTERDNRAMP UPSCALE:EXISTINGMAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN3/16" = 1'-0" 1A2.1e65'-6"30'-10"18'-8"16'-0"2A4.2eDA5.2eAA5.1eBA5.1eABCD30'-10"16'-0"18'-8"
65'-6"2341A4.2eCA5.2e2A4.1eDA5.2eAA5.1eABCDBA5.1e1A4.1eCA5.2e23411'-8 7/8"21'-4"11'-8 7/8"21'-4"EA5.3eEA5.3e1180'-6"47'-5 1/4"80'-6"47'-5 1/4"LINE OF LOFT ABOVE
DECK ABOVEDNLAWNFENCEGATEPAVEMENTSLOPES DN14" STEPGATEGATEDECK ABOVEFENCE
SOFFIT ABOVE7 1/2" STEP
6 1/2" STEPGATEFENCE UTILITIESEXISTING MECHANICALDUCT ABOVEEXPOSED BEAM ABOVEMECH.UNIT ABOVEPROPERTY LINEUNIT #1(COMMERCIAL)UNIT #2(COMM.)UNIT #3(COMMERCIAL)UNIT #4 - MAIN(COMMERCIAL)UNIT #5(COMMERCIAL)UNIT #5 - MAIN(RESIDENTIAL)ASPEN GROVE BUILDINGGAS METERFIRE ALARMANNUNCIATORPANELNOTE: PROPERTY LINECONCRETE SIDEWALKCONCRETE SIDEWALK
PAVED ALLEY PAVED ALLEY
13'-0"11'-6"12'-4"11'-11"12'-5"13'-9"12'-6"6'-9"6'-8"11'-3"8'-3"7'-4"7'-5"7'-5"7'-5"6'-10"8'-1"A2.1e3/16"=1'-0"EXISTINGMAIN LEVELFLOOR PLANFile Path: P:\Proj-2014\21436.00_Bowman\06_Documentation\01_Drawings\01_Existing\2818_A2-1e.dwgPlot Date/Time: September 16, 2015 - 4:25 pm
COPYRIGHT 2015 ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT ISTHE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIORWRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALLRETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS,INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.ConsultantsIssue:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:DWG FILE:3377 blake st, 106denver, co 80205303.308.1373 v303.308.1375 f234 e. hopkins ave.aspen, co 81611970.544.9006 v970.544.3473 frowland + broughtonarchitecture and urban designSCALE:2818_A2-1e.dwg529 - 535 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, CO 8161121436.0003.26.2015CLIENT REVIEW04.01.2015SCHEMATIC DESIGN07.28.2015HPC APPLICATION
UPDNDN65'-6"30'-10"18'-8"16'-0"2A4.2eDA5.2eAA5.1eBA5.1eABCD30'-10"16'-0"18'-8"
65'-6"2341A4.2eCA5.2e2A4.1eDA5.2eAA5.1eABCDBA5.1e1A4.1eCA5.2e23411'-8 7/8"21'-4"11'-8 7/8"21'-4"EA5.3eEA5.3e1180'-6"47'-5 1/4"80'-6"47'-5 1/4"COOPER AVENUE
ALLEY
HUNTER STREETUNIT #5 - LOFT(RESIDENTIAL)SCALE:EXISTINGMEZZANINE FLOOR PLAN3/16" = 1'-0" 1A2.1meFENCE
UNIT #4 - LOFT(COMMERCIAL)MAIN LEVEL BELOWOPEN TO BELOWOPEN TO BELOWDROPPED SOFFIT FOR PLUMBING FROMABOVEDROPPED SOFFIT FOR STORAGEA2.1me3/16"=1'-0"EXISTINGMEZZANINE LEVELFLOOR PLANFile Path: P:\Proj-2014\21436.00_Bowman\06_Documentation\01_Drawings\01_Existing\2818_A2-1me.dwgPlot Date/Time: September 16, 2015 - 4:25 pm
COPYRIGHT 2010 ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT ISTHE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIORWRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALLRETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS,INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.ConsultantsIssue:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:DWG FILE:3377 blake st, 106denver, co 80205303.308.1373 v303.308.1375 f117 s. monarch st.aspen, co 81611970.544.9006 v970.544.3473 frowland + broughtonarchitecture and urban design2818_A2-1me.dwg529 - 535 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, CO 816112818SCALE:10.07.2014HPC PRE-APPLICATION12.15.2014REVISIONS FROM CLIENT MEETING
65'-6"30'-10"18'-8"16'-0"2A4.2eDA5.2eAA5.1eBA5.1eABCD30'-10"16'-0"18'-8"
65'-6"2341A4.2eCA5.2e2A4.1eDA5.2eAA5.1eABCDBA5.1e1A4.1eCA5.2e23411'-8 7/8"21'-4"11'-8 7/8"21'-4"EA5.3eEA5.3e1180'-6"47'-5 1/4"80'-6"47'-5 1/4"DNDNDNCOOPER AVENUE
ALLEY
HUNTER STREETCOVEREDDECKCOVEREDDECKCOVEREDDECKSCALE:EXISTINGUPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN3/16" = 1'-0" 1A2.2eELEC METERSPENTHOUSE(RESIDENTIAL)UNIT #6(COMMERCIAL)UNIT #4(RESIDENTIAL)UNIT #3(RESIDENTIAL)UNIT #2(RESIDENTIAL)UNIT #1(RESIDENTIAL)PROPERTY LINEASPEN GROVE BUILDINGEXISTING ROOFHATCHFACPCLERESTORYABOVET. O. DECK7942.98'T. O. STAIR/DECK7942.52'T. O. FINISH 7943.43'T. O. FINISH 7942.66'T. O. DECK7942.55'T. O. DECK7943.34'T. O. FINISH 7942.67'T. O. FINISH 7943.66'T. O. FINISH 7943.43'T. O. FINISH 7943.48'A2.2e3/16"=1'-0"EXISTINGUPPER LEVELFLOOR PLANFile Path: P:\Proj-2014\21436.00_Bowman\06_Documentation\01_Drawings\01_Existing\2818_A2-2e.dwgPlot Date/Time: September 16, 2015 - 4:25 pm
COPYRIGHT 2010 ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT ISTHE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIORWRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALLRETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS,INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.ConsultantsIssue:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:DWG FILE:3377 blake st, 106denver, co 80205303.308.1373 v303.308.1375 f117 s. monarch st.aspen, co 81611970.544.9006 v970.544.3473 frowland + broughtonarchitecture and urban design2818_A2-2e.dwg529 - 535 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, CO 816112818SCALE:10.07.2014HPC PRE-APPLICATION12.15.2014REVISIONS FROM CLIENT MEETING
65'-6"30'-10"18'-8"16'-0"2A4.2eDA5.2eAA5.1eBA5.1eABCD30'-10"16'-0"18'-8"
65'-6"2341A4.2eCA5.2e2A4.1eDA5.2eAA5.1eABCDBA5.1e1A4.1eCA5.2e23411'-8 7/8"21'-4"11'-8 7/8"21'-4"EA5.3eEA5.3e1180'-6"47'-5 1/4"80'-6"47'-5 1/4"COOPER AVENUE BELOW
ALLEY BELOW
HUNTER STREET BELOWSCALE:EXISTINGROOF PLAN3/16" = 1'-0" 1A2.3eSLOPE 1:12ROOF ABOVECOVEREDDECK BELOWSLOPE 5:12ROOF ABOVECOVEREDDECK BELOWSLOPE 1:12ROOF ABOVECOVEREDDECK BELOWSLOPE 1:12FELT & TARSLOPE 3:12FELT & TARCLOSEDCHIMNEY FLUEDRAINDRAINVENTVENTVENTVENTVENTVENTA/C UNITA/CUNITEXHAUST VENTVENTFLAT ROOFFLAT ROOFFLAT ROOFFELT & TARDRAINPARAPHET WALLAND BATHROOMROOF BELOWROOF HATCHPARAPETASPEN GROVE BUILDINGALLEY BELOWEXISTING FLUEEXISTING FLUEA2.3e3/16"=1'-0"EXISTINGROOF PLANFile Path: P:\Proj-2014\21436.00_Bowman\06_Documentation\01_Drawings\01_Existing\2818_A2-3e.dwgPlot Date/Time: September 16, 2015 - 4:25 pm
COPYRIGHT 2015 ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT ISTHE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIORWRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALLRETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS,INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.ConsultantsIssue:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:DWG FILE:3377 blake st, 106denver, co 80205303.308.1373 v303.308.1375 f234 e. hopkins ave.aspen, co 81611970.544.9006 v970.544.3473 frowland + broughtonarchitecture and urban designSCALE:2818_A2-3e.dwg529 - 535 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, CO 8161121436.0003.26.2015CLIENT REVIEW04.01.2015SCHEMATIC DESIGN07.28.2015HPC APPLICATION
SCALE:EXISTINGEAST BUILDING ELEVATION3/16" = 1'-0" 1A4.0e123486'-1"16'-0 1/2"21'-4"48'-8 1/2"GATEGATEALLEY125121COOPER AVENUEFIXED DOORT.O. PARAPET128'-8"LUSH - MAIN LEVELT.O. F.F.100'-0"PENTHOUSE LEVELT.O. F.F.115'-6"15'-6"13'-2"28'-8"STAIRBA5.0e121OPENBEYONDPENTHOUSE(RESIDENTIAL)UNIT #1(COMMERCIAL)UNIT #2(COMM.)UNIT #3(COMMERCIAL)SCALE:EXISTINGNORTH BUILDING ELEVATION3/16" = 1'-0" 2A4.0eDCBA30'-10"16'-0"18'-8"65'-6"T.O. PARAPET128'-8"LUSH - MAIN LEVELT.O. F.F.100'-0"COMMON HALL LEVELT.O. F.F.115'-3"15'-3"13'-5"28'-8"HUNTER STREETENTRYENTRYENTRYFIXED DOORASPENGROVEBUILDING10'-0"CA5.1eAA5.0eDA5.1eUNIT #4(RESIDENTIAL)PENTHOUSE(RESIDENTIAL)UNIT #6(COMMERICAL)UNIT #1(RESIDENTIAL)STAIRSUNIT #5(COMMERCIAL)UNIT #4(COMM.)UNIT #1(COMMERCIAL)SIDEWALKSCALE:EXISTINGNORTH-EAST BUILDING ELEVATION3/16" = 1'-0"1aA4.0e1888T.O. PARAPET128'-8"LUSH - MAIN LEVELT.O. F.F.100'-0"PENTHOUSE LEVELT.O. F.F.115'-6"15'-6"13'-2"28'-8"A4.0e3/16"=1'-0"EXISTINGBUILDINGELEVATIONSFile Path: P:\Proj-2014\21436.00_Bowman\06_Documentation\01_Drawings\01_Existing\2818_A4-1e.dwgPlot Date/Time: September 16, 2015 - 4:25 pm
COPYRIGHT 2015 ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT ISTHE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIORWRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALLRETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS,INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.ConsultantsIssue:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:DWG FILE:3377 blake st, 106denver, co 80205303.308.1373 v303.308.1375 f234 e. hopkins ave.aspen, co 81611970.544.9006 v970.544.3473 frowland + broughtonarchitecture and urban designSCALE:2818_A4-1e.dwg529 - 535 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, CO 8161121436.0003.26.2015CLIENT REVIEW04.01.2015SCHEMATIC DESIGN07.28.2015HPC APPLICATION
SCALE:EXISTINGWEST BUILDING ELEVATION3/16" = 1'-0" 1A4.1e432148'-8 1/2"21'-4"16'-0 1/2"86'-1"T.O. PARAPET128'-8"LUSH - MAIN LEVELT.O. F.F.100'-0"UNITS 1, 3 & 4 LEVELT.O. F.F.115'-6"15'-6"14'-1 3/4"28'-8"COOPER AVENUEALLEYBA5.0eUNIT #1(RESIDENTIAL)UNIT #2(RESIDENTIAL)UNIT #5(RESIDENTIAL)UNIT #5(COMMERCIAL)GATESCALE:EXISTINGSOUTH BUILDING ELEVATION3/16" = 1'-0" 2A4.1eABCD18'-8"16'-0"30'-10"65'-6"T.O. PARAPET128'-8"LUSH - MAIN LEVELT.O. F.F.100'-0"PENTHOUSE LEVELT.O. F.F.115'-6"15'-6"13'-2"28'-8"ASPENGROVEBUILDING10'-0"HUNTER STREETDA5.1eAA5.0eCA5.1eUNIT #2(RESIDENTIAL)UNIT #3(RESIDENTIAL)PENTHOUSE(RESIDENTIAL)HUNTER STREETUNIT #3(COMMERCIAL)UNIT #4(COMM.)UNIT #5(RESIDENTIAL)A4.1e3/16"=1'-0"EXISTINGBUILDINGELEVATIONSFile Path: P:\Proj-2014\21436.00_Bowman\06_Documentation\01_Drawings\01_Existing\2818_A4-1e.dwgPlot Date/Time: September 16, 2015 - 4:25 pm
COPYRIGHT 2015 ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT ISTHE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIORWRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALLRETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS,INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.ConsultantsIssue:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:DWG FILE:3377 blake st, 106denver, co 80205303.308.1373 v303.308.1375 f234 e. hopkins ave.aspen, co 81611970.544.9006 v970.544.3473 frowland + broughtonarchitecture and urban designSCALE:2818_A4-1e.dwg529 - 535 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, CO 8161121436.0003.26.2015CLIENT REVIEW04.01.2015SCHEMATIC DESIGN07.28.2015HPC APPLICATION
UPUPUPUPUPRAMPUPUPHUNTER STREET(75' R.O.W.)COOPER AVENUE
(75' R.O.W.)ALLEY(20' R.O.W.)LIGHTPOLEPARKSIGNPARKSIGNCONCRETESIDEWALKEN
TR
Y
ENTRY TELE.PED.TELE.BOXCATV PED.ASPEN GROVEBUILDINGAIR COOLERWITH DUCTBUILDINGSHEDCOOLERELECTRICAL METERS ANDSHUTOFF PANELCOOLERELEC.TRAN.AND PADCOMMON
CORRIDOR
FENCEBRICKPAVERS
CONCRETE
SIDEWALK
BRICK
PAVERS COVEREDTRASHYARDENTRY
8'-4 7/16"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
SCALE:SITE PLAN1/8" = 1'-0"1A1.1PROPOSEDNEWENTRYNEWENTRYRESTROOMRESTROOMRESTROOMRESTROOMFile Path: P:\Proj-2014\21436.00_Bowman\06_Documentation\01_Drawings\21436_A1-1.dwgPlot Date/Time: September 16, 2015 - 4:26 pm
COPYRIGHT 2015 ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT ISTHE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIORWRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALLRETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS,INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.ConsultantsIssue:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:DWG FILE:3377 blake st, 106denver, co 80205303.308.1373 v303.308.1375 f234 e. hopkins ave.aspen, co 81611970.544.9006 v970.544.3473 frowland + broughtonarchitecture and urban designSCALE:21436_A1-1.dwg529 - 535 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, CO 8161121436.0003.26.2015CLIENT REVIEW04.01.2015SCHEMATIC DESIGN07.28.2015HPC APPLICATIONA1.11/8" = 1'-0"PROPOSEDSITE PLAN
65'-6"30'-10"18'-8"
30'-10"16'-0"18'-8"
16'-0"
65'-6"02341A4.2CA5.22A4.1DA5.2AA5.1ABCDBA5.11A4.1CA5.202342A4.2DA5.2AA5.1BA5.1ABCD11'-8 7/8"21'-4"11'-8 7/8"21'-4"EA5.3EA5.31'-10"1117'-8 5/8"17'-8 5/8"98'-2 11/16"98'-2 11/16"47'-5 1/4"47'-5 1/4"SCALE:BASEMENT PLAN3/16" = 1'-0"1A2.0PROPOSEDUP7'-9"7'-9"9'-0"EXISTING ADJACENTBUILDINGEXISTINGBUILDINGMECHANICALEXISTING CRAWLSPACEGENERAL NOTES:1. NO SCOPE IN EXISTING BASEMENT.NEW CRAWLSPACEUNDER ADDITIONNEW CRAWLSPACE UNDERADDITIONSTAIRABOVEA2.03/16"=1'-0"PROPOSEDBASEMENT PLANFile Path: P:\Proj-2014\21436.00_Bowman\06_Documentation\01_Drawings\21436_A2-0.dwgPlot Date/Time: September 16, 2015 - 4:26 pm
COPYRIGHT 2015 ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT ISTHE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIORWRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALLRETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS,INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.ConsultantsIssue:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:DWG FILE:3377 blake st, 106denver, co 80205303.308.1373 v303.308.1375 f234 e. hopkins ave.aspen, co 81611970.544.9006 v970.544.3473 frowland + broughtonarchitecture and urban designSCALE:21436_A2-0.dwg529 - 535 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, CO 8161121436.0003.26.2015CLIENT REVIEW04.01.2015SCHEMATIC DESIGN07.28.2015HPC APPLICATION
UPUPUPUPUPRAMPUPUPSCALE:LEVEL ONE FLOOR PLAN3/16" = 1'-0"1A2.1PROPOSED65'-6"30'-10"18'-8"
30'-10"16'-0"18'-8"
16'-0"
65'-6"02341A4.2CA5.22A4.1DA5.2AA5.1ABCDBA5.11A4.1CA5.202342A4.2DA5.2AA5.1BA5.1ABCD11'-8 7/8"21'-4"11'-8 7/8"21'-4"EA5.3EA5.31'-10"1117'-8 5/8"17'-8 5/8"98'-2 11/16"98'-2 11/16"47'-5 1/4"47'-5 1/4"EXPANSION OF UNIT #3 (COMM.)
COOPER AVENUE
ALLEY
HUNTER STREETUNIT #3(COMMERCIAL)UNIT #1(COMMERCIAL)UNIT #4 - MAIN(COMMERCIAL)UNIT #5(COMMERCIAL)UNIT #5 - LOFTRESIDENTIAL7 1/2" STEP
6 1/2" STEP UTILITIESEXISTINGMECHANICAL DUCTEXPOSED BEAM ABOVEFLOOR LEVEL OFEXISTING UNIT #3 (COMM.)TO BE RAISED UP TOMATCH NEW ADDITIONTRASH/RECYCLINGPM/NCMTTRASHWILDLIFE ENCLOSURECARDBOARD
FLOOR FRAMING TO BERAISED TO AVOIDUNNECESSARY STEPSWITH IN SPACEFORMER RESIDENTIAL UNITFLOOR TO REFRAMED TO MATCHCOMMERCIAL FLOOR LEVEL.MEZZANINE TO BE REMOVEDMEZZANINE TO BEREMOVED. BASEMENTSTAIRS TO REMAINGAS METER
EXPANSION OF UNIT #5 (COMM.)EXISTPROPOSEDEXISTPROPOSEDRAISE FINISH FLOOR - 9"CAN THIS AREA BE BROUGHTDOWN TO BE LEVEL WITH FRONTOF RETAIL SPACE?UNIT #3(COMMERCIAL)PLANTER
PLANTERLINE OFSKYLIGHTABOVET. O. FINISH C-17929.12'T. O. FINISH C-47929.69'T. O. FINISH C-57928.77'T. O. FINISH C-37930.00'T. O. FINISH C-17929.49'T. O. FINISH C-47930.23'T. O. FINISH C-57928.77'T. O. FINISH TRASH7930.00'T. O. FINISH C-47930.00'T. O. FINISH C-47929.69'T. O. FINISH C-57928.77'T. O. ALLEY7930.65'T. O. SIDEWALK7930.00'T. O. ALLEY7930.51'T. O. SIDEWALK7930.39'T. O. SIDEWALK7929.49'T. O. SIDEWALK7928.91'T. O. SIDEWALK7928.73'T. O. SIDEWALK7928.68'T. O. SIDEWALK7928.80'T. O. FINISH C-37930.00'T. O. FIN EXT7929.27'T. O. FIN EXT7930.58'COMMONHALLEXISTINGRESTROOMRESTROOMRESTROOMRESTROOMFLOOR LEVEL OFEXISTING UNIT #1 (COMM.)TO BE RAISED UP TOMATCH UNIT #2RESTROOM17'-6 5/8"15'-8"17'-6 1/2"SPRING LOADEDDOORELECTRIC METERS
NEW / RESTOREDEXTERIOR DOORA2.13/16"=1'-0"PROPOSEDLEVEL ONEFLOOR PLANFile Path: P:\Proj-2014\21436.00_Bowman\06_Documentation\01_Drawings\21436_A2-1.dwgPlot Date/Time: September 16, 2015 - 4:26 pm
COPYRIGHT 2015 ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT ISTHE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIORWRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALLRETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS,INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.ConsultantsIssue:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:DWG FILE:3377 blake st, 106denver, co 80205303.308.1373 v303.308.1375 f234 e. hopkins ave.aspen, co 81611970.544.9006 v970.544.3473 frowland + broughtonarchitecture and urban designSCALE:21436_A2-1.dwg529 - 535 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, CO 8161121436.0003.26.2015CLIENT REVIEW04.01.2015SCHEMATIC DESIGN07.28.2015HPC APPLICATION
65'-6"30'-10"18'-8"
30'-10"16'-0"18'-8"
16'-0"
65'-6"02341A4.2CA5.22A4.1DA5.2AA5.1ABCDBA5.11A4.1CA5.202342A4.2DA5.2AA5.1BA5.1ABCD11'-8 7/8"21'-4"11'-8 7/8"21'-4"EA5.3EA5.31'-10"1117'-8 5/8"17'-8 5/8"98'-2 11/16"98'-2 11/16"47'-5 1/4"47'-5 1/4"DNDNDNCOOPER AVENUE
ALLEY
HUNTER STREETUNIT #1(RESIDENTIAL)UNIT #3(RESIDENTIAL)UNIT #2(RESIDENTIAL)UNIT #6(COMMERCIAL)UNIT #4(RESIDENTIAL)UNIT #5(RESIDENTIAL)NO INTERIOR SCOPEON LEVEL TWOHALLSCALE:PROPOSEDLEVEL TWO PLAN3/16" = 1'-0"1A2.2ROOF DECK FORUNIT #2SAME AS EXISTDECK AREA(RESIDENTIAL)ROOF DECK FORUNIT #6 SAME ASEXIST DECK AREA(RESIDENTIAL)ROOF DECK FORUNIT #3 SAME ASEXIST DECK AREA(RESIDENTIAL)PERMANENTGUARDRAIL/BARRIER
PERMANENT
GUARDRAIL/BARRIER
PERMANENTGUARDRAIL/BARRIERGREEN ROOF,SLOPE TOINTERNAL DRAINGREEN ROOF,SLOPE TOINTERNAL DRAINGREEN ROOF,SLOPE TOINTERNAL DRAINT. O. FINISH R-27943.48'T. O. FINISH R-17943.37'T. O. DECK R-17942.98'T. O. STAIR/DECK7942.52'T. O. FINISH 7942.66'T. O. DECK7942.55'T. O. DECK7943.34'T. O. FINISH 7942.67'T. O. FINISH 7943.66'UNIT #5(RESIDENTIAL)UNIT #5(RESIDENTIAL)File Path: P:\Proj-2014\21436.00_Bowman\06_Documentation\01_Drawings\21436_A2-2.dwgPlot Date/Time: September 16, 2015 - 4:26 pm
COPYRIGHT 2015 ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT ISTHE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIORWRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALLRETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS,INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.ConsultantsIssue:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:DWG FILE:3377 blake st, 106denver, co 80205303.308.1373 v303.308.1375 f234 e. hopkins ave.aspen, co 81611970.544.9006 v970.544.3473 frowland + broughtonarchitecture and urban designSCALE:21436_A2-2.dwg529 - 535 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, CO 8161121436.0003.26.2015CLIENT REVIEW04.01.2015SCHEMATIC DESIGN07.28.2015HPC APPLICATIONA2.23/16"=1'-0"PROPOSEDLEVEL TWO PLAN
SCALE:ROOF PLAN3/16" = 1'-0"1A2.3PROPOSED65'-6"30'-10"18'-8"
30'-10"16'-0"18'-8"
16'-0"
65'-6"02341A4.2CA5.22A4.1DA5.2AA5.1ABCDBA5.11A4.1CA5.202342A4.2DA5.2AA5.1BA5.1ABCD11'-8 7/8"21'-4"11'-8 7/8"21'-4"EA5.3EA5.31'-10"1117'-8 5/8"17'-8 5/8"98'-2 11/16"98'-2 11/16"47'-5 1/4"47'-5 1/4"HUNTER STREETCOOPER AVENUE
ALLEY SLOPE 1:12ROOF ABOVECOVEREDDECK BELOWSLOPE 5:12ROOF ABOVECOVEREDDECK BELOWSLOPE 1:12ROOF ABOVECOVEREDDECK BELOWCLOSEDCHIMNEY FLUEDRAINDRAINA/C UNITFLAT ROOFFLAT ROOFDRAINADD GREEN ROOFWHERE POSSIBLEPER STRUCTURALADD GREEN ROOFWHERE POSSIBLEPER STRUCTURALADD GREEN ROOFWHERE POSSIBLEPER STRUCTURALFile Path: P:\Proj-2014\21436.00_Bowman\06_Documentation\01_Drawings\21436_A2-3.dwgPlot Date/Time: September 16, 2015 - 4:26 pm
COPYRIGHT 2015 ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT ISTHE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIORWRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALLRETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS,INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.ConsultantsIssue:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:DWG FILE:3377 blake st, 106denver, co 80205303.308.1373 v303.308.1375 f234 e. hopkins ave.aspen, co 81611970.544.9006 v970.544.3473 frowland + broughtonarchitecture and urban designSCALE:21436_A2-3.dwg529 - 535 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, CO 8161121436.0003.26.2015CLIENT REVIEW04.01.2015SCHEMATIC DESIGN07.28.2015HPC APPLICATIONA2.31/4"=1'-0"PROPOSEDROOF PLAN
ALLEY125121COOPER AVENUEFIXED DOORT.O. PARAPET128'-8"LUSH - MAIN LEVELT.O. F.F.100'-0"RESIDENTIAL LEVELT.O. F.F.115'-6"15'-6"2'-1"28'-8"STAIR121OPENBEYONDUNIT #1(COMMERCIAL)UNIT #3(COMMERCIAL)123486'-1"16'-0 1/2"21'-4"48'-8 1/2"CA5.2UNIT #5(RESIDENTIAL)UNIT #6(RESIDENTIAL)HALLWAY(RESIDENTIAL)FA5.317'-4"SCALE:PROPOSEDEAST BUILDING ELEVATION3/16" = 1'-0"1A4.1PROPOSED ADDITIONEXISTING16'-3"1'-0"WOOD CLADDOORNEW/ RESTOREDENTRYNEW ENTRYMASONRY WALLS - BOARD FORMCONCRETE OR STACKED STONEVERTICAL WOOD SIDINGGLASS STOREFRONTT.O. ADDITION117'-7"11'-1"LUSH - MAIN LEVELT.O. F.F.100'-0"T.O. PARAPET128'-8"LUSH - MAIN LEVELT.O. F.F.100'-0"COMMON HALL LEVELT.O. F.F.115'-3"15'-3"13'-5"28'-8"HUNTER STREETENTRYENTRYENTRYFIXED DOORASPENGROVEBUILDING10'-0"STAIRSUNIT #5(COMMERCIAL)UNIT #4(COMM.)UNIT #1(COMMERCIAL)SIDEWALKDCBA30'-10"16'-0"18'-8"65'-6"BA5.1AA5.1DA5.2UNIT #4(RESIDENTIAL)UNIT #5(RESIDENTIAL)UNIT #1(RESIDENTIAL)SCALE:PROPOSEDNORTH BUILDING ELEVATION3/16" = 1'-0" 2A4.11888T.O. PARAPET128'-8"LUSH - MAIN LEVELT.O. F.F.100'-0"PENTHOUSE LEVELT.O. F.F.115'-6"15'-6"13'-2"28'-8"SCALE:PROPOSEDNORTH-EAST BUILDING ELEVATION3/16" = 1'-0"1aA4.1A4.13/16"=1'-0"PROPOSEDBUILDINGELEVATIONSFile Path: P:\Proj-2014\21436.00_Bowman\06_Documentation\01_Drawings\21436_A4-1.dwgPlot Date/Time: September 16, 2015 - 4:26 pm
COPYRIGHT 2015 ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT ISTHE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIORWRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALLRETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS,INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.ConsultantsIssue:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:DWG FILE:3377 blake st, 106denver, co 80205303.308.1373 v303.308.1375 f234 e. hopkins ave.aspen, co 81611970.544.9006 v970.544.3473 frowland + broughtonarchitecture and urban designSCALE:21436_A4-1.dwg529 - 535 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, CO 8161121436.0003.26.2015CLIENT REVIEW04.01.2015SCHEMATIC DESIGN07.28.2015HPC APPLICATION
T.O. PARAPET128'-8"LUSH - MAIN LEVELT.O. F.F.100'-0"UNITS 1, 3 & 4 LEVELT.O. F.F.115'-6"15'-6"14'-1 3/4"28'-8"COOPER AVENUEALLEYUNIT #5(RESIDENTIAL)UNIT #5(COMMERCIAL)GATE432148'-8 1/2"21'-4"16'-0 1/2"86'-1"CA5.2UNIT #1(RESIDENTIAL)UNIT #2(RESIDENTIAL)SCALE:PROPOSEDWEST BUILDING ELEVATION3/16" = 1'-0" 1A4.2NEW ADDITIONVIEW PLANE HEIGHTAT ALLEY - ALL ADDITIONUNDER VIEW PLANET.O. PARAPET128'-8"LUSH - MAIN LEVELT.O. F.F.100'-0"PENTHOUSE LEVELT.O. F.F.115'-6"15'-6"13'-2"28'-8"ASPENGROVEBUILDING10'-0"HUNTER STREETUNIT #3(COMMERCIAL)UNIT #4(COMM.)UNIT #5(COMMERCIAL)ABCD18'-8"16'-0"30'-10"65'-6"DA5.2AA5.1BA5.1UNIT #2(RESIDENTIAL)UNIT #3(RESIDENTIAL)UNIT #6(RESIDENTIAL)SCALE:PROPOSEDSOUTH BUILDING ELEVATION3/16" = 1'-0" 2A4.2NEW ADDITIONNEW ADDITIONNEW ADDITIONTRASHENCLOSUREGATE/DOORELEC ELECGAS13'-11"
13'-0 1/2"
18'-4"VIEW PLANE HEIGHTAT ALLEY - ALL ADDITIONUNDER VIEW PLANE7948.0'REPLACE EXISTING RAILING WITH NEWWOOD PARTIAL HEIGHT WALL TOMATCH NEW SIDINGMINIMAL METAL DRIP EDGE AT ALLWOOD WALLSMASONRY WALLS - BOARD FORMCONCRETE OR STACKED STONEVIEW PLANE7948.0'A4.23/16"=1'-0"PROPOSEDBUILDINGELEVATIONSFile Path: P:\Proj-2014\21436.00_Bowman\06_Documentation\01_Drawings\21436_A4-1.dwgPlot Date/Time: September 16, 2015 - 4:26 pm
COPYRIGHT 2015 ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT ISTHE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIORWRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALLRETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS,INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.ConsultantsIssue:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:DWG FILE:3377 blake st, 106denver, co 80205303.308.1373 v303.308.1375 f234 e. hopkins ave.aspen, co 81611970.544.9006 v970.544.3473 frowland + broughtonarchitecture and urban designSCALE:21436_A4-1.dwg529 - 535 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, CO 8161121436.0003.26.2015CLIENT REVIEW04.01.2015SCHEMATIC DESIGN07.28.2015HPC APPLICATION
SCALE:BASEMENT LEVEL3/16" = 1'-0"1D2.0DEMOLITION PLAN65'-6"30'-10"18'-8"
30'-10"16'-0"18'-8"
16'-0"
65'-6"02341A4.2CA5.22A4.1DA5.2AA5.1ABCDBA5.11A4.1CA5.202342A4.2DA5.2AA5.1BA5.1ABCD11'-8 7/8"21'-4"11'-8 7/8"21'-4"EA5.3EA5.31'-10"1117'-8 5/8"17'-8 5/8"98'-2 11/16"98'-2 11/16"47'-5 1/4"47'-5 1/4"UPCOAL CHUTEEXISTINGBOILERSSTEP1'-3"HIGHWOOD COLUMNSBRICK CHIMNEY/FLUEEXISTINGWATERHEATERS7'-9"7'-9"9'-0"PLYWOOD FLOOR ABOVE3"X12" JOISTS AT 10" O.C.8" CONCRETE WALLPLYWOODFLOORDIRTFLOORWOOD CRIB WALL SUPPORTEDWITH RANDOM WOOD COLUMNSWOOD CRIB WALL SUPPORTEDWITH RANDOM WOOD COLUMNSGENERAL NOTES:1. NO PROPOSED DEMO IN BASEMENT.File Path: P:\Proj-2014\21436.00_Bowman\06_Documentation\01_Drawings\21436_D2-0.dwgPlot Date/Time: September 16, 2015 - 4:27 pm
COPYRIGHT 2015 ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT ISTHE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIORWRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALLRETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS,INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.ConsultantsIssue:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:DWG FILE:3377 blake st, 106denver, co 80205303.308.1373 v303.308.1375 f234 e. hopkins ave.aspen, co 81611970.544.9006 v970.544.3473 frowland + broughtonarchitecture and urban designSCALE:21436_D2-0.dwg529 - 535 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, CO 8161121436.0003.26.2015CLIENT REVIEW04.01.2015SCHEMATIC DESIGN07.28.2015HPC APPLICATIOND2.03/16"=1'-0"BASEMENT LEVELDEMOLITION PLAN
SCALE:LEVEL ONE FLOOR PLAN3/16" = 1'-0"1D2.1DEMOLITION PLAN65'-6"30'-10"18'-8"
30'-10"16'-0"18'-8"
16'-0"
65'-6"02341A4.2CA5.22A4.1DA5.2AA5.1ABCDBA5.11A4.1CA5.202342A4.2DA5.2AA5.1BA5.1ABCD11'-8 7/8"21'-4"11'-8 7/8"21'-4"EA5.3EA5.31'-10"1117'-8 5/8"17'-8 5/8"98'-2 11/16"98'-2 11/16"47'-5 1/4"47'-5 1/4"UPUPUPDNUPUPDNCOOPER AVENUE
ALLEY
HUNTER STREETUNIT #3(COMMERCIAL)REMOVEBATHUNIT #1(COMMERCIAL)TO MERGE INTOUNIT #2(COMMERCIAL)UNIT #4 - MAIN(COMMERCIAL)REMOVEUNIT #5 - MAIN(RESIDENTIAL)LINE OF LOFT ABOVE
REMOVE DECK ABOVEREMOVESLOPEDPAVEMENT
14" STEPSOFFITT ABOVE7 1/2" STEP
6 1/2" STEP UTILITIESMECH. DUCTEXPOSED BEAM ABOVE19'-1"8'-4"2"9'-8"REMOVEUNIT #2(COMMERCIAL)REMOVE DECK ABOVE REMOVE STAIRSREMOVETREES, WOODPATIO AND WALKSREMOVE DEMISING WALLS REMOVEINTERIORWALLSFILL IN EXISTINGOPENING -1 HOUR FIRE RATINGUNIT #5(COMMERCIAL)TO EXPANDED INTOUNIT #5 (RES.)AT MAIN LEVEL ONLY,NO MORE MEZZANINEREMOVE AND RESTOREHISTORIC DOOR ACCESSFile Path: P:\Proj-2014\21436.00_Bowman\06_Documentation\01_Drawings\21436_D2-1.dwgPlot Date/Time: September 16, 2015 - 4:27 pm
COPYRIGHT 2015 ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT ISTHE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIORWRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALLRETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS,INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.ConsultantsIssue:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:DWG FILE:3377 blake st, 106denver, co 80205303.308.1373 v303.308.1375 f234 e. hopkins ave.aspen, co 81611970.544.9006 v970.544.3473 frowland + broughtonarchitecture and urban designSCALE:21436_D2-1.dwg529 - 535 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, CO 8161121436.0003.26.2015CLIENT REVIEW04.01.2015SCHEMATIC DESIGN07.28.2015HPC APPLICATIOND2.11/4"=1'-0"DEMOLITIONLEVEL ONEFLOOR PLAN
SCALE:MEZZANINE LEVEL3/16" = 1'-0"1D2.1mDEMOLITION65'-6"30'-10"18'-8"
30'-10"16'-0"18'-8"
16'-0"
65'-6"02341A4.2CA5.22A4.1DA5.2AA5.1ABCDBA5.11A4.1CA5.202342A4.2DA5.2AA5.1BA5.1ABCD11'-8 7/8"21'-4"11'-8 7/8"21'-4"EA5.3EA5.31'-10"1117'-8 5/8"17'-8 5/8"98'-2 11/16"98'-2 11/16"47'-5 1/4"47'-5 1/4"UPDNDNREMOVE MEZZANINE ABOVENO MORE MEZZANINEUNIT #5(COMMERCIAL)TO EXPANDED INTOUNIT #5 (RES.)AT MAIN LEVEL ONLY,NO MORE MEZZANINEREMOVEUNIT #5 - MEZZ.(RESIDENTIAL)COOPER AVENUE
ALLEY
HUNTER STREETUNIT #5 - LOFT(RESIDENTIAL)FENCE
UNIT #4 - LOFT(COMMERCIAL)MAIN LEVEL BELOWOPEN TO BELOWOPEN TO BELOWFile Path: P:\Proj-2014\21436.00_Bowman\06_Documentation\01_Drawings\21436_D2-1m.dwgPlot Date/Time: September 16, 2015 - 4:27 pm
COPYRIGHT 2015 ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT ISTHE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIORWRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALLRETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS,INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.ConsultantsIssue:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:DWG FILE:3377 blake st, 106denver, co 80205303.308.1373 v303.308.1375 f234 e. hopkins ave.aspen, co 81611970.544.9006 v970.544.3473 frowland + broughtonarchitecture and urban designSCALE:21436_D2-1m.dwg529 - 535 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, CO 8161121436.0003.26.2015CLIENT REVIEW04.01.2015SCHEMATIC DESIGN07.28.2015HPC APPLICATIOND2.1m3/16"=1'-0"MEZZANINE LEVELDEMOLITION PLAN
65'-6"30'-10"18'-8"
30'-10"16'-0"18'-8"
16'-0"
65'-6"02341A4.2CA5.22A4.1DA5.2AA5.1ABCDBA5.11A4.1CA5.202342A4.2DA5.2AA5.1BA5.1ABCD11'-8 7/8"21'-4"11'-8 7/8"21'-4"EA5.3EA5.31'-10"1117'-8 5/8"17'-8 5/8"98'-2 11/16"98'-2 11/16"47'-5 1/4"47'-5 1/4"DNDNSCALE:LEVEL TWO3/16" = 1'-0"1D2.2DEMOLITION PLANCOOPER AVENUE
ALLEY
HUNTER STREETUNIT #6(COMMERCIAL)UNIT #3(RESIDENTIAL)UNIT #2(RESIDENTIAL)UNIT #1(RESIDENTIAL)UNIT #4(RESIDENTIAL)UNIT #5(RESIDENTIAL)HALLMETERS TO BERELOCATEDGENERAL NOTES:1. RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL ON LEVELTWO TO REMAIN, NOT IN SCOPE.REMOVE COVERED DECK
REMOVE COVERED DECK REMOVE STAIRSREMOVE COVERED DECKREMOVEBATHVOLUMEBELOWFile Path: P:\Proj-2014\21436.00_Bowman\06_Documentation\01_Drawings\21436_D2-2.dwgPlot Date/Time: September 16, 2015 - 4:27 pm
COPYRIGHT 2015 ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT ISTHE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIORWRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALLRETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS,INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.ConsultantsIssue:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:DWG FILE:3377 blake st, 106denver, co 80205303.308.1373 v303.308.1375 f234 e. hopkins ave.aspen, co 81611970.544.9006 v970.544.3473 frowland + broughtonarchitecture and urban designSCALE:21436_D2-2.dwg529 - 535 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, CO 8161121436.0003.26.2015CLIENT REVIEW04.01.2015SCHEMATIC DESIGN07.28.2015HPC APPLICATIOND2.21/4"=1'-0"LEVEL TWODEMOLITION PLAN
65'-6"30'-10"18'-8"
30'-10"16'-0"18'-8"
16'-0"
65'-6"02341A4.2CA5.22A4.1DA5.2AA5.1ABCDBA5.11A4.1CA5.202342A4.2DA5.2AA5.1BA5.1ABCD11'-8 7/8"21'-4"11'-8 7/8"21'-4"EA5.3EA5.31'-10"1117'-8 5/8"17'-8 5/8"98'-2 11/16"98'-2 11/16"47'-5 1/4"47'-5 1/4"COOPER AVENUE
ALLEY
HUNTER STREETREMOVE COVERED DECK BELOW
EXISTING FLUEEXISTING FLUESCALE:ROOF PLAN3/16" = 1'-0"1D2.3DEMOLITION PLANREMOVE COVERED DECK BELOW REMOVEBATHVOLUMEBELOWFile Path: P:\Proj-2014\21436.00_Bowman\06_Documentation\01_Drawings\21436_D2-3.dwgPlot Date/Time: September 16, 2015 - 4:27 pm
COPYRIGHT 2015 ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGNTHE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT ISTHE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIORWRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANDESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALLRETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS,INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.ConsultantsIssue:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:DWG FILE:3377 blake st, 106denver, co 80205303.308.1373 v303.308.1375 f234 e. hopkins ave.aspen, co 81611970.544.9006 v970.544.3473 frowland + broughtonarchitecture and urban designSCALE:21436_D2-3.dwg529 - 535 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, CO 8161121436.0003.26.2015CLIENT REVIEW04.01.2015SCHEMATIC DESIGN07.28.2015HPC APPLICATIOND2.31/16"=1'-0"ROOF PLANDEMOLITION PLAN
Stein Building Remodel Application 1
Section I: Introduction
This application seeks Conceptual Major Development approval, as well as approvals for
Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Mountain View Plane Review, and GMQS Review
for the property located at 531 and 535 E. Cooper Avenue (southwest corner of Cooper
Avenue and Hunter Street). The 6,500 square foot site is legally described as Lots H, I, and
the Easterly 5’ of Lot G, Block 96, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is known as
the Stein Building, but also sometimes referred to as the Bowman Building; while one
property today, the site is comprised of three abutting buildings that, originally, were
separately developed but singularly landmarked. The property 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 proposal is to remove the existing,
nonconforming, street level residential unit located off the alley and expand one of the
existing commercial units into the resulting space. In addition, the applicant will construct
a covered trash and recycling area. Additionally, the proposal creates new net leasable
space on the southerly portion of the lot where there is currently an outdoor patio space.
This application is submitted pursuant to the following sections of the Aspen Land Use
Code (the Code): 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, including
26.304.060(B)(1), Combined Reviews; 26.412, Commercial Design Review; 26.415.070,
Historic Preservation; 26.415.070.1, Enlargement of an Historic Landmark for Commercial,
Lodge or Mixed-Use Development; 26.415.070.5, Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi-
Family Housing; 26.435.050, Mountain Viewplane Review; 26.515, Parking; 26.575.030,
Public Amenity; 26.610, Impact Fees; 26.630, Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines;
and 26.710.140, Commercial Core (CC) Zone District. Municipal Code Section 12.10, Space
Allotment for Trash and Recycling Storage, is also addressed.
The application is divided into four sections, with this Section providing a brief
introduction while Section II describes the existing conditions of the project site and
environs. Section III outlines the applicant’s proposed development and Section IV
addresses the proposed development’s compliance with the applicable review criteria of
the Code. For the reviewer’s convenience, all pertinent supporting documents relating to
the project are provided in the various exhibits to the application, as follows:
• Exhibit 1: Land Use Application, Dimensional Requirements Form, and Homeowners
Association Compliance Form;
• Exhibit 2: Pre-Application Conference Summary prepared by Amy Simon;
• Exhibit 3: Proof of Ownership and Authority;
• Exhibit 4: Applicant’s authorization for representatives;
• Exhibit 5: Vicinity Map;
• Exhibit 6: Transportation Impact Analysis;
• Exhibit 7: An executed application fee agreement; and
• Exhibit 8: Mailing addresses of record for all property owners located within 300 feet of
the subject property.
Stein Building Remodel Application 2
In addition, existing conditions are depicted on the survey and various plans that
accompany this application. Similarly, all proposed development is depicted on the
accompanying architectural plans prepared by Rowland and Broughton Architecture and
Urban Design (R+B).
While 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, questions
may arise which require further information and/or clarification. Upon request, Haas
Land Planning, LLC and R+B will gladly provide such additional information as may be
required in the course of the review.
Section II: Existing Conditions
The building at 531 & 535 E. Cooper Avenue, the Stein Building, was originally built in
1888. The property is comprised of three, attached two-story structures housing various
commercial uses on the ground floor, and predominantly free market residential units on
the second floor. One alley-accessed free market residential unit is also located on the
ground floor (with a small mezzanine level) of the westernmost structure, and there is a
small commercial space on the second floor of the easternmost structure. There are a total
of six separate commercial spaces and six residential units. On the alley side of the
property, at the southwest corner, there is an outdoor patio space with a wood deck. The
first floor of the building with frontage on both Hunter Street and Cooper Avenue has large
display windows and recessed entries, while the second story has smaller windows and a
cornice at top. This design is typical of the Victorian era commercial buildings.
Part of the existing structure is not original. As can be seen on the existing east building
elevation (see Plan Sheet A4.0e), there is a line in the upper floor brickwork that carries
through the wood siding portion of the ground floor and this line is the demarcation
between original construction and a subsequent addition. This addition, it seems has
achieved historic significance despite including what might be viewed as some
inappropriate window orientations and proportions. Also, a historic doorway/entry in
this addition area has since been partially filled-in and replaced with a pair of windows.
The residential additions at the very rear of the building are not believed to be considered
historically significant.
Code Section 26.515.030 provides that the existing commercial use on the subject property
generates an off-street parking requirement of one (1) space for every 1,000 square feet of
net leasable area and that no parking is required for the six residential units. With 5,100
square feet of existing net leasable area on the property (737sf in basement level, 3,758sf on
ground floor, 142sf on the mezzanine level, and 463sf on the upper level; see Plan Sheet
A0.2), the current parking requirement is 5.1 off-street spaces. Although there is a small
“parking area” that exists on the site, it is only 12 feet wide and 13 feet deep, which does
Stein Building Remodel Application 3
not qualify as a legitimate parking space. Therefore, there is a current off-street parking
deficit of 5.1 spaces.
The six existing residential units were legally established prior to the City’s adoption of
Ordinance 25 (Series of 2012). As such, these units are currently in compliance with the CC
Zone District pursuant to Ordinance No. 25 (Series of 2015). However, these units cannot
be replaced in-kind as the zoning precludes new free-market multi-family residential units.
Instead, new multi-family residential units are now only allowed when deed-restricted as
employee housing. One of the free-market residences – the one proposed for removal – is
on the ground floor where it is “grandfathered” as allowed even though the codified
Purpose of the CC Zone District includes the following statement: “Retail and restaurant uses
are appropriate for ground floors of buildings while residential and office uses are not permitted on
ground floors.”
The existing ground floor residence to be removed is located along the alley and includes a
mezzanine/loft level (see Plan Sheets A2.1e, A2.1me and A0.2e). It is a one-bedroom unit
with 881 square feet of net livable area (491 square feet on the ground level and 390 square
feet in the loft space). Per the Code, this one-bedroom unit houses 1.75 persons.
Also on the ground floor at the rear of the property (along Hunter Street and the alley),
there is an existing patio and landscaped area that encompasses 715 square feet of the 6,500
square foot property. This area equates to an existing public amenity space of exactly 11%.
As such, the public amenity space requirement going forward remains at 11%, or 715
square feet. There is no existing trash/recycling storage and utility area on the subject
property. Instead, trash and recycling bins are currently located outside a fence, off the
property and in the alley right-of-way. Similarly, the existing electric transformer serving
the property is located along the alley but on the adjacent property to the west. This
transformer has been confirmed to be adequate to serve the proposed expansion without
replacement.
The existing building has a maximum height of 28’-8”above grade, plus the historic
pediment at its northeast corner. Conversely, a small portion of the far southwest corner of
the property falls within the breadth of the Cooper Avenue Mountain Viewplane.
Notwithstanding the very clear fact that, due to intervening historically designated
structures, the Viewplane-regulated portion of the property cannot possibly be seen from
the designated vantage point, the Viewplane-associated height limit in the affected area is
21.3 feet above grade. For the affected area, the 21.3-feet height limit supersedes the 28-foot
height limit of the underlying CC Zone District. On all other portions of the property, the
effective height limit remains 28 feet.
Stein Building Remodel Application 4
Section III: Project Description/The Proposal
The applicant is requesting that the HPC grant Conceptual Major Development approval as
well as Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval, Mountain View Plane approval,
and GMQS approvals. All applications for Conceptual approval of a Major Development
project must receive a determination of consistency with the City of Aspen Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines (hereinafter “the Guidelines”). Since the subject property
is located in the Commercial Core Historical District, conceptual approval of the proposed
design requires a finding of consistency with Chapter 13 of Guidelines in terms of height,
scale, mass, bulk, and site plan. However, said chapter has been replaced by the
Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines (the
“Commercial Guidelines”).
The current proposal is graphically depicted on Plan Sheets A1.1 through the end of the
provided set. The project envisions the removal of the ground floor residential unit so as to
accommodate expansion of commercial space for one of the tenants (Commercial Unit #5).
Part of this area will also become the new, covered trash/recycling storage area for the
building, replacing the trash and recycling bins currently located in the alley right-of-way.
Additionally, the area that is now a wood deck at the southeast corner of the property will
be enclosed to create additional commercial space. The area between the new commercial
space and the new trash/recycling storage area will become a common circulation area.
The proposed addition is clearly subservient and subordinate to the historic resource in
terms of height, scale, massing, and proportions. It achieves consistency with the
dimensional requirements of the underlying CC Zone District while providing a design
that is clearly distinguished from yet compatible with the resource. The demarcation
between old and new construction is accentuated by inclusion of a small planter box where
the addition is offset from and reveals the original building corner. It is also be noted that
the portion of the existing building that is closest to the addition is wood and was not part
of the original brick building. Modern materials and detailing are creatively employed
such that the horizontal and vertical elements of the design tie neatly in with the historic
structure but do not compete or conflict visually.
The height of the proposed commercial addition, at its tallest portion (top of the column), is
only 18’-4”. Similarly, the height of the proposed trash/recycling storage area addition will
measure only 13’-11”, which is well below the 21.3’ Cooper Street Mountain Viewplane
height limit affecting this area. In other words, there will be no Viewplane impacts
associated with the proposed redevelopment. Both parts of the addition will have a green
roof, situated behind/below a parapet wall such that they will only be visible if looking
down from above.
The proposed development will result in a total of approximately 6,212 square feet of net
leasable commercial area (737sf in the basement, 5,016sf on the ground floor, and 463sf on
the upper level). This results in off-street parking requirement of 1.11 spaces (6.21 minus
Stein Building Remodel Application 5
the existing 5.1 space deficit), which will be completely satisfied through the payment of
cash-in-lieu as allowed by right pursuant to Code Section 26.515.030. The payment-in-lieu
of parking will be due and payable at the time of building permit issuance for the
development. At the currently codified rate of $30,000, which may be amended, the
payment due would be $33,300 ($30,000 x 1.11). Payment of the in-lieu fee does not require
any review or approval, nor does it represent any kind of variance or variation whatsoever.
While one free-market multi-family residential unit is being removed from the ground
level, it will not be replaced on-site. Instead, the housing replacement requirement will be
satisfied through the use of Affordable Housing Credit Certificates. The unit’s removal
will bring the existing structure farther into conformance with underlying zoning and will
effectively reduce the allowable free-market residential floor area on the property. As the
codified Purpose of the CC Zone District points out, “Retail and restaurant uses are
appropriate for ground floors of buildings while residential and office uses are not permitted on
ground floors.” The free-market residence cannot be replaced as the zoning specifically
states that, “No new Free-Market Residential Units may be established.”
Along these lines, the CC zoning establishes that free-market multi-family housing is
limited to its existing FAR, that no expansion of this type of FAR is permitted, and any
reduction in floor area occupied by such residential use shall be deemed a new limitation
and the use shall not thereafter be enlarged to occupy a greater floor area. Existing free-
market net livable area is similarly restricted to that currently established. Finally, the total
free-market residential net livable area on a property can be no greater than the total above-
grade floor area in commercial use. The existing free-market net livable area is
approximately 4,346 square feet while the existing, above-grade floor area in commercial
use is approximately 4,936 square feet; this ratio will move farther into conformance with
removal of the ground floor residence.
The Dimensional Requirements of the underlying CC Zone District in comparison with the
proposed addition are detailed below to demonstrate the project’s conformance.
Dimensional Requirements Comparison Table,
CC Zoning and Proposed Development
DIMENSIONAL
REQUIREMENT
COMMERCIAL CORE
ZONE DISTRICT
PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT
Minimum Gross Lot Area No requirement 6,500 square feet
Minimum Net Lot Area
per Dwelling Unit
No requirement N/A (5 units/6,500sf =
1,300sf of lot area/D.U.)
Minimum Lot Width No Requirement 65 feet
Minimum Front Yard
Setback
No requirement
No requirement (None)
Minimum Side Yard
Setback
No requirement
No requirement (None)
Stein Building Remodel Application 6
Minimum Rear Yard
Setback
No requirement
No requirement (None)
Minimum Trash/Recycle
Storage Area1
20’W x 10’D x 10’H 1
(200sq.ft.)
17’6 ½“W x 15’8”D x 13’11”H
(approx. 275sq.ft.)
Maximum Height2 For properties on the south
side of a street, twenty-eight
(28) feet for two-story
elements2
28 feet 2
(The tallest portion of the
addition is only 18’-4”)
Minimum Floor-to-Floor
Heights
First floor to Second floor: 13’;
Upper floor-ceiling: 9’
15’ first floor to second floor;
10’ upper floor to ceiling
Minimum Distance b/w
Buildings on the Lot
No requirement N/A
Public Amenity Space3 11% (715 square feet) 3 11% via Combination of On-
Site and Cash-In-Lieu 3
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
2.75:1 Cumulative; 2:1
(13,000sf) for Commercial
Uses; Residential Uses are
limited to existing (approx.
4,942sq.ft. of unit space FAR).
Approx. 1.71:1 Cumulative;
Approx. 0.94:1 (6,133sq.ft.)
for Commercial; Approx.
3,907sq.ft. of unit space FAR
for Residential
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS NOTES:
1 : Pursuant to Code Section 12.10.030(A)b., for Commercial Buildings that do not and will
not contain or have the capacity to contain an establishment with a Retail Food Service
License and the reserved trash and recycling storage space must be adjacent to the
alleyway. Representatives from R+B have met with Liz O’Connell at the Environmental
Health Department, who has deemed the proposed trash/recycling area to be
acceptable.
2 : Pursuant to Code Section 26.575.020.F.4., specific exceptions to height limitations are
allowed, as may be applicable. Also, see additional narratives provided herein relative
to the Cooper Street Mountain Viewplane.
3 : Pursuant to Code Section 26.575.030.B., 25% of the area of the 6,500 square foot parcel
shall be provided as public amenity; however, for redevelopment of parcels on which
less than 25% currently exists (the current public amenity space on the parcel is 11%),
the existing (prior to redevelopment) percentage shall be the effective requirement
provided not less then 10% is the end requirement. As such, the effective requirement
is 11%, or 715 square feet of public amenity. The applicant is proposing to include two
small areas on the southwest corner of the property as the public amenity space. These
two areas amount to 85 square feet of public amenity space. The additional/residual
required space of 630 square feet will be provided via cash-in-lieu ($63,000 under
current Code).
Stein Building Remodel Application 7
Section IV: Review Requirements
This application is submitted pursuant to the following sections of the Code: 26.304,
Common Development Review Procedures, including 26.304.060(B)(1), Combined
Reviews; 26.412, Commercial Design Review; 26.415.070, Historic Preservation;
26.415.070.1, Enlargement of an Historic Landmark for Commercial, Lodge or Mixed-use
Development; 26.415.070.5, Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing;
26.435.050, Mountain Viewplane Review; 26.515, Parking; 26.575.030, Public Amenity;
26.610, Impact Fees; 26.630, Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines; and 26.710.140,
Commercial Core (CC) Zone District. Municipal Code Section 12.10, Space Allotment for
Trash and Recycling Storage, is also addressed. The applicable review standards are
addressed below.
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 the associated Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Viewplane
Review, GMQS Review, and alternative methods of satisfying public amenity space
requirements be combined and made part of the Conceptual Major Development Review
and approval by the HPC. Accordingly, rather than have a Historic Preservation
Commission (HPC) Resolution granting portions of the applicable approvals and a P&Z
Resolution addressing the remaining parts, it is suggested that, pursuant to Code Section
26.304.060(B)(1), Combined Reviews, all final decisions be documented in a single
ordinance adopted by the HPC. Combining the reviews in this manner will eliminate or at
least reduce duplication and ensure economy of time, expense and clarity but should in no
way be construed to change the otherwise applicable call-up rights of the City Council as
such are defined and limited in the Land Use Code. All public noticing normally
associated with an application such as this will be maintained via publication, sign posting
and mailing. If public outreach and/or enhanced public notice are deemed necessary, the
applicant will cooperate. Moreover, a thorough and full review of the application and
proposed development will still be achieved.
Stein Building Remodel Application 8
B. Conceptual Approval of a Major Development
Code Section 26.415.070 addresses development involving historically designated
properties. 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.
The proposed remodel of/addition to the Stein building is considered a major
development. The procedures for the review of major development projects include a two-
step process requiring approval by the HPC of, first, a conceptual development plan and
then a final development plan. As mentioned above, it is requested that the HPC
Conceptual Review be combined with the Commercial Design Review, Mountain View
Plane Review, GMQS Review and, as addressed throughout, all other approvals required
for this application without changing the otherwise applicable call-up rights of the City
Council as such are defined and limited in the Land Use Code.
All applications for Conceptual and Final approval of a Major Development project must
receive a determination of consistency with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines (the “HP Guidelines”) to be approved by the HPC. Chapter 1 of the Guidelines
is not applicable as it concerns streetscapes and lot features on residential buildings.
Chapter 11 provides guidelines for new buildings and additions on residential Landmark
Properties and Chapter 12 is concerned with design in the Main Street Historic District;
neither of these Chapters applies to the proposal. Chapter 13 presents design guidelines
for new construction and alteration to existing non-historic structures in the Commercial
Core, and as such does not apply to this historically designated property. Furthermore, the
Chapter 13 guidelines have been replaced by the Commercial, Lodging and Historic
District Design Objectives and Guidelines for the Commercial Core Historic District, which
are discussed below in the Commercial Design Review section of this application. The
project has been designed to be generally consistent with the guidelines of Chapter 14 but,
as is standard, specific consistency with these requirements will be demonstrated as part of
the HPC Final Review. Since the proposed development involves an addition to a historic
structure in the Commercial Core Zone District the design must comply with Chapters 2
through 10 of the Guidelines, and such consistency and/or compliance, as applicable, is
demonstrated below.
In accordance with Chapter 2 of the Guidelines, historic building materials will be
maintained and preserved in place to the maximum extent reasonably practicable. Limited
replacement to match original materials either in existence or as documented in historic
photographs will be done.
Stein Building Remodel Application 9
Consistent with Chapter 3, the distinctive arrangement of character-defining windows will
be preserved in place. Any existing windows that maintain character defining detailing or
trim elements will be preserved. The position, number and placement of historic windows
in building walls will be preserved as well. Similarly, even with replacement windows, the
historic ratio of window openings to solid wall will be preserved on historic facades.
The character-defining features of the historic doors, and their distinctive materials and
placement will be restored and preserved, thereby ensuring consistency with Chapter 4 of
the Guidelines. This includes restoration of a historic but since removed entryway on the
east/Hunter Street elevation (see Plan Sheets A4.0e as compared with A4.1).
Chapter 5 refers to maintaining porches that are a character-defining feature of a front
facade and is not applicable to this project. Only those architectural features that are
deteriorated will be repaired. All other significant architectural features will be preserved
pursuant to Chapter 6.
Chapter 7 provides that the character of a historical roof should be preserved, including its
form and materials. Eave depths, ridge and eave heights, and roof pitches will all be
maintained. There will be a green roof on the one-story, new additions, and said green
roofs will only be visible from above.
Chapter 8 addresses treatment of secondary structures. There are no secondary structures
on this parcel. Chapter 9 addresses the relocation of historic structures. This proposal does
not involve the relocation of any structure, historic or otherwise.
Chapter 10 provides the most relevant of the Guidelines as it addresses building additions.
The proposal is consistent with the Chapter 10 guidelines and policy statement, which
holds that, “If a new addition to a historic building is to be constructed, it should be designed such
that the early character of the original structure is maintained.” The proposed addition is at the
southwest corner of the building and on the alley side, and will not affect the perceived
character of the historic building. The size of the addition in relation to the main structure
is very small, subservient and subordinate, thereby further minimizing any visual impacts.
The additions have been designed in a manner ensuring that even the casual observer or
layperson will have no difficulty differentiating it from the original structure. In fact, the
addition has an approximately one-foot setback with a small planter area so that the corner
of the existing building is revealed providing a clear demarcation between old and new.
The proposal is consistent with the guidelines of Chapter 10 as follows:
§ Any additions that have achieved historic significance will be preserved pursuant to
guidelines 10.1 and 10.2.
§ As described above, one’s ability to interpret the historic character of the primary
building is fully maintained, meaning the proposal is consistent with guideline 10.3.
Stein Building Remodel Application 10
§ As called for in guideline 10.4, the new addition will be easily recognizable as a
product of its own time while also remaining visually compatible with the historic
structures.
§ Historic alignments that exist on the street will be preserved and enhanced pursuant
to guideline 10.5.
§ The addition will be compatible in size and scale with the rest of the building,
meeting guideline 10.6.
§ Guideline 10.7 is provided for cases where consistency with guideline 10.6 is not
feasible.
§ As called for in guideline 10.8, the proposed addition will be on the Hunter Street
and alley sides of the building. This minimizes the visual impact on the historic
structure and allows the original proportions and character to remain prominent.
§ Roof forms of the additions are flat and, therefore, similar to those of the historic
structure, as suggested by guideline 10.9.
§ Consistent with guideline 10.10, the additions have been designed such that they
will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features.
§ Final selection of exterior materials will be completed as part of the Final HPC
review, but the intention is to comply with guideline 10.11 by using exterior
materials that are compatible with but do not mimic the historic materials of the
primary buildings.
§ Guidelines 10.12 through 10.14 are not applicable, as the proposal does not involve
any rooftop additions.
C. Demolition of Properties within a Historic District
Code Section 26.415.080 states that no properties located within a Historic District can be
demolished without HPC approval. Subsection A(4) thereof provides the criteria that HPC
must use in determining whether or not to approve the demolition and states the
following:
Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the
following criteria:
a) The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety
and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner,
b) The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly
maintain the structure,
c) The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, or
d) No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a) The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in
which it is located, and
Stein Building Remodel Application 11
b) The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the
Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent
designated properties, and
c) Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of
the area.
Only partial demolition is proposed so as to accommodate the additions at the rear of the
building. All other proposed demolition is interior to the structure. In accordance with the
criteria above, there is no documentation to support or demonstrate that the areas
proposed for demolition have or in any way contribute to the historic, architectural,
archaeological, engineering or cultural significance of the property. Further, the areas of
proposed demolition do not contribute to the significance of the Commercial Core Historic
District, nor will the loss of these areas adversely affect the integrity of the District. The
proposed demolition will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area.
D. Conceptual 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. The design
standards of Section 26.412.060, as well as the Commercial Core Historic District Design
Review Guidelines are all enumerated below in italicized print, and each is followed by a
description of the proposal’s compliance and/or consistency therewith, as applicable.
The following design standards, in addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district
design objectives and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed-use development:
A. Public amenity space. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an
attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping
and entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational
improvements to public rights-of-way or private property within commercial areas.
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.
Stein Building Remodel Application 12
3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures,
rights-of-way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment.
4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls,
sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian
environment.
5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection
26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements.
According to Code Section 26.575.030(A), public amenity can take the form of physical or
operational improvements to public rights-of–way or private property. Subsection B states
that the public amenity requirement is 25%. However, for parcels where less than 25%
currently exists, the existing percentage is the effective requirement provided that in no
case shall the requirement be less than 10%. In its existing condition, there is 11%, public
amenity space on the property. As such, the effective public amenity space requirement
upon redevelopment is 11%, or 715 square feet on the subject 6,500 square foot lot.
Code Section 26.575.030.C provides the four methods that may be used to satisfy the
provision of public amenity, including the following: on-site provision of public amenity;
off-site provision of public amenity; cash-in-lieu provision; and alternative method. By
extension, the fifth method of satisfying the requirement is a combination of the first four
methods. The applicant is proposing a combination of methods. The applicant is
proposing to provide 85 square feet of public amenity space, and to provide cash-in-lieu for
the additional/residual 630 square feet required for this property.
Consistent with the codified design and operational standards for public amenity, the
proposed 85 square feet of landscaped areas will be: 1) open to view from the street at
pedestrian level; 2) open to the sky; 3) unenclosed; 4) free of storage areas, utility/trash
service areas, or delivery areas; 5) within two feet in elevation of the sidewalk level; 6)
easily maintained; 7) will be used for commercial use with adequate pedestrian and
emergency vehicle access; and 8) meets the parameters of the Commercial, Lodging and
Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. As such, the proposed landscape relief
areas satisfy all applicable Section 26.575.030.F design and operational standards for public
amenity.
The applicant will pay the residual cash-in-lieu requirement. By residual requirement, it is
understood that the 85 square feet ground level space complies with all applicable
requirements, which would then leave a residual requirement of 630 square feet (715sqft
minus 85sqft) at $100 per square foot, per Code Section 26.575.030.E as may be amended, or
a total supplemental cash-in-lieu payment of $63,000.00.
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
Stein Building Remodel Application 13
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 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.
Stein Building Remodel Application 14
11. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within
the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed
behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a
public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for
future ventilation and ducting needs.
12. The trash and recycling service area requirements may be varied pursuant to Title 12,
Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code. All other requirements of this subsection may be
varied by special review (see Chapter 26.430.040.E, Utility and delivery service area
provisions).
Pursuant to Code Section 12.10.030(A)b, a 20’W x 10’D x 10’H (200 square feet) area for
trash and recycling storage must be provided as the building does not and will not contain
or have the capacity to contain an establishment with a Retail Food Service License. Also,
the reserved trash and recycling storage space must be adjacent to the alleyway. The
proposed trash/recycling storage area of approximately 275 square feet has been discussed
with Liz O’Connell from the Environmental Health Department and met with her
approval. The proposal involves a trash/recycling area of 17’-6½”W x 15’-8”D x 13’-11”H
and is more than adequate to serve the needs of the property. This area is on the alley side
of the building, will be enclosed for appropriate wildlife resistance, will have a green roof
above, and will connect to the new commercial space via a common circulation hallway.
Utility connections and meters are being accommodated on-site, in the middle of the alley
side of the proposed addition as well as within the mechanical spaces included within the
structure. The proposed utility, trash and recycling areas are sited at grade, along and
accessed by vehicle via the adjoining public alleyway at the rear of the property. These will
not be visible from Hunter Street.
The proposed commercial space has inset doors that can easily accommodate an airlock or
air curtain during winter months so as to enable compliance with the International Energy
Conservation Code, as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen.
The Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines (the
“Commercial Guidelines”) set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that
are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The Commercial Guidelines
are organized to address the different design contexts that exist in the City. These distinct
settings, or contexts, are defined as "Character Areas," within which variations exist among
the physical features that define each area. The proposed development is located in the
“Commercial Core” character area. These Guidelines replaced Chapter 13 of the Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines.
Per the Commercial Guidelines, all development projects should achieve the following
design objectives:
• Promote an interconnected circulation system that invites pedestrian use, including a
continuous street and alley system and a respect for the natural topography;
Stein Building Remodel Application 15
• Promote a system of public places that support activities, including public amenity
spaces, compatible landscaping and paving, and unobtrusive off-street parking; and
• Assure that buildings fit together to create a vibrant street edge that reinforces a
sense of appropriate scale.
The proposed development will achieve the above-cited design objectives in a manner that
exceeds the existing condition’s consistency with said objectives. The existing public
amenity space serves little-to-no public amenity function and is instead used almost
exclusively (when used at all) by the adjacent commercial tenant. The alley system will be
improved by removal of the trash bins and overhanging parked cars from its right-of-way.
The proposed design will create a more vibrant and visually interesting street edge,
reinforcing a sense of appropriate, retail scale.
The key design objectives in the Commercial Core are as follows:
1. Maintain a retail orientation.
2. Promote creative, contemporary design that respects the historic context.
3. Maintain the traditional scale of building.
4. Reflect the variety in building heights seen traditionally.
5. Accommodate outdoor public spaces where they respect the historic context.
6. Promote variety in the street level experience.
7. Preserve the integrity of historic resources within the district.
The proposed remodel/addition meets all of the key design objectives listed above as
follows:
• The design enhances the retail-oriented function of the street and reinforces the
pedestrian character;
• The design of the addition is creative and contemporary, but respects the historic
building and the Commercial Core context;
• The design acknowledges, is consistent with, complements and enhances the
existing scale and character of the area;
• The addition is only 18’-4” feet in height at its highest point. All historic buildings in
the area and both the letter and spirit of the Cooper Street Mountain Viewplane
have been taken into consideration;
• The design of the addition, with its large, storefront windows, serves to promote
variety in the street level experience; and,
• The integrity of all historic resources within the district is preserved by the proposed
compatible and complimentary design.
Outlined below is each of the Commercial Core’s Conceptual Review Design Guidelines in
italicized print, followed by a description of the proposal’s compliance and/or consistency
therewith, as applicable.
Stein Building Remodel Application 16
Street Grid
6.1 Maintain the established town grid in all projects.
• The network of streets and alleys should be retained as public circulation space and for
maximum public access.
• Streets and alleys should not be enclosed or closed to public access, and should remain open to
the sky.
The proposed development maintains the established town grid while improving upon the
existing building. The addition is appropriately oriented to the lot line. No streets or alleys
will be enclosed or otherwise closed to public access and all will remain open to the sky.
The alley right-of-way will actually be improved by removal of the trash and recycling bins
as well as removal of the inadequately deep parking that currently results in vehicles
overhanging/encroaching into the driving lane.
Internal Walkways
6.2 Public walkways and through courts, when appropriate, should be designed to create access
to additional commercial space and frontage, within the walkway and/or to the rear of the
site.
• See also: Public Amenity Space design guidelines.
No internal public walkways or through courts are proposed.
Alleys
6.3 Develop an alley façade to create visual interest.
• Use varied building setbacks and changes in materials to create interest and reduce perceived
scale.
• Balconies, courtyards and decks are also appropriate.
• Providing secondary public entrances is strongly encouraged along alleys. These should be
clearly intended for public use, but subordinate in detail to the primary street-side entrance.
The redeveloped building will greatly improve the alley façade to a neat and orderly,
functional area. In addition, the proposal includes large storefront windows facing the
alley and these windows will also be visible from the Hunter Street sidewalk. Building
materials along the alley side will match those on the street side, which will be of very high
quality. Balcony areas between the historic structure and the additions will remain as well.
Parking
6.4 Structured parking should be placed within a 'wrap' of commercial and/or residential uses.
• The exposure of auto entry areas should be minimized.
6.5 Structured parking access should not have a negative impact on the character of the street.
The access shall be:
• Located on an alley or secondary street if necessary.
• Designed with the same attention to detail and materials as the primary building façade.
• Integrated into the building design.
Stein Building Remodel Application 17
There is no structured or other type of parking proposed.
Public Amenity Space
6.6 A street facing amenity space shall meet all of the following requirements:
• Abut the public sidewalk
• Be level with the sidewalk
• Be open to the sky
• Be directly accessible to the public
• Be paved or otherwise landscaped
6.7 A street-facing public amenity space shall remain subordinate to the line of building fronts
in the Commercial Core.
• Any public amenity space positioned at the street edge shall respect the character of the
streetscape and ensure that street corners are well defined, with buildings placed at the sidewalk
edge.
• Sunken spaces, which are associated with some past developments, adversely affect the street
character. Where feasible, these should be replaced with sidewalk level improvements.
6.8 Street facing amenity space shall contain features to promote and enhance its use. These
may include one or more of the following:
• Street furniture
• Public art
• Historical/interpretive marker
The detailed design of Public Amenity Space, with regard to guidelines 6.8, will be a matter for
approval at the Final Review Stage, although it may be discussed at the Conceptual Stage.
Please refer to the Public Amenity Space discussion on pages 11-12, above.
Guidelines 6.9 through 6.11 address mid-block walkway and alley-side public amenity
spaces and are not applicable to the proposed development. Additionally, guidelines 6.12
through 6.15 are inapplicable to the current proposal, as said guidelines address second
level amenity spaces. Finally, guidelines 6.16 and 6.17 address front yard amenity spaces
and are, likewise, not applicable.
Building Setbacks
6.18 Maintain the alignment of façades at the sidewalk’s edge.
• Place as much of the façade of the building at the property line as possible.
• Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate.
• A minimum of 70% of the front façade shall be at the property line.
6.19 A building may be set back from its side lot lines in accordance with design guidelines
identified in Street & Circulation Pattern and Public Amenity Space guidelines.
The proposed addition maintains the alignment of facades at the sidewalk’s edge while
also supplying an approximately one-foot setback so as to clearly and appropriately
demarcate between the historic resource and the new addition.
Stein Building Remodel Application 18
Building Orientation
6.20 Orient a new building to be parallel to its lot lines, similar to that of traditional building
orientations.
• The front of a primary structure shall be oriented to the street.
6.21 Orient a primary entrance toward the street.
• Buildings should have a clearly defined primary entrance. For most commercial buildings, this
should be a recessed entry way.
• Do not orient a primary entrance to an interior court.
• Providing secondary public entrances to commercial spaces is also encouraged on larger
buildings.
No new addition is oriented parallel to its lot lines, similar to that of traditional building
orientations. Its primary entrance is clearly defined, faces the street and adjoins the public
sidewalk.
Building Form
6.22 Rectangular forms should be dominant on Commercial Core façades.
• Rectangular forms should be vertically oriented.
• The façade should appear as predominantly flat, with any decorative elements and projecting or
setback “articulations” appearing to be subordinate to the dominant form.
Dominant rectangular forms that are vertically oriented, yet appropriately scaled,
characterize the proposed remodel.
6.23 Use flat roof lines as the dominant roof form.
• A flat roof, or one that gently slopes to the rear of a site, should be the dominant roof form.
• Parapets on side façades should step down towards the rear of the building.
• False fronts and parapets with horizontal emphasis also may be considered.
All rooflines are flat.
6.24 Along a rear façade, using building forms that step down in scale toward the alley is
encouraged.
• Consider using additive forms, such as sheds, stairs and decks to reduce the perceived scale.
These forms should however, remain subordinate to the primary structure.
• Use projecting roofs at the ground floor over entrances, decks and for separate utility structures
in order to establish a human scale that invites pedestrian activity.
The historic structure is a full two-stories in height. The roof forms and balconies of the
second floor residential units located at the rear of the resource are lower in height than is
the primary roof. The proposed additions then step down to a single-story in height along
the alley frontage. This proposal complies as well, if not better, with this guideline than
any other property in the Commercial Core Historic District.
Building Height, Mass & Scale
6.25 Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at the sidewalk.
Stein Building Remodel Application 19
• Establish a two-story height at the sidewalk edge, or provide a horizontal design element at this
level. A change in materials, or a molding at this level are examples.
The proposed remodel is only one story at the sidewalk. Some balancing is necessary
between this 6.25 Guideline and the recommendations of 6.24, above. The proposal
provides an appropriate balance of these criteria and, relative to these, represents a great
improvement over the existing, grossly underutilized patio area.
6.26 Building façade height shall be varied from the façade height of adjacent buildings of the
same number of stories.
• If an adjacent structure is three stories and 38 ft. tall, new infill may be three stories, but must
vary in façade height by a minimum of 2 ft.
The proposed addition’s façade height provides an appropriate degree of variation from
that of the historic resource on the property and that of the structure immediately across
the alley. Please refer to the accompanying Plan Set (proposed elevations, Viewplane
exhibits, and Model Views) for graphic illustrations of the proposed addition’s height in
the context of surrounding development.
6.27 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the
Commercial Core.
• Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height limit on the subject
property.
• A minimum 9 ft. floor to ceiling height is to be maintained on second stories and higher.
• Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added for one or more of the
following reasons:
- In order to achieve at least a two-foot variation in height with an adjacent building.
- The primary function of the building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum, Civic Building,
Performance Hall, Fire Station, etc.)
- Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity to a
historic resource, or location within a View Plane, therefore relief in another area may be
appropriate.
- To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units.
- To make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Building Department) contribution to the
building's overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved daylighting.
Please refer to the responses provided above relative to similar standards (i.e., 6.25 and
6.26). The proposed addition more than complies with the maximum height and minimum
floor-to-floor/floor-to-ceiling limitations of the Commercial Core Zone District.
“Additional” height is not requested. While a small portion of the subject property is
located within designated Cooper Street Mountain Viewplane, the proposed addition will
not be visible from the view plane origination/vantage points and easily complies with the
effective height limitation anyway.
Stein Building Remodel Application 20
6.28 Height variation should be achieved using one or more of the following:
• Vary the building height for the full depth of the site in accordance with traditional lot width.
• Set back the upper floor to vary the building façade profile(s) and the roof forms across the
width and the depth of the building.
• Vary the façade (or parapet) heights at the front.
• Step down the rear of the building towards the alley, in conjunction with other design standards
and guidelines.
6.29 On sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths, the façade height shall be varied to
reflect traditional lot width.
6.30 On sites comprising two or more traditional lots, a building shall be designed to reflect the
individual parcels. These methods shall be used:
• Variation in height of building modules across the site.
• Variation in massing achieved through upper floor setbacks, the roofscape form and variation in
upper floor heights.
• Variation in building façade heights or cornice line.
Please refer to the responses provided above relative to similar standards (i.e., 6.25 and
6.26). In addition, please refer to the accompanying Plan Set (proposed elevations,
Viewplane exhibits, and Model Views) for graphic illustrations of the proposed addition’s
height in the context of surrounding development.
6.31 A new building should step down in scale to respect the height, form and scale of a historic
building within its immediate setting.
This is not a new building. Only a small addition with a maximum height of 18’-4” is
proposed. The proposal is completely consistent with this Guideline 6.31.
Guidelines 6.32 and 6.33 address new buildings that are located adjacent to one- or two-
story historic, residential buildings, and does not apply to the proposed remodel/addition.
6.34 The setting of iconic historic structures should be preserved and enhanced when feasible.
• On sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths, the third floor of the adjacent lot width
should be set back a minimum of 15 ft from the front facade.
• Step a building down in height adjacent to an iconic structure.
• Locate amenity space adjacent to an iconic structure.
There are no iconic structures in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
E. Mountain View Plane Review
Section 26.435.010(C) of the Code provides that development within designated mountain
view planes is subject to heightened review so as to protect certain mountain views from
obstruction, strengthen the environmental and aesthetic character of the City, maintain
property values, and enhance the City’s tourist industry by maintaining the City’s heritage
Stein Building Remodel Application 21
as a mountain community. In relevant part, there is an established and regulated view
plane originating on the northerly side of Cooper Avenue east of Galena Street, in other
words, in front of the former Cooper Street Pier. No buildings or land uses are supposed to
project above the established view plane unless the Historic Preservation Commission
grants an exemption.
The accompanying Plans Set (see the “Addition View Plane” Sheet) illustrates the breadth
of the regulated view plane as it crosses the subject property; the Viewplane diagonally
overlays only the far southwesterly corner portion of the property. Notwithstanding the
very clear fact that, due to intervening historically designated structures, the Viewplane-
regulated portion of the property cannot possibly be seen from the designated vantage
point, the Viewplane-associated height limit in the affected area is 21.3 feet above grade.
For the affected area, the 21.3-feet height limit supersedes the 28-foot height limit of the
underlying CC Zone District. On all other portions of the property, the effective height
limit remains 28 feet.
Relative to the proposed addition, only a portion of the trash/recycling storage area falls
within the regulated Cooper Street Mountain Viewplane Area. The height of the proposed
trash/recycling storage area addition will measure only 13’-11”, which is well below the
21.3’ Cooper Street Mountain Viewplane height limit affecting this area. As such, there will
be no Viewplane impacts associated with the proposed redevelopment. Moreover, the
proposal is in full compliance with and does not at all infringe upon the Cooper Street
Mountain Viewplane height limitation.
F. GMQS Requirements
Section 26.470.070(1), Enlargement of an Historic Landmark for Commercial, Lodge or
Mixed-Use Development
Pursuant to Code Section 26.470.070(1), the enlargement of an historic landmark building
for commercial or mixed-use development shall be approved, approved with conditions or
denied by the Commission based on the following criteria:
a. Up to four (4) employees generated by the additional commercial/lodge development shall not
require the provision of affordable housing. Thirty percent (30%) of the employee generation
above four (4) and up to eight (8) employees shall be mitigated through the provision of
affordable housing or cash in lieu thereof. Sixty percent (60%) of the employee generation
above eight (8) employees shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or
cash in lieu thereof…
…Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Subsection 4, Affordable housing, of this
Section and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Stein Building Remodel Application 22
Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a
lower category designation.
b. Up to one (1) free-market residence may be created pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.060.4,
Minor enlargement of an historic landmark for commercial, lodge or mixed-use development.
This shall be cumulative and shall include administrative GMQS approvals granted prior to
the adoption of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2007. Additional free-market units (beyond one
[1]) shall be reviewed pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.7, New free-market residential
units within a multi-family or mixed-use project.
The additional Net Leasable Area (NLA) for the proposal amounts to 1,258 square feet at
ground level (5,016sf proposed – 3,758sf existing), but 142 square feet of existing net
leasable square feet will be eliminated from the mezzanine level being removed. This
additional ground NLA generates 4.7 full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) per 1,000
square feet, or a total of 5.91 FTEs ([1,258/1,000] x 4.7). The removal of 142 square feet of
NLA from the mezzanine level represents a decrease of 0.5 FTE. All other levels of the
building remain unchanged. As such, the total FTE generation is 5.41 FTE (5.91 minus 0.5).
The first four FTEs generated do not trigger any affordable housing. For the remaining 1.41
FTEs generated, 30% must be mitigated. As such, the additional commercial development
on the property generates a requirement to provide housing mitigation for 0.423 FTE (1.41
x 30%). As allowed by the Code, this requirement to mitigate housing for 0.423 FTE at the
Category 4 level will be fully satisfied through the use of Affordable Housing Credit
Certificates.
Section 26.470.050(B), General Requirements
As required under the above standard and all GMQS reviews, Section 26.470.050(B) of the
Code provides the GMQS General Requirements and states that:
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.
This application requests 1,258 square feet of additional commercial net leasable space.
Therefore, a commercial net leasable area allotment of 1,258 square feet is hereby
requested. Section 26.470.030.D of the Code states that the annual allotment for commercial
uses is 33,000 square feet and there is adequate net leasable area remaining in the 2015
allotment pool to accommodate this request.
Stein Building Remodel Application 23
2. The proposed development is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, as well as
with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan.
The proposed remodel/addition in the Commercial Core is highly compatible with land
uses in the area, as demonstrated throughout this application.
3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district.
As demonstrated above, the proposal conforms to the requirements and limitations of the
CC 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.
The necessary HPC and Conceptual Commercial Design Review approvals are requested
by this application.
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.
The language of this standard begins with “Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter…”
The Chapter includes, at Section 26.470.070.1, language exempting the proposal from any
mitigation requirements for the first four FTEs generated and requiring that only 30% of
the remaining FTEs generated by this proposal must be mitigated. Accordingly and in
conformance with the provisions of this standard, the resulting requirement to mitigate
housing for 0.423 FTE at the Category 4 level will be fully satisfied through the use of
Affordable Housing Credit Certificates. In addition, mitigation is required for the
elimination of the existing “multi-family” residential unit and that, too, is proposed to be
satisfied through the extinguishing of Affordable Housing Credit Certificates (as addressed
below).
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
Stein Building Remodel Application 24
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.
This standard is not applicable since the proposal does not include any new/additional
free-market residential units or new/additional free market residential net livable area. To
the contrary, the proposal involves the elimination of a one-bedroom free-market
residential unit with 881 square feet of net livable area (491 square feet on the ground level
and 390 square feet in the loft space).
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.
There will minimal additional demand on public infrastructure as a result of the proposed
development. It has been determined that the existing electric transformer serving the
property is adequate to handle the increased loads generated by this proposal.
Section 26.470.070(5), Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing
The proposal involves the removal of a ground floor, alley-accessed multi-family
residential dwelling unit. It is a one-bedroom unit with 881 square feet of net livable area
(491 square feet on the ground level and 390 square feet in the loft space). Per the Code,
this free-market, one-bedroom unit houses 1.75 persons.
Over the last several years, the Code has been amended several times without revising the
Multi-Family Housing Replacement provisions of the GMQS to address the resultant
implications. More particularly, the CC Zone District provisions have been amended, re-
amended, and further amended, the other GMQS sections have changed several times, the
AH Credit Certificate program has been established and enjoyed great success, and the
nonconforming structures and uses provisions of the Code have been severely tightened;
all of these changes have had dire consequences for the fairness of the Multi-Family
Housing Replacement requirements yet the affected requirements have not been at all
addressed in response. Meanwhile, every GMQS provision other than the multi-family
Stein Building Remodel Application 25
replacement requirements has been amended to allow mitigation via AH Credit
Certificates.
For example, the Section 26.470.070(5), Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi-Family
Housing, regulations provide the applicant with two options for satisfying the
requirements: a one-hundred-percent replacement option and a fifty-percent replacement
option. With regard to the one-hundred-percent replacement option, the Code states the
following:
In the event of demolition of free-market multi-family housing, the applicant shall have the
option to construct replacement housing consisting of no less than one hundred percent
(100%) of the number of units, bedrooms and net livable area demolished. The replacement
units shall be deed-restricted as resident occupied affordable housing, pursuant to the
Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to
provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Each replacement unit shall be
approved pursuant to Subsection 4, Affordable housing, of this Section.
When this one-hundred-percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development on the
site may be free-market residential development with no additional affordable housing
mitigation required as long as there is no increase in the number of free-market residential
units on the parcel…
There are a few important parts of these provisions to address. First, selection of the 100%
replacement provisions is at the option of the applicant, not the City. Next, with this
option, the replacement requirement is for resident occupied (RO) level housing, not
Category 4 as is otherwise typical of mitigation housing requirements. Finally, and
perhaps most importantly, while the City continues to insist on receiving its end of this
deal, so to speak, by demanding on-site deed-restricted replacement housing, all fairness
has been removed as the applicant’s end of the deal has been effectively eliminated by the
Code amendments mentioned above. That is, the language providing that, “the remaining
development on the site may be free-market residential development with no additional affordable
housing mitigation required as long as there is no increase in the number of free-market residential
units on the parcel” has become obsolete due to the amendment of the CC Zone District to
fully preclude/prohibit development of new or replacement free-market residential units.
Clearly, this is less than fair.
Next, with regard to the fifty-percent replacement option, the current Code is states the
following:
In the event of demolition of free-market multi-family housing and replacement of less than
one hundred percent (100%) of the number of previous units, bedrooms or net livable area as
described above [in the 100% replacement option], the applicant shall be required to
construct affordable housing consisting of no less than fifty percent (50%) of the number of
units, bedrooms and net livable area demolished. The replacement units shall be deed-
Stein Building Remodel Application 26
restricted as Category 4 housing, pursuant to the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower
category designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph
26.470.070.4, Affordable housing.
When this fifty-percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development on the site may
be free-market residential development as long as additional affordable housing mitigation is
provided pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.3, Expansion of free-market residential units
within a multi-family or mixed-use project, and there is no increase in the number of free-
market residential units on the parcel…
When the City removed the possibility of an applicant offsetting the multi-family housing
replacement mitigation requirements with the development of replacement free-market
residential units in the Commercial Core zone district, the City most likely should have
simultaneously amended the requirements for deed restricted housing but never did so.
At the very least, the City should have extended the option of satisfying the replacement
requirements through the extinguishing of Affordable Housing Credit Certificates, as had
and has since been done with respect to the available means for satisfying literally every
single one of the other GMQS mitigation requirements of the Code.
Instead, the City has decided through an administrative code interpretation rendered
effective on October 7, 2014, holding that an applicant can use the AH Credit Certificates
program to satisfy the less than fair replacement requirement (still not allowing
replacement free-market units) off-site only when an applicant demonstrates and the
Commission first determines that, “on-site multi-family housing replacement is not feasible
because of site constraints or that the on-site replacement of the units creates a nonconformity due to
underlying zoning.” It is noted that this “interpretation” effects new Code without due
process and is a clear departure from the actual language of the Code, which holds that off-
site replacement housing mitigation is allowed when an applicant demonstrates and the
Commission first determines “that replacement of the units on site would be in conflict with the
parcel’s zoning or would be an inappropriate solution due to the site’s physical constraints.” There
is a big difference between “not feasible because of site constraints” and “would be an
inappropriate solution,” especially in cases involving a historic landmark property. The
interpretation requires an objective demonstration while the Code requires a subjective
determination. An applicant’s burden of proof and a Commission’s authority cannot be
changed via Code interpretation; such changes can only be acceptably accomplished via a
duly adopted Code amendment process.
Nonetheless, while one free-market multi-family residential unit is being removed from the
ground level of the existing, landmark-designated structure, it will not be replaced on-site.
Instead, the housing replacement requirement will be satisfied through the use of
Affordable Housing Credit Certificates. The unit’s removal will bring the existing structure
farther into conformance with underlying zoning and will effectively and proportionally
reduce the allowable free-market residential floor area on the property. As the codified
Stein Building Remodel Application 27
Purpose of the CC Zone District points out, “Retail and restaurant uses are appropriate for
ground floors of buildings while residential and office uses are not permitted on ground floors.” The
free-market residence cannot be replaced as the zoning specifically states that, “No new
Free-Market Residential Units may be established.” Therefore, the on-site replacement of the
unit would be in conflict with the parcel’s zoning and would be an inappropriate solution
due to the landmark-designated site’s physical constraints.
Along these lines, the recently amended CC zoning establishes that free-market multi-
family housing is limited to its existing FAR, that no expansion of this type of FAR is
permitted, and any reduction in floor area occupied by such free-market residential use
shall be deemed a new limitation and the use shall not thereafter be enlarged to occupy a
greater floor area. Existing free-market net livable area is similarly restricted to that
currently established. Finally, the total free-market residential net livable area on a
property can be no greater than the total above-grade floor area in commercial use. The
existing free-market net livable area is approximately 4,346 square feet while the existing,
above-grade floor area in commercial use is approximately 4,936 square feet; this ratio will
move farther into conformance with removal of the ground floor, alley-accessed residence.
It is not reasonable to ask the applicant to remove any existing, legally established uses to
accommodate the on-site replacement of an inappropriate use (the ground-floor, alley-
accessed, free-market residence) with a deed-restricted housing unit. Similarly, placing a
deed-restricted unit on-site would be an inappropriate solution and in conflict with the
parcel’s zoning since the effective zoning precludes the requirement’s offsetting allowance
for also replacing the free-market unit. That is, the units (emphasis on the plural) cannot be
replaced on-site given the provisions and limitations of the CC Zone District relative to the
subject landmark-designated site.
Furthermore, the landmark structure does not have any areas where a residential addition
would be appropriate. With the City’s clear and decisive efforts over the last several years
to decrease the size and mass of new development in the downtown, the best and most
appropriate decision would be to allow the applicant to satisfy the housing replacement
requirement off-site through the extinguishing of AH Credit Certificates and, thereby, also
serve to further the success of the award-winning AH Credit Certificates program. Also,
note that all units for which AH Credit Certificates have been issued have already been
deemed satisfactory by the City and consistent with the APCHA Housing Guidelines, and
all such units have been approved under the requirements of Code Section 26.470.070.4,
Affordable Housing.
Per the Code, the one-bedroom free-market unit being demolished houses 1.75 persons.
Thus, the applicant has the option of satisfying the replacement requirement either at 100%
with AH Credits for 1.75 FTE at the RO deed-restriction level, or at 50% with 0.875 AH
Credits at the Category 4 level. Due to the fact that all existing AH Credits are at a
Category 2 or Category 4 level and the severe difficulty and lack of a method for accurately
calculating conversion of such credits to an RO level, the applicant proposes to satisfy the
Stein Building Remodel Application 28
replacement requirement with the extinguishing of 0.875 Category 4 AH Credit
Certificates. With this method of satisfying the requirement, the applicant is amicably
foregoing any matching/offsetting replacement of the free-market unit.
In total, the applicant is proposing to extinguish a total of 1.3 Category 4 Affordable
Housing Credit Certificates to mitigate both the expanded commercial net leasable area
(0.423 FTE) and the 50% multi-family housing replacement requirement (0.875 FTE). In the
alternative, and as allowed under the codified Multi-Family Housing Replacement
requirements, should the City for whatever reason be unwilling to accept the proposed use
of AH Credits, the applicant then requests that City Council instead accept cash-in-lieu of
this 0.875 FTE, fractional unit requirement at the Category 4 level, which, under today’s
Guidelines, would amount to $126,343.88. The 0.423 FTE mitigation requirement
associated with the commercial net leasable area expansion will still be satisfied as allowed
by right though the extinguishing of Category 4 AH Credit Certificates.
G. Parking
Code Section 26.515.030 provides that the existing commercial use on the subject property
generates an off-street parking requirement of one (1) space for every 1,000 square feet of
net leasable area and that no parking is required for the six residential units. With 5,100
square feet of existing net leasable area on the property (737sf in basement level, 3,758sf on
ground floor, 142sf on the mezzanine level, and 463sf on the upper level; see Plan Sheet
A0.2), the current parking requirement is 5.1 off-street spaces. Although there is a small
“parking area” that exists on the site, it is only 12 feet wide and 13 feet deep, which does
not qualify as a legitimate parking space. Therefore, there is a current off-street parking
deficit of 5.1 spaces.
The proposed development will result in a total of approximately 6,212 square feet of net
leasable commercial area (737sf in the basement, 5,016sf on the ground floor, and 463sf on
the upper level). This results in off-street parking requirement of 1.11 spaces (6.21 minus
the existing 5.1 space deficit), which will be completely satisfied through the payment of
cash-in-lieu as allowed by right pursuant to Code Section 26.515.030. The payment-in-lieu
of parking will be due and payable at the time of building permit issuance for the
development. At the currently codified rate of $30,000, which may be amended, the
payment due would be $33,300 ($30,000 x 1.11). Payment of the in-lieu fee does not require
any review or approval, nor does it represent any kind of variance or variation whatsoever.
H. Impact fees
Section 26.610.090 of the Code provides the established impact fees for development within
the City of Aspen. The Parks Development fee is $4.10 per square foot of net leasable
commercial space. The Transportation Demand Management/Air Quality impact fee is
Stein Building Remodel Application 29
$0.46 per square foot of net leasable commercial space. The additional net leasable
commercial space from that existing amounts to 1,112 square feet. This would generate a
Parks Development fee of $4,559.20, and a TDM/Air Quality fee of $511.52. These fees will
be paid at the time of building permit issuance.
I. Transportation Impact Analysis
Please see the Transportation Impact Analysis (Transportation Demand
Management/Multi-Modal Level Of Service analysis) provided in Exhibit 6. The following
provides the “Narrative” and other written portions that are meant to accompany the
analysis contained in Exhibit 6; the applicant reserves the right to modify any of the
following commitments prior to the project’s Final application approvals.
The completed Tool attached hereto as Exhibit 6 includes a net increase of 1,112 square feet
of net leasable commercial area and a net decrease of one free-market residence, but these
net changes may increase or decrease through the course of the review process. At any
rate, for the subject project, this preliminary application of the Tool results in just 3.78 net
trips to be mitigated. The applicant remains open to additional or different suggestions as
to how these trips might best be mitigated.
It is noted that this is an application for conceptual design review and related issues only.
Completion of the TDM-MMLOS, while required, is somewhat premature. During the
Final Review application process is a more appropriate time to fully consider the
Transportation Demand Management and Multi-Modal Levels of Service impacts as
program is always subject to change in response to issues that may arise during the
conceptual review process. Along these lines, the applicant cannot be reasonably expected
at this time to fully understand what types of on- or off-site improvements or trip
mitigation measures will eventually make sense. Similarly, the applicant cannot yet be
expected to know what types of programs (i.e., amenities packages, shuttle services, TOP
Participation, transit fare subsidies, employee parking cash-outs, workplace parking
pricing, compressed work weeks, sponsored vanpools, etc.) each of the eventual tenants
might be willing to implement with regard to transportation demand management, much
less how such programs might be enforced or financed. As such, it is requested that the
TDM-MMLOS mitigation review be temporarily delayed or only conceptually reviewed at
this time with final review instead made part of the subsequent application.
Notwithstanding the above, the applicant had proposed MMLOS measures that would
have mitigated 15 vehicles trips (with only 3.8 trips generated) but was advised by staff
that selection of not less than two TDM measures is still required. In other words, despite
clear legal precedent to the contrary, an applicant is being required to commit to mitigation
measures that are not needed to mitigate an impact. As a result, the applicant has revised
the proposal to include the required selection of two TDM measures but eliminated the off-
site right-of-way enhancements that would have been of greater community benefit as they
Stein Building Remodel Application 30
are no longer needed for any kind of mitigation purposes. The result is a proposal that still
over-mitigates its impacts; 10.03 total trips are being mitigated while only 3.8 trips are
being generated. Given the foregoing, to the extent that explanation is needed for those
items the applicant has proposed credit for in the attached Exhibit 6 TDM-MMLOS Tool,
the following narratives are provided.
MMLOS Input Page, Item 7: The crosswalk between the subject corner and the former
Boogie’s restaurant space requires improvement due to poor drainage. At the subject
corner, standing water, slush and/or ice puddles often impede the pedestrian crossing.
The problem is magnified in winter months when many people pass through this slush and
ice-filled corner in ski boots, on their way to or from the Aspen Mountain gondola. The
applicant will install drainage improvements necessary to resolve this issue and then
replace the crosswalk, sidewalk, curb and gutter to City standards.
MMLOS Input Page, Item 8: Access to the existing jewelry merchant is gained by
descending two stairs at the rear of the structure and then walking through the existing
patio area to the doorway. By restoring a long-since removed by historically existing
entryway to this space, pedestrian access will be enhanced. Furthermore, the proposed
addition will have its primary access immediately off the Hunter Street sidewalk.
MMLOS Input Page, Item 9: The project’s pedestrian access points have directness factors
ranging of less than 1.2, as all tenant spaces will now have access directly from the public
sidewalks. For additional explanation, please refer to the response to MMLOS Item 8,
above.
MMLOS Input Page, Additional Proposed Improvements: Please refer to the response provided
for Item 7, above. It is anticipated that these off-site pedestrian and drainage
improvements will cost more than $60,000 between design, review and implementation.
The impacts of the proposal itself are not sufficient to require these off-site improvements
and, as such, it is felt that the proposed 5 points of credit are more than warranted. Hailey
Guglielmo of the City of Aspen Engineering Department suggested this improvement to
the applicant by as a priority.
TDM Input Page: As required, the applicant has selected two TDM measures: participation
in the TOP and a self-funded emergency ride home program.
TDM Input Page, Participation in TOP: The applicant will participate in the City’s
Transportation Options Program and all employees of the business occupying the new
space/addition will be eligible. All reporting requirements will be met.
TDM Input page, Self-Funded Emergency Ride Home: Emergency ride home programs reduce
barriers associated with alternative commute modes, thus reducing single-occupancy
vehicle trips. The project will develop and fund a program to provide all employees of the
business occupying the new space/addition and who commute to work via carpool, bike,
Stein Building Remodel Application 31
walking or transit with a reliable and free ride home should an emergency arise. In the
case of an emergency and the need for an employee of the business occupying the new
space/addition to unexpectedly leave work, either the employer will provide a ride
himself/herself, or they will pay for the taxi fare.
Enforcement and Financing: The MMLOS measures described above do not require any
financing or enforcement. If approved, the applicant will be held to the proposed
development, which guarantees the measures. The applicant will finance the development
privately and, once built, will require no enforcement. Participation in the TOP and
provision of the emergency ride home program will be provided and paid for the first five
years of ownership to the tenant and move in. The tenant is responsible for enrolling in the
program and payment for usage outside of the membership fees. The tenant will also be
required to agree to the emergency ride home funding program. The TDM measures will
be included in lease agreement for the new space/addition and reviewed by the tenant,
who will accept the terms by means of executing/agreeing to their lease.
Scheduling and Implementation Measures: All MMLOS items will be completed during the
construction phase of the project. These items will be part of the plan set submitted to the
City of Aspen Building Department for review. The applicant understands the issuance of
a Certificate of Occupancy is contingent upon satisfactory installation of the MMLOS
improvements, as reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department. These items
will be the responsibility of the applicant. TDM measures will be implemented when the
tenant signs their lease agreement.
Monitoring and Reporting: No monitoring or reporting is necessary as normal building
inspections will take place during construction and a Certificate of Occupancy will not be
issued by the City of Aspen unless all improvements are satisfactorily completed. With
regard to the TDM measures, the property manager or other representative of the owner
will issue a survey to the commercial tenant of the new space/addition on an annual basis
for the first three years of occupancy. This simple survey will determine what level of use
the tenant engages in for the TDM measures and if they have effectively reduced trips. The
survey results will be issued as an annual report to the City of Aspen Transportation
Department.
= input
= calculation
10
Category Sub.Site Plan Question Answer Points
Does the project propose a detached sidewalk where an attached
sidewalk currently exists? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer
meet standard minimum widths as well?
No 0
Is the proposed effective sidewalk width greater than the standard
minimum width?No 0
Is proposed landscape buffer greater than the standard minimum
width?No 0
0
Does the project propose a detached sidewalk on an adjacent
block? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard
minimum widths?
No 0
Is the proposed effective sidewalk width on an adjacent block
greater than the standard minimum width?NA 0
Is the proposed landscape buffer on an adjacent block greater than
the standard minimum width?NA 0
0
Are slopes between back of curb and sidewalk equal to or less than
5%?Yes 0
Are curbs equal to (or less than) 6 inches?Yes 0
Is new landscaping proposed that improves the pedestrian
experience?No 0
Does the project propose an improved crosswalk? No 0
0
Are existing driveways removed from the street?NA 0
Is pedestrian and/or vehicle visibility unchanged by new structure
or column?Yes 0
Is the grade (where pedestrians cross) on cross-slope of driveway
2% or less?Yes 0
Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian access points?Yes 5
Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian or bicyclist
interaction with vehicles at driveway areas?NA 0
5
Is the project's pedestrian directness factor less than 1.5?Yes 0
Is the project's pedestrian directness factor between 1 and 1.2?Yes 5
Is the project proposing an off site improvement that results in a
pedestrian directness factor below 1.2?* No 0
Are traffic calming features proposed that are part of an approved
plan (speed humps, rapid flash)?*No 0
5
Are additional minor improvements proposed which benefit the
pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of
Aspen staff?
No 0
Are additional major improvements proposed which benefit the
pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of
Aspen staff?
No 0
10Pedestrian 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 Considerations1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Category Sub.Question Answer Points
Is a new bicycle path being implemented with City approved
design?No 0
Do new bike paths allow access without crossing a street or
driveway?NA 0
Is there proposed landscaping, striping, or signage improvements
to an existing bicycle path?NA 0
Does the project propose additional minor bicycle improvements
which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0
Does the project propose additional major bicycle improvements
which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0
0
Bicycle ParkingIs the project providing bicycle parking?No 0
0
0
Category Sub.Question Answer Points
Is seating/bench proposed?No 0
Is a trash receptacle proposed?No 0
Is transit system information (signage) proposed?No 0
Is shelter/shade proposed?No 0
Is enhanced pedestrian-scale lighting proposed?No 0
Is real-time transit information proposed?No 0
Is bicycle parking/storage proposed specifically for bus stop use?No 0
Are ADA improvements proposed?No 0
0
Is a bus pull-out proposed at an existing stop?No 0
Is relocation of a bus stop to improve transit accessibility or
roadway operations proposed?No 0
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
Category Sub.
Question Answer
Strategy
VMT
Reductions
Will
an
onsite
ammenities
strategy
be
implemented?No
Which
onsite
ammenities
will
be
implemented?
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?
Nonmotorized
Zones Will
a
nonmotorized
zones
strategy
be
implemented?No 0.00%
0.00%
Category 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?
Intercept
Lot Will
an
intercept
lot
strategy
be
implemented?No 0.00%
0.00%
Category 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
a
bikeshare
program
participation
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?Yes
What
percentage
of
employees
are
eligible?100%
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?No
What
percentage
of
employees/guests
are
eligible?
0.92%
0.00%
0.92%
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
Strategies0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4.00%
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%
0.25%Commute
Trip
Reduction
Programs
StrategiesOnsite
Servicing
Shared
Shuttle
Service
Neighborhood/Site
Enhancements
Strategies0.00%
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
InstrucLons
TDM:
Choose
the
mi[ga[on
measures
that
are
appropriate
for
your
project.
Proposed
TDM
or
MMLOS
measures
should
be
new
and/or
an
improvement
of
exis[ng
condi[ons.
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
loca[on
and
future
use.
DATE:
PROJECT
NAME:
PROJECT
ADDRESS:
APPLICANT
CONTACT
INFORMATION:
NAME,
COMPANY,
ADDRESS,
PHONE,
EMAIL
Peak
Hour Max
Trips
Generated MMLOS TDM Total
Trips
Mitigated
PM 3.8 10 0.03 10.03 0.00
Mitch
Haas;
Haas
Land
Planning,
LLC;
420
E
Main
St,
#B-‐10,
Aspen,
CO
81611;
(970)
925-‐7819;
mitch@hlpaspen.com
Summary
and
Narrative:
Narrative:
9/4/15
Stein
Building
Remodel/Addition
529-‐535
E
Cooper
Ave
Trip
Generation
SUMMARY
Trip
Mitigation
NET
TRIPS
TO
BE
MITIGATED
Click
on
the
"Generate
Narrative"
Button
to
the
right.
Respond
to
each
of
the
following
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.