The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19880901AGENDA 1 f HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE September 1, 1988 - Tuesday 2:30 P.M. to 4:30 P.M. FIRST FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS City Hall REGULAR MEETING 2:30 I. Roll Call II. Approval of Minutes-August 23, 1988 III. Committee Member and Staff comments IV. Public Comment NEW BUSINESS 2:45 A. CONTINUED - Public Hearing 309 E. Hopkins-The Berko Building, Revised application, Restoration, Redevelopment 4:15 Adjourn PLEASE BRING YOUR AUGUST 23, 1988 PACKET 961â€¢ i ,~_1 Â£7 AGENDA 1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE September 1, 1988 -*-----,<D-:Â£6-3 2:30 P.M. to 4:30 P.M. FIRST FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS City Hall REGULAR MEETING 2:30 I. Roll Call II. Approval of Minutes-August 23, 1988 III. Committee Member and Staff comments IV. Public Comment NEW BUSINESS 2:45 A. CONTINUED - Public Hearing 309 E. Hopkins-The Berko Building, Revised application, Restoration, Redevelopment 4:15 Adjourn PLEASE BRING YOUR AUGUST 23, 1988 PACKET MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Berko Building - 309 E. Hopkins Public Hearing, continued Revised application for relocation and redevelopment Date: September 1, 1988 - Special Meeting PLEASE BRING YOUR AUGUST 23. 1988 PACKET AND REFER AGAIN TO STAFF'S REVIEW MEMO OF THIS PROJECT. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant has submitted revised conceptual development plans per HPC's request for the project at 309 E. Hopkins, aka the Berko Building. The applicant is seeking HPC's approval for the relocation of the historic structure and redevelopment of the site, and is attempting to demonstrate with the additional information the inability to adequately utilize the historic structure in the site's development. A suitable relocation site has been found next to the Professor's House at ACES. The redevelopment proposal is for a three story vertical commercial structure, which has been previously reviewed in staff's memo. (The applicant will provide a model of the block at the meeting, showing the development alternatives.) HPC'S REQUEST: The additional information has been requested by HPC for review at this special meeting to assist in determining the feasibility of retaining the Berko building on site in a rehabilitation. The project was tabled at the special meeting of August 25 to allow the applicant time to further study the economic issues involved in on-site rehabilitation, and provide Staff and HPC with alternative elevations, incorporating the Berko building into compatible additions. NOTE: Due to the scope of the project and the amount of time involved between the last meeting (August 25) and this meeting, staff's level of review is reduced. HPC's attempt to be responsive to the applicant is to be commended, however, the applicant has not been able to produce the revised information on time for staff to review properly for this meeting. In our opinion, this project is extremely significant and warrants ample time for study, for the benefit of the District and the Community, as well as for the individuals involved. Staff also reminds the Committee that the GMP deadline has already been pushed back even farther this year, from the previous August 1 deadline to September 15. GMP exemption may be granted by P&Z for expansion of a designated landmark, therefore, the rush to obtain conceptual approval prior to the September 15 GMP application deadline is not necessary should on-site rehabilitation be chosen by the applicant. PRIOR COMMITTEE AND STAFF ACTION: The applicant has continued to discuss action taken by HPC at their November 10, 1987 meeting. Staff reminds the applicant and HPC that a formal application and review memo had not been prepared for that meeting, and that the Committee was asked to respond with no previous information. At that November 10 meeting, the applicant requested time (as stated in the minutes) "to have some people present information on the Berko building, to get some feedback from HPC on what to do in adding to that building since it is designated a '4'". The motion passed to add the presentation to the agenda. Staff stated concerns about the ability of the Committee and Staff to respond "without a chance to review something ahead of time". The applicant stated it was an information discussion. Applicant Richard Klein presented, stating: " (The) client would like to transform this building into a commercial building of about 6,000 sq. ft. We have several options: 1. relocate the existing building to a neighborhood more in keeping with its scale and design and build a new structure. 2. renovate the existing and create a contemporary addition or an addition more in keeping with Victorian architecture. 3. If we keep the existing building we're wondering if we might be exempt from the GMP submittal and also how current open space requirements would affect this project." The minutes reflect that the emphasis was on gaining GMP exemption and on the relocation of the structure, which the applicant continued to bring up as "the first option". The HPC Chairman stated the increase in size would be six times that of the existing, and that he did not know how the Victorian character would be retained in the massing of that type of structure. The applicant again asked the committee for feedback on a relocation. Members of the committee responded that possibly relocating it was a better option than adding on such a large addition. No action was taken as this was informational only. On December 11, 1987, Staff received an application for the conceptual development project for a Victorian addition to the Berko building. On December 17, 1987, Staff responded back to the applicant that the application was unclear and incomplete. GMP and landmark designation was still the major issue of the application and response letter. On December 21, 1987, the Planning Office received a letter requesting initiation of landmark designation, contingent upon receiving GMP exemption. The plan was still to renovate the building on site and add on the addition as proposed. On 2 December 24, 1987, Staff responded in writing with information on the landmark designation procedure, again reiterating that the GMP exemption for historic landmarks was still in the process of being revised in the new land use code. On February 12, 1988 an application was received by the Planning Office to relocate the property and redevelop with a three story commercial structure. Staff informed the applicant that a "receiving site acceptance letter" would be required before further review action could take place. On March 23, 1988 a preapplication was held with the applicant; Jack King, the owner; Lisa Purdy, consultant; and staff. The February 12 relocation/redevelopment application was discussed, and three possible relocation sites were disclosed, none of which had agreed in writing to be the accepting site at that time. Staff informed the applicant that further study was warranted on whether the building should in fact be moved, and that their assumption that HPC and staff would approve a relocation may be premature. Staff's followup letter to the applicant suggested a variety of on-site rehabilitation alternatives, stating that these items would be required upon formal application. In July, the next contact made by the applicant to staff, another pre-application conference was held with the applicant's team, and Staff, to review, again, a variety of alternatives for the structure. The site next to the professor's house at ACES was disclosed, and a brief on-site review was held. Staff stated to the applicant the site appeared to be a good alternative, if in fact the structure was approved for relocation outside the Commercial Core District, which was still yet to be determined. A complete application was received by staff on August 15, 1988 for review at the August 23 HPC meeting; which produced no quorum for this item. A great deal of public comment was received at the beginning of that meeting regarding the saving on-site of the Berko building. The item and public hearing were tabled to a special meeting called for August 25, at which time the applicant, owner and associated consultants presented their plans. Significant public comment, including the submittal of a 103-name petition, was heard by the committee, overwhelmingly in favor of retaining the historic structure on site. The applicant presented a model of the block showing one expanded version of the Berko building and the new development. HPC's discussion focused on the removal and relocation, with little discussion focusing on the proposed new development. After seeing a three- dimensional model, staff's opinion of the compatibility of the new development has changed. The proposed new development appears out of context with the block, the same argument made by the applicant regarding the historic structure. Neither the expanded version utilizing the Berko building nor the new development appeared appropriate, and did not meet portions the 3 Guidelines. The committee tabled action, scheduling a special meeting and continuing the public hearing to September 1, 1988. Please refer to "HPC' s REQUEST" on page one o f this memo. SUMMARY: This memo will attempt to bring forward new information for the committee's consideration. Please refer to staff's August 23 memo regarding review of the proposed ACES location and of the redevelopment. The applicant has submitted four (4) main facade sketches incorporating the Berko building; one (1) revised new development facade sketch; floor plans for each (to be presented at the meeting); a letter from the applicant reviewing the history, design conflicts, relocation and proposed new development; and cost estimates of construction and resulting income for each of the alternatives. The question remains: Has the applicant demonstrated sufficiently, that, in fact, an on-site rehabilitation incorporating the historic structure is or is not feasible, and is the relocation and return-to-original-use the best possible alternative for the structure and the Commercial Core Historic District? Valid arguments are presented for both issues, and HPC should carefully consider the application against the Standards for Development and Demolition/Removal. If after the Committee is satisfied that retaining the Berko building on site with an addition is not feasible due to diminished historic integrity associated with the expansion, then a relocation with conditions is possible. Consideration of the integrity of the district and the immediate block is necessary in studying context, and future neighboring development. Should this fringe block in the CC District retain its smaller scale, reinforcing a sense of place? Will the proposed move adversely affect the special historical, architectural, or aesthetic character of the district? Would an addition be compatible with the historic character of the building, or would it alter the structure so much that its integrity would be lost? Should the positive elements of the ACES (relocation) site be weighed move heavily than the district aspects of historic integrity and original location? The enormous amount of public concern must be taken into account by the Committee. It is quite clear to Staff that the community wishes to see the historic structure remain on site and that even a relocation (and renovation) outside the boundaries of the CC District is not a strong enough consideration to warrant removal of the structure. The applicant has made known the plans for exterior restoration and interior rehabilitation, which staff supports enthusiastically independent of location. 4 PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Planning Office again brings HPC;s attention to page 7-29 of the Land Use Code, Section 7-602, Demolition of a Historic Landmark, which states: "No demolition and total removal of an Historic Landmark or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay District or any structure rated as a "4" or a "5" by the HPC...shall be permitted unless the demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the standards of Section 7-602 (B) (1) through ( 3 )." Those standards were previously reviewed in staff's memo dated August 23. Standard #1 and #2 regarding structural stability and beneficial use have been demonstrated by the applicant, therefore, based on these standards, approval to relocate the historic structure cannot be granted. The applicant is obviously seeking full FAR development potential, and by incorporating the historic structure, the full build out is limited, however, the Planning Office is still not convinced that an on-site rehabilitation could not be accomplished to the best use of the historic structure, allowing the owner a good return on investment. In addition, a creative rehab would provide a unique, highly desirable space in the Commercial Core District which in time will become more valuable due to its historic architectural strength and as a reminder of Aspen's past. Staff feels the applicant HAS demonstrated that with a little more effort an on-site rehab solution is not far off. Facade Sketches: The applicant has attempted to demonstrate in the main facade sketches the difficulty in designing a compatible addition with a workable interior. The two, three and four level addition alternatives present an either/or facade approach: highly replicative of Victorian era structures, or extremely contemporary and inappropriate to the historic resource. Direction was given to the applicant at the August 25 meeting by HPC members regarding possible design alternatives, which the applicant chose to not incorporate. Staff, again, brings attention to the adopted Development Guidelines, page 35, under "Commercial Buildings - New Construction" which states: "The characteristics that have already been established can be respected while at the same time developing new and creative building designs that avoid the imitation of earlier historic styles. New buildings do not need to damage the historic integrity if they are design to respect the relationships among buildings that have already been established." The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation also states: 5 ? " Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property which requires minimal alteration of the building, structure, or site and its environment. All buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged. Whenever possible, new additions or alterations to structures shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired." An addition which derives its character in massing and scale from the neighborhood context may do well here, designed simply with little ornamentation to allow the Berko to read as the historic resource. The goal is to provide an addition that would not confuse history and would enhance both the Berko and the adjacent contemporary structures. This would take into consideration the publicly visible facade and streetscape issues, allowing the historic resource to serve the community and the district as a small scale reminder of the past, providing relief to a potentially over built block, in our opinion. RELOCATION CONSIDERATIONS: Please refer to the applicant's attached letter, stating the positive issues of the proposed relocation. The applicant has found an acceptable site for the structure's relocation, based on adjacent historic and architectural integrity. The applicant has provided information from a structural engineer and a moving company that, in their opinion, the structure can be moved without damage. The structure would be returned to its original use as a residence, and would provide for needed housing for ACES staff, and the structure would receive exterior restoration and interior renovation, which would extend its functional life. REDEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS: Please refer to staff's August 23 memo for review of the proposed new development. Although the proposal appeared to be a compatible infill in the elevations, the model reflects an inappropriate vertical solution in a very horizontal block. Should HPC grant conceptual approval for the relocation and redevelopment, consideration should be given to the verticality of the new development in its block context. This may be appropriate and compatible in other site specific areas of the Commercial Core district, but staff finds it out of place on this site. With the removal of the Berko building, a new building deriving its design from other existing historic Victorian commercial structures would be hypocritical in design and out of context with the immediate block. Further study is recommended. 6 ALTERNATIVES: Alternatives for HPC action are: 1. Approve the relocation and redevelopment application as proposed, finding that the on-site rehabilitation is not feasible, and that the relocation site and renovation activity proposed is the best use for the structure, also finding that the redevelopment proposal meets the Guidelines and is appropriate for this site. 2. Approve the relocation and redevelopment application as proposed with the conditions of posting a bond to insure proper relocation and rehabilitation, also requiring landmark designation. 3. Table action again, based on the need for additional information to adequately assess and review the proposal 4. Deny approval for removal and redevelopment based on the fact that the structure can be rehabilitated to provide for a beneficial use of the property. --------- --------- The Historic District must accommodate growth and change, but at what point does a district lose the character for which it was established because of the volume and density Of new construction? Staff does not agree with the applicant that this historic miner's cottage could not be creatively renovated, inside and out, to provide a highly desirable commercial space in the CC zone district. Historic structures in the Main Street District serve as excellent examples of creative, adaptive use properties. Staff also disagrees with the applicant in his statement that interior renovation cannot be accomplished sympathetically, without destroying the historic integrity, to adapt the structure to a commercial use. Some of the most successful historic renovations involve adaptive uses of residential structures. ~-RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC deny the application for relocation and redevelopment for the project at 309 E. Hopkins, finding that the structure can be rehabilitated to provide for beneficial use of the property. Staff also recommends the applicant apply for conceptual development approval to rehabilitate the historic structure, adding on a compatible addition, and apply for landmark designation to take advantage of the GMP exemption for expansion of a designated historic landmark. hpc.memo.berko.c2 7 CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 520 EAST HYMAN, SUITE 30] PO. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, A.I.A. AU6311988 August 30, 1988 Roxanne Eflin Planning Department City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Berko Studio Relocation King Commercial Building Dear- Roxanne, I n 1987 ott r firm was retained by Mr. John L. King who had recently purchased the Berko Studio. 1-le wished to renovat,e and expand it. We struggled through early design schemes for restoring the Ber ko Studio and placing an addition to the south that would be both economically feasible and still respectful to this miner's cottage. Matly designs w l? re Conceived and then eliminated. Having considered n u m e r- o 1.1 s designs with limited success, we requested to go before the H.P.C. with hope that they could offer some insights ckbollt Our project, as well as sug(jes t some o ther approaches to the design. A lot of op ].illoi'is were voiced during this meeting. The discussion ranged from a Victorian style additiort to a contemporary addition. to the value of the or-iginal site versus a restored building in a more appropriate setting. At the conclusion of our work session, a strong majority of H.P.Cp members agreed the best solution would be to relocate the Ber k o Studio and build a new commercial building in its place. History In 1889 Luther Wellman constructed this cottage on the five lots he owned oil the north west corner of Block 81. It was his family's home during Aspen's mining heyday. It continued to be used for housing until Franz Berko bought the property in the 1950's, and its use changed to a toy store and photo studio. The present bay window and enclosed porch were added at this time to i ncr-ease the store front. It now sits cluttered with nick- nacks as a'in antique shop. and is overwhelmed by the sun-oundirig new commercial development. 1 t would also have to live with the impending expansion of the Aspen Arcade Building. The Berko Studio would be lost in a canyon of the dense CC zone, which allows up to a 2:1 F.A.R. This Victorian cottage has not only been ignored in its setting, but has been disrespected in its use. This disrespect is compounded by its original location on a minimum size lot. Page Two Berko Studio/King Commercial Design Conflicts The Berko Studio is presently set back from its northern property line, as would have been appropriate 111 a Victorian residential neighborhood, and recesses it from the adjacent commercial storefronts. This literally leaves only one half of the 3,000 square foot lot to be developed. This is an extremely small foot print for a site that is zoned to allow a maximum of 6,000 square feet of building. With this limited foot print, the vertical anc] horizontal circulation that is required by code .is concentrated in the addition. In some cases this would consist of more than 50% of the entire built floor area. 1-he code also specifies a minimum distance the exits can be separated, this requirement virtually cuts the space in half and leaves s ofne spaces with no light or ventilation. Entering the additio-n through the existing house only compounds the problem by increasing the r e (1 l.1 i F od circulation and the percentage of small unrentable spaces. We considered accessing the addition from the west of the house. We approached the partners that own the Aspen Arcade Building in the hope of' obtaining an access easement and eliminating the entry corridor through the existing house. 1- li e Arcade owners felt that such an easement could interfere with the flexibility of any future expansion plans they might have, as well as complicate their title and tenant agreements. The existing interior of the Berko Studio would be undesirable as retail use. Its small rooms are ineffective for display and sale of merchandise other than junk. To increase its desirability, the interior would eventually be gutted and lost. This is half of the historic significance of preserving this miner's col;tage, and we bel ieve this is more important than its specific site. Of the many studies which incorporated the Berko Studio, the scheme that produced the most successful plan was an "Elli's type" remodel and addition. This plan provided us with the least circulation space and the most rental area. Our choice was to eliminate this option dispite its possiblities, as we all felt this was no mor e than a theater set, and not a direction which we could realistically pursue. Page Three Berko Stud 10/King Commercial Relocation With H.P.C.'s recommendation in mind and countless unsuccessful designs of restorations and additions to the Berko Studio behind US, W â‚¬? advised Mr. King that a replacement building was our best alternative. A search began for interested parties that could accept the Berko Studio, restore it, and return the dignity of the Victorian cottage. It appeared that the house would continue to be a victim of escalating real estate prices in the Aspen area. After all, if someone could afford the cost of the few remaining building sites in Aspen, they would have no need for a 600 square foot miner's cottage, even if it was free. After ten months of searching for- an appropriate site, the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies (A.C.E.S.) agreed to accept the house, in what we considered a perfect site. At the A.C.E.S. location we would be preserving more than just the exterior skin of the house. Located in a quiet, respectful setting, the adjacent Professor's House is the perfect compliment. The Berko House would be restored inside and out, removing the added bay window and enclosed porch. Its original use as a residence would also be preserved. We are convinced that this is the best location for the long term preservation Of one of the few remaining examples of a Victorian miner's cottage. King Commercial Proposed New Building The proposed new building makes the most sense for the Owner, the site and the town. This solution is the most desirable, rentable and economically feasible. This site is best served by an infill construction which is consistent with the intent of the planned commercial Core. We believe our design is compatible with the neighboring buildings and adds to the streetscape. The portico of the lower level continues the horizontal lines of the Mill Street Plaza, and the stepped back second and third floors create a layered effect and becomes a rythmic counterpoint to the massive facade of the adjacent: building. [ tie materials and fenestr-ation are complimentary without being imitative and the composition of the facade provides a balance to the streetscape for the entire block. The mixed use concept O Â·f the design is in keeping with the downtown ambiance by providing employee housing above offices and shops, which preserve its dynamic vitality. Obviously, on-site employee housing is one Of the major priorities of currt Â·L! planning department objectives. Page Four Berko Studio/King Commercial We know from good experi.ence that we cari work with the H.P.C. and the Planning Department to make this the best design possible for this project. It is through this very review process and the conditions suggested by the Planning Office and H.P.C. that such a result can take place. lf you feel that we are moving in the right direction, we ask you to grant conceptual development approval along with any conditions you may require, so that we may proceed to the G.M.P. process. On November- 10, 1987 we presented to the Planning Office and the Historic Preservation Commission several. snhernes for renovations and additions to the Berko House. Four out Of the five H.P.C. members present recommended that we find a way to move the existing house to a more acceptable site within the city limits. The Planning Office also stated that we would not be allowed to process an application for H.P.C. review Of our proposed new building until this had been done and a letter of acceptance received. We agreed with the Committee that the long term preservation of the Berko House could only be realized in this manner. We have finally accomplished this after searching, advertising, interviewing and negotiating for ten months. We are now seeking that review and conceptual approval. We must have at least a conditional conceptual approval at this time in order to enter the City's G.M.P. approval process. Please call us if you have any questions. Sincerely, - â‚¬2522_. -52._C Kevin MacLeod Charles Cunniffee & Assoc. KML/arh CC: J. King '7-1- 1-1- -T---1 .1 1 1 1 1 1 11 ' 1 1 / i I r# 3 1 1 - - - 1 4,2 . 4\ =4- , 1 -l 1 11 -Tr 1 21 Win ii-Â®Of d 1 11 -Â»r=r04Â· M iiI' V M=08 7ZH 69Â« FK, ... U i.Â· . , . '. . . 1 . ....4 ..:1. I.'.. li:.3-fl- 101: '*f 4.-2.:t: '.t:,-t,%9%:1-9~*%:,4 L .....11â€¢.w . 1. d _1__ -_ 1 l__,7 r-- - 1 - - ..L - 4,â€žI , 11 -17= 1 1 'L-- 1 k - -----=Zi '1. ET k 3 431-EÂ» 1 3 Ini .1 - 1 1 1 i -L W05Â¥ / LA J / 1/:/I:"/:""/:"I""Il/ ./0- - 1 3 t. --r 1 pill--.1 . ! -1- 1 --& . 7 1 . -~_-_---- r_ Â». 4 H.KTH - 1 . 8109* p' A\l '.it;24Â¢'*.,1*7044~ *4WZ.,9Â· blÂ·(* Â·Â·Â·3 4,0' Â· 6/, 0Â·1117?~ r,finÂ»Â·b' 0'Â·.'ij''lÂ·12Â¥44 *. 8.7 0., 006< -~- 1 *- i - r -- .-. - - .-4 ~TI~h-rrn-- ~~~~ 1 W lillilillial-Zilli~illilitj//effilitjMMI, /23 $ fi 1 1 7--=1 n A- 1 - Â«- 3-~-Â» If, 2 \\6\ $- ---Le~, -1 1Â©111 -731 -OF 1,7- DEN ,El NOMH EL EMâ€¢a-ION 77 '4 \ Il *Il- th / \ 00 ' /4 1 6 -29â‚¬9... 3 84*L'll I 1 .1 11 r-- TTIKI-1 111~/ r --- ---- 1 Iril-- 1/1 liT-TTrl-TIr . 0,- li k 1 -- . ..3/. 4%. u. SÂ¥/lff -41 *143~ 1/1 1 1 1- 4 -3-N 1- b' 1 21 9 Â«EUE -i !~ _-L r~-â€ž - 1 J 196446 It U 19-1_1 u i NA=Ul 1 â€¢ I ' n $ 6 - Â«RO i A- TAI Hole'TH '3 .. Â·' 4Â·Â·...tekÂ·Â·; â€¢794Â· iNR' 9, Â·Â·' ..Â·,JÂ·7*lÂ·fÂ·tÂ·"~'*Â·r...fi :Â·4â‚¬~ 'ikâ€ž-2-c - Â·>41'Â· , Â·*~~*?,4'â€¢Â¢;Fj/'4$~:4:te:,<'i 1 ~'. . i 4,~ ~~~ '2\ .- - 0 9%#*9 . 17% ' , I f';4 - - t ZZ==C - - --1- - -1 =41 -37 2% 1 T r - 1-L- -41 1 i 79 I 11 1 b LU - 1_31 ~~l--~ 1 4_j Ly-4~ At /41 -mr - o KTH ae ..= .."*il - fi ...7. - - . 4:1 , 1 L/), \.l -' : A f , e -Â· C' U.r;>7 4 zn_.~_. ALTERNATE 1 Two Veveg addition wl-th parking TotaW of 3,112 gross square feet Net- 4.4 NA- Leasabfe LeasabVe Gross Square Feet Square Feet Square Feet Basement level -- -- -- Ground level 1,097 696 1,793 Second Vevek 892 427 1,319 1,989 r W 1,123(~' ~) 3,112 Estimated Estimated Square Feet Cost Estimate of Costs 1. Purchase Price $350,000 11. Cost of Construction A. CommerciaV 1. Retail a. Basement (0 $55/SF) -- -- b. Ground Floor (0 $65/SF) 1,097 71,305 2. Office (0 $75/SF) -- -- B. ResldentiaW 1. Free Market (0 $110/SF) 892 98,120 2. Restricted (0 $85/SF) -- -- C. Circulation (0 $75/SF) 1,123 84,225 D. Mech & Storage (0 $35/SF) -- -- E. Carport & Trash (0 $25/SF) 480 12,000 F. Decks & Overhangs (0 $20/SF) -- -- G. Landscape Akgowance -- 25,000 H. Access Easemer!0 -- -- 1. Retocation Costs -- 10,000 Subtotay, Construction Costs 300,650 111. Fees A. City Review Procedures 3,000 B. City Exactions 1. Emppoyee Housing 57,250 2. Parking 15,000 3. Open Space 9,831 4. Park Dev. Impact 2,185 Subtotal', City Exactions 84,266 C. BuIVding Permit 2,400 D. Water 5,500 E. Sewer 3,000 F. Gas G. EWectric H. Consuptants (Architecture, P9anning, Engineering, LegaV) Total', Estimated Costs 748,816 Square Feet Annual Income Estimate of Income 1. Basement A. RetaiW -- 11. Ground FPoor A. Retail 1. (0 $40/SF/Year) 750 30,000 2. (0 $30/SF/Year) 347 10,410 B. Parking (0 $125/Space/Month) 2 spaces 3,000 111. Second Floor A. Office -- -- B. ResidentlaW 1. Free Market (1 BR 0 $1.50/SF/Month) 892 16,056 2. Restricted -- -- 1 V. Third Floor A. Res;dentlep 1. Free Market -- -- 2. Restricted -- -- V. Fourth Fltoor A. Residential 1. Free Market -- -- 2. Restricted -- -- Gross Potential Annual( Income: 59,466 Vess 15% (Vacancy, Management, Reserves, Lease-Up): ( 8,920) Net Annuap Income 50,546 Val(ue of property = 50,546 = (Costs) (based on Income) .09 $ 561,622 < 748,816 ALTERNATE ~ Two level addition without parking Totak of 4,070 gross square feet Net- *be+- 66 M - Leasable Leasable Gross Square Feet Square Feet Square Feet Basement yevep -- -- -- Ground Vevek 1,613 558 2,171 Second Wevek 1,326 573 1,899 2,939 1,131 - r â€¢A 4,070 Estimated Estimated Square Feet Cost Estimate of Costs 1. Purchase Price $350,000 11. Cost of Construction A. CommerclaV 1. Retail a. Basement (0 $55/SF) -- -- b. Ground Floor (0 $65/SF) 1,613 104,845 2. Office (1 $75/SF) 326 24,450 B. Residentlap 1. Free Market (0 $110/SF) 1,000 110,000 2. Restricted (0 $85/SF) -- -- C. Circulation (0 $75/SF) 1,131 84,825 D. Mech & Storage (O $35/SF) -- -- E. Carport & Trash (0 $25/SF) 120 3,000 i --1 F. Decks & Overhangs (0 $20/SF) -- -- G. Landscape AVpowance -- 25,000 H. Access Easemerft -- -- 1. Rebocation Costs -- 10,000 Subtotal/, Construction Costs 362,120 111. Fees A. City Review Procedures 3,000 B. City Exactions 1. Emp9oyee Housing 107,000 2. Parking 75,000 3. Open Space 9,831 4. Park Dev. Impact 3,747 SubtotaP, City Exactions 195,578 C. Building Permit 3,000 D. Water 6,000 E. Sewer 4,000 F. Gas G. Electric H. Consultants (Architecture, Ptanning, Engineering, Legal~) Total, Estimated Costs 923,698 Square Feet Annual Income Estimate of Income 1. Basement A. Retal V -- -- 11. Ground FWoor A. Retai P 1. (0 $40/SF/Year) 627 28,215 2. (0 $30/SF/Year) 986 29,580 B. Parking 111. Second Fl/oor A. Office -- -- B. Residential 1. Free Market (2 BR 0 $1.30/SF/Month) 1,326 20,686 2. Restricted -- -- IV. Th ird F poor A. Resldentiak 1. Free Market -- -- 2. Restricted -- -- 1 V. Fourth Floor A. ResidentlaP 1. Free Market -- -- 2. Restricted -- -- Gross Potential Annual/ Income: $ 78,481 less 15% (Vacancy, Management, Reserves, Lease-Up): (11,772) Net Annuap Income $ 66,709 Value of property = 66,709 = (Costs) (based on Income) .09 $ 741,211 < 923,698 ALTERNATE-11 Three leve& addition _without parking Total of 5,129 gross square feet Net - Ne+ *64 - Leasable Leasable Gross Square Feet Square Feet Square Feet Basement pevep -- -- -- Ground kevel 1,613 558 2,171 Second peve# 892 587 1,479 Third level 892 587 1,479 3,397 1,732 5,129 Estimated Estimated Square Feet Cost Estimate of Costs 1. Purchase Price $350,000 11. Cost of Construction A. Commercia& 1. Retaip a. Basement (0 $55/SF) -- -- b. Ground Ftoor (0 $65/SF) 1,613 104,845 2. Office (4 $75/SF) -- -- 8. Residentlak 1. Free Market (0 $110/SF) 892 98,120 2. Restricted (8 $85/SF) 892 75,820 C. Circulation (0 $75/SF) 1,732 129,900 D. Mech & Storage (0 $35/SF) -- -- E. Carport & Trash (0 $25/SF) 150 3,750 F. Decks & Overhangs (0 $20/SF) -- -- G. Landscape Appowance -- 25,000 H. Access Easemerrt -- -- 1. Repocation Costs -- 10,000 Subtotal, Construction Costs 447,435 111. Fees A. City Review Procedures 3,000 B. City Exactions 1. Emppoyee Housing 40,513 2. Parking 75,000 3. Open Space 9,831 4. Park Dev. Impact 3,143 Subtotak, City Exactions 128,487 C. Bulkding Permit 3,500 D. Water 7,500 E. Sewer 5,000 F. Gas G. Electric H. Consuttants (Architecture, PI,anning, Engineering, Legal,) Totak, Estimated Costs 944,922 Square Feet Annual Income Estimate of Income 1. Basement A. Retal p -- -- 11. Ground FPoor A. RetaIP 1. (0 $40/SF/Year) 750 30,000 2. (0 $30/SF/Year) 863 25,890 B. Parking -- -- 111. Second Fl,oor A. Office -- -- B. Residential 1. Free Market -- -- 2. Restricted (1 BR I $.85/SF) 892 9,098 1 V. Third Fkoor A. Resldentlak 1. Free Market (1 BR I $1.50/SF) 892 16,056 2. Restricted -- -- V. Fourth Fkoor A. Residential -- 1. Free Market -- 2. Restricted -- -- Gross Potential Annual, Income: $ 81,044 Less 15% (Vacancy, Management Reserves, Lease-Up): (12,157) Net Annual Income $-3878-al- Vadue of property = 68,887 - (Costs) (based on Income) .09 $ 765,411 < 944,922 ALTERNATE~ Three Level, addition-(save facade onty) with parking Total, of 5,945 gross square feet Net - bi- ble*- Leasable Leasabl,e Gross Square Feet Square Feet Square Feet Basement te vel -- -- -- Ground tevek 1,439 504 1,943 Second LeveL 1,730'- 416 2,146 Third Level 1,440 416 1,856 4,609 1,336 5,945 -* Inctudo; 0-00 reglrIAntial Estimated Estimated ALTERNATE 4 Square Feet Cost Estimate of Costs 1. Purchase Price $350,000 11. Cost of Construction A. Commercial 1. Retail a. Basement (0 $55/SE) -- -- b. Ground Floor (0 $65/SF) 1,439 79,145 2. Office (0 $75/SF) 800 52,000 B. Residential 1. Free Market (0 $110/SF) 1,440 158,400 2. Restricted (0 $85/SF) 900 76,500 C. Clrcutation (0 $75/SF) 1,336 100,000 D. Mech & Storage (0 $35/SF) -- -- E. Carport & Tras)@ (1 $25/SF) 600 15,000 F. Decks & Overhangs (0 $20/SF) 660 13,200 G. Landscape Allowance -- 25,000 H. Access Easement -- -- 1. Relocation Costs -- 10,000 Subtotat, Construction Costs 529,445 111. Fees A. City Review Procedures 3,000 B. City Exactions 1. Employee Housing 103,750 2. Parking 90,000 3. Open Space 9,831 4. Park Dev. Impact 7,551 Subtotat, City Exactions 211,132 C. Building Permit 4,000 D. Water 8,000 E. Sewer 5,800 F. Gas G. Electric H. Consultants (Architecture, Planning, Engineering, Legat) Total, Estimated Costs 111,377 Square Feet Annual Income Estimate of Income 1. Basement A. Retatt -- -- 11. Ground Floor A. Reta 1 1. 1. (0 $40/SF/Year) 750 30,000 2. (0 $30/SF/Year) 689 20,670 B. Parking -- -- 111. Second Floor A. Office (0 $25/SF/Year) 800 20,000 B. Residential 1. Free Market -- -- 2. Restricted (Studio 0 $.85/SF/Month) 900 9,180 IV. Thtrd Floor A. Restdenttat 1. Free Market (2 BR 0 $1.30/SF/Month) 1,440 22,464 2. Restricted -- -- V. Fourth Floor A. Restdenttat 1. Free Market -- -- 2. Restricted -- -- Gross Potential Annual Income: $102,314 tess 15% (Vacancy, Management, Reserves, Lease-Up): (15 347) Net Annual Income $-~957- Vatue of property = 86,967 = (Costs) (based on tncome) .09 $ 966,300 < 1,111 ,317 ALTERNATE-7 I Original f~ur level addition without with parking Total of 5,928 gross .square feet 3-4- 04 - Net - Leasable Leasable Gross Square Feet Square Feet Square Feet Basement level -- -- -- Ground level 1,564 365 1,929 Second level 1,408 370 1,778 Third level 1,168 370 1,538 Fourth level 683 -- ' 683 4,823 1,105 5,928 Estimated Estimated Square Feet Cos t Esttmate of Costs 1. Purchase Price $350,000 11. Cost of Construction A. Commerctal 1. Retail a. Basement (0 $55/SF) -- -- b. Ground Floor (0 $65/SF) 1,564 101,660 2. Office (0 $75/SF) 1,887 141,525 B. Residential 1. Free Market (0 $110/SF) 683 75,130 2. Restrtcted (0 $85/SF) 689 58,565 C. Circulation (0 $75/SF) 1,105 82,875 D. Mech & Storage (0 $35/SF) -- -- E. Carport & Trash (0 $25/SF) 120 3,000 F. Decks & Overhangs (0 $20/SF) 252 5,040 G. Landscape Allo,ance -- 25,000 H. Access Easement -- 40,570 1. Relocation Costs -- 10,000 Subtotal, Construction Costs 543,365 111. Fees A. City Review Procedures 3,000 B. City Exacttons 1. Employee Housing 125,500 2. Parking 165,000 3. Open Space 9,831 4. Park Dev. Impact 6,534 Subtotal, City Exacttons 306,865 C. Building Permit 4,100 D. Water 8,000 E. Sewer 5,800 F. Gas G. Electrtc H. Consultants (Architecture, Planntng, Engtneering, Legal) Total, Estimated Costs 1,221,130 Square Feet Annual Income Estimate of Income 1. Basement A. Retail -- -- 11. Ground Floor A. Retail 1. (0 $40/SF/Year) 750 30,000 2. (0 $30/SF/Year) 814 24,420 B. Parking -- -- 111. Second Floor A. Office (0 $25/SF/Year) 1,887 47,175 B. Residential 1. Free Market -- -- 2. Restricted -- -- V. Third Floor A. Restdenttal 1. Free Market (Studio 0 $.85/SF/Month) 689 7,028 2. Restricted -- -- IV. Fourth Floor A. Residential 1. Free Market -- -- 2. Restricted (Studio 0 $1.50/SF/Month) 683 12,294 Gross Potential Annual Income: $120,917 1 less 15% (Vacancy, Management, Reserves, Lease-Up): (18,138) Net Annual Income $102,779 Value of property = 102,779 - (Costs) (based on tncome) .09 $1,141,989 < 1,221,130 . f ALTERNATE~ - 7 Rebuild In 3 levels with parking and full basement Total of 8,308 gross-square feet Net- -Â»e+-- A4 - Leasable Leasable Gross Square Feet Square Feet Square Feet- Basement level 1,354 1,286 2,640 Ground level 1,374 538 1,912 Second level 1,593 644 2,237 Thtrd level 1,179 340 1,519 5,500 2,808 8,308 Estimated Estimated ALTERNATE 6 Square Feet Cost Estimate of Costs 1. Purchase Prtce $350,000 11. Cost of Constructton A. Commerctal 1. Retail a. Basement (0 $55/SF) 1,354 74,470 b. Ground Floor (0 $65/SF) 1,374 89,310 2. Office (0 $75/SF) 664 43,160 B. Restdenttal 1. Free Market (0 $110/SF) 1,179 129,690 2. Restricted (0 $85/SF) 929 78,965 C. Ctrculatton (0 $75/SF) 1,522 114,150 D. Mech & Storage (0 $35/SF) 1,286 45,010 E. Carport & Trash (0 $25/SF) 732 18,300 F. Decks & Overhangs (0 $20/SF) 284 5,680 G. Landscape Allowance NA 25,000 H. Access Easement NA -- 1. Relocatton Costs NA 20,000 Subtotal, Construction Costs 643,735 111. Fees A. Ctty Review Procedures 3,000 B. City Exactions 1. Employee Housing 105,227 2. Parking 120,000 3. Open Space 55,250 4. Park Dev. Impact 6,963 Subtotal, City Exacttons 287,440 C. Bulldtng Permit 4,500 D. Water 11,500 E. Sewer 8,000 F. Gas G. Electric H. Consultants (Archttecture, Planning, Engineering, Legal) Total, Esttmated Costs 1,308,1/5 Square Feet Annual Income Esttmate of Income 1. Basement A. Retatl (0 $15/SF/Year) 1,354 20,310 11. Ground Floor A. Retail 1. (0 $40/SF/Year) 1,374 54,960 2. (0 $30/SF/Year) -- -- B. Parktng (0 $125/Space/Month) 2 spaces 3,000 Ill. Second Floor A. Office (0 $25/SF/Year) 664 16,600 B. Resldenttal 1. Free Market -- -- 2. Restricted (Studto 0 $.85/SF/Month) 929 (500 Max) 5,100 tvÂ® Third Floor A. Residential 1. Free Market (2 0 BR 0 1,500/Month) 1,179 18,000 2. Restricted - -- -- V. Fourth Floor A. Residential 1. Free Market -- -- 2. Restricted -- -- Gross Potential Annual Income: 117,970 less 15% (Vacancy, Management, Reserves, Lease-Up): (17,690) Net Annual Income 100,274 Value of property = 100,274 = (Costs) (based on tncome) .09 $1,114,156 < 1,308,175