The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.632 E Hopkins Ave.0028.2010.ASLU 14 1E THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0028.2010.ASLU PARCEL ID NUMBER 2737 07 3 32 006 PROJECTS ADDRESS 632 E. HOPKINS AVE PLANNER DREW ALEXANDER CASE DESCRIPTION COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW REPRESENTATIVE ADAM ROY DATE OF FINAL ACTION 07.20.10 CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON: 12.23.10 9 i w 7 ; - 0 7- 3 - p l 2o/O- Alt. I' -J JJJJS El 17 ®. File Edit Record Navigate Form Reports Format Tab Help v Routing Status Feel I Fee Summary Main I Actions Attachments Routing History Valuation 1 Arch/Eno !Custom Fields I5wb eprmits 4 a Permit type laslu ( Aspen Land Use I Permit $ • • Address 632 E HOPKINS AVE ••• AptlSuite $ City I State ICO 1 Zip l ASPF�I 51611 ° Permit Information F Master permit Routing queue 8uO Applied ;: ■ . .. F z Project Status pending Approved MIL III m Description COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW Issued N I J Final 1 4 Submitted [ADAM ROY 925 3444 _J clock Running Days 1 31 Expires 5/30,2011 1 r iii I Submitted via I" ; . ,_ . -• Owner ■ Last name HOPKINS ST VENTURE ••• First name PO BOX 1328 ASHLAND OR 97520 n`t I Address Phone ,�. _ 1 - Applicant ❑ Owner is applicant? E) Contractor is applicant? Last name (DAVID JOHNSTON ARCHITE ••• First name 1 N CO>31811 Phone Cust A 24126 I Address Lender Last name I ••• I First name Phone I( ) - Address j ---- - - - - -- Displays the permit lenders address AspenGold5 (server] angelas Edit 1 of 1 .:: C—LL * 1 k 2 2 Ayv %\ q°I 4- C O -- 2, (-+- I ciiic-1/..._?1\- '7\,\\7/\ DEVELOPMENT ORDER of the City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order ", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders ", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights ", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site specific development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a three -year vested property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date of this Order. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific development plan as described below. Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and Telephone Number Rudin West LLC, 345 Park Avenue, 33' Floor, New York, NY 10154, (212) 407 -2511 Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property • Subdivision: City and Townsite of Aspen, Block: 98, Lot: S and east half of Lot R, commonly known as 632 East Hopkins Avenue. Parcel ID# 2737- 07 -3 -32 -006 Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan Expansion and remodel of existing structure in order to add a third floor, 1,999 square feet of net livable area, public amenity improvements, and 434 additional square feet of net leasable area. Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) Approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission through Resolution No. 16, Series of 2010 for Conceptual Commercial Design Review. Approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission through Resolution No. 20, Series of 2010 for Final Commercial Design Review, Growth Management, and Special Review for Parking. Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) December 26 2010 Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) December 26 2013 Issu his 16 y of cember, 2010, by the City of Aspen Community Development Director. Chris Bendo , ommunity Development Director RECEPTION #: 672357, 08/04/2010 at 11:31:14 AM, 1 OF 7, R $41.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO Resolution No. 16 (SERIES OF 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR 632 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 273707332006 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Rudin West, LLC, represented by David Johnston Architects, pc, requesting approval for Conceptual Commercial Design Review; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's property is located within the Commercial (C -1) Zone District, and legally described as: City and Townsite of Aspen, Block 98, Lot S and east half of Lot R, commonly known as 533 E. Hopkins; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable Code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval with conditions of the land use requests; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 20, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application upon recommendation from the Community Development Department and approved Resolution No. 16, Series of 2010, by a (4 - 0) vote, approving "Conceptual Commercial Design Review, "; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves Conceptual Commercial Design Review, based on the following conditions. Resolution No 16, Series 2010 Page 1 of 4 a) The trash, recycling and delivery area shall be designed so that adequate clearance is maintained between the service area and the parking stalls in the carport. It is recommended that a separation fence or bollards shall be installed to ensure that normal use of the service area does not impose a risk to the adjacent vehicles. If adequate separation cannot be maintained, a reduction of one parking space shall be considered. b) The final design of the Spring Street Public Amenity Space shall consider permanent seating options that encourage public interaction (such as benches), light landscaping, and a form of public art in the public right-of-way. c) A detached sidewalk along Hopkins shall be considered and evaluated for Final Commercial Design Review. d) The improvements to the right -of -way provide a basis for reducing the open space on the private property from 18% to 16% of the total lot area e) The Applicant shall consider redesigning the Hopkins amenity space to make it more inviting to the public. f) The Applicant shall continue to work with Staff to better shield the Spring Street amenity space from the residents to the east of the Property. g) The Applicant shall continue working on redesigning the top floor facade so that it is less imposing. Section 2: Building Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final recorded approvals. This will include approvals for Growth Management Quota System, Subdivision, Parking, and Final Commercial Design Review. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. If required, a drainage plan, including an erosion control plan prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on -site during and after construction. d. As applicable, an excavation stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), top of bank and stability of hillside plan, tree protection plan and drainage and soils reports pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. e. As applicable, a fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department. Resolution No 16, Series 2010 Page 2 of 4 f. As applicable, a detailed excavation plan that utilizes vertical soil stabilization techniques, or other techniques, if appropriate and acceptable, for review and approval by the City Engineer. g. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall be addressed to satisfactorily meet adopted building codes. Section 3: Engineering Building permit submission shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation published by the engineering department. Section 4: Fire Mititation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907). The latest Code in effect should be used for the building permit submittal. Section 5: Water Department Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Section 6: Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. Section 7: Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. Section 8: The establishment of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this development approval, the applicant shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing by the city. Section 9: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are Resolution No 16, Series 2010 Page 3 of 4 Fi hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 10: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 11: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 20 day of July, 2010. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: \ � Jim True, Special Counsel Stan Gibbs, Chair ATTEST: rar " K"" " hian, Deputy City Clerk Attachments: Exhibit A: Approved Conceptual Elevations Exhibit B: Approved Conceptual Site Plan Resolution No 16, Series 2010 Page 4 of 4 r-> '4.., {s5{ SSe 4,, . 5 ¢ {it #i { 00'N3dSV SNMd0H'3 Zi9 €£� a ¢ N" 0 kfj1 F se 4i; f SNI}idOH '3 Z£9 . to y: ;' .. Hil11111. t k • q . aim; Ft . i 3k .x Sv° S t y 4 , e . ;6 1/2.,, 4. 3 F wi, ,; t r Ill . i 0 u.. 0 P 0 § z .. O r— a m . • ky t_ - J " -: ■ 2 a r sd0 z z 0 w t0 k w v,C r :Rath P s li a R nt 03'N3dStl 1 SNDIdOH -3EC° ,thstg #ti •e $ tt 3 ![h i1:I! ,„ , 1 I �yy". I 1 g @4�C I I ' I I I I I I 1 I I 3i �(� ■ {� ,Ej 9 I I ,aE P I . I I ' . 0. '0II D_ ■ - a t tttia l !'.o � 'l'. ZO tll W I y 1 1 r • r[$ zg m N • a a o. t t � z O Q w W n W` r1 N ? W {{ N I,91I1k § a $ s B ,A.(% OD'N3dSY 1 SMHdOH'31C9 te Cif as g Pit ithil SNINdOH ' 3 ZE9 at c a 0 to . , °w t B6 NO019A311V 1U 1 ; 1 ta I Z m t g j !if X 6 1 '1 1 .69 p.p. t 1 0 LLI o C. n j'"l�i � z CO IL a' (L.::: W. 0 F l g `` L, I 1 1 to ] 6 CD I CC - 4 co 0. A 1- - 1 I CC v I Io 11 • T 1 O w It ' ■ H 1 , i 1 a ' s 3 —. i .,,.:_. �f. "n n rL, 5 1 1 ED S w , m � Yt 3f1N3AV SNINdOH 1SV3 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, July 20, 2010 4:30 p.m. regular meeting— Sister Cities Room CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL II. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public III. MINUTES IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. 632 E. Hopkins Ave — Conceptual Commercial Design Review VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. BOARD REPORTS VIII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 16 P1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Drew Alexander, Planner RE: 632 East Hopkins Avenue – Conceptual Commercial Design Review – Resolution No. _ , Series 2010 – Public Hearing MEETING DATE: July 20 2010 APPLICANT /OWNER: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Rudin West, LLC Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the project, with conditions. REPRESENTATIVE: David Johnston Architects, pc, 418 East SUMMARY: Cooper Avenue, #206, Aspen, CO 81611 The Applicant requests of the Planning and Zoning Commission approval of Conceptual Commercial LOCATION: Design Review for an expansion and renovation of Subdivision: City and Townsite of the existing structure. Aspen, Block: 98, Lot: S and east half of Lot R, 533 E. Hopkins Photo of the sub'ect location . c.. s CURRENT ZONING & USE • Located in the Commercial (C -1) zone 't district. Current use is entirely commercial oriented. f PROPOSED LAND USE: '? -5 '[ ' '" ,.. if The proposal is for a mixed -used building with a new free - market unit and _ new affordable housing unit in addition :' — - -- - to an expansion of commercial net T -` leasable space. P2 LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting one (1) land use approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter P &Z): • Conceptual Commercial Design Review: pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412.030 (The P &Z is the final review authority, who shall by resolution approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a land use application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review). Commercial Design Review is a two part review, including a Conceptual and a Final review. The purpose of Commercial Design Review is to preserve and foster proper commercial district scale and character, and to ensure that Aspen's commercial areas and streetscapes are public places conducive to walking. In addition to satisfying the requirements for Commercial Design Review, the Applicant must meet those requirements found within the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. Under the design guidelines, the Property is located within the Commercial Character (CC) area. If an approval is granted for Conceptual Commercial Design, the Applicant plans to submit for Growth Management (GMQS) and Subdivision reviews. After the GMQS and Subdivision reviews, the Applicant will return to the Planning and Zoning Commission for Final Commercial Design Review. BACKGROUND: 632 East Hopkins Avenue (the "Property ") was originally constructed in 1976, and has undergone minimal changes since this date. The Property is located in the Commercial (C -1) zone district on the outer fringe of the City's Commercial Core (CC) zone district (see "Figure 1 "). The C -1 zone district allows for a variety of uses, including residential, office, and service uses. The existing two- story, 26 foot tall building consists entirely of commercial uses. .. + ` 4 2 s S 7 - si ta ` M A 1 N 1 — = .,. z � Commercial Core (CC) Zone District r,,,5 ' I i4161 3 4 111° - 4 F. 6 4, f Commercial (C -1) ' r: . 1 Zone District +' 4'' ( MU ) N �..L t Mixed Use A F _H Y . M q N a , � 1; , ' ? Zone DistR ict Fi 1: Lonin« i P3 The Property is situated on a 4,500 square foot lot on the comer of Hopkins Avenue and Spring Street. The building has approximately 5,368 gross square feet, which is inclusive of a 780 square foot basement. The primary entrance is along Hopkins Avenue; however a secondary entrance can be found along Spring Street. The Property includes two areas of Public Amenity Space that account for eighteen (18 %) percent of the total lot size (see "Figure 2 "). The Property has four off - street parking stalls accessed from the alleyway. w r x H r-- o „% u P k . % ' OFFECE RETAIL i r n ` "/ j% j uE ry l � 11 , M.e61(LAI /// n 2 s.,,, u e � _ TOTAL EXISITINGPUBUC AMENITY SPACE // EXISTING - PUBLIC AMENITY SPACE (823.21 SF) LOT AREA =4500 SF 823.21 SF =18 OF LOT AREA Spring Street Figure 2: Existing Site Plan and Public Amenity PROJECT SUMMARY As the Application states, the intention of this renovation and expansion is to: "...renovate the existing two -story building, and in doing so increase the amount of commercial area, modernize the existing building's interior and exterior architecture, enhance the public amenity space and pedestrian experience and add a new third level." This project is not a complete demolition of the existing structure. To the extent possible, the existing structure will be retained, although from an architectural standpoint, the end project is drastically different. One of the most significant additions is a third floor which will be used almost exclusively for the free - market residential unit. This third -story will increase the height of the structure to a maximum of 36 feet, which is the height limit in the C -1 zone district 1 The maximum height in the C -1 zone district may be increased to 40 feet through Commercial Design Review. 3 P4 The second -story is undergoing a major programming change. The proposed design for this level includes an affordable housing unit on the northwest comer of the building. The size of this unit has not been finalized, but it will be dependent upon the amount of new net leasable square footage, or the size of the free - market unit, whichever has the greater Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) mitigation requirement. The remainder of the second -story will remain commercial use. The first -story of the structure will continue to be based entirely upon commercial use, but with a proposed enclosed two -car garage along the alley. The proposed building has a conceptual floor area of 9,500. On the 4,500 square foot lot, this provides an approximate floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.1:1. The existing building has a floor area of 4,588 square feet, which is very close to a 1:1 FAR ratio. The maximum allowable FAR for a mixed use building within the C -1 zone district is 2.5:1. This is achieved by being in compliance with applicable design standards, view plane requirements, public amenity requirements, other dimensional standards, and having the appropriate mix of uses within the structure. The maximum FAR is not an entitlement and is not achievable in all situations. The exterior of the building and the site programming are undergoing extensive changes through this proposal. The existing public amenity spaces, located along Hopkins and Spring Street (see "Figure 3") are a mix of hard surfaces and lawn. These existing areas total 18% of the entire lot area. The proposal includes expanding the hardscape (into the right -of -way and up to the sidewalk along Spring Street), adding additional seating, and improved landscaping. There is a reduction of public amenity on - site, from 18% to 16% of the total lot area, but the applicant has calculated those improvements in the right -of -way to create a total of 25% of the area as public amenity. f ' 1' �d' 1 11 :� r r2 IAA w i . i L; I I • a - 01"; 11 1 I{ 7 , *'- 13 r - �wr Figure 3: Existing Hopkins Amenity (Left), Existing Spring Amenity (Right) Additional changes to the exterior include a new configuration that intends to have the Spring Street entrance serve as the primary entrance to the building. Finally, slight changes are being proposed to the alley parking. Two of the existing four spaces (all uncovered) will be placed in a garage, and the remaining two spaces will be in a carport. 4 P5 STAFF COMMENTS: CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW: The Property is required to obtain approval for Conceptual Commercial Design Review due to the scope of work being proposed. The project will be reviewed based upon how it satisfies requirements for: 1. Public Amenity Space 2. Utility, Delivery, and Trash Service Provision 3. Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. Public Amenity Space: The existing public amenity areas for the Property constitute 18% of the lot area. These two amenity areas (see Figure 3 above), are a mix of concrete and grass. The public qualities of these spaces are lacking, and do not exhibit an inviting style of design that influences public interaction. Clearly, the Property is on the fringe of the highly trafficked areas of Aspen's core, but certain improvements could be made to vitalize this feature of the site. The Applicant has proposed significant changes to the Public Amenity areas. First and foremost, the amount of on -site Public Amenity space has been reduced from the previous 18% of the total lot area to the proposed 16 %. Applicants may request a reduction in the required Public Amenity area on -site as long as the reduction is not less than half of the required amount. The Planning and Zoning Commission, in reviewing reduction requests, must determine whether or not the proposed Public Amenity is well - designed and has a positive contribution to the pedestrian environment. Specifically, the Land Use Code states that the P &Z may reduce the requirement "as an incentive for well designed projects." .,..- — — — Mi. —NM-- l nwu� ice $11rwsn:;.:..14m!e�r •i' * h Tom: •K D !� 111 -4- !I 2 '1 CARPORT 1 , a Z � NM q I " ^ f 7 -OFFICE/RETAIL Z''' I A I E Dome. OMawr ENTRY/ m = s1w4 LOBBY Fg i i -- * •GARAGE 1 1 \r 0 - ewer 3 �r ` : uer 3 . .. f la s »a OCC • .1 1 , . :, . . r - , ' ,. ..'' . ial t l ull urw .v calm SIMS SOUTH SPRING STREET Figure 4: Proposed Public Amenity Space (bold dashed line represents the property line) This proposed design intends to eliminate the majority of the Public Amenity that is currently grass, and create a consistent hardscaped area. The Hopkins Public Amenity (which sits slightly it below street - grade) includes seating, tables, planter boxes, and an ADA access ramp on the 5 P6 southeast corner. The Spring Street Public Amenity is witnessing the larger change of the two. In response to the new building footprint, the amenity space will take advantage of the recessed entry door and extend to the sidewalk (see "Figure 4 above). A majority of this space is within the public right -of -way. Conceptually, this space includes adequate room for seating and a large landscaped planter. By calculating all of the public amenity area (on and off -site) the Applicant is providing 25% amenity area, when compared to the size of the lot. The most challenging struggle with Public Amenity spaces is to create a space that actually feels open and inviting to the public, not a secluded area with a very private feel. It should ideally be a place where a passerby would be comfortable reading the newspaper or eating lunch. Staff feels that the Applicant is very much moving in the right direction. The Hopkins Street Public Amenity area will always be a challenge, as long as it is below grade and has a retaining wall separating it from the right -of -way. However, the Spring Street amenity space presents a great opportunity for an attractive and functional area. - - _ - Staff has recommended that the Applicant •r P continue working with the Spring Street amenity space by increasing its openness to the general public. Staff specifically ' , --. i ,I ` i :!_ - _ recommended that permanent benches be added to the area and that the size of the 1 . ...t- - :.� ___ planter be reduced in order to minimize the degree of separation from the street and =,.. sidewalk. A further recommendation, and '*" '"'�'� • ' j admittedly a larger investment from the Applicant would be to create a parkway along Spring Street and Hopkins Avenue, separating the sidewalk from the street. This is already the pattern along Hopkins, until the sidewalk meets the subject property where it then jogs r out to the edge of street. Along Spring Street, specifically for this block, the parkway system is not in place. This site, if implemented, would be the only parcel with a parkway. Figure 5: Parkway along Hopkins Staff Comments: Staff finds that the recommendations mentioned above will assist in making the public amenity areas more inviting, functional, and attractive for the general public. The Engineering and Parks Departments have no preference on the parkway system, so that would be a specific recommendation from Community Development. The parkway along Hopkins Avenue is strongly recommended. Staff finds that these improvements would justify the Applicant's request for a reduction of on -site Public Amenity Area from 18% to 16 %. For a complete list of Staff's response to the review criteria found within the Land Use Code, see Exhibit A.1. Utility, Delivery, and Trash Service Provision: All utilities for the proposed structure will be located on the roof, so this review criterion will only address delivery and trash services. The 6 i 4 , P7 reasoning for these requirements is to ensure that Aspen's commercial buildings have logistical service areas and better serve the efficiency of the city as whole. The delivery and trash service area is proposed to be located along the alleyway in the carport (northeast corner of the Property). The area meets those provisions found within Section 26.412.060.B, Commercial Design Standards, however, it is not in compliance with the provisions found within Section 26.575.060, Miscellaneous Regulations — Utility/Trash Service Areas, specifically requirement number three. The Applicant has proposed a delivery and trash areas with the dimensions of 22 feet by 6 feet (see Figure 6). The requirement states that these areas should have a linear length of 20 feet, with a minimum depth of 10 feet. An additional Staff concern is that the area is not parallel with the alleyway, but perpendicular and running the length of the western carport wall. ..w'/O/L / „1R -L6'i. /ic . ///,nF „ „/, , .�� %6 // n=•e<.0 ei zx9ii „io i,r✓_: a� y,erv'i �i :dr RECYCLING TRASH ,\ WIC E 2Y0 DU MFSIER PAPER EW9'APE'RDBOA +; WMNGIE fO RECYCLING/TRASH AREA N g 13' -6” 7' -5 CARPORT I''111 • ' i ��'�- -� 1 Figure 6: Proposed Utility/Trash/Delivery in Carport Staff Comments: The Applicant should adjust the proposed design so that the trash/delivery area does not interfere with the carport parking. At this conceptual level, the trash area is quite close to the parking stall with a lack of clearance or buffer between the two uses. Staff recommends that the trash/delivery area be clearly definable from the adjacent parking spot and that fencing or bollards be installed to ensure this separation. If adequate separation cannot be maintained, Staff would recommend the Applicant eliminate a parking space that would be mitigated later in the process via cash -in -lieu or through a Special Review request. Staff is comfortable allowing for a perpendicular program, being that the dumpster is located directly adjacent to the alleyway. Having recycling and other miscellaneous materials in the interior of the carport should be adequate. For the full list of Staff's response to these criteria, see Exhibit A.2. 7 P8 Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines: The final area for consideration for Conceptual Commercial Design is how the project satisfies those requirements in the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines (the "Design Guidelines). The Property is located within the Commercial Character (CC) area which has its own unique list of criteria for Conceptual Commercial Design. Key objectives of the character area include: • Strengthen the sense of relatedness with the Commercial Core Historic District, • Maintain a retail orientation, • Promote creative, contemporary design, • Encourage a well - defined street wall, • Reflect the variety in building heights seen traditionally, • Accommodate outdoor public spaces while establishing a clear definition to the street edge, and • Promote variety in the street level experience. These key objectives are conceptually implemented under guidelines that discuss • Street and Alley System, • Parking, • Public Amenity Space, • Building Placement, and • Building Height, Mass and Scale Overall, Staff finds that the Applicant has sufficiently addressed those requirements in the Design Guidelines. The two suggestions that Staff made prior to the Planning and Zoning Public hearing were to emphasize the Hopkins Street entrance and de- emphasize the third level so that it does not overpower the first and second levels. The Applicant responded with changes that satisfied these requests. The proposed building, although only at a conceptual phase accomplishes several things, including but not limited to: a well - designed Public Amenity space, architecture that emphasizes the comer location, varying roof heights and forms, quality materials, an attractive alley facade, and the retention of the street grid and a primary entrance. Staff recommends, given the broad nature of these criteria, that the Planning and Zoning Commission read Exhibit A.3 which provides the full Staff responses to each section. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: • Parks Department — Prior to building permit submittal the landscape plan and tree species and spacing should be reviewed and approved by the Parks Department. • Engineering Department — o The signage in the public right -of -way will need to obtain a Permanent Encroachment License. o This project will trigger the Stormwater System Development Fee and it shall be calculated and applied during the building permit review. 8 P9 • Building Department — Although still at a conceptual level, the programming of the project has certain deficiencies that need to be addressed more towards Final Commercial Design Review. o Currently, the building is lacking a required secondary exit from each story per 2003 International Building Code Section 1018.1. Two exits are required from each story. o The building must have an interior accessible route to the trash and recycle area, as required in International Building Code Section 1104. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the Applicant has made an apt attempt to meet those requirements necessary for the Conceptual Commercial Design Review. However, in reviewing the proposal, Staff does identify some areas that could be enhanced or modified so that the project better meets the AACP and the requirements in the Land Use Code. The proposed Public Amenity spaces represent a significant improvement when compared to the existing conditions. The existing amenity space is not inviting, composed of inconsistent surfaces, and lacks any type of seating. Staff would like to see further investment in the Spring Street amenity in the areas of additional permanent seating options, the inclusion of public art, and light landscaping. This would provide a greater pedestrian motivation to the site and influence interaction. Staff also recommends the parkway style of design for the Hopkins avenue streetscape. This would detach the sidewalk from the street and place it directly adjacent to the Hopkins amenity. A parkway system along both amenities would be ideal, however requiring this along Spring Street represents a sizable investment from the Applicant and would likely reduce the amount of proposed Public Amenity area. These improvements would provide a justifiable reason for the on -site reduction of amenity space from 18% to 16% of the total lot area. Staff also finds that improvements could be made to the Utility, Delivery, and Trash Service area. Being that the area is oriented perpendicularly to the alleyway, it is important that the area is able to function efficiently and without burdening other elements, including the parking system. The Applicant is asking for a slight reduction in the minimum size of utility, delivery, and trash areas required by the Land Use Code (20' x 10'). The proposed 22' x 6' area does not include any mechanical. Staff finds that the reduction in size is appropriate given this scenario. However, Staff recommends that the Applicant make an effort to ensure that adequate walking widths are maintained so that tenants and trash service providers can access all bins in the area without imposing a risk to the adjacent parked cars. This could be accomplished through a fence or bollards that separate parking from the trash and delivery area. If adequate walking width cannot be accomplished, Staff recommends that a parking stall be removed and the applicant mitigate for the loss via cash -in -lieu or through Special Review. If the previously mentioned recommendations are satisfied, Community Development recommends approval with conditions of the Applicant's request for Conceptual Commercial Design approval. 9 P1 0 RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No., Series of 2010, approving with conditions, Conceptual Commercial Design Review for the property located at 632 East Hopkins Avenue." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A.1 — Public Amenity Review Criteria Exhibit A.2 — Utility, Delivery, and Trash Review Criteria Exhibit A.3 — Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines Review Criteria Exhibit B — Applicant's memo regarding Utility, Trash, and Delivery Area Exhibit C — Revised Architecture Exhibit D — Landscape Plan Exhibit E — Development Review Committee (DRC) Comments Exhibit F — Letter and photos from Fern Hurst Exhibit G — Letter and photos from Philip Rothblum Exhibit H — Application 10 P11 Resolution No. _ (SERIES OF 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR 632 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 273707332006 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Rudin West, LLC, represented by David Johnston Architects, pc, requesting approval for Conceptual Commercial Design Review; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's property, legally described as Subdivision: City and Townsite of Aspen, Block: 98, Lot: S and east half of Lot R, commonly known as 533 E. Hopkins, is located within the Commercial (C -1) Zone District; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable Code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval with conditions of the land use requests; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 20, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application upon recommendation from the Community Development Department and approved Resolution No. , Series of 2010, by a ( - ) vote, approving "Conceptual Commercial Design Review,"; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves Conceptual Commercial Design Review, based on the following conditions. Resolution No Series 2010 Page 1 of 4 P12 Pc17"-ca1 ti t3(�aTNS t� VIA rn 11W7ni c_9 �� A 'PA�?K IN 5j7ALL A✓rn .�� ly /L rAt6c.. 02 5 4 ' 0c S L S� !ASH - J ��, a) The trash, recycling and delivery area shall be designed so that adequate clearance is maintained between the service area and the parking stalls in the carport. It is recommended that a separation fence or bollards shall be installed to ensure that normal use of the service area does not impose a risk to the adjacent vehicles. b) The final design of the Spring Street Public Amenity Space shall include k pC �� permanent seating options that encourage public interaction (such as benches), light landscaping, and a form of public art in the public right -of -way. t e r` )( c) The Hopkins Avenue streetscape shall be redesigned to include a parkway in a, )" order to detach the sidewalk from the street edge. This would finalize the f -• -51 parkway along the block - length. d) The improvements to the right -of -way provide a basis for reducing the open space on the private property from 18% to 16% of the total lot area. Section 2: Building Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final recorded approvals. This will include approvals for Growth Management Quota System, Subdivision, Parking, and Final Commercial Design Review. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. If required, a drainage plan, including an erosion control plan prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on -site during and after construction. d. As applicable, an excavation stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), top of bank and stability of hillside plan, tree protection plan and drainage and soils reports pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. e. As applicable, a fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department. f. As applicable, a detailed excavation plan that utilizes vertical soil stabilization techniques, or other techniques, if appropriate and acceptable, for review and approval by the City Engineer. g. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall be addressed to satisfactorily meet adopted building codes. Resolution No _, Series 2010 Page 2 of 4 P13 Section 3: Engineering Building permit submission shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation published by the engineering department. Section 4: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907). The latest Code in effect should be used for the building permit submittal. Section 5: Water Department Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Section 6: Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. Section 7: Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. Section 8: The establishment of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this development approval, the applicant shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing by the city. Section 9: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 10: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or Resolution No , Series 2010 Page 3 of 4 P14 amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 11: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 20 day of July, 2010. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Jim True, Special Counsel Stan Gibbs, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Attachments: Exhibit A: Approved Conceptual Elevations Exhibit B: Approved Conceptual Site Plan Resolution No Series 2010 Page 4 of 4 P15 EDIT A.1 632 Fast Hopkins, Public Amenity REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS 26.412.060.A, Public Amenity Space 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. 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; Staff Response: The sizes of the proposed amenity spaces are adequate for a variety of uses and activities. The area of the two amenity spaces combined represents 25% of the lot area (although the entirety of the amenity is not located fully on the subject lot). The on -site Public Amenity has been reduced from 18% of the total lot area to 16 %. Including the proposed right -of -way amenity and improvements, this area is adequate for potential public interaction and use by future tenants. Staff fords this criterion met. 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; Staff Response: The amenity areas represented in this proposal have a very high potential for increased street vitality on and around the site. At a conceptual level, certain amounts of detail are lacking. Staff has recommended that the Applicant explore permanent seating options and the possible inclusion of public art in the Spring Street amenity space, particularly in the right - of way. The Hopkins Avenue amenity, which is a renovation of an existing space, sits slightly below grade and is shielded by a retaining wall. Staff is aware that this is not ideal, but investment in the Spring Street amenity would compensate for the deficiencies of the Hopkins amenity. Community Development has discussed at length the possibility of creating a parkway style of sidewalk/street design around the Property. This would represent a significant investment by the Applicant, but Staff feels that it would enhance the amenity areas, streetscapes, and block. This also represents a very justifiable reason for approving a reduction of on -site amenity space. The Parks and Engineering Departments have stated an indifference to the parkway design. If only one parkway can be created, Staff would favor it along Hopkins Avenue, as this would finish the parkway design for the distance of the block The parkway design would detach the sidewalk from the street -edge and place it adjacent to the amenity space. This creates a buffer of landscaped lawn between the street and sidewalk. If neither streetscape can accomplish the parkway design, it is highly recommended that the Spring Street Public Amenity is altered for maximum public appeal. With the conditions mentioned above, Staff fords this criterion met. P16 3) The public amenity, and design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights -of- way, and uses, contributes to an inviting pedestrian environment; Staff Response: The Hopkins Avenue amenity space is located in a sunken patio that is separated from the sidewalk by a retaining wall. This is very similar to the amenity space of the building directly to the west of the Property. The spaces along Hopkins Avenue on this block do not have great appeal to the pedestrian. Again, Staff would recommend that the sidewalk be pulled up against the retaining wall so that a parkway system could be implemented in front of the site. This would bring pedestrians closer to the area and potentially create more interaction. Staff does not see any conflicts with adjacent structures and uses. Along Spring Street, the amenity space will likely have a much different perception. This area has much more of an opportunity to appeal to the pedestrian. This space is also unique because it is located on the fringe of the Commercial (C -1) zone district, therefore it must represent a comfortable transition to the residential neighborhoods to the east. Staff finds that the proposed amenity space is inviting, but certain additions such as permanent seating and a reduction in screening (large planter box) could improve the site more. It may be difficult to analyze what creates a better transitional space: either a parkway with both trees and a lawn along the street, or having the sidewalk that's adjacent to the street (existing condition) and have the lawn and trees against the building thus flanking the amenity space. Staff would recommend the parkway solution along Spring Street. This would better shield the amenity space from residential neighbors to the east that may not want as much visibility to the public feature. If the parkway cannot be accomplished along Spring, Staff recommends that the landscaping on the lawn be of high quality and that the amenity space itself incorporate light landscaping to assist in the zone district transition. 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; Staff Response: The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls, sidewalks, or adjacent property. The Hopkins amenity could be viewed as similar to the adjacent property to the west, but the differences are strong enough to not warrant concern. Both amenities are unique to the block, and should benefit the pedestrian environment. Staff finds this criterion met. 5) Any variation to the Design and Operation Standards for Pedestrian Amenity, Section 26.575.030(F) promote the purpose of the pedestrian amenity requirements; Staff Response: The proposed public amenity does not propose any variation to the Design and Operation Standards for Pedestrian Amenity, Section 26.575.030(F). Staff fords this criterion met. P17 EXHIBIT A.2 632 East Hopkins, Public Amenity REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS 26.412.060.B, Utility/Delivery/Trash Service Area 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. 1) A utility, trash, and recycle service area shall be accommodated along the alley meeting the minimum standards established by Section 26.575.060 Utility/Trash/Recycle Service Areas, unless otherwise established according to said section; Staff Response: The proposed utility, trash, and recycle service area is in compliance with the majority of the standards established by Section 26.575.060. One major deviation is the size of the area. The Land Use Code recommends that (at a minimum) the area should have a linear Length of 20 feet and a depth of 10 feet. The Applicant has proposed an area of 22 feet by 6 feet. This is a reduction of 68 square feet from the standard. The Planning and Zoning Commission has the ability to reduce the required dimensions. The proposed area does not include any utilities, all of which will be located on the buildings roof. This alone warrants a reduction in size. The proposed area is also unique in that is oriented perpendicularly to the alley. Staff is concemed that the normal operation of the area may conflict with the adjacent parking in the carport. Staff recommends that a screening system (either fencing or bollards) be installed to ensure that vehicles will not be damaged and that adequate walkways are maintained. If this cannot occur, the Applicant may request a compact car stall adjacent to the trash area or abandoned a parking stall and mitigate for the reduction via cash -in -lieu or through Special Review. The Building Department has requires that an ADA accessible route from the interior of the building be available for access to the trash/delivery area. 2) All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property and along the alley. 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 a historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed; Staff Response: The utilities are all located on the roof. At this stage of design, no easement should be necessary for service providers. However, upon Final Commercial Design Review, the Applicant should have a better understanding if a pedestal will be required on the ground level. Staff fords this criterion met. 3) Delivery service areas shall be incorporated along the alley. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged; P18 Staff Response: The delivery area is consolidated in the trash/recycling area along the alleyway. The project does not include a truck loading facility. Staff fmds this criterion met. 4) 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; Staff Response: The two -car garage will be vented through the roof of the building. This will be tied in with other mechanical chase equipment throughout the building and fed to the roof. Staff finds this criterion met. 5) Mechanical equipment 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 devise such that it shall be visible from a public right - of -way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. Staff Response: The majority of the proposed building is serviced by equipment on the roof. The details of this location and screening shall be better defined during the Final Commercial Design Review process. Staff fmds this criterion met. • P1 9 Exim rr A.3 632 East Hopkins, Design Objectives and Guidelines REVIEW CRTTERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS The following design guidelines shall apply at the conceptual review stage: Street and Alley System a) Street Grid: 1.1 — Orient a primary entrance toward the street. 1.2 — Maintain the established town grid in all projects. Staff Response: The proposal has two major entrances for the building. The primary entrance is going to be along Spring Street, and is oriented towards the street. The Hopkins Avenue facade will retain and entrance, one of which Staff recommended that the Applicant emphasize more. The Applicant responded with architectural changes that satisfied the recommendation from Staff. Staff fmds this criterion met. b) Alleys: 1.4 — Develop an alley facade to create visual interest. Staff Response: The Applicant has designed an alley facade that includes a variety of materials, setbacks, and functions. There is an entrance to the building along the alleyway, but may not be intended for the public. However, Staff feels that the alley facade provides interest to the block and is well designed. Staff fmds this criterion met. Parking 1.5 — The visual impacts of structured parking should be minimalized. The access shall be located on an alley when feasible or a secondary street, designed with the same attention to detail and materials as the primary building facade, and integrated into the building design. 1.6 — Structured parking should be placed within a `wrap' of commercial and/or residential uses. Staff Response: The structured parking is located along the alleyway and essentially covers two of the existing four parking stalls. Adjacent to the structured garage is a two -car carport that also includes the utility, trash, and delivery area. The structured parking fits accordingly with the material variety on the alley facade and consists of the same quality of design. Staff finds this criterion met. P2 0 Public Amenity Space a) Street Facing Amenity Space 1.7 — A street facing amenity space shall meet all of the following requirements: 1) Abut the public sidewalk 2) be level with the sidewalk, 3) Be open to the sky, 4) Be directly accessible to the public, and 5) Be paved or otherwise landscaped. 1.8 — A street facing public amenity space shall remain subordinate to the line of building fronts in the Commercial Area. 1.9 — Street facing amenity space shall contain features to promote and enhance its use. These may include one or more of the following: 1) Street furniture, 2) Public Art, 3) Historical/interpretive marker. Staff Response: Both amenity spaces meet all of the requirements listed in 1.6 above, expect for the Hopkins amenity not being level with the sidewalk. This is an existing condition, and given the substantial improvements that the Applicant is making to the space, Staff finds it an appropriate compromise. The Hopkins amenity is clearly subordinate to the building front, and although much larger and further projected from the building, the Spring Street amenity remains subordinate as well. The extended amenity along Spring takes advantage of the landscaped lawns that flank the space on either side. Staff has recommended more improvements to be depicted in the plans for the Spring amenity space. These include permanent seating options, additional light landscaping, and the possible inclusion of public art. *Note: All other criteria in the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines for Public Amenity address amenity types that are not proposed with this project, therefore they are not applicable. Building Placement a) Setbacks 1.18 — Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk's edge: 1.19 — A building may be set back from its side lot lines in accordance with design guidelines identified in Street and Alley System and Public Amenity Space guidelines. Staff Response: The proposed building does not extend to the sidewalk edge on either applicable side. This is primarily due to the public amenity that creates separation in itself. As mentioned in the requirement, having the public amenity serving as the reason for separation is acceptable. The project is not a scrape - and- replace, and the proposed structure uses (for the vast majority) the existing footprint. Staff finds this criterion met. N. / / P21 b) Building Orientation 1.20 — Building facades shall be parallel to the facing street(s) and primary entrances shall be oriented toward the street. 1.21 — Orient a new building to be parallel to its lot lines, similar to that of traditional building orientation. Staff Response: The building facades are all parallel to the facing streets, save for the three elements that take advantage of angles not oriented at 90 degree angles to the streetscape. This includes the two angular corner pieces and the slightly angled entrance along Spring Street. Staff finds that these architectural features add interest and uniqueness to the building's exterior. The third -story includes a much longer exterior wall that is not parallel to the facing street. However, this exterior wall is set back from the first and second -story wall. The impact of this non - parallel feature will be less impactful on the continuity of the street edge because of this. Even though all facades are not completely parallel to the facing street, Staff finds that the slight variation is appropriate. Staff fords this criterion met. c) Height Variation 1.22 — Building facade height shall be varied from the facade height of adjacent buildings of the same number of stories by a minimum of 2 feet. 1.23 — A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the Commercial Area. 1.24 — Height variation should be achieved using one or more of the following: 1) Vary the building height in accordance with traditional lot width, 2) set back the upper floor to vary the building facade profile(s) and the roof forms across the width and the depth of the building, 3) vary the facade (or parapet) heights at the front, or 4) step down the rest of the building towards the alley in conjunction with other design standards and guidelines. Staff Response: The proposed building has a maximum height of 36 feet, which is more than two feet above the adjacent three -story structure. The building is located on the corner of the block and the height of the building serves to strengthen the comer and provide and appropriate beginning to the Commercial (C -1) zone district. Additionally, this project meets the minimum 9ft. floor to ceiling clearances on the second and third - stories, as the Design Objectives and Guidelines requires. The style of the third -story is not simple or standard throughout, but multifaceted and makes use of several architectural strategies. Varying roof heights, a set back from the lower two levels, cantilevers, and a variety of materials all add to a unique and diverse third -story. Staff recommended that that the Applicant P22 address an issue of the third -level possibly being overemphasized and taking attention away from the base of the building. The Applicant responded appropriately by reducing the size of the cantilever, raising the parapet wall along Hopkins Avenue, and emphasizing the materials on the first and second - story. With these changes made, Staff finds this criterion met. > x.H8 r 13 P23 Ci DAVID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTSnc 47G EaM Caper ?' cnw' SssiRLPG Ahprn,Cp JGli R0. 9Tl1..924 -3:44 to 4t:F9a>Q1R6 ad a4` k i , , . .. d a4 ses .. i .:- c 3 s a j i e ' v3 , n a , u�ri ; � � d:_ ru �� 4 ?��+ � {t�»Vr'.a.:.Tu�i.�?Kw.as>f 'i'�,...�.`�,:�.'e,v�¢,�`� Tx xK +�`�:`?��"� E �:�� e��^2 NO. 04 DATE July 9, 2010 BY Adam Roy TO Drew Alexander, City of Aspen Community Development CC Michael Rudin PROJECT 632 East Hopkins Renovation SUBJECT Conceptual Design Review - Utility Trash, Recycle Services Area UPDATE COMMENTS Dear Drew: Per our discussion of staff comments regarding the trash and recycling layout proposed in Memorandum 01, we have further studied the design of the trash and recycling area that functions appropriately within the existing space allocated for this purpose. It is the intention of this memorandum to address the additional comments by staff and exhibit through a more detailed design, how the proposed layout for the trash and recycling area is adequate. Existing Utili Trash and Recycling Area: As noted in the commercial design review application, the exiting area for utility, trash and recycling is six (6) feet by twenty -two (22) feet. In the conceptual design review application, it is stated that all mechanical equipment will be accommodated on the roof and/or in the basement of the building, requiring only trash and recycling to be accommodated in the existing area. Proposed Oprration of Trash and Recycling Service Area: To summarize, a meeting with Waste Management was held to determine adequate sizing for trash and recycling equipment. It was concluded that based on the estimated per use square footage allotments, the required container dimensions would adequately be accommodated in the proposed area. The attached layout of this area exhibits a conservative estimate of container sizes to accommodate the building. The following points were made by Waste Management: 1. A two (2) -yard volume trash dumpster would be more than adequate for the resulting refuse generation of the proposed uses of the building; 2. The residential components of the proposed building would generate no more than one -third (1/3)- yard of refuse on a weekly basis; 3. The majority of refuse from the office component would be in the form of paper recycling, which is easily accommodated in the 96- gallon containers represented in the attached layout drawing; 4. If a retail component were to occupy the main -level space, the majority of refuse generated would be cardboard, which could be adequately accommodated by the exhibited containers. If more P24 cardboard generation occurred, the 96- gallon container for cardboard recycling could be replaced by a two (2) -yard dumpster, a dimension that is common to most high volume retail stores in the commercial core.. 5. Pick -up and hauling of all containers would be accommodated through the screening gate to the rear of the proposed area, adjacent to the alley. Pro.o La . t o P.rkir. .nd r. h .n. R li . rvi Ar - .: All four parking stalls are retained and adequate circulation and access to and from the building is accommodated through the proposed layout and in accordance with the Code. Because the proposed building renovation is the "highest and best use" for the site, it is not likely that any additional demand will be placed on the trash and recycling facility for the property. The following parking configurations are proposed for the purposes of retaining all four parking stalls while providing adequate access, circulation and operation of both the parking accommodations and the trash and recycling area: 1. Two full size parking stalls are proposed within the garage structure; 2. Two compact stalls (per the standards of Architectural Graphic Standards) are proposed in the carport, allowing maximum circulation from the rear door of the building to the trash and recycling area; 3. The walkway between the carport parking stalls and the trash and recycling area is maximized through the inclusion of the compact parking stalls, providing less inhibited circulation as well as additional space for box storage andfor additional container storage if necessary. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any clarifications. • 0 P2R i A _ , .� / ) � Q /; _ ,, CC } \ \ \} /\ I I N CC \ iii il { 2 � % ® J \ \ I \ . \ ; t k _, ® 1- % � k w CC / § ) < o Z lii } \ \ \ \ a- \ O — CC < t -. i \ er OP =.! kilo • ' \ z • o � ( • �i N ) 1 LU \ \ >- -re) M a III s 111 1 — CC ( ` III I% i$ .OGg . g5#[ - - -= - _ _� ' §i // ( I I ii i I I (. o \ § % 1 1 1 1 ) q \ ii j : . - 0 o w w ( § / . 1 ® « / I ! a e o ) u LLJ • N I I 1111 I I ± )! \ $ c \ K x xx xxx»xx&xx xxxxxxx %xxxxxxxx�S / ql MAR ' i t srt � . rr I 1 i_ , - • o 4 '" t 1 :ii �I II ',1\ ♦ tA. 0 *, + � (/�J I� . � - 4 ` - � I III `1' [II - f a .... - IN I j 1 ! I" f� T p 71 L 1i 1 '111 } i II t ' it - 1 s "I t i - r _ - I �, "- 1 1 n I- WI' :,- II ' t _ - 3s • s t; 7 III - I'i � . t .1r Ih t :". .. -", - t ,° I t h ( ; t e r.: C I ti • ' - �- _ �� I f 1 '' a'' !♦♦ p Y 9w II ��t I I� t ' S I / ' x.. I `"k � j � `►� ► I ' r r L 4 ? t 5.► r` ' ( t II I r. ill ` • t r " ., — I _ � W F1 r t , + =t *4 — t1� . • •� t, 1 . . . • 4 v i I I j ' I IR■ 7'IIII I,I P � , 4 g r i t; Rt N V +.a "` i t I i. . . . II a g 1 4 ` � « - ,,,, r I I III p, M1, l �I ` ( . v 1 s. �. *� I j I = t !: N, il ._ �. I I 3 ' III . - 9 ¢ s,s _ - .. 'F c I t 13 I i & 1, t If r r, -0 4 r' F�a i0 y�,'S�1 d r 1 1St- il N • rite 4,44t.'4.1.4'4' " .- _ 10 40 Y � W . c T � 0 C (a I -, �1 } y am I t Y CC r �QI. � y; , ; s41 4i �.. F Q fn \ -- . - Q i r ` j 1 t �_.. V vi .�r71 �j�� 1 ; . ...., - , Y k S „pt., �t Y ( t h am 111 . a�. r5' f r - ` i t ` I - j F ' ” f . 4 o 44 I asi .- E ' _ 11 [ . . - 1 l I I l 1 F - . �i4 w1, � Iii 4 . �I .li l " � ly __ ,a - I- -1, i. r '!I � r r !>r it ,1n1 — /t { I I t + �:� } r yJALa t -" t:-......! u a I I I ft f i r �� t-,'2k � o t wk• / a.1r- t� * ,�. t i 1 f i�1�F � I 41. i { 1 44414(;( r`.t'j,1 y y y 414 +'' I r i I ' : ' I 1 ll I i ll 1i 4 4 Y ea. 044 �f, l s. 7 • f a. II I l1l r `tsr w. k .. °Pa; , ff. !' • ��`:. I • • rsriArm. • �� 1 111 11111 _ . 1 11x. ,, ■ 11! 2' < °%f 0J'N3dSV SNI>IdOH'3 ZC9 as W gm ry a. v o= � � 0 ! SNINdOH '3 9 oz g de II 113 il II a 86 )13018 A311V • . ,. / X 1 '' � IL' r i 1 1 LA In 1 CC 0 I cc a" cc 1 CD 5 d LJJ • i R � 7 Y Y :� • Q Mf til yam, r « ,.;. , , o 0 �"L "x r1i :r� l em. idu s? 7... . ?: � r. -. I + 1 1_ 0 2 > 1 - - v, i 3= >- Inz ° a Z cc r° O ,- th D a w o ; CO OS 1 1 .. , - w CC I- Z EE S' t t; o G in o f LS 0 1 ° 1 z 1 f ,, 4 • 6 , 1 ICY Ao° •Tc J vn P ir• �,, ELo cc , if " LU U . -� J O Ear AU r1), fl< 1 • t 1 ; C I ; � *Cf�,- +' AUIN3 NIVNI 1131SAS 11VM ONI011S 11000 ONIOIIS 2- 1 z 1 r tt , 9' I i ' . I D f �� , tee. 41 ‘ OM J 1 n.• LL - LS° N 311N3AV SNINdOH ISb'3 ;11;1111; e 03 i ^ ' 3 3 ;,3; aql �N3dSV 1 SNINclOH'3 ZE9 v o= g ea i tg t l SNINdOH '3 ZE9 = „, r— o1li ° aka E 86 )13019 A311V t°` i' k 0 1--- -- _ _ _ F 4 � ,,f., rr "ry` nE gyp' x I I , ,. I 'T J 1 ' I- LLJ CC O U t g I. CC 1 Q )' f .• ' � 7 r t, Z I 'r a C a I•I:"r d 4 , � • W 1 f _ \ 'G t 6 r. I a w uJ til r W d a H m �tia ..a e - - d o� a o w LLJ w � � .7 CC tn vi e o ,_ti R�+ w Z i rlp 4u" 1 ° O In IL � a y ' i ` i E 40 r cc i, W 0 0 �. i L- +'G,:r. a .' 3 w\ bk'' 1 ' y 1 II tr } b, {M� I 1 `2 . . AN1N3 NIVW H000 9N101 1 . W315A511VM 9NIOIlS i —th- — 111.14 z rl ,T, M i 1 .......„-,Ipi .# As It I Ni WI rc Z Now . /[� • 111N]AV SNDIdOH ISV1 03 3 E$ H1 t3rr E DRC Summary: 632 E. Hopkins Avenue Conceptual Commercial Design Engineering Department: Encroachment License Due to the location of the signage in the City Right of Way the applicant will need to apply for a Permanent Encroachment License with the City Engineering Department. Approval of the Permanent Encroachment License is required prior to installation. Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter Condition of Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter shall evaluated prior to construction. Any of this infrastructures will need to follow the following City code requirements: 21.12.370 Excavation under existing curb and gutter and sidewalk "If any excavation occurs under existing curb, gutter or sidewalk, that curb gutter and sidewalk shall be removed and replaced. The replacement shall be from the nearest concrete joint." o The applicant will need to replace any concrete sidewalk 'stones' adjacent to the property that are disturbed by construction of these improvements. From the nature of the improvements sidewalk replacement would occur across the entire front of the applicants building. 21.16.080 Responsibility to repair sidewalks, driveways, and gutters "When notified that any sidewalk, driveway, curb, gutter or and combination thereof, in front of or abutting upon or servicing any premises shall be in need of repair the city engineer shall cause notice to be served upon the owner or other person in charge of or having the control and supervision of the premises, to repair such sidewalk, driveway, curb or gutter within thirty (30) days. It shall be unlawful for any person to fail or refuse to comply with such notice to repair." o Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter adjacent to this applicants building is deficient due to a vertical displacement of greater than %" and spalling and crumbling concrete. The applicant is required to replace the deficient Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk. 21.16.90 Definition of sidewalk in need of repair "For the purpose of this chapter, a 'sidewalk in need of repair' shall mean a sidewalk in any of the following conditions: a) concrete that is spalling or crumbling b) vertical displacement of the adjoining sidewalk section is in excess of three - quarters (3 /4)inch, or c) Lateral Displacement of adjoining sidewalk sections is in excess of one (1) inch, or d) The sidewalk has a transverse slope in excess of one (1) inch per foot or the combination of transverse or longitudinal grade is insufficient for adequate drainage of the sidewalk causing accumulation of water and ice. , P29 Stormwater System Development Fee Due to increase of impervious area on site the Stormwater System Development fee will be triggered during plan review. The Stormwater system development fee is applied to projects that create or disturb more than 500 square feet of impervious area. The fee is $2.88 per square foot of total impervious area on the site and is calculated and applied during building permit review. A comprehensive drainage plan is required upon submittal of Building permit. Stormwater from impervious surfaces shall be detained on site. Construction Management Plan A construction management plan must be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. The plan must include a planned sequence of construction that minimizes construction impacts to the public. The plan shall describe mitigation for: parking, staging/encroachments, truck traffic, noise, dust, and erosion /sediment pollution. *Detailed plans are required prior to council — please see engineering department for specific details. Parks Department: 1) All landscaping within the ROW shall be irrigated as required in the City Code 2) Prior to building permit submittal the landscape plan and tree species and spacing should be reviewed and approved by the parks department. 3) The public private spacing should be redesigned to lessen the private feel as currently proposed. Sanitation District: 1) Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. 2) ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. 3) On -site utility plans require approval by ACSD. 4) If the applicant desires a new sanitary sewer tap connection, the old service line connection shall be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to ACSD requirements. A new tap will be made by district personnel, and the new sanitary service line must be installed according to ACSD standards. 5) The district would highly recommend that the applicant replace the existing sanitary sewer service line since the existing sewer service line is an older cast iron pipe and only a couple feet deep under the existing parking area into the alley. P30 6) Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. 7) One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements will be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. 8) Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. 9) All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. 10) Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW or in easements above ASCD main sewer lines. 11) Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. 12) The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. 13) Once the proposed utility plans and improvement survey have been submitted to the district for approval, the district will be able to comment in greater detail. Building Department: We have done a preliminary review for compliance on this project to the policies and codes as currently adopted and amended per Title 8 of the Aspen Municipal Code. http: / /www.aspen pitkin.co m /Departments /Com m unity- Development /Build ing/ http: / /www.aspen pitkin.com /Porta Is /0 /docs /City /clerk /municode /coaspentOS. pdf The comments are intended to provide the applicant with corrections or concerns that may require further development or be re drawn to show compliance. We are available to schedule a meeting to discuss these items at your earliest convenience. Please either email me at denism@ci.aspen.co.us or call at 970 -429 -2761. 1) According to our records the building type of construction is type 111 A. This will allow the addition of a residential unit on the third level. a. We will require stamped architectural and MEP's. P31 2) The current plans do not provide the required number of exits from each story per 2003 IBC section 1018.1. Two exits are required from each story. Rooms or spaces may have a single exit if the occupant load meets the table 1014.1. a. An additional vertical exit enclosure will be required. b. The vertical exit enclosures are required to provide access directly to the outside or to a exit passageway. Elevators may not open into an exit passageway. Fifty percent may exit through an exit discharge lobby. c. The building design does not appear to meet a single exit building from 1018.2. 3) An interior accessible route to the trash and recycle will be required per 2003 IBC section 1104. 4) Will there be a common toilet facility and drinking fountain or will each tenant be installing them with their tenant finish permits. Please include the proposed locations in the MEP's. 5) The building will need to show compliance with the 2009 IECC. The residential portions may use Res check and the rest of the structure may chose either between Com check 2009 IECC or 2007 90.1 ARHRAE. P32 � xrtta(T F Drew Alexander From: hurst fern [fernkh @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 8:13 AM To: Drew Alexander Subject: my comments on 632 East Hopkins Attachments: DSCNO502.jpg; DSCNO503.jpg; DSCNO504.jpg; DSCNO505.jpg; DSCN0506.jpg; DSCNO507jpg; ATT2780432.txt To Whom It May Concern: I am Fern Hurst and I own and live at 120 South Spring Street, directly across Spring Street from the building under consideration, 632 East Hopkins Street. I realize that Spring Street is the dividing line between the commercial core and the residential area, and my concern is to preserve a nice transition between the two and not to depreciate the quality of my residential unit. My condominium development is well known around town for its beautiful wild flowers, and it would be nice it 632 East Hopkins could echo the feeling in two ways: a "parkway" design of the sidewalk sandwiched between grass and plantings and plantings similar to those at 120 South Spring Street along the Spring Street side of the building. I ask that the proposed paving to the Spring Street side of the building be largely eliminated and that a grassy area be installed in keeping with my property across the street. Photos 1 and 2 are are the view of my house from the entrance to 632 E Hopkins. Of greater concern is the building of a three story addition consisting of a garage and two stories above, to be built on what is now a simple and open paved driveway. From my front entry I have a not -so -nice view of the alley between Spring Street and Hunter Street and a very nice view of St Mary's steeple and trees. My view will be completely obscured by the garage and two stories above. I ask that the corner of the addition be beveled or recessed on the second and third floors so that my view is less obscured. I ask that the roof deck with its required screening be eliminated to give the northeast corner a lower profile. I ask that the roof line of the addition above the garage be level with the roof line or height of the proposed third story of the rest of the building. As proposed, it is higher just where my view is most obscured. Photo 3 is of the northeast corner of 632 E Hopkins. I also ask that the third story which is being added above the building have its slanted roof eliminated or lowered to achieve a lower height profile. Just as the northeast corner of the building addition will obscure my view, the southeast corner (Hopkins and Spring) with its proposed corner overhang will obscure my view from my entrance, living room, and two decks. I ask that that corner overhang be recessed to preserve view lines from the properties to the east. Photo 4 is the southeast corner of 632 E Hopkins. Photos 5 and 6 and the views of 632 E Hopkins from my living room. Thank you for your consideration. Fern Hurst 120 South Spring Street 970 -920- 3787 fernkhOemail.com 1 P33 , • z . • Photo 1 t - 4 --�, •6 2 f i Photo 2 . P34 kgry .;400 Photo 3 • Photo 4 n _�„ .. Photo 5 P35 .- IA 1 "Ipr i 1 t - --- . _ 4 - Photo 6 + 6/14/2010 11:33 12129881395 PHILROTHBLUM PAGE 01/01 • RECEIVED xfflgIT JUL 14 2010 CITY OF ASPEN PHILIP ROTHBLUM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 624 EAST HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL (212) ^ . 988 - 1395 . FAX (212) 759 -2525 TO %YGt iwrw y 5742.0-145742.0-14S � Cs-p.- DATE: uA 9y z c, / /3i-K 9¢ ,Lrr b- 4 ° r . l; FAX : e")0 ^'7 Z o-f '3 9 PAGES (INCL COVER) In regard to the public hearing on July 20, 2010, as the adjacent homeowner, I support the conceptual submission of Rodin West LLC. The architect David Jolmston's office, has assured me, in several conversations, that they intend to ban the building blend in with the neighboring properties, will have a minimal impact on the street scape in retaining the existing set backs, be aesthetically pleasing, be mindful of our existing view plane, and, of course, conform with all aspects of the zoning and building code. Moreover, they suggested and agreed to continue communication during their development process. PHILIP ROTHBLUM • • w ... ,s` AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 632 2. fbpl iAS fArtn4. , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: ( .� J,.,.p 1 ?mg. ea 4-:3 p».n , 20 4f STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) 1, y (name, please print) being or repr senting an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) H of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: V Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty -two (22) inches wide and twenty -six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing' and was continuously visible from the day of , 200, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they" appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. ¢ (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions that create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas, and COWAPs are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. ignature The fore oing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this b day of , 20 by ,4-inc o4 ;ps tY WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL P BLI E e LINDA M. ': • ; My c mission expires: cg �-CcV 2,Qlt -\ CONCEPTUAL COMM RCIAL DESIGN REVIEW. ' MANNING e . �( NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN theta public hearing ./c473 WA „ will be held on Tuesday, July 20th, 2010 at a •11 _!lQ' ma ' otary Public meetin to begin at. 4: p.m. before Ibe Plannin n!Y and Zonin Com Sister Cities, Cit Hall, 130 5. Galena SL, Aspen, Colorado to consider application requesting Conceptual Commercial De- e- m ission E I!P: /�t?)2QI4 sign approval for an expansion and remodel of the r existing structure located at 632 East Hopkins Av- enue. The application was submitted by David Johnston Archite 6C, 416 Easy Cooper Avenus #206, Aspen, CO 81611, on behalf of Rudin West LLC. The subject pproperty und review is Ie y 9all desCribed as ubdivision: City a nd Townsile o As- pen, Block: 98, Lot: S and east half of Lot R. The ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: parcel number for the subject property is 2737- 07- 332 -006. % THE PUBLICATION For further information, Contact Drew Alexander at perlm 5 Gale a 51 Developm 811, :RAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) (9]0) 429 -2]39, drew.alexan i.aa ^Lean THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED s5tan Gibbs Planning and Zoning Cho j • 201 (523]2371 Aspen mss Weakly on July 4, INT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24- 65.5 -103.3 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — July 20, 2010 Comments 2 Minutes 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 632 W Hopkins - Conceptual Commercial Design Review 2 1 • City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — July 20, 2010 Stan Gibbs called the regular meeting of June 20, 2010 in Sister Cities Meeting Room to order at 4:30pm. Commissioners present were Mike Wampler, Cliff Weiss, Bert Myrin, Brian Speck and Stan Gibbs. Jasmine Tygre, LJ Erspamer and Jim DeFrancia were excused. Staff in attendance: Jim True, Special Counsel; Drew Alexander, Community Development Director; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments Bert Myrin voiced concern about the Wienerstube not coming back to P &Z. Jennifer Phelan responded it went to court and as a settlement it was negotiations with Council. Myrin was concerned that any project could do that same thing. Jim True said that any project can't do it; you have to go through a large process before you even get to a settlement procedure and it was a public hearing. Jennifer Phelan said there were a series of round tables next Wednesday and Thursday called Aspen Modern looking at Aspen post modern. Conflicts of Interest None stated. PUBLIC HEARING: 632 E Hopkins — Conceptual Commercial Design Review Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing on 632 E Hopkins. Drew Alexander summarized that the property was located on the corner of Hopkins and Spring Street; the lot was 4500 square feet and located in the C -1 Zone District. The adjacent properties to the east are mixed use properties and residential. Alexander said they are remodeling and expanding the existing building including site changes, structure changes and interior program changes. Alexander said there are two changes to the public amenity spaces; one along Hopkins and one along Spring. The building is getting updated new materials and the interior of the building is being reprogrammed. At this stage of design, the conceptual level, the second floor includes an affordable housing unit and commercial space and there was a 3rd level being added that includes a small portion of office space and a free market residential unit. Alexander said the land use process for this case contains commercial conceptual design review, additional reviews include growth management, parking, subdivision and then final commercial design review. P &Z is the final review authority for conceptual commercial design review and the review criteria include public amenity spaces, utility, trash and delivery areas, and all of the criteria that are found within the commercial lodging and historic 2 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — July 20, 2010 objectives and guidelines. Alexander said you could find staff's comments regarding the review criteria in the memo in Exhibit A.1 through A.3. Alexander said that this proposal represents a reduced public amenity and the code says you are allowed to reduce the 25% required in the code but the reduction cannot go below 10 %; the project currently has 18% public amenity, the area is a mix of lawn and hardscape; the applicant is proposing reducing this to 16% public amenity on site, which is a difference of 810 square feet down to 720 square feet. The applicant is providing public amenity improvements off site on the public right -of -way on Spring Street, the landscape plan Exhibit D, staff asked for more permanent seating options to the plazas, the possibility of adding some public art and reduce the planter on Exhibit D so the site isn't screened as much. An additional recommendation was a parkway system on Spring Street and Hopkins Avenue in the memo there's a figure that shows a parkway on Hopkins where the sidewalk would be pulled back from the street to the corner with the parkway and a bulb out at the intersection where you cross the street. Alexander said on this block of Spring Street there is no parkway but across the street there is a parkway in place; there was no preference for a parkway from the Engineering Department or Parks Department but this was a Community Development specific recommendation and much stronger along Hopkins. Staff finds with the conditions just mentioned the public amenity space meets all the criteria. Alexander said that the utility, trash and delivery area was discussed on page 5 of the packet and the applicant's memo; this trash area was located perpendicular to the alleyway and staff likes to see these areas parallel to the alley and an additional concern was the walkway between the recycling bins and the cars parked; the minimum depth of these areas depth should be 10 feet and the proposal is for 22 feet by 6 feet. Alexander said the commercial district design guidelines address certain aspects of commercial properties and this property is located in the commercial character area. These standards address street and alley systems, parking, public amenity space, building placement, building height, mass and scale; staff's full response to this can be found on page 19. Staff recommendations were toning down the 3 floor because it was coming off too dominating and the l and 2 stories were giving enough attention; the applicant responded by reducing the cantilever and raising the parapet wall from the second floor up to increase the facade height on the second level. An additional recommendation was to increase the impact and visibility the Hopkins entrance has; Exhibit D shows an entrance proposal and signage proposal. Alexander said that after reviewing the remainder of the criteria 3 • City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — July 20, 2010 staff felt that this proposal was in compliance and had no further recommendations; the architectural changes the applicant proposed satisfied staff's concerns. Alexander said staff received 2 letters from neighbors representing disapproval for the application; one was from Philip Rothblum that he changed his mind today and was not for the approval. Jennifer Phelan said the purpose of conceptual commercial design review is to look at the building or the size of the box, where is located on the site, is the initial public amenity space something that works for the commission and meets the guideline. Phelan said that they were not really looking at internally what was going on in the building. Phelan said it meets the height limitation in the C 1 zone district and meets the setbacks and conceptually it meets the allowable floor area. Cliff Weiss asked the setbacks for side and front at grade level. Alexander replied for a building of this mixed use there is no requirement. Alexander said the 25 feet that is mentioned in the letter speaks to the neighboring property. Weiss asked the height of Cl if it is 36 feet. Phelan said that it was knocked from 40 feet in 2007. Bert Myrin asked if any of the public amenity space was sunken. Alexander replied that it was on the Hopkins Avenue side was below grade. Phelan said that the public amenity space cannot be more than 4 feet above or 2 feet below the existing grade. Alexander said for this building it was existing at 16 inches. Myrin asked about exits on the second floor. Alexander replied the applicant was working with Denis Murray on that. Myrin said his concern was the size of the box to avoid a Dancing Bear issue. Phelan said that this has to go back to P &Z for final so a condition could be put in the resolution for exiting the building. Adam Roy said that he was a planner with David Johnston Architects and introduced Brian Beazley an architect and Michael Rudin, the applicant. Michael Rudin said he was the representative for the building that it was being improved. Adam Roy utilized power point and said the current building was roughly 26 feet high, the building currently 4,588 square feet with a basement. Roy said it was a rectangular building and the current floor to ceiling was just a hair over 8 feet on the ground floor and on the ground floor 7 feet 3 inches; they are proposing to relocate those floor heights to get at least a 9 to 10 foot commercial levels. Roy explained the property utilizing power point. 4 ,.m City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — July 20, 2010 Adam Roy said there was a 2 car garage and leaving this open to the trash area. Roy said that this will be more trees and the entry court plaza the bench system that would make it a more inviting space. Roy said that they have increased the height of the building at the highest point of 10 feet and the 3 floor is setback S plus feet from the outside wall. Cliff Weiss said the Hopkins setback has not changed. Adam Roy said that was correct. Weiss noticed a Spring Street view a spiral staircase leading up to the top of the third floor, rooftop; he asked what was planned for up there. Roy said that is an alternative to a bulkhead and a lot of the mechanical will occur on the roof so it could be a programmable rooftop. Brian Beazley said there will be hatch access for the mechanical; the center portion of the roof is flat; there are 2 back portions, 1 is flat out to the alley and the north east corner is sloped at a 112 as well as the front roof at a 112. Beazley said any accessible area would be right in the center. Weiss asked if that's where the mechanicals were going in that center. Beazley replied no, the back portion would be solar panels. Weiss asked the height of the solar panels and mechanical. Beazley responded probably 3 feet. Phelan said that solar panels and mechanical were allowed to extend no more than 5 feet above the specified height limit. Beazley said the portions of the roof that were maxed out at 36 feet were the 112 roofs. Weiss said there was a 112 roof on the 3 floor and asked what was protruding out of the 2 sets of windows. Beazley replied they were sunscreens and part of the passive solar design; so in the winter the lower glass can be shaded. Mike Wampler asked if there was any place on that roof that could place a hot tub or entertainment area. Beazley answered possibly in the center of the roof. Bert Myrin said that moving the sidewalk closer to the building allows the pedestrians to connect with the building a little more than the barrier and was in the resolution. Beazley said they weren't strongly opposed to that but those trees they wanted were to screen the building; if they brought the sidewalk in it makes more hardscape to the building. Adam Roy said that they can't relocate that lower floor. Brain Beazley said that there needs to be some type of buffer in and around that space and ramp entrance to make it as inviting as possible. Myrin said there was no shading for the area that is across the street from the residential. Beazley said that relates to threshold where you are creating more of a private space or a public space and in fact one of the recommendations was to eliminate a planter that screened some of that area from the view across the street. Roy said they would explore some screening in that plaza area but quickly when you bring the planting all the way out to the curb you lose all of that public gathering space that you 5 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — July 20, 2010 achieve by leaving it in its current configuration. Roy said that it was effective to have some grass or landscaping that leads up to the building to soften but if there were opportunities to screen that further they would be happy to explore that. Myrin asked about the door on Spring Street and it seems like a private entrance. Beazley answered the door was an entrance to the office space, the ADU and the free - market unit. Myrin said that the space on Hopkins was a little more public. Roy said this really is going to serve as a permanent lobby, which the building doesn't have now. Myrin asked if the roof was included in any of the mechanical drawings. Beazley replied they were in the process of that now. Roy said the mechanical would be set away from the edge of the building. Phelan said that was a final design review. Beazley said a majority is in the building in the basement; it would just be ductwork, pipes, solar panels and they are determining how much and they are going for LEED Certification on the building. Stan Gibbs asked of the variation in the right -of -way for the Cl District on the Spring Street side. Alexander said that was correct, Spring had a wider sidewalk. Beazley said that Spring sidewalk matches all the way down. Gibbs asked if the first floor amenity just couldn't n be sunk in from the grade. Beazley asked creating a step down once you enter into the door. Gibbs asked if you could physically for the building to fill half of that amenity space on the lower half of the building at grade; remove the retaining wall on that half of the building go right up, is this a possibility. Beazley responded that it was probably do able but they were not changing the elevation of the entire office retail space; they would have to modify the foundation to bring that grade up against. Gibbs said so if you don't do that it's impossible. Beazley said yes because you would have to bring the storefront windows but those windows would be shorter. Gibbs asked if the ADA ramp was necessary or can you get ADA entrance through the side facade. Beazley said it was necessary if that space is divided; the single main entrance would be divided up. Public Comments: 1. Fern Hurst said she lives directly across the street from the Spring Street entrance to this building; she said it was an improvement. Hurst said her concerns were the 3 story addition obscures her view of the alley, St. Mary's and the western sky; she said that the corners should be angled which would give her a nice view. Hurst said it intrudes on her views from her living room and entrance going the other way. Hurst did not like the public 6 r -1 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — July 20, 2010 amenity with all the paving and would like to see it less of a public amenity because they are residential condos across the street. Hurst also thought the sign at the corner could definitely be approved on. Hurst voiced concern for the mechanical on the roof as well. 2. Wes Cantrell said that he was Phil Rothblum's property manager and he would like to see story poles to give a good visual and would like to see it back to the corner. Cantrell said the 3` story cuts out probably 75% of his view of Independence Pass from his deck; it is 11 feet from the existing roof to their parapet wall. Cantrell asked where the mechanical was located on the roof. Stan Gibbs closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Adam Roy said that they sent out a letter on their own beside the public noticing to their immediate property owners to get their comments and they had only heard back from a couple of the neighbors. Roy said they have met with Ms. Hurst and well as Mr. Rothblum. Roy said that we hear Ms. Hurst's concern for the public amenity and they have looked into the code language about the standards, design guidelines and recommendations from City Planning Staff is to create a vibrant public amenity node at that area. Roy said they feel strongly about the public realm that is enhanced by a greenscape that is adjacent to the building, which creates more of a front yard on that side. Roy said that they were open to alternative options to screening that public amenity space as they move forward with the design. Roy said the sign would be dealt with also. Roy said the height that they met with Ms. Hurst at her residence just to understand the height issues from her view and to the steeple would require the applicant to cut away about 1/3 of the back of the building. Brian Beazley said that the mechanical would be screened and they are exploring using a green roof for LEED Certification and that would also improve or soften some of this equipment on the roof. Roy said the spiral staircase would reduce program the building currently has. Beazley said the original stair would probably have encroached on the height and was too bulky and massive. Roy said in response to Mr. Rothblum's concerns but up until the first thing this morning he had been a proponent for the project and they have communicated with him quite a bit of detail and at the 11 hour we didn't have time to address his new perception to the project. Roy said the top of Mr. Rothblum was approximately 4 feet lower that their highest point. Roy said with the 3 rfl floor stepping back 8 feet the upper element extends out 5 feet from the front surface, so it is almost 20 feet from the property line setback. Roy said there would be no place on the roof that the mechanical would be close to the edge. 7 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — July 20, 2010 Cliff Weiss said that he was confused and looks as though both buildings are at the same setback. Roy replied no they were setback 11 feet and asked if it was a single use residential what the setback was in that zone. Drew Alexander replied that for detached single family and duplex structure would be the R -6 Zone District. Jennifer Phelan replied it was 10 foot. Weiss said he saw a carport and a garage; how many cars are being parked here. Roy replied 4 and that's what currently parked there. Bert Myrin said one of the commercial design review elements was lighting to illuminate certain parts of the building to create an interesting effect; that is under the code section 26.412C. Jennifer Phelan said they weren't required to do it. Myrin voiced concern for lighting building elements; it seems that as it transitions to the residential area people who might not to see it lit. Myrin asked for lighting plans for final. Myrin said it was suggested eliminating 1 parking space if the objective couldn't be achieved with the trash access and wasn't carried through in the resolution. Jennifer Phelan replied that staff thought it could be resolved by final. Drew Alexander said staff recommended installing a fencing system or some bollards that would separate the uses. Myrin said that if a solution isn't found for two spaces and adequate separation can't be maintained then consider eliminating a parking space and mitigating for that as cash -in -lieu. Adam Roy said that the requirement was a length of 20 feet for box storage and also 10 feet deep; they feel that a solution is there and a solution that staff needs to see. Brian Beazley added this was a case worse scenario for adding to all the recycling bins potentially there, a 2 yard dumpster and how many times a week the garbage truck will show up and the other thing to consider is that this is not facing the alley. Beazley said to make it bigger would be more impactful in the alley. Myrin suggested adding to the resolution all mechanical drawn in on the final. Alexander said that Jennifer mentioned earlier about roofscapes as a criteria for this review once we arrive at final. Phelan said that you are covered. Myrin said that staff suggested on Exhibit A.1 Section 3 page 16 the final paragraph "staff would recommend the parkway solution along spring Street" didn't carry over to the resolution. Phelan responded the attached parkway was okay on Spring to create a public amenity space; on Hopkins is where you should consider requiring a detached sidewalk. Myrin said that was already in the resolution. Myrin said that there was a parkway suggested on Spring Street. Phelan replied no that was not what was ended up in the discussion. Alexander 8 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — July 20, 2010 said a better reference was staff's comments in the memo "parkway along Hopkins is strongly recommended" and right above it discusses Spring Street. Cliff Weiss said there was a bit of a conflict between what public amenity space wants and I have highlighted not a secluded area with a very private feel; this is an interesting design feature along Spring but as you started adding benches and he assumed the entrance to the free market unit you started taking away from the public the very thing that you were giving. Weiss said there probably needs to be more of a transition area and he looks more towards Hopkins Avenue for public amenity space. Weiss said you are in transition to residential units. Weiss said he was not a big proponent of green roofs; in the core where you can see it from the gondola here and there it makes some sense and it leads to a lot of rooftop activity. Weiss said there have been problems with buildings that start out to be one thing and turn out to be another thing because they have rooftop decks. Mike Wampler asked a question about a hot tub on the roof and he doesn't want rooftop stuff either. Wampler said that this building was away from everything as far as food services go and he doesn't see either one of the public amenity spaces as being very popular except for the people in that building; the people that use these areas won't bother the neighbor across Spring Street. Wampler said that if you moved the Spring Street area closer to the Hopkins area to tie it and move the trees down would that pacify the Spring Street people and make it a little bigger on that corner and a little more social. Weiss asked if they were looking to vote on a resolution tonight or was this just a conceptual design review where we are asking them to return. Stan Gibbs answered we have a resolution on the conceptual review. Gibbs asked about the parking mitigation with the addition of free market; there are already 4 spaces in this building; what is the parking mitigation. Alexander replied the free market and mixed use building has no requirement; they would do a parking review closer to final design. Alexander said staff thinks they will need 4 or 5 parking spots, that is just a ball park. Gibbs said that he agreed with everyone else that Spring Street would not have very much public stopping there and it would be the people in the building eating their lunch there. Gibbs said he would not be against seeing that area reduced and how much hardscape is going to be there and would like to see more screening along that side. Gibbs said he was in favor of seeing that parkway restored on the Hopkins side so the sidewalk would come straight down there you wouldn't have 9 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — July 20, 2010 to go all the way in so you could do something creative on the public amenity space and agreed with Cliff and Mike to look at the mountain rather than a condo across the street. Gibbs said that's where you should focus doing something attractive. Gibbs stated that most of the amenity space on Spring could be reduced. Gibbs said the front facade of the 3 floor is too imposing; the design guidelines call for it to be setback but the spirit is that it just doesn't look so big; he said it looks like the end of aircraft carrier. MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve Resolution #16 series 2010 with conditions conceptual commercial design review for the property located at 632 E Hopkins with the addition under Section la reduction of one parking space shall be considered, Section lb the applicant shall continue to work with staff on the Spring Street streetscape to better shield the amenity space from the neighbors to the east, Section le The applicant shall include all post mechanical images inclusive of railings and rooftop access shall be clearly defined at commercial final design review, add section If the applicant shall consider redesigning the Hopkins amenity space to make that space more inviting, the applicant shall work on redesigning the top floor facade to be less imposing on the Hopkins Street side; seconded by Mike Wampler. Roll call vote: Wampler, yes; Weiss, yes; Myrin, yes; Gibbs, yes. APPROVED 4 -0. Discussion of motion prior to the vote: Bert Myrin proposed an amendment to Section 1 a to add at the end "if adequate separation cannot be maintained the applicant shall consider eliminating the parking space that would be mitigated for later in the process in cash -in- lieu ". Jennifer Phelan said can I keep it short and say "reduction of one parking space shall be considered". Myrin and Wampler agreed. Myrin said what was important was that we were not guarantee that there would be 4 spaces. Myrin Section 1 e. " The applicant shall include all post mechanical images at P &Z final review at final". Phelan added "inclusive of railings and rooftop access shall be clearly defined at commercial final design review". Myrin said in "Section lb the applicant shall continue to work with staff on the Spring Street streetscape to better shield the amenity space from the neighbors to the east" this addresses some of Stan's concerns regarding a parkway or to work with. Myrin said "the applicant shall work on redesigning the top floor facade to be less imposing on the Hopkins Street side ". Myrin said "add section If the applicant shall consider redesigning the Hopkins amenity space to make that space more inviting". Weiss said this is the South side so it's going to be sunny and we are getting hung up on parkways and we really want is the public amenity space. Phelan said that her concern is that we were talking about the shape of the 10 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — July 20, 2010 box and the size and the public amenity space can be brought back by the applicant's ideas. Myrin said that the commission was providing is direction and guidance so when they come back for final we have a product that people are likely to support. Weiss said that Stan was talking about the massing. Gibbs said it was the 3` floor mass that seems a bit much. Weiss said he doesn't feel that the public amenity space needs to have some value to the public. Myrin said to "change lc to say the applicant will consider redesigning the Hopkins Streetscape to include a parkway" so that gives everyone something to consider. Myrin stated it continues the block and the thing he has with the sidewalk against the street is that's where all the snow ends up being pushed. Weiss said that he liked what Michael said about joining the 2 spaces. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to extend for 15 minutes, seconded by Bert Myrin seconded. All in favor. Gibbs asked if they can't do the public amenity space would you like to see a parkway there as an alternative to shield the building and making it more inviting; but what if they come back with the same proposal would you have preferred that they had some. Weiss said that he was willing to give up the trade off to give up the parkway. MOTION: Cliff Weiss made an amendment to eliminate lc, died for no second. Bert Myrin noted Nick's notch on the Annabelle Inn that was paid for by Nick so he could see the mountain. Adjourned at :20pm_ � , . ckie Lo i.n, Deputy City Clerk 11 P. 1 * * * TRANSMISSION RESULT REPORT(IMMEDIATE TX) ( AUG. 16.2010 9:03AM ) * * TTI CITY OF ASPEN DATE TIME ADDRESS MODE TIME PAGE RESULT PERSONAL NAME FILE AUG. 16. 8:59AM G3ES 3 P. 11 OK 1344 # :BATCH C :CONFIDENTIAL $ :TRANSFER P :POLLING M :MEMORY TX L :SEND LATER 4 :FORWARDING E :ECM S :STANDARD D :DETAIL F :FINE ) :REDUCTION !S: REMOTE TRANSFER B :FAX ON DEMAND • :PC % :PC DIRECT + :ROUTING i , ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: - ( 3 Z E . k,vis Avc , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: ..� iwI/ r ! e th , 200j STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, Al p (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant t the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. X Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days priory? t a public hearing and was continuously visible from theZ ' day of , 200 10, to and including the date and time of the public X hearing. A hotograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such ame • dments. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknnledged before me this day of , 200jD, by Mani Rol l : , WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: T1 7b I-2,0 13 i MeiA t t 1 Notary Public ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 632 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE; CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 20` 2010 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, Colorado to consider an application requesting Conceptual Commercial Design approval for an expansion and remodel of the existing structure located at 632 East Hopkins Avenue. The application was submitted by David Johnston Architects, pc, 418 East Cooper Avenue, #206, Aspen, CO 81611, on behalf of Rudin West LLC. The subject property under review is legally described as Subdivision: City and Townsite of Aspen, Block: 98, Lot: S and east half of Lot R. The parcel number for the subject property is 2737- 07 -3 -32- 006. For further information, contact Drew Alexander at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen CO 81611, (970) 429 -2739, drew.alexander @ci.aspen.co.us s /Stan Gibbs Planning and Zoning Chair Published in the Aspen Times on July 4 2010 City of Aspen Account — Q1.— C v R v Y i T C S] QN C c� ••- -- - c„, C O C W ¢ ' ___I v v'O ( E O Q d N O c ..... 1 -FL, a.1 O a -CI 1 �U �cr, . - c, , - - aN ry R C Qi R Q _ W a)' c v, � -. E 0 0 c ro c o a, - v d C R d fl U a al a C Q O C Z " 0, o c c a c a. . a = Er— N S J R ra R N 4 a O a, O'� ?° U O R Z7 R v R,. . . ...-- rG O -Ci Q .-1 C C O 00 ,..-- O d ry p p r c Ill O O -0- ' n 7 0 ' _C j • L A> > . n Z ip C O ,C3 O C `` a, ao C F- M d P7 Q '� L d W W Y O ' C Q v 1 Q o C p p v t 6 a Z r",3 = a ` .- o C a' F o o �, _ },v c v i--- {./1 W L d R r0 R N d. V J M C C a, •C - C a O S C C Q' ro 4/ r• 7 C t~ O d ip Z L7 t, ,.__ Y .- s — ,_D i Tw o r`i is 6 'v _ O ¢' Y _ - C W o or o O o v a, N W = 0 >.v C � o, = C LJ O C ' a C C = ,O C c3 aQ., ' Y O . C O d 0 'v C C 2 C ....1 V = t E a`, Y o n o d s _ a a te , . -, o • Q 7 a C C V M W = p O 2 �O L. ,p '-'n • d TO N t= m r"1 - d> O d L7 W '-- M 6 1 O N , r - O = ..1•1 6, v Y d S 3 1-- rp J a. CC V 2 -c - -- - - -- - • t i r, '... • , .'", I= • • .-••••. ,:. ., i • __ _ _ _ • .ar - 4 b f _ 1 Air" 4 . 0 . 'n 7.'"-t'k 1 6 ... - --� IMO I . r . . f � , ilk , , ... ' _. ,. _ • r Easy Peel® Labels 1 ♦ MIMI Bend along line to i o AVERY® 5160 Use Avery® Template 5160® 1 Peed Paper expose Pop-Up Edge" j 1 610 EAST HYMAN LLC 630 EAST HYMAN LLC AARON ROGER S & VIRGINIA A C/O CHARLES CUNNIFFE 532 E HOPKINS AVE 45 BIRCHALL DR 610 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 SCARSDALE, NY 10583 -0000 ASPEN, CO 81611 ALEXANDER JUDY ALLEN RONALD W REV TRUST ALPINE BANK ASPEN 1894 HWY 50 EAST #4 PMB 207 50 SW 137TH AV ATTN ERIC GARDEY CARSON CITY, NV 89701 BEAVERTON, OR 97006 PO BOX 10000 _ GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 ASHTON JONATHAN G ASPEN LEGACY LLC ASPEN MAIN STREET PROPERTIES LP PO BOX 26 17740 E HINSDALE AVE 14881 QUORUM DR #200 JAMES TOWN, CO 80455 FOXFIELD, CO 80016 DALLAS, TX 75254 BASS CAHN 601 LLC BAUM ROBERT E ASPEN RES TRST BAYLESS GRANT J PO BOX 4060 PO BOX 1518 6864 PEPPERTREE CT ASPEN, CO 81612 STOCKBRIDGE, MA 01262 LONGMONT, CO 80503 BENNETT ROBERT R & DEBORAH J BERLIN JAMES & MADELINE L BOOHER ANDREA LYNN 10900 HILLTOP RD 1795 BROOKWOOD DR 709 E MAIN STREET #303 PARKER, CO 80134 AKRON, OH 44313 -5070 ASPEN, CO 81611 BORCHERTS HOLDE H TRUSTEE BROUGH STEVE B & DEBORAH A BRYANT CAROLINA H 1555 WASHTENAW 599 TROUT LK DR PO BOX 5217 ANN ARBOR, MI 48104 SANGER, CA 93657 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 BULKELEY RICHARD C & JULIE J BULKELEY RICHARD C & JULIE J BURSTEN GABRIELLA 801 JOY ST PO BOX 450 PO BOX 2061 RED OAK, IA 51566 RED OAK, IA 51566 ASPEN, CO 81612 CALCOTT JOHN R CALDWELL CHARLES & DEBRA CAMERON LAURA L FBO 1/4 INT 600 E MAIN ST #301 514 E BRYAN ST C/0 LOVES TRAVEL STOPS & CTRY ASPEN, CO 81611 SAVANAH, GA 31401 STORES CHOOKASZIAN KAREN M CIPOLLINO NICHOLAS COLORADO MTN NEWS MEDIA 1100 MICHIGAN 300 QUAIL RD PO BOX 1927 WILMETTE, IL 60091 MERRITT, NC 28556 -9641 CARSON CITY, NV 89702 CONCEPT 600 LLC COPPOCK RICHARD P CROSS JUDITH PO BOX 2914 PO BOX 44 PO BOX 3388 BASALT, CO 81621 DEXTER, MI 48130 ASPEN, CO 81612 Etiquettes ladles a peter I • Replier a la hachure afle de 1 www.avery.com ; Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5160 1 chargement reviler le rebord Pop -Up"' j 1- 800-GO -AVERY ' 1 Easy Peel® Labels i • Bend along Iine to I AVERY® 51 so® Use Avery® Template 5160® 1 Feed Paper expose Pop-Up Edgem j ® DORAN RALPH DRESNER MILTON 1-1 REV LVG TRST EDGE OF AJAX INC 2600 WOODWARD WAY 28777 NORTHWESTERN HWY CIO ADDRE ULRYCH ATLANTA, GA 30305 SOUTHFIELD, MI 48034 2018 E SILVER ST MARBLE, CO 81623 EDGETTE JAMES J & PATRICIA EDWARDS CHARLES N EISENSTAT ALBERT & CONSTANCE 19900 BEACH RD STE 801 189 BEVENUE ST 358 WALSH RD JUPITER ISLAND, FL 33469 WELLSLEY, MA 02482 ATHERTON, CA 94027 EMPHASYS SERVICE COMPANY FARRELL SCOTT W FICKE CLARK 1925 BRICKELL AVE BLDG D PO BOX 9656 15 W ARRELLAGA ST #3 PENTHOUSE 110 ASPEN, CO 81612 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101 MIAMI, FL 33129 FURNGULF LTD GARRITY PATRICK & PAULA GERSHMAN JOEL & ELAINE A COLO JOINT VENTURE 6126 CHES CT 120 N SPRING ST 616 E HYMAN AVE ORLANDO, FL 32819 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GILKERSON LINDA REV TRUST 50% GLAUSER STEVEN JERRY & BARBARA GOODING SEAN A 80% & RICHARD L 1449 E 56TH ST 460 ST PAUL ST 20% DENVER, CO 80206 C/O PARAGON RANCH INC CHICAGO, IL 60637 620 E HYMAN AVE #1E ASPEN, CO 81611 GORGE MICHAEL D & WENDY S GREENBERG DEAN ARTN E S ASPEN PROPERTIES P 25300 FRANKLIN PARK DR PO BOX 129 PARTNERS LLC FRANKLIN, MI 48025 NEWPORT, MN 55055 10880 WILSHIRE BLVD #2222 LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 GURHOLT CHARLES J & VERNE HESSELSCHWERDT BILL & TRISH HEXNER MICHAEL T TRUSTEE N5999 GURHOLT RD PO BOX 1266 JUSTIS KAREN L TRUSTEE SCANDINAVIA, WI 54977 BASALT, CO 81621 2555 UNION ST SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94123 -3832 HEYS MARIE L TRUSTEE HICKS GILBERT W & PATSY K HOLLAND AND HART 2495 ADARE 3674 WOODLAWN TERRACE PL ATTN: CONTROLLER ANN ARBOR, MI 48104 HONOLULU, HI 96822 PO BOX 8749 DENVER, CO 80201 HOLTZ ABEL & FANA HONEA KATHARINE M HOPKINS ST VENTURE 420 LINCOLN RD STE 220 PO BOX 288 CIO TED MULARZ MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139 BASALT, CO 81821 PO BOX 1328 ASHLAND, OR 97520 HORSEFINS LLC HUNTER SQUARE LLC 90% HURST FERN K C/O PITKIN COUNTY TITLE PO BOX 2 1060 5TH AVE 601 E HOPKINS AVE SONOMA, CA 95476 NEW YORK CITY, NY 10128 ASPEN, CO 81611 • Etiquettes faclles 3 peler ; Repliez it la hachure a0n de I www.avery.conl gabarit AVERY 5160® r Sens de UtIlisez le reveler le rebord Po U Te ' 1- 800- GO-AVERY 9 chargement ent P' P Easy Peel® Labels 1 • Bend along line to 1 0 AVERY® 5160® Use Avery® Template 5160® 1 Feed Paper expose Pop-Up Edge • JENKINS ASIA JURINE LLC 10% KESSLER SEPP H & ANNA TRUST 734 E HOPKINS AVE PO BOX 2 275 CASTLE CREEK RD #204 ASPEN, CO 81611 SONOMA, CA 95476 ASPEN, CO 81611 LAMB DON REV TRUST 50% LARSON KARL G & MARIA M LAZY J RANCH LLC 1449 E 56TH ST PO BOX 8207 CIO W R WALTON CHICAGO, IL 60637 ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 665 ASPEN, CO 81612 LEE GREGORY K & DEBBIE L LEITCH B BRYAN III LINK LYNN B 9777 W CORNELL PL 2606 STATE ST PO BOX 7942 LAKEWOOD, CO 80227 DALLAS, TX 75204 ASPEN, CO 81612 LOVE FRANK C IV FBO 1/4 INT LUNDGREN WIEDINMYER DONNA TRST MAESTRANZI BART C/O LOVES TRAVEL STOPS & CTRY PO BOX 6700 1736 PARK RIDGE POINTE STORES SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 PARK RIDGE, IL 60068 MAHONEY SHARON A MALLARD ENTERPRISES LP MANN KATHLEEN A 99% PO BOX 11694 317 SIDNEY BAKER S #400 PO BOX 2057 ASPEN, CO 81612 KERRVILLE, TX 78028 ASPEN, CO 81612 MANNING FREDERICK J & GAIL P MARASCO BERNARD R 11.0446% MARASCO EMILY A AK MEYER EMILYA 233 S WACKER DR #700 320 DAKOTA DR 11.0446% CHICAGO, IL 60606 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 21701 FLAMENCO MISSION VIEJO, CA 92692 MARASCO FAMILY TRUST 33.4331% MARCHETTI FAMILY LLC MARTELL BARBARA 653 26 1/2 RD 1526 FOREST DR 702 E HYMAN AVE GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 GLENVIEW, IL 60025 ASPEN, CO 81611 MCCUTCHIN GENE P MCDONALD FRANCIS B MCGAFFEY FAMILY & CO NO C LLC 14833 MIDWAY RD PO BOX 4671 12852 NW SHORELAND DR ADDISON, TX 75001 ASPEN, CO 81612 MEQUON, WI 53097 MCGUIRE JOSEPH B MEYER JENNIFER LOVE FBO 1/4 INT MHT LLC PO BOX 120 C/0 LOVES TRAVEL STOPS & CTRY PO BOX 25318 ASPEN, CO 81612 -0120 STORES ST CROIX VIRGIN ISLANDS, 00824 MONTANARO JOHN & SUSAN FAMILY MYSKO BOHDAN D ORIGINAL CURVE CONDO #310 LLC TRUST C/O LAURA PIETRZAK 615 E HOPKINS PO BOX 457 ASPEN, CO 81611 1796 E SOPRIS CREEK RD MALIBU, CA 90265 BASALT, CO 81621 Etiquettes faciles a peler ; Replies la hachure afln de ; www.everycom I Utilisez le gabarit ® AVERY 5160® sans de reveler le rebord Pop-Ur 1- 800-GO -AVERY 9 ® ) chargement ) 1 r Easy Peel® Labels i • MOM Bend along line to I o AVERY® 5760® Use Avery® Template 5160® I Feed Paper mumenim expose Pop-Up Edge" I • P & L PROPERTIES LLC PATTERSON VICKI PINKOS DANNY & ANNA 101 SOUTH 3RD ST #360 PO BOX 8523 PO BOX 6581 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501 ASPEN, CO 81612 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 PITKIN COUNTY RAINER EWALD REDSTONE SUSAN B 530 E MAIN ST #302 409 E COOPER AVE #4 120 E 90TH ST #1113 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10128 REINGOLD ROBERT B INC RIVER PARK IN ASPEN CONDO ASSOC RKJR PROPERTIES LTD 1187 COAST VILLAGE RD STE 1 -116 730 E DURANT 5934 ROYAL LN #250 MONTECITO, CA 93108 ASPEN, CO 81611 DALLAS, TX 75230 ROSENFIELD LYNNE CARYN ROSS NEIL ROTHBERG MARJORIE 709 E MAIN ST #203 100 S SPRING ST 2006 N BANCROFT PKWY ASPEN, CO 81611 -2059 ASPEN, CO 81611 WILMINGTON. DE 19808 ROTHBLUM PHILIP & MARCIA RUST TRUST SALET PHILIPS REV TRUST 40 EAST 80 ST #26A 9401 WILSHIRE BLVD #760 PO BOX 4897 NEW YORK, NY 10075 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 ASPEN. CO 81612 SCI ASPEN LLC SEGREST DAVID H SEID MEL 3200 OHIO WY 2606 STATE ST 1104 DALE AVE DENVER, CO 80209 DALLAS, TX 75204 ASPEN, CO 81611 SELBY TROY E & MAY EYNON SELDIN CHRISTOPHER G SHERMAN CAPITAL COMPANY PO BOX 8234 22 MOUNTAIN CT 5840 E JOSHUA TREE LN ASPEN, CO 81612 BASALT, CO 81621 PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253 SHOAF JEFFREY S SMITH JAMES F & N LINDSAY SPRING STREET LLC PO BOX 3123 600 E MAIN ST #302 C/O BAXTER ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 1112 CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 STARMER MARY JOSEPHINE 11.0446% STEWART TITLE CO STEWART TITLE OF CALIFORNIA 12738 W 84TH DR C/O JENNIFER SCHUMACHER PO BOX 2000 ARVADA, CO 80001 PO BOX 936 VAIL, CO 81658 TAYLORSVILLE, NC 28681 STRIBLING DOROTHY TAYLOR FAMILY INVESTMENTS CO TEL 1999 GST EXEMPT TRST FB0 WACHOVIA BANK NA FL0135 602 E HYMAN #201 C10 BURKE AND NICKEL PO BOX 40062 ASPEN, CO 81611 3336 E 32ND ST #217 JACKSONVILLE, FL 32203 -0062 TULSA, OK 74135 • Etiquettes faciles 1 peter 1 Rap8ez 81a hachure a0n de; www.averycom 1 Utillsez le aback AVERY® 5160® Sans de reveler le rebord Po U TM ' 1- 800 -GO -AVERY 9 ch argement P' P 1 4 Easy Peel® Labels i • Bend along line to 1 Q AVERY® 5160® Use Avery® Template 5160® I Feed Paper expose Pop-Up Edge" I • TRAVIS SHELBY J TROUSDALE JEAN VICK VAN WALRAVEN EDWARD C 1% 208 E 28TH ST - APT 2G 611 E HOPKINS AVE PO BOX 4913 NEW YORK, NY 10016 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 VANWOERKOM LAURIE VRANA MALEKA WACHMEISTER EDWARD C A REV PO BOX 341 PO BOX 4535 TRUST WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 ASPEN, CO 81612 6223 WHITEHALL FARM LN WARRENTON, VA 20187 WAGAR RICH WASKOW SUSAN A WEEKS ROBIN C/O RICH WAGAR ASSOC LLC PO BOX 4975 526 RIDGEWAY DR 100 S SPRING ST #3 ASPEN, CO 81612 METAIRIE, LA 70001 ASPEN, CO 81611 WHITEHILL STEPHEN LANE WHITNEY FAMILY TRUST WILSON STACE S 5320 W HARBOR VILLAGE DR #201 6448 E CRABTREE PL PO BOX 5217 VERO BEACH, FL 32967 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 WOODS FRANK J ID 205 S MILL ST #301A ASPEN, CO 81611 Etiquettes fadles a paler l Sens • de Replies rt la hachure atn del wwwavery.com l Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5160® j chargement reveler le rebord Pop -Upro j 1- B00-GO -AVERY 1 r l. ,.y • RFCF . n4 � ry Op y 2010 PHILIP ROTHBLUM " � Fi7 624 EAST HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEL (970) 925 -5554 FAX (970) 925 -7125 ` 4 4,4 /d , CAA TO 0 , _ _v,, FROM f 1/;� v7 2.--- L r.:�S � � C ® � DATE 7 - 19- 'z ®i il RE G{ 2 E/ 4 elm -- Q..4 . J FAX 17 ? - q'2 -•.. y 9 PAGES z ‘' D-7.1/4--(AA, a ir e A azt 4 - iii- j jAm i a,,, 1 1 4 1 t r,.1 1.i-w,„aL , 'At-7 - —reCficy ifi i P2-t%' k (,9. .1 z)'9 33-- Cie nr7 O ®,, - v .ti-�.,...'p jaa, `D ' //7:,,,a2 • • • 1 ' d Xd3 13f?J3SH1 dH 14dSO:2 0102 61 1 f RFCF fr F O PHILIP ROTFIBLUM C /n, I 9 2p111 624 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 O S . —r ilft$ 1 7 July 19,2010 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen 130 So Galena St Aspen, CO, 81611 Re; July 20, 2010 Conceptual Design hearing 632 E Hopkins Ave Dear Board Members, This is to retract the comments and recommendation in my prior letter to you of July15, which failed to consider the overall concept being presented to you, in favor of these thoughts and conclusions. The proposed concept for 632 E Hopkins Ave should be denied on the following basis: The C -1 zone has been designated as a transition zone between the Commercial Core zone and the Residential zoning to the east of Spring Street. The current step down of building heights from Stewart Title at 620 and our home at 624 to the residential usage on the east of Spring Street should be maintained to conform to this transition. The proposed increase in height at 632 does violence to blending with the existing street scape and with surrounding properties, the requirement of HPC for many years. Moreover, any such roof top structure, if ultimately approved, must observe the existing 25 foot front set back from Hopkins Ave of Stewart Title and our home. The minimal set back of the existing grandfathered 632 building should not extend to any changes, as you well know. Prior to any further consideration by you, absent your denial, marker poles should be placed for the proposed structure. I respectfully urge your denial of this concept as currently being presented. Sincerely, PHILIP ROTHB IM 2 •d XH3 13rM3SH1 dH WdS0 :2 0102 6T TnC so n" THE CITY OF ASPEN Land Use Application Determination of Completeness Date: June 8, 2010 Dear City of Aspen Land Use Review Applicant, We have received your land use application and reviewed it for completeness. The case number and name assigned to this property is 0028.2010.ASLU — 632 E Hopkins, Commercial Design Review. The planner assigned to this case is Drew Alexander. ❑ Your Land Use Application is incomplete: We found that the application needs additional items to be submitted for it to be deemed complete and for us to begin reviewing it. We need the following additional submission contents for you application: Please submit the aforementioned missing submission items so that we may begin reviewing your application. No review hearings will be scheduled until all of the submission contents listed above have been submitted and are to the satisfaction of the City of Aspen Planner reviewing the land use application. ❑ Your Land Use Application is complete: If there are not missing items listed above, then your application has been deemed complete to begin the land use review process. Other submission items may be requested throughout the review process as deemed necessary by the Community Development Department. Please contact me at 429 -2759 if you have any questions. Thank You, ;i / •nnifer "' an, Deputy Director City of Aspen, Community Development Department For Office Use Only: Qualifying Applications: Mineral Rights Notice Required SPA PUD COWOP Yes No Subdivision (creating more than I additional lot) GMQS Allotments Residential Affordable Housing Yes No Commercial E.P.F. ¼, • 632 EAST HOPKINS BUILDING RENOVATION Conceptual Commercial Design Review Application ts es.Q. DAVID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTS PC 8 1 TEL ti LAX ■fEJ 4 Application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review for the Property at 632 East Hopkins Avenue and 119 Spring Street in Aspen, Colorado Submitted by: Rudin West LLC. 533 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 970.920.2212 06.04.2010 Prepared by: David Johnston Architects, pc 418 East Cooper Avenue, #206 Aspen, CO 81611 970.925.3444 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. PROPERTY BACKGROUND 2 III. RENOVATION PROPOSAL 4 A. Expansion and Layout 5 1. Site Plan and Public Amenity Area 5 2. Main Level 7 3. Second Level 7 4. Third Level 8 5. Parking and Utility/Trash/Recycling Services Area 8 B. Exterior Design and Massing 9 IV. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 12 C. Conceptual Design Review 12 1. Public Amenity Space (Section 26.412.060.A) 12 2. Public amenity (Section 26.575.030) 12 3. Utility, delivery, and trash service provision (Section 26.412.060.B) 13 4. Utility/trash/recycle service areas (Section 26.575.060) 13 D. Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives 14 1. Design Objectives 14 2. Street & Alley System 16 • 3. Parking 17 4. Public Amenity Space 17 5. Building Placement 19 6. Building Height, Mass & Scale 20 Appendix A — APPLICATION DOCUMENTS A Appendix B — SITE & DESIGN DOCUMENTS B 0 I. INTRODUCTION The intention of this application is to request approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission for Conceptual Design Review of the proposed renovation to the property at 632 East Hopkins Avenue and 119 South Spring Street (the "Property") in the City of J Aspen, Colorado (Legal Description - CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Block: 98 Lot: S AND EAST HALF O.F LOT R). This application is submitted pursuant to Title 26, Land Use Regulations, of the Aspen Municipal Code (the "Code ") by the ownership of the property, Rudin West, LLC (the "Applicant "). In accordance with the Code and as outlined in the initial Pre - Application Conference Summary (Exhibit 1, Appendix A), this application is the first of a three -part submittal for development approval and is to be followed by a review for GMQS Allotment, Affordable Housing and Subdivision, as well as Final Design Review. The material addressed in this application is based on a second Pre - Application Conference and is included as Exhibit 2 in Appendix A. A Commitment of Title Insurance disclosing the ownership of the property as Rudin West LLC is included as Exhibit 3 in Appendix A. Permission for David Johnston Architects, pc to represent the Applicant is attached as Exhibit 4 in Appendix A. The Land Use Application Form, the Dimensional Requirement Form, the Agreement for Payment Fee Form and a List of Adjacent Property Owners are included in Appendix A as Exhibits 5 -8 respectively. This application packet is organized in sections to provide the reviewer(s) with easy reference to the requested material included in the following sections: • Background on the existing property and any previous approvals as well as the documentation of any correspondence that has occurred between the Applicant and the Community Development Department and other City Departments; • Renovation Proposal outlining the scope of the improvements and corresponding architectural drawings and representation of the proposed changes that will be undertaken for this project; • Regulatory Requirements identifying how the application is compliant with the requirements and guidelines of Code and the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines (the "Design Guidelines ") 1 0 and which are specific to the Planning and Zoning Commission's review of this project. All related application, site and design documents for the Commission's review of this Conceptual Design are included in appendices at the back of this application packet. 11. PROPERTY BACKGROUND Located at the northwest corner of the intersection of East Hopkins Avenue and South Spring Street, the Property is situated on the eastern edge of both the City of Aspen's C -1 zone district and the Commercial Character Area of the City's Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objective and Guidelines (Exhibits 1 and 9, Appendix B). The existing two -story building on the Property (the `Building ") 'Was initially constructed in 1976 and only minor interior renovations have occurred since this date, none of which required additional Land Use approvals or Certificates of Occupancy to be issued. The title commitment (Exhibit 3, Appendix A) and a records search at the City of Aspen's Community Development Department revealed no additional amendments or approval documents to the originally approved development. The use of the building has been exclusively office, located on both levels of the two - story above -grade structure. A basement comprised of mechanical and storage area exists below the rear (north) portion of the building. The Building is constructed of typical wood stud framing and veneered with a fluted concrete block. The form of the building is characterized as a fairly simple rectilinear structure with bulky wooden decks and window overhangs protruding from the facades and large fin- shaped light monitors on the roof that were intended to house photovoltaic panels, however never realized (Exhibit 2, Appendix B). The front yard of the property along Hopkins Avenue contains a slightly sunken courtyard enclosed by a low wall and comprised of a mix of concrete sidewalk and grass. The east yard of the property along Spring Street contains a concrete sidewalk and grass with two fruiting trees and a single Aspen tree (Exhibits 3 and 4, Appendix B). The lot area of the Property is 4,500 sq. ft. and the gross building floor area of the above- , grade levels is approximately 4,588 sq. ft. with an additional 780 sq. ft. in the basement (Exhibits 5, 6 and 7, Appendix B). The interior floor -to- ceiling heights for the main and 2 AIM a 0 upper levels are approximately eight and one - quarter (81/4) feet and seven and three - quarter (7 feet respectively, Iwith the maximum exterior height of the building reaching approximately twenty -six (26) feet. The existing minimum front setback from the property line along Hopkins Avenue is approximately eleven (11) feet, while the minimum setbacks from the property lines along Spring Street and the rear alley are approximately twenty (20) inches and twenty -one (21) feet respectively (Exhibits 3 and 4, Appendix B). The setback from the property line to the west is approximately eight (8) inches, the space of which was enclosed by the neighboring property owner pursuant to a license agreement made June 6 1996 (Exhibit 9, Appendix A). Pursuant to the standards of Section 26.575.030 of the Code, approximately 823 sq. ft. or eighteen (18) percent of the property qualifies as Public amenity space (Exhibit 8, Appendix B). The property contains four (4) parking stalls perpendicular to and accessed from the rear alley. To the west of the parking stalls is an existing concrete area designated for trash, utility and recycling services and is approximately twenty -two (22) feet by six (6) feet (132 sq. ft), running lengthwise north to south (Exhibits 3 and 4, Appendix B). An initial pre - application conference with City of Aspen Community Development Staff was held on January 26, 2010, and a subsequent conference held on April 12, 2010, each of which are included as Exhibits 1 and 2 in Appendix A respectively. This application for Commercial Design Review is being submitted in accordance with the pre - application summary dated April 12, 2010. In addition to review by Community Development Staff and prior to a public hearing before Planning and Zoning Commission, this application will be referred to the City of Aspen Parks and Open Space and Engineering Departments. Staff members from both departments have been contacted and the general intent of the application and the conceptual design scope conveyed and discussed. The unofficial comments from both departments have been incorporated into the scope of the design documentation, as well as identified within the points of this application where relevant. 3 1 III. RENOVATION PROPOSAL The intention of the proposed Project at 632 East Hopkins and 119 South Spring Street is to renovate the existing two -story building, and in doing so increase the amount of commercial area, modernize the existing building's interior and exterior architecture, enhance the public amenity space and pedestrian experience and add a new third level. In addition to more commercial area, one (1) new affordable housing unit and one (1) new free market residential unit are proposed. With the purpose of utilizing the existing structure to the greatest extent possible and minimize new material use and additional infrastructure, the project is being proposed as a renovation rather than a complete razing of the existing building. The Applicant is committed to creating a sustainable project both in terms of social /cultural factors as well as environmental considerations, and is therefore proposing to attain an undetermined level of LEED certification for the completed renovation. Further, the Applicant is sensitive to the impacts that a fully excavated and newly built site has on surrounding property owners and the public in general. As a result, a primary focus is to reduce the associated impacts to the greatest degree possible, while seeing through an exceptional project that enhances the neighborhood, strengthens an important corner of the downtown commercial area and improves the overall public experience. An initial public outreach effort has been undertaken to introduce the immediate surrounding property owners to the proposed project and solicit feedback in order to address any input or concerns into the design and construction process for the renovation. The initial letter mailed to the six most immediate property owners is provided as Exhibit 10 in Appendix A. The conceptual layout and vertical design is guided by the property's location in the C -1 zone district as well as the standards associated with the City of Aspen's Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. The C -1 zone district is intended to provide a mix of commercial /office and residential uses. The surrounding properties are a variety of single -use and multi -use commercial /office and residential buildings. As the property is located on the fringe of the current "downtown core ", the expected immediate use of the non - residential floor area is office. However, as the "core" 4 • 0 is and will continue to expand, the main level may accommodate future commercial demand (Exhibit 9, Appendix B). In the C -1 zone district, gross square footage for free - ?market residential uses is restricted to a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.5:1.0, or 2,250 square feet for this property. Commercial square footage is restricted to an FAR of 1.5:1.0, or 6,750 sq. ft. for this property. The size of the on -site affordable housing unit will be determined by either the size of the new free - market residential unit or the additional net leasable floor area, whichever requires the greater amount of mitigation. The overall maximum square footage allowed for a mixed -use building in the C -1 zone district is restricted to an FAR of 2.5:1.0, or 11,250 sq.. ft. for this property. There are no setback requirements for properties of this use in the C -1 zone district and the maximum height allowed is twenty -eight (28) feet for two -story elements and thirty-six (36) feet for three - story elements, which may be increased to forty (40) feet through commercial design 1 review. A. Expansion and Layout The following subsections describe the conceptual design of the proposed renovation. The descriptions in each subsection correspond to architectural drawings in Appendix B that are intended to serve as layout, programming and massing studies in order to convey the proposed design of the renovated building. As the design of the proposed renovation is only at a conceptual level, exact calculations for FAR and Net Leasable Area have not yet been determined. The use of the basement will remain as storage and mechanical. It has been confirmed that all FAR and Net Leasable Area restrictions will be met for each of the different uses with regard to the proposed layout and design. At a conceptual level of design it has been estimated that the total FAR is approximately 9,500 square feet, well below the maximum allowable area of 11,250 square feet. 1. Site Plan and Public Amenity Area The Site Plan and Landscape Plan reflect the proposed expansion of the building and indicate the resulting enhanced public amenity space design and streetscape planting plan (Exhibits 10 and 11, Appendix B). To the south of the building along Hopkins Avenue, the existing courtyard is to remain in its 5 general location and remain approximately sixteen (16) inches below the level of the sidewalk. The courtyard will be accessed at east and west points by an ADA accessible ramp and a set of stairs respectively. The courtyard is proposed to be hardscaped with a pervious paver system and programmed with general pedestrian amenities such as built -in benches, sitting areas and planters. The location of the existing low wall separating the courtyard from the public right -of -way will be improved and incorporated into the design and function of the public amenity space. A planting strip with streetscape trees will be improved and extend from the low wall across the property line and into the public right -of -way. The width of the planting strip, tree species, spacing dimensions and other specifications will be determined through consultation with the City's Parks, Tails and Open Space department and Engineering department. The existing open space to the east of the building along Spring Street will be altered as a result of the proposed footprint expansion. In doing so, the public amenity space will be improved and formalized as a plaza in order to provide public gathering space, while also announcing the entrance of the building and activating the public realm along this streetscape. Similar to the courtyard along Hopkins Avenue, the plaza will be hardscaped with a pervious paver system and is designed to extend from the building facade beyond the property line to engage the sidewalk, resulting in an off -site improvement condition that has been introduced and discussed with Engineering Department staff. A planting strip with streetscape trees and landscaping is proposed to run the length of the property line, from the southern corner to the north alley. The planting strip and landscaping will extend from the building facade across the property line and adjoin the existing sidewalk, resulting in an off -site improvement condition that has been introduced to and discussed with Parks, Trails and Open Space Department staff. Where it engages the proposed plaza, the landscaping and planting strip will be integrated into the design and function of the hardscaped area. The width of the planting strip, tree species, spacing dimensions and other 6 specifications will be determined through consultation with the City's Parks, Tails and Open Space department and Engineering department. 2. Main Level The proposed footprint of the building retains the majority of the exterior building walls at the main level in their existing locations (Exhibit 14, Appendix B). The exterior walls along Spring Street to the east are reconfigured and relocated closer to the property line in order to increase • gross square footage and allow for a more formalized lobby entrance to this facade of the building. The parking is located within a garage and carport system along the alley to the north, maintaining the existing parking and the existing trash, utility and recycling area configurations. The entry lobby along Spring Street is set back from the primary grid line of the east facing facade and all vertical circulation is located adjacent to the lobby in a central core of the building. The recessed entry/lobby area divides the commercial area to the south from the parking and service accommodations to the north into two primary building masses along Spring Street. A secondary entrance along Spring Street is proposed in order to allow for maximum versatility for the commercial /office area configurations, as well as access to the residential units. Two points of ingress and egress are proposed for the ground level commercial/office area. The primary entrance to the building is located along Spring Street through the lobby and a secondary entrance is located along Hopkins Avenue to the south. 3. Second Level The second level layout reflects the proposed footprint of the building with new floor area added along Spring Street as well as above the parking accommodations along the north alley (Exhibit 15, Appendix B). Vertical circulation for the second level is provided via the interior stair and the elevator, both of which are accessed through the Spring Street entrances. A second level circulation lobby will allow access to a variety of suite configurations, as well as access to the affordable housing unit, which will be 7 located in the north portion of the second level. Portions of the second level floor plan are angled and cantilevered slightly off -axis from the orthogonal street grid in order to create unique design elements, maximize solar gain and achieve greater views of Independence Pass and Red Mountain. The off -axis east - facing plane is carried down to the main entry level of the lobby as well as up to the east facing facade of the new third level. • 4. Third Level • • The proposed new third level is comprised of a proposed free - market residential unit and additional office floor area (Exhibit 16, Appendix B). The intended primary access to the third level uses will be accommodated via the elevator with the internal stair serving as required emergency ingress and egress. The exterior walls of the third level are set back from the facade wall lines of the levels below in order to minimize the verticality of the three -story structure from the street/pedestrian perspective. The resulting roof deck will serve as private outdoor space for the free - market unit. An exterior spiral stair will afford roof access, the area of which will be occupied by usable deck area as well as a proposed photovoltaic array and mechanical equipment associated with the entire building and its uses. The off -axis wall described previously is carried across a portion of east facing third level facade in order to achieve views of Independence Pass and offset the third level from the more traditional rectilinear building base below. 5. Parking and Utility/Trash/Recycling Services Area The location of off - street parking is proposed to remain in its original configuration - four stalls perpendicular to and accessed from the alley (Exhibit 10, Appendix B). Two parking stalls will be enclosed in a garage, while the remaining two will be enclosed in a carport in order to remain open and allow for access to the utility /trash/recycling services area. This area is proposed to remain in its existing location, the dimensions of which are adequate for the requirements of the proposed building renovation. The 8 0 0 utility /trash/recycling services area will be improved as required and will be enclosed pursuant to Section 26.575.060.A.1 of the Code. B. Exterior Design and Massing The proposed renovation is intended to modernize both the exterior and interior architecture of the existing building in terms of use, function, aesthetic and public experience. Analysis of the property concluded that its location as a corner property as well as being located on the fringe of the Commercial Character Area and the Central Mixed Use Character Area create a variety of influences upon the site that inform the layout as well as the exterior architecture and massing of the proposed building (Exhibit 9, Appendix B). The East Hopkins facade has greater influence from the predominantly commercial character of the block and the commercial core to the west, while the South Spring Street facade faces multi- family uses and character to the east in the CMU character area. As a result the proposed architecture and massing of each of these primary facades are designed to cohesively reference these conditions. In general, the proposed exterior architecture of the building makes reference to the historic precedent of the downtown core with the use of traditional brick to establish a solid base to the building. The East Hopkins facade incorporates a greater degree of fenestration, referencing the typical storefront glazing and patterning found in the commercial core (Exhibits 17 and 20, 21 and 22 Appendix B). This south facing street wall will remain at its current location and elevation with all ingress and egress through the courtyard, which exists approximately sixteen (16) inches below the sidewalk. The second level will remain on the same vertical plane as the main level with a downplayed fenestration pattern of typical punched openings, providing for distinction between the main and upper levels. At the southeast corner of the second level, a slightly off -axis window element adds intrigue to the design as the character transitions around the corner to the less- formalized facade of the South Spring Street building elevation. 9 O 0 As indicated in the previous description of the proposed building expansion and layout, the footprint of the building to the east along Spring Street creates a longer street wall than is the case with the original building's east. In order to break the linearity of the east street wall, the center of the elevation is recessed, creating a void in the building footprint plan as well as the facade, separating the mass into separate pedestrian - scaled two -story brick forms rather than a single unbroken wall plane facade (Exhibits 17, 20 and 23, Appendix B). Further, the entry to the building along this elevation is slightly off -axis from the orthogonal street grid, matching the angle of the second level window element at the southeast corner and the window element at the northeast corner of the building at the alley. The purpose of this off-axis organizing plane that runs through the building is threefold: it creates a unique design element; it maximizes solar gain; and it achieves greater 'views of Independence Pass and Red Mountain from the second and third levels. The use of non -brick masonry, steel, wood and glass at the recessed areas contrast the otherwise brick base, providing design interest, while also referencing the non- brick materials of the residential properties to the east. These non -brick materials are then carried up to the third level of this elevation, which is primarily residential in use. The theme of the traditional brick base is carried around the northeast corner to the alley, although it is broken momentarily at the corner with the third and fmal off -axis element at the second and third levels (Exhibits 18 and 23, Appendix B). A composition of the various materials used throughout the building are cohesively organized throughout the northern facade, creating interest the alley experience of the building and views of the building from the street and sidewalk approach from the north along South Spring Street. The proposed new third level of the building is set back from the wall line of the main and second level, emphasizing the two -story brick base ancimizing the perception of a three -story structure from the street and sidewalk perspectives (Exhibits 20 - 23, Appendix B). The use of alternative materials contrasting the brick will further distinguish the third level form from the massing below. Generous glazing throughout this level and the use of low sloping shed and flat roofs also reduce the height impact of the main level. 10 1 A significant design challenge throughout the building is the existing floor -to- floor heights. As the project is being proposed as a renovation, a strategy is being implemented to retain as much of the existing structure while improving the interior and exterior architecture. As noted in the above property background section, the floor -to -floor heights are restrictive, resulting in approximate floor -to- ceiling heights of eight (8) feet on both levels. To improve the experience and function of the commercial spaces on both levels, it is proposed that the second level floor be raised to a higher elevation in order to increase the floor -to- ceiling height on the main level. Further, the existing roof is proposed to be removed, and a new third level created, allowing greater vertical height on the second level as well. The main level floor will remain at its current elevation and relationship with both streetscapes. The proposed floor -to- ceiling heights for the main and second levels are approximately ten (10) and nine and one half (91/2) feet respectively (Exhibits 17 and 18, Appendix B). The average floor -to- ceiling height of the third level is proposed to be approximately ten (10) feet. The maximum allowable building height in the C -1 zone district is thirty -six (36) feet above grade, which may be increased to forty (40) feet via Commercial Design Review. Through the effort to increase the floor -to- ceiling heights on the main and second levels and provide adequate height on the new third level, the maximum height of the building structure will be approximately thirty-six (36) feet; however, the majority of the structure is below thirty-six (36) feet (Exhibits 17 and 18, Appendix B). The street elevation architectural drawing (Exhibit 19, Appendix B) along East Hopkins Avenue and South Spring Street identifies the height of the proposed building in relationship to the surrounding properties. In the context of the surrounding buildings on the block and neighboring blocks, it is apparent that the proposed height is appropriately scaled as a corner building and creates building - height variation along both streetscapes. 1 1 11 IV. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS Pursuant to Section 26.412.020, all commercial, lodging and mixed -use development with a commercial component is subject to a commercial design review and approval. This section discusses the project's compliance with each of the criteria for conceptual design review outlined in Section 26.412.060 and the City's Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Objective and Guidelines. All design material pertinent to conceptual design review as indicated in Section 26.412.040.A.1 are provided in Appendix B of this application. C. Conceptual Design Review Pursuant to Section 26.412.060 the Code, the following criteria are required to be met for conceptual commercial design approval. 1. Public Amenity Space (Section 26.412.060.A) As described in the above Section III.A.4 of this application, the existing public amenity space associated with the property as defined in the Code is proposed to be redesigned to enhance the pedestrian environment and improve the overall public experience at this property. The described design and functional intent of the public amenity space, both on and off -site, is to activate the streetscape on both Hopkins Avenue and Spring Street facades and provide a seamless pedestrian experience across the public and private realms, connecting the sidewalk to the programmable space associated with the property. Pursuant to this Section of the Code, and as is the proposal for this property, the public amenity space is taking the form of physical and operational improvements to both the private property and the public right -of- way. 2. Public amenity (Section 26.575.030) Pursuant to Section 26.575.030.B, for the redevelopment of a parcel on which less than twenty -five (25) percent of the existing property qualifies as public amenity space, the existing amount, with a minimum of ten (10) percent, shall be the effective requirement. As indicated in Exhibit 8, 12 p O Appendix B, 823 square feet or eighteen (18) percent of the existing property qualifies as public amenity space. As indicated in Exhibit 12, Appendix B, the proposed on -site public amenity space is 730 square feet or sixteen (16) percent while 394 square feet of new and improved public amenity space is provided off -site in the adjacent public right -of -way. The combined amount of proposed public amenity space (both on and off -site) is 1,124 square feet or twenty -five (25) percent of the parcel's 4,500 square feet. Pursuant to Section 26.575.030. a combination of on and off -site public amenity space is approvable by the Planning and Zoning Commission if the pedestrian environment is improved. The Landscape Plan (Exhibit 11, Appendix B) indicates that the proposed public amenity space is in accordance with the Section 26.575.030.F, and that the pedestrian environment in the public and private realm is greatly enhanced along both the Hopkins Avenue and Spring Street streetscapes. 3. Utility, delivery, and trash service provision (Section 26.412.060.B) As described in the above Section III.A.5 of this application, the existing area of the property that is devoted to utility, trash and recycling is proposed to remain in its current location and configuration, meeting the requirements of this section. All mechanical equipment will be located within the building or on the roof, with all exhaust venting through the roof. It is not expected that any mechanical or utility equipment will be located in the designated area. 4. Utility /trash/recycle service areas (Section 26.575.060) Section 26.575.060.A of the Code recommends that for all new commercial development, a volume of approximately twenty (20) feet long by ten (10) feet wide by ten (10) feet high, or 200 square feet shall be programmed for a utility /trash/recycling service area. The existing utility /trash/recycle service area of the property is in approximate compliance with the standards outlined in this section of the Code. The existing concrete area designated for trash, utility and recycling services extends along the western edge of the property adjoining the alley and is approximately twenty - 13 two (22) feet long by six (6) feet wide (132 sq. ft.), running lengthwise north to south (Exhibits 3 and 4, Appendix B). It is proposed that this area will be enclosed with a screening system in accordance with standards of this section of the Code and will not impede upon the existing parking stalls. The area will be roofed over and occupy a portion of the proposed carport, maintaining at least a ten (10) foot vertical clearance. Pursuant to Section 26.575.060.B, it is requested that .the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the slight reduction in the minimum required area for the utility /trash/recycle service area, based on the fact that the project is a renovation that is not disturbing the main level alley frontage of the property. It is proposed the existing utility /trash/recycle service area will be improved to meet each of the standards outlined in this Section of the Code in order to satisfy the approval for the slight dimensional reduction. D. Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives Pursuant to subsection 26.412.050.C, the proposed renovation must comply with the standards for the Commercial Character Area within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. Included in Appendix B of this application package are the required design documents for representing the external character, height and massing of the proposed renovation, including architectural plans, elevations, renderings, and photographs. Each of the criteria required for conceptual design approval are summarized below. 1. Design Objectives a. Strengthen the sense of relatedness with the Commercial Core Historic District. The massing and use of materials of the proposed project references the characteristics of buildings of the commercial core without replicating them. The proposed building also adds elements of design that reference the property's proximity the predominantly residential CMU character area. The site design provides public gathering space that is intended to 14 "pull" the activity of the commercial core to the property's location at the edge of the Commercial Character Area. b. Maintain a retail orientation. As the proposed project is a renovation, the East Hopkins Avenue facade will not be located any closer to the sidewalk than it currently exists. However, the street wall fenestration and the redesign and function of the existing courtyard will enhance the retail orientation and function of this facade. The facade of the South Spring Street elevation will be brought closer to the sidewalk and will enhance its engage with the pedestrian environment. c. Promote creative, contemporary design. The strategy for material use and the juxtaposition of atypical design moves with traditional design and massing as described in the above section effectively reference the historical character of downtown Aspen, while offering a contemporary interpretation of design appropriate for the location and context of the property. d. Encourage a well - defined street wall. As a renovation, the location of the street wall along East Hopkins Avenue is not relocated; however, the scale and character of the improved facade reinforces the street wall with appropriate variation along the streetscape. The street wall along South Spring Street is enhanced, yet provides a break in the longer elevation, bringing the street wall down to a scale appropriate to the pedestrian. � \x ��, ' e. R' 1 •ct the variety in building heights seen traditionally The height and scale of the proposed building increases the varie in V-,C heights along the East Hopkins Avenue and South Spring Stree streetscapes. As a corner building anchoring the southeast corner of the block, the increased height enhances the streetscape experience and the variety of heights as seen traditionally in the commercial area of do Aspen. 15 0 f Accommodate outdoor public spaces while establishing a clear definition to the street edge. The improvement of the existing courtyard and creation of the new plaza to the south and east create active public spaces while the addition and improvement of planting strips and street trees along each streetscape further defines the street/sidewalk edge of the property. g. Promote variety in the street level experience. The experience at the street level along East Hopkins Avenue and South Spring Street are unique and varied between each other as well as with other street level conditions at adjacent properties and throughout the block. As described in the above section, the character of the building facades and public spaces along each streetscape are slightly different from each other and reflect the context of the surrounding properties and character areas. 2. Street & Alley System a. Orient a primary entrance toward the street. The primary entrance to the building, which serves as the access to all uses within the building, is along and oriented towards South Spring Street. A secondary entrance to the main level commercial space is oriented towards East Hopkins Avenue and accessed through the courtyard. aintain the established town grid in all projects. \I v The street facades, the public spaces and the creation of the stre a V'4 a planting strip and tree plantings each enhance the orthogonal street grid associated with downtown Aspen. c. Public walkways and through courts should be designed to create access to additional commercial space. As the property is relatively small, no public walkways or throughways exist on the property. d. Develop an alley facade to create visual interest. 16 0 0 As described in the above section, the alley facade reinforces the design character and massing of the other facades of the building by pulling materials around into the alley and composing them add entrance to the approach to the building along South Spring Street from the north. 3. Parking a. The visual impacts of structured parking should be minimized. All off - street structured parking on the property is located along the alley and the parking immediate parking adjacent to the South Spring Street public right -of -way is enclosed with a garage door. The remaining two stalls to the west are left open as carports in order to provide required access to the utility, trash, recycling services area. b. Structured parking should be placed within a 'wrap' of commercial and/or residential uses. Although not a typical `wrapped' parking condition, the incorporation of the parking into the alley facade by cantilevered structure above the arking, minimizes the impact of the vehicles and vehicular access on the edestrian experience. 4. Public Amenity Space a. 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; and be paved or otherwise landscaped. As the project is a renovation, certain criteria of the subsection are not able to be met to the fullest extent possible. All public amenity space abuts the public sidewalk, but the existing courtyard along East Hopkins Avenue is approximately sixteen (16) inches below the sidewalk. Both a set of stair and an ADA compliant ramp will provide access to the courtyard. All defined public amenity space is open to the sky above ' and swill be landscaped in non - programmable areas and hardscaped at all programmable areas. 17 4 0 `` A street facing public amenity space shall remain subordinate to th line of building fronts in the Commercial Area. The combination of the hardscaped courtyard and plaza, landscaped areas and the streetscape tree planting strips will maintain the building line and maintain a well defined sidewalk edge. c. Street facing amenity space shall contain features to promote and enhance its use. Both the . hardscaped courtyard and plaza will contain features including but not limited to !built in benches, tables and chairs, and landscape /art elements to enhance the human scale of the areas, allowing for programmable use or casual use. d. Mid -block walkways shall remain subordinate in scale to traditional lot widths. Although not a true mid -block walkway, the recessed area of the building along the South Spring Street facade will remain subordinate to the scale of the widths of the building masses to its south and north. e. A mid -block walkway should provide public access to the following: additional commercial space and frontage within the walkway; and uses located at the rear of the property that are commercial in nature. Although it does provide access to the building and its multiple uses, the recessed area along South Spring Street is not a formal mid -block walkway, and therefore this criterion is not applicable to the proposed project. f An alley side amenity space shall be designed to have these characteristics: No alley side amenity space is proposed and therefore this criterion is not applicable to the proposed project. g. A second floor amenity space should meet all of the following criteria: No second floor amenity space is proposed and therefore this criterion is not applicable to the proposed project. 18 h. Second level space should be oriented to maximize solar access and views to the mountains or other landmarks. No second floor amenity space is proposed and therefore this criterion is not applicable to the proposed project. i. Second level space should provide public access by way of a visible and attractive public stair or elevator from a public street, alley, or street level amenity space. No second floor amenity space is proposed and therefore this criterion is not applicable to the proposed project. j. Second level dining may be considered. No second floor amenity space is proposed and therefore this criterion is not applicable to the proposed project. k. Front and side yard amenity space should be provided in the context of a historic one story residential type building. This property is not a historic one -story residential structure and therefore this criterion is not applicable to the proposed project. 5. Building Placement a. Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk's edge. As the proposed project is a renovation and some facades will not be relocated, aspects of this criterion do not apply. The storefront line on the East Hopkins Avenue block is inconsistent and ill- defined and the builiding's setback from the property line will remain to accommodate the improved courtyard. Although setback, the facade line extends out equal or beyond adjacent buildings and maintains a generally consistent facade line down the block, albeit one that does not extend to the property lines. The South Spring Street facade will be pulled towards the property line, creating a more defined street wall along the sidewalk. The existing lawn strip between the building wall and the sidewalk will remain at its current location, but will be enhanced to incorporate landscaping and streetscape tree plantings within. 19 c 0 b. A building may be set back from its side lot lines in accordance with design guidelines identified in Street & Alley System and Public Amenity Space guidelines. The setbacks of the proposed building are in compliance with the criteria of the Street and Alley System and Public Amenity guidelines. i 4-a '0' 7 , : Building facades shall , ' parall ' I the facing street(s) and primary entrances shall be oriented toward the street. The building facades along East Hopkins Avenue and South Spring S treet are facing the street and the entrances are oriented towards the street s well. Orient a new building to be parallel to its lot lines, similar to that of traditional building orientations. The proposed building is parallel to its lot lines. 6. Building Height, Mass & Scale a. Building facade height shall be varied from the facade height of adjacent buildings of the same number of stories by a minimum of 2 feet. The new proposed height of the building is effectively varied from adjacent and surrounding properties on the block and adjacent blocks. As a corner building the increased height strengthens its location as an anchor to the block and the height variation to the immediate adjacent building to the west is appropriate. 7 b. A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the Commercial Area. The addition of the third level to the base of the existing building enhances the variation in building heights in the Commercial Area. The streetscape elevation along East Hopkins Avenue varies in height from thirty -two (32) feet to nearly fifty (50) feet. With an average height of less than thirty-six (36) feet and a maximum height of thirty-six (36) feet, the proposed building cohesively relates to the surrounding building heights and scales. 20 0 c. Height variation should be achieved using one or more of the following: vary the building height in accordance with traditional lot width; set back the upper floor to vary the building facade profile(s) and the roof forms across the width and the depth of the building; vary the facade (or parapet) heights at the front; and step down the rear of the building towards the alley, in conjunction with other design standards and guidelines. Height variation on the building is achieved through a combination of the listed recommendations. The proposed East Hopkins Avenue elevation of the building is three stories, with the third level recessed from the facade line of the lower two levels. The front plane of each level at this elevation meets the height requirements restrictions of the C -1 zone district. The proposed South Spring Street elevation is also three stories with the majority of the third level recessed from the facade line of the lower two levels. As this is the longer of the two street elevations, the center roof form that relates to the recessed plaza area in the site plan steps down to further accentuate the perception of two separate primary masses that occupy the north and south portions of the property. L On sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths, the facade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. Although measures have been taken to vary the facade heights, as the site does not comprise more than two traditional lot widths, this criterion is not applicable to the proposed project. e. Buildings on sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths shall achieve a minimum of two of the following: Although measures have been taken to vary the facade heights, as the site does not comprise more than two traditional lot widths, this criterion is applicable to the proposed project. f. A new building should step down in scale to respect the height, form and scale of a historic building within its immediate setting. As the immediately surrounding buildings are not historic, this criterion is not applicable to the proposed project. 21 g. New development adjacent to a single story historic building that was originally constructed for residential use shall not exceed 28 ft. in height within 30 ft. of the side property line adjacent to the historic structure within the same block face. As the immediately surrounding buildings are not historic, this criterion is'not applicable to the proposed project. • 22 APPENDIX A - APPLICATION DOCUMENTS Exhibit 1. Pre - Application Conference Summary from 01.26.2010 Exhibit 2. Pre - Application Conference Summary from 04.12.2010 Exhibit 3. Disclosure of Ownership (Title Commitment) Exhibit 4. Applicant Representation Letter Exhibit 5. Land Use Application • • Exhibit 6. Dimensional Requirements Form Exhibit 7. Application Fee Payment Agreement Form Exhibit 8. Properties Owners to be Noticed within 300' Exhibit 9. License Agreement to Seal Space between Buildings Exhibit 10. Letter to Immediate Property Owners A 'EXHIBIT 1 I CITY OF ASPEN PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Jennifer Phelan, 970.429.2759 DATE: 01/26/10 PROJECT: 632 E Hyman Ave REPRESENTATIVE: Adam Roy, 970.925.3444 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision and related reviews DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at the corner of Spring and Hopkins and is solely used as commercial office space. The property is located within the C -1 zone district and is not a landmark property. The owner is interested in expanding /redeveloping the site with additional commercial net leasable space and a free - market residence. According to the authorized representative, it is anticipated that on -site affordable housing mitigation will be provided. Both the expansion of commercial development (-250 sq. ft.) and the addition of new free - market units are considered major growth management reviews. As such, a growth management allocation (net leasable and a free - market unit) is required and the application for the allotments can only be submitted either February 15 or August 15 ( §26.470.110 C). Prior to submission on either of these dates, Conceptual Commercial Design Review shall be granted. Below is a link to the Land Use application Form for your convenience. http: / /www. aspen oitkin.com /Portals /0 /docs /C itv /Comdev /Apps %20a nd %20Fees /la nduseappform. adf Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common development review procedures 26.412 Commercial design review Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines 26.470 Growth Management Quota System 26.470.080 (1) Expansion or new commercial development (greater than 250 sq. ft.) 26.470.080 (2) New free - market residential units within a multi - family or mixed use project 26.470.050 General requirements 26.470.070 (4) Affordable housing 26.470.100 Calculations 26.470.110 Growth management review procedures 26.480 Subdivision (for the development of multiple dwelling units) 26.515 Off - street parking 26.575.030 Public amenity 26.575.060 Utility/trash service areas 26.575.150 Outdoor lighting 26.610 Impact fees 26.620 School Lands Dedication 26.710.150 Commercial (C -1) Follow link below to view the City of Aspen Land Use Code http: / /www.aspenpitkin.com /Departments / Commun ity-Development/Plannina- and- Zoninq/Title -26- Land- Use -Code/ Follow link below to view the APCHA Guidelines (size requirements) http://www.aspenhousinqoffice.com/sitepaqes/pid4.php Review by: Community Development Staff for complete application Public Hearing: Required for both P &Z (Commercial Design Review and GMQS) and City Council (subdivision). Planning Fees: $2,940 for Major Development Application review by Planning and Zoning and City Council. This includes twelve (12) hours of staff review time. Additional time over twelve (12) hours will be billed at $245 per hour. Housing, Parks and Engineering Referral: $410 each or$1,230 Total Deposit: $4,170.00 Total Number of Application Copies: • Planning and Zoning Application for Conceptual Commercial Design: 14 Copies (Additional applications will be required for the growth management allotment application) To apply, submit the following information: Change in Use Application: I Total Deposit for review of application. 0 Pre - application Conference Summary. Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. I= Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. n A site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the State of Colorado. C A site plan depicting the proposed layout and the project's physical relationship to the land and its surroundings. n Completed Land Use application and signed fee agreement. I= An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcels within the City of Aspen. O 14 copies of the complete application packet and maps. n A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how a proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. EXHIBIT 2 I CITY OF ASPEN PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Jennifer Phelan, 970.429.2759 DATE: 4/12/10 PROJECT: 632 E Hyman Ave REPRESENTATIVE: Adam Roy, 970.925.3444 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Conceptual Commercial Design Review DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at the corner of Spring and Hopkins and is solely used as commercial office space. The property is located within the C -1 zone district and is not a landmark property. The owner is interested in expanding /redeveloping the site with additional commercial net leasable space and a free - market residence. According to the authorized representative, it is anticipated that on -site affordable housing mitigation will be provided. Both the expansion of commercial development ( >_250 sq. ft.) and the addition of new free - market units are considered major growth management reviews. As such, a growth management allocation (net leasable and a free - market unit) is required and the application for the allotments can only be submitted either February 15 or August 15 ( §26.470.110 C). Prior to submission for growth management allotments on either of these dates, Conceptual Commercial Design Review is required to be received by the Applicant. The Applicant is interested in applying for Conceptual Commercial Design Review. Conceptual review determines the location and massing components of the building on the site. Below is a link to the Land Use application Form for your convenience. http: / /www. aspenoitkin.com /Portals /0 /d ocs /City /Comdev /Apps %20a nd %20Fees /la nd useappform. odf Land Use Code Section(sl 26.304 Common development review procedures 26.412 Commercial design review Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines 26.575.030 Public amenity 26.575.060 Utility/trash service areas 26.710.150 Commercial (C -1) Follow the link below to view the City of Aspen Land Use Code http: / /www.aspenpitkin.com /Departments / Community- Development/Planninq- and- Zoninq/Title -26- Land- Use -Code/ Review by: Community Development Staff for complete application Public Hearing: Required for P &Z (Commercial Design Review Planning Fees: $1,470 for Major Development Application review by Planning and Zoning and City Council. This includes twelve (6) hours of staff review time. Additional time over twelve (6) hours will be billed at $245 per hour. Parks and Engineering Referral: $212 or 424.00 Total Deposit: $1894.00 Total Number of Application Copies: • Planning and Zoning Application for Conceptual Commercial Design: 12 Copies To apply, submit the following information: Total Deposit for review of application. Pre - application Conference Summary. Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. O Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. n A site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the State of Colorado. CI A site plan depicting the proposed layout and the project's physical relationship to the land and its surroundings. El Completed Land Use application and signed fee agreement. O An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcels within the City of Aspen. I= 12 copies of the complete application packet and maps. 0 A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how a proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. 'EXHIBIT 3 I COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A 1. Effective Date: May 5, 2010, at 7:30 A.M. Order Number: 926441 - -C3 2. Policy or Policies To Be Issued: Amount of Insurance (a) A.L.T.A. Owner's (Extended) $3,100,000.00 Proposed Insured: Rudin West LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company (b) A.L.T.A. Loan 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: Fee Simple 4. Title to the referenced estate or interest in said land is at the effective date hereof vested in: The Hopkins Street Venture 5. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: The East one -half (1/2) of Lot R And all ofLotS Block 98 CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO Purported Address: Statement of Charges: 632 East Hopkins Avenue These charges are due and payable before a Policy can Aspen, Colorado 81611 be issued: Basic Rate 2006 Owner's Policy: $5582.00 Owner's Extended $150.00 Coverage: Tax Certificate: Included STG Tax Parcel $50.00 Order C m it 9 644 / r -V`�1 _ T` 1 ALTA Commitment (6/ 17/0 17/06) — Schedule A f��r Title Officer. Linda Williams title guaranty company Page 1 of 1 COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE B — Section 1 REQUIREMENTS Order Number: 926441 - -C3 The following are the requirements to be complied with: 1. Payment to or for the account of the grantor(s) or mortgagor(s) of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. 2. Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record. 3. Evidence satisfactory to Stewart Title Guaranty Company of payment of all outstanding taxes and assessments as certified by the County Treasurer. 4. Execution of affidavit as to Debts and Liens and its return to Stewart Title Guaranty Company. 5. Evidence satisfactory to Stewart Title of Colorado, Inc. furnished by the Office of the Director of Finance, City of Aspen, that the following taxes have been paid, or that conveyance is exempt from said taxes: (1) The "Wheeler Real Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant to Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979) and (2) The "Housing Real Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant to Ordinance No. 13 (Series of 1990). 6. Execution of Statement of Authority pursuant to the provisions of Section 38 -30 -172 C.R.S., for The Hopkins Street Venture.. 7. Execution of an acceptable survey affidavit certifying that there have been no new improvements constructed or major structural changes made on the subject property. NOTE: Please provide us with surveys which may obtained.. 8. Deed from vested owner(s) vesting fee simple title in the purchaser(s). Note: notation of the legal address of the grantee must appear on the deed as per 1976 amendment to statute on recording of deeds CRS 38 -35 -109 (2). Order Number: 926441 —C3 stewart ALTA Commitment (6/17/06) - Schedule B 1 Page I of 1 title guaranty company COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE B — Section 2 EXCEPTIONS Order Number: 926441 - -C3 The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession, not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof, but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this commitment. 6. Unpatented mining claims, reservations or exceptions in patents, or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof. 7. Water rights, claims or title to water. 8. Any and all unpaid taxes and assessments and unredeemed tax sales. 9. License Agreement between The Hopkins Street Venture and Philip Rothblum and Marcia Rothblum recorded June 13, 1996 as Reception No. 393676. 10. Lease with Stryker/Brown Architects, PC dated April 1, 2005. 11. All matters shown on the Improvement Survey by Rocky Mountain Surveying, dated 9/2008 No. 08545. NOTE: EXCEPTIONS 1 AND 4 ABOVE WILL BE DELETED ON THE FINAL OWNERS POLICY, PROVIDED BOTH SELLER(S) AND PURCHASER(S) EXECUTE THE HEREIN REQUIRED AFFIDAVITS AND SAID AFFIDAVITS ARE APPROVED BY THE COMPANY. EXCEPTIONS 2 AND 3 WILL BE DELETED ON THE FINAL OWNERS POLICY PROVIDED Order Number: 926441 - -C3 _ st� /� //> �/' ALTA Commitment (6/17/06) — Schedule B2 �7 `�iY YC�Y Page 1 of 2 title guaranty company THAT THE PRESENT OWNERS EXECUTE THE SURVEY AFFIDAVIT. EXCEPTION 5 WILL NOT APPEAR ON THE OWNERS POLICY, AND GAP PROTECTION WILL BE GRANTED PROVIDED THAT STEWART TITLE OF COLORADO PERFORMS CLOSING DISBURSEMENTS AND RECORDING OF ALL DOCUMENTS. SEE "DISCLOSURES" INCLUDED HEREWITH. FURTHER NOTE: EXCEPTION 6 ON THE FINAL OWNERS POLICY WILL BE DELETED. EXCEPTION 8 ON THE FINAL OWNERS POLICY WILL BE AMENDED TO READ: All taxes and assessments for year 2010 and subsequent years, which are a lien not yet payable. EXCEPTION 9 WILL BE AMENDED AS TO THE SPECIFIC TAX DISTRICTS AS DISCLOSED BY THE COUNTY TREASURER'S TAX CERTIFICATE. NOTE: Exceptions 1 and 4 may be deleted from the policies, provided the seller and buyer execute the Company's affidavits, as required herein, and the Company approves such deletions. If work has been performed on, or in connection with, the subject property (architectural drawings, soils testing, foundation work, installation of materials), and the Company has not reviewed and approved lien waivers and indemnitor financials, Standard Exception 4 (mechanic lien exception) will not be deleted and no mechanic lien coverage will be furnished. Exceptions 2 and 3 may be deleted from the policies, provided the Company receives and approves the survey or survey affidavit if required herein. Exception 5 will not appear on the policies, provided the Company, or its authorized agent, conducts the closing of the proposed transaction and is responsible for the recordation of the documents. Order Number: 926441 - -C3 -stewart ALTA Commitment (6/17/06) — Schedule B 2 Page 2 of 2 title guaranty company r STG Privacy Notice 1 (Rev 01/26/09) Stewart Title Companies WHAT DO THE STEWART TITLE COMPANIES DO WITH YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION? Federal and applicable state law and regulations give consumers the right to limit some but not all sharing. Federal and applicable state law regulations also require us to tell you how we collect, share, and protect your personal information. Please read this notice carefully to '.. understand how we use your personal information. This privacy notice is distributed on behalf of the Stewart Title Guaranty Company and its affiliates (the Stewart Title Companies), pursuant to Title V of the Gramm- Leach- Bliley Act (GLBA). The types of personal information we collect and share depend on the product or service that you have sought through us. This information can include social security numbers and driver's license number. All financial companies, such as the Stewart Title Companies, need to share customers' personal information to run their everyday business —to process transactions and maintain customer accounts. In the section below, we list the reasons that we can share customers' erp sonal information; the reasons that we choose to share; and whether you can limit this sharing. Reasons we can share your personal information Do we share? Can you limit this sharing? For our everyday business purposes— to process your transactions and maintain your account. This may include running the business and managing customer Yes No accounts, such as processing transactions, mailing, and auditing services, and responding to court orders and legal investigations. For our marketing purposes— to offer our products and services to you. Yes No For joint marketing with other financial companies No We don't share For our affiliates' everyday business purposes— information about your transactions and experiences. Affiliates are companies related by common ownership or control. They can be financial and nonfinancial companies. Our Yes No affiliates may include companies with a Stewart name,; financial companies, such as Stewart Title Company For our affiliates' everyday business purposes— information about your No We don't share creditworthiness. For our affiliates to market to you Yes No For non - affiliates to market to you. Non- affiliates are companies not related by No We don't share common ownership or control. They can be financial and nonfinancial companies. We may disclose your personal information to our affiliates or to non - affiliates as permitted by law. If you request a transaction with a non - affiliate, such as a third party insurance company, we will disclose your personal information to that non - affiliate. [We do not control their subsequent use of information, and suggest you refer to their privacy notices.] Sharing practices...._ - .... -. -. How often do the Stewart Title Companies We must notify you about our sharing practices when you request a transaction. notify me about their practices? How do the Stewart Title Companies To protect your personal information from unauthorized access and use, we use security protect my personal information? measures that comply with federal and state law. These measures include computer, file, and building safeguards. How do the Stewart Title Companies We collect your personal information, for example, when you collect my personal information? • request insurance - related services • provide such information to us We also collect your personal information from others, such as the real estate agent or lender involved in your transaction, credit reporting agencies, affiliates or other companies. What sharing can I limit? Although federal and state law give you the right to limit sharing (e.g., opt out) in `. certain instances, we do not share your personal information in those instances. Contact Us If you have any questions about this privacy notice, please contact us at: Stewart Title Guaranty Company, 1980 Post Oak Blvd., Privacy Officer, Houston Texas 77056 Order Number: 926441--C3 DISCLOSURES Order Number: 926441 - -C3 Note: Pursuant to C.R.S. 10 -11 -122, notice is hereby given that: A. The subject real property may be located in a special taxing district; B. A certificate of taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction shall be obtained from the county treasurer or the county treasurer's authorized agent; C. Information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the board of county commissioners, the county clerk and recorder, or the county assessor. Note: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 3 -5 -1, Subparagraph (7) (E) requires that "Every title entity shall be responsible for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed." Provided that Stewart Title conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal documents from the transaction, exception number 5 will not appear on the Owner's Title Policy and the Lender's Title Policy when issued. Note: Affirmative Mechanic's Lien Protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception No. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment from the Owner's Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following conditions: A. The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single - family residence, which includes a condominium or townhouse unit. B. No labor or materials have been fumished by mechanics or materialmen for purposes of construction on the land described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 6 months. C. The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against unfiled mechanic's and Materialmen's Liens. D. The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium. E. If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased, within six months prior to the Date of the Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage for unrecorded liens will include: disclosure of certain construction information; financial information as to the seller, the builder and/or the contractor; payment of the appropriate premium; fully executed Indemnity agreements satisfactory to the company; and, any additional requirements as may be necessary after an examination of the aforesaid information by the Company. No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or agreed to pay. Note: Pursuant to C.R.S. 10 -11 -123, notice is hereby given: A. That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate and that there is a substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and B. That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner's permission. This notice applies to owner's policy commitments containing a mineral severance instrument exception, or exceptions, in Schedule B, Section 2. NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED WILL BE DEEMED TO OBLIGATE THE COMPANY TO PROVIDE ANY OF THE COVERAGES REFERRED TO HEREIN UNLESS THE ABOVE CONDITIONS ARE FULLY SATISFIED. Order Number: 926441--C3 Disclosures , Stewart Title DISCLOSURE The title company, Stewart Title - Aspen Division in its capacity as escrow agent, has been authorized to receive funds and disburse them when all funds received are either: (a) available for immediate withdrawal as a matter of right from the financial institution in which the funds are deposited, or (b) are available for immediate withdrawal as a consequence of an agreement of a financial institution in which the funds are to be deposited or a financial institution upon which the funds are to be drawn. The title company is disclosing to you that the financial institution may provide the title company with computer accounting or auditing services, or other bank services, either directly or through a separate entity which may or may not be affiliated with the title company. This separate entity may charge the financial institution reasonable and proper compensation for these services and retain any profits there from. The title company may also receive benefits from the financial institution in the form of advantageous interest rates on loans, sometimes referred to as preferred rate loan programs, relating to loans the title company has with the financial institution. The title company shall not be liable for any interest or other charges on the earnest money and shall be under no duty to invest or reinvest funds held by it at any time. In the event that the parties to this transaction have agreed to have interest on earnest money deposit transferred to a fund established for the purpose of providing affordable housing to Colorado residents, then the earnest money shall remain in an account designated for such purpose, and the interest money shall be delivered to the title company at closing. • • CONDITIONS 1. The term mortgage, when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. 2. If the proposed Insured has or acquired actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations. 3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions and Conditions and Stipulations and the Exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. 4. This Commitment is a contract to issue one or more title insurance policies and is not an abstract of title or a report of the condition of title. Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company arising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment must be based on and are subject to the provisions of this Commitment. 5. The policy to be issued contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of Insurance is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. You may review a copy of the arbitration rules at http://www.alta.org. stewart •title guaranty company All notices required to be given the Company and any statement in writing required to be furnished the Company shall be addressed to it at P.O. Box 2029, Houston, Texas 77252. 06/01/2010 18:22 FAX Rudin Management Co, Inc Q0001. /0002 EXHIBIT 4 05.27.2010 Chris Bendon Director of Community Development City of Aspen 130 5. Galena Street, 3 Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 632 East Hopkins Land Use Application Representation Dear Mr. Bendon: This letter is to serve as authorization for David Johnston Architects, pc to represent Rudin West, LLC with the proceedings for the application for Land Use Reviews for the renovation of the building located on the property at 632 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611. Representatives from David Johnston Architects are authorized to act on the behalf of the ownership of the property for all matters pertaining to the applications. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions regarding this authorizing letter. Sincerely yours, Michael Rudin Rudin West, LLC 345 Park Avenue, 33rd Floor New York, New York 10154 (212) 407 -2511 !EXHIBIT 5 1 ATTACHMENT 2 —LAND USE APPLICATION RFCE PROAECT: Name: 632 East Hopkins Renovation ✓ � N 04 t® Location: 632 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, CO. 81611 Op �O iy (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal desert tion where as •ro• if f,;i, _ S t'F, Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 273707332006 • APPLICANT: Name: Rudin West, LLC Address: 345 Park Avenue, 33rd Floor, New York, New York 10154 Phone #: (212) 407 -2511 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Adam Roy - David Johnston Architects, pc Address: 418 East Cooper Street, #206, Aspen, CO. 81611 Phone #: (970) 925 -3444 TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please cheek all that apply): ❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Temporary Use ❑ GMQS Allotment ❑ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Text/Map Amendment ❑ Special Review ❑ Subdivision ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ ESA — 8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes ❑ Final SPA (& SPA Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane IN Commercial Design Review ❑ Lot Split ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion ❑ Residential Design Variance ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Other: ❑ Conditional Use EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) 1976 -BUILT CONCRETE BLOCK COMMERCIAL BUILDING W/ 2- STORIES ABOVE GRADE AND BASEMENT BELOW GRADE; CONTAINS ONLY OFFICE USES; NO ADDITIONAL APPROVALS BEYOND ORIGINAL C.O. PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) EXPANSION AND RENOVATION OF EXISTING TWO -STORY COMMERICAL; ADDITION OF NEW THRID LEVEL; ADDITION OF ONE (1) NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT AND ONE (I) FREE - MARKET RESIDENTIAL UNIT. Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $$1,894.00 III Pre - Application Conference Summary IN Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement • Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form ® Response to Attachment #4. Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards • 3 -D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8.5" X 11" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3 -11 model. Your pre - application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3 -D model. 'EXHIBIT 6 1 R FC ATTACHMENT 3 a DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM S UN 0 0 Project: 632 EAST HOPKINS RENOVATION 4 t0 F 1219 Applicant: RUDIN WEST, LLC 4si' Location: 632 EAST HOPKINS AND 119 SOUTH SPRING STREET g iffk i Zone District: C -t Lot Size: 4,500 SQUARE FEET Lot Area: 4,500 SQUARE FEET (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: N/A Proposed: UNDETERMINED Number of residential units: Existing: 0 Proposed: 2 Number of bedrooms: Existing: 0 Proposed: UNDETERMINED Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): N/A DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: 4,588 Allowable: 11,250 Proposed: UNDETERMINED Principal bldg. height: Existing: 26' Allowable: 36'- 40' Proposed: 36' (max) Access. bldg. height: Existing: N/A Allowable: N/A Proposed: N/A On -Site parking: Existing: 4 Required: 4 Proposed: 4 % Site coverage: Existing: 61% Required: N/A Proposed: 81 16% on -site % Open Space: Existing: 18% Required: 10% Proposed: 25% total Front Setback: Existing: 11' Required: 0' Proposed: 11' Rear Setback: Existing: 21 5' Required: 0' Proposed: 8" Combined F /R: Existing: 32 5' Required 0' Proposed: 11' -8" Side Setback: Existing: 20" Required: 0' Proposed: 70" Side Setback: Existing: 8" Required: o' Proposed: g" Combined Sides: Existing: 78" Required: o' Proposed: 78" Distance Between Existing N/A Required: N/A Proposed: NIA_ Buildings Existing non - conformities or encroachments: N/A Variations requested: N/A 08/01/2010 18:22 FAX Rodin Management Co, Inc ZI 0002 /0002 I EXHIBIT 7 R FC F /V N F CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT � O p F c �, , O � � COfo Agreement for Pelmet of C'nv of Aspen Development Anolicalloo Few ''�l s � F N CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and _ Raclin West, LLC (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: I. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for 632 East Hopkins Renovation (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). • 3. APPLICANT understands and agrees that the City of Aspen has an adopted fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY funher agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to he billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they arc necessary as costs arc incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY statT to complete pmccssing or present sufficient information to the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings arc paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full Ices prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of 551,894.00 which is for 12 hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of 5245.0D per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT B H LL a/ Chris Bendon Community Development Director Date: r 0 Billing Address and Telephone Number: 345 Park Avenue, 33rd Floor, New York New York 10154 Easy Peel® Labels i • Bend along line to 1 Use Avery® Template 5160® Feed Paper expose Pop-Up Edge AVE EXHIBIT 610 EAST HYMAN LLC 630 EAST HYMAN LLC AARON ROGER S & VIRGINIA A C/0 CHARLES CUNNIFFE 532 E HOPKINS AVE 45 BIRCHALL DR 610 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 SCARSDALE, NY 10583 -0000 ASPEN, CO 81611 ALEXANDER JUDY ALLEN RONALD W REV TRUST ALPINE BANK ASPEN 1894 HWY 50 EAST #4 PMB 207 50 SW 137TH AV ATTN ERIC GARDEY CARSON CITY, NV 89701 BEAVERTON, OR 97006 PO BOX 10000 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 ASHTON JONATHAN G ASPEN LEGACY LLC ASPEN MAIN STREET PROPERTIES LP PO BOX 26 17740 E HINSDALE AVE 14881 QUORUM DR #200 JAMES TOWN, CO 80455 FOXFIELD, CO 80016 DALLAS, TX 75254 BASS CAHN 601 LLC BAUM ROBERT E ASPEN RES TRST BAYLESS GRANT J PO BOX 4060 PO BOX 1518 6864 PEPPERTREE CT ASPEN, CO 81612 STOCKBRIDGE, MA 01262 LONGMONT, CO 80503 BENNETT ROBERT R & DEBORAH J BERLIN JAMES & MADELINE L BOOHER ANDREA LYNN 10900 HILLTOP RD 1795 BROOKWOOD DR 709 E MAIN STREET #303 PARKER, CO 80134 AKRON, OH 44313 -5070 ASPEN, CO 81611 BORCHERTS HOLDE H TRUSTEE BROUGH STEVE B & DEBORAH A BRYANT CAROLINA H 1555 WASHTENAW 599 TROUT LK DR PO BOX 5217 ANN ARBOR, MI 48104 SANGER, CA 93657 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 BULKELEY RICHARD C & JULIE J BULKELEY RICHARD C & JULIE J BURSTEN GABRIELLA 801 JOY ST PO BOX 450 PO BOX 2061 RED OAK, IA 51566 RED OAK, IA 51566 ASPEN, CO 81612 CALCOTT JOHN R CALDWELL CHARLES & DEBRA CAMERON LAURA L FBO 1/4 INT 600 E MAIN ST #301 514 E BRYAN ST C/O LOVES TRAVEL STOPS & CTRY ASPEN, CO 81611 SAVANAH, GA 31401 STORES CHOOKASZIAN KAREN M CIPOLLINO NICHOLAS COLORADO MTN NEWS MEDIA 1100 MICHIGAN 300 QUAIL RD PO BOX 1927 WILMETTE, IL 60091 MERRITT, NC 28556 -9641 CARSON CITY, NV 89702 CONCEPT 600 LLC COPPOCK RICHARD P CROSS JUDITH PO BOX 2914 PO BOX 44 PO BOX 3388 BASALT, CO 81621 DEXTER, MI 48130 ASPEN, CO 81612 Eti fadles a peler I • ♦ Replies a la hachure afin del www.avery AVERY com ; Utilisez le gabarit ® 5160® Sens de reveler le rebord Po 9 chargement PAP TM � 1- 800-GO -AVERY 1 Easy Peel ® Labels i • Bend along line to I CI AVERY® 5160® Use Avery® Template 5160® j Feed Paper expose Pop-Up Edger+ 1 ® DORAN RALPH DRESNER MILTON H REV LVG TRST EDGE OF AJAX INC 2600 WOODWARD WAY 28777 NORTHWESTERN HWY C/O ANDRE ULRYCH ATLANTA, GA 30305 SOUTHFIELD, MI 48034 201B E SILVER ST MARBLE, CO 81623 EDGETTE JAMES J & PATRICIA EDWARDS CHARLES N EISENSTAT ALBERT & CONSTANCE 19900 BEACH RD STE 801 189 BEVENUE ST 358 WALSH RD JUPITER ISLAND, FL 33469 WELLSLEY, MA 02482 ATHERTON, CA 94027 EMPHASYS SERVICE COMPANY FARRELL SCOTT W FICKE CLARK 1925 BRICKELL AVE BLDG D PO BOX 9656 15 W ARRELLAGA ST #3 PENTHOUSE 110 ASPEN, CO 81612 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101 MIAMI, FL 33129 FURNGULF LTD GARRITY PATRICK & PAULA GERSHMAN JOEL & ELAINE A COLO JOINT VENTURE 6126 CHES CT 120 N SPRING ST 616 E HYMAN AVE ORLANDO, FL 32819 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GILKERSON LINDA REV TRUST 50% GLAUSER STEVEN JERRY & BARBARA GOODING SEAN A 80% & RICHARD L 1449 E 56TH ST 460 ST PAUL ST 20% DENVER, CO 80206 C/O PARAGON RANCH INC CHICAGO, IL 60637 620 E HYMAN AVE #1E ASPEN, CO 81611 GORGE MICHAEL D & WENDY S GREENBERG DEAN GROSFELD ASPEN PROPERTIES 25300 FRANKLIN PARK DR PO BOX 129 PARTNERS LLC FRANKLIN, MI 48025 NEWPORT, MN 55055 10880 WILSHIRE BLVD #2222 LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 GURHOLT CHARLES J & VERNE HESSELSCHWERDT BILL & TRISH HEXNER MICHAEL T TRUSTEE N5999 GURHOLT RD PO BOX 1266 JUSTIS KAREN L TRUSTEE SCANDINAVIA, WI 54977 BASALT, CO 81621 2555 UNION ST SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94123 -3832 HEYS MARIE L TRUSTEE HICKS GILBERT W & PATSY K HOLLAND AND HART 2495 ADARE 3674 WOODLAW N TERRACE PL ATTN: CONTROLLER ANN ARBOR, MI 48104 HONOLULU, HI 96822 PO BOX 8749 DENVER, CO 80201 HOLTZ ABEL & FANA HONEA KATHARINE M HOPKINS ST VENTURE 420 LINCOLN RD STE 220 PO BOX 288 C/O TED MULARZ MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139 BASALT, CO 81621 PO BOX 1328 ASHLAND, OR 97520 HORSEFINS LLC HUNTER SQUARE LLC 90% HURST FERN K CIO PITKIN COUNTY TITLE PO BOX 2 1060 5TH AVE 601 E HOPKINS AVE SONOMA, CA 95476 NEW YORK CITY, NY 10128 ASPEN, CO 81611 Etiquettes faclles A peter Replies 3 la hachure afln de ; www.averltcorh Utllisez le gabarit AVERY® Sens de retailer le rebord Po U Te ' 1- 800- GO-AVERY 9 ) chargement P P Easy Peel® Labels i • Bend along line to I Q AVERY® 5160 Use Avery® Template 5160® it Feed Paper expose Pop -Up Edge*# I • JENKINS ASIA JURINE LLC 10% KESSLER SEPP H & ANNA TRUST 734 E HOPKINS AVE PO BOX 2 275 CASTLE CREEK RD #204 ASPEN, CO 81611 SONOMA, CA 95476 ASPEN, CO 81611 LAMB DON REV TRUST 50% LARSON KARL G & MARIA M LAZY J RANCH LLC 1449 E 56TH ST PO BOX 8207 C/0 W R WALTON CHICAGO, IL 60637 ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 665 ASPEN, CO 81612 LEE GREGORY K & DEBBIE L LEITCH B BRYAN III LINK LYNN B 9777 W CORNELL PL 2606 STATE ST PO BOX 7942 LAKEWOOD, CO 80227 DALLAS, TX 75204 ASPEN, CO 81612 LOVE FRANK C IV FB0 1/4 INT LUNDGREN WIEDINMYER DONNA TRST MAESTRANZI BART C/O LOVES TRAVEL STOPS & CTRY PO BOX 6700 1736 PARK RIDGE POINTE STORES SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 PARK RIDGE, 11. 60068 MAHONEY SHARON A MALLARD ENTERPRISES LP MANN KATHLEEN A 99% PO BOX 11694 317 SIDNEY BAKER S #400 PO BOX 2057 ASPEN, CO 81612 KERRVILLE, TX 78028 ASPEN, CO 81612 MANNING FREDERICK J & GAIL P MARASCO BERNARD R 11.0446% MARASCO EMILY A AK MEYER EMILYA 233 S WACKER DR #700 320 DAKOTA DR 11.0446% CHICAGO, IL 60606 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 21701 FLAMENCO MISSION VIEJO, CA 92692 MARASCO FAMILY TRUST 33.4331% MARCHETTI FAMILY LLC MARTELL BARBARA 653 26 1/2 RD 1526 FOREST DR 702 E HYMAN AVE GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 GLENVIEW, IL 60025 ASPEN, CO 81611 MCCUTCHIN GENE P MCDONALD FRANCIS B MCGAFFEY FAMILY & CO NO C LLC 14833 MIDWAY RD PO BOX 4671 12852 NW SHORELAND DR ADDISON, TX 75001 ASPEN, CO 81612 MEQUON, WI 53097 MCGUIRE JOSEPH B MEYER JENNIFER LOVE FB0 1/4 INT MHT LLC PO BOX 120 C/O LOVES TRAVEL STOPS & CTRY PO BOX 25318 ASPEN, CO 81612 -0120 STORES ST CROIX VIRGIN ISLANDS, 00824 MONTANARO JOHN & SUSAN FAMILY MYSKO BOHDAN D ORIGINAL CURVE CONDO #310 LLC TRUST C/O LAURA PIETRZAK 615 E HOPKINS PO BOX 457 ASPEN, CO 81611 1796 E SOPRIS CREEK RD MALIBU, CA 90265 BASALT, CO 81621 Etiquettes fadles a paler • Replies la hachure afln de I www.averycom Utilisez le gabarit AVERY 5160 ) chSans de argement r#v&ler le rebord Po P' P U TM ' 1- 800-GO -AVERY ' 4. 9 Easy Peel® Labels i • Q Bend along line to I AVERY® 5160® Use Avery® Template 5160® J Feed Paper 1 wrm expose Pop-Up Edge" J • P & L PROPERTIES LLC PATTERSON VICKI PINKOS DANNY & ANNA 101 SOUTH 3RD ST #360 PO BOX 8523 PO BOX 6581 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501 ASPEN, CO 81612 SNOW MASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 PITKIN COUNTY RAINER EWALD REDSTONE SUSAN B 530 E MAIN ST #302 409 E COOPER AVE #4 120 E 90TH ST #118 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10128 REINGOLD ROBERT B INC RIVER PARK IN ASPEN CONDO ASSOC RKJR PROPERTIES LTD 1187 COAST VILLAGE RD STE 1 -116 730 E DURANT 5934 ROYAL LN #250 MONTECITO, CA 93108 ASPEN, CO 81611 DALLAS, TX 75230 ROSENFIELD LYNNE CARYN ROSS NEIL ROTHBERG MARJORIE 709 E MAIN ST #203 100 S SPRING ST 2006 N BANCROFT PKWY ASPEN, CO 81611 -2059 ASPEN, CO 81611 WILMINGTON, DE 19806 ROTHBLUM PHILIP & MARCIA RUST TRUST SALET PHILIP S REV TRUST 40 EAST 80 ST #26A 9401 WILSHIRE BLVD #760 PO BOX 4897 NEW YORK, NY 10075 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 ASPEN, CO 81612 SCI ASPEN LLC SEGREST DAVID H SEID MEL 3200 OHIO WY 2606 STATE ST 1104 DALE AVE DENVER, CO 80209 DALLAS, TX 75204 ASPEN, CO 81611 SELBY TROY E & MAY EYNON SELDIN CHRISTOPHER G SHERMAN CAPITAL COMPANY PO BOX 8234 22 MOUNTAIN CT 5840 E JOSHUA TREE LN ASPEN, CO 81612 BASALT, CO 81621 PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253 SHOAF JEFFREY S SMITH JAMES F & N LINDSAY SPRING STREET LLC PO BOX 3123 600 E MAIN ST #302 C10 BAXTER ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 PO 80X1112 CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 STARMER MARY JOSEPHINE 11.0446% STEWART TITLE CO STEWART TITLE OF CALIFORNIA 12738 W 84TH DR CIO JENNIFER SCHUMACHER PO BOX 2000 ARVADA, CO 80001 PO BOX 936 VAIL, CO 81658 TAYLORSVILLE, NC 28681 STRIBLING DOROTHY TAYLOR FAMILY INVESTMENTS CO TEL 1999 GST EXEMPT TRST FBO WACHOVIA BANK NA FLO135 602 E HYMAN #201 C!O BURKE AND NICKEL PO BOX 40062 ASPEN, CO 81611 3336E 32ND ST #217 JACKSONVILLE, FL 32203 -0062 TULSA, OK 74135 Etiquettes faciles a peler 1 • Replica a la hachure afro de ; www.averycom I Utilisez le abarit AVERY® 5160® Sens de riveter le rebord Po U Ta ' 1. 800 -G0 -AVERY ' 1 9 c hargement p' P ih. 4 1 Easy Peel® Labels i ♦ =OM Rend along line to 1 0 AVERY® 5160® I Use Avery® Template 5160® Feed Paper expose Pop-Up Edge *" J 1 TRAVIS SHELBY J TROUSDALE JEAN VICK VAN WALRAVEN EDWARD C 1% 208 E 28TH ST - APT 2G 611 E HOPKINS AVE PO BOX 4913 NEW YORK, NY 10016 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 VANWOERKOM LAURIE VRANA MALEKA WACHMEISTER EDWARD C A REV PO BOX 341 PO BOX 4535 TRUST WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 ASPEN, CO 81612 6223 WHITEHALL FARM LN WARRENTON, VA 20187 WAGAR RICH WASKOW SUSAN A WEEKS ROBIN 0/0 RICH WAGAR ASSOC LLC PO BOX 4975 526 RIDGEWAY DR 100 S SPRING ST #3 ASPEN, CO 81612 METAIRIE, LA 70001 ASPEN, CO 81611 WHITEHILL STEPHEN LANE WHITNEY FAMILY TRUST WILSON STACE S 5320 W HARBOR VILLAGE DR #201 6448 E CRABTREE PL PO BOX 5217 VERO BEACH, FL 32967 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81815 WOODS FRANK J 111 205 6 MILL ST #301A ASPEN, CO 81611 Etiquettes fadles a peter l • Replies 81a hachure en de i wwwaverycom Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 51600 Sens de reveler le rebord Po U l' ' 1- 800-GO -AVERY 9 / chargement F P � 4 _, I EXHIBIT 9 I • 393676 06/13/96 03:48P PS 1 OF 6 RFC DUG UCC SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CLERK d RECORDER 31.00 S.it`ENSEAGRERMYNT Joie THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT is made this 47K day ofa4w. 1996, between THE HOPKINS STREET VENTURE, a Colorado joint venture (hve3nafter referred to as "The Hopkins Street Vemae") whoseaddrims is do Theodore Mutton, P.O. Box 1328 Ashland. Oregon, 97520, and PHILIP ROTHBLUM and MARCIA ROTHSLIM (hereinafter referred to as "Rothbhnn"), whose address is 624 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen. Colorado 51611, WITNESSETH: • WHEREAS, ThiHopkins Street Vemuc, is the owner areal property located in the City of Aspen, Paldn County, Colomdo, which real property is more particularly described as Lot S and the Easterly V: of Lot R Block 9S, Cray and Towmhe ofAspee, County ofPitkio, State of Colorado, • which property is hereinafter referred to as "The Hopkins Street Venture Property"; and WHEREAS, Rothblum is the owner of real properly located in the Cdy of Amax Pitklo Canny. Colorado, which real propaty is more particularly desalted as LotQ and the West One -Half ('h) of Lot R, Block 98, City and Towmshe of Aspen, County ot'Pitkio, State of Colorado, which property is hereinafter referred to as the "RathblumProperty"; and WHEREAS, Rotbblom has caused a budding to be erected on the Rothblum Property (the "Ito:Mksm Building"), the facade of which extends over the lot line repainting The Hopkins Street Venture Property and the Rothblum Property; and WHEREAS, the Rdhbhn Buikdng physically abuts the building located on The Hopkins Street Venture Property; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto agree that it is their intent to seal the space between their respective buildings; and WHEREAS, The Hopkins Street Venture and Rothbbnn are desirous of anteing boo an agreement for the use of a portion of The Hopkins Street Venture Property for a license for the facade of the Rothblum Building and for maintenance of the portico and roof of the Rothblum Building, NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the tams and conditions hereinafter provided, the panics agree as follows: • 1. GRANT OPL10ENSL A9 h is the part hereto intent to sal the apace between the RShMumBuilding and the building on TheHopkins Street VentureProperty, The Hopkins Street Venture hereby grants to Rothblum, their heirs. succeaaorsand assigns, an exclusive Goose over the westerly approximately twelve (12) inches of The Hopkins Street Venture Property on the East 15 of Lot R, and running the length of the tine dividing the East and West X of Lot R, as shown on • 393676 06113/96 03e42P PG 2 GP 6 Exhibit A attached hereto end incorporated herein by this reference, whirl shall hereinafter be referred to u the "Rothhlum Building License ". The Rcthbhon Buildms License shall be used exclusively by Rothblwm, their successors and assigns, for the construction, maintenance, repair, inspection and replacement of the brick facade of the Rothbbm Building to the edge of the existing building on The Hopkins Street V emna Propety. All costs of design, construction, maintenance and hsurnae other Bnihblum Building, the Rothbium facade and the Rothblum Budding license shall be borne by the owner of the Rotffiium Property. 2. SUBORDINATION. This license is and shaft be subject to and subot&an to 011 present and future mortgages. deeds of Vast or other encumbrances affecting The Hopkins Strut Venture Property. 3. TERMINATION. This license may be terminated by either party ninety (90) days' written notice to the other party. In the event of such temnoation, Rothbtmt shall, at their expense, remove that portion of the facade of the Rmhbhtm Bmldirtg which encroaches upon The Hopkins Street Venture Property within said ninety (90) day period, and shaft restore The Hopkins Street Vernon • Property to its original condition. 4. CONSTRUCTION. The rule of strict construction does not apply to this license This license shag be&veo a reasonable construction so the intention orate parties to confer a usable right of enjoyment is carried out. All uses of the Scams necessary or .pponemnt to the fug use, enjoyment, development and operation of the Rabbi= Property are expressly authorized hereby including witted fmiuetion, itssaeby the owners, their successors and assigns, and their respective employees, agents, invitees and licensees. 5. NOTICES. All notices, demands and communications requited hereurda shag be served or given to the respective parties at their respective addresses set forth below. Any nodes, • demand or communication stag return given by personal service or certified mail, retuu receipt tequested with first class postage prepaid thereon, and unless sooner received shall be deemed to have been received three (3) days after the date of certification.. The addresses tithe parties hereto ere as follows: The Hopkins Street Venire rho Theodore Molars PO Rex 1328 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Philip and Marcia Rothbium 624 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 -2- d 1/4 ..1 393616 06/13/96 03:40P PG 3 OF 6 6. ATTORNEYS' FEES Should any party herniae( be required to resort to legal or equitableproau fir the enfeceeet ofmy of the provis ions of this Agreement, the prevailing party • shall be entitled to collect all other reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses and toms In the event any party shall fall to perfono under wry provision bereunda which that party is required to perform under any provision ofttis Agreement oath reasonable &patch after notice in writing from any tuber party. the non - defaulting party may. but without soy obligation on its part to do so, perform its obligation et the sole expense of the defaulting party, who shall reimburse the non - defaulting party therefor upon demand 7. COUNTERPARTS This Agreement may be executed in counter parts and, as executed, s1a8 comm one agreement binding on all of the pales hereto notwithstanding that all said parties etc not signatory to the original or same counterpart, . 8. BINDING AGREEMENT. This Agreement stall be binding upon the successors and assigns of the title to the Rothblum Property and The Hopkins Street Venture Property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the parties have hcrarmo set their hands and seats the day and year fast above written. THE HOPICINS STREET VENTURE, a Colorado venture ( J /' By:�- 9a ( Tlxodore Mulars 6lalip lily: Ce.77a...-/ Al& Z i c &west fatasra.... Esther /Woe . Mania Rotbbtum STATE OF Cow4Li 1) v ) )sa COUNTY OF t', ik,n ) foregoing instrument was aclmowledged before me this *h day of May ' 1996 by -.`� ,. as a ventures in The Hopkins Street Venture, a Colorado joint venture. • 'N. • myband and official seal. on expires: - llt'fAb . Notary Public (Notary Acknowledgment to Follow on Nat Page) , STATE OF c —,aM)O ) ) ss. COUNTY OF 1'. } x r ) lent, -ev • regain$ instrument was acknowledged bereft me this (o^i'h day of M.y 1996 by Lc ` `' Al : • ** a venturer in The Hopk Street Venture, a Colorado joint venture. , my hand and official scat ' t sdoaeaiCS: 116x19 - V X+Pitr `all 02M-t&Cf\ Notary Public STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) 4. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this G= day of May, 1996 by Philip Rothblom and Maria Rothblum. WITNESS my hand and official seal My commission expires: • 4 h 7 // /J 1 /f Notary Public J eemeeleirom IS '"°7 Public, Suns algsweed Deane m&Mea CmmY , 393676 06/13/96 03:4BP PG 4 OF 6 -4- 7 : 2 ,1 !� a -- , ` \ !)q§ \� A . !¥ ;2 ; | ( ( (kk ItO - - : . I k \ , %a■ ! P b4 | ) y h m , Q : Q Hm \ r ! 11111 ® « = H. . #b - h m .p . i. § q H . t« $ \i§ A i ' � CZ Mb /� P, \ \0 / / : 1 P Hj2 - £ At \ _\ ! " � f § . � / / 1 1 .. ..� e` v.r • FX.2811' A Page 1 of 2 To Gxkcrc` 61-02-- Ii : 1 I - ; ■ n� I�1 � I� ...m., I 'To gXKT. ®r ■ ■.v■■ .11.■ ` y mins C r 3,x, ?III 1•.•.'0$1.10 111 ■ ' �-- ___ —.`� ,nom ;r 'Pa.' " M' 393676 06/13/96 03746P Pa S OF 6 OW% .rehillErl 0 r1 . M Lai ;N waxy. 9gime tAAtNtkSHli I..°Vtithi lcfvrt�va •:1::a:::l v r 11.3 • • Np gUMode46n •f)e yas ifai . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . • p Cage 2 of 2 • r Kft")P P6tL1e- - 1sT Sw t i . .a (3 P-lL� t � �� sk i 11 1 To y • t rrr - „ re ■w n r- =c� I -ill ex� re ea ra r � _ MIN rror U Z +ate = ,, A Du 0 1- , rrr . 'K ; nar _ r e� ,� I al re = 1 ees 'lilt t -rtk 0 N° fr 4 ft . C4- Nl) mac''' - y� . >r.,. wa".1°..a.,a e.) ge e jl:aa eeee lS —1� N9l ""RINE* OeDESIGN eae9xefe xee - edm64M • 9 a LL 393676 06/13/96 03:46P PG 6 OF 6 .a, to }EXHIBIT IO 1 DAVID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTSrc June 1, 2010 Property Owner Address City, State Zip Code Re: Proposed Renovation at 632 East Hopkins Avenue Dear Mr. and Mrs. Property Owner: I am writing to introduce myself as a representative for the new owner of the property at 632 East Hopkins Avenue, which is the existing commercial building at the northwest corner of East Hopkins Avenue and South Spring Street. Our architectural firm, David Johnston Architects, pc, has started working with the owner, Michael Rudin, in planning and designing a renovation of the existing building. At this early point in the process, we are reaching out to all neighbors in an effort to keep everyone informed of the progress of the project. The scope of the proposed renovation is intended to modernize the existing exterior and interior architecture, enhance the building's commercial space, add a new residential component and improve the public pedestrian space on and around the property. The project is currently under Conceptual Commercial Design Review by the City of Aspen Community Development Department and is awaiting a subsequent review and public hearing before the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. In seeing through a truly exceptional project that enhances the surrounding neighborhood and improves the overall public experience, a primary focus is to establish amicable relationships with neighboring property owners as we work through the planning, design and eventual construction phases of the project. For this reason, we invite you to contact us if you would like further information regarding the proposed renovation. Please feel free to call or email me to set up a meeting at our office, at the project site or via teleconference. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, c Adam C. Roy Land Use Planner Adam d APPENDIX B - SITE & DESIGN DOCUMENTS Exhibit 1. Vicinity Map Exhibit 2. Existing Building Photographs Exhibit 3. Improvement Survey Exhibit 4. Existing Site Plan Exhibit 5. Existing Basement Floor Plan • • Exhibit 6. Existing Main Level Floor Plan Exhibit 7. Existing Second Level Floor Plan Exhibit 8. Existing Public Amenity Space Diagram Exhibit 9. Vicinity Plan Exhibit 10. Proposed Site Plan Exhibit 11. Proposed Landscape and Public Amenity Plan Exhibit 12. Proposed Public Amenity Space Diagram Exhibit 13. Proposed Basement Floor Plan Exhibit 14. Proposed Main Level Floor Plan Exhibit 15. Proposed Second Level Floor Plan Exhibit 16. Proposed Third Level Floor Plan Exhibit 17. Proposed Building Elevations (South and East) Exhibit 18. Proposed Building Elevations (North and West) Exhibit 19. Proposed Streetscape Elevations Exhibit 20. Proposed Southeast Context Perspective Exhibit 21. Proposed South Context Perspective Exhibit 22. Proposed Southwest Context Perspective Exhibit 23. Proposed Northeast Context Perspective B 'EXHIBIT 1 1 z Via ,-, 1 , -v ",:a.--). I , 4 : , , - - .. ,- a ,:4. Iga : ..,.; T _ ' . i 1'Pt •+cam. li , _ . ir , I ' * *1 . . ' ' il; . ' e . * 1 " t 0 ° 1 . - ' ' - e f f r f.1 r+ IptA 1 ,..,, .... i , ,., , „ .. . Nit - 1 Fr:n ... IR.,. , . . - . - .irt.. ^-, #fill t * .id '‘; Ok ,,, *.i tartiath "" :<-;‘, : ,.. i ' -' ,. 'r. as • 0 st . � , gter.. � ' f .� V •. ' _ • ss• ' . It, . /7'1 te_ i .. „ . • ... die ,. .._ . ,..,. f ' h•• . ; * • 1 ' iiii .t ! ,. . •,.. I_ . ....V : ,e• . - ••■ - ,t.,.' 1:: ,.., ., ..: - • • - - A4r 7 , :_,..,. p. .1 . i lk . 2 1 l c 1 ! ; ti �' ( i r ;ill 1 - -_L__ . - F ....V . t .r, .a•, 'f ■ o f. , , -. . Nat t �yyam�'• i ' , I - — it s, ` ,� '* .. [ � J r .- `— ;.- . • • 'Y� ,. • • �^ n Y fh �s : • �! �� . `r - r te + ~ . 1147 " I It(),II r , ..i .' III ..., i . .-... .,.. _..,,, t ' N • ' ..7 . • • ;"-k''57 / ..., .., , • N.... 1 # i S wig 4 I lie .r f l yn , , , 4 4 3/ A 11 uj' o f 632 East Hopkins Avenue a P v Vicinity AIap i DAVID IOHNSTON ARCHITECTS. II (not to scale) 0 0 i ' 1 t . r ' • 4 .. . . 1 N -- -117 .1, '''': 3 ... , t ... , . if. • ' .. . t.'` . , \ '. ..' • = , • ''t 4 i ' ,1 . . . - c I . -: .:,..6, ... . 1 , .1 .. •'..1, , , 1 ..?'_ H I .. 1 , , , . .: . a• . . ,,. 1 ......... . I vn i i . ..., .,.. ,..„ „..„ 1111' , - `• - ...1;r 1 . !.' t ,. . .. _,c., 1 Vc , ...;,.: • ''.,1.....:e.i,-.-1.4.. 11 • I 1,11; -v. . . . • ;. 1 .1, ,t., i'llt. l',.. ' "• ' 4. . VI' , .. .- . ' -. +. L'..;:-...e• ., .. , . i , '... 1 . • - , ,:•- ..., , , 'VI "S.'. I _ , i I' i = ,,..., t, .. .Vi , 7 . - r ,7' ■ t' . i ' 4 ,b,% .- 1 . I . ■ :1 M o ....... niii ,.. g . Tg A 5111 632 E. HOPKINS 1 11;1=lil Fit; H wi mE, 121 0111 - i 7 ' IN • WI 0 - 632 E. HOPKINS 1 ASPEN, CO iilli Ili 0 {° alti8 LI ' zx ,INS � nci� 0.41 l �.f 'I OD 'N3dSV SNINdOH 3ZE9 „ F. o g a s € i ` r ; p SNINdOH ' 3 ZE9 3 tt M M H E x w f W 7 Y O8f lr l- 7 �-' f ..:,,igi 1 IF BB / m I'i y y ;,1 - • otter 1<3 / 7 k , / r W / O , K - Z0 • iarie "we p Ii +' 3e tow g 00'N3dSV I'3AVSNINdOH 3ZE9 N - §crane E ii i l e via = - kr ; 111111111 3:I SNI�IdOH ' 3 ZE9 3 a 3� F G .� a hfibil$ %e:9e Fla a w oo H .o`■ ill HH X lil as 8. — x -- »— a` ---" _ aeon's"` 0. e oou m.1.oa J 1 Z g 1 = N C ..... wvw. "w`ww... = CD I Z F _ I - < I I � r 1 w g 1 ph, f iC \ I � AS a •• 1 • �i $ 1 ✓ I -..\ • i 1 m 3 aI 1 h o 1 . 11 8 pp 8 ;1 M AlME0.CPE - - J A � 1Wa�U 1$ Y le 1 g `I L f p@ I ox I s C El � U LLJ , I w 11 Al. C 1i ! tt I a p I 1 — ! � v 1 =I ll ! 1 1 jw ,1 , p x p 1 8 1 R 1 ., I J I J L urrtnua 1 Oree wu. PROP WLIN MYO9'l rW 45W' LL / a eLL vma. voaww ✓ t g 5,19i m .., fin! OJ'NddStl � '3�tl SNIAdOH'3 ZE9 0 = ;z3' L 3Q 1E� l SNINdOH '3 ZE9 ffi3 gg ;VIII g'n§ B e — ul r m a 0 I iii A-.BZ - I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 ro Z N w I I I tg F 9 LLI w: Li _ ® • m 0 1 ®® w U N a ti 0 W o • OZ I I I m I I I I I I D — I - 1 0 I 0 0 o A c 0 IT „a __ °' 1 O �I. 0 \ \ \ { \VV7 uppp . I I I I 1 j 1 1 1 I i H : H . N CD 000 n rn 7Q 1 ' I I 1 1 1 I l • 1 j I 1 ti 1 II t I o 1 I Ia L m i II 1 1 1 I II I I I II I I I- -- - - -- --- --- - - -- - --1 I I I m 1 O y z w 74 m .5n Ni=1li °-- SE I -a v g Ed c I E 4 a) _ 3= 632 E. HOPKINS l 1 4 °xA a, m (!, 632 E. HOPKINS AVE. I ASPEN CO Eialiit EE" ac ^ sk` 0, iitiiigi e es m V 4._ ioir • S Mi« Sr a lliel 4 ' Gut r _, t • I mo/ • � _� ;cv arr / / L - 4 ft sib I s i 7 ,. ° i ims ■ /IT/ , . % r , --711 ir! . ^ 'O m 04 t if 1 at *11.1 mo o, 2 ir S N�NT $ i la , � A V 1 • S 4 l .c i at , a . ,, 0 J f n - 1 el Pa � /• J m et w „, 8,.. 7 SSPRING ST 0 -Lll .. 1 filo, sa, Aft a _ N SPRI Ilk \I I �,�, �ll� ei , � .` ` NGSr / /// i p �aw 0 �, . ",.... fo I IS :4 • , / Litt RI�� JP / r N ( S 7 �� *ix. , P, /l e J .v CI] itst.e,* �,- El v drab, 1 tut will, Istr 1. it c E ' / T i U x ,� �s g WWI” t}7 v _ I 9 9 ea 3 c 632 E. HOPKINS Fg -E ssso el • �� 632 E. HOPKINS I ASPEN, CO ' ' {a lie r "P. En Z E , a 1 II 111 m i�iPfl:g ' _ .. ', 31 i {3; h OD N3dSV 1 '3Av SNINdOH '3 CO 2' u CO eCa? fil E mW 0 = ! aR ;[ ; g i ; SNINIdOH '1 ZE9 , s ? I ;ilt;il? E s �s< en co ua H•r Fa fl oc x 0 w __ . _P&NPENMINF __ nro911 E,95.111 __—....--- -...—n - -- --4-- __i Z a z a 0 m z o z § § uric w ve Q LU 4 k� � Q CC la r I y; u 1 F ' D LL LL ✓1 0 Y o v H a co III Si.. 171 II LL ` 1 �8 ° • \ Q Q ri E Y, \\\\ .' i. 1-O c 1— wwl '111 10 �\. ` l8 vi � re w't'1 N 8 .1 � 1 y wP 0 . W �. � CJ CC S W d ¢ . 'i 0 PI cri P wo w s cc ri le g co I 0 c1 z I —' N F X 031 1‘ \ \% 4 u .t. � I I \ PPOPEPNIINE NIN0911W 95.00 / ,u EAST HOPKINS AVENUE r' xc {2 rc'fA nU i t•. ‘ glih 45. 1 nw.wn ) 11111b11. 1 o 1 a 1, 1 1 I g 1 h I M A 1 1 ,M 1 1 1 m I i '13 ' 1 I- _ - _ __.. TT rii I 1 0 1 1 T 1 T n V A e o 1 0 c > ➢ l':. 2 1 8 7 I 5 8 -o 8 z Z 5 ^' ' 1 ' „,.07° 0 7 1 1 In 0 81 - I m o 1 I s y� � y S ... .r........ , n $ 1 - 1 z f /r - ... E� 4/ • ' � 1 I — /l� I 'iv Alw 1 / r m /_. I { I r i pi co,,,,,,,,, ,„ - - i II mita I . ° 1 q 1ll -11 0 ° 1 Ill T r11 CM. 1 LL-1 0 =1 1 x ' _ I I • Z II3" 1 *'. - 5 / g 11 S 1 I to ¢ s -o g I JO - o - 1 U 5 -_ a ‘ '..- .— s'IsEs4TEasdE __ _ t — M ALLEY BLOCK 98 = Q \\\_—,r in a i, 3 g a f ipiiii?i E'&;• _ .._._ '£ ` i ° 632 E. HOPKINS , .1 §= e 3 0 632 E HOPKINS 1 ASPEN,CO ' 3ie�& EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ,,,.„ sfr. ft„,,,,,,,,x vr aft 14 i - 4 4 ,s- ,Ir S • . 1 SLIDING DOOR SLIDING WALL SYSTEM MAIN ENTRY f I I ,. v v r 1 1 1 ? 1 S li A 1. ,� 1 G m y n•. I i {{ i m • t ' • 8 1 6!i to n M�' J A a. a y I 0 • t Vi r g 1 m m a -c m o II 1 a m 0 ' § I . E 1 1 v to �1 .. I 1-.1.4.1-t.• 0 n 1 !; 1 73 'I 7 D 0 m DJ 1 F I '1 1 '0 ' r , s. _-1I m ALLEY BLOCK 98 m OD t I i 5 °c 632 E. HOPKINS 11 HP VW = 0 a: I..- 632E.HOPKINS 1 ASPEN, CO 3 IP it W ;f' i m 1110111 r "° tir , EAST HOPKINS AVENUE � 6 __ = t • o I , m O t 1 C iN W 1 - r A D L K 1 L 1/4 t, v, v, z o T T 0 _o n rf D Im _, ?_.>) ,v-,%,, � fl'1k r 8 _ S 8 m yy .¢ m N ss \ N\ \kt , 1111,114 cn v+ ] ° \\ �1' W� II N. £N o F In O o rn \\ I -< { I l r — 1111 111 .., II 11 rn D vi p v rn �0 i5 - sr 1 �4 rp M W I }} *� y-p oiN N f11 3 a ' . , p � �1 W r 1 - rn VI JO p k' u it¢ a C m i'V' -.4,,r 1 I 3d { Nl' f 4;';‘ :{ j e __ - . _s7so9l 0400 __.._ -__ -__ 9 _ � ALLEY BLOCK 98 0 i IT) rl N E! m o . g 1` — '£ 9E 6 E. HOPKINS l i z ' = 5 l i,i 11 s? FQ n. 333 N _ 632 E. HOPKINS I ASPEN, CO T 1 4 :1iIII E ;1"'; i S . m dirk! : ,o. 3 Q 8 O O O O : N 9' a -y 9q 9'S II) 99�_ y 0 I,_ I l 0 9 L A I , , f 11' 19' -O K r n 0. o = z D Z m D r i _ ,■S ` o - . - 0 • a ' 0 e. -s. •.r 11..r n -) � Q -e 9' O © O O D m x x m --9 w S din i.- i 3S i3; n r 0 c 632 E. HOPKINS i ; N . 3“ w 102 t Term ? `�` _ . 632 E HOPKINS ASPEN, CO 'L lninli ex a ii7`=, , 1 1 I I 1 0 z y p o rl t o b 1 — 1 T 5}1 1 n .. A d A K ^ 1 0 a J et • • // V /% r ' il 1 r / r m / ? .1z Q �.k O Z i s 0 • W i I{ i S 1 It ��1�� ®� N i • • i' • Y∎ g��: i . a e r '2- f f XAkS .4° 1 $ a x D xh s S D 1 D 0 os T 0 tr 7) g•':;:-.7.-':':7!';:i-J•••,".7••:7;4."-1,•;.,•- 4 • x „ ] 5 f -4 15'. n • — -5 . 1 • ALLEY BLOCK 98 n - r a ._ a . b - U \_l O O m x W —, a 1 632 E. HOPKINS '° '';'; �� `” _ _�_ � ; >,; p 1 9X -g 1 al `I 672EHOPKINS ASPEN, CO r jgy; $ eE'; " s `4, 0 N o 7 O _� o s o � z O ' ' ' ]' e' -s' n'4' e ' -e' -- 1 1 1 1 I' I I C z //I A O aS N , VI N F lit r CI. iP'. i ! © O 1 n m Y ' 1 l ;'', gg I ; a m O W , W � q ® IIIIII 1 o i ,, t I '481.‘“! r LI t, # � d rcr.' s .. , . Tl r s l i 194 t } L ° '' u m n., • • vv + 59 AnA88 # 4 [ Se�AU�lpx {a 1F l- I 5 . O O O O 0 O m X z W q tu ego eF1tE '9 $ � c i l �la9 Gd�N C a s $ a g 632 E. HOPKINS € _ 9 �� ° e3 = ` rig �, L °, r- .f J • 5 _ 632 E HOPKINS 1 ASPEN CO a i, h � eFc E -¢ s rniri C) o O O O O 1 I I I 4 �, —I \— _- - - __ —_I — __ f =- 0 v s I Z ce O . O m i c 1 w•. t' O ,:f.17,-'44.4:i. • "x's� FFi fi n a aZKYk 3i r ✓ �u. P x62 t -�#+ v s .r fa x a sr 3u x k'. 4 0. "#m. r4 6 4 ,� ris F ,- 4' 4 ma ',0` are d F li .F *' .- > t • . a: S — _._ � . ". .. - !� xi# i t k S F • `t + °' - tk ) ad i^a i —. '" l �w i1 m d ' wi, Y t D ., t x x r v n A ;� x-t ry i r fil/ ..Es' Y a ai L A '. Z oli 8 . d I /4 / 5 . /1 1i F ' =r '. g 1 * ? 4 2 'Y x M a F« t z- t y� a a 4 � �sF ,°� P ss ��c Yk''�,i�2y.a5 •Sn II' 7 .y1 ii:ljliti k ® _ _ I i 't uc V� R * y tS��x) ' 0 l NI I • o-... 11l' 1 k • t z. — II 6, ..... Y . s '' 4 .-> rx -, p t @. to .q. u {p .N # a3$ _ + m r l ff l r i , r i° ,� ,. a , ,9:c Y , h d i ` ` � -= — - -- —' -- 0 I 1 I I I 1 _ 6" m X x w r i m 'o ads g t°;.� ®. '�3 f l 3 art-. E ?e :$ a 1 632 E. HOPKINS iiiii, „ „. $` ; 5 _ 632 E. HOPKINS ASPEN, CO 111191` [ E 3 V p e WOO 0 0 1 Y 7 I 7 z - 4 D I — 36._0.. a3 ra 1 ,1 � �, � th+xl fi Y# I I 1 I NE EI 1 C 1 ASSN C N o 1 z 11 I I 11 x; 611 I I 1 . _ L'. I .. ! 0 ��y 1A III t I l'.•,) a l e l III' R . I 1 IP -g g I I hill �, ...*Ii. ...*Ii. f 1 II z � ` `x;i 1 1 Vii: I 11= 1 Ia�� 1 II 3 1 11 s s�.�.�.�. � :� . ' p2 1 �,, 1 II ! I EI +fir I I L .=!L 1 11�'� a IIIik� P " L , II I f p II a 1, It 1 i 0'1 to 1 1 mit l y,� I I a 1` II P t 1 I I I I I I ,,• .. iI I ... 1 1 I - " e_ I I ■I I■ 1 '� I 1 �. ., ° 1 , I I 40' -0' i ill U I I 1 { I 1 1 I i / I I= 1 I I I I m W 1 , l ' .e PO k €g i9 c ` 632 E. HOPKINS n EE1 `oa E E" 632E. HOPKINS ASPEN, . ili b E�, - -�; e 12- 'sl3i& rt -1/4„r 0 • 'm 1 0 z Ela 40 t o I r I '7. r?J 1 I g z i. _ m - z `.- 0 j -- va IF II i 11 � I r I r 1 I 1 "5 , 1 rrr r ^'A j F 1 1 tatatsmc .r. I 1 d- . " 1� A I � - j I I I I I I 1 ti I I I I I I I I li� Ig 'I_ ® ®____ • l;i 1l lid 1 .1...a......, • 111 i II Ir 11 1 1 36 0" 1 I I I . : , y I I I x x x w J op �p mi Hi ltigi $ ^ — no _ "k= 1 6 E. HOPKINS € a s x ` ; „. 8 632 HOPKINS ASPEN, CO ° s3?dsP e a ?? � ` 'E S 94161 a = i ^ ,- `,,; '. \ / r r i Y • a Y C $ G N 14, y = y ' o 1 m J £ 4 ate W Z C to y 3: O m .a s' 5 } x - • 2. x _.. 2 o- s t M 1 i N y� ' m P. ¢ R 9V. ..,�` s a _ Iii =I m,!• 'R(^ o : s -: I" i N Ate . '' i so ' r® M w- h r; l y 1�II ial Ij�d.l� II �5- ti � jl- J lei ' !^ � 1 f �S .� O = ad IC �� ° ma 1 n 771 AM! i t �...a —I 7C lir& CM IZ ,G` MS ow I Mil I y• ; , MAR r.„ _d a W N 1.2 s l R ti O H ti Z o g 0 _ N h -o S 4 v ]C J 7 Z Z 1 Z $ > A N 1 Z m IA 2 ti Z el, ... m � i ` C ti Kill m �, m Lid m l y m r. G , y 5->r m :Z ° z z i W I gE t i1 �/'� =1 7 zg 632 E. HOPKINS ! ; oo f= e - el LC) 632 E. HOPKINS 1 ASPEN, CO ' II 1' tc p sea "t $ m ~•dtaijd ............. .. C - / . / • { © \ 41: \ ~ \ \ . \ d ] • 1, i . K i \ ? y. 2z \ » . . «« � - \ % « : I . .. y y< ' \ ) < \ ` \ \ /. \ - �� / \ / ■ . { °§ ( - • \ ( ( \ ® . ± .. . . \ ) %! \ \ «a . ( .: . \ r \ ' ? 2 / } Irk .. + } } • \ ` \ . , » / ® / . / / \ : I 1 r 2 ri , ,� . § ] , i = § § / 8 82 E HORg NS | / § /\ D \ , erg »gym ;= ! \ 2 \! h J ) . - jq \ � / ,, „, 1 R 4 ( e 1` { 1f � { Y� 1 f fi �{ 8' i v y; : + i E ' . { 4 F l H 9. 1P 9 , L B 1 ... V , y � i , ? f pa r a t .4- 1 ® � �� g ' ' 1 f w 7r 1 Y1� 3 1 (, � { �F,�. o t rjd d`E i ii 1 � ��t I 1 y A F , I - 8 { i 7 f a Y, s y i r t F fE �' H sY & 7J' � � ■ r I I yyy 5.. ',.j f rt ) I r .tea Y y y i r 9 $ t! 9 i � i 4 ml }.ri. , w., ,:'' rr y x ` m x 1 m 1 N g$ j O • a ' i ; t # 2' N h 632 E. HOPKASPEN, INS aM = O q9 j R El 0 ill: „ 632 E. HOPKINS CO {{PE� iEVE ^° _ yA` s^" !.+' ` J I ' I!1. I I ilt�ii 1 i ii% �I ll i �fll{III _I � Iilll • � m 0„p • 1II 1 '1I + O .'V�p�'�'+� li _ .fi ♦�� •, Vii- N• ]e kifa 44'2 I r �h: II 1 I I �� I +a w ,.�� } {{ I 'I il.� _j. 1171 i { H fl { 11 'PI 'I " a ♦� •t 1 '4 la1.11I , I III I "i 1! + . ' 1 a ' 1 ' 1 + 1 I o {� I .. S' IJ .11 I -.VA III I i i' 11 1 , 1 —_ ' il l 1 III II 1 � 1 1 �i f 'n ', :c` e k+, j I`j - .' 1' II 'ir 4 ,A T iZetC l iiElifl Id li tl f ` T?� l + , I � ! �t- `r 1 + weir �h If , "i fill. f I i i - t +Y ♦ 4 e I r . L . 1 i i . 4 � ^ u ...41 "" try le I I I' I -III � r 0 C 1 I 0 I Ill f I - I ,, I " t � " - "- --- _ -0 u % F i i >' • S ~ S ` y// n � •I I o m vi �tr1. ; w ;r+a i 4 --a" !l9 � + .r 4 h s • .,1 , 0 . m I p �..•. r •3^ . G A I A • ;a _ ztr , _ , ,� + 41 !? 4 y 41 1 i