Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.422 E Cooper Ave.00018.2012.AHPC THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0018.2012.AHPC PARCEL ID NUMBERS 2737 182 16 061 Ll-Z2 PROJECTS ADDRESS 420 E. COOPER ST PLANNER AMY GUTHRIE CASE DESCRIPTION CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW REPRESENTATIVE STAN CLAUSEN DATE OF FINAL ACTION 11/26/12 CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON: 3.19.13 MEMORANDUM TO: Land Use File 0026.2012.AHPC FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner RE: Notice of HPC approval of Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design Review: J E. Cooper Ave., HPC Resolution#26, Series of 2012 During the regular City Council meeting on November 12, 2012, City Council voted to call up HPC Resolution#26, Series of 2012. During the regular City Council meeting on November 26, 2012, City Council voted 4 — 1 to uphold HPC Resolution #26, Series of 2012 granting Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design Review. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner �! THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director �V/1/1 RE: Call-up of HPC approval of Conceptual Major Development Review, Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Demolition: 422 E. Cooper Ave., HPC Resolution #26, Series of 2012 MEETING DATE: November 26, 2012 COUNCIL REQUEST: On November 12`h City Council voted to call up the HPC approval of Conceptual Major Development Review and Conceptual Commercial Design Review to demolish part of the existing building and to construct a three story building adjacent to the Red Onion. Council is asked to proceed with the call up procedures and take action on one of the options listed below. REVIEW PROCESS: During a public meeting, City Council shall consider the application de novo and may consider the record established by the HPC. The City Council shall conduct its review of the application under the same criteria applicable to the HPC. City Council may take the following action: 1. Accept the decision. 2. Remand the application to HPC with direction from City Council for rehearing and reconsideration. 3. Continue the meeting to request additional evidence, analysis or testimony as necessary to conclude the call up review. If Council selects Option #2 and remands the application back to the Board, the rehearing and reconsideration of the application by HPC is final and concludes the call up review. Substantial changes to the application outside of the specific topics listed in the remand to HPC may require a new call up notice to City Council; however the call up review would be limited only to the new changes to the application. This application is subject to an administrative Growth Management review to create a free market residential unit on a landmark property (as a benefit to landmarks the first free market unit on a landmark parcel does not require mitigation) and Subdivision review by Planning and Zoning and City Council. BACKGROUND: HPC granted approval to demolish the back portion of the one story commercial space adjacent to the 1892 Red Onion building and construct a three story building. A Viewplane exemption was granted due to other development (the Roaring Fork Building and Paragon Building) already blocking the Wheeler Viewplane. The 1892 Red Onion sits on a 9,000 square feet lot that includes the one story commercial space to the east (the subject of this review) and a two story commercial space to the west. All three spaces were internally connected at one time to serve as a large Red Onion with a bar, nightclub and family dining room. The entire lot is designated a historic landmark and is considered contributing to the Commercial Core Historic District. The applicant proposes to create one new residential unit that spans the second and third floor of the proposed new addition. There are currently no residential units on the 9,000 square feet parcel. The first floor and basement are proposed to be commercial use. There is no proposed increase in net leasable commercial area. Significant setbacks are proposed for the second and third floors (12' 1" and 45' respectively) to maintain the prominence of the historic 1892 Red Onion. The proposed building height is 38.' There is no rooftop deck proposed atop the 3rd Story. Decks are proposed on the front elevation of the 2nd and 3rd stories. After two public hearings, HPC recommended in favor of the design reviews with conditions by a vote of 4:1. DISCUSSION: During the discussion on November 12, 2012, Council raised concerns about the Viewplane Exemption granted by HPC. The Code does not allow call-up of HPC's Viewplane decision, but does permit call-up of Conceptual Commercial Design Review that addresses height, mass and scale. Staff and HPC felt that the significant 45' third floor setback pushes the mass as far away from the street facade as possible. There are four story buildings directly across the alley, the Roaring Fork Building and the Paragon Building, that create a tall backdrop behind the Red Onion and already block the the Wheeler Opera House Viewplane for this project. The Paragon Building is a historic landmark; therefore demolition of the building is highly unlikely. It is also unlikely that the Roaring Fork Building would be demolished in the future because the Code does not allow 4 story buildings in the Commercial Core Historic District any longer, so the square footage could not be replaced in a new building. Staff and HPC found that the Conceptual Design Guidelines were met. Staff finds that HPC conducted their reviews in accordance with the Code and the Design Guidelines. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council accept HPC's decision. RECOMMENDED MOTION(ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to accept HPC's decision to grant Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design and Demolition." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Approved Plans Exhibit B: HPC Resolution 17, Series 2012 Exhibit C: HPC approved minutes September 12, 2012 Exhibit D: HPC approved minutes October 24, 2012 • A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)it GRANTING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW (CONCEPTUAL), DEMOLITION, AND VIEWPLANE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 422 EAST COOPER AVENUE RED ONION CONDOS, UNIT 1, LOTS N, O, P, BLOCK 89, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION # 26, SERIES OF 2012 PARCEL ID: 2737-182-16-061. WHEREAS, the applicant, Red Onion Investors, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., has requested Major Development (Conceptual), Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review, Demolition, and Viewplane Reviews the property located at 422 East Cooper Avenue, Red Onion Condos, Unit 1, Lots N, O, P, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, 422 East Cooper Avenue is located within the Commercial Core Historic District and is located on a designated historic parcel; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Commercial Design Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines per Section 26.412.040.A.2, Commercial Design Standards Review Procedure, of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, in order to authorize a Demolition, according to Section 26.415.080, Demolition of designated historic properties, it must be demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: 422 East Cooper Avenue HPC Resolution# 26, Series of 2012 Page 1 of 4 a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, C. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and C. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area; and WHEREAS, pursuant to 26.435.050.C., Mountain Viewplane Review Standards, of the Land Use Code, no development shall be permitted within a mountain view plane unless the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided below. When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable building height otherwise provided for in this Title, development shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445 as a Planned Unit Development so as to provide for maximum flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and pedestrian space and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building height requirements and view plane height limitations. The Planning and Zoning Commission, after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Department, may exempt a development from being processed as a Planned Unit Development when the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the proposed development has a minimal effect on the view plane. When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to re- open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view plane and re-redevelopment to reopen the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning 422 East Cooper Avenue HPC Resolution# 26, Series of 2012 Page 2 of 4 and Zoning Commission shall exempt the development from the requirements of this Section; and WHEREAS, during the September 12, 2012 meeting the applicant demonstrated compliance with Land Use Code Section 26.304.035 Neighborhood Outreach; and WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report to HPC dated September 12, 2012 performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards had been met, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 24, 2012 continued from September 12, 2012 and September 19, 2012, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and recommended approval with conditions by a vote of four—one (4 - 1). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants HPC Major Development (Conceptual), Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review, Demolition, and Viewplane Review for the property located at 422 East Cooper Avenue, Red Onion Condos, Unit 1, Lots N, O, P, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 1. Demolition of the building located at 422 E. Cooper Street and retaining the front fayade is approved with the condition that a structural assessment of the front facade be submitted with the Final Review application. 2. The mass and scale is approved as presented in the application. 3. A maximum of 38 feet is approved as presented in the application, with Land Use Code height exemptions for elevator overrun and mechanical equipment as stated in Section 26.575.020.F(4)Allowed Exemptions to Height Limitations. 4. A mechanical plan and elevations shall be submitted with the Final Review application. 5. Off-site public amenity improvements to the Pedestrian Malls is approved in accordance with Land Use Code Section 26.575.030.C(2) Off-site provision of public amenity and is subject to review and approval by the Parks Department. The improvements shall equal or exceed the value of the cash in lieu payment of$67,500. 6. The proposal is determined to have a minimal impact on the viewplane due to the existing development that already blocks the viewplane and is hereby exempt from being processed as a PUD in accordance with Section 26.435.050.C.1. Any mechanical equipment placed within the viewplane shall comply with Section 26.435.050, which may require a new viewplane review. 7. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for 422 East Cooper Avenue HPC Resolution# 26, Series of 2012 Page 3 of 4 a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. Jay Maytin, Vice- Chair Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 422 East Cooper Avenue HPC Resolution# 26, Series of 2012 Page 4 of 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 Chairperson, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Nora Berko, Willis Pember, Jay Maytin, Jamie McLeod, Patrick Segal, Sallie Golden and Jane Hills. Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Jay moved to approve the minutes of August 15th second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried. Public comments: Bill Wiener, 701 Gibson. It is important to preserve the character of this community. The height issue is now before the public because of what went on with council and the 28 feet. When we put extra height on a building we are putting extra volume on it also. There are circumstances that where a building needs to be taller than 28 feet. To do that they need to mitigate. It is time to start looking at volume and that is mass and it is changing the character. There is a formula that I can work on. You would get setbacks that create urban feel with little gardens. Jay said our guidelines indicate no setbacks. Bill said the character of this community has been little gardens, flowers and a piece of sculpture and variety around town. This is not that kind of large city where we need everything to the property line. Bill said he will do a volume analysis. 422 E. Cooper Ave. Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Demolition, Mountain View Plane Review, Public Hearing Sallie recused herself. Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney stated the public notice is in order and the applicant can proceed. Exhibit I Amy said we are dealing with a 9,000 square foot lot on the Cooper Ave mall and it contains 3 structures. One has an art gallery and a t-shirt shop, the Red Onion Restaurant and a poster shop. The entire property is landmarked and in the historic district. At one time the Red Onion occupied 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 all three spaces. This proposal only affects the portion of the property that is occupied by the poster shop. The structure was built around 1965-66. This application is to demolish the one story poster shop addition. The applicant is proposing to keep the facade as it is now on Cooper but there is some uncertainty as to whether it will survive the construction process. The new construction will have a one story element at the front, a setback two story element and setback three story element. There is no residential use on the lot right now but it would be created. Staff feels because it is set back and sympathetic to the architecture of the Red Onion and adjacent building we feel the scale is appropriate. Staff feels that the signage on the Red Onion restaurant east facing should not be blocked. The floor levels align with the adjacent buildings and staff feels the proportions are good. They are at the allowed height limit and are not asking to exceed it. There is a requirement that they address the public amenity requirement. There are several ways to do that. They can physically set a building back from the street and provide cash-in-lieu. They would like to continue to have the poster shop right at the street line and would make a contribution to improvements to Cooper Ave. They are required to provide a certain amount of trash and utility area and that is being met. They are located within the Wheeler Opera House view plane. There are many things in the way that obstruct that view and some existed at the time the view plane was adopted particularly the Paragon building. The view plan slices across the Red Onion property and we want to ensure that nothing they are constructing now makes the view plane blocked anymore. Their argument is that existing development on the Hyman mall already interferes with the projection of the view plan of Aspen Mountain and they are not making the situation worse. The issues that need addressed are demolition, the appropriateness of the mass, scale and height of the addition, cash-in-lieu; trash and utility and Wheeler Opera House view plane. Staff recommends conceptual approval with conditions. Patrick said if the buildings on Hyman were redeveloped they would have to comply with the view plane. Amy said you are supposed to address the situation as of today and are they infringing further on the view plan than other obstructing buildings already do. Stan Clauson and Associates Inc. Kim Weil, Poss Architects 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 Stan presented a power point on the existing buildings and proposed development. Regarding the neighborhood outreach we had a meeting explaining the project. The project was generally positively received. The building is a cinder block building, slab on grade and a portion of the Red Onion Restaurant comes into it on the first floor. Kim said the dimensions of the building are 20 x 100. Stan said in documentation that we have we show that 422 E. Cooper is not historical and has no historical significance even though it is associated with the historically designated Red Onion. On the first floor there is 1,000 square feet of net leasable and the proposed residence on the second and third floor would consist of 2,000 square feet. There are significant setbacks. On the first floor to the second floor it is set back 12 feet and on the third floor it is set back 45 feet. The existing facade will be maintained if we can shore it up. An elevator provides access to the third floor. The Red Onion sign would remain. The entry would be the same as it is now with a single doorway adjacent to the large picture window. From the doorway you would enter the commercial space and then enter stairs and the elevator to access the second and third level. There is no access to a third floor roof deck. The elevator has a simple over run on the third story. The highest point is 38 feet which is compliant with the code and then there is approximately a 4 foot elevator run. View plane The building is located within the Wheeler Opera House view plane generally speaking, but due to the height of the buildings on Hyman the proposed development will be blocked from the view plane. The view plane cuts off a portion of the third story. Because it is blocked the code provides for a complete exemption from the view plane. The blockage largely occurs from the Paragon building and the Roaring Fork building. Kim said it was not our intent to create an architectural statement as much as it was to do something of its time and respect the Red Onion. We will keep the white fagade and we would step back and use brick and stone and glass rails which tend to minimumize the mass. We wanted to keep it simple because there is an alley behind it and two buildings on either side. Jay asked about the scrubber on the roof for the Red Onion restaurant and where it would be located. 3 ..:e ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 Kim said we will retain a mechanical engineer to determine what our options are. Codes require hoods and kitchen equipment to be up and we aren't sure which building it will be on top of since the owner owns all three buildings. New technology allows the mechanicals to be smaller. Jane asked about maintaining and retaining the Red Onion sign. With the decks and setbacks people will be living in those units and they will likely have things on their decks. Kim said the second level deck is set back for that very reason. We are holding the deck back from the sign so things can't be put there. Jamie inquired about the street entrance. Kim said in order to retain the picture window the door entrance will be right where it is now to serve the retail and residential unit. It is a little step up. Nora said given the idea that we are trying to make iconic buildings stand out and have some breathing room how can we not over shadow the Red Onion building. Stan said the proposal has very significant setbacks. On the second floor it is set back 12 feet and 45 feet on the third floor. Kim pointed out that the lot is 100 feet deep and we are 45 feet back and there is no roof deck or stairs to the third floor. Kim said it would be difficult to come back later for a roof top deck because you would need an elevator and two sets of stairs. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public comments. Junee Kirk said she attended the neighborhood meeting and listened to many of the comments. The Red Onion is one of the most iconic buildings and I would hope that you would not put the third story on but rather look at the balance of this. Balance in terms of space and space in terms of not building right next to it. The Red Onion had one story structures on either side. The guidelines indicated buildings next to iconic buildings should not exceed a 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 height of 28 feet. On the alley side with the third floor addition you will have a 42 foot high structure that will impact the Red Onion. This is an historic block and once you destroy the Red Onion it is sad thing that we are doing to this town and our local history. In Europe they really honor history. You should take the one story and go back 12 to 20 feet on the second story and they can still have their pent house. Chairperson, Ann Mullins closed the public comment section of the agenda item. Sallie stated that the sign should be protected and the mechanical should be addressed on the roof. Jay asked for information on the plate heights. Kim said the first floor is 13 feet and the second level to the third level is 11 feet. The third floor is 12. 6 feet. These are floor to floor heights. The plate heights would be lower. That amounts to a 38 foot high building. Ann outlined the issues: Demolition Mass and scale Height Public amenity Trash/utility View plane Patrick asked staff if by right they can build 38 feet. Amy said that is the maximum they can have and HPC would have to approve that height in the project. Jay pointed out that the Red Onion is the center of the block and everything else tapers down lower. The buildings behind the Red Onion are massive. If any block can handle 38 feet it is this block. I would like to see if the applicant can study the mechanical and see if they can bring the 38 feet down to 36 feet. That is an important part and we might not need the max for the program. Ann said the Red Onion is dominant on the block and we have one owner for all three lots and we can maintain the dominance of that historic resource 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 within the block. This project does not do that. The demolition is fine. The mass, scale and height is unacceptable. It completely dwarfs the Red Onion and you will get some of the view from the west side. On the east side it will be the tallest building in the block. The third story will stick out and dominate and compromise the Red Onion. The public amenity and trash/utility are fine. I can't accept that something else is blocking the view plane. The main issue is the third story. Jamie said the third floor is over powering the Red Onion building. Jay said for what is behind this building and the large setback is clearly there to honor the Red Onion. I support the project with a restudy of the height and this project can handle the mass. Sallie recused herself. Jane will be voting. Nora said she feels we are chipping away at our mission. Our mission is to preserve what we have. The Red Onion deserves some prominence. Part of the appeal of this town is what we have in history and as we build these huge buildings next to it I have to look back and ask what I have contributed in preserving what we have. Willis said he feels the board is struggling with reading the mass and scale. It would really help to have a three dimensional representation and show the view planes. A one story building is not in the vocabulary of this project. Stan stated that the Red Onion is flanked by one and two story structures. The entry to the two story structure comes right up to the Red Onion. The building is at 38 feet. With respect to the view plane the code is very clear and if something interrupts the view plane in front of you, you are exempt from the view plane. We could have come to you with a two story building coming all the way out to the front but in respecting the sign and the Red Onion there is a significant setback for the second story and a significant setback for the third floor. We feel this is a very respectful and small project. We can do a three D model. MOTION: Ann moved to continue 422 E. Cooper to Sept. 19t'; second by Jamie. Motion carried 6-1. Jay opposed. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 Patrick said his issue is the third story. Jamie said her concern is the height against the Red Onion and how much higher is it. Ann said she feels the building should be a two story. If that isn't possible then there should be no view plane compromise. Willis said he feels the mass and profile is very promising and if you go two stories you will block the sign and that doesn't make sense. From any pedestrian point of view you won't see the third story. Jane said she agrees with Willis that a three D contextual of the neighborhood would be helpful. How does it compare to the street. I-like the project and want to see it in terms of height context. MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012 Vice-chair, Jay Maytin called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Nora Berko, Willis Pember, Sallie Golden and Jane Hills. Jamie McLeod, Ann Mullins and Patrick Sagal were absent. Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Sara Adams, Senior Planner Motion: Nora moved to approve the minutes of Sept. 12th second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried. Motion: Jane moved to approve the minutes of September 19th second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried. Jane will recuse herself on 610 E. Hyman 400 E. Hyman Ave. — Minor Review Debbie inn said the public notice affidavit and they are in order d the applicant c proceed. Exhibit I Sara said the prod t is also called the Tom Thumb buil ' g located in the commercial core op p ite the Wheeler Opera House he applicant has submitted for a minor d lopment review to do me window changes and freshening up of the existin uilding rather t n the previous proposal of a large glass box. They are prop ng wind changes to the first and second floor. On the second floor they wa t ut larger windows in. This does not meet our strict design guideline downtown where it says there is a solid to void ratio on the second oor. ever, this building was built in 1981 and we think the propo to enlarge th windows on the second floor actually freshens up the b ' ding and contribute ore to the commercial core than leaving the dows the way they are. Signage: Staff some concerns with the signage and as condition of approval it s uld be reviewed by staff and monitor. Signage ' not somethin C typically sees. It is usually reviewed with the z ing officer but sin it is wrapped with the minor review we thought it prudent to bring it to t board. Our big concern is the location of the signage. There is 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012 Vice- air Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. There were no public commen . The public comment section of the agenda item was close Louis said he preciates all the comments and feels the design i more appropriate for e area. On the lighting I will work with Sar o make it as acceptable a s p os ' le. I know what the board wants. Thi s a luxury store. We can also have a ockup made before it is installed. n the screening we can look at other alt ern tives. Ken Sack said he is part ow r of the store and sured the board that the awning will be kept clean. Jay recommended that condition #2 e ended that the wall sign be reviewed by staff and monitor. #3 th all sign and lighting and a mockup to be approved by staff and monito #4 t e approved by staff and monitor. Motion: Jay moved to approve esolution #25 'th the following changes: #2Wa11 sign location to be re sewed and approve staff and monitor. #3 Applicant shall provide mockup of the wall sign ' cluding the lighting and to be approved by s ff and monitor. #4 Mechanical to be a proved by staff and monitor. Motion second by ora. Willis made a riendly amendment to strike #2 as the sign location is approved o the second floor as presented. Nora accepted the amendment All in fav r, motion carried. 5-0. Salli nd Jay are the monitors. 422 E. Cooper Ave. — Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual commercial Design Review, Demolition, Mountain View Plane Review, Public Hearing Sara said the key issues are height, impact of the third floor, vertical sign and mechanical equipment. Stan Clauson did a power point showing the sign from different views. The sign is not obscured as the third floor is set back 45 feet. Stan said they 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012 realized the setbacks had to be significant due to the Red Onion. Stan said we can review the mechanical at final and will look for the smallest equipment available. Willis inquired about the view plane. Sara said the view plane is from the steps of the Wheeler opera house. Kim said the overrun on the third floor for mechanical is 4.2 feet. Nora said she supports demolition and the public amenity request and the trash/utility area. Two stories are OK but the 3 rd floor is too much. The Red Onion is the only structure on the block that needs to be prominent. Jane said she is OK with staff s recommendations. With regard to the massing and scale the applicant has done a great job and the setbacks are OK. Jane said the heights are OK. I'm not in favor of the elevator over fun but it is a requirement. Sallie agreed with Jane's comments. Willis said it comes down to the third floor as seen from Casa Tua. The massing is successful and the upper floors have no visible connection to the Red Onion. Jay said the project is good. For final there needs to be a restudy of the roofline/cornice. The detailing on the second floor needs to be simpler. Vice-chair Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. Junee Kirk said you can see the massive building from the east side. The Red Onion is the most obvious building on the block. Vice-chair Jay Maytin closed the public hearing. Sallie agreed with Jay that the detailing on the second floor should be restudied for final and the lines simplified. MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution 26 second by Jane. Motion carried 4-1. Nora opposed. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012 610 E. Hyman — AspenModern Negotiation for Voluntary Landmark Designation, Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Special Review for utility/trash recycling area, continued from October 101h — public hearing Jane recused herself. Amy summarized the staff memo. This is an AspenModern negotiation 6 STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES INC landscape architecture planning. resort design 412 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 t.970/925-2323 f.970/92o-1628 info @scaplanning.com w_ww.scaplanning.com �(S� 19 November 2012 Fyj Ms.Sara Adams, AICP Senior Planner, City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 422 E. Cooper Redevelopment/City Council Call-Up Dear Sara: As requested, please find enclosed eight (8) additional sets of the architectural plans and the view simulations previously submitted for the Conceptual Commercial Design Review of the redevelopment of 422 E. Cooper. The applicant has proposed a mixed use development to replace Unit 1 of the Red Onion Condominiums. Unit 1, located to the east of the Red Onion restaurant, is currently occupied by a poster shop. This project seeks to replace the poorly constructed structure, built circa 1955 as an addition to the Red Onion restaurant. The building shows signs of serious settling and the structural integrity of the building is in question. Although this building itself has not been deemed historic, by maintaining the appearance of the existing front facade in the proposed replacement, along with its generous setbacks, the proposed project will continue to complement the integrity of the historic Red Onion building and its relationship to the Historic District. Considering that the lot is 100 feet deep, the proposed setbacks of 12 feet for the second story and 45 feet for the third story place a significant portion of the mass of the building to the rear of the property. As the view simulations indicate, pedestrians passing along the Cooper Avenue mall will see very little of the second story and virtually none of the third. The setbacks and massing of the building received strong support from the members of the Historic Preservation Commission. With regards to the Wheeler Opera House view plane, the Roaring Fork Building (415 East Hyman) and the Paragon Building (419 East Hyman) are located in front of the proposed development and the position of these two buildings blocks the proposed development from any interference with the Wheeler Opera House view plane. Accordingly, the applicant has been exempted from the view plane requirements as is specified in 26.435.050(c) of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. Staff and the Historic Preservation Commission agreed that the viewplane was not affected. ly o rs, ru I S an la AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, Inc. Enclosure - I I •?ti •I z 14414u I lhll-ur - x a r View Simulation # 1 - View from Casa Tua October 18, 2012 Conceptual Design Review o n STAN CLAdSQN ASSOCIATES FOSS AW�HITE. IORF r PLANNING P 9 I�a�u q1 u[Allrelu u.�IVnic� V![r! dn+�e r I fJ 4a:ft 0rAl1u" AW0.001aloo*0n !.1!u.n�[Arun [4.10 nr0nu •.[r. Red Onion Unit 1 !""` rn N7absltNl 1.0�M161A nrinirr��n[nrin.rr•t�+� Ca For Planning Purposes Only, Not For Construction Isr•fsc.*Irmlaj.lw� d,.,u,anL�ll+°:[°" 422 E. Cooper Avenue CO ^' C M o X77 z v ... � „,- ...,_.:r--- ..�....-.:.__ ._, ...>.;< ..,:-� 3'.'.i4�:F:x_3�P:i'3::�''s, :Z�c:S n r. ,..'#K,ig'a.y ..t �� `'w �•'�•,qy'� *�r '.it' ...._.. - . .- - ,�..._. .. _ } EXISTING RED ONION PAINTED SIGNAGE w I I i { View Simulation # 2 - View from Rocky Mountain Chocolate October 18, 2012 ' STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES Ipc FOSS ARCHITE GI URE PLANNING Conceptual Design Review tua•uM• IreRIIn1Yr••9I,811102 •HHI#&slim Red Onion Unit 1 pa IlVlllr MR RMM 6 C019N6��lAt1 ru uo nu•ruu ••rt• urawt a•w y�o�iT4r3+3 Li70J0»Kt# nr•nnn•n•Inn•nn r••r For Planning Purposes Only,Not For Construction b xnhnoutj.t�. vrWW%W1 Mlrl(.too 422 E. Cooper Avenue C'V I I l tl View Simulation # 3 - View from Front (1 /4 view) October 18, 2012 STAN CLAU50N ASSOCIATES INC FOSS Af7CF-IITFCTURF PLANNING Conceptual Design Review luhuM• ��c.U.el•u.�1u•1•�...�•.�H�1�• t 6W",o�ftR" Aspot% aa."Mis .,, .•,•,polo, 14.041 •b••••• Red Onion Unit 1 1.97a4=6l3u! v6sl n�•n4••••It.Ir..n••r•nn For Planning Purposes Only,Not For Construction 422 E. Cooper Avenue r f. 'Y r 1 i I View Simulation # 4 - View from Front October 18, 2012 Conceptual Design Review .Cl pOSS MCHITECTURE fi f LANNING .. 1141041111 41.fit Red Onion Unit 1 4i7abT9'+YD �9M1aIQ161� n01791.oil For Planning Purposes Only,Not For Construction 422 E. Cooper Avenue Approximate location of subject - - property behind existing buildings r' I®h7 P:+INTEQ SIGNAGE View Simulation # 5 - View from Wheeler Opera House October 18 2012 Itat'ifilapt STAN CLAl15QN ASSOCIATESIbc FOSS /11�CHH ECTURE PLANNING Conceptual Design Review ncA U■ct■u,�l urrh�.•q ac MN!■ � Fri Red Onion Unit 1 {t�Ilotlb Mltl SrHW A.,p...telaiM enn n■1nr nu sun uH• ■oau■ ■.■rr 4f7aAsSs317 L9agtOmK1� rrr�rn■n.r..nr■r■nn■■�■ For Planning Purposes Only,Not ForConstructlon 422 E. Cooper Avenue EXISTING RED ONION PAINTED SIGNAGE F r i r View Simulation # 6 - View from Information Kiosk October 18, 2012 ' STAN CLAUSQN ASSOCIATCSIHC iaet.un. ucen.n.u..lt.ni.� .n.n IrriY Conceptual Design Review Ht F PI pp p -,P�SS n1 413"ahf StW41 Asp*%COW604aaen ..,,..r .„r. Red Onion Unit 1 tq;V t6ttt3 I.9"halWA For Planning Purposes Only,Not For Construction 1Mofuaeia+mn.l.cw wrw."IA"in;tNF 422 E. Cooper Avenue mi-.11immil, �� ► ��z Awl tA v 1� 1 ALLEY UNEXCAVATED I 1 � I A14 1 ' — 1 A11 UNEXCAVATED r I i - I i COOPER AVE.MALL 422 E. COOPER REDEVELOPMENT Enter address here POSS ARCHITECTURE /- PLANNING o a SCHEMATIC DESIGN: PLAN— EXISTING BASEMENT T LEVELDzooa°--, 04/23/12 Al 800 EAST MAIN STREET AOPEN, UI.RA00 81011 (71970/830 47001F19701.20 3800 NORTH A10 ALLEY C f � a _�.t A14 1 1 All i I i I i I i ' I I i COOPER AVE. MALL 422 E. COOPER REDEVELOPMENT Enter address here POSS ARCHITECTURE y PLANNING SCHEMATIC DESIGN: PLAN- EXISTING LEVEL 1 F ©2008M � p� 04/18/12 BDS FAST EET ARPEM, COLORADO 81811 I T)B, MAA0B 5 ) NORTH A10 ALLEYI i 1 PATIO i I i I i I i I I A14 1 ROOF 1 A11 I I I I I I I I I I I PATIO COOPER AVE.MALL 422 E. COOPER REDEVELOPMENT Enter address here POSS ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING O o SCHEMATIC DESIGN: EXISTING LEVEL B R� , � 3 805 EAST MRIM STPEET BSPEN, COlOR800 81811 ©2005 ,., 04/18/12 (T)B]0/833 4755(E)970/930 3950 NORTH I • I O I I I I I i A10 1 ALLEY — EXISTING SERVICE YARD I AREA OF PROPOSED E I REDEVELOPMENT I i A14 1 I 1 A11 i EXISTING COOPER AVE.MALL 422 E. COOPER REDEVELOPMENT Enter address here POSS ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING o p SCHEMATIC DESIGN: SITE PLAN ©zooei 04/20/12 P4. 1 SOS EE1T MEIN STOFET ElPE IS 60 LOOEDO 81011 a (TI 870/975 4TSS(i)870/870 72 5 0 NORTH A10 1 ALLEY -- F — — — — — .-- — — — — — — — — — — — —r 1 i i PROPOSED NEW WALLS, ! SHOWN IN GRAY,TYP. lo I i PROPOSED NEW DOOR TO ACCESS PROPOSED BASEMENT ol ol I A14 1 � lo — EXISTING WALL 1 A11 lo � r , lo PROPOSED BASEMENT EXISTING oel lo l; --- COOPER AVE.MALL 422 E. COOPER REDEVELOPMENT Enter address here POSS ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING � o SCHEMATIC DESIGN: PLAN— NEW BASEMENT Q� LEVELD2008 04,20,12 805 EAST MAIM STREET A9PEN, COlORA00 81811 E �1 �N .E N„ (T 1 9 0/9 2 5 47 5 5 1 i) 9]0/9 2 0 2 9 5 0 NORTH • i A10 ALLEY - I- - - - - - - _� - - - - - - -r ry I PROPOSED:STEP DOWN TO EGRESS I PROPOSED:MECHANICAL i 7 RED/ ;,� ONION PROPOSED:NEW SUPPORT COLUMNS PROPOSED:NEW ELEVATOR PROPOSED:FM ENTRY LOBBY PROPOSED:NEW WALLS, l ! r SHOWN IN GRAY,TYP. it I EXISTING lo PROPOSED:NEW STAIR TO LEVELS 2 NEW RETAIL i f SPACE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ENTRY PROPOSED:VESTIBULE r "_ HISTORIC FACADE TO BE PRESERVED PROPOSED:REMOVE EXISTING DOORS,RETAIN ORIGINAL COOPER AVE. MALL OPENING IN FACADE 422 E. COOPER REDEVELOPMENT Enter address here POSS ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING O `� SCHEMATIC DESIGN: PLAN— REMODELED LEVEL 1 „ ©zaoeM�xrtv¢MOuE.rn 808 EAST MAIM BTOEFT A1111 601000 D0 01811 04/20/12 (T)870/825 4755JF) 970,a20 2950 NORTH A10 ALLEYI I MECHANICAL CHASE I I PATIO PROPOSED I REDEVELOPMENT I dl PROPOSED: STAIR TO r LEVEL 3 II — ! MECHANICAL CHASE -- -- — I j PROPOSED: a FM RES.UNIT— A14 1 = LOWER LEVEL PROPOSED:NEW WALLS, 1 A11 SHOWN IN GRAY,TYP. PROPOSED:NEW ELEVATOR PROPOSED:STAIR TO LEVEL 1 EXISTI NG if PATIO DECK COOPER AVE.MALL 422 E. COOPER REDEVELOPMENT Enter address here POSS ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING SCHEMATIC DESIGN: PLAN— NEW LEVEL 2 a 105 E111 MEIN STREET MEN, 111111.. I I I I I 0 1 . ©2008.0-niKUO�, 04/18/12 �,/ �. IT)170/121 47111f)171/120 2110 - NORTH A10 MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE FROM WHEELER OPERA HOUSE 1 ALLEY / DECK ■ MECHANICAL CHASE (APPROX.EXIST.LOC.) PROPOSED:NEW WALLS, SHOWN IN GRAY PROPOSED:STAIRS DN.TO L2 MECHANICAL CHASE f l l,f f (APPROX.EXIST.LOC.) I ROOF, / PROPOSED:NEW ELEVATOR J DECK b I I � f EXISTI NG f� 1 i f f DECK BELOW b I ROOF BELOW _... COOPER AVE.MALL 422 E. COOPER REDEVELOPMENT Enter address here POSS ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING F SCHEMATIC DESIGN: PLAN- NEW LEVEL 3 AR ©2008��R. 04/20/12 4V 805 ERST MAIN STREET 1EPER, COL00.5p0 81811 MaSFCRl M9FINNIG.F.c. 17)570/515 07551F18701 20 2950 NORTH A10 1 ALLEY DECK DECK ABOVE 2ND LEVEL f/ ROOF ABOVE 3RD LEVEL ROOF A14 1 /-ROOF ' % 1 A11 ELEVATOR DECK ABOVE 2ND LEVEL EXISTING ! DECK ABOVE 1 ST LEVEL , DECK ROOF ABOVE 1 ST LEVEL 0 COOPER AVE.MALL E 422 E. COOPER REDEVELOPMENT Enter address here POSS ARCHITECTURE { PLANNING SCHEMATIC DESIGN: PLAN- NEW ROOF PLAN n 803 EAST "All STREET ASPEN, 301 0..00 81311 O B ©2008 oIRC Pw��FP.t. �4�Z��LG A9;1 (7)870/B33 4733(r)970/B20 3030 NORTH ELEVATOR BEYOND COLORED CONCRETE CAP T.O. ROOF COLORED CONCRETE LINTEL EL.= 136'-4" BUILDING HEIGHT ESTIMATED L3 F.F. EL.= 124'-0' , F L L2 - - - F.F. EL= 113'-0 ���-s _- z GROUND FACE CMU PAINTED METAL DOOR SPLIT-FACE CMU - ;- EXISTING SERVICE YARD L1 F.F. EL= 100'-0" ALLEY AVE. EL. 98'-4' 442 E.COOPER EXISTING RED ONION EXISTING RED ONION OFFICES 422 E. COOPER REDEVELOPMENT Enter address here POSSARCHITECTURE PLANNING SCHEMATIC DESIGN: ELEVATION- NORTH ALLEY 901 EAST MAIM STREET ASPEN COLORADO 91811 S 9 0 ©20054f UFUOiw";Met 04/18/12 A O Ii1970/925 {7 SS(E19]D/920 2950 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION RED ONION BEYOND PAINTED METAL SANDSTONE ACCENT BRICK GROUND FACE CMU--,\\ T.O. ROOF EL.= 136'-4" PAINTED METAL = ' SANDSTONE ACCENT - _ BRICK - T. HEIGHT ESTIMATED T.O. PARAPET - -- -- - -t EL.= 128'-0" - L3 F.F. EL.= 124'-0" F L2 F.F. EL= 113'-0" ALLEY COOPER AVE. MALL Li F.F. EL= 100'-0" ALLEY AVE. EL.= 98'-4" 422 E. COOPER REDEVELOPMENT Enter address here POSS ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING SCHEMATIC DESIGN: ELEVATION- EAST /� � 1 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORAD0 61611 L N ©2005 M'�aL`ORCmauo"�r`uwv.c. 04/18/12 All IT)870/825 4765(F)2 701 20 2 850 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION COLORED CONCRETE CAP ELEVATOR BEYOND GROUND FACE CMU PAINTED METAL T.O. ROOF SANDSTONE ACCENT EL.= 136'-4" BRICK EXISTING RED ONION //—EXISTING RED ONION OFFICES - -- - - HEIGHT ESTIMATED @PROPOSED NE L3 REDEVELOPMENT F.F. EL.= 124'-0" 0 @PROPOSED NEW L2 REDEVELOPMENT F.F. EL= 113'-0" ALLEY COOPER AVE. MALL @PROPOSED NEW L1 REDEVELOPMENT F.F. EL= 100'-0 - - — - ALLEY EL. VARIES 422 E. COOPER REDEVELOPMENT p {� fi � Ip n f n Enter address here POSS A RCNIIECTUI� � NI �l4[ o SCHEMATIC DESIGN: ELEVATION- WEST A �m ©2008'w3�X aX�o"wxnXv.. 04/18/12 1 805 EAST M91X STREET ASPFN, CO L09500 !1811 ,._ 1T1 970/9]5 4755(f)970/920 2950 PAINTED METAL PANELS ELEVATOR BEYOND (SEE PLAN) SANDSTONE PAINTED METAL WINDOW& BRICK DOOR SYSTEM T.O. ROOF EL.= 1364" EXISTING RED ONION, - HEIGHT ESTIMATED _ EXISTING RED ONION OPEN PAINTED STEEL RAILING ESTIMATED T.O. PARAPET OFFICES, HEIGHT - � � f PAINTED STEEL ACCENTS &WINDOW SYSTEM - - -- - _ EL.= 128'-0.f - - @PROPOSED NEW - _ -_ SANDSTONE L3 REDEVELOPMENT _ BRICK F.F. EL.= 124'-0.. - 1 - � E m ns wow � _ T �1 rl 1I` Ono @PROPOSED NEW ® �� - � � um _ L2 REDEVELOPMENT - - RED ONION -F.F. EL= 113'-0" -- -- - ---- - VIA - -- - r- @PROPOSED NEW _ L1 REDEVELOPMENT F.F. EL= 100'-0" EXISTING HISTORIC FACADE TO BE PRESERVED AND RESTORED PAINTED STEEL TRIM PAINTED STEEL&FROSTED GLASS WALL, DOOR 422 E. COOPER REDEVELOPMENT Enter address here POSS ARCHIT€CTURE+ PLANNING SCHEMATIC DESIGN: ELEVATION- SOUTH in „ 02009 M��,,,;EP, PA. 04/18/12 AJ-1-9 909 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, OO LOR A00 91811 (71970/9]9 4795(7)970/920 2 990 PARAGON BUILDING ROARING FORK BUILDING F1 F1 11 i i f l 1 11 ( Ll OWN -: m ❑ 1 RED ONION OFFICES RED ONION 442 E.COOPER loq 422 E. COOPER REDEVELOPMENT Enter address here POSS ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING SCHEMATIC DESIGN: ELEVATION— COOPERAVE. A V�COMPOSITE.— 04/18/12 H �.SOS ERET MAIN ETRFEi RS PER, COLORADO $1611 (7)920/9 25 4]651f)9]01 20 2950 "d t Steel and Frosted Glass Y. I Red Split-face cmu i y Steel and Brick Brick and Sandstone Steel, Brick, and Sandstone 422 E. COOPER REDEVELOPMENT Enter address here POSS ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING SCHEMATIC DESIGN: EXT. BUILDING MATERIALS 605 EAST MAIN STREET RarEM, 19E9R4 99 e(BU ©tc08 � ra 04/18/12 A15. (T1970/B 99 •7601E1970/B 30 2950 IRS km sm. • IN ,. lllm IF INA INS \ \, v film Rimn �! i 1 \ t \►_�� y\;i�7 MD NOW NO XINN INS No \ `iS Emi=__ DECK — - — -- PROPOSED F.A.R.CALCULATIONS: �.. - — — PROPOSED LEVEL 1 EXISTING DECK LEVEL 1 FLOOR AREA 8539 S.F. PROPOSED:NEW WALLS, 1084 S.F. LEVEL 1 DECKS,BALCONIES,ETC. 0 S.F. SHOWN IN GRAY - PROPOSED BASEMENT LEVEL ol PROPOSED F.M.RES.UNIT _ PROPOSED:NEW BASEMENT LEVEL (N/A-NO EXPOSURE) 3,895 S.F. UPPER LEVEL _ WALLS SHOWN IN GRAY,TYP. PROPOSED LEVEL 2 ROOF LEVEL 2 FLOOR AREA 6,685 S.F. PROPOSED: LEVEL 2 DECKS,BALCONIES,ETC. 2,295 S.F. - - - FM RES.UNIT- PROPOSED LEVEL T DECK c U LOWER LEVEL LEVEL 3 FLOOR AREA 967 S.F. 608 S.F c LEVEL 3 BALCONIES, ETC. 698 S.F. ' EXISTING I EXISTING TOTAL GROSS PROPOSED 23,079 S.F. 0 1 TOTAL EXEMPT PROPOSED BASEMENT 3,895 S.F. DECK BELOW I EXISTING DECK -.-DECK TOTAL EXEMPT BALCONIES 2,993 S.F. 800 S.F. i' +1: r F. 4173 S.F. ROOF BELOW r ROOF BELOW- -� ACTUAL 16,191 S.F. PROPOSED F.A.R LEVEL 3 PROPOSED F.A.R. AREA LEVEL 2 EXISTING T _ . — - PROPOSED i --� PROPOSED DECK AREA PROPOSED NEW WALLS, SHOWN IN GRAY,TYP. REDEVELOPED EXISTING WALL 1';'RED RETAIL SPACE i- F _ 'ONION' PROPOSED BASEMENT EXISTING I f EXISTING NEW RETAIL PROPOSED F.A.R LEVEL 1 PROPOSED F.A.R. BASEMENT LEVEL 422 E. COOPER REDEVELOPMENT Enter address here POSSARCHITECTURE + PLANNING . N SCHEMATIC DESIGN: PROPOSED F.A.R. CALCULATIONS '" o n AL 105 1157 MAIN ST;iET 151E11 1010;110 11111 M7R0UFNDNA1116,vt. O4�Z3�LG 17)970/135 X755(1)170/130 ]1 50 ©z005.1� —A4 NORTH PROPOSED DECK PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (COMMERCIAL) b � ' EXISTING DECK i PROPOSED BASEMENT LEVEL 1,783 S.F. 1084 S.F. PROPOSED LEVEL 1 7,288 S.F. PROPOSED:NEW WALLS, --— PROPOSED LEVEL 2 3,498 S.F. PROPOSED:NEW SHOWN IN GRAY / / WALLS SHOWN IN PROPOSED F.M.RES. UNIT GRAY,TYP. TOTAL 12,569 S.F. \ UPPER LEVEL - PROPOSED NET LIVEABLE ROOF PROPOSED: — , FM RES.UNIT- PROPOSED BASEMENT LEVEL 0 S.F. LOWER LEVEL PROPOSED LEVEL 1 0 S.F. PROPOSED o t` DECK PROPOSED LEVEL 2 1,271 S.F. ' EXISTING PR DECKED PROPOSED LEVEL 3 729 S.F. v f - TOTAL 2,000 S.F. EXISTING DECK BELOW °, EXISTING DECK c tv 800 S.F. ROOF BELOW ROOF BELOW PROPOSED NET LEASABLE AREA LEVEL 3 PROPOSED NET LEASABLE AREA LEVEL 2 EXISTING COMMERCIAL PROPOSED COMMERCIAL PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL T — — — !F PROPOSED NEW WALLS, SHOWN IN GRAY,TYP. EXISTING WALL - PROPOSED:NEW WALLS, SHOWN IN GRAY,TYP. i PROPOSED BASEMENT REDEVELOPED EXISTING RETAIL SPACE 4. !r NEW RETAIL 500 S.F. PROPOSED NET LEASABLE AREA LEVEL 1 PROPOSED NET LEASABLE AREA BASEMENT LEVEL 422 E. COOPER REDEVELOPMENT Enter address here POSS o . SCHEMATIC DESIGN: C O OSED NET L©ASABLEAREA 04/23/12 A1,8 (T)5]0/825 4755(r)270/520 2 850 -" NORTH MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner C 4" THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Notice of HPC approval of Conceptual Commercial Design, Conceptual Major Development and Demolition: 422 E. Cooper Avenue, HPC Resolution #26, Series of 2012 MEETING DATE: October 24, 2012 BACKGROUND: On October 24, 2012, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) approved Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Conceptual Major Development Review for a project at 422 E. Cooper Ave. (aka the poster shop adjacent to the Red Onion). Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Conceptual Major Development address the mass, scale and placement of a proposed building, compatibility of the building within the Commercial Core Historic District and provides the applicant with direction for moving forward with their proposal. The demolition request is to remove the one story addition to the Onion with the exception of the front fagade. ACTION TAKEN By HPC: HPC granted approval to demolish the back portion of the one story commercial space adjacent to the 1892 Red Onion building and construct a three story building. A viewplane exemption was granted due to other development (the Roaring Fork Building and Paragon Building) already blocking the Wheeler viewplane. The 1892 Red Onion sits on a 9,000 square feet lot that includes the one story commercial space to the east (the subject of this review) and a two story commercial space to the west. All three spaces were internally connected at one time to serve as a large Red Onion with a bar, nightclub and family dining room. The entire lot is designated a historic landmark and is considered contributing to the Commercial Core Historic District. The applicant proposes to create one new residential unit that spans the second and third floor of the proposed new addition. There are currently no residential units on the 9,000 square feet parcel. The first floor and basement are proposed to be commercial use. There is no proposed increase in net leasable commercial area. Significant setbacks are proposed for the second and third floors (12' 1" and 45' respectively) to maintain the prominence of the historic 1892 Red Onion. The proposed building height is 38.' There is no rooftop deck proposed atop the 3`d story. Decks are proposed on the front elevation of the 2nd and 3`d stories. After two public hearings, HPC recommended in favor of the design reviews with conditions by a vote of 4:1. A copy of the approved massing is attached as Exhibit A. A copy of the HPC Resolution and Minutes from both HPC meetings are attached as Exhibits B, C and D, respectively. Page 1 of 2 422 E. Cooper Street Staff Memo for Notice of Call Up PROCESS: For this application, City Council may vote to Call Up the project at their November 12, 2012 meeting. If City Council decides to exercise the Call Up provision, it will be placed on the November 26, 2012 City Council regular agenda for discussion. If City Council does not exercise the Call Up provision, the HPC Resolution shall stand, and the applicant will move forward with an application for a building permit. This application is subject to an administrative Growth Management review to create a free market residential unit on a landmark property as a benefit to landmarks the first free market unit on a landmark parcel does not require mitigation) and Subdivision review by Planning and Zoning and City Council. If you have any questions about the project, please contact the staff planner, Sara Adams, 429- 2778 or sara.adams @cityofaspen.com RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the HPC applied the review criteria in accordance with the Land Use Code and the Historic Preservation program and recommends that City Council accept the decision and not call up the project. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Approved Plans Exhibit B: HPC Resolution 26, Series 2012 Exhibit C: HPC minutes September 12, 2012 Exhibit D: HPC DRAFT minutes October 24,2012 Page 2 of 2 422 E. Cooper Street Staff Memo for Notice of Call Up 1?> a A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW (CONCEPTUAL), DEMOLITION, AND VIEWPLANE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 422 EAST COOPER AVENUE RED ONION CONDOS, UNIT 1, LOTS N, O, P, BLOCK 89, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION # 26, SERIES OF 2012 PARCEL ID: 2737-182-16-061. WHEREAS, the applicant, Red Onion Investors, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., has requested Major Development (Conceptual), Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review, Demolition, and Viewplane Reviews the property located at 422 East Cooper Avenue, Red Onion Condos, Unit 1, Lots N, O, P, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, 422 East Cooper Avenue is located within the Commercial Core Historic District and is located on a designated historic parcel; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Commercial Design Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines per Section 26.412.040.A.2, Commercial Design Standards Review Procedure, of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, in order to authorize a Demolition, according to Section 26.415.080, Demolition of designated historic properties, it must be demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: 422 East Cooper Avenue HPC Resolution # 26, Series of 2012 Page 1 of 4 a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, C. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and C. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area; and WHEREAS, pursuant to 26.435.050.C., Mountain Viewplane Review Standards, of the Land Use Code, no development shall be permitted within a mountain view plane unless the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided below. When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable building height otherwise provided for in this Title, development shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445 as a Planned Unit Development so as to provide for maximum flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and pedestrian space and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building height requirements and view plane height limitations. The Planning and Zoning Commission, after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Department, may exempt a development from being processed as a Planned Unit Development when the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the proposed development has a minimal effect on the view plane. When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to re- open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view plane and re-redevelopment to reopen the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning 422 East Cooper Avenue HPC Resolution # 26, Series of 2012 Page 2 of 4 and Zoning Commission shall exempt the development from the requirements of this Section; and WHEREAS, during the September 12, 2012 meeting the applicant demonstrated compliance with Land Use Code Section 26.304.035 Neighborhood Outreach; and WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report to HPC dated September 12, 2012 performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards had been met, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 24, 2012 continued from September 12, 2012 and September 19, 2012, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and recommended approval with conditions by a vote of four—one (4 - 1). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants HPC Major Development (Conceptual), Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review, Demolition, and Viewplane Review for the property located at 422 East Cooper Avenue, Red Onion Condos, Unit 1, Lots N, O, P, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 1. Demolition of the building located at 422 E. Cooper Street and retaining the front fayade is approved with the condition that a structural assessment of the front facade be submitted with the Final Review application. 2. The mass and scale is approved as presented in the application. 3. A maximum of 38 feet is approved as presented in the application, with Land Use Code height exemptions for elevator overrun and mechanical equipment as stated in Section 26.575.020.F(4)Allowed Exemptions to Height Limitations. 4. A mechanical plan and elevations shall be submitted with the Final Review application. 5. Off-site public amenity improvements to the Pedestrian Malls is approved in accordance with Land Use Code Section 26.575.030.C(2) Off-site provision of public amenity and is subject to review and approval by the Parks Department. The improvements shall equal or exceed the value of the cash in lieu payment of$67,500. 6. The proposal is determined to have a minimal impact on the viewplane due to the existing development that already blocks the viewplane and is hereby exempt from being processed as a PUD in accordance with Section 26.435.050.C.1. Any mechanical equipment placed within the viewplane shall comply with Section 26.435.050, which may require a new viewplane review. 7. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for 422 East Cooper Avenue HPC Resolution 4 26, Series of 2012 Page 3 of 4 a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. Jay Maytin, Vice- Chair Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 422 East Cooper Avenue HPC Resolution 4 26, Series of 2012 Page 4 of 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION • MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 Chairperson, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Nora Berko, Willis Pember, Jay Maytin, Jamie McLeod, Patrick Segal, Sallie Golden and Jane Hills. Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Jay moved to approve the minutes of August 15th second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried. Public comments: Bill Wiener, 701 Gibson. It is important to preserve the character of this community. The height issue is now before the public because of what went on with council and the 28 feet. When we put extra height on a building we are putting extra volume on it also. There are circumstances that where a building needs to be taller than 28 feet. To do that they need to mitigate. It is time to start looking at volume and that is mass and it is changing the character. There is a formula that I can work on. You would get setbacks that create urban feel with little gardens. Jay said our guidelines indicate no setbacks. Bill said the character of this community has been little gardens, flowers and a piece of sculpture and variety around town. This is not that kind of large city where we need,everything to the property line. Bill said he will do a volume analysis. 422 E. Cooper Ave. Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Demolition, Mountain View Plane Review, Public Hearing Sallie recused herself. Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney stated the public notice is in order and the applicant can proceed. Exhibit I Amy said we are dealing with a 9,000 square foot lot on the Cooper Ave mall and it contains 3 structures. One has an art gallery and a t-shirt shop, the Red Onion Restaurant and a poster shop. The entire property is landmarked and in the historic district. At one time the Red Onion occupied 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 all three spaces. This proposal only affects the portion of the property that is occupied by the poster shop. The structure was built around 1965-66. This application is to demolish the one story poster shop addition. The applicant is proposing to keep the fagade as it is now on Cooper but there is some uncertainty as to whether it will survive the construction process. The new construction will have a one story element at the front, a setback two story element and setback three story element. There is no residential use on the lot right now but it would be created. Staff feels because it is set back and sympathetic to the architecture of the Red Onion and adjacent building we feel the scale is appropriate. Staff feels that the signage on the Red Onion restaurant east facing should not be blocked. The floor levels align with the adjacent buildings and staff feels the proportions are good. They are at the allowed height limit and are not asking to exceed it. There is a requirement that they address the public amenity requirement. There are several ways to do that. They can physically set a building back from the street and provide cash-in-lieu. They would like to continue to have the poster shop right at the street line and would make a contribution to improvements to Cooper Ave. They are required to provide a certain amount of trash and utility area and that is being met. They are located within the Wheeler Opera House view plane. There are many things in the way that obstruct that view and some existed at the time the view plane was adopted particularly the Paragon building. The view plan slices across the Red Onion property and we want to ensure that nothing they are constructing now makes the view plane blocked anymore. Their argument is that existing development on the Hyman mall already interferes with the projection of the view plan of Aspen Mountain and they are not making the situation worse. The issues that need addressed are demolition, the appropriateness of the mass, scale and height of the addition, cash-in-lieu; trash and utility and Wheeler Opera House view plane. Staff recommends conceptual approval with conditions. Patrick said if the buildings on Hyman were redeveloped they would have to comply with the view plane. Amy said you are supposed to address the situation as of today and are they infringing further on the view plan than other obstructing buildings already do. Stan Clauson and Associates Inc. Kim Weil, Poss Architects 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 Stan presented a power point on the existing buildings and proposed development. Regarding the neighborhood outreach we had a meeting explaining the project. The project was generally positively received. The building is a cinder block building, slab on grade and a portion of the Red Onion Restaurant comes into it on the first floor. Kim said the dimensions of the building are 20 x 100. Stan said in documentation that we have we show that 422 E. Cooper is not historical and has no historical significance even though it is associated with the historically designated Red Onion. On the first floor there is 1,000 square feet of net leasable and the proposed residence on the second and third floor would consist of 2,000 square feet. There are significant setbacks. On the first floor to the second floor it is set back 12 feet and on the third floor it is set back 45 feet. The existing fayade will be maintained if we can shore it up. An elevator provides access to the third floor. The Red Onion sign would remain. The entry would be the same as it is now with a single doorway adjacent to the large picture window. From the doorway you would enter the commercial space and then enter stairs and the elevator to access the second and third level. There is no access to a third floor roof deck. The elevator has a simple over run on the third story. The highest point is 38 feet which is compliant with the code and then there is approximately a 4 foot elevator run. View plane The building is located within the Wheeler Opera House view plane generally speaking,but due to the height of the buildings on Hyman the proposed development will be blocked from the view plane. The view plane cuts off a portion of the third story. Because it is blocked the code provides for a complete exemption from the view plane. The blockage largely occurs from the Paragon building and the Roaring Fork building. Kim said it was not our intent to create an architectural statement as much as it was to do something of its time and respect the Red Onion. We will keep the white fayade and we would step back and use brick and stone and glass rails which tend to minimumize the mass. We wanted to keep it simple because there is an alley behind it and two buildings on either side. Jay asked about the scrubber on the roof for the Red Onion restaurant and where it would be located. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 Kim said we will retain a mechanical engineer to determine what our options are. Codes require hoods and kitchen equipment to be up and we aren't sure which building it will be on top of since the owner owns all three buildings. New technology allows the mechanicals to be smaller. Jane asked about maintaining and retaining the Red Onion sign. With the decks and setbacks people will be living in those units and they will likely have things on their decks. Kim said the second level deck is set back for that very reason. We are holding the deck back from the sign so things can't be put there. Jamie inquired about the street entrance. Kim said in order to retain the picture window the door entrance will be right where it is now to serve the retail and residential unit. It is a little step up. Nora said given the idea that we are trying to make iconic buildings stand out and have some breathing room how can we not over shadow the Red Onion building. Stan said the proposal has very significant setbacks. On the second floor it is setback 12 feet and 45 feet on the third floor. Kim pointed out that the lot is 100 feet deep and we are 45 feet back and there is no roof deck or stairs to the third floor. Kim said it would be difficult to come back later for a roof top deck because you would need an elevator and two sets of stairs. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public comments. Junee Kirk said she attended the neighborhood meeting and listened to many of the comments. The Red Onion is one of the most iconic buildings and I would hope that you would not put the third story on but rather look at the balance of this. Balance in terms of space and space in terms of not building right next to it. The Red Onion had one story structures on either side. The guidelines indicated buildings next to iconic buildings should not exceed a 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 height of 28 feet. On the alley side with the third floor addition you will have a 42 foot high structure that will impact the Red Onion. This is an historic block and once you destroy the Red Onion it is sad thing that we are doing to this town and our local history. In Europe they really honor history. You should take the one story and go back 12 to 20 feet on the second story and they can still have their pent house. Chairperson, Ann Mullins closed the public comment section of the agenda item. Sallie stated that the sign should be protected and the mechanical should be addressed on the roof. Jay asked for information on the plate heights. Kim said the first floor is 13 feet and the second level to the third level is 11 feet. The third floor is 12. 6 feet. These are floor to floor heights. The plate heights would be lower. That amounts to a 38 foot high building. Ann outlined the issues: Demolition Mass and scale Height Public amenity Trash/utility View plane Patrick asked staff if by right they can build 38 feet. Amy said that is the maximum they can have and HPC would have to approve that height in the project. Jay pointed out that the Red Onion is the center of the block and everything else tapers down lower. The buildings behind the Red Onion are massive. If any block can handle 38 feet it is this block. I would like to see if the applicant can study the mechanical and see if they can bring the 38 feet down to 36 feet. That is an important part and we might not need the max for the program. Ann said the Red Onion is dominant on the block and we have one owner for all three lots and we can maintain the dominance of that historic resource 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 within the block. This project does not do that. The demolition is fine. The mass, scale and height is unacceptable. It completely dwarfs the Red Onion and you will get some of the view from the west side. On the east side it will be the tallest building in the block. The third story will stick out and dominate and compromise the Red Onion. The public amenity and trash/utility are fine. I can't accept that something else is blocking the view plane. The main issue is the third story. Jamie said the third floor is over powering the Red Onion building. Jay said for what is behind this building and the large setback is clearly there to honor the Red Onion. I support the project with a restudy of the height and this project can handle the mass. Sallie recused herself. Jane will be voting. Nora said she feels we are chipping away at our mission. Our mission is to preserve what we have. The Red Onion deserves some prominence. Part of the appeal of this town is what we have in history and as we build these huge buildings next to it I have to look back and ask what I have contributed in preserving what we have. Willis said he feels the board is struggling with reading the mass and scale. It would really help to have a three dimensional representation and show the view planes. A one story building is not in the vocabulary of this project. Stan stated that the Red'Onion is flanked by one and two story structures. The entry to the two story structure comes right up to the Red Onion. The building is at 38 feet. With respect to the view plane the code is very clear and if something'interrupts the view plane in front of you, you are exempt from the view planer We could have come to you with a two story building coming all the way out to the front but in respecting the sign and the Red Onion there is a significant setback for the second story and a significant setback for the third floor. We feel this is a very respectful and small project. We can do a three D model. MOTION: Ann moved to continue 422 E. Cooper to Sept. 19th; second by Jamie. Motion carried 6-1. Jay opposed. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 Patrick said his issue is the third story. Jamie said her concern is the height against the Red Onion and how much higher is it. Ann said she feels the building should be a two story. If that isn't possible then there should be no view plane compromise. Willis said he feels the mass and profile is very promising and if you go two stories you will block the sign and that doesn't make sense. From any pedestrian point of view you won't see the third story. Jane said she agrees with Willis that a three D contextual of the neighborhood would be helpful. How does it compare to the street. I like the project and want to see it in terms of height context. MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012 Vice-chair Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public comment section of the agenda item was closed. Louis said he appreciates all the comments and feels the design is more appropriate for the area. On the lighting I will work with Sara to make it as acceptable as possible. I know what the board wants. This is a luxury store. We can also have a mockup made before it is installed. On the screening we can look at other alternatives. Ken Sack said he is part owner of the store and assured the board that the awning will be kept clean. Jay recommended that condition #2 be amended that the wall sign be reviewed by staff and monitor. #3 the wall sign and lighting and a mockup to be approved by staff and monitor. #4 to be approved by staff and monitor. Motion: Jay moved to approve resolution #25 with the following changes: #2Wall sign location to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. #3 Applicant shall provide a mockup of the wall sign including the lighting and to be approved by staff and monitor. #4 Mechanical to be approved by staff and monitor. Motion second by Nora. Willis made a friendly amendment to strike #2 as the sign location is approved on the second floor as presented. Nora accepted the amendment All in favor, motion carried. 5-0. Sallie and Jay are the monitors. 422 E. Cooper Ave. — Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual commercial Design Review, Demolition, Mountain View Plane Review, Public Hearing Sara said the key issues are height, impact of the third floor, vertical sign and mechanical equipment. Stan Clauson did a power point showing the sign from different views. The sign is not obscured as the third floor is set back 45 feet. Stan said they 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012 realized the setbacks had to be significant due to the Red Onion. Stan said we can review the mechanical at final and will look for the smallest equipment available. Willis inquired about the view plane. Sara said the view plane is from the steps of the Wheeler opera house. Kim said the overrun on the third floor for mechanical is 4.2 feet. Nora said she supports demolition and the publi � enity request and the trash/utility area. Two stories are OK but the 'it "floor is too much. The Red Onion is the only structure on the block",that`ij eds to be prominent. Jane said she is OK with staff's recommendations. With regard to the massing and scale the applicant has done a great job and the .setbacks are OK. Jane said the heights are OK. I'rn Rio in favor of the elevator over fun but it is a requirement. Sallie agreed with Jane's comments ':' , Willis said it comes clt tvt ,to the third floor,as soen,from Casa Tua. The massing is successful and t o upper flbors`have no°"visible connection to the Red Onion. Jay said the projectkis good:, For final,there needs to be a restudy of the rooflin orrice. Ti ;detailing on the second floor needs to be simpler. Vice-chair Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. Junee Kirk said you can see the massive building from the east side. The Red Onion is the most 6bvious building on the block. Vice-chair Jay Maytin closed the public hearing. Sallie agreed with Jay that the detailing on the second floor should be restudied for final and the lines simplified. MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution 26 second by Jane. Motion carried 4-1. Nora opposed. 5 c qwew A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW (CONCEPTUAL), DEMOLITION, AND VIEWPLANE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 422 EAST COOPER AVENUE RED ONION CONDOS, UNIT 1, LOTS N, O, P, BLOCK 89, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION # 26, SERIES OF 2012 PARCEL ID: 2737-182-16-061. WHEREAS, the applicant, Red Onion Investors, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., has requested Major Development (Conceptual), Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review, Demolition, and Viewplane Reviews the property located at 422 East Cooper Avenue, Red Onion Condos, Unit 1, Lots N, O, P, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, 422 East Cooper Avenue is located within the Commercial Core Historic District and is located on a designated historic parcel; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Commercial Design Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines per Section 26.412.040.A.2, Commercial Design Standards Review Procedure, of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, in order to authorize a Demolition, according to Section 26.415.080, Demolition of designated historic properties, it must be demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: 422 East Cooper Avenue HPC Resolution # 26, Series of 2012 Page 1 of 4 a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, C. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and C. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area; and WHEREAS, pursuant to 26.435.050.C., Mountain Viewplane Review Standards, of the Land Use Code, no development shall be permitted within a mountain view plane unless the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided below. When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable building height otherwise provided for in this Title, development shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445 as a Planned Unit Development so as to provide for maximum flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and pedestrian space and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building height requirements and view plane height limitations. The Planning and Zoning Commission, after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Department, may exempt a development from being processed as a Planned Unit Development when the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the proposed development has a minimal effect on the view plane. When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to re- open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view plane and re-redevelopment to reopen the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning 422 East Cooper Avenue HPC Resolution# 26, Series of 2012 Page 2 of 4 and Zoning Commission shall exempt the development from the requirements of this Section; and WHEREAS, during the September 12, 2012 meeting the applicant demonstrated compliance with Land Use Code Section 26.304.035 Neighborhood Outreach; and WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report to HPC dated September 12, 2012 performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards had been met, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 24, 2012 continued from September 12, 2012 and September 19, 2012, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and recommended approval with conditions by a vote of four—one (4 - 1). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants HPC Major Development (Conceptual), Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review, Demolition, and Viewplane Review for the property located at 422 East Cooper Avenue, Red Onion Condos, Unit 1, Lots N, O, P, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 1. Demolition of the building located at 422 E. Cooper Street and retaining the front facade is approved with the condition that a structural assessment of the front facade be submitted with the Final Review application. 2. The mass and scale is approved as presented in the application. 3. A maximum of 38 feet is approved as presented in the application, with Land Use Code height exemptions for elevator overrun and mechanical equipment as stated in Section 26.575.020.F(4)Allowed Exemptions to Height Limitations. 4. A mechanical plan and elevations shall be submitted with the Final Review application. 5. Off-site public amenity improvements to the Pedestrian Malls is approved in accordance with Land Use Code Section 26.575.030.C(2) Off-site provision of public amenity and is subject to review and approval by the Parks Department. The improvements shall equal or exceed the value of the cash in lieu payment of$67,500. 6. The proposal is determined to have a minimal impact on the viewplane due to the existing development that already blocks the viewplane and is hereby exempt from being processed as a PUD in accordance with Section 26.435.050.C.1. Any mechanical equipment placed within the viewplane shall comply with Section 26.435.050, which may require a new viewplane review. 7. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for 422 East Cooper Avenue HPC Resolution # 26, Series of 2012 Page 3 of 4 a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. Jay Maytin, Vice- Chair Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 422 East Cooper Avenue HPC Resolution # 26, Series of 2012 Page 4 of 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner RE: 422 E. Cooper Street- Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design, Demolition, and Viewplane Reviews, Public Hearing continued from September 12, 2012 and September 19, 2012. DATE: October 24, 2012 SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to demolish the back portion of the one story commercial space adjacent to the 1892 Red Onion building and construct a three story addition. The one story commercial space was originally built in 1955/56 as an expansion of the Red Onion restaurant to provide a larger dining room. HPC reviewed the project on September 12, 2012 and continued the public hearing for more information and discussion. The draft minutes from the September hearing are attached as Exhibit C. ray = A summary of HPC comments are as follows: • Concerns about the proposed height. Request to see the height in context of surrounding buildings. • Concerns about the impact of the third story on the mass and scale of the block and on the vewplane. • Concerns about impact of development on Red Onion sign along east wall. • Questions about the relocation of the existing mechanical equipment. �* Of the list of discussion points outlined b ,L Staff in September Demolition, Public Amenity and Trash/Utility were not raised as concerns during the hearing on the 12th. The applicant has provided 6 view simulations from the 3-D model that will be presented at the meeting. There are no changes to the project that HPC reviewed in September. Staff continues to support the proposal with conditions. 1 NOTE: FROM I SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to demolish the back portion of the one story commercial space adjacent to the 1892 Red Onion building and construct a three story addition. The one story commercial space was originally built in 1955/56 as a expansion of the Red Onion restaurant to provide a larger dining room. The 1892 Red Onion sits on a 9,000 square feet lot that includes the one story commercial space to the east (the subject of this review) and a two story commercial space to the west that was also constructed as an expansion of the Red Onion for a nightclub and stage. All three spaces were internally connected at one time. The entire lot is designated a historic landmark and is considered contributing to the Commercial Core Historic District. There are currently no residential units on the 9,000 square feet parcel. The applicant proposes to create one new residential unit that spans the second and third floor of the proposed new addition. The first floor and basement are proposed to be commercial use. The applicant requests Conceptual Major ` Development and Conceptual Commercial Design in addition to Demolition and View plane approvals. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design, Demolition, and Viewplane with conditions. APPLICANT: Red Onion Investors, LLC, n represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., 412 N. Mill St., Aspen, CO. Image 1: Vicinity Map. Yellow border illustrates the ,000 sf parcel and the star indicates the portion subject PARCEL ID:2737-182-16-061. to this review. ADDRESS: 422 East Cooper, Red Onion Condos, Unit 1, Lots N, O, and P, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONE DISTRICT: CC, Commercial Core, Historic District Overlay. YDEMOLITION The applicant proposes to retain the front fagade of the existing building and to demolish the back portion. The building was constructed in 1955/56 as an expansion of the Red Onion restaurant to provide a larger dining area. The Red Onion was designated a local landmark in 1982. The designation lists "420 East Cooper (Red Onion)" as the property description. It is Staff s opinion that the designation includes the entire 9,000 sf. parcel since the entire site was operating as the Red Onion at that time. 2 0 0 The applicant represents that the structural integrity of the masonry on the sides and the back of the subject building is failing. An analysis of the structural integrity of the front facade has not been undertaken. The applicant proposes to retain the front fagade; however if structural issues arise during demolition, the applicant proposes to reconstruct the front fagade to match the existing condition. rb 4 Image 2 and 3: Photographs of the Red Onion with the east and west expansions. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, C. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and C. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Staff Response: As mentioned above, the building was once part of the Red Onion restaurant. The one story scale of the structure is indicative of the typical 1950s modest scale of construction 3 O i and the detailing relates to the 1892 building. While the Red Onion is one of Aspen's more iconic historic buildings from the 19`h century, it is Staff s opinion that the portion proposed for demolition is not integral to the Red Onion's historic significance. Staff finds that the demolition criteria are met and recommends that HPC approve demolition. The applicant represents that there are significant structural concerns with the masonry at the rear portion that is proposed to be demolished. Staff appreciates the applicant's willingness to retain the front fagade of the building; however should the building fagade be deemed unsafe after a structural inspection, Staff does not recommend that the front fagade details be replicated which is an issue for Final Review. Staff recommends that the applicant conduct a structural inspection prior to Final HPC review to determine whether the fagade is safe to remain. CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structures) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. The design guidelines for conceptual review of a building in the downtown historic district are all located within the "Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives." The relevant guidelines are attached as "Exhibit A." Many of the Conceptual Design Guidelines, for example "Street and Alley Systems," "Building Orientation," and "Building Placement," do not apply to this project due to the scope of the proposal. The applicable conceptual design issues are addressed below. SCALE/NIASS: Overall Staff is supportive of the proposed mass and scale of the project. The building maintains a one story scale at the street edge. Significant setbacks are proposed for the second and third floors. The second floor is setback 3' 1" in addition to a 9' deck for a total of about a 12' setback and the third floor is setback 12' in addition to a 33' deck for a total of 45' setback from the street edge. A third floor setback of 5' is proposed along the alley for a deck. 4 The proposed upper floors will block some of the non-original window openings along the eastern facade of the 1892 Onion. The historic photograph below, from the Aspen Historical Society, shows the eastern facade without windows. Staff is supportive of the setbacks and the relief that is provided to the historic Red Onion and finds that the Design Guidelines on the following page are met. F F L l f Y iR low i Image 4: Historic image of the Red Onion showing the eastern facade without windows and the building prior to its expansion in the 1950s. Staff questioned whether the proposed building would cover the vertical Red Onion sign along the eastern facade (the date of the current sign is unknown- the current sign replaced the painted version in the photograph above). The applicant has indicated that the sign will not be covered. Staff recommends that the applicant provide a rendering during the meeting that shows the visibility of the sign with the proposed setbacks. 6.18 Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk's edge. • Place as much of the facade of the building at the property line as possible. • Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate. • A minimum of 70%of the front facade shall be at the property line. 6.23 Use flat roof lines as the dominant roof form. • A flat roof, or one that gently slopes to the rear of a site, should be the dominant roof form. • Parapets on side facades should step down towards the rear of the building. • False fronts and parapets with horizontal emphasis also may be considered. 5 6.24 Along a rear faVade, using building forms that step down in scale toward the alley is encouraged. • Consider using additive forms, such as sheds, stairs and decks to reduce the perceived scale. These forms should however,remain subordinate to the primary structure. • Use projective roofs at the ground floor over entrances, decks and for separate utility structures in order to establish a human scale that invites pedestrian activity. HEIGHT: The applicant proposes a maximum of 38' to the top of the third floor with an elevator overrun extending beyond the 38' height limit(elevators are allowed up to 10' above the building height if setback 15'). No rooftop access is proposed. The proposed height is within the dimensional requirements for the Commercial Core Historic District and the floor levels align with the adjacent building. Staff finds that the proposed height and setbacks are appropriate for the site and meet the Design Guidelines below: 6.31 A New building should step down in scale to respect the height, form and scale of a historic building within its immediate setting. 6.32 When adjacent to a one or two story historic building that was originally constructed for commercial use, a new building within the same block face should not exceed 28 ft. in height within 30 ft. of the front fagade. • In general, a proposed multi-story building must demonstrate that it has no negative impact on smaller,historic structures nearby. • The height and proportions of all fagade components must appear to be in scale with nearby historic buildings. Staff is concerned about the relocation of the existing mechanical atop the subject building. The large mechanical system, pictured below, services the Red Onion restaurant. The Land Use Code allows mechanical equipment to extend 5' above the height of the building at the point where the apparatus is attached to the roof. Staff recommends that a mechanical plan be provided at Final Review. 1 7 Images 5&6: Photographs of the mechanical that services the restaurant and is located atop the subject property. 6 PUBLIC AMENITY: Provision of public amenity. The Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, pursuant to the review procedures and criteria of Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Review, shall determine the appropriate method or combination of methods for providing this required amenity. One (1) or more of the following methods may be used such that the standard is reached. 1. On-site provision of public amenity. A portion of the parcel designed in a manner meeting Subsection 26.575.030.F., Design and operational standards for on-site public amenity. 2. Off-site provision of public amenity. Proposed public amenities and improvements to the pedestrian environment within proximity of the development site may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Review. These may be improvements to private property, public property or public rights-of-way. An easement providing public access over an existing public amenity space for which no easement exists may be accepted if such easement provides permanent public access and is acceptable to the City Attorney. Off-site improvements shall equal or exceed the value of an otherwise required cash-in-lieu payment and be consistent with any public infrastructure or capital improvement plan for that area. 3. Cash-in-lieu provision. The City Council, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, may accept a cash-in-lieu payment for any portion of required public amenity not otherwise physically provided, according to the procedures and limitations of Subsection 26.575.030.E, Cash-in-lieu payment. 4. Alternative method. The Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Review, may accept any method of providing public amenity not otherwise described herein if the Commission finds that such method equals or exceeds the value, which may be nonmonetary community value, of an otherwise required cash-in-lieu payment. The property currently has no onsite public amenity. The requirement is to provide a minimum of 10% or 900 square feet of public amenity. The applicant proposes to provide off-site public amenity in an amount that equals or exceeds the value of the cash in lieu payment. The improvements are proposed for the adjacent Cooper Street Pedestrian Mall with approval from the Parks Department. Staff Response: Staff finds that criteria 2 above is met and recommends approval of off-site cash in lieu subject to approval by the Parks Department. TRASH/UTILITY/RECYCLE AREA: When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can 7 detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply: 1. A 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. 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 an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. 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. 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. 5. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. Staff Response: The applicant proposes to utilize the existing trash utility area on the property for the proposed redevelopment which already meets the dimensional requirements of 20 ft. x 10 ft. x 10 ft.. Existing delivery services along the alley will be maintained. Mechanical equipment is proposed either within the building or on the roof. The applicant has not consulted with a mechanical engineer yet since the project is in its conceptual review phase. The applicant represents that it will meet the standards listed above. Staff included a condition of approval that requires a mechanical plan be submitted for Final Review. Staff finds that the review criteria are met with conditions. VIEWPLANE: 26.435.050.B. Exemption. The Community Development Director may exempt the addition of mechanical equipment to an existing development which protrudes into the view plane only if such development has an insignificant effect upon the designated view plane. The addition of a satellite dish, elevator shaft or any other piece of equipment whose height and mass have a significant effect upon the designated view plane shall be reviewed pursuant to the standards of Subsection 26.435.050.C. 26.435.050.C. Mountain view plane review standards. No development shall be permitted within a mountain view plane unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided below. 8 When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable building height otherwise provided for in this Title, development shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445 as a Planned Unit Development so as to provide for maximum flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and pedestrian space and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building height requirements and view plane height limitations. The Planning and Zoning Commission, after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Department, may exempt a development from being processed as a Planned Unit Development when the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the proposed development has a minimal effect on the view plane. When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to re-open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view plane and re-redevelopment to reopen the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall exempt the development from the requirements of this Section. Staff Response: The third floor and part of the second floor of the proposed building sits within the Wheeler Opera House viewplane which projects over Cooper Avenue directed towards Aspen Mountain; however, existing buildings on the Hyman Avenue mall already block the protected viewplane. The likelihood of redeveloping either of the largest buildings blocking the view is highly unlikely: the Paragon Building is a historic landmark and exceeds the height limit, and the adjacent Roaring Fork Building is an existing non-conformity in terms of height and commercial design review which could not be replicated under today's Code. Staff finds that the proposal has a minimal impact on the viewplane considering existing development and recommends that the HPC exempt this project from being developed as a PUD which is the required process for major infringements into a protected viewplane. Any mechanical equipment that is placed in the viewplane (on top of the proposed third floor) either needs to meet the exemption described above in Section 26.435.050.13 or shall be subject to a new viewplane review which may be handled during HPC's Final Review. RECOMMENDED DISCUSSION POINTS: 1. Demolition of the building except the front facade. a. Require a structural assessment of the front fagade be submitted for Final Review to determine whether it can be saved. 2. Mass/ Scale a. Are the setbacks adequate to maintain prominence of the 1892 building? b. Does the proposed building cover the Red Onion sign? 3. Height a. Require a mechanical plan for Final Review to locate the existing and proposed mechanical. 9 4. Public Amenity a. Off-site public amenity improvements to the Pedestrian Mall proposed with Parks Department approval. 5. Trash/Utility a. Proposal to use existing trash/utility area which meets the dimensional requirements for trash/utility area. 6. Viewplane a. Proposed building is blocked by existing development on Hyman Ave. Mall. b. Staff determined a minimal impact on the viewplane due to existing development already blocking the viewplane, and the lack of potential redevelopment of the existing buildings. c. Review mechanical during Final to discuss viewplane infringement if needed. The HPC may: • approve the application, • approve the application with conditions, • disapprove the application, or • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Conceptual Major Development Review, and Demolition for the project located at 422 E. Cooper Street with the following conditions: 1. Demolition of the building located at 422 E. Cooper Street and retaining the front fagade is approved with the condition that a structural assessment of the front faeade be submitted with the Final Review application. 2. The mass and scale is approved as presented in the application. 3. A maximum of 38 feet is approved as presented in the application, with Land Use Code height exemptions for elevator overrun and mechanical equipment as stated in Section 26.575.020.F(4)Allowed Exemptions to Height Limitations. 4. A mechanical plan and elevations shall be submitted with the Final Review application. 5. Off-site public amenity improvements to the Pedestrian Malls is approved in accordance with Land Use Code Section 26.575.030.C(2) Off-site provision of public amenity and is subject to review and approval by the Parks Department. The improvements shall equal or exceed the value of the cash in lieu payment of$67,500. 6. The proposal is determined to have a minimal impact on the viewplane due to the existing development that already blocks the viewplane and is hereby exempt from being processed as a PUD in accordance with Section 26.435.050.C.1. Any mechanical equipment placed within the viewplane shall comply with Section 26.435.050, which may require a new viewplane review. 7. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the 10 Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty(30) days prior to the expiration date. Exhibits: A. Relevant Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Guidelines and Objectives. B. Application-provided on September 12, 2012. C. Updated Application showing view simulations of proposal. 11 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW (CONCEPTUAL), DEMOLITION, AND VIEWPLANE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 422 EAST COOPER AVENUE RED ONION CONDOS, UNIT 1, LOTS N, O, P, BLOCK 89, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION #_, SERIES OF 2012 PARCEL ID: 2737-182-16-061. WHEREAS, the applicant, Red Onion Investors, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., has requested Major Development (Conceptual), Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review, Demolition, and Viewplane Reviews the property located at 422 East Cooper Avenue, Red Onion Condos, Unit 1, Lots N, O, P, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, 422 East Cooper Avenue is located within the Commercial Core Historic District and is located on a designated historic parcel; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections, The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Commercial Design Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines per Section 26.412.040.A.2, Commercial Design Standards Review Procedure, of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, in order to authorize a Demolition, according to Section 26.415.080, Demolition of designated historic properties, it must be demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: 422 East Cooper Avenue HPC Resolution #_, Series of 2012 Page 1 of 4 a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, C. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and C. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area; and WHEREAS, pursuant to 26.435.050.C., Mountain Viewplane Review Standards, of the Land Use Code, no development shall be permitted within a mountain view plane unless the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided below. When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable building height otherwise provided for in this Title, development shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445 as a Planned Unit Development so as to provide for maximum flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and pedestrian space and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building height requirements and view plane height limitations. The Planning and Zoning Commission, after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Department, may exempt a development from being processed as a Planned Unit Development when the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the proposed development has a minimal effect on the view plane. When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to re- open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view plane and re-redevelopment to reopen the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning 422 East Cooper Avenue HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2012 Page 2 of 4 and Zoning Commission shall exempt the development from the requirements of this Section; and WHEREAS, during the September 12, 2012 meeting the applicant demonstrated compliance with Land Use Code Section 26.304.035 Neighborhood Outreach; and WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report to HPC dated September 12, 2012 performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards had been met, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 24, 2012 continued from September 12, 2012 and September 19, 2012, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and recommended approval with conditions by a vote of - NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants HPC Major Development (Conceptual), Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review, Demolition, and Viewplane Review for the property located at 422 East Cooper Avenue, Red Onion Condos, Unit 1, Lots N, O, P, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 1. Demolition of the building located at 422 E. Cooper Street and retaining the front facade is approved with the condition that a structural assessment of the front fagade be submitted with the Final Review application. 2. The mass and scale is approved as presented in the application. 3. A maximum of 38 feet is approved as presented in the application, with Land Use Code height exemptions for elevator overrun and mechanical equipment as stated in Section 26.575.020.F(4)Allowed Exemptions to Height Limitations. 4. A mechanical plan and elevations shall be submitted with the Final Review application. 5. Off-site public amenity improvements to the Pedestrian Malls is approved in accordance with Land Use Code Section 26.575.030.C(2) Off-site provision of public amenity and is subject to review and approval by the Parks Department. The improvements shall equal or exceed the value of the cash in lieu payment of$67,500. 6. The proposal is determined to have a minimal impact on the viewplane due to the existing development that already blocks the viewplane and is hereby exempt from being processed as a PUD in accordance with Section 26.435.050.C.1. Any mechanical equipment placed within the viewplane shall comply with Section 26.435.050, which may require a new viewplane review. 7. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for 422 East Cooper Avenue HPC Resolution #_, Series of 2012 Page 3 of 4 a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. Ann Mullins, Chair Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 422 East Cooper Avenue HPC Resolution #_, Series of 2012 Page 4 of 4 VVt City of Aspen Commercial Core Historic District Encompassing the Commercial Core Zone District Design Objectives and Guidelines Policy: Improvements in the Commercial Core Historic District should maintain the integrity of historic resources in the area.At the same time, compatible and creative design solutions should be encouraged. This chapter presents guidelines for new Existing Character construction and alterations to existing non- The heart of Aspen centers around the Commercial historic structures in the Commercial Core Core Historic District. It is the first area that Historic District. Key design characteristics of developed in the early mining days of the town this district are summarized and then specific and its character reflects this rich mining heritage, guidelines are presented. which is the image that many carry with them of this historic Colorado mountain town. Each Location historic building contributes to the integrity of the The Commercial Core of the city is defined by district and preservation of all of these resources Monarch Street to the west,Durant Avenue to the is,therefore,crucial. This is especially important south, Hunter Street to the east, and roughly the as new development continues. alley to the north of Main Street to the north. (See the Character Area map in the appendix.) n a. - a � gyp`-0a � y as k rf V mm " 9 , I The Commercial Core Zone District is located at the core of Downtown Aspen. Commercial,Lodging and Historic District page 91 Design Objectives and Guidelines ^4 Commercial Core Historic District City of Aspen Street Pattern As the historic core of the city, its current urban form reflects these origins. It is a grid of streets aligned to the north. Rectangular street blocks of 270 ft.by 220 ft.with long axes and rear alleyways are oriented east-west,and subdivided into 30 by 100 ft.lots.Buildings generally occupy the full lot width within the core area and span the full depth from street frontage to rear alley. This arrangement still anchors the historical urban k=, form of the city, despite some recent departures from the traditional hard street edge. The variety of building forms & scales is influenced in areas by previous site-based open space requirements. The traditional lot widths continue to define the majority of the buildings in this area,either in total width or, where lots have been amalgamated, in their architectural composition, articulation and fenestration pattern. This ensures that the city center is still appreciated for its essential human scale, .concentration of historic buildings and The street pattern frames spectacular scenic views. visual and cultural experience. Building Character The commercial buildings of the mining era establish the context for new construction, even though individual landmarks of later periods may also be found in the area.Buildings range in scale from early residential including miners'cottages to larger 'iconic'landmark Victorian commercial and community buildings. The latter tend to occupy corner sites and range in scale from one to three stories in height. This area includes the varied range of buildings dating from the city's early history and representing all periods of development in the evolution of Aspen. The character is predominantly urban, while the building pattern in many areas continues to exhibit the original traditional lot width arrangement. The street fagades are strongly defined in many areas by a combination of larger Victorian and smaller scale buildings. This is particularly the case on street corners. page 92 kill-I Commercial,Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines, City of Aspen Commercial Core Historic District Storefront context Most buildings have features associated with traditional commercial designs. Ground level floors of the buildings are oriented to pedestrian - views, with large display windows highlighting . the goods and services offered for sale inside. *' Recessed entries are also typical. A horizontal 7 � band of molding usually separates the ground floor from upper portions of the fagade and the parapet is capped with a decorative cornice. These elements combined to establish a horizontal emphasis along the street. Fenestration on upper floors is predominantly solid and void'hole in the wall'form and vertical in proportion, reflecting classical architectural proportions.There are,however,departures from this pattern which contribute to the rich diversity of the street. A hard street wall as seen along the walking mall downtown is a Outdoor Spaces characteristic throughout Character Area 1. There are also instances of small scale spaces created by the set back of building fagades. They are, however, the exception to the historic alignment of building fronts.Where these are used for outdoor dining they provide attractive public gathering spaces and street vitality.The intent is to maintain the strong definition of the street wall in this area,and therefore creating further breaks in the street wall should be minimized. The resulting character is both intimate and stimulating, and in keeping with the variety and harmony unique to Aspen. There have been departures from the hard street edge, where R= . more recent development has stepped back to create semi-basement space and detached or internal retail frontage often on more than one level. In many cases these have detracted from the immediate relationship between shop frontage and public sidewalk and the sense of street facade definition, with adverse effects on street vitality and the urban character within Victorian storefronts anchor the Commercial Core and define downtown Aspen. the key characteristics of building height,mass,articulation and materials. Commercial,Lodging and Historic District "e;1 page 93 Design Objectives and Guidelines Conunercial Core Historic District City of Aspen Design Objectives 4. Reflect the variety in building heights seen These are key design objectives for the Commercial historically. Core.The City must find that any new work will New development should stay within the range help to meet them: of building heights,and be designed to reflect the variation in height across traditional lot widths. 1. Maintain a retail orientation. The scale and form of a new building should be Traditionally the hub of Aspen and the center of designed to safeguard the setting of a historic commercial and cultural activity,the Commercial building,whether single story or the large'iconic' Core should remain so. Designs for new three plus stories. construction should reinforce the retail-oriented function of the street and enhance its pedestrian 5. Accommodate outdoor public spaces where character. they respect the historic context. The street vitality associated with the center 2. Promote creative, contemporary design that of the city should be retained and enhanced respects the historic context. through a combination of the form and design of While new construction should be compatible the walkable street network and the associated with the historic character of the district,designs areas of public gathering space at street level and should not copy early styles but instead should above. The design of any public space within seek creative new solutions that convey the the core should be a central consideration in community's continuing interest in exploring the design and configuration of the building, to innovations. At the same time, the fundamental ensure that it contributes to a positive experience principles of traditional design must be respected. in the streetscene, whether or not used for street This means that each project should strike a dining. balance in the design variables that are presented in the following pages. 6. Promote variety in the street level experience. 3. Maintain the traditional scale of building. Architectural form should recognize existing scale The Commercial core of the city is likely to and diversity and build upon established design experience continuing market pressure for hotel, traditions,creativity and innovation in a manner commercial and residential development and Which strengthens the architectural richness the parallel needs of affordable commercial and and identity of the city core. The contextual residential accommodation. It is important that contribution of building and storefront design future growth acknowledges, complements and Will depend on detailed consideration of the street enhances the existing scale and character of this fagade and associated landscaping and paving. area. 7. Preserve the integrity of historic resources within the district. The original form,character,materials and details of historic resources should be maintained. This applies to individual structures of landmark quality as well as more modest "contributing" structures. page 94 Qdc Commercial,Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines City of Aspen Commercial Core Historic District Conceptual Review Design Guidelines I 11c (ollowing collccpilml Street & Alley Systems The street pattern is essential 'infrastructure' for the character of the district. The north/ south orientation of the streets accentuates the relationship of the City with its dramatic landscape setting. • The circulation pattern provided by the network F of streets,alleys and courts should be retained to ensure maximum public access. It should not be enclosed by gating and it should not be spanned by development above. Wherever possible ZQ pedestrian access to alleys should be enhanced. The creation of additional public walkways to • rear alleys and other public spaces enhances the The network ofstreets,alleys and existing pedestrian passageways interest of the city center. enhances access in the downtown. Additional links and an enhanced public circulation pattern can increase commercial frontage and access to the side,to the rear and also to the interior of development sites. Improved access also creates opportunities for additional commercial space,which is to be encouraged. Street Grid The original arrangement of parcels significantly affects the visual character of the area. The city was platted on a grid system of lots and blocks, and buildings were typically sited parallel with these lot lines. The layout of early buildings, streets, sidewalks and alleys still can all be seen in this system, and should be maintained. 6.1 Maintain the established town grid in all projects. • The network of streets and alleys should be retained as public circulation space and for maximum public access. • Streets and alleys should not be enclosed or closed to public access, and should remain open to the sky. Commercial,Lodging and Historic District page 95 Design Objectives and Guidelines Commercial Core Historic District City of Aspen Internal Walkways 6.2 Public walkways and through courts, when appropriate,should be designed to create access to additional commercial space and frontage, within the walkway and/or to the rear of the site. • See also: Public Amenity Space design guidelines. Alleys Historically, alleyscapes were simple and Maintain the established town grid in all projects. utilitarian in character,with a variety of materials and building scales. Many structures had additions that were subordinate to the main building, stepping down in scale at the alley. Others had loading docks, stairs and balconies that contributed to the human scale. This traditional character should be maintained, while accommodating compatible new uses.The continued development of visual interest in these alleys is encouraged.Greater variety in forms and materials is also appropriate here. 6.3 Develop an alley facade to create visual interest. • Use varied building setbacks and changes in materials to create interest and reduce perceived scale. • Balconies, court yards and decks are also appropriate. • Providing secondary public entrances is strongly encouraged along alleys. These should be clearly intended for public use, but subordinate in detail to the primary street-side entrance. page 96 udc Commercial,Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines City of Aspen Commercial Core Historic District Parking The character of the Commercial Core Historic District is one which is primarily appreciated -= on foot. The human scale and concentration of walkable streets is a key attraction. Therefore the visual impact of parking should in all cases be minimized. Parking should be structured or placed underground where the scale and setting of the site affords this opportunity. Where a parking structure is considered this should be contained within a'wrap' of commercial and/or Where a parking structure might be considered this should be residential uses. within a 'wrap' of commercial and/or residential uses, as this building is. 6.4 Structured parking should be placed within a'wrap'of commercial and/or residential uses. ; • The exposure of auto entry areas should be �e minimized. 6.5 Structured parking access should not have a negative impact on the character of the street.The access shall be: • Located on an alley or secondary street if necessary. • Designed with the same attention to detail and materials as the primary building facade. Parking access located on an alley and integrated into the building design. • Integrated into the building design. Commercial,Lodging and Historic District � 1 Page 97 Design Objectives and Guidelines �'ya Commercial Core Historic District City of Aspen Public Amenity Space In every case Public Amenity Space should be On-site and communal open space has been a well defined and carefully designed. The design long-standing priority and characteristic of the of public gathering space, its enclosure, layout city. Where it is required the form, orientation, and content, will be an integral consideration quality and use of such open space is of the utmost in the proposed form of the space. Although a importance. Well defined public space should be matter for full review and approval at the Final integrated with traditional streetscape character. Stage,its design should be envisioned at the time The Planning and Zoning Commission and/or of conceptual review. the Historic Preservation Commission will decide whether,where and in what form Public Amenity Design Objectives Space will be required. Where considered to be compatible within the Commercial Core Historic District,public amenity In the past,open spaces occurred as accents along space should be designed and placed to achieve the street, usually where a house existed in the the following objectives: historic context or where a lot stood temporarily 0 Create an active and interesting streetvitality vacant.In more recent years,outdoor spaces were through the promotion of public gathering built that sometimes eroded the character of the space. street edge. These conditions are not precedents 0 Maintain a well-defined street edge and for future development. While some open space street corner to ensure that such public space may occur, it-should be subordinate to the creates an accent within the street facade. traditional character of the street. . Create an additional commercial frontage Public amenity space along the primary street and/or space to the side or rear of the site frontage should be an accent within, and or building exception to, an otherwise well defined street Create a well defined,localized public space fagade. There will be locations within the city at the street edge, where e.g. additional core where the character and setting of the site space for street dining might be beneficial. or a historic building will also influence the form, • Design a space that maximizes access to location or appropriateness of such a space. sunlight throughout the year. • Create a second level space designed to ensure that it is permanently open to the public and provides interest in the form of a scenic or other interpretive marker for the life of its service as a public amenity space. ' Achieve second floor patio space that provides access to affordable commercial uses. The Downtown Enhancement and Pedestrian Plan should serve as an additional reference. Where open space within a parcel is appropriate,develop an amenity that can be experienced by the general public. page gg Ell Commercial,Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines City of Aspen Commercial Core Historic District Public Amenity Space Types *' - Public amenity space is a requirement in the Commercial Core. In this area, particular types of public amenity space would be in character with the urban form of the Commercial Core area. These include: • Street facing amenity space • Mid-block walkway amenity space • Alley side amenity space • Second level amenity space • Front yard amenity space Guidelines for the location and design of each of these types follow. A variety of public amenity spaces exist in Downtown Aspen.In future development it is important to focus on the quality of the space rather than the quantity. The walking mall in Downtown Aspen provides substantial public amenity space for the buildings located there,and therefore creating breaks in the block fagade within this area to provide more street- facing public amenity space should be carefully considered. Commercial,Lodgingand Historic District c� page 99 Design Objectives and Guidelines Commercial Core Historic District City of Aspen Street Facing Amenity Space A street facing amenity space, usually located towards the middle of a block, may be considered. However, within the heart of the district, where the greatest concentration of historic storefronts align, creating new gaps in the street wall is discouraged. Providing space on sites that are r located in the outer edges of the district,especially along the southern edge is more appropriate. 6.6 A street facing amenity space shall meet 4 im all of the following requirements: • Abut the public sidewalk Street facing amenity space should abut the public sidewalk, be • Be level with the sidewalk level with the sidewalk,open to the sky,directly accessible to the public and be paved or otherwise landscaped. 0 Be open to the sky • Be directly accessible to the public '7 0 Be paved or otherwise landscaped '76 an 6.7 A street-facing public amenity space shall remain subordinate to the line of building fronts in the Commercial Core. • Any public amenity space positioned at the street edge shall respect the character of the streetscape and ensure that street corners are well defined, with buildings placed at the sidewalk edge. • Sunken spaces, which are associated with some past developments, adversely affect the street character. Where feasible, these should be replaced with sidewalk level improvements. 6.8 Street facing amenity space shall contain features to promote and enhance its use.These may include one or more of the following: Street facing amenity space should contain public art and other amenities to promote its use. • Street furniture • Public art • Historical/interpretive marker The detailed design of Public Amenity Space, with regard to guidelines 6.8,will be a matter for approval at the Final Review Stage, although it may be discussed at the Conceptual Stage. page 100 Commercial,Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines City of Aspen Commercial Core Historic District Mid-Block Walkway Amenity Space ; ` New buildings on sites occupying more than r one traditional lot-width-may provide a-mid- block walkway or through court within a single `` development or between two developments. This type of space shall be an extension of and a complement to the street and public circulation network within the center of the city. See also Street&Alley System design guidelines. The Commercial Core is highly regarded for its pedestrian character and 'walkability'. The opportunities created by the extension and enhancement of the public circulation network has distinct urban benefits and is encouraged. ° Typically only one such space would occur along a single block face. This form of Public Amenity Space should be a consideration on larger development sites within the city. It links the potential of additional , . commercial frontage and access, with human � ��` scale space and circulation, enriching the public experience. Situated along the edge of a development site,it should extend to link with the Amid-block passage may link through a property provide access to uses along the side of a building or to businesses on an alley. rear alley. Adjacent to a residential type historic building it can provide a respectful break and a space between the two. 6.9 Mid-block walkways shall remain subordinate in scale to traditional lot widths. ? • Mid-block public walkways shall be between 8 ft. and 10 ft. in width. 6.10 A mid-block walkway should provided public access to the following: �� ' • Additional commercial space and frontage within the walkway • Uses located at the rear of the property A passageway may be considered as Public Amenity Space when it remains subordinate to the continuity of the block face.It should be designed to visually appealing and to provide access to active uses. Commercial,Lodging and Historic District Page 201` Design Objectives and Guidelines A Commercial Core Historic District City of Aspen Alley Side Amenity Space Public amenity space may be located to the rear of the site in association with the alleyway. Such a space shall provide access to commercial uses at the street or second floor level. Public amenity space may also be located at the corner of an alley and a street. Such spaces should be designed to enhance the use of alleys for supporting commercial uses. °✓� 6.11 An alley side amenity space shall be designed to have these characteristics: 0 Direct public access to commercial space at street or second floor levels Public amenity space located at an alley should generally be south • Maximize solar access to the alley side facing to maximize solar access for the space and provide access to amenity space commercial space that may be located there. • Enhance of the attractiveness and use of the rear alley • Minimize the adverse impacts of adjacent service and parking areas page 102 c� Commercial,Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines City of Aspen Commercial Core Historic District Second Level Amenity Space An outdoor patio space on a second floor, which is directly accessible to the general public, will be considered as a form of public amenity space when it is compatible with the historic context I a and is clearly inviting for public use. This will 1 be most successful in association with outdoor t dining space. In this respect,it may be favorably 1 considered within sites affected by mountain view planes. 6.12 Second level amenity space should be Second level space shall be accessible from a public space such as compatible with the character of the historic a sidewalk or street facing amenity space. district. • It shall remain visually subordinate to any historic resource on the property. • If located on a historic property,it may not `r alter the appearance of the resource as seen from the street. 6.13 A second floor amenity space should meet ` all of the following criteria: • Ensure consistent public access • Be dedicated for public use `J • Provide a public overlook and/or an interpretive marker Outdoor private space shall be demarcated from the public amenity • Be identified by a marker at street level space. 6.14 Second level space should be oriented to maximize solar access and mountain views, or views of historic landmarks. 6.15 Second level space should provide public access by way of a visible and attractive public stair or elevator from a public street, alley, or street level amenity space. Second level public amenity space shall provide permanent public access from the street. Commercial,Lodging and Historic District page 103 Design Objectives and Guidelines Commercial Core Historic District City of Aspen Front Yard Amenity Space Certain areas within the Commercial Core retain a distinct historic residential character.This is often defined by a landscaped front yard and side yard setback. To maintain and enhance this tradition in certain areas,a landscaped front yard amenity space may be considered. 6.16 Second level dining may be considered. • If the use changes, the space must remain accessible to the public, so long as it is to be considered meeting the public amenity Certain areas within the commercial core are identifi'edwith historic space requirement. single story buildings with setbacks.Front yard setback areas may be considered as public amenity space in such an instance. 6.17 Front and side yard amenity space should be considered in the context of a historic one story residential type building. ■ Building Placement m.wn E.Hyman Ave. y Street Corners Street corners are important elements in the N • 1 0 street block and in the framing of many of the views which characterize the Commercial Core. JIM Many buildings on corner lots exhibit special features that add accents. Corner entrances and This figureground study illustrates the alignment and amount of open space along the street edge during the year 1904. storefront windows that extend along intersecting street fagades are examples. These elements are appropriate in many corner lot locations and should be encouraged.Here the buildings should confirm the pattern of a strongly defined building `. wall at the street edge. Building fagades should be oriented parallel to the street, with variation m.wn..l—o no E.Hyman Ave. ■ in front wall setbacks kept to a minimum. Any departure from the street wall, for well defined and designed public dining space, should occur as an accent within the street block, not the predominant pattern. The same blocks in 1999. Notice how the increased use of open space has eroded the building wall along the street. Exceptions for street dining might be considered, in the outer southern edge of the Commercial Core. These sites often serve as focal points for public activity and therefore sitting areas and other gathering spots are appropriate in the outer edges of the district. page 104 4dz:� Commercial,Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines City of Aspen Commercial Core Historic District Building Setbacks The Commercial Core has a strong and relatively consistent street fagade line. Corner buildings, often of late 19th/early 20th century form,anchor �aaa xa i the street block in many instances. Within the street fagade however there are some departures Ju from this where small areas of open space provide ^� P individual street dining experiences. pit I Setbacks within the central commercial area should reinforce the objective of maintaining : °°� n and enhancing the special urban and traditional character of the strong urban edge of the street fagade and street corner. Local areas of open space Traditionary,commercial buildings were built to the sidewalk edge and anchored the corner.This should be continued. also further the objective of the street vitality created by well defined dining space within the city. These should however remain as an accent within the street fagade. Side setbacks provide the opportunity to create or enhance public passageways or through courts to the rear alley, with the advantages of improved public permeability, access and additionale commercial frontage. See also Street&Circulation Pattern design guidelines. Rear setbacks create the opportunity to achieve more creative and attractive commercial and public space to the rear m 4� of the site and alley. In sum, buildings create a strong edge to the street because they traditionally aligned on the front lot line and were usually built out to the full width of a parcel.Although small gaps do occur between some structures, these are exceptions. This uniform wall of building fronts is vitally This second floor patio incorporates an abstract interpretation of important to the historic integrity of the district upper-story windows and cornice elements to define the space and and should be preserved. maintain the building wall line along the block. Commercial,Lodging and Historic District - Gd .� page 105 Design Objectives and Guidelines >A Commercial Core Historic District City of Aspen 6.18 Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk's edge. • Place as much of the fagade of the building at the property line as possible. • Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate. • A minimum of 70`/(, of the front fagade shall be at the property line. 6.19 A building may be set back from its side lot lines in accordance with design guidelines ' identified in Street & Circulation Pattern and p a s a Public Amenity Space guidelines. Building Orientation Development within the core area has been traditionally oriented with the street grid. This relationship should be maintained. 6.20 Orient a new building to be parallel to its ch lot lines,similar to that of traditional building orientations. • The front of a primary structure shall be oriented to the street. Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk's edge. 6.21 Orient a primary entrance toward the street. • Buildings should have a clearly defined primary entrance. For most commercial buildings, this should be a recessed entry way. • Do not orient a primary entrance to an interior court. • Providing secondary public entrances to commercial spaces is also encouraged on larger buildings. page 106 a` � Commercial,Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines City of Aspen Commercial Core Historic District Building Form Aprominent,unifying element of the Commercials Core is the similarity of building forms. y" Commercial buildings were simple rectangular solids,deeper than they were wide,with flat roofs. a In a few instances,gabled roofs,with false fronts, ` may have been seen. This characteristic of flat ' roof lines is important and should be continued in new projects. 6.22 Rectangular forms should be dominant Rectangular forms should be dominant on Commercial Core on Commercial Core facades. fa(ades. • Rectangular forms should be vertically oriented. —• The facade should appear as predominantly T flat, with any decorative elements and projecting or setback "articulations" appearing to be subordinate to the dominant form. YES! NO! YES! YES! 6.23 Use flat roof lines as the dominant roof sidewalk form. • A flat roof, or one that gently slopes to the street rear of a site, should be the dominant roof form. Orient a building parallel to its lot lines. • Parapets on side fagades should step down towards the rear of the building. • False fronts and parapets with horizontal emphasis also may be considered. 6.24 Along a rear facade,using building forms that step down in scale toward the alley is encouraged. • Consider using additive forms,such as sheds, stairs and decks to reduce the perceived scale.These forms should however,remain subordinate to the primary structure. • Use projecting roofs at the ground floor over entrances, decks and for separate utility structures in order to establish a human scale that invites pedestrian activity. Commercial,Lodging and Historic Districts page 107 Design objectives and Guidelines °� Commercial Core Historic District City of Aspen - Building Height, Mass & Scale The character of the Commercial Core derives in part from the range and variety of building heights. These vary from one to three stories. Building height with traditional lot width and creates a constantly changing cornice profile along a block face. This is the basis of the human scale, l=. 1 architectural character and visual vitality of the city center. New development in this area should continue this variation. With respect to scale,a new building shall also be Maintaining a block facade and orienting new development with sensitive to nearby historic building These range the street grid are two key objectives in the Commercial Core from single story historic residential structures to District. three story Victorian commercial buildings. Two Story Scale 6.25 Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at the sidewalk. • Establish a two-story height at the sidewalk edge,or provide a horizontal design element at this level. A change in materials, or a molding at this level are examples. Height Variation Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at In the Commercial Core area building heights the sidewalk. range from one to three stories. This variation in fagade height is a key characteristic that should be maintained. Variation in height should occur where the site is larger than two traditional lot widths,in order to reduce overall scale of the building. A variation in fagade height,often in conjunction with setting back an upper floor,may be required. 6.26 Building facade height shall be varied from the fagade height of adjacent buildings of the same number of stories. • If an adjacent structure is three stories and 38 ft.tall,new infill may be three stories,but must vary in fagade height by a minimum of 2 ft. page 108 Commercial,Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines City of Aspen Commercial Core Historic District 6.27 A new building or addition should reflect `_ RA the range and variation in building height of the Commercial Core. • Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height limit on the subject property. • Aminimum 9 ft.floor to ceiling height is to be maintained on second stories and higher. • Additional height,as permitted in the zone district,may be added for one or more of the following reasons: - In order to achieve at least a two-foot variation in height with an adjacent A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation building. in building height of the Commercial Core. - The primary function of the building is civic.(i.e.the building is a Museum,Civic Building, Performance Hall, Fire Station, etc.) r - Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity ` to a historic resource, or location within B a View Plane, therefore relief in another + � �*" area may be appropriate. A 4 ' - To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units. To make a demonstrable(to be verified by Methods of achieving height variation within a single building include(A)stepping the building down as it approaches the alley the Building Department)contribution to and(B)stepping the building along the primary facade. the building's overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved day- Existing Building New Building lighting. 6.28 Height variation should be achieved using one or more of the following: • Vary the building height for the full depth 3�g42' of the site in accordance with traditional lot width. • Set back the upper floor to vary the building facade profile(s) and the roof forms across Building facade height shall be varied from the facade height of adjacent buildings of the same number of stories. the width and the depth of the building. • Vary the fagade (or parapet) heights at the front. • Step down the rear of the building towards the alley, in conjunction with other design standards and guidelines. Commercial,Lodging and Historic District Q �- page 109 Design Objectives and Guidelines Commercial Core Historic District City of Aspen Height Variation for Larger Sites ._ Buildings within the commercial center and historic core of Aspen represent the traditional lot F - widths of the city(30 ft.),either in building width or the horizontal and vertical design articulation .e t het of the street facade. New development occupying 1 a site of more than one traditional lot width should be designed to integrate with the scale I-ra created by narrower existing buildings. The � i architectural rhythm of earlier street fagades should also be reflected in new development to retain and enhance the human scale and character of the center of the city. 6.29 On sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths, the fagade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. The fagade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. Height should be varied every 60 ft. �f minimum and preferably every 30 ft. of linear frontage in keeping with traditional lot widths and development patterns. • No more than two consecutive 30 ft. fagade Height variation can occur in a number of eoays,depending on site modules may be three stories tall,within an conditions and design intent. individual building. • A rear portion of a third module may rise to three stories, if the front is set back a minimum of 40 feet from the street fagade. (e.g.at a minimum,the front 40 feet may be no more than two stories in height.) 6.30 On sites comprising two or more traditional lots,a building shall be designed to reflect the individual parcels. These methods shall be used: • Variation in height of building modules across the site • Variation in massing achieved through upper floor setbacks, the roofscape form and variation in upper floor heights • Variation in building fagade heights or cornice line page 110 Commercial,Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines City of Aspen Commercial Core Historic District Height Adjacent to Historic Structures The Commercial Core Historic District is the setting for a very diverse range of historic structures. Designing a building in the historic - - district demands a sensitivity in design analysis and approach which is exacting and which will vary with each situation. The intent is that a new building or addition to an existing building should be designed to respect the height and ` ~ scale of historic buildings within the commercial core. Historic One Story Commercial Type 1 6.31 A new building should step down in Building is scale to respect the height, form and scale of a --- 4 historic building within its immediate setting. Building fagade height shall be a maximum of one floor higher within 30 ft.of an adjacent single story historic building. 6.32 When adjacent to a one or two story historic building thatwas originally constructed m for commercial use, a new building within the same block face should not exceed 28 in height 4-'°" within 30 ft. of the front facade. • In general,a proposed multi-story building . must demonstrate that it has no negative Q impact on smaller, historic structures }, nearby. • The height and proportions of all facade iw components must appear to be in scale with Historic One Story Residential nearby historic buildings. type Building 6.33 New development adjacent to a single New infill adjacent to historic miners cottages shall not exceed story historic building that was originally 28 ft. in height within 30 ft. of the property line adjacent to the constructed for residential use shall not exceed historic structure. 28 ft.in height within 30 ft.of the side property line adjacent to the historic structure, within Iconic Historic Structures the same block face. Visually prominent historic structures 6.34 The setting of iconic historic structures influence the design character of Downtown should be preserved and enhanced when Aspen and should be recognized. These are: feasible. • On sites comprising more than two ' The Wheeler Opera House traditional lot widths, the third floor of The Elks building the adjacent lot width should be set back a The Independence building • minimum of 15 ft from the front facade. County Courthouse • Hotel • Step a building down in height adjacent to Jerome an iconic-structure. City Hall • Locate amenity space adjacent to an iconic St. Mary's Church structure. Commercial Lodging and Historic District page 111 8 8 a..,.1 Design Objectives and Guidelines ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION C0& MISSI0N= ---- — - MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 Chairperson, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Nora Berko, Willis Pember, Jay Maytin, Jamie McLeod, Patrick Segal, Sallie Golden and Jane Hills. R Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Jay moved to approve the minutes of August 15th second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried. Public comments: Bill Wiener, 701 Gibson. It is important to preserve the character of this community. The height issue is now before the public because of what went on with council and the 28 feet. When we put extra height on a building we are putting extra volume on it also. There are circumstances that where a building needs to be taller than 28 feet. To do that they need to mitigate. It is time to start looking at volume and that is mass and it is changing the character. There is a formula that I can work on. You would get setbacks that create urban feel with little gardens. Jay said our guidelines indicate no setbacks. Bill said the character of this community has been little gardens, flowers and a piece of sculpture and variety around town. This is not that kind of large city where we need everything to the property line. Bill said he will do a volume analysis. 422 E. Cooper Ave. Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Demolition, Mountain View Plane Review, Public Hearing Sallie recused herself. Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney stated the public notice is in order and the applicant can proceed. Exhibit I Amy said we are dealing with a 9,000 square foot lot on the Cooper Ave mall and it contains 3 structures. One has an art gallery and a t-shirt shop, the Red Onion Restaurant and a poster shop. The entire property is landmarked and in the historic district. At one time the Red Onion occupied 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 all three spaces. This proposal only affects the portion of the property that is occupied by the poster shop. The structure was built around 1965-66. This application is to demolish the one story poster shop addition. The applicant is proposing to keep the fagade as it is now on Cooper but there is some uncertainty as to whether it will survive the construction process. The new construction will have a one story element at the front, a setback two story element and setback three story element. There is no residential use on the lot right now but it would be created. Staff feels because it is set back and sympathetic to the architecture of the Red Onion and adjacent building we feel the scale is appropriate. Staff feels that the signage on the Red Onion restaurant east facing should not be blocked. The floor levels align with the adjacent buildings and staff feels the proportions are good. They are at the allowed height limit and are not asking to exceed it. There is a requirement that they address the public amenity requirement. There are several ways to do that. They can physically set a building back from the street and provide cash-in-lieu. They would like to continue to have the poster shop right at the street line and would make a contribution to improvements to Cooper Ave. They are required to provide a certain amount of trash and utility area and that is being met. They are located within the Wheeler Opera House view plane. There are many things in the way that obstruct that view and some existed at the time the view plane was adopted particularly the Paragon building. The view plan slices across the Red Onion property and we want to ensure that nothing they are constructing now makes the view plane blocked anymore. Their argument is that existing development on the Hyman mall already interferes with the projection of the view plan of Aspen Mountain and they are not making the situation worse. The issues that need addressed are demolition, the appropriateness of the mass, scale and height of the addition, cash-in-lieu; trash and utility and Wheeler Opera House view plane. Staff recommends conceptual approval with conditions. Patrick said if the buildings on Hyman were redeveloped they would have to comply with the view plane. Amy said you are supposed to address the situation as of today and are they infringing further on the view plan than other obstructing buildings already do. Stan Clauson and Associates Inc. Kim Weil, Poss Architects 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 Stan presented a power point on the existing buildings and proposed development. Regarding the neighborhood outreach we had a meeting explaining the project. The project was generally positively received. The building is a cinder block building, slab on grade and a portion of the Red Onion Restaurant comes into it on the first floor. Kim said the dimensions of the building are 20 x 100. Stan said in documentation that we have we show that 422 E. Cooper is not historical and has no historical significance even though it is associated with the historically designated Red Onion. On the first floor there is 1,000 square feet of net leasable and the proposed residence on the second and third floor would consist of 2,000 square feet. There are significant setbacks. On the first floor to the second floor it is set back 12 feet and on the third floor it is set back 45 feet. The existing fagade will be maintained if we can shore it up. An elevator provides access to the third floor. The Red Onion sign would remain. The entry would be the same as it is now with a single doorway adjacent to the large picture window. From the doorway you would enter the commercial space and then enter stairs and the elevator to access the second and third level. There is no access to a third floor roof deck. The elevator has a simple over run on the third story. The highest point is 38 feet which is compliant with the code and then there is approximately a 4 foot elevator run. View plane The building is located within the Wheeler Opera House view plane generally speaking, but due to the height of the buildings on Hyman the proposed development will be blocked from the view plane. The view plane cuts off a portion of the third story. Because it is blocked the code provides for a complete exemption from the view plane. The blockage largely occurs from the Paragon building and the Roaring Fork building. Kim said it was not our intent to create an architectural statement as much as it was to do something of its time and respect the Red Onion. We will keep the white facade and we would step back and use brick and stone and glass rails which tend to minimumize the mass. We wanted to keep it simple because there is an alley behind it and two buildings on either side. Jay asked about the scrubber on the roof for the Red Onion restaurant and where it would be located. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 Kim said we will retain a mechanical engineer to determine what our options are. Codes require hoods and kitchen equipment to be up and we aren't sure which building it will be on top of since the owner owns all three buildings. New technology allows the mechanicals to be smaller. Jane asked about maintaining and retaining the Red Onion sign. With the decks and setbacks people will be living in those units and they will likely have things on their decks. Kim said the second level deck is set back for that very reason. We are holding the deck back from the sign so things can't be put there. Jamie inquired about the street entrance. Kim said in order to retain the picture window the door entrance will be right where it is now to serve the retail and residential unit. It is a little step up. Nora said given the idea that we are trying to make iconic buildings stand out and have some breathing room how can we not over shadow the Red Onion buildings Stan said the proposal has very significant setbacks. On the second floor it is set back 12 feet and 45 feet on the third floor. Kim pointed out that the lot is 100 feet deep and we are 45 feet back and there is no roof deck or stairs to the third floor. Kim said it would be difficult to come back later for a roof top deck because you would need an elevator and two sets of stairs. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public comments. Junee Kirk said she attended the neighborhood meeting and listened to many of the comments. The Red Onion is one of the most iconic buildings and I would hope that you would not put the third story on but rather look at the balance of this. Balance in terms of space and space in terms of not building right next to it. The Red Onion had one story structures on either side. The guidelines indicated buildings next to iconic buildings should not exceed a 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 height of 28 feet. On the alley side with the third floor addition you will have a 42 foot high structure that will impact the Red Onion. This is an historic block and once you destroy the Red Onion it is sad thing that we are doing to this town and our local history. In Europe they really honor history. You should take the one story and go back 12 to 20 feet on the second story and they can still have their pent house. Chairperson, Ann Mullins closed the public comment section of the agenda item. Sallie stated that the sign should be protected and the mechanical should be addressed on the roof. Jay asked for information on the plate heights. Kim said the first floor is 13 feet and the second level to the third level is 11 feet. The third floor is 12. 6 feet. These are floor to floor heights. The plate heights would be lower. That amounts to a 38 foot high building. Ann outlined the issues: Demolition Mass and scale Height Public amenity Trash/utility View plane Patrick asked staff if by right they can build 38 feet. Amy said that is the maximum they can have and HPC would have to approve that height in the project. Jay pointed out that the Red Onion is the center of the block and everything else tapers down lower. The buildings behind the Red Onion are massive. If any block can handle 38 feet it is this block. I would like to see if the applicant can study the mechanical and see if they can bring the 38 feet down to 36 feet. That is an important part and we might not need the max for the program. Ann said the Red Onion is dominant on the block and we have one owner for all three lots and we can maintain the dominance of that historic resource 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 within the block. This project does not do that. The demolition is fine. The mass, scale and height is unacceptable. It completely dwarfs the Red Onion and you will get some of the view from the west side. On the east side it will be the tallest building in the block. The third story will stick out and dominate and compromise the Red Onion. The public amenity and trash/utility are fine. I can't accept that something else is blocking the view plane. The main issue is the third story. Jamie said the third floor is over powering the Red Onion building. Jay said for what is behind this building and the large setback is clearly there to honor the Red Onion. I support the project with a'restudy of the height and this project can handle the mass. Sallie recused herself. Jane will be voting. Nora said she feels we are chipping away at our mission. Our mission is to preserve what we have. The Red Onion deserves some prominence. Part of the appeal of this town is what we have in history and as we build these huge buildings next to it I have to look back and ask what I have contributed in preserving what we have. Willis said he feels the board is struggling with reading the mass and scale. It would really help to have a three dimensional representation and show the view planes. A one story building is not in the vocabulary of this project. Stan stated that the Red Onion is flanked by one and two story structures. The entry to the two story structure comes right up to the Red Onion. The building is at 38 feet. With respect to the view plane the code is very clear and if something interrupts the view plane in front of you, you are exempt from the view plane. We could have come to you with a two story building coming all the way out to the front but in respecting the sign and the Red Onion there is a significant setback for the second story and a significant setback for the third floor. We feel this is a very respectful and small project. We can do a three D model. MOTION: Ann moved to continue 422 E. Cooper to Sept. 19th; second by Jamie. Motion carried 6-1. Jay opposed. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 Patrick said his issue is the third story. Jamie said her concern is the height against the Red Onion and how much higher is it. Ann said she feels the building should be a two story. If that isn't possible then there should be no view plane compromise. Willis said he feels the mass and profile is very promising and if you go two stories you will block the sign and that doesn't make sense. From any pedestrian point of view you won't see the third story. Jane said she agrees with Willis that a three D contextual of the neighborhood would be helpful. How does it compare to the street. I like the project and want to see it in terms of height context. MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 7 c: EXHIBM--/—, AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: € C� p_ �y�¢.. , Aspen, CO 4C I SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 20I2- STATE OF COLORADO ) } ss. County of Pitkin ) C't SC C1--C� (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that 1 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. 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 , 20_,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 ovvners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (Continued on next page) 00001, 104*4 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. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this day of r , 20 by el RE:420 f..COOPER ENI/E CONCEPTUAL I COMMEf qLDESIGNREVIEW DEMO ITION, I WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL MkPUNTAIN VIEW PLANE REVIEW will be held eld o EWednesday that l�l2,2012 DA to Pen Historic Preserivea!5:Commission,Council My commission expires: P before the As- Chambers,City Hall,130 S.Galena St.,Aspen,to consider an application submitted by Red Onion Investors,c/o Andrew Hecht,Garfield and Hecht, PC,601 E.Hyman Avenue,Aspen,CO. The ap- plicant is represented by Poss Architecture and Planning and Stan Clawson Associates.The Project N tary Public affects the property sated at 420 E.Cooper Ave t Cite,Red Onion Condominiums,Unit 1,Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen,County of Atkin,State Of Colorado,PID#2737-182-16-06 f The appte li- cant proposes to demolish,in part or in total,a 1950s era extension on the east side of the fapl i net Red Onion building. The replacement con- struction will be a three story building with com- mercial on the first floor and partially in the basement and One residential unit On the second and Mountain tion la'a review are required.ed.For ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: further information,contact Sara Adams at the Ci u�. of Aspen Community Development Department F THE PUBLICATION a.a S.Galena St.,Aspen,CO,(g70)4P9-2778 sa--ti /Ann Mullin aspen.co.us. ,,IAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) s/Ann Mullins Chair,Aspen Historic Preservation Commis- 1 THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENT AGENGIES NOTIED sion Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on Au ust 23.2012(829846 g City of Aspen Account ANT CERTICICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE n ,tUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 422 E. Cooper Street, Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 12 September 2012 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, Stan Clauson,being or representing 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) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: X 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 prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the 28 day of August, 2012, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. X 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) X 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. 1��— a_ Signa e The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this �ay of safj-� , 200 Z,by ^P�-rl-- c C � S �?A WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL PATRICK S. RAWLEY M commission expires: 2 16 -2 0 -NOTARY PHSa IC- - Y p Notary Public "ENTS AS APPLICABLE: TON POSTED NOTICE(SIGN) ND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED TION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE r §24-65.5-103.3 NOTICE of NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH MEETING 422 E. Cooper Street, Unit 1, Red Onion Condominium (currently housing the Omnibus Gallery) A Neighborhood Outreach Meeting will be held on Monday, September 10th 2012 from 4:00- 5:30 p.m. at the Aspen Square Conference Room, 617 East Cooper Avenue, Aspen. The Neighborhood Outreach Meeting is being held to meet the requirements contained in Sec. 26.304.035 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code which requires the applicant to perform neighborhood outreach prior to the first public hearing. The purpose of the Neighborhood Outreach Meeting is to gain input from neighbors and citizens concerning the proposed redevelopment of the building located at 422 E. Cooper Street (Unit 1, Red Onion Condominium). Representatives of the applicant will be in attendance to answer questions and present renderings, modeling, and/or other visual representations of the project. Light refreshments will be provided. Please contact Patrick Rawley at 970-925-2323 or at patrick@scar)lanning.com with any questions. PARAGON BUILDING ROARING FORK BUILDING i �... RED ONION OFFICES.... RED ONION X42 E.COOPER SUBJECT PROPERTY ,3 , STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES INC landscape architecture.planning.resort design 412 North Mill Street Aspen,Colorado 81611 t-970/925-2323 f.970/92o-1628 info @scaplanning.com www.scaptanning.com DOSS JARCHITECTURE + PLANNING 205 459 209 N 0 50 100 230 211 Feet W S Kobey WFIEELER_BLOCK This map/drawing/image is a graphical representation euildkp etiliouia iLC of the features depicted and is not a legal 400 representation. The accuracy may change fim Thumb LOMAALTA 21 Bwliuq RPORATI°R 217 depending on the enlargement or reduction. CITY OF ,MYNAH MALL DuWke COMMERCIAL woods Copyright 2012 Aspen/Pitkin GS ASPEN 40o rCONDOS LL' FAMILY LP 219 8/28/2012 10:38:21 AM C:\GIS\temp\Aup12�A20ECooper.mxd BENTIE,Y.S AT - 14 THE WHEELER B.P.O.E. -2 320 Yrl cn 408 41f414416 420 426 428 490 E HYMAN AVE RIFFITH r LARRY R P d 431 433 INae ��" 401 407 409 413 415 419 501 505 NO 991 915 I ERiKATI?EREV P a L 309 S17 521 905 TRUSTi5096 PROPERTIES S05 302 ARCADES ASPEN CORE LlC COX JAMES ASSOCIATES �PNMTMU KOPP AMELIA Roar_kq EYBtNANCY 304 LTD LLC LLC L TRUST Fork 907 C/) 907 308 Gr8 K n of CO YM EAST LU C HYMAN LLC 909 309 Z 2 Golden Mom � Bullilkp PRADA 912 31a uSAYCORP 915 314 BARNETf-F1'RWALD BIDWELL BERT HOLDINOS`INC INVESTMENT 314 316 CORP rn 31E318 DEVELOPMENT LLC 41416,18 �0 434 G) VOLK 320 594 s20 ado 408 420 422 424 m PLAZA LLC . rn z 500 508 _ v a z 0 E COOPER AVE CiTy OF 507 ASPEN 401 405 1 411 independence 524531 593535 r- P� 429 433 'ildirp' 525 VALLEY 402 INVESTMENTS �� MECER GUIDOS ASPENGROVE 407 LLC SINESS [SN!ISS 404 ASSOCIATES BUILDING LLC INN LLC LLP 409 406 40 Durant Galena Cr Y OF 450 520 ASPEN i 510 516 E DURANT AVE 6648253 PROOF OF PUBLICATION T31 lull T1 I STATE OF COLORADO,COUNTY OF PITKIN I,Jenna Weatherred,do solemnly swear that I am a Publisher of the ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY, that the same weekly newspaper printed,in whole or in part and published in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Pitkin for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement. moo at 20W PW to�aPaa W ft lk pwrwa. kx That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular ,,," s ' and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 T°a°a"a°"�°`"a consecutive insertions;and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 6/19/2011 and that the last publication of said 1 10 �:, se� notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 6/19/2011. in to AgW aaa.wd•�1� °'g' In witness whereof,l have here unto set my hand this 17`h day of August,2011. Jenna Weatherred, blisher i Subscribed and sworn to before me,a notary public in and for the County of Garfield,State of Colorado this 17`h day of August,2011.. Mary E.Borl&nhagen,Notary Public My Commission expires:August 27,2011 'Aspen(L7 'kLS)City of f Fri, Jun 10, 2011 X0:08:20 6635794 0 vd r�, 2__i t Ad Ticket#5 Acct: 1013028 Name: Aspen (LEGALS) City of Phone: (970)920-5064 Address: 130 S Galena St E-Mail: ANGELA SCOREY Client: Caller: Kathryn Koch City: Aspen Receipt State: CO zip: 81611 Ad Name: 6635794A Original Id: 0 Editions: 8ATI18ATWl Class: 0990 Start: 06/19/11 Stop: 06/19/11 Color: issue 1 Copyline: atw -Ord#19 - 7.11.11 Pub Hrg Rep: AT Legals PUBLIC NOTICE Lines: 19 LEGAL NOTICE ORDINANCE #19,2011, PUBLIC HEARING Depth: 1.6 Ordinance #19, Series of 2011, was adopted on Columns: 1 first reading at the City Council meeting June 13, 2011. This ordinance, 0 adopted, will approve a Discount: 0.00 Final PUD for Aspen Walk, 404 Park Avenue. The Commission: 0.00 Public hearing on this ordinance is scheduled for July 11,2011 at 5 PM, City hall, 130 South Galena. Net: 0.00 To see the entire text, go to the city's legal notice website Tax: 0.00 h=llwww assn kQ kin com/Dever nm /C`lerk! L geLhAatieesl Total - If you would like a copy FAXed or e-malted to you. Payment 0.00 call the city clerk's office, 429-2686. [6635794] Published in the Aspen Times Weeklyon June 19. 2011. [6635794] Ad shown is not actual print size 305-7 MILL STREET LLC 4 SKIERS LP 400 HYMAN LLC 412 N PAULINA 1108 NORFLEET DR 6829 QUEENFERRY CIR CHICAGO, IL 60622 NASHVILLE,TN 372201412 BOCA RATON, FL 33496 409 EAST HYMAN LLC 450 SOUTH GALENA ST INVESTORS LLC 520 EAST COOPER PTNRS LLC 63 FOX PROWL 450 S GALENA ST#202 402 MIDLAND PARK CARBONDALE, CO 81623 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 AGRUSA LISA ANN ARCADES ASSOCIATES LTD LLC ASPEN CORE VENTURES LLC 2090 W FIRST ST#1010 C/O KRUGER&CO 418 E COOPER AVE#207 FORT MYERS, FL 33901 400 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN GROVE ASSOCIATES LLP ASPEN RETREAT LLC BARNETT-FYRWALD HOLDINGS INC C/O M&W PROPERTIES 6536 E GAINSBOROUGH 500 PRESIDENT CLINTON AVE STE 310 205 S MILL ST#301A SCOTTSDALE,AZ 85251 LITTLE ROCK,AR 72201 ASPEN, CO 81611 BENTLEYS AT THE WHEELER BIDWELL BERT INVESTMENT CORP BLACK HAWK ASPEN LLC PO BOX 10370 2870 PEACHTREE RD#427 ROECLIFFE COTTAGE JOE MOORES LN ASPEN, CO 81612 ATLANTA, GA 30305 WOODHOUSE EAVES LEICESTERSHIRE LE12 8TF ENGLAND, CARLSON BRUCE E TRUST CHARLIES COW COMPANY LLC CHISHOLM REVOCABLE TRUST PO BOX 3587 315 E HYMAN AVE 3725 N GRANDVIEW DR ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 FLAGSTAFF,AZ 86004-1603 CITY OF ASPEN COASTAL MOUNTAIN INVESTMENTS COASTAL MTN PROPERTIES LLC ATTN FINANCE DEPT LLC 2639 MC CORMICK DR 130 S GALENA ST 2519 N MCMULLEN BOOTH RD#510-307 CLEARWATER, FL 33759 ASPEN, CO 81611 CLEARWATER, FL 33761 COOPER STREET DEVELOPMENT LLC COTTONWOOD VENTURES I LLC COTTONWOOD VENTURES II LLC C/O PYRAMID PROPERTY ADVISORS 419 E HYMAN AVE ATTN JANA FREDERICK 418 E COOPER AVE#207 ASPEN, CO 81611 300 CRESCENT CT#1000 ASPEN, CO 81611 DALLAS,TX 75201 COX JAMES E&NANCY DENSON JAMES D DOLE MARGARET M C/O KRUGER&CO PO BOX 1614 PO BOX 8455 400 E HYMAN AVE TUBAC,AZ 85646 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 DUVIKE INC ELKS LODGE 224 F&M VENTURES LLC C/O AERSCAPE LTD 210 S GALENA ST STE 21 C/O MORRIS&FYRWALD RE 230 S MILL ST ASPEN,CO 81611 415 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 .2S3 A c--'C- C� FIERCELY LOCAL FITZGERALD FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LTD FOOTLOOSE MOCCASIN MAKERS INC 328 E HYMAN AVE C/O PITKIN COUNTY DRY GOODS LLC C/O MANUEL GOUVEIA ASPEN,CO 81611 520 E COOPER 44 SILVERADO CT. ASPEN, CO 81611 CANON CITY, CO 81212 FORD ANN MICHIE G&K LAND CO LLC GERARDOT J REVOCABLE TRUST 216 WAPITI WAY 140 PITKIN MESA DR 5526 HOPKINTON DR BASALT, CO 81621 ASPEN, CO 81611 FORT WAYNE, IN 46804 GONE WEST LLC GORDON DAVID F&LETICIA LLC GORSUCH COOPER LLC 401 W CENTER C/O JOE RACZAK/NORTH OF NELL MGT 263 E GORE CREEK DR SEARCY,AR 721451406 555 E DURANT VAIL, CO 81657 ASPEN, CO 81611 GREENWAY COMPANY INC GREENWOOD KAREN DAY GREGG LELAND JOHN 666 TRAVIS ST#100 GREENWOOD STERLING JAMES PO BOX 1935 SHREVEPORT, LA 71101 409 E COOPER AVE SANTA YNEZ, CA 834601935 ASPEN, CO 81611 GRIFFITH LARRY R GUIDOS SWISS INN LLC HOPPES DIANA 19794 ESCADA CT 23655 TWO RIVERS RD 5400 VERNON AVE#106 REDDING, CA 96003 BASALT, CO 81621 EDNA, MN 55436 HORSE ISLAND LLC HYMAN MALL COMMERCIAL CONDOS INDEPENDENCE PARTNERS 415 E HYMAN AVE#16 LLC C/O CAPMARK INC ASPEN,CO 81611 290 HEATHER LN 205 S MILL ST#301A ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 INDEPENDENCE SQUARE UNITS LLC INDY UNIT 211 LLC JENNE LLP 3109 OAKMONT DR PO BOX 11627 1510 WINDSOR RD STATESVILLE, NC 28625 ASPEN, CO 81612 AUSTIN,TX 77402 KANTZER TAYLOR M FAM TRST#1 KAUFMAN GIDEON I KOPP AMELIA L TRUST 216 SEVENTEENTH ST C/O KAUFMAN&PETERSON 1000 DOLORES WY#B MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266 315 E HYMAN AVE#305 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 ASPEN, CO 81611 KRISTAL ASPEN LLC LCT LP LEFFERS JEFFREY J TRUSTEE 1417 WEST 10TH ST TENNESSEE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 5526 HOPKINTON DR AUSTIN,TX 787034816 PO BOX 101444 FORT WAYNE, IN 46804 NASHVILLE,TN 37224-1444 LINDNER FRITZ DISCLAIMER TRUST LOMA ALTA CORPORATION LYSTER BARBARA 50% PO BOX 886 37 OCEAN HTS DR 66966 TEN PEAKS CT LANCASTER,TX 75146-0886 NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 BEND, OR 97701 MAIERSPERGER RENELL MARCUS DURANT GALENA LLC MCDONALDS CORPORATION 05/152 404 S GALENA C/O STEPHEN J MARCUS PAUL NELSON ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 1709 142 TANAGER DR ASPEN, CO 81612 GLENWOOD SPRINGS,CO 81601 MEYER BUSINESS BUILDING LLC MORRIS ROBERT P MTN ENTERPRISES 80B 23655 TWO RIVERS RD 600 E HOPKINS AVE STE 304 C/O HILLIS OF SNOWMASS BASALT,CO 81621 ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 5739 EAGLE, CO 816315739 P&L PROPERTIES LLC PEYTON MARI PRADA USA CORP 101 S 3RD ST#360 409 E COOPER#4 STE 1 C/O GIORGION RIGHETTI, CFO GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501 ASPEN, CO 81611 610 WEST 52 ST NEW YORK, NY 10019 RANKMORE KEVIN L&JASMINE RONCHETTO LYNN A ROSS BARBARA REVOCABLE TRUST PO BOX 168 320 E 42ND ST#101 PO BOX 594 WELLINGTON NSW 2820 AUSTRALIA, NEW YORK, NY 10017 HANALEI, HI 96714 ROSS ROGER A REVOCABLE TRUST RUTLEDGE REYNIE SCHROEDER FAMILY TRUST 4720 WAILAPA RD 51 COUNTRY CLUB CIR 4 GREENWOOD CT KILAUEA, HI 96754 SEARCY,AR 72143 ORINDA, CA 94563 SCHULTZE DANIEL G SILVER SLAM COMMERCIAL LLC SLAM COMMERCIAL LLC 7711 WESTMINISTER C/O RELATED COMPANIES/JEFF BLAU 2100 E MAPLE RD#200 BYRON CENTER, MI 49315 60 COLUMBUS CIR BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 NEW YORK, NY 10023 STEPHENS ROSS DAVID SWEARINGEN WILLIAM F SWENERG JAMES&SANDRA L 1337 B DANIELSON RD 450 CONWAY MANOR DR NW 2660 ROCK REST RD SANTA BARBARA, CA 93108 ATLANTA, GA 303273518 PITTSBORO, NC 27312 TENNESSEE THREE TENNESSEE THREE RENTALS TOMKINS FAMILY TRUST PO BOX 101444 C/O J H COBLE 520 E COOPER AVE#209 NASHVILLE,TN 37224-1444 5033 OLD HICKORY BLVD ASPEN,CO 81611 NASHVILLE,TN 37218-4020 VALLEY INVESTMENTS LLC VOLK PLAZA LLC VOLK RICHARD W TRUSTEE 205 S MILL ST#301A 995 COWEN DR#201 C/O RICHARD W VOLK MANAGER ASPEN,CO 81611 CARBONDALE, CO 81623-1657 2327 MIMOSA DR HOUSTON,TX 77019 WAVO PROPERTIES LP WENDELIN ASSOC WHEELER BLOCK BUILDING LLC 512 112 E GRAND AVE#200 150 METRO PARK TKG MANAGEMENT INC C/O DES MOINES, IA 50309-1942 ROCHESTER, NY 14623 211 N STADIUM BLVD STE 201 COLUMBIA, MO 65203 WHEELER SQUARE-CASPER FAMILY WOLF LAWRENCE G TRUSTEE WOOD ARNOLD S&ANNE M LLC 22750 WOODWARD AVE#204 65 MOSTYN ST 315 E HYMAN FERNDALE, MI 48220 SWAMPSCOTT, MA 01907 ASPEN, CO 81611 WOODS FAMILY LP ZUPANCIS ROBERT L 30.621% PO BOX 11468 509 RACE ST ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 #\ EXHIBIT � a September 12, 2012 Ms. Ann Mullins Chair, Aspen Historic Preservation Commission City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 420 E. Cooper Avenue Conceptual Major Development, etc. Red Onion Investors Dear Ms. Mullins, Aspen Elks Lodge #224 is the owner of the historic three story building located on the corner of Hyman and Galena Streets. The Lodge is comprised of over 900 members who have instructed its governing body to take any steps necessary to protect its view plane of the mountains, particularly the views of Aspen Mountain. The Lodge Trustees and House Committee aka Board of Directors, Aspen Elks Lodge #224, therefore, takes the position that the project proposed by Red Onion Investors at 420 E. Cooper Avenue, and represented by Poss Architecture and Planning and Stan Clauson Associates, may interfere with the Lodge's view plane mentioned above to such an extent that it opposes the request to do so. Respectfully submitted, Richard Miller Exalted_ Ruler Aspen Elks Lodge #224 510 E. Hyman, Suite 300 Aspen, CO 81612 Cc: Sara Adams,Aspen Community Development Department Kathryn Koch, City Clerk 510 E. Hyman Avenue, Suite 300 • Aspen, CO 81611 • 970 925-9071 • 970 925-8678(FA,) EXHIBIT DR. BRUCE EINAR CARLSON 415 E. HYMAN • PO. BOX 3587 q�� a- ASPEN, CO 81612 (303) 920-3159 Q9,- Am,, CL)7q+lqt C-- 1 iilk fro MINOR'_�■,/;/l .dpi. awn p �� �11^7 ;.-�- �fi�l� MoRm tr.�■,� w �IN■.� many,.awn lag 1AN�l N WAME r- lag lie RX Ion m Unna AT hill Na INN was an NAY.� �� �� � � r • � �/tea%1 f l Wrt mammal AWARM ON o �► 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 422 E. Cooper Street- Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design, Demolition, and Viewplane Reviews, Public Hearing DATE: ' September 12, 2012 SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to. demolish the back portion of the one story commercial space adjacent to the 1892 Red Onion building and construct a three story addition. The one story commercial space was originally built in 1955/56 as a expansion of the Red Onion restaurant to provide a larger dining room. The 1892 Red Onion sits on a 9,000 square feet lot that includes the one story commercial space to the east (the subject of this review) and a two story commercial space to the west that was also constructed as an expansion of the Red Onion for a nightclub and stage. All three spaces were internally connected at one time. The entire lot is designated a historic landmark and is considered contributing to the Commercial Core Historic District. There are currently no residential units on the 9,000 square feet parcel. The applicant proposes to create one new residential unit that spans the second and third floor of the proposed new addition. The first floor and basement are proposed to be commercial use. The applicant requests Conceptual Major ? Development and Conceptual Commercial Design n addition to Demolition and View lane � p �. approvals. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends r r approval of Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design, Demolition, and _ - ' Viewplane with conditions. �'� a APPLICANT: Red Onion Investors, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., 412 N. Mill St., Aspen, CO. PARCEL ID:2737-182-16-061. Image 1: Vicinity Map. Yellow border illustrates the 9,000 sf parcel and the star indicates the portion subject ADDRESS: 422 East Cooper, Red Onion Condos, to this review. Unit 1, Lots N, O, and P, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen. 1 0 0 ZONE DISTRICT: CC, Commercial Core, Historic District Overlay. DEMOLITION The applicant proposes to retain the front fagade of the existing building and to demolish the back portion. The building was constructed in 1955/56 as an expansion of the Red Onion restaurant to provide a larger dining area. The Red Onion was designated a local landmark in 1982. The designation lists "420 East Cooper (Red Onion)" as the property description. It is Staffs opinion that the designation includes the entire 9,000 sf. parcel since the entire site was operating as the Red Onion at that time. The applicant represents that the structural integrity of the masonry on the sides and the back of the subject building is failing. An analysis of the structural integrity of the front fagade has not been undertaken. The applicant proposes to retain the front fagade; however if structural issues arise r during demolition, the applicant proposes to reconstruct the front fagade to match the existing condition. Image 2 and 3: Photographs of the Red Onion with the east and west expansions. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, C. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: 2 a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and C. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Staff Response: As mentioned above, the building was once part of the Red Onion restaurant. The one story scale of the structure is indicative of the typical 1950s modest scale of construction and the detailing relates to the 1892 building. While the Red Onion is one of Aspen's more iconic historic buildings from the 19th century, it is Staffs opinion that the portion proposed for demolition is not integral to the Red Onion's historic significance. Staff finds that the demolition criteria are met and recommends that HPC approve demolition. The applicant represents that there are significant structural concerns with the masonry at the rear portion that is proposed to be demolished. Staff appreciates the applicant's willingness to retain the front fagade of the building; however should the building fagade be deemed unsafe after a structural inspection, Staff does not recommend that the front fagade details be replicated which is an issue for Final Review. Staff recommends that the applicant conduct a structural inspection prior to Final HPC review to determine whether the fagade is safe to remain. CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. The design guidelines for conceptual review of a building in the downtown historic district are all located within the "Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives." The relevant guidelines are attached as "Exhibit A." 3 o a Many of the Conceptual Design Guidelines, for example "Street and Alley Systems," "Building Orientation," and "Building Placement," do not apply to this project due to the scope of the proposal. The applicable conceptual design issues are addressed below. SCALE/MASS: Overall Staff is supportive of the proposed mass and scale of the project. The building maintains a one story scale at the street edge. Significant setbacks are proposed for the second and third floors. The second floor is setback 3' 1" in addition to a 9' deck for a total of about a 12' setback and the third floor is setback 12' in addition to a 33' deck for a total of 45' setback from the street edge. A third floor setback of 5' is proposed along the alley for a deck. The proposed upper floors will block some of the non-original window openings along the eastern fagade of the 1892 Onion. The historic photograph below, from the Aspen Historical Society, shows the eastern fagade without windows. Staff is supportive of the setbacks and the relief that is provided to the historic Red Onion and finds that the Design Guidelines on the following page are met. 'J 1 �GSRE LO ; 1 a Image 4: Historic image of the Red Onion showing the eastern fagade without windows and the building prior to its expansion in the 1950s. Staff questioned whether the proposed building would cover the vertical Red Onion sign along the eastern fagade (the date of the current sign is unknown- the current sign replaced the painted version in the photograph above). The applicant has indicated that the sign will not be covered. Staff recommends that the applicant provide a rendering during the meeting that shows the visibility of the sign with the proposed setbacks. 4 c� o 6.18 Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk's edge. • Place as much of the fagade of the building at the property line as possible. • Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate. • A minimum of 70%of the front fagade shall be at the property line. 6.23 Use flat roof lines as the dominant roof form. • A flat roof, or one that gently slopes to the rear of a site, should be the dominant roof form. • Parapets on side facades should step down towards the rear of the building. • False fronts and parapets with horizontal emphasis also may be considered. 6.24 Along a rear fagade, using building forms that step down in scale toward the alley is encouraged. • Consider using additive forms, such as sheds, stairs and decks to reduce the perceived scale. These forms should however, remain subordinate to the primary structure. • Use projective roofs at the ground floor over entrances, decks and for separate utility structures in order to establish a human scale that invites pedestrian activity. HEIGHT: The applicant proposes a maximum of 38' to the top of the third floor with an elevator overrun extending beyond the 38' height limit (elevators are allowed up to 10' above the building height if setback 15'). No rooftop access is proposed. The proposed height is within the dimensional requirements for the Commercial Core Historic District and the floor levels align with the adjacent building. Staff finds that the proposed height and setbacks are appropriate for the site and meet the Design Guidelines below: 6.31 A New building should step down in scale to respect the height, form and scale of a historic building within its immediate setting. 6.32 When adjacent to a one or two story historic building that was originally constructed for commercial use, a new building within the same block face should not exceed 28 ft. in height within 30 ft. of the front facade. • In general, a proposed multi-story building must demonstrate that it has no negative impact on smaller, historic structures nearby. • The height and proportions of all facade components must appear to be in scale with nearby historic buildings. Staff is concerned about the relocation of the existing mechanical atop the subject building. The large mechanical system, pictured below, services the Red Onion restaurant. The Land Use Code allows mechanical equipment to extend 5' above the height of the building at the point where the apparatus is attached to the roof. Staff recommends that a mechanical plan be provided at Final Review. 5 �s h � A Images 5&6: Photographs of the mechanical that services the restaurant and is located atop the subject property. PUBLIC AMENITY: Provision of public amenity. The Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, pursuant to the review procedures and criteria of Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Review, shall determine the appropriate method or combination of methods for providing this required amenity. One (1) or more of the following methods may be used such that the standard is reached. 1. On-site provision of public amenity. A portion of the parcel designed in a manner meeting Subsection 26.575.030.F., Design and operational standards for on-site public amenity. 2. Off-site provision of public amenity. Proposed public amenities and improvements to the pedestrian environment within proximity of the development site may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission,pursuant to Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Review. These may be improvements to private property, public property or public rights-of-way. An easement providing public access over an existing public amenity space for which no easement exists may be accepted if such easement provides permanent public access and is acceptable to the City Attorney. Off-site improvements shall equal or exceed the value of an otherwise required cash-in-lieu payment and be consistent with any public infrastructure or capital improvement plan for that area. 3. Cash-in-lieu provision. The City Council,upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, may accept a cash-in-lieu payment for any portion of required public amenity not otherwise physically provided, according to the procedures and limitations of Subsection 26.575.030.E, Cash-in-lieu payment. 6 4. Alternative method. The Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Review, may accept any method of providing public amenity not otherwise described herein if the Commission finds that such method equals or exceeds the value, which may be nonmonetary community value, of an otherwise required cash-in-lieu payment. The property currently has no onsite public amenity. The requirement is to provide a minimum of 10% or 900 square feet of public amenity. The applicant proposes to provide off-site public amenity in an amount that equals or exceeds the value of the cash in lieu payment. The improvements are proposed for the adjacent Cooper Street Pedestrian Mall with approval from the Parks Department. Staff Response: Staff finds that criteria 2 above is met and recommends approval of off-site cash in lieu subject to approval by the Parks Department. TRASH/UTILITY/RECYCLE AREA: When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply: 1. A 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. 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 an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. 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. 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. 5. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. Staff Response: The applicant proposes to utilize the existing trash utility area on the property for the proposed redevelopment which already meets the dimensional requirements of 20 ft. x 10 ft. x 10 ft.. Existing delivery services along the alley will be maintained. Mechanical equipment is proposed either within the building or on the roof. The applicant has not consulted with a mechanical engineer yet since the project is in its conceptual review phase. The applicant represents that it will meet the standards listed above. Staff included a condition of approval that 7 requires a mechanical plan be submitted for Final Review. Staff finds that the review criteria are met with conditions. VIEWPLANE' 26.435.050.B. Exemption. The Community Development Director may exempt the addition of mechanical equipment to an existing development which protrudes into the view plane only if such development has an insignificant effect upon the designated view plane. The addition of a satellite dish, elevator shaft or any other piece of equipment whose height and mass have a significant effect upon the designated view plane shall be reviewed pursuant to the standards of Subsection 26.435.050.C. 26.435.050.0. Mountain view plane review standards. No development shall be permitted within a mountain view plane unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided below. When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable building height otherwise provided for in this Title, development shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445 as a Planned Unit Development so as to provide for maximum flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and pedestrian space and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building height requirements and view plane height limitations. The Planning and Zoning Commission, after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Department, may exempt a development from being processed as a Planned Unit Development when the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the proposed development has a minimal effect on the view plane. When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to re-open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view plane and re-redevelopment to reopen the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall exempt the development from the requirements of this Section. Staff Response: The third floor and part of the second floor of the proposed building sits within the Wheeler Opera House viewplane which projects over Cooper Avenue directed towards Aspen Mountain; however, existing buildings on the Hyman Avenue mall already block the protected viewplane. The likelihood of redeveloping either of the largest buildings blocking the view is highly unlikely: the Paragon Building is a historic landmark and exceeds the height limit, and the adjacent Roaring Fork Building is an existing non-conformity in terms of height and commercial design review which could not be replicated under today's Code. 8 Staff finds that the proposal has a minimal impact on the viewplane considering existing development and recommends that the HPC exempt this project from being developed as a PUD which is the required process for major infringements into a protected viewplane. Any mechanical equipment that is placed in the viewplane (on top of the proposed third floor) either needs to meet the exemption described above in Section 26.435.050.B or shall be subject to a new viewplane review which may be handled during HPC's Final Review. RECOMMENDED DISCUSSION POINTS: 1. Demolition of the building except the front fagade. a. Require a structural assessment of the front fagade be submitted for Final Review to determine whether it can be saved. 2. Mass/ Scale a. Are the setbacks adequate to maintain prominence of the 1892 building? b. Does the proposed building cover the Red Onion sign? 3. Height a. Require a mechanical plan for Final Review to locate the existing and proposed mechanical. 4. Public Amenity a. Off-site public amenity improvements to the Pedestrian Mall proposed with Parks Department approval. 5. Trash/Utility a. Proposal to use existing trash/utility area which meets the dimensional requirements for trash/utility area. 6. Viewplane a. Proposed building is blocked by existing development on Hyman Ave. Mall. b. Staff determined a minimal impact on the viewplane due to existing development already blocking the viewplane, and the lack of potential redevelopment of the existing buildings. c. Review mechanical during Final to discuss viewplane infringement if needed. The HPC may: • approve the application, • approve the application with conditions, • disapprove the application, or • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Conceptual Major Development Review, and Demolition for the project located at 422 E. Cooper Street with the following conditions: 1. Demolition of the building located at 422 E. Cooper Street and retaining the front facade is approved with the condition that a structural assessment of the front fagade be submitted with the Final Review application. 9 2. The mass and scale is approved as presented in the application. 3. A maximum of 38 feet is approved as presented in the application, with Land Use Code height exemptions for elevator overrun and mechanical equipment as stated in Section 26.575.020.F(4)Allowed Exemptions to Height Limitations. 4. A mechanical plan and elevations shall be submitted with the Final Review application. 5. Off-site public amenity improvements to the Pedestrian Malls is approved in accordance with Land Use Code Section 26.575.030.C(2) Off-site provision of public amenity and is subject to review and approval by the Parks Department. The improvements shall equal or exceed the value of the cash in lieu payment of$67,500. 6. The proposal is determined to have a minimal impact on the viewplane due to the existing development that already blocks the viewplane and is hereby exempt from being processed as a PUD in accordance with Section 26.435.050.C.1. Any mechanical equipment placed within the viewplane shall comply with Section 26.435.050, which may require a new viewplane review. 7. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty(30) days prior to the expiration date. Exhibits: A. Relevant Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Guidelines and Objectives. B. Application. 10 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW (CONCEPTUAL), DEMOLITION, AND VIEWPLANE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 422 EAST COOPER AVENUE RED ONION CONDOS, UNIT 1, LOTS N, O, P, BLOCK 89, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION#_, SERIES OF 2012 PARCEL ID: 2737-182-16-061. WHEREAS, the applicant, Red Onion Investors, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., has requested Major Development (Conceptual), Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review, Demolition, and Viewplane Reviews the property located at 422 East Cooper Avenue, Red Onion Condos, Unit 1, Lots N, O, P, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, 422 East Cooper Avenue is located within the Commercial Core Historic District and is located on a designated historic parcel; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Commercial Design Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines per Section 26.412.040.A.2, Commercial Design Standards Review Procedure, of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, in order to authorize a Demolition, according to Section 26.415.080, Demolition of designated historic properties, it must be demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: 422 East Cooper Avenue HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2012 Page 1 of 4 a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, C. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and C. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area; and WHEREAS, pursuant to 26.435.050.C., Mountain Viewplane Review Standards, of the Land Use Code, no development shall be permitted within a mountain view plane unless the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided below. When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable building height otherwise provided for in this Title, development shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445 as a Planned Unit Development so as to provide for maximum flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and pedestrian space and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building height requirements and view plane height limitations. The Planning and Zoning Commission, after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Department, may exempt a development from being processed as a Planned Unit Development when the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the proposed development has a minimal effect on the view plane. When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to re- open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view plane and re-redevelopment to reopen the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning 422 East Cooper Avenue HPC Resolution # , Series of 2012 Page 2 of 4 and Zoning Commission shall exempt the development from the requirements of this Section; and WHEREAS, during the September 12, 2012 meeting the applicant demonstrated compliance with Land Use Code Section 26.304.035 Neighborhood Outreach; and WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report to HPC dated September 12, 2012 performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards had been met, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on September 12, 2012, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and recommended approval with conditions by a vote of - NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants HPC Major Development (Conceptual), Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review, Demolition, and Viewplane Review for the property located at 422 East Cooper Avenue, Red Onion Condos, Unit 1, Lots N, O, P, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 1. Demolition of the building located at 422 E. Cooper Street and retaining the front fagade is approved with the condition that a structural, assessment of the front fagade be submitted with the Final Review application. 2. The mass and scale is approved as presented in the application. 3. A maximum of 38 feet is approved as presented in the application, with Land Use Code height exemptions for elevator overrun and mechanical equipment as stated in Section 26.575.020.F(4)Allowed Exemptions to Height Limitations. 4. A mechanical plan and elevations shall be submitted with the Final Review application. 5. Off-site public amenity improvements to the Pedestrian Malls is approved in accordance with Land Use Code Section 26.575.030.C(2) Off-site provision of public amenity and is subject to review and approval by the Parks Department. The improvements shall equal or exceed the value of the cash in lieu payment of$67,500. 6. The proposal is determined to have a minimal impact on the viewplane due to the existing development that already blocks the viewplane and is hereby exempt from being processed as a PUD in accordance with Section 26.435.050.C.1. Any mechanical equipment placed within the viewplane shall comply with Section 26.435.050, which may require a new viewplane review. 7. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. 422 East Cooper Avenue HPC Resolution #_, Series of 2012 Page 3 of 4 Ann Mullins, Chair Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 422 East Cooper Avenue HPC Resolution # , Series of 2012 Page 4 of 4 i STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES INC landscape architecture. planning. resort design 412 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 t.970/925-2323 f.970/92o-1628 info @scaplanning.com www.scaplanning.com 30 April 2012 Ms. Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Red Onion Unit 1 -422 East Cooper Dear Amy: Please find attached supplemental responses to Chapter 10 of the HPC guidelines which are concerned with the HPC Major Development aspect of the application. We trust that with the receipt of these materials our application can be deemed complete. Please call me with any questions. 9:1 ,rsAICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment cc: Andy Hecht, Esq. (w/attachment) Supplemental Responses to Chapter 10 of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines In General: The proposed project would replace the building at 422 East Cooper Avenue, sometimes referred to as "The Poster Shop Building." The adjacent Red Onion Building at 420 East Cooper Avenue represents the "adjacent historic resource" referred to in these guideline responses. The building proposed for replacement and expansion has been deemed to be non-historic. However, because it shares the same property with the historic Red Onion building, a reconstruction of this building may be considered under these guidelines. Moreover, since the property contains an historic resource,the entire project is available to the benefits and requirements of an historic preservation project. Existing Additions: 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right. • Such an addition is usually similar in character to the original building in terms of materials, finishes and design. The building proposed for redevelopment does not have historic significance in its own right. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. The building proposed for redevelopment is a more recent addition without historical significance in its own right. However, it does function to showcase the adjacent historic resource by virtue of its scale and very simple materials. This scale will be respected through significant setbacks in the proposed redevelopment, and through the continuing use of simple materials and forms. New Additions: 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. •A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. The new additional represents current, contemporary design and will not affect the ability to interpret the historic character of the adjacent historic resource. •An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. The proposed addition is not designed to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building. Certain elements of the original non-historic structure will be maintained to preserve historical continuity. •An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. Red Onion Unit 1 Page i Application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review Supplemental Responses to Historic Guidelines 30 April 2012 The proposed addition does not imply an inaccurate version of the primary resource's historic style, not does it conflict with the existing non-historic building it replaces. • An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. No historically significant features on the primary historical resource will be covered. The proposed addition to the non-historic structure will retain its simple architectural features. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. • An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building,while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. The proposed new addition will be distinguishable from the historic resource,while remaining visually compatible with the earlier features. •A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building,a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic,and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. The proposed addition to the adjacent non-historic structure will retain its simple lines and materials on the first level,while presenting more contemporary forms that are significantly set back from the facade of the historic resource. Case Studies for Larger Additions: 10.5 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district,preserve historic alignments that may exist on the street. • Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at approximately the same height. An addition should not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured. The historic Red Onion building is a tall two-story building with a significant parapet at the fagade and a central architectural feature that extends above the parapet. The height of the proposed new addition will closely align with the height of the historic resource at its rear facade. The significant setbacks for the proposed new addition will not alter the existing relationships at the front facade. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. •An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. As noted above, the proposed addition closely aligns with the height of the primary building, but is stepped back to feature the historic resource. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building,set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. •A 1-story connector is preferred. •The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. • The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. Because of the full use of the lots areas by building footprints in this area, the use of a connector would be inappropriate. However, the tallest portion of the proposed addition is significantly set back from the front facade of the adjacent historic resource. Red Onion Unit I Page 2 Application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review Supplemental Responses to Historic Guidelines 30 April 2012 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. •Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. The addition is located to the rear of the property and set back from the front facades to minimize the impact on the adjacent historic resource. •Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. A reconstruction of the existing non-historic building is required for structural reasons, and will include the construction of a basement where none currently exists now. • Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent.A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. The addition is setback from the facades of both the adjacent historic resource and the non-historic existing structure to be replaced. As currently proposed, the second story of the addition is set back approximately 12 feet from the facade line and the third story is set back approximately 45 feet in significant conformance with this guideline. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. •Typically, gable,hip and shed roofs are appropriate. The existing structure and the adjacent historic resource have essentially flat roofs. The new addition is proposed with flat roofs as well. • Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. There are no adjacent residential structures with sloped roofs. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. • For example, loss or alteration of architectural details,cornices and eavelines should be avoided. No architectural details on the adjacent historical resource will be destroyed or obscured. The existing simple architectural features on the existing building will be retained on the first level of the replacement building. 10.11 On a new addition,-use exterior materials that are compatible_with the historic materials of the primary building. • The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. The first level of the replacement of the existing non-historic structure will be replaced with similar materials and forms. The upper levels of the proposed replacement building will use similar materials in a contemporary idiom. Red Onion Unit 1 Page 3 Application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review Supplemental Responses to Historic Guidelines 30 April 2012 Rooftop Additions 10.12 When constructing a rooftop addition,keep the mass and scale subordinate to that of a historic building. •An addition should not overhang the lower floors of a historic building in the front or on the side. The proposed addition represents a vertical expansion and replacement of an existing non-historic building adjacent to an historical resource. The mass and scale of the proposed addition will use significant stepbacks to respect the mass and scale of the historic resource. •Dormers should be subordinate to the overall roof mass and should be in scale with-historic ones on similar historic structures. •Dormers should be located below the primary structure's ridgeline, usually by at least one foot. Dormers are not proposed for this redevelopment. 10.13 Set a rooftop addition back from the front of the building. •This will help preserve the original profile of the historically significant building as seen from the street. The upper story addition is stepped back from the facades of both the adjacent historic resource and the existing non-historic building that it replaces. 10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic building. • If the roof of the historic building is symmetrically proportioned,the roof of the addition should be similar. The adjacent historic resource has a flat roof with a light slope to the rear of the structure. The roofs of the proposed adjacent redevelopment will also be flat roofs on each level. •Eave lines on the addition should be similar to those of the historic building or structure. The proposed addition will be significantly stepped back on both levels above the ground floor and will not have a perceived interaction with the cornice level of the adjacent historic resource. Red Onion Unit i Page 4 Application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review Supplemental Responses to Historic Guidelines 30 April 2012 5 a R F C F I V E D STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES ING landscape architecture. planning. resort design �f 2 7 2012 412 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 t.970/925 2323 f.97o/920 1628 aaJ a��,',.! info @scaplanning.com www.scaplanning.com 27 April 2012 Ms.Sara Adams,Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Red Onion Unit 1 -422 East Cooper Dear Sara: Please find attached supplemental code response that respond to the following code section: • Sec. 26.435.050.MOUNTAIN VIEW PLAN REVIEW. In addition to the supplemental code response, we attach Sheet A19 which provides how the Wheeler Opera House view plane would intersect with four (4) elevations of the proposed development if the Wheeler Opera House view plane were not blocked by existing development. We trust that with the receipt of these materials our application can be deemed complete. Please call me with any questions. V y yo qn, A St usoP, ASL A STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment cc: Andy Hecht, Esq. (w/attachment) SUPPLEMENTAL LAND USE CODE SECTION RESPONSES CHAPTER 26.435.050.MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE REVIEW C. Mountain view plane review standards. No development shall be permitted within a mountain view plane unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided below. The proposed development is partially located within the Wheeler Opera House view plane. When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable building height otherwise provided for in this Title, development shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445 as a Planned Unit Development so as to provide for maximum flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and pedestrian space and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width,yard and building height requirements and view plane height limitations. The Planning and Zoning Commission, after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Department, may exempt a development from being processed as a Planned Unit Development when the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the proposed development has a minimal effect on the view plane. When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to re-open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view plane and re-redevelopment to reopen the view plane cannot be anticipated,the Planning and Zoning Commission shall exempt the development from the requirements of this Section. (Ord. No. 12, 2007, §22) With regards to the Wheeler Opera House view plane, the Roaring Fork Building (415 East Hyman) and the Paragon Building (419 East Hyman) are located in front of the proposed development and the position of these two buildings blocks the proposed development from the Wheeler Opera House view plane. As the proposed project will not further infringe upon the Wheeler Opera House view plane and it cannot be anticipated whether either the Roaring Fork Building or the Paragon Building will be re-developed, the proposed project requests to be exempted from the requirements contained in Sec. 26.435.050. Red Onion Unit 1 Page I Supplemental Code Response/Application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review 27 April 2012 Chapter 26.435.080.3 For development subject to mountain view plane,the plan shall depict: a. Proposed elevations of the development, including any rooftop equipment and how it will be screened. The proposed development is blocked by two existing structures from the Wheeler Opera House view plane. Attached as Sheets Al are four elevations which depict how the Wheeler Opera House view plane would intersect with the proposed development. To the extent rooftop equipment will be provided on the roof of the proposed development, the equipment will only extend 5' above the height of the building at the point the equipment is attached. b. Photographs shall be submitted by the applicant which show the present improvements which protrude into or are in the vicinity of the view plane. The applicant shall graphically represent on the photographs how the proposed improvements will appear in relation to existing improvements and views. In addition to Sheet A14 of the architectural plans provided with the Conceptual Design Review Application,we attach Supplemental View Plan Photographs which illustrate how the present improvements of the Paragon Building (419 East Hyman) and the Roaring Fork Building (415 East Hyman) protrude into the area of the Wheeler Opera House view plane. Sheet A14 also represents how the proposed improvements will appear in relation to the existing improvements and views. Red Onion Unit I Page 1 Supplemental Code Response/Application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review 27 April 2012 THE CITY of ASPEN Land Use Application Determination of Completeness Date: April 29, 2012 Dear City of Aspen Land Use Review Applicant, We have received your land use application for 420 E. Cooper Avenue and reviewed it for completeness. The case number and name assigned to this property is 0018.2012.ahpc. The planners assigned to this case are Amy Guthrie and Sara Adams. Your Land Use Application is complete. Other submission items may be requested throughout the review process as deemed necessary by the Community Development Department. Please contact me at 429-2758 if you have any questions. Thank You, Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen, Community Development Department RECEIVED 4p� V�. nrT 17 2012 CITY CAF AOWLN EXISTING RED ONION PAINTED SIGNAGE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT a N t o _ N View Simulation # 1 - View from Casa Tua Conceptual Design Review a� STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATESINc pOSS ARCHITECTURE PLANNING Red Onion Unit 1 landscape rchlte ct ure.pla nnin 6.resort design qta North Mill Street Aspen,Colorado 81611 sus* ..• mur aan♦ u.nu• infog9zYZ3z3 tc97oi9zo-t6ze r+r•au•ta•a•arn•au•••:•s• ,•r, 422 E. Cooper Avenue tnfo�scaplanning.com wwwscaplanning.com ©srs,u cuusan nsaocwea�za+s For Planning Purposes Only,Not For Construction r EXISTING RED ANION PAINTED S C I View Simulation # 2 - View from Rocky Mountain Chocolate STAN CLAUSON plannln Z�resort design ASSOCIATES INC lan dcape a posS ARCHITFCTURE + PLANNING Conceptual Design Review -� 7s qrz North Mill rch?Strteclureet Aspen,Colorado 8r6u °m usr .., suer sn. c°uun uua L97o/925-2323 L97oi9zoa6a8 �r�°r°�°.a•Warnar.n:e:aaa Red Onion Unit 1 info®scaplanning.com www.scaplanning.com ©{TI1N GW150N ASaOCUiEa.wC 2— For Planning Purposes Only,Not For Construction 422 E. Cooper ve n u e f r _ I •, i — h View Simulation # 3 - View from Front (1 /4 view) Conceptual Design Review z STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATESINC pass ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING Red Onion Unit ' landscape hltecture.planning.re sort design psz North Mill Street Aspen,Colorado 81611 �'j L97o(9z5-2323 f.97o/920-1623 rn e,er.os.warn e�.rea eeoe gee 422 E. Cooper venue Info®scaplanning.com www.scaplanning.com ©mu+wuean.saocwcs r+c xou For Planning Purposes only,Not For Construction - + y1 ; r' View Simulation # 4 - View from Front Conceptual Design Review s STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATESINC landscape architecture.plannln{.resort design pOSS ARCHITFCTURF + PLANNING Red Onion Unit w yaz North Mill Street Aspen.Colorado Sa6u ws .c. c o assn 1 North reef Aspen. 1,,.,•r•r•.,a•,rr:,•-�a• �•�• 422 E. Cooper venue Infooscaplanning.com www.scaplanning.com ©ST_GlAU80N T ,M.M"12 For Planning Purposes Only,Not For Construction Approximate location of subject property behind existing buildings View Simulation # 5 - View from Wheeler Opera House ; STAN pcLAUISON ASSOCIATES IN` design ARCH ITFCTURE + PLANNING, Conceptual Design Review archiecture.planning.reso,t A 02 North Mill Street Aspen,Colorado 816i1 t97o/925-2323 f-970192o-1628 Red Onion Unit Info®scaplanning.com www.scaplanning.com 'o�•:•�•.o ©sr�+cuuxa+rsagyures.we wu 422 E. Cooper Ave n u e For Planning Purposes Only,Not For Construction Approximate location of subject property behind existing buildings View Simulation # 6 - View from Paradise Bakery Conceptual Design Review s °STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATESINC pOSS ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING Red Onion Unit 1 landscape architecture.planning,resort design t9 North Mill Street Aspen,Colorado 8t6tt a" tar.ra etaar raraea .ase ,a„ infoOs 25'2323 rc97o19aat6a8 t'I�asr r r;'eca 422 E. Cooper Ave n u e info®scaplanning.com wwwscaplanning.com C STAN GlAU6ON I.S9OCUTSB_INC ta1t For Planning Purposes Only,Not For Construction -7 3.7 f82 l o (v f o0G8f 2otZ� L File Edit Record Nwipte Form R Format Tab �00 R* k . iFce ��f la* �Pce f[Man Aba � a Perri o ahpc tone Lff Ub 8 2D12 A11PC L Address 920E COOPER AVE Apse' n' ASPENICO 811 Perrdlydamatbr MANmd UG1 302 Projxt Stag rtlmg gpppyed� " CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVEVU APPLICATION FOR THE RED ONON LOCATED AT 420 E COOPER STREET 5 ATRCK SH 2323 C rnq pays[71 F C2OIIO13 Last name ED ONION WVESTORS,LL Fit name 0 S MONARCH ASPEN C081611 pf (9I0j 92 1936 A es ;i Q 0+�a app�ar�? Q Cor�ada a appf�aof? i last HCCH1 Fist name NIKOS 0 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN C081611 Phan Cut 23148 Ad�ss Larder Last name FUst name Pharr ( ) Address i i #he and kilo's aim AspenGal�use r) argdas (1 d 1 -0 7 1 5-2$ !ors Tq� fR-Q-S: F-V�: 315 Z 3 V v v! /,v�J�z iilv Y- V(fil �4 � NUA NOT It V14 gv, ,y � vs, I 4 VA, Oli f� CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION "Red Onion Unit 1," a proposed mixed use commercial and residential development featuring commercial and office space, and one (1)free-market residential unit. Red Onion Investors, LLC 20 April 2012 Location: 422 E. Cooper Street(Unit 1 of the Red Onion Condominiums) PARAGON BUILDING ROARING FORK BUILDING 1 r REDONKNOFFICES L RFd1aeom I'112ECOOPER 1 1 An application for conceptual commercial design review, conceptual major development, demolition within the Commercial Core (CC) historic district, parking amenity, and viewplane. Represented By: • 1 STAN CEAUSON ASSOCIATES INC ' landscape architecture.planning.resort design 02 North Mill Street Aspen,Colorado 816it t.970/925-2323 f-970/92o-1628 intoOscaplanning.com www,scaptanning.com REURIF-D APR 2 16 2662 CITY OF ' COMMUNITY DEVEICI '` TABLE OF CONTENTS • Land Use Application Form • Dimensional Requirements Form • Project Overview and Code Response • Attachment 1 -Vicinity Map • Attachment 2- Existing Conditions Survey • Attachment 3-Architectural Plans & Renderings • Attachment 4-Supplemental Contextual Visual Materials • Attachment 5 - Proof of Ownership • Attachment 6 - Letter of Authorization • Attachment 7- Parcel Descriptions • Attachment 8-recorded Plat of Red Onion Condominiums • Attachment 9 -Ordinance No. 9, Series 1982, Historic Designation of 420 East Cooper(Red Onion) ■ Attachment 10- Red Onion Building Permit Agreement, reception number 537304 ■ Attachment 11 - Historic photos of The Red Onion ■ Attachment 12-Adjacent Property Owners ■ Attachment 13-Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees ■ Attachment 14-Pre-Application Conference Summary Red Onion Unit 1 Application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review 20 April 2012 :. ATTACHMENT 2—LAND USE APPLICATION H F,, , PROJECT: eift Name: Conceptual Commercial Design Review Location: 420 E. Cooper Street, Unit 1 (Indicate street address,lot&block number,legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID# REQUIRED 273718216061 APPLICANT: Name: Red Onion Investors, LLC Address: c/o Andrew V. Hect, Esq., Garfield & Hecht, PC, 601 East Hyman Avenue,Aspen, CO 81611 Phone#: 970-925-1936 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Stan Clauson,AICP,ASLA, Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. Address: 412 N. Mill Street,Aspen, CO 81611 Phone#: 970-925-2323 TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check 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 Greent.ine,Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption(includes ❑ Final SPA(&SPA Margin,Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane ❑ Commercial Design Review ❑ Lot Split ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion ❑ Residential Design Variance ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑X Other: ❑ Conditional Use Ex1STING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings,uses,previous approvals,etc.) Unit 1 is part of the Red Onion development and is located on the same 9,000 sq. ft. lot as the historic resource. Unit 1 has been found to not be histroic either on the interior or on the exterior. Currently, Unit 1 is a one story building which was constructed in the 1950's as an addition to the Red Onion restaurant. Unit 1 is utilized for commercial space. PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings,uses,modifications,etc.) The applicant seeks to redevelop Unit 1 with a new mixed use building. The applicant anticipates keeping the existing facade of the existing Unit 1. Commercial space will occupy the first story and one (1)free-market residential unit will occupy the second and third story. The residential units will be substantially set back from the front facade. Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: S 2,155.00 [S] Pre-Application Conference Summary ❑X Attachment#1,Signed Fee Agreement ❑ Response to Attachment#3,Dimensional Requirements Form X❑ Response to Attachment#4,Submittal Requirements-Including Written Responses to Review Standards ❑X 3-D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8.5"X 11"must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format)must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model. ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: Red Onion Unit 1 Applicant: Red Onion Investors, LLC Location: 420E Cooper Street Unit 1 Zone District: Commercial Core(CC) Lot Size: 9,000 sq. ft. Lot Area: 9,000 sq. ft. (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: 12,569 sq. ft. Propose: s�ft- 112,569 Pro osed. —'�-- - ~ Number of residential units: Existing: 0 P Number of bedrooms: Existing: o Proposed: 2 Proposed% of demolition (Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing.13,262 sq.ftAllowable: 24,750 sq.ft.Proposed. 16,191 sq.ft. Principal bldg. height: Existing: 33' Allowable: 42' Proposed.- 38' Access. bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: On-Site parking: Existing: 0 Required: 0 Proposed: 0 % Site coverage: Existing: 100% Required: n/a Proposed.• 100% % Open Space: Existing. 0 sq.ft. Required.' 900 sq. ft. Proposed: 0 sq.ft. Front Setback: Existing: Required: n/a Proposed. Rear Setback: Existing: Required.• n/a —Proposed.- Combined F/R: Existing: Required: n/a Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: Required. n/a Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: Required: n/a Proposed: Combined Sides: Existing: Required: n/a Proposed: Distance Between Existing Required: n/a Proposed: Buildings Existing non-conformities or encroachments: None. Variations requested: None requested. PROJECT OVERVIEW This is a Conceptual Commercial Design Review application for a mixed use development proposed to replace Unit 1 of the Red Onion Condominiums. Unit 1, located to the east of the Red Onion restaurant, is currently occupied by a poster shop. The proposed project is located in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district of the City of Aspen, Colorado and is also located in the Commercial Core Historic District. A portion of the corner of Unit 1 adjacent to the Cooper Street Mall is located in the Wheeler Opera House view plane. Pursuant to the Red Onion Building Permit Agreement, recorded at reception number 537304, recorded 3 May 2007, the City of Aspen and Red Onion, LLC agreed that "the building which comprises Unit 1 is not historic or of historic significance, either inside or outside." However, because of the presence of the Red Onion building as part of the overall parcel, the entire parcel is subject to Historic Preservation Review and to the benefits accorded to an historic resource. This project seeks to replace the poorly constructed structure which appears to have been constructed circa 1955 as an addition to the Red Onion restaurant. The building shows signs of serious settling and the structural integrity of the building is in question. The substandard cinder block construction makes maintaining the existing structure difficult and would not support additional vertical development. While the building that houses Unit 1 was determined to not be historic, in an effort maintain continuity of the block,the applicant contemplates restoring the front facade in the new structure. By maintaining the front facade in the replacement of the Unit 1 building and the generous setbacks given to the structure, the proposed project will - not adversely affect the integrity of the historic Red Onion building or the Historic District's architectural and aesthetic relationship to designated properties. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The applicant proposes to redevelop Unit 1 into a mixed use, commercial and free-market residential development on its 2,000 sq.ft.footprint. The project is proposed to contain approximately 1,043 sq. ft. of net leasable floor area on the first story with one (1) 2,000 sq.ft. net livable free-market residential unit on the second and third story of the development. Subgrade space may be provided to offset the loss of the commercial net leasable on the first floor due to the provision of an entry and circulation for the residential unit. While the subgrade space will extend the entire footprint of the redevelopment, only the portion which offsets the circulation loss will be classified commercial net leasable. The balance of the subgrade space will be classified as storage/mechanical and not be utilized as commercial net leasable space. As the building that houses Unit 1 is part of the property identified as a historic landmark property, the property is eligible to create one (1) fee-market residential unit that is exempt from affordable housing mitigation requirements. No parking is currently provided for onsite and this deficit will be maintained as permitted by code. Residential parking is not required within the Commercial Core zone district. Total gross floor area of the proposed project will be 16,191 sq. ft. The proposed development has been thoughtfully designed to incorporate a varied, human scale facade. The design will respect the historic resource with a generous stepping-back of the residential unit toward the rear of the property. The maximum height of the building is proposed to be 38 feet,and this three story element will be located at the rear of the property. No public amenity space is provided currently for the entire 9,000 sq.ft. parcel. The Land Use Code requires that no less than 10%of the parcel area be provided as public amenity space. Given that historic use patterns did not provide for onsite public amenity space, the applicant proposes that the public amenity space be provided via cash-in-lieu payment. Red Onion Unit 1 Page 1 Application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review 20 April 2012 W COMMERCIAL, LODGING AND HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN OBJECTIVES AND GUIDELINES for the COMMERCIAL CORE HISTORIC DISTRICT Design Objectives These are key design objectives for the Commercial Core.The City must find that any new work will help to meet them: : 1. Maintain a retail orientation. Traditionally the hub of Aspen and the center of commercial and cultural activity, the Commercial Core should remain so. Designs for new construction should reinforce the retail- oriented function of the street and enhance its pedestrian character. The proposed project will retain the existing ground floor retail use and will incorporate pedestrian friendly features such as large display windows and strong pedestrian orientation. The replacement of a dilapidated structure with a modern and updated structure will support the goal of keeping viable structures within the Commercial Core of Aspen. 2. Promote creative, contemporary design that respects the historic context. While new construction should be compatible with the historic character of the district designs should not copy early styles but instead should seek creative new solutions that convey the community's continuing interest in exploring innovations.At the same time, the fundamental principles of traditional design must be respected. This means that each project should strike a balance in the design variables that are presented in the following pages. The design of the proposed project will be compatible with historic character of the district and will respect the historic Red Onion building. The design, however,will also be a building "of its time" and explores modern elements and materials. 3.Maintain the traditional scale of building. The Commercial core of the city is likely to experience continuing market pressure for hotel, commercial and residential development and the parallel needs of affordable commercial and residential accommodation. It is important that future growth acknowledges, complements and enhances the existing scale and character of this area. The scale of the proposed project will be very much in keeping with the existing scale of the neighboring structures. Due to site constraints,the proposed project will appear to be substantially similar to the existing structure. 4. Reflect the variety in building heights seen historically. New development should stay within the range of building heights, and be designed to reflect the variation in height across traditional lot widths. The scale and form of a new building should be designed to safeguard the setting of a historic building, whether single story or the large 'iconic'three plus stories. To respect the historic Red Onion, the proposed project will consist of a one (1) story element at the front, with a two and three story elements stepped back and located to the rear of the property. 5.Accommodate outdoor public spaces where they respect the historic context. Red Onion Unit 1 Page 2 Application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review 20 April 2012 The street vitality associated with the center of the city should be retained and enhanced through a combination of the form and design of the walkable street network and the associated areas of public gathering space at street level and above.The design of any public space within the core should be a central consideration in the design and configuration of the building, to ensure that it contributes to a positive experience in the streetscene, whether or not used for sheet dining. The proposed project is located adjacent to the Cooper Street Mall. The proposed project will incorporate pedestrian friendly features such as large display windows and strong pedestrian orientation. 6. Promote variety in the sheet level experience. Architectural form should recognize existing scale and diversity and build upon established design traditions, creativity and innovation in a manner which strengthens the architectural richness and identity of the city core.The contextual contribution of building and storefront design will depend on detailed consideration of the street fagade and associated landscaping and paving. The architectural form of the proposed project will maintain the existing scale of the neighboring buildings. The proposed project incorporates a facade treatment which builds upon established design traditions with a more contemporary and transparent treatment on the new addition. By replacing the relatively simple facade, the proposed - project strengthens the architectural richness and identity of the city core and the buildings located along the Cooper Street Mall. 7. Preserve the integrity of historic resources within the district. The original form, character, materials and details of historic resources should be maintained. This applies to individual structures of landmark quality as well as more modest"contributing" structures. While this structure is not considered to be historic, it will continue to contribute to the historic resource on the property through significant stepbacks and restoration of the existing facade. Conceptual Review Design Guidelines The following design guidelines shall apply at the conceptual review stage: 6.1 Maintain the established town grid in all projects. • The network of streets and alleys should be retained as public circulation space and for maximum public access. • Streets and alleys should not be enclosed or closed to public access, and should remain open to the sky. The proposed redevelopment of this structure will not in any way affect or detract from the established grid. All existing public circulation spaces are retained. 6.2 Public walkways and through courts, when appropriate,should be designed to create access to additional commercial space and frontage, within the walkway and/or to the rear of the site. • See also:Public Amenity Space design guidelines. Red Onion Unit 1 Page 3 Application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review 20 April 2012 ow Wkl No additional public walkways or through courts are proposed as part of this project. The proposed redevelopment area represents a very small site on the existing Cooper Mall. 6.3 Develop an alley fagade to create visual interest. • Use varied building setbacks and changes in materials to create interest and reduce perceived scale. • Balconies, court yards and decks are also appropriate. • Providing secondary public entrances is strongly encouraged along alleys.These should be clearly intended for public use,but subordinate in detail to the primary street-side entrance. The narrow nature of the existing building does not allow for secondary public entrances from the alley. It is more appropriate to place decks and stepbacks to the front of the property in order to respect the adjacent historic resource. 6.4 Structured parking should be placed within a 'wrap'of commercial and/or residential uses. • The exposure of auto entry areas should be minimized. No auto entries or structured parking are proposed for this small site. 6.5 Structured parking access should not have a negative impact on the character of the street. .�► The access shall be: • Located on an alley or secondary street if necessary. • Designed with the same attention to detail and materials as the primary building fagade. • Integrated into the building design. No auto entries or structured parking are proposed for this small site. 6.6 A street facing amenity space shall meet all of the following requirements: • Abut the public sidewalk • Be level with the sidewalk • Be open to the sky • Be directly accessible to the public • Be paved or otherwise landscaped The adjacent Red Onion building provides a leased outdoor dining area on the Cooper Mall. There is no room on the site to provide for a street or mall facing amenity with the exception of a storefront that is attractive to pedestrians. 6.7 A street-facing public amenity space shall remain subordinate to the line of building fronts in the Commercial Core. • Any public amenity space positioned at the street edge shall respect the character of the streetscape and ensure that street corners are well defined, with buildings placed at the sidewalk edge. • Sunken spaces, which are associated with some past developments, adversely affect the street character. Where feasible, these should be replaced with sidewalk level improvements. The existing and proposed replacement building are located right at the edge of the public way and do not offer an opportunity for a street-facing public amenity. e Red Onion Unit 1 Page 4 Application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review e< 20 April 2012 6.8 Street facing amenity space shall contain features to promote and enhance its use.These may include one or more of the following. • Street furniture • Public art • Historical/interpretive marker The detailed design of Public Amenity Space, with regard to guidelines 6.8, will be a matter for approval at the Final Review Stage, although it may be discussed at the Conceptual Stage. Given the adjacent use of leased mall space by the Red Onion restaurant and the fact that the building abuts the public way, there is no public amenity space available. However, an historical marker could be placed in the public way describing historical uses of the site. 6.9 Mid-block walkways shall remain subordinate in scale to traditional lot widths. • Mid-block public walkways shall be between 8 ff.and 10 ff.in width. 6.10 A mid-block walkway should provide public access to the following. • Additional commercial space and frontage within the walkway • Uses located at the rear of the property A mid-block walkway is not possible or proposed for this site. 6.11 An alley side amenity space shall be designed to have these characteristics: • Direct public access to commercial space at sheet or second floor levels • Maximize solar access to the alley side amenity space • Enhance of the attractiveness and use of the rear alley • Minimize the adverse impacts of adjacent service and parking areas An alley side amenity space is not possible given the limited size of this site. 6.12 Second level amenity space should be compatible with the character of the historic district. • It shall remain visually subordinate to any historic resource on the property. • If located on a historic property, it may not alter the appearance of the resource as seen from the street. A second level amenity space is not proposed for this site. 6.13 A second floor amenity space should meet all of the following criteria: • Ensure consistent public access • Be dedicated for public use • Provide a public overlook and/or an interpretive marker • Be identifiled by a marker at street level 6.14 Second level space should be oriented to maximize solar access and mountain views, or views of historic landmarks. A second level amenity space is not proposed for this site. 6.15 Second level space should provide public access by way of a visible and attractive public stair or elevator from a public street, alley, or street level amenity space. A second level amenity space is not proposed for this site. Red Onion Unit 1 Page 5 Application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review 20 April 2012 6.16 Second level dining may be considered. • N the use changes, the space must remain accessible to the public, so long as it is to be considered meeting the public amenity space requirement. Not applicable. A second level amenity space is not proposed for this site. 6.17 Front and side yard amenity space should be considered in the context of a historic one story residential type building. Not applicable.There are no historic one-story residential type buildings associated with this project. 6.18 Maintain the alignment of fagades at the sidewalk's edge. • Place as much of the fagade of the building at the property line as possible. • Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate. • A minimum of 70%of the front fagade shall be at the property line. The entire facade of the proposed replacement building is at the front property line. 6.19 A building may be set back from its side lot lines in accordance with design guidelines identified in Street&Circulation Pattern and Public Amenity Space guidelines. Not applicable. There are no side yard setbacks available to this project, either in the existing or proposed structures. , 6.20 Orient a new building to be parallel to its lot lines,similar to that of traditional building orientations. • The front of a primary structure shall be oriented to the street. The building is oriented parallel to the lot lines and the front of the structure is oriented to the mail. °' 6.21 Orient a primary entrance toward the street. • Buildings should have a clearly defined primary entrance. For most commercial buildings, this should be a recessed entry way. • Do not orient a primary entrance to an interior court. • Providing secondary public entrances to commercial spaces is also encouraged on larger buildings. The proposed building has a clearly defined primary entrance. However, the existing entryway is not recessed and a non-recessed entryway is proposed for the replacement structure. 6.22 Rectangular forms should be dominant on Commercial Core fagades. • Rectangular forms should be vertically oriented. • The fagade should appear as predominantly flat with any decorative elements and projecting or setback "articulations"appearing to be subordinate to the dominant form. W Red Onion Unit 1 Page 6 ow Application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review 20 April 2012 W Existing forms on the building are not currently vertically oriented. These forms will be retained with the restoration of the fagade. The fagade appears as predominately flat with no setback articulations. 6.23 Use flat roof lines as the dominant roof form. • A flat roof, or one that gently slopes to the rear of a site, should be the dominant roof form. • Parapets on side fagades should step down towards the rear of the building. • False fronts and parapets with horizontal emphasis also may be considered. Flat roof lines are incorporated into the proposed design. False fronts and parapets are not used as part of the proposed desing. 6.24 Along a rear fagade, using building forms that step down in scale toward the alley is encouraged. • Consider using additive forms, such as sheds,stairs and decks to reduce the perceived scale. These forms should however,remain subordinate to the primary structure. • Use projecting roofs at the ground floor over entrances, decks and for separate utility structures in order to establish a human scale that invites pedestrian activity. There is no room on the site for"additive forms," and the presence of front stepbacks honoring the view plane preclude having rear stepbacks as well. 6.25 Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at the sidewalk. • Establish a two-story height at the sidewalk edge, or provide a horizontal design element at this level. A change in materials, or a molding at this level are examples. At the sidewalk, there will be a one story element as required by the view plane. However, a second story is stepped back approximately ten feet and will support the two-story perceived scale of the block face. A third story is steeped considerably further back and will not be generally apparent as part of the building scale. 6.26 Building fagade height shall be varied from the fagade height of adjacent buildings of the same number of stories. • If an adjacent structure is three stories and 38 ff. tall, new inflll may be three stories, but must vary in fagade height by a minimum of 2 ft The adjacent Red Onion structure is two stories as is the existing and proposed structure to the east. Therefore, there is a significant variance in facade height relative to adjacent buildings for the one-story facade of the proposed structure. 6.27 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the Commercial-Core.- - - - - - - - - - - - • Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height limit on the subject property. • A minimum 9 ff. floor to ceiling height is to be maintained on second stories and higher. • Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added for one or more of the following reasons: - In order to achieve at least a two-foot variation in height with an adjacent building. -The primary function of the building is civic. ri.e.the building is a Museum, Civic Building, Performance Hall, Fire Station, etc.) Red Onion Unit 1 Page 7 Application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review 20 April 2012 -Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity to a historic resource, or location within a View Plane, therefore relief in another area may be appropriate. e* -To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units. -To make a demonstrable (to be verged by the Building Department) contribution to the building's overall energy efficiency,for instance by providing improved daylighting. Additional height above the 38-foot height limit is not requested here. A 9-foot floor to ceiling height will be maintained on the second and third stories of the proposed structure. The full 38-foot height is requested for the rear element of the building because of the proximity of an historic resource and the presence of a view plane, both limiting the front development area of the proposed building. MW 6.28 Height variation should be achieved using one or more of the following. • Vary the building height for the full depth of the site in accordance with traditional lot width. • Set back the upper floor to vary the building fagade profile(s) and the roof forms across the width and the depth of the building. • Vary the fagade (or parapet) heights at the front. • Step down the rear of the building towards the alley, in conjunction with other design standards w and guidelines. The existing site is at approximately twenty feet is actually narrower than a traditional lot width. While no variation across the front fagade is required or possible, there is significant variation across the depth of the lot,with two major stepbacks to the proposed second and third stories. 6.29 On sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths, the fagade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. • The fagade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. , • Height should be varied every 60 ff. minimum and preferably every 30 ft. of linear frontage in keeping with traditional lot widths and development patterns. • No more than two consecutive 30 ft.fagade modules may be three stories tall, within an individual building. • A rear portion of a third module may rise to three stories, if the front is set back a minimum of 40 feet from the street fagade. (e.g. at a minimum, the front 40 feet may be no more than two stories in height.) s Please see response directly above. The site is actually narrower than a single traditional lot width. 6.30 On sites comprising two or more traditional lots, a building shall be designed to reflect the individual parcels. These methods shall be used: • Variation in height of building modules across the site • Variation in massing achieved through upper floor setbacks, the roofscape form and variation ., in upper floor heights • Variation in building fagade heights or cornice line Please see response directly above. The site is actually narrower than a single traditional lot width. 6.31 A new building should step down in scale to respect the height, form and scale of a historic building within its immediate setting. Red Onion Unit I Page 8 Application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review 20 April 2012 The proposed new building steps back from the historic Red Onion building to respect its facade elements, including the vertically painted sign on the side of the Red Onion building. 6.32 When adjacent to a one or two story historic building that was originally constructed for commercial use, a new building within the same block face should not exceed 28 in height within 30 ft. of the front facade. • In general, a proposed multi-story building must demonstrate that 0 has no negative impact on smaller, historic structures nearby. • The height and proportions of all facade components must appear to be in scale with nearby historic buildings. The adjacent Red Onion building is a two story building originally constructed for commercial use. The proposed replacement building will not exceed 28 feet in height within 30 feet of the front facade in conformance with this guideline. 6.33 New development adjacent to a single story historic building that was originally constructed for residential use shall not exceed 28 ff. in height within 30 ff. of the side property line adjacent to the historic structure, within the same block face. Not applicable. There is no adjacent single story historic building originally constructed for residential use. 6.34 The setting of iconic historic structures should be preserved and enhanced when feasible. • On sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths, the third floor of the adjacent lot width should be set back a minimum of 15 ff from the front facade. • Step a building down in height adjacent to an iconic structure. • Locate amenity space adjacent to an iconic structure. The setting of the adjacent Red Onion structure will be preserved and protected by the proposed building replacement. Height is stepped back considerably from the facade of the adjacent Red Onion structure. It is not possible to provide amenity space on this site. Red Onion Unit 1 Page 9 Application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review 20 April 2012 W LAND USE CODE SECTION RESPONSES , CHAPTER 26.304.035.NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH A. Purpose In order to facilitate citizen participation early in the development review process the City requires development applications to conduct neighborhood outreach.The purpose of the outreach is to inform neighbors and interested members of the public about the project. The applicant must show a concerted effort inform neighbors and the public about the application prior to the first public hearing. The applicant will conduct neighborhood outreach in one or more of the forms of neighborhood outreach as outlined in Sec.26.304.035.Neighborhood Outreach. CHAPTER 26.412 COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW The purpose of commercial design review is to preserve and foster proper commercial district scale and character and to ensure that the City's commercial areas and streetscapes are public , places conducive to walking. The proposed project respects the scale and character of the commercial core. The historically designated Red Onion is respected by setting the proposed second and third stories to the rear of the property. To maintain continuity with neighboring buildings the applicant will replicate the existing front facade of the building in the proposed project. First floor commercial space will be maintained as required for the commercial district. 26.412.050 Review Criteria An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions, or ow denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify deviation from the standards. Compliance with Sec. 26.412.070, suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards. The proposed development meets the requirements for Sec. 26.412.060, Commercial design standards. No deviations from the standards are proposed with this application. The applicant is requesting a height of 38 feet which will be found only at the rear of the property. The restoration of the front facade will ensure continuity with the existing conditions and compliment the adjacent Red Onion building. ' Sufficient utility, delivery, and trash service are currently provided, all accessed from the alley. Red Onion Unit 1 Page 10 Application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review 20 April 2012 �;v B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use,the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060,Commercial design standards,to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the facade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. The existing structure is currently in commercial use. Commercial use will be continued on the first floor and will comply with the Commercial Design Standards. The applicant will restore the front facade of the existing building. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria,standards and guidelines.Although these criteria,standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive,there maybe-circumstances where-alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case,the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. (Ord. No. 13,2007, §1) The project will receive HPC review for conceptual commercial design and major development review. The project has been designed to be in compliance with the Design Objectives and Guidelines of the Commercial Core Historic District, as well as the Commercial Design Standards to be discussed below. Commercial Core Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines: • Existing Character Through the restoration of the existing fagade,the character of the Red Onion building and the district will be respected.The second and third stories will be generously setback from the front fagade to maintain the existing pedestrian experience and to allow views of the side of the Red Onion restaurant and signage. • Street Pattern The proposed development respects the grid pattern of the Commercial Core streets by strongly orienting entrances to the hard edge of the pedestrian mail. The building,in keeping with the tradition of buildings occupying the full lot width and spanning the full depth of the core lots, will cover the lots from sidewalk to alley, and neighboring structure to neighboring structure. Architectural composition, articulation,and fenestration pattern will respect human scale and respect the existing visual and cultural experience of the Cooper Street Mall. • Building Character The proposed building will generally maintain a rectangular form. Flat roofs are the dominant roof form. Floor to ceiling heights on all floors are proposed to be nine feet or greater in keeping with historic form. • Storefront Context In keeping with the historic district pattern, the ground floor of the proposed structure will be strongly oriented to pedestrian views, utilizing a large display window to highlight the goods and services offered for sale inside. The restoration of the front fagade will provide continuity with existing conditions. Red Onion Unit 1 Page 11 Application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review 20 April 2012 MW • Outdoor Spaces In keeping with the dominant alignment of building fronts in the Commercial Core Historic District which do not set the building facade back off of the pedestrian area, the proposed project maintains the existing condition of abutting the pedestrian area. AS such, there is not space available for an open space associated with the proposed project. Sec.26.412.060. Commercial Design Standards The following design standards, in addition to the commercial,lodging and historic district design objectives and guidelines,shall apply to commercial,lodging and mixed-use development: A. Public amenity space. Creative,well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian I shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of iD® I/physical or operational improvements to public rights-of-way or private property Within commercial areas. No public amenity space is currently provided for the 9,000 sq. ft. parcel. In order to maintain the historic pattern of development and the existing fagade conditions, w �g = public amenity space cannot be provided on this parcel. If required,the applicant 11 will provide the equivalent of 10% of the parcel area or 900 sq. ft. of public amenity space via a cash-in-lieu payment. On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public amenity,the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. ow Acceptance of the method or combination of methods of providing the public amenity shall be at the option of the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, according to the procedures herein and according to the following standards: 1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. 2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses,shade trees,solar access,view orientation and simple at-grade relationship with adjacent rights-of-way are encouraged. 3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures,rights-of-way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. 4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls,sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract ,w from the pedestrian environment. 5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection 26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements. Not applicable. No public amenity space can be provided onsite. Red Onion Unit I Page 12 Application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review 20 April 2012 B. Utility, delivery and trash service provision.When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed,the building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one(1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways.The following standards shall apply: 1. A 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. A utility, trash, and recycle service area is currently provided on the property behind a different unit in the condominium. It will continue to be available to the proposed development. 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 an historic resource, dictate such encroachment.All encroachments shall be properly licensed. All utility service pedestals will be located on private property and along the alley. All necessary easements will be provided for service providers. The currently existing utility, trash, and recycle area does not encroach upon the alleyway. 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. Currently existing delivery service areas would be maintained along the alley. 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. Mechanical exhaust will be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment Will be located as far away as possible from the street. 5. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. (Ord. No. 13, 2007, §1) Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting will be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof. The mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting will be oca ed so as to minimize the Red Onion Unit I Page 13 Application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review 20 April 2012 OR ow visibility from the public right-of-way. The building design will incorporate adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. Sec. 26.412.070. Suggested design elements. The following guidelines are building practices suggested by the City, but are not mandatory. In many circumstances, compliance with these practices may not produce the most desired development, and project designers should use their best judgment. A. Signage. Signage should be integrated with the building to the extent possible. Integrated signage areas already meeting the City's requirements for size, etc., may minimize new tenant signage compliance issues. Common tenant listing areas also serves a public way-finding function, especially for office uses. Signs should not block ' design details of the building on which they are placed. Compliance with the City's sign code is mandatory. All signs will comply with the City's sign code. A Signage Concept Plan will be presented at Final Commercial Design Review showing integrated signage areas and a common tenant listing area. Signs will not block the design details of the buildings; WW rather they will be integrated into facade elements. B. Display windows. Display windows provide pedestrian interest and can contribute to the success of the retail space. Providing windows that reveal inside activity of the store can provide this pedestrian interest. The architectural design incorporates a retail display window similar to that of the existing display window. The commercial space located on the ground floor will have a prominent display window. C. Lighting. Well-lit(meaning quality, not quantity) display windows along the first floor create pedestrian interest offer business hours. Dynamic lighting methods designed to catch attention can cheapen the quality of the downtown retail environment. Illuminating certain important building elements can provide an interesting effect. Significant light trespass should be avoided. Illuminating the entire building should be avoided. Compliance with the City's Outdoor lighting code, Section 26.575.150 of this Title, is mandatory. (Ord. No. 13, 2007, §1) A Lighting Plan will be presented at Final Commercial Design Review. The Lighting Plan will incorporate appropriate lighting for store windows and architectural elements. However, care will be taken not to create any significant light trespass. All aspects of the plan will conform to Section 26.575.150, the City of Aspen Outdoor Lighting Code. Red Onion Unit 1 Page 14 Wit= Application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review 20 April 2012 w' SECTION 26.415 HISTORIC PRESERVATION Sec. 26.415.070.D.Development involving designated historic property, Certificate of Appropriateness for major development 1. Conceptual development plan review. a. An application for a conceptual development plan shall include the following. (1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. (2)A site plan and survey showing property boundaries, the location and orientation of existing and proposed improvements and predominant site characteristics. (3) Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form, including their height massing,scale,proportions and roof plan,and the primary features of all elevations. (4) Preliminary selection of primary building materials to be used in construction represented by samples and/or photographs. (5)Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated historic property or historic district including at least one (1) of the following.diagrams, maps,photographs, models or streetscape elevations. (6) Verb cation that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, Residential design standards or a written request for a variance from any standard that is not being met. The applicant has attached items 1-6 above as part of this application. Chapter 26.415.080 Demolition of designated historic properties It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have demonstrated signifficance to the community. Consequently no demolition of properties designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures will be allowed unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section. Pursuant to the Red Onion Building Permit Agreement, recorded at reception number 537304, recorded 3 May 2007, the City of Aspen and Red Onion, LLC agreed that "the building which comprises Unit 1 is not historic or of historic significance, either inside or outside." The building which contains Unit 1, located at 422 E. Cooper Street,is not listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures. While the City holds that the building which houses Unit 1 is not historic, other buildings on the property are listed on the City of Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. Therefore the, the property is to be regarded as an historic property with Unit 1 constituting a non-contributing element. For this reason, a Historic Preservation Application cover sheet for demolition is provided as an attachment. Other materials relating to demolition, but not related to historic preservation issues,will be provided following land use approvals. A. Procedures for considering requests for demolition of designated properties. Red Onion Unit 1 Page 15 Application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review 20 April 2012 1. An application for a demolition permit for designated properties will be filed with or referred to the Community Development Director by the Chief Building Official The applicant will be provided a written response within fourteen (14) days of the request for a demolition permit describing the submittal materials needed for consideration. Pursuant to the Red Onion Building Permit Agreement, recorded at reception number 537304, recorded 3 May 2007, the City of Aspen and Red Onion, LLC agreed that "the building which comprises Unit 1 is not historic or of historic significance, either inside or outside." 2. An application for demolition approval shall include: a. The general application information requested in Section 26.304.030 and written documentation that the Chief Building Official has determined the building an imminent hazard or b. Narrative text graphic illustrations or other exhibits that provide evidence , that the building, structure or object is of no historic or architectural value or importance. The basis for this request is 2.b. above,and supporting documentation is provided as an attachment. Pursuant to the Red Onion Building Permit Agreement, recorded at reception number 537304,recorded 3 May 2007, the City of Aspen and Red Onion, LLC agreed that "the building which comprises Unit 1 is not historic or of historic significance, either inside or outside." 3. When complete application materials are on file, a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice for the hearing will include publication, mailing and posting pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.#Paragraphs a, b, and c. The staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a staff report that analyzes the request relative to the criteria for approval. The required public hearing is to be incorporated into the HPC hearing for conceptual commercial design review, and appropriate notification has been A provided to include this demolition request in accordance with the City of Aspen Land Use Code. 4. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property owners,parties of interest and members of the general public to determine ff the standards for demolition approval have been met Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: d.. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering, or cultural significance and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located and Red Onion Unit I Page 16 Application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review 20 April 2012 t b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. The building which contains Unit 1, located at 422 E. Cooper Street, is not listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures. Pursuant to the Red Onion Building Permit Agreement, recorded at reception number 537304, recorded 3 May 2007, the City of Aspen and Red Onion, LLC agreed that "the building which comprises Unit 1 is not historic or of historic significance, either inside or outside." Moreover, the building is not of structurally sound construction and, shows evidence of differential settlement. Because the building which houses Unit 1 is not listed on "The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" and previous agreements state that the City does not consider the building to be historic,inside or out, the demolition of the building will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the district and will not detract from of the Red Onion Building. However, the restoration of the facade upon reconstruction will ensure that design continuity with the existing facade has been maintained. Red Onion Unit 1 Page 17 Application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review 20 April 2012 CHAPTER 26.470. GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM Sec. 26.470.050. General requirements. A. Purpose:The intent of growth management is to provide for orderly development and redevelopment of the City while providing mitigation from the impacts said development and redevelopment creates. Different types of development are categorized below, as well as the necessary review process and review standards for the proposed development. A proposal may fall into multiple categories and therefore have multiple processes and standards to adhere to and meet. o B. General requirements:All development applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for growth management review based on the following generally aw applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type of development. 1.Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D.Applications for multi-year development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet this standard. �.. The proposed project will not expand commercial net leasable. Under Section 26.470.060(4)(c),the additional development of one additional free-market residential unit shall be deducted from the development ceiling levels but shall not be deducted from the respective annual development allotments. Therefore,the availability of ow sufficient growth management allotments is not an issue for the proposed development. s. 2.The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. It will preserve commercial space for a commercial mix that is balanced, diverse, and vital. It meets the needs of the year-round residents and visitors. The proposed project's mass,scale, density, and diversity of heights reflect the City's architectural heritage. The proposed ..n project is located in the Commercial Core of the City, thereby helping to contain development and minimize sprawl. It will contribute to the vitality of the Commercial Core. 3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district. The proposed project conforms to all the requirements and limitations of the zone district. No variations are requested as a part of this application. 4.The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval, as applicable. The applicant understands that Conceptual Commercial Design Review must be granted prior to applying for growth management. Once conceptual design approval is granted, an Administrative Application for Growth Management will be submitted in compliance with the conceptual approval. 5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent(607o) of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection 26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing.The Red Onion Unit I Page 18 Application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review 20 April 2012 employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended.An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant chooses to use a Certficate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation,pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate. The proposed project does not contemplate an expansion of commercial net leasable or any additional lodging development. 6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent(307) of the additional free-market residential net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended.An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation.Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement('voluntary units') may be deed-restricted at any level of affordability,including residential occupied. if an applicant chooses to use a Certiricate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100 Employee/Square Footage Conversion. (Ord. No. 6-2010, §2) As the building that houses Unit 1 is part of the property identified as a historic landmark property, the property is eligible to create one (1) fee-market residential unit that is exempt from affordable housing mitigation requirements. 7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal,parking and road and transit services. The proposed project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure as it is located in the commercial core of the City on a previously developed parcel. Sec. 26.470.060. Administrative applications. The following types of development shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Community Development Director, pursuant to Section 26.470.110, Growth Management review procedures, and the criteria for each type of development described below. This review applied to ...the development of new structures on historic landmark properties. No affordable housing mitigation shall be required, provided that all necessary approvals are obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.415, Development Involving the Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, and provided that the parcel contains an historic resource. 4.Minor enlargement of an historic landmark for commercial, lodge, or mixed-use development. The enlargement of a property, structure or portion of a structure designated as an historic landmark for commercial,lodge or mixed-use development shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Community Development Director based on the following criteria. The additional development of uses identified in Section 26.470.020 shall be Red Onion Unit 1 Page 19 Application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review 20 April 2012 W deduced from the development ceiling levels established pursuant to Section 26.470.030 but -' shall not be deducted from the respective annual development allotments. „w, a. If the development increases either floor area or net leasable space/lodge units, but not both, then no employee mitigation shall be required. b. If the development increases both floor area and net leasable space/lodge units, up to ` four($) employees generated by the additional commercial/lodge shall not require the provision of affordable housing. c. No more than one (1) free-market residence is created. This shall be cumulative and shall include administrative GMQS approvals granted prior to the adoption of Ordinance 14, Series of 2007. The proposed project will increase overall floor area, but will not increase net leasable space or lodging units. No more than one free-market residence will be created. No administrative ` approvals have been previously granted for a free-market unit on this property. CHAPTER 26.480 SUBDIVISION Sec. 26.480.050. Review standards. A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: A. General requirements. 1.The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. ' The proposed project will encourage a commercial mix that is balanced,diverse, and vital. It meets the needs of the year-round residents and visitors. The proposed project is located in the Commercial Core of the City, thereby helping to contain development and minimize sprawl. ` 2.The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. The proposed project's mass, scale, density, and diversity of heights reflect the City's ' architectural heritage. The proposed project will comply with the Commercial. Lodging, and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines and specifically the "Commercial Core Historic District" chapter contained therein. 3.The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. The proposed project will not adversely aff ect the future development of the surrounding area and will compliment the historic Red Onion. 4.The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. The proposed project will be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this title. No variations are requested as a part of this application. B.Suitability of land for subdivision. Red Onion Unit 1 Page 20 - Applicalion for Conceptual Commercial Design Review 20 April 2012 1. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow,rockslide, avalanche or snowsllde, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health,safety or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. Subdivision review is triggered as the commercial interests and the residential interest in this unified development will be separate. The proposed project is located on presently developed land in the heart of Aspen. The land is not located in an area of increased flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide,steep topography, or any other natural hazard or other condition that would be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. 2. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. Subdivision review is triggered as the commercial interests and the residential interest in this unified development will be separate. The proposed subdivision will not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. C. Improvements.The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review(See, Chapter 26.430)N the following conditions have been met. 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas and/or the goals of the community. No unique situations exist for the proposed project where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the AACP, the existing neighborhood development areas and/or the goals of the community. 2.The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. No variations are requested as a part of this application. D.Affordable housing.A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement housing program.A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. As the building that houses Unit 1 is part of the property identified as a historic landmark property, the property is eligible to create one (1) fee-market residential unit that is exempt from affordable housing mitigation requirements. E.School land dedication. Compliance with the School land dedication standards set forth at Chapter 26.620. Red Onion Unit 1 Page 21 Application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review 20 April 2012 The additional residential development will comply with the School Land Dedications Standards as set forth in the Land Use Code. F. Growth management approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s)zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development(AH-PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals N the newly created parcel(s)is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No.44-2001, §2; Ord. No. 12, 2007, §§29, 30) The applicant understands that Conceptual Commercial Design Review must be granted prior to applying for administrative review for growth management. Once conceptual design review approval is granted,the administrative application for Growth Management will be in compliance with the conceptual approval. Subdivision Approval will be sought after successfully obtaining Growth Management approval. 26.515. Parking B. Requirements for expansion/redevelopment of existing development. No development shall reduce the number of existing off-street parking spaces below the minimum number of existing spaces required herein for that development, unless expressly exempted by this Chapter. N existing development is expanded, additional off-street parking spaces shall be provided for that increment of the expansion as if it is a separate development.An existing deficit of parking may be maintained when a property is redeveloped. No parking is currently provided for onsite and this deficit will be maintained as permitted by code. Residential parking is not required within the Commercial Core zone district. 26.575.020. Calculations and Measurements.A. Purpose.This section sets forth methods for measuring floor area, height setbacks, and other dimensional aspects of development and describes certain allowances, requirements and other prescriptions for a range of structural ' components,such as porches, balconies, garages, chimneys, mechanical equipment, projections into setbacks, etc. The definitions of the terms are set forth at Section 26.104.100- Definitions. *" The proposed project meets all dimensional requirements in connection with floor area, height,setbacks, and other dimensional aspects. No variations are requested as a part of this application. 26.610 Impact Fees Applicant acknowledges that impact fees are required of the proposed project and applicant will provide calculations of required impact fees at final commercial design and major development review. Red Onion Unit 1 Page 22 ° Application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review 20 April 2012 e SEC. 26.710.140 COMMERCIAL CORE(CC) A. Purpose.The purpose of the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District is to allow the use of land for retail,service commercial, recreation and institutional purposes within mixed-use buildings to support and enhance the business and service character in the historic central business core of the City. The district permits a mix of retail, office, lodging, affordable housing and free-market housing uses oriented to both local and tourist populations to encourage a high level of vitality. Retail and restaurant uses are appropriate for ground floors of buildings while residential and office uses are not permitted on ground floors. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District. 1. Uses allowed on basement floors:Retail and restaurant uses, office uses, uses and building elements necessary and incidental to uses on other floors. Only net leasable retail space that is displaced from the ground floor will be located in the basement. Remaining portions of the basement not utilized by displaced retail will be classified as storage/mechanical and not included in net leasable. 2. Uses allowed on the ground floor.Retail and restaurant uses and uses and building elements necessary and incidental to uses on other floors. Office uses are prohibited on the ground floor except within spaces set back a minimum of forty(40)feet from a street and recessed behind the front-most street-facing fagade. This prohibition shall not apply to split-level buildings (see definition). Parking shall not be allowed as the sole use of the ground floor. Retail and restaurant uses are proposed for the ground floor. No office use is contemplated in the proposed project. 3. Uses allowed on upper floors:Retail and restaurant uses, office uses,lodging, timeshare lodge, affordable multi-family housing,free-market multi-family housing and home occupations. Free-market residential is proposed to be provided on the second and third floors. 4. Uses allowed on all building levels:Retail and restaurant uses, neighborhood commercial uses, service uses, arts, cultural and civic uses, public uses,recreational uses, academic uses, child care center, accessory uses and structures, storage accessory to a permitted use, uses and building elements necessary and incidental to uses on other floors, including parking accessory to a permitted use, and farmers' market, provided that a vending agreement is obtained pursuant to Section 15.04.350(B). C. Conditional uses.The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425: 1. Gasoline service station. 2. Commercial parking facility,pursuant to Chapter 26.515. No conditional uses are contemplated in the proposed project. Red Onion Unit I Page 23 Application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review 20 April 2012 D. Dimensional requirements.The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District. 1. Minimum Gross Lot Area (square feet):No requirement 2. Minimum Net Lot Area per dwelling unit(square feet):No requirement. " 3. Minimum lot width (feet): No requirement. 4. Minimum front yard setback(feet):No requirement. S. Minimum side yard setback(feet):No requirement. 6. Minimum rear yard setback(feet):No requirement 7. Minimum utility/trash/recycle area:Pursuant to Section 26.575.060. A minimum of 200 sq.ft. of utility/trash/recycle area is provided to the rear of the property located off of the alley as part of another building element. 8. Maximum height(feet):28 feet for two-story elements of a building. 38 feet for three- story elements of a building, which may be increased to 42 feet through commercial design review.See Chapter 26.412. The proposed project will be 28 feet high at its two-story element and 38 feet high at its three-story element,which will be located towards the rear of the property. Measurements shall be consistent with the City of Aspen Land Use Code in effect at the time of the application. 9. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot(feet):No requirement. 10. Public amenity space:Pursuant to Section 26.575.030. No public amenity space is contemplated to be provided onsite for the proposed project. If required, the applicant will provide public amenity space via a cash-in-lieu payment. 11. Floor area ratio (FAR):The following FAR schedule applies to uses cumulatively up to a total maximum FAR of 2.75.1.Achieving the maximum floor area ratio is subject to compliance with applicable design standards, view plane requirements, public , amenity requirements and other dimensional standards.Accordingly, the maximum FAR is not an entitlement and is not achievable in all situations. Cumulative allowable floor area for the property is 24,750 sq.ft., based on a maximum floor area ration of 2.75:1. Existing floor area is 13,262 sq. ft. The proposed , floor area will be 16,191 sq. ft.,for a floor area ratio of 1.8:1. a. Commercial uses:2:1. Red Onion Unit 1 Page 24 Application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review 20 April 2012 W 01., Maximum commercial floor area for the property is 18,000 sq. ft. Existing commercial floor area is 13,262 sq. ft. The proposed commercial floor area is contemplated to be unchanged. b. Arts, cultural and civic uses, public uses, recreational uses, academic uses, child care center and similar uses:2.75:1. No art, cultural, or civic uses, public uses,recreational uses, academic uses, child care center or similar uses are contemplated for the proposed project. c. Affordable multi-family housing.No limitation. No affordable multi-family housing is contemplated for the proposed project. d. Lodging.0.5:1, which may be increased to 1.5:1 N the individual lodge units on the parcel average five hundred(500) net livable square feet or less, which may be comprised of lock-off units. No lodging is contemplated for the proposed project. e. Free-market multi-family housing.0.5:1, which may be increased to 0.75.1 N affordable housing equal to one hundred percent(1007o) of the free-market residential floor area is developed on the same parcel. Maximum free-market multi-family housing floor area is 4,500 sq. ft. No free- market, multi-family currently existing on the project. The proposed one (1) free-market multi-family net livable area is contemplated to be 2,000 sq. ft. Floor area for the proposed residential unit is 2,711 sq.ft. for a floor area ratio .3:1. 12.Maximum multi-family residential dwelling unit size (square feet):two thousand (2,000) square feet of net livable area. a.The property owner may increase individual multi-family unit size by extinguishing historic transferable development right certificates rcertificate"or "certificates', subject to the following. 1. The transfer ratio is 500 square feet of net livable area for each certificate that is extinguished. 2. The additional square footage accrued may be applied to multiple units. However, the maximum individual unit size attainable by transferring development rights is 2,500 square feet of net livable area r.e., no more than five hundred[500]additional square feet may be applied per unit). 3.This incentive applies only to individual unit size.Transferring development rights does not allow an increase in the FAR of the lot. Commentary:Refer to Chapter 26.535 for the procedures for extinguishing certificates. The applicant proposes to develop a residential unit of 2,000 sq. ft. of net livable area. No TDRs will be required. Red Onion Unit 1 Page 25 Application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review 20 April 2012 13.Maximum lodge unit size (square feet): 1,500. When units are comprised of lock-off units, this maximum shall apply to the largest possible combination of units. No lodge units are contemplated to be provided in the proposed project. 14. Commercial/residential ratio:The total lodging and free-market residential net livable area shall be no greater than the total above-grade floor area associated with the uses described in Subparagraphs 26.710.140.D.1 I.a. and b.combined on the same parcel. The total free-market residential net livable areas will not be greater than the total above-grade floor area associated with the commercial uses contemplated to be provided in the proposed project. Total free-market residential net livable is proposed to be 2,000 sq. ft. Total commercial floor area net leasable will be 13,262 sq. ft. This is a ratio of 6.6:1 commercial to residential floor area. 1 W* W Red Onion Unit 1 Page 26 , Application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review 20 April 2012 7b,, Attachment 1 Legend Cities&Towns 1� UGt3 � i f Addresses ; 413x d15 i Trails (�1 PLS_TR_SEC r F-1 - Airport f ;t pt_ 4 f Major Roads 1 Roads 1 Eagle and t�w Gb r Roads 314� Edge of Pavement Aspen 16 If Edge of Pavement Pitkin { Drives 3 t 1 Rivers&Streams 315, I Subdivisions , d18d18! ff 312, 1 Mines � Structures 42A. Condos Parcels 318° i 1 ooft Topo 324; Lakaa ilonds t. 7 T10S Rb4W Federal Lands OLM r STATEOFCO f d� i USFS --__ - _.,� se, 1 -'- St6. 1 Subject Parcel 1 Red Onion Unit 1 w Conceptual Commercial Design Review Vicinity Map 20 April 2012 Attachment 2 LEGEND AND NOTES 0 FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT AS DESCRIBED OR SET PK NAiL WITH ALUM. TAG 25947 ALL FLUSH WITH GROUND TITLE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY: PI TKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. CASE NO. P 723441 ASPEN GPS MONUMENT DATED:MARCH 21, 2012 0-159. EL-7906.67 c SURVEY CONTROL MISC. ENCROACHMENTS ON ALL SIDES BEARINGS BASED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 89 INAIL IN CONC.) AND THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF OLOLN 95 IBRA35 TAG 28643) IN 75'09'11'%1 LOTS PRORATED TO FIELD BLOCK LENGTH 270.65' RECORD BLOCK 270.80' RECORD GALENA STREET R.O.W.OF 74.00'HELD kOR RLOCK LENGTH- I'.10 ELEVATIONS BASED ON CITY GPS MONUMENT NO. 5: ELEVATION 7910.748 0 10 20 p ® UTNHO a BOX d• PROPERTY 15 AFFECTED BY THE THE WHEELER OPERA HOUSE ® txo.xD. c U p A+YEO o-4I 48 ® (� VIEW PLANE AND A PORTION BY THE MAIN STREET SET VIEW PLANE. BOTH VIEW PLANES ARE OBSTRUCTED BY / 5947/xaoF xe.+s WxEELEP SURROUNDING BUILDINGS WAOTER LINE IS IN COOPER AVE L ALTHER UTLITIES ARE IN THE ALLEY / MALL]ws.+ ]vxv Be �7v11.1 `p THIS PROPERTY IS SITUATED IN ZONE-%' (AREAS 1E7EAMINED To BE OUTSIDE 500-YEAR VICINITY MA P eons ex xnlx eT. FLOOD PLAINI AS SHOWN ON FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP PREPARED BY F.E.M.A., FOR PITK IN COUNTY COLORADO, COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER 0809700204 C. EFFECTIVE / DATE: JUNE 4, 1987 D%v�Br /xuv T THIS PROPERTY LIES ENTIRELY INSIDE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUDFLOW HAZARD CLEAN AREA FI A5 DEFINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN, PROJECT NUMBER 1963, OUT x GURE E3-I5. ® ® mog..." I ZONED: CC ICOMMERCIAL CORE)WITH HISTORIC OVERLAY ]�xo NO SETBACK REOUIREMENTS FRONT, SIDE, REAR �Si n,e IBiB.I�� SET VV 25947 v�` - TM w B• RWyyA W / PARTY WAIL • a=- e� BOOK 174 PAGE 445 Af Bu HlU�ypr q / ® CERTIFICATION n / E / 0 THE UNDERSIGNED STATES THAT THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREON WAS FIELD SURVEYED DURING 2012 AND IS ACCURATE a / BASED ON TRUE FIELD EVIDENCE AS SHOWN, AND THAI THERE APE NO F. ASPEN GPS MONUMENT DISCREPANCIES OF RECORD, BOUNDARY LINE CONFLICTS, ENCROACHMENTS, 8 N0, 2, EL-7927.72 EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS OF WAY IN FIELD EVIDENCE OR KNOWN TO ME, / iLeiAbr / EXCEPT AS HEREON SHOWN. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WITH NO ABOVEGROUND / / e WNN E APPURTENANCES AND DOCUMENTS OF RECORD NOT SUPPLIED TO THE Wi1.J nnlx lT� / SURVEYOR ARE EXCEPTED. THIS SURVEY IS VOID UNLESS WE STAMPED WITH THE SEAL OF THE SURVEYOR BELOW, SURVEY PRECISION IS LESS / 22 THAN 1:15,000. c / xeo DATED: 2. ASEI / JOHN M.HOWORTM P.L.S. 25947 M ]w>.o ONE NO 3524JO3B A ea io )MSx.Se REELER / / COVERED ENiRV / oio.e ]010.0 SIGNS xvs3 • 0 1 / IMPROVEMENT SURVEY OF ini 7 \ x ACCORDING TO THE CONDOMINIUM MAP RECORDED OM NI PLAT / RED ONION CONDOMINIUMS, efAliAp TER DIe1 BOOK IS AT PAGES 94-97 AND AS DEFINED AND DESCRI BED IN THE CONDOMINIUM CDECLARATION RECORDED MACH 14, 1984 IN BOOK 462 AT PAGE 980. ®®Pty MISS �v + / TOGETHER WITH ANY APPLICABLE LIMITED COMMON ELEMENTS AND AND UNDIVIDED 8' A 33.51%INTEREST IN THE COMMON ELEMENTS AND AS DEFINED IN THE AFORESAID �+ YD CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION. TA9.. VE ioioEO � D SITUATED ON LOTS N, 0, AND P. BLOCK 89, CITY AND TORNSITE OF ASPEN 4.o-WI Y �• pp Oe CITY OF ASPEN Ui COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO CONTAINING: 9,027 SF•/ 0-207 ACRES•/- PREPARED BY ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS, INC. 210 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 NOT ICN:ACCMUIW TO COLORADO LAW YOU HOST C"IHICE MY LEON. DEFECT OH THIS PLAT WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTE&YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. fYENT MAY MY ACT IOx BARED UPON ANY DEFEECT IN THIS PLAT BE IN MORE THAN TEN PHONE/ AX f 9 0) 925-3816 URTFI GT I ON I3A-D IFF.1.1F1TAA�IED SUIT.THE Of THE SURVEYOR. DATE JOB 04/12 352430 Attachment 3 A10 1 ALLEY � I I � I I I I I UNEXCAVATED I I I I I I I I i I I I A14 1 I I 1 A11 � I I i t n I I � i I i i I UNEXCAVATED I I I I I I I I I � I I L — — — — — — — COOPER AVE. MALL 422 E. COOPER REDEVELOPMENT Enter address here POSS ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING O 0 SCHEMATIC DESIGN: PLAN- EXISTING BASEMENT Al r LEVEL>2008 � ;„, 04/23/12 H BOS EAST MAIM ETREEi A!►E M. CBLO RA00 1 1611 A10 ALLEY — — I— - - — — — — — — — — — — —I — — — — — — - - — — — — — — I — — — — I I ( I I I I I I o I I I I I I I I I I I A14 1 I I 1 A11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I i i I L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J - - - - I - COOPER AVE. MALL 422 E. COOPER REDEVELOPMENT Enter address here POSS ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING SCHEMATIC DESIGN: PLAN- EXISTING LEVEL 1 A 606 EAST Ll Alll STFEFT AS►EK SOLOE1100 11611 S ©20DE�MtlIR.'IIR,ImIWEO'IG 04/18/12 / �` FTi E70/F26 {7 66 fit i 70/0202 Y b0 A10 ALLEY F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -� - - - - - - I I I PATIO I I I I I I I I A14 1 I ROOF 1 A11 Tli I I I I I I I I I I I � I � I I I PATIO I I L - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - -- COOPER AVE.MALL 422 E. COOPER REDEVELOPMENT Enter address here POSS ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING O SCHEMATIC DESIGN: EXISTING LEVEL- 2 ®2008uc�mumvuw'�rc 04/18/12 H3 BOS FAST MAIM STlEET Af!'E M, SOl Ol ADO !1611 i I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I A10 1 ALLEY - - T - - - - - - - - - T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - EXISTING SERVICE YARD I I I I I AREA OF PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT I I I I I I A14 1 I 1 A11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EXISTING I I I I I I I I i I I L - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - COOPER AVE. MALL 422 E. COOPER REDEVELOPMENT Enter address here POSS ARCH ITEGTURF + PLANNING O o s SCHEMATIC DESIGN: SITE PLAN �/� E 02008 IX`- Tu-RUOviA+w EC L� 101 EAST MAIM STREET ASPEM, COLORA00 B1/I1 04/20/12 A10 1 ALLEY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - i I I I I PROPOSED NEW WALLS, SHOWN IN GRAY,TYP. I I PROPOSED NEW DOOR TO ACCESS PROPOSED BASEMENT I I I I A14 1 EXISTING WALL 1 A11 1 ' I I I I I I I PROPOSED BASEMENT EXISTING I I I � I � L - - - - - I -- - - - - - - - COOPER AVE. MALL 422 E. COOPER REDEVELOPMENT Enter address here Foss t4 ,tr 1 , Is I t E SCHEMATIC DESIGN: PLAN- NEW BASEMENT n � 605 EA11 MAIR 6TREET As PER. COLORADO 61611 c LEVELD2008R , , ; 04/20/12 H (7) 670/625 4 755 fr) 970/620 2 650 A10) ALLEY PROPOSED:STEP DOWN TO EGRESS PROPOSED: MECHANICAL RED ONION SUPPORT -PROPOSED: NEW COLUMNS --*--PROPOSED: NEW ELEVATOR -PROPOSED: FM ENTRY LOBBY PROPOSED: NEW WALLS SHOWN IN GRAY,TYP. EXISTING j -PROPOSED: NEW STAIR TO LEVELS 2 NEW RETAIL SPACE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ENTRY PROPOSED:VESTIBULE --HISTORIC FACADE TO BE PRESERVED - - - - - - - - - - - -L _j PROPOSED: REMOVE EXISTING DOORS, RETAIN ORIGINAL COOPER AVE. MALL OPENING IN FACADE 422 E. COOPER REDEVELOPMENT Enter address here 0 S S �J SCHEMATIC DESIGN: PLAN- REMODELED LEVEL 111 1111 MAIN IT111T 11111, 1111111* 81111 P4 04/20/12 "A6 A10 ALLEYI MECHANICAL CHASE PATIO PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT [ I I I PROPOSED: STAIR TO I LEVEL 3 I MECHANICAL CHASE PROPOSED: FM RES.UNIT- I LOWER LEVEL PROPOSED: NEW WALLS, 1 A11 1 14 I SHOWN IN GRAY,TYP. I I I I I PROPOSED: NEW ELEVATOR I � i I � t I I PROPOSED:STAIR I I` TO LEVEL 1 EXISTING i I I I _ I PATIO DECK - _ - - - - - - - - ROOF BELOW COOPER AVE.MALL 422 E. COOPER REDEVELOPMENT Enter address here FOSS 1 :t(:� � �—�_�_�� �� {���:- � E��e�, � 1��t���{�� � o R7 SCHEMATIC DESIGN: PLAN- NEW LEVEL 2 1*1 111T MRIX 1T1111 11111k 111011U0 81611 t �E ©200B vWMrc,rt 04�18�12 A10 MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE FROM WHEELER OPERA HOUSE 1 ALLEY DECK '—MECHANICAL CHASE (APPROX. EXIST. LOC,) x N PROPOSED: NEW WALLS, ?: SHOWN IN GRAY PROPOSED:STAIRS DN.TO L2 E MECHANICAL CHASE v (APPROX.EXIST. LOC.) � A14 1 / � 1 A11 ROOF PROPOSED: NEW ELEVATOR I DECK 0 ie) M O 'ct EXISTING - ... DECK BELOW — —ROOF BELOW --- .. COOPER AVE.MALL 422 E. COOPER REDEVELOPMENT Enter address here pons ; ` /I E IF c ( �, ` { .% SCHEMATIC DESIGN: PLAN— NEW LEVEL 3 AV 605 EAST MAIM STREET ASPEN, ODEORA00 61617 0 A II ©2008 �ow�y 04/20/12 IT)970/925 4755(r1670/.20 8650 ALLEY ll F MIN _DECK ABOVE 2ND LEVEL DECK I -'*--ROOF ABOVE 3RD LEVELI I ROOF I i A14 1 ROOF -,*---ELEVATOR -*---DECK ABOVE 2ND LEVELI EXISTING cv cm ) i I DECK ABOVE 1 ST LEVEL DECK A/ ROOF ABOVE 1ST LEVEL L — — — — — — — I— — — — — — — — — — — CV O COOPER AVE. MALL 422 E. COOPER REDEVELOPMENT Enter address here puss �� Ef F 4 F i , I -- t ' `E,II `" t SCHEMATIC DESIGN: PLAN- NEW ROOF PLAN @2008-- P� 685 11 MAIN 111111 04/20/12 A9 ITI :A ELEVATOR BEYOND COLORED CONCRETE CAP T.O. ROOF j COLORED CONCRETE LINTEL EL.= 136'-4" BUILDING HEIGHT ESTIMATED F.F. EL.= 124'-0" -- --.- .-_.--- . : F.F. EL= 113'-0° GROUND FACE CMU -! - - PAINTED METAL DOOR---, SPLIT-FACE CMU i ! EXISTING SERVICE YARD L1 -F.F. EL= 100'-0" % I " ALLEY AVE. EL. 98'-4" 442 E. COOPER EXISTING RED ONION EXISTING RED ONION OFFICES 422 E. COOPER REDEVELOPMENT Enter address here possfPFzE ° E r` i ` `f� F SCHEMATIC DESIGN: ELEVATION- NORTH ALLEY n 10 I € H606 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO LORA06 61611 ©1006"65N"L NOPL6•ti Tx 04�18�12 lTT 670/615 4765 lF1670/640 8650 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION PAINTED METAL RED ONION BEYOND SANDSTONE ACCENT ,j BRICK GROUND FACE CMU T.O. ROOF EL.= 136'-4" '' �" ------- -- —_ -___- PAINTED METAL _ ---- - ""-- HEIGHT ESTIMATED / SANDSTONE ACCENT - Fr--BRICK -.- T.O. PARAPET EL.= 128'-0" ----- F.F. EL.= 124'-0" E co co ALLEY L2 ---- F.F. EL= 113'-0" OOPER AVE. MALL F.F. EL= 100'-0" ALLEY AVE. EL.=98'-4° 422 E. COOPER REDEVELOPMENT Enter address here SCHEMATIC DESIGN: ELEVATION- EAST l n � 'I ©2008 ;�,,z 04/18/12 All poss e t 606 E1111 MAIN STREET -11EN. COLORADD 61611 111 a]nlaf5 61551i1690/BYO ]650 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION COLORED CONCRETE CAP ELEVATOR BEYOND GROUND FACE CMU PAINTED METAL T.O. ROOF ;- EL.= 136'-4" SANDSTONE ACCENT I BRICK EXISTING RED ONION -------- EXISTING RED ONION OFFICES @PROPOSED NEW\ HEIGHT ESTIMATED L3 REDEVELOPMENT F.F. EL.= 124'-0" 0 ao M @PROPOSED NEW L2 REDEVELOPMENT F.F. EL= 113'-0" ALLEY @PROPOSED NEW COOPER AVE. MA I�L L1 REDEVELOPMENT F.F. EL= 100'-0" ALLEY EL. VARIES OSS .r `t - I , It6 l ,e 422 E. COOPER REDEVELOPMENT € F t 606 FAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO 100.A00 81611 �j Enter address here ANNiN(T)°T°/°,° 46°"' °'°,6Y° z66U , SCHEMATIC DESIGN: ELEVATION- WEST ©200e 04/18/12 A2 PAINTED METAL PANELS ELEVATOR BEYOND (SEE PLAN) SANDSTONE PAINTED METAL WINDOW & BRICK DOOR SYSTEM ZOOF 136'-4" EXISTING RED ONION, E - HEIGHT ESTIMATED J } i OPEN PAINTED STEEL EXISTING RED ONION UvlJLJuuu RAILING if 'ARAPET OFFICES, HEIGHT jr { •i' ESTIMATED PAINTED STEEL ACCENTS &WINDOW SYSTEM 128'-0" _ _ PROPOSED NEW Jj tl= = - - SANDSTONE :DEVELOPMENT - BRICK -- +-- - -_ L.= 124'-0" PROPOSED NEW :DEVELOPMENT RED ONION L= 113'-011 I a PROPOSED NEW :DEVELOPMENT L= 100'-0" EXISTING HISTORIC FACADE TO BE PRESERVED AND RESTORED PAINTED STEEL TRIM PAINTED STEEL&FROSTED GLASS WALL, DOOR 422 E. COOPER REDEVELOPMENT Enter address here poss -; �� I R ( r� II( €,o < t . � il ',_ti_ SCHEMATIC DESIGN: ELEVATION- SOUTH A13 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 �^ ©2008®NI'[rIRCNUmvux101c 04/18/12 (T1670/925 4 7551 F1970/920 2950 PARAGON BUILDING ROARING FORK BUILDING I 7 m. RED ONION E11 ❑ 7 z p RED ONION OFFICES RED ONION 442 E. COOPER 422 E. COOPER REDEVELOPMENT Enter address here 04/18/12 pons f`� F4E, ° t , °Y ' ; t,II€ et o SCHEMATIC DESIGN: ELEVATION— COOPERAVE. A14 I .P 805 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, DOl0RND0 81811 COMPOSITE (T)0 7 D/825 4 755(E 1 9 7 D/D20 2 11 50 - - f i Steel and Frosted Glass - 1 - Red Split-face cmu • I � - - i } J Steel and Brick Brick and Sandstone Steel, Brick, and Sandstone 422 E. COOPER REDEVELOPMENT Enter address here POSS ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING SCHEMATIC DESIGN: EXT. BUILDING MATERIAL S A15 ©2008�i cierzcnwt umPUmi4 PL .4/1$/12 905 E�Si EI.IM ETDEET ESPEM, DOl O0.D0 Ei E11 (71070 1015 4715(I1910/020 1950 i 1► - ._I I I 1 � I� ._ _i wi I-_--�----� 1.11 .\I�14► I = ��� ffin 1��`�\ r Imo W.11 10 110 �_X11,. I \I\ \I,,.� �. \I �\.�,�I , + •'\r. DECK 90 S.F. -__ — — _ _ PROPOSED CALCULATIONS: PROPOSED LEVEL 1 EXISTING DECK LEVEL 1 FLOOR AREA 8539 S.F. PROPOSED: NEW WALLS, 1084 S.F. LEVEL 1 DECKS, BALCONIES, ETC. 0 S.F. SHOWN IN GRAY - — PROPOSED BASEMENT LEVEL PROPOSED F.M. RES. UNIT _ PROPOSED: NEW BASEMENT LEVEL (N/A-NO EXPOSURE) 3,895 S.F. UPPER LEVEL WALLS SHOWN IN PROPOSED LEVEL 2 GRAY,TYP. _ LEVEL 2 FLOOR AREA 6,685 S.F. ROOF _ = PROPOSED: LEVEL 2 DECKS, BALCONIES, ETC. 2,295 S.F. FM RES. UNIT- PROPOSED LEVEL 3 LOWER LEVEL LEVEL 3 FLOOR AREA 967 S.F. DECK LEVEL 3 BALCONIES, ETC. 698 S.F. 608 S.F. o = l `o EXISTING TOTAL GROSS PROPOSED 23,079 S.F. in EXISTING TOTAL EXEMPT PROPOSED BASEMENT 3,895 S.F. DECK BELOW ° EXISTING DECK DECK TOTAL EXEMPT BALCONIES 2,993 S.F. -- 173 S.F. i� 800 S.F. ACTUAL 16,191 S.F. ROOF BELOW ROOF BELOW PROPOSED F.A.R LEVEL 3 PROPOSED F.A.R. AREA LEVEL 2 EXISTING PROPOSED __ _.... _-- _- -- — — — — — — — --f- — -- PROPOSED DECK AREA PROPOSED NEW WALLS, SHOWN IN GRAY,TYP. REDEVELOPED EXISTING WALL RED RETAIL SPACE ONION: !' XAA- - J _ PROPOSED - BASEMENT EXISTING - EXISTING _ / - NEW RETAIL PROPOSED F.A.R LEVEL 1 PROPOSED F.A.R. BASEMENT LEVEL 422 E. COOPER REDEVELOPMENT Enter address here poss f SCHEMATIC DESIGN: PROPOSED F.A.R. CALCULATIONS n ©2008 605 EAt7 MAIN STREET 115 PE N, COL 0X1100 81 61 1 04/23/12 A17 I TI 870/925 4 755 fE1670/920 2 950 PROPOSED DECK PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (COMMERCIAL) b EXISTING DECK - PROPOSED BASEMENT LEVEL 1,783 S.F. 1084 S.F. PROPOSED LEVEL 1 7,288 S.F. PROPOSED: NEW WALLS, -- ------ _ PROPOSED: NEW PROPOSED LEVEL 2 3,498 S.F. SHOWN IN GRAY 1 WALLS SHOWN IN PROPOSED F.M. RES. UNIT - GRAY,TYP. TOTAL 12,569 S.F. UPPER LEVEL PROPOSED NET LIVEABLE ROOF -- i PROPOSED: - ---- FM RES. UNIT- PROPOSED BASEMENT LEVEL 0 S.F. -- -- - LOWER LEVEL PROPOSED LEVEL 1 0 S.F. PROPOSED o PROPOSED LEVEL 2 1,271 S.F. DECK - PROPOSED ce) EXISTING __ _ DECK PROPOSED LEVEL 3 729 S.F. i TOTAL 2,000 S.F. EXISTING DECK BELOW EXISTING DECK — N 800 S.F. z ROOF BELOW ROOF BELOW ih PROPOSED NET LEASABLE AREA LEVEL 3 PROPOSED NET LEASABLE AREA LEVEL 2 EXISTING COMMERCIAL PROPOSED COMMERCIAL PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL _ PROPOSED NEW WALLS, - - SHOWN IN GRAY,TYP. EXISTING WALL PROPOSED: NEW WALLS, I; SHOWN IN GRAY,TYP. PROPOSED _= BASEMENT I REDEVELOPED EXISTING RETAIL SPACE - NEW RETAIL s 500 S.F. j PROPOSED NET LEASABLE AREA LEVEL 1 PROPOSED NET LEASABLE AREA BASEMENT LEVEL 422 E. COOPER REDEVELOPMENT Enter address here poss r( � I PT � t`("il SCHEMATIC DESIGN: PROPOSED NET LEASABLE AREA ��� 805 E11ST MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO LRRAUR 81611 1! !a CALCULATIONS ©2008��'�'L'0�� MGIILLIIAFMOIWNMG.I.G 04/23/12 trIv70"25 4796IrIR70/R2C2950 � � I I I�•' � ,��,. �<1 �•"'����, , ;� �+ .. .-. •+.\ F�• � �� 'r ./vim '°�� � •t � '' _ I/` .Wit vp —Xv�♦ � -,{X � � 'IP���r4' �•tI "—/��.F0.yY! .l �_.. -1{ _ ^.V wY }J� � M >e �A * }� f �r- l�(i _ ,It��.- ;.• � r•�,�. ••k.7-.S• et,r.. l�� � �_ � �r ``� i y � � N lLr�, • w , —W ow+- ira4kJ ilia ■{1 ,� -.J�-:•.:.._ y _ - ire •b�,' Fl: .,•r." ` '�'- - �� � " a� 1 �. pp- lA s r . r w ° _ • ! f al- Ay are IN-1 "--•.,�` f"pia. �, •�e4 1 • 1 _ Attachment 8 vy AIE D RED ONNON COND®MINNUM ., �.ocK LOTS N,®,AND ]P. BLOC K. 89 ALLEY ASPEN. COLORADO N I i I I i DED i C ONiO�i Q11 ENGINF!F R'g APPROVAL SIM ' 17 Kwvo�wmcNm4o.a y yq y '!/�/�j//s�rna///a/rraoNCOer T( esMl iNF -sffMMM i. OAMIi/L FrI[F�TT'N 11I[RITY rXTMM TW___ �_CNT WS/��4lI�L,�!✓I�✓' /J i I n�NRA Iloll[dTY.00WkWA D,• M FaLtMA6' rs.Ar0►.root (a . ` M.�M'01.C[A1111RN.Ni1RK tl FeEa 11M►Ulr' aT'11L ANC®m m OWN wr.ww.war ues�w n�wra�a _� I � , I 7r►M�. �'NV aTOea p/CD�oI.MDO. . i g ZONING APPROVAL pr NING AND ', I I M,UnM. MNRRa � ANOICLC RDOrMaN CdLOWNW.>�ArPwoN"N.Y Ti[e1776►AM711 . � I . FLAINMM AND a/Nw.//AIwMSIDrI TINS___=------DAY OI_w.aew_Sew. AT'AIafCT N ACT 10[LJi►MRO,Y We:s.ALref a.s�A.saN, ►�RIDNA.N[LID[wl.n[ra arN.•NONSrloorsrN.[N+a Aµsp Tt.MHf N�NT{II�Ies 71apF. Pa uw�R fE��r "a 1pwfOO"s 'sDO ON "" �Ne�a r,a ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL I AcN.ewL[nara.r+Ill[K 1A._ i ...�NWRiAIOYNTICf�IraFN9a�sYldieu ...L00A.N,NOTIONANLLLli[, AND wC,CEPTANCE [oo..r R_aoaN .ND NOWARD MONZA "s[N.[*"r TA d/NVT vR1TURC s TwMw ew+ o I I M+NaM wr NUw.NS WW77 - n�{s�en�.eeay► o[D -DAY�orN eppN�o�oN MO AxZ"= 'TI+�.X+J6 o4w�}.•• ARK M $ N I O i. p Y Q I t : reo '�AW e ( I SURVEY CERTIFICATE CLER E RECORDER'S /.NN4 Q ACC sutiET w F[TIFlralee.NraM�w MnT"T AriD sAGW*,W ON r&M GO atscNs..CrTYOFA[F[N,dIyAAODi TNT o TMsIDRYOONDOMMlNOIDAIFLEA,YRM FI.rPDA4 sAe[AaNT ql v, I MM./011W l0 r.WfJ�C M�IIOW�MI�Wa'4T.TI[WC+�TION AM OM{Tls• TM.NR OF W[NOLD 11[D 0111ON OieDO1M�/lRW1]ryY{0.s�¢DflmtgRR�RyK�NM et�FCM "3RE- I IONs O[1N[S INCM XvNI.[M�/t,YM171p.rlM.ONMa.MMIbV[KMTyNLV10e1� 2, �.IN'T W►LRT.00lC�7-AT�_7� 9R qOM.lO A{Y[.saa�w.w riONM OM TIM NI).NO 71E IMPMCIIMT[LY � - I I I DMgIMO OF TMr II�IMLAAM Mai TAM IW ��MR1N OOMDON�MYW. iT M01 AND MO S. Of3111RWWAATWS TAR UNDER TIK NiTlCT '� I/AM PIANIORO M'OMIRS,IK wMt/ts�r sND UINIE,Are Ts J`:'! I4[wiloNb p 1N[FL0011s AMD CER.RM6- d.twN tl ai•• T/a usE AND I«u.ANCT K TIE cnRlDl A A SNOW ON SAMT 3 W 4 M3MOF&ALL W I I I W'TR=MD W . ( asMAMM K TAT CCAN OWD"T RiCOROm N 0WK. __A0 LS , Cr TIE P=M"CF"14 COUNTY,C=M=. '�' M/S�0!'H• NIT. I 1•W I . � C • ATTORNEY'S TITLE CERTIFICATE K WC M MME M AT TI "UC[NSED'D'FRACTKE LAW N THE fICE aF mtTNrP4 W V1NR iOMNINM 7NL lATUO OF TITi 1s lOfs N.O.NC F•,N RDOX sl AND TsWNMTTOGFAYCA,FTTUG OOWflY,DOI HID. IN TARTON Msk FH sN.l►L[Tlt[11s7tlTb.VAS rERTED IN IM ONION INVFfTOle6 F7�A/0 eLEAk r ALL uo+E AND OICIRIEMNCES. • gTED.�T�Nhft(1�MEM• . COOPER AVENUE MALL / 6 . C" d KLO&I NS,Ng1iYiMS,sa mM.OIOC![as AND M Col.6lOOC SS. WWA NOIe -049TNls1 uaC♦s.a nNrH NAM[Q 001r[[IIOUS[.UEY.'IMa•aI. - NDWKM}a 1 K ssT-eualse IMIy. SHEET 1. COVER SHEET SHEET FLOOR PLANS UNITS 1,2,3,4. SHEET 3. FLOOR PLANTS UNIT1 3.4.7.9. IHEET4. ELEWKWS rl NITICi•.�w,�rCY.�MN.r,u,wrM..w�wrNy.p.� � ' WAS AMENDED RED ONION CONDOMI'Ar�MS jolb rw w.MA+�+wwMw.rN.r..+,A.rwrw.r NM7[+C;ti .IIEaT ir♦ C � [IFFfN YrMl MNA�n,YMWw.rM4../MN4�YYi,�.w.r f.1 Mnr.W1M1w N,wMY,MMw11MY,n..wn PD�ONkE bl..�v Aeon,cek..e.OM i >�sQS aw i �u cx.ml I TL— L c.s.------------ >.� M CM.Itt GN IFt 41LN wnaruwT� I s cwvt t cN 1 ex ti 1 cNw 1 CNrO s; j1 w� I wusosuer s Pm or ttrr A' J 'i cxN CrIN 1 � _. 4N t7 cx Va IF I 1 1 is cxVr I �- set st r I 1 men '.. i _.1.1.... --uric... narar uwrz A I I I It E - # UNITi4 1 UNIT 2 UNIT I UNIT 1 N UNIT 2 GN}7 1 "r z Pm or uw 4. r 3r:: cNws I 1 c-rrs ixj= ji- r I 1 I j cs.as j I � % 1 4M.TO 1 exfot I � Is I 1 is ex w I 1 I 1 � I 1 � I � 1 � 1 x Um arse-nnoas w�.r L.4t.r0R.pm My I 4r4 N "� MA1M�M.MO rt A F. 'h. w I rt irs awz - tl FIRST FLOOR �p I SECOND FLOOR - EAST BA II SEMENT rr o rPs �••.� SAY$ D q•r41a• nw RED ONION CQNDDMINIUMS i uo ` •t�MC Yt.Y.YM1wi-u1.w��w 11NL'06.m". r�.Mr.w�w�.'��rw�rMMr M am im an ♦ ... L i �yps�Ogloc 47tH ;+ r ..w.�.w �W i I DECK L.C.I.UNITS 7 S S - fi I I I UNIT t C it 1� 11 j 1 All kra UNIT 7 II II 8 WOMEN JAN. MEN ' ----�------- II Its GARDEN (I (I LC.E.UNITS 3,4-6 NK:UANE L.C.E.UNITS 3,5-S INCLUSIVE 1 U UNIT 5 j 12 l i ii IL �J 1 Ij, T 5 uM ns m ' -, 1 II II I L__, • I I I f 5Y-`� ' jt L jl sil II II n a DECK L.C.E.UNITS 3 i S SECOND FLOOR- WEST NOTL: MOYiN UUM 000 CR[FlWPCMM W►LLS TO Ga CMM%TftWf O OpNittMVM Um"aI UNITS G-& rwalwawim7s MAVt Kim ssuia. �i/Imo.a• >ilrviyad NOV.-oc. TkM p NDED RED ONION COMD01AiNNJ113 Job No srzls �.r.wrrr...tirw.rw.awy+..ew. �Cft amtO Im�� �r Clot arts � .- a ♦ a • Nx'{ IEy> w _ , IN, MIANOWN AaTrf AIR SPACE FOR ADD,TWN TO UNIT I a c UNITS 5,6,7,6. UNIT 3 EE ni21I' l z 1` Y .f:J N• H�.M� i ` F 1 ` I UNIT = ;�}} , UMIT 4 UNIT•1 I .?SIP!r( UNIT 2 9a SECTION eA-A"e ' VIEW FROM COOPER AVENUE MAIL' UNIT I ' o Y'R3 SECTION 6-8 u , z 0 uj l �F UNIT 3 - a�`7 I I � t 4. L - t5 "4[.1St 1.10 - _ UNIT 2i r I ' A �E u 1 UNIT x UNIT [CAV.a rAe } OCIR[L[V471OM IM FIN�i[ MAi! ETED TO 7 W OE, SI0. 2' FE TSIO.[2 FIO Ell, IYIIIFI! YA•11 E.C.—E, Tl�at+ V rr i ",E • t y .zaa._ x)' r. 2 ,, ' �.} ""E I -� iee. E i=. AMENDED RED ONL , EE7 4 OF 4 5 E[ Tla �� I yy��YY�Y� {' y `M� f �e^V ��•�Mme,y. � •.•f `t. .� � `"�.�ny a ,_._.:. .,mot,.' •t 4 x r t^ t, _ r 1 I I Il7P�ytC ✓,I �� r _ r --:;)�'�-Tfi�-� �:_• � r,ut dpi; t ;r goo T. }'t "'�'. •'—�.+�.�...—.. JT,t�. I `d'•,Y• .,. 47- t;,'. T'- .itlr`• ''1r _• 'kr I, �'. t fig 'l CD k Z C s a 1 O is t ���4�'', ti` , ,`� i�,'��4 {M -,- \/ .��Ir n,..t'i � '• vat (��' �ii����• �• �f%.'��b,�, � \'i ✓ V�t�l. ftt. '.1 Y�'�r�<�' �a\\, t;� l y€ 1_ s'`ti j'Z. .. r �r h�✓`.,�s r ve�v:'� o ia'o9_�o ° •'6• ,D$;�.� •Sjvi%�'• a ` '. ell p° ,-� , ".+ c ••`$'".ace ° 48p4 4sPe ne a{:ir! ,.r•' 'r•�.:c�. ,y.. S 45N,wL 5 rF ,:. r.urP : {�. .�. M� .^lyA r�sp� r�o oi.e .Do.. o .o .. �.; 't+`N_1•R sof:: qq .SJ•.. o off`" �.v;.d� a�pk r'a i.r' .i•.' :••h:(ivi;.! ( .;5ff.< � ;'�°0 ^.J.r.dT.S"i�'•],• ,'M1 �t0.. �; 4 i'.' M .�.•�•, '.V ./ py' {�(y>�Q��1 ,Q�'¢`•��,. }a. 4 �s,, ( C,don' W. �J(i� Nt.• 5. p .V.•. i,' 'u,Y.' �,` .�'� rt•�tK•.:J :o°I:C •ak::a ��q,X ea,fe.b earl., Y•�G'q..,.5a•; ..r ter... •. .da •oe';^°p''r fir' +S' �.r�•]}'.S: .a? .•a :•,:.r• si 'd. •1'.5....•:. :� � "'v •°.PSf .b�+ .T':ca e^�'poko;?e>i�' �°�i -n.+•t+°a4^o� o'Ly. .� Y�ogotsR'(•: .rR:y ,fOrl ,� '+!u9 YYtt�- `.•i '� w:-.. �fi. o o '�b°g-r• li}t y�7�,,�o,r; e .e4�o<y t�._ '�` ,yyo°1 r. D s,, S� - < �i•"�frl,��•,. r!.��r• � d`s+}, ...,`.�.,•:.�' y� n n; -7.:. _ - ,.ep< "_°�..�Y,h>' c.4.i� -.>�� �S�'•+:.•, y �'�6t/, t vy-,,\-��:. ,;:q;' „Y: t' aq o 'e. . .a� �.1 •�'•'V'` t>r o .r ,w��c�NF.. .• Wciailvlq>„vq r �e,>�,�- 5 s�A;, ���• ,}'. :c i o- < ��. 'J.,,.�[•;?�iF, E •tlt�tiatetw;�owx..,.e,,._� F ..�.:. a ;$?. 4 0�t �,.A,• -i5t•;:v:?t - ^;t••• y -,;"�. ;y1 <, fib) r- LL F�'r, �;� �. .] v,:+.ao '1, vc ♦ .s r �1,4s µ o . r e �7R' r ',.�D� .a •� ..�i ':��. F4 r,T .1+�t•'5 �.{•,_ i y;,W i;i ,. to ''+s tSaokn,'t�•?�,rr c era�'Q.a°r1YP.• a a.,r J .•2 :� .e � h- � ,i,,. •�v4.^)-, f„r�,�y,: a. y,,� w, �:�'. +�.;..'3 .d i i:. f. � :r p :(1 • �,'1° r' •1 t.sl'•• ,d . . •Yfi NY .t 9a e,'E�-�.' ..:<g eY �p�,• e'r <`+ :d: n dr h. � a �'D^` .•,r�Y :.j .;} {A,�., d, f I ,t oryfT"���*:`� `.'4 .:M1 i 84f. ".�rn�'oy5[ .•b .:r :.ka..•i °es o'..n.s�• �, o ;`Ti ss"', .., •..:{ r}t�'•. C: ��.Y �9]ab r•�.g"L S• � S' ' .:� tip t1{'r �` s ',°i: F �� f.. 5 ' `t1..P� t .i.t �}, 'n`.•�ei`�e'o��'' i c: YDnt �n rope.'. � �`r.i - y�'l (;'. '•I ,� 1 �,��• `s{< •` fr>.,�A7:2 �•.o' .. �. ..t, ,lP ,�,, jxs1 5�, -^E � .. 1 � .fi�o<:, � 'ii �.:w.• �1F.� �!t-,. �'.eT��.r ''�,--' F:{3 ti'�s� a eeo„ rer' '�� rte. `,. �� Y is ;{,. �.. �u .L o. a •cP,e a ee o r7i, . 3 �..,i`.! T ,� .)t'p1•. } ` � . �-� :.> '�q, • •' ) 1•.-.. ) 1 ., f III � • ^ ro`X r •:rte., p� '� •fs• :.i.. '+.X1.r. Ai p 0o- d r ] �4.tR;.' a ,�Py� Fd;7 : t J -� .F t ?) ',�,( i..,�t�'• .f, p;\'>`¢'}y p, .,Yi,t d�6?rl'p• ie,.s,ice`. i'_ v YA yW. ^�t ? �r - 77-S �t' i yy ,n.,.'�.,{1!fl)),r j•'i,. p.� s4�Vv n,°}}`Q, t i, y} !. O ,;W ..[A :{. .�,'. )'r. 1]'S'1' V�r •;' y O 'J e0, 1�.i 's��'F f5�.:'�. `�. 'psr>, '� S6.: i!� -f': ] ., •Y�eyF' p 5 �ucop�y$ya,'i 1z, .,;� i i ,.�1��i1�a_.; ;l• .� ,� +ri i ��•tf t�: fed i' r{j:.-J+ �•��at'.°`��� v 'ci• �• L o :•:�. •s ' �y•JZ•:}y'4,ty °,p.� ss,� ° ° e ]o° °& '.i9 7'. .i �°v3 �} i.. ,', - �i' '•+r t • s'� r�r .. i � - t�5i'ti .?•^ef�'X�f�Y.L•�P��3l,ST `L �, a '•T,4>'.t„ - "•.»'•':51<. .S�S' J= •� f ,r F Y"Miren, YM'ri. t X'lt:,,�s. ..i7';� �>sy??'d)�a �O•�. �.t'yy J- t.,,+�'pr'; r �rr �-•ri4��!•}:+'"�J��p,s']�V O 9' ,{a' O° O 9 tl U t 9t•P' �, � Cr: E L-T avt ,>V, Jd .t'lft"n,...Y•.�. �q c ny 0 ��. P - :t Y 7 J{ �1�l..yi�i7t+;Vy�ja��•r°' S � �q�' qo o �° <' 'cl1 - P, O. '•i ,5^. O'•'�'+: S Gt �•`' V,srX):.� J4'i,1�,.,lDCysJO�� y °V O O 4 8 /O O P� L:i:tifi` o, v; fi:, :oLf.•, 'v} '4:J'?°•Sp.y,Pi''. {�,¢��p49 v t� y r�°o�v .r� ;: Y . .���'--L•�:F�- }, - v c-� t 2 - t;.�' - - ' �•� -�sd•`"��"rya e°�,�Qt s- 3�6 ° d v s a - �';���r S?O ♦�♦ .1,a• _ Y i o �O"f.9t �9 0 ) o P. •]QV •>�t�t v:i.f d�' T:�Cj''y.� ' ,CJ'P �•` - ( On6�•°a'p�[da 0�oar>P6° ?, a,° P 0- °j2o� pp), (�` .. "<P'i;' ]�.,Y` O 1I r � '->^TJ >t ..�JO�•C"P p O ° P ti, lar:,t t.+�•_ �Pp d v''B'4;•i'W tab 0] "�b .•elt:� { F :,-� l I - ;eS,T"F'f Ve.os °�•+p •J;:;n+; t. •r ,.o.• ?�.t 'b}...f �--.'�.y. , '.��_ vy ° '? '. - t - .'is°:•$tb$u�yL��°�a aP �+\fii 'd•_{.,�'',°:t [rr7- - �,,�, pT$ :rPt+> Owe^•yr• e•.t - �<\.��a -+,'". .4�, ',Tj::id��7.J'o ) y �5'c�,•�i°n�>.•��Sr.,•�>?. ��c.° °G _ �. r', , 1 r T: •< I n t!'r - 5,r :.s t a t "A z 41 AM i 'y 'w.4., to K> > m � s di:�,.•. :aa'-. � .K� �'-d*� ��� .i.r%^,ti t ... r o"'Y'��< �kp` `F`��. '•4 �Qr ii ^ e s .:as 'r� ..>FFo,?,;t•:-,.{'^-5.F�.{.r 4aT�+';e•[a:p• "', � �,•, M1 r<� �..t t t l rT�.�> F T� - e. �ic4 i t '�i� K..�i`r.., .`,'8,'f. (r�0- '�. .t._ ':�•, ��c�P!' - .k � r� �:i. _ - TtL_ .' t e.. �.. >) .9°'• r+' ,Y:.. ,r c�d : �L���$ j.-i'o's ,'t _ .' I'•,.' +'. y L.�. .e'. vL n 1.:t a'>•'-.'� "�i `Fj,.. ,P '.'Tn kq • q� re.;..• .1N. .LLr '-o>�,� '"r +�r3 r�'•' t''a+,°'' � lr;�.�stt .D, o �'..✓ 'F '"X+:+.S:•+T' Sai• J •';\. .ai. ,ar M.. o°,ss,.foSedtP<k,n .�4'e�t ]. s ._'. .F x '?� Dpc.e• )r a .. Mk- St• �Sl!• =v. t •f ,]P "i tea• 'L 'T aG.o �. i.tti Jt,J..S. 'r. tr, .� I •:r: � e O D°•5e 6S,�AD �}� 4 At:� } (• x Y 1, 8. r 'ifs'. •:s- 'T' 1 �5 J� di,`R o ;c-a•`s.'t•:' .'r' Y•Y ��. e'rt �� � P;. r r tr.. �>4. � ,°� w ,:tt,.,•.Se.l '.'ai'ka.7't>v ..'� , Jam/):.,: , '.t��- ���.1.�r{�{,( Jr`.'r•r ��t :.d+. ff � S^<.bY a. .h� .) _ at ':� _y• r: .:• --tt .. ,.. .. :-1°• .-,i 5`.>• •:. � �� ` - :d � .c� :jai rb, •'�.}l ';C}'. . o's; .,Y; vp..-. .E. L .:4 -.< .5 �.�, so t o� f:. s:r.Jt't•4.a J J �� X•.•F• t• ;5:b•a.'T 3•r �r , d .�'• ) ter. r.'' .-rt. • c t t i•.. tid i (�°� _ r f ••l1 r.•M1•..tl. .•l�• .•.i.v 3. -J, � r r,. •4 S •t r.• ?�Y. r r5 .j.. i`ti' :L•d'<:`r. ,;r•�. - l�fp f r.� I- r 1 �.,,aty!•}�,Y t .t.:�•l� 4t> � J C, ,n•1` 1. .< C ) li .1.:..Y•,.(�,, 1. r 1: 3';3,4' , i v r - .c ..p.- , w k: 4t j:. .-_... .�7-�M1gyt .:`•.'..ei:• � :^ ..:•_#F-'- -f�. �:� '�' }c. .. _ > d _ PS�°y [f- rt •. c.ys,rg. :s.,a , �. ,, ., r-'.�`. .. �..to-,?'.•Jkri 1. `' t .y'�� !:` 1�dr..>v� >.. .: �. c ,•;:r 1 J .- .. l .. ,.,`.� F, r7. .... .r.. ;/� > ., ". ! � •� oa ,•.d^.Y'l�'. . �, r'. �o ',S c si ,. 1,�..... .. a.,. _] q.pp o. .. ..�.. '-. .qtr, ••.-�,... ..,•. .�. �k .+ a r. 6 •r ¢ - $d ., A .� .:-..K.?`C ...t. -.5• :,,,, •f'rt .- .qa�c+-1� .. :.,J r. f. _r.- T. y d, >i .p `>{,<P s`.:,:l ti.3 .i� f •mfr. rkt - - :�01_'KdaW ��:-' :l F 1 -.L.• i.-' >�•a' � •. _ •o. _�dd -Rt Y• •Y i �•iia'F�4;' E: J\ :..� � S�``yM.' t�� r r \`r. a c� `"� 3 Y3�}••id�:3-`l'°''O`��... -.�}�}1 c K.y�"•'•S j+d5dm;�'g t YFrr.'.'.'t'{Yyft.Li�V'r'.:'',i k.}`f�' *£/I!P F w'r?e,>,-�A,�.•�*f'1�•'�°.S"1`i t S _ .X,.,R rA`.li',tr•e"i•']t +�dJy^,yi�.1j..-ly��T�,+�:.Y.y'ly-`�y'�`K.�•='�`�'+'yrr k'r 4 1,r i 1,J-•.°t 3F!k'�Ft'.'. -•E`,yb•v y.0>r'-...ti_t:,-c e�7�J'y1,t,':.<..i l--.a tE r^.r.t,*t'r� �-:�.... .... J V\'r•t.�y.a_s�!✓t1 y,°�o`�a� , e 5 d ' j 4j ., -a. •e r 1 'n ✓" .K 4 t - S`_'f` 1 , .I' < ` I' •,U t i' Y +';rR JJ J�:- F R`•ny����t�,,y�r�,�� ..e,.. W� r r•y'. F;"<'d"�.14F,S�u6D.�i��rra3�°t�t" o�_ •. 'L ".ft,�,.. • �. ..t7. s�ro -'`•�. ••' J �r 5. i S�. y et��d•�,�,�t� '1=�1:.'iTr1�""�u1-n. .-�p�r 'sfi„ �•.�" '�'r>-!s dr r -p. >r- � -, � p• ,.r. M1..4�}'#�✓-"_'l�"i, i rr,n'�.•..i, { '-.ai. -F.{��,,{� � �.r •1",t�k•+�'u re i'. ¢ •A �••• rt .�. }{�frf;•.-:.:v'�'+ .-�.c. 4 C r.^•'1- S_ - r-1'1`4- w.>,,f' }`� k �.• �4���� ��,. ' � kb S J. Y: '.. •w.- - 'a�I•. �t' p ��K'.�• .t•>� '�s' ',r'A :,4s:gY�• "¢n,•,•; yr �,1a °: r. r-• r .4`:=•L': .�. =4%' •r .,+ ��� �t�• ,`,� ;�.,��. )•�yl' =, ..X �,ryn,,��vF� .r' Yt� >a � �?. ti!t3 ,�'t.dl�� . _ �. , y`Asap- r•s.•;,�`a e;`� ^.�3T•l� v .;•t .Ti' •.i ` � �'�-` .853?; ' ��+ 'kt� `�": 'r�erJa•r�U.sa.�> . ,- _'. ,� u.1�`� �L1r ',y�j-`�,,ti`;;i'"•5� N��.r,'� [�v`�,,. :,:.iii•' r �" t ' :rr� ;•b� ";:.,w. � 'r ,r `A� �j >... 4 � a �i•-� T.-L,�c�' c u�i,�Hirr}'„-r .P,. =��A, _ '� f .''fir Jid -�' t 1 �a K- BJCil P* (• ,.; '+r 'ti; � it -� : .. .... t ,��+ a `T?'<�>'..r + � k., t. M1 t, •uY".cy�I�.{`•4,A �lr?:�t'!"��r"iS a ��i�};� v nc6 i .' '�. '. :> :;. ,,..:."•.,. �' N ... .`. .' c ': •��c`5a- a. �n r>, .4 c ._.. .`.._:.•..ei•... .a..a ���i:ii•iY6.•-. ,.r:.a , _ .>, ��>''',a, �3°E ., rt s .., r .i.c w •Vic_ ::._.;��' .:W ,. t.. >'a 4 ,.Sy$}yt+ .r: q�..� F t !1 -,: ..4I;. ! _ v s, s#r , f t X11 9 i Mgr.{h eb`�,�. '. s .�`eia,� �- A Ny '^�T {+.:.:, -uu•�r, r'- J rc.'.a-t a, .+`l:'. l ��' 17 4 0#M�q ':..T, .?d i,tt•S" rS�i . _ - ... W.-, `...+ +�-.yG,�r!,l o- Attachment 5 PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS, 3rd Floor ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 970-925-1766 1 970-925-6527 FAX October 8,2008 GARFIELD&HECHT 601 E. HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 ATTN: ROBIN i RE: UNITS 1-8, RED ONION CONDOS -- PCT21730L Pitkin County Title, Inc. is pleased to provide you with the owners policy along with the following endorsements relative to the above mentioned file: Endorsement Form Endorsement Form Endorsement Form Endorsement Form Endorsement Form Endorsement Form Please review the policy in its entirety. We at Pitkin County Title, Inc. believe in providing you,our customer, with a quality product which will serve your needs. In the event you do find a discrepancy, or if you have any questions or comments regarding your final policy, please contact us and we will gladly handle any request you may have as efficiently and quickly as possible. We have assigned the above number to your records to assure prompt processing of future title orders involving the property. If you sell or obtain a loan on this property within 5 years,ask your broker or agent to contact our office to ensure re-issue rates which may be available to you. Thank you very much for giving Pitkin County Title, Inc. the opportunity to serve you. Sincerely, I I. I .--------------— CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS 1. DEFINITION OF TERMS. and expressly reserves the right,in its sole discretion,to appeal from any adverse W The following terms when used in this policy mean: judgment or order. (a) 'insured':the insured named in Schedule A,and,subject to any rights (d) in all cases where this policy permits or requires the Company to or defenses the Company would have had against the named Insured,those who prosecute or provide for the,defense of any action or proceeding,the insured shall succeed to the interest of the named Insured by operation of law as distinguished secure to the Company the right to so prosecute or provide defense In the action from purchase including,but riot limited to,heirs,distributees,devisees,survivors, or proceeding, and all appeals therein, and permit the Company to use, at its personal representatives,next of kin,or corporate or fiduciary successors. option,the name of the insured for this purpose. Whenever requested by the (b) "insured claunant':an insured claiming loss or damage. Company, the insured, at the Companys expense, shag give the Company all (c) 'knowledge"or"known%actual knowledge,not fictive knowledge reasonable aid (I) In any action or proceeding, securing evidence, obtaining or notice which may be Imputed to an Insured by reason of the public records as witnesses, prosecuting or defending the action or proceeding, or effecting defined in this policy or any other records which impart constructive notice of settlement,and(I)in any other lawful act which in the opinion of the Company matters affecting the land. may be necessary or desirable to establish the title to the estate or Interest as (d) 'land": the land described or referred to in Schedule A, and Insured. If the Company Is prejudiced by the failure of the Insured to furnish the improvements aflbced thereto which by law constitute real property. The term required cooperation,the Company's obligations to the insured under the policy 'land'does not include any property beyond the lines of the area described or shall terminate, including any liability or obligation to defend, prosecute, or aw referred to in Schedule A, nor any right, title, interest, estate or easement in continue any litigation, with regard to the matter or matters requiring such abutting streets, roads, avenues, alleys,lanes,ways or waterways, but nothing cooperation. herein shall modify or Omit the extent to which a right of access to and from the µ land Is insured by this policy. S. PROOF OF LOSS OR DAMAGE. (e) 'mortgage": mortgage, deed of trust, trust deed, or other security In addition to and after the notices required under Section 3 of these Instrument. Conditions and Stipulations have been provided the Company,a proof of loss or No (f) 'public records': records established under state statutes at Date of damage signed and sworn to by the insured claimant shall be furnished to the Policy for the purpose of imparting constructive notice of matters relating to real Company within 90 days after the insured claimant shall ascertain the facts giving r ,; property to purchasers for value and without knowledge. With respect to Section rise to the loss or damage. The proof of loss or damage shall describe the defect 1(a)(rv) of the Exclusions From Coverage, 'public records' shall also include in, or lien or encumbrance on the tide, or other matter insured against by this environmental protection liens fled In the records of the clerk of the United States . policy which constitutes the basis of loss or damage and shall state,to the extent 4* district court for the district in which the land is located. possible, the basis of calculating the amount of the loss or damage. If the (g) 'unmarketabilityi of the fide":an alleged or apparent matter affecting the Company is prejudiced by the failure of the insured claimant to provide the title to the land, not excluded or excepted from coverage,which would entitle a required proof of loss or damage,the Companys obligations to the insured under purchaser of the estate or interest described In Schedule A to be released from the poricy shall terminate,Including any liability or obligation to defend,prosecute, the obligation to purchase by virtue of a contractual condition requiring the delivery or continue any litigation,with regard to the matter or matters requiring such proof of marketable tide, of loss or damage. In addition,the insured claimant may reasonably be required to submit to 2. CONTINUATION OF INSURANCE AFTER CONVEYANCE OF TITLE examination under oath by any authorized representative of the Company and ' The coverage of this policy shall continue in force as of Date of Policy in shall produce for examination,inspection and copying,at such reasonable times favor of an insured only so long as the insured retains an estate or interest In the and places as may be designated by any authorized representative of the land,or holds an indebtedness secured by a purchase money mortgage given by Company,all records,books,ledgers,checks,.correspondence and memoranda a purchaser from the insured,or only so long as the insured shall have liability by whether bearing a date before or after Date of Policy,which reasonably pertain tc reason of covenants of warranty made by the insured in any transfer or the loss or damage. Further,if requested by any authorized representative of the ' conveyance of the estate or Interest This policy shall not continue in force In Company, the Insured claimant shall grant its permission, in writing, for any 1 favor of any purchaser from the insured of either()an estate or interest in the authorized representative of the Company to examine, Inspect and copy al 0P land,or Oil an indebtedness secured by a purchase money mortgage given to the records,books,ledgers,checks,correspondence and memoranda in the custody insured. or control of a third party,which reasonably pertain to the loss or damage. Al Information designated as confidential by the insured claimant provided to the to 3. NOTICE OF CLAIM TO BE GIVEN BY INSURED CLAIMANT. Company pursuant to this Section shall not be disclosed to others unless,in the The insured shall notify the Company promptly in writing 6) in case of any reasonable judgment of the Company,it is necessary In the administration of the litigation as set forth in Section 4(a)below,(ii)in case knowledge shall come to an claim. Failure of the insured claimant to submit for examination under oath insured hereunder of any claim of title or interest which is adverse to the title to the produce other reasonably requested information or grant permission to secure estate or interest,as insured,and which might cause lass or damage for which the reasonably necessary information from third parties as required in this paragraph «ia. Company may be liable by virtue of this policy, or (lit) If tide to the estate or shall terminate any liability of the Company under this policy as to that claim, interest, as Insured,is rejected as unmarketable. If prompt notice shall not be I. given to the Company, then as to the insured all liability of the Company shall 6. OPTIONS TO PAY OR OTHERWISE SETTLE CLAIMS;TERMINATION OF Or terminate with regard to the matter or matters for which prompt notice is required: LIABILiTY• provided,however,that failure to notify the Company shall in no case prejudice In case of a claim under this policy,the Company shall have the followin5 the rights of any Insured under this policy unless the Company shall be prejudiced additional options: 1 by the failure and then only to the extent of the prejudice. (a) To Pay or Tender Payment of the Amount of Insurance. To pay or tender payment of the amount of insurance under this policy tip 4. DEFENSE AND PROSECUTION OF ACTIONS; DUTY OF INSURED together with any costs, attorneys'fees and expenses incurred by the insurec CLAIMANT TO COOPERATE. claimant,which were authorized by the Company,up to the time of payment oc (a) Upon mitten request by the insured and subject to the options tender of payment and which the Company is obligated to pay. contained in Section 6 of these Conditions and Stipulations,the Company,at its Upon the exercise by the Company of this option, all liability anc , own cost and without unreasonable delay, shall provide for the defense of an obligations to the Insured under this policy, other than to make the paymer Insured in litigation in which any third party asserts a claim adverse to the titre or required,shall terminate,including any Debility or obligation to defend,prosecute interest as insured,but only as to those stated causes of action alleging a defect, or continue any litigation,and the policy shall be surrendered to the Company foi lien or encumbrance or other matter insured against by this policy. The Company cancellation. shall have the right to select counsel of its choice (subject to the right of the (b) To Pay or Otherwise Settle With Parties Other than the Insured or With Insured to object for reasonable cause)to represent the insured as to those stated the Insured Claimant lw causes of action and shall not be liable for and will not pay the fees of any other () to pay or otherwise settle with other parties for or in the name o counsel. The Company wilt not pay any fees,costs or expenses incurred by the an insured claimant any claim insured against under this policy,together with any insured in the defense of those causes of action which allege matters not insured costs,attorneys'fees and expenses incurred by the insured claimant which were by this policy. authorized by the Company up to the time of payment and which the Company it (b) The Company shall have the right, at its own cost, to institute and obligated to pay:or prosecute any action or proceeding or to do any other act which in its opinion may () to pay or otherwise settle with the Insured claimant the loss o dw be necessary or desirable to establish the tide to the estate or Interest,as Insured, damage provided for under this policy,together with any costs,attomeys'fees anc or to prevent or reduce loss or damage to the insured. The Company may take expenses incurred by the insured claimant which were authorized by the any appropriate action under the terms of this policy,whether or not it shall be Company up to the time of payment and which the Company is obligated to pay. liable hereunder,and shall not thereby concede liability or waive any provision of Upon the exercise by the Company of either of the options provided for it this policy. if the Company shall exercise its rights under this paragraph,it shaD paragraphs(b){)or(ill,the Company's obligations to the insured under this policy ' do so diligently. for the claimed loss or damage,other than the payments required to be made (c) Whenever the Company shall have brought an action or interposed a shall terminate, including any liability or obligation to defend, prosecute o defense as required or permitted by the provisions of this policy,the Company continue any litigation. may pursue any litigation to final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction .......... ...-... +^� GiTY rah iii rte; DATE REP NO. DATE REP NO. WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: j Natasha Saypol,Esq. 831 South Milwaukee Street Denver,Colorado 80209 WARRANTY DEED i THIS DEED, effectivc as -of the 300` day of November, 2007, between GLENROY PARTNERS, a California partnership, GRANTOR, and AVH ONION VENTURES II LLC,a Colorado limited liability company,whose legal address is:601 E.Hyman Avenue,Aspen,Colorado 81611,GRANTEE: WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of an undivided 18.81% interest (defined herein as "Grantor's Interest") in and to all the real property("Property")together with improvements, if any, situate, lying and being in the County of PITKIN,State of COLORADO,described as follows: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference for legal description of the Prope TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the estate,right,title,interest,claim and demand whatsoever of the Grantor either in law or equity,of,in and to the above bargained premises,with the hereditaments and appurtenances; WITNESSETH, That the Grantor,for and in consideration of the sum of TEN DOLLARS and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has granted; bargained,sold and conveyed,and by these presents does grant,bargain,sell and convey and confirm unto: the Grantee its successors and assigns forever, an undivided 3.6% of Grantor's Interest in the Property' WITNESSETH, That Grantee shall own its respective undivided percentage interest in the Property, as described above,as a tenant in common; TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described,with the appurtenances,unto the Grantee, its heirs and assigns forever. And the Grantor, for itself, its heirs and assigns,does covenant, grant,bargain,and agree to and with the Grantee,its heirs and assigns,that at the time of the ensealing and delivery of the presents, Grantor is well seized of the premises above conveyed, has good, sure,perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple, and has good right, full power and lawful authority to grant,bargain,sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid, and that the j same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments, F. encumbrances and restrictions of whatever kind or nature whatsoever,except taxes for the year 2007,now a lien,but not yet due or payable,and all subsequent years not yet due or payable and all matters of record with the Pitkin County Clerk&Recorder. The Grantor shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the Grantee,its heirs and assigns,against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any part thereof.The singular number shall include the plural,the plural the singular,and the use of gender shall be applicable to all genders. I: 1 y03i2007 at i RECEPTION#: 544580, s 03:36:28 PM, 1 OF 3. R $16.00 DF $19.14 Doc Code WD .ianice K.VOS Caudill,Pitkin County,CO I i y. SCHEDULE A-OWNER'S POLICY CASE NUMBER DATE OF POLICY AMOUNT OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER i PCT21730L December 3,2007 @ 3:37 PM $899,701.00 A75-Z122079 1. NAME OF INSURED: NH ONION VENTURES II LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AN UNDIVIDED 12.31% I NTEREST AN D AVH ONION VENTURES II LLC,A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,AN UNDIVIDED 3.6% INTEREST AND ' RG ONION VENTURES II LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AN UNDIVIDED 2.9% INTEREST 2. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREIN AND WHICH IS COVERED BY THIS POLICY IS: IN FEE SIMPLE 3. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST REFERRED TO HEREIN IS AT DATE OF POLICY VESTED IN: , NH ONION VENTURES Il LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AN UNDIVIDED 12.31% I NTEREST AND AVH OINION VENTURES If LLC,A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,AN UNDIVIDED 3.6% ° INTEREST AND RG ONION VENTURES 11 LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,AN UNIDIVIDED 2.9% INTEREST IVA 4. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS POLICY IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ' See Attached Exhibit"A" Countersigned: Authorized officer r agent PITKIN COUNTY TITLE,INC. 601 E.HOPKINS AVE. ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 (970)925-1766/(970)-925-6527 FAX THE POLICY NUMBER SHOWN ON THIS SCHEDULE MUST AGREE WITH THE PREPRINTED NUMBER ON THE COVER SHEET. i SCHEDULE B-OWNERS f CASE NUMBER DATE OF POLICY POLICY NUMBER PCT21730L December 3, 2007 cQ 3:37 PM A75-Z122079 i THIS POLICY DOES NOT INSURE AGAINST LOSS OR DAMAGE BY REASON OF THE FOLLOWING: 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. Discrepancies,conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments,any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are 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. Water rights, claims or title to water. 6. Taxes and assessments(not including condominium or homeowners association assessments or dues)for the year 2007 and subsequent years only,a lien not yet due and payable. 7. Reservation of all ores and mineral bearing rock,and so much of the said lot beneath its surface as may be necessary for mining purposes as set forth in Deed recorded June 16, 1891 in Book 93 at Page 167. S. Easement and right of way for Party Wall as set forth in instrument recorded August 22, 1956 in Book 174 at Page = 445. 9. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Notice of Historic Designation recorded January 13, 1975 in Book 295 at Page 515. 10. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Covenants recorded March 2, 1981 in Book 404 at Page 939. (Affects Unit 3 only) 11. Terms, conditions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Statement of Exception from the Full Subdivision Process recorded March 2, 1981 in Book 404 at Page 937. j. 12. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Covenant recorded February 16, 1984 in Book 461 at Page 192. 13. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations, easements, restrictions and assessments as set forth in the Condominium Declaration for Red Onion Condominiums recorded March 14, 1984 in Book 462 at Page 980 and First Amendment thereto recorded November 17, 1998 as Reception No. 424568 and Statement of Correction Regarding First Amendment recorded July 11,2007 as Reception No. 539781, deleting therefrom any restrictions indicating preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap,familial status or national origin. 14. Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Plat of subject property recorded in Plat Book 11 at Page 15 and Plat Book 15 at Page 94. 15. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation of Red Onion Condominium Association recorded March 14, 1987 in Book 463 at Page 18. i 1= (Continued) I CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS (Continued) 7. DETERMINATION,EXTENT OF LIABILITY AND COINSURANCE. (b) When liability and the extent of loss or damage has been definitely fixed This policy is a contract of Indemnity against actual monetary loss or damage in accordance with these Conditions and Stipulations,the'loss or damage shall be , sustained or incurred by the insured claimant who has suffered loss or damage by payable within 30 days thereafter. reason of matters Insured aganst by this policy and only to the extent herein 13. SUBROGATION in Cmpany's R Right of Subrogation CEMENT. described. (a) The liability of the Company under this policy shall not exceed the(east all right f subrogation shag vest!in the Company unaffected by any act oflthe of insured claimant n the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A;or, (li) the difference between the value of the insured estate or which theC nsured claimant wouldathave had against!any persona ornproperty in Interest as insured and the value of the insured estate or interest subject to the respect to the claim had this policy not been issued. if requested by the Company, �.. defect,lien or encumbrance insured against I this policy. the insured claimant shall transfer to the Company all rights and remedies against (b) In the event the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A at the Date of any person or property necessary in order to parted this right of subrogation.The Policy is less than So percent of the value of the Insured estate or interest or the full insured claimant shall permit the Company to sue,compromise or settle in the name consideration paid for the land,whichever is less,or If subsequent to the Date of of the insured claimant and to use the name of the insured claimant in any Policy an improvement is erected on the land which increases the value of the transaction or litigation involving these rights or remedies. insured estate or interest by at least 20 percent over the Amount of Insurance stated if payment on account of a claim does not fully cover the loss of the insured ` in Schedule A,then this Policy is subject to the following: claimant, the Company shall be subrogated to these rights and remedies in the 0) where no subsequent improvement has been made,as to any proportion which the Company's payment bears to the whole amount of the loss. partial loss,the Company shall only pay the loss pro rata in the proportion that If loss should result from any act of the insured claimant,as stated above,that the amount of Insurance at Date of Poky bears to the total value of the act shall not void this policy,but the Company,in that event,shall be required to pay insured estate or interest at Date of Policy; or only that part of any losses insured against b by n this which shall by the en died 'the (ii) where a subsequent improvement has been made, as to any amount, ff any,lost to the Company y partial loss,the Company shall only pay the loss pro rata in the proportion that claimant°The Company's iRight Against a Non-Insured Obligors. 120 percent of the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A bears to the sum 7roh)e Company's right of subroation against non-insured obligors shah exist of the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A and the amount expended for and shall Include, without limitation, the rights of the insured to indemnities, the improvement. guaranties, other policies of Insurance or bonds, notwithstanding any terms or The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to costs,attorneys'fees and conditions contained in those instruments which provide for subrogation rights by expenses for which the Company is liable under this policy,and shall only apply to reason of this policy. that portion of any loss which exceeds,in the aggregate,10 percent of the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A. 14. ARBITRATION. (c) The Company WN pay only those costs, attorneys'fees and expenses Unless prohibited by applicable law, either the Company or the insured may incurred in accordance with Section 4 of these Conditions and Stipulations. demand arbitration pursuant to the Title Insurance Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association. Arbitrable matters may Include,but are not limited to,any 8. APPORTIONMENT, controversy or claim between the Company and the insured arising out of or relating If the land described in Schedule A consists of two or more parcels which are to this policy,any service of the Company in connection with its issuance or the not used as a single site, and a loss is established affecting one or more of the breach of a policy provision or other obligation. All arbitrable matters when the parcels but not ail,the loss shall be computed and settled on a pro rata basis as if Amount of insurance is$1.000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the amount of insurance under this policy was divided pro rata as to the value on the Company or the Insured. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of Insurance Is Date of Policy of each separate parcel to the whole,exclusive of any improvements in excess of $1,000,000 shall be arbitrated only when agreed to by both the made subsequent to Date of Policy,unless a liability or value has otherwise been Company and the insured.Arbitration pursuant to this polloy and under the Rules in agreed upon as to each parcel by the Company and the insured at the time of the effect on the date the demand for arbitration is made or,at the option of the insured, issuance of this policy and shown by an express statement or by an endorsement the Rules in effect at Date of Policy shall be binding upon the parties.The award attached to this policy. may include attorneys'fees only if the laws of the state in which the land is located permit a court to award attorneys'fees to a prevailing party,Judgment upon the 9. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. award rendered by the Arbitrator(s)may be entered in any court having Jurisdiction (a) If the Company establishes the title,or removes the alleged defect,lien thereof. or encumbrance,or cures the lack of a right of access to or from the land,or cures The law of the s-dus of the land shall apply to an arbitration under the Title the claim of unmarketability of title,all as insured,In a reasonably diligent manner Insurance Arbitration Rules. by any method,including litigation and the completion of any appeals therefrom,it A copy of the Rules may be obtained from the Company upon request shall have fully performed its obligations with respect to that matter and shall not be liable for any loss or damage caused thereby. 1g• LIABILITY LIMITED TO THIS POLICY;POLICY ENTIRE CONTRACT. (b) in the event of any litigation,including litigation by the Company or with (a) This policy together with all endorsements,ff any,attached hereto by the the Company's consent,the Company shall have no liability for loss or damage until Company is the entire policy and contract between the insured and the Company. there has been a final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction, and in interpreting any provison of this policy,this policy shall be construed as a whole. disposition of all appeals therefrom,adverse to the title as insured. (b) Any claim of loss xx damage,whether or not based on negligence,and (c) The Company shall not be liable for loss or damage to any insured for which arises out of the status of the tide to the estate or Interest covered hereby or liability voluntarily assumed by the insured in settling any claim or suit without the by an y action asserting such claim,shah be restricted to this policy. prior written consent of the Company. (c) No amendment of or endorsement to this policy can be made except a tl by 10. REDUCTION OF INSURANCE; REDUCTION OR TERMINATION OF wnng endorsed hereon or attached hereto signed by either the President,a Vito President,the Secretary,an Assistant Secretary,or validating officer or authorized LIABILITY, signatory of the Company. All payments under this policy, except payments made for costs, attomeys' fees and expenses,shall reduce the amount of the insurance pro tanto. 16. SEVERABILITY. In the event any provision of the policy is held invalid or unenforceable under 11. LIABILITY NONCUMULATiVE. applicable law,the policy shall be deemed not to include that provision and all other It is expressly understood that the amount of insurance under this policy shall provisions shall remain in full force and effect. be reduced by any amount the Company may pay under any policy insuring a mortgage to which exception is taken in Schedule B or to which the insured has 17, NOTICES,WHERE SENT. agreed, assumed,or taken subject,or which is hereafter executed by an Insured All notices required to be given the Company and any statement in writing and which is a charge or Non on the estate or Interest described or referred to In required to be furnished the Company shall Include the number of this policy Schedule A,and the amount so paid shall be deemed a payment under this policy and shall be addressed to: Consumer Affairs Department, P.O. Box 27567, to the insured owner. Richmond,Virginia 23261-7567. ' 12. PAYMENT OF LOSS. (a) No payment shall be made without producing this policy for endorsement of the payment unless the policy has been lost or destroyed,in which case proof of loss or destruction shall be furnished to the satisfaction of the Company. PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS,3rd Floor ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 970-925-1766 ( 970-925-6527 FAX February%2006 NATASHA SAYPOL 1620 PLATTE_STREET,APT.325 DENVER,CO 60202 AT('N: RE:UNIT 4, RED ONION -- P01-20 194L4 Pitkin County Title, Inc,is pleased to provide you with the owners policy along with the following endorsements relative to the above mentioned file: Endorsement Form Endorsement Form Endorsement Form Endorsement Form Endorsement Form Endorsement Form Please review the policy in its entirety. We at Pitkin County Title, Inc believe in providing you,our customer,with a quality product which will serve your needs. In tho event you do find a discrepancy.or if you have any questions or comments regarding your final policy,please contact us and we will gladly handle any request you may have as efficiently and quickly as possible, We have assigned the above number to your rmoeds to assure prompt processing of future title orders involving the property. if you sell or obtain a loan on this property within 5 years,ask your broker or agent to contact our office to ensure re-Issue rates which may be available to you. Thank you very much for giving Pitkin County Title,Inc. the opportunity to serve you. Sincerely, Vincent J.111gens President Vh ' i Enclosures: I r i 1 t i s S 5 7 i i t i ItECORD1NO REQUPSTED BY: WJIEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Nawba saypol 1620 Platte Streat,Apt,325 I � III III 1111111 526554 t Denver Colaradu 80202 If II��l���f 07/77/'le0p 02: 81 J K VOS CnUD1GL DM(W COUNTY Co it a 00 tt M9_yp AARCAIN ANT)SALK BE)1 D THIS DEED,of cetivc as of the 14'"day ofJuly,2006,between PITKIN EXCHANGE HOLDINGS ONE LLC,a Colorado limited liability company,whose legal address is:clo Joy S.Iligeas,601 East Hopkins Avenue,3r°Floor, Aspen,Colorado 81611,GRANTOR,mtd AP RT 29,L1LC,a Maryland limlled liability contp-.my,whose legal address is: do Garfield A llechl PC,641 Gast 11yinan Avenuc,Aspen,Colorado 81611,GRANTEE wrrmssFin-1,That the grantor sells and conveys to grantee,its heirs and assilpis forever,all the real property together with all its appurtmaaces,situate and lying and being in the County of PITKIN.Stnto of COLORADO,described as follows: UNIT 4. RED ONION CONDOM1NrUMS,according to the Condominium Map recorded in Plat Book 15 at Pages 94.91 and as defined trod described in the Condominium Declaration rccordecl March 14, 1984 to Book 462 at Pago 980. TOCiETIIER WITH any applicable limited Common L•lamcnt3 and an uttdividad 33.51°10 'stttorest in the Common Elements and as defined in the aforesaid Condominium Declaration. e IN Wr IVESS WITEREOF the{cantor has executed thin deed. PITKIN EXCHANGE HOLDINGS ONE LLC:,a Colorado limited liahility Company t3y:alKIN E7tCiIANf 1:,INC.,a Cototado corporatian,Man.=gcr 13Y Joy S.Iligcn President '• S'fATE OF C WRADO } t ss i COUNT-Y OF P11KIN ) The foregoing instrument was aoknowlodged Wore me this jq day of July,2406,by toy S.Higens,President of PITKIN EXCHANGE,INC.,a Colorado corporation,Manager ofP1TECIN pXCHANGE HtJi-U11�IGS ONE LLC,a Colorado limited liability company u ON- wrrNFSs my hand and off seal public My commission oxpirva: i g�ndl L.Jepson!Notary publle t MY Cornrnlssion ,pires 0112512008 EkANDi L, t 001E Hopkins .i N EpSOM f pagan-co 81f3l1 s C).L =l•1Q?J� PS:1.C3 �Illl CiG1 J � i i SCHEDULE A-QWNER'S POLICY i CASE NUMBER DATE OF POLICY AMOUNT OF INSURANCE" POLICY NUMBER PCT201941.4 ,July 17,2006 @ 2:59 PM $4,495,000.00 A75-2009720 ;t 1 NAME OF INSURED: AP RT 29, LL(-,,A MARYLAND LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 2. FHE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREIN AND WHICH IS COVERED 13Y THIS POLICY is: IN FEE SIMPLE 3. 1 HE<=STATE OR INTEREST REFERRED TO HEREIN 13 AT DATE OF POLICYVESTED IN; AP RT 29, LLC.A MARYLAND LIMITED LIASILJ FY COMPANY 4. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS POLICY.IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY or PITKIN,STATE OF COLORADO AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. UNIT4. RED ONION CONDOMINIUMS, according to the Condominium Map recorded in Plat Book 15 at Pages 94-97 and as dofinod and described in the Condominium Declaration recorded March 14, 1984 in Gook 462 at Page 980• TOGETHER WITH any applicable Urrlited Common Elements and and undivided 33.51%interest in the Common Elements and as defined in the aforesaid Condominium Declaration, m i i Countersigned: Authotizod officer or agent j PIT1%1N COUNT Y TITI.F-,INC_ 081 E.HOPKINS." . ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 E (.970)'325-17681(970).92"627 FAX r fTI IE P01 ICY NUNDER SHOWN ON TMS SCHEDULE MV5T AG13EF WITH THE PREPRINTED NUMF3ER ON THE COVER 51 ILET. ct ,J t�t_agr5cGC1LGl U1 t4C6'1.a : ':li_i Ji..iw'�-Gtr 1:1-1-I rk= POLICY NO. A75-ZO69720 CASE NO. PC1-201941-4 SCHEDULE S-OWNERS --EXCEPTIONS--CONTINUED-- 15. Deed of Tnist frorn ;Pitkin Exchange Holdings Ono,LLC,Andrew V.Hecht,Nikos J Hecht and Donald Garfield To the Public Trustee of the County of PITKIN For the use of :U.S.SANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Original Amount :$3,200,000.00 Bated :March 30,2006 Recorded :March 31.2006 Reception No.' :522460 EXCEPTIONS NUMBERED 1,2,3 Amn 4 ARE I-IEREBY DFl.FTED OW • i I i g• t?c�tJ i;t�Z6l 0.1 :wLvrJJ ?.1 !_ 3r; Gki-�1�-1 Attachment 6 Nikos Hecht, Managing Member Red Onion Investors, Inc. c/o Andrew V. Hecht, Esq. 601 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, CO 816111 Tel: 970-925-1936 17 April 2012 Ms.Sara Adams Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena St., 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Ms. Adams: This letter is to certify that I, Nikos Hecht, Managing Member of Red Onion Investors, Inc., owner of the property located at 420 E. Cooper, Avenue, Aspen, Colorado, give Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. and its staff permission to represent us in discussions with the City of Aspen regarding applications for the this property. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me. Their contact information is as follows: Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA Stan Clauson Associates, Inc 412 N. Mill Street Aspen, CO 81611 Tel (970)925-2323 Fax (970)920-1628 Very Truly Yours, ikos Hecht Managing Member, Red Onion Investors, Inc. ;� - a Parcel Detail Attachment 7 Pitkin County Assessor Parcel Detail Information Assessor Property Seare I Assessor Subset Query I Assessor Sales Search Clerk&Recorder Reception Search I Treasurer Tax Search Search Basic Building Characteristics I Value Swnmaiv Parcel Detail I Value Detail I Sales Detail I Residential/Commercial Improvement Detail Owner Detail I Land Detail I Photographs Tax Area Account Number Parcel Number 112011 Mill Levy 001 11 R009678 2737182160611 31.653 Primary Owner Name and Address RED ONION INVESTORS LLC 65.784% 418 E COOPER ST#207 ASPEN, CO 81611 Additional Owner Detail Legal Description Subdivision: RED ONION Unit: 1 Location Physical Address: IF420 E COOPER AVE ASPEN Subdivision: RED ONION Land Acres: Land Sq Ft-1 0 2011 Property Value Summary Actual Value Assessed Value Land: 0 0 Improvements: ir 2,129,000 617,410 Total: 2,129,000 E:- 617,410 http://www.pitkinassessor.org/assessor/parcel.asp?AccountNumber=R009678 20-Apr-12 Parcel Detail Page 2 of 2 Sale Date: 12/17/2007 Sale Price: 300,000 Additional Sales Detail Basic Building Characteristics Number of Residential 0 Buildings: Number of Comm/Ind 1 Buildings: Commercial/Industrial Building Occurrence 0 Characteristics MERCH FIRST FLOOR: 1,480 Total Area: 1,480 Property Class: 2245 Actual Year Built: 1890 Effective Year Built: I 1975 Quality of Construction: GOOD-BASE I "r Ext IGOOD BASE Interior Wall: GOOD-BASE Neighborhood: IRED ONION COMM "A" Top of Page Assessor Database Search Options Pitkin County Home Page The Pitkin County Assessor's Offices make every effort to collect and maintain accurate data. However, Good Turns Software and the Pitkin County Assessor's Offices are unable to warrant any of the information herein contained. Copyright©2003 - 2011 Good Turns Software. All Rights Reserved. Database & Web Design by Good Turns Software. http://www.pitkinassessor.org/assessor/parcel.asp?AccountNumber=R009678 20-Apr-12 Attachment 9 mo O m s BOOK 425 PAA04 �>Z CO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves nr IOAN A C.F.NOKKfI 4 4 Q 4 tS J ° ORDINANCE N0, N a (Series of 1982) AN ORDINANCE ACCORDING TO SECTION 24-9.7 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN FOR DESIGNATION OF HISTORIC ' STRUCTURES•WHICH ARE LISTED IN THE 'INVENTORY OF HISTORIC' SITES AND STRUCTURES FOR THE CITY OF-ASPEN, COLORADO WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Committee has recommended to the City Council that certain structures be designated historic and a suffix of "H" be attached to the zoning of these properties and the real estate records; and WHEREAS, the buildings under consideration in this ordinance are all parts of currently designated Historic Districts; and WHEREAS, the Code allows certain incentives for buildings which have..individual historic designations; and WHEREAS, these structures are listed in the 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures for the City of Aspen, Colorado'; • and WHEREAS, the owners of these properties have requested desig- nation through written replies to the Planning Office; .and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Committee has reviewed these sites and/or structures based on the guidelines and Stan- dards'in Section 24-9.3 of the Aspen Municipal Code and found them to be worthy of historic designation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That the following list of sites and/or structures at these addresses be 'granted historic designation and the suffix of "H" be attached to their zoning and real estate records: 330 East Main (Jerome Hotel) 501 East Cooper (Independence Building) 420 East Cooper (Red Onion) 533 East Main (St. Mary's Church) 204 South Mill (Aspen Supply) 413 East Hyman (Uncle Willy's) 332 West Main 426 East Hyman (Sport Stalker) =425 ?.405 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves awf Cge06XGL a.O.a VCa ,.,. Section 2 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance 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. Section. 3 A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the f� day of 1982, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, 15 days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. ow INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by the' City Council of'the City of Aspen on they day of . 1982. AA •t; '' 5c I fe'em an Edel, Mayor ATTEST: k,Kathxn ,S. och. City Clerk ;F.ZNALY,;adopted, passed and approved on th day of 1982. • _,y Tex.+:'�SY•,d:�. . . Ile.; Herman Edel, Mayor GcST'1'EST:' a 404oich;'City Cleric 2 _ 50DK425 906 , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves }041 M G,.NoCCK6l L L!L ta ' STATE OF COLORADO ) CRTIEI CAT E } ss COUNTY OF PITKIN ) z; Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk of Aspen, Colorado,, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing ordinance was ' introduced, read in fujl, and passed on _ l reading at a reaulCarr 'mee�tin/g1 of the City �youncil of the City of Aspen on /�!G O , 19 a�, and published in the Aspen Times a. weekly newspaper of general circul- ation, published in the City of Aspen, Colorado, in its issue of 19Ya , and was finally adopted. -- . and epprcved at a regular meeting of the City Council on '19.FX ar.,.: orcpp:_r�r.F... published. 'as Ordinance tiro. , Series of 19pv� of sa td City, as provxaea by law. Ik\ WITNESS -MEREOF., 'have heceurtb set ray. ltalid and the seal of said City of 7`.s +e_^., Colorado, tclis Cray of 19 ^>�• •�*• _�• � •• .Katkt�:rn 5 '�c`�, City CJ.4r3c . �� .':+ri +rinn,. •• Py',` Depa'L-y 1.1� , • y Clerk : Attachment 10 537304 III IIII i 8111 i lilt 11111 IIIII Page: I of 6 05903/2007 08:15; lit 18111 III 11181 11111 11 I JRNICE K VOS CRUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 31.00 D 0.00 RED ONION BUILDING PERMIT AGREEMENT This Agreement dated May A i�2007 is between the City of Aspen, Colorado, a Colorado municipal corporation("C ")whose address is 130 South Galena,Aspen,Colorado 81611 and Red Onion Investors, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company ("Investors") whose address is c/o Garfield&Hecht,P.C.,601 East Hyman Avenue,Aspen,Colorado 81611. RECITALS A. Investors is the owner of the Red Onion Building (the "Buildin ") at 420 East Cooper, Aspen,Colorado 81611,which is located in the CC Zone District. B. The Building exterior is historically designated pursuant to Ordinance No.61,Series of 1992. C. The Building interior constitutes Unit 2 of the Red Onion Condominiums D. The tenant currently occupying Unit 2 operates a bar and restaurant under the name "Red Onion". E. Ordinance No. 51, Series of 2006: (i)imposes a moratorium on the acceptance by the City of building permit applications in the,CC Zone District and (ii) sets forth certain exemptions from the moratorium. F. Ordinance No. 51, Series of 2006 was amended by Ordinance No. Z , Series of 2007,on 2007. G. In accordance with exemption(n)of said Ordinance No. 51,as amended,Investors intends or has applied(the"Application')to the City for a building permit to make improvements to the interior of Unit 2 that will provide for the continued use thereof as a bar and restaurant by a new operator. H. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the improvements that the City will allow Investors to make: (i)to the interior of the Building in connection with the granting of exemption(n), (ii) to the Building exterior which is historically designated, provided that exterior changes shall require Historic Preservation Commission ("HPC") approval unless the changes have no adverse impact on the exterior (e.g., maintenance and repairs) and (iii) to adjacent Unit 1 of the Red Onion Condominiums ("Unit I') as such improvements affect the Building (all collectively, the "Improvements"). WITNESSETH 1. REVIEW PRoCESs. Any Application Investors shall submit to the City for interior improvements to Unit 2 will provide for the continued use thereof as a bar and restaurant. The HPC will have an advisory role regarding the Application and may make recommendations to the Community Development Department. The Community Development Department will review the Application and, subject to the appeal procedures set forth in Paragraph 8 below, make a final determination as to whether or not the Application (as supplemented by this Agreement) meets the criteria of exemption(n). 2. AGREED BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS,INTERIOR. The parties agree that the following interior elements of the Building shall be preserved as set forth herein to the extent owned by Investors: a. The wood bar and the wood bar back;and P 537304 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII illllllll Illlllil Page: 2 of 6 05/03/2007 09:159 1111111 II lillllll II JANICE K 0S CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 31.00 0 0.00 b. The historic file flooring. The parties recognize that much of the tiling is cracked,otherwise damaged or aged beyond the point where it is practicable to save. Tiles that can be salvaged will be. Other areas will need replacement tile that will be in keeping with the historic tile that is salvaged. In the event it is determined that any of the historic tile otherwise capable of being salvaged constitutes an environmental hazard(e.g., asbestos or lead), the parties will develop a safe plan to utilize such tile in place without releases of hazardous substances or need for remediation. If no feasible safe plan to utilize such tile in place can reasonably be developed, there will be no obligation to salvage and such tile will be replaced in keeping with the historic tile. c. The existing entrance vestibule will be renovated and restored and, to the extent required, shall be brought into compliance with the•International Building Code ("Code") and accessibility requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Such compliance will likely require some alterations to the existing exiting entrance vestibule, but all alterations shall be Code compliant and, where required, reviewed(i.e., administrative for the inside ` and HPC for exterior)pursuant to the procedure set forth in this Agreement; d. The stained-glass mirror currently along the back wall will be retained, either in its current or a different location; W e. The wood doors against the west wall near the stairway to the basement will be retained in their current or a different location and may be fixed or operable. If the location is different, such different location shall be reviewed administratively pursuant to the procedures set forth in this Agreement;and f. The north booth historic wood end will be retained in its current or a different location_If the location is different,such different location shall be reviewed administratively pursuant to the procedures set forth in this Agreement. 3. UNRESOLVED BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS,INTERIOR. The parties are unable to agree as to the preservation of certain interior elements described below and agree to submit such items to the review process set forth in Paragraph 1 above. a. The existing common wall between Units 1 and 2 (assumed to be brick) shall be preserved with the exception of openings required by the restaurant. The openings will require an engineered solution to maintain the structural integrity of the existing wall. The detailing of any new structural solution shall be Code compliant. The disagreement of the parties relates solely to the size of such openings. Both parties agree that openings are appropriate. Investors proposes larger openings which are considered to be vital to the operation of the restaurant and to the establishment a visual as well as circulatory connection between the units. The City proposes smaller openings so as to preserve the small-size feeling of the original bar. b. The parties are unable to agree as to the preservation of the three (3) booths(but not the tables)along the east wall of the bar area. There is no requirement to preserve the tables. The parties agree the booths are not part of the original bar; the precise dating of their installation does not 2 142361_9 IIfff 537304 11� 4 Page: 3 of 5 4 �I` 05/03/2007 09:15F t Illll lfll 11! JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 31.00 0 0.00 appear possible, but they have been in place for a long period of time. Investors proposes that the booths be replaced by banquettes which provide the restaurant operator with needed flexibility for table seating in the bar area. The City maintains that the booths themselves were important to the evolution of the interior. Investors maintains that, whatever importance there may be to the booths, their preservation must give away to the needs of the restaurant operation. 4. PRESERVATION. Preservation of the interior elements identified in Paragraph 2 above shall be documented by pre-construction photographs on file with the City and initialed by the parties. In the course of any preservation and one or more of the elements identified in Paragraph 2 above may be temporarily removed to make way for the interior demolition,improvements and/or to be repaired or restored. 5. OWNERSHIP OF INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS. With respect to the interior elements of the Building described in Paragraphs 2a.through 2f. above, Investors agrees that it shall,at Investors' expense, assert and vigorously defend Investors' ownership thereof. Investors obligation hereunder shall extend to defending its ownership through any trial. If, following said trial, any of said interior elements are removed by an adverse third party that prevails in said litigation,Inventors shall not be in default under this Agreement. Investors agrees that, prior to or during said trial, Investors will not settle any third party claims except with the written consent of the City. Investors' obligation to defend its ownership of said interior elements shall: (i) extend to defending any appeals where Investors is the prevailing party in any trial and(ii)not extend to appealing any trial court judgment or verdict where Investors is not the prevailing party. 6. OTHER INTERIOR ELEMENTS. Except as set forth in Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 above and subject to compliance with the Code, there shall be no restriction on interior demolition or improvements to the inside of the Unit 2 provided such work is consistent with the use of the interior space as a bar and restaurant. 7. BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS, EXTERIOR. The following exterior elements of the Building shall be treated as set forth herein: a. The existing awning in front of the Building is not historical and may be removed; b. The words "Red Onion" painted on the exterior of the east side of the Building and the words "Red Onion" painted on the storefront of the Building,while not original to structure,is considered historically significant and will require HPC approval to change,remove or replace;and C. Such minimal intrusions into the Building exterior as may be needed to bring the interior into compliance with the Code, including a water line for an interior sprinkler system for fire protection and for utility upgrades, air handling and the like. Any such proposed intrusions shall be first submitted to the City's Historic Preservation Officer who may issue a Certificate Of No Negative Effect to allow the work or may refer the proposed work to HPC for approval. 8. COMPLETION DATE. Subject to the existing tenant in the Building timely vacating at the expiration of its lease on or before March 30,2007 and subject further to any unanticipated delays resulting from the City processing and/or issuing building permits in accordance with this Agreement, conducting inspections, approving change orders consistent with this Agreement or the City's refusal to issue or transfer the existing liquor license or delays in obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy, 3 142361_9 a II�III VIII�IIIII�IIII Illfll IIII Illll III VIII Page:3��4 09:159 I JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 31.00 D 0.00 Investors shall, with respect to Unit 2, make all reasonable efforts to.the complete construction described herein and cause the new tenant restaurant operator to complete its leasehold improvements and open for business on or before December 20,2007. 9. UNrr 1 RED ONION CONDOMINIUMS. Unit 1 of Red Onion Condominiums which ' historically had been part of the Red Onion Restaurant is currently occupied by the Omnibus Gallery whose lease expires October 1, 2007. The City and Investors agree that: (i) the building which comprises said Unit 1 is not historic or of historic significance,either inside or outside and(ii)interior , changes from its present use as a gallery to a bar and restaurant operation directly involves and is physically connected to preservation efforts regarding the historically designated Red Onion Building. 17 J1- Investors has leased this gallery space to the new restaurant operator to be included as part of the bar and restaurant. Subject to existing tenant in Unit 1 timely vacating and the other contingencies described in Paragraph 8 above, Investors will make all reasonable efforts to complete construction and cause the new restaurant operator to complete its leasehold improvements and open for business in both of Units 1 and 2 on or before December 20,2007. 10. INVESTORS' OBLIGATIONs NOT CONDITIONAL ON OPERATOR. Investors has disclosed to the City that,at time of the execution of this Agreement by the parties, Investors has not obtained a new operator for the Red Onion bar and restaurant. Investors agrees that its obligations under this Agreement,with respect to the improvements to be made to the.interior of Unit 2 to provide for the continued use thereof as a bar and restaurant, shall not be conditioned on whether or not(or when) said operator is obtained. In other words, no failure by Investors to obtain an operator shall excuse Investors from performing its obligations under this Agreement with respect to Unit 2 except for opening for,business by December 20, 2007. The parties agree that the inclusion of Unit 1 (currently occupied by the Omnibus Gallery) as part of the Red Onion bar and restaurant is not a requirement of this Agreement,and such inclusion shall be solely at the option of Investors. However, if Investors does include said Unit 1,such inclusion must occur in accordance with and subject to this Agreement. 11. DISPUTE RESOLUTION. In the course of the construction described herein,the parties recognize that compliance with this Agreement by Investors may require subjective or aesthetic determinations by the City regarding the preservation of the historical elements of the inside of Unit 2. It is in the mutual interest of the parties to establish a procedure where any disagreements regarding such compliance will be promptly resolved by a disinterested third party. The parties hereby agree that the City Manager shall be appointed to arbitrate and provide in writing a decision binding on the parties with respect to any disputes that may arise regarding the preservation of the historical elements of the inside of Unit 2 in accordance with this Agreement. The arbitrator.shall render its written decision within four(4)business days after receipt of a written request by either party for the issue(s) in dispute to be arbitrated. Any request for arbitration shall be in writing setting forth the issue(s) in dispute and a copy of such request shall be provided to other party via fax. Within two (2)business days thereafter the other party may submit,via fax,to the arbitrator(and the party first requesting the + arbitration) any responses it shall desire to make to the request for arbitration. The decision of.the arbitrator shall be binding on the parties, and the non-prevailing party shall pay all costs of the arbitration. The arbitration decision shall be in writing with copies provided to all parties. 12. NO ADMISSION REGARDING ORDINANCE NO. 51, ETC. The fact that Investors has entered into (or shall subsequently perform under) this Agreement shall not be construed as any admission on the part of Investors as to legality of the said Ordinance No.51. Investors' actions under this Agreement shall be without prejudice to its rights now or in the future with respect to said Ordinance No. 51. Except for purposes of the Application, and the building permit to be issued thereunder,nothing herein shall permanently bind Investors to any particular use of Unit 1 and/or Unit 2. Nothing in this Agreement shall require Investors to make any of the Improvements;but, in the event Investors desires to proceed with such Improvements, all work thereon shall be performed in accordance with this Agreement. Whenever this Agreement refers to any official action to be taken by 4 142351_9 W a a 537304 Page: 5 of 6 05/03/2007 09:15f ` I 44II JANICE K VOS CPUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 31.00 D 0.00 HPC(i.e.,Paragraphs 7.b.and 7.c.),Investors reserves all rights of appeal as allowed under applicable laws. Whenever this Agreement refers to only an advisory role on the part of HPC(i.e.,Paragraph 1), Investors agrees that its remedy shall be limited to review by the Community Development Department and subsequent arbitration by the City Manager as set forth above. i 13. MISCELLANEOUS. a. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement among the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all other prior agreements and understandings, both written and oral, between the i parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. b. Amendments. This Agreement may not be modified, amended, altered or supplemented, except upon the execution and delivery of a written agreement executed by the parties hereto and Lender. C. Notices. All notices, requests, claims, demands and other communications hereunder shall be in writing and shall be given (and shall be deemed to have been duly received if so be given)by hand delivery or telecopy, or by mail (registered or certified mail,postage prepaid, return receipt requested) or by any courier service, such as Federal Express, providing proof of delivery. d. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. e. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, any of which shall be deemed to be an original,and all of which shall constitute one and the same Agreement, and shall become effective when one or more counterparts have been signed by each of the parties and delivered to the other parties,including by facsimile,it being understood that all parties need not sign the same counterpart. f. Descriptive Headings. The descriptive headings used herein are inserted for convenience or reference only and are not intended to be part of or to affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. g_ Force Majeure. Any prevention, delay or stoppage due to strikes,lockouts, I labor disputes, acts of god, acts of war or terrorism, inability to obtain services, labor, or materials or reasonable substitutes therefore, governmental actions, civil commotion,fire or other casualty, in each case if due to a cause beyond the reasonable control of the party obligated to perform shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, excuse the performance of such party for a period equal to any such prevention, delay or stoppage and, therefore, if this Agreement specifies a time period for performance of an obligation of either party,that time period shall be extended by the period of any delay in such party's performance caused by force majeure. h. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding on the parties hereto,their successors and assigns. This Agreement is intended to supplement the Application and is not intended to be a lien, cloud or encumbrance on Investors' title to said Units 1 or 2 and shall not be recorded in the real estate records as a document affecting title. 5 1423619 1 537304 Page: 6 of 6 " 4 ( � " 05/03/2007 08:150 I� I�11 111 II 11 1111 `11��111 1 111 JRNICE K VOS CRUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 31.00 D 0.00 i. Attorneys'Fees. In the event of any litigation arising out of this Agreement, ' the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in such litigation. In Witness Whereof, the parties have agreed to this Agreement the day and year first written above. City: Red Onion Ilivestors,LLC The City of Aspen,Colorado a Colorado limited liability company a Colorado municipal corporation BY:RED ONION MANAGEMENT COMPANY,a Colorado corporation / Its Managing Partner By: t B Title: Andrew V.Hecht,President ATTEST: -x �Kathryn S. ch,City Clerk ' xE, 6 1423619 t. 0 so 100 21 Riet This mp/dravingfimageisa graphical representation of the features depicted and Is not a legal g", ASSOC 12 ED kh 3 repreventdon. The accuracy may change E depending on the enlargernerd or reducdon. Copyright 2012 Aspen/PMdn GIS CrTy AkW W N. CO E HYMAN AVE ASPEN COMMERCIAL N . .. r. mm RW i u' ONION.F LU M". -I I X- j,a F"' N I I W All f r1 VOL P 7d E COOPER AVE PARK PLACE 0' CO CrTY OF !4-0 ASPEN 'mill! py NGR A Nit mi P7111� ti .......... CRY OF ASPEN MIM M .......... GALENA' C)N I 1 011 E C)URANT AVE .(z=P OA/ 10#V Easy Peel®Labels i Bend along line to j ( AVERY®3161 1 Use Avery®Template 51600 j Peed Paper.�� expose Pop-Up EdgeTM 1� 305-7 MILL STREET LLC 4 SKIERS LP 400 HYMAN LLC 412 N PAULINA 1108 NORFLEET DR 6829 QUEENFERRY CIR CHICAGO,IL 60622 NASHVILLE,TN 372201412 BOCA RATON,FL 33496 409 EAST HYMAN LLC 450 SOUTH GALENA ST INVESTORS LLC 520 EAST COOPER PTNRS LLC 63 FOX PROWL 450 S GALENA ST#202 402 MIDLAND PARK CARBONDALE,CO 81623 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 AGRUSA LISA ANN ARCADES ASSOCIATES LTD LLC ASPEN CORE VENTURES LLC 425 W 23RD ST#15-E CIO KRUGER&CO 418 E COOPER AVE#207 NEW YORK,NY 10011 400 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN GROVE ASSOCIATES LLP ASPEN RETREAT LLC BARNETT-FYRWALD HOLDINGS INC C/O M&W PROPERTIES 6536 E GAINSBOROUGH 500 PRESIDENT CLINTON AVE STE 310 205 S MILL ST#301A SCOTTSDALE,AZ 85251 LITTLE ROCK,AR 72201 ASPEN,CO 81611 BENTLEYS AT THE WHEELER BIDWELL BERT INVESTMENT CORP BLACK HAWK ASPEN LLC PO BOX 10370 2870 PEACHTREE RD#427 ROECLIFFE COTTAGE JOE MOORES LN ASPEN,CO 81612 ATLANTA,GA 30305 W SE EAVES LEICESTERSHIRE LE12 8TF TF ENGLAND, BPOE ASPEN LODGE#224 CARLSON BRUCE E TRUST CHARLIES COW COMPANY LLC 210 S GALENA ST#21 PO BOX 3587 315 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 CHISHOLM REVOCABLE TRUST CITY OF ASPEN COASTAL MOUNTAIN INVESTMENTS 3725 N GRANDVIEW DR ATTN FINANCE DEPT LLC FLAGSTAFF,AZ 86004-1603 130 S GALENA ST 2519 N MCMULLEN BOOTH RD#510-307 ASPEN,CO 81611 CLEARWATER,FL 33761 COASTAL MTN PROPERTIES LLC COOPER STREET DEVELOPMENT LLC COTTONWOOD VENTURES I LLC 2639 MC CORMICK DR C/O PYRAMID PROPERTY ADVISORS 419 E HYMAN AVE CLEARWATER,FL 33759 418 E COOPER AVE#207 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 COTTONWOOD VENTURES It LLC COX JAMES E&NANCY DENSON JAMES D ATTN JANA FREDERICK C/O KRUGER&CO PO BOX 1614 300 CRESCENT CT#1000 400 E HYMAN AVE TUBAC,AZ 85646 DALLAS,TX 75201 ASPEN,CO 81611 DOLE MARGARET M DUVIKE INC F&M VENTURES LLC C/O FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF C/O AERSCAPE LTD C/O MORRIS&FYRWALD RE CEDARIDGE 230 S MILL ST 415 E HYMAN AVE PO BOX 8455 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 tiquettes faciles A paler A Repliez A la hachure afln de= www.avery.com e f ® ® i Sens de reveler le rebord Po -U TM 1.800-GO-AVERY A-pR Utilisez le gabarit AVERY 5160 j chargement p p j f 1 Easy eer Labels I ♦ Bend along line to y g � AVERY®s16o® , Use Avery®Template 51600 j Feed Paper"- expose Pop-Up EdgeTM 1 j FITZGERALD FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LTD FOOTLOOSE MOCCASIN MAKERS INC FORD ANN MICHIE C/O PITKIN COUNTY DRY GOODS LLC C/O MANUEL GOUVEIA 216 WAPITI WAY 520 E COOPER 44 SILVERADO CT. ASPEN,CO 81611 CANON CITY,CO 81212 BASALT,CO 81621 G&K LAND CO LLC GERARDOT J REVOCABLE TRUST GONE WEST LLC 140 PITKIN MESA DR 5526 HOPKINTON DR 401 W CENTER ASPEN,CO 81611 FORT WAYNE,IN 46804 SEARCY,AR 721451406 GORDON DAVID F&LETICIA LLC GORSUCH COOPER LLC GREENWAY COMPANY INC C/O JOE RACZAKINORTH OF NELL MGT 283 E GORE CREEK DR 666 TRAVIS ST#100 555 E DURANT ASPEN,CO 81611 VAIL,CO 81657 SHREVEPORT,LA 71101 GREENWOOD KAREN DAY I GREGG LELAND JOHN GRIFFITH LARRY R GREENWOOD STERLING JAMES PO BOX 1935 19794 ESCADA CT 409E COOPER AVE SANTA YNEZ,CA 834601935 RED ASPEN,CO 81611 DING,CA 96003 GUIDOS SWISS INN LLC HOPPES DIANA HORSE ISLAND LLC 23655 TWO RIVERS RD 5400 VERNON AVE#106 415 E HYMAN AVE#16 BASALT,CO 81621 EDINA,MN 55436 ASPEN,CO 81611 HYMAN MALL COMMERCIAL CONDOS INDEPENDENCE PARTNERS INDEPENDENCE SQUARE UNITS LLC LLC C/O CAPMARK INC 290 HEATHER LN 205 S MILL ST#301A 3109 MONT DR ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 STATESVSVILLE,NC G 28625 JENNE LLP KANTZER TAYLOR MICHAEL FAMILY KAUFMAN GIDEON I 1510 WINDSOR RD TRUST#1 C/O KAUFMAN&PETERSON AUSTIN,TX 77402 216 SEVENTEENTH ST 315 E HYMAN AVE#305 MANHATTAN BEACH,CA 90266 ASPEN,CO 81611 KOPP AMELIA L TRUST KRISTAL ASPEN LLC LCT LP TENNESSEE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 1000 DOLORES WY#B 1417 WEST 10TH ST PO BOX 101444 CARBONDALE,CO 81623 AUSTIN,TX 787034816 NASHVILLE,TN 37224-1444 LEFFERS JEFFREY J TRUSTEE LINDNER ERIKA L REV TRUST 50% LOMA ALTA CORPORATION GERARDOT J REVOCABLE TRUST 66966 TEN PEAKS CT PO BOX 886 5526 HOPKINTON DR BEND,OR 97701-9277 LANCASTER,TX 75146-0886 FORT WAYNE,IN 46804 — i LYSTER BARBARA MAIERSPERGER RENELL MARCUS DURANT GALENA LLC $' 37 OCEAN FITS DR 404 S GALENA C/O STEPHEN J MARCUS NEWPORT COAST,CA 92657 ASPEN,CO 81611 PO BOX 1709 ASPEN,CO 81612 ttiquettes faciles A peter i A Repliez A la hachure afin de www averycorn j% Utilisez le abarit AVERY®5160® i Sens de r6v6ler le rebord Pop-UpTM 1-800-GO-AVERY 2 9 j chargement A l j Easy PeeiO Labels i A Bend along line to AVERY®5160( Use Avery®Template 5160® 1 Feed Paper.r� expose Pop-Up Edgelm V' MAUN MATTHEW D&S ELIZABETH MCDONALDS CORPORATION 051152 MEYER BUSINESS BUILDING LLC GIBSON BARRY&PATRICIA DOCHERTY PAUL NELSON 23655 TWO RIVERS RD 0225 CHEROKEE LN 142 TANAGER DR BASALT,CO 81621 CARBONDALE,CO 81623 GLENWOOD SPRINGS,CO 81601 MORRIS ROBERT P MTN ENTERPRISES 80B NORDAN JOSH 600 E HOPKINS AVE STE 304 C/O HILLIS OF SNOWMASS 433 PLAZA REAL#275 ASPEN,CO 81611 PO BOX 5739 BOCA RATON,FL 33432-3999 EAGLE,CO 816315739 P&L PROPERTIES LLC PEYTON MARI USA CORP C/O GI 101 S 3RD ST#360 409 E COOPER#4 STE 1 CIO RiGHETTI,CFO GRAND JUNCTION,CO 81501 ASPEN,CO 81611 610 WEEST ST 62 52 ST NEW YORK,NY 10019 RANKMORE KEVIN L&JASMINE RONCHETTO LYNN A ROSS BARBARA REVOCABLE TRUST PO BOX 168 320 E 42ND ST#101 PO BOX 594 WELLINGTON NSW 2820 AUSTRALIA, NEW YORK,NY 10017 HANALEI, HI 96714 ROSS ROGER A REVOCABLE TRUST RUTLEDGE REYNIE SCHROEDER FAMILY TRUST 4720 WAILAPA RD 51 COUNTRY CLUB CIR 4 GREENWOOD CT KILAUEA,HI 96754 SEARCY,AR 72143 ORINDA,CA 94563 SCHULTZE DANIEL G SILVER SLAM COMMERCIAL LLC SLAM RESIDENTIAL LLC WESTMINISTER C/O RELATED COMPANIES/JEFF BLAU 2100 E MAPLE RD STE 200 7711 7711 W CENTER, E 49315 60 COLUMBUS CIR BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 NEW YORK,NY 10023 STEPHENS ROSS DAVID SWEARINGEN WILLIAM F SWENERG JAMES&SANDRA L 1337 B DANIELSON RD 450 CONWAY MANOR DR NW 2660 ROCK REST RD SANTA BARBARA,CA 93108 ATLANTA,GA 303273518 PITTSBORO,NC 27312 TENNESSEE THREE TENNESSEE THREE RENTALS TOMKINS FAMILY TRUST PO BOX 101444 C/O J H COBLE 520 E COOPER AVE#209 6033 NASHVILLE,TN 37224-1444 NAS OLD HICKORY BLVD ASPEN,CO 81611 NASHVILLE,TN 37218-4020 VALLEY INVESTMENTS LLC VOLK PLAZA LLC VOLK RICHARD W TRUSTEE C/O RICHARD W VOLK MANAGER 205 S MILL ST#301A 995 COWEN DR#201 2327 MIMOSA DR ASPEN,CO 81611 CARBONDALE,CO 81623-1657 HOUSTON,TX 77019 WAVO PROPERTIES LP WENDELIN ASSOC WHEELER BLOCK BUILDING LLC 512 112 E GRAND AVE#200 150 METRO PARK TKG MANAGEMENT INC C/O DES MOINES,IA 50309-1942 ROCHESTER,NY 14623 211 N STADIUM BLVD STE 201 COLUMBIA,MO 65203 �tiquettes faciles a paler { Sens de Replle:h la hachure afin cle� www.avery.com zp R { Utiiisez le gabarit AVERY®51600 chargement r6veler le rebord Pop-Up j 1.800-GO-AVERY 11 Easy Pee[@ Labels i ♦ IIIIIIIIIIIIIII01 Bend along line to I AVERY 5160 Use Avery®Template 5160 ' Feed Paper expose Pop-Up EdgeTM j 1 WHEELER SQUARE-GASPER FAMILY WOLF LAWRENCE G TRUSTEE WOOD ARNOLD S&ANNE M LLC 22750 WOODWARD AVE#204 65 MOSTYN ST ASPEN,,CO C315E FERNDALE,MI 48220 SWAMPSCOTT,MA 01907 I O 8 1611 8 Ire WOODS FAMILY LP ZUPANCIS ROBERT L 30.621% PO BOX 11468 509 RACE ST ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 .......................... . . k1cluettes faciles a peter ; A Repliez is la hachure afin des WWW averycom 1( Utilisez le abarit AVERY®51600 i Sens de r�v�ler le rebord Po •U *� } 11-1300-GO-AVERY �4f R r 9 j chargement p p j 1.2 1► Attachment 13 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement to Pay Application FeesRF x ,. D Anagreement between the City of Aspen ("City")and k; Property Red Onion Investors, LLC Phone No.: Owner("I"): Email: C1-f Y Address of 420 East Cooper Street, Unit 1 of Billing Property: the Red Onion Condominiums Address: (subject of (send bills here) application) understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. , Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and the payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. $,0 flat fee for Select Dept $0 flat fee for Select Dept $0 flat fee for Select Dept $ 0 flat fee for Select Review For deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review, and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for non-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render an application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $ 1 ,890 deposit for 6 hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at$315 per hour. $ 265 deposit for 1 hours of Engineering Department staff time.Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at$265 per hour. City of Aspen: Property Owner: Chris Bendon � �,r Community Development Director Name: �,�� U l'_ ,l City use: 2155 Title: tt��-..ro(" Fees Due:$ Received:$ 2012 130 1 Attachment 14 CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Sara Adams,429-2778 DATE: 4.13.12 PROJECT: 420 East Cooper Street, Unit 1 REPRESENTATIVE: Stan Clauson, Stan Clauson Associates, 925-2323 and Kim Weil of Poss Architecture and Planning,925-5590 DESCRIPTION: The potential applicant is interested in demolishing the existing building, Unit 1 of the Red Onion Condominiums, and constructing a new mixed use building onsite. Unit 1 is currently a poster shop, but was originally built circa 1955 as an addition to the Red Onion to provide family dining for the restaurant. 420 East Cooper Street is a 9,000 square foot parcel that includes a two story 1892 building in the center of the lot with two additions on either side. The entire property is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures as both an historic landmark and as a contributing building within the Commercial Core Historic District. The property was condominiumized in 1981 to create 4 units and again in 1984 to create 4 more units for a total of 8 units. The property is subject to demolition and design review by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Commercial Design Standard Review is required and shall be conducted by HPC. Pursuant to the CC zone district, the maximum height for two story elements is 28 ft, and for three story element is 38 ft., which may be increased to 42 ft. through commercial design review at HPC. The property is located within the Wheeler Opera House viewplane. Evidence that the viewplane is not infringed by the new development is required, or if the new development interrupts the viewplane then an application for a viewplane exemption is required. This is processed by HPC unless a PUD is required,which is reviewed by City Council. The applicant indicates that the new addition will include a new free market residential unit and possibly new commercial net leasable area. The building is currently all commercial use. The CC zone district allows a 2:1 FAR for commercial uses and a 0.5:1 FAR for free market residential uses. Free market residential units have a 2,000 sf. net livable area unit size cap, which may be increased to 2,500 sf. net livable by landing a Transferrable Development Right(TDR). As an individual historic landmark the property is eligible to create one free market residential unit that is exempt from affordable housing mitigation requirements and is an administrative review. This benefit is cumulative and includes administrative growth management approvals granted prior to the adoption of the benefit. An increase of commercial net leasable area requires growth management review by the Planning and Zoning Commission as a minor application for the enlargement of an historic landmark for commercial, lodging or mixed use development._ There does not appear to be any parking on the site. An existing deficit is allowed to be maintained; however any additional net leasable is required to meet parking requirements— either provide 1 space/1,000 square feet of net leasable area or pay cash in lieu for the parking spaces at$30,000/space. New free market residential units and affordable housing units do not have a parking requirement in the CC zone district. There appears to be less than 10% public amenity on the 9,000 square feet property. As such the applicant is required to provide 10% public amenity or 900 square feet onsite. Offsite public amenity that meets the requirements in the Code may be approved by HPC. Cash in lieu is also an option; however City Council approval is required for cash in lieu. The building is already condominiumized and therefore already established separate legal interests, so subdivision is triggered by adding a new residential unit. Subdivision is reviewed by City Council based on a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Recently, City Council adopted a Code Amendment that requires neighborhood outreach prior to the first public hearing. Community Development has determined that neighborhood outreach is required for this application. It is strongly recommended that the applicant continue neighborhood outreach as the development goes through the process and a construction management plan is developed. A summary of the outreach shall be presented at the first HPC public hearing. For a complete description of this new requirement see Ordinance#3, Series of 2012 pages 4 —6: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-DevelopmenUPlanning-and-Zoning/Recent-Code-Amendments/ Please note that Ordinance 3, Series of 2012 (a link is above) also changes the requirement that project comply with the Aspen Area Community Plan and the call up procedures for City Council. This application is subject to Ordinance #3 which went into effect on March 27, 2012, ` City Council adopted a Code Amendment that changes allowable heights in the CC zone district. The Code Amendment is effective on May 2nd. A complete application must be received by Community Development by the end of the day on May 1St to be reviewed under the current Land Use Code. Impact fees are triggered by the addition of new let leasable commercial space and new net livable residential space. These fees are calculated at the time of building permit issuance. " Review steps: Step 1: HPC for conceptual commercial design, and major development review, parking, public amenity, viewplane Step 2: PZ for GMQS and recommendation of Subdivision to City Council Step 3: City Council for Subdivision Step 4: HPC for final commercial design and major development review. Relevant Land Use Code Section(s): Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.304.035 Neighborhood Outreach 26.412 Commercial Design Review 26.415.070 Certificate of Appropriateness for major development 26.415.080 Demolition of designated historic properties 26.470 Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) 26.470.070.4 Development of Affordable Housing 26.470.070.1 Minor Planning and Zoning application (Enlargement of an historic landmark for commercial, lodge or missed use development) 26.480 Subdivision 26.515 Parking 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements 26.610 Impact Fees 26.710.140 Commercial Core (CC) The Land Use Code is found here: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning- and-Zoning/Title-26-Land-Use-Code/ The Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines are found here: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Current-Planning/ The Land Use application is found here: http:l/www.aspenpitkin.com/DepartmentslCommunity- DevelopmentlPlanning-and-Zoning/Applications-and-Fees/ Review by: -Staff for complete application - Referral agencies for technical considerations - HPC for Conceptual Approval and Final Approval as described above -P&Z for Growth Management Review -Council for Subdivision Public Hearing: Yes, at HPC, P&Z and Council. Neighborhood Outreach: Yes, prior to first public hearing at HPC. Planning Fees: For the HPC application: $1890 Deposit for 6 hours of staff time. Additional staff time required is billed at$315/hour. For the P&Z, CC application: $7,560 Deposit for 24 hours of staff time.Additional staff time required is billed at$315/hour. Referral Fees: Engineering, billed at$265/hour(1 hour deposit) Total Deposit: For HPC $2,155 For P&Z and CC $7560 Total Number of Application Copies: 10 for HPC application,22 for P&Z/CC application To apply, submit the following information: 1. Total Deposit for review of application. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. Completed Land Use Application. 5. Signed fee agreement. 6. Pre-application Conference Summary. 7. An 81/2"x 11"vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. 8. Proof of ownership. 9. Existing and proposed elevation drawings and site plan that include proposed dimensional requirements as well as landscaping plan. 10. A 3-D model of the proposal in context of the historic district. 11. Elevations of the proposed building and the buildings in the Hyman block and Galena St. block including the Aspen Grove Building to compare overall heights, storefront heights and massing. 12. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing conditions as well as proposed. 11. All other materials required pursuant to the specific submittal requirements. 12. Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, including all easements and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado. 13. Applicants are advised that building plans will be required to meet the International Building Code as adopted by the City of Aspen, the Federal Fair Housing Act, and CRS 9.5.112. Please make sure that your application submittal addresses these building-related and accessibility regulations. You may contact the Building Department at 920-5090 for additional information. 14. List of adjacent property owners within 300'for public hearing ' 15. Copies of prior approvals. 16. Applications shall be provided in paper format(number of copies noted above) as well as the text only on either of the following digital formats. 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.