Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.HP.434 E Cooper Ave.0013.2012.AHPC 40 . THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0013.2012.AHPC PARCEL ID NUMBERS 2737 18216011 PROJECTS ADDRESS 434 E COOPER PLANNER SARA ADAMS CASE DESCRIPTION HPC CONCEPTUAL REPRESENTATIVE HAAS LAND PLANNING DATE OF FINAL ACTION 12/14/2012 CLOSED BY DJAMA MARTIN ON: 02/07/2014 mew * P21 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sara Adams,SeniorPlaimer RE: 434 East Cooper Street- Extension of Conceptual Major Development approval DATE: December 11, 2013 (� 1 SUMMARY: 434 East Cooper Street received HPC Conceptual approval for a remodel on December 12, 2012. All applicants have one year from the date of Conceptual to submit a Final review application. The applicant is not prepared to submit for Final within the next two weeks. A six month extension of the HPC approval is requested. Section 26.415.070.D.3.c.3 of the Municipal Code states: Unless otherwise specified in the resolution granting conceptual development plan approval, 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 Community Development Director may grant an extension of this limitation if the delay has been caused by the application requiring additional reviews or similar delays that could not have been reasonably predicted by the applicant. 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant a 6 month extension of Conceptual approval to allow the applicant to further develop the proposal. The new deadline to submit a final application would be June 12, 2014. Attachments: HPC Resolution# , Series of 2013 A. Letter requesting extension, dated November 12, 2013 B.. HPC Resolution#33, Series of 2012 P22 .. A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING A SIX MONTH EXTENSION OF THE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL FOR A PROJECT AT434 EAST COOPER AVENUE,LOTS Q,R,AND S, BLOCK 89, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION# , SERIES OF 2013 PARCEL ID: 2737-182-16-011. WHEREAS, on November 12, 2013, 434 East Cooper Avenue, LLC, Lots Q, R, and S, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, requested a six month extension of the Conceptual design approval granted by the Historic Preservation Commission through Resolution#33, Series of 2012. According to Section 26.415.070.D.3.c.3, of the Municipal Code, 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; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070.D.3.c.3, of the Municipal Code allows the Historic Preservation Commission, at its sole discretion and.for good cause shown, to 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; and WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report to HPC dated December 11, 2013, recommended that a one-time extension be granted; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on December 11, 2013, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the request and granted a six month extension to the deadline to submit a final development application by a vote of NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby extends the deadline to file a final development application related to Resolution#33,.Series of 2012 from December 12, 2013 to June 12, 2014. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 11th day of December, 2013. Jay Maytin, Chair Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 434 E.Cooper Avenue HPC Conceptual Extension HPC Resolution# ,Series of 2013 P23 November 12, 2013 Historic Preservation Commission c/o Sara Adams,Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen,Colorado 81611 RE: Conceptual Development Plan Extension Request for 434 East Cooper Avenue,Aspen Dear HPC and Sara: Please consider this letter a request for a six-month extension to the HPC Conceptual Development Plan approval for 434 East Cooper Avenue. The HPC voted to grant Conceptual Approval for the redevelopment of the subject property pursuant to Resolution#33, Series of 2012. Condition#6 of the Resolution states that, 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 (3 0) days prior to the expiration date. It is respectfully requested that the HPC grant this one-time extension of six (6) months for the submittal of a Final Development Plan for the property. Very truly yours, Haas Land Planning, LLC Mitc Haas • 420 E. MAIN STREET, SUITE B-10 • ASPEN, COLORADO • 8161 1 • PHONE: (970) 925-7819 • FAX: (970) 925-7395 P24 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL),COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW (CONCEPTUAL),AND VIEWPLANE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 434 EAST COOPER AVENUE,LOTS Q,R,AND S,BLOCK 89, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,COLORADO RESOLUTION#33,SERIES OF 2012 PARCEL ID: 2737-182-16-011. WHEREAS, the applicant, 434 East Cooper Avenue, LLC with consent from the owner Bert Bidwell Investments Corporation, represented by Haas Land Planning, LLC and Charles Cunniffe Architects, has requested Major Development (Conceptual), Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review, and Viewplane Reviews the property located at 434 East Cooper Avenue,Lots Q,R, and S Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, 434 East Cooper Avenue is located within the Commercial Core Historic District; and WHEREAS, 434 East Cooper Avenue received Demolition approval by the Historic Preservation Commission on May 24,2006 via Resolution number 14, Series of 2006; 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 RECEPTION#: 595907,01108/2013 at 434 East Cooper Avenue 09:18:55 AM, HPC Resolution# 33, Series of 2012 1 OF 3, R $21.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Page 1 of 3 Janice K.Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO P25 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 propbsed 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; and WHEREAS,during the December 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 December 12, 2012 performed an analysis of the application based on the standards,found that the review standards had not been met and recommended continuation of the hearing to restudy the mass;and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on December 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 five to zero (5 -0). NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants HPC Major Development (Conceptual), Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review, and Viewplane Review for the property located at 434 East Cooper Avenue, Lots Q, R, and S, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 434 East Cooper Avenue HPC Resolution#33, Series of 2012 Page 2 of 3 P26 1. Conceptual approval is granted as presented in the application. 2. The applicant shall restudy the parapet/cornice in greater detail for Final Review. 3. 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. 4. The trash/utility area is approved as presented with the following conditions: a. A detailed mechanical plan shall be submitted for Final Review. b. Trash/alley access for all of the retail spaces shall be demonstrated and reviewed at Final Review. 5. 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. 6. 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. Ann Mullins,Chair Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn,Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: A. Kathy Striel6and, Chief Deputy Clerk 434 East Cooper Avenue HPC Resolution# 33, Series of 2012 Page 3 of 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Land Use File 0012.2013.AHPC FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner RE: Notice of HPC approval of Major Development Conceptual and Commercial Design Review Conceptual : 434 E. Cooper Street, HPC Resolution#33, Series of 2012 During the regular Council meeting on January 14, 2013, City Council did NOT call up HPC Resolution 33, Series of 2012. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director 3w) RE: Notice of HPC approval of Conceptual Commercial Design, Conceptual Major Development: 434 E. Cooper Avenue, HPC Resolution #33, Series of 2012 MEETING DATE: January 14, 2013 BACKGROUND: On December 12, 2012, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) approved Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Conceptual Major Development Review for a project at 434 E. Cooper Ave. (aka the Bidwell Building). 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. Demolition approval was granted in 2006 and remains valid. ACTION TAKEN BY HPC: HPC granted conceptual approval for a two story building with the second floor significantly setback from the street facing facades (237' from Cooper and 19' 11" from Galena). A large deck is proposed to be accessed from the second floor commercial space. A viewplane exemption was granted due to other development (the Roaring Fork Building and Paragon Building) already blocking the Wheeler viewplane. The project is proposed to be a 100% commercial building with 3 tenant spaces. Off-site public amenity in the form of pedestrian mall improvements, subject to Parks Department review and approval, was granted. Staff found that the review design guidelines were not met and recommended continuation of the project for a restudy. HPC granted approval of the design reviews with conditions by a vote of 5:0. A copy of the approved massing is attached as Exhibit A. A copy of the HPC Resolution and Minutes from the HPC meeting are attached as Exhibits B and C. PROCESS: For this application, City Council may vote to Call Up the project at their January 14, 2012 meeting. 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 Final HPC Review. This application is NOT subject to Growth Management or Subdivision reviews. 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 33, Series 2012 Exhibit C: HPC Minutes-December 12,2012 Page 1 of 1 422 E. Cooper Street Staff Memo for Notice of Call Up A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW (CONCEPTUAL), AND VIEWPLANE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 434 EAST COOPER AVENUE, LOTS Q, R, AND S,BLOCK 89, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION #33, SERIES OF 2012 PARCEL ID: 2737-182-16-011. WHEREAS, the applicant, 434 East Cooper Avenue, LLC with consent from the owner Bert Bidwell Investments Corporation, represented by Haas Land Planning, LLC and Charles Cunniffe Architects, has requested Major Development (Conceptual), Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review, and Viewplane Reviews the property located at 434 East Cooper Avenue, Lots Q, R, and S Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, 434 East Cooper Avenue is located within the Commercial Core Historic District; and WHEREAS, 434 East Cooper Avenue received Demolition approval by the Historic Preservation Commission on May 24, 2006 via Resolution number 14, Series of 2006; 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 434 East Cooper Avenue HPC Resolution# 33, Series of 2012 Page 1 of 3 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 and Zoning Commission shall exempt the development from the requirements of this Section; and WHEREAS, during the December 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 December 12, 2012 performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards had not been met and recommended continuation of the hearing to restudy the mass; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on December 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 five to zero (5 - 0). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants HPC Major Development (Conceptual), Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review, and Viewplane Review for the property located at 434 East Cooper Avenue, Lots Q, R, and S, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 434 East Cooper Avenue HPC Resolution# 33, Series of 2012 Page 2 of 3 I. Conceptual approval is granted as presented in the application. 2. The applicant shall restudy the parapet/cornice in greater detail for Final Review. 3. 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. 4. The trash/utility area is approved as presented with the following conditions: a. A detailed mechanical plan shall be submitted for Final Review. b. Trash/alley access for all of the retail spaces shall be demonstrated and reviewed at Final Review. 5. 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. 6. 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. Ann Mullins, Chair Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 434 East Cooper Avenue HPC Resolution# 33, Series of 2012 Page 3 of 3 4w it C'. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2012 Chairperson, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jay Maytin, Jamie McLeod, Nora Berko and Patrick Sagal. Absent were Sallie Golden, Willis Pember and Jane Hills. Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Senior Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Ann moved to approve the minutes of November 28th; second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried. 434 E. Cooper Ave. Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design and View plane review — public hearing Deborah Quinn said the affidavit of posting is in order and the applicant can proceed. Exhibit I Sara said this property received demolition in 2007 from HPC which remains valid. The proposal is to replace the existing building with a new two story building. It will be built out to the lot line and is primarily a one story with a second story setback from both street facing facades. They are proposing an off-site public amenity and they are also partially within the view plane but there are other buildings blocking the view plane so we found that not to be a concern. Staff's main concern has to do with the location of the second story. Traditional development downtown you typically have a strong one story and strong two story element and sometimes a three story at the street edge. We are concerned about the significant setback of the second floor that it does not reflect the traditional patterns that you see downtown. We are suggesting that the second floor be moved closer to the street and respects the strong street edge that the guidelines are looking for especially on a prominent street corner such as Cooper and Galena. Guideline 6.18 and 6.25 are not met. Staff feels there needs to be a strong one story and two story element downtown. The other concern is the height variation. Guideline 6.28 talks about achieving height variation using setbacks and varying the height along the fagade. The applicant is proposing changes to the parapet wall along the first story and staff is not completely supportive of that. We don't feel it meets the intent of the variation. This is a 9,000 square foot lot and we think by pushing the second story to the street you will get more of that height variation. We also have concerns that this 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2012 project is very similar to the Gap project down the street two blocks away. The form is very similar and the detail is similar. Staff is recommending continuation to restudy the location of the second floor mass and to better reflect the height variations that are intended in the guidelines. Sara said the applicant is proposing off-site public amenity which we find appropriate in this location. They would be required to do 10% which is about 900 square feet. With the mall and Paradise across the street we didn't' want to have a redundancy of open spaces and staff feels it is appropriate to have the off-site public amenity and it is consistent with guideline 6.7. Sara said overall the trash/utility is fine. We have some concerns about the mechanical on the roof that they aren't showing a comprehensive plan. At conceptual it is difficult to have a plan. We are recommending for final a complete mechanical plan so we can see what is happening. On the trash/utility standard 43 states that delivery services are integral to the building and two of the retail spaces don't have access to the alleys or trash area which can be resolved by adding a hallway. Sara said the corner of the building falls into the view plane but it is already blocked by buildings and one is an historic landmark. We also have much lower height limits right now. Staff is recommending approval of the view plane review. Charles Cunniffe said this is a scrape and replace of an existing building. We are trying to make this building compatible with Aspen. This location is unique and a square building is appropriate for this corner. Across the street is the Casa Tua building which is set back. The only truly historic building on the corner is the Independence Building and it is a three story building. Our material selection is cut sandstone which creates a pattern that is more reminiscent of an historic layering of a building. The store fronts have a vertical orientation with the mullion pattern. The building is edge to edge on the Cooper Street and Galena Street side. The existing building never had a step down parapet and it is actually compatible with the Aspen Block building. There is a nice pedestrian pattern as you come up the street and we want that to continue to read. This is one building and we do not feel it appropriate to step the building. It should express itself as a single floor plate and a single roof line. The kick plate section as you come to the alley is stepped down. We also returned a store front along the alley corner which 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2012 we feel more buildings should do in town to engage the alley with the pedestrian. We feel the second floor setback is appropriate. If we push the second floor to the street and to the corner we would have a large void dead space on the roof. On the mechanical we can show a mechanical area but you can't do a final mechanical plan before you have your tenants. We can show a corral where the mechanical can remain. Mitch Haas, Haas planning Page of the HPC guidelines Exhibit IV Mitch said in the guidelines it states that not every guideline will apply to each project. Mitch said this project is 100 % on the sidewalk edge and we are fully built out to the sidewalk edge. The most troubling guideline in the memo is 6.25. The guideline says maintain a two story height at the sidewalk edge or provide a horizontal design element at this level. This project does provide a horizontal design element at this level and meets the sidewalk edge. There have been two previous redevelopments proposed for this property. Both of those had either two or three stories built out to the property line. Both failed before council and public opinion. We don't want to make that mistake again. Given the existing patterns of properties adjacent in the core this single guideline is overstated. It was quite clear in the past that the public did not want a three story at this corner. By stepping back you will see the historic Red Onion sign on the side. Second story step backs are common in town. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. E-mail from Mari Rainer, Exhibit II Letter from Junee Kirk, Exhibit III Terry Butler said she has lived in the Aspen Block building next door for the last 26 years. I was probably the one that led the charge the hardest for the demise of the last project and it was three stories and built right out to the corner and threw a giant shadow on the entire corner and it would certainly shadow my building behind. This building I actually like a lot. Usually in this town we see developers push it right out to the edge and want every square inch they can get and I understand how expensive it is in town. Here we have someone that isn't asking for anything extra and is trying to work with the community. The end product will be something that we can all live with. One of the things I've always liked about the Fritz Benedict building 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2012 is the setback and all the openness of the corner. Even though they are building over the patio they have a lot of glass in the building and the setback on the second floor will be actually about where it is today. Every inch of light on the alley and the glass you will get a lot less ice in that alley. I am for the setback and having the sky, light and view plane is so much more important than having it build out to the edge. Junee Kirk said she agrees with everything that has been said. In this location it doesn't fit to bring the second story to the street. By setting back the second floor it opens up views. You will also be able to see the entire shape of the Red Onion building. I hope you approve the mass and scale as it is appropriate for this area. As a suggestion putting a little arcade over Galena might give it a little Western texture. It would also be a way to keep out of the rain. I am 100% in favor of approving this plan. Chairperson, Ann Mullins closed the public hearing. Ann stated the issues: Mass and scale Location of the second floor Height variation Public amenity Trash/utility and mechanical plan View plane Jamie thanked the applicant for the application. We can address the mechanical and trash at final. My only issue is that I thought we were reviewing the Gap. Maybe with materials and details we can distinguish this building differently. Setback, location and height are all acceptable. Ann said she is OK with the trash/utility and public amenity. I actually think in this part of town it works to have the second floor set back because there is already an openness in that area with the old Guido's and Paradise bakery. If we work with the materials we can distinguish the building from the Gap. I am supportive of the application. Nora echoed Ann and Jamie's comments. I am celebrating the two stories. Nora commented that most of the buildings in town have a truncated corner which makes it much more communal and a crowd assembly area. It is great that the windows are coming around the alley. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2012 Jay said this is a great project. I don't agree that the second floor should be brought forward because it would look like a bookend. It does look somewhat like the Gap building. I would like to see a different material rather than stone or rock. When you snowmelt possibly snow melt across the alley and work with the City. I would request at final that the mechanical be explained as best possible and that the materials are identified. This is the best project for this corner. Patrick said he feels this building will pass the public review which is the most important thing to me. It is a masterful job. I would recommend keeping the stone like the Wheeler and City Bank because of this premier location. I agree with Nora about the truncated corner and I walked around today and there were about 97 buildings that had setbacks or truncated corners that were lively. The heavy stone has been in Aspen since the 1880's. The window alleys lighten the area and bring people in. I am not in favor of off-site amenities. The parapet and the differences in setbacks on Galena work well. This building is far apart from the Gap and I see no problem between the two. Jamie said she is not in favor of chamfering that corner due to the mall being right there. Jay and Nora also agreed. Charles said between this building and the Gap purposefully we want the Gap building clean, simple and contemporary. This building is an anchor and a more stately building. This building has to hold its own on the corner and we are proposing a red sandstone cut. Mark Hunt, developer said the scale of the Gap is important and getting the verticality. I look at this building very differently. The rhythm might be similar. This is one of the best retail corners in Aspen and this building will kind of pay tribute to the Ute City building. We made a stronger base on this building which is horizontal. MOTION: Patrick moved to approve Resolution #33and grant conceptual approval as presented; second by Jay. Jamie asked for a friendly amendment that the parapet/cornice needs to get restudied for final. Patrick said he would not accept Jamie's amendment. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2012 Charles said they have not refined the details and the parapet would be part of that. There will be a greater level of detail for final. This is the mass and scale that we want approved. Amended motion: Jamie moved to amend the motion that the parapet and cornice get studied in greater detail at final. Nora said the mass and scale would not change. Amended motion second by Ann. Motion carried 4-1. Patrick voted no. Sara listed the conditions for conceptual: Granted as presented Off-site amenity Trash/utility access be reviewed at final Mechanical plan presented at final View plane Applicant shall study the parapet/cornice at greater detail at final Applicant has to submit for final within one year. Vote on motion and amendment: Jay, yes, Nora, yes, Patrick, yes; Jamie, yes, Ann, yes. Motion carried 5-0. 204 S. galena, Final Major Development and Final Commercial Design Review— Public Hearing Deborah Quinn said the affidavit of posting is in order and the applicant can proceed, Exhibit I. Amy said this proposal is for a new building on S. Galena Street and it is a complete replacement . There is an existing parking lot and the building will encompass that area. Staff recommends approval with 8 conditions. All new buildings are required to have an airlock or two sets of doors before you enter the space and that is in an effort to be energy efficient. That needs to be accomplished before building permit and it doesn't need to be reviewed by HPC. There is not enough information about the mechanical plan and it is not shown on the roof plan. There is a condition that nothing should be put on top of restaurant roof top and everything should be clean. The proposal is that the fagade will be a buff color and sandstone and there really aren't any other buildings in the historic core that use that color tone of 6 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL),COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW (CONCEPTUAL), AND VIEWPLANE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 434 FAST COOPER AVENUE, LOTS Q, R, AND S, BLOCK 89,CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,COLORADO RESOLUTION #33, SERIES OF 2012 PARCEL ID: 2737-182-16-011. WHEREAS, the applicant, 434 East Cooper Avenue, LLC with consent from the owner Bert Bidwell Investments Corporation, represented by Haas Land Planning, LLC and Charles Cunniffe Architects, has requested Major Development (Conceptual), Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review, and Viewplane Reviews the property located at 434 East Cooper Avenue, Lots Q, R, and S Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, 434 East Cooper Avenue is located within the Commercial Core Historic District; and WHEREAS, 434 East Cooper Avenue received Demolition approval by the Historic Preservation Commission on May 24,2006 via Resolution number 14, Series of 2006; 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 RECEPTION#: 595907, 01/08/2013 at 434 East Cooper Avenue 09:18:55 AM, HPC Resolution# 33, Series of 2012 1 OF 3, R $21.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Page 1 of 3 Janice K.Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO 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 propbsed 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; and WHEREAS, during the December 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 December 12, 2012 performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards had not been met and recommended continuation of the hearing to restudy the mass; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on December 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 five to zero (5 - 0). NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants HPC Major Development (Conceptual), Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review, and Viewplane Review for the property located at 434 East Cooper Avenue, Lots Q, R, and S, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 434 East Cooper Avenue HPC Resolution# 33, Series of 2012 Page 2 of 3 I. Conceptual approval is granted as presented in the application. 2. The applicant shall restudy the parapet/cornice in greater detail for Final Review, 3. Off-site public amenity improvements to the Pedestrian Malls is approved in accordance with band 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. 4. The trash/utility area is approved as presented with the following conditions: a. A detailed mechanical plan shall be submitted for Final Review. b. Trash/alley access for all of the retail spaces shall be demonstrated and reviewed at Final Review. 5. 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. 6. 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. Ann Mullins, Chair Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy StriclOand, Chief Deputy Clerk 434 East Cooper Avenue HPC Resolution 4 33, Series of 2012 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT j AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PR_OPERTY- CSC r ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: '-:D'C-C (Y1�v r �� ,201 Z STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, ( C �`��S G (. (name,please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, tolorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. 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 post d at least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing on the X day of PV PM el- , 20 2;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 toy,i the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage ttt 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. Y Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested,to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions that create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas, and COWAPs are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. ig tore The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this 30 day of N0,4LynYAr , 20 J�L, by -16GU �Jo!e WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL CAITLIN STROTHER DOYLE NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: %D, t, zj �2O!CQ STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID 20124057288 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT.4,2016 d Notary Public ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPYOFTHEPUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 Neighborhood Outreach for 434 East Cooper Avenue,Aspen Pursuant to Section 26.304.035 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the applicant provided neighborhood outreach in the form of an Open House that was held on December 10, 2012 at the offices of Charles Cunniffe Architecture. The design of the building was presented via slideshow and drawing boards to those in attendance. Information about date, time and location of the Open House was included with the HPC hearing public notice that was sent out on November 23, 2012. This should be considered more than adequate as this project is seeking Conceptual Commercial Design Review. Should this approval be granted, the applicant will need to apply for additional land use approvals that will also require public notice and public hearings. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 434 E. COOPER AVENUE, CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEWS, MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, December 12, 2012, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by 434 East Cooper LLC with authorization from property owner Bert Bidwell Investments Corp., 215 S. Monarch Street, Suite 203. The applicant is represented by Charles Cunniffe Architecture and Haas Land Planning, LLC. The project affects the property located at 434 E. Cooper Avenue Lots Q, R, and S, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, PID #2737-182-16-011. The applicant proposes to replace the existing building with a new two story entirely commercial building. Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Conceptual Major Development Review for a property located within the Commercial Core Historic District and Viewplane Review are required. For further information, contact Sara Adams at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429-2778, sara.adams@cityofaspen.com s/Ann Mullins Chair,Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on November 22, 2012 City of Aspen Account An Open House will be held on Monday, December 10, 2012 at the offices of Charles Cunniffe Architecture (610 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen) from 3:00 p.m. until 4:30 p.m. in order to gain input about the proposed development from neighbors and concerned citizens. The applicant's representatives will be on hand to answer questions from the public. Anyone interested in learning more about this development is encouraged to attend. 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 AJAX MOUNTAIN ASSOCIATES LLC AP RT 29 LLC 2090 W FIRST ST#1010 520 E DURANT ST#207 418 E COOPER AVE#207 FORT MYERS, FL 33901 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ARCADES ASSOCIATES LTD LLC ASPEN CORE VENTURES LLC ASPEN GROVE ASSOCIATES LLP C/O KRUGER&CO 418 E COOPER AVE#207 C/O M&W PROPERTIES 400 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 205 S MILL ST#301A ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN RETREAT LLC AV STEIN LLC 19.08% AVH ONION VENTURES II LLC 8.208 6536 E GAINSBOROUGH 601 E HYMAN AVE 601 E HYMAN AVE SCOTTSDALE,AZ 85251 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BARNETT-FYRWALD HOLDINGS INC BLACK HAWK ASPEN LLC BOOGIES BUILDING OF ASPEN LLC 500 PRESIDENT CLINTON AVE#310 ROECLIFFE COTTAGE JOE MOORES LN C/O LEONARD WEINGLASS LITTLE ROCK,AR 722011760 WOODHOUSE EAVES 534 E COOPER AVE LEICESTERSHIRE LE12 8TF ENGLAND, ASPEN, CO 81611 BPOE ASPEN LODGE#224 CARLSON BRUCE E TRUST CHISHOLM REVOCABLE TRUST 210 S GALENA ST#21 PO BOX 3587 3725 N GRANDVIEW DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 FLAGSTAFF,AZ 86004-1603 CITY OF ASPEN COASTAL MOUNTAIN INVESTMENTS ATTN FINANCE DEPT LLC COASTAL MTN PROPERTIES LLC 130 S GALENA ST 2519 N MCMULLEN BOOTH RD#510-307 2639 MC CORMICK DR CLEARWATER, FL 33759 ASPEN, CO 81611 CLEARWATER, FL 33761 COOPER STREET DEVELOPMENT LLC COTTONWOOD VENTURES II 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 DCGB LLC DENSON JAMES D C/O KRUGER&CO ATT GIORGIO RIGHETTI CFO PO BOX 1614 400 E HYMAN AVE 610 WEST 52 ST TUBAC,AZ 85646 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10019 DOLE MARGARET M C/O DUVIKE INC PE LTD EXELCEDAR INC 20% 400 E HYMAN AVE#302 LL A 534 E HYMAN AVE 230 S MI ASPEN, CO 816111989 ASPEN, LL 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 F&M VENTURES LLC FITZGERALD FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LTD FOOTLOOSE MOCCASIN MAKERS INC C/O MORRIS&FYRWALD RE C/O PITKIN COUNTY DRY GOODS LLC C/O MANUEL GOUVEIA 415 E HYMAN AVE 520 E COOPER 44 SILVERADO CT. ASPEN, CO 81611 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 GLENROY PARTNERS 2.9% GONE WEST LLC GORDON DAVID F&LETICIA LLC PO BOX 2157 401 W CENTER C/O JOE RACZAK/NORTH OF NELL MGT SANTA CRUZ, CA 95063 SEARCY,AR 721451406 555 E DURANT ASPEN, CO 81611 GORSUCH COOPER LLC GREENWAY COMPANY INC GREENWOOD KAREN DAY 263 E GORE CREEK DR 666 TRAVIS ST#100 GREENWOOD STERLING JAMES VAIL, CO 81657 SH.REVEPORT, LA 71101 409 E COOPER AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 GREGG LELAND JOHN GRIFFITH LARRY R GUIDOS SWISS INN LLC PO BOX 1935 19794 ESCADA CT 23655 TWO RIVERS RD SANTA YNEZ, CA 834601935 REDDING, CA 96003 BASALT, CO 81621 HOPPES DIANA HORSE ISLAND LLC HYMAN MALL COMMERCIAL CONDOS 5400 VERNON AVE#106 415 E HYMAN AVE#16 LLC EDINA, MN 55436 ASPEN, CO 81611 290 HEATHER LN ASPEN, CO 81611 INDEPENDENCE PARTNERS INDEPENDENCE SQUARE UNITS LLC INDY UNIT 211 LLC C/O CAPMARK INC 3109 OAKMONT DR PO BOX 11627 205 S MILL ST#301A STATESVILLE, NC 28625 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 JENNE LLP KANTZER TAYLOR M FAM TRST#1 KOPP AMELIA L TRUST 1510 WINDSOR RD 216 SEVENTEENTH ST 1000 DOLORES WY#B AUSTIN,TX 77402 MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 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 MASON &MORSE INC 404 S GALENA C/O STEPHEN J MARCUS 514 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 1709 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 MCDONALDS CORPORATION 05/152 MEYER BUSINESS BUILDING LLC MORRIS ROBERT P PAUL NELSON 23655 TWO RIVERS RD 600 E HOPKINS AVE STE 304 142 TANAGER DR BASALT, CO 81621 ASPEN, CO 81611 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 MTN ENTERPRISES 80B NH ONION VENTURES II LLC 16.918% NJ STEIN LLC 52.98% C/O HILLIS OF SNOWMASS 601 E HYMAN AVE 418 E COOPER AVE#207 PO BOX 5739 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 EAGLE, CO 816315739 P&L PROPERTIES LLC PARAGON PENTHOUSE LLC PEYTON MARI 101 S 3RD ST#360 9950 SANTA MONICA BLVD 409 E COOPER#4 STE 1 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 ASPEN, CO 81611 PITKIN COUNTY BANK 80% RANKMORE KEVIN L&JASMINE RED ONION INVESTORS LLC 65.784% 534 E HYMAN AVE PO BOX 168 418 E COOPER ST#207 ASPEN, CO 81611 WELLINGTON NSW 2820 AUSTRALIA, ASPEN, CO 81611 RG COOPER ST 4.83% RG ONION VENTURES II LLC 4% RONCHETTO LYNN A C/O RONALD GARFIELD 601 E HYMAN AVE 320 E 42ND ST#101 601 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10017 ASPEN, CO 81611 ROSS BARBARA REVOCABLE TRUST ROSS ROGER A REVOCABLE TRUST RUTLEDGE REYNIE PO BOX 594 4720 WAILAPA RD 51 COUNTRY CLUB CIR HANALEI, HI 96714 KILAUEA, HI 96754 SEARCY,AR 72143 SCHROEDER FAMILY TRUST SCHULTZE DANIEL G SH ONION VENTURES II LLC 2.19% 4 GREENWOOD CT 7711 WESTMINISTER 601 E HYMAN AVE ORINDA, CA 94563 BYRON CENTER, MI 49315 ASPEN, CO 81611 SILVER SLAM COMMERCIAL LLC SJA ASSOCIATES LLC SLAM COMMERCIAL LLC C/O RELATED COMPANIES/JEFF BLAU 418 E COOPER AVE#207 2100 E MAPLE RD#200 60 COLUMBUS CIR ASPEN, CO 81611 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 NEW YORK, NY 10023 STEIN BUILDING LLC 23.11% STEPHENS ROSS DAVID SWEARINGEN WILLIAM F 601 E HYMAN AVE 1337 B DANIELSON RD 450 CONWAY MANOR DR NW ASPEN, CO 81611 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93108 ATLANTA, GA 303273518 SWENERG JAMES&SANDRA L TENNESSEE THREE TENNESSEE THREE RENTALS 2660 ROCK REST RD PO BOX 101444 C/O J H COBLE PITTSBORO, NC 27312 NASHVILLE,TN 37224-1444 5033 OLD HICKORY BLVD NASHVILLE,TN 37218-4020 TOMKINS FAMILY TRUST VALLEY INVESTMENTS LLC VOLK PLAZA LLC 520 E COOPER AVE#209 205 S MILL ST#301A 995 COWEN DR#201 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 CARBONDALE, CO 81623-1657 VOLK RICHARD W TRUSTEE WAVO PROPERTIES LP WENDELIN ASSOC C/O RICHARD W VOLK MANAGER 512 1/2 E GRAND AVE#200 150 METRO PARK 2327 MIMOSA DR DES MOINES, IA 50309-1942 ROCHESTER, NY 14623 HOUSTON,TX 77019 WHEELER BLOCK BUILDING LLC WOLF LAWRENCE G TRUSTEE WOOD ARNOLD S&ANNE M TKG MANAGEMENT INC C/O 22750 WOODWARD AVE#204 65 MOSTYN ST 211 N STADIUM BLVD STE 201 FERNDALE, MI 48220 SWAMPSCOTT, MA 01907 COLUMBIA, MO 65203 WOODS FAMILY LP ZUPANCIS ROBERT L 30.621% PO BOX 11468 509 RACE ST ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 �, -� PROPOSED RED ONION ____ANNEX BUILDING 4 W EELER VIE P EXISTING RED ONION ANNEX ri _ U) BUILDING BUILDING T—SHIRT HYMAN SHOP ALLEY PROPOSED BUILDING COOPER AVENUE W WHEELER VIEW PLANE AVENUE H173 BU1CCk GAT 7,434.78 dR 75.54'ASOVEi',RAQE 4 U O SECTION CUT ALONG WHEELER VIEW PLANE ____ -- _ _ _ . . _ _ _. Q N.T.S. w o w Z � m LL � O z L z llJ gs — — — — w U 4 �.4 } W 2 `_ � ALLEY BLOCK 89 Z cl� �! —EXISTI PARKII VETER a� -- O'n n K; Z O W O �is ......� n . °a"° _< --EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN A13 w z ^� m CL W HITS BUILDING ¢ ( O `� ❑ 7,934.78 OR 15. o sue, d ABOVE GRADE " �6. O >q U W U o 0 F_ O EXISTING .__ _ w STORY W QQ BRICK BUILDING ��W Y LINE M M TWO �j SIGN EXISTING TREES' ARD IVE® 12/6/2012 2 COOPER vE PROPOSED ,/Ahlll, DEC 5 2012 A3.3 2 A4.6 �__ CITY OF ASPEN PROPOSED SITE PLAN '01 MINITY DFVELQPMENT op 4�j 1 � U) W -�/ W " rn 1 LL ttT 1 z z W H a C op P' C U 1- T-SHIRT SHOP BUILDING +/-7,917.06' GRADE ELEVATION,'$- VIEWPLANE INTERSECTION / es +/-7,925.48' (+/-8'-5") HEIGHT OF VIEWPLANE�aBUiLDING ESTIMATED HEIGHT OF BUILDING= 1 V-6 f Lu 1 Z> 2- MORRIS AND FYRWALD BUILDING / ui z +/-7,91800' GRADE ELEVATION Cc VIEWPLANE INTERSECTION V �J ss a_ uJ C +/-7,929.00' (+/-1 1'-0") HEIGHT OF VIEWPLANE rte;BUILDING t i 1 �_ T O Q C ESTIMATED HEIGHT OF BUILDING=40' O C LLJ 3- RED ONION BUILDING(TOMMY LATTA BUILDING-1892 O +/-7,918.50' GRADE ELEVATION Ca VIEWPLANE INTERSECTION '�'^ VI O e +/-7,931.00' (+/-12'-6") HEIGHT OF VIEWPLANE a BUILDING LL ESTIMATED HEIGHT OF BUILDING=40' < U Q a 4- BIDWELL BUILDING(MOUNTAIN PLAZA BUILDING-1965) LLI 7,919.22' GRADE ELEVATION Cm VIEWPLANE INTERSECTION m 7,934.78' (+15.56') HEIGHT OF VIEWPLANE-BUILDING � 5- INDEPENDENCE BUILDING(BROWN&HOAG BUILDING-1889) +/-7,920.00' GRADE ELEVATION 4,VIEWPLANE INTERSECTION +1-7,944.60' HEIGHT OF VIEWPLANE-a BUILDING ESTIMATED HEIGHT OF BUILDING=42' RECEI"v- 12/6/2012 • PROPOSED DEC 5 2012 VIEWPLANE STUDY A4.7 N.T.S. , c e a� AN . � 1 �Wr a y C • • CA • . � 1 IMULTI-STORY ADJACENT BUILDING I T -R 675'=F PARAPET , 7948 EL 128'-0" J %7934,78WHEELER - J 8021 67 MAIN ui 4.� =7950.675' , S Z / i Lli °o ' U / 7936 75 ELER - / ' 8028.63 MAI TREES 76 REMAIN BACK OF CURB TREES TO REMAIN O -_ _ SOUTH GALENA STREET NIP 0� 434 EAST COOPER [RIO HPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW CHARLES CUNNIFFE DECEMBER 12, 2012 ARCHITECTS Boa'-o" ❑ VERTICAL CIRCULATION COMMERCIAL MRWE MECHANICAL - ls.� UP 24'-8" 24'-8" 00 DECOMMISSIONEE DECOMMISSIONED SPACE SPACE O ASEMENT LEVEL PLAN ON 434 EAST COOPER 012 HPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW CHARLES CUNNIFFE DECEMBER 12, 2012 ARCHITECTS __ ❑ VERTICAL CIRCULATION COMMERCIAL 1001.91 ` ❑ MECHANICAL 24'-6" y 511-0" CORRIOM TAI u DN ELE `4 i r 'n L1 rfRASH/RECYCLE iv SPACE. PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL Pl. ......................... 434 EAST COOPER HPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW CHARLES CUNNIFFE DECEMBER 12, 2012 ARCHITECTS ❑ VERTICAL CIRCULATION COMMERCIAL ❑ MECHANICAL 100'A" 2T-7" y 57-4" DN iq r MEC ID m �j �i C9 in DECK 23'-7" 21-10" ROOF-10" 23'-T' 0 R . E N 434 EAST COOPER 00 HPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW CHARLES CUNNIFFE DECEMBER 12, 2012 ARCHITECTS ELEVATOR OVERRUN PARAPET • FLAT ROOF ROOF DECK BELOW IROP AW 0 ED ON 434 EAST COOPER QQ CCLC MEETING CHARLES CUNNIFFE DECEMBER 5, 2012 ARCHITECTS } ■ i■ � i=i ��� i,=i ■ 'I' - y ■, ■ ■ i tl - 11 ■■ �■ ■I I■I II ■■ � ■ � �I■I I■I allulifFilliqvil Ak 4 i► .b) i R" c Fn C 434 EAST EAST • • CA HPC CONCEPTUAL NNIFFE DECEMBER 12, 2012 I oU -1■ O.F- F. I INN 434 EAST COOPER" 012 HPC CONCPEPTUAL REVIEW ol CHARLES CUNNIFFE DECEMBER 12, 2012 ARCHITECTS �r h� =a • r AiL Q� 434 EAST COOPER 00 HPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW CHARLES CUNNIFFE DECEMBER 12, 2012 ARCHITECTS !1 AILS s1airws rLooi yiC' a > ,.. n sf.3 >�� \ 'w ®R► �_ 'D_ �- '{ ; ossaft , D � C I I A • • CA • I , wr � A fa! C • • CA • i . ON r • I • r r • r �1_'"�•.may - A � �" � i # � ��� ti N _ _ I I _ r • CA • i . 1 - y 1 'MIRROWRNER DEV UFN I C 434 EAST COOPER CA HPC CONCEPTUAL CHARLES CUNNIFFE DECEMBER 12, 2012 ARCHITECTS "°.-.........sue- - �� Ya _ T C 434 EAST COOPER HPC C A CONCEPTUAL CHARLES CLINNIFFE DECEMBER 12, 1 ARCHITECTS i iN 1 ul s .,. _ �`_ Ifs..•. EXISTING 611VELOPMENTM SECOND FLOOR SETBACKS 434 EAST COOPER CA HPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW CHARLES CLINNIFFE DECEMBER 12, 2012 ARCHITECTS r t�w' e I 434 EAST COOPER 0� 434 EAST COOPER ©Q HPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW CHARLES CUNNIFFE DECEMBER 12, 2012 ARCHITECTS MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 434 E. Cooper Avenue - Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design, Viewplane-Public Hearing DATE: December 12, 2012 SUMMARY: The applicant requests approval to construct a two story building on the corner of Galena Street and Cooper Avenue. The 9,000 square feet property is located at 434 East Cooper Avenue and is part of the Commercial Core Historic District. HPC has seen various redevelopment proposals for this site since 2007. The current application is for a 100% commercial building with a basement, first floor, and smaller second floor. Demolition approval was granted in 2007 and remains valid. HPC is asked to review Conceptual Image 1: Existing building at 434 E.Cooper Ave. Commercial Design Review, Conceptual Major Development, and Viewplane Review. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC continue the public hearing to restudy the location of the second floor space and the prominence of the Cooper Avenue fagade. APPLICANT: 434 East Cooper Avenue, LLC, c/o Curtis Sanders, Sherman and Howard, 201 N. Mill Street, Aspen, represented by Haas Land Planning, 201 N. Mill Street, Suite 208, Aspen, CO. PARCEL ID: 2737-182-16-011 ADDRESS: 434 East Cooper Avenue, Lots Q, R and S, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO, commonly known as 434 East Cooper Street. ZONE DISTRICT: CC, Commercial Core, Historic District Overlay. 434 East Cooper Avenue HPC Conceptual Reviews Staff Memo Page 1 of 10 CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEWS 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 scale, massing, height 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" and/or referenced below. SITE PLAN: The building is proposed to be located on the property lines and parallel to the streets. As described below, off-site public amenity is proposed. Staff finds that the proposed site plan reinforces the traditional town grid and meets the design guidelines. As a reminder for Final Review, interior airlocks are required and need to be illustrated on the floor plans. 6.1 Maintain the established town gird 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. 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 434 East Cooper Avenue HPC Conceptual Reviews Staff Memo Page 2 of 10 HEIGHT: The proposed building height is 28' for two story elements, which meets Code requirements. A 2' overrun is proposed for the elevator for a maximum total of 30'. The first level has a floor to floor height of between 12'. to 15' (to compensate for grade changes along Galena) topped with significant parapets ranging between 3' 6" and 5' 6" tall. The second level has a floor to floor height of 14'. The proposed floor heights and the overall height of the building meets Land Use Code requirements. 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. • Setback the upper floor to vary the building facade profile(s) and the roof forms across the width and the depth of the building. • Vary the 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. The altering parapet heights attempt to provide height variation along the large 90' x 100' lot as stated in Guideline 6.28. However the fagade articulation are not entirely successful on such a large lot. Actual height changes that run the depth of the lot is more aligned with the intent of Guideline 6.28 for a large corner property than parapet details. In addition, this treatment is very similar to the approved project at 204 S. Galena (the Gap) which is located only 2 blocks away. Staff is concerned that the two buildings are almost identical in their architectural treatment which could be detrimental to the Historic District and its interesting range of building types, heights and styles. The Design Guidelines list as a key objective to "promote variety in the street level experience....and build upon established design traditions, creativity and innovation in a manner which strengthens the architectural richness and identity of the city core." While these are issues for Final Review, Staff is concerned that the proposed details on the second story, the window sizes, and some of the architectural treatments on the first story do not meet the Design Objectives for the Historic District: 2) Promote creative, contemporary design that respects the historic context and 6) promote variety in the street level experience. Outside of Commercial Design Review Staff is concerned about the versatility of proposed Space B that spans three floors, which if divided into smaller spaces will necessitate an extensive remodel to meet egress requirements and possibly more mechanical equipment depending on the type of commercial use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC continue the hearing for a restudy of location of the second floor mass to better reflect traditional development patterns and height variations. 434 East Cooper Avenue HPC Conceptual Reviews Staff Memo Page 6 of 10 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Providing onsite public amenity is redundant in this location on the Cooper Mall. In addition, defining a strong street corner is more consistent with traditional patterns of development in the Historic District. The Design Guidelines state "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." And Guideline 6.7 states that "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." Staff is supportive of off-site public amenity in this location. 434 East Cooper Avenue HPC Conceptual Reviews Staff Memo Page 7 of 10 Staff finds that standard 2 is met in the proposal. Currently the property has 9% public amenity and is required to mitigate for 10% public amenity, which equals_ 900 square feet. The applicant commits to at least $67,500 (900 sf * $75 = $67,500) worth of public improvements in the Pedestrian Malls subject to Parks Department and Community Development Department approval. The improvements shall be consistent with any public infrastructure or capital improvement plan for the area. TRASWUTILITY/RECYCLE AREA: 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. 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 RECOMMENDATION: As represented in the application the trash/recycle/utility area meets the dimensional requirements of the Code. A common mechanical room is located adjacent to the second floor commercial space in an enclosed room. The roof plans do not show any mechanical equipment on top of the roof. The applicant represents that this building is to be all commercial, probably retail, spaces. Staff questions whether this is the extent of the mechanical equipment proposed for the development, or if additional venting and equipment is required depending on the tenants. Staff recommends that a complete mechanical plan that meets standard 5 be submitted for review and approval as a condition of Final Review. 434 East Cooper Avenue HPC Conceptual Reviews Staff Memo Page 8 of 10 The delivery service area is located along the alley, however it only provides access to Units B.0, B.1, and B.2. The other 2 commercial spaces do not have internal access to the trash area or delivery service area. Staff finds that standard 3 is not met. Staff recommends that this be resolved at Final Review when the internal floor plans are further developed. 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. 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 RECOMMENDATION: Only the southwest corner of the proposed building falls within the Wheeler Opera House Viewplane. A small corner of the proposed second story falls about 13' 9" into the Viewplane. The current building height sits about 11'5" into the Viewplane. 434 East Cooper Avenue HPC Conceptual Reviews Staff Memo Page 9 of 10 The one story T-shirt shop and four story Roaring Fork Building already block the Wheeler Opera House Viewplane; therefore, the Mountain Plaza proposal does not directly impact the Viewplane in the current downtown configuration. The Roaring Fork Building is under HPC's purview, as it is located in the Commercial Core Historic District. Future redevelopment of the Roaring Fork Building would appear to potentially open some of the View Plane although this is highly unlikely since the building is 4 stories - a height and FAR that is no longer permitted. The landmark Independence Square building, located across the intersection of Cooper and Galena, infringes upon the Wheeler Viewplane. Due to landmark status, it is unlikely that Independence Square will be redeveloped in the future. Staff recommends that HPC grant Viewplane approval due to the existing buildings that already block the view between the Wheeler Opera House and Aspen Mountain and the improbability of future redevelopment of the existing buildings. SUGGESTED DISCUSSION POINTS: 1. Location of second story 2. Height variation 3. Off-site public amenity 4. Trash/utility area 5. Mechanical plan 6. Viewplane 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 continue Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Conceptual Major Development Review for the project located at 434 East Cooper Avenue to restudy the location of the mass on the second floor. Exhibits: A. Relevant Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Guidelines and Objectives. B. Application. 434 East Cooper Avenue HPC Conceptual Reviews Staff Memo Page 10 of 10 Commercial 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 5. Accommodate outdoor public spaces where function of the street and enhance its pedestrian 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 6. Promote variety in the street level in the following pages. 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 cotninerciat,Lodging and ifistoric District' Design 06je4ives and Guidelines EXHIBIT ATTACHMENT 2 -Historic Preservation Land Use Applicatil a PROJECT: --__-- ) -` r Name: v d 2 -1 Location: 431 E. co 0 La a R_+ S tlo ck o (Indicate str et address,lot&block number or met and bounds description of property) Parcel ID# (REQUIRED) 2131—I S_1-1�— 01 APPLICANT: // // Name: C.�[�(�i Address: f o /S SQ/i �e mgr r Zo/ /U. /1'10. Swk 201 AVYI) Phone#: Z 63 00 Fax#: E-mail: REPRESENTATIVE: Name: llaas Lar-J Plarin1 n Address: 20 N - M SA- 2f-)1S Phone#• Gj- Fax#: S- E-mail: m k( a S •c TYPE OF APPLICATION: lease check all that apply): ❑ Historic Designation ❑ Relocation(temporary,on ❑ Certificate of No Negative Effect ❑ or off-site) ❑ Certificate of Appropriateness ❑ Demolition(total ❑ -Minor Historic Development demolition) ❑ -Major Historic Development ❑ Historic Landmark Lot Split -Conceptual Historic Development ❑ -Final Historic Development -Substantial Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings,uses,previous approvals,etc.) kit- e) In 1 - 1 "-J/ r da�Qy_j PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings,uses,modifications,etc.) 11 a o—54-b uYY)YwY- 1 of l i y- 0 G I ex 6011di'll Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements,Updated:May 29,2007 ATTACHMENT 3- Dimensional Requirements Form (Item#10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.) n �? l Project: Mo��nlo o, PI J UU 1CI l>7-' dt"U7`.'l—olom Applicant: AAIVOOPal 141.erkw— L_cl J Project 'I f�� ,, n Location: ��'c CO f TT YC A512f it Zone 1 / l District: CO YywYY,(C(aI Corr CC L J Lot Size: q n C Lot Area: _q,0 00 S-F (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.) r Commercial net leasable: Existing: l q1 g� Proposed: Number of residential units: Existing: Proposed: Number of bedrooms: Existing: Proposed: N Proposed%of demolition: loo O DIMENSIONS: (write n/a where no requirement exists in the zone district) Floor Area: 2.( Existing:ljS Allowable: 8 OUD Proposed:f 3 I CaYNW(clz( j�omrnerz'lal Com4err4&i Heisht ! � 3 Principal Bldg.: Existing:24 V V9 (Allowable:ZO t Proposed: Accessory Bldg.: Existing: A//A Allowable: N A Proposed: �A On-Site parking: Existing: qq Required: Proposed: %Site coverage: Existing: ��/h Required:�� Proposed: X00�b �Sli L �{,, q N IV Og-vle or. 0,..A 't– I`� Existing: �n /y Required. rl Proposed: Front Setback: Existing: „//A Required. N Proposed: Rear Setback: Existing: Required: IQ Proposed: �V/A Combined Front/Rear: Indicate N, S,E,W Existing: IVIA Required: /' A Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: 'I Required: Proposed: Combined Sides: Existing: 0 Required: " Proposed: Distance between Existing: Required: Proposed: buildings: Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: Variations requested(identify the exact variances needed): Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements,Updated:May 29,2007 [::I CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Sara Adams,429-2778 DATE: 3.28.12 PROJECT: 434 East Cooper Street, Lots Q,R,and S,Biock 89,City and Townsite of Aspen REPRESENTATIVE: Charles Cunniffe and Erica Delack,Charles Cunniffe Architects,9701925-5590 DESCRIPTION: The potential applicant is interested in demolishing the existing building and constructing a new one and two story building on the site. The property is located within the Commercial Core Historic District (CC)and as such 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. This is a two step process. A height variance from City Council is required to exceed the 28 ft.height limit for two story elements of the building. A small portion of 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. The applicant indicated that there is an existing deficit of 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$30,0001space. The applicant indicates that there is currently less than 10%public amenity on the site. As such the applicant is required to provide 10% public amenity 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 potential applicant indicated that the new building is to be 100% commercial use. The Commercial Core Historic District permits a maximum FAR of 2:1 for commercial,so for this 9,000 square foot lot,a total of 18,000 square feet of floor area is permitted. Any increase in commercial net leasable area over that which currently exists on the site (existing net leasable needs to be documented and verified by the Zoning Officer)requires growth management allotments and review. Affordable housing mitigation is calculated at 60°l0 of the employee generated by the new commercial net leasable area. Typically the Planning and Zoning Commission conducts growth management review; however in some cases City Council conducts growth management review— for example, Council reviews requests to pay cash in lieu for affordable housing equivalent to more than one unit. The level of growth management review depends upon the scope of the project. A minor enlargement of commercial net leasable area that is less than 250 square feet qualifies as an administrative growth management review, however the affordable housing mitigation requires a minor growth management review by Planning and Zoning. An increase of more than 250 square feet of net leasable is a major growth management review by Planning and Zoning. A major growth management application is required to be submitted on either February 151h or August 15th and is required to compete for growth management allocations through the community objectives and scoring process. The applicant indicates that the building will be in single ownership which does not trigger subdivision review. Referral agencies for technical considerations -HPC for Conceptual Approval and Final Approval as described above P&Z for Growth Management Review Public Hearing: Yes, at HPC and P&Z. 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$3151hour.For the P&Z application:call Staff for a new pre-application summary because it depends upon the type of GMQS review. Referral Fees: Engineering, billed at$2651hour(1 hour deposit) Total Deposit: $2,155 Total Number of Application Copies: 10 for HPC application. The P&Z application may only be submitted AFTER conceptual review is granted by HPC Call Staff after HPC approval to get a new pre-application summary. 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 8112"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. ... . ..... EXHIBIT Certificate and Disclosure of Ownership 1, Curtis B. Sanders, a duly licensed attorney of the State of Colorado,and as attorney for 434 East Cooper Avenue, LLC,as Applicant,hereby certify that Bert:Bidwell Investments Corporation is the record owner of the real property described as Lots Q,R, S,Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado (the "Pro e "): I hereby further certify that as of the date hereof,the Property is subject to the encumbrances of record as described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Dated:March, 7, 2012 k�S�mdi7rs,Esq.,Attorney Reg.No. 23551 SUS RE14305598.1 '- EXHIBIT - Dimensional Requirements of the Commercial Core CC Zone District 26.710.140 • Minimum Gross Lot Area: No requirement. • Minimum Net Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit: No requirement. • Minimum Lot Width: No requirement. • Minimum Front Yard: No requirement. • Minimum Rear Yard: No requirement. • Minimum Side Yard: No requirement. • Minimum Utility/Trash/Recycle Area: - Pursuant to Section 26.575.060. - Existing Condition: N/A. - Proposed: See Plans • Maximum Height: - CC Zoning: 28 feet for two-story elements of a building. - Existing Condition: 28' 4" - Proposed: 28 feet. • Minimum Distance between Detached Buildings: No requirement. • Public Amenity Space: Pursuant to Section 26.575.030, since the existing Public Amenity Space is less than 10%, the effective requirement is 10%. The applicant intends to provide either offsite public amenity improvements or cash-on-lieu. • Floor Area Ratio (FAR): - CC Zoning: Maximum of 2:1 for Commercial Uses (18,000sf for this parcel). - Existing Condition: 15,966sf of Commercial FAR. - Proposed: 13,417sf of Commercial FAR(1.49:1). • Maximum Multi-Family Residential Unit Size: Not applicable as the property does not and will not contain any residential space. • Maximum Lodge Unit Size: Not applicable as the property does not and will not include any lodging use. • Commercial/Residential Ratio: Not applicable as the property does not and will not contain any residential space. This development does not require any variances from the C-1 Zone District Dimensional Requirements for a Mixed-Use project. x PUBLIC NOTICE _ Date' r Time" � t r.ay�'{�1.,'�'fjj ..c, it- a now+ rintir�-ia i §CCU. -h "t# lw � ?r-rit7 d�! i , .._ 434 East Cogw, LLC w invesirnYris Corp.. 2$S L.r r,yl."t,S rsMOUR° rarer IMOtma Pe-tvan t" —1, iy r is sl d 4 1 ' PUBLIC NOTICE cevetvpnl ct feviEY". ark: 1.1-M Review. For Urther `nto.-ltis1ir,r?pt1W� aUBUP NO � Date: t;. e' Time:: 5prr. Place;gseme,-,t,r t: , S.Sadinra s1 Purpose: A PuNkc,lt"inq by vii, I ri i7rY8Qt�1'1.�0lilRrtS5fOn to t,,.•:. .. .. : _...— -- - PM PO reaOV-7 t'P with a new 2 stcry dd $3a East,COW.r, ,LC wdn__, authorization by Owner Bert Sd011 Inv is Corp,215 S Mon rte . Si.. 2031, The zFp,i a^t"_ req, ComeP'uai pE�.;t�rt aril Gc^ceptu8� sly-PUBLIC NOTICE d110Wme.1 re's ws. ViewpweF,: v r rnlOrrnat;�'v �, For fu 4,n P e,n:ng Ct;. Ak Wn, Fr', rt rem r AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: IZ ,201Z ( P�� STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) (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 (33 00) 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 trey appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the om,ners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (Continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment: Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise,the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However,the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Si at e ter. The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this -�>day WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL PUBLIC NOTICE RE:434 E.COOPER AVENUE,CONCEPTUAL CONC COMNH C ALLDES,IGN REVIEWS,MOUNTAIN AL My commission expires: VIEW PLANE REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday,December 12,2012,at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m.before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commisson,Council Cham- Notary Public sirs,an application ubmitted byt434 East Cooper Notary J sider it app owner Bert LLC with authorization from property Bidwell investments Cori 215 epresented b hCharles Suite 203.The applicant Cunniffe Architecture and Haas Land riving, LLC. The project affects the property located lock 9l 434 E.Cooper Avenue Lots�,R,and S, City and Townsde of Aspen,County of Pitlun,State of Colorado,PID#2737-182-16-011. The appli- cant proposes I replace the existing building with a new two story entirely commercial building.Con- ceptual Commercial Design Review, eptua Malor l�velopmant Review+or a ProPfL ' ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: within the Commercial Core Historic District and ,J$LICATION - miationacontact Sara Adams r at the City of Aspen community lne Review are recl A Development n,CO, of 42 mz»130 a ad- )F THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) ams@ciryofaspen.com 7NERS AND GOVERNMENT AGENGIES NOTICED s/Ann Mullins Chair,Aspen Historic Preservation Commission � b is(h4d in ntth)Aspen Times on November 22, ,TICICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 C,:,)MMUNITY DwVE-DPMENT °5 STREET 130 S.�-�81611 ASPEN CO �-� (freedom ''• FOREVER I TOMKINS FAMILY TRUST f - 520 E COOPER AVE#209 ASPEN, CO 81611 )MwUNITY DMOPMENT °s 13t S.GALE*k STREET ASPEN,CO 81611 ��� ir; ice VE HYMAN MALL COMMERCIAL CONDOS > LLC .,.. 290 HEATHER LN ASPEN, CO 81611 s a Tl f: �JMMUNITI(D 130 S GALENA S N ... ^ ° ASPEN,CO 81611 _ Liberty FOREVER VOLK RICHARD W TRUSTEE C/O RICHARD W VOLK MANAGER 2327 MIMOSA DR HOUSTON,TX 77019 Kathy EXHIBIT Strickland � � _� ^I From: Sara Adams Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 2:10 PM To: 'Jam ie @brewstermcleod.com';jane hills; Jay Maytin Qaymaytin @gmail.com); mullins.ann @g mail.com; Nora Berko (norahowie @comcast.net); patrick sagal; sallie golden; willis pember Cc: Kathy Strickland Subject: FW: Bert Bidwell Building Public comment for tomorrow night's hearing on 434 E. Cooper Ave. (the Bidwell Building aka kemo sabe). **please note: my email is changing to sara.adams(a)cityofaspen com Sara Adams,AICP Senior Planner City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 tole. 970.429,2778 www.as en itkin.com From: Mari [mailto:marirainerft com] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 8:15 PM To: Amy Guthrie Subject: Bert Bidwell Building Dear Amy, I trust you will forward these comments to the HPC members. I am thrilled, thrilled about the application for this building. As a neighbor, I was terrified of having a solid brick wall shutting out my view. This applicant is asking for no more than allowed, highly unusual for a developer not to seek what is allowed x 3. It's going to be an asset, and I especially like the second-story setback. Don't change a thing. Mari Rainer former P&Z commissioner Aspen resident since 1974 Former president of Open Space citizens' committee. Home 970-925-6934 Sara Adams EXHIBI.T� ' From: junee kirk ounee.kirk @comcast.net] "I Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 5:10 PM To: saraa @ci.aspen.co.us Subject: FW: The Bidwell Building Dear HPC: I have had the opportunity to review the slides at the public outreach for the proposed Bidwell Building. The proposed plans have an appropriate second story set back substantially from the first floor, where historic buildings such as the Red Onion and the Aspen Block can be better seen and admired from a streetscape perspective. This is a definite positive. This design is sensitive to the Mall character of one and two story buildings and serves appropriately as a corner feature for the entrance to the mall with the ample second story setback. Obviously this setback can serve as a restaurant where the public would enjoy the views up and down Galena, the Mall and Aspen mountain. Since this appropriate, low mass structure is much better than any former proposals, which were too massive for this corner, I hope HPC will approve this. This design attractively complements the surrounding structures, and fits in well with those structures on the mall. It also gives appropriate homage to our 19`h century Independence Square building, across the street and is designed with appropriate materials. I hope HPC will pass it . I disagree with staff that the second story should be brought out to the lot line, like the first level. Consideration should be given that all structures on the Mall are one or two stories, and just because a guideline might suggest that corner structures be built to the sidewalk is no reason to assume that this is in the best interest of this block or neighborhood appropriateness. It would be nice, additionally, to have a covered sidewalk on Galena Street, like presently exists, to bring back that " western vernacular"feeling that the Bidwell building historically is known for. It would be in keeping with other historic traditions around Aspen as seen in the former hardware building, former Aspen Drug building and present. Aspen Square building. People enjoy being in the shade, and protected from the rain and snow. I suggest this only provided that that the present design with the second story setback is passed by HPC. Thank you for your time and consideration lunee Kirk Email secured by Check Point i EXHIB ' Introduction �r a+,�a � r;.�r,fir ►r�ir.► +�a.�r� r=r-+r r�;,r +�; M +% Note drat not every puidelinev w l AP„pY-to Aspen is a unique community, richly endowed §;+►`- each prolet, and„Ji ,se b � pf,t with history, dramatic landscapes, a vibrant i guidelines toccuronacase by casebasis- The HPC must determine that a economy, and vital cultural scene. Each of these elements contributes to the appeal of the City and er of the relevant UldelYnes ..av „b ' enhances its livability. Within this context, the t' el met m order to approy a Prpj*ec( preservation of historic resources is a high priority Pr�11�sa * for Aspen.This policy is articulated in the Aspen + y We emphasize that these are onl yguidelines, Area Community Plan and in ordinances that ���- e provide for protection of landmarked properties 1► are not applicable in all cases and need to be wei hed the racticalit ofthe measure” and historic districts. � �� �„ P ��' This document provides an overview to the City's from mature trees that were properly seasoned preservation program and then presents design and typically milled to full dimension, which guidelines that the City uses when administering often yields stronger framing. Masonry walls its review authority. The introduction contains were carefully laid, resulting in buildings with these key sections: considerable stability.Also,these structures were • Preservation in Aspen thoughtfully detailed and the finishes of • Aspen Historic Overview materials, including fixtures, wood floors and Architectural Styles in Aspen trim,were generally of high quality—all features that owners today appreciate and value. A series of chapters containing the design Adaptability guidelines then follows.These articulate policies � for the treatment of locally-designated historic Owners frequently find that the floor plans of properties and districts. historic buildings easily accommodate modern i lifestyles and support a diversity of populations. Many rooms are large,permitting a variety of uses i Why Preserve H1stOlIC Resources? while retaining the overall historic character of .Y the structure. Even historic buildings that are r Across the nation, thousands of communities smaller in scale often have lots that can promote historic preservation because doing so accommodate additions, if needed. contributes to neighborhood livability, variety, ' and quality of life, minimizes negative impacts Livability and quality of life on the environment and yields economic rewards. When groups of older buildings occur as a historic These same reasons apply in Aspen. district, such as along Main Street or the Commercial Core in Aspen, they create a street ' Preservation of the built environment in Aspen scene that is"pedestrian friendly,"and encourages provides a fundamental link to the past.Many of walking and neighborly interaction.Mature trees the buildings tell the story of Aspen's unique and decorative architectural features also historical development. `Preserving these contribute to a sense of identity that is unique for r resources creates a sense of place for those who each historic neighborhood—an attribute that is live here and provides visitors a connection with rare and difficult to achieve in newer areas of a this unique heritage. city. These therefore are desirable places to live and work. ' Construction quality Many of the historic structures in the City were Environmental benefits of high quality construction.Other buildings were Preserving a historic structure is also sound more modest,but even so may have used lumber environmental conservation policy because r 'GYty ofAspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines 1' ;., . �• �' •\V� \V V 5ING41N TM LEVEL Cn /DFGK DN / \ r 5-A KFILLED EXI5TI N� LOY�ER C U `� GR 7 LE\KIEL -�; ; 74�f,5 5F SF• -- a • mn \ LL 0 LL c Z 0 -O" 28'-4" _ DEGK z Z In cw 202.4 5F Z W = 2 EXISTING MAIN LEVEL FAR = EXISTING LOWER LEVEL FAR = U i°=200„ EX15TING FLOOR A►R CALCULATIONS ZONE DI5TRICT: COMMERCIAL GORE (CC) LOT AREA: 9000 5F COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA RATIO: 2:1 - 18,000 5F ALLOWABLE AREA OF DEGK5 OVER 30" ABOVE GRADE: 1501b - 2700 5F \ W/ BELOW GRADE WALL AREA BELOW GRADE FLOOR AREA ` EXI5TI ��UPPER LEVEL, W 5767.7 5F LOWER LEVEL OR055 AREA \5623.0 \ 0- UJ O 60'-0" NORTH W 19.1% % APPLIED � �� � � 4" 21'-0" WE5T OR AREA O O O 29'-2" NORTH 1101.6 5F LOWER LEVEL FLOOR 63'-5" EA5T DECK AREA Dial \�, �" 00 26'-8" 50UTH 112.0 5F LOWER LEVEL DEGK AREA 28'-4" EA5T Q w W 14'-0" 50UTH 202.4 5F MAIN LEVEL DEGK AREA �, 722.0 5F UPPER LEVEL DEGK AREA W 8'-0" EAST `� `� ' DEGK � � 46'-10" 50UTH 1036.4 5F TOTAL DEGK AREA DEGK ` , d' Q O 5F DEGK AREA OVER ALLOWABLE 64"1.4 5F �� �� 74.6 5F M + 79'-0" WE5T 376-8" TOTAL LENGTH W GU MMULATIVE FLOOR AREA \ x 4-0" ALL HEIGHT 1101.6 5F LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA 3390 5F TOTAL WALL AREA 5573.9 5F MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA � \ 5623.0 5F UPPER LEVEL FLOOR AREA EXP05ED WALL BELOW GRACE �� O 5F APPLIED DEGK AREA �`�, 11/2$/12 2" x 6'-O" = 91 5F LIGHTWELL NORTH \ � \ 12298.5 5F TOTAL FLOOR AREA ' x 9'-O" = 240 5F COURTYARD 5OUTH x 9'-0" = 255 5F COURTYARD EAST \ \ 0" x 4'-6" = 63 5F 5TAIR 5CUTH AO.6 649 5F TOTAL EXP05ED WALL AREA olo OF BELOW GRADE EXP05ED 649 5F = 1q.1010 r'EXISTING UPPER LEVEL FAR 3390 5F 3 =za_o° '0 D O o -v /� 0 v, V/ m 0 Iii N rn N N 9 U1 N N N r rn -n r- co Ard C > N � rn m u 0 -o O -v O cn M C -o -D m r m m r Z m r m D D r m D m D 434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.1 ASPEN,CO 81611 I TEL:970.925.55901 FAX:970.920.4557 • U • W 0 _ o 2. a U = DN ON W LL w --- i i LL z Z + + + + D N --- U iIiIi1i11 0000000 + + + + + + + + U 000000000 + + + a 00000000000000 + + + + + + + + + W +5PAGE & _1 00 0 + + 000 0000 +5'i#.a5F 0 0 + + O 0 + + +� 0 DN + + + +0 � 0 � 0 00 00 + O Q_ • • • • • • • • • • • W p EXISTING MAIN LEVEL NET LEASABLE AREA 0- a EXISTING LOWER LEVEL NET LEASABLE AREA 2 1/16"=1'-� O og 1 1/16"=V-0" TOTAL EXISTING NET C O U 0 LEASABLE AREA U NAME AREA Q w w Ui EXISTING MAIN LEVEL SPACE A 3646.5 5F W T Q EXISTING LOWER NET LEASABLE AREA SPACE B 852.3 5F 1�t LEVEL NET LEASABLE NAME AREA 5PAGE G.0 660.6 5F M SPACE C.1 1255.15F AREA 5PAGE G.1 1285.1 5F 5PAGE D 14"76.1 5F NAME AREA 5PAGE D 14'76.1 5F SPACE E 6-74.15F 5PAGE A 3649.5 5F SPACE E 6-74.15F 5PAGE F 915-4 5F SPACE F 9'15.4 5F 5PAGE B 852.3 5F 5PAGE G 5'14.0 5F 5PAGE G.0 660.6 5F SPACE G 5-74.0 5F SPACE J 943.5 5F 11/16/12 5PAGE K 498.4 5F EXISTING SPACE L 1153.1 5F SPACE M 1-71.5 SF 5PAGE N 1500.5 5F AO.2 SPACE P 512.1 5F Grand total 14992.5 5F lP N N N N N Cril ll (1 -0 -0 ll i1 [I1 rn rn rn m rn rn > rn rn > rn -4 A � z rn r rn . m � x o � z G) c -v m r m m r Z m r m CA CD r m m D 434 EAST COOPER N 434 EAST COOPER ASPEK COLORADO CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.1 ASPEN,CO 816111 TEL:970.925.55901 FAX:970.920.4557 m D o U) w . m � x o � z G) c -v m r m m r Z m r m CA CD r m m D 434 EAST COOPER N 434 EAST COOPER ASPEK COLORADO CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.1 ASPEN,CO 816111 TEL:970.925.55901 FAX:970.920.4557 --- UP DN . UP L-- F- U W 2 U " o 1 Q E w O U u- 0_ 7_ C Z 3 V O Z U Z W N U U) a w J U r1 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL NET LEASABLE AREA r1 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL NET LEASABLE AREA G 1/16„=T_p" 1/16„=V_0„ 0 ^^ - w 0 PROPOSED LOWER PROP05ED MAIN O 0- 5, LEVEL NET LEASABLE LEVEL NET LEASABLE 0 O 0 AREA AREA O Name Area Name Area U) Q z SPACE E3.0 4232.6 SF 5PAGE A 1940.8 SF Q w W SPACE E3.1 4391.2 5F w M CL SPACE C 1495.1 SF ,;r Q M Ict TOTAL PROPOSED NET LEASABLE AREA Name Area 11/16/12 SPACE A 1940.8 5F SPACE 13.0 4232.6 SF PROPOSED SPACE E3.1 4391.2 SF SPACE E3.2 2932.5 SF ^ O. SPACE C 1495.1 SF H Grand total 14992.2 5F U L Cn L L � � U w M a U " Q E w w °' LL E - Z U Z W a N U a w co PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL FAR PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FAR Q 2 U PROPOSED FLOOR AREA GALGULATION5 ZONE D15TRICT: COMMERCIAL GORE (GG) LOT AREA: 9000 5F COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA RATIO: 2:1 - 18.000 5F ALLOWABLE AREA OF DEGK5 OVER 30" ABOVE GRADE: 15% - 2100 5F W O 0 aq BELOW GRADE FLOOR AREA 4141.1 5F LOWER LEVEL GR055 AREA O O 0% % APPLIED U 00 U0 O SF LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA F U DEGK AREA Q W w 4905.9 5F UPPER LEVEL DECK AREA w M a- 4905.9 5F TOTAL DEGK AREA q Q 2205.9 5F DECK AREA OVER ALLOWABLE CID GUMMULATIVE FLOOR AREA 0 5F LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA 5250.2 5F MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA 3442.5 5F UPPER LEVEL FLOOR AREA 11/16/12 2205.9 5F APPLIED DECK AREA 13928.6 5F TOTAL FLOOR AREA A0.7 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FAR k 0 ,1 7777, LIalk-1 N I � m � x 3 U,, O � z G) Y m r D Z N 00 1 `i 434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.1 ASPEN,CO 816111 TEL:970.925.55901 FAX:970.920.4557 (ilo m Z G N 00 1 `i 434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.1 ASPEN,CO 816111 TEL:970.925.55901 FAX:970.920.4557 (ilo MULTI-STORY AD.JACfHNT BUILDING T.O. ROOF PARAPET • • 7648.675' = EL. 125'-0" . 7934.15 WHEELER —� 5021.67 MAIN 5T. 1\7 T.O. ELEV. OVERRUN I U) ,� EL. 130'-0" = 7950.675' ~ U LLJ z ' / • �_ W _ > < Q � cy– / • W CJ LU U- z U V O � � � � � Z U = � a ` - Lu Z / 7936.75 WHEELER J N 5025.63 MAIN 5T. • TREE5 TO/ • • Q REMAIN I = , U / W BACK OF GURB O a O 0 00 TREE5 TO REMAIN U 0 -1 0 0U Q ww SOUTH GA ENA STREET W M M � Q L d' 11/28/12 1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN PROPOSED 1/16" = V-0" A1 .2 100'-O" 100'-O" 24'-6.. 5TAIP44 4ELL 5 RWE UP ELEV �- EL UP _ N TILT H/REGYGLE U W 24'-8" 24'-8" e 1 15'-O 1/2" = ai F AN U SPAGE 'B.1' (y_ IQ 5P,4GE B.O E UP DN UP W w 'A.' SP,4GE G LL � �- V- c DEGOMM155IONED __ DEGOMM15510NED z 8 5PA<GE t--7 5PA.GE z -- z LLI UW a a W J x N Q U ry 2 0- W W O o � ?�3.3 0 0 o � �- U Q W Z r W 1 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 2 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN W v Q 1/16" 1' = -0" 1/16"=1'-0" (� 11/28/12 PROPOSED A2. 1 100'—O" 52'-4" 24--l"of 5TAIRWELL ELEVATOR OVERRUN DN vfj ELEV EOHPANIO PARAPET U W 2 X LL 5PAOE '5.2' p�3 3 1 V — � Q � u� W 0 FLAT ROOF LL 0 LL c DN z U U z W ly a C) a a F c° W U J ROOF 1 A3.4 U VEOK 23' ROOF DECK BELOW W O wo CL 2 2 O 0 OJ U Uo �— co U A3.3 A3 3 Q W W W M (n d' Q M PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 2 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 11/28/12 PROPOSED A2.2 T.O. EXIST PARAPET -' — T.O. UPPER EXIST. ROOF 122'-11 5/5' T.O. LOWER EXIST. ROOF /{1 - - - \ - - - - - - - - - - 11q'-45/8' Ul m C/) r � U T.O.F.F. @ EXIST. UPPER LEVEL 2 o T.O.F.F. @EXIST. UPPER LEVEL 1 FIN 10G' LL w LL T.O.F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL U — — - -loo — Z z — — - - - — - - '-O" N a U a a 1 EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION w U 0 UJ D- < O o0 � . U � o F- U v N U) a z Q W MU) - — - - - d Q co M-1 �? m 0 ry 11/16/12 EXISTING A3.1 2 EXISTING EAST ELEVATION m W � N z CA ■■ ■ ■ M. ■ ��it f�►mil 1 ■`�'������r�R�� �I)♦►�(' ��� _ ■� All , ■■r ■ V�IMMM6�V�mew m 1 MOB I MIIII r, I mmmm 01, p4m,F _ it VIA 1 < u 1 � ' — -- --__ _ 1 � ■ I -_- -- X11 -- - .:�' I 1 __ -_- _ _ - _ � -__--_ _ - -- _ -- � � �' �� .>N a w?,. _.g ,< Ill � �� tt� • -,-7 _.. 1 i �r 777-7-77- . '."a e. u._777 -.....1-.... — x,�� x• � b . „ s v, r, fi ■ s �■I 'I ., �;x. ,.. ,: .. .., 3i.- -,a .. ,;.-:,. I.,,<.r.x� � ,..,,, <,.,. �.'c`'< I■I■I ■ IF Ion HISa ROPOSE T.O. ELEVATOR OVERRUN - - - - - - - - - - - - - — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 130'-O.. — _ — _ — _ — _ — _ — _ — _ — — T_O. PROP05EDROOF . 128'-O" - - cti.-T-_ns a-a vs. =S9 s.•a ' F1 ° U T.O.F.F. @ PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL A M m Q LH F < E U " w ° Li LL 0 L — z 3 o z z LL N — — _ - - — T.O.F.F. C MAIN LEVEL U a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7c120.675' = 100'-O" W a J a PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION Q U ry w 0 O D- g O O U C) o UU Q w w W c7 CL Q 11/28/12 A3.4 ml� ii mow A _ft Gi m I®4� � Ono Imumim Mill i Now i ■omma■ is I MW m 71 O ' D r z m �U m z D 'rt 4. 'fir___ �••. .�. LOW -1114 iJu� 1, will k1m11 ; . 434 EAST COOPER N 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO 1 7 CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.1 ASPEN,CO 816111 TEL:970.925.55901 FAX:970.920.4557 m 0 n 0 m D 434 EAST COOPER CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.�ASPEN,CO 81611�TEL:970.925.5590 FAX:970.920.4557 • v ;� ---------- ................ ---------- ---------- C m n O G/ 1 m z D cn In' nl WM W 1 J p. nEw 434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO 1 { R , lum N •r toil 1.. -F1�r•h ,t.11 sv�,t \1 � F ` 1 CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.1 ASPEN,CO 81611 1 TEL:970.925.55901 FAX:970.920.4557 PROPOSED RED ONION —ANNEX BUILDING W iEELER VIEW PLA E E EXISTING RED ONION ANNEX I co T-SHIRT BUILDING BUILDING SHOP - ALLEY PROPOSED BUILDING COOPER AVENUE HYMAN AVENUE WHEELER VIEW PLAN` HITS BUILDING AT 7,931.78 OR 15.56'ABOVE GRADE 2 U o OSECTION CUT ALONG WHEELER VIEW PLANE Q N. T. S. LL it Z U z I Z uj _ W N 'a — z A3.4 Q J N ALLEY BLOCK 89 z W Q � U tic �, EXISTI �F w a aN PARKII METER Q J W a I LL Y Z O. W D d W m °� =Q - -- EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN —� Q M N 3 n A3.3 w W HITS BUILDING m CL O 7,934.78 OR 15. o s I L) 0 Q LL ABOVE GRADE a 6�a O w0 m U o O W 1 I F— O EXISTING U) z TWO STORY I _-- W d BRICK BUILDING w Y LINE M � co SIGN EXISTING TREES ARID 12/6/2012 2 COOPER VE PROPOSED A3.3 2 A4.6 0 PROPOSED SITE PLAN _ -- " = 30'-0" e y0�'KIN U 81 Q � � J pp�f�tfR = g8 � Q H U cs 94 W N r G 1 NYti1gN v q VE � Q a2 0 0 W V lJL tp W LL c r � o z i 4 C cj) Z OpER �� 95 w VE • °• yyp rill, LL uQl \� �•+.� PifR Q m P P� ,o U 1- T-SHIRT SHOP BUILDING 5 +/-7,917.06' GRADE ELEVATION @ VIEWPLANE INTERSECTION ay +/-7,925.48' (+/-8'-5") HEIGHT OF VIEWPLANE @BUILDING ESTIMATED HEIGHT OF BUILDING= 11'-6" - LU 2- MORRIS AND FYRWALD BUILDING D/ , W Z +/-7,918.00' GRADE ELEVATION @ VIEWPLANE INTERSECTION V T ye +/-7,929.00' (+/-1 V-0") HEIGHT OF VIEWPLANE @ BUILDING W�� ! q \ O Q 0 ESTIMATED HEIGHT OF BUILDING=40' �. Q 0 o LLI 3- RED ONION BUILDING(TOMMY LATTA BUILDING-1892) U 0- 0 +/-7,918.50' GRADE ELEVATION @ VIEWPLANE INTERSECTION o c) +/-7,931.00' (+/-12'-6") HEIGHT OF VIEWPLANE @ BUILDING ESTIMATED HEIGHT OF BUILDING=40' < a W Q 4- BIDWELL BUILDING(MOUNTAIN PLAZA BUILDING-1965) d- (LLlgJl 7,919.22' GRADE ELEVATION @ VIEWPLANE INTERSECTION M 7 co ,934.78' (+15.56') HEIGHT OF VIEWPLANE @BUILDING 5- INDEPENDENCE BUILDING(BROWN 8 HOAG BUILDING-18891 +/-7,920.00' GRADE ELEVATION @ VIEWPLANE INTERSECTION +/-7,944.60' HEIGHT OF VIEWPLANE @BUILDING ESTIMATED HEIGHT OF BUILDING=42' 12/6/2012 7AP4.s7 n VIEWPLANE STUDY N.T.S: I P • \ RECEIVED o NOV 2 8 2012 EXISTING MAIN LEVEL 553.9 CITY OF ASPEN DEGK o \ \ 5F COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT U) ■ 112.0 5 \ / 11 DN N / BACKFILLED EXI5TINO LOWER ■ • • • Q !GRADE LEVEL U '14-1.5 5F 5�6�.7 �.� 21'-0" LL -- • • 5F• • • \ U mn (J Q E \ , 0 SCL LL W w DE]5F -9 \ Z L o N w \ 202 \ \ ` D a \\ \ DN U U) a Z Lu ioe J 1 EXISTING LOWER LEVEL FAR 2 EXISTING MAIN LEVEL FAR = EXI5TING FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS ZONE D15TRIGT: COMMERCIAL GORE (GC) LOT AREA: 9000 5F GOMMERGIAL FLOOR AREA RATIO: 2:1 - 15,000 SF ALLOWABLE AREA OF DEGKS OVER 30" ABOVE GRADE: 15% - 2100 5F BELOW GRADE WALL AREA BELOW GRADE FLOOR AREA 60'-0" NORTH 5-76-7.7 SF LOWER LEVEL OR055 AREA 15 G UPPER LEVEL ......,,.5623.0 LlJ O W 21'-0" E5T 19.1% % APPLIED a- U 0 UJ 29'-2" NORTH 1101.6 5F LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA 0 O 63'-8" EAST DEGK AREA 0 O Lr 26'-5" SOUTH \ () U 1 28'-4" EAST 112.0 5F LOWER LEVEL DEGK AREA DN, O U 14'-0" SOUTH 202.4 5F MAIN LEVEL DEC , AREA ` Q &-0" EAST -122.0 5F UPPER LEVEL DECK AREA Q w w 46-10" SOUTH 1036.4 5F TOTAL DECK AREA DEC K - DECK W m U) + -79'-O" WEST 0 5F DECK AREA OVER ALLOWABLE v Q 3'T6'-6" TOTAL LENGTH 647.4 5F co x 9'-O" WALL HEIGHT CUMMULATIVE FLOOR AREA 74.6 5F 3360 5F TOTAL WALL AREA 1101.6 5F LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA 55-73.9 SF MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA \� EXPOSED WALL BELOW GRADE 5623.0 5F UPPER LEVEL FLOOR AREA \ ` 2" x 6-0" = 91 SF LIGHTWELL NORTH O 5F APPLIED DEGK AREA x 4-0" = 240 5F COURTYARD SOUTH 12298.5 5F TOTAL FLOOR AREA \, 11/28/12 x 9'-0" = 255 5F GOURTYARD EAST x 4'-6" = 655F STAIR SOUTH 649 5F TOTAL EXPOSED WALL AREA % OF BELOW GRADE EXPOSED AO.6 3390 SF - 19.1% 3 EXISTING UPPER LEVEL FAR 1"=20'-O" � m x o � z G� m m r D Z N 00 i 434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE1 ASPEN,CO 816111 TEL:970.925.55901 FAX:970.920.4557 0 00 m Z G) N 00 i 434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE1 ASPEN,CO 816111 TEL:970.925.55901 FAX:970.920.4557 0 00 MULTI-STORY ADJACENT BUILDING I I , • T.O. ROOF PARAPET • , 1948.6-75' = EL. 128'-O" / -7g34.-78 WHEELER 8021.6-7 MAIN ST. �v A?ti 4� • 4)o T.O. ELEV. OVERRUN �- EL. 130'-0'' _ -7g50.675' � W o r- - - - - - - _ Lu = } � I U LL Q / • W U ( lU � LU -a I - ` 0 CZ � 0 U 0 � U) a / -7g36.75 WHEELER ' 5025.63 MAIN ST. TREES TO Z REMAIN I U LLJ y w0 0- O o 0 BAGK OF CURB O OO TREES TO REMAIN U U 0 F- U U U) QZ Q wW W � 0- SOUTH GALENA STRE-ET Q lq- 11/28/12 _ PROPOSED SITE PLAN PROPOSED j 1/16" = 1'-0" A1 .2 100'-0" 100' ' STAIRWELL 5 tRWE uP ELEV E uP _ ® cv TILI H/REGYGLE -_ F- U W o 24'-8" A3.3 1 15' U a 5PAGE 'B.1' 5PAGE E3.0 Q E o UP UP ON. �J J L) -- 5PAGE 'A' 5PAGE 'G' lL --� a _ DEGOMM15510NED __ DEGOMM15510NED Z 5PAGE t=-7 5PAGE --� z U) a I W = J i I U I I i 2 a_ui � O O d < A3.3 0 0 O U) O Q Q ww 1 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 2 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN W v Q ,116"_,,_�„ ,/,s,._,,_0„ M 11/28/12 PROPOSED A2. 1 100'-0" 23'-7' 52'-4" 24'-1 STAIRWELL ELEVATOR OVERRUN ON ELEV EGHANIG m U) N F— PARAPET U N W G 2 Q 3 1 in SPAGE 'B.2' A3.3 1 C) Q E Lu o ° FLAT ROOF LL LL c DN z o Cv Z " i Z W N U U) a W 1 A3.4 = ROOF 1 A3.4 () DECK i 23'-7" 23'-7 ROOF DECK BELOW W G� O 0 ao 2 2 0 00 U � 0 F- U A3.3 A3.3 Q w Z W LLB M U) d' v Q M 1 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 04�141=11-011 OPOSED ROOF PLAN 11/28/12 PROPOSED A2.2 � iii isiiii �i �i i � iui sess� iiui�wisw�i�� t�■■■■■� ��ii i�iii�i Rio �� ■ u v k ! CA mill , owl mom - ., NU — ■l _ ,�I■I 11 � �� �� � � x � f fl� ., ■� ■■■� ■■■■ ■■ ,�■ ■■■■ ■■. MORE all � SIR Rimi E t ROP D W 434 EAST COOPER N 00 N 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO m o I II 0 I. o � I m CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE-1 ASPEN,CO 816111 TEL:970.925.55901 FAX:970.920.4557 ` N mi ► 1 ■v E :❖:❖:-.❖:❖:❖:❖:❖:❖:•: XIM ❖:•:�:❖:❖:❖:❖:❖:❖:❖: iiii:iiii:iiii:iiii �� \ — ' e.oe.e.ee.eee.e.eee� ' �ee..eee.� ♦� ...e..eeeee.e....../ • .1Z �•ee❖e❖.❖.� ►...�.�.r►.•1►.�.�.�o�o�.�L °����� /•.e..e..�eeee.�e�.�eeee.�.�.�.•.�.�.�•. ♦•fie♦ego♦o♦•♦o♦o♦• ►•�e.•.�.�e�i�.•e❖.❖.fie❖.��.❖� /❖.•.�.•e❖eel.❖.❖.•.e.❖.❖.❖1 �` � .�.❖.•eeeeeee❖eke❖.��.❖.•. ►•e❖.❖.❖.❖e❖.•e�e�eeee❖.•.�j � ►.......e.e e.•.. •.e.� eeeee.....e.eeeee.e.o !i!:!ili�llllllill I !i!i2 Vii•ieii!iiii•ieiiiii!i!i!i2i!ili i� I // - �•000i .•00�•000OOi = � , S.................................... ....... e , FROM °•°.❖.•eo❖.•eeeeo❖.. ���� ►�'�'�'�'ee�'e'�ee�o���eee'eeeee����•�' �.i....n o.s.e.eee...eeeoe.� . `n...m � ►♦e•••••e•♦•••••••••♦•eo♦a•••e+•••♦ee••eee♦ee♦•eeeo•♦•♦♦, �� ►•Qe❖e❖eeoo❖.❖.�.!.•o❖.�oe.•.�.�.e.•.�.❖.� �� 57 �/' • / 1 ►•ii�iieieiiieii�ii�s-�^��i�°ie!iiiiieiii� �� � � � i ....eeeeeeeec.� �eau_oeeeeee.� � � -1����`. ►iiiiei�iiiiiiii�c s�s�����<�a�iiiiiiiii �� ►OOi•OOOOOOOOOOc' its►s i•OOOOOOOOi „ I � � �� IN ro�- ►e....ee.eeeeeeeo.�.ee.eeeee. ' _ ��!eii•�•iiiieeieiii•�•i�i�i�ie�•iieiie�eiei�ii� - --- - �►.a �.eei�.ee� �eee� ►.ee� ►ee.f �� jam' �.�.❖.•.❖.•ee•.❖e❖.•.❖e❖.•.•.�.•.�.�e�e•.e.•e�.�.�e�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.��� �I ��■r■► • • • ►e eeeeeeeeeee eeeeeee.eeeeeee.eeeeee.ee.e.ee. 1 • • • •, ..♦♦oeoe eee ee eeeeeeeeeee.e.eee.eeeeeeeeeeee� �� -11111:.._ �� ►•e�•i•�•�•iei•�•�•�•�•�•�•�•�•��i�i�i•�•��i•�•�•��i•�•�•i•�•i•��i�ii•�•i�i•�•iei�i•�•i Ci • • • • Lod � eeeeaeeeeeeeeeo�o�eeo�o eo eeeeeeeeee�eeeee�e ee eo e.�e�o�e�.�oeo�o�e�o�.�e�eee�.�oeeeoee� �� 1 • • • • • - .....e eee.eo♦ee.e.ee.e....eee.ee...e........ '^• • • • • • • ........o e.oe.e.e.ee.....eeeeeeee.ee.e.ee..� ►e.♦.e.eee e.♦eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.eeeee.eeeo • • • • • • • ..o e.e eee eee eeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.e.eeeeee.� ��o�s�e�.�e�.�e�o�.�e�e�o�o�o�.�o�o�.�.�o�o�.�.�o�o�o�o�o�.�e�.�e�e�.�e�.�e�o�e�o�.�o� • • • • • • • �e�e�e�e�e�e�.�e�e�e�.�o�ese�e�e�e�e�o�e�e�e�e�o�e�.�.�.�e�.�.�o�e�.�e�e�e�e�e�.�.�.�� � • • ?_ . ? • • • _ � ..oeeoee eeeee.eeeeeeeeeeee.e.e..ee.eeeeeee.� • • • � �► • • � .e ee.ee e..♦e♦oee.eeeee..e.....e..eee...e.e.e ►•��ee����•����e•�•eeeee�e�ee�•e��•e��•eee�e•��e�ee�ee�eee�eeeee�e�eeeee•� • • • • • • • _ - ►•i�iiieiiiiieiiiieieioiiiiiiiiiii❖i�iiieieiiii�iiiiei•�� I • • =i - ��: • • • ►•o❖eieio❖.•iei•.�i❖.❖ee•.�i❖ii�io�ie❖.❖.❖eei�i�iieoeee�i0� • • • • • • • ..........e ee e.eee.eeeooeeeee.eeoeeeeeeee..� ���•�•eeeeeeeee�eee�ee�•e•�•e•�•eon•��e•�e�•�e�•wee•�o�•�•�•���•�•�•�ee•�•�•i•�•�•�•i � • • • • • • .®e_eoe�000eo��0000=�000.=o=.000000000��000eoo��0000eo�oeoe�.000i O O O O O ►i•�•�•�•�•��i�i�i•�eii�i�i•�•s�iiii•�ei•��i iei•i•��ii�i�i•�•iei•�•�•i•�•s•�•�•�•i • • • • • • ® � ►eee eeeeee.e eo oeeeee..eeeeeee.ee.e.e.e.eeee. ►•iiiieiiiieiieieiiiiiiiiieiieiiiieiiiiiiieieiieiii • • • • • • RIO 91 • - . . . . . . A ; A . r_ UP DN . UP U Lij_ 2 U = .1 Q 0 w U rn J LL 9 LL C z = m V Z 0 � W N U Ld a U) J = � W Q PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL NET LEASABLE AREA PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL NET LEASABLE AREA 1/16"=V-0" 1/16"=1'-0" W Q PROPOSED LOWER PROP05ED MAIN 0 o- < LEVEL NET LEASABLE LEVEL NET LEASABLE p O AREA AREA p Name Area Name Area U) SPAGE 5.0 4232.6 5F 5PAGE A 1940.5 5F Q LU W 5PAGE E3.1 4391.2 5F w -�T d SPACE G 1495.1 5F NT d Q co ,'I- TOTAL PROPOSED NET LEASABLE AREA Name Area 11/16/12 5PAGE A 1940.8 5F 5PAGE B.0 4232.6 5F PROPOSED SPAGE E3.1 4391.2 5F 5PAGE B.2 2932.5 5F A�.4 5PAGE G 1495.1 5F Grand total 14992.2 5F ® -WT MWRE MPSE&SS 3 a� L 0) r u rn rn z rn � p r6K) z0 > � N rn N �prC7 co rn m 0 o - 0 m 0 c m m m r m m r Z m r m D D 00 r m D m D 434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.1 ASPEN,CO 816111 TEL:970.925.5590 FAX:970.920.4557 E • m O 0 O -° O 01 (j) m a� L 0) r u rn rn z rn � p r6K) z0 > � N rn N �prC7 co rn m 0 o - 0 m 0 c m m m r m m r Z m r m D D 00 r m D m D 434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.1 ASPEN,CO 816111 TEL:970.925.5590 FAX:970.920.4557 E • 9 • i O � O • WL Adak - ■ DN • ■ • C) � _ � � o U LL Ilk -- • a a W ° Li LL N N DEGK z 202.4 5F Z v Z DN W a C) W 6 a 3'-8" (n Z Lu 1 EXISTING LOWER LEVEL FAR 2 EXISTING MAIN LEVEL FAR Q ,"=2-7 2 EXISTING FLOOR AREA GPALGULATION5 ZONE DISTRIGT: GOMMERGIAL GORE (GC,) LOT AREA: 9000 5F GOMMERGIAL FLOOR AREA RATIO: 2:1 - 15,000 5F ALLOWABLE AREA OF DECKS OVER 30" ABOVE GRADE: 15010 - 2-700 5F Ll BELOW GRADE WALL LENGTH BELOW GRADE FLOOR AREA 0 0- ° 60'-O" NORTH 5767.7 SF LOWER LEVEL 6R05S AREA O OO U OJ 21'-O" WEST 11.1% % APPLIED U 29'-2" NORTH 640.2 SF LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA 63'-8" EAST U U 49'-4" SOUTH DECK AREA a w W 21'-4" EAST DEGK W d- a 202.4 5F MAIN LEVEL DEGK AREA DECK co U) 7-10" SOUTH 722.0 5F UPPER LEVEL DEGK AREA 'IT Q 14'-4" EAST 641.4 5F 74.6 5F co 32'-O" SOUTH 924.4 5F TOTAL DECK AREA I d' 79'-0" WEST 0 5F DEGK AREA OVER ALLOWABLE 377-8" TOTAL LENGTH GUMMULATIVE FLOOR AREA EXPOSED WALL BELOW GRADE 640.2 SF LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA 15'-2" NORTH LIGHTWELL 5573.9 5F MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA 11/16/12 26-8" SOUTH GOURTYARD 5623.0 5F UPPER LEVEL FLOOR AREA 41'-10" TOTAL 0 5F APPLIED DEGK AREA 11537.1 SF TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF BELOW GRADE EXP05ED A0.6 11.1% 377'-8" EXISTING UPPER LEVEL FAR J 1"=20'-0" ® COPYPodi MlRIFl Q1xHRFMptlfKf9 r D D D D D D rn m m M M M M X � z � r7c � :< r' N rn > ruz �p G'\ r i rn rn L m X i '^ ^Z VJ C T m r m m r Z m r m r m m D 434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.1 ASPEN,CO 816111 TEL:970.925.55901 FAX:970.920.4557 s I m D O x � W z G) rn L m X i '^ ^Z VJ C T m r m m r Z m r m r m m D 434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.1 ASPEN,CO 816111 TEL:970.925.55901 FAX:970.920.4557 s I O Elm I loll �°e°e°eeel \ ►eeeee♦ • ►eeeee♦ === -- •-• � ••- - ♦eeeeee ---- - - •- ��°°ee°e°eeee �..-/_.� -°� V � � eeee°ee°e°°� . .. �:ee�e�ee�� • � . . . . : . _ . . . - . • :. - - . •• ♦eeee♦ ►eeeeee ♦eeeeee • - - . ..- • - ,eee°eeeeeeej �e°eeeee°e°e� • • • - • - /eeeee♦ +eeeeee' • ,., •, . -- ♦eeeeee �eeeee� . - ..- • - • ►eeeee♦ ►eeeeee' ♦eeeeee ��eeeeeee°e°� ►eeeee, . lipill ►eeeeee ►eeeeee' wee°eee°eeee� '� aje°eee°eeee --• _ -- - - ►eeeeee , ♦eeeeee --. - . • ♦eeee♦ �_� �_� _� _ . - ►eeeeee - - - - • • = °eeee°ee°eeeee°ee����e�eee°�eee���eeeee�ee°e°e°eeeeee e°ee°e e°eeeeee a°eee°eee°e e°eeeee°e° ♦eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee��+�eeeeee� ..- • - - • _ • - ♦eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeG��L-�Jeeeeee' . -- _ ..- • _ - ♦eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee�eeeeeee� ►eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee' L ' V s s 6 n LJ SN" 68 AJV is Ad I Iv � rn V J N��9 e00Q O � f - Z � H J rn -v r � D 1N�wnNOw sag N�as� Z 434 EAST COOPER 07 N 434 EAST COOPER ASPEK COLORADO CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.1 ASPEN,CO 61611 1 TEL:970.925.5590 FAX:970.920.4557 m --I Z 434 EAST COOPER 07 N 434 EAST COOPER ASPEK COLORADO CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.1 ASPEN,CO 61611 1 TEL:970.925.5590 FAX:970.920.4557 m 3 T � v T II O � T V O V rn 0 rn r Z A D o 0 N ch m 0 A 100'-O" 100'-0" 241 Wit S RWE 5TAIRl^IELL uP DN �_- UP TILI 54-}/RECYCLE F- U W 24'-8" 50'-8" _ A3.3 1 = x LL --- - U - Q � w ° 5PAGE 'C' LL 5PAGE 'A' 5PAGE 'B.1' — LL _ c � � m DECOMMISSIONED SPACE E3.0 DEGOMM155I0NED - d) SPACE SPACE z w C) w 'a U LLI = J � Q U 2 0-O LU O A3.3 O 0 UO F— U Q w Z W PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 2 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN t t Q 1 1/16"=1'-0" (Y) 11/16/12 PROPOSED A2.1 ® COVxPI(artcllPPl£S GIxxIFFF nxcxIFECIS 100'-0" do or 23'-7" 52'-4" 24'-1" . do STAIRWELL ON EGHANIGAL U) PARAPET U w - f- SFAGE 'B.2' 2 a A3.3 1 m A3.3 1 = To Q E FLAT ROOF w o LL 9 W N � c i Z ??q o z U Z W d fn U w U) a ►� w J = ly— W Q ROOF DE(:;,K () Alf i ROOF DEGK BELOW n000 W0 2 2 O 0- < O 00 U of A3.3 A3.3 OU Q w w w NT a_ c� 1 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 2 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 1/16"=V-0" 1/16"=l'-O" 11/16/12 PROPOSED A2.2 Q —YFI6xi RLBCIm Ff—CIITKT5 r r L d r --I L d 0 m X z G) m D m r m D O Z m y x CA) z G) 434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO b m X cn z G) co O C —I m r m Z CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.1 ASPEN,CO 816111 TEL:970.925.55901 FAX:970.920.4557 O rn x U) N � " I= M InL a E IN, T.O. EX15T PARAPET . 125-15/5" — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — T.O. UPPER EXIST. ROOF 122-115/5" U) imimi w0 ®--m I_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T.O.F.F. @EXIST. UPPER LEVEL2 � N LL d � W F Z = m ?v U Z W D — _ - - - - - - - - - - T.o_F.F. @ MAIN LEYEL AiV a 100'-O J N 4N a m 1 EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION U N O � O U 0o U U a WW w M � Q M 11/16/12 EXISTING A3.2 ® COPYNWRCINRlE9NxNFEEMCtflfEC18 r I■I II _ lim ARM � %tom% - s--I! 1'�I■I __—,{ ---�I■I� - Iii I■I II � ■■ ■ I l�l�l I■I ICI NI II 1 -j 11101 �. - '■■■■ 7, 1 ! ! r - - , 11 EMISSIONS "Ami ■� �I' i■ ,,, ICI■I'-- , _ 7mi I■I 11'' !�■ 1M7■ " �� Ll-.Jl W T rn Al 434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO El El E IF I I I I I p �0 O rn d N 7�1 rn 0 p0 I I I I m 0 z � � I m 0 0 I � O 0 0 'rn Ul I Or 2 r -0� -0� CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.1 ASPEN,CO 61611 TEL:970.925.55901 PAX:970.920.4557 p �0 O rn d N 7�1 rn 0 p0 I� 994PJ�r�tl!^ IV V 1. " t k 7 �y N is r t ei r ii N ' X11 f ..�;I .f l� •� j\,• sly ... �� r� P I �F4 sdl ski SS i 'V I F - 1 "` XXX!!!llR��.�.IIR!!•ll �+ ti i tx 's IL1 II 60 \. { wo ANN, all ARM Alis t yai ;�d�'A• � �q� �y �` '��� • f � tS•����Yy rya �� I ��!`�.! 1 . (Jir 4 1 yr a w i. { IF Ik IML Ilk WW At p ry w 1. 7 - �' n• "� e � i � f '�• I J1� LU HAAS LAND PLANNING, L"t � h 201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 108-ASPEN, CO 81611 -(970) 925-7819- "• MHAAS @SOPRIS.NET LV To: Historic Preservation Thru: Sara Adams Date: Updated Commission (HPC) & Amy Guthrie November 16, 2012 City Council Subject: 434 East Cooper Avenue Redevelopment HPC Conceptual Application Section I: Introduction The subject property address is 434 East Cooper Avenue and it is legally described as Lots Q, R, and S, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen. The Bert Bidwell Investment Corporation owns the Mountain Plaza Building which is located at the northwest corner of Galena Street and the Cooper Avenue Mall. The property is not on the City of Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures (the Inventory), but it is located within the Commercial Core Historic Overlay District. The applicant, 434 East Cooper Avenue, LLC, is under contract to purchase this property, and has been authorized by the owner to submit this application (see Exhibit 4). The applicant (434 East Cooper Avenue, LLC) intends to demolish and replace the Mountain Plaza Building. On March 24, 2006, the owner (Bert Bidwell Investment Corp) submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) a formal application for demolition. On May 24, 2006, a public hearing was held, and a decision was made by the HPC to allow demolition. The decision to allow demolition was called up to the City Council where the demolition approval was upheld. Since it has been resolved that the existing building is not historically significant (the property was also left off of the Aspen Modern list of potentially historic properties), this conceptual review focuses solely on the project's consistency with the Commercial Core Historic District and the HPC Design Guidelines relative thereto. The owner had previously received Conceptual Design Review approval from the HPC for redevelopment of the Mountain Plaza Building pursuant to Resolution No. 20, Series of 2007. The owner subsequently proposed modifications to the design of the building based upon concerns raised by the public and the Aspen City Council. Due to the significant changes to the building, the review of the Mountain Plaza Building was remanded back to the HPC for Conceptual Design Review approval. After the second HPC approval, and during the City Council's review of the revised proposal, the owner of the property withdrew the application. Updated 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 1 During the above-described initial review, the Community Development Director determined that the Conceptual Design Review could be combined with the Mountain View Plane Review pursuant to Section 26.304.060(B)(1). If the HPC had considered the site plan, height, scale, massing and proportions of the proposed development without simultaneously deciding the View Plane Exemption it would have been counterproductive and could have resulted in a duplicative and possibly contradictory review process. Allowing for the combined review before the HPC avoided duplication without any circumvention of the review process. As part of Resolution No. 20, Series 2007, the HPC found the impact on the Wheeler Opera House view plane to be minimal and granted the requested exemption. Conceptual Design Review and the Mountain View Plane Review were combined during the second review as well. The maximum height of the redevelopment currently proposed by this application is significantly lower (only 28 feet and two stories), and thus will have even less impact on any view plane. In light of the above-mentioned series of events, this application seeks HPC Conceptual Major Development and Commercial Design Review approvals, as well as an exemption from Mountain View Plane Review. The Vicinity Map below shows the property's general location relative to the surrounding area. M �, /. ssn. If Gra Ila Ike- if ..,- �E Coop r A,ve' i& S"Galen ' Aspen;;CO.81tif1-1-__ It _- r "A 'WA Ve-'I G till White Riqb r 8+S Nationat` 3�.. Forest ... Mo `, 02006MicrosoRCaOT02005NhYTEQ.and orGDT Inc. ( + Vicinity Map -434 E. Cooper Avenue Updated 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 2 The application is divided into four sections. This section provides a brief introduction to the application, while Section II describes the existing conditions of the project site and environs. Section III outlines the applicant's proposed development, and Section IV addresses the proposed development's compliance with the applicable review criteria of the Code. For the reviewer's convenience, all pertinent supporting documents relating to the project were provided in the various exhibits to the previously submitted version of this application, as follows: • Exhibit 1: Land Use Application and Dimensional Requirements Forms; • Exhibit 2: Pre-Application Conference Summary prepared by Sara Adams; • Exhibit 3: Proof of Ownership; • Exhibit 4: Authorization for the applicant to submit this application for redevelopment of the property; • Exhibit 5: Authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC (HLP) and Charles Cunniffe Architects (CCA) to represent the applicant; • Exhibit 6: An executed application fee agreement; and, • Exhibit 7: Mailing addresses of record for all property owners located within three-hundred feet of the subject property. • Exhibit 8: Commercial Core Dimensional Requirements. In addition, updated and revised architectural plans prepared by CCA accompany this application. While the applicant has attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Code, and to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the application, questions may arise which require further information and/or clarification. Upon request, the applicant's representative will provide such additional information as may be required in the course of the review. Section II: The Project Site (Existing Conditions) The building at 434 E. Cooper Avenue, the Mountain Plaza Building, was built in 1965. It is a two-story office/retail building with a footprint of approximately 6,300 square feet on a 9,000 square foot lot, at the corner of East Cooper Avenue and South Galena Street. It is a heavy timber structure with a flat roof, deep overhangs and a wood post-supported first-story arcade overhanging the sidewalk and public right of way along Galena Street. At the corner of the site is a sunken courtyard,with access to basement level commercial space. The existing structure actually detracts from the integrity of the historic district as it occupies one of, if not the most important corners in Aspens downtown area but does not provide or enhance the streetscape in the manners prescribed by the Aspen Historic Preservation Guidelines. The building's arcades, hard to Updated 434 East Cooper Ave I PC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 3 locate front doors, and sunken courtyard have all played a part in eroding this corner for the last 47 years. One of its entrances can only be accessed by taking a stairway down to a sunken courtyard. Some of the other entrances have stairs leading up to them. These entrances are not pedestrian-friendly, nor are they accessible to people with physical disabilities. Indeed, in adherence to the Guidelines, the HPC would not allow a similar structure to be built today. Section III: The Proposal The applicant is requesting Conceptual Approval of a Major Development as well as Commercial Design Review Approval and a Mountain View Plane Exemption. All applications for Conceptual Approval of a Major Development project must receive a determination of consistency with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (hereinafter "the Guidelines") to be approved. Since this property is located in the Commercial Core Historical District, conceptual approval of the proposed design requires a finding of consistency with Chapter 13 of Guidelines, in terms of height, scale, mass, bulk, and site plan. Additionally, the applicant must show consistency with the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines (the "Commercial Guidelines"). The two previous redevelopment proposals for this property entailed three-story mixed-use buildings (commercial, office, free-market residential and affordable housing) with heights exceeding 40 feet. The current proposal envisions a two- story building with only commercial retail space and a maximum height of 28 feet. No residential development is proposed and the proposal fully complies with the Commercial Core zoning. This modest redevelopment proposal is fully depicted on the accompanying CCA Plan Set. As mentioned above, the subject property is located on one of, if not the most, prominent corners in the Commercial Core. The proposed building has been designed to serve as an anchor to this corner, but at the same time not overwhelm it, as was desired by the public and the City Council during the previous redevelopment reviews for this property. The proposed building provides a current interpretation of traditional design that will return this property to the proper alignment of the streets and alleys by being sited parallel to the lot lines. The building has been designed to read as a one-story building in the spirit of the Ute City Bank building, the Gap building, and others found in the district. Although there is a second story, it is set significantly back from all but the west facade. The Galena Street frontage is 100 feet long and the proposed design provides for three distinct "modules," with the outer modules each having a width of approximately 25 feet. These Updated 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 4 "modules" integrate both old and new materials and elements that create balance between the structure and all of the surrounding architecture. There are no interior courts or sunken courtyards proposed, and all entrances are on the sidewalk/street level, providing for pedestrian friendliness and accessibility for physically challenged persons. The new building will compliment the historic Aspen Block building located across the alley, as well as the nearby historic Red Onion Building and the Paradise Bakery Plaza across the street, and will greatly increase pedestrian interest and activity. The design of this building is sympathetic to these structures, and none will be overwhelmed by this development. In fact, this entire building is lower in height than, subservient to and compatible with all of these buildings. The proposed commercial square footage is broken into three distinct spaces, as follows: • Commercial Space A (primarily located on the Cooper Avenue mall) will contain approximately 1,941sf of Net Leasable Space (NLS), all located on the first level. This space will have access from Galena Street, but its main entrance will be on the Cooper Avenue mall. • Commercial Space B, which is accessed on Galena Street via the center "module", will contain approximately 11,557sf of NLS with 4,233sf on the lower level,4,391sf at the street level and 2,933sf on the second level. This space will utilize the entire lower level and the entire second level of the building. The second level also features roof deck space around the three exposed sides of the commercial space, except that a small portion at the northwest corner of the alley side of the building will house mechanical equipment and stairs. • Commercial Space C (located in the "module" closest to the alley) will be accessible through its own Galena Street entrance and will contain 1,495sf of NLS, all on the street level. The total net leasable space proposed is almost identical to that which currently exists (existing NLS = 14,992.8sf; proposed NLS = 14,992sf). No variances are required for this redevelopment proposal in the CC Zone District as there are no minimum lot area per dwelling unit, no minimum lot width, no setback requirements, and no minimum distance between buildings for this type of development. The applicant is proposing a maximum height of 28 feet; there are no residential units, and the development complies with all applicable FAR limits. (See Exhibit 8 that was attached to the previous application.) The Utility/Trash/Recycle area is located at the far northwest corner of the alley frontage (behind Commercial Space C), creating little to no visual impact Updated 434 East Cooper Ave BPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 5 on/from Galena Street. The lower level will only include commercial space for Unit B. Mechanical equipment will be located on the second level alley side above the Utility/Recycle/Trash area. Please refer to the submitted plans set for clear details with respect to the design and program of the proposed development. Section IV: Review Requirements Given the above described proposal and accompanying plans set, approvals are needed for Conceptual Major Development, Commercial Design Review and Mountain View Plane Exemption. Although included in the pre-application conference summary (the "pre-app"), the demolition of designated historic properties is not applicable to this property as this property has already been deemed non-historic and approved for demolition. The pre-app also mentions that, pursuant to Ordinance 3, Series of 2012, this application would be required to include Neighborhood Outreach in the form of individual outreach and enhanced public information (Code Section 26.304.035). In conferring with staff, it has since been determined that it will be adequate for the applicant to send out an enhanced public notice mailing at least 15 days prior to the first HPC hearing, and that the enhanced mailing will include rendered perspective drawings, proposed floor plans and a more detailed written summary of the proposed development than is typically provided. Additional public outreach will be required in association with subsequent review processes. A. Conceptual Approval of a Major Development All applications for Conceptual approval of a Major Development project must receive a determination of consistency with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines ("the Guidelines") to be approved. Chapter 1 of the Guidelines is not applicable as it concerns streetscapes and lot features on residential buildings. Chapters 2 through 10 are likewise inapplicable as they refer to the rehabilitation of Historic Structures. The current project involves redevelopment of a property that has been deemed non-historic. Chapter 11 provides guidelines for new buildings and additions on residential Landmark Properties. Chapter 12 is concerned with design in the Main Street Historic District. Neither of these Chapters applies to this proposal. The project has been designed to be generally consistent with the guidelines of Chapter 14, but specific consistency with these guidelines will be demonstrated as part of the HPC Final review. U dated 434 East Coo er Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 6 Since the proposed development is located on a non-historic lot in the Commercial Core, its design must comply with Chapter 13 of the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Guidelines. In the words of the Guidelines, 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. 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. The Guidelines state that not every guideline will apply to each project and that some balancing of the guidelines must occur on a case-by-case basis. Accordingly, the HPC must find only that a sufficient number of the relevant guidelines have been adequately met in order to approve the proposal. Conceptual Review focuses on height, scale, massing, and proportions of a proposal. Outlined below is each of the Chapter 13 guidelines in italicized print, followed by a description of the proposal's compliance and/or consistency therewith, as applicable. 13.1 Respect the established town grid in all projects. • Maintain the alignment of streets and alleys whenever feasible. The proposed development will return this property to a pattern that aligns with the streets and alleys by being sited parallel to the lot lines. The existing building is L-shaped, with a sunken courtyard at the corner of Galena and the Cooper Avenue Mall, and, as such, detracts from and erodes the established town grid. The proposed development will reestablish consistency with the town grid by providing storefronts at the street edge on both Galena Street and the Cooper Avenue Mall. Finally, the existing arcades that encroach into the rights-of-way will be removed. 13.2 Orient a new building parallel to its lot lines, similar to that of traditional building orientations. • The front of a primary structure shall be oriented to the street. Updated 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 7 The proposed building has two "fronts" since it is on a corner lot, and the design orients a "front" on both Galena Street and the Cooper Avenue mall. 13.3 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 existing building has one entrance that can only be accessed by taking a stairway down to a sunken courtyard. Some of the other existing entrances have stairs leading up to them, making this building unfriendly to pedestrians and largely inaccessible to people with disabilities. The new building will have clearly defined and recessed primary entrances that are oriented toward the respective streets. The commercial space at the corner of Galena and Cooper provides primary and secondary entrances, as encouraged by this guideline. There are no interior courts or sunken courtyards proposed, and all entrances are on the sidewalk/street level, providing for pedestrian friendliness and accessibility for people with physical disabilities. Alleys 13.4 Develop alley facades to create visual interest. • Use varied building setbacks and changes in materials to create interest and reduce perceived scale. • Balconies, courtyards and decks are also encouraged. • Providing secondary public entrances is strongly encouraged along alleys. These should be covered or protected and clearly intended for public use, but subordinate in detail to the primary street-side entrance. The alley fagade uses varied building setbacks and changes in materials. The utility/trash/recycle area is appropriately located along the alley and at the furthest possible location from the street. The second floor is set some 23'-7" back from the ground level fagade along the alley, except at the very northwest corner of the property. The first 66'-6" of (the 90' of) alley frontage is merely one story in height with a deck encompassing the area that could otherwise be a second floor. 13.5 Retain the character of the alley as apart of the original town grid. • Maintain an alley as an open space. • Alleys also maybe used as pedestrian ways. Updated 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 8 The proposed building maintains the alley as an open right-of-way for service and delivery but which can also be used as a pedestrian way. Building Setbacks 13.8 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. • Where a portion of a building must be set back from the sidewalk, use landscape elements to define the sidewalk edge. The existing building is not in compliance with this standard and erodes the historic integrity of the Commercial Core. Most of the existing facade is setback significantly from the property line, including the sunken courtyard. The Guidelines state that, "[a] uniform wall of building fronts is vitally important to the historic integrity of the district and should be preserved." If the existing building were proposed today, it would be inconsistent with both these and the Commercial Guidelines. The proposed building places the entire facade of the building at the property lines, with no setbacks (other than appropriately recessed entries), creating a uniform wall of building fronts and a strong edge to the street. This development will be built out to the full width and depth of the parcel, reestablishing the historic integrity of the Commercial Core at this prominent corner location. Mass and Scale 13.9 Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at the sidewalk. • The design of a 3-story building should in some way acknowledge the 2-story character of the downtown. • Floor-to-floor heights should appear to be similar to those seen historically. In particular, the windows in new construction should appear similar in height to those seen traditionally. _13.10 True three-story buildings will be considered_on_a case-by-case basis. • In general, a proposed three-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. This application proposes a two-story building with the second level set back from all but the west facade. The Galena frontage is 100 feet long and the proposed design provides for three distinct "modules," with the flanking modules each being approximately 25 feet wide. Additionally, on the Galena Updated 434 East Cooper Ave UPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 9 side, the second floor sits primarily above the middle "module" (Commercial Space B). The proposed development is only two stories and will read primarily as a one- story building from a pedestrian perspective since the second level is set significantly back from all visible facades. The floor-to-floor heights are similar to those seen historically, although the first level at the alley side of the building rises to fifteen feet due to the approximately three foot drop in elevation from Cooper Avenue to the alley. Nevertheless, this additional height on the first level is visually mitigated by the proposed awnings, the storefront windows that are at a traditionally scaled height, and the scale and proximity of the adjacent two-story building (the historic Aspen Block building across the alley on Galena). The proposed structure is also one building away from the historic Red Onion building on the Cooper Avenue mall. The design of the proposed building is sympathetic to these historic nearby structures, and neither will be overwhelmed by this development. In fact, this entire building is lower in height than both of these important historic resources. The proposed development, on a prominent corner of the Commercial Core, will help to establish/reinforce an overall sense of unity of scale. 13.11 Consider dividing larger buildings into "modules"that are similar in width to buildings seen historically. • Where buildings are planned to exceed one lot width, use a change in design features to suggest the traditional building widths. Changes in facade material, window design, facade height or decorative details are examples of techniques that may be considered. These variations should be expressed throughout the depth of the structure such that the composition appears to be a collection of smaller buildings. As mentioned above, the Galena Street side of the proposed building is divided into three "modules." These modules are consistent with the traditional and historic patterns of development up and down Galena Street. This can be seen not only in the storefront windows and door entries,but also in the cornice work, kick plates and awnings that are all in scale with and properly proportioned, relative to the adjacent Aspen Block building. Building Form 13.12 Rectangular forms should be dominant on Commercial Core facades. • Rectangular forms should be vertically oriented. • The facade should appear as predominantly flat, with any decorative elements and projecting or setback "articulations"appearing to be subordinate to the dominant form. The proposed building is rectangular in form and the fenestration is vertically oriented. The facade is predominantly flat while decorative elements and U dated 434 East Coo er Ave ETC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 10 setback "articulations' all complement, but remain subordinate to the dominant rectangular form. 13.13 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. The proposed building's roof line is flat and accentuated by appropriately scaled cornice lines. The cornice line on the second level provides architectural detailing in a more modern way that complements the architectural detailing and molding common in the cornice work found on historic buildings such as the adjacent Aspen Block. The new building at the site of the former Cooper Street Pier provides precedent for this type of modern architectural detailing as a complement to the traditional buildings of the downtown. 13.14 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. The alley's effective width is already narrowed by the encroachment of the adjacent Aspen Block building into the alley. The proposed building is only one- story at the alley with the exception of the last 23'-6" at the back/northwest corner of the site. Other than this minor back portion (that will be used for enclosure of mechanical equipment and stairs), the second level is setback more than 23 feet from the alley. The Utility/Trash/Recycle area on the alley will be recessed under the back, northwest corner of the building, behind Commercial Space C. It would be unwise to provide any projections that might further confine this space and make it more difficult for the alley to serve its needed functions. Storefront Character 13.15 Contemporary interpretations of traditional building styles are encouraged. • A contemporary design that draws upon the fundamental similarities among historic buildings without copying them is preferred. This will allow them to be seen as products of their own time and yet be compatible with their historic neighbors. • The literal imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. • In essence, infill should be a balance of new and old in design. Updated 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 11 OWIII The proposed building is a contemporary interpretation of traditional design and will be seen as a product of its own time yet be compatible with the adjacent historic Aspen Block building and the nearby historic Red Onion building. This building has been designed to read as one-story, in the spirit of the Ute City Bank building, the Gap building, and others found throughout the district. Although there is a second story, it is set back significantly from all but the west facades. The Galena frontage is 100 feet long and the proposed design provides for three distinct "modules," with the flanking modules each being approximately 25 feet wide. These "modules" integrate both old and new materials and elements that create balance not only on the structure itself but also relative to all of the surrounding architecture. 13.16 Develop the ground floor level of all projects to encourage pedestrian activity. • Consider using storefronts to provide pedestrian interest along the street. Storefronts should maintain the historic scale and key elements such as large display windows and transoms. • Large storefront display windows, located at the street level, where goods or services are visible from the street, are particularly encouraged. • The primary building entrance should be at street level. "Garden level"entrances are inappropriate. The primary building entrances are all at street level. No garden level entrances are proposed. The existing building has a subgrade level entrance that is deemed "inappropriate" by the Guidelines and provides an impediment to pedestrian activity. The proposed building provides pedestrian interest and highly encourages pedestrian activity with its large storefront display windows and inviting entries. 13.17 Maintain the distinction between the street level and the upperfloors. • The first floor of the primary facade should be predominantly transparent glass. • Upper floors should be perceived as being more opaque than the street level. Upper story windows should have a vertical emphasis. • Highly reflective or darkly tinted glass is inappropriate. • Express the traditional distinction in floor heights between street levels and upper levels through detailing, materials and fenestration. The presence of a belt course is an important feature in this relationship. The proposed building maintains a clear distinction between the street level and the floor above. The first floor of both primary facades (Cooper and Galena) is predominantly transparent storefront windows and entryways. The second level of the building is set significantly back from all street fronting facades, including 29'-11" from the Galena Street facade and 23'-7" from the Cooper Avenue fagade. The mass/scale and perceived height of the second level is also minimized by the parapet wall at the first floor roof level. The second level is more opaque than Updated 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Pa e 12 the street level and the upper level windows have a vertical emphasis. The architectural details, cornice work, and the significant setback of the second level all express the traditional distinction in floor heights between the two levels. Repetition of Facade Elements 13.18 Maintain the repetition of similar shapes and details along the block. • Upper story windows should have a vertical emphasis. In general, they should be twice as tall as they are wide. • Headers and sills of windows on new buildings should maintain the traditional placement relative to cornices and belt courses. All upper story windows have a vertical emphasis and are approximately twice as tall as they are wide. 13.19 Maintain the pattern created by recessed entry ways that are repeated along a block. • Set the door back from the front facade approximately 4 feet. This is an adequate amount to establish a distinct threshold for pedestrians. • Where entries are recessed, the building line at the sidewalk edge should be maintained by the upper floor(s). • Use transoms over doorways to maintain the full vertical height of the storefront. The proposed building has recessed entry ways. The second level does not maintain the building line at the sidewalk edge because it is significantly set back from all street facing facades. The transoms over doorways and the parapet wall at the first floor roof level maintain the full vertical height of the storefronts. Detail Alignment 13.20 The general alignment of horizontal features on building fronts should be maintained. • Typical elements that align include window moldings, tops of display windows, cornices, copings and parapets at the tops of buildings. • When large buildings are designed to appear as several buildings, there should be some slight variation in alignments between the facade elements. The three modules on the Galena Street side of the proposed building are consistent with the traditional and historic pattern of development up and down Galena Street. This can be seen not only in the storefront windows and door entries, but also in the cornice work, kick plates and awnings that are all in scale with and properly proportioned relative to the adjacent Aspen Block building. There is some slight variation in alignments between the facade elements due to the site elevation decreasing by some three feet from Cooper Avenue to the alley. 13.21 Special features that highlight buildings on corner lots may be considered. • Develop both street elevations to provide visual interest to pedestrians. Updated 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 13 • Corner entrances, bay windows and towers are examples of elements that may be considered to emphasize corner locations. • Storefront windows, display cases and other elements that provide visual interest to facades along side streets are also appropriate. This property is located on a prominent corner of the Commercial Core. As such, both street elevations have been developed to engage and provide visual interest for pedestrians. However, during the review of the prior redevelopment proposals for this parcel, the public and City Council made it clear that developing a large structure was not desired. This proposal seeks to create a structure that will enhance the streetscape by being sited lot-line to lot-line while, at the same time, not overwhelming the corner by maintaining the one-story mass, scale and feel of the building from a pedestrian perspective. B. Conceptual Commercial Design Review Approval by the HPC The Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines (the "Commercial Guidelines") set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The Commercial Guidelines are organized to address the different design contexts that exist in the City. These distinct settings, or contexts, are defined as "Character Areas," within which variations exist among the physical features that define each area. The proposed development is located in the "Commercial Core" character area. Per the Commercial Guidelines, all development projects should achieve the following design objectives: • Promote an interconnected circulation system that invites pedestrian use, including a continuous street and alley system and a respect for the natural topography; • Promote a system of public places that support activities, including public amenity spaces, compatible landscaping and paving, and unobtrusive off-street parking; and • Assure that buildings fit together to create a vibrant street edge that reinforces a sense of appropriate scale. The proposed development achieves the above design objectives and does so in a manner that far exceeds the existing building's consistency with said objectives. The proposed design creates a more vibrant and visually interesting street edge by being sited lot line to lot line, which will reinforce a sense of appropriate scale that has long be absent on this important corner in the Commercial Core. Additionally, the one-story feel of this building on the corner of Galena Street and the Cooper Avenue mall will not overwhelm but instead compliment this important pedestrian-friendly area. Updated 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Pa e 14 The existing character of the Commercial Core is explained as follows: The heart of Aspen centers around the Commercial Core Historic District. It is the first area that developed in the early mining days of the town and its character reflects this rich mining heritage, which is the image that many carry with them of this historic Colorado mountain town. Each historic building contributes to the integrity of the district and preservation of all of these resources is, therefore, crucial. This is especially important as new development continues. The purpose of the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District is stated in Section 26.710.140(A) of the Code as follows: "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 historical central business core of the City. " The proposed development will retain the existing commercial use of the building while enhancing and improving this important corner of the Commercial Core. The key design objectives in the Commercial Core are as follows: 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 the pedestrian character. 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. 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 the area. 4. Reflect the variety in building heights seen traditionally. New development should stay within the range of building heights, and be designed to reflect the variation in height across original lot widths. The scale of 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. Updated 434 East Cooper Ave EPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 15 5.Accommodate outdoor public spaces where they respect the historic context. 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 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 street scene, whether or not used for street dining. 6. Promote variety in the street 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. 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. The proposed redevelopment of 434 East Cooper Avenue meets the key design objectives listed above as follows: • The proposed design reinforces the retail-oriented function of the street and greatly enhances the pedestrian character; • The proposed development is a contemporary interpretation of traditional design that will be seen as a product of its own time, yet will be entirely compatible with the district as a whole as well as the adjacent historic Aspen Block building and the nearby historic Red Onion building; • The design acknowledges, is consistent with, complements and enhances the existing scale and character of the area; • The tallest portion of this building is only 28 feet and this portion of the building is set significantly back from all street fronting fagades. All historic buildings in the area have been taken into consideration; • The one-story design of the building, as well as the four recessed door entries, the different awning treatments and numerous storefront windows all combine to promote variety in the street level experience; and, • The integrity of all historic resources within the district is preserved by the proposed compatible, complimentary and subservient design. Please also refer to the responses provided above in association with all similar HPC Design Guidelines. Updated 434 East Cooper Ave UPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 16 Outlined below is each of the Commercial Core's Conceptual Review Design Guidelines in italicized print, followed by a description of the proposal's compliance and/or consistency therewith, as applicable. Street Grid 6.1 Maintain the established town grid in all projects. • The network of streets and alleys should be retained as public circulation space and for maximum public access. • Streets and alleys should not be enclosed or closed to public access, and should remain open to the sky. The proposed building maintains the established town grid and greatly improves upon it relative to the existing building. No streets or alleys will be enclosed or closed to public access and all will remain open to the sky. The existing arcades encroaching into and sitting above the rights-of-way will be removed. Internal Walkways 6.2 Public walkways and through courts, when appropriate, should be designed to create access to additional commercial space and frontage, within the walkway and/or to the rear of the site. • See also: Public Amenity Space design guidelines. No internal public walkways or through courts are proposed. Alleys 6.3 Develop an alley faVade to create visual interest. • Use varied building setbacks and changes in materials to create interest and reduce perceived scale. • Balconies, courtyards and decks are also appropriate. • Providing secondary public entrances is strongly encouraged along alleys. These should be clearly intended for public use, but subordinate in detail to the primary street-side entrance. The alley fagade uses varied building setbacks and changes in materials. The second floor only encompasses a small portion of the alley side of the building and will be used to house mechanical equipment at a location furthest and least visible from the street. Additionally, the second level deck extends across most of the alley side of the building. Parking 6.4 Structured parking should be placed within a 'wrap' of commercial and/or residential uses. • The exposure of auto entry areas should be minimized. Updated 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 17 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. There is no structured parking proposed. Public Amenity Space 6.6 A street facing amenity space shall meet all of the following requirements: • Abut the public sidewalk • Be level with the sidewalk • Be open to the sky • Be directly accessible to the public • Be paved or otherwise landscaped 6.7 A street facing public amenity space shall remain subordinate to the line of building fronts in the Commercial Core. • Any public amenity space positioned at the street edge shall respect the character of the streetscape and ensure that street corners are well defined, with buildings placed at the sidewalk edge. • Sunken spaces, which are associated with some past developments, adversely affect the street character. Where feasible, these should be replaced with sidewalk level improvements. 6.8 Street facing amenity space shall contain features to promote and enhance its use. These may include one or more of the following: • Street furniture • Public art • Historical/interpretive marker The detailed design of Public Amenity Space, with regard to guidelines 68, will be a matter for approval at the Final Review Stage, although it may be discussed at the Conceptual Stage. The design of the existing building has eroded this important corner of the Commercial Core for decades. Since this property is already situated alongside/fronting on the Cooper Avenue pedestrian mall (a major public amenity space), the proposed design has sited the building lot line to lot line, as is desired throughout all of the Guidelines. However, the new building has been designed to read as only one-story along both Galena Street and the Cooper Avenue Mall in order to enhance the pedestrian experience and create vitality. Guidelines 6.9 through 6.17 discuss mid-block, alley-side, second-level, and front-yard amenity spaces and are not applicable to the proposed development. Updated 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 18 Building Setbacks 6.18 Maintain the alignment of faVades 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 beat the property line. 6.19 A building may be set back from its side lot lines in accordance with design guidelines identified in Street & Circulation Pattern and Public Amenity Space guidelines. The proposed building places the entire facade at the property line as desired in these Guidelines and as consistent with the CC zoning. As mentioned above, the design reads as only one-story tall on the mall and along Galena Street. Building Orientation 6.20 Orient a new building to be parallel to its lot lines, similar to that of traditional building orientations. • The front of a primary structure shall be oriented to the street. 6.21 Orient a primary entrance toward the street. • Buildings should have a clearly defined primary entrance. For most commercial buildings, this should be a recessed entry way. • Do not orient a primary entrance to an interior court. • Providing secondary public entrances to commercial spaces is also encouraged on larger buildings. The building will continue to be parallel to the lot lines and both "fronts" will be oriented toward the street. There is one recessed entry way on the Cooper Avenue mall and three on the Galena Street facade. Commercial Space A has two public entrances, one on the mall and one on Galena Street. Building Form 6.22 Rectangular forms should be dominant on Commercial Core favades. • 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. As mentioned throughout this application, the proposed development is characterized by dominant rectangular forms that are vertically oriented yet appropriately scaled. 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. Updated 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 19 • False fronts and parapets with horizontal emphasis also may be considered. All roof lines are flat. 6.24 Along a rear fa(ade, using building forms that step down in scale toward the alley is encouraged. • Consider using additive forms, such as sheds, stairs and decks to reduce the perceived scale. These forms should however, remain subordinate to the primary structure. • Use projecting roofs at the ground floor over entrances, decks and for separate utility structures in order to establish a human scale that invites pedestrian activity. The alley's effective width is already narrowed by the encroachment of the adjacent Aspen Block building. Most of the alley side of the building is only one- story, and the Utility/Trash/Recycle area is located at the back corner of the building on this side. It would be unwise to provide any projections that might further confine the alley given the encroachment of the Aspen Block Building as such would only make it more difficult for the alley to serve its needed function. The one-story feature along the most of the alley will allow sunlight to reach the second floor lodge rooms in the Aspen Block building. Building Height,Mass & 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. While the proposed design provides a one-story building at the sidewalk edge, it provides the horizontal design elements desired by this guideline. The design employs horizontal design features including cornice lines, transom windows, variation in materials and appropriately scaled ground floor plate/ceiling heights. The parapet at the top of the first floor roof serves to provide consistency with and complement the first floor architectural banding across the adjacent Aspen Block Building. 6.26 Building faVade height shall be varied from the favade 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. The only adjacent structure on the Galena Street side is the two-story Aspen Block building. The portion of the proposed structure closest to the Aspen Block is only one-story in height and includes a cornice line that complements, but is varied from, that of the Aspen Block's first story architectural band/cornicing. The two-story portion of the proposed structure that is set significantly back Updated 434 East Cooper Ave I PC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 20 from all street facing facades is lower in height than the Aspen Block building but sufficiently scaled to maintain variation and subservient compatibility. The adjacent structure on the Cooper Avenue mall is the one-story Red Onion Annex building for which a proposed remodel and addition that will substantially increase its height is currently being reviewed by the City. Due to the approximately three foot drop in elevation from the Cooper Avenue corner to the alley, the first level of the proposed building at the alley must have a floor to ceiling height of 15 feet so as to maintain a perceived floor to ceiling height of 12 feet at the corner. The effects of the elevation change and associated floor to ceiling heights are visually mitigated by the awnings and windows that are at a typically scaled height, and further mitigated by the adjacent two-story building. Please refer to the accompanying plan set for graphic illustrations of the proposed building height in the context of surrounding development. 6.27 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the Commercial Core. • Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height limit on the subject property. • A minimum 9 ft. floor to ceiling height is to be maintained on second stories and higher. • Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added for one or more of the following reasons: - In order to achieve at least a two foot variation in height with an adjacent building. - The primary function of the building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum, Civic Building, Performance Hall, Fire Station, etc) - Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity to a historic resource, or location within a View Plane, therefore relief in another area may be appropriate. - To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units. - To make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Building Department) contribution to the building's overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved daylighting. The proposed structure reflects the range and variation in building height of the Commercial Core. Please also refer to the responses provided above relative to similar standards (i.e., 6.25 and 6.26). 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. Updated 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 21 • Set back the upper floor to vary the building fagade profiles) 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 and guidelines. 6.29 On sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths, the faVade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. 6.30 On sites comprising two or more traditional lots, a building shall be designed to reflect the individual parcels. These methods shall be used: • Variation in height of building modules across the site. • Variation in massing achieved through upper floor setbacks, the roofscape form and variation in upper floor heights. • Variation in building fagade heights or cornice line. This application proposes a two-story building that reads as a one-story structure because the second level is set significantly back from the facades on the Cooper and Galena sides of the building. Additionally, on the Galena Street side the second floor sits above only the center "module" (Commercial Space B). The Galena frontage is 100 feet long and the proposed design provides for three distinct "modules," with the flanking modules each being approximately 25 feet wide. Compatible massing, scale and height variation is provided relative to surrounding historic structures by virtue of horizontal design elements such as cornicing, transom windows and materials differentiations. Please also refer to the responses provided above relative to similar standards (i.e., 6.25 and 6.26). 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. The historic Aspen Block building is across the alley on Galena, and the historic Red Onion is one building away from this development on the Cooper Avenue mall. The design of this building is sympathetic to these historic structures, and neither will be overwhelmed by this development. In fact, this entire building is lower in height than, subservient to and compatible with both of these historic resources. 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 feet in height within 30 feet of the front favade. The proposed two-story building has a maximum height of 28 feet. Guideline 6.33 addresses new buildings that are adjacent to one-story historic residential buildings and, therefore, does not apply to this proposal. Updated 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 22 6.34 The setting of iconic historic structures should be preserved and enhanced when feasible. • On sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths, the third floor of the adjacent lot width should be set back a minimum of 15 ft from the front facade. • Step a building down in height adjacent to an iconic structure. • Locate amenity space adjacent to an iconic structure. There are no iconic structures immediately adjacent to the subject property. The only iconic structures in the immediate vicinity of the subject property are the Aspen Block Building located across the alley, the Red Onion building located two properties away, and the Independence Square Building located diagonally across the street. The building proposed on this lot will in no way negatively influence any of these structures as the proposed design and its 28 foot maximum height set significantly back from all street facing facades ensures subservient compatibility. C. Mountain View Plane Section 26.435.010(C) of the Code provides that development within designated mountain view planes is subject to heightened review so as to protect certain mountain views from obstruction, strengthen the environmental and aesthetic character of the City, maintain property values, and enhance the City's tourist industry by maintaining the City's heritage as a mountain community. In relevant part, there are two established and regulated view planes originating from 1) the Wheeler Opera House westerly of Mill Street, and 2) Main Street at the Hotel Jerome. No buildings or land uses are allowed to project above the established view planes unless an exemption is granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission or HPC. The accompanying Improvement Survey illustrates the breadth of the regulated view planes as they cross the subject property. The Improvement Survey also shows the affects of the view planes' ascending height limitation as they project southward across the subject site. The Main Street view plane intersects the subject property line at a height of 93 feet, making this view plane inapplicable since the zoned height limit is only 36-40 feet. The Wheeler View Plane height limit, on the other hand, intersects the subject property at only 14.2 feet above ground elevation and rises to just 16.73 feet above ground where it leaves the property. Responses to the standards of Section 26.435.050(C) are provided below, as applicable to the proposed development. Said section of the Code states that, "No development shall be permitted within a mountain view plane unless the Planning and Zoning Commission [or Historic Preservation Commission] makes a Updated 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 23 Ooft- determination that the proposed development complies with all of the 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, view plane height limitations. The Planning and Zoning Commission [or Historic Preservation Commission] after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Department, may exempt a development from being processed as a PUD when the Planning and Zoning Commission [or HPC] 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 [or Historic Preservation 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 redevelopment to re-open the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning and Zoning Commission [or Historic Preservation Commission] shall exempt the development from the requirements of this Section. (Ord. No. 12, 2007, §22) With Community Development Director approval to combine reviews pursuant to Section 26.304.060(B)(1), all references to "the Planning and Zoning Commission" can be replaced with "the Historic Preservation Commission." Thus, based on the foregoing Code language, the view planes only have the effect of reducing the height limit of the underlying zone district if the HPC will not approve an exemption from the view plane height limit (in such cases, a height limit variance is necessary and only attainable through the PUD review process). The Code language provides that HPC approval of an exemption from the view plane height limitation shall be granted when another development already blocks the same view plane or when the proposed development is found to have only a "minimal effect on the view plane"; in making such a determination, the Updated 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 24 HPC is to consider two things: 1) whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane than does an existing development; and, 2) the likelihood of the already infringing structure(s) being, first, redeveloped and, second, redeveloped in a manner that would re-open the designated view plane. If the proposed development does not further infringe on the view plane, and redevelopment of the existing structure(s) infringing on the view plane cannot be anticipated, the proposed development is to be exempted from the view plane's height limitation. Regardless, the HPC may exempt the development from being processed as a PUD when it is determined that the proposed development has a minimal effect on the view plane. When the HPC approves an exemption from a designated view plane, the effective height limit, by default, is that of the underlying zone district. Further, when a proposed development warrants an exemption from the view plane but complies with the height limit of the underlying zone district (and, for that matter, all other applicable dimensional requirements), there remains no need for PUD review. This is especially true of a development involving a property within a historic district, for such a development is already subject to HPC review and approval, which entails a heightened level of scrutiny (i.e., "special consideration") with regard to mass, scale, bulk, site planning and design, affects on streetscape and pedestrian experiences, and neighborhood compatibility. The proposed development will not require a variance from any applicable dimensional requirement should the HPC grant a view plane exemption. The proposed structure has a maximum measured building height of just 28 feet while the applicable limits of the CC zone district are 36-40 feet. Given the "Purpose" of the City's Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations, as stated in Section 26.445.010 of the Code, there would be nothing to gain by requiring the proposed development to proceed as a PUD according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445. That is, the HPC review process is designed to encourage flexibility and innovation in the development of land while also requiring compatibility with historic resources. Views of Aspen Mountain from the Wheeler Opera House will not be compromised or further infringed upon as a result of this development. Only a very small portion of the subject property falls within the breadth of the mapped Wheeler View Plane, namely the southwest corner. Moreover, this portion of the proposed building will have no effect on the actual view plane as it exists today. Additionally, three existing buildings (one of which is a designated historic landmark) between the view plane origination point and the subject property already infringe upon the view plane as follows; the view plane intersects the T- shirt shop building at a height of only 8.5 feet above ground and this building Updated 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 25 has a height of approximately 11.5 feet; the view plane intersects the Morris and Fyrwald Building at a height of approximately 11 feet above ground and the existing building has a height of approximately 40 feet; the view plane intersects the historic Red Onion Building at a height of approximately 12.5 feet while the landmark designated structure has a height of at least 2 stories (approximately 30 feet at the front). Finally, the Planning and Zoning Commission has recently granted Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval to the adjacent Red Onion Annex building (the poster shop) which features a maximum height of 36 feet in the view plane corridor. Once this building is redeveloped the view from the Wheeler Opera House to the mountain will be further impeded upon and this proposed 28 foot building will not contribute to that impediment. Furthermore, the majority of the proposed structure within the breadth of the designated view plane is only one story in height. The proposed development is located on the far eastern edge of the designated view plane, leaving the vast majority of the view plane area completely unaffected. The heights of the aforementioned buildings are such that the proposed development will not further infringe upon views of Aspen Mountain from the designated vantage point(see photo simulations provided herewith). The proposed development is located immediately in front of the historically designated Independence Square Building. The view plane intersects the Independence Square Building at a height of approximately 24.5 feet above ground but the building has a height of approximately 42 feet, infringing almost 18 feet into the view plane. Given the cost of the existing and infringing buildings, the mitigation costs associated with redevelopment in the Commercial Core, and the direction the current code revisions appear to be going, it is highly unlikely that the infringing buildings will be redeveloped, let alone in a manner that will re-open the view plane. Of the listed structures infringing upon the view plane, the only one that could be anticipated for redevelopment is the T-shirt Shop; however, redevelopment to re-open the view plane would require a total building height of only 8.5 feet and this cannot be anticipated as it would not allow for compliance with building code requirements. The Independence Square Building and the Red Onion Building are designated historic landmarks and are precluded from demolition. Since the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view planes and redevelopment of existing structures that already infringe upon the view plane cannot reasonably be expected to re-open the view plane, the Commission should approve the proposed exemption. Updated 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 26 Moreover, the HPC found that the two previously proposed buildings (which were both three stories and approximately 42 feet in height) had only a minimal impact on the Wheeler Opera House view plane and approved the exemption. This newly designed building will have far less of an impact on the view plane as it is only a two-story building with a maximum height of 28 feet. Further, the predominance of the view plane as it crosses the subject site will include only a one-story structure. Please see the section drawing and view plane exhibits that were included in the applicant's addendum letter dated April 9, 2012. The Code explains that the purpose of Mountain View Plane Review is to protect certain mountain views from obstruction, strengthen the environmental and aesthetic character of the City, maintain property values, and enhance the City's tourist industry by maintaining the City's heritage as a mountain community. The foregoing has amply demonstrated that the proposed development will not compromise the purpose of the mountain view planes but will, instead, further these purposes by strengthening the aesthetic character of the City, enhancing surrounding property values, promoting economic vitality and sustainability, and maintaining the City's heritage as a mountain community. D. Parkin Section 26.515.030 of the Code provides the required number of off-street parking spaces for development in the City of Aspen. In the Aspen Infill Area,where this property is located, the required number of spaces for commercial use is one space per 1,000sf of NLS. One-hundred percent (100%) of the required parking may be provided through cash-in-lieu. When a property is redeveloped an existing deficit of parking may be maintained. The existing commercial building on the subject property has approximately two (2) parking spaces. Cash-in-lieu will be provided to replace these off-street parking spaces. E. Public Amenity Space Section 26.575.030 of the Code provides the requirements for Public Amenity Space in the City of Aspen. Although the requirement is 25% in the Commercial Core (and other zone districts), if a parcel that is being redeveloped contains less than 25% the effective requirement is the existing percentage, but no less than 10%. In this instance, the existing building contains approximately 9% of public amenity space, making the effective requirement for this development 10%. The HPC may approve public amenities and improvements to the pedestrian environment within proximity of the development site (off-site) during the Commercial Design Review pursuant to Code Section 26.575.030.C.2. Updated 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 27 On April 24, 2012, the applicant's representatives met on-site with Stephen Ellsperman from the City of Aspen Parks Department. Mr. Ellsperman described specific off-site improvements in the vicinity of the subject property that the City would be interested in having funded by the applicant in-lieu of on-site public amenity space. The applicant is not proposing to pay the City cash-in-lieu, but rather proposing specific off-site public amenity space improvements that will be funded by the applicant but will be installed/completed by the Parks Department. Prior to this meeting, the applicant calculated the cash-in-lieu for the required Public Amenity Space to be approximately $67,500, as explained below. Since the applicant is proposing to redevelop the subject property, and the existing Public Amenity Space equates to nine percent (9%) of the lot area, the effective/default requirement becomes ten percent (10%), which in this case would amount to 900 square feet (lot size = 9,000 square feet). In order to find the applicable cash-in-lieu amount required, one simply multiplies the 900sf by $75 for a total of $67,500. Mr. Ellsperman was advised that the applicant would be willing to provide up to $75,000 in funds for public improvements in the vicinity of the subject site. Based upon our discussions, the applicant is proposing to pay for the following off-site public amenity space improvements that have already been approved by the City but have not yet been funded: • The City has already purchased a curved bench that has been approved for installation on the Cooper Avenue mall in front of the subject property. The installation of this bench and stream improvements are expected to cost approximately $10,000 (Note: all cited costs were provided by Stephen Ellsperman,but remain subject to adjustment); • There is approximately $30,000 worth of work (labor and materials) that is needed to repair and replace the bricks and any associated drainage issues on the Cooper Avenue mall; • The City would like to continue to upgrade the efficiency of the street lights on both ends of the Cooper Avenue mall. There are a total of 8 lights (4 on each end of the mall) that need to be upgraded with more efficient lighting at a cost of$8,000; • The stone that makes up the Sister Cities circle on the Mill Street side of the Cooper Avenue mall needs to be refurbished at a cost of approximately $12,000; and Updated 434 East Cooper Ave UPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 28 n • Improvements are needed to the fountain at the corner of Mill Street and the Hyman Avenue mall including the brick work, the grate and plumbing, to which the applicant would contribute $15,000 (or any remaining budget from the$75,000 total should any of the previous costs be adjusted). These five (5) public amenity space improvement projects will cost the City a combined total of approximately $75,000. Some of these projects have already been identified as needs by the Parks Department in the City Asset Management Plan. The applicant is proposing to pay for all of the above as Off-Site Public Amenity space to satisfy the requirements of the Code. Section 26.575.030.0.2 of the Code states that 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. The applicant requests that the HPC approve the proposed off-site public amenity improvements as part of this Commercial Design Review. If the HPC does not approve these proposed off-site public amenity improvements, the applicant requests that, pursuant to Section 26.575.030.C.3 of the Code, HPC make a recommendation to City Council to allow for a cash-in-lieu fee of $67,500 for this property that is already located on the Cooper Avenue Public Amenity Space. F. UtilitiL/Trash/Recycle Service Areas The applicant is not aware of any provisions relating to Utility/Trash/Recycle service areas in the Commercial Design Standards, but has complied with the requirements of Section 26.575.060.A of the Code as follows: • Since the property adjoins an alleyway, the utility/trash/recycle area is located along and accessed from the alley; • The dimensions of the utility/trash/recycle area are 21'-6" long x 15' deep,with a 13 foot vertical clearance; and, • This area will not be used for parking or as vehicular access to a parking area. The Utility/Trash/Recycle service area and its dimensions are depicted on the proposed main level floor plan included in the architectural plans provided by CCA. Attachments: • Architectural plans prepared by Charles Cunniffe Architects Updated 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 29 ■ UP SPACE C.0 - 661 SF = SPACE B SPACE C.1 852 SF 1285 SF ■ SPACED U ■ 77 W -i r1T IT A DN `4 �a 8 I 1 ■ DN SPACE E -- 4 SPACE A SPACE H 674 SF 4626 SF 258 SF I I _I I-III II � y a LL II-IIlllll W IIIIIII J � w SPACE F SPACE G Q T- 975 SF 574 SF U DN W O W EXISTING LOWER LEVEL NET LEASABLE AREA EXISTING MAIN LEVEL NET LEASABLE AREA O o < 2 1/16" EXISTING NET OU 00 LEASABLE AREA F- NAME AREA Q w w SPACE A 4626 SF W 0- SPACE B 852 SF v Q SPACE C.0 661 SF Mil SPACE C.1 1285 SF SPACE D 1477 SF SPACE E 674 SF SPACE F 975 SF SPACE G 574 SF 11/16/12 SPACE H 258 SF SPACE H 944 SF SPACE J 498 SF SPACE K 1153 SF AO.2 SPACE L 177 SF �P-ACE M 111h1 SF SPACE N 572 SF Grand total 16169 SF SPACE H SPACE J SPACE K H -j 944 5F 495 5F 1153 5F l'- C) W X DN U LL � o E N SPACE L W LL W 1-7-7 5F LL Z � m V z O n U 111 � W a rn DN ! U w PAGE M U Z 1441 5F SPACE N W . _I 5-72 5F Q 2 U CL w 0 O a- Q U o0 (—, )_EXISTING UPPER LEVEL NET LEASABLE AREA I— o 1/16 V-0" Q W W W lq- 0- M 'IT Q 11/12/12 EXISTING A0.3 ® WA'giGwi WAglES CUmofiF A0.CwiFR3 7 UP I7N . UP -- i U w 5FAGE 5.0 = a 4233 5F 5FAGE A 5FAGE B.1 5FAGE G () 1941 5F 4391 5F 1495 5F Q W E ° LL 9 LL '_ Z Z o Z � W a U W a UZ W 9 J Q U ry 0 O a- < O o0 CU c) o 1 �110=1-011 POSED LOWER LEVEL NET LEASABLE AREA 2 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL NET LEASABLE AREA Q w w 1/16"=1'-0" W ch U) Q M d' FROF05ED NET LEASABLE AREA Name Area 11/12/12 SPAGE A 1941 5F SPAGE E3.0 4233 5F PROPOSED SPAGE E3.1 4391 5F SPAGE E3.2 4104 5F q 0'4 SPAGE G 149 H 5 5F Grand total 161653 5F N X O m O m 0 C m m m r m m r Z m r m D D 00 r m D m D 434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.1 ASPEN,CO 61611 TEL:970.925.55901 FAX:970.920.4557 >00 m O 0 m O cn cl) m N X O m O m 0 C m m m r m m r Z m r m D D 00 r m D m D 434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.1 ASPEN,CO 61611 TEL:970.925.55901 FAX:970.920.4557 >00 u Lae�a9 Naas 1N3WNNOWS SN002131° Imo a°l 6L) awn 3nN3Ad d3d000 OOU dI50v Z6L y1py6L 6t6L lOZ6t 900 lsOdSg y50as U3p33NMV S Lo S MMW S°6f66 15 3HMSL9f�L 1 U3i3 C65t6L NydW 22 d0 6 f�� NS OU 3 tL 3 U00 f 1N\OaM py6l Lpt6L �} tpZGl eZ^ _ t�btb 616013°bHsJ I� 1N`L"oAN O� Lz o o\lva N3ao S au` V+,r1 z - O r fOOU o N c N9 • co = g C7 j a o 'N F M c z D U) G) _I N)tl 1NNOW°3N g rooa gwavo� ,un 3LVao a a3LS`" 6t orviravaaanve NO Z• I 6 50\6L d U3136 gN\NUd �1 0313 so LL kl6L t (°M0038.9Z'O6) V6gt�5 Ng San Oa313P�'\Ot 3N .ZZ 05 3..1 L,60.9L S Ns`oWn-p5 yry3W35ii AUi11n 15 N�YW 9L°t66 a00 03n eOaAZ OZI y6N\�ysptpg 68 A0018 .18-n`d � � m T ` / Lt Bt6l '^y` Nxy.Mg sO Q �/U)/ , O � F z G) cn I H 0 m -D r L99p65a9 N�aD ZN3W°NOW m 434 EAST COOPER CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS X www.cunniffe.com 2 rn N G) 434 EAST COOPER 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN,CO 81611 TEL:970,925 55901 FAX:970.920.4557 ASPEN, COLORADO m&I-1 Lqm rn T1 110 O m 0 U) m m r D Z rn a 434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.1 ASPEN,CO 81611 I TEL:970.925.55901 FAX:970.920.4557 n -o 0 D O O N m O rn a 434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.1 ASPEN,CO 81611 I TEL:970.925.55901 FAX:970.920.4557 n 100'-0" li 100'-0" 24'-6" 51'-0" 24'-6" i It I S WE L STAIRWELL U DN UP =_ N TILIT /TRASH/RECYCLE W C 24'-8" 50'-8" 24'-8" 33.3 1 15'-01/2" I— SPACE'A' SPACE'B.1' SPACE'C' W LL _ 00 I SPACE B.O 00 _ Z o Z U I' 2 U I U) W 0 IL Q I= Ir 2 W IL O o 0- < A3.3 O O O U � i UO U U W PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 2 PROP Q W OSED MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN W co 0- 1 _V_0„ d- d Q M 11/16/12 2 PROPOSED A3.5 A2. 100'-O" 24'-1" . 5TAIRlNELL DN EGHANIGAL N U) PARAPET U W F- X a A3.3 1 A33 1 (� Q o Lu SPACE '5.2' FLAT ROOF LL tF w ry LL �� z � U O W U 2 W a U w 'a U) Z ►n W Y Jr � J 1 A3.4 1 A3.4 = U ROOF DEGK BELOW ROOF DECK ct O a° 2 2 O O � U ° o A3.3 A3.3 E— U Q LI W W MU) d- - Q M 1 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 2 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 11/12/12 PROPOSED A2.2 © CO"I-CH ALES tuumgI All III III I T.O. EXIST PARAPET TO. UPPER EXIST. ROOF 122'-11 5/5" T.O. LOWER EXIST. ROOF 119'-4 5/8" T.O.F.F. @ EXIST. UPPER LEVEL 2 W a 111'-8" X T.O.F.F. @ EXIST. UPPER LEVEL 1 C 109'-8" Q E o W LL T.O.F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL z " o - — — - — - - - - - - - - - _ z 100'—O" U w EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION W z 1 J vs^=r-0 W U f� r LV w � O 01 O a- D m O cr- 0 r tL O O Lf) LL- 0 U to w Q w w o - - -- -— -p w � a_ — - - - — — - - - � Q WNW= M N 11/16/12 – - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — - - EXISTING A3. 1 2 EXISTING EAST ELEVATION T.O. EXIST PARAPET . T.O. UPPER EXIST. ROOF - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 122'-115/8"� U) W X000 � a - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — - - — - - - - - - -TO.F.F. @ EXIST. UPPER LEVEL 2 111'-8"� Q E W LL 0 Z = Z W D uj T.O.F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL V z - - - - - - - - 100'-0" J Q 1 EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION —777 77 W O 0 a- < 0 00 c) o U I— U Q LLI W W c U) r Q C'7 d' 11/16/12 EXISTING A3.2 WP.a1-, IaIHIIIIIs T.O. PROPOSED ROOF MIL IF fl 3 ....... ; I T O.F.F. @PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL i I � �; �,'k YYa i � { f + ,• ke, as y � � .. ui x too, :M'..:s#....nom, .-..,,v.. r , v: n'-: 1 (,_:' Y:h-...; ivk*✓: ,,yy �, :�x5. `•^z +i.--,....,- >�-_,.a. `# . :: t .,>f"....P. < ..•. ��z}'%4. a .:.. I f Rif�, �..,,.. .'?<;.. ....- , 4, ,....c ,.:- .k.r,♦. ,.., ,A'.<...., ..,.: ...,. .,f. ,. ..F::.: . a' I .. .,. a ,. ..,., ..kt, >{,-.._z;✓^,... 3 .,t .:u w w ..<.+xle, q :: L.L C � � rn w T.O.F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL z z W Z a U w 1 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION z LU - 2 e T.O. PROPOSED ROOF AL 128'-O" 0 0 0 O � Wo 1.O.F.F. @ PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL 0 I— U o Q ww M d Q T.O.F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL — — - - - — — 100'-0 11/16/12 PROPOSED 2 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION A3.3 © COPYR-T""LESC1::I,:rrEaA :rE s D w m 434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO O b � O cn m 0 z O m r m D O z Io 3 z p , r � < O , r IS IL FA � � �i 0 rn d � o rn A r- <rn O , f- IS CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.1 ASPEN,CO 61611 1 TEL:970.925.5590 FAX:970.920.4557 I � p � 0 IO � rn d 610 I! IN >00,i F, Io 3 z p , r � < O , r IS IL FA � � �i 0 rn d � o rn A r- <rn O , f- IS CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.1 ASPEN,CO 61611 1 TEL:970.925.5590 FAX:970.920.4557 I � p � 0 IO � rn d 610 I! IN >00,i 0 CA) Cal G) D r m z D m m m - m D O z A 434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO n " O N bO -a m m m m r m D --I O z CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.1 ASPEN,CO 81611 TEL:970.925.5590 FAX:970.920.4557 nn HAAS LAND PLANNING , LLC June 27, 2012 Sara Adams,Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen,Colorado 81611 RE: Proposed Off-Site Public Amenity Space for 434 East Cooper Avenue Dear Sara: On April 24, 2012, the applicant's representatives met on-site with Stephen Ellsperman from the City of Aspen Parks Department. Mr. Ellsperman described specific off-site improvements in the vicinity of the subject property that the City would be interested in having funded by the applicant in-lieu of on-site public amenity space. The applicant is not proposing to pay the City cash-in-lieu, but rather proposing specific off-site public amenity space improvements that will be funded by the applicant but will be installed/completed by the Parks Department. Prior to this meeting, the applicant calculated that the cash-in-lieu for the required Public Amenity Space would be approximately $67,500, as explained below. Since the applicant is proposing to redevelop the subject property, and the existing Public Amenity Space equates to nine percent (9%) of the lot area, the effective/default requirement becomes ten percent (10%), which in this case would amount to 900 square feet (lot size = 9,000 square feet). In order to find the applicable cash-in-lieu amount required, one simply multiplies the 900sf by $75 for a total of $67,500. Mr. Ellsperman was advised that the applicant would be willing to provide up to $75,000 in funds for public improvements in the vicinity of the subject site. Based upon our discussions, the applicant is proposing to pay for the following off- site public amenity space improvements that have already been approved by the City but have not yet been funded: • The City has already purchased a curved bench that has been approved for installation on the Cooper Avenue mall in front of the subject property. The installation of this bench and stream improvements are expected to cost approximately $10,000 (Note: all cited costs were provided by Stephen Ellsperman,but remain subject to adjustment); • There is approximately $30,000 worth of work (labor and materials) that is needed to repair and replace the bricks and any associated drainage issues on the Cooper Avenue mall; • 201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 108 • ASPEN, COLORADO • 8161 1 • PHONE: (970) 925-7619 • FAX: (970) 925-7395 1 '"AAS LAND !, I $ LLC April 9,2012 AP 0 9 c1'Il° , CCMt4��r " '9 -N Sara Adams, Senior Planner e !i�'0EVELOP'" City of Aspen Community Development Department MENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Addendum to the 434 East Cooper Avenue Redevelopment Application Dear Sara: Please consider this letter and the attached plans as an addendum to the recently submitted 434 East Cooper Avenue redevelopment application. The application was submitted on March 30, 2012, and deemed incomplete by your office in a letter dated April 4, 2012. Said letter stated that in order for the application to be deemed complete the following three items were needed: 1. A section that illustrates where the Wheeler Opera House Viewplane intersects the proposed building; 2. The specific provision of off-site public amenity proposed; and 3. Address the Utility, Delivery and Trash Service provision of the Commercial Design Standards and show the dimensions on the floor plans and elevations. In response to #1 above, please see the section drawing and view plane exhibits to this addendum. It should be again noted that during the two prior redevelopment proposals for the subject property, the three-story buildings proposed were found to have minimal impact on the view plane and, therefore, granted exemptions. The currently proposed building is now only one-story where the view plane intersects the property. With regard to the specific off-site public amenity, as stated on page 26 of the submitted application, the applicant is willing to provide improvements to the pedestrian mall. Section 26.575.030.C.2 of the Code states that 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. The applicant has calculated the cash-in-lieu • 201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 108 ASPEN, COLORADO • 8161 1 • • PHONE: (970) 925-7819 FAX: (970) 925-7395 434 East CooperAve Addendum Page 3 It is respectfully requested that you please confirm that the submission of these three items deems the 434 East Cooper Avenue redevelopment application complete. Very truly yours, Haas Land Planning, LLC X0 Mitch Haas cc: Charles Cunniffe Architects r Observer:Main Street � ! * , 4 1 7906.6 * Exhibit B Observer:Courthouse 1 Observer: 7912 32 Courthouse 7913.02 J 4W k ft4*h.-g oviply 9"69 46 *Observer:Wheeler Opera House R 7916.18 Obsen gner Pe �.ti. 7962-3,-; R 797 '•� '� 7919.73 \zoz "t� O , 2 '�� ~ 434 E. Cooper Ave � R �9g6'8 91 • � 19� 856.1 r�lf ���� low •1g1`� 7976.16 ��! g _ 19 7966.1 �, Not -11111111111P7.A.- rafts W'' 1090 bserver Mountain View Plane Above which no land use or building shall project IL Height Above Observer 4116 ® Observer elevation to 30 feet ' 30-40 feet -- ` City of Aspen Land Use Code--Section 26.435.050 40-50 feet View planes extend to infinity. The view plane representations a� .` 4* shown on this map only extend to 60 feet above the observer's 50-60 feet Structure elevation. View planes exist past what is shown on this map. GIS Department February 12,2007 LEGEND AND NOTES FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT AS DESCRIBED OR SET PK NAIL WITH ALUM. TAG 25947 ALL FLUSH G / / ASPEN CAPS MONUMENT WITH GROUND 0-159, EL.7906.67 I •10 TITLE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY: TKIN 0 10 20 / / / / DATED:MARCH INC. H 21, 2012 CASE NO. PCT23441W / POSTED ADDRESS'315 S. GALENA ST. AND 434 EAST COOPER' SURVEY CONTROL/ / t MISC. ENCROACHMENTS ON ALL SIDES BEARINGS BASED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 69(NAIL IN CONC.) / AND TIE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 95 (BRASS TAG 266431 IN 75'09'11'x) LOTS PRORATED TO FIELD BLOCK LENGTH 270.65' RECORD BLOCK 270.60' / RECORD GALENA STREET R.O.W. OF 74.00' HELD COR BLOCK LENGTH. ELEVATIONS BASED ON CITY GPS MONUMENT NO. 5: ELEVATION 7910.746 / TREE CALLS IN I 1 RECORD FROM 1959 OFFICAL CITY OF ASPEN PLAT STREET SIGN :P O STREET LIGHT w1e.74 w.lx n• F FIRE HYDRANT 6ETl3a7 KM Dl ax VICINITY MAP / �LtljY ❑ UTILITY BOX / B L ENTIRE PROPERTY IS AFFECTED BY THE THE MAIN STREET OC'q VIEW PLANE.ABOTH VRIEWOPLAANES ARE WHEELER OPERA -�Td x 89 D SURROUNDING BUILDINGS 90 WATER LINE IS GALENA S7 AND COOPER AVE r 1 90. ALL OTHER UTILITIES ARE IN THE ALLEY RECpR021 sIn E.1'MEx7 THIS PROPERTY 15 SITUATED IN ZONE 'X' (AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE 500-YEAR FLOOD PLAINI AS SHORN ON FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP PREPARED BY F.E.M.A. FOR PITE:N COUNTY COLORADO. C0IHUNITY-PANEL NUMBER 0609700204 C, EFFECT(VET r�lID r, r / DATE: JUNE 4, 1987 � ww.0 Iwlx sr. QEe, THIS PROPERTY LIES ENTIRELY INSIDE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN N, PROW HAZARD 70'2 sW)pr�Do wP AREA AS DEFINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN, PROJECT NUMBER 1963, 41E.1 FIGURE ES-15. 'T cTTi � a X47 I fwia DIWx ZONED:CC(COMMERCIAL CORE( WITH HISTORIC OVERLAY NO SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FRONT, SIDE, REAR e cur / NrUr r� 1��` eD.4. soer4p � 7AxIxD rETH / o / / TWO STORY BRICK BgILDING acg' WITH GARDEN LFVEL / g / / �m IR / 0 2„ / RED MOUNTAIN R ti 4 4 / S a CERTIFICATION THE IFIFLD OIL BA THAT ROPERTY DE520128�HEREON ACCURATE D BASED ON THE FIELD EVIDENCE AS SHOTIN AND THAT THERE ARE NO ftA, �' 8 DISCREPANCIES OF RECORD BOUNDARY LINE CONFLICTS ENCROACHMENTS,OR ucx EASEMENTS iEREOl1 9HOWN.NUUIDERGRIOUND UTI LLIITIIES WITNN 1/0 ABOVEGROUND ` APPURTENANCES AND DOCUMENTS OF RKORD NOT SUPPLIED TO THE SURVEYOR ARE PTE_. THIS SUXVET I6 VOID UNLESS RET STAMPED / WITH THE 51WIVEYOR BELON. SURVEY PRECISION 16 LESS 74114. e.a THAN I: / D7e1.4T.4 wF a iie°4irH DIfA S 1 Q SMUGGLER DATE4a MOUNTAIN /^ OPYFIIED V1R /{� //j/�j iffy 947 a,T_1 WErGI I PATIO R LEVEL 19 710 e:<o M IT. Ar • MTx arArra. ! IIreEAxT N;,3.pg. x4.WUU��16(gECO RD.22 O IWIX6 M( O l0i1.lal lWy,HtH CO ROOF iw°.l T.DIH �v1H wlx I OpeR f7a.7o'q.o.W r •TI E 'I BOARD ww es ru 7920.2 LITE ROCKS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY OF LOT 0, R AND S. BLOCK 69, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN CITY OF ASPEN COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO CONTAINING: 9,022 SF•/• 19,026 SF•/•RECORD(0.207 ACRES •/- ASPEN CAPS MONUMENT NO Z, EL-79277927..72 INDEPENDENCE PASS PREPARED BY 1 ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS, INC. 210 SOUTH GALENA STREET �1Pw/IHWIGIIDW x r IMM w IWWW/T IppMOU er�lYE016 0{. T W wttI TCEx r ASPEN,COLORADO 61611 OU UWa Mff W PHONE/FAX(9701 925-36 16 Ix f pO � APEN MOUNTAIN TG6H. MOU aTAW6D WITH HE WEL W TIE DATE JOB 03/12 35243A NOPK�NS O �ReAER 1 9g 9a L� o ,r y YMA N A eZ Q E w 0 LL LL J W F— C � C r U 9 } O z 2 O n N 4 U C 0 P U Z ER 1 95 w • • '� g f��R PEE e 100 U 1- T-SHIRT SHOP BUILDING +/-7,917.06' GRADE ELEVATION @ VIEWPLANE INTERSECTION 89 +/-7,925.48' (+/-8'-5") HEIGHT OF VIEWPLANE @ BUILDING ESTIMATED HEIGHT OF BUILDING= 11'-6" �/ 2• MORRIS AND FYRWALD BUILDING w O � W Z +/-7,918.00' GRADE ELEVATION @ VIEWPLANE INTERSECTION V 96 w O j O +/-7,929.00' (+/-11'-D") HEIGHT OF VIEWPLANE @ BUILDING Q Q ESTIMATED HEIGHT OF BUILDING=40' N T V O w ° 3- RED ONION BUILDING(TOMMY LATTA BUILDING-18921 c) d. 0 +/-7,918.50' OU GRADE ELEVATION @VIEWPLANE INTERSECTION � O Z +/-7,931.00' (+/-12'-6") HEIGHT OF VIEWPLANE @ BUILDING ESTIMATED HEIGHT OF BUILDING=40' Q LLJ w Q (an 4- BIDWELL BUILDING(MOUNTAIN PLAZA BUILDING-1965) LLI Q 7,919.22' GRADE ELEVATION @ VIEWPLANE INTERSECTION Ch d. M 7,934.78' +15.56') HEIGHT OF VIEWPLANE @BUILDING m 5- INDEPENDENCE BUILDING(BROWN&HOAG BUILDING-18891 +/-7,920.00' GRADE ELEVATION @ VIEWPLANE INTERSECTION +/-7,944.60' HEIGHT OF VIEWPLANE @BUILDING ESTIMATED HEIGHT OF BUILDING=42' 03/30/12 PROPOSED &VIEWP LAN E STUDY N.T.S: A4.7 © CMYNpIf�lUI6f9 MNfsf A4.xitE^_19 W JEELER VIEW PLANE RED ONION RED ONION T-SHIRT BUILDING ANNEX SHOP BUILDING ! HYMAN ALLEY AVENUE PROPOSED BUILDING COOPER AVENUE U WHEELER VIEW PANE W HITS BUILDING AT 7,934.78 r OR 1556'ABOVE GRADE 2 SECTION CUT ALONG WHEELER VIEW PLANE C N.T. S. --- Q E 0 W ILW z U J O Z z w a W Lu U I— a 2 y A3.4 Q W { ALLEY BLOCK 89 z W J Q 1— Q 9tic 0 U IFO EXISTING sF i PARKING METER OTO � ti I -EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN of W 1 A3.3 W Z HITS BUILDING @ m W 7,934.78 OR 15.56' Elf �" > ABOVE GRADE o FLAT ROOF w p U EXISTING F�G� w j o z TWO STORY �,o a BRICK BUILDING ��, w Q F PROPERTY LINE d- W Q rl M I- ce) SIGN EXISTING TREES ARD 2 03/30/12 COOPER VENUE MALL PROPOSED A3.3 2 1 A4.6 PROPOSED SITE PLAN 30'-011 -- - © fCPVRO110URE5411�NEFEfXNiEL19 A3.4 1 90'-0" 90'-0" • 20--0" 70'-0" o TRASH/ ELEV. ELEV. o UTILITIES MECH. U) U DN UP SPACE C U N m W N N = . -- -- U -- -- == Q E -- -- W ® o LL 0 LL c _ c STORAGE z ' 0 STOR. z J z a cn r--T�T�Tn nri-rn C) lti SPACE - a A3.3 ° o U) z ELEV. i -°o � ELEV. W UP m LILA o MECH. U 0 0 STOR. `O SPACE A DN `? SPACE A iiii i� w z � W z N m __J1L�11� W WO m =� O QQ O ao u 0O F-1 ❑ ❑ OU Z Q F- a W Q W 'IT Q Ce) �t 2 �t A3.3 03/30/12 2 PROPOSED FIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 1 PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED 1/16 = 1 -0 U 1/16" - 1 -0 A2.1 NORTH 0o O n � --XO I- M _ m _ o z O m r m D O z 0 m 11--l' r O r O O 60 0 w w 0 L 17'-0" I m n O G r r v O 60 434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER AVENUE ASPEN, COLOADO �p N � 000 O O =T I i I I I I I CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST FWV ANAVE.I ASPEN.00 816111 TEL:970.925.55901 FAX 970.920.4657 o W 0 0 U) m 0 0 w w 0 L 17'-0" I m n O G r r v O 60 434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER AVENUE ASPEN, COLOADO �p N � 000 O O =T I i I I I I I CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST FWV ANAVE.I ASPEN.00 816111 TEL:970.925.55901 FAX 970.920.4657 f CITY ()I- ASPEN 434 EAST COOPER AVENUE 434 EAST COOPER AVENUE, LLC CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC w HAAS LAND, PLANNINGt LLC 201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 108-ASPEN, CO 81611 -(970) 925-7819- � MHAAS @SOPRIS.NET !2> r C/3 �3 "U TO: Historic Preservation Thru: Sara Adams Date: March 29, 2012 rn Commission (HPC) & Amy Guthrie City Council Subject: 434 East Cooper Avenue Redevelopment HPC Conceptual Application Section I: Introduction The subject property address is 434 East Cooper Avenue and it is legally described as Lots Q, R, and S, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen. The Bert Bidwell Investment Corporation owns the Mountain Plaza Building which is located at the northwest corner of Galena Street and the Cooper Avenue Mall. The property is not on the City of Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures (the Inventory), but is located within the Commercial Core Historic Overlay District. The applicant, 434 East Cooper Avenue, LLC, is under contract to purchase this property, and has been authorized by the owner to submit this application (see Exhibit 4). The applicant (434 East Cooper Avenue, LLC) intends to demolish and replace the Mountain Plaza Building. On March 24, 2006, the owner (Bert Bidwell Investment Corp) submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) a formal application for demolition. On May 24, 2006, a public hearing was held, and a decision was made by the HPC to allow demolition.. The decision to allow demolition was called up to the City Council where the demolition approval was upheld. Since it has been resolved that the existing building is not historically significant (the property was also left off of the Aspen Modern list of potentially historic properties), this conceptual review focuses solely on the project's consistency with the Commercial Core Historic District and the HPC Design Guidelines relative thereto. The owner had previously received Conceptual Design Review approval from the HPC for redevelopment of the Mountain Plaza Building pursuant to Resolution No. 20, Series of 2007. Subsequently, the owner proposed modifications to the design of the building based upon concerns raised by the public and the Aspen City Council. Due to the significant changes to the building, the review of the Mountain Plaza Building was remanded back to the HPC for Conceptual Design Review approval. After the second HPC approval, and during the City Council's review of the revised proposal, the owner of the property withdrew his application. 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 1 low r During the above-described initial review, the Community Development Director determined that the Conceptual Design Review could be combined with the Mountain View Plane Review pursuant to Section 26.304.060(B)(1). If the HPC had considered the site plan, height, scale, massing and proportions of the proposed development without simultaneously deciding the View Plane Exemption it would have been counterproductive and could have resulted in a duplicative and possible contradictory review process. Allowing for the combined review before the HPC avoided duplication without any circumvention of the review process. As part of Resolution No. 20, Series 2007, the HPC found the impact on the Wheeler Opera House view plane to be minimal and granted the requested exemption. Conceptual Design Review and the Mountain View Plane Review were combined during the second review as well. The maximum height of the redevelopment currently proposed by this application is significantly lower (only 28 feet and two stories), and thus will have even less impact on any view plane. In light of the above-mentioned series 'of events, this application seeks HPC Conceptual Major Development and Commercial Design Review approvals, as well as an exemption from Mountain View Plane Review. The Vicinity Map below shows the property's general location relative to the surrounding area. mapPoinr _ r r kF --- -- y r�k `Aspen.. CC ...81 161-1 Par fill Park Are t?t-Aloe Mite Plover Lr t , . .. National Forest A 02005 Miorasoft Gorp 02005 NAYTEQ,amdorODT,Inc. Vicinity Map —434 E. Cooper Avenue 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 2 r The application is divided into four sections. This section provides a brief introduction to the application, while Section II describes the existing conditions of the project site and environs. Section III outlines the applicant's proposed development, and Section IV addresses the proposed development's compliance with the applicable review criteria of the Code. For the reviewer's convenience, all pertinent supporting documents relating to the project are provided in the various exhibits to the application, as follows: • Exhibit 1: Land Use Application and Dimensional Requirements Forms; • Exhibit 2: Pre-Application Conference Summary prepared by Sara Adams; • Exhibit 3: Proof of Ownership; • Exhibit 4: Authorization for the applicant to submit this application for redevelopment of the property; • Exhibit 5: Authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC (HLP) and Charles Cunniffe Architects (CCA) to represent the applicant; • Exhibit 6: An executed application fee agreement; and, • Exhibit 7: Mailing addresses of record for all property owners located within three-hundred feet of the subject property. • Exhibit 8: Commercial Core Dimensional Requirements. In addition, architectural plans prepared by CCA accompany this application. While the applicant has attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Code, and to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the application, questions may arise which require further information and/or clarification. Upon request, the applicant's representative will provide such additional information as may be required in the course of the review. Section II: The Project Site (Existing Conditions) The building at 434 E. Cooper Avenue, the Mountain Plaza Building, was built in 1965. It is a two-story office/retail building with a footprint of approximately 6,300 square feet on a 9,000 square foot lot, at the corner of East Cooper Avenue and South Galena Street. It is a heavy timber structure with a flat roof, deep overhangs and a wood post-supported first-story arcade overhanging the sidewalk and public right of way along Galena Street. At the corner of the site is a sunken courtyard,with access to basement level commercial space. The existing structure actually detracts from the integrity of the historic district as it occupies one of, if not the most important corners in Aspen's downtown area but does not provide or enhance the streetscape in the manners prescribed by the Aspen Historic Preservation Guidelines. The building's arcades, hard to locate front doors, and sunken courtyard have all played a part in eroding this corner for the last 47 years. One of its entrances can only be accessed by taking a 434 East Cooper Ave UPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 3 stairway down to a.sunken courtyard. Some of the other entrances have stairs leading up to them. These entrances are not pedestrian-friendly, nor are they accessible to people with physical disabilities. Indeed, in adherence to the Guidelines, the HPC would not allow a similar structure to be built today. Section III: The Proposal The applicant is requesting Conceptual Approval of a Major Development as well as Commercial Design Review Approval and a Mountain View Plane Exemption. All applications for Conceptual Approval of a Major Development project must receive a determination of consistency with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (hereinafter "the Guidelines') to be approved. Since this property is located in the Commercial Core Historical District, conceptual approval of the proposed design requires a finding of consistency with Chapter 13 of Guidelines, in terms of height, scale, mass, bulk, and site plan. Additionally, the applicant must show consistency with the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines (the "Commercial Guidelines"). The two previous redevelopment proposals for this property entailed three-story mixed-use buildings. The current proposal envisions a two-story building with only commercial retail space. No residential development is proposed and the proposal fully complies with the Commercial Core zoning. This modest redevelopment proposal is fully depicted on the accompanying CCA Plan Set. As mentioned above, the subject property is located on one of, if not the most, important corners in the Commercial Core. The proposed building has been designed to serve as an anchor to this corner, but at the same time not overwhelm it, as was desired by the public and the City Council during the previous redevelopment reviews for this property. The proposed building is a contemporary interpretation of traditional design that will return this property to the proper alignment of the streets and alleys by being sited parallel to the lot lines. The,building has been designed as one-story with a roof deck on the Cooper Avenue side of the building, with the second level set significantly back from that fagade. This one-story fagade that extends along the Cooper Avenue mall and continues past the Galena Street corner employs largely transparent materials that break up the massing and lend an "open" feel to this,important corner. The Galena frontage is 100 feet long and the proposed design provides for three distinct "modules," each approximating a traditional Townsite lot width. These "modules" integrate both old and new materials and elements that create balance between all of the surrounding architecture. At the Galena Street fagade, only the center module appears as two 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 4 stories, while the flanking modules are each only one story in height, making the entire structure appear to be a collection of smaller buildings. There are no interior courts or sunken courtyards proposed, and all entrances are on the sidewalk/street level, providing for pedestrian friendliness and accessibility for people with physical disabilities. The new building will compliment the historic Aspen Block building across the alley, as well as the nearby historic Red Onion Building and the Paradise Bakery Plaza across the street, and will greatly increase pedestrian interest and activity.. The design of this building is sympathetic to these structures, and none will be overwhelmed by this development. In fact,this entire building is lower in height than,subservient to and compatible with all of these buildings. The proposed commercial square footage is broken into three distinct spaces, as follows: • Commercial Space A will contain approximately 5,143sf of Net Leasable Area (NLA) with 2,495sf below grade and 2,648sf on the first level. This space will have access from Galena Street,but its main entrance will be on the Cooper Avenue mall. • Commercial Space B, which is accessed on Galena Street via the center "module"; will contain approximately 7,585sf of NLA with 2,842sf on the street level and 4,743sf on the second level. This space will utilize the entire second level. The remainder of the second level will contain two separate roof deck spaces; one on the Cooper Avenue mall above Commercial Space A, the other above the "module" closest to the alley on Galena Street. • Commercial Space C (located in the "module" closest to the alley) will be accessible through its own separate entrance on Galena Street and will contain 2,128sf.of NLA, all on the street level. No variances are required for this redevelopment proposal in the CC Zone District as there is no minimum lot area per dwelling unit, no minimum lot width, no setback requirements, and no minimum distance between buildings for this type of development. The applicant is proposing a maximum height of 28 feet, there are no residential units, and the development complies with all. FAR limits.(See Exhibit 8 attached to this application.) The Utility/Trash/Recycle area is located on the far side of the alley, creating little to no visual impact on/from Galena Street. The basement level will also include storage space and mechanical equipment. Please refer to the submitted plan sets for clear details with respect to the design and program of the proposed development. 434 East Cooper Ave BPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 5 Section IV: Review Requirements Given the above described proposal and accompanying plan sets, approvals are needed for Conceptual Major Development, Commercial Design Review and Mountain View Plane .Exemption. Although included in the pre-application �o conference summary, the demolition of designated historic properties is not applicable to this property as this property has already been deemed non-historic and approved for demolition. The pre-app also mentioned that pursuant to Ordinance 3, Series of 2012 (which was adopted two days ago on March 27th), this application would be required to include Neighborhood Outreach in the form of individual outreach and enhanced public information (Code Section 26.304.035). A written summary of the neighborhood outreach, as well as the method of public notification will be prepared by the applicant and provided as an addendum to this application prior to the initial HPC hearing. A Conceptual Approval of a Major Development All applications for Conceptual approval of a Major Development project,must receive a determination of consistency with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (the "HP Guidelines') to be approved. Chapter 1 of the Guidelines is not applicable as it concerns streetscapes and lot features on residential buildings. Chapters 2 through 10 are likewise inapplicable as they refer to the rehabilitation of Historic Structures. The current project involves redevelopment of a property that has been deemed not historic. Chapter 11 provides guidelines for new buildings and additions on residential Landmark Properties. Chapter 12 is concerned with design in the Main Street Historic District. Neither of these Chapters applies to this proposal. The project has been designed to be generally consistent with the guidelines of. Chapter 14, but specific consistency with these requirements will be demonstrated as part of the HPC Final review. Since the proposed development is located on a non-historic lot in the Commercial Core, its design must comply with Chapter 13 of the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Guidelines. In the words of the Guidelines, Traditionally the hub of Aspen and the center of commercial and cultural activity, the Commercial Core should remain so. Designs for nezv- construction should reinforce the retail-oriented function of the street and enhance its pedestrian character. While nezv construction should be Pa e 6 434 East Cooper Ave HrC Conceptual Application(rI)2737-182-16-001) g 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. The HP Guidelines state that not every guideline will apply to each project and that some balancing of the guidelines must occur on a case-by-case basis. Accordingly, the HPC must find only that a sufficient number of the relevant guidelines have been adequately met in order to approve the proposal. Conceptual Review focuses on height, scale, massing, and proportions of a proposal. Outlined below is each of the Chapter 13 guidelines in italicized print, followed by a description of the proposal's compliance and/or consistency therewith, as applicable. 13.1 Respect the established town grid in all projects. • Maintain the alignment of streets and alleys whenever feasible. The proposed development will return this property to the alignment of the streets and alleys by being sited parallel to the lot lines. The existing building is L-shaped, with a sunken courtyard at the corner of Galena and the Cooper Avenue Mall, and, as such, detracts from and erodes the established town grid. The proposed development will reestablish consistency with the town grid by providing storefronts at the street edge on both Galena Street and the Cooper Avenue Mall. Finally, the existing arcades that encroach into the right-of-ways will be removed. 13.2 Orient a new building 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 proposed building has two "fronts' since it is on a corner lot, and the design orients a"front" on both Galena Street and the Cooper Avenue mall. 13.3 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. 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 7 The existing building has one entrance that can only be accessed by taking a stairway down to a sunken courtyard. Some of the other existing entrances have stairs leading up to them, making this building unfriendly to pedestrians and largely inaccessible to people with disabilities. The new building will have clearly defined and recessed primary entrances that are oriented toward the street. There are no interior courts or sunken courtyards proposed, and all entrances are on the sidewalk/street level, providing for pedestrian friendliness and accessibility for people with physical disabilities. Alleys 13.4 Develop alley facades to create visual interest. • Use varied building setbacks and changes in materials to create interest and reduce perceived scale. • Balconies, courtyards and decks are also encouraged. • Providing secondary public entrances is strongly encouraged along alleys. These should be covered or protected and clearly intended for public use, but subordinate in detail to the primary street-side entrance. The alley facade.uses varied building setbacks and changes in materials. The second floor only encompasses part of the alley side of the building. Additionally,.a deck is proposed for the one-story part of the building on the alley side closest to Galena Street. 13.5 Retain the character of the alley as apart of the original town grid Maintain an alley as an open space. • Alleys also may be.used as pedestrian ways. The proposed building maintains the alley as an open right of way for service and delivery but can also be used as a pedestrian way. Building Setbacks 13.8 Maintain the aligninent offacades 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. • Where a portion of a building must be set back from the sidewalk, use landscape elements to-define the sidewalk edge. The existing building is not in compliance with this standard and erodes the historic integrity of the Commercial Core. Most of the existing fagade is set back significantly from the property line, including the sunken courtyard. The Guidelines state that, "[a] uniform wall of building fronts is vitally important to the historic integrity of the district and should be preserved." If the existing building 434 East Cooper Ave EPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 8 were proposed today, it would be inconsistent with these Guidelines and the Commercial Guidelines. The proposed building places the entire fagade of the building at the property lines, with no setbacks, creating a uniform wall of building fronts and a strong edge to the street. This development will be built out to the full width of the parcel, reestablishing the historic integrity of the Commercial Core at this prominent corner location. Mass and Scale 13.9 Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at the sidewalk. • The design of a 3-story building should in some way acknowledge the 2-story character of the downtown. • Floor-to-floor heights should appear to be similar to those seen historically. In particular, the windows in new construction should appear similar in height to those seen traditionally. 13.10 True three-story buildings will be considered on a case-by-case basis. • In general, a proposed three-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. This application. proposes a two-story building with the second level set significantly back from the fagade on the Cooper Avenue side of the building. Additionally, on the Galena side, the second floor sits above only one of the traditional lot width "modules." The Galena frontage is 100 feet long and the proposed design.provides for three distinct "modules," each approximating a traditional Townsite lot width along this important street. Only the center module on Galena Street includes two stories, while the flanking modules are each only one story in height. The proposed development does not even come close to using.the full height allowed in the Commercial Core as it is only two stories. The floor-to-floor heights are similar to. those seen historically, and the windows are similar in height to those seen traditionally. The historic Aspen Block building is across the alley on Galena, and the historic Red Onion is one building away from this development on the Cooper Avenue mall. The design of this building is sympathetic to these historic structures, and neither will be overwhelmed by this development. In fact, this entire building is lower in height than both of these historic resources. This proposed development, on a prominent corner of the Commercial Core,will help to establish an overall sense of unity of scale. 13.11 Consider dividing larger buildings into "modules"that are similar in width to buildings seen historically. 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 9 • Where buildings are planned to exceed one lot width, use a change in design features to suggest the traditional building widths. Changes in facade material, window design, facade height or decorative details are examples of techniques that may be considered. These variations should be expressed throughout the depth of the structure such that the composition appears to be a collection of smaller buildings. As mentioned above, the Galena Street side of the proposed building is divided into three "modules" with different design features and changes in materials that suggest traditional building widths. Additionally, the second floor is only above the center module,which aids in making the building appear to be a collection of smaller buildings. The one-story facade on the Cooper Avenue side employs largely transparent materials to break the structure up and lend an"open" feel to this important corner. Building Form 13.12 Rectangular forms should be dominant on Commercial Core facades. • Rectangular forms should be vertically oriented. • The facade should appear as predominantly flat, with any decorative elements and projecting or setback "articulations"appearing to be subordinate to the dominant form. The proposed building is rectangular in form and the fenestration is vertically oriented. The facade is predominantly flat. The minimal decorative elements and the setback "articulations" all complement, but remain subordinate to the dominant rectangular form. 13.13 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. The proposed building's roof line is flat and accentuated by"a cornice line. 13.14 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. The alley's effective width is already narrowed by the encroachment of the adjacent Aspen Block building into the alley. While the alley side of the proposed building follows the spirit of this standard by stepping down in scale 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 10 toward the alley and providing deck space closest to the street, it would be unwise to provide any projections that might further confine this space and make it more difficult for the.alley to serve its needed function. Storefront Character 13.15 Contemporary interpretations of traditional building styles are encouraged. • A contemporary design that draws upon the fundamental similarities among historic buildings without copying them is preferred. This will allow them to be seen as products of their own time and yet be compatible with their historic neighbors. • The literal imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. • In essence, infill should be a balance of new and old in design. . The proposed building is a contemporary interpretation of traditional design. The three "modules' as seen from Galena Street integrate both old and new elements that create balance between all of the surrounding architecture. The third "module" closest to the corner is one-story with a roof deck and extends all the way to the end of the property on Cooper Avenue. This portion of the building maintains an "open" feeling through the use of largely transparent materials. 13.16 Develop the ground floor level of all projects.to encourage pedestrian activity. • Consider using storefronts to provide pedestrian interest along the street. Storefronts should maintain the historic scale and key elements such as large display windows and transoms. • Large storefront display windows, located at the street level, where goods or services are visible from the street, are particularly encouraged. • The primary building entrance should be at street level. "Garden level"entrances are inappropriate. The primary building entrances are all at street level. No garden level entrances are proposed. The existing building has a garden level entrance that is deemed "inappropriate" by the Guidelines and provides an impediment to pedestrian activity. The proposed building provides pedestrian interest and highly encourages pedestrian activity with its large storefront display windows and inviting entries. 13.17 Maintain the distinction between the street level and the upper floors. • The first floor of the primary facade should be predominantly transparent glass. • Upper floors should be perceived as being more opaque than the street level. Upper story windows should have a vertical emphasis. . • Highly reflective or darkly tinted glass is inappropriate. • Express the traditional distinction in floor heights between street levels and upper levels through detailing, materials and fenestration. The presence of a belt course is an important feature in this relationship. 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 11 The proposed building maintains a distinction between the street level and the floor above. The street level is approximately 17 feet while the second floor is only 11 feet tall and is setback significantly from the Cooper Avenue facade. The second level is more opaque than the street level and the upper level windows have a vertical emphasis. Furthermore, street level on the Cooper Avenue side features large storefront windows, a great deal of transparency to maintain an "open" feeling, and a deck above to enhance vitality. Repetition of Facade Elements 13.18 Maintain the repetition of similar shapes and details along the block. • Upper story windows should have a vertical emphasis. In general, they should be twice as tall as they are wide. • Headers and sills of windows on new buildings should maintain the traditional placement relative to cornices and belt courses. All upper story windows have a vertical emphasis and are twice as tall as they are wide. 13.19 Maintain the pattern created by recessed entry ways that are repeated along a block. • Set the door back from the front facade approximately 4 feet. This is an adequate amount to establish a distinct threshold for pedestrians. • Where entries are recessed, the building line at the sidewalk edge should be maintained by the upper floor(s). • Use transoms over doorways to maintain the full vertical height of the storefront. The proposed building has recessed entries. The second floor maintains the building line at the sidewalk edge on one "module" on the Galena street fagade. However, the second floor is set significantly back from the Cooper Avenue fagade (approximately 30 feet). Detail Alignment 13.20 The general alignment of horizontal features on building fronts should be maintained. • Typical elements that align include window moldings, tops of display windows, cornices, copings and parapets at the tops of buildings. • When large buildings are designed to appear as several buildings, there should be some slight variation in alignments between the facade elements. The three "modules" that are created by the design on the Galena street side of the building employ a slight variation in alignments between the facade elements as suggested by this standard. The result is the appearance of "organic" development of three separate but compatible adjacent structures. 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 12 13.21 Special features that highlight buildings on corner lots may be considered. • Develop both street elevations to provide visual interest to pedestrians. • Corner entrances, bay windows and towers are examples of elements that may be considered to emphasize corner locations. • Storefront windows, display cases and other elements that provide visual interest to facades along side streets are also appropriate. This property is located on an important and highly visible corner of the Commercial Core. As such, both street elevations have been developed to provide visual interest to pedestrians. However, during the review of the prior redevelopment proposals for this parcel, the public and City Council made it clear that developing a large structure was not desired. This proposal seeks to create a structure that will enhance the streetscape by being sited lot-line to lot- line while, at the same time, not overwhelming the corner through the use of transparent materials and only developing one-story at the Galena/Cooper corner and along the mall in order to maintain an open feeling. B. Conceptual Commercial Design Review Approval by the HPC The Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines (the "Commercial Guidelines') set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The Commercial Guidelines are organized to address the different design contexts that exist in the City. These distinct settings, or contexts, are defined as "Character Areas," within which variations exist among the physical features that define each area. The proposed development is located in the "Commercial Core" character area. Per the Commercial Guidelines, all development projects should achieve the following design objectives: • Promote an interconnected circulation system that invites pedestrian use, including a continuous street and alley system and a.respect for the natural topography; • Promote a system of public places that support activities, including public amenity spaces, compatible landscaping and paving, and unobtrusive off-street parking; and • Assure that buildings fit together to create a vibrant street edge that reinforces a sense of appropriate scale. The proposed development will achieve the above design objectives in a manner that far exceeds the existing building's consistency with said objectives. The proposed design will create a more vibrant and visually interesting street edge by being sited lot line to lot line,which will reinforce a sense of appropriate scale that has long be absent on this important corner in the Commercial Core, while 434 East Cooper Ave UPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Pa e 13 also incorporating transparent materials and only one story at the corner of Galena street and the Cooper Avenue mall. The existing character of the Commercial Core is explained as follows: The heart of Aspen centers around the Commercial Core Historic District. It is the first area that developed in the early mining days of the town and its character reflects this rich mining heritage, which is the image that. many carry with them of this historic Colorado mountain town. Each historic building contributes to the integrity of the district and preservation of all of these resources is, therefore, crucial. This is especially important as new development continues. The purpose of the Commercial Core (CC) zone district is stated in Section 26.710.140(A) of the Code as follows: "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 historical central business core of the City. " The proposed development will retain the existing commercial use of the building while enhancing and improving this important corner of the Commercial Core. The key design objectives in the Commercial Core are as follows: 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 the pedestrian character. 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. 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 the area. 4. Reflect the variety in building heights seen traditionally. 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 14 New development should stay within the range of building heights, and be designed to reflect the variation in height across original lot widths. The scale of 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. S.Accommodate outdoor public spaces where they respect the historic context. 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 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 street scene, whether or not used for street dining. 6. Promote variety in the street 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. 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. The proposed redevelopment of 434 East Cooper Avenue meets the key design objectives listed above as follows: • The design reinforces the retail-oriented function of the street and greatly enhances the pedestrian character; • The transparent design at the corner and on the mall is a creative solution that conveys openness and the community's continuing interest in exploring innovations; • The design acknowledges,is consistent with, complements and enhances the existing scale and character of the area; • The tallest portion of this building is only 28 feet and this portion of the building only encompasses one of the three traditional Townsite lot width "modules on Galena Street while being set significantly back from the Cooper Avenue mall fagade. All historic buildings in the area have been taken into consideration; • Both the one-story design of the building and the transparent materials used for the corner. "module" and the mall side serve to promote variety in the street level experience; and, • The integrity of all historic resources within the district is preserved by the proposed compatible, complimentary and subservient design. 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 15 Please also refer to the responses provided above in association with all similar HPC Design Guidelines. Outlined below is each of the Commercial Core's Conceptual Review Design Guidelines in italicized print, followed by a description of the proposal's compliance and/or consistency therewith, as applicable. Street Grid 6.1 Maintain the established town grid in all projects. • The network of streets and alleys should be retained as public circulation space and for maximum public.access. • Streets and alleys should not be enclosed or closed to public access, and should remain open to the sky. The proposed building maintains the established town grid and greatly improves upon the existing•building. No streets or alleys will be enclosed or. closed to public access and all will remain open to the sky. Internal Walkways 6.2 Public walkways and through courts, when appropriate, should be designed to create access to additional commercial space and frontage, within the walkway and/or to the rear of the site. • See also:Public Amenity Space design guidelines. No internal public walkways or through courts are proposed. Alleys 6.3 Develop an alley facade to create visual interest. • Use varied building setbacks and changes in materials to create interest and reduce perceived scale. • Balconies, courtyards and decks are also appropriate. • Providing secondary public entrances is strongly encouraged along alleys. These should be clearly intended for public use, but subordinate in detail to the primary street-side entrance. The alley fagade uses varied building setbacks and changes in materials. The second floor only encompasses part of the alley side of the building, thereby enhancing views and visitor experience from the adjacent lodge rooms (across the alley). Additionally, a deck is proposed for the one-story part of the building on the alley side closest to Galena Street. Parking 6.4 Structured parking should be placed within a 'wrap' of commercial and/or residential uses. • The exposure of auto entry areas should be minimized. 434 East Cooper Ave UPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 16 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. There is no structured parking proposed. Public Amenity Space 6.6 A street facing amenity space shall meet all of the following requirements: • Abut the public sidewalk • Be level with the sidewalk • Be open to the sky • Be directly accessible to the public • Be paved or otherwise landscaped 6.7 A street facing public amenity space shall remain subordinate to the line of buildingfronts in the Commercial Core. • Any public amenity space positioned at the street edge shall respect the character of the streetscape and ensure that street corners are well defined, with buildings placed at the sidewalk edge. • Sunken spaces, which are associated with some past developments, adversely affect the street character. Where feasible, these should be replaced with sidewalk level improvements. 6.8 Street facing amenity space shall contain features to promote and enhance its use. These may include,one or more of the following: • Street furniture • Public art • Historical/interpretive marker The detailed design of Public Amenity Space, with regard to guidelines 68, will be a matter for approval at the Final Review Stage, although it may be discussed at the Conceptual Stage. The design of the existing building has eroded this important corner of the Commercial Core for years. Since this property is already situated alongside/fronting on the Cooper Avenue pedestrian mall, the proposed design has sited the building lot line to lot line, as is desired throughout all of the Guidelines. However, the new building has been designed to be only one-story and use transparent materials on the corner and on the mall side of the property in order to enhance the pedestrian experience and create vitality. Guidelines 6.9 through 6.17 discuss mid-block, alley-side, second-level, and front-yard amenity spaces and are not applicable to the proposed development. 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 17 Building Setbacks 6.18 Maintain the alignment of faVades 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 Public Amenity Space guidelines. The proposed building places the entire fagade at the property line as desired in these Guidelines. As mentioned above, the design is only one-story tall on the mall and at the Galena/Cooper corner of the property, and uses transparent materials. Building Orientation 6.20 Orient a new building to be parallel to its lot lines, similar to that of traditional building orientations. • The front of a primary structure shall be oriented to the street. 6.21 Orient a primary entrance toward the street. • Buildings should have a clearly defined primary entrance. For most commercial buildings, this should be a recessed entry way. • Do not orient a primary entrance to an interior court. • Providing secondary public entrances to commercial spaces is also encouraged on larger buildings. The building will continue to be parallel to the lot lines and both"fronts" will be oriented toward the street. Both the Cooper Avenue mall and Galena Street facades will have clearly defined, recessed entry ways. Additional secondary public entrances are also provided. Building Form 6.22 Rectangular forms should be dominant on Commercial Core facades. • 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. As mentioned throughout this application, the proposed development is characterized by dominant rectangular forms that are vertically oriented yet appropriately scaled. 6.23 Use flat roof lines as the dominant roof form. • slopes to the rear o a site should be the dominant roof A flat roof, or one that gently p f .f form. 434 East Cooper Ave FTC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 18 • Parapets on side fagades should step down towards the rear of the building. • False fronts and parapets with horizontal emphasis also may be considered. All roof lines are flat and intended to be free of mechanical equipment. 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 projecting roofs at the ground floor over entrances, decks and for separate utility structures in order to establish a human scale that invites pedestrian activity. The alley's effective width is already narrowed by the encroachment of the adjacent Aspen Block building into the alley. While the alley side of the proposed building follows the spirit of this standard by stepping down in scale toward the alley and providing deck space closest to the street, it would be unwise to provide any projections that might further confine this space and make it more difficult for the alley to serve its needed function. The stepped down height along the alley will allow sunlight to reach and views to be enjoyed from the second floor lodge rooms in The Residence Lodge, within the Aspen Block building. Building Height,Mass & 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. The proposed design maintains a two-story height/mass at its center module, which encompasses a traditional Townsite lot width. The flanking single story portions of the building maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at the sidewalk by employing horizontal design features such as cornice lines, transom windows, variation in materials and appropriately,scaled ground floor plate/ceiling heights. 6.26 Building facade height shall be varied from the faVade 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. The only adjacent structure is the two-story Aspen Block building. The portion of the proposed structure closest to the Aspen Block is only one-story in height but includes a cornice line that complements, but is varied from, that of the Aspen Block's first story cornicing. The two-story portion of the proposed 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 19 structure is lower in height than the Aspen Block building but sufficiently scaled to maintain variation and subservient compatibility. Please refer to the accompanying plan set for graphic illustrations of the proposed building height in the context of surrounding development. 6.27 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the Commercial Core. • Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height limit on the subject property. • A minimum 9 ft. floor to ceiling height is to be maintained on second stories and higher. • Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added for one or more of the following reasons: - In order to achieve at least a two foot variation in height with an adjacent building. - The primary function of the building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum, Civic Building, Performance Hall, Fire Station, etc.) - Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity to a historic resource, or location within a View Plane, therefore relief in another area may be appropriate. - To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units. - To make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Building Department) contribution to the building's overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved daylighting. Please also refer to the response provided above relative to similar standards (i.e.,.6.25 and 6.26). 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 and guidelines. 6.29 On sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths, the favade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. 6.30 On sites comprising two or more traditional lots, a building shall be designed to reflect the individual parcels. These methods shall be used: • Variation in height of building modules across the site. • Variation in massing achieved through upper floor setbacks, the roofscape form and variation in upper floor heights. • Variation in building fagade heights or cornice line. 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 20 This application proposes a two-story building with the second level set significantly back from the facade on the Cooper Avenue side of the building. On the Galena Street side, however, the second floor'sits above only one of the traditional lot width "modules." The Galena frontage is 100 feet long and the proposed design provides for three distinct "modules," each approximating a traditional Townsite lot width along this important street while leaving an appropriate amount of pedestrian amenity space open at the corner. Only the center module on the Galena Street facade includes two stories, while the flanking modules are each only one story in height. Compatible massing, scale and height variation is provided relative to surrounding historic structures by virtue of horizontal design elements such as cornicing, transom windows and materials differentiations. 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. The historic Aspen Block building is across the alley on Galena, and the historic Red Onion is one building away from this development on the Cooper Avenue mall. The design of this building is sympathetic to these historic structures, and neither will be overwhelmed by this development. In fact, this entire building is lower in height than, subservient to and compatible with both of these historic resources. 6.32 Wlien 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 feet in height within 30 feet of the front facade. The proposed two-story building has a maximum height of 28 feet. Guideline 6.33 addresses new buildings that are adjacent to one story historic residential buildings and, therefore, does not apply to this proposal.. 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 I5 ft from the front facade. • Step a building down in height adjacent to an iconic structure. • Locate amenity space adjacent to an iconic structure. There are no iconic structures adjacent to the subject property. The only iconic structure in the immediate vicinity of the subject property is the Independence Square Building,which is diagonally across the street. The building proposed on this lot will in no way negatively influence the Independence Building as the proposed design ensures subservient compatibility. 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 21 C. Mountain Viezv Plane Section 26.435.010(C) of the Code provides that development within designated mountain view planes is subject to heightened review so as to protect certain mountain views from obstruction, strengthen the environmental and aesthetic character of the City, maintain property values, and enhance the City's tourist industry by maintaining the City's heritage as a mountain community. In relevant part, there are two established and regulated view planes originating from 1) the Wheeler Opera House westerly of Mill Street, and 2) Main Street at the Hotel Jerome. No buildings or land uses are allowed to project above the established view planes unless an exemption is granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The accompanying Improvement Survey illustrates the breadth of the regulated view planes as they cross the subject property. The Improvement Survey also shows'the affects of the view planes' ascending height limitation as they project southward across the subject site. The Main Street view plane intersects the Mountain Plaza Building property line at a height of 93 feet, making this view plane inapplicable since the zoned height limit is only 42-46 feet. The Wheeler View Plane height limit, on the other hand, intersects the subject property at only 14.2 feet aboveground elevation and rises to just 16.73 feet above ground where it leaves the property. Responses to the standards of Section 26.435.050(C) are provided below, as applicable to the proposed development. Said section of the Code states that, "No development shall be permitted within a mountain viezv plane unless the Planning and Zoning Commission [or Historic Preservation Commission] makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all of the requirements set forth below." 1. No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided below. When any mountain viezv plane projects at such an,angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable building height otherzvise 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, view plane height limitations. The Planning and Zoning Commission [or Historic Preservation Commission] after considering a recommendation from _the Community Development Department, may exempt a development from being processed 434 East Cooper Ave F PC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 22 as a PUD when the Planning and Zoning Commission [or HPC} determines that the proposed development has a minimal effect on the viezv plane. When any proposed development infringes upon a designated viezv plane, but is located in front of another development which already blocks the same viezv plane, the Planning and Zoning Commission [or Historic Preservation Commission] shall consider zvhether 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 viezv plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the viezv plane, and redevelopment to re-open the viezv plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning and Zoning Commission [or Historic Preservation Commission] shall exempt the development from the requirements of this Section. (Ord. No. 12, 2007, §22) With Community Development Director approval to combine reviews pursuant to Section 26.304.060(B)(1), all references to "the Planning and Zoning Commission" can be replaced with "the Historic Preservation Commission." Thus, based on the foregoing Code language, the view planes only have the effect of reducing the height limit of the underlying zone district if the HPC will not approve an exemption from the view plane height limit (in such cases, a height limit variance is necessary and only attainable through the PUD review process). The Code language provides that HPC approval of an exemption from the view plane height limitation shall be granted when another development already blocks the same view plane; in making such a determination, the HPC is to consider two things: 1) whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane than does an existing development; and, 2) the likelihood of the already infringing structure(s) being, first, redeveloped and, second, redeveloped in a manner that would re-open the designated view plane. If the proposed development does not further infringe on the view plane, and redevelopment of the existing structure(s) infringing on the view plane cannot be anticipated, the proposed development is to be exempted from the view plane's height limitation. Furthermore, the HPC may exempt the development from being processed as a PUD when it is determined that the proposed development has a minimal effect on the view plane. When the HPC approves an exemption from a designated view plane, the effective height limit, by default, is that of the underlying zone district. Further, when a proposed development warrants an exemption from the view plane but complies with the height limit of the underlying zone district (and, for that matter, all other applicable dimensional requirements), there remains no need for 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 23 PUD review. This is especially true of a development involving a property within a historic district, for such a development is already subject to HPC review and approval, which entails a heightened level of scrutiny (i.e., "special consideration") with regard to mass, scale, bulk, site planning and design, affects on streetscape and pedestrian experiences, and neighborhood compatibility. The proposed development will not require a variance from any applicable dimensional requirement should the HPC grant a view plane exemption. The proposed structure has a maximum measured building height that falls within the codified limits of the CC zone district (28 feet). Given the "Purpose" of the City's Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations, as stated in Section 26.445:010 of the Code, there would be nothing to gain by requiring the proposed development to proceed as a PUD according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445. That is, the HPC review process is designed to encourage flexibility and innovation in the development of land while also requiring compatibility with historic resources. Views of Aspen Mountain from the Wheeler Opera House will not be compromised or further infringed upon as a result of this development. Only a very small portion of the subject property falls within the breadth of the mapped Wheeler View Plane, namely the southwest corner. Moreover, this portion of the proposed building will have no effect on the actual view plane as it exists today. Additionally, three existing buildings (one of which is a designated historic landmark) between the view plane origination point and the subject property already infringe upon the view plane as follows; the view plane intersects the T- shirt shop building at a height of only 8.5 feet above ground and this building has a height of approximately 11.5 feet; the view plane intersects the Morris and Fyrwald Building at a height of approximately 11 feet above ground and the existing building has a height of approximately 40 feet; the view plane intersects the historic Red Onion Building at a height of approximately 12.5 feet while the landmark designated structure has a height of at least 2 stories (approximately 30 feet at the front). The proposed development is located on the far eastern edge of the designated view plane, leaving the vast majority of the view plane area completely unaffected. The heights of the aforementioned buildings are such that the proposed development will not further infringe upon views of Aspen Mountain from the designated vantage point (see photo simulations provided herewith).1^ � The proposed development is located immediately in front of the historically designated Independence Square Building. The view plane intersects the Independence Square Building at a height of approximately 24.5 feet above 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 24 ground but the building has a height of approximately 42 feet, infringing almost 18 feet into the view plane. Given the cost of the existing and infringing buildings, the mitigation costs associated with redevelopment in the Commercial Core, and the direction the current code revisions appear to be going, it not likely that the infringing buildings will be redeveloped, let alone in a manner that will re-open the view plane. Of the listed structures infringing upon the view plane, the only one that could be anticipated for redevelopment is the T-shirt Shop; however, redevelopment to re-open the view plane would require a total building height of only 8.5 feet and this cannot be anticipated as it would not allow for compliance. with building code requirements. The Independence Square Building and the Red Onion Building are designated historic landmarks and are precluded from demolition. Since the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view planes and redevelopment of existing structures that already infringe upon the view plane cannot reasonably be expected to re-open the view plane, the Commission should approve the proposed exemption. Moreover,. the HPC found that the two previously proposed buildings (which were both three stories in height) had only a minimal impact on the Wheeler Opera House view plane and approved the exemption. This newly designed building will have even less of an impact on the view plane as it is only a two- story building with a maximum height of 28 feet. Further, the predominance of the view plane as it crosses the subject site will include only a one-story structure. The Code explains that the purpose of Mountain View Plane Review is to protect certain mountain views from obstruction, strengthen the environmental and aesthetic character of the City, maintain property values, and enhance the City's tourist industry by maintaining the City's heritage as a mountain community. The foregoing has amply demonstrated that the proposed development will not compromise the purpose of the mountain view planes but will, instead, further these purposes by strengthening the aesthetic character of the City, enhancing surrounding property values, promoting economic vitality and sustainability, and maintaining the City's heritage as a mountain community. D. Parkin Section 26.515.030 of the Code provides the required number of off-street parking spaces for development in the City of Aspen. In the Aspen Infill Area,where this property is located, the required number of spaces for commercial use is one I 434 East Cooper Ave ETC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 25 space per 1,000sf of NLA. One-hundred percent (100%) of the required parking may be provided through cash-in-lieu. When a property is redeveloped an existing deficit of parking may be maintained. The existing commercial building on the subject property has approximately two (2) parking spaces. Cash-in-lieu will be provided to replace these off-street parking spaces. E. Public Amenity Space Section 26.575.030 of the Code provides the requirements for Public Amenity Space in the City of Aspen. Although the requirement is 25% in the Commercial Core (and other zone districts), if a parcel that is being redeveloped contains less than 25% the effective requirement is the existing percentage, but no less than 10%. In this instance, the existing building contains approximately 9% of public amenity space, making the effective requirement for this development 10%. Pursuant to Section 26.575.030.C.3, the HPC may approve public amenities and improvements to the pedestrian environment within proximity of the I development site (off-site) during the Commercial Design Review. These may be I k"�'j 'improvements to private property, public property, or public rights-of-way. The applicant would be willing to provide off-site public amenity improvements - on the pedestrian mall if acceptable to the HPC. Otherwise, the applicant would request that the HPC make a recommendation to Council to allow cash-in-lieu. Exhibits: Exhibit 1: Land Use Application and Dimensional Requirements Forms; Exhibit 2: Pre-Application Conference Summary prepared by Sara Adams; Exhibit 3: Proof of Ownership; Exhibit 4: Authorization for the applicant to submit this application from the owner of the property (Bert Bidwell Investment Corporation); Exhibit 5: Authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC (HLP) and Charles Cunniffe Architects (CCA) to represent the applicant (434 East Cooper Avenue,LLC); Exhibit 6: An executed application fee agreement; and, Exhibit 7: Mailing addresses of record for all property owners located within three-hundred feet of the subject property. Exhibit 8: Commercial Core (CC) Dimensional Requirements. Attachments: • Architectural plans prepared by Charles Cunniffe Architects 434 East Cooper Ave HPC Conceptual Application(PID 2737-182-16-001) Page 26 EXHIBIT ATTACHMENT 2 -Historic Preservation !1 3 0 20!2 PROJECT: '=_-_ =--- CITY OF- ASPEN Name: U p1 Location: 434 cooiw- (IL6+3 a R_+ 5 b[o ck o (Indicate str et address,lot&block number or met and bounds description of property) Parcel ID# (REQUIRED) ��MJ 1-1%-)''I�_ 01 APPLICANT: Name: Address: C/O /s 91 , Qn a Phone#: j 00 Fa/x#: E-mail: REPRESENTATIVE: Name: 44aas LA.n c� Address: 20 1 N . M ► k S� 1 06 , co vol Phone#: Fax#: - E-mail: 1M rk,J-► A S •Co TYPE OF APPLICATION: lease check all that apply): ❑ Historic Designation ❑ Relocation(temporary,on ❑ Certificate of No Negative Effect ❑ or off-site) ❑ Certificate of Appropriateness ❑ Demolition(total ❑ -Minor Historic Development demolition) ❑ -Major Historic Development ❑ Historic Landmark Lot Split -Conceptual Historic Development ❑ -Final Historic Development -Substantial Amendment EXISTING CONDTTIONS: (description of existing buildings,uses,previous approvals,etc.) 41 hty,./ C�1'1'In��c Go PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings,uses,modifications,etc.) ll COYY)VYI�Y- i d I Y)s I Y 0 c+•R 1& ex I bu i Id 4l Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements,Updated:May 29,2007 General Information Please check the appropriate boxes below and submit this page along with your application. This information will help us review your plans and, if necessary, coordinate with other agencies that may be involved. YES NO ❑ Does the work you are planning include exterior work; including additions, demolitions,new construction,remodeling,rehabilitation or restoration? ❑ , ❑ Does the work you are planning include interior work; including remodeling, rehabilitation,or restoration? ❑ I Do you plan other future changes or improvements that could be reviewed at this time. I ❑ X In addition to City of Aspen approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness or No Negative Effect and a building permit, are you seeking to meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation or restoration of a National Register of Historic Places property in order to qualify for state or federal tax credits? ❑ ❑ If yes, are you seeking federal rehabilitation investment tax credits in conjunction with this project? (Only income producing properties listed on the National Register are eligible. Owner-occupied residential properties are not.) ❑ ❑ If yes, are you seeking the Colorado State Income Tax Credit for Historical Preservation? Please check all City of spen Historic Preservation Benefits which you plan to use: ❑Rehabilitation Loan Fund Conservation Easement Program ❑Dimensional Variances ❑ Increased Density ❑Historic L dmark Lot Split El Waiver of Park Dedication Fees ❑ Conditional Uses ❑Ex ption from Growth Management Quota System ❑Tax Credits Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements,Updated:May 29,2007 I ATTACHMENT 3- Dimensional Requirements Form (Item#10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.) Project: Mouil (coil P/( ..L^ goikl l f)'r' rl l;�lolom . Applicant: 1_C-- Project , CO nn ,, nn Location: 73� C O iX f 1�, AS 1Df-✓1 Zone District: C3VVyY1e'(C.I0� Corr (cc Lot Size: 01.om a Lot Area: 0 00 S-r (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: Proposed: Number of residential units: Existing: Proposed: Number of bedrooms: Existing: DJ /a- Proposed: N Proposed%of demolition: 06 90 DEWENSIONS: (write n/a where no requirement exists in the zone district) Floor Area: 2•( Existing:f S Allowable: 8 OOD Proposed: 3 Hei ht (,oYYYf'Llc,( Ca/Y1Y►�E►Ztcc� GummQ►2((�P C4%J9N'IEYGI<t r t t G , �G1 Principal Bldg.: Existing: Allowable:ZO Proposed. (gyp Accessory Bldg.: Existing. N ll Allowable: N Proposed. On-Site parking: Existing: c9� Required: Proposed: %Site coverage: Existing. /b Required:�� Proposed: /W'�161 'obli c, f4yc"� n A N og--Sile or. /o. 0 Existing: /O Required. �l Proposed: nn_/tioq Front Setback: Existing: �/A Required: N A Proposed.• Rear Setback: Existing.-W,4 Required.• � A Proposed: N!4 Combined Front/Rear: Indicate N. S,E.W Existing: AIA Required: Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: - " Required: osed: t, Side Setback: Existing: I Required: Proposed. Combined Sides: Existing: r► Required: " Proposed.• rt Distance between Existing: Required: Proposed. buildings: Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: Variations requested(identify the exact variances needed): Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements,Updated:May 29,2007 EXHIBIT • to a Z CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Sara Adams,429-2778 DATE: 3.28.12 PROJECT: 434 East Cooper Street, Lots Q,R,and S,Block 89,City and Townsite of Aspen REPRESENTATIVE: Charles Cunniffe and Erica Delack,Charles Cunniffe Architects,9701925-5590 DESCRIPTION: The potential applicant is interested in demolishing the existing building and constructing a new one and two story building on the site. The property is located within the Commercial Core Historic District (CC)and as such 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. This is a two step process. A height variance from City Council is required to exceed the 28 ft.height limit for two story elements of the building. A small portion of 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. The applicant indicated that there is an existing deficit of parking on the site. An.existing deficit is allowed to be maintained; however any additional net leasable is required to meet parking Z requirements—either provide 1 spacel1,000 square feet of net leasable area or pay cash in lieu for the parking spaces at$30,000 1space. LU The applicant indicates that there is currently less than 10%public amenity on the site. As such the " 0� applicant is required to provide 10% public amenity onsite. Offsite public amenity that meets the �Y 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. U The potential applicant indicated that the new building is to be 100% commercial use. The Commercial Core Historic District pen-nits a maximum FAR of 2:1 for commercial, so for this 9,000 square foot lot,a total of 18,000 square feet of floor area is permitted. Any increase in commercial net leasable area over that which currently exists on the site (existing net leasable needs to be documented and verified by the Zoning Officer)requires growth management allotments and review. Affordable housing mitigation is calculated at 60%of the employee generated by the new commercial net leasable area. Typically the Planning and Zoning Commission conducts growth management review; however in some cases City Council conducts growth management review— for example, Council reviews requests to pay cash in lieu for affordable housing equivalent to more than one unit. The level of growth management review depends upon the scope of the project. A minor enlargement of commercial net leasable area that is less than 250 square feet qualifies as an administrative growth management review; however the affordable housing mitigation requires a minor growth management review by Planning and Zoning. An increase of more than 250 square feet of net leasable is a major growth management review by Planning and Zoning. A major growth management application is required to be submitted on either February 15th or August 15th and is required to compete for growth management allocations through the community objectives and scoring process. The applicant indicates that the building will be in single ownership which does not trigger subdivision review. 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 in the form of individual outreach (26.304.025.0.3) and enhanced public information (26.304.025.C.4). 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-DevelopmenVPlanning-and-ZoningiRecent-Code-Amendments/ Please note that Ordinance 3,Series of 2012(a link is above)also changes the requirement that a project comply with the Aspen Area Community Plan. This application is subject to Ordinance 3 which went into effect on March 27,2012. Impact fees are triggered by the addition of new let leasable commercial 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 Step 3:HPC for final commercial design and major development review. **if project needs City Council review,contact Staff to revise the review steps. Relevant Land Use Code Section(s): Land Use Code Sections) 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) 26.470.060 Minor expansion of commercial development(if less than 250 sq.ft.) 26.470.070.4 Development of Affordable Housing 26.470.080 Major Planning and Zoning application (if more than 250 sq.ft, NLA) l 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•ilwww aspenpitkin com/Departments/Community-DevelopmenVPlanning-and-Zoning/Current-Planningf The Land Use application is found here: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/DepartmentslCommunity- DevelopmenUPlanning-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 Public Hearing: Yes, at HPC and P&Z. 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 application:call Staff for a new pre-application summary because it depends upon the type of GMQS review. Referral Fees: Engineering, billed at$2651hour(1 hour deposit) Total Deposit: $2,155 Total Number of Application Copies: 10 for HPC application. The P&Z application may only be submitted AFTER conceptual review is granted by HPC Call Staff after HPC approval to get a new pre-application summary. 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 8112"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. EXHIBIT 3 Certificate and Disclosure of Ownership I,Curtis B. Sanders,a duly licensed attorney of the State of Colorado, and as attorney for 434 East Cooper Avenue, LLC,as Applicant, hereby certify that Bert Bidwell Investments Corporation is the record owner of the real property described as Lots Q,R, S,Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado (the "Pro e "): I hereby further certify that as of the date hereof,the Property is subject to the encumbrances of record as described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Dated:March)'7 2012 � . .•d rs,Esq.,Attorney Reg.No. 23551 SUS_RE14305598.1 Exhibit A to Certificate of Disclosure and Ownership 1.Reservations and exceptions as set forth in the Deeds from the City of Aspen recorded in Book 59 at Page 10, Book 59 at Page 330, Book 59 at Page 520 and Book 79 at Page 11. 2. Terms, conditions,provisions and obligations as set forth in Decree for Perpetual Easement to the City of Aspen and The Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company recorded November 23, 1976 in Book 320 at Page 183 and rerecorded February 1, 1977 in Book 324 at Page 171. 3. Terms,conditions,provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Resolution of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission recorded July 14,2006 as Reception No. 526456 as Resolution No. 14, Series of 2006. 4.Terms,conditions,provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Resolution of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recorded October 23,2007 as Reception No. 543401 as Resolution No.26, Series of 2007. 5. Terms,conditions,provisions,obligations and all matters as set forth in Resolution of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recorded September 17,2009 as Reception No. 562834 as Resolution No. 14 Series of 2009. BUS RE14305598.1 a EXHIBIT BERT BIDWELL INVESTMENTS CORPORATION 215 Soullr Afonarcle Streel,Suite 203 Aspen,Colorado 81611 March 27,2012 City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street,Third Floor Aspen,Colorado 81611 Re: Lots Q-S,Block 89,City and Townsite of Aspen,Colorado,Pitkin County, Colorado,and familiarly known as 434 East Cooper Avenue,Aspen,Colorado 81611 (the"Property") Ladies and Gentlemen: I am writing as Vice President of Bert Bidwell Investments Corporation, which is the owner of the above referenced Property. The current contract purchaser of the Property,434 East Cooper Avenue,LLC,a . Colorado limited liability company, in its capacity as purchaser,desires to apply for, pursue and obtain at its own expense one or more applications for HPC Conceptual Approval and Mountain Viewplane Exemption with respect to the Property. This letter shall confirm that Bert Bidwell Investments Corporation authorizes 434 East Cooper Avenue,LLC to apply for,pursue and obtain the City of Aspen's approval of one or more applications for HPC Conceptual Approval and Mountain Viewplane Exemption with respect to the Property,provided that any such approvals shall only take effect upon 434 East Cooper Avenue,LLC's purchase of the Property. Please contact me as Bert Bidwell Investments Corporation's Vice President with any questions. BERT BIDWELL INVESTIv1ENTS CORPORATION, a Colorado corporation Jeannine Bidwell,Vice President and authorized representative jbidwell c gmail.conr BUS REA4304740.1 .......... :::...:. . EXHIBIT 9 S 434 EAST COOPER AVENUE, LLC c%Curtis R Sanders,Esq, Sherman&Howard L.L.C. 201 North Mill Street,Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tel. (970)925-6300 March 26, 2012 City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street,Third Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Lots Q-S,Block 89,City and Townsite of Aspen,Colorado,Pitkin County, Colorado, and familiarly known as 434 East Cooper Avenue,Aspen,Colorado 81611 (the"Property") Ladies and Gentlemen: I am writing as Manager of 434 East Cooper Avenue, LLC,a Colorado limited liability company,which is contract purchaser of the owner of the above referenced Property. In its capacity as purchaser of the Property,434 East Cooper Avenue,LLC desires to apply for,pursue and obtain at its own expense one or more applications for HPC Conceptual Approval and Mountain Viewplane Exemption with respect to the Property. This letter shall confirm that 434 East Cooper Avenue,LLC authorizes Charles Cunniffe Architects,P.C.,Haas Land Planning,and representatives of both such firms,to apply for,pursue and obtain the City of Aspen's approval of one or more applications for HPC Conceptual Approval and Mountain Viewplane Exemption with respect to the Property,variances, and any other approvals and land use approvals which may be required by the City of Aspen. Please contact the undersigned with any questions. 43�,E- ST AVENUE,LLC 'Colora limit bility company By: Curtis B. Sanders,Manager BUS RE14304718.1 EXHIBIT tv� EN a 1 � 1 • Agreement to Pay Application Fees Anagreement between the City of Aspen("City")and Property 434 East Cooper Avenue, LLC phone No.:970-925-6300 Owner Cl 434 Email:csanders @sah.com Address of 434 East Cooper Avenue Billing, c/o Curtis Sanders Property: Aspen, Colorado Address: 201 North Mill St, Ste. 201 (subject of p (send bills here) application) Aspen, CO 81611 I 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 1 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 slat fee for Select Dept $0 flat fee for_Select Dept 0 flat fee for Select Dept 0 flat fea 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. I 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. 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$265 per hour. City of Aspen: Property Owner: Chris Bendon Community Development Director Name:. Cwr.-�t s Sin e rt s City Use: 2155 Title: 2— Fees Due:S Received:$ 1 • • 1 ! 1 1 - - �_ __. _.._......... ..... _......... ------------------__..........._.._....._...-----..- ----..._.._.._.._.. 09G8/09l.5@,AaanyoaAe a1g11eawoo ww L9 x ww 5Z JEW10i ap 01199b113 0918/09 L5®AaaAV ul!M alg!ledwoo«8/5 Z x«L azis lagsl 21,91,8 00'N3dSV L6968 00'N3dSV ; 99178 X08 Od 1S MIN S 0£Z ;I 90012MV030 213v O/O d0 J1NV8 1VN011VN 1S211d 0/0 Oil 3dvOS ONI BNIA1'10 I W 13uvoum 3100 I 1,1,91,8 00 'N3dSV I I j : l 1,0Z9L X1'SVllVO 3AV NVVUH 3 0017 0001,#101N30S321O 00£ 00'8 213Jf121>1 0/0 N012130321d VNvf N11V JIONVN V 3 S9lNV X00 i oil II sEmiN3A 000MN01100 i 1,1,91,8 00 'N3dSV LOZ#3AV 2i3d000 3 81,17 ; S210SIAOV A1213d021d OIWVHAd 0/0 0111N3WdOl3A30133211S U9d000 ' I 1,1,91,8 00'N3dSV : 1 1S VN31VJ S 0£1, 1d30 3ONVNId N V N3dSV JO"0 i f 1,1,91,8 00 'N3dSV 3AV 213d000 317£5 SSVlJN13M 021VN031 0/0 Oil N3dSV d0 EM(nne S31J008 l ' I 1,1,91,9 00 'N3dSV 3AV NVWAH 3 L091 I 802'8 Oil II S321f11N3A NOINO HAV I ' ! J 1,WW 00 'N3dSV I - I VLO£#1S 111W S 9OZ , S311213d021d M'8W 0/0 i . ; dll S31VIOOSSV 3AO 10 N3dSV!I 1,M8 00'N3dSV' . LOZ#3AV 113d000 3 8 1,17; Oil 6Z IU AV I : I `ICI I 69LE£ ld '1131VM21V310 210>I0I1N2100 ON 6£9Z Oil S311213d021d N1W IV1SV00 I � £091,1170098 ZV'.ddVlSJVId 210 M31AONV 10 N 9ZL£ lsfk11318VOOA321 WIOHSIHO 'ONVION3 d18 Z1,31 ' 31J1HS2131S30l3-1 63AV3 3Sf10H000M NI S32i00W 301'3JV1100 3dd1103M] Oil N3dSV NMVH NOV-18 I 1,1,91,8 00 'N3dSV 3AV NVVYAH 3 1,09 %80'61, Oil Nl31S AV I . . I 1,1,91,8 00 'N3dSV LOZ#3AV 213d000 3 8417 Oil S32if11N3A 32100 N3dSV 1,1,91,8 00'N3dSV I ; LOZ#1S 1Nv21f10 3 OZ5 Oil S3IVIOOSSV NIV1Nf10W xv v , I vs-a-1 1S 917998 Zv'Ov8f11 171,91,X08 Od 0 63VYV N0SN30 L1,91,8 00'N3dSV 3AV NVINAH 3 61,17 Oil II S3uniN3A 000MNO1100 1,9L££ ld '831VAMV310 LO£-01,9#021 1-11009 N31inlNOW N 61,9Z Oil S1N3W1S3AN1 NIV1Nf10W lvlsv00 Z1,91,8 00 'N3dSV L89£X08 Od 1sf12113 30(1218 NOS12JVO 1,0ZZL 21V' 10021 3lllll 01,£31S 3AV NO1N1101N301S32id 009 ONI SON1010H OlVM2U.d--U3M21V8 1,1,91,8 00 'N3dSV 1,1,91,8 00 'N9dSV N1 ]Vd ONVl0111Y Z017 1 ZOZ#1S VN31VJ S 0517 Oil S21Nld 213d0001SV3 ON ' I Oil S2101S3ANI IS VN31VJ H1f10S 0517 'NO-MJ V008 ! : ZL17LOZZL£ Nl'311[AHSVN 3d1N!33m 6Z89 11013EIId210N 801,1, 11 NVWAH 0017, , I dl S2131NS 17 Cr 1 '4abel size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery®5160/8. biq—ie de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery Oar id/8160 i 1,9Z98 ZV'3lVOS1100S HJf102108SNIVJ 3 9£99 Oil 1V3211321 N3dSV L L91,8 00'N3dSV 3AV NVWAH 3 0017 00 v 213)(121)1 O/O Oil 011 S31Vl00SSV S30V021V 1,1,00L AN ' 121O.lM3N 3-91,#1S 021£Z M 9217 NNV VSII vsf121Jv £Z918 00 '3lVONOM21V0 1M021d XOd£9 Oil NVW1kH 1SV3 6017 ZZ909 ll 'OJVOIHO' VNIIf1Vd N M- 0-11 133211S 1111/Y L-9O`8 09[8/00-4,)AaaAV pane alg1t1dwoo ww L9 x ww 9Z tewa01 ap 91*13 ® , x:8/09 G5®AJaAV ytlnn a1Q11edwoo«8/5 Z x,,G azis iagel ELKS LODGE 224 ' EXELCEDAR INC 20% F&M VENTURES LLC c 210 S GALENA ST STE 21 1 534 E HYMAN AVE ! C/0 MORRIS&FYRWALD RE ASPEN,CO 81611 : ASPEN,CO 81611 415 E HYMAN AVE I ASPEN, CO 81611 � I FITZGERALD FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LTD i ,': FOOTLOOSE MOCCASIN MAKERS INC FORD ANN MICHIE 1C/O PITKIN COUNTY DRY GOODS LLC C/O MANUEL GOUVEIA 216 WAPITI WAY 520 E COOPER 44 SILVERADO CT. BASALT, CO 81621 ASPEN, CO 81611 . ; CANON CITY,CO 81212 I i i G&K LAND CO LLC j GERARDOT J REVOCABLE TRUST GLENROY PARTNERS 2.9% 1 140 PITKIN MESA DR I ' 5526 HOPKINTON DR PO BOX 2157 ASPEN, CO 81611 FORT WAYNE, IN 46804 i SANTA CRUZ,CA 95063 i GORDON DAVID F&LETICIA LLC GONE WEST LLC (C/O JOE RACZAK/NORTH OF NELL MGT ! GORSUCH COOPER LLC 1401 W CENTER 1 263 E GORE CREEK DR SEARCY,AR 721451406 i ' ;ASPEN,CO 81611 i : VAIL,CO 81657 I , I GREENWAY COMPANY INC GREENWOOD KAREN DAY ; GREGG LELAND JOHN GREENWOOD STERLING JAMES j 666 TRAVIS ST#100 I ! PO BOX 1935 i 409 E COOPER AVE SANTA YNEZ,CA 834601935 i SHREVEPORT, LA 71101 I ASPEN,CO 81611 I :. j GRIFFITH LARRY R j : GUIDOS SWISS INN LLC I ' I HOPPES DIANA 19794 ESCADA CT - 1 23655 TWO RIVERS RD 1 5400 VERNON AVE#106 REDDING, CA 96003 BASALT, CO 81621 : I EDNA, MN 55436 • 1 HYMAN MALL COMMERCIAL CONDOS INDEPENDENCE PARTNERS HORSE ISLAND LLC ( LLC j C/O CAPMARK INC 415 E HYMAN AVE#16 290 HEATHER LN 205 S MILL ST#301A j ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 I ' t I INDEPENDENCE SQUARE UNITS LLC 1 ; !. JENNE LLP KANTZER TAYLOR MICHAEL FAMILY I TRUST#1 3109 OAKMONT DR : 1510 WINDSOR RD 216 SEVENTEENTH ST STATESVILLE, NC 28625 AUSTIN,TX 77402 ': MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266 I II+ • t KOPP AMELIA L TRUST KRISTAL ASPEN LLC LCT LP 1000 DOLORES WY#B I 1417 WEST 10TH ST ! TENNESSEE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP CARBONDALE,CO 81623 ' AUSTIN,TX 787034816 ! PO BOX 101444 NASHVILLE,TN 37224-1444 LEFFERS JEFFREY J TRUSTEE 1 ! LINDNER FRITZ DISCLAIMER TRUST LOMA ALTA CORPORATION GERARDOT J REVOCABLE TRUST I : 50% ` PO BOX 886 5526 HOPKINTON DR I i 66966 TEN PEAKS CT I ' LANCASTER,TX 75146-0886 j FORT WAYNE, IN 46804 ; BEND,OR 97701 In= label size 1"x 2 518"compatible with Avery 05160/8160 kinkette tle format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 0516018160 [8/09[9@AaaAdaanealyi;EawuawwL9xww964ewJu;epe44e1!u14J 09,L8/09L5o Aaany ql!m olgl}edwoo„g/g Z x„L ozls legel f 60081v IVY ` MONIW2ile OOZ#a2i 31d` IN 3 0062 0711 Td1021310W00 VYTIS i I ` ! I ' 6Wl,9 00 'N3dSd 3A`d NVINAH 3 609 %6L•Z 071111 S321f11N3A NOINO HS I stLZL 21b''A021t/3S 2110 9f110 AldlNf100 49 31N)OU 39a311M] .,I I LL00L AN NUOAAA3N ( : LOL#1S aNZt?3 OZ£ V NN�l71 0113HONO2l I : i L L9L8 00 'N3dSV LOZ#1S 213d000 3 8 L 61,b8L'99 0711 SUO1S3ANl NOINO a32i L W!,8 00'N3dSd 3Ad NVUMAH 3 VC9 %08>I Nd9 A1N f100 N N11d 666£-ZEti£E 71d 'NOld21 d009 9LZ#-1V321 dZdld E£b HsorNVMJON 6EL9L M 00 '31943 66L9 X09 Od SSdWMONS d0 SI111H 0/0 e08 S3SI21d2131N3 N1W ; I L0948 00 'S9N121dSa00MN319 21a 2139dNdl ZK NOS13N 71fldd Z9 l,/90 NOIld2iOd2100 Sa71dNOaOIN! L L9 L8 00 'N3dSV LOZ#3A`d 213d000 3 M1 011 S31VlOOSS`d` rS 96£6111 IW '2131N30 N021A9 1 2131SINIWIS3M L LLL 9 7131N`da 3Z11f1HOS i ! 1,9L96 IH b'3f1` mi ON Vdd11dM OZLV � 1sf12i1319VOOA321`d 2139021 SSON ! . I , L!,%g 00 'N3dSV 3Ad NVINAH 3 L09 %t,011 II S321f11N3A NOINO 921 'vi-milsnv OZ8Z MSN N019N1113AA 99L X09 Od ! ` 3NIWS`df 81 NIA3N MIOVYNNV2i . is L WL8 00 'N3dS`d! L 31S t#213d000 3 60t" 121dW NOIA3d i i L L9L8 00 `N3dSd LOZ#3Ad 2i3d000 3 8 H7 ! %86'Z9 011 Nl31S f N 1,M8 00 `N3dSd 170£31S 3Ad SNlNdOH 3 009 d 12139021 SNUOW EZ91,8 00'371daN0921d0 N71 93>10213HO 9ZZ0' ,U1 MHOOa d101211dd'8 kU2 Jd8 NOS919 i : ; H139VZI]3 S'8 a M3H11dW NnvW ; : MW 00'N3dSd; : ' ' I 60L!,X013 Od ! LL9L8 00'N3dSd! ! i Sf myiN f N3Hd31S 0/0 : dN31d9 S bOt7 011 dN371d9 lWina Sf102idW 113N32121392i3dS2131b'W iS3�dtl1S £ZOO L kN 'J HO k AA3N 2110 Sf19Wf1100 09 twig dd3P/631NVdW00(MV-11M 0/0 0711 IVIOU31NW00 W`d1S 213A11S E99V6 VO VONNO 10 OOOMN33210 ti 1sf1211).711W` =i 2130302iHOS KL96 IH '131VNVH V69 X09 Od 1smi2 119b'OOA321 b21ti921t/9 SS021 L WW 00 'N3dSV 3M/NVINAH 3 L09 a131d21d9 GIVN021 0/0 %E8't,1S 2i3d000 921 6400E kN '>IMOAAA3N 1S Z9 ISM 0 L9 0d0 'l113HE)IU NOIEMO19 010 d2100 vsn V(1VUd 1,09L8 00 'NOIlONnr aNb219 09£#1S a2i£S LOL 011 S3112i3d021d 71'8 d . LWW 00 'N3dSd1 3Ad NVVYAH 3 409 %8L6'9L 0717111 S321f11N3A NOINO HN I ` label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 05160/8' ° b4.,to de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 5o x60/8160 LZ9L8 00 '11dSd9 i GH S2i3A121 OMl 999EZ 011 9Nlallfl9 SS3Nisn9 213A3W L 1,M 00 'N3dSd 3Ad NVINAH 3 K9 ONI 3S210W'8 NOSdW L99Z6 d0 °1Sd00.LUOdM3N Zia S1H Nd300 LE 421492149 2131S/k1 UU6VjUjj hpjudnpuunedlyi}cuuauuuaLuLUhLUWy6}ew.Au¢dNd}401lUl}:j 09,[8/09[q®rlaany 41Inn olgltedwoo„g/g Z x,,[ozls lapel I : I � t I ' - I , I I t 1 L0660 b'N '11OOSd1NdMS 1S NAISON 99 N 3NNV Q S alONNV QOOM EZ9116 AN '2131S3HOOcl >IHVd 021131N 056 OOSS`d N113aN3M i L996-£Z968 00'3IVONOB IVO I 60Z#ba N3MOO 566 ' 011 VZV1d NIOA 66948 OO 'N3dS`d 1S 3O`d J 609 , J %6Z9'OE 112i38Ob SIONVdnz OZZ917 IW '3TlV(MJ33 VOZ#3AV(IUVAAaOOM 09LZZ ' 331snu J 3ONMJMd1 dIOM ' I I , Zb66-60E05 dl 'S3NION SK ! ; OOZ#3AV aNVUE)3 Z/6 Z65 i dl S9lI-d9dOMd OAdM I 66968 OO 'N3dSV; : t/60E#1S IIIN S 60Z 011 S1N3N1S3AN1 A311t/A S3�dd1S Z6968 OO'N3dSV M766 X08 Od dl AIIN`dd Sa0OM I Eon9 ow viewnloo 1 60Z 31S aAle Nnlab'1S N 6 6Z 010 ONI 1N3N3ENNHN EMI O11 JNlalln8 Nome M3133HAA 660LL X1'NO1SnOH Zia VSONIN LZEZ 2JDOVNVN NIOA M(hlVHOIa O/O ' 331snal M abdHOIU NIOA 66968 OO 'N3dS`d 60Z#3AV a3d000 3 ON lsmu AIINvj SNINNOl OZOt,-86ZLE N1'3IIIAHSdN ` tV17l,-tbZZLE N1'3111AHSVN Z6ELZ ON 'Ob08Sllld'I aAlB AUO�1OIH a10££05 titib606 X08 Od ( ` ab 1S3a NOOu 099Z 31800 H f 0/0 . i 33�I1-1133SS3NN31 11 l d21aNVS'8 S3Ndf E)U3N3MS I STd1NM 33UH133SS3NN311 ; i ; I ' 865£LZEOE VE) 'b'1Nd11di ; 806£6 VO'VUV8UV8d1NVSi : 66968 OO'N3dS`d MN Zia 21ONVN AVAANOO 0917 I as NOS13INVCI 8 LEE6 i 3AV NVNAH 3 609 J NVII11M N3JNlUV3MS' alAVG SSO2l SN3Hd31S I i %66'EZ 011 Maine N131S label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 05160/81^ ® Et'*v to de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery x/8160 " EXHIBIT Dimensional Requirements of the Commercial Core CC Zone District 26.710.140 • Minimum Gross Lot Area: No requirement. • Minimum Net Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit: No requirement. • Minimum Lot Width: No requirement. • Minimum Front Yard: No requirement. • Minimum Rear Yard: No requirement. • Minimum Side Yard: No requirement. • Minimum Utility/Trash/Recycle Area: - Pursuant to Section 26.575.060. - Existing Condition: N/A. - Proposed: See Plans • Maximum Height: - CC Zoning: 28 feet for two-story elements of a building. - Existing Condition: 28' 4" - Proposed: 28 feet. • Minimum Distance between Detached Buildings: No requirement. • Public Amenity Space: Pursuant to Section 26.575.030, since the existing Public Amenity Space is less than 10%, the effective requirement is 10%. The applicant intends to provide either offsite public amenity improvements or cash-on-lieu. • Floor Area Ratio (FAR): - CC Zoning: Maximum of 2:1 for Commercial Uses (18,000sf for this parcel). - Existing Condition: 15,966sf of Commercial FAR. - Proposed: 13,417sf of Commercial FAR(1.49:1). • Maximum Multi-Family Residential Unit Size: Not applicable as the property does not and will not contain any residential space. • Maximum Lodge Unit Size: Not applicable as the property does not and will not include any lodging use. • Commercial/Residential Ratio: Not applicable as the property does not and will not contain any residential space. This development does not require any variances from the C4,Zone District Dimensional Requirements for a Mixed-Use project. LEGEND AND NOTES F I Q SET SURVEY MONUMENT PK NAIL WITH ALUM. TAG 25941 FLUSH WITH I GROUND OR AS DS ASPEN GPS MONUMENT E CRIBED I 0-159, EL-]906.6] TITLE INFORMATION FURNISHED 8Y: NO,NONE PROVIDED OR PERFORMED tr DATED: / / / <1 / p POSTED CONTROL 315 5. GALENA ST. AND 434 EAST COOPER- I--10 E ROL O 0 20 / I / MISC. ENCROACHMENTS ON ALL SIDE I / I BEARINGS BASED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 89[NAIL IN CONC.7 AND THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 95 [BRASS TAG 28693] IN 7509'11-WI LOTS PRORATED TO FIELD BLOCK LENGTH 2]0.65'. RECORD BLOCK 2]0.80' RECORD GALENA STREET R.O.W. OF]4.00' HELD FOR BLOCK LENGTH. ELEVATIONS BASED ON CITY GP5 MONUMENT NO. 5: ELEVATION 7910.748 TREE CALLS IN 1 1 RECORD FROM 1959 OFFICAL CITY OF ASPEN PLAT I - STREET SIGN Q STREET LIGHT M FIRE HYDRANT l❑J UTILITY BOX / is'xsa) Dx sR* Al Lj ENTIRE PROPERTY IS AFFECTED BY THE THE MAIN STREET VIEW PLANE AND A PORTION BY THE WHEELER OPERA HOUSE VICINITY MA P L Ir B VIEW PLANE. 00TH VIEW PLANES ARE OBSTRWTED BY ' L SUP ROUNDING BUILDINGS A^VEO L o Cad WATER LINE IS IN GALENA ST AND COOPER AVE taD.o R.D 8 g ALL OTHER UTLIiIES ARE IN THE ALLEY / S 15•py. W THIS PROPERTY IS SITUATED IN ZONE-X- (AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE 500-YEAR ]. 'Y�)1'(T.•.x`��PT�yJY�'1).) I - IDO 161)RE OO FLOOD PLAINT n5 SHOWN ON FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP PREPARED BY F.E.M.A.. FOR JI RD11 PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO.COMMVNI TY-PANEL NUMBER OB09JCO204 EFFECTIVE / DATE: JUNE 4, 1987 e02D.5l MN ST THIS PROPERTY LIES ENTIRELY INSIDE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUDFLOW HAZARD aoF AREA AS DEFINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN, PROJECT NUMBER 1963, Ls x FIGURE ES-I5. Re rtO rxO Dx ZONED: CC (COMMERCIAL CORE(WITH HISTORIC OVERLAY Dc a waDTE OISR NO SETBACK REQUIREMENTS F0.ONT, SIDE, REAR / ORATE / W^DMV CDi JI Eao.o �o,e„W AAKI. 411, .111 Il Q I I / F TWb STORY BRICK BVILLDING $ ` WITH GARDEN LFVEL �� g / a o W eDxl a7�,.L,. woo k RED MOUNTAIN ({I / ° s ti a 2 D P f'y I y CERTIFICATION THE UNDERSIGNED STATES THAT THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREON WAS 5 A AD FIELD SURVEYED DU0.1NG 2012 AND IS ACCURATE ( SORE PANCHESFOFL RECORD,NBOVNOARYOLN HEACONFLI�CTS EENCROACMMENTS, 6 EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS OF WAY IN FIELD EVIDENCE OR KNOWN TO ME. EXCEPT AS HEREON SHOWN. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WITH NO ABOVEGROUND U APPURTENANCES. AND DOCUMENTS OF RECORD NOT SUPPLIED TO THE BOMO RX. SURVEYOR ARE EXCEPTED. THIS SURVEY IS V010 UNLESS WET STAMPED / WITH THE SEAL OF THE SURVEYOR BELOW. SURVEY PRECISION IS LESS THAN 1:15,000. )ele I a Tlo / DDK DATED: DvOx vn j ° SMWGLER I Io JOHN M. HOWORTM P.L.S. 25947 MOUNTAIN oiNETER DisR ' C9vtRED wnLX � GARDEN LEVEL o HrvRnxr s'r RRrC^Mr /' PATIO 1911.9 e F 1131 14­11 BoI^orARy sa.T BRrCk wxLt e.xa.AD Mix ST. O COVERED YAtk )e R /n N 7S-0g,1) s 0 s REGpgp Z2 Wx e01e.03 k kµL R D15R vl Ew POI xT 5 MIX 5). O TE DI C ROOF oOFER AVE A• 0 BOA0.D -1.ST. ., •Y UE MAL 1910 xu L PK ALUM. TAG 34303 USED IMPROVEMENT SURVEY UTE ROCKS OF _ LOT 0, R AND S. BLOCK 69. CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN CITY OF ASPEN COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO CONTAINING: 0.207 ACRES •/- NODE 2.GEL--]92 ]27 \\\\\ PREPARED BY INDEPENDENCE Pnss ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS, INC. 210 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PHONE/FAX 19101 925-3816 DATE OB 03/12 35243A w:nttoAO to T rou RwsT colel NxtE^xY LEw t �i?iou en t EFSDMnW vtnT w1 ASPEN MOUNTAIN A ER FiART DISCOVER Utx DEFLCTE iQ EOxImMVTxAYnnEHI Ox A. 0 ED UYOx n DEFKT x YEARS FROM HE SAVO p THE�CE�iFitnuiED aHDWN HER 50x.OFETHE CURVErDRAT iOU i iF t ED wi iH LHE EAL I I i I mnii�i 31 SF I U W 0 'I C) of Q E / I w U E ED E Z z i, d C) a W J I Q r — I q i I / W w O wo ' I I OU <4' 1 - a° I � 001 o c/) Q oZi OR NET LEASABLE 1 EXISTING BASEMENT NET LEASABLE W wQ II 2 EXISTING FIRST FLO y16" M c EXISTING NET LEASABLE SUMMARY II BASEMENT 4,845 SF 3130112 FIRST FLOOR 4,977 SF EXISTING SECOND FLOOR 5,034 SF TOTAL 14,856 SF AO .2 D m X O �_ W z !7 I w w 0 IV m 0 X :/) U) m C-) O Z c) -n r- 0 O Di Z m r m D U) D W r m 434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.I ASPEN,CO 81611 1 TEL:970.925.5590 1 FAX:970.920.4557 i i I I I ----------- w SPACE C u -- 1968 SF == U =_ Q E 0 LLJ 1 i1 O rn U -i --_ LL 9 w f- Z O Z W Q SPACE B U (n Z r 2842 SF cr- o I II 1� - U n SP rn0 = -v n 0 --.% C/) �- m m o C/) m 0 0 z 0 r- 0 O x z m r m D U) D co r m 0 w w 0 434 EAST COOPER N 434 EAST COOPER AVENUE ASPEN, COLOADO CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HWAN AVE.I ASPEN,CO 816111 TEL'.970.925.55901 FAX:970.920.4557 0 0 O o CT1 m 0 rn0 = -v n 0 --.% C/) �- m m o C/) m 0 0 z 0 r- 0 O x z m r m D U) D co r m 0 w w 0 434 EAST COOPER N 434 EAST COOPER AVENUE ASPEN, COLOADO CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HWAN AVE.I ASPEN,CO 816111 TEL'.970.925.55901 FAX:970.920.4557 i Cn ■ o �x V J z m z DX 1 z w w 0 IV � f ti O(JUrJ GLEN '4 SrRt�Er 434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE, I ASPEN,CO 81611 1 TEL:970.925.5590 1 FAX:970.920.4557 f X Z G) �J m m 07 (: N w D w 0 O a m D W Z oZE C m D r r -v n p N � op O in = m 0 m z Z 0 r Z m 434 EAST COOPER 0 C-0 w 0 N 434 EAST COOPER AVENUE ASPEN, COLOADO c I m Z� m m -+ m m SOUTH GALENA STREET D w is CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.I ASPEN,CO 816111 TEL:970,925 55901 FAX:970.920.4557 -o o o N m 0 r Z m 434 EAST COOPER 0 C-0 w 0 N 434 EAST COOPER AVENUE ASPEN, COLOADO c I m Z� m m -+ m m SOUTH GALENA STREET D w is CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.I ASPEN,CO 816111 TEL:970,925 55901 FAX:970.920.4557 (A3.4) 1 • 90'-0'• 90'-0" ELEV. LEV. ® MECH. U) U W o DN UP SPACE C - U I_ N _ m U LL m - -- o - E o Lu U m LL F El 'E 3 STORAGE STOR. Z W :D cn U ---r r�nriTn Q IIIIIIIIIIIIII U) Z o SPACE B 1 A3.3� o W L0 ELEV. J ELEV. m I 1 1 UP o �__�i Q MECH. U STOR. W Fl rlTi7 r� W' YJ 111111111 N SPACE A DN m SPACE A __y L1111 O_ ; 0 0 m Q Q Q Q O U ao U F_ O U U) U Z LA W aQ w M � d' cf) 2 03/30/12 PROPOSED FIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 1 PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED 1/16 1 0 2 1 lrl" = 1'-0" A2.1 NORTH A3.4 A3.4 1 1 90'-0° --- 56'-6" 32'-6" () U DN ROOF DECK W FLAT ROOF ROOF DECK m = U Q E O m w cd LL SPACE B LL STOR. z U Z U a a FLAT FLAT ROOF 1 A3.3 0 DN Z ROOF oo L ELEV. o` Q o U w ROOF DECK N ROOFDECK W Z m 0- ; O O QQ wO U a0 00 U) 00 z Q F- a W Q � wQ 2 co M 2 d. A3.3 A3.3 03/30/12 n PROPOSED ROOF PLAN n PROPOSED SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED ) I A2.2 NORTH Cr lil � 0 1 X Cn z G) m D m r D O z 0 X_ CD z O O C r- m D 0 z Y�„ 7� -7�� Qo b -n n rn i 1 o �o CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. I ASPEN,CO 81611 1 TEL:970.925.5590 1 FAX 970.920.4557 rn rn —Oqq-) m x W N Z 0 II'-5 5/5 2'-g F ml I i I I i I I I m ,x . z I D � O Z � j I i 5/8 -8" -- ------- rn 25' 7 5/8 �► O � 1 � 0 Op p r r ! A 0 O d D A O n m rn 434 EAST COOPER CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS C-4 www.cunniffe.com w 0 IV 434 EAST COOPER AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.I ASPEN,CO 816111 TEL:970.925.55901 FAX:970.920.4557 T.O. ROOF • 128'-0" T.O. SECOND FLOOR W 117'-0" � o = q U Q W 0 m LL Ed LL — Z m 0 Z W co _ T.O. FIRST FLOOR U Q 100'-0" U) z w PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION J 1 ° Q 1/8 = 1'-0" r U _T.O. ROOF 128'-0" w w z w WO O aQ 0 T.O. SECOND FLOOR U 0O O 117'-0" I— U ow W Ua w Q M d- M 03/30/12 T.O. FIRST FLOOR PROPOSED 100'-0" n PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION A3.3 U 1/8" = 1'-0" 00 0 0 = 0 o (n _ m _ 0 z 0 m r m D 0 z 1 74 b n O o 60_ W w 0 L 0 m n O 1- vO 60 a 434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER AVENUE ASPEN, COLOADO N� 000 O O _ -n CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST LAYMAN AVE.I ASPEN,CO 816111 TEL:970.925.55901 FAX:970.920.4557 0� o W 0 0 N m 0 W w 0 L 0 m n O 1- vO 60 a 434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER AVENUE ASPEN, COLOADO N� 000 O O _ -n CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST LAYMAN AVE.I ASPEN,CO 816111 TEL:970.925.55901 FAX:970.920.4557 0� 'All f i ., • I iff ,4 � 4• 'y I= I 7 r irr v w r f 4W Who Ei • :. ., ®. ow C .m FN_ Al, » WON ■ rm it �r y'•a 9� _ w cn m A w w 0 L 434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER AVENUE ASPEN, COLOADO CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.I ASPEX CO 816111 TEL 970.925.55901 FAX 970.920.4567 0 0 • 0� o 0 0 N c/' m 0 w w 0 L 434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER AVENUE ASPEN, COLOADO CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.I ASPEX CO 816111 TEL 970.925.55901 FAX 970.920.4567 0 0 • 0� 4 W = C II � N Q O Z O G) _ n 0 77 Z m m O W W O_ a 434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER AVENUE ASPEN, COLOADO CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST FV WUJ AVE I ASPEK CO 816111 TEL 970.925.55901 FAX:970.920.465! 9 11 v O m O W a' m 0 O W W O_ a 434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER AVENUE ASPEN, COLOADO CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST FV WUJ AVE I ASPEK CO 816111 TEL 970.925.55901 FAX:970.920.465! 9 11 v 0 434 EAST COOPER w w 0 N 434 EAST COOPER AVENUE ASPEN, COLOADO t i7 -i------ I A CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EASTHYMAN-1 ASPER 00 816111 TEL 970925 55901 FAX:970.920.4667 � o 0 -P a' m 0 434 EAST COOPER w w 0 N 434 EAST COOPER AVENUE ASPEN, COLOADO t i7 -i------ I A CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EASTHYMAN-1 ASPER 00 816111 TEL 970925 55901 FAX:970.920.4667 N 0 0 ra D r m z D cn m m m O z w 0 n� L�l�!i u m .Iffit, t�l�[�f t�1�I i 1�11I11 �l�l�Ll.Lt 434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER AVENUE ASPEN, COLOADO CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST WMAN AVE I ASPEN CO 816111 TFL:970.925.55901 FAX 970.920.466/ 0 i� 0 o 0 0 m D ra D r m z D cn m m m O z w 0 n� L�l�!i u m .Iffit, t�l�[�f t�1�I i 1�11I11 �l�l�Ll.Lt 434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER AVENUE ASPEN, COLOADO CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS www.cunniffe.com 610 EAST WMAN AVE I ASPEN CO 816111 TFL:970.925.55901 FAX 970.920.466/ 0 i� 0 r t Y .......... t Iil���f��� f1r.���® ' I GALENA STREET HUNTER STREET THE CITY of ASPEN Land Use Application Determination of Completeness Date: April 9, 2012 Dear City of Aspen Land Use Review Applicant, We have received your land use application and reviewed it for completeness. The case number and name assigned to this property is 0013.2012.AHPC — 434 E. Cooper Street. The planner assigned to this case is Sara Adams . The public hearing is scheduled for August 8, 2012. Per our phone conversation this afternoon, I have noted the proposal to pay cash in lieu to satisfy the public amenity requirement. X Your Land Use Application is complete: If there are not missing items listed above, then your application has been deemed complete to begin the land use review process. Other submission items may be requested throughout the review process as deemed necessary by the Community Development Department. Please contact me at 429-2778 if you have any questions. Tha9k You, ara Adams, Senior Planner City of Aspen, Community Development Department For Office Use Only: Qualifying Applications: Mineral Rights Notice Required SPA PUD COWOP Yes No Subdivision(creating more than 1 additional lot) GMQS Allotments Residential Affordable Housing Yes No Commercial E.P.F. �IIIII I�III 111111 IN 11111111111111111I111111111111111 5g�4 06 20:08, JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 11.00 0 0.00 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION(HPQ APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION OF THE BUILDING LOCATED AT 434 E. COOPER AVENUE,LOTS Q,R,AND S,BLOCK 89,CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 14,SERIES OF 2006 . PARCEL ID: 2737-182-16-011 WHEREAS, the applicant, Bert Bidwell Investment Company, represented by Haas Land Planning and Rowland+ Broughton Architects, has requested approval to demolish the structure located at 434 E. Cooper Avenue, Lots Q,R, and S, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; 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, 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: 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, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated May 24, 2006, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines were not met, and recommended denial; and 526456 IIII IIII I I III I III VIII I IIII 079/14/2006 10:081 IIIIIIIIIIII II JANICE K VO5 CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 11.00 D 0.00 WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on May 24, 2006, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote of3to2. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED: HPC grants approval for Demolition of the structure located at 434 E. Cooper Avenue, Lots Q,R, an d S,Block 89,City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 24th day of May,2006. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant Ciq Attorney Approved as to content: HIS C PRESERVATI ✓COMMISSION Jeffrey al , Chair ATTEST: '� l Kathy Stack-land,Chief Deputy Cie Sara Adams From: Sara Adams Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 11:27 AM To: 'Charles Cunniffe'; Janver Derrington; 'mitch @hlpaspen.com' Subject: Bidwell initial comments Dear CCA, As you are probably aware the HPC schedule is quite full for the summer. We have the 434 E. Cooper project on the agenda for Conceptual review on August 8th, and have held a spot on the September 12th agenda in the event that the project is continued for further study. After a preliminary review, Community Development would like to offer some initial comments, which are intended to provide feedback on the design with ample time for changes-prior to the public hearing if desired. On a conceptual level the site plan and one/two story building heights are appropriate. The floor to ceiling height of the first floor is very tall in comparison to the historic structures in the area (Andres building aka Prada has a storefront height of 147'and Red Onion has a storefront height of 13'). In many Aspen Victorian commercial buildings with a particularly large first floor height, the second floor is similarly generous, which is not the case in your design. We recommend these dimensions be restudied. The module closest to the alley provides a better pedestrian scale,the storefront height is more characteristic of downtown, and the architecture is interesting and broken down in a way that relates to the surrounding historic buildings. Staff is unclear as to how the glass box on the Hyman mall relates to the historic district. The entry facing the mall needs to be recessed (because doors cannot swing into the right of way) and a more clear connection between the new architecture and the historic architecture needs to be made. A glass box can work in a historic downtown, but there need to be references to the historic architecture to make it work. For example mullion patterns can relate to traditional window patterns. Staff is not able to recommend approval of the project to HPC until some changes noted above are made. We would be happy to meet and discuss the project with you further in preparation for the HPC hearing. Best Regards, Sara Sara Adams, Senior Planner City of Aspen,130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 teie. 9701429.2778 fax. 9701920.5439 www.aspenpitkin.com i THE CITY OF ASPEN Land Use Application Determination of Completeness Date: April 4, 2012 Dear City of Aspen Land Use Review Applicant, We have received your land use application and reviewed it for completeness. The case number and name assigned to this property is 0013.2012.AHPC — 434 E. Cooper Street. The planner assigned to this case is Amy Guthrie and Sara Adams . X Your Land Use Application is incomplete: We found that the application needs additional items to be submitted for it to be deemed complete and for us to begin reviewing it. We need the following additional submission contents for you application: 1. Please provide a section that illustrates where the Wheeler Opera House viewplane intersects the proposed building. 2. Please specify the provision of off-site public amenity proposed. 3. Please address the Utility, Delivery and Trash Service Provision of the Commercial Design Standards and show the dimensions on the floors plans and elevations. Please submit the aforementioned missing submission items so that we may begin reviewing your application. No review hearings will be scheduled until all of the submission contents listed above have been submitted and are to the satisfaction of the City of Aspen Planner reviewing the land use application. Other submission items may be requested throughout the review process as deemed necessary by the Community Development Department. Please contact me at 429-2778 if you have any questions. Tha You, Sara Adams, Senior Planner City of Aspen, Community Development Department For Office Use Only: Qualifying Applications: Mineral Rights Notice Required SPA PUD COWOP Yes No Subdivision(creating more than I additional lot) GMQS Allotments Residential Affordable Housing Yes No Commercial E.P.F.