Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.HP.302 E Hopkins Ave.0031.2011.AHPC THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0031.2011.AHPC PARCEL ID NUMBERS 2737 07 329 005 PROJECTS ADDRESS 302 E HOPKINS AVE PLANNER AMY SIMON CASE DESCRIPTION HPC CONCEPTUAL MINER'S COTTAGE REPRESENTATIVE SUNNY VANN DATE OF FINAL ACTION 02/8/2012 CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON: 3.30.15 i FIS Edit Riad Na+gale Fam Repot Famat Tab Heb ix Ra4Etahs fees Y nktin AttadradtslRouhagH ay YailahOrl Wdh lCwWFO 1560* IPO c� cWO spy taic LV Use Pmt X312011 AHPC N Adm2 E HOP 9NS AVE Apt�ute $ Cly ASPEN CO $ 1612 x P64 famalift o Dtasterpet R*WC' pppiEd2fI91 1 ® AWk � o Desoo MUM FOR HPC Thi WO COi1AGE FOR CNECAL DE SGN REVIEV- I� ONCEPiUAL hiISiOK KClhiF FOR HprLSTA RES1AURANi GROUP + JW %Y VANN 9256956 k E Dj�❑0 2ft3l2012 i j Last raONE RESiAURANi GROUP Rest nam 12 E HRM AVE Adis C061612 pha� 310)365-0333 Appi(art 0owraiappica ? pCa6adaceappicad? I- Lit nwe S10NE RES1AlRA1Ji( N na NS LEN? n E HOPKNS AVE O � ASPEN C061612 Phase 310)3�A333 Get 92 Adiess W Lear "} r Last name� Fust r�r�e� � Phae Adzes V" I,� ---- ----- - - --— �iZ�y'"`�"'r 2� 20 5 _uv WC r� qLf'$•• {� 3r s3 �" �� 2(0 o • CFO �Mao MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 302 E. Hopkins Avenue— Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, On-Site Relocation, Special Review and Mountain View Plane Review, PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 8, 2012 SUMMARY: 302 E. Hopkins is a , 3,000 square foot lot located in the " Commercial Core Historic District. The miner's cottage at 302E. Hopkins was constructed in 1883, which makes it one of the oldest remaining structures in the Aspen Townsite. Throughout its history the •►' building has been used for both commercial and residential purposes. It is the only example of the "Carpenter Gothic" style in Aspen, defined by the steeply pitched roof and decorative trim on the front of the building. (Carpenter Gothic is the Gothic Revival style carried out in - wood rather than stone.) The building appears to be relatively unaltered, except for a small non-historic addition at the rear. Currently the building is used for offices. A potential new purchaser would like to convert the property to a restaurant, with seating and an open kitchen in the front of the building, back of house operations in a new one story addition, and the historic shed put into use as a staircase to the basement level which will contain storage and an existing apartment. The project involves demolition of the addition at the back of the house. The shed along the alley will slide westward, towards Aspen Street. Alterations planned for the historic structure are the addition of some rooftop venting for the kitchen, addition of a ramp at the entry, and possible alteration of the front door to meet ADA requirements. HPC review is being consolidated with determinations related to adequate on-site trash storage and parking, and an assessment of whether the project violates the Main Street view plane protections. HPC Review 1.25.2012 514 E. Hyman Avenue,AspenModern Page 1 of 14 0 • STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant the requested approvals, with conditions. APPLICANT: Hillstone Restaurant Group, represented by Vann Associates. The application is authorized by the current property owner. PARCEL ID: 2737-073-29-005. ADDRESS: 302 E. Hopkins Avenue,Lot K, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: CC, Commercial Core. Historic District Overlay. CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARD OR DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL The procedure for a Major Development Review and Commercial Design 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 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 and Commercial Design review is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structures) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions . or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard., Unique site constraints can HPC Review 1.25.2012 514 E. Hyman Avenue, AspenModern Page 2 of 14 justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the fagade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. STAFF RESPONSE: For new development in the Commercial Core Historic District, the guidelines found in the 2007 Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines are the applicable information. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A." HPC must also apply their own design guidelines, relevant citations are also listed at "Exhibit A." The application packet is very clear .and staff finds that the proposed addition is sensitively and thoughtfully designed to meet the guidelines. Though the architecture of the addition is in some ways a great contrast to the historic structure, the very limited architectural detailing of the new addition will likely be a quiet and subservient statement next to the decorative Victorian. ' The historic structure itself is essentially flat roofed at the back (the roof has a slight pitch, screened by a"false front"that faces the street.) The proposed project is less than half of the allowed height on this downtown property, and one quarter of the allowed FAR. As mentioned in the application, HPC approved a redevelopment of this site about 10 years ago. While there are some similarities between the projects, the approved addition was much taller than what is shown in this proposal and the historic shed was to be moved to the center of the site instead of maintaining its position along the alley.; Staff s only concerns with the project are the ramp at the front entry, the placement of the new addition right against the west property line, and the limited breathing room between the back of the historic shed and the trash enclosure area. The proposed kitchen vent, located on the historic house, is a less than ideal visual intrusion. Staff understands there are no other options identified to provide ventilation from the kitchen. The board could discuss alternative floor plan layouts with the applicant, although a central kitchen area appears to be important to the restaurant concept. HPC Review 1.25.2012 514 E.Hyman Avenue, AspenModern Page 3 of 14 Staff and the Hillstone Group's in-house architect, have been discussing options for the front ramp with the Building Department. The primary goal has been to achieve a ramp that does not require handrails. There has been progress and a concept for feathering the grade along the edges of the ramp to avoid any possible dangerous drop off will be shown to HPC at the meeting. With regard to the placement of the addition, clearly every foot of the ground plane is valuable for this relatively small addition and the program that is needed. Staff suggests restudy of at least a small setback of the addition on the west lot line, so that the shed is closer to the sidewalk than the new construction. We also are concerned with the back of the historic shed. More information about the trash utility area is needed. At the least, there should not be a solid wall on the west side of the trash area, which would prevent access to the shed for maintenance purposes. The application does not include a rear elevation of the project, which is needed. This will be provided at the HPC meeting. Staff supports Conceptual.approval for the project with resolution of the issues noted above. ON-SITE The intent of this Chapter is to preserve designated historic properties in their original locations as much of their significance is embodied in their setting and physical relationship to their surroundings as well as their association with events and people with ties to particular site. However, it is recognized that occasionally the relocation of a property may be appropriate as it provides an alternative to demolition or because it only has a limited impact on the attributes that make it significant. The following standards apply for relocating a historic property as per Section 26.415.090.0 of the Municipal Code: C. Standards for the Relocation of Designated Properties Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute.to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was HPC Review 1.25.2012 51-4 E. Hyman Avenue,AspenModern Page 4 of 14 originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. Staff Response: Below is the 1904 Sanborne Fire Insurance Map of the subject property, which Lot K. The map shows that all of the nearby structures along this block were historically residential in form, rather than the larger commercial block buildings associated with downtown. It is clear from this map that there is currently a small addition that is added to the back of the historic structure. The existing shed appears to be the one shown on this diagram. OW K L M N 0 771 7. 777 ... . . � � y::..�.. :x i.. x .::.; .__ .::.. :X x. x0 3oZ 30g .306 30B 310 312 31� 316 318 Preservation of Aspen's remaining outbuilding structures is difficult in most cases, especially in the downtown setting, where space is at such a premium. The proposal to keep the structure along the alley, but to slide it towards Monarch Street, so that it isn't blocked from view by the new trash area seems to be a good solution. Staff supports the on-site relocation as an acceptable means to preserve this historic building. HPC Review 1.25.2012 514 E. Hyman Avenue,AspenModern Page 5 of 14 If relocation is approved, the applicant will be required to demonstrate that it can'be done safely to preserve the structure. ON-SITE PARKING Two sections of the code are triggered by a request to reduce on-site parking downtown; Special Review and HPC's benefits critiera. Special review standards. Whenever the off-street parking requirements of a proposed development are subject to special review, an application shall be processed as a special review in accordance with the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304 and be evaluated according to the following standards. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. - If the project requires review by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Community Development Director has authorized consolidation pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.13, the Historic Preservation Commission shall approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the special review application. A. A special review for establishing, varying or waiving off-street parking requirements may be approved,,approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on the on- street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area and. any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. t 2. An on-site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. 3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. HPC must find that the review standards of Section 26.415.110.0 of the Municipal Code are met. They require that: HPC Review 1.25.2012 514 E. Hyman Avenue,AspenModern Page 6 of 14 1. The parking reduction and waiver of payment-in-lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district. Staff Response: The existing on-site parking is not screened from view and does little to enhance the streetscape. Underground parking is impossible on this small lot. Elevating the new construction up one floor to put parking on the ground plane is not mitigating adverse impacts on the historic structure very successfully. Staff recommends that the parking requirement be waived. The waiver is for the existing 1 space on the site and the new 0.7 spaces required by the addition. Staff recommends HPC waive the cash-in-lieu fee, which is a benefit available for.historic landmarks. The fee is $25,000 per space. UTILITv,TRASH,AND RECVCLE AREA Obviously it is very important to provide adequate area to service the utility and waste disposal needs for this property in a manner that does not negatively affect neighbors or the functionality of the alley. The project is slightly under the minimum required area for these'uses. HPC can approve a reduction. 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. 21. 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 HPC Review 1.25.2012 514 E. Hyman Avenue,AspenModern Page 7 of 14 Staff Response: The designated area is sized to adequately include a dumpster, recycling, etc. The applicant has verbally represented that a roll-up door will be installed to screen the view of the space. As mentioned above, staff is most concerned with potential impacts on the rear of the storage shed. A reduction in utility, trash storage area is recommended. MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE 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. (Ord. No. 12, 2007, §22) Staff Response: The application indicates that the development is all below the projected angle of the view plane, which begins at a specific point on Main Street, near the Hotel Jerome, and is aimed at avoiding significant intrusions into the visibility of Aspen Mountain. The project complies with the standards. HPC Review 1.25.2012 514 E. Hyman Avenue,AspenModern Page 8 of 14 • • STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that grant Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, On-Site Relocation, Special Review and Mountain View Plane Review with the following conditions: 1. Discuss the design for the accessible ramp, the possible minor setback of the addition on the west lot line, and measures .for protecting the back of the historic shed from impacts of the utility/trash area. 2. The HPC grants a parking waiver of 1.7 spaces. 3. The HPC approves the size of the utility/trash area as designed. 4. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within�this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A: Relevant Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines and HPC Guidelines Exhibit B: Application Exhibit A: 6.3 Develop an alley faVade to create visual interest. • Use varied building setbacks and changesin materials to create interest and reduce perceived scale. • Balconies, court yards and decks are also appropriate. • Providing secondary public entrances isstrongly encouraged along alleys. These should be clearly intended for public use, but subordinate in detail to the primary street-side entrance. 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 6.8 Street facing amenity space shall contain features to promote and enhance its use. Thesemay include one or more of the following: • Street furniture HPC Review 1.25.2012 514 E. Hyman Avenue,AspenModern Page 9 of 14 • Public art • Historical/interpretive marker 6.17 Front and side yard amenity space shouldbe considered in the context of a historic one story residential type building. 6.18 Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk's edge. • Place as much of the facade of the buildingat the property line as possible. • Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate. • A minimum of 70% of the front facade shall be at the property line. 6.22 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. 6.23 Use flat roof lines as the dominant roof form. • A flat roof, or one that gently slopes to the rear of a site, should be the dominant roof form. • Parapets on side facades should step down towards the rear of the building. • False fronts and parapets with horizontal emphasis also may be considered. Relevant HPC Guidelines 1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a rehabilitation project. ❑ This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature and ending in the "private" spaces beyond. ❑ Provide a walkway running, perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering walkways are discouraged, except where.it is needed to avoid a tree. ❑ Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style. Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles. 1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic structures. ❑ The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod, and not covered with paving, for example. 1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a rehabilitation project. ❑ This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature and ending in the "private" spaces beyond. ❑ Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree. HPC Review 1.25.2012 514 E. Hyman Avenue,AspenModern Page 10 of 14 ❑ Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style. Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles. 1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to*provide an appropriate context for historic structures. ❑ The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod, and not covered with paving, for example. 8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved. ❑ When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character-defining features. These include its primary and roof materials, roof form, windows, doors and architectural details. ❑ If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional. 8.5 Avoid moving a historic secondary structure from its original location. ❑ A secondary structure may only be repositioned on its original site to preserve its historic integrity. 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. ❑ In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. ❑ It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. ❑ Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. ❑ A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. ❑ Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. ❑ The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. ❑ In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not' approved. 9.2 Moving an existing building that contributes to the character of a historic district should be avoided. ❑ The significance of a building and the character of its setting will be considered. ❑ In general, relocating a contributing building in a district requires greater sensitivity than moving an individually-listed structure because the relative positioning of it reflects patterns of development, including spacing of side yards and front setbacks, that relate to other historic structures in the area. 9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the boundaries of its historic parcel. ❑ If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the lots. Both lots shall remain landmarked properties. HPC Review 1.25.2012 514 E. Hyman Avenue, AspenModern Page 11 of 14 u 9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. ❑ It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. ❑ It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. 9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. ❑ On modest structures, a simple foundation, is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. ❑ Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. ❑ Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate. ❑ Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. ❑ A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. ❑ An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. ❑ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. ❑ An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10'.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. ❑ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. ❑ A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.5 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments that may exist on the street. Li Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at approximately the same height. An addition should not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured. HPC Reyiew 1.25.2012 514 E. Hyman Avenue, AspenModern. Page 12 of 14 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. ❑ An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. ❑ A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. ❑ An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. ❑ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. ❑ An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. ❑ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. ❑ A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.5 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments that may exist on the street. ❑ Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at approximately the same height. An addition should not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. ❑ An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. ❑ The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. 14.1 These standards should not prevent or inhibit compliance with accessibility laws. ❑ All new construction should comply completely with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Owners of historic properties should comply to the fullest extent possible, while also preserving the integrity of the character-defining features of their buildings. Special provisions for historic buildings exist in the law that allow some alternatives in meeting the ADA standards. 14.2 Generally, a solution that is independent from the historic building and does not alter its historic characteristics is encouraged. HPC Review 1.25.2012 514 E.Hyman Avenue, AspenModern Page 13 of 14 14.14 Minimize the visual impacts of service areas as seen from the street. ❑ When it is feasible, screen service areas from view, especially those associated with commercial and multifamily developments. ❑ This includes locations for trash containers and loading docks. ❑ Service areas should be accessed off of the alley, if one exists. 14.15 Minimize the visual impacts of mechanical equipment as seen from the public way. ❑ Mechanical equipment may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does not create a negative visual impact. ❑ Mechanical equipment or vents on a roof must be grouped together to minimize their visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, provide screening with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. ❑ Screen ground-mounted units with fences, stone walls or hedges. ❑ A window air conditioning unit may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does not create a negative visual impact. ❑ Use low-profile mechanical units on rooftops so they will not be visible from the street or alley. Also minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Use smaller satellite dishes and mount them low to the ground and away from front yards, significant building facades or highly visible roof planes. ❑ Paint, telecommunications and mechanical equipment in muted colors that will minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds. 0 HPC Review 1.25.2012 514 E. Hyman Avenue,AspenModern Page 14 of 14 . • EXHIBIT AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: � ✓''/rte 8 ,2010Z 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 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) d ys 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 thee5day of Il^1" , 209'?,to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted /notice (sign) is attached hereto. y Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen(15)days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred(300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty(60)days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice,return receipt requested,to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty(30)days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions that create more than one lot,Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas, and COWAPs are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However,the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all b ness urs for fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendme SignWe The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this t kday Of ib , 200,Q by C—k,ni+J cZ N WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: i of u t L Public ATTACHMENTS Notary 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 i i PUBLIC NOTICE DATE TIME PLACE PURPOSE (xi✓�cscw cf rye��T�/7��/u�..,�s Qom✓-/��9G �JS�. �,/Eyf/YT/�/5/'Yl�'L�73G� FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING DEPARTMENT 130S GALENA ST.ASPEN CO (9701920-5090 � r - 1 f .f ` j: PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 302 E. HOPKINS AVENUE- CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW,ON-SITE RELOCATION,SPECIAL REVIEW AND MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, February 8, 2012, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, in Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen. HPC will consider an application submitted by Hillstone Restaurant Group, 147 S. Beverly Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90212, 310- 385-0333, authorized by the property owner, MJS Properties, LLC, and affecting the property located at 302 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lot K, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen, PID#2737-073- 29-005. The applicant proposes to convert the property to restaurant use. The plan includes demolition of a non-historic addition at the back of the existing Victorian house and replacement with a new one story addition. An existing outbuilding is to be relocated along the alley,towards the west. Special Review is requested to reduce the on-site utility/trash/service area and on-site parking. The application includes a request to find that the proposed development does not intrude into a Mountain View Plane. For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429-2758, amy.guthrie@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Ann Mullins Vice Chair,Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on January 19,2012 City of Aspen Account • • EXHIBIT® Easy feel®Labels Bend along line to i e Use Avery®Template 51600 Feed Paper m expose Pop-up Edge— � 1000 EAST HOPKINS LLC 201 E MAIN LLC 303 EAST MAIN LLLP '215 S MONARCH SUITE 104 PO BOX 345 PO BOX 8016 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81612 316 EAST HOPKINS LP AEP FAMILY LLLP 3.9348818% ALPINE PETROLEUM LLC RYANCO INC C/O ANDREW V HECHT GARFIELD& 435 E MAIN ST 5525 E CALLE VENTURA HECHT PC ASPEN,CO 81611 PHOENIX,AZ 85018 601 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN,CO 81611 BENTLEYS AT THE WHEELER BERNSTEIN JEREMY M PROFIT BRINING ROBERT PO BOX 10370 SHARING PLAN 215 S MONARCH ST STE 203 ASPEN,CO 81612 610 NORTH ST ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 BROWN SHANE&KRISTINE BUSH ALAN DAVID CARLS REAL ESTATE LLC 13100 S BROADWAY 0046 HEATHER LN PO BOX 1365 LOS ANGELES,CA 90061 ASPEN,CO 81611-3342 ASPEN,CO 81612 CARVER RUTH A&MARTIN G CITY OF ASPEN CLARK FAMILY TRUST BYRON LN ATTN FINANCE DEPT PO BOX 362 10 10 BYROINIA 52761 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 CLARKS ASPEN LLC COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS MEDIA CROSSLAND ANN BOND 818 SOUTH MAIN ST CO 210 E HYMAN#6 818 SOUTH M N ST PO BOX 1927 ASPEN,CO 81611 CARSON CITY, NV 89702 CRYSTAL PALACE ACQUSITIONS LLC DAVIDSON DONALD W DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED 1495 MAPLE WY STE 100 864 CEMETERY LN 215 S MONARCH#104 TROY, MI 48084 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ELLIES BUILDING LLC 96.830559% DESOTO LINDA JANE DUNTON KAY L TRUST C/O KATIE REED MGMT 1209 MANHATTAN AVE#130 4675 AUKAI AVE 418 E COOPER AVE#207 MANHATTAN BEACH,CA 90266 HONOLULU, HI 96816 ASPEN,CO 81611 ELLIOTT ELYSE ANNE EXPLORE BOOKSELLERS&BISTRO R E FEDER HAROLD L&ZETTA F LLC 985 CASCADE AVE 300 E HYMAN AVE 300 CRESCENT CT#1000 ASPEN,CO 81611 DALLAS,TX 75201 BOULDER,CO 80302-7550 FREDRICK LARRY D GOLDEN ARTS CONNECTION LLC GOODING RICHARD L ROBERTS JANET A DBA ASPEN INTERNATIONAL ART 4800 S HOLLY ST 215 S MONARCH ST#G101 213 S MILL ST ENGLEWOOD,CO 80111 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 EasyPeel'&Labels i d ' Bend along line to RV0 5160® Use Avery®Template 51600 � Feed Paper o expose Pop-up EdgeT"' �� = � GORDON BRIAN S GRAND SLAM HOLDINGS LLC HART GEORGE DAVID&SARAH C 26985 CRESTWOOD C/O CARL B LINNECKE CPA PC PO BOX 5491 FRANKLIN, MI 48025 215 S MONARCH ST#101 SNOWMASS VILLAGE,CO 81615 ASPEN,CO 81611 HECHT ANDREW V.027624071% HOFFMAN JOHN&SHARON IFTNFS LLC 601 E HYMAN AVE 210 W 5TH ST APT 211 0115 GLEN EAGLES DR ASPEN,CO 81611 KANSAS CITY,MO 64105-1166 ASPEN,CO 81611 JEROME PROPERTY LLC JOHNSON PETER C&SANDRA K JW VENTURES LLC 540 W MADISON ST 51 OVERLOOK DR PO BOX 8769 CHICAGO, IL 60661 ASPEN,CO 81611-1008 ASPEN,CO 81612 KATIE REED BUILDING LLC KELLY GARY MEEKER RICHARD J AND ALLISON D 418 E COOPER AVE PO BOX 12356 0752 MEADOWOOD DR ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 MILL STREET PLAZA ASSOC LLC MINERS REAL ESTATE LLC MONARCH ASPEN LLC 50% C/O M&W PROPERTIES PO BOX 1365 PO BOX 1247 205 S MILL ST#301A ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 MONARCH BUILDING LLC MORRONGIELLO LYDIA A MOTHER LODE INVESTORS LLC PARAGON RANCH INC PO BOX 126 18 SCHOOL LN WOODY CREEK,CO 81656 LLOYD HARBOR, NY 11743 GRE SOUTH FIDDLERGREEN CIR 'S REEWOOD VILLAGE,CO 80111 NORTH&SOUTH ASPEN LLC NUNN RONALD E&SHIRLEY A OBRIEN MAUREEN 200 S ASPEN ST 741 SUNSET RD 1370 MAIN ST ASPEN,CO 81611 BRENTWOOD,CA 94513 CARBONDALE,CO 81623 ORR ROBERT L PARK CENTRAL CONDO ASSOC PEARCE FAMILY TRUST 500 PATTERSON RD 215 S MONARCH ST STE 203 216 E MAIN ST GRAND JUNCTION,CO 81506 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 RACZAK JOSEPH S&JANET L SEDOY MICHAEL 35% SEGUIN WILLIAM L 0234 LIGHT HILL RD 35 SUTTON PL#1913 PO BOX 4274 SNOWMASS,CO 81654 NEW YORK, NY 10022 ASPEN,CO 81612 SHVACHKO NATALIA 65% SSM LAND AQUISITION CO LLC TRUE JAMES R 35 SUTTON PL#19B 2121 KIRBY DR#99 PO BOX 2864 NEW YORK,NY 10022 HOUSTON,TX 77019 ASPEN,CO 81612 Etiquettes fadles a peter ; A Repliez a la hachure afin de ; vwwv averytom i itmmv io.,�t,�r�+ev�av®cun0 i Sens de - rbvalar 1P rehord Pon-uoMr ! 1-800-GO=AVERY Easy PeelU Labels i A E Bend along line to a AVERY® 51600 Use Avery@ Template 5160® Feed Paper - expose Pop-up EdgeTm WELLS FARGO BANK WHITMAN WENDALIN WHITMAN WENDALIN C/O THOMSON PROPERTY TAX 210 E HYMAN AVE#101 PO BOX 472 SERVICES ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 PO BOX 2609 CARLSBAD,CA 92018 YOUNG BARBARA A 210 E HYMAN AVE#9 ASPEN,CO 81611 Etiquettes fiaales a paler ® Sens de Repliez a la hachure afin de ; www.averycom I I#11ica7 la naharit AVFRV®5'IF(1® -------- rwMer le rebord Poo-unMc ! 1-800-GO-AVERY AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060'(E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: ` 02-- '}zD kt;nS 2LO_ ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: I�Ieo� j�'cb 8 P S'-Dopv� ,201 -,7 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 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 posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the_day of , 20_,to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty(60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the o-wners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (Continued on next page) J- 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. VSignature The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this 2a day of�1c�-rte , 2012, by ��,-�c, Sc o-►-e-�-� PUBLIC NOTICE AL M{{1�1OR DEVPELOPMENTUCO CEPTUAL I. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW,ON-SITE REL{OCATION, SPECIAL REVIEW AND MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE REVIEW V NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing M> commission ex f will be held on Wednesday,February 8,2012,at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m.before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission,in Council Chambers,City Hall,130 S.Galena St.,Aspen. JA HPC will consider an application submitted by Hill- stone Restaurant Group, ' S. Notary Beverly Drive, Nary ic Publ Beverly Hills,CA 90212,310-385-0333,authorized ar Public. by the property owner,MJS Properties,LLC,and - affecting the property located at 302 E.Hopkins Avenue,Lot K,Block 80,City and Townsite of As- pen,PID#2737-073-29-005. The applicant pro- poses to convert the property to restaurant use. The plan includes demolition of a non-historic addi- tion at the back of the existing Victorian house andI . replacement with a new one story addition. An ex- F -- isting outbuilding is to be relocated along the alley, _ towards the west. Special Review is requested to te parking. The application includes a nd - reduce the on-site utility/trashservice area and ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: - on-si quest to find that the proposed development does 7 r not intrude into a Mountain View Plane. For fur- JBLICA'1 ION ther information,contact Amy Guthrie at the City of Aspen Community Department,SApen,COn(970429-275IF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) amv guthriersci aspen co.us. s/Ann Mullins WceChan IJNERS AND GOVERNMENT AGENGIES NOTIED Aspen Historic Preservation Commission f Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on January 19, 2 [7457721] CTICICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE Published �� S REAS REA QUIRED BY C.R.S.,§24-65.5-103.3 1 � 302 EAST HOPK INS � CONCEPTUAL HPC DEVELOPMENT I PLAN APPLICATION i 1 1 I rAN APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL 1 FOR 302 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE r .r Submitted by: Hillstone Restaurant Group 147 South Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 (310) 385-0333 r r December 28, 2011 r, 1 Prepared by: VANN ASSOCIATES, LLC Planning Consultants P.O. Box 4827 Basalt, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-6958 PROJECT CONSULTANTS PLANNER SURVEYOR Sunny Vann, AICP Mark S. Beckler L.S. #27997 Vann Associates, LLC Sopris Engineering, LLC P.O. Box 4827 502 Main Street, Suite A3 Basalt, CO 81621 Carbondale, CO 81623 (970) 925-6958 (970) 928-9708 ARCHITECT CIVIL ENGINEER Matthias Lenz Jay Hammond, P.E. Hillstone Restaurant Group Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. 147 South Beverly Drive 118 West 6th. Street, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (310) 385-0333 (970) 945-1004 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 rII. PROJECT SITE 2 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 7 IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS 22 A. Conceptual Development Plan 22 B. Relocation of Designated Properties 31 C. Growth Management 32 D. Special Review 34 E. Mountain View Plane Review 37 F. , Commercial Design Review 38 APPENDIX A. Exhibit 1 , Pre-Application Conference Summary Exhibit 2, Consent to Application Exhibit 3, Title Insurance Policy Exhibit 4, Permission to Represent i Exhibit 5, Land Use Application Form Exhibit 6, Dimensional Requirements Form Exhibit 7, Application Fee Agreement H TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page APPENDIX rExhibit 8, List of Adjacent Property Owners B. Exhibit 1 , City Council Ordinance No. 161. Series of 1984 Exhibit 2, HPC Resolution No. 19, Series of 2001 Exhibit 3, Growth Management Commission Resolution No. 3, Series of 2001 Exhibit 4, Existing Floor Area and Net Leasable/ Net Livable Area Calculations Exhibit 5, Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. Engineering Report C. Exhibit 1 , Glenwood Structural and Civil, Inc. Shed Relocation Letter rExhibit 2, Sopris Engineering Main Street View Plane Analysis M I. INTRODUCTION The following application requests Historic Preservation Commission ("HPC") conceptual development plan approval for the construction of a commercial addition to the existing structure located at 302 East Hopkins Avenue in the City of Aspen (see Pre- Application Conference Summary, Exhibit 1, Appendix A, attached hereto). The existing structure is to be converted to a restaurant. The proposed addition will contain the restaurant's kitchen and back of house facilities. The application also requests HPC approval to relocate a designated outbuilding within property; an administrative growth management quota system ("GMQS") allotment; and special review, mountain view plan review, and commercial design review approval. The HPC is responsible for all required reviews and approvals with the exception of the administrative GMQS allotment. An application for HPC final develop- ment plan approval will be submitted following the receipt of the above approvals. The application is submitted pursuant to Sections 26.415.070, 26.415.090, 26.470.060, 26.575.060, 26.515.030, 26.435.050 and 26.412.020 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations (the "Regulations") by the Hillstone Restaurant Group (hereinafter "Applicant"), the prospective purchaser of the property. Permission for the Applicant to submit this application has been obtained from the property's current owner, MJS Properties, LLC and Brooke A. Peterson (see Consent to Application and Title Insurance Policy, Exhibits 2 and 3, Appendix A, respectively). Permission for Vann Associates, LLC, Planning Consultants, to represent the Applicant is attached as Exhibit 4, Appendix A. A land use application form, dimensional requirements form, application fee agreement, and a list of property owners located within three hundred feet of the project site are attached as Exhibits 5, 6, 7 and 8, respectively. � 1 The application is divided into four sections. Section I provides a brief introduction to the application while Section II describes the project site. Section III of the application outlines the Applicant's development proposal while Section IV addresses the proposal's compliance with the applicable review criteria of the Regulations. For the reviewer's convenience, all pertinent documents relating to the project (e.g., prior approvals, engineering report, etc.) are provided in the appendices to the application. While the application is intended to address all relevant provisions of the Regula- tions, and to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the proposed development, questions may arise which require further information and/or clarification. The Applicant will provide such additional information as may be required in the course of the application's review. 11. PROJECT SITE The project site is legally described as Lot K, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen. As the Improvement Location Survey on the following page illustrates, Lot K is located at the northeast corner of East Hopkins Avenue and South Monarch Street. The property contains 3,016 square feet of "Lot Area" and is zoned CC, Commercial Core. Man-made improvements to the property consist of a modest one-story frame structure with a partial basement; a small detached shed; and a paved parking area which is located adjacent to the alley at the rear of the site. A decorative metal fence, a portion of which encroaches slightly into the adjacent Monarch Street right-of-way, surrounds the structure on its south and west sides. Existing vegetation is limited to a grass lawn and various ornamental shrubs and bushes. The property Yis located within the City's Commercial Core Historic Overlay District, and was listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and 2 1 aa� a is as a� as a� a �a a� a as a� as as r a a a IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT OF: 302 E. HOPKINS LOT K,BLOCK 80,CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN SECTION 12,TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH,RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th P.M. CITY OF ASPEN,COUNTY OF PITKIN,STATE OF COLORADO I L SHEET S OF 1 ` C 4 A C D E f GRAPHIC SCALE E "-r•3fr` IpQI LEGEND O GASIx rHTl 4 N SSS O I NR m LT[lEPxONF Pf0f5TN e - ✓.CNlivi o RCN��MPNR � .uF.mm•s�NNR�., ,uvL...e F+rRnr.ul � ____ —e—e— Wltt C AMPPPrKIrAwMNNMNv Y SETNAGMM NvI w/AWMINUM NSG L3.M6f) � rWNn MGNnMBR,MRNTNN - N7'09'11"W, v 30.6'� PROPERTY DESCRIPTION R L M N gB 0 P D A 3 LOT K,BLOCK NO F-717- MVN CITY OF ASPEN,COUNTV01%TKIN,STATE OFCOIOPA- Z � K 3,016 SQ.FT,+/- L 0.01 9AC yrPl'' o,.w.�o."eF.r»e uwna.m lnm.w.a..... gnaw."aw.�n.rF NOTES N 1)DATEOFFIELDWORIL AUGUSTI-3ANOSEPTEMSER12,2011. 2)DATEOFPREPARATION:AUGUST-SEPTEMBER,2011. 3)M&SOFBEARING:ABFARINGOFNIA'SOA9-EFROMTHESOU WESTCORNEROFLOTO,BLO W,MONUMEMEDBYA F NOMAGENETICNML&KUMINUMDISKLS.259E7MOTHESOUMWESTCORNMOFWDLOTO.AL50 MONUMENTEDBY AFOUND MAGENEE NAIL A ALUMINUM DISK L5.25917.AS SHOWN ON THE CONTROL MAP HEREON. AI BASLSOFSURVEY:THE%ATOF3l18E HOPKIN55UBgW90NRECOROEDNOVEMBER8,2007ASMaKIONNO.93921, THE CONDOMINIUM MAP Of THE SEGUIN BUILDING RECORDED MAYA,1983 M RECEPOON NO.24990A,THE 19590FFIOAL MAP OF THE OTY OF ASPEN PREPARED BY G.E.BUCHANAN,TNF CRY OF ASPEN GPS CONTROL MONUMENTATION 2009 MAP Q PREPARED BY MARON ENGINEERING,VARIOUS DOCUMENTS OF RECORD,AND THE FOUND MONUMENTS,ASSHOWN, 51 THISSURVEYDOESNOTCONSFRUTEATITLESEARCHBYSOPMSENGINEERING,LLCrA)TDMnRMINEOWNEBSHIPOR wAvr...Pnwno EASEMENTS OF RECORO.POR ALL INFORMATION REGARDING EASEMENTS,RIGHTS OF WAY AND/OR TRUE OF RECORD,SE RELIED UPON THE ABOVE SAID PLATS DESCRIBED IN NOTE 4 ANDTHE TTTLF REPORT PREPARED BY PITKIN COUNTY TIRE.INC AS CASE NO.PCT23129W WITH AN EFFECNVE DATE OF MARCH 21,2031. '1 61 THE UNEAR UNIT USED IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS RAT IS THE U.S.SURVEY FOOT AS DEFINED BY THE UNITED STATES �." DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY. s.r .r. x9 SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT I,MARK S.BECMER,HEREBY CERTIFY TO M9 PROPERTIES LLC ACOLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY BROOKE A PETEIDON, S' PE .16 AND PITKIN COUNTY TITLE,INC. p N'PA THAT THIS IS AN'IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PIAT"AS DEFINED BY CRS.138-51-102(9)AND THAT R 15 A MONUMENTED LAND SURVEY SHOWING THE LOCATION OF ALL SETBACKS.STRUCTURES.VISIBLE UTILITIES.FENCES,HEDGES.09 WALLS"no ON _ O THE OESCAIBED PARCELMID WTIIN FIVE FEET OF ALL BOUNDARIES OF SUCH PAPPa I,ANY CONFUCTING BOUNOMY EWOENCE OR VISIBLE ENOLOACHMENTS,VISIBLE UTIUTIE5 AND ALL DEPIRAINE FASEMENTS DESCNSED IN PITKIN COUNTY TYLE,INC-S, COM MFTMENT MR TITLE INSURANCE CASE NO.PCT23129P,OR OTHER SOURCES AS SPEONED ON THE IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PIAT. N.P SOPRIS ENGINEERING-LLC LIVILLUNbUL ANTS MARK S BECKIER LS.K286A3 502 MAIN STREET,SONE A3 m' CARBON DALE,COLORADO 81623 ""'"' (970)704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM Structures pursuant to City Council Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1985 (see Exhibit 1, Appendix B). The one-story structure, which is commonly referred to as the A.G. Sheppard house, is believed to have been built in 1883 as a miner's cottage, and is one of the oldest remaining buildings in the Aspen Townsite. According to the City's Historic Preservation Officer, the existing structure is the only example of a "Carpenter Gothic" building in Aspen, which is defined by the steeply pitched roof and decorative trim on the front of the building. The existing shed is also believed to be historic given its scale, design and location. A 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance map depicts an outbuilding of similar size and location on the property. Contractors who have previously worked on the shed, however, have commented that some reconstruction may have occurred in the building's past. In 1991, the Community Development Department ("COMDEV") approved a GMQS exemption which permitted the conversion of the ground floor of the A.G. Sheppard house from residential to commercial use. The structure's basement was retained as a free market residence and reconfigured as a studio unit. In connection therewith, the HPC granted minor development review approval to replace an existing window in the structure's basement and to construct a lightwell adjacent thereto. A second GMQS exemption was granted by COMDEV in 1992 which permitted the conversion of the existing shed to commercial use. The HPC subsequently granted approval for the installation of windows and a skylight in the shed to facilitate its use for commercial purposes. In 2001, the HPC granted approval for a substantial addition to the A.G. 1 Sheppard house (see Resolution No. 19, Exhibit 2, Appendix B). The addition, which was located adjacent to the alley at the rear of the property, contained new commercial 1 4 space in its basement and on its ground floor, and a free market residential unit on a second floor. The new residential unit replaced the existing structure's basement free market unit which was to be converted to a deed restricted affordable housing unit. A commercial GMQS exemption was approved by the then Joint Growth Management Commission for the project's new commercial space (see Resolution No. 3, Exhibit 2, Appendix B). The HPC also approved the removal of a non-historic addition to the existing structure; the relocation of the shed within the property; a reduction in the project's required on-site utility/trash storage area; and waived the project's parking requirement. The project, however, was never undertaken and its vested rights have since expired. Both the A.G. Sheppard house's ground floor and the shed are presently utilized by the property's current owner for office purposes as approved in 1991 and 1992. The structure's basement continues to be utilized as a free market residential unit. The existing A.G. Sheppard house and shed contain a total floor area of 1,326 square feet including the applicable portion of the structure's basement (see Existing Floor Area and Existing Net Leasable/Net Livable Area Calculations, Exhibit 4, Appendix B). The property's existing commercial net leasable area totals 1,080 square feet including the shed. The existing basement free market residential unit contains 401 square feet of net livable area. Please note that the property's existing floor area, net leasable area, and net livable area have been calculated pursuant to City Council Ordinance 27, Series of 2010, which amended Section 26.575.020, Calculations and Measurements, of the Regulations. The property's current office use is a legally created, pre-existing non-conforming use as such uses are no longer allowed on the ground floor in the CC, Commercial Core zone district unless located a minimum of 40 feet from the street and recessed behind the r5 front-most street-facing facade. Similarly, the existing free market residential unit is a pre-existing, non-conforming use as residential uses are no longer allowed within basements within the Commercial Core zone district. Such uses, however, are permitted 1 to continue subject to certain limitations. Normal maintenance is allowed but extension or expansion of the uses is prohibited. No expansion of the property's existing non- conforming uses is proposed in connection with this application. Existing development in the immediate site area includes the Katie Reed Plaza and Mill Street Plaza mixed-use buildings, which are located on the south side of Hopkins Avenue across from the project site; Francis Whitaker Park, which is located at the southwest corner of Hopkins Avenue and Monarch Street; the Mountain Forge office building, which is located at the northwest corner of Hopkins and Monarch; and the Matsuhisa mixed-use building, which is located across the alley at the rear of the property. An additional commercial structure housing the Aspen Brewing Company and the Elevations restaurant is located adjacent to and immediately east of the project site. i The character of the immediate site area can generally be described as a vibrant mixed- use neighborhood containing a variety of retail, restaurant, office and residential land uses. The project site is presently served by all major utilities. As the attached engineering report from Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc., Consulting Engineers, indicates, (see Exhibit 5, Appendix B), an eight inch sanitary sewer is located in the alley at the rear of the property. Six inch and twelve inch water mains are located in Hopkins Avenue and Monarch Street, respectively. Electric, telephone, cable TV and natural gas service is readily available as evidenced by an electric transformer located at the rear of the neighboring Ute City building, various telephone and cable TV service boxes attached to the rear of the existing one-story structure, and a natural gas meter which is located 6 in the alley at the rear of the existing shed. An existing fire hydrant is conveniently located at the northwest corner of Monarch Street and Hopkins Avenue. The project site lies within the City's Main Street View Plane, a designated Environmentally Sensitive Area. The view plane, however, intersects the site's rear property line at an elevation that does not impact or otherwise limit the height of the proposed development. The view plane and its relationship to the project site is discussed in detail in Section IV.E. of this application. Ill. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The existing structures at 302 East Hopkins Avenue are a beautiful example of Gothic revival architecture which significantly contribute to the histo and character of g Y history Aspen. The Applicant's development proposal seeks to preserve the essential character of the structures while adding a low profile addition to permit the use of the A.G. Sheppard house as a restaurant. The Hillstone Restaurant Group is a family owned company dedicated to operating dining establishments in premier locations. The company ethos combines a sensitivity to place, architecture and design, hospitality, and cuisine which are both approachable and gracious. The Applicant has an established track record of bringing restaurants to communities which have a strong sense of history and preservation, among them East Hampton, New York and Palm Beach, Florida. The Hillstone Restaurant Group is fortunate to have earned the respect and patronage of its guests in these unique and special communities. To accommodate the conversion of the A.G. Sheppard house to restaurant use, the Applicant proposes to remove the non-historic addition at the rear of the structure, relocate the existing shed within the property, and construct a new addition at the rear of the property and adjacent to the alley. Both the removal of the non-historic addition 7 rand the relocation of the shed were previously approved by the HPC in connection with their review of the 2001 application to expand the property's commercial and residential use. While the 2001 approval's vested rights have since expired, these two components of the current development proposal are consistent with the HPC's prior consideration of the property's development potential. The Applicant's project, however, deviates ' from the prior approval in that significantly less overall development is proposed and a ' one-story as opposed to a two-story addition is planned for the existing structure. As the Proposed Site Plan and Floor Plans on the following pages illustrate, the existing shed will be moved forward from its current position to the street facing northwest corner of the property. While the proposed addition will occupy the space between the shed and the A.G. Sheppard house, the shed's presence at the corner of the property and adjacent to Monarch Street acknowledges its original function as an outlying building or ancillary structure. To preserve its appearance and historic context, the shed will remain completely detached from the proposed addition. The shed will be repurposed as an enclosed stairway which will provide access to a new partial basement to be constructed beneath the addition and to the existing basement dwelling unit which is to be retained as a free market residence. Changes to the former A.G. Sheppard house will be limited to the removal of the non-historic addition and the reconfiguration of its interior to accommodate its rproposed restaurant use. The reconfigured space will contain an exhibition cooking area, a small bar, and seating for approximately fifty-one patrons. No changes to the exterior of the structure are proposed. An exhaust fan, however, will be required on the ' structure's roof to service the restaurant's exhibition cooking feature. The fan has been located on the structure's lower roof and set back from the street as far as the International Building Code will allow to minimize its visibility. The structure's pitched 1 8 ---------------- _ -- _ _. : . 1 P I $`� � work—in II I 1 1 I II I I I O 11 I 11 I 11 I 1 1 Bor Z� 0 i`` 1 I / I I 11 CooLiine Bar O ❑❑ 00 00 II O i ON wl / / V OSGPEMM MONARCH STREET PAS j 1 Proposed Site Plan with Public Amenity Space 'N PUBLIC AMENITY SPACE Scale "=1'-0" TOTAL PAS "0 S.F. TOTAL SITE AREA 3016 S F 27.6%TO BE LEFT UNDEVELOPED H I L LS TO N E Proposed Site Plan with Public Amenity Space Sheppard House 302 E.Hopkins Avenue,Aspen . Conceptual HPCSubmission 12.23.2011 Utility meters b i �6•o€ o l tl___il it ___i 1121 n.II ._.-•4 wet. O1 Be, O O ❑ x YO 2 .I O II(I1II1'��--�'I(IIIII I" ' Recyl�B I I y 1. cling 10 bins P[MCH I 9 8 6 �. RAMP I U-1111LE, 0 ON I', stab to bo:ement I 1 Proposed Ground Level Plan 'N Scale i"=P-0" r-------------------------- .,,z Or. _m.. i :.a I ---- -- y I t IE)Boln 1' K x,4 I..::.AS'.5...lSt..::'?:� L.S:+r^. " (E)Gawl SPoce 'R•i 43'5112^ e, . 1 r tx�u3 �._. (E)Reedenlel Unit (E)Men d R o, �e � I I I WINDOW WELL ery+ (E)MecM1ankd Ill' Rle,... t Btmege x3� ? 1 2 Proposed Basement Level Plan /N Scale i"=1'-0" HI L LS TO N E Proposed Floor Plans Sheppard House 302 E.Hopkins Avenue,Aspen Conceptual HPC Submission 12.23.2011 addition's massing will further help to reduce its visual impact. A ramp will also have to be installed from the Hopkins Avenue sidewalk to the structure's existing front porch to comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and to permit direct access to the restaurant's front door. ' The proposed addition, which will contain the restaurant's restrooms, kitchen and food storage areas, has been setback from both the A.G. Sheppard house and the relocated shed. As the building Elevation, Section and Perspectives on the following pages illustrate, the addition consists of a contemporary structure with minimal detailing. ' Its modern character has been accentuated to underscore the contrast of building styles and eras. On a small site, this contrast foregrounds the presence of the historic A.G. Sheppard house and identifies the addition as a "support structure". Building materials distinctly different from those of the existing structures will be utilized for the addition. Brick is proposed as it is both contextual to Aspen and suggestive of quality construction and solidity. A large street facing window has been incorporated in the addition's Monarch Street facade to soften its exterior appearance, provide passerbys with a view into the kitchen, and enliven the adjacent streetscape. The connection between the proposed addition and the A. G. Sheppard house has been setback from both the street and the existing structure to enhance its transparency and to accentuate the presence of its rear corner. A glass door will provide access to the ' connection from Monarch Street, and will further help to reduce the visual impact of the addition on the historic structure. The roof lines of the proposed addition have also been ' varied in height to impart a more modest scale. Required mechanical equipment will be located behind the addition's roof parapet which has been sized to insure the equipment's invisibility from the streetscape. Please note that the maximum height of the proposed one-story addition is 20.5 feet measured to the top of its parapet. This height is lower ' 11 rr rr� sr r r r r rr �r rr �r rr r r �r rr r r r Too of ParaPet+17'-6" Roof Structure+l2-0 --� Mechanlcal SP.-+11 0 L Kitchen Celina+8'-6 Finished Floor+/-0.00 O - v .. �' +'t'.1 tY y.:�. ''.x. ,2M `•L$h r1 1;>�`" :,:,.:. T w�,f t ..^'x �,t ..r-',. :w.A,zksc+ ,.a y'� .:ry; xF.. Le ",a�.fS ku •-;.-.': fit : , t+,{,�`D`�` .f._i, � �,44 %>Sr �, vs1 ;;;5'�y+�a,�ri �..w�`_rtiF-�,r'y!',.aw � 3 is._.a;�.�.���� .._e,��^�� .:�°�,�:��Tt.:. ;.+2 �a>A L<3s......����� �. " r ... ` ss �,� q- ?S�"k'•�t& �..�..;�, 1 West Elevation Scale$"=1'-0" Top of Poronel+17'-6" 9 H Root Structure+12'-0" § E Mechanlcal Soo<e+11'-0" Kitchen ceiling+8'-6" (N)Kitchen D-,Room ni n(E)-.dFinished Floor+/-0.00 ':y{ FT I II F Basement B...—nl-11'-4" 2 Section scale J"=1'-0" HI L LS TO N E Elevation And Section Sheppard House 302 E.Hopkins Avenue,Aspen Conceptual HPC Submission 12.23.2011 _•,ter ;alp_. ,,.. .,- .•• ;- ��_�. - ��)��� I„1=11�1��11 Reference for addition: Reference for addition: Re rence for connector between new and old Reference for proposed brick co(or Basic materials brick,glass and steel window casing Simple modern box with well proportioned openings � �:� � / • • � i _�1■ �.S _�I SLS M;�rcrar'-a lookingPerspective view �� �, ... ram •-1 � I � Ili �:�- 'U r,IIS ii � ��� '�■I ■ I III ��i 'U ' �ll' �II �u ■ _ - - �',►I: u;� 11�� SII � I - �s- �I ��;" ii�;'.!��:�q' �I�;,�:a,A�^�; _ �'ll.l�i�j,-1, � Gi■�"i-���,�� I Illi ._ ,� ��:i�,�1�IGllKlfili�j��j�����°►e.! Illn�, �-����?�I'��i,�'�I'� , I - __ = _a."`= �. : �i/'�' n�IDUiiihUL1411\tlhlllJ�p � Perspectiye viewfrom • of HILLST• • • 1 •• Conceptual • • 12.23.2011 ' than the existing A.G. Sheppard house. The height of the required utility/trash/recycling enclosure at the rear of the addition has also been lowered to reduce the addition's impact on the adjacent relocated shed. ' AP artial basement will be constructed beneath the proposed addition. As noted previously, the basement will be accessed via a stairway to be constructed within the relocated shed. The basement will contain an additional storage area for the restaurant and provide access to the existing free market residential unit located beneath the A. G. Sheppard house. No changes are .proposed to the existing A.G. Sheppard house's ' basement and its residential unit other than the reconfiguration of its access. An enclosed utility/trash/recycle area measuring approximately 10.5 feet wide by 7.5 feet deep will be provided adjacent to the alley at the rear of the proposed addition. While smaller than typically required in the Commercial Core zone district, it is adequate to accommodate a four cubic yard dumpster, various recycle bins, and the project's utility meters and pedestals. As discussed in Schmueser Gordon Meyer's engineering report, a new electric transformer will not be required to serve the proposed develop- ment. As a result additional space need not be provided within the service area for transformer purposes. As noted previously, a reduction in the size of the required utility/trash/recycle service area was approved by the HPC in connection with its review of the 2001 development proposal for the property. A similar reduction is requested by the Applicant to accommodate the proposed development, and is addressed in Section ' IV.D. of this application. As the Proposed Site Plan illustrates, approximately 830 square feet of Public Amenity Space will be provided which exceeds the minimum required in the underlying zone district. This space will consist primarily of the existing landscaped areas abutting the south and west facades of the A.G. Sheppard house. As currently envisioned, the 14 landscaped area abutting the west facade and fronting on Monarch Street will be used for seasonal outdoor dining. As the area takeoffs on the following pages illustrate, the remodeled A.G. ' Sheppard house and its proposed addition will contain a total floor area of 2,080 square feet, the majority of which is located on the ground level. The majority of the structure's expanded basement is exempt from the calculation of floor area as it is located entirely below grade. A small portion of the basement's commercial, residential and non-unit space, however, counts as floor area. Please note that the basement's non-unit , s acewhich provides access to both the structure's commercial and residential uses, has P ' been allocated as provided for in Section 26.575.020.D.14. of the Regulations. As a result, the structure's commercial and residential floor areas total 2,028 and 52 square feet, respectively. The structure's net leasable commercial area totals 1,786 square feet, inclusive of the addition's basement storage area. The existing basement free market ' residential unit's net livable area will remain unchanged at 401 square feet. The project site currently contains one conforming off-street parking space which must be removed to accommodate the proposed addition. One parking space per 1,000 w net leasable commercial area is square feet of new required in the Commercial Core zone district, which may be provided via a cash-in-lieu payment. Based on this requirement, the proposed development's additional commercial net leasable area will require 0.7 off- 1 street parking spaces calculated as follows. ' 1,786 Sq. Ft. Proposed Area - 1,080 Sq. Ft. Existing Area = 706 Sq. Ft. 706 Sq. Ft. _ 1,000 Sq. Ft. = 0.7 Spaces r Pursuant to Section 26.515.030 of the Regulations, fewer spaces may be provided and/or a waiver of the cash-in-lieu fee may be approved via special review. As no on-site 15 rr rr r r r r r r r r r r rr rr rr r rr rr r ----------------------------------------------------- to roAa e-a d L DN Stir to b...m t COMMERCIAL 1 Proposed Ground Level Floor Area Calculation RESIDENTIAL Scale ,1.0 'N NON-UNIT PROPOSED FLOOR AREA -------------------------- ------------- ––—––— DECKS O S.F. ) ; y ♦_ _z��.7s�s �, s �T � GROUND LEVEL 1941 S.F. i © COMMERCIAL 1941 S.F. Ef ttQ b SHED COUNTED ON LOWER LEVEL j j t LOWER LEVEL (SEE NOTE BELOW) 139 S.F I ° E)"°"' COMMERCIAL 52 S.F. I RESIDENTIAL 51 S.F. :':' '.': % t N t •jEj wn)oenrpunit, / p I NON-UNIT 36 S.F. . . . .. . . ... . . j ja; 1 TOTAL FLOOR AREA 2080 S.F. t t I LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA I / ) 1302 GROSS S.F.FLOOR PLATE X 10.7%WALL EXPOSED I / =139.3 S.F.FAR COUNTING r t vnNoowwEu /.., � t REFER TO PROPOSED PERIMTER WALL CALCULATION SHEET -------------------- -_ -----J 2 Proposed Basement Level Floor Area Calculation AtA Scale}"=1'-0" HI L L S TO N E Proposed Floor Area Calculation Sheppard House 302 E.Hopkins Avenue,Aspen „ Conceptual HPC Submission 12.23.2011 s ■� rs � � � rte= �� � � � s� � � �■ �■ � � � i I I, O i5 9 I I Y' �I I� 1 Location Plan of Proposed Lower Level Perimeter Walls Scale 1-0" BELOW GRADE e�A Lower Level Floor plate=1300 s.f. Lower Level Floor Area Calculation 1793.56 s.f.buried 12008.45 s.f.total wall perimeter=89.3%buried WALL O WALL O WALL O WALL O WALL O 100%-89.3%buried=10.7%exposed m 1302 s.f.x.107=139.1 s.f.Floor area counting mEXTERIOR WALL AREA MSEME14T LEVEL WALLDESIG. WALL AREA(M) BURIEDWALLAREA(s.0 WALL 1 101.39 88.28 WALL O WALL O WALL O WALL O WALL ^ WALL 2 6.13 5.23 .m 0 WALL 3 165.01 151.09 WALL 4 157.58 157.58 WALL 5 77.50 73.12 WALL 6 54.25 48.05 WALL 7 264.79 180.40 WALL 8 35.84 30.59 WALL 9 1 75.88 75.88 WALL 10 127.87 127.88 WALL 11 345.25 345.25 WALL 12 144.81 114.93 WALL „ WALL O WALL WALL O WALL O 'WALL 13 358.28 301.41 0 WALL 14 86.38 88.38 2 Lower Level Proposed Perimeter Wall Elevation WALL 15 5.49 5.49 Scale J"=1'-0" TOTALS 2008.45 1793.56 H I L L S TO N E Proposed Lower Level Perimeter Walls Sheppard House 302 E.Hopkins Avenue,Aspen Submittal for HPC review 12.23.2011 r r OWMY MOMM as M *M. M "04M "OEM = M ------------------------ - - - ------ x.x s x x x x x n x:- .. x •• - }.H,• "6.;.#x bL..v [i. x&C4„"tS.S:s.S:Tdetr.,,^.exll..3;�'U .V.'�^"r5fl;'L«.fi "e+J T,fhy 0 fi o TIE env"e«,.:;x":eox xx xrx ❑❑ x xxrxr� x. x xxrxx �Ix: vx xx,rx xxxxxr�tr l xxxxxxxx � x. r (E)SheC x x�•x Ix x..r, x�YI%, xI!x � s I 1 rolo Rtea rrll x�� r. r v.Y x .�x , r PORCH RANG xr.x x VEST RUEE xrxxx x w......... DN rr x q ntobo :xxxx.xxxxxxx rxxx:xrxxx xrxxx xxxx I 1 Proposed Ground Level Net Leasable Plan /N Scale J"=1'-0" PATTERN KEY Net Leasable ---------------------- — — — — — ----- I Rn Net Livable1 (E) Proposed Net Livable Lower Level 401 s.f, i g` (E)Mx—I R ' (E)Re�bmtlR•UMI Total Net livable 401 s.f. I � •, ,,,•;•,.,. ,. ,...., s I Proposed Net Leasable a . . Ground Floor 1629 s.f. 1 i UPI Basement 157 s.f. I T I; W"I Tota Net Leasab a 1786 s.. I _ _ Y xxxv xvxv. xxxxr ,x,:x �`' xxx r-r-y } I liP ..P Wray �' sSW99x 2 Proposed Basement Level Net Livable Plant4 Scale"=1'-0" / H I L LS TO N E Proposed Net Leasable and Net Livable Area Sheppard House 302 E.Hopkins Avenue,Aspen Conceptual HPC Submission 12.23.2011 1 1 parking is proposed, a waiver of the underlying zone district's parking requirement and the associated cash-in-lieu fee is requested by the Applicant. The applicable review criteria are addressed in Section IV.D. of this application. The proposed development complies with all of the dimensional requirements of the CC, Commercial Core, zone district except its on-site parking requirement. Its total cumulative floor area is substantially less than the maximum allowed as are its component commercial and residential floor areas. The proposed development's net leasable commercial area and net livable residential area are also well within the maximum allowed, and its net livable area is less than its commercial floor area. The new addition's height is substantially below the maximum allowed and the project site's pedestrian amenity space exceeds the zone district's minimum requirement. The project's development data and compliance with the applicable zone district requirements is summarized in Table 1, below. Table 1 Development Data Lot K, Block 80, Aspen Townsite 1. Existing Zoning CC, Commercial Core 2. Existing Lot Size (Sq. Ft.)' 3,016 3. Existing Lot Area for Density/Floor Area 3,016 Purposes (Sq. Ft.)2 4. Existing Development Office/Residential Floor Area (Sq. Ft.)3 1,326 Ground Floor 1,070 Basement 102 Shed 154 Net Leasable Area (Sq. Ft.)3 1,080 Ground Floor 949 Shed 131 `�' 19 i Net Livable Area (Sq. Ft.)' Basement 401 M5. Minimum Required Lot Size (Sq. Ft.) No Requirement 6. Minimum Required Lot Area/Dwelling Dwelling Unit (Sq. Ft.) No Requirement 7. Minimum Required Lot Width (Feet) No Requirement 8. Minimum Required Setbacks (Feet) Front Yard No Requirement Side Yards No Requirement Rear Yard' No Requirement 9. Maximum Allowable Height (Feet) 42 Two-Story Elements 28 o ry Three-Story Elements5 38 10. Maximum Proposed Height (Feet)6 20.5 11. Minimum Required Pedestrian Amenity Space jPercent 25 Area (Sq. Ft.) 754 12. Proposed Pedestrian Amenity Space Percent 27.6 Area (Sq. Ft.) 830 13. Maximum Allowable Cumulative Floor 8,294 Area @ 2.75:1 (Sq. Ft.) Commercial Uses @ 2:1 6,032 Free Market Residential @ 0.5:1 1,508 14. Proposed Cumulative Floor Area (Sq. Ft.)' 2,080 Commercial Uses 2,028 Free Market Residential 52 20 1 15. Proposed Floor Area Ratio 0.69:1 16. Maximum Allowable Free Market Residential 2,000 Net Livable Area (Sq. Ft.) 17. Proposed Net Livable Area (Sq. Ft.) Free Market Residential Unit 401 18. Proposed Net Leasable Commercial 1,786 Area (Sq. Ft.) 19. Minimum Required Parkin Spaces q g P rCommercial Uses @ 1 Space/1,0008 1.7 Sq. Ft. Net Leasable Area Free Market Residential No Requirement 20. Proposed Parking None ' Per the Improvement Survey Plat prepared by Sopris Engineering, LLC dated August/September 2011. 2 No reduction in Lot Area required due to steep slopes, rights-of-way or surface_ easements. 3 Calculated pursuant to Ordinance No. 27, Series of 2010. 4 A trash/utility/recycle service area is required abutting the alley pursuant to Section 26.575.060. 5 Maximum allowable height may be increased to 42 feet via Commercial Design Review. 6 Measured to the top of the proposed addition's parapet. No increase in the height of the A.G. Sheppard house or shed is proposed. The structure's non-unit space has been allocated to its commercial and residential components as provided for in Section 26.575.020.D.14. 8 Pursuant to Section 26.515.010.D., a fractional parking space requirement may be met via a cash-in-lieu payment or the provision of one on-site space. Includes the one existing parking space to be removed. 21 r, As discussed previously, all required utilities are available in the immediate site area and are either adequate or may be easily upgraded to serve the proposed develop- ment. All utility extensions will be located underground. Site grading will be limited to the excavation of the addition's partial basement. IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS The proposed development requires the receipt of HPC conceptual development plan approval; HPC approval to relocate the existing shed within the property; an administrative residential GMQS allotment; and special review, mountain view plane review, and commercial design review approval. Each of these review and approval requirements is addressed below. A. Conceptual Development Plan Pursuant to Section 26.415.060 of the Regulations, any development involving properties designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures and/or within the Commercial Core Historic Overlay District requires the approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness from the HPC before a building permit may be issued by the City. Pursuant to Section 26.415.070.D., a Certificate of Appropriateness for a major development such as that proposed by the Applicant requires the review and approval of both a conceptual and a final development plan for the property. The development plan review standards are contained in the City's Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines (the .� "Guidelines"). The Guidelines are organized to correspond to the two stages of HPC developments plan review, i.e., those applicable only to conceptual review followed by those to be addressed at final review. The conceptual review design guidelines, and the proposed development's compliance therewith, are summarized below. 22 i 1. Street Grid a) 6.1 Maintain the established town grid in all projects. ' The proposed development retains the City's established street and alley grid pattern. No changes to the established town grid are proposed. 2. Internal Walkways No public walkways through the property are proposed. The main entrance to the existing A.G. Sheppard house from Hopkins Avenue remains unchanged. A new entry to the proposed addition has been provided from Monarch Street for delivery and secondary exiting purposes and to create visual interest. 3. Alleys a) 6.3 Develop an alley facade to create visual interest. The proposed addition's alley facade has been lowered to reduce the visual impact of the addition on the relocated shed. The shed has been relocated to the northwest corner of the property which will provide additional visual interest to the Monarch Street streetscape. 4. Parking a) 6.4 Structured parking should be placed within a "wrap" of commercial and/or residential uses. The proposed development contains no on-site parking. b) 6.5 Structured parking access should not have a negative impact on the character of the street. ' TheP roposed development contains no on-site parking. 23 5. Street Facing Amenity Space a) 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 No significant changes to the project site's existing public amenity space are proposed. This space consists primarily of the existing A.G. Sheppard house's front and side yards which are located adjacent to Hopkins Avenue and Monarch Street, respectively. Both of these areas meet all of the above requirements. As presently envisioned, the Monarch Street space will be used for seasonal outdoor dining which will enliven the streetscape and enhance the vitality of the surrounding neighborhood. b) 6.7 A street facing public amenity space shall remain subordinate to the line of building fronts in the Commercial ' Core. As no significant changes are proposed to the existing historic resource and its adjacent street facing public amenity space, this guideline is not applicable to the proposed development. c) 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 majority of the project site's existing public amenity space is enclosed within a decorative wrought iron fence which reflects the A.G. Sheppard 24 house's former use as a private residence. As noted above, the Monarch Street space will be used for outdoor dining, and will contain tables, chairs and umbrellas. Minor - modifications to the existing fence may be required to permit public access to the space. 6. Mid-Block Walkway Amenity Space a) 6.9 Mid-block walkways shall remain subordinate in scale to traditional lot widths. b) 6.10 A mid-block walkway should provide public access to the following: • Additional commercial space and frontage within the walkway. • Uses located at the rear of the property. These guidelines are not applicable as the project site consists of a single Townsite lot. r7. Alley Side Amenity Space a) 6.11 An alley side amenity space shall be designed to have these characteristics: • Direct public access to commercial space at street or second floor levels. • Maximize solar access to the alley side amenity space. • Minimize the adverse impacts of adjacent service and parking areas. The proposed development's existing public amenity space exceeds the minimum required in the CC, Commercial Core, zone district. No additional public amenity space has. been provided at the rear of the property as the proposed addition abuts the alley right-of-way. Adequate public access to the proposed restaurant use will be provided directly from Hopkins Avenue. An additional access point for deliveries and secondary exiting will be provided from Monarch Street. 25 r 1 8. Second Level Amenity Space a) 6.12 Second level amenity space should be compati- ble with the character of the historic district. b) 6.13 A second floor amenity space should meet all of the following criteria: • Ensure consistent public access • Be dedicated for public use • Provide a public overlook and/or an interpretive marker • Be identified by a marker at street level ' c) 6.14 Second level space should be oriented to maxi- mize solar access and mountain views, or views of historic landmarks. d) 6.15 Second level space should provide public access by way of a visible and attractive public stair or elevator from a public street, alley or street level amenity space. These guidelines are not applicable. The proposed development is limited to one-story. 9. Front Yard Amenity Space r a) 6.16 Second level dining may be considered. Thero osed development is limited to one-story. P P 1? b) 6.17 Front and side yard amenity space should be considered in the context of a historic one story residential ' type building. The project site's existing front and side yard public amenity space will remain essentially unchanged and complies with this guideline. The Monarch Street side yard space will be used for outdoor dining. 26 10. Building Setbacks a) 6.18 Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk's edge. No changes to the existing A.G. Sheppard house's setbacks are proposed. The front facade of the relocated shed and the west side facade of the proposed addition, however, will abut the project site's Monarch Street property line and the adjacent sidewalk. The siting of the addition is similar to and consistent with that of the Matsuhisa commercial building addition located across the alley at the rear of the property. b) 6.19 A building may be setback from its side lot lines in accordance with design guidelines identified in Street & Circulation Pattern and Public Amenity Space Guidelines. No changes to the existing A.G. Sheppard house's side yard setbacks are proposed. The relocated shed and new residential structure, however, abut the project site's western property line. 11. Building Orientation a) 6.20 Orient a new building to be parallel to its. lot ' lines, similar to that of traditional building orientations. The relocated shed and proposed addition are located parallel to the project site's lot lines. b) 6.21 Orient a primary entrance toward the street. The A.G. Sheppard house's primary entrance faces Hopkins Avenue. A secondary entrance, which is located between the proposed addition and the rear of the existing structure, faces Monarch Street. 27 12. Building Form a) 6.22 Rectangular forms should be dominant on Commercial Core facades. The proposed addition consists of two simple rectangular solids with flat roofs of varying heights. Their proposed brick facades are predominantly flat with minimal steel casing details at the Monarch Street facade's rectangular window which will permit a view of the restaurant's kitchen from the adjacent streetscape. b) 6.23 Use flat roof lines as the dominant roof form. The proposed addition incorporates flat roofs of varying heights which provide visual interest, reduce the structure's perceived mass, and are reflective of its commercial use. 1 c) 6.24 Along a rear facade, using building forms that step down in scale toward the alley is encouraged. ' The height of the proposed addition steps down adjacent to the alley to reduce its visual impact and to better relate to the relocated shed. 13. Two Story Scale a) 6.25 Maintain the average perceived scale of two- story buildings at the sidewalk. The one-story A.G. Sheppard house abuts Hopkins Avenue and the majority of the property's Monarch Street frontage. The proposed addition is similar in height, albeit lower, than the existing structure. As noted previously, the height of the addition varies to reduce its perceived mass and visual impact on both the existing house and relocated shed. 28 14. Height Variation a) 6.26 Building height shall be varied from the facade height of adjacent buildings of the same number of stories. f the proposed addition varies from the height The height o p p of adjacent buildings. Existing development in the immediate site area consists of one, two and three-story structures. b) 6.27 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the Commercial Core. 1 The proposed addition reflects the range and variation in building height in the commercial core. c) 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 facade (or parapet) heights at the front. • Step down the rear of the building towards the alley, in conjunction with the other design standards and guidelines. Building heights are varied for the full depth of the project site. The proposed one-story addition incorporates varied roof heights which, as noted previously, step down at the alley. The height of the addition's connection to the A.G. ' Sheppard house is also significantly lower than the addition. 15. Height Variation for Larger Sites ' a) 6.29 On sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths, facade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. ' 29 b) 6.30 On sites comprising two or more traditional lots, a building shall be designed to reflect the individual parcels. These guidelines are not applicable. The project site consists of a single Townsite lot. 16. Height Adjacent to Historic Structures a) 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 proposed addition is lower than the historic A.G. Sheppard house. The connection between the addition and the house is also lower than both the house and the addition. The connection incorporates a glass entrance door to enhance its transparency and to help minimize the visual impact of the addition on the historic resource. b) 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 facade. ' This guideline is not applicable. The project site's existing one- story historic structure was originally constructed as a residence. The height of the proposed addition, however, is substantially less than 28 feet. C) 6.33 New development adjacent to a single story historic building that was originally constructed for residential use shall not exceed 28 feet in height within 30 feet of the side property line adjacent to the historic structure, within the ' same block face. As noted above, the height of the one-story addition is substantially less than 28 feet. 30 d) 6.34 The setting of iconic historic structures should be preserved and enhanced when feasible. Thisg uideline is not applicable. No iconic historic structures are ' located adjacent to the project site. B. Relocation of Designated Properties The proposed relocation of the existing shed is subject to the provisions of Section 26.415.090 of the Regulations, Relocation of Designated Properties. Pursuant to Section 26.415.090.0., relocation of a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards. 1 . It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not effect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship: or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties. ' The HPC approved the relocation of the existing shed to a location abutting Monarch Street in connection with its 2001 approval of a prior development application for the property. The City's Historic Preservation Officer determined, and the HPC concurred, that the relocated shed would maintain its prominence on the property and be enhanced by locating it closer to the street. As a result, the proposed relocation is believed to be an acceptable preservation method and will not adversely ' affect the integrity of the Historic District in which the shed is located. The proposed relocation of the shed, therefore, complies with standard number 4, above. 31 1 Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met. ' 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; As the attached letter from Glenwood Structural and Civil, Inc. indicates (see Exhibit 1, Appendix C), the existing shed is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation. 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and The existing shed is to be relocated on-site adjacent to Monarch Street. A similar relocation was previously determined to be acceptable by the HPC. Off-site storage, however, will be required during the construction of the proposed addition to prevent damage to the shed. 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. A plan for how the shed will be relocated and stored during construction will be submitted for review and approval by the Historic Preservation Officer prior to building permit submission. The required financial security, in an amount to be determined by the Applicant and Historic Preservation Officer, will be provided with the plan. ' C. Growth Management Pursuant to Section 26.470.060.4. of the Regulations, the enlargement of I� a property designated as a Historic Landmark for commercial, lodge or mixed-use development is subject to the review and approval of the Community Development 32 ' Director as an administrative growth management application provided the enlargement complies with certain criteria. The applicable review criteria, and the proposed development's compliance therewith, are summarized below. ' 1 . If the development increases either Floor Area or Net Leasable space/lodge units, but not both, then no employee mitigation shall be required. As Table I indicates, the proposed development will result in an ' increase in the property's cumulative floor area. The resulting floor area, however, is significantly less than the maximum allowed. The property's existing net leasable commercial area will also increase as discussed below. 2. If the development increases both Floor Area and Net Leasable space/lodge units, up to four (4) employees generated by the additional commer- cial/lodge shall not require the provision of affordable housing. An expansion generating more than four (4) employees shall not qualify for this administrative approval and shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.470.070.1. As noted above, the proposed development will result in an increase in both the property's cumulative floor area and in its net leasable commercial area. As Table 1 indicates, the property's existing net leasable areas totals 1,080 square feet. The proposed development's net leasable area totals 1,786 square feet, an increase of 706 square feet. Of this amount, 1,629 square feet will be located on the proposed ' restaurant's ground level while the remaining 157 square feet will be located in the basement to be constructed beneath the proposed addition. Based on the provisions of Section 26.470.100.A.1., the proposed development's additional net leasable square footage will generate 2.76 employees calculated as follows. Ground Level Employee Generation 1,629 Sq. Ft. - 1,080 Sq. Ft. = 549 Sq. Ft. 549 Sq. Ft. - 1,000 Sq. Ft. = 0.55 33 0.55 x 4.1 Employees/1,000 Sq. Ft. = 2.26 Employees Basement Employee Generation 157 Sq. Ft. - 1,000 Sq. Ft. = 0.16 i0.16 x 3.1 Employees/1,000 Sq. Ft. = 0.50 Employees Total Employees Generated ' 2.26 Employees + 0.50 Employees = 2.76 Employees As the above calculations indicate, the proposed development will generate less than four employees. As a result, no affordable housing mitigation will be required. 3. No more than one free-market residence is created. This shall ' be cumulative and shall include administrative GMQS approvals granted prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2007. No additional free market residential units are proposed. D. Special Review Pursuant to Section 26.575.060.A. of the Regulations, the proposed development is required to provide a utility/trash/recycle service area adjacent to the alley. For properties with thirty feet or less of alley frontage, a fifteen foot wide by ten foot deep utility/trash area is required. This requirement, however, may be reduced by the HPC subject to special review approval. The applicable review criteria, and the proposed development's compliance therewith, are summarized below. 1. There is a demonstration that given the nature of the potential uses of the building and its total square footage, the utility/trash/recycle service area proposed to be provided will be adequate. The property's existing commercial use and free market unit are presently served by several small trash/recycle containers located at the rear of the existing A.G. Sheppard house. The proposed utility/trash/recycle service area at the rear ' 34 ' of the proposed addition will accommodate a four cubic yard dumpster, recycle bins and required utility pedestals and meters. As discussed in Schmueser Gordon Meyer's engineering report, the proposed development will not require the installation of an on- site electric transformer. Space, therefore, need not be provided within the service area to accommodate a new transformer. Given the proposed development's limited ' trash/utility/recycle service area requirements, the proposed area is adequate to accommodate the project's needs. 2. Access to the utility/trash/recycle service area is adequate. Access to the proposed service area is provided directly from the 1 alley. 3. Measures are provided for enclosing trash bins and making them easily movable by trash personnel. The service area is enclosed on three sides. The trash container to be located therein will be readily accessible at grade from the alley. 4. When appropriate, provisions for trash compaction are provided by the proposed development and measures are taken to encourage trash compaction by other development in the block. Trash compaction is neither feasible nor warranted given the limited nature of the proposed development. 5. The area for public utility placement and maintenance is adequate and safe for the placement of utilities. As discussed under criteria 1, above, adequate area is available within the proposed service area for the placement of required utility meters and service boxes. r35 6. Adequate provisions are incorporated to ensure the construc- tion of the access area. The utility/trash/recycle service area is directly accessible from an established alley. ' Special review approval is also required to waive the proposed develop- ment's on-site parking requirement and cash-in-lieu fees therefore. Pursuant to section i26.515.040 of the Regulations, the HPC may approve such waivers subject to compliance with certain review criteria. The applicable criteria, and the proposed development's compliance therewith, are summarized below. 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into the account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking r opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands,the projected impacts on the on-street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area, and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. As discussed under review criteria number 2, below, the proposed development's required parking cannot reasonably be accommodated on-site. Only one conforming on-site parking space has historically been provided which is reserved for the ' use and benefit of the property's existing office use. No parking is currently provided for the property's existing free market residential unit. As the proposed development will consist primarily of a restaurant, and parking for the employees and patrons of such uses are not typically provided on-site in the downtown area, we believe that the ' requested parking waiver is appropriate in this instance. Adequate on-street parking is ' available in the downtown area, and within the City's Rio Grande parking garage, to accommodate the needs of the proposed development. The project site is conveniently located with respect to the parking garage and to existing mass transit routes. 36 2. An on-site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. The project site's existing on-site parking space must be removed ' to accommodate the proposed development. The conversion of the existing A.G. Sheppard house to restaurant use requires the construction of a modest addition thereto ' which, due to existing site constraints, must be located adjacent to the alley. Given the limited area of the site on which the expansion may occur, and the narrow width of the property (i.e., 30 feet), no reasonable ability exists to provide parking adjacent to the ' alley and accommodate both the proposed addition and relocated shed. The addition will require the provision of 0.7 parking spaces which, pursuant to Section 26.515.010.D., may be met via a cash-in-lieu payment. The Applicant requests that the replacement of ' the property's existing parking space, and the required cash-in-lieu payment for both the replacement space and the additional 0.7 spaces required as a result of the proposed addition, be waived. The requested waiver is consistent with the HPC's treatment of similar historic preservation projects in the downtown area and the prior 2001 approval. 3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site parking facilities ' adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. ' As discussed under criteria number 1, above, adequate on-street parking to accommodate the proposed development is available within the downtown area. Additional parking is also conveniently available within the City's Rio Grande ' parking garage. E. Mountain View Plane Review As the attached analysis of the impact of the Main Street View Plane on the project site prepared by Sopris Engineering indicates (see Exhibit 2, Appendix C), 37 1 the view plane intersects the northeast and northwest corner of the site's rear property line at an elevation of 7952.6 and 7953.6 feet, respectively. Based on the ground elevation at these two points, the view plan intersects the project site' rear property line ' approximately 50 to 52 feet above the alley. As the maximum height of the one-story ' proposed addition is approximately 20.5 feet, no intrusion into the Main Street View Plane will occur. As a result, review pursuant to Section 26.435.050.0. is not required. F. Commercial Design Review ' Pursuant to Section 26.412.020 of the Regulations, all commercial, lodging and mixed-use development with a commercial component within the City of Aspen requiring a building permit is subject to commercial design review. Pursuant to Section ' 26.412.030, the HPC is the designated review body as the project site is located within the City's Commercial Core Historic District. Pursuant to Section 26.412.050.C., the iHPC must determine that the proposed development complies with the City's Commer- cial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. The proposed development's compliance with the guidelines is addressed in Section W.A. of this application. In addition, Section 26.412.060 of the Regulations requires compliance with the following criteria. 1. Public Amenity Space a) The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. The proposed development's public amenity space consists primarily of the front and west side yard areas located adjacent to the existing A.G. Sheppard house. No reasonable ability exists to increase the available public amenity 38 space due to site constraints. The proposed space exceeds the minimum requirement of the underlying zone district. b) The public amenity contributes to an active street ' vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade trees, solar access, view orientation, and simple at-grade relation- ships with adjacent rights-of-way are encouraged. ' As presently envisioned, the west side yard will be used for seasonal outdoor dining, and will be furnished with tables, chairs and umbrellas. The ' use of this area for dining purposes will enliven the streetscape and enhance the overall vitality of the neighborhood. C) The public amenity, and the design and operating ' characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of-way and uses, contributes to an inviting pedestrian environment. ' The proposed public amenity space and the envisioned use thereof will contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. d) The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls, sidewalks, or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian environment. ' The proposed development's public amenity space currently exists ' within the project site and does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls, sidewalks or adjacent property. e) Any variation to the Design and Operational Standards for Pedestrian Amenity, Section 26.575.030.F. promote the purpose of the pedestrian amenity requirements. ' No variations from the design and operational standards of Section 26.575.030.F. are proposed. 39 2. Utility, Delivery and Trash Service Provision a) A utility, trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated along the alley meeting the minimum stan- dards established by Section 26.575.060, Utilit- y/Trash/Recycle Service Areas, unless otherwise established according to said section. ' As discussed previously, the Applicant is requesting special review approval for a reduction in the proposed development's utility/trash/recycle service area. b) All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property and along the alley.- Easement shall allow for service provided access. Encroachments into the alley shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be neces- sary when existing site conditions, such as a historic re- source, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. As presently envisioned, all service pedestals will be located within the project site and the proposed utility/trash/recycle service area. Utility easements will be provided in the event required. No encroachments into the public alley are anticipated ' and, as noted previously, a new transformer is not required. ' c) Delivery service areas shall be incorporated along the alley. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral compo- nent of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. Delivery access to the rear of the proposed addition from the alley is not feasible given the limited width of the project site and the relocation of the shed ' adjacent thereto. Delivery service, however, can be provided via handcart and the Monarch Street sidewalk from provider's trucks in the alley to the basement stairway in ' the shed and to the secondary entrance at the rear of the A.G. Sheppard house. d) Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventila- tion, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equip- ment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. ' 40 ' As discussed previously, an exhaust fan will be required on the ' A.G. Sheppard house's roof to service the restaurant's exhibition cooking feature. The fan has been located on the structure's lower roof and set back from the street as far as ' the International Building Code will allow to minimize its visibility. ' e) 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 pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ' ventilation and ducting needs. Required mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting for the proposed addition, which will contain the restaurant's kitchen, restrooms and back of ' house facilities, will be located on the addition's roof and hidden from view from the adjacent street by a substantial parapet wall. ' 41 Q x 0 z W a. Q ' EXHIBIT CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Amy Guthrie, (970) 429-2758 DATE: 11.11.11 PROJECT: 302 E. Hopkins Avenue REPRESENTATIVE: Hillstone Restaurant Group, Matthias Lenz, 310-385-0333 ' History: The miner's cottage at 302 E. Hopkins was constructed in 1883, which makes it one of the �' 9 p oldest remaining structures in the Aspen Townsite. Throughout its history the building has been used ' for both commercial and residential purposes. It is the only example of the "Carpenter Gothic" style in Aspen, defined by the steeply pitched roof and decorative trim on the front of the building. (Carpenter Gothic is the Gothic Revival style carried out in wood rather than stone.) 302 E. Hopkins is an Aspen ' Landmark and is located in the Commercial Core Historic District. ' Current proposal: The applicant proposes to expand the property. Staff understands the proposal is to demolish the non-historic addition at the back of the house and replace it with a one story masonry structure on a new basement. The shed along the alley will slide westward, towards Aspen Street. No other alterations are planned for the historic structures except for mechanical equipment and addition of an accessible ramp in a location to be determined. The project may or may not increase the net leasable space on the site. To the extent that net leasable does increase, the applicant anticipates generating less than the 4 new employees that can be exempted from affordable housing mitigation by the Community Development Director. ' 302 E. Hopkins falls within the Main Street view plane, which may affect the allowable height of any new development. The view plane projects from Main Street to protect views towards Aspen Mountain. The one story development proposed for 302 E. Hopkins is unlikely to block the view ' plane any more than existing development on the site. Review to confirm this will be needed. 25% of the property is required to be left undeveloped, open to the sky according to Public Amenity ' requirements. The proposed addition may reduce the existing Public Amenity below 25%. There are alternatives and variances possible. The proposed restaurant will be required to meet current standards for trash and utility areas. Other considerations to be aware of include parking. The property likely already has less parking than ' is required (1 space per 1,000 square feet of commercial net leasable). In a redevelopment, the existing deficit can be maintained, but not made worse unless HPC grants a waiver of parking spaces and cash-in-lieu fees. The existing below grade free market unit cannot be removed (demolished) without triggering the need to provide new affordable housing. Demolition would occur if the kitchen and/or bathroom were ' removed, or walls that enclose the apartment were removed. The applicant should refer to the zone district information provided at Section 26.710.140, ' Commercial Core. This section details the dimensional requirements for development at 302 E. Hopkins. 1RECEIVED nPf' 2 9 2011 1 ' CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ' HPC will conduct all of the reviews necessary for redevelopment of the site, including design review. The first step will be Conceptual design review, Relocation, Demolition, Parking, View Plane and ' Trash/Utility area. The second step will be Final design review. Design Guidelines are found here: ' http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-DevelopmenUPIanning-and-Zoning/Current-Planning/ Aspen Land Use Code is found here: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-DevelopmenUPlanning-and-Zoning/Title-26-Land-Use-Code/ ' Land Use application is found here: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/O/docs/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%20Fees/form historic land use app.pdf ' Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304: Common Development Review Procedures 26.412 Commercial Design Review 26.415.070.D Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development 26.415.090 Relocation of Designated Properties 26.430 Special Review 26.435.050 Mountain View Plane Review 26.470.060 Growth Management, Minor Enlargement of a Historic Landmark 26.515 Off-Street Parking 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements 26.575.030 Public Amenity ' 26.575.060 Utility/trash/recycle service area 26.575.150 Outdoor Lighting 26.710.140 Commercial Core Zone District ' Review by: Staff for completeness, HPC for review Public Hearing: Yes, at HPC. ' Planning Fees: $1,260 for 4 billable hours (additional or less billable hours are at $315 per hour) Referral Agencies: Environmental Health, $945 flat fee Total Deposit: $ 2,205 ❑ Proof of ownership with payment. ❑ Signed fee agreement. ❑ Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which ' states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. ❑ 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. ❑ Total deposit for review of the application. ❑ 10 Copies of the complete application packet and maps. ' 0 An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. 1 ❑ Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, 1 including all easements and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado. (This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived by the Community Development Department if the project is determined not to warrant a survey document.) ❑ 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 1 development application. Please include existing conditions as well as proposed. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing ❑ Copies of prior approvals. 1 ❑ 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. 1 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. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i ' EXHIBIT ' December 21, 2011 Ms. Amy Guthrie Conununity Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Permission to Submit ' Dear Ms. Guthrie: Please consider this letter authorization for the Millstone Restaurant Group to submit an ' application for conceptual historic development approval for our property which is located at 302 East Hopkins Avenue. Hillstone is currently tinder contract to purchaser the property. Should you have any questions, or if we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. ' Yours truly, Brooke A. Peterson 1 MJS Properties, LLC V7 I ' dantdc\bus\city.tr\Itr58011.ag2 1 1 EXIHMIT D r PROFORMA TITLE REPORT ' SCHEDULE A 1. Effective Date: March 21,2011 at 8:00 AM Case No. PCT23129P r2. Policy or Policies to be issued: ' Proposed Insured: PROFORMA ' 3. Title to the FEE SIMPLE estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in: MJS PROPERTIES LLC,A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY and BROOKE A. PETERSON 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is situated in the County of PITKIN State of COLORADO and is ' described as follows: LOT K, ' BLOCK 80, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN. PITKIN COUNTY TITLE,INC. 601 E.H'OPKINS,ASPEN,CO.81611 970-925-1766 Phone/970-925-6527 Fax 877-217-3158 Toll Free AUTHORIZED AGENT ' Countersigned: r r r r r SCHEDULE B SECTION 2 EXCEPTIONS The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. ' 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines,shortage in area,encroachments, any facts which a correct :survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien,for services, labor,or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens,encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created,first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed'insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessment, charge or lien imposed for water or sewer ' service or for any other special taxing district. 7. Reservations and exceptions as set forth in the Deed from the City of Aspen recorded November 28, 1888 1 in Book 59 at Page 518 providing as follows: 'That no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws". 8. Terms, conditions, provisions,obligations and all matters as set forth in Resolution of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission recorded December 16, 1999 as Reception No.438643 as Resolution No. 55, Series of 1999. 9. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Resolution of the Aspen Historic ' Preservation Commission recorded May 30,2001 as Reception No.454911 as Resolution No. 19, Series of 2001. 10. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Resolution of the Aspen/Pitkin Growth Management Commission recorded October 3,2002 as Reception No.472955 as Resolution No. 3, Series of 2001. 11. Deed of Trust from : MSJ PROPERTIES LLC,A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY and ' BROOKE A. PETERSON To the Public Trustee of the County of PITKIN For the use of : COMMUNITY BANKS OF COLORADO Original Amount :$1,480,000.00 Dated :January 25,2007 Recorded :January 29, 2007 Reception No. : 533913 12. Assignment of Rents given in connection with the above Deed of Trust recorded January 29, 2007 as Reception No. 533914. ' EXHIBIT December 21, 2011 Ms. Amy Guthrie Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 ' Re: Permission to Represent Dear Ms. Guthrie: Please consider this letter authorization for Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, LLC, Planning Consultants, to represent us in the processing of our application for conceptual ' historic development approval for 302 East Hopkins Avenue in the City of Aspen. Mr. Vann is hereby authorized to act on our behalf with respect to all matters reasonably pertaining to the aforementioned application. ' Should you have any questions, or if we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Yours truly, IMLLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP ' d:\oldc\bus\city.tr\1tr58011.ag1 EXHIBIT RECEIVED nFr 2 9 2011 CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE APPLICATION aPPLIy XTY DEVELOPKK ' Name: ����� /� T44�-f"'171�— Location: (Indicate street address, lot& block number, legal description where appropriate) ,Parcel ID#(REQUIRED) Z cy REPRESENTATIVE: Name: ': ✓ �'��Y�/���C��/� '� Address: ne#: rhe 2 PROJECT: Name: Address: �• ��g�/h�5� u �C� G�G� Phone#: TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ❑ Conditional Use ❑ Conceptual PUD Conceptual Historic Devt. LJ Special Review ❑ Final PUD(&PUD Amendment) ❑ Final Historic Development �41YIQS esign Review Appeal F-1Conceptual SPA ElMinor Historic Devt. Allotment ❑ Final SPA(&SPA Amendment) ❑ Historic Demolition ' ❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Subdivision ❑ Historic Designation ESA—8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption(includes ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin,Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane ' ❑ Lot Split ❑ Temporary Use [r Other: ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Text/Map Amendment e- /'T�/lBl.l EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses,previous approvals,etc.) '� f!f /nnz/C� ' PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings,uses, modifications,etc.) _41166 71 V you attached the following? FEES S G, DUE.Conference Summary ' UVe.-Application achment#1, Signed Fee Agreement gesponse to Attachment#3,Dimensional Requirements Form Response to Attachment#4, Submittal Requirements-Including Written Responses to Review Standards ' EXHIBIT >r a � ' ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: fel. ,c/r dwk2w /-07 ' �/PG /y�' �71&*V Applicant: Location: Zone District: Lot Size: O/L ' Lot Area: e14 (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: Proposed: Proposed % of demolition(Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: Principal bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: .Access. bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: On-Site parking: Existing.--Required: Proposed: % Site coverage: Existing: Required: Proposed: % Open Space: Existing: Required: Proposed: 1 Front Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Rear Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: ' Combined F/R: Existing. Required: Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: Required- Proposed. ' Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Combined Sides: Existing: Required.• Proposed. Distance Between Existing Required: Proposed: ' Buildings ' Existing non-conformities or encroachments: Variations requested: ' EEX71T LU W o lz o c.� o CITY OF ASPENCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ' LUL.LJ Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CI'4 FF ASPEN(hereinafter CITY)and (hereinafter APPLICANT)AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANlT, as submitted to CITY an a lication fo ��/� (hereinafter,THE PROJECT). ' 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of 2000) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT ' make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred_ CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT'further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore,APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior toaJetermination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of Z�• ,which is for � hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recor ed costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of$220.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such ' accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing,and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN APPLIC NT tBy: By: Chris Bendon Community Development Director Date: j7LC Z 1 Zo fBilling Address and Telephone Number: Required 14} SOVT t w T>V-U1F g« � s, cA J02- ' g:\support\forms\agrpayas.docp, 11/30/04 ' EXHIBIT Easy Peel®Labels i A Bend along line to se Avery®Template 51600Feed Paper w� expose Pop-up Edger'" 00 EAST HOPKINS LLC 201 E MAIN LLC 303 EAST MAIN LLLP 15 S MONARCH SUITE 104 PO BOX 345 PO BOX 8016 SPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81612 316 EAST HOPKINS LP AEP FAMILY LLLP 3.9348818% ALPINE PETROLEUM LLC RYANCO INC C/O ANDREW V HECHT GARFIELD& 435 E MAIN ST W525 E CALLE VENTURA HECHT PC ASPEN,CO 81611 HOENIX,AZ 85018 601 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN,CO 81611 BENTLEYS AT THE WHEELER BERNSTEIN JEREMY M PROFIT BRINING ROBERT 10370 SHARING PLAN 215 S MONARCH ST STE 203 PO BOX SPEN, 10 81612 610 NORTH ST ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ROWN SHANE&KRISTINE BUSH ALAN DAVID CARLS REAL ESTATE LLC 3100 S BROADWAY 0046 HEATHER LN PO BOX 1365 LOS ANGELES,CA 90061 ASPEN,CO 81611-3342 ASPEN,CO 81612 CITY OF ASPEN CLARK FAMILY TRUST ARVER RUTH A&MARTIN G ATTN FINANCE DEPT PO BOX 362 0 BYRON LN 130 S GALENA ST USCATINE,IA 52761 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS MEDIA CROSSLAND ANN BOND CLARKS ASPEN LLC CO 210 E HYMAN 8 SOUTH MAIN ST 6 L1ANDING, PO BOX 1927 ASPEN,CO 81611 UT 84511 1 CARSON CITY,NV 89702 CRYSTAL PALACE ACQUSITIONS LLC DAVIDSON DONALD W DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED 1495 MAPLE WY STE 100 864 CEMETERY LN 215 S MONARCH#104 IfROY, MI 48084 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 TRUST ELLIES BUILDING LLC 96.830559% DUNTON KAY L IDESOTO LINDA JANE C/O KATIE REED MGMT 1209 MANHATTAN AVE#130 4675 AUKAI AVE 418 E COOPER AVE#207 MANHATTAN BEACH,CA 90266 HONOLULU, HI 96816 ASPEN,CO 81611 ELLIOTT ELYSE ANNE EXPLORE BOOKSELLERS&BISTRO R E FEDER HAROLD L&ZETTA F LLC 985 CASCADE AVE 1300 E HYMAN AVE 300 CRESCENT CT#1000 BOULDER,CO 80302-7550 ASPEN,CO 81611 DALLAS,TX 75201 FREDRICK LARRY D GOLDEN ARTS CONNECTION LLC GOODING RICHARD L 'ROBERTS JANET A DBA ASPEN INTERNATIONAL ART 4800 S HOLLY ST 215 S MONARCH ST#G101 213 S MILL ST ENGLEWOOD,CO 80111 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 asy Peel®labels i A Bend along line toid 0 5960 i se Avery®Template 51600 Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTM AVERY ORDON BRIAN S GRAND SLAM HOLDINGS LLC HART GEORGE DAVID&SARAH C 6985 CRESTWOOD C/O CARL B LINNECKE CPA PC PO BOX 5491 01RANKLIN, MI 4£1025 215 S MONARCH ST#101 SNOWMASS VILLAGE,CO 81615 ASPEN, CO 81611 HECHT ANDREW V.027624071% HOFFMAN JOHN&SHARON IFTNFS LLC E01 E HYMAN AVE 210 W 5TH ST APT 211 0115 GLEN EAGLES DR SPEN,CO 81611 KANSAS CITY, MO 64105-1166 ASPEN,CO 81611 £ROME PROPEI�TY LLC JOHNSON PETER C&SANDRA K JW VENTURES LLC 540 W MADISON ST 51 OVERLOOK DR PO BOX 8769 �HICAGO, IL 60661 ASPEN,CO 81611-1008 ASPEN,CO 81612 tATIE REED BUILDING LLC KELLY GARY MEEKER RICHARD J AND ALLISON D 418 E COOPER AVE PO BOX 12356 0752 MEADOWOOD DR SPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 ILL STREET PLAZA ASSOC LLC MINERS REAL ESTATE LLC MONARCH ASPEN LLC 50% /O M&W PROPERTIES PO BOX 1365 PO BOX 1247 05 S MILL ST#301A ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 ONARCH BUILDING LLC MORRONGIELLO LYDIA A MOTHER LODE INVESTORS LLC PARAGON RANCH INC O BOX 126 18 SCHOOL LN 6400 SOUTH FIDDLER'S GREEN CIR OODY CREEK,CO 81656 LLOYD HARBOR, NY 11743 GREEWOOD VILLAGE,CO 80111 NORTH&SOUTH ASPEN LLC NUNN RONALD E&SHIRLEY A OBRIEN MAUREEN 00 S ASPEN ST 741 SUNSET RD 1370 MAIN ST SPEN,CO 81611 BRENTWOOD,CA 94513 CARBONDALE,CO 81623 IORR ROBERT L PARK CENTRAL CONDO ASSOC PEARCE FAMILY TRUST 500 PATTERSON RD 215 S MONARCH ST STE 203 216 E MAIN ST 'GRAND JUNCTION,CO 81506 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 'RACZAK JOSEPH S&JANET L SEDOY MICHAEL 35% SEGUIN WILLIAM L 0234 LIGHT HILL RD 35 SUTTON PL#19B PO BOX 4274 SNOWMASS,CO 81654 NEW YORK,NY 10022 ASPEN,CO 81612 'SHVACHKO NATALIA 65% SSM LAND AQUISITION CO LLC TRUE JAMES R 35 SUTTON PL#19B 2121 KIRBY DR#99 PO BOX 2864 NEW YORK, NY 10022 HOUSTON,TX 77019 ASPEN, CO 81612 Etiquettes fables a peter ; ® Repliez a la hachure afin de ; www.averycom Sens de sy Peel@ Labels i A Bend along line to AVERY@ 51600 e Avery@ Template 5160) Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTM LJ g ------------ ....... WELLS FARGO BANK WHITMAN WENDALIN WHITMAN WENDALIN 'C/O THOMSON PROPERTY TAX 210 E HYMAN AVE#101 PO BOX 472 SERVICES ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 PO BOX 2609 ,CARLSBAD,CA 92018 YOUNG BARBARA A 0210 E HYMAN AVE#9 WASPEN,CO 81611 —--------------- ----------- ---------- ----------- ------ ------------ ------- Itiquettes f aeil-e--s h peter Repl iez a la hachure a-f-i n-de www.-avery.-com -_-0-c^0 -Sensde I-—6—A on. 1 i_Qnn_r.n_Avi:Rv co x 0 Z W a a EXHIBIT l RIFE Or PROOMIMS le6 Leaves ' ostiafaaacs:a®.[series 0n, 1985) AB OBHI$ 6 11F %V:SBCTIOB ;'".Z Or 288 ASP= [P� lIDBIC5 :0009� ! . CMY;OF:A"Jiffi, V0*0�D, FOR 9891010"Off OF KISTMe #tCT9R88.i1HFE�;ARB:LI6Wa XV 282. I8R8BWff OF. ' Hf8'l38IaC S ' "bPB 83R L'15R88 FOR"08 Q'!Y'o8 A"=# COLORADO WH8RIA the Historic Preservation Committee has recommended to the City Council that certain structures be designated as historic and a suffix of •B• be attached to the zoning of these properties and the real estate records; and ' WB88EAS, these structures are listed in the 1980 inventory of Historic Sites and Structures for the City of Aspen, Colorado; and WBE88aS, the.owners of these properties have requested designation ' through written replies to the Planning Office; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Committee has reviewed these. sites and/or structures based on the guidelines and standards in Section 24-9.3 of the Aspen Municipal .Code and found them to be worthy of historic. designation: ' BOF, THEREFORE, BRIT ORBAIMM BY RHE EIf VOMWIL.of THE.CITY OF' ASPEN, COLORADO: section I ' That the following sites and/or stractures at these addresses be granted historic designation and the suffix of :H• be attached to their zoning and real estate records: 135 W. Main 202 E. Main 125 W. Main 208 E. Main 211 W. Main. 216 E. Main 400 W. Main. 221 E. Main ' 612 W. Main 104 S. Galena 302 E. Hopkins Section 2 ' .If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity sball not affect other provisions or -application of the Ordinance which can be ' given effect without the invalid.,provision.or application, and to this end the.provisions of .this Ordinance are .declared to. be severable. Section 3 ' That a public hearing be held on this Ordinance on the �3 day �� Y ' RMED OF.PROCKEDINU 106 Leaves of 1985, at 5z 00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, Aspen.City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing notice of the same.shall be.published once within a newspaper of general circulation within the City. ISTRMICSD, RM,,OPEC= published as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at its regular meeting held at the City.of Aspen on )! 1985. William L. Stirling, May r ' Kathryn $ OC!4 City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passe&and approved this day of ' Willlam.L. Stirling, Kay6r rAthrfn—S-.-4#ocb, City Clerk CP:jlr:cc.,hpc.Ora 2 1 _ 1 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves STATE OF COLORADO CERTIFICATE COUNTY OF PITRIN I, Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk:of Aspen, Colorado, do hereby certify that .the above and foregoing ordinance was. introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading. at a regular pmeeting of the City Council of the.City of Aspen on. aaia2 O ... . .. 1985, and. published in the Aspen Times, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published in. the City of Aspen,Colorado, in .. its issue of' ._ Q �J 1985,.and was finally adopted and approved at a regular meeting of the City Council on 3 , 1985, and ordered published as Ordinance No. Series of 1985, of said City as provided by law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal ' of said City of Aspen, Colorado this __ day of 1985. Kathryn S, och, City Clerk S EAL, ' - Deputy .City Clerk ' EXHIBIT Z RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT, SPECIAL REVIEW FOR REDUCTION OF ON-SITE UTILITY/TRASH STORAGE AREA, AND WAIVER OF ON-SITE PARKING FOR 302 E. HOPKINS AVENUE,LOT K,BLOCK 80,CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 19, SERIES OF 2001 WHEREAS, the applicant, MSJ Properties, represented by Philos International, has requested final approval, special review for reduction of on-site utility/trash storage area, and waiver of on-site parking for the property located at 302 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lot K, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is a designated landmark. The project involves demolishing a non-historic addition to the existing house, relocating the shed on site,and building a new commercial structure at the rear of the lot; and 1 WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks,extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five(5)percent,HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. . In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and I Ilii!! 11111 it{{11111111 II{ IIII tlllllt! III iilll ilii illi 454911 05/30/2001 09:26A RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 1 of 4 R 20.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO WHEREAS,all applications for special review to reduce on-site utility/trash storage area must meet all of the following Development Review Standards of Section 26.575.060.B, namely: 1. Standard: There is a demonstration that given the nature of the potential uses of the building and its total square footage, the utility/trash service area proposed to be provided will be adequate. 2. Standard: Access to the utility/trash service area is adequate. 3. Standard: Measures are provided for enclosing trash bins and making them easily movable by trash personnel. 4. Standard: When appropriate, provisions for trash compaction are provided by the proposed development and measures are taken to encourage trash compaction by other developments on the block. 5. Standard: The area for public utility placement and maintenance is adequate and safe for the placement of utilities. 6. Standard: Adequate provisions are incorporated to ensure the construction of the access area; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.070.D.5.b. of the Land Use Code, the Historic Preservation Commission may determine that parking cannot be provided on the site's surface and be consistent with the review standards of Chapter 26.415 (Development Involving Historic Landmarks), and shall therefore be waived, which determination the HPC did make;and WIE[EREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated May 9, 2001, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found favorably for the application, and recommended approval with conditions; and ' WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on May 9, 2001, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application to meet the standards, and approved the application with conditions by a vote of 6 to 0. THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED: That final approval, special review for reduction of on-site utility/trash storage area, and waiver of on-site parking for the property located at 302 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lot K, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen,be approved,finding that the review standards are met,with the following conditions: I!{!11{! 1l{I!lI141l1111 Ill1lll!111111!1 454911 4 Ill!!III l0/2001 09:26A RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 2of 4820 2 of 4 R 20.00 0 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO L The applicant shall provide a report from a structural engineer or housemover, verifying that the shed can be safely moved. 2. The applicant shall provide a letter of credit in the amount of$15,000 to ensure the safe relocation of the shed, along with a plan for how the building will be moved and stored during construction. As was discussed at conceptual review, it appears that the outbuilding will likely have to be temporarily stored off-site. The off-site location and means of protecting the building must be approved by staff and monitor. 3. HPC staff and monitor must review and approve the stone that will be used at the basement stairwell, and the design for any railing or screen provided around the lightwell. 4. The applicant and board should discuss any future use of the rooftop on the new building and address furniture or other objects that would be visible from the lstreet. 5. The opening into the trash storage area shall be widened to allow easier maneuvering of the dumpster. The trash area should also be deep enough to accommodate a compactor. 6. If more intensive uses,such as a restaurant,are added to the property in the future, the applicant shall be required to return to HPC or P&Z for approval of a new trash storage plan,plus revisions or additions to the mechanical equipment. 7. The HPC hereby waives the required on-site parking spaces. 8. The City Forester requires that the Douglas-Fir and Rocky Mountain Juniper 1trees in the public right of way be preserved and protected during construction. 9. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the information is available. 10. Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the historic house and barn are to be removed as part of the renovation. 11. HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures. 12. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without . first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. 13. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 14. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 15. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. 16. Submit details of any reconstruction or alterations at the back wall of the historic house for review and approval by staff and monitor. !IIII! VIII lillll !11111 !!!1111111111111lI VIIfIIII IIII 454911 05/30/2001 09:26A RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 3 of 4 R 20.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO 17. The parapet on the new building must be no taller than 3'0". 18. The applicant must secure the proper parking permits for construction vehicles and is asked to be avoid negative impacts on neighboring parcels during the building process. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meetingon the 9th da of May, Y Y, 2001. Approved as to Form: I Davi oefer,Assistant C ty Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION S an h eid,Chair ATTEST: Kathy trickland,Chief De ty Clerk 1 1111!11 illll 111111111111 III ILII 11111111 III 11111 illi Illi ' 454911 05/30/2001 09:26A RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 4 of 4 R 20.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO 1 EX/IHI III,BIT RESOLUTION OF THE JOINT ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGMENT COMMISSION APPROVING A GMQS EXEMPTION FOR 302 E.HOPKINS AVENUE,LOT K,BLOCK 80,CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN 1 PARCEL ID#2737-073-29-005 Resolution No.3,Series of 2001 WHEREAS, the applicant, MSJ Properties, represented by Philos International, has requested a Growth Management Exemption for new net leasable space on the property located at 302 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lot K, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is a designated landmark; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Municipal Code provides certain Growth Management exemptions for Historic Landmarks, and the project was evaluated pursuant to Section 26.470.070(D)(4)and(5); and WHEREAS,the City of Aspen Community Development Director in a report dated July 17, 2001, -performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public .hearing on July 17, 2001, the Joint Aspen/Pitkin County Growth Management Commission considered the recommendation made by the Community Development Director, took and considered public testimony and found,by a vote of 10 to 0,that the review standards are met. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED: That the Joint Aspen/Pitkin County Growth Management Commission approves a 1 Growth Management Exemption for new net leasable space on the property located at 302 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lot K,Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen with the following conditions: 1. A deed restriction for the affordable unit must be recorded prior to building permit issuance. 2. The unit shall be deed restricted at no higher than Category 3. 3. Language approved by the City Attorney's office shall be incorporated into the deed restriction to guarantee the rent control for this unit. 4. A site visit shall be conducted to inspect the deed restricted unit for compliance with APCHA requirements prior to issuance of a"Certificate of Occupancy." 5. The applicant shall pay a cash-in-lieu fee of$30,547.40, in addition to the on-site one bedroom unit,or provide a two bedroom unit,to fully meet the mitigation requirement. 472955 Im 11111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111 0903/2002 11:34A I t 1 SILYIA DAMS PIrKIN COUNTY CO R 11.00 D 0.00 r APPROVED by the Commission at its meeting on July 17,2001. r APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ' APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Jasmine Tygre, Chair,Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Peter Martin,,qiiir,Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission ATTEST: �ackie Lothian,Deputy City Clerk r r r r 472955 109/03/0080 1:34A SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 11.00 r r rr r� rr rr r� r s rr rr rr rr ,� Irr � r r� rri ri rr --_--- -- -- ------- ------------------ --- i % 1 I = BRON � cONCBmpQ 1 1 1 L------------------------------------------------------------jI 1 Existing Ground Level Floor Area Calculation 'N Monarch Street Scale "=1'-0" EXISTING FLOOR AREA DECKS 0 S.F. EXISTING SHED 154 S.F. 1 EXISTING HOUSEGROUN 1070 S.F. OWERD EL L(SEE NOTE BELON 102 S.F. TOTAL FLOOR AREA 1326 S.F. 1 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA 647 GROSS S.F.FLOOR PLATE X Q.1%WALL EXPOSED / / Ty, =102 S.F.FLOOR AREA COUNTS 1 REFER TO EXISTING CONDITIONS PERIMTER WALL I / CALCULATION SHEET i wtoonwEu j j I 1 2 Existing Basement Level Floor Area Calculation Scale "=1'-0" 1N tabbies' H I L LS TO N E Existing Floor Area Calculation Sheppard House 302 E.Hopkins AV m Conceptual HPC Submission 12.23 X ----------- I Location Plan of Existing Lower Level Perimeter Walls Lower Level Floor plate 847 s.f. Scale}"=i'-o° Lower Level Floor Area Calculation 938.10 s.f.buried 11066.24 s.f.total wall perimeter=87.9%buried 100%-87.9%buried=12.1%6 exposed 847 s.f,x.121=102 s.f.Floor area counting DECKS Allowable Floor Area on parcel is 1500 s.f. 1500 s.f.x.15 ratio=225 s.f.allowable deck area There are currently no counting Deck Floor area on parcel WALL C) WALL 0 WALL T WALL 0 WALL O EXTERIOR WALL AREA +160 aASEMENTLEVEL WALL DESIG. WALLAREA(0) BURIED WALL-AREA(0) WALL 1 101.39 88.28 WALL 2 6.13 523 WALL 3 --165.01 151.09 WALL 4 15738 15730 WALL 5 7750 73.12 WALL 6 54125 4805 WALL 7 264.79 160,40 WALL e WALL 0 WALL(D WALL 0 WALL G WALL 8 35.84 7530.88459 WAU 9 WAU 10 1171! 127.8a 2 Lower Level Existing Perimeter Wall Elevation 0T ALS 1065.24 938.10 Scale J"=1'-0" BELOW GRADE F Existing Lower Level Perimeter Walls Sheppard House 302 E.Hopkins Avenue,Aspen HILLSTOME Submittal for HPC review 12.23.2011 �■r +�■� r � r r r r � �■t r r� •ter r� r r r � � ------------ - - - - MC ` 1 .OFRC6 a gFFx;fi rt orFICE. .'R I ,,.......... I i I - NESPaOLE PO" 1 - ...__,.._.. .,.6:.�`S.... �•.�r:"Y tti .?:;i'wA iS? Y4..�,d Awa� J 1 wluOowwEu I COMPETE PAO 1 , I 1 Existing Ground Level Net Leasable Plan /N Scale il"=1'-0" ------------------ cAts:ls..t PATTERNKEY – – ––—–– I � y} ,..":'3'4..-t*a 4..^I+�S lt4"7'.'�3P`A-kL4J ".:�'�.�t'fit-#k4....Li:'{n ...�'•,pt::., '1 1 Net Leasable Net Livable • ��. CRAWL SPACE t� I ExisOngNetLvable- I MECP.ROOM I Existing House Lower Level 401 s.f. i i .. .. .. . . . . . .. . . � � , . . .. .. . . . ... . .. tot—at NetLivable 401s.f. __ � .•.•.•.•.-.•.-RncuExruwarc-.-. µ: � F.-•u^�xa:�,,,•xr Existing Net Leasable- r t a Existing House 949 s.t. Existing Shed 131s.f. _... MR Total Net Leasable 1080 S.f. i wwoow weu 1 1 'y4R MECH.ROOM h' I L----------------- }?Ain•='AieP.�vYlE4":�4'��- ---------------------------- 2 Existing Basement Level Net Livable Plan Scale i"=1'-0" 1N HI L LS TO 1 1 E Existing Net Leasable and Net Livable Areas Sheppard House 302 E.Hopkins Avenue,Aspen a Conceptual HPC Submission 12.23.2011 SCHMUESER I CORDON MEYER EXHIBIT ENGINEERS I SURVEYORS 11 8 WE G LEN W OO 970.94 970.945.5948 FAx October 4, 2011 Mr. Sunny Vann ' Vann Associates, LLC 433 East Jody Road Basalt, CO ' 81621 RE: 302 East Hopkins Avenue, Engineering Report Dear Sunny: I am writing to provide information related to engineering aspects of a proposed re- development project on a property at 302 East Hopkins Avenue in Aspen, Colorado. The property is Lot K of Block 80 of the City and Original Townsite of Aspen. The property currently includes a historically designated one-story Victorian building and a "shed" structure adjacent to the alley. The main level of the Victorian functions as an office in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district with a small residential unit in the basement level. The shed is also in use for commercial and office purposes. 9�I nl 1 1 1 Figure 1 -302 East Hopkins ' As a site situated in the downtown core of Aspen, the property is generally well-served with necessary utilities and access from adjacent streets. The project proposal is to remove a relatively recent addition from the rear(north side) of the structure, relocate the existing "shed" office (302-1/2 East Hopkins)and construct a new building with a single 2-bedroom residential unit adjacent to the alley. ' GRAND JUNCTION MEEKER 101 WEST TOMICHI AVE, SUITE A 1 O 1 FOUNDERS PLACE, UNIT 1 02 2768 COMPASS DRIVE, SUITE 1 02 320 THIRD STREET GUNNISON, CO 8 1 230 PO BOX 2 1 55 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 8 1 505 MEEKER, CO 8 1 64 1 970.64 1.5355 ASPEN, CO 81 61 1 970.245.2571 970.878.51 BO ' 970.64 1.5358 FAx 970.925.6727 970.245.2871 FAx 970.878.4181 FAx 970.925.41 57 FAx SCHMUESER1 GORDON I MEYER ENG IN EERS i 5 URVEYORS October 4, 2011 Mr. Sunny Vann ' 302 East Hopkins Engineering Report Page 2 With regard to utilities and engineering-related criteria; Water Supply The project site is surrounded on two frontages by main waterlines in the adjacent streets. There is a 6-inch diameter cast iron main in East Hopkins Avenue and a 12-inch diameter cast iron main in Monarch Street. The City of Aspen Water Department typically requires a water tap for each structure and I would anticipate that a new water tap and service line would be installed for the new building adjacent to the alley. Our preference would be to tap the 12-inch main in Monarch with a new service directly to the structure. My understanding, based on discussions with City of Aspen Water Department staff, is that the City would allow a tap to the 12-inch line in Monarch Street for the new structure. The City Water Department has treatment and delivery capacity within their existing system to serve this property subject to a normal service agreement and tap fees. Fire Protection The 302 East Hopkins site is directly across the street from a fire hydrant at the northwest corner of the Hopkins and Monarch intersection. It is also just one and one ' half blocks from the main Aspen Fire District station that is also on East Hopkins Avenue. Close proximity to the fire station and a fire hydrant as well as street access for fire and emergency vehicles on two sides render the site very well served for fire protection. Sewer Service Based on my conversation with Tom Bracewell of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD), the property is currently served by an existing sewer main in the alley of Block 80 that comprises an older 8—inch diameter vitrified clay pipe (VCP) collection main in generally good condition. The new building would be served by a gravity sewer service to the alley. I would also expect that the existing service from the Victorian (which Tom believes is an old 4-inch VCP)would be disrupted by the subgrade excavation for the new building. That service may need to be re-routed or tied in to the new service through the new building. If the best option is a shared service to a single tap on the main and the ownership of the Victorian and the new residence are separated at some point through Condominiumization, a Shared Service Agreement may be required by the ACSD. Tom notes that improvements relative to downstream constraints on the line could be in the range of$25,000.00 for the project (based on an estimated $12,000 per EQR). Otherwise the ACSD has collection and service capacity for the additional residential unit subject to normal service agreements and tap fees. SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER ENG IN EERS E ^s U f2 V E Y O R 5 October 4, 2011 Mr. Sunny Vann 302 East Hopkins Engineering Report Page 3 Electric Service ' The existing structure is currently served by the City of Aspen Electric Department from an existing single-phase transformer in the alley of Block 80. 1 met on-site with Assistant Electric Superintendent Ron Christian to determine whether additional capacity was likely available from the existing transformer. His investigation indicated that the single- phase transformer should have sufficient capacity to serve the new residential unit proposed for the property. Based on the preliminary architectural plans for the building, I don't see anything that would require 3-phase power at this point so we should be able to serve the new structure with just a meter and disconnect off the alley. No new or additional transformer would be necessary to serve the site. Service will be subject to completion of an Application for Electric Services form available from the City Electric Department's website. Gas, Phone and Cable TV Gas, phone and cable are all available from the alley of Block 80. The gas meter situation in the vicinity of the northeast corner of the property is currently a bit messy but the site plan will accommodate a new gas meter (or meters for appropriate individual units) and low power pedestals for phone and cable, if needed, within the property. Due to the site design configuration involving three individual structures, utility meters and pedestals may be distributed on the site relative to the structures they serve. Meters and pedestals will be located in conformance with the requirements of the individual utilities. Access The property at 302 East Hopkins Avenue is extremely well located from the perspective of pedestrian access to downtown public facilities and businesses and is also located ' within less than a block of primary bus routes on Main Street. The new residence is just two blocks from City Hall and about a block and a half from the downtown pedestrian malls and related stores and restaurants. The site plan anticipates providing two vehicle parking spaces off the alley, one in an enclosed garage and one in a carport adjacent to South Monarch Street. The access to the parking spaces is off the alley of Block 80 immediately adjacent to South Monarch Street and should be generally accessible even when commercial vehicles may be working or making deliveries further down the alley. The alley entrance is a half block south of the traffic signal at Monarch and Main Street providing signal-controlled access onto Main Street which is also Colorado State Highway 82. From a trip generation perspective, although the new residence might be characterized as a single-family home, I think it could more appropriately be characterized as a SCHMUESER I GORDON I MEYER ENGINEERS I SURVEYORS October 4, 2011 Mr. Sunny Vann ' 302 East Hopkins Engineering Report Page 4 Residential Condominium /Townhouse under the criteria of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual. In the description of single- family homes the ITE manual notes that these "..units have the highest trip generation rate per dwelling unit of all residential uses". The manual goes on to note that this is, in part, because "..they are generally located farther away from shopping centers, employment areas and other trip attractors than are other residential land uses". As noted above, the proposed residential unit at 302 East Hopkins is not located in an area far from shopping, public facilities or restaurants in downtown Aspen. ' Given it's location it falls more closely into the Residential Condominium /Townhouse category which is characterized by higher density and closer proximity to typical travel destinations. That trip generation rate represents an average impact of 5.86 vehicle trips per day on local streets that would be added by the new unit. Probably the only street in Aspen that suffers significant capacity problems is Main Street westbound during the evening rush hour. Owners or residents of this unit are unlikely to leave Aspen at evening rush hour on any regular basis. Drainage t From the standpoint of total impervious area, the proposed residential unit at 302 East Hopkins probably will not add much in terms of increased runoff. As it stands today, the rear of the site north of the main structure is substantially covered with the shed building, ' concrete and asphalt paving. Figure 2 -North Side at the Alley The proposed site plan will remove a relatively new addition from the back of the Victorian, relocate the shed building to the southwest and construct the new residential building adjacent to the alley. The site plan indicates strips of landscaping between the structures and walkways. Walkways can be constructed with pervious pavers and the SCHMUESER s GORDON i MEYER a E N G 1 N E E R 5 i S U R V E Y O R S October 4, 2011 Mr. Sunny Vann 302 East Hopkins Engineering Report Page 5 site plan will likely reduce the actual impervious area and therefore reduce total site runoff. The City's current drainage standards would be triggered by the extent of disturbance as opposed to the issue of whether or not impervious area is reduced. A combination of on-site treatment through landscape areas or in a filter vault along with some groundwater recharge through a drywell (since none of the structure is very deep) could serve to limit off-site flows to pre-development levels. Since the site.is not in close proximity to the City's existing storm drainage system, overflow from on-site treatment of the Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV)would ultimately discharge to the gutter system or alley. The site plan is tight but we feel there are a number of options with respect to drainage design that can be accomplished in the north half of the property. I hope these comments are helpful in terms of preparing your application for this project to the City of Aspen. Please feel free to contact me if I may provide any further comment or detail. Very Truly Yours, Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. C �kt/ - Jay W. Hammond, P.E. Principal, Aspen Office JH/jh 302_EH_ER_10-04-2011 V x 0 Z W a EXHIBIT � a -I- KUCA IJ - AN ? CIVIL. ING. f Engineers -Constructors March 1, 2001 Philos International 234 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 Attn.: Ralph Mitchell Re: Sheppard Building Project Historical Shed Relocation Dear Mr. Mitchell: In accordance with your request, we visited the project site on February 26 with the purpose of observing the Historical Shed to determine the feasibility of relocation. The shed is conventionally framed of approximate dimensions 9'-6 x 16-6 with a gable roof. We could not gain access or remove any finishes. However, the exterior walls appear to bear on a concrete foundation. It is our determination that the shed is structurally sound and will easily bear any stresses due to the relocation process. We would like to add the recommendation that if possible the shed be moved temporarily off site in order to reduce the likelihood of damage from the construction activities which will take place on the constrained site. If anything further is required on this matter, please contact our office. Thank You, GLENWOOD STRUCTURAL AND-JC 'vo GIs G2��•o,.r,(lJGoe• �' a� 9•Q4 4AdolO. Gorra, MS, PE 209054�s e O�(�•oGeeo oo oe10 cc: File sS/GfllRt-�� G04 WC5t 1 2-" Street Glenwood 5pring5, Colorado 5 1 GO I Phone (970) 925-0135 Fax (970) 928-9804 MAIN STREET VIEW PLANE MAP OF: 302 E. HOPKINS I: `Aspen LOT K,BLOCK 80,CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN SECTION 12,TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH,RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 5th P.M. } '� k p 1 ~ CITY OF ASPEN,COUNTY OF PITKIN,STATE OF COLORADOTIO hh• a /C—T t � N ✓r � '��i (.C l art r \ ✓"� w 1 raY1�e t �' ��`t�� '��� trT` • to T � '. 1 f• ,yl\LZ�\fµ V ,� ubL�('6 _ ,G � .;C • "6-"� 1:: .u.-:1t 1.`: VICINITY MAP K L M N 0 P Q R S SCALE:1"=2000' N75 9'11"W EF. B SE LIN 'W WESTERLY TERMINUS51.4092.35' SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER REFERENCE BASE LINE BLOCK 79 Y 5gO2E2B LIN PR Asc, REFERENCE POINT V 0, ABOVE SEA LEVEL F MAIN ST.(100.00'RIGHT-OF-WAY) !O.9 �t 3 o \/ A C D E F G H I i F' 3 Ux MAX HEIGHT=7952.6' GROUND ELEV=7902.5' ALLEY(21.01'RIGHT-OF-WAY) w z O a ° SCALE 1"=60' MAX HEI HT=7953.6 o K L M N 0 p Q R 5 D ROUND LEV=7901.6' x N O MAX HEIGHT=7973.1- MAX HEIGHT=7972.2' Wbbi25" GROUND ELV=J904.0' GROUND ELV=7904.1' NOTICE:ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL SCIPRIS ENGINEERING-LLC CIVIL CONSULTANTS ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT.IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION 502 MAIN STREET,SUITE A3 BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN CARBONDALE,COLORADO 81623 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. (970)704-0311 SOPRISENG@a1SOPRISENG.COM GRK 11153 10/0 1n\` V W r f, NAM ima r Ori Its '� � � � z ►.�,� t� fi�f�r -..ter rN��� -- =•- -.� ri:li }! 7e rer%ed-ti1Arlin ii • r I lWM ij •»NiaMISIM:[S • rr { - r z,9L71 tc ry - �'� _ � tea±-. .'•'�. � � �4- �� xL.Y' t . �. 17 g � 6Ft• AW •, r t a �V 10"" Z&VA191 MI(• a I e view iooKi ng somn e 91 0 9Is Perspective Views, Reference Images Sheppard House 302 E. Ho C) N E Conc_entual HPC Submissio ,en ow ano ne - Nxinni r io Acnini tea• ._ al - `i - . z r w NAM ima r Ori Its '� � � � z ►.�,� t� fi�f�r -..ter rN��� -- =•- -.� ri:li }! 7e rer%ed-ti1Arlin ii • r I lWM ij •»NiaMISIM:[S • rr { - r z,9L71 tc ry - �'� _ � tea±-. .'•'�. � � �4- �� xL.Y' t . �. 17 g � 6Ft• AW •, r t a �V 10"" Z&VA191 MI(• a I e view iooKi ng somn e 91 0 9Is Perspective Views, Reference Images Sheppard House 302 E. Ho C) N E Conc_entual HPC Submissio ,en ow ano ne Nxinni io Acnini PATTERN KEY Net Leasable Net Livable 0 Proposed Net Livable - Lower Level 401 s.f. Total Net Livable 401 s.f. Proposed Net Leasable Ground Floor 1629 s.f. Basement 157 s.f. Total Net Leasable 1786 s.f. H I LLSTON E z"' iii ;� i i� , .� i 1 74 , ' (, il; \ s� T� Wlk—rn ii to/61in/6 i i i i B r, , ����������' , 77777-_ o to/ iiiiiii ,. fF e�111111" ilii iiiiiiii /Z �J Z S/l/ (E) Shed, relocated { I DN Stair to basement �71i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i, PORCH i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i r i i i i i i i i f U i VESTIBULE LL ,,�Z/�i RAMP 1 Proposed Ground Level Net Leasable Plan Scale 4"=1'-0" + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++++++++++++ ++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + Proposed Net Livable - Lower Level 401 s.f. Total Net Livable 401 s.f. Proposed Net Leasable Ground Floor 1629 s.f. Basement 157 s.f. Total Net Leasable 1786 s.f. H I LLSTON E z"' iii ;� i i� , .� i 1 74 , ' (, il; \ s� T� Wlk—rn ii to/61in/6 i i i i B r, , ����������' , 77777-_ o to/ iiiiiii ,. fF e�111111" ilii iiiiiiii /Z �J Z S/l/ (E) Shed, relocated { I DN Stair to basement �71i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i, PORCH i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i r i i i i i i i i f U i VESTIBULE LL ,,�Z/�i RAMP 1 Proposed Ground Level Net Leasable Plan Scale 4"=1'-0" Proposed Net Leasable and Net Livable Area 4(N 2 Proposed Basement Level Net Livable Plan 'N Scale 4"=1'-0" d - i_ - --.-_._r I I '...-.% o n i C U^r,Uiric Axiom ep► AcnPn 3[jtyyCjj U nvuac; L-. I IWVI.Bl 1.. . .V %.v 0-1 . ._I— _ Conceptual HPC Submission 12.23.2011 ----------- ------------- ++ + ++ +} +++++++} i } + + +�+ + ++++} + +++++}+}++++++++ + + + + . . . . . . ++ 91-311 41 1 } �+++++}++++++++ +++++}}+++ ++++}++++ ++++++++++ ++ +++ ++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + r. + + + + + + * + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + = + + + .. + + (E) Crawl Space I } + + ++++++++ ++ + + + + + + + + + + + +` + } + } ++++++++++++++++++ + - + + + + + + ++++ +++ +++++++ + + + + + } + + + + } + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +} }+ ++ ++ ++ ++ + + + + + + + + + + ++ ++}+++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ + + + + ++ (E) Mechanical Room � + +}+++++++++++++++ }+ ++ ++ ++ +} ++++++ -Unit +++++++ + + +++++++++++++++}+++++++++}++++++++ }++++++++{E� Residentitl ++ +++++}++++++++++}++++}+ ; ++ +++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + } + + } + + + + + + } + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 1 UP + + + + + + + + + } + + + + } + + + + + + ++++ —� —� I---- - -I i i l i i iii ;; i i' i i i i' , i l i i ' WINDOW WELL ' (E) Mechanical , i l i , { oi, UP r c x1 x1 Proposed Net Leasable and Net Livable Area 4(N 2 Proposed Basement Level Net Livable Plan 'N Scale 4"=1'-0" d - i_ - --.-_._r I I '...-.% o n i C U^r,Uiric Axiom ep► AcnPn 3[jtyyCjj U nvuac; L-. I IWVI.Bl 1.. . .V %.v 0-1 . ._I— _ Conceptual HPC Submission 12.23.2011 12 T. O. PWD. - PWD. - 0 WALL O WALL O WALL O WALL O WALL O WALL CO WALL O WALL O WALL O WALL 9 T. O. PWD. - WALL 11 2 Lower Level Proposed Perimeter Wall Elevation Scale 4"=1'-0" H I LLSTON E WALL ,2 WALL 13 Proposed Lower Level Perimeter Walls WALL 14 WALL 15 -- Uj CL 0 BELOW GRADE Lower Level Floor plate =1300 s.f. Lower Level Floor Area Calculation 6.13 5.23 WALL 3 1793.56 s.f. buried / 2008.45 s.f. total wall perimeter = 89.3% buried 100% - 89.3% buried =10.7% exposed 1302 s.f. x .107 =139.1 s.f. Floor area counting EXTERIOR WALL AREA BASEMENT LEVEL WALL DESIG. WALL AREA (s.f) BURIED WALL AREA (s.f) WALL 1 101.39 88.28 WALL 2 6.13 5.23 WALL 3 165.01 151.09 WALL 4 157.58 157.58 WALL 5 77.50 73.12 WALL 6 54.25 48.05 WALL 7 264.79 180.40 WALL 8 35.84 30.59 WALL 9 75.88 75.88 WALL 10 127.87 127.88 WALL 11 345.25 345.25 WALL 12 144.81 114.93 WALL 13 358.28 301.41 WALL 14 88.38 88.38 WALL 15 5.49 5.49 TOTALS 2008.45 1793.56 Sheppard House 302 E. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen Submittal for HPC review 12.23.2011 ++++++++++ RESIDENTIAL ++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++ ++++++++++ PROPOSED FLOOR AREA DECKS GROUND LEVEL COMMERCIAL SHED 0 S.F. 1941 S.F. 1941 S. F. COUNTED ON LOWER LEVEL LOWER LEVEL (SEE NOTE BELOW 139 S.F COMMERCIAL 52 S.F. RESIDENTIAL 51 S.F. NON -UNIT 36 S.F. TOTAL FLOOR AREA 2080 S.F. LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA 1302 GROSS S.F. FLOOR PLATE X 10.7% WALL EXPOSED =139.3 S.F. FAR COUNTING REFER TO PROPOSED PERIMTER WALL CALCULATION SHEET 1 Proposed Ground Level Floor Area Calculation 40 Scale 111=11-011 + — + + + - + + + — — — — - - — — - - -- --+++ + +-+ ++-+-+------- + + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + + + + + + + + .. + +- +++++++++++++ +++++-.++ ........ + + - + + + + + + + + +�+ + + + + + + + + + + - + + + +�(at + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +++++++++++ ++ +++++++ + + + + + + + + + + < + + + + + + +-+ - ,�� + + + + + + + (E) Crawl Space + x + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - + . + - - - - - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + I + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ' >" + - + - - + - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + f + + + + + + . + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + yrl + + + + + + + + + + � 'Relsidlenti& Ulnit, + + + + + + l + + + + + + + + + + )+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + + s3 + - ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + y + + + - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + .l + + + — + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + +-F -+++++++++++++++++++++++ ....................... - -+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++ + + +++++++++++ x + + + + + + + + + + + + r WINDOW WELL I f: xxxxxxxxxxx y I - ------------- - 2 Proposed Basement Level Floor Area Calculation N Scale i11=11-011 ' H I LLSTON E Proposed Floor Area Calculation Sheppard House 302 E. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen Conceptual HPC Submission 12.23.2011 PATTERN KEY Net Leasable + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Net Livable++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Existing Net Livable - Existing House Lower Level 401 s.f. Total Net Livable 401 s.f. Existing Net Leasable - Existing House 949 s.f. Existing Shed 131 s.f. Total Net Leasable 1080 s.f. H I LLSTON E U 1 Existing Ground Level Net Leasable Plan Scale 111=11-011 +_ + ++_++T+ s I -- - --- — -+++++ + + ++++++ +++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + �+ + + + + + + + + y + ++_++++++++ ++++++++ + _++te+ -+++++ ++ ++++++++ +r+- - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +y+BATH + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ T +y++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++++++++++++++++ ++++++++ ++++++++++++++++ ++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + CRAWL SPACE + + f + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + + + + + + + + + + + + MECH. ROOM -- ++ +++++++++ y+ + +-+---++++++++++++++++++ _ +-+--i+++++++++++++++++ + ++ + ++++++++++++++++++ ++++-_-_�.+++++++++++++++++ + ++++ ++++++++++++++++++ ++++ +++++++ y+++++++K]tME-0-LlIVWG�++++++++++++++++++ ++ ++++---++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++ +++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++ +' + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++T_-++++++++++++++++++ + + t + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + UP + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + v +++++++++++ WINDOW WELL 77 MECH. ROOM r I I I Existing Net Leasable and Net Livable Areas 2 Existing Basement Level Net Livable Plan Scale 111=11-011 'N 'N Sheppard House 302 E. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen Conceptual HPC Submission 12.23.2011 k iE L�PBCiL PORCH_ X Z/ %e N// % DN �Aia- / ' ''' / '' ''/, '/, / / '/, '/, '/, '/, '/, / '/, / '/, / 1 Existing Ground Level Net Leasable Plan Scale 111=11-011 +_ + ++_++T+ s I -- - --- — -+++++ + + ++++++ +++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + �+ + + + + + + + + y + ++_++++++++ ++++++++ + _++te+ -+++++ ++ ++++++++ +r+- - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +y+BATH + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ T +y++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++++++++++++++++ ++++++++ ++++++++++++++++ ++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + CRAWL SPACE + + f + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + + + + + + + + + + + + MECH. ROOM -- ++ +++++++++ y+ + +-+---++++++++++++++++++ _ +-+--i+++++++++++++++++ + ++ + ++++++++++++++++++ ++++-_-_�.+++++++++++++++++ + ++++ ++++++++++++++++++ ++++ +++++++ y+++++++K]tME-0-LlIVWG�++++++++++++++++++ ++ ++++---++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++ +++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++ +' + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++T_-++++++++++++++++++ + + t + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + UP + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + v +++++++++++ WINDOW WELL 77 MECH. ROOM r I I I Existing Net Leasable and Net Livable Areas 2 Existing Basement Level Net Livable Plan Scale 111=11-011 'N 'N Sheppard House 302 E. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen Conceptual HPC Submission 12.23.2011 k iE L�PBCiL PORCH_ X Z/ N// DN �Aia- / ' ''' / '' ''/, '/, / / '/, '/, '/, '/, '/, / '/, / '/, / '/, / '/, '/, '/, I WINDOW WELL BELOW CONCRETE PAD I I I I 4FRC O,FF xrx. 194 QFRC.E OFF/ CE 1 Existing Ground Level Net Leasable Plan Scale 111=11-011 +_ + ++_++T+ s I -- - --- — -+++++ + + ++++++ +++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + �+ + + + + + + + + y + ++_++++++++ ++++++++ + _++te+ -+++++ ++ ++++++++ +r+- - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +y+BATH + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ T +y++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++++++++++++++++ ++++++++ ++++++++++++++++ ++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + CRAWL SPACE + + f + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + + + + + + + + + + + + MECH. ROOM -- ++ +++++++++ y+ + +-+---++++++++++++++++++ _ +-+--i+++++++++++++++++ + ++ + ++++++++++++++++++ ++++-_-_�.+++++++++++++++++ + ++++ ++++++++++++++++++ ++++ +++++++ y+++++++K]tME-0-LlIVWG�++++++++++++++++++ ++ ++++---++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++ +++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++ +' + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++T_-++++++++++++++++++ + + t + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + UP + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + v +++++++++++ WINDOW WELL 77 MECH. ROOM r I I I Existing Net Leasable and Net Livable Areas 2 Existing Basement Level Net Livable Plan Scale 111=11-011 'N 'N Sheppard House 302 E. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen Conceptual HPC Submission 12.23.2011 iE L�PBCiL PORCH_ X Z/ N// DN I WINDOW WELL BELOW CONCRETE PAD I I I I 1 Existing Ground Level Net Leasable Plan Scale 111=11-011 +_ + ++_++T+ s I -- - --- — -+++++ + + ++++++ +++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + �+ + + + + + + + + y + ++_++++++++ ++++++++ + _++te+ -+++++ ++ ++++++++ +r+- - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +y+BATH + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ T +y++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++++++++++++++++ ++++++++ ++++++++++++++++ ++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + CRAWL SPACE + + f + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + + + + + + + + + + + + MECH. ROOM -- ++ +++++++++ y+ + +-+---++++++++++++++++++ _ +-+--i+++++++++++++++++ + ++ + ++++++++++++++++++ ++++-_-_�.+++++++++++++++++ + ++++ ++++++++++++++++++ ++++ +++++++ y+++++++K]tME-0-LlIVWG�++++++++++++++++++ ++ ++++---++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++ +++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++ +' + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++T_-++++++++++++++++++ + + t + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + UP + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + v +++++++++++ WINDOW WELL 77 MECH. ROOM r I I I Existing Net Leasable and Net Livable Areas 2 Existing Basement Level Net Livable Plan Scale 111=11-011 'N 'N Sheppard House 302 E. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen Conceptual HPC Submission 12.23.2011 MONARCH STREET 1 Location Plan of Existing Lower Level Perimeter Walls Scale 4"=1'-0" T_ Q PWD. - WALL O WALL O WALL O WALL O WALL U T. 0. PWD. - WALL (�) WALL O WALL O WALL 0 WALL 2 Lower Level Existing Perimeter Wall Elevation Scale 4"=1'-0" H I LLSTON E J .. Existing Lower Level Perimeter Walls BELOW GRADE pzrz,Ad,j Lower Level Floor plate = 847 s.f. Lower Level Floor Area Calculation 938.10 s.f. buried 11066.24 s.f. total wall perimeter = 87.9% buried 100% - 87.9% buried =12.1 % exposed 847 s.f. x .121 =102 s.f. Floor area counting DECKS Allowable Floor Area on parcel is 1500 s.f. 1500 s.f. x.15 ratio = 225 s.f. allowable deck area There are currently no counting Deck Floor area on parcel EXTERIOR WALL AREA BASEMENT LEVEL WALL DESIG. WALL AREA (s.f) BURIED WALL AREA (s.f) WALL 1 101.39 8828 WALL 2 6.13 523 WALL 3 165.01 151.09 WALL 4 157.58 157.58 WALL 5 77.50 73.12 WALL 6 54.25 48.05 WALL 7 264.79 180.40 WALL 8 35.84 30.59 WALL 9 75.88 75.88 WALL 10 127.87 127.88 TOTALS 106624 938.10 Sheppard House 302 E. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen Submittal for HPC review 12.23.2011 EXISTING FLOOR AREA DECKS EXISTING SHED EXISTING HOUSE GROUND LEVEL LOWER LEVEL (SEE NOTE BELO" TOTAL FLOOR AREA LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA 0 S.F. 154 S.F. 1070 S.F. 102 S.F. 1326 S.F. 847 GROSS S.F. FLOOR PLATE X 12.1 % WALL EXPOSED =102 S.F. FLOOR AREA COUNTS REFER TO EXISTING CONDITIONS PERIMTER WALL CALCULATION SHEET H I LLSTON E 1 Existi n G round Level Floor Area Calculation Scale 111-11-011 " " =1'-0 Mon arch Street Existing Floor Area Calculation 2 Existing Basement Level Floor Area Calculation Scale 4"=1'-0" M Q 0 AtA 44N Sheppard House 302 E. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen Conceptual HPC Submission 12.23.2011 Top of ParapE Roof Structur( Mechanical SP Kitchen ceilinc Finished Floor 1 West Elevation Scale 111=11-011 " " =1'-0 2 Section Scale 4"=1'-0" H I LLSTON E Elevation And Section Sheppard House 302 E. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen Conceptual HPC Submission 12.23.2011 N U Recycling bins H I LLSTON E (E) Shed, relocated f DN J Stair to basement w Utility meters D r fzz f' n. a. r „ mSir s * iyfi 1 0ON' I 0 Walk In I I / I 1/ I°/ 1 Bar OCookline Bar/ II0 0 UUO2o0�h II o00 I oII , 10 VESTIBULE PORCH RAMP 1 Proposed Ground Level Plan Scale 4"=1'-0" Proposed Floor Plans I I I I I I I I I I I I 2 Proposed Basement Level Plan N Scale 4 =1-0 4tA Sheppard House 302 E. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen Conceptual HPC Submission 12.23.2011 PAS PUBLIC AMENITY SPACE TOTAL PAS TOTAL SITE AREA 27.6 % TO BE LEFT UNDEVELOPED LLSTON E N 830 S.F. 3016 S.F. UUNUM i E: 01UF-yVML-'% LANDSCAPE AREA MONARCH STREET Proposed Site Plan with Public Amenity Space W r% ein PrnnncPd Site Plan with Public Amenity Space ScalezL11=11-011 4 AN ck,pnrvarri "nimp iw F. Hookins Avenue.# Aspen Conceptual HPC Submission 12.212011